jason

I'm a numbers guy. Over the course of a decade plus on this board, there was an analysis I can never find that proves higher picks equal better players by percentage. It was exhaustive and done by position. Sure, you can find Brady late, but the odds are not as good. That's kind of my entire point. In order to have those studs, the odds are extremely better if the pick is higher. I'd agree with you if the Bears had a winning culture, but they don't. If we were on the Patriots board I'd be singing the same song you are. But these are the Bears, and constantly getting a pick in the middle of the round is not as good as unless your GM/HC/Front Office has a great track record of drafting studs, which the Bears obviously don't. For the record, I understand fighting for a playoff spot. I can't blame the team for doing that, obviously. I just hate the meaningless wins. If there is no chance at the playoffs, put in the JV and see what you have on the roster.

Bingo.

Even if they win out, they're 9-7, a likely first round exit, and a mediocre draft pick. This is a discussion that goes back on this board to the Lovie years. Some say winning breeds the confidence to continue winning. Well, sometimes that's true, but with this team it doesn't hold the pattern. How many years can that argument be made? Winning those meaningless, end of year games don't help the team build for the future. It just provides a temporary confidence, and a middle-of-the-round pick that doesn't help as much when team-building if it's the only one you have. The only time the odds are in a team's favor with a mid-teen pick are when a trade down happens (what should have happened instead of picking Trubisky).

Preach. I'm sick of the Bears having less picks than they should have because Pace thinks he's the smartest guy in the NFL.

HA! Yes, he died in my scenario. As others have mentioned. I forgot all about him because he's on IR. He actually seemed to be doing OK before injury. No wonder since he's the only OL pick in the last four years selected before the fifth round. Philosophy of my scenario remains the same, and I definitely disagree with the notion that any of the other random names have played well enough to ignore drafting better players in higher rounds. To me Mustipher is like a midget (normal Bears OL play) saying he'd love to be 4'11" (Mustipher). When you're used to seeing midgets, 4'11" is pretty tall. Ignoring OL is the primary reason why the Bears have been mediocre at best for 2+ decades. I'd like to see them make it the #1 priority, and watch the skill players benefit as a result, before I die.

1. Fire Pace and Nagy. Bring in someone old-school who values team-building via the trenches, who likes play-action passes, who loathes RPOs, and who wants perfect simplicity over imperfect, 30-page playbooks full of inconsistent fancy shit. 2. Move Whitehair back to Center where he belongs. 3. Draft OL-heavy (Serious about the picks): Round 1: For the love of God, trade down and accumulate picks. Round 2: Alex Leatherwood, OT, Alabama Round 2: Deonte Brown, G, Alabama Round 3: Warren Jackson, WR, Colorado State - Randy Moss vibes Round 4: Mac Jones, QB, Alabama Round 4: BPA D Round 5: OG (I wouldn't mind Tommy Kraemer, G, Notre Dame) Round 6: BPA D Starting OL (Yes, I'm serious about the picks): LT - Alex Leatherwood LG - Deonte Brown C - Cody Whitehair RG - Whoever wins RT - Germain Ifedi That should be a damn good start to things.

It's been that way for two decades. Only legit OL the Bears have had in the last 20 years was the SB year. But most fans will still call for the Bears to draft a QB, and then another WR, and replace Montgomery. And then question anyone who says the Bears front office is wrong for drafting the skill players without an OL to carry the weight. **shrug**

Hence the disdain for the simpletons running the organization who, year after year, can't see the forest (Deshaun Watson) for the trees (Mitch Trubisky).

Ditto. I wasn’t expecting a WR at all.

Looks like he has to learn 7 of 9. He’s got fade and post, but that looks about it.

Agree. With that many, there will be pressure. They all know the Bears won’t pickup more than one. Whoever handles the pressure the best is likely to do the best, and better suited for gameday.

You’re right about the trade value, but trade volume is important as well. The Bears lost a pick. They already had limited picks. Since none of the picks are guaranteed, especially the later the round, it makes sense to have as many bullets in the gun as possible.

And you’re a dipshit crybaby who runs to moderators when things don’t go your way. I could tell you the sun is hot and you’d find issue because 10 years ago I removed an obviously political post that was against the rules. (Ironic: I agreed with the politics of it.) The facts are that Howard didn’t fit perfectly, but he was a very good RB. The front office created a hole where there previously wasn’t one. Which forced their own hands into drafting a RB, one that Pace obviously loved so much he basically promised Montgomery it was going to happen beforehand.

I’m barely over an hour from Nashville and didn’t even want to go or watch. I watched Avengers Endgame instead. He’s a shifty player and he will make some great runs, but it won’t be enough to make up for how it all went down.

I hate it. It’s a bad move. And I don’t care what anyone says. The Bears had a similar RB, who was proven, but dumped him for pennies on the dollar. And probably because the management already knew who they wanted. So they purposely made a hole where there wasn’t one, and then filled it...maybe. That’s like having a sturdy wooden boat and punching a hole in it, watching water pour in, all just because you wanted to prove the patch kit you liked could do a better job. AND they had to trade up to get him. This front office becomes enamored with specific players and gets nervous, which causes the trading up. It occurs far too much.

I’m saying we know what those dudes are. It’s a weak spot. If a 3-4DE is there with good value, it should be getting more focus than positions like OLB and TE, where starters are much better.

The comparisons don’t work. Goldman is a different position with different responsibility, and RRH is also subpar. Why I feel comfortable saying this is the fact that neither RRH nor Nichols ever really stepped up and/or surprised last year. At best they were the DE equivalent of QB game managers.

Just say no to miles sanders. First, he will cost too much. Second, he’s from Penn State. That lesson has been learned already.

If Nichols is inked in as the starter, that’s a problem. He is definitely below average. Meanwhile, everyone seems to think OLB is a high priority, despite having the best one in maybe the entire NFL, and a first rounder with massive potential on the other side. That just doesn’t make much sense. Put someone better in Nichols’s spot, and everyone benefits.

The question is valid. Opposite of Hicks is a void with minimal production and average promise. I think 3-4DE is more of a need than OLB. Nobody even really knows who the starter is there for 2019. I’d love to see Jerry Tillery slip because of off-field concerns. He could be great in the role.

Why in the world would any coach give Cohen LESS carries than he had last year?

Given the propensity to reach on small school projects, that should scare everyone a good bit.

Fair enough, guys. I’m just not of the belief that the front office would get rid of a very good player if they didn’t feel like they had a guaranteed plan to replace him already established. That leaves the RBs on roster, or something much scarier: a rookie they love already and will unnecessarily reach to get in a draft with minimal picks.

You realize 25 more carries would be less than 2 more carries a game, right? That’s so minimal it’s negligible. It’s absurdly minuscule over the course of the season. Of course he could handle 25 more carries in a season. Will literally less than 2 more carries a game really burn him out? It seems highly improbable to me. The decisiveness is the only valid point.

Tarik Cohen got 99 carries last year to Jordan Howard's 250. The split figures to change a bit since Cohen is incumbent and Howard is gone. So let's call it 125/225. Mike Davis got 112 carries in a 3-way rotation in Seattle last year. There's nearly no doubt at all he can carry more of the load. Additionally, for the coaching staff to dump Howard and pick up Davis, they had to feel pretty comfortable about his fit in the system and his ability to replace Howard for the most part. If there are roughly 225 carries to spread around, then Davis figures to get north of 150 of those carries. I'd guess 175-ish. Which leaves 50 carries or so. That doesn't sound like a big need. Furthermore, it sounds like a great way to spread the love, depending on game situation, to backups like Nall, or Mizelle, or whoever. Say no to drafting a RB this year, unless it's a massive upside pick like Bryce Love in the 5th or something like that.