Free Agent Wish List

[thunderspirit]

How does Williams adapt to winter in Chicago ? I watched most of his games as I live in Pac12 (RIP) area as a Arizona Wildcat fan.. I don't remember seeing him in Midwestern Ice bowls..

He had decent weather and got smashed by ND..had a tough time with Az WINING IN 3 ots..

I didn't see him when he was at Oklahoma in winter..but southern cal or AZ is usually quite nice all year..NFL season is longer and has some nasty weather teams

Kid grew up in DC. It's not Winnipeg, but it's not Tucson either.

[wab]

Cousins would be a good get if he's willing to understand the situation and take a 1-2 year deal.

But because QBs play until they're 50 now, he'll surely get a 3-5 year offer from some dumbass franchise.

Um, isn't a big part of the argument in favour of drafting Williams and moving on from Fields the whole "resetting the QB clock" in order to save all the astronomical money QBs earn these days from their second contract?

How much is Cousins going to get paid for a couple of years? Between him and the $10m APY Williams would get as the number one pick there wouldn't be any saving to be had at all, on the contrary it would surely work out much more expensive than simply sticking with Fields and having Bagent as the backup.

Then there's the fact that Cousins, even with all his experience, would still have to learn the new offense being run by an OC he's never worked with before and so will necessarily have to be the team's focus and get the majority of the first team reps. I hate this idea of bringing in a stop-gap to somehow replicate the Mahomes/Love journey. It's not going to work without having a veteran QB who's been with the team in previous seasons and knows the team and the offense inside-out. I absolutely do not want to go down the Glennon/Dalton route again.

Cousins isn’t going to be a Bear, but he’s absolutely worked with Waldron in Washington.

[malk]

Rookie and Bagent with a new OC.

Feels risky

But compared to what? If the other option is rookie QB and Drew Lock or equivalent then I'll take the risk. If the other option is rookie QB and $20-30m on a stopgap, hell, even $10m, then I'll take the risk of our backup QB over the risk of not having that amount of cap space utilised on the rest of the roster.

If we do get a rookie QB we're hoping for a Stroud like situation where the backup would only need to be able to come in and not lose in the event of a short injury. Bagent has shown he can do this. If the rookie QB doesn't have a good year we're not going to give up on them so the season is lost to them learning. Unless people are thinking we're going to draft a 1st round pick and then let them learn from the sidelines? Personally I'd still let Bagent do that but appreciate the optics would make it impossible.

[RichH55]

Rookie and Bagent with a new OC.

Feels risky

But compared to what? If the other option is rookie QB and Drew Lock or equivalent then I'll take the risk. If the other option is rookie QB and $20-30m on a stopgap, hell, even $10m, then I'll take the risk of our backup QB over the risk of not having that amount of cap space utilised on the rest of the roster.

If we do get a rookie QB we're hoping for a Stroud like situation where the backup would only need to be able to come in and not lose in the event of a short injury. Bagent has shown he can do this. If the rookie QB doesn't have a good year we're not going to give up on them so the season is lost to them learning. Unless people are thinking we're going to draft a 1st round pick and then let them learn from the sidelines? Personally I'd still let Bagent do that but appreciate the optics would make it impossible.

Agreed with this

I think Bagent flat out has more in him than being a Backup - So no need for the Vet backup

[RichH55]

I think you only go Cousins if you are going Route 3 (Trade Fields and Trade down from Number 1)

And agreed on backups playing for 12 Years - etc.

I do NOT think this applies to Bagent - but for alot of QBs (for some reason not Peterman?) the worst thing they can do is actually play. Chase Daniel wasn't good at QB. Luckily for him he never proved that it a definitive Caleb Hanie type way

For the Lifelong NFL Backup QB it's very much - Better to stay silent and let everyone think you are a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt

[Ditka’s dictaphone]

Rookie may not have a bad year but they may get injured in week 1-3 , like Joe Burrows.

Then you have Bagent for the rest of the season.

Like I say, feels risky.

