So....thoughts of trading up for the #1 pick?

[Oldcolt]

Originally Posted by Spike

Hell no on Derek Carr, just hell no. I would rather take a chance on Young, Stroud or Levis. Hopefully the Colts have learned their lesson on taking other team's QB rejects.

I agree with you on this but still believe they will look at Carr. A whole lot depends on who is our new head coach-I am more concerned about Ballard choosing this than a QB. Ballard totally shit the bed with McDaniels, and I mean totally. I have zero faith that he can pick a winner.

[ChoppedWood]

Talk on radio on Dakich former spot is that it's basically a given, we're giving Chicago whatever they want and the pick is Young. I am just perplexed as to why?

He's a Bama QB which given their performance in the NFL over the last 20 yrs minus Hurts- who don't forget left there, should automatically disqualify from #1. Yes, they have remarkable college careers, they also have NFL Olinemen and what has clearly become WR U with WR after WR lighting up the NFL. His size, he's smaller than Baker. No man, no freakin' way do we do this!

Tanenbaum is now touting this Bears moving Fields to get Young.

What is the fascination with him?

[nate505]

Originally Posted by Spike

Hell no on Derek Carr, just hell no. I would rather take a chance on Young, Stroud or Levis. Hopefully the Colts have learned their lesson on taking other team's QB rejects.

Agreed. That said, in terms of those three options, after staying pat and taking one of the three I would rather sign Carr and pick a blue chip prospect with the #4 pick than trade the #4 (not to mention possibly trading other assets) for Justin Fields. That seems like the worst of all worlds.

[CletusPyle]

Originally Posted by ChoppedWood

Interesting discussion on 1st Take.

Apparently Chicago has interest in Young (why you would just come off a season where your arrow seems to be pointing up behind the greatest running performance ever by a big fast powerful QB who has a cannon but nothing to really work with in the WR department and look to transform behind an undersized guy in the pocket...?). So the discussion was staying at 1 and taking Young, but getting Colts # 4 and some other parts - probably Buckner and something else + additional draft picks for Fields.

It's interesting for discussion. I am convinced that our OL is so damn bad that at least for the next couple years we're going to have to have a QB that can utilize his legs to give us any chance at being competitive (and I still expect us to suck). But, let's say we get Fields, what does he get us to, maybe 8-9, 9-8 and a possible one and done, maybe get lucky and steal a PO game in the next 3 years? Is that worth it, will he be dead on his feet 3 years from now and we'll need a new guy already anyway just when our other younger guys are starting to peak?

I like Fields, I think with a good team around him, he can be at the low end of the Josh Allen register- but I think he needs a lot of good players around him and if he has another terrible OL like he has had in Chicago (which we are), he'll eventually be wasted potential.

I would possibly consider our 2nd round pick and (Don't call me Darius) Leonard for Fields? I might be tempted to trade our #4 pick straight up for Fields, which would still be a good trade for Chicago in my opinion!

[Hoopsdoc]

Originally Posted by ChoppedWood

Talk on radio on Dakich former spot is that it's basically a given, we're giving Chicago whatever they want and the pick is Young. I am just perplexed as to why?

He's a Bama QB which given their performance in the NFL over the last 20 yrs minus Hurts- who don't forget left there, should automatically disqualify from #1. Yes, they have remarkable college careers, they also have NFL Olinemen and what has clearly become WR U with WR after WR lighting up the NFL. His size, he's smaller than Baker. No man, no freakin' way do we do this!

Tanenbaum is now touting this Bears moving Fields to get Young.

What is the fascination with him?

Bears GM wouldn’t rule out taking a quarterback.

It’s hard to tell if that’s just blowing smoke to drive up the value of a pick they know they’re gonna trade or if they’re legitimately soured on Fields.

If they’re smart, they’d draft a quarterback. Fields is awful as a passer, worse than Lamar Jackson.

[Hoopsdoc]

Originally Posted by nate505

Agreed. That said, in terms of those three options, after staying pat and taking one of the three I would rather sign Carr and pick a blue chip prospect with the #4 pick than trade the #4 (not to mention possibly trading other assets) for Justin Fields. That seems like the worst of all worlds.

I’ll be LIVID if they trade for Fields.

That would be insanely stupid.

