BearFan PHX

exactly. But Miami will. He was pretty good on his college tape, moves well laterally, and is naturally wide. But some of these pass rushers have speed and hands and they are slippery as hell. Cant wait to see Trapilo try to handle that. And even if he gets beat a few times, if he learns, that will be great.

I agree with both of you. Id like to see it soon, but it might take a minute, but it's hard to imagine this group not figuring it out over time. The roster and the staff are much better than anything we've seen in quite a while, and in some ways, ever. I dont want to have patience, and I am going to see every mistake in the early games of course, but if it doesnt come fast, that doesnt mean it isnt coming. We will see what needs fixing, and if players need replacing - which isnt always the same thing at all. If Trapilo is rough early for example that's different than if DJ Moore is screwing up. One you expect to have a growth period, and the other is a polished pro who should be his normal great self. But i think this team should grow into something special, and i hope it happens fast, but if it takes a minute, we should be seeing growth at least. I won't lose hope right away if we start slow.

no. youre being dumb again. cap space absolutely matters. you need to make sure everyone on your team is playing up to what you pay them. wasted cap space is a problem. IF you have a top stud available, you can push cap space around to create space for them. and they also have to play up to their pay too. You cant keep pushing cap space around - it does matter - but for a single real stud you can find room. It binds you up then, but its Ok because you have that star player. This isnt controversial either - everyone who is paying attention knows this. I am surprised you dont.

lol youre still doing it. Agreed that the trade probably wont happen. Didnt agree on three of your points about why. Why do we have to pretend you didnt say them now? Just let it be, i dont need to keep talking about it, as long as you stop having some oversimplified last word like it didnt happen LOL

I'll tell you a little story to help explain this mysterious concept to you. A little boy named Stingy asks his Daddy if they are going to but a new car. Stingy's Daddy says "no we cant afford one" Little Stingy thinks for a minute and then says "I understand Daddy, we cant buy a new car for four reason. For one it's too expensive." And his father nods his head yes. Then littler Stingy says "and also Daddy, 2+2 = 7, pigs can fly and the moon is made out cheese, those are the other reasons why we cant buy a new car" Little Stingys Daddy is disappointed in his son, and says "No little Stingy, only the first reason is the reason why" Then Little Stingy says "so you agree we arent buying a new car, so all the reasons must be true - you must be off your meds" Little Stingy's Daddy is ashamed. Little Stingy must be drunk, no one could be that massively stupid. The Little Stingy says "Dont worry Daddy, Im not stupid, i was just lying about not understanding because i wanted to make it look like i wasnt wrong." The moral of the story is that just because something is true doesnt mean every possible justification for it is valid, and also little Stingy is slippery in his logic, to cover up for when he says things that dont make sense.

Yes you did just show me how stupid you are by proposing that bet. Do you think i am saying the trade WILL happen? Are you not understanding? THe trade will likely not happen because the trade cost will be too high. Your other arguments are wrong. They are not reasons the deal wont happen. The reason the deal wont happen is because the trade cost is too high. So how the hell am I betting the trade will happen? Are you making any sense at all?

you are SUCH a moron. I am NOT saying the trade is going happen, Im arguing with you about WHY its not going to happen. Read that again so you get it now the 4th or 5th time Ive said it. 1) the trade value will be too high - we agree - so the trade will not happen. Right. 2) cap space - youre wrong, treams can create it for special circumstances by redoing other deals, we've all seen it before in the NFL, maybe you didnt understand it 3) sync'ed contracts - dont even know what youre talking about - its better to have contracts spaced apart so they dont all come due at once. i think youre misunderstanding the thing about HC and GM being sync'ed with players contracts. If anything you want your big defender while Caleb is still a rookie 4) not a scheme fit - this is the most typical of your blatant misunderstanding of football and how you get your information from sportswriters. You think there is a scheme that adding Micah Parsons wouldnt be a good thing? your arguments, 2, 3 & 4 are dumb. You dont like that i disagreed with you and now youre having an emotional reaction again. I cant help it that you say dumb things that get pushed back on. If you want all your opinions to be held in high regard, then say smart things. Or... maybe youre listening to the wrong sportswriters and are getting frustrated when you try to bring their narratives here and they dont work. Also, to your idea that Im "trying to get people to agree with me" - no. I was being nice and answering your question. You asked how they could find cap room so i told you.

