**OFFICAIL** Bears 2024 Regular Season News & Schleisse - FTO Preferred - No ALTS! Derailing Is Discouraged!

NorcalBear

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Mar 22, 2016
Posts:
385
Liked Posts:
256
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. North Carolina Tar Heels
He is ass. Does not mean he won't enjoy more success on the Lions than he ever did on the Bears.
Got it. Whatever. But if you find you are in, or drawn to toxic relationships.. its because you find peaceful things/ people boring. People who are constantly seeking pleasure, are needing those dopamine hits which lends to a fixation on a toxic person (in this case, spats with Bears fans for years on end). This forum... who cares.. but something to think about regarding your relationships. If they arent very peaceful.. this was an unsolicited tip. Just like most your posts in a Bears forum.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
60,245
Liked Posts:
38,925
Maybe you should do a little research before you open your mouth an insert not one, but both of your feet?

Roquan Cap's hit for 2023 is 9 mil
Roquan's cap hit for 2024 is 13.5 mil
Roquan's cap hit for 2025 is 22.5 mil

potential out in 2026

Stupid little child.


Except if you dump him after 2025 there is 15m in dead cap. So all told that would be 3 years of service and 60m in cap hits and cash spend. So still 20m a year. And if he is still good then you face the issue of potentially having to cut a good player going into his age 29 season.

By contrast, Edmunds cap hits are reasonable throughout and he will be a FA at 28. So we get to keep him throughout his prime if he is good and the cap hit to cut him in 2025 or 2026 is jusy 4.8m and 2.4.

So it is clearly a cheaper contract with a better structure for a player during his absolutely prime years.
 
Last edited:

MikeDitkaPolishSausage

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 12, 2013
Posts:
9,123
Liked Posts:
6,942
Location:
Black Rainbow’s Grandma’s house.
Well, they will both be operating behind the same O-line, so I guess we find out this year, won't we?
What does that have to do with anything? Monty has been the better back. Plan and simple. Stats don’t lie in this case.
 

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Nov 27, 2014
Posts:
18,715
Liked Posts:
4,641
Except if you dump him after 2025 there is 15m in dead cap. So all told that would be 3 years of service and 60m in cap hits and cash spend. So still 20m a year. And if he is still good then you face the issue of potentially having to cut a good player going into his age 29 season.

By contrast, Edmunds cap hits are reasonable throughout and he will be a FA at 28. So we get to keep him throughout his prime if he is good and the cap hit to cut him in 2025 or 2026 is jusy 4.8m and 2.4.

So it is clearly a cheaper contract with a better structure for a player during his absolutely prime years.
Three years of Roquan would be 60 million
Three years of Edwards is 55 million.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: chi

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
60,245
Liked Posts:
38,925
Three years of Roquan would be 60 million
Three years of Edwards is 55 million.
But he will still be 27 at the end of his 3rd year. The point is there would be little reason for Bears not to keep him in his age 28 season for 17.4m if he is good. That will be chump change for a top LB in 2026.

By contrast, after 3 years you likely need to cut, trade or restructure Quan even if he is good because otherwise he will cost 27m a year.

So your point is stupid. We got the 5th best LB per PFF on a cheaper and much better deal for 4 years in his prime. As well as 2nd and 5th round picks. In exchange we passed on paying the 21st ranked LB more money on a poorly structured deal.

There is no way that isnt a win for the Bears.
 

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Nov 27, 2014
Posts:
18,715
Liked Posts:
4,641
But he will still be 27 at the end of his 3rd year. The point is there would be little reason for Bears not to keep him in his age 28 season for 17.4m if he is good. That will be chump change for a top LB in 2026.

By contrast, after 3 years you likely need to cut, trade or restructure Quan even if he is good because otherwise he will cost 27m a year.

So your point is stupid. We got the 5th best LB per PFF on a cheaper and much better deal for 4 years in his prime. As well as 2nd and 5th round picks. In exchange we passed on paying the 21st ranked LB more money on a poorly structured deal.

There is no way that isnt a win for the Bears.
That was never my point, but thanks for chiming in anyways. Originally, my point was, that the overwhelming sentiment on CCS was that NO LB was worth that amount of money, as it was not a premium position. Now, all of a sudden, everyone has done a complete 180. Regardless of if Roquan makes a little more, etc etc, both are in the top 5 highest paid LB's in the league.

After that shit-for-brains made an erroneous statement about cap hits. I took him to task over it.

I don't care to get into an argument over who is better, which contract will be better, because that can not be determined for three years. i do know this, part of the trade compensation for Roquan was for last year.

There is also something to be said for a franchise that takes care of its own, and Vets do notice this.

Now run along and take your vortex elsewhere.
 

bamainatlanta

You wake him up, you keep him up
Staff member
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '22
Joined:
Aug 10, 2013
Posts:
36,919
Liked Posts:
33,969
Location:
Cumming
Again, you can't pick and choose what years of a contract to single out just to fit your reetarded narrative.

Edmunds is cheaper and a more cost controlled option than Roquan which was the entire point to not giving Roquan the contract he wanted
And to get a 5th & a 2nd.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: chi

NorcalBear

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Mar 22, 2016
Posts:
385
Liked Posts:
256
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. North Carolina Tar Heels

Nuremberg Bear

Well-known member
Joined:
Nov 9, 2018
Posts:
865
Liked Posts:
677
That was never my point, but thanks for chiming in anyways. Originally, my point was, that the overwhelming sentiment on CCS was that NO LB was worth that amount of money, as it was not a premium position. Now, all of a sudden, everyone has done a complete 180. Regardless of if Roquan makes a little more, etc etc, both are in the top 5 highest paid LB's in the league.

After that shit-for-brains made an erroneous statement about cap hits. I took him to task over it.

I don't care to get into an argument over who is better, which contract will be better, because that can not be determined for three years. i do know this, part of the trade compensation for Roquan was for last year.

There is also something to be said for a franchise that takes care of its own, and Vets do notice this.

Now run along and take your vortex elsewhere.
What's wrong with you? One signed a four year contract and the other a five year contract. And you come in and compare it within first 3 years. ?‍♂️

I loved Smith but he just asked for too much. And maybe, just maybe, he learned his market price and took less money as requested at time.

Very very often, if not with every post, your brain looks worse than my English...
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: chi

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
60,245
Liked Posts:
38,925
That was never my point, but thanks for chiming in anyways. Originally, my point was, that the overwhelming sentiment on CCS was that NO LB was worth that amount of money, as it was not a premium position. Now, all of a sudden, everyone has done a complete 180. Regardless of if Roquan makes a little more, etc etc, both are in the top 5 highest paid LB's in the league.

After that shit-for-brains made an erroneous statement about cap hits. I took him to task over it.

I don't care to get into an argument over who is better, which contract will be better, because that can not be determined for three years. i do know this, part of the trade compensation for Roquan was for last year.

There is also something to be said for a franchise that takes care of its own, and Vets do notice this.

Now run along and take your vortex elsewhere.

What is your proof that was the overwhelming sentiment? I think the overwhelming sentiment was that Quan wasn't worth 20m a year ie being the highest paid off ball LB. I think most were aware the Bears offered him a contract and thought 18m a year would be a fair price. The issue was again people didn't think he should be the highest paid. So the fact Edmunds accepted the 18m a year which is what many thought Quan was worth does not support your point at all.

One year at 22m, other than that Edmunds costs 14,17 and 17 on the others.

But please continue to make yourself look like your usual reetarded self

Meanwhile Roquan has a 22m, followed by his final two years being a 27m cap hit.

Shut the fuck up
The poster didn't make a mistake. He said the cap hit was 22m FOLLOWED by 27m in each of the last two years. The followed by is the clue that he was referring to the 3rd year cap hit followed by 27m the last 2 years. Your dumbass interpreted it as him saying the cap hit was 22m in the current year but his post never actually said that.

Finally you are 100% full of shit. You comment on how good or bad moves are all the time. You only want to now claim you need to wait 3 years because Edmunds actually graded out a better player this year than Quan. If it was the other way around you would be claiming how the Bears signed a worse player. We all know this is true because you routinely make proclamations about how Lions players are better than Bears players based on PFF grades in the prior year. So the facts are that currently the Bears signed a better player to a much better deal plus got a 2nd round pick and a 5th round pick. The end.
 
Last edited:

Top