jason

I get that part of it. What I'm curious about is the percentage.

Where does that stat come from? If that's the case, the Bears should be drafting for 4-3 instead of 3-4. Based on Fangio's history, I can't see how that's accurate.

Who's to say he'd do that? The Bears threw about 550 times last year, and only ran about 350 (minus QB scrambles). What if that ratio were more like 450/450? That would give both RBs over 200 carries. The Titans looked good last year with a split between Murray and Henry, and I wouldn't be shocked to see their ratio get closer this year considering how good Henry looked. I think the same type of attack could be created in Chicago's backfield with Peterson. I know I'd much rather see a 50/50 split than a ton of passing. This team is not good enough to get into firefights, and they need to try to shorten the game with running and good defense.

I don't know how much Cap the Bears have left, but I assume it's enough to make a push for Peterson. The way I figure it, why not? He doesn't seem to be getting the interest expected, which means the cost will be lower than anticipated. He's a perfect "complimentary" back, which sounds ridiculous to say. Truth is, the Bears should be running way more than passing this year, so it makes sense to create a two-headed monster in Howard and Peterson. The added benefit is it obviously extends the usefulness of each RB because the lessened burden. And the cherry on top? Adrian Peterson would get to shove it to his former team who didn't want to keep him around. If I were Pace I'd kick the tires and see what he's asking for. I would sell him on the idea of proving the Vikings wrong TWICE a year.

C'mon dude. That's completely biased. On two of the comparisons. -Royal was never really a deep threat despite being fast. He can use his speed to turn a small play into a big play, but he's not normally the guy who gets it deep. Wheaton, however, is a bonafide deep threat. That's one of his best routes. -Wright and Mariani? Get outta here with that BS. That's a ridiculous comparison. Mariani is a guy who has scraped to stay in the league, and has never put up receiving stats that made anyone think he was anything other than an emergency backup. Wright has talent that got him drafted early, and he put up serious stats.

Pretty cool. Thanks for sharing.

For some reason. For some reason. For some reason!?! For some reason?

Jake Butt makes sense though. Before he was injured, he was talked of as a late first/early second round pick. Now he's likely there in the 4th round. And since the Bears just signed Sims, they have a decent combo for at least a year (assuming Miller and/or Sims is healthy). Drafting and red-shirting Butt - interestingly compared to Zach Miller by NFL.com - would make a good bit of sense.

What's the best, most realistic trade you can see for the Bears? The requirements pretty much have to be: 1. Trade value similarity 2. A team that might make a huge move because of extra picks 3. A team that might take a huge gamble 4. A move up to get a player that is unlikely to fall I have been looking at this for a while, trying to crunch numbers, and I finally found one that I think is very intriguing. Chicago trades 1.3 (2200) Cleveland trades 1.12 (1200), 2.33 (580), 2.52 (380) 1. 2200 & 2160 2. Cleveland is in rare position to energize their franchise. Two first rounders and ten picks overall. 3. Cleveland is not known for making moves that are well-respected. 4. Such a move would allow them to grab Myles Garrett at #1 overall, and then likely grab their #1 QB in the draft, whoever that may be. This would be the type of move that would get me pretty hyped up if I were a Cleveland fan. Unlikely? Probably. But I'd love it.

If the Bears were a team in contention this season it might be a bad move, but pretty much everyone thinks the Bears need at least another year after this one to be good. I'm all on board with a risk/reward draft, even if it means the Bears go for a few injured guys who would have otherwise been first rounders. The only reason it seems like a bad idea to me is the Bears have so few draft picks. If they were to trade down in the 1st and pick up another 2nd/3rd, then it would be easier to stomach.

So are you saying the Bears would be better off with Cutler?

I agree completely. I'm all about finding the upside in guys. Risk/reward. I know a lot of people wouldn't like the approach, but finding guys who got injured and will drop 2-3 rounds is a good way to get high return on minimal investment. With the way doctors are today, and the surgeries to repair various injuries, and the crazy rehab that's available, it's a unique approach to talent acquisition. More and more I want the Bears to trade back and acquire more picks in the 2nd and 3rd round.

Basically the same concept I've argued for a while. BPA has to be balanced against need to a certain extent. Say the Bears' big board has the following: 1. Fournette (Talent gap) 2. Garrett 3. Allen When #3 rolls around, the do not go with Fournette unless the talent gap between him and the next player is considered much, much worse than the BPA. Why? Howard. Easy.

I don't think there is any chance whatsoever. The Bears have too many needs to move up to #1.

No. Glennon is the starter. He'll have to be atrocious not to get the start. And unless Shaw spent the offseason getting cybernetic implants, he doesn't have the chops to really amaze. That pretty much leaves it to Glennon to do no more than avoid looking terrible. For the future I don't really know much about next year's draft class. So that's difficult to say. But it can't be independent of this year's picks. If the Bears draft a QB at #3 and they're: -Horrible, I hope that means they started the QB all year and he learned. Of course, that also means the Glennon contract was stupid. -Other, I hope that means they started the QB and he turned into Dak Prescott 2.0. Again, Glennon is bad money. If the Bears don't draft a QB at #3 and they're: -Horrible, then it means the Glennon pickup was bad, but at least they're in a spot for a QB. -Other, then I hope it means Glennon showed promise and might be the guy, then the team can fill other needs. As for Goff, the Rams have been butchered far and wide for that decision.

LMAO!! :notworthy

Exactly. I don't understand all the QB at #3 talk. Glennon is the starter. He's getting paid huge money. You don't draft a QB at the #3 pick with the intention of getting splinters in his ass. You play the kid from day 1 so he gets the reps, the experience, the knowledge. And if that is their intention to draft a QB at #3, then they essentially threw away money on Glennon.

Assuming the Bears don't trade down ( ), the recent FA pickups seem to have gleaned some light on the situation. Right now only a few possible positions make sense (in no particular order): 1. QB 2. DE 3. S 4. CB Quarterback With Glennon on board for the amount of money he got, there is no way the Bears spend a #3 pick a QB to ride the pine. Similarly, they wouldn't have paid Glennon that much, even if it does amount to a one year contract, to sit behind a rookie, first-rounder. Cornerback The money they just shelled out for Cooper and Amukamara means there is no way they are going for a CB with the forth pick. The contract given to Cooper indicates they believe he is a future starter, if not star. So that leaves S & DE, which most of us figured before. They picked up Demps in FA, but I don't think that's enough to make the position strong by any means. Demps is not a deal-sealing safety that immediately created confidence in Bear fandom. But they did absolutely nothing in FA for DE, which means 1 of 2 things: 1. They are drafting DE because Garrett and/or Allen is likely going to be there. 2. They believe in Bullard enough that DE isn't a concern. Based on the fact that Bullard couldn't beat out Unrein last year, I'm thinking they're targeting the Garrett/Allen idea.

Agree with the bolded part. But the other part I completely disagree with because of the bolded part. Who do the Bears have at the DE position? Bullard, Hicks, Unrein So other than Hicks, it's an unproven but promising Bullard who couldn't beat out a subpar Unrein. Who do the Bears at the OLB position? Floyd, Houston, McPhee, Young Floyd is a lock to start. Houston led the team in sacks in 2005 before getting injured. Still an above average player. McPhee was probably the best guy on the defense over the last 2 years, but also injured. And Young led the team in sacks last season! He needs to play.

I'm torn on nearly the same idea. I feel there are several intriguing mid/late round QB prospects, and this year presents a perfect opportunity for such a consideration because the top guys are not rated as high as they will likely go. On top of that, Glennon's contract says he's the guaranteed starter for at least the first year, so it makes less sense to draft a QB early. Otherwise, why pick up Glennon at all? The Bears' front office believes Glennon has the potential do be good, otherwise they would have stayed with someone like Hoyer or Barkley and drafted a QB high.

I'd have to see who was still there, but Id love to see Ramczyk on the Bears.

FWIW - I'd probably do the following (without the possibility of trade-downs, which I'd prefer), which is almost entirely a boom or bust draft: 1. Jonathan Allen, DE - Shoulder history or not, it didn't affect him when he beat down offensive linemen. 2. DeShone Kizer, QB, Notre Dame - I think he slips. Too good to pass. 3. Joe Mixon, RB, Oklahoma - It wouldn't be popular, and I don't want to get into politics, but I'd pick him here. Huge value. 4. Julie'n Davenport, OT, Bucknell - His measurables are too good to pass up. 4. Jordan Leggett, TE, Clemson - Really don't understand why he seems to be slotted here. He's a stud. 5. Chad Kelly, QB, Ole Miss - Yes, double-dipping on QB. Kelly is 1st round talent. If he screws up 7. BPA

Agree 100%. I'm not normally an optimist with the Bears - been a fan too long - but for some reason I see good things in the future for this WR group.

I hate it because of the start. 1. Why sign a FA TE and have Miller only to put them on the bench for a 1st rounder who is in quite possibly the deepest TE draft in decades? 2. Why sign a fairly deep/experienced group of WRs if the intention is to use a 2nd rounder on a WR? Not only that, but I am not sold on JJSS. He doesn't appear to have the explosiveness to get away from DBs, most of his TDs came against bad teams, and he doesn't seem to produce against really good teams. 3. Webb has only played in gimmick offenses designed to exploit college defenses that rarely translate to the NFL. He's probably the QB I like the least in the top 7-8 QBs.