Week 15: Bad (5-8) @ Indifference (5-8) MNF

[Sammy Sofa]

This is true.

[WrigleyField 22]

[expletive] even Mills isn't a complete lost cause. He's coming off his best game of the season after being demoted following a rookie season where he exceeded expectations but had offseason surgery. He can be a swing G/T and possibly still develop into a long term plug and fill guy. Our idiot OC made his name putting together OL of nobodies as have many teams. And we have other pipeline development guys in place.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JonJayCutler]

We need a new RT and more depth, that's about it.

 

Much bigger fish to fry.

[gscool89]

Cutler is killing this press conference. Most professional person in this organization, oh how sad is that?

[CubsInNC]

Anyways, Barnwell speculates on a Cutler trade:

 

Jay Cutler, Chicago

 

Why Trade: It’s possible they want to blow up the damn thing and totally rebuild in Chicago. I wrote in 2012 about how Cutler is never going to be the player people want him to be, that he’ll always be the guy with the impressive highs and the frustrating lows and the same body language that fills a million column inches. Cutler actually hasn’t been much worse in 2014 than he was in 2013 — his passer rating is actually up 2.5 points — but the disappointing nature of Chicago’s season has led some Bears fans to point the finger at their starting quarterback.

 

Anonymous sources from inside Chicago’s front office suggest that the Bears have a serious case of buyer’s remorse, and that they would like to move on from the final six years remaining in Cutler’s seven-year, $126 million contract. As I mentioned earlier, cutting Cutler would be cost-prohibitive and impossible to justify. If the Bears want to move on from Cutler, the only way to do so before 2017 would be via trade.

 

The Savings: The Bears would have $4 million in dead money on their cap in 2015 with a trade but would save $12.5 million versus what they would pay Cutler to stay on the team. In addition, if they trade him before March, they wouldn’t be responsible for any of Cutler’s guarantees in 2016, which are likely to rise to $16 million. Cutler’s new team would have its starting quarterback on what basically amounts to a two-year, $31.5 million deal with four one-year options ranging between $12.5 million and $19.2 million.

 

The Market: If the Bears did decide to deal Cutler, he would likely be the most-talented and best-regarded quarterback on the market, with the usual quarterback-hungry suspects like the Jets, Texans, and Titans all interested. Teams picking in the top 10 wouldn’t likely give up a 2015 first-rounder for Cutler, and he won’t require the haul the Bears gave up to acquire Cutler in 2009.3 A team like Tennessee would more likely agree to a deal that includes a 2015 second-rounder and a future second-rounder that would turn into a first-rounder if Cutler and/or his new team hit certain thresholds of success.

 

There’s one dark horse that doesn’t make a lot of sense but entertains me: What if Cutler went to the Browns? I strongly doubt that the Browns are ready to move on from Johnny Manziel, who will make his first start this weekend, but there have at least been rumors this year that some members of the Cleveland organization have been disappointed with how he has prepared. Cleveland offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan wasn’t with his dad in Denver when Mike Shanahan drafted Cutler, but you have to figure they have some similarities in how they scout and judge quarterbacks. If the Bears are going to blow things up, getting Manziel back as part of a trade would at least give them an interesting option under center.

 

I doubt that Cutler will end up getting traded, if only because the Bears won’t be in a great spot to replace him.

 

Would you guys trade Cutler for Manziel and a midround draft pick?

My minimum return for Cutler is a Alex Smith like return. But it's contingent on having a capable replacement or identifying a guy you want to draft within the first three picks.

 

Manziel and a third or something would be interesting. I'm not convinced on Manziel as an NFL QB though I'd defer to the scouts and experts if they thought he was.

 

If we do get a new coaching staff though if lean towards trying to make it work with Cutler for another season or two until a replacement was developed.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

If they identify someone they like well enough in the first round, what about Jay (+ midround?) to the Redskins for their first? As a base framework, I could see something like that happening if Snyder gets on board the RGIII bust bus.

I don't know how you could turn down the Redskins first. Isn't that gonna be like top 3-5? A Redskins deal would probably more like their second, which is the type of pick KC gave up for Smith.

 

Depending on where both firsts end up a swap of QBs, a swap of firsts, and another pick or two headed our way perks my ears if dealing with the Skins. But even then I might be waiting until draft day and making that call based on who's there when the Redskins pick comes up.

