Chicago Bears vs. San Francisco 49ers Rebuilding Plan

Originally posted by 49er-from-Yavin-IV:

Why do people assume we "missed" on Mack? You can't strike a deal with someone who isn't interested in dealing with you. It makes more sense that the Raiders refused to deal with the 49ers than that Lynch was cheap in our offer to them. Also, Gordon is a major risk, not in ability, but in his off-field issues. Short term with an organization with a strong and established culture Gordon can be great. Short or long term with an organization trying to establish such a culture (and had just lost their FQB for the season) would not work well. Paying Ward and Armstead was majorly risky (perhaps stupid, even), but the high cost is short term and they'll be gone soon enough, or brought back at reduced cost. There were so many holes on this roster that we were never going to fix all of them in two off-seasons. This regime has not been perfect, but they have done well in finding some cornerstone pieces. This next draft is crucial for them to find more cornerstones for the roster. I will continue to give Lynch and company the benefit of the doubt. It will be all the sweeter when they do put everything together and win our sixth Lombardi trophy.

This isn't a LynchExcuses thread but I appreciate you posting nonetheless.

Originally posted by 49er-from-Yavin-IV:

Why do people assume we "missed" on Mack? You can't strike a deal with someone who isn't interested in dealing with you. It makes more sense that the Raiders refused to deal with the 49ers than that Lynch was cheap in our offer to them. Also, Gordon is a major risk, not in ability, but in his off-field issues. Short term with an organization with a strong and established culture Gordon can be great. Short or long term with an organization trying to establish such a culture (and had just lost their FQB for the season) would not work well. Paying Ward and Armstead was majorly risky (perhaps stupid, even), but the high cost is short term and they'll be gone soon enough, or brought back at reduced cost. There were so many holes on this roster that we were never going to fix all of them in two off-seasons. This regime has not been perfect, but they have done well in finding some cornerstone pieces. This next draft is crucial for them to find more cornerstones for the roster. I will continue to give Lynch and company the benefit of the doubt. It will be all the sweeter when they do put everything together and win our sixth Lombardi trophy.

Reports were Chicago was the only team to offer 2 1sts, Lynch himself has said they had a price tag on how far they'd go. It's just as likely that we got outbid. The team should of offered 2 1sts straight up for him. Instead we'll be praying Bosa is there.

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Reports were Chicago was the only team to offer 2 1sts, Lynch himself has said they had a price tag on how far they'd go. It's just as likely that we got outbid. The team should of offered 2 1sts straight up for him. Instead we'll be praying Bosa is there.

Truth.

His ass was on the line after they kept him over Fox. Not like he had much choice but to go all in after acquiring his QB in '17.

Originally posted by FL9er:

His ass was on the line after they kept him over Fox. Not like he had much choice but to go all in after acquiring his QB in '17.

Luckily for him, all the right players and coaches were available for him and he secured them all.

We could go all in too and fail miserably...looking at this FA market, it looks pretty bad; might not be the best year to go all in. Last year seemed like the year there was a lot more young top notch talent esp. via trades.

Originally posted by NCommand:
Given that the Bears started rebuilding the same time we did (2017),

The entire premise of this thread is flawed. Ryan Pace was hired as GM of the Bears back in January of 2015, a week before the 49ers hired Jim Tomsula as HC. Baalke wouldn't be fired as GM for another two years.

The Bears have been rebuilding ever since then. He's had four offseasons thus far to build their roster and up until a few months ago, Bears fans were widely calling for his firing.

You're comparing a front office regime with four offseasons and four drafts under their belts to one that just got started last year after having blown up the entire roster.

If you're going to use the Bears as a point of comparison, it'd make sense to see where the 49ers are right now versus where Chicago was in 2016.

Setting an arbitrary rebuild point of 2017, which was Pace's third offseason as GM makes absolutely no sense considering just how many crucial players on their roster were acquired prior that, before Shanahan and Lynch came up to bat and blew up most of the previous roster. Who are the 49ers impact players that were here before ShanaLynch? Staley and Buckner?

These are some of the players on their current roster that came in prior to 2017.

RB-Jordan Howard
OT-Charles Leno
OG-Eric Kush
C-Cody Whitehair
OG-Kyle Long
OT-Bobby Massie
DE-Jonathan Bullard
NT-Eddie Goldman
DE-Akiem Hicks
LB-Danny Trevathan
OLB-Leonard Floyd
OLB-Sam Acho
ILB-Nick Kwiatkoski
SS-Adrian Amos
CB-Kyle Fuller
S-Deon Bush

Lots of key players plus pretty much their entire starting OL outside of James Daniels who replaced Kyle Long after he was injured. Its rather disingenuous to act like having a two year head start in terms of building a roster wasn't even remotely helpful for Pace and the Bears. He was a guy in his fourth year that had to go big considering the criticism that he was receiving from fans and the media.

Pace was very much looking to be on the hot seat soon and was taking huge amounts of criticism for his perceived lack of progress. I'm guessing a lot of Bears fans are now happy that the team stuck with him through his fourth offseason.

http://digitaledition.chicagotribune.com/tribune/article_popover.aspx?guid=e7cfae6d-f43d-4d44-aa30-a07ed41ca26d

Pace, Fox may be on the hot seat
Report of Bears hiring outside consultant a function of losing

https://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/bears-gm-pace-has-been-around-for-3-seasons-but-doesnt-have-much-to-show-for-it/

Bears GM Pace has been around for 3 seasons but doesn't have much to show for it

Yet Bears president Ted Phillips said after last season's debacle, ''He's earned the opportunity to see his plan to fruition.''
A cynic could say that plan looks like a long descent into the coal mine of darkness with ground zero being the transformation of the Bears into a team worse than the Browns. The Browns, by the way, could make a kindergarten finger-painting class look well-run.
In January, Pace signed a contract extension with the Bears that will keep him in Chicago through 2021. That is long enough to see the Bears become something championship-worthy or truly embarrassing.
Thus, Pace is on the clock. And if we fans have any say in it, that clock does not go on for nearly four more years.
If there isn't marked improvement in the Bears this season, what exactly will there be about Pace's four years as GM that inspires confidence in anyone? (And, remember, we can't fire the McCaskeys, who have owned the Bears in one way or another since Papa Bear Halas spawned the franchise.)

So of course he had to big or go home and he went big and it appears to have worked out for him. The key is that he was given the necessary time to build the roster as he saw fit. In his fourth offseason he went from a guy potentially on the hot seat to potentially being Executive of the Year. I'd hope that people are patient enough to offer ShanaLynch the same latitude if you're going to use Pace as your model.

If we had given the Raiders what they wanted and gotten Mack we would have a premier pass rusher and NO first or second round picks this year or next. With Jimmy going down and with all our other injuries my guess is we might have won one or two more games with Mack. That still would be high picks this year for the Raiders. And we still would have lots of holes to fill with no high draft picks for 2 years. With the possibility of landing Bosa or another good edge guy I feel we are better off. Even if Bosa isn't as good as Mack we have picks to fill gaping holes.

I'm pretty sure if you look at the cap space the Bears are pretty much FACT in the coming years. I still don't understand why they didn't pursue Vic Fangio when he became available.

Top post from Phoenix above

Phoenix Post was spot on! The Bears have been the cellar dwellers for the past couple years horrendous team and a solid defense. They took a lot of people in free agency and drafted OK but it took them forever to get to this point

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Given that the Bears started rebuilding the same time we did (2017),

The entire premise of this thread is flawed. Ryan Pace was hired as GM of the Bears back in January of 2015, a week before the 49ers hired Jim Tomsula as HC. Baalke wouldn't be fired as GM for another two years.

The Bears have been rebuilding ever since then. He's had four offseasons thus far to build their roster and up until a few months ago, Bears fans were widely calling for his firing.

You're comparing a front office regime with four offseasons and four drafts under their belts to one that just got started last year after having blown up the entire roster.

If you're going to use the Bears as a point of comparison, it'd make sense to see where the 49ers are right now versus where Chicago was in 2016.

Setting an arbitrary rebuild point of 2017, which was Pace's third offseason as GM makes absolutely no sense considering just how many crucial players on their roster were acquired prior that, before Shanahan and Lynch came up to bat and blew up most of the previous roster. Who are the 49ers impact players that were here before ShanaLynch? Staley and Buckner?

These are some of the players on their current roster that came in prior to 2017.

RB-Jordan Howard
OT-Charles Leno
OG-Eric Kush
C-Cody Whitehair
OG-Kyle Long
OT-Bobby Massie
DE-Jonathan Bullard
NT-Eddie Goldman
DE-Akiem Hicks
LB-Danny Trevathan
OLB-Leonard Floyd
OLB-Sam Acho
ILB-Nick Kwiatkoski
SS-Adrian Amos
CB-Kyle Fuller
S-Deon Bush

Lots of key players plus pretty much their entire starting OL outside of James Daniels who replaced Kyle Long after he was injured. Its rather disingenuous to act like having a two year head start in terms of building a roster wasn't even remotely helpful for Pace and the Bears. He was a guy in his fourth year that had to go big considering the criticism that he was receiving from fans and the media.

Pace was very much looking to be on the hot seat soon and was taking huge amounts of criticism for his perceived lack of progress. I'm guessing a lot of Bears fans are now happy that the team stuck with him through his fourth offseason.

http://digitaledition.chicagotribune.com/tribune/article_popover.aspx?guid=e7cfae6d-f43d-4d44-aa30-a07ed41ca26d

Pace, Fox may be on the hot seat
Report of Bears hiring outside consultant a function of losing

https://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/bears-gm-pace-has-been-around-for-3-seasons-but-doesnt-have-much-to-show-for-it/

Bears GM Pace has been around for 3 seasons but doesn't have much to show for it

Yet Bears president Ted Phillips said after last season's debacle, ''He's earned the opportunity to see his plan to fruition.''
A cynic could say that plan looks like a long descent into the coal mine of darkness with ground zero being the transformation of the Bears into a team worse than the Browns. The Browns, by the way, could make a kindergarten finger-painting class look well-run.
In January, Pace signed a contract extension with the Bears that will keep him in Chicago through 2021. That is long enough to see the Bears become something championship-worthy or truly embarrassing.
Thus, Pace is on the clock. And if we fans have any say in it, that clock does not go on for nearly four more years.
If there isn't marked improvement in the Bears this season, what exactly will there be about Pace's four years as GM that inspires confidence in anyone? (And, remember, we can't fire the McCaskeys, who have owned the Bears in one way or another since Papa Bear Halas spawned the franchise.)

So of course he had to big or go home and he went big and it appears to have worked out for him. The key is that he was given the necessary time to build the roster as he saw fit. In his fourth offseason he went from a guy potentially on the hot seat to potentially being Executive of the Year. I'd hope that people are patient enough to offer ShanaLynch the same latitude if you're going to use Pace as your model.

Your premise, I get. The issue is the GM was on the hot seat because he was doing a "poor job" AND they were drafting right where we were despite having a year or two "head start." And still, neither had their FQB yet. That's when a rebuild takes off.

I do esp. agree with your last point though. No doubt he felt the sense of urgency, changed coaches, hired a great offensive mind HC in Nagy, retained Fangio, got aggressive to get his FQB and had that same exact approach in free agency and the draft. And he's hit on a remarkable number of those picks from 2016+.

I too hope fans are patient as well. We only carried over 7 starters prior to 2017 but the 2017 & 2018 moves (free agent and the draft) need to hit like Pace's did.

That's how we can compare going forward.

There's never going to be a perfect apples to apples comparison but even if you believe Pace got a year or two head start, we'll be able to use that same timeline for us. For instance, year 3 or 4 is when ShanaLynch should start getting more aggressive in their rebuilding approach...pressure of a hot seat or not.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Your premise, I get. The issue is the GM was on the hot seat because he was doing a "poor job" AND they were drafting right where we were despite having a year or two "head start." And still, neither had their FQB yet. That's when a rebuild takes off.

I do esp. agree with your last point though. No doubt he felt the sense of urgency, changed coaches, hired a great offensive mind HC in Nagy, retained Fangio, got aggressive to get his FQB and had that same exact approach in free agency and the draft. And he's hit on a remarkable number of those picks from 2016+.

I too hope fans are patient as well. We only carried over 7 starters prior to 2017 but the 2017 & 2018 moves (free agent and the draft) need to hit like theirs did.

That's how we can compare going forward. There's never going to be a perfect apples to apples comparison but even if you believe Pace got a year or two head start, we'll be able to use that same timeline for us. For instance, year 3 or 4 is when ShanaLynch start getting more aggressive in their rebuilding approach.

It isn't what I believe or what you believe. It is what factually happened. My post was in regards to your claim that the Bears began rebuilding in 2017 which is objectively false.

Pace was hired in 2015. Lynch and Shanahan were hired in 2017. Pace has had four offseasons and four drafts to put together his roster. Lynch and Shanahan have had two thus far. Twice as many drafts and free agent signing periods, longer time for young players to develop certainly helps.

If you want to compare where the 49ers are at now versus where the Bears were at two years ago then that would be far more logically consistent. Trying to compare where the two are at when one has had twice as many drafts and offseasons for roster construction just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

If we're in 2020 and the 49ers aren't a playoff contender, then it will be easy to show that Pace did a demonstrably better job of roster building over an equivalent period of time. However up until this offseason, he was regarded as a disappointment by Bears fans and considered in the media to be a guy approaching the hot seat due to the lack of progress that had been made.

This offseason ultimately made him and the parts and pieces he was collecting finally coalesced once they add a few key players. In the same vein, it makes sense to be patient with Shanalynch to let them fill in the roster and see what the final product turns out to be after an equivalent period of time. If the 49ers are making a run at the playoffs next year or the following, then I'm guessing they did alright following their own particular approach to roster building.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

It isn't what I believe or what you believe. It is what factually happened. My post was in regards to your claim that the Bears began rebuilding in 2017 which is objectively false.

Pace was hired in 2015. Lynch and Shanahan were hired in 2017. Pace has had four offseasons and four drafts to put together his roster. Lynch and Shanahan have had two thus far. Twice as many drafts and free agent signing periods, longer time for young players to develop certainly helps.

If you want to compare where the 49ers are at now versus where the Bears were at two years ago then that would be far more logically consistent. Trying to compare where the two are at when one has had twice as many drafts and offseasons for roster construction just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

If we're in 2020 and the 49ers aren't a playoff contender, then it will be easy to show that Pace did a demonstrably better job of roster building over an equivalent period of time. However up until this offseason, he was regarded as a disappointment by Bears fans and considered in the media to be a guy approaching the hot seat due to the lack of progress that had been made.

This offseason ultimately made him and the parts and pieces he was collecting finally coalesced once they add a few key players. In the same vein, it makes sense to be patient with Shanalynch to let them fill in the roster and see what the final product turns out to be after an equivalent period of time. If the 49ers are making a run at the playoffs next year or the following, then I'm guessing they did alright following their own particular approach to roster building.

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. Every GM is going to inherit players from a previous regime.

I simply looked at rosters, when the most work was done (2017 & 2018), where they drafted (2 & 3), when they got their FQB (2017), when a HC was hired (2017, 2018), etc.

How/when you define a rebuild is perfectly fine. You can still track the linear progression either way.

Thl suggested the Bill's would be a good comparison. Another fan suggested the Vikings since they built via the long-game like ShanaLynch subscribe to.

If you look at the OP, you'll see they had 14 starters prior to 2017...we had 7.

You're welcome to interject your own if you think there's a better apples to apples comparison.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Given that the Bears started rebuilding the same time we did (2017),

The entire premise of this thread is flawed. Ryan Pace was hired as GM of the Bears back in January of 2015, a week before the 49ers hired Jim Tomsula as HC. Baalke wouldn't be fired as GM for another two years.

The Bears have been rebuilding ever since then. He's had four offseasons thus far to build their roster and up until a few months ago, Bears fans were widely calling for his firing.

You're comparing a front office regime with four offseasons and four drafts under their belts to one that just got started last year after having blown up the entire roster.

If you're going to use the Bears as a point of comparison, it'd make sense to see where the 49ers are right now versus where Chicago was in 2016.

Setting an arbitrary rebuild point of 2017, which was Pace's third offseason as GM makes absolutely no sense considering just how many crucial players on their roster were acquired prior that, before Shanahan and Lynch came up to bat and blew up most of the previous roster. Who are the 49ers impact players that were here before ShanaLynch? Staley and Buckner?

These are some of the players on their current roster that came in prior to 2017.

RB-Jordan Howard
OT-Charles Leno
OG-Eric Kush
C-Cody Whitehair
OG-Kyle Long
OT-Bobby Massie
DE-Jonathan Bullard
NT-Eddie Goldman
DE-Akiem Hicks
LB-Danny Trevathan
OLB-Leonard Floyd
OLB-Sam Acho
ILB-Nick Kwiatkoski
SS-Adrian Amos
CB-Kyle Fuller
S-Deon Bush

Lots of key players plus pretty much their entire starting OL outside of James Daniels who replaced Kyle Long after he was injured. Its rather disingenuous to act like having a two year head start in terms of building a roster wasn't even remotely helpful for Pace and the Bears. He was a guy in his fourth year that had to go big considering the criticism that he was receiving from fans and the media.

Pace was very much looking to be on the hot seat soon and was taking huge amounts of criticism for his perceived lack of progress. I'm guessing a lot of Bears fans are now happy that the team stuck with him through his fourth offseason.

http://digitaledition.chicagotribune.com/tribune/article_popover.aspx?guid=e7cfae6d-f43d-4d44-aa30-a07ed41ca26d

Pace, Fox may be on the hot seat
Report of Bears hiring outside consultant a function of losing

https://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/bears-gm-pace-has-been-around-for-3-seasons-but-doesnt-have-much-to-show-for-it/

Bears GM Pace has been around for 3 seasons but doesn't have much to show for it

Yet Bears president Ted Phillips said after last season's debacle, ''He's earned the opportunity to see his plan to fruition.''
A cynic could say that plan looks like a long descent into the coal mine of darkness with ground zero being the transformation of the Bears into a team worse than the Browns. The Browns, by the way, could make a kindergarten finger-painting class look well-run.
In January, Pace signed a contract extension with the Bears that will keep him in Chicago through 2021. That is long enough to see the Bears become something championship-worthy or truly embarrassing.
Thus, Pace is on the clock. And if we fans have any say in it, that clock does not go on for nearly four more years.
If there isn't marked improvement in the Bears this season, what exactly will there be about Pace's four years as GM that inspires confidence in anyone? (And, remember, we can't fire the McCaskeys, who have owned the Bears in one way or another since Papa Bear Halas spawned the franchise.)

So of course he had to big or go home and he went big and it appears to have worked out for him. The key is that he was given the necessary time to build the roster as he saw fit. In his fourth offseason he went from a guy potentially on the hot seat to potentially being Executive of the Year. I'd hope that people are patient enough to offer ShanaLynch the same latitude if you're going to use Pace as your model.

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?