[thunderspirit]

Rookie may not have a bad year but they may get injured in week 1-3 , like Joe Burrows.

Then you have Bagent for the rest of the season.

Like I say, feels risky.

Bagent going 2-2 in his starts is the exception, not the rule, when it comes to a team's second-string QB playing. Any team with their backup playing 3/4 of the season is hoping to just survive.

Why would you want to give that demonstrated ability up for Drew Effing Lock or Nathan Effing Peterman?

[Grizzled]

Center. DE. WR. S. TE. Maybe G are the team needs. There's talk Mercedes Lewis wants to play one more (his 19th) season. He's a great blocker and, obviously, a tough vet, give him consideration. But look at another TE also. Waldron likes 12 personnel.

[Ditka’s dictaphone]

Rookie may not have a bad year but they may get injured in week 1-3 , like Joe Burrows.

Then you have Bagent for the rest of the season.

Like I say, feels risky.

Bagent going 2-2 in his starts is the exception, not the rule, when it comes to a team's second-string QB playing. Any team with their backup playing 3/4 of the season is hoping to just survive.

Why would you want to give that demonstrated ability up for Drew Effing Lock or Nathan Effing Peterman?

I wouldn’t.

There was a brief moment of agreement on the boards about sitting a rookie QB for a year and how this is good/essential for their development.

If you sit Williams, is he meant to be learning from Bagent during his rookie season?

Doesn’t seem likely.

[wab]

If the Bears take Williams at #1, he's not sitting. He's playing from jump.

[RichH55]

If the Bears take Williams at #1, he's not sitting. He's playing from jump.

Yeah - I agree here - even though I think sitting for a Year is basically universally helpful. Its also sometimes just not realistic

[dplank]

If the Bears take Williams at #1, he's not sitting. He's playing from jump.

I'm probably the only person on the board that doesn't think it's crazy to activate Justin's 5th year option, start Justin in 2024, and draft Williams. Keep Bagent as #3. Game this out:

1. Most folks now agree it's best to sit the rookie QB a year, I'm a recent convert to this thinking myself. This path allows us to do that without throwing away our 2024 season or disrupting the locker room, and let's us see if a better coach and surrounding team helps Justin unlock his massive potential.
2. Scenario 1, Fields balls out. We now are sitting on Caleb Williams and Justin Fields the emerging star, and we have learned a ton about Williams with a full year in HH. We are in a huge position of strength, as Fields price in 2025 is just 22M and a huge bargain. Either player in this circumstance would command a huge trade haul - Williams would lose near zero value from his current value, QB's don't really depreciate much.
3. Scenario 2, Fields plays ok but not great. We would decide at this point it's Williams team (unless we see stuff we don't like his rookie year), and move Justin. I still think we would net a 2nd round pick in this scenario. If we trade Justin now, it's probably a late 1st or a 2nd + another 2nd next year or something like that. Total cost is a future 2nd (very roughly, just tossing ideas out here).
4. Scenario 3, Fields sux. This is not likely given how he played his last 8 games, but maybe he regresses. In this scenario, we probably lose trade value but we'd still get something for him as some team will think they can unlock his talent. A 4th seems like the lowest comp I can imagine.

So what are we really risking here vs what can we potentially gain? Well, we can remove the biggest risk of trading Justin right now and him balling out for another team while Caleb struggles - that's the biggest downside in all this and we can completely mitigate it. We remove this risk without losing out on a potential generational prospect in Williams. Williams gets to sit and learn the NFL for a year, which seems like the best thing for him also. The Bears get a real assessment of Williams by having him in HH for an entire year practicing, they'll know 100% more this way than they will when they have to choose in April, AND they'll know a lot more about "is it Fields or is it Getsy" as well - so we are able to make a much more informed decision a year from now than we can today.

If you are of the mindset that the QB is damn near everything (I'm not, but several people here think this way), then why not take the most aggressive approach to the QB position and have BOTH options available instead of guessing at one vs the other with limited information on hand?

[Z Bear]

Fields' trade value is just going to diminish, if you are moving on from him it is best to trade him now.