 

There are like 12-14 teams still putting up worse DVOA from their QB than the Bears. About half have a young guy they are committed to or their own expensive vet, but there is still a strong QB market of 6 or so and only two consensus top picks. And Hoyer will headline the FA market. We shouldn't rush Jay out.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Right now, they're at 6, we're at 9. I don't see them getting much higher than 5th overall. Those are truly atrocious situations ahead off them. I'm not on the get Jay out of town bandwagon. But my thought is, if it's not at the next major coaching change, it's not happening until the contract is over. Not that is necessarily a bad thing, but if we have the assets now to acquire the next qb, why not do it, if we really do believe one is an elite guy. Rather than wait until 2018 or 2019 and hoping there's a difference maker available then.

[minnesotacubsfan]

The OL has stunk most of the year.

 

It does, but how much of it is the scheme and coaching? My guess is a HUGE part of it

 

We need at least a new rt and center, but the other three should be able to set the line pretty well

[UMFan83]

Cutler is killing this press conference. Most professional person in this organization, oh how sad is that?

 

That's what I keep reading. And Kromer was shakey and expected to just make a statement and then everyone would ask him about the Saints.

[jersey cubs fan]

Bushrod might last next year. Nobody else but long should be here in 2016. It's a mess.

[WrigleyField 22]

Anyways, Barnwell speculates on a Cutler trade:

 

Jay Cutler, Chicago

 

Why Trade: It’s possible they want to blow up the damn thing and totally rebuild in Chicago. I wrote in 2012 about how Cutler is never going to be the player people want him to be, that he’ll always be the guy with the impressive highs and the frustrating lows and the same body language that fills a million column inches. Cutler actually hasn’t been much worse in 2014 than he was in 2013 — his passer rating is actually up 2.5 points — but the disappointing nature of Chicago’s season has led some Bears fans to point the finger at their starting quarterback.

 

Anonymous sources from inside Chicago’s front office suggest that the Bears have a serious case of buyer’s remorse, and that they would like to move on from the final six years remaining in Cutler’s seven-year, $126 million contract. As I mentioned earlier, cutting Cutler would be cost-prohibitive and impossible to justify. If the Bears want to move on from Cutler, the only way to do so before 2017 would be via trade.

 

The Savings: The Bears would have $4 million in dead money on their cap in 2015 with a trade but would save $12.5 million versus what they would pay Cutler to stay on the team. In addition, if they trade him before March, they wouldn’t be responsible for any of Cutler’s guarantees in 2016, which are likely to rise to $16 million. Cutler’s new team would have its starting quarterback on what basically amounts to a two-year, $31.5 million deal with four one-year options ranging between $12.5 million and $19.2 million.

 

The Market: If the Bears did decide to deal Cutler, he would likely be the most-talented and best-regarded quarterback on the market, with the usual quarterback-hungry suspects like the Jets, Texans, and Titans all interested. Teams picking in the top 10 wouldn’t likely give up a 2015 first-rounder for Cutler, and he won’t require the haul the Bears gave up to acquire Cutler in 2009.3 A team like Tennessee would more likely agree to a deal that includes a 2015 second-rounder and a future second-rounder that would turn into a first-rounder if Cutler and/or his new team hit certain thresholds of success.

 

There’s one dark horse that doesn’t make a lot of sense but entertains me: What if Cutler went to the Browns? I strongly doubt that the Browns are ready to move on from Johnny Manziel, who will make his first start this weekend, but there have at least been rumors this year that some members of the Cleveland organization have been disappointed with how he has prepared. Cleveland offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan wasn’t with his dad in Denver when Mike Shanahan drafted Cutler, but you have to figure they have some similarities in how they scout and judge quarterbacks. If the Bears are going to blow things up, getting Manziel back as part of a trade would at least give them an interesting option under center.

 

I doubt that Cutler will end up getting traded, if only because the Bears won’t be in a great spot to replace him.

 

Would you guys trade Cutler for Manziel and a midround draft pick?

My minimum return for Cutler is a Alex Smith like return. But it's contingent on having a capable replacement or identifying a guy you want to draft within the first three picks.

 

Manziel and a third or something would be interesting. I'm not convinced on Manziel as an NFL QB though I'd defer to the scouts and experts if they thought he was.

 

If we do get a new coaching staff though if lean towards trying to make it work with Cutler for another season or two until a replacement was developed.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

If they identify someone they like well enough in the first round, what about Jay (+ midround?) to the Redskins for their first? As a base framework, I could see something like that happening if Snyder gets on board the RGIII bust bus.

