jason

I don't agree with that line of thought. That's like saying every round the GM doesn't pick a QB is the same as a #3 pick overall in a loaded defensive draft. Sorry, but that's just not reality. Your last comment is right though. It's complete bet-hedging, and it's ballsy. I think it was the wrong move, and so does most of the sports world, but it was definitely ballsy.

I absolutely agree. I meant "poor bastard" in terms of staying behind the OL experiment that didn't get OT help. Otherwise everything is great for him. Chance to start, tons more money.

I think Pace's plan all along was to use Glennon as an expensive smokescreen to get the QB he coveted. Then that smokescreen becomes a sacrificial lamb for one season, which will be enough time to get a few more draft picks and free agents. Pace doesn't care about 2017. Pace is setting up for 2018, and Glennon, that poor bastard, is going to be the scapegoat.

Precisely. But let's say Glennon does turn into a stud. In 2-3 years when he's dominating, and Trubisky has splinters in his rear, we'll be wishing we had a DE, OLB, or S to complement the team that will inevitably be missing a piece or three because there is a #2 overall pick riding the pine.

Pretty much how I feel. I don't think it's about franchise QBs in terms of the way that is thought of. Franchise QBs are guys who can take shit sandwiches and still deliver an edible meal. Most of the other guys are just looked at that way when there is a considerable supporting cast. I still feel Jay Cutler could have been that guy in Chicago if he ever got the support from the team. Instead, the OL was bad the entire time he was in Chicago. You can't win when the QB is on his back, and it's the precise reason why Jay thinks the Bears shouldn't start Trubisky this year.

I'm shocked some of you guys are content with sitting a #2 pick in the entire NFL draft for two straight years. That would suck in my opinion. It's two years that the Bears don't get to play a first round pick. Two years that a first round pick at another position would be racking up stats and getting his legs underneath him.

All valid points. I remember, however, some similar type of points being made in regard to Chris Williams, and his multiple moves along the offensive line. The team ruined Chris Williams, and never gave him a real shot. If the team wants to move Long, they should move him to tackle and figure the rest out. It makes so much sense that it's comical. With Whitehair at Center, and recently drafted Morgan, there is a surplus of interior linemen. Meanwhile, possibly the worst tackle combination in the NFL protects the edges.

That makes so little sense. Move to LT? Sure, Leno wasn't good at all. Move to RT? Sure, Massey wasn't very good either. Both moves would allow flexibility with Grasu and Whitehair.

That's why I phrased it as a what-if. If these anonymous scouts have a track record of killing it, or more specifically killing it with QB evaluation, then their comments hold significantly more value than a guy who rated a bunch of duds highly. I'm an eternal pessimist. It comes with being a Chicago fan. Having said that, I want Trubisky to become a HOFer. I truly do. I want to be proven wrong. But it just hasn't happened that often for the Bears, and when a GM has an entire draft that is questioned by the overwhelming majority of people who get paid to talk about the value of drafts, then it feels like an unnecessarily risky draft. Particularly when there were significant holes on the team and the draft was incredibly deep on the defensive side of the ball.

True regarding the teams with young franchise guys, and seemingly ageless superstars. If it's from any of those very few teams, then it's understandable if they didn't move up. Otherwise, however, they should have going crazy to get the best QB in a decade on their team. Each guy gets a vote, but when you start throwing out phrases like "Best QB prospect in a decade," that should be a serious attention-getting and change minds.

I know we'll never know who those anonymous three scouts are, but it would be interesting to know for a variety of reasons. If they had Trubisky as the best QB in the last 6-8 years, then they should have been beating down their GM's office door to make the move up. They should have offered a Ditka trade. I mean, best QB in nearly a decade is some serious praise. And if they didn't, then they're weak as hell, and don't really believe in their own evaluations. Another reason is whether these guys' evaluations are worth a damn or not. I mean, if they had Trubisky as the #1 guy in nearly a decade, but had Manziel #2, EJ Manual #3, Bridgewater #4, and Jake Locker at #5, then their evaluations are complete garbage.

Funny, I think somewhat in agreement and disagreement with you. I think the D will be top ten, and will shock people. And the running game will dominate, because Glennon is not going to. That combination is mutually beneficial, and would help the team tremendously.

I waited to see what others put, but all along I've thought Whitehair should be given a shot outside at LT. Whitehair, Sitton, Grasu, Long, Massie That's the best possible lineup to me. If it doesn't work as well as the brass hopes, move Whitehair back to C where he likely beats out Grasu, or move him back to G when Sitton gets long in the tooth. Either way, drafting an offensive tackle next year is PARAMOUNT.

Hahahahahaha http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000080...3601-sf79043601

Do you discount what Mongo said? The majority of those teams had very good defenses.

If the Bears' OL did change, which option is preferred?

Yeah, just looking at franchise QBs and Super Bowls won could lead someone to think the Bears lack of a franchise QB is the reason for not winning again, but I'd say it's just a single aspect of nearly 30 straight years of dysfunction. Because, let's be honest, there are plenty other reasons.

That's an interesting analogy. I like it. Given that analogy, where the lottery is winning the super bowl, the key here is how often you get to buy tickets. For a franchise QB, that chance comes around every 5 years at best. So you blow your load one year on the franchise QB, use all 100,000 tickets, and hope. If you miss, then that's 4-5 years of not winning the lottery before you can even buy another ticket. If you find a franchise QB, then you have a free supply of 100,000 tickets every year. For that great D, however, you can load up over and over and over. And you can play every year. If you don't win, you could get to play the next year with 20,000 tickets. The next year with 30,000. And so on. I agree with the concept of your 10,000 vs 100,000 analogy, but you have a better chance of playing in the lotto every year if you do it through D.

The last ten super bowl winning QBs with their TD/INTs: 2016 - Brady (28/2) 2015 - P.Manning (9/17) 2014 - Brady (33/9) 2013 - Wilson (26/9) 2012 - Flacco (22/10) 2011 - E.Manning (29/16) 2010 - Rodgers (28/11) 2009 - Brees (34/11) 2008 - Roethlisberger (17/15) 2007 - E.Manning (23/20) When searching for a "franchise" QB, I think you're trying to find that guy who can put up nearly 4000 yards every year and keep turnovers down to a minimum. It needs to be a guy who outright carries the team for most of the season, in my opinion. A QB that everyone says, "Oh shit, we're playing against..." Out of the QBs above, which were the main reason the team won it all and caused that kind of fear? 2016 - Brady (28/2) 2015 - P.Manning (9/17) - Won despite QB play 2014 - Brady (33/9) 2013 - Wilson (26/9) - Won because of dominating defense 2012 - Flacco (22/10) - Mediocre season, got lucky to make it to the SB, but was clutch in the playoffs. Probably not considered a top level guy by most. 2011 - E.Manning (29/16) - Fluke 9-win SB winner, but he did throw for nearly 5000 yards. 2010 - Rodgers (28/11) - I hate him. They only got there because the Bears played 3 QBs in the NFC Championship game, but Rodgers is a no doubt guy. 2009 - Brees (34/11) - No doubt Brees carried the team. 2008 - Roethlisberger (17/15) - #1 dominating defense, made it in spite of Big Ben 2007 - E.Manning (23/20) - This team was crazy fortunate, had breaks go their way, and won despite Manning's average season. So half the SB winning QBs of the past ten years were significantly responsible in the team winning it all. So the question remains, is a franchise QB really needed? Sure, you can't go anywhere with Moses Moreno and the other 29 guys the Bears had for what seems like forever. But can a consistently decent guy get you there? Absolutely. Which approach is preferred?

I'll throw my projection for Cohen in the ring. 350 ru yds, 1 ru TD, 400 rec yds, 3 rec TDs

I agree with this for the most part. Like I've said, Pace had guts and is definitely shooting for huge upside rather than safe plays. I wouldn't say safe picks always equate to 8-8, however, as those guys can improve like the high-upside guys. If there is a safe, average guy, he could go from a 5 to a 7. A huge upside guy could go from a 5 to a 9. Of course, more of those safe guys are likely to stay in that 5 to 7 range, and more of the other guys have a risk of dropping below average. It's certainly a preference of strategy. Go for a lot of singles or swing for the fences. Singles can produce runs and wins, but they can also be fielded and thrown out. Swinging for the fences produces mostly strikeouts and homeruns. Hit a few homeruns and you start to win games. My intent is not to come off like Rosenbloom, someone I really don't follow. But I do invest a lot more than the average person into watching, reviewing, officiating, and evaluating college football. I don't claim to "know" more than professionals. I do, however, claim to have picked better than the "professionals" running the Bears during most of my lifetime. It would be different if it were someone widely regarded as a great drafter having this class. People would say, "Hey, his track record shows he can find great players." That remains to be seen for Pace, even if the 2016 draft is a nice notch in his belt.

I don't care much about his forty time. But I'm a big fan of his Teen Wolf beard.

I agree, and said as much in one of the original comments. But that's a risk in general terms. All players are risks. Some are less risky than others, however, and if you constantly go the risky route, it lessens the odds of success.

Dude, the majority of the media, many of whom have direct connections to NFL teams, and have similar access to vast amounts of video, think Pace had a bad and/or risky draft. Don't like my take, it's the same as their take. Just google "Bears draft grade" and you'll get a taste. So if they are all wrong, then Pace will come off looking like a genius. But that just doesn't happen very often. And that should cause skepticism. I can't remember any draft in recent history where everyone was saying it was a bad draft for a team and then a few years later everyone said, "Wow, that guy was right and we were all wrong." Maybe on one pick in draft, but not an entire draft. I don't have to prove myself to you. Nor do I have to rationalize myself to you. Perhaps if you actually watched college football you'd have a different take.

I agree that could have been a very large part of it. There is no way any GM who wants to keep his job would go into things with an idea to go DII or something similar over and over. That's career suicide. I have to believe, however, that in the vast spreadsheet they have ranking the countless players, there is a column that says "risk." And next to each of the players there better have been a note. Notes that have been agreed upon by nearly all. Make no mistake, Pace could have drafted safer. I don't like his draft, but I respect him for attempting to shoot the moon. It takes guts to go with an entire draft full of question marks when he could have more easily went with widely regarded safe plays. If he had started with Jamal Adams, he likely would not be receiving the flack he currently is.