WrigleyField 22

He'd probably.immediately become the most talented passer in Bears history, but I think he's had too many injuries and is too immobile to last behind the Bears line as currently constructed. As long as the Bears line doesn't feature Coward ever it will be okay. Yea they need to add a new young high potential guy, and this draft looks like a good opportunity to do so, but it's not too far from competency.

Cool, I hope Desai is awesome and then gets hired away as head coach in a couple years and the Bears get 2 3rd round picks.

But it’s not penalizing the team. They signed him to a contract. They structured it the way they did for a reason. They knew the risks. I guess the only real argument is that they can ask for pro-rated signing bonuses back when a player retires. So if they can get the cash back, why wouldnt they also get the cap back. Anyways, yea Loomis has been a cap wizard of sorts, but it was always designed around rising cap and very significant most years. Things are much more limiting now. They'll get out of it somehow, but the bill comes someday. One thing they'll have to do is put a bunch of dummy years on contracts too. Can extend out guarantees up to 5 years for cap purposes even if the player is only signed for 2 or 3 more, then you get that big dead hit after their final year or extend again and recapitalize it again.

You can take that loop back another level since Pederson was Reid's OC who they fired (granted with Kelly in between). They love them some Andy Reid coaching tree.

For London, QB coach is a legit promotion given history as that spot as a stepping stone to an OC role. I feel like there was some talk with the new minority comp rules that QB coach and coordinators could be included in some form. Did that happen, or is it just HC/GMs?

They're not so cash strapped they couldn't make Stafford or really any 1 FA/trade work. I tend to agree about giving up assets for a Lock/Darnold type though. Assets for a known quantity, sure let's talk. For potential, I'll just spin the draft/FA wheel and hope to get lightning in a bottle that way.

Sounds like a slippery slope to another Bounty Gate to me!

I just want to see a QB somewhere this draft. Obviously 20 doesnt look like a strong spot to pick high at this point, but guys like Mond or Newman are compelling enough as day 3 picks. Even if they're only ever backups that's 4 cheap years of backup QB play. Grab a practice squad flyer who isn't Tyler Bray also. yea, a rd 2-4 QB should always be a priority if you dont have a Rodgers starting even then Yea I mean didn't the Packers fart out like 3 or 4 guys into trade capital that they developed behind Favre in the 90s?

You have to try lots of options. Put a guy in a new system and who knows, he might improve. But if the worst case is you actually get worse QB play, then you'll also get a much better draft pick in 2022 and an entirely new regime to make that selection. Without getting Fields, Wilson, Lance or Watson, I'm thinking loading up on the offensive line while waiting for the next QB opportunity is way to go. So go with that bridge or patch work QB, having that OL in place will certainly help to hasten the development of your franchise QB. I just want to see a QB somewhere this draft. Obviously 20 doesnt look like a strong spot to pick high at this point, but guys like Mond or Newman are compelling enough as day 3 picks. Even if they're only ever backups that's 4 cheap years of backup QB play. Grab a practice squad flyer who isn't Tyler Bray also.

I believe they interviewed him for the HC job a few years ago.

Until we get to see Brady with a truly awful coach like Matt Nagy though, we'll never get the full sample we need.

There was a sentiment that you could surround Brady with anyone and win championships. The team regularly took cast-offs from other teams and day 2/3 draft picks and sustained success. I don't know if anyone argued that Brady was unimportant, but I haven't delved back into the hot take archives So... that doesn't really disprove any Belicheck myth than? As long as it admits Belicheck's system was reliant on a HOF QB. It was still an incredibly successful system that other franchises with a HOF QB didn't get near matching.

Wait are there people who were arguing that a HOF QB (underpaid for most of his time) wasn't critical to the Patriots nearly 2 decade dynasty?

Supposedly Phillys owner doesn't want to eat Wentzs contract and wants to salvage him, which is why Pederson was fired, as he wanted to move on. So I don't think it will be Wentz. Ryan will be interesting to watch. His cap number still is pretty tough to swallow in 2021. In 2022 it becomes much easier to cut or trade him. So even if they might draft a successor he'd be a good, albeit expensive, one year bridge. Stafford seems more realistic than either of those. God I have seen this movie so many times. To be clear, we are probably at Lloyd Christmas "so you're telling me there's a chance" levels of acquiring a veteran top half of the league type starter. But 1 in a hundred is more likely than 1 in a million. Particularly with Stafford, there's some rumors Denver could be interested. And unless the Bears blow Detroit away with an offer, they'd probably move him to Denver all being the same. The good thing with Stafford is Detroit has motivation t move him before March 17 because of a roster bonus. So we won't spend all offseason speculating about the possibility.

Supposedly Phillys owner doesn't want to eat Wentzs contract and wants to salvage him, which is why Pederson was fired, as he wanted to move on. So I don't think it will be Wentz. Ryan will be interesting to watch. His cap number still is pretty tough to swallow in 2021. In 2022 it becomes much easier to cut or trade him. So even if they might draft a successor he'd be a good, albeit expensive, one year bridge. Stafford seems more realistic than either of those.

