2025 Bears Offseason Thread

[minnesotacubsfan]

34 minutes ago, gflore34 said:

Hard, hard pass on Myles Garrett, would cost way too many resources that are needed in building the OL.  Besides, I believe the defense can helped just as much by signing Josh Sweat or Chase Young and Marcus Davenport along with a day 2 DL pick.

Josh Sweat plz

 

also, speaking of disappointments....Chase Young may never live up to his draft status

 

[gflore34]

7 minutes ago, minnesotacubsfan said:

Josh Sweat plz

 

also, speaking of disappointments....Chase Young may never live up to his draft status

 

I agree on Josh Sweat barring that a guy like Young will draw enough attention. To allow for a step ups in production from Marcus Sweat and Dexter.

[BigSlick]

I’d offer a 1st for Garrett, but nothing more. Do you think you can get his quality of play or better from our 10th overall pick? Probably not, or at least it’s not a great bet. I doubt the Browns will settle for that though. 
 

im all for going all-in on offense of course, but if all it took for Garrett was a 1st, I’d do it. Otherwise, you worry about the defense later, next year. This year is all Caleb and all offense.

[BigSlick]

Just saw that Garrett is about to turn 30. I thought he was younger. Nevermind, I wouldn’t even offer our first for him. 
 

Only contending and ready to contend teams should sell out for him.

Edited February 4, 2025 by BigSlick

[bukie]

This is the NFL, any team is a good offseason away from being ready to contend.

[jersey cubs fan]

7 minutes ago, BigSlick said:

Just saw that Garrett is about to turn 30. I thought he was younger. Nevermind, I wouldn’t even offer our first for him. 
 

Only contending and ready to contend teams should sell out for him.

If the bears aren’t ready to contend now they might as well can Poles today and get a new guy to overhaul the entire team, including Caleb. 

[WrigleyField 22]

I'd talk myself into #10 straight up for Garrett but that's also probably dumb.

 

But definitely can't be making a multi-pick investment in a trade like that.  Really the Mack trade was something like #24 net value and I think only a one pick loss.  Garrett is better than Mack at time, but also 3 years older.  Just to put that into context.

 

I also think Cleveland's top instinct is gonna be to smooth it over.  Money and years can go a long way to resolving these type of requests.

Edited February 5, 2025 by WrigleyField 22

[BigSlick]

Agreed, in a sense. Every NFL team is an offseason away from being playoff contenders.

 

When I say "contend" i mean "one or two players away from a Super Bowl". 

 

I do think the Bears should be able to contend for a playoff spot next year, and if they don't, Poles should be fired. 

Edited February 5, 2025 by BigSlick

[jersey cubs fan]

11 minutes ago, BigSlick said:

Agreed, in a sense. Every NFL team is an offseason away from being playoff contenders.

 

When I say "contend" i mean "one or two players away from a Super Bowl". 

 

I do think the Bears should be able to contend for a playoff spot next year, and if they don't, Poles should be fired. 

Washington won 4 games last year and made the NFC championship game this season. If that doesn’t qualify as a Super Bowl contender I don’t know what does. And if the bears can’t be as good as Washington then they’ve done something wrong.  Minnesota wasn’t even considered a division contender going into 2025 and ended the year as perhaps the second best team in the conference. Contention is a nebulous concept. If you have a QB and not the worst defense in the league you can contend. The bears should act as though they are a contending team. If they don’t want a guy because of his age and exorbitant cost in assets, fine. But don’t pass on a guy because you think you aren’t close enough to contend 

[WrigleyField 22]

Windows are a myth

[Derwood]

Breaking news: the Dodgers have just traded for Myles Garrett

[BigSlick]

6 minutes ago, jersey cubs fan said:

Washington won 4 games last year and made the NFC championship game this season. If that doesn’t qualify as a Super Bowl contender I don’t know what does. And if the bears can’t be as good as Washington then they’ve done something wrong.  Minnesota wasn’t even considered a division contender going into 2025 and ended the year as perhaps the second best team in the conference. Contention is a nebulous concept. If you have a QB and not the worst defense in the league you can contend. The bears should act as though they are a contending team. If they don’t want a guy because of his age and exorbitant cost in assets, fine. But don’t pass on a guy because you think you aren’t close enough to contend 

In one sense I agree, in another sense, I don't agree. Think about it this way:

Who would it make more sense to trade for Myles Garrett and spend possible long term resources for short term benefits? The Detroit Lions or the Chicago Bears? You may not agree, but I think: 

Detroit Lions, spend a first round pick on a 30 year old guy with two years on his deal? Sure

Chicago Bears, spend a first round pick on a 30 year old guy with two years on his deal? Nah

There's something qualitatively different between these two teams. 

