Offseason Thread - Free Agency and Trades

[dll2000]

Cardinals are another one.  

[BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW]

7 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

At some point you try to win games on grass and stop playing for a future that never comes. 

Rams are outlier, they really sold out and their gamble paid off.  But a mixed approach can be sensible.

Bottom line is you generally flail about until you have your QB.  So much easier to team build with a QB in place.  

But  once it’s time to be paid you have to think.  Do it like KC and not like Dallas or MN and now Atl.  

How good is your guy? Giants come to mind as a don’t.   Philly may be in trouble.  I hope Lions break bank for Goff.  

You can’t pay elite dollar to a non elite QB and his contract comes back up every few years.  You will be mid or just good forever. 

Antoher interesting prompt is how do you avoid being Chargers or Green Bay?  Top end QB but always falling short?  Obvious simple answer would be coaching, but roster construction certainly affects that as well. And those two teams had really different approaches to the roster.  Or how the heck does Dallas always seem to be ready but not able to get there?  Kinda seems like the way to do it is luck/fall into great QB and then hope you get lucky, at least unless you're LA or KC.  The dynastic teams would seem to suggest you need both a historic QB and a good-great coach. Welp.  Another helpful pro tip might be not hiring Mike McCarthy. 

Edited April 5 by BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW

[AZBearsFan]

12 minutes ago, BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW said:

Do you guys ever thank that the Rams approach (trade away picks, spend, acquire and go for it) messed up the leagues thinking a bit?  Seems like everyone is trading draft capital for players.  For some teams it makes a ton of sense but there's a lot of mid level and even bottom feeder teams (like us trading for Playskool) making trades when it seems like they're no where near contention or even average.   The draft fan in me wants a team to totally tank for two years and focus on acquiring picks for down the road, and then somehow own like 1/4 of the draft value all in one year. 

I don’t think there’s a wrong way to do it per se. Draft picks are just assets. Using them on the mystery box in the draft and hitting creates a longer window but carries more variance. Trading them for proven stars often creates a shorter window and costs more in cash and cap, but has a much lower variance in return. Both ways work. Typically the “go for it” approach comes from the more cash-heavy ownership groups (LAR, DAL, NO). The Rams have also been able to hit on stars later on in the drafts where they didn’t have premium picks (Nacua and Kyren Williams in the past 2 drafts), which is pretty uncommon to their approach. That there are teams that are taking both approaches simultaneously is a good thing for those looking to do it more through the draft though, so in that regard it’s a good thing. 

The draftnik in me always wants more picks, but at the same time our 2024 draft has already netted us a 27 year old pro bowl DE, at least 1 year of a HOF WR still performing at that level and the top QB prospect of this decade before we even make our final 3 picks, one of which is set to be in the top 10. Complaining about that would be ridiculous IMO. It sucks that we only have 4 picks this year, but at the same time we’ve had 21 total picks the past 2 seasons and are currently slated for 9 more in 2025. 

[dll2000]

29 minutes ago, BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW said:

Antoher interesting prompt is how do you avoid being Chargers or Green Bay?  Top end QB but always falling short?  Obvious simple answer would be coaching, but roster construction certainly affects that as well. And those two teams had really different approaches to the roster.  Or how the heck does Dallas always seem to be ready but not able to get there?  Kinda seems like the way to do it is luck/fall into great QB and then hope you get lucky, at least unless you're LA or KC.  The dynastic teams would seem to suggest you need both a historic QB and a good-great coach. Welp.  Another helpful pro tip might be not hiring Mike McCarthy. 

GB is a great example of what I am talking about.  They are prudent.  They draft Love in first with Roger’s, they don’t over spend in FA, they build through draft.   So they maintain being good.   But who really cares? 

At some point in time you just go for it.  You trade some picks.  You bring in an elite weapon for Rodgers by hook or crook.  That kind of thing.  What a general waste of an elite talent.  

Laying up will make you a lot of money on tour, but if you want the trophy you have to shoot for the pin from distance sometimes.  

[Sugashane]

1 hour ago, BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW said:

Do you guys ever thank that the Rams approach (trade away picks, spend, acquire and go for it) messed up the leagues thinking a bit?  Seems like everyone is trading draft capital for players.  For some teams it makes a ton of sense but there's a lot of mid level and even bottom feeder teams (like us trading for Playskool) making trades when it seems like they're no where near contention or even average.   The draft fan in me wants a team to totally tank for two years and focus on acquiring picks for down the road, and then somehow own like 1/4 of the draft value all in one year. 

I actually like when teams are super aggressive. It makes the league more interesting IMO. FWIW I think a lot of people completely overrate draft capital. Yes there is  chance for a Mahomes, but you're more likely to get a Trubisky or Trey Lance. I guess to be a GM you have to have a level of hubris and believe you're going to hit much more often than miss though, just like a QB needs to always "know" they're going to complete the next pass. If you lack that confidence you're likely not going to be worth a damn.

