Offensive Line and Winning

For all things Chicago Bears

Moderator: wab

RichH55
Head Coach
Posts: 3427
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 4 times

thunderspirit wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 11:12 pm
RichH55 wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 5:34 pm

Please, please, please stop saying this.

It is untrue.
The Bears didn't have an opportunity to add significant salary in major FA deals without cutting into future cap totals. When inheriting an old roster with some big price tags, job #1 is to get your cap right.


While you are technically correct that Poles could have made splash investments by basically borrowing against future cap space, that wasn't the wise thing to do with the team he took over and so he didn't.
Most of the FA deals tend to have a lower first year Cap hit - Not every time mind you, but alot. (Armstead's Cap Hit for example in 2022 is only like 4 million - jumps markedly in 2023)

The Bears had/have significant Cap Room. True even after we dealt Mack (which accelerated some cap hits we were gonna pay eventually - but all onto this years balance sheet)

And again - I generally liked the Poles approach - so I totally agree with you (we can quibble around more specific details - Cappa, or the comp pick etc) on the "that wasn't the WISE thing to do". Emphasis added

But that is a Should Not Could argument.

The Bears are awash in Cap Room - When people say Poles had no Cap Room for 2022. They are simply factual incorrect.
RichH55
Head Coach
Posts: 3427
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 4 times

artbest01 wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 11:19 am . Either way, Justin will need to use his elite athleticism often and must make quicker decisions.
The second part here is the thing that actually matters

There isn't a human being in the history of the world who was faster than even a Chad Pennington hard throw
RichH55
Head Coach
Posts: 3427
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 4 times

I also find myself kind of flip flopping on the Cappa contract
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6288
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 83 times

RichH55 wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 12:42 pm I also find myself kind of flip flopping on the Cappa contract
10M seems like too much IIRC, but I’m also not afraid to overpay (within reason) for a need position.
This is a fan / opinion chat board. The opinions in this post are just that - my opinions. Please treat them as such unless otherwise notified. Have yourself a great day.
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Head Coach
Posts: 4407
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 54 times

RichH55 wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 12:42 pm I also find myself kind of flip flopping on the Cappa contract
There is an odd part of me that feels disappointed when you don't try and tear me a new asshole after I make a post.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a masochist or anything. I also have an awesome amount of self esteem and self confidence.

It's just that well I don't know how to put my finger on it I suppose.
Image Image

GAME. BLOUSES.
RichH55
Head Coach
Posts: 3427
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 4 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 5:07 pm
RichH55 wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 12:42 pm I also find myself kind of flip flopping on the Cappa contract
There is an odd part of me that feels disappointed when you don't try and tear me a new asshole after I make a post.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a masochist or anything. I also have an awesome amount of self esteem and self confidence.

It's just that well I don't know how to put my finger on it I suppose.
Well - the Score to beat is Fields is a Hero - so if you beat that you can have an asshole akin to Jenna Jameson
RichH55
Head Coach
Posts: 3427
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 4 times

dplank wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 5:06 pm
RichH55 wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 12:42 pm I also find myself kind of flip flopping on the Cappa contract
10M seems like too much IIRC, but I’m also not afraid to overpay (within reason) for a need position.
Yeah - it's actually a shade under 10 million - he's only 27 - Still an overpay

I think there is where us missing out on Comp pick is why I'd reconsider - if Cappa is costing you a late 3rd to overpay him? No way. But if this means not having to hope a viable OL makes it to FA next year? Maybe

Granted if one of the 900 late round picks (or sadly Jenkins) winds up being the goods - I'll eat some crow (and I put a decent amount on that btw)

Here's list of MAYBE OL that could hit OL (no Im not putting guys like Nelson on it - they aren't making it to FA)
User avatar
Teddy KGB
Journeyman
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 1:43 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 6 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:47 am
Teddy KGB wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:40 pm

It's funny you bring up the garbage heap that is ChyCitysports, when you are behaving exactly as one of their trolls, moving to personal attacks when someone disagrees with your opinion. 😱


Let's see if you can calm down and have a rational discussion.

You can get good players from free agency. The ones you deem high quality likely would not be the ones I deem high quality. You only on rare occasion pick up pro bowlers in free agency.

However there are plenty of decent players but you have to be careful not to overspend otherwise you end up like the 1990s Snyder Redskins who were always spending out their ass on free agents and ending up with a bad team and in cap hell.

There's a time and a place to use free agency and it's best uses are usually in the second and third waves after the spending craze has died down. You can get a lot of very serviceable and very productive players who can help contribute in those rounds of free agency.

But if you are looking for a highly valuable and highly expensive free agent, that free agent better be the final piece you need for a Super bowl because usually there are some severe cap ramifications that come with it.

The Bears are nowhere near that.

Situationally speaking, it makes zero sense for the Bears to go out and spend like crazy this off season. They had a draft. Everyone's getting used to the new system. Matt Nagy was so incompetent that a proper assessment likely could not be completely done so you may end up wasting money on a position that's redundant if you were to spend this off season, and so on and so forth.

Next year will be more interesting and very much a very unique year for the Bears.

I believe they will have far and away the most cap space of any team. They will have a year under this new system to be able to evaluate and see exactly what they need.

So I wouldn't be surprised in an abnormal year where all the players have been evaluated during the 2022 season against what Poles and Flus are trying to do, if the Bears did spend a bit more and front loaded a lot of contracts to fill in some holes going into the 2023 season.

Beyond that we will see. The Bears aren't going anywhere in 2022 anyway. So to get all worked up over what they are doing is stupid. They had their draft and they are going to use this year to evaluate everything.


