Chicago Bears Offseason Thread (the tank must payoff)

[CubinNY]

Seriously, if Stroud is there (he won't be), the Bears still have to draft the best OL/DL player on their draft board at 9. Don't give me any [expletive] about value. There will be multiple players in the draft at OL/DL who will have plenty enough value to justify picking them at 9. They have the 9th pick and then drop all the way down to 53 for the next pick. It would be malpractice.

[raw]

BPA is in the eye of the beholder, so obviously need goes into it, even if subconsciously. But when you need a certain position, you can justify taking a that player by saying, "oh he was the best on our board" even if we know it's clearly nonsense. We saw the Cowboys draft board leak last year and they passed up their last guy with a 1st round grade, who was a safety (can't remember who, maybe Georgia kid?) and picked an offensive lineman who was their top 2nd round grade. Because position value came into play as well as need.

 

My whole point about taking a WR at 9 is that I don't think any WR in this draft class would be the best player available with the 9th pick. And now that you added a WR by literally insisting he be included in the trade and it getting done ASAP instead of waiting anywhere near draft day, you don't have the justification to draft a WR at 9 who, IMO likely isn't even arguably the BPA in any scenario there.

 

Bringing it back to the actual discussion, yeah, I'm 100% fine with "I don't like any of these receivers enough to pick them over other players likely to be available at No. 9."

 

I don't pretend to be enough of a scout to have opinions on exactly how to slot the players in the back of the top 10 of the draft.

 

I just don't think that the combination of Moore/Mooney/Claypool, two of whom are in contract years, would be enough to make me pass on a WR if that was who they liked most at no. 9.

 

I got you. And that makes perfect sense. But it is certainly a big part of the equation as well. Diminishing returns. Moore obviously is going to be the lead dog. The team has said it wants to re-sign Mooney, granted the injury may have changed the urgency of that and if he doesn't come back maybe even the desire. But it also doesn't change what you have invested in them (Mooney just time so far, Claypool the highest possible 2nd round pick). And if you add a top 10 pick at WR to the mix, you are essentially pushing one of them to the curb (or sidelines) as you aren't going to play 4-wide very much and even if you do, there's simply not enough of Fields' 337 passes to go around to make those investments (top 10 pick, 20M for Moore, 3 years building w/ Fields for Mooney, and 32nd pick for Claypool) worthwhile.

[Tim]

If Stroud is still there at 9, you take advantage of that fact and trade down with someone. If the clear BPA isn't at a position of need, you have an opportunity to derive additional value from the pick by letting someone else take that guy. Then grab the BPA (that fits your needs) wherever your pick lands.

[Bertz]

What does it cost to get the seemingly disgruntled Ed Oliver out of Buffalo? One of our 4ths? He's making $10M+ so I don't think he'd cost one of those day 2 picks?

[WrigleyField 22]

How many pages an we get to debating what BPA means lmao.

 

A few points

 

This Jimmy Johnson interview was pretty entertaining and he talks about BPA and the trade value chart.

 

A guy I talk to on another forum used to sell various software implementation Services to nfl teams. Mostly was playbook related, but I think he did some draft stuff too. His claim is that teams definitely don't rank their draft chart down to the hundredth decimal difference like Kyle's original example. Much more of a star or straight 1-10 rating type ranking.

 

I always figured BPA is more a scouting and setting your board philosophy. You want to evaluate without bias. Come draft day, it shifts to a "best value" discussion which is complex and perhaps esoteric even. But might consider need, positional value, scheme, strength of the board, and perhaps many other things.

 

But I think in popular parlance BPA does just mean that needs isn't the main driver. And to the extent you are looking at need, after like the top 50 picks, immediate need tends to stop being that relevant. Most your rookie value is gonna come in years 3-4 of those deals, so it's much more of a need elimination thing where you aren't gonna burn a spot on a guy if the roster is super stacked and there's no room for him. But you aren't trying to answer "what's my biggest need this year"

[imb]

 

This is me admitting that I misunderstood and that my misunderstanding was the cause of disagreement, and that I now know my previous understanding was wrong.

 

What more do you want here?

 

I am just positive you are smart enough to realize that just about everyone here wouldn't want the Bears to take Stroud at #9 if he were somehow available there, regardless of their draft philosophy.

 

Correct. Which is why I've always found the "BPA" takes irritating. People didn't really mean it, they would just say it if it happened to fit the argument for whatever player they wanted to draft or draft pick they wanted to defend in the moment.

 

But at least now I know that *they* know they don't mean it, that you're supposed to adjust for "nuance" to whatever seems obvious regardless of what was said. I'm working on adjusting to that.

 

the best way to remember it is that BPA exists on ... a spectrum

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

I am just positive you are smart enough to realize that just about everyone here wouldn't want the Bears to take Stroud at #9 if he were somehow available there, regardless of their draft philosophy.

