WrigleyField 22

San Fran is gonna be everyone's ideal trade partner. If we're mapping out an ideal situation for a trade down, two QBs go top seven. Buffalo doesn't go QB at 8 and tries to trade back up. Get a 2,3 and maybe a late rounder. Nog sure on the exact value chart, but should be close. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Definitely wouldn't be opposed to it. It will be interesting to see hiw the furst 19 picks shake out. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I kind of disagree on center just because some view Cooper as able to play center, but interior line spots can be filled in the mid round so even if Cooper dropped you could just see a trade down or other pick I guess. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, they filled a lot of holes in free agency precisely so they could draft BPA in the first and not force themselves into a Chris Williams situation. Bennett isn't exactly Marshall when it comes to filling the position they signed him for. If they see the value in a guy and he drops to them, it wouldn't be weird at all. That is especially true with an offensive minded head coach implementing a pass heavy system with a need for as many weapons as possible. Plenty of teams utilizes 2 TE weapons at once. You don't have to have one pass catcher, one blocker and one guy who is okay at both. If you subscribe to the theory that it's best to become dominant at something and then dictate the game that way, then that could be an excellent selection. Bennett isn't exactly a guy they are going to depend on to lock down the position for 4 years by himself. His contract actually makes it reasonable to cut him after year 1, since that when his actual salary escalates. You keep the pressure on him to perform and it he does fine, but if you can get better production out of a guy in his first contract, who cannot negotiate a raise for another year, why not? If the value is there, take it. It would be weird to take a RB or QB in the first round. Or to do something stupid like trade up for a linebacker. But drafting a TE doesn't seem weird to me at all. Not my first choice, but an acceptable option. From a strict BPA view I definitely would agree, as well as your assesment of Bennett. And if they really feel he's a clear cut BPA there I'm okay with decisions like that. For me though it comes down to how much better is he actually than a guy like Ertz? Or just the typical Rd2 TEs you usually see each year. I'm not sure its significant. Although if he drops past us, he'll probably go to Green Bay and be a thorn in our side for years. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd actually be okay with Trufant there, but trade down might be a better bet. In the second, I'd take Larry Warfiord who looks like drops out of thevsecond there. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree roster building is a good thing, but the best way to di that is theough the draft, no? A hard thing to rush. Just based on team makeup its gonna be hard to do. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess I don't really even understand the true question behind this poll? Do I think Ricketts have done a good job? Yes Do I wish someone else had bought the team? Uh, I guess. Since its a wish I can be totally unrealistic about it like when I wish for a billion dollars. Realistically speaking though there wasn't another bidder that I think I'd take a chance at over Ricketts if I could do it again. Maybe Cuban (even though he wasn't a realistic option either), but honestly his biggest advantage is his willingness to sink his own money into teams, and everything else may as well be a toss up, which means it could be worse just as easily as it could be equal or better. I wish a lot of things, but at this point I have no reason to question that a Ricketts based ownership was the best option available.

That'd be good, although it'd still be nice to draft a LB as long term its a definite weak point. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LB is still a priority, but a little less so. Looks like a decent risk/reward signing. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really? He came from KC and that is a talentless waste hole of an organization. I mean, I think there's some good about his history, but "anything you can read"? Come on. The guy was a strength coach at second rate colleges for most of his career. He's had a relatively brief history in the NFL. There's plenty to question about him. How much have you read about Emery's past? Its limited since he has come from such a low key background, but stories I've read are certainly positive. Check out the War Room (about belichik). Its a great read for a football fan and Emery gets some decent mentions in the book. Specifically though he was the main force behind the Falcons picking Roddy White as one example. Anybody can have a write up with positive anecdotes. Hell, we spent half a decade listening to how many good individual moves Jim Hendry made while his team consistently underperformed what the resources should have produced. I've read about Emery's history. It's extremely limited in the NFL with absolutely nothing that stands out from an excellence standpoint. It makes absolutely no sense to say that everything you read about his history should make you feel comfortable. There is plenty about his history that makes me uncomfortable. I guess he's jncomfortable in the sense he has a lack of FO experience- being a primarily draft guy. We both seem to agree on his non-draft moves, which is the part he didn't have experience in. As far as the draft goes, he has a pretty substantial history. There shouldn't be too much uncomfortableness of the unknown (although until you are the guy calling the shots it hard to know previsely how responsible a guy is, we can get an idea). I guess I'd be interested in lining up his draft record specifically against Angelo's but off my recollection, a lot of good players were drafted with him leading drafts. But looking at his first draft in charge of the Bears, I agree there are quite a few questions. However in this instance I'm also gonna look at his past drafts before I get worried he might not hack it. This draft and the next will be telling as we'll get to see how his drafts diverge from the head of scouting to GM. But right now my concerns about last year are just a blip. And those concerns I have don't mean this won't still be a good draft based on results, which you certainly need more than a year to judge. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really? He came from KC and that is a talentless waste hole of an organization. I mean, I think there's some good about his history, but "anything you can read"? Come on. The guy was a strength coach at second rate colleges for most of his career. He's had a relatively brief history in the NFL. There's plenty to question about him. How much have you read about Emery's past? Its limited since he has come from such a low key background, but stories I've read are certainly positive. Check out the War Room (about belichik). Its a great read for a football fan and Emery gets some decent mentions in the book. Specifically though he was the main force behind the Falcons picking Roddy White as one example. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Emery's draft; there are a few things I didn't like. McClellin was a late riser- which worries me and Hardin a big injury risk. Neither of those things is entirely bad- at some point you'll do those things. Too early to say if there's any trends that are cause for worry. I'm fine giving him credit for the draft- even though he didn't have time to hire his scouts and implement his system. But its too soon to draw conclusions about his style, especially when anything you can read about his history and process should make you feel comfortable. This year should help confirm some things about what his drafts will look like. Although at the end of the day results do matter and one year isn't enough time to draw conclusions. He does have pressure to hit early with the composite of our roster though. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Smart. He wasn't even worth 2M last year, so even that offer was a gamble he'd rebound. $4M is too much and I don't see him getting that elsewhere. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The exit fee thing kind if makes sense if SLU or Dayton turned down the Big East. Doesn't really make sense from Big Easts view though. Does it matter to them that much? Although I think if Creighton doesn't go in this wave, the MVC could have tried to raise the fee. Its possible the Big East looked at it this way, essentially negotiating with the conferences rather than teams. If they think the A-10s exit structure wont change, but the MVCs could it makes sense to do it now. The other thing though is if they ontend to go to 12, why even wait? Scheduling? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They might have to wait longer than that. 10 teams is ideal for basketball (18 games, true home and home with everyone). Yeah, I hope the new Big East sticks with 10. They won't, of course. SLU and Dayton are probably going to the Big East in '14-'15. I wonder why they preferred Creighton over SLU for the 10 team league. Creighton's been much better over the past forever and is the best program in their state compared to SLU FWIW, I've read fans from a SLU forum say the President of Creighton is on the board at Marquette and Marquette pushed for Creighton. (Not sure how true that is). But obviously Creighton does have a better resume even if it was in the MVC and even if they've mostly just made the tournament and not won much recently. SLU was also a much better fit from a media standpoint, so its hard to totally understand the decision even when you look at history of success. No arguing SLUs recent history is pretty awful though. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some of those guys will command more than the $2M we were offering Lach. From that list Brad Jones is the most interesting, but probably too expensive, even if we cleared some cap. The best option given our cap figure I think would be Durant. Lions don't seem to be interested in bringing him back and doesn't look like he has much interest. FWIW, PFF had him rated at -.1 last year. Urlacher was -11, Roach wad -2.5. Jones was +9 and has both inside and outside experience. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They might have to wait longer than that. 10 teams is ideal for basketball (18 games, true home and home with everyone). Yea, but everything out there has basically said that's what they are headed towards. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess I'm not entirely suprised Urlacher won't be back, but a little suprised it was resolved this soon. I wonder if he will sign elsewhere soon. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Booo for SLU having to wait two years for expansion to 12 teams. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A lot of suburban areas could still be pretty inconvenient. That 6 million is pretty spread out though. You're not gonna make all 6 million of those happy. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nobody's really arguing that, it's against the people who are saying hey Rosemont isn't such a bad idea!! Or maybe Skokie!! It's about time the suburbs got their fair share! I would love a new stadium, so I honestly don't think a brand new stadium in Rosemont is a bad idea, per se. It's not my ideal idea, but if that ended up happening, I would definitely be excited about getting a brand new park, which we couldn't do in the city. As someone who hasn't lived in Chicago since I was too young to pay attention to such things, I'm genuinely curious as to whether there would be a non-Wrigley option other than the suburbs. I don't think it's anyone's burning desire to see the Cubs move to the burbs, but if idle threats are going to be made, I don't see where else could be possibly be mentioned. The best idea I ever heard was the Cabrini Green idea thats been discussed here before and we're about 10 years late and it was literally just an idea and nothing ever discussed, which means there was probably some reason it wouldn't have been viable. I'd say about half the city would be indistinguishable or worse from Rosemont from a convenience and ammenities perspective (other than airplane traffic). Once you eliminated places that aren't feasible space wise, your list is probably empty, maybe some city owned space like Washington Park or something (even that sucks actually), and the city has no leverage to kill Wrigleyville's economy to prop up an unsure bet in another area of the city. And even if the city does it, they probably bend you over and you don't own the stadium and its a lot like the Bears/CPD relationship. The only real threat is to move out of the city. The only feasible city space is Wrigley and everyone should see that. Thus the question thats been posed, which is essentially "If not Wrigley, where?" Should come with lowered expectations. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nobody's really arguing that, it's against the people who are saying hey Rosemont isn't such a bad idea!! Or maybe Skokie!! It's about time the suburbs got their fair share! I would love a new stadium, so I honestly don't think a brand new stadium in Rosemont is a bad idea, per se. It's not my ideal idea, but if that ended up happening, I would definitely be excited about getting a brand new park, which we couldn't do in the city. As someone who hasn't lived in Chicago since I was too young to pay attention to such things, I'm genuinely curious as to whether there would be a non-Wrigley option other than the suburbs. I don't think it's anyone's burning desire to see the Cubs move to the burbs, but if idle threats are going to be made, I don't see where else could be possibly be mentioned. The best idea I ever heard was the Cabrini Green idea thats been discussed here before and we're about 10 years late and it was literally just an idea and nothing ever discussed, which means there was probably some reason it wouldn't have been viable. I'd say about half the city would be indistinguishable or worse from Rosemont from a convenience and ammenities perspective (other than airplane traffic). Once you eliminated places that aren't feasible space wise, your list is probably empty, maybe some city owned space like Washington Park or something, and the city has no leverage to kill Wrigleyville's economy to prop up an unsure bet in another area of the city. And even if the city does it, they probably bend you over and you don't own the stadium and its a lot like the Bears/CPD relationship. The only real threat is to move out of the city. The only feasible city space is Wrigley and everyone should see that. Thus the question thats been posed, which is essentially "If not Wrigley, where?" Should come with lowered expectations. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Okay but no one would expects the Cubs would voluntarily leave the city. No smart person would argue for a stadium outside the city as preferable, but that's really not what is being talked about. Given the alternate reality where the abity to stay at Wrigley were at risk, where in the city would you plop a stadium? The space just doesn't exist. Luckily we have no reason to believe the ability to stay at Wrigley is at risk, but hypothetically Rosemont isn't hard enough to get to to drive away enough a significant segment of fans. And really is Wrigley even that convenient? Its pretty far north and not near the expressway. From an accesibility standpoint Comiskey is just as good as Wrigley and struggles. They're just less of a draw, even though its just as easy to get to their games. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well it is a suburban stadium afterall. Even as a suburb that borders the city thats what you get. If the Cubs couldn't stay at Wrigley (which won't happen anyways) they could do worse, like Schaumburg or something. Comparing it to Wrigley or freaking Yankee stadium is dumb. It is not dumb at all. Yankee Stadium is in an outlying borough. It is nowhere near a business center of any kind and fairly isolated, similar to this proposed location. The comparison is made however, because baseball is an everyday sport that relies on people going to the stadium from work. In cities where public transit (trains, not freaking buses or shuttles from parking lots) is vital for commuters you need your stadiums within easy access of the city's main transit options. The Blue line is the worst line in Chicago. It takes forever to get from O'Hare to downtown, let alone to simply transfer to another line. And a mile plus walk from a station to a stadium is absurd. Citi Field, which blows, has subway tracks across the street and transit trains is the same spot. Well most stadiums with awesome transit outdate the transit systems that service it. So expecting to drop a stafium by super convenient transit is silly. Also bringing up Wrigley or Yankee stadium sort of implies the transit is only decent, when they are in fact good. It doesn't need to equal Wrigley to be decent. They're totally different levels. If I claimed Darwin Barney was a decent middle infielder would you bring up Starlin Castro to refute my point? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As someone who once tried to take public transit to a DePaul game, I agree public transportation to the game would be terrible. It would be a lot easier for driving to the game though. All State is further its closest metra stop and outside of walking distance from the blue line. This proposed location is adjacent to a metra and in the high range of walking distance (1.3 miles according to google maps). And if you rule out walking, just look at a map to see how much more convenient shuttle service would be compared to All State. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk