David

You do not need two stud CBs. Thats a pretty unrealistic expectation. If we have two stud CBs and also get any decent depth on the front 7 we better have a top 3 D. Well, according to sulley we just need Allen and some bodies in the secondary. But not spitballing: what's realistic (and who) for this offseason? I don't see a formula that gets Fox and Co the wild card. And how do you address the offense besides dreaming of a 2009 Tony Romo? I'll take a 2014 Tony Romo instead.

at least until you realize how much taller jhey is than dex https://www.instagram.com/p/BNc9d_gBHyN/?taken-by=jheylove22

i prospect nerded the hell up when we were awful, but it amazes me how some can still be hard core prospect nerding. god bless you guys.

Not sure if repost or not, but it's kind of awesome https://www.instagram.com/p/BNc89zJBR6i/

manny strange comp since eloy has been pretty allergic to walks, but i guess if they're super high on his hit tool there's not much else to compare him to when you put it that way...vlad?

I really don't get how people make this sort of statement about NFL teams. The Bears absolutely could make the playoffs next year and it would not take some laughable course of events to happen. In the events listed above, I noticed Sulley kind of completely glossed over the secondary other then to say they all need to be replaced except for Amos. [emoji102] I don't care how dominate you want to project our front 7, it likely (like, VERY LIKELY) won't improve enough to make up for that giant hole Playoffs would be a [expletive] miracle Big win jumps happen in the NFL and in pro sports in general all the time. A good draft and offseason plus continued development from the existing young players and the Bears could easily be in playoff contention next year. And if they are in contention, by definition they could be in the playoffs. Am I saying it's probable? No. But it's definitely a realistic "if things go right" outcome. Also, dominant*

So I was reading Chuck Wasserstrom's blog piece on the scout who passed [tweet] [/tweet] And then I happened upon this, and I laughed a little... http://www.chuckblogerstrom.com/all-my-stories/the-day-ryne-sandberg-became-chuck-wasserstrom

manny

Is there any informed speculation or rumor of what Romo will cost in a trade?

oh jeez...almost forgot that. same. i guess that falls in with my hours spent watching RW/RR and the challenges that i mentioned

Dexter's highs were pretty high but the lows were so brutal too. I've seen every episode of it but I enjoyed the good parts so much that I can't name it here. I still can't believe the ending actually happened.

PFF didn't like Porter last year, either, FWIW.

The way people have talked about Amos taking a step back this year (locally in the media), I would've guessed he had graded out much worse. They loved him last year, too. Kind of a weird graphic. Its just the last game starters, which included at least one guy who was signed off the PS just a few weeks prior. Wonder how some more significant season long contributors graded. Scroll down... Zach Miller graded out really well. (81.7) Goldman too (80.0)

http://imgur.com/a/VpfO0 The way people have talked about Amos taking a step back this year (locally in the media), I would've guessed he had graded out much worse. They loved him last year, too.

You watch quality TV then Well, I don't usually watch every episode of shows that suck out loud. I'm of course not counting reality tv and the countless hours I spent in the late 90s/early 2000s watching real world, road rules, and the challenges.

Friday Night Lights

Damn. I knew I had heard this guy's name recently... http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-cubs-scout-stan-zielinski-honored-20161129-story.html

i do think i favor baseball over the other sports i like (football and basketball) when all is equal (as far as how good my teams are), but i think it's primarily because a) baseball is in summer and summer makes me happy and b) baseball gives me 3 hours of entertainment nearly every day. i love that on most days i can look forward to getting home from work and having a game i'm emotionally invested in to watch. and for whatever reason, the volume of games doesn't water down my emotional investment vs. the other sports to any remotely proportional extent.

Outside of a Luck/Manning/Leaf/RG3 situation where there's a clear consensus, there's not enough certainty in it for me when you can much more easily find a certain and instant/near-instant level of impact at another position. Your aversion to first round QBs is as weird as raws insistance that the Bears draft one this year. There's a pretty strong correlation still with draft spot and success across the board. Yea, QB has a higher fail rate across the board (mainly because its hard to fall in the middle ground), and pure quantity is not a bad strategy to get a hit. But the top of the draft is still your best bet. And after roughly pick 100 the number of good starters is basically zilch except for the biggest exception ever. It's less an aversion to 1st round QBs than it is thinking the risk/reward on other positions, including some pretty easy ones to get impact at, is much a much better and safer use of such a valuable high pick.

let's not jump all over thrillho for that. i mean, yadi molina's neck tattoo...

That was my thought exactly as I read it. Obligatory "this is kind of what happens when you graduate like 7 guys who win you a world series within two seasons" qualifier comment.

I really couldn't disagree more. Well, not entirely...of course we'd all be happy if you told us we'd hit on a QB with a QB pick in the 1st. But the whole reason people are against it is because of how risky 1st round QBs are and how often teams talk themselves into guys who bust. It's kind of the "horsefeathers pitchers" equivalent of the NFL draft. If you take the risk out of the equation, that makes it a really easy decision. I'm fine with a mid-round lottery ticket on a QB because I think a big part of the finding QB thing is lucky sorcery. Yeah, scouting definitely plays a role, but I think your best shot is taking as many shots at them as you can until something sticks on the wall. You can find much more likely/"safe" impact at other positions with the #3 pick. Sure, if the concept is that you're talking yourself into a QB in the top 5 then it's not a good idea. But I like Trubisky and I think he's not a reach. The analysis that was put out last week was on QBs taken after the top 2 picks. Like Raw was pushing, a lot of those guys that failed were the 3rd or 4th QBs taken. The ones taken at the very top have a decent hit rate. If the Bears can get their top guy or are sold on their number 2 guy then this is probably the best shot they're going to get. If they go mid-round guy it's almost a hope and a prayer. It's the most important position in sports and the quicker they find it the better. Taking one guy you're not fully sold on each year seems like a great way to stack mediocre players and still not have anything at the position 3-4 years from now. Outside of a Luck/Manning/Leaf/RG3 situation where there's a clear consensus, there's not enough certainty in it for me when you can much more easily find a certain and instant/near-instant level of impact at another position.

This is tangential to the conversation but Angelo's 2003 (which is amazing because of how bad - or meh if you want to give some bonus points for Rex's 2006 contribution - the first round was) and 2004 drafts say hello. I feel great about the 2016 draft but those were some really good drafts that led to some long careers here and/or played a big role in a conference championship (almost two of them).

I really couldn't disagree more. Well, not entirely...of course we'd all be happy if you told us we'd hit on a QB with a QB pick in the 1st. But the whole reason people are against it is because of how risky 1st round QBs are and how often teams talk themselves into guys who bust. It's kind of the "horsefeathers pitchers" equivalent of the NFL draft. If you take the risk out of the equation, that makes it a really easy decision. I'm fine with a mid-round lottery ticket on a QB because I think a big part of the finding QB thing is lucky sorcery. Yeah, scouting definitely plays a role, but I think your best shot is taking as many shots at them as you can until something sticks on the wall. You can find much more likely/"safe" impact at other positions with the #3 pick.

i will not get sick of being referred to as the world champion chicago cubs all season