David

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

this bulls team is hilarious lol

is it really a price issue? how much better could they ask for than what they could have had him at with that option?

trade for romo? I could not think of a worse decision to make with QB this offseason the dude would be going from the best offensive line in the game to the freaking Bears. he would easily be able to dress as the headless horseman for halloween the bears line is by no means very good, but you really seem to have some weird fixation where you think it's much worse than it is. it's kinda meh. maybe a little better than that.

there is absolutely nothing clear about him being an upgrade he's three years older than cutler coming off two consecutive completely lost seasons sure, but he's been so much better than cutler that the importance of those things is diminished and, hell, maybe the time off (and he's been healthy for weeks now) helped him heal up a little bit more in terms of the wear and tear aspect. when tony romo plays, he plays like an elite quarterback. i'd like our chances a lot more with him than cutler. so is jay (who just tore the labrum in his throwing shoulder which puts into severe jeopardy the one thing he was really great at)

romo is the one qb that we realistically could get who would be a clear upgrade over keeping jay around. i'd be excited about that. just wonder what the cost would be.

Exactly. First day of the rest of your life type of thing. Whole new identity.

no more "same old cubs" when something even a little bad shows signs of happening. this is my favorite one.

if anything, to some extent, i'm going to enjoy the next several postseasons more in the sense that i won't be bordering on heart attack nervous now that the cherry has been popped.

There's video of me as a 2 year old dancing to the Super Bowl Shuffle. And I remember not knowing about the pads and thinking the football players were just super human giants. That's about the extent of my relationship with that team. Pinnacle of being a Bears fan for me was 06, obviously. 2010-12 had their moments, too.

Hub said on the radio today that as he understands it, Pace was set on hiring Dan Quinn for HC and Accorsi and ownership convinced him that Fox was a good idea to go with a veteran HC since he's so young. Not to say that he was against hit, but he had another hire in mind.

I think we are right around 45 days for pitchers and catchers reporting, I saw late last week on twitter it was just under 50 i thought it might be closer than that since it usually starts around valentine's day and this year there's WBC...lemme check. can't find the actual report date. the site google pulled up says TBD and a quick look at cubs.com didn't help.

so it just dawned on me that cubs convention is right around the corner, which doesn't mean all that much to me in itself, as I've never gone nor will i, but it does mean that pitchers and catchers reporting is right around the corner after that :shock:

I'm not sure what fantasy you think is being talked about here. If you think there's a better chance of winning games next year with either Hoyer, Barkley, or whatever they grab off the QB scrap heap than with him, then go you. I think you're very wrong. They're not gonna do better than him for his salary for one year. Also, not good enough for what? And little cap hit for cutting him? So what? What does that benefit anybody beyond ownership? I'm talking about Cutler and nothing else. Which is why I mentioned Cutler by name and nobody else. The people you can or would play instead of him are not relevant? (And, OK, you didn't mention anyone else by name but you literally did reference two other players)

Do care. Love it. Bring on the jealousy.

I'm not sure what fantasy you think is being talked about here. If you think there's a better chance of winning games next year with either Hoyer, Barkley, or whatever they grab off the QB scrap heap than with him, then go you. I think you're very wrong. They're not gonna do better than him for his salary for one year. Also, not good enough for what? And little cap hit for cutting him? So what? What does that benefit anybody beyond ownership?

https://www.instagram.com/p/BO0XY8BDvAI/

why in the world are you so hung up on this the cubs just won the world series personally, i couldn't care less what they do to them. i will laugh a little when the news comes out, and that's pretty much it.

I've read this 8 times and it still doesn't make sense to me montgomery has two pitches in the top 25 in both grounders and whiffs among pitches that aren't fastballs