Bear(ing) the News – A Chicago Bears Blog

As DeMarcus Ware disappears from the list of free agents, the question presents itself:  how can teams like the Denver Broncos continue to sign high priced veteran free agent after free agent while the Bears are already bumping their heads up against the cap?  Brad Biggs at the Chicago Tribune provides the answer – in part:

“The Bears have a snug salary-cap situation but have mechanisms to create more room. At this point, it’s probably more about the cash budget and the team has spent big when you go back to the signing spree that began in the final week of December.”

It does, indeed, go back to the signing spree in December.  But the “cash budget” part of this excerpt is probably more to the point.

A Salary Cap Primer

Knowledgable, long-time readers of this blog can safely skip this section.

Nearly all teams “work” the salary cap by putting a certain amount of guaranteed money into a signing bonus.  This bonus is paid to the player entirely up front but the cap hit is spread over the length of the contract or 5 years, which ever is shorter.

If I give player A a five year contract with a $30 million signing bonus, the cap hit for that $30 million dollars will be $6 million dollars every year for five years.  If you release player A after 3 years, the cap hit from years 4 and 5 “accelerate” into the current year resulting in $6 million dollars of cap space occupied by a player who isn’t on the roster (known as “dead money”).

When the Bears released Julius Peppers it was said that they “saved” $9.8 million in cap space.  But this is misleading.  Before he was released, Peppers cap number was $18.2 million.  Because they now aren’t paying him his salary, that money will not count against the cap.  But the $8.4 million dollars in guaranteed money that has already been paid and spread out over the length of the contract still counts and Peppers still occupies this much cap space even though he’s no longer with the team.

The Bears and the Cap

Peppers aside, as someone who hates to rob Peter to pay Paul, I’m happy to say that the current Bears front office generally avoids situations where a great deal of dead money is generated when players are released.  However, it may surprise many fans when they understand how far the Bears go in this matter and what the consequences are.

The Jay Cutler contract from last December is an excellent case in point.  Cutler signed a seven year contract but because its structured in a very special and clever way, the $54 million in guaranteed money is spread across the first three years only.  This makes it effectively a three year contract with what amounts to a Bears team option to keep Cutler with no cap hit if he’s released after that.  This is outstanding cap management.

But here’s what will surprise many – when the details are examined, one finds that the split of $18 million per year over the first three years isn’t even.  In fact, the Bears have front loaded the cap hit so that it is $22.5 million in the first year and only $15.5 million and $16 million in the second and third years, respectively.  This actually means that their cap hit in the first year is $4.5 million higher than normal from this contract.  Though they have contractually retained the option of converting some of Cutler’s salary into signing bonus to create room, its fairly evident that this is only for emergencies and they have no plans to do so.

Similarly, the sharp fan will note that Peppers was likely released without a post June 1 designation.  Releasing him with the post June 1 designation would have allowed the Bears to absorb some of the dead money in 2015 rather than 2014.  Instead, they chose to absorb the entire $8.4 million this year, thus increasing their cap number significantly.

So, while other teams spread their guaranteed money out to avoid hitting the cap, the Bears have actually fixed their contracts such that they will hit the salary cap sooner.  Why would they do this?

Cash is King

The answer comes in the first part of Biggs’s statement above.  Its about the “cash budget”.  And its evident that the franchise has limited cash on hand to spend.

The key is understanding that though you can spread the cap hit from a signing bonus across several years, the money has to be paid up front.  In order to avoid paying cash that you don’t have, you have to limit the number of big signings that you make.  Therefore, its not just a matter of spending the cap (which all teams must effectively do).  It’s a matter of spending the cap while limiting the cash spent – i.e. front loading the cap hit on a few contracts to limit the number signings that you make before hitting the ceiling.

Conclusion

Some might assume from this that my conclusion is that the Bears organization is “cheap”.  It’s not.  The Bears aren’t the Packers, who almost never spend anything in free agency and almost never improve their team except through the draft (which fortunately for them they are very good at doing).

However, it is important to note that though the Bears exist in a big market, they’re a family run organization.  It’s highly likely that the major portion of the family income still derives itself from the team with limited diversification.  The result is a large market franchise that essentially has to be run like a small market team.  And when you are a fan of a small market team, you have to accept the fact that they aren’t going to spend like the rich boys who run their franchises as much for hobby as profit.

Like the Packers a few other franchises around the league, the Bears have to make less money work smarter.  More than many teams, they have to spend carefully, draft effectively and they have to develop that young talent.  Former GM Jerry Angelo and head coach Lovie Smith weren’t up to that task and it resulted in their downfall where, more than usual, repeated mistakes can’t be made.  Preliminary indications are that current GM Phil Emery and head coach Marc Trestman are up to the challenge.

One thing is certain.  However they manage to beat the competition, it won’t be by out spending them.

In considering the moves that the Bears have made since December, I find the question of whether they are actually better than they were at the beginning of 2013 to be debatable.

Though the offense has been left largely intact, we all know that the problems were on defense and that’s where improvements need to materialize.  In that respect, the lousy pass rush didn’t get any better with the loss of Julius Peppers (assuming he had anything at all left).  The addition of defensive end Lamarr Houston doesn’t help much there as he had a career high six sacks last year, lower that the 7 1/2 that Peppers generated in a “down year”.

Though he’s not officially gone, the return of corner back Charles Tillman and the turnovers he generated is also looking less and less likely.

However, all is not bad news because:

1. GM Phil Emery emphasized yesterday in his press conference that the free agent signings (and re-signings) were only the first steps in the rebuilding process and there is a lot of work yet to be done before final judgment can be passed.
2. The defense will be definitively younger, one of Emery’s stated goals.  Houston may not be a pass rushing force now but he’s on the rise and may yet quickly become one.
3. The run defense will be better with the signing of both Houston and new safety Ryan Mundy.  Mundy may not start but if he doesn’t, whoever beats him out will have to bring at least the same physical style of play that he does.

And then there are the intangibles and this may be where the Bears made their biggest gains.  For instance, Brad Biggs at the Chicago Tribune quotes new Bears defensive end Houston about his role as a potential leader:

“‘[Emery] said he is looking forward to my leadership developing through my actions as a player,’ Houston said. ‘That is very important. I’m not really too much of an outspoken leader. I like to lead more by example and that is exactly what he is looking for.'”

Though it wasn’t the emphasis of his article, this quote from Dan Wiederer at the Chicago Tribune seems to emphasize the same possibility for Mundy:

“Mundy, after four seasons with the Steelers and one with the Giants, envisions an opening to become, in his words, ‘a tone setter’ and impact playmaker on the back end of the Bears defense.”

The fact that Emery actually took the time to emphasize this role with Houston and probably  Mundy indicates the importance that he attaches to it.  Setting “a new tone” may be as important as anything new additions to the Bears defense may do next year.

As good as the start was for the coaching staff on the offensive side of the ball, the start on the defensive side was miserable in 2013.  Faced with a new coaching staff that clearly catered to the defensive veterans already on the team rather than the other way around, its more than likely that both Emery and Trestman believe that the defense got complacent in 2013.  How else to explain, for instance, the 54-11 total demolition of the Bears by the Eagles late in the year?  Whatever was wrong that night, it was more than just talent and technique.  What was missing was pride and attitude, as well.

Replacing a defensive line coach who was an “assistant to an assistant” in 2012 and a linebackers coach that probably didn’t have the gravitas to motivate and insist on the needed changes was likely as big a step as any Emery will take in the offseason.  It was likely only the first on the way to instilling a new attitude on the defense.  Only time will tell where the road will end but here’s betting its at a point where harder work and higher intensity of play become the norm.  The free agent signings to date will be a big part of that change.

Dan Wieder at the Chicago Tribune on soon to be free agent quarterback Josh McCown:

“[McCown] remembers an expression [Bears head coach Marc] Trestman often recites: ‘Don’t let familiarity rob you of your joy.'”

“That’s the reminder to savor every moment, no matter how routine. That helps explain why McCown carries enthusiasm into every practice, why he cherished his game-day drives up Lake Shore Drive, why he always pinches himself on the way into Halas Hall.

“‘That door handle on the back of the facility, every time I grab it, it’s this moment for me,’ McCown says. ‘I’m walking in the facility again — where once I thought I was never going to do this again. So that will never get old. Ever.'”

John Mullin at CSNChicago.com argues that resigning center Roberto Garza makes the Bears offensive line unit better than the sum of its parts:

“…Garza has quietly become a player who makes players around him better. He has a comfort level with quarterback Jay Cutler, developed when the Bears and Olin Kreutz were parting ways in 2011. He is one reason why Kyle Long was a Pro Bowl alternate as a rookie guard; Long himself gave Garza effusive praise for his work in Long’s development.”

I don’t have a problem with this signing.  Even at age 35, Garza was probably their best option.

But having now decided to retain the entire offensive line with no changes, the Bears are leaving me with a vague sense of unease.  My mind keeps wandering back to the Bears only exposure to the best division in football last year, the NFC West, in a loss to the Rams.

Despite media attention given to the teams in this division which emphasized other areas, there’s one major reason why these teams were significantly better than the rest of the league – they dominated the line of scrimmage.  That includes the Bears game where the Rams under-rated front seven easily penetrated into the offensive backfield far too often in a 42-21 demolition.  And the Rams were 7-9 and finished in last place.

I’m not necessarily arguing that the Bears did the wrong thing.  The offensive line as it stands was reasonably solid.  Long and right tackle Jordan Mills are young and may yet significantly improve.  And they have a lot of needs on defense to fill with new personnel.  The offensive line can’t take priority right now.

But even with all of this, I’m thinking that if the Bears really want to be elite, staying with the same personnel on the offensive line might not be a long-term option.  Because good might not be good enough.

Steve Rosenbloom at the Chicago Tribune makes a good point:

“Maybe it’s me, but when Bears general manager Phil Emery says that new Bears linebacker Shea McClellin was the team’s best ‘pass disruptor’ when he played defensive end, everyone looks stupid.”

“He’s still trying to defend his first Bears draft choice, but if he’s so proud of McClellin’s pass disruptions and if pass disruptions are so important, then why is he moving McClellin to linebacker?”

Rosenbloom isn’t the only one that found some odd comments in Emery’s appearance at the combine.  Hub Arkush also did a pretty good job of pointing out some of the weird things that Emery let slip out of his mouth at the press conference there as well.

The relative degree of openness that the current Bears leadership has displayed has been a breath of fresh air when compared to the last regime and its been much appreciated.  But I’m thinking maybe its time for Emery to rein it in a little now.

The Bears have removed offensive line coach from offensive coordinator Aaron Kromer's title and promoted assistant offensive line coach Pat Meyer. Rich Campbell at the Chicago Tribune quotes head coach Marc Trestman:

“The move will allow Aaron to still be closely connected to the instruction and development of the offensive line while expanding his coordinator duties and free up time to help in the growth of all of our offensive players.”

Left unsaid is that Kromer will likely be taking more responsibility for the offense as Trestman shifts more of his focus to helping ot improve a defense that had a rough go of it last year. This is a good sign that Trestman is going to do more than former head coach Lovie Smith did when the offense faltered under his watch.

If Kromer can pick up where Trestman left off with the offense such that there will be no sgnificant decline in performance while Trestman improves the defense, the Bears will be better this year. If that doesn't happen, Trestman is going to have to start seriously considering staff changes to find more competant coaches who can do more on thier own on both sides of the ball. It will be interesting to see what comes in year ahead.

John Mullin at CSNChicago.com addresses the Bears defensive line:

“Strategies: Besides specific personnel decisions, the Bears need to decide whether their defensive front is big enough. Injuries were not the only reason the Bears were being blown off the ball. [Jeremiah] Ratliff (303 pounds) is the only starter bigger than 300, and Stephen Paea, playing at about 290, was not stout enough at nose tackle.”

Mullin has an excellent point. If the Bears decide to go with a hybrid 4-3/3-4 defensive scheme, they will almost certainly need more size on the defensive line, especially if they decide to occasionally go with the classic 3-4 two gap scheme where each lineman is responsible for both gaps on either side of an opposing offensive linemane instead of one gap. Even if they play the more penetrating one gap style of 3-4 favored by coaches like Wade Phillips, they will want more size up front, especially at nose tackle.