Offensive Line - What will it look like

For all things Chicago Bears

Moderator: wab

User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12743
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1391 times
Been thanked: 2504 times

Noots wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2024 9:31 am The whole notion that the best OGs are failed OTs is also ass. There are different disciplines, pad level, footwork and handwork to each position, requiring far different skill sets. Repetition and aptitude factor in like any position switch. It makes far more sense to take a RT and make him an OG than a LT, as the 300lb DTs are far more powerful on the whole than the speed rushing 250lb edge guys. Are there OTs who eventually make good guards? Absolutely. But it’s just not a recipe for success to keep doing that, especially with guys who have more of the finesse LT traits, like a Braxton Jones, for instance.

I’m not Pooh-pooing position versatility, because I think it’s a big deal, especially for effective roster building. But to @The Marshall Plan ’s point, you’re not usually going to get a stud player if you plan to move him to a new position straight away upon drafting.
100%. It's very player specific, it's not an automatic thing. Those that think that way are typically keyboard warriors who never played a single game in pads. Personally, I could not play inside well at all. Things moved too fast, and as a tall guy I had trouble with leverage from smaller/quicker guys that would get under me super fast. I saw other guys who could do it just fine. There's no rule to this, it's an individual thing.
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6764
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 2250 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2024 9:42 am Poles tried to get Bates twice. I 100% trust Ryan Poles and if he believes that strongly in Bates then I do too until proven otherwise.
I guess I just like to actually see a player perform first. Plenty of players GMs have been high on players who don't then amount to anything.
The Marshall Plan wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2024 9:42 am Wright will continue his ascension and we have another 3 or 4 years of him on the rookie deal.

Note: A fundamental advantage that this team has is that the QB and both OTs are on rookie deals. That’s worth $100M in cap space.

Whatever it is we think of Braxton Jones he is not a $20M to $25M+ guy.
I agree that Jones is not worth $20m+ based on what we've seen so far. He's only been in the league 1 year longer than Wright though. If Wright "will continue his ascension" then why not Jones? Jones missed a chunk of his second year, which didn't help, and the same could happen to Wright. Nothing is guaranteed. Ultimately having both OTs on rookie deals is only an advantage if they're good (and the same goes for the QB).
The Marshall Plan wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2024 9:42 am I would pay Jenkins $15M right now and draft a G with one of the two seconds before I’d pay Braxton Jones. BPA OL (T or G) in the first round works too in addition to the second round pick. Jenkins can be partially offset by cutting Davis who can be replaced via the draft. That’s the genius of what Poles has here. Four picks in the first three rounds. Draft a LT, save $20M+. Draft a G to replace Davis, save $15M. Maintain the cap benefit and acquire skill players in FA.

Kiran, the golfing buddy, is also on the roster. Maybe that’s the LT right there. At a minimum it’s the backup T; again on a rookie deal.

But that cap benefit is our biggest advantage right now and I don’t want to lose it.
Jones doesn't need paying for another 2 years. Whether he earns a new deal will depend on how he plays. The same is true of Davis. Adding competition through the draft is always a good thing. You want younger cheaper players to outplay older more expensive ones and push them off the roster. You've got to have them in place before you make decisions on those veterans though. That's the great position Poles is in. He can add O-linemen and give them time to prove themselves before having to make decisions on current starters.

Amegadjie is the latest prospect. You say at minimum he's a backup tackle. That's not true. At minimum he proves to be worse than Borom and doesn't even see out his rookie deal. Obviously we hope that won't be the case, but we can't make any projections before seeing players in NFL action.

You can make the cap benefit argument about any position. Why not use all that draft capital to load up on pass rushers and look to dump Montez Sweat in a year or two? Why not draft another CB and get rid of Jaylon Johnson? Why not draft another WR and let Moore walk? Why is it only the O-line, the very group that protects your most important investment, where it is wise to load up with players on cheap rookie contracts?
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 1089 times
Been thanked: 1500 times

HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2024 10:54 am Why not use all that draft capital to load up on pass rushers and look to dump Montez Sweat in a year or two? Why not draft another CB and get rid of Jaylon Johnson? Why not draft another WR and let Moore walk? Why is it only the O-line, the very group that protects your most important investment, where it is wise to load up with players on cheap rookie contracts?
Montez Sweat is producing at a high level. The defense completely turned around when he showed up.

You can't say the same thing about Braxton Jones.

