raw

So, yeah I agree with you. I've argued so many times this season/offseason that Siemien is fine as a backup next year. And I don't like the thought of intentionally going after a guy because he's mobile like Fields. Just get the best guy you can find. That being said, yeah I'd certainly draft a QB this year, probably in the 7th. No 6th and 1 of the 5ths is super early, so you're looking at either the Ravens' 5th or a trade down to get one before the 7th. With Brock Purdy's success, I imagine experienced starters will be all the rage. So, it's really hard to figure out where some of these guys might get picked. But the Day 3 guys SHOULD be guys like: Stetson Bennett, Georgia- who is about 5'11", but everyone knows about him Aidan O'Connell, Purdue- who had an article written this week that he could be the best QB in the draft (LOL). But a 2-year starter Max Duggan, TCU- probably goes higher than I'd like to take him Jake Haener, Fresno St- started 28 games in a pass heavy offense Malik Cunningham, Louisville- super athletic, super skinny but can run. Myles Brennan, LSU- he sucks, but he's like the only one with any kind of size here Tanner Morgan, Minnesota- if I had to say anyone is similar to Purdy, this would be him Clayton Tune, Houston- decent size, decent athlete, may go higher than I'd like too Dorian Thompson-Robinson, UCLA- similar to Cunningham in size & skillset, but probably a little better passer Tyson Bagent, Shepherd- IDK anything about him but apparently people love his upside and he's at the Senior Bowl on Getsy's team Despite his size, I love Lindsey Scott Jr. Honestly, not familiar with him at all. I'll check him out.

Cap was estimated at 225M and that was figured into projections. 224.8M is pretty much right on target.

So, yeah I agree with you. I've argued so many times this season/offseason that Siemien is fine as a backup next year. And I don't like the thought of intentionally going after a guy because he's mobile like Fields. Just get the best guy you can find. That being said, yeah I'd certainly draft a QB this year, probably in the 7th. No 6th and 1 of the 5ths is super early, so you're looking at either the Ravens' 5th or a trade down to get one before the 7th. With Brock Purdy's success, I imagine experienced starters will be all the rage. So, it's really hard to figure out where some of these guys might get picked. But the Day 3 guys SHOULD be guys like: Stetson Bennett, Georgia- who is about 5'11", but everyone knows about him Aidan O'Connell, Purdue- who had an article written this week that he could be the best QB in the draft (LOL). But a 2-year starter Max Duggan, TCU- probably goes higher than I'd like to take him Jake Haener, Fresno St- started 28 games in a pass heavy offense Malik Cunningham, Louisville- super athletic, super skinny but can run. Myles Brennan, LSU- he sucks, but he's like the only one with any kind of size here Tanner Morgan, Minnesota- if I had to say anyone is similar to Purdy, this would be him Clayton Tune, Houston- decent size, decent athlete, may go higher than I'd like too Dorian Thompson-Robinson, UCLA- similar to Cunningham in size & skillset, but probably a little better passer Tyson Bagent, Shepherd- IDK anything about him but apparently people love his upside and he's at the Senior Bowl on Getsy's team

I bet on Hurts right after that season. He stayed at Bama and sat the bench behind Tua, despite being 27-2 as a starter and leading his team to consecutive national championship games (won 1, which obviously Tua took over). He then went to Oklahoma and put up a Heisman level season. He was just a guy I never counted out as an NFL QB. I thought he might be a 6th round pick and mostly a career backup who becomes a head coach after his playing career, but I knew he would have success on some level in the NFL. From all accounts, just a really good dude, who I wished all the success in this league.

I know officiating in the Chiefs/Bengals game is going to be talked about for a while, but lets not forget that the officiating was probably worse in the Niners/Eagles game. It didn't matter as much because the Niners didn't have a QB for half the game, but the Niners got screwed over and over again with questionable calls. In the Chiefs/Bengals game, the officiating was still bad, but it's probably going to be overblown. There were not holds on the Mahomes scramble. That was clearly a late hit out of bounds. There WERE blocks in the back on the punt return to set it all up though. The 3rd down thing was an absolute mess (and the subsequent defensive holding call), but there was sky cam of the official trying to stop the play. The Chiefs were the better team yesterday, IMO. If Mahomes doesn't have a ball just slip out of his hands, the Chiefs were probably going up 2 scores to start the 4th quarter. I think it would've been basically over then.

Yeah, I was noticing the changes there. They can get to 110M by cutting Whitehair (June 1), Justin Jones and Muhammad. Fwiw, I would cut Jackson too. I wouldn't, but I understand. He will be overpaid in 2023, but the Bears need to spend the money, so they might as well keep a still solid player. 2023 would be his last year as a Bear, unless they extend him, which doesn't really make sense at his age. But I think it'd be fine to keep him for this year. He's still productive, a leader, and took to the new defense with more turnovers and fewer missed tackles than in recent years.