Have a little patience for a change.
I've been patient since I was a little kid in 1985.

The problem is that there's a Chicken vs The Egg argument going on.

In That Corner: The Bears are going to suck this year there's no point in spending money in FA.

In This Corner: One of the reasons why we're going to suck is because we aren't spending money in FA.

Here's the situation as I see it:

1) Potential franchise QB on a rookie deal which translates into about $30M in cap savings before an extension is given.
2) Next year our cap space is stratospheric. As of now it's $88M. If get rid of both Quinn and EJax it is $106M.
3) Two starting OL on rookie deals. Maybe 3.

If we weren't in the position to go shopping this offseason then we'll never be.

We were in a position to add 1 or 2 high profile FAs. My overwhelming preference would've been OL.

I personally think there's a really good chance we're not going to be as bad as everybody makes us out to be. A Cover-2 defense is an easy one to learn and allows you to play fast. We've got a defensive minded coach and we still have talent on defense.

Under McNagy we effectively conceded the offensive side of the ball for three years. All we need is an offense that shows up to work and does even an average job.

In order to do that though we need players. I would start with the offensive line. We had the cap space. There were players out there. Poles chose to do nothing.


Ok, so we can have a conversation. Good.

Here's my take - impatience makes for poor decisions. Yes, as a fan, the waiting sucks for us. But there never has been a successful franchise built on impatience, and I dare say rarely if ever was there a Championship team built on impatience.

Now for me, words have meaning. Note I said impatience, NOT Aggressiveness. There HAVE been aggressive teams who have built success into their dna. And I can understand the desire for the Bears to be aggressive. However, success means knowing the difference between aggressiveness and impatience. If one cannot tell the difference, one cannot be successful.

In terms of the Bears - personally, would I have preferred them to be more aggressive? Certainly. However, Poles is being patient this year. He's on year one of a multi-year deal, and the previous administration was such hot garbage that very little useful can be gleaned from looking at the film for it.

So with the time he has, he is opting to have professionals put new systems in place, and take this year as an evaluation year. It might not be popular, but why spend a ton of money on a team when you don't even know exactly what you have? You may overpay for a player who ultimately doesn't fit what you are trying to do.

This is a rebuild and evaluation year. Yes, its going to be bad. Buckle up and manage expectations. Because no amount of complaining will change it.

Now, do I agree with Poles approach? Partly but not entirely - I also agree the O-line needs more help.

But I see what he is trying to do and why, and I am willing to let him do it his way - because ultimately success or failure falls on him, and next offseason, knowing fully what he has on this roster, would make a lot more sense to begin the spending in THAT offseason.
User avatar
IE
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10262
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 62 times

I see very little reason to believe the '22 Bears will be worse than the '21 Bears. I expect them to be quite a bit better, actually.

Want to see an Oline improve? Get rid of a bad scheme/coach/play-caller and replace with improvements in those areas. Add in better skill positions to complement a developing 2nd year QB and it is really something to look forward to in my opinion.
"My coaches love my ability to run through the smoke" - Vay Jones
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 24877
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 53 times

IE wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:20 pm I see very little reason to believe the '22 Bears will be worse than the '21 Bears. I expect them to be quite a bit better, actually.

Want to see an Oline improve? Get rid of a bad scheme/coach/play-caller and replace with improvements in those areas. Add in better skill positions to complement a developing 2nd year QB and it is really something to look forward to in my opinion.
I swear people have talked themselves into believing that there are going to be 8 free runners coming at JF on every play while he haplessly looks for WRs who are running routes backwards and out of bounds.
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6288
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 83 times

Teddy KGB wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:47 am
Here's my take - impatience makes for poor decisions. Yes, as a fan, the waiting sucks for us. But there never has been a successful franchise built on impatience, and I dare say rarely if ever was there a Championship team built on impatience.

Now for me, words have meaning. Note I said impatience, NOT Aggressiveness. There HAVE been aggressive teams who have built success into their dna. And I can understand the desire for the Bears to be aggressive. However, success means knowing the difference between aggressiveness and impatience. If one cannot tell the difference, one cannot be successful.

In terms of the Bears - personally, would I have preferred them to be more aggressive? Certainly. However, Poles is being patient this year. He's on year one of a multi-year deal, and the previous administration was such hot garbage that very little useful can be gleaned from looking at the film for it.

So with the time he has, he is opting to have professionals put new systems in place, and take this year as an evaluation year. It might not be popular, but why spend a ton of money on a team when you don't even know exactly what you have? You may overpay for a player who ultimately doesn't fit what you are trying to do.

This is a rebuild and evaluation year. Yes, its going to be bad. Buckle up and manage expectations. Because no amount of complaining will change it.

Now, do I agree with Poles approach? Partly but not entirely - I also agree the O-line needs more help.

But I see what he is trying to do and why, and I am willing to let him do it his way - because ultimately success or failure falls on him, and next offseason, knowing fully what he has on this roster, would make a lot more sense to begin the spending in THAT offseason.
This is a really good post, I agree with it completely. The team should be bad this year and I have my expectations set accordingly. And once I settle in to that mindset, then I see the value in playing young guys, not spending in FA, and seeing what we have. Everything needs balance, unfettered aggression is no better than impatience. Being overly passive / cautious isn't a good course either, you need to be strategically aggressive all the time.

