raw

Kingsbury was also the exception in that he wasn't a particularly good college coach either. 35-40 overall, 2 winning seasons out of 6(and none in his most recent 3), never more than 8 wins in a season(his first season). Texas Tech can be hard to recruit to, but not that hard. I also wonder who in their right mind would want to coach in college these days. With the portal, you're basically re-recruiting 70 guys every year plus all of the HS recruiting and transfers in addition to all of the alumni ass kissing you have to do. I know you make a ton of money and have an army of assistants, but if you can go be an NFL OC and make a couple million bucks instead of going to deal with all of the nonsense in college, not necessarily sure why you wouldn't just take the OC job. Yeah that sucks, but college also pays similar money to the NFL and has more job security. 1. coaches keep their job longer. You build up an average or below program, you basically stay as long as you want. 2. if you do lose your job, there's 130 other jobs now instead of 31 others

Yeah, this is as no brainer as it gets. And everything Poles has said, "build thru the draft" and done (turned 5 picks into 11 last year) in his year on the job point to this being 100% a trade down. Hell, even sitting Fields on Sunday says to me, "hey we have a shot at #1 lets see if we can get it". Fields has been playing hurt most of the season. It's not a coincidence they sat him Week 18. No better way to build thru the draft than turn 1 pick into 4+ early picks.

Can't imagine Houston would give up 2 and 12, maybe 2, 33, and a 2024 2nd? The Seattle deal for 2 seems like a decent chance, but is Seattle going to go after a QB or give Geno Smith a shot with 2 additional 1st rounders added to the roster? Houston and Indy will be bad next year. Seattle won't be as bad. Draft position in 2024 is of utmost importance as well, IMO. Agree that Houston and Indy will likely be bad. But I wouldn't be surprised if Seattle is too. They do have a decent amount of talent, but that QB position is still unstable with Geno or a rookie. They only went 9-8 this year with 4 wins by 4 or fewer points. They were up and down all year with losses to the entire NFC South, who all had losing records. They also lost to a bad Raiders team. I know they are well coached and have drafted well, but I wouldn't discount that could be a top 12 pick in 2024 from them. They made the playoffs, but they won in OT against a bad Rams team Sunday which a loss would have had them with the 14th pick. I'd take almost any scenario that gets the Bears multiple 1st round picks in 2024. Worst case scenario, it gives you an extra 1st to trade for a really good WR or Tunsil or Buckner if the Colts are cutting salary.

No way Houston trades up from 2 to 1. I think they'd be perfectly fine taking Levis at 2, if Young goes 1. I actually think the smart move for Houston would be to take Anderson at 2, and then use 12 to move to move back up for a QB (Arizona at 3 would be a prime target or even Bears at 4 with double trade down). They could get the best player in the draft AND get their QB. They also have two 1sts next year from the Watson trade.

and then we draft marvin harrison jr with their pick lmao This is quite realistic. The Colts will be in rebuild mode and will be a bottom feeder next year. I wanna say their offensive line was hideous, which explains why they went through so many QB's this year. I'm all in on a trade with the Colts, assuming it pays well enough. And I'd be especially cool if they traded down with the Texans along the way. Not sure you get the same prize from the Colts by letting the Texans have first pick of the QB's, but you still end up with Anderson if they no longer wish to do business. They'd still have to worry that someone will jump to the 3rd pick ahead of them. I don't see Detroit drafting a QB. Goff has been mistake free and he's running their offense quite well. They can use their picks to strengthen their roster. For once in a blue moon, they are the team to beat in the NFC North next year. Hopefully, the Bears make it a two team race. Colts also had the league's most expensive OL as well. They all dealt with injuries in the last couple years and have zapped the effectiveness of a once fantastic group. One thing about Detroit is they've built quite a foundation there. They finished with a winning record, were mostly hot to end the season. Established great chemistry on that team. And now get to add 4 top 64 picks. I don't see them taking a QB, which would create some controversy in what should be a pretty strong and optimistic locker room going into next season.

I think that fan base would riot if they go after another veteran QB. Granted, Jimmy G isn't as ancient as Ryan and Rivers or as terrible as Wentz. But there's no way they can justify adding another vet as their starting QB. They've had good luck (no pun) picking QBs at 1 (since the Elway debacle), so I feel like there will be a ton of pressure and incentive for them to trade up to a team that's clearly got the 1 on the table. Extra incentive to take their top guy over the division rival Texans.

My point is, Will Anderson may be the best prospect in this draft. That doesn't mean he is the best pro in the draft. He could be Jadeveon Clowney, solid player but not a world beater. Even if he is Nick Bosa, the best pass rusher in his class who went #2 in his class......there may be a Brian Burns available in the middle of the round, like there was in that 2019 draft. I'd probably still trade the pick if I knew Anderson was going to be a Bosa level pass rusher, if I knew I could another pretty good pass rusher PLUS another early pick in this draft PLUS likely a 1st round pick next year PLUS probably another pick or two. To put names to it from the Bosa and subsequent draft. I would give up Bosa to get Brian Burns, Dalton Risner (early 2nd in 2019), Jerry Jeudy (mid 1 in 2020) + an extra 3rd next year or whatever else it takes. And I didn't even take the best available guys in the early 2nd and mid 1st like Deebo and Wirfs. One player can add the elite player this team needs, but they aren't 1 player away. 4-5 players can be franchise altering if you draft well.

I love Will Anderson, but I'm not basing a trade down on being able to get him still. If you trade from 1, you have to assume you are forgoing the ability to draft whoever you consider the best player in this draft. There's enough DE talent in this draft that you can still get a pretty good edge player AND a bunch of other assets. I don't care if the Bears have to trade down to 20, I want the best package of potential impact draft picks.

The Bengals were going to have to have their 1st round game vs the Ravens HFA picked by a coinflip had the Ravens won yesterday, despite being a 1/2 game better. I think the logic between no coin flip or neutral site vs Bills is that they actually played the same number of games. The issue comes when one team played 17 games and the Bengals only 16. But since Bengals and Bills 17th game was actually against each other and determined who would have HFA in a potential matchup, it doesn't make sense that it wasn't treated the same.

Absolutely. Only bright spots in the organization right now are players he had no hand in acquiring. I'd certainly wait until the Bears actually show they can build something before giving Cunningham a shot with my team.

Well, let's hope Cunningham does NOT get plucked this hiring cycle. The Bears only get compensatory picks (two 3rd rounders in consecutive years) after Cunningham has been in the position for 2 years. So, they'd lose him for nothing if he gets hired this offseason.

Kingsbury was also the exception in that he wasn't a particularly good college coach either. 35-40 overall, 2 winning seasons out of 6(and none in his most recent 3), never more than 8 wins in a season(his first season). Texas Tech can be hard to recruit to, but not that hard. All true. He isn't very good. But he's handsome and has swagger. I think he should be able to get a high profile job and at least fake being a decent coach, and he theoretically should be able to recruit.

I'd be pretty disappointed if that was all they got for the #1 overall pick. Effectively, in that trade, DJ Moore would have to be worth the equivalence of another 1st round pick. The gap in value between 1 and 9 is immense. I don’t mind that trade if you are dead set on giving Fields ample weapons. Moore might be the best possible WR that the bears can acquire. That said I’d rather do that trade but with the Colts/Pittman I'd like another midround pick in this trade. I may prefer Pittman as well, but the difference here is that Pittman you would have to pay in a year. Just like you have to pay Mooney and Claypool by next offseason. Obviously, that's fine, and that gives you a chance to see a direct competition for a new contract with guys all in the same offense. But that also means you are going to probably lose 2 of them. A guy like DJ Moore is already under contract, so it allows you to sign 1 of Mooney/Claypool and still have Moore, so you aren't back in the same position in 2024 of not having enough at WR. Plus, again the Bears have to hit a spending floor. 20Mil to DJ Moore helps that or else you'd have to sign at least 1 of these WRs (2 of which you haven't seen much of in the offense, 1 who's injured) in order to spend that cash.

I 100% want this. I don't remember if there is anyone with coaching experience on the staff, but I'd love Lovie in a consulting role. Like you said, this is his defense. He never really had issue identifying guys who could play in his scheme. He was Ryan Poles' coach. And it's probably the last chance he gets to ever be involved in coaching for the rest of his career. It makes a ton of sense. Seeing some rumors he didn't connect well with players. Of course the dirt gets aired when a guy is fired, so grain of salt, but it does seem like his best role is more advisory in nature. On the other hand I really don't like the idea of them being "all-in" on Tampa 2 legacy systems. Personal attachment to Lovie aside, I want to see them being real critical of where their D scheme was lacking and adjust to the needs of the league. I mean, Eberflus is all-in regardless. If the HC is all-in, might as well get the best guy at the Tampa 2 to join him. That being said, I don't necessarily love the Tampa 2 at this point either. I do wonder if Flus would be willing to go in a different direction being that he did take on a CEO role instead of running the D. I know they didn't have much talent, but I wouldn't cry if Alan Williams didn't come back as DC. And I've always loved the idea of combining 2 different philosophies.

Wow. Keim out is interesting. Potential landing spot for Sean Payton and his handpicked GM? I have no idea what to think about that Arizona job in general. When do you get Kyler back? Does a HC even want to stake his career to a 5'8" QB? Really weird job opening. Also, FWIW, I always feel like a college-to-NFL coach should be able to be great going back to college. Especially a guy like Kliff. He can take credit for Mahomes. He knows what it takes to get guys to the NFL level. Seems like a huge sell to recruits.....though I guess at this point, the only true huge sell is the money.

Young is not a better prospect than Fields. If he was 4" and 25lbs bigger, maybe. But whether he goes 1st and Fields went 11th, Fields is the better prospect of the two. But I agree, they do have to do their due diligence on every possible scenario.

I'm not about to sweat about a 6th round pick not making it. The Bears mistakenly pigeonholed him into a nickel spot, but he's actually had his success this year on the outside. But you can't fault them for putting him in the slot as he's a 5'9", 175lb CB. He couldn't cut it in the slot, which is why he was cut. Kudos to him. But let's see if they keep him out there against a presumably well-versed in the offense, Chase Claypool at any point next year.

Obviously it's been 10 years, but I'm trying to remember a case of a former HC coming back into that org in an assistant role. Wade Phillips in DEN; that was nearly 20 years after. Any others? It would be unique, but Lovie is a unique guy. Two names that came up when thinking about long term coaches that left an organization were Shanahan and Holmgren, both of whom moved on to establish themselves as major figures in their next stop. Lovie coached two years at Tampa then came back home* to coach in college, which not a lot of established NFL coaches have done. He’s in his mid 60s and his head coaching opportunities are probably behind him. Does he want to be a full blown defensive coordinator again? John Fox has become a defensive assistant in his late 60s, albeit not to an organization he had previous ties to, but that particular wrinkle doesn’t strike me as an obstacle. 2000s era bears coaches wouldn’t have wanted Ditka coming back as a voice in the room, but Lovie isn’t that type of coach. I 100% want this. I don't remember if there is anyone with coaching experience on the staff, but I'd love Lovie in a consulting role. Like you said, this is his defense. He never really had issue identifying guys who could play in his scheme. He was Ryan Poles' coach. And it's probably the last chance he gets to ever be involved in coaching for the rest of his career. It makes a ton of sense.

Charbonnet is slow like Montgomery.

I love David Montgomery. He was one of my draft crushes the year he came out. I was all about re-signing him early in the season, but at this point, I think you have to get a more dynamic RB back there. He averaged 1.7 yards per carry LESS than Herbert. Like many predicted, he just isn't a fit for the outside zone, which the Bears do best. He's a tad slow to hit the hole and a tick late to see the cutback. He's a great runner, but I don't think he fits long term. I think the Bears either need 2 RBs in one to replace him, or 1 really good all-around guy. Herbert is a runner only. Not a pass protector, not a pass catcher. I think Barkley stays in NY. And like you said, Jacobs' usage is kinda of scary and he will likely get near Barkley level money. He is the type of all-around RB that the Bears needed. Tony Pollard would be a pipe dream. I think he's the perfect fit for what the Bears are good at and what they do. He has the quickness and vision to hit the hole on the zone read. He's a great receiver out of the backfield and if the Bears aren't able to add a stud WR, then they really need a receiving option to help out Fields. Sanders would be interesting, since he has experience in an offense where the QB was a huge threat as well, but he's not much of a receiver. Pipe dream = Pollard or get enough done in FA + enough extra early picks to take Jahmyr Gibbs from Bama. Solid options = Miles Sanders, Devin Singletary Cheap #2s = Raheem Mostert, Jeff Wilson, Samaje Perine Draft options = Roschon Johnson (Texas)- all around big RB, Zach Evans (Miss/TCU) - lot of speed

The more I think about it, the more I like the thought of adding an established veteran player in a draft trade. Give me Laremy Tunsil from Houston. Give me DeForest Buckner from the Colts. Give me DJ Moore from the Panthers. It serves a dual purpose. This team needs studs. Get a stud player that is already under contract. The Bears have to spend the money, and adding those guys and their 20Mil contracts would hedge against not being able to add players of that caliber in free agency and help them to NOT overpay guys to fill gaping holes on the roster.

The Colts player who mistimed his jump and missed knocking down the Hail Mary the Texans used to take the lead was a HS teammate of Damar Hamlin.

Ideally both win to put Indy at 3, to where they lock in on one QB and Hou and Indy battle for the better of the 2. Seattle would be a wild card because who knows if they'll bring back Smith. If they don't, you have 4 teams needing a QB (Hou, Indy, Sea, LV in the top 7). I just think there's enough a drop from Anderson to Carter and better DTs than DEs in FA which would make he hesitate going beyond 3. The greatest drop would be beyond Carter. I'm just not looking forward to Fields having no #1 WR again. I'd rather the Colts pick lower so they have to give up more in a potential trade. The dropoff from Carter to DT2 is huge for me, since I'm not a big fan of Bresee (their other 2 DTs stayed in school, so I guess he could too). But the Bears will sign a free agent DT. Like 0 question they will. They tried to sign a big dollar DT last year when they had no money, now they have the most in the league and a loaded DT class (as of today). Granted, they need multiple DTs but I'm thinking they add at least 1 stud in free agency so not getting Carter wouldn't be a huge issues. I actually like this DE class quite a bit. They probably have to sign a FA DE as well, but not as good of a class as DT and they also need a pair of DEs as well. But I'd be fine with losing Anderson if it means the Bears get a huge haul of picks for #1. I like several of the 2nd tier of DEs, even though my favorite one of the bunch, Jared Verse, announced he was going back to Florida State yesterday.

I've been clear about my vision for the Bears since before we even drafted fields. I want an elite pocket passing game. Screw defense, screw running the football. If fields is everything we want him to be, he can fetch just as much of a trade haul as the pick can Good thing Fields is fully capable of carrying an elite passing game. Just try and enjoy it when it happens. Nevermind the fact that many of the top offenses are elite outside the pocket, where Fields has excelled this year. And the fact that he wants Bryce Young, who also is not a pure pocket passer.

It's mechanical, based on my non-expert opinion. I think the couple of QB experts that do watch Fields' film (Dilfer, O'Sullivan, Tim Jenkins) have also agreed that he does have mechanical issues on the short throws. I think I have stated this before, but my non-expert opinion is that he is worried about overthrowing them. If you go outside and throw a football and you just casually throw a ball a short distance with your feet stagnant, you can obviously make the throw and get it where you want it. But if you really focus on your feet and throw stepping into it, you can really throw it harder and further. I think Fields is cognizant of not throwing it too hard or too far so he tries to "ease" it in on short throws. But he simply has to throw it like normal. It's a terrible habit to get into, because how do you determine what's a "short" or "easy" throw? 5 yards, 10 yards? Just throw it the same way every time. Aiming never works.