Chicago has two top-5 picks and haven't had any success with Justin Fields. The Giants don't appear to be in the running for a top-3 pick to have a legit shot at Williams or Maye.
Is trading this year's first round pick to Chicago for Fields an option? He appears to be the type of QB that Daboll has had experience with (Hurts, Tua, Allen) and is still on his rookie deal.
It could be an option, although the Bears have gotten no better with him, and while he has shown some improvement it has not been dramatic. And so we'd be getting him for one year of his rookie deal (plus the 5th year option which I'm assuming we'd exercise if we liked him enough to trade for him).
It's easy to say "well he's been on the Bears", and that would be a fair comment, but great QBs elevate even really crappy teams. See Stroud. Fields has not done that. So I'm not sure I would want to get into a situation where I'm trading for this guy and then likely having to sign him in a couple years. He has shown no evidence of being able to lift those around him, which is what I want to see from a high first round QB like him. I'd rather keep looking.
A third and I might be interested.
Nooooooooooooooooo. Despite winning the game those two 4th quarter turnovers is a big red flag.
Please god no.
You might as well ask Kyle Murray, anybody as well
The answer to your question is absolutely not. I honestly cannot remember a time when a mediocre quarterback went to another team in became an instant Super Bowl champion, caliber quarterback....
How much rather use a draft pick to get a quarterback in this draft whether it be Michigan quarterback or LSU I'm fine with either one
Fields hasnt had much of a supporting cast in Chicago and after 3 years hasnt taken a real big step foward either.
At the end of last year he looked to be turning a corner but that didnt carry over into this year.
Saw a stat that he has been pressured on the highest % of dropbacks of any QB (he was 2nd in the graphic Rich posted to Jones). That doesn't make me want him any more or less. He has some physical gifts and makes some wow plays, but no where near consistently enough for me to think he is the future franchise QB for the Giants.
NO
Quote from: uconnjack8 on December 01, 2023, 08:32:55 AMFields hasnt had much of a supporting cast in Chicago and after 3 years hasnt taken a real big step foward either.
At the end of last year he looked to be turning a corner but that didnt carry over into this year.
Saw a stat that he has been pressured on the highest % of dropbacks of any QB (he was 2nd in the graphic Rich posted to Jones). That doesn't make me want him any more or less. He has some physical gifts and makes some wow plays, but no where near consistently enough for me to think he is the future franchise QB for the Giants.
That's how I feel. He clearly has some talent, and I agree he hasn't had much in Chicago (albeit DJ Moore is excellent), but if he were legitimately great he'd be elevating others and would just be having more of an impact than he has. Elite QBs' teams don't pick top 3 in the draft three years after the guy arrived.
So the way I view it would be getting at best a perhaps good but not elite QB at the tail end of his rookie contract. Ie, it would make no sense to do it if we don't view him as our long term guy. And I don't think the Giants should take that view, myself.
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on December 01, 2023, 08:57:28 AMThat's how I feel. He clearly has some talent, and I agree he hasn't had much in Chicago (albeit DJ Moore is excellent), but if he were legitimately great he'd be elevating others and would just be having more of an impact than he has. Elite QBs' teams don't pick top 3 in the draft three years after the guy arrived.
So the way I view it would be getting at best a perhaps good but not elite QB at the tail end of his rookie contract. Ie, it would make no sense to do it if we don't view him as our long term guy. And I don't think the Giants should take that view, myself.
He may not be legitimately great right now, but with better coaching from Daboll, who has worked with other top QBs with a very similar skill set and style of play, I think it could work out for him here.
It depends on the options available in the off-season. If the options are Daniels, Fields, and Jones, I'd rank them like this:
1. Draft Jayden Daniels with the first round pick.
2. Trade a mid-round pick for Justin Fields.
3. Roll with Daniel Jones and plan for another double digit loss season and another top-10 pick the following year.
One of the issues with Fields is there is only one year left on his rookie deal. They'd have to make an immediate decision on the 5th year option, which I assume they'd decline. If he played well in 2024, they'd be stuck in a similar situation as they were with Daniel Jones, a QB you can't trust entering free agency.
Heck NO!
I really miss the old days/pre-free agency days when you watched the same Giants on Sunday like Simms and LT. Now with free agency and Dungeons & Dragons football -- every Tom, Dick, & Harry has to propose ridiculous trade ideas and, I cannot even open up a web browser without seeing some one who does it for a living.
Quote from: Doc16LT56 on December 01, 2023, 09:03:21 AMIt depends on the options available in the off-season. If the options are Daniels, Fields, and Jones, I'd rank them like this:
1. Draft Jayden Daniels with the first round pick.
2. Trade a mid-round pick for Justin Fields.
3. Roll with Daniel Jones and plan for another double digit loss season and another top-10 pick the following year.
One of the issues with Fields is there is only one year left on his rookie deal. They'd have to make an immediate decision on the 5th year option, which I assume they'd decline. If he played well in 2024, they'd be stuck in a similar situation as they were with Daniel Jones, a QB you can't trust entering free agency.
Do we think the cost of Fields in a trade would only be a third or fourth round pick (ie "mid round")? I am not so sure about that. I totally get that his value has declined precipitously given he will be entering the final year of his rookie contract, but he is still a starting QB who has shown some ability on a bad team (albeit has not excelled). I would have guessed he would command more than that, but maybe I'm wrong.
