Are we getting Black Monday II? No, but we got a Black QB!!!

[ChiCubsFan]

Is it correct Bears would only be on the hook for 3 years $70M plus potential incentive bonuses? And Seattle would pay $39M in dead cap?

[gflore34]

I honestly can't allow myself to believe the Bears have a shot at Wilson. He's probably what, the third best QB in the league? On top of that:

 

- He's old enough you have no worries about him learning a new offense

- He's young enough you're not all that worried about decline for another few years

- He's played most of his career behind terrible offensive lines, and his WRs have generally been good but not great

- His cap hit's pretty modest

 

There's honestly nothing wrong with him. The Bears aren't allowed to have nice things like this. I mean he's exceptionally lame in like an Adrien Grenier kind of way, but like that's it?

 

Was thinking along similar lines, say for a moment we allow ourselves to believe the Bears are allowed to have such nice things, what'll be the cost? I think it'll be high but, how high?

[David]

I honestly can't allow myself to believe the Bears have a shot at Wilson. He's probably what, the third best QB in the league? On top of that:

 

- He's old enough you have no worries about him learning a new offense

- He's young enough you're not all that worried about decline for another few years

- He's played most of his career behind terrible offensive lines, and his WRs have generally been good but not great

- His cap hit's pretty modest

 

There's honestly nothing wrong with him. The Bears aren't allowed to have nice things like this. I mean he's exceptionally lame in like an Adrien Grenier kind of way, but like that's it?

 

Was thinking along similar lines, say for a moment we allow ourselves to believe the Bears are allowed to have such nice things, what'll be the cost? I think it'll be high but, how high?

 

who cares

 

 

worst case, i'd rather lose with russell wilson than have another defense first 9-7 squad narrowly miss or lose in the playoffs. give me a damn real quarterback for once.

[gflore34]

I honestly can't allow myself to believe the Bears have a shot at Wilson. He's probably what, the third best QB in the league? On top of that:

 

- He's old enough you have no worries about him learning a new offense

- He's young enough you're not all that worried about decline for another few years

- He's played most of his career behind terrible offensive lines, and his WRs have generally been good but not great

- His cap hit's pretty modest

 

There's honestly nothing wrong with him. The Bears aren't allowed to have nice things like this. I mean he's exceptionally lame in like an Adrien Grenier kind of way, but like that's it?

 

Was thinking along similar lines, say for a moment we allow ourselves to believe the Bears are allowed to have such nice things, what'll be the cost? I think it'll be high but, how high?

 

who cares

 

 

worst case, i'd rather lose with russell wilson than have another defense first 9-7 squad narrowly miss or lose in the playoffs. give me a damn real quarterback for once.

 

I really don't care either, was more of rhetorical question. I have no logic behind my reasoning but, I've feeling that, should Pace be able to pull this off, the cost will end up being fairly reasonable. Imagine that, Bears get a HOF QB, who's not washed up and at a decent cost. WTF?

[WrigleyField 22]

Is it correct Bears would only be on the hook for 3 years $70M plus potential incentive bonuses? And Seattle would pay $39M in dead cap?

That is correct. Bears hits would be 19, 24, 27. I'm sure by 2023 you'd be negotiating an extension

[ChiCubsFan]

Is it correct Bears would only be on the hook for 3 years $70M plus potential incentive bonuses? And Seattle would pay $39M in dead cap?

That is correct. Bears hits would be 19, 24, 27. I'm sure by 2023 you'd be negotiating an extension

 

Because of this I would imagine the package is at least 3 first rounders and 2-3 second or third round picks. Probably get a few day 3 picks back in return to balance out the insane number of high picks going to Seattle.

[WrigleyField 22]

Is it correct Bears would only be on the hook for 3 years $70M plus potential incentive bonuses? And Seattle would pay $39M in dead cap?

That is correct. Bears hits would be 19, 24, 27. I'm sure by 2023 you'd be negotiating an extension

 

Because of this I would imagine the package is at least 3 first rounders and 2-3 second or third round picks. Probably get a few day 3 picks back in return to balance out the insane number of high picks going to Seattle.

I usually fail miserably at predicting these things, but it feels like it should be less than that.

[ChiCubsFan]

That is correct. Bears hits would be 19, 24, 27. I'm sure by 2023 you'd be negotiating an extension

 

Because of this I would imagine the package is at least 3 first rounders and 2-3 second or third round picks. Probably get a few day 3 picks back in return to balance out the insane number of high picks going to Seattle.

I usually fail miserably at predicting these things, but it feels like it should be less than that.

 

It would probably include some players instead. Maybe Roquan and/or Johnson?