Yea - give me a great coach on either side of the ball. A good coach will shuffle through coordinators as needed, either way. But more than anything, give me a top 5 QB.

So they kind of could fit some stuff in this year. Again, Watson's cap hold isn't bad in 2021. It's 2022 that you have to decide. You probably could do ARob, but then you really need to tear a lot of your D pieces apart starting in 2022. Or you don't do ARob and you can keep a little bit more of the D intact, but maybe still walk from Mack. On some level there's always tough decision when you're paying a QB 20% or so of your cap. The issue is when you are draft capital depleted as one of the means to replace.

Well Watsons 2021 salary cap hit isn't very big. So they can make that work with minor manuevers. They don't really have extra picks from which they can deal from, but if they wanted to they could deal from the picks they do have, including having all their future firsts. So if it's really something Hou wanted to entertain and CHI was really motivated, sure. But I'll be honest, I really don't know they can build a team around the cap constraints. I think they'd have to move on from Mack by 2022 once Watsons cap hit gets bigger. Will be too much for 2 players. But maybe they could be all in for 2021 then retool. But it's tough to retool once you've traded maybe 3 or 4 future 1sts. They can definitely make it work. Watson's cap hit increase in 2022 actually sets up perfectly with the Bears being able to get out of some of the big contracts. Even if they don't cut Mack until AFTER 2022, they can save 24M by cutting Quinn and Jackson with a June 1 designation. Then there's Foles 7Mil off the books. Goldman could be a June 1 cut. If the cap is 200M in 2022, the Bears currently have 75M in cap room. Granted, only 24 players under contract, but that also includes guys like Massie who will certainly be cut this offseason. Yea, so you're cutting a bunch of starters and only have FA to really replace them. They can of course fit his cap number, but building a winner around it is entirely different.

Not that I have a very high opinion of what the Bears have done in the last 25 years, but I have a feeling these are a little bit cherry picked. That 1995 starting date is significant I'm betting. 25 years seems like a good starting point. If you want to even out the #s by going back to the 80s when the Bears dominated, you're further showing how the bad the Bears are. If you go back say 20 years or just during the Rodgers tenure, there's not a theme shift compared to 25. Well 25 ends up being significant since it picks up the first of the Packers first of back to back SB. But that's it. If you did 23 years it'd be just as damning.

Uh I definitely didn't need a full analysis to know that lol

Well Watsons 2021 salary cap hit isn't very big. So they can make that work with minor manuevers. They don't really have extra picks from which they can deal from, but if they wanted to they could deal from the picks they do have, including having all their future firsts. So if it's really something Hou wanted to entertain and CHI was really motivated, sure. But I'll be honest, I really don't know they can build a team around the cap constraints. I think they'd have to move on from Mack by 2022 once Watsons cap hit gets bigger. Will be too much for 2 players. But maybe they could be all in for 2021 then retool. But it's tough to retool once you've traded maybe 3 or 4 future 1sts.

I get why Meyer would. Is it fair to assume this is a Carroll type role where Urban is getting full roster control?

No you're absolutely right. The ship is sailed. The not having a portion apply to the cap is an interesting idea. They have the super max now, but I think the whole amount still counts towards cap/tax and it's hurt player retention in a few cases. I don't think it woild help the super team thing necessarily but it'd help in the few cases where supermax has been a negative affect on retention. At the end of the day, drafting a guy and then extending him typically gets you at least 6-8 years of control. If you haven't shown you can build around him in 6-8 years I guess he's gonna bolt and pair up on a super team. :dontknow:

Kill the max salary. (dreaming)

While not an excuse per se, I understand why the McCaskeys wouldn't want to have to hire a new Pres and CEO either. It's not that they just aren't football people, they really aren't business people either. They're drawing on very little to make big decisions like that. I get why they act conservatively and will accept the security blanket that is Ted. I think when he retires they'll probably promote from within. I get that the NFL is a cash cow and it shouldn't be hard to find a business operator to not horsefeathers things up, but when you're as incompetent and poor as the McCaskeys there's a lot more at risk, especially if they want to spend like they have since George came on board. The Wirtz family has experience running a large company. Reinsdorf could buy a minor league team first to help Michael learn how to operate a business. The McCaskeys just have their one business to run and they sucked at it before. Maybe George would be better than Michael if given the chance, but the board apparently doesn't want that. In that context I think finding their Ted is a bit more unique fit wise because they're really looking for another owner who doesn't take actual equity (to my knowledge). If they did want to hire an outside CEO they'd probably do well to exclusively search from the limited pool of people with experience with similar old school, relatively poor, family owned franchises. Those are gonna be the people who understand the business component specific to a family like the McCaskeys. To that end I'd throw out Omar Khan or Amy Trask as two options if they ever did replace Phillips. But I think it's also a lot of wasted breath since I don't think they'll actually make a move.