WrigleyField 22

IMO, there's a steep dropoff going from Wilson/Fields to Lance. Lance is gifted as hell but like Trubisky is raw. Obviously, we've seen nothing that points this current group to being able to develop a QB. I'm all for drafting Slater or Cosmi in the 1st and drafting the best interior OL in the 2nd and letting the next FO draft a QB as it appears this group will back next year. If they have any hope of keeping their jobs next year, they would be best off protecting Foles. You really thing Nagy and Pace are back? Its really hard to see them both back as a package deal. Nagy appears to have lost the D, and the O is no better than when he arrived. Pace enters the last year of his deal too, so he's not in great spot to just let him lame duck it with Nagy also on the hot seat if he stayed. Maybe Pace has mesmerized the McCaskey's enough to outlive Nagy, but its hard to see both back... mostly its hard to imagine Nagy back. Damn that would be dumb though.

Yeah, pick 8 seems to be the sweet spot for QB this year. I'm not sure if there will be 3 gone before that pick, but I'm figuring you either get the end of that tier of QB talent or your pick between 3rd and 4th QB at 8. Going from 14 to 8 isn't typically that expensive. Should be able to do that without a future 1st or losing your 2nd rounder. Per the traditional chart, 14 to 8 is 300 points which is still a late 2nd. So it might take the Bears second still, with maybe a 4th back to help offset the premium. Or if the Bears go re-build/retool maybe they have some other asset that they don't currently have from which they can deal.

I think top 8 may be too aggressive even for the state of this team. You can easily mock up ten 5 win teams without much effort. So if they'd lose out you're at tie-breaker territory. One win and you're starting at 11th at best, depending on tie-breakers. If Fields really was going to drop to 6 though I think I'd really consider a trade up to top 5 if I'm the Bears (currently Cincy-Dallas-Chargers in this mock who clearly don't need a QB). Its a HUGE risk, but I guess a lot would depend on what they did with the offseason up to that point. Either they've started the sell off and maybe have some other assets to deal from where they don't have to include 2022 picks- which is likely to be high. Or they're going all in on 2021 again with and then might as well go in and hope that 2022 pick you include ends up a late 1st if Fields is a good immediate starter. (If not, your blowing it all up in 2022 anyways!). In the scenario where they are "all in" on 2021 it probably means Foles or maybe a guy like Brissett or Fitzpatrick in FA are the presumptive starters. So there'd still be room for a QB upgrade in that scenario. (Note: I hope the Bears aren't in the all-in path come the offseason). In this mock he has Jones as the 5th QB off the board at 31, which means Trask falls to the 2nd round. I guess that would be another decent-ish option for the Bears and they may not even need to trade up in Rd 2 if 5 other teams all got their QB needs in Rd 1. And at least they've added some protection for him in this scenario (because you know Foles or whoever is the bridge aint starting all 16 games). After those top 6, things get less interesting at QB. If nothing else I'd like to see a Rd 3 or early day 3 flyer on somebody at QB. Maybe you luck into a Dak Prescott. Most likely not, but they gotta try something over nothing. If there really were 5 Rd 1 QBs, 2022 season could be a little bit of a dead year for competition to grab a QB and there are some interesting-ish QB names who will be draft eligible for that class.

I don't know if you can June 1 cut Leno, because he's a FA after 2021. The June 1 feature allows you to spread the dead caps over 2 years, but I don't think you can spread that over a season he wouldn't be under contract anyway. Then again, that deferred money may make a difference. You're right in a typical "one year remaining" scenario. But I think those extra deferred/void years matter in the case of Leno since at the time of the cut they would be contract years that are potentially voidable, but for which the criteria to void them haven't been met. So for instance Hicks can't be June 1 cut. Well, he could be cut after June 1, but there wouldn't be any special cap accounting for it.

So the dead cap for Quinn in 2022-24 is 9.3m total (3.1 equal installments). If he's traded, that 9.3m accelerates, but they save 11.6m in base salary and a workout bonus. 11.6-9.3 = 2.3m in 2021 savings. Then in 2022, presuming he'd have just been waived, that remaining 9.3m is the savings. Total 11.6m savings (I forgot about a 0.1m roster bonus before). But the other way to look at it is just that the dead cap is dead and you can't really save it ever. And the rollforward nature of the cap means that moving cap hits around can be done with relative ease. To look at total potential savings you just look at base salaries you would have otherwise paid that you won't. That's the "true" savings. In a cut, savings you're only looking at non-guaranteed savings. With a trade it'd be guaranteed and non-guaranteed salaries. Take Charles Leno as another example. He's got a weird contract with some deferred money in 22-23. If thet cut him I look at his 8.9m remaining 2021 base salary (all non-guaranteed) as the savings. With the cap rules you'd see "only 6.2m" as the savings, which is true in 2021 cap space, but with the acceleration of dead caps, you'd save the extra 2.7m in 2022. If you "needed" that extra 2.7m now you'd use the June 1 feature or you'd just do some restructuring tricks somewhere else, basically shifting around someone else's dead cap to move the cap around. All else being the same you always want to defer dead caps because you can roll forward unused cap but there are penalties for going over. The key is knowing your future liabilities as to not overspend too much. That may have been more than you were looking for but hopefully it helps some haha.

I think the biggest change Lovie got was more control over his staff. My memory is he wanted to move on from Rivera and go with Babich, which lasted about 2 seasona before Angelo made him take back D play calling duties himself. Then he hired Marinelli the next year.

I'm a Riddick fan. Obviously the parallels with Mayock (who has done a solid job w/ Oakland) are there. Former player, but he does have NFL scouting and front office experience. And frankly, I'd love if they'd hire a minority for the first time in team history. All these white guys haven't worked out, so why not? Lovie Smith eta: Lovie obviously wasn't front office, so maybe I'm misreading your post. But he did have a pretty heavy say in personal and org direction after the Super Bowl, almost to the level of a Pete Carroll. Lovie definitely wasn't at Pete Carroll level.

Wilson is every bit as good as Rodgers at this point in their careers. Okay but that's right now where Wilson is still roughly prime age and Rodgers has an AARP card.

Easier said than done. They'll need to reach. But I'd definitely like to see them carry 3 QBs every year for the foreseeable future. No more coach in training types like Bray just taking up air. Get 3 young relatively moldable guys in there every year until you fall ass backwards into your Russell Wilson or Ben Rothelsbetger or whatever (see, I'm not even too greedy, I don't need a Rdogers).

Yep. That's exactly right. I don't see him having value, but let's just say you could trade him for a conditional 7th rounder with the condition being he wins MVP- whatever outrageous condition where you're just giving him away and the receiving team basically has a 11.5M 1 year deal with options (effectively) and no dead cap. I'm still skepitkal you could find someone so I think you're now at the point of attaching something of value to him like a draft pick. But in theory it works for both teams, 11.5m total net savings for the Bears (spread out over 2 years for cap purposes). Free trial for the receiving team.

I wish there was just a Theo type hire out there, but obviously he was such a unicorn hire. Well respected, young, proven. The closest I can come up with is Schnieder in Seattle who's been the number 2 to Carroll the whole time and Roseman in PHI who did technically build a SB champ, but looking at the whole of the results is pretty meehhh. I don't really want the Chiefs guy who's been under Reid the whole time or anyone from under Bellicheck. This Dodds guy does sound interesting. Or maybe just hire from within with Champ Kelly who's gotten some buzz. Riddick I'm kinda meh on.

Out welcoming your stay should be a phrase. Like instead of out staying your welcome, a bad guest situation, you have an overly gracious host that turns off the guest. Damn I knew that didn't sound right but was tired and just went for it.

Give me an over/under.

Man, pro-football reference has put their game index searches behind a pay wall, which sucks. Trying to figure out the recent history of NFL coaches with 5+ game losing streaks. Anyways, just manually searching through several of the past years I can only find a couple coaches who survived a 5 game losing streak in their 3rd year or later (plenty of 1st and 2nd year coaches survive losing streaks like that). It just so happens most of these long losing streaks of that variety are from those 1st or 2nd year coaches. So already not friendly company for Nagy. The guys who did survive; O'Brien/Houston in 2017 Garrett/Dallas in 2015 Coughlin/New York in 2014 Smith/Atlanta in 2013 O'Brien is the only one Nagy is in remotely a similar situation to (O'Brien was in year 4 at that point, and Houston made FO changes that offseason). Coughlin was a two time SB champ. Smith was in his 6th year with playoff births in 4 of his first 5. Garrett and Jerry just had that weird relationship where Garrett out welcomed his stay from seemingly day 1. He was in year 6 despite pretty average results. ETA- found another. 2018 Carolina/Rivera. They had an epic collapse, starting at 6-2 before rattling of 7 straight losses. Rivera survived that but was in year 8 and had 4 playoff births and a SB trip to his name by that point.

He'd been a Director of Scouting for 8 years preceding that hire. Who cares what he had done 20 years prior. I cared, it was a predictably terrible hire. Okay. But I think it may also kind of prove the point? Seems like the best guys typically get moved to the pro personnel side pretty quickly to prep them to oversee all aspects of team building rather than just be draft focused.

I'm not sure that really matters that much. Emery was a long time draft guy. Pace was a pro guy and he's been way better (despite the top 10 busts). I would kind of like to see someone with a variety of experience. Pace never got outside of being under Loomis. Maybe more depth of experience/views would have served him well. Pace’s time in Chicago is going to be judged on one decision in drafting Mitch and passing on two probable Hall of Famers. I’m not sure having more experience on his own would have helped Pace. Well it may very likely not have sunk him still yet. He may get another swing at at. I can't say exactly what diversity of experience may have done other than possibly never really going through that thorough QB draft nalysis. Never working through different coaching and QB decisions since Payton/Brees just clicked right away? Not having as wide of a professional network to draw from?

I'm not sure that really matters that much. Emery was a long time draft guy. Pace was a pro guy and he's been way better (despite the top 10 busts). I would kind of like to see someone with a variety of experience. Pace never got outside of being under Loomis. Maybe more depth of experience/views would have served him well. Emery was a strength and conditioning coach and in no way shape or form suitable for management He'd been a Director of Scouting for 8 years preceding that hire. Who cares what he had done 20 years prior.

I'm not sure that really matters that much. Emery was a long time draft guy. Pace was a pro guy and he's been way better (despite the top 10 busts). I would kind of like to see someone with a variety of experience. Pace never got outside of being under Loomis. Maybe more depth of experience/views would have served him well.

I feel like everything before "draft a QB" could be struck and it'd still be true. Outside of Ozzie Newsome in Baltimore, when hasn't it been that simple?

I read he was going to hire McDaniels if he got the NYG job, which gives me some pause. But like pretty much any GM candidate they could hire, it's hard to really know anything substantive.

At this point its pretty clear Phillips has been Crane Kenney'd. He's not standing in the way of anything. Well there’s a knock against the ownership then. What’s the point of that? Fire him and hire someone who can do the job. If that’s the case then Ryan Pace is pretty much the top dog with regards to football operations which is crazy. Well run orgs start at the VP level setting the tone and vision for the team. Not to mention we are much more likely to attract an established, highly regarded name to fill that type of role. That’s where the biggest void is with the Bears right now. Because like Kenney, he does the businessy things? Most football orgs I think still start with the GM at the top. Not like basketball and baseball that have moved the the VP-GM hierarchy. And a guy like Pace being in that role isn't really some outlier either as far as I can tell. Maybe the Bears need to try a Bellicheck/Reid/Carroll model where the head coach is the top exec too. But their current structure doesn't seem weird or a problem, outside of the people.

Honest question, how does a relatively hands off ownership affect a team being futile for most of the last 25 years? The Bears don’t have a good QB, they don’t have the coaching staff that could develop a good QB, they don’t have a FO that can hire the guys that could develop and coach a good QB, they don’t have executives that can hire the right FO that can hire a coaching staff that develops a good QB. But where does ownership fit in? Should they be more like Jerry Jones and be more involved, maybe clean house more frequently (like Ted Phillips) when it’s clear the team doesn’t have the right pieces? Maybe they should be building connections within the game and improving the image of the team? Maybe make changes like artificial turf at Solider Field so it’s not knows at the stadium where speed goes to die? These sound like I’m challenging your viewpoint and I’m not. I just always hear how the Bears need new ownership and I have a hard time figuring out why that would make the difference. I’m sure there are several reasons that I’m just not thinking of. They’ve had enough time. Whether they are too hands off or not doesn’t matter. What matters is that they can’t lead a team that can field a consistent winner. At the very least they need to get rid of Ted Phillips. Start with him and a new President will clean house. At this point its pretty clear Phillips has been Crane Kenney'd. He's not standing in the way of anything.

New ownership is needed. Virginia and the rest of the McCaskeys are utter failures too. Honest question, how does a relatively hands off ownership affect a team being futile for most of the last 25 years? The Bears don’t have a good QB, they don’t have the coaching staff that could develop a good QB, they don’t have a FO that can hire the guys that could develop and coach a good QB, they don’t have executives that can hire the right FO that can hire a coaching staff that develops a good QB. But where does ownership fit in? Should they be more like Jerry Jones and be more involved, maybe clean house more frequently (like Ted Phillips) when it’s clear the team doesn’t have the right pieces? Maybe they should be building connections within the game and improving the image of the team? Maybe make changes like artificial turf at Solider Field so it’s not knows at the stadium where speed goes to die? These sound like I’m challenging your viewpoint and I’m not. I just always hear how the Bears need new ownership and I have a hard time figuring out why that would make the difference. I’m sure there are several reasons that I’m just not thinking of. Yea I mean, new ownership is probably a coin flip odds as far as getting better/worse in the area of team building (getting someone who intervenes too much). The area where the McCaskeys hurt are probably in things like the stadium deal. But it really depends on how much they admit their limitations. Emery/Trestman was a disaster where they went out completely on their own. When they listened to others, they've been merely above average to average (Angelo, Pace eras)

New ownership is needed. Virginia and the rest of the McCaskeys are utter failures too. I doubt they’ll sell, so I guess the question is, do the McCaskeys have a “Rocky” in the family? There are some questions if they can keep the team intact once Virginia dies and meeting the NFL ownership rules in regards to minority ownership. SUPPOSEDLY they have a transition plan in place. We'll see, eventually.

The offense has been about as good as could have expected minus the fumble-TD where Mitch got face masked twice.. The D has really done nothing all day. All those long drives were hard to watch. A typical night from the D and this is probably an interesting game. Anyways, probably for the best. Fire Pace-Nagy.