Chicago Bears Offseason Thread (the tank must payoff)

[mias_tisg]

Uh, can the Bears have Roquan back? What was the point of letting him go and not paying him"?

[UMFan83]

Maybe an intentional strategy to spend big on non-premium positions like LB and then trying to get as many starters at premium positions on rookie deals to maximize their competitive window with Fields' rookie deal? Or am I looking too much into it?

[Brian707]

Uh, can the Bears have Roquan back? What was the point of letting him go and not paying him"?

 

 

If they had Roquan the whole season they would not have had the #1 pick

Edited March 13, 2023 by Brian707

[minnesotacubsfan]

Hey, if you can't spend on lineman, set the LB market.....I guess

[Old Style]

They seem to have a plan. Not signing offensive linemen in FA appears to be part of it.

G Nate Davis from the Titans is going to be our first OL addition.

[WrigleyField 22]

Maybe an intentional strategy to spend big on non-premium positions like LB and then trying to get as many starters at premium positions on rookie deals to maximize their competitive window with Fields' rookie deal? Or am I looking too much into it?

Seems to be reading too much into IMO. You're still trying to balance the total package so overpaying on non premium positions isn't 3D chess I think.

[bjam12]

Uh, can the Bears have Roquan back? What was the point of letting him go and not paying him"?

 

 

If they had Roquan the whole season they would not have had the #1 pick

 

 

and an extra 2nd round pick.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Maybe an intentional strategy to spend big on non-premium positions like LB and then trying to get as many starters at premium positions on rookie deals to maximize their competitive window with Fields' rookie deal? Or am I looking too much into it?

 

I got burned last offseason with this line of thinking. I thought it would be malpractice to send Fields into the season with a terrible supporting cast, so the fact that they left it so weak after FA must meant surely they were going to fix it in the draft. And then we went DB-DB-gadget player.

 

But I'm willing to be hurt again. Draft is more important than free agency, so ideally you're right and that's what we're doing.

[WrigleyField 22]

Edmunds contract is insane. How much are we looking at having after these 3 signings?

 

 

It's just kind of hard to say without a little more details. But with some indication of frontloads on two of these, could be as little as two substantial signings. But certainly could be 3-4 more as well. Lots of flexibility on what they do.

 

I'd think 3 more big-ish signings.

[David]

Uh, can the Bears have Roquan back? What was the point of letting him go and not paying him"?

They got better players and a draft pick (and not having him probably helped the tank). What are you complaining about?

 

Good riddance to that weirdo flake.

[Bertz]

Are we assuming its more likely we see Whitehair head back to center or that it's likely he is an eventual cut?

[Old Style]

At this point it would seem that the draft will see the Bears going heavy on the DL and probably an OT depending how the rest of FA shakes out.

[Old Style]

Are we assuming its more likely we see Whitehair head back to center or that it's likely he is an eventual cut?

Lucas Patrick is still under contract, right?

[David]

Looks like Edmunds to the Bears

Is he a Edge in Eberflus defense?

He's the Brian Urlacher

[UK]

So far too they're set at QB, WR, and LB. With lesser improvements needed at backup TE and CB.

 

I'm assuming Whitehair will be cut.

 

I hope OT and DT are next up.

[UMFan83]

Edmunds contract is insane. How much are we looking at having after these 3 signings?

 

 

It's just kind of hard to say without a little more details. But with some indication of frontloads on two of these, could be as little as two substantial signings. But certainly could be 3-4 more as well. Lots of flexibility on what they do.

 

I'd think 3 more big-ish signings.

 

I know you are doing guesswork here with not a full set of data but is 3 signings accounting for potential extensions for 1-2 guys? Also I'm assuming something like re-signing Monty would be considered a big-ish signing?

[Bertz]

Are we assuming its more likely we see Whitehair head back to center or that it's likely he is an eventual cut?

Lucas Patrick is still under contract, right?

 

Yeah, my assumption is that he'll be the primary backup for the interior portion of the Oline but I wouldn't be shocked if they intend to have him be the starting C.

[UMFan83]

Found this funny:

 

[WrigleyField 22]

Edmunds contract is insane. How much are we looking at having after these 3 signings?

 

 

It's just kind of hard to say without a little more details. But with some indication of frontloads on two of these, could be as little as two substantial signings. But certainly could be 3-4 more as well. Lots of flexibility on what they do.

 

I'd think 3 more big-ish signings.