Where I disagree with some is when folks forget the strategic part and make it all or nothing. i.e., we can't trade for Metcalf because we're not ready to win yet. It's just one layer deeper of thought to see a more complete strategic picture that accounts for timing, cost, AND AVAILABILITY of resources - and weighing that against the probability that certain FA flyers/low draft picks may ascend (vs being blocked from seeing the field and showing it). If you can get DK Metcalf, even if we aren't ready to win yet, YOU DO IT. We have a clear hole at the top of our depth chart, specifically for the type of player Metcalf is. We will still have that hole next offseason, and probably spend a 1st round pick to fill it so I'd be happy to send a 1st for Metcalf and, yes, pay him a big contract as well. If you look at the potential FA's for 2023, I don't see a path for us to actually spend all the money we will have to spend when considering that numerous other teams also have a lot of space and needs. You think this past FA crop saw a lot of Kirk like overpays, wait until next offseason! Did you see what McLauren just got? So thinking strategically and staying aggressive, you secure an elite resource one year ahead of when you would ideally get him and in doing so you ensure that you'll have him going forward - 4 years at least in your window and coupled with Fields throughout. This was my exact same logic re: Trent Williams when Washington was reportedly looking to move him after he sat out a year - we didn't need him right then and it wouldv'e created a weird cap situation for a year, but after that it would be a huge win and sure enough the opportunity never really materialized to get him, or anyone else of his caliber, again. Next thing you know we're swimming up to Peters fishing boat begging him to unretire and LT is still a major hole on our roster (as it's been for many years now). But people just couldn't get past the weird one year cap thing, and still to this day defend it.

We now have what, the 2nd or 3rd most cap space in the league for 2022, and will have the most next offseason? That makes us a top contender to be able to pull off a Metcalf deal. I'll tell you what, if Poles was playing some long game here to position us for a move like this - he'd instantly become my favorite GM ever and I'd absolutely STFU about any criticisms I've levied against him. Even though, all things considered, I like most of what he's done and just wish he'd add one OL FA to better protect Fields in the event that none of the rookies/2nd year guys pan out.
This is a fan / opinion chat board. The opinions in this post are just that - my opinions. Please treat them as such unless otherwise notified. Have yourself a great day.
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Head Coach
Posts: 4407
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 54 times

Teddy KGB wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:47 am
The Marshall Plan wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:47 am

I've been patient since I was a little kid in 1985.

The problem is that there's a Chicken vs The Egg argument going on.

In That Corner: The Bears are going to suck this year there's no point in spending money in FA.

In This Corner: One of the reasons why we're going to suck is because we aren't spending money in FA.

Here's the situation as I see it:

1) Potential franchise QB on a rookie deal which translates into about $30M in cap savings before an extension is given.
2) Next year our cap space is stratospheric. As of now it's $88M. If get rid of both Quinn and EJax it is $106M.
3) Two starting OL on rookie deals. Maybe 3.

If we weren't in the position to go shopping this offseason then we'll never be.

We were in a position to add 1 or 2 high profile FAs. My overwhelming preference would've been OL.

I personally think there's a really good chance we're not going to be as bad as everybody makes us out to be. A Cover-2 defense is an easy one to learn and allows you to play fast. We've got a defensive minded coach and we still have talent on defense.

Under McNagy we effectively conceded the offensive side of the ball for three years. All we need is an offense that shows up to work and does even an average job.

In order to do that though we need players. I would start with the offensive line. We had the cap space. There were players out there. Poles chose to do nothing.


Ok, so we can have a conversation. Good.

Here's my take - impatience makes for poor decisions. Yes, as a fan, the waiting sucks for us. But there never has been a successful franchise built on impatience, and I dare say rarely if ever was there a Championship team built on impatience.

Now for me, words have meaning. Note I said impatience, NOT Aggressiveness. There HAVE been aggressive teams who have built success into their dna. And I can understand the desire for the Bears to be aggressive. However, success means knowing the difference between aggressiveness and impatience. If one cannot tell the difference, one cannot be successful.

In terms of the Bears - personally, would I have preferred them to be more aggressive? Certainly. However, Poles is being patient this year. He's on year one of a multi-year deal, and the previous administration was such hot garbage that very little useful can be gleaned from looking at the film for it.

So with the time he has, he is opting to have professionals put new systems in place, and take this year as an evaluation year. It might not be popular, but why spend a ton of money on a team when you don't even know exactly what you have? You may overpay for a player who ultimately doesn't fit what you are trying to do.

This is a rebuild and evaluation year. Yes, its going to be bad. Buckle up and manage expectations. Because no amount of complaining will change it.

Now, do I agree with Poles approach? Partly but not entirely - I also agree the O-line needs more help.

But I see what he is trying to do and why, and I am willing to let him do it his way - because ultimately success or failure falls on him, and next offseason, knowing fully what he has on this roster, would make a lot more sense to begin the spending in THAT offseason.
I think the Oreos are giving you bad advice Teddy. The first half of your post is gibberish.

You don’t control when FAs hit the market. Or when a franchise player is available for a trade.

So when opportunities present themselves you have to pounce on them. You can’t have an attitude where you just concede an entire season starting in the spring and just say OK we are going to suck. New system. New whatever. Let’s not even bother.

Your argument also doesn’t hold water when we are talking about the OFFENSIVE LINE. This isn’t a matter of does this defensive player fit this scheme or not. Sure with OL there are zone blocking guys but you coach that.
Image Image

GAME. BLOUSES.
User avatar
IE
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10262
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 62 times

wab wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:49 pm
IE wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:20 pm I see very little reason to believe the '22 Bears will be worse than the '21 Bears. I expect them to be quite a bit better, actually.

Want to see an Oline improve? Get rid of a bad scheme/coach/play-caller and replace with improvements in those areas. Add in better skill positions to complement a developing 2nd year QB and it is really something to look forward to in my opinion.
I swear people have talked themselves into believing that there are going to be 8 free runners coming at JF on every play while he haplessly looks for WRs who are running routes backwards and out of bounds.
Totally. A downward spiral of doom.

