jason

I live close enough to Nashville. Nearly everyone hated him. He passed way too much, neutered what was left of CJ2K, and his blocking schemes/plans (if his and not the OL coach) were poor. People often criticized him for not taking advantage of CJ2K's speed, instead running him inside, and relying too much on underperforming QBs. In short, he seemed like the opposite of what Gase did this year with Cutler.

And inherit the 6yr $95M contract from a guy that probably isn't as good as Cutler to begin with? No thanks. http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl-news/46906...ture-marino-way

I'd actually rather wait until later than that, but if someone in the first few rounds is going to be picked, I don't want Jones.

I'd hate Cardale Jones. If the Bears want to get a backup QB relatively early, they should grab this Carson Wentz guy in the 2nd round. I'm watching him right now in the FCS title game, and he has everything. He's got a cannon for an arm, incredible touch, great decision making, a quick release, good pocket presence, quick feet, everything you want in a QB. He's a stud.

That was quick. They must have really, really liked what he did this year with Cutler?

That didn't take long. :/

BTW, with that mock the Bears could get: 1. Reggie Ragland, ILB, Alabama 2. Shaq Lawson, DE, Clemson 3. Cordrea Tankersley, CB, Clemson 4. Tyler Johnstone, OT, Oregon 5. Nick Kwiatkowski, ILB, West Virginia

Dude. Read the thread. Get off Lovie's average bandwagon. Nearly everyone here agress he was average at best, and some are saying he downright sucked. I understand your point, but I don't feel like educating someone too stubborn or lazy to be educated. Go back into the archives. There are literally thousands and thousands of words and explanations as to why Lovie is not good. It is not opinion. It is fact. He is a good guy; I'd love to meet him and talk to him. But he is still an average HC. Also, you can't compare QBs to HCs.

I'm sure lots of players didn't like Cowher's personality and style of coaching. In fact, I've seen it from some of his players in previous interviews. But he's a good coach. Players liking Lovie is just a reflection of what a great person Lovie is, which is pretty much undebateable. People love having friendly managers in all jobs, but that doesn't make them good. Lovie was an average coach. Period.

Coach QB. How difficult is that to comprehend? Also, don't cherry-pick, it's unbecoming. He was a .500 coach his time in Chicago, .500 in the playoffs, and only cared about .500 of the team, which ultimately was his undoing.

I base my evaluation of coaches on FAR more than that. Go look at the archives. There are countless times Lovie inadequacies have been discussed. Just because his players like him doesn't make him a good coach.

Could this really happen? http://walterfootball.com/draft2016.php RD1: EVERYONE is available! Super exciting! RD2: Passing on two Clemson studs for a guy who might not fit. RD3: Passing on a Clemson stud for... RD4: Oh, noooow we get an ILB?

With this thread in mind, do the Bears need to pay ANY attention to OLB in the upcoming draft? If Houston and Young did as well as it appears, and McPhee was clearly a monster on an undermanned defense, doesn't that eliminate any talk of OLB? Aside from the obvious BPA guy falling multiple rounds, I can't see a reason the Bears need an OLB.

I honestly couldn't remember what it was. Sorry Lovie didn't take the Bucs to the SB like you desperately wanted. Turns out he's still an average HC, and a good DC.

I know rings and records are the end all, be all, but they are such a weak argument in a team sport with 33 starters on three different parts of the team. Guys that played as complimentary players with Jordan collected rings like a side-hobby. Meanwhile. Karl Malone and Charles Barkley don't have rings. Same thing goes in the NFL for guys like Marino. There hasn't been a single year since Cutler has been in Chicago where they have had the combination of decent OL, decent D, and decent WRs. I'm not even asking for great. Decent. As for the Eli to Jay comparison, c'mon man. 2007 - He had a 56% completion percentage, 23 TDs, and 20 INTs (led the league). If his name were Cutler, you'd be tearing him apart for that season. That team made the SB and won it primarily behind the 3-headed rushing attack of Strahan, Osi, and Tuck (the team was 1st in the NFL in sacks). Besides that, he got out-dueled in the SB by Brady. 2011 - This one was better, since he went for nearly 5K in yards with 29TD/16INT, but there was plenty of help. Once again they got after the QB (2nd in the NFL in sacks), had a trio of dangerous rushers (Tuck, Osi, JPP) who acted as New England's kryptonite (Brady out-dueled Eli again), and this year they had the emergence of Victor Cruz.

Do you think if the snaps are doubled to somewhere near JJ Watt's snaps that they would have double their respective sacks? I'm just curious. I actually like them both, which is why I don't think the Bears should put too much emphasis on OLBs. I think the focus should be on two ILBs and a 3-4 DE.

Wasn't there a bet on this board between two members about how well Lovie would do? Or how well Lovie would do vs. another coach? Something like that?

Yeah, but you are comparing two people to one!

Fine. Don't use a pick (I certainly never suggested a 2nd rounder). Just sign some average backup TE with potential. That's not ignoring the position. Martellus Bennet has been proven expendable this year. What's more, he may have been culpable in some of Cutler's 50/50 INTs, because without him in there, there wasn't nearly the same number is miscommunications. In fact, I can't remember a single miscommunication between Cutler and Miller.

It is certainly the cheaper option, no denying that. I am just not sure the Bears should ignore Forte - a proven stud, versatile, workhorse - for a young guy who has one semi-successful year under his belt, and another who has done nearly nothing. Put another way, what if Langford gets hurt or simply regresses?

I like them too, but the sacks are still underwhelming. If they played over 900 snaps they still would have only had, based on average plays per sack, about one more sack.

Makes more sense to part with Marty, make Zach Miller the starter, and draft the "up and comer". Then the Bears are in virtually the same position as at RB that so many seem to like. Miller is way more than capable of holding down the fort for a year or two while a rookie gets up to speed.

I disagree. Forte is EASILY better than every guy on that lost aside from Charles. More like $5M per year, upwards of $5M guaranteed. Do that for 2-3 years front-loaded, and it is appropriate.

The team was atrocious last year. Can't blame Forte. They had two capable guys on the roster. That was my point. The only real good reason to draft Langford was to hamstring Forte in contract negotiations. Business-wise, it makes some sense, but I'm not a big fan.

Im obviously more in favor of Ragland since I think the Bears need a monster in the middle, a thumper, but if somehow the Bears took Jack in round one and Smith fell to two...holy shit that would be scary. Assuming they play...durability concerns are problematic for us since it has bitten Chicago more than once with high picks. We need high floor guys more than high ceiling.