DABEARSDABOMB

I kind of do too...I just don't like the idea of taking guys who aren't projected to be disruptive that early. I want guys who get after the QB. Of course I said that about Floyd and had my doubts and look at how disruptive he was as a rookie (hopefully he takes another step forward next year).

What is interesting is how many more games Webb played in after he left the Bears. In fact, if it weren't for injuries, he would have been one of the Seahawks starters (not that they have a great line). My personal view is between Williams & Carimi, the Bears whiffed horrifically on the olinemen they took early as they both sucked. Colombo at least had a pretty good career once he got healthy with Dallas. But man, all three of the Bears 1st round olineman had all kinds of injuries and failed miserably with the franchise until we selected Kyle Long. I legitimately think our franchise history would look quite a bit different had we not utterly failed on those picks (of course you could say that about a lot of franchises), but if we had hit on those olineman, I think we'd be saying something different about Cutler. Of course had Williams been a hit, Carimi probably isn't drafted anyway.

So go to www.google.com and then in the search function, paste this link and hit "search". When the search results pull up, the article title should be the top link and just click on that and it will take you to the article on the trib's site (without having to pay for anything). You can apply this for any article / paper you want (just copy the direct article link from the main site and then paste it into google, run the search, and click the link). A little annoying, but once you get the hang of it, it takes less then 10 seconds.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/footb...0127-story.html Another good read on some tidbits on what is going on at the senior bowl. For those of you (like me) woh don't have access to tribune, just take the above link and copy and paste it into google and then open within the google search and you will be able to read for free.

Absolutely.

Great to hear.

I'm not interested in the ole miss combo, but I always think of Andrew Luck and the Colts who then drafted Luck's TE, who was okay, but never near as good or as much cohesion as I think everyone expected. That at least seemed like one of the more high profile QB / player tandems going to the same team. I figure the schemes are so different that any benefits from being on the same team previously are negated. I do like the idea of really investing in our secondary. Hell, I'd be okay drafting a safety in 1/2 and signing Eric Berry, mainly because I'm so sick of our lack of turnovers and just our pathetic secondary, especially safety play.

Agree. Just kind of curious if the reality is the consensus #1 pick would be a trade down, but we clearly can't predict that, so have a different expedient in process.

Not for the mock...but if we don't go with QB and Allen is there. Would you take Allen, draft a safety, or trade down? My choice would be to trade down and draft a safety.

Butt is a nice TE prospect, however, given White's status, I don't see Pace going for a guy coming off a serious injury (that early in the draft). Especially one whose injury came pretty late in the season, so you know he won't be available for training camp/mini camp, etc. You basically might as well call it a redshirt rookie season.

This is a really great post. I really agree with your stance on QB.

If Desmond King slips, I'd be all over him. Not really late round as I presume he goes in the 2nd, but it is a deep CB draft, so you never know.

I don't know how it fits in for me, but I don't like the dlineman and prefer the safeties (if we don't go QB). That said, given there are two safeties I'd love to have, I wouldn't be a big fan of taking the safety @ 3 and would prefer trading down to a team looking at those dlineman. Although I know the mock doesn't work that way. If we stay where we are at (and aren't taking QB), I think I go safety, but wouldn't be upset with Garrett / Allen.

Agree. The interesting thing is, why would Fangio go back to San Fran after he already left them the first time (upset he didn't get the head coaching gig). Either way, glad we are keeping Fangio around.

Yeah...I agree with Connor. On a sidenote, it was amazing how good Matt Ryan looks. I always thought Ryan had talent and he showed it. I've always thought the same of Jay (albeit, at this point, he's too far gone for the Bears to keep), but it does go to show how important it is to put quality players and the right coaches around these guys. Ryan isn't Rodgers or Brady, who can do it on his own, but he's good enough that if you give him the right parts, he can be elite (and this year, Matt Ryan has been that). I'm surprised the Falcons aren't opening as favorites. They've looked fantastic. Also, the Packers lost to the superior team and beat a team that was better then them the week before. I don't really call the choking. Yes, they got whooped this week, but they didn't even belong on the same field as the Falcons (who I happen to think will win the superbowl). That said, I'd never bet against Tom Brady.

Great idea to start this Jason and it was fun even looking back at last year's thread. You were clearly all over Dak from day one and while none of us know what he'd look like with the Bears (vs. that Cowboy line), I'd definitely feel better having taken a QB somewhere in last years draft (vs. completely ignoring it). In terms of your first comment, I'm indifferent as to how we get a QB, but I'm a believer that we need to find our QB this year, whether via trade or the draft (and I'm open to picking one at 3 overall).

I still am a proponent of signing Romo and drafting a Qb in the 2nd round (even potentially moving into the back end of the 1st round to draft one). One name we haven't talked about is Phillip Rivers. If he puts himself on the block (given he does not want to play in LA), are people opposed to acquiring him? I presume with him forcing a deal, the Chargers wouldn't have a ton of leverage. He's on the older side, but I'd absolutely take him and would take him over every QB that is realistically available.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000077...-romo-to-texans Gil Brandt had the Bears 4th in the worst to 1st list and mentioned that if he were running the team, he'd draft best available @ 3 (I.e., defensive upgrade) and look at Romo, although his preference would be trading for Jimmy G. He is of the belief that with the right QB, we are a lot closer than people think (I agree with this statement...albeit, finding the right signal caller is easier said then done).

On paper, seems like a very meh hire. Lions had some pretty bad olines during his stint (not sure how much was due to coaching). I would have presumed we were going to promote from within.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/...ive-line-coach/ Jeremiah Washburn. Was assistant oline coach with Miami (and previously was the head oline coach with Lions for a few years).

I don't see why we would bring in Schaub. If we are going to tank, just stick with Barkley. Hoyer is a better QB than Schaub.

I think he looks at JG and says, I can't pay him (& Tom)the money, so if Tom is going to be here another few years, he views JG as an asset to get better, and probably drafted the new QB for that very reason, that he knew he was going to have to move Jimmy G, so he needed to take a QB who he could evaluate for a year to better understand what value he thinks he has in Brisett. If he doesn't like him, he still probably moves Jimmy G for the vary reasons I mention, anyway, then draft another QB (and by drafting the new QB, it doesn't mean that the player will be better then Jimmy G, it will be that Bill views his value better to his organization vs. paying Jimmy G significant money when he was Tom on the roster). We might end up seeing Jimmy stay, Pats do not have to move him this year, it all comes down to the perceived value. In terms of some of the examples from a previous poster, Montana was done and coming off of injuries and Manning was (but the Colts also had the #1 pick in a draft where Andrew Luck was available, one of the best QB prospects of the last 10 years). Packers decision with Favre was tough, but they moved on from Favre more because they were tired of his "retirement" song and dance (it helped that Rodgers had a few years to be groomed and they thought he was good...but again, not quite similar circumstances). Tom Brady, is still one of, if not the best QB's in the league still.

I think Belicheck also views players as assets and in general pieces. I think the reason they drafted Brissett is they know that either Brady will go shortly and they'll need two QB's (jimmy G and Brissett) or that they think Brady has a couple more years in him, which means, he knows the best use of an asset like Jimmy G is to deal him for multiple picks to keep the rest of the team good, while believing in Brissett (or finding another guy). I think Bill is so confident in the process he looks at everyone (with exception of Brady) as replaceable and that if the right value is there and it helps his team he'll do it. If Brady is around a few more years, you absolutely can not give Jimmy G a big contract (and that is what he'll want / get.

With Brady I agree, he's always had pretty good lines, but I also think he makes those lines good and helps them in terms of getting the ball out fast, etc. Rodgers has typically had pretty pourous olines. He also doesn't exactly help them out as he tends to hold onto the ball and rely a lot on his athleticism...he's just so freaking athletic that he can get away with it. Rodgers is physically the most talented QB I can ever remember seeing.

If they do that, I'd be all over Lynch. I wanted the Bears to draft him last year. I think the Broncos like what they have in Lynch (and Siemen, for where they drafted him, looks solid too).