JF1 is a good QB, and his fundamentals are improving. He was even getting better in streaks toward the end of last season with not much help. I follow him and Pringle and some other guys on IG and they're pretty active recently. JF1 and Pringle are absolutely jacked. These are tough, strong guys. Mooney is a real pro. Jones is going to be a weapon. I love the RB room. Like you said, Kmet seems to be turning it up. It's all going to come together.

I'm really looking forward to seeing the more athletic Oline and the youth movement all over the place. Football is a game for young, hungry athletes. Sure, Oline usually plays an important role in whether a team can consistently compete. That's why it is important to build one and have a solid foundation across the board - and not some hired gun old guy & pretend one guy makes a unit. It is a "line" - not a "guy".
"My coaches love my ability to run through the smoke" - Vay Jones
User avatar
pus
MVP
Posts: 1716
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:27 pm
Location: Earth
Has thanked: 137 times
Been thanked: 12 times

IE wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:40 pm
wab wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:49 pm

I swear people have talked themselves into believing that there are going to be 8 free runners coming at JF on every play while he haplessly looks for WRs who are running routes backwards and out of bounds.
Totally. A downward spiral of doom.

JF1 is a good QB, and his fundamentals are improving. He was even getting better in streaks toward the end of last season with not much help. I follow him and Pringle and some other guys on IG and they're pretty active recently. JF1 and Pringle are absolutely jacked. These are tough, strong guys. Mooney is a real pro. Jones is going to be a weapon. I love the RB room. Like you said, Kmet seems to be turning it up. It's all going to come together.

I'm really looking forward to seeing the more athletic Oline and the youth movement all over the place. Football is a game for young, hungry athletes. Sure, Oline usually plays an important role in whether a team can consistently compete. That's why it is important to build one and have a solid foundation across the board - and not some hired gun old guy & pretend one guy makes a unit. It is a "line" - not a "guy".
Nicely stated.

:hungry: :hungry: :hungry: :hungry: :hungry:
Matt Eberfluss definition of the 2022 Chicago Bears = Toughness.
User avatar
dave99
Pro Bowler
Posts: 418
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:14 am
Location: Plano Texas
Been thanked: 25 times

wab wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:49 pm
IE wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:20 pm I see very little reason to believe the '22 Bears will be worse than the '21 Bears. I expect them to be quite a bit better, actually.

Want to see an Oline improve? Get rid of a bad scheme/coach/play-caller and replace with improvements in those areas. Add in better skill positions to complement a developing 2nd year QB and it is really something to look forward to in my opinion.
I swear people have talked themselves into believing that there are going to be 8 free runners coming at JF on every play while he haplessly looks for WRs who are running routes backwards and out of bounds.
Or as some refer to it: The Cleveland Strategy
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6288
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 83 times

dave99 wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:48 pm
wab wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:49 pm

I swear people have talked themselves into believing that there are going to be 8 free runners coming at JF on every play while he haplessly looks for WRs who are running routes backwards and out of bounds.
Or as some refer to it: The Cleveland Strategy
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
This is a fan / opinion chat board. The opinions in this post are just that - my opinions. Please treat them as such unless otherwise notified. Have yourself a great day.
RichH55
Head Coach
Posts: 3427
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 4 times

dplank wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:59 pm
Teddy KGB wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:47 am
Here's my take - impatience makes for poor decisions. Yes, as a fan, the waiting sucks for us. But there never has been a successful franchise built on impatience, and I dare say rarely if ever was there a Championship team built on impatience.

Now for me, words have meaning. Note I said impatience, NOT Aggressiveness. There HAVE been aggressive teams who have built success into their dna. And I can understand the desire for the Bears to be aggressive. However, success means knowing the difference between aggressiveness and impatience. If one cannot tell the difference, one cannot be successful.

In terms of the Bears - personally, would I have preferred them to be more aggressive? Certainly. However, Poles is being patient this year. He's on year one of a multi-year deal, and the previous administration was such hot garbage that very little useful can be gleaned from looking at the film for it.

So with the time he has, he is opting to have professionals put new systems in place, and take this year as an evaluation year. It might not be popular, but why spend a ton of money on a team when you don't even know exactly what you have? You may overpay for a player who ultimately doesn't fit what you are trying to do.

This is a rebuild and evaluation year. Yes, its going to be bad. Buckle up and manage expectations. Because no amount of complaining will change it.

Now, do I agree with Poles approach? Partly but not entirely - I also agree the O-line needs more help.

But I see what he is trying to do and why, and I am willing to let him do it his way - because ultimately success or failure falls on him, and next offseason, knowing fully what he has on this roster, would make a lot more sense to begin the spending in THAT offseason.
This is a really good post, I agree with it completely. The team should be bad this year and I have my expectations set accordingly. And once I settle in to that mindset, then I see the value in playing young guys, not spending in FA, and seeing what we have. Everything needs balance, unfettered aggression is no better than impatience. Being overly passive / cautious isn't a good course either, you need to be strategically aggressive all the time.

