WrigleyField 22

Sulley telling other sports fans to relax. It's official our country is done.

That schedule is at least half the reason for optimism for the 2022 Bears (ha, got it right that time). The other half is Fields. Just very funny to see a segment of Bears twitter that's so upset the media is discounting the Bears roster. And objectively those media guys are right, but there's a decent chance the smoke and mirrors of an easy rschedule will obfuscate that and make those takes look bad in 9 months. Then going into 2023, the Bears will spend a boatload in FA and probably get another boost. If Fields becomes a real star in that timeframe, Poles then gets easy sailing from there on out. But you can look over at the Browns for instance, and they were still trying to figure out Mayfield into year 4, but still liked him enough to pick up a guaranteed year 5 option, only to trade a haul for Watson less than a year later.

I think that's more or less the plan for 2021. Not that they won't try and develop Fields progressions and stuff, but I think they'll lean on a run game and hope to end up in positions where they're just playing from behind and have to throw.

I see it as one of 2 things: 1) They don't believe in Fields and/or putting him in a position where if he's elite he'll show enough despite being hamstrung by resources or he'll prove to be a bust in which case they can justify dumping him and picking their own QB 2) They do believe in Fields and/or are natural on him and think that having a superior coaching staff/offensive gameplan and their handpicked scrap heap guys they added will make a giant difference. If its the second one, then either they are really smart and have proven they have a strong ability to identify coaching and player talent, or they suffer from the same 'smartest guy in the room' syndrome that has been the downfall of so many other executives and coaches throughout the NFL. I don't believe they are outright sabotaging him though necessarily. If Fields sucks so they trade him off and he becomes a star elsewhere, all the sudden Poles looks like a moron and his seat starts getting warm. You can count on one hand the number of 1st round QBs that fail on their original team and then become a star elsewhere. Brees...Favre...probably 1 or 2 I'm missing. Technically Favre was in the 2nd round but he was one of the first few picks of that round. You can probably count on one hand the number of 1st round draft pick QBs who've been abandoned by a new regime. I think there's a 3rd option in there. They have some level of faith in Fields but not enough to carry this team in 2022, which is what they'd need to contend this year. They aren't giving him weapons because if they did he'd be expected to use them? So they are going into 2022 with the hopes of being a run first, second and third team, maybe throwing 18 times a game just to mix things up. Load up on young depth on the offensive line, pound the ball, create an identity on offense while not actually scoring points, let the defense keep you in the game and maybe you win a couple unexpectedly. There are enough bad teams on this schedule that they can beat a few just with competence and turnovers, and then you load up in the 2023 draft with all the talent you can give Fields to open it up. If Fields stumbles in 2023, you draft your QB in 2024 and hope that guys shows enough in his 2nd year to net everybody a contract extension. Or if Fields survives this gauntlet you get that contract extension even sooner. Because by then you should have the surrounding cast to help a young QB. The other issue though is I don't see how this defense can be anywhere close to dominant enough to keep this team in games this year. I think both of these posts are basically right. Looking at the schedule and QBs they'll face, the D definitely could keep them in most games. Even if they have like a 3 win season, if it's Lions 2021 like people are probably going to view it somewhat favorably as they rarely got blown out. He's banking on that good will. And if they surpise up to like 8 wins, it's house money.

Ugh that's awful.

I thought I read that the coin flip didn't technically cost them that lotto pick. Them and Sac already had their own lotto numbers. Coin flip just determined positioning only if both stayed put.

That WR room is pretty loaded.

Wow, has it been that long since the Bears had an "elite" rushing attack? :D not gonna lie that definitely crossed my mind I had a non internet friend, but one who I do interact with in Twitter screenshot a tweet of sulleys making fun of him. And I got to fill him in on all the cool nsbb details of what a mad rambling sports fan he actually is lol

Yep. I've heard Bears consistently draw well on prime time viewers too. Makes sense as its the largest 1 team market in the NFL but man recent Bears primetime games have been so incredibly awful and unwatchable with the exception of the Steelers game last year. Yea the large market helps, but even outside the Chicago media market they apparently just draw really broadly. I remember reading a article or tweet from some guy who used to work for Nielsen.

Because it's the Bears and between Packers, chance of Lions on thanksgiving, and the need to fill at least 2 primetime games every week, and often more, plus the limits on the best teams doing it every week, the league doesn't have many better options. Yep. I've heard Bears consistently draw well on prime time viewers too.

Um okay ×2

I rather Bears just sign one of these guys instead of going after guys on practice squad or were injured or whatever. At least the guys below were actually productive at one point. Enough with going on "potential" or guys who hasn't had their shots yet. There's a reason why these guys were where they're at in their career that the Bears have been signing and I'm not just talking about WRs here either. We got enough of those guys already and now the time to add some vets here and there. They're going to be 1 year deals anyway. Hopefully Poles will be doing that after June 1st. A lot of these guys in FA can't be asking much $$$ by now so there's value to be had. Biggs hinted the other day Poles may not add anything else major at WR. Or elsewhere.

Really gonna be rooting for him to make it back in the league. Awesome thread here of some of his highlights as a Bear. Man, he provided some thrills

Per RAS, it's small. Guys can add on weight and muscle though. I wouldn't worry too much about height.

