jason

That's one of my big worries for this team.

I honestly don't remember how Barkley looked, but if your memory of his play is correct, then I say... BRING ON BARKLEY!! :lol:

That's actually not a completely crazy idea. What would Alshon and Cutler get in return from them? Their overall #1 wouldn't be enough in my opinion. What about the #1 and Joe Thomas? If I'm reading it right, Thomas is due big money next year and has no dead cap money from them. I'd guess they're not keen on paying Thomas $10M+ in his 10th, 11th year, or however long he's been in the NFL. Bears #1 pick - Myles Garrett, DE, TX A&M Bears #3 pick - DeShone Kizer or Deshaun Watson

Cutler regressed. Alshon suspended. Long out for the year. I'm honestly not trying to pick a fight, but I'm wondering if the "always go for the win"-camp still feels the same way. If there ever was a time to shut it down, put in the JV squad, see what the team has on the bench, and play for the draft pick, now is it.

Overall I don't like it, and the tone is set by Trubisky. I'm fundamentally opposed to drafting him super high. The dude doesn't impress me that much. He just threw two INTs to Duke, and he threw for less than 60 yards on 33 passes against VaTech. That's a red-flag I can't ignore.

You may be surprised, but I agree. There are nothing but positives from such a decision. The only real negative is that it destroys any sort of value Cutler may have.

Yeah, but how do you get over the hump? If the Bears aren't winners, then those FA winners don't come to the Bears (i.e. no influx of winning habit players). And if the players you bring in aren't winners, you don't have that winning habit (i.e. current players not winning). Cycle repeats until you nail the draft for a few years straight. Hence, a team like the Bears is better suited to get high draft picks for a few years so they have a higher percentage of picking winners. Think of it a different way: If you're a FA, do you want to go to a team that is perpetually around .500, with decent talent, and poor draft success? Or do you want to go to a team that dropped for a year or two, drafted some franchise-level players, and has the promise of a team on the rise?

In yesterday's NFL I might be more inclined to agree. But habits like that aren't the same when the NFL has such a high turnover rate. You're getting guys from all over the place and that winning habit is not shared.

You're twisting the point. I said: "The draft picks have been proven statistically numerous times to be better as you draft higher." That is irrefutable. There has been more than one statistical breakdown on this site. The higher the round, the higher statistical chance of drafting a future HOFer, All-Star, etc. I'm just talking about increasing the chances of doing better. Hovering around the middle doesn't do that. Sure, it's possible if you nail your draft, but that's less likely. As for the teams you mentioned, each can be explained by either nailing a huge draft pick (NE, DAL, IND, PIT, GB, SEA), consistently being one of the best drafting teams in the NFL (GB, BAL, NE), having one of the best front offices in the NFL (NE, PIT, BAL, SEA, NO), or just not belonging on the list (SD). The Bears have had none of the first 3 attributes, so it's behooves them to draft higher for percentage sake. When you're starting a race and you're not all that fast or athletic, the further towards the front the better.

I just pressure-washed my deck, removed an eroding stain, and applied a fresh coat of stain that will last ten years. Sure, it sucked while I was pressure washing for hours, but overall my deck will be stronger for a longer period of time as a result. I've taken heat on this board for my beliefs, but I honestly think it's harder to build a consistent contender if you constantly hover near .500. You neither gain the advantage of the high draft pick, nor the advantage of being a winning franchise of which FA's desperately want to be a part. It's better for a franchise overall to have one or two atrocious, top-5 pick seasons where picks can be stock-piled and draft position can be maximized. The draft picks have been proven statistically numerous times to be better as you draft higher. Sure, there are hits and misses, but overall there are better players drafted higher. There is no debate to this. So it's just easier to draft higher; there is a higher percentage of landing a marquee player. I'm not ashamed at all to admit I think this team would be better off losing a lot this year.

And that worries me. I don't think this is a playoff team. I think it still lacks major talent. But with that schedule, I could see a W or L in any game. Which makes me think out of the 8 remaining games, the Bears win 3 or 4. Which places the Bears right around 5-6 wins. And what does 5-6 wins get you? About 10th or so in the draft.

Great job by the DL. Lots of pressure. Maybe if everyone was healthy this D would actually look pretty damn good? Lately I've been a "let's look promising but still lose"-guy. But it was nice to win one on MNF for a change. To beat the Vikings and their overrated D is that much better.

I would not like Trubisky in the 1st. The Bears will likely have a top 5 pick, and I don't want a guy who has been under the radar. A QB considered for the top 5 picks should have been putting up good numbers and generating Heisman buzz. Trubisky has done neither. And the game against Virginia Tech is a huge, ugly, red flag. As far as I'm concerned, the Bears should only have Garrett, Kizer, Watson,

I don't know if you realize your own contradiction, but you can't say the Jets suck ass and then say that Pace got the Forte move right. If they suck ass, that is probably the reason why Forte's numbers aren't as good. Fitzpatrick has been atrocious, one of the worst QBs in the league, and everyone knows it. The opposing defenses don't even have to worry about their passing offense, and Decker being on IR makes it only that much worse. Forte doesn't have a damn chance there.

You may not have seen it, but one of the last few issues of Sports Illustrated talked about the preparation before a football Sunday. One of those reports was with the Texans before they played the Bears. I don't have it on me right now, but the tidbit I found interesting was from their HC Bill O'Brien, who said (paraphrased): "Absolutely do not let Cutler get outside. Don't do it. Keep him inside at all costs, because he'll get flustered under the pressure and throw it to us." I could get it and quote it if you like, but I think that pretty much settles the concept. If the other teams are making it a priority, that tells me Cutler is probably dangerous there.

I think I said this after the last loss, but this game was great. It shows us a lot of potential, gives us glimpses of hope, gives reps to some up and coming players, shows us Hoyer is the dink-and-dunker we thought he was, and that the team can compete despite having a bunch of injuries and glaring holes in a few places. It's a loss, and losses always suck, but this was nearly perfect for the long-term goals of the Bears organization.

At this point, are we already just looking forward to the draft? Bears making stupid penalties, but get bailed out with an EZ interception. That's nice to see. And the OL is giving Hoyer a decent amount of time thus far. Of course, they're still running that "never ran it with Cutler"-offense, which adds a little something to it. Can't say I remember more than one or two naked bootlegs the entire time Cutler has been under center. Now with Hoyer? Once a drive. Go figure.

Great breakdown. I was thinking the same kind of thing. Tannehill looks like a problem, and to save his job Gase will have to figure it out ASAFP. Cutler makes sense. It's the "I can turn him around"-excuse and the "the problems are in Chicago"-line that he will likely use to get the player he wants, and get the one or two year reprieve before looking for a new job.

I didn't like Bennett when signed because of his oddities and idiosyncrasies. I grew to appreciate that he was better than average. Then I realized he ran iffy routes, had questionable hands, directly led to QB INTs, was replaceable by a journeyman, and I should have trusted my first impression. He's easily on my top five most hated players in the league list.

Interesting statistical article here http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-nf...ss-happy-teams/

I'd rather go with either Myles Garrett, Jabrill Peppers, or Jonathan Allen in the 1st, and then go QB in the 2nd or 3rd.

Because QBs are like bad-boys. All the new girlfriends think they are the one who will be able to make the change. There are way more TEs like Bennett than there are QBs like Jay Cutler, despite how much many dislike Cutler. I have no doubt just about any average starting TE in the league could go to NE and flourish. But I also have no doubt that any QB in the league would likely have faltered behind the mess of an organization Chicago has been for what seems like forever.

Oh c'mon. You were right there. Let Cutler play! I think it's the obvious choice. If they run the same offense, with the same misdirection, and the same reads, and the same improved OL play, and the same improved running game, his trade value is increased. If he reverts to the Cutler you hate, and none of the above happens, then the team implodes and we likely get the #2 pick of the draft (Myles Garrett).

Props to the other Jason. Barth is terrible.

Honestly? I'm pretty happy about this game. When the Bears show so much promise, have so many highlights, and still lose, it's the best of both worlds for us. We know they're really not that good, and there is a serious lack of talent on the team. This team is nowhere near playoff quality. Winning 6-7 games does a disservice to the team's future and development. Showing a lot of hope and promise while losing is the best possible result, even if it's tough for us to watch losses.