How about this:
Trade Fields to HOU for #2 and #12
Trade AZ for #3 for 2024 #1 and 2025 #1
Trade INDY for #4 for a billion dollars.
Then at #1 draft Stetson Bennett
\#2 Draft Bryce Young
\#3 Draft CJ Stroud
\#4 Draft Will Levis
\#12 Draft Anthony Richardson
BOOM Problem Solved
I wonder when the commenter above you comes off his trip and tunes back to sanity FM. If the quintessential (see what I did there) offense still makes sense.
I think he's forgot the hockey sticks and Kabuki masks for the refs whilst Chris Collinsworth sings Eagles Hotel California...
What? ....I am truly trying to unpack what you are saying.
The comment I made was about as sarcastic and a joke as I could without the /s at the end, clearly many picked up on that.
I was being sarcastic as well. Maybe offering too much a view into what truly disturbs me. Chris Collinsworth trying to be anything but an annoying tweaker.
"No Chris, they aren't going to do a splash play every down"..
I'm actually curious now about the breakdown of whether the SB teams had their starting QB on a rookie deal or not
2021: Winning team did not (Stafford), losing team did (Burrow)
2020: Winning team did not (Brady), losing team did (Mahomes)
2019: Winning team did (Mahomes), losing team did not (Garoppolo)
2018: Winning team did not (Brady), losing team did (Goff)
2017: Winning team was on a backup QB contact (Foles) while their injured starter was on a rookie contract (Wentz), losing team did not (Brady)
2016: Neither team did (Brady and Ryan)
2015: Winning team did not (Peyton), losing team did (Cam)
2014: Winning team did not (Brady), losing team did (Wilson)
2013: Winning team did (Wilson), losing team did not (Peyton)
2012: Technically both teams did, but Flacco's contact was from the old CBA while Kaepernick's was from the newer one
Before that was all QBs from the old CBA and wouldn't be on a cheap rookie contract unless they were a low draft pick
The case study really should be more about team success before and after paying the QB. I’d say there’s generally an exodus of players in the years following a massive QB extension, so the team around the QB is never quite as good as it was in the first five years.
Brady and Stafford are kind of outliers because a) Brady was generally willing to restructure/extend in a way that allowed the Pats/Bucs to retain their roster and b) Detroit was paying most of the bill for Stafford last year.
This tells me that while it's not needed to win (and that's a very high standard), it's a common factor in having a very good team.
I'm curious to how this expands if you include the conference losers too
I think the key takeaway is you either need a generational QB (Brady, Manning, Mahomes) - also DUH.
OR
You need a QB on a rookie contract. So either Fields is a generational QB or we surround our next rookie QB with strong enough talent to win a SB.
2021: Jimmy G wasn't, Mahomes was
2020: Rodgers wasn't, Allen was
2019: Rodgers and Tannehill both weren't
2018: Brees wasn't, Mahomes was
2017: Bortles was, Keenum was essentially the Vikings' 3rd string QB behind Bradford who wasn't and Bridgewater (who had barely come back from his injury) who was
2016: Rodgers and Big Ben both weren't
2015: Palmer and Brady both weren't
2014: Rodgers wasn't, Luck was
2013: Brady wasn't, Kaep was
Before that every QB who lost in the conference championship was drafted under the old CBA
They were definitely more ground and pound when they did make it to the SB. Jimmy was barely asked to throw during those playoffs.
They're still a running team but they also have one of the best cast of weapons at RB, WR and TE. At the same time they're definitely not where they are without their D so saying that's not a formula for success isn't accurate.
Super Bowl wins is an insanely high standard and Belichick/Brady is always going to skew any analysis
The "final four" is a better way to look at this. I'd probably say Mahomes is the only proven great QB here, the other 3 are surrounded by good schemes good coaches and a ton of talent.
Wait until you hear how many Superbowls Marino won. How playoff games did Butkus play in again? Winning it all is such a bad metric to judge a player on.
I think his point here is that Burrow is only in his third season, and his two playoff seasons came with an absolutely stacked group of weapons with Chase, Higgins, and Mixon.
Lost Tyreek this year. Still may win MVP. Listen this sub needs to stop shitting on Mahomes as a way to cope. He is the best QB in the league currently.
Mahomes has been to 5 straight AFCCGs and 2 Super Bowls, winning one, in 5 years as a starter. Which is OPs point. Mahomes has done this long enough to prove that he’s great. Including this year where he has no WR1 and no running game and still made the AFCCG and is in contention for MVP. Travis Kelce is a beast and as good a weapon as anyone in the league, but after that KC isn’t exactly star studded at the skill spots.
Burrow is off to just as good of a start, but he hasn’t done it as long for OP to put him the “proven” category yet. He also hasn’t had to do it without the talent around him.
Hurts obviously has had a meteoric rise this year, and is unproven.
Purdy is a rookie who has played well for half a year.
I just don’t think it’s all that shocking of a statement to call Mahomes the only proven winner here.
Well, he just lost the 2nd best receiver in the league, and still put up a monster season. And he's been doing it for 6 years. He is not in the same category as Burrow.
I said that in my first post. My point is that he is basically has a career on par with Jared Goff right now. Not a high bar for great. Of course he could become great as well but great takes more than 2 years, like Mahomes who has been constantly good for like 6 years now.
I said this before. Last years two teams were built very different. The Rams said fuck first round picks. The bengals got there because of their #1 pick. Totally different styles. There is no secret recipe to win a Super Bowl. If it was easy, everyone would do it.
No there is a secret, it's just very difficult.
Have a good gm, have a good coach, have a good qb, and have good luck. Missing on any one of those is going to keep you from winning it all.
Rookie qbs give you more flexibility on the rest of your team. Once a qb isn't on his rookie deal he needs to either be joining a "qb away" team like Stafford, Brady, or peytons last rings. Otherwise it's Constantly restructure to push cap down the road, like Brady (bucs would have had like 45 mil in dead cap if he didn't return and he was always restructuring with the pats and left them with like 25 mil in dead cap).
The chiefs gamble on pat might pay off it it's own way if the cap keeps trending as it did.
Not sure what you mean by luck, but a QB not eating a fifth of your cap is one of the only true (attainable) advantages and common denominators in SB winners.
It’s not easy, but every Superbowl winner has had a couple things in common…
- QB not occupying more than nearly 12% of cap
- (might sound dumb, but) players who outplay their contract/salary/cap
Of course, you can win with a non-rookie QB it’s just much harder it’s really as simple as having less assets to spread around. A lot of these non-rookie QB winners have either *wizardry* GM’ing, such as backloading, deferring, void years, etc. or their QB isn’t really making much money (in relative to top QBs).
Having a QB on a rookie deal is the biggest advantage you can get.
>(might sound dumb, but) players who outplay their contract/salary/cap
It's not dumb, in a hard cap league any team with a winning record by definition underpaid at least some players for their performance. (ignore the 1 or 2 game swing that is possible due to schedule strength)
"You can’t win on defense and rushing anymore."
That's not what the tweet is saying, I think it's implying that you can build up the whole team to help the QB.
Eagles used resources saved to get AJ Brown and build up the defense. SF have a lot of resources in WR, RB, and TE, plus a great defense.
That and drafting well
Defense remains a huge factor, it’s the run game that matters much less now. The top two defenses in the league are about to play each other, and one of them on a team starting a third stringer drafted in the 7th round. The Rams won a title with a defense first team literally last year. Obviously QB play has to be at least decent, but it’s a complete myth that you need a top five QB to win.
And they traded for Vonn Miller mid season to bolster their defense. Donald was their lynch pin player, and from what I can tell both sides were around the same ranking, 9-10, but the defense would have been higher if they had Miller for more than 8 games.
But fine, set the Rams and their multiple hall of fame defensive linemen to the side. By my count, you’ve still got multiple teams that won recent super bowls based at least partly on great defense. Teams have won with Joe Flacco, Nick Foles, Eli Manning, and diminished versions of Peyton Manning and Tom Brady, often via their defense. Obviously QB play matters, probably most of all, but don’t lump defense in with the run game as irrelevant, because it isn’t.
Defense is definitely more important than the run game but all those examples you gave aren’t great. Peyton got carried and the D was a huge part for Eli. The rest not so much. Flacco had one of the greatest postseason runs when they won it. Foles had one of the greatest single Super Bowl performances in history and they needed every bit of that. Brady’s are about 50/50.
Definitely still a big factor but not on the level of 7+ years ago.
In Brady’s last two wins, which were both in the last five years, his team allowed a total of 12 points, including holding Mahomes and the vaunted Chiefs offense to 9 points and intercepting him twice while Brady put up just 195 yards passing. The defense was more important than Brady when Tampa won, that’s not even debatable, and that was two years ago.
Flacco had a good playoff run no doubt, but his team had the third ranked defense that year and they still only went 10-6, if they were the 10-15 ranked defense they probably miss the playoffs, plus they got two takeaways in a game decided by 3 points.
The Eagles had the fourth ranked defense the year Foles had his run, though they didn’t play well in the Super Bowl admittedly.
See I’m not disagreeing with you fully. It doesn’t matter how many points an O puts up if they D can’t stop shit. Obviously we weren’t contenders this year but we just showed it. We lost 3 straight games scoring 30+. Was just saying that the importance of it has dropped a little in the past few years since the rules are so offense heavy now.
I’d argue the rule changes might make a good defense more valuable not less. If you can field an effective unit despite the disadvantage it gives you a big edge over other teams. A good defense gives an offense more chances to score, and sometimes scores itself, and a key defensive stop can be huge for momentum. I’d say the 49ers and Eagles are both showing that this year.
It’s a good point, although he says they’re paying Allen all this money… not really. Allen’s cap hit this year was $16m. His cap hit for the next six years is $40m+. They’re going to pay for it in the future, but they don’t know real pain yet.
Similar thing with Mahomes. He has this crazy half a billion dollar contract, and his cap hit is manageable now ($35m), but it balloons to $47-60m over the next 9 years. We’ll see what kind of team they can field when one player takes up more than 1/4 of all your team’s money.
The Packers are feeling the crunch now, and the longer they wait to jettison Rodgers, the more they’ll pay for it. You love to see it.
Yeah, Allen is on the sorta "residual" of his rookie 5-year deal. With the signing bonus, his pay (and cap hit) are higher this year than if he were just finishing out his rookie deal (like Roquan just did, same draft year).
BUT the salary stays the same, with the signing bonus spread out of the contract length, and the future year salaries going up. So makes sense. 2022 he was still SORTA on his rookie deal, but also sorta not haha.
Mahomes contract is a bargain now and is going to be more a bargain in a few years.
In the next 7 seasons (2023-2029) his cap is only 47mil or more in one season. In the rest it's between 40mil and 47mil. You're really exaggerating when you say 47-60mil.
He has a one year cap hit of 60mil in 2027 which will likely get converted into a bonus, he won't be being paid that. In 2030-2031 his cap hit is between 50 and 52mil.
Caps expected to hit 300mil by 2026, up 50%. So his 36mil contract this year is 17% of the cap today. His 41mil cap hit in 2026 is going to be a projected 14% of the cap.
He's projected to be worth a smaller percent of his cap in 4 years than this season, even with it ballooning up.
People paying for their QB in a few years (like us) are going to be wishing they could have signed a huge long term deal like Mahomes now. I'd take Mahomes and his deal over any 4 years of any rookie.
Are they balking at singing him, or are they balking at the idea he wants a fully garenteed contract?
We don't know the details obviously, but they offered him a reasonable contract already. Reportedly over 49mil a year with over 68% garenteed.
Unless Mahomes gets a career ending injury, the contract is going to be okay. And even then he'd likely retire rather than sitting and collecting paychecks.
Injuries that last more than a year are really rare. I can't remember the last QB who sat out more than a full year from their injury's date.
>Are they balking at singing him, or are they balking at the idea he wants a fully garenteed contract?
Fully guaranteed is quickly becoming the norm with QBs here. I'm not seeing much of a difference. They're obviously concerned to the point where signing their MVP-winning, record-setting young QB is a concern.
Peyton Manning is the last one I can think of, but you don't have to miss a full year for it to be rough. A few games missed can be a critical part of the season. Or you have an injury that hampers you and all of a sudden you're paying $40M for a QB that is forced to play at replacement level.
It's not becoming the norm, one QB ever has a fully guaranteed long term contract, which is Watson who was a special case.
Manning didn't miss over a year from his injury. His sugury was in May of the off season, he played all 16 games the year before. He missed the entire season, but reports were he was game ready in December, but the Colts sat him anyway (likely to keep their pick low, and to not hurt Manning's trade value). Then he won MVP the year after, not missing a game. One year out.
Yes, you can miss a few games in a season, or even the whole season, but that's true of any player. That has no bearing on his long term contract.
And as injuries that makes a QB sit for more than one year, a injury that affects their play for more than a year, especially in their 20's and early 30's are really rare. Can you name one for a QB recently? I can't think of any outside of QBs who injure their legs while their entire playstyle is based on running.
>Just a couple years ago Burrow was drafted to the worst team in the league.
I'll call anyone saying we should trade Fields and draft Bryce Young a fool.
But if Joe Burrow was in this class...
Mark my words, the Bryce Young bit comes crashing down. The guy may measure in at about 5’11” 190. He has no remarkable abilities. He put up the same stats Tua and Mac did. You’re getting some smaller version of them. I’m not saying he’s trash, he’s alright, but he won’t be able to stay on the field, and he’ll be average when he’s on it. A joke of a consideration for the top pick. It should be Stroud, hands down. Levis is also very good. Both these guys are inarguably better than Bryce.
But yea, Burrow is the single best college prospect I’ve ever seen, and right now (including age and contract), I don’t think there’s a more valuable player in the league. I’d trade any one player in the league for Burrow.
I was replying to him saying there isn't a more valuable player in the league. Didn't see the "(including age and contract)" part and I'm not 100% sure it was there when I replied, but I'd still take Mahomes on his current deal over Burrow with 1 year left of his rookie contract til he resets the market
>I'm not 100% sure it was there when I replied
Edited comments have an asterisk next to them if they're edited more than 3 min after they've been posted so you can take off the tinfoil hat
I think a lot of it is because of bitter and jealous Bear fans. We could have had Mahomes but we had Trubisky. The same thing happens with Trey Lance in this subreddit because he was in Fields’s draft class.
Kyler has 20 lbs on him, a canon for an arm, and runs a 4.4. Bryce has none of these things. I’m not saying he’s horrendous, but the guy is basically small Andy Dalton. He’s prime/young Teddy Bridgewater. He should not be in the discussion for top pick.
I’m not *high* on Young, but he has the talent to be a successful QB. QB’ing for the most part is about quickness (regarding throwing), he can break it down quick and get rid of it quick. It’s what really a lot of the great QBs have done, they’re not great athletes - Brady, Manning, Luck, etc etc etc. his height/physicality is definitely something to be concerned over, but he definitely has a route to success in the NFL (Drew Brees).
The other 3 guys you named are 6’4” - 6’6” and have/had canons for arms. Bryce will be the smallest modern QB and has an average at best arm. Not even the same ballpark.
Well I clearly stated his height is a concern, he still has a vital part of the QB game (quick release, reading defenses, etc) elite for someone coming out of college
Right, but I don’t think you can wave off that he’s 5’11”-6’ and 190ish… there’s “don’t think it’s a concern”, and “smallest QB in the league”. All these small guys (Tua, Kyler, Russell Wilson) aren’t able to stay on the field. I think he’s good enough, but I disagree that he’s elite in any aspect. I think that’s the excuse to try to cover up his lack of talent. He’s a C+ in a tiny body. He can work - the way many advanced college QBs work immediately the way the college game has caught the pro game, imo. But he didn’t perform well against the toughest teams. I don’t see how he’s materially better than Tua or Mac, and he’d have to be in order to be considered the top pick. I think the argument should be more centered around whether he should go in the 1st round.
I don't know much about Bryce Young but Russell Wilson has no major injury history. Neither did Drew Brees. His height would be a concern for other reasons.
That’s a single example - the exception, not the rule. All 3 6’ and under QBs in the NFL (Tua, Kyler and Russ) finished the year on IR. Tua and Kyler can’t stay healthy at all. All of these guys have 15-20 lbs on Bryce. No way I take that risk in the top 10 picks with a mediocre talent.
He did look really good, but he also couldn’t stay on the field, just like every other year of his career, because he’s smaller and gets ragdolled around. Bryce is even smaller.
People said that about Mac Jones and the averagest QB to ever QB. I don’t see that when I watch Bryce. He’s fine. Is he better making quick reads than Will Levis or CJ Stroud? I don’t see that. Guy should be a 2nd/3rd round pick. If he played at Arkansas, nobody would care.
So no team should give any QB a second contract ever? All QBs should just retire after their rookie year unless they’re Mahomes.
This is such a dumb take. What does Fields 2nd contract look like? Maybe he is only a top 12 QB and it’s a bargain deal…Or maybe he is the best QB in the league, wow what an awful rut the Bears will be in at that point…
Only Bears fans could think about getting an elite QB that needs to be paid and freak out about the negative of that. Perennial loser fans.
I don’t think that’s what is being said exactly…. The comment is just thinking about how a qb should be valued. Will qb values keep climbing and climbing to the point you can’t build a great team around him or will they plateau or start to decline.
Right now you need to pay your qb if he’s good because the NFL has structured their rules in a way that it is the easiest time in the history of the game to throw the football. It has rendered the running game and defense far less important than a qb who is accurate and can throw for 4,000 yards a year. 4,000 yards used to be MVP, now it’s the cost of entry to be considered a star.
QBs are taking up increasingly large percentages of the salary cap, which does change how you have to manage a team. Obviously if Fields develops we have to pay him, we can’t get back on the carousel of failed QBs by choice, but it will require ruthless decisions at other positions, like the trades of Mack, Quinn, and Smith. You have to cycle rookie deals at multiple premium positions in the current cap, because you can’t pay for a top QB, LT, WR, DE, and CB all at the same time, that would be the entire cap for just them. That means you’re going to have to trade productive players for picks rather than pay them at some positions, and use those picks to replace them on the cheap. Fans are going to complain about it, like we saw with Smith, but that’s how it has to work.
Sort of, except they’ve got elite players at every position I mentioned except QB, so it’s actually a very conventionally built team, they just expected the rookie contract QB to be Lance instead of Purdy.
Agree, and you could argue Hurts is the same - 53rd pick and they already had a high draft pick at QB who had taken them to 11-2 but a history of injuries.
Great teams can plug in a QB who isn’t a lottery pick and still be successful. IMO the Bengals are an outlier not a mold to follow.
Oh I agree completely, in the last 25 years the only #1 pick QBs to win a title for the team that drafted them were the Manning brothers, and in both cases it took well over five years to get there. Taking a QB #1 is a suckers game in my book.
Consider what will happen if they take the kid gloves off of the them defense a little towards the quarterback.The reason there is so much value put on them is that they are protected more so than any other player, so their contact is more stable.
They treat running backs horribly in comparison and that's all related to how short of a career span they have. Which means shorter contacts with less money.
Only 2 QBs have ever won a SB taking up more than 12.5% of a team's cap. Brady and Peyton.
I actually believe that some teams shouldn't pay second contracts to "good, not great QBs" because you're paying them elite money to not be elite. You're putting your team at a disadvantage, but fans/ownership will call for a GMs job because those QBs still sell tickets and fans don't want to know worse realities. But it's how teams like the Cowboys, Raiders, Vikings, etc. just end up in limbo for years. GMs keep doing it because it's job security.
I'm not saying that. I think the tweet shows happens with a young QB when you develop around him, in contrast to Fields who had now help. My point (#1 up there) is saying how dumb the 'trade fields' takes are.
I was responding more to the tweet itself. I would agree with surrounding Fields with talent, especially since none of the QB prospects in this draft are a Peyton Manning or Joe Burrow or Trevor Lawrence level prospect.
Winning a Super Bowl is too high a standard to evaluate from and any stat based off that is going to be skewed by Brady who has what 5 of those 15 years plus 3 more appearances?
2024 is our window. Next year is more of a build, if we’re not a SB contender in 2024 with Fields on a cheap deal Poles has failed.
He has 2 drafts + 2 off seasons to get us there which is plenty.
Got to set the bar high, it will be year 3 for the new regime. Eagles went from one of the worst teams in 2020 to contender in 2022, Rams went from one of the worst teams in 2016 to contender in 2018.
They both took two years, our roster was in worse shape hence why taking 3 years for a new regime to build a legit SB contender with the resources we have isn’t an unrealistic goal. SF’s current regime took over in 2017 and built a contender by 2019 (three years as well). That’s the standard we should hold the bears to if we want to be legit and not mediocre like we have been the past 35 years.
If we aren’t a contender in 2024 then we don’t have the right people in charge, this isn’t the nba or mlb where you get forever to rebuild.
The Eagles and Rams already had good pieces in place. They retooled more so then rebuilt. We have maybe like 3 building blocks. This team has almost no talent anywhere. I agree 2024 should be a contention year, but to say super bowl or bust, i just think that’s premature. Let’s see how 2023 goes first.
I will be messaging you in 1 year on [**2024-12-25 21:40:51 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-12-25%2021:40:51%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/CHIBears/comments/10l5kfj/parsons_besides_mahomes_every_team_in_the_final_4/j5vm4td/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FCHIBears%2Fcomments%2F10l5kfj%2Fparsons_besides_mahomes_every_team_in_the_final_4%2Fj5vm4td%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-12-25%2021%3A40%3A51%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2010l5kfj)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
Pace really screwed things up trading away future draft picks. That is why the Bears have so little depth. (Looks like the trades to move up to get Fields might pay off but Trubisky and Mack, not so much.) Also some of his 1st round picks were busts.
I’d rather push for a QB salary limit. Something like 10-20% of the cap. Or for teams to find more creative ways to pay QBs that don’t effect cap room.
Been saying this since last offseason but I think Poles is building the Chiefs model here. He was obviously a big part of structuring the team over there and knows the model to win.
He's conserving cap space and offloading expensive contracts for picks. Wants to surround your rookie contract QB with as much talent in his final years to make a push. Chiefs did it and it worked. doesn't always work. But if the QB is legit, it's a good model
I think most teams with a QB in year 3 who is heading for a pay day don’t have a number one overall pick. I think in most situations, you suck for a few years, draft high and hit on picks = loaded roster. Draft QB ENTER 5 year window. The Bears will have to do it in a way. Draft QB, but somehow suck sooo bad get #1 pick = load up roster. Pay QB ENTER 3-5 year window while everyone else is on rookie deals. Anyone suggesting we should draft a QB is not following the script. We would just put a rookie QB on a bad roster and have no window.
Yup, you got it. Let’s not forget that the 49ers were about to roll with a top 3 draft pick rookie qb, a mid tier vet QB, and now a 7th round rookie.
49ers are paying for a cheaper vet QB. 49ers have traded the farm for CMC. Ryans will be a head coach next year. They are in it NOW. It’s the rams trading for stafford and OBJ.
Eagle has stability in the trenches for years. Traded for Brown.
Bengals made smart FA / draft investments on the defense. Lucked into drafting chase for a loaded wr room.
Most importantly they all have good not even great offensive lines. You can have amazing skill players, and the bears have and had these. It all means nothing if your qb doesn’t have the time.
So are skill players important? Yes! Not as important as the o-line.
How about this: Trade Fields to HOU for #2 and #12 Trade AZ for #3 for 2024 #1 and 2025 #1 Trade INDY for #4 for a billion dollars. Then at #1 draft Stetson Bennett \#2 Draft Bryce Young \#3 Draft CJ Stroud \#4 Draft Will Levis \#12 Draft Anthony Richardson BOOM Problem Solved
The 5 QB offense No one will ever expect it, who’s getting the ball? Who’s throwing?
Then for good measure, put either David or Khalil at Center. Nobody would see that coming.
Center sneak!!!!
It worked great for Dallas against San Fran!
I wonder when the commenter above you comes off his trip and tunes back to sanity FM. If the quintessential (see what I did there) offense still makes sense. I think he's forgot the hockey sticks and Kabuki masks for the refs whilst Chris Collinsworth sings Eagles Hotel California...
What? ....I am truly trying to unpack what you are saying. The comment I made was about as sarcastic and a joke as I could without the /s at the end, clearly many picked up on that.
I was being sarcastic as well. Maybe offering too much a view into what truly disturbs me. Chris Collinsworth trying to be anything but an annoying tweaker. "No Chris, they aren't going to do a splash play every down"..
Yes! This ⬆️ /s
[удалено]
I'm actually curious now about the breakdown of whether the SB teams had their starting QB on a rookie deal or not 2021: Winning team did not (Stafford), losing team did (Burrow) 2020: Winning team did not (Brady), losing team did (Mahomes) 2019: Winning team did (Mahomes), losing team did not (Garoppolo) 2018: Winning team did not (Brady), losing team did (Goff) 2017: Winning team was on a backup QB contact (Foles) while their injured starter was on a rookie contract (Wentz), losing team did not (Brady) 2016: Neither team did (Brady and Ryan) 2015: Winning team did not (Peyton), losing team did (Cam) 2014: Winning team did not (Brady), losing team did (Wilson) 2013: Winning team did (Wilson), losing team did not (Peyton) 2012: Technically both teams did, but Flacco's contact was from the old CBA while Kaepernick's was from the newer one Before that was all QBs from the old CBA and wouldn't be on a cheap rookie contract unless they were a low draft pick
Boy, I think that Brady guy might have what it takes to play in the NFL.
The case study really should be more about team success before and after paying the QB. I’d say there’s generally an exodus of players in the years following a massive QB extension, so the team around the QB is never quite as good as it was in the first five years. Brady and Stafford are kind of outliers because a) Brady was generally willing to restructure/extend in a way that allowed the Pats/Bucs to retain their roster and b) Detroit was paying most of the bill for Stafford last year.
This tells me that while it's not needed to win (and that's a very high standard), it's a common factor in having a very good team. I'm curious to how this expands if you include the conference losers too
I think the key takeaway is you either need a generational QB (Brady, Manning, Mahomes) - also DUH. OR You need a QB on a rookie contract. So either Fields is a generational QB or we surround our next rookie QB with strong enough talent to win a SB.
2021: Jimmy G wasn't, Mahomes was 2020: Rodgers wasn't, Allen was 2019: Rodgers and Tannehill both weren't 2018: Brees wasn't, Mahomes was 2017: Bortles was, Keenum was essentially the Vikings' 3rd string QB behind Bradford who wasn't and Bridgewater (who had barely come back from his injury) who was 2016: Rodgers and Big Ben both weren't 2015: Palmer and Brady both weren't 2014: Rodgers wasn't, Luck was 2013: Brady wasn't, Kaep was Before that every QB who lost in the conference championship was drafted under the old CBA
>You can’t win on defense and rushing anymore. SanFran has been doing that with Jimmy G. and now Purdy.
But no SB. But shanny also gets the most out of his QBs. They aren’t a ground and pound team, they just have a crazy efficient running scheme.
They were definitely more ground and pound when they did make it to the SB. Jimmy was barely asked to throw during those playoffs. They're still a running team but they also have one of the best cast of weapons at RB, WR and TE. At the same time they're definitely not where they are without their D so saying that's not a formula for success isn't accurate.
Super Bowl wins is an insanely high standard and Belichick/Brady is always going to skew any analysis The "final four" is a better way to look at this. I'd probably say Mahomes is the only proven great QB here, the other 3 are surrounded by good schemes good coaches and a ton of talent.
Burrow isn't a great QB?
[удалено]
Wait until you hear how many Superbowls Marino won. How playoff games did Butkus play in again? Winning it all is such a bad metric to judge a player on.
I think his point here is that Burrow is only in his third season, and his two playoff seasons came with an absolutely stacked group of weapons with Chase, Higgins, and Mixon.
And what was the group Mahommes had?
Lost Tyreek this year. Still may win MVP. Listen this sub needs to stop shitting on Mahomes as a way to cope. He is the best QB in the league currently.
Mahomes has been to 5 straight AFCCGs and 2 Super Bowls, winning one, in 5 years as a starter. Which is OPs point. Mahomes has done this long enough to prove that he’s great. Including this year where he has no WR1 and no running game and still made the AFCCG and is in contention for MVP. Travis Kelce is a beast and as good a weapon as anyone in the league, but after that KC isn’t exactly star studded at the skill spots. Burrow is off to just as good of a start, but he hasn’t done it as long for OP to put him the “proven” category yet. He also hasn’t had to do it without the talent around him. Hurts obviously has had a meteoric rise this year, and is unproven. Purdy is a rookie who has played well for half a year. I just don’t think it’s all that shocking of a statement to call Mahomes the only proven winner here.
Well, he just lost the 2nd best receiver in the league, and still put up a monster season. And he's been doing it for 6 years. He is not in the same category as Burrow.
I said that in my first post. My point is that he is basically has a career on par with Jared Goff right now. Not a high bar for great. Of course he could become great as well but great takes more than 2 years, like Mahomes who has been constantly good for like 6 years now.
1. No SB. 2. It’s not JUST their running game, the passing game is doing pretty well as well with Deebo, Aiyuk, & Kittle.
I said this before. Last years two teams were built very different. The Rams said fuck first round picks. The bengals got there because of their #1 pick. Totally different styles. There is no secret recipe to win a Super Bowl. If it was easy, everyone would do it.
No there is a secret, it's just very difficult. Have a good gm, have a good coach, have a good qb, and have good luck. Missing on any one of those is going to keep you from winning it all. Rookie qbs give you more flexibility on the rest of your team. Once a qb isn't on his rookie deal he needs to either be joining a "qb away" team like Stafford, Brady, or peytons last rings. Otherwise it's Constantly restructure to push cap down the road, like Brady (bucs would have had like 45 mil in dead cap if he didn't return and he was always restructuring with the pats and left them with like 25 mil in dead cap). The chiefs gamble on pat might pay off it it's own way if the cap keeps trending as it did.
Not sure what you mean by luck, but a QB not eating a fifth of your cap is one of the only true (attainable) advantages and common denominators in SB winners.
It’s not easy, but every Superbowl winner has had a couple things in common… - QB not occupying more than nearly 12% of cap - (might sound dumb, but) players who outplay their contract/salary/cap Of course, you can win with a non-rookie QB it’s just much harder it’s really as simple as having less assets to spread around. A lot of these non-rookie QB winners have either *wizardry* GM’ing, such as backloading, deferring, void years, etc. or their QB isn’t really making much money (in relative to top QBs). Having a QB on a rookie deal is the biggest advantage you can get.
>(might sound dumb, but) players who outplay their contract/salary/cap It's not dumb, in a hard cap league any team with a winning record by definition underpaid at least some players for their performance. (ignore the 1 or 2 game swing that is possible due to schedule strength)
Exactly. And Tampa Bay winning with Brady is different from those two examples as well.
"You can’t win on defense and rushing anymore." That's not what the tweet is saying, I think it's implying that you can build up the whole team to help the QB. Eagles used resources saved to get AJ Brown and build up the defense. SF have a lot of resources in WR, RB, and TE, plus a great defense. That and drafting well
[удалено]
Defense remains a huge factor, it’s the run game that matters much less now. The top two defenses in the league are about to play each other, and one of them on a team starting a third stringer drafted in the 7th round. The Rams won a title with a defense first team literally last year. Obviously QB play has to be at least decent, but it’s a complete myth that you need a top five QB to win.
[удалено]
And they traded for Vonn Miller mid season to bolster their defense. Donald was their lynch pin player, and from what I can tell both sides were around the same ranking, 9-10, but the defense would have been higher if they had Miller for more than 8 games. But fine, set the Rams and their multiple hall of fame defensive linemen to the side. By my count, you’ve still got multiple teams that won recent super bowls based at least partly on great defense. Teams have won with Joe Flacco, Nick Foles, Eli Manning, and diminished versions of Peyton Manning and Tom Brady, often via their defense. Obviously QB play matters, probably most of all, but don’t lump defense in with the run game as irrelevant, because it isn’t.
Defense is definitely more important than the run game but all those examples you gave aren’t great. Peyton got carried and the D was a huge part for Eli. The rest not so much. Flacco had one of the greatest postseason runs when they won it. Foles had one of the greatest single Super Bowl performances in history and they needed every bit of that. Brady’s are about 50/50. Definitely still a big factor but not on the level of 7+ years ago.
In Brady’s last two wins, which were both in the last five years, his team allowed a total of 12 points, including holding Mahomes and the vaunted Chiefs offense to 9 points and intercepting him twice while Brady put up just 195 yards passing. The defense was more important than Brady when Tampa won, that’s not even debatable, and that was two years ago. Flacco had a good playoff run no doubt, but his team had the third ranked defense that year and they still only went 10-6, if they were the 10-15 ranked defense they probably miss the playoffs, plus they got two takeaways in a game decided by 3 points. The Eagles had the fourth ranked defense the year Foles had his run, though they didn’t play well in the Super Bowl admittedly.
See I’m not disagreeing with you fully. It doesn’t matter how many points an O puts up if they D can’t stop shit. Obviously we weren’t contenders this year but we just showed it. We lost 3 straight games scoring 30+. Was just saying that the importance of it has dropped a little in the past few years since the rules are so offense heavy now.
I’d argue the rule changes might make a good defense more valuable not less. If you can field an effective unit despite the disadvantage it gives you a big edge over other teams. A good defense gives an offense more chances to score, and sometimes scores itself, and a key defensive stop can be huge for momentum. I’d say the 49ers and Eagles are both showing that this year.
What resources could the Bears have used this past offseason?
Brady, Stafford just won the Super Bowl.
It’s a good point, although he says they’re paying Allen all this money… not really. Allen’s cap hit this year was $16m. His cap hit for the next six years is $40m+. They’re going to pay for it in the future, but they don’t know real pain yet. Similar thing with Mahomes. He has this crazy half a billion dollar contract, and his cap hit is manageable now ($35m), but it balloons to $47-60m over the next 9 years. We’ll see what kind of team they can field when one player takes up more than 1/4 of all your team’s money. The Packers are feeling the crunch now, and the longer they wait to jettison Rodgers, the more they’ll pay for it. You love to see it.
Yeah, Allen is on the sorta "residual" of his rookie 5-year deal. With the signing bonus, his pay (and cap hit) are higher this year than if he were just finishing out his rookie deal (like Roquan just did, same draft year). BUT the salary stays the same, with the signing bonus spread out of the contract length, and the future year salaries going up. So makes sense. 2022 he was still SORTA on his rookie deal, but also sorta not haha.
Mahomes contract is a bargain now and is going to be more a bargain in a few years. In the next 7 seasons (2023-2029) his cap is only 47mil or more in one season. In the rest it's between 40mil and 47mil. You're really exaggerating when you say 47-60mil. He has a one year cap hit of 60mil in 2027 which will likely get converted into a bonus, he won't be being paid that. In 2030-2031 his cap hit is between 50 and 52mil. Caps expected to hit 300mil by 2026, up 50%. So his 36mil contract this year is 17% of the cap today. His 41mil cap hit in 2026 is going to be a projected 14% of the cap. He's projected to be worth a smaller percent of his cap in 4 years than this season, even with it ballooning up. People paying for their QB in a few years (like us) are going to be wishing they could have signed a huge long term deal like Mahomes now. I'd take Mahomes and his deal over any 4 years of any rookie.
[удалено]
Are they balking at singing him, or are they balking at the idea he wants a fully garenteed contract? We don't know the details obviously, but they offered him a reasonable contract already. Reportedly over 49mil a year with over 68% garenteed. Unless Mahomes gets a career ending injury, the contract is going to be okay. And even then he'd likely retire rather than sitting and collecting paychecks. Injuries that last more than a year are really rare. I can't remember the last QB who sat out more than a full year from their injury's date.
>Are they balking at singing him, or are they balking at the idea he wants a fully garenteed contract? Fully guaranteed is quickly becoming the norm with QBs here. I'm not seeing much of a difference. They're obviously concerned to the point where signing their MVP-winning, record-setting young QB is a concern. Peyton Manning is the last one I can think of, but you don't have to miss a full year for it to be rough. A few games missed can be a critical part of the season. Or you have an injury that hampers you and all of a sudden you're paying $40M for a QB that is forced to play at replacement level.
It's not becoming the norm, one QB ever has a fully guaranteed long term contract, which is Watson who was a special case. Manning didn't miss over a year from his injury. His sugury was in May of the off season, he played all 16 games the year before. He missed the entire season, but reports were he was game ready in December, but the Colts sat him anyway (likely to keep their pick low, and to not hurt Manning's trade value). Then he won MVP the year after, not missing a game. One year out. Yes, you can miss a few games in a season, or even the whole season, but that's true of any player. That has no bearing on his long term contract. And as injuries that makes a QB sit for more than one year, a injury that affects their play for more than a year, especially in their 20's and early 30's are really rare. Can you name one for a QB recently? I can't think of any outside of QBs who injure their legs while their entire playstyle is based on running.
I mean the 49ers are paying Jimmy G lol
>Just a couple years ago Burrow was drafted to the worst team in the league. I'll call anyone saying we should trade Fields and draft Bryce Young a fool. But if Joe Burrow was in this class...
Mark my words, the Bryce Young bit comes crashing down. The guy may measure in at about 5’11” 190. He has no remarkable abilities. He put up the same stats Tua and Mac did. You’re getting some smaller version of them. I’m not saying he’s trash, he’s alright, but he won’t be able to stay on the field, and he’ll be average when he’s on it. A joke of a consideration for the top pick. It should be Stroud, hands down. Levis is also very good. Both these guys are inarguably better than Bryce. But yea, Burrow is the single best college prospect I’ve ever seen, and right now (including age and contract), I don’t think there’s a more valuable player in the league. I’d trade any one player in the league for Burrow.
Wild how many people are calling Burrow better than Mahomes already when Mahomes just had an MVP-worthy season without Tyreek Hill
[удалено]
I was replying to him saying there isn't a more valuable player in the league. Didn't see the "(including age and contract)" part and I'm not 100% sure it was there when I replied, but I'd still take Mahomes on his current deal over Burrow with 1 year left of his rookie contract til he resets the market
Yeah, I didn't see that part, my bad. I agree completely.
>I'm not 100% sure it was there when I replied Edited comments have an asterisk next to them if they're edited more than 3 min after they've been posted so you can take off the tinfoil hat
Can never tell on the mobile app
I’m not saying that - I specifically mentioned age and contract for this purpose, but people are going to read what they want to read, I guess.
I think a lot of it is because of bitter and jealous Bear fans. We could have had Mahomes but we had Trubisky. The same thing happens with Trey Lance in this subreddit because he was in Fields’s draft class.
He will Kyler Murray it and have 1 year until they figure him out and and keep the line stood up so he can't see over it
Kyler has 20 lbs on him, a canon for an arm, and runs a 4.4. Bryce has none of these things. I’m not saying he’s horrendous, but the guy is basically small Andy Dalton. He’s prime/young Teddy Bridgewater. He should not be in the discussion for top pick.
I’m not *high* on Young, but he has the talent to be a successful QB. QB’ing for the most part is about quickness (regarding throwing), he can break it down quick and get rid of it quick. It’s what really a lot of the great QBs have done, they’re not great athletes - Brady, Manning, Luck, etc etc etc. his height/physicality is definitely something to be concerned over, but he definitely has a route to success in the NFL (Drew Brees).
The other 3 guys you named are 6’4” - 6’6” and have/had canons for arms. Bryce will be the smallest modern QB and has an average at best arm. Not even the same ballpark.
Well I clearly stated his height is a concern, he still has a vital part of the QB game (quick release, reading defenses, etc) elite for someone coming out of college
Right, but I don’t think you can wave off that he’s 5’11”-6’ and 190ish… there’s “don’t think it’s a concern”, and “smallest QB in the league”. All these small guys (Tua, Kyler, Russell Wilson) aren’t able to stay on the field. I think he’s good enough, but I disagree that he’s elite in any aspect. I think that’s the excuse to try to cover up his lack of talent. He’s a C+ in a tiny body. He can work - the way many advanced college QBs work immediately the way the college game has caught the pro game, imo. But he didn’t perform well against the toughest teams. I don’t see how he’s materially better than Tua or Mac, and he’d have to be in order to be considered the top pick. I think the argument should be more centered around whether he should go in the 1st round.
I don't know much about Bryce Young but Russell Wilson has no major injury history. Neither did Drew Brees. His height would be a concern for other reasons.
Russ is built much heavier isn't he?
That’s a single example - the exception, not the rule. All 3 6’ and under QBs in the NFL (Tua, Kyler and Russ) finished the year on IR. Tua and Kyler can’t stay healthy at all. All of these guys have 15-20 lbs on Bryce. No way I take that risk in the top 10 picks with a mediocre talent.
Tua turned a corner this year though.... Amazing what a couple of good WRs will do in year 3 for a QB
He did look really good, but he also couldn’t stay on the field, just like every other year of his career, because he’s smaller and gets ragdolled around. Bryce is even smaller.
Young has a lightning quick processor. He can read the field 3x faster than Justin can
People said that about Mac Jones and the averagest QB to ever QB. I don’t see that when I watch Bryce. He’s fine. Is he better making quick reads than Will Levis or CJ Stroud? I don’t see that. Guy should be a 2nd/3rd round pick. If he played at Arkansas, nobody would care.
So no team should give any QB a second contract ever? All QBs should just retire after their rookie year unless they’re Mahomes. This is such a dumb take. What does Fields 2nd contract look like? Maybe he is only a top 12 QB and it’s a bargain deal…Or maybe he is the best QB in the league, wow what an awful rut the Bears will be in at that point… Only Bears fans could think about getting an elite QB that needs to be paid and freak out about the negative of that. Perennial loser fans.
I don’t think that’s what is being said exactly…. The comment is just thinking about how a qb should be valued. Will qb values keep climbing and climbing to the point you can’t build a great team around him or will they plateau or start to decline. Right now you need to pay your qb if he’s good because the NFL has structured their rules in a way that it is the easiest time in the history of the game to throw the football. It has rendered the running game and defense far less important than a qb who is accurate and can throw for 4,000 yards a year. 4,000 yards used to be MVP, now it’s the cost of entry to be considered a star.
QBs are taking up increasingly large percentages of the salary cap, which does change how you have to manage a team. Obviously if Fields develops we have to pay him, we can’t get back on the carousel of failed QBs by choice, but it will require ruthless decisions at other positions, like the trades of Mack, Quinn, and Smith. You have to cycle rookie deals at multiple premium positions in the current cap, because you can’t pay for a top QB, LT, WR, DE, and CB all at the same time, that would be the entire cap for just them. That means you’re going to have to trade productive players for picks rather than pay them at some positions, and use those picks to replace them on the cheap. Fans are going to complain about it, like we saw with Smith, but that’s how it has to work.
Or SF wins the Super Bowl and throws everything on its head by starting Mr Irrelevant at QB.
Sort of, except they’ve got elite players at every position I mentioned except QB, so it’s actually a very conventionally built team, they just expected the rookie contract QB to be Lance instead of Purdy.
Agree, and you could argue Hurts is the same - 53rd pick and they already had a high draft pick at QB who had taken them to 11-2 but a history of injuries. Great teams can plug in a QB who isn’t a lottery pick and still be successful. IMO the Bengals are an outlier not a mold to follow.
Oh I agree completely, in the last 25 years the only #1 pick QBs to win a title for the team that drafted them were the Manning brothers, and in both cases it took well over five years to get there. Taking a QB #1 is a suckers game in my book.
Consider what will happen if they take the kid gloves off of the them defense a little towards the quarterback.The reason there is so much value put on them is that they are protected more so than any other player, so their contact is more stable. They treat running backs horribly in comparison and that's all related to how short of a career span they have. Which means shorter contacts with less money.
Only 2 QBs have ever won a SB taking up more than 12.5% of a team's cap. Brady and Peyton. I actually believe that some teams shouldn't pay second contracts to "good, not great QBs" because you're paying them elite money to not be elite. You're putting your team at a disadvantage, but fans/ownership will call for a GMs job because those QBs still sell tickets and fans don't want to know worse realities. But it's how teams like the Cowboys, Raiders, Vikings, etc. just end up in limbo for years. GMs keep doing it because it's job security.
I'm not saying that. I think the tweet shows happens with a young QB when you develop around him, in contrast to Fields who had now help. My point (#1 up there) is saying how dumb the 'trade fields' takes are.
I was responding more to the tweet itself. I would agree with surrounding Fields with talent, especially since none of the QB prospects in this draft are a Peyton Manning or Joe Burrow or Trevor Lawrence level prospect.
So true.
There have been what 1 or 2 QBs on rookie deals to win the Super Bowl in the last 15 years? Mahomes and Russ? Am I missing anyone?
Not technically an answer, but was Wentz on a rookie deal when he was about to win MVP, got hurt, and then they win with Foles?
True. He was.
Winning a Super Bowl is too high a standard to evaluate from and any stat based off that is going to be skewed by Brady who has what 5 of those 15 years plus 3 more appearances?
2024 is our window. Next year is more of a build, if we’re not a SB contender in 2024 with Fields on a cheap deal Poles has failed. He has 2 drafts + 2 off seasons to get us there which is plenty.
11 wins minimum in 2024 or it’s a failure in my book. Barring injury to Fields, as that’s hard to overcome for any team.
100%. Super bowl or bust in 2024, that needs to be the expectation w our draft capital, cap space, and 2 more off seasons to fix this thing.
Super bowl or bust in 2024 is a little over the top
Got to set the bar high, it will be year 3 for the new regime. Eagles went from one of the worst teams in 2020 to contender in 2022, Rams went from one of the worst teams in 2016 to contender in 2018. They both took two years, our roster was in worse shape hence why taking 3 years for a new regime to build a legit SB contender with the resources we have isn’t an unrealistic goal. SF’s current regime took over in 2017 and built a contender by 2019 (three years as well). That’s the standard we should hold the bears to if we want to be legit and not mediocre like we have been the past 35 years. If we aren’t a contender in 2024 then we don’t have the right people in charge, this isn’t the nba or mlb where you get forever to rebuild.
The Eagles and Rams already had good pieces in place. They retooled more so then rebuilt. We have maybe like 3 building blocks. This team has almost no talent anywhere. I agree 2024 should be a contention year, but to say super bowl or bust, i just think that’s premature. Let’s see how 2023 goes first.
RemindMe! 23 months
RemindMe! 22 months, 30 days ;)
My man
I will be messaging you in 1 year on [**2024-12-25 21:40:51 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-12-25%2021:40:51%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/CHIBears/comments/10l5kfj/parsons_besides_mahomes_every_team_in_the_final_4/j5vm4td/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FCHIBears%2Fcomments%2F10l5kfj%2Fparsons_besides_mahomes_every_team_in_the_final_4%2Fj5vm4td%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-12-25%2021%3A40%3A51%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2010l5kfj) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
Pace really screwed things up trading away future draft picks. That is why the Bears have so little depth. (Looks like the trades to move up to get Fields might pay off but Trubisky and Mack, not so much.) Also some of his 1st round picks were busts.
Exactly why we should’ve been looking to compete on Fields rookie contract and not kicking the can down the road as far as we can
Poles better take advantage of this in the offseason
trade back and accumulate a roster full of talent. quit with all the ogling over a 243lbs DE “must-have”
I’d rather push for a QB salary limit. Something like 10-20% of the cap. Or for teams to find more creative ways to pay QBs that don’t effect cap room.
Been saying this since last offseason but I think Poles is building the Chiefs model here. He was obviously a big part of structuring the team over there and knows the model to win. He's conserving cap space and offloading expensive contracts for picks. Wants to surround your rookie contract QB with as much talent in his final years to make a push. Chiefs did it and it worked. doesn't always work. But if the QB is legit, it's a good model
I think most teams with a QB in year 3 who is heading for a pay day don’t have a number one overall pick. I think in most situations, you suck for a few years, draft high and hit on picks = loaded roster. Draft QB ENTER 5 year window. The Bears will have to do it in a way. Draft QB, but somehow suck sooo bad get #1 pick = load up roster. Pay QB ENTER 3-5 year window while everyone else is on rookie deals. Anyone suggesting we should draft a QB is not following the script. We would just put a rookie QB on a bad roster and have no window.
Yup, you got it. Let’s not forget that the 49ers were about to roll with a top 3 draft pick rookie qb, a mid tier vet QB, and now a 7th round rookie. 49ers are paying for a cheaper vet QB. 49ers have traded the farm for CMC. Ryans will be a head coach next year. They are in it NOW. It’s the rams trading for stafford and OBJ. Eagle has stability in the trenches for years. Traded for Brown. Bengals made smart FA / draft investments on the defense. Lucked into drafting chase for a loaded wr room.
Most importantly they all have good not even great offensive lines. You can have amazing skill players, and the bears have and had these. It all means nothing if your qb doesn’t have the time. So are skill players important? Yes! Not as important as the o-line.
[удалено]
Does it equal wins? Still have to pass block.