WrigleyField 22

So it seems Bray still has not been activated to the active roster. Sooo what's up?

The only reason it would give me pause is the contracts. But yea, that's a tradeoff you'd make in a hypothetical scenario.

While not flush with cap space, as long were just talking "stop-gap", I don't think cap space is going to stand in the way of them adding a new QB. Even a little more than stop gap, they could probably swing it (like if Rivers or Brees didn't return, both are FA. Nor will the draft picks stand in their way. Neither would be an easy pill, but you're talking about the most important position to fill. A note on Mitch's 5th year option. I forgot that until his option year actually starts, it's only guaranteed for injury. So unless he's rehabbing some major injury, it will be pretty low risk to pick it up this offseason, and they can always get back out of it in 2021, as long as he is healthy by the time year 5 rolls around. That fact opens up an extra wrinkle in Paces ability to maneuver the cap, as necessary. Yes, yes it will. A Mike Glennon like stopgap cost 15Mil. That's obviously not an upgrade to Trubisky. A slight upgrade like Alex Smith costs 23Mil. A guy like Rivers/Brees would be upwards of 30Mil. The Bears don't have the money for even Mike Glennon if they want to keep guys like Floyd, Robinson, or fill open spots on the OL, ILB, safety, and corner.....because they also don't have draft picks. They can afford 15M with a little maneuvering. They could afford 30M AAV if a Brees or Rivers were available with a lot of maneuvering, but it definitely can be done. That said, in the context of stop gaps, while they can cost 15M/yr like Glennon did in 2017, many stop gap types at the same or better talent level have signed for much less the past several years. And the 15m+ ones didn't see out their deals. So, hopefully they sign a reasonable stop gap deal if it comes to that. We'll see on Alex Smith. 20+ may be a high estimate coming off his injury. However, it all starts with a presumption that Mitch doesn't right the ship to the point that there are serious doubts about not only his long term future, but even his ability to "game manage" in 2020/21. If they reach that conclusion they absolutely can and should put their resources into the best QB they can, whether thats cap manuevering or trading picks. That said I think it's highly unlikely they reach that point. Mitch will almost certainly improve enough on the rest if the season that "roll with him and hope for unlikely improvements" is the best option, because the stop gap pool won't be better than what he probably can give them, like you said.

I'd probably be of the mind to pick up the option, not sign an extension, and try and get competent/mediocrity out of him with a 5% chance of a late bloomer season, then start fresh in 2021. Yep. Exactly what's gonna happen. Bears are in the fun place where they don't have the picks to find a new QB of the future, and they don't have the cap space to find a stopgap veteran until they have picks. Sent from my moto e5 supra using Tapatalk While not flush with cap space, as long were just talking "stop-gap", I don't think cap space is going to stand in the way of them adding a new QB. Even a little more than stop gap, they could probably swing it (like if Rivers or Brees didn't return, both are FA. Nor will the draft picks stand in their way. Neither would be an easy pill, but you're talking about the most important position to fill. A note on Mitch's 5th year option. I forgot that until his option year actually starts, it's only guaranteed for injury. So unless he's rehabbing some major injury, it will be pretty low risk to pick it up this offseason, and they can always get back out of it in 2021, as long as he is healthy by the time year 5 rolls around. That fact opens up an extra wrinkle in Paces ability to maneuver the cap, as necessary.

Yes, the deadline for Leonard Floyd and the other 2016 1st round picks was May 3rd this year. So presumably early May 2020, they'll have to decide on Mitch. I'd probably be of the mind to pick up the option, not sign an extension, and try and get competent/mediocrity out of him with a 5% chance of a late bloomer season, then start fresh in 2021. I expect that will be the most reasonable choice. I'm presuming he rights the ship a bit this year and looks like an average QB again by year end. If he never turns it around this year, it becomes a little more difficult.

I was speaking in the draft sense. Not sure what "big" QB FA there will even be. Even a Cousins level in FA is pretty rare. The best you'd realistically see in FA is a guy who would be coming into a QB comp that Mitch might still win. Eli? Bleh Teddy Bridgewater? Maybe, if he plays well for the next few weeks Marcus Mariota? He's probably what Mitch is 3 years from now, both value and style wise Keenum/Sieman/McCoy? These guys might provide a marginal upgrade to Daniels, but doubtful theyll actually push Mitch's job. I took your post to read that we would get a FA QB and spend the draft picks otherwise, so I definitely was confused. And no, I do not like that idea. However, if Mitch is improving or not improving and we see a QB we like in the draft, why wouldn't we take him. If Mitch is improving, i could see drafting someone in the later rounds, if he isn't then the first rd (provided the pick makes sense) Certainly if a QB is there they like later, they'd jump. Need a Bray replacement next year at the very least. In the 2nd, I'd trading up is the more "interesting" dilemma, if they liked a draft pick.

