BearsFansOnline.com

dplank wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 9:25 am

Yogi da Bear wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 3:13 pm 8 mill per seems like a lot for Danny. Guess they figured that Roquan wouldn't be ready to call signals any time soon.

The logic here is just excruciating.

"I saw a rock on the ground yesterday. Later on I heard a plane crashed. I guess rocks cause plane crashes now."

Yes, but could you get a rock through security?

dplank wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 5:08 pm

Drone7 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 3:45 pm We don't know the diagnosis because Smith and the team have claimed confidentiality. It was a bizarre episode, but it's not something we can comment upon.

They have not entrusted the defense to him as many of us had hoped when drafted.

You seem sure enough about it to say something dozens of times, quite literally every time Roquan's name comes up...what do you know that we don't?

And why have him call the defense if we already have a core locker room leader, at the same position, already doing it? Who cares? Must we force a change because people like you will otherwise say he has a "chronic or serious mental condition"? You're fixation here is just weird. Geezus.

Now you're headed into straw man territory, dude...I didn't suggest handing the play-calling duties to Smith, did I?

I merely pointed out that they paid more guaranteed money that many of us expected to a battered 30 year old LB partly BECAUSE they trust him to call the plays--not Smith. And I would remind you, that when Danny T went out, they didn't hand the play-calling to the other starter--Smith--they gave it to backup LB Kwit--a player they appear to be moving on from. If Smith was up to speed mentally, it might have made more sense to see how he handled it, if that was to be in the cards in the near future, no?

I don't know, or frankly care a whole lot, about why he's not calling plays. It doesn't mean anything. It most certainly doesn't mean that he has a "chronic" or "serious" mental condition, as you've suggested repeatedly when discussing this particular issue.

The best player on the defense doesn't necessarily call the plays. I might find it slightly odd if he were the MLB in a 4-3, but to allow a tenured vet (and vocal leader) call the plays instead AS A FELLOW 3-4 ILB is utterly meaningless. We know about as much as Pagano's reasoning behind this (and whether it actually reflects poorly on Roquan or not) as we do his mysterious benching for personal reasons. Kwit stepped in for Danny and called plays like Danny did....got it....really don't care.

All I know is the kid can play, and I'm excited to see him play great in 2020.

Let's just leave it that you are not suspicious and I am...and we'll see how it plays out. It would be interesting to see who'd call the defense IF Kwit leaves and Danny gets hurt again. I would hope by now that Smith can handle that.

I also hope he does well going forward and eventually becomes the captain of the defense.

Gibron being Gibron

The Cooler King wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 5:07 am

Richie wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 12:20 am

Well, he played a full one in 18 and 3/4's in 17. However, I digress, as you have a good point.

Again, I just think it depends on where his contract winds-up falling among ILB's in terms of value.

I don't like the idea of having let both Danny and Kwit walk. Not before a season where you absolutely HAVE to win. That position demands a lot in terms of play calling, audibling, etc. It's a veteran/leadership sort of role. The QB of the defense, for a lack of a better word. You really have to know the D and each player's responsibility (not just your own) inside/out.

In other words, you have to know the defense itself inside and out in order to really nail it. I don't like the idea of having an unknown/UFA/rookie commanding it in such an important year.

It may be my ignorance, but why couldn't Roquan have stepped into that leadership role? While their play-specific responsibilities are different, I'm sure, both ILB are out there basically 100% of the time. Concerning if it's a lack of confidence in Smith as you'd want more from a top 10 pick entering year 3.

Well, first... it's not the same position. As has been touched on - both ILB positions are different. Just as both safety positions are different. They're not necessarily interchangeable. Kwit struggled when thrust into Roquan's current position in the past. Then, he nailed Trevathan's position this past year. That was a good example that was mentioned.

Second, does Roquan seem like he's wrapped all that tight to you? I don't know. That whole incident last season didn't make it seem that way. The whole iPad incident before camp his rookie year. He seems to have some mental lapses out there too. I just don't know about making him the QB of the defense.

Richie wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 12:31 am

The Cooler King wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 5:07 am

It may be my ignorance, but why couldn't Roquan have stepped into that leadership role? While their play-specific responsibilities are different, I'm sure, both ILB are out there basically 100% of the time. Concerning if it's a lack of confidence in Smith as you'd want more from a top 10 pick entering year 3.

Well, first... it's not the same position. As has been touched on - both ILB positions are different. Just as both safety positions are different. They're not necessarily interchangeable. Kwit struggled when thrust into Roquan's current position in the past. Then, he nailed Trevathan's position this past year. That was a good example that was mentioned.