 

I know you are doing guesswork here with not a full set of data but is 3 signings accounting for potential extensions for 1-2 guys? Also I'm assuming something like re-signing Monty would be considered a big-ish signing?

Wasn't including extensions.

 

Like one $5-7M guy, one $10-12 guy and one $15-17 guy would be a very conservative minimum to hit the cash numbers. That's with a lot of gut math. Flexibility to do more than that for sure. And if he does less... I don't know.

 

Edit - just double checked my gut math and I'll stick with those ranges. If Poles does less than that, feels like extensions need to come in really high or contract structures are gonna be extra goofy (not bad per se, but GOOFY) to work out the minimum cash needs they have.

Edited March 13, 2023 by WrigleyField 22

[mias_tisg]

Uh, can the Bears have Roquan back? What was the point of letting him go and not paying him"?

They got better players and a draft pick (and not having him probably helped the tank). What are you complaining about?

 

Good riddance to that weirdo flake.

If you think Roquan was that important to the tank, then he was probably worth the money he got paid

[David]

Uh, can the Bears have Roquan back? What was the point of letting him go and not paying him"?

They got better players and a draft pick (and not having him probably helped the tank). What are you complaining about?

 

Good riddance to that weirdo flake.

If you think Roquan was that important to the tank, then he was probably worth the money he got paid

That doesn't run counter to anything I said.

 

And he's a flake.

[Bobson Dugnutt]

 

It's just kind of hard to say without a little more details. But with some indication of frontloads on two of these, could be as little as two substantial signings. But certainly could be 3-4 more as well. Lots of flexibility on what they do.

 

I'd think 3 more big-ish signings.

 

I know you are doing guesswork here with not a full set of data but is 3 signings accounting for potential extensions for 1-2 guys? Also I'm assuming something like re-signing Monty would be considered a big-ish signing?

Wasn't including extensions.

 

Like one $5-7M guy, one $10-12 guy and one $15-17 guy would be a very conservative minimum to hit the cash numbers. That's with a lot of gut math. Flexibility to do more than that for sure. And if he does less... I don't know.

 

Edit - just double checked my gut math and I'll stick with those ranges. If Poles does less than that, feels like extensions need to come in really high or contract structures are gonna be extra goofy (not bad per se, but GOOFY) to work out the minimum cash needs they have.

 

Are you saying the Bears need to commit ~$33 million for 2023 to hit the cap minimum?

[WrigleyField 22]

 

I know you are doing guesswork here with not a full set of data but is 3 signings accounting for potential extensions for 1-2 guys? Also I'm assuming something like re-signing Monty would be considered a big-ish signing?

Wasn't including extensions.

 

Like one $5-7M guy, one $10-12 guy and one $15-17 guy would be a very conservative minimum to hit the cash numbers. That's with a lot of gut math. Flexibility to do more than that for sure. And if he does less... I don't know.

 

Edit - just double checked my gut math and I'll stick with those ranges. If Poles does less than that, feels like extensions need to come in really high or contract structures are gonna be extra goofy (not bad per se, but GOOFY) to work out the minimum cash needs they have.

 

Are you saying the Bears need to commit ~$33 million for 2023 to hit the cap minimum?

I'm focused on cash, not cap.

 

So I'm expecting (partially based on reporting of Edmunds - Edwards) that they're front loading cash. So like 65M of APY contracts to hit 90M+ of 2023 spending. But these are still conservative low end estimates. And something like cutting Whitehair creates another $8M in the cash defecit.

 

And the cap hit will be much lower than 65M too then.

[UMFan83]

Uh, can the Bears have Roquan back? What was the point of letting him go and not paying him"?

They got better players and a draft pick (and not having him probably helped the tank). What are you complaining about?

 

Good riddance to that weirdo flake.

If you think Roquan was that important to the tank, then he was probably worth the money he got paid

 

People are saying that they'd rather have Edmunds, Edwards, 2nd round pick, 5th round pick for roughly the same amount of money as Roquan. PLUS the fact that not having Roquan helped give us the return that we just got for 1.01. I mean Roquan only played for the Bears half the season and he almost singlehandedly destroyed our chances for the 1st overall pick with is interception to give the Bears the win vs. the Texans. Thankfully a vindictive Lovie allowed us to overcome that :)

 

This is not discrediting Roquan at all as a player

[Irrelevant Dude]

Bears sure are spending a lot for LB's to back up Sanborn.