David

gonna have this one circled on my calendar if i can manage to get tickets.

:dontknow: hope so

no real running game? i mean, it may or may not be very good. montgomery was pretty damn good last year. but i'd say there's enough there (plus with cohen back and herbert looks like a guy you can plug in there too) to qualify as "real" whatever that really means. and robinson, mooney (to say nothing of guys like miller - who has been a disappointment but seems talented enough to be *fine* as a 3rd guy on the depth chart) is as good a WR tandem as I've seen the bears have short of the marshall/alshon years. then there's guys like byrd and even dumb ass wims who are cromulent relative to their spots on the depth chart. kmet may or may not turn into something but i don't hate our TE situation. i guess my qualm is with calling those skill position situations "extremely limited." maybe i'm a little biased because of how bad the bears historically have been on offense but i think they're far from devoid of guys to get the ball to. they're far from stacked like the chiefs or anything but yeah. this is an org we've watched go into seasons with scrap heap roy williams and devin hester as a #1 WR. those teams were extremely limited in weapons. this is just kinda maybe average-ish or maybe much better with a good QB. And of course it's also possible that Fields, not Dalton is who will maximize those other skill players. I get this ultimately ends up being a ton of counterfactual arguments here, but it's worthwhile to be agressive with Fields and Jenkins developments. I don't particularly think eithers draft slots is that reflective of their talent and the Bears were incredibly luck to get both. Use 'em, IMO. Now sure Fields has to bear out Dalton. And Jenkins. I guess Wilkerson? But presumably they show undeniable skill and compentanct over the playbook. Let's go. i think fields is going to immediately look so head and shoulders better than the two other dolts in camp that he's going to make it very hard on them. everything he's great it is stuff that will absolutely shine extra in camp, especially against two shlubs like those. good luck getting the team bought in on andy dalton after they get eyes on fields.

Yeah, Stafford has put up consistent numbers against the Bears with no run game or WRs at times and certainly never had this type of defense. i'm pretty interested to see what stafford and mcvay look like without one arm tied behind their backs.

no real running game? i mean, it may or may not be very good. montgomery was pretty damn good last year. but i'd say there's enough there (plus with cohen back and herbert looks like a guy you can plug in there too) to qualify as "real" whatever that really means. and robinson, mooney (to say nothing of guys like miller - who has been a disappointment but seems talented enough to be *fine* as a 3rd guy on the depth chart) is as good a WR tandem as I've seen the bears have short of the marshall/alshon years. byrd should be a decent speed/taylor gabriel-ish guy. kmet may or may not turn into something but i don't *hate* our TE situation. i guess my qualm is with calling those skill position situations "extremely limited." maybe i'm a little biased because of how bad the bears historically have been on offense but i think they're far from devoid of guys to get the ball to. they're far from stacked like the chiefs or anything but yeah. this is an org we've watched go into seasons with scrap heap roy williams and devin hester as a #1 WR. those teams were extremely limited in weapons. this is just kinda maybe average-ish or maybe much better with a good QB. edit - forgot about damien williams in that RB room. he's a solid guy to have in the rotation too.

yep the lukewarm responses by some have me judging people really hard. This rocketed up into the top 10 weirdest things posted here. Nah if you don't like this broadcast team or think it's just okay, you have objectively bad taste and I'm not sure if I want to be your friend

yep the lukewarm responses by some have me judging people really hard.

Fine? They're horsefeathering great.

aaron rodgers is easily, and by a distant margin, the most valuable person in that organization. more important than the coach, gm, or anybody else. you do not piss him off. i love this, and not just because it means he'll be gone from the division (but that helps a lot).

i mean, we did have cutler for 8 years. and before that there was rex and neckbeard. then drafted mitch shortly thereafter. i guess the best window was that last cutler year where a bunch of random idiots played and then the glennon/mitch year after that.

I can't say I didn't want the Bears to trade back a bit today to recoup some picks, but given the huge positional value and the quality of the guys they got, I can't really say I have any complaints. Maybe they can trade their way into some more picks at some point.

For whatever this is worth...

rumors out there that the bears are talking to the raiders about james daniels

Agreed. Can't really be more tested on the college level as far as level of competition and high stakes games he played in over the last 2 years. He obviously has things to work on, but I definitely don't see him as a guy that needs to sit the entire year. For the record, I don't think Mahomes needed to either. In fact, I think almost nobody NEEDS to sit. Not really sure it's been proven either way that a QB learns a ton from watching someone else play football. when he comes in in the preseason and lights up the 3rd and 4th stringers the calls for him to start are going to get loud. i could see it playing out a lot like glennon/mitch in 2017 except with a lot better supporting cast and no john fox

Did you ever think maybe being a biased Packers fan could play into your opinion? I've only seen the clips on twitter so I dont have the full picture. but he seemed ok but a bit awkward the clips i happened to see seemed fine and kind of funny the bias is more likely in bears fans hating on it even though rodgers is absolutely a dick (based on how he treats his family)

Definitely not.

Yeah, I don't see his contact as being untradable or anything of the sort. 33 is still relatively young in the grand scheme of things, and we can eat money if we need to. We are also talking about one of the legendary closers in baseball even with his struggles on our team. If he is looking like he has regained his past dominance, teams will be lining up out the door asking for him. Granted, these trades are harder than they used to be because he actually has to be pitching well. He can't just luck into a good ERA and get that level of interest. The underlying metrics have to match up, his velocity needs to be appropriate, etc... But yeah, if he's pitching well he's extremely tradable. I never said he wouldn't be tradeable, but that certainly not the same as receiving a "solid return" for him. Being extremely tradeable pretty much implies the likelihood of a strong return. It's two ways of saying the same thing. It implies the existence of demand.

yeah i was thinking something similar recently about how much stuff he hawks lol

that's gin for me. that evergreeny smell... :barf:

Lol Joc is better