Chicago Bears Offseason Thread (the tank must payoff)

[Derwood]

Without even accounting for the 2024 1st, the difference in value between what the Bears would offer (1 ovr) and what the Texans would offer (2 ovr, 12 ovr, 33 ovr) is the equivalent of the Bears getting an extra 6th overall pick of surplus value. I can’t remember what the value of a next year 1st is but that would make it even crazier.

 

I could believe it a little if there was a consensus no doubt generational QB in this draft but no one is even certain who the number 1 pick will be. Texans would have to be pretty certain they were getting a generational talent to be that desperate to trade up 1 spot I would think

 

If Houston does this and then picks Stroud (who then flops) it would set the franchise back another five years

[UMFan83]

Without even accounting for the 2024 1st, the difference in value between what the Bears would offer (1 ovr) and what the Texans would offer (2 ovr, 12 ovr, 33 ovr) is the equivalent of the Bears getting an extra 6th overall pick of surplus value. I can’t remember what the value of a next year 1st is but that would make it even crazier.

 

I could believe it a little if there was a consensus no doubt generational QB in this draft but no one is even certain who the number 1 pick will be. Texans would have to be pretty certain they were getting a generational talent to be that desperate to trade up 1 spot I would think

 

If Houston does this and then picks Stroud (who then flops) it would set the franchise back another five years

 

And the Bears trade 2 to the Colts who pick Young and he turns out to be a HOF QB? Yeah people would finally stop talking about Trubisky/Mahomes as the gold standard of disastrous draft trades for a QB

[WrigleyField 22]

Definitely just a dude trolling

[minnesotacubsfan]

Definitely just a dude trolling

yea, I feel like if it was real Poles would have pulled the trigger on it by now and it would be all over the sports pages

[jersey cubs fan]

That was the fakest fake trade that ever faked

[Outshined_One]

That was the fakest fake trade that ever faked

 

It's nice to dream, though.

 

I'd seriously consider pulling the trigger if they just offered 2 and their second round pick.

[WrigleyField 22]

Bears football!

 

[Outshined_One]

In other news, water is wet.

 

The Chicago Bears have been approached by multiple teams about trading the No. 1 pick in this year's NFL draft, and Chicago is said to be "leaning toward" moving the pick, sources told ESPN's Adam Schefter.

[gflore34]

I've this hopefully, irrational, fear that despite the resources Poles is going to find a way to horsefeathers this up. He'll horsefeathers it up and the McCaskey' will be unable to recognize that Poles blew it. Moreover, they'll give him a few more seasons to screw things up. If the Bears don't win 7-9 games next season, including at least a spilt with GB along with marked improvement in all phases Poles should be fired.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Eh, he's not Phil Emery.......yet

[Old Style]

I've this hopefully, irrational, fear that despite the resources Poles is going to find a way to horsefeathers this up. He'll horsefeathers it up and the McCaskey' will be unable to recognize that Poles blew it. Moreover, they'll give him a few more seasons to screw things up. If the Bears don't win 7-9 games next season, including at least a spilt with GB along with marked improvement in all phases Poles should be fired.

Virginia isn't going to live that long, right? RIGHT?!

[Brian707]

I've this hopefully, irrational, fear that despite the resources Poles is going to find a way to horsefeathers this up. He'll horsefeathers it up and the McCaskey' will be unable to recognize that Poles blew it. Moreover, they'll give him a few more seasons to screw things up. If the Bears don't win 7-9 games next season, including at least a spilt with GB along with marked improvement in all phases Poles should be fired.

Virginia isn't going to live that long, right? RIGHT?!

 

 

She will probably make it to 120

[CubinNY]

I've this hopefully, irrational, fear that despite the resources Poles is going to find a way to horsefeathers this up. He'll horsefeathers it up and the McCaskey' will be unable to recognize that Poles blew it. Moreover, they'll give him a few more seasons to screw things up. If the Bears don't win 7-9 games next season, including at least a spilt with GB along with marked improvement in all phases Poles should be fired.

 

It's a little bit reflexive, but I basically agree. His team has to mostly nail every decision this offseason. They cannot afford any mistakes and they haven't earned any leeway.

[raw]

I've this hopefully, irrational, fear that despite the resources Poles is going to find a way to horsefeathers this up. He'll horsefeathers it up and the McCaskey' will be unable to recognize that Poles blew it. Moreover, they'll give him a few more seasons to screw things up. If the Bears don't win 7-9 games next season, including at least a spilt with GB along with marked improvement in all phases Poles should be fired.

 

It's a little bit reflexive, but I basically agree. His team has to mostly nail every decision this offseason. They cannot afford any mistakes and they haven't earned any leeway.

