There is just so much wrong with using this comparison. Maybe the best way to deal with it is the simplest.
All three teams have HOF level QBs who can put a team on their back and win games. And with the possible exception of NE when those QBs can't play due to injury GB and Pitt often lose. What's happened to GB this year after Rodgers went down? They're 7-8 and out of the playoffs. We can add to this that GM Ted Thompson has taken heat from both GB fans and from his own HC for NOT doing more in FA to add talent and bolster depth and depending too much on Rodgers to win games.
Since all three teams also carry expensive QBs and pay heavily for offensive support for them cap considerations could also be in the picture. I don't know all that much about Pitt and NE but I talk with Packer fans all the time and they are not pleased that Thompson ignores FA as often as he does. When Rodgers gets injured the Packers lack of talent and depth is exposed and this has happened twice over the past few years. So let's not go using GB as an example of how to do it.
If Trumaine Johnson is coming to the market I rather we overpay for him then Fuller seeing that Johnson is just a much more talented CB. 10 million a year for Fuller is his price but in the position we're in. I'd be ok with 12 million but no to 14 million. I rather not overpay for an inconsistent CB.
The big concern I have with Fuller is, will he play at this high level once Fangio is gone?
There was a lot of speculation a week or so ago about does Fuller want to stay. He might want to go to a competitive team. Much like AJ. If that is the case money will never be an issue (meaning we couldn't pay enough).
That's only partially true. Money always talks and with NFL players and their short careers when they come off their rookie deals lined up for that one big deal they're in line for it not only talks, it shouts very loudly.
If Pace had stopped dicking around and offered AJ something close to what he wanted we could have kept him. But with he combination of that and the uncertainty at QB he elected to go where there was not an unstable QB situation and take an incentivized deal. He cashed in on that too.
Fuller's situation is a bit different because he's coming off a strong showing, he's younger, and his stock is on the rise. It's also a year when both the UFA and Draft CB supply is thin. He's always been a good zone CB but this year he finally learned how to play well in man coverage which will also boost his value.
Part of this equation is also getting him to understand the Bears want him to stay and are willing to show that with a market value offer. We failed to do that with AJ so his attitude became if you aren't loyal to me I see no reason to return that loyalty. Personally I think Pace really dropped the ball on that one.
So here we are again with a former high pick we need to keep needing to be re-signed. Has Pace learned anything from his failure with AJ? I believe if they want him then Pace, the new HC and his DC need to convey that to Fuller and then put the money on the table without dicking him around like we did with AJ. Focks may have been behind that one too.
This is how you get a deal done and keep your own.
We've been talking about signing UFA WRs and Davante Adams name has come up. As expected GB jumped it and signed him to a 4 year extension that averages $14.7 mil per year. CBs will probably be getting deals that are at least close to this as well. Top talent costs money and it's usually better to do what GB has done and keep your own FAs than to shop for someone else's.
There was a lot of speculation a week or so ago about does Fuller want to stay. He might want to go to a competitive team. Much like AJ. If that is the case money will never be an issue (meaning we couldn't pay enough).
That's only partially true. Money always talks and with NFL players and their short careers when they come off their rookie deals lined up for that one big deal they're in line for it not only talks, it shouts very loudly.
If Pace had stopped dicking around and offered AJ something close to what he wanted we could have kept him. But with he combination of that and the uncertainty at QB he elected to go where there was not an unstable QB situation and take an incentivized deal. He cashed in on that too.
Fuller's situation is a bit different because he's coming off a strong showing, he's younger, and his stock is on the rise. It's also a year when both the UFA and Draft CB supply is thin. He's always been a good zone CB but this year he finally learned how to play well in man coverage which will also boost his value.
Part of this equation is also getting him to understand the Bears want him to stay and are willing to show that with a market value offer. We failed to do that with AJ so his attitude became if you aren't loyal to me I see no reason to return that loyalty. Personally I think Pace really dropped the ball on that one.
So here we are again with a former high pick we need to keep needing to be re-signed. Has Pace learned anything from his failure with AJ? I believe if they want him then Pace, the new HC and his DC need to convey that to Fuller and then put the money on the table without dicking him around like we did with AJ. Focks may have been behind that one too.
This is how you get a deal done and keep your own.
We've been talking about signing UFA WRs and Davante Adams name has come up. As expected GB jumped it and signed him to a 4 year extension that averages $14.7 mil per year. CBs will probably be getting deals that are at least close to this as well. Top talent costs money and it's usually better to do what GB has done and keep your own FAs than to shop for someone else's.
