Ryan Pace: How Ya Like Him Now?

For all things Chicago Bears

Moderator: wab

User avatar
IotaNet
MVP
Posts: 1517
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:04 am
Location: Minneapolis (Chicago Native)
Has thanked: 285 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Mikefive wrote: ... Anyone who thinks adding the largest contract ever for a ONE defensive player doesn't impact what you can do going forward is foolish.
<snip>
I also agree that I'd still do it.
I chalk that up to "the cost of doing business." Anytime you have a top player at their position on your team, you are going to have to tie up significant money in them.

Extra kudos to Pace for:
1) Building a solid team and doing sensible deals in the process. (Leads directly to the next point ...)
2) Having the cap room in the first place (Deals like this are one of the reasons you hoard cap room)
3) Making the Mack move now while Biscuit is on his rookie deal.

That we were able to do the Mack deal at all is proof that Pace has been doing the right things all along.
“Never let your ego get so close to your position that when your position falls, your ego falls with it.”

- Colin Powell
EricTighe
MVP
Posts: 1220
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 1:13 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 63 times

I have said it for years. One guy makes a difference.

Just to be clear I am not the one that was worried about mortgaging the future for a proven commodity. Hell I would have made the call to the Rams to see what it would have taken to get Donald as well. I love the draft but those two studs are STUDS. Screw the draft if you can get guys like these. Sometimes you need to roll the dice and worry about tomorrow another day. Exactly what the Rams have done this year going for broke now.

We now have a Superbowl caliper Defense so let us see how far we can go.

We still talk about the 85 Bears maybve it is time to go for it when you have the chance. Yawl relize it has been 34 years.
User avatar
Mikefive
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:33 pm
Location: Valparaiso, IN, USA
Has thanked: 343 times
Been thanked: 278 times

EricTighe wrote:I have said it for years. One guy makes a difference.

Just to be clear I am not the one that was worried about mortgaging the future for a proven commodity. Hell I would have made the call to the Rams to see what it would have taken to get Donald as well. I love the draft but those two studs are STUDS. Screw the draft if you can get guys like these. Sometimes you need to roll the dice and worry about tomorrow another day. Exactly what the Rams have done this year going for broke now.

We now have a Superbowl caliper Defense so let us see how far we can go.

We still talk about the 85 Bears maybve it is time to go for it when you have the chance. Yawl relize it has been 34 years.
I'd love to see a set of those Super Bowl calipers. :-P :evilgrin:
Mikefive's theory: The only time you KNOW that a sports team player, coach or management member is being 100% honest is when they're NOT reciting "the company line".

Go back to leather helmets, NFL.
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29900
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 132 times
Been thanked: 2001 times

Think about what Green Bay would be if they had Mack? And yet, there are good reasons why they didn't offer more in trade, significant cap consequences among them.
One of the main reasons the Bears landed Mack over some of the other reported teams is because the Raiders thought the Bears would have higher picks in each round...as opposed to say the Packers or Rams.
User avatar
Mikefive
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:33 pm
Location: Valparaiso, IN, USA
Has thanked: 343 times
Been thanked: 278 times

wab wrote:
Think about what Green Bay would be if they had Mack? And yet, there are good reasons why they didn't offer more in trade, significant cap consequences among them.
One of the main reasons the Bears landed Mack over some of the other reported teams is because the Raiders thought the Bears would have higher picks in each round...as opposed to say the Packers or Rams.
True. But the Packers could've still offered more. Like offering the 2 #1s straight up without expecting the #2 back, perhaps.
Mikefive's theory: The only time you KNOW that a sports team player, coach or management member is being 100% honest is when they're NOT reciting "the company line".

