Chicago Bears Offseason Thread (the tank must payoff)

[Soul]

Trading back is clearly the best way to go, IMO. I actually prefer the double trade back if they can stay in the top single digits, but preferably no lower than the Colts. I get that trading Fields this year compared to next year probably means his value will likely be lower next year. But with the picks that the Bears will likely land by trading down, they would be in line to get one of the best QB's next year, if not the best. And they may not even have to trade up to get that QB. Colts and Texans will likely not be any better next year. Hell, their rookie QB's may not even start before midseason.

 

Fields deserves a year with a better team before moving on. He has things to fix, but he was putting up plenty of points with a lousy group of WR's and linemen. Against good teams, also. The ultimate Bear thing to do would be to trade Fields before he becomes a top 3 QB in the league while Young flops, and then the organization will look even sillier for choosing to trade up for Trubisky instead of Mahomes and then trading away Fields, who goes on and wins Super Bowls with someone else. Hell naw.

 

Strongly agree on Fields. The only thing we really know for sure about Justin Fields is, when given a horrifyingly bad set of offensive tools, he decided to run and was very successful on that level. The Bears can't (or shouldn't) just pull the chain based on the passing side of his game because that judgement wouldn't be based on real-world info.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I dunno, finding out in a few years that we passed on what turned out to be a megastar QB because we didn't want to let go of a guy who never ended up putting it together would also be a "pretty bears thing to do."

 

They don't really have a history of giving up on QBs too soon. They do have a history of passing on guys they later wish they hadn't passed on.

 

Not that history actually matters to what's best here

[Old Style]

I dunno, finding out in a few years that we passed on what turned out to be a megastar QB because we didn't want to let go of a guy who never ended up putting it together would also be a "pretty bears thing to do."

 

They don't really have a history of giving up on QBs too soon. They do have a history of passing on guys they later wish they hadn't passed on.

 

Not that history actually matters to what's best here

How many of these "megastar" high draft pick QB's actually live up to the hype?

[David]

I dunno, finding out in a few years that we passed on what turned out to be a megastar QB because we didn't want to let go of a guy who never ended up putting it together would also be a "pretty bears thing to do."

 

They don't really have a history of giving up on QBs too soon. They do have a history of passing on guys they later wish they hadn't passed on.

 

Not that history actually matters to what's best here

How many of these "megastar" high draft pick QB's actually live up to the hype?

 

he said "turned out to be," so in his scenario this guy did more than live up to the hype (exceeded it bc the megastar hype isn't really there).

 

which is what makes this an even dumber thought exercise. there's nothing all that special about these prospects (as compared to any other draft class's top QBs) and if one turns into a stud, it's basically happenstance given the way these things work. fields is a better prospect, has already shown competence at the NFL level with a hand tied behind his back via supporting cast (and he also happens to make less money than a #1 pick QB would make - something that seems to be being ignored/overlooked when the rookie contract conversation comes up - not that this offsets the issue entirely).

 

capitalizing on the desperation of teams that just want to make something happen at QB is why that path is a no-brainer. if it happens to not work out, oh well.

[David]

 

i can't imagine this actually turns into anything but i guess it could be cool if it does.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I dunno, finding out in a few years that we passed on what turned out to be a megastar QB because we didn't want to let go of a guy who never ended up putting it together would also be a "pretty bears thing to do."

 

They don't really have a history of giving up on QBs too soon. They do have a history of passing on guys they later wish they hadn't passed on.

 

Not that history actually matters to what's best here

How many of these "megastar" high draft pick QB's actually live up to the hype?

 

Not many. How many "we just need to give him more weapons and another year" bears QBs ended up living up to the hype?

 

Once again, I'm not saying we have to draft a QB and trade fields because of this. I'm saying that "trading fields and seeing him become a superstar somewhere else would be a Bears thing to do" is a bad argument. There's a lot of instances of the Bears passing on good QBs and very few (flutie?) of them letting a good one go.

 

It's perfectly possible for keeping fields to be the right choice and for a lot of the arguments being put forth for it to be bad arguments.

[minnesotacubsfan]

I dunno, finding out in a few years that we passed on what turned out to be a megastar QB because we didn't want to let go of a guy who never ended up putting it together would also be a "pretty bears thing to do."

 

They don't really have a history of giving up on QBs too soon. They do have a history of passing on guys they later wish they hadn't passed on.

 

Not that history actually matters to what's best here

 

this is total fearmonger and overthinking

[David]

 

Rich Eisen...a gentleman and a scholar.

