Ryan Pace is the best GM we've had since Jerry V

[Leon Sandcastle]

I was told that Pace inherited a bad team, as opposed to other GM's that take over teams after the previous GM is fired, they all walk into excellent situations. That's why it's not fair to compare Pace to his peers regarding his record.

Call me crazy, but I've been measuring GM success by W/L record for years, i thought everyone was doing that. I guess i just never realized the uniqueness of the situation Pace was walking in to: the oldest, worst team in the history of the NFL, that somehow got worse after his first season here.

I just wish I wouldn't be fact trolled with subjective opinions, when i try my damnedest to stay on the objective side of things.

 

[Leon Sandcastle]

I'd like to know how.....it couldn't have been based on Watson and Mahomes' college production / accomplishments.

Obviously? It was mechanics and attitude. Atleast thats what i think i might think i might remember maybe reading.

 

[run and shoot]

CRM 114 said:

Pace, after months of research, somehow came to the conclusion that Trubisky was a better QB than both Deshaun Watson and Patrick “Hatrick” Mahomes.

I'd like to know how.....it couldn't have been based on Watson and Mahomes' college production / accomplishments.

 

[run and shoot]

Obviously? It was mechanics and attitude. Atleast thats what i think i might think i might remember maybe reading.

What I remember hearing was Trubs was suppose to be the most accurate Qb in the draft. So when he got here and started missing wide open, uncovered wr's ......I knew the "the most accurate" tag was b.s.

 

[DrGonzo]

Vainisi took over for Finks in late 83.....Vainisi's first draft choice was Wilber Marshall.

The last year of Finks, the Bears took Covert I think.

Yeah that sounds right.

 

[jive]

Vainisi took over for Finks in late 83.....Vainisi's first draft choice was Wilber Marshall.

The last year of Finks, the Bears took Covert I think.

Good point. I forgot that Vanisi came in after the draft in 83, but before the start of the season. Finks actually wound up having a stellar draft in 83 and got Covert and Gault in the 1st round. There were 4 All Pros and a HOFer in that draft.

In that case, that puts the number of Vanisi's picks for from 84-86 at 20 (just rounds 1-8). From those, there are 4 exceptional players to give him a 20% rate for exceptional players. The number of contributors for Vanisi comes out to 10 and a 50% rate. Makes Pace look a little better now in comparison. He may wind up being the best GM since Jim Finks.

 

[jive]

Here's something interesting.....

During Finks' tenure the Bears went through a period of 4 years where they had consecutive losing records. If you were going to only base it on his record during that time, you would say he was a crappy GM, not a future HOFer. From 80-83, the Bears never went above .500. However, the Bears acquired 2 future HOFers in Singletary and Dent, and 8 All Pro players in Covert, Richardson, Duerson, Bortz, Hilgenberg, Gentry, Bell, and Wilson. We won our division 5 years in a row, and made the playoffs 7 out the next 8 years.

Personally, I'd rather sit in the cellar for a couple of years to build a great team and enjoy years of success (84-91) than the patchworks of 93-95 that gave me a decade of misery until 2004 with just one year of reprieve. Only good thing about that time was that tickets were cheap and easy to get, and you could sneak down to the 50 yard line even on a Monday night.

I haven't felt this excited about a team since 1984. Time to break out some Van Halen........

 

[RacerX]

Baltimore Ravens

Nah.

 

[RacerX]

I picked a few years around when the Bears won.

in 2004 season both Superbowl teams had less offensive yards than the Bears did in 2006 and ranked worse in total yards compared to the league. In 2005 Pittsburgh ranked the same in yards per game, 15th. In 2007 season the Giants ranked lower in offensive yards when compared to the rest of the League, 16th. In 2008 Pittsburgh was the 22nd ranked offense in yards....

A bot of cherry-picking stats there. I'm looking at that Rex-led roster and it's hideous for a SB.

 

[jive]

A bot of cherry-picking stats there. I'm looking at that Rex-led roster and it's hideous for a SB.

It's certainly not great.
Berrian and Muhammad were average at best.
Dez Clark was decent.
Thomas Jones had a good year, and was a focal point of that offense.

But it was not any worse than Baltimore 2000.
Dilfer and Banks combined were worse than Grossman in terms of numbers.
Jamal Lewis was the focal point of the offense, and had a good year.
They had worse WRs than the Bears did in 2006. Top rfeceiver was an aging Shannon Sharpe and next up was Qadry Ismail.

Baltimore's offense was worse statistically and on the field.