Where I disagree with some is when folks forget the strategic part and make it all or nothing. i.e., we can't trade for Metcalf because we're not ready to win yet. It's just one layer deeper of thought to see a more complete strategic picture that accounts for timing, cost, AND AVAILABILITY of resources - and weighing that against the probability that certain FA flyers/low draft picks may ascend (vs being blocked from seeing the field and showing it). If you can get DK Metcalf, even if we aren't ready to win yet, YOU DO IT. We have a clear hole at the top of our depth chart, specifically for the type of player Metcalf is. We will still have that hole next offseason, and probably spend a 1st round pick to fill it so I'd be happy to send a 1st for Metcalf and, yes, pay him a big contract as well. If you look at the potential FA's for 2023, I don't see a path for us to actually spend all the money we will have to spend when considering that numerous other teams also have a lot of space and needs. You think this past FA crop saw a lot of Kirk like overpays, wait until next offseason! Did you see what McLauren just got? So thinking strategically and staying aggressive, you secure an elite resource one year ahead of when you would ideally get him and in doing so you ensure that you'll have him going forward - 4 years at least in your window and coupled with Fields throughout. This was my exact same logic re: Trent Williams when Washington was reportedly looking to move him after he sat out a year - we didn't need him right then and it wouldv'e created a weird cap situation for a year, but after that it would be a huge win and sure enough the opportunity never really materialized to get him, or anyone else of his caliber, again. Next thing you know we're swimming up to Peters fishing boat begging him to unretire and LT is still a major hole on our roster (as it's been for many years now). But people just couldn't get past the weird one year cap thing, and still to this day defend it.

We now have what, the 2nd or 3rd most cap space in the league for 2022, and will have the most next offseason? That makes us a top contender to be able to pull off a Metcalf deal. I'll tell you what, if Poles was playing some long game here to position us for a move like this - he'd instantly become my favorite GM ever and I'd absolutely STFU about any criticisms I've levied against him. Even though, all things considered, I like most of what he's done and just wish he'd add one OL FA to better protect Fields in the event that none of the rookies/2nd year guys pan out.

This is also the thinking that has people trading 2nd Rounders for Robbie Gould

More Michael Less Sonny
RichH55
Head Coach
Posts: 3427
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 4 times

dave99 wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:48 pm
wab wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:49 pm

I swear people have talked themselves into believing that there are going to be 8 free runners coming at JF on every play while he haplessly looks for WRs who are running routes backwards and out of bounds.
Or as some refer to it: The Cleveland Strategy

That now comes with a Happy Ending though....
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Head Coach
Posts: 4407
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 54 times

dave99 wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:48 pm
wab wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:49 pm

I swear people have talked themselves into believing that there are going to be 8 free runners coming at JF on every play while he haplessly looks for WRs who are running routes backwards and out of bounds.
Or as some refer to it: The Cleveland Strategy

Allow me to play Devil's Advocate.

If you schemed to have 8 guys rushing Fields on every play that only leaves 3 in coverage. Put Fields in the shotgun and go 5 wide. At least 2 guys will be wide open.

In the microsecond before Fields gets destroyed just throw the ball up there. Somebody will get it.
Image Image

GAME. BLOUSES.
User avatar
dave99
Pro Bowler
Posts: 418
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:14 am
Location: Plano Texas
Been thanked: 25 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 2:39 am
dave99 wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:48 pm

Or as some refer to it: The Cleveland Strategy

Allow me to play Devil's Advocate.

If you schemed to have 8 guys rushing Fields on every play that only leaves 3 in coverage. Put Fields in the shotgun and go 5 wide. At least 2 guys will be wide open.

In the microsecond before Fields gets destroyed just throw the ball up there. Somebody will get it.
“A quarterback has never completed a pass when he was flat on his back,”
Buddy Ryan
I believe he also said something along the lines of the QB can do anything he likes as long as he can do it in less than two seconds.

Unfortunately, you did not need a Buddy Ryan defense to crush a Nagy offense. Nagy took all the fun out of it for good DC's.
User avatar
Teddy KGB
Journeyman
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 1:43 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 6 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 1:49 pm
Teddy KGB wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:47 am



Ok, so we can have a conversation. Good.

Here's my take - impatience makes for poor decisions. Yes, as a fan, the waiting sucks for us. But there never has been a successful franchise built on impatience, and I dare say rarely if ever was there a Championship team built on impatience.

Now for me, words have meaning. Note I said impatience, NOT Aggressiveness. There HAVE been aggressive teams who have built success into their dna. And I can understand the desire for the Bears to be aggressive. However, success means knowing the difference between aggressiveness and impatience. If one cannot tell the difference, one cannot be successful.

In terms of the Bears - personally, would I have preferred them to be more aggressive? Certainly. However, Poles is being patient this year. He's on year one of a multi-year deal, and the previous administration was such hot garbage that very little useful can be gleaned from looking at the film for it.

So with the time he has, he is opting to have professionals put new systems in place, and take this year as an evaluation year. It might not be popular, but why spend a ton of money on a team when you don't even know exactly what you have? You may overpay for a player who ultimately doesn't fit what you are trying to do.

This is a rebuild and evaluation year. Yes, its going to be bad. Buckle up and manage expectations. Because no amount of complaining will change it.

Now, do I agree with Poles approach? Partly but not entirely - I also agree the O-line needs more help.

But I see what he is trying to do and why, and I am willing to let him do it his way - because ultimately success or failure falls on him, and next offseason, knowing fully what he has on this roster, would make a lot more sense to begin the spending in THAT offseason.
I think the Oreos are giving you bad advice Teddy. The first half of your post is gibberish.

You don’t control when FAs hit the market. Or when a franchise player is available for a trade.

So when opportunities present themselves you have to pounce on them. You can’t have an attitude where you just concede an entire season starting in the spring and just say OK we are going to suck. New system. New whatever. Let’s not even bother.

Your argument also doesn’t hold water when we are talking about the OFFENSIVE LINE. This isn’t a matter of does this defensive player fit this scheme or not. Sure with OL there are zone blocking guys but you coach that.
I guess we can't have a conversation. None of what you said was an actual rebuttal - just you expressing a different opinion without actually addressing my post in the CONTEXT I wrote it. Yours is just a bunch of straw men and CCS style trolling.

dplank saw the same post, and while he disagrees with part of it, at least based on his response, I can tell he took the time to read and understand it.

