jason

Let's say the Bears end up where they are at or slightly better in the draft. With all the clamor and hype for QBs this year, is there a player good enough for the Bears to stay where they are at? Convince me, and likely everyone else, why the Bears should stay where they are at. Because I don't see it. This is a 100% trade back kind of draft.

Did y'all see this last night?! I knew that kid was special. I wish the Bears would have picked him as a security blanket for Trubisky, and as an explosive/fearless kick returner.

No way in hell Glennon should be around. He's due $12.5M, and counts on the cap for $4.5M. He's gone. Glad you're finally coming around to the realization that OL is first round worthy.

So let's say we're sold on Trubisky. I'm not completely 100%, but I see potential. Nonetheless, this class is LOADED. At what point do you consider drafting a guy if he slips? I've seen mocks where guys like Josh Allen slips to the third, and Baker Mayfield slips to the fourth, which would be unbelievable to me. I'd say the third or fourth round is when the Bears should start considering the QB position. Regardless of depth, the QB position needs to be considered every year until a stud backup is acquired.

I don't like the fact that he came back to play, and is now essentially quitting on his team for the rest of the season. It's selfish and shows a lack of passion for football, IMO. Not only that, but enough with drafting OL with injury history (e.g. Carimi, Williams). I'd rather see the Bears trade back and get McGlinchey. And given 6 QBs are drafted in the 1st round, the trade back should be ripe for the picking.

Assuming Connor Williams and McGlinchey are nearly as good as promised, that draft would put the Bears in the playoffs in 2019 for sure, and 2018 a solid maybe. Great draft overall. Williams - Sitton - Whitehair - Long - McGlinchey would be the best OL in the NFL. Parris would be a great deep threat the Bears need. Tate would be a starter by the end of the 2018 (barring FAs). Harrison is a difference maker at SS. And last but not least, Carlson would be a great pick for us, even if a bit early

Bingo. Same for Lovie. It's understandable guys want to keep "their coach" around, but if that coach doesn't produce to expectations, then management has a decision to make. Players will say, "Oh, it's not the coach; it's us!" So, as management, I'd say, "If you wanted to keep him around longer, you should have produced."

Bingo. This is something that has eluded the Bears and most fans for years and years.

I agree in general. OT, WR, OT, WR, Edge, CB. The simple fact is, the Bears are still several pieces away. Given that Pace has staked his job on Trubisky, I know what I would do if I were him. I'd virtually ignore defense and tell Fox and Fangio to coach'em up. One note: A first round OT could work, regardless of Leno. Leno can sit the bench for all I care.

I wasn't even trying to be right. The entire debate is based on a hypothetical that won't happen, so it can't be proven or disproven. But, like Moneyball, could yield results if the tight asses thought outside the box every once in a while. Last but not least, winning a World Series didn't happen for moneyball, but success was achieved and the game changed forever more. I'd settle for those two things and my beloved Bears. It's better than what we have experienced for quite some time.

I thought the final jab about Eason, who went out of the game after going 0fer and got yanked after a quarter, was obvious enough for it to be sarcasm. The fact that it wasn't only proves how stupid PFF's ratings are.

I'm not as sold on Amos.

No. LOL. I just made it up like PFF makes up their grades. Funny though, right?

PFF: "Yeah, I know they wont 46-10, but it really wasn't that dominating. Dent graded out as a 71, Richardson only got an 80, and the leader of the defense, Mike Singletary rated lower than anyone else in the game. Including Eason."

Only one of those guys would play corner.

Where did I contradict myself? The mere possibility is the only thing I've been debating the entire time. A STC could (not would) get a promotion (debatable if it's a promotion) to become an OC. Furthermore, he could do as well or better than the burning feces the Bears have had running offenses. It's unlikely because of the establishment of front offices believing in a rigid, homogeneous pool of candidates. Like I said elsewhere, Money Ball is a perfect example of when thinking outside the box can produce amazing results. This could be a situation like that, but won't, because the people in charge are the same guys who continually hire retreads who got fired unceremoniously from the previous two or three jobs where they were considered an expert. For this franchise, like I've said before, it's probably not the best move, because Trubisky is the most important player the Bears have picked in perhaps a decade or more.

Are we already in mock draft territory? I think we are. Here's my first fanspeak mock. 10: R1P10 EDGE ARDEN KEY LSU 42: R2P10 WR CALVIN RIDLEY ALABAMA 112: R4P10 OT JAMARCO JONES OHIO STATE 114: R4P12 CB ADONIS ALEXANDER VIRGINIA TECH 148: R5P10 CB JAMAL PETERS MISSISSIPPI STATE 189: R6P10 G BRADEN SMITH AUBURN I think we'll draft higher than 10, but it's a good place to start. And if it happens like this, I'll be floored. Arden Key is probably the best possible 3-4 OLB available, and I think Ridley is the best WR in the nation. That would be incredible. Following that up with a solid OT is great. Adonis Alexander could easily play safety since that's where he started, so it lists him opposite of where he'd play. The other two are high upside guys. Peters is a big CB, and Smith should not be available that late. BTW - I'm in the trade down camp again. The Bears should be able to move back several positions with all the QB frenzy to be expected.

That looks horrible in my opinion.

That's almost precisely my point. You can't prove a negative. Neither list provided shows how a ST coach can't be an OC. Both just show the current belief among NFL people is that offensive guys stay in their lane, sometimes go up to HC, and sometimes come back.

Again. You're probably right in terms of whether or not it would happen. It probably never will. But that's only because of the static thinking of these guys who year after year profess themselves to be so amazing and irreplaceable, but year after year only a handful are great at the job. It might not be a bad idea to run an experiment like Toub-to-OC. He'd probably do better than most. That list only proves the static thinking among the coaching ranks and front office types. It doesn't prove Toub would be bad as an OC. The Bears aren't likely to do it, but Trestman was supposed to be magical with QBs, and that didn't pan out. It would definitely be a risky bet, and Trubisky's development as a QB would be the ante.

What he's saying is, the list you linked to is only: 1. Proof that the current OCs are from offensive backgrounds. 2. Full of guys who have sucked as OCs. A few have not. Nowhere on the list does it demonstrate or prove that a ST coach couldn't successfully transition into an OC position.

I merely suggest that if you attempt three-pointers for two decades and continuously shoot bricks with a regulation basketball, it wouldn't be worse to shoot with a football.

It's an interesting thought, and a pretty compelling list, but there is one problem. Only a handful of those guys are considered to be top-notch at their job. Much like Moneyball had to be force-fed in order for old-timers to accept it, thinking outside the box is something that would be tough to swallow for guys who have been around for a long time. But times have changed over the past decade or so, and younger, more innovative minds have looked at the game in different ways. And compounded with the relative lack of success in Chicago on the offensive side of the ball, I could see the McCaskey family being persuaded by someone with a unique set of eyes and approach. Toub is not an inexperienced coach, and regardless of the ST excellence and lack of offensive exposure, there is no way he is completely ignorant of any portion of football. Hell, he played OL in college. But you're right on one thing: I couldn't see any franchise risking the development of a young blue-chipper on a guy who has never coached offense. The only way he'd be hired as OC would be with a QB coach whose experience could hamstring Toub as an OC.

I side with Alaska on this. Would Toub be the perfect candidate as OC? No. Would he be much worse than the retards running Chicago offenses for the past two decades? Unlikely. And those guys were supposed to be offensive gurus. Hell, I literally think anyone on this board could be better than Shoop was.

I'm sort of in the middle on this argument. The Bears have hired more than a few "smart" guys who supposedly knew their stuff on offense. Shoop was supposedly an offensive mind. It turned out he was more of a brain-damaged mind. Crowton was an offensive super-genius, but was only good at a single thing. When the D figured it out, his novelty wore off. Trestman was a highly regarded offensive guy for years and year, but like Crowton he was only good for one year, and couldn't lead a flock of sheep. So why not go unconventional? Could it be much worse than the shit show Chicago has seen over the last two decades? At the very least we know Toub is a proven commodity on the NFL level. He is considered one of the top couple ST minds, and has shown it's not just Hester. He's been successful for nearly 15 years. To be quite honest, if he were hired when he interviewed post-Lovie, the Bears would probably be in a better position right now than they were as a result of Trestman.