[BigSlick]

6 minutes ago, WrigleyField 22 said:

Windows are a myth

The "window" is, do you have a QB and offense in place. That isn't the same as a salary cap window or anything, but it *is* a window. 

[minnesotacubsfan]

18 minutes ago, BigSlick said:

In one sense I agree, in another sense, I don't agree. Think about it this way:

Who would it make more sense to trade for Myles Garrett and spend possible long term resources for short term benefits? The Detroit Lions or the Chicago Bears? You may not agree, but I think: 

Detroit Lions, spend a first round pick on a 30 year old guy with two years on his deal? Sure

Chicago Bears, spend a first round pick on a 30 year old guy with two years on his deal? Nah

There's something qualitatively different between these two teams. 

I dont think Garrett is too old, DE's can perform well into their 30's and Garrett has a long and great track record. I think he's better then anything the Bears would get at 10, which will likley be the second best OT of which they could likely get comperable talent early in the 2nd

 

[BigSlick]

11 minutes ago, minnesotacubsfan said:

I dont think Garrett is too old, DE's can perform well into their 30's and Garrett has a long and great track record. I think he's better then anything the Bears would get at 10, which will likley be the second best OT of which they could likely get comperable talent early in the 2nd

 

Sure, *some* DEs can perform well into their 30s, some don't. Aging is not a linear thing and many older players hit a wall or get a nasty injury and are out of the league. The best D-Tackle of our generation retired at age 30. It *can* work out, but its not something I necessarily want to pour a lot of money or resources. Montez Sweat will be 29 next year. 

There are real questions to ask: Is it more valuable to invest in a 22 year old D-End coming out of school who may not have as much higher end potential but could be on the team throughout their prime and on a cheaper deal? I honestly don't know the answer to that. 

 

EDIT: Woops, had that wrong, Donald retired his age 32 season

Edited February 5, 2025 by BigSlick

[minnesotacubsfan]

1 minute ago, BigSlick said:

Sure, *some* DEs can perform well into their 30s, some don't. Aging is not a linear thing and many older players hit a wall or get a nasty injury and are out of the league. The best D-Tackle of our generation retired at age 30. It *can* work out, but its not something I necessarily want to pour a lot of money or resources. Montez Sweat will be 29 next year. 

There are real questions to ask: Is it more valuable to invest in a 22 year old D-End coming out of school who may not have as much higher end potential but could be on the team throughout their prime and on a cheaper deal? I honestly don't know the answer to that. 

Warren Sapp was 36 when he retired

but, look at it this way; if you cant get Carter in the draft, who would be a better pick than Garrett?

 

 

[Rex Buckingham]

5 minutes ago, BigSlick said:

Sure, *some* DEs can perform well into their 30s, some don't. Aging is not a linear thing and many older players hit a wall or get a nasty injury and are out of the league. The best D-Tackle of our generation retired at age 30. It *can* work out, but its not something I necessarily want to pour a lot of money or resources. Montez Sweat will be 29 next year. 

There are real questions to ask: Is it more valuable to invest in a 22 year old D-End coming out of school who may not have as much higher end potential but could be on the team throughout their prime and on a cheaper deal? I honestly don't know the answer to that. 

 

EDIT: Woops, had that wrong, Donald retired his age 32 season

Yes, Aaron Donald retired at 32, but it wasn't because he wasn't good enough anymore. He was just done with football. He was still an absolute stud - 8 sacks and 23 QB hits

[WrigleyField 22]

40 minutes ago, BigSlick said:

The "window" is, do you have a QB and offense in place. That isn't the same as a salary cap window or anything, but it *is* a window. 

Incidentally I was just making this point on my Twitter account today.

 

Eagles at end of 2020 were a closed window team by conventional wisdom.  They were projected 70m over the cap. 4 win season.  And they "didn't have a QB".

 

Except they did have a QB.  Minny this year let go of their franchise QB and their new 1st round QB got injured.  And yet they still ended up "having a QB".  SF busted on their new QB a few years ago and wait for it.... Still had a QB!

 

So no the have a QB thing isn't really even a pre-requisite. Just loser talk mostly.

[BigSlick]

We get into the old chicken and egg debate about QBs and coaching. I don't know if there's any way to prove it one way or the other. I still feel prejudiced towards my "you need a QB" thesis, but I don't know if I can persuade anyone with the data thats available, which can be interpreted in multilple ways. 

People wrote off Minnesota, then they got Sam Darnold who had a great year and the team was great. Was that coaching that turned him around? Maybe. Maybe he was a late bloomer and finally played up to his talent level after years of experience (and coaching from previous teams). Minnesota's roster wasn't all that different in 2023 and they were mediocre, and I can point to the extraordinarily bad play at QB of Nick Mullens, Josh Dobbs and Jaren Hall (who?) as a decisive factor to that down the stretch. (Of course, Cousins was 4-4 and played really well, statistically)

The Eagles have a fantastic QB in Jalen Hurts. I dunno. Is that Sirianni genius or is that just cuz Hurts is really good. 🤷‍♂️ People wanted to fire Sirianni last year. Hurts was still really good. 

Everyone has their priors. 

Edited February 5, 2025 by BigSlick

[gflore34]

33 minutes ago, BigSlick said:

We get into the old chicken and egg debate about QBs and coaching. I don't know if there's any way to prove it one way or the other. I still feel prejudiced towards my "you need a QB" thesis, but I don't know if I can persuade anyone with the data thats available, which can be interpreted in multilple ways. 

People wrote off Minnesota, then they got Sam Darnold who had a great year and the team was great. Was that coaching that turned him around? Maybe. Maybe he was a late bloomer and finally played up to his talent level after years of experience (and coaching from previous teams). Minnesota's roster wasn't all that different in 2023 and they were mediocre, and I can point to the extraordinarily bad play at QB of Nick Mullens, Josh Dobbs and Jaren Hall (who?) as a decisive factor to that down the stretch. (Of course, Cousins was 4-4 and played really well, statistically)

The Eagles have a fantastic QB in Jalen Hurts. I dunno. Is that Sirianni genius or is that just cuz Hurts is really good. 🤷‍♂️ People wanted to fire Sirianni last year. Hurts was still really good. 

Everyone has their priors. 

QB and coaching go hand-in-hand, ****** QB + good coaching = mediocre/crappy, good QB + ****** coaching = mediocre/crappy , only good QB + good coaching = stellar results, we saw this play out with the Vikings.  While being a draft bust, I don't think Darnold was a ****** QB, prior to the Vikings he was certainly subject to a good deal of ****** coaching.

[mul21]

1 hour ago, BigSlick said:

We get into the old chicken and egg debate about QBs and coaching. I don't know if there's any way to prove it one way or the other. I still feel prejudiced towards my "you need a QB" thesis, but I don't know if I can persuade anyone with the data thats available, which can be interpreted in multilple ways. 

People wrote off Minnesota, then they got Sam Darnold who had a great year and the team was great. Was that coaching that turned him around? Maybe. Maybe he was a late bloomer and finally played up to his talent level after years of experience (and coaching from previous teams). Minnesota's roster wasn't all that different in 2023 and they were mediocre, and I can point to the extraordinarily bad play at QB of Nick Mullens, Josh Dobbs and Jaren Hall (who?) as a decisive factor to that down the stretch. (Of course, Cousins was 4-4 and played really well, statistically)

The Eagles have a fantastic QB in Jalen Hurts. I dunno. Is that Sirianni genius or is that just cuz Hurts is really good. 🤷‍♂️ People wanted to fire Sirianni last year. Hurts was still really good. 

Everyone has their priors. 

I think adapting your thesis to "You need a QB for sustained success" is probably a better way to frame it.  There are teams who have a pop up years all the time with a QB who has a career year or some other factor influencing their record, but really only the teams with a good QB have year over year success.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

A few buck the trend, but if you assume all defensive players are washed up by 29, you'll be right more often than you're wrong.

[gflore34]

9 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

A few buck the trend, but if you assume all defensive players are washed up by 29, you'll be right more often than you're wrong.

If the price was just the pick at 10, I'd strongly consider making the move.  I'm certain the Browns are asking for quite a bit more, no thank you.

[WrigleyField 22]

Chicken or Egg doesn't really matter.

 

Except for extreme circumstances you should be acting like a team who can win, but not a team destined to win.  So ever thinking your window is so immediate that you're reckless is as silly as thinking your window is years away. Both overstate anyone's predictive abilities on these things.

 

https://www.nfl.com/news/philadelphia-s-superpower-eagles-became-nfc-s-best-team-through-furious-fearless-roster-renovation?campaign

 

This article is full of good quotes, but I think a great summary is basically "this stuff is kind of hard but the easiest thing is to just try".  Trying to line up windows is 100% wasted energy trying to analyze your window. 

[WrigleyField 22]

34 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

A few buck the trend, but if you assume all defensive players are washed up by 29, you'll be right more often than you're wrong.

Logically the biggest thing with age is the body slowing down.  The thing is there is tons of player tracking data that can tell you in real terms and live how players are slowing down or not.  Supposedly the reason the Rams are moving in from Kupp is for this reason (and they've long been a leader in player tracking data).  Granted you'll have better data on your own guys (practice data), but this is probably a fairly cutting edge analytics thing.  Someone out there can probably do some real time data stuff with Garrett to make better predictions on aging than just looking at a calendar (and as the data accumulates would be able to predict these aging curves with more accuracy).

 

It seems like Garret would profile positively to guys with body types and athleticism that allows for good aging.  But making a qualitative assessment on that would be better.