Should The Bears Trade Justin Fields?

The Bears currently have the No. 1 overall pick, courtesy of their trade of the No. 1 overall pick last year to the Panthers.

The question everyone in the NFL is asking is whether they will trade that No. 1 pick again for another bounty of draft picks or use it to replace Justin Fields.

To answer this, let’s look at the base rate for the No. 1 overall pick in the context of this year’s consensus selection, USC’s Caleb Wiliams.

Let’s also try to put Justin Fields’ 2023 season in some sort of historical predictive context, as well as his career to date.

We need to estimate the likely return for both the No. 1 slot as well as for Fields, based on recent, similar trades.

Finally, we’ll assess the salary cap ramifications of both options, with Fields’ rookie deal expiring soon and Williams’ yet to start.

The first question we have to answer is what kind of prospect is Wiliams?

“He’s close to a lock [to go No. 1],” one NFL general manager said of Williams, per ESPN’s Matt Miller. “I wouldn’t say he’s a lock to the level Trevor Lawrence or Joe Burrow was, but he’s more of a lock than Bryce Young or Baker Mayfield.”

We must note that there are some way higher on Williams, including former NFL GM Rick Spielman who ranked him the best prospect in modern history due to his combination of passing ability, playmaking, and athleticism.

What Is An Average Outcome For No. 1 Overall QBs?

But let’s be conservative and say for this analysis that Williams is merely an average No. 1 overall QB prospect this century.

What is the 50th percentile No. 1 overall QB, loosely using Pro-Football-References approximate value? (Note I put Joe Burrow way up the list given that his relatively low number is merely a product of a lack of games.)

This just puts a name we all know on what the expectation should be for Williams as a player. To be clear, it’s not a comp.

We’re not saying that they are stylistically similar. We’re just saying that an average No. 1 overall QB this century has had this level of return.

That perfectly average No. 1 overall QB pick this century is Jared Goff.

So now think of Wiliams as Goff on a rookie deal on the one side.

On the other side, we have Fields. What is he?

In trying to assess Fields after last season when there were similar questions about backing him or taking a new QB with the No. 1 overall pick, I came up with a simple stat: sack rate plus interception rate. This is the percentage of dropbacks that end in disaster, roughly.

This is a stat so simple, you could describe it to your mother and she’d say, “Oh yeah, I get it. Those things are bad.”

Using Sacks And Picks To Project Fields

Here’s how Fields charts in sacks plus interception rate (SPLINT%):

• 2023: 13.3%.
• 2022: 18.0%
• Career: 15.8%

So, progress. But he’s still the fourth worst this year.

The average this year is 9.9%.

The worst 2023 QBs in it are a rogue’s gallery: Tommy DeVito, Daniel Jones, Ryan Tannehill, Fields, Zach Wilson, Sam Howell, Jimmy Garoppolo, and Bryce Young. Yuck.

The QBs who are best at this in 2023 (lowest SPLINT%): Patrick Mahomes, Josh Allen, Kirk Cousins, Derrek Carr, Goff, Matthew Stafford, and Tua Tagovailoa. It’s not perfect but meaningful.

But let’s look at all third-year QBs who started at least 10 games since 1990 and see whose SPLINT% was most like Fields both in Year 3 by itself (13.3%) and through Year 3 (15.8%).

Maybe some players got a lot better and overcame this problem.

By seeing how many did versus how many did not, we can get rough odds on what kind of chance Fields has to still be a productive player.

Fields is the fifth-worst QB in SPLINT% in Year 3 for the entire 1990-2023 period.

Here is the list of the 10 most similar:

Dave Brown, Rick Mirer, Tim Couch, Ben Roethlisberger, J.P. Losman, Matt Hasselbeck, Zach Wilson, Jeff George, Jake Plummer, Charlie Batch. 

Roethlisberger is a Hall of Fame QB (though he had before Year 3 one of the best rookie QB seasons in history).

The other QB on this list that turned out to be good enough to warrant keeping Fields is Matt Hasselbeck (three subsequent Pro Bowls and 160 career starts).

That’s two out of 10. So about a 20% chance that Fields can still be a good player. This feels right, to me.

But what about most similar THROUGH Year 3?

Fields is the single worst player in the entire period in SPLINT%, so in a league of his own.

Trailing him are Jake Plummer, David Carr, Couch, George, Batch, Alex Smith, Roethlisberger, Tony Banks, Wilson, and if we don’t want to include Wilson since he’s unfinished, Trent Dilfer. Smith and Roethlisberger would be happy outcomes for Fields.

Again, about a 20% chance of making it.

So on the one side, we have Jared Goff and on the other side, most favorably for Fields, a 20% chance of Roethlisberger.

Assessing Respective Trade Value

Now there are the trade implications.

The Bears just made this trade with Bryce Young, who everyone agrees is an inferior prospect to Williams, and got two first-round picks plus two second-round picks plus D.J. Moore so let’s say the Bears could get the equivalent of three first-round picks plus a second-round pick, minimum.

Wow.

That’s some haul.

But on the downside, you’re trading a QB that the league values this highly and keeping one that’s a long shot to be good.

But if the Bears keep the pick, they can trade Fields. What can he bring in a deal?

According to Daniel Jeremiah, who is probably the most plugged-in draft expert who moves future markets in draft season, you have to start with what the Jets got for Sam Darnold in 2021 – a second-round pick plus a fourth-round pick.

But Fields is more respected by NFL analysts than Darnold was in 2021. Fields has made many more electrifying plays, especially with his legs.

So at a minimum, let’s assume that Fields can get one first-round pick. If it’s for 2024, probably mid to late. If it’s a future No. 1, who knows (it’s a lottery ticket).

So now it’s a 20% chance of Ben Roethlisberger plus three first-round picks vs. Jared Goff and a first-round pick.

You have to lean toward keeping Fields, or at least it’s reasonable. But what about salary cap implications?

Salary Cap Implications Of Keeping Fields

We don’t have to get into the value of a rookie QB deal.

It’s the most valuable commodity in football. It’s the key to building a roster around a QB that’s capable of winning a championship.

But what about the cap implications of keeping Fields?

The Bears have to decide this spring whether to pick up Fields’ fifth-year option.

That’s a one-year deal at about $40 million, which is untenable and must lead to a long-term deal similar to what the Eagles recently gave to Jalen Hurts. (UPDATE: The average of the No. 3 to No. 25 QB salaries for 2025 options is not known yet but will likely be closer to $30 million.)

With bonuses and guarantees, the Eagles were able to keep Hurts’ salary cap number very low through 2024 and manageable through 2026.

But they are stuck with him through 2028 because the cost of moving on before then is a certifiable salary cap disaster.

There’s just no way you can commit to Fields to that extent based on what he’s shown to date.

So now we’re looking at a prove-it year in Year 4.

If that works out, you have a Daniel Jones-type of the deal, where you have the flexibility of getting out of it sooner but receive no real cap benefits.

So keeping Fields is relatively horrible for the salary cap vs. trading him and drafting Williams. It wipes out all the draft-capital benefits. 

BOTTOM LINE: Looking at all the base rates in the light most favorable to Fields, the Bears have no choice.

Chicago has to keep the pick, assuming the Panthers remain locked into the NFL’s worst record and draft Williams.

They gave Fields this year to make great strides and he’s, at best, only made small ones – not big enough to warrant a long-term commitment. It’s time to start all over again and hope that you don’t get the 50th percentile outcome with a No. 1 overall QB, but a 75th or 80th percentile one.

That would make the Bears perennial contenders.