OT: Bears 2018 & 2019 Regular Season Thread

[dumbell78]

There are currently about 6-8 dudes you bet the farm on but never actually expect would be available in a trade. On the defensive side I'm thinking there are two, one was Aaron Donald who just got locked up by his team (Rams), the other is now a Bear.

This is an absolute coup! The North should be filing official complaints to the NFL offices that Oakland (Gruden) are working for the Russians lol.

[fleet]

that run defense will be an absolute wall.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

that run defense will be an absolute wall.

Yup. I don't love the secondary, but an elite front 7 and adding an elite pass rusher is going to help that back unit big time.

[Dominator83]

There are currently about 6-8 dudes you bet the farm on but never actually expect would be available in a trade. On the defensive side I'm thinking there are two, one was Aaron Donald who just got locked up by his team (Rams), the other is now a Bear.

This is an absolute coup! The North should be filing official complaints to the NFL offices that Oakland (Gruden) are working for the Russians lol.

Its a huge risk too investing that much $$ AND draft currency on one player that isn't a QB. Plus you gotta figure in the possibility of said player being less motivated after being handed $60 million upfront. But you certainly cant question whether or not Pace has balls. He is going for broke i'll give him that

[dumbell78]

There are currently about 6-8 dudes you bet the farm on but never actually expect would be available in a trade. On the defensive side I'm thinking there are two, one was Aaron Donald who just got locked up by his team (Rams), the other is now a Bear.

This is an absolute coup! The North should be filing official complaints to the NFL offices that Oakland (Gruden) are working for the Russians lol.

Its a huge risk too investing that much $$ AND draft currency on one player that isn't a QB. Plus you gotta figure in the possibility of said player being less motivated after being handed $60 million upfront. But you certainly cant question whether or not Pace has balls. He is going for broke i'll give him that

The risk is there, I wont deny it. The thing is Mack is an absolute game changer, he is 27 and in the prime of his career. Donald just got about 22 mil a year and just under 90 mil guaranteed. Mack is just as good and is worth just as much. Oakland didnt want to pay him and Gruden hadnt even reached out to the guy since Janurary. If the Bears had handled someone like Mack the same way, we would be burning down Solider Field. This basically vaults us into a top 5 defensive team. The secondary needs some work but man the pressure up front wont be nice to a lot of QB's.


I killed Pace for the Mitch trade but I love him as of late, this is just so good from my point of view. I really cant believe it.

[RememberLu]

Vic Fangio not regretting staying here today, he got some gifts this year. Roquan Smith and now Mack. He's probably the happiest guy in Chicago today

[fleet]

that run defense will be an absolute wall.

Yup. I don't love the secondary, but an elite front 7 and adding an elite pass rusher is going to help that back unit big time.

The way Mack plays the run is as good as his pass rush. Someone will need to name a faster quartet of linebackers in modern times. And you have size and athleticism inside along the line in Harris, Hicks, Goldman, and Nichols. Bullard eh. But Trevathan, Smith, Floyd, and Mack are filling all the gaps sideline to sideline.

[Payt10]

Very reminiscent of the day they traded for Cutler. I had a similar reaction. Big time move, but not without paying a hefty price.

I didn't want to give up two 1st round picks for a non-QB position, but I also didn't want the Packers to get him either, and they were supposedly front runners until the Bears swooped in and took him before they could get him. Now that he's officially a Bear, I'm glad they made the move.

The biggest question mark, health notwithstanding, is Trubisky. If he's any good, the Bears are obvious superbowl contenders. If not, they could still challenge for the playoffs, but it's going to be an incredibly hard thing to do with the division they play in.

This move signals that the Bears are all-in while Mack is still in his prime and Trubisky is under his rookie contract. If the Bears win the superbowl in the future, it's going to be with THESE guys. Not many picks the next few years in the draft, so let's hope for some good fortune for once.

I'm super stoked about week 1. I'm so sick and tired of the Packers kicking the Bears ass every year. It's about time that changes.

[dice]

There are currently about 6-8 dudes you bet the farm on but never actually expect would be available in a trade. On the defensive side I'm thinking there are two, one was Aaron Donald who just got locked up by his team (Rams), the other is now a Bear.

This is an absolute coup! The North should be filing official complaints to the NFL offices that Oakland (Gruden) are working for the Russians lol.

Its a huge risk too investing that much $$ AND draft currency on one player that isn't a QB. Plus you gotta figure in the possibility of said player being less motivated after being handed $60 million upfront. But you certainly cant question whether or not Pace has balls. He is going for broke i'll give him that

pace is a goddamn moron. you don't trade ANY draft pick just to turn around and pay a guy fair value or more. not a 7th rounder. not a 4th rounder. and certainly not multiple FIRST rounders. good god. does he not understand what a hard salary cap is? that money could have been split up amongst multiple good free agents, plugging multiple holes, without giving up anything. this trade makes the bears worse in the long-term and does nothing in the short term

assuming that everyone is fairly paid, adding a great player means subtracting another. or multiple good players. in the nfl, the name of the game is value contracts and good coaching. that's it and that's all. it's not about name players (unless they happen to be underpaid, like many top QBs are). can anyone say with a straight face that this is a value contract? because if it's not it can't do much to improve the team

the bears are mortgaging the future and not moving the needle in the present. foolish. bears fans may overwhelm the pros and move the over/under win total up a tad in vegas. if i were a betting man i'd happily take the under before the season opener. if the bears make the playoffs (very unlikely) it won't be because of this trade

[the ultimates]

Why are people saying the Bears are mortgaging the future? Show me the odds or analytics that say you'll get more value out of keeping the two firsts, the third and sixth rounder. Haven't their been studies done that show half of all first-round picks become busts? I could see the logic if you feel the Bears were going to be bad enough to pick in the top 5-10 for the next couple of seasons. If they are an average to above average team (8-10 wins) that means you traded two mid first round picks for an elite player? Who wouldn't do that?

Look at the contract details https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/09/01/khalil-mack-sets-a-new-bar-for-defensive-players/ the vast majority of his guaranteed money is paid in the first three years. His cap number doesn't take him over 20 million dollars until 2023. It's like saying instead of the Angels having Mike Trout and his 10 WAR average they'd be better off trading him for five 2 WAR players.

[dice]

Read on Twitter

Bears get a 2nd round pick back.

so...the additions to the original report are the bears giving up a 3rd and 6th and getting back a 2nd and (maybe) fifth. here are the values of an average pick in each of those rounds:

2nd rounder 415
3rd rounder 180
5th rounder* 30
6th rounder 15

given that first rounders average 1160 points (equivalent of #13 pick, bears pick in 2019 at least will likely be more valuable than that) the additions to the trade are pretty small potatoes

basically the value of the picks the bears are sending out is 10x that which they are bringing in

https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp

[the ultimates]

Read on Twitter

Bears get a 2nd round pick back.

so...the additions to the original report are the bears giving up a 3rd and 6th and getting back a 2nd and (maybe) fifth. here are the values of an average pick in each of those rounds:

2nd rounder 415
3rd rounder 180
5th rounder* 30
6th rounder 15

given that first rounders average 1160 points (equivalent of #13 pick, bears pick in 2019 at least will likely be more valuable than that) the additions to the trade are pretty small potatoes

basically the value of the picks the bears are sending out is 10x that which they are bringing in

https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp

Shouldn't the value of the picks their getting be weighted with the fact they are receiving a top five defensive player? What happens if the Bears make the playoffs once or twice, the value of those first rounders lessons. They still end up sending more out than they get picks wise in terms of value but making the playoffs with an elite player surely mitigates that.

[dice]

Why are people saying the Bears are mortgaging the future? Show me the odds or analytics that say you'll get more value out of keeping the two firsts, the third and sixth rounder. Haven't their been studies done that show half of all first-round picks become busts? I could see the logic if you feel the Bears were going to be bad enough to pick in the top 5-10 for the next couple of seasons. If they are an average to above average team (8-10 wins) that means you traded two mid first round picks for an elite player? Who wouldn't do that?

Look at the contract details https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/09/01/khalil-mack-sets-a-new-bar-for-defensive-players/ the vast majority of his guaranteed money is paid in the first three years. His cap number doesn't take him over 20 million dollars until 2023.

all that matters is the cap hits, which are as follows:

2018 13.8 mil
2019 22.3 mil
2020 24.0 mil
2021 24.05 mil
2022 24.55 mil
2023 22.9 mil
2024 23.25 mil

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/chicago-bears/khalil-mack-14414/

so if he plays like a 20+ mil value player he will indeed improve the team this season (the season that the team is least likely to contend) at the expense of the next few seasons, when he will be overpaid (assuming that the overall contract value is fair). so even the contract structure is dubious strategy

It's like saying instead of the Angels having Mike Trout and his 10 WAR average they'd be better off trading him for five 2 WAR players.

that would be exactly equal value. by definition. assuming that the 2 WAR players will continue to be that on their new team, which is unlikely because at least one of them is likely to get less playing time (4 more bodies on the roster)

given the injury risk in football, you're better off spreading it around. also the weakest link is far more important in football than it is in baseball because it can be exploited repeatedly. so you're better off plugging obvious holes than you are consolidating resources into one great player

