Bears trading Justin Fields? GMs explain why it’s the best route and where compensation could land
After a rough three-game start to the NFL season, Justin Fields has pieced together an argument, one that says that despite some inconsistency, he is getting better as a quarterback.
He’s missing fewer wide-open throws. He’s playing more patient in the pocket and drifting less. He’s running to complement and balance his game, rather than falling out of structure to hunt plays. With 34 starts now under his belt for the Chicago Bears, you can draw a line between two 17-game samples — which would represent two full NFL seasons — and see that his second 17 is markedly better than his first. After his next four games to conclude the 2023 season, we will find out if the Bears are buying the argument that he’s worth passing on Caleb Williams with the No. 1 overall pick.
At least seven NFL general managers aren’t convinced. And the consensus is that it’s not really a close decision.
“It would be a clear-cut decision to draft Caleb for me,” an AFC general manager said. “The fact that we’re in Year 3 and [they] don’t want to exercise the fifth-year option tells me what I need to know. I just don’t think Fields can win consistently as a passer, even though he is gifted physically.”
“[Caleb Williams] worries me, but he is definitely talented,” an NFC general manager said. “It just buys you more time and a much cheaper contract to keep adding pieces to build the team.”
“When you pass on talented quarterbacks to lean into a guy’s development, which the Bears did when they traded No. 1 last year, you have to be completely sure of that decision to do it a second time,” another AFC general manager said. “They might not have taken C.J. Stroud with the first pick last [offseason], but he was there for them to do it. Caleb Williams is a no-brainer, and if they get the top pick, he’s there for them. Sometimes the gamble is continuing to pass on players. Fields doesn’t get over the hump, you don’t want to be the guys that passed on both Stroud and Caleb Williams.”
The GMs offered a multitude of reasons to trade Fields and pick Williams: the considerable talent Caleb Williams brings to the table, his more refined acumen as a passer, the opportunity to reset with a rookie quarterback contract, needing to make a fifth-year option decision on Fields this spring, when it appears more data is still necessary … on and on.
Another NFC general manager pointed out a psychological aspect of this crossroads: Bears GM Ryan Poles hasn’t drafted his own quarterback — Fields was the selection of the previous regime — yet his job status is directly impacted by Fields’ development.
“Nobody wants to be judged or fired because they didn’t make the previous guy’s draft picks work,” the NFC GM said. “Especially quarterback and head coach — if it’s not working out or it’s lagging, you should get an opportunity at changing it your way. Quarterbacks and head coaches are so much of your culture, so it’s kind of hard when you didn’t put those pieces in place and you’re taking the hits anyway.”
Of course, none of these GMs knows Fields better than Poles. They’re looking at the struggle for improvement from the outside. Poles could be thrilled with the strides Fields has made with DJ Moore and other weapons, seeing Fields' fifth-year option as viable just based on this season’s progress. Poles could also feel the temptation to again deal a No. 1 overall pick for more assets (as he did last year) that will continue to stack talent all over the depth chart, rather than concentrate it in one player at the quarterback spot.
Whatever his thinking, there’s little doubt that Poles will have a decision on his hands. The Carolina Panthers — whose 2024 first-round pick is owned by the Bears — are now two full games ahead of the New England Patriots for the No. 1 spot in the draft, and the Panthers' four remaining games on the schedule are all against teams currently in the thick of the playoff hunt. It’s more than reasonable to conclude that the Panthers aren’t going to start beating superior teams and snap off enough wins to jeopardize that draft slot.
That means that if Poles believes Caleb Williams is a better quarterback than Fields, he has two questions to ask himself.
What other teams could be in the Justin Fields market?
A few general managers have brought up the Philadelphia Eagles as running an offense that would best suit the full development of Fields. And by extension, the Indianapolis Colts do as well, since their head coach, Shane Steichen, was running the Eagles' offense when it was molded around Jalen Hurts in 2021 and 2022. Unfortunately for Fields, both the Eagles and Colts have their young franchise quarterbacks locked in place, so that effectively shuts him out of those offenses.
Until it doesn’t.
Current Eagles offensive coordinator Brian Johnson is going to be a hot name in the next head-coaching interview cycle, thanks to spending two years as Hurts’ quarterbacks coach before ascending to the offensive coordinator job this season following Steichen’s departure. Not only is Johnson extremely versed in the Eagles’ scheme, but he also arguably had the most direct, day-to-day impact on Hurts’ development since 2020. If he gets hired elsewhere, he’ll be bringing that knowledge to whatever franchise hires him.
That makes Johnson a person to watch as either a Bears head-coaching hire — if they move on from Matt Eberflus — or a potential Fields trade suitor, should he land with another quarterback-needy team that isn’t the Bears this offseason. All of this is making the assumption that Johnson likes Fields as a player. Even if he does, there will be other circumstances likely to weigh on connecting the two.
As an NFC general manager framed it, if Johnson lands with a quarterback-thin franchise selecting outside the top 10 picks — meaning it would have to give up significant capital to move to the top of the draft for a quarterback — Fields becomes an attractive second option. The franchises that currently fit that mold? The New Orleans Saints (who are currently slotted 12th) and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers (slotted 20th). Two others who could be looking for head coaches but are sitting with a pick inside the top 10? The Washington Commanders (slotted fourth) and the Las Vegas Raiders (slotted sixth). You also can’t rule out the Atlanta Falcons, who are currently slotted at 11th overall in the draft and aren’t likely to fire Arthur Smith but who also run a heavy RPO scheme that would seem to overlap well with Fields’ talent.
How much would Fields command on the trade market at this point?
This was a difficult question to pose because the season hasn’t finished yet, and Fields can certainly impact what the Bears and other teams believe he’s worth. Effectively, he’s in a tryout period right now for his current franchise and others that might pursue him. How he fares in the final month of the season will set the table when it comes to his future, and at least three of his four remaining games — against the Cleveland Browns, Arizona Cardinals, Atlanta Falcons and Green Bay Packers — should be meaningful in that regard.
In that quartet, the Browns have a defense that should still be challenging despite recent injuries. The Falcons are a potential trade partner, so Fields playing well in that game could grease the skids in negotiations. And the Packers could be angling for a playoff spot in the final game of the season, raising the stage for Fields to showcase himself in a big-game situation at Lambeau Field.
Even with the four games of uncertainty, the seven general managers all had a ballpark for what they believe Fields could command in a trade at this point. None of their proposals included any kind of first-round value. We will get into why in a moment. First, here were the seven suggestions of Fields’ value in draft compensation.
GM one: A second-round and fourth-round pick, pending a “good finish” to the season.
GM two: A second-round pick, pending a “strong finish” to the season.
GM three: A third-round pick, plus another late-round pick that could escalate one round based on performance.
GM four: One third-round pick in the 2024 draft, one fourth-round pick in the 2025 draft.
GM five: A third-round pick or a second-round draft pick for Fields, plus a late-round pick back from the Bears.
GMs six and seven had the same proposal: A third-round pick, pending the finish of this season.
Some of these proposals came with caveats. As one GM noted, “it only takes one team” to like Fields enough to give up more than others would expect. Another mentioned that the value could rise or fall based on how long the Bears hold on to Fields, reasoning that a trade lingering all the way to the doorstep of the draft could lessen his value to franchises that would want him to begin working with their staff immediately. All of the GMs said they would factor in a slight tweak to his compensation based on the next four games. None of them put his value in the realm of a first-round pick.
While that lack of first-round pick value might surprise some who view Fields as a surging commodity right now, the general reasoning for trade asset limitations centered on his remaining contract. As it stands, Fields has one “cheap” year of football left next season, with a $1.61 million base salary and a $1.61 million roster bonus. Beyond that, an acquiring team would have to make a decision on triggering Fields’ fifth-year option in the spring of 2024. All of which means a team is trading for either one cheap tryout year or a pricier two-year window that would include his fifth-year option.
Now compare that to when the Arizona Cardinals traded Josh Rosen to the Miami Dolphins after only one season. The Cardinals had drafted Rosen No. 10 overall just one year earlier but made him expendable when they took Kyler Murray No. 1 overall the next season. Despite Rosen having three cheap years of control on his deal and another option year, the Cardinals got only a late second-round pick for him (No. 62 overall) from the Dolphins. The Bears would be going to the negotiating table with a much smaller contract window for Fields.
As an AFC general manager put it, “You’re trading for one year of Fields, most likely, because I don’t know that an acquiring team would exercise his option.”
An NFC general manager pointed to it being a “Sam Darnold situation,” referring to the Carolina Panthers trading for Darnold after his first three roller-coaster years with the New York Jets. The Panthers gave up a solid package for Darnold — including second-, fourth- and sixth-round picks — then triggered an $18.85 million fifth-year option just 25 days later. Their reason for picking it up? The amount of assets they traded to get Darold necessitated a two-year audition for a contract extension. Basically, they were pot-committed after surrendering the draft picks, so it made sense to commit to Darnold for the longer window.
A team could look at Fields the same way, deciding on the basis of his 2023 film that he warranted a triggering of his fifth-year option and a two-year “show me” window before either being franchise tagged or signing a long-term extension. That would likely be the most ideal situation for the Bears if it came down to trading Fields. But that requires an element of desperation, too. The Panthers were desperate to solve their quarterback position when they dealt for Darnold. That impacted the compensation.
That makes the next four weeks key — not only for the Bears but also for potential trade partners. Any number of teams could go off a cliff in that time. Any number of coaching and personnel jobs could go from safe to shattered. And a wide range of quarterback questions, answers and opportunities could be the undercurrent that reshapes multiple franchises.
Clearly a segment of NFL decision-makers thinks Fields should be part of it. In the months ahead, we’ll find out if the Chicago Bears agree.