[Old Style]

I dunno, finding out in a few years that we passed on what turned out to be a megastar QB because we didn't want to let go of a guy who never ended up putting it together would also be a "pretty bears thing to do."

 

They don't really have a history of giving up on QBs too soon. They do have a history of passing on guys they later wish they hadn't passed on.

 

Not that history actually matters to what's best here

How many of these "megastar" high draft pick QB's actually live up to the hype?

 

Not many. How many "we just need to give him more weapons and another year" bears QBs ended up living up to the hype?

 

Once again, I'm not saying we have to draft a QB and trade fields because of this. I'm saying that "trading fields and seeing him become a superstar somewhere else would be a Bears thing to do" is a bad argument. There's a lot of instances of the Bears passing on good QBs and very few (flutie?) of them letting a good one go.

 

It's perfectly possible for keeping fields to be the right choice and for a lot of the arguments being put forth for it to be bad arguments.

When is the last time the Bears actually surrounded a QB with weapons? When is the last time the Bears had a QB with a talent level similar to Fields?

[David]

How many of these "megastar" high draft pick QB's actually live up to the hype?

 

Not many. How many "we just need to give him more weapons and another year" bears QBs ended up living up to the hype?

 

Once again, I'm not saying we have to draft a QB and trade fields because of this. I'm saying that "trading fields and seeing him become a superstar somewhere else would be a Bears thing to do" is a bad argument. There's a lot of instances of the Bears passing on good QBs and very few (flutie?) of them letting a good one go.

 

It's perfectly possible for keeping fields to be the right choice and for a lot of the arguments being put forth for it to be bad arguments.

When is the last time the Bears actually surrounded a QB with weapons? When is the last time the Bears had a QB with a talent level similar to Fields?

 

Around 10 years ago. Unfortunately the defense immediately collapsed.

[knoblejr]

Welcome. I really don't want to be in a situation where the Bears take defensive players with their first 2 picks 2 years in a row. I love some of those names (not Bresee) and Witherspoon is a stud who I'd love to have. But it would be somewhat of a crime if the Bears don't add some young offensive help early for Fields really soon. I understand defense top 10, because that's where the value is, but after that, you have to take offense. The only offensive help they gave Justin last year was a 5th round LT and Velus who is like 3 years older than Fields.

 

I get the concern of going defense again but Fields was starting to put up points. If we had a defense to prevent the same from happening to us it would be beneficial. Also i am not a fan of takign wr in 1st round unless he looks like Calvin Johnson and you know hes a HR. Lots of good receivers come out of rounds 3-5. Just need to pick the right one.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Welcome. I really don't want to be in a situation where the Bears take defensive players with their first 2 picks 2 years in a row. I love some of those names (not Bresee) and Witherspoon is a stud who I'd love to have. But it would be somewhat of a crime if the Bears don't add some young offensive help early for Fields really soon. I understand defense top 10, because that's where the value is, but after that, you have to take offense. The only offensive help they gave Justin last year was a 5th round LT and Velus who is like 3 years older than Fields.

 

I get the concern of going defense again but Fields was starting to put up points. If we had a defense to prevent the same from happening to us it would be beneficial. Also i am not a fan of takign wr in 1st round unless he looks like Calvin Johnson and you know hes a HR. Lots of good receivers come out of rounds 3-5. Just need to pick the right one.

 

or pick many until you find one

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Welcome. I really don't want to be in a situation where the Bears take defensive players with their first 2 picks 2 years in a row. I love some of those names (not Bresee) and Witherspoon is a stud who I'd love to have. But it would be somewhat of a crime if the Bears don't add some young offensive help early for Fields really soon. I understand defense top 10, because that's where the value is, but after that, you have to take offense. The only offensive help they gave Justin last year was a 5th round LT and Velus who is like 3 years older than Fields.

 

I get the concern of going defense again but Fields was starting to put up points. If we had a defense to prevent the same from happening to us it would be beneficial. Also i am not a fan of takign wr in 1st round unless he looks like Calvin Johnson and you know hes a HR. Lots of good receivers come out of rounds 3-5. Just need to pick the right one.

 

Those points came over a 4-game stretch that coincided with changing the offense mid-season to a style of offense that we had previously avoided specifically because it's not sustainable once defenses adjust and your QB keeps taking hits.

 

The QB got banged up, defenses adjusted, the points dried up.

[knoblejr]

Welcome. I really don't want to be in a situation where the Bears take defensive players with their first 2 picks 2 years in a row. I love some of those names (not Bresee) and Witherspoon is a stud who I'd love to have. But it would be somewhat of a crime if the Bears don't add some young offensive help early for Fields really soon. I understand defense top 10, because that's where the value is, but after that, you have to take offense. The only offensive help they gave Justin last year was a 5th round LT and Velus who is like 3 years older than Fields.

