I agree with all the points you've made and would absolutely draft a QB if I were in the Bears' shoes.
Another thing - teams really don't seem to understand positional value. Sure they might have the positions ranked correctly, but the magnitude of QB compared to other positions apparently goes over their heads. QB is probably 5x more important than WR, 10x more important than CB or EDGE, and 100x more important than G or LB. If that sounds like hyperbole, think about teams who have nailed picks at unimportant positions; there's no appreciable impact on wins and losses (Quinton Nelson being a prime example). J.J. Watt just retired after one of the most dominant careers of any defensive player in history and his teams never sniffed a Super Bowl.
Point is, even if a GM gets a huge haul of picks from trading down, and even if those picks miraculously all become great players, their combined impact is still less than that of an elite QB.
Yep. It's weird there's a thought that not having a couple more picks in 2023 and another one or two in 2024 (the likely trade comp) will make or break the rebuild. They'll all be non-QBs if the plan is sticking with Fields, maybe half will hit, and even those who hit won't really mature into great players until year 2 or 3, meaning 2024, 2025 or 2026, when you'll already be in negotiations to give Fields $50M per year.
My question is if the Bears do draft Young can it really up the odds they have a top 6 or top
12 guy that much. I know you gave the percentages in the article but how do you get to those odds and what can cause it also ? Could young push fields to be better ? Really interesting article and sad that so many ppl wouldn’t even give the idea a thought as you stated in the first paragraph
I'm as big of a Fields apologist as they come but that's not the reason I disagree with the premise. Hell I don't disagree with the premise that much. From a process approach, the Bears' front office would be committing football malpractice if they didn't do their due diligence in evaluating each and every last Quarterback available in this and every draft following. I was even a proponent Washington drafting one of Tua/Herbert in 2020 less than a year after drafting Haskins because of the importance of firing darts until you find the guy at Quarterback.
Unfortunately the reason I didn't commit to the process then and don't commit to it now a combination of the: 1. The impracticality of a two quarterback system past the college level. and 2. The difficulty in developing two or more quarterbacks simultaneously. The two Quarterback system doesn't need much explanation as players and coaches alike have gone over the problems associated with playing games with more than one guy under center. Instead I want to focus more on the latter problem which is more contentious.
The best way for Quarterbacks to get better is to get reps. Reps at practice and far more importantly live reps in the game. Finding a way to somewhat evenly split these reps for more than a few weeks is highly impractical for NFL franchises. Former backups talk about how the only reps given out are for the starting Quarterback and the guy running scout team. Full on Second and Third string work pretty much ends after cutdown day because the roster limit doesn't give teams the necessary bodies to
maintain this structure during the regular season. Extending practice simply as a means of getting both Qbs more reps also isn't a reasonable option considering both the health of the other players on the roster and the potential for corrective action from the players union. The inability to get non-starting Qbs meaningful reps beyond preseason and camp can stunt their growth. This problem would be alleviated with the presence of a developmental league like the NBA G league where young players are sent on assignments to get extra reps if they aren't playing much in major league games. No such alternative currently exists for the NFL. Fundamentally, the modern NFL structure isn't conducive to the development of more than one Quarterback at once.
On the note of the development of these Quarterbacks, I'd pose the following question: When did Hurts make his most prominent growth as a passer? Hurts development took off after Wentz was traded. Not because Wentz personally was holding back Hurts, or bias from the staff/roster, but because the absence of Wentz gave Hurts the necessary reps to make significant strides as a passer. With Wentz gone, Hurts received the majority of the starter reps in back to back training camps and made significant growth over the course of the following two seasons. I'd also question whether or not Jordan Love has really developed in Green Bay over the last three years. While the sample size is incredibly small Jordan to me still has the same strengths and weakness he had as a prospect in 2020 and hasn't made much progress in correcting those flaws. Now with rumors swirling that Jordan Love may request a trade this offseason, that pick and contract look like deadweight. Trey Lance also comes to mind given the fact he's played one full season of football since 2018 and may have to take a backseat to Tom Brady this offseason if NFL agents are to believed. Will Trey make any significant progress after three seasons and little to no playing time? Certainly Aaron Rodgers and Steve Young are the success stories among the bunch but given the other cases it's hard not to consider them extreme outliers.
I certainly think you're right with the approach of so long as you're not certain if you have to guy, it is sound to keep investing in the position until you hit. But I'd push back on the idea of simply drafting prospects because you have the opportunity to. Instead one should focus on the context of the roster and what best helps the team in the present. But if you really like/love a guy, don't be afraid to call your shot and select him because you have already have a decent signal caller on roster.
So where do I stand on the Fields-Young/Stroud debate? If you like Young or any other QB draft him. Trade Fields for a haul and reset the rookie contract scale. If you don't like them, trade back for a haul and build around Fields. Until the NFL makes it possible to effectively develop two or more Quarterbacks simultaneously it is impractical to commit to more than one guy at a time.
