And I don't think you are wrong on this myself. We will start very soon paying out players we want to keep as they exit their rookie contracts. The more up and coming draft choices we have who are themselves on rookie deals, increases our ability to keep young veterans.
If we can stabilize our defensive line this year with short term veteran FA signings and then go for the long term fix in the 2025 draft makes the most sense to me.
That should be the goal. And I understand you do need some veteran FA's too. But the ideal is for Poles to make the most of the draft so there is a constant inflow of fresh rookie talent, and rookie contracts. Do just what you describe there, Chuck, and keep the guys (your own guys) that you want extended and try to have a young kid in the pipeline to replace the others. That's how the Patriots would do it and they would get the compensation picks (some years they'd have 10 draft picks) - or they'd trade some of their guys and get compensated that way. Then with more bites of the apple in drafts you can afford to have a few misses.
The opposite of this model is to buy older vets at "full retail prices" either by trading away your precious draft capital, or just having to pay out for more expensive contracts. I'd do the "wholesale" thing as much as possible and do this with drafted rookies. Keep this model going forever with the fresh inflow of young talent, instead of getting to a point where you are overpaying for aging vets (the old Bears GM model that got us into cap hell with a mediocre team).
Nearly half (45%) of the Bears starters, including most of our best players, were not drafted by the Bears.
You are choosing to look at the years that work best for your argument. I looked at the dude's WHOLE CAREER! And you are incorrect. It's not just where the are NOW that matters, it's where they are NOW and WHERE THEY WILL BE, added into how it impacts your ability to address the rest of the roster.
BS. If positions were reversed, you would be telling me that recent years are far more significant than early years on the learning curve.
I am not talking about 2027-28. Barring injury, there is no reason to believe Hendrickson will not be productive 2025-26.
I never said any were more significant or less significant than any others. Just as an aside...Justin Fields was in the league 3 years and you were all ready to run him out of town...yet we want to bring in a guy who was decidedly worse his first 3 years because...checks notes...."learning curve"...do I have that right? No learning curve for the QB, but for a DE who's only job according to you is to rush the passer...he needs 3 years to figure out how to do that. That make sense to you?
BS. If positions were reversed, you would be telling me that recent years are far more significant than early years on the learning curve.
I am not talking about 2027-28. Barring injury, there is no reason to believe Hendrickson will not be productive 2025-26.
I never said any were more significant or less significant than any others. Just as an aside...Justin Fields was in the league 3 years and you were all ready to run him out of town...yet we want to bring in a guy who was decidedly worse his first 3 years because...checks notes...."learning curve"...do I have that right? No learning curve for the QB, but for a DE who's only job according to you is to rush the passer...he needs 3 years to figure out how to do that. That make sense to you?
How often do QB's bounce back and become successful in the NFL? You're not talking about giving Fields 10-15 million. Your talking about paying him 35-45 million a year to be an below average QB. We have seen what giving huge contracts to average to below average QBs does to your team. If Fields is a Dak and we're paying him 45+ million. Guess what, we ain't winning anything.
Can he bounce back? Maybe but with the #1 overall pick and one of the best QB prospects since Andrew Luck on the board. You would be a fool to pass up on Williams and his cheap 4 year rookie deal. If Bears had the #4 overall pick and the #9 overall pick things might of been different. Draft Harrison Jr at #4 and get the best Tackle at #9.
I don't see how giving up a 2nd rounder to a pass rusher for the past 4 years been very successful on two teams. The chances of finding a player like him is harder the more you fall down the draft. Not impossible but harder.
BS. If positions were reversed, you would be telling me that recent years are far more significant than early years on the learning curve.
I am not talking about 2027-28. Barring injury, there is no reason to believe Hendrickson will not be productive 2025-26.
I never said any were more significant or less significant than any others. Just as an aside...Justin Fields was in the league 3 years and you were all ready to run him out of town...yet we want to bring in a guy who was decidedly worse his first 3 years because...checks notes...."learning curve"...do I have that right? No learning curve for the QB, but for a DE whose only job according to you is to rush the passer...he needs 3 years to figure out how to do that. That make sense to you?
You have me confused with MP and motm. I was always in the draft Harrison and keep Fields camp. You and I both argued with motm for weeks on Fields.
I hope the Bears don't trade away any more draft picks now. I have no problem with what has been traded away to this point. But now is the time to use our picks (we have 8 in next year's draft including two 2nd round picks). Let's get young ascending guys in now - on rookie contracts. It is supposed to be a much deeper draft class in 2025. The 2024 class was weak sauce and I get it, that it made a lot of sense to make trades THIS year. But time to get back to building primarily through the draft. Build out the remaining team this way because it is the best way to do it - talent wise and financial wise.
You appear to be flip-flopping again. Just last week you thought we can be Super Bowl ready 2025-26. Now you want to conserve a second round pick in 2025 who won’t play nearly as well as Hendrickson in 2025 and probably not in 2026, either. He’s an elite pass rusher. You don’t win Super Bowls with a crowd of players on rookie contracts. The Super Bowl teams go out and GET the veteran players they need to push them over the top. I was just reading a report from Bengals media. They say little chance he gets traded, because they are in “win now” mode. If you don’t think Bears are there in 2025-26, then we’re on different time horizons.
Man...it's a good thing George Karlaftis III was able to avoid that dreaded 3 year pass rusher learning curve thing and the Chiefs were able to win two Super Bowls in his first two years while he produced 16.5 sacks in that time...
I never said any were more significant or less significant than any others. Just as an aside...Justin Fields was in the league 3 years and you were all ready to run him out of town...yet we want to bring in a guy who was decidedly worse his first 3 years because...checks notes...."learning curve"...do I have that right? No learning curve for the QB, but for a DE who's only job according to you is to rush the passer...he needs 3 years to figure out how to do that. That make sense to you?
How often do QB's bounce back and become successful in the NFL? You're not talking about giving Fields 10-15 million. Your talking about paying him 35-45 million a year to be an below average QB. We have seen what giving huge contracts to average to below average QBs does to your team. If Fields is a Dak and we're paying him 45+ million. Guess what, we ain't winning anything.
Can he bounce back? Maybe but with the #1 overall pick and one of the best QB prospects since Andrew Luck on the board. You would be a fool to pass up on Williams and his cheap 4 year rookie deal. If Bears had the #4 overall pick and the #9 overall pick things might of been different. Draft Harrison Jr at #4 and get the best Tackle at #9.
I don't see how giving up a 2nd rounder to a pass rusher for the past 4 years been very successful on two teams. The chances of finding a player like him is harder the more you fall down the draft. Not impossible but harder.
You appear to be flip-flopping again. Just last week you thought we can be Super Bowl ready 2025-26. Now you want to conserve a second round pick in 2025 who won’t play nearly as well as Hendrickson in 2025 and probably not in 2026, either. He’s an elite pass rusher. You don’t win Super Bowls with a crowd of players on rookie contracts. The Super Bowl teams go out and GET the veteran players they need to push them over the top. I was just reading a report from Bengals media. They say little chance he gets traded, because they are in “win now” mode. If you don’t think Bears are there in 2025-26, then we’re on different time horizons.
Man...it's a good thing George Karlaftis III was able to avoid that dreaded 3 year pass rusher learning curve thing and the Chiefs were able to win two Super Bowls in his first two years while he produced 16.5 sacks in that time...
The 3 DE’s drafted in the first round in 2023 had 8 sacks (4+3+1) combined. They might all be good by 2027-28.
That should be the goal. And I understand you do need some veteran FA's too. But the ideal is for Poles to make the most of the draft so there is a constant inflow of fresh rookie talent, and rookie contracts. Do just what you describe there, Chuck, and keep the guys (your own guys) that you want extended and try to have a young kid in the pipeline to replace the others. That's how the Patriots would do it and they would get the compensation picks (some years they'd have 10 draft picks) - or they'd trade some of their guys and get compensated that way. Then with more bites of the apple in drafts you can afford to have a few misses.
The opposite of this model is to buy older vets at "full retail prices" either by trading away your precious draft capital, or just having to pay out for more expensive contracts. I'd do the "wholesale" thing as much as possible and do this with drafted rookies. Keep this model going forever with the fresh inflow of young talent, instead of getting to a point where you are overpaying for aging vets (the old Bears GM model that got us into cap hell with a mediocre team).
Nearly half (45%) of the Bears starters, including most of our best players, were not drafted by the Bears.
There will always be a number of players on a roster that the team did not draft. But there is no question that having quality players that you have drafted (and a healthy number on rookie contracts) it is a good thing. It's a process that will get refined over time. Poles has stated a number of times that he is going to build through the draft (as much as is reasonably possible).
Nearly half (45%) of the Bears starters, including most of our best players, were not drafted by the Bears.
There will always be a number of players on a roster that the team did not draft. But there is no question that having quality players that you have drafted (and a healthy number on rookie contracts) it is a good thing. It's a process that will get refined over time. Poles has stated a number of times that he is going to build through the draft (as much as is reasonably possible).
Moore, Sweat, Edmunds, Edwards, Davis, Bates, Billings, Allen, Swift, Byard. None were drafted by the Bears. As I said, that’s nearly half the starters.
Hendrickson would just be one more, and Pro Bowl quality. Very unlikely you could draft a DE who would be as productive in his first year or two. That doesn’t matter if your Super Bowl ready target is 2027-28. It matter a lot if you see 2025-26 as the goal. The guys on this list will be gone after 2026, if not sooner.
Nearly half (45%) of the Bears starters, including most of our best players, were not drafted by the Bears.
There will always be a number of players on a roster that the team did not draft. But there is no question that having quality players that you have drafted (and a healthy number on rookie contracts) it is a good thing. It's a process that will get refined over time. Poles has stated a number of times that he is going to build through the draft (as much as is reasonably possible).
If Poles was just going to exclusively build through the draft we would have way more 2024 picks. Poles know you have to have a healthy amount of both while at the same time. Rookies take time to develop. This is why he put half his resources on starters from other team players.
Look at our offensive weapons.
Moore (Panthers) (Apart of 1st overall trade) Allen (Chargers) (4th round trade) Swift (Eagles) (FA)
Rome and kmet are the only two starters drafted by the Bears as starters. I'm talking about offensive weapons. Both LBs are from other teams. Sweat was a 2nd round trade.
Here is a question for you. If we can get 3 years of good to great DE play with two rookies on contract vs 4 years of average DE play with 3 rookie on contract?
I don't know about you. I want to take advantage of this very short window of rookie contracts.