OT Bears 2019/20 season and beyond

[dice]

Read on Twitter

Still make that trade because none of those players will be as good as khalil mack.

that's obviously bad logic because there are entire teams with no players as good as khalil mack. including some good teams

mack's contract reflected what he is worth at the time he signed it. he was worth no more than that. you don't trade assets for a RFA so that you can pay him what he's worth. that should be GMing 101. because, wait for it...

the nfl is NOT about players. it is about contracts. good teams are good because they underpay players. paying any player what he is worth does nothing to improve your team. and the only position in football that is chronically underpaid is QB, which is why it is the only position where having a top player is a huge plus

if the patrick mahomes, drew brees, tom brady and aaron rodgers of the world were actually paid what they were worth, their team's competitive advantages having them in the lineup would evaporate. that's life w/ a hard salary cap

[dice]

current odds of where cam newton ends up (converted to percentage):

53 pats
20 jags
9 steelers
7 broncos
7 bears (sure looks like a sucker bet for the bookie)
5 washington/raiders

[nomorezorro]

paying any player what he is worth does nothing to improve your team.

this is such a fascinatingly deranged opinion i can't help but keep engaging with it

in a salary cap environment, doesn't having underpaid players at some positions give you the freedom to sign talented players to market-value contracts at other positions?
when you have a finite number of starting+rotational positions, couldn't there be circumstances when the marginal value of several low-priced "good value" players is less than the value of one high-priced "market value" player?
if an organization has historically been weak at identifying top-end talent in the draft, why shouldn't they value known talent more than other teams and the potential upside of draft picks less than other teams?
even if what you've outlined is the optimal roster building strategy in theory, how could 32 teams possibly all prioritize value contracts at the expense of everything else?

[dice]

paying any player what he is worth does nothing to improve your team.

this is such a fascinatingly deranged opinion i can't help but keep engaging with it

in a salary cap environment, doesn't having underpaid players at some positions give you the freedom to sign talented players to market-value contracts at other positions?

yes. and that's how you build winning teams. by doing the work TO FIND UNDERPAID PLAYERS (particularly through the draft), thus allowing you to have plenty of money to sign market value talent. the bears did not do that with khalil mack. they instead attempted to invert the process by skipping right to the high priced talent while GIVING AWAY opportunities for value contracts. that's a recipe for failure. it's backwards

nothing deranged about basic money management logic

when you have a finite number of starting+rotational positions, couldn't there be circumstances when the marginal value of several low-priced "good value" players is less than the value of one high-priced "market value" player?

several? absolutely not. you want as many value contracts as you can get. it is only when you're flush with cash due to an abundance of value contracts and have limited number of starting roster spots remaining that you switch your focus to high priced talent. because the money has to be spent, after all. the bears were not in that situation when they traded for mack. they tried to take a shortcut on proper team building. and there are no shortcuts

if an organization has historically been weak at identifying top-end talent in the draft, why shouldn't they value known talent more than other teams and the potential upside of draft picks less than other teams?

they should be focusing on improving their drafting and finding bargain bin free agents and improving their coaching staff rather than giving up and settling for inferior team building strategy

even if what you've outlined is the optimal roster building strategy in theory, how could 32 teams possibly all prioritize value contracts at the expense of everything else?

same way they're all competing for the best players. not everybody is going to succeed. those that don't are stuck with lots of market value free agents

find as many value contracts as you can. if you do a good job, you have more money than most teams do to fill in your roster w/ market value free agents

if you tell me i have the best edge rusher in the league on a market value contract...and the best WR in the league on a market value contract...and the best left tackle in the league on a market value contract...i have little idea whether my team is any good

[ThisGuyFawkes]

What does the depth chart look like at the safety positions? I'm curious what Pace plans to do there since he didn't draft a safety or sign one as a undrafted free agent.

[nomorezorro]

right, and i think the whole idea behind making the mack trade was not to get a star just to get a star. the team was taking a calculated risk that the rest of the roster was more or less solid for the next few years + trubisky's rookie contract meant they had surplus value to spend on a single star. that worked out well in 2018, not so much in 2019

the mack trade + contract wouldn't have significantly affected the bears' ability to put together a roster if they didn't whiff so badly on a QB with the #2 overall pick that, just three years later, they felt compelled to trade a fourth-rounder to acquire a below-average starter with $21 million guaranteed remaining on his contract.

