2024 NFL Draft Position/Tracker - Final Pick #2

[BBLXIX]

Interesting write up on Fields from a Bears fan perspective. The TLDR of it; Seems like if they were to keep Fields it would be more of an emotional, cultural decision. The math really isn't adding up as far as the statistics and financials are concerned. Also some interesting little facts in there about QB draft history.

https://www.dabearsblog.com/2024/the-bears-should-move-on-from-justin-fields#more-36183

 

 

I think any trade talk will be up in smoke by March or April. If they pass on drafting a QB at #1 again their GM more & more hitches himself to the belief that Fields can be the one that takes them over the top, even though it seems like the only thing they know about Fields entering Year 4 is that he's really fast, and happens to play QB.

 

 

[Panninho]

15 hours ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

No, 5 is our floor now. 

 

It's actually possible for us to win and stay at number 2. We'd need NE and AZ to win and the tiebreakers to go our way. 

 

I'm not suggesting we try it. Let's just lose and hope we hold number 2. 

 

That is a whole lot of tiebreakers that potentially have to go our way (Tennessee, Chargers, Giants, Arizona, Patriots). It's not impossible but I don't want to bother about that, so let's just lose the game please. I am also not sure if 5 is really our floor as I don't think the SOS of the Chargers and the Titans right now far enough off for them to not be able to jump us in certain scenarios.

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

12 hours ago, kingdaddy said:

Wouldn't it be something if our hand was forced by picking 3rd and we had to take Harrison as the bpa and then followed up with someone like Nix or McCarthy and it worked out to take us to 4 SB wins cause McCarthy turned out to be the next Brady and Harrison is better than his dad was? Stranger things have happened. 

By the way, if we did take Harrison wouldn't it make sense to trade back into the late 1st round to grab the QB to get the 5th year of the rookie contract? It would cost us both 2nds but could be worth it if the guy we really want is still there? This is gonna be an awesome draft to follow....Magic's gonna be in the war room calling the players and high fiivng everyone. 

Can't wait for that weekend. 

 

It would be a wild twist of fortune if it went down like that because picking from the less heralded pile of QBs in a draft versus the dudes who are deemed as likely special is what we are used to - so if this time, we did the same thing but the Jason Campbell turns out better than the Aaron Rodgers and Alex Smith where its us playing that same old card that has burned us in the past but this time it worked -- wouuld be wild.  I suspect it would burn us but on the wild chance it didn't, it would be awesome.    

10 hours ago, method man said:

Yeah I don’t get it. That is a team that is light on talent that needs to rebuild with a rookie QB

 

Agree.  I think the mock drafters like to throw in Marvin Harrison in the top 3 to make the top look interesting.  But agree no way NE picking that high is skipping a QB.

Edited January 3 by Skinsinparadise

[Skinsinparadise]

10 hours ago, skinsfan66 said:

I think you need to give Atlanta a little credit for for not taking almost all the QB's they had a chance to take. 2020 they had the16th pick no chance, 2021 Lawrence, Z. Wilson, Trey lance, they had the 4th pick and took Pitts those to bust QB's were 2nd and 3rd.  Lawerence is having a not so no.1 pick in the draft, not to mention they could have taken Fields who they also passed on.  They picked 8th the next year 2022 (Londoun) I guess they should have taken K. Pickett the only QB drafted in the1st. rd. They had the 8th pick 2023 QB's Young, Stroud, A. Richardson. Looks more like they did a pretty good job to avoid the top overal and the 3rd. out for the year picks. So out of that who would have been better picks at QB? Stroud who would have cost a boat load and Lawrence who would have cost even more if they had the draft capital. Jet's, 49ers, Bears,Colts? Steelers,( Pathers have no 1st. this year that would be no.1) They all  F...up, The Falcons did not. They pick 9th this year, they stayed away from the busts the last 3 years had no shot at pick16 in 2020. Not to mention Pitts had a injury and lost a year. Maybe they get their QB this year? I can think of many who tried to build around a Top QB and failed or will most likely, Carolina being the latest.  

 

I think they'd be better if they took Fields even though he's been a dissapointment -- ironic that Fields is linked the most to Atlanta now in a hypothetical trade.

 

The point though has nothing to do with that. 

 

The point was some here push two ideas.

 

A. Build your roster first.  Find a QB later.

 

B.  A supporting cast often makes the QB.

 

The point is Atlanta has played this card three years running and the team is "meh"

[Panninho]

14 hours ago, illone said:

Chicago has played great with Fields the past 6-7 games, not sure I am quick to assume they will move on.  Eberflus might be safe, too. Plus it seems like Bears players like Fields and support him sticking around, that has to be considered by the Bears decision makers... no?

 

I think it is very unlikely that the Bears move forward with Fields and I think it would be a mistake for them. While the Bears have played some decent football recently, that was mostly due to their defense that has played really well these last couple of games (they rank 1st in EPA allowed since week 10). Fields was not bad by any means but the narrative that he has played great is also a bit weird. They are 4-1 over their last 5 games and Fields has accounted for 5 TDs (rushing and passing) and 5 TOs (3 more fumbles that the Bears recovered). During that time that have played the Vikings (without Cousins), the Falcons, the Cardinals, the Browns and the Lions. Against the two good teams they went 1-1 and against the stout Browns defense, Fields did not break 200y and threw 1 TD and 2 interceptions. The most yards he has thrown for in those games is against the Falcons with 268.

 

Now there were also some drops and he made some really impressive throws in some of the games. But he is still playing like a below average QB this season (also over the last couple of weeks)

 

 

PFF basically grades him as an average QB over these couple of wins:

 

He is now in year 3 and there are still tons of question marks. You have to make the decision with basically this in mind: Can we get this level production from Williams/Maye? I think the chances are pretty good that they can provide that. But you would get that for 5 years on a rookie contract instead of 2 years before you have to extend Fields. Sure, if you keep Fields and trade down, you could improve the rest of the squad on cheap rookie deals but Maye/Williams offer significant upside when it comes to QB play. I think Fields is an average starter in this league and that is his ceiling. We know who he is right now and I doubt you can win big with him. Their defense is playing like a top3 defense right now, they have a decent OL, a good TE and a great WR and they are still going nowhere in year 3 of Fields.

 

I think the decision is only hard because the fans seem to love Fields. In my opinion the Fans are making a classical mistake though because they attribute too much of the recent success to the wrong side of the ball. If the defense had played bad and the offense the same way as they have these last couple of weeks, the Bears would have lost most of the games and the Fans would probably be ready to move on from fields even if he played the way he played recently. 

This situation overall is pretty spicy for the front office. If they decide to move on and take a QB (which from my POV would be the right decision), he better be working out. The fans want Fields and it's not going to be easy for a new QB to step into that environment. If they keep Fields though and pass on a QB that works out, this is going to haunt them forever. So I think you take the emotions out and make the rational choice and draft a QB...which makes it even more important that we secure that #2 pick and get one of Maye/Williams.

 

Edited January 3 by Panninho

[BrentMeisterGeneral]

I just wanna see us get aggressive, if the new GM falls in love with Caleb, get your man.

 

We’ve been **** for 30 years, what’s the worse that can happen if you swing and miss? we’ll still be ****, but that can’t make us stop swinging.

Edited January 3 by BrentMeisterGeneral

[Skinsinparadise]

Looks like Aldridge has switched from they got to go O line to now being on board with QB.  Not that it matters but it struck me because before he was the only one covering this team who was on the no QB train. 

 

 

Edited January 3 by Skinsinparadise

[skinsfan66]

47 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I think they'd be better if they took Fields even though he's been a dissapointment -- ironic that Fields is linked the most to Atlanta now in a hypothetical trade.

 

The point though has nothing to do with that. 

 

The point was some here push two ideas.

 

A. Build your roster first.  Find a QB later.

 

B.  A supporting cast often makes the QB.

 

The point is Atlanta has played this card three years running and the team is "meh"

My point is Atlanta had no real chance to pick a different making QB. It would have been no better taking Fields in the draft. Maybe now as a free agent 4 years later? And they made the right choice in passing on some busts.

I know what you were saying about supporting cast, It goes both ways. They would have no better having drafted Fields 3 years ago and really no other shot at a difference making QB. I can make many points about teams making the wrong choice of taking a QB first,

[Skinsinparadise]

19 minutes ago, skinsfan66 said:

My point is Atlanta had no real chance to pick a different making QB. It would have been no better taking Fields in the draft. Maybe now as a free agent 4 years later? And they made the right choice in passing on some busts.

I know what you were saying about supporting cast, It goes both ways. They would have no better having drafted Fields 3 years ago and really no other shot at a difference making QB. I can make many points about teams making the wrong choice of taking a QB first,

 

Whether they were smart to not take Will Levis, or Justin Fields or whatever is debatable. Your thought that they would have been no better with Fields over Ridder -- i couldn't disagree more.

 

But regardless, its not about making right or wrong choices at QBs.  We all accede there is a crap shoot component to that.  But you take that risk when you are picking high let alone picking high in a touted draft for QBs.

 

The point is as much as I love Marvin Harrison Jr.  He won't change the trajectory of the team.  Likewise, 3 really talented high end offensive playmakers like Atlanta took and heck Atlanta even has that O line, too.

Edited January 3 by Skinsinparadise

[Probos]

21 hours ago, HigSkin said:

 

 

Wow - what a hot take.  💤

[Skinsinparadise]

The Bears are going to be like the Cardinals were on sterioids when they dangled the idea that it was extremely hard call as to riding with Josh Rosen or drafting Kyler Murray.

 

Of course the speculation serves them.  Smart teams (not like us) try to amp the value of their trade asset.

 

No doubt Fields is a better player than Rosen.  And Fields is playing better as the season is progressing.  But I still think the Bears draft a QB.  The money variable being the kicker.

Edited January 3 by Skinsinparadise

[BrentMeisterGeneral]

I’m not going to pretend I know a lot about the intricacies of QB play, but I’ll say this, I like Daniels and Maye, but I LOVE Williams.

 

The plays he can produce are unbelievable, it’s probably a lazy comparison with Mahomes but he genuinely does look like Patrick the way he evades rush is so so clever, you can see the arm strength even on the move and he produces moments that I doubt the other two can.

 

I don’t care if we have to trade up, he could be a player that this fan base has deserved to see in the Burgundy and Gold for far too long.

[skinsfan66]

18 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Whether they were smart to not take Will Levis, or Justin Fields or whatever is debatable. Your thought that they would have been no better with Fields over Ridder -- i couldn't disagree more.

 

But regardless, its not about making right or wrong choices at QBs.  We all accede there is a crap shoot component to that.  But you take that risk when you are picking high let alone picking high in a touted draft for QBs.

 

The point is as much as I love Marvin Harrison Jr.  He won't change the trajectory of the team.  Likewise, 3 really talented high end offensive playmakers like Atlanta took and heck Atlanta even has that O line, too.

You left out part of the equation It would be Kyle Pitts/Ridder versus Fields or Mac Jones. They Passed on Zach W. and Trey L too in a trade up.  That was the Only time they had a top 4 pick. No Trever L. without a RG3 type trade if that was possible. They passed on 4 QB's in the 1st. rd. that have not lived up to it.

I agree at 2/3 you have to take a QB at that spot if you think one is the real deal but you do not if you like another player better. You point was QB only is the right way to go, (just look at Atlanta). My point is QB is not the only choice and the Falcons were right to pass even though they have no QB. My point using MHJ since you listed him could be a better choice than the other 2, They have him rated as the best in 10 years or? Look what T.Hill does for Tua. 

 

[HigSkin]

13 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

The Bears are going to be like the Cardinals were on sterioids when they dangled the idea that it was extremely hard call as to riding with Josh Rosen or drafting Kyler Murray.

 

Of course the speculation serves them.  Smart teams (not like us) try to amp the value of their trade asset.

 

No doubt Fields is a better player than Rosen.  And Fields is playing better as the season is progressing.  But I still think the Bears draft a QB.  The money variable being the kicker.

 

It's funny that between media and fans there was this narritive that Bears should keep Fields then all the sudden yesterday there was a slew of "what could Chicago get for Fields" leaks.  Bears FO leaking that?  Probably because they are taking a QB.  LOL

[JamesMadisonSkins]

I have a hard time thinking the Bears will not take a QB at #1. And that QB is almost certainly Caleb Williams. Maybe they love Maye or Daniels, but I would think if they stay at #1 the pick is Williams. Trading down would be getting too cute, especially if they've already traded away Fields, it takes away a level of control for them. 

 

I think we should be focusing on Maye/Daniels for now, since there's a 95% chance that's the decision we'll have to be making. 

Edited January 3 by JamesMadisonSkins

[MisterPinstripe]

They must trade Fields before the draft right? Have to think his trade value would drop a chunk of they drafted Williams and then tried to trade him?

[JamesMadisonSkins]

3 minutes ago, MisterPinstripe said:

They must trade Fields before the draft right? Have to think his trade value would drop a chunk of they drafted Williams and then tried to trade him?

 

Yeah, definitely. And I think whether or not he is traded will be pretty telling for their plans at #1. Once he's traded, we know they're staying there and drafting a QB. If he hasn't been traded before the draft, everything is on the table, and surely conversations will have been had prior to the draft with teams interested in Fields, but the Bears negotiation leverage drops once they draft a QB at #1 and try to trade Fields, so I have to think he's dealt before the draft, or they're not going QB at #1.

[method man]

12 hours ago, Chump Bailey said:

 

Outside of overrating Wylie, this was pretty good analysis off the board. It was interesting to see these guys get hyped about what the team can do with the cap space and picks. The key takeaway from this is that FA is overall deeper in defensive talent and this year’s draft is much deeper in offensive talent. Also Spotrac’s FA list is off - did not realize that Bryce Huff and Jon Greenard are also FAs. That only adds to the depth of the FA EDGE class. I totally agree with these guys that I think you double dip and pick up two of these starting caliber EDGE rushers in FA

Edited January 3 by method man

[Thinking Skins]

57 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

The Bears are going to be like the Cardinals were on sterioids when they dangled the idea that it was extremely hard call as to riding with Josh Rosen or drafting Kyler Murray.

 

Of course the speculation serves them.  Smart teams (not like us) try to amp the value of their trade asset.

 

No doubt Fields is a better player than Rosen.  And Fields is playing better as the season is progressing.  But I still think the Bears draft a QB.  The money variable being the kicker.

We've got to stop these comps of Fields and Howell with Rosen. Rosen had horrible stats over that rookie year, no desire to play, and couldn't even show that he belonged as a backup in this league. 

 

Both Fields and Howell have showed that they are starters in this league. I get the "on steroids" stuff, but its still not the same conversation. Its more like the Brees conversation (in SD) because its at least the same neighborhood (replacing one QB who may be good but his time to prove himself is running out with another young QB). Otherwise there are a handful of comps that I'd throw in that I'd say are better than Rosen because they just are better.

 

Or maybe we can think about the strategy of SF where they have a QB and continue to build around him. 

2017, they trade for Jimmy G but he gets hurt and they have CJ Beathard start 5 games (going 1-5). 

2018, they have Jimmy G but he's hurt again and they have Nick Mullins who stars 8 games goes 3-5 and has a 65% completion 13/10 TD/INT needs to be improved though. But he's a rookie. 

2019, they don't draft a QB though. they stick with the guys they have and go 13-3, with Jimmy G going playing 16 games. 

 

So what did they do in the draft instead of going after QB with a twice injured Jimmy G? 

