2015 Bears Offseason (Foxy new Head Coach page 104)

[UK1679666180]

Okay UK with the benefit of hindsight tell us how you handle Cutlers contract situation.

 

With hindsight going back to December 13'/January '14?

 

Tag him & then trade him, like KC tried to do with B. Albert (and actually find and accept an offer).

 

There were three options, try and win it all with Cutler, try and quickly rebuild by developing a QB, or win with a patchwork QB.

[CubColtPacer]

There's no justifying contracts?

 

Please amuse me.

 

There's a few elite QB's that maybe someone could say justify their contracts. Then there's a whole middle tier of "meh" QB's that get paid too much because nobody wants to be stuck with the really crappy ones. The "meh" QB's get paid too much and can never live up to the money they get. It's just how the NFL works.

 

The question becomes if that is the way the NFL should work. With the new rookie wage scale, there is a new class of QB's: the relatively cheap ones. And the playoffs have been dominated by the elite QB's and the cheap ones the last couple of years. About 1/3 of the league is non-elite QB's on big deals, and they've had 3 total representatives in the division round the last couple of years: Rivers last year (who lost) and Flacco and Romo this year who are underdogs.

 

The odds of winning a Super Bowl with one of those guys is significantly lower than it was 5-10 years ago. It's pretty low even if you have the best non-elite guy, and Cutler isn't that.

 

The Bears definitely were following a trend, but the question is if it was a trend worth following. It hasn't worked out for many teams lately, and there's a potential of an NBA like treadmill team trend developing.

[jersey cubs fan]

There's no justifying contracts?

 

Please amuse me.

 

There's a few elite QB's that maybe someone could say justify their contracts. Then there's a whole middle tier of "meh" QB's that get paid too much because nobody wants to be stuck with the really crappy ones. The "meh" QB's get paid too much and can never live up to the money they get. It's just how the NFL works.

 

The question becomes if that is the way the NFL should work. With the new rookie wage scale, there is a new class of QB's: the relatively cheap ones. And the playoffs have been dominated by the elite QB's and the cheap ones the last couple of years. About 1/3 of the league is non-elite QB's on big deals, and they've had 3 total representatives in the division round the last couple of years: Rivers last year (who lost) and Flacco and Romo this year who are underdogs.

 

The odds of winning a Super Bowl with one of those guys is significantly lower than it was 5-10 years ago. It's pretty low even if you have the best non-elite guy, and Cutler isn't that.

 

The Bears definitely were following a trend, but the question is if it was a trend worth following. It hasn't worked out for many teams lately, and there's a potential of an NBA like treadmill team trend developing.

 

Relatively cheap ones aren't really a class, since they will only exist for 3-year increments and any 1-3 year trend could include zero.

[Banedon]

There's no justifying contracts?

 

Please amuse me.

 

There's a few elite QB's that maybe someone could say justify their contracts. Then there's a whole middle tier of "meh" QB's that get paid too much because nobody wants to be stuck with the really crappy ones. The "meh" QB's get paid too much and can never live up to the money they get. It's just how the NFL works.

 

The question becomes if that is the way the NFL should work. With the new rookie wage scale, there is a new class of QB's: the relatively cheap ones. And the playoffs have been dominated by the elite QB's and the cheap ones the last couple of years. About 1/3 of the league is non-elite QB's on big deals, and they've had 3 total representatives in the division round the last couple of years: Rivers last year (who lost) and Flacco and Romo this year who are underdogs.

 

The odds of winning a Super Bowl with one of those guys is significantly lower than it was 5-10 years ago. It's pretty low even if you have the best non-elite guy, and Cutler isn't that.

 

The Bears definitely were following a trend, but the question is if it was a trend worth following. It hasn't worked out for many teams lately, and there's a potential of an NBA like treadmill team trend developing.