I don't know how you could turn down the Redskins first. Isn't that gonna be like top 3-5? A Redskins deal would probably more like their second, which is the type of pick KC gave up for Smith.

 

Depending on where both firsts end up a swap of QBs, a swap of firsts, and another pick or two headed our way perks my ears if dealing with the Skins. But even then I might be waiting until draft day and making that call based on who's there when the Redskins pick comes up.

 

There are like 12-14 teams still putting up worse DVOA from their QB than the Bears. About half have a young guy they are committed to or their own expensive vet, but there is still a strong QB market of 6 or so and only two consensus top picks. And Hoyer will headline the FA market. We shouldn't rush Jay out.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Right now, they're at 6, we're at 9. I don't see them getting much higher than 5th overall. Those are truly atrocious situations ahead off them. I'm not on the get Jay out of town bandwagon. But my thought is, if it's not at the next major coaching change, it's not happening until the contract is over. Not that is necessarily a bad thing, but if we have the assets now to acquire the next qb, why not do it, if we really do believe one is an elite guy. Rather than wait until 2018 or 2019 and hoping there's a difference maker available then.

I mean if we don't trade Jay were committed to him fully for next year. Following year would involve just a little pain to move on. So ideally you want to commit the next two years to him... Preferably under a new coach.

 

I'd look to develop a guy still with a decent pick committed in 15 or 16. Worst case you are no worse off than you would have been. Best case you have two valuable, tradable QBs. Not rushing a young QB would be great though.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WrigleyField 22]

Bushrod might last next year. Nobody else but long should be here in 2016. It's a mess.

I don't see Slausson falling off that quickly. Plus the one hole that's basically agreed upon as a minimum for 2015 should be filled in 2016. And you continue to develop the projects you have and fill in with value vets when needed...

 

Not the dire portrait you paint, sorry.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UMFan83]

From Simmons article:

 

If you asked me in 1999 to name the five most important NFL franchises, I would have defined “important” by some admittedly murky formula that included long-term success, a storied history, the recognizability of its uniform/logo/name, the breadth/passion/support of a multi-generation fan base and its weight/power/influence compared to the other local teams in its city. And I would have given the following answer: Green Bay, Dallas, Pittsburgh, Washington and the New York Giants.

 

Maybe I'm being a homer but I'm surprised the Bears aren't on that list.

 

-Storied history? George Halas pretty much founded the entire NFL, kept the Packers in business, coached the team in 40 of their first 47 seasons, won 6 championships. Overall the Bears have the second most championships in the NFL, the most wins in the NFL, the most Hall of Famers in the NFL, etc. Major points deduced for only 1 championship in the Super Bowl era, but "storied" goes well beyond just championships. Maybe he's heavily weighing on recent success here because the Steelers were the absolute laughing stock of the NFL until the 1970's

 

If I had to rank the Bears with those other 5 teams and assigned a 40/60 weight to past/current success I'd say

 

1. Packers

2. Giants

3. Redskins

4. Bears

5. Cowboys (who don't even have a past success before the 60's)

6. Steelers

 

-Recognizability of it's uniform/logo/name. Maybe not as recognizable as GB or Dallas, but certainly the Bears logo and uniforms are up there with the other 3

 

-Breadth/Passion/Support of a multi-general fan base and its weight/power/influence compared to the other local teams in its city. This is where the Bears should absolutely dominate. The Bears are Chicago sports. When the Bears are good, nothing else is talked about amongs fans/media. Bears talk dominates the airwaves pretty much all year. Many fans would take a Bears title over every other Chicago team (pick your preferred baseball team) winning a title that same year. Can you say the same thing about the Giants, whose fans are typically Yankees/Knicks/Rangers fans?

 

Stupid to argue a freaking Bill Simmons opinion but since he doesn't allow commenting on his articles on grantland I wanted to respond here.

[Guest]

From Simmons article:

 

If you asked me in 1999 to name the five most important NFL franchises, I would have defined “important” by some admittedly murky formula that included long-term success, a storied history, the recognizability of its uniform/logo/name, the breadth/passion/support of a multi-generation fan base and its weight/power/influence compared to the other local teams in its city. And I would have given the following answer: Green Bay, Dallas, Pittsburgh, Washington and the New York Giants.

 

Maybe I'm being a homer but I'm surprised the Bears aren't on that list.

 

-Storied history? George Halas pretty much founded the entire NFL, kept the Packers in business, coached the team in 40 of their first 47 seasons, won 6 championships. Overall the Bears have the second most championships in the NFL, the most wins in the NFL, the most Hall of Famers in the NFL, etc. Major points deduced for only 1 championship in the Super Bowl era, but "storied" goes well beyond just championships. Maybe he's heavily weighing on recent success here because the Steelers were the absolute laughing stock of the NFL until the 1970's

 

If I had to rank the Bears with those other 5 teams and assigned a 40/60 weight to past/current success I'd say

 

1. Packers

2. Giants

3. Redskins

4. Bears

5. Cowboys (who don't even have a past success before the 60's)

6. Steelers

 

-Recognizability of it's uniform/logo/name. Maybe not as recognizable as GB or Dallas, but certainly the Bears logo and uniforms are up there with the other 3

 

-Breadth/Passion/Support of a multi-general fan base and its weight/power/influence compared to the other local teams in its city. This is where the Bears should absolutely dominate. The Bears are Chicago sports. When the Bears are good, nothing else is talked about amongs fans/media. Bears talk dominates the airwaves pretty much all year. Many fans would take a Bears title over every other Chicago team (pick your preferred baseball team) winning a title that same year. Can you say the same thing about the Giants, whose fans are typically Yankees/Knicks/Rangers fans?

 

Stupid to argue a freaking Bill Simmons opinion but since he doesn't allow commenting on his articles on grantland I wanted to respond here.

 

The Bears were a laughingstock on the field for most of the 90's, especially late.

[jersey cubs fan]

Bushrod might last next year. Nobody else but long should be here in 2016. It's a mess.

I don't see Slausson falling off that quickly. Plus the one hole that's basically agreed upon as a minimum for 2015 should be filled in 2016. And you continue to develop the projects you have and fill in with value vets when needed...

 

Not the dire portrait you paint, sorry.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Continue to develop projects is pie in the sky, especially with horrible coaching staff. A new staff won't want to deal with the projects of the current staff.

[jersey cubs fan]

The Redskins are not important and have not been for decades.

[jersey cubs fan]

That press conference had a rapt audience at the gym here, apparently lots of bears (and Cubs) fans on vacation this week.

[WrigleyField 22]

We literally have a OLine coach who made his name flipping late picks and UDFAs into top flight NFL lines. He's obviously gonna be gone but he isn't the only guy out there to do it. There is actually a decent chance Mills or Leno or even Groy could fill a spot by 2016. I think we've already invested more in young lineman the past two than the previous ten.

 

Spot - 2015 - 2016 -2017

LT- Bushrod - Long - Long

LG - Slausson - Slausson

C - DLP/comp - DLP/comp

RG- Day Two DP 2015------->

RT - Long - ? - ?

 

I think that's a fairly middle road outlook. Not too pessimistic or optimistic. Maybe Long doesn't switch to the left side, so yea you still need a Tackle either way. If that RG is a combo G/C that's even better and you can develop that into a long term C (being a harder spot than G to fill). Or maybe that draft pick is a G/T combo who bumps out to T post Bushrod.

 

Sure you might bust on the pick and there are injuries, but none of our guys are injury prone. And we're getting experience for our backups this year, so that's good long term for injury risk.

 

Not a mess. If we have 60% of our 2016 rotation locked in at the end of this offseason (conservatively at that) we're doing okay.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[minnesotacubsfan]

The Redskins are not important and have not been for decades.

 

I'd agree, they are a lot like us

[WrigleyField 22]

The Redskins are not important and have not been for decades.

 

I'd agree, they are a lot like us

I'd definitely rather be a Bears fan than Skins. They've just been a series of high priced FA failures it seems like for as long as I've watched NFL football. The Bears have at least developed some young guys that created a NFC champ team.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[minnesotacubsfan]

They've also won more SBs then us, so there's the trade off. Well, if you're old enough to remember their SBs

[WrigleyField 22]

They've also won more SBs then us, so there's the trade off. Well, if you're old enough to remember their SBs

I guess so. I'm young enough to have missed the Bears SB win....

 

Can't think of any teams that wouldn't have put their team through some lean years at some point.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Outshined_One]

My favorite conspiracy theory to come out of all of this is that Todd Haley's paranoia that Kansas City Chiefs facilities and phones were bugged during Phil Emery's time as Director of Scouting at Kansas City now looks oddly justified, as Emery learned from Pioli and Hallas Hall is bugged.