Yeah, I was noticing the changes there. They can get to 110M by cutting Whitehair (June 1), Justin Jones and Muhammad.

Nathaniel Hackett, hired as Jets OC. Granted, he did call plays years ago before Green Bay, but famously was fired in less than a season with a potential HOF QB on his team. Seems like a bad hire, but I guess they could be chasing Aaron Rodgers just like Denver did? LOL. Meanwhile, Byron Leftwich, who actually won a Superbowl as an OC is without a job.

More like the Raid-ed, am I right? Good haul, but a terrible mock pick of a player not even ranked in the top 25 of any reputable draft board right now (hell, CBS has him ranked 43), and at an increasingly less important position. Take the best available line prospect, or if for some reason there's a run on OL/DL in the top 5, take the best available CB in a bind (note, the likeliness of this happening is about none and there's a good chance one of Anderson/Carter/Murphy will be there). So, I really like the player picked. I would probably have him top 15. I think Simpson is a the prototype Eberflus LB. He's long, versatile and fast. I'd love to have him as the long-term at Will LB in this defense. And this is not a comp, but I think he has some ability to rush off the edge too ala Micah Parsons. That being said, there's no way you can trade Roquan, basically laugh at the previous regime for taking an off ball LB top 10 (as Flus did) and then take a LB top 10. In general, I hate the logic involved in taking the same position as a player you got rid of. Would have been like using the pick from the Mack trade on a DE. You just filled a hole you self created and went from the best player on the team to an unproven prospect. Never made sense to me. That's what happened when they draft Kevin White after getting rid of Brandon Marshall, and we see how that worked out. If they were able to get a late 1st (after 20) and then took Simpson, I'd be pretty happy with that, provided they drafted an offensive player earlier. He's a good looking prospect.

Despite the tons of money the Bears have to spend, I still expect them to look for value in free agency. That's not to say they will bargain shop like last year. I explained this somewhere else, but my example is this. Da'Ron Payne, he's probably going to get 22Mil AAV on the open market. 2nd highest paid DT makes 21AAV, so I'd guess at 25, he gets a touch more. But as long as Aaron Donald is around, he'll be the 2nd highest paid DT and the best case scenario is his play is that of the 2nd best DT in the league. And based on his salary (and others right below him) we know that level of DT play is worth about 20-22Mil per year. Basically, there's 0 chance he provides surplus value over his cost because you're already paying him tops at his position. A guy like Dre'Mont Jones from Denver, may cost like 15Mil/year, but he could give you top 10-15 DT level play on the field, which may be worth like 16-18Mil, so essentially you could get a surplus in value because there is a chance (no matter how slight) that he outperforms his salary in any given year. So, I still think Poles will spend a bunch of money (again he has to). But I do think he will be smart about it. He will look for ascending players, who are still young, potentially improving, and have been successful in smaller roles. And honestly, this is how all teams should look at adding in free agency, if they aren't surely one of the top 5 contenders missing singular pieces here and there.

I don't remember those Raiders and Chiefs game AT ALL. I remember the Broncos game vividly. And that was the point I gave up all hope for making the playoffs. The Seattle was memorable, even though I didn't see it at all due to a dance recital for my daughter. The game featured a 14-7 Bears lead at halftime and multiple 2nd half pick 6's of Caleb Hanie. Oh and most famously, that was the game Johnny Knox's career ended with the gruesome spine injury.

I really like Harry, but there's a reason I don't want him back. The Bears are already bringing back Mooney, Claypool, Velus Jones and St. Brown. Harry would be the 5th WR on a roster that usually carries 6. I know they carried 7 a lot of this year, and they could cut Jones, St. Brown and/or Harry for minimal dead cap, but I'd hate for them to get rid of Jones so quickly after flashes in the 2nd half, and obviously cheap rookie deal and great speed. St. Brown they obviously value by locking him up before the season ended. So, that limits the number of spots you have to truly upgrade the WR position. I just don't see much of a path to improvement if you bring back 5 of the 7 players on a bottom 5 WR depth chart in the league. The FA market is soft on WR's this year, right? If so bring back Harry and draft one. Spend more picks/cap money on protecting Fields up front and let's see what he can do with this group. Then maybe we can make a bigger splash at WR next offseason. Just spitballing here off the top of my head. That's a good point. The FA class is really bad. I'd personally rather see if any of those FAs take a 1-year deal than to give Harry a spot. Though, doing both is feasible. Basically, I'm thinking a guy better than Pringle, since they have money this year, but it may not be anyone to spend on, especially for 1 year. Not really interested in a multi-year deal on a WR with potentially Mooney and Claypool to be signed.

