StrangeSox Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 1 hour ago, bmags said: So they had two days of long discussions. Are at a crossroads. And the only changes they can articulate is that they fired the defensive coordinator when the worst part of the team was the offense? cool cool cool It was a very difficult decision do we extend everyone for 2 years, or 3??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maloney.adam Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 (edited) George McCaskey is impressed with what? I don’t see anything to be impressed about. They got to the playoffs but barely by the skin of their teeth!!! Edited January 13, 2021 by maloney.adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 14, 2021 Author Share Posted January 14, 2021 just read up on bears cap situation. When they presumably try to press forward borrowing the future to save their butts, we are looking at another 4-5 years before we get back to the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 36 minutes ago, bmags said: just read up on bears cap situation. When they presumably try to press forward borrowing the future to save their butts, we are looking at another 4-5 years before we get back to the playoffs. That's just not how the NFL works. Most teams in the NFL, even ones in bad places for cap and talent, don't need to do a "Cleveland Browns" to get back. Last year Miami tore literally everything down, traded everyone. They were 1 game away from the playoffs this year, and they're probably still hoping they have a long-term answer at QB even if that guy had a rough year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 14, 2021 Author Share Posted January 14, 2021 1 minute ago, Balta1701 said: That's just not how the NFL works. Most teams in the NFL, even ones in bad places for cap and talent, don't need to do a "Cleveland Browns" to get back. Last year Miami tore literally everything down, traded everyone. They were 1 game away from the playoffs this year, and they're probably still hoping they have a long-term answer at QB even if that guy had a rough year. but the bears aren't tearing everything down. And we just watched a team go without playoffs for 7 years. So I disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 33 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: That's just not how the NFL works. Most teams in the NFL, even ones in bad places for cap and talent, don't need to do a "Cleveland Browns" to get back. Last year Miami tore literally everything down, traded everyone. They were 1 game away from the playoffs this year, and they're probably still hoping they have a long-term answer at QB even if that guy had a rough year. I agree - teams go from zero to first overnight many times. If it was just tearing down and success, you wouldn't have the same disasterous organizations consistently miss the playoffs. Ravens never tore anything down and went from one superbowl winning QB (albeit overrated) to another elite (but unique) QB all while largley being a competive playoff team. The Chiefs went from a pretty good team to an elite team - never stinking under the Reid era and while switching QB's. Now the way you stay bad for years - that is when you mortgage the future and do a ton of stuff in a flurry of win now moves - which might be where Bmags is getting to. That is just where McCaskey and Phillips have to be able to step in and say no. The problem is - the people who are saying "yes" or "no" are absolutely not football people and to extent you have someone that you have decided to do the job (i.e,. Pace) - than you kind of need to trust that he is going to do the job to his best ability and none of us were in the room - but hopefully that was a conversation Pace had with ownership and he had a pretty articulate plan of how he was going to build for the now while investing in the future (vs. build for the now at the expense of the future). For all we know - Pace's bogie is more focused on turning the arrow around - right now the arrow on this squad is probably pretty even - they are what they are - maybe they get a win or 2 worse, maybe a 1 or 2 better - but it is what it is. You can't really project that they are on the rise and if anything - I'd probably project a slight fall - given the best talent is aging and while this past draft looks promising (Kmet, Johnson, Mooney all look like integral contributors at this point to a good squad) - it doesn't account for guys like Hicks, Mack, Fuller aging as well as the overall cap situation they are in hindering their ability to make rapid progress with in some key areas of need (i.e., oline & wideout, most notably) and beyond that there are obviously the QB questions at play. But if they go Foles and a draft pick or Foles, a Winston and a draft pick - the roster construction will have less cap space set aside to QB than most orgs with more established QB's (I assume if you got a Winston he isn't getting 10M+ - unless it is heavily incentive based) yet there is so much inefficient cap space tied to guys like Quinn and Eddie Jackson (maybe Eddie in an adjusted defensive scheme can figure things out - he is still young enough that he shouldn't have had this big of a drop-off...but this is 2 straight years of suspect play out of him). But the Bears shouldn't have a 4 or 5 year rebuilding timeframe. While they have cap issues - a year from now those problems get a lot better. Quinn's dead weight is gone, Foles the same. You can make choices to go younger on dline and other places (presuming you can find talent) and replace some of the more highly paid aging lineman with younger and hopefully better lineman. Same with Danny T. All of those can be cap friendly - moves. They also have draft capital - in sense they have a full stable of picks - but that is a delicate line and Pace could actually add to that stable