raw

Bannon is the literal devil so......

The number 3 pick gets a hell of a lot more than the 16th, like a difference of $11m guaranteed and $15m in total value. If your pick at number 3 doesn't work out, it's going to hurt. Nice way to frame 11M over 4 years. Less than 3M per year. It's not going to hurt financially at all.

Yeah, the projections you're going off of are random internet sites that have no bearing on NFL teams' draft boards. I'm not claiming I'm worthy of being a super scout or an NFL GM, but I have 2 QBs in my personal top 15 prospects (Watson 4-5, IIRC and Trubisky at like 13-14). Either of them would be worthy of the #3 pick over a 3rd DL (for a 3-4 team that runs 60% nickel) who has a bum shoulder, or a safety, or a 4th pass rusher. And I think you're grossly overestimating the "setback" from drafting a QB. They don't get paid very much on rookie deals anymore. And if the guy you draft can't play, you can tell pretty early. Buffalo didn't get set back by using the 16th pick on EJ Manuel. They've been better since Manuel (granted not with him playing). Same goes for the Skins w/ RG3 and Dolphins w/ Tannehill, Jets w/ Smith. Those QBs have mostly failed (not quite Tannehill yet), but their teams have competed for or been in playoff spots with them not being very good. Plus, there's the whole fact of what are the Bears being set back from? Cant' get any worse than 3-13. Pussyfooting around with the QB position for another year also means it probably won't get much better, or at least not good enough for it to matter. Tyrod Taylor or Tony Romo probably makes this a 9-win 1st round elimination team at best for 2 years at most. Then you go into 2019 still with no QB and nothing worthwhile to show for it anyway. Might as well throw away 2 years on the #3 overall pick and at least have a chance of a long-term solution.

Can you point me to where Fox has said this? Also, there's nothing saying the Bears have to take a guy at 3 and absolutely have to play him. I think they do get into the Romo talks or the Taylor negotiations and even if they bring one of those guys in, they could very well still take a QB at #3. You play the vet QB as long as the team has a shot at competing, then if things go south, let the kid play. Coaches inherit young QBs all the time. Rams, Broncos (granted, odd situation), and likely the Jags have hired coaches inheriting young QBs just this month.

Mike Glennon also sucks. Oh as does Jay Cutler, who you need to seriously get over trying to keep as a thing. I'm not advocating keeping Jay. But he's on a contract that allows for him to be cut at any point with no true cap hit. That alone has value for us right now. Especially if you don't think one of these QBs is worth the 3rd pick. It doesn't make any sense that you don't want to take a flyer on a QB later, where you site wanting to find a guy that can play. Yet, are willing to reach on one at 3, where its obvious none of them are BPA at THAT spot, nor know for sure(even remotely) that any of THIS group is an actual franchise type. Plus, as has been mentioned, its highly unlikely that the Pace/Fox tandem take one at 3, since its unlikely they'll be of much impact in a very important season for each of them. A later pick allows POSSIBLE development, and flexibility moving forward to using another much higher pick on one. You're speaking as if this stuff is fact. It's not "obvious" none of the QBs are BPA at the 3rd pick. Even if it that part was obvious, it is FACTUAL that QB is the most important position on any football team anywhere on Earth. So, reaching for the most important position in sports is certainly more beneficial than taking the BPA at say, safety, if both players work out. And if the player you pick doesn't work out, the reason won't be because it is a reach....but because the GM sucked at drafting, the coaching staff sucked at developing, or a combination thereof. I also don't know where you're getting your "highly unlikely" thing from. I think this season is much more important to Fox than it is to Pace. Pace just drafted the 2nd leading rusher in the league, a lineman with pro bowl upside as soon as next year, a potential double digit sack edge rusher, the year after drafting a pro bowl potential DL and starting S. I don't think Pace is going to be fired without having a chance to take a franchise QB, especially after he inherited Cutler's contract situation and a team at rock bottom. And strangely enough, Fox doesn't make draft picks.

