jason

How I feel about that: Langford and Carey at RB > Leno at LT Langford and Carey at RB > DE opposite Hicks I'd hate a RB at 11.

I think BPA is a real possibility at this point. I get an odd feeling that they may actually be looking to address OLB at this point. Maybe Shaq Lawson or someone who can be the Von Miller replica?

I like the signing for exactly that reason. 6'5", 324lbs, with lateral range. He's exactly the kind of size/strength/shape/speed we should be targeting for the 3-4DE.

Why not? I thought he looked pretty good during the season, and during all the off-season activities. He's got all the physical attributes you'd like in a QB. I hope this guy drops like a rock and the Bears use one of their 6th round picks on him. I'd LOVE that pick because of the high upside.

I was just thinking about this idea last night. These guys are going to be a very dynamic combo when the season starts.

Agreed with you. I'd HATE seeing a WR in the first. Alshon and White should be a great combo that compliments each other well. The Bears need a slot WR more than someone like Treadwell. They need a shifty, sure-handed guy who can find the holes in the zone. Basically they need Royal to be Royal from a few years ago.

So am I. It doesn't make sense to me. If they didn't feel comfortable with Langford and Carey, then it made sense to keep Forte for one or two more years. Keep him around just long enough to determine if either of the young guys can be a franchise RB. At that point you then make the decision with a rookie in the 1st or 2nd.

That's crazy talk. He most certainly does not suck. He was a great player at Alabama, one of the best LBs in the nation, and if he were on a lesser team he would have put up huge stats for 3-4 years.

I REALLY wanted this guy. Now? I don't see how the Bears can pick him if Trevathan and Freeman are on the field. There is no way Ragland, as much as I like him, is a 3-4OLB. Now, if he lasts until the second - he won't - then the Bears should draft him without hesitation.

No, you're simultaneously supporting and hurting your argument. Cutler had his best year as a Bear and he had nearly nothing to work with. The OL was average at best, the receiving corp was busted, and the D was atrocious. That would imply he is a good QB, a top 10 QB since the Bears were so close to winning several more games. You plug Big Ben, Brady, or any of the other names on your list into the Bears lineup last year, and they likely don't win much more than Cutler. It's not just the superstar QB keeping teams competitive. We do agree, however, that Cutler won't be around for many more years. The Bears should be looking for a QB, but not a first round QB this year.

Ego Sutton? Will Sutton? Both of those guys are similar at DE to Leno at LT.

There are two problems with your argument. One is that your comparison requires one of the best QBs in the NFL. A no doubt, top 3 every single year guy. A HOF lock QB. A guy who will potentially go down as one of the best ever. 99 out of 100 QBs drafted aren't Rodgers. Even an assortment of the 1st round QBs don't hold up to the rigors of being a crazy superstar. You basically ruin your own argument in your first paragraph. Second, and most importantly, is Jay Cutler. He threw to nearly nobody last year, Josh Bellamy, Marc Mariani, Marquess Wilson, Cameron Meredith. His receiving corp was gutted! His TEs missed significant time. His #1 WR missed a third of the season. His defense was atrocious. And he STILL put up his best overall season as a Bear.

Pretty much nailed my thoughts on the subject.

In general I don't think I pick EZ in that scenario. The reason why is I don't think the superstar model is one you can build and sustain a team around for multiple years unless that superstar is a QB. I think you can't keep that team together well if you try to continually sign or draft A+ guys to replace B or B+ players. I think excellent teams that maintain success are generally multiple B level guys, with a small assortment of B+ & A- who are willing not to financially cripple the organization with contract demands. BTW - I believe Langford is a B level guy with the potential for more. I don't think he's someone we should try to find a replacement for. We should try to find a replacement for the guys on the roster who are C's and D's.

Good signing as long as he never sees the field in the return game.

Because it's a pick that immediately gets wasted for one year because a rookie is not playing over Cutler. No way. I don't like losing a year of a rookie's contract. And picking Elliiot essentially throws Langford away, and absolutely shits on Carey. Aside from that, the Bears simply aren't as bad as it would seem. They were close in multiple losses last year, and I'm convinced it was weakness at a few positions that cost them big. I don't think they need game-changers on offense. I believe Cutler and Langford can be those guys, but the OL has been week. On defense, the ILBs were very weak and the DEs (hinted at) weren't great either. Well, the ILBs are greatly improved. The OL is stronger because a RT is in house and Long moves back to RG.

That's kind of what I meant. I should have said "they have too many bodies at DE". Unrien,, Ego, Sutton, and Washington are all guys with potential. I just don't see DE in the first.

With the two ILBs and Unrein signed, and an OT to set the right edge, it worries me the Bears may actually be thinking about a QB in the first. What else makes sense? -Ragland and Mack are out in my opinion. -Way too deep at DE to spend the pick there. -The Bears best defensive position is OLB, so that wouldn't be a good move. I think the FA signings are good enough that the Bears have narrowed down their likely 1st round positions to: CB, LT, and QB. But suppose they are including RB in their consideration? The QB and RB portions of that really worries me.

Pretty great signing. I like how he tracks the ball. I also think he provides some inside blitz opportunities because he has a nose for wiggling through traffic.

I'd love this signing. I think he's got several good years left. He's not the fastest guy, but he reads very well, takes good angles, and is a sure, albeit grabby tackler. He's a good leader, and would fit very well with the concept Pace is going for in Chicago.

I don't think so either, but that's their mock. A guy can dream, can't I?

Their updated mock, after several FA moves, has some odd names and I don't like it that much. 1. Myles Jack, ILB, UCLA 2. Kamalei Correa, OLB, Boise St. 3. Mile Killebrew, SS, Southern Utah 4. Nick Vannett, TE, OSU 5. Adam Gotsis, DE, GT 6. Jacob Coker, QB, Alabama 6. Kevin Seymour, CB, USC 6. Alex Lewis, OT, Nebraska 7. Daniel Lasco, RB, California (meh) I'd rather see Darron Lee in the 2nd, Kearse in the 4th, and Murray in the 5th.

I was thinking, "Why wouldn't he get the lion's share of carries in NY?" But that was before I realized they resigned Powell and picked up someone else. So, basically, he's going to a place where he'll split carries three ways at best, four ways at worst. As for what he did and could do, I don't see why he wouldn't do well for another two years, at least. Forte has always kept himself in amazing shape. Langford was supposed to be amazing (and young), the main reason(s) why Forte was expendable, but Forte outperformed him in pretty much every way. The problem now is, there's no way to truly know what he would have done, because he likely won't get the carries in NY.

If you're saying a 1, 2, 3, Roby, and another promising player, then yes. Hell, I think it might be worth it even if you take out the promising young player to be named later. Roby seems like the kind of "good production in limited time"-guy that the current FO seems to like.

See, that's better. >$5M per year is not what the Bears wanted to do, nor should they have done. But if Forte were willing to do the same contract for $1M less per year, the Bears should have kept him. I hope he tears the AFC East a new asshole and shows how much he still has left in the tank.