Which realistic QB option do you prefer?

[DevilsProspect]

Think I would try and sign Winston and not reach for one in draft.

My perfect world would be to trade Foles even if a portion neeeded to be eaten (though I doubt they will let him go this year, IF someone else wanted him).

Would give Winston a shot at being the starter and let Foles back him up. Winston did turn the ball over quite a bit, but still can make a lot of throws. Also to note on him, after his last year in TB he got his vision corrected. Apparently he couldn’t even read the scoreboard! How much does this affect his play? Who knows? But worth a shot, he has the tools to put up numbers and is mobile enough. I can’t see him costing too, he has a small window to show something. He could get a year 2yr voidable contract if he proves himself.

Even with him, I would target Newman in the 3rd round. Spend the first two picks on line. (Maybe WR in 2nd, unless they sign a FA).

This has been one of my prevailing thoughts all along. Winston on a 2yr deal and Newman (or Trask) in the draft.

I'm not a huge Winston fan, but the dude can wing it. He's not a scrambler in the true sense, but he can get out of the pocket if needed.

I feel like the Bears are going to double up at the position, and I do think the Bears are a 10 win team with Winston.

Exactly, and I am not even a Winston fan either. But feel it’s the most realistic chance, along with offering the best short term success. Who knows? Maybe he turns heads?

I love Fitz. If it was just about who I liked, I would go for him. But just don’t think he has a ton of upside. But again, I like him and wouldn’t mind him. Just think it’s pointless.

Stafford of course, but not gona happen.

I just think the bears should go for someone as a bridge who has some kind of upside longer term. Think Winston checks all the boxes.

[Moriarty]

This would be the best plan, but it can't logically happen. Our GM and HC are on the hot seat, so they will be in win-now/desperation mode, tryig to save their own jobs. They will do everything they can to get a QB they think can win now, no matter how unlikely that is behind our OL, nor how much it mortgages the future. What we actually need is a heavy investment in the O-Line, BEFORE a significant investment in QB... but they know that won't protect their jobs. Very depressing.

Unless during the “meeting” was that it was clear they are not to mortgage the future for today. Maybe Ted said they can do whatever they want on short term management but not to reach and sell off picks and such.

That's what a properly run franchise would have done.



My optimism is
Low

[Umbali]

So my thought on this is I would rather trade draft picks for Watson than for a rookie unknown.

Then when you factor in the Pace and Nagy have to win to keep their jobs it seems to me there are 2 likely paths

Trade for Watson cus thats not a hard sell to ownership. He is already a young proven winner.
or
Get a guy like Winston or maybe Fitz ( eh ) and draft a qb so you can win a bit and show progress toward the future ie grooming a qb.

Honestly I am not sure what we should do, but I dont have the morale issues with Winston. We arent building a church choir. We are building a football team and if the league lets them play and they arent a Brandon Marshall distraction in the locker room..lets roll with it.

I cant see any way the Lions trade Stafford to us.
Mariotta is an upgrade to what we have had.
Rumors say Gruden wants to move on from Carr which I would be good with but I dont believe it.
I have seen some people talk up Cam Newton super cheap but I dont think its the answer as a bridge and I have never cared for him but he would be better than what we had.

[dplank]

Just curious and not being critical, can you help me understand why you would be OK with trading 2 1sts and 'another pick' for Fields or Lance, but you are not OK with trading 1 extra first for Watson? It seems so obvious to me I feel like I must be missing something.

Money and the extra picks (potentially 2 extra 1sts) is the big differentiator.

And I never said I wouldn't with Watson. It's definitely compelling, but I do think they'd struggle to build a winner if they paid the price for it.

Another factor is risk-reward. Sure a couple picks for a draft pick could blow up, but would likely blow up spectacularly enough that you could restart fairly quickly. Watson isn't going to blow up, but you may waste away in mediocrity once you struggle to build around him.

So it's definitely not only one thing. And I'm a newer convert on adding another first in a trade up for a rookie. I'm probably still warmer on say 4 firsts for Watson, actually.

Well, if it's 4 firsts then you can count me out. I could throw in a few other picks but no more than 3 firsts. But at 3, it sounds like the only objection at that point is the money. I'd just note though that because the guaranteed money accelerating on Houston's books if he's traded, Watson comes to his new team at a relative discount. Market rate set by Mahomes is 45M/yr now (Dak turned down 35M). So getting Watson at 10M, 35M, 37M, 32M, and 32M over the next 5 seasons seems like a steal to me - so I put the money side of this in the plus column when evaluating the trade decision! https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/houston-tex ... son-21753/

[wab]

Money and the extra picks (potentially 2 extra 1sts) is the big differentiator.

And I never said I wouldn't with Watson. It's definitely compelling, but I do think they'd struggle to build a winner if they paid the price for it.

Another factor is risk-reward. Sure a couple picks for a draft pick could blow up, but would likely blow up spectacularly enough that you could restart fairly quickly. Watson isn't going to blow up, but you may waste away in mediocrity once you struggle to build around him.

So it's definitely not only one thing. And I'm a newer convert on adding another first in a trade up for a rookie. I'm probably still warmer on say 4 firsts for Watson, actually.

Well, if it's 4 firsts then you can count me out. I could throw in a few other picks but no more than 3 firsts. But at 3, it sounds like the only objection at that point is the money. I'd just note though that because the guaranteed money accelerating on Houston's books if he's traded, Watson comes to his new team at a relative discount. Market rate set by Mahomes is 45M/yr now (Dak turned down 35M). So getting Watson at 10M, 35M, 37M, 32M, and 32M over the next 5 seasons seems like a steal to me - so I put the money side of this in the plus column when evaluating the trade decision! https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/houston-tex ... son-21753/

There's still the no trade clause...and I don't say this to be snarky...but a lot of people seem to be pretending it doesn't exist.

What exactly would entice Watson to waive his no trade clause for the Bears?

[Umbali]

Well, if it's 4 firsts then you can count me out. I could throw in a few other picks but no more than 3 firsts. But at 3, it sounds like the only objection at that point is the money. I'd just note though that because the guaranteed money accelerating on Houston's books if he's traded, Watson comes to his new team at a relative discount. Market rate set by Mahomes is 45M/yr now (Dak turned down 35M). So getting Watson at 10M, 35M, 37M, 32M, and 32M over the next 5 seasons seems like a steal to me - so I put the money side of this in the plus column when evaluating the trade decision! https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/houston-tex ... son-21753/

There's still the no trade clause...and I don't say this to be snarky...but a lot of people seem to be pretending it doesn't exist.

What exactly would entice Watson to waive his no trade clause for the Bears?

Knowing he would be going to a football crazy town where he would be the best we have had, in addition to a great defense. However that being said I dont see it. The only caveat to that is a team in a good position with their current roster most likely wouldnt want to trade away those picks anyway. Who knows..it will be interesting.

[The Cooler King]

Money and the extra picks (potentially 2 extra 1sts) is the big differentiator.

And I never said I wouldn't with Watson. It's definitely compelling, but I do think they'd struggle to build a winner if they paid the price for it.

Another factor is risk-reward. Sure a couple picks for a draft pick could blow up, but would likely blow up spectacularly enough that you could restart fairly quickly. Watson isn't going to blow up, but you may waste away in mediocrity once you struggle to build around him.

So it's definitely not only one thing. And I'm a newer convert on adding another first in a trade up for a rookie. I'm probably still warmer on say 4 firsts for Watson, actually.

Well, if it's 4 firsts then you can count me out. I could throw in a few other picks but no more than 3 firsts. But at 3, it sounds like the only objection at that point is the money. I'd just note though that because the guaranteed money accelerating on Houston's books if he's traded, Watson comes to his new team at a relative discount. Market rate set by Mahomes is 45M/yr now (Dak turned down 35M). So getting Watson at 10M, 35M, 37M, 32M, and 32M over the next 5 seasons seems like a steal to me - so I put the money side of this in the plus column when evaluating the trade decision! https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/houston-tex ... son-21753/

Well what I said before is the total number of firsts doesn't necessarily bother me, I think you have to consider the next pick defecit. I could go 4, but would expect a decent high pick or two back to offset.

Relative discount, yes, but still a big cap commitment when you're about to significantly cut draft capital at the same time.

Anyways, I agree with subsequent posts that its just not gonna happen. Lots of wasted words speculating.

Should have just drafted him in 2017. Sigh.

[DevilsProspect]

Unless during the “meeting” was that it was clear they are not to mortgage the future for today. Maybe Ted said they can do whatever they want on short term management but not to reach and sell off picks and such.

That's what a properly run franchise would have done.



My optimism is
Low

Good point

[mmmc_35]

I really liked Jacoby Brissett in the draft. So part of me wants him to get a chance to start for a team long term. Hes had two years starting with average results. Hes never really been given the keys. But with the colts wasnt bad. I see him as having as much upside as any retread. But I do acknowledge my biases

[alexwilkins]

I really liked Jacoby Brissett in the draft. So part of me wants him to get a chance to start for a team long term. Hes had two years starting with average results. Hes never really been given the keys. But with the colts wasnt bad. I see him as having as much upside as any retread. But I do acknowledge my biases

I agree completely. As far as “realistic” options at QB, Brissett is my favorite one not listed here. Not because he’s done anything especially great yet, but I think even Reich would tell you he never planned on making him THE guy.

[dplank]

Well, if it's 4 firsts then you can count me out. I could throw in a few other picks but no more than 3 firsts. But at 3, it sounds like the only objection at that point is the money. I'd just note though that because the guaranteed money accelerating on Houston's books if he's traded, Watson comes to his new team at a relative discount. Market rate set by Mahomes is 45M/yr now (Dak turned down 35M). So getting Watson at 10M, 35M, 37M, 32M, and 32M over the next 5 seasons seems like a steal to me - so I put the money side of this in the plus column when evaluating the trade decision! https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/houston-tex ... son-21753/

There's still the no trade clause...and I don't say this to be snarky...but a lot of people seem to be pretending it doesn't exist.

What exactly would entice Watson to waive his no trade clause for the Bears?

I don’t see that as an impossibility. The Jets are being batted around too. Guys at this level want the media market as they can earn more that way than their NFL salary anyways, New York - Chicago - LA being premium media markets. He’d be the biggest star in one of the biggest media markets in the country. We also have a talented defense which would be a big step up from that horrible unit in Houston. And a pass first offense that he would be driving.

It’s not a given but my guess is he’d waive his no trade to play in Chicago or New York.

[HurricaneBear]

https://chicago.suntimes.com/bears/2021 ... h-trubisky

[Arkansasbear]

Think I would try and sign Winston and not reach for one in draft.

My perfect world would be to trade Foles even if a portion neeeded to be eaten (though I doubt they will let him go this year, IF someone else wanted him).

Would give Winston a shot at being the starter and let Foles back him up. Winston did turn the ball over quite a bit, but still can make a lot of throws. Also to note on him, after his last year in TB he got his vision corrected. Apparently he couldn’t even read the scoreboard! How much does this affect his play? Who knows? But worth a shot, he has the tools to put up numbers and is mobile enough. I can’t see him costing too, he has a small window to show something. He could get a year 2yr voidable contract if he proves himself.

Even with him, I would target Newman in the 3rd round. Spend the first two picks on line. (Maybe WR in 2nd, unless they sign a FA).

You lost me at "give Winston a shot" I want NOTHING to do with the clown. Character has to matter and he has none.

[Arkansasbear]

Well, if it's 4 firsts then you can count me out. I could throw in a few other picks but no more than 3 firsts. But at 3, it sounds like the only objection at that point is the money. I'd just note though that because the guaranteed money accelerating on Houston's books if he's traded, Watson comes to his new team at a relative discount. Market rate set by Mahomes is 45M/yr now (Dak turned down 35M). So getting Watson at 10M, 35M, 37M, 32M, and 32M over the next 5 seasons seems like a steal to me - so I put the money side of this in the plus column when evaluating the trade decision! https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/houston-tex ... son-21753/

There's still the no trade clause...and I don't say this to be snarky...but a lot of people seem to be pretending it doesn't exist.

What exactly would entice Watson to waive his no trade clause for the Bears?

The team telling him he has two choices - be traded to the Bears or stay in Houston. I think he wants out THAT bad so that might be all it takes.

[Burl]

Considering you might see guys like Stafford, Ryan, Watson, potentially Rodgers move around the league this year, there's no telling who they might replace and who might come available as we move along here.

[wab]

I really liked Jacoby Brissett in the draft. So part of me wants him to get a chance to start for a team long term. Hes had two years starting with average results. Hes never really been given the keys. But with the colts wasnt bad. I see him as having as much upside as any retread. But I do acknowledge my biases

He's one I honestly hadn't really even thought of. Good catch.

[wab]

There's still the no trade clause...and I don't say this to be snarky...but a lot of people seem to be pretending it doesn't exist.

What exactly would entice Watson to waive his no trade clause for the Bears?

I don’t see that as an impossibility. The Jets are being batted around too. Guys at this level want the media market as they can earn more that way than their NFL salary anyways, New York - Chicago - LA being premium media markets. He’d be the biggest star in one of the biggest media markets in the country. We also have a talented defense which would be a big step up from that horrible unit in Houston. And a pass first offense that he would be driving.

It’s not a given but my guess is he’d waive his no trade to play in Chicago or New York.

I'd say the Jets have a better chance. They have Saleh, who was one of the 2-3 coaches Watson wanted the Texans to interview (Frazier and Bienemy the others). They also have the ability to surround him with more talent.

But, you might be right. The QB landscape in the AFC is pretty impressive, so Watson's easiest path to the postseason is probably the NFC. I still think there's places that give Watson a better shot, but who knows. I didn't think the Bears could land Cutler or Mack either.

[Arkansasbear]

I'm honestly warming up to a trade up, even beyond 10 where it would probably take next years first and another pick. Could it blow up in their face, sure. But if you believe in a guy like Fields or Lance, and I think there is good reason to believe those guys have the goods, I think you maybe go for it? It's not really the situation I imagined the Bears being in with Pace/Nagy, but here we are in reality...

Just curious and not being critical, can you help me understand why you would be OK with trading 2 1sts and 'another pick' for Fields or Lance, but you are not OK with trading 1 extra first for Watson? It seems so obvious to me I feel like I must be missing something.

I don't like mortgaging the future either way. But I'm not giving up 2 1st for Lance. He scars the crap out of me - great physical tools, but one year starter (remind you of anyone) and at FCS school. Too much risk IMO. I don't like the idea of 3 1st for Watson given his contract and our salary cap. I think we have to gut lots of players in addition to the draft picks. I do agree his contract will be more affordable due to the upfront money not counting against us.

That said if those were my choices, I'd give up 3 1st for Watson. I think with Lance at QB our nest years 1st is likely a top10 pick. With Watson, I think he has enough talent that we are picking late teens early 20s for the next two drafts. I think he will make us a wild card team on a regular basis, but the amount of talent we have to trim from the roster results in "one and done" in the playoffs.

That said, Pace does find talent in the mid to late rounds so maybe he could make it work.

Also as others have stated, I don't think Nagy/Pace are going to hang their future on a rookie they trade up for.

[Arkansasbear]

Yea wab, it's getting scary. Although, when you add Detroit and Atlanta that means you also add Stafford and Ryan to the availability pile so it helps a bit.

Was it you who suggested we just take our lumps in 2021, draft an OT, let Foles shit himself towards a 4-12 record, dump Pace/Nagy, and attack QB next year with a fresh leadership team? Someone did, I'm starting to like that plan lol...

I think I may have been the one your thinking of. I think it's the best shot we have for long term success. It would make next year really suck. I don't know if we get to 4-12 but I think 5 or 6 wins with Foles would be the most we could hope for.

But we are the Bears so with our luck we would end up get 8 or 9 wins every year and never get in a position to draft a new QB.

[HurricaneBear]

Ive thought about it alot and you know what I'd love Watson here. Wanted him the year he was drafted. Thought for sure that was who we were trading up for. I dont like the compensation it would take but its not my team so whatever I guess. If he were a Bear i'd cheer for him just like I did Cutler when I didn't agree with that trade either. But the thing I can't get past - why would Watson want to be a Bear? Chicago is not a destination offensive players want to go to. History doesn't sell many athletes now adays nor a "rabid fan base". If they want a big media market they are going to try for New York or maybe LA. And then there's the whole, the Bears drafted Trubisky over Watson and didn't even do extensive interviews/dinners/etc with Watson. He clearly hasnt forgotten that based on his comments last season. So why in the world would Watson EVER want to come to Chicago?

[The Cooler King]

I don’t see that as an impossibility. The Jets are being batted around too. Guys at this level want the media market as they can earn more that way than their NFL salary anyways, New York - Chicago - LA being premium media markets. He’d be the biggest star in one of the biggest media markets in the country. We also have a talented defense which would be a big step up from that horrible unit in Houston. And a pass first offense that he would be driving.

It’s not a given but my guess is he’d waive his no trade to play in Chicago or New York.

I'd say the Jets have a better chance. They have Saleh, who was one of the 2-3 coaches Watson wanted the Texans to interview (Frazier and Bienemy the others). They also have the ability to surround him with more talent.

But, you might be right. The QB landscape in the AFC is pretty impressive, so Watson's easiest path to the postseason is probably the NFC. I still think there's places that give Watson a better shot, but who knows. I didn't think the Bears could land Cutler or Mack either.

Yes the dearth of QB talent in the NFC is a motivating factor to be aggressive. All the great young QBs are in the AFC and Lawrence and possibly Fields/Wilson will go to the AFC. Whichever NFC team gets a great young QB in the next couple years could rule their division and conference in the latter half of this decade if they do it right.

[IE]

How about Stafford to the Raiders and Carr to the Bears?

[WagonForce]

If it's me, I'm rolling with Foles, a veteran backup, and a draft pick that is hopefully never active their rookie season. For the vet backup, my preference is Fitz but it's because I like the player not because I think it makes particular sense. If the Bears somehow landed Fitz I see him starting before the halfway point.

Last thing I want is Pace to 'get aggressive' and trade away picks to move up and get a QB with an eye towards him starting even some of the games in 2021. I want the team to take the draft as it comes and either draft a QB that falls to them or look to trade back. Whatever happens, you draft a developmental QB somewhere and try to create an environment for him to grow.

Given the situation I fully expect picks to be traded, an otherwise promising rookie to be brought in who is quickly crushed by immediate NFL expectations and an aging roster that is starting to fall apart without young, cheap, talent coming up on the depth chart.

If the Bears are serious about competing for the division more than once a decade they should take a long term view of the club. If their leaders are more focused on saving their careers/cushy jobs we will get more of the same I think.

[dave99]

Usually, someone in upper management, the GM, The team president, the owner, somebody is thinking long term . Somehow, the Bears have managed to create a dynamic where everyone is under enormous pressure to turn things around tomorrow, and as the saying goes, short term thinking drives out long term strategy.

I think the Bears should stick with Foles, build the lines and do what they can to save the receiver position. After all, Foles played most of his snaps with a tissue paper line and an OC jumping from play to play like a crack addled jackrabbit. He might do all right if given some time and an actual offensive strategy to execute. Getting rid of Pagano and his amazing disappearing defense may also help.

If 2021 starts circling the drain lets hope it continues all the way down and maybe give the team some new hope with a fresh GM, Coach and high first round pick in 2022. But then again, maybe not.

Because being a Bears fan means never having to say:
Well at least we have a QB.

[IE]

an OC jumping from play to play like a crack addled jackrabbit.

That's an insult to crack rabbits.

[DevilsProspect]

Think I would try and sign Winston and not reach for one in draft.

My perfect world would be to trade Foles even if a portion neeeded to be eaten (though I doubt they will let him go this year, IF someone else wanted him).

Would give Winston a shot at being the starter and let Foles back him up. Winston did turn the ball over quite a bit, but still can make a lot of throws. Also to note on him, after his last year in TB he got his vision corrected. Apparently he couldn’t even read the scoreboard! How much does this affect his play? Who knows? But worth a shot, he has the tools to put up numbers and is mobile enough. I can’t see him costing too, he has a small window to show something. He could get a year 2yr voidable contract if he proves himself.

Even with him, I would target Newman in the 3rd round. Spend the first two picks on line. (Maybe WR in 2nd, unless they sign a FA).

You lost me at "give Winston a shot" I want NOTHING to do with the clown. Character has to matter and he has none.

In that case, bring Trubisky back.

[malk]

The calls to give up three 1st rounders for Watson are absolutely baffling to me. We're not blessed with cap space and would need to find $35-37m a year to have him on the roster, so that pretty much rules out free agency to improve the team. Then we've given up our best chances at improving in the draft for years to come.

We've got holes in the offensive line and receiver on offense plus some ageing players on defence. Irrespective of how good Watson could be there's no way we win a superbowl with him and the roster that he'd be forced to compete with.

If we'd saved up some cap space previously, no Foles, Quinn, Graham etc. then it might have been a viable option (of course I wouldn't have loved it) but in our current situation? Madness!

Actually think about the comparison. Would we be better off with:

A) Watson.
B) Trubisky, Robinson, 1st round tackle, top free agent tackle/guard, top free agent edge rusher/CB/Hicks-Hicks replacement in free agency.

Yes we all want a great QB in Soldier Field that isn't wearing oppo colours but Watson isn't the way to do it.

[dplank]

If you aren’t committed to spending 35M or more on a QB, then you aren’t valuing the position properly. That’s the lower end of the going rate for an upper end QB now.

Watson only costs 10M next year, and our cap situation improves significantly after next season when his price rises to the 35M level. Price is a non issue here IMO.

As for picks, if we don’t get a new starter via trade or free agency, then we will certainly spend one of those 3 1st round picks on a QB - so the real cost is 2 IMO.

Also, your option B above is way off base. No way we can sign Trubisky, ARob, top end CB/edge, and a top end T - nope. I mean, not even close man.

Hope that helps unbaffle

[malk]

If you aren’t committed to spending 35M or more on a QB, then you aren’t valuing the position properly. That’s the lower end of the going rate for an upper end QB now.

Watson only costs 10M next year, and our cap situation improves significantly after next season when his price rises to the 35M level. Price is a non issue here IMO.

As for picks, if we don’t get a new starter via trade or free agency, then we will certainly spend one of those 3 1st round picks on a QB - so the real cost is 2 IMO.

Also, your option B above is way off base. No way we can sign Trubisky, ARob, top end CB/edge, and a top end T - nope. I mean, not even close man.

Hope that helps unbaffle

Price is *never* a non issue. There's a cap and eventually it'll come to bite.

But, as ever, one shouldn't value a position in abstract. Most upper end QBs now don't win rings. Brady is the master because he takes below market rate deals. Even now where he's upped how much he's making, it's still less than he could get. He's also benefiting from the Bucs coming off a long period where they've only had to spend a lot on a QB for one year. To be clear that doesn't automatically mean they're good, there's lots of a ways to waste cap, but it certainly helps.

Ask Aaron Rodgers.

To clarify on the comparison. I didn't use a pick as I added Trubisky. Now you can swap him and use a 1st round pick but then that adds around $5m to the cap depending on where that pick is drafted in R1. then on the free agents:

Watson = $35m (point taken about next year).

Trubisky = $10m
Robinson = $15m
Top tackle/guard = $15m
Top other = $15m

Which anyone can see I've made a bollocks of! Also I should qualify that by "top" I don't mean a new market making deal, top 10 is probably a better descriptor for those figures and perhaps "quality" would be better. But still, it's Trubisky/draft pick and Robinson and a really good free agent at a position of need vs Watson. Plus the picks which are incredibly valuable as long as you don't keep whiffing on QBs.

[wab]

The calls to give up three 1st rounders for Watson are absolutely baffling to me. We're not blessed with cap space and would need to find $35-37m a year to have him on the roster, so that pretty much rules out free agency to improve the team. Then we've given up our best chances at improving in the draft for years to come.

We've got holes in the offensive line and receiver on offense plus some ageing players on defence. Irrespective of how good Watson could be there's no way we win a superbowl with him and the roster that he'd be forced to compete with.

If we'd saved up some cap space previously, no Foles, Quinn, Graham etc. then it might have been a viable option (of course I wouldn't have loved it) but in our current situation? Madness!

Actually think about the comparison. Would we be better off with:

A) Watson.
B) Trubisky, Robinson, 1st round tackle, top free agent tackle/guard, top free agent edge rusher/CB/Hicks-Hicks replacement in free agency.

Yes we all want a great QB in Soldier Field that isn't wearing oppo colours but Watson isn't the way to do it.

I don't think it's that dire, but it's not easy. The Bears are in pretty good shape from a cap standpoint after next season. It's the compensation that makes it hard, because by brining in Watson, you pretty much strip yourself of the ability to surround him with cheap young talent for 3 years.