With Claypool I'm still a bit confused on Poles' approach. Clearly the tank was on, then you trade a 2nd for a guy to support your QB as you try to evaluate him, but were you really believing Mooney was a #1 and Pettis and ESB were true WR2 and WR3 level players? That would have been an egregious failure at player appraisal. I actually think part of the reason Claypool played so little after the trade was due to the tank being in full effect, that Poles knew his team would be poor prior to the season but they were failing even more successfully than he expected. IDK, he seemed like a blessing as he was a curse too. Since 2022 his team won 5 games out of the 27 games he dressed for. I almost want Caleb Williams to wear #10 as a thank you to Claypool for helping the Bears get him. lol 

[BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW]

28 minutes ago, Sugashane said:

I actually like when teams are super aggressive. It makes the league more interesting IMO. FWIW I think a lot of people completely overrate draft capital. Yes there is  chance for a Mahomes, but you're more likely to get a Trubisky or Trey Lance. I guess to be a GM you have to have a level of hubris and believe you're going to hit much more often than miss though, just like a QB needs to always "know" they're going to complete the next pass. If you lack that confidence you're likely not going to be worth a damn.

With Claypool I'm still a bit confused on Poles' approach. Clearly the tank was on, then you trade a 2nd for a guy to support your QB as you try to evaluate him, but were you really believing Mooney was a #1 and Pettis and ESB were true WR2 and WR3 level players? That would have been an egregious failure at player appraisal. I actually think part of the reason Claypool played so little after the trade was due to the tank being in full effect, that Poles knew his team would be poor prior to the season but they were failing even more successfully than he expected. IDK, he seemed like a blessing as he was a curse too. Since 2022 his team won 5 games out of the 27 games he dressed for. I almost want Caleb Williams to wear #10 as a thank you to Claypool for helping the Bears get him. lol 

Yeah Claypool didn't fit the rest of the personnel strategy on offense.  That first season it sure seemed like Poles was playing two gameplans sometimes, but at least it all worked out with the first pick.  A lot of people have crowned Poles as this savvy manipulator for getting the first pick, and then turning it into the first pick plus a gift basket of players, but keep in mind the process to get there was a) field a team capable of winning less games than any other b) lucking into another team being bad.  What he does with this golden egg is way more determinative than what happened to get here. 

This season I'm not quite sure what to expect.  The OL remains the biggest question mark for me.  If they're all healthy you've got Jones (average) Jenkins (Great if healthy,  won't be healthy all season) Bates (they seem to reall like him but he looks backup-to-average level to me?) Davis (good if healthy and present) Wright (really ascending,  above average) It feels more like a patchwork line from a team that couldn't spend in FA than what I'd call ideal for a rookie QB.  I know most of the OL across the league is like that, but it doesn't seem like we had limits on being better than that. 

All that said, I think getting lucky on QB is about the smartest thing any GM can do, and it sure seems like the odds are at least in the Bears' favor so hoping for the best. 

[BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW]

I love a good headline typo,  but it is fun to picture one dude getting two Raven's worth of sacks in a a year.

 

[TankWilliams]

 

[dll2000]

I listened to that interview very early this morning.  It was good. 

[Sugashane]

On 4/7/2024 at 12:57 PM, BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW said:

I love a good headline typo,  but it is fun to picture one dude getting two Raven's worth of sacks in a a year.

 

Man exploiting that Madden glitch. 

[soulman]

FWIW I see a lot of similarity between why Poles traded for both Claypool and Sweat.  The 2023 draft was known to be thin on WR talent.  Poles believed Claypool had more potential than anyone he could draft with that pick.  The current draft is short on top DE/Edge talent so again Poles felt Sweat would be better than anyone he could draft in round two and as it stands maybe even round one.

The only thing that confuses me a bit is how Poles could have missed on Claypool's character issues so badly.  There's no doubt his size and previous production made the risk somewhat worthwhile but it seems that after his trade he just stopped wanting to play football that badly any longer and somehow he managed to hide that from Poles.  But it's pretty much the only poor move Poles has made.

[dll2000]

9 hours ago, soulman said:

FWIW I see a lot of similarity between why Poles traded for both Claypool and Sweat.  The 2023 draft was known to be thin on WR talent.  Poles believed Claypool had more potential than anyone he could draft with that pick.  The current draft is short on top DE/Edge talent so again Poles felt Sweat would be better than anyone he could draft in round two and as it stands maybe even round one.

The only thing that confuses me a bit is how Poles could have missed on Claypool's character issues so badly.  There's no doubt his size and previous production made the risk somewhat worthwhile but it seems that after his trade he just stopped wanting to play football that badly any longer and somehow he managed to hide that from Poles.  But it's pretty much the only poor move Poles has made.

You are right the 2023 WR draft looked weak.   They passed on Pickens for character concerns and also perhaps because they liked Gordon and Brisker better.

There was no one in FA and Claypool became available. 

I would add that they needed to evaluate Fields because a decision was looming soon and Fields needed help badly for a fair evaluation.

It was a really bad move, because Pitt getting rid of a talented WR because reasons?  This guy has to be really, really something.  Pittsburgh sticks with talent until it gets bat crap crazy or annoying.  Hello, McFly.  

But one that was motivated by circumstance.  

[Ty21]

1 hour ago, dll2000 said:

Pickens

I think we wouldn’t have him anymore if we’d taken him. Dude would’ve blown a gasket the last few years  

[dll2000]

2 hours ago, Ty21 said:

I think we wouldn’t have him anymore if we’d taken him. Dude would’ve blown a gasket the last few years  

LOL.  True. 

[dll2000]

Just now, dll2000 said:

LOL.  True. 

But its not like he has had it way better in Pit.