[WrigleyField 22]

 

Because of this I would imagine the package is at least 3 first rounders and 2-3 second or third round picks. Probably get a few day 3 picks back in return to balance out the insane number of high picks going to Seattle.

I usually fail miserably at predicting these things, but it feels like it should be less than that.

 

It would probably include some players instead. Maybe Roquan and/or Johnson?

Yea - I could see picks and players for sure. (I'm probably wrong)

[raw]

I don't really see the Bears trading any of the core pieces for a QB. It kinda of defeats the purpose to gut portions of the defense to add a QB who you have to trade a bunch of top draft picks to get.

 

I guess Fuller is a name coming up in rumors, but doesn't really make sense to me. This defense was built with guys like Fuller, Jackson, Mack, Trevathan, Hicks, Goldman and Smith. I don't see any of those guys being available unless the Bears really think Goldman can make up for the loss of Hicks. They'll have to work a bunch of stuff with cap space, but trading a bunch of draft picks for a QB means they are going for a big run at the title. Making a big run is tougher if they lose a big part of the defense, since their best means of replacing that part would be with a draft pick or spending even more money.

 

I could see the Bears giving up Johnson or Nichols or maybe even Daniels on the offensive side (sounds like a lot of very good OGs are going to be cut). They are cheap contracts plus the Bears played significant snaps without 2 of them last year. Could be attractive to a team like Seattle who doesn't have much cap, will eat money in a Wilson deal, and need OL help + could lose their top CB who is a FA.

[Soul]

3 first rounders and 2-3 other top picks? That’s really the waters we’d be swimming in? Plus players too?

 

Hey, I’d love to see Wilson come play for the Bears, especially having fond memories of his college days in Madison. But no way. That’s just too steep. Get your pick right in the draft itself, for a change. Then a great QB costs 1 first rounder.

 

Spending all those picks on a QB is elegant proof that your GM horsefeathering sucks. Hire a new GM, make the right picks and win that way.

[UMFan83]

3 first rounders and 2-3 other top picks? That’s really the waters we’d be swimming in? Plus players too?

 

Hey, I’d love to see Wilson come play for the Bears, especially having fond memories of his college days in Madison. But no way. That’s just too steep. Get your pick right in the draft itself, for a change. Then a great QB costs 1 first rounder.

 

Spending all those picks on a QB is elegant proof that your GM horsefeathering sucks. Hire a new GM, make the right picks and win that way.

 

“Just pick the right guy” is good advice but if he doesn’t pick the right guy you likely punt a few years trying to see if he is the right guy, then you use another 1st anyways. I’d rather just take the sure thing. If they suck due to lack of assets around Wilson at least they’ll be entertaining bad instead of the bears usual unwatchable bad.

[ChiCubsFan]

Draft picks are overrated. Of course you trade 3 FRPs for Wilson or Watson

[David]

3 first rounders and 2-3 other top picks? That’s really the waters we’d be swimming in? Plus players too?

 

Hey, I’d love to see Wilson come play for the Bears, especially having fond memories of his college days in Madison. But no way. That’s just too steep. Get your pick right in the draft itself, for a change. Then a great QB costs 1 first rounder.

 

Spending all those picks on a QB is elegant proof that your GM horsefeathering sucks. Hire a new GM, make the right picks and win that way.

 

chances to acquire players like this at that position don't come around all that often (the last two offseasons not withstanding). both players being discussed are well worth the packages being discussed (and just about anything you could come up with within any semblance of reason).

[Bertz]

I'm very open to arguments of surplus value and such. I was the guy a few weeks ago like "Wentz? Maybe a 3rd." But elite QBs are basically a cheat code. They're worth something like 4 wins just on their own. The best players at any other position are worth maybe half of that?

 

If the cost is 3 firsts and Jaylon Johnson, you jump at the opportunity. In that scenario you're really only getting burnt if Wilson gets hurt or maybe if the Seahawks hit big on all three of those firsts.

 

When we start aiming our sites lower at like Derek Carr, then we can start counting every nickel and dime and worrying about opportunity cost again.

[raw]

Russell Wilson has won 10 games in every year of his career, except once, he only won 9 which was the only year the Seahawks missed the playoffs with him at QB. He had the Legion of Boom early in his career, with mediocre receiver talent. Then he's done it with receiver talent, but a weak defense. All the while, never having an OL.

 

Basically, the point I'm making is that Wilson is so good that it would be pretty hard to really screw this up (in the next 3 years you'd lose picks), unless he gets injured. Doesn't guarantee a championship or even close to it, but the odds are you're making the playoffs at least 2 of the next 3 years, even if you have to transition from guys like Mack, Hicks, Quinn, Fuller on defense and not replace them with blue chip picks.

 

Bears currently have 9 picks in the first 2 days of the next 3 drafts (potential to get another if Robinson walks this or next year). If you tell me they can keep 5 of those picks while getting a top 5 QB like Wilson, I'll take that.

[jersey cubs fan]

3 first rounders and 2-3 other top picks? That’s really the waters we’d be swimming in? Plus players too?

 

Hey, I’d love to see Wilson come play for the Bears, especially having fond memories of his college days in Madison. But no way. That’s just too steep. Get your pick right in the draft itself, for a change. Then a great QB costs 1 first rounder.

 

Spending all those picks on a QB is elegant proof that your GM horsefeathering sucks. Hire a new GM, make the right picks and win that way.

Go ahead and change the last name here, sentiment is still the same.

[WrigleyField 22]

Russell Wilson has won 10 games in every year of his career, except once, he only won 9 which was the only year the Seahawks missed the playoffs with him at QB. He had the Legion of Boom early in his career, with mediocre receiver talent. Then he's done it with receiver talent, but a weak defense. All the while, never having an OL.

 

Basically, the point I'm making is that Wilson is so good that it would be pretty hard to really screw this up (in the next 3 years you'd lose picks), unless he gets injured. Doesn't guarantee a championship or even close to it, but the odds are you're making the playoffs at least 2 of the next 3 years, even if you have to transition from guys like Mack, Hicks, Quinn, Fuller on defense and not replace them with blue chip picks.

 

Bears currently have 9 picks in the first 2 days of the next 3 drafts (potential to get another if Robinson walks this or next year). If you tell me they can keep 5 of those picks while getting a top 5 QB like Wilson, I'll take that.

On the OL point, I think at a certain point its fair to question if Wilson is making life harder on the OL. Most analytic minded guys will say that the QB is responsible for a great deal of sack % for example.

 

If its 4 top 1-3 picks over the next 3 drafts... I guess the devil is just in the details. I'm slightly more concerned about net pick loss. I'd part with the 3 firsts if I got a 2nd back, for example, as the difference between say 20 to 50th in the draft is often pretty small. Three 1sts and a second is a lot different that two 1sts and two 3rds.

[ChiCubsFan]

But really you should be okay giving 3 firsts and 2-3 day 2 picks. That’s how important having a franchise QB is. You’d also have him on a good deal for the next 3 seasons.

[WrigleyField 22]

But really you should be okay giving 3 firsts and 2-3 day 2 picks. That’s how important having a franchise QB is. You’d also have him on a good deal for the next 3 seasons.

I think you are reaching the point of overvaluing the QB spot, personally.

 

I guess if I knew the cap was about to explode with a new TV deal the vision becomes clearer as they could just fill around Wilson in FA for a few years, but as things stands now, the Bears aren't necessarily in a great spot to build around Wilson. At least Watson has longer term upside based on age. I'd definitely offer more for him.

[raw]

Russell Wilson has won 10 games in every year of his career, except once, he only won 9 which was the only year the Seahawks missed the playoffs with him at QB. He had the Legion of Boom early in his career, with mediocre receiver talent. Then he's done it with receiver talent, but a weak defense. All the while, never having an OL.

 

Basically, the point I'm making is that Wilson is so good that it would be pretty hard to really screw this up (in the next 3 years you'd lose picks), unless he gets injured. Doesn't guarantee a championship or even close to it, but the odds are you're making the playoffs at least 2 of the next 3 years, even if you have to transition from guys like Mack, Hicks, Quinn, Fuller on defense and not replace them with blue chip picks.

 

Bears currently have 9 picks in the first 2 days of the next 3 drafts (potential to get another if Robinson walks this or next year). If you tell me they can keep 5 of those picks while getting a top 5 QB like Wilson, I'll take that.

On the OL point, I think at a certain point its fair to question if Wilson is making life harder on the OL. Most analytic minded guys will say that the QB is responsible for a great deal of sack % for example.

 

If its 4 top 1-3 picks over the next 3 drafts... I guess the devil is just in the details. I'm slightly more concerned about net pick loss. I'd part with the 3 firsts if I got a 2nd back, for example, as the difference between say 20 to 50th in the draft is often pretty small. Three 1sts and a second is a lot different that two 1sts and two 3rds.

 

Oh yeah, Wilson makes it much harder on his line. Sacks are actually harder to get now because teams get the ball out so quickly. He holds onto the ball and runs around which can create pressure (rusher can see him, lineman can't, rusher adjusts to QB leaving the pocket while OL trying to protect the pocket).

 

As for the picks, I'm cool with giving up 1sts. I don't want to give up 1sts, and 2nds and 3rds. I mean, you still gotta hit on the picks, but you have to have the picks to hit on. Three 1sts and a 2nd is different from 2 1sts and 2 3rds because of that extra 1st round pick. But I'd also rather give up 3 1sts instead of 2 1sts and 2 2nds in the next 2 years, leaving your first pick in the 80s or later for 2 straight years.

[WrigleyField 22]

Russell Wilson has won 10 games in every year of his career, except once, he only won 9 which was the only year the Seahawks missed the playoffs with him at QB. He had the Legion of Boom early in his career, with mediocre receiver talent. Then he's done it with receiver talent, but a weak defense. All the while, never having an OL.

 

Basically, the point I'm making is that Wilson is so good that it would be pretty hard to really screw this up (in the next 3 years you'd lose picks), unless he gets injured. Doesn't guarantee a championship or even close to it, but the odds are you're making the playoffs at least 2 of the next 3 years, even if you have to transition from guys like Mack, Hicks, Quinn, Fuller on defense and not replace them with blue chip picks.

 

Bears currently have 9 picks in the first 2 days of the next 3 drafts (potential to get another if Robinson walks this or next year). If you tell me they can keep 5 of those picks while getting a top 5 QB like Wilson, I'll take that.

On the OL point, I think at a certain point its fair to question if Wilson is making life harder on the OL. Most analytic minded guys will say that the QB is responsible for a great deal of sack % for example.

 

If its 4 top 1-3 picks over the next 3 drafts... I guess the devil is just in the details. I'm slightly more concerned about net pick loss. I'd part with the 3 firsts if I got a 2nd back, for example, as the difference between say 20 to 50th in the draft is often pretty small. Three 1sts and a second is a lot different that two 1sts and two 3rds.

 

Oh yeah, Wilson makes it much harder on his line. Sacks are actually harder to get now because teams get the ball out so quickly. He holds onto the ball and runs around which can create pressure (rusher can see him, lineman can't, rusher adjusts to QB leaving the pocket while OL trying to protect the pocket).

 

As for the picks, I'm cool with giving up 1sts. I don't want to give up 1sts, and 2nds and 3rds. I mean, you still gotta hit on the picks, but you have to have the picks to hit on. Three 1sts and a 2nd is different from 2 1sts and 2 3rds because of that extra 1st round pick. But I'd also rather give up 3 1sts instead of 2 1sts and 2 2nds in the next 2 years, leaving your first pick in the 80s or later for 2 straight years.

Yea - pretty much in agreement.

 

I look at the Mack deal for instance. Two firsts got the headlines, but it was really less than that with the pick swaps. Now obviously I expect a proven QB to be higher cost than Mack, but he is an older QB too. Taking whatever priors I can to triangulate it, and just using the pick trade chart, the net value should be something like a Number 1 overall pick plus a little extra. Obviously that involves some guesswork with future picks, but assume you price your picks at like 20-25 range.

[raw]

But really you should be okay giving 3 firsts and 2-3 day 2 picks. That’s how important having a franchise QB is. You’d also have him on a good deal for the next 3 seasons.

I think you are reaching the point of overvaluing the QB spot, personally.

 

I guess if I knew the cap was about to explode with a new TV deal the vision becomes clearer as they could just fill around Wilson in FA for a few years, but as things stands now, the Bears aren't necessarily in a great spot to build around Wilson. At least Watson has longer term upside based on age. I'd definitely offer more for him.

 

Yeah that's where I stand.

 

Like Goony's tweet says, it's one thing to give up Floyd, Trubisky and White potentially for a franchise QB. It's another to get a franchise QB and only add 1 David Montgomery level talent over the next 3 drafts. Sure you can sign FAs, and Wilson can possibly help you get good cheap ones on short term deals. And of course, you can get guys like Jackson, Mooney, Amos, and Nichols on Day 3 of the draft. But obviously, that makes things tough.

 

Wilson is clearly good enough to put this team in contention as is, and even as the team transitions from some of their defensive veterans. But I don't know if I can say the same about 35-year old Wilson in 3 years, with those defensive guys all gone and minimal cheap talent added. And while I think Wilson is probably currently better than Watson, I'd give up more for Watson because I think he is more likely to be able to overcome that in 3 years when he's just 28.

[Wilson A2000]

I had a feeling Kyle Long wanted to get back in the league. On Spiegel and Parkins, he said he was back up to playing weight and was working out again. He also smoothed over some of his Bears hate. Let him try out for LT or RT?

[WrigleyField 22]

I had a feeling Kyle Long wanted to get back in the league. On Spiegel and Parkins, he said he was back up to playing weight and was working out again. He also smoothed over some of his Bears hate. Let him try out for LT or RT?

Hasn't it been all but said he's not a Nagy fan?