DABEARSDABOMB

Fairly certain Lovie will get another job. He got royally screwed in Tampa.

Absurd move by the Bucs. I presume Gase would be extremely interested in the gig (although the fact that ownership canned Lovie, who didn't deserve it, that quickly, would make you nervous). That said, getting to work with Winston and building around him would be very attractive to any potential head coach. His players were pretty pissed off (based upon NFL network reports last night).

We will never agree on this or Forte. It makes zero sense to take Miller, who is coming off of his first ever non injury plagued season (and is older than Marty) and than use a pick on an actual starter when we have a million needs. TE is a strength and we have a ton of weaknesses. Why should the Bears end up moving Marty (for what will probably be a pick which would not allow us to draft a player as good as Marty, in most all scenarios) and than create a need now to use a 2nd rounder on a TE. It is an absolute no brainer to me that we need to find a way to mend the relationship and have Marty & Miller and actually have a strength. It also ensures we can focus our draft picks and FA signings on actual areas of need (and their are plenty of them on this roster). If the Bears dump Marty, our Te position is absolutely weak. You would be ignorant to ignore Miller's consistent history of injuries. All probabilities point to a scenario with Miller as our starter resulting in Khari Lee as our starting TE for the majority of the season, which would be a disaster (or we spend money on a FA or use an early pick on a TE and in this day and age, early picks are going to TE's, so that is what it would take if we are looking at a probable TE who has a shot at being a dynamic player).

Or Carey and Langford and invest Forte's money in the oline or defense? That is the reality of the question. We have a solid backup in Carey and a guy who did nothing but look like a starter in Langford (and a potential above average one in that) and both of whom are young and cost effective. Frank Gore was a stud...what good did that deal do for the Colts? I would like Forte back, but reality is, very unlikely the economics make sense for the Bears. If I'm a contending team, who struggles at RB, I can justify that price, but the Bears have a lot of other holes and they can actually have pieces who look like quality backs on the roster. I can't see how or why the Bears would pay him similarly than someone like the Pats. By the way, I agree that Forte isn't even in the same league as anyone on that list except Charles (who is way better than Forte). Gore is the only other one who was close, imo.

Also I think Pace knows that the more people think their is an issue, the lower his trade value gets (if he does intend to test his market). Personally, I know that Marty is one of the best TE's in the league and still young and capable. We have a lot of other needs and we don't have some young up and coming TE on the books. I would be very happy if we were able to give Marty a fair extension while also bringing Miller back to be the back-up (and than continuing to develop Lee or whomever else behind that for more depth). Gives you quality weapons at the TE spot.

Forte was a running back about to be a FA and the Bears had a guy who was at the top of their draft board, having limited perspective on Carey. Remember, at some point last year, people thought Carey was going to get cut. Between Forte being an impending free agent and very long in his tooth, I have absolutely no reason to see why the Bears would invest in back that they thought highly of. And I'm thrilled they did. Langford is going to be a very good football player and a total bargain given where he was picked. We have to look at the landscape of the league and history of the RB position...very few RB's are successful past 30. I hope Forte comes back at a fair price, but if he wants another big contract, I hope the Bears aren't the ones foolish to give it to him. This is the NFL and age matters a ton and guys drop off pretty quick (especially at RB).

Jacks is fantastic. I'd love him on the Bears, although I do have concerns over his injury. In fact, I'd be exstatic if we went Jacks / Smith in round 1 and 2. Address a huge weakness and than focus on the line and other parts of the team in FA (say Eric Berry, an olineman, and a pass rusher)

On a sidenote, could some of this talk be posturing by his agent to try and put more leverage on the Bears? I wouldn't put it past an agent.

