Chicago Bears vs. San Francisco 49ers Rebuilding Plan

The Bears sucked so bad they were going to fire there gm even up to 2018, but now the bears are loaded with talent all of a sudden and there gm has been drafting well for 4 years!!

Gotta love the contradictions!

Originally posted by Jeepzilla:

The Bears sucked so bad they were going to fire there gm even up to 2018, but now the bears are loaded with talent all of a sudden and their gm has been drafting well for 4 years!!

Gotta love the contradictions!

Agreed. They were 3-13 (2016) & 5-11 (2017)...pretty much us. 6 wins before that, 5 before that. They were also the 2nd most injured team during that span and we were 3rd.

I get where P was coming from esp. the last point but, yeah.

Originally posted by Jeepzilla:

After digging Around a little I think I can recall who felt had a better roster at the start of the season, between the bears and the 49ers and who would have had a better record at season end...

Yeah, you can go to the PYMWYMI thread and those that did individual predictions on wins/losses, I wonder if even one fan picked the Bears over us later in the season.

Originally posted by Jeepzilla:

Yet, with all you pointed out, most projected the 49ers to do way better this year at the start of the season.

Many pointed out that the 49ers have A better roster then the bears this year... again, at the start of the season..

Also, many pointed out that the raiders took the bears deal over the 49ers deal due to the fact that the raiders thought that the bears would draft higher then the 49ers.

After digging Around a little I think I can recall who felt had a better roster at the start of the season, between the bears and the 49ers and who would have had a better record at season end but I'm curious and would like to hear it from you who you thought would do better this year & who thought had a better roster at the start of the year? (Obviously, this was before injuries.)

I'm just wondering how it went from the Bears are gonna be bottom feeders due to lack of talent to now all of a sudden, they are loaded with talent and the 49ers still have no talent on there team?

I'm genuinely curious how this perception changed so drastically?

How many predicted the 49ers to lose their franchise QB three games into the season? Or to never see their big acquisition at RB period?

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

How many predicted the 49ers to lose their franchise QB three games into the season? Or to never see their big acquisition at RB period?

His point was not one single fan predicted the Bears to beat us because on equal or similar perceived talent, Jimmy Garoppolo was seen as the key difference over Trubisky.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Understandable. You define the start of a rebuild upon the hiring of the GM. That's perfectly fine. Legit.

I define the start of a rebuild the moment you get your FQB.

So are you going to argue that the Browns only just started to rebuild this year and that the collection of high draft pick talent that other regimes tanked for, players like Myles Garrett, is just coincidental because this is the year they finally got a QB?


That Seattle, who blew up their roster in 2010 and added Earl Thomas, Marshawn Lynch,Richard Sherman, Kam Chancellor, Doug Baldwin and numerous other key players from 2010 and 2011 didn't start rebuilding until they drafted Russell Wilson in 2012?


I'm sorry, I don't think you'll find a single credible person who agrees with your view of rebuilding.


The bottomline is that Chicago hired an entire new front office in 2015, a front office that got rid of a lot of veteran players and replaced them almost entirely with their own additions in 2015 and 2016.


That clock doesn't reset just because they acquired a QB last year. They'd been building the roster and are still leaning heavily on players acquired in the two years prior to that.

Take away everyone they drafted/signed in 2015 and 2016 and they don't have a winning record right now.

Originally posted by NCommand:

His point was not one single fan predicted the Bears to beat us because on equal or similar perceived talent, Jimmy Garoppolo was seen as the key difference over Trubisky.

And once Garoppolo went down, all of that went out the window. Losing your franchise QB changes a lot of things.


Having four years to build a roster and add players, especially to build depth is also an undeniable advantage.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by NCommand:

His point was not one single fan predicted the Bears to beat us because on equal or similar perceived talent, Jimmy Garoppolo was seen as the key difference over Trubisky.

And once Garoppolo went down, all of that went out the window. Losing your franchise QB changes a lot of things.


Having four years to build a roster and add players, especially to build depth is also an undeniable advantage.

On the other side of the coin, if they lost Trubisky and Cohn for the whole season, would people perceive their roster (and final record) better than ours?

The evidence WITH Pace and WITHOUT Trubisky is 3 and 5 wins.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

So are you going to argue that the Browns only just started to rebuild this year and that the collection of high draft pick talent that other regimes tanked for, players like Myles Garrett, is just coincidental because this is the year they finally got a QB?


That Seattle, who blew up their roster in 2010 and added Earl Thomas, Marshawn Lynch,Richard Sherman, Kam Chancellor, Doug Baldwin and numerous other key players from 2010 and 2011 didn't start rebuilding until they drafted Russell Wilson in 2012?


I'm sorry, I don't think you'll find a single credible person who agrees with your view of rebuilding.


The bottomline is that Chicago hired an entire new front office in 2015, a front office that got rid of a lot of veteran players and replaced them almost entirely with their own additions in 2015 and 2016.


That clock doesn't reset just because they acquired a QB last year. They'd been building the roster and are still leaning heavily on players acquired in the two years prior to that.

Take away everyone they drafted/signed in 2015 and 2016 and they don't have a winning record right now.

No, you can build for 20 years but until you get your QB, esp. in this era, it's moot. We think we got ours. They think they got theirs and it happened to be in the same year...hence the overall comparison vs. just a GM change.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by Jeepzilla:

Yet, with all you pointed out, most projected the 49ers to do way better this year at the start of the season.

Many pointed out that the 49ers have A better roster then the bears this year... again, at the start of the season..

Also, many pointed out that the raiders took the bears deal over the 49ers deal due to the fact that the raiders thought that the bears would draft higher then the 49ers.

After digging Around a little I think I can recall who felt had a better roster at the start of the season, between the bears and the 49ers and who would have had a better record at season end but I'm curious and would like to hear it from you who you thought would do better this year & who thought had a better roster at the start of the year? (Obviously, this was before injuries.)

I'm just wondering how it went from the Bears are gonna be bottom feeders due to lack of talent to now all of a sudden, they are loaded with talent and the 49ers still have no talent on there team?

I'm genuinely curious how this perception changed so drastically?

How many predicted the 49ers to lose their franchise QB three games into the season? Or to never see their big acquisition at RB period?

Yes I mentioned that.. before Injuries or at the start of the season numerous times...

My point was it was pretty well assumed that the 49ers has a better roster by pretty much everyone, until now. All of a sudden the Bears team is loaded with talent.

Chicago had the 10th ranked defense than added a defensive MVP candidate as well as Roquan Smith. Defensively it's no surprise they're ballers. Offensively they're good enough. Not many people predicted their success even after the Mack signing but it really shouldn't be a shock.

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Chicago had the 10th ranked defense than added a defensive MVP candidate as well as Roquan Smith. Defensively it's no surprise they're ballers. Offensively they're good enough. Not many people predicted their success even after the Mack signing but it really shouldn't be a shock.

Yep. If we add Nick Bosa and he plays up to his potential, and Reuben Foster comes back to play at a Pro-Bowl level (what is going on with him!) - we should see a huge jump in our play and overall grades on our defense across the board.

Man, if we can then add Earl Thomas, Jalen Ramsey, and/ or another of the pro-bowl caliber DEs that could hit free agency. Damn. We can have an elite D alongside a talented Jimm G led O.

Originally posted by Wewillwin:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Chicago had the 10th ranked defense than added a defensive MVP candidate as well as Roquan Smith. Defensively it's no surprise they're ballers. Offensively they're good enough. Not many people predicted their success even after the Mack signing but it really shouldn't be a shock.

Yep. If we add Nick Bosa and he plays up to his potential, and Reuben Foster comes back to play at a Pro-Bowl level (what is going on with him!) - we should see a huge jump in our play and overall grades on our defense across the board.

Man, if we can then add Earl Thomas, Jalen Ramsey, and/ or another of the pro-bowl caliber DEs that could hit free agency. Damn. We can have an elite D alongside a talented Jimm G led O.

That's ONLY if Lynch wants to go that Ryan Pace-urgent-route.

ShanaLynch seem more fixed on the long-game. They reserve the right to change that plan at any moment as much as they reserve the right to stay the course with their 6-year contracts.

We'll find out soon.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
So are you going to argue that the Browns only just started to rebuild this year and that the collection of high draft pick talent that other regimes tanked for, players like Myles Garrett, is just coincidental because this is the year they finally got a QB?

That Seattle, who blew up their roster in 2010 and added Earl Thomas, Marshawn Lynch,Richard Sherman, Kam Chancellor, Doug Baldwin and numerous other key players from 2010 and 2011 didn't start rebuilding until they drafted Russell Wilson in 2012?

I'm sorry, I don't think you'll find a single credible person who agrees with your view of rebuilding.

The bottomline is that Chicago hired an entire new front office in 2015, a front office that got rid of a lot of veteran players and replaced them almost entirely with their own additions in 2015 and 2016.

That clock doesn't reset just because they acquired a QB last year. They'd been building the roster and are still leaning heavily on players acquired in the two years prior to that.

Take away everyone they drafted/signed in 2015 and 2016 and they don't have a winning record right now.

Good post Phoenix. Pretty straightforward to me.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

And once Garoppolo went down, all of that went out the window. Losing your franchise QB changes a lot of things.


Having four years to build a roster and add players, especially to build depth is also an undeniable advantage.

And this.