If you're right and the cost would only be something like a third rounder, then I totally agree that that would be a viable option and, given that's the cost, i wouldn't necessarily feel compelled to exercise the 5th year option either. And then you effectively have a one year QB with no further obligation unless you want one.
If he were to command more than a third rounder though, I don't love the idea of doing the trade unless our front office legitimately has the view that he is a long term option, in which case you might as well do the 5th year option.
Overall I find it hard to get myself to really be interested, but if it's just a mid-rounder then that's a different proposition than what I was envisioning it to be.
I guess the grass is always greener... I'm not sure why the Giants would want the Bear's failed QB.
I could probably talk myself into it, mainly going back to his scouting report coming out of college because I really liked him a lot then. Less so now. I don't know I guess there's not a ton of difference between him and Jones. Maybe a little more health? If they could somehow unload Jones' contract in the process and bring in Fields on his cheap rookie deal for 1 or 2 more years just to see what happens I'm fine but I think if you're going to go get a QB go get a rookie rather than a guy that's about to be replaced.
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on December 01, 2023, 09:34:35 AMDo we think the cost of Fields in a trade would only be a third or fourth round pick (ie "mid round")? I am not so sure about that. I totally get that his value has declined precipitously given he will be entering the final year of his rookie contract, but he is still a starting QB who has shown some ability on a bad team (albeit has not excelled). I would have guessed he would command more than that, but maybe I'm wrong.
If you're right and the cost would only be something like a third rounder, then I totally agree that that would be a viable option and, given that's the cost, i wouldn't necessarily feel compelled to exercise the 5th year option either. And then you effectively have a one year QB with no further obligation unless you want one.
If he were to command more than a third rounder though, I don't love the idea of doing the trade unless our front office legitimately has the view that he is a long term option, in which case you might as well do the 5th year option.
Overall I find it hard to get myself to really be interested, but if it's just a mid-rounder then that's a different proposition than what I was envisioning it to be.
No, I agree with everything you said here. I have no idea what Chicago could theoretically get for Fields. I might be interested if the discussion is a mid-round pick. Higher than that and I lose interest. I'm not sure I'd want to do a 3rd rounder. 4th rounder, yes, I'd be happy to take a one year shot with Fields. No idea if that's even possible. Just saying that would be my one call to Chicago.
But again, it brings us back to the Daniel Jones free agency scenario. If he plays poorly, have you really gained anything? If he plays well, are you willing to spend real money on him? He would have to have a major breakthrough in order to be anything more than a one year rental.
Quote from: Fletch on December 01, 2023, 09:26:07 AMHeck NO!
I really miss the old days/pre-free agency days when you watched the same Giants on Sunday like Simms and LT. Now with free agency and Dungeons & Dragons football -- every Tom, Dick, & Harry has to propose ridiculous trade ideas and, I cannot even open up a web browser without seeing some one who does it for a living.
I think a lot of fans feel that way for every sport, but it is in the past and it's not going back.
Personally, my feelings have always been mixed on it. I certainly wish there were some players the team could have retained, but I its important for the players to have some choices of where they play after a certain amount of time and are not completely at the mercy of billionaire owners.
Baseball was not always like that. Not in my lifetime anyway. And not for along time anyway.
Quote from: Fletch on December 01, 2023, 11:04:30 AMBaseball was not always like that. Not in my lifetime anyway. And not for along time anyway.
Baseball, which was the most popular sport then, was the first to have free agency as we know it. I believe it was in 1976.
Just to add, I agree with you completely with all the trade suggestions.
Quote from: Doc16LT56 on December 01, 2023, 09:57:01 AMNo, I agree with everything you said here. I have no idea what Chicago could theoretically get for Fields. I might be interested if the discussion is a mid-round pick. Higher than that and I lose interest. I'm not sure I'd want to do a 3rd rounder. 4th rounder, yes, I'd be happy to take a one year shot with Fields. No idea if that's even possible. Just saying that would be my one call to Chicago.
But again, it brings us back to the Daniel Jones free agency scenario. If he plays poorly, have you really gained anything? If he plays well, are you willing to spend real money on him? He would have to have a major breakthrough in order to be anything more than a one year rental.
Agreed. He would need to be exceptional for me to want to sign him beyond 2024. I have no interest in handing a big second contract to just a "good" QB. Maybe there's a one in ten chance (if that) of him leaping to heights in year four where I'd be interested in keeping him.
So you're right - it's fair to question what you have gained if you do that, given you have lost a pick. I guess you gain a longshot chance to have your QB for the next decade without giving up anything major, and worst case you get competent QB play for a year. It really isn't that palatable of a proposition in my opinion. I suspect if this guy is going to be a legit star we would be aware of that by now, or at least more hopeful of the chances of that happening.
Needless to say, I'll be delighted if the Beas announce that he's not going to be available because they're planning on keeping him and looking to trade out of the first pick and intend to take two non-QBs. I don't think I'd be so delighted about that if I were a Bears fan though.
Not sure Fields gives us the boost in QB play we all want.
Would be ironic if it happened considering it was a trade with us that landed him in Chicago originally and the added drama around the players we received in return