jason

I just can't see how Pace and Fox could draft a player with significant injury history at this point. Kevin White has to be on their mind over and over during this process. I think that really narrows down who they will go after. The only players I see worth the spot are Adams, Hooker, and then one of the three QBs if evaluated that highly. I have always wanted a trade down, and now I want it more and more.

First, I thought the opportunity to tag a player had passed. Second, if the Bears were to tag Alshon, then why in the hell would they send both him and Jay for a third rounder?

We can only dream. I would go CRAZY over that draft. Budda, Obi, and Adoree back-to-back-to-back!?!? Holy shit that would be amazing. I really like the depth of this draft. Of course, this would be the year where the Bears have a top 3 pick and most of the experts only see one absolute guarantee (Garrett) out of the entire bunch. Figures.

LOL. Hoyer gets the snap, heaves deep immediately, just with the hopes of getting Jackson in stride. In all seriousness, I don't think he has that weak of an arm. It's just that the defenses were daring him to take shots, and he didn't do it. He did what many have wanted Cutler to do for all these years: take the open receiver he's being given. It's not flashy, but it sure as hell put up yards and moved the offense. Get a guy like DeSean Jackson on the field, and the defense is suddenly worried about his deep speed, opening up plenty of room for Hoyer to do what he does well. Then when the D steps up, heave ho.

I'm unlike most here when it comes to risk/reward. I would absolutely kick the wheels on guys like Geno Smith, RG3, and even Manziel if the price is right. Give those dudes minimum, incentive-based contracts and let them know up front their asses are gone at the first sign of trouble. They don't pan out? No big deal. They show everyone why their talent got them drafted/evaluated highly, the Bears reap the rewards. Out of those guys, I don't care much, but I'd rather go with Hoyer. Schaub would likely be cheaper (around $2-$3M), but is just a place-holder. If I were in charge I'd sign Hoyer with the intent of starting him (but tell him he had to earn it), sign one of the risk guys mentioned above, draft a guy mid-round (preferably Chad Kelly who is also high risk/reward), and let them all compete for the starting job.

I don't know why everyone is so quick to throw away draft picks on guys who have either not have sufficient snaps in the NFL, aren't quality starters, and/or are relative unknowns who have been drafted late. Glennon - No. He sucks. Gacrapalo - No. He will cost too much, and the uncertainty of former NE QBs is too great. Brissett - No. See above, except he's a 3rd stringer. Romo - No. Will cost too much, will likely miss half the season. Cutler - No. The bridge has been burned. Look at the list of FA QBs, and cost/production ratio, there isn't a guy I would rather have than Hoyer. The Bears would be better off resigning Hoyer. Why is everyone down on Hoyer so much? Look at his stats! In what amounts to 4.5 games (only played the 4th QTR of his first game, and the 1st QTR of his last game), he put up an average of 321 yards a game, 1.3 TDs a game, and most importantly ZERO interceptions a game. He had the stretch of the year where the Bears' WRs were relatively healthy, and he spread it around. The offense under his guidance outgained 3 of 4 opponents. He was not the main problem. The team just wasn't very good. Extrapolate his performance for the year and it's pretty damn good. Even if you throw in a few INTs (because he won't have a clean slate), it still looks like over 4000 yards, 21 TDs, and a few INTs. I think any of us would take that in a heartbeat.

I think/hope it will be a mix. Gilmore/CB $$$ Campbell/DE $$$ Reiff/OT $$ Doyle/TE $$ Stills/WR $$ (or DeSean Jackson) I hope they may add one or two more just below that cost as well, guys with question marks and upside.

That's exactly what I want in every single way.

But imagine yourself in their position. You did poorly at your job last year, or at least the results say that. You know that immediate improvement is possible, and will likely get you an extension, but may not be best for the company overall. Self-preservation is not being a pussy.

The bolded part is definitely what I'm asking. Drafting a rookie QB would mean they're building for the franchise future, but likely a losing record in 2017 and a potential firing. Drafting a different player would likely mean they're at least thinking about their own future, and the team's record in 2017.

If last year's team was healthy and Hoyer was the QB the entire year, I have no doubt they would have been near .500. The following games could easily have been won: WK1 - HOU - Led into the 4th WK5 - IND - Led late in the 4th WK6 - JAX - Led late in the 4th WK11 - NYG - Led at half WK12 - TEN - Almost came back from two Barkley INTs WK14 - DET - Led late in the 4th WK15 - GB - Almost came back from two Barkley INTs in the 3rd QTR (total of 3) That's overly optimistic, putting them at 10-6, but even just holding on to 3 or 4 of those games is not unrealistic.

For the record, if I'm them, I try to win now. Better GMs and coaches have been fired. If I were them I'd avoid the QB early, go defense in the first three rounds, sign a big-name FA on Defense, and pick a QB with one of the extra 4th round picks. I'm still a huge Chad Kelly fan, who Mayock thinks is at least a 2nd round value. That would set up the Bears for a .500 or better season, and there would be a QB waiting in the wings.

There seems to be an uncertainty about the Bears this offseason. I personally like it. Nobody knows what to expect. A big hint, however, would be knowing what the front office feels about Pace & Fox. If they love the pair, then they're safe and have time to develop players. If they're uncertain about the pair, then Pace & Fox need to make things happen this year. So put yourself in the shoes of Pace and Fox. Assume you don't know if your job is in trouble. What do you do?

I really don't think we're hosed for a while. The Bears had catastrophic injuries last year, and still remained competitive in most games. Their defense was surprisingly good in many ways, and with just one or two improvements should be in the top-5 defense range. Kevin White is coming back from injury, again, and if he's remotely as good or as fast as he looked before, it will be like receiving an extra draft pick. I honestly don't think this team is more than a few lucky breaks/picks from being in playoff contention.

We can only hope just about every other team has very serious concerns about players we love, and the Bears are allowed to pick those players up in very advantageous positions.

But part of the formula also takes into account the amount of money the free agents get, and how well they perform. So if Alshon were to go to another team, put in a pro-bowl year, rack up 1200 & 10, and the Bears sign a bunch of underproducing turds, it's possible compensation could come.

I happen to love Jordan Howard, but I also think it was quite a bit of luck. He's a hard-nosed back who joined the team when the interior of the OL became a real strength, and the exterior of the OL wasn't completely atrocious. Which is why I never wanted Howard (happy now), and still think Langford might have been the guy to somewhat blow up this year. And the Bears could have had one less hole to fill this year. For instance, Joe Haeg, the guy who started 14 games as a rookie at RT for the Colts, might have been on the team.

I've done some research on it, and there doesn't appear to be a pure 1 for 1 formula. At least none that any of the experts can agree on. In general, however, the concept is right. If a team loses more in FA than they get, based upon how well the players do, how much they get paid, and whether or not they get post-season awards, then that team gets compensation. Having said all that, I'd figure the money the Bears are going to spend in FA would pretty much eliminate any compensation for one guy.

First, that pro-bowl nod was name recognition only. We all were talking about how he wasn't very good at RT that year. As for the rest, we're not speaking the same language. Is he the best LT option? Possibly. But that speaks to the weakness of the tackles, not the strength of Long. Removing him from the OG spot not only takes away the strength of the OL, but it reeks of the former staffs who at one point used a hodge-podge of OL players that were never at their original position. That never works. And ask any offensive lineman; moving positions is much more difficult than the average person knows. If that move had been made, for good, after his rookie season, then sure. But now that we've seen him at RT, and seen the obvious drop off, and now that he's done a bunch of rehab just to get back to where he was physically, it's not worth it. If anyone should be moved, it should be Whitehair. He played LT at KSU, and had the fastest 3-cone drill among linemen. If he can jump into the Center position as a rookie who never really played it, and do as well as he did, then he'd probably be a lot better at LT in the NFL than all the pundits predicted.

That's a horrible decision. He played like Tarzan at RG, Jane at RT. Why take him away from what he dominates?

No way. If Kelly is there in the 6th or 7th round, you absolutely use one of those picks on him. Those picks almost never make the team anyway, so to get that kind of talent that late is how you build champions. Late round picks should be on question marks with high upside, not guys who have late round talent. He is. Pure ability, and that's it, Kelly is better. But he has drama, gun-slinger mentality, and injury history.

I'd love to see two of those guys.

The thing that stinks about this entire situation is that Cutler is not the guy Chicago wants, but he's probably the best option for the money. -Rookies all have question marks, and are rookies -Romo is Mr. Glass, and won't last an entire season -Garrapolo is relatively unknown, won't have NE, will cost too much in trade, and will require a big contract -Tyrod Taylor is barely better than Hoyer -Cousins is better, but he will cost a ton of money. The difference in money versus production is up for debate. After all, he had 25 TDs and 12 INTs last year. He'll cost $5-$6M more per year than Cutler, and Cutler put up similar TD/INT numbers the last two years he was healthy (2015: 21/11, 2014: 28/18). -Fitzpatrick has a cool beard, but other than that Cutler is better. -The other guys (Glennon, Kapernick, RGIII) are not as good as Cutler. And EVERYONE knows the Bears are essentially going to release Cutler, so there is no reason to trade for him. Watch him get released and then a bidding war ensues between a few teams.

I don't know exactly how it works, but I'm pretty sure it only applies to free agents. If the Bears were unable to sign Alshon, then that would apply. But if they cut a guy, I don't think that applies.

Like: front half of the draft Dislike: second half of the draft Otherwise, it all makes relative sense.