[RichH55]

If the Bears take Williams at #1, he's not sitting. He's playing from jump.

I'm probably the only person on the board that doesn't think it's crazy to activate Justin's 5th year option, start Justin in 2024, and draft Williams. Keep Bagent as #3. Game this out:

1. Most folks now agree it's best to sit the rookie QB a year, I'm a recent convert to this thinking myself. This path allows us to do that without throwing away our 2024 season or disrupting the locker room, and let's us see if a better coach and surrounding team helps Justin unlock his massive potential.
2. Scenario 1, Fields balls out. We now are sitting on Caleb Williams and Justin Fields the emerging star, and we have learned a ton about Williams with a full year in HH. We are in a huge position of strength, as Fields price in 2025 is just 22M and a huge bargain. Either player in this circumstance would command a huge trade haul - Williams would lose near zero value from his current value, QB's don't really depreciate much.
3. Scenario 2, Fields plays ok but not great. We would decide at this point it's Williams team (unless we see stuff we don't like his rookie year), and move Justin. I still think we would net a 2nd round pick in this scenario. If we trade Justin now, it's probably a late 1st or a 2nd + another 2nd next year or something like that. Total cost is a future 2nd (very roughly, just tossing ideas out here).
4. Scenario 3, Fields sux. This is not likely given how he played his last 8 games, but maybe he regresses. In this scenario, we probably lose trade value but we'd still get something for him as some team will think they can unlock his talent. A 4th seems like the lowest comp I can imagine.

So what are we really risking here vs what can we potentially gain? Well, we can remove the biggest risk of trading Justin right now and him balling out for another team while Caleb struggles - that's the biggest downside in all this and we can completely mitigate it. We remove this risk without losing out on a potential generational prospect in Williams. Williams gets to sit and learn the NFL for a year, which seems like the best thing for him also. The Bears get a real assessment of Williams by having him in HH for an entire year practicing, they'll know 100% more this way than they will when they have to choose in April, AND they'll know a lot more about "is it Fields or is it Getsy" as well - so we are able to make a much more informed decision a year from now than we can today.

If you are of the mindset that the QB is damn near everything (I'm not, but several people here think this way), then why not take the most aggressive approach to the QB position and have BOTH options available instead of guessing at one vs the other with limited information on hand?

I think the Locker Room issue would be a sizeable one - But putting that aside for this Hypo (*)

I think that ONE of your QBs under the current plan (Be it Caleb OR Fields) is pretty much at the height of their Value now. I don't know which one (I suspect its Fields)

Though maybe you are right and if the value on Fields now is only a 2nd+ maybe next year it only slips to a 2nd outright (or a 3rd and change) - this is a possibility - BUT if Fields value right now gets you into the 1st Round - You are gonna take a hit on that unless he does indeed ball out and that is a sizeable difference IMHO

But I think that if Fields is awesome and you are gonna trade Caleb - It will effect his value - Probably by a decent amount. Like even if you STILL get 2 1sts for him - that could be a good function less than what Draft Night would have brought (and you might have still be able to walk away with say MHJ)

(*) I think you need to bring in a credible enough veteran if you realistically want to sit Caleb a year - and I say that as maybe Bagent's biggest fan

One more thing on it - As to why I think you have to make the choice between QB and Fields NOW rather than after a Year: The opportunity cost to help either QB in 2024 itself. The Caleb pick or the Fields trade haul - should be a player(s) that helps you right now

[Ditka’s dictaphone]

Why is it unrealistic to sit Williams for a year but every other QB it isn’t?

Mahomes sat for a year, why is Williams any different?

[Ditka’s dictaphone]

If the Bears take Williams at #1, he's not sitting. He's playing from jump.

Yeah - I agree here - even though I think sitting for a Year is basically universally helpful. Its also sometimes just not realistic

So what changes with the name “Williams”?

Why does he get different treatment?

