Most Important Things this Offseason

[thenewguy]

They don't need to switch money from defense to offense though. The Ravens are spending 101M on defense and 45M on offense. They literally have the cheapest offense in the NFL. Steelers spend 96M on defense and 79M on offense. Everyone wants to draft a QB. The Bears need to draft multiple OL. They have a starting guard, TE, 2 WRs on rookie deals. Add a QB and a couple linemen on rookie deals. So of course the offense is going to be cheaper. And you want to get even cheaper by getting rid of Robinson.

And the ARob stuff sounds just like the Jeffery stuff. "Not a top 10 WR, no YAC, no speed, do we really want to pay him?" Yeah, that's how you end up drafting to replace him early in the draft and forgoing positions like the OL. That's how you end up with a young QB throwing to Kendall Wright as his #1. The Bears have gotten rid of their only good weapon twice now, and it's failed miserably both times. Greg Olsen (still looking to fix TE to this day). Alshon Jeffery (still had to spend on a non-top 10 WR). Yeah, great WRs are coming out of the draft all the time, but so are great QBs. The Bears haven't drafted a single one at either spot. And you guys just assume ARob can be easily replaced.

They don't even have cap room to sign Robinson without moving money from somewhere else. They don't have the draft capital to fix QB and three OL spots. And those rookie players will not likely be plug and play. Keep in mind, this is the oldest defense in the league, so that offense needs to be turned around within the next two years. Also, the Bears made the right move getting rid of Jeffery, and only have Robinson because they got rid of Alshon, so that's a bad example.

Show me your plan to improve this offense without freeing up money from the D, adding draft picks, and extending Robinson?

 

[rawdawg]

They don't even have cap room to sign Robinson without moving money from somewhere else. They don't have the draft capital to fix QB and three OL spots. And those rookie players will not likely be plug and play. Keep in mind, this is the oldest defense in the league, so that offense needs to be turned around within the next two years. Also, the Bears made the right move getting rid of Jeffery, and only have Robinson because they got rid of Alshon, so that's a bad example.

Show me your plan to improve this offense without freeing up money from the D, adding draft picks, and extending Robinson?

If they don't have the draft capital to fix QB and 3 OL spots, how do they have the capital to fix QB, 3 OL spots, and WR? And if your goal is a "good offense", you get further away from it by not bring back your only good player.

And Robinson is the perfect example. You had to PAY for Robinson because you didn't PAY for Jeffery and they used a top 10 pick to try to replace Jeffery and ignored OL like they do every other year. Robinson is the perfect example because the Bears will either pay another WR (who almost certainly won't be as good) or they'll have to draft a WR. IF they draft a WR to replace him, it would be early and in lieu of QB or OL.

As for my plan, like I've said in this thread, I think the cap will be closer to 190 than 175M. That difference alone signs Robinson.

 

[thenewguy]

If they don't have the draft capital to fix QB and 3 OL spots, how do they have the capital to fix QB, 3 OL spots, and WR? And if your goal is a "good offense", you get further away from it by not bring back your only good player.

And Robinson is the perfect example. You had to PAY for Robinson because you didn't PAY for Jeffery and they used a top 10 pick to try to replace Jeffery and ignored OL like they do every other year. Robinson is the perfect example because the Bears will either pay another WR (who almost certainly won't be as good) or they'll have to draft a WR. IF they draft a WR to replace him, it would be early and in lieu of QB or OL.

As for my plan, like I've said in this thread, I think the cap will be closer to 190 than 175M. That difference alone signs Robinson.

And then the offense is status quo and cap is maxed out. How are you going to improve QB, OL. RB, TE with no cap room?

 

[Sparks500]

And you think that’s how it works?

Seems to be the way it works.

 

[tgmxd]

Blow up the entire defense for picks except guys on rookie contracts

Use those picks to trade up for a QB and then draft and sign at least two quality OL in FA/Draft

This is a great draft for QB's so you don't want to push the development clock back a year by punting again one the most important position in football

 

[rawdawg]

And then the offense is status quo and cap is maxed out. How are you going to improve QB, OL. RB, TE with no cap room?

You improve QB thru the draft. You improve OL partially thru the draft and partially thru free agency (cap is NOT maxed out if the cap is 190). And who cares about RB and TE? Cohen will make RB better next year, as will...ya know, OL.

 

[thenewguy]

You improve QB thru the draft. You improve OL partially thru the draft and partially thru free agency (cap is NOT maxed out if the cap is 190). And who cares about RB and TE? Cohen will make RB better next year, as will...ya know, OL.

You need a QB and two starting tackles. There isn't enough cap to get one of those. The Bears haven't successfully drafted a QB or plug and play tackle in decades, but they will get a QB and two tackles in next year's draft? It's just not going to happen. They need to free up cap space and get more picks. The offense isn't fixable otherwise - and rookie QB's and tackles need development time. The old and expensive D doesn't have time.

 

[rawdawg]

You need a QB and two starting tackles. There isn't enough cap to get one of those. The Bears haven't successfully drafted a QB or plug and play tackle in decades, but they will get a QB and two tackles in next year's draft? It's just not going to happen. They need to free up cap space and get more picks. The offense isn't fixable otherwise - and rookie QB's and tackles need development time. The old and expensive D doesn't have time.

Nonsense. The right players don't need development time. Burrow didn't. Herbert didn't. Watson didn't. At tackle, Becton didn't. Wirfs is starting LT for a superbowl contender. It's not a law that you have to take away from the defense to build the offense. It's not a low that you have to wait for players to develop. And the fact that guys haven't done well with plug and play guys is the damn problem. It's why there will be a new GM in the very near future and this thread was started.

 

[thenewguy]

Nonsense. The right players don't need development time. Burrow didn't. Herbert didn't. Watson didn't. At tackle, Becton didn't. Wirfs is starting LT for a superbowl contender. It's not a law that you have to take away from the defense to build the offense. It's not a low that you have to wait for players to develop. And the fact that guys haven't done well with plug and play guys is the damn problem. It's why there will be a new GM in the very near future and this thread was started.

You just named a bunch of top first round picks, including a number one overall. If we get three picks in the top twelve this year, including the number one, I'll get on board with your plan. I'll even refrain from listing all of the tackles and QB's who didn't come out playing well the first year.

Now, how do we get Lawrence and the top two tackles in this draft without trading anyone?

 

[ThatGuyRyan]

If they don't have the draft capital to fix QB and 3 OL spots, how do they have the capital to fix QB, 3 OL spots, and WR? And if your goal is a "good offense", you get further away from it by not bring back your only good player.

And Robinson is the perfect example. You had to PAY for Robinson because you didn't PAY for Jeffery and they used a top 10 pick to try to replace Jeffery and ignored OL like they do every other year. Robinson is the perfect example because the Bears will either pay another WR (who almost certainly won't be as good) or they'll have to draft a WR. IF they draft a WR to replace him, it would be early and in lieu of QB or OL.

And it creates another hole to fill, that's what she said, when you know what you're getting with Arob. He's at least a top 12 receiver.

 

[Outlaw Josey Cutler]

Your hardon for Pace is well noted, but Nagy has to go no matter what the FO does. Nagy simply can not do what he was hired to do and that's run a legitimate NFL offence.

Unclear if you understand how hard-ons work.

 

[Outlaw Josey Cutler]

If Pace goes then Nagy is not far behind him.

Does it really matter how coaches in 2021 when a soft tear down is happening?

Pace crashed this into the mountain side. We have limited cap space and no offense to speak of.

Um, yes.

 

[rawdawg]

You just named a bunch of top first round picks, including a number one overall. If we get three picks in the top twelve this year, including the number one, I'll get on board with your plan. I'll even refrain from listing all of the tackles and QB's who didn't come out playing well the first year.

Now, how do we get Lawrence and the top two tackles in this draft without trading anyone?

Don't play dumb, you get the point. But let me name Ryan Ramczyk. There are five 4th round guards playing great as starters right now (Lewis for Seattle is one). Hell, Darnell Mooney was a 5th round pick who basically won the starting spot next to Robinson.

But my point is, these are things in everyone's heads that you guys are treating like they're etched in stone. You don't have to be bad for a year before you're good. You don't have to have a rookie QB sit. You don't have to have players develop on the bench and not all players are bad right away. You don't have to take away defense to build the offense.

let me ask this, when is the last time a team completely rebuilt and ended up a championship contender? I'm talking went to the 2020 Jags level and came back to an acceptable level by doing things the way you suggest by taking away good players and waiting 2-3 years for players to develop?

 

[bearsfan1977]

You just named a bunch of top first round picks, including a number one overall. If we get three picks in the top twelve this year, including the number one, I'll get on board with your plan. I'll even refrain from listing all of the tackles and QB's who didn't come out playing well the first year.

Now, how do we get Lawrence and the top two tackles in this draft without trading anyone?

You can’t. No team can. But you can get Zach Wilson, Liam Eichenberg, and make a play for Villanueva from the Steelers.

 

[huggybear224]

Just to ease your mind.

hard on


1
Also, hard upon, hard by. In close proximity, as in The police were hard on the heels of the thieves, or It was hard upon three o'clock, or Their house is hard by ours. The variants are used less than hard on. [Second half of 1700s]

2
be hard on. Deal severely with, cause damage to. For example, He asked the teacher not to be too hard on those who forgot the assignment, or That cat has really been hard on the upholstery. [Second half of 1600s] Also see hard time, def. 2.

Unclear if you understand how hard-ons work.

 

[thenewguy]

Don't play dumb, you get the point. But let me name Ryan Ramczyk. There are five 4th round guards playing great as starters right now (Lewis for Seattle is one). Hell, Darnell Mooney was a 5th round pick who basically won the starting spot next to Robinson.

But my point is, these are things in everyone's heads that you guys are treating like they're etched in stone. You don't have to be bad for a year before you're good. You don't have to have a rookie QB sit. You don't have to have players develop on the bench and not all players are bad right away. You don't have to take away defense to build the offense.

let me ask this, when is the last time a team completely rebuilt and ended up a championship contender? I'm talking went to the 2020 Jags level and came back to an acceptable level by doing things the way you suggest by taking away good players and waiting 2-3 years for players to develop?

I don't think it's realistic to turn around a bottom 3 offense in a year without free agent infusion. They are bad at just about everything on offense. They are going to be drafting in the middle of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. Three difference makers, and immediate contributors, at the exact positions they need, is just a pipe dream.

The new GM will have hard decisions to make with little cap room and a less than full slate of picks. Not to mention, the first year for GM's is hard until you flush out your scouting department, and build your front office. This year will likely not have a combine and little face to face meetings, with less than usual college tape. There is a ton working against a one off-season turnaround. Particularly solving for the hardest positions to fill in free agency and outside of the first round.

They need to take their lumps in 2021 and clear space, aquire additional picks and with two drafts and some cap space, start setting themselves up for 2022. That's what a soft rebuild is, and that's the best case scenario. Keep trying to band-aid the offense and win through an aging defense and the Bears have the rebuild you are afraid of staring them in the face.

 

[baselman1974]

Hopefully the Bears lose out and be drafting in top 10. More flexibility to trade up or down depending on situation. To gain draft capital. either the Bears trade players, or trade down.

 

[rawdawg]

I don't think it's realistic to turn around a bottom 3 offense in a year without free agent infusion. They are bad at just about everything on offense. They are going to be drafting in the middle of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. Three difference makers, and immediate contributors, at the exact positions they need, is just a pipe dream.

The new GM will have hard decisions to make with little cap room and a less than full slate of picks. Not to mention, the first year for GM's is hard until you flush out your scouting department, and build your front office. This year will likely not have a combine and little face to face meetings, with less than usual college tape. There is a ton working against a one off-season turnaround. Particularly solving for the hardest positions to fill in free agency and outside of the first round.

They need to take their lumps in 2021 and clear space, aquire additional picks and with two drafts and some cap space, start setting themselves up for 2022. That's what a soft rebuild is, and that's the best case scenario. Keep trying to band-aid the offense and win through an aging defense and the Bears have the rebuild you are afraid of staring them in the face.

Arizona just went from 32nd in offense in 2018 to 16th last year (to 8th this year). And the only things they changed from 18 to 19 are the head coach, QB and ironically the same 2 positions the Bears will replace, RG and RT (a 30-year old FA signing Sweezy at RG, and a UDFA named Justin Murray previously cut by 4 teams).

Granted, the Bears wont be getting the #1 pick to get a guy like Murray, but don't underestimate how much a real scheme and just decent QB play can go. Murray certainly wasn't great as a rookie.

 

[thenewguy]

Arizona just went from 32nd in offense in 2018 to 16th last year (to 8th this year). And the only things they changed from 18 to 19 are the head coach, QB and ironically the same 2 positions the Bears will replace, RG and RT (a 30-year old FA signing Sweezy at RG, and a UDFA named Justin Murray previously cut by 4 teams).

Granted, the Bears wont be getting the #1 pick to get a guy like Murray, but don't underestimate how much a real scheme and just decent QB play can go. Murray certainly wasn't great as a rookie.

Right, if the Bears had the #1 pick, and hired a Lincoln Riley type. I'd feel different. And I'm glad you brought up the Cardinals. Guess what they did in 2018 and 2019? Made sacrifices so they had 70mm+ in cap space to spend and used picks they accumulated to trade for their starting RB and arguably the best WR in the game. They did what I'm asking the Bears to do and are looking much better two years later, but it took sacrifices and an ideal situation to turn the offense around.

 

[rawdawg]

Right, if the Bears had the #1 pick, and hired a Lincoln Riley type. I'd feel different. And I'm glad you brought up the Cardinals. Guess what they did in 2018 and 2019? Made sacrifices so they had 70mm+ in cap space to spend and used picks they accumulated to trade for their starting RB and arguably the best WR in the game. They did what I'm asking the Bears to do and are looking much better two years later, but it took sacrifices and an ideal situation to turn the offense around.

What sacrifices did they make? Honest question, because I don't see them cutting and trading guys the caliber of Hicks and Fuller and letting #1 WRs walk.....which you are asking the Bears to do.

And IDK how the Hopkins trade is relevant to anything. That move was made in 2020.

The Bears don't need the #1 pick to improve at QB. The Chargers didn't. Houston didn't. The Ravens didn't. Watson was the 12th pick (about where the Bears are projected).

You said they needed to take money from defense and spend it on offense. I explained why that isn't correct.
You asked how they will improve with no money. I explained how you can improve thru the draft, which should be the goal anyway.
You asked they will improve with rookies that need time to develop. I gave examples (first and later rounds) of rookies who competed at a high level right away.
You said the offense couldn't improve from 31st in one year. I gave you an example of a team that did just that by literally changing the 3 positions the Bears need to target most early in the draft and in (cheap) free agency.
Now you're saying they need the #1 pick and a college coach?

IDK what else to say. It doesn't have to take multiple years and a complete tear down to build up the offense. The Bears next GM could very well tear everything down and re-build. But isn't that what Pace did and it didn't work? Hasn't Jacksonville been doing this since 2000? Cleveland's been doing it since the 80s.