Nice

Dead cap fatalism is dumb. The Bears entered 2022 offseason in a better position than both Falcons and Giants, easily. Not even close. Houston maybe slightly better off depending on how you interpreted the Watson situation at the time. They're kind of better off, with the assumption they'll be set up with a top 3 pick and assets to get QB of choosing in 2023. I think something like $37m of that dead cap was created by the current administration. Not saying those moves necessarily didn't need to be made but they made those decisions to create the dead cap. But the constant mistake is people treating dead cap as only significant in the seasons where it's accelerated from a cut or trade. It was always there though. Of those four teams, here is where their future dead/guaranteed liabilities lied around October of last year (this data isn't super readily pullable, but I had been evaluating it around that time). Houston 113.3M (1 of 32) Chicago 149.5M (14 of 32) Atlanta 161. 4M (18 of 32) New York 183.3M (24 of 32) So Chicago may have a higher dead cap hit in 2022, but NYs isn't non existant, it's just scheduled to hit in 2023 or later. You can weigh this metric against rostered players (where Chicago is on low end), but at a gross level it still means their books were pretty clear. Mid tier team from past 4 years is mid tier cap leveraged. Huh. 9 times out of 10 the dead caps are inconsequential and at best are a useful trailing indicator of something else. Cap discourse would be wholly better off if they were never mentioned again IMO. /End nerd cap rant

Dead cap fatalism is dumb. The Bears entered 2022 offseason in a better position than both Falcons and Giants, easily. Not even close. Houston maybe slightly better off depending on how you interpreted the Watson situation at the time. They're kind of better off, with the assumption they'll be set up with a top 3 pick and assets to get QB of choosing in 2023.

or, like 1/2 the '85 defense I mean I'm sure there's plenty of bullies at large, but Kruetz's arc seems like a bad CW tv bully.

You couldn't write a more stereotypical bullying arctype than Olin right?

I know that's a joke, but I bet you it's a pretty close sentiment. The victim probably threw in a dig about the $15/hr being generous and that was it.

Olin is such a POS.

Without question Gordon at CB add is at least a premium position so no qualms that he went D with first pick. S definitely a lower value position value by most metrics, but I don't think you can bum it at both spots and this will provide the team options. And by most opinions Brisker was a good value pick there. Would anyone have batted and eye if he went top 30? Maybe Jackson turns it around and sees out his contract too and you have a all around premium group, but adding athletes on D on small deals is good. Now about next offseason and going hog wild on offense adds...

Right or wrong he's treating it like a re-do of Fields rookie year. Sometime rookie QBs are built around because there is no certainty they will even be in a position to draft a rookie. But even in cases where it's obvious a rookie is being drafted, the big investment often comes in year 2. So Poles is basically the GM who knew he was gonna draft a QB first overall, but didnt go agressive in building around them for year 1. Basically everything is reset for Fields new "year 1" I still don't agree with that approach, but I think that's basically what's happening. Yeah, I'm not saying he lied at all. I think they completely believe in Fields. But this is the NFL there's no sure things. Like I believe Fields will be a star QB in this league, but I'm not willing to bet my house, life savings, and 401K on it. That's basically where Poles and crew are. While I agree, it doesn't make any sense to just throw him out there with nothing....I think the logic here is, "well I don't want to spend all this money and high draft picks on players and be locked into them for 4 years, if I find out in the next 2 years that the QB isn't good enough". It's one thing to see all these tools Fields has on tape. It's another to see how he does in person, everyday in OTAs, minicamp, training camp, preseason and during the season. It's seeing how he takes to the new coaching staff, and new offense. They used him to look at tape to help determine what guys to draft, so I don't think he necessarily lied. Like I said earlier, there's definitely a middle ground I would have taken. Having a good RG on a 3-4 year deal is still good even if you do have QB issues. Obviously, QB is the most important piece, but it's not all or nothing w/ a QB. You can actually add good players to the unit before you have the sure thing at QB. I'm guessing the logic here is that they don't want a bunch of talent masking how good Fields actually is. LOL. Guys like Mayfield, Jimmy G, maybe even Cousins are guys who got paid (only 5th year option in Baker's case) and are not quite good enough because the talented supporting cast carries them a bit. I guess that's what they want to avoid. Makes no sense to me, but I sorta get it. Exactly agreed on the bolded. The goal of building around the next 3-4 years could have included more up front investments that still paid dividends 3 years from now. Look at Cleveland building around Baker and him flopping. They had a core in place and then just needed to be opportunistic to add a QB to it. Or they could have opted to restart again and you have pieces from which you could do that. The Bears didn't have to be Rams/Packers 2021 level of short term thinking in order to field a better team for 2022. For instance the Mack trade still made a lot of sense. So adding via draft capital is important, but CLE did a lot in FA and trades too. Anyways 2023 FA is gonna be huge. They have lots of money to spend to meet the Minimum cash requirements and I'd be shocked if they don't do it through FA (some resignings, but those won't be siginificant part of pie). One more WR and a G or G/T swing would be good at minimum. Fuller or Landry at WR. Daryl Williams at G/T? Or see if any cuts happen. Those aren't exciting long term adds, but I think they still need some one year stop gaps at this stage to give Fields fair shot to grow and develop.

Right or wrong he's treating it like a re-do of Fields rookie year. Sometime rookie QBs are built around because there is no certainty they will even be in a position to draft a rookie. But even in cases where it's obvious a rookie is being drafted, the big investment often comes in year 2. So Poles is basically the GM who knew he was gonna draft a QB first overall, but didnt go agressive in building around them for year 1. Basically everything is reset for Fields new "year 1" I still don't agree with that approach, but I think that's basically what's happening.