 

It's a trend you have to follow if there's no alternatives. The cheap rookie QB's you're talking about are cheap because they were drafted...but at positions higher than where the Bears have drafted. I'm making this argument blind, because I haven't looked it up to be sure...but I don't believe there's any successful draftable QB's that the Bears have had available on the draft board but have passed on because they had Cutler.

 

So you're talking about an option that wasn't really an option for the Bears. The Bears haven't had a draft pick higher than 14 since 2005 until this year.

[jersey cubs fan]

Okay UK with the benefit of hindsight tell us how you handle Cutlers contract situation.

 

With hindsight going back to December 13'/January '14?

 

Tag him & then trade him, like KC tried to do with B. Albert (and actually find and accept an offer).

 

There were three options, try and win it all with Cutler, try and quickly rebuild by developing a QB, or win with a patchwork QB.

 

Tagging him was not an option. People need to stop pretending it was.

 

There was never a realistic scenario with a positive outcome in which the Bears tagged and traded Cutler.

[UK1679666180]

There's no justifying contracts?

 

Please amuse me.

 

There's a few elite QB's that maybe someone could say justify their contracts. Then there's a whole middle tier of "meh" QB's that get paid too much because nobody wants to be stuck with the really crappy ones. The "meh" QB's get paid too much and can never live up to the money they get. It's just how the NFL works.

 

The question becomes if that is the way the NFL should work. With the new rookie wage scale, there is a new class of QB's: the relatively cheap ones. And the playoffs have been dominated by the elite QB's and the cheap ones the last couple of years. About 1/3 of the league is non-elite QB's on big deals, and they've had 3 total representatives in the division round the last couple of years: Rivers last year (who lost) and Flacco and Romo this year who are underdogs.

 

The odds of winning a Super Bowl with one of those guys is significantly lower than it was 5-10 years ago. It's pretty low even if you have the best non-elite guy, and Cutler isn't that.

 

The Bears definitely were following a trend, but the question is if it was a trend worth following. It hasn't worked out for many teams lately, and there's a potential of an NBA like treadmill team trend developing.

 

Look at Seattle, their good fortunes and being able to operate with a cheap productive QB are coming to an end.

 

It might be something worth looking into similar to young elite pitching prospects or closers, where there's safety in numbers. When are teams willing to allocate huge chunks of payroll towards mediocre QBs, given the up an down nature of the 3rd and 4th tier QBs getting paid huge amounts, would it be wise to try and draft several QBs in one draft with different strengths/weaknesses and have one develop for 3 years then start the process over?

 

Seattle has had great financial flexibility because of Wilson.

[Guest]

It was certainly an option but one with its own drawbacks that are glossed over. Tag+trade is kind of a new one though.

[Sammy Sofa]

It was certainly an option but one with its own drawbacks that are glossed over. Tag+trade is kind of a new one though.

 

How often does tagging a QB actually work out, either in terms of ultimately signing them to a more team-friendly deal or trading them for something of value?

[Banedon]

Whoa...hold on...we're saying "if only teams would draft guys in the 3rd round that become amazing!" as an argument against the NFL QB system? Come on...that's clearly the huge exception.

[jersey cubs fan]

There's no justifying contracts?

 

Please amuse me.

 

There's a few elite QB's that maybe someone could say justify their contracts. Then there's a whole middle tier of "meh" QB's that get paid too much because nobody wants to be stuck with the really crappy ones. The "meh" QB's get paid too much and can never live up to the money they get. It's just how the NFL works.

 

The question becomes if that is the way the NFL should work. With the new rookie wage scale, there is a new class of QB's: the relatively cheap ones. And the playoffs have been dominated by the elite QB's and the cheap ones the last couple of years. About 1/3 of the league is non-elite QB's on big deals, and they've had 3 total representatives in the division round the last couple of years: Rivers last year (who lost) and Flacco and Romo this year who are underdogs.

 

The odds of winning a Super Bowl with one of those guys is significantly lower than it was 5-10 years ago. It's pretty low even if you have the best non-elite guy, and Cutler isn't that.

