Pixote

I am in the "Keep Fields" camp, but with the side that we draft a QB to develop behind him, "Just in case". For that reason, I love your draft with one change. Like most, I figure Williams, Maye, and MHJ will be the first three off the board. Not sure which order, but still... That would leave Daniels at 4, who I feel might be the best QB in the draft. So I would go with him at #4.

For those, like myself, who would prefer to keep Fields and draft a QB later in the first or possibly second round, allowing Poles to finish filling the holes in our roster and gaining future draft picks, there is an article by Greg Gabriel, a former scout, on why the Bears drafting a QB in 2024 with the 1st pick would be a mistake. A Scout’s Take: History shows drafting the first Quarterback is a huge risk

Everyone seems to be convinced Flus and Fields will be leaving after the season is over. I'm not convinced. I would not be surprised if both are here next year. I will wait and see. I trust Poles to make the best decision.

There are only three men I would consider hiring to replace Flus. Jim Harbaugh - I read that Michigan offered him a huge contract worth 12M but it had a clause that he would not seek a HC spot in the NFL for the year 2024. Would he sign with us and pass up 12M? If Michigan wins the National Title and the Bears offer him bit $$$, I think he would. Todd Monken - The best clone of Fields is Lamar Jackson. We can see what Jackson has done with Monken as his OC. Watching the Ravens, led by LJ and a damn good defense, blast San Francisco last night, I wonder what Fields would look like with a system designed for him by Monken and a host of blue chip players added to the roster by trading the #1 pick? Brian Johnson - almost forgot this man. OC of Philadelphia, designed the system Hurts is running, would be an awesome addition. They say you need a good QB to succeed. But you also need to give him an OC who knows how to utilize his talents as well a team with a roster strong enough on both sides of the ball to succeed. I think keeping Fields, drafting a QB prospect mid first to mid second rd, adding Harbaugh, Monken or Johnson as HC (or keeping Flus as HC and finding a good substitute for the OC position), and then allowing Poles to hit the jackpot by trading the #1 pick is the best route to go. Just MHO.

I just read somewhere that he has never missed a game since being drafted. This is one tough dude. Hell, he injured his knee on the long reception in the first quarter and continued to play, refusing to leave leave knowing DJ also injured his ankle. I have to say he is a true Bear of a man.

Nothing? We have a young team, They need to know how to win. Gain that swagger our team has not had for ages. This win will pay dividends in the future. NE probably just helped solidify the #1 pick for the Bears. Bears win! NE Loses! ENJOY!!!!!

I thought for sure NE was tanking it in the fourth quarter. Belichick sure didn't seem happy, LOL

No, now we need to allow Santos the chance to win games for us instead of dumb ass moves which turns the ball over to our opponents without putting points on the board.

Congratulations on getting clearance from your doctor on your neck injury. I obviously know from experience how difficult it is to rehab from an injury involving one's spine. Just in time for the holiday season, and lots of fine football to enjoy.

I hate "I told you so" responses, but, LOL, I argued last off season that we needed to replace our punter. No one agreed with me, saying we were solid with Gill.

And pray we are not saying the exact same thing a year after introducing a new HC.

I found an article on WindyCityGridiron.com: Chicago Bears 10 Positions of Need in 2024, non QB edition It lists 10 positions of need, not including QB in the argument. These all have been discussed on the forum by our posters, but it is a nice breakdown with reasons behind the selections. Good arguments were made for each position listed. If Poles could fill all of these with quality starters, we will be a playoff team. (Assuming we have the Coaching Staff to maximize the roster's ability.) 10. Back-up Safety 9. Interior Offensive Line Depth 8. Back-up Tight End 7. Wide Receiver 3 6. Punt Returner 5. Safety 4. Edge 3. Center 2. Wide Receiver 2 1. 3-Tech Defensive Tackle

I just read this in an article on bearswire.usatoday.com. I knew we had blown leads in three games that we should have won, but what I didn't realize is that it ties an NFL record. The writer is of an opinion that this alone, despite the vast improvement of the defense, justifies his replacement.

There is also an option to put a forum member on your ignore list. You or PHX could always use it so you wouldn't need to interact. Personally, I would hope you guys would bury the hatchets and we can return to enjoy dreaming of the awesome future the Bears are going to have.

If everyone agreed with one another on our views on the Bears and what they need to do to return to the super bowl, it would be very boring and needless to say, not nearly as enjoyable as having a lively debate with friends. We need to circle the wagons and keep this band of fans together!

Thanks for this insight. Although I had always been concerned about drafting a player, at any position but especially at an offensive skill position, with limited experience as a starter, I had never considered the number of passing attempts a QB had pre-draft. I guess they are a bit related but still, eye opening for me. Then combine that with pro reps to consider when a proper evaluation can be accomplished, nice! I am a huge Daniels fan. Would love to see him groomed behind Fields with a new Offensive Coordinator and an improved offensive line.

Carolina has Green Bay, Jacksonville, and Tampa Bay left to play. Good chance they lose all 3.

And for the critics who criticized Poles for making the trade, eat crow!

There was nothing personal taken. It is just I think we are at an impasse that cannot be resolved by further debating. If we don't sign his fifth year option, and he balls out in 2024, yes, he will have leverage in negotiations with us. But if we cannot meet his expectations, we also have leverage with any team wishing to trade for him while we hold him on a tag. In the mean time, if we drafted a QB like Daniels to be tutored during 2024, he would be ready to take over after Fields was traded or be a valuable backup (or trade bait) if Fields remained a Bear.

I took the first option. I want a boat load of picks for the number one, and possibly a player thrown in. However, I still want the Bears to draft a top prospect QB later in the first to develop behind Fields. There are many interesting options at QB this year beyond Williams and Maye.

We disagree, so why don't we just leave it. We both walk away from this with no hard feelings. Just two Bear fans with very different opinions.

Almost every player says they won't play under a franchise tag contract. Then they realize the millions of dollars it will cost them to sit home on the sofa with a bowl of popcorn watching the games on TV. They wind up signing the contract and playing balls out trying to improve their negotiating position after the season is over. This is especially the case with a rookie who hasn't gotten that huge first "non rookie" deal.

You trade Fields now, you get??? Not a good position for the Bears to get value. You draft a top prospect this year in the draft. Lets say for argument sake Daniels with a high first round pick. Allow Fields to play as a starter to begin the season with Daniels on the bench learning the ropes. If he has a great year, we have better options than what we have now. 1) He was signed to his fifth year option and we can negotiate a long term deal with him. 2) He was signed to a fifth year option and we can now get good value for him, much much better than what we would now get in a trade. (But why trade him if he was having a great year?) 3) He wasn't signed to a fifth year option and we can use the franchisee tag on him to allow us to negotiate a trade with another team if he refuses to sign with us. It could even be a non-exclusive tag allowing him to check his value with other teams. Quite often they find the grass (money) isn't better on the other side of the fence.

?

I disagree. IMHO, it is a viable option. Been done successfully before. Can be done again. Yes, it may cost you in negotiations, but it also limits your risks going forward.