[Arkansasbear]

Let's also not forget Chase Young

Content mills keep lazily predicting this, but I dont feel like I've read anything complimentary at all about him on the 49ers, and when I do catch bits it's been complaints that he's a liability against the run. I dont really anticipate him being a target for this regime.

The one thing that could make him a target is I dont' think he will cost a ton. They are saying he'd "only" be in the $10M range. At that price maybe.

[Arkansasbear]

I like the center from Dallas Baidaz (spelling is likely wrong).

[HurricaneBear]

Yeah - I agree here - even though I think sitting for a Year is basically universally helpful. Its also sometimes just not realistic

So what changes with the name “Williams”?

Why does he get different treatment?

I have and still believe you start the rookie and let them take their lumps(you don't pair them with a buffoon for a HC but thats a different story)

Williams is the first pick in the draft(probably). He is starting. The owner who ok'd it is going to want his shiny new toy playing as will the fans.

[Ditka’s dictaphone]

So what changes with the name “Williams”?

Why does he get different treatment?

I have and still believe you start the rookie and let them take their lumps(you don't pair them with a buffoon for a HC but thats a different story)

Williams is the first pick in the draft(probably). He is starting. The owner who ok'd it is going to want his shiny new toy playing as will the fans.

Even if it damages the QBs development?

[Grizzled]

I don't think Waldron has coached a rookie at QB. He had Goff in LA but everything reads that he was the one getting Goff "back on track" to very good seasons up to leading the Rams to the 2018 Super Bowl. He had Russell Wilson and Geno Smith in Seattle. So, that eternal question: sit him for a year or throw him into the breach from the start.

[Ditka’s dictaphone]

I don't think Waldron has coached a rookie at QB. He had Goff in LA but everything reads that he was the one getting Goff "back on track" to very good seasons up to leading the Rams to the 2018 Super Bowl. He had Russell Wilson and Geno Smith in Seattle. So, that eternal question: sit him for a year or throw him into the breach from the start.

He did coach Williams - as well as others - at some kind of college QB finishing camp a few years ago.

[Grizzled]

I don't think Waldron has coached a rookie at QB. He had Goff in LA but everything reads that he was the one getting Goff "back on track" to very good seasons up to leading the Rams to the 2018 Super Bowl. He had Russell Wilson and Geno Smith in Seattle. So, that eternal question: sit him for a year or throw him into the breach from the start.

He did coach Williams - as well as others - at some kind of college QB finishing camp a few years ago.

He, McVay, and Shanahan were involved as well as top QBs like you mentioned.

[HisRoyalSweetness]

Um, isn't a big part of the argument in favour of drafting Williams and moving on from Fields the whole "resetting the QB clock" in order to save all the astronomical money QBs earn these days from their second contract?

How much is Cousins going to get paid for a couple of years? Between him and the $10m APY Williams would get as the number one pick there wouldn't be any saving to be had at all, on the contrary it would surely work out much more expensive than simply sticking with Fields and having Bagent as the backup.

Then there's the fact that Cousins, even with all his experience, would still have to learn the new offense being run by an OC he's never worked with before and so will necessarily have to be the team's focus and get the majority of the first team reps. I hate this idea of bringing in a stop-gap to somehow replicate the Mahomes/Love journey. It's not going to work without having a veteran QB who's been with the team in previous seasons and knows the team and the offense inside-out. I absolutely do not want to go down the Glennon/Dalton route again.

Cousins isn’t going to be a Bear, but he’s absolutely worked with Waldron in Washington.

My mistake. Waldron was an Offensive Quality Control Coach for Cousins' penultimate season in Washington. I'm not sure what that role entails and how much it involves working with the QB though. It's not like he was the OC or QB coach.

[Moriarty]

Cousins isn’t going to be a Bear, but he’s absolutely worked with Waldron in Washington.

My mistake. Waldron was an Offensive Quality Control Coach for Cousins' penultimate season in Washington. I'm not sure what that role entails and how much it involves working with the QB though. It's not like he was the OC or QB coach.

So what do they do? There’s a short answer and a long answer.