 

The Bears definitely were following a trend, but the question is if it was a trend worth following. It hasn't worked out for many teams lately, and there's a potential of an NBA like treadmill team trend developing.

 

It's a trend you have to follow if there's no alternatives. The cheap rookie QB's you're talking about are cheap because they were drafted...but at positions higher than where the Bears have drafted. I'm making this argument blind, because I haven't looked it up to be sure...but I don't believe there's any successful draftable QB's that the Bears have had available on the draft board but have passed on because they had Cutler.

 

So you're talking about an option that wasn't really an option for the Bears. The Bears haven't had a draft pick higher than 14 since 2005 until this year.

 

The exception is Russell Wilson. The Bears could have theoretically drafted Wilson and have him play at an extremely low cap number for several years (with Mike Tice as his OC).

 

Not sure what the point of considering that a real option is in the real world though.

[UK1679666180]

Okay UK with the benefit of hindsight tell us how you handle Cutlers contract situation.

 

With hindsight going back to December 13'/January '14?

 

Tag him & then trade him, like KC tried to do with B. Albert (and actually find and accept an offer).

 

There were three options, try and win it all with Cutler, try and quickly rebuild by developing a QB, or win with a patchwork QB.

 

Tagging him was not an option. People need to stop pretending it was.

 

There was never a realistic scenario with a positive outcome in which the Bears tagged and traded Cutler.

 

How wasn't it an option?

 

Cutler even said that he wouldn't take it personally if they franchise and he wouldn't be upset about it.

[jersey cubs fan]

Seattle has had great financial flexibility because of Wilson.

 

Sure, the Bears just need to find the next Matt Flynn, guarantee him $10m and then draft his immediate replacement in the third round and then recycle that plan every three years.

[Banedon]

The exception is Russell Wilson. The Bears could have theoretically drafted Wilson and have him play at an extremely low cap number for several years (with Mike Tice as his OC).

 

Not sure what the point of considering that a real option is in the real world though.

 

Right...I didn't realize that was what was going on here...what happened with Wilson isn't some real world draft strategy. It was getting really [expletive] lucky.

[Guest]

@JayZawaski670: The Denver Post's @MikeKlis reports that Ernie Accorsi was NOT in the room when the Bears interviewed Adam Gase. Just George and Ted. #woof

[minnesotacubsfan]

Cutler has not prevented the Bears from going out and getting players to make the team better. The Bears have not been better because they haven't drafted well enough and their coaches have been horrible (with the exception of Lovie/defensive coaches during most of Lovie's tenure).

 

Exactly.

[Banedon]

How wasn't it an option?

 

Cutler even said that he wouldn't take it personally if they franchise and he wouldn't be upset about it.

 

Cutler has become pretty media saavy.

[Banedon]

@JayZawaski670: The Denver Post's @MikeKlis reports that Ernie Accorsi was NOT in the room when the Bears interviewed Adam Gase. Just George and Ted. #woof

 

Yeah, I heard him say that this morning. He could've easily been on conference call though. We have the technology.

[jersey cubs fan]

How wasn't it an option?

 

Cutler even said that he wouldn't take it personally if they franchise and he wouldn't be upset about it.

Cutler doesn't take anything personally.

 

 

Tagging the QB and doing so with the intent on trading him (not a realistic idea at the time) would have blown up in their faces and led to a disastrous season, one in which the Bears were not expecting to have.

[jersey cubs fan]

Ted and George made it clear Ernie was advising but they were making the decision. I'm not sure what "being in the room" matters when it comes to them interviewing guys.

[Banedon]

@JasonLaCanfora

 

Hearing Todd Bowles making very strong impression in head coaching interviews. I expect him to be a factor in this game of musical chairs.

[UK1679666180]

Whoa...hold on...we're saying "if only teams would draft guys in the 3rd round that become amazing!" as an argument against the NFL QB system? Come on...that's clearly the huge exception.

