raw

And 29th in points is actually worse than last year. 17.9 ppg is a full FG less than last year. And not having a reliable QB is not an argument to excuse him running the ball the 4th fewest times.

Tom Crean didn't coach any defense this offseason, I see. Lost at home to Nebraska, who I think literally only scored on layups or wide open 3's.

Yeah someone is going to cave and roughly give that for him. Like you mentioned looking at what Bradford cost, the price for the Rams to trade up for Goff and the overall suckage of QBs in the draft. Someone is gonna give that. The thing about giving up a 1st is that the teams that are most likely to trade for him are picking in the top 10. I don't think anyone is trading a top 10 pick for Jimmy G. The Bradford trade is not really comparable because A) it was done right before the season and B) it was done by a team that had Superbowl aspirations and lost their QB. I'm sure the Vikings figured the pick they were giving up would be somewhere in the mid-to-late 20s at worst. If I'm the Cleveland Browns, I'd offer a 2nd and 3rd round pick. Mind you, their 2nd rounder will be the 1st pick of the round, so as good as a 1st. If the Patriots come back asking for the Rams pick the Browns have in the 1st.....I'd counter with both the 2nd round picks they have (also the Rams' 2nd). No other team can match that honestly. And it'd still leave the Browns with two top 10 picks, including #1 overall.

Yeah someone is going to cave and roughly give that for him. Like you mentioned looking at what Bradford cost, the price for the Rams to trade up for Goff and the overall suckage of QBs in the draft. Someone is gonna give that. The thing about giving up a 1st is that the teams that are most likely to trade for him are picking in the top 10. I don't think anyone is trading a top 10 pick for Jimmy G. The Bradford trade is not really comparable because A) it was done right before the season and B) it was done by a team that had Superbowl aspirations and lost their QB. I'm sure the Vikings figured the pick they were giving up would be somewhere in the mid-to-late 20s at worst. If I'm the Cleveland Browns, I'd offer a 2nd and 3rd round pick. Mind you, their 2nd rounder will be the 1st pick of the round, so as good as a 1st. If the Patriots come back asking for the Rams pick the Browns have in the 1st.....I'd counter with both the 2nd round picks they have (also the Rams' 2nd). No other team can match that honestly. And it'd still leave the Browns with two top 10 picks, including #1 overall.

This is first sentence is so inaccurate. Loggains is way over his head, just like he was the last time he was OC. The offense has been "OK" all things considered. 3 different QBs, missing Jeffery for 4 games, Long for half the season, Sitton for 2-3 games, Miller for half the season, WR drops, etc. But as "OK" as the Bears have been in moving the ball (13th in total yards per game), they are 4th from last in actually scoring the ball. Not to mention, only 19th in rushing yards despite a starting RB getting over 5 yards per carry, because Loggains calls the run the 3rd fewest amount of times in the league.

Hoosier! Gotta give some credit to the OL, especially with Long missing a ton and Sitton also missing time. But none of the other backs have close to the same numbers. So, Howard is clearly making the biggest difference. Also, shoutout to Cameron Meredith who has solidified his spot in the WR corps when the Bears really needed someone to step up due to White's lack of development. 62 catches, 800+ yards. An outside shot at 70/1,000. I think he's shown upside of a (very) low end #1 WR, which he may hit if he can cure the drops and fumbling. Not enough to make me want to let Jeffery leave, but if the Bears could get Eric Berry and a Kenny Stills for basically the same amount as Jeffery will cost....I'd take that option. Like the idea on the last part. Might want one more Stills level FA still and make White earn the second/third spot. Thompson or Bellamy can stay on as Special Teamers and Braverman or NFL roster fodder as 5th WR. Yeah, I've come to grips that John Fox will likely be back. And that likely means that Jeffery won't be. Where there's smoke there's fire and a lot of stuff out there about those 2 not getting along the last 2 years. So, my hope is that the Chargers fire McCoy and Fox fires Loggains and jumps at the chance to work with his former OC again. Then the Bears spend the Jeffery money on a top DB (Berry would be ideal, but Trumaine Johnson is also out there at CB) and bring in a guy like Stills. Then to make up for some of the WR production lost, they go after a lot of TE help (FA Doyle from Indy, draft a TE, keep Pruitt :D ) and run a lot of 2 TE sets. WR- Meredith, Stills, White, Thompson (he's a FA too), Braverman, maybe draft another guy mid-to-late rounds TE- Miller, Doyle, draft Jake Butt/or the Clemson TE, Pruitt

Hoosier! Gotta give some credit to the OL, especially with Long missing a ton and Sitton also missing time. But none of the other backs have close to the same numbers. So, Howard is clearly making the biggest difference. Also, shoutout to Cameron Meredith who has solidified his spot in the WR corps when the Bears really needed someone to step up due to White's lack of development. 62 catches, 800+ yards. An outside shot at 70/1,000. I think he's shown upside of a (very) low end #1 WR, which he may hit if he can cure the drops and fumbling. Not enough to make me want to let Jeffery leave, but if the Bears could get Eric Berry and a Kenny Stills for basically the same amount as Jeffery will cost....I'd take that option.

