Chicago and Their Franchise Altering Decision

Posted by

Let’s be honest; if you’re reading this you already have some level of comprehension of Chicago’s dilemma, so I won’t bog you down in some drawn out introduction. For the second consecutive season the Bears hold the first pick in the draft and for the second consecutive season they have to decide if it is better to use the first pick to build the roster around Justin Fields or to draft a new quarterback and trade Fields. Functionally, Chicago has three options pertaining to how to move forward:

  • 1. Draft Caleb Williams and trade Fields
  • 2. Trade the first pick and build around Fields
  • 3. Draft Marvin Harrison Jr. and keep Fields

With a conclusion potentially coming soon, let’s dive right in!

Draft Caleb Williams and Trade Fields

I won’t sit here and go into depth about how great a prospect Caleb Williams is. You’re probably already aware, or at minimum have been exposed to enough for the media blitz calling him generational. Sure, the above tweet is really a Drake Maye report, but the take away is “the universal answer” is Williams is the best quarterback prospect since Trevor Lawrence.

Here’s a curated one-pager for said Caleb Williams media blitz:

Scouts Inc. (for what it’s worth) has Williams with a 96 grade, and for context Lawrence was a 97 (Joe Burrow was a 94 in case you were curious). Williams is the best player on Dane Brugler’s board and The Athletic’s consensus board, and should you fancy yourself interested (slash care about what the Ringer has to say) here is Danny Kelly’s examination of how good Williams is from back in October (TL;DR: he’s really good).

So, in essence, Chicago can just sit there at number one and draft a quarterback with infinite upside. Part of evaluating if Chicago should move on from Fields and take Williams is understanding Fields’ upside. As the biggest Justin Fields Stan on the planet and at one time the sole inhabitant of Justin Fields Island, the reality is the potential he ever hits his peak upside is slim at best. In his three years in the NFL Fields has ranked 32nd, 33rd, and 22nd in ANY/A. Yes, that’s a significant jump when he hit year three, but we’re still talking about a roughly bottom-third quarterback when isolating for only passing.

Speaking of year three, here’s some numbers I’m borrowing citing from The Athletic:

Stat Rank
QBR 23rd
EPA/Att 23rd
EPA/Dropback 25th
EPA v. Blitz 28th
Rush Yards 2nd
YPC 2nd

Not swell. Fields does have a fair amount of mitigating circumstances. Matt Ngay committing a war crime in how he handle Justin’s rookie season. Chicago’s refusal to invest in receiving options until year three. Luke Getsy deciding it is NOT a good idea to incorporate designed quarterback runs in the offense. And the flashes are still there.

There’s also the difference in his level of play post-injury in 2023:

Alas, even with the improved play, he is barely producing any passing value. The reality is that the idea of Justin Fields is unlikely to ever become reality. The chance exists, it’s just such a small probability now it’s hard to justify passing on the upside of Caleb in order to build around Fields.

There’s also the economics. With Fields entering his 4th year, if the Bears commit to him past 2024 the first step is picking up the 5th year option for 2025. This isn’t an exact apples to apples but as a barometer Tua Tagovailo is playing the 2024 season on his 5th year option worth $23.2 million (Tua was the 5th pick of the 2020 draft and out of him, Joe Burrow, and Justin Hebert, Tua is the only one yet to sign an extension).

In 2026 Chicago can go the way of the franchise tag ($38.3 million for quarterbacks in 2024) or extend Fields for presumably the 2026 equivalent of the Daniel Jones contract (four years, $160 million with $82 million guaranteed at signing). At present, I don’t know that anyone is wholly-confident in making that kind of financial investment into Fields.

On the flip side, Bryce Young signed a four year $38 million contract as the number one pick last year. His first four seasons have running cap hits of $6.9 million, $8.6 million, $10.35 million, and $12.1 million. Given that the Derek Carr/(pre-injury) Kirk Cousin/Daniel Jones bad-to-mid-level-starters of the world are hovering around $35-$40 million annually, if Caleb Williams is the ~14th best quarterback in the NFL during his rookie deal the Bears are still actualizing an incredible amount of surplus value during the life of that contract. And if he does hit his Josh Allen/Justin Herbert/Joe Burrow upside? Chicago is paying about $10 million per year to someone that should be making at least $55 million per season.

The final piece of drafting Caleb and trading Fields is what can the Bears realistically get for Fields. If part of the calculus for building around Fields is “what can Chicago do with the 1st pick?” then we have to consider what assets Fields will provide in order to build around Caleb.

