Talking/Arguing/Vomiting about the Offensive Line

[southdakbearfan]

Mack had 4.5 sacks the first 4.5 games with Hicks. He had 4 sacks the rest of the season.

The team had 17 sacks the first 5 games and 14 the rest of the season.

Pressure is the key to turnovers and drive killing. Hicks is pretty key.

I would say a healthy hicks is a big key to the defensive performance.

[IE]

Way too much emotion. I had already given people credit for being able to discuss all options openly, but that may have been premature. Sorry to turn the sights onto anyone's sacred cow. I wasn't even the origin of it - I just thought it was an interesting topic.

Now, back to regular programming where the loudest most self-important people get to establish what is OK and not OK to discuss even hypothetically.

[UOK]

Way too much emotion. I had already given people credit for being able to discuss all options openly, but that may have been premature. Sorry to turn the sights onto anyone's sacred cow. I wasn't even the origin of it - I just thought it was an interesting topic.

Now, back to regular programming where the loudest most self-important people get to establish what is OK and not OK to discuss even hypothetically.

HOW DARE YOU
YOU WILL SHOW SOME RESPECT
TEAM CHEMISTRY IS IMPORTANT
YOU CAN'T JUSTIFY CUTTING THIS GUY
I WON'T HEAR ANY FURTHER ARGUMENTS SO STOP SHOUTING ABOUT IT
FIRE EVERYONE

[G08]

Way too much emotion. I had already given people credit for being able to discuss all options openly, but that may have been premature. Sorry to turn the sights onto anyone's sacred cow. I wasn't even the origin of it - I just thought it was an interesting topic.

Now, back to regular programming where the loudest most self-important people get to establish what is OK and not OK to discuss even hypothetically.

*confused by deliberate vagueness*


Is your post in reference to @HisRoyalSweetness ?

This discussion about Hicks all came about because TMP listed a number of players including Hicks who could be cut to save significant cap money that could then be spent on upgrading the offensive line. The idea of cutting Hicks was met with incredulity but IE, quite reasonably, argued that the notion shouldn't simply be dismissed and was worthy of discussion. He then proceeded to explain why and quoted some rushing statistics to make an argument that the team didn't really miss Hicks when he was out injured.

However, as I've attempted to point out, his use of statistics is flawed and if you delve into them a little deeper the rushing statistics actually point to the opposite of his conclusion. If you'll forgive me for prolonging the Hicks argument for a moment, I'll respond to IE's previous post to reiterate why.

Hicks played 4 games not 3, and was pretty fierce against the Pack in the 2nd game... playing through pain and making an impact. But if you look at the stats he didn't really skew the results that much versus his replacements all season (so kudos to them). The D still gave up their 80-100 yard average (which is good!!). Same with Kwit and PL ... those guys stepped in and kept the D performance elevated.

The flaw in your conclusion is there's no context. Is the team better with him in there and healthy? Sure. A little bit for sure. But that's not the discussion here.

This is NOT a "Hicks sucks" discussion or a "Hicks is in decline discussion either for that matter (even though his age and shape are legit issues). The discussion is "How do we improve the Oline, and what are the opportunities to do so?"

It is about replacement value and cost, and bettering the team overall. It is about looking at all the big chunks of dollars committed and figuring out how those dollars could be potentially re-allocated to spots of greater need. It is "Hicks is really good, and seems to have some intangibles... but you know what? The defense statistically still happens to be top-notch without him. Pace has in place at least close to replacement-level players, and that exposes Hicks' cost as a legitimate opportunity to shift millions of dollars of resource to shore up the part of the team that every single person here (including you) believes needs it most.

I'm well aware that Hicks played in the second Packers game after returning from IR, which is why I emphasised 'when he was fully healthy'. As you point out, he played tough but had to keep coming out of that game because of the amount of pain he was in. That game is cannot really be taken as indicative of the contribution to this defense that a healthy Hicks makes. Nevertheless, if you want to factor in that game then that's fine.

First 3 games with a fully healthy Hicks
Rushing yards per game: 69
Rushing yards per carry: 3.1

Remaining 13 games without a fully healthy Hicks
Rushing yards per game: 110
Rushing yards per carry: 4.1

All 4 games with Hicks
Rushing yards per game:77
Rushing yards per carry: 3.4

12 games without Hicks
Rushing yards per game: 111
Rushing yards per carry: 4.1

So, as before, without a healthy Hicks the defense gave up 41 more yards a game and a full yard more per carry. Without Hicks at all the defense still gave up an additional 34 yards a game and 0.7 ypc more.

