Chicago Bears Offseason Thread (the tank must payoff)

[Rex Buckingham]

I think the Bears best shot at a better WR is as part of a package for a team moving up to get a QB (Carolina with Moore, Indy with Pittman) - but at the same time it doesn't make sense for a team to move up to get a QB while also trading a good WR. I understand taking a shot on Claypool, but man it'd be nice to have that pick. If we had that, maybe we could move down in rd 1, but then use that early 2 and an extra 3 or whatever we get by trading down from 1/2 to get into the early 20s for a WR

[Soul]

I think the Bears best shot at a better WR is as part of a package for a team moving up to get a QB (Carolina with Moore, Indy with Pittman) - but at the same time it doesn't make sense for a team to move up to get a QB while also trading a good WR. I understand taking a shot on Claypool, but man it'd be nice to have that pick. If we had that, maybe we could move down in rd 1, but then use that early 2 and an extra 3 or whatever we get by trading down from 1/2 to get into the early 20s for a WR

 

Jury is still out but man does Claypool look like a major fail right now. What was the point anyway since there wasn't going to be a real shot at developing this rapport between Fields and a WR without several other necessary pieces in the pass game? I would expect Poles as a good GM to realize that, especially since his whole plan was to tank, build draft picks, and spend them in the offseason.

 

It sure looks to me like he shot his own plan in the foot.

[jersey cubs fan]

I think the Bears best shot at a better WR is as part of a package for a team moving up to get a QB (Carolina with Moore, Indy with Pittman) - but at the same time it doesn't make sense for a team to move up to get a QB while also trading a good WR. I understand taking a shot on Claypool, but man it'd be nice to have that pick. If we had that, maybe we could move down in rd 1, but then use that early 2 and an extra 3 or whatever we get by trading down from 1/2 to get into the early 20s for a WR

 

Jury is still out but man does Claypool look like a major fail right now. What was the point anyway since there wasn't going to be a real shot at developing this rapport between Fields and a WR without several other necessary pieces in the pass game? I would expect Poles as a good GM to realize that, especially since his whole plan was to tank, build draft picks, and spend them in the offseason.

 

It sure looks to me like he shot his own plan in the foot.

what? Come on. The point was not to make sure Fields and Claypool clicked immediately. The point was to get a receiver with talent using assets they could afford to lose. It hasn’t been a good start, and it may fail in the end. But the jury is still out until next season, after an offseason together and many more reps. The move was fine*. There’s a very good chance they won’t be able to acquire a better one.

 

*But this goes back to failing to acquire or draft a receiver last year.

[David]

I think the Bears best shot at a better WR is as part of a package for a team moving up to get a QB (Carolina with Moore, Indy with Pittman) - but at the same time it doesn't make sense for a team to move up to get a QB while also trading a good WR. I understand taking a shot on Claypool, but man it'd be nice to have that pick. If we had that, maybe we could move down in rd 1, but then use that early 2 and an extra 3 or whatever we get by trading down from 1/2 to get into the early 20s for a WR

 

Jury is still out but man does Claypool look like a major fail right now. What was the point anyway since there wasn't going to be a real shot at developing this rapport between Fields and a WR without several other necessary pieces in the pass game? I would expect Poles as a good GM to realize that, especially since his whole plan was to tank, build draft picks, and spend them in the offseason.

 

It sure looks to me like he shot his own plan in the foot.

what? Come on. The point was not to make sure Fields and Claypool clicked immediately. The point was to get a receiver with talent using assets they could afford to lose. It hasn’t been a good start, and it may fail in the end. But the jury is still out until next season, after an offseason together and many more reps. The move was fine*. There’s a very good chance they won’t be able to acquire a better one.

 

*But this goes back to failing to acquire or draft a receiver last year.

 

almost verbatim what I was going to reply to this

[WrigleyField 22]

Interesting hypothetical, since it's not from the Bears fan side.

 

 

I think this is ultimately shooting a little low for the Bears (Pittman is good but prob not a true #1, and Leonard would bring a high floor with him, but you're kind of overpaying for certainty over upside)

 

As a reference, Colts themselves went from 3 to 6 in 2018 and got 37, 49, and a 2019 2nd. So you have to basically say Pittman and Leonard are together worth 2 high second plus a bit more (5->1 should cost more than 6->3)

 

Sub in DeBuckner for Leonard and look to add another mod round pick, and I think you're closer (if the goal is to get players instead of picks).

