WrigleyField 22

Yea I think if he were able to get healthy and pass a physical it could happen.

I'm not terribly upset about this. I think he was seriously overpaid at 3/40.5 just for who he is, not to mention that signing a pure 3T is somewhat of a luxury for a team that needs so much help on offense. I'd like to see bigger contracts for cut players like JC Tretter, Lael Collins, etc. Comp picks could be coming back if handled carefully, but obviously still target the best players for the scheme. how easy is it to find a decent 3t nowadays? I remember how important Tommie Harris was to that defense, not sure if Ogunjobi was "the guy", but it seems like they are harder to find Does seem like a little bit of a specialized skill set. As Tampa 2 waned in popularity and the hybrid 3-4s like Fangio got popular young tweener prospects were pushed towards 5t roles. I had Ogunjobis Y1 hit estimated to be as low as 5M. So from a pure cap situation, Poles may not feel like there is a 13M hole to fill and will just let his cap rollover into next year's huge space. Not a fan of that approach, but it's kinda what I expect.

They're gonna make Tom Ricketts look like a big spender Might as well just splurge on some non CFA guys on 1 year deals even if you run up the price. Could still end up getting a 3 or 4 for ARob and 5th for Daniels in next years comp pick. But they are all offset right now with a few more departures who could factor in.

Oh horsefeathers. He had foot surgery at end of year. Well no idea what they're gonna spend any money on now.

A far more appealing outcome is if Poles is betting on good fits+good coaching + easier schedule to make this like a 8-9 with Fields making a solid year 2 leap and then heading into 2023 with the 100M in space and a mid first rounder. Would be a appealing FA destination and have lots of flexibility. But the good fits+good coaching + easier schedule is a big bet.

Trying to tank for a top 5 pick with your second year possible franchise QB sounds like a terrible plan. And in order to spend all that money for 2023 as a bad team off 2022, you probably end up looking like the Jaguars and overpay a ton. It's really just not a good idea to lay over and play dead for an entire NFL offseason. Hope he has a couple other agressive moves. But not counting on it...

Trying to run some rough estimates. If the Bears keep up with all these one year deals, they can probably only spend about another 19M at most (depends on Ogunjobi structure though) If they want to tap into some 2-3 year deals they could prob spend another 45-50 on multi year deals with backloading, though doesn't seem like Poles is gonna do that. So maybe there's a middle ground if an Armstead or someone is realistic, but if not, I'm guessing they just keep plugging at these 2-6M range guys on one or maybe a couple 2 year deals. They have maybe 30-33 guys who I think are legit NFL 53 man roster guys. 6 draft picks. Maybe a couple UDFAs. So probably you wanna get another 10 solid veteran FAs. If the bottom 5 were at the vet minimum and they averaged $4M on the other 5, that's about another 26M in spending. That would require some backloading or restructures. End up with something along lines of...? QB- Fields, Foles RB- Montgomery, Herbert, Evans, UDFA WR- Mooney, Pringle, Rookie, St Brown, Newsome, UDFA TE - Kmet, Vet Min, Rookie, Horsted OT- $4M FA, Jenkins, Borom, Vet Min OG- Whitehair, Rookie, Vet Min, Vet Min OC - Patrick, Mustipher DE- Quinn, Gipson, Attachou, Rookie DT - Ogunjobi, Tonga, Blackson, Edwards, Rookie LB - Smith, Morrow, $4M FA, Johnson, Vet Min CB- Johnson, $4M FA, Graham, Vildor, Shelley, UDFA S - Jackson, $4M FA, Rookie, Vet Min Scales, Cairos, Punter

I didn't realize UNLV was a tenant, but that (2 fields) would certainly add complexity ETA: LV has swiveling columns,,,,,woo hoo! we better get some of those. Pony up Virginia $$$$$$$$ essentially, because of the seating load they need columns that can move and allow the tray to pas by, but that means other columns have to take up the load (and said other columns also swivel!!!). It is more complicated then Phoenix, but that's why rich people build stadiums (or taxpayers) and we sit and marvel at it all I'm confused as to what exactly holds up the load while the swiveling ones are swiveled. A temporary set of columns? And why can't those just be permanent? (these are somewhat rhetorical questions, please feel free to just respond "engineering magic and crossed fingers")

That article also talks about some of the extra challenges of Vegas' field to accommodate sharing UNLV as a tenant all season. Hopefully nder no circumstance are he Bears are hosting a similar type of weekly tenant in season. Growing grass indoors and hosting a occasional concert in season would be way different than the need to host a regular tenant who requires their own turf playing surface.

Where that jumbo tron is where they role the field in. It's a big opening. LV had to really beef up the support to put seats in that area (and maybe it's suspect enhineering). Those aren't the highest value seats, but its something. I guess what I mean is how they make the opening in the wall, ie concrete arch or steel truss or.....etc. there are expensive ways and reasons and not expensive ways and reasons but not being part of the design team, I dont know the decisions that led them to the results in either Phoenix or LV This obviously doesn't go into the details to the extent an architect/engineer would need, but this is where I had read about the differences and the design challenge. https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/stadium/challenge-for-las-vegas-raiders-stadium-is-moving-grass-field-inside-1568670/

I dont know the design well enough to know that is true or why, but sure it could have consequences Where that jumbo tron is where they role the field in. It's a big opening. LV had to really beef up the support to put seats in that area (and maybe it's suspect enhineering). Those aren't the highest value seats, but its something.

Thanks. Maybe the Tottenham approach is possible too. I know Houston used to have a movable field approach but it seemed to really cause injury issue (negating the pro grass point) based on seaming the field pieces together. But that was a ton of seams. If it was just one seam, maybe that would lessen the concerns there. or better yet, 0 seams like Phoenix Of course. You just give up seats ($). And deal with winter growing in Chicago verse Arizona.

That's true I guess. Lambeau uses some sort of artificial light growing system for the winter months and they do pretty well. They also have that hybrid grass that's reinforced with turf. If it works for them I'd think it works for Chicago and then you just gotta put the whole field on giant wheels (basically). As far as other venues, this is just my wacky idea with zero professional knowledge. Grass as your base level with optimisized NFL sight lines. An artifical light/irrigation system that rolls out over it but that can also support weight of your secondary venue floor like NCAA tourney. You raise the floor a bunch, but those bottom row sight lines are useless anyways for stuff like that. So while the Final 4 is rocking above the grass you have lights and irrigation keeping the grass happy underneath. I guess it's a question of strength if that support system being possible? I remember reading about Vegas's structure and they had a similar conundrum because they wanted to maximize seats. Whereas Arizona kept the rollover section as lean as possible, Vegas had to really beef up engineering to hold seats and allow the field to roll under. Then for Tottenham they took the approach of splitting the field. But that seems like a worse option for NFL. eta: I guess he looks at engineering like ballroom dancing...yeah guess what, its not https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/henderson/engineer-in-step-with-changing-las-vegas-landscape/ Otherwise I guess yea, you do the exact same design (basically) as Vegas but in your empty field have some system to erect temporary green structure and artificial lights for Nov-Feb. In either form, probably using GBs hybrid turf is best bet. through an unlikely set of circumstance, I met the structural engineer/contractor who did the seating stations at LV's stadium. My guess is it is over designed due to the fact I had to fire him on a project of my own....because he lost his license 1/2 trough it. He holds several engineering and contracting licenses and the one he lost was not his engineering license that he used for the stadium, but the incompetence remains. Lets hope the Bears design team finds a better option in the Chicago area eta: I guess he thinks engineering is similar to ballroom dancing..yeah guess what its not https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/henderson/engineer-in-step-with-changing-las-vegas-landscape/ Thanks. Maybe the Tottenham approach is possible too. I know Houston used to have a movable field approach but it seemed to really cause injury issue (negating the pro grass point) based on seaming the field pieces together. But that was a ton of seams. If it was just one seam, maybe that would lessen the concerns there.

Grass won't be growing all that well rolled out in November in December. no, but summer/spring/fall months it would grow well and still allow the Bears to use the stadium for other purposes, march madness, concerts, what have you, and not destroy the turf doing so. Plus, a grow-house could be constructed next to the stadium if you want to keep it warm but dormant during the winter That's true I guess. Lambeau uses some sort of artificial light growing system for the winter months and they do pretty well. They also have that hybrid grass that's reinforced with turf. If it works for them I'd think it works for Chicago and then you just gotta put the whole field on giant wheels (basically). As far as other venues, this is just my wacky idea with zero professional knowledge. Grass as your base level with optimized NFL sight lines. An artifical light/irrigation system that rolls out over it but that can also support weight of your secondary venue floor like NCAA tourney. You raise the floor a bunch, but those bottom row sight lines are useless anyways for stuff like that. So while the Final 4 is rocking above the grass you have lights and irrigation keeping the grass happy underneath. I guess it's a question of strength if that support system being possible? I remember reading about Vegas's structure and they had a similar conundrum because they wanted to maximize seats. Whereas Arizona kept the rollover section as lean as possible, Vegas had to really beef up engineering to hold seats and allow the field to roll under. Then for Tottenham they took the approach of splitting the field. But that seems like a worse option for NFL. Otherwise I guess yea, you do the exact same design (basically) as Vegas but in your empty field have some system to erect temporary green structure and artificial lights for Nov-Feb growing. In either form, probably using Lambeaus hybrid turf is best bet.

