WrigleyField 22

uuhhhh yes, that was the endless trade watch I was trying to remember.

Peavy to Cubs!

Lots of Twitter buzz re: Wilson on the basis of betting sites. For whatever that's worth..

He currently has Tyler Lockett and DK Metcalf. Thats better than Robinson/Mooney. Sent from my SM-A115AZ using Tapatalk Statistically Robinson and Metcalf are pretty close, nearly equal, Robinson' > Lockett but, Metcalf and Lockett both have it over Mooney so, as a package you're correct. How about Wilson would have some good weapons to work with on the Bears? Plus as been mentioned, Wilson not having to deal with Carroll. It's probably all academic, I refuse to believe something this great could happen for the Bears. It's against the rules. I'm pretty high on Mooney, so maybe they could get there, but certainly not today.

Yea. Certainly the cap mechanics are less complicated if they can extend him and lower the 2021 hit. Anything is possible, but an extension is preferable unless you had some concern about locking him into his late 20s. Acquiring a competent QB would probably help. Just in terms of Arobs willingness to agree to something you mean?

Yea. Certainly the cap mechanics are less complicated if they can extend him and lower the 2021 hit. Anything is possible, but an extension is preferable unless you had some concern about locking him into his late 20s.

Hasn't it been all but said he's not a Nagy fan?

Ok, someone do the math. If they are break even at 20%, they sure must make a killing at 100%. Holy crap, what an admission haha. I mean I'm sure there' some very negligible cost increase as far as staffing the stadium at 100% verse 20%, but yea...

On the OL point, I think at a certain point its fair to question if Wilson is making life harder on the OL. Most analytic minded guys will say that the QB is responsible for a great deal of sack % for example. If its 4 top 1-3 picks over the next 3 drafts... I guess the devil is just in the details. I'm slightly more concerned about net pick loss. I'd part with the 3 firsts if I got a 2nd back, for example, as the difference between say 20 to 50th in the draft is often pretty small. Three 1sts and a second is a lot different that two 1sts and two 3rds. Oh yeah, Wilson makes it much harder on his line. Sacks are actually harder to get now because teams get the ball out so quickly. He holds onto the ball and runs around which can create pressure (rusher can see him, lineman can't, rusher adjusts to QB leaving the pocket while OL trying to protect the pocket). As for the picks, I'm cool with giving up 1sts. I don't want to give up 1sts, and 2nds and 3rds. I mean, you still gotta hit on the picks, but you have to have the picks to hit on. Three 1sts and a 2nd is different from 2 1sts and 2 3rds because of that extra 1st round pick. But I'd also rather give up 3 1sts instead of 2 1sts and 2 2nds in the next 2 years, leaving your first pick in the 80s or later for 2 straight years. Yea - pretty much in agreement. I look at the Mack deal for instance. Two firsts got the headlines, but it was really less than that with the pick swaps. Now obviously I expect a proven QB to be higher cost than Mack, but he is an older QB too. Taking whatever priors I can to triangulate it, and just using the pick trade chart, the net value should be something like a Number 1 overall pick plus a little extra. Obviously that involves some guesswork with future picks, but assume you price your picks at like 20-25 range.

I think you are reaching the point of overvaluing the QB spot, personally. I guess if I knew the cap was about to explode with a new TV deal the vision becomes clearer as they could just fill around Wilson in FA for a few years, but as things stands now, the Bears aren't necessarily in a great spot to build around Wilson. At least Watson has longer term upside based on age. I'd definitely offer more for him.

On the OL point, I think at a certain point its fair to question if Wilson is making life harder on the OL. Most analytic minded guys will say that the QB is responsible for a great deal of sack % for example. If its 4 top 1-3 picks over the next 3 drafts... I guess the devil is just in the details. I'm slightly more concerned about net pick loss. I'd part with the 3 firsts if I got a 2nd back, for example, as the difference between say 20 to 50th in the draft is often pretty small. Three 1sts and a second is a lot different that two 1sts and two 3rds.

I usually fail miserably at predicting these things, but it feels like it should be less than that. It would probably include some players instead. Maybe Roquan and/or Johnson? Yea - I could see picks and players for sure. (I'm probably wrong)

That is correct. Bears hits would be 19, 24, 27. I'm sure by 2023 you'd be negotiating an extension Because of this I would imagine the package is at least 3 first rounders and 2-3 second or third round picks. Probably get a few day 3 picks back in return to balance out the insane number of high picks going to Seattle. I usually fail miserably at predicting these things, but it feels like it should be less than that.

That is correct. Bears hits would be 19, 24, 27. I'm sure by 2023 you'd be negotiating an extension

So what, they have a cap hold in the offseason that disappear once play starts? Yep - identical to the Hossa situation. I don't remember what that situation meant either. I'm a big NFL cap nerd, used to be a big NBA nerd and know enough still. Basically lost with the NHL. I guess, what's the practical usefulness? Mid-season trade room, but not FA cap room?

So what, they have a cap hold in the offseason that disappear once play starts?

After June 1 they can defer any of the dead cap for future years which I thing is like 2/3 of that 39. So it'd be like 13 hit in 2021 and 26 hit in 2022. Biggest issue is it has to happen after June 1. With cuts they let you "designate" a June 1 cut even if it happens before. That doesn't exist with trades, so it possibly complicates including 2021 picks though I'm not aware of any strict provision that would prohibit CHI drafting on SEA behalf then formalizing after June 1. But I can't think of that ever happening actually. On the other hand dead cap hits are fungible. I'm sure SEA has some other cap hits they can move around and the pre/post June 1 on Wilson is fairly immaterial in the big picture (assuming they are comfortable eating the 39M at all).

Does that help the cap or not?

Yea even as a kid I kind of had the sense Giangreco was a D bag. Unsurprised.

Its not dire. I don't think it's necessarily gonna materially head in a good direction, but definitely not if a bunch of day 1 and 2 draft picks are gonna be departed with. It's young and talented in the middle, it's old and bad on the tackles. It's going to be tough if they trade for Wilson, but they have the opportunity to draft competence in the 2nd or 3rd if they so choose. Whitehair might be just a guy now. And hopefully Mustipher is for real good. But either way, that's about right, I guess I just don't call that "emerging". Just kind of existing?

There is a decent reason to believe the oline is going in the right direction, especially the interior. Its not dire. I don't think it's necessarily gonna materially head in a good direction, but definitely not if a bunch of day 1 and 2 draft picks are gonna be departed with.

The Bears have an emerging offensive line? I mean I understand Seattle has generally had bad lines, but damn.

That's some Dumbledore horsefeathers going on.

I might go buy multiple version of his jersey and I'm not even a big jersey guy.

A boatload of picks for a 32 year old QB is probably dumb, but horsefeathers it, let's go deep.