You totally could draft a CB to replace Jaylon Johnson prior to the contract. Let it be noted that JJ didn't start causing turnovers until his contract year. It's very dangerous to give a guy an extension based upon the contract year.

DJ Moore is an established star. So is Montez Sweat.

Is Braxton Jones? You could argue, due to injuries, that Jenkins is not an established star.

You can go ahead and pay the established stars. If somebody is not that or even borderline then there's no urgency to pay them especially if you have the draft picks that we do.
Image
User avatar
Rusty Trombagent
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7586
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:19 am
Location: Maine!
Has thanked: 630 times
Been thanked: 1166 times

HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2024 10:54 am
The Marshall Plan wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2024 9:42 am Poles tried to get Bates twice. I 100% trust Ryan Poles and if he believes that strongly in Bates then I do too until proven otherwise.
I guess I just like to actually see a player perform first. Plenty of players GMs have been high on players who don't then amount to anything.
I had a funny moment last week where this article, entitled "Ex-Scout with Buffalo ties admits Bears scored with Ryan Bates" appeared on my google feed. I was curious enough cause it's the offseason...

https://www.sportsmockery.com/chicago-b ... yan-bates/

Oh, it's about Greg Gabriel's opinion on something.
Image
Image
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6764
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 2250 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2024 11:45 am
HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2024 10:54 am Why not use all that draft capital to load up on pass rushers and look to dump Montez Sweat in a year or two? Why not draft another CB and get rid of Jaylon Johnson? Why not draft another WR and let Moore walk? Why is it only the O-line, the very group that protects your most important investment, where it is wise to load up with players on cheap rookie contracts?
Montez Sweat is producing at a high level. The defense completely turned around when he showed up.

You can't say the same thing about Braxton Jones.

You totally could draft a CB to replace Jaylon Johnson prior to the contract. Let it be noted that JJ didn't start causing turnovers until his contract year. It's very dangerous to give a guy an extension based upon the contract year.

DJ Moore is an established star. So is Montez Sweat.

Is Braxton Jones? You could argue, due to injuries, that Jenkins is not an established star.

You can go ahead and pay the established stars. If somebody is not that or even borderline then there's no urgency to pay them especially if you have the draft picks that we do.
Ah so you are willing to sacrifice the "cap benefit" of having O-linemen on a rookie deals if one establishes themselves as a high level player. And you're willing to spend those draft picks to (potentially) upgrade players at other positions too. Thanks for the clarification.

As I said previously, we're going to need to see how the linemen perform this year in order to determine if any of them are going to produce at a high level. One or more may yet prove to be as good at their roles as Sweat or Moore.

If Jenkins can stay healthy then he's already well on the way there. He's the only one on whom a decision has to be made; all the others are under contract for at least another year.
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 1089 times
Been thanked: 1500 times

HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2024 12:53 pm
The Marshall Plan wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2024 11:45 am

Montez Sweat is producing at a high level. The defense completely turned around when he showed up.

You can't say the same thing about Braxton Jones.

You totally could draft a CB to replace Jaylon Johnson prior to the contract. Let it be noted that JJ didn't start causing turnovers until his contract year. It's very dangerous to give a guy an extension based upon the contract year.

DJ Moore is an established star. So is Montez Sweat.

Is Braxton Jones? You could argue, due to injuries, that Jenkins is not an established star.

You can go ahead and pay the established stars. If somebody is not that or even borderline then there's no urgency to pay them especially if you have the draft picks that we do.
Ah so you are willing to sacrifice the "cap benefit" of having O-linemen on a rookie deals if one establishes themselves as a high level player. And you're willing to spend those draft picks to (potentially) upgrade players at other positions too. Thanks for the clarification.

As I said previously, we're going to need to see how the linemen perform this year in order to determine if any of them are going to produce at a high level. One or more may yet prove to be as good at their roles as Sweat or Moore.

If Jenkins can stay healthy then he's already well on the way there. He's the only one on whom a decision has to be made; all the others are under contract for at least another year.
It's rare that a GM can control who the stars are on a football team. When you draft somebody or sign somebody you have an idea, but it's not a sure thing.

It's the coaches job to adapt their philosophy to the players he has.

So on some level $25M in cap spend is $25M in cap spend provided the star power of those players are equal.

