WrigleyField 22

If this is about Nagy I'm way more concerned about his coordinating than his head coaching.

All day interview isn't that uncommon for a senior position in the business world. If you're speaking with a lot of people on the leadership team plus lunch it's not really absurd. Oh I know, I’m more just upset they essentially wasted a full day on Girardi. Lots of binders to go through.

But why Sowell again? Let's sign Ben Watson.

Any interest in Ben Watson for the Bears? He's 38, but still seemed to have it last year, and the Bears TE room needs help big time right now.

If I hadn't mostly checked out of the Bulls years ago I'd find Boylens coach speak infuriating. As it is, I think it's endearing. Coach Boylen and his rah rah quotes 4 life.

Oof Baker. 8/22, 100 yards, 0 TD, 2 INT, passer rating 13.4, QBr 1.4 His TD/INT rate for the year is now 1:2, and no I didn't flip those.

Probably laughed, called it a bundle of sticks, and beat up some nerds? That and swearing off all these new fangled technology, a fad if you ask him, seems most likely No he totally embraced it. That intern is still trying to "print and bind fangraphs" for him, but whew boy wait til he gets his hands on it.

2010 is also +1 year after the whole binder thing and also the WS winning thing So then what happened when information started becoming more readily and easily available? Bigger binders.

I think the Ws are key to why Pace won't be looking to replace him, but if the Ws do change the next 11 games and Mitch is still putting up replacement level passer numbers, Pace could look for something splashier. And he could do it with maneuvering, and Pace is the type that would do so if he felt "conviction" That conviction would have to include him saying, "I was wrong" about trading up for Mitch. Don't know if he's ready to do that. Ready now? Certainly not. Can I envision a scenario where he could by March? Yes. Low odds, like maybe a 15% chance?

Massie has been basically what he has been the past couple seasons, from what I've seen. We know we can live with that production. RG, C, and LT all seem like bigger problems. Long seems like the obvious choice, but I'd almost go Leno first, even though no one is really a great candidate as a natural LT. Even if it was a short trip to the bench, maybe he just needs that kick in the ass, because I don't really see an issue why he should be playing as bad as he is, seems mostly effort or mental. Assuming no IR stays, if they were to call up Bars who's spot does he take? I'd think they'd almost have to keep 9 OL? One of the extra ILBs? Or Sowell/Bray's spot. And another related thought. I think a big issue with Mitch this year compared to last is he has yet to add any value with his legs whereas last year, he added value with his legs perhaps more than any QB. With better line play perhaps they'd have an easier time designing opportunities for him to add value that way. The line play can't take the entire blame, but I feel it's a plurality of the issue the offense has right now.

He would be a decent replacement. But I've already been thru this. It cost 15Mil for Mike Glennon. It cost 23Mil for Alex Smith. Bridgewater is currently 2-0 as a starter, was a former 1st rounder, and is getting valuable starts in the NFL right now. He'll cost 25-30Mil to the team that wants to sign him this offseason. This is what QBs cost. This is not money the Bears have to spend. Even if the Bears had that money to spend, they already have Trubisky under a guaranteed contract for next year. Pace traded a bunch to take him as the 1st QB off the board. He's won 13 of the last 18 games he's started (and finished), and 2 of those 5 losses were blown by the kicker. As it stands now, the Bears are still probably good enough to win 9-10 games with Trubisky this year even if he doesn't get any better. There's no way they can justify (and no evidence that Pace even wants to) getting rid of or benching Trubisky and killing the salary cap by bringing in a veteran QB. I think the Ws are key to why Pace won't be looking to replace him, but if the Ws do change the next 11 games and Mitch is still putting up replacement level passer numbers, Pace could look for something splashier. And he could do it with maneuvering, and Pace is the type that would do so if he felt "conviction"

Nerd Alert!

Technically it ended on a Chase Daniel sack. Still preordained.

Having not watched the last two games, and only listened, that's disappointing to hear about Whitehair because I thought he looked strong early on in the year. Would really like to see a shakeup on the line coming out of the bye. But I'm sure they won't do that.

Something's wrong with Roquan and I don't think we can assume he'll be fine. The coaching staff has said he's been acting weird for weeks and now we finally saw it in the game. If Roquan is still acting unlike himself these next two weeks, I think you have to go back to Kwiatkowski until Roquan gets himself figured out. Here is a somewhat hot take: Are we sure Roquan is an impact player? Because I haven't really seen much evidence that he is. He's definitely shown it at times his rookie year, and even week 1 this year.

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?