adam

That's a pretty good article but the author actually contradicts his recommendations with those examples. My thought is, if Floyd was a 3rd round pick, he would not be on the team anymore, or would not be expecting north of $10M a year. $13M is crazy money for him. We just don't have the cap for that if we are trying to compete in 2020. Also, just note as you are seeing the players listed, none of them were across from Mack, Watt, or Miller like Floyd was. Here is my take on the players they talked about: 1. First, it's funny they used Lawson because he is the best example for the Bears as the Bills declined his 5th-year option last year (same draft class as Floyd) AND are allowing him to walk after his 4th season. The Bears accepted Floyd's last year and now have to make the decision on his 5th year this year. As much as I don't want to pay Floyd, I wouldn't pay Lawson either. Neither are elite Edge guys or even league average for that matter. So this one supports the position of dumping Floyd instead of paying him. 2. Golden is a bad example, or only one if you want to make a case to support a different argument. He is on his second team, in a completely different system and was starting regularly for the first time (never had more than 11 starts until this year). The best part, in a fraction of the games started, Golden has put up similar numbers than Floyd. Again, if you use this example, you pay Golden, not Floyd. 3. Irvin? He was on the Seahawks defense when it was ridiculous and they didn't have the money to sign him, so he was the odd man out. Every year since leaving SEA he has had at least 6.5 sacks. So I don't know what the relation is to Floyd's situation. Floyd had 3 sacks this year and has only had more than 4.5 once (his rookie year). Why would you pay Floyd more than what Irvin got from OAK ($9.25M/AV), even in today's cap dollars, I am not paying Floyd that kind of money for half the production. 4. Smith, I get he is an Edge player, and was coming off a rookie deal, but he had 8.5 sacks in limited duty in BAL (which projected to over 10 in full duty - he ended with 13.5). So how does Floyd's 3 little sacks relate to Smith? Smith is closer to Mack than he is to Floyd. That one is silly. Smith got $16.5M, Floyd doesn't even deserve half of that. 5. Dee Ford? He had 10 sacks in his 3rd year, then got hurt and basically missed the entire 2017 season. In 2018, his last with KC he had 13 sacks, but then dropped off to 6.5 in limited time with SF. So this makes me think that the author wants us to pick up Floyd's option only because Ford had a great 5th year, but then in the same paragraph says buyer beware if you want to sign him long term. The author seems to think it is wise to accept Floyd's $13M or extend him at $11M a year. Floyd had every opportunity to earn $13M in his 5th-year option or even a long term extension by producing across from Mack this year, no injuries, etc, and he didn't show up. Now we are going to double down on him doing it this year? I would rather let him walk, get a more productive guy (for less) AND then potentially get a comp pick if Floyd does sign a big deal somewhere else. Just so we are tracking, Floyd currently has the 44th highest defensive player cap hit for 2020. He would move down after free agency, but not by much. With 32 teams, that puts him as the 2nd most valuable player on a team, Leonard Floyd was probably 9th or 10th on the Bears. For Edge players, that put Floyd 18th, again if you use 32 teams, he would be paid like a #1 Edge guy. The #2 Edge guys (paid between 33-64) make between $3M and $8.3M. 123 players had more sacks in 2019 than Floyd. To me, it's easy math. If you offer him anything, it's no more than $8.5M a year. That gives the team close to $5M in cap savings to re-sign or sign other players.

I had two extensions listed, I just put a random term in there, I probably should not have. Essentially one extension keeps him at the same price for longer and one extension is where he takes a paycut.

With the current cap situation, the team can't afford to pay Floyd $13.2M for that production, especially with Mack's new money kicking in. You just can't put that much money into a position group like that unless both are Pro Bowlers, which Floyd is not. If they do, it's a huge mistake. I think they are looking for trade partners and if they can't find one, Floyd will be cut. Just look at Atlanta, they let Beasley go (who had 8 sacks) and only a few years removed from when he had 15 sacks, yet the Bears are going to keep Floyd for that price for 3 sacks?

I think the Bears will hedge their bets, accept his 5th year (no risk), but bring in real competition.

MOAR POLLS!

We haven't done one of these in awhile.

btw, Nagy seemed to be rejuvenated, which was nice to see. I know that means very little, but body language tells a lot and he seems super excited with the new coaching additions/changes. It feels like he offloaded a lot of responsibilities onto the new guys, and he may now only be involved in calling plays and handling normal HC duties. So we will see how this plays out, but to me it seems like a net positive.

I thought I read the new CBA would not impact 2017 draftee option years? Just the fact that he said he was waiting to May tells me everything. If he was all in on Mitch, he would state that he is picking up the option, end of statement. By giving it a timeline, and only saying they would decide in May says everything you need to know. Pace is going to attempt something in free agency, then in the draft, and only if he is unsuccessful will he pick up the 5th year option on Mitch. That way, if he finds his guy, he has a year to work out a trade for Mitch (unless Mitch is traded on draft day), where he can ride the pine for a year. Here is the thing, there is no risk in accepting the option year as the team still has an out after the 4th year, like the position they are in with Floyd now. It is only guaranteed for injury. So the fact that Pace has not committed to Mitch that way says it all.

