David

kinda thought the same, tbh

he's a nancy boy soft tosser and he's not kyle hendricks what's there not to get His numbers are goodish so :dontknow: he's perfectly cromulent. he's just lame and boring.

i don't think our system (pre-trade) is really all that bad. does this trade improve it significantly or marginally? bye Yu! I miss you already i'll leave that to the guys who actually know stuff. i will say that since these guys are so young, there's likely a lot of variance in how they are projected. if we put some weight into logenhagen's assessment, that would seem to be a pretty good boost to the farm depth. unfortunately, you kinda needed to do more than boost the depth of the farm system with this trade.

he's a nancy boy soft tosser and he's not kyle hendricks what's there not to get

i don't think our system (pre-trade) is really all that bad.

to be fair, it's 3 years later. i get what you're saying but i feel like that's enough time for that part not to feel that gross. plus it's a way cooler more fun team and place. i'm gonna stan the padres for the time being. i suggest the rest of you do the same.

the return better be damn good because i'm going to be bummed as hell if this happens.

there's a guy here with pacer in his name

i definitely don't see the white RB thing at all. i have a hard time even naming one they've had other than nall. i'm sure i'm forgetting someone but have they even had any in the past several years that wasn't some fringe practice squad guy who maybe saw a snap at some point?

lmao at hicks trash talking glennon

what isn't there to buy? what the hell are you talking about? the bears have had lots of bad quarterbacks. it's the bad quarterbacks and the difficulty in finding good ones. the coaches they bring in don't suddenly forget how to coach quarterbacks. they have had plenty of guys who would have (and have) coached the position just fine. it's the players and an often underwhelming commitment to spinning the wheel in hopes of drafting/finding one. mike glennon hasn't done anything spectacular today, and believe it or not, the bears did complete some passes and even score touchdowns when mike glennon played. in fact, he almost helped them upset the defending nfc champion falcons in week one that year. You seem to be arguing Bears coaching is just fine offensively. Not a position I’d plant my flag on, but OK. the bears have had bad coaches and good coaches. there have been many coaches. what they haven't had is a good quarterback and that hasn't been because of coaching.

glennon looked fine at times on the bears too there isn't some magical affliction that gets coaches and quarterbacks to suddenly forget how to do their jobs here. bad quarterbacks are easy to find. good ones are hard to find. the bears have had lots of bad ones, and mike glennon is one of them. No affliction, just bad through and through. Glennon never looked like this and they kept dropping him back to get clobbered. No thought given to this kind of scheme with quick throws. He’s decent at it. Nay, not buying the standard explanation anymore. Bears can’t coach QB, can’t scheme QB. It’s not the entire problem, but a significant part of it. That said, at the moment it looks much better in terms of scheming to Mitch’s strengths. Maybe this is where we finally take a serviceable guy and give him a shot to hang in the league. what isn't there to buy? what the hell are you talking about? the bears have had lots of bad quarterbacks. it's the bad quarterbacks and the difficulty in finding good ones. the coaches they bring in don't suddenly forget how to coach quarterbacks. they have had plenty of guys who would have (and have) coached the position just fine. it's the players and an often underwhelming commitment to spinning the wheel in hopes of drafting/finding one. mike glennon hasn't done anything spectacular today, and believe it or not, the bears did complete some passes and even score touchdowns when mike glennon played. in fact, he almost helped them upset the defending nfc champion falcons in week one that year.

glennon looked fine at times on the bears too there isn't some magical affliction that gets coaches and quarterbacks to suddenly forget how to do their jobs here. bad quarterbacks are easy to find. good ones are hard to find. the bears have had lots of bad ones, and mike glennon is one of them.

Would be fun to show that to Steve Smith, who acted like the entire sports world was going to drown in a pool of depression that CHI might get in over AZ. Can't blame him. I'd rather watch Kyler Murray and Hopkins than the crap the Bears run out there too. Nevermind the fact that Murray was so bad yesterday he put my fantasy championship in question (he had help) even after all the awesome Kamara did for me.

that was the first season i followed sports/the bears and, while i remembered narrowly missing the playoffs, i forgot about that whole scenario

I feel like we've been spoiled with so many phenoms coming up through the ranks in their early 20's or as teenagers that many people have forgotten that most players don't really hit their prime until 27-32. that's not true. hasn't been the case for quite a while now. https://tht.fangraphs.com/aging-curves-revisited-damn-strikeouts/

Coward was such ass he just pulled the whole unit down with him. But this version of the O is even better than the first couple of weeks. iirc minnesota's defense was hovering around the top 10 in DVOA too.

i'm not gonna dig up his air yards per attempt because that's way more effort than this subject deserves at this point, but i remember that being a common criticism of him from the analytic sites when things were going well in the past. lots of short passes inflating his completion percentages and not enough deep stuff.

Who is pushing back against the idea that Mitch has had some success against garbage teams? maybe minnesota? lol

does anyone here even need convincing of this? i'd hope not.

lol not to damn him with faint praise but he would immediately be the best qb any of us have ever seen suit up for the Bears, even at 33. if they can somehow make it work, he's a fine option to try to salvage winning something behind this defense and about the best you can hope for on the open market when you're not getting lucky in the draft and finding one. that said, i have no idea if making it work is remotely realistic. i don't pretend to have a clue what is going on with the cap nor do i care that much. all i know is it seems that when teams want to move stuff around to get stuff done, they usually can one way or another.

i would be pretty happy (in the short term) if we somehow got stafford

https://twitter.com/LenKasper/status/1337448187393662977?s=20 is len telling us something? i'd love sciambi

obviously jordan was the biggest, but len leaving has bummed me out in a unique way. he had become such a comforting voice to me. losing him feels like more than just baseball loss. i know it's stupid. yeah, i was pretty shocked and initially very bummed about it. i'll take len at his word that this is a fulfillment of a long time dream for him. as long as it's not freaking chris myers, i'm ok with it. i'm guessing it'll be randazzo. of the names we've heard, he seems most likely/realistic, and he'd be fine.