[raw]

Interesting hypothetical, since it's not from the Bears fan side.

 

 

I think this is ultimately shooting a little low for the Bears (Pittman is good but prob not a true #1, and Leonard would bring a high floor with him, but you're kind of overpaying for certainty over upside)

 

As a reference, Colts themselves went from 3 to 6 in 2018 and got 37, 49, and a 2019 2nd. So you have to basically say Pittman and Leonard are together worth 2 high second plus a bit more (5->1 should cost more than 6->3)

 

Sub in DeBuckner for Leonard and look to add another mod round pick, and I think you're closer (if the goal is to get players instead of picks).

 

Definitely interesting, but a weird trade that I don't think benefits the Bears enough as much as extra picks would. Like you said, Pittman isn't a true #1 and needs to be paid soon just like Claypool and Mooney. You could pick which 1 or 2 to pay, but then you risk giving up a very high 2nd, and probably another very high pick (in lieu of Pittman) for a 1 year rental. Leonard would not make any sense on the basis of the Bears just traded a LB partly because he wants to be paid the same way Leonard is being paid. Basically would be saying, we like Leonard better than Roquan, which may be true but is terrible value wise.

[raw]

This is going to be a fun offseason. Lot of takes already like, "the OL and WRs are terrible and all injured, but Fields didn't perform well enough" as if there is no correlation between the two.

 

Like I really do get that he hasn't proven he's the next great thing as a QB. He has plenty of room for improvement, I'm not questioning that. But do we have to do this with every QB who's not Mahomes and Herbert? Tua wasn't good enough until he got a great OL and a top 3 WR in the league. Hurts wasn't good enough until he got a great OL and a top 5 WR in the league. Same with Allen. We were unsure about Burrow until he got Chase and could stand upright after he tore his ACL. Same with Lawrence until halfway thru this year. All this stuff matters. QB is the most important position in any sport, but it's not the only position. QBs need help and typically a lot of it until they establish a certain level of play, even then they still need to be surrounded by competence and it takes an adjustment period for even the best (see Rodgers, Brady this year) to get comfortable when their supporting cast isn't good enough or healthy enough.

[WrigleyField 22]

This is going to be a fun offseason. Lot of takes already like, "the OL and WRs are terrible and all injured, but Fields didn't perform well enough" as if there is no correlation between the two.

 

Like I really do get that he hasn't proven he's the next great thing as a QB. He has plenty of room for improvement, I'm not questioning that. But do we have to do this with every QB who's not Mahomes and Herbert? Tua wasn't good enough until he got a great OL and a top 3 WR in the league. Hurts wasn't good enough until he got a great OL and a top 5 WR in the league. Same with Allen. We were unsure about Burrow until he got Chase and could stand upright after he tore his ACL. Same with Lawrence until halfway thru this year. All this stuff matters. QB is the most important position in any sport, but it's not the only position. QBs need help and typically a lot of it until they establish a certain level of play, even then they still need to be surrounded by competence and it takes an adjustment period for even the best (see Rodgers, Brady this year) to get comfortable when their supporting cast isn't good enough or healthy enough.

Yea, for sure. The most likely outcome may still be a solidly top 15 guy, but who might fluctuate between frustratingly outside of top 10 QBs to occassionally pushing for MVP recognition. Definitely can't crown him as a perennial AP QB, but that ceiling does exist. Just a very far away from seriously talking about that ceiling as a reality. And frankly still a question if this horsefeathers show of an offense and season hampered his chances at the ceiling. But he showed enough that anyone watching the games should believe he has the talent. The tough part is actually growing that and getting more consistent and covering the holes.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'd be willing to move on from fields. He's not the pocket passer of my dreams, and if we don't have that then I'll always take a chance at that over a certainty of not that.

 

It doesn't matter though because there's a zero percent chance of it ever happening. But in a world where you really really liked Young, moving on from Fields would make sense.

 

A running QB who takes a beating is on a ticking timer anyway, we've already wasted two years of his rookie contract giving Poles the tabula rasa he wanted.

 

The brief stretch of 30 points games was fun, but the league adjusted and fields took an unsustainable beating doing it.