by flipping some veterans (will hinder 2021 efforts - but create more opportunity for younger, more cap efficient solutions in 22 & beyond). The big thing Pace could do would be how he handles Mack. We could talk Hicks or Fuller - and both are very good players - but I don't know that you are getting a day 1 or day 2 pick for either of those guys. If Pace could get a day 1 pick for Mack (heck - even if it was a 2nd round pick this year and a 1st round pick a year from now (so equivalent of 2 2nd round picks - but Bears play a little "draft roulette") - that would be a huge move to increase the warchest to develop the offense. It obviously comes at a cost - Mack, while overrated, is still a good player and his void would be felt in terms of overall competitiveness - but that is probably okay given the team. If I were Pace - Mack is probably the guy I am using most to swing the warchest the other direction - and maybe I hold on Hicks and Fuller - while still building assets for the future. Obviously - the franchise could move Fuller or Hicks - I just don't know that I get that excited if you are talking about a 3rd round or 4th round type of picks for those guys (but maybe I'm under-valuing what the franchise could get) and it could still be the right move. I also assume there are negative cap impacts of these moves - but I figure take the bath this year. This is more to serve as an illustrative guide - that i think in 1 year - you can already dramatically turn the dynamic of the team. Obviously you need to hit on draft picks and than be smart with free agency moves, etc and finding a QB...now that is the ultimate cure because without an elite QB - you have to be really really perfect at everything else - but I also think you don't want to use QB as your excuse. Reality is - you need to be smart and ensure that you develop a team that a solid QB can come in and win with (because at that point - I think you have a set-up where if you found someone who could be elite - the circumstances would actually increase the likelihood they reached that ceiling. For example, I don't know that Dak Prescott ever becomes the QB he does if he doesn't got to Dallas - who at the time had a world class oline, a great back, and a solid receiving corps (+ vet TE). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 39 minutes ago, bmags said: but the bears aren't tearing everything down. And we just watched a team go without playoffs for 7 years. So I disagree. Key point there is "need to". Teams go through major playoff droughts all the time, but it's not because of 1 years' bad decisions. One year of crap you can overcome the next year with good moves. If you go through a 5-10 year playoff drought in the NFL, it's because you're making mistakes again and again and again - that is a fair description of Cleveland, of the AFC East outside of New England, and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 14, 2021 Author Share Posted January 14, 2021 14 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: Key point there is "need to". Teams go through major playoff droughts all the time, but it's not because of 1 years' bad decisions. One year of crap you can overcome the next year with good moves. If you go through a 5-10 year playoff drought in the NFL, it's because you're making mistakes again and again and again - that is a fair description of Cleveland, of the AFC East outside of New England, and so on. I didn't say they needed 5 years to make the playoffs, I said we are looking at another 5 years because of what they are going to do this offseason and situation they are in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 41 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: Key point there is "need to". Teams go through major playoff droughts all the time, but it's not because of 1 years' bad decisions. One year of crap you can overcome the next year with good moves. If you go through a 5-10 year playoff drought in the NFL, it's because you're making mistakes again and again and again - that is a fair description of Cleveland, of the AFC East outside of New England, and so on. Seems to be a fair description of Pace and the Bears as well if you recognize the 7-spot 8-8 expanded playoff appearance for what it is. They're where they're at due to years of bad mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 21 minutes ago, StrangeSox said: Seems to be a fair description of Pace and the Bears as well if you recognize the 7-spot 8-8 expanded playoff appearance for what it is. They're where they're at due to years of bad mistakes. I'd say that the difference between the Bears at the back of the playoffs and the Bears at the front is largely QB related. I'd also say that they have made enough good decisions to keep them out of the same mess as the Jets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 11 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: I'd say that the difference between the Bears at the back of the playoffs and the Bears at the front is largely QB related. I'd also say that they have made enough good decisions to keep them out of the same mess as the Jets. If the Bears had a QB - none of us are having this conversation. We would be talking about a perennial contender. Maybe the D would be getting long in the tooth - but we would be pointing to Jaylon Johnson type of pick, the Bilal Nichols stuff, RRH moves all as being reasons why we are comfortable with Pace. This is not to say we wouldn't still be talking about the giant miss in Quinn - we would, but with a better QB - none of this conversation is happening (at least not with Pace - maybe Nagy - where you would be talking about are you getting enough out of him). But for those that want Pace out (which was almost everyone) - you would say he had years to fix QB and has failed on every occasion there. Period. Any GM looks