JAF-N72EX Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 6 hours ago, dll2000 said: It's different trading for a rookie because he is cheap and you can surround him with talent in FA. If you have a good QB that is paid you need to surround him with good young talent from draft because you can't afford a bunch of FAs. You can't both trade all your draft picks and surround a paid top QB with talent. You can, but it will be really, really hard. This is what I've been saying. It's like paying for an expensive home with acreage that looks great from the outside but the interior needs to be completely remodeled. It's hard to do when you put all of your money into the initial purchase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 9 hours ago, topwop1 said: Ya well tell that to Nagy. When Lazor was supposedly calling the shots during that late 3 game winning streak and also in the home loss to Detroit, the offense was humming along pretty good, although you can make the argument it was against weak defenses.. And then we heard after the losses against the Packers in the season finale and playoff game against the Saints that Nagy became more involved again in the play calling. So what's the issue here? It appears Nagy can't help but be super involved even when it's to the detriment of the offense. Two things here. 1) Nagy's ego. 2) In his defense, it was never fair to assume that he was ever going to just hand off total control of the offense when his job was in jeopardy. It's for these reasons that I never believed for one second that he gave up play-calling duties. It was too obvious that he was when we were still seeing those non-sensical trick plays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sugashane Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 2 hours ago, topwop1 said: The thing that also entices me about Hurts is that Doug Pederson, who comes from the same school of coaching as Nagy does, preferred him to Wentz. We can't just not pursue talented QB's out of fear that Nagy will not be able to develop them. If we say that then we're basically saying they shouldn't bother drafting a QB at all next year. They need to do something even if it eventually fails. If say they have the choice between spending a 1st on Mac Jones or a 2nd and some change to get Hurts then what is the better option? At least we've seen Hurts play somewhat well on the NFL stage over a few games. Every rookie QB that comes into the league this year is an unknown. I'm not saying I prefer one option to another but unless we are getting a sure fire stud QB like Watson then I don't think I'd be willing to trade the farm to move up for a QB outside of Lawrence. I'm saying either we go after a massive move (I'm not ruling us out but for Dak or Watson I'm not getting my hopes up) or we draft our own guy. I dont think a they're going to trade Hurts for less than a first. Clearly you have a talented back up on a 2nd round rookie deal and 3 years remaining. Why would they trade him for less? Nagy seems to want pocket passers, so he doesnt fit with what Nagy is doing. They want to win now and hopefully feel their seats are getting warm so they want someone who will fit their system. My lack of faith in Nagy's ability to develop QBs and Pace's eye for the position is troubling, but I'd be far more ticked if they dont try to at least draft a 2nd rounder. They will definitely make a move, I just hope the guy succeeds in spite of them because it's going to likely be with a weaker supporting cast than we started with in 2020. With this staff I'd take the swing with Jones in the first. If you hit then you have a 5th year option to take advantage of, so 2 more years before really having to pay big money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heinz D. Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 6 hours ago, dll2000 said: Rodgers was a late first round draft pick and cost GB nothing extra. Chiefs were already a near SB contender when they traded up for Mahomes and gave up just 1 late first rounder. Bucs signed Brady to a bargain FA deal and came ready loaded with weapons and high picks to boot. They gave Patriots nothing to get Brady. You are proposing to trade away multiple high value assets from a non-contending team whose best weapon is a FA and has already been without multiple high picks due to Mack trade. On top of that he is already paid so eats up cap. You see the difference? Your chances of success in this scenario are almost nil. Kinda like spending all your money to woo a hot chick and then not being able to keep her happy because you are now broke. No, I don't really see the difference. Or what you even mean by "chances of success". I have absolutely no idea what you're getting at, dude. Do you mean win next season? Because the Bears won't likely be doing that no matter what. Explain what you're thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 7 minutes ago, Heinz D. said: No, I don't really see the difference. Or what you even mean by "chances of success". I have absolutely no idea what you're getting at, dude. Do you mean win next season? Because the Bears won't likely be doing that no matter what. Explain what you're thinking. What he's saying is that your comparing apples to oranges here. You named teams that didn't have to give up anything to get their QBs and win. We would have to give a TON to get Watson and would have a hard time building around him in order to have success and win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epyon Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 My list right now would be: 1. Wilson 2. Watson I think Wilson is the real deal, but his injury history scares me a bit. Watson is good, but not quite elite (but more than good enough), the issue is how do we retool the rest of the team when all of our draft picks and cap space is being spent on Watson? I'll be happy with either, but I prefer Wilson for perceived upside, playstyle, and the ability to have cap room to fix the numerous other holes in the shorter term. Watson is less risky as he's a known commodity, but I want an elite level talent, and Watson is (imo) not quite there. ====BIG GAP==== 3. Mac Jones This was my most troubling evaluation by far this year... I'm skeptical he's the guy, or can be the guy with our team.... but I don't like Trask at all, and this is basically the last shot of the draft. 4. Minshew I don't think he's the answer, per se, but he's a better placeholder than Foles. This is the "build the rest of the team" guy where we accept that we're not getting a QB this year. 5. Trey Lance I don't see him being the pick, as he'll require a Ravens like offense to work in the NFL. That said, this would be a gamble entirely on upside. I'd feel better about this if it didn't mean trading up a few spots. I'll be upset if we end up with Fields (almost assuredly going to be a much bigger trade up than Lance) or Trask (who I don't like for our team) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heinz D. Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 42 minutes ago, JAF-N72EX said: What he's saying is that your comparing apples to oranges here. You named teams that didn't have to give up anything to get their QBs and win. We would have to give a TON to get Watson and would have a hard time building around him in order to have success and win. What is the answer, then? Continue to suck, and flounder about, until we finally end up with the #1 overall pick in a draft with a surefire QB prospect? That...ummm...seems like a very flawed strategy, to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 25 minutes ago, Heinz D. said: What is the answer, then? Continue to suck, and flounder about, until we finally end up with the #1 overall pick in a draft with a surefire QB prospect? That...ummm...seems like a very flawed strategy, to me. I don't think anyone has said that, at least I know I didn't anyhow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heinz D. Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 4 minutes ago, JAF-N72EX said: I don't think anyone has said that, at least I know I didn't anyhow. Well, originally he said the Bears should stay at #20, and draft a QB...or not. He never really fleshed out that position, nor has he expounded on any sort of plan he'd like to see the Bears take at QB. It's all well and good to say that it's TERRIBLE to pay for a franchise QB...but isn't the hope, for pretty much ANY franchise, to have to deal with that unfortunate reality at some point? I mean, really, the "We can't pay for a franchise QB RIGHT NOW!" argument is rooted in an assumption that we have to pay Mack and Jackson next season, or the whole thing falls apart. Does it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 4 minutes ago, Heinz D. said: Well, originally he said the Bears should stay at #20, and draft a QB...or not. He never really fleshed out that position, nor has he expounded on any sort of plan he'd like to see the Bears take at QB. It's all well and good to say that it's TERRIBLE to pay for a franchise QB...but isn't the hope, for pretty much ANY franchise, to have to deal with that unfortunate reality at some point? I mean, really, the "We can't pay for a franchise QB RIGHT NOW!" argument is rooted in an assumption that we have to pay Mack and Jackson next season, or the whole thing falls apart. Does it? Yes, they all have to pay their QBs eventually. But that's not the same as paying them AND giving up 3 or 4 FRPs + more. Deals like those have a bad history of back-firing which is why they're not done very often. Especially now since the rookie contracts were introduced. If you don't pay the core players on defense, or anywhere else for that matter, just to get Watson then you're looking at rebuilding the defense. But how are you going to rebuild a defense, the OL, and WR with no capital or cap space to work with? We already saw what the Texans looked like with Watson and no defense. A team should never spend that much on 1 player unless they are only a QB away from contending for a SB. And even then it's risky. The smart way to build in 2021 is to draft a QB and use his 4 year rookie contract to build around him. I know this approach doesn't instill a lot of hope in these parts given our history but we still have to keep trying until we get right. The general consensus seems to be that Pace is a bad GM and he almost made it work so if he's fired next year then a better GM shouldn't have a problem, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WindyCity Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 54 minutes ago, JAF-N72EX said: Yes, they all have to pay their QBs eventually. But that's not the same as paying them AND giving up 3 or 4 FRPs + more. Deals like those have a bad history of back-firing which is why they're not done very often. Especially now since the rookie contracts were introduced. If you don't pay the core players on defense, or anywhere else for that matter, just to get Watson then you're looking at rebuilding the defense. But how are you going to rebuild a defense, the OL, and WR with no capital or cap space to work with? We already saw what the Texans looked like with Watson and no defense. A team should never spend that much on 1 player unless they are only a QB away from contending for a SB. And even then it's risky. The smart way to build in 2021 is to draft a QB and use his 4 year rookie contract to build around him. I know this approach doesn't instill a lot of hope in these parts given our history but we still have to keep trying until we get right. The general consensus seems to be that Pace is a bad GM and he almost made it work so if he's fired next year then a better GM shouldn't have a problem, right? The issue is that this franchise is beyond incompetent at finding good rookie QBs. There is no argument that drafting a QB and then making moves while he is on the rookie deal is the best way to build. We have shown no ability to execute that plan. This regime especially. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 25 minutes ago, WindyCity said: The issue is that this franchise is beyond incompetent at finding good rookie QBs. There is no argument that drafting a QB and then making moves while he is on the rookie deal is the best way to build. We have shown no ability to execute that plan. This regime especially. Everything you just said was addressed in the very same post you quoted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 We've tried the build around a rookie ONE TIME and people are ready to abandon the idea altogether. Jesus christ. I knew Bears fan were impatient but damn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WindyCity Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 31 minutes ago, JAF-N72EX said: We've tried the build around a rookie ONE TIME and people are ready to abandon the idea altogether. Jesus christ. I knew Bears fan were impatient but damn. With this regime. Some of us were around for Grossman and McNown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WindyCity Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 33 minutes ago, JAF-N72EX said: Everything you just said was addressed in the very same post you quoted. This team has to be open to a Hail Mary approach like Watson. They simply cannot find a QB on their own. You trade for Watson and then hope that Pace can build the team out on day 3 of the draft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.