raw

Don't take the 1st QB off the board with 1 pick, but take the 4th QB off the board using 3 picks? So, they take the 1st QB off the board AND use 3 picks to get him.

Don't take the 1st QB off the board with 1 pick, but take the 4th QB off the board using 3 picks?

Good day for an ARRIETA dong

Some interesting calls late in the game that kept the Bulls from going away with that game. But this was the 1st round matchup I wanted once I figured the Bulls would get in. Celtics are good, but not unbeatable. No chance against the Cavs. Hell, I don't think they could beat Atlanta or Washington either, but since they're in, the Bulls might as well do something with it.

The Bears didn't keep Hoyer, because Hoyer sucks, has always sucked, and will never be good enough. I personally think Glennon won't be good enough either, but at least there's a chance he is. Glennon gives Fox his veteran QB so he feels like he's not rebuilding at 60-whatever years old. But it also gives Pace a guy who could potentially win some games and be a long-term option. You know there's no guarantee Kizer is there in the 2nd, right? You also know that if Kizer is the 4th or 5th QB taken in this draft, the odds are favorable that he plays like the 4th or 5th best QB in the draft class, which is to say, not very good. And while the 2018 very well may be better, the Bears aren't likely to be in the same position next year. They were pretty miserable last year and still weren't good enough to get one of the 1st 2 picks. With more health, better talent on the defensive side, a more stable QB (3 guys started 5 times last year)....the Bears are likely to pick outside of the top 10 (like they did just a year ago, before they traded to 9). So, even if this class is great, you're probably not going to have the 1 or 2 pick to get Darnold or Allen unless you trade multiple 1st round picks to trade up, which we have seen doesn't turn out well. If you stay put because this class is so great, you're still looking at the 4th or 5th best QB in the draft. You know who else was the 4th and 5th best QBs? Rex Grossman and Cade McNown. I don't understand why if you acknowledge the Bears need a QB, why you are intentionally willing to hope to have a shot at the 4th best guy when you are in the prime position to take the top QB in the draft. I understand BPA and all that, but this isn't DE vs. CB. This is by far the most important position in any sport.

I've thought this every year Grimm's been here. Grimm, Montgomery and Rondon are the non-setup relievers, right now. That's a half decent 7-8-9 inning for a lot of teams. And still have 1 of Strop/Uehara who wouldn't get in the last 3 innings if all went right.

Newsflash:. The Cubs are ridiculously good from the hole at SS to the 1b/RF bleachers when Almora, Heyward, and Baez are on the field together.

I believe raw has a Bears blog so it might make sense for him to compile something like this. Had. Now I write a little for a Bears website.

Game over!

Seems like a good day to break out one of my World Series champions t-shirts.

Eh. All of this likely means nothing. I have a spreadsheet of players the Bears have "met" with over the last several years. In 2016, they met with Hackenberg, Prescott, Hogan, Kessler, Lynch, Cook, Brissett, and Brandon Allen and obviously didn't pick any QB. 2015, they met with all the top pass rushers (Fowler, Beasley, Gregory, Ray, Harold, Dupree) and went WR in the 1st. They did meet with Floyd and Whitehair last year of the guys they drafted, but also had meetings on 3 separate occasions with Shaq Lawson and then traded up for a guy that plays the same position. Side note, I'm starting to think OJ Howard helps this team more than any other offensive player in this draft (other than hitting on the top QB). His run blocking is amazing. He's a potentially elite pass catcher. If you want to grind it out with Jordan Howard and give Glennon some protection and a nice safety valve, OJ Howard's the best man for the job. Wouldn't take him at #3 overall, but trade down and he's definitely got to be in the conversation.

I like the hire. Two solid hires for U of I and IU. Yeah, I'm good with the hire. Best of the realistic options. Now to see who leaves early, transfers, or decommits. Hopefully there are none of the latter 2. I assume Bryant goes and hope, Blackmon's sorry ass is gone.

I don't understand why this keeps being a point of emphasis for you guys. It makes no sense to me. You don't like the QB class, but you acknowledge the need to take one. But you are advocating taking what would likely be the 3rd or 4th QB off the board w/ a trade down or waiting a round? That makes no sense. If you can't separate the QBs enough to figure out which one is the best, you don't just take whatever one is left when other teams pick their guy. You actually have to figure out which one is the best and take him. That's how you end up with Rex Grossman and Cade McNown. Actually, I'm perfectly fine taking one in 4-7. And its entirely possible that we either 1) value them all closely or 2) don't like any of them. If you value them all closely and think you are forced to take one early this year, adding another potential impact player with a second round pick IS worth a lot, especially when its not even definite that the guy you have ranked 1st will even be off the board when you pick. You sound like Kyle back when he was disappointed we didn't give Schwarber full slot value in the draft. Sometimes you can get your guy AND get more with it too. Plus, a trade down doesn't even guarantee that a QB is off the board yet. And anyway, if San Fran takes a QB at 2, then YOU may not be getting your top guy even if you stay at 3. You still taking a QB then, with your thoughts? I hope we wait until 2018. Saying "they're all close together" is a cop out. They won't end up close in the NFL, unless they are all bad. But history shows that doesn't happen very much. At least one of these guys is going to be a solid QB. If the Bears pick the 3rd or 4th QB because "they were all closely ranked" and he sucks..... that will be of 0 consolation. They are not going to be close to equal in the end. At least one will be clearly better. The Bears have to find that one. The best way to find that one is to take that one, not take the one teams give them by default. The problem with waiting til 2018 is you don't even know what the 2018 class will look like. Rosen, Darnold, Allen and Jackson could all stay in school, since none are seniors. And obviously, injury and regression could come into play. Then you've made yourself potentially desperate again at the position for a class led by Luke Falk. Oh and you probably get a little luckier with health and progression this year to just win enough have to put you out of reach of the top QBs. So you're back with the issue of getting your choice of a picked over QB class. If SF takes a QB, then I still won't be happy because either Watson or Trubisky will still be there. Id accept passing more if no QB goes #2.

I don't understand why this keeps being a point of emphasis for you guys. It makes no sense to me. You don't like the QB class, but you acknowledge the need to take one. But you are advocating taking what would likely be the 3rd or 4th QB off the board w/ a trade down or waiting a round? That makes no sense. If you can't separate the QBs enough to figure out which one is the best, you don't just take whatever one is left when other teams pick their guy. You actually have to figure out which one is the best and take him. That's how you end up with Rex Grossman and Cade McNown.

Interesting way to look at it (re: #3). I think a couple things could save Pace. 1. Fox is old. He's young. Can save a lot of face by having Fox "retire" after the season. Then can put a lot of blame on the pressure to get a veteran QB in Fox's last year(s). 2. He could have a 3rd decent draft, while not having much to show for it record-wise. If Pace can go into the offseason boasting Goldman, Floyd, Whitehair, a potential future QB and 2 other promising players from the 2017 draft, and then get something out of White and maybe Hall shows some more promise....he could have an argument to keep his job.

I really just feel like the Bears are trying to copy the Cubs. Pace has been so deliberate with his rebuild that he has to have some reassurance from ownership that it's fine to take his time. The McCaskeys aren't really risking a financial hit by not being good. Their profits are essentially guaranteed with the league shared television revenue. The season tickets are sold and they don't have any reliance on walk up sales or ratings. The McCaskeys see that the Ricketts took a minimal PR hit as the team stumbled for years while rebuilding. They view themselves in the same mold as the Tisch/Mara/Rooney blue blood ownership of the Giants and Steelers and the thing that ties them together (besides mating) is longterm stability in the front office and head coach. With that they also want to be the opposite of the "new money" types like Haslam and Snyder who they probably view as making a mockery of storied franchises with their constant turmoil. They probably think Pace is their Theo and will give him as long as possible before moving on and will probably give him every opportunity to either win with Fox, or select his new head coach like Theo got to take a run at Madden after the Sveum/Renteria years. If year 3 is a 5-11 year, obviously Pace is doing a horrible job, consider the vast differences between MLB talent procurement and timing and the NFL's draft and play right away situation. But my guess is nobody in the McCaskey family cares. I've heard rumors that Fox has been basically guaranteed a 4th year. Which actually makes some amount of sense because you're likely going to draft a QB and don't want him switching staffs after his 1st year. Which obviously would mean Pace is guaranteed at least a 4th year. I don't want to be one of those teams that fires coaches and GMs after just 2-3 years, but I more don't want this. They had stagnation for years. Now it's utter failure. They were a 6-7 win team on paper last year that won 3. I agree this team has 5-11 written all over it on paper for 2017. Any underachievement and I don't see how you can justify keeping a HC after consecutive 12+ loss seasons. MAYBE Pace's job is safe if he pulls a few more promising players out of this draft, with 1 being a QB. But results need to start happening.

This was the right pick. I didn't consider him for whatever reason before I made my comment.

Cardinals select their QB of the future: Patrick Mahomes II, Texas Tech.

How many teams weigh 8 players equally enough to trade out of a spot where they could draft their #1, even for more pucks? Didn't mean to imply that the Bears would have all 8 rated the same. Just to paint the picture of what the team would be looking at to draft.

Yes, Williams probably a better compliment to Sammy Watkins, I guess.

I think if Cleveland can't get Garoppolo, they'd definitely look to trade up to #3. There's really no point in having all those picks without coming out of it with a QB and the best defensive player. They don't have a ton of major needs, at least not as many as they have early draft picks. Pass rusher and QB are their 2 biggest needs. After that, they could use a WR, TE and another CB....but they could get by with what they have and certainly could add talent with their other picks. I look at trade downs a couple different ways. There's the trade down to the 6-8 range. Then there's the trade down to 9-13 range. At 6-8, you may be able to get a lot of the guys you would be looking at with the 3rd pick. I see the options for the 3rd pick as (in no order): Solomon Thomas, Jonathan Allen, Deshaun Watson, Mitch(ell) Trubisky, Jamal Adams, Malik Hooker, or Marshon Lattimore. Figure Garett goes 1, so at 3 the Bears should have their pick of all but 1 of those guys. And then at 8, at least 1 of those guys would be left. At 9-13, I think you could still have one of those QBs on the board (Watson most likely). I think Hooker or Lattimore could still be on the board, depending on how team's feel about their injury situations and if a RB or TE goes. And then I think it opens up the board for OJ Howard, Mike Williams/Corey Davis, or the 2nd CB or 3rd edge rusher. The one caveat here is if the Niners don't want a QB at 2, then they'll basically have neon signs to sell their draft slot.

I think the same thing about the QB position. I think the Bears will either move up into the late 1st to secure a 5th year for one of the top 4 QBs if they are still around. And if not, they'll move down and take one of the senior bowl QBs (Peterman or Webb). As for the rest of the draft, it's interesting. I'm a big Taywan fan. I think he can be the best separation WR in this class and he's great with the ball in his hands. I'd kill for Jones at that point. One of my favorite prospects in the draft, and he has an argument for top CB in this class. Agree with your assessment of Thompson. I'd probably want to go S a little earlier, as I still don't think the position is upgraded enough....but if it played out this way I wouldn't be upset.

Floyd and Whitehair were the only guys Pace drafted last year that he was connected to pre-draft. The Watson, non-meeting is interesting. On one hand it could be a smokescreen. Pace has talked a lot this offseason about the importance of experience and winning in college as a QB. But he just spent 15M on a QB for 2017 who is certainly going to start, and Watson looks to me like the most pro-ready QB of this group. I think if Pace's idea is to have a QB sit for a year, it's going to be Trubisky (1-year as a starter) or Mahomes (raw, huge upside, but gimmicky offense), or he'll take a guy like Davis Webb or Peterman in the 2nd or 3rd. I think the last is the most likely scenario. Pace is going to hedge his bets on Glennon for 2017, draft a guy (I'd watch for a trade back to the mid-second to take Peterman) to develop, and then if necessary, go after a QB in the 2018 draft. The 2018 QB class looks like it could be pretty good. Also, I love all those RBs late. Really like McGuire. He was bigger than I expected at the combine and should be able to hold up between the tackles if it comes to that. But he has excellent hands as a receiver and can pass block a little too.

I think the Gilmore preference is based mostly on his ability to get turnovers. Gilmore had 5 INTs this past year (14 career in 5 years). Bouye only had 1 last year and 6 in his career. I personally think Bouye is the better CB. He'll allow fewer plays against him. But Gilmore will make bigger plays on the ball. Rather have the guy that can cover better, but either is fine.

Keep in mind Hooker will not be able to workout before the draft, will miss all of rookie and minicamps, and will likely start camp on the PUP. He's also only a 1-year starter.