BearFan PHX

lol - what Stinger said is just crazy. And that is the right word for it. Because Poles said he would try to get Fields traded quickly means that he isn't trading him. It's all a BIG smokescreen. Justin has actually known how to read defenses for 3 years, but they are just pretending he's bad so that the league will be surprised. Poles and Fields have both known all along that Fields is the man, and it's the biggest psy-op ever. No one can quite figure out what the advantage of it is, but BOY will people be surprised. And ya know what? When Fields is traded for a 5th round pick, or cut outright, or even kept on the team but told not to suit up because of injury, hoping for a September trade, there will be no where to hide. No scenario that explains it all away. The curtain will be pulled back and then we will see how inane this all was. Poles knows Justin sucks. Everyone in the league knows Justin sucks. It fits all the data, and you can watch it on film. I've known it since October of last year, and dragging people into the light kicking and screaming is exhausting. "I don't WANT a generational QB, i don't WANT to be a top team! I want Justin!" For gosh sakes, get on board already, the Superbowl train is leaving the station. Drop the Justin bobblehead and get with the happiness.

right. even if Justin goes, we will have Williams and Bagent as our 1 and 2, so this is a camp arm, and a possible #3 who you float on the practice squad

Poles is just making sure he covers every position he might draft, so he is free to get the guy that falls to #9. If a great LOT falls, then we could take him. WR will be the first most likely target I think, but if the top 3 are gone, we could look at OT or DL too. Or Bowers. So this creates backup and competition at LOT if we take a WR, but it isn't so much that it prevents us from drafting Fashanu or Alt if we love them and they fall while the WRs go early? I think we will go into this season wishing we had more impact players at two or three of these spots WR, LOT, OG, OC, DE and DT. And that will be when we put the cherry on top in next years offseason. This year we will be pretty loaded, but a couple of these cheaper signings could well get playing time too. We are on schedule to realistically compete for superbowls with a window opening in the 2025 season, and there is no law that says they couldnt gel this season and make a run either.

I think that even though Fields' contract is fully guaranteed, some of it is salary and roster bonus, and that is paid on the cap by whichever team holds his contact at the time those things come due? So if we cut him, it's on us, but if we trade him then it comes off our cap? I think offset language is for when we cut a player, but not a trade.

right - find a DE and a DT, and the D is complete. And the offensive roster is going to take a big jump forward this offseason too.

That is more likely than my scenario for sure. And I have heard the Bears might even prefer Nabers too, so there are options and permutations. And to Mongo - if four QBs go before pick #9, and there are three WRs we like, the odds are pretty good wed get one. And if not you have amazing options at LOT, Bowers or a top DL. One way or another though, we are getting another impact WR for sure.

Im not predicting this, but there is a scenario where Arizona trades out of #4 for a team that wants JJ McCarthy, and then the Bears trade up into #5 to take MHJr. Imagine getting Williams and MHJr to go along with DJ Moore, Kmet, and the new RB and TE2. Wed still need OL help from free agency, but if we traded our lower picks to make this happen, or maybe next years CAR #2 I wouldnt be mad at it at all.

Right, if they are winning 10 games, I cant imagine them firing Flus and moving everyone else up. Even if they think that would be better, its still not something you could really do. I see Flus as kind of a glorified defensive coordinator and executive head coach. I dont see him giving the offense an edge in winning the way that Belichick did for example, even though he was a defensive guy too, and of course I worry that if Waldron takes the offense to the moon, he would be gone to be a head coach somewhere, where Id rather keep him than Flus at that point. But it wouldnt be because Flus was awful but because Waldron gave you more. But like we all said, at that point it wouldnt really be possible even if it was smart because how do you fire a guy who is winning 10+ games a year on a team that is ascending? We have a passing game coordinator named Thomas Brown who is supposed to be incredibly charismatic and likely head coach someday, so he would step into Waldrons shoes if that happened and supposedly wed be in good hands. And to try to see into the future past Waldron and Brown is completely impossible. We should have that problem - winning multiple superbowls and losing two offensive coordinators in a row!

lol

It's the most confusing and divisive issue ever in Chicago Sports. And I think one could make a case that it could become a QB controversy, or this kind of acrimony could invade the locker room if you keep both?

maybe he';s better than I thought and is a true depth piece. Thanks for this info. ah you beat me to it. I posted it and then scrolled down and saw you said it first LOL

hahaha it's our Taylor Swift - we finally have a modern franchise hahaha

for sure you could put Mahomes or Brady on a crappy team and it would be hard for them to win a superbowl. Football is the ultimate team sport. But I believe a great QB can do more with less, than a great team can accomplish without a great QB. And that the soundest strategy is to have both. And also that building a roster is easier than finding an elite QB.

I mean top 2 in the league, like Mahomes is now. And of course no one ever comes into the league as that. But I'm saying if you don't have one of those, you're not realistically in a position to have a likely shot at super bowl victories. And you're right about Foles. He did get the MVP of the game though, went for 373 yards, 3 TD and one INT. So they had top notch QB play in that game. I also think things can be true without being 100% certain. That's why I say "multiple superbowls" or "likely" - because there is enough chaos that you can sneak into one if everything goes your way, but if you want to be in a position to think you're a leading contender year in and year out, the only way is with a top elite QB. And that's why I think taking a shot at a possible prospect who could be that (and that's all Williams can be at this point, a prospect) is so valuable. I see a high percentage likelihood that Williams can be that, but of course it depends on lots of factors including coaching and who the Bears put around him too. People saying we need a team around the position are also totally correct. But I dont think if you put a team around Sam Darnold or Marcus Mariotta or someone professional like that that you realistically have any real shot at winning a super bowl. Oh and to the contrarian point, I dont mind that at all - these debates help educate (me at least) and sharpen the arguments etc, so I appreciate that. Despite what is said, I don't mind when people disagree with me at all. I just prefer (not talking to you here) if it's less sarcastic etc. But it's all good. it IS the internet after all.

we also signed a DB from Green Bay today - not a big contract - probably a special teamer.

No team has ever won two superbowls with anything less than a top 2 QB. Every now and then a lesser QB will sneak into a SB win, but only when one of the big names isnt in it. Mahomes, Brady and the manning Brothers have wont he vast majority of the superbowls in the last 25 years. Before that it was Bradshaw, Montana and others. It's a team game and no QB can do it alone, but if you dont have a top 2 QB, youre not realistically in the hunt.

If we can pick up Connor Williams for a low price with a possible option at a higher price if he comes back and performs well that would be a great long term move. As for WR we definitely have a lot of need there. I assume we will pick up a Free Agent, but not a really expensive one, but the odds of us drafting WR at #9 are pretty high. At this point I think it's either WR, OT or DL, and we cant survive without another quality receiver, so that's where I think we will go if the right name(s) are available.

its good because they know it, and its good because they can help teach other guys in positional meetings.

I could be wrong, but I think compensatory picks happen when you lose more and better free agents than you sign. Poles is setting up a system where we will have lots of young players, and if we do well we wont be able to keep them all. So you trade away GOOD players a year before their big payday for extra draft capital, and if you can't find willing partners for that, then they become free agents and you lose them and get compensatory picks. Teams that chase winning today who dont have the roster to sustain that are the ones who sign more free agents than they lose - that's been us. I think starting next year or the year after, we will see this for the Bears. Trading good players away (probably to the chagrin of many members of this board who are overly loyal to current players) and letting free agents walk will get us that increased draft capital in trades and compensatory picks. Then we will be set up in a system that sustains itself. poles has done really well creating this, especially having the balls to tank the 2022 year which was the only way to get here.

right - develop players, sign some, trade the others a year before the big deal. Effectively, it becomes almost like a college program, and thats when your position coaches become so important.

It's all been a BIG secret. Poles always knew he wanted to keep Fields, and Fields knows how to read defenses and everything, they just hid it all because theyre playing long term poker. If they can just confuse the league into thinking Fields is terrible then everyione will be really surprised when suddenly he's awesome. Strategery!

dodged a bullet on that one.

^5 - i think once we get past this logjam, things will get easier on this board. I think poles brings in his guys that make sense and everything works. Right now were kind of at a trouble spot that has to do with high picks that didnt work out, or didnt work out as well as planned, or because they didnt have the right tools around them etc. Whatever it is, we should be in the Poles' flow by this year or next.

Oh I thought this was a threaded group discussion. So much to learn!

I agree that Williams commands a higher price. Just for info sake, here's the chart breakdown. Pick #1 is worth 1,000 points Pick #2 = 717 points Pick #36 = 104.4 points (821.4 rolling total) Pick #40 = 96.8 points (918.2 rolling total) Pick #67 = 58 points (976.2 rolling total) so Dav could still get 23.8 points just to make it even. Pick #111 (middle 4th round) is worth 23.9 points and your right that Williams would command more. I dont think another first would be too much at all in this case. if it was say, pick #5 (worth 428 points on the year you use it) you'd value it as a round lower, so you'd use 5th pick 2nd round to value it which is only another 102.4 points. Not outrageous at all. And of course you know, if I was the Commanders and had to pay #2, #36, #40, #67, #111 and next year's first, I'd do it in a heartbeat for Williams, which is why I wouldn't make that trade from our side even with the extra first. If Williams turns out to be "generational" he'd easily be worth 6 or more first rounders, so what is a 50% shot (lets say) on getting that worth?