 

If you do keep fields, you need to give him every possible resource to succeed.

[WrigleyField 22]

I'd be willing to move on from fields. He's not the pocket passer of my dreams, and if we don't have that then I'll always take a chance at that over a certainty of not that.

 

It doesn't matter though because there's a zero percent chance of it ever happening. But in a world where you really really liked Young, moving on from Fields would make sense.

 

A running QB who takes a beating is on a ticking timer anyway, we've already wasted two years of his rookie contract giving Poles the tabula rasa he wanted.

 

The brief stretch of 30 points games was fun, but the league adjusted and fields took an unsustainable beating doing it.

 

If you do keep fields, you need to give him every possible resource to succeed.

Dependent on what they could get for Fields, I guess, but drafting Young probably puts them in the same spot - poor cast around young QB. If you somehow werent sold on Fields you'd still be better continuing to build around him and it's not a long term commitment until a later point, maybe in 24 which could be a very good QB class or in later years were you can continue to build a bse, helped hopefully with a trade down now.

 

Basically if you're willing to go Young over Field as a GM you have way too much trust in your own scouting convictions. This wouldn't be ARI dumping Rosen after a year for Murray.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'd be willing to move on from fields. He's not the pocket passer of my dreams, and if we don't have that then I'll always take a chance at that over a certainty of not that.

 

It doesn't matter though because there's a zero percent chance of it ever happening. But in a world where you really really liked Young, moving on from Fields would make sense.

 

A running QB who takes a beating is on a ticking timer anyway, we've already wasted two years of his rookie contract giving Poles the tabula rasa he wanted.

 

The brief stretch of 30 points games was fun, but the league adjusted and fields took an unsustainable beating doing it.

 

If you do keep fields, you need to give him every possible resource to succeed.

Dependent on what they could get for Fields, I guess, but drafting Young probably puts them in the same spot - poor cast around young QB. If you somehow werent sold on Fields you'd still be better continuing to build around him and it's not a long term commitment until a later point, maybe in 24 which could be a very good QB class or in later years were you can continue to build a bse, helped hopefully with a trade down now.

 

Basically if you're willing to go Young over Field as a GM you have way too much trust in your own scouting convictions. This wouldn't be ARI dumping Rosen after a year for Murray.

 

The fresh rookie deal is a *huge* advantage

[WrigleyField 22]

I'd be willing to move on from fields. He's not the pocket passer of my dreams, and if we don't have that then I'll always take a chance at that over a certainty of not that.

 

It doesn't matter though because there's a zero percent chance of it ever happening. But in a world where you really really liked Young, moving on from Fields would make sense.

 

A running QB who takes a beating is on a ticking timer anyway, we've already wasted two years of his rookie contract giving Poles the tabula rasa he wanted.

 

The brief stretch of 30 points games was fun, but the league adjusted and fields took an unsustainable beating doing it.

 

If you do keep fields, you need to give him every possible resource to succeed.

Dependent on what they could get for Fields, I guess, but drafting Young probably puts them in the same spot - poor cast around young QB. If you somehow werent sold on Fields you'd still be better continuing to build around him and it's not a long term commitment until a later point, maybe in 24 which could be a very good QB class or in later years were you can continue to build a bse, helped hopefully with a trade down now.

 

Basically if you're willing to go Young over Field as a GM you have way too much trust in your own scouting convictions. This wouldn't be ARI dumping Rosen after a year for Murray.

 

The fresh rookie deal is a *huge* advantage

Two year difference, on a more expensive rookie contract though, and you have to actually be prepared to you know USE that rookie contract.

 

Now insert uncertainty of rookie QB verse evaluating what we know we have in Fields.

 

This is one of those "too cute" moments. Maybe if it was a generational guy the arguement would be stronger, but that's not Young. Hell it might not even be Young. Plenty of chatter about his draft mates still. They'd have to nail the right one.

[WrigleyField 22]

More specifically that number 1 pick is ~$40M over 4 years. Justin is like 5.6 over the next 2 then has the option year, which will be whatever the QB transition tag in the 3rd year, maybe 35M by that point?

 

So for same gross cost but one year less, but Fields years likely is the more productive window, even if Young ends up as a hit.

