Changing Face of Bears Defensive Line

[RichH55]

I'm not sure all these guys are all that proven - or if they have proven to be all that much (Muhammad comes to mind)

If a team offered you the first pick in the 4th for Muhammad - You aren't taking that?

You DO understand they have to field a team THIS year, right?

We have vets though - Quinn is a vet on the DL. Roquan, EJax are vets leading their respective units. Neither Muhammad nor Morrow are filling a “vet need” at their position groups.

They're NOT? Who is, then?

Explain that to me.

Yes - and the list of other players potentially for those positions is legion


Do you think its actually difficult to fill a 53 man roster in the NFL?

Like do you think if we took a 3rd/4th Rounder for Muhammad , they have to fold the franchise?

[o-pus #40 in B major]

If we're talking about trades that are more likely fantasy than reality, then its a waste of my own limited intellectual horsepower, sorry.

[Heinz D.]

Yes - and the list of other players potentially for those positions is legion


Do you think its actually difficult to fill a 53 man roster in the NFL?

Like do you think if we took a 3rd/4th Rounder for Muhammad , they have to fold the franchise?

Teams don't sign free agents so they can trade them. Apparently you don't know a lot about how the NFL works--so I'll try to teach you whenever I can , from here on out. That way you can converse more adequately here on the boards.

As to your "difficult" question--yeah, I think it is "difficult" to fill a COMPETITIVE 53 man roster in the NFL. If it wasn't...everybody would be doing it every year, don't you think?

[dplank]

Like I just said: Quinn provides vet leadership for the DL and Roquan for the LB group. There wasn’t some vet leadership void or anything.

[Heinz D.]

Like I just said: Quinn provides vet leadership for the DL and Roquan for the LB group. There wasn’t some vet leadership void or anything.

NOT what you said. You do know when you post something--the rest of us can read it, right?

[RichH55]

Yes - and the list of other players potentially for those positions is legion


Do you think its actually difficult to fill a 53 man roster in the NFL?

Like do you think if we took a 3rd/4th Rounder for Muhammad , they have to fold the franchise?

Teams don't sign free agents so they can trade them. Apparently you don't know a lot about how the NFL works--so I'll try to teach you whenever I can , from here on out. That way you can converse more adequately here on the boards.

As to your "difficult" question--yeah, I think it is "difficult" to fill a COMPETITIVE 53 man roster in the NFL. If it wasn't...everybody would be doing it every year, don't you think?

Ok. This is a lot of bad takes into one - so at least its one stop shopping on my reply

The Muhammed for Late 3rd is about the compensatory pick situation. Noting how much of a no brainer it would be in practice (in a league where K. Mack nets you a 2nd Rounder) - is meant to be enlightening. If you forgo that signing (or sign a guy after the draft or sign a guy who was cut, etc, etc etc) that puts you on the path for a Free Late 3rd Rounder

Also - Mohammed v. No Muhammed is ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Light years away from a discussion about filling a 53 man roster v. it being competitive

Spoiler alert: He doesn't make you competitive - He's a rotational DE - Nice in his ways to be sure, but that ends the upside discussion.


Again - Simple question - How many teams in the NFL trade Muhammed (and save all of his Cap Hit) for the last pick in the 3rd Round ?

Hint: It's all of them. Feels like the help might go unappreciated though.

Also - Compensatory Picks - are indeed part of how the NFL Works. Mark that down

[RichH55]

If we're talking about trades that are more likely fantasy than reality, then its a waste of my own limited intellectual horsepower, sorry.

Pus - we aren't.

If we didn't sign Muhammad - and either took some cash off Morrow's deal or signed Myles Jack *even for more money rather than Morrow

The league would give us a very late 3rd Round pick.

That is literally the reality

[RichH55]

Like I just said: Quinn provides vet leadership for the DL and Roquan for the LB group. There wasn’t some vet leadership void or anything.

NOT what you said. You do know when you post something--the rest of us can read it, right?

This is pretty consistent with what Dplank meant though. Ro should be the vet leader in the LB room and Quinn (*) should be the veteran presence as to DE - Our Vets weren't lacking here

It wasn't like we only had rookies at the positions

(*) One could quibble that they expect Quinn to be dealt but that isn't what you did here

[Heinz D.]

Again - Simple question - How many teams in the NFL trade Muhammed (and save all of his Cap Hit) for the last pick in the 3rd Round ?

Hint: It's all of them. Feels like the help might go unappreciated though.

Hint--it's NONE OF THEM.

Yet again, teams do not sign free agents so they can trade them. Simply not how this league works.

I have no idea what your specific, debilitating cognitive issue is, but I really have no desire to piece things together, and figure it out.

Have fun conversing with one less forum member. The mods need to increase that number by a large margin.

[Yogi da Bear]

I think some times it's a bird in the hand scenario. You also need at least some veteran experience on the roster, especially at key positions on the team.

It isn't an either or though. It's the vet you want (but only enough to secure for one year) vs the comp pick and a different vet. Admittedly the cupboard was pretty bare in some spots but it does strike me as odd that Poles was willing to forgo whatever comp pick it could have been for e.g. a receiver he was only willing to offer 1 year and $4-6m to.

Well, since it would be next year's "first pick in the fourth," it really is the "first pick" in the fifth, or at least that's how most teams evaluate future year draft picks, by valuating them a round lower.

And myself, no, I wouldn't trade AQM for a first pick in the fifth. He's just starting to come together and he knows the defense, which can have an added impact on those around him. Here's an example. Myjai Sanders is the only DE picked as a third round comp pick this year. He's 6'5" but only 228 pounds and had all of 3.5 sacks in COLLEGE this past season. Not even considering that we wouldn't get him until next year, I'd STILL take AQM over him. Hell, I think I'd take Robinson over him.

[dplank]

Like I just said: Quinn provides vet leadership for the DL and Roquan for the LB group. There wasn’t some vet leadership void or anything.

NOT what you said. You do know when you post something--the rest of us can read it, right?

I re read my post 3 times, legitimately can’t understand how it confused you. I said the exact same thing twice in a row. Weird.

[wab]

Like I just said: Quinn provides vet leadership for the DL and Roquan for the LB group. There wasn’t some vet leadership void or anything.

"Leadership" and "Experience" don't always have to be the same thing.

The Bears do need players with some experience. You can't fill 2 out of every 3 spots with unproven/rookie/UDFA types.

[RichH55]

Again - Simple question - How many teams in the NFL trade Muhammed (and save all of his Cap Hit) for the last pick in the 3rd Round ?

Hint: It's all of them. Feels like the help might go unappreciated though.

Hint--it's NONE OF THEM.

Yet again, teams do not sign free agents so they can trade them. Simply not how this league works.

I have no idea what your specific, debilitating cognitive issue is, but I really have no desire to piece things together, and figure it out.

Have fun conversing with one less forum member. The mods need to increase that number by a large margin.

You really seem to be missing the point of the debate/issue - Why?

Do you get the compensatory pick formula part of it - Essentially forgoing a few things nets you a Late 3rd (no its not a 5th Yogi) - The chief thing you'd have to forgo is Muhammad

Hence asking what teams WOULD NOT trade him for a Late 3rd (Since this is akin to the situation we were facing)

And the league literally would give us a Late 3rd (If you want to call it a premium 4th? I don't have any real issue with that) - for forgoing Muhammad chiefly (not entirely)

The trade suggestion helps put that in perspective - i.e. the value left on the table but in more stark terms

(Also pretty sure the Bears did a version of this with Mike Davis - under tweaked compensatory rules - since altered where that wouldn't be the same - BUT a similar concept!!!)

[dplank]

Like I just said: Quinn provides vet leadership for the DL and Roquan for the LB group. There wasn’t some vet leadership void or anything.

"Leadership" and "Experience" don't always have to be the same thing.

The Bears do need players with some experience. You can't fill 2 out of every 3 spots with unproven/rookie/UDFA types.

Fair point wab, and I do like the idea of competing this year and not doing a total tank. This whole discussion is on the margins for me, not all that significant in the overall scheme of things. I continue the discussion because there's nothing else to really talk about lol...

[RichH55]

It isn't an either or though. It's the vet you want (but only enough to secure for one year) vs the comp pick and a different vet. Admittedly the cupboard was pretty bare in some spots but it does strike me as odd that Poles was willing to forgo whatever comp pick it could have been for e.g. a receiver he was only willing to offer 1 year and $4-6m to.