[dice]

right, and i think the whole idea behind making the mack trade was not to get a star just to get a star. the team was taking a calculated risk that the rest of the roster was more or less solid for the next few years + trubisky's rookie contract meant they had surplus value to spend on a single star. that worked out well in 2018, not so much in 2019

that theory is flawed on multiple levels:

1) it assumes that your rookie QB is going to perform like a franchise QB fairly quickly
2) it requires you to not have many holes to fill on your roster to consolidate that much money/assets on a single position. the bears were coming off a very bad season!

the mack trade + contract wouldn't have significantly affected the bears' ability to put together a roster if they didn't whiff so badly on a QB with the #2 overall pick that, just three years later, they felt compelled to trade a fourth-rounder to acquire a below-average starter with $21 million guaranteed remaining on his contract.

it affects their ability to build a roster regardless of how trubisky turned out. trubisky playing well doesn't mean that you have less holes to fill. foles is being paid like a top backup, so that's not a significant financial burden. but losing the fourth rounder did prevent taking a swing on a potential starter. just like the mack trade eliminated such opportunities. thus, more holes on the roster

the other thing is that the weakest part of your defense is similar in importance to the strongest part. because offenses attack weak spots and scheme to try and avoid dealing with guys like khalil mack. opposing offenses did a pretty good job with that last season, which is why mack's numbers were down and the defense wasn't nearly as effective

[nomorezorro]

trubisky didn't need to perform like a franchise qb, he just needed to perform like a guy who was unquestionably better than career backup nick foles. you make the mack trade because you believe in the quality of the QB you drafted. the bears obviously screwed that up, but the qb evaluation is a much, much bigger failure than devoting a lot of resources to a guy who's actually good

it just feels weird to focus on the mack trade+contract as an issue when the bears have compounded the challenge of building a roster by making glaring mistakes. the mack trade didn't prevent the team from making some moves this offseason, but three of their biggest acquisitions came at positions (qb/te) they had already recently invested significant resources into. they weren't handicapped by mack, they were handicapped by their own screwups

and yeah, signing big money players means you have less margin for error, but every team has some weaknesses just because there's only so much money to go around. seattle fans have been complaining about their offensive line for years, new england has been hemorrhaging long-term depth for a while even with a QB on a value contract, green bay has gone from having a weak defense to weak receivers and OL questions. if we went into the season and our biggest question marks were an iffy WR group, offensive line and one safety position...that doesn't feel like a lot of glaring weaknesses, necessarily.

(all the better if we could have invested the money and picks that went toward foles, graham and kmet toward shoring up some of those holes)

[Jeffster81]

that's obviously bad logic because there are entire teams with no players as good as khalil mack. including some good teams

Don't agree with my opinion does not make it bad logic. Obviously you prefer quantity over quality which I disagree.

mack's contract reflected what he is worth at the time he signed it. he was worth no more than that. you don't trade assets for a RFA so that you can pay him what he's worth. that should be GMing 101. because, wait for it...

the nfl is NOT about players. it is about contracts. good teams are good because they underpay players. paying any player what he is worth does nothing to improve your team. and the only position in football that is chronically underpaid is QB, which is why it is the only position where having a top player is a huge plus

You're not wrong but in this game you still NEED STARS to win. Stars are not cheap. Players the Raiders took with those picks will make the Raiders better but they are still not close enough to be considered a SB contender and they might not ever reach that point while those players are on the roster. Would I prefer to have a superstar (for the money) QB like Mahomes, sure.....but Mack is a generational talent, one I think can lead the Bears to a Super Bowl. He was, still is and for the next 4 years will be well worth the contract.

Still make that trade, contracts be danged.

[dice]

that's obviously bad logic because there are entire teams with no players as good as khalil mack. including some good teams

Don't agree with my opinion does not make it bad logic. Obviously you prefer quantity over quality which I disagree.

you're missing the point, which is that it would be incredibly stupid not to trade mack for as many players as you want on another team (any team) even if none of those players is as good as khalil mack. the raiders knew that khalil mack was almost certainly going to end up the best player in the deal, and yet they did it. because it was about the total package and not just the best player in the deal. the dallas cowboys won super bowls because they traded herschell walker for draft picks

the buffalo bills went 10-6 last season. they don't have anybody as good as khalil mack. you wouldn't take your pick of players off their roster in exchange for mack?

mack's contract reflected what he is worth at the time he signed it. he was worth no more than that. you don't trade assets for a RFA so that you can pay him what he's worth. that should be GMing 101. because, wait for it...

the nfl is NOT about players. it is about contracts. good teams are good because they underpay players. paying any player what he is worth does nothing to improve your team. and the only position in football that is chronically underpaid is QB, which is why it is the only position where having a top player is a huge plus

You're not wrong but in this game you still NEED STARS to win.

spending big money on star free agents simply DOES. NOT. WORK. unless they're a QB. it has no impact because it takes money away from other positions. over the past several years, dozens of teams have spent big money on non-QB free agents. their average team records in the seasons those players were getting big money? 8-8. the bears will be adding another data point this season, because...

khalil mack will be the 5th highest paid player in the league in 2020 (assuming there's a season). he's nowhere near the 5th most valuable (pro football focus ranked him 48th best in 2019). that ain't good value. which is why the bears are having trouble adequately filling out the roster

[Dresden]

that's obviously bad logic because there are entire teams with no players as good as khalil mack. including some good teams

Don't agree with my opinion does not make it bad logic. Obviously you prefer quantity over quality which I disagree.

mack's contract reflected what he is worth at the time he signed it. he was worth no more than that. you don't trade assets for a RFA so that you can pay him what he's worth. that should be GMing 101. because, wait for it...

the nfl is NOT about players. it is about contracts. good teams are good because they underpay players. paying any player what he is worth does nothing to improve your team. and the only position in football that is chronically underpaid is QB, which is why it is the only position where having a top player is a huge plus

You're not wrong but in this game you still NEED STARS to win. Stars are not cheap. Players the Raiders took with those picks will make the Raiders better but they are still not close enough to be considered a SB contender and they might not ever reach that point while those players are on the roster. Would I prefer to have a superstar (for the money) QB like Mahomes, sure.....but Mack is a generational talent, one I think can lead the Bears to a Super Bowl. He was, still is and for the next 4 years will be well worth the contract.

Still make that trade, contracts be danged.

I think these are some good points. You need high end talent to win. QB is the obvious example, but you can find other positions. The Niners last year were so good because of their defense, and because on offense, George Kittle made them a lot better. You take him away, and that offense would have been much worse. To some degree, you could say the same about KC without Tyreke Hill and/or Kelce. Mahomes was a lot better because he had those two.

And it's also about teamwork. We've seen QB-receiver combinations throughout the years that made both players better than either of them alone. I think about Big Ben and Antonio Brown.

Same with defenses. You get a squad that has been together for a number of years, knows how to play with each other, and that right there adds a lot of value that might not be seen if you just look at contracts.

Contract management is of course very important, but to say that it is the end all of building a great team is going too far, IMO.

[dice]

that's obviously bad logic because there are entire teams with no players as good as khalil mack. including some good teams

Don't agree with my opinion does not make it bad logic. Obviously you prefer quantity over quality which I disagree.

mack's contract reflected what he is worth at the time he signed it. he was worth no more than that. you don't trade assets for a RFA so that you can pay him what he's worth. that should be GMing 101. because, wait for it...

the nfl is NOT about players. it is about contracts. good teams are good because they underpay players. paying any player what he is worth does nothing to improve your team. and the only position in football that is chronically underpaid is QB, which is why it is the only position where having a top player is a huge plus

You're not wrong but in this game you still NEED STARS to win. Stars are not cheap. Players the Raiders took with those picks will make the Raiders better but they are still not close enough to be considered a SB contender and they might not ever reach that point while those players are on the roster. Would I prefer to have a superstar (for the money) QB like Mahomes, sure.....but Mack is a generational talent, one I think can lead the Bears to a Super Bowl. He was, still is and for the next 4 years will be well worth the contract.

Still make that trade, contracts be danged.

I think these are some good points. You need high end talent to win. QB is the obvious example, but you can find other positions. The Niners last year were so good because of their defense, and because on offense, George Kittle made them a lot better. You take him away, and that offense would have been much worse. To some degree, you could say the same about KC without Tyreke Hill and/or Kelce. Mahomes was a lot better because he had those two.

And it's also about teamwork. We've seen QB-receiver combinations throughout the years that made both players better than either of them alone. I think about Big Ben and Antonio Brown.

Same with defenses. You get a squad that has been together for a number of years, knows how to play with each other, and that right there adds a lot of value that might not be seen if you just look at contracts.

Contract management is of course very important, but to say that it is the end all of building a great team is going too far, IMO.

value contracts is #1 with a bullet. #2 is coaching/culture/chemistry

the 49ers make my point fantastically

pro football focus's player positional rankings for last season, 49ers:

#1 tight end - kittle - best player in entire league relative to position. cap hit? $0.7 mil (72nd at position)
#1 cornerback - sherman - $13.9 mil (6th)
#4 edge rusher - bosa - $6.1 mil (47th)
#6 edge rusher - armstead - $9.0 mil (26th)
#6 safety - ward - $4.2 mil (26th)
#8 interior defender - buckner - $5.8 mil (17th) -

those players outperformed market value by approximately $12.0, $4.1, $8.9, $5.5, $6.1 and $5.7 mil, respectively. over $40 mil total in contract outperformance by 6 players. that's how teams win

note: garoppolo was rated as the 13th best QB and had the 15th highest cap hit. so even he was a value contract. and significantly so given that QBs are generally underpaid to begin with

the average team has around 3 players on their roster ranked that highly at their respective positions. the niners had 6. because 4 of them were on rookie deals, thus only two were paid market value. and both outperformed their contracts! in contrast, in 2020 khalil mack (the 11th ranked edge rusher in 2019) will have to have one of the best seasons that an edge rusher has EVER had just to break even on his cap hit!

bears highest ranked players at their positions in 2019:

#11 edge rusher - mack - cap hit $11.9 mil ($12.95 in performance)
#13 wide receiver - robinson - cap hit $16.0 mil ($11.75 in performance)

those were the only 2 bears players ranked in the top 101. neither was a value contract, with robinson actually being a bad investment given that he had the 3rd highest WR cap hit in the league behind sammy watkins and beckham

every excellent team has at least a few terrific value contracts. it's essential. because every team spends roughly the same amount on their roster! thus, the name of the game is maximizing production relative to pay. and far and away the most reliable way to attain value contracts is to load up on draft picks. also finding a top QB, because they are the most chronically underpaid players in the league

[bullsnewdynasty]

None of those TE's have a clear impact on winning games. They're solid to good players, but do you really think Evan Engram and Tyler Higbee move the needle?

Kittle, Gronk, and Kelce are future HOF'ers and three of the best players in football at their peak. Ertz is debateable, but he's clearly the best of the rest. I'm not saying you shouldn't want a good TE, but the Bears approach has either been to spend high draft capital/reach on one, or to spend a lot of cap space on one. That's proven to be a waste so far.

I'm not saying Cole Kmet is a bad TE prospect, but the Bears are a win now team. They gave a bunch of players on their defense big contracts, brought in a soon-to-be 30-year-old Robert Quinn for big money, and traded for Nick Foles. This team needs players who can potentially make a difference right now and moving forward. A rookie TE is not that.

To me, if the Bears were going to reach on a player, they should've reached on a WR or someone on the offensive line; or, move back and acquire a 3rd or 4th round pick, where TEs were still going off the board and potentially became better value.

You're confusing cause with correlation. Most of the top offenses in the league utilize the TE pretty heavily in the pass game.

People saying to draft a TE in the 5th round because George Kittle was available is like saying you can grab an NBA all-star with the 30th pick because the Bulls got Jimmy Butler. It's an outlier, it doesn't happen very often. The going rate for a high upside TE is usually a 1st or 2nd round pick.

Funny that history and facts don't back up your statement. Its around the 3rd round unless you're all world HOF named Gronk.

