I think it comes down to exactly what you pointed out in your Hurts article in 2020 - having two quarterback prospects increases the odds of finding an elite QB. Per people with good draft takes on Twitter, Bryce Young seems to be the only option at #1. I think if you add that player to your team your odds of finding a Mahomes/Burrow/Allen caliber player greatly increase.
I also think fans/analysts may overestimate the hit rate on draft picks. There’s this assumption by people that once you get a “draft haul” you’ve just added 5 starters to build around your QB. I don’t know the numbers but my guess is you’re lucky if 3 players end up being replacement level starters from a 5 pick draft haul. Then you have to factor in the likelihood 3 of those hits are even pro bowl caliber players.
I think the Bears are closer to a Super Bowl with Young and Fields on the roster than just Fields and a couple rookies that fans/analysts are excited about (assuming not all picks from a 5 pick draft haul come in 23.). It’s hard to get the first overall pick and your chance at a top QB prospect like Young (just ask the Texans and Jets). TL;DR is basically I think the Bears are wrong if they do anything with this pick other than draft Bryce Young.
I agree with all the points you've made and would absolutely draft a QB if I were in the Bears' shoes.
Another thing - teams really don't seem to understand positional value. Sure they might have the positions ranked correctly, but the magnitude of QB compared to other positions apparently goes over their heads. QB is probably 5x more important than WR, 10x more important than CB or EDGE, and 100x more important than G or LB. If that sounds like hyperbole, think about teams who have nailed picks at unimportant positions; there's no appreciable impact on wins and losses (Quinton Nelson being a prime example). J.J. Watt just retired after one of the most dominant careers of any defensive player in history and his teams never sniffed a Super Bowl.
Point is, even if a GM gets a huge haul of picks from trading down, and even if those picks miraculously all become great players, their combined impact is still less than that of an elite QB.
My question is if the Bears do draft Young can it really up the odds they have a top 6 or top
12 guy that much. I know you gave the percentages in the article but how do you get to those odds and what can cause it also ? Could young push fields to be better ? Really interesting article and sad that so many ppl wouldn’t even give the idea a thought as you stated in the first paragraph
I'm as big of a Fields apologist as they come but that's not the reason I disagree with the premise. Hell I don't disagree with the premise that much. From a process approach, the Bears' front office would be committing football malpractice if they didn't do their due diligence in evaluating each and every last Quarterback available in this and every draft following. I was even a proponent Washington drafting one of Tua/Herbert in 2020 less than a year after drafting Haskins because of the importance of firing darts until you find the guy at Quarterback.
Unfortunately the reason I didn't commit to the process then and don't commit to it now a combination of the: 1. The impracticality of a two quarterback system past the college level. and 2. The difficulty in developing two or more quarterbacks simultaneously. The two Quarterback system doesn't need much explanation as players and coaches alike have gone over the problems associated with playing games with more than one guy under center. Instead I want to focus more on the latter problem which is more contentious.
The best way for Quarterbacks to get better is to get reps. Reps at practice and far more importantly live reps in the game. Finding a way to somewhat evenly split these reps for more than a few weeks is highly impractical for NFL franchises. Former backups talk about how the only reps given out are for the starting Quarterback and the guy running scout team. Full on Second and Third string work pretty much ends after cutdown day because the roster limit doesn't give teams the necessary bodies to
maintain this structure during the regular season. Extending practice simply as a means of getting both Qbs more reps also isn't a reasonable option considering both the health of the other players on the roster and the potential for corrective action from the players union. The inability to get non-starting Qbs meaningful reps beyond preseason and camp can stunt their growth. This problem would be alleviated with the presence of a developmental league like the NBA G league where young players are sent on assignments to get extra reps if they aren't playing much in major league games. No such alternative currently exists for the NFL. Fundamentally, the modern NFL structure isn't conducive to the development of more than one Quarterback at once.
On the note of the development of these Quarterbacks, I'd pose the following question: When did Hurts make his most prominent growth as a passer? Hurts development took off after Wentz was traded. Not because Wentz personally was holding back Hurts, or bias from the staff/roster, but because the absence of Wentz gave Hurts the necessary reps to make significant strides as a passer. With Wentz gone, Hurts received the majority of the starter reps in back to back training camps and made significant growth over the course of the following two seasons. I'd also question whether or not Jordan Love has really developed in Green Bay over the last three years. While the sample size is incredibly small Jordan to me still has the same strengths and weakness he had as a prospect in 2020 and hasn't made much progress in correcting those flaws. Now with rumors swirling that Jordan Love may request a trade this offseason, that pick and contract look like deadweight. Trey Lance also comes to mind given the fact he's played one full season of football since 2018 and may have to take a backseat to Tom Brady this offseason if NFL agents are to believed. Will Trey make any significant progress after three seasons and little to no playing time? Certainly Aaron Rodgers and Steve Young are the success stories among the bunch but given the other cases it's hard not to consider them extreme outliers.
I certainly think you're right with the approach of so long as you're not certain if you have to guy, it is sound to keep investing in the position until you hit. But I'd push back on the idea of simply drafting prospects because you have the opportunity to. Instead one should focus on the context of the roster and what best helps the team in the present. But if you really like/love a guy, don't be afraid to call your shot and select him because you have already have a decent signal caller on roster.
So where do I stand on the Fields-Young/Stroud debate? If you like Young or any other QB draft him. Trade Fields for a haul and reset the rookie contract scale. If you don't like them, trade back for a haul and build around Fields. Until the NFL makes it possible to effectively develop two or more Quarterbacks simultaneously it is impractical to commit to more than one guy at a time.
TL;Dr Personally, I'd trade back and build around Fields, but I love Bryce and Stroud and would be far from upset if the Bears moved off of Fields to get their guy. Bryce and Stroud are fun prospects and any team (including the Bears) would be lucky to have them.
I think it comes down to exactly what you pointed out in your Hurts article in 2020 - having two quarterback prospects increases the odds of finding an elite QB. Per people with good draft takes on Twitter, Bryce Young seems to be the only option at #1. I think if you add that player to your team your odds of finding a Mahomes/Burrow/Allen caliber player greatly increase.
I also think fans/analysts may overestimate the hit rate on draft picks. There’s this assumption by people that once you get a “draft haul” you’ve just added 5 starters to build around your QB. I don’t know the numbers but my guess is you’re lucky if 3 players end up being replacement level starters from a 5 pick draft haul. Then you have to factor in the likelihood 3 of those hits are even pro bowl caliber players.
I think the Bears are closer to a Super Bowl with Young and Fields on the roster than just Fields and a couple rookies that fans/analysts are excited about (assuming not all picks from a 5 pick draft haul come in 23.). It’s hard to get the first overall pick and your chance at a top QB prospect like Young (just ask the Texans and Jets). TL;DR is basically I think the Bears are wrong if they do anything with this pick other than draft Bryce Young.
I agree with all the points you've made and would absolutely draft a QB if I were in the Bears' shoes.
Another thing - teams really don't seem to understand positional value. Sure they might have the positions ranked correctly, but the magnitude of QB compared to other positions apparently goes over their heads. QB is probably 5x more important than WR, 10x more important than CB or EDGE, and 100x more important than G or LB. If that sounds like hyperbole, think about teams who have nailed picks at unimportant positions; there's no appreciable impact on wins and losses (Quinton Nelson being a prime example). J.J. Watt just retired after one of the most dominant careers of any defensive player in history and his teams never sniffed a Super Bowl.
Point is, even if a GM gets a huge haul of picks from trading down, and even if those picks miraculously all become great players, their combined impact is still less than that of an elite QB.
My question is if the Bears do draft Young can it really up the odds they have a top 6 or top
12 guy that much. I know you gave the percentages in the article but how do you get to those odds and what can cause it also ? Could young push fields to be better ? Really interesting article and sad that so many ppl wouldn’t even give the idea a thought as you stated in the first paragraph
I'm as big of a Fields apologist as they come but that's not the reason I disagree with the premise. Hell I don't disagree with the premise that much. From a process approach, the Bears' front office would be committing football malpractice if they didn't do their due diligence in evaluating each and every last Quarterback available in this and every draft following. I was even a proponent Washington drafting one of Tua/Herbert in 2020 less than a year after drafting Haskins because of the importance of firing darts until you find the guy at Quarterback.
Unfortunately the reason I didn't commit to the process then and don't commit to it now a combination of the: 1. The impracticality of a two quarterback system past the college level. and 2. The difficulty in developing two or more quarterbacks simultaneously. The two Quarterback system doesn't need much explanation as players and coaches alike have gone over the problems associated with playing games with more than one guy under center. Instead I want to focus more on the latter problem which is more contentious.
The best way for Quarterbacks to get better is to get reps. Reps at practice and far more importantly live reps in the game. Finding a way to somewhat evenly split these reps for more than a few weeks is highly impractical for NFL franchises. Former backups talk about how the only reps given out are for the starting Quarterback and the guy running scout team. Full on Second and Third string work pretty much ends after cutdown day because the roster limit doesn't give teams the necessary bodies to
maintain this structure during the regular season. Extending practice simply as a means of getting both Qbs more reps also isn't a reasonable option considering both the health of the other players on the roster and the potential for corrective action from the players union. The inability to get non-starting Qbs meaningful reps beyond preseason and camp can stunt their growth. This problem would be alleviated with the presence of a developmental league like the NBA G league where young players are sent on assignments to get extra reps if they aren't playing much in major league games. No such alternative currently exists for the NFL. Fundamentally, the modern NFL structure isn't conducive to the development of more than one Quarterback at once.
On the note of the development of these Quarterbacks, I'd pose the following question: When did Hurts make his most prominent growth as a passer? Hurts development took off after Wentz was traded. Not because Wentz personally was holding back Hurts, or bias from the staff/roster, but because the absence of Wentz gave Hurts the necessary reps to make significant strides as a passer. With Wentz gone, Hurts received the majority of the starter reps in back to back training camps and made significant growth over the course of the following two seasons. I'd also question whether or not Jordan Love has really developed in Green Bay over the last three years. While the sample size is incredibly small Jordan to me still has the same strengths and weakness he had as a prospect in 2020 and hasn't made much progress in correcting those flaws. Now with rumors swirling that Jordan Love may request a trade this offseason, that pick and contract look like deadweight. Trey Lance also comes to mind given the fact he's played one full season of football since 2018 and may have to take a backseat to Tom Brady this offseason if NFL agents are to believed. Will Trey make any significant progress after three seasons and little to no playing time? Certainly Aaron Rodgers and Steve Young are the success stories among the bunch but given the other cases it's hard not to consider them extreme outliers.
I certainly think you're right with the approach of so long as you're not certain if you have to guy, it is sound to keep investing in the position until you hit. But I'd push back on the idea of simply drafting prospects because you have the opportunity to. Instead one should focus on the context of the roster and what best helps the team in the present. But if you really like/love a guy, don't be afraid to call your shot and select him because you have already have a decent signal caller on roster.
So where do I stand on the Fields-Young/Stroud debate? If you like Young or any other QB draft him. Trade Fields for a haul and reset the rookie contract scale. If you don't like them, trade back for a haul and build around Fields. Until the NFL makes it possible to effectively develop two or more Quarterbacks simultaneously it is impractical to commit to more than one guy at a time.
TL;Dr Personally, I'd trade back and build around Fields, but I love Bryce and Stroud and would be far from upset if the Bears moved off of Fields to get their guy. Bryce and Stroud are fun prospects and any team (including the Bears) would be lucky to have them.