Here's a fun fact. The Bears have won every 4th game this season, and ONLY every 4th game. Preseason? Bears start 0-3, win their 4th preseason game vs. the Browns. Regular season? Bears lose to Texans, Eagles and Cowboys to start 0-3.....before winning the 4th game vs. the Lions. Bears then go on a 3-game losing streak (Colts, Jags, Packers) before getting an improbable win over the 5-1 Vikings Bears go on another 3-game losing streak (Bucs, Lions, Titans) before ending that streak with a win over the 49ers. The Bears have since lost 3 straight and are currently on a 3-game losing streak.

Prescott was clearly decent evaluation and a lot of luck. As was Wilson. But that's the nature of mid round QBs. You draft one hoping to get lucky. The Bears aren't in a position to hope they get lucky. Also of note, the Cowboys had Romo. They didn't "need" a QB, so they thought. The Seahawks just got rid of their franchise QB, Hasselbeck, and paid a decent amount of money to get Matt Flynn, who they thought would be their starter. I guess the equivalent is getting a Mike Glennon or (as was mentioned) Tyrod Taylor, and then drafting a guy in the middle rounds. But then you're intentionally missing out on the top QB for stopgaps and longshots. Your examples include drafts that had QBs go 1-2. Seattle would have certainly picked Luck or RG3 if they could have. Dallas would have probably picked Goff or Wentz if they could have and had the knowledge that Romo would miss 1/2 the season. The Bears can't get guys at 1-2, but there isn't a Luck in this draft. But QBs went 1-2 last year and I personally think Watson, Kizer and Trubisky are better than the 3 1st rounders from last year.

So Cutler at less money (or without the guarantees) would've been less attractive to keep around? I just don't see it. Despite what the narrative was, he wasn't overpaid and there wasn't a better option. But that's kind of irrelevant to this whole conversation anyway (aside from the fact that I still think they'd be better off keeping him but that's neither here nor there, I guess). I'd actually be pretty interested in seeing a round by round breakdown of the guys you listed and how they came into the league. There's just so many first round busts that it all seems like a big ass crapshoot to me (and maybe a lot of that is, you know, teams reaching for guys who probably didn't deserve to be taken in the 1st because of the importance of the position). 1st paragraph, I've never said anything close to any of that. It's not a crapshoot, though. It's a skill. A skill to identify, draft, and develop a good QB. The busts have clearly been severely flawed going into the draft (Manziel, Manuel, Weeden, Ponder, etc) and have been reaches based on physical tools and/or desperation. The successful QBs after the 1st have been players the NFL clearly overthought due to nitpicking (Wilson, Cousins, Carr, etc.). The reason I've pointed out McNown and Grossman is because they were the 4th and 5th QBs drafted in the 1st round when the Bears picked them. Pretty clear case of settling on NOT the best and taking a QB just because you have the need. But the Bears have a chance to pick whoever they determine as the best, which they haven't done almost ever. Again, if QBs go 1-2 and the Bears can't trade up...that's a different situation. But if the Bears have a choice to pick the #1 QB on their board and they end up getting the 3rd or 4th QB in the 2nd round because they don't feel their guy is worth the 3rd overall pick....then that is an issue.

Now THIS makes no sense. The GMs job is to identify the best prior to the draft. It's literally the most important job a GM has for an NFL team as far as player acquisition goes. And you're the one that keeps saying I'm saying take a QB in the top 5 just to take a QB in the top 5. I've repeatedly said the Bears need to identify the best one and find a way to get him. If they determine the best one will be there in the 2nd round, fine. But they'd better be right about it. After all, jobs are at stake if they aren't. If they determine there's only 1 and he goes with the 1st pick, then that's another issue. But there better be a plan B.

Basically means, there's at least 1 solid starting QB in every draft. Other than 2007 and 2013 (and there's rumors of Mike Glennon getting double digit millions in free agency this offseason), every draft this century has had at least 1 long-term starter. Odds are, there's going to be at least 1 in this draft. Pace's job is to find that one. If he doesn't think any of these QBs are going to be a long-term starter, then to me, that is a cop out. That's basically telling me he's waiting on the next "can't miss" QB to fall in his lap. Which also tells me he plans on either having another really bad team (to get another top 5 pick where those guys tend to go) or he plans or using a ton of resources to either pay for someone else's developed QB or to trade multiple picks to get said QB.

