2015 Bears Offseason (Foxy new Head Coach page 104)

[jersey cubs fan]

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.

 

Are you talking about multiple QBs in the same draft? That's nutso.

 

I am a proponent of drafting QBs every 1-2 years. I don't want to go 3 years without drafting a QB, but using a 3rd is a sizable commitment.

 

The Seattle story is not a repeatable model.

[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.

 

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.

 

Teams have more positions to fill than just QB. Money means so little to NFL teams...they can cut guys and eat that money. As long as they can finagle the numbers to fit under the cap. But draft picks are limited. Spending several picks on QB's when they other positions to address on the off chance that maybe you can get a Wilson isn't a great strategy.

[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.

 

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?

The only tag and trade I can actually think of was Cassel. I don't think anyone has ever tagged and traded their number 1 QB.

 

Not really sure about tag and sign long term history or tag and play out the year are... I'm guessing there isn't s huge sample to draw from.

 

Wouldn't be my choice even with hindsight, but I'm willing to play out the scenarios with UK...

Edited January 8, 2015 by WrigleyField 22

[Sammy Sofa]

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.

 

It's just one of those things that doesn't happen with QB's.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

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?

 

No, because lots of people expected great things from the Bears. The Bears had a chance to be quite good this year. The range of expectations, however, were quite large. If you expected a disaster, go ahead and tag a trade him. The Bears were not in position to expect disaster.

[CubColtPacer]

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.

 

San Francisco also did that with Kaepernick. On a lesser level, Bengals with Dalton.

 

I'm not saying it's a good position to be in to by trying to draft a cheap QB that's decent. It's not. That's where the comparison to the NBA comes in. But if you sign one of these non-elite QB's just to be safe, you are tying your hands completely. There have been two QB's in the last 20 years to win a Super Bowl while taking up 10% of a team's cap, and Cutler might eclipse that every single year of his deal despite not being one of the top 10 QB's in the league.

[Guest]

Wasn't Cutler's deal better until it got restructured for signing Jared Allen?

[Guest]

Wasn't Cutler's deal better until it got restructured for signing Jared Allen?

Pretty minimal difference. Basically 4M extra in future cap commitments.

[UK1679666180]

You're probably right, it just seems a lot to give up (both with an early pick or a long-term contract) on such a helter-skelter position similar to drafting a HS pitcher with the 1st pick.

 

Catering an offense to that QBs strengths (who might project as a 2nd or 3rd rounder, like Bill Walsh who valued accuracy and built his offense around that) and hope he develops during the duration of that QBs team's friendly contract the 1st 3 years to allocate that money elsewhere.

 

As CCP mentioned, it's not the position you want to be (having a top 5 QB is) but if you're stuck in QB hell, it's your best shot, especially with this years crop of QBs.

 

If I'm TB, I'd draft Gregory 1st and Grayson in 3rd-4th range over Mariota and the later pick.

[UK1679666180]

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?

The only tag and trade I can actually think of was Cassel. I don't think anyone has ever tagged and traded their number 1 QB.

 

Not really sure about tag and sign long term history or tag and play out the year are... I'm guessing there isn't s huge sample to draw from.

 

Wouldn't be my choice even with hindsight, but I'm willing to play out the scenarios with UK...

 

http://nflphilosophy.com/jay-cutler-and-the-bears-contract-dilemma/

 

NE received the 34th pick for Cassel.

 

I imagine Cutler would've received more given that he has a better track record and talent.

 

It would put the Bears in QB hell, McCown would've come back, they would've drafted a QB early (maybe the EIU kid), and likely finished with around 5 wins considering Emery would've spent that extra 17 or so mil pretty poorly most likely.

[Guest]

And you'd be okay with that?

 

ETA - put at least 5 of that 17 to McCown.

[minnesotacubsfan]

That would have sucked

[UK1679666180]

And you'd be okay with that?

 

Compared to what they have now?

 

Depends on what direction they go and how they would've allocated that extra cap space/draft pick(s). Emery probably would've signed another bad aging veteran.

 

If they rebuild this year by letting Tillman, Briggs, leave as FAs and cut Marshall, there's nothing here. Cutler is an expensive QB on a bad team in every phase. You can quickly turn a team around if the chips fall right, but they have a lot of work to do.