The reverse is true. Right now we have an artificial cap benefit of $100M between having the QB and 2 OTs on rookie deal. It would be the same cap benefit if we were paying Caleb $70M per year, but then Sweat, Edwards and Edmunds were on rookie deals right?

But what we cannot do is pay everyone. Our team is presently constructed with money tied up at DE1, LB, WR1, and CB1. OK, we have to build the rest of our roster around that. A different team has money tied up at QB, OT1, and other places. They have to build their team differently.

Now everybody has their opinions and preferences about at which positions those cap dollars should be spent.

I think QB is a universal agreement that if you have a star player you need to tie up cap space there.

Pretend for a minute that DJ Moore had Jenkins' injury history, would we be discussing a mega deal extension for him?

Now flip it, pretend that Jenkins' never missed a game and is an All Pro dominant G.

Well you really cannot control who the star players are on your team so it would be Eberflus' job to tailor the offense to having the WR group be the strength v the OL.

With the way this team is made, it makes total sense to refresh the OL with highly drafted rookies given how our resources are currently allocated.
Image
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8352
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 655 times

dplank wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2024 10:49 am
Noots wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2024 9:31 am The whole notion that the best OGs are failed OTs is also ass. There are different disciplines, pad level, footwork and handwork to each position, requiring far different skill sets. Repetition and aptitude factor in like any position switch. It makes far more sense to take a RT and make him an OG than a LT, as the 300lb DTs are far more powerful on the whole than the speed rushing 250lb edge guys. Are there OTs who eventually make good guards? Absolutely. But it’s just not a recipe for success to keep doing that, especially with guys who have more of the finesse LT traits, like a Braxton Jones, for instance.

I’m not Pooh-pooing position versatility, because I think it’s a big deal, especially for effective roster building. But to @The Marshall Plan ’s point, you’re not usually going to get a stud player if you plan to move him to a new position straight away upon drafting.
100%. It's very player specific, it's not an automatic thing. Those that think that way are typically keyboard warriors who never played a single game in pads. Personally, I could not play inside well at all. Things moved too fast, and as a tall guy I had trouble with leverage from smaller/quicker guys that would get under me super fast. I saw other guys who could do it just fine. There's no rule to this, it's an individual thing.
There is kind of a rule though (in terms of player movement on the OL). I understand your Hall of Fame resume and that I'm merely talking guys who merely have NFL Level Skill Sets in many capacities.

But guys who are Tackles in College - Including GOOD Tackles in College mind you - REGULARLY move to Guard in the Pros. Zach Martin played ALOT of Tackle in College for example

It's not like we are saying it happened once in 1970 and then again in 1992.

Every single year. Multiple times. Multiple players.

It also happens High School to College (ALOT). You play Tackle until you fail playing Tackle generally - unless it was apparent you couldn't play Tackle from the jump

Granted you can be a good Guard in College - and be a good Guard in the Pros - that also happens All the Time

I think the ultimate supposed finesse LT in my Bears Memory - was Chris Williams. Who failed at Tackle ultimately - and his best years in the NFL were at Guard. Even getting a nice contract from Buffalo to play Guard. He was NO All Pro or anything like that and I'm classify him as a bust overall - but he did have a few solid years at Guard
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8352
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 655 times

Noots wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2024 3:53 pm
RichH55 wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2024 10:01 am

And reasonable folks can disagree on "difference maker". But what say you to my plan of just going up against your other guard? :)

Also on Jenkins I don't think he was anywhere near "difference maker (but Guard version)" in terms of Pass Pro. He's solid in Pass Pro, but he's better in the Run Game.

I do think difference maker is position dependent though. The more influence you have - the more of a difference maker


True #1 WR? True #1 Corner (who you can travel with a teams top WR)? QB obviously. Pass Rusher - of course.

Either they can control the game themselves - or really wreck havoc on the gameplan for the other team. You might commit to making sure that pass rusher or WR doesn't get to beat you (Double teams, rolling coverage, etc) - but that will cost you overall. It costs you resources essentially

If I'm a Dcoord and my scheme is dependent on pressure up the middle - Do I particularly care if the pressure comes from over the Left or Right Guard? And even if the other DT is "meh" you still HAVE to account for them - you can't leave them fully unblocked - even the most mediocre NFL DT can get to the QB if you don't block them at all

So basically the other DT can just be a pawn - or an Australian at Gallipoli.
Screw that idea, Rich. There are more sides to this as usual. And we’ve lived through the crappy side of it for a decade or more now. You don’t think it’s as important to have a difference maker at IOL as WR? Game planning? Why do you think the last two offensive coordinators, on short yardage, ran shotgun and had a tendency for trickeration? Because there was nobody they could count on to run behind to get them that one yard. Win it immediately.

