So after a quarter of the season, is Roquan worth more than S. Leonard?

[Myk]

Roquan has shown that his talent level translates to the new system. He has one huge impact play with the interception to ice the Texans game on a tipped ball, but he also has had opportunities like the missed tackle to end a drive when the game was on the line that "the best LB in the game" needs to make reliably. His tackle numbers continue to be good. All that said, I don't think he is worth more than Leonard at this point. I don't think I'd be to upset if they paid him the near the top 5 at that position as I think he could be a key piece to build the defense around. I just don't see him being a player that opponents offenses have to game plan around and his impact is noticeable on defense but not game changing.

A bigger piece of the puzzle may also be just what else is available in free agency for the other holes on the roster. We have a ton of cap space and if locking up Roquan is one of the better signings we can make with these funds, you do it.

There's no reason to worry about locking him up now (we have a whopping $7M in cap space). He's here for his 5th and if he doesn't like the offer he can be tagged next year as affordably as a contract. I would kind of like to see him be tested with a tagging, would he withhold his services or would he play to prove his worth?

If after the year is over he's made impacts to the W/L record, doing more than slowing down the offense which has been all he has done previously I'd say pay him what he wants.

 

[HeHateMe]

There's no reason to worry about locking him up now (we have a whopping $7M in cap space). He's here for his 5th and if he doesn't like the offer he can be tagged next year as affordably as a contract. I would kind of like to see him be tested with a tagging, would he withhold his services or would he play to prove his worth?

If after the year is over he's made impacts to the W/L record, doing more than slowing down the offense which has been all he has done previously I'd say pay him what he wants.

Bears have "tested" him enough. He stopped his holdin and got out there to PLAY. He's also said he'd be fine with a tag because he'd be getting what he wanted in terms of money.

So a "test" could backfire. He could not ball like he's been balling, and just get paid. That would likely not ruin his financial future either, at all.

Sorry, and I know people slag on you for your Mitchell love and what not, but this take is sort of dumb.

 

[Myk]

Bears have "tested" him enough. He stopped his holdin and got out there to PLAY. He's also said he'd be fine with a tag because he'd be getting what he wanted in terms of money.

So a "test" could backfire. He could not ball like he's been balling, and just get paid. That would likely not ruin his financial future either, at all.

Sorry, and I know people slag on you for your Mitchell love and what not, but this take is sort of dumb.

I don't see how a test would "backfire". If he gets what he wants and plays to prove he isn't an attitude problem looking for any excuse not to work he wouldn't be likely to get his paycheck and quit either. Everyone is happy. I'm certainly not out to ruin his financial future.

4 games isn't a good test in the new system.
If you're saying the previous 4 years then I'd say what I have been saying, he's not worth it. $22M is not what you pay someone who can tackle, all the defense should know how to tackle. If he's going Urlacher and putting a stop to drives with turnovers or even knocking down balls then he's worth it.

No Trubisky love. I had Cutler love. What people slag on me for is trying to be rational and wanting what is best for the team given the modern NFL rules. I don't even have a love for offense, loved 3-0 wins, but that doesn't fit the rules any more.

No idea how you think that take is dumb. We're not bumping him from $9M to $22M with $7M of cap space this year.

 

[HeHateMe]

I don't see how a test would "backfire". If he gets what he wants and plays to prove he isn't an attitude problem looking for any excuse not to work he wouldn't be likely to get his paycheck and quit either. Everyone is happy. I'm certainly not out to ruin his financial future.

4 games isn't a good test in the new system.
If you're saying the previous 4 years then I'd say what I have been saying, he's not worth it. $22M is not what you pay someone who can tackle, all the defense should know how to tackle. If he's going Urlacher and putting a stop to drives with turnovers or even knocking down balls then he's worth it.

No Trubisky love. I had Cutler love. What people slag on me for is trying to be rational and wanting what is best for the team given the modern NFL rules. I don't even have a love for offense, loved 3-0 wins, but that doesn't fit the rules any more.

No idea how you think that take is dumb. We're not bumping him from $9M to $22M with $7M of cap space this year.

k sorry

 

[BornAnAngryBearsFan]

Well?

Chris Tucker Friday GIF - Chris Tucker Friday Hell No - Discover & Share GIFs

Click to view the GIF

tenor.com

 

[gallagher]

Roquon is an incredible talent that is limited only by how much he applies himself.

My problem is that from a financial point, it is so hard to justify that big of a payday if he isn't going to shut down the Jones/Dillon rushing attack in green bay

 

[circusboy666]

I wouldn’t re-sign him no matter what. Dude is a solid LB. That’s it. Doesn’t get sacks, doesn’t create turnovers, misses too many tackles. We can pay someone 1/4 of his salary to impact the game as much as he does. It’s insane to pay him more than 10 mill just for tackles on the stat sheet. WAY too many holes on this roster to pay an above average LB.

 

[ijustposthere]

I was convinced Quinn was a goner before the trade deadline but considering how little he’s shown this year I don’t know who would want him now.

Should've gotten what they could've in the offseason.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

I feel like I remember watching Daniel Jones juke him.

 

[Bears Backer 54]

I feel like I remember watching Daniel Jones juke him.

He has had a couple key missed tackles and opportunities this year which in my mind cements that he is not the top LB at his position. If he is wanting to reset the market for his position with his next pay day, I think you have to let him go shopping. It wouldn't surprise me if it plays out like the Lance Briggs final contract in Chicago did. Briggs believed he was worth way more than the original Bears offer and when he went shopping, he had to come back after talking some serious trash and accept the Bears offer because no teams in the league had valuations on him like that.

 

[remydat]

I feel like I remember watching Daniel Jones juke him.

Think it was Brisker as he had outside contain on those bootlegs. Quan got juked by Taylor.

In ant event both are pretty mobile QBs so that is going to happen from time to time.

Not like he got juked by Brady ala Urlacher.

 

[rawdawg]

1. Players don't get paid based on what they are "worth" or who they are better than. They are paid based on when they are eligible to get re-signed.

2. Roquan has been much better than Leonard in the first quarter of 2022 easily, considering Leonard has only played like 12 minutes of football this season.

Like was said in this thread, sometimes you gotta pay good players. It's not about value to a certain extent. Sure, you don't pay an off-ball LB if you have a high paid edge rusher, 3T and CB on the roster. You don't pay a RB if you have a 50Mil QB and 20Mil WR. But I think the Bears need to pay Roquan (and Montgomery) because they are the 2 best players on a team without many good players. And the odds are, those contracts won't kill the team when they actually have good players worth paying.

The only potentially big money players going forward are Fields (and he's a long ways away), maybe Mooney based on other WR contracts, and Jones if he becomes a franchise LT. Jones and Fields are at least 3 years from any kind of extension and probably 4-5 from huge cap hit, and they have to be 100x better to even get there. Johnson is the only player on D worthy of a big contract within the next 3 years. The Bears have plenty of money now and in the future to not lose really good players, just because they don't play ideal positions.

 

[Myk]

I wouldn’t re-sign him no matter what. Dude is a solid LB. That’s it. Doesn’t get sacks, doesn’t create turnovers, misses too many tackles. We can pay someone 1/4 of his salary to impact the game as much as he does. It’s insane to pay him more than 10 mill just for tackles on the stat sheet. WAY too many holes on this roster to pay an above average LB.

I'm open to him changing his value but when he wanted to negotiate before his 5th he was definitely not worth what he wanted.

1. Players don't get paid based on what they are "worth" or who they are better than. They are paid based on when they are eligible to get re-signed.

2. Roquan has been much better than Leonard in the first quarter of 2022 easily, considering Leonard has only played like 12 minutes of football this season.

Like was said in this thread, sometimes you gotta pay good players. It's not about value to a certain extent. Sure, you don't pay an off-ball LB if you have a high paid edge rusher, 3T and CB on the roster. You don't pay a RB if you have a 50Mil QB and 20Mil WR. But I think the Bears need to pay Roquan (and Montgomery) because they are the 2 best players on a team without many good players. And the odds are, those contracts won't kill the team when they actually have good players worth paying.

The only potentially big money players going forward are Fields (and he's a long ways away), maybe Mooney based on other WR contracts, and Jones if he becomes a franchise LT. Jones and Fields are at least 3 years from any kind of extension and probably 4-5 from huge cap hit, and they have to be 100x better to even get there. Johnson is the only player on D worthy of a big contract within the next 3 years. The Bears have plenty of money now and in the future to not lose really good players, just because they don't play ideal positions.

No. You don't hamper yourself from being able to get those positions because you don't have them. That makes no sense.
Think Cutler's contract. Think Mack (and he was an impact player if the refs would've ever thrown a flag). Not only do you hamper the team while they're here you hamper it a season later if you decide not to ride it out.

 

[cameronkrazie86]

Should've gotten what they could've in the offseason.

Absolutely. They should've traded him in the offseason when his value was at its highest it'll ever be given his age. I felt like they should've moved on from him when they moved on from Mack.

As for Roquan, I would franchise him this offseason and decide his long-term future after next season. We should have a much better idea of where the team, collectively, is by then. If Fields isn't the guy, then there's no reason to pay Roquan long-term money when the team is going to suck. I'd trade him at that point. If Fields is the guy, then yeah, I'm fine paying Roquan because you should be competitive over the life of the potential deal. I don't like paying anyone big money during rebuilds for the sole reason of it reducing flexibility.

 

[rawdawg]

No. You don't hamper yourself from being able to get those positions because you don't have them. That makes no sense.
Think Cutler's contract. Think Mack (and he was an impact player if the refs would've ever thrown a flag). Not only do you hamper the team while they're here you hamper it a season later if you decide not to ride it out.

I have no idea what you are saying here.

 

[Myk]

I have no idea what you are saying here.

"But I think the Bears need to pay Roquan (and Montgomery) because they are the 2 best players on a team without many good players"

That after you said you don't pay those positions IF you have the other positions filled.
This isn't a public school where you have to spend all the money to justify a budget increase next year.

If Smith's value to the team isn't worth $22M because of what he does it's not magically worth $22M because we don't have a great WR. His value is what's he's worth, how much we have to spend doesn't enter into the equation.
And Monty, you probably never have to pay him. If he gets paid it's because the Bears usually don't screw over their performers.

 

[Spitta Andretti]

"But I think the Bears need to pay Roquan (and Montgomery) because they are the 2 best players on a team without many good players"

That after you said you don't pay those positions IF you have the other positions filled.
This isn't a public school where you have to spend all the money to justify a budget increase next year.

If Smith's value to the team isn't worth $22M because of what he does it's not magically worth $22M because we don't have a great WR. His value is what's he's worth, how much we have to spend doesn't enter into the equation.
And Monty, you probably never have to pay him. If he gets paid it's because the Bears usually don't screw over their performers.

i think teams do have to spend a certain % of the cap tho.

 

[rawdawg]

"But I think the Bears need to pay Roquan (and Montgomery) because they are the 2 best players on a team without many good players"

That after you said you don't pay those positions IF you have the other positions filled.
This isn't a public school where you have to spend all the money to justify a budget increase next year.

If Smith's value to the team isn't worth $22M because of what he does it's not magically worth $22M because we don't have a great WR. His value is what's he's worth, how much we have to spend doesn't enter into the equation.
And Monty, you probably never have to pay him. If he gets paid it's because the Bears usually don't screw over their performers.

Yeah, actually there is a cap floor that the Bears have to spend to. And the point wasn't about Smith's value, it was about the value of actually having good players on a team devoid of good players. I also never compared a LB to a WR. I was talking defense-to-defense and offense-to-offense. So sure, you can NOT pay Smith, but then you have to pay other players to have a respectable defense and hit the cap floor. You can probably replace Smith with a cheaper LB and a pretty good DE (I'm assuming Quinn is gone after this year in all scenarios), but odds are they aren't going to be blue-chip players like Roquan has been at times. And this regime has stressed building thru the draft, so they probably aren't going to sign a bunch of big salary guys over re-signing their own guys in general.

Example, the Cowboys paying Zeke Elliott big money is considered a bad contract. But it's only an issue because they also are paying Dak, and several members of the OL, and they lost Amari Cooper because of it. Signing Montgomery and/or Smith doesn't stop the Bears from fitting any of their own players under the cap anytime soon, because the Bears don't have any really good players they have to pay. If guys like Fields or Jones or Mooney prove to be worth big money, by the time you have to actually pay them that money, you can cut Montgomery anyway. Same with Roquan. By the time the Bears need to pay anyone else on D, you will be able to get out of the guaranteed money you'd give him.

 

[Myk]

i think teams do have to spend a certain % of the cap tho.

I highly doubt if that's going to be a problem and they're scrambling to figure out where to spend it. We won't need to give Smith $22M for 7 years because we can't find any FAs. But nice strawman.

 

[Myk]

Yeah, actually there is a cap floor that the Bears have to spend to. And the point wasn't about Smith's value, it was about the value of actually having good players on a team devoid of good players. I also never compared a LB to a WR. I was talking defense-to-defense and offense-to-offense. So sure, you can NOT pay Smith, but then you have to pay other players to have a respectable defense and hit the cap floor. You can probably replace Smith with a cheaper LB and a pretty good DE (I'm assuming Quinn is gone after this year in all scenarios), but odds are they aren't going to be blue-chip players like Roquan has been at times. And this regime has stressed building thru the draft, so they probably aren't going to sign a bunch of big salary guys over re-signing their own guys in general.

Example, the Cowboys paying Zeke Elliott big money is considered a bad contract. But it's only an issue because they also are paying Dak, and several members of the OL, and they lost Amari Cooper because of it. Signing Montgomery and/or Smith doesn't stop the Bears from fitting any of their own players under the cap anytime soon, because the Bears don't have any really good players they have to pay. If guys like Fields or Jones or Mooney prove to be worth big money, by the time you have to actually pay them that money, you can cut Montgomery anyway. Same with Roquan. By the time the Bears need to pay anyone else on D, you will be able to get out of the guaranteed money you'd give him.

He's not magically worth $22M because we don't have someone else on defense to spend it on. We can get that other person.
Stop with the strawman arguments.

You pay a player what they're worth. You don't load them up for no reason just to spend money. Again, I point to the Cutler contract. That did no good and it hampered the team for the rest of the contract.
Smith could increase his value but up to now he hasn't been worth what he thinks he is.