I was speaking in the draft sense. Not sure what "big" QB FA there will even be. Even a Cousins level in FA is pretty rare. The best you'd realistically see in FA is a guy who would be coming into a QB comp that Mitch might still win. Eli? Bleh Teddy Bridgewater? Maybe, if he plays well for the next few weeks Marcus Mariota? He's probably what Mitch is 3 years from now, both value and style wise Keenum/Sieman/McCoy? These guys might provide a marginal upgrade to Daniels, but doubtful theyll actually push Mitch's job.

If "their guy" is available around spot 10-15, they would obviously try and move up for them. Oak 2nd and next year's first is a reasonable starting point of a trade up, unless Oak dramatically improves their record. Short of a tank/reset year you're almost always stuck trading an extra first to draft a QB high, so they can spend real resources this offseason. It makes more sense to wait until Trubisky has played 4 years to see if he's worth the 5th year option or to start over. It makes no sense to rush it next year, if Mitch doesn't improve they won't have the necessary assets to improve enough to contend either way. Also, by then this window will have closed and will need as many resources poss. to open a new one. I don't think we have to worry about a Goff deal yet nor would I be disappointed if they don't get a top avail. QB via draft or FA. I will be disappointed they wasted a #2 overall pick on a subpar player while others selected after him were better To be fair l, I'm pretty skeptical Trubisky will be bad enough that they'll decide he's worth moving on from this offseason. It's also nearly certain they won't be in a position to be talking extensions like Goff. However if the right convergence of Mitch develop and the "right" draft prospect emerges, a big splash isn't impossible. Also a lot depends on how the rest of the season goes. If it's another winning season, but clearly lacking pieces to be a true contender a big splash for a QB leveraging future assets would be a strategy to avoid bottoming out in a couple years and keep the team at least playoff/division competitive while they retool in other ways the next several years to keep the D elite.

That 2021 pick could be another late round pick though. Unless they're just gonna take whatever QB who drops to them, they'll likely spend an extra pick or 2 to target a QB at some point. Does that extra pick in 21 or 22 really make that much of a difference if you already identified Mitch as not the guy and you ID'd a guy you really like in 2020? It's one thing to trade up from late in the first, it's entirely different to trade up from the middle of the 2nd. The Oakland pick isn't going to be top 5 in the 2nd, it might end up being 45-50 or worse. And hopefully the Bears own 2nd will be the high 50s. At least 2021 they will have their own 1st to begin with. Its currently 41. I think it will go up from there. Something like both seconds + 2021 first for a 10-15 pick and a 3rd or 4th rounder would meet the "traditional" value chart (and be very similar to the Mahomes deal) Difference is doing the 2nd for 3/4 swap since the Bears don't have their own 3rd to add, but it still could line up. We could talk for days about the merits of that move, but they'll definitely have the capital to do something in that 10-15 range at least, and Pace ain't afraid to move up. Now if we start talking top 5 range, it becomes unrealistic without talking about multiple future firsts.

If "their guy" is available around spot 10-15, they would obviously try and move up for them. Oak 2nd and next year's first is a reasonable starting point of a trade up, unless Oak dramatically improves their record. Short of a tank/reset year you're almost always stuck trading an extra first to draft a QB high, so they can spend real resources this offseason. They cannot afford to spend future draft picks this season. It's a vicious never ending cycle that will kill them in 2020 and beyond. They have to use the upcoming picks on 2020 starters and depth and if they have to draft a QB in 2021, they can do it then. That 2021 pick could be another late round pick though. Unless they're just gonna take whatever QB who drops to them, they'll likely spend an extra pick or 2 to target a QB at some point. Does that extra pick in 21 or 22 really make that much of a difference if you already identified Mitch as not the guy and you ID'd a guy you really like in 2020?

