Chicago Bears vs. San Francisco 49ers Rebuilding Plan

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

^ yup Witherspoon, Colbert, Thomas, Breida, MM, Warner and Kittle all look like the starters to me and Pettis started 7 games so that meets the 5 game mark you mentioned. And no they were not forced into their roles. so that's 8in 2 drafts and 4 per draft which is higher then the 2.3 mark you mentioned.

You keep saying mid tier...the contract #s say otherwise so we are again just going to have to agree to disagree

Yeah definitely! All certainly have the license to do just that and I personally like all those guys.

But can you say today with the low snap counts in their careers and on-field production that Breida, Witherspoon Thomas, Colbert, etc. would be high quality starters (a hit) on another team today? Breida certainly has the best case but even Kyle merely saw him as a 3rd down back and rotational player (durability) for Jerick McKinnon. He may prove otherwise next year like the rest you mentioned though.

Spending money doesn't = aggression. And every team eventually has to pay for a QB. We spent $87M last year...$37M to Garoppolo alone. Not one single FA at a premium position over $10M APY. Going hard after lower paid positions like C, RB, FB, etc. is not aggressive. It's a strategy but not aggressive by what fans/executives would define in today's market.

^ well now you are changing the parameters of your initial statement. They are 8 starters from 2 drafts who are contributors to this team. And according your logic these are hits, so Lynch is doing his job and actually exceeding it because he has produced 4 starters per year vs. 2.3.
Not sure how you can go out and spend top $ on a all pro CB, top C on the market, a RB and FQB and not have that considered aggressive. Just because they didn't go overspend for someone like Robinson does not negate what they did in FA . You and I just have different views on this

I'm with NCommand. Bench players being forced to start because of injuries is not the same as starters.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

I'm with NCommand. Bench players being forced to start because of injuries is not the same as starters.

Now sometimes these players get a shot and make the most of it going forward and earn starting jobs and become very good high quality starters (hit). Many of our players got a shot last year because of injuries so fingers crossed they elevate and become just that!

But with only 2 complete seasons, too soon to declare that unless you are projecting big time. Remember what we thought about Colbert this time last year? Yeah.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

I'm with NCommand. Bench players being forced to start because of injuries is not the same as starters.

Now sometimes these players get a shot and make the most of it going forward and earn starting jobs and become very good high quality starters (hit). Many of our players got a shot last year because of injuries so fingers crossed they elevate and become just that!

But with only 2 complete seasons, too soon to declare that unless you are projecting big time. Remember what we thought about Colbert this time last year? Yeah.

I have no clue if these guys will pan out when all is said and done. I am just using your logic of what constitutes a hit. You used to label guys a hit after 1 season based on playing time.
Thomas/Witherspoon/MM/Warner/Colbert/Breida/Kittle were not all forced into their roles due to injury. I removed Pettis because you can make the case for that, but I think he was on his way to taking that spot anyways. If you want to say Breida was forced in due the injury of McKinnon, ok then that's 6 in 2 years and 3 per draft

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

I'm with NCommand. Bench players being forced to start because of injuries is not the same as starters.

Already said 6 of the guys (could say 8) were not forced in due to injury

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

^ well now you are changing the parameters of your initial statement. They are 8 starters from 2 drafts who are contributors to this team. And according your logic these are hits, so Lynch is doing his job and actually exceeding it because he has produced 4 starters per year vs. 2.3.
Not sure how you can go out and spend top $ on a all pro CB, top C on the market, a RB and FQB and not have that considered aggressive. Just because they didn't go overspend for someone like Robinson does not negate what they did in FA . You and I just have different views on this

I don't know how to be more clear. The 2.3 study is based on high quality starters that would start on just about every team and clear building blocks. And it's an average since some teams are at the beginning or end of rebuilds and have more or less starting roles open.

"Contributors" are basically every player that played 1 snap for us last year.

I mean, if you wanted to make a buckets/tier of players like Oscar/David did, I'd probably agree with the mass majority of it.