smarter with Aaron Rodgers. I mean you want to look at stink - just look at the Patriots draft record the past decade. IT is GOD AWFUL - they have whiffed a TON (and that is with them having massive amount of picks) - but Brady covered so many warts and Beli is a stellar coach who minimizes mistakes (that team is so well disciplined it isn't even funny - which is huge given the parody that exists in the game). The hard part is - there are usually only a handful of truly elite QB's - so either you can spend the next 30 years hoping you get lucky on the top 3 guy or you just build the best damn football team you can while always looking at upgrading your QB. That means you need to take swings at QB and need to hit and have good QB play. Ability to get QB play goes up when you take multiple shots via draft and when you surround said QB with good coaching, sound oline, and people who take pressure off said QB (i.e., good ground game to enable play-action, solid TE (safety valve)). I am purposefully silent on wideout because I don't think you need to pay top dollar to wideout. Rarely do elite wideouts win superbowls. There has to be something to that amount of money spent on the position and the relative value of said use of resources (vs. oline / QB / passushers) - all of whom I think have more of a "multiplier" effect in their ability to make everyone else around them better. A great oline - makes RB, QB, and all your receivers better by creating bigger holes and more time. A great pass rusher (and in general dline)- makes all of your DB's and safeties better and increases ability to generate turnovers by shortening ability to cover things up A great QB - obvious - there ability to make plays out of nothing and dissect the defense can make every skill position player look better. Point blank - the above are the 3 areas you need to invest - because they flat out make collective unit better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Parkman Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 (edited) All the Bears had to do was stay at #3 and take Watson in 2017. Le Sigh. Would have been better for everyone involved. Edited January 14, 2021 by Jack Parkman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 23 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said: All the Bears had to do was stay at #3 and take Watson in 2017. Le Sigh. Would have been better for everyone involved. There is an underlying assumption that the Bears could have utilized Watson in a way that unlocked his talents, and based on what we have seen so far, that is a leap I am not willing to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Parkman Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 (edited) 32 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: There is an underlying assumption that the Bears could have utilized Watson in a way that unlocked his talents, and based on what we have seen so far, that is a leap I am not willing to make. That goes back to the point that I usually make that whoever they'd have taken would have sucked anyway. My opinion is that Watson is so damn good it wouldn't have mattered. Edited January 14, 2021 by Jack Parkman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 39 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: There is an underlying assumption that the Bears could have utilized Watson in a way that unlocked his talents, and based on what we have seen so far, that is a leap I am not willing to make. Let's just say that the staff in Houston over that time...has not particularly impressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 Just now, Balta1701 said: Let's just say that the staff in Houston over that time...has not particularly impressed. And the Bears has? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 29 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: And the Bears has? Not exactly, but I can't see Watson overcome the staff in Houston and think "well the Bears are so much worse that they're clearly going to destroy him." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 1 minute ago, Balta1701 said: Not exactly, but I can't see Watson overcome the staff in Houston and think "well the Bears are so much worse that they're clearly going to destroy him." After seeing Glennon, Trubisky and Foles? I can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 7 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: After seeing Glennon, Trubisky and Foles? I can. $70 million on Brock Osweiler. Followed by Tom Savage starting over Watson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 Just now, Balta1701 said: $70 million on Brock Osweiler. Followed by Tom Savage starting over Watson. Bad decision making on personnel is not the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said: Bad decision making on personnel is not the same thing. Au contraire...I'm pretty sure that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: Au contraire...I'm pretty sure that is. Taking OK QBs and ruining them isn't the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said: Taking OK QBs and ruining them isn't the same thing. Which of Glennon, Trubisky, and Foles are OK QB's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 9 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: Which of Glennon, Trubisky, and Foles are OK QB's? Two of the three were before coming to Chicago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted January 16, 2021 Share Posted January 16, 2021 I see a lot of Mack slander and it doesn't make sense. The guy consistently demands double teams and lets the line go to work. In a bad scheme at that. I think the Bears making the right decision at DC is almost as important as the QB situation. With that stated, only trade of Mack that makes sense is for Watson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts