WrigleyField 22

I can definitely understand the appeal of not playing the full period in the regular season. As far as the playoffs, seems you have a really good chance of just continually adding periods on top of eachother as teams match the other and the clock expires. I think you can kind of even keep it simpler than UMFans proposal. "First to 8". No clock, just the play clock.

Interesting suggestions. I like the first better.

Yea I would think #36 and a 2nd or 3rd 2018 would be our base offer.

Meh.

What are the details on the bonus pool swap.

Wouldn't think twice about saying yes. I would, but i'd try to get 6 and 39 from the jets for 3. If the Bears could get a QB, Lattimore and King without any FA signings, it gives them flexibility to spend big on a S. 3 top 40 picks would be huge, but the Bears really dont need additional flexibility to go spend big on a S. And that trade would probably be a draft day trade, so you really can't use such a scenario to dictate FA decisions anyways. Sign a S and a CB in FA.

But its way less of crapshoot high. Even with the second list, the best of the bunch is still at the top of round 2.

I dont know how you could research that whole list and come to the conclusion that the strategy is "pick a day 3 pick every year"

I think I get your point, but SF could pick a QB and the Bears still get their #1 target.

Yeah, the projections you're going off of are random internet sites that have no bearing on NFL teams' draft boards. I'm not claiming I'm worthy of being a super scout or an NFL GM, but I have 2 QBs in my personal top 15 prospects (Watson 4-5, IIRC and Trubisky at like 13-14). Either of them would be worthy of the #3 pick over a 3rd DL (for a 3-4 team that runs 60% nickel) who has a bum shoulder, or a safety, or a 4th pass rusher. And I think you're grossly overestimating the "setback" from drafting a QB. They don't get paid very much on rookie deals anymore. And if the guy you draft can't play, you can tell pretty early. Buffalo didn't get set back by using the 16th pick on EJ Manuel. They've been better since Manuel (granted not with him playing). Same goes for the Skins w/ RG3 and Dolphins w/ Tannehill, Jets w/ Smith. Those QBs have mostly failed (not quite Tannehill yet), but their teams have competed for or been in playoff spots with them not being very good. Plus, there's the whole fact of what are the Bears being set back from? Cant' get any worse than 3-13. [expletive] around with the QB position for another year also means it probably won't get much better, or at least not good enough for it to matter. Tyrod Taylor or Tony Romo probably makes this a 9-win 1st round elimination team at best for 2 years at most. Then you go into 2019 still with no QB and nothing worthwhile to show for it anyway. Might as well throw away 2 years on the #3 overall pick and at least have a chance of a long-term solution. If Watson is that high for you, I can obviously appreciate the desire for that to be the pick. But youve in many ways talked yourself into logic that QB is the only acceptable pick. Right now, I would be pumped with Watson as the pick, but my opinion is pretty casually formed. At the end of the day, as much as whiffing on the 3rd is not going to set them back totally as you suggest, neither would delaying it if the value proposition doesn't make sense at #3 (or even 36). Yea, at some point, soon hopefully, they need to dedicate a high pick to a QB (and I'd really like to see one by pick 106 this draft if not in rounds 1 or 2). But there should be several options in play for the short term answer.

Mike Glennon also sucks. Oh as does Jay Cutler, who you need to seriously get over trying to keep as a thing. He's not a "thing". He is our only QB under contract though.

I still want him, but certainly like some of the other options. So I guess I dont like him enough to come say I told you so if he is the next great QB and we pass.

Interesting... I'd be more concerned about his one year experience, but all those little knocks add up. Saw some quotes from Pace yesterday that game experience and raising the level of his team around him are two traits important in a QB. Both those things could be knocks on Trubisky and Kizer. Both bode well for Watson. All his other picks indicates he values measurables...

Man that just seems like way to high of a bar to set for "not building around", especially in an era where team building is usually measured in the number of stars you assemble. "Geeze can you imagine how pointless it would be to watch Jimmy play with a bunch of other All Stars" basically

I just remember stupid people on RealGM clinging onto Mirotic and the Charlotte pick and not wanting to trade them. I wanna say it was for something awesome too like Aldridge. I thought it was Love. Ah probably for Mirotic, yea. "But Mirotic is the next Love!"

I just remember stupid people on RealGM clinging onto Mirotic and the Charlotte pick and not wanting to trade them. I wanna say it was for something awesome too like Aldridge.

To replace Loggains?

I'll say this from a roster construction standpoint; if Mirotic and McDermott hit three like they did last year, this team is probably top 4 in the East. It was a bad decision to put your three point reliance an a couple high rate shooters rather than spreading the love around a little bit. Were they going to always be light on 3's? Yes, but they were built to and have made up for it in other ways, like FT. That they are even clinging to a playoff spot by a thread with their 3 pt rate is actually pretty amazing. Although neither is a true PG, a Etwaun Moore/Justin Holiday rotation would look pretty good right now. So going forward? Probably better off trying to surround Jimmy and Wade with a bunch of 33-35% 3pt shooters rather than relying on a couple very high rate shooters.

If youre into day 2 and 3 prospects, the head football writer for RealGM is posting lots of East West Shrine stuff, including this Bears tidbit;

one theory I've always had is the helmet provides a false sense of security. Football players use it like a weapon, which is dumb. But the baseball helmet is barely a thing, it really doesn't do much but provide minimal protection from a pitched ball, and players aren't going to go crazy thinking they are protected from it. The softball helmet is like a baseball/football helmet hybrid and it may give some players a false sense of security to play with reckless abandon with regards to their head. Combine that with shorter base paths and shorter infield plays and more opportunity for quick contact and that's why it's exponentially more dangerous. Wasn't thinking of the facemask and stuff. Yea, those softball helmets are overkill. Side note, my niece played rec league sodtball - which was awful to watch- no one could field AND they were allowed to steal, so the average 6 inning game looked like a high scoring football game. But my niece's team all wore facemasks in the field (no head protection just a facemask with an elastic band). Now safety is great and all, but there was probably one girl out of 20 who could hit the ball past the dirt. I think the "LF", standimg right next to the SS, was gonna be okay. On the other team, only the pitcher wore this facemask.

small field, short distances between bases, not a lot of room to maneuver and a whole lot of bang bang infield plays may play a part. That's exactly the reason I was going to mention. Everything is so much closer than baseball that the likelihood of getting hit in general is higher and then factor in the head mass/neck muscles and you have your answer. It makes sense, but is still suprising. If we look at the increase in other sports between men and women and strike it up soley to physical differences, that still leaves a 2-3× increase of collisions because of the closeness of play and other issues noted.

I dont care who the fug we have at either spot because neither is that great. Pick the better one.

Read more: http://www.momsteam.com/health-safety/concussions-women-more-succeptible#ixzz4W7fHE5Y2 Yea I assumed the overall rate was higher for physical reasons, but that doesnt explain how a low contact sport like softball is rivaling higher contact sports like basketball and soccer is kind of weird.

Well yeah, hockey isn't far off from football. Concussion rates by sport per 100,000 "atheletic exposures": Football: 64 -76.8 Boys' ice hockey: 54 Girl's soccer: 33 Boys' lacrosse: 40 - 46.6 Girls' lacrosse: 31 - 35 Boys' soccer: 19 - 19.2 Boys' wrestling: 22 - 23.9 Girls' basketball: 18.6 - 21 Girls' softball: 16 - 16.3 Boys' basketball: 16 - 21.2 Girls' field hockey: 22 - 24.9 Cheerleading: 11.5 to 14 Girls' volleyball: 6 - 8.6 Boys' baseball: Between 4.6 - 5 Girls' gymnastics: 7 http://www.headcasecompany.com/concussion_info/stats_on_concussions_sports It's kinda interesting to me that girls' soccer is so much higher than boy's soccer. What the heck is going on in girls softball?! 4x the rate of baseball.

2015 was the only time he missed time due to injury in the last 4 years. He suited up, but he came into TC with hamstring issues and he didnt really seem 100% most the season.