Chicago Bears vs. San Francisco 49ers Rebuilding Plan

Nvm Bears rebuild is better and they robbed us in 2017. 49ers are worse than the Browns bye

Significantly better coaching. Significantly better GM and way better talent on the roster


The Bears are killing it

Hopefully 4 years from now we can be where the bears were 4 years ago

Originally posted by Aj_hwd954:

Nvm Bears rebuild is better and they robbed us in 2017. 49ers are worse than the Browns bye

Can we please stop this garbage?

How did they rob us? By bidding against themselves and giving us valuable picks they could've used to draft additional talent for their own team while being able to draft Trubisky at 3 and pay him less money?

The trade was super one sided for the 49ers regardless of who we drafted with the picks. It was a trade Bears didn't need to make. 49ers threw out bogus info and got the Bears to bite.

What is concerning to me is that if the Bears moved up and took Thomas we would've taken Foster at 3 overall...

Hopefully they learn from this. Shame it has to be from first round picks.

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Losing Reuben Foster certainly doesn't help esp. when Fangio is developing Roquan Smith nicely.

Just rubbing salt in the wound now huh.

Sorry brother...it's my thread and I'll cry if I want to.

Originally posted by NinerGM:

First round: Solomon Thomas
First round: Reuben Foster
Third round: Ahkello Witherspoon
Third round: C.J. Beathard
Fourth round: Joe Williams
Fifth round: George Kittle
Fifth round: Trent Taylor

Looking at this spelled out makes me want to puke.

Originally posted by Jeepzilla:

The point is simple...


BEFORE OUR INJURIES WE LOOKED LIKE THE BETTER ROSTER AND 99% OF THE PEOPLE AGREED WITH THIS BUT NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE ARE CLAIMS THAT CHICAGO BY FAR HAS SUPERIOR TALENT...

WHICH IS IT

But they didn't? The main reason for the enthusiasm was Garoppolo being seen as a far better QB option than Trubisky. And then Garoppolo got injured. Overall their team has better talent and depth, even before they acquired Mack. That is the advantage of having four years to build your roster instead of two.

Originally posted by NCommand:
The issue with this newfound fan perspective (that nobody in Chicago had) that they had a great defense, is that they were 9th in points last year.

And what was their record? 5 wins. You wanna guess why that was?

You say Jimmy > Mitch but then don't say their defense > offense or their defense > our defense?

Also, we have 5 starters from pre-2017 in the rotation. They have 8.

Again, those extra 2 years you're so focused on are minuscule in this comparison exercise.

Let me ask you this: When do you define the start of a rebuild?

BTW: Your bold confirms you don't see much difference in talent between the two teams, hence, the comparison exercise and the lack of those extra two years having any significant meaning if we're equal or better after just 2 off seasons of rebuilding.

If the 49ers had waited until the next drafted to acquire a QB, would they have started rebuilding in 2019 according to your logic? The bottomline is when you hire an all new front office and you blow up the roster and get rid of most of the players that were there before you arrived, like Shanahan and Lynch did last year, like Pace did in 2015, that is when your rebuild begins. Whether you get a potential franchise QB in year 1 or year 4, it is irrelevant as to when your new regime puts their plan in action.

Chicago started rebuilding in 2015, the 49ers started rebuilding in 2017. I've never heard of a single other person trying to define rebuilding the way you are attempting to do. It doesn't add up logically, not even a little bit. Considering how many crucial players Chicago acquired in 2015 and 2016, including pretty much their entire OL, its flawed to act like the two teams started out at the same junction point when one has had twice as many offseasons to add to their roster, both in terms of starters and depth.

Compare the 49ers today to where Chicago was in 2016 or the 49ers in 2020 to the Bears today. If we're in 2020 and the 49ers don't have a winning record and aren't a playoff contender, then it would be pretty clear who did the better job rebuilding.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by Jeepzilla:

The point is simple...


BEFORE OUR INJURIES WE LOOKED LIKE THE BETTER ROSTER AND 99% OF THE PEOPLE AGREED WITH THIS BUT NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE ARE CLAIMS THAT CHICAGO BY FAR HAS SUPERIOR TALENT...

WHICH IS IT

But they didn't? The main reason for the enthusiasm was Garoppolo being seen as a far better QB option than Trubisky. And then Garoppolo got injured. Overall their team has better talent and depth, even before they acquired Mack. That is the advantage of having four years to build your roster instead of two.

I was under the "assumption" most thought we had better talent due to most picking us to win.

Originally posted by NCommand:
OK...so where was all the rest of their talent when they won 5 and 3 games in Pace's first two years and drafted #3 and traded with us at #2 in 2017?

Was our talent suddenly (1-10) epic when we won 5 straight?

Nobody is saying the other talent is irrelevant.

I'm saying it was irrelevant in this comparison because the two extra years Pace got resulted in 5 and 3 wins (same as us with Baalke at the helmet --- LOL).

P and I just defined when a rebuild starts differently (and he's not wrong either). Thl defined it when both the GM and HC changed in Buffalo. You probably have your own definition.

They've been building their roster since 2015, whether their record was 0-16 or 16-0 is irrelevant, Pace had started to put his vision into effect, had started to build his roster. W-L record doesn't change that. In 2018 they are relying heavily on a whole lot of players that were acquired during those years. Without all those players, even with Mack and Trubisky they are likely a sub .500 team this year.

Players like Adrian Amos, Charles Leno, Akiem Hicks, Cody Whitehair, Kyle Fuller and Eddie Goldman are all playing key roles for Chicago THIS year. Those guys didn't show up out of thin air in 2017, they were on the roster prior to that, developing and now are key cogs for the team.

If the 49ers have a winning team in 2020, its likely that guys like McGlinchey, Warner, Kittle and several others will be playing key roles even though the team has had losing records the first two years.

Originally posted by Jeepzilla:
I was under the "assumption" most thought we had better talent due to most picking us to win.

Take away Garoppolo and nobody was picking this team to win more than 3 or 4 games at best. The finish to last season got a lot of people hyped but the reality is that this was a team that won one game without him last year. This year they've also won one game without him. Overall there are still a whole lot of holes on this roster that need to be filled. Chicago has had twice as much time to find starters and add depth across their roster. That should make a huge difference overall.

They've been building their roster for four years now, Lynch and Shanahan are in their second year, if the 49ers aren't making a playoff run in 2020 then it'll be pretty easy to look at the two and say "wow, Chicago did a much better job overall in the same period of time."

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by Jeepzilla:

The point is simple...


BEFORE OUR INJURIES WE LOOKED LIKE THE BETTER ROSTER AND 99% OF THE PEOPLE AGREED WITH THIS BUT NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE ARE CLAIMS THAT CHICAGO BY FAR HAS SUPERIOR TALENT...

WHICH IS IT

But they didn't? The main reason for the enthusiasm was Garoppolo being seen as a far better QB option than Trubisky. And then Garoppolo got injured. Overall their team has better talent and depth, even before they acquired Mack. That is the advantage of having four years to build your roster instead of two.

But again, that extra talent resulted in 3 and 5 wins. It wasn't until they got their FQB and got aggressive in FA that the extra two years of rebuilding talent 'suddenly' hit/mattered.

I understand you are defining the start of a rebuild when a whole regime changes over. I'm cool with that.

I'm just saying theirs simply had no barring in this comparison because we had the same records over those two years and then added a FQB in the same year and had Garoppolo stayed healthy, the records would probably reflect that (whether you believe they had longer to rebuild, are more talented or had more depth).

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

They've been building their roster for four years now, Lynch and Shanahan are in their second year, if the 49ers aren't making a playoff run in 2020 then it'll be pretty easy to look at the two and say "wow, Chicago did a much better job overall in the same period of time."

I get ya. Then for this exercise, you/one can compare both teams first two years of their respective rebuilds.

Throw out results and just look at long talent that should be playing at a high level in year 4.

Are we on track? Ahead? Behind?

Bears players 2015 vs. 49ers players 2017
Bears players 2016 vs. 49ers players 2018

The Bears rebuild reminds me more of like the Rams than the Niners.

They will be in cap trouble when it comes time to pay their QB. (See the fall of the Seahawks)

Here you go P...does this look more apples to apples for you? I simply looked at who they have as a core starter/contributor today (2018) from their ≤ to 2015 & 2016 acquisitions and compared to our player acquisitions from ≤ 2017 & 2018 and who we 'might' expect to be a core starter/contributor in 2020.

I went pretty conservative on our end; guys like Witherspoon, Tartt & James might be gone after this season or next. We may not resign Mike Person to a 2-3 year deal. I feel pretty comfortable with everyone else.

Now, one would need to compare the quantity and quality of those players.