I think you just want to fight with people. In that case I'll bow out and instead talk to the rational people in this thread.
User avatar
Teddy KGB
Journeyman
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 1:43 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 6 times

dplank wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:59 pm
Teddy KGB wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:47 am
Here's my take - impatience makes for poor decisions. Yes, as a fan, the waiting sucks for us. But there never has been a successful franchise built on impatience, and I dare say rarely if ever was there a Championship team built on impatience.

Now for me, words have meaning. Note I said impatience, NOT Aggressiveness. There HAVE been aggressive teams who have built success into their dna. And I can understand the desire for the Bears to be aggressive. However, success means knowing the difference between aggressiveness and impatience. If one cannot tell the difference, one cannot be successful.

In terms of the Bears - personally, would I have preferred them to be more aggressive? Certainly. However, Poles is being patient this year. He's on year one of a multi-year deal, and the previous administration was such hot garbage that very little useful can be gleaned from looking at the film for it.

So with the time he has, he is opting to have professionals put new systems in place, and take this year as an evaluation year. It might not be popular, but why spend a ton of money on a team when you don't even know exactly what you have? You may overpay for a player who ultimately doesn't fit what you are trying to do.

This is a rebuild and evaluation year. Yes, its going to be bad. Buckle up and manage expectations. Because no amount of complaining will change it.

Now, do I agree with Poles approach? Partly but not entirely - I also agree the O-line needs more help.

But I see what he is trying to do and why, and I am willing to let him do it his way - because ultimately success or failure falls on him, and next offseason, knowing fully what he has on this roster, would make a lot more sense to begin the spending in THAT offseason.
This is a really good post, I agree with it completely. The team should be bad this year and I have my expectations set accordingly. And once I settle in to that mindset, then I see the value in playing young guys, not spending in FA, and seeing what we have. Everything needs balance, unfettered aggression is no better than impatience. Being overly passive / cautious isn't a good course either, you need to be strategically aggressive all the time.

Where I disagree with some is when folks forget the strategic part and make it all or nothing. i.e., we can't trade for Metcalf because we're not ready to win yet. It's just one layer deeper of thought to see a more complete strategic picture that accounts for timing, cost, AND AVAILABILITY of resources - and weighing that against the probability that certain FA flyers/low draft picks may ascend (vs being blocked from seeing the field and showing it). If you can get DK Metcalf, even if we aren't ready to win yet, YOU DO IT. We have a clear hole at the top of our depth chart, specifically for the type of player Metcalf is. We will still have that hole next offseason, and probably spend a 1st round pick to fill it so I'd be happy to send a 1st for Metcalf and, yes, pay him a big contract as well. If you look at the potential FA's for 2023, I don't see a path for us to actually spend all the money we will have to spend when considering that numerous other teams also have a lot of space and needs. You think this past FA crop saw a lot of Kirk like overpays, wait until next offseason! Did you see what McLauren just got? So thinking strategically and staying aggressive, you secure an elite resource one year ahead of when you would ideally get him and in doing so you ensure that you'll have him going forward - 4 years at least in your window and coupled with Fields throughout. This was my exact same logic re: Trent Williams when Washington was reportedly looking to move him after he sat out a year - we didn't need him right then and it wouldv'e created a weird cap situation for a year, but after that it would be a huge win and sure enough the opportunity never really materialized to get him, or anyone else of his caliber, again. Next thing you know we're swimming up to Peters fishing boat begging him to unretire and LT is still a major hole on our roster (as it's been for many years now). But people just couldn't get past the weird one year cap thing, and still to this day defend it.

We now have what, the 2nd or 3rd most cap space in the league for 2022, and will have the most next offseason? That makes us a top contender to be able to pull off a Metcalf deal. I'll tell you what, if Poles was playing some long game here to position us for a move like this - he'd instantly become my favorite GM ever and I'd absolutely STFU about any criticisms I've levied against him. Even though, all things considered, I like most of what he's done and just wish he'd add one OL FA to better protect Fields in the event that none of the rookies/2nd year guys pan out.

Lets get into the Metcalf thing, and why I said you shouldn't pursue him right now.

So, right now, the Bears are a blank canvas, and likely going to be very bad. Metcalf is a personality who already was making waves like he wants to move on. If we aren't ready to win now, do you think a player like Metcalf would be patient enough to wait for the Bears to get good this year? Or is there a possibility the diva in him sours that signing, even if the Bears improve in 2023, because he's salty about being traded to the Bears in 2022 and the Bears not contending?

Also, lets say that isn't a problem, and you sign him to a huge deal. Now its 2-3 years later, and your team still needs a few pieces to compete, but you can't go get them in THAT year's free agency because you are paying Metcalf a metric ton, AND JF's contract is now coming up, or at least the agent is bringing it up and you can't allocate resources to those holes because you now have to pay both Metcalf AND Fields?

Now, lets look at a different approach.

You take this year as your "see what we got" year. Let's say Mooney and Jones Jr prove to be very good WRs in the new system. Going into 2023, you draft who you hope will be the next Metcalf, and then when Fields comes up for contract, you still have that WR on a rookie deal. Now lets look at a bad scenario. Lets say the guy you drafted at WR isn't as good as the next Metcalf - given that draft prevents you from making too big a financial mistake with slotted salary ranges, when you are just a Metcalf away, you then can go GET a Metcalf-type player, and bring him to a WINNING team - improving the value of the signing.