You say 'if you look at the stats he didn't really skew the results that much versus his replacements all season'. The stats above show you are incorrect.

You say the 'D still gave up their 80-100 yard average' without Hicks. They didn't; they gave up an average of 110 yards per game without him versus 77 with him.

You say 'The defense statistically still happens to be top-notch without him'. The defense fell outside of the top 10 against the rush if you compare the 12 games without Hicks against the full season figures for the league. The defense wasn't 'top-notch' this year; it was top 10 but nowhere near the elite force it was in 2018... except through the first 4 games, in which Hicks played in 3.

You say 'Pace has in place at least close to replacement-level players, and that exposes Hicks' cost as a legitimate opportunity to shift millions of dollars of resource to shore up' the offensive line. Your conclusion that there are 'close to replacement-level players' on the defensive line is highly debatable and not born out by the statistics above. They only have 4 other defensive linemen under contract, and one is NT Eddie Goldman. Have Abdullah Anderson or James Vaughters or even Bilal Nicols really convinced you that they can play anywhere close to Hicks's level? Nothing you've posted 'exposes Hicks' cost as a legitimate opportunity to shift millions of dollars of resource'.

Where we do agree is that this is not a discussion about Hicks's ability, it is about the offensive line. As others have pointed out there are plenty of other ways to free up money without parting ways with Hicks. The question is where could that money realistically be spent and even if it should be ploughed into the line or whether the draft is a better way to go, especially given the amount tied up in the tackle positions for another season.

^ Terrific post and excellent use of data to back up his points.

[BamaBear09]

Way too much emotion. I had already given people credit for being able to discuss all options openly, but that may have been premature. Sorry to turn the sights onto anyone's sacred cow. I wasn't even the origin of it - I just thought it was an interesting topic.

Now, back to regular programming where the loudest most self-important people get to establish what is OK and not OK to discuss even hypothetically.

WTF, be more condescending and self-righteous... people showed exactly why most believe there isn't really a reason to cut Hicks this off-season... the Bears are not in some dire position where they can't find cap space by being creative and moving bonuses around to create lower cap hits on bigger contracts... so cool, you think it's an interesting topic, for what reason? Just cause? Seems like you are more interested in making a scene and then attempting to call out others for an "emotional response". So please, do tell how cutting Hicks this off-season would help the team.... and make sure you put away your cross when you decide to come down off of it...

[IE]

LOL UOK - that's awesome.

G - That wasn't pointed at anyone in particular, other than just the idea that any team change discussions are verboten if anyindividual decides to declare them so.

Bamadude: You mad, bro?

[BamaBear09]

Nah, just waiting on you to make a point on why it makes sense to cut Hicks... unless it's because you already said it by saying the Hicks is 5% better than Nick Williams... and if that's your analysis, I'm pretty sure we're done with this conversation...

[dplank]

Nah, just waiting on you to make a point on why it makes sense to cut Hicks... unless it's because you already said it by saying the Hicks is 5% better than Nick Williams... and if that's your analysis, I'm pretty sure we're done with this conversation...

[IE]

Nah, just waiting on you to make a point on why it makes sense to cut Hicks... unless it's because you already said it by saying the Hicks is 5% better than Nick Williams... and if that's your analysis, I'm pretty sure we're done with this conversation...

That's cool. That's not really what I was saying, because you left out a "small little thing" like the entire benefit of why it might be worth considering. Intentionally getting worse at a position on it's own and getting nothing out of it is indeed a very silly conversation, then - and I agree no sense in continuing that.

You have to really hate a player to suggest that getting rid of them on it's own would help the team. I do feel that way about Adam Shaheen. I do not feel that way about Hicks. With Hicks, there is tremendous value and a great resource - whether it is realized by having him on the team as a player, or by using those resources to make the team better in other ways.

The origin of this sub-discussion about Hicks was centered around how to make the Oline better, and a though experiment about how bad is it really and what is on the table in terms of moves that would be made to fix it. If the Oline is the main reason the offense is bad by far, and offense can be brought up to above average by bringing in 2 expensive FA OTs instead of one, and there would only be a marginal hit on the D by making a few changes that free up enough cap (let's say top 12 instead of top 5)... is that something we would think is worth it? Or not?

I understand all this almost certainly wouldn't happen - because the existing OTs cost too much. I really don't know if there would be any trade value to them (e.g. could they get a draft pick for them and free up at least part of that money?). But again - how bad are they and how desperate are we to move on from them? This discussion helps shed light on that.

