Bears acquiring Foles for a 4th

[G08]

So the contract details were released... $8M per season for Mr. Foles, with a QB option to opt out at any point.

That's less than Mr. Trubisky.

"follow the money"


This further cements in my mind that Foles wasn't brought here to be the starter verbatim. I think this is, at minimum, a hedge to Trubisky sucking. At most? A legit competition for the starting job in 2020.

Barring injury or Trubisky shitting the bed in camp/pre-season, I bet Trubisky starts week 1 2020 for us.

I wouldn't be so sure about though. The best piece of info we could have is what the criteria for Foles opt out is, but we likely won't get that info.

If his opt out is relatively high, say 12 starts, I think he knows he is the favorite to win the job now. If it's lower, like 6 games, he knows it's a situation where Mitch is the favorite, but he may take over by midseason. He's really the guy who's viewpoint you have to consider in this because he had little motivation to restructure his contract and give up base salaries.

From what I've heard it's his choice period. No qualifiers to opt out.

[The Cooler King]

Not sure where you heard that. Everything I've read says there are performance metrics for an opt out;

From Yogi's link posted yesterday;

Based on certain performance thresholds that we will likely never know, Nick Foles has the opportunity to void the remaining years on his deal. Voiding simply means that Foles would opt out of his contractual obligation with the Bears and become a free agent. If he did play so well as to earn all $6 million in incentives in 2020, the overwhelming odds are that he would void 2021 and 2022 and hit the open market for a new contract.

[G08]

Not sure where you heard that. Everything I've read says there are performance metrics for an opt out;

From Yogi's link posted yesterday;

Based on certain performance thresholds that we will likely never know, Nick Foles has the opportunity to void the remaining years on his deal. Voiding simply means that Foles would opt out of his contractual obligation with the Bears and become a free agent. If he did play so well as to earn all $6 million in incentives in 2020, the overwhelming odds are that he would void 2021 and 2022 and hit the open market for a new contract.

I think it means that if he plays, and plays well, he has the opportunity to void his deal and cash-in.

If the Bears traded for him to be the undisputed starter, why would they give him that opportunity? Why not keep him at the price he currently is rather than choose to give him the opportunity to void the deal and make more money?

Long story short, right now, he is being paid backup money. If he plays limited snaps, he will be paid backup money.

[Yogi da Bear]

You're missing the scenario where Mitch wins out and signs for 21 million (the amount that Bridgewater signed for to start in Carolina). Then Foles' 8 mill doesn't look so heavy.

If Mitch wins out I think he's more than a 21m QB. Not a lot of middle ground for him, IMO.

IDK. I think that Bridgewater might be a respectable comp for him. Bridgewater had five starts, 1384 yards, 68% completion percentage, 9 TDs, 2 picks, 7.1 avg, and a 99 QBR. If Mitchell has comparable stats over 16 games, I think he's resigned. Also, remember that Bridgewater's contract came on the open market. If Mitchell wins the starting job and is performing, the Bears could renegotiate him halfway through the year. I also believe that Mitchell is one of those team guys who might accept less to stay with the Bears.

Just some thoughts. Could be wrong though.

And SDF, why would you be so quick to trade the best backup QB in the league with that contract?

[The Cooler King]

Not sure where you heard that. Everything I've read says there are performance metrics for an opt out;

From Yogi's link posted yesterday;

I think it means that if he plays, and plays well, he has the opportunity to void his deal and cash-in.

If the Bears traded for him to be the undisputed starter, why would they give him that opportunity? Why not keep him at the price he currently is rather than choose to give him the opportunity to void the deal and make more money?

Long story short, right now, he is being paid backup money. If he plays limited snaps, he will be paid backup money.

There's zero way to read that where the conclusion is he doesn't have to hit criteria to opt out.

Why would the Bears not keep him at the starter price? It's a good question, but there's a chance its in order to keep his 2020 cost as low as possible. Granted if he plays and plays well he may hit incentives that raise that price back up a little, but it could still lower the overall total investment.

Hypothetical. He hits 3M of his 6M incentives and opts out. The total cost to the bears cap will end up being 11M. As his contract was, it would have been a 20.25 hit (15.25m in 2020 and 5m in 2021). It potentially solves the 2021 hole as cheaply as possible.

