If the Raiders signed Brady, would you pursue Carr?

[WindyCity]

22 minutes ago, abstract_thought said:

The Bears' receiving options are certainly better.

The OL play is something that would obviously need to be fixed through the draft and through improved coaching.

The Raiders have a better OL, TE and RB.

Carr would be coming to a less talented offense.

[abstract_thought]

7 minutes ago, WindyCity said:

The Raiders have a better OL, TE and RB.

Carr would be coming to a less talented offense.

The question isn't one of Raiders Carr v. Bears Carr. It's Bears Carr v. Bears Mitch.

Acquiring Carr would be the single most impactful move the Bears could make this offseason. The cap concerns aren't even that great because the Bears have to go find a veteran backup anyway. You're looking at a likely cost of a 2nd round pick and 10-13M in free agent money.

[WindyCity]

4 minutes ago, abstract_thought said:

The question isn't one of Raiders Carr v. Bears Carr. It's Bears Carr v. Bears Mitch.

Acquiring Carr would be the single most impactful move the Bears could make this offseason. The cap concerns aren't even that great because the Bears have to go find a veteran backup anyway. You're looking at a likely cost of a 2nd round pick and 10-13M in free agent money.

That is a lot.

That is a starting RG, TE and a 2nd round pick.

[dll2000]

You can't, read they won't, sign someone obviously better than Mitch right now at least not an older player.  Carr is better than Mitch and should be the presumed starter in Chicago not the back up.  I don't think they are ready to make that step.  

Mitch gets one more year.  Period.  

Only a reasonable deal for a great QB like Brady would move them off that position and that is highly improbable occurrence.  

 

[Heinz D.]

18 hours ago, AZBearsFan said:

You get no benefit from cutting Mitch in 2020 - his salary is 100% guaranteed. 

What is his base salary?

7 hours ago, WindyCity said:

If they trade both 2nd round picks they can get to 20. He will likely go before that.

If he doesn't he is a prospect with huge question marks that is going to a team with a flawed offense that needs talent and won't be able to draft it.

You think Love will be a top twenty pick? Could be...but most don't think that. Whether Love has question marks or not depends on who you ask, but pretty much everyone thinks he's a project. 

So--you're a "ride or die with Mitch" guy? I find that kind of surprising as you think everyone should have been fired. 

4 hours ago, dll2000 said:

You can't, read they won't, sign someone obviously better than Mitch right now at least not an older player.  Carr is better than Mitch and should be the presumed starter in Chicago not the back up.  I don't think they are ready to make that step.  

Mitch gets one more year.  Period.  

Only a reasonable deal for a great QB like Brady would move them off that position and that is highly improbable occurrence.  

 

I don't think they'd touch Brady unless, as you say, the deal was very "reasonable", (e.g.: SMALL). They're giving Mitch at least another year. I spend time conjecturing otherwise, and hoping that's not the case, but they're going to see the Mitch experiment through. I frankly don't even know if they could stomach drafting Gordon in the fourth (although they should). 

[Sugashane]

On 2/5/2020 at 9:27 AM, beardown3231 said:

Could be because they went from so much optimism to such a dud of a season, could also be because I'm becoming a father in the spring 

Congratulations! 

 

12 minutes ago, Heinz D. said:

What is his base salary?

You think Love will be a top twenty pick? Could be...but most don't think that. Whether Love has question marks or not depends on who you ask, but pretty much everyone thinks he's a project. 

So--you're a "ride or die with Mitch" guy? I find that kind of surprising as you think everyone should have been fired. 

I don't think they'd touch Brady unless, as you say, the deal was very "reasonable", (e.g.: SMALL). They're giving Mitch at least another year. I spend time conjecturing otherwise, and hoping that's not the case, but they're going to see the Mitch experiment through. I frankly don't even know if they could stomach drafting Gordon in the fourth (although they should). 