Starting from those drafted in 2016 onward, there are six instances of a quarterback being taken in the top 10 and traded relatively shortly there after:

• In 2019, the Cardinals traded Josh Rosen to the Dolphins the year after drafting him for a late second (62)

• In 2021, the Jets traded Sam Darnold to the Panthers for a 2021 4th and 6th and a 2022 2nd

• In 2021, the Eagles traded Carson Wentz and his fat extension to the Colts for a 2021 3rd rounder and a conditional 2022 second that ultimately became a first because Wentz played at least 75% of the snaps for Indianapolis in 2021

• In 2022, the Colts traded Carson Wentz, their 2022 second rounder (47) and their 2022 7th rounder to the Commanders for Washington’s 2022 second rounder (42), their 2022 3rd rounder (73), and a conditional 2023 third rounder that ultimately remained a third rounder because Carson Wentz did not meet the 70% of snaps played criteria for the pick to improve to a second rounder

• In 2022, the Browns traded Baker Mayfield to the Panthers for a 2024 conditional 5th rounder that ultimately became a 4th because Mayfield played at least 70% of the snaps for Carolina in 2022.

• In 2023, the 49ers traded Trey Lance to the Cowboys for their 4th rounder which ended up as the 130th pick

(If your head hurts from the 2022 Wentz trade, just think of it as the Colts getting two 3rds)

This is all back of the envelope/mental-guestimation-math but my prognostication is that should the Bears trade Fields they’ll end up with a 2024 4th rounder and a 2025 conditional 3rd that becomes a 2nd if Fields plays at least 70% of the snaps in 2024 for his new team. That’s pretty decent value for someone you plan on replacing.

Trade the First Pick and Build Around Fields

Time for math!! Spreadsheet Warriors rise up!!!

Anyway. If Chicago decides to keep Fields then we need to understand what it is they are reasonably expect to receive for the number one pick. I laid most of this out last year when discussing what the Bears could get in 2023 for the first pick, but here it is again with updated information:

The Bears got a deal trading the first pick last year, but quarterback draft trades aren’t created equal. Distance traveled up the board matters, as do other factors such as perceived quality of the quarterback prospect, the strength of the available alternatives, and the number of potential suitors actually willing to pay the asking price.

I’ve detailed the modern history of quarterback trades many times before, so we don’t need to rehash the entire list. What will be most useful is narrowing it down to trades involving a top five pick ever since the Goff trade. As always, we’re using the Chase Stuart draft chart in order to quantify the value.

Recent Top 5 Trades

Jared Goff – To go from #15 to #1 in 2016, St. Louis gave up #5, #15, #43, #45, #76, and #100 for #1, #113, and #117. Tennessee profited 34.3 points. The 1st pick is worth 34.6 points.

Carson Wentz – To go from #8 to #2 in 2016, Philadelphia gave up #8, #12, #64, #77, and #100 for #2, and #139. Cleveland profited 27.1 points. The 3rd pick is worth 27.6 points.  

Mitch Trubisky – To go from #3 to #2 in 2017, Chicago gave up #3, #67, #70, and #111. San Francisco profited 17.3 points. The 15th pick is worth 17.4 points.  

Sam Darnold – To go from #6 to #3 in 2018, the Jets gave up #6, #34, #37, and #49. Indianapolis profited 29.1 points. The second pick is worth 30.2 points.

Trey Lance – To go from #12 to #3 in 2021, San Francisco gave up #12, #29, #29, and #100. Miami profited 22.7 points of draft capital. The 6th pick is worth 23.2 points and the 7th pick is worth 22.2.

Bryce Young – To go from #9 to #1 in 2023, Carolina gave up #1, #9, #40*, #61, and DJ Moore. Chicago profited 40.1 points of draft capital* plus DJ Moore. The 1st pick is worth 34.6 points and the 96th pick is worth 5.5. (*projected)

We’ve outlined four variables for trade compensation; distance traveled up the board, the perceived quality of the quarterback prospect, the strength of the available alternatives, and the number of potential suitors actually willing to pay the asking price.

We saw above that Caleb Williams is held in extremely high regard. Again, Scouts Inc.’s grades aren’t the end all be all, but for some context here how they rated each quarterback we’re citing above to help build a framework, keeping in mind that Williams is a 96:

-Jared Goff; 91
-Carson Wentz; 91
-Mitch Trubisky; 89
-Sam Darnold; 94
-Trey Lance; 92
-Bryce Young; 94

Depending on who you ask, teams have one or two viable top of draft alternatives. Again, take it with a grain of salt, but Scouts Inc. has Jayden Daniels as a 94 and Drake Maye as a 93.

Given that none of these trades involve a team vaulting up the board from lower than 15, let’s count the potential suitors solely within the top 15; #3 New England* (they could just sit there and take the 3rd quarterback), #6 New York Giants(?), #7 Tennessee, #8 Atlanta, #11 Minnesota, #12 Denver, #13 Las Vegas, #14 New Orleans. Now all of this is under the caveat of “potential” suitors so decide for yourself how realistic it is any of these teams are aggressive enough to go all the way to the top of the board. But theoretically eight teams could be interested. Even with the Patriots being the only team I gave an asterisks to, you could easily argue they’re Chicago’s preferred trade partner as the Bears could add draft capital by trading the first pick and presumably still take Marvin Harrison Jr. at number three after New England and Washington take quarterbacks with the first two selections.