Foles does that because if he hits those incentives he's likely looking at a Tannehil like extension (4/118, up to 92 guaranteed). Or as the floor his 4/88(50) deal with the Jags.

[The Cooler King]

If Mitch wins out I think he's more than a 21m QB. Not a lot of middle ground for him, IMO.

IDK. I think that Bridgewater might be a respectable comp for him. Bridgewater had five starts, 1384 yards, 68% completion percentage, 9 TDs, 2 picks, 7.1 avg, and a 99 QBR. If Mitchell has comparable stats over 16 games, I think he's resigned. Also, remember that Bridgewater's contract came on the open market. If Mitchell wins the starting job and is performing, the Bears could renegotiate him halfway through the year. I also believe that Mitchell is one of those team guys who might accept less to stay with the Bears.

Just some thoughts. Could be wrong though.

And SDF, why would you be so quick to trade the best backup QB in the league with that contract?

replying for SDF here, but the Bears would just have too much tied up in too few positions in 2021 in the hypothetical Mitch extension scenario. They'll need every million they can. Most teams with a top paid QB go with a lower investment at the backup spot... its just bad cap management otherwise.

[southdakbearfan]

IDK. I think that Bridgewater might be a respectable comp for him. Bridgewater had five starts, 1384 yards, 68% completion percentage, 9 TDs, 2 picks, 7.1 avg, and a 99 QBR. If Mitchell has comparable stats over 16 games, I think he's resigned. Also, remember that Bridgewater's contract came on the open market. If Mitchell wins the starting job and is performing, the Bears could renegotiate him halfway through the year. I also believe that Mitchell is one of those team guys who might accept less to stay with the Bears.

Just some thoughts. Could be wrong though.

And SDF, why would you be so quick to trade the best backup QB in the league with that contract?

replying for SDF here, but the Bears would just have too much tied up in too few positions in 2021 in the hypothetical Mitch extension scenario. They'll need every million they can. Most teams with a top paid QB go with a lower investment at the backup spot... its just bad cap management otherwise.

In that hypothetical, it would just be a function of the cap. If Mitch balls out and wins the job at the least he will be franchised - 28 million+ or transitioned 23 million+ or so. With Mack/Quinn/Fuller/Jackson/Hicks/Whitehair contracts along with the need to resign Robinson/Miller cap flexibility is going to be a need along with draft capital.

I would put a grand down on that if, if Mitch balls out, wins the job, there is no way he signs a contract under 30 million aav.

[Yogi da Bear]

Depends on how he looks. If he plays like Mahomes, then yes. If like Bridgewater, then paying Trubs 30 mill per wouldn't be smart. Incidentally, transition tag would be the way to go, but I don't think that it's there with the new CBA anymore is it? I don't think there's going to be a tremendous market for his services next season. Who do you foresee pursuing him?

[AZ_Bearfan]

[Yogi da Bear]

Does this sound familiar?

https://theeagleswire.usatoday.com/2018 ... 19-option/

So before the 2017 season, the Eagles paid Foles 5.5 million per year to backup Wentz. He won the Super Bowl in 2017 and they renegotiated his contract in a similar fashion to what the Bears now have. He was able to opt out because of his performance in 2018 and then signed with Jacksonville. That renegotiation paid him seven million and could go up to 14 mill. And they were willing to pay that.

And you don't think we'd be willing to pay him 8 mill per to back up Mitchell?

...Well, unless we got a really good offer in a trade. I mean really good.

[The Cooler King]

Does this sound familiar?

https://theeagleswire.usatoday.com/2018 ... 19-option/

So before the 2017 season, the Eagles paid Foles 5.5 million per year to backup Wentz. He won the Super Bowl in 2017 and they renegotiated his contract in a similar fashion to what the Bears now have. He was able to opt out because of his performance in 2018 and then signed with Jacksonville. That renegotiation paid him seven million and could go up to 14 mill. And they were willing to pay that.

And you don't think we'd be willing to pay him 8 mill per to back up Mitchell?

...Well, unless we got a really good offer in a trade. I mean really good.