2019 - Bosa, Debo Samuel,

2018 - (T) Mike McGlinchey,  Fred Warner, 

2017 - George Kittle

 

Like Doc Walker likes to say, are the people at the bottom of the standings the ones we want to be mimicking? 

[mistertim]

1 hour ago, skinsfan66 said:

You left out part of the equation It would be Kyle Pitts/Ridder versus Fields or Mac Jones. They Passed on Zach W. and Trey L too in a trade up.  That was the Only time they had a top 4 pick. No Trever L. without a RG3 type trade if that was possible. They passed on 4 QB's in the 1st. rd. that have not lived up to it.

I agree at 2/3 you have to take a QB at that spot if you think one is the real deal but you do not if you like another player better. You point was QB only is the right way to go, (just look at Atlanta). My point is QB is not the only choice and the Falcons were right to pass even though they have no QB. My point using MHJ since you listed him could be a better choice than the other 2, They have him rated as the best in 10 years or? Look what T.Hill does for Tua. 

 

 

QB is not always the only way to go with an ultra high pick, if you really don't have high grades on the QBs available with your high pick, but QB will absolutely always be HEAVILY weighted over any other position.

 

As it should be, because it's by far the most important position. So with a super high pick, QB is and should always be the first priority (unless you already have one and just had a bad year due to injury or something). If you have at least a good grade on a guy and he's available, you pull the trigger IMO. You may miss, but that's just the way it goes and worth the risk when it comes to trying to find an elite QB.

 

Whatever other elite blue chip prospects there are at other positions will eventually do nothing for you if you don't have a QB. Because no WR, no TE, no DT, no DE, no CB, none of those will have the effect of making you a perennial contender in the way a QB will.

 

IMO your hindsight takes are more or less pointless, because with hindsight you can literally cherry pick to make any case that suits you.

Edited January 3 by mistertim

[Rufus T Firefly]

9 hours ago, Panninho said:

 

That is a whole lot of tiebreakers that potentially have to go our way (Tennessee, Chargers, Giants, Arizona, Patriots). It's not impossible but I don't want to bother about that, so let's just lose the game please. I am also not sure if 5 is really our floor as I don't think the SOS of the Chargers and the Titans right now far enough off for them to not be able to jump us in certain scenarios.

 

 

Obviously, we all want to lose the game. And hopefully NE wins also. 

 

But it's actually mathematically impossible for Arizona, Tennessee and the Chargers to catch us in the tiebreaker at this point. 

Edited January 3 by Rufus T Firefly

[Voice_of_Reason]

4 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I think they'd be better if they took Fields even though he's been a dissapointment -- ironic that Fields is linked the most to Atlanta now in a hypothetical trade.

 

The point though has nothing to do with that. 

 

The point was some here push two ideas.

 

A. Build your roster first.  Find a QB later.

 

B.  A supporting cast often makes the QB.

 

The point is Atlanta has played this card three years running and the team is "meh"

I actually think Fields in Atlanta would be a great spot for him, the question is going to be, who's the coach and what system are they going to run, because after they lose tot the Saints this weekend (please make it so because that helps our draft position AND has the added benefit of making my wife happy, she's a Saints fan) Arthur Smith is likely out of a job.  Though he and Warren Sharpe can exchange mustache grooming tips.  

 

Wilson is going to land somewhere.

 

I think Jimmy G. is going to land up wherever Bill Belichick is somehow.  Maybe as the starter, maybe as a fill in, maybe as the backup. Maybe I'm connecting a dot that isn't there, but that's my guess at the moment.

 

Carr, who knows.  Based on Over The Cap, I don't think they can cut him, but they might be able to trade him. My bet is he stays in New Orleans one more year.

 

I think at the end of the day Baker will stay in Tampa.

 

Murray, that's a huge question.  It looks like he'd be a $46m cap hit in a trade.  That's crazy.  And an $81m cap hit if released, that's not possible.  Unless I'm missing something.  I think he's going to stay put.  