OK. Teams are able to restructure contracts to push money into the future. For almost any team, there is cap space available that you can create. You make the deal 5 years long, and guarantee a big chunk of it, then you get to pay that off the cap 20% across each year. Next year there is a lot of cap space available as you look at players like Edmunds, Jaylon Johnson, Cole Kmet, even DJ Moore. Im not saying you have to trade or cut those guys either. You can restructure their deals as well. Or you can do what most successful terams do and identify a couple core vets on your squad and move on the others in trades. If the question is whether a rookie next year can take Kmet's place, or Edmunds etc vs how big an upgrade Parsons would be, I think Parsons is the easy answer. If you wouldnt trade Kmet and Edmunds for Parsons then you're insane. That doesnt mean Kmet and Edmunds arent good - I just think you fail to understand that QB and Edge Rusher are the two things that make championship teams. Look how the Eagles' pass rush destroyed Mahomes. The QB is the thing you NEED, and if an edge player has that QB on his ass, then you dont have a QB, see? Anyway, for the right player, teams can make cap room. If Parsons was a free agent, we would sign him in an instant, and be in the 6 teams or so in superbowl contention.

OK here you go again, playing word games to hide yourself, and throwing in some personal stuff to make it sound tough. So first off, we have agreed the price or the trade alone makes it not happen. Yes. But it isnt that simple. We talked about WHY, and you still dont get that any team that had it would love to pay this guy. Im not smoking pot, Im paying a top player in the league at one of the two most important positions in football what they are worth. You dont get that? You also say he isnt a scheme fit - absolute nonsense. And finally you say something about contracts being sync'ed - also total fantasies. So yes, we agree that the trade probably wont happen, but you have three reasons why out of four that make no sense at all. As fot asking if im high, and suggesting I contact Poles about this - man your anger issues are coming out again. Because i said you were wrong. Because youa re.

I completely agree that I predict Jerry Jones will want too much in trade value. Ive said it over and over - that is WHY the trade probably wont happen. All Im pushing back on are these ridiculous arguments: 1) We dont have the cap space - they can always push money around and make space for a player like Parsons if he is available to us 2) He doesnt fit the scheme - he fits every scheme. Every team in the league would love to have him if they could swing it 3) His contract doesnt align with Caleb's - so what?! The alignment thing was to be sure players were still here, there is nothing wrong with having a stud pass rusher around for more years, in fact we are more likely to be able to afford him before Calebs 2nd deal anyway. And you try to draft or acquire good players every year, so contracts are always staggered - which is smart because you dont want everyone coming due for an extension at the same time. I think Stinger has misunderstood why syncing the GM and HC is a great idea, and is trying to extend that to the players? But the reason it wont happen is the trade cost, nothing else. That's what im saying. But strange things do happen, and so you gotta do your due diligence. I do think the Bears could make a move before the seasons starts on the Defensive Line. Will it be Parsons? probably not. But its not impossible.

the odds of the Bears getting Parsons are considerably more likely that winning the lottery. I have said that it probably wont happen because of the trade value needed. But I also think the contract length and cap space would be FINE. Youre just muddling it all together and saying it wont happen - and youre probably right, but NOT because of synced contracts or cap space - thats where youre wrong. And when you say he doesnt fit the scheme, thats just insanity. Micah Parsons fits EVERY scheme. Every team in the league would take him if they could afford him. When you say we already have Dayo, so we dont need Parsons thats where youre absolutely smoking crack.

I truly dont understand your thinking. The whole point of having a QB on a rookie deal is to have cap space to add highly paid players while you can afford them BEFORE you pay Caleb. What do you think the benefit of having players with deals that end with Calebs is? On one hand they are around until then, you dont lose them early - but what would be the downside of having a great pass rusher who has a contract that extends beyond Calebs? Im think you dont understand why the contracts are synced - and think there is some benefit to it that you dont understand? The problem here is what the trade would cost, not the cap or contract.

we still might get him! who knows? I can tell you Poles is looking into it 100%.

Sadly, Parsons didnt say hed take less to go to Chicago. That was a hoax unfortunately.

I'm making some assumptions in saying this, but adding Parsons could make this a complete roster that could go as far as their production takes them. Meaning, this may not be the year we win a Superbowl, but a lot of these guys are the players that are going to do it, so if you add a real edge rusher, youre that much closer. Sounds like we would have to make a deal with Dallas, and that isnt gonna be easy. And it might just be too rich.

for sure. but if he is available, and we can get him, we should.

I suspect you are right. He will get paid, and if not Jerry will want a ransom in picks. I just hope we get lucky and something happens where we could get him.

this all makes sense - and its how I see it too. If Amagadje dominates, then I have no reason to want Trapilo - Im not a fan of one or the other, I just want the best guy in there. And of course, taking into account that this is Braxton's last year on his rookie deal, and while he's given us a lot for a 5th rounder, he is not that good as a LT. "good for a 5th rounder" and "good for the NFL" are not the same thing!

yup - it looks like if Trapilo can show against Miami, he will get the job.

this all makes sense. And just so Im clear to everyone - I would NOT trade three firsts for the guy. So if the trade price is too high, then i think we will and should pass. But I also agree with you 100% that he is a true stud, and if we can afford the trade, then he is absolutely worth the cap space, especially with Caleb on his rookie deal. Stinger earlier suggested that you dont monkey with Jaylon Johnson to get Parsons because JJ's contract is aligned with Calebs. That makes no sense because: 1) JJ already wants a new deal and is probably a hold out next year to get one, so alignment is off anyway 2) the whole POINT of the advantage of having a rookie QB is that you can afford these kind of deals for a pass rusher. Maybe someone will make the case that JJ is just that good that you cant lose him - thats not a bad argument at all, but the ones that have already been offered make no sense? If we pick an edge int he first round next year, they will almost certainly never be as good as Parsons already is. Parsons is easily worth more than a 1st round pick right now. But Dallas is going to want a haul, and that's not a great move for us. But if we can add in players and make this deal, we should.

depending on how stuck Dallas is. If Parsons is going to hold out Dallas doesnt want all the cap space going to waste. This HAS happened before you know. I mean, if you watch the NFL at all?

Its not even clear that Turner is going to play DE. But even if he does, turning our collective nose up at one of the best edge players int he league, who is only 26 is weird! If the trade cost is too much, then i get it. We wont make the trade. But if we can get him, we shouldnt say "we dont need him we have Dayo and Sweat" thats crazy

sorry if I misspoke, but yes he is one of the best edge rushers in the game. His pressure rate is 20% - that means he gets pressure in 1 out of 5 snaps. Every team needs a guy like that. you guys are nuts. if the trade value is too high, then so be it - but you act like you dont want him. Thats insane. Stinger, just imagine he is already a Bear and then you will defend the hell put of him.

right. thats what im saying. Ofcourse he would never be a free agent, but i was just saying thing to make the point that it isnt the cap space thats the problem, its the trade value i think will prevent us from getting him. Like if they want 2 firsts, a second and Montez Sweat - Im feeling like that second first rounder is too steep. but if we could interest them in a player or two to get some draft capital out of the deal, then it becomes interesting. Thats why i was throwing out trading guys like Jaylon Johnson - hes a big stud (or so it's currently thought) he gets the new deal he wants. I mean i really like JJ as a player. But if hes gonna be the top payed CB in the league, Id rather be paying a top edge rusher like Parsons or Hendrickson. Especially when we have so much depth in the DB room. Is someone ready to be a real #1 if we lose JJ - well were getting a good look at them in camp with JJ out, and you can bet Ryan Poles is thinking the same thing "can someone in this group replace JJ eventually?" and "all DBs look better with a good pass rush in front of them" Dont forget, next year you can look at Edmunds cap $ too. There is definitely opportunity to move cap money around in the defense. But Im not paying two firsts, a second and a player. That seems too high. But it's probably the price, and we will probably not make that deal. This is just what the numbers say to me.

this is the general wisdom. I agree. and when you look at a team like the Eagles, they keep going back to the DL. But we've drafted nothing on the edge for a decade, Maybe you can count Shemar Turner as an edge player? So it's pretty clear that next year, we're gonna take an edge with our first round pick. Parsons is 26, and coming into his prime years. I don't mind paying a guy like that what he's worth while Caleb is on his rookie deal. Anyway, we will probably all agree that the trade price is too high, so its not so likely to happen. Im just saying it's the draft capital that makes it tough for me, not the cap space. Check this out: as a franchise we havent drafted Edge Rushers much at all. 2025 2nd Rnd Shemar Turner 2024 5th Austin Booker 2023 None 2022 5th Dom Rob 2021 None 2020 5th Trevis Gipson 2019 None 2018 6th Kylie Fitts 2017 None 2016 1st Leonard Floyd 2015 None 2014 None