The cap crunch is gonna suck really hard next year. Theyll want that 8M back if they have to pay Trubisky 25m+

[dplank]

All I care about is 2020 and starting the QB that gives us the best chance to make the playoffs.
I think that's Foles but maybe Mitch has a major turn around year.

We'll have to decide next year which to keep, keeping both seems impossible.

[G08]

All I care about is 2020 and starting the QB that gives us the best chance to make the playoffs.
I think that's Foles but maybe Mitch has a major turn around year.

We'll have to decide next year which to keep, keeping both seems impossible.

I cheer for the jersey and what's best for the franchise. If Foles is the better option, I hope he wins the job. If it's Trubisky, I hope he's the franchise QB we have been waiting for since forever.

It's year 3 in this scheme. Typically this is when you find QBs begin to have success in traditional West Coast offenses. Yes we are running a derivative but at its most basic roots, this is a WCO.

[UOK]

Hopefully he goes back to wearing #9.

[The Cooler King]

Hopefully he goes back to wearing #9.

I always wanted a great Bears QB to wear 4 and erase the negative Favre connotation. Part of the reason I liked Watson

[BR0D1E86]

You mean other than Chase Daniel? He basically did the same for this franchise, minus the texting of his genitalia.

I get Shave Matthews vibes from that picture up there.

[The Cooler King]

You mean other than Chase Daniel? He basically did the same for this franchise, minus the texting of his genitalia.

Well the Watson train was pre-Daniel.

[AZ_Bearfan]

[Yogi da Bear]

All I care about is 2020 and starting the QB that gives us the best chance to make the playoffs.
I think that's Foles but maybe Mitch has a major turn around year.

We'll have to decide next year which to keep, keeping both seems impossible.

I cheer for the jersey and what's best for the franchise. If Foles is the better option, I hope he wins the job. If it's Trubisky, I hope he's the franchise QB we have been waiting for since forever.

It's year 3 in this scheme. Typically this is when you find QBs begin to have success in traditional West Coast offenses. Yes we are running a derivative but at its most basic roots, this is a WCO.

Nagy has actually said precisely that--"that it take three years for the QB to get his offense...."

[RichH55]

I cheer for the jersey and what's best for the franchise. If Foles is the better option, I hope he wins the job. If it's Trubisky, I hope he's the franchise QB we have been waiting for since forever.

It's year 3 in this scheme. Typically this is when you find QBs begin to have success in traditional West Coast offenses. Yes we are running a derivative but at its most basic roots, this is a WCO.

Nagy has actually said precisely that--"that it take three years for the QB to get his offense...."

Didn't the previous staff say that about Shea and learning anything?

[Yogi da Bear]

I think that was two staffs ago wasn't it?

[G08]

I cheer for the jersey and what's best for the franchise. If Foles is the better option, I hope he wins the job. If it's Trubisky, I hope he's the franchise QB we have been waiting for since forever.

It's year 3 in this scheme. Typically this is when you find QBs begin to have success in traditional West Coast offenses. Yes we are running a derivative but at its most basic roots, this is a WCO.

Nagy has actually said precisely that--"that it take three years for the QB to get his offense...."

3 to get, 5 to master. Careful though... lot of people here don't want to hear that shit no matter how many difference coaches have said it.

[G08]

Hopefully he goes back to wearing #9.

I hope he does too... and IF he does, I'm buying a custom jersey that is 100% identical to the Bears jersey, except the number on the back will say 9" and the name will be BIG DICK NICK

[southdakbearfan]

Depends on how he looks. If he plays like Mahomes, then yes. If like Bridgewater, then paying Trubs 30 mill per wouldn't be smart. Incidentally, transition tag would be the way to go, but I don't think that it's there with the new CBA anymore is it? I don't think there's going to be a tremendous market for his services next season. Who do you foresee pursuing him?

Like I said, if Mitch would ball out and play well. 2018 level or better.

Bridgewater has both major injury implications and only minor duty as a backup, so he is essentially on a prove it deal as well.

Mahomes is going to get 40+ million a year.

28-30 is very shortly going to become very average starting QB money, barring the dumpster fire of an economy and the coronavirus continuing indefinitely.

QB money is so freaking crazy in the NFL it's insane.

