SNF: Purple People Eaters @ the Monsters of the Midway

[MacReady]

3 hours ago, Superman(DH23) said:

Except we dont have to pay our qb, QB money until 2021 at the earliest, and by that point, Mack's big cap numbers are off the books.  Basically we are paying Mack like a qb, until we have to pay.our actual QB. Its pretty genious cap management if you ask me.  The even better thing is apparently getting Mack from the raiders was the Bears plan all off season.  This started in February.

That's true only if you think the Bears will use their fifth year option on Trubisky and not extend him before then.  If the Bears are out there using a fifth year option on their rookie QB who they claim is their franchise QB instead of re-signing him early, it won't matter how little they're paying him because it'll mean he's not all that good. 

And it really doesn't matter how much they're paying their QB.  If you've got no money, you've got no money. 

The Bears have the 6th lowest amount of cap space heading into 2019. 
They have the 3rd lowest amount of cap space heading into 2020. 

Your best (I think?) safety (Amos) and your starting right tackle are free agents after this year, and so are 21 other players currently on your roster.  So with the 6th lowest amount of money and the fewest amount of draft picks in the NFL.  You don't have a first round pick and you don't have a second round pick in this draft. 

For all the excitement I'm sure all Bears fans are feeling, and rightly so, your team looks scary, I don't get the longterm confidence.  You really don't have to look outside of the division to see what happens to a team that starts slowly getting worse and wore draft capital. 

This is also neglecting the inevitable outcome of success.  Your coaching staff could get pilfered for other jobs.  Your OC is already rumored for head coaching jobs in college.  I think Vic Fangio has said he doesn't want to be a head coach again, but I could be wrong.  The players who do hit free agency will want more money than they'e worth due to the success of the team (I've watched this happen with the Packers way too many times to know that's a fact). 

When you start losing those role players without the ability to replace them, that's when teams start to struggle.  It's what's happening with the Packers right now.  Picking so high in the draft has made for some pretty bad draft classes in 2015 and 2017.  Harder than maintaining low draft capital success is maintaining no draft capital success. 

And it's not as simple as being able to say that you're returning so and so many players from the last year when you were so good.  It doesn't work like that.  Players get old, schemes get learned, habits get figured out.  It's why so many times you see a team go from unstoppable to bottom dwelling in one year.  It's why you see teams like the Rams and Saints follow up a successful season with going out and signing a bunch of free agents or trading up in the draft to get pass rushers.  The Bears don't have that luxury.

It is tough to maintain success in this league.  That's why you see what's happening to the Jaguars and Falcons and so on. 
It's tougher to maintain success when you have no draft capital and no money to maintain it with. 

I know you don't want to agree with me because you're a Bears fan and you don't want to believe bad things and that's only natural, but I have never hated the Bears.  Not once.  This isn't anger or jealousy or spite or bitterness speaking.  I see what the Bears did as a massive mistake, which is why I was terrified the Packers would do what the Bears did. 

Two proven methods to winning in this league are draft capital/draft success and a healthy cap.  The Bears have neither. 

[topwop1]

9 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

Yeah, I still think paying Mack QB money and investing two picks in him was a mistake.  @ me again in three years and we'll see how it works out.

So basically if Bears don't win the SB in the next 3 years then trading for Mack and giving him all that money was a mistake then, regardless of how successful he or the team may be otherwise?

[Malfatron]

3 minutes ago, topwop1 said:

Packers pretty much have to run the table to make the playoffs IMO.  Sorry but I don't see that happening.

they can lose 1 and realistically make it.

if they beat minnesota, they only team they play that has a better record than them are the bears.

 

[MacReady]

Just now, topwop1 said:

So basically if Bears don't win the SB in the next 3 years then trading for Mack and giving him all that money was a mistake then, regardless of how successful he or the team may be otherwise?

Well the goal is to win a Super Bowl...

You also have to consider the longevity of each move. 