Yes, I know the positions aren't the same, but is one really the "leadership" spot? That just doesn't make sense. So, sure Kwit might physically fit one spot better. That's fine. But I don't see the "Danny's spot was a leadership/play calling spot" as being all that logical.

Richie wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 12:31 am

The Cooler King wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 5:07 am

It may be my ignorance, but why couldn't Roquan have stepped into that leadership role? While their play-specific responsibilities are different, I'm sure, both ILB are out there basically 100% of the time. Concerning if it's a lack of confidence in Smith as you'd want more from a top 10 pick entering year 3.

Well, first... it's not the same position. As has been touched on - both ILB positions are different. Just as both safety positions are different. They're not necessarily interchangeable. Kwit struggled when thrust into Roquan's current position in the past. Then, he nailed Trevathan's position this past year. That was a good example that was mentioned.

Second, does Roquan seem like he's wrapped all that tight to you? I don't know. That whole incident last season didn't make it seem that way. The whole iPad incident before camp his rookie year. He seems to have some mental lapses out there too. I just don't know about making him the QB of the defense.

so we agree. I had HOPED he would be a B Wagner type leader, but he may just be a run and chase ILB. Too early to tell--he's still young and they are being protective.

Roquan called the plays and was the leader of the Georiga D his last year there....pretty sure he can do it here too.

Packers just gave Christian Kirksey 8 mill per year....Still think we overpaid for DT? If this contract is a sign of the market, Pace got a steal.

cblaz11 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 8:53 am Packers just gave Christian Kirksey 8 mill per year....Still think we overpaid for DT? If this contract is a sign of the market, Pace got a steal.

Maybe its more about people thinking we should have spent the money elsewhere than Danny T/ILB

cblaz11 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 8:53 am Packers just gave Christian Kirksey 8 mill per year....Still think we overpaid for DT? If this contract is a sign of the market, Pace got a steal.

You beat me to it.

And it also means the Packers are probably out of the Kwiatkowski sweepstakes. They would have an awful lot of money tied up at ILB.

Per twitter - Bears not expected to retain KPL.

HurricaneBear wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 9:04 am

cblaz11 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 8:53 am Packers just gave Christian Kirksey 8 mill per year....Still think we overpaid for DT? If this contract is a sign of the market, Pace got a steal.

Maybe its more about people thinking we should have spent the money elsewhere than Danny T/ILB

Maybe - though the criticisms did seem to feel based on it being "too much" generally (IMHO)

The Cooler King wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 1:41 am Yes, I know the positions aren't the same, but is one really the "leadership" spot? That just doesn't make sense. So, sure Kwit might physically fit one spot better. That's fine. But I don't see the "Danny's spot was a leadership/play calling spot" as being all that logical.

It is odd, I just don't make too much out of it or make a bunch of false intellectual leaps based on extremely limited information. There are other possible explanations that make pining about Roquan's mental status or leadership capabilities fruitless and silly (unless you have an agenda). Some random thoughts...

1. I "think" that spot is the spot that Pagano prefers to have make the calls, for whatever reason. Pagano is already known to force a round peg into a square hole, so maybe he just didn't want to adjust the play calling position when Danny went out?

2. Pagano isn't the most technically prepared coach. This isn't a Pagano rant, but the fact is that in that Raiders game when the headsets went out, it was widely reported that Pagano was not prepared to issue HAND SIGNALS to call the defense?!?!?!?! That is UNFORGIVABLE unpreparedness. So is it a big leap to think that he decided to just have whoever manned Danny's position call the plays for pure simplicity sake vs. thinking "hey, Roquan's our 1st round pick, I should ask him to do it even though it's not the normal position" - not sure what they would really gain by having Roquan call plays from a different position?

3. Maybe they value tenure? If so, both Danny and Kwit have had double the time in Chicago as Roquan.

4. Maybe they thought that since Roquan was playing a new position himself, it might be wise to not burden him further with play calling responsibilities?

5. For the time Danny was playing, Danny is basically the team captain/heart and soul of our unit. He is who SHOULD be calling the plays, regardless of when Roquan was drafted. We do week by week captains, but it's widely known the role Danny plays in our locker room.

6. It's Roquans 2nd year, and 2nd new system to learn. Maybe they just wanted him to focus on learning his new position and scheme nuances?

I could keep going...bottom line is it's stupid to portray Roquan in a negative light over something so superficial and that we have no idea why was done anyways. And as has been already admitted, we know nothing about his game missed either - it's come out now that maybe it was a personal health scare with him or maybe a family member (but we don't know if this is true either). It's just a purely negative, cynical POV to consistently cast him in a negative light over this.

