RealGM

Just approaching 100 pages, so locking old, starting new.

JockItch43 wrote:

1985Bear wrote:

dice wrote:wright is certainly not our best OL...yet? and stevenson is FAR from what JJ did last season

enough with the pissing away of draft picks for short-term and/or expensive fixes

and people need to stop pretending that taking justin fields over CJ stroud was poles shrewdly playing the long game. the plan was not to get extremely lucky. the realistic plan (a reasonable one!) was to take a mccarthy/penix-level talent if fields didn't work out. anything more than that was a bonus or require substantial draft capital to move up. carolina could have just as easily had a season like the texans last season. and everything in-between

winning the lottery does not earn credit for being a sound financial planner

Dice, I love the conviction and data driven analysis to team building. But I think your teams would suck. Constantly letting top players go because they cost too much, only signing guys to below market (good luck), and never trading for a player, just trade your guys for more picks. Then the draft, which seems to be the holy grail of team Dice. I don’t see any evaluation of failed picks or percentages that draft picks done work out in your equations.

There is definitely merit and logic behind your analysis but it doesn’t seem realistic. Sure if you never miss on a pick and have a team full of great value contracts, it would be optimal.

Take Keenan Allen for a 4th rounder. Allen is a 100% productive, above avg NFL player this year. ( you know the actual season we play next). A 4th round pick chances of being a contributor is what 19% success rate and for a WR it’s less than 10%. If I follow your analysis, you would rather have Javon Baker in the 4th and sign Renfrow at below market and that is supposed to make the team better???

Again, I love reading it and think you add a lot to the board. But I feel you really overvalue draft picks and discount how often they fail.

There's some level of art involved with team building. Dice has difficulty seeing beyond the science.

That's the joy of discussing things with Dice. He brings intelligence and data analysis to these discussions as long as others are cordial with him. I appreciate his criticisms even when I disagree with him.

Great Thread Title!

Lets score some points.

He really is my favorite new Bear. He seems so sincere nice and genuine lol

TheJordanRule wrote:

JockItch43 wrote:

1985Bear wrote:

Dice, I love the conviction and data driven analysis to team building. But I think your teams would suck. Constantly letting top players go because they cost too much, only signing guys to below market (good luck), and never trading for a player, just trade your guys for more picks. Then the draft, which seems to be the holy grail of team Dice. I don’t see any evaluation of failed picks or percentages that draft picks done work out in your equations.

There is definitely merit and logic behind your analysis but it doesn’t seem realistic. Sure if you never miss on a pick and have a team full of great value contracts, it would be optimal.

Take Keenan Allen for a 4th rounder. Allen is a 100% productive, above avg NFL player this year. ( you know the actual season we play next). A 4th round pick chances of being a contributor is what 19% success rate and for a WR it’s less than 10%. If I follow your analysis, you would rather have Javon Baker in the 4th and sign Renfrow at below market and that is supposed to make the team better???

Again, I love reading it and think you add a lot to the board. But I feel you really overvalue draft picks and discount how often they fail.

There's some level of art involved with team building. Dice has difficulty seeing beyond the science.

That's the joy of discussing things with Dice. He brings intelligence and data analysis to these discussions as long as others are cordial with him. I appreciate his criticisms even when I disagree with him.

1) there is no "art" to team building. it's entirely about talent, production, scheme, cost, team needs

2) you win by cumulative production above contract value. there is no other way. spending more in one area means spending less in another. both good teams and bad feature NON-QB star players on fair value contracts. they are equally distributed throughout the league (i posted the distribution of such big contract players on here a few years ago - avg. team winning % a bit below .500). but every single championship team has at least a few players playing way over their skis contract-wise. those are usually guys on rookie contracts. the chiefs had SEVEN such rookie deal guys last season. most were not first round picks

3) i have never advocated not spending all or close to all of cap if the team has any shot of contending! you will never be able to field a team that is entirely filled with below fair value contracts. but every effort should be made, including extending guys early if practical. and if you have to pay a guy fair value, try to make it a shorter term deal. you might have to skip the first day of free agency

4) i have consistently said that finding a franchise QB and building through the draft should be the game plan. that is a sustainable model for long-term success. so...