I really like Harry, but there's a reason I don't want him back. The Bears are already bringing back Mooney, Claypool, Velus Jones and St. Brown. Harry would be the 5th WR on a roster that usually carries 6. I know they carried 7 a lot of this year, and they could cut Jones, St. Brown and/or Harry for minimal dead cap, but I'd hate for them to get rid of Jones so quickly after flashes in the 2nd half, and obviously cheap rookie deal and great speed. St. Brown they obviously value by locking him up before the season ended. So, that limits the number of spots you have to truly upgrade the WR position. I just don't see much of a path to improvement if you bring back 5 of the 7 players on a bottom 5 WR depth chart in the league.

Can't do without: NONE Might as well bring back: Blackwell (ERFA deal is like 750K) Evans (camp invite, possibly doesn't make the team) Houston-Carson (can't help but love the guy, does a bit of everything) I'd take back, but could be upgraded easily: Scales Wesco Eiselen (probably should add enough to the OL that he goes away) Watts (probably should add enough to the DL that he goes away) Can Leave: Literally everyone else

I don't know if there's any non-QB in any draft ever worth NOT trading back for. Obviously, if you're in a situation like the Jags were last year where they had a QB and there were no top 20 QBs, then you have to take the pick. But if you have a QB, and there are QBs at the top of the draft, and there are teams that need a QB, you trade it 100x out of 100.

I'm guessing neither. He'll be good to go in like 3 months, and should have no long-term issues. The Cowboys signed Gallup for 5/57M last offseason and he actually had a torn ACL. While that's maybe a slight discount, they SHOULD cut Elliot and re-sign Pollard for whatever it takes. Zeke has a 16M cap hit next year and they save 11M if they cut him. Damn that seems like a no brainer. Zeke just hasn't been the same back the last couple of years even with a reduced workload to help with wear and tear. Wouldn't go near him. I also see a lot of people on twitter suggesting making a run at Barkley and I kind of feel the same way. A little different situation because he was still productive on a per carry basis but the Giants really throttled back his workload the second half of the season as his production started to decline rapidly. Don't know if you can trust him to be a three down back, and I'm sure he'll want to get paid like one. I think the issue with Saquon was the big jump in usage. Due to his injuries, he hadn't been used that much since his rookie year. He had 352 touches this year and only like 230 in the previous 2 years combined. And almost 100 more touches than he had in any of the previous 3 seasons. He just got worn out. I think he'd be more capable of handling a similar workload in 2023, but I understand the hesitation to sign him to big money. I wouldn't turn him down by any means, but I'd almost certainly prefer a speedier back who's a better natural receiver.

I'm guessing neither. He'll be good to go in like 3 months, and should have no long-term issues. The Cowboys signed Gallup for 5/57M last offseason and he actually had a torn ACL. While that's maybe a slight discount, they SHOULD cut Elliot and re-sign Pollard for whatever it takes. Zeke has a 16M cap hit next year and they save 11M if they cut him.

uhh isn't the top of this draft supposed to be really heavy on defensive talent My impression is there is a lot of quality depth at the top of the draft on the DL, with Anderson and Carter leading the way, but I'm not as sure how Anderson and Carter stack up compared to recent guys like Bosa and Chase Young. WrigleyField22 mentioned neither of them stack up to Myles Garrett, and I think that's accurate, although you can make a really good argument Garrett's the best DL prospect to come out in the last decade. There are some concerns with Anderson's size and speed, which might limit his usefulness when he's not rushing the passer, and Carter has some questions about his technique and health. The Combine will help tell the tale, and I think the Bears' D would improve measurably with either, but I don't think the Bears *have* to walk away from this draft with either guy. Garrett, Young, and the Nick Bosa are definitely better prospects than any edge in this draft. But Anderson is better than either of the first 2 picks last year (Walker, Hutchinson) IMO. Myles Murphy is a Travon Walker clone and he's DE2 or DE3. This is a really good edge draft, with a lot of players with 8+ sack potential, IMO. Anderson isn't quite generational, but he's pretty good. And I think this draft is about 8-9 deep in Round 1 or 2 guys that can be good pro players early in their careers.

Bosa (either one) was not an obvious home run I have to admit, I might be wrong about Anderson. David pointed out that Carter was drawing "Darnold" comparisons and last season, Carter was clearly stronger than Anderson. How far would the Bers drop before you would feel comfortable still getting Carter? If they don't go sign someone like Payne, I would be fine if they drafted him at 1 if they felt he was the BPA and for some reason a trade fell through. They still have to be proven wrong at this point whether they can be trusted even in hypotheticals. Eh, there's really no excuse to pick a player with the #1 pick. They have to trade it, whether they get a huge package or not, they should at least get 2-3 top 100 picks. They have to take that over a non-consensus #1 pick. That being said, I think Will Anderson may be a Bosa level talent. He's definitely similar to Joey in recruiting rankings in their respective years. Nick was a top 5 recruit by most publications, but Anderson was a 5-star as well and top 50. Anderson also has put up double digit sacks in the last 2 years in the best conference in college football. He's really damn good.