Since we know nearly nothing about all of it, we should offer up roughly the same amount of proclamations about it - none.

Sounds like someone is engaging in false intellectual leaps based on extremely limited information with a Pagano agenda.

No, my Pagano agenda is based on measurable, known results. 20-40% production drop off in nearly every statistical category. Very different from speculating on someone missing a game and no one being told why.

Nice try!

dplank wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 11:40 am No, my Pagano agenda is based on measurable, known results. 20-40% production drop off in nearly every statistical category. Very different from speculating on someone missing a game and no one being told why.

Nice try!

ah, but you omitted one significant fact: Smith wandered around the sideline for his missed game due to problems above the neck.

How's that for a try?

Drone7 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 11:44 am

dplank wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 11:40 am No, my Pagano agenda is based on measurable, known results. 20-40% production drop off in nearly every statistical category. Very different from speculating on someone missing a game and no one being told why.

Nice try!

ah, but you omitted one significant fact: Smith wandered around the sideline for his missed game due to problems above the neck.

How's that for a try?

Same nonsense on a different day - the kind of "Brissett was a good signing" nonsense people should come to expect from you.

It should be noted - this seems like a solid ILB draft too

Will be very interesting to see the Kwit to Raiders $$$

With this being a good ILB draft and Kwit (probably) netting the Bears a Comp Pick next year - and DT making less than the Kirsey's of the world.

This might be a nice Pace move overall

*I do not consider myself much of a Pace apologist (I know I'm new to this board) - I was very hard on the stupidity of the Sims 2nd Year, and the Glennon fiasco (even the Cam Meredith situation - which he ultimately got right - I questioned the process) - So there are my bonafides

I officially feel better about this deal.

https://overthecap.com/player/danny-trevathan/13/

After you figure for the dummy years, the cap hits are $4.8m, $5.75m, $5.75m

Paying him half of what Kwit is seeking? Yep, I'm good.

This is a great deal for Pace and the Bears.

crueltyabc wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 2:15 pm I officially feel better about this deal.

https://overthecap.com/player/danny-trevathan/13/

After you figure for the dummy years, the cap hits are $4.8m, $5.75m, $5.75m

Paying him half of what Kwit is seeking? Yep, I'm good.

Agreed. Fantastic all around - this is quality work by the Front Office

crueltyabc wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 2:15 pm I officially feel better about this deal.

https://overthecap.com/player/danny-trevathan/13/

After you figure for the dummy years, the cap hits are $4.8m, $5.75m, $5.75m

Paying him half of what Kwit is seeking? Yep, I'm good.

Well, it's some clever cap magic, to be sure. And it fits the Bears' situation well. But you can't ignore that there's 5.25M of dead cap attached to the 4th year of the deal, too.
No one will care if it turns out they're not competing that year. But if they are, then it's not fun.

Moriarty wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 2:51 pm

crueltyabc wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 2:15 pm I officially feel better about this deal.

https://overthecap.com/player/danny-trevathan/13/

After you figure for the dummy years, the cap hits are $4.8m, $5.75m, $5.75m

Paying him half of what Kwit is seeking? Yep, I'm good.

Well, it's some clever cap magic, to be sure. And it fits the Bears' situation well. But you can't ignore that there's 5.25M of dead cap attached to the 4th year of the deal, too.
No one will care if it turns out they're not competing that year. But if they are, then it's not fun.

Time value of money (and cap space) - never forget

Yea, great deal for us. Well done!! We keep the better player, and better leader, at a lower price. The Raiders are taking a big leap on Kwit, I like the kid so I wish him the best but I'm glad we didn't overpay him.

RichH55 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 3:07 pm

Moriarty wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 2:51 pm

Well, it's some clever cap magic, to be sure. And it fits the Bears' situation well. But you can't ignore that there's 5.25M of dead cap attached to the 4th year of the deal, too.
No one will care if it turns out they're not competing that year. But if they are, then it's not fun.

Time value of money (and cap space) - never forget

Time value of money is a questionable way to look at it if you can't afford the hit now, IMO.

FWIW Kwit got almost the same exact deal as DT. Makes the DT deal look kinda questionable now.

wab wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 3:44 pm FWIW Kwit got almost the same exact deal as DT. Makes the DT deal look kinda questionable now.

Interesting.
I would assume Kwit would have taken the same deal to stay. So, presumably the Bears were offering him less.