[Coltsalr]

Originally Posted by ChoppedWood

Talk on radio on Dakich former spot is that it's basically a given, we're giving Chicago whatever they want and the pick is Young. I am just perplexed as to why?

He's a Bama QB which given their performance in the NFL over the last 20 yrs minus Hurts- who don't forget left there, should automatically disqualify from #1. Yes, they have remarkable college careers, they also have NFL Olinemen and what has clearly become WR U with WR after WR lighting up the NFL. His size, he's smaller than Baker. No man, no freakin' way do we do this!

Tanenbaum is now touting this Bears moving Fields to get Young.

What is the fascination with him?

In fairness, the lack of success of Justin Fields (and lack of success from Ohio State in general) could rule out CJ Stroud by that logic.

And for that matter, have there been any good UF/Kentucky QB’s….ever? That would rule out Richardson/Levis as well.

Bryce Young (whom I’m far from in love with, as an Ole Miss diehard), is not a slam dunk, but for reasons not related to the Tide, I do believe he’s the most opportunistic prospect because he’s shown the most.

[JAFF]

Originally Posted by CletusPyle

I would possibly consider our 2nd round pick and (Don't call me Darius) Leonard for Fields? I might be tempted to trade our #4 pick straight up for Fields, which would still be a good trade for Chicago in my opinion!

No one is taking on Leonard after this year. Not until he shows he can play.

[ChaosTheory]

Originally Posted by Hoopsdoc

Bears GM wouldn’t rule out taking a quarterback.

It’s hard to tell if that’s just blowing smoke to drive up the value of a pick they know they’re gonna trade or if they’re legitimately soured on Fields.

If they’re smart, they’d draft a quarterback. Fields is awful as a passer, worse than Lamar Jackson.

Fields is a name guys throw around as someone Ballard should've drafted. I'm glad he didn't and I'm especially glad he didn't give up a bunch to do it. Trading for Fields now would be spectacularly annoying (of course I don't expect it).

As I've said, I'm late to the party on a lot of college guys, but now that the season is over I'm starting to look at them. So far, almost unanimously, Bryce Young is the #1 prospect. I know guys want Stroud, Levis, Richardson, whoever... and I know the knock on Bryce Young is his size...

But everyone else knows that, too. And they all still have Bryce Young #1. What I'm going back and watching is impressive, but I'm still trying to form my own opinion. But there must be a reason he's everyone's #1. The only knock I ever read on the kid is his size and there are exceptions to every rule.

And I wouldn't be shocked if the Bears went QB if they're getting an upgrade over Fields. League is too skewed towards QB.

[Dam8610]

Originally Posted by ChaosTheory

Fields is a name guys throw around as someone Ballard should've drafted. I'm glad he didn't and I'm especially glad he didn't give up a bunch to do it. Trading for Fields now would be spectacularly annoying (of course I don't expect it).

As I've said, I'm late to the party on a lot of college guys, but now that the season is over I'm starting to look at them. So far, almost unanimously, Bryce Young is the #1 prospect. I know guys want Stroud, Levis, Richardson, whoever... and I know the knock on Bryce Young is his size...

But everyone else knows that, too. And they all still have Bryce Young #1. What I'm going back and watching is impressive, but I'm still trying to form my own opinion. But there must be a reason he's everyone's #1. The only knock I ever read on the kid is his size and there are exceptions to every rule.

And I wouldn't be shocked if the Bears went QB if they're getting an upgrade over Fields. League is too skewed towards QB.

Groupthink is extremely prevalent in draft circles, you'll learn that very quickly. It's honestly a way they protect their own reputations. "Well EVERYONE had it rated that way, obviously no one knew about (insert major flaw here)." You'll see it a lot. Russell Wilson was too small. Brock Purdy was just riding the incredible talent of Breece Hall. Trevor Lawrence is a god king in the making. All wrong things draftniks have said as a result of groupthink. Bryce Young is everyone's #1 because he's everyone else's #1. Don't get me wrong, he's incredibly talented and deserves to be very near the top despite his size. That said, he's not my #1. CJ Stroud is, because he's got all the same tools for the QB position that Bryce Young has that put him in that conversation, but he's 6'3" instead of 5'9" (that's my guess of Young's height based on watching his bowl game). I also like Stroud's tendency to use his athleticism to make plays in the passing game more than Young's tendency to use it to make plays in the running game, which is compounded by Young's diminutive stature.