 

Correct. Which is why I've always found the "BPA" takes irritating. People didn't really mean it, they would just say it if it happened to fit the argument for whatever player they wanted to draft or draft pick they wanted to defend in the moment.

 

But at least now I know that *they* know they don't mean it, that you're supposed to adjust for "nuance" to whatever seems obvious regardless of what was said. I'm working on adjusting to that.

 

the best way to remember it is that BPA exists on ... a spectrum

 

The best explanation I've ever gotten, in the sense that it makes the most sense to me, is that neurotypicals speak in vibes. The words are not particularly important, they're just vehicles for the vibes. I still hate it and think it's a suboptimal way to communicate, but I'm really trying to get better at translating it.

 

I honest to God thought all these years that people were arguing for a yahoo autodraft list style of drafting. Which *is* what BPA means in other sports. There's functionally no positional considerations in the MLB draft, and if you're drafting for position in the NHL you're doing it wrong. I'm pretty sure that's how you do it in the NBA too.

 

But apparently in football it means "take whichever of a number of players, all of whom are roughly equivalent, that happen to be at a position of need or at least a position where redundancy can still be relatively useful." Which is just ... what good drafting is regardless? The phrase as used like that is so flexible that it doesn't really serve any useful purpose for differentiating it from any other draft philosophy.

 

But as a vibe vehicle, the lack of clear definition becomes a useful trait. If I say I don't think we should have taken a safety with our first pick last year,, a rebuttal of "Poles drafted brisker because he was BPA" can express the vibe of positivity towards Poles, towards brisker, towards giving the benefit of doubt to the team you're a fan of, or toward the positional value of safeties. They're not literally saying there was a Yahoo-autodraft list and Brisker was on top of it, they're just expressing some sort of vibe.

 

And that's absolutely the last post I'll make on the subject in this thread.

[wekse]

Can't believe I'm about to do this, but I agree with Kyle here. Stop saying BPA if there are other factors weighing into the pick, because it's not actually the BPA.

[raw]

What does it cost to get the seemingly disgruntled Ed Oliver out of Buffalo? One of our 4ths? He's making $10M+ so I don't think he'd cost one of those day 2 picks?

 

Yeah, I'm thinking that's about the price. And it's probably the later 4th from Philly and not the first pick of the round/day 3.

 

I think the theory is that they are in on trading for Deandre Hopkins, who's cap hit is about 17M for the team trading for him. They have like 9-10Mil in cap space. Oliver is a quick and easy way to clear enough space, while also allocating money/resources from defense to offense for them, where most of their stars are, and likely how they'll compete with the AFC's best.

 

If that's the case, and Oliver trade would be a cost cutting move. I think in reality, he probably has a 2nd or 3rd round value. But based on his cap hit and this being the last year of his deal, I think that late 4th or maybe even one of the 5ths get it done. Maybe some conditional pick if the team re-signs him, but IDK if the Bears would re-sign him. He's not really the long, lengthy type of 3-tech that Eberflus seems to like (6'2", 31 1/2" arms) and hasn't taken the next step as a pass rusher. That being said, he is 25 until like week 15-16 this year and really had a lot of pressures this year that didn't end in sacks so a breakout could happen, in theory.

[jersey cubs fan]

Can't believe I'm about to do this, but I agree with Kyle here. Stop saying BPA if there are other factors weighing into the pick, because it's not actually the BPA.

Sure, just as soon as we stop saying every free agent was actually offered more by another team, or that teams were surprised their guy was available when their turn in the draft came up, or that were ecstatic with our draft class.

 

It’s a harmless catch all phrase that actually does have some meaning because there are definitely teams that will target needs above best player overall. Baseball teams do a version of this all the time, going heavy on pitching or college hitters or whatever else they might be lacking in their system. Not to mention purposely taking a lesser player for signability reasons rather than actually taking BPA.

 

There is no such thing as a universally accepted best player available at any slot, but there are versions of it in every war room and teams either stick with that or let doubt creap into their minds and take the guy that might actually fit their situation instead.

[raw]

Can't believe I'm about to do this, but I agree with Kyle here. Stop saying BPA if there are other factors weighing into the pick, because it's not actually the BPA.

Sure, just as soon as we stop saying every free agent was actually offered more by another team, or that teams were surprised their guy was available when their turn in the draft came up, or that were ecstatic with our draft class.

 

It’s a harmless catch all phrase that actually does have some meaning because there are definitely teams that will target needs above best player overall. Baseball teams do a version of this all the time, going heavy on pitching or college hitters or whatever else they might be lacking in their system. Not to mention purposely taking a lesser player for signability reasons rather than actually taking BPA.

 

There is no such thing as a universally accepted best player available at any slot, but there are versions of it in every war room and teams either stick with that or let doubt creap into their minds and take the guy that might actually fit their situation instead.