Usually 4 or 5 TE's get drafted in the first 2 rounds looking back at the last 5 years, so actual NFL teams disagree with you.

If what you are saying is true, nobody would draft a tight end until the 3rd round, which never happens, ever.

[dice]

You're confusing cause with correlation. Most of the top offenses in the league utilize the TE pretty heavily in the pass game.

People saying to draft a TE in the 5th round because George Kittle was available is like saying you can grab an NBA all-star with the 30th pick because the Bulls got Jimmy Butler. It's an outlier, it doesn't happen very often. The going rate for a high upside TE is usually a 1st or 2nd round pick.

Funny that history and facts don't back up your statement. Its around the 3rd round unless you're all world HOF named Gronk.

Usually 4 or 5 TE's get drafted in the first 2 rounds looking back at the last 5 years, so actual NFL teams disagree with you.

If what you are saying is true, nobody would draft a tight end until the 3rd round, which never happens, ever.

he didn't say that teams DON'T draft TEs in the first and 2nd rounds. he's saying that it's not predictive of how good they'll be. none of the 9 TEs taken in the 1st round over the past decade has become (or yet looks like he will be) elite at the position. so why take a TE early in the draft? there aren't any obvious stars at the position coming out of college. PFF's top graded TEs last season:

kittle (5th rounder)
kelce (3rd)
andrews (3rd)
waller (6th)
higbee (4th)
goedert (2nd)

some of the greatest TEs in history: shannon sharpe (7th rounder), antonio gates (undrafted), jason witten (3rd rounder), ben coates (5th rounder), mark bavaro (4th rounder), jay novacek (6th rounder), jimmy graham (3rd rounder)

FWIW, they had kmet at 98th on their draft board:

"Kmet broke out in a big way in his first game of 2019, with nine catches for 108 yards and a score against Georgia. He didn't quite continue that dominance throughout the season, but you saw a very complete tight end when you viewed his tape from this past year. I'm not sure he “wows” in any one regard, but he can run a full route tree, and he's a competent inline run-blocker. He's dropped only two of his 60 catchable targets over the past two seasons."

[nomorezorro]

maybe nfl teams are bad at identifying the qualities that make for good tight ends and should factor that into their decision-making when they consider whether to pick one in the first two rounds?

here's a list of rd 1-2 tight ends since the 2013 eifert-ertz draft:

tj hockenson
noah fant
irv smith jr.
drew sample
hayden hurst
mike gesicki
dallas goedert
oj howard
evan engram
gerald everett
adam shaheen
hunter henry
maxx williams
eric ebron
austin seferian-jenkins
jace amaro

they have one (1) pro-bowl appearance between them. and that was by a guy drafted 10 overall who's on his third team right now and signed for less money than washed jimmy graham

[nomorezorro]

oh dice said the same thing as me while i was posting that

[bullsnewdynasty]

Funny that history and facts don't back up your statement. Its around the 3rd round unless you're all world HOF named Gronk.

Usually 4 or 5 TE's get drafted in the first 2 rounds looking back at the last 5 years, so actual NFL teams disagree with you.

If what you are saying is true, nobody would draft a tight end until the 3rd round, which never happens, ever.

he didn't say that teams DON'T draft TEs in the first and 2nd rounds. he's saying that it's not predictive of how good they'll be. none of the 9 TEs taken in the 1st round over the past decade has become (or yet looks like he will be) elite at the position. so why take a TE early in the draft? there aren't any obvious stars at the position coming out of college. PFF's top graded TEs last season:

kittle (5th rounder)
kelce (3rd)
andrews (3rd)
waller (6th)
higbee (4th)
goedert (2nd)

some of the greatest TEs in history: shannon sharpe (7th rounder), antonio gates (undrafted), jason witten (3rd rounder), ben coates (5th rounder), mark bavaro (4th rounder), jay novacek (6th rounder), jimmy graham (3rd rounder)

FWIW, they had kmet at 98th on their draft board:

"Kmet broke out in a big way in his first game of 2019, with nine catches for 108 yards and a score against Georgia. He didn't quite continue that dominance throughout the season, but you saw a very complete tight end when you viewed his tape from this past year. I'm not sure he “wows” in any one regard, but he can run a full route tree, and he's a competent inline run-blocker. He's dropped only two of his 60 catchable targets over the past two seasons."