[UK1679666180]

And you'd be okay with that?

 

ETA - put at least 5 of that 17 to McCown.

 

I did, Cutler cost 22.5 mil.

[UK1679666180]

That would have sucked

 

It sucked either way.

[Sammy Sofa]

http://nflphilosophy.com/jay-cutler-and-the-bears-contract-dilemma/

 

NE received the 34th pick for Cassel.

 

I imagine Cutler would've received more given that he has a better track record and talent.

 

Yeah, but you're talking about something teams simply don't do. People throw out tagging Cutler like it's this common practice with QB's, and it just isn't.

[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.

 

San Francisco also did that with Kaepernick. On a lesser level, Bengals with Dalton.

 

I'm not saying it's a good position to be in to by trying to draft a cheap QB that's decent. It's not. That's where the comparison to the NBA comes in. But if you sign one of these non-elite QB's just to be safe, you are tying your hands completely. There have been two QB's in the last 20 years to win a Super Bowl while taking up 10% of a team's cap, and Cutler might eclipse that every single year of his deal despite not being one of the top 10 QB's in the league.

 

It doesn't take away from your point, but per this link, there have been at least 3 over that since 2000. (4 if you count Rodgers at 9.85%)

 

http://overthecap.com/super-bowl-rings-and-the-overpricing-of-the-quarterback/

 

EDIT: Difference from your results might be that this is using APY.

[jersey cubs fan]

That would have sucked

 

It sucked either way.

 

It didn't have to suck.

[Guest]

I mean Jesus Christ, I gave you the benefit of hindsight and the best you could come up with was some D1AA QB who hasn't proven [expletive]?

[Guest]

And you'd be okay with that?

 

ETA - put at least 5 of that 17 to McCown.

 

I did, Cutler cost 22.5 mil.

17 was off slightly. Final cap figure in 2015 ended up being 18.5 once they shifted some of the SB. 22.5 was just the guaranteed figure, but part of that ended up being converted (for JA).

[CubColtPacer]

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.

 

San Francisco also did that with Kaepernick. On a lesser level, Bengals with Dalton.

 

I'm not saying it's a good position to be in to by trying to draft a cheap QB that's decent. It's not. That's where the comparison to the NBA comes in. But if you sign one of these non-elite QB's just to be safe, you are tying your hands completely. There have been two QB's in the last 20 years to win a Super Bowl while taking up 10% of a team's cap, and Cutler might eclipse that every single year of his deal despite not being one of the top 10 QB's in the league.

 

It doesn't take away from your point, but per this link, there have been at least 3 over that since 2000. (4 if you count Rodgers at 9.85%)

 

http://overthecap.com/super-bowl-rings-and-the-overpricing-of-the-quarterback/

 

EDIT: Difference from your results might be that this is using APY.

 

Fair enough. Here is the article I got my figures from :

 

http://q.usatoday.com/2014/03/07/paying-for-an-elite-qb-often-means-not-affording-even-a-mediocre-defense/

 

There's a decent possibility that another QB over 10% will join that list this year. Manning, Brady, Rodgers, and Flacco are over 10%, while Wilson, Romo, Luck, and Newton are under 10%.

[Guest]

I don't believe many SB teams went and bought their defense though... They drafted + retained them. There was no young budding stars the Bears let go in order to retain Jay. They weren't gonna buy s defense in FA. As is they committed significant FA dollars to the D. So a decision with Jay is being compared to an alternate reality that doesn't exist.

 

Even at 6.24% average that'd pretty significant in a league with 51 salary cap slots, typically lots of dead cap room, and 22 starters.

[Tyrant]

 

injury prone, lol. [expletive] off meatball.

 

seriously, try it sometime.

[Tyrant]

you called him injury prone. meatballs do that when they hate someone because of the look on their face.

 

try it sometime.

[Tyrant]

so you're going to count being struck in the head with a helmet and getting your thumb mangled in a facemask while making a touchdown-saving tackle after one of your receivers fell down in front of a cb as being injury prone? yeah, you a see how you a meatball.

 

give it a whirl