I argue what the Spurs do is for the overall health of their players to ensure they are their for the post-season and when it matters. I could see an argument saying losing games intentionally is better for the health of the organization, but I don't really see that in football. One player, with the exception of a stud QB, will not turn a franchise around. Just not going to happen. In this draft, no one is worthy of that sort of potential, where I could argue that we would be better with 1 win and the #1 overall spot. I argue that we are better off ascending upwards with improving young players, etc, and getting an 11 pick, than we would have been as a 3 win team because Jay sucked and all of our young players sucked. I also think a lot of this season was about changing the culture. That doesn't happen if at week 14 Fox just pulls his vets. I also argue it is hard to evaluate players if most everyone on the field is crap. Can't evaluate a wideout very easy if the QB and oline suck...can't evaluate the RB if the oline is trash and the QB can't throw....can't evaluate a CB that well if the dline gets zero pressure, etc. Now I do think their is a fine line late in the year and you need to selectively sit certain guys because it is in your best long-term interest to do so (from a player development / evaluation perspective vs. a draft pick improvement perspective). I even will go as far as saying later in the season development matters more than wins (as I think that is true). But I fully do not condone tanking with rare exceptions (such as if Andrew Luck was going to get drafted and you knew if you lost the final 2 games you would get the top pick...I'm sorry...in that case I'm playing the worst QB on the planet and going with it). I'm not having a tanking because of the difference between the 6th pick and the 11th pick or even the 11th and the 1st (unless some once in a decade type talent is available). Let me ask you this...does anyone want to be the Philadelphia 76er's now? No NBA player wants to go there? What about the Browns (who consistently suck and pick in the top 10)? I certainly don't. The Packers have rarely had top 10 picks, same with the Pats, they do just fine (now you could argue this highlights the importance of QB and to a certain extent I agree).

Isn't the statistic that would matter most how teams performed who had top picks vs. teams with middle picks over a 1 / 3 / 5 year horizon. Essentially showing is a 4 win team more likely to get better because of their top 5 pick vs. a 6 win team with their top 15 pick? I realize their are a lot of variables to this equation and I presume you would have some sort of trend factor, identifying teams who are a 6 win team and trending down vs. a 6 win team that is trending up. My point remains, that you can't like at this in a vacuum and just say picking top 5 would be better. I am much happier having won 6 games than 1 game. I think we'd be in for a much longer haul if we had just won a game this year vs. the 6 we did win. Now I would argue that the difference between 6 or 7 becomes relatively meaningless in the grand scheme of things, so I get the point to some degree, but totally tanking just is crazy to me.

I think Royal, who is what, 5M cap hit next year, should restructure. That said, I like the idea of having Royal back along with Mar + Wilson + White + Alshon + Thompson and others who can battle out. As a result of all the injuries this year, I think we'll have a much deeper core next year. That said, I think none of the secondary guys proved they were anything but role players / depth guys (or in Thompson's case a guy with special teams potential).

I should point out, I was thinking more of Mariani as the #4 wideout. I think of him as a guy who should play week in and week out, albeit more in 4 wide out sets. Upside is minimal but value is real vs. say a Meredith or Wilson who may have more potential but not the consistent player you want on a 4 receiver set.

I don't recall any team that just decided to say, bench its QB because or its veteran players, because the season was over. If they are injured, that is one thing, otherwise, I think the veterans and young players should be playing every week. The exception to that rule is if you have veterans who are not part of future plans (i.e., impending free agents that you don't plan to bring back or guys who you might not bring back and thus you need to see other guys on film). In those cases, I am on board. If we were to pull every veteran and just play a million practice squaders the second we were eliminated, it would be very hard to actually gauge where your team stands in the grand scheme of things. Heck, if we just pulled the plug on someone like Houston 5 or 6 weeks ago, we probably would have came to a much different decision than I presume Bears bass would come to today (i.e., that we need to keep him). Also, if you pull your QB, how do you evaluate other wideouts or even backs. With the backup in (presuming it is a garbage backup with little upside and you plan on keeping your current QB the starter), you are going to make it harder to evaluate wideouts and probably your RB's (as people stack the box). Might also make it more difficult to evaluate young olinemen. Oh and while this is a business, these guys are paid to play and fans want to see guys play. I'd be pretty pissed if I paid money to see a bunch of practice squaders run around the field.

Yes...he has sucked as a returner, but damn has he been good in the slot. I want him back next year. Showed good hands, a knack for being in the right spot, and even did a nice job gaining additional yards after the catch. He reminded me a bit of Bobby Engram late in the year (who is the best slot receiver I can ever remember the Bears having in my span). I presume Royal will be cut (or restructure) and given what Marc showed, I'm okay giving him some additional responsibility.

I am a proponent of drafting another QB, but I see no one in this draft worthy of a #1 pick. If I'm taking a QB, I'll go with someone like Hackenberg later on in the draft. I don't think their is a wide gap between him and the 1st round QB's (said another way, I think all of them are most likely backups to mediocre starters, but maybe they take significant steps forward and become more). I actually think Hackenberg has far more upside.

Okay...so understand with LaBeau, but with the success Zimmer is having in Minnesota, does that change people's perceptions of someone like Fangio. I would think it would. Either way, I fully expect the Bears to lose one of their top coordinators (if not both).

Not even an issue for this year. And money talks a lot as does another year around the org. Either way, at a minimum, we have two straight years we can keep him here under our control (as I think you can use the franchise tag twice on a player, before losing that right). Whatever you think you will get for Jeffrey via trade probably does not commensurate with the value he brings to the Bears (and it isn't as if we are a playoff team with plenty of talent who could take a different route). Bottom line, I think Alshon is stuck with us (unless someone is going to give up a 1st round pick and I don't see that very likely). Also, money talks and he's going to get some big money offers from the Bears.

I respect Brandon for the work he put into the game and the passion he played with. I don't respect him for how he handles his attitude and obviously they are items he knows about and is consistently working towards and I do commend him for that. The deal worked great for the Jets, but from the Bears perspective, Fox needed a clean slate and needed to start building his vision and it was much better to start that by clearing the lockeroom of someone who wasn't very well liked.

You know what this analysis is missing / ignoring, the fact pattern of what drove you to those additional victories. Is the improved pick, which gives you a chance at an additional player, more valuable, than the improvement of key young players on your roster / momentum build heading into the following season? I.e. would you rather finish with a top 15 pick because your team ran off 5 straight wins and you had some young stars developing and leading you down that path? Or would you have rather lost all those games, because your young talent busted, thus getting the #1 pick, but being so far worse as an organization and having so many more needs now vs. had you been picking 15th? I think that is what is missing from this analysis. Clearly you can get better talent picking top 10 vs. 15 and below, but, if you have a better team around it, the increased benefit from the right pick at 15 is far more valuable than what you are going to pick between 5-10. The exception to this rule is when a clear cut franchise QB is staring right at you.

I am so pissed that we wasted money on Ball vs. bringing Peanut back. I rarely am one of those veteran homers on this site, but Peanut was that guy for me and I hate seeing him play somewhere else. He brought so much to the lockeroom and community and was always a good mentor/role model for other players. Wish Peanut a speedy recovery and I hope if he is truly going to hang it up, he signs a 1 year deal with the Bears and than announces his retirement.

With Von Miller likely getting the franchise tag (and they have to deal with Osweiller or finding another QB), Broncos have some other critical free agents. That includes Brandon Marshall, but they have two quality, young, DE's who will also be hitting the market. Fox has familiarity with both and the Broncos are likely going to have trouble getting it all to work under the cap. Malik Jackson, DE, Denver Broncos: He turns 26 in January and is another 3-4 defensive end who is adept at putting heat on quarterbacks while capably handling the run. He is getting better and is playing some of the best football of his career the past three games. Derek Wolfe, DE, Denver Broncos: Like his defensive line teammate and fellow free agent Malik Jackson, Wolfe also turns 26 in a few months. Also like Jackson, he's one of the stronger young 3-4 defensive ends in the league. Unlike Jackson, Wolfe's strength is against the run, while he is still improving as a pass rusher.

Fair points and as a whole I agree with this premise. Although I argue, find the best fit possible in FA and than worry about the other fit in the draft (while still accounting for BPA).

I put ILB as much lower need cause I don't see ILB as a defensive playmaker in a 3-4. I view an elite OLB as the defensive playmaker in that defense or a playmaker in the secondary as higher needs. Do we need an ILB, absolutely, but I don't want to use a top 10 pick on it (if we do really pick top 10). I think we target a defensive playmaker in FA, although I suppose we could always pivot and use the FA money on a tackle instead. I expect us to pursue Berry as well. Pairing him with Amos gives us a very strong back-end of the secondary.

What is the reason that a guy who stunk at RT would be better at LT? Do they think Long is a better fit their? If so, why wasn't he their to begin with (vs. play him at RT now and than move him to LT a year from now). To me if you are going to switch his position, move him back to guard. I presume its the fact that RT's tend to be bigger and stronger and they watch the tape and see Long just isn't a good fit their, but what he does well would excel on the left side? The only way I endorse this move is if they think he can be a probowl type LT. If they do, fine, otherwise put the man back to his natural position, let him beast, and add a top pick at tackle (or use some FA money). Either way, stud olineman and defensive playmaker are 1A and 1B on my wish list.

I'd have rather stunk early and went on a run late than peak in the middle of the season and stink late. The way we have finished is worrisome, but it does provide a truer picture into our areas of need vs. mask potential deficiencies. For example, the oline was masked for a while.