Week 5: Bears at Raiders in London (noon on Fox)

[UK]

Regarding Mitch, I'll parrot what Robert Mays opined on one of the (many) Ringer podcasts; while I don't think Mitch is the "Answer" at QB or even particularly good as a starting NFL quarterback, I'm glad he apparently won't be out for a substantial length of time. Assuming Mitch comes back in 2-4 weeks and then continues to play at roughly the same meh/below meh level he's played the first four weeks of this season, you'd have to think it makes it more likely that this off-season the front office spends resources trying to find another QB, either as a new starter or at least someone who can nominally "challenge" Mitch as starting QB. If Mitch were out a substantial length of time, I'd fear the front office would use his absence as an excuse for giving him another season as the unequivocal/undisputed starting QB, which I frankly just don't think he's shown to be good enough to be.

 

Maybe this is naive but I do not think this leadership group, Pace and Nagy, would take a prolonged injury as an excuse to stick with Mitch.

 

I've heard from people who know people that the offensive powers that be were very skeptical of Mitch when they came into the job. I think there is a sincere belief/faith that if Mitch isn't the guy, then Nagy and Pace will be able to come together and choose the next guy. They aren't going to stay wedded to Mitch out of some desperate attempt to keep their jobs. I'd bet ownership is pretty happy with the overall talent improvement brought about by Pace's group, and the general caliber of quality.

 

That being said, they aren't going to be able to spend any real resources on the next "GUY" this offseason. They might get a one year lotto ticket, but the next guy will be in the 2021 draft.

If "their guy" is available around spot 10-15, they would obviously try and move up for them. Oak 2nd and next year's first is a reasonable starting point of a trade up, unless Oak dramatically improves their record. Short of a tank/reset year you're almost always stuck trading an extra first to draft a QB high, so they can spend real resources this offseason.

 

It makes more sense to wait until Trubisky has played 4 years to see if he's worth the 5th year option or to start over. It makes no sense to rush it next year, if Mitch doesn't improve they won't have the necessary assets to improve enough to contend either way.

 

Also, by then this window will have closed and will need as many resources poss. to open a new one.

 

I don't think we have to worry about a Goff deal yet nor would I be disappointed if they don't get a top avail. QB via draft or FA. I will be disappointed they wasted a #2 overall pick on a subpar player while others selected after him were better

[WrigleyField 22]

 

Maybe this is naive but I do not think this leadership group, Pace and Nagy, would take a prolonged injury as an excuse to stick with Mitch.

 

I've heard from people who know people that the offensive powers that be were very skeptical of Mitch when they came into the job. I think there is a sincere belief/faith that if Mitch isn't the guy, then Nagy and Pace will be able to come together and choose the next guy. They aren't going to stay wedded to Mitch out of some desperate attempt to keep their jobs. I'd bet ownership is pretty happy with the overall talent improvement brought about by Pace's group, and the general caliber of quality.

 

That being said, they aren't going to be able to spend any real resources on the next "GUY" this offseason. They might get a one year lotto ticket, but the next guy will be in the 2021 draft.

If "their guy" is available around spot 10-15, they would obviously try and move up for them. Oak 2nd and next year's first is a reasonable starting point of a trade up, unless Oak dramatically improves their record. Short of a tank/reset year you're almost always stuck trading an extra first to draft a QB high, so they can spend real resources this offseason.

 

It makes more sense to wait until Trubisky has played 4 years to see if he's worth the 5th year option or to start over. It makes no sense to rush it next year, if Mitch doesn't improve they won't have the necessary assets to improve enough to contend either way.

 

Also, by then this window will have closed and will need as many resources poss. to open a new one.

 

I don't think we have to worry about a Goff deal yet nor would I be disappointed if they don't get a top avail. QB via draft or FA. I will be disappointed they wasted a #2 overall pick on a subpar player while others selected after him were better

To be fair l, I'm pretty skeptical Trubisky will be bad enough that they'll decide he's worth moving on from this offseason. It's also nearly certain they won't be in a position to be talking extensions like Goff.

 

However if the right convergence of Mitch develop and the "right" draft prospect emerges, a big splash isn't impossible. Also a lot depends on how the rest of the season goes. If it's another winning season, but clearly lacking pieces to be a true contender a big splash for a QB leveraging future assets would be a strategy to avoid bottoming out in a couple years and keep the team at least playoff/division competitive while they retool in other ways the next several years to keep the D elite.

[minnesotacubsfan]

If "their guy" is available around spot 10-15, they would obviously try and move up for them. Oak 2nd and next year's first is a reasonable starting point of a trade up, unless Oak dramatically improves their record. Short of a tank/reset year you're almost always stuck trading an extra first to draft a QB high, so they can spend real resources this offseason.

