Alaskan Grizzly

Agreed. Not sure what has gotten into you but theoretically we shouldn't be hoping to be drafting high enough next year for one of those other candidates you mention. Matt Shaub is not the solution. Thy have Barkley, Hoyer and Shaw already on the books and are familiar with the O already. See if one of them could do it and still draft Watson if not at three,trade down in first and still get him.

This article draws upon your concern and I agree with it... although not so much about the OTs. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/rosen...101-column.html Some other points to consider. Garrapolo only played two games this year (before getting hurt). The injury by itself could prove concerning, especially if you think what NE wants for the trade; a 1st and 4th. But a point I saw elsewhere was that Barkley also played two games very well before running into issues. And he didn't even get hurt. For what it's worth, Brisset played admirably in the one (?) game he was in before he too got hurt. I think the question that bears repeating; why would Belichick want to trade Brady's potential back up is he's so good? How much longer can Brady play the way he's been going? Is a Brisset the answer for them or a potential college prospect that we should be considering?

Yes...this!!!p

Sorry to have answered you twice but thought I'd inject this thought. Remember that I don't place a lot of faith in the so called 'draft experts'. On Dak Prescott: https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbssports.co.../?client=safari And an article about Vince Young. Most of which is described by Mike Mayock (of who I am generally not a fan). To redeem my lack of faith in him, Mayock also comments about Cutler. http://staugustine.com/stories/042906/spor...ml#.WHctMYHpqEc

I'm fairly sold on Watson and would have to go with option B. Having the cap space as you mentioned would allow the Bears in buying some pretty impressive FAs. That could possibly include Campbell and perhaps even a player like Berry. With placeholders like Hoyer, Barkley and/or Shaw you'd have a pretty good base of QB talent to work from and get Watson up to speed.

Disagree (but I hope you're right). In that if he does turn or to be the 3rd best player in the draft then the chances of the Bears getting him improve. I say BPA because if indeed he is still available at #3 he is the 'best player available' for the Bears. Not knowing really what Cleveland and Jacksonville need I can only assume Watson will be at least in the top 5. There will be players more better (not a phrase I know) that will grade out higher but again, considering what the Bears need, Watson will be the best BPA at 3. Assuming he's still there. Of course this is all my simple and non-distinguished opinion.

Agreed. I see the discussion for BPA and totally understand it. But I almost have to wonder if Watson isn't considered BPA even at 3rd overall? If you consider the overall need of our team along with if you consider the intangibles of leadership and overall intelligence (graduating in 2 1/2 years) you just about have to grade that into the equation. The guy performed on the largest stage of college football two years in a row with almost identical stats. And he did it against the vaunted Alabama (NFL production level) defense. This is pretty noteworthy in my book. The one little itty bitty thing that bothers me is that he could be considered a 'project' because he may not be NFL QB ready. He played in a system (I call it Chip Kelly offense) where the QB doesn't seem to get to make a lot of the play calls. Instead the calls come in from the sideline (in the form of gyrations and huge playing cards). The QB doesn't get a lot of opportunity to use what they've seen in the field to weigh in on the play. The especially effects their ability to call audibles if needed. I think being able to identify when and why to do an audible (at the right time) is paramount to an NFL QB. Could he learn this? Absolutely. It may just take some time.

In another forum it sounds like he wasn't too well liked (by the fans) in either NyG or Phil. But if you consider him as potentially a depth player, then it makes sense. Especially if Wilson, Royal AND AJ are gone. What does a 'futures' contract mean anyhow? Is it like being an RFA without money?

He will be this years Dak Prescott Jason. Damnit! I'll keep my fingers crossed.

I don't know bout no philosophy but whatever they do they need to draft Watson. NOW!!!

Agreed (on the 3rd overall part). I think the article highlighted that owner Irsay asked for input from the football minds on team (at the time including Polian) about their prospective pick to replace Manning. Polian suggested both RGIII and Luck with a lean towards Luck. Polian was gone later that year before the draft.

Are you questioning Polians opinion on QB evaluation? If you are then; "I find you lack of faith in Polian disturbing." In using your article and Polians history; if he thinks McCarron is better then Garappolo I'd be more apt to listen to that . So far he's been right about Manning (versus Leaf) and Luck (versus RGIII). And if I misunderstood your post, then never mind.

Yeah that's the guy. My perspective was limited due to only being able to see part of the game. From what I saw though I was impressed with the youngsters performance. His overall stats this year were in line with some of those going up for the draft this year. Given he's a sophomore I could see him getting better with more time. I wasn't able to finish hearing what Polian had to say about McCarron and would be even more intrigued by him if Polian thinks he was worthy for trade consideration.

This morning heard Bill Polian talking about potential FA QB's this next year. He seemed to echo many here that thought this year's QB draft class is weak and even went a little farther to say that some of the candidates making themselves eligible (Trubisky being one of them) shouldn't. Anyhow, some of the names he threw out that could be FA's from other teams were Glennon, Garrapollo and AJ McCarron (currently of the Bengals). I was actually thinking about him the other day but wonder really would he be even worth considering? The article below speculates that McCarron would be better suited with the Browns but have to ask; would he be worth taking a look at? http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000076...offseason-trade And as an extra consideration, next year Penn State QB Trace McSorley will be eligible. Saw some of his performance in the Rose Bowl and was amazed at his accurateness especially long downfield.

Have to think Amos is a much better SS. He's not really effective as a coverage safety. The poor and inconsistent play of HJQ (and others) has exposed his (Amos) weakness. I'd still like to see Amos stay paired with a decent FS. I may have to agree with Chile in that maybe we should consider keeping Barkley around as a back up. Guess we'll have to leave it up to the competition in camp to see how things shake out. And thanks Chile in the new year greeting. Here's to saying goodbye to 2016 and looking forward to better 2017.

Yeah, my man crush for Barkley may have come to an end. He's just gotten pure sloppy these last few weeks. Of the QBs on the roster I can see Hoyer for sure returning next year. He doesn't make mistakes but can't score. Need to fix that. Still would like to see what Shaw has to offer. Was Howard up chucking on the sidelines? And Fox came in ill prepared today.

Barring the dreaded Sophomore slump phenomena, I think we all agree that Howard will be the starter at RB next year. (Of course we also all thought Langford would be this time last year). Anyhow, that being the case, if he does in fact have a lingering injury there is no reason to play him regardless of a rookie record. Why aggravate any potential injury now if you can avoid it? Playing him minimally as you suggest may work out, but if he ends up getting injured, regardless of pre-existence or not, it'll be a bad choice. I'll leave it to the coaches and Howard to decide on what's best. As far as the rest of the 'starters' go, most of them are already on IR; Long, Miller, Trevathan to name a few, so they don't know what they have and almost have to play them.

Wasn't there a mention of some leg injury (although slight) a few weeks back? Perhaps they're trying to be a bit more conservative. I also could of swore he left last weeks game prematurely. Concussion protocol(?) but still managed to play it out .

Yeah. Was just reading up on him and forgot that he interviewed for the Miami HC job in 2011 but instead re-signed with Chicago. Then lost out to Trestman the following year. Talk about screwed.

This. ?

Finally, something we can disagree on. The fact remains; the Bears last winning season (10-6) was while Lovie was HC. Slice and dice it all you want. Until we return to the playoffs and/or return to the Super Bowl; he will be the last coach to have done any of that.

I hate to say it but I like. Although beyond the first two names I have to say I have no idea who any of these guys are. I'm intrigued by the safety named 'Budda'. Or should that be 'Bubba'? Either way, I like the uniqueness. If he were Budda; I'd hope to call him the new 'minister of pain'.

Ha. Yeah I'd like to see him try and pull an 'Eli' and say he won't play for a certain place. That would be a punk thing to do. But I think he's more saying he'd prefer not play in cold climates. Can't says as I blame him. Want to say Hester said that once too and he managed. Hell, they said this year was the first time Leonard Floyd had seen or played in snow. Being a cold weather resident sucks. But then if I were making millions to play football; I'd somehow figure out how to cope.

Are they in a position to want to get rid of him? Do they have anothe QB in the wings? Your proposal has ghosts of Cutler in it. Is Cousins that high a commodity?

One concern I have with Howard is his body frame. He's similar to Eddie Lacey in frame style and would hope he doesn't turn into a loaf like Lacey has.