The Bears gave up the possibility of two highly effective players starting at the age of 20-23 for a player that is 27.  So if they don't win a Super Bowl in three years, they essentially gave up 2 players entering their prime for a player entering his twilight years as a 30+ year old pass rusher that may or may not re-sign. 

This is why I think that Mack move made more sense for a team trying to capitalize on an aging QB instead of a young QB who was at the time unproven, and who still has some pretty bad games. 

[vike daddy]

congrats there, gents. you have a hell of a team this year!

[Superman(DH23)]

3 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

That's true only if you think the Bears will use their fifth year option on Trubisky and not extend him before then.  If the Bears are out there using a fifth year option on their rookie QB who they claim is their franchise QB instead of re-signing him early, it won't matter how little they're paying him because it'll mean he's not all that good. 

And it really doesn't matter how much they're paying their QB.  If you've got no money, you've got no money. 

The Bears have the 6th lowest amount of cap space heading into 2019. 
They have the 3rd lowest amount of cap space heading into 2020. 

Your best (I think?) safety (Amos) and your starting right tackle are free agents after this year, and so are 21 other players currently on your roster.  So with the 6th lowest amount of money and the fewest amount of draft picks in the NFL.  You don't have a first round pick and you don't have a second round pick in this draft. 

For all the excitement I'm sure all Bears fans are feeling, and rightly so, your team looks scary, I don't get the longterm confidence.  You really don't have to look outside of the division to see what happens to a team that starts slowly getting worse and wore draft capital. 

This is also neglecting the inevitable outcome of success.  Your coaching staff could get pilfered for other jobs.  Your OC is already rumored for head coaching jobs in college.  I think Vic Fangio has said he doesn't want to be a head coach again, but I could be wrong.  The players who do hit free agency will want more money than they'e worth due to the success of the team (I've watched this happen with the Packers way too many times to know that's a fact). 

When you start losing those role players without the ability to replace them, that's when teams start to struggle.  It's what's happening with the Packers right now.  Picking so high in the draft has made for some pretty bad draft classes in 2015 and 2017.  Harder than maintaining low draft capital success is maintaining no draft capital success. 

And it's not as simple as being able to say that you're returning so and so many players from the last year when you were so good.  It doesn't work like that.  Players get old, schemes get learned, habits get figured out.  It's why so many times you see a team go from unstoppable to bottom dwelling in one year.  It's why you see teams like the Rams and Saints follow up a successful season with going out and signing a bunch of free agents or trading up in the draft to get pass rushers.  The Bears don't have that luxury.

It is tough to maintain success in this league.  That's why you see what's happening to the Jaguars and Falcons and so on. 
It's tougher to maintain success when you have no draft capital and no money to maintain it with. 

I know you don't want to agree with me because you're a Bears fan and you don't want to believe bad things and that's only natural, but I have never hated the Bears.  Not once.  This isn't anger or jealousy or spite or bitterness speaking.  I see what the Bears did as a massive mistake, which is why I was terrified the Packers would do what the Bears did. 

Two proven methods to winning in this league are draft capital/draft success and a healthy cap.  The Bears have neither. 

No Adrian Amos is not the Bears best safety, the other safety is leading the NFL in takeaways and has 3 defensive TDs.  Hes the stud.  Amos is a good in the box safety, who was drafted in the 5th round.  He is not somebody who is going to have a huge market or is terribly hard to replace.  And the draft capital comment is so wrong.  No in 2019 they dont have a first or 2nd round pick.  Instead they have Khalil Mack and Anthony Miller.  Seems like a pretty decent trade off to me.  2020 the Bears are exchanging their 1st for the raiders 2nd.  In a perfect scenario for us its exchanging the 32nd pick for the 33rd.  But a more conservative estimate would be a mid-late 20s for an early - mid 40s.  Again to get Khalil Mack I'm good with that. Now on the cap space side, the Bears have great cap.management and have for a long time now.  Mack isnt the first time we have signed a historic contract.  The cap goes up every year and the Bears have the core completely locked up until 2021.  They wont need to make any huge out of the club signings it's just going to be locking up the guys we want to lock up and signing the right guys who fit in the locker room and add value. As for 10's contract. I expect they will exercise the 5th year option and then extend him after 2021 before the 5th year option takes effect.  By that time Mack's contract is going to much more favorable to the Bears and they will still have him under control for 2 years. Now I'm not saying that everything is going to go great with everything.  But I think anyone who wants to point at draft and cap and say the Bears are in trouble long term really doesnt have any clue what they are talking about 

[MacReady]

Just now, Superman(DH23) said:

No Adrian Amos is not the Bears best safety, the other safety is leading the NFL in takeaways and has 3 defensive TDs.

It's not about Mack/Miller being better than a first and second round pick this coming draft, it's about constantly adding to your team.

The Bears aren't getting any help from this year to the next.  Not any.  So you have to consider that everybody in their division is going to be able to add free agents and draft picks while the Bears stay the same and draw a tougher schedule. 

I know why you're looking at it the way you are, but the Bears really aren't in a very strong position to maintain this year.  At all.  When every team in the NFL gets better and the Bears stay the same...

That's the point I'm making.  If they lose a couple big role players (Lynch, Amos, RT can't remember name) and have only 3rd-7th round picks to replace them, they've gotten worse.  If the Packers keep every player of value, and they will since they don't have any players they really want to keep on that roster anyway, and add free agents and youth to replace them...

So you expect a team that isn't good enough to win the Super Bowl this year to be able to bring back virtually the same team and be able to compete for one next year? 

 

[topwop1]

2 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Well the goal is to win a Super Bowl...

You also have to consider the longevity of each move. 

The Bears gave up the possibility of two highly effective players starting at the age of 20-23 for a player that is 27.  So if they don't win a Super Bowl in three years, they essentially gave up 2 players entering their prime for a player entering his twilight years as a 30+ year old pass rusher that may or may not re-sign. 

This is why I think that Mack move made more sense for a team trying to capitalize on an aging QB instead of a young QB who was at the time unproven, and who still has some pretty bad games. 

Right, the Bears gave up the POSSIBILITY (key word) of drafting two highly effective players instead for a proven Hall of Fame caliber type of player who has single handedly turned their defense into a top-3 unit.  I mean dumb move..right, trading unknown assets that would be hard pressed to return a similarly talented player to what you received, not to mention receiving back what should be a fairly high 2nd round pick in 2020 from the team you just made the trade with.

I'll say this with confidence...barring some career threatening injury, you can be sure that Mack will be playing at a high level well into his 30s, and he is under contract with the Bears until 2024 when he will be 33 years old, which is the same age that Julius Peppers was in his last season with the Bears before he joined the Packers.  Also, the cap will surely be rising in subsequent years, especially when the new CBA comes around which will give the team added room when they will likely need it most.

You forget to mention how up until this season, the Bears were a team with a fair amount of good draft capital and abundant cap space.  Why should they be ridiculed for doing the exact same thing that teams like the Saints and Rams were doing when they traded their 1st round picks away for players they thought would help them win now and in the foreseeable future?

[MacReady]

Just now, topwop1 said:

Why should they be ridiculed for doing the exact same thing that teams like the Saints and Rams were doing when they traded their 1st round picks away for players they thought would help them win now and in the foreseeable future?

Because the Saints and Rams had their quarterbacks.  The Bears didn't have theirs.  You can't argue with that.  They did not know about Trubisky, and if you dig a little deep, you really can't be all that sure they do now. 

Mitchell Trubisky against the Buccaneers, Jets and Lions:

929 passing yards, 58 completions, 85 attempts (68%), 10.9 yards per attempt, 309 yards per game, 11 touchdowns, 0 interceptions

Mitchell Trubisky against everyone else:

1540 yards, 152 completions, 236 attempts (64%), 6.5 yards per attempt, 220 yards per game, 9 touchdowns, 9 interceptions

Trubisky has played really well against really bad teams, but he doesn't look all that impressive against other teams. 

And finally, this is a discussion on down the road.  You can't really have this conversation on down the road when it's not down the road yet.  You as a Bears fan will naturally look at the positives and positive potential while I as a fan of conservative drafting and cap health approaches will think otherwise. 

[topwop1]

Just now, Outpost31 said:

Because the Saints and Rams had their quarterbacks.  The Bears didn't have theirs.  You can't argue with that.  They did not know about Trubisky, and if you dig a little deep, you really can't be all that sure they do now. 

Mitchell Trubisky against the Buccaneers, Jets and Lions:

929 passing yards, 58 completions, 85 attempts (68%), 10.9 yards per attempt, 309 yards per game, 11 touchdowns, 0 interceptions

Mitchell Trubisky against everyone else:

1540 yards, 152 completions, 236 attempts (64%), 6.5 yards per attempt, 220 yards per game, 9 touchdowns, 9 interceptions

Trubisky has played really well against really bad teams, but he doesn't look all that impressive against other teams. 

And finally, this is a discussion on down the road.  You can't really have this conversation on down the road when it's not down the road yet.  You as a Bears fan will naturally look at the positives and positive potential while I as a fan of conservative drafting and cap health approaches will think otherwise. 

Says who, the media and the fans?  You cannot say that the team didn't already have confidence that they had their QB before they went out and made all these moves this past off season.  

This isn't a conversation about trying to convince anyone else that Trubisky will end up being anything special, but if the team believes this to be true then why not go out and make these aggressive moves while he is still under a very manageable rookie contract?

I also don't get why Goff is given the benefit of the doubt but Trubisky is not.  Goff has one more year on Mitch, and his second season has gone similarly to what Mitch is doing right now after both having fairly unimpressive rookie years under archaic head coaches in Jeff Fisher and John Fox.

[MacReady]

Just now, topwop1 said:

Says who, the media and the fans?  You cannot say that the team didn't already have confidence that they had their QB before they went out and made all these moves this past off season.  

It's not about confidence, it's about proof.  The Bears had no proof of what Trubisky was capable of.

Quote

I also don't get why Goff is given the benefit of the doubt but Trubisky is not.

Probably because Goff had taken his team to the playoffs before his team killed their cap and traded away their draft capital when Trubisky had only had one less-than-promising year. 

[ET80]

4 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Probably because Goff had taken his team to the playoffs before his team killed their cap and traded away their draft capital when Trubisky had only had one less-than-promising year. 

This is a bit of an unfair statement. Goff took his team to the playoffs in Y2. Trubisky is right now positioned to do the same.

[topwop1]

1 minute ago, Outpost31 said:

It's not about confidence, it's about proof.  The Bears had no proof of what Trubisky was capable of.

Probably because Goff had taken his team to the playoffs before his team killed their cap and traded away their draft capital when Trubisky had only had one less-than-promising year. 

Except they did.  See games vs Baltimore Ravens and Cincinnati Bengals from 2017. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out what a player is capable of and to have confidence in that player moving forward.

[KFP7]

46 minutes ago, topwop1 said:

Packers pretty much have to run the table to make the playoffs IMO.  Sorry but I don't see that happening.

3 very winnable home games and a road game with the Jets should be 4 wins.  Then it's just 2 tough road games, but the Packers have been road warriors this year so that should be no prob.....er wait. 

[MacReady]

Just now, topwop1 said:

Except they did.  See games vs Baltimore Ravens and Cincinnati Bengals from 2017. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out what a player is capable of and to have confidence in that player moving forward.

Yeah, sorry, Trubisky going 50% with 113 yards and 1 touchdown against the Ravens isn't enough for me.  I don't care if that was the 85 Bears he played, 50%, 113 yards and 1 TD isn't enough to convince me I should go all in on my rookie QB starting his second year.