 

I get the concern of going defense again but Fields was starting to put up points. If we had a defense to prevent the same from happening to us it would be beneficial. Also i am not a fan of takign wr in 1st round unless he looks like Calvin Johnson and you know hes a HR. Lots of good receivers come out of rounds 3-5. Just need to pick the right one.

 

or pick many until you find one

 

So just throw darts and pray rather than use those picks on solid players at other positions. You know as well as anyone else that every darft has some guys that you just know what youre getting and others that teams arent sure what they are. So lets get the guys we know can contribute from day one in the 1st and second rounds and question marks and big dreams after that

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I dunno, finding out in a few years that we passed on what turned out to be a megastar QB because we didn't want to let go of a guy who never ended up putting it together would also be a "pretty bears thing to do."

 

They don't really have a history of giving up on QBs too soon. They do have a history of passing on guys they later wish they hadn't passed on.

 

Not that history actually matters to what's best here

 

this is total fearmonger and overthinking

 

Only if this logic is used in the "trade justin fields" region. If the exact same argument is used to keep justin fields, it's sparkling reasonable concern.

[minnesotacubsfan]

 

I get the concern of going defense again but Fields was starting to put up points. If we had a defense to prevent the same from happening to us it would be beneficial. Also i am not a fan of takign wr in 1st round unless he looks like Calvin Johnson and you know hes a HR. Lots of good receivers come out of rounds 3-5. Just need to pick the right one.

 

or pick many until you find one

 

So just throw darts and pray rather than use those picks on solid players at other positions. You know as well as anyone else that every darft has some guys that you just know what youre getting and others that teams arent sure what they are. So lets get the guys we know can contribute from day one in the 1st and second rounds and question marks and big dreams after that

 

 

sure, but currently their strategy appears to be throwing darts at the board

 

Jones

Mooney

Pettis

St Brown

Pringle

Harry

Claypool

 

 

who else?

[minnesotacubsfan]

I dunno, finding out in a few years that we passed on what turned out to be a megastar QB because we didn't want to let go of a guy who never ended up putting it together would also be a "pretty bears thing to do."

 

They don't really have a history of giving up on QBs too soon. They do have a history of passing on guys they later wish they hadn't passed on.

 

Not that history actually matters to what's best here

 

this is total fearmonger and overthinking

 

Only if this logic is used in the "trade justin fields" region. If the exact same argument is used to keep justin fields, it's sparkling reasonable concern.

 

or, at some point, Bear fans need to come to terms with the fact that megastar QBs are extremely rare and difficult to find, and that the idea that the Bears have had a rough time finding one should have ZERO bearing on their choices going forward. So why even give it air time?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

this is total fearmonger and overthinking

 

Only if this logic is used in the "trade justin fields" region. If the exact same argument is used to keep justin fields, it's sparkling reasonable concern.

 

or, at some point, Bear fans need to come to terms with the fact that megastar QBs are extremely rare and difficult to find, and that the idea that the Bears have had a rough time finding one should have ZERO bearing on their choices going forward. So why even give it air time?

 

Notice how you're arguing this with me, the person who said history doesn't matter, and not the person who tried to use Bears history as their argument.

[minnesotacubsfan]

 

Only if this logic is used in the "trade justin fields" region. If the exact same argument is used to keep justin fields, it's sparkling reasonable concern.

 

or, at some point, Bear fans need to come to terms with the fact that megastar QBs are extremely rare and difficult to find, and that the idea that the Bears have had a rough time finding one should have ZERO bearing on their choices going forward. So why even give it air time?

 

Notice how you're arguing this with me, the person who said history doesn't matter, and not the person who tried to use Bears history as their argument.

 

you outlined a process of picking the wrong QB and then called it all a "pretty bears thing to do.", were you talking about UCLA?

[raw]

Welcome. I really don't want to be in a situation where the Bears take defensive players with their first 2 picks 2 years in a row. I love some of those names (not Bresee) and Witherspoon is a stud who I'd love to have. But it would be somewhat of a crime if the Bears don't add some young offensive help early for Fields really soon. I understand defense top 10, because that's where the value is, but after that, you have to take offense. The only offensive help they gave Justin last year was a 5th round LT and Velus who is like 3 years older than Fields.

 

I get the concern of going defense again but Fields was starting to put up points. If we had a defense to prevent the same from happening to us it would be beneficial. Also i am not a fan of takign wr in 1st round unless he looks like Calvin Johnson and you know hes a HR. Lots of good receivers come out of rounds 3-5. Just need to pick the right one.

