MUScoop

As a Bears fan, I can pretty much kiss the next 4/5 years goodbye.

The rebuild seemed to be headed in a great direction until tonight.

Ryan Pace bought himself 2-3 years - until Trubisky is declared a success or failure.

Quote from: jesmu84 on April 27, 2017, 07:48:28 PM
As a Bears fan, I can pretty much kiss the next 4/5 years goodbye.

The rebuild seemed to be headed in a great direction until tonight.

Ryan Pace bought himself 2-3 years - until Trubisky is declared a success or failure.

actually, i wish the bears would have taken anyone BUT trubisky.  i believe he may become a pretty good nfl qb.  one we are going to have to deal with for a few years more than i'd like.  he's a tough kid who reminds of a dude from kiln, mississippi   

I had no real problem with Trubisky. But not for giving up all those picks.

Quote from: jesmu84 on April 27, 2017, 08:25:37 PM
I had no real problem with Trubisky. But not for giving up all those picks.

If he becomes a decent quarterback, those picks were worth it. 

SKOL VIKINGS, we the best.

Kind of missing having any picks this year... but at least we have Sam Bradford, ai ner?

Quote from: Sultan of Slap O' Fivin' on April 27, 2017, 08:57:10 PM

If he becomes a decent quarterback, those picks were worth it.

Except I think he would have been there at No. 3. If so, they gave the picks for nothing.

Quote from: StillAWarrior on April 27, 2017, 09:03:56 PM
Except I think he would have been there at No. 3. If so, they gave the picks for nothing.

Yup. Agreed.

Maybe.  Who knows if someone else was interested in trading.

Regardless, if he's good, the picks don't matter.  No one is going to say "yeah but the picks..."

Might as well. In fact, might as well pick a qb with every pick til you get one because you won't win with one.

Quote from: wadesworld on April 27, 2017, 09:07:04 PM
Yup. Agreed.

Quote from: StillAWarrior on April 27, 2017, 09:03:56 PM
Except I think he would have been there at No. 3. If so, they gave the picks for nothing.

I dislike the value that they gave up but they absolutely don't make that move if they think he is there at 3. Seems likely Cleveland wanted to trade up for him.

Ultimately, if he turns into a franchise QB it's a great deal. Otherwise it is awful. There's no in-between.

I expect the Bears to try to trade down with their 2nd round pick to recoup assets.

Apparently Trubisky had no meetings with the Bears, no workouts, nothing. Just a brief interview at the combine. They didn't even call him in the green room to let him know they were about to draft him. Trubisky must have been as surprised as everyone else.

Bears gonna Bear.

Quote from: Sultan of Slap O' Fivin' on April 27, 2017, 08:57:10 PM

If he becomes a decent quarterback, those picks were worth it.

Needs to be better than decent for what was sacrificed.

Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on April 27, 2017, 09:23:28 PM
I dislike the value that they gave up but they absolutely don't make that move if they think he is there at 3. Seems likely Cleveland wanted to trade up for him.

Ultimately, if he turns into a franchise QB it's a great deal. Otherwise it is awful. There's no in-between.

I expect the Bears to try to trade down with their 2nd round pick to recoup assets.

I have no doubt they "thought" that. I do, however, doubt that it was correct. They got conned.

But, you're right. If he's a good QB, everything will be good.

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on April 27, 2017, 09:33:22 PM
Needs to be better than decent for what was sacrificed.

He'll be playing for the Bears.  Decent will make him the best quarterback in franchise history.

Quote from: StillAWarrior on April 27, 2017, 09:33:57 PM
I have no doubt they "thought" that. I do, however, doubt that it was correct. They got conned.

But, you're right. If he's a good QB, everything will be good.

Quite possible they got conned.

But the fact Cleveland needed a QB and didn't make a move for Mahomes and traded down when Watson was available tells me they might have been willing to trade a bounty to move up for Trubisky. Just a guess but definitely feasible.

Did that Broncos draft pick just say that his baby will remember this day the rest of his life?  My wife's comment when she saw him, "he doesn't look very bright."  I know nothing about him, but I defended him, saying O Line are usually reasonably bright. Then he opened his mouth and made both of us look like idiots.

Quote from: StillAWarrior on April 27, 2017, 09:44:13 PM
Did that Broncos draft pick just say that his baby will remember this day the rest of his life? 

Yes.  After he said that he would be drafted too.

Quote from: Sultan of Slap O' Fivin' on April 27, 2017, 09:36:05 PM
He'll be playing for the Bears.  Decent will make him the best quarterback in franchise history.

Hey now, Jay just passed Sid this past season...

Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on April 27, 2017, 09:43:20 PM
Quite possible they got conned.

But the fact Cleveland needed a QB and didn't make a move for Mahomes and traded down when Watson was available tells me they might have been willing to trade a bounty to move up for Trubisky. Just a guess but definitely feasible.

Definitely feasible. But I honestly have a hard time believing the Browns were going to take No. 1 and No. 2.  I think if he was there at 12, Browns would have taken him. But there was a some thinking that the Browns realized that they're not ready to take care of a QB and would wait until next year.   Your theory is feasible. I think they got conned.

I think those fact actually suggest they're going to be patient and not over-reach for a QB. Trubisky at No. 2 is definitely a reach.

Quote from: StillAWarrior on April 27, 2017, 09:51:45 PM
Definitely feasible. But I honestly have a hard time believing the Browns were going to take No. 1 and No. 2.  I think if he was there at 12, Browns would have taken him. But there was a some thinking that the Browns realized that they're not ready to take care of a QB and would wait until next year.   Your theory is feasible. I think they got conned.

My preference was they draft Adams or Thomas at 3. Didn't like the move and just trying to consider all the possibilities.

My hope is I am utterly and completely wrong. I'll be very surprised if they don't trade down tomorrow.

Quote from: StillAWarrior on April 27, 2017, 09:33:57 PM
I have no doubt they "thought" that. I do, however, doubt that it was correct. They got conned.

But, you're right. If he's a good QB, everything will be good.

If a QB is the real deal, giving up all of your picks to get him would be worth it.

Is Trubisky the real deal? I doubt it but I hope I'm wrong.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on April 27, 2017, 09:56:21 PM
If a QB is the real deal, giving up all of your picks to get him would be worth it.

Is Trubisky the real deal? I doubt it but I hope I'm wrong.

I agree...but only to a point. You have to have the personnel to protect him. If not, it's a wasted pick. I still believe Tim Couch was the real deal. The Browns destroyed him. I'm glad the Browns seem to be showing some patience. I'm glad they're not going to destroy Trubisky. I watched him in HS and think he's very good and hope he does great in Chicago. I'm cautiously optimistic that the Browns are making smart moves. I may change my mind in about 90 seconds with this next pick.

Quote from: StillAWarrior on April 27, 2017, 09:03:56 PM
Except I think he would have been there at No. 3. If so, they gave the picks for nothing.

Yep. Get that you want the QB, but that's twice Pace just bid against himself

Quote from: GB Warrior on April 27, 2017, 11:36:18 PM
Yep. Get that you want the QB, but that's twice Pace just bid against himself

Possible but you have no idea that's the case.

Last year it was pretty likely the Giants wanted Floyd.

Davis is a solid pick by the Lions.   They desperately need linebacking help.    This fills a need.   No character issues.    A little worried about his injury history.   But he has certainly been productive at Florida when he has been on the field.   

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on April 27, 2017, 09:49:18 PM
Hey now, Jay just passed Sid this past season...

yeah, that's what sully said,  decent, eyn'a?

Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on April 28, 2017, 12:18:44 AM
Possible but you have no idea that's the case.

Last year it was pretty likely the Giants wanted Floyd.

Sorry,  was referring to Glennon.

What seems absolutely crazy to me is that the Bears will have way more guaranteed money tied up in the QB position than do the Packers.  Glennon himself is owed $19 minimum.  And we have zero idea if Glennon or Trubisky can actually play.

It seems to me that the Bears have no ability to predict the future.  Had they decided in February/March that they had a real shot at and LOVED Trubisky, don't you simply sign Jay for one year?  My goodness, he's available for a ham sandwich right this moment.  On the other hand, if you LOVE the Glennon signing, don't you at least stand pat at #3 or maybe even move down snagging extra talent at other positions?  But instead, the Bears have given up tremendous value losing a chance to improve their team absolutely knowing that one of these QBs will eventually be thrown on the scrap heap.

Seems crazy to me.

Quote from: jsglow on April 28, 2017, 07:26:13 AM
What seems absolutely crazy to me is that the Bears will have way more guaranteed money tied up in the QB position than do the Packers.  Glennon himself is owed $19 minimum.  And we have zero idea if Glennon or Trubisky can actually play.

It seems to me that the Bears have no ability to predict the future.  Had they decided in February/March that they had a real shot at and LOVED Trubisky, don't you simply sign Jay for one year?  My goodness, he's available for a ham sandwich right this moment.  On the other hand, if you LOVE the Glennon signing, don't you at least stand pat at #3 or maybe even move down snagging extra talent at other positions?  But instead, the Bears have given up tremendous value losing a chance to improve their team absolutely knowing that one of these QBs will eventually be thrown on the scrap heap.

Seems crazy to me.

Unless they knew they liked Trubisky and didn't feel Jay was the right QB for him to learn from.  They have the money to spend, only other QB on the roster right now is Shaw. (I think.)  I don't hate the pick, but as many have said giving up the 3 and 4 when you have so many holes to fill seems problematic.

Quote from: jsglow on April 28, 2017, 07:26:13 AM
What seems absolutely crazy to me is that the Bears will have way more guaranteed money tied up in the QB position than do the Packers.  Glennon himself is owed $19 minimum.  And we have zero idea if Glennon or Trubisky can actually play.

It seems to me that the Bears have no ability to predict the future.  Had they decided in February/March that they had a real shot at and LOVED Trubisky, don't you simply sign Jay for one year?  My goodness, he's available for a ham sandwich right this moment.  On the other hand, if you LOVE the Glennon signing, don't you at least stand pat at #3 or maybe even move down snagging extra talent at other positions?  But instead, the Bears have given up tremendous value losing a chance to improve their team absolutely knowing that one of these QBs will eventually be thrown on the scrap heap.

Seems crazy to me.

I agree completely.

In a bubble, Glennon's signing makes sense to me. I still think they were bidding against themselves, but it's a relatively low-risk contract that really can only break in the Bears' favor given that it's a series of 1-year team options. And his signing seemed to suggest what scouts have been saying - that there aren't any upper echelon QBs in this draft. So when they signed him, sure it was for crazy money, but it was a low risk, high reward proposition. Cap rules dictate the floor you have to spend anyway (same reason the Browns took on Osweiler for a 2nd rounder).

These two moves combined make zero sense.

Quote from: GB Warrior on April 28, 2017, 08:21:57 AM
I agree completely.

In a bubble, Glennon's signing makes sense to me. I still think they were bidding against themselves, but it's a relatively low-risk contract that really can only break in the Bears' favor given that it's a series of 1-year team options. And his signing seemed to suggest what scouts have been saying - that there aren't any upper echelon QBs in this draft. So when they signed him, sure it was for crazy money, but it was a low risk, high reward proposition. Cap rules dictate the floor you have to spend anyway (same reason the Browns took on Osweiler for a 2nd rounder).

These two moves combined make zero sense.

4d chess with himself

Waited all that time for the packers to trade their pick  >:(

If the Bears just kept Jay they would have paid him less than they're paying Glennon. Keeping the starting QB around for another season makes sense for most teams but the franchise and fans had turned on Cutler, aided in large part by the coach and GM never publicly put their faith behind him, even if it was just for show. His time in Chicago was just up. Had they kept Cutler and still drafted a QB in the top 3, it would have been a season-long storyline of "We know what Jay is! Why don't they put in the kid?" Honestly, I think the team just didn't want to deal with that. Instead, they went with an unproven veteran and a rookie unknown.

Glennon essentially got a 1-year deal, which is fine, but what do the Bears want from him? They want him to win but not be too impressive in doing so? If he turns out to be the real deal (long shot, I know) then you've wasted the #3 pick as well as 3 other picks on a guy who won't see the field. What if he's adequate? Then the team goes 7-9 instead of 5-11 and they drop from picking 5th to picking 10th in next year's draft. What if he's brutal? Do you keep Trubisky on the sidelines and let Glennon be brutal? Do you go to Sanchez?

I actually think the decision to draft Trubisky was last-minute, relatively speaking (i.e. they weren't considering him until fairly recent). Had they been eyeing the QB all along, they could have just as easily re-signed Hoyer or Barkley or brought in a cheap vet who obviously isn't the future like fan favorite Josh McCown to be the stop gap...or they could have had Mark Sanchez be that guy.

My best guess (I'm trying hard to wrap my head around this pick) is that the pick was made because they needed a franchise QB and this pick bought time for Ryan Pace and, more specifically, John Fox. Fox is 62 and isn't getting another head coaching gig after Chicago. This is it for him. With a QB-in-waiting on the roster, 2017 is basically a free pass. Give Trubisky a chance to sit back and watch and then he can start in 2018. 2018 is then essentially his rookie season and you can't expect too much from a team with "rookie" QB. That's Fox's contract year. You're not going to get rid of a coach and make the young franchise QB start over with a whole new system already, right? :o If Fox and Pace had better job security would they have taken a project QB somewhere in Round 3-6 and hoped to land the franchise guy in the potentially QB-loaded 2018 Draft? Who knows? The way it looks right now though, they put a lot of money and assets into a couple of non-franchise QBs.

Quote from: MU B2002 on April 28, 2017, 07:41:16 AM

Unless they knew they liked Trubisky and didn't feel Jay was the right QB for him to learn from.  They have the money to spend, only other QB on the roster right now is Shaw. (I think.)  I don't hate the pick, but as many have said giving up the 3 and 4 when you have so many holes to fill seems problematic.

You mean like ARodg learned from Favre?  That's why you have coaches.  To me this smacks as if Sonny had actually taken Bo Callahan on Draft Day instead of pulling off the double switch.  The Bears pulled the epic 'anti Sonny' move.  And if neither works out this will be worse than the Packers Hadl trade.

Look, I can be sold if the Bears had simply taken him at #3 or had moved down.  Right now the projection is that Trubisky will be slotted at $29 million over the life including an $18 signing bonus.  There's going to be a great deal of coin sitting on the bench, either way.

On another front, I'm fully expecting Ted to trade down from #33.  Somebody's getting a chubby over some guy they simply have to acquire and will overpay. If the board is talented and flat from 25 through 100, give me as many as you can, please.  Sure I would have loved Watt.  But that's not because I know anything or that he would have been a great pick.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on April 28, 2017, 09:21:27 AM
If the Bears just kept Jay they would have paid him less than they're paying Glennon. Keeping the starting QB around for another season makes sense for most teams but the franchise and fans had turned on Cutler, aided in large part by the coach and GM never publicly put their faith behind him, even if it was just for show. His time in Chicago was just up. Had they kept Cutler and still drafted a QB in the top 3, it would have been a season-long storyline of "We know what Jay is! Why don't they put in the kid?" Honestly, I think the team just didn't want to deal with that. Instead, they went with an unproven veteran and a rookie unknown.

Glennon essentially got a 1-year deal, which is fine, but what do the Bears want from him? They want him to win but not be too impressive in doing so? If he turns out to be the real deal (long shot, I know) then you've wasted the #3 pick as well as 3 other picks on a guy who won't see the field. What if he's adequate? Then the team goes 7-9 instead of 5-11 and they drop from picking 5th to picking 10th in next year's draft. What if he's brutal? Do you keep Trubisky on the sidelines and let Glennon be brutal? Do you go to Sanchez?

I actually think the decision to draft Trubisky was last-minute, relatively speaking (i.e. they weren't considering him until fairly recent). Had they been eyeing the QB all along, they could have just as easily re-signed Hoyer or Barkley or brought in a cheap vet who obviously isn't the future like fan favorite Josh McCown to be the stop gap...or they could have had Mark Sanchez be that guy.

My best guess (I'm trying hard to wrap my head around this pick) is that the pick was made because they needed a franchise QB and this pick bought time for Ryan Pace and, more specifically, John Fox. Fox is 62 and isn't getting another head coaching gig after Chicago. This is it for him. With a QB-in-waiting on the roster, 2017 is basically a free pass. Give Trubisky a chance to sit back and watch and then he can start in 2018. 2018 is then essentially his rookie season and you can't expect too much from a team with "rookie" QB. That's Fox's contract year. You're not going to get rid of a coach and make the young franchise QB start over with a whole new system already, right? :o If Fox and Pace had better job security would they have taken a project QB somewhere in Round 3-6 and hoped to land the franchise guy in the potentially QB-loaded 2018 Draft? Who knows? The way it looks right now though, they put a lot of money and assets into a couple of non-franchise QBs.

Look, it could all work out.  But I agree completely with the two bolded statements.

From Trubisky:

"I had one workout with them, and then, after that it was just pretty much silence," Trubisky said. "That's why I'm surprised to hear my name called because we didn't have a lot of contact."

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on April 27, 2017, 09:56:21 PM
If a QB is the real deal, giving up all of your picks to get him would be worth it.

Is Trubisky the real deal? I doubt it but I hope I'm wrong.

Disagree, because you didn't have to pay that price to get him. Even if Trubisky ends up being a hall of famer it was a bad move. They didn't have to give up that much. They probably could have moved down and still got him.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on April 28, 2017, 09:21:27 AMIf Fox and Pace had better job security would they have taken a project QB somewhere in Round 3-6 and hoped to land the franchise guy in the potentially QB-loaded 2018 Draft? Who knows?

Gotta admit that I'm hoping that this is the Browns' approach.  They could have reached for one of several QBs in this draft, but they seem to be showing some patience and realization that this is a multi-year project they're undertaking. 

Quote from: hairy worthen on April 28, 2017, 10:13:39 AM
Disagree, because you didn't have to pay that price to get him. Even if Trubisky ends up being a hall of famer it was a bad move. They didn't have to give up that much. They probably could have moved down and still got him.

Maybe.  Maybe not.  Maybe there were other suitors.  Maybe they got fleeced.

Had the Packers traded their entire draft to move up to #2 to get Aaron Rodgers back in 2005, and the future played out exact as it has, no one would have complained. 

Quote from: hairy worthen on April 28, 2017, 10:13:39 AM
Disagree, because you didn't have to pay that price to get him. Even if Trubisky ends up being a hall of famer it was a bad move. They didn't have to give up that much. They probably could have moved down and still got him.

We don't know what other teams were offering so we can't say that they gave up too much. Do I think that they gave up too much for a guy who I believe will be an average NFL QB? Absolutely. We can't say for certain it at this point though.

If the Bears could have made this same trade in 2005 to go from #4 to #2 to take Aaron Rodgers, it would have been 100% worth it even though they could have actually traded all the way down to 23 to get the same player. You don't know that at the time and you can never trade too much to land a 10+ year franchise QB.


EDIT: Sultan stole my analogy! I need to type faster  ;)

Pack fooked up bye passin' on Watt, hey?

I'm relieved they didn't take Watt, particularly because of his history of injury and inexperience at LB. Now if they don't take King with the 1st pick today...

Quote from: 4everwarriors on April 28, 2017, 10:38:33 AM
Pack fooked up bye passin' on Watt, hey?

Nope.  Somebody's going to overpay by a ton to get the #33 pick.  Ted got his dream.  20 hours to negotiate a trade that will net him even more draft picks!

Quote from: Waldo Jeffers on April 28, 2017, 10:49:32 AM
I'm relieved they didn't take Watt, particularly because of his history of injury and inexperience at LB. Now if they don't take King with the 1st pick today...

I wouldn't mind seeing the running back from fl state either, there will still be some highly ranked corners later in the second round when they pick again.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on April 28, 2017, 10:24:13 AM
We don't know what other teams were offering so we can't say that they gave up too much. Do I think that they gave up too much for a guy who I believe will be an average NFL QB? Absolutely. We can't say for certain it at this point though.

If the Bears could have made this same trade in 2005 to go from #4 to #2 to take Aaron Rodgers, it would have been 100% worth it even though they could have actually traded all the way down to 23 to get the same player. You don't know that at the time and you can never trade too much to land a 10+ year franchise QB.


EDIT: Sultan stole my analogy! I need to type faster  ;)

Fair enough, on the surface it feels like they over paid though.

Quote from: hairy worthen on April 28, 2017, 11:08:36 AM
I wouldn't mind seeing the running back from fl state either, there will still be some highly ranked corners later in the second round when they pick again.

Personally, I'd take gamble with Mixon's checkered past over Cook's.

Quote from: jsglow on April 28, 2017, 09:27:43 AM
You mean like ARodg learned from Favre?

And Favre learned from Jim McMahon.

Look, we all knew there was nothing the Bears could do to make 2017 anything close to approximating a success. If they win as many as they did last year with that porous defense, lack of a real running game and, now, no legit wide receivers, I'd be shocked.

I just renewed my Bears tickets for next year. The options to move closer to the action were never better. I was in Row 31 in the grandstands about the 45 yard line and now I'm in row 18. The McCaskeys are losing Chicago to the Cubs and unless something happens soon, I'll be in Row 1!

It's great that the Bears beat the Niners last December. That "meaningless" win will have butterfly effects for years to come.

Quote from: GB Warrior on April 28, 2017, 06:46:13 AM
Sorry,  was referring to Glennon.

Got it. It's really a one year deal as only $2.5 million is guaranteed beyond this year.

Quote from: hairy worthen on April 28, 2017, 10:13:39 AM
Disagree, because you didn't have to pay that price to get him. Even if Trubisky ends up being a hall of famer it was a bad move. They didn't have to give up that much. They probably could have moved down and still got him.

You absolutely have so clue if this is actually true or not.

Quote from: MUDish on April 28, 2017, 04:44:08 PM
It's great that the Bears beat the Niners last December. That "meaningless" win will have butterfly effects for years to come.

Because they gave up two 3rds and a 4th?

Quote from: Waldo Jeffers on April 28, 2017, 10:49:32 AM
I'm relieved they didn't take Watt, particularly because of his history of injury and inexperience at LB. Now if they don't take King with the 1st pick today...

you da man!  although offensive line(lamp) wouldn't have been a bad deal either.  love the height.  reminds me of steve atwater.  needs to muscle up a little

Quote from: rocket surgeon on April 28, 2017, 06:55:03 PM
you da man!  although offensive line(lamp) wouldn't have been a bad deal either.  love the height.  reminds me of steve atwater.  needs to muscle up a little

We just signed a 6 time Pro Bowl guard. And that was after Rodgers said we don't need anymore help on the OL.

I must admit that I've never heard of Ashland.

Quote from: jsglow on April 28, 2017, 07:24:00 PM
I must admit that I've never heard of Ashland.

Anytime you can needlessly trade up one spot in the first round, give up three picks in the process, be bad to begin with, and then gamble on a lottery ticket TE from a D2 school who is graded as a mid round pick, when you have all sorts of needs...ya gotta do it.

Quote from: MUDish on April 28, 2017, 08:20:53 PM
Anytime you can needlessly trade up one spot in the first round, give up three picks in the process, be bad to begin with, and then gamble on a lottery ticket TE from a D2 school who is graded as a mid round pick, when you have all sorts of needs...ya gotta do it.

You have no clue they didn't need to trade up.

I didn't like the trade but come on.

I fully expect the Bears to draft Stan Thomas in the next round or maybe John Thievery, or Rashan Salam or Curtis Ennis, or........They just seem to knock it out of the park every single year....

Quote from: manny31 on April 28, 2017, 08:39:58 PM
I fully expect the Bears to draft Stan Thomas in the next round or maybe John Thievery, or Rashan Salam or Curtis Ennis, or........They just seem to knock it out of the park every single year....

Hilarious.

Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on April 28, 2017, 08:29:37 PM
You have no clue they didn't need to trade up.

I didn't like the trade but come on.

Name me their competition at 2 or 3 for Trubisky. I. Will. Wait.

Quote from: MUDish on April 28, 2017, 08:53:46 PM
Name me their competition at 2 or 3 for Trubisky. I. Will. Wait.

Browns. Chiefs. Cards. Texans.

There. You. Go.

Don't state as fact what you don't know. That's my point.

Quote from: wadesworld on April 28, 2017, 07:03:45 PM
We just signed a 6 time Pro Bowl guard. And that was after Rodgers said we don't need anymore help on the OL.

i like bulaga, but he has been a little fragile and he ain't getting any younger plus we lost lang as well.  evans should be a nice addition for what? 2 years?  i hope longer, but

Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on April 28, 2017, 09:19:42 PM
Browns. Chiefs. Cards. Texans.

There. You. Go.

Don't state as fact what you don't know. That's my point.

Don't state as fact what you don't know.

Browns-Passed on Trubisky.
Chiefs-If they had Trubisky higher than Mahomes, why didn't they trade up to 2 then? Can you explain?
Texans-If they had Trubisky higher than Watson, why didn't they trade up to 2 then? Can you explain?
Cardinals-What was their offer?

Having worked in an NFL & NBA front office and understanding some things, when your current boss is the brother of a former GM, and you can occasionally gain insight into things, and you have a friend in the San Francisco sports media (who did a story on my son and his friendship with Malik Newman), I'll go with the info I gathered and gained today, and the Bears got fleeced for nothing.

