WrigleyField 22

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).

No not here so much, but I believe him when he says he gets that pushback on Twitter based on what I've seen. So, I don't know I guess I wasn't trying to convince anyone here, but thought it was an interesting thread nonetheless.

A good, short thread on Mitch the bumslayer.

Oh and it's so cool when teams are named after birds and widdle baby mammals.

Okay so now it's the Leonard and Oladipo sweepstakes for 2021 free agency?

I don't see Stafford as getting in the way of making QB investments. Sure maybe you're not reading up for Lance/Wilson like you've suggested, but they can play the market over the next few years too. I'd assume a Stafford contract for 4 years would have an out after year 2. I certainly wouldn't trade for him, but I'd consider him in the FA market.

I'm dubious of all QB options. They all suck to some extent, but not trying one of them will lead to the same thing the Bears have had since the T formation was revolutionary.

If the cap is flat, I think you could fit Stafford with modest back loading and modest cuts. If it were Dak, just more aggressive back loading, but still modest cuts. It just so happens I just posted about the Stafford hypothetical on another board:

He's allowed to trade up if its his own mess he gets to clean up lol. That's the pull for any GM mortgaging a future away. If he's signed through 2022 instead of 2021 he's basically still on the hot seat, which is just slightly better than being a true lame duck. I'm 90% joking. I could live with a trade up, but it really has to be smartly done and the guy he chooses had better be a perennial pro bowl player. As he is now, Trubisky is average to a hair above average, so anyone Pace replaces him with has to be better. I'd say he's pretty firmly in the below average category. It's just good scheme can mask below average, even over a fairly long span.

...and you all want to trade up He's allowed to trade up if its his own mess he gets to clean up lol. That's the pull for any GM mortgaging a future away. If he's signed through 2022 instead of 2021 he's basically still on the hot seat, which is just slightly better than being a true lame duck.

Unconfirmed by very interesting rumor: https://twitter.com/ZimmermanSXM/status/1338545531992338432?s=19 I said in last week's thread that a Black Monday trifecta wouldn't make sense. A potential pres replacement can't operate at the same time as a coach and GM search. If this is also in a scenario where Phillips is quietly "retiring" they could also be kicking the treads on his possible replacement now (though I wouldn't be surprised if it was internal too, just cuz McCaskeys). But this would make some sense. Just have to make sure Pace doesnt GM like he's trying to save his job and trade away like 3 future 1st round picks.