I am taking more offense to the sentiment that the Bears aren't sold on any QB, or shouldn't be sold on any at #3. If they aren't sold on a QB, then they suck at evaluating football. If they do like Watson best, but know he won't go at 25, then yes they should take him 3-6, because they don't have a pick between 3-6 and 25 where he will likely go. Not getting a good QB is not acceptable. You can't just chalk it up as "oh, the guy we wanted didn't last til our 2nd pick". And trading up to get him requires 2 to tango and the loss of more resources. You can't argue getting value by waiting on a QB and then also advocate losing value by trading up. I don't see the point of stopgapping. Cutler is a stopgap. Pace's Bears gave him a legit shot to be the guy, but basically he would've been gone 2 years ago if not for the money owed to him. And developmental QBs in the 3rd-5th rounds don't exist. Those are the Matt Barkleys and Brian Hoyers of the world. Every once in a while you luck up and get a Russell Wilson, Dak Prescott or a Kirk Cousins (and Wilson and Prescott didn't develop they were just thrown in there and immediately delivered), but those are clearly the exceptions. I actually am not a huge fan of Kizer. I have him as the 3rd QB after Watson and Trubisky. I want Watson (and would take him 3-6), I'd be OK with Trubisky (and be ok with taking him 3-6), and I'd hope for the best with Kizer if the Bears do take him 3-6, but I wouldn't personally take him that high. I know it's not the end of the world if the Bears don't get any of the 3, but it sure as hell seems like a continuation of the current world where the QB is simply not good enough.

No. Forcing a fit is what the Bears have done for years. Forcing a fit is watching Couch, McNabb, Smith, and Culpepper go off the board and settling for McNown. The Bears pick 3rd, they can take any QB they want in this draft. They don't HAVE to take a QB. I've made a point in saying that they shouldn't draft a QB for the sake of drafting a QB. But if they do draft a QB (and all signs point to they will), they HAVE to draft the best one. The best way to draft the best one, is to draft the best one. Not wait to see who falls to you in the 2nd round. 1) There are 2 QB's supposedly even thought of as top 10 worthy. There's no guarantee EITHER will be there for us to take when we pick. Nor do we know IF we value them at that level. Drafting one of them could be the epitomy of forcing a fit. 2) If one isn't take at that point, all we can do is take one later as a developmental type. That leaves us having to fill our starters role in the immediate. A guy like Taylor, with upside and not a huge cost involved, seems like a good idea to me. Its not forcing a fit, because it doesn't set us back if he's a stopgap. You're still able to develop your guy and/or still use your 1st at a later time on a QB you truly want. Well obviously in this thread I'm not talking about a hypothetical situation where every top QB is gone (which would also require the Bears winning Sunday or result in the Bears getting the best player in the draft in Myles Garrett, which I would not complain about). I've repeatedly said taking the 1st or 2nd QB in the draft. And who cares about setting the team back? What's to set it back from? They already stink. If you draft a QB and he fails, you've lost nothing but a couple years. If you don't draft a QB and tread water, you've lost a couple years and still likely lose a couple more years when you do finally find this magical QB you've been waiting to fall in your lap.

Nope. Been there. Done that. Didn't work out. Hardly ever does. Plus, I think it's a foregone conclusion that Cleveland is going to make a deal for Garoppolo. They have 2 1sts and 2nds both of which will be in the top 10. Much like overdrafting QBs who aren't deserving of top 3 picks over an actual elite player. Who says none of these QBs aren't deserving of a top 3 pick? Draft websites? Experts? F what they think. If Pace thinks one of these QBs could become even Andy Dalton, then he should take that player at 3 and not worry about if people think he's undeserving.

Nope. Been there. Done that. Didn't work out. Hardly ever does. Plus, I think it's a foregone conclusion that Cleveland is going to make a deal for Garoppolo. They have 2 1sts and 2nds both of which will be in the top 10. But then you're forcing a fit in a QB class that's less than awe-inspiring too. Personally, I could see a trade for a Taylor and still take a QB in the 3rd or 4th. No. Forcing a fit is what the Bears have done for years. Forcing a fit is watching Couch, McNabb, Smith, and Culpepper go off the board and settling for McNown. The Bears pick 3rd, they can take any QB they want in this draft. They don't HAVE to take a QB. I've made a point in saying that they shouldn't draft a QB for the sake of drafting a QB. But if they do draft a QB (and all signs point to they will), they HAVE to draft the best one. The best way to draft the best one, is to draft the best one. Not wait to see who falls to you in the 2nd round.