Trubisky has a fully guaranteed deal for his first 4 years. If he gets cut it is $9.2ish mil in dead cap. Best we could do is trade him (which IMO we would have to pair him with a late pick for someone to want a scattershot back up QB making over 9 mil). Then it would be just over $4.8 mil dead. So basically we could trade him, lose a pick, and still have to sign at least a competent reserve with the $4.4 mil saved. I don't see any way he isn't a Bear in 2020.

 

My bet is - they ride with him, let Pace and Nagy show they either deserve to stay or have an an immediate exit after week 17. Then let the new guys pick who they want in the 2021 draft If  (when) Trubisky flops. 

 

I'd be happy with Gordon in the 4th but doubt he makes it that far. I think he may be able to beat Tru outright. Tru is much more gifted athletically had has more experience in Nagy's system, Gordon can hit open receivers. Point goes to Gordon. 

[Heinz D.]

5 minutes ago, Sugashane said:

Trubisky has a fully guaranteed deal for his first 4 years. If he gets cut it is $9.2ish mil in dead cap. Best we could do is trade him (which IMO we would have to pair him with a late pick for someone to want a scattershot back up QB making over 9 mil). Then it would be just over $4.8 mil dead. So basically we could trade him, lose a pick, and still have to sign at least a competent reserve with the $4.4 mil saved. I don't see any way he isn't a Bear in 2020.

 

My bet is - they ride with him, let Pace and Nagy show they either deserve to stay or have an an immediate exit after week 17. Then let the new guys pick who they want in the 2021 draft If  (when) Trubisky flops. 

They could definitely trade him. It would be for peanuts, but there is always some coach out there who will think he can get right what the Bears did wrong. I guarantee everyone on this board that's an option. 

However in response to what @AZBearsFan posted earlier--there is a benefit to cutting him outright. And that's one where he's no longer on the team. 

But you're right--they're going to try to set him up to succeed. That's obvious. Unfortunate they'll likely not bring in anybody else--but obvious. 

[abstract_thought]

I think keeping Mitch as a backup with Carr as the starter is the most financially realistic scenario. It’ll cost about 10-13M more than going with Mitch and signing a quality backup. That‘s roughly equivalent to the money it took to sign Trey Burton and Eric Kush.

The biggest reason to trade for Carr now is he helps extend the competitive window beyond next season. His salary is reasonable and the Raiders have already absorbed most of the dead money.

[beardown3231]

Yeah look I think Trubisky blows but cutting him or trading him for next to nothing isn't smart. There's always a chance the light bulb comes in, albeit slim.

[WindyCity]

15 minutes ago, abstract_thought said:

I think keeping Mitch as a backup with Carr as the starter is the most financially realistic scenario. It’ll cost about 10-13M more than going with Mitch and signing a quality backup. That‘s roughly equivalent to the money it took to sign Trey Burton and Eric Kush.

The biggest reason to trade for Carr now is he helps extend the competitive window beyond next season. His salary is reasonable and the Raiders have already absorbed most of the dead money.

13 million and a 2nd round pick.

13 million is also about what it took to sign Hicks and Trevathan.

[AZBearsFan]

I just don’t see a situation where we trade for a guy to be a clear cut starter ahead of Mitch, and we aren’t trading for Carr to be a backup here. If we’re bringing him on it’s to be the guy.  

Gruden isn’t trading Carr without a replacement anyway though, right? If he signs a replacement QB in FA then Carr has minimal to no trade value, especially in a QB FA market with a bunch of real options available to potential trade candidates. If he drafts one in round 1 then Carr has no trade value either and he could keep him to let the rookie ease in, BUT, at that point they still want to clear Carr out of there, maybe he takes on Mitch’s $4.4M cap hit (if traded) in return from us as a 1-year backup to his rookie in exchange for us dealing for Carr? In that scenario our cap still takes on a ~$13M cap increase, but we’d have presumably already spent $ on a FA backup QB by draft day so that’s not really plausible either.

I just don’t see how it happens without compromising our ability to also address serious other needs in FA with at least competent players. To me the bed is made here with Mitch still getting every chance to be the guy again unless 2020 is made to be a full blown tank year, which it won’t be. Nobody has to like it - but it’s still the most likely reality. 