 

You're not going to fire him after 2 years, 1 of which wasn't really trying. And it's unfair to expect every move to be perfect and to deem they aren't perfect in 1 year. Like Claypool is probably a bad move, but it's not fair to say it's a fail yet. The Jenkins pick looked mostly bad after 1 year, now he's potentially a really good guard after year 2. And even if every decision isn't nailed, he just has to nail the important ones. Like you can't have a disasterous pass blocking OL again. You can't have a sieve of a defense anymore. You gotta reach adequacy levels of both, whether that's nailing FA and all the early draft picks or you find 5 Jack Sanborn UDFAs. And realistically, Justin Fields can cover up a lot of the issues if he takes the Year 3 leap that others have. Granted, you can't do that with no help as this past year showed, but Fields' natural ability does lessen the curve.

[WrigleyField 22]

I mean I kind of want to for him for anything less than 7-10 (baring anything crazy like Fields misses whole season).

 

Pretty rare to not see a 5+ win increase when your top FA spender (which they should be).

 

But that's not realistic. However worse case scenario is things arent looking great in 2023 and they decide they are gonna reset at QB, but then by 2024 it's obvious they're a mess and you want to move on from one or both. Don't remember what their contract lengths look like, or if it was ever reported, but not being to get aligned on QB/coach timing would be frustrating.

[WrigleyField 22]

Dbl post Edited February 27, 2023 by WrigleyField 22

[Bertz]

 

Very mathy, but TLDR is we WAY overrate the value of a top 5 pick for a non-QB. This would tell us to focus more on the Raiders or Panthers even if it means passing on Carter and Anderson. I think Raw's generally been on this page all offseason?

[WrigleyField 22]

 

Very mathy, but TLDR is we WAY overrate the value of a top 5 pick for a non-QB. This would tell us to focus more on the Raiders or Panthers even if it means passing on Carter and Anderson. I think Raw's generally been on this page all offseason?

My totally unbiased opinion (because I'm not a Ben Baldwin hater- he does some good stuff)

 

This chart is total trash. He makes directionally "accurate" claims, but they are just claims that other analytical trade charts have done much better. It's not enough to just be directionally accurate when you're so far over in your end conclusions and values.

 

My Fuller responses to it:

 

 

[Bertz]

 

Very mathy, but TLDR is we WAY overrate the value of a top 5 pick for a non-QB. This would tell us to focus more on the Raiders or Panthers even if it means passing on Carter and Anderson. I think Raw's generally been on this page all offseason?

My totally unbiased opinion (because I'm not a Ben Baldwin hater- he does some good stuff)

 

This chart is total trash. He makes directionally "accurate" claims, but they are just claims that other analytical trade charts have done much better. It's not enough to just be directionally accurate when you're so far over in your end conclusions and values.

 

My Fuller responses to it:

 

 

 

Interesting, so this analysis is largely the football equivalent of $/WAR leading you to wanting two 1.5 WAR outfielders for the same price as one 3 WAR one?

 

That's one of the interesting things about where the Bears are at. If they had either the money or the draft picks IMO it'd be very clear that they just need to plug as many holes as possible. But because they have both, I do think they need to do a few things that are maybe a bit SABR-unfriendly. Maybe that's paying market rate for a RB, maybe it's not completely maximizing their trade down to prioritize coming down with a Carter or Anderson, etc. But while he should mostly be responsible and think long term, Poles should take a couple swings at maximizing impact over efficiency.

[raw]

 

Very mathy, but TLDR is we WAY overrate the value of a top 5 pick for a non-QB. This would tell us to focus more on the Raiders or Panthers even if it means passing on Carter and Anderson. I think Raw's generally been on this page all offseason?

 

Yeah, to really get a franchise changing package of picks, they are going to have to move out of the top 5. I don't know that the Colts and especially the Texans will really trade enough to make it worth the Bears while. I think both may make offers, and it may create a nice little bidding war where you get more than expected, but I doubt they'll get a Herschel Walker level trade. LOL.

 

Like I think most fans want either Anderson or Carter + an early 2nd this year to replace the early 2nd they don't have + a 2024 1st. But that's a lot to ask for. Colts may very well value that early 2nd as a late 1st (4 picks into the round) and may be reluctant to give up what amounts to 3 1sts for them if they add a 2024 1st. Texans, I feel, you'd only even get 33 from them because they know they have multiple picks in the 1st and 2nd the next 2 years, but I feel that's a long shot.

[raw]

 

Interesting, so this analysis is largely the football equivalent of $/WAR leading you to wanting two 1.5 WAR outfielders for the same price as one 3 WAR one?

