Bears trade Howard to Philly for a 6th (possible 5th)

[remydat]

No, it doesn't presume a replacement could not have been found that would have given more than Howard. Did you even read what I wrote? I am saying that Howard doesn't fit what Nagy wants to do presuming Mitch can run the "throw-first" offense consistently. When Mitch could not run it consistently, Nagy ran Howard more and relied on Mitch less to decent success in 3-4 games.

Now, this is not what Nagy wants to do long term, hence why Howard is leaving in 2019.

Which draft pick are you trading for and why? Let Howard go and we lose a pick last year to a (now mandatory) pick at RB. Is Pace allowed to keep Howard at rookie price and wait til one more year where he feels better at picking a RB without criticism from anyone?

I am no Pace fanboy, but I say he is fine keeping Howard in 18 for when Mitch struggles and Nagy needs (as opposed to "wants") to run 20+ times and wait for 2019 to trade Howard and pick a new RB. Pace has flaws, but the criticism of holding onto Howard too long really isn't one of them.

And Nagy could have relied on Howard's replacement more so again not sure why you are presuming that it had to be Howard he relied on. Getting a RB that can both run and catch means that when Trubs struggles, Nagy would now have the option of an all purpose RB who can both run and catch to go along with Cohen. You are making it sound like an all purpose replacement for Howard wouldn't be able to run the ball.

Let Howard go and we don't lose a pick last year to a now mandatory pick at RB since we would be trading him for a pick. So we would have had an extra pick last year not lost one. If Howard is worth a 6th when he only has 1 year left at 2 million and coming off a poor season then I would think he would have been worth a 4th rounder or so with 2 years left. So that would be an extra 4th rounder last year and it is entirely possible find good backs in the 4th round or later. Philip Lindsey was undrafted. Who knows maybe we draft him with a later round pick because we now have an extra 4th.

Finally, I am not criticizing Pace. The fact is we don't know what Pace and Nagy actually believed so all we can do is debate whether the assumptions made are consistent and I am saying if someone feels Howard is easy to replace, is not good enough for Nagy to play to his strengths, and is not a good fit for the offense then the correct resolution is trade him when his value is high. So I am debating the logic of posters who presume this is how Pace and Nagy felt and saying if that is the case, they should have moved him.

You are arguing a completely different set of circumstances which is closer to my own view ie Howard can be a useful back so you play to his strengths for the time that you have him. See post 773 for this distinction. You are confusing me debating the assumptions made by other posters with me saying that is how Pace and Nagy really felt.

 

[remydat]

Its not a question of 'tradeability', its a question of how likely the Bears/Pace would have wanted to get rid of Howard. You are combining two different arguments. The Chiefs were forced into trading Ford because they couldn't afford to have him sitting on the bench. The Bears had no such issue with Howard.

I'm guessing the Bears could trade Trubisky right now. His low salary and pro bowl season would make him 'easily tradeable'. I eagerly anticipate your next thread where you argue that Pace should do so.

And you are ignoring the context of the statement. The posters I debated were effectively arguing that Howard is not a good fit, RBs can easily be replaced, and you shouldn't play to his strengths while he is on your team.

So if that is how Pace and Nagy felt then there is no reason to keep him however cheap. You trade him and find someone who is a better fit. Both you and Outlaw are working off of different assumptions than the above it seems and then acting like my statement was made in response to your argument.

Now if you are saying that you also believe the above bolded points but that they still should have kept him then we can continue to debate because that is the actual scenario I was talking about. A scenario where Pace and Nagy firmly believe that RBs like Howard can easily be replaced and that Howard is not a good scheme fit. I am not sure why if that is your position you wouldn't trade him when his value is high because you should feel confident you can replace him with someone else since again you think he is easily replaceable.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

And you are ignoring the context of the statement. The posters I debated were effectively arguing that Howard is not a good fit, RBs can easily be replaced, and you shouldn't play to his strengths while he is on your team.

So if that is how Pace and Nagy felt then there is no reason to keep him however cheap. You trade him and find someone who is a better fit. Both you and Outlaw are working off of different assumptions than the above it seems and then acting like my statement was made in response to your argument.

Now if you are saying that you also believe the above bolded points but that they still should have kept him then we can continue to debate because that is the actual scenario I was talking about. A scenario where Pace and Nagy firmly believe that RBs like Howard can easily be replaced and that Howard is not a good scheme fit. I am not sure why if that is your position you wouldn't trade him when his value is high because you should feel confident you can replace him with someone else since again you think he is easily replaceable.

LOL at Nagy "firmly believing" that Howard can easily be replaced upon taking the Bears HC job. What would that "firm belief" be based on? Howard was arguably the Bears' best player in 2017, easily their best offensive player, was going into his 3rd season, and was making peanuts. I'm not sure how/why you are STILL confused on the timeline here.

It would be like the Cubs hiring Joe Maddon and his first move is to dump Jake Arrieta because he doesn't fit Maddon's pitching philosophy.

 

[remydat]

Hahaha, I get that. You were doing a thing.

Rory never said Jordan Howard was untradeable. He said trading him would be unrealistic. With that kind of value and for his production to date at that point last offseason, there was no way any GM could get comparable value at running the ball THAT effectively for THAT low a price.

I know you want Pace to have had psychic powers to look ahead and see he wasn't a "fit" but honestly, think about this:

I think if Pace had the power to go back in time to this time last year, he still holds onto Howard and gets Nagy to lean away from Mitch during the year even more. Because Howard helped secure a couple wins pounding the ball last year.

But even if I am mistaken and you still think Pace should make the move at RB last year, then Pace trades Howard for ... what deal can he make? It would have to be for another draft pick to use at RB where you would be nitpicking him for using:

a 2019 draft pick at RB vs. a hypothetical 2018 draft pick at RB.

That's not much of a criticism of Pace to be honest.

It was never intended to be. It was intended to be a criticism of the posters acting like Howard was garbage. Here perhaps this exchange will clarify things for you.

Pace had to produce last year. He spent a lot of money, hired his coach, and made a huge trade. He had to turn things around in the win column. Trading your most proven offensive player before the season, for MAYBE a 3rd or 4th round pick would have been crazy. Pace and Nagy needed all the firepower on the field they could get, and also a year to evaluate the fit in the field in action. People saying he should have been traded last season are hindsight warriors.

But a lot of the people saying they knew he was not a fit and claiming he was a negative last year.

If you give credit when Pace and Nagy make moves based on their convictions then if you convinced Howard is not a fit you move him when his value is high. Cant have it both ways.

Is it the end of the world they didnt pull the trigger? No. But not sure how you offer a fair critique if one just defends every decision. Not referring to you specifically.

Unless you telling me they only just now figuring out he was not a fit.

The intent was never to criticize Pace or Nagy because we don't know his thoughts on the matter. The intent was to criticize the posters exaggerating Howard's poor play to say that if you truly believe that was Pace and Nagy's view then you they should have traded him last offseason.

So you are arguing something entirely different. My comments about trading him last offseason would only apply in the scenario where Pace and Nagy believed as the posters I responded to do. That is not what you are arguing. You are arguing that Pace and Nagy had a different thought process than the above in which case my comments do not apply.

Don't know why you don't seem to get this. If you want to say that Pace and Nagy had a different thought process than the posters I was debating then I have no problem with that. I even said it is not the end of the world that he didn't trade him (ie not a big deal) and gave the posters an out saying, "Unless you telling me they only just now figuring out he was not a fit." So again, I was using it as a means to illustrate the flawed logic here because I know they wouldn't want to admit Pace or Nagy messed up.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

I like your binary argument of "since Howard had trade value, then he should have been traded". It's so wonderfully simple!

 

[remydat]

LOL at Nagy "firmly believing" that Howard can easily be replaced upon taking the Bears HC job. What would that "firm belief" be based on? Howard was arguably the Bears' best player in 2017, easily their best offensive player, was going into his 3rd season, and was making peanuts. I'm not sure how/why you are STILL confused on the timeline here.

It would be like the Cubs hiring Joe Maddon and his first move is to dump Jake Arrieta because he doesn't fit Maddon's pitching philosophy.

No my position once again in post 773 is that they should have kept Howard. That is my personal opinion. I am saying for posters arguing that Howard is not a scheme fit and could easily be replace then Nagy should have moved him last offseason and found that easy replacement. That is not my personal opinion. That is the natural conclusion of the opinion of the posters I was having the debate with.

I like your binary argument of "since Howard had trade value, then he should have been traded". It's so wonderfully simple!

Except that is not the argument. The argument is as follows based on the position taken by posters in this thread.

Assumption 1 - RBs are easy to replace.
Assumption 2 - Howard is not a good scheme fit.
Assumption 3 - Coaches should not try to play to a players strengths if they are not a scheme fit.

Rebuttal - If you believe those 3 assumptions then you should have advocated Howard be traded last offseason.

The above is not binary at all. The tradeable thing was never the focus of the rebuttal. The point was to show the flaw in the above thinking as if you truly believe the above then Pace and Nagy should have traded him last offseason. That was the point. I already indicated my personal belief was you keep him and play to his strengths but I was simply pointing out how fault the above logic is for the posters that were shitting on Howard.

 

[Outlaw Josey Cutler]

This is hysterical.

So your point is not that Howard wasn't a fit and should have been traded while simultaneously arguing in a vaccuum how "easy" and "realistic" the trade would have been.

If "The intent was to criticize the posters exaggerating Howard's poor play to say that if you truly believe that was Pace and Nagy's view then you they should have traded him last offseason."

... then you strayed from that point you were making to THEM and when others (not THEM) point out that there are issues with trading him last year quite beside belief in "scheme fits" (like cost and replacement quality), ... you THEN take up THEIR own point as if Pace SHOULD have traded him last offseason (implied through how "easy" and "realistic" it would have been) even though you yourself don't believe he should have.

Truly amazing stuff.

 

[remydat]

This is hysterical.

So your point is not that Howard wasn't a fit and should have been traded while simultaneously arguing in a vaccuum how "easy" and "realistic" the trade would have been.

If "The intent was to criticize the posters exaggerating Howard's poor play to say that if you truly believe that was Pace and Nagy's view then you they should have traded him last offseason."

... then you strayed from that point you were making to THEM and when others (not THEM) point out that there are issues with trading him last year quite beside belief in "scheme fits" (like cost and replacement quality), ... you THEN take up THEIR own point as if Pace SHOULD have traded him last offseason (implied through how "easy" and "realistic" it would have been) even though you yourself don't believe he should have.

Truly amazing stuff.

Whether I believe he should be traded or not doesn't change the fact that trading him would have been easy. I don't have to believe things to debate someone's logic. I debated the logic you presented and then only after realizing you and Rory thought I was personally advocating it did I seek to clarify. I have a debate background so have been trained to debates things that aren't necessarily my own personal beliefs. I made it clear what my personal beliefs were in previous posts and it is not my fault if you and Rory did not read them.

 

[Raskolnikov]

More will come out about this eventually.

For now its done and CCS superstars have their ideas...usually far more black and white than the nuance of reality. They committed to a decision and moved on, and hope its best for both parties, but it doesn't mean they have zero concerns in a vacuum seal and it was 100 to 0...

in the end they felt it was better to try to move on and open up the offense the way Nagy envisions it.

Howard was one hell of a competitor for the Chicago Bears. May every player give what he gave!!

 

[Outlaw Josey Cutler]

Your original post to me said nothing about his cost. It simply asked whether it was realistic to trade him. They knew at the time that he wasn't a good fit and that they would be unlikely to sign him to a new contract once his rookie contract was up. Hence why there was talk of trading him dating back to last year.

So you have a guy at one of the easiest positions to replace per CCS who is not a good fit and who has two years left on his contract. It is unlikely his value would increase after playing in your system and you apparently have no desire to play to his strengths initially. In that scenario, you trade him while his value is highest. The fact that he is low cost and coming off of two good years should make such a trade very realistic which was your question.

That's where I came in. I will not accept "fault" if that wasn't your real position. People come in at the last page all the time. And I still don't agree with that post at all ... yet it seems you also don't agree with it. Weird.

 

[remydat]

That's where I came in. I will not accept "fault" if that wasn't your real position. People come in at the last page all the time. And I still don't agree with that post at all ... yet it seems you also don't agree with it. Weird.

Whether people come in on the last page or not doesn't change the fact that there was a history of posts before that. I also never said it was your fault. I said it isn't my fault that you didn't realize the history. You have the tools to go back and read the posts if you so choose. Whether you do so or not is your choice not mine.

Also, I stand by that post as again not sure if you are following along.

So you have a guy at one of the easiest positions to replace per CCS who is not a good fit and who has two years left on his contract. It is unlikely his value would increase after playing in your system and you apparently have no desire to play to his strengths initially. In that scenario, you trade him while his value is highest. The fact that he is low cost and coming off of two good years should make such a trade very realistic which was your question.

If someone says in that scenario, it means their comments relate solely to that scenario. The scenario presented is clear. If you introduce another scenario then my comments do not apply. So based on the above here is the scenario.

1. It has been determined someone is not a good fit.
2. They have 2 years left on contract.
3. It is unlikely their value will increase playing in a system where the coach has no desire to play to their strengths.

Now let's pause here. I don't have to believe the above scenario is reality to give an opinion. I can give an opinion for debate purposes based on the scenario presented which is what I did. So the question you have to answer is would you trade him if the above scenario was correct or would you not? Based on your responses, it seems you are debating a different scenario where Nagy has a desire to use Howard but that was not the scenario presented. You do realize one can debate hypotheticals where you just accept the assumptions for purposes of the debate without actually having to believe them?

 

[ZenBear34]

Whether people come in on the last page or not doesn't change the fact that there was a history of posts before that. I also never said it was your fault. I said it isn't my fault that you didn't realize the history. You have the tools to go back and read the posts if you so choose. Whether you do so or not is your choice not mine.

Also, I stand by that post as again not sure if you are following along.

So you have a guy at one of the easiest positions to replace per CCS who is not a good fit and who has two years left on his contract. It is unlikely his value would increase after playing in your system and you apparently have no desire to play to his strengths initially. In that scenario, you trade him while his value is highest. The fact that he is low cost and coming off of two good years should make such a trade very realistic which was your question.

If someone says in that scenario, it means their comments relate solely to that scenario. The scenario presented is clear. If you introduce another scenario then my comments do not apply. So based on the above here is the scenario.

1. It has been determined someone is not a good fit.
2. They have 2 years left on contract.
3. It is unlikely their value will increase playing in a system where the coach has no desire to play to their strengths.

Now let's pause here. I don't have to believe the above scenario is reality to give an opinion. I can give an opinion for debate purposes based on the scenario presented which is what I did. So the question you have to answer is would you trade him if the above scenario was correct or would you not? Based on your responses, it seems you are debating a different scenario where Nagy has a desire to use Howard but that was not the scenario presented. You do realize one can debate hypotheticals where you just accept the assumptions for purposes of the debate without actually having to believe them?

Nagy was a new head coach, implementing a new offense with a bunch of new players. With so many needs to address, they rolled the dice. He probably hoped Howard could adapt to his system better than he did, but after a year with him that opinion changed.

The easy answer is that Nagy has infinitely more information about Howard than he did last year.

 

[remydat]

Nagy was a new head coach, implementing a new offense with a bunch of new players. With so many needs to address, they rolled the dice. He probably hoped Howard could adapt to his system better than he did, but after a year with him that opinion changed.

The easy answer is that Nagy has infinitely more information about Howard than he did last year.

Already considered this. Again I was speaking about a specific scenario.

But a lot of the people saying they knew he was not a fit and claiming he was a negative last year.

If you give credit when Pace and Nagy make moves based on their convictions then if you are convinced Howard is not a fit you move him when his value is high. Cant have it both ways.

Is it the end of the world they didnt pull the trigger? No. But not sure how you offer a fair critique if one just defends every decision. Not referring to you specifically.

Unless you telling me they only just now figuring out he was not a fit.

It says right there that if you are just now figuring out he wasn't a good fit then my comments do not apply. I am not going to quibble over when Pace and Nagy were convinced Howard was not a good fit as that is unknowable really. Hence why I defined a scenario and made comments based on that specific scenario. If you want to say Nagy thought he could make Howard work then so be it.

 

[PrideisBears]

I have no clue what is going on anymore

 

[Rory Sparrow]

I have a debate background so have been trained to debates things

Shit just got real.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

I went back and re-read this thread. I'm still not seeing any point where you make sense, remydat. Even your 'argument' is confounding. Its like you take issue with people watching Bears games in 2018 and drawing conclusions about Jordan Howard's ability to fit in Nagy's system...these people should have known that Howard wouldn't fit in Nagy's system before 2018. It's completely counter-intuitive, especially when paired with your pro-Howard leanings. These people gave Howard a chance, acquired the data, and drew a conclusion. You, on the other hand, are just ranting about nonsense, somehow upset that a conclusion wasn't drawn prior to the data...yourself ignoring the data and instead talking about scenarios and hypotheticals after everything has already happened. I don't get it.

The logic would be you get someone that is better for your offense.

Probably difficult to get someone better than Howard midway through the season. If Pace had traded Howard for a draft pick last year, he would still have to wait until the draft rolled around to utilize the pick.

I was referring to trading him last offseason before the draft

Is that even remotely realistic? Should Pace have immediately traded Kevin White for future picks after selecting him in the draft?

Is it realistic that the Chiefs traded Dee Ford after a scheme change before the draft?

Dee Ford a tad bit more expensive than Jordan Howard. Come on, man!

You asked if it was remotely realistic to move Howard before last year's draft. I gave you an example of a more expensive player being moved before a draft so yes it is realistic.

Yeah, amazing. You have two players who don't really fit your scheme...one guy makes $630K, the other guy makes $14.5M....which one would you try to move?

Once again your question was about whether they could trade him before the draft. They could have.

Nope. You've lost your mind. My question was indisputably about whether or not Pace should have known at that point in time that Jordan Howard was going to have a significant downturn. The fact that Howard wasn't costing anything against the cap made it MORE likely that Pace would simply hang on to Howard for another year, not LESS likely.

Your original post to me said nothing about his cost. It simply asked whether it was realistic to trade him. They knew at the time that he wasn't a good fit and that they would be unlikely to sign him to a new contract once his rookie contract was up. Hence why there was talk of trading him dating back to last year.

After my original post, you brought up Dee Ford, to which I said "The fact that Howard wasn't costing anything against the cap made it MORE likely that Pace would simply hang on to Howard for another year, not LESS likely." You have yet to respond to this, so I assume it is a concession on your part and I have "won" yet another pointless remydat retrofit 'debate'.

And the fact that Howard makes 600k and would have had 2 years left on his contract would have made him easily tradeable. Such an obvious point that Outlaw already figured it out.

Its not a question of 'tradeability', its a question of how likely the Bears/Pace would have wanted to get rid of Howard. You are combining two different arguments. The Chiefs were forced into trading Ford because they couldn't afford to have him sitting on the bench. The Bears had no such issue with Howard.

I'm guessing the Bears could trade Trubisky right now. His low salary and pro bowl season would make him 'easily tradeable'. I eagerly anticipate your next thread where you argue that Pace should do so

And you are ignoring the context of the statement. The posters I debated were effectively arguing that Howard is not a good fit, RBs can easily be replaced, and you shouldn't play to his strengths while he is on your team.

So if that is how Pace and Nagy felt then there is no reason to keep him however cheap. You trade him and find someone who is a better fit. Both you and Outlaw are working off of different assumptions than the above it seems and then acting like my statement was made in response to your argument.

Now if you are saying that you also believe the above bolded points but that they still should have kept him then we can continue to debate because that is the actual scenario I was talking about. A scenario where Pace and Nagy firmly believe that RBs like Howard can easily be replaced and that Howard is not a good scheme fit. I am not sure why if that is your position you wouldn't trade him when his value is high because you should feel confident you can replace him with someone else since again you think he is easily replaceable.

LOL at Nagy "firmly believing" that Howard can easily be replaced upon taking the Bears HC job. What would that "firm belief" be based on? Howard was arguably the Bears' best player in 2017, easily their best offensive player, was going into his 3rd season, and was making peanuts. I'm not sure how/why you are STILL confused on the timeline here.

It would be like the Cubs hiring Joe Maddon and his first move is to dump Jake Arrieta because he doesn't fit Maddon's pitching philosophy..

 

[Rory Sparrow]

Whether people come in on the last page or not doesn't change the fact that there was a history of posts before that. I also never said it was your fault. I said it isn't my fault that you didn't realize the history. You have the tools to go back and read the posts if you so choose. Whether you do so or not is your choice not mine.

Also, I stand by that post as again not sure if you are following along.

So you have a guy at one of the easiest positions to replace per CCS who is not a good fit and who has two years left on his contract. It is unlikely his value would increase after playing in your system and you apparently have no desire to play to his strengths initially. In that scenario, you trade him while his value is highest. The fact that he is low cost and coming off of two good years should make such a trade very realistic which was your question.

If someone says in that scenario, it means their comments relate solely to that scenario. The scenario presented is clear. If you introduce another scenario then my comments do not apply. So based on the above here is the scenario.

1. It has been determined someone is not a good fit.
2. They have 2 years left on contract.
3. It is unlikely their value will increase playing in a system where the coach has no desire to play to their strengths.

Now let's pause here. I don't have to believe the above scenario is reality to give an opinion. I can give an opinion for debate purposes based on the scenario presented which is what I did. So the question you have to answer is would you trade him if the above scenario was correct or would you not? Based on your responses, it seems you are debating a different scenario where Nagy has a desire to use Howard but that was not the scenario presented. You do realize one can debate hypotheticals where you just accept the assumptions for purposes of the debate without actually having to believe them?

This posting is a good illustration of where your "argument" falls apart because you have nowhere to 'course correct' and venture down another path. You've essentially checkmated yourself, so to speak.

On one hand, you've given Pace & Nagy too much credit by assigning them superhuman powers of clairvoyance, yet on the other hand you assume Pace & Nagy are so lacking in football sense that they knowingly keep a player like Jordan Howard and 'unwittingly' give Howard 270 touches during the 2018 season. The irony being that Pace & Nagy have spent their adult lives in the football world, so it is unclear as to why you would question their football sense, and no empirical data exists that humankind has attained the ability to be clairvoyant.

So which is it? Did Pace/Nagy's clairvoyance fail them, as they were unable to see Jordan Howard's limitations in Nagy's system, which were plain for all (because, as fellow humans, we all have clairvoyant abilities) to see prior to the 2018 season? Did Pace/Nagy's clairvoyance allow them to see Howard not fitting in Nagy's offense prior to the 2018 season, yet they were both so football-Special person that Pace did not attempt to trade Howard prior to the 2018 season, and Nagy compounded this 'error' by giving a player, whom he has no desire to use, an astounding 270 offensive touches?

 

[gpphat]

THREE POINT SEVEN YARDS PER CARRY.

All I gotta say.

@msadows

Thought this thread should be revisited to point out that all of the Bears RB's are averaging less than 3.7 yards per carry vs Howards 4.5 yards per carry and Howard has more total yards than all of the Bears RB's combined....all while in a committee.

All I gotta say

 

[bamainatlanta]

@msadows

Thought this thread should be revisited to point out that all of the Bears RB's are averaging less than 3.7 yards per carry vs Howards 4.5 yards per carry and Howard has more total yards than all of the Bears RB's combined....all while in a committee.

All I gotta say

And the Eagles scored 10pts Sunday night. And blown out 2 weeks in a row. Nice

 

[ZOMBIE@CTESPN]

What a lot of ppl don’t get is that he also take snaps away from other rbs.

I wish he was here now taking away snaps from slow poke and midget