3 hours ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

I understand this point,but the other thing is if you trade Fields,you are starting all over.

Well....think about it...with Fields ( who we both agree was not the problem)  the Bears had the worst record in the league.   Aren't they already starting all over?   Can't get any worse?

Now if they are already at the very bottom and starting over anyway.... the 2 year difference in paying a QB is huge.   

Fields is a question, because he had crap around him.  A rookie QB would be the same question.  Except you have more of a window putting talent around the rookie than you do Fields. 

Do you give up that opportunity? 

It's a wash really.  The Bears really need to keep an open mind on this.  Listen to all trade offers too.  To me their best case scenario is if they like a rookie QB and get a really good offer for Fields.   That gets them assets, time and the guy they prefer best.    

But if they really like Fields best,chances are that they will get the best trade offer for pick 1.   It's in their best interest to raise the value of both Fields and the pick, and just let it all happen. 

Fields can do well in the RPO, just most of the team sucks. Also don't think he's right between the ears to reach his full potential. They could trade back, get a haul then find a QB in the next few yrs. There's something to say about going either way. Doesn't have anything to do with me so that's about all I'll think about it. We know 3 - 4 QB's will go before us, at least if we stay at 10

1 hour ago, mjkline1958 said:

Fields can do well in the RPO, just most of the team sucks. Also don't think he's right between the ears to reach his full potential. They could trade back, get a haul then find a QB in the next few yrs. There's something to say about going either way. Doesn't have anything to do with me so that's about all I'll think about it. We know 3 - 4 QB's will go before us, at least if we stay at 10

That's the point i was trying to make last night. A young QB on a really bad team just isn't gonna be good.

This offseason should tell the Bears what they need to know. He's either gonna up his game or he isn't.  Hurts worked his butt off nad really upped his game but it sure didn't hurt that he has the best O line in the NFL in front of him

14 hours ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

I did,he was traded Feb 18th 2021 to the COLTS-look it up!!!!! This is Feb 2023 that is 2 years????

You might want to check again. He couldn’t have been trade then because the new league hadn’t begun yet. Not until March could he have been traded. You can’t even get that part right…of the terrible argument you are trying to carry on.

12 hours ago, mjkline1958 said:

https://saintswire.usatoday.com/2023/02/07/saints-raiders-derek-carr-trade-compensation-agreement/

That would effect our second round pick we acquired from them obviously.

10 hours ago, joemas6 said:

 Cincy isn't as good at S, they have a rookie compared to CGJ.

They have an All Pro pending FA you might want to look into…especially if you want to field a top S next season.

59 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

You might want to check again. He couldn’t have been trade then because the new league hadn’t begun yet. Not until March could he have been traded. You can’t even get that part right…of the terrible argument you are trying to carry on.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/revisiting-carson-wentz-trade-on-one-year-anniversary-of-colts-eagles-blockbuster-deal/   Wrong AGAIN!!!! And while the deal can't be finalized(paperwork) until march, in essence the trade was made Feb 18th(ever hear of agreed in principle or is that new to you also???). Another mark in the loss column for Ham. So KMA because I proved you wrong yet again. Facts are facts whether you like them or not. I rank your posts right up there with the Hindenburg,total disasters

10 hours ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Feb 2021 to Feb 2023 is 2 years where i went to school. Wentz played in Indy and with the wuss,that is 2 years. I got tired trying to show logic,it doesn't work with some here. ASG tried also,to no avail. if you can't get the gist of the posts without posting every damn word you need to then I will stop posting because it's not worth trying to explain every damn word. It should be an enjoyable place,not calling someone out because there was a word added or left out. Once again if I need to post every damn word I will stop and just enjoy watching my team. I'm not here for semantics. I read your posts Joe and understand what is said. I'm sure I could got through every damn word and find one you missed LOL. I'm not here for that

Are we trying to win the SB in the same season Wentz played for the Commanders? If so then we obviously traded Wentz last season.

6 hours ago, joemas6 said:

The scenario of keeping Fields and drafting a QB with pick 1....that one I don't see at all. 

That is correct

1 minute ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Are we trying to win the SB in the same season Wentz played for the Commanders? If so then we obviously traded Wentz last season.

Still in denial HAHAHAHAHA unreal The Wuss season is over,Wentz completed the SECOND year he has been away from Philly. Colts 1 year,wuss 1 year = 2 years.You're going to argue with math now???? I'm just going to stay quiet and let you make a fool of yourself because you are doing a fine job at that

10 hours ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

I'm fine with that. Ham even stated at first even if they kept Fields they should take the top QB. To me that is senseless. Then it changed into trade Hurts.Ok that is possible yet a long shot IMO. They got Fields to begin the rebuild process. I don't run the Bears but calling Fields terrible is wrong if you don't know. Wonder what Fields would look like if he was here for 2-3 years,with the team we have. That is not a knock on Hurts,but I don't think Fields is the problem in Chicago and frankly until they get him some talent there is no way to know,but ham thinks he knows and I find that comedic

I didn’t call Fields terrible. I didn’t say Fields was the main problem in Chicago either. Now that we have established that….is Fields good enough to win a SB? That’s where I have major question marks. Nothing to do with how bad his team is in Chicago. I actually think he’s pretty exciting and a good fit for playing QB for a bad team. He’s good at all those things to carry a bad team. That’s where he excels. I don’t think he’s great at what you need to lead a good/great team like I’d want. If you guys can understand the difference I’m trying to explain.

10 hours ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

I understand this point,but the other thing is if you trade Fields,you are starting all over. i get the 5 years part,but we don't know how good he is because he's never had the team.To assume Fields sucks because the Bears suck is foolish when you DON'T KNOW. I also don;t know if a rookie QB would be any better because once again there is no team around either guy. You would just be repeating the Fields draft with a different name. They can trade the 1 back for alot of picks,get the guys in they need because they need to do it anyhow. If they still suck in 2 years,they should be near the top for a QB if they see Fields isn't cutting it. but by all accounts it's not him. So whatever. Sick of this subject. Now pick apart my sentence,word by word in the event I left some key word out because my god that's what's important here. We could get alot of trade value for Hurts too,should we do it????? We could save alot of money right? (Now Im totally sure someone thinks I want Hurts traded LOL) because that's how it works here. 

Starting all over from what? They are the worst team in the league. They are starting from square one. How much further backwards can they go than being the worst team?

6 hours ago, joemas6 said:

Well....think about it...with Fields ( who we both agree was not the problem)  the Bears had the worst record in the league.   Aren't they already starting all over?   Can't get any worse?

Now if they are already at the very bottom and starting over anyway.... the 2 year difference in paying a QB is huge.   

Fields is a question, because he had crap around him.  A rookie QB would be the same question.  Except you have more of a window putting talent around the rookie than you do Fields. 

Do you give up that opportunity? 

It's a wash really.  The Bears really need to keep an open mind on this.  Listen to all trade offers too.  To me their best case scenario is if they like a rookie QB and get a really good offer for Fields.   That gets them assets, time and the guy they prefer best.    

But if they really like Fields best,chances are that they will get the best trade offer for pick 1.   It's in their best interest to raise the value of both Fields and the pick, and just let it all happen. 

Yeah that will be up to the Bears. i can see this point as an option. What we agree on here(that some can't see) is that Fields has value,traded or not traded which again some deny. So the issue is not Fields,it's a technical decision by the Bears FO. Conversely it usually takes a year or 2 for a rook QB to "get with the program" Guys like Lawrence to now starting assert himself. Purdy asserted himself already because SF had the team already built around the QB position. The Bears don't have that. So really it's the question the Bears need to ask themselves,is giving up the 2 years experience Fields has worth starting over again. I believe that is the one that needs answered. What they do is anyones guess but as we agree keeping him and drafting another QB1 is simply foolish. Trading Fields you put them back on a 5 year QB,but they still have at least a year with Fields on a rook contract.I would take advantage of that and get some players in with a QB with a bit of experience,than make my decision

12 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/revisiting-carson-wentz-trade-on-one-year-anniversary-of-colts-eagles-blockbuster-deal/   Wrong AGAIN!!!! And while the deal can't be finalized(paperwork) in essence the trade was made Feb 18th. Another mark in the loss column for Ham. So KMA because I proved you wrong yet again. Facts are facts whether you like them or not. I rank your posts right up there with the Hindenburg,total disasters

How is that a mark in the loss column for me? You admit right in your answer the trade couldn’t officially happen until March. Read what you wrote yourself..if you don’t believe me.

Can someone tell me how this discussion about Fields got started in the first place?

Who cares, he's a Bears

7 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Still in denial HAHAHAHAHA unreal The Wuss season is over,Wentz completed the SECOND year he has been away from Philly. Colts 1 year,wuss 1 year = 2 years.You're going to argue with math now???? I'm just going to stay quiet and let you make a fool of yourself because you are doing a fine job at that

Your argument is so weak. Just terrible. 2022/2023 season isn’t over. Still one game left to be played. During THIS season Wentz played for Washington. Last season 2021/2022 we traded Wentz….not Hurts. 

5 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

How is that a mark in the loss column for me? You admit right in your answer the trade couldn’t officially happen until March. Read what you wrote yourself..if you don’t believe me.

Do you know of any trade deals made in Feb that were then rescinded in march????? if you do I would like a list of them. The deal was agreed to in FEB. so even if we wait until march that is STILL 2 years so I am right either way and you are wrong AGAIN. Just say "I was wrong,it's been 2 years" and move on because there is zero way you will win a fight against math. march ro March is ALSO 2 years. Unreal

5 minutes ago, Asg 15 said:

Can someone tell me how this discussion about Fields got started in the first place?

Who cares, he's a Bears

We were discussing the 1 pick when Ham came up with the Bears taking a QB at 1 while keeping Fields which I disagreed with,(then that morphed into a trade Fields lol) then we got back into the Wentz BS again(for no real reason) but Ham can never admit he is wrong,he just can't do it lol

4 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Do you know of any trade deals made in Feb that were then rescinded in march????? if you do I would like a list of them. The deal was agreed to in FEB. so even if we wait until march that is STILL 2 years so I am right either way and you are wrong AGAIN. Just say "I was wrong,it's been 2 years" and move on because there is zero way you will win a fight against math. march ro March is ALSO 2 years. Unreal

We traded Wentz last season…definitely weren’t trading Hurts like you suggested.

9 minutes ago, Asg 15 said:

Can someone tell me how this discussion about Fields got started in the first place?

Who cares, he's a Bears

Then Ham claimed we traded Wentz last year which again is incorrect,it was 2 years ago

1 minute ago, cunninghamtheman said:

We traded Wentz last season…definitely weren’t trading Hurts like you suggested.

I never suggested we trade Hurts,that's BS also,go back and read THAT post because it was an example and I also said you would call me out on it,and you did just as I predicted you would LOL,but keep falling into the endless hole

Anyway we are playing in a SB this weekend,anyone want to chime in on the here and now?

4 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

We traded Wentz last season…definitely weren’t trading Hurts like you suggested.

Ham math 1+1=1 It's like 1984 LMAO

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10064638-eagles-darius-slay-slams-matt-patricia-talks-disrespect-from-former-lions-hc