Bears 2024: 5.0 It's Caleb Williams time

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

This is what happens when you draft a punter in the 4th round some scouts are going to just get up and walk TF out of the building.

I wonder if there were some grumblings for making that pick. This and the incident which could have been nothing with Poles and Flus after Kiran was drafted. I'd like to see some behind the scenes footage of the war room.

[Dresden]

The part that we are missing in this conversation, is that there was no imperative to have 28 year old Montez Sweat on this team.

montez sweat was 27 years, 2 months old when we traded for him and continues to be 27 years old

When your team is dead last in the league in sacks that's a pretty strong imperative to try to do something to improve in that area. And Poles made the right choice by trading for Sweat and not Chase Young, who was very underwhelming with SF.

[Dresden]

Just because a trade or a draft pick doesn't work out doesn't mean it was a mistake. You aren't going to be able to foretell what's going to happen with each move you make.

I agree. Thematically, trading draft picks for guys on expiring deals is something that I would say is almost exclusively a bad idea, and it seems to be one of Poles go to moves. The reason it is bad is because in a hard capped league, you win by having the best total value per dollar, and draft picks in the first 3 rounds typically have very high value per dollar, and FAs typically have very low value per dollar, this type of transaction then is highly likely to be a net loser in value per dollar.

As for luck, even if CAR had not ended up with the worst record in the league last year, that trade was still a huge win for CHI. Poles knew this would be a much better year for QB's than last year, and for waiting a year, he added DJ Moore, Tyrique Stevenson, Darnell Wright, and a '25 2nd round pick plus the CAR pick.

Poles was lucky to have the #1 pick to trade to Carolina, it took a colossal error on the part of Houston winning the finale for that to happen. When he had that pick, a franchise QB (Stroud) was available, and he didn't take him and instead gambled on Fields. Hopefully Williams is as good or better. Fingers crossed.

And if he had taken Stroud, you could easily say that would have been a massive stroke of luck too, since the majority of analysts felt like Bryce Young was the better choice, and no one saw Stroud having the type of rookie season he had (and most likely would not have had with the Bears).

The thing about value is theoretical. It only translates into wins if the guys you pick end up being good. With Sweat, we got a guy who already had proven himself as being pretty good, and he proved that here. So part of the premium you paid to get him is due too the fact that you're getting a proven player, instead of some theoretical value of a draft pick. It's why the bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. The odds that a second round pick would be as productive as Sweat is pretty low.

[jnrjr79]

How about after his birthday in September? What he is right now in April means nothing as far as that goes. He’s a older guy we don’t actually need in the present as much as we need a younger guy on a rookie deal in sync with this team’s timeline. And the money can be spent elsewhere when the time comes.

This is crazy! Spending on win-now older vets is precisely what you’re supposed to do when Caleb is on his rookie deal. The time to take the re-up in the draft approach is when Caleb is on his 2nd contract.

No doubt. But, #1, this Sweat deal was done even before the Bears had the top pick.

That doesn't matter. It's pretty clear the Bears knew they were drafting someone and resetting the clock on the QB contract rather than sticking with Fields or pursuing a veteran.

And #2, burning high picks for expiring vets *Doug* in the process is not what you’re supposed to do, really ever. Unless you’re going for the Superbowl or bust this year in Caleb’s rookie season? The 49ers only spent a third rounder (Young deal), and they are the team actually in the rare circumstance for this pick burning to ever be advisable imo.

Yes, the Bears are trying to win right freaking now. This is not dissimilar than, say, Brock Purdy and the Niners, except the Bears obviously think Caleb will be better. The Bears are trying to put a win-now roster around Caleb immediately. This is smart, because you're not wasting a year of his rookie contract.

This Bears team should soon enter a 5 to 8 year window of contention. Keep getting even younger via the draft in ‘24 for my money. Keep picking. Spend on top of that on what shakes loose in free agency. Reassess in ‘25.

No, let's not tread water for a year for no reason. Let's capitalize now on Caleb's rookie contract. Sweat's contract lines up well - he'll be off the books when it's time to pay Caleb. It's precisely what the Bears should be doing in this specific circumstance and something they won't have the luxury of doing some years from now, assuming Caleb pans out.