5) the chiefs should never miss the playoffs w/ mahomes playing at a high level. but doing things like extending chris jones instead of sneed makes failure more likely. because it is proven analytically that players who play in space (WR, DB) are much more valuable than lineman. their big plays and mistakes are way more consequential

the bears long-term outlook is very good because of caleb williams. their medium-term outlook is very good due to both williams and, to a lesser extent, odunze being on a rookie deal. maybe wright will earn his draft status as well. maybe stevenson will continue 2023 late season play. maybe braxton will continue to play well. but poles has doled out draft picks for higher level market value deals to maximize the SHORT term for some reason. above market value in sweat's case. this will, in my opinion, result in a playoff appearance. and probably a win if we're fortunate enough to draw the falcons. lots of offense, lots of excitement, poles will be hoisted as a conquering hero as pace was. but he has unnecessarily mortgaged the medium-term future of the team. hopefully he learns some lessons going forward, but i fear that his first flush of success will convince him that he has been doing things the right way. lovie, carolina and harbaugh will not continue to assist him. will bears fans be content with making the playoffs if caleb is the real deal? they shouldn't be. and they should be calling for poles's head if that is the pattern

dice wrote: but poles has doled out draft picks for higher level market value deals to maximize the SHORT term for some reason. above market value in sweat's case. this will, in my opinion, result in a playoff appearance. and probably a win if we're fortunate enough to draw the falcons. lots of offense, lots of excitement, poles will be hoisted as a conquering hero as pace was. but he has unnecessarily mortgaged the medium-term future of the team. hopefully he learns some lessons going forward, but i fear that his first flush of success will convince him that he has been doing things the right way. lovie, carolina and harbaugh will not continue to assist him.

Sweat is a medium term piece, his contract is as long as Caleb’s and Odunze’s. It will expire in 4 years, right when we need to pay them more. Not sure why you are so obsessed with him being a bad acquisition.

it's hard for me to buy the idea that he "mortgaged the medium-term future of this team" when, on balance, we're still up a first round pick and change in terms of net draft picks that have changed hands during poles's tenure

you can disagree with trading picks for veterans, but it's not like it's been a one-way street. the mack/smith/panthers trades did a ton to bring in draft picks for us

Peak offseasin hope is reaching its pinnacle. And you have to love it. The bulls franchise being as soul crushing they are the bears are our one unifinng hope and caleb plus rome plus keenan plus a strong defensive finish and all. Cherish these hopeful moments my brothers be they early or be they fleeting.

I'd like to see the data that shows that teams with a plethora a players on a first contract, very few high priced veterans, win a lot of superbowls. I would guess that teams that make it to the SB typically have very good QBs, and rosters with a lot of veterans on them, including some that are pretty high priced.

I've yet to see a team with 53 4th round picks on it bringing home the Lombardi trophy.

And I don't see how Poles has been "forcing things" with his trades (quote from Fleet's post in the previous thread). He's made moves when he felt like the team had glaring weaknesses. He saw opportunities to address those needs by trading a future pick for immediate help. That's not forcing things. Those areas had to be addressed, and he chose to do it sooner rather than later, in some cases because he didn't think help was available via the draft, in others because he chose the proven production of a veteran player over the unknown of drafting a rookie.

Dresden wrote:I'd like to see the data that shows that teams with a plethora a players on a first contract, very few high priced veterans, win a lot of superbowls. I would guess that teams that make it to the SB typically have very good QBs, and rosters with a lot of veterans on them, including some that are pretty high priced.

I think it's really common that teams win with multiple key contributors that are on rookie deals that are radically underpaid. That's usually a big component of why teams can't stay together. I wouldn't go through and name them all, it just seems like something brought up pretty regularly. The model recently has certainly been to get your QB and have him be underpaid, because the potential excess value is largest there. Optimizing the Bears for Caleb's year 3-5 is probably their best shot if Caleb is a true franchise superstar.

I've yet to see a team with 53 4th round picks on it bringing home the Lombardi trophy.

No one is suggesting that. The extra value you get out of a draft pick declines massively after the 3rd round, and it is probably highest (with the exception of an elite QB wherever he's taken) at back end of the 2nd tier of talent pool (likely late 1st/early 2nd round) and the declines from there. By the 4th round, the odds of a guy working out great are long enough that the excess value is really small and only is likely to appear over a much larger amount of picks.

moorhosj wrote:

dice wrote: but poles has doled out draft picks for higher level market value deals to maximize the SHORT term for some reason. above market value in sweat's case. this will, in my opinion, result in a playoff appearance. and probably a win if we're fortunate enough to draw the falcons. lots of offense, lots of excitement, poles will be hoisted as a conquering hero as pace was. but he has unnecessarily mortgaged the medium-term future of the team. hopefully he learns some lessons going forward, but i fear that his first flush of success will convince him that he has been doing things the right way. lovie, carolina and harbaugh will not continue to assist him.

Sweat is a medium term piece, his contract is as long as Caleb’s and Odunze’s. It will expire in 4 years, right when we need to pay them more. Not sure why you are so obsessed with him being a bad acquisition.

100%.

It seems super basic to note that you spend a lot on other positions when you have a rookie QB locked up cheap, then can't do those types of things as much once they get paid a market-value contract. The Bears should absolutely being doing deals like this now with the timing set up to have these guys come off the books at the time when you (hopefully) have to pay Caleb big bucks. Then the team-building gets a lot harder.

Honestly, the Sweat deal is not where I'd be moaning about Poles handing out contracts. It seems there's much lower hanging fruit to criticize in Edmunds or Bates, if that's the sort of thing you're worried about. And we've already seen the immediate impact on the field from Sweat, which makes it all the more confusing to be worked up about it now.

dougthonus wrote:

Dresden wrote:I'd like to see the data that shows that teams with a plethora a players on a first contract, very few high priced veterans, win a lot of superbowls. I would guess that teams that make it to the SB typically have very good QBs, and rosters with a lot of veterans on them, including some that are pretty high priced.

I think it's really common that teams win with multiple key contributors that are on rookie deals that are radically underpaid. That's usually a big component of why teams can't stay together. I wouldn't go through and name them all, it just seems like something brought up pretty regularly. The model recently has certainly been to get your QB and have him be underpaid, because the potential excess value is largest there. Optimizing the Bears for Caleb's year 3-5 is probably their best shot if Caleb is a true franchise superstar.

I've yet to see a team with 53 4th round picks on it bringing home the Lombardi trophy.

No one is suggesting that. The extra value you get out of a draft pick declines massively after the 3rd round, and it is probably highest (with the exception of an elite QB wherever he's taken) at back end of the 2nd tier of talent pool (likely late 1st/early 2nd round) and the declines from there. By the 4th round, the odds of a guy working out great are long enough that the excess value is really small and only is likely to appear over a much larger amount of picks.

Of course having players on cheap contracts helps. And of course great teams will typically have a few of those- the Niners have Brock Purdy. Not sure who the Chiefs have in that category anymore.

But let's not pretend that just by having a lot of guys on rookie contracts is the way to success. The Niners also had George Kittle, Deebo Samuels, Javon Hargrave, Nick Bosa, Fred Warner, Trey Greenlaw just to mention a few, who were not on rookie contracts. The Chiefs two best players- Kielce and Mahomes, were not on rookie contracts.

So I"m not suggesting it doesn't help. I'm just against dogmatically applying a single rule to how a team should be built, because I don't think the data supports that theory.

On the 4th round pick not being productive- I agree, and that's why getting a great player like Keenan Allen was such a smart move, but it was frowned upon by some who thought it reflected impatience on the part of Poles, or because it gave up a precious draft pick.

NecessaryEvil wrote:

Read on Twitter

The whole interview on the Sick podcast is about 28 min. Taylor seems very down to earth, just casual and happy to be a Bear with the opportunity to punt in Soldier Field. Taylor again confirms other teams were interested in selecting him and it sounded like he may have been on the phone with a different team when the Illinois call from the Bears came up. Does mention he was at his first Cubs game eating his first hot dog and put ketchup on it; said he had four hotdogs and was getting some weird looks (i.e because of the ketchup thing).

Dresden wrote:Of course having players on cheap contracts helps. And of course great teams will typically have a few of those- the Niners have Brock Purdy. Not sure who the Chiefs have in that category anymore.

Yes, of course they had guys on cheap deals that were a big part of their success. When the Chiefs looked incredibly dominant, Mahomes was that guy and certainly Purdy has been that guy for the 49ers. The Chiefs are still really great because the best QB in the world is still probably a value contract for them.

But let's not pretend that just by having a lot of guys on rookie contracts is the way to success. The Niners also had George Kittle, Deebo Samuels, Javon Hargrave, Nick Bosa, Fred Warner, Trey Greenlaw just to mention a few, who were not on rookie contracts. The Chiefs two best players- Kielce and Mahomes, were not on rookie contracts.

It's not that you need 20 types of guys like that on the roster, but say naturally you have 2.5 shots at a guy like that each year (your first 3 round picks). If a pick stays an average of 4 years on a value deal, then over 4 years, you've got 10 total chances. If we agree that picks are like 50/50 to work out, if you keep all your picks, you will have 5 such guys at any given time.

You are highly unlikely to get such guys by any other means other than the draft.

So I"m not suggesting it doesn't help. I'm just against dogmatically applying a single rule to how a team should be built, because I don't think the data supports that theory.

The data absolutely supports the theory that keeping your picks or trading down is better than trading for vets or trading up. Go look up virtually any research on it.

On the 4th round pick not being productive- I agree, and that's why getting a great player like Keenan Allen was such a smart move, but it was frowned upon by some who thought it reflected impatience on the part of Poles, or because it gave up a precious draft pick.

I have no complaints about Allen really. You gave up little and you got little (little because Allen is on an expiring deal, and his value this year isn't when the Bears will likely need it most). If you knew you would draft Rome, I probably wouldn't have traded for Allen, but you didn't know you would draft Rome (or one of the other big 3 receivers). It was a very reasonable hedge, and even if you do draft Rome, it's still not a bad hedge to have those 3 guys starting to juice Caleb's 1st year and give him the absolute best chance to develop.

My complaints about Sweat/Claypool (ignoring the outcome of the players) is that if the trade works, you gave up a 2nd rounder for the privilege of overpaying them. Sweat's not a top 6 DL, but he's the 6th highest paid DL. We gave up a value contract in order to bring on an overpaid contract. The same would have been true of Claypool if it worked out.

Granted, it still can work if you are right enough on the guys you get and the timing of when you are paying the money works out in your favor, there are other opportunity cost things in the mix, but if you make this type of trade 100x giving up a 2nd for a player that you then need to pay over market value to keep the very next year, you will lose value the majority of that time. It's a losing trade unless you are the smartest person in the room consistently, and that's a really stupid bet to make when information is such a commodity right now.

dougthonus wrote:My complaints about Sweat/Claypool (ignoring the outcome of the players) is that if the trade works, you gave up a 2nd rounder for the privilege of overpaying them. Sweat's not a top 6 DL, but he's the 6th highest paid DL. We gave up a value contract in order to bring on an overpaid contract. The same would have been true of Claypool if it worked out.

The thing about this critique is everyone is always an "overpay" in the first year of their deal. It's just how it works in an increasing salary cap environment. He won't be the 6th highest DL at the end of the deal, and if he plays like he did last year, it'll be well worth it over the life of the deal.

jnrjr79 wrote:The thing about this critique is everyone is always an "overpay" in the first year of their deal. It's just how it works in an increasing salary cap environment. He won't be the 6th highest DL at the end of the deal, and if he plays like he did last year, it'll be well worth it over the life of the deal.

I think that's a fair counterpoint, but what do you think Sweat is? The 25th best DL? 30th? Who knows where he will be in 4 years, but probably still on the more overpaid end of that spectrum. So if everything works out perfectly, you gave up a 2nd rounder to make a neutral transaction salary wise.

Again, so far, it looks like it will work out fine with Sweat. It's just not a transactional theory that scales. When you make moves that are on aggregate inefficient, you may win some, but if it is your pattern, you will lose. So far, Poles is making it look like a pattern.

dougthonus wrote:

jnrjr79 wrote:The thing about this critique is everyone is always an "overpay" in the first year of their deal. It's just how it works in an increasing salary cap environment. He won't be the 6th highest DL at the end of the deal, and if he plays like he did last year, it'll be well worth it over the life of the deal.

I think that's a fair counterpoint, but what do you think Sweat is? The 25th best DL? 30th? Who knows where he will be in 4 years, but probably still on the more overpaid end of that spectrum. So if everything works out perfectly, you gave up a 2nd rounder to make a neutral transaction salary wise.

Again, so far, it looks like it will work out fine with Sweat. It's just not a transactional theory that scales. When you make moves that are on aggregate inefficient, you may win some, but if it is your pattern, you will lose. So far, Poles is making it look like a pattern.

Oh, yeah, my post was only addressing the salary number. I definitely get some consternation over trading a 2nd and then having to pay that number. Though what was the alternative here? Try to outbid Houston for Danielle Hunter? I think it's likely to work out well, but I take your point that it's risky and often ill-advised to trade away high draft capital for someone you need to sign.

As to Sweat's quality, he was 6th in the NFL in sacks last year, 6th in forced fumbles, and 36th in solo tackles among edge rushers. I think he's better than the 25th or 30th EDGE (your post said DL, so many you wanted to include DTs there, but in that event, being 25th in the NFL at a position where there are something like 140 starting DLs isn't so bad).

As to Poles making this a "pattern," I am not so sure. As to the miserable Claypool trade, he was trying to give Justin something of a weapon to evaluate him. As to Sweat, he was trying to put together a win-now roster to be ready for his next QB. The sample size is small enough that I wouldn't draw grand conclusions about his approach. I think he's taking some swings due to the rookie QB contract situation, but that won't always be the situation. Also, he's probably making some more dramatic moves when he's turning an entire roster over than he would be now that he's largely built one. Going forward, hopefully it'll be more draft-focused with an eye toward maintaining the roster than having to build it from the ground up.