[BamaBear09]

Nah, just waiting on you to make a point on why it makes sense to cut Hicks... unless it's because you already said it by saying the Hicks is 5% better than Nick Williams... and if that's your analysis, I'm pretty sure we're done with this conversation...

That's cool. That's not really what I was saying, because you left out a "small little thing" like the entire benefit of why it might be worth considering. Intentionally getting worse at a position on it's own and getting nothing out of it is indeed a very silly conversation, then - and I agree no sense in continuing that.

You have to really hate a player to suggest that getting rid of them on it's own would help the team. I do feel that way about Adam Shaheen. I do not feel that way about Hicks. With Hicks, there is tremendous value and a great resource - whether it is realized by having him on the team as a player, or by using those resources to make the team better in other ways.

The origin of this sub-discussion about Hicks was centered around how to make the Oline better, and a though experiment about how bad is it really and what is on the table in terms of moves that would be made to fix it. If the Oline is the main reason the offense is bad by far, and offense can be brought up to above average by bringing in 2 expensive FA OTs instead of one, and there would only be a marginal hit on the D by making a few changes that free up enough cap (let's say top 12 instead of top 5)... is that something we would think is worth it? Or not?

I understand all this almost certainly wouldn't happen - because the existing OTs cost too much. I really don't know if there would be any trade value to them (e.g. could they get a draft pick for them and free up at least part of that money?). But again - how bad are they and how desperate are we to move on from them? This discussion helps shed light on that.

I guess I didn't get the setup of the cutting Hicks as assistance in adding the two higher priced OTs. I believe that is where the disconnect is... most believe that losing Hicks would be a bigger impact on the defense than adding an all-pro LT and above average RT with bigger price tags. In that aspect, I would say I agree because I don't really feel the OTs were the major issue this past season. Yes, Leno played poorly early in the year and I was very much at a point where I believed he was pretty much stealing by accepting his game check. But in the middle of the season, I think he sat down and watched himself and realized how poor he was playing. He made an adjustment and played much better from that point on. Once that happened the pass blocking as a whole for the team improved. I don't think Massie played too bad this season considering he had a guy who shouldn't have been starting next to him for most of the season. Coward is a good spot duty backup guy but he proved he is not a starter.

Daniels played better after the switch from center and Whitehair played well back at center, but making a change that would allow him to move back to guard would help him improve further. This is where I agree with Wab as far as what it will take to make the line average to above average and enough to make it work in it's current cap setup... adding a solid vet at center, which will help with pre-snap blocking adjustments and blitz pick-ups...

As for the run blocking, with the firings I get the feeling that Harry wasn't really Nagy's choice... I really feel like the upper management has a real struggle with trusting people they feel are inexperienced in their new roles... much like I still feel like Fox was an upper management choice for Pace (I wonder how this team would look had Pace been able to bring in someone like say Kyle Shanahan in 2015, instead of Fox), I feel like Nagy was required to bring in some folks who the upper management was familiar with, hence how he ended up with Harry, someone know for power/iso run blocking, to teach olinemen to be used in a zone blocking scheme... which appears to have failed as magnificently as it could have... also would explain why the Bears blocked so much better in I-formation/power I... So that leads to the question, what if adding Juan Castillo and Stefen Wisniewski allows the running game to improve completely in 2020? With said improved running game, the pass blocking improves and thus offensive production improves... And doesn't require any extra cuts to accomplish...

[Drone7]

"I really feel like the upper management has a real struggle with trusting people they feel are inexperienced in their new roles."

Then why did upper management hire Pace and Nagy?

[BamaBear09]

"I really feel like the upper management has a real struggle with trusting people they feel are inexperienced in their new roles."

Then why did upper management hire Pace and Nagy?

Maybe because they failed so spectacularly with their previous selection, Phil Emery, who was chosen because he had a familiarity with the franchise as he was an area scout from 1998-2004... who they let choose his own coach... and we all saw how those two seasons went... so they finally decided that maybe hiring a younger GM might be a good idea, but because of how poor Emery did with selecting his own coach they decide to hedge their bet by saddling him with an older HC who has loads of NFL experience instead of letting him choose his own coach... and after that failed miserably they finally let their young GM bring in his own guy...

[wab]

"I really feel like the upper management has a real struggle with trusting people they feel are inexperienced in their new roles."

Then why did upper management hire Pace and Nagy?

