Chicago Bears offseason

[jersey cubs fan]

Black Monday came and went with nothing announced, not even rumored. 
 

Something has to happen eventually. 
 

it’s been quiet 
 

[WrigleyField 22]

What do you mean it's been quiet!

 

[jersey cubs fan]

33 minutes ago, username said:

For all the talk of Fields not being Poles's guy, there's literally never any discussion of Poles not being Kevin Warren's guy.  Now, if I had to place a bet I'd wager that there won't be a change at GM, however... the #1 pick (two straight years, mind you) is a franchise defining decision.  Does Kevin Warren believe that Ryan Poles is guy to make that decision?  

Exactly my point going into season. I stated prior to season that if Bears own pick was top 5, you can’t possibly trust Poles to make this once in generation opportunity to transform the team. To his credit(?), he made this team good enough to only pick 9.

I see the argument for letting him do it. But if I’m Warren, and Poles recommends going into offseason with Eberflus still as head coach, that’s enough to tell me he’s not the guy to bring this team forward. If I’m Poles, I have to realize that loyalty to Eberflus is worthless. You have to fix the offensive infrastructure of this organization. You’ll never get a better chance at this opportunity. 

 

[We Got The Whole 9]

Never thought I'd say this about a 30 yo WR but I am totally down with the rumor that we are the favorite for Mike Evans. 

[profisme]

17 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

Never thought I'd say this about a 30 yo WR but I am totally down with the rumor that we are the favorite for Mike Evans. 

He is still really really good.  He will come with a moderately high price tag, but he is one "old" WR I could be on board signing.

[BigSlick]

I'm not convinced that any player being any coach/GM's "Guy" matters. Poles came on board knowing Fields was the starter when he was hired, and surely it was something he factored into his decision.

And maybe I'm a moron but I genuinely think the vast, vast majority of coaches/GMs simply want the best players playing and aren't tied to them playing if they are his guy or not. (Except in maybe extreme cases when they put in completely different schemes like switching from a 4-3 to a 3-4 defense). 

I think the thing that matters far more than whether or not Fields is Poles's "Guy" or not is if Poles thinks he's any good or not. 

Edited January 9, 2024 by BigSlick

[WrigleyField 22]

37 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

Never thought I'd say this about a 30 yo WR but I am totally down with the rumor that we are the favorite for Mike Evans. 

What a random ass rumor for January 9th lol

[raw]

44 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

Never thought I'd say this about a 30 yo WR but I am totally down with the rumor that we are the favorite for Mike Evans. 

I wouldn't turn down Mike Evans, but I think it'd be a waste of money. I don't see the need to pay a WR that much when you have a premium pick in a great WR class to draft a WR that will be cheaper over the next 4 years. Obviously, you could do both, but again diminishing returns.

[jersey cubs fan]

1 hour ago, WrigleyField 22 said:

What a random ass rumor for January 9th lol

Sounds like more of a prediction than a rumor 

[CubinNY]

I’d be interested to know how much juice Warren has to make big changes. I thought he was brought in to help with business of getting them new digs. 

[Wilson A2000]

I don’t think Fields is the guy and I want Caleb Williams, but what’s the down side to keeping Fields for now and trading him and some point in the future if Williams looks the part? 

[CubsLeaf]

3 minutes ago, Wilson A2000 said:

I don’t think Fields is the guy and I want Caleb Williams, but what’s the down side to keeping Fields for now and trading him and some point in the future if Williams looks the part? 

I know DaBearsBlog is spewing this now on Twitter.  There's no way this is happening.

[WrigleyField 22]

It's a reasonable idea.  There isn't a ton of downside. But every option has downside. There doesn't exist a no downside option.  If they do it I absolutely want it to be Caleb or Maye though.  Not Penix or someone.

 

That said: DBB was on an absolute heater 2 years ago with some of the coach/GM search stuff, but there's never really been a track record of him predicting player personnel and roster stuff.  And if the speculation about his source being Phillips-centric was right, who knows if he even has those sources still.

[jersey cubs fan]

13 minutes ago, Wilson A2000 said:

I don’t think Fields is the guy and I want Caleb Williams, but what’s the down side to keeping Fields for now and trading him and some point in the future if Williams looks the part? 

There’s not a real one, just the theoretical one about chemistry which I don’t buy. If a guy wins the job over the incumbent, dudes will get over it. 
 

I guess the only downside is not getting what you thought you’d get in a trade later rather than now, but that’s negligible risk imo. 

[WrigleyField 22]

33 minutes ago, jersey cubs fan said:

There’s not a real one, just the theoretical one about chemistry which I don’t buy. If a guy wins the job over the incumbent, dudes will get over it. 
 

I guess the only downside is not getting what you thought you’d get in a trade later rather than now, but that’s negligible risk imo. 

I think chemistry risk is real, but people treat it like a hard line when it's just another consideration among many.  And it should be a solvable risk if you actually have a good culture. As long as the backup or starter aren't total twats...

 

Lost trade value for Fields a risk (but could also improve it)

 

The other risk is the opportunity risk that the rookie is an immediate Herbert/Stroud level rookie and the sat year was a waste. Of course you don't know til you know and you're minimizing the risk you damage a guy by rushing them or the risk you set your team back in 2024.

Edited January 10, 2024 by WrigleyField 22

[We Got The Whole 9]

5 hours ago, raw said:

I wouldn't turn down Mike Evans, but I think it'd be a waste of money. I don't see the need to pay a WR that much when you have a premium pick in a great WR class to draft a WR that will be cheaper over the next 4 years. Obviously, you could do both, but again diminishing returns.

I haven't looked at the FA class but if he got Evans, some legit IOL and DL help, and drafted Williams and one of the top LT options with the 9 or maybe another slot if he trades down again, I'd be thrilled with our roster outlook.

[UK]

I would not spend elite money on Evans, there's too much risk for decline and money needed to spend elsewhere. I'd rather see a high price FA at DE or DT (I love love love Hunter from Minnesota) or Jones Wilkins, or the DT from Baltimore.

I would draft a WR with one of the 1st rounders (Odunze at 9 would be ideal) and sign Boyd from Cincy for the slot.

[UK]

Would Matt Ryan be a possibility as an OC or more likely a QB coach on this staff?

He'll be completely out of his contract with Indy and has a close relationship with Poles.

He's always been regarded as a potential future HC.

[jersey cubs fan]

The first mock draft I read on the athletic has the bears trading with atlanta, moving down to 8 and getting a 2nd this year and 1st next year…, that’s it, that’s the whole trade. 
 

this is gonna be a longgggg four months 

[gflore34]

One would think this off-season must be offense focused but, I don't trust Poles.  I do think the idea of keeping Fields, trading down, drafting a second tier QB, setting up training camp competition is....really, really dumb.  If you're going to draft a QB and you have the number one pick, you take the best QB prospect, period.

[Outshined_One]

5 minutes ago, jersey cubs fan said:

this is gonna be a longgggg four months 

Projecting trades are an even bigger crapshoot than putting together mock drafts. They may make for discussion and clicks, but this far out especially, it's just flat out guesswork.

[jersey cubs fan]

3 minutes ago, Outshined_One said:

Projecting trades are an even bigger crapshoot than putting together mock drafts. They may make for discussion and clicks, but this far out especially, it's just flat out guesswork.

Sure, but I cannot imagine the blowback Poles would get for such a minimal return for first overall pick when it’s painfully obvious they need to upgrade QB and you have higher rated guys than were there last year. 

[gflore34]

1 minute ago, jersey cubs fan said:

Sure, but I cannot imagine the blowback Poles would get for such a minimal return for first overall pick when it’s painfully obvious they need to upgrade QB and you have higher rated guys than were there last year. 

But, is it obvious to Poles?  In addition to QB there's also a glaring need for a quality WR again, does Poles see these things?

[WrigleyField 22]

24 minutes ago, Outshined_One said:

Projecting trades are an even bigger crapshoot than putting together mock drafts. They may make for discussion and clicks, but this far out especially, it's just flat out guesswork.

Projecting trade partners and such is a crapshoot, but predicting trade value (relative to the spot) is much less so.  A 1 to 8 trade like that is laughably low.  I actually would probably just take MHJ then, (assuming they were out on QBs)

[CubinNY]

49 minutes ago, gflore34 said:

But, is it obvious to Poles?  In addition to QB there's also a glaring need for a quality WR again, does Poles see these things?

If after three years we are still asking these questions, the answer is, probably not. This is the meta-problem with the Bears. They don't have the high-level leadership in place to make the changes to make them a contender. In our lifetime, the Bears had one real contending team that was from, 1982-1985.