[dice]

Read on Twitter

Bears get a 2nd round pick back.

so...the additions to the original report are the bears giving up a 3rd and 6th and getting back a 2nd and (maybe) fifth. here are the values of an average pick in each of those rounds:

2nd rounder 415
3rd rounder 180
5th rounder* 30
6th rounder 15

given that first rounders average 1160 points (equivalent of #13 pick, bears pick in 2019 at least will likely be more valuable than that) the additions to the trade are pretty small potatoes

basically the value of the picks the bears are sending out is 10x that which they are bringing in

https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp

Shouldn't the value of the picks their getting be weighted with the fact they are receiving a top five defensive player?

all that matters is the contract relative to how good the player is

What happens if the Bears make the playoffs once or twice, the value of those first rounders lessons. They still end up sending more out than they get picks wise in terms of value but making the playoffs with an elite player surely mitigates that.

the point is that if the player is fairly paid he WON'T improve the team. if the bears signed prime tom brady and paid him what he was worth the team wouldn't improve

the over/under just isn't going to improve much with this trade

[the ultimates]

Why are people saying the Bears are mortgaging the future? Show me the odds or analytics that say you'll get more value out of keeping the two firsts, the third and sixth rounder. Haven't their been studies done that show half of all first-round picks become busts? I could see the logic if you feel the Bears were going to be bad enough to pick in the top 5-10 for the next couple of seasons. If they are an average to above average team (8-10 wins) that means you traded two mid first round picks for an elite player? Who wouldn't do that?

Look at the contract details https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/09/01/khalil-mack-sets-a-new-bar-for-defensive-players/ the vast majority of his guaranteed money is paid in the first three years. His cap number doesn't take him over 20 million dollars until 2023.

all that matters is the cap hits, which are as follows:

2018 13.8 mil
2019 22.3 mil
2020 24.0 mil
2021 24.05 mil
2022 24.55 mil
2023 22.9 mil
2024 23.25 mil

so if he plays like a 20+ mil value player he will indeed improve the team this season (the season that the team is least likely to contend) at the expense of the next few seasons, when he will be overpaid (assuming that the overall contract value is fair). so even the contract structure is dubious strategy

It's like saying instead of the Angels having Mike Trout and his 10 WAR average they'd be better off trading him for five 2 WAR players.

that would be exactly equal value. by definition. assuming that the 2 WAR players will continue to be that on their new team, which is unlikely because at least one of them is likely to get less playing time (4 more bodies on the roster)

given the injury risk in football, you're better off spreading it around. also the weakest link is far more important in football than it is in baseball because it can be exploited repeatedly. so you're better off plugging obvious holes than you are consolidating resources into one great player

You keep talking about the expense of the next few seasons. It is highly unlikely that any player the Bears drafted in the first round over the next two years at any position would be as good as Mack. You mention plugging holes instead of consolidating resources in one player but what if those players aren't available. An edge rusher was a need going into the draft. One wasn't available were the Bears were picking in the draft and none available in free agency. I would have liked a better right tackle but none available in the draft or free agency.

You go propose that Mike Trout point to any baseball board or on Fangraphs and see if they if that reasoning will fly because I can assure you it won't.

[fleet]

Spoiler:

Read on Twitter

Bears get a 2nd round pick back.

so...the additions to the original report are the bears giving up a 3rd and 6th and getting back a 2nd and (maybe) fifth. here are the values of an average pick in each of those rounds:

2nd rounder 415
3rd rounder 180
5th rounder* 30
6th rounder 15

given that first rounders average 1160 points (equivalent of #13 pick, bears pick in 2019 at least will likely be more valuable than that) the additions to the trade are pretty small potatoes

basically the value of the picks the bears are sending out is 10x that which they are bringing in

https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp

Personally I dont try and break things down this scientifically, but this breakdown has a different analysis:

Mack.

Classic draft math
To acquire Mack, Pace sent away a 2019 first-rounder, a 2020 first-rounder, a 2019 sixth-rounder, and a 2020 third-rounder. In terms of conventional draft math, that’s the same as sending away a first-rounder, second-rounder, fourth-rounder, and a sixth-rounder. If you assume the Bears will still be drafting No. 10 overall in 2019, then the approximate value of this entire package is around 1800 points. Compensatory picks make it sort of difficult to peg the exact value of those later-round selections.

In the Mack trade, the Bears are picking up a guaranteed 190-point discount with the return of a future second (valued as a mid-round third). That means the Bears acquired Mack for just over 1600 points of draft value, assuming the conditional fifth-rounder doesn’t end up coming into play. That’s equal to the No. 6 overall pick in the draft. That’s remarkable.