Have a great night though.

Quote from: MUDish on April 28, 2017, 08:20:53 PM
Anytime you can needlessly trade up one spot in the first round, give up three picks in the process, be bad to begin with, and then gamble on a lottery ticket TE from a D2 school who is graded as a mid round pick, when you have all sorts of needs...ya gotta do it.

Dish, the Packer faithful armchairs are complaining that they took the top corner on the board that they would have taken at 29 and then complaining that they got a big Safety/LB that can run 4.4.  Some folks are never happy.

     "Having worked in an NFL & NBA front office and understanding some things, when your current boss is the brother of a former GM, and you can occasionally gain insight into things, and you have a friend in the San Francisco sports media (who did a story on my son and his friendship with Malik Newman), I'll go with the info I gathered and gained today, and the Bears got fleeced for nothing."

   dish-seriously-this is really cool!  i don't mean to sound like a "geezer airhead" but this kind of chit geeks me out. 

Quote from: MUDish on April 28, 2017, 09:35:09 PM
Don't state as fact what you don't know.

Browns-Passed on Trubisky.
Chiefs-If they had Trubisky higher than Mahomes, why didn't they trade up to 2 then? Can you explain?
Texans-If they had Trubisky higher than Watson, why didn't they trade up to 2 then? Can you explain?
Cardinals-What was their offer?

Having worked in an NFL & NBA front office and understanding some things, when your current boss is the brother of a former GM, and you can occasionally gain insight into things, and you have a friend in the San Francisco sports media (who did a story on my son and his friendship with Malik Newman), I'll go with the info I gathered and gained today, and the Bears got fleeced for nothing.

Have a great night though.

Not stating anything as fact.

Why didn't the other teams trade up?  Because the Bears' offer was better and that's what the 49ers went with. In turn, the other teams traded up for other options. And look at how much the Texans and Chiefs gave up to do so.

Nice that you have connections. You certainly know more than me.  I don't doubt the Bears overpaid.

But if John Lynch completely fabricated other potential offers he's not going to last long. And unless you were in that room I take everything you heard and your sources heard with a grain of salt.

Quote from: jsglow on April 28, 2017, 09:40:56 PM
Dish, the Packer faithful armchairs are complaining that they took the top corner on the board that they would have taken at 29 and then complaining that they got a big Safety/LB that can run 4.4.  Some folks are never happy.

Who's complaining?  I'm thrilled with our 2 guys so far.

Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on April 28, 2017, 08:29:37 PM
You have no clue they didn't need to trade up.

I didn't like the trade but come on.

http://www.barstoolsports.com/chicago/reports-out-that-there-were-no-teams-trying-to-move-up-to-pick-mitch-trubisky-and-ryan-pace-was-essentially-negotiating-against-himself/

Here are some actual facts:

1. the Bears traded 2 3rds and a 4th to move up 1 spot to take a project QB (at least they didn't give up any 1sts or 2nds unlike Texans, etc)
2. John Fox didn't know they were picking him
3. Trubisky hadn't been contacted by Chicago at all since meeting at the combine
4. Trubisky wasn't called in the green room and informed Bears were taking him

It seems like just a strange situation all around.

The reason I don't like what they gave up is that it's not like the team is set or deep at several positions and they have the luxury of using resources on a gamble. When rebuilding, gather as many options/picks as possible and hope some turn out in conjunction with FAs and current roster. It's a numbers game.

For the record, I love what the Pack did, I really liked Kevin King and Josh Jones. If Evans still has gas in the tank, they've had a nice off season of addressing needs without overpaying.

Also, I hope Trubisky is great. I strongly dislike that they have no one in their building with a track record of developing QB's. Wentz regressed as film caught up to him, but the Eagles invested heavily in their coaching staff to nurture Wentz. Rams traded so much for Goff, and gave him little support on staff to help him.

Trubisky is walking into a tough situation, his team traded up for him, in a major market, with historically bad QB's. It'd be like spending all your savings on a brand new Porsche, and then buying the cheapest tires possible to put on it. Yes, you can get new tires, but did you already ruin the car? I don't envy Trubisky, but I want him to be great.

Quote from: wadesworld on April 28, 2017, 09:50:02 PM
Who's complaining?  I'm thrilled with our 2 guys so far.

I am too.  But a read of the js blog last night was entertaining.

Quote from: MUDish on April 28, 2017, 11:37:02 PM
For the record, I love what the Pack did, I really liked Kevin King and Josh Jones. If Evans still has gas in the tank, they've had a nice off season of addressing needs without overpaying.

Word.

Quote from: wadesworld on April 28, 2017, 09:50:02 PM
Who's complaining?  I'm thrilled with our 2 guys so far.

Monitored the draft from the Brewers game, and a bunch of guys behind me were livid throughout.

Talked about how much we'd regret not drafting Watt (and we might! I think he'll be very good and a great fit in Pitt) and how much Thompson hated picking Wisconsin boys because it put too much pressure on them (you know, to be competent NFL players).

I'm excited about our 2 DBs - both of these guys are prototypical size and speed. I'm lukewarm on Adams, but that's more because I was eyeing Derek Rivers, who went 8 picks earlier to the Pats.

Quote from: GB Warrior on April 29, 2017, 10:51:49 AM
Monitored the draft from the Brewers game, and a bunch of guys behind me were livid throughout.

Talked about how much we'd regret not drafting Watt (and we might! I think he'll be very good and a great fit in Pitt) and how much Thompson hated picking Wisconsin boys because it put too much pressure on them (you know, to be competent NFL players).

I'm excited about our 2 DBs - both of these guys are prototypical size and speed. I'm lukewarm on Adams, but that's more because I was eyeing Derek Rivers, who went 8 picks earlier to the Pats.

:o

Quote from: jsglow on April 29, 2017, 11:33:40 AM
:o

oops! I hope the badger fans are right for once!

Quote from: GB Warrior on April 29, 2017, 11:44:53 AM
oops! I hope the badger fans are right for once!

I think Biegel can play.

Quote from: GB Warrior on April 29, 2017, 10:51:49 AM
Monitored the draft from the Brewers game, and a bunch of guys behind me were livid throughout.

Talked about how much we'd regret not drafting Watt (and we might! I think he'll be very good and a great fit in Pitt) and how much Thompson hated picking Wisconsin boys because it put too much pressure on them (you know, to be competent NFL players).

I'm excited about our 2 DBs - both of these guys are prototypical size and speed. I'm lukewarm on Adams, but that's more because I was eyeing Derek Rivers, who went 8 picks earlier to the Pats.

If it were up to them they'd pick with their heart and the Packers would be full of Badgers, and Ted Thompson would pick the best Badger #1 overall every year.

Stupid people are going to be stupid.  My guess is the only college football they watch all year are Wisconsin football games.

How'd they react when the Packers picked Vince Biegel?

Quote from: jsglow on April 29, 2017, 12:00:42 PM
I think Biegel can play.

I think so too - good measurable, steady playmaker last year. Ideally, someone will step up opposite Perry to allow Matthews to move around and minimize contact/preserve his health.

Biegel's a good value pick that late, but I've seen one former Badger that was undersized for his position and injury prone on the Packers recently and that one didn't go too well.  Hopefully this one does.

The Bears better hope Pace is smarter than everyone, because wow that draft looks rough on paper.

Big trade for Trubisky, 2 D2 picks and an undersized RB. Love the Eddie Jackson pick, though.

Overall, it reminds me of a Mike Sherman draft, sans the punter in the 3rd round.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/draft/teams/_/name/chi/chicago-bears (http://www.espn.com/nfl/draft/teams/_/name/chi/chicago-bears)

That being said, all of this is moot if I'm wrong and Trubisky is the answer.

Quote from: GB Warrior on April 29, 2017, 01:18:46 PM
The Bears better hope Pace is smarter than everyone, because wow that draft looks rough on paper.

Big trade for Trubisky, 2 D2 picks and an undersized RB. Love the Eddie Jackson pick, though.

Overall, it reminds me of a Mike Sherman draft, sans the punter in the 3rd round.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/draft/teams/_/name/chi/chicago-bears (http://www.espn.com/nfl/draft/teams/_/name/chi/chicago-bears)

That being said, all of this is moot if I'm wrong and Trubisky is the answer.

It is an odd draft.

But, they made the Trubisky decision and then gave him a couple weapons - a athletic freak TE and a speed RB (something Howard is not).

Added a possible steal in Jackson. And then a project OL.

Still LOTS of questions about the CBs and WRs.

Quote
Best move: If Mitchell Trubisky becomes the Bears' franchise quarterback, general manager Ryan Pace will look like a genius for moving up one spot to take him. The Bears have been without a marquee quarterback since Sid Luckman in the 1940s. The Jay Cutler era is over, and fans want to move forward. Trubisky could be the missing piece, as long as he develops properly. Riskiest move: Every ... single ... pick, including Trubisky. If Trubisky is a bust -- he only started one year at North Carolina -- Pace is toast. Second-round tight end Adam Shaheen played Division II. So did fifth-round guard Jordan Morgan. Chicago traded up for Alabama safety Eddie Jackson in Round 4, but he broke his leg last year. Later in the fourth round, Chicago drafted running back Tarik Cohen from FCS school North Carolina A&T. I'm going to lay down. -- Jeff Dickerson

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/235666/best-and-riskiest-moves-for-every-teams-2017-nfl-draft-class#NFC N

Quote from: GB Warrior on April 29, 2017, 01:18:46 PM
The Bears better hope Pace is smarter than everyone, because wow that draft looks rough on paper.

Big trade for Trubisky, 2 D2 picks and an undersized RB. Love the Eddie Jackson pick, though.

Overall, it reminds me of a Mike Sherman draft, sans the punter in the 3rd round.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/draft/teams/_/name/chi/chicago-bears (http://www.espn.com/nfl/draft/teams/_/name/chi/chicago-bears)

That being said, all of this is moot if I'm wrong and Trubisky is the answer.

It was an extremely bizarre draft and nothing close to what I expected. For a team in need of playmakers in the secondary, to only take one safety in a draft that was supposed to be very deep in defensive backs was very odd.

It'll all come down to Trubisky and that will take 2-4 years to judge.

The Bears have had some disappointing drafts for, well, a long time now, but I can't remember feeling this disgusted/disappointed immediately after a draft.

There were 3 defensive studs at the top of the draft and the Bears sat at #3. They couldn't miss! Browns take Garrett, and after SF picks, the Bears get either Thomas or Adams, both of whom fit big needs for the team and both of whom should be Day 1 ready. Instead, they trade 4 picks to take an unproven QB who they could have gotten without trading up and possibly could have even traded down a few picks to grab. They follow that up by drafting 3 sub-D1 players and an injury-plagued safety. Coming off a 3-13 season, they drafted 1 player who has a chance to contribute as a rookie...if he's actually healthy.

Really though, it all depends on Trubisky. If he's a star, none of the other picks matter. If he can't play, it doesn't really matter what becomes of the other picks because the team is going no where without a QB.

What is particularly damning about the Bears is the word that John Fox didn't get wind of this until a couple hours before.  Really reeks of disfunction within the organization, and that's going going to cause a lot more losing than a bad draft.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 01, 2017, 08:28:53 AM
The Bears have had some disappointing drafts for, well, a long time now, but I can't remember feeling this disgusted/disappointed immediately after a draft.

There were 3 defensive studs at the top of the draft and the Bears sat at #3. They couldn't miss! Browns take Garrett, and after SF picks, the Bears get either Thomas or Adams, both of whom fit big needs for the team and both of whom should be Day 1 ready. Instead, they trade 4 picks to take an unproven QB who they could have gotten without trading up and possibly could have even traded down a few picks to grab. They follow that up by drafting 3 sub-D1 players and an injury-plagued safety. Coming off a 3-13 season, they drafted 1 player who has a chance to contribute as a rookie...if he's actually healthy.

Really though, it all depends on Trubisky. If he's a star, none of the other picks matter. If he can't play, it doesn't really matter what becomes of the other picks because the team is going no where without a QB.

I saw that John Lynch mentioned that he had received multiple offers for the #2 pick and the Bears gave him the best. So, not 100% that they would have had Trubisky (the guy they really wanted) at #3.

Much happier that the bears didn't have to give up a #1 or #2 pick (like Houston, etc, did) for the trade.

More puzzled by the D2 players.

Quote from: Sultan of Slap O' Fivin' on May 01, 2017, 08:44:26 AM
What is particularly damning about the Bears is the word that John Fox didn't get wind of this until a couple hours before.  Really reeks of disfunction within the organization, and that's going going to cause a lot more losing than a bad draft.

Actually, I think the opposite.

The Bears were trying to keep their Mitch interest as little as possible. I think Pace knew that if they let Fox in, he would disagree with the pick and probably leak it. Fox is known as a league blabbermouth.

The Bears never met with MT outside of the combine, but sent all of Lake Forest down to meet Watson. They were smoke screening to keep their MT interest undercover. Ultimately, it got out and costed them some picks to move up.

Quote from: jesmu84 on May 01, 2017, 09:17:54 AM
I saw that John Lynch mentioned that he had received multiple offers for the #2 pick and the Bears gave him the best. So, not 100% that they would have had Trubisky (the guy they really wanted) at #3.

Much happier that the bears didn't have to give up a #1 or #2 pick (like Houston, etc, did) for the trade.

More puzzled by the D2 players.

There's an assumption there that the others Lynch talked about would have been trading up to get Trubisky.  Hard to know for sure if that is true...just like it's hard to know any of this for sure.  It's quite possible that other teams looking to trade up wanted Thomas or some other player.  Aside from some late rumors that the Browns were considering Trubisky for the top pick, I didn't see very much suggesting that Trubisky was going higher than 5th.  Most mock drafts I saw had Trubisky either 5th or 12th.  I'm sure there is tons that I didn't see, though. Just because people were making offers to the 49ers for that second pick doesn't suggest at all that they were looking at Trubisky.  Now if we heard that it was the Browns, Chiefs or Texans, that might be a little more revealing.

Quote from: PTM on May 01, 2017, 09:45:46 AM
Actually, I think the opposite.

The Bears were trying to keep their Mitch interest as little as possible. I think Pace knew that if they let Fox in, he would disagree with the pick and probably leak it. Fox is known as a league blabbermouth.

The Bears never met with MT outside of the combine, but sent all of Lake Forest down to meet Watson. They were smoke screening to keep their MT interest undercover. Ultimately, it got out and costed them some picks to move up.

You don't think that what you described here "reeks of dysfunction in the organization?"  I think your description of events -- keeping the HC in the dark because you're afraid he'll disagree and because he's a  known blabbermouth -- is the epitome of dysfunction.

Quote from: StillAWarrior on May 01, 2017, 09:52:16 AM
There's an assumption there that the others Lynch talked about would have been trading up to get Trubisky.  Hard to know for sure if that is true...just like it's hard to know any of this for sure.  It's quite possible that other teams looking to trade up wanted Thomas or some other player.  Aside from some late rumors that the Browns were considering Trubisky for the top pick, I didn't see very much suggesting that Trubisky was going higher than 5th.  Most mock drafts I saw had Trubisky either 5th or 12th.  I'm sure there is tons that I didn't see, though. Just because people were making offers to the 49ers for that second pick doesn't suggest at all that they were looking at Trubisky.  Now if we heard that it was the Browns, Chiefs or Texans, that might be a little more revealing.

Oh, I get that. But if Pace really believed in Trubisky being a franchise QB and wanted him above all else, he couldn't risk allowing another team take the #2 on the chance they wanted Trubisky. Risk management.

The thing about mock drafts, is that they try to get the picks right with what the team wanted. Just because a player isn't mocked higher than 5th, doesn't mean he's not a top 4 talent in that draft class. Having said that, I don't believe Trubisky was one of the top 3/4 players in the draft.

Quote from: StillAWarrior on May 01, 2017, 09:57:59 AM
You don't think that what you described here "reeks of dysfunction in the organization?"  I think your description of events -- keeping the HC in the dark because you're afraid he'll disagree and because he's a  known blabbermouth -- is the epitome of dysfunction.

The current regime's dysfunction began with the hiring of Fox who wasn't Pace's choice.

Regardless, Fox is gone after this season unless the Bears somehow make the playoffs (i.e. Bridgewater-like injuries throughout the NFC North). Pace, however, has his QB of the future which buys him a little extra time. He can then bring in his own HC next season to coach up Trubisky - Pete Carmichael perhaps? Even with that, it's hard to see this draft as anything but a disaster unless Trubisky can make the team a consistent SB contender for a decade. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening.

Quote from: jesmu84 on May 01, 2017, 10:30:17 AM
Oh, I get that. But if Pace really believed in Trubisky being a franchise QB and wanted him above all else, he couldn't risk allowing another team take the #2 on the chance they wanted Trubisky. Risk management.

I agree with this 100%. If you can get an elite-level QB it's nearly impossible to "give up too much" to get him. There's just not much to indicate that Trubisky is going to be anywhere close to an elite-level QB.

Quote from: Sultan of Slap O' Fivin' on May 01, 2017, 08:44:26 AM
What is particularly damning about the Bears is the word that John Fox didn't get wind of this until a couple hours before.  Really reeks of disfunction within the organization, and that's going going to cause a lot more losing than a bad draft.

This report was corrected as not accurate, as far as I know. 

https://twitter.com/BuffLlama/status/858809397828608000
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-sal3_U0AEUKbb.jpg:large)

Tim krumrie was under sized but he had a heart the size of lambeau and if the packers would've taken him, his name and number would be on the facade

Quote from: rocket surgeon on May 01, 2017, 07:35:06 PM
Tim krumrie was under sized but he had a heart the size of lambeau and if the packers would've taken him, his name and number would be on the facade

Good player, but closer to AJ Hawk than Reggie White.  Not really facade worthy IMO.

Quote from: rocket surgeon on May 01, 2017, 07:35:06 PM
Tim krumrie was under sized but he had a heart the size of lambeau and if the packers would've taken him, his name and number would be on the facade

???  You think he'd have his number retired???

yeah, you're  right,  always did like his story though :-[

Lead story on yahoo sports right now:

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/bears-asked-mike-glennon-soldier-field-draft-party-traded-replacement-180233682.html

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 02, 2017, 07:30:47 AM
Lead story on yahoo sports right now:

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/bears-asked-mike-glennon-soldier-field-draft-party-traded-replacement-180233682.html

I don't really understand this story line at all.  It's Mike Glennon who at best has been a mediocre quarterback in the NFL.  Since when should his job be considered "safe?"  And the people inviting players to the draft party have no idea what the people conducting the draft are doing.  You think Ryan Pace is clearing the invite list?

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/05/02/report-mike-glennon-feels-cheated-on-after-mitchell-trubisky-pick/

I mean come on.  Here's an idea Mike...perform.  If you perform well and win, none of this is going to matter.

Quote from: Sultan of Slap O' Fivin' on May 02, 2017, 08:21:00 AM

I don't really understand this story line at all.  It's Mike Glennon who at best has been a mediocre quarterback in the NFL.  Since when should his job be considered "safe?"  And the people inviting players to the draft party have no idea what the people conducting the draft are doing.  You think Ryan Pace is clearing the invite list?

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/05/02/report-mike-glennon-feels-cheated-on-after-mitchell-trubisky-pick/

I mean come on.  Here's an idea Mike...perform.  If you perform well and win, none of this is going to matter.

Part of this is why the Trubisky pick was a terrible idea.....the media market in Chicago is going to eat both QBs alive at this point and it is going to make for an awful environment to develop either of them.

If the Bears had traded back and taken Trubisky, it's a relatively different thing because at least they haven't "gone all in" from a fan perspective like they did when they traded up one pick. They have now put a ton of pressure on everyone to meet expectations that I don't think anyone could meet.

Quote from: mu03eng on May 02, 2017, 08:26:41 AM
Part of this is why the Trubisky pick was a terrible idea.....the media market in Chicago is going to eat both QBs alive at this point and it is going to make for an awful environment to develop either of them.

If the Bears had traded back and taken Trubisky, it's a relatively different thing because at least they haven't "gone all in" from a fan perspective like they did when they traded up one pick. They have now put a ton of pressure on everyone to meet expectations that I don't think anyone could meet.

You can't make personnel decisions based on the media market. 

Quote from: Sultan of Slap O' Fivin' on May 02, 2017, 08:21:00 AM
I mean come on.  Here's an idea Mike...perform.  If you perform well and win, none of this is going to matter.

Ding! Ding! Ding! If Glennon plays well, he gets to keep playing and get to keep making big money. Maybe for the Bears, maybe elsewhere. Perhaps he'll play well enough that the Bears can trade him after the season to recoup a couple of the draft picks traded for Trubisky...or at least I keep telling myself that.

Quote from: mu03eng on May 02, 2017, 08:26:41 AM
Part of this is why the Trubisky pick was a terrible idea.....the media market in Chicago is going to eat both QBs alive at this point and it is going to make for an awful environment to develop either of them.

If the Bears had traded back and taken Trubisky, it's a relatively different thing because at least they haven't "gone all in" from a fan perspective like they did when they traded up one pick. They have now put a ton of pressure on everyone to meet expectations that I don't think anyone could meet.

If a QB can't handle media/fan scrutiny, he's not going to be a top-tier QB anyway.

Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on May 02, 2017, 09:58:19 AM
You can't make personnel decisions based on the media market.

Sure you can, and you should. Maybe it isn't the determining factor but it better be part of the equation.

Half of Ryan Leaf's issues were because he couldn't handle the environment, same with Justin Blackmon. The league is littered with players who couldn't handle the spot light for various reasons. If Trubisky was a can't miss prospect the move makes sense, but he's not and now you are putting him in the most intense situation possible where every mistake or misstep is amplified by how much they gave up to get him.

I'm not saying don't make the move simply because of the media market.....but when you combine that with the holes in the team, what you had to give up, the uncertain nature of his talent, etc....none of it adds up to "please draft him and give up a bunch of value to do it."

Glennon isn't complaining about the competition, but the communication. Awkward to send your new free agent QB on the fan hype circuit (Wrigley, etc.), only to send him to the Bears Draft Party to be embarrassed and where the organization gets booed for their obvious dysfunction. Fox was mostly in the dark, marketing was in the dark, the press is skewering the QB pick AND the Glennon signing together, not just singularly (let's not forget Mark Sanchez as well to add to the cap spent on QB). Perception is reality.

These may be bold moves, but they also reinforce the Clown College in Lake Forest, and that Pace is in way over his head. Great organizations get all departments on the same page. The Bears are on 100 different pages.

Quote from: mu03eng on May 02, 2017, 10:20:41 AM
Sure you can, and you should. Maybe it isn't the determining factor but it better be part of the equation.

Half of Ryan Leaf's issues were because he couldn't handle the environment, same with Justin Blackmon. The league is littered with players who couldn't handle the spot light for various reasons. If Trubisky was a can't miss prospect the move makes sense, but he's not and now you are putting him in the most intense situation possible where every mistake or misstep is amplified by how much they gave up to get him.

I'm not saying don't make the move simply because of the media market.....but when you combine that with the holes in the team, what you had to give up, the uncertain nature of his talent, etc....none of it adds up to "please draft him and give up a bunch of value to do it."

I'll probably get fried for this... but I'm pretty sure the best coach in NFL history (Belicheck) doesn't make his player personnel decisions with any sort of thought to the media

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on May 02, 2017, 10:31:14 AM
Glennon isn't complaining about the competition, but the communication. Awkward to send your new free agent QB on the fan hype circuit (Wrigley, etc.), only to send him to the Bears Draft Party to be embarrassed and where the organization gets booed for their obvious dysfunction. Fox was mostly in the dark, marketing was in the dark, the press is skewering the QB pick AND the Glennon signing together, not just singularly (let's not forget Mark Sanchez as well to add to the cap spent on QB). Perception is reality.

These may be bold moves, but they also reinforce the Clown College in Lake Forest, and that Pace is in way over his head. Great organizations get all departments on the same page. The Bears are on 100 different pages.

I understand the Bears are dysfunctional for many of the reasons you state.

But how they have treated Mike Glennon isn't one of them.  The marketing department had no idea who the Bears were considering drafting.  Nor should they.  Maybe they shouldn't have a draft party with current players at all - just invite the alums.  (I mean Steve McMichael is always up for a good time.)

Or maybe Mike Glennon needs to understand that he is an unproven quarterback who was just given $18 million guaranteed, and that ripping on the organization that just gave you that contract is probably a dumb idea.

Quote from: jesmu84 on May 02, 2017, 11:14:28 AM
I'll probably get fried for this... but I'm pretty sure the best coach in NFL history (Belicheck) doesn't make his player personnel decisions with any sort of thought to the media

GMs who make decisions on anything other than improving their team get fired.

Quote from: Sultan of Slap O' Fivin' on May 02, 2017, 11:33:55 AM

Or maybe Mike Glennon needs to understand that he is an unproven quarterback who was just given $18 million guaranteed, and that ripping on the organization that just gave you that contract is probably a dumb idea.

I have not seen anything where Glennon ripped the Bears.

As a matter of fact, I can't find any comments made to the media by Glennon about the draft. Could you provide a link?

Quote from: Jockey on May 02, 2017, 11:49:00 AM
I have not seen anything where Glennon ripped the Bears.

As a matter of fact, I can't find any comments made to the media by Glennon about the draft. Could you provide a link?

You are correct.  Everything is second hand relayed to reporters.

He still should shut up about it.

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on May 02, 2017, 10:31:14 AM
Glennon isn't complaining about the competition, but the communication. Awkward to send your new free agent QB on the fan hype circuit (Wrigley, etc.), only to send him to the Bears Draft Party to be embarrassed and where the organization gets booed for their obvious dysfunction. Fox was mostly in the dark, marketing was in the dark, the press is skewering the QB pick AND the Glennon signing together, not just singularly (let's not forget Mark Sanchez as well to add to the cap spent on QB). Perception is reality.

These may be bold moves, but they also reinforce the Clown College in Lake Forest, and that Pace is in way over his head. Great organizations get all departments on the same page. The Bears are on 100 different pages.

The Bears kept their desire to take Trubisky completely under wraps. Why would they risk that to let the marketing department know?

Also, I don't think anyone is skewering the pick by itself. If the Bears stood pat and took Trubisky at 3, it would have been a surprise but wouldn't have been viewed in the same way that it's currently being viewed. The shock comes from unnecessarily giving up 4 picks to move up 1 spot when you have a team with some glaring holes and a deep draft class. I tend to think that Pace got so excited about keeping The Trubisky Plan quiet that he just HAD to trade up to make sure that everything worked out just as he wanted.

Also, the reports about John Fox not knowing about the pick are false. That rumor has been debunked by Chris Mortensen and several Chicago reporters.

Quote from: mu03eng on May 02, 2017, 10:20:41 AM
Sure you can, and you should. Maybe it isn't the determining factor but it better be part of the equation.

Half of Ryan Leaf's issues were because he couldn't handle the environment, same with Justin Blackmon. The league is littered with players who couldn't handle the spot light for various reasons. If Trubisky was a can't miss prospect the move makes sense, but he's not and now you are putting him in the most intense situation possible where every mistake or misstep is amplified by how much they gave up to get him.

I'm not saying don't make the move simply because of the media market.....but when you combine that with the holes in the team, what you had to give up, the uncertain nature of his talent, etc....none of it adds up to "please draft him and give up a bunch of value to do it."

It be a factor in your evaluation but in no way do I think it should be a major or determining factor. 

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 02, 2017, 12:16:02 PM
The Bears kept their desire to take Trubisky completely under wraps. Why would they risk that to let the marketing department know?

Also, I don't think anyone is skewering the pick by itself. If the Bears stood pat and took Trubisky at 3, it would have been a surprise but wouldn't have been viewed in the same way that it's currently being viewed. The shock comes from unnecessarily giving up 4 picks to move up 1 spot when you have a team with some glaring holes and a deep draft class. I tend to think that Pace got so excited about keeping The Trubisky Plan quiet that he just HAD to trade up to make sure that everything worked out just as he wanted.

Also, the reports about John Fox not knowing about the pick are false. That rumor has been debunked by Chris Mortensen and several Chicago reporters.

Was it likely Trubisky would have been there at 3?  Possibly.  Maybe even probably.  But there is just no way to know for sure.  Why so many people think that it was a certainty I just don't understand.

Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on May 02, 2017, 12:24:01 PM
Was it likely Trubisky would have been there at 3?  Possibly.  Maybe even probably.  But there is just no way to know for sure.  Why so many people think that it was a certainty I just don't understand.

There have been ZERO reports out there identifying other teams who were looking to trade up to #2.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 02, 2017, 12:58:52 PM
There have been ZERO reports out there identifying other teams who were looking to trade up to #2.

False.

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2017/05/01/san-francisco-49ers-nfl-draft-room-bears-trade-reuben-foster-peter-king

Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on May 02, 2017, 01:24:34 PM
False.

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2017/05/01/san-francisco-49ers-nfl-draft-room-bears-trade-reuben-foster-peter-king

I'm sure there were teams interested in the second pick. Methinks the bears were the only team interested in the 2nd pick for trubisky. But who knows?

In the end it comes down to one thing.  If trubisky becomes a franchise qb it was a good move.   If Trubisky becomes another in a long line of meh Chicago qbs,  it was dumb. My money is on dumb.

Quote from: Sultan of Slap O' Fivin' on May 02, 2017, 08:21:00 AM

I don't really understand this story line at all.  It's Mike Glennon who at best has been a mediocre quarterback in the NFL.  Since when should his job be considered "safe?"  And the people inviting players to the draft party have no idea what the people conducting the draft are doing.  You think Ryan Pace is clearing the invite list?

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/05/02/report-mike-glennon-feels-cheated-on-after-mitchell-trubisky-pick/

I mean come on.  Here's an idea Mike...perform.  If you perform well and win, none of this is going to matter.

Most of the article is nonsense,  but trading up to draft a rookie qb definitely does send a message to the incumbent and not a positive one. Ever seen draft day?

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 02, 2017, 01:35:04 PM
I'm sure there were teams interested in the second pick. Methinks the bears were the only team interested in the 2nd pick for trubisky. But who knows?

In the end it comes down to one thing.  If trubisky becomes a franchise qb it was a good move.   If Trubisky becomes another in a long line of meh Chicago qbs,  it was dumb. My money is on dumb.

Agreed, although I won't pass judgment on Trubisky yet. 

Quote from: Sultan of Slap O' Fivin' on May 02, 2017, 11:59:00 AM

You are correct.  Everything is second hand relayed to reporters.

He still should shut up about it.

So you don't think he should talk about his feelings to his friends? Isn't that what friends are for?

You are telling him to shut up to his friends :o

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 02, 2017, 12:16:02 PM
The Bears kept their desire to take Trubisky completely under wraps. Why would they risk that to let the marketing department know?

Also, I don't think anyone is skewering the pick by itself. If the Bears stood pat and took Trubisky at 3, it would have been a surprise but wouldn't have been viewed in the same way that it's currently being viewed. The shock comes from unnecessarily giving up 4 picks to move up 1 spot when you have a team with some glaring holes and a deep draft class. I tend to think that Pace got so excited about keeping The Trubisky Plan quiet that he just HAD to trade up to make sure that everything worked out just as he wanted.

Also, the reports about John Fox not knowing about the pick are false. That rumor has been debunked by Chris Mortensen and several Chicago reporters.

I pretty much agree with you. Pace thinks this is his guy and put his career on the line for it. I guess that is admirable. Did he give up too much? Who knows. None of us know what other offers the 49ers were receiving for the pick.

But the bottom line is this. Trubisky has to be, at minimum, a multi-year Pro-Bowler or else this draft will be the poster child for every case study on worst draft ever.

If Trubisky fails and the TE turns out to be the White Supremicist that he brags to be, well..........

Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on May 02, 2017, 01:24:34 PM
False.

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2017/05/01/san-francisco-49ers-nfl-draft-room-bears-trade-reuben-foster-peter-king

Where in that story was another team identified?

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 02, 2017, 02:39:45 PM
Where in that story was another team identified?

QuoteNo nerves, but no pleasantries either. Marathe, who talks very fast and with great confidence, called another team with interest in the second slot and said, "We got some good action on the pick." Marathe talked to the club official (he would not disclose the official, or the team) for maybe a minute, just to crystallize that if Garrett was there at two, the Niners would either pick or take a ransom for the pick.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 02, 2017, 02:44:17 PM

That's not actually IDing another team. That's saying that another team contacted the 49ers about the pick, which is not at all unusual for just about every pick. There's been no indication that anyone was willing to give up anything close to what the Bears gave up nor any indication as to what other team was seriously considering trading up.

Trubisky was going to be there at 3.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 02, 2017, 03:19:09 PM
That's not actually IDing another team. That's saying that another team contacted the 49ers about the pick, which is not at all unusual for just about every pick. There's been no indication that anyone was willing to give up anything close to what the Bears gave up nor any indication as to what other team was seriously considering trading up.

Trubisky was going to be there at 3.

Oh I agree. I'm just pointing out what was being referenced.

Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on May 02, 2017, 12:19:27 PM
It be a factor in your evaluation but in no way do I think it should be a major or determining factor.

To each their own, but some times the how matters and not just the what

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 02, 2017, 02:39:45 PM
Where in that story was another team identified?

What does that matter?  Unless you are calling Lynch, etc. liars, there was at least one other team interested in the pick.  Maybe that team was interested in Trubisky or maybe not - but it is certainly possible. 

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 02, 2017, 03:19:09 PM
That's not actually IDing another team. That's saying that another team contacted the 49ers about the pick, which is not at all unusual for just about every pick. There's been no indication that anyone was willing to give up anything close to what the Bears gave up nor any indication as to what other team was seriously considering trading up.

Trubisky was going to be there at 3.

::)

So what happens when the Bears stink and get number one pick next year? Next year is expected to be good QB draft. Take Sam Darnold, if he comes out? Then you really wasted resources to get Trubisky. Trade down? Ok, you recoup assets and then some but you still need Trubisky to pan out.

Lots of other QBs projected to go in the first round next year. Could a better prospect have been found next year? Get the defense right this year in a deep draft and get the QB next year. That's what I would have done.

But as a Packers fan, I'll gladly accept the Bears being a dumpster fire. Trubisky probably won't succeed simply because the Bears are a mess. I fully believe Aaron Rodgers benefited by going to the Packers, a much better situation than the 49ers were at the time. Trubisky enters already behind the 8 ball. Fans are mostly upset about the trade so they will be less forgiving, management set up a QB controversy between a highly overpaid free agent and the #2 pick, and this draft did little to improve the Bears weaknesses.

Quote from: Lazar's Headband on May 02, 2017, 04:35:48 PM

But as a Packers fan, I'll gladly accept the Bears being a dumpster fire. Trubisky probably won't succeed simply because the Bears are a mess. I fully believe Aaron Rodgers benefited by going to the Packers, a much better situation than the 49ers were at the time. Trubisky enters already behind the 8 ball. Fans are mostly upset about the trade so they will be less forgiving, management set up a QB controversy between a highly overpaid free agent and the #2 pick, and this draft did little to improve the Bears weaknesses.

You are right.

Without even one average WR, no QB is going to succeed for the Bears. Rodgers had a great situation. Dak Prescott succeeded because Dallas had All-Pros on the OL, at RB and good receivers. He would have been a dumpster fire on the Bears.

Quote from: Lazar's Headband on May 02, 2017, 04:35:48 PM
So what happens when the Bears stink and get number one pick next year? Next year is expected to be good QB draft. Take Sam Darnold, if he comes out? Then you really wasted resources to get Trubisky. Trade down? Ok, you recoup assets and then some but you still need Trubisky to pan out.

Lots of other QBs projected to go in the first round next year. Could a better prospect have been found next year? Get the defense right this year in a deep draft and get the QB next year. That's what I would have done.

But as a Packers fan, I'll gladly accept the Bears being a dumpster fire. Trubisky probably won't succeed simply because the Bears are a mess. I fully believe Aaron Rodgers benefited by going to the Packers, a much better situation than the 49ers were at the time. Trubisky enters already behind the 8 ball. Fans are mostly upset about the trade so they will be less forgiving, management set up a QB controversy between a highly overpaid free agent and the #2 pick, and this draft did little to improve the Bears weaknesses.

This is exactly why Glennon made so much sense. The Bears completely opted out of a historically deep defensive pool. I actually thought Pace knew what he was doing until this year. This feels like a move made by someone who was desperate, not someone with the benefit of the doubt to see a rebuilding effort through.

But I too will enjoy the carnage. I wish it were  Minnesota, but I'll settle.

Quote from: GB Warrior on May 02, 2017, 05:10:17 PM
This is exactly why Glennon made so much sense. The Bears completely opted out of a historically deep defensive pool. I actually thought Pace knew what he was doing until this year. This feels like a move made by someone who was desperate, not someone with the benefit of the doubt to see a rebuilding effort through.

But I too will enjoy the carnage. I wish it were  Minnesota, but I'll settle.

Pace had made up his mind that he needed to bring in a franchise QB this season. If he snagged a QB in the mid/late rounds, that wasn't going to cut it. Another 3-5 win season with no QB-of-the-future on the roster and Pace would be gone. Now, a 3-5 win season gets Fox canned and Pace can bring in his own guy, thus buying himself some time.

This is a problem across the NFL. There are GMs who need to win right now so they (potentially) sacrifice the long-term future by making short-sighted decisions in hopes of keeping their job. For as much of a sh*tshow as the 49ers have been recently, I commend them for giving Lynch and Shanahan 6-year deals. If those are the guys you think can turn your franchise around, give them the time and backing to try to do it.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 03, 2017, 08:24:03 AM


This is a problem across the NFL. There are GMs who need to win right now so they (potentially) sacrifice the long-term future by making short-sighted decisions in hopes of keeping their job. For as much of a sh*tshow as the 49ers have been recently, I commend them for giving Lynch and Shanahan 6-year deals. If those are the guys you think can turn your franchise around, give them the time and backing to try to do it.

I agree with your point..... but we all know the length of a contract has nothing to do with how long the person will be employed.

Quote from: Jockey on May 03, 2017, 08:36:11 AM
I agree with your point..... but we all know the length of a contract has nothing to do with how long the person will be employed.

True, but a GM on year 3 of 6 is likely going to come at things from a different perspective and with a different sense of urgency than a GM on year 3 of 4.

Solid article on the Bears and Trubisky and some of the thought process. 

It also specifically mentions the Browns and Chiefs wanted Trubisky and could have been threats to move up to #2. 

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2017/05/02/nfl-chicago-bears-mitchell-trubisky-2017-nfl-draft

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 03, 2017, 08:24:03 AM
Pace had made up his mind that he needed to bring in a franchise QB this season. If he snagged a QB in the mid/late rounds, that wasn't going to cut it. Another 3-5 win season with no QB-of-the-future on the roster and Pace would be gone. Now, a 3-5 win season gets Fox canned and Pace can bring in his own guy, thus buying himself some time. 

Fox was Pace's guy. He hired him a week after landing the GM job.
But yeah, this draft was clearly a means of (possibly)  protecting his long-term future with the team while almost guaranteeing that Fox has none.
Too bad because - though I think Fox is by no means a great coach - 10 years from now I think he'll be viewed much more positively in NFL circles than Ryan Pace, a guy who's seemed in over his head since Day 1.

Quote from: Pakuni on May 03, 2017, 12:26:22 PM
Fox was Pace's guy. He hired him a week after landing the GM job.

Every insider report I have read or heard indicates that's not the case at all.  Fox was pushed by consultant Ernie Acorsi who knew him from his days with the Giants.  Pace pretty much had to accept him as coach - or at least was given the idea that Fox was a strong preference.

Quote from: Sultan of Slap O' Fivin' on May 03, 2017, 12:30:00 PM
Every insider report I have read or heard indicates that's not the case at all.  Fox was pushed by consultant Ernie Acorsi who knew him from his days with the Giants.  Pace pretty much had to accept him as coach - or at least was given the idea that Fox was a strong preference.

Makes sense to me as they probably strongly wanted someone with legit NFL experience after the sh*tshow that was Marc Trestman. 

Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on May 03, 2017, 11:55:31 AM
Solid article on the Bears and Trubisky and some of the thought process. 

It also specifically mentions the Browns and Chiefs wanted Trubisky and could have been threats to move up to #2. 

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2017/05/02/nfl-chicago-bears-mitchell-trubisky-2017-nfl-draft

If the Browns wanted Trubisky, and thought he was a franchise QB, they would have taken him at #1. If the Chiefs traded up for Mahomes, and they thought Trubisky was better, they would have traded up to #2. There's zero reason to trade up all the capital that the Chiefs did in Round 1 to get someone they were lukewarm on compared to someone they would have felt was the franchise guy.

Everyone I've talked to, every NFL insider out there has said the only offers for #2 from other teams were if Garrett was still there (which would have meant the Browns took Trubisky at #1).

Kaplan got info directly from the Bears for this story, there's no reason for that "NFL insider" not to be someone within the Bears feeding her this info.

Quote from: Sultan of Slap O' Fivin' on May 03, 2017, 12:30:00 PM
Every insider report I have read or heard indicates that's not the case at all.  Fox was pushed by consultant Ernie Acorsi who knew him from his days with the Giants.  Pace pretty much had to accept him as coach - or at least was given the idea that Fox was a strong preference.

The same Ernie Accorsi who hired Pace?
You think he sandbagged Pace on who he was going to recommend as a coaching hire?

Quote from: MUDish on May 03, 2017, 01:17:40 PM
If the Browns wanted Trubisky, and thought he was a franchise QB, they would have taken him at #1. If the Chiefs traded up for Mahomes, and they thought Trubisky was better, they would have traded up to #2. There's zero reason to trade up all the capital that the Chiefs did in Round 1 to get someone they were lukewarm on compared to someone they would have felt was the franchise guy.

Everyone I've talked to, every NFL insider out there has said the only offers for #2 from other teams were if Garrett was still there (which would have meant the Browns took Trubisky at #1).

Kaplan got info directly from the Bears for this story, there's no reason for that "NFL insider" not to be someone within the Bears feeding her this info.

1) There's nothing that prohibits the Browns from believing Garrett is the safest player and best choice for #1 and still having interest in moving up for Trubisky with other draft capital.  They're not mutually exclusive.

2) Regarding the Chiefs, if the Bears offer was better and they weren't willing to beat it, that is not the case.  You act as if this is not a possibility.

3) Maybe Kaplan's source was a Bears insider, maybe not.  You think so because it supports your viewpoint.  The insiders that support your viewpoint are legit while one that may not, isn't. 

Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on May 03, 2017, 01:27:53 PM
1) There's nothing that prohibits the Browns from believing Garrett is the safest player and best choice for #1 and still having interest in moving up for Trubisky with other draft capital.  They're not mutually exclusive.

2) Regarding the Chiefs, if the Bears offer was better and they weren't willing to beat it, that is not the case.  You act as if this is not a possibility.

3) Maybe Kaplan's source was a Bears insider, maybe not.  You think so because it supports your viewpoint.  The insiders that support your viewpoint are legit while one that may not, isn't.

I'll give you this, you're willing to die on this hill, being virtually the lone voice believing this, I give you credit for this. I'm quite comfortable believing the information I'm able to gather from people who know things.

1st paragraph: "The Bears weren't the only team that wanted to trade up to draft quarterback Mitchell Trubisky. Chicago was just the only team that traded all the way up to No. 2."

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/05/02/teams-tried-to-trade-up-for-mitchell-trubisky-but-not-as-high-as-no-2/ (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/05/02/teams-tried-to-trade-up-for-mitchell-trubisky-but-not-as-high-as-no-2/)

Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on May 03, 2017, 01:08:07 PM
Makes sense to me as they probably strongly wanted someone with legit NFL experience after the sh*tshow that was Marc Trestman. 

I've said this several times but John Fox was the type of coach that the Bears needed to hire after Lovie - a respected, NFL veteran coach who could control the locker room. Emery hired the opposite. At that point in time, they had talent but the window was closing. Don't get me wrong, they weren't going to win a SB but the 2013 Bears were a playoff-caliber team who gave up on their inept coach. The Bears had a "win and you're in game" in Week 16 and lost by 43 points!

Quote from: Pakuni on May 03, 2017, 01:26:07 PM
The same Ernie Accorsi who hired Pace?
You think he sandbagged Pace on who he was going to recommend as a coaching hire?

No. I think he sold both to the Bears owners. Pace knew he wasn't going to get the chance to hire his guy.

Quote from: Sultan of Slap O' Fivin' on May 03, 2017, 03:47:56 PM
No. I think he sold both to the Bears owners. Pace knew he wasn't going to get the chance to hire his guy.

Call me skeptical, but why would Pace go to a situation where he'd have no say in arguably (probably) the most important decision a GM makes?
Keep in mind, before taking the Bears job, Pace turned down the Jets. It's not as if at 37 years old he likely believed he'd have one and only one shot at a GM post. If that were true, he wouldn't have turned down the Jets.

Quote from: Pakuni on May 03, 2017, 04:00:56 PM
Call me skeptical, but why would Pace go to a situation where he'd have no say in arguably (probably) the most important decision a GM makes?
Keep in mind, before taking the Bears job, Pace turned down the Jets. It's not as if at 37 years old he likely believed he'd have one and only one shot at a GM post. If that were true, he wouldn't have turned down the Jets.

I'm not saying he was absolutely against the idea.  I'm saying that the coach was basically selected for him.

And I'm not the one saying this.  I have heard this multiple times.  Dish could probably comment on this if he wanted to.

Quote from: Sultan of Slap O' Fivin' on May 03, 2017, 04:02:24 PM

I'm not saying he was absolutely against the idea.  I'm saying that the coach was basically selected for him.

And I'm not the one saying this.  I have heard this multiple times.  Dish could probably comment on this if he wanted to.

My understanding falls in line with what Sultan said. The McCaskey family (specifically Virginia) came away feeling embarrassed with how the Emery/Trestman fiasco went down. They engaged Accorsi, and (my understanding) is Accorsi told them if the right coach became available before the right GM did, make sure you get the coach. Pace was obviously hired first, and before Fox was fired. I can't and won't say this as fact, but I certainly believe there was a conversation between Accorsi, Phillips, George, and Pace saying that ownership preferred an experienced coach, and that eventually led them to Fox. Pakuni is right, Pace turned down multiple different opportunities (I remember the Panthers being one) for interviews before the Bears job. Reality of it is that it is so Bears how the process played out, not having one firm decision maker with full authority.

I do not believe Fox survives into 2018, but I believe Pace does (and gets autonomy on hiring his own guy this time).

Quote from: Sultan of Slap O' Fivin' on April 27, 2017, 08:57:10 PM

If he becomes a decent quarterback, those picks were worth it.

Why, he was still going to be there one pick after. haha

Quote from: #UnleashRowsey on May 03, 2017, 07:32:58 PM
Why, he was still going to be there one pick after. haha

Most likely.  However if you believe someone is a franchise quarterback, it is worth the price not to risk it.  The bigger problem is that he may not be a franchise quarterback.

Quote from: MUDish on May 03, 2017, 01:34:09 PM
I'll give you this, you're willing to die on this hill, being virtually the lone voice believing this, I give you credit for this. I'm quite comfortable believing the information I'm able to gather from people who know things.

So you think Peter King was either lied to or made up the information about at least one other team discussing moving up to #2 with SF?

Quote from: jesmu84 on May 03, 2017, 07:46:57 PM
So you think Peter King was either lied to or made up the information about at least one other team discussing moving up to #2 with SF?

Every single draft pick is for sale and almost every single pick is discussed in a trade, if nothing else for a team to gauge future trades and to try to decipher who someone is thinking of taking. Lynch was publicly selling his #2 pick for weeks, of course he got phone calls. Pace called him a week before the draft with his offer. Niners had an eternity to sell higher than the Bears offer. They realized Cleveland was bluffing, and to Cleveland's credit, they played Schefter perfectly and used him as a pawn. Teams will do other teams a solid in the media post draft to help make deals like the Trubisky side look good for both sides.

Quote from: MUDish on May 03, 2017, 09:25:48 PM
Every single draft pick is for sale and almost every single pick is discussed in a trade, if nothing else for a team to gauge future trades and to try to decipher who someone is thinking of taking. Lynch was publicly selling his #2 pick for weeks, of course he got phone calls. Pace called him a week before the draft with his offer. Niners had an eternity to sell higher than the Bears offer. They realized Cleveland was bluffing, and to Cleveland's credit, they played Schefter perfectly and used him as a pawn. Teams will do other teams a solid in the media post draft to help make deals like the Trubisky side look good for both sides.

So Lynch was lying to help the bears look better?

Quote from: jesmu84 on May 04, 2017, 05:49:23 AM
So Lynch was lying to help the bears look better?

Lynch could be lying so that other teams will want to deal with the Niners in the future without feeling they are being fleeced. 

Quote from: Sultan of Slap O' Fivin' on May 03, 2017, 04:02:24 PM

I'm not saying he was absolutely against the idea.  I'm saying that the coach was basically selected for him.

And I'm not the one saying this.  I have heard this multiple times.  Dish could probably comment on this if he wanted to.

And I'm not saying that Fox's hire was influenced by Accorsi/ownership.
I'm just not buying the notion that Pace had no say in the hiring, or that it was foisted upon him against his will. I find it unlikely he would have taken the GM job under those circumstances.

FWIW, there's been a ton of revisionist history over the past nine months about Fox's hiring. Back when it happened, the Bears were widely praised for it.

John Fox, Chicago Bears
Grade: A-minus
Pace has a long road to travel en route back to postseason contention. He covered a lot of ground by nabbing Fox.
https://www.si.com/nfl/2015/01/11/nfl-coaching-hires-2015-analysis-grades

John Fox hiring is a veteran move by the Bears
Rick Morrissey

Bravo, Bears.
I can't think of the last time I wrote that, thought that, dreamt that or was forced, under threat of torture, to say that.
But bravo, indeed.
The Bears have hired John Fox, a veteran head coach who has been to the Super Bowl with two different teams. Savor that last sentence the way you might a warm breeze.
http://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/john-fox-hiring-is-a-veteran-move-by-the-bears/

Pace scores big on first decision

The Bears didn't need to be cute. They didn't need to attack a specific side of the ball. They needed the best football coach available. That's Fox, a 59-year-old who took two franchises to a Super Bowl. Fox once won a playoff game with Tim Tebow at quarterback, which is like winning the World Series with a hockey team.
http://www.espn.com/chicago/nfl/story/_/id/12195047/chicago-bears-getting-proven-winner-john-fox

Quote from: jesmu84 on May 04, 2017, 05:49:23 AM
So Lynch was lying to help the bears look better?

Oh yeah, smart business for him to do so. You want other GM's to do business with you going forward.

Quote from: jesmu84 on May 04, 2017, 05:49:23 AM
So Lynch was lying to help the bears look better?

It's certainly in his interest not to have himself portrayed as someone who fleeced one of his peers.

Fair enough. And I understand the logic of Lynch lying.

Seems dumb for Peter King to then propagate the lie

Quote from: jesmu84 on May 04, 2017, 02:57:47 PM
Fair enough. And I understand the logic of Lynch lying.

Seems dumb for Peter King to then propagate the lie

Does Peter King know it's a lie? 

Quote from: Sultan of Slap O' Fivin' on May 04, 2017, 03:03:50 PM

Does Peter King know it's a lie?

I assume most of the people who responded to me, who stated it is a lie, know less about and spend less time around the NFL than Peter King. If they can see it is a lie, then I would have to assume, so can he.

I don't think anybody lied. I'm sure people besides the Bears called the Niners about the number 2 pick. I wouldn't be surprised if they even offered some sort of deal for the number 2 pick. The Bears offered the most. I would also be stunned if the other teams asking about the number 2 pick were intending to draft Trubisky.

Peter King is about the furthest thing from a true reporter that you'll find, and would never do anything to even remotely jeopardize being a part of the NFL old boys club. If he received information that would be unpopular in NFL circles for him to report, there is no chance he would report it. If it behooves Lynch to further the belief (inferential or otherwise) that there was heavy competition for Trubisky at that pick, Peter King would be right near the top of the list to call to "leak" that info.

Quote from: MUBurrow on May 04, 2017, 04:04:23 PM
Peter King is about the furthest thing from a true reporter that you'll find, and would never do anything to even remotely jeopardize being a part of the NFL old boys club. If he received information that would be unpopular in NFL circles for him to report, there is no chance he would report it. If it behooves Lynch to further the belief (inferential or otherwise) that there was heavy competition for Trubisky at that pick, Peter King would be right near the top of the list to call to "leak" that info.

Yes, exactly this.
Pete thrives on, and his career is dependent upon, access. (to be fair, this is not uncommon in his profession).
Sometimes gaining and maintaining that access means playing along with your sources even when you suspect they're in all likelihood feeding you a bunch of bull.
I'm 99 percent sure Lynch told King there was intense competition for the #2 pick. I'm almost equally sure King is going to report it that way, even if he suspects it's not quite true.

Quote from: Pakuni on May 04, 2017, 04:20:40 PM
Yes, exactly this.
Pete thrives on, and his career is dependent upon, access. (to be fair, this is not uncommon in his profession).
Sometimes gaining and maintaining that access means playing along with your sources even when you suspect they're in all likelihood feeding you a bunch of bull.
I'm 99 percent sure Lynch told King there was intense competition for the #2 pick. I'm almost equally sure King is going to report it that way, even if he suspects it's not quite true.

For a certainty.  Plus an Allagash White.

Ladies and gentlemen, Exhibit A
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--gpMcEFFa--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/g0mevtlh3kaiuajhxuwf.jpg)

And Skyline Chili of all places...

Jay Cutler has found a job...

In the commentary booth with Fox.

Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on May 05, 2017, 08:18:36 AM
Jay Cutler has found a job...

In the commentary booth with Fox.

Best thing for him.  Gets to walk away relatively healthy, and continue to make solid money.

I hope he is on the broadcast team for all Bears-Packer games, could be fun.

Quote from: Waldo Jeffers on May 05, 2017, 08:45:29 AM
I hope he is on the broadcast team for all Bears-Packer games, could be fun.

I just hope he's a better broadcaster than he is football player.

I think Cutler will be really really good in the booth. If you are more of a diehard football fan, I think he's going to be a fun listen. I think Burkhardt is a good partner for him too. Although I thought a Dick Stockton/Cutler booth would have been amazingly interesting tv.

Quote from: MUDish on May 05, 2017, 08:56:01 AM
I think Cutler will be really really good in the booth. If you are more of a diehard football fan, I think he's going to be a fun listen. I think Burkhardt is a good partner for him too. Although I thought a Dick Stockton/Cutler booth would have been amazingly interesting tv.

I agree. Cutler's a bright, articulate guy who knows his stuff. He should do well...but the concern is that there are enough people like wades out there who are going to rip Cutler regardless of what he does or how well he performs. They'll be tuned in though, which is good for Fox.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 05, 2017, 09:01:33 AM
I agree. Cutler's a bright, articulate guy who knows his stuff. He should do well...but the concern is that there are enough people like wades out there who are going to rip Cutler regardless of what he does or how well he performs. They'll be tuned in though, which is good for Fox.

Not really.  I hated Troy Aikman/the Cowboys.  A lot of people hate Troy Aikman (and Buck) as a broadcaster.  I personally think he's (and they're) really good and love when he's (and they're) calling Packers games.

People can say I'm a hot take, meat of a fan.  But the fact of the matter is if I was so wrong and such a blind homer about my position on Cutler he wouldn't be accepting a job in a broadcasting booth right now...

I simply call it as I see it.  Turns out I saw it more clearly than the Bears fans here.  Cutler stunk.  Simple as that.  If whoever the Bears start at QB throws the ball more to the Packers than he throws the ball to the Bears this year, I'll call him a horrible quarterback as well.  If he's killing it I'll say, "Damn I wish the Bears didn't have that guy under center."  If Mike McCarthy continues to call games conservatively and it continues to burn the Packers I'll continue to call him on that as well.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 05, 2017, 09:01:33 AM
I agree. Cutler's a bright, articulate guy who knows his stuff. He should do well...but the concern is that there are enough people like wades out there who are going to rip Cutler regardless of what he does or how well he performs. They'll be tuned in though, which is good for Fox.

By contrast, I think Cutler would be a terrible studio guy. I don't think he'll be into fluff, and with the amount of coaches he's worked with, he'll have good perspective. I'll definitely be interested to hear him.

Quote from: wadesworld on May 05, 2017, 09:29:36 AM
People can say I'm a hot take, meat of a fan.  But the fact of the matter is if I was so wrong and such a blind homer about my position on Cutler he wouldn't be accepting a job in a broadcasting booth right now...

I simply call it as I see it.  Turns out I saw it more clearly than the Bears fans here.  Cutler stunk.  Simple as that.  If whoever the Bears start at QB throws the ball more to the Packers than he throws the ball to the Bears this year, I'll call him a horrible quarterback as well.  If he's killing it I'll say, "Damn I wish the Bears didn't have that guy under center."  If Mike McCarthy continues to call games conservatively and it continues to burn the Packers I'll continue to call him on that as well.

Cutler is 34, coming off a serious shoulder injury and would only go some place to be the starter. He was looking for a very specific situation and in the end, he chose the booth over the Jets. Tony Romo was in a similar situation and chose TV over a couple potential NFL openings. Does that mean he also sucks?

Cutler never lived up to his talent and potential as an NFL QB but he was significantly better than many fans and "hot take shouters" will ever give him credit for.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 05, 2017, 10:43:31 AM
Cutler is 34, coming off a serious shoulder injury and would only go some place to be the starter. He was looking for a very specific situation and in the end, he chose the booth over the Jets. Tony Romo was in a similar situation and chose TV over a couple potential NFL openings. Does that mean he also sucks?

Cutler never lived up to his talent and potential as an NFL QB but he was significantly better than many fans and "hot take shouters" will ever give him credit for.

Fair enough.  You can believe what you want.  His 1 career Playoff win to go along with his 217 career touchdowns (passing and rushing combined) compared to his 178 career turnovers (interceptions and fumbles lost) suggests you are very wrong, but I'm just a meatball Packer fan with my green and gold shades on.

One QB threw a pick out of every 30.265 passing attempts.
Another QB threw a pick out of every 30.76 passing attempts.

One is named Favre, the other Cutler.

Quote from: wadesworld on May 05, 2017, 11:01:15 AM
Fair enough.  You can believe what you want.  His 1 career Playoff win to go along with his 217 career touchdowns (passing and rushing combined) compared to his 178 career turnovers (interceptions and fumbles lost) suggests you are very wrong, but I'm just a meatball Packer fan with my green and gold shades on.

In no way, shape or form does pulling a couple stats make me "very wrong" about Cutler being better than many believe.

In fact, if you want to cherry-pick stats then I can counter with Cutler's QB Rating, which is higher than Eli Manning, Donovan McNabb, Alex Smith, Joe Flacco, Steve McNair, Marc Bulger, Jim Kelly, Matt Hasselbeck...the list goes on. Oh, and it's higher than Brett Favre's QB Rating while in GB.

We can continue to pull stats like this all day or we can simply agree that you think Cutler was horrible and sane, rational people who understand football will disagree with that assessment.

I don't have time to look up the stats, but would it be fair to say Packer fans are skewed because he played worse against us than other teams? I seem to remember hearing a lot of how Cutler could never figure out the Capers defense (one of the few it seems) and that it always caused him problems.

I think he's an average QB. Didn't he have a ton of different coordinators early on and with Chicago? He didn't help his cause with dumb throws and his demeanor, but he's not nearly as bad as many Packer fans make him out to be. It's just more fun to talk about him like he is that bad. I know I enjoy the running jokes.

Quote from: cheebs09 on May 05, 2017, 11:21:47 AM
I don't have time to look up the stats, but would it be fair to say Packer fans are skewed because he played worse against us than other teams? I seem to remember hearing a lot of how Cutler could never figure out the Capers defense (one of the few it seems) and that it always caused him problems.

I don't think this has been updated for the past couple years but...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZWrf6kgs7Q

Quote from: cheebs09 on May 05, 2017, 11:21:47 AM
I don't have time to look up the stats, but would it be fair to say Packer fans are skewed because he played worse against us than other teams? I seem to remember hearing a lot of how Cutler could never figure out the Capers defense (one of the few it seems) and that it always caused him problems.

I think he's an average QB. Didn't he have a ton of different coordinators early on and with Chicago? He didn't help his cause with dumb throws and his demeanor, but he's not nearly as bad as many Packer fans make him out to be. It's just more fun to talk about him like he is that bad. I know I enjoy the running jokes.

The sullen attitude never helped. He had Martz who gave away a top 5 tight end and wouldn't allow him to audible, and trestman who couldn't draw up a game plan if he had a gun held to his head and blew up the locker room. Then Fox came along which is 3 different offensive strategies right there. Combine that with an aging defense that always caused pressure to play catch-up on the scoreboard, you have a recipe for many turnovers. He will always be average to slightly above average depending on what Cutler era you are looking at. I was told last season that the bears would be better off with Osweiler than Cutler at QB. I'm not sure I have ever been visibly upset over a sports take until then. I will never defend Jay as being truly good, but to throw him in with the likes of Osweiler, Weeden, and Gabbert is just pure ignorance or homerism.

Quote from: Sultan of Slap O' Fivin' on May 05, 2017, 11:25:06 AM

I don't think this has been updated for the past couple years but...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZWrf6kgs7Q

I remember think the interception by Jolly was the funniest thing ever.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 05, 2017, 11:13:10 AM
In no way, shape or form does pulling a couple stats make me "very wrong" about Cutler being better than many believe.

In fact, if you want to cherry-pick stats then I can counter with Cutler's QB Rating, which is higher than Eli Manning, Donovan McNabb, Alex Smith, Joe Flacco, Steve McNair, Marc Bulger, Jim Kelly, Matt Hasselbeck...the list goes on. Oh, and it's higher than Brett Favre's QB Rating while in GB.

We can continue to pull stats like this all day or we can simply agree that you think Cutler was horrible and sane, rational people who understand football will disagree with that assessment.

Out of a job at 34. 1 Playoff win in his life. Call me insane or irrational or having no football knowledge all you want. He ain't (I guess we can change tenses to wasn't now that he isn't employed in that profession anymore) very good.

Quote from: Sultan of Slap O' Fivin' on May 05, 2017, 11:25:06 AM

I don't think this has been updated for the past couple years but...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZWrf6kgs7Q

As a Bears fan, the only thing more depressing than that video is this list:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/chi/career-receiving.htm

The Cleveland Browns have six players ahead of the Bears first.
The Jacksonville Jaguars, IN EXISTENCE SINCE 1995 MIND YOU, have two.

Quote from: wadesworld on May 05, 2017, 01:00:15 PM
Out of a job at 34. 1 Playoff win in his life. Call me insane or irrational or having no football knowledge all you want. He ain't (I guess we can change tenses to wasn't now that he isn't employed in that profession anymore) very good.

I don't have to call you any of those things. You prove it yourself just about every time you post about Cutler.

Lynn Dickey had 1 playoff win yet he's somehow in the Packers HOF. Was he not very good?

Tony Romo only had 2 playoffs wins. Was he not very good?

Carson Palmer has 1. Is he not very good?

Andy Dalton and Matthew Stafford have 0. Are they not very good?

Packer fan here.

I loved Jay Cutler when he was a Bronco.  He was a good QB with a great arm and decent accuracy.  Was he sort of full of himself?  Sure, but that is fine... he was backing it up.  When he came to Chicago a ton of expectations were put on his shoulders.  He seemed ready for the challenge.  But in all honesty, Jay was never given a fair deal in Chicago.  He was surrounded by awful teams and his coaching staff was constantly changing.  He walked into a dumpster fire of an organization and nothing changed for the positive the entire time he was there.  Did he have some good WRs to throw it to?  Sure, but the OL couldn't stop anything.  The game was rigged against Jay from the start.  Did he do himself any favors with his attitude?  Absolutely not, but it was likely the first time in his life that he wasn't winning almost every game and he did not handle it well.

Jay was definitely an above average QB that was a victim of circumstance.

Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 05, 2017, 01:40:43 PM
Packer fan here.

I loved Jay Cutler when he was a Bronco.  He was a good QB with a great arm and decent accuracy.  Was he sort of full of himself?  Sure, but that is fine... he was backing it up.  When he came to Chicago a ton of expectations were put on his shoulders.  He seemed ready for the challenge.  But in all honesty, Jay was never given a fair deal in Chicago.  He was surrounded by awful teams and his coaching staff was constantly changing.  He walked into a dumpster fire of an organization and nothing changed for the positive the entire time he was there.  Did he have some good WRs to throw it to?  Sure, but the OL couldn't stop anything.  The game was rigged against Jay from the start.  Did he do himself any favors with his attitude?  Absolutely not, but it was likely the first time in his life that he wasn't winning almost every game and he did not handle it well.

Jay was definitely an above average QB that was a victim of circumstance.

It doesn't help that he played in systems that either A.) Hated tight ends, so they traded their All-Pro one or B.) Hated headstrong WRs, so they traded their All-Pro one.

I 100% believe that Jay Cutler was the best QB to suit up for the Chicago Bears since Jim McMahon.

Unfortunately, that's not saying much.

Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 05, 2017, 01:40:43 PM
Packer fan here.

I loved Jay Cutler when he was a Bronco.  He was a good QB with a great arm and decent accuracy.  Was he sort of full of himself?  Sure, but that is fine... he was backing it up.  When he came to Chicago a ton of expectations were put on his shoulders.  He seemed ready for the challenge.  But in all honesty, Jay was never given a fair deal in Chicago.  He was surrounded by awful teams and his coaching staff was constantly changing.  He walked into a dumpster fire of an organization and nothing changed for the positive the entire time he was there.  Did he have some good WRs to throw it to?  Sure, but the OL couldn't stop anything.  The game was rigged against Jay from the start.  Did he do himself any favors with his attitude?  Absolutely not, but it was likely the first time in his life that he wasn't winning almost every game and he did not handle it well.

Jay was definitely an above average QB that was a victim of circumstance.

This post is very well put.

Just for a "circumstances" comparison...

Jay Cutler and Joe Flacco have put up incredibly similar numbers in their careers.

Flacco: 138 GS, 61.5% comp, 236.5 yd/gm, 182 TD, 117 INT, 84.5 QB Rat

Cutler: 139 GS, 61.9% comp, 233.6 yd/gm, 208 TD, 146 INT, 85.7 QB Rat

However, Flacco is 83-55 as a starter, compared to Cutler's 68-71. Flacco has made the playoffs 6 times and won a SB. Cutler made the playoffs once.

Moral of the story: There are a lot of outside factors at play when looking at a QB's career.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 05, 2017, 02:43:47 PM
This post is very well put.

Just for a "circumstances" comparison...

Jay Cutler and Joe Flacco have put up incredibly similar numbers in their careers.

Flacco: 138 GS, 61.5% comp, 236.5 yd/gm, 182 TD, 117 INT, 84.5 QB Rat

Cutler: 139 GS, 61.9% comp, 233.6 yd/gm, 208 TD, 146 INT, 85.7 QB Rat

However, Flacco is 83-55 as a starter, compared to Cutler's 68-71. Flacco has made the playoffs 6 times and won a SB. Cutler made the playoffs once.

Moral of the story: There are a lot of outside factors at play when looking at a QB's career.

Also, Joe Flacco is actually a mediocre QB.  When he got that contract I laughed... but then I cried because I knew Rodgers was going to get more.

Cutler is an above average quarterback that played for a terrible organization that consistently failed to build a team.

The fact that wades is calling out 'one playoff win' as a negative, in the modern NFL, tells you there isn't much left on the bone.

For the record, Packers fan that was glad Angelo, Emery and to a lesser known extent Pace have all sucked at rebuilding a charter franchise.

Aaron Rodgers has only won a single super bowl,...

Quote from: PTM on May 05, 2017, 09:48:29 PM
Cutler is an above average quarterback that played for a terrible organization that consistently failed to build a team.

The fact that wades is calling out 'one playoff win' as a negative, in the modern NFL, tells you there isn't much left on the bone.

For the record, Packers fan that was glad Angelo, Emery and to a lesser known extent Pace have all sucked at rebuilding a charter franchise.

Aaron Rodgers has only won a single super bowl,...

Yup. So in a single season Aaron Rodgers had 4x the amount of Playoff wins as Jay Cutler had in his career.

The guy had almost as many turnovers as he had touchdowns for his CAREER! Some people consider that an above average quarterback. The same 34 year old who was told by 32 football teams, "Thanks, but we have our starting quarterback." A guy who couldn't get $14M from his own team because they wanted Mike Glennon over him. Yeah. That guy. Above average. At least I get a good chuckle.

Quote from: wadesworld on May 05, 2017, 10:01:02 PM
Yup. So in a single season Aaron Rodgers had 4x the amount of Playoff wins as Jay Cutler had in his career.

The guy had almost as many turnovers as he had touchdowns for his CAREER! Some people consider that an above average quarterback. The same 34 year old who was told by 32 football teams, "Thanks, but we have our starting quarterback." A guy who couldn't get $14M from his own team because they wanted Mike Glennon over him. Yeah. That guy. Above average. At least I get a good chuckle.

C'mon, Wades. it's the coach's fault.


All of them ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quote from: wadesworld on May 05, 2017, 10:01:02 PM
Yup. So in a single season Aaron Rodgers had 4x the amount of Playoff wins as Jay Cutler had in his career.

The guy had almost as many turnovers as he had touchdowns for his CAREER! Some people consider that an above average quarterback. The same 34 year old who was told by 32 football teams, "Thanks, but we have our starting quarterback." A guy who couldn't get $14M from his own team because they wanted Mike Glennon over him. Yeah. That guy. Above average. At least I get a good chuckle.

As a Packer fan, I am absolutely upset that we allow Mike McCarthy to coach a team.

Back to back HOF QBs and two tap dancing super bowl wins?

AWFUL.

I've said it before on here, in my time at Soldier Field (and on this board), there hasn't been a more knowledgeable and respectful fan base than Packer fans. I know it gets heated sometimes, but I enjoy talking football here because there's (usually) good back/forth, and a lot of good discussion (including non Bears/Packer fans).

Quote from: PTM on May 05, 2017, 09:48:29 PM
Cutler is an above average quarterback that played for a terrible organization that consistently failed to build a team.

The fact that wades is calling out 'one playoff win' as a negative, in the modern NFL, tells you there isn't much left on the bone.

For the record, Packers fan that was glad Angelo, Emery and to a lesser known extent Pace have all sucked at rebuilding a charter franchise.

Aaron Rodgers has only won a single super bowl,...

Above average? Yikes. The fact that no team in a quarterback hungry league was willing to sign him tells you all you need to know.  Look at some of the crappy quarterbacks playing in the league, gms are basically saying they are all better options than cutler.

Don't listen to bear or packer fans, listen to what everyone else thinks of the guy and you have your answer.

Quote from: hairy worthen on May 06, 2017, 07:01:48 AM
Above average? Yikes. The fact that no team in a quarterback hungry league was willing to sign him tells you all you need to know.

I think he had teams willing to sign him...just not at his asking price.

Quote from: Sultan of Slap O' Fivin' on May 06, 2017, 08:52:22 AM

I think he had teams willing to sign him...just not at his asking price.

Kind of my point, but do we know all those details?

Quote from: wadesworld on May 05, 2017, 11:01:15 AM
I'm just a meatball Packer fan with my green and gold shades on.

Agreed!!

:D

Cutler was a solid QB that had to deal with a lot of factors that hindered him. Lack of skill players around him for a lot of his tenure, multiple offensive coordinators, etc. Thats not an excuse but to say it didn't have an impact is silly.

Now he was not the type of player that was going to lift a team on his own and carry it to the playoffs.  And the production and decision making didn't always match the talent, arm strength, mobility, and athleticism. He gets a bad rap for his "attitude" but personally I think that's overblown.  I believe a team could win with Cutler consistently if the team as a whole was good. Unfortunately, that was not the case most of his years in Chicago.

In my opinion, he doesn't get enough credit for his toughness. He missed games but he also took many a beating and kept going. I respect that.

And I believe if he was still playing he'd be a top 20 QB. It's hard for me to say one of the best 20 QBs in the world stinks.

Quote from: MUDish on May 05, 2017, 09:31:19 AM
By contrast, I think Cutler would be a terrible studio guy. I don't think he'll be into fluff, and with the amount of coaches he's worked with, he'll have good perspective. I'll definitely be interested to hear him.

His interview on Waddle and Silvy was great this week.  I think he's gonna do a great job and I think his dry humor could play really well in the booth.

He mentioned his wife was gone so he had the kids for the week.  They asked "how are the kids"...his response "alive".

They also asked if he filed retirement papers, and he said "not sure what that even means. do you get a medal or a prize or something?"  Which i found funny.  But people immediately jumped to him being an ass who doesn't respect the game  ::)

Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on May 06, 2017, 02:35:25 PM

Agreed!!

:D

Says the only guy on the board, Packers fan, Bears fan, or otherwise, who thinks the Bears needed to trade away 4 draft picks to move up 1 spot to draft a guy who started 1 year at a bad football program at a position they paid $14M to a free agent this same offseason for, despite even a guy that worked in the Bears FO and still has a number of inside contacts saying it was a horrible and unnecessary move.

Quote from: wadesworld on May 06, 2017, 03:07:39 PM
Says the only guy on the board, Packers fan, Bears fan, or otherwise, who thinks the Bears needed to trade away 4 draft picks to move up 1 spot to draft a guy who started 1 year at a bad football program at a position they paid $14M to a free agent this same offseason for, despite even a guy that worked in the Bears FO and still has a number of inside contacts saying it was a horrible and unnecessary move.

There are at least two on this board who don't think it was as big a deal as people are making it out to be.  If he turns out to be the QB the Bears have needed, I think the trade was fine.

Quote from: wadesworld on May 06, 2017, 03:07:39 PM
Says the only guy on the board, Packers fan, Bears fan, or otherwise, who thinks the Bears needed to trade away 4 draft picks to move up 1 spot to draft a guy who started 1 year at a bad football program at a position they paid $14M to a free agent this same offseason for, despite even a guy that worked in the Bears FO and still has a number of inside contacts saying it was a horrible and unnecessary move.

Relax, Francis.

Quote from: wadesworld on May 06, 2017, 03:07:39 PM
Says the only guy on the board, Packers fan, Bears fan, or otherwise, who thinks the Bears needed to trade away 4 draft picks to move up 1 spot to draft a guy who started 1 year at a bad football program at a position they paid $14M to a free agent this same offseason for, despite even a guy that worked in the Bears FO and still has a number of inside contacts saying it was a horrible and unnecessary move.

And by the way, I never said it was a great trade or even a good trade.  My initial reaction was shock and disgust but I've since softened on it. 

Yes, I'm clearly in the minority on that subject as well. And that's fine. But I'm not the only person that believes the *possibility* existed.

My issue is when people speak with absolute certainty when I don't think it's possible for them to have absolute certainty, even if it's highly likely they are correct.