Maybe this is naive but I do not think this leadership group, Pace and Nagy, would take a prolonged injury as an excuse to stick with Mitch. I've heard from people who know people that the offensive powers that be were very skeptical of Mitch when they came into the job. I think there is a sincere belief/faith that if Mitch isn't the guy, then Nagy and Pace will be able to come together and choose the next guy. They aren't going to stay wedded to Mitch out of some desperate attempt to keep their jobs. I'd bet ownership is pretty happy with the overall talent improvement brought about by Pace's group, and the general caliber of quality. That being said, they aren't going to be able to spend any real resources on the next "GUY" this offseason. They might get a one year lotto ticket, but the next guy will be in the 2021 draft. If "their guy" is available around spot 10-15, they would obviously try and move up for them. Oak 2nd and next year's first is a reasonable starting point of a trade up, unless Oak dramatically improves their record. Short of a tank/reset year you're almost always stuck trading an extra first to draft a QB high, so they can spend real resources this offseason.

Theo just came down from his WS bender.

Kwiatkoski deserved a game ball on Sunday. He looked like ass in preseason, so that was a pleasant surprise. I've always liked him. Thought he played well the last few years. It was just this preseason that had me concerned. It was a perfect matchup for him with a team that reliant on their running back. I don't want him out there actually having to cover people, though. I just listened on the radio, but sounds like Pierre Louis was subbing in on the obvious passing downs?

Pray LaVine also becomes a top 50 player and then trade one of them plus whatever other assets for the next player who demands out. Complete list: Laurie Markkanen: #50 Zach LaVine: #55 Otto Porter Jr.: #90 Even closer!

Pray LaVine also becomes a top 50 player and then trade one of them plus whatever other assets for the next player who demands out.

He had one good season and was probably the worst 'feature' running back in the league last year (maybe Carlos Hyde was worse). Glad to see he had one good game with the Eagles, though. Tough one for the Packers last night when you consider the injuries. Adams is so key for their offense. Hey he's still probably better than Mike Davis which would be about the difference of 1 or 2 rounds in the draft this year (the pick for Howard at 5 or 6 vs a comp 4 for Amos), and you'd still maybe get comp for just letting him walk in FA.

Well Nagy's play calling week 1 looks even worse based on what the Pack D have given up on the ground in the 3 weeks since.

7.94 ay/a. That would rank 8th overall in 2018 team stats. Suffice to say, barely performing in the upper quartile against a D like Washington leaves a lot to be desired still. And while I normally hate "take out this one play" type analysis, take out that Gabriel TD at the end of the half and they gained 6.5 y/a. That'd be bottom quartile type production. If week 2 was Nagy not trusting Trubisky at all, week 3 was trusting him with the absolute bare minimum. Not a bad tactic to ensure a W against a terrible team, but leaves a lot to be questioned as to his development. I still hope Mitch is at least as good as he was last year (average), but week 3 wasn't really different than week 1 or 2 save the opponent. So its definitely a concern to me that Mitch has actually regressed from last year. Those incomplete passes are the ones he needs to complete. That would have improved those number tremendously. Unfortunately, I'm not sure he has that tool. So he should have a 100% completion rate? We'll have to live with the inexplicably missed throws. But I think he's still not seeing throws that are there. If that can't be fixed, that will be his downfall. But if he traded some weak dump offs for higher reward passed downfield that are there, he could throw every 10th one onto the rafters and be an above average passer.

That stats are somewhat misleading honestly. Will be interesting to see what the average yard per pass is by the end of the game. Lots of easy throws. But easy throws against an atrocious D leads to good stats. 7.94 ay/a. That would rank 8th overall in 2018 team stats. Suffice to say, barely performing in the upper quartile against a D like Washington leaves a lot to be desired still. And while I normally hate "take out this one play" type analysis, take out that Gabriel TD at the end of the half and they gained 6.5 y/a. That'd be bottom quartile type production. If week 2 was Nagy not trusting Trubisky at all, week 3 was trusting him with the absolute bare minimum. Not a bad tactic to ensure a W against a terrible team, but leaves a lot to be questioned as to his development. I still hope Mitch is at least as good as he was last year (average), but week 3 wasn't really different than week 1 or 2 save the opponent. So its definitely a concern to me that Mitch has actually regressed from last year.

Lol, Keenum.

Eh, save the good adjustments for a better team lol.

That stats are somewhat misleading honestly. Will be interesting to see what the average yard per pass is by the end of the game. Lots of easy throws. But easy throws against an atrocious D leads to good stats.

Pineiro not right.

Until he's actually back, I'm calling him Mutch. Or at least everytime he sails one 2 feet high.

That's a TD