If the Bears are simply mediocre instead of bad in 2018, and that 2019 first-rounder is reduced to No. 16 overall instead of No. 10, then the price of acquiring Mack was less than the 1350 points that are needed to buy the No. 9 pick in the draft.


In terms of draft capital, Mack was cheaper than Leonard Floyd. I like No. 94, but that’s just not right

https://www.windycitygridiron.com/2018/9/1/17810200/chicago-bears-khalil-mack-trade-better-than-you-think-ryan-pace-mitchell-trubisky-nfl-2018

[fleet]

I look at it simply like this. I break the trade down into 2 halves. 1st half....The Bears gave up 2 firsts, and a third. For Mack and a 2nd. That's 3 players for 2. But one of the 2 is Khalil Mack. 3 question marks for Mack and 1 question mark. I'm good with that. Second half....deals with low round picks. I bloody dont care.

Context matters. If this is the only way to finish the team the right way (with a HOFer filling the final hole), you do it. If Pace did his job with the rest of the team other than the Mack trade, it results in a number of playoffs runs, it is the right way to go. If Pace did not do his job with the rest of the team, the Mack trade was irrelevant. Maybe should not have done it. The deal can't be judged yet without knowing how good the team will be. I tend to like going for unlikely greatness rather than taking the safe route all the time. I have a feeling previous conservative Bears teams may not have gone with upside players like Tolliver, Wims and keeping a low productive (so far) White. Would have found less exiting yet more guaranteed roster options. I like the way Pace goes for the jugular.

By the way, if Pace found 3 future starters in Bilal Nichols, Javon Wims, and Kevin Tolliver with a 5th rounder, a 7th rounder, and a UDFA, it gives him even more room to make deals like the Mack deal.

[dice]

Why are people saying the Bears are mortgaging the future? Show me the odds or analytics that say you'll get more value out of keeping the two firsts, the third and sixth rounder. Haven't their been studies done that show half of all first-round picks become busts? I could see the logic if you feel the Bears were going to be bad enough to pick in the top 5-10 for the next couple of seasons. If they are an average to above average team (8-10 wins) that means you traded two mid first round picks for an elite player? Who wouldn't do that?

Look at the contract details https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/09/01/khalil-mack-sets-a-new-bar-for-defensive-players/ the vast majority of his guaranteed money is paid in the first three years. His cap number doesn't take him over 20 million dollars until 2023.

all that matters is the cap hits, which are as follows:

2018 13.8 mil
2019 22.3 mil
2020 24.0 mil
2021 24.05 mil
2022 24.55 mil
2023 22.9 mil
2024 23.25 mil

so if he plays like a 20+ mil value player he will indeed improve the team this season (the season that the team is least likely to contend) at the expense of the next few seasons, when he will be overpaid (assuming that the overall contract value is fair). so even the contract structure is dubious strategy

It's like saying instead of the Angels having Mike Trout and his 10 WAR average they'd be better off trading him for five 2 WAR players.

that would be exactly equal value. by definition. assuming that the 2 WAR players will continue to be that on their new team, which is unlikely because at least one of them is likely to get less playing time (4 more bodies on the roster)

given the injury risk in football, you're better off spreading it around. also the weakest link is far more important in football than it is in baseball because it can be exploited repeatedly. so you're better off plugging obvious holes than you are consolidating resources into one great player

You keep talking about the expense of the next few seasons. It is highly unlikely that any player the Bears drafted in the first round over the next two years at any position would be as good as Mack.

it makes. no. difference. how good he is in a vacuum. it matters how good he is relative to his contract

You mention plugging holes instead of consolidating resources in one player but what if those players aren't available.

if you have to overpay to fill multiple positions (which is what you have to do if resources are scarce), then consolidating and paying one player fairly might be the better option. but trading valuable first rounders for the privilege of paying a player fairly is always a bad idea

You go propose that Mike Trout point to any baseball board or on Fangraphs and see if they if that reasoning will fly because I can assure you it won't.

then they're having problems with basic logic. 5 players with WAR of 2 are equal to one with value of 10 BY DEFINITION. team with most total WAR wins the most games. doesn't matter how the value is distributed. now, if you're going to trade a 10 war guy for a bunch of 2 WAR guys, the 2 WAR guys have to be replacing replacement players on the roster for it to make sense. and you might not have 5 replacement level players on the roster

[dice]

Spoiler:

Read on Twitter

Bears get a 2nd round pick back.

so...the additions to the original report are the bears giving up a 3rd and 6th and getting back a 2nd and (maybe) fifth. here are the values of an average pick in each of those rounds:

2nd rounder 415
3rd rounder 180
5th rounder* 30
6th rounder 15

given that first rounders average 1160 points (equivalent of #13 pick, bears pick in 2019 at least will likely be more valuable than that) the additions to the trade are pretty small potatoes

basically the value of the picks the bears are sending out is 10x that which they are bringing in

https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp

Personally I dont try and break things down this scientifically, but this breakdown has a different analysis:

Mack.

Classic draft math
To acquire Mack, Pace sent away a 2019 first-rounder, a 2020 first-rounder, a 2019 sixth-rounder, and a 2020 third-rounder. In terms of conventional draft math, that’s the same as sending away a first-rounder, second-rounder, fourth-rounder, and a sixth-rounder. If you assume the Bears will still be drafting No. 10 overall in 2019, then the approximate value of this entire package is around 1800 points. Compensatory picks make it sort of difficult to peg the exact value of those later-round selections.

In the Mack trade, the Bears are picking up a guaranteed 190-point discount with the return of a future second (valued as a mid-round third). That means the Bears acquired Mack for just over 1600 points of draft value, assuming the conditional fifth-rounder doesn’t end up coming into play. That’s equal to the No. 6 overall pick in the draft. That’s remarkable.

If the Bears are simply mediocre instead of bad in 2018, and that 2019 first-rounder is reduced to No. 16 overall instead of No. 10, then the price of acquiring Mack was less than the 1350 points that are needed to buy the No. 9 pick in the draft.


In terms of draft capital, Mack was cheaper than Leonard Floyd. I like No. 94, but that’s just not right

https://www.windycitygridiron.com/2018/9/1/17810200/chicago-bears-khalil-mack-trade-better-than-you-think-ryan-pace-mitchell-trubisky-nfl-2018

1) he nonsensically discounts the value of the picks the bears gave up. a 2020 first rounder is the equivalent of a 2019 2nd rounder? makes no sense
2) he further discounts it by assuming that the trade makes the team significantly better
3) he ignores money entirely

the bears didn't just give up draft picks. they also gave up players they would have otherwise signed with the money they spent on mack...without having to give up a damn thing

[fleet]

Spoiler:

so...the additions to the original report are the bears giving up a 3rd and 6th and getting back a 2nd and (maybe) fifth. here are the values of an average pick in each of those rounds:

2nd rounder 415
3rd rounder 180
5th rounder* 30
6th rounder 15

given that first rounders average 1160 points (equivalent of #13 pick, bears pick in 2019 at least will likely be more valuable than that) the additions to the trade are pretty small potatoes

basically the value of the picks the bears are sending out is 10x that which they are bringing in

https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp

Personally I dont try and break things down this scientifically, but this breakdown has a different analysis:

Mack.

Classic draft math
To acquire Mack, Pace sent away a 2019 first-rounder, a 2020 first-rounder, a 2019 sixth-rounder, and a 2020 third-rounder. In terms of conventional draft math, that’s the same as sending away a first-rounder, second-rounder, fourth-rounder, and a sixth-rounder. If you assume the Bears will still be drafting No. 10 overall in 2019, then the approximate value of this entire package is around 1800 points. Compensatory picks make it sort of difficult to peg the exact value of those later-round selections.

In the Mack trade, the Bears are picking up a guaranteed 190-point discount with the return of a future second (valued as a mid-round third). That means the Bears acquired Mack for just over 1600 points of draft value, assuming the conditional fifth-rounder doesn’t end up coming into play. That’s equal to the No. 6 overall pick in the draft. That’s remarkable.

If the Bears are simply mediocre instead of bad in 2018, and that 2019 first-rounder is reduced to No. 16 overall instead of No. 10, then the price of acquiring Mack was less than the 1350 points that are needed to buy the No. 9 pick in the draft.


In terms of draft capital, Mack was cheaper than Leonard Floyd. I like No. 94, but that’s just not right

https://www.windycitygridiron.com/2018/9/1/17810200/chicago-bears-khalil-mack-trade-better-than-you-think-ryan-pace-mitchell-trubisky-nfl-2018

1) he nonsensically discounts the value of the picks the bears gave up. a 2020 first rounder is the equivalent of a 2019 2nd rounder? makes no sense
2) he further discounts it by assuming that the trade makes the team significantly better
3) he ignores money entirely

the bears didn't just give up draft picks. they also gave up players they would have otherwise signed with the money they spent on mack...without having to give up a damn thing

The value of future picks are vastly discounted in these kinds of analysis. It is very commonly accepted in the league.