WrigleyField 22

Coward was such ass he just pulled the whole unit down with him. But this version of the O is even better than the first couple of weeks.

You're making a lot of sense but I don't want to change my mind. I still don't like being down 3 picks whereas a lot of the best franchises average 8+ picks per draft, largely due to comp picks. So you could still say he's down a net 9 picks from where you'd hope to see, even if trade charts have overall supported his net movements. So don't change your mind. Although they've now gotten comp picks the past two years, so maybe there's hope. I suppose that's where I'm at. A little underwhelmed, but if they keep Pace I can squint and act like hes about to hit his draft management peak.

Is the difference between 10th and 20th that big? You're starting to get away from the tail of the bell curve there. At a high level, no I dont think it's historically a big difference. But something like the traditional trade value chart would tell you it's pretty substantial.

I suppose it's due to the 7th seed now, but discussing playoff opportunities with a team like this is kind of wild. If this was pre-2020 is there some outside narrow shot where we're sitll talking about the 6th seed and making the playoffs?

You're all crazy, it's obviously the next Lebron that's in him. Probably a bit stronger and a more developed shot though.

Same exercise with a likely more analytically designed value chart (Blog here https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/how-to-value-nfl-draft-picks/) They still start at a 10th overall average value. Their trades brought them down to the average trade value of a 21st pick this time. Which is a larger drop. Though due to the different curve of this chart's points, that value (676 points "given up") come out to one 26th overall value pick. So an overall similar story. If, when we run through any trade value model and they all come out and say basically that Pace has given up a later first rounder, net, in all his wheeling and dealing, and that includes netting Mack... it doesn't seem to be an area likely to stress over. Though granted, it is a net loss of 3 picks overall verse expected. Although that includes Mack still and doesn't consider whether he's done above or below average in UDFA.

Well for all the mid round picks he lit on fire, if my analysis is right (again just based on the trade value chart), he "only" gave up the equivalent in value of a 19th overall pick, which includes getting Mack. So for whatever you think of individual moves (and some I also didn't like as well) this annual tradition doesn't seem to exactly be netting them annual overall value losses (though I'd be interested to run it on a more analytically sound model the traditional chart isn't completely without worth). Is he adding value? Well depends on how you value Mack. Certainly not a significant amount I guess (and you'd have to value his earlier departures in trades) Like I said with Graham, as with the rest of the 2020 FA class, that was the big departure for him. Before that they basically paid for the type of profiles you want to. Some work out like Arob. Other less so, like Burton, but the approach has seemed legit in 5 of 6 offseasons. Not sure what the Fuller thing even references. That was a match type situation as I believe they transition tagged him. Packers made an offer, Bears had right of first refusal. Regardless that has turned out great contract as Kyle has been stellar. Could he try to add more excess value in the draft? I guess. But acting like any trade up is bad (basically) is pretty short sided. And if those trades are for positions like QB and EDGE thats exactly where you want to be aggressive as the marginal value of a rookie deal verse replacement FA is largest. It's just that two of the picks were the wrong guy.

Alright, unless I messed something up here; If the Bears had stood pat, their average draft value via the "traditional" trade value chart should come out to about the 10th pick overall (12,942 points, over 6 drafts or 2,157 points per draft) Their actual draft position has yielded 11,375 or 1,895 points/draft, or about the value of the 14th point. So in exchange for a value trade off from 10th team to 14th team over 6 years (which is actually quite a bit - in points terms about one 19th overall pick). For all that moving draft position, they also got Khalil Mack, Eddy Piniero, and Nick Foles. They traded away Bennet, Allen, Marshall, and Shaheen and lost in FA Amos who netted a comp pick. Their FA losses of Daniels, Williams, and perhaps Pierre Louis will also net some comp picks this year. So do with that as you will as far as his valuing of draft (and there's probably better value tools than the traditional chart, that's just the most readily available)

I was talking about those 5 specific trades that were made for a very specific target. Well you also mentioned the trade downs too that netted extra picks. Seems relevant. Nevermind, I miscounted as well. They're at 22 round 4 picks through 6 drafts. So -2. And will be another -1 this year assuming no additional movement. Also 39 total picks through 6 drafts so -3 overall as well. I think they'll be at +1 overall this year with the late comp picks.

Must be missing +1 somewhere in a trade down or vet trade. Martellus Bennet netted them a 4th (though they gave up a 6th). So on the whole they're net negative 1 in the top 4 rounds through this next year, while also being plus Mack and less Bennett in that movement. They also netted an Amos comp pick they traded for Foles. Early on he had some other vet trades like Marshall and Allen pick up day 3 picks, I think. And will start to pick up some more day 3 comp picks this year and perhaps next. Last time I looked he was averaging right about 7 picks per draft, so it's just a question of overall value (i.e. Should have been average 10th pick value and was 15th pic value) and then considering any outgoing and incoming vets as part of that transactional data, I suppose. I was talking about those 5 specific trades that were made for a very specific target. Well you also mentioned the trade downs too that netted extra picks. Seems relevant.

Floyd- Got 9, Gave up 11, 106 (-1) Trubisky- Got 2, Gave up 3, 67, 111, 70 (future pick) (-3) Miller- Got 51, Gave up 105, 56 (Future pick) (-1) Mack- Got Mack, 50 (future pick). Gave up 24, 19, 81 (future picks) (-2) Montgomery- Got 73 (and late picks). Gave up 87, 125 (future pick) (-1) I counted wrong by 1. Must be missing +1 somewhere in a trade down or vet trade. Martellus Bennet netted them a 4th (though they gave up a 6th). So on the whole they're net negative 1 in the top 4 rounds through this next year, while also being plus Mack and less Bennett in that movement. They also netted an Amos comp pick they traded for Foles. Early on he had some other vet trades like Marshall and Allen pick up day 3 picks, I think. And will start to pick up some more day 3 comp picks this year and perhaps next. Last time I looked he was averaging right about 7 picks per draft, so it's just a question of overall value (i.e. Should have been average 10th pick value and was 15th pic value) and then considering any outgoing and incoming vets as part of that transactional data, I suppose.

I don't think I'm following the net - 9 comment. It's basically a pick rounds 1-4. There's two forth rounders that fall at 126 and 127. I'm counting 24 first-fourth rounders in 6 drafts. 3 more this draft. So just a tad less than the total number you'd expect to get in that timeframe. I get the point about a glut of 4th rounders, and I suppose you could assign a trade chart value to it as a whole and see where that ends up, but it doesn't necessarily feel egregious. I guess if I take your net - 5 and add the 126 and 126th picks it'd be - 3 whereas I'm at net - 1 so you must be missing elsewhere where picks were recouped in that range?

Perhaps it's only for my own sanity, but I chalk up that kind of talk to silly quotable marshmellowy stuff rather than actual value inputs. Like describing QB evaluation to journalists and fans from a plethora of scouting notes and tape is probably kind of hard and may require some esoteric knowledge. So if I was a GM I'd probably use dumb feel good anecdotes too rather than try and explain how my scouting/eval system works. yes but he missed on Kid Jordan and Pippen #2 (to stretch a sports metaphor). Marshmellowy stuff just makes it worse. If he said "I flipped a coin because, wow want a choice! - all my scouts and numbers and slide rules were off the f-n charts"; I could respect it more. As it is, all I have is "nice car" eta: in the end, this is a weird thing to split hairs on cuz for either reason we would still be stuck watching other teams get great quarterbacks....and we dont I think it's less splitting hairs and perhaps more overall perspective? I always look towards the most logical explanation unless I have really good reason not too. Again that may just be to save my sanity and expecting the least logical explanation. In any case, the result sucks, yea.

QBs are worth trading up for. Edge guys probably are worth it too. You just have to hit. There definitely isn't a overall value issue there, IMO. RB, not so much, but at that point we're looking at more an exception than rule issue and he's moved up and down the middle rounds, occassionally with great success! ETA as to Mack specifically, while I think the goal obviously is to spend efficiently in a capped league, I do kind of feel like you can get away with a less than efficient purchase here and there if it adds great win value. I'd rather use every last cap dollar available and get 12 wins than spend 80% of the cap efficiently and get 10 wins (obviously it's not so simplistic, but that would be the gist of my philosophy. So you're allowed like one Mack, as long as the big picture "value" decisions make sense, IMO) That's the key. "Here and there" is prudent, Pace does it at every opportunity. But not really? Here's some context as far as how I see draft/FA management. Both when he traded up for Trubisky and Floyd he traded down in the same draft to recoup picks. In the Mack trade, while he gave up 2 firsts he got back a couple picks (including a 2nd) so the net pick loss was only net 1 I think. His FA from 2015-2019 mostly considering of targeting "ascending"/younger players rather than "paying for past performance" and generally has meant he's spread dough around. 2020 was a big change in that regards. In managing the FA process he got them back into the comp pick game in about 5 years which is about as realistically as fast as you could have hoped he would considering the draft classes he inherited. These are all things that give me some reason to believe he has a decent high level draft and FA value strategy, despite areas I can highlight that go against it. He tends on the aggressive side with particular targets obviously, but I don't know if I see the Hendry comparison.

Perhaps it's only for my own sanity, but I chalk up that kind of talk to silly quotable marshmellowy stuff rather than actual value inputs. Like describing QB evaluation to journalists and fans from a plethora of scouting notes and tape is probably kind of hard and may require some esoteric knowledge. So if I was a GM I'd probably use dumb feel good anecdotes too rather than try and explain how my scouting/eval system works.

QBs are worth trading up for. Edge guys probably are worth it too. You just have to hit. There definitely isn't a overall value issue there, IMO. RB, not so much, but at that point we're looking at more an exception than rule issue and he's moved up and down the middle rounds, occassionally with great success! ETA as to Mack specifically, while I think the goal obviously is to spend efficiently in a capped league, I do kind of feel like you can get away with a less than efficient purchase here and there if it adds great win value. I'd rather use every last cap dollar available and get 12 wins than spend 80% of the cap efficiently and get 10 wins (obviously it's not so simplistic, but that would be the gist of my philosophy. So you're allowed like one Mack, as long as the big picture "value" decisions make sense, IMO)

Eh. His drafting has been fine. Even offensively, he's added starters/key contributors in Whitehair, Daniels, Cohen, Miller, Howard, Montgomery, Kmet, and Mooney. Trubisky wasn't even a disaster of a pick, but obviously not the right one. Getting the QB wrong though is a fireable offensse. the reasons he gave for trading up and taking Trubisky were f-in bonkers. I agree with you on the other guys you point out We talking about the car stuff or the fielding phone call thing apart of the trade up? Or everything? I try to not too much stock into the marshmellowy type stories like the car thing. And I still kind of get the trade up logic about fielding calls from other teams. The piece with the trade up that now makes no sense is that Mahomes and Trubisky were apparently in the same of "cloud" of prospects. If you have a QB who's head and shoulders above the next QB, sure be aggressive, but the 3 pick insurance policy is silly if you had two QBs close together. Especially when you were also obsessed with covering your tracks about your QB interest. So I hate that, now especially. And I hated the White pick. Everything else draft wise I more or less understood the logic of and its just that sometimes you hit and sometimes you whiff.

This structure seems pretty much as expected once McDonough was out, but the Hawks formalize their new executive structure: https://chicago.suntimes.com/blackhawks/2020/12/16/22177705/blackhawks-president-jaime-faulkner-business-hired-stan-bowman-gm-danny-wirtz

Edit- unintentional bump of old thread. See current Hawks thread here: viewtopic.php?f=44&t=3499&p=433575#p433575

I think I'm ok with it too. I really want Nagy gone. I understand if a new president wants to evaluate the guys for a year, but I think it's clear Nagy is NOT the guy. I see 0 chance he's coaching the team in 2022, so don't know why he'd be here in 2021. Pace I could see staying on longer if he hits on the next coach and QB and things are looking upward pretty quickly. The key to me is not to have Pace in desperation mode. A team president should prevent big contracts with tons of dead money like he gave to Quinn, Graham and Foles. But at the same time, it probably wouldn't prevent a potentially bold move for a franchise QB. My thoughts on Nagy and Pace are complete opposites. I hated what Nagy did with the kicker search. And his offense has been garbage most of the time. But I think he's been hamstrung by Pace's roster miscues. I could see Nagy learning from his mistakes and doing better down the road, whereas I think Pace is what he is. I still mostly view them as a package deal. If the decision is to keep for 2021 the big question remains if Pace is a lame duck GM or not. So there's that important contract question. If there's a potential Phillips change happening that also complicates things just a touch. If there really my be a Phillips "retirement" I really could see Nagy retained with an interim GM (Kelly/Sadowski) and a longer Pres search who then makes final decisions about org later in 2021. Admittedly it kind of punts 2021 and doesn't give Nagy quite a fair shot at retaining his job, but maybe you give him final 53 man say or something like that. But if there is any truth to that rumor that Pace actually has a contract through 2022 you skip the interim part and don't have a true lame duck GM.

The optimistic view is that they salvage a hotly debated draft pick and move on to building the rest of the team. If it ends up being Tannehill-level play it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. But if they somehow work themselves into the next Aaron Rodgers (via draft pick or FA), horsefeathers it go deep. I just don't know how you do that; (IE I don't know how you identify that superstar QB in the draft at least, FA is easier, a la Prescott). Tannehill level play is also largely predicated on having a Derrick Henry though right?

But it could also be because of their decision to keep everybody around! For the record, if they do bring in a legit president of football ops I have absolutely no problem with keeping Pace and Nagy this offseason. Pretty sure that's basically a made up position. A president of football ops is a Pace replacement/de facto GM.

Even worse than I thought. Per Next Gen, 2.9 and 4.2 Average Completed Air Yards (CAY) and Average Intended Air Yards (IAY). Those are both very low.

I'm not saying it's nothing, but it's also only because he isn't employed by another team right now. I'd imagine any team with a GM opening is still going to want to utilize the early January window to talk to currently employed guys. Also the Bears might not be making a move at all, let alone mid-year.

While Mitch is certainly not "Mahomes, repressed" I suppose the optimistic view is he could be Tannehill, repressed. Do with you want of that take (not my own, but one I saw).