Go back to leather helmets, NFL.
User avatar
docc
Head Coach
Posts: 3825
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:33 pm
Location: Outpost of Reality S.E. Arizona
Has thanked: 972 times
Been thanked: 179 times

Also..
What is the rising Cap limits during the Mack contract ?
As cap rises..Mack becomes less of a % of the total,,
User avatar
Bears Whiskey Nut
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11061
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:06 am
Location: Oak Park, IL
Has thanked: 80 times
Been thanked: 520 times

Mikefive wrote:
wab wrote:
Think about what Green Bay would be if they had Mack? And yet, there are good reasons why they didn't offer more in trade, significant cap consequences among them.
One of the main reasons the Bears landed Mack over some of the other reported teams is because the Raiders thought the Bears would have higher picks in each round...as opposed to say the Packers or Rams.
True. But the Packers could've still offered more. Like offering the 2 #1s straight up without expecting the #2 back, perhaps.
To WAB's point. Suppose we had offered two straight #1's. The Raiders would have STILL taken the Bears offer. Why? Because the Raiders were projecting, with a rookie QB and a new coach, that those picks would land in the top 15 in both 2019, and 2020. Whereas they were betting that with Aaron Rodgers, the two Packers #1 picks would have both been in the bottom 20 of the draft. Pace was able to get the 2nd round pick, because of this perception on the part of the Raiders. NO WAY would they have done the deal, if they thought they would be getting a 20th+ pick in 2019 and a upper 20's pick in 2020, effectively trading up about 10-12 spots. The better the Bears do this year and next, the more this deal looks like a disaster for Gruden.
Image
User avatar
G08
Hall of Famer
Posts: 20651
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:34 pm
Location: Football Hell
Has thanked: 229 times
Been thanked: 804 times

Honestly, we're okay for 2019 IMO. Currently we are $16.7M under the cap.

If we wanted to cut Dion Sims, Sam Acho, and Bradley Sowell, that number moves up to $26.3M.
9 PLAYOFF APPEARANCES IN THE PAST 35 SEASONS

Image
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8426
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 911 times
Been thanked: 1294 times

G08 wrote:Honestly, we're okay for 2019 IMO. Currently we are $16.7M under the cap.

If we wanted to cut Dion Sims, Sam Acho, and Bradley Sowell, that number moves up to $26.3M.
They should look at extending Biscuit now and front load what you can into that $26.3M so that we can have both Mack and Biscuit under big contracts without taking up all of our cap.

Not having first round picks the next two years is going to help also.
Image
User avatar
G08
Hall of Famer
Posts: 20651
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:34 pm
Location: Football Hell
Has thanked: 229 times
Been thanked: 804 times

Might be too early to extend Biscuit, but I'm curious to see what happens at RB and the WR position. I'm thinking Pace feels/hopes Robinson/Gabriel/Miller are the future. Wims can work his way up slowly and maybe take Robinson's job in a few years.

Howard comes out of contract after the 2019 season and if his price is high I just don't know how we can afford to keep him.
9 PLAYOFF APPEARANCES IN THE PAST 35 SEASONS

Image
User avatar
Mikefive
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:33 pm
Location: Valparaiso, IN, USA
Has thanked: 343 times
Been thanked: 278 times

Bears Whiskey Nut wrote:
Mikefive wrote:
wab wrote:
Think about what Green Bay would be if they had Mack? And yet, there are good reasons why they didn't offer more in trade, significant cap consequences among them.
One of the main reasons the Bears landed Mack over some of the other reported teams is because the Raiders thought the Bears would have higher picks in each round...as opposed to say the Packers or Rams.
True. But the Packers could've still offered more. Like offering the 2 #1s straight up without expecting the #2 back, perhaps.
To WAB's point. Suppose we had offered two straight #1's. The Raiders would have STILL taken the Bears offer. Why? Because the Raiders were projecting, with a rookie QB and a new coach, that those picks would land in the top 15 in both 2019, and 2020. Whereas they were betting that with Aaron Rodgers, the two Packers #1 picks would have both been in the bottom 20 of the draft. Pace was able to get the 2nd round pick, because of this perception on the part of the Raiders. NO WAY would they have done the deal, if they thought they would be getting a 20th+ pick in 2019 and a upper 20's pick in 2020, effectively trading up about 10-12 spots. The better the Bears do this year and next, the more this deal looks like a disaster for Gruden.
Of course our draft picks were projected to be better. There's an infinite number of ways they could've sweetened the offer though. What if they threw in Nick Perry, who's still on his rookie contract and who they wouldn't necessarily need if they had Mack? There are ways if you want to make a move. Especially when it's for a certain HOFer in his prime. But salary cap limits matter, too. That's all I'm saying.
Mikefive's theory: The only time you KNOW that a sports team player, coach or management member is being 100% honest is when they're NOT reciting "the company line".

