2024-25 NFL Thread

[WhiteTrash]

Do I think it's a great contract? No, not initially.  I think it's an overpay on a hot start being indicative of future success.

That being said, my post was less about proving what a great contract it was and more refuting the absurd notion that it's a historically bad contract, and that it's not even a horrible contract in current times/for the Bears recently.  And it's certainly not Poles sabotaging the Bears with some poison pill contract

Disagree. To measure the contract only in terms of the Bears' deals is putting your thumb (or whole hand) on the scale. Step back and in the whole of the NFL and measure the deal as it is; giving up a high 2nd round pick and then over paying the player.

If they signed Sweat as a FA to this deal, I'd give it a C+, B- grade because the Bears have to overpay to overcome the franchise's warts.

Poles painted the franchise into a corner by giving up the pick for a soon to be FA. Sweat's agent was given a blank check. The Bears had no choice but to pay any amount, or become even bigger laughing stocks of the NFL.

I think ignoring the value of a top 5 2nd round pick is disingenuous when evaluating the deal.

[jesmu84]

I'm guessing the Bears would have had no chance to sign sweat to a FA contract. Because someone else would have traded for him had the Bears not done it

[Uncle Rico]

Hope you didn't turn off the game

[lawdog77]

I'm guessing the Bears would have had no chance to sign sweat to a FA contract. Because someone else would have traded for him had the Bears not done it

Story is the Falcons offered a 2nd rd pick as well.

[WhiteTrash]

I'm guessing the Bears would have had no chance to sign sweat to a FA contract. Because someone else would have traded for him had the Bears not done it

1. Falcons trading for Sweat is no guaranty he would not be a FA.

2. Just because the Falcons would have done it (trade and overpay) is the worst argument for doing something stupid. Basically you're saying Poles is the kind of guy who sees others jumping off a cliff and follows.

3. If the Falcons did that, people would be trashing them like the Bears, maybe less since they would have given up less.

I can understand disagreeing about how bad this deal was, but everyone agrees that is is bad. 

[jesmu84]

1. Falcons trading for Sweat is no guaranty he would not be a FA.

2. Just because the Falcons would have done it (trade and overpay) is the worst argument for doing something stupid. Basically you're saying Poles is the kind of guy who sees others jumping off a cliff and follows.

3. If the Falcons did that, people would be trashing them like the Bears, maybe less since they would have given up less.

I can understand disagreeing about how bad this deal was, but everyone agrees that is is bad.

Just pointing out another likely possibility.

You keep crafting whatever narrative you want

[lawdog77]

1. Falcons trading for Sweat is no guaranty he would not be a FA.

2. Just because the Falcons would have done it (trade and overpay) is the worst argument for doing something stupid. Basically you're saying Poles is the kind of guy who sees others jumping off a cliff and follows.

3. If the Falcons did that, people would be trashing them like the Bears, maybe less since they would have given up less.

I can understand disagreeing about how bad this deal was, but everyone agrees that is is bad.

Not all experts think it was a bad deal. There are plenty out there is you care to read them. In a nutshell, he will be the 5th or 6th highest paid rusher (for now), and he is one of 7 guys who have had 5+ sacks the past 5 seasons. The Bears have plenty of cap space.It's an area of need for the Bears.

If Sweat produces, its a reasonable deal, if he doesn't it will be considered a bad deal. Kind of hard to call a deal "bad" until you see what happens with his productivity.

[Uncle Rico]

Shucks.  Woke Chiefs won the game

[MUBurrow]

Ugh that was rough.  Good to see the fight at the end, but still a ways to go. 

I still really like McDaniel, but all the inefficient presnap movement and misdirection kills me.  I get that some of it is probably necessary to create the throwing lanes down the field and confuse the defense.  But there was a carry in the fourth where Mostert got the ball on the draw and not counting Tua, I counted 3 or 4 players behind the play.  Regardless of where you're drawing eyeballs, you just aren't going to have enough hats for hats on that kind of play. 

I'm a bit worried that all the complication and presnap movement was really effective early in the year when defenses are still getting into their rotations and getting their discipline down.  But now as the year drags on, base defenses are outcompeting Miami's offensive schemes not by galaxy braining them, but just by staying home and being disciplined.  Unless the offensive line improves (which is unlikely with this personnel) I'm not sure there's a way for the Dolphins to beat the top 4-5 teams in each conference.

[MU82]

WT: First, you took Sweat's word for it that there was no way no how he would consider signing a new contract with the Bears (rather than accept that maybe it was an NFL player simply posturing). To drive your point home, you even added an emphatic: "End of story."

