David

[tweet] [/tweet]

[tweet] [/tweet] Howard #5, Whitehair #9 Add in how Floyd played once he got his feet wet and I'm close to ecstatic with the 2016 draft (at least, as much as you can say that after 1 year, obv)

i really hope things change course from where the narratives are headed and we keep jay you're not going to do better than him for his salary next year and if you go back into the qb wilderness already, you're pretty much nullifying any chance there might've been at surprise playoff contention. then again, who the hell knows how effective he's going to be able to be. pace did have positive things to say about his rehab the other day. keep jay and draft a qb around the 3rd or 4th. 2nd if you really like the guy.

Jimmy horsefeathering Butler

weird i don't see barry bonds on there. or gehrig. or hornsby.

Oh yeah. Gleyber was more highly regarded at the deadline and still is. Gleyber will probably be a unanimous top 5 prospect in baseball while Eloy should be a top 25 prospect on most lists. Obviously Gleyber was more superfluous so it made it easier to part with him. And that's why I'm glad they hung onto Eloy. I wasn't happy with the Chapman/Torres trade when it happened. Of course, I didn't know the state of Rondon and Strop's health at that time either. That kind of overpay was a shock to the system after the value-based mindset that Theo & Jed employed to get the Cubs where they are. In hindsight, it all worked out. Eloy is at least 2 years away. Plenty of time for the Cubs to see what they have in Almora and for Heyward to regain his stroke (or not). Interesting to note that Heyward has a no trade clause for this season and next, but the Cubs have a window to trade him (if necessary & possible) in 2019 and 2020 (before his 10 & 5 rights kick in) right when Eloy will be knocking on the door. Seems like an overstatement. Granted, we don't have a lot to go on with their IFA signings, but this organization hasn't been shy to be aggressive with promotions. I don't know as much as many here, but I could easily see him in AA by sometime next year, with a big league promotion sometime in 2018.

I am mostly pleased with Chris DeLuca's ballot [tweet] [/tweet]

i haven't read it, but if this means how bad they can be in a practical sense (like how bad the worst guys actually are) rather than some extreme where they literally have every borderline pitch called a ball, this pitch framing thing has completely jumped the shark

sad that it took that much but jimmy is a damn monster [tweet] [/tweet] 40 points and 11 rebounds and basically single-handedly brought them back from down 7 with a few minutes left.

yeah, i won easily between wilson, brown, and baldwin, I didn't have much to worry about

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. I don't really think it's that much of a skill. Sure, some teams are better at talent evaluation in general than others, but I really think the only way to attack that position in particular is to do it with numbers. Draft one every year until something sticks. Was Prescott a genius drafting move or just some decent evaluation and a lot of luck? Do the Cowboys take him in the first if they hear some team right behind them is going to take him? If the Seahawks had the #2 pick in 2012, don't they still take RG3? Or do they pass because they identified Wilson as their guy and they expect him to be available later on? I just think it's a stretch to think that the teams that got the good ones got them because they are/were that much better at finding good QBs rather than them just being the ones who rolled the dice just right.

Something really depressing just occurred to me. Obviously, there's a whole lot of other butterfly effect at play here, but since GB was choosing 24th in 2005 anyway... If the Packers had gotten Grossman in 03 like everyone said at the time that they wanted to, do they even draft Rodgers in 05?

If I had to pick someone out of the current obvious candidates, I'd want to hear Goff & Bernstein. Not sure that they'd do that, though. I do like Goff with Spiegel, but I think Goff and Bernstein would be better.

A lot of that is thanks to Bernstein and the direction they went with B&B's success. Just having North + his guys and Murphy no longer in the daily rotation is a massive addition by subtraction.

I'm not even the least bit sad about the season ending. Bring on pitchers and catchers al-horsefeathering-ready. I'll start caring about football again either when FA starts or a few days before the draft.

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. even if there has been one in most drafts, that doesn't mean they were identifiable as the best prior to the draft, and now we're just back into the take a qb in the top 5 just because you should take a qb in the top 5 portion of the discussion. If they don't think a qb is worthy of a top 5 pick they shouldn't take one, plain and simple. This team isn't a solid qb away from being great. To build a great team you need to take great players early in the draft. And there's no point building a team to be anything less than great. Yeah that seems like a crazy standard to set. "Every year, out of x amount of QBs in the draft, there's at least one, so if they don't find that one, they aren't good at their jobs. And if they do, they should definitely take him with a top 5 pick."

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).

[tweet] [/tweet]

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.

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. haha...probably was amazed at what a great deal she got on it. i was at a store a few weeks ago that had a ton of that merchandise in clearance.

Got the DVD set that I didn't buy myself since I figured someone would get me it

100% right horsefeathers (most) first round QBs

Complete agreement

i just re-read that onion gravy post and i am laughing hysterically

the niners play the rams today if they miraculously won the next two, anyone know what the SOS tiebreaker would look like right now? not that it's happening...they're playing seattle next week