Go back to leather helmets, NFL.
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29900
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 132 times
Been thanked: 2001 times

Mikefive wrote:
Bears Whiskey Nut wrote:
Mikefive wrote:
wab wrote:
Think about what Green Bay would be if they had Mack? And yet, there are good reasons why they didn't offer more in trade, significant cap consequences among them.
One of the main reasons the Bears landed Mack over some of the other reported teams is because the Raiders thought the Bears would have higher picks in each round...as opposed to say the Packers or Rams.
True. But the Packers could've still offered more. Like offering the 2 #1s straight up without expecting the #2 back, perhaps.
To WAB's point. Suppose we had offered two straight #1's. The Raiders would have STILL taken the Bears offer. Why? Because the Raiders were projecting, with a rookie QB and a new coach, that those picks would land in the top 15 in both 2019, and 2020. Whereas they were betting that with Aaron Rodgers, the two Packers #1 picks would have both been in the bottom 20 of the draft. Pace was able to get the 2nd round pick, because of this perception on the part of the Raiders. NO WAY would they have done the deal, if they thought they would be getting a 20th+ pick in 2019 and a upper 20's pick in 2020, effectively trading up about 10-12 spots. The better the Bears do this year and next, the more this deal looks like a disaster for Gruden.
Of course our draft picks were projected to be better. There's an infinite number of ways they could've sweetened the offer though. What if they threw in Nick Perry, who's still on his rookie contract and who they wouldn't necessarily need if they had Mack? There are ways if you want to make a move. Especially when it's for a certain HOFer in his prime. But salary cap limits matter, too. That's all I'm saying.
Except Nick Perry was drafted in 2012 and isn't on his rookie deal. He signed a a five-year $60 million deal that included a $18.5 million signing bonus in 2017.
User avatar
Bears Whiskey Nut
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11061
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:06 am
Location: Oak Park, IL
Has thanked: 80 times
Been thanked: 520 times

Mikefive wrote:
Bears Whiskey Nut wrote:
Mikefive wrote:
wab wrote:
Think about what Green Bay would be if they had Mack? And yet, there are good reasons why they didn't offer more in trade, significant cap consequences among them.
One of the main reasons the Bears landed Mack over some of the other reported teams is because the Raiders thought the Bears would have higher picks in each round...as opposed to say the Packers or Rams.
True. But the Packers could've still offered more. Like offering the 2 #1s straight up without expecting the #2 back, perhaps.
To WAB's point. Suppose we had offered two straight #1's. The Raiders would have STILL taken the Bears offer. Why? Because the Raiders were projecting, with a rookie QB and a new coach, that those picks would land in the top 15 in both 2019, and 2020. Whereas they were betting that with Aaron Rodgers, the two Packers #1 picks would have both been in the bottom 20 of the draft. Pace was able to get the 2nd round pick, because of this perception on the part of the Raiders. NO WAY would they have done the deal, if they thought they would be getting a 20th+ pick in 2019 and a upper 20's pick in 2020, effectively trading up about 10-12 spots. The better the Bears do this year and next, the more this deal looks like a disaster for Gruden.
Of course our draft picks were projected to be better. There's an infinite number of ways they could've sweetened the offer though. What if they threw in Nick Perry, who's still on his rookie contract and who they wouldn't necessarily need if they had Mack? There are ways if you want to make a move. Especially when it's for a certain HOFer in his prime. But salary cap limits matter, too. That's all I'm saying.
Yes you are right. We don't have a 35 year-old $140M QB with a gimpy knee on our roster, that is true. :)
Image
User avatar
Mikefive
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:33 pm
Location: Valparaiso, IN, USA
Has thanked: 343 times
Been thanked: 278 times

Whoops! I thought he was. I guess I'm not the expert on Packers that you are. ;) :-P :D
Mikefive's theory: The only time you KNOW that a sports team player, coach or management member is being 100% honest is when they're NOT reciting "the company line".