- He was responding directly to what I said
- TE's get drafted all the time in the 1st and 2nd round, i.e. not a reach to take the 1st TE off the board in the 2nd
- As I said earlier, doesn't matter how other players panned out, that's 100% irrelevant to whether Kmet is ACTUALLY GOOD
- Casual fans only look at receiving, ignore blocking completely which is half the responsibility of the TE
- It's funny how you think TE's bust more than other positions. Do you want me to go through and analyze how many 2nd rounders at other positions are busts? A LOT. Many of them drafted a couple of years ago and no longer in the league or a fringe backup.

[dice]

Usually 4 or 5 TE's get drafted in the first 2 rounds looking back at the last 5 years, so actual NFL teams disagree with you.

If what you are saying is true, nobody would draft a tight end until the 3rd round, which never happens, ever.

he didn't say that teams DON'T draft TEs in the first and 2nd rounds. he's saying that it's not predictive of how good they'll be. none of the 9 TEs taken in the 1st round over the past decade has become (or yet looks like he will be) elite at the position. so why take a TE early in the draft? there aren't any obvious stars at the position coming out of college. PFF's top graded TEs last season:

kittle (5th rounder)
kelce (3rd)
andrews (3rd)
waller (6th)
higbee (4th)
goedert (2nd)

some of the greatest TEs in history: shannon sharpe (7th rounder), antonio gates (undrafted), jason witten (3rd rounder), ben coates (5th rounder), mark bavaro (4th rounder), jay novacek (6th rounder), jimmy graham (3rd rounder)

FWIW, they had kmet at 98th on their draft board:

"Kmet broke out in a big way in his first game of 2019, with nine catches for 108 yards and a score against Georgia. He didn't quite continue that dominance throughout the season, but you saw a very complete tight end when you viewed his tape from this past year. I'm not sure he “wows” in any one regard, but he can run a full route tree, and he's a competent inline run-blocker. He's dropped only two of his 60 catchable targets over the past two seasons."

- He was responding directly to what I said

you said that the "going rate" for a high upside TE is 1st or 2nd round. he said that that is false given the performance history of TEs throughout the draft. because there is no evidence that early round TEs have significantly more upside

- TE's get drafted all the time in the 1st and 2nd round, i.e. not a reach to take the 1st TE off the board in the 2nd

it's a reach for the same reason as my last response: because top TEs are not consolidated toward the top of the draft. it's unnecessary to waste that capital on a TE when you can draft another position and get a TE later

- As I said earlier, doesn't matter how other players panned out, that's 100% irrelevant to whether Kmet is ACTUALLY GOOD

it suggests that nobody should be so egotistical as to assume that he's a significantly better bet than a TE taken later in the draft. this is the same front office that was egotistical enough to assume that their analysis of trubisky as head and shoulders above mahomes/watson was better than everybody else's

- Casual fans only look at receiving, ignore blocking completely which is half the responsibility of the TE

kmet is not considered a particularly good blocker, so i'm not sure what point you're trying to make here

- It's funny how you think TE's bust more than other positions

nobody said that, but i'm going to guess that there are other positions are less of a crap shoot than TE has proven to be. otherwise the entire draft is a more or less a crap shoot

[Kurt Heimlich]

Bengals cut Andy dalton today. Paying draft capital for Foles is looking worse and worse with Cam and now Dalton both free for the taking.

If Foles/Bears underwhelm this year Pace needs to be reconsidered. His past failures are noted, but he continues to seemingly get played by his peers.

[Betta Bulleavit]

Bengals cut Andy dalton today. Paying draft capital for Foles is looking worse and worse with Cam and now Dalton both free for the taking.

If Foles/Bears underwhelm this year Pace needs to be reconsidered. His past failures are noted, but he continues to seemingly get played by his peers.

To be fair, Foles was always a target because of his familiarity with this system. In addition, he’s one of very few options that can say he has a Super Bowl win under his belt. While the others may have more experience starting, Foles may have very well been the best fit. Furthermore, nobody knew for certain when the other two would be available. So it’s not as cut and dry as it might seem.