NFL Thread 2019-2020

[thxfrthmmrs]

WOW would have loved Bell at that price and we could have fit him into our cap space. We better pull off an impact signing because I'd be upset we missed Bell for marginal players.

[LittleHurt05]

5 hours ago, ChiliIrishHammock24 said:

Are the Cowboys and Earl Thomas finally going to get married or what?

Rumor is the Browns are creeping near the altar to steal the bride away

 Yes, the Cleveland Browns.

[Kyyle23]

9 minutes ago, LittleHurt05 said:

Rumor is the Browns are creeping near the altar to steal the bride away

 Yes, the Cleveland Browns.

That division is in shambles, they have a huge opportunity to take it this season 

[Bob Sacamano]

11 hours ago, Jose Abreu said:

I know that #FakeInsiders are a painful memory for us, but there is a weird number of random accounts today that have been claiming Bell signed with the Bears for 4/64 (49 guaranteed). Not sure where it originated from, very likely fake, but I do think we're in on Bell 

Did you not learn from the Machado chase?

[Kyyle23]

7 hours ago, Tony said:

With no 1st and 2nd this year, he’s gotta make an impact signing at this point, and a lot of names are off the board.

I’d be all for a Justin Houston signing now. Make a strength even stronger. Run a rotation of Mack-Floyd-Houston with Hicks up the middle?

Peter King was on the radio today talking about the biggest weakness in the NFC North is the offensive line play with all 4 teams. And he’s not wrong, no one is super strong there. So take advantage... 

I think Houston would be awesome but you would have to convince him to take a rotational role instead of a starting job.   He would be a great replacement from Lynch though 

[bmags]

Kinda bummed about bell but pretty sure I’ll be happy about it by end of year 2. 

Definitely wanted to max out this window pre QB contract though.

[bmags]

2 minutes ago, Tony said:

Right, that’s the sell job. He plays on 2nd down passing downs and 3rd down. He’s on a pitch count, and keeps everyone fresh. It would elevate an already scary D Corp. That’s the move right now, to me at least. 

Takes pressure on needing a playmaker at safety too.

[Balta1701]

1 hour ago, Kyyle23 said:

That division is in shambles, they have a huge opportunity to take it this season 

Can we take a moment to appreciate what has happened in the Steelers FO the last 2 seasons?

Start off pre-2017, they have one of the best sets of skill players in the NFL. Bell is a FA and they tag him for $12 million/1 year guaranteed. Negotiate a contract but don't reach an agreement, Bell plays the year, they lose to the Patriots at the end of the game on a catch call so bad that it leads to changes in the catch rule after the season, they lose the #1 seed and they get caught offguard by the Jags in the playoffs thinking they'd have an easy march to a rematch. 

Pre 2018, they extend Brown, putting something like $8 million on their cap but leaving them with a substantial future commitment. They franchise Bell again, putting $15 million in held money on their cap. They low-ball Bell, with a contract that has a $17 million guarantee - they coulda put a $30 million guarantee on the table before 2017 and had things done, but nope. Directly leads to a toxic environment as players are calling out other players before game 1 of the year, circus atmosphere. Bell holds out the whole year, so their $15 million in cap space is completely blown. Play out the season, Steelers even actually beat the Patriots but collapse in the 2nd half of the season, miss the playoffs. No playoff revenue, could have had a legit chance at the Super Bowl. Brown winds up making the atmosphere 10x worse, gets benched.

Steelers trade Brown, leaving them with another >$15 million in dead cap space for 2019. Maybe he'd have still blown up had the Steelers been on their way to the playoffs, Bell's mess didn't make him facebook stream a team meeting, but it certainly didn't help the environment. 

Altogether, they had Bell play for them affordably in 2017, had something like $32 million in dead cap space in 2018 and 2019, missed the 2018 playoffs, and had their QB get a couple years older.

This is epically bad. Sign Bell to a reasonable extension before 2017 and he's already through his guaranteed money and at the very least you've got a 2018 playoff run. Rick Hahn looks at this and shakes his head.

[Kyyle23]

15 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Can we take a moment to appreciate what has happened in the Steelers FO the last 2 seasons?

Start off pre-2017, they have one of the best sets of skill players in the NFL. Bell is a FA and they tag him for $12 million/1 year guaranteed. Negotiate a contract but don't reach an agreement, Bell plays the year, they lose to the Patriots at the end of the game on a catch call so bad that it leads to changes in the catch rule after the season, they lose the #1 seed and they get caught offguard by the Jags in the playoffs thinking they'd have an easy march to a rematch. 

Pre 2018, they extend Brown, putting something like $8 million on their cap but leaving them with a substantial future commitment. They franchise Bell again, putting $15 million in held money on their cap. They low-ball Bell, with a contract that has a $17 million guarantee - they coulda put a $30 million guarantee on the table before 2017 and had things done, but nope. Directly leads to a toxic environment as players are calling out other players before game 1 of the year, circus atmosphere. Bell holds out the whole year, so their $15 million in cap space is completely blown. Play out the season, Steelers even actually beat the Patriots but collapse in the 2nd half of the season, miss the playoffs. No playoff revenue, could have had a legit chance at the Super Bowl. Brown winds up making the atmosphere 10x worse, gets benched.

Steelers trade Brown, leaving them with another >$15 million in dead cap space for 2019. Maybe he'd have still blown up had the Steelers been on their way to the playoffs, Bell's mess didn't make him facebook stream a team meeting, but it certainly didn't help the environment. 

Altogether, they had Bell play for them affordably in 2017, had something like $32 million in dead cap space in 2018 and 2019, missed the 2018 playoffs, and had their QB get a couple years older.

This is epically bad. Sign Bell to a reasonable extension before 2017 and he's already through his guaranteed money and at the very least you've got a 2018 playoff run. Rick Hahn looks at this and shakes his head.

Pretty sure that somewhere in the middle of all that they also did something with Roethlisbergers contract that will result in a large cap hit later

[Balta1701]

14 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

Pretty sure that somewhere in the middle of all that they also did something with Roethlisbergers contract that will result in a large cap hit later

I think that comes this year. He's due for an extension soon. 

[bmags]

I was listening to some sports radio this morning on way to gym, a lot of consensus that Bell came out poorly. I agree in the perception in a team game of doing this is bad, and the contract is less than he initially sought.

But the whole reason players hate the franchise tag is even though you get one big year, you are at risk of long term security.

It is absolutely likely that he could have had a good year, made that $15(?) million int he bank, and found another $15 milll guaranteed in FA/re-signing.

However, he also could have gotten injured or slowed down this year, and then entered free agency as a player people were loathe to give guaranteed cash to.

This isn't best case scenario deal, but it also isn't worst case scenario, which would have been playing and having a catastrophic injury.

[Rowand44]

2 hours ago, bmags said:

I was listening to some sports radio this morning on way to gym, a lot of consensus that Bell came out poorly. I agree in the perception in a team game of doing this is bad, and the contract is less than he initially sought.

But the whole reason players hate the franchise tag is even though you get one big year, you are at risk of long term security.

It is absolutely likely that he could have had a good year, made that $15(?) million int he bank, and found another $15 milll guaranteed in FA/re-signing.

However, he also could have gotten injured or slowed down this year, and then entered free agency as a player people were loathe to give guaranteed cash to.

This isn't best case scenario deal, but it also isn't worst case scenario, which would have been playing and having a catastrophic injury.

Didn't the Steelers offer him more for an extension at one point?

[Balta1701]

4 minutes ago, Rowand44 said:

Didn't the Steelers offer him more for an extension at one point?

We don't know what was offered before the 2017 season as far as I know, there was a report that the steelers thought they had it done and then it turned out they didn't have it done before the deadline for signing tagged players, I don't believe we saw a dollar amount.

Pre 2018 they offered him a 5 year, $70 million deal that would have paid him just a little less than Gurley got on a per year basis, but that deal only included 1 year/$17 million guaranteed money. Considering the tag locked up $15 million of their cap space last year once they offered it, there was basically no new money in that deal, it was just a repeat of the franchise tag values and any time Bell got hurt or his performance dropped he could have been cut. If he twisted an ankle last year he could have been cut with only $3 million in dead cap space this season.  It was a frankly disrespectful offer from Pittsburgh's front office in the modern league, and conveniently they probably missed the playoffs because of it.

[Rowand44]

2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

 

Pre 2018 they offered him a 5 year, $70 million deal that would have paid him just a little less than Gurley got on a per year basis, but that deal only included 1 year/$17 million guaranteed money. Considering the tag locked up $15 million of their cap space last year once they offered it, there was basically no new money in that deal, it was just a repeat of the franchise tag values and any time Bell got hurt or his performance dropped he could have been cut.

