Exploring Why Trading Justin Fields Isn't an Automatic Decision

While the signs are pointing towards the Chicago Bears trading Justin Fields, the decision isn't as straightforward as some may suggest.

Many voices in the football community advocate for offloading Fields without much hesitation, but the recent hiring of new offensive coordinator Shane Waldron hints at a potential shift in direction.

Waldron's decision to join the Bears, despite being highly sought after in the offseason, raises questions about whether he sees Fields as a developmental project or a promising prospect to mold within his offensive scheme.

However, the choice to trade Fields isn't without its complexities. Despite facing setbacks, Fields and the offense made significant strides in various areas under Coach Matt Eberflus. Yet, their performance still fell short of expectations, particularly in critical moments during games.

The blame isn't solely on Fields, as offensive coordinator Luke Getsy also faced criticism for his inability to adjust strategy effectively. Eberflus emphasized the importance of in-game adaptability, a quality that Waldron's previous offenses demonstrated with six game-winning drives in the fourth quarter alone.

Yet, before hastily parting ways with Fields, the Bears must consider the potential consequences. While trading Fields could reset their salary cap at the quarterback position, there's a risk of losing a player who has shown improvement and potential for growth.

Fields' development, albeit not without challenges, indicates promise for the future. The Bears have endured years without a quarterback showing such progress, making the decision to trade Fields a precarious one.

Ultimately, the Bears must tread carefully and thoroughly evaluate their options before committing to a course of action. Rushing into a decision could lead to regret down the line, reminiscent of past missed opportunities with quarterbacks like Patrick Mahomes.