Mike Glennon also sucks. Oh as does Jay Cutler, who you need to seriously get over trying to keep as a thing.

I wouldn't even consider that move. Pats produced system type? No confidence it translates elsewhere, I guess? I have gone round and round trying to figure out my ideal 2017 QB situation.... 1. Sign Taylor and take a developmental guy in the 3rd or 4th 2. Get Garoppolo for a 2nd.(Have this over option 3 strictly because he can play immediately) 3. Resign Hoyer, get Trubisky, Kizer, or Mahomes at 36.(Watson too, but truly think he's safely off the board) 4. Trade down in the 1st, to 10-15 range, accumulate picks, and still get 1 of those 4 QBs, at that spot. 5. Sign Romo, after he's been cut. Draft a guy in the 3rd or 4th. Developmental QBs in the 3rd or 4th don't typically work out. All the options that include a 3rd or 4th round pick, would be better served if the Bears either go after Mahomes at 36 or just take an actual player with one of those top 110 picks with a chance to be something. Also, Romo is dead. If you get him (and pay him several millions of dollars) you'd need a much better backup QB than a mid-round pick, who is likely going to play several games for a team that will likely be really bad because of this fact. The trade down makes no sense. Why not just actually make a pick at QB at 3 instead of settling for 1 of 4 who may/may not be there?

The thing about Garoppolo isn't that he's necessarily terrible. He's only started twice in 3 years and he's been pretty good when he's been on the field (over 100 QB rating), but he only has 94 career passes thrown. He would cost the 36th pick (at least) and he's also a FA after the 2017 season. Which means you either have to negotiate a contract extension (along with or right after the trade) to pay a guy 18M/year that you don't even know can actually play. Based on the contracts of Tyrod Taylor and Brock Osweiler, 18M is the going rate for a likely middle of the road at best QB that doesn't have much starting experience. And this doesn't get into the unsuccessful history of A) teams trading for Patriots QBs that have looked good in limited duty (Cassel, Mallett) or B) the Bears trading for another team's QB instead of picking their own. Oh yeah, and he could actually be terrible.

Brett Anderson, for some reason, has been one of my favorite potential Cubs targets for about 4 years now.

Rockies are an interesting trade partner. There's been a lot of discussion about them adding more bullpen arms and they're obviously trying to compete now. Plus, based on their recent decision-making, it's an good opportunity to have our FO run circles around theirs. Kyle Freeland and maybe Jeff Hoffman could be available. Both are fairly well regarded, however both have lost a bit of luster. Freeland is more likely and its split on whether he's in the pen or rotation long-term. That being said, he has a deceptive arm angle and a four pitches so there's something to work with. Yeah, I proposed a Rondon, Szczur and a prospect for Hoffman and we take Parra off their hands, but that was before Jay. But I think something still could be done there. Uehara makes Rondon potentially available. And there's still some decent RPs available to replace him. I don't know that either Hoffman or Freeland are going to make that rotation.

Rockies are an interesting trade partner. There's been a lot of discussion about them adding more bullpen arms and they're obviously trying to compete now. Plus, based on their recent decision-making, it's an good opportunity to have our FO run circles around theirs. Kyle Freeland and maybe Jeff Hoffman could be available. Both are fairly well regarded, however both have lost a bit of luster. Freeland is more likely and its split on whether he's in the pen or rotation long-term. That being said, he has a deceptive arm angle and a four pitches so there's something to work with. Yeah, I proposed a Rondon, Szczur and a prospect for Hoffman and we take Parra off their hands, but that was before Jay. But I think something still could be done there. Uehara makes Rondon potentially available. And there's still some decent RPs available to replace him. I don't know that either Hoffman or Freeland are going to make that rotation.

Yep. I think if the Browns don't trade for Garoppolo, I think they'll try their damnedest to package 12 and one of their 2nds and more to move back up for a QB (after taking Garrett 1). I like the idea of getting an extra top 40 pick if the Bears aren't going QB at 3. But I really like the idea of trading with the Jets. Again, get a top 40 pick (their 2nd) and #6 puts the Bears in a good position. If they don't want Trubisky/Kizer, 6 puts them in position to have a shot at either of the top safeties (Hooker/Adams), or Allen or Solomon Thomas or one of the top CBs (I like Lattimore). Also, gives them ammo to move back into the late 1st and maybe take Watson if he falls like all the experts say he has a 2nd round grade.

2015 was the only time he missed time due to injury in the last 4 years.

This is weird. Why would you.....on a team devoid of young talent....NOT want to bring back a young guy with the most talent on the roster? I understand if you don't want to pay him a ton of money, still wrong, but I could buy that more than what you say here. He barely fights for the ball is just flat out wrong. He won't reach his ceiling? You mean back-to-back 85 catch seasons, a 1400 yard season, a double digit TD season, a league leading 90 yards per game season isn't his ceiling? Well, that's more reason to sign him if you think a precision QB could make him even better. Oh and as for that "thread the needle" QB......you do know that Jeffery has (at times) been great with Cutler, Hoyer, Barkley, and McCown at QB, none of which apply.

I keep looking for teams that seem like they'd want to trade up. I'm having a hard time finding them. Allen being available at 3? I don't see what teams want to trade up to take him? Would someone trade up for a QB? I kind of doubt they'd move to 3 for that. Maybe 2? I just don't see a team moving up. Fournette? Maybe this is the guy teams move up for? I'm fine with any of Allen, Adams, or Hooker at 3. But I think we'll really address S in FA too. Pairing Amos with a top notch guy is probably enough to consider it a strength, in my mind. So, Allen seems more of a fit from a draft standpoint. But, I'd move down to the 10ish range and take Solomon Thomas, if I could find a team to trade with..... Cincy at 9, New Orleans at 11, Baltimore at 16. Those are the 3 teams I could see moving up for defense. But, who knows.....Maybe Fournette is the hot play at 3 for someone. Well @ 2, SF could sit there and take a QB (provided they don't sign/trade for one). Then teams could go crazy for the 2nd QB. I think the Jets (6), Buffalo (10), Cleveland (12) are teams I think could trade up for Watson/Trubisky/Kizer.

Yeah, the scared coaches and GM...along with the lockerroom talk that the team was going to compete next year leads me to believe that Pace isn't going to trust his and Fox's future on a rookie QB. That draft is pretty darn good, but I don't know that the Bears actually take Allen either. I think if the Bears decide they don't want any of these guys at #3, I don't think they'll be picking at #3. Assuming Garrett goes #1, they'd be in a prime spot for trade down (unless SF hires McDaniels and trades for Garoppolo and they trade down first) to a team that wants one of the QBs. I have Allen as my #2 overall rated player, but I don't think he has enough position value or dynamic upside to be a "must pick" at 3. If staying at 3, I'd probably rather go with 1 of the safeties (Hooker/Adams) but both would be much more attractive down a few picks.

Newton is literally the only example of this working out. I had a list of the 4 QBs who have gone to the NFL with < 15 starts and the other 3 were busts.....though I can't remember who they were. Ryan Tannehill only started 1 year at QB at A&M (played WR at first just to get him on the field) but his NFL career is still TBD. He could be a successful QB or flame out in the next year or two. Tannehill got the starting QB job midway thru his JR year. He had 19 starts in college at QB.

I feel like this is an archaic way of thinking. First of all, it's completely disingenuous to say Watson "makes his living" with his legs. He's thrown for nearly 9000 yards in 2 years. He is a weapon with his legs, but he ran the ball last night because his RB could do nothing and showed horrible vision. Secondly, I think "QB who runs takes more hits, has shorter career" is overstated. The biggest issue with QBs that can run is that they can't throw well enough. Cunningham had a long career. Vick did, which would have been even longer without prison. Kaepernick, Steve Young, Russell Wilson, etc. Guys like Tyrod Taylor and Marcus Mariota have shown decent durability in 2 years as starters (though admittedly both ended the year hurt in the last game). Lastly, not only do I think that Watson will be less of a runner in the NFL (he was less of a runner in 2016 than 2015). But I also think Watson will slide more in the NFL. College QBs typically don't slide. It's just not a very big part of the college game. I think in the NFL he'll slide, and he won't be used on QB draws and off-tackle runs as the primary run game like he was at times last night.

Cam Newton immediately came to mind. Hmm... thought he started his sophomore year at Florida. I stand corrected then. Still scares me to draft Turbisky although I do like his tools/skill set. Newton is literally the only example of this working out. I had a list of the 4 QBs who have gone to the NFL with < 15 starts and the other 3 were busts.....though I can't remember who they were.

Upside = good black QB. Downside = bad black QB. No chance = good white QB.

It's always been funny to me how there's some great QBs that do stuff that you can't as a QB coach tell a player to mimic. Rivers' throwing motion. Marino's throwing motion. Rodgers' backfoot throws. Peyton's footwork.

I kind of like the Taylor idea, but I do think you are putting somewhat of a cap on your offense. That said, it should be a low turnover offense, so you just need to invest heavily in your D and try and win games that way. But you still have to find a way to put resources into your offense including a long term answer at QB. Yep. And Taylor won't have the type of salary that will kill you if he's a backup, especially if you have a starter on a rookie contract.

The thing about Osweiler's contract is that it was looked at universally as an overpay, and has proven to be such after this season. Taylor has much more experience than Osweiler did this time last year, but he's also 2 years older and has little upside, doesn't have the intriguing size/arm combo. I think Alex Smith's deal is the ballpark (4/68) you're looking at. That's pretty much established as the going rate for middle of the road QBs. 16-18Mil average per season. It's where Taylor already is, and it's a group that includes guys like Smith, Dalton, Bradford, Osweiler and Cutler.

I think he has 2/27 left on his deal (not guaranteed). So, yeah I'd think you'd need to guarantee him at least that much. I don't think he'd get quite what Osweiler got (4/72, 37M guaranteed). But I'm thinking 30M guaranteed and 15-16M average salary. 4-years/$63Mil, 32Mil guaranteed would probably get it done. Basically, that's committing to him for 2 years at a modest 16M each. Also, potentially allows him to be a FA before he turns 30, if he's gone after the guaranteed portion of his contract is over.

Heck... what QB in the NFL right now meet all 4? Russell Wilson? Some good QBs, apparently. Decided to look up a few guys at random and along with Wilson, Drew Brees, Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, Matt Ryan, Kirk Cousins and Dak Prescott met all 4. As redshirt juniors/academic seniors, I'd say Andrew Luck and Marcus Mariota fit the criteria too (they had the other 3). Tom Brady only went 2-for-4 and Jameis Winston went 1-for-4. When the top two QBs this decade go a combined 2-for-8 in this criteria, I'm not sure it should be used to prop up a guy in the top 3 who the so-called experts seem to think is a reach. I admitted it was outdated. But I don't understand the experts opinion of Watson. Obviously, you want a QB to have the tools. Arm strength, accuracy, mobility, ability read defenses, leadership, smart, intangibles, etc. But you also want them to prove all of this stuff by actually doing it on the field and winning games. Watson has all those tools. And he has shown them over the last 2 years, taking his team to back-to-back championship games. If he has another performance like he did against Alabama last year, I don't know how he can still be thought of as a borderline 1st rounder. This is so similar to the Teddy Bridgewater situation. "Experts" are finding every reason to knock him down despite the body of work being there that says otherwise. Granted, Bridgewater hasn't completely proven everyone wrong yet but he's also been handcuffed by an OC who wouldn't let him be more than a game manager and now an injury.