+1 The Bears are already in a hole talent wise, trying desperately to play "catch up" upgrading the roster (starters AND depth quality). Success in FA begins with signing your own guys if they are good. If the team just gets a good player for his draft contract years and then loses him, well, then you have to keep back-filling good players AND ALSO keep grinding to get all of the EXISTING talent holes filled. You can't win that way. No way you ever get the roster where it ultimately needs to be.
That's only partially true. Money always talks and with NFL players and their short careers when they come off their rookie deals lined up for that one big deal they're in line for it not only talks, it shouts very loudly.
If Pace had stopped dicking around and offered AJ something close to what he wanted we could have kept him. But with he combination of that and the uncertainty at QB he elected to go where there was not an unstable QB situation and take an incentivized deal. He cashed in on that too.
Fuller's situation is a bit different because he's coming off a strong showing, he's younger, and his stock is on the rise. It's also a year when both the UFA and Draft CB supply is thin. He's always been a good zone CB but this year he finally learned how to play well in man coverage which will also boost his value.
Part of this equation is also getting him to understand the Bears want him to stay and are willing to show that with a market value offer. We failed to do that with AJ so his attitude became if you aren't loyal to me I see no reason to return that loyalty. Personally I think Pace really dropped the ball on that one.
So here we are again with a former high pick we need to keep needing to be re-signed. Has Pace learned anything from his failure with AJ? I believe if they want him then Pace, the new HC and his DC need to convey that to Fuller and then put the money on the table without dicking him around like we did with AJ. Focks may have been behind that one too.
This is how you get a deal done and keep your own.
We've been talking about signing UFA WRs and Davante Adams name has come up. As expected GB jumped it and signed him to a 4 year extension that averages $14.7 mil per year. CBs will probably be getting deals that are at least close to this as well. Top talent costs money and it's usually better to do what GB has done and keep your own FAs than to shop for someone else's.
+1 The Bears are already in a hole talent wise, trying desperately to play "catch up" upgrading the roster (starters AND depth quality). Success in FA begins with signing your own guys if they are good. If the team just gets a good player for his draft contract years and then loses him, well, then you have to keep back-filling good players AND ALSO keep grinding to get all of the EXISTING talent holes filled. You can't win that way. No way you every get the roster where it ultimately needs to be.
100% of this is true. Like I posted previously when were retaining our best guys by extending them before they hit FA we were keeping a solid core of defensive players together; Urlacher, Briggs, Peanut, Brown, etc. Then we stopped doing it, shed talent we didn't replace and went into the shitter. That has to stop or as you say we'll always be playing catch up.
The other thing I'm trying to impress on everyone is to forget all of the big numbers in these deal others are getting and focus on just what amount is guaranteed and how the deal is structured. In most cases 4-5 year deals are really only 2-3 year deal with team options for the last two years. If a guy isn't earning the money the team cuts or trades him.
So no matter what Kyle Fuller signs for all that really matters is what he's guaranteed. Cutler's deal was for $126.7 mil and he saw less than half of that. I have no problem with giving Fuller a $24-$25 mil guarantee or even a bit more to have him for at least two more years and maybe more. Whether we gamble with him or we gamble with a draftee it's still gonna be a gamble but Fuller is more of a sure thing.
GB/NE/Pitt disagrees w/you. They rarely jump into the FA pond, and when they do it's rarely for a top $ player; it's actually something that's well reported on for GB. The one real exception was J Peppers.; and even then it wasn't a top deal, he was the 37th highest paid DE in 2014. Really NE doesn't normally dip into the top FA pool either, and this year when they did, boy did they miss. All this is easily searched for on Google. Can you jump up like Den for a few years, is there an exception like Sea but the best teams DON'T go around signing top $ FA's; it just doesn't happen. Teams like Buff(remember mario williams, how much winning did he help), Mia(Suh, help Miami much?), Ari(C Jones not helping) Jax and the Browns sign $$$ Fa's, a bastion of nfl consistency and Sb winning if you've ever seen one.
I've never said it's not a viable option to help build the team; I've just said you don't have to spend top $$$'s in it to succeed(who's twisting who's words now), and I've pointed to the Bears own history of signing players as a point to that; you don't like it so you ignore or deflect.
What facts have you shown that show that FA has consistently helped the best teams in the league stay on top? What teams have you pointed to; what players have you mentioned helped their teams to SB's? You have a theory and refuse to jump off it dispite what anyone points to. We had this conversation all summer and your mantra of "market value" regardless of information given to you. Hell the Bears did pay top dollar to Glennon; PFF(if you like them for ratings some do I don't) had Glennon as the 2nd best QB FA this year, Walter had him rated 5th(really 4th they had romo in there but he retired and unlike Cutler didn't re sign). Paying "market value" didn't work out so well there did it? How did Mia paying "market value" to Cutler help them after Tanne went down? They could have gone sub .500 w/any backup qb.
"GB does not. And we can focus on the fact that they rarely do it or we can focus on the part where he made a huge contribution to the team. The bottom line for me is that I have built businesses. When I look at this model where you have limited places to make your team better I understand that you need to be able to play in both the draft and FA to make your team better."
But he was not a Top $$$ FA; whichi s my point. The rest we agree on. Again I'm not anti FA. I'm anti, go find the biggest name and pay whatever it takes; see NE and Gilmore as the prime example, see my prev posts about Bears prev FA's to further that point.
"You can't suck at the draft (Browns) and make your team better. You can't suck at FA and make your team better. FA is harder because it entails not only evaluation but you have other teams competing and you have to actually bid correctly for services. However, you have already seen a player and what he can do in the NFL. Evaluation should be easier."
It should make it easier, but the other issue is, does he play in the same scheme, and how are the players around him helping him or hurting him? It's the problem w/all evaluations. Does he fit the scheme; how are the players around him effecting his play, and do we have similar talent that will help/hurt him?
" You have different skill sets required to do both. Any team that walks away from either because they can't seem to get it right is limiting their ability to make their team better. The solution is not to paint FA as a limited use avenue. The solution is to get good at it."
Making an assumption that isn't true here. No one, no where said walk away b/c it's hard or you aren't good at it.
"The fact that NE rarely spends big has nothing to do with this. The premise not that you have to spend big. The premise is that you have to actively use FA tobe tter your team. You need to get difference makers. "
Your premise all year was to "pay market value" IE pay more then what the other team was going to pay(b/c the tie was always going to go to NE regarding Gilmore which is where this all started), so maybe the premise wasn't meant to be, or wasn't intended to come off as spend big, but it's what it became. Again we can agree FA is a tool to help make the team better, it just doesn't mean grabbing the names the news tells you are the must haves. It's normally the guys you don't think are going to be the ones that help; see Freeman(year 1) and Prince A this year.
"Sometimes you can do that without breaking the bank. Sometimes you have to spend bug to get the difference maker that your team needs. Then even more skills come into play such as CAP management, the effect of a large amount of money on one position for the team and the effects on the other players.... it's complicated."
How did spending big to get the best FA's help Buff, Jax, AZ, Mia? If by sometimes you mean, well ya but sometimes I might win the lottery, doesn't mean i'm going to use that as my rinvestment plan. It's complicated and it's a problem. You go spending top money on top FA's and you end up having to make tough choices about that home grown talent that motm wants to all of a sudden reward like GB did w/Adams.
"Most teams don't want to deal with it. Money is always made where others fear to tread. AS LONG AS THERE IS A BENEFIT IN IT. And there IS a benefit to mastering FA. You don't make money by mindlessly walking in. You ned to go after it and get good at it.
You don't have to agree. FA won't go away if you don't. It doesn't care. But The Bears need both to be a top talent machine."
Teams don't fear FA, most teams in fact over use it and over spend on it b/c it gets them in the news and gets fans excited and has them going out buying jersey's.
Again, we agree FA can benefit, the disagreement comes from the idea of paying whatever to get whoever b/c of name recognition.
There is just so much wrong with using this comparison. Maybe the best way to deal with it is the simplest.
All three teams have HOF level QBs who can put a team on their back and win games. And with the possible exception of NE when those QBs can't play due to injury GB and Pitt often lose. What's happened to GB this year after Rodgers went down? They're 7-8 and out of the playoffs. We can add to this that GM Ted Thompson has taken heat from both GB fans and from his own HC for NOT doing more in FA to add talent and bolster depth and depending too much on Rodgers to win games.
Since all three teams also carry expensive QBs and pay heavily for offensive support for them cap considerations could also be in the picture. I don't know all that much about Pitt and NE but I talk with Packer fans all the time and they are not pleased that Thompson ignores FA as often as he does. When Rodgers gets injured the Packers lack of talent and depth is exposed and this has happened twice over the past few years. So let's not go using GB as an example of how to do it.
And Soul, THAT's how you build a team; not around average turn over prone qb's. Glad you're finally on board w/the theory. Congrats it only took you 10 years.
That is 100% true. Shouldn't have gotten rid of Forte/Marshal or Bennett. And we shouldn't be quick to get rid of Fuller. That's why I'm all for FT'ing him. Make sure this wasn't a fluke year make sure he works w/the next Def. I'd be all for Trumane Johnson and/or re signing Prince A also. I think Prince and Fuller make a hell of 1 2 combo.
but just to be sure, would you pay Fuller anything to keep him? Say 5yr 65 mil w/40 guaranteed? Would it be worth keeping him at that price; or would it be better off letting him go and trying to get another player, like Prince, T Johnson, or a high draft pick?
Ric, the problem with "trying to get another player like... fill in the blank" is that it is really easy to type but not so easy to execute. We tried to get another player like (fill in your favorite QB) for years.... never happened. "Trying to get" is a dime a dozen. Keeping a known commodity is MUCH safer and easier to do. You must have heard about the bird in the hand is worth two in the bush (I love it when I can get some bush worked into an analogy)". Gilmore is another example. I (and my buddy BB) thought he was "another player like..." but he no longer was. Fuller has helped us. Why try to get another player like Fuller when we already have the real Fuller?
Makes no sense to me at all.
^^^ I agree completely. Bird in hand phenomena. It’s way way tougher to “get another player” in practice than in theory.
We FINALLY have the makings of a solid and young secondary after years of total awfulness. Why **** it up?
Ric, the problem with "trying to get another player like... fill in the blank" is that it is really easy to type but not so easy to execute. We tried to get another player like (fill in your favorite QB) for years.... never happened. "Trying to get" is a dime a dozen. Keeping a known commodity is MUCH safer and easier to do. You must have heard about the bird in the hand is worth two in the bush (I love it when I can get some bush worked into an analogy)". Gilmore is another example. I (and my buddy BB) thought he was "another player like..." but he no longer was. Fuller has helped us. Why try to get another player like Fuller when we already have the real Fuller?
Makes no sense to me at all.
^^^ I agree completely. Bird in hand phenomena. It’s way way tougher to “get another player” in practice than in theory.
We FINALLY have the makings of a solid and young secondary after years of total awfulness. Why **** it up?
Well of the four of us in this debate three of us see it one way and one sees it totally different. No real shock who the odd man out is but then someone has to be wrong 90% of the time so it might as well be Ric. He should be used to it by now.
I'm gonna post this one more time to reinforce the economics of it not the emotion.
If we spend say $24 mil in guarantees on a 4 year/$48 mil deal vs $15 mil to tag him all that second year is costing us is $9 mil and we have him for 2 years at an average if $12 mil per year vs 1 year for $15 mil and then we're right back in the same boat we were with AJ. We either sign him, tag him for $18 mil or he walks.
If we can sign him for 4/$48m/$24m guaranteed we should do it. Bouye got $26 mil guaranteed so we're in that ball park and if we had to guarantee a little more and push the annual to $13 mil maybe that's OK too. If that's 2018 MV that's what it is and you know Fuller and his guy will be using a deal like Bouye's for leverage.
In reality Bouye's deal is more like 2 years guaranteed with 3 one year options. Jax can say buh bye after 2018 with a $6 mil dead cap hit and after 2019 with a $2 mil hit so if his play falls off he may never see more than 2-3 years of his deal and nowhere near $67.5 mil. That's why total $$$ mean jack shit. Guaranteed $$$ and the bonus structure that creates dead cap space is all that matters.
Gilmore's deal paid him more upfront in bonus which mean higher amounts of dead cap but his salaries are less. NE can get out of that deal at the end of year three with a $7.2 mil cap hit. If they do he will have received about $42 mil not $65 mil. So again the way deals are structured unless a player performs at a high level throughout as Peanut did they are never gonna see all of that money.
In both cases these guys will see $41-$42 mil over 3 years or roughly $13 mil per on average. The rest is speculative and based solely on performing well enough to stick. So if we believe Fuller is as good or can be as good and Pace and a new HC also believe it there is no reason not to make a similar offer in lieu of tagging him. That would be my last option because it's a cap killer and I still have to sign him long term next year.
I respect Adam Jahns but I have to disagree with him that tagging Fuller should be seen as better than signing him long term. The economics are brutal in 2018 in comparison. I'm not bragging here but I do stuff like this every day in my career whereas Adam Jahns writes columns and does podcasts. In my humble opinion I think I have more skills and education in economics than he does. JHMO
I agree.
Letting your own draft picks walk away, especially 1st rounders, means one of two possible things, both of which are really bad. Either your drafting really really sucks or your management is stupidly “penny wise, pound foolish”. Teams that consistently fail or refuse to re-sign their own drafted players are gonna consistently be bottom feeders. Barring something crazy unforeseen at this point, Pace needs to re-sign Fuller without question or FT him at the very least.