<$10M APY for a 29/30 year old high end former all pro CB is also mid-tier. Acquiring him at 26 coming off an all pro season hitting FA for the first time would be aggressive.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

^ well now you are changing the parameters of your initial statement. They are 8 starters from 2 drafts who are contributors to this team. And according your logic these are hits, so Lynch is doing his job and actually exceeding it because he has produced 4 starters per year vs. 2.3.
Not sure how you can go out and spend top $ on a all pro CB, top C on the market, a RB and FQB and not have that considered aggressive. Just because they didn't go overspend for someone like Robinson does not negate what they did in FA . You and I just have different views on this

I don't know how to be more clear. The 2.3 study is based on high quality starters that would start on just about every team and clear building blocks. And it's an average since some teams are at the beginning or end of rebuilds and have more or less starting roles open.

"Contributors" are basically every player that played 1 snap for us last year.

I mean, if you wanted to make a buckets/tier of players like Oscar/David did, I'd probably agree with the mass majority of it.

You're not clear though NC. You said starters per draft. Well those guys are starters and have contributed. You also used to label guys like Vance Mcdonald hits. So you can see how it might be a bit confusing.

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

^ well now you are changing the parameters of your initial statement. They are 8 starters from 2 drafts who are contributors to this team. And according your logic these are hits, so Lynch is doing his job and actually exceeding it because he has produced 4 starters per year vs. 2.3.
Not sure how you can go out and spend top $ on a all pro CB, top C on the market, a RB and FQB and not have that considered aggressive. Just because they didn't go overspend for someone like Robinson does not negate what they did in FA . You and I just have different views on this

I don't know how to be more clear. The 2.3 study is based on high quality starters that would start on just about every team and clear building blocks. And it's an average since some teams are at the beginning or end of rebuilds and have more or less starting roles open.

"Contributors" are basically every player that played 1 snap for us last year.

I mean, if you wanted to make a buckets/tier of players like Oscar/David did, I'd probably agree with the mass majority of it.

You're not clear though NC. You said starters per draft. Well those guys are starters and have contributed. You also used to label guys like Vance Mcdonald hits. So you can see how it might be a bit confusing.

McDonald was an every down starter for us and a quality starter. He's proven the same on another team in Pittsburgh which proved he was a hit. That doesn't mean he's an all pro talent but clearly a talent that could start on most teams.

Also, the hit is in a vacuum...as of today.

To make it easier: Would X player be a high quality starter on just about every team in the NFL?

That can also include nickel starters too. So Bryce Callahan, of the 1K defensive snaps, he's only going to max log in 600-700 of those as a nickel SCB. But he's one of the very best in the NFL and would be starting on just about every single team. He's about to get paid.

Not this starter thing again. I'm still in pain over discussing how much of a hit Patton and Ellington are. CJ started 5 games we got ourselves a hit at qb. It can be very subjective because you don't know which guys take the steps to veteran starter and which ones we give up on. I think the jury is still out on Witherspoon, Colbert, Thomas. Throw Taylor in there too. Kittle, Warner, McGlinchey are close to locks with Braids being a fine system back.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

^ well now you are changing the parameters of your initial statement. They are 8 starters from 2 drafts who are contributors to this team. And according your logic these are hits, so Lynch is doing his job and actually exceeding it because he has produced 4 starters per year vs. 2.3.
Not sure how you can go out and spend top $ on a all pro CB, top C on the market, a RB and FQB and not have that considered aggressive. Just because they didn't go overspend for someone like Robinson does not negate what they did in FA . You and I just have different views on this

I don't know how to be more clear. The 2.3 study is based on high quality starters that would start on just about every team and clear building blocks. And it's an average since some teams are at the beginning or end of rebuilds and have more or less starting roles open.

"Contributors" are basically every player that played 1 snap for us last year.

I mean, if you wanted to make a buckets/tier of players like Oscar/David did, I'd probably agree with the mass majority of it.

You're not clear though NC. You said starters per draft. Well those guys are starters and have contributed. You also used to label guys like Vance Mcdonald hits. So you can see how it might be a bit confusing.

McDonald was an every down starter for us and a quality starter. He's proven the same on another team in Pittsburgh which proved he was a hit. That doesn't mean he's an all pro talent but clearly a talent that could start on most teams.

Also, the hit is in a vacuum...as of today.

To make it easier: Would X player be a high quality starter on just about every team in the NFL?

That can also include nickel starters too. So Bryce Callahan, of the 1K defensive snaps, he's only going to max log in 600-700 of those as a nickel SCB. But he's one of the best best in the NFL and would be starting on just about every single team. He's about to get paid.

See this is where the disconnect is. Vance McDonald was never a hit nor was he ever a quality starter during his time here (also he was not an every down starter here. He didn't start getting substantial starts until year 3) And if you are saying he was while at the same time poo pooing the guys that I rattled off, then there is some extreme bias at play here and there's probably nothing more to discuss

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Not this starter thing again. I'm still in pain over discussing how much of a hit Patton and Ellington are. CJ started 5 games we got ourselves a hit at qb. It can be very subjective because you don't know which guys take the steps to veteran starter and which ones we give up on. I think the jury is still out on Witherspoon, Colbert, Thomas. Throw Taylor in there too. Kittle, Warner, McGlinchey are close to locks with Braids being a fine system back.

Lol exactly and that was my whole point

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Not this starter thing again. I'm still in pain over discussing how much of a hit Patton and Ellington are. CJ started 5 games we got ourselves a hit at qb. It can be very subjective because you don't know which guys take the steps to veteran starter and which ones we give up on. I think the jury is still out on Witherspoon, Colbert, Thomas. Throw Taylor in there too. Kittle, Warner, McGlinchey are close to locks with Braids being a fine system back.

LOL, I'd hope fans were talking about Patton, Ellington and BeatHard in projections and not in production that would lead one to believe all three would be quality starters on just about any team in the NFL.

Good ol' Bruise Ailington.

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

^ well now you are changing the parameters of your initial statement. They are 8 starters from 2 drafts who are contributors to this team. And according your logic these are hits, so Lynch is doing his job and actually exceeding it because he has produced 4 starters per year vs. 2.3.
Not sure how you can go out and spend top $ on a all pro CB, top C on the market, a RB and FQB and not have that considered aggressive. Just because they didn't go overspend for someone like Robinson does not negate what they did in FA . You and I just have different views on this

I don't know how to be more clear. The 2.3 study is based on high quality starters that would start on just about every team and clear building blocks. And it's an average since some teams are at the beginning or end of rebuilds and have more or less starting roles open.

"Contributors" are basically every player that played 1 snap for us last year.

I mean, if you wanted to make a buckets/tier of players like Oscar/David did, I'd probably agree with the mass majority of it.

You're not clear though NC. You said starters per draft. Well those guys are starters and have contributed. You also used to label guys like Vance Mcdonald hits. So you can see how it might be a bit confusing.

McDonald was an every down starter for us and a quality starter. He's proven the same on another team in Pittsburgh which proved he was a hit. That doesn't mean he's an all pro talent but clearly a talent that could start on most teams.

Also, the hit is in a vacuum...as of today.

To make it easier: Would X player be a high quality starter on just about every team in the NFL?

That can also include nickel starters too. So Bryce Callahan, of the 1K defensive snaps, he's only going to max log in 600-700 of those as a nickel SCB. But he's one of the best best in the NFL and would be starting on just about every single team. He's about to get paid.

See this is where the disconnect is. Vance McDonald was never a hit nor was he ever a quality starter during his time here (also he was not an every down starter here. He didn't start getting substantial starts until year 3) And if you are saying he was while at the same time poo pooing the guys that I rattled off, then there is some extreme bias at play here and there's probably nothing more to discuss

Vacuum. Once he became the starter he was awarded a starter contract commensurate his TE class. Same with the Steelers latest contract. Guys like he and Daniel Kilgore are borderline starters on most teams...lower end, I agree.

If you don't want to call that a full hit, call him the .3 in the 2.3 average. LOL

Hoov... if you get the time, I'd love to see who you'd define as a hit/quality starter who would start on most NFL teams over Pace's and Lynch's first two years.