I don't think it's an upper management issue. I think it's a new "thing" in the NFL where super young NFL coaches seem to think they need respected veteran assistants regardless of whether or not their philosophies mesh. Tomlin kind of started the trend. McVay did it, Nagy has done it... what's his dick in Green Bay did it.

[AZ_Bearfan]

Bears Could Have Answer to Line Troubles on Roster

https://www.si.com/nfl/bears/news/bears ... -on-roster

I'd still like to see Cushenberry in a Bears uniform, but I guess this Levin kid could technically get up to speed faster and be ready week 1.

[wab]

If I have to continue to see Coward (who I DO like) out there playing RG like he's trying to play RT... I'll give up.

[HisRoyalSweetness]

Bears Could Have Answer to Line Troubles on Roster

https://www.si.com/nfl/bears/news/bears ... -on-roster

I'd still like to see Cushenberry in a Bears uniform, but I guess this Levin kid could technically get up to speed faster and be ready week 1.

I don't see how a guy who failed to stick with two teams is going to solve the Bear's interior line issues. Seems like another case of the media putting too much stock into the fact that a player was drafted rather than asking why the team that selected him cut him after just two seasons and his next team only considered him good enough for their practice squad.

The guy's been in the league for 4 seasons and has only actually played in one of them. That was his second and the Titans cut him. Surely that tells us all we need to know?

[Yogi da Bear]

My thoughts on doing anything with Akeem:

[BreadNCircuses]

Out of curiosity, does anyone think Massey could move inside to RG and be successful there?
I'm not saying it's our best option, but if there's a better option to get a RT than a RG, either through Free Agency or the Draft, if Massey could play RG that could be a possibility.

[dplank]

I do, have suggested it multiple times. I'd like Leno to try also. But I thought Massie was more of a mauler type who struggles with lateral movement / speed rush more than anything on the outside (Leno's strength). But once he gets his hands on you, it's generally over - that sort of thing makes me think he could do well inside. The only problem there is he's never been asked to do it before, so it's total conjecture. He's top heavy and plays high, neither of those traits are good inside, but he's so strong I think he could pull it off. He's a similar body type to Leonard Davis, who was also a fail outside but found a lot of success inside when he went to the Cowboys.

Leno/Daniels/Whitehair/Massie/Conklin would be a pretty damn good OL. Right side power run could be outstanding in this config.

[BreadNCircuses]

Problem I see is Conklin is even more of a liability vs the speed pass rush than Massie is.

[BamaBear09]

I do, have suggested it multiple times. I'd like Leno to try also. But I thought Massie was more of a mauler type who struggles with lateral movement / speed rush more than anything on the outside (Leno's strength). But once he gets his hands on you, it's generally over - that sort of thing makes me think he could do well inside. The only problem there is he's never been asked to do it before, so it's total conjecture. He's top heavy and plays high, neither of those traits are good inside, but he's so strong I think he could pull it off. He's a similar body type to Leonard Davis, who was also a fail outside but found a lot of success inside when he went to the Cowboys.

Leno/Daniels/Whitehair/Massie/Conklin would be a pretty damn good OL. Right side power run could be outstanding in this config.

Does Nagy want to run power to the right side? Don't feel like Castillo was brought in for a power run game...

[Drone7]

Agree with dplank's trait assessment, but disagree that he would be a good guard because of those traits. I doubt he plays with enough leverage. He has strictly been a RT in college and the pros. So he's a one trick pony and a mediocrity not suited to a zone scheme. They need to replace him in 2021 with someone more athletic.

Am hoping they draft a versatile OL that can play RG well like Elton Jenkins played LG for the Packers--he played all 3 positions in college and he was very good right away for the Packers. Either keep him at RG for good, but hopefully whomever is versatile enough to optionally play OT in 2021 if the incumbents struggle again. I'll leave it to the draftniks here to speculate on a prospect that can be a G/T type.

[BreadNCircuses]

https://www.rotoworld.com/football/nfl/ ... t-williams

NFL Network's Mike Garafolo reports a trade for LT Trent Williams hasn't been close to happening yet.

The Redskins reportedly want a second round pick for Williams, but NFL teams aren't biting at that asking price. That's been the biggest hurdle right now, so unless Washington asks for less draft capital, then everyone will be at a standstill. Even if the Redskins and another team agree on trade compensation, Williams will have to agree to a long-term contract because it's unlikely that he'll play on his current deal. ESPN's John Keim reports Williams wants $20 million annually.