WrigleyField 22

I think he has 2/27 left on his deal (not guaranteed). So, yeah I'd think you'd need to guarantee him at least that much. I don't think he'd get quite what Osweiler got (4/72, 37M guaranteed). But I'm thinking 30M guaranteed and 15-16M average salary. 4-years/$63Mil, 32Mil guaranteed would probably get it done. Basically, that's committing to him for 2 years at a modest 16M each. Also, potentially allows him to be a FA before he turns 30, if he's gone after the guaranteed portion of his contract is over. Spotrac is saying that the extension still doesn't kick in until next year. He got some guaranteed upfront this year, then that full 30M extra guarantee is what is kicking in March 12 and has a hit through the next 5 years. If its less than Osweiler, with a structure thats front loaded like you propose, Id definitely be on board, but I think things could get silly on the open market quickly.

How much does Taylor get on the open market? Something similiar to his contract extension? 5/92 (15.5 guaranteed). AAV might be similar, but I'm guessing you are at least doubling the guaranteed money, right?

Heck... what QB in the NFL right now meet all 4? Russell Wilson? Some good QBs, apparently. Decided to look up a few guys at random and along with Wilson, Drew Brees, Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, Matt Ryan, Kirk Cousins and Dak Prescott met all 4. As redshirt juniors/academic seniors, I'd say Andrew Luck and Marcus Mariota fit the criteria too (they had the other 3). Tom Brady only went 2-for-4 and Jameis Winston went 1-for-4. When the top two QBs this decade go a combined 2-for-8 in this criteria, I'm not sure it should be used to prop up a guy in the top 3 who the so-called experts seem to think is a reach. And that doesn't even dig into the criteria of bad QBs who met all 4 (hey Matt Barkley!)

Thats asking a lot, but if its just a huge offseason/camp battle between him, Callahan, LeBlanc, and Porter, and we have a secure starter via FA opposite them, I'll feel pretty good about our CB situation for next year.

I don't even think Berry is a must as long as you get 1 of Gilmore or Johnson in FA. Then you go Hooker or Adams with the 3rd pick to pair with Amos. You still need to get a 2nd CB' date=' but you don't have to spend big or use the 2nd pick for that.[/quote'] Does that get us to the Wild Card? Our division kind of sucks and we have the tough divisions on our schedule next year I think. I think a division champ is actually the more likely road to the playoffs. Although this year was supposed to help us with a weak schedule, so what do I know.

You do not need two stud CBs. Thats a pretty unrealistic expectation. If we have two stud CBs and also get any decent depth on the front 7 we better have a top 3 D.

I would not boil it down to anything so simple. They need to add a few good players and probably at least one elite one. Where those players gets added has flexibility.

Seems like he has wanted out.

Doh. Definitely a lot of below average saw significant time. Little surprised at Porter being so low and then LeBlanc and Callahan. FA/Porter/LeBlanc/Callahan makes for a believably good CB-Nickle-Dime rotation. FA/Amos/Jones-Quartey is a believably good S rotation. Then you have a ton of 2nd or 3rd year guys who saw quality rotation time as depth. Theres some depth on the DL and edge too, but another elite player somewhere would be awesome.

http://imgur.com/a/VpfO0 The way people have talked about Amos taking a step back this year (locally in the media), I would've guessed he had graded out much worse. They loved him last year, too. Kind of a weird graphic. Its just the last game starters, which included at least one guy who was signed off the PS just a few weeks prior. Wonder how some more significant season long contributors graded.

Hey now, Better off Ted was legitimately amazing. Pushing Daisies was pretty darn good too. Well I certainly enjoyed them, but not sure they would have ended up being shows i watched every episode of jf they made a 6-9 year run. That list is pretty small for me (Lost, GoT, The Office, HIMYM, Mad Men, Parks and Rec, 30 Rock) and half of those are aided significantly by binge watching well after they had started. Other than HIMYM and the Office, those still fall below most shows that I actually watched every episode. Also, I probably watched every episode of Boy Meets World as a kid/teen and when I caught some old episodes later on, it was definitely a bad show, other than sone Feeney and Eric monents. But then I still inexplicably wanted to watch the first episode of Girl Meets World for nostalgia reasons.

And that would all be really short sided if you thought there was a potential franchise QB who just wasnt going to produce enough in year 1 to cool the hot seat.

I agree, although I'd say the office earned my loyalty while MRA Ted never did, I just gave it away like a whore. I hate that I watched most of that show, but I don't regret watching the office. NPH is what kept that show chugging to a large extent. I'll at least use the excuse that starting around season 4 it was a show my now wife and I started watching together, so it just became our weekly Monday(?) tradition.

HIMYM definitely gets a lifetime acheivement award next to the Office of good show turned bad that I finished to the end. As far as longevity, they take the cake. The good ran out of HIMYM much earlier than it did for the office, and it never came close to the high levels. Agreed that its peak was much higher, but both had that element of stubbornness to watch to the end, even though it sucked. The Office also at least rewarded with a decent finale.

HIMYM definitely gets a lifetime acheivement award next to the Office of good show turned bad that I finished to the end. As far as longevity, they take the cake. A lot of other shows I've actually seen every episode of that weren't really good shows, also weren't bad shows, IMO, but got canceled after pretty short runs. (Better Off Ted, Jericho, Pushing Daisies). They werent shows destined for greatness, but didnt last long enough to decline and lose my interest/viewership the same way other run of the mill shows that somehow keep lasting. Those shows are also all aired during a time when I had much more free time to sink into TV viewing. Now i find it hard enough to keep up on actually great TV.

Cavemen. Luckily that amounted to 3 wasted hours of my life only as it was canceled after 6 episodes. I'll have to think on an answer for a show that made at least a full season run.

Eh, I dont think theres any position overall safer than any other. Plenty of busts at every spot. And none, except possibly edge rusher carry any type of reward close to hitting on even an above average QB.

Rofl, I thought you were dropping this tattoo bit?

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. 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.

But what are the chances they draft a 1st round QB who plays and looks good but still put out a 6 win team? How and why would that happen? Now take that scenario, where this hypothetical 1st round QB plays well but the team does poorly and Pace gets the opportunity to overhaul the coaching staff one last time. You got yourself a QB that somehow played well but the team stunk and he has to start all over with a new system, a new head coach who may not be enamored with the guy and that coach will be given time to make the team better along with the freedom to decide who the starting QB will be in 2018. You are asking for a mess. I'm not saying they have to win 9. I am saying there is no good reason why they can't. It would probably take another year of 19 IR and falling on the short end of 1 score games. Maybe even a late collapse where said star rookie QB is leading us into WC playoff contention and then gets hurt like week 13 and we lose out. I don't think that all is likely, but if that somehow was the scenario laid out, I'd feel pretty good still about sticking with Pace.

And I wouldn't be opposed to Trubisky winning the job, but some legit competition could hypothetically be good for both guys.

I'm saying I don't care if they get to the 9-10 win territory next year. And if they don't, if they draft a QB, play him for half the season and end up with 6 wins or something and the QB looks good for the future that's fine for me. If they go defense in the first, play Cutler another year, and end up with 9-10 wins but have no QB for the future I think that's a worse position. So basically, I think the fans ought to be taking a long term view. The "you've done a bad job building a team" if it takes more than 3 years to get to winning is dumb. There is pretty much just Kyle Long as a holdover from pre-Pace, and they've got no QB. If you want to say that it's a really bad job building a team if they don't create an entire playoff team with 3 drafts and free agency then I think you've got some high expectations. This is like a public company, where you can run it looking just at the next quarter to appease the shareholders and keep your job, or you can look at the long term view. A lot of times you exchange mediocre for the short and long term for good in the long term. If they get a QB that can win for the long term then you've basically got something the Bears have never had, and set up to be really good when the rest of the team is ready. This would be my preferred route. This is a ridiculous assertion. This isn't at all like a public company where you look quarter to quarter, if it were this front office would have been ousted long ago. You are blinded by the Cubs situation. Football isn't baseball. It doesn't take 6 years to build a team. While I agree with you in general, I would agree with Thrillo's hypothetical that a 6 win season where it looks like we ID'd a franchise QB would be a better overall position than winning 9-10 games with some stop gap and still no long term answer at QB. And under that scenario I'd give Pace the opportunity to get one more HC hire even though 15-33 is usually enough to get a GM fired.

Can we still keep Jay for a year and try and compete while giving Trubisky time to develop? <600 NCAA pass attempts and then rushing into a 3-13 team with a coach on the hot seat does not sound good developmemt situation. Although if all that ends up being true/consensus about Trubisky, he probably is going 1 or 2, if not to Cle or SF, then in a trade.

Assuming he receives a clean bill of health (apparently rehabbing very well) and doesn't have any setbacks with the shoulder in TC, I guarantee he'll be starting somewhere next year. I'd say its somewhere between these two statements. There's certainly several possible landing spots, but also each team could probably come up with a reason not to take Cutler, or find a better alternative. The biggest factor is probably when the Bears cut him. If its early March, there is a much better chance he lands on his feet with a secure starting gig than if he's cut in late April or after.

Wait you need to find out more about AJ McCarrons chest tattoo before endorsing? :-k