Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
***Chicago Bears Thread*** Poles is playing 5D chess! (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter flapgreen
- Start date
rockaction
Footballguy
JIMGET
Footballguy
That remains to be seen...
Good article on profootball talk, Raiders botched this, 2 first rounders is a no brainer for Mack. . Players like Mack don't grow on trees....https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/09/03/khalil-mack-trade-super-bowl-prediction-peter-king/
look at the last 10 Raider first-round picks: Robert Gallery, Fabian Washington, Michael Huff, Jamarcus Russell, Darren McFadden, Darrius Heyward-Bey, Rolando McClain, D.J. Hayden, Amari Cooper, Karl Joseph. Seven of those players were top 10 picks in the first round. But would you trade Mack for any two of them?
rockaction
Footballguy
I trade Mack for Rolando McClain's 2011 perp walk for simple and maximal entertainment
Last edited by a moderator:
flapgreen
Footballguy
Mr.Pack
Footballguy
Before I give you that one, I want to see what this new Packer regime will do.The Pack's glory days are slowly coming to an end. You guys have had a lot of good years, hell for most of my life. Time to hop in the backseat over the next couple seasons.
#notgoingdownwithoutafight
Mr.Pack
Footballguy
Mr.Pack
Footballguy
flapgreen
Footballguy
Mr.Pack
Footballguy
Make all the quips you want, but like it or not, the salary cap matters. $23.5M/yr is a hard pill to swallow, but missing two potential difference makers at reasonable first round contracts will hurt as well. This is a double whammy on the salary cap. It won't hurt this year and maybe not next year, but this will come back to haunt Pace (not that Mack will bust, but he's going to have major cap issues in 2-3 years at the rate he's going). Speaking of which, didn't Pace already make a wacky move to trade up for Trubisky when he didn't need to?
I'm not picking on your team. My team has been poorly run since conception. Charlie Casserly and Rick Smith were awful GMs. The book is not written on Pace, but he's not headed in the right direction. Same with Lynch in SF. Both are acting like their draft picks and salary cap are monopoly money.
flapgreen
Footballguy
That's how fans are. If their team does it, it's the best move ever. Instant Championship! If another team does it, well it's just a dumb move and their team still sucks. Typical stuff
Last edited by a moderator:
sublimeone
Footballguy
Pace has managed the cap very conservatively over his first few years. It's why the Bears were one of the few teams with the space to sign Mack. In 2-3 years the cap will have been increased 20-30 mil... and they won't have two first rounders to sign... the Bears cap is in very good shape.FF Ninja said:
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
For those of you thinking the Bears may be trying to move to fast with this rebuild I'll remind you that every year there's at least one team that goes from being terrible to a playoff team. The NFL is different than other leagues when it comes to turnaround. It's much easier for a team to make a drastic turnaround in the NFL than it is in other sports.
This does not guarantee the Bears will be a playoff team but it certainly increases their odds. The addition of Mack actually takes a little pressure off of Trubisky in my opinion. Trubisky no longer has to be really good to be a playoff team, they can probably accomplish that with average play from him.
This is the most exciting Bears roster in a very, very long time.
This does not guarantee the Bears will be a playoff team but it certainly increases their odds. The addition of Mack actually takes a little pressure off of Trubisky in my opinion. Trubisky no longer has to be really good to be a playoff team, they can probably accomplish that with average play from him.
This is the most exciting Bears roster in a very, very long time.
That is not a good thing. 1st rounders have a higher probability of succeeding, thus making their contracts a relative bargain. Having 1st round picks (and draft picks in general) is a key component to keeping your cap in working order. If you guys find yourself in need of plugging a roster hole, it is going to cost a LOT more than a 1st round contract would cost.
Of course it doesn't matter anymore. I'm just pointing out an example of him playing fast and loose with draft picks and also calling his decision making into question.
That being said, I thought the Allen Robinson contract was very reasonable compared to other WR contract this offseason. I mean, how did Watkins get a bigger contract??
Gustavo Fring
Footballguy
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
Peter King (who I generally dislike) did a good analysis of the salary cap implications of this deal that I agree with. The Bears came out favorably.
As a percentage of the cap his contract isn't killer at all. I think it's not really an issue.
My general observation is that 1sts are good to have to manage your cap AFTER you have a couple/few superstars on their team. As the Bears have NONE, it's okay that they splurged on Mack.
As a percentage of the cap his contract isn't killer at all. I think it's not really an issue.
My general observation is that 1sts are good to have to manage your cap AFTER you have a couple/few superstars on their team. As the Bears have NONE, it's okay that they splurged on Mack.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gustavo Fring
Footballguy
You can afford 23.5M/yr when you don't give #### contracts out. This is why Pace has been giving most players that were not sure things, one year deals. He's playing the cap game as well as anyone in the league right now.FF Ninja said:
I'm not saying it's impossible to afford $23.5M/yr or that it is impossible to recover from trading away two 1st round picks... I'm just saying it is probably very difficult to do both.
I like your team more than I like my own team, but I still don't like this trade and I don't like the pointless trade up to draft Trubisky. If I was a Bears fan, I'd be excited about this season, but I wouldn't be excited about Pace as my GM.
Pace has basically pushed all his chips in on Trubisky. The relatively cheap rookie deal is allowing him to look like he's better at managing a cap than he is. If Trubisky succeeds* and he has to re-sign him, he's going to be in trouble unless he hits on some of his later picks because he won't have those 1st round rookie picks from 2019 and 2020 to help keep the cap under control. Like look at this rookie contract (24th pick). Then compare that to this free agent contract or this or this.
*and if he doesn't succeed, good luck signing a free agent QB or drafting one without a 1st.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
Pace gave up two 3rds and a fourth. He didn't need to, of course, but the utility of those picks is negligible in the grand scheme.
I agree with your general dislike for King and I find this article to be more of the same from him: https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/09/03/khalil-mack-trade-super-bowl-prediction-peter-king/?utm_tags=nbcsemail1000
Of his 4 points:
1. an anecdote about the Patriots last drive of a super bowl and an anecdote about Oakland's drafting...
2. Oakland players are probably mad
3. Yeah, people should think of salaries as a % of the cap... no **** sherlock.
4. Again talked about % and makes a pointless "what if" statement
Gustavo Fring
Footballguy
Not even close in my opinion.
This is going all in on a QB:
Washington Redskins trade 2012 1st rounder, 2013 first rounder, 2014 first round, 2012 2nd rounder to the St. Louis Rams for Robert Griffin III.
Two of those first rounders above were top 10 picks. With the addition of Mack, even with the Bears giving away 2 future first rounders, if they make the playoffs (or even just miss), those are middle-to-late round first picks. You don't find too many generational players in the middle-to-late first round.
sublimeone
Footballguy
The cheap rookie deal for the QB is part of the equation. It's why the Rams were able to pay Donald. It's what the Seahawks were able to do with a their defense and a cheap Russell Wilson rookie contract. There won't be an issue resigning Trubisky in 4 years because the cap will have grown another $30 mil. The bears can also get out of the contract in 4 years without any dead money.
You aren't paying attention. I'm not saying he's all in because of what he paid for Trubisky (a head scratcher for sure, but that doesn't constitute being all in). He's all in on Trubisky because (1) he doesn't have any 1st round draft picks to replace him with a rookie and (2) he won't have the cap space to sign a FA to replace him.
You can't look at this as the Bears finding a generational talent for two 1st rounders because a 1st round contract looks like THIS, not THIS. The Bears paid two 1sts to get one year and exclusive negotiating rights with Mack. They paid a huge contract to keep him.
Exactly - that's why I'm saying he's all in. If Trubisky turns out to NOT be a cheap starting QB then Pace is up a river.
If Trubisky works out, it'll be ok... not great, but ok. Those 1st round picks have a lot of value if you hit on them. Not having them will be a limiting factor.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
#1 is self evident
#2 Is not true. His contract is approximately 14% of the next three year's cap - assuming no cap increase. That's not egregious. Plus they can get out of his contract in 2022 if necessary.
sublimeone
Footballguy
So your argument is that Pace should not have made this trade so that he can keep his first rounders to draft a QB in case Trubisky sucks? That sort of conservative thinking is good when you're rebuilding a team... but once you've selected a guy #2 overall, went out and found a bunch of weapons for him and built a top 10 defense... that's exactly the time to go all in.
Those first round picks have a lot of value... but one of those picks is Khalil Mack.
Gustavo Fring
Footballguy
(1) and (2) are completely irrelevant as the Bears didn't trade up for Trubisky to sign another free agent QB or take a QB in the first round within the next two years before his rookie deal is even up.
Even if #2 was relevant, it's not like there is a perennial Kirk Cousins type QB on the open market to break the bank for...that was just ANOTHER oversight by the Redskins.
When you roster 53 players, 14% on one guy is pretty big. Like I mentioned before, it is doable, but without those 1st round picks, any holes in your roster have to be plugged with expensive free agents. So you're not just spending 30% on two players, you are overspending on any other positions of need that come up in the following years, too.
No, one of those picks isn't Mack. Because Mack is on a non-rookie contract.
And no, what I'm saying is that this is a very risky move and I'm not sure you had to pay that much. Supposedly other teams were offering two 1sts, but is that true? How many teams could offer two 1sts AND had the cap space to sign him long term? Chicago will be a fun team to watch this year. I'd just be very worried about the future if I was you guys.
So you think even if he flops this year they should just keep trotting him out there for the next two years? That's a solid strategy.
Gustavo Fring
Footballguy
Yes, you have to give the guy more than two years. They are not the Cleveland Browns here trying to hit a QB every year in the first round (and failing to do so).
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
You keep talking about picks plural. They effectively gave up one 1st and used the other on Mack. But then they gained position by moving the 2020 3rd up to a 2nd.
So the net loss of draft capital is not that large, especially considering the elite player they gained.
Actual experts or talking heads? Talking heads love splash moves. Just about every big move is initially lauded. Doesn't mean much.
No, that's definitely not effectively what happened. They effectively gave up two 1st round picks to get exclusive negotiating rights to sign a FA + 1 year of his services under a rookie contract. If they effectively used their 2019 1st on Mack then he'd be getting paid maybe $9M/year.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
Gustavo Fring
Footballguy
I don't what's more comical - you trying to spin this as a bad trade for the Bears or Jon Gruden trying to defend his position of trading away his best player. Keep up the good work.
I'm not saying it's good or bad. I'm saying it's extremely risky and after the dumb move Pace made last year I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt. As for Gruden, he is also not getting the benefit of the doubt. Why did they cut Crabtree only to pay Jordy Nelson more? That's just one of the many head scratchers going on in Oakland.
The smart move here would've been Oakland paying Mack what Chicago paid Mack. If they just couldn't find a way to do it, getting two 1st round picks from a team that will probably miss the playoffs the next two years was a pretty good consolation prize.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
smh... they will have those draft picks AND the extra cap space to approximate Mack's value. Why do people keep ignoring the draft capital or the salary cap? They are both factors here. Again, Oakland re-signing him would be ideal for them. I'm just saying the draft picks are a nice consolation prize.
They probably won't do it (approximate Mack's value), because look at what they've been doing so far this offseason - a bunch of nonsensical crap. But if Chicago finishes last in their division the next two years (very possible) then a good GM should be able to work with whatever two 1st round draft picks that equates to and find some FA talent with the extra cash.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gustavo Fring
Footballguy
Fair enough - I don't see the extreme risk you are referring to. I haven't looked at the actual numbers but I'd be willing to bet there are not too many first round talents who have accumulated 40.5 sacks in their first 4 seasons in the NFL. Mack's presence alone is going to shake up the NFC North.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
You're right. I've also been trying to explain the effect of draft picks on the salary cap as well as the risk involved with rolling with a 2nd year QB with zero contingency plan for years 3 and 4. It was too much for one class.
