Bears 10.0: GM and coach watch before the draft

[patryk7754]

If it's going to cost 2 FRP's and possibly a second, I'd say no. We need to keep building for the future with those picks and preserve our cap space.

im not sure about that. It was 2 1sts and a 3rd for mack who was 3 years younger at the time and arguably better. Here's what was in the Mack trade:

two first-round picks, a third-round pick, and a sixth-round pick for Mack, a second-round pick, and a conditional fifth-round pick

I think whoever trades for him gives up less than that, but that would be the max in any trade, I would imagine.

[patryk7754]

Myles Garrett contract moving forward.

2025: Roster bonus of 18.5 with a less than 5m cap hit, according to SB nation.
2026: Not sure how the bonus/cap hit is split here, but the max cap hit would be 20.4m
2027: Max cap hit of 37.7 but its a voidable year...so I assume he'll have a new contract by then.

Those numbers definitely do not restrict future roster moves, as it comes to cap spending

https://www.sbnation.com/2025/2/3/24357841/what-myles-garretts-contract-means-for-his-trade-demand#:~:text=What%20contract%20would%20the%20new,season%20on%20the%20new%20team.

[mack2354]

Anybody know why you don't see players traded for each other often in the NFL compared to the NBA? The Madden video game player in me rather than trading a bunch of high picks for Myles Garrett would love to see us trade Sweat and some lesser picks for Myles Garrett. We could then either sign someone like Khalil Mack in Free Agency to play on the opposite side or draft a DE in the first or second round.

[patryk7754]

I think the most realistic trade for us would be

2025 1st and 2nd and a 2026 2nd for Garrett. If we have to upgrade to two 1sts, I probably would but they wouldn't get additional picks.

According to spotrac we currently have 66m in cap. 61 if we trade for Garrett. With that 61, we can do the following:

20m to Trey Smith (long term LG starter)
5m to Kevin Zeitler (bridge starter at RG)
3m to Dan Skipper (competes for starting LT with Jones. Loser is backup)
1.5 to resigning Pryor
2m to back up G/C

**I think Bates is a starter for us but i'd prefer to move on from him. Cutting him saves 4m and a replacement from FA would be 8-12m

That leaves us with about 27m to resign who we want to resign and still add some depth. We add 2-3 new starters on the OL, fix our OL depth, add a HOF DE, and still have 27m in cap and a 2nd in this years draft to address more needs like DT or WR3 (if Allen leaves)

[nomorezorro]

i don't think you're going to be able to trade for garrett without giving him a new contract

[Jeffster81]

Bears are not in position to trade for Garrett (or Parsons).

[CBS7]

Absolutely not to trading multiple firsts and more for Garrett. When will people learn? I did lol

As lauded it was at the time, and as fun as that team was for a season, the Mack trade was NOT worth it.

[Mindcrime]

People should stop valuing draft capital as some shure to be had gold. Swings should and have to be made, this isn't fantasy league where you build based on positional need and presumable ratings - when opportunitites rise you have to hit or miss. I'm not saying this only in terms of Garrett, but any chance you have of acquiring above avarage talent. I'm not advocating for it, but due diligence and consideration should totaly happen. Same with Jeanty (who i advocate for btw). Draft capital should be USED smart, sometimes aggressively, before anyone mentiones it, yeah Claypool we know. Everyone knows the Bears need O line help and that would be addresed, but picturing 2-3 rookie lineman on top of sophomore QB is unrealistic.

[Dresden]

People should stop valuing draft capital as some shure to be had gold. Swings should and have to be made, this isn't fantasy league where you build based on positional need and presumable ratings - when opportunitites rise you have to hit or miss. I'm not saying this only in terms of Garrett, but any chance you have of acquiring above avarage talent. I'm not advocating for it, but due diligence and consideration should totaly happen. Same with Jeanty (who i advocate for btw). Draft capital should be USED smart, sometimes aggressively, before anyone mentiones it, yeah Claypool we know. Everyone knows the Bears need O line help and that would be addresed, but picturing 2-3 rookie lineman on top of sophomore QB is unrealistic.

I don't know- giving up the #10 pick in the draft for Garrett, plus a few other picks? That's a LT that could start for you for the next 10 years, and be on a rookie contract for awhile, too. A second round pick should be an above average starter too- someone like Kyler Gordon or Brisker. I think I'd rather take our chances with the draft picks.

[fleet]

People should stop valuing draft capital as some shure to be had gold. Swings should and have to be made, this isn't fantasy league where you build based on positional need and presumable ratings - when opportunitites rise you have to hit or miss. I'm not saying this only in terms of Garrett, but any chance you have of acquiring above avarage talent. I'm not advocating for it, but due diligence and consideration should totaly happen. Same with Jeanty (who i advocate for btw). Draft capital should be USED smart, sometimes aggressively, before anyone mentiones it, yeah Claypool we know. Everyone knows the Bears need O line help and that would be addresed, but picturing 2-3 rookie lineman on top of sophomore QB is unrealistic.

I don’t understand why we talk about guarantees. Nothing is guaranteed no matter what you do. Turning draft picks into cap spending for older players does not seem like the best strategy, and Poles should stop.

Teams don’t trade picks into being winning teams, especially teams that stay good. They mostly draft well. This team has a bunch of holes. Trade for a MG after those holes are filled to put you over the top. That isn’t this year

[nitetrain8603]

People should stop valuing draft capital as some shure to be had gold. Swings should and have to be made, this isn't fantasy league where you build based on positional need and presumable ratings - when opportunitites rise you have to hit or miss. I'm not saying this only in terms of Garrett, but any chance you have of acquiring above avarage talent. I'm not advocating for it, but due diligence and consideration should totaly happen. Same with Jeanty (who i advocate for btw). Draft capital should be USED smart, sometimes aggressively, before anyone mentiones it, yeah Claypool we know. Everyone knows the Bears need O line help and that would be addresed, but picturing 2-3 rookie lineman on top of sophomore QB is unrealistic.

I don’t understand why we talk about guarantees. Nothing is guaranteed no matter what you do. Turning draft picks into cap spending for older players does not seem like the best strategy, and Poles should stop.

Teams don’t trade picks into being winning teams, especially teams that stay good. They mostly draft well. This team has a bunch of holes. Trade for a MG after those holes are filled to put you over the top. That isn’t this year

I think I would do the trade because Sweat is older. If you're looking to flip Sweat, then I would say don't do it. To the point being made, nothing is guaranteed. In fact, 31 is right around when DEs start declining and typically it's a sharp decline. I'm looking at guys like Jared Allen, types.

[fleet]

People should stop valuing draft capital as some shure to be had gold. Swings should and have to be made, this isn't fantasy league where you build based on positional need and presumable ratings - when opportunitites rise you have to hit or miss. I'm not saying this only in terms of Garrett, but any chance you have of acquiring above avarage talent. I'm not advocating for it, but due diligence and consideration should totaly happen. Same with Jeanty (who i advocate for btw). Draft capital should be USED smart, sometimes aggressively, before anyone mentiones it, yeah Claypool we know. Everyone knows the Bears need O line help and that would be addresed, but picturing 2-3 rookie lineman on top of sophomore QB is unrealistic.

I don’t understand why we talk about guarantees. Nothing is guaranteed no matter what you do. Turning draft picks into cap spending for older players does not seem like the best strategy, and Poles should stop.

Teams don’t trade picks into being winning teams, especially teams that stay good. They mostly draft well. This team has a bunch of holes. Trade for a MG after those holes are filled to put you over the top. That isn’t this year

I think I would do the trade because Sweat is older. If you're looking to flip Sweat, then I would say don't do it. To the point being made, nothing is guaranteed. In fact, 31 is right around when DEs start declining and typically it's a sharp decline. I'm looking at guys like Jared Allen, types.

Well, having a rookie quarterback that was just sacked 70 times probably doesn’t matter to anyone who believes this is the time to trade the farm for an old DE. The 5 win Bears have been spending the last 2 weeks basking in the glow of suddenly not being the Bears that keep Bearsing anymore. That sure got canceled fast.

[panthermark]

I heard on the radio that Ryan Poles got extended. Contract length matches that of Johnson.

It was strange, Warren said something like "as you know, we don't talk about salaries" or something like that. That sounds dumb. It isn't like a GM's contract length is some state secret, and everyone knows every detail about a coaches salary. And in the end, it will come out anyway. But in the end, there is "alignment", so that is good. I do wonder how much it was discussed in the interview process?

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10153312-report-bears-ryan-poles-expected-to-get-new-contract-to-align-with-hc-ben-johnson

[Dresden]

New O line coach, with Saints background: https://www.yahoo.com/sports/nfl-world-reacts-bears-hiring-182526784.html

[fleet]

I thought this happened weeks ago, but ok

Read on Twitter

[nomorezorro]

the jaguars didn't even have a GM opening two weeks ago, and they hadn't announced anything about the search process until this evening.

i'm very confused why many people online (not just fleet!) were under the impression that cunningham had interviewed already, and some people even thought he had already turned the job down?

[panthermark]

the jaguars didn't even have a GM opening two weeks ago, and they hadn't announced anything about the search process until this evening.

i'm very confused why many people online (not just fleet!) were under the impression that cunningham had interviewed already, and some people even thought he had already turned the job down?

I thought he did it a week ago as well. But the Jags have been such a mess, who knows?

This was a week ago.
https://www.windycitygridiron.com/2025/1/24/24351256/report-chicago-bears-agm-ian-cunningham-a-candidate-for-jacksonville-jaguars-gm-job-nfl-2025

He had an in-person interview with the Titans +two weeks ago.

[nomorezorro]

the jaguars hadn't done any formal work on their GM search until today; they explicitly said they were going to finish up with the coaching stuff before shifting their focus to the GM position.

any reporting before now was just saying that there was mutual interest between cunningham/jaguars, which has borne out now that the interview requests have been made public

[TheGOATRises007]

Absolutely not to trading multiple firsts and more for Garrett. When will people learn? I did lol

As lauded it was at the time, and as fun as that team was for a season, the Mack trade was NOT worth it.

I think that kind of trade could only be worthwhile if you have a franchise QB(which we did not).

But I agree. We shouldn't trade for Garrett.

[Dresden]

I heard someone say it might take our first this year and both seconds to get Garrett. That's too steep, even if one of the seconds could be pushed back to 2026. We have too many holes to fill and those 3 picks will go a long way towards doing that.