As you said - its all about calculated aggression.
User avatar
RustinFields
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5284
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:19 am
Location: Maine!
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 11 times

Teddy KGB wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:49 am
The Marshall Plan wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 1:49 pm

I think the Oreos are giving you bad advice Teddy. The first half of your post is gibberish.

You don’t control when FAs hit the market. Or when a franchise player is available for a trade.

So when opportunities present themselves you have to pounce on them. You can’t have an attitude where you just concede an entire season starting in the spring and just say OK we are going to suck. New system. New whatever. Let’s not even bother.

Your argument also doesn’t hold water when we are talking about the OFFENSIVE LINE. This isn’t a matter of does this defensive player fit this scheme or not. Sure with OL there are zone blocking guys but you coach that.
I guess we can't have a conversation. None of what you said was an actual rebuttal - just you expressing a different opinion without actually addressing my post in the CONTEXT I wrote it. Yours is just a bunch of straw men and CCS style trolling.

dplank saw the same post, and while he disagrees with part of it, at least based on his response, I can tell he took the time to read and understand it.

I think you just want to fight with people. In that case I'll bow out and instead talk to the rational people in this thread.
Image
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Head Coach
Posts: 4407
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 54 times

Teddy KGB wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:49 am
The Marshall Plan wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 1:49 pm

I think the Oreos are giving you bad advice Teddy. The first half of your post is gibberish.

You don’t control when FAs hit the market. Or when a franchise player is available for a trade.

So when opportunities present themselves you have to pounce on them. You can’t have an attitude where you just concede an entire season starting in the spring and just say OK we are going to suck. New system. New whatever. Let’s not even bother.

Your argument also doesn’t hold water when we are talking about the OFFENSIVE LINE. This isn’t a matter of does this defensive player fit this scheme or not. Sure with OL there are zone blocking guys but you coach that.
I guess we can't have a conversation. None of what you said was an actual rebuttal - just you expressing a different opinion without actually addressing my post in the CONTEXT I wrote it. Yours is just a bunch of straw men and CCS style trolling.

dplank saw the same post, and while he disagrees with part of it, at least based on his response, I can tell he took the time to read and understand it.

I think you just want to fight with people. In that case I'll bow out and instead talk to the rational people in this thread.
The context of what you said? What exactly was the context then? Did the Oreos tell you to say that?

So the basis of your argument is that somebody else agrees with me therefore I am right?
Image Image

GAME. BLOUSES.
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6288
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 83 times

Teddy KGB wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 9:00 am Lets get into the Metcalf thing, and why I said you shouldn't pursue him right now.

So, right now, the Bears are a blank canvas, and likely going to be very bad. Metcalf is a personality who already was making waves like he wants to move on. If we aren't ready to win now, do you think a player like Metcalf would be patient enough to wait for the Bears to get good this year? Or is there a possibility the diva in him sours that signing, even if the Bears improve in 2023, because he's salty about being traded to the Bears in 2022 and the Bears not contending?
Agreed we are a MOSTLY a blank canvas and likely to be bad - but we're not a total blank canvas. We have Fields as the most important player at the most important position locked in for the next few years, so we have a clear identity based on that. This is an important difference because my belief is that a guy like Metcalf helps Fields become who we all hope he can become. Even with an acknowledgement that "if he needs elite talent to be great then he's not the right guy" - that is true - but grossly misses the point. Metcalf is EXACTLY the type of guy that we, and Fields, needs IMO. A big body guy with game breaking potential who must be accounted for on every single snap and excels in broken play type scenarios and deep balls (if Fields becomes a great player, this will be a big part of his game). The big body aspect really helps with slant plays also, something that should be a staple in Getsy's offense. But, I digress...you make a point about Metcalf's potential diva-ness and if he'd be pissed coming here. To me, this is a terrible argument because the only way we'd do a trade for the guy is if he agreed to a long term extension. By laws of basic human logic, that removes your concern entirely that he'd be a problem - he would have just agreed to come to Chicago fully aware of where we are as a franchise. So that argument can be simply discarded entirely.
Teddy KGB wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 9:00 am
Also, lets say that isn't a problem, and you sign him to a huge deal. Now its 2-3 years later, and your team still needs a few pieces to compete, but you can't go get them in THAT year's free agency because you are paying Metcalf a metric ton, AND JF's contract is now coming up, or at least the agent is bringing it up and you can't allocate resources to those holes because you now have to pay both Metcalf AND Fields?
OK, so now we've signed him to a huge deal and per your intro we can assume this won't be a problem. A few years later we still need pieces to compete scenario. And then somehow we don't have money to add anyone and JF1's deal is coming up. This scenario, mathematically speaking, is just wrong. It's absolutely not a concern. We have an insane, practically unusable, amount of cap space. We can pay Metcalf a 20M/yr deal and still pay Fields a huge deal and not even break a sweat. And we have the ability to absorb a lot of cap hit early if we choose to (Bill, I already know what you'll say, don't bother I get it) while we have this ridiculous amount of space to use. By time this scenario rolls around, as is always the case, the guys who signed multi year deals 3 years prior will look like bargains if they are still playing at an elite level. Contracts go up over time, not down. Bottom line, the idea that we wouldn't be able to pay both a #1 WR and a #1 QB market rates is absolute hogwash - teams all over the league do this every single year.
Teddy KGB wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 9:00 am
Now, lets look at a different approach.

You take this year as your "see what we got" year. Let's say Mooney and Jones Jr prove to be very good WRs in the new system. Going into 2023, you draft who you hope will be the next Metcalf, and then when Fields comes up for contract, you still have that WR on a rookie deal. Now lets look at a bad scenario. Lets say the guy you drafted at WR isn't as good as the next Metcalf - given that draft prevents you from making too big a financial mistake with slotted salary ranges, when you are just a Metcalf away, you then can go GET a Metcalf-type player, and bring him to a WINNING team - improving the value of the signing.

As you said - its all about calculated aggression.
Now, could we draft a guy in 2023? Of course, and that's the most likely path even if I disagree with it. Because Rd 1 WR's have a pretty rough track record of success historically, bust potential abound. How Mooney and Jones do is irrelevant IMO. They are different types of receivers and just two guys, the best offenses have multiple weapons. And, what if Jones isn't good? Certainly possible, no rookie is a slam dunk moreso the later they get drafted. This is an offensive, star driven league right now. QB's and WR's rule the roost. When an opportunity presents itself to land a known special talent like Metcalf, don't over think it or get cute thinking you can just draft the same result - you'll fail 7 out of 10 times (meaning, look at all the rd1 rd2 draft choices over the years and see how frequently they turn out to be players of his caliber - it happens, particularly higher in drafts, but it's no given). I don't like the odds here.

Lastly, I hate the "one player away" thinking. It's bad team building. In my opinion (and Poles seems to operate this way, which I appreciate) is that you look to improve your team every single year and not go "all in" for short windows that then force you to dissemble and reconstruct a roster again. Consistent winning, year after year, letting guys walk when you need to, and strategically paying up for true game changing talent only. The key point I think you're missing is that the window to get him is now. If you "wait and see" you've lost your chance. I get being aggressive, but don't hit on 20 hoping to get 21. I don't like these odds either.
This is a fan / opinion chat board. The opinions in this post are just that - my opinions. Please treat them as such unless otherwise notified. Have yourself a great day.
RichH55
Head Coach
Posts: 3427
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 4 times

A) Dplank - Metcalf was more of a Red Zone threat than a Deep Ball guy - though he has the athleticism to do most things on the field - I think V. Jones is going to take up more of this "kind of" role you'd want - Playmaker/Threat/Elite Athleticism - Not exactly Steve Largent or Jerry Rice type of WR tactician

B) Agreed on the contract stuff - Metcalf will Not be an impediment to paying Fields (If it gets to that point)

C). Disagree here: "How Mooney and Jones do is irrelevant IMO." (Pringle too IMHO)

Of course it matters. If they are good (or bad) it would go to the relative need (or lesser need) for a guy like Metcalf (this will play into Draft Pick stuff below)

Let's say V. Jones is great on Go Routes/Deep Routes - and Cole Kmet steps up as a Red Zone target (I think Mooney is more the Tyler Lockett here) - That would take up a lot of what you are looking to get from Metcalf.



D)I also think the Trent Williams scenario stuff is WRONG. A) Trent Williams didn't cost a potentially top 3 Pick and B) I think Trent Williams is just a Better Football player relative to position than Metcalf is. Markedly So.

On the other hand - I don't think the Metcalf is akin to the "We need a kicker so we should trade a 2nd for Robbie Gould" type overreaction to a positional need.

I think its in between them.


E). The Draft Pick (Probably should have led with this as it is BY FAR THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THE DISCUSSION)

AJ Brown - who IMHO is basically a perfect comp for Metcalf - just went for the 18th overall and a late 3rd (avoiding urge to complain about lack of comp pick)

The 18th Pick isn't Pick 3 in a Top Loaded Draft

Now getting MetCalf would help make sure you don't pick Top 3 - but that's not what we would actually want to be looking at

If you have the Top 3 pick in this draft -You are looking at potential building blocks at DE, QB, WR, and 3T. (and you are still in the Cat Birds Seat for 2nd Round - for a WR type as well)

Reason I listed QB there is two fold - some non 0% chance you are looking to move on from Fields (Metcalf basically does not matter in that analysis) BUT much mch higher % chance - You can trade the pick for a Mint.

Now maybe you don't get the DT. But you get a Top 10 pick, a 2nd and a 1st next year?

That is an option that could very very much be in play
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6288
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 83 times

Dude I don’t think we are tanking and would be surprised if we were picking top 3. Wild guess I’d say around 8-10 range, and lower if we got DK so closer to that #18 range

A lot of other moves get called into question if tanking was our strategy.
This is a fan / opinion chat board. The opinions in this post are just that - my opinions. Please treat them as such unless otherwise notified. Have yourself a great day.
User avatar
pus
MVP
Posts: 1716
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:27 pm
Location: Earth
Has thanked: 137 times
Been thanked: 12 times

dplank wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:10 pm Dude I don’t think we are tanking and would be surprised if we were picking top 3. Wild guess I’d say around 8-10 range, and lower if we got DK so closer to that #18 range

A lot of other moves get called into question if tanking was our strategy.
If tanking was truly our strategy this forum would be a ghost town.
Matt Eberfluss definition of the 2022 Chicago Bears = Toughness.
User avatar
Heinz D.
Player of the Month
Posts: 311
Joined: Fri May 06, 2022 4:29 pm
Location: Tri-State area
Has thanked: 152 times
Been thanked: 22 times

pus wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:26 pm If tanking was truly our strategy this forum would be a ghost town.
Or, maybe it would be twice as busy? :D
My mother's love was inexplicably linked to kickball.
User avatar
pus
MVP
Posts: 1716
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:27 pm
Location: Earth
Has thanked: 137 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Heinz D. wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:54 pm
pus wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:26 pm If tanking was truly our strategy this forum would be a ghost town.
Or, maybe it would be twice as busy? :D
twice as pissy maybe
Matt Eberfluss definition of the 2022 Chicago Bears = Toughness.
Post Reply