Are We Underrating the Importance of WR

Toast88

Well-known member
9,364
8,261
70
AR’s game isn’t suitable to Field’s game.

Fields, for the most part, won’t throw it unless a guy looks like he’s going to be open.

AR doesn’t get much separation. His game is contested catches, which Fields usually doesn’t like to throw in there.
 

dennehy

Well-known member
7,335
6,209
70
My numbers say we would have nearly 30 million after those contracts. You can cut Danny and Graham and Dalton and save about 13 million. The cap situation next year is very fluid.
Graham and Dalton are not under contract, their money was pushed into 2022 on ghost years. You can't cut them or get rid of the money. So no, not possible, and not very fluid next year. They also aren't on the roster so you have to subtract them and then get to the 53 players.

Also $30mil for 23 players means almost all minimum contracts.
 

JP Hochbaum

Well-known member
1,390
699
70
Graham and Dalton are not under contract, their money was pushed into 2022 on ghost years. You can't cut them or get rid of the money. So no, not possible, and not very fluid next year. They also aren't on the roster so you have to subtract them and then get to the 53 players.

Also $30mil for 23 players means almost all minimum contracts.
I don't think you have it right, here is the published roster:
IT sits at 41 players, add the 3 signings and it is at 44 players.
23 million for 9 other players, or 30 million for 11 players. Plus we fill in with draft picks, etc..

This 23 players number you have is rather short of reality.
 

dennehy

Well-known member
7,335
6,209
70
I don't think you have it right, here is the published roster:
IT sits at 41 players, add the 3 signings and it is at 44 players.
23 million for 9 other players, or 30 million for 11 players. Plus we fill in with draft picks, etc..

This 23 players number you have is rather short of reality.
Most of those players that they recently signed to futures contracts aren't going to be on the 53 and if they are the Bears will be bad. They will be camp bodies. As far as player who were actually on an active NFL roster last year, the number is much smaller. There are also four players who aren't on the roster, they are ghost money (Damien Williams, Jesse James, Taushan Gipson, Ifedi). So you are at 37.

The 23 number I have is how many spots need to filled, and that is totally accurate given most of those futures guys aren't going to be on the 53.

Plus in your little fantasy thing you extended like half the team, wrecking the future cap. So yes, if the Bears want to push $40-50m in extensions, mostly for aging players, and they want several starting spots to be filled by practice squad players and have no depth, then your scenario is workable.
 

JP Hochbaum

Well-known member
1,390
699
70
Most of those players that they recently signed to futures contracts aren't going to be on the 53 and if they are the Bears will be bad. They will be camp bodies. As far as player who were actually on an active NFL roster last year, the number is much smaller. There are also four players who aren't on the roster, they are ghost money (Damien Williams, Jesse James, Taushan Gipson, Ifedi). So you are at 37.

The 23 number I have is how many spots need to filled, and that is totally accurate given most of those futures guys aren't going to be on the 53.

Plus in your little fantasy thing you extended like half the team, wrecking the future cap. So yes, if the Bears want to push $40-50m in extensions, mostly for aging players, and they want several starting spots to be filled by practice squad players and have no depth, then your scenario is workable.
I think both of us are exaggerating things a bit here. It definitely isn't 23 players for next year. Guys like Graham Jr, Newsome, Hambright, Snowden and Kamara will likely be on the team next year.
 

Chicagosports89

Well-known member
6,477
6,783
70
Most of those players that they recently signed to futures contracts aren't going to be on the 53 and if they are the Bears will be bad. They will be camp bodies. As far as player who were actually on an active NFL roster last year, the number is much smaller. There are also four players who aren't on the roster, they are ghost money (Damien Williams, Jesse James, Taushan Gipson, Ifedi). So you are at 37.

The 23 number I have is how many spots need to filled, and that is totally accurate given most of those futures guys aren't going to be on the 53.

Plus in your little fantasy thing you extended like half the team, wrecking the future cap. So yes, if the Bears want to push $40-50m in extensions, mostly for aging players, and they want several starting spots to be filled by practice squad players and have no depth, then your scenario is workable.
How many players on the average NFL roster are league minimum guys? Just wondering.

I assume our next gm won't be pushing money to the future this year. We likely bite the bullet with a pretty bad team to reset the following year.
 

Chicagosports89

Well-known member
6,477
6,783
70
I think both of us are exaggerating things a bit here. It definitely isn't 23 players for next year. Guys like Graham Jr, Newsome, Hambright, Snowden and Kamara will likely be on the team next year.
He isn't exaggerating at all. The only one of those guys that showed they may be able to play in the NFL to this point was Graham
 

dennehy

Well-known member
7,335
6,209
70
I think both of us are exaggerating things a bit here. It definitely isn't 23 players for next year. Guys like Graham Jr, Newsome, Hambright, Snowden and Kamara will likely be on the team next year.
Maybe as many as 32, but it's around 30. Clearly no chance to get three three FA pass catchers at $10m+.
 

dennehy

Well-known member
7,335
6,209
70
How many players on the average NFL roster are league minimum guys? Just wondering.

I assume our next gm won't be pushing money to the future this year. We likely bite the bullet with a pretty bad team to reset the following year.
Probably at least 10, but most guys on rookie contracts not in the first round are pretty minimal. That's why it's so important to hit on mid and late round picks. Best values in the league on rookie deals.
 

dennehy

Well-known member
7,335
6,209
70
That just seems odd, as 2 of them replace the AROB and GRaham contracts.
Huh? Many players' contracts go up for cap purposes every year. So the players who are on the roster, their cap numbers increase, sometimes a great deal, from year to year. Mack's cap # for example increase almost $16m from 21 to 22 because he's already been extended so many times.
 

TL1961

Well-known member
27,462
14,111
105
Yes and no. Yes you need dynamic WR talent to have a dynamic offense, but no in that establishing the run game with Montgomery and the threat Fields' poses with his legs first and pass off of that requires a big beefy nasty line first and foremost. The smartest way to build your team is from the inside out as the game is ultimately won in the trenches.

In other words, I'm prioritizing my line right now over WR.
I don't want the first threat my QB poses to be his legs.

I want a mobile QB who can save plays by getting out of the pocket and/or running for first downs, but the first threat has always got to be his arm.
 

EDPeezy

Well-known member
1,332
527
70
They need a safety and a CB. I know they’re paying Jackson a lot so he’ll play, but he has been horrible. They badly need someone who can compete or replace him or whatever. Shit, let Jackson be the most absurdly paid nickel back like he wants. Because at least the new guy will be a competent starting safety. They also only have one CB. Who is good but has a weird shoulder which is a little scary. CB also don‘t grow on trees. Its not like they can bank on finding a starting CB opposite Johnson with some late pick. They’re going to have to pay somebody in FA or spend a high pick on one. Breaking news, CB is also a really important position. It’s not like replacing your right guard or whatever. (No disrespect to RG’s. You’re the real heroes.)
 

Nelly

Well-known member
2,566
2,067
70
I don't want the first threat my QB poses to be his legs.

I want a mobile QB who can save plays by getting out of the pocket and/or running for first downs, but the first threat has always got to be his arm.
I don't want him to be a "running" QB either but you need to work that into the offense and make the defense have to be ready for tit on damn near every play. Move the pocket, some designed runs, lots of play action. I want to see this offense use every bit of the run game to make the passing game easier which includes the threat Fields poses with his legs. Does that make sense?
 

Dejo

Fecal Alligator
5,025
2,465
70
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Real Salt Lake
  1. Chicago Bulls
  2. Utah Jazz
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Utah Utes
An interesting trio was put forward in a recent discussion.

Do we go into next season with Godwin, Bell (Draft), and Mooney.
 

Mighty Joe Young

Well-known member
4,004
3,789
70
An interesting trio was put forward in a recent discussion.

Do we go into next season with Godwin, Bell (Draft), and Mooney.

I mean - if you can go into the offseason, and somehow land either Godwin or Adams, that alone immediately changes things for the team.

And I am a proponent this year of getting your WR help mostly from free agency - I think you need the draft to rebuild the interior of the O-line.
 

Top