Then, after the story really didn't end that way because Sweat indeed signed a new contract with the Bears, you said it was one of the 10 worst in NFL history. You did so without offering necessary evidence - which in this case would be a look back at all the bad contracts over the last century.

Now, you seem to want to include the 2nd-round draft pick the Bears gave up, which I guess really pushes it into the "top 10 worst contracts in NFL history" realm in your mind?

But we get it. You feel the combination of the pick and the $$$ was too much. You might prove to  be right. Or not. The context-less exaggeration was unnecessary, but that happens sometimes here in Scoopland.

[Uncle Rico]

WT: First, you took Sweat's word for it that there was no way no how he would consider signing a new contract with the Bears (rather than accept that maybe it was an NFL player simply posturing). To drive your point home, you even added an emphatic: "End of story."

Then, after the story really didn't end that way because Sweat indeed signed a new contract with the Bears, you said it was one of the 10 worst in NFL history. You did so without offering necessary evidence - which in this case would be a look back at all the bad contracts over the last century.

Now, you seem to want to include the 2nd-round draft pick the Bears gave up, which I guess really pushes it into the "top 10 worst contracts in NFL history" realm in your mind?

But we get it. You feel the combination of the pick and the $$$ was too much. You might prove to  be right. Or not. The context-less exaggeration was unnecessary, but that happens sometimes here in Scoopland.

WhiteTrash with an exaggerated negative take on Chicago sports?

[WhiteTrash]

Not all experts think it was a bad deal. There are plenty out there is you care to read them. In a nutshell, he will be the 5th or 6th highest paid rusher (for now), and he is one of 7 guys who have had 5+ sacks the past 5 seasons. The Bears have plenty of cap space.It's an area of need for the Bears.

If Sweat produces, its a reasonable deal, if he doesn't it will be considered a bad deal. Kind of hard to call a deal "bad" until you see what happens with his productivity.

Cap space is completely irrelevant to the deal being good or bad. If anything I'd argue teams in the Bears position need to be more prudent in spending. It's not like Sweat is the final piece of the Super Bowl puzzle so over paying can be justified.

Sweat's future production is also irrelevant. If he becomes the NFL Defensive Player of the Year or has a career ending injury this week, it is a bad deal either way. Based upon his production, he is overpaid and it cost a 2nd round pick.

The Bears/Poles gave Sweat the ultimate negotiating leverage. The absolute worst position to be in. I can not think of a worse position to put your franchise in. (Ok, trading a 1st round pick would be worse).

I see one of two things being true, Poles is a smart NFL guy who purposefully screwed the Bears or Poles is a complete idiot.

[WhiteTrash]

WT: First, you took Sweat's word for it that there was no way no how he would consider signing a new contract with the Bears (rather than accept that maybe it was an NFL player simply posturing). To drive your point home, you even added an emphatic: "End of story."

Then, after the story really didn't end that way because Sweat indeed signed a new contract with the Bears, you said it was one of the 10 worst in NFL history. You did so without offering necessary evidence - which in this case would be a look back at all the bad contracts over the last century.

Now, you seem to want to include the 2nd-round draft pick the Bears gave up, which I guess really pushes it into the "top 10 worst contracts in NFL history" realm in your mind?

But we get it. You feel the combination of the pick and the $$$ was too much. You might prove to  be right. Or not. The context-less exaggeration was unnecessary, but that happens sometimes here in Scoopland.

I think the perspective that, in totality, it is a bad deal for the Bears is a settled. As for Top 10, it is debatable, hence I asked a question, I did not make a declaration. I would not be surprised if there are 20 worse deals, or it is top 10 bad.

[lawdog77]

Cap space is completely irrelevant to the deal being good or bad. If anything I'd argue teams in the Bears position need to be more prudent in spending. It's not like Sweat is the final piece of the Super Bowl puzzle so over paying can be justified.

Sweat's future production is also irrelevant. If he becomes the NFL Defensive Player of the Year or has a career ending injury this week, it is a bad deal either way. Based upon his production, he is overpaid and it cost a 2nd round pick.

The Bears/Poles gave Sweat the ultimate negotiating leverage. The absolute worst position to be in. I can not think of a worse position to put your franchise in. (Ok, trading a 1st round pick would be worse).

I see one of two things being true, Poles is a smart NFL guy who purposefully screwed the Bears or Poles is a complete idiot.

Another alternative is that you have blind hatred for Poles.
Cap Space is relevant. He seems to be a good building block, and may attract some other free agents. Having the cap space to do so is vital.

Not sure how one can say that future production is irrelevant. He most likely will not be a top 10 paid pass rusher in a year or two. If he plays like an All Pro, only idiots will call it a bad deal.

Should they have not given up a 2nd round pick? That's up for debate, but they gave what they had to in order to get him. It's not like they were bidding against themselves. Did they overpay on his new deal? There's an argument for both sides. I say time will tell. You don't. Again, I am not a Bears Fan, so I'm done with this conversation. Have at it screaming at the clouds.

[tower912]

The two teams who beat Detroit.   Go, Baltimore.   Seattle needs the loss.

[WhiteTrash]

Another alternative is that you have blind hatred for Poles.
Cap Space is relevant. He seems to be a good building block, and may attract some other free agents. Having the cap space to do so is vital.

Not sure how one can say that future production is irrelevant. He most likely will not be a top 10 paid pass rusher in a year or two. If he plays like an All Pro, only idiots will call it a bad deal.

Should they have not given up a 2nd round pick? That's up for debate, but they gave what they had to in order to get him. It's not like they were bidding against themselves. Did they overpay on his new deal? There's an argument for both sides. I say time will tell. You don't. Again, I am not a Bears Fan, so I'm done with this conversation. Have at it screaming at the clouds.

I haven't been opposed to Poles until this deal. I thought the Claypool deal was worth the risk. Obviously it blew up in his face. If he would have signed Claypool to a top 5 WR contract, I would have complained.

Not sure I follow the logic in "He seems to be a good building block, and may attract some other free agents. Having the cap space to do so is vital." when supporting over committing cap space on Sweat that could be used for other players.

I don't expect a response. I think your response sums up how bad the Bears have gotten that the arguments are over just how bad the deal was, not if it was good or bad.

[WhiteTrash]

WhiteTrash with an exaggerated negative take on Chicago sports?

Low hanging fruit, my man. Take the easy wins first. 

[PGsHeroes32]

Vikes down another QB

Hall actually looked pretty dang good in the brief cameo

Moronic 1st and goal play calling per usual is what set up the chain of events for the injury.

[tower912]

Skol.

[MU82]

I think the perspective that, in totality, it is a bad deal for the Bears is a settled. As for Top 10, it is debatable, hence I asked a question, I did not make a declaration. I would not be surprised if there are 20 worse deals, or it is top 10 bad.

How could it be "settled"? What if Sweat goes on to be an All-Pro caliber player the next 3-4 years? What if contracts received by even mediocre DEs swells and his deal actually turns out to be middle of the road?

Not enough info now to make such a declaration.

[WhiteTrash]

How could it be "settled"? What if Sweat goes on to be an All-Pro caliber player the next 3-4 years? What if contracts received by even mediocre DEs swells and his deal actually turns out to be middle of the road?

Not enough info now to make such a declaration.

Any competent GM or any GM that is not trying to stick it to his team would have at most offered a conditional 2nd round pick, dependent upon resigning Sweat, and not the deal he agreed to.

Is it a bad deal if the pick was conditional and/or they signed him to a market value contract if he ends up an All-Pro? I say no. They could have signed him to a more appropriate amount if the pick was conditional. That would be a smart deal for the team and puts the team in a better position to add more talent. I believe that is what a GM's job is to do.

Unless you can tell me that the NFLPA or other would have complained if Sweat was made the top 15 paid DL, I don't believe the Bears paid market value.

They had to overpay because they fully committed in the trade. Sweat's agent had the easiest negotiation of his life.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Why would Washington have agreed to the trade if the second round pick was conditional? Regardless I think conditions can only be placed on on-field performance.

[JWags85]

Where the hell is this idea that Poles is a dead man walking and it's out to "stick it to the Bears" coming from?  It's totally bizarre.

I would be willing to bet significant money that short of him flaming out spectacularly in the next 1.5 seasons (or failing to exceed to 3 sacks a year for the duration the contract), NOBODY will be talking about this as a horrible deal, much less one of the worst deals in the last 5/10/infinity years

[WhiteTrash]

Why would Washington have agreed to the trade if the second round pick was conditional? Regardless I think conditions can only be placed on on-field performance.

You may be right. Obviously the best deal structure would be to agree to an extension prior to the trade, which is fairly common.

Assuming the rumors that Poles is being fired are false and he's not poisoning the well on his way out, I'll just say his throw caution to the wind style of team building is not appealing to me.

I guess I look at the quality of the deal when it is made as opposed to the concept of 'the ends justify the means'.

[WhiteTrash]

Where the hell is this idea that Poles is a dead man walking and it's out to "stick it to the Bears" coming from?  It's totally bizarre.

I also dismissed the Poles (and 'Flues) getting fired rumors prior to this deal.

You have to admit this deal and all the components to it are bizarre. Truly no consideration for the value of high draft picks or salary cap space. Bizarre considering the state of the franchise.