He's the best guard in this draft. Could argue the best lineman, IMO, if Skoronski's short arms move him to the interior. One thing about him is he's HUGE. 347lbs is his listed weight. The Bears have talked about wanting smaller, athletic linemen to run their outside zone scheme. But Torrence is really good. Even if he lost like 15-20lbs though, he'd still be on the bigger side for what the Bears like. I'm not sure if he'll be truly on their radar, but if he can move well enough at the combine, I don't see why they couldn't make it work. He's played both LG and RG and with this length, if he shows the footwork, I wouldn't be surprised if he could be a solid RT.

Yeah, I'm going to guess this will be similar. I kind of feel bad for the rest of the QBs in the AFC, because the conference is loaded with young talent. Herbert- does he repeat Philip Rivers and be good, but always on the outside looking in? Jackson- if he stays, he's on one of the best run, well coached organizations in the sport Tua- he's shown what he can do when healthy and has weapons Pickett- may never be great, but his coach has never had a losing season, so he will get his shots Lawrence- a better prospect than all of them, now has good coaching, but tough place to win And that doesn't include young guys like Watson (who has a passing title last time he played a full season) or the 1-2 picks in the draft that will potentially be QBs in Indianapolis and Houston or potentially the Jets if they can somehow make something out of Zach Wilson.

No That doesn’t mean it’s not a good pick or a successful draft, but when you have #1 and don’t need a qb but do need a ton of other stuff, you need to do something more than draft defense at the top and wait until pick 56 to grab an offensive player. Yep, even an underwhelming package of picks is better than sticking at 1 to me. The Bears will never have anything more valuable that they actually want to give up than the #1 pick. It's like finding a Van Gogh painting in your basement and not getting what you want from an art buyer and just hanging it in your house.

I think Levis #1 could help the value, it really depends if teams see an issue with Young's size. Granted, there is Stroud in the draft as well. Second question is pretty interesting. We saw first hand what it took to move up 1 spot for Trubisky. I would think 2 to 1 would require a little more than 3 to 2, simply because it's the #1 pick and there is value in taking whoever you want and the value of each pick diminishes with 1 fewer player to pick from. But we also saw the Niners make a huge trade up to get to 3 a couple years ago. Granted, they came up from further away (12), but there's also value in demand increase as the supply of 1 QB goes off the board. I think if the Texans did move up from 2 to 1, if the Bears wanted to trade down again, it'd probably be more like trading beyond the 4th pick. I think the Texans moving up to presumably stop the Colts from getting their guy would mean teams after the Colts would also look to trading ahead of them. Of course, the Colts could move up to ensure it doesn't happen again. So, I do think there is more value in trading down twice in general. You'd get a little less from the Colts from 4 to 2, but I think what you'd get from the Texans would put the double trade down over the top. I think you can get 4 top 100 picks from the Colts. Even if that goes down to 3 picks, if they're now going to 2 instead of 1. I think you get 2-3 picks from Houston in the top 100 as well. Instead of all 1sts and 2nds, maybe they're 3rds mixed in as well. But I do think the package would be greater.

I mean if there was a consensus prospect on the level of Lawrence we probably would be having a real trade Fields conversation. But if we presume something a little less generational, but still consensus, like a Stafford? I think I'd rather have a clear consensus #1. Without benefit of hindsight is this the 2018-lite draft class? That one didn't have a clear consensus #1. Had a couple of college studs (two former Heisman winners), but valuations were all over the place on guys. 5 ended up in the first round with 4 in the first 10, and 4 of the 5 involved trades. Of course the first pick wasn't traded being it was the QB needy Browns. Or even 2017 with three non-consensus QBs, and all 3 were traded up for. Soo you don't need consensus to get lots of trade activity, but do you need it to drive trade activity all the way up to 1? Edit maybe it's like 2016-heavy which also lacked a clear consensus, but was shallower with only 2 FR QBs but both were traded up 1-2. Did lack of supply help there? Is 3 (maybe 4?) too much supply? The biggest factor is the Texans being at #2, and the Bears being obvious sellers. I think the Bears clearly selling in general lowers the value of the #1 pick. It should still be a decent haul though, because it's still the #1 pick. Maybe more if there is a consensus, but I think that would actually mean fewer candidates because the cost would be more prohibitive.

This feels like a good place for that Star Wars meme.