Go back to leather helmets, NFL.
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29900
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 132 times
Been thanked: 2001 times

Mikefive wrote:Whoops! I thought he was. I guess I'm not the expert on Packers that you are. ;) :-P :D
Google is a real thing...
User avatar
Mikefive
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:33 pm
Location: Valparaiso, IN, USA
Has thanked: 343 times
Been thanked: 278 times

wab wrote:
Mikefive wrote:Whoops! I thought he was. I guess I'm not the expert on Packers that you are. ;) :-P :D
Google is a real thing...
Well played. You caught me at a shoot from the hip moment. :surrender: :-)
Mikefive's theory: The only time you KNOW that a sports team player, coach or management member is being 100% honest is when they're NOT reciting "the company line".

Go back to leather helmets, NFL.
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8426
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 911 times
Been thanked: 1294 times

G08 wrote:Might be too early to extend Biscuit, but I'm curious to see what happens at RB and the WR position. I'm thinking Pace feels/hopes Robinson/Gabriel/Miller are the future. Wims can work his way up slowly and maybe take Robinson's job in a few years.

Howard comes out of contract after the 2019 season and if his price is high I just don't know how we can afford to keep him.
I don't have a bad thing to say about Jordan Howard. In fact he's my favorite Bears RB in my lifetime other than obviously Walter Payton. I would MUCH rather keep him than see him go to another team. That being said, this isn't an offense that needs a $10M / year RB to be successful.

You never know with cap inflation and what the marketplace dictates, but if we're expecting to be in a franchise tag type money situation I would much rather use the 2nd rounder from the Raiders to draft Howard's replacement.

We need the money to extend Biscuit and give the right side of the OL a serious look. The right side of the OL is my biggest concern. Hopefully the draft fixes that, but if we can get a stud RT in FA I'd rather have that and draft Howard's replacement than the other way around.
Image
User avatar
G08
Hall of Famer
Posts: 20651
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:34 pm
Location: Football Hell
Has thanked: 229 times
Been thanked: 804 times

The Marshall Plan wrote:
G08 wrote:Might be too early to extend Biscuit, but I'm curious to see what happens at RB and the WR position. I'm thinking Pace feels/hopes Robinson/Gabriel/Miller are the future. Wims can work his way up slowly and maybe take Robinson's job in a few years.

Howard comes out of contract after the 2019 season and if his price is high I just don't know how we can afford to keep him.
I don't have a bad thing to say about Jordan Howard. In fact he's my favorite Bears RB in my lifetime other than obviously Walter Payton. I would MUCH rather keep him than see him go to another team. That being said, this isn't an offense that needs a $10M / year RB to be successful.

You never know with cap inflation and what the marketplace dictates, but if we're expecting to be in a franchise tag type money situation I would much rather use the 2nd rounder from the Raiders to draft Howard's replacement.

We need the money to extend Biscuit and give the right side of the OL a serious look. The right side of the OL is my biggest concern. Hopefully the draft fixes that, but if we can get a stud RT in FA I'd rather have that and draft Howard's replacement than the other way around.
More than Forte?

Nagy comes from the Andy Reid tree, and his famously once said to give him the following to build a team, and he'll figure out the rest:

1 QB
2 Tackles
2 Pass rushers
2 Corners
9 PLAYOFF APPEARANCES IN THE PAST 35 SEASONS

Image
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29900
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 132 times
Been thanked: 2001 times

The Marshall Plan wrote:The right side of the OL is my biggest concern. Hopefully the draft fixes that, but if we can get a stud RT in FA I'd rather have that and draft Howard's replacement than the other way around.
They must see something in Coward to keep him on the 53. It would not surprise me in the least to see him take over for Massie next year.

I do agree that they need to get someone in the hopper to replace Long in the next couple of years. I just don't think he is ever really going to be healthy again.
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8426
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 911 times
Been thanked: 1294 times

G08 wrote:
The Marshall Plan wrote:
G08 wrote:Might be too early to extend Biscuit, but I'm curious to see what happens at RB and the WR position. I'm thinking Pace feels/hopes Robinson/Gabriel/Miller are the future. Wims can work his way up slowly and maybe take Robinson's job in a few years.

Howard comes out of contract after the 2019 season and if his price is high I just don't know how we can afford to keep him.
I don't have a bad thing to say about Jordan Howard. In fact he's my favorite Bears RB in my lifetime other than obviously Walter Payton. I would MUCH rather keep him than see him go to another team. That being said, this isn't an offense that needs a $10M / year RB to be successful.

You never know with cap inflation and what the marketplace dictates, but if we're expecting to be in a franchise tag type money situation I would much rather use the 2nd rounder from the Raiders to draft Howard's replacement.

We need the money to extend Biscuit and give the right side of the OL a serious look. The right side of the OL is my biggest concern. Hopefully the draft fixes that, but if we can get a stud RT in FA I'd rather have that and draft Howard's replacement than the other way around.
More than Forte?

Nagy comes from the Andy Reid tree, and his famously once said to give him the following to build a team, and he'll figure out the rest:

1 QB
2 Tackles
2 Pass rushers
2 Corners
I like Jordan Howard a lot more than Matt Forte. I didn't like Forte's game and felt that his stats benefited from him getting so many touches. Anecdotally, I don't remember Forte breaking many tackles and having runaway speed. Forte was good at being slippery, but from what I remember when he got hit he went down. I like Howard's game a lot better.
Image
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8426
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 911 times
Been thanked: 1294 times

wab wrote:
The Marshall Plan wrote:The right side of the OL is my biggest concern. Hopefully the draft fixes that, but if we can get a stud RT in FA I'd rather have that and draft Howard's replacement than the other way around.
They must see something in Coward to keep him on the 53. It would not surprise me in the least to see him take over for Massie next year.

I do agree that they need to get someone in the hopper to replace Long in the next couple of years. I just don't think he is ever really going to be healthy again.
Agreed about Coward although I hope that's not their plan. This offense with a dominant offensive line is unstoppable. I'd rather have elite RB money spent on the line.

Long is almost 30 and like you said has been repeatedly injured.

Looking at player salaries, James in Miami at RT is the highest paid at $9.3M for the cap hit. After that it's almost $8M and more in the $7M range.

If Howard is going to be $10M / year, based on franchise tag money, I'd rather get a highly rated RT at $8M, draft the replacement, and put the $2M someplace else. Massie is at $6M. We could upgrade that spot for an incremental $2M to our cap.

So then we trade Howard before his FA season: $10M "savings"
Second round pick to replace Howard: $2M(?)
Net Change: +$8M

Upgrade Massie: $6M cap savings by getting rid of him
Sign an elite level RT (I don't know if any will be available next offseason): $8M
Net Change: -$2M

Total Change: +$6M

We're ahead by $6M. Then we need to discuss Long. His hit is $8.8M and he gets injured. We can just use his cap slot to sign a replacement and most likely come out ahead.

The total savings then can pay Amos, extend Biscuit, etc. etc. and we've rebuilt the line and drafted Howard's replacement.

Works for me.

One thing I think about with the right side of the line is that we line Mack up there. What if the other team has a similar guy? I don't like that scenario at all. The right side of the line kinda scares the shit out of me.
Image
EricTighe
MVP
Posts: 1220
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 1:13 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 63 times

The Marshall Plan wrote:
wab wrote:
The Marshall Plan wrote:The right side of the OL is my biggest concern. Hopefully the draft fixes that, but if we can get a stud RT in FA I'd rather have that and draft Howard's replacement than the other way around.

One thing I think about with the right side of the line is that we line Mack up there. What if the other team has a similar guy? I don't like that scenario at all. The right side of the line kinda scares the shit out of me.

They don't have a guy like Mack, so no need to worry.

