adam

Looks like he passed his physical, and with the loss of Grasu, we really need quality depth now.

Man, the national media is ridiculous. Over the past few weeks, I have heard multiple media outlets questioning Langford and the Bears rushing attack RBBC. However, I heard today (on Sirius) them talking about how Matt Jones is going to have a breakout year. That got me thinking of the comparisons between the Bears and Redskins, they both lost their veteran RB's and replaced them with younger backs both drafted in 2015. Interestingly enough, Jones was selected 11 picks before Langford. Here is their production from last year: Matt Jones 144-490, 3.4, 3 TD, 19 REC, 304 YDS, 1 TD, 4 FB Jeremy Langford 148-537, 3.6, 6 TD, 22 REC, 279 YDS, 1 TD, 0 FB Actually, they are pretty close with Langford having more rushing yards and TD's while Jones has the edge in receiving yards. The biggest difference is fumbles, where Jones lost 4 and Langford didn't even have a single fumble (Jones had 5 but lost 4). So from ESPN, to CNNSI, to PFF, to NFL Network, please tell me how Matt Jones is going to breakout, yet Langford is going to struggle (and the Bears will miss Forte)?

Marshall is truly bipolar. When he is on most interviews, he actually seems down to earth and friendly. Then he turns into this other person...pretty creepy.

To me Martellus was reinforcing his brother's statement. From reviewing games from the last few years, a bunch of INTs were thrown in Bennett's direction. How is Bennett going to take being the #2 TE and at least a 1/3 less targets? I just didn't like the comments in general. If they wanted to give an honest assessment as him as a player, go for it, but a comment like that is just smug. Those guys would be nothing if not for their physical attributes.

Tough loss, especially with the Slauson release. What about Louis Vasquez, former Bronco, current FA?

So the Bennett brothers rip Cutler and Marshall says he thinks Jay could win the MVP? What a crazy day. I can tell you I lost all respect for the Bennett's after this interview. I hope they both tear ACL's. http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/1720163...ett-vs-everyone http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chica...0803-story.html

I heard that they were looking at him at NB.

I am curious to see the full terms. I like Willie, and if he can continue to produce and be a great locker room guy, this is a great deal.

http://www.si.com/nfl/2016/07/27/chicago-b...nfl-free-agency according to PFF: Chicago also signed wide receiver B.J. Daniels, which brings the roster to the 90-player maximum.

Bring him back for one game and have him take a knee and run off the field to a standing ovation and then retire.

Silatolu might have been signed because of this: https://twitter.com/BradBiggs/status/756923475479109632

He was a DB and KR/PR, so it looks like they are happy with what they have at those positions (which is a good sign).

I loved when he shutdown Moss and Megatron, my favorite play:

Borderline but probably won't get in. Not enough INTs as a CB. I believe he had more forced fumbles than INTs for his career. He definitely redefined the position with the Peanut Punch but not dominant enough for HoF.

Actually 52 players are not red, so counting practice squad and cuts, we will probably have 15-20 new players next year as well. Of all the red names, only 15 or so are actually going to be on the 53-man roster. So to me, it seems we are in a great position, with only younger players or solid veterans signed longer than a year or two. We don't really have any bad contracts left on the books going into 2017. The most dead money we would have if we needed to cut a player next year (outside of rookie deals) would be Cutler and Freeman who both have $2mil in dead money if cut. Every other veteran player could be cut for less, which is awesome. Honestly, if we are not in the playoff hunt near the deadline, I would love to move Houston, Young, and potentially Royal or Gould for draft picks. Now I understand that no one may want them, but if there was a trade market and we were not in the hunt, then the draft picks would be more valuable to us going forward.

One of my all-time favorite Bears. Sad to see another one leave the game. I wonder if the Bears will sign him to a 1-day deal to retire as a Bear?

I would say if they tag him again, then yes. However, if they can work out a long term deal before that point then I don't think it was a mistake not to pay him now. I also think they want to see what White does. If he goes off, then Alshon is worth a lot less to the Bears.

It is not about controversy or conspiracy. The Bears were in the first year of a total regime change. Expectations were low. All I was pointing out based on the article was that Gase ran more than 10% than any other team when we lost, and was one of the 3 least flexible play callers based on game situations. No one will ever know the exact motives behind the decisions, but it is interesting that a guy who was riding Manning's coat tails as an OC in Denver then magically improved Cutler with a 6-10 record becomes an offensive mastermind. If you think about it, we were going to be a losing team last year regardless, and if we pushed on offense and took more chances, the offense might have scored more (debatable), but Cutler definitely would've had more turnovers. By playing conservative (not to win essentially), it appeared to everyone that Cutler magically improved from the year before when in essence he was just restricted and the offense was going to run even when the game dictated passing. So who gained the most from the scenario? It seems to be Gase. It was probably not the primary intent, but the stats at least point to the fact that something more than just "reducing bad plays" was involved. Think of it this way. There are a lot worse QB's than Cutler, worse offenses, etc, yet we ran 10% more than the next closest team (in losses), and ran 40% more than ARZ (which ran the least in losses).

That does basically sum it up. A WR1 but not a Franchise player.

Taylor just likes Porter. No way are they top 5. I could buy top 10-12, but he is missing a ton of other tandems before I would even think of Fuller or Porter.

I don't know if the per year money is even the issue anymore with NFL contracts. From what I have seen, it is guaranteed money and the number of years. So if they are far apart, it is probably tied to how much Alshon wants up front in guarantees, and I am sure the Bears are hesitant to give him a lot of guarantees due to injury history.

If that is true about Callahan, than maybe our secondary is not as bad as it looks on paper. I know he had a couple of decent games but only played in what 7 games? So the jury is still out, but having a solid NB would be a nice. Patrick Robinson at #2? Wow, we were talking about picking him up as a UFA last year.

No, that might have been the whole reason, limit Cutler mistakes. However, if we were already going to lose (or losing), what more did we have to lose by throwing the ball? Did Gase have more to lose than the team? Meaning, if he keeps Cutler in check and reduces turnovers, even if we lose, he can point to other factors on why we lost. This would seem to keep his value as a coach higher than if Cutler threw 25 picks and we went 6-10. Just a thought.

I am good on rushing the ball. The article was about the playcallers propensity to run even when losing/in a loss. We ran more than anyone and lost, which correlates to the playcallers reluctance to pass when losing. So in other words, we were playing from behind not to get blown out.

We ran 10% more than any other team in a loss and had one of the lower yards per carry of any team. So it is sort of counter-intuitive. The numbers don't tell the whole story, but does shine the light on some things that are not easily recognizable otherwise.