 

No, I'm saying if you're in QB hell like many teams are currently in like STL (likely expected to be medicore most years) and you're exploring the option of

inking Bradford to a long-term contract, drafting one in the 10-15 range, or taking a shot on one later in the draft....

 

 

Would that money be better off allocated somewhere else than Bradford (even healthy)?

Would that pick be better off on a 1st rounder that often has a much higher success ratio of panning out than QB?

Drafting several QBs with several picks later (2 thru 4 as typically west coast offenses require accuracy 1st which tend to drop some QBs) and the one that fits.

 

Teams like GB, NE, etc don't have to worry about that.

 

I guess this also falls into the inability to draft QBs given the high amount of bust ratios. Obviously if you're Indy and you have Manning and Luck at #1, this theory goes out the window.

[mul21]

 

The only issue I have here is the idea that this season was "entirely" unpredictable. There was a reason Vegas had a relatively low win total number on the Bears despite them being the 4th or 5th highest favorite to win the conference. There was a lot of volatility in the Bears prediction model because the potential for implosion under the wackadoodle Trestman was relatively high.

 

 

Tagging the QB and doing so with the intent on trading him (not a realistic idea at the time) would have blown up in their faces and led to a disastrous season, one in which the Bears were not expecting to have.

 

Is the only difference here what the Bears expected vs. what Vegas/you expected?

[mul21]

Ted and George made it clear Ernie was advising but they were making the decision. I'm not sure what "being in the room" matters when it comes to them interviewing guys.

 

You're kidding right?

[JonJayCutler]

I'm pretty sure choosing Trestman over Arians was a bigger factor in Emery getting canned than the Cutler contract.

 

One was a sin, the other was unforgivable.

[Guest]

There's no justifying contracts?

 

Please amuse me.

 

There's a few elite QB's that maybe someone could say justify their contracts. Then there's a whole middle tier of "meh" QB's that get paid too much because nobody wants to be stuck with the really crappy ones. The "meh" QB's get paid too much and can never live up to the money they get. It's just how the NFL works.

 

The question becomes if that is the way the NFL should work. With the new rookie wage scale, there is a new class of QB's: the relatively cheap ones. And the playoffs have been dominated by the elite QB's and the cheap ones the last couple of years. About 1/3 of the league is non-elite QB's on big deals, and they've had 3 total representatives in the division round the last couple of years: Rivers last year (who lost) and Flacco and Romo this year who are underdogs.

 

The odds of winning a Super Bowl with one of those guys is significantly lower than it was 5-10 years ago. It's pretty low even if you have the best non-elite guy, and Cutler isn't that.

 

The Bears definitely were following a trend, but the question is if it was a trend worth following. It hasn't worked out for many teams lately, and there's a potential of an NBA like treadmill team trend developing.

 

Look at Seattle, their good fortunes and being able to operate with a cheap productive QB are coming to an end.

 

It might be something worth looking into similar to young elite pitching prospects or closers, where there's safety in numbers. When are teams willing to allocate huge chunks of payroll towards mediocre QBs, given the up an down nature of the 3rd and 4th tier QBs getting paid huge amounts, would it be wise to try and draft several QBs in one draft with different strengths/weaknesses and have one develop for 3 years then start the process over?

 

Seattle has had great financial flexibility because of Wilson.

Seattle has had great financial flexibility because they've drafted really well across the board. The cap issues that are coming to them are bigger than Wilson- as all their cheap production becomes not cheap. And they're gonna be much better off paying Wilson and trying to keep finding cheap production elsewhere.

 

This similar point was brought up a few weeks ago and I brought up Big Ben in Pittsburgh. They won a SB with him as a rookie then had mixed results for the rest of his rookie deal. They gave him a very large extension. They followed it up with 3 of the next 4 as 12 win seasons and 2 SB appearances (1 win). Then the past few years where Big Ben transitioned to actually being underpaid they were pretty average until this year.

 

Cheap QB production isn't some magic answer. Good drafting across the board and a good QB (usually at a large cost) is.