NFL 2021 Season

[Roy H.]

I’m still a little shocked the Bears got Fields.  I don’t trust their front office at all, but I think the experts overthought this one.  The kid can play.  Lazy comparison, but he reminds me of Dak.

Anybody think the Niners regret paying such a huge package to get up to #3?  They could have gotten a better QB for less than half the cost.

Historically, all teams end up regretting these kinds of "all in" trades to get one player.  Expect Bears will regret it too.  Or at least I can say am glad that the Pats didn't make this kind of trade.  No one knows if Fields will be better than Jones at this point.

Not sure I follow the second half though.  If they thought Fields was a better QB, they would have taken him at 3.  Not sure it can be stated that they could have gotten a better QB if they had picked later.  Maybe the same QB.

That last part is my own opinion.  I think that Fields has a higher ceiling and a higher floor than Vance.  I think the 49ers screwed themselves.

I think that the Bears were in a different situation. Who has been their best quarterback in the past 30 years? Rex Grossman? Jay Cutler? Mitch Trubisky?  They started with the 20th pick, and ended up with a guy who will hopefully surpass anybody they have had.  To me, that’s worth a future first rounder.  That said, if the Giants end up with a top five pick next year, I reserve the right to retract my opinion, ha ha.

[Donoghus]

I’m still a little shocked the Bears got Fields.  I don’t trust their front office at all, but I think the experts overthought this one.  The kid can play.  Lazy comparison, but he reminds me of Dak.

Anybody think the Niners regret paying such a huge package to get up to #3?  They could have gotten a better QB for less than half the cost.

Historically, all teams end up regretting these kinds of "all in" trades to get one player.  Expect Bears will regret it too.  Or at least I can say am glad that the Pats didn't make this kind of trade.  No one knows if Fields will be better than Jones at this point.

Not sure I follow the second half though.  If they thought Fields was a better QB, they would have taken him at 3.  Not sure it can be stated that they could have gotten a better QB if they had picked later.  Maybe the same QB.

That last part is my own opinion.  I think that Fields has a higher ceiling and a higher floor than Vance.  I think the 49ers screwed themselves.

I think that the Bears were in a different situation. Who has been their best quarterback in the past 30 years? Rex Grossman? Jay Cutler? Mitch Trubisky?  They started with the 20th pick, and ended up with a guy who will hopefully surpass anybody they have had.  To me, that’s worth a future first rounder.  That said, if the Giants end up with a top five pick next year, I reserve the right to retract my opinion, ha ha.

I think the Bears had to shoot their shot there after the Mitch debacle and knowing that the Pace/Nagy regime is hanging by a thread.  This is a make or break move.  A wise man once said that "desperation is a stinky cologne".

I think what SF did was a little more needless and unnecessary.  Heck, they're only one season removed from a Super Bowl appearance.  I'm not sure what the mindset was there.  From the outside, it certainly seemed there was a lot of indecisiveness there at #3.   You really only made that trade is you're super locked in on one individual and I don't think they were, IMO.

[Moranis]

I’m still a little shocked the Bears got Fields.  I don’t trust their front office at all, but I think the experts overthought this one.  The kid can play.  Lazy comparison, but he reminds me of Dak.

Anybody think the Niners regret paying such a huge package to get up to #3?  They could have gotten a better QB for less than half the cost.

Historically, all teams end up regretting these kinds of "all in" trades to get one player.  Expect Bears will regret it too.  Or at least I can say am glad that the Pats didn't make this kind of trade.  No one knows if Fields will be better than Jones at this point.

Not sure I follow the second half though.  If they thought Fields was a better QB, they would have taken him at 3.  Not sure it can be stated that they could have gotten a better QB if they had picked later.  Maybe the same QB.

That last part is my own opinion.  I think that Fields has a higher ceiling and a higher floor than Vance.  I think the 49ers screwed themselves.

I think that the Bears were in a different situation. Who has been their best quarterback in the past 30 years? Rex Grossman? Jay Cutler? Mitch Trubisky?  They started with the 20th pick, and ended up with a guy who will hopefully surpass anybody they have had.  To me, that’s worth a future first rounder.  That said, if the Giants end up with a top five pick next year, I reserve the right to retract my opinion, ha ha.

I think the Bears had to shoot their shot there after the Mitch debacle and knowing that the Pace/Nagy regime is hanging by a thread.  This is a make or break move.  A wise man once said that "desperation is a stinky cologne".

I think what SF did was a little more needless and unnecessary.  Heck, they're only one season removed from a Super Bowl appearance.  I'm not sure what the mindset was there.  From the outside, it certainly seemed there was a lot of indecisiveness there at #3.   You really only made that trade is you're super locked in on one individual and I don't think they were, IMO.

The Niners should have stayed at 12.  I said when they made the trade it was dumb because they were only ever going to get the 3rd QB off the board and there was a very good chance whoever they wanted wasn't going to get taken 3rd or maybe at all until 12 (and I thought it was weird they would make a move for the 3rd QB at all).  I mean if the reports were true that Shanahan loved Mac Jones, all they had to do was wait and pick him at 12 because no one sitting in any of those positions was going to take Mac Jones.  Now obviously if Miami picks at 3 the whole draft is altered from that point on (they probably would have taken Pitts) starting a ripple effect, but no one was taking Jones.  And some teams could have moved up for QB's throwing it more into chaos, but who was trading up for Mac Jones?  I don't think anyone would have.  And I also don't know who is taking Trey Lance before at least the Carolina/Denver spots.  And we know teams were willing to drop back from that point, because Miami moved back up to 6.  San Fran badly mishandled that whole thing by trading up so early and into the spot they moved into.  Just horrid decision making all the way around.

The Bears had to move up for Fields.  He was widely rated as the 2nd best QB (and around 8th or 9th overall) in the draft.  He has the least potential (outside of Lawrence) to flop, though I do think Lance has a higher ceiling.  Fields is everything you'd want in a QB.  He is big, super fast, has a cannon for an arm, is tough as nails (I mean that hit in the Clemson game was crazy), and is a super duper leader (one of the main reasons the Big Ten even played this year is Fields).  The Bears haven't had a HOF QB since Sid Luckman retired in 1950.  The best QB's they've had since then are McMahon and Cutler.  This is a franchise that needs a QB and needs a QB badly.  Maybe Fields isn't the guy, but he certainly has the skill set, background, and look and feel of a potential franchise QB.  It was absolutely a move they had to make because he certainly wasn't going to be there for their pick.

[Roy H.]

I’m still a little shocked the Bears got Fields.  I don’t trust their front office at all, but I think the experts overthought this one.  The kid can play.  Lazy comparison, but he reminds me of Dak.

Anybody think the Niners regret paying such a huge package to get up to #3?  They could have gotten a better QB for less than half the cost.

Historically, all teams end up regretting these kinds of "all in" trades to get one player.  Expect Bears will regret it too.  Or at least I can say am glad that the Pats didn't make this kind of trade.  No one knows if Fields will be better than Jones at this point.

Not sure I follow the second half though.  If they thought Fields was a better QB, they would have taken him at 3.  Not sure it can be stated that they could have gotten a better QB if they had picked later.  Maybe the same QB.

That last part is my own opinion.  I think that Fields has a higher ceiling and a higher floor than Vance.  I think the 49ers screwed themselves.

I think that the Bears were in a different situation. Who has been their best quarterback in the past 30 years? Rex Grossman? Jay Cutler? Mitch Trubisky?  They started with the 20th pick, and ended up with a guy who will hopefully surpass anybody they have had.  To me, that’s worth a future first rounder.  That said, if the Giants end up with a top five pick next year, I reserve the right to retract my opinion, ha ha.

I think the Bears had to shoot their shot there after the Mitch debacle and knowing that the Pace/Nagy regime is hanging by a thread.  This is a make or break move.  A wise man once said that "desperation is a stinky cologne".

I think what SF did was a little more needless and unnecessary.  Heck, they're only one season removed from a Super Bowl appearance.  I'm not sure what the mindset was there.  From the outside, it certainly seemed there was a lot of indecisiveness there at #3.   You really only made that trade is you're super locked in on one individual and I don't think they were, IMO.

The Niners should have stayed at 12.  I said when they made the trade it was dumb because they were only ever going to get the 3rd QB off the board and there was a very good chance whoever they wanted wasn't going to get taken 3rd or maybe at all until 12 (and I thought it was weird they would make a move for the 3rd QB at all).  I mean if the reports were true that Shanahan loved Mac Jones, all they had to do was wait and pick him at 12 because no one sitting in any of those positions was going to take Mac Jones.  Now obviously if Miami picks at 3 the whole draft is altered from that point on (they probably would have taken Pitts) starting a ripple effect, but no one was taking Jones.  And some teams could have moved up for QB's throwing it more into chaos, but who was trading up for Mac Jones?  I don't think anyone would have.  And I also don't know who is taking Trey Lance before at least the Carolina/Denver spots.  And we know teams were willing to drop back from that point, because Miami moved back up to 6.  San Fran badly mishandled that whole thing by trading up so early and into the spot they moved into.  Just horrid decision making all the way around.

The Bears had to move up for Fields.  He was widely rated as the 2nd best QB (and around 8th or 9th overall) in the draft.  He has the least potential (outside of Lawrence) to flop, though I do think Lance has a higher ceiling.  Fields is everything you'd want in a QB.  He is big, super fast, has a cannon for an arm, is tough as nails (I mean that hit in the Clemson game was crazy), and is a super duper leader (one of the main reasons the Big Ten even played this year is Fields).  The Bears haven't had a HOF QB since Sid Luckman retired in 1950.  The best QB's they've had since then are McMahon and Cutler.  This is a franchise that needs a QB and needs a QB badly.  Maybe Fields isn't the guy, but he certainly has the skill set, background, and look and feel of a potential franchise QB.  It was absolutely a move they had to make because he certainly wasn't going to be there for their pick.

What’s your take on why he fell? I assume you watch a lot of Ohio State games.  As a Bears fan, he seems like a total package. I was a big proponent of drafting Deshaun Watson over Mitch Trubisky, and I feel the same way about taking Fields over anybody other than Lawrence.  Now, maybe one of the other guys is the next Mahomes for all I know.  But Fields can be a top-6 QB someday.  Am I wrong? 
And if he is as good as I think he is, why are front offices overthinking this?  Is it just the nature of the beast, like we’ve seen from all pros like Rogers, Mahomes and Watson?

[MarcusSmartFanClub]

Lance
Jones
Lawrence
Fields
Wilson

I think that this is the order of NFL success three years from now. Lawrence and Wilson are going to tough setups in Jacksonville and NY. Lance is going to a stacked team, as is Mac Jones. I think Fields will be good, but I'm not sure how much Chicago is going to help him develop.

[Donoghus]

Lance
Jones
Lawrence
Fields
Wilson

I think that this is the order of NFL success three years from now. Lawrence and Wilson are going to tough setups in Jacksonville and NY. Lance is going to a stacked team, as is Mac Jones. I think Fields will be good, but I'm not sure how much Chicago is going to help him develop.

I think Wilson is my bet to bust also.  Just something about the kid plus the fact he's playing for one of the most screwed up franchises in professional sports.   No faith they'll make the right decisions for the kid.

[RPGenerate]

I'll take the opposite side of the argument and say that Wilson may actually be the best QB in the draft. He's probably has the best arm of the draft, and people here are really overestimating how bad of a roster the Jets have. In 2019, they went 6-2 to end the season after Darnold came back from mono. Replace idiot Adam Gase and Sam Darnold  with Wilson and Saleh, and I think you could have a decent team. Wouldn't be surprised at all if the Jets go something like 10-7, ala the Phins last year.

[Donoghus]

I'll take the opposite side of the argument and say that Wilson may actually be the best QB in the draft. He's probably has the best arm of the draft, and people here are really overestimating how bad of a roster the Jets have. In 2019, they went 6-2 to end the season after Darnold came back from mono. Replace idiot Adam Gase and Sam Darnold  with Wilson and Saleh, and I think you could have a decent team. Wouldn't be surprised at all if the Jets go something like 10-7, ala the Phins last year.

You think he'll be better than Lawrence?

[RPGenerate]

I'll take the opposite side of the argument and say that Wilson may actually be the best QB in the draft. He's probably has the best arm of the draft, and people here are really overestimating how bad of a roster the Jets have. In 2019, they went 6-2 to end the season after Darnold came back from mono. Replace idiot Adam Gase and Sam Darnold  with Wilson and Saleh, and I think you could have a decent team. Wouldn't be surprised at all if the Jets go something like 10-7, ala the Phins last year.

You think he'll be better than Lawrence?

He might be. Of course, Lawrence has a far higher floor than Wilson, but I think that their ceilings are a toss up. Maybe I'm just caught up in the hype, but Wilson's ability to combine off-balance throws with great arm strength is extremely reminiscent to a Rodgers/Mahomes/Stafford type player. Perhaps I'll revise my words and say "he may be the best QB in the draft that was available at two."

[Birdman]

Out of the 5 QBs picks, I say only Lawerence & Lance will make it..

[boscel33]

Out of the 5 QBs picks, I say only Lawerence & Lance will make it..

Fields is [dang] good.  Have followed him since he signed with UGA.  He is actually my #1 in the class, and let's not forget his last game against Lawrence.  He was the #1 dual threat QB and #2 overall behind Lawrence.  When he slid, I had the Pats jumping, but they didn't, they stayed and took Tony Eason #2.  "Sizable quarterback, but went down rather easily on sacks and rarely kept plays alive after taking on contact. Frankly didn't take on a whole lot of contact."

[Birdman]

I just don’t see Fields making it but I may be wrong.. hopefully I am cause I don’t want anyone to fail

[Roy H.]

Why wouldn’t Fields make it?

[Vermont Green]

What’s your take on why he fell? I assume you watch a lot of Ohio State games.  As a Bears fan, he [Justin Fields] seems like a total package. I was a big proponent of drafting Deshaun Watson over Mitch Trubisky, and I feel the same way about taking Fields over anybody other than Lawrence.  Now, maybe one of the other guys is the next Mahomes for all I know.  But Fields can be a top-6 QB someday.  Am I wrong? 
And if he is as good as I think he is, why are front offices overthinking this?  Is it just the nature of the beast, like we’ve seen from all pros like Rogers, Mahomes and Watson?

It is not a question of whether you are wrong or not (you probably are as likely to be wrong as anyone), the fact of the matter is that no one can know.  Not the scouts, not the GMs, not the ESPN experts, and certainly not fans.  I honestly believe you could put these 5 names in a hat and have an equal chance of choosing the best career player as you do with drafting.  And if not all 5, certainly 2-5.

This is why it is generally a bad move to trade up or otherwise reach.  Now if you trade up from 52 to 45 or something like that, that is different of course but to package multiple firsts and other picks to move to take a chance on a QB is generally just not good draft value management.

I suspect (but of course I don't know any more than anyone else) that history will look back unfavorably on both SF and CHI although more so SF.  SF really reached, CHI just a medium reach.  The 49ers may have themselves the next Mahomes but this is a really risky pick that they gave up a boatload for.  CHI pick is less risky, I too like Fields, but they still gave up a lot for it (I can understand why).  Chicago could have just traded a pick (the first in 2022) that ends up being the next Mahomes and Fields may or may not end up being all that good.

[Celtics2021]

What’s your take on why he fell? I assume you watch a lot of Ohio State games.  As a Bears fan, he [Justin Fields] seems like a total package. I was a big proponent of drafting Deshaun Watson over Mitch Trubisky, and I feel the same way about taking Fields over anybody other than Lawrence.  Now, maybe one of the other guys is the next Mahomes for all I know.  But Fields can be a top-6 QB someday.  Am I wrong? 
And if he is as good as I think he is, why are front offices overthinking this?  Is it just the nature of the beast, like we’ve seen from all pros like Rogers, Mahomes and Watson?

It is not a question of whether you are wrong or not (you probably are as likely to be wrong as anyone), the fact of the matter is that no one can know.  Not the scouts, not the GMs, not the ESPN experts, and certainly not fans.  I honestly believe you could put these 5 names in a hat and have an equal chance of choosing the best career player as you do with drafting.  And if not all 5, certainly 2-5.

This is why it is generally a bad move to trade up or otherwise reach.  Now if you trade up from 52 to 45 or something like that, that is different of course but to package multiple firsts and other picks to move to take a chance on a QB is generally just not good draft value management.

I suspect (but of course I don't know any more than anyone else) that history will look back unfavorably on both SF and CHI although more so SF.  SF really reached, CHI just a medium reach.  The 49ers may have themselves the next Mahomes but this is a really risky pick that they gave up a boatload for.  CHI pick is less risky, I too like Fields, but they still gave up a lot for it (I can understand why).  Chicago could have just traded a pick (the first in 2022) that ends up being the next Mahomes and Fields may or may not end up being all that good.

I think my issue is this: Why trade next year's first (in addition to this year's) for a QB whom you don't think is ready to help your team from day 1 this year (as it seems likely that SF will start Jimmy G and the Bears Andy Dalton)?  By spending a 1st this year on a player who presumably won't help you (or will only help you if plan A goes wrong) you're increasing the likelihood that the pick you're giving up next year is that much better.  As I said earlier in this thread, I'm a Broncos fan, and I would have been ecstatic if we had made the trade with Chicago, even though we would have dropped two spots extra relative to the Giants, and even tho Surtain was at the top of my draft board of players not named Trevor Lawrence.  The potential reward from making such a trade is huge, and conversely, the potential downside is also very large.