I have been preaching to shit can Massie for a bit but he is actually doing just fine.
User avatar
malk
Head Coach
Posts: 3630
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:10 am
Has thanked: 133 times
Been thanked: 208 times

This resigning discussion is why I only have Pace as a B. He's had a lot of time to build us into a contender but has wasted a lot of cap space getting us here. This means our window might end up being smaller than it could/should be. As soon as we're paying non rookie contract QB money it'll become a lot more difficult to keep a high quality roster together.

Now Pace's drafting is pretty damn good so as long as that keeps up we've got an advantage but he won't be able to get away with any more mid-tier, low upside signings.
"I wouldn't take him for a conditional 7th. His next contract will pay him more than he could possibly contribute.".

Noted Brain Genius Malk, Summer 2018.

(2020 update, wait, was I right...)
User avatar
Bears Whiskey Nut
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11061
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:06 am
Location: Oak Park, IL
Has thanked: 80 times
Been thanked: 520 times

It’s the Patriots/Saints/Packers model. Three teams that have been good for a long time. Good GM, good HC, good QB, and have an above average defense year in and year out. Then just plug and play players as needed. If the QB is in the same scheme long enough, and the GM knows the types of players that fit the scheme, they can all work in combination to keep the team competitive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
User avatar
malk
Head Coach
Posts: 3630
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:10 am
Has thanked: 133 times
Been thanked: 208 times

Bears Whiskey Nut wrote:It’s the Patriots/Saints/Packers model. Three teams that have been good for a long time. Good GM, good HC, good QB, and have an above average defense year in and year out. Then just plug and play players as needed. If the QB is in the same scheme long enough, and the GM knows the types of players that fit the scheme, they can all work in combination to keep the team competitive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's the Packers/Saints model, not the Patriots one. Brady has been constantly willing to restructure to help the team (aided by the Patriots being clever in the uncapped 2010).

We really, really, need to set out sights higher than the damn Saints and Packers. Just because we've been shit for a while doesn't mean we should set out sights (for the GM) on being a bit better than average. We're going to look back at the careers of Brees and Rodgers and wonder how these two HoF, all time great QBs only got a ring each. The Packers have ridden their potential GOAT QB to a lot of winning seasons but only one appearance at the big game, which of course they won. Brees isn't as good as Rodgers so the Saints normally finish 7-9 with him throwing for gaudy numbers.

Can we dare to dream a little bigger?
"I wouldn't take him for a conditional 7th. His next contract will pay him more than he could possibly contribute.".

Noted Brain Genius Malk, Summer 2018.

(2020 update, wait, was I right...)
User avatar
Bears Whiskey Nut
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11061
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:06 am
Location: Oak Park, IL
Has thanked: 80 times
Been thanked: 520 times

malk wrote:
Bears Whiskey Nut wrote:It’s the Patriots/Saints/Packers model. Three teams that have been good for a long time. Good GM, good HC, good QB, and have an above average defense year in and year out. Then just plug and play players as needed. If the QB is in the same scheme long enough, and the GM knows the types of players that fit the scheme, they can all work in combination to keep the team competitive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's the Packers/Saints model, not the Patriots one. Brady has been constantly willing to restructure to help the team (aided by the Patriots being clever in the uncapped 2010).

We really, really, need to set out sights higher than the damn Saints and Packers. Just because we've been shit for a while doesn't mean we should set out sights (for the GM) on being a bit better than average. We're going to look back at the careers of Brees and Rodgers and wonder how these two HoF, all time great QBs only got a ring each. The Packers have ridden their potential GOAT QB to a lot of winning seasons but only one appearance at the big game, which of course they won. Brees isn't as good as Rodgers so the Saints normally finish 7-9 with him throwing for gaudy numbers.

Can we dare to dream a little bigger?
Yes, absolutely we should shoot higher. But the fact of the matter is, successful teams have consistency at the GM/HC/QB positions. The QB knows the scheme, the HC/OC calls plays that the QB executes well in the scheme, and the GM finds players that fit well within the scheme. Then if someone like Gabriel leaves for more money, the GM knows the type of player he is looking for. The QB and HC can assimilate players faster because they both know the scheme, and get the new players in positions to succeed faster. I only mentioned 'average defense' because that is what THEY (GB/NO) have had over the last several years. I expect that the Bears will do better than that, on that side of the ball.

