jason

It's money that could have been used to entice a top FA like Bouye, Gilmore, or Campbell. I agree with the hedged bet comment. That's the best outlook we can have on it.

Assuming the "Cleveland picks Trubisky"-scenario, you pick defense in one of the best defensive drafts in history. Seems pretty straightforward.

That's been my stance and dilemma the entire time. If Glennon blows up, the Bears: -Good: Have a starting QB who is a stud. -Bad: Have a #2 pick overall who doesn't see the field If Glennon sucks, the Bears: -Good: Have absolutely no reason not to get their #2 guy in the game -Good: Can cut Glennon and free up his money. -Bad: Wasted money on Glennon when they were going to pick a QB at #2 anyway.

Agree. I know everyone doesn't agree with this, and some say the meaningless wins have meaning. I'd rather have another bad season to get the high draft pick, or an incredible season that ends with the playoffs. I loathe the 6-10 through 9-7 seasons.

I don't trust Ron Wolf in regards to this. He may just be laughing inside and saying it's good because he's a packer guy.

Double-edged sword. If Howard is in there, the defense has to be worried about a legit, up the middle, power run that easily goes for 3-4 yards if they're not prepared to be stout against the run. That's not a real concern with Cohen. And if Cohen is in there, the defense has to be prepared to defend an exterior run as well as a quick pass to him, which isn't a huge concern with Howard.

I don't care about the signing of Jaye Howard much. If he were great, he wouldn't have been available. With any luck, however, he'll get back to pre-injury conditions and turn out as a steal. But I do care about the upgrade of 3-4DE. The biggest aspect of this signing is that Mitch Unrein is off the field. Upgrading the 3-4DE spot was essentially, and I'm still baffled the Bears didn't draft one. Unrein may have been the worst guy on defense last year. So, congrats to Jaye Howard, but any name better than Unrein would have made me happy.

You've hit on the major reasons I posted the question. I'm a huge fan of north-south guys, they don't last long, and Fox is a committee guy. Howard may not be great out of the backfield catching passes, but what's broke may not need to be fixed. What's done is done with Cohen, but I was thinking about the question this morning and believe there is merit to it.

Random thought on Tarik Cohen (like him, but I think he was a reach) and other "change of pace" backs. Are they needed? I get that each RB has their own style, flavor, and advantage. Some may be better at catching out of the backfield than others. Some are better going between the tackles. Given Howard's success last year, wouldn't it be better to just get a Howard clone and pound the opposing defense all game? Regardless of which RB is in there, the opponent really doesn't know what to do, or can't take a break. I mean, if Howard fits so well, why not a guy who runs just like him?

Very good point, and all the more reason for the team to draft heavy defense in a very deep defensive draft. Then those guys have a year under their belt when the team finds out if Glennon is good or not. If not, draft a QB high, because the record will be bad. If he's good, then the QB position is locked up and the rest of the team can be strengthened for a playoff push.

I appreciate this post, but coming from the other side of the aisle, it's difficult to swallow for a different reason. Most Bears' fans that I've met and interacted with are pessimistic about Bears' drafts, and optimistic about the seasons. Year after year we question, and year after year the Bears don't do well, so it strengthens our belief that odd decisions from the front office are poor decisions when it comes to the draft. When the front office eschews conventional wisdom and does something odd, it's baffling because year after year the Bears have avoided what most believed they should do in the draft. Pace may be an excellent talent evaluator, and he may be right about the 2017 draft, but for just a few years in a row it would be nice to see the Bears kind of do what most people (including most on this board) expect them to do.

That makes it even more baffling to me. With a job on the line, you'd think he would be more in favor of surer bets, guys with high floors. With a job on the line it's an entirely different draft. My job on the line, the draft would have been: 1-Jamal Adams 2-Zay Jones 3-Chris Wormley 4-David Sharpe 4-Julien Davenport 5-Nathan Peterman 7-Chad Kelly That way I have two sure fire players, one likely starter, a hedged bet on OT and QB in hopes at least one of each pans out.

If you say so. I think if anything you have given reason for why Whitehair should be moved back to his natural position of LT. You said it takes multiple years to get used to a new position, and he has more years familiarity at LT than C. The one year of cohesion is the only real sacrifice.

If the coaches and Pace think they are going to be good, then they're worse at talent evaluation than anyone could possible imagine. They'll be lucky to get to .500.

Normally I'd say that's not a good approach, but this was a unique year. The Bears had the #3 pick in a few defensive draft with several holes. It seemed more prudent to load up on defensive talent and ride with Glennon. It's not like the Bears could contend either way this year.

I honestly thought they were giving Glennon a year to figure it out and potentially be the franchise guy. Then they'd draft a QB mid-rounds. It made so much sense for so many reasons. If Glennon panned out, then the QB situation is resolved, the team is much better, and the picks can be spent elsewhere to make the team even better in 2018. If Glennon sucks, the mid-round rookie might get a shot to show what he's worth near the end of the season, and the Bears are likely in a position to draft a QB again, from a QB class widely considered to be much better. It's not about no competition. It's about first rounder, #2 pick overall competition. It still seems strategically flawed considering Glennon's signing, the weak QB class, the Bears' minimal picks, the Bears' massive needs, and the 2018 QB draft class.

That's the main problem many see with the draft. Trubisky might be awesome, but nobody really knows because he only played a year. Shaheen might be awesome, but nobody really knows because he trounced scrubs at the DII level. Cohen might be awesome, but nobody really knows because he was running wild through weak SWAC defenses. Morgan: see Shaheen. If Trubisky doesn't pan out as a multi-year starter and pro-bowler, it's a bad draft.

I'm really trying to understand your point. But it doesn't make sense. You say changing OL positions is incredibly hard. I'm fine with that. But if it's so hard, how did Whitehair do so well? Either he doesn't think it's very hard, or he's amazing and could turn into a multi-year, bowl center. But if he DID think it was hard, and he did that well at a position that is secondary or tertiary for him, then imagine how well he'd do at his natural position? Honestly, where is the flaw in that logic?

But if they dummied it down and Whitehair dominated at a position unfamiliar to him, why couldn't they do the same for him at OT? After all, that's he position he is much more familiar with, and where he showed enough talent to be drafted relatively highly. I get what you're saying, but given that he went from never really playing center and performing the way he did, I don't see why similar results (i.e. Stellar performance) can't be had if he moves to his original OT position. And even if there is a step down, he will still be the best OT on the team.

I like the 2003-2005 concept. Find a QB, then continue to draft for QB with mid-round picks (3rd/4th preferable). I was one that liked Orton more than Rex, and thought he was better.

:cheers

I won't argue the point for point, but your last comment sums it all up. We've heard the same thing for 20ish years. If we've been questioning things for 20ish years, then maybe we're not far off in our evaluation of Bears' drafts, and players they would have been better off drafting? Sure, we don't know anything about this year. These guys might be awesome in 2019. However, feel free to bring up one of the drafts a few years after it was done, with what others wanted instead of who the Bears picked. I'm positive (because I've looked it up over the course of the board) our overall results would be comparable or better than the Bears' picks. And those picks were ones, like this year, that were highly questioned. Nobody is 100%, but the Bears have had a horrible history of drafting. There have been very few picks over the course of the years this board has been going (and the previous board) that nearly all have said, "Hey, great pick!" Alshon Jeffery was a near 100% consensus. Most seem to be pretty happy about the Eddie Jackson pick this year. Otherwise, it's year after year of questionable picks, and year after year of people saying "wait a few years before you slam the GM."

That was the assumption by most this year.

I've never played OL, but you're essentially arguing against yourself. If switching is so different, then Whitehair shouldn't have been as good at Center as he was. It certainly didn't take him multiple seasons to impress. He was a novice at the position. And if it takes so long to change the techniques, he'd be better off at LT where he's got multiple years of established reps as a base to build upon.

The way I see it is, until there is sustained excellence we should question every move. Specifically because we are true Bears' fans. And since the Bears haven't been consistently good for quite some time, it's understandable that we'd question the drafts. Year after year we question the drafts, and year after year we hear platitudes like "It takes 2-3 years to evaluate the draft," or "Whatever, couch GM, these guys know what they're doing." And it repeats over and over, with each GM and coach. It would be different if the drafts were following semi-conventional wisdom. But every year there are 2-3 picks where everyone has no freaking clue what the Bears are thinking. If the Bears' fans on this board all come to a general consensus about what the team's overall needs are, I'd expect that to be pretty close to what the team drafts. This year we were heavily split on QB, so that's an understandable difference, but the rest is difficult to explain. And it feels like so many years in the past where if the team just followed what the consensus generally thinks, the team would be better off.