[Moriarty]

You mean other than Chase Daniel? He basically did the same for this franchise, minus the texting of his genitalia.

I get Shave Matthews vibes from that picture up there.

Good call on Shane

I think he should pick 11

[Mikefive]

Don't know how you can listen to his PC and not love that guy.

[donkeykong]

Nagy has actually said precisely that--"that it take three years for the QB to get his offense...."

3 to get, 5 to master. Careful though... lot of people here don't want to hear that shit no matter how many difference coaches have said it.

The difference is “getting” the offense and playing well. Just because Trubisky may not have fully “got” the offense...doesn’t mean he should under throw, over throw, plain miss receivers! Trubisky didn’t play well a lot of the time last year and it didn’t have anything to do with understanding an offense...he wasn’t hitting receivers.

[dplank]

Nagy has actually said precisely that--"that it take three years for the QB to get his offense...."

3 to get, 5 to master. Careful though... lot of people here don't want to hear that shit no matter how many difference coaches have said it.

Didn't seem to take Mahomes 3 to get it or 5 to master, he's already got an MVP and Super Bowl under his belt. Didn't seem to take Wentz that long either, odd....seemed to take the both about 1 year to be able to perform at a high level within the offense.

Eagerly awaiting the pivot to the "but Mitch only started 1 year in college" excuse.

[Richie]

All I care about is 2020 and starting the QB that gives us the best chance to make the playoffs.
I think that's Foles but maybe Mitch has a major turn around year.

We'll have to decide next year which to keep, keeping both seems impossible.

It's year 3 in this scheme. Typically this is when you find QBs begin to have success in traditional West Coast offenses. Yes we are running a derivative but at its most basic roots, this is a WCO.

What are the examples of this? Genuinely asking. Just looking at the examples closest to our system and then historically. I don't seem to see it.

McNabb broke out in his first full year starting in Reid's system
Vick succeeded in Reid's immediately
Mahomes succeeded in Reid's immediately
Smith had one of the best years of his career in Reid's right away
Wentz broke out in year #2 with an MVP caliber year under Pederson
Foles went over to Philly as a backup and came in mid-season to win a SB/SB MVP
Foles best full year of his career was in Kelly's spread WCO (see-coast) in his 1st year
Rodgers broke out right away - year #1 in 2008 he was top 5 in yardage, TD's, TD%, QB rating and top 10 in Y/A and CMP%.
Brees had a phenomenal 1st year in New Orleans in Payton's WCO
Montana's first full season = 13-3/SB Champ/breakout year
Young first full season = league MVP (first half season played was also extremely good)

3 to get, 5 to master. Careful though... lot of people here don't want to hear that shit no matter how many difference coaches have said it.

There's a huge difference between "getting/master" every corner of the playbook and not looking downright poor. He never suggested that it was going to be ugly as all hell in year #2, that your QB will be missing rudimentary reads/throws and then suddenly a magic switch is going to flip.

CLEARLY, that's not what he meant. It's rather obvious that he is speaking towards the length of time before the offense might reach its full potential. For instance, Rodgers/Brees and some others broke out right away. Played great. However, it took them until year #3 or so to reach all-pro/MVP/HOF levels of play.

Nobody would get hired in the NFL in the 2010's if they went into job interviews/pressers saying:

"Hey, my offense is going to look like utter shit most of the time and hold the entire team back until my QB figures it all out."
"How long do you think?"
...
"Hmm. 3 to 5 years."
...
...

"Yeah, uh... thanks for coming in coach. We'll let you know."

[Richie]

3 to get, 5 to master. Careful though... lot of people here don't want to hear that shit no matter how many difference coaches have said it.

Didn't seem to take Mahomes 3 to get it or 5 to master, he's already got an MVP and Super Bowl under his belt. Didn't seem to take Wentz that long either, odd....seemed to take the both about 1 year to be able to perform at a high level within the offense.

Eagerly awaiting the pivot to the "but Mitch only started 1 year in college" excuse.

I just posted on this above. I swear, I went through every example both connected to the Reid coaching tree and to historically successful WCO QB's. I can't even think of one legitimately good/great QB that wasn't breaking out by AT LEAST year #2. A ton in year #1 starting.