 

We really need to have that #2 pick so we get either Maye or Williams.  If we don't get there, we need to hope we can move to #1 and grab whoever we want, because NE is taking the other at #2.

 

If the Bears take Williams, that puts Fields on the market. I wonder if we'd trade a second for Fields and then draft MHJ at #3, and then have Fields + McLaurin + Harrison Jr. + Dotson + Robinson + (hopefully) a lot of new OL in the rest of the draft.

 

I wouldn't hate that.  Though it's more expensive because you have to pay Fields soon.  

 

I personally wouldn't want to draft Daniels at #3. That might change, but I'd probably go the "trade for Fields + draft MHJ" over "Draft Daniels" if it was me.  

[ThatNFLChick]

I don't think Murray is going anywhere. Gannon has never waivered from this and again confirmed yesterday he was their starting QB. That team plays hard for him

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

3 hours ago, skinsfan66 said:

You point was QB only is the right way to go, (just look at Atlanta). 

 

 

Nope it wasn't. 

 

My point was again:

 

A.  A supporting cast doesn't per se make the QB.

 

B.  you can run a high end build your supporting cast for three years in a row and still have a crap offense.

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

We've got to stop these comps of Fields and Howell with Rosen. Rosen had horrible stats over that rookie year, no desire to play, and couldn't even show that he belonged as a backup in this league. 

 

Both Fields and Howell have showed that they are starters in this league. I get the "on steroids" stuff, but its still not the same conversation. Its more like the Brees conversation (in SD) because its at least the same neighborhood (replacing one QB who may be good but his time to prove himself is running out with another young QB). Otherwise there are a handful of comps that I'd throw in that I'd say are better than Rosen because they just are better.

 

Or maybe we can think about the strategy of SF where they have a QB and continue to build around him. 

2017, they trade for Jimmy G but he gets hurt and they have CJ Beathard start 5 games (going 1-5). 

2018, they have Jimmy G but he's hurt again and they have Nick Mullins who stars 8 games goes 3-5 and has a 65% completion 13/10 TD/INT needs to be improved though. But he's a rookie. 

2019, they don't draft a QB though. they stick with the guys they have and go 13-3, with Jimmy G going playing 16 games. 

 

So what did they do in the draft instead of going after QB with a twice injured Jimmy G? 

2019 - Bosa, Debo Samuel,

2018 - (T) Mike McGlinchey,  Fred Warner, 

2017 - George Kittle

 

Like Doc Walker likes to say, are the people at the bottom of the standings the ones we want to be mimicking? 

 

Trying to figure how this point has anything to do with the post you quoted from me.

1 hour ago, mistertim said:

 

QB is not always the only way to go with an ultra high pick, if you really don't have high grades on the QBs available with your high pick, but QB will absolutely always be HEAVILY weighted over any other position.

 

As it should be, because it's by far the most important position. So with a super high pick, QB is and should always be the first priority (unless you already have one and just had a bad year due to injury or something). If you have at least a good grade on a guy and he's available, you pull the trigger IMO. You may miss, but that's just the way it goes and worth the risk when it comes to trying to find an elite QB.

 

Whatever other elite blue chip prospects there are at other positions will eventually do nothing for you if you don't have a QB. Because no WR, no TE, no DT, no DE, no CB, none of those will have the effect of making you a perennial contender in the way a QB will.

 

IMO your hindsight takes are more or less pointless, because with hindsight you can literally cherry pick to make any case that suits you.

 

Yeah exactly.

 

There are people here who pushed against this idea citing the philosophy of build the roster first or the supporting cast makes the QB.  

 

IMO if you like a QB and you are picking high.  Take that QB.  Simple as that.  You don't wait for the "right time".  the right time might never come.  You might not be picking that high again or maybe you are but its in a perceived bad draft for QBs.

 

Some are acting like this QB class is "meh" but at a minimum its a lauded class whether its mock draft media types or quotes from scouts-personnel.  

Edited January 3 by Skinsinparadise