I want a real grass field like Raiders have though. Hope they do it again. If they go that direction I hope they do it better than SF SF isn't really relevant? Arizona and LV are the only domed teams with grass. For those teams it was a matter of rolling the field out to take advantage of natural sunlight and weather. For Bears probably would be more likely to be some sort of artificial light growing system that keeps it all indoors. No idea if it's really that feasible, but would be awesome. I think there may be a couple soccer clubs that do it?

He did have something that he predicted that came true, can't recall what it is. I think you could easily go into 2022 with Borom and Jenkins at RT/RG, as long as you get a versatile veteran as depth/competition. Not sure if JC Tretter is a good option at C with respect to scheme and what his contract demand might be. My take is sign some talented upside/value guys regardless of position and let them sort it out in training camp. Multiple C options would be great. Pushing Borom into a reserve role would be great. I don't understand why Borom would start T over Jenkins. Health? I think it is just kind of play style maybe? Jenkins plays with an agressive style that could maybe make him an elite G. And while he can probably handle outside he doesn't have elite OT measurables. Could just be that Poles sees a potential Brandon Scherff like G instead of like a mid range starting T. As for Borom, he then fills out the other spot, but you focus on best guy in best spot first.

Not the group I was hoping for. HKS would have been better imo I want a real grass field like Raiders have though. Hope they do it again.

Based on this DE market, I think Poles sold low on Mack, but should try and make up for it by selling high on Quinn.

Daniels got 3/26.5 and the guy they signed to replace him got 2/8. And he's supposedly a more nasty type of lineman, which Poles made clear he prefers. I think saving money and getting the type of player you prefer makes sense here. Daniels should have been a good got athletically for the scheme. I guess attitude (or even consistency) are being prioritized. This guy got ARob extension wrong last year, but I feel like maybe he has called other things and is maybe connected?

I think theres a little bit of conflating correlation and causation with analysis like this sometimes. Bad teams aren't ncessarily bad because they overspend in FA. They're overspending in FA because they drafted poorly. If you're bad, you can splurge big in FA and still try to improve the draft part. NFL isn't great for tanking benefits. Careers are too short and schedule too much variance. There are certain narrow ways where FA spending inhibits draft development, but if anything it actually could mean the best bet is spending big in just a few areas rather than spreading around too much. And you have to spend a 90% target in actual cash so it's hard to underspend and if eventually you roll all that space over and have like a 100M cap room year you're basically guaranteed to spend it inefficiently then because you can't spend thst much all at once efficiently (or it would be very difficult). I didn't intend to comment on good teams/bad teams in any way. Watching the first couple days of FA and seeing some predictable and surprising overpays reinforces the goal of every team, which is building through the draft. Interesting comment on excessive cap space. I assume there is a salary floor, do we know what it is compared to the cap? Its technically a cash floor, not a cap floor, but for all intents basically the same because of the rollover provisions. It's 89% I think, over a 3 year period.

Should I be excited?

Can't argue with that.

In what way? Every NFL team is gonna spend pretty close to the same amount. There isn't a huge spending differnce. If you don't have your own good players, you sign other teams until you at least hit minimum spending thresholds. Now you could hold back the 10% spending once you hit the minimum and role it forward to some future date, but I'm of the opinion it's gonna be hard to blow your load and spend efficiently later on when you hit the "were trying now phase". The pure economic argument is to overspend the cap and defer cap hits to do so. Ideally only by a modest amount (one day I want to model out a target number, but I'm thinking it's 110-115% of cap as cash spending). So just always be trying to improve incrimentally using both draft and FA. FA isn't efficient, but it can absolutely give you big leaps in team growth in absolute terms. About the only team building strategy that changes from rebuild to contender windows is how to use draft picks in veteran trades.

We got an offensive player! (guessing a swing guy, maybe competing with a rookie.)

Okay BOPA it is.