minnesotacubsfan

I'm still trying to figure out what you wanted to post in the first place

Hope you're correct, regardless of Packer fan' post they've had horseshoes up their asses with Farve and Rodgers. I'm not saying Farve and Rodgers were shots in the dark but, as great as they turned out? No. Which is kinda what I said. They deliberately traded a #1 to get an unknown in Favre. And deliberately took a QB in the 1st round even though they had a HoFer currently on roster. Of course it worked out better than expected. But I'd hardly call it a horseshoe. yes, but here's our point and I'm going to say this directly because you are on a Chicago sports message board: when the bears trade picks to "get their guy" at QB, it becomes a catastrophic event that sends the team reeling backward with nothing gained. It kills all enthusiasm we can have for the team, and in general, it looks horsefeathering terrible, no matter who the poor unlucky sap happens to be horseshoe or no horseshoe, horsefeathers GB

and try and have an offensive line at the same time . . . there is definitely (and has been for a while) an issue with the organizational philosophy on draft day. They are uniquely adept at drafting defensive players, unbelievably ignorant with regards to offensive players. I realize that in today's NFL, you have to pick your poison and draft heavily on one side or the other, but in doing so they need to at least try and not kill the other 1/2. How they could go out and trade everything for Cutler and throw him behind 5 turnstiles on the Oline is beyond me. No WR's. Nothing. just a horsefeathering jersey and a medical plan

I went back and read some articles about Lovies involvement in the FO and it wasn't as much as I thought it was...I rescind the post

just having stability at QB with Cutler seems like such an unknown luxury now

eh, they had Cutler, he was decent. unfortunately he was just overshadowed by GB pulling HOF QB's out of thin air. I think the key for the Bears is they simply have to take a "quantity is quality" approach and draft qb's nearly every year until they find one that can stick. I don't mean in the 1st every year either, but in any round where they find someone who has potential and makes sense for that round (ie, not a reach). I would say Cutty, as much as I loved him was decidedly average, but also the best QB I've seen on the Bears since maybe Kramer's one season in the early 90s. At his best he could lift the Bears offense up to win games. At his worst, he was the reason we lost games. We saw more of the latter than the former, but he did have quite a few games where he played good enough for the Bears to win. Clearly he had some issues with coaching staff and personnel put out there. Maybe he could have been a lower rung pro bowl guy with the right coaching, but probably not. although its hard for me to understand what a "pro-bowl caliber qb" is being a Bears fan, Cutler does own many of the Bears passing records and was QB for 8 seasons which is unfathomable for every other Bears QB in my lifetime, and most of them from before my lifetime. he was...OUR BEST! and yet pretty ok - nothing great

I'm a Riddick fan. Obviously the parallels with Mayock (who has done a solid job w/ Oakland) are there. Former player, but he does have NFL scouting and front office experience. And frankly, I'd love if they'd hire a minority for the first time in team history. All these white guys haven't worked out, so why not? Lovie Smith eta: Lovie obviously wasn't front office, so maybe I'm misreading your post. But he did have a pretty heavy say in personal and org direction after the Super Bowl, almost to the level of a Pete Carroll.

I think they decided that they HAD to have a QB that offseason and all the ones in the draft were garbage so he used his 1st rounder on him. But obviously like you said, he flat out sucked in 4 seasons with Seattle. If they weren't trading him, they had to be strongly thinking about flat out cutting him, he was that bad. This is not hindsight, I remember this being universally panned immediately afterwards. But anyways you could write a whole book with stories of the Bears choosing or signing the wrong guy at QB. I'm so unbelievably frustrated with it and I'm close to my breaking point as a Bears fan. Like I've always complained about not having good QBs, but I've always felt at least a small amount of hope that we'd somehow luck into one. I don't feel that anymore and its eating away at me as a fan. It doesn't help that Michigan is having similar issues putting together a competent QB/offense and really making me question why I follow football outside of my fantasy team. Seems nearly impossible, regardless of the front office they've unable to find a QB guess that leaves lucking into one chances of which are slim to none. eh, they had Cutler, he was decent. unfortunately he was just overshadowed by GB pulling HOF QB's out of thin air. I think the key for the Bears is they simply have to take a "quantity is quality" approach and draft qb's nearly every year until they find one that can stick. I don't mean in the 1st every year either, but in any round where they find someone who has potential and makes sense for that round (ie, not a reach).

That '97 team was fun to look up. Mirer started 3 games(games 4-6) en route to an 0-7 start. After sitting at 1-10, tied with the Colts for worst record in the NFL, they'd close the season 3-2, chasing down the Cardinals, Chargers, and Raiders, dropping to the 5th overall pick(while losing the 4 way tiebreaker at 4-12)...which they used on Curtis Enis. Who, besides Ryan Leaf, turned out to be the worst player in the top ten of the 98 draft. I remember being extremely puzzled by Wannstedt trading for Mirer. he flat out sucked and I couldn't figure out why he HAD to be the guy

my point had more to do with the idea that there will be LOTS of crappy teams drafting before the Bears do and that will deplete the QB market by the time they draft. Unless the bears lose out, then they might have a shot at the 3rd or 4th best QB in the draft, ie table scraps I can see Pace trading up already Maybe the approach needs to start with the OL instead of a QB, yeah Mitch sucks but, Pace patch work garbage OL's aren't helping. I think it depends on where they draft. If they can get the BYU or NDSU QB, I think they have to do it. But if both are gone, then yes draft OL, best available, and take a flier in the later rounds on a guy like JT Daniels if he comes out. but they also need more offensive weapons. A guy like Bateman could be a great pick in the mid to late 1st.

that was a weird dbl post

he drove a used toyota camry. pace liked his modesty I woke up this morning thinking on the bright side, if the bears tank the rest of the season they have a legit shot at a QB in the 1st round worth drafting. Then I remembered that the NFC East existed and now I'm depressed again Well, the Cowboys probably won't draft a QB in Rd 1 even with Dak returning from a bad injury. Giants may stick with Daniel Jones. Eagles could be in the market, or could believe Wentz still has enough. Gotta root for Washington to win that division and thus pick behind the Bears. my point had more to do with the idea that there will be LOTS of crappy teams drafting before the Bears do and that will deplete the QB market by the time they draft. Unless the bears lose out, then they might have a shot at the 3rd or 4th best QB in the draft, ie table scraps I can see Pace trading up already

You'd think that they'd accidentally get it right at least once. But no, 23 years ago they traded a 1st round pick for a QB that was legitimately awful his first 4 years in the league and now today they are still making terrible decisions in the face of better options. (to be fair, the 97 draft was historically awful for QBs, I believe the best one taken was Plummer but still doesn't excuse targeting that dude with your first round pick) I was thinking along the same lines, how did the Bears manage to draft the worst starting QB AGAIN. It's got to be something beyond scouting, there has to be some other factor. I was looking at a mock draft last week and noticed they had Mac Jones being drafted in the first round. I thought to myself, "who the horsefeathers would draft Mac Jones in the 1st?" and then realized the mock had the Bears doing so. makes total sense really.

I forgot how much they paid for Chase Daniel. The same year the Bears signed Daniel to that 2 year/$10MM contract, Ryan Fitzpatrick signed with the Bucs for i year/$3MM. But you can do that with that entire list of qbs. They overpaid for Glennon when they could have gotten Case Keenum (among others) for half the price. They traded up for Mitch when they could have traded down for Watson or Mahomes (or Mitch). They spent a draft pick and a ton of cash for Foles when they could have gotten guys like Dalton or Bridgewater for just cash. And none of this is 20/20 hindsight. People were saying these things at the time they were happening. its stunning, in all of professional sports, the Bears are the WORST at evaluating the most important position predicating the teams success, and they've been the worse at doing so for horsefeathering decades

he drove a used toyota camry. pace liked his modesty I woke up this morning thinking on the bright side, if the bears tank the rest of the season they have a legit shot at a QB in the 1st round worth drafting. Then I remembered that the NFC East existed and now I'm depressed again

3 seems light

Beating GB tonight would be the biggest upset of Nagys career. GO BEARS

I wouldn't call it a typo with the clown show the bears are right now

Elway!

I mean, they're both equally wet and stinky turds and Foles is already under contract for next year while Trubisky isn't. and that would be THE ONLY REASON for keeping him over resigning Trubisky but dumping them both and signing a pile of straw would be a better choice. IDK, I never wanted Foles and hated the move from day one, and granted I'm done with Trubisky as well, I'd still rather have him to tie me over until our next complete and utter failure takes the reigns

I'd say the long-term interest of the franchise won't depend on or be affected by how he plays one way or another. whomever they draft next is likely to suck just as much Well what I had in mind was a total house cleaning Pace on down. According to rumors, that isn't going to happen either since the McCaskeys seem to have adopted Pace

I’d go so far as to say Mitch playing well isn’t in the long term interest of the franchise. I'd say the long-term interest of the franchise won't depend on or be affected by how he plays one way or another. whomever they draft next is likely to suck just as much

Mitch sucks, no doubt. The likelihood he ever amounts to an average starter has to hover somewhere around 0-10% That being said, in no universe is keeping Foles somehow a smarter move

Costs more to lose Foles than to keep him next year. Also, if you believe the rumors it sounds like Pace is pretty safe because the McKaskey family loves him. Then Foles can come in as the back up for a guy they draft or sign. If they draft a guy, Foles would serve better as a starter/mentor then a back up I'd rather Mitch lights up the scoreboard, gets a new 1-2 year deal while dropping Foles (despite the cost) and still drafting a high-ceiling qb

i'm a man of big dreams, i'd prefer a 2017 Nick Foles-ish type of run myself then he can disappear