adam

Here is the thing, if Trestman does make Cutler into a Pro Bowl caliber QB and the Bears make a deep playoff run, you have to assume that they would trust him to only get better in the same system. With the QB Franchise Tag at almost $15 million, that would seem to be the starting point. Another option is to only give him a 2-3 yr deal worth around $15/yr, that way there is not too much dead money in the deal. I still say a club friendly deal around $14 would be great.

I was thinking about the trade down scenario and how that would apply to the starter percentages. So if the #20 pick gives us a 55.3% chance at landing a starter, trading down with the 49ers for their 31st, 74th, and 131st pick would give us these percentages: (55.3% + 22.9% + 16.0% = 94.2%). I know it would not exactly play out like this, but I really like those odds better than the one shot one kill scenario at 20. I was also thinking that if we could trade down in the first with someone like the 49ers, then we could do it again and move back into the early 2nd. Moving down twice, once to the end of the 1st, then to the early 2nd, could gain us a 3rd, an extra 4th, 5th, and 6th rounder for moving into the high 30's from 20. To me this is decent, 4 picks for 15-18 slots, but it would not give us an extra 2nd (other than the one we get for losing our first). I would love a scenario where we could pick 3 times before the start of the 3rd round, even if all three were in the 2nd.

It is hard to see him signed to a long term deal if does anything less.

It speaks volumes for how bad our defense played and how bad Campbell was at QB.

At the time of this PFF article, Moore was the 9th most productive pass rusher. https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/...g-productivity/

Taking the name out of the equation, what would a QB who averages about 3,500 yards and 23-18 TD-INT per 16 games worth? Those averages would put that QB between 14-18th in the league. The market seems to be putting the Top 5 QB's over $20 million a year, with Top 10 QB's getting over $15 (Romo got over $17). Top 15 QB's should be around $12-15. So to me, unless Cutler throws for over 4,000 with about 30 TD's and a deep playoff run, I can't see him getting anything over $15, and to me something around 5 years for $12-$14 per year seems about right. This would be a slight increase over his $10 million per year contract he just had. Also, this is assuming Cutler becomes Trestman's guy.

That would be a very solid *wink* *wink* draft.

0.5 more than McClellin and he played in less games.

Anderson said he would ask Singletary's permission to wear #50 as there is no other number left in the 50's to use. At this point it would be worse if he was wearing #54, but that may be what Te'o wears after he is drafted at 20. Anderson (50) Butkus (51) Costanzo (52) Williams (53) Te'o (54) Briggs (55) Hewitt (56) DiCicco (57) Franklin (58) Trahan (59)

The last line of the article says it all:

We will certainly find out, it going to be an interesting season. We were just 10-6, but many felt we left a few games on the field and should've been better. With the offseason acquisitions (and with the subtraction of Davis alone) we should be better going into this season. Also, from a coaching standpoint, we should be light years better on offense and probably a little worse on defense (figuring in the loss of Lovie, Marinelli, and Urlacher). Mel Tucker has his work cut out for him, but man, wouldn't you love taking over for a team that has Peppers, Melton, Briggs, Tillman, and Jennings returning, and with guys like Anderson and Williams hungry to prove themselves.

Another cool site with a decent article on QB valuation: http://overthecap.com/value-pricing-the-nfl-qb/ They said Cutler under-performed and is worth between $8-$9 million a year. To me that seems about right.

I can't see that either, and I don't know if that would actually be a surprise if Emery drafted him anyway. Kenny Vaccaro or Eddie Lacy would be surprise picks for me.

I wouldn't say it is drafting to dodge a salary, it is just killing two birds with one stone. You get younger and cheaper for comparable performance and then can take the savings and apply it elsewhere. Also, both are Pro Bowlers last year, but you can predict where they will be in two years. Tillman will be 34. All I am saying is a DB in the 1st would not be wasted. He could come in an immediately play Nickel, and could move up if either of the top 2 struggle or get injured. Then that gives the Bears some financial flexibility next offseason. With the signing of the 2 LB's, we are in the same boat. If we drafted a LB in the 1st, someone would be the odd man out. Besides OG or possibly OT, there really is no one specific huge hole to fill. Like scs said, who then? List the players that would start right away if drafted in the 1st.

I guess the point is that he will never see the field or make an impact, so it really doesn't matter who ends up with the 3rd String QB job.

Jason, from a financial perspective, CB is a possibility. Even though both made the Pro Bowl last year, they will both be UFA's after this season with pretty high salaries. A first rounder could potentially provide the same level of play at a fraction of the cost. If it is not CB, then what, LB is still a high possibility, and I would say OG and OT are still up there as we always can use upgrades there. Maybe WR too. I hope it is not DT, but with the quality at that position, it may end up being a steal in terms of BPA.

Yeah the board sure got a boost when we merged way back when. I am one of posters that came over from SoxTalk when they opened this one up back in 2006. We did the merge in late 2007 and it has been great ever since.

To me Emery just put us in a great position for next offseason. The Bears will have 26 UFA's, almost half of their roster, and with a few restructures/extensions (Peppers, Marshall, Briggs, Bennett, and Bush), the Bears will have about $60 million to play with.

Since there are a bunch of DE/DT's rated high this year, one or two of them seem like the most likely to drop.

Yeah, I was just pointing out another analysis site and some of the stuff they posted. I had never heard of the site before, but it backs up and refutes some of the info that others have posted lately.

I really hope there are some teams moving up to get their QB. Funny things happen near the end of the first because teams don't want to lose out early on the 2nd day of draft, so they move up.

So I was reading some articles on NFP, that linked me to Draftmetrics, here are the articles: http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Late-r...to-success.html and http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Studyi...-NFL-Teams.html Some great info and analysis, checkout their site here: http://www.draftmetrics.com/ Some of the take-aways, based on Big school vs Little school drafting, the Bears are almost dead on league average, where teams like the Seahawks and Saints almost exclusively draft from a BCS eligible school. The Bears drafted over the league average from the Big-12, and less than the league average from the ACC. For the entire league, here is the percentage of 5-year starters from their draft position (1993-2006): Picks 1-13 - 74.7% Picks 14-40 - 55.3% Picks 41-66 - 39.8% Picks 67-86 - 22.9% Picks 87-149 - 16.0% Picks 150-189 - 8.9% Picks 190+ - 6.8% The drop-offs are to be expected, though I didn't necessarily think they would be at those picks. Once you are past pick 66, you have less than a 25% chance of drafting a regular starter. It drops off quickly after that. From 1993-2006, the Packers, Steelers, Rams had the most total 5-yr starters, drafting 31 or more. The Rams were surprising to me there. The Bears are actually in the 2nd group with 28. However, when you get to the efficiency part of the draft, that is where we fail. For efficiency, we were 17th at -.033, meaning we drafted less starters than what was the norm for our pick positions. The Packers, Steelers, 49ers, Giants, and Rams were the most efficient. When I think about this, the Rams have had a lot of top 5 picks, so I can see where they were almost in the can't miss category boosting their efficiency. The Lions, Eagles, Raiders, Saints, and Vikings were the worst. Now this makes sense too, Matt Millen and Al Davis selecting bust after bust, year after year. To me there was not much groundbreaking info there, but the success rates of picks was pretty interesting. For us, since we are not in the top 13, it almost makes sense to move back and pick up another pick to give us a better chance at drafting a starter.

That would be a very solid draft. Cooper at #20 and Amerson at #50 would be huge.

Nice.

Patterson would be an interesting pick, but I would think he would be better on the outside. With Marshall and Jeffery, I still think Ogletree and Trufant would be best according to this analysis.