Fair enough.  I stand corrected.

[smalls2598]

 

 

 

Edited March 13, 2019 by smalls2598

[Bob Sacamano]

17 hours ago, Tony said:

God, I LOVE the NFL offseason. Blows MLB away. 

Everything happens quickly but then there's nothing for what, almost half a year when games start? I guess there's the draft, but that's still far out any way.

[Kyyle23]

3 minutes ago, soxfan2014 said:

Everything happens quickly but then there's nothing for what, almost half a year when games start? I guess there's the draft, but that's still far out any way.

There is the draft and then the June 1 cut date still, isn't there?   Nfl is keeping itself on the radar

[Chisoxfn]

49 minutes ago, Tony said:

Ok Bears...any time now....

I think the Bears made a mistake creating all this cap space when there weren't any major difference makers to go for. I think the smart thing would have been to keep ammunition for a future point in the time. I do not believe in create cap nightmares. This just wasn't the year, given how they were positioned in cap space and with draft picks to do this. And if they do make a move, it needs to be more like the Rams with a guy on more 1-2 year type deals where you aren't really locking up too much long-term. 

[bmags]

27 minutes ago, soxfan2014 said:

Everything happens quickly but then there's nothing for what, almost half a year when games start? I guess there's the draft, but that's still far out any way.

I think its better and healthier. Prior to it (feb-march) you have the speculation on who the team could sign plus the combine/draft stuff, and then you have the actual moves.

It's anticipation/build-up and then big event. 

In the mlb it's so spread out, the speculation becomes boring and the payout being spread out is less entertaining to me. In two days we got to see what the browns are likely to look like next year and judge those moves against others.

You can't judge how mlb teams fared in free agency even into spring training!

[bmags]

7 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

I think the Bears made a mistake creating all this cap space when there weren't any major difference makers to go for. I think the smart thing would have been to keep ammunition for a future point in the time. I do not believe in create cap nightmares. This just wasn't the year, given how they were positioned in cap space and with draft picks to do this. And if they do make a move, it needs to be more like the Rams with a guy on more 1-2 year type deals where you aren't really locking up too much long-term. 

Well, what would have made it cap hell is to splurge guaranteed, long term money on a player that will decline over next 4 years.

This isn't ideal, but it really isn't necessarily bad either. There will be june 1st cuts, there are still some names out there.

However, as big a fan as I am on the team Pace has built, he is operating more as he did his first few years which got a lot of mid level deals that could be cut. They didn't create structural issues for the bears, but they also didn't add talent. 

The bears are in a window, you don't want to prematurely shorten it, but you also don't want to put a ceiling on it. This free agency to me is more acceptable if we had 7 draft picks but we only have a hand ful, so I would have preferred they were more aggressive.

edit: obviously if they can get houston (I have been busy so don't know if he signed) that's good usage of money to me. You can't have enough pass rushers.)

[Chisoxfn]

7 minutes ago, bmags said:

Well, what would have made it cap hell is to splurge guaranteed, long term money on a player that will decline over next 4 years.

This isn't ideal, but it really isn't necessarily bad either. There will be june 1st cuts, there are still some names out there.

However, as big a fan as I am on the team Pace has built, he is operating more as he did his first few years which got a lot of mid level deals that could be cut. They didn't create structural issues for the bears, but they also didn't add talent. 

The bears are in a window, you don't want to prematurely shorten it, but you also don't want to put a ceiling on it. This free agency to me is more acceptable if we had 7 draft picks but we only have a hand ful, so I would have preferred they were more aggressive.

edit: obviously if they can get houston (I have been busy so don't know if he signed) that's good usage of money to me. You can't have enough pass rushers.)

I just think in this type of free agency, they should have been on the sideline and went bargain shopping. They just weren't positioned to do anything different. And if they wanted to take a different approach than they needed to launch for an impact name.  What they did was play in the middle and I don't think that was the best strategy given their position. I also firmly believe against mortgaging the future, especially in a game where injuries, etc can immediately shoot seasons down the tubes (at all to high of a frequency).

Said another way, I'd rather maintain flexibility to be able to strike where appropriate vs. make a move like this to free up cap space on a few mediocre players (maybe make you slightly better but not worth the future flexibility lost).  Strategically it is the way I operate.  