The short answer is that quality control coaches do whatever anybody else doesn’t want to do. They are the interns of the coaching world. They are assistant coaches for assistant coaches, filling in all the little busywork that other coaches can’t or won’t do in a given week.

The longer answer is that those duties vary a lot by team. Some teams want their quality control coaches down in the weeds, sorting through the little details that other coaches don’t have the time to look at. For other teams, it’s largely a data entry job, going through information in the team’s video cataloging system and making sure it all lines up correctly. On other teams, they might be making cutups of specific down and distance situations for other coaches to look at as they gameplan.

There are two main consistent features, though: it’s all low-level grunt work and it’s all fairly low-paid work. A lot of these guys are really coaches in name only; from what I’ve read, they rarely, if ever, are working directly with players. And they’re not getting paid much; though I know the numbers have gone up, I once heard someone — maybe Brian Billick? I don’t know — refer to quality coaches as “20/20 guys.” That is, guys in their 20s willing to work for something in the ballpark of $20,000 a year.

But it’s a start, and it’s the feeder system the NFL uses to weed out guys not willing to put in the (largely totally useless) long hours the coaching profession (unnecessarily) demands.

[dplank]

You nailed the QC description Moriarty. I worked closely with these people for years, probably 100 of them. It’s a grind.

[RichH55]

You nailed the QC description Moriarty. I worked closely with these people for years, probably 100 of them. It’s a grind.

Scouting too from what I know

Baseball and Football (probably other sports too) get a lot of highly talented people at pennies on the dollar because they want to work in Baseball/Football

[dplank]

You nailed the QC description Moriarty. I worked closely with these people for years, probably 100 of them. It’s a grind.

Scouting too from what I know

Baseball and Football (probably other sports too) get a lot of highly talented people at pennies on the dollar because they want to work in Baseball/Football

They absolutely count on it. And for all the money these franchises have, they under value these people for the most part. I’ve seen excellent video coordinators kicked to the curb because they had reached just 80-100k income, so they dumped them and replaced them with a cheap kid who didn’t know what they were doing. Caused me a lot of headaches back in those days.

The good franchises had stability all throughout the org, down to scouts, video, ops, etc. two of the longest standing guys I know are in Pittsburgh and Baltimore - no surprise!

[RichH55]

Scouting too from what I know

Baseball and Football (probably other sports too) get a lot of highly talented people at pennies on the dollar because they want to work in Baseball/Football

They absolutely count on it. And for all the money these franchises have, they under value these people for the most part. I’ve seen excellent video coordinators kicked to the curb because they had reached just 80-100k income, so they dumped them and replaced them with a cheap kid who didn’t know what they were doing. Caused me a lot of headaches back in those days.

The good franchises had stability all throughout the org, down to scouts, video, ops, etc. two of the longest standing guys I know are in Pittsburgh and Baltimore - no surprise!

Good stuff - and yep. Its cheap for them to do the right thing too - yet so many of them dont

[Magilla_Gorilla]

Yeah - I agree here - even though I think sitting for a Year is basically universally helpful. Its also sometimes just not realistic

So what changes with the name “Williams”?

Why does he get different treatment?

A few reasons:

1. The Chiefs were in a completely different situation when they drafted Mahomes - they had just gone 12-4 and had a resurgent Alex Smith already on the roster. There was no reason to start Mahomes and seemed unlikely he would beat out Alex Smith even if they did give him the opportunity.

2. Patrick Mahomes wasn't anywhere near as ready to play as a rookie as Caleb Williams. One of the biggest knocks against Mahomes was that it was hard to evaluate him because he had almost no traditional QB play on tape to look at. Kingsbury's Texas Tech were wild wild west offenses with Mahomes going off script and having to play hero-ball nearly every down. No one had any idea if Mahomes could run an offense. Now Williams did a lot of that this year because of how bad his defense was and how awful the OL performed - but prior to that he had a year and a half of top level QB play in the more traditional sense.

3. Most draft people seem to believe that Caleb Williams is as advanced and ready to play as just about any #1 pick ever has been.