Well, since it would be next year's "first pick in the fourth," it really is the "first pick" in the fifth, or at least that's how most teams evaluate future year draft picks, by valuating them a round lower.

And myself, no, I wouldn't trade AQM for a first pick in the fifth. He's just starting to come together and he knows the defense, which can have an added impact on those around him. Here's an example. Myjai Sanders is the only DE picked as a third round comp pick this year. He's 6'5" but only 228 pounds and had all of 3.5 sacks in COLLEGE this past season. Not even considering that we wouldn't get him until next year, I'd STILL take AQM over him. Hell, I think I'd take Robinson over him.

The calling it the 5th Round is not particularly helpful/useful.

A team calls and says we have the last pick in the 3rd - We'd trade it for AQM - And you, want to double down, say "No"

I have that correct?

I very much disagree - This year the Comp pick looks to be Kerby Joseph range? Whom I wanted to draft. Or Perrion Winfrey - whom IIRC you were quite high on (*)

(*) This was a particularly deep draft due to the Covid extra players - so maybe this isn't supremely helpful as an evaluation tool - except that the 1st Pick in the 4th Round - is pretty nice to have

This is a league where K. Mack nets you a mid 2nd - so a late 3rd for AQM is outstanding value

[malk]

I just used the ARob money as an example of him wanting a big payday - but didn't mean that amount specifically.

I firmly believe Pringle is on the Bears because he sees it as his best chance at his big payday. Poles is a big part of his calculus. Poles did get him cheap this year but he already has incentives worth an additional 50%. Given their relationship, I'm guessing they already have an established understanding of what Poles is looking for in terms of production and expecting/willing to pay. He trusts Poles, and vice-versa. And so it is up to Pringle to meet the challenge.

And I'm ALSO guessing that number is higher than Poles believes other teams will be willing to pay even if Pringle has 1000 yards and 10 TDs, and that when he does extend him it will be early and it will raise eyebrows. But in Poles mind he'd then be a core guy for JF1 for the next x years. Foundational - not stopgap.

Sure, some other nutty GM might bid out of his mind like Jax did for Kirk. That's always a possibility. But Poles isn't going to be held hostage by anyone - not the Bills over a RG, and not by the '22 FA market for WRs or probowl OL... or even his friend (and they are friends - Poles went as far as to say so in so many words). If something nutty happens, then good for his friend and maybe it won't work out.

All that said, if he puts up Allan Robinson numbers (which isn't that hard, if he has enough target share - and won't need NEARLY as many to beat ARob) he SHOULD get Arob money.

Donuts have no place in this conversation - stupid topic and zero bearing.

Going back to my earlier post, there's a lot of difference between the $4-6m contract that Pringle signed and the $46.5m ($30m guaranteed) one Robinson signed. Now of course we don't know what Pringle was really after but we also don't know what Poles was offering. He is older that most players in his situation, i.e. still has promise rather than being a star or journeyman already, so I can see why he might not want to settle for a mediocre deal but...

Look at it this way, what do you think is more likely, Poles offered a guy with 898 career yards in the regular season a solid three year deal that he turned down, or that the one year "prove it" deal came from Poles in the first place? I mean, he's given out a bunch of contracts like that already, it doesn't seem ludicrous to me.

Because in reality, a guy who has less than 1000 career yards may want a big payday but if we offer him $15m guaranteed on a three year $24m contract (pulling number out of my arse here) is that not a big payday? Or hell, two years with $15m guaranteed? Fundamentally I just don't believe that there are many, if any, players that aren't willing to give up some chance at a huge payday for life changing security. I think the much more likely scenario is that GMs only like to give massive deals to proven* stars or short term deals to the rest.

*Or has often been the case "proven" until they aren't!

And to finish, where we are as a team, I think that Poles should be making the multi year offers to players like Pringle, ones with a good chance they can outperform them, and if they don't want to sign them then you move on to either someone who does or to fill out the roster with guys closer to vet min. But all that being said, I'm actually fine with the Pringle signing because $6m isn't that much and the cupboard was threadbare! I don't think it was the best contract we could have offered but Poles gets a bit of a pass this year. If he keeps doing it when the roster is more filled out then I'll be more pissed (whilst Poles sleeps soundly uncaring about my opinion!).

[IE]

I just used the ARob money as an example of him wanting a big payday - but didn't mean that amount specifically.

I firmly believe Pringle is on the Bears because he sees it as his best chance at his big payday. Poles is a big part of his calculus. Poles did get him cheap this year but he already has incentives worth an additional 50%. Given their relationship, I'm guessing they already have an established understanding of what Poles is looking for in terms of production and expecting/willing to pay. He trusts Poles, and vice-versa. And so it is up to Pringle to meet the challenge.

And I'm ALSO guessing that number is higher than Poles believes other teams will be willing to pay even if Pringle has 1000 yards and 10 TDs, and that when he does extend him it will be early and it will raise eyebrows. But in Poles mind he'd then be a core guy for JF1 for the next x years. Foundational - not stopgap.

Sure, some other nutty GM might bid out of his mind like Jax did for Kirk. That's always a possibility. But Poles isn't going to be held hostage by anyone - not the Bills over a RG, and not by the '22 FA market for WRs or probowl OL... or even his friend (and they are friends - Poles went as far as to say so in so many words). If something nutty happens, then good for his friend and maybe it won't work out.

All that said, if he puts up Allan Robinson numbers (which isn't that hard, if he has enough target share - and won't need NEARLY as many to beat ARob) he SHOULD get Arob money.

Donuts have no place in this conversation - stupid topic and zero bearing.

Going back to my earlier post, there's a lot of difference between the $4-6m contract that Pringle signed and the $46.5m ($30m guaranteed) one Robinson signed. Now of course we don't know what Pringle was really after but we also don't know what Poles was offering. He is older that most players in his situation, i.e. still has promise rather than being a star or journeyman already, so I can see why he might not want to settle for a mediocre deal but...

Look at it this way, what do you think is more likely, Poles offered a guy with 898 career yards in the regular season a solid three year deal that he turned down, or that the one year "prove it" deal came from Poles in the first place? I mean, he's given out a bunch of contracts like that already, it doesn't seem ludicrous to me.

Because in reality, a guy who has less than 1000 career yards may want a big payday but if we offer him $15m guaranteed on a three year $24m contract (pulling number out of my arse here) is that not a big payday? Or hell, two years with $15m guaranteed? Fundamentally I just don't believe that there are many, if any, players that aren't willing to give up some chance at a huge payday for life changing security. I think the much more likely scenario is that GMs only like to give massive deals to proven* stars or short term deals to the rest.

*Or has often been the case "proven" until they aren't!

And to finish, where we are as a team, I think that Poles should be making the multi year offers to players like Pringle, ones with a good chance they can outperform them, and if they don't want to sign them then you move on to either someone who does or to fill out the roster with guys closer to vet min. But all that being said, I'm actually fine with the Pringle signing because $6m isn't that much and the cupboard was threadbare! I don't think it was the best contract we could have offered but Poles gets a bit of a pass this year. If he keeps doing it when the roster is more filled out then I'll be more pissed (whilst Poles sleeps soundly uncaring about my opinion!).

In my very first line I said it was just an example - so it is weird to me that you felt the compulsion to go further into that and somehow seem to believe I don't know the difference between 4 million and 40. lol

What you said all makes sense generically. It doesn't account fully for the situation or their relationship. What I'm guessing is that Poles said look I can't offer a multi-year contract to you that you'd really like (and probably asked for) - but I DO have confidence you can meet the criteria I'll need to do it in the near future. Pringle trusts him and also sees the opportunity with the Bears to almost guarantee he'll get the targets as long as he is producing.

So I believe they both expect an extension is coming up - and the notion that Pringle is a stopgap is just wrong (which is the point I was addressing). It isn't semantics, and that context is important if one is going to form a judgement about whether the move was the right one vs other alternatives like getting comp pick next year.

[Bearfacts]

So we go from dissatisfaction with missing out on a potential 2023 bottom of the round 3rd round pick to worrying about how much it may cost us to extend or re-sign Pringle provided he's earned it? Shouldn't we be more concerned with 2022 right now than to worry about the unknown? There will be plenty of cap to extend or re-sign whoever we want to keep around in 2023 or longer.