Nope. Been there. Done that. Didn't work out. Hardly ever does. Plus, I think it's a foregone conclusion that Cleveland is going to make a deal for Garoppolo. They have 2 1sts and 2nds both of which will be in the top 10.

You basing your "LOL" on his 115 QB rating this year or you going to look at the rest of his career?

I got the "Fly the :flythew: " commemorative book. The commemorative SI. A really cool coffee mug with the names of the Cubs roster in the shape of the "W". And my wife also got me a skull cap that says........"Cubs 2016 NL Champions" ugh.

Oh and don't fool yourself. The Bears are essentially the Browns at this point. 14 wins in 3 years vs. 11 in 3 years. Both are terrible. The Bears are in no position to poke fun at Cleveland. And I never said you take a QB because you can. You take a QB because you can get the best one. If Pace and his scouts are good at their jobs, they will find the best one. Like I said before, Grossman was the 5th drafted QB in his class. McNown was the 4th (or vice versa). Since Harbaugh, the Bears have literally settled on their 1st round picks at QB, after 3 or 4 teams have already had their pick. You wait til the 2nd, you risk having 3 or 4 QBs picked over before you get a chance again. Which, again, is fine if you don't like the consensus top 3 or 4 guys as much as the guy that's going to be there in the 2nd. But you sure as hell better be right about that.

I said league average, but I should have expounded. I think a QB who can be consistently league average with the potential to be more would go a long way. Guys like Ryan, Dalton and Cousins are league average overall, but have all had seasons where they've been at or near elite level. Cutler has only been league average in his best years. That's the issue, IMO. I don't care about his body language, his salary, his arm....Cutler hasn't gotten the job done because of a lack of consistency. A consistent league average performer, with the ability to pull a very good season out is what I mean. Over the last several years, the consistently elite have been: Brees, Rodgers, Brady, P Manning, and Wilson. Then you have guys like Luck, Newton, Rivers, Roethlisberger, and Romo when healthy who have been consistently pretty good, and sometimes elite. The next group is what I'm talking about as the consistently "league average". Flacco, Dalton, Stafford (who could be argued in the group before this), and Ryan who have each had a bad season, but also have put together at least 1 great season and have overall been solidly in the 10-14 range of QBs. I think the problem is most people are looking for one of the first 2 group guys in a top 5 pick. That's not only unrealistic, it's also unnecessary for success. And I don't think you can sit back and wait until one of those falls into your lap. The Bears are as bad as anyone could have imagined this year and they still aren't bad enough to get that elite QB prospect, if there was one in this draft. That being said, I'm not saying you take a QB at 3 overall regardless of the situation. If Pace identifies Watson or Kaaya as the best QB in this draft, and all signs point to both being there in the 2nd or a reasonable trade up back into the late 1st, then by all means take another player with the 1st pick. The problem is, I don't see an actual elite talent (that's not a RB) at 3, assuming Myles Garrett goes 1 or 2. I love Jon Allen as a player, but I'd just as soon trade down than take a D-lineman on a team that plays 60% nickel with 2 down linemen.

And my point is that you can get a Dalton, Ryan, Cousins, or Prescott in the second on latter half of the first if not later. Take an elite player in the top four and then trade back up into the bottom of the first or take a QB in the second unless QB really is at the top of the board at four. My point is, if you know you aren't getting a Luck/Newton/Manning, then your best hope is a Dalton/Ryan type. Picking the 4th or 5th best in a class of non elites doesn't help you as much. Thats how the Bears ended up with McNown and Grossman. Picking 3rd, the Bears have their shot at either all or all but 1 of the QBs. The onus is on them to get the best one.

The whole, "I don't think any of these guys are franchise QBs" argument is dumb. If you are picking in the top 3, it's likely because you have no QB. If you have no QB, you can't not draft one because he's not Andrew Luck or Peyton Manning. Not liking any of the consensus top QBs is basically admitting your franchise is trash and doesn't know how to develop a QB, and admitting you want a ready made QB that's typically a once in a generational thing in the first place. Maybe there's no Manning in this draft, but there's certainly guys who can be the next Dalton, Prescott, David Carr, Matt Ryan, or Cousins. League average is better than the Bears have had almost every year of their history. And league average can win plenty of games and have win championships in the NFL. If you're a GM that approaches drafting a QB with the "there's no difference maker" mindset, then you're in the wrong occupation.

Complete agreement Makes 2 incorrect people.

All the roids, except for Clemens. horsefeathers Clemens.