 

That's one of the interesting things about where the Bears are at. If they had either the money or the draft picks IMO it'd be very clear that they just need to plug as many holes as possible. But because they have both, I do think they need to do a few things that are maybe a bit SABR-unfriendly. Maybe that's paying market rate for a RB, maybe it's not completely maximizing their trade down to prioritize coming down with a Carter or Anderson, etc. But while he should mostly be responsible and think long term, Poles should take a couple swings at maximizing impact over efficiency.

 

Yeah, that's how I'm looking at it as well. Both the $/WAR equivalency and the non SABR friendly move. I think Claypool was already one of these moves, but they are bad enough where they can't just be like, "well WR class is bad, I guess we can't add anybody!". They still have to upgrade the weapons. If they can't get a difference making WR, they have to get a difference making TE and/or RB. Or worst case, they have to build a damn near elite OL in 1 offseason. They have the resources and incentive being that they have to spend a certain amount of cash this offseason.

[WrigleyField 22]

Interesting, so this analysis is largely the football equivalent of $/WAR leading you to wanting two 1.5 WAR outfielders for the same price as one 3 WAR one?

 

That's one of the interesting things about where the Bears are at. If they had either the money or the draft picks IMO it'd be very clear that they just need to plug as many holes as possible. But because they have both, I do think they need to do a few things that are maybe a bit SABR-unfriendly. Maybe that's paying market rate for a RB, maybe it's not completely maximizing their trade down to prioritize coming down with a Carter or Anderson, etc. But while he should mostly be responsible and think long term, Poles should take a couple swings at maximizing impact over efficiency.

Yea, that's my read on it.

 

I was playing around with the Over the Cap valuation metrics and all your playoff teams were getting like 240m+ in value (interestingly his valuation metric was quite a bit more than the cap on average which is interesting... Possibly it's keyed to $ and not cap hits?).

 

But in any case, assume playoff teams are getting 110-115% excess market value, and for most of the teams, like 80% of your value is from your top 25 or so contributors (no duh)....

 

If you had a magical roster with 25 expected value pick 65 players. You'd have only a 16% cap utilization, and you'd also have only about 68% market value roster which is basically 2022 Bears level bad (according to OTCs metric at least).

 

So like those late second and early third picks for example are really useful and basically necessary. But further up the value chain your options for adding a "6% WAR" player is really limited so 65+66 isn't as valuable as your most valuable pick (12).

 

If he just took the total value and not surplus value, it would maybe have been an okay start perhaps. Though I still really like OTCs methodology on their chart as theirs is also a reflection of actual market forces (based on second contract values). Even if market forces are flawed there's still value in that.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I would rather trade further down and get more picks than waste a top-5 pick on a defensive player.

[David]

I would rather trade further down and get more picks than waste a top-5 pick on a defensive player.

 

i wouldn't word it as strongly as "waste" but yeah i'd rather have more picks.

[WrigleyField 22]

Interesting, so this analysis is largely the football equivalent of $/WAR leading you to wanting two 1.5 WAR outfielders for the same price as one 3 WAR one?

 

That's one of the interesting things about where the Bears are at. If they had either the money or the draft picks IMO it'd be very clear that they just need to plug as many holes as possible. But because they have both, I do think they need to do a few things that are maybe a bit SABR-unfriendly. Maybe that's paying market rate for a RB, maybe it's not completely maximizing their trade down to prioritize coming down with a Carter or Anderson, etc. But while he should mostly be responsible and think long term, Poles should take a couple swings at maximizing impact over efficiency.

Yea, that's my read on it.

 

I was playing around with the Over the Cap valuation metrics and all your playoff teams were getting like 240m+ in value (interestingly his valuation metric was quite a bit more than the cap on average which is interesting... Possibly it's keyed to $ and not cap hits?).

 

But in any case, assume playoff teams are getting 110-115% excess market value, and for most of the teams, like 80% of your value is from your top 25 or so contributors (no duh)....

 

If you had a magical roster with 25 expected value pick 65 players. You'd have only a 16% cap utilization, and you'd also have only about 68% market value roster which is basically 2022 Bears level bad (according to OTCs metric at least).

 

So like those late second and early third picks for example are really useful and basically necessary. But further up the value chain your options for adding a "6% WAR" player is really limited so 65+66 isn't as valuable as your most valuable pick (12).

 

If he just took the total value and not surplus value, it would maybe have been an okay start perhaps. Though I still really like OTCs methodology on their chart as theirs is also a reflection of actual market forces (based on second contract values). Even if market forces are flawed there's still value in that.

See that he made some updates and incorporated some feedback.

 

While I still don't see too much value in dropping QBs, looks like it's addressed some of the issues, and he added in total value as an option instead of just surplus value.

 

I'd still take OTCs chart, and they have a position based adjustment tool as well so you can factor in the position being drafted (at least for the team trading up) to adjust point value. Which then helps adjust for all positions and not just QBs.