jason

Big difference is, Cutler proved he has stud potential when he was with Denver.

It IS odd, but the main difference is I don't think the majority of Cutler's problems are his. If the Bears ever fixed the OL and had offensive weapons in the same season, there might be something to it. As it stands, they've only had a decent OL one year he's been in Chicago. No QB can survive under that duress, especially if it's compounded by a revolving door at varying stages of coaching/management. As for QBs, we agree because it makes the most sense to pay Hoyer less money than Glennon more money. Hoyer did well last season, bridges the gap, and would cost a bunch less. His unknowns are known. Glennon's unknowns could end up royally screwing the team's salary cap. Both are stop-gaps at best, so it doesn't make sense to pay a ton for a guy you don't view as a franchise QB. Hoyer and a rookie is the only option that makes sense in regards to money, salary cap usage, and team future.

Could you imagine if the Browns did this? http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/2017-nfl..._source=dlvr.it Garrett and Allen in the same draft?! Holy shit. That would definitely upgrade their DL, and vastly improve their D overall as a result.

So he's got a strong arm, stands in the pocket too long, gets happy feet when in the pocket for a while, and needs to learn to step up in the pocket. So basically a long-necked Cutler? Awesome.

Wagner is going to the Lions. Cross him off the list.

Tyrod Taylor scares me. Virtually no Bills fan wants to keep him, and his stats don't jump off the page. He looks like an average or poor passer who takes off and runs more than most teams would like. The Bears need to move into the current century and invest in an offense that maximizes on passing-friendly rules. That means picking up a pocket-passer and protecting him with an offensive line that allows him to feel comfortable in the pocket.

BM & OBJ is a scary combination. Both on the field and off.

All this Glennon talk is disturbing. No way he's worth that kind of money. Cutler's better. Hoyer's better. I'd much rather save the money and build everywhere else. Sign Hoyer, pay him less, get the same production as Glennon, and use the surplus to fill holes.

Yep. Same points being made in this article. http://beargoggleson.com/2017/03/07/chicag...elle-patterson/

After that start, I probably wouldn't care much about the rest of the draft. That would be incredible.

Oh I DEFINITELY don't want Peterson now. That's essentially the pool jumping dick head video, but in reverse.

We can only hope someone trades up with Chicago. I don't want trubisky at 3 at all. If the Bears get a QB, it should be Watson, because he's destroyed NCAA football for two years. He's basically already beat what equates to a bad NFL defense. Still though, Chicago could use extra picks.

Hoyer > Glennon

I really hope you're right. I can't stand the idea of Glennon. Especially if he's going to ask for upwards of $10M per year. No freaking way. That dude didn't beat out Josh McCown. $10M per year?! GTFO.

If you're going for banged up TEs, wouldn't you rather shoot for someone like Jake Butt in the late 4th? That seems like where he's projected, and he was a monster before the injury. The three TEs I've liked from the start are Leggett of Clemson, Engram of Ole Miss, and Jake Butt late. Engram ran a ridiculous 4.42, so he's probably going earlier than I'd like to see the Bears draft a TE.

Well, Earl Thomas is pretty damn good, pretty much the exact same size as Baker, and he's giving Baker tips. I'd say Baker's size doesn't mean much when he plays like he does (which is a lot like Thomas).

I don't think the Bears should draft a RB at all. There will be a vet FA who can fill in when needed.

I agree. I think at this point is almost a certainty for the draft to go Garrett, QB. If the Bears do pick a QB at #3, I REALLY, REALLY want Ryan Switzer after the combine. He was first in the 20-yd shuttle, and second in the 60-yd shuttle, both of which are drills that measure how quickly someone can stop, turn, and accelerate, skills that are required to get open for a pass. That's a nice safety blanket to have as a young QB. On top of that he's an electric return guy.

No. But there is a positive correlation between strength and blocking skills. While blocking is not entirely done with the upper body, there is definitely an aspect of chest/arm strength involved. As for a one rep max being a better measure, I don't believe so. Blocks are not singular hits absent of an endurance component. I honestly don't think it's all that misleading. It's a fixed weight so people can be measured on it. If someone is lighter and smaller, like a RB or WR, they are expected to do worse than OL or DL. That's why it stands out when someone exceeds their class and lifts with those at a different position group. And it's why McCaffrey's results are fairly pathetic. The only guy he beat is Donnell Pumphrey, who is 5'8" and 176lbs. It's extra pathetic, in my opinion, since he publicly bailed on his team to get an extra week of combine preparation. Clearly he didn't do any work on the bench press. Lucky for him, however, he dominated elsewhere.

Yes. If you plan on having that RB block at all.

I hope your comment about RBs comes true, as long as the Bears don't join in and draft one. On McCaffrey, his bench was pathetic. Especially since he skipped out on the bowl game and abandoned his teammates to "prepare."

You should check out how Buffalo fans feel about him. They hate him for the most part. http://www.talk-sports.net/nfl/sucks.aspx/Tyrod_Taylor

I'd be PISSED. First, because, as you've pointed out, we have starters there. But, second, I think the ILBs in a 3-4 often can be flawed guys who just have great instincts and just make tackles. Guys like Kwiatkowski who didn't blow people away are great as ILBs in a 3-4. Same goes for a guy like Boulware, who will likely go 5th-6th, despite a ton of production in college.

Pass. Just not that impressive to me. And he's likely to get higher money for being a two year starter and a guy with mobility.