The fact is, I believe we have finally hit on all three positions. It's up to ownership to allow them to develop, go through their bumps and bruises, and come out on the other side a successful football team. I think Pace has done a GREAT job, all things considered. I hope that the McCaskey's keep him around for awhile.
Image
User avatar
crueltyabc
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5136
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 7:36 pm
Location: Dallas TX
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 235 times

Now that I've seen some good play from our free agent WRs (and Anthony Miller) I'm officially on board. I was starting to worry that the WR position was going to be what holds us back but I think we're good. The rebuild took a year longer than I'd hoped, but I'm comfortable with where this team is in 2018. I believe Pace can restock as needed, so I think we can be perennial playoff contenders for as long as we have Mitch and Mack.
xyt in the discord chats
User avatar
Bearfacts
MVP
Posts: 1861
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:33 am
Location: Colorado
Has thanked: 866 times
Been thanked: 214 times

I'd call his work to date slightly above average as far as personnel decisions go. While he's come up with some finds from round two through five in the draft and found some good UDFAs overall his failure to draft well in round one has hurt us and his moves in free agency are at best a neutral.

This years crop of UFAs have flashed some talent but no one is playing at Pro Bowl levels save Mack who was acquired in a costly trade because Pace has failed to draft or sign consistently effective pass rushers. No doubt he's improved the roster but to what level? I still see a middle of the road team.
User avatar
Bears Whiskey Nut
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11061
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:06 am
Location: Oak Park, IL
Has thanked: 80 times
Been thanked: 520 times

Bearfacts wrote:I'd call his work to date slightly above average as far as personnel decisions go. While he's come up with some finds from round two through five in the draft and found some good UDFAs overall his failure to draft well in round one has hurt us and his moves in free agency are at best a neutral.

This years crop of UFAs have flashed some talent but no one is playing at Pro Bowl levels save Mack who was acquired in a costly trade because Pace has failed to draft or sign consistently effective pass rushers. No doubt he's improved the roster but to what level? I still see a middle of the road team.
I don't know. Roquan Smith and Mitch Trubisky are doing pretty darn well. Floyd was highly rated by scouts, but known to be a very raw, athletic freak. He's not working out right now, but that's not to say he never will. I would say that his FA's this year have been really good, and you can't judge his FA signings during the Fox era, because they were short term, mid-level players, in order to fill holes and manage the cap during a rebuild.

If your bar for a UFA is the Pro Bowl. You will always be disappointed. Not every free agent that hits the open market is going to be a Pro Bowl level player. If you do sign one, in their prime, they are going to cost you Mack money.
Image
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29900
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 132 times
Been thanked: 2001 times

Bears Whiskey Nut wrote:
Bearfacts wrote:I'd call his work to date slightly above average as far as personnel decisions go. While he's come up with some finds from round two through five in the draft and found some good UDFAs overall his failure to draft well in round one has hurt us and his moves in free agency are at best a neutral.

This years crop of UFAs have flashed some talent but no one is playing at Pro Bowl levels save Mack who was acquired in a costly trade because Pace has failed to draft or sign consistently effective pass rushers. No doubt he's improved the roster but to what level? I still see a middle of the road team.
I don't know. Roquan Smith and Mitch Trubisky are doing pretty darn well. Floyd was highly rated by scouts, but known to be a very raw, athletic freak. He's not working out right now, but that's not to say he never will. I would say that his FA's this year have been really good, and you can't judge his FA signings during the Fox era, because they were short term, mid-level players, in order to fill holes and manage the cap during a rebuild.

If your bar for a UFA is the Pro Bowl. You will always be disappointed. Not every free agent that hits the open market is going to be a Pro Bowl level player. If you do sign one, in their prime, they are going to cost you Mack money.
Exactly.

The "Madden Mentality" that a lot of sports fans have tends to give them unrealistic expectations.
Post Reply