The Bears pulled off an incredible haul just last season but the odds they’re going to fall ass backwards into next year’s number one pick two years in a row are insanely low. Chicago obviously wants to maximize their return, but a realistic goal is finding something around the Sam Darnold profit (29.1 points). Without going into as much detail as I did last year on what each potential bidder’s trade will be, here’s what they’d look like and the respective profits.

Hypothetical Trades

New England (3rd Pick)

If the Patriots sent #3, #34, and their 2025 first rounder that we’re going to very scientifically project to be the 10th pick of the draft, Chicago would profit 25 points. If we change #34 to #68, Chicago still profits 20.6. I know I didn’t include the Eli trade in the recent top 5 trades, but in 2004 to go from #4 to #1 in order to get Eli, the Giants gave up #4, #11, #65, and #141 and San Diego profited 21.6 points of draft capital. So switching the 2024 2nd to a 3rd is inline with a similar leap up the board from 20 years ago. And as stated above, the Bears may be ok with not *uber* maximizing their profit if it means falling “only” to 3rd and still getting Harrison Jr.

New York Giants (6th)/Tennessee (7th)/Atlanta (8th)

I’m lumping these together because the framework will be the same. A general assortment of this year’s first and second plus a first in 2025 that we are very scientifically going to peg as the 12th pick will net Chicago ~17.5 points of draft capital. No team has sent three firsts and a second since the RGIII trade and I’m skeptical it’ll happen again. The Bears got two firsts, two seconds and DJ Moore to drop from 1 to 9 last year so perhaps these teams will add a future second and some combination of future thirds and fourths and/or a player. Or maybe someone is so desperate (read; Arthur Blank) they go full send and ponies up the RGIII package. But for now let’s call these teams two firsts and two seconds-plus.

Minnesota (11th)/Denver (12th)/Vegas (13th)/New Orleans (14th)

You’d have to assume at minimum the starting point is the Trey Lance deal where three firsts and a third got San Francisco from #12 to #3. The profit is low (22.7) compared to what we’re trying to find (29.1), but the caveat is San Francisco was actually a juggernaut that circumstantially was drafting 12th in the first place and their subsequent firsts ended up late in the frame. To get from here to “Caleb Freakin Williams” may in fact take an RGIII package or more.

(Since I’ve referenced it twice I should probably provide the data; to go from #6 to #2 in 2012, Washington gave up #2, #6, #22, and #36. St. Louis profited 49.9 points. The 1st pick is worth 34.6 points and the 21st pick is worth 15.2 points. I just have a hard time believing a team will ever do this again)

Draft Marvin Harrison Jr. and Keep Fields

Forget getting cute with falling to three and hoping Harrison is there. The Bears could just secure Junior’s services and call it a day. Any spreadsheet warrior is going to tell you how if you’re not drafting a quarterback first and you then don’t trade the pick, you’re not maximizing the value of the first pick. It’s true. But the problem is Harrison might just break all the rules. Ok, sure, maybe he doesn’t or shouldn’t, and there’s no such thing as a lock when it comes to the NFL draft, but this is my off-the-top-of-my-head short-list of “there’s no such thing as locks but these dudes are locks” prospects since 2003; Eli Manning, Sean Taylor, Mario Williams, Calvin Johnson, Adrian Peterson, Andrew Luck, Jadeveon Clowney, Myles Garrett, Trevor Lawrence, and Ja’Marr Chase. Are all these guys mega-stars and first ballot hall-of-famers? No. But none of them are busts, including Clowney. And most of them were elite at their position for a sustained period of time, or are currently doing so. Yes, Lawrence has been disappointing, but he isn’t bad.

The entire point of trading down and stockpiling draft picks in the NFL is that since there is no sure thing and the draft is so uncertain, you’re better off accumulating as many lottery tickets as you can and voluming your way to a loaded roster. Don’t be overconfident in your evaluation that the guy you love is definitely going to be great and better than everyone else because the odds are you’re wrong.

But what if you knew your guy was going to be great? Ok, again, there’s no sure thing in the draft, but come on. Marvin Harrison Jr. doesn’t only have the pre-requisite college dominance and athleticism to be an elite prospect, but Mel Kiper won’t stop talking about how he has the exact same workman-like-approach to football as his dad. And, oh, right, I forgot, his since-birth mentor is a fucking Hall-of-Fame receiver. If you think of a “draft lock” (not a thing) as “there’s just no way this dude is bad barring injury” as opposed to “just hand him his gold jacket at the draft” then how the fuck do you envision Harrison Jr. being bad? And his upside is the best receiver in the league for a decade.

If It Were Me

I’d draft Caleb and trade Fields. It’s a quarterback’s league and Chicago has a chance to draft someone with uncapped potential AND they reset the clock on the rookie contract. It’s not an opportunity they can forfeit. After that I’d trade the pick. Taking Harrison is so incredibly tempting because if you just knew you were getting Calvin Johnson what would a team have to offer you to actually give that up? The goal would easily be enticing the Patriots to come up to number one so you can trade down AND get Harrison, but if they don’t find it worth it then you have to sell the pick to the highest bidder.

filed under: NFL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *