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.