 

It makes more sense to wait until Trubisky has played 4 years to see if he's worth the 5th year option or to start over. It makes no sense to rush it next year, if Mitch doesn't improve they won't have the necessary assets to improve enough to contend either way.

 

Also, by then this window will have closed and will need as many resources poss. to open a new one.

 

I don't think we have to worry about a Goff deal yet nor would I be disappointed if they don't get a top avail. QB via draft or FA. I will be disappointed they wasted a #2 overall pick on a subpar player while others selected after him were better

To be fair l, I'm pretty skeptical Trubisky will be bad enough that they'll decide he's worth moving on from this offseason. It's also nearly certain they won't be in a position to be talking extensions like Goff.

 

However if the right convergence of Mitch develop and the "right" draft prospect emerges, a big splash isn't impossible. Also a lot depends on how the rest of the season goes. If it's another winning season, but clearly lacking pieces to be a true contender a big splash for a QB leveraging future assets would be a strategy to avoid bottoming out in a couple years and keep the team at least playoff/division competitive while they retool in other ways the next several years to keep the D elite.

 

 

do you mean in the Vikings/Cousins sense, where we end up with the top available FA qb who turns into a pumpkin

[WrigleyField 22]

 

do you mean in the Vikings/Cousins sense, where we end up with the top available FA qb who turns into a pumpkin

I was speaking in the draft sense.

 

Not sure what "big" QB FA there will even be. Even a Cousins level in FA is pretty rare. The best you'd realistically see in FA is a guy who would be coming into a QB comp that Mitch might still win.

 

Eli? Bleh

Teddy Bridgewater? Maybe, if he plays well for the next few weeks

Marcus Mariota? He's probably what Mitch is 3 years from now, both value and style wise

Keenum/Sieman/McCoy? These guys might provide a marginal upgrade to Daniels, but doubtful theyll actually push Mitch's job.

[minnesotacubsfan]

 

do you mean in the Vikings/Cousins sense, where we end up with the top available FA qb who turns into a pumpkin

I was speaking in the draft sense.

 

Not sure what "big" QB FA there will even be. Even a Cousins level in FA is pretty rare. The best you'd realistically see in FA is a guy who would be coming into a QB comp that Mitch might still win.

 

Eli? Bleh

Teddy Bridgewater? Maybe, if he plays well for the next few weeks

Marcus Mariota? He's probably what Mitch is 3 years from now, both value and style wise

Keenum/Sieman/McCoy? These guys might provide a marginal upgrade to Daniels, but doubtful theyll actually push Mitch's job.

 

I took your post to read that we would get a FA QB and spend the draft picks otherwise, so I definitely was confused. And no, I do not like that idea. However, if Mitch is improving or not improving and we see a QB we like in the draft, why wouldn't we take him. If Mitch is improving, i could see drafting someone in the later rounds, if he isn't then the first rd (provided the pick makes sense)

[Brian]

It makes more sense to wait until Trubisky has played 4 years to see if he's worth the 5th year option or to start over.

 

Doesn't that option have to be picked up after year 3?

[WrigleyField 22]

 

do you mean in the Vikings/Cousins sense, where we end up with the top available FA qb who turns into a pumpkin

I was speaking in the draft sense.

 

Not sure what "big" QB FA there will even be. Even a Cousins level in FA is pretty rare. The best you'd realistically see in FA is a guy who would be coming into a QB comp that Mitch might still win.

 

Eli? Bleh

Teddy Bridgewater? Maybe, if he plays well for the next few weeks

Marcus Mariota? He's probably what Mitch is 3 years from now, both value and style wise

Keenum/Sieman/McCoy? These guys might provide a marginal upgrade to Daniels, but doubtful theyll actually push Mitch's job.

 

I took your post to read that we would get a FA QB and spend the draft picks otherwise, so I definitely was confused. And no, I do not like that idea. However, if Mitch is improving or not improving and we see a QB we like in the draft, why wouldn't we take him. If Mitch is improving, i could see drafting someone in the later rounds, if he isn't then the first rd (provided the pick makes sense)

Certainly if a QB is there they like later, they'd jump. Need a Bray replacement next year at the very least. In the 2nd, I'd trading up is the more "interesting" dilemma, if they liked a draft pick.

[raw]

It makes more sense to wait until Trubisky has played 4 years to see if he's worth the 5th year option or to start over.

 

Doesn't that option have to be picked up after year 3?

 

Yes, the deadline for Leonard Floyd and the other 2016 1st round picks was May 3rd this year. So presumably early May 2020, they'll have to decide on Mitch.

[UK]

It makes more sense to wait until Trubisky has played 4 years to see if he's worth the 5th year option or to start over.

 

Doesn't that option have to be picked up after year 3?

 

Yes, but the option isn't a severe financial burden as the one going into year 5.

[jersey cubs fan]

It makes more sense to wait until Trubisky has played 4 years to see if he's worth the 5th year option or to start over.

 

Doesn't that option have to be picked up after year 3?

 

Yes, the deadline for Leonard Floyd and the other 2016 1st round picks was May 3rd this year. So presumably early May 2020, they'll have to decide on Mitch.

I'd probably be of the mind to pick up the option, not sign an extension, and try and get competent/mediocrity out of him with a 5% chance of a late bloomer season, then start fresh in 2021.

[jersey cubs fan]

It makes more sense to wait until Trubisky has played 4 years to see if he's worth the 5th year option or to start over.

 

Doesn't that option have to be picked up after year 3?

 

Yes, but the option isn't a severe financial burden as the one going into year 5.

 

The year 5 option has to be picked up prior to year 4.

[WrigleyField 22]

 

Doesn't that option have to be picked up after year 3?

 

Yes, the deadline for Leonard Floyd and the other 2016 1st round picks was May 3rd this year. So presumably early May 2020, they'll have to decide on Mitch.

I'd probably be of the mind to pick up the option, not sign an extension, and try and get competent/mediocrity out of him with a 5% chance of a late bloomer season, then start fresh in 2021.

I expect that will be the most reasonable choice. I'm presuming he rights the ship a bit this year and looks like an average QB again by year end. If he never turns it around this year, it becomes a little more difficult.

[raw]

 

Doesn't that option have to be picked up after year 3?

 

Yes, the deadline for Leonard Floyd and the other 2016 1st round picks was May 3rd this year. So presumably early May 2020, they'll have to decide on Mitch.

I'd probably be of the mind to pick up the option, not sign an extension, and try and get competent/mediocrity out of him with a 5% chance of a late bloomer season, then start fresh in 2021.

Yep. Exactly what's gonna happen. Bears are in the fun place where they don't have the picks to find a new QB of the future, and they don't have the cap space to find a stopgap veteran until they have picks.

 

 

Sent from my moto e5 supra using Tapatalk

[WrigleyField 22]

 

Yes, the deadline for Leonard Floyd and the other 2016 1st round picks was May 3rd this year. So presumably early May 2020, they'll have to decide on Mitch.

I'd probably be of the mind to pick up the option, not sign an extension, and try and get competent/mediocrity out of him with a 5% chance of a late bloomer season, then start fresh in 2021.

Yep. Exactly what's gonna happen. Bears are in the fun place where they don't have the picks to find a new QB of the future, and they don't have the cap space to find a stopgap veteran until they have picks.

 

 

Sent from my moto e5 supra using Tapatalk

While not flush with cap space, as long were just talking "stop-gap", I don't think cap space is going to stand in the way of them adding a new QB. Even a little more than stop gap, they could probably swing it (like if Rivers or Brees didn't return, both are FA. Nor will the draft picks stand in their way. Neither would be an easy pill, but you're talking about the most important position to fill.

 

A note on Mitch's 5th year option. I forgot that until his option year actually starts, it's only guaranteed for injury. So unless he's rehabbing some major injury, it will be pretty low risk to pick it up this offseason, and they can always get back out of it in 2021, as long as he is healthy by the time year 5 rolls around. That fact opens up an extra wrinkle in Paces ability to maneuver the cap, as necessary.

[raw]

I'd probably be of the mind to pick up the option, not sign an extension, and try and get competent/mediocrity out of him with a 5% chance of a late bloomer season, then start fresh in 2021.

Yep. Exactly what's gonna happen. Bears are in the fun place where they don't have the picks to find a new QB of the future, and they don't have the cap space to find a stopgap veteran until they have picks.

 

 

Sent from my moto e5 supra using Tapatalk

While not flush with cap space, as long were just talking "stop-gap", I don't think cap space is going to stand in the way of them adding a new QB. Even a little more than stop gap, they could probably swing it (like if Rivers or Brees didn't return, both are FA. Nor will the draft picks stand in their way. Neither would be an easy pill, but you're talking about the most important position to fill.

 

A note on Mitch's 5th year option. I forgot that until his option year actually starts, it's only guaranteed for injury. So unless he's rehabbing some major injury, it will be pretty low risk to pick it up this offseason, and they can always get back out of it in 2021, as long as he is healthy by the time year 5 rolls around. That fact opens up an extra wrinkle in Paces ability to maneuver the cap, as necessary.

 

Yes, yes it will. A Mike Glennon like stopgap cost 15Mil. That's obviously not an upgrade to Trubisky. A slight upgrade like Alex Smith costs 23Mil. A guy like Rivers/Brees would be upwards of 30Mil. The Bears don't have the money for even Mike Glennon if they want to keep guys like Floyd, Robinson, or fill open spots on the OL, ILB, safety, and corner.....because they also don't have draft picks.

[David]

[Chocolate Milk]

Yep. Exactly what's gonna happen. Bears are in the fun place where they don't have the picks to find a new QB of the future, and they don't have the cap space to find a stopgap veteran until they have picks.

 

 

Sent from my moto e5 supra using Tapatalk

While not flush with cap space, as long were just talking "stop-gap", I don't think cap space is going to stand in the way of them adding a new QB. Even a little more than stop gap, they could probably swing it (like if Rivers or Brees didn't return, both are FA. Nor will the draft picks stand in their way. Neither would be an easy pill, but you're talking about the most important position to fill.

 

A note on Mitch's 5th year option. I forgot that until his option year actually starts, it's only guaranteed for injury. So unless he's rehabbing some major injury, it will be pretty low risk to pick it up this offseason, and they can always get back out of it in 2021, as long as he is healthy by the time year 5 rolls around. That fact opens up an extra wrinkle in Paces ability to maneuver the cap, as necessary.

 

Yes, yes it will. A Mike Glennon like stopgap cost 15Mil. That's obviously not an upgrade to Trubisky. A slight upgrade like Alex Smith costs 23Mil. A guy like Rivers/Brees would be upwards of 30Mil. The Bears don't have the money for even Mike Glennon if they want to keep guys like Floyd, Robinson, or fill open spots on the OL, ILB, safety, and corner.....because they also don't have draft picks.

Mitch's 5th year option will probably cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 21 million so if something like 15 million will be financially restrictive, than Mitch's option year will be even more so.

[jersey cubs fan]

While not flush with cap space, as long were just talking "stop-gap", I don't think cap space is going to stand in the way of them adding a new QB. Even a little more than stop gap, they could probably swing it (like if Rivers or Brees didn't return, both are FA. Nor will the draft picks stand in their way. Neither would be an easy pill, but you're talking about the most important position to fill.

 

A note on Mitch's 5th year option. I forgot that until his option year actually starts, it's only guaranteed for injury. So unless he's rehabbing some major injury, it will be pretty low risk to pick it up this offseason, and they can always get back out of it in 2021, as long as he is healthy by the time year 5 rolls around. That fact opens up an extra wrinkle in Paces ability to maneuver the cap, as necessary.

 

Yes, yes it will. A Mike Glennon like stopgap cost 15Mil. That's obviously not an upgrade to Trubisky. A slight upgrade like Alex Smith costs 23Mil. A guy like Rivers/Brees would be upwards of 30Mil. The Bears don't have the money for even Mike Glennon if they want to keep guys like Floyd, Robinson, or fill open spots on the OL, ILB, safety, and corner.....because they also don't have draft picks.

Mitch's 5th year option will probably cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 21 million so if something like 15 million will be financially restrictive, than Mitch's option year will be even more so.

That 5th year option is a 2021 thing. The lack of space to find a veteran stop gap was presumably, a 2020 theory. There's no point in targeting a stopgap veteran for 2021, that is when they'll finally have picks to address the issue. Mitch already accounts against the 2020 cap, so if you bring in a free agent you are paying All-Pro QB money for non-All Pro QB play.

[Chocolate Milk]

 

Yes, yes it will. A Mike Glennon like stopgap cost 15Mil. That's obviously not an upgrade to Trubisky. A slight upgrade like Alex Smith costs 23Mil. A guy like Rivers/Brees would be upwards of 30Mil. The Bears don't have the money for even Mike Glennon if they want to keep guys like Floyd, Robinson, or fill open spots on the OL, ILB, safety, and corner.....because they also don't have draft picks.

Mitch's 5th year option will probably cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 21 million so if something like 15 million will be financially restrictive, than Mitch's option year will be even more so.

That 5th year option is a 2021 thing. The lack of space to find a veteran stop gap was presumably, a 2020 theory. There's no point in targeting a stopgap veteran for 2021, that is when they'll finally have picks to address the issue. Mitch already accounts against the 2020 cap, so if you bring in a free agent you are paying All-Pro QB money for non-All Pro QB play.

Gotcha - I thought we were weighing the options between Mitch or someone else in 2021.

[WrigleyField 22]

Yep. Exactly what's gonna happen. Bears are in the fun place where they don't have the picks to find a new QB of the future, and they don't have the cap space to find a stopgap veteran until they have picks.

 

 

Sent from my moto e5 supra using Tapatalk

While not flush with cap space, as long were just talking "stop-gap", I don't think cap space is going to stand in the way of them adding a new QB. Even a little more than stop gap, they could probably swing it (like if Rivers or Brees didn't return, both are FA. Nor will the draft picks stand in their way. Neither would be an easy pill, but you're talking about the most important position to fill.

 

A note on Mitch's 5th year option. I forgot that until his option year actually starts, it's only guaranteed for injury. So unless he's rehabbing some major injury, it will be pretty low risk to pick it up this offseason, and they can always get back out of it in 2021, as long as he is healthy by the time year 5 rolls around. That fact opens up an extra wrinkle in Paces ability to maneuver the cap, as necessary.

 

Yes, yes it will. A Mike Glennon like stopgap cost 15Mil. That's obviously not an upgrade to Trubisky. A slight upgrade like Alex Smith costs 23Mil. A guy like Rivers/Brees would be upwards of 30Mil. The Bears don't have the money for even Mike Glennon if they want to keep guys like Floyd, Robinson, or fill open spots on the OL, ILB, safety, and corner.....because they also don't have draft picks.

They can afford 15M with a little maneuvering. They could afford 30M AAV if a Brees or Rivers were available with a lot of maneuvering, but it definitely can be done.

 

That said, in the context of stop gaps, while they can cost 15M/yr like Glennon did in 2017, many stop gap types at the same or better talent level have signed for much less the past several years. And the 15m+ ones didn't see out their deals. So, hopefully they sign a reasonable stop gap deal if it comes to that. We'll see on Alex Smith. 20+ may be a high estimate coming off his injury.

 

However, it all starts with a presumption that Mitch doesn't right the ship to the point that there are serious doubts about not only his long term future, but even his ability to "game manage" in 2020/21. If they reach that conclusion they absolutely can and should put their resources into the best QB they can, whether thats cap manuevering or trading picks. That said I think it's highly unlikely they reach that point. Mitch will almost certainly improve enough on the rest if the season that "roll with him and hope for unlikely improvements" is the best option, because the stop gap pool won't be better than what he probably can give them, like you said.

[raw]

Saw a poll on Twitter that asked would you trade Mack straight up for Russell Wilson. 58% said "No" they would not make that trade.

 

Am I crazy in thinking I would take Wilson almost easily over Mack? A top 3-5 QB is just more valuable than a top 3 defensive player in the league.

[WrigleyField 22]

Saw a poll on Twitter that asked would you trade Mack straight up for Russell Wilson. 58% said "No" they would not make that trade.

 

Am I crazy in thinking I would take Wilson almost easily over Mack? A top 3-5 QB is just more valuable than a top 3 defensive player in the league.

The only reason it would give me pause is the contracts. But yea, that's a tradeoff you'd make in a hypothetical scenario.

[jersey cubs fan]

Saw a poll on Twitter that asked would you trade Mack straight up for Russell Wilson. 58% said "No" they would not make that trade.

 

Am I crazy in thinking I would take Wilson almost easily over Mack? A top 3-5 QB is just more valuable than a top 3 defensive player in the league.

My only hesitation is he's already 30, 2 years older than Mack.

He actually turns 31 this year. Some QBs age, but smaller ones who rush 50+ times for 200-400 yards/season? He runs and gets sacked a lot more than Drew Brees ever has.

 

But I think you have to pull the trigger on that trade that would never happen. He's a stud QB and that's just something you definitely take when you can.

[UMFan83]

Saw a poll on Twitter that asked would you trade Mack straight up for Russell Wilson. 58% said "No" they would not make that trade.

 

Am I crazy in thinking I would take Wilson almost easily over Mack? A top 3-5 QB is just more valuable than a top 3 defensive player in the league.

My only hesitation is he's already 30, 2 years older than Mack.

He actually turns 31 this year. Some QBs age, but smaller ones who rush 50+ times for 200-400 yards/season? He runs and gets sacked a lot more than Drew Brees ever has.

 

But I think you have to pull the trigger on that trade that would never happen. He's a stud QB and that's just something you definitely take when you can.

 

If I had to rank the position groups where an uber elite talent helps the team the most, clearly QB is 1. I’d probably have a pass rusher number 2, but the gap between 1 and 2 is big enough that yeah I’d make that trade.

[WrigleyField 22]

So it seems Bray still has not been activated to the active roster.

 

Sooo what's up?