That's a whole lot of nothing, lol. I liked Horsted's potential, and I thought Holtz was solid, but neither are Day 1 starters. We still need that top end guy. Burton's injury status makes him a huge question mark and they can't make the same mistake twice. TE was the worst position group on the team and arguably the league last year. You can't stay pat or try again, you have to make some changes. Picking up Holtz was a good start, but I still think they bring in someone like Ebron or draft one early.

I really like this board and definitely enjoy the different views. As long as we stay civil and don't have personal attacks, it's great. For me, Leno only starts at LT by default. If they don't bring in any real competition, then it's an easy decision for the team. A wild card is Bars. My preference is to move on from him now and cut your losses earlier than later.

I know, the dude is using real results though. I know it's not that easy, just saying the odds of picking a good one is much higher when drafting from that pool of players.

Good timing AZ:

Depends on his blocking, but that would make sense. It seems like the TE and WR are merging at that area.

I found this guy on Twitter who has compiled some data on college and combine numbers compared to NFL success. Very interesting. https://haydenwinks.com/project-tag/draft-research/ The QB data is here: https://www.rotoworld.com/article/numbers/nfl-draft-analytics-qb The top 5 stats that correlated to NFL numbers were College Passing TD's to NFL TD's and Yds/g; College Passing Yards to TD/g and QB Rating, and College Yds/g to NFL TD/g. Now I know there are top college guys that don't do anything in the NFL, but the odds are that the top QB's will be from the top group of players with high passing yards and passing TD's in college. The odds of them having low numbers is extremely rare. If you use AV as your success measurement, the highest college stats that correlate to NFL success are College Passing TD's and College Passing Yards. The top QB's in passing yards in 2016.....Pat Mahomes, #3......Deshaun Watson. Passing TDs? Tied for 3rd....Mahomes and Watson. Also, if you only use the draft-eligible guys, they were the top two in both categories. Now it's not a one for one correlation, so guys like Mason Rudolph end up in there, but the likelihood of a guy out of the top group having success if extremely low. If you look at 2018, it's Haskins, Minshew, and Murray. Derek Carr was that guy in 2013. For this year, Burrow blows everyone out of the water. However, #2 is Anthony Gordon out of Washington State. If you use this concept, the chances of guys like Montez and Fromm to make it are low. Herbert and Love are also right at the cut line, sort of where Trubisky was at. So hell, I would go with Gordon as it seems like the likelihood of success is higher, as long as he has a good combine. The one interesting correlation for the combine was Ball Velocity had the highest correlation to NFL success. Also, hand size and height didn't correlate to NFL success. So if you have a guy with a lot of passing yards and TDs in college and had good velocity a the combine, they have the most chance at success in the NFL, though it's still less than 50%.

Just no one pull a A-Aron and sip the beer. Full Chicago Chug, down in one gulp.

I am just throwing names out. The reasoning was to have someone come in to push Trubisky but not necessarily surpass him. McCarron should be a cheaper option and better option than Daniel to do that. The jacket is on fire and needs a hat or cigar for sure, lol. The coolest part, he did all that in Unreal Engine.

We are looking much better now cap-wise, and if you only consider starters, we have 4 holes: at RG (Long), ILB (Trevathan), CB (Prince), and SS (HHCD). Not bad for that cap space. If you add TE to the list, that's 5, and then if you don't re-sign Floyd, that adds another for 6. However, cutting Shaheen/Braunecker and not keeping Floyd saves $16M-ish, so we would have over $42M for 6 starters in which at least two should be addressed in the draft, leaving 4 starters to address in FA.

Gabriel was at his peak, Miller still has a ton of potential. He is a little immature, but with a baby on the way, I think he will grow up quick.

Yep, here we go. As expected. Now let's see what they do with Floyd, Shaheen, and Braunecker.

Alaska, Absolutely on the jacket, and yes, it's a really cool program. I need to find out what he uses. I think Carr is the best option, but I don't know if he really is available. Going off what we know now, Dalton and Keenum seem like the most realistic options.

A pretty decent breakdown for QB options. I don't think Carr is #1. Dalton and Keenum make sense. If you are going to go with Rosen, then you might as well consider Driskel or McCarron. If you are going to go with a vet option like Rivers, then why not someone like Matt Moore on the cheap? He played well in KC filling in for Mahomes. Knows the system. Brady is silly, and Alex Smith will never play football again.

If anything, Gruden working a trade to get his 2nd rounder back. If that's all it takes to get Carr, you do it in a heartbeat. Carr would be worth more than any 2nd rounder. Now the trick will be the salary. LVR would have to retain some salary for it to work.

It could be nothing, but I would still expect to draft a TE.

I think if Bush could've been a starter, he would've already made that step up. So I still think we need to bring someone in to play SS. I can't see the team committing that much money to Floyd for that output. If he is too expensive, then they address that position in the draft. I would like to see RRH and Williams brought back for sure. We didn't get to see much of Williams with Hicks, that may be a dominant duo.