 

I just hope Poles takes the draft 1 pick at a time and takes players that will give 110% on every play.

[UMFan83]

Bears got some love in a ESPN discussion of the offseason so far:

 

Best bargain signing:

 

Matt Bowen, NFL analyst: DT Andrew Billings to the Chicago Bears. A proven, veteran run defender, Billings will play the nose guard spot in coach Matt Eberflus' system. And the Bears land a starter at a key spot on a cheap, one-year deal.

 

(Not really directly referencing the Bears but..) Most headscratching FA signing:

 

Miller: Sanders to the Panthers. I like Sanders, but four years and $25 million is a lot for a running back not named Saquon Barkley. For context, Foreman rushed for 914 yards in Carolina last year and signed in Chicago for $3 million.

 

Most improved team of the offseason:

 

Jason Reid: Chicago Bears. General manager Ryan Poles entered the offseason with a whole lot of cap space, the No. 1 overall pick in next month's NFL draft and a plan to upgrade a roster with canyon-sized holes. Poles made many cost-efficient moves to sign veterans who should provide the Bears with a significant boost next season. And in their trade with the Panthers, the Bears acquired productive wide receiver DJ Moore (and a haul of picks). He is exactly the type of wideout that young quarterback Justin Fields needs to take the next step in his development.

 

Yates: Bears. They entered the free agency period with more resources to use than any other team but still managed to thread an important needle: They added a ton of talent without spending above market value on said players. And when you factor in the trade down from pick No. 1, the Bears also added a top-20 wide receiver to their roster in Moore.

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/35872038/nfl-free-agency-2023-best-worst-deals-signings-moves-most-improved-teams

[WrigleyField 22]

Can't believe I'm about to do this, but I agree with Kyle here. Stop saying BPA if there are other factors weighing into the pick, because it's not actually the BPA.

Sure, just as soon as we stop saying every free agent was actually offered more by another team, or that teams were surprised their guy was available when their turn in the draft came up, or that were ecstatic with our draft class.

 

It’s a harmless catch all phrase that actually does have some meaning because there are definitely teams that will target needs above best player overall. Baseball teams do a version of this all the time, going heavy on pitching or college hitters or whatever else they might be lacking in their system. Not to mention purposely taking a lesser player for signability reasons rather than actually taking BPA.

 

There is no such thing as a universally accepted best player available at any slot, but there are versions of it in every war room and teams either stick with that or let doubt creap into their minds and take the guy that might actually fit their situation instead.

 

I just hope Poles takes the draft 1 pick at a time and takes players that will give 110% on every play.

Gotta let the board come to you.

Edited March 24, 2023 by WrigleyField 22

[Derwood]

JFC, this is pedantic, even for NSBB

[David]

would love to know how i got tagged with the robot monicker

 

especially in this of all places

[jersey cubs fan]

would love to know how i got tagged with the robot monicker

As if you know what the concept of love is

[UMFan83]

JFC, this is pedantic, even for NSBB

 

This is quite the discussion on the final day of the board as we’ve known it for years

[WrigleyField 22]

would love to know how i got tagged with the robot monicker

 

especially in this of all places

Digital

Assistant &

Virtual

Intelligence

Droid

 

That's all I got.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

would love to know how i got tagged with the robot monicker

 

especially in this of all places

 

I always assumed it was meant as a compliment.

[David]

truth be told iirc it was because of me complaining about the histrionics in the game threads (especially once the team was so damn good that the day to day didn't matter)

 

i mean who could EVER find that annoying lol?

[UMFan83]

truth be told iirc it was because of me complaining about the histrionics in the game threads (especially once the team was so damn good that the day to day didn't matter)

 

i mean who could EVER find that annoying lol?

 

Yeah i honestly never knew how that started. I just joined in to be cool, but that makes sense

[minnesotacubsfan]

truth be told iirc it was because of me complaining about the histrionics in the game threads (especially once the team was so damn good that the day to day didn't matter)

 

i mean who could EVER find that annoying lol?

I don't remember either, but it's too easy to pile on sometimes

[UK]

Shame on PFF for putting a subscription requirement after the 1st two rounds.

 

I'll just use the less enjoyable nflmockdatabase.

 

(My apologies for interrupting the merits of BPA)

[WrigleyField 22]

Can't believe I'm about to do this, but I agree with Kyle here. Stop saying BPA if there are other factors weighing into the pick, because it's not actually the BPA.

I've tried to make BVA take off, but it's never caught on!

 

I can imagine someone's ASD brain not getting it right away, but it's incredible if Kyle has been on sports forums for like 20 years and just now has been told that it's not a literal definition.

[UMFan83]

Vegas released O/U today and they have the Bears at 7.5 which seems promising to me

 

Edit: though it is the lowest in the NFC north tied with GB. They have Minnesota at 8.5 and Detroit at 9.5. Basically thinking at this point it’s a pretty even division