TL;Dr Personally, I'd trade back and build around Fields, but I love Bryce and Stroud and would be far from upset if the Bears moved off of Fields to get their guy. Bryce and Stroud are fun prospects and any team (including the Bears) would be lucky to have them.
Yeah we really don't have a lot of evidence about developing two quarterbacks simultaneously. But just because it hasn't been done, doesn't mean it can't be done. And, it actually has been done, at least once that I think is the closest analogy. Look up what happened with Troy aikman and Steve walsh, wear a 1-15 cowboys team used multiple number one picks on quarterbacks, ended up with a hall of famer, one of the best decades in NFL history, and were able to trade Walsh a season and a half later for a first second and third round picks
The one success of the cowboys doesn't prove that it will work, but I think it disproves that it can't work. And you'll see lots of people tell you, without really having evidence, that it just won't work.
At the end of the day, does it boil down to the FO evaluation of fields? If the team feels he falls in the first bucket, then you commit and build around him. Or are you arguing that you take the QB at #1, because the opportunity of having that top pick is rare and the more elite QB prospects increases the hit rate?
The other question I have is, where is the line? What level of prospect does the team bypass the elite QB prospect and build around the current guy? Or how would you determine that?
You have to weigh the probability of elite play or well-above-average play for Fields. Not sure exactly what it is, but not going to be high enough for me. I think I mention in the piece that I'd consider drafting a QB unless I had Mahomes, Herbert, Allen, Burrow and maybe a few others. Cap considerations can be an issue with QBs on big contracts, but not for Fields
Definitely agree with you over there being basically no evidence that it definitively can work or that it definitely can’t work. It’s a highly unconventional approach that hasn’t really been tried. Once again I just think in the context of the modern NFL and our understanding of how Quarterbacks develop, it’d be best to commit to one. While as you said not being so attached to them as to pass on other elite prospects should they available. All that being said, every new idea is considered crazy until it isn’t. Mold-breakers are how change comes about and I’d certainly welcome the approach.
I was just listening to ESPN Daily about how Mahomes was in a QB competition from like 7th grade through his junior year in High School. All QBs have had to compete for reps in HS and College and they still develop if they put in the work. I'm not sure why the NFL is seen so differently when every QB deals with it at some point. That said, I could be wrong!
I agree with all the points you've made and would absolutely draft a QB if I were in the Bears' shoes.
Another thing - teams really don't seem to understand positional value. Sure they might have the positions ranked correctly, but the magnitude of QB compared to other positions apparently goes over their heads. QB is probably 5x more important than WR, 10x more important than CB or EDGE, and 100x more important than G or LB. If that sounds like hyperbole, think about teams who have nailed picks at unimportant positions; there's no appreciable impact on wins and losses (Quinton Nelson being a prime example). J.J. Watt just retired after one of the most dominant careers of any defensive player in history and his teams never sniffed a Super Bowl.
Point is, even if a GM gets a huge haul of picks from trading down, and even if those picks miraculously all become great players, their combined impact is still less than that of an elite QB.
Yep. It's weird there's a thought that not having a couple more picks in 2023 and another one or two in 2024 (the likely trade comp) will make or break the rebuild. They'll all be non-QBs if the plan is sticking with Fields, maybe half will hit, and even those who hit won't really mature into great players until year 2 or 3, meaning 2024, 2025 or 2026, when you'll already be in negotiations to give Fields $50M per year.
My question is if the Bears do draft Young can it really up the odds they have a top 6 or top
12 guy that much. I know you gave the percentages in the article but how do you get to those odds and what can cause it also ? Could young push fields to be better ? Really interesting article and sad that so many ppl wouldn’t even give the idea a thought as you stated in the first paragraph
I'm as big of a Fields apologist as they come but that's not the reason I disagree with the premise. Hell I don't disagree with the premise that much. From a process approach, the Bears' front office would be committing football malpractice if they didn't do their due diligence in evaluating each and every last Quarterback available in this and every draft following. I was even a proponent Washington drafting one of Tua/Herbert in 2020 less than a year after drafting Haskins because of the importance of firing darts until you find the guy at Quarterback.
Unfortunately the reason I didn't commit to the process then and don't commit to it now a combination of the: 1. The impracticality of a two quarterback system past the college level. and 2. The difficulty in developing two or more quarterbacks simultaneously. The two Quarterback system doesn't need much explanation as players and coaches alike have gone over the problems associated with playing games with more than one guy under center. Instead I want to focus more on the latter problem which is more contentious.
The best way for Quarterbacks to get better is to get reps. Reps at practice and far more importantly live reps in the game. Finding a way to somewhat evenly split these reps for more than a few weeks is highly impractical for NFL franchises. Former backups talk about how the only reps given out are for the starting Quarterback and the guy running scout team. Full on Second and Third string work pretty much ends after cutdown day because the roster limit doesn't give teams the necessary bodies to
maintain this structure during the regular season. Extending practice simply as a means of getting both Qbs more reps also isn't a reasonable option considering both the health of the other players on the roster and the potential for corrective action from the players union. The inability to get non-starting Qbs meaningful reps beyond preseason and camp can stunt their growth. This problem would be alleviated with the presence of a developmental league like the NBA G league where young players are sent on assignments to get extra reps if they aren't playing much in major league games. No such alternative currently exists for the NFL. Fundamentally, the modern NFL structure isn't conducive to the development of more than one Quarterback at once.
On the note of the development of these Quarterbacks, I'd pose the following question: When did Hurts make his most prominent growth as a passer? Hurts development took off after Wentz was traded. Not because Wentz personally was holding back Hurts, or bias from the staff/roster, but because the absence of Wentz gave Hurts the necessary reps to make significant strides as a passer. With Wentz gone, Hurts received the majority of the starter reps in back to back training camps and made significant growth over the course of the following two seasons. I'd also question whether or not Jordan Love has really developed in Green Bay over the last three years. While the sample size is incredibly small Jordan to me still has the same strengths and weakness he had as a prospect in 2020 and hasn't made much progress in correcting those flaws. Now with rumors swirling that Jordan Love may request a trade this offseason, that pick and contract look like deadweight. Trey Lance also comes to mind given the fact he's played one full season of football since 2018 and may have to take a backseat to Tom Brady this offseason if NFL agents are to believed. Will Trey make any significant progress after three seasons and little to no playing time? Certainly Aaron Rodgers and Steve Young are the success stories among the bunch but given the other cases it's hard not to consider them extreme outliers.
I certainly think you're right with the approach of so long as you're not certain if you have to guy, it is sound to keep investing in the position until you hit. But I'd push back on the idea of simply drafting prospects because you have the opportunity to. Instead one should focus on the context of the roster and what best helps the team in the present. But if you really like/love a guy, don't be afraid to call your shot and select him because you have already have a decent signal caller on roster.
So where do I stand on the Fields-Young/Stroud debate? If you like Young or any other QB draft him. Trade Fields for a haul and reset the rookie contract scale. If you don't like them, trade back for a haul and build around Fields. Until the NFL makes it possible to effectively develop two or more Quarterbacks simultaneously it is impractical to commit to more than one guy at a time.
TL;Dr Personally, I'd trade back and build around Fields, but I love Bryce and Stroud and would be far from upset if the Bears moved off of Fields to get their guy. Bryce and Stroud are fun prospects and any team (including the Bears) would be lucky to have them.
Yeah we really don't have a lot of evidence about developing two quarterbacks simultaneously. But just because it hasn't been done, doesn't mean it can't be done. And, it actually has been done, at least once that I think is the closest analogy. Look up what happened with Troy aikman and Steve walsh, wear a 1-15 cowboys team used multiple number one picks on quarterbacks, ended up with a hall of famer, one of the best decades in NFL history, and were able to trade Walsh a season and a half later for a first second and third round picks
The one success of the cowboys doesn't prove that it will work, but I think it disproves that it can't work. And you'll see lots of people tell you, without really having evidence, that it just won't work.
At the end of the day, does it boil down to the FO evaluation of fields? If the team feels he falls in the first bucket, then you commit and build around him. Or are you arguing that you take the QB at #1, because the opportunity of having that top pick is rare and the more elite QB prospects increases the hit rate?
The other question I have is, where is the line? What level of prospect does the team bypass the elite QB prospect and build around the current guy? Or how would you determine that?
You have to weigh the probability of elite play or well-above-average play for Fields. Not sure exactly what it is, but not going to be high enough for me. I think I mention in the piece that I'd consider drafting a QB unless I had Mahomes, Herbert, Allen, Burrow and maybe a few others. Cap considerations can be an issue with QBs on big contracts, but not for Fields
Definitely agree with you over there being basically no evidence that it definitively can work or that it definitely can’t work. It’s a highly unconventional approach that hasn’t really been tried. Once again I just think in the context of the modern NFL and our understanding of how Quarterbacks develop, it’d be best to commit to one. While as you said not being so attached to them as to pass on other elite prospects should they available. All that being said, every new idea is considered crazy until it isn’t. Mold-breakers are how change comes about and I’d certainly welcome the approach.
I was just listening to ESPN Daily about how Mahomes was in a QB competition from like 7th grade through his junior year in High School. All QBs have had to compete for reps in HS and College and they still develop if they put in the work. I'm not sure why the NFL is seen so differently when every QB deals with it at some point. That said, I could be wrong!