[Dresden]

How about after his birthday in September? What he is right now in April means nothing as far as that goes. He’s a older guy we don’t actually need in the present as much as we need a younger guy on a rookie deal in sync with this team’s timeline. And the money can be spent elsewhere when the time comes.

This is crazy! Spending on win-now older vets is precisely what you’re supposed to do when Caleb is on his rookie deal. The time to take the re-up in the draft approach is when Caleb is on his 2nd contract.

No doubt. But, #1, this Sweat deal was done even before the Bears had the top pick. And #2, burning high picks for expiring vets *Doug* in the process is not what you’re supposed to do, really ever. Unless you’re going for the Superbowl or bust this year in Caleb’s rookie season? The 49ers only spent a third rounder (Young deal), and they are the team actually in the rare circumstance for this pick burning to ever be advisable imo. This Bears team should soon enter a 5 to 8 year window of contention. Keep getting even younger via the draft in ‘24 for my money. Keep picking. Spend on top of that on what shakes loose in free agency. Reassess in ‘25.

And the 49'ers got very little production out of Chase. He was even called out in one of their playoffs games for poor effort, and they didn't even try to re-sign him. Sometimes you get what you pay for.

[Dresden]

Don't forget to mention that Brian Burns cost more in both draft capital and AAV and they're roughly the same level player.

High end DEs just entering their prime don't hit the open market often and if they do - you're looking at competing with 31 other teams to get them to come here.

And odds are whatever team grabbed Sweat in a mid-season trade would do their best to lock him up so he wouldn't even hit the open market, just like the Bears did. Trading for him was really the only realistic shot.

If you had to have him. Arguably, you didn’t. A Flus on the hot seat did, in 2023.

And where would we be right now without him? We'd have 0 starting Edges, and would be relying on a rookie 2nd round pick to be our best pass rusher. Another year with a terrible D line. No thanks. You have to start someplace, putting one piece in place after another. Sweat is a good foundational piece for the line, and he's not that old to be merely a stopgap measure.

[dougthonus]

And if he had taken Stroud, you could easily say that would have been a massive stroke of luck too, since the majority of analysts felt like Bryce Young was the better choice, and no one saw Stroud having the type of rookie season he had (and most likely would not have had with the Bears).

The thing about value is theoretical. It only translates into wins if the guys you pick end up being good. With Sweat, we got a guy who already had proven himself as being pretty good, and he proved that here. So part of the premium you paid to get him is due too the fact that you're getting a proven player, instead of some theoretical value of a draft pick. It's why the bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. The odds that a second round pick would be as productive as Sweat is pretty low.

It's fine.

It seems that everyone thinks when we were making win now trades when we were 3-5 and Poles didn't feel we were a terrible team but instead should add to it by vastly overpaying for a bust, and then losing every game the rest of the year and in actuality being the worst team in the NFL, that this was all part of his brilliance.

In the end some true statements:
1: He thought the team was worth adding on to and was trying to win
2: His assessment of the situation was so far off that we were the worst team in the league
3: It took a miracle of stupidity by Houston for us to get the #1 pick
4: Without all of the above (which would actually point to Poles being comically far off in his assessment and actions) we would not have had the #1 pick and none of the good things that have happened would have happened

Like I said, I'm not trying to rip Poles, but if you look at how we arrived at all the important parts of this situation that make it good, the key piece is based on a complete and utter misevaluation by Poles, happened in spite of Poles direct efforts to try to make it not happen, and were aided by a comic blunder by the Texans.

Poles made what ended up being an amazing trade out of that #1, Poles made some quality picks the next year as well.

I don't hate Poles or anything, I don't think he's awful like I would think AK or Pace were awful. I think he's fine. However, thematically, he does a lot of things that give away value, has had the most luck in the NFL in his tenure of any GM and isn't really a huge part of making that luck, but I do think strategically he is thinking the right way about timelines and big macro decisions which isn't something I would have said about Pace or AK.

[Dresden]

This is what happens when you draft a punter in the 4th round some scouts are going to just get up and walk TF out of the building.

I wonder if there were some grumblings for making that pick. This and the incident which could have been nothing with Poles and Flus after Kiran was drafted. I'd like to see some behind the scenes footage of the war room.

C'mon, you really think a scout would quit over a 4th round draft choice? And quit an org. with so much excitement and promise as the Bears?

[El Ridda]

This is what happens when you draft a punter in the 4th round some scouts are going to just get up and walk TF out of the building.

I wonder if there were some grumblings for making that pick. This and the incident which could have been nothing with Poles and Flus after Kiran was drafted. I'd like to see some behind the scenes footage of the war room.

C'mon, you really think a scout would quit over a 4th round draft choice? And quit an org. with so much excitement and promise as the Bears?

Totally. Where does this stuff come from. It’s like Russell Crow taping up newspapers looking for patterns that don’t exist in A Beautiful Mind.

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

This is what happens when you draft a punter in the 4th round some scouts are going to just get up and walk TF out of the building.

I wonder if there were some grumblings for making that pick. This and the incident which could have been nothing with Poles and Flus after Kiran was drafted. I'd like to see some behind the scenes footage of the war room.

C'mon, you really think a scout would quit over a 4th round draft choice? And quit an org. with so much excitement and promise as the Bears?

No but maybe they said something to get fired. I’m just curious is all, relax.

[Jeffster81]

This is what happens when you draft a punter in the 4th round some scouts are going to just get up and walk TF out of the building.

I wonder if there were some grumblings for making that pick. This and the incident which could have been nothing with Poles and Flus after Kiran was drafted. I'd like to see some behind the scenes footage of the war room.

C'mon, you really think a scout would quit over a 4th round draft choice? And quit an org. with so much excitement and promise as the Bears?

Thank you. My guess is that these two scouts put their notice in long before the draft and they stay on until the draft was over. I doubt they are leaving because of a draft pick.

[jnrjr79]

And if he had taken Stroud, you could easily say that would have been a massive stroke of luck too, since the majority of analysts felt like Bryce Young was the better choice, and no one saw Stroud having the type of rookie season he had (and most likely would not have had with the Bears).

The thing about value is theoretical. It only translates into wins if the guys you pick end up being good. With Sweat, we got a guy who already had proven himself as being pretty good, and he proved that here. So part of the premium you paid to get him is due too the fact that you're getting a proven player, instead of some theoretical value of a draft pick. It's why the bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. The odds that a second round pick would be as productive as Sweat is pretty low.

It's fine.

It seems that everyone thinks when we were making win now trades when we were 3-5 and Poles didn't feel we were a terrible team but instead should add to it by vastly overpaying for a bust, and then losing every game the rest of the year and in actuality being the worst team in the NFL, that this was all part of his brilliance.

In the end some true statements:
1: He thought the team was worth adding on to and was trying to win
2: His assessment of the situation was so far off that we were the worst team in the league

No, I don't think so. I think he just wanted Claypool to foster Fields' development. He wasn't tanking, but I doubt he thought the team was super good, either.

3: It took a miracle of stupidity by Houston for us to get the #1 pick

It wasn't stupidity. Lovie knew he was going to be fired and he tried to win a game. He didn't care what happened to the pick.

4: Without all of the above (which would actually point to Poles being comically far off in his assessment and actions) we would not have had the #1 pick and none of the good things that have happened would have happened

Again, there's no apparent daylight between Poles' assessment and reality. Yes, the Bears wouldn't have had the #1 pick absent some luck in the Carolina trade, but even if the pick were a bit later, the trade would remain exceptionally good.

[NecessaryEvil]

Anyone else get their Caleb jersey?

Fanatics had a deal for $44.99. 75% off.

Sheesh, hell of a deal

But I want an Odenze jersey, personally

[greenwing]

I'm a Bears fan but I will be the first to admit that I do not know NFL history nearly as intimately as I know the NBA. For any who believe that guys like Mahomes or Stroud would not have had success here had we drafted them, can anyone name an example of a stud quarterback who went from a bad situation to a good one that showed massive growth when they went for a change of scenery? I can understand with a bad O-line it will make the best of quarterbacks look pedestrian. But great QB's IMO tend to make the most of what they have and still look good. I see that argument a lot that guys like Mahomes and Stroud would have been bad in Chicago but I'm not so sure. I would be very curious to see if anyone can name some examples of QB's doing fantastic in new situations when they were poor performing QB's initially.

[dougthonus]

No, I don't think so. I think he just wanted Claypool to foster Fields' development. He wasn't tanking, but I doubt he thought the team was super good, either.

But he clearly didn't think we were the worst team in the league which is the sole thing that has put the Bears in this position. He made a move with a big asset to try and improve the team immediately. If he was successful in that move instead of critically failing, then we wouldn't be in a good position. We are in this position explicitly because he failed.

It wasn't stupidity. Lovie knew he was going to be fired and he tried to win a game. He didn't care what happened to the pick.

If you are counting on a team that could have the #1 pick unless they win their final game, and that team wins the final game, it is colossal stupidity on the part of that other team. Perhaps not on Lovie, but on their ownership for letting it happen. It's also just something amazingly unlikely to happen and completely out of our control.

Again, there's no apparent daylight between Poles' assessment and reality. Yes, the Bears wouldn't have had the #1 pick absent some luck in the Carolina trade, but even if the pick were a bit later, the trade would remain exceptionally good.

If Poles was successful with his win now trade to juice the Bears, and instead of losing out the rest of the way, they won 3 games and picked 9th, the Bears are still one of the bottom feeders in the NFC right now with no meaningful future. That's just the reality of the situation.

It's fine if you want to say, Poles got lucky here, but I like his other moves. I have no problem with that (and it's totally reasonable), but this was an absolute insane amount of luck that went directly against his intentions and thoughts about the team, and represents probably 90% of the reason you are now excited about the Bears.

[ThisGuyFawkes]

I'm a Bears fan but I will be the first to admit that I do not know NFL history nearly as intimately as I know the NBA. For any who believe that guys like Mahomes or Stroud would not have had success here had we drafted them, can anyone name an example of a stud quarterback who went from a bad situation to a good one that showed massive growth when they went for a change of scenery? I can understand with a bad O-line it will make the best of quarterbacks look pedestrian. But great QB's IMO tend to make the most of what they have and still look good. I see that argument a lot that guys like Mahomes and Stroud would have been bad in Chicago but I'm not so sure. I would be very curious to see if anyone can name some examples of QB's doing fantastic in new situations when they were poor performing QB's initially.

Yeah, there's not a lot of examples like that. Maybe Brees?

[Chi town]

Anyone else get their Caleb jersey?

Fanatics had a deal for $44.99. 75% off.

Sheesh, hell of a deal

But I want an Odenze jersey, personally

They had the same deal for Odunze.

Pre order. Don’t know when we actually get them.

[CBS7]

I'm a Bears fan but I will be the first to admit that I do not know NFL history nearly as intimately as I know the NBA. For any who believe that guys like Mahomes or Stroud would not have had success here had we drafted them, can anyone name an example of a stud quarterback who went from a bad situation to a good one that showed massive growth when they went for a change of scenery? I can understand with a bad O-line it will make the best of quarterbacks look pedestrian. But great QB's IMO tend to make the most of what they have and still look good. I see that argument a lot that guys like Mahomes and Stroud would have been bad in Chicago but I'm not so sure. I would be very curious to see if anyone can name some examples of QB's doing fantastic in new situations when they were poor performing QB's initially.

Its hard to say because those first 2-3 seasons are massive for QB development. You can coach good habits and coach out bad habits. But if they play for 2-3 seasons in bad situations with bad coaching they can easily build habits that will stick with them the rest of their careers.

IMO a great QB coach and situation can change the trajectory of a player's career in the first 2-3 years. Its one of those things you can just never have the real answer to though.

[jnrjr79]

No, I don't think so. I think he just wanted Claypool to foster Fields' development. He wasn't tanking, but I doubt he thought the team was super good, either.

But he clearly didn't think we were the worst team in the league which is the sole thing that has put the Bears in this position. He made a move with a big asset to try and improve the team immediately. If he was successful in that move instead of critically failing, then we wouldn't be in a good position. We are in this position explicitly because he failed.

I think you're just framing this incorrectly. I don't think Poles probably believed Claypool would add a ton of wins. He was acquired mostly to facilitate development for Justin. As we saw last year, having a super productive receiver on the squad didn't suddenly make the Bears offensive dynamos. But I agree Poles was willing to allow the team to become better to try to develop Justin, which is perfectly sensible, even though the trade itself was bad because Claypool was a bad target for that type of trade. IMO, Poles probably wasn't viewing the goal that season in terms of wins and losses, but rather "we've got two years to figure out whether this guy is a franchise QB" and viewed answering that question as the first priority.

It wasn't stupidity. Lovie knew he was going to be fired and he tried to win a game. He didn't care what happened to the pick.

If you are counting on a team that could have the #1 pick unless they win their final game, and that team wins the final game, it is colossal stupidity on the part of that other team. Perhaps not on Lovie, but on their ownership for letting it happen. It's also just something amazingly unlikely to happen and completely out of our control.

Nobody was "counting on" it. I'm not sure why you would think that.

I don't know how an owner isn't supposed to "let" a team win. This stuff happens all the time. Coaches and players try to win games.

I agree that result was incredibly lucky and out of the Bears' control.

Again, there's no apparent daylight between Poles' assessment and reality. Yes, the Bears wouldn't have had the #1 pick absent some luck in the Carolina trade, but even if the pick were a bit later, the trade would remain exceptionally good.

If Poles was successful with his win now trade to juice the Bears, and instead of losing out the rest of the way, they won 3 games and picked 9th, the Bears are still one of the bottom feeders in the NFC right now with no meaningful future. That's just the reality of the situation.

It's fine if you want to say, Poles got lucky here, but I like his other moves. I have no problem with that (and it's totally reasonable), but this was an absolute insane amount of luck that went directly against his intentions and thoughts about the team, and represents probably 90% of the reason you are now excited about the Bears.

It's definitely not 90%, FWIW. But it was a huge deal for sure.

Poles didn't make a "win now trade to juice the Bears," but even if you think he did, you have no idea (because nobody can) how the team would have been constructed if it had the 9th pick that year. It's certainly not inevitable that the Bears could have improved the team markedly even from that position.

Poles obviously got lucky with this trade. That doesn't mean it wasn't a great move (and you need to recall lots of people were immediately critical of the trade when it was made, both for its terms and for not waiting until closer to the draft to see if he could do better). I also think every good team had to have luck break their way, so I don't really view that as somehow reducing the credit the GM should get for putting the team in that position.

IMO, it just seems like you're approaching this with a form of bias that amounts to "the good things Poles did were luck and the bad things he did were stupidity."

[NesimLE]

I'm a Bears fan but I will be the first to admit that I do not know NFL history nearly as intimately as I know the NBA. For any who believe that guys like Mahomes or Stroud would not have had success here had we drafted them, can anyone name an example of a stud quarterback who went from a bad situation to a good one that showed massive growth when they went for a change of scenery? I can understand with a bad O-line it will make the best of quarterbacks look pedestrian. But great QB's IMO tend to make the most of what they have and still look good. I see that argument a lot that guys like Mahomes and Stroud would have been bad in Chicago but I'm not so sure. I would be very curious to see if anyone can name some examples of QB's doing fantastic in new situations when they were poor performing QB's initially.

Its hard to say because those first 2-3 seasons are massive for QB development. You can coach good habits and coach out bad habits. But if they play for 2-3 seasons in bad situations with bad coaching they can easily build habits that will stick with them the rest of their careers.

IMO a great QB coach and situation can change the trajectory of a player's career in the first 2-3 years. Its one of those things you can just never have the real answer to though.

Jay Cutler is an example of the inverse though? A pro bowl QB who declined when he went to a worse situation. There probably aren’t many examples like that though, since good QBs are rarely on the market. Watson has declined since leaving, but he’s got extenuating circumstances I guess.
Geno Smith and Baker Mayfield are recent guys who’ve improved in new situations.