 

Some huge rookie cost advantage?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Dependent on what they could get for Fields, I guess, but drafting Young probably puts them in the same spot - poor cast around young QB. If you somehow werent sold on Fields you'd still be better continuing to build around him and it's not a long term commitment until a later point, maybe in 24 which could be a very good QB class or in later years were you can continue to build a bse, helped hopefully with a trade down now.

 

Basically if you're willing to go Young over Field as a GM you have way too much trust in your own scouting convictions. This wouldn't be ARI dumping Rosen after a year for Murray.

 

The fresh rookie deal is a *huge* advantage

Two year difference, on a more expensive rookie contract though, and you have to actually be prepared to you know USE that rookie contract.

 

Now insert uncertainty of rookie QB verse evaluating what we know we have in Fields.

 

This is one of those "too cute" moments. Maybe if it was a generational guy the arguement would be stronger, but that's not Young. Hell it might not even be Young. Plenty of chatter about his draft mates still. They'd have to nail the right one.

 

That's the main reason I'm more idly musing than seriously arguing for it. I'm just not that sold on young or stroud.

 

I'm just also not that sold on fields.

 

Everything sucks forever

[WrigleyField 22]

Yea you're just bored idling, but truthfully only an overconfident idiot GM would do that based on the facts available.

[David]

Yea you're just bored idling, but truthfully only an overconfident idiot GM would do that based on the facts available.

 

Yeah that's some josh mcdaniels horsefeathers

[We Got The Whole 9]

I'm sure some of you guys can answer, what happens if we don't reach the salary floor?

[WrigleyField 22]

Yea you're just bored idling, but truthfully only an overconfident idiot GM would do that based on the facts available.

 

Yeah that's some josh mcdaniels horsefeathers

Kyle might be a Hairyducked Idiot, but that's a low blow man.

[minnesotacubsfan]

The biggest fear I have is that after all year of Poles doing jack didily horsefeathers he decides to trade Fields...basically blame him

 

RYAN, DONT BE LIKE KYLE

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The biggest fear I have is that after all year of Poles doing jack didily horsefeathers he decides to trade Fields...basically blame him

 

RYAN, DONT BE LIKE KYLE

 

There's approximately a zero percent chance it actually happens.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

The fresh rookie deal is a *huge* advantage

Two year difference, on a more expensive rookie contract though, and you have to actually be prepared to you know USE that rookie contract.

 

Now insert uncertainty of rookie QB verse evaluating what we know we have in Fields.

 

This is one of those "too cute" moments. Maybe if it was a generational guy the arguement would be stronger, but that's not Young. Hell it might not even be Young. Plenty of chatter about his draft mates still. They'd have to nail the right one.

 

That's the main reason I'm more idly musing than seriously arguing for it. I'm just not that sold on young or stroud.

 

I'm just also not that sold on fields.

 

Everything sucks forever

Your trouble with women may lie in your inability to appreciate good things right in front of you

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Two year difference, on a more expensive rookie contract though, and you have to actually be prepared to you know USE that rookie contract.

 

Now insert uncertainty of rookie QB verse evaluating what we know we have in Fields.

 

This is one of those "too cute" moments. Maybe if it was a generational guy the arguement would be stronger, but that's not Young. Hell it might not even be Young. Plenty of chatter about his draft mates still. They'd have to nail the right one.

 

That's the main reason I'm more idly musing than seriously arguing for it. I'm just not that sold on young or stroud.

 

I'm just also not that sold on fields.

 

Everything sucks forever

Your trouble with women may lie in your inability to appreciate good things right in front of you

 

Nah, but it's tangential to the reason I post places like this.

[UMFan83]

Jeez. I remember how much people mocked Carr for getting sacked a ridiculous amount of times his rookie year

 

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Jeez. I remember how much people mocked Carr for getting sacked a ridiculous amount of times his rookie year

 

 

And 160 rushing attempts (although obviously he went out of bounds or slid on many of those). He's taken a completely unacceptable number of hits and there's no reason to just shrug off the possibility of long-term impact

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Jeez. I remember how much people mocked Carr for getting sacked a ridiculous amount of times his rookie year

 

 

And 160 rushing attempts (although obviously he went out of bounds or slid on many of those). He's taken a completely unacceptable number of hits and there's no reason to just shrug off the possibility of long-term impact