Conversely, if you have an ass kicker at C or G, who can look across the line and say we’re taking that one yard every time he lines up, that’s worth its weight in gold. Would you rather have a QB-WR combo that can complete 67% of their passes, maybe 75% even on short yardage (we couldn’t do that either since before Mitch, btw) or an IOL combo of C-G that you could run behind and get that 1 yard 90% of the time? If you’re a DC, and you’re game planning, it would suck to know that you’re going to lose 90 % of the time in short yardage because of the ass kickers.
The short yardage part is valid to a large degree. There are still ways to exploit weak units on the Offensive Line even in Short Yardage - but yes you are looking to the premium part of the argument about a Guard.

Though you do allude to the notion of the "combo" (IOL combo of C-G ) - which I suspect that it matters because - especially when you are using figures like "90%" of the time - You need a tandem to create the space still (at least to get to that level)

If you have an awesome guard (putting aside when the 1 yard is that one dimensional you can really use some DTs that are a factor - but can only have limited snaps) - and the Center or Tackle next to them gets blown up or losses immediately - Your short yardage chances are less than 90% and that is with your Guard winning his Rep (*)


(*) I do subscribe - to some degree - to the weak link theory of the OL - but I acknowledge that is lesser on short yardage pushes - since you basically need a combo (in fairness you don't want to be 100% predictable). But if your Tackle sucks on one side (say the right and your Guards and Center are good) - that will show up way, way, way less in short yardage


But to answer your question - Yes. I think having a stud DE, WR, or Corner (Assuming the Corner can travel with the top WR) for game planning and being a difference maker. I have never seen a Guard at peak do what Calvin Johnson did at peak.

There just isn't as easy a fix as - I'll just rush my best guy at the other Guard. I don't need to double team the Guard - so I'm not losing the resources like if you want to double/triple team Aaron Donald or Calvin Johnson - And quite frankly I can still utilize my best DT mostly how I want to.

Your guard can take my pawn, not my queen.


"Why do you think the last two offensive coordinators, on short yardage, ran shotgun and had a tendency for trickeration? "

Wasn't JENKINS here for that - for like 50% of the season? My guess? Limitations in Fields game - especially lining up under Center? But again didn't we supposedly have this Guard that wins all the short yardage battles by himself then??


Your whole premises made me think of the old adage (used about 100 different guys over the years mind you).

It was always like Old Man Joe was always consistent - If you needed 1 yard, he would get you 1 yard. If you needed 5 yards, he would get you 1 yard.
User avatar
Bears Whiskey Nut
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11411
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:06 am
Location: Oak Park, IL
Has thanked: 91 times
Been thanked: 655 times

RichH55 wrote: Mon Jun 03, 2024 7:05 pm
dplank wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2024 10:49 am

100%. It's very player specific, it's not an automatic thing. Those that think that way are typically keyboard warriors who never played a single game in pads. Personally, I could not play inside well at all. Things moved too fast, and as a tall guy I had trouble with leverage from smaller/quicker guys that would get under me super fast. I saw other guys who could do it just fine. There's no rule to this, it's an individual thing.
There is kind of a rule though (in terms of player movement on the OL). I understand your Hall of Fame resume and that I'm merely talking guys who merely have NFL Level Skill Sets in many capacities.

But guys who are Tackles in College - Including GOOD Tackles in College mind you - REGULARLY move to Guard in the Pros. Zach Martin played ALOT of Tackle in College for example

It's not like we are saying it happened once in 1970 and then again in 1992.

Every single year. Multiple times. Multiple players.

It also happens High School to College (ALOT). You play Tackle until you fail playing Tackle generally - unless it was apparent you couldn't play Tackle from the jump

Granted you can be a good Guard in College - and be a good Guard in the Pros - that also happens All the Time

I think the ultimate supposed finesse LT in my Bears Memory - was Chris Williams. Who failed at Tackle ultimately - and his best years in the NFL were at Guard. Even getting a nice contract from Buffalo to play Guard. He was NO All Pro or anything like that and I'm classify him as a bust overall - but he did have a few solid years at Guard
OK. So where do all the NFL Tackles come from? Converted TE's.

T's move to G's for a number of reasons. Arms are too short, their footwork isn't great, etc. Just to say T's regularly move to G isn't providing any reasoning for your assertion. You can't throw a zinger, refute a person's post, and then provide NO reasons for why you disagree with their point. I'm starting to catch on to all of the frustration.
Image
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8352
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 655 times

Bears Whiskey Nut wrote: Mon Jun 03, 2024 7:45 pm
RichH55 wrote: Mon Jun 03, 2024 7:05 pm

There is kind of a rule though (in terms of player movement on the OL). I understand your Hall of Fame resume and that I'm merely talking guys who merely have NFL Level Skill Sets in many capacities.

But guys who are Tackles in College - Including GOOD Tackles in College mind you - REGULARLY move to Guard in the Pros. Zach Martin played ALOT of Tackle in College for example

It's not like we are saying it happened once in 1970 and then again in 1992.

Every single year. Multiple times. Multiple players.

It also happens High School to College (ALOT). You play Tackle until you fail playing Tackle generally - unless it was apparent you couldn't play Tackle from the jump

Granted you can be a good Guard in College - and be a good Guard in the Pros - that also happens All the Time

I think the ultimate supposed finesse LT in my Bears Memory - was Chris Williams. Who failed at Tackle ultimately - and his best years in the NFL were at Guard. Even getting a nice contract from Buffalo to play Guard. He was NO All Pro or anything like that and I'm classify him as a bust overall - but he did have a few solid years at Guard
OK. So where do all the NFL Tackles come from? Converted TE's.

T's move to G's for a number of reasons. Arms are too short, their footwork isn't great, etc. Just to say T's regularly move to G isn't providing any reasoning for your assertion. You can't throw a zinger, refute a person's post, and then provide NO reasons for why you disagree with their point. I'm starting to catch on to all of the frustration.

Yeah - but I have absolutely gone over the myriad reasons WHY Tackles move to Guard over time (And I can again - just so someone can call it word salad - TLDR)

I would also disagree with your point (I assume you meant it to be flippant) that Tackles come from converted Tight Ends. While it can happen - and obviously Jason Peters is the first name that comes to mind - it is FAR FAR less common especially from College to the Pros than Tackle to Guard.

Basically its akin to the defensive spectrum in Baseball - Most of your "better" kids - Play SS (maybe Centerfield?) - Until they don't - maybe feet aren't good enough, arm isn't good enough, speed isn't good enough, etc. Some deficiency ultimately moves you off the spot.(*)

(*) Every once and a while its just a crazy bumper crop- think Brandon Albert at Virginia


Tackles - I subscribe to the Planet Theory. There are only some many people that size with the feet you want, arm length, strength, etc. It's also why there are some real real so-so Tackles in the league - that start
User avatar
Bearfacts
Head Coach
Posts: 2169
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:33 am
Location: Colorado
Has thanked: 1216 times
Been thanked: 310 times

HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2024 9:21 am
The Marshall Plan wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2024 3:07 am We need a starting G because some kind of a decision is going to be made with Davis and Jenkins. I'm really not sold that Braxton Jones is worth Contract #2 so I think we should address that.

Wright and Bates are good pieces. Jenkins is iffy. If we pay Jenkins I would want Davis to be cut which means we almost need 2 Gs. One to replace Davis and then another as a hedge for Jenkins.

But either way, we have the draft picks to stock up on OL prospects for the next five years while that rookie deal lasts. Why not do it?
How do you conclude Bates is a good piece? He hasn't played for the Bears yet and has been a back up virtually his entire career. In five seasons in Buffalo he started only 19 games with 15 of those coming in 2022 and then last year he was returned to the bench. He's played primarily at OG but has been brought in to compete for the starting center role and he's got to battle Shelton for that.

Also why are you not sold on Braxton Jones, who started every game in 2022 and made the all-rookie team, but are sold on Wright, who started every game in 2023 and made the all-rookie team?

In addition the team has a new OC implementing a new offensive scheme.

I suggest your assessments are premature.

We should get some clear answers this season about the direction all the Bears O-linemen are heading in. Will Jones and Wright continue to develop (and cut down on penalties)? Will Jenkins stay healthy for more than 2/3 of a season? Will Bates bounce back? Will Bates or Shelton prove to be an answer at center? Will any of the other O-linemen get playing time and show promise?

Only when evaluations are complete will we, and more importantly Poles, know who he needs to retain, replace or upgrade with all that draft ammunition.
Nice to read a well thought out sobering post. What we have at the moment is a team full of promise and four high picks in the 2025 to replace players who don't show enough promise. Now what remains is to play 17 games and learn from them what Poles may do next. What ever questions we have now at least some of them should be answered this season.
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8352
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 655 times

" If we pay Jenkins I would want Davis to be cut which means we almost need 2 Gs. "


Why? People seem to love this False Choice - I do not understand.

If Nate Davis is good in 2024 (And this is absolutely an ASSUMPTION, that will need to be proved) - Why aren't you keeping him regardless of what you do with Jenkins?

I just do not understand the logic (or lack thereof)
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8352
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 655 times

Bearfacts wrote: Mon Jun 03, 2024 11:05 pm
HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2024 9:21 am

How do you conclude Bates is a good piece? He hasn't played for the Bears yet and has been a back up virtually his entire career. In five seasons in Buffalo he started only 19 games with 15 of those coming in 2022 and then last year he was returned to the bench. He's played primarily at OG but has been brought in to compete for the starting center role and he's got to battle Shelton for that.

Also why are you not sold on Braxton Jones, who started every game in 2022 and made the all-rookie team, but are sold on Wright, who started every game in 2023 and made the all-rookie team?

In addition the team has a new OC implementing a new offensive scheme.

I suggest your assessments are premature.

We should get some clear answers this season about the direction all the Bears O-linemen are heading in. Will Jones and Wright continue to develop (and cut down on penalties)? Will Jenkins stay healthy for more than 2/3 of a season? Will Bates bounce back? Will Bates or Shelton prove to be an answer at center? Will any of the other O-linemen get playing time and show promise?

Only when evaluations are complete will we, and more importantly Poles, know who he needs to retain, replace or upgrade with all that draft ammunition.
Nice to read a well thought out sobering post. What we have at the moment is a team full of promise and four high picks in the 2025 to replace players who don't show enough promise. Now what remains is to play 17 games and learn from them what Poles may do next. What ever questions we have now at least some of them should be answered this season.
I wonder how much we can glean (if much) from Poles time with KC since he was involved but not ultimately making the calls (and some of this is after he left)

But they have had some churn in OL. Letting guys leave in FA (Mitch Morse, Orlando Brown, Eric Fisher). But also bringing guys in for high dollars (Thuney, J. Taylor) to also bringing in multiple rookies (late 2nd and 6th Rounds) and letting them start immediately.

They have Creed Humphrey and Trey Smith both hitting (potentially) FA after the year. That will bear watching

I will also be wondering if Humphrey just absolutely blows up the Center market. Guards are a bit inflated right now in terms of their market since they just got a bunch of new contracts at the top end. Whereas Center top paid guys are contracts signed a few years ago (Ragnow, Ryan Jensen still, and Ryan Kelly for example)

Will be interesting to watch.
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 30190
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 151 times
Been thanked: 2168 times

Just looking at recent history, it seems like KC likes to draft a guy and pay a guy.

Traded for Orlando Brown, paid Thuney and drafted Humphrey and Trey Smith
Paid Jawaan Taylor, and drafted Wanya Morris

KC had a pretty good run of stability on the OL though when they drafted Mahomes. Some general combination of Eric Fisher, Mitch Morse, Cam Irving, Laurent Duvernay-Tardif, and Mitchell Schwartz spent a lot of time together. Add in Austin Reiter and Andrew Wylie, and they didn't have a ton of moving parts for quite a while.
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12743
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1391 times
Been thanked: 2504 times

Matt Pryor at RG is an interesting tidbit here:

User avatar
Moriarty
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7188
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 824 times

dplank wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 3:29 pm Matt Pryor at RG is an interesting tidbit here:
Yes, although I think the more interesting part is "Davis not practicing", and "Pryor getting his snaps" comes in second for me.
But, for offseason time, both are worthwhile news.
If Davis ends up missing significant preseason time again...
1999-2002: Mouth Off Sports Forum (RIP)
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)

Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 30190
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 151 times
Been thanked: 2168 times

Very on-brand for Davis. Does that dude ever fully participate in offseason training?

I believe that was one of Vrable’s biggest gripes about him.
User avatar
Bearfacts
Head Coach
Posts: 2169
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:33 am
Location: Colorado
Has thanked: 1216 times
Been thanked: 310 times

wab wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:30 pm Very on-brand for Davis. Does that dude ever fully participate in offseason training?

I believe that was one of Vrable’s biggest gripes about him.
He can be traded with only $2 mil of dead cap and it wouldn't disappoint me at all.
User avatar
Arkansasbear
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5294
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
Has thanked: 539 times
Been thanked: 816 times

Bearfacts wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:52 pm
wab wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:30 pm Very on-brand for Davis. Does that dude ever fully participate in offseason training?

I believe that was one of Vrable’s biggest gripes about him.
He can be traded with only $2 mil of dead cap and it wouldn't disappoint me at all.
But they have to find someone that wants him. That could be hard.
User avatar
Bearfacts
Head Coach
Posts: 2169
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:33 am
Location: Colorado
Has thanked: 1216 times
Been thanked: 310 times

Arkansasbear wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 5:48 pm
Bearfacts wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:52 pm

He can be traded with only $2 mil of dead cap and it wouldn't disappoint me at all.
But they have to find someone that wants him. That could be hard.
I don't deny that but with 2 years remaining on his deal at $9-$9.5 mil a year that's not bad for an experienced OG when top guys are getting twice that. My guess is Flus will give him another shot this year to see if he can rebound and bench him if he doesn't. In 2025 we can just release him for that same $2 mil of dead cap.
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6764
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 2250 times

Bearfacts wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 8:57 pm I don't deny that but with 2 years remaining on his deal at $9-$9.5 mil a year that's not bad for an experienced OG when top guys are getting twice that. My guess is Flus will give him another shot this year to see if he can rebound and bench him if he doesn't. In 2025 we can just release him for that same $2 mil of dead cap.
We're probably blowing things out of proportion. He was at Halas Hall, but it sounds like he had an injury issue. Eberflus said the other day that they're hyper-cautious about such things as there's no point taking any risks at this point of the year.

If Davis isn't on the field when the pads come on then that will just provide an opportunity to another player to get valuable reps and potentially relieve him of his job. After his performances last year he shouldn't be guaranteed a starting role even if he would cost more to cut than to keep this year. There's more competition this now. Starting Shelton at C and Bates in his place at OG isn't out of the question. It could even open the door to moving Jenkins back over to RG alongside Wright to form a formidable pairing.

Davis got a pass last year because of his personal circumstance. That won't be the case this year. He won't get away with coasting. Eberflus said in his presser today "We have a standard of how we operate and it’s coached by the coaches and enforced by the players."
User avatar
Bearfacts
Head Coach
Posts: 2169
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:33 am
Location: Colorado
Has thanked: 1216 times
Been thanked: 310 times

HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 9:27 pm
Bearfacts wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 8:57 pm I don't deny that but with 2 years remaining on his deal at $9-$9.5 mil a year that's not bad for an experienced OG when top guys are getting twice that. My guess is Flus will give him another shot this year to see if he can rebound and bench him if he doesn't. In 2025 we can just release him for that same $2 mil of dead cap.
We're probably blowing things out of proportion. He was at Halas Hall, but it sounds like he had an injury issue. Eberflus said the other day that they're hyper-cautious about such things as there's no point taking any risks at this point of the year.

If Davis isn't on the field when the pads come on then that will just provide an opportunity to another player to get valuable reps and potentially relieve him of his job. After his performances last year he shouldn't be guaranteed a starting role even if he would cost more to cut than to keep this year. There's more competition this now. Starting Shelton at C and Bates in his place at OG isn't out of the question. It could even open the door to moving Jenkins back over to RG alongside Wright to form a formidable pairing.

Davis got a pass last year because of his personal circumstance. That won't be the case this year. He won't get away with coasting. Eberflus said in his presser today "We have a standard of how we operate and it’s coached by the coaches and enforced by the players."
Quite possible but if there's any truth to the rumor that Vrabel let him go because of similar issues with his attendance at OTA or other availability issues it's probably something they're aware of and have plans for dealing with. I'm not concerned one way or another.
User avatar
Rusty Trombagent
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7586
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:19 am
Location: Maine!
Has thanked: 630 times
Been thanked: 1166 times

man, nate davis derangement syndrome is real and it is terrifying.
Image
User avatar
Bears Whiskey Nut
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11411
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:06 am
Location: Oak Park, IL
Has thanked: 91 times
Been thanked: 655 times

Bearfacts wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:52 pm
wab wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:30 pm Very on-brand for Davis. Does that dude ever fully participate in offseason training?

I believe that was one of Vrable’s biggest gripes about him.
He can be traded with only $2 mil of dead cap and it wouldn't disappoint me at all.
Yeah. If he's a no show for effort at training camp, I'd trade him for a 6th and be done with it. Get him out of the building. Pryor is getting his reps. I'd like to see Benedet get some reps as well.
Image
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12743
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1391 times
Been thanked: 2504 times

Rusty Trombagent wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2024 5:06 am man, nate davis derangement syndrome is real and it is terrifying.
I'm not a fan of Davis, but yea the hysteria is over the top. It's OTA's, no pads, the OL really don't have all that much impactful work. If he's not participating in camp then I'll be worried. All in all, what we need to see from Davis is better play on the field - that's what really disappointed me last year. People miss time and he had personal stuff going on, but when he played he wasn't good. That needs to change.
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 30190
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 151 times
Been thanked: 2168 times

dplank wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2024 9:00 am
Rusty Trombagent wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2024 5:06 am man, nate davis derangement syndrome is real and it is terrifying.
I'm not a fan of Davis, but yea the hysteria is over the top. It's OTA's, no pads, the OL really don't have all that much impactful work. If he's not participating in camp then I'll be worried. All in all, what we need to see from Davis is better play on the field - that's what really disappointed me last year. People miss time and he had personal stuff going on, but when he played he wasn't good. That needs to change.
Calling it "derangement syndrome" and "hysteria" is a little much, no?

He has a well-documented history of not being available in the offseason. That's all anyone is really saying, and it's a concern because to your point he's also been bad.
User avatar
Rusty Trombagent
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7586
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:19 am
Location: Maine!
Has thanked: 630 times
Been thanked: 1166 times

wab wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2024 9:08 am
dplank wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2024 9:00 am

I'm not a fan of Davis, but yea the hysteria is over the top. It's OTA's, no pads, the OL really don't have all that much impactful work. If he's not participating in camp then I'll be worried. All in all, what we need to see from Davis is better play on the field - that's what really disappointed me last year. People miss time and he had personal stuff going on, but when he played he wasn't good. That needs to change.
Calling it "derangement syndrome" and "hysteria" is a little much, no?

He has a well-documented history of not being available in the offseason. That's all anyone is really saying, and it's a concern because to your point he's also been bad.
read the replies to this tweet:



really scroll down and breath it all in.
Image
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 30190
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 151 times
Been thanked: 2168 times

Rusty Trombagent wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2024 11:30 am
wab wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2024 9:08 am

Calling it "derangement syndrome" and "hysteria" is a little much, no?

He has a well-documented history of not being available in the offseason. That's all anyone is really saying, and it's a concern because to your point he's also been bad.
read the replies to this tweet:



really scroll down and breath it all in.
I'm talking about here...this particular forum. Only G08 has really taken an overly passionate anti-Davis stance.

I don't care what the lowest common denominator of useful idiots on Twitter are saying.
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6764
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 2250 times

wab wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2024 11:51 am
Rusty Trombagent wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2024 11:30 am read the replies to this tweet:



really scroll down and breath it all in.
I'm talking about here...this particular forum. Only G08 has really taken an overly passionate anti-Davis stance.

I don't care what the lowest common denominator of useful idiots on Twitter are saying.
That's a mighty harsh categorisation of Courtney Cronin for reporting Davis looked to be limited and therefore didn't take part in the team period! :D
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12743
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1391 times
Been thanked: 2504 times

wab wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2024 9:08 am
dplank wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2024 9:00 am

I'm not a fan of Davis, but yea the hysteria is over the top. It's OTA's, no pads, the OL really don't have all that much impactful work. If he's not participating in camp then I'll be worried. All in all, what we need to see from Davis is better play on the field - that's what really disappointed me last year. People miss time and he had personal stuff going on, but when he played he wasn't good. That needs to change.
Calling it "derangement syndrome" and "hysteria" is a little much, no?

He has a well-documented history of not being available in the offseason. That's all anyone is really saying, and it's a concern because to your point he's also been bad.
Yea, but as he already explained he was talking about the Twitter dorks losing their shite...

Trust me, I'm no Nate Davis fan. But fans to tend to WAY overreact to offseason stuff like this, I'll worry once training camp starts if he starts missing time.
Post Reply