 

It's not to say that the conspiracy theory has any legs, but the way this whole thing has played out is completely bizarre. Kromer apparently talked to Rapoport on Thursday after the Cowboys game, was confronted by Trestman about it the next day, and then on Monday gave what apparently was an incredibly awkward and seemingly forced apology to the entire offense, resulting in Biggs' article going up yesterday, and then followed by a really shaky press conference today.

 

It's possible Kromer realized he made a mistake after talking with Rapoport and fessed up to Trestman, but the timeline for all of this, along with how it all has been handled, has made very little sense to me if that's the case. From what I've read and heard, none of this has come across as particularly genuine and instead has seemed forced. It'd make a bit more sense if Hallas Hall were bugged and Trestman found out that way, but if Kromer is being forced to go through all this crap, it's not doing anyone any good. It's just making things worse.

 

Regardless, what a [expletive] mess.

[jersey cubs fan]

My favorite conspiracy theory to come out of all of this is that Todd Haley's paranoia that Kansas City Chiefs facilities and phones were bugged during Phil Emery's time as Director of Scouting at Kansas City now looks oddly justified, as Emery learned from Pioli and Hallas Hall is bugged.

 

It's not to say that the conspiracy theory has any legs, but the way this whole thing has played out is completely bizarre. Kromer apparently talked to Rapoport on Thursday after the Cowboys game, was confronted by Trestman about it the next day, and then on Monday gave what apparently was an incredibly awkward and seemingly forced apology to the entire offense, resulting in Biggs' article going up yesterday, and then followed by a really shaky press conference today.

 

It's possible Kromer realized he made a mistake after talking with Rapoport and fessed up to Trestman, but the timeline for all of this, along with how it all has been handled, has made very little sense to me if that's the case. From what I've read and heard, none of this has come across as particularly genuine and instead has seemed forced. It'd make a bit more sense if Hallas Hall were bugged and Trestman found out that way, but if Kromer is being forced to go through all this crap, it's not doing anyone any good. It's just making things worse.

 

Regardless, what a [expletive] mess.

it seems dumb as hell but I don't see the "bugged" angle. wasn't it at the field?

[WrigleyField 22]

I could definitely see Emery turning over every stone, but not sure about bugging. Then again Pioli bugging wouldn't surprise me because Bellicheck bugging wouldn't surprise me. And Emery did work under Dimitroff too. Maybe.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mark Priors Calves]

My favorite conspiracy theory to come out of all of this is that Todd Haley's paranoia that Kansas City Chiefs facilities and phones were bugged during Phil Emery's time as Director of Scouting at Kansas City now looks oddly justified, as Emery learned from Pioli and Hallas Hall is bugged.

 

It's not to say that the conspiracy theory has any legs, but the way this whole thing has played out is completely bizarre. Kromer apparently talked to Rapoport on Thursday after the Cowboys game, was confronted by Trestman about it the next day, and then on Monday gave what apparently was an incredibly awkward and seemingly forced apology to the entire offense, resulting in Biggs' article going up yesterday, and then followed by a really shaky press conference today.

 

It's possible Kromer realized he made a mistake after talking with Rapoport and fessed up to Trestman, but the timeline for all of this, along with how it all has been handled, has made very little sense to me if that's the case. From what I've read and heard, none of this has come across as particularly genuine and instead has seemed forced. It'd make a bit more sense if Hallas Hall were bugged and Trestman found out that way, but if Kromer is being forced to go through all this crap, it's not doing anyone any good. It's just making things worse.

 

Regardless, what a [expletive] mess.

it seems dumb as hell but I don't see the "bugged" angle. wasn't it at the field?

Yep after the Cowboys game.

 

I, too, am very curious what drove Kromer to come clean. Anonymous quotes to reporters happen all the time. It's likely Kromer had done it before. So why reveal himself about this? The NFL Network's story with the quotes didn't come out until Sunday. Trestman said he knew about it the a Friday before. There's more to the story.

Edited December 13, 2014 by Mark Prior's Calves

[Ryne Ween]

Can somebody explain to me why the Kromer thing is such a big story? Its all over ESPNs scroll and being discussed on sportscenter. Dont coaches criticize their players fairly regularly in the press? Is this that rare of an event?