jason

I think I saw/read/heard somewhere that Harvey Unga was going to something like this. And I seem to recall that he was one of the key names attending since he had been on roster(s?) before. If Harvey Unga is the prime rib, the rest are probably tainted.

Abso-freaking-lutely.

I would have to squeegee my computer screen if the Bears got that draft. That would be incredible. Of course, I would prefer an OL pick in the 3rd instead of McCarthy, but itis not a horrible pick.

I like the start, but don't like the third rounder. Rather see the OL there or a FS.

Shit...counting all on the board, I KNOW 150% we would have done better.

One...and I can guarantee that scout had more hits than the Bears did the last ten years. So that would have been a lot of money saved for the franchise as well.

Keep in mind the Bears have been one of the worst drafting teams in the NFL the past ten years or so. We have all seen the stats and links showing how many players on the team were originally drafted and how many weren't. As always, the point is, maybe the posters on this board wouldn't have done great, but it would have been pretty damn hard to have done worse.

Very difficult process to work through. They shouldn't make that process where you offer and then there is an accept/decline. They should make it to where it has a range that the player might accept. BTW - I also dislike any sort of high priced RB pickup. Murray? Hell no. Not while we have Forte. And we still don't know if Carey is good or not, but he showed glimpses. The Bears need to put about 0% into looking at RBs unless a highly rated guy plummets. For instance, I did a mock where TJ Yeldon fell to the 6th - ridiculous - and had to take him as value.

Agreed, but you also have to factor in team need in order to be good. I don't hate the Fuller pick, but the HHCD pick would have been better for us. I'm not sure he gave up a TD this year, and he was solid in run support all year. He was near the top of their team in tackles. By comparison, Fuller exploded on the scene, then relatively disappeared for the majority of the season.

He started ONLY because of injury. That means he wasn't the starter (i.e. nickel). I still do not think he is better than Jennings (didn't he go to a PB?). If Nut comes back, he starts as well. And IDK which cheeseheads you talk to, but my friends who live there, as well as a few others, thought he was great as a rookie for them.

I'm sorry...I just don't want to hire a guy named Jim Bob Cooter. Pretty much for the reasons in this parody pic.

I'd actually like that. I think that LB group would do well, and their athleticism would help overcome learning hurdles along the way. Agreed with this as well. I think Bostic and Jones would be incredible in a 3-4 beside one another. And I think Young would prosper with a little head start. Finally, what the hell else can we do with SMC? He is either going to succeed as a 3-4 OLB, or fail.

Only name out of all of them that I'd like is Mike Iupati. And I don't care what order they are put in, but a line that includes Mike Iupati and Kyle Long is already pretty good. OT: Long/Bushrod OG: Slausson/Iupati C: DLP or Garza (draft Hroniss)

Hopefully the police gave Tucker a ticket on his way out of the parking lot.

Easy answer for me: yes. The Bears didn't need a nickel back. They needed a FS. A year later and they still need one. And I suspect nothing will change after next year because the FS class is weak.

You gotta be kidding. I hate the packers with a passion, but HHCD was a stud for them as a rookie. And the Bears STILL have a glaring hole at FS.

Good catch. That 2009 season makes the data I put there completely wrong. IDK how in the hell I got what I did. I must have had too many windows open, or got one game log breakdown confused for another. 0-7 without Urlacher in 2004. 7-8 without Urlacher in 2009. 7-15 total, 46.6%.

Even better...11-5. Granted it was 10-5 without Brady, but I'd say that's pretty good with Matt Cassell. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/2008.htm

I'm one you won't convince. I believe the two are linked. There are plenty of teams who rely on their secondary to create coverage sacks just as often as they do from regular pressure. Further, when you have lock down corners, and rangy safeties who take great angles, it changes the abilities of the LBs to blitz and/or drop into coverage. Thought of another way...who were the world-beaters the Bears had at DE when Urlacher was displaying other-worldly range at MLB, and Mike Brown was taking great angles, and Peanut was locking down opposing #1 WRs? Look, I liked Ogun and Alex Brown, but they didn't make the secondary good. It was the other way around.

I have said the announcers were wrong on this many times. The Megatron play was still the catch. He had his back towards the end line, and his momentum was moving that way. He was still bracing for the fall after contact when the ball came out. The catch this weekend is different in that it was up to the officials, and replay, to determine when a football move began or didn't. I think it did since he got contacted, and at least made one, if not more, steps afterwards, and THEN lunged for the goal line. The lunge says to me, "completed the process, full control, making a football move."

Yeah, except for the most part, everyone considers Belichek one of the best coaches in the NFL, an innovative thinker, a master rule-bender, a great motivator, and a guarantee for the HOF when he decides to retire. Lovie? Not so much. The point you were trying to make, which is valid to some degree, would work better if you weren't comparing Lovie to one of the best of the past 10-15 years. The source was http://www.pro-football-reference.com/. I went to the years where Urlacher didn't have 16 games played, looked at the dates of the games he didn't play, then looked at the W/L record for those games.

What was Lovie's record without Urlacher? I'll save you the work. Purely from the game logs where Urlacher got a DNP, Lovie was 2-10 without a HOFer at MLB. He was 71-55 (56.3%) with Urlacher and 2-10 (16.6%) without Urlacher. It's quite probable that Lovie would have done the same, or worse, without Urlacher the past two years. Given his disdain for high scoring teams (i.e. pretty much the only way the Bears won last year), it's statistically probable - given that the average score on wins last year was 32PPG, something Lovie never did - that Lovie would have lost more games than Trestman.

Strong defense + running Lovie. Strong defense (with a future HOFer AT LB) + ignoring OL + sitting on a TD lead = Lovie Lovie got off of a sinking ship at the right time, and not by his choice. He would have made nearly no difference the past two years. Just look at TB to see what happens when he didn't have supreme talent on defense. Also, his "winning" record in Chicago is pretty damn close to .500, and boosted by a couple of meaningless end of season wins that ultimately hurt the team in the long run. Five winning seasons, three losing, and one even should have been worse if he were smart, and at the end of the day his overall record was .563. Stellar, that is.

Amen. Lovie is who he is. I wouldn't be shocked if he traded out of the first pick, and a stud QB, to get defensive players, a mid-Round QB, and late round offensive linemen. And even if he stayd still at 1, and drafts a QB, his system will neuter that guy because he is fond of running clock once he gets a TD lead.

Not a terrible start, but I'm not a big fan of Dupree.