And on Houston...he hasn't been very good the past couple years (since his major deal), so I don't necessarily know that signing him would work much different than the Jared Allen signing. I could be wrong though and I certainly would hope if we did sign him and put him in a reps limit that maybe we get more "value" from him, but I don't view the opportunity cost of future cap space as being that worth it.  At this point though, the Bears forced their hand prematurely by making a decision with Mack without a ready impact move.

I'd personally want to make sure we have the cash/cap flexibility to pay people after we've hopefully paid Mitch (because he's earned the big paycheck).  I don't want to built a team that is great for 2 years and then falls apart. I want the  Bears to have a franchise for once that can hit great, but also maintain a long-term period of sustained success.  

[bmags]

29 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

I just think in this type of free agency, they should have been on the sideline and went bargain shopping. They just weren't positioned to do anything different. And if they wanted to take a different approach than they needed to launch for an impact name.  What they did was play in the middle and I don't think that was the best strategy given their position. I also firmly believe against mortgaging the future, especially in a game where injuries, etc can immediately shoot seasons down the tubes (at all to high of a frequency).

Said another way, I'd rather maintain flexibility to be able to strike where appropriate vs. make a move like this to free up cap space on a few mediocre players (maybe make you slightly better but not worth the future flexibility lost).  Strategically it is the way I operate.  

And on Houston...he hasn't been very good the past couple years (since his major deal), so I don't necessarily know that signing him would work much different than the Jared Allen signing. I could be wrong though and I certainly would hope if we did sign him and put him in a reps limit that maybe we get more "value" from him, but I don't view the opportunity cost of future cap space as being that worth it.  At this point though, the Bears forced their hand prematurely by making a decision with Mack without a ready impact move.

I'd personally want to make sure we have the cash/cap flexibility to pay people after we've hopefully paid Mitch (because he's earned the big paycheck).  I don't want to built a team that is great for 2 years and then falls apart. I want the  Bears to have a franchise for once that can hit great, but also maintain a long-term period of sustained success.  

I guess I don't know how much Houston will go for. But I don't know that Allen was that bad of a signing, though important that Houston is 2 years younger than he was. The bad part was they needed Allen to be a dominant player on a bad defense.

For bears, Houston can just be an important veteran for depth that can still get after the QB. He is certainly better than Aaron Lynch.

[SoxAce]

Houston was a FF machine last year and a pretty good year on the sack numbers. Not sure what the Chiefs are doing considering their defense was bad as it is. 

[Kyyle23]

45 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

I just think in this type of free agency, they should have been on the sideline and went bargain shopping. They just weren't positioned to do anything different. And if they wanted to take a different approach than they needed to launch for an impact name.  What they did was play in the middle and I don't think that was the best strategy given their position. I also firmly believe against mortgaging the future, especially in a game where injuries, etc can immediately shoot seasons down the tubes (at all to high of a frequency).

Said another way, I'd rather maintain flexibility to be able to strike where appropriate vs. make a move like this to free up cap space on a few mediocre players (maybe make you slightly better but not worth the future flexibility lost).  Strategically it is the way I operate.  

And on Houston...he hasn't been very good the past couple years (since his major deal), so I don't necessarily know that signing him would work much different than the Jared Allen signing. I could be wrong though and I certainly would hope if we did sign him and put him in a reps limit that maybe we get more "value" from him, but I don't view the opportunity cost of future cap space as being that worth it.  At this point though, the Bears forced their hand prematurely by making a decision with Mack without a ready impact move.

I'd personally want to make sure we have the cash/cap flexibility to pay people after we've hopefully paid Mitch (because he's earned the big paycheck).  I don't want to built a team that is great for 2 years and then falls apart. I want the  Bears to have a franchise for once that can hit great, but also maintain a long-term period of sustained success.  

I couldn't disagree more about your Houston/Allen comparison.  Houston won't take the starting job from Floyd or Mack, he won't be counted on like Allen was.  He will have to be in the Aaron Lynch rotational role

[Chisoxfn]

25 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

I couldn't disagree more about your Houston/Allen comparison.  Houston won't take the starting job from Floyd or Mack, he won't be counted on like Allen was.  He will have to be in the Aaron Lynch rotational role

My point is you don't create future cap issues for situational / role players. You just don't.  If this was the Houston of 3 years ago, great, sign me up for robbing future cap space. We are robbing future cap space for situational type players. I don't like that one bad.