[JAF-N72EX]

On 2/5/2020 at 10:27 AM, beardown3231 said:

And I'll start and end with this: I watched Trubisky go from 101 to 201 in this offense last year and he was downright embarrassing at times. By no means do I think Carr is great (or even a top 8-12 QB like some others do on this board), but he's certainly a top 15-18 QB and that's several slots better than a top 28-32 QB.

The diehard fan in me says go out and improve the position & don't waste this defense. The realist in me says roll with the bum they have and ideally get a top 7 pick next year & let's start over again.

This will be one of the first offseasons of my life where I really will feel indifferent about what they do. Could be because they went from so much optimism to such a dud of a season, could also be because I'm becoming a father in the spring 

Carr doesn't fit the system. That's what I asked you about. He is a statue in the pocket and that doesn't bode well with Nagy's offense (whatever that seems to be at this point seeing as how it has changed from year to year).

Nagy's playcalling relies heavily on the use of the QB lining up from the shotgun formation with very little play-action. Conversely, Carr has spent the majority of his career lining up behind the center while playing in offenses based around the play-action. 

Point is, it's not as clear cut of a decision as you make it out to be because you can't just throw every QB into any system and expect good results. Just because Carr is a better overall QB does not mean he would be a better fit in this offense. Carr's ability is not that flexible.

Now if Nagy is leaning toward that style of play as he did late in the year, then I'm all for it. Hell, I wish he would. The current offense is built better around that (with the addition of an all-around back).

Congrats on the upcoming child. Enjoy it while he or she is a baby/toddler because it becomes much harder and much more frustrating later on when they grow up. My wife and I love our kids but they drive us crazy now that they're getting older. Our son will be 18 this June and I wanna choke him out sometimes, Homer simpson style, because he thinks he has life figured out already. Our 9 year old daughter has the mind of a 19 year old and while that may seem like a good thing..... as a parent, it's NOT!

 

 

 

 

On 2/5/2020 at 11:30 AM, RunningVaccs said:

Congrats! Hopefully by the time future kid is able to have a favorite player the Bears will have the QB situation solved. 

Pff.......

On 2/5/2020 at 11:45 AM, WindyCity said:

This is what gives me pause

Let’s just say you trade a 2nd round pick for Derek Carr. Who I think is a better QB.

He makes 20 million

What is better for 2020

Austin Hooper (10), Graham Glasgow (8), Jalen Reagor (2nd), Mitch

Or

Derek Carr, Mitch

Bingo. If you give Carr 20M then you are giving him roughly ~50% of what we have to spend in free agency to fill other needs and Carr is not that good of a player to give up for that.  

On 2/5/2020 at 7:29 PM, abstract_thought said:

A good QB is about 8000000x more impactful than a good TE so I’ll say #2.

What if that QB only plays about 6 games after the season is essentially lost?

Because that would be the only way Carr would see the field as long as Mitch is on the team and he isn't going anywhere. 

Look, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that Pace goes after a QB in FA or the draft (even early) but neither of them are going to be seeing any significant time during the season until Pace finally admits to himself that Mitch was the wrong choice and I'm convinced that the only way for that happen would be if we were out of playoff contention by week 10. Then HE MIGHT say to Nagy, "ok, I give up on Mitch". 

 

 

 

 

 

3

4 hours ago, AZBearsFan said:

If he drafts one in round 1 then Carr has no trade value either and he could keep him to let the rookie ease in, BUT, at that point they still want to clear Carr out of there, maybe he takes on Mitch’s $4.4M cap hit (if traded) in return from us as a 1-year backup to his rookie in exchange for us dealing for Carr? In that scenario our cap still takes on a ~$13M cap increase, but we’d have presumably already spent $ on a FA backup QB by draft day so that’s not really plausible either.

Agree wholeheartedly. Exactly as I see it as well. Especially the bolded. In the same way as if Pace drafted a QB. Mitch and Carr would be the "let's see IF they have enough in them to keep the team afloat while the future starter sits back and learns". Mahomes/Rodgers style.

[abstract_thought]

6 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

 What if that QB only plays about 6 games after the season is essentially lost?

Because that would be the only way Carr would see the field as long as Mitch is on the team and he isn't going anywhere. 

Look, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that Pace goes after a QB in FA or the draft (even early) but neither of them are going to be seeing any significant time during the season until Pace finally admits to himself that Mitch was the wrong choice and I'm convinced that the only way for that happen would be if we were out of playoff contention by week 10. Then HE MIGHT say to Nagy, "ok, I give up on Mitch". 

I agree with this. My arguments have been based on the premise that moving on from Trubisky is the best option.

I believe Carr is good enough to win with this team. And while his pro years have been in stylistically different offenses, IIRC most of his time at Fresno State was in a shotgun-spread type offense.

[WindyCity]

49 minutes ago, abstract_thought said:

I agree with this. My arguments have been based on the premise that moving on from Trubisky is the best option.

I believe Carr is good enough to win with this team. And while his pro years have been in stylistically different offenses, IIRC most of his time at Fresno State was in a shotgun-spread type offense.

If we could sign Carr as a free agent and get away from Trubisky's money cleanly I would agree.

But we would be tying up a ton of resources at QB.

 

I disagree that Carr would do much better in this offense as it stands talent wise.

[AZBearsFan]

3 hours ago, abstract_thought said:

I agree with this. My arguments have been based on the premise that moving on from Trubisky is the best option.

I believe Carr is good enough to win with this team. And while his pro years have been in stylistically different offenses, IIRC most of his time at Fresno State was in a shotgun-spread type offense.

Moving on from Mitch being the best option and moving on from Mitch being a genuinely viable one are two different things because of the money. You’re probably not dropping top money on a replacement if his $9M is still on the books and even if you did and you managed to trade him $4.5M of that remains as dead money and you’d need to sign a second QB to back up a new guy anyway so you may as well just take the huge hit. 

But say they are inclined to go big ticket after a FA QB. Are they going to do that to go after a 1-2 year shot at glory with declining Brady, Brees or Rivers? I’d guess probably not, and with the Mitch money still a factor I’d guess those guys are out of our 2020 price range anyway because since they’re almost done we can’t spread the $ out nearly as far. Dak is extending or getting franchised in Dallas, so now you’re talking Teddy Bridgewater as the big fish. I like Teddy but is he good enough to justify the $25M annual contract with multi year guarantees it’ll probably take to land him? I don’t think so, but even if he is in Pace’s eyes, why would he choose the Bears over other potential suitors in Indy or Miami (who can easily outbid us, and FL also having no state tax), the Chargers (who have more to offer in surrounding offensive personnel) or maybe in NE or NO (who are both more immediate title contenders)? On that list we are probably the 5th or 6th most attractive destination out of 6. Andy Dalton isn’t blowing my skirt up as a clear upgrade and even if he’s brought in and starts from day 1 he’s JAG. Mariota is a reclamation project. 

Honestly the potential option that intrigues me the most is a trade for Foles, who I’m not even high on, and the reason is pretty straightforward - given the salary dump that’d would need to happen to facilitate a trade from Jacksonville I think we could potentially get him in an Osweiler type deal where they send us him AND a legit draft pick in this draft to take on the money. His cap hit to us would be $15M but almost certainly could be restructured, and as it would come in the door his contract would have $0 guarantees we owe beyond 2020. He’s also a guy who by and large knows the scheme coming in the door. Personally I think he’s JAG but the idea we could get him at no risk and add to our draft capital makes him more appealing to me than the other realistic QBs that can be brought in to push Mitch in 2020. 

All together though, if Mitch is not going to have the light come on in 2020 and we’re again seeking our franchise guy in 2021 it’s not off the radar for me to just go ride or die with Mitch and if it’s a disaster we benefit with improved 2021 draft positioning. There’s nothing more frustrating to me than being stuck in mediocrity, and a 7-9 finish next year if Mitch fails and we sneak a few extra December wins out on the back of Dalton or Foles puts us in a worse position to draft the next top prospects too.