Trubisky Rumor

[Mongo3451]

You're right about the cash not being an issue, but that's not a sound way to run a franchise. You don't spend huge money on someone you plan on sitting on the bench just because you have extra cash.

 

If the Bears pick a QB at #3 this year, I'll be very upset. It will be a bad move for a variety of reasons, one of which is the Glennon signing. A #3 pick should be a person that comes in and start immediately. If it's a non-QB, that person should make an immediate impact because, presumably, they're better than the player at the position at which they were drafted. If it's a QB, you want that guy in immediately to get as many reps and knowledge as possible. Sure, there are some guys who have sat for a few years and have become very good, but the general consensus is that a 1st round QB needs to get in and get the reps.

Disagree to a point. If the brass believes a QB to be franchise quality but believe he needs time to groom. It is a good move and solid practice. As bad as we are with developing QB's , this approach has not been attempted.(I think ever)

[AZ54]

Disagree to a point. If the brass believes a QB to be franchise quality but believe he needs time to groom. It is a good move and solid practice. As bad as we are with developing QB's , this approach has not been attempted.(I think ever)

 

I agree with that. Pace may feel he is best off throwing two darts at the bullseye. He might think equally well of Glennon and Trubisky and that each can become good NFL starters, but his confidence level might be 80% on either. If he is right on both accounts then he simply keeps the better of the two and the other can be traded to get some return.

 

 

Consider this from Bradjock:

 

"The problem is, while there is an over-abundance of round one talent, there is a void of top tier talent. Which means it sucks to have the #3 pick."

---------------------------

 

That's seems to be a valid point for this draft. Then there are others who point out that the value in taking a safety so high just isn't there. Like it or not there are questions about Allen as an elite NFL talent that go beyond just his shoulders. Same can be said for Thomas, lattimore, or Hooker. If we were to plot draft grades we'd have a relatively flat line from the #3 pick on down maybe as far as into the early part of the 2nd Rd.

 

If your draft grades are not that far apart from the 3rd position on your draft board down to the 2nd half of the first round then it seems filling your biggest need is the proper choice. If Trubisky is the 20th prospect on the Bears board and his grade is just slightly below Adams, and Pace thinks over the next year or two he'll develop into a legit NFL starter, then the value of the QