There is no way we have the ammo and they will not trade in the division. 

33 minutes ago, Stinger226 said:

There is no way we have the ammo and they will not trade in the division. 

Pass. The Bears need to draft QBs until they get it right.  You do not trade, there is a reason they want to part with him.  

4 minutes ago, ASHKUM BEAR said:

Pass. The Bears need to draft QBs until they get it right.  You do not trade, there is a reason they want to part with him.  

He probably demanded out.

4 minutes ago, ASHKUM BEAR said:

Pass. The Bears need to draft QBs until they get it right.  You do not trade, there is a reason they want to part with him.  

yup = whoever is our starter on day one doesnt matter, just like Glennon. We need to draft a QB early and groom him - it is the only way to afford a competitive team under these cap rules.

*IF* you have a Tom Brady, Aaron Rogers, Pat Mahomes etc then fine, you can pay him. Almost anyone else is not worth what a starting vet QB's salary does to your ability to field a team around him. And no one that is available is a long term sure thing winner anyway. When players like that do become available, it's only for a few years at the end of their contract like Brady, Manning or Montana.

Whoever we get as a vet, or keep Foles is a placeholder, and we have to draft a young QB and hope we found a winner.

THen common wisdom says you buy a pass rush, but our pass rush cap money is already allocated. We are going to need to grow for at least a year or two more - all the more reason to develop a young QB.

3 minutes ago, Mongo3451 said:

He probably demanded out.

Yea, he doesn't want his knee caps bitten off .

Stafford has been the ultimate stat padding and Fantasy Football QB. He put up huge numbers on a losing team, mostly playing from behind and when a lot of teams were in prevent. I am not as high on him as others. To me he was on par with Cutler. 

He threw a quarter of all his TDs to Megatron. It's not hard to throw for 5k when you throw the ball 700 times. In 2012, he had 4967 yards passing but with only 20 TDs and 17 INTs. He had 727 attempts! That is insane. 

The year that he had 5k passing yards, he finished 3rd in the league in yards and 10 QBs had 4k. Eli Manning had 4933 yards that year. 

Would he be better than Foles/Trubisky, absolutely, but I don't know how much and I doubt that difference would be worth the trade value. Just my opinion.

He would be an upgrade but at what cost? We have to go with Foles, draft a QB and hope we can get a decent backup at 3. If we make the OL better, better for Foles and a rookie.

Just say no to Stafford.  He's taken a beating.  Let him go to the Colts where he can be protected.

11 minutes ago, Mongo3451 said:

Just say no to Stafford.  He's taken a beating.  Let him go to the Colts where he can be protected.

If he goes to the Colts, they are a 10 win team and right on the cusp of the playoffs. I don't think he elevates them any more than Rivers did.

Why would we be interested then?  The Colts won 11 last year and Rivers lost 2 of them, lol.

 

17 hours ago, Mongo3451 said:

Why would we be interested then?  The Colts won 11 last year and Rivers lost 2 of them, lol.

 

I hope we are not. Like I said above, Stafford is the MVP of the Garbage Time League. He has been stat padding for a decade. 

Who knows if this is true, in-division trade? 

 

1 hour ago, adam said:

Who knows if this is true, in-division trade? 

 

I can only assume that's after they bite off his knee caps

Lol

Win win for Bears

19 minutes ago, adam said:

Lol

Win win for Bears

Wow. This tells you right here that you need to draft a QB every year even if you get one right.  Become the factory and trade them for multiple firsts. Gives Detroit some tools to rebuild.  Unfortunately they will waste one on a RB.

1 hour ago, adam said:

Lol

Win win for Bears

Hell of a trade by the Lions. Sucks cause I really liked the idea of Stanford on Bears. 

5 hours ago, adam said:

Who knows if this is true, in-division trade? 

 

So now that Stafford is LA bound and provided this was true, does that set a barometer on the Bears chances for legitimate trade opportunities of other available QBs like Watson?  Watson has to be worth more than what LA gave up for Stafford. (???) And since Chicago didn’t pull this off...maybe they’ll have to focus more on the draft?  

We have Foles and a draft pick which likely will be the first round. Maybe if Garopollo gets cut, we have a chance, if they deem that a option. My thought with Jags drafting Lawrence , maybe Minshew would be available ? That is someone you could get fairly cheap. We need to have two options other than Foles this year. Foles-Minshew-draft pick. 

The thought of Stafford coming was interesting but would the results be any better here than Detroit? Sure it’s an upgrade at QB, but we don’t have the talent around him or the line to block for him and we’d be giving up draft capitol needed to remedy that.

This trade works for both teams. LA is in win now mode. They have a run game, receiving weapons, and a solid line. Adding Stafford is a big upgrade at QB. And Stafford is finally free of the NFL purgatory that is the Lions. 
For Detroit the are amassing draft capitol for their new GM and HC to remake the Lions. It’s an enviable position. 

Im warming up to the idea of Watson but at the same time I feel it would put us in the same or worse position than had we made a similar trade for Stafford. For us it would be trading Foles and other players and picks for Watson. With all the players we will be losing this year already. Watson will be a major upgrade at QB but in a gutted team with limited draft capitol. 

Both teams took on dead money to make it happen. The Rams are in a win-now mode while being a bunch over the cap for 2021. They also don't have a 1st round pick for another 3 years. So if they don't win, they are going to fall hard and fast.

Detroit got some draft capital but also took on dead money and Goff. If the Rams are good the next few years, those are expected to be mid to late 20's picks anyway.  How much better do the Lions get with better players but a worse QB?

Like I said before, I am not as high on Stafford as many are. Would he have been an upgrade, absolutely, but enough to offset the loss of potential starters drafted in the first round? The issue is you can't sustain success without rotating in impact guys on rookie deals or miraculously hit on UDFAs. 

Also, how much better is Woods, Kupp, Reynolds, Higbee, Akers, Henderson than Golladay, Jones, Amendola, Hockenson, Johnson, and Swift?

1 hour ago, adam said:

Both teams took on dead money to make it happen. The Rams are in a win-now mode while being a bunch over the cap for 2021. They also don't have a 1st round pick for another 3 years. So if they don't win, they are going to fall hard and fast.

Detroit got some draft capital but also took on dead money and Goff. If the Rams are good the next few years, those are expected to be mid to late 20's picks anyway.  How much better do the Lions get with better players but a worse QB?

Like I said before, I am not as high on Stafford as many are. Would he have been an upgrade, absolutely, but enough to offset the loss of potential starters drafted in the first round? The issue is you can't sustain success without rotating in impact guys on rookie deals or miraculously hit on UDFAs. 

This is a really important point. You cannot trade away dead cap money, but you can trade two players, especially at the same position, where the dead money offsets. So Detroit keeps Staffords dead money, but gets Goff without his, and the Rams the same.

So for example, to trade Mack or Quinn, youd need another team who was willing to trade a high value player that didnt come with big cap money.

If you traded Mack for draft picks for example, youre not left with enough money to field a competitive team that year, kind of like what the Cubs did for a few years, buying free agents and trading them for picks, converting this years money to tomorrows picks, but if you got a player of Macks caliber and didnt have to pay them fully what they were worth, you could consider Macks dead money as the space ont he cap you would have allocated to the new player if youd signed their deal instead of trading for it.

Problems are that players want new deals when they get traded, so they expect guaranteed money, which goes on their cap, and Nagy and Pace are not in build for the future mode, so the Cubs thing is moot too.

So basically, the ony way we can trade anyone with a lot of dead cap money is for a player who also has the same. Meaning we could potentially have traded Mack for Goff, and Im sure some picks would have gone one way or the other too.

And of course all that contingent on the idea that the player you trade for will play under their old deal that they didnt want to play for their previous team under. Unlikely as well.

I'm sorry, but if I were Lions brass, we would be ecstatic.  Two 1st and a 3rd for a 33 year QB that has taken a 50 year old beating.  Plus I get a QB.  Wow!

Also, now they have all the clout they need to move up and get whatever QB they want in the draft.  Crazy...

Edited January 31, 20215 yr by Mongo3451

4 hours ago, Mongo3451 said:

I'm sorry, but if I were Lions brass, we would be ecstatic.  Two 1st and a 3rd for a 33 year QB that has taken a 50 year old beating.  Plus I get a QB.  Wow!

Also, now they have all the clout they need to move up and get whatever QB they want in the draft.  Crazy...

For sure, the Lions did very well in this trade. It's sort of a desperation move for LA, and if it doesnt pay off, theyll pay the price for it for a few years. here's hoping we don't trade our future away.

When you look at first round draft picks, it excites fans, but if this  move improves the Rams who would have picked 25th this year, they will be picking in the last 4 first round picks. So essentially you're getting a 2nd round pick. A very good pick, but usually every year there is 10-15 blue chip players and those are the gold picks. Good organizations would use those picks to get starters, but anything here that suggests Lions take advantage of those picks? I will have to wait to see how that works out.  After the Golfs trade they are below the cap w/o the lower cap number, so I see it as a move sideways move than forward. They only have one extra pick this year in the third. They will probably draft a QB at #1, plus they will need some WRs since almost all of them become FAs. I see them being bad for the next few years which is good for us.