I'm still puzzled by what talking about all of the other options Poles may have had signing FA is worth when it's ancient history. Poles did what he thought was best for the Bears in 2022. Later in the season when he has the benefit of knowing how his strategy has worked, who needs to be replaced, and who should be offered an extension or re-signed in 2023 all of this would make more sense.

If Pringle and others out produce their one year deals we'll have forgotten all about a 3rd round comp pick Poles never seemed to care much about either and instead we can debate what we think player X or player Y should get as far as new contract goes. It's all academic anyway but at least the topic of new contracts will be current events not future projections based on the unknown.

[Yogi da Bear]

So I believe they both expect an extension is coming up - and the notion that Pringle is a stopgap is just wrong (which is the point I was addressing). It isn't semantics, and that context is important if one is going to form a judgement about whether the move was the right one vs other alternatives like getting comp pick next year.

I agree with this 100%. As I said in an earlier post, it's not right to look at these signings as "stop gaps," they're more "prove it" deals. And it's not just semantics either. It's prove yourself to us. Prove that not only are you the player you claim to be, but that you can work in our system.

For instance, if Morrow can prove he can be a LB in our system, we'll look at resigning him first before a guy who maybe had a little more production in a 3-4. Or if Pringle proves he can adapt to our system, we'll probably look to resign him rather than somebody like DJ Chark.

The guys we signed are guys Poles and the coaches (I can't emphasize that enough, I think those signings came as a direct result of requests from the coaches), think can contribute to our system. They weren't just any UFA sitting out there. They weren't "stop gaps" who were signed to be placeholders. They were guys that our coaches and GM honestly though could contribute to the team going forward. They just have to prove it to us.

[dplank]

I’ll take bets on this if anyone is interested. Straight up, Pringle is a Bear in 2023 or isn’t. I’ll take isnt. Same with Morrow, maybe a parlay? Haha.

I put it at a coin flip honestly, could see it go either way.

[Bearfacts]

I’ll take bets on this if anyone is interested. Straight up, Pringle is a Bear in 2023 or isn’t. I’ll take isnt. Same with Morrow, maybe a parlay? Haha.

I put it at a coin flip honestly, could see it go either way.

You got it. I make buck bets so $1 Pringle will be a Bears WR in 2023. Same bet on Morrow. $1 he's still a Bears LB in 2023.

Might be worth watching this breakdown of Pringle though before you get too deep into odds making.

[media]]

The one on Morrow has it's own thread.

[Yogi da Bear]

I'll take that bet with AQM.

[Heinz D.]

I’ll take bets on this if anyone is interested. Straight up, Pringle is a Bear in 2023 or isn’t. I’ll take isnt. Same with Morrow, maybe a parlay? Haha.

I put it at a coin flip honestly, could see it go either way.

Wait--you honestly think Pringle won't be good enough to be re-signed?

Why?

[dplank]

I’ll take bets on this if anyone is interested. Straight up, Pringle is a Bear in 2023 or isn’t. I’ll take isnt. Same with Morrow, maybe a parlay? Haha.

I put it at a coin flip honestly, could see it go either way.

Wait--you honestly think Pringle won't be good enough to be re-signed?

Why?

I’ve explained my thinking more than once, but since you are asking.

I put the odds of him being “good enough to resign” at 70-30 in his favor. I like him and had him on my FA target list. I believe he will play well, but there’s a solid chance he won’t.

But, us wanting to resign him doesn’t mean that will happen - he would also have to agree to a deal knowing he’s a UFA in a lucrative 2023 FA market. I put our odds of signing him in this scenario at 50/50, we’d have an advantage over other teams but would still have to at least match his highest offer or beat it.

So we’d have to hit the 70% bit first to even want him back, then we’d have to hit the 50% bit next to win him back as a UFA. So, by laws of probabilities and statistics, I’d put the actual number at 35%. I last took a probability and statistics course in 1990, so apologies if I flubbed the math.

Not sure why you guys keep just assuming he’s ours if we want him, that’s not how it works.

[Bearfacts]

Wait--you honestly think Pringle won't be good enough to be re-signed?

Why?

I’ve explained my thinking more than once, but since you are asking.

I put the odds of him being “good enough to resign” at 70-30 in his favor. I like him and had him on my FA target list. I believe he will play well, but there’s a solid chance he won’t.