 

[run and shoot]

It might make sense to wait until Pace is involved in a few playoff wins b4 we "crown him"

 

[modo]

A bot of cherry-picking stats there. I'm looking at that Rex-led roster and it's hideous for a SB.

It isn't cherry picked. I literally looked at 3+ and 3- years around the Bears Superbowl to get a comparative list. For that time the Bears offense fit in with other Superbowl teams.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

During Finks' tenure the Bears went through a period of 4 years where they had consecutive losing records. If you were going to only base it on his record during that time, you would say he was a crappy GM, not a future HOFer.

Personally, I'd rather sit in the cellar for a couple of years to build a great team and enjoy years of success (84-91) than the patchworks of 93-95 that gave me a decade of misery until 2004 with just one year of reprieve.

I haven't felt this excited about a team since 1984. Time to break out some Van Halen........

Finks posting records of 6-10, 7-9, 8-8 isn't really the same as Pace's 6-10, 3-13, 5-11. Finks made the postseason in 79 (and kind of got robbed of a win over Philly), but the problem in 80 & 81 was that Vince Evans took over at QB.

I get what you are saying, but you are assuming that there is a direct correlation between "sitting in the cellar" and "building a great team". Pace's rebuild has been anything but linear. Its amazing that of all the new blood Pace acquired in 2015, Eddie Goldman is basically the last man standing. 2016 wasn't much better. The roster and the coaching staff has essentially been built in the last two seasons, so finishing in the cellar in 2014 and 2015 didn't really lead to anything other than losses in the record book.

 

[FirstTimer]

Trubisky is going to be such an interesting test case.

If he is just average and Mahomes keeps hanging MVP awards, that is going to look really bad for Pace.

But, on top of picking the wrong QB he also was so convinced that Trubisky was the best QB that he traded up for him.


That is a double whammy when it comes to a missed evaluation. I think that Pace has made himself Trubisky proof with the Mack deal and Nagy trade, but it would be a fireable offense.

Let's not sleep on the fact that Trubisky isn't even as good as Watson right now either. He'd be the #3 QB in the class if things keep going the way they are.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

Trubisky = Tony Eason

 

[WindyCity]

Let's not sleep on the fact that Trubisky isn't even as good as Watson right now either. He'd be the #3 QB in the class if things keep going the way they are.

While I agree, I do think the Watson-Trubisky comparison is close enough based on last season that I doubt it would the bomb that takes down the Pace era.

I agree with the sentiment above that Pace is probably safe from the QB question at least for 3 more years, but this is always going to be an issue that we have to take up with him, unless 10 becomes a stud.

 

[WindyCity]

The trade for 10 is a tough one for me, even more so when I see some Bears fans defending it like it was a great move, because essentially Pace doubled down on his QB evaluation and he was wrong. Mahomes is clearly the best QB in the class and probably in the last 5 classes and you traded up for a different guy.

 

[FirstTimer]

While I agree, I do think the Watson-Trubisky comparison is close enough based on last season that I doubt it would the bomb that takes down the Pace era.

I agree with the sentiment above that Pace is probably safe from the QB question at least for 3 more years, but this is always going to be an issue that we have to take up with him, unless 10 becomes a stud.

I can't agree with you there. At all.
Watson was clearly better and more productive.

 

[WindyCity]

I can't agree with you there. At all.
Watson was clearly better and more productive.

He was better, but I think they are in the same ballpark.

Mahomes and Trubisky are not on the same planet based on what we saw last offseason and I have very little faith that they will ever be close.

 

[FirstTimer]

He was better, but I think they are in the same ballpark.

Mahomes and Trubisky are not on the same planet based on what we saw last offseason and I have very little faith that they will ever be close.

Fair..I guess..but trubz is still #3 in his own class right now.

 

[jive]

The trade for 10 is a tough one for me, even more so when I see some Bears fans defending it like it was a great move, because essentially Pace doubled down on his QB evaluation and he was wrong. Mahomes is clearly the best QB in the class and probably in the last 5 classes and you traded up for a different guy.

Although I am a fan of Pace, I wasn't a fan of the move. I yelled at the TV as loud as I did when the Bears took Benson at 4. I really didn't think it was necessary, especially in retrospect when we see that we could have gotten an equal or better QB without giving up any picks. Luckily the move didn't bite Pace too bady in the ass since Trubs has been productive.

However, I do like that Pace targets specific players and isn't afraid to trade up to get them. I'd rather lose a pick and get an impact player like Eddie Jackson than keep the pick and wind up getting 2 scrubs.