 

Best WRs still come out of Round 1. Actually, best everything come out of Round 1. That's probably a large reason why they got in Round 1 in the first place.

 

The Bears couldn't continue to put up those points because the offense where you run 40 times, throw 20, and pray for record breaking rushing performance from your QB was not sustainable. Defense does need a TON of help, but mostly they need to stay out of the way. Take the ball away some times, but most of all, the offense needs to be good enough to either keep them off the field or make the other team 1-dimensional because they got a lead on the other team.

 

Honestly, had the Bears simply kept Roquan Smith, they probably would have been good enough on defense to potentially win all of the first 3 games after the trade where they lost by a total of 7 points. Based on the improvements the Ravens D had with him and the downgrades the Bears suffered without him, it's reasonable that 1 off-ball LB could have won this team 2-3 extra games. Add a top 10 pick and a good bit of the 120M cap space on defense, and there's no reason they can't be good enough while still giving the offense some young talent in the draft.

[bukie]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

or, at some point, Bear fans need to come to terms with the fact that megastar QBs are extremely rare and difficult to find, and that the idea that the Bears have had a rough time finding one should have ZERO bearing on their choices going forward. So why even give it air time?

 

Notice how you're arguing this with me, the person who said history doesn't matter, and not the person who tried to use Bears history as their argument.

 

you outlined a process of picking the wrong QB and then called it all a "pretty bears thing to do.", were you talking about UCLA?

 

I don't think you understand what you read.

 

He said "This would be a Bears thing to do>"

 

I said "Actually, that wouldn't be a Bears thing to do, and it wouldn't be a good argument either way."

 

That's not the same as saying "this is a good argument as to why this should happen."

[bukie]

Here's what I want to see the Bears doing with their draft and cap space capital:

 

1. Use their enormous cap space to take on some high price cap casualties from other teams that are still extremely productive, particularly on the OL and DL. Set the market, they have double the cap space of any other team.

2. Use the #1 pick to net 4-5 day 1 picks, either using all picks to shore up the lines and add a skill player or two, or trade one of the picks for a high end #1 WR. Would feel much better if the WR corps next year is a top 10 WR at WR1, Claypool at WR2 with Mooney at WR3 with a draft pick or two filling in the gaps. Maybe the team could run a 4 WR set, who knows?

3. Use the high back round picks to turn into more quantity, draft a bunch of back end depth for the lines, defensive backs, and an additional couple skill positions (RB, TE, WR).

4. After the draft, fill in the gaps with the remaining cap space.

[raw]

Here's what I want to see the Bears doing with their draft and cap space capital:

 

1. Use their enormous cap space to take on some high price cap casualties from other teams that are still extremely productive, particularly on the OL and DL. Set the market, they have double the cap space of any other team.

2. Use the #1 pick to net 4-5 day 1 picks, either using all picks to shore up the lines and add a skill player or two, or trade one of the picks for a high end #1 WR. Would feel much better if the WR corps next year is a top 10 WR at WR1, Claypool at WR2 with Mooney at WR3 with a draft pick or two filling in the gaps. Maybe the team could run a 4 WR set, who knows?

3. Use the high back round picks to turn into more quantity, draft a bunch of back end depth for the lines, defensive backs, and an additional couple skill positions (RB, TE, WR).

4. After the draft, fill in the gaps with the remaining cap space.

 

Day 1 is only the 1st round. They aren't getting 4-5 1st round picks

[minnesotacubsfan]

Here's what I want to see the Bears doing with their draft and cap space capital:

 

1. Use their enormous cap space to take on some high price cap casualties from other teams that are still extremely productive, particularly on the OL and DL. Set the market, they have double the cap space of any other team.

2. Use the #1 pick to net 4-5 day 1 picks, either using all picks to shore up the lines and add a skill player or two, or trade one of the picks for a high end #1 WR. Would feel much better if the WR corps next year is a top 10 WR at WR1, Claypool at WR2 with Mooney at WR3 with a draft pick or two filling in the gaps. Maybe the team could run a 4 WR set, who knows?

3. Use the high back round picks to turn into more quantity, draft a bunch of back end depth for the lines, defensive backs, and an additional couple skill positions (RB, TE, WR).

4. After the draft, fill in the gaps with the remaining cap space.

 

Day 1 is only the 1st round. They aren't getting 4-5 1st round picks

 

They're doing a 3 day draft this year? I thought it was 1-2 the first day? Or is it 1 the first day, 2-7 the next?