They aren't building around Olsen. Gees you can take a point and run it a 1000 yards in the direction you please. Here is my issue. I wouldn't be willing to give up that much for Boldin plus the salary extension you are going to have to give him and I think the Bears have about 10M left in cap space.

Midget, I'd love to get a #1 here but I'm not willing to give up Olsen for it. The 3 TEs, Forte, Cutler and the receivers they have should be enough for this year at least. If Boldin were to not work out they'd be screwed. I'm not willing to take that risk. And if they give up Olsen who is going to go drinking with Cutler?

Something else...Does Boldin have a hip problem or is this a rumor?

Here is what you said.

If you are worried about losing what Greg Olsen will do in the future then you are building your offense in part around him. You are counting on him to be a major contributor and do not think it would be worth losing to get a player like Anquan Boldin even with his superior production.

If your problem is with the cap space, then why could you see Clark or Davis being traded for Boldin but not Olsen? Why would the salary cap or contract extension be any different?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I don't know how much production Boldin has left if the hip rumors are true and missed a couple games due to other injuries. 3 years maybe? I'm not saying build around Olsen but he is an important piece of the puzzle and I think having him on the roster allows more flexibility in what you can do. The future reference was the future draft picks you'd have to give up in addition to Olsen.

Boldin would give you, well the production of Boldin, but it leaves the team a little more one dimensional. I think you'd see the lack of creativity from the coaching staff fall into place again and that can lead to trouble. The addition of the blocking TE helps the run and the pass but I don't think Boldin production would be worth what you'd have to give up.

I see Clark and Davis as pretty interchangeable Davis being the lesser player. Olsen needs to work on the jump balls but he is by far the best receiving TE.

OK, but that still leaves you with a seven year gap. You were acting flummoxed that someone would consider a QB to be so much more valuable than a WR in terms of trade value. Well, it's obvious that, all things being equal, a QB is more important than a WR, but even more importantly, a good QB that's younger is better than a good WR that's older. We can argue about how much of a difference there is, but it's patently clear that there's a difference in value.

People smarter than me have done the research on when players at different positions tend to decline. (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/articles/age.htm) The research is a bit dated, but wide receivers tend to decline once they hit 30. that'll be the 2010 season for Boldin. You're wanting to pencil Boldin in as "very good" at 33 is a huge leap of faith. On the other hand, QBs tend to decline after their age 32 seasons, and the decline is more graceful.

How much of a difference is two years of a WR at peak performance vs. seven years of a QB at peak performance? You seem to think not much, but even by your analysis, you're ignoring:

-Cap space allocated: Any team that trades for Boldin will need to agree to a massive, massive contract. That's true of Cutler as well, of course, but what percentage of cap should be allotted to the #1 receiver in proportion to the starting QB in proportion to the rest of the pieces of the team? As one goes up, the others necessarily go down.

-Opportunity costs: how much less costly is the second-best solution at WR in comparison to the second-best solution at QB? You'd argue that the second-best solution at QB would be without cost, because it would have been Kyle Orton. That's fine as far as it goes, but factor in the uncertainty as to whether he'll ever be anything more than a league-average starter (if even that) and the cost grows. Decent WRs are simply easier to find, whether it be though the draft, or the summer scrap heap, or wherever.

-That significant gap in time where you'll ge getting nothing of value whatsoever from the WR and production from the QB. Assume that all NFL players have a "value arc" that goes something like this. The numbers represent how much value they give to the team. They rise until they hit a peak, then decline. I'll assume for these purposes that a WR and QB are worth exactly the same value (which they aren't), that the average age of decline for the NFL sets in for each position where you'd expect, and that the rate of decline is the same:

WR Age- 29 (10), 30 (10), 31 (7), 32 (4), 33 (3), 34 (2)
QB Age- 26 (7), 27 (8), 29 (9), 30 (10), 31 (10), 32 (10), 33 (7), 34 (4), 35 (3), 36 (2)

Even granted a set of unrealistic assumptions that are unfavorable to your point, you're still getting about twice as much value out of the QB.

Finally, you continue making a fundamental error about measuring the value of NFL players. You can't take a players stats and transpose them over from team to team like you (basically) can for baseball players. A TEs value isn't only in receiving, but also in blocking and even more in getting other receivers open. A WR can be negatively effected by poor receivers around him, while he can be positively effected by good receivers that take attention away.

In my opinion, you give the game away here:



2-3 year solutions are a shitty allocation of resources via the draft. The whole reason draft picks have value is that you can get players cheap for a long time. You're taking a valuable commdity- the chance at a good cheap player for an extended stretch- and turning it into the certainty of a good, expensive player for a short amount of time. This isn't a team that needs to sell everything away for the next two years. As long as you have a great QB, the window is open. There's no beat the clock at work here.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

Olsen is probably the best WR on the team too. He's not the fastest, but but if I had one pass left in a game I would want it to go to Olsen.

I like Olsen a lot but I dislike greatly our receiving core. I think I even said this in my original post about the Jay Cutler trade that I like it a lot more if the Bears end up getting a true #1 WR which Boldin or Edwards would qualify.

Obviously if the Boldin rumors are true then it wouldn't be worth it but the Bears would discover that during the physical and void the trade.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Of course there is a difference in value. That is why I think that if you set your baseline that a pro bowl QB is worth 2 first round picks and a third round pick then the curve is set that a pro bowl WR is worth a second round pick. I'm not flummoxed that someone considers a QB to be so much more valuable. I am flummoxed that a pro bowl WR is not worth when the price is significantly lower.


I would make a bet that Boldin, barring season or career ending injury, will be better than anyone on the Bears roster for the next 3 years. He'll be more productive than Hester or Olsen or Bennet or Iglesias.


The point you ignore: 2nd round pick vs. two 1st round picks and a 3rd round pick is a major difference. I'm saying what you are giving up for what you are getting back would be comparable. This is a very basic analysis, but it illustrates my point. Give 3 points for a first round pick, 2 points for a second round pick, 1 point for a third round pick. The Bears paid 7 points to get Cutler. They would be paying 2 points to get Boldin. I would think it would be fair to say that Cutler would be 3.5 times more valuable to the Bears. That is why my initial point is that if Cutler is worth what they paid so is Boldin.


I worry less about cap space for a bonafide #1 WR, QB, and RB. I don't believe my initial concerns about the Cutler trade had anything to do with cap space but it does concern me a little that he is only signed for three years. The Bears can find a way to survive.


I am not ignoring that. I am using Rashied Davis to Anquan Boldin. That would be the biggest upgrade the Bears made all season as Boldin would be knocking Davis out of the starting lineup.


Just to have a standard measure, the Bears aren't paying 1/2 as much for Boldin. They are paying significantly less. If you want, use the Jimmy Johnson draft chart and tell me the value of a second round pick as compared to a first, a third, and a first the next year. I bet it's not 50% less.


Olsen is not a good blocker. He may be average but he's not a blocking tight end.

I understand that you can't make exact transfers of stats but I feel that Boldin will outperform Olsen next year. Boldin will go around or over 1000 yards unless he misses half the season that Olsen won't get anywhere close to a 1000 yards. Do you disagree?


Where exactly are the Bears getting this long term wide receiver solution? They are hoping a third round WR will be good and cheap for an extended stretch? They don't have a first round pick next year. The 2nd round WR they could pick next year probably wouldn't be better than Boldin until his third year anyways. The Bears can always still draft a WR to groom for the future or hold off the field some of the young ones they have now.

I just don't think the Bears or any NFL team has the luxury of planning past 5 years. Even 3 years might be the limit. I look at how different things were 3 years ago in the NFL. Every team should have a 3 year plan to be a Super Bowl contender. The league is filled with parity.

That is more my opinion than anything else, but 5 years from now is an eternity in the NFL.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Don't say such things.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

Boldin is not TO or Moss. I'm afraid of him becoming Moose.

Edwards is younger, his price tag will be less but he drops a lot of passes. He has really only had one good year and he isn't really consistent but that could have been due to the qb problems in Cleveland. He is a big target. Other than that I don't know much about him, is he a possesion receiver? I waffle on him. I think Edwards might be the better deal at this point but only at the right price.

I can't believe I agree with IB.

So, what everyone is saying, is that the Bears finally got a QB, but now dont have nobody to catch the ball???


LULZ, its always something.


The Poofer- "Hello, Marcus Robinson........."

_________________

I would much rather have Boldin, but I would be happy to get either guy.

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."

He was only saying that for effect.

_________________

Doug Drinen is light years ahead of me on thinking about these things. He does some of the best work on the internet at the pro-football-reference blog.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

Why would Arizona give up Boldin for Olsen?
The Bears would make that deal in a second...before Arizona changed their mind!

John

_________________
CSFMB 2014 Nascar Pick 'em Champion

We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much. — Ronald Reagan

You guys are talking about Greg Olsen like he's Tony Gonzalez or Mike Ditka. TE is the least impoortant position in Football in my opinion. I would pay for Olsens plane ticket if we could get Boldin for him!

John

_________________
CSFMB 2014 Nascar Pick 'em Champion

We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much. — Ronald Reagan

That's what happens when 90% of your football knowledge comes from playing Madden and fantasy football.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

Hey big spender don't be throwing money around like that.

Each position depends on the team and how it's used.

Clearly the least important offensive position is either guard or center. That is bourne out in the salaries and draft positions.

The least important "skill" position is fullback. The position is on its way to extinction.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.