But, us wanting to resign him doesn’t mean that will happen - he would also have to agree to a deal knowing he’s a UFA in a lucrative 2023 FA market. I put our odds of signing him in this scenario at 50/50, we’d have an advantage over other teams but would still have to at least match his highest offer or beat it.

So we’d have to hit the 70% bit first to even want him back, then we’d have to hit the 50% bit next to win him back as a UFA. So, by laws of probabilities and statistics, I’d put the actual number at 35%. I last took a probability and statistics course in 1990, so apologies if I flubbed the math.

Not sure why you guys keep just assuming he’s ours if we want him, that’s not how it works.

I'm not assuming it but I also see the possibility of offering him an extension before he become a UFA. He has a prior relationship with Poles who brought him here paying him $2 mil more than he got from KC in 2021. If Poles considers him worth it he'll make him a fair offer before he hits FA or he'll let him hit FA and let that set his price. Only then does it become 50/50.

Up 'til two days before the start of the new league year no one else can make him an offer or negotiate with him but us. That gives Poles a whole lot of time in which to evaluate his performance before deciding whether or not to do that. Going into this season I'd call Pringle the best Slot WR we have. If he produces there's a good chance we'll at least try to extend him.

[thunderspirit]

I'll take Pringle and Morrow both, sure. $10 to your favorite charity if you win or to mine if I win.

[Heinz D.]

I’ve explained my thinking more than once, but since you are asking.

I put the odds of him being “good enough to resign” at 70-30 in his favor. I like him and had him on my FA target list. I believe he will play well, but there’s a solid chance he won’t.

But, us wanting to resign him doesn’t mean that will happen - he would also have to agree to a deal knowing he’s a UFA in a lucrative 2023 FA market. I put our odds of signing him in this scenario at 50/50, we’d have an advantage over other teams but would still have to at least match his highest offer or beat it.

So we’d have to hit the 70% bit first to even want him back, then we’d have to hit the 50% bit next to win him back as a UFA. So, by laws of probabilities and statistics, I’d put the actual number at 35%. I last took a probability and statistics course in 1990, so apologies if I flubbed the math.

Not sure why you guys keep just assuming he’s ours if we want him, that’s not how it works.

Well, not automatically...I'll give you that. But, on the other hand, that IS sorta how it works? It just is.

And I think you did, indeed, flub the math, in a way...as you're judging the scenario wrong.

You failed to answer my initial question. Which I think is just as important as anything relating to the circumstances of Pringle being re-signed.

I'm on record as saying Pringle's contract is a bad one, by the way. No reason to sign Byron Pringle to a one year deal. None.

I'm not assuming it but I also see the possibility of offering him an extension before he become a UFA. He has a prior relationship with Poles who brought him here paying him $2 mil more than he got from KC in 2021. If Poles considers him worth it he'll make him a fair offer before he hits FA or he'll let him hit FA and let that set his price. Only then does it become 50/50.

Up 'til two days before the start of the new league year no one else can make him an offer or negotiate with him but us. That gives Poles a whole lot of time in which to evaluate his performance before deciding whether or not to do that. Going into this season I'd call Pringle the best Slot WR we have. If he produces there's a good chance we'll at least try to extend him.

^All this.

I'd still argue Poles done Pringle wrong, but that doesn't mean the Bears aren't in the driver's seat, regarding his status.

[dplank]

I'll take Pringle and Morrow both, sure. $10 to your favorite charity if you win or to mine if I win.

You're on! Happy to do it.

[dplank]

Well, not automatically...I'll give you that. But, on the other hand, that IS sorta how it works? It just is.

Why do you think this is true? Can you explain how it would be in Pringle's best interests to do anything but take the best deal he can get on the open market? I see some built in advantages, but not enough to override someone else's offer if it's better than ours.

[Bearfacts]

Well, not automatically...I'll give you that. But, on the other hand, that IS sorta how it works? It just is.

Why do you think this is true? Can you explain how it would be in Pringle's best interests to do anything but take the best deal he can get on the open market? I see some built in advantages, but not enough to override someone else's offer if it's better than ours.

But a best deal can be described in any number of ways. Most guaranteed money is only one of them.

I'll take my chances just as Poles has done that he can bring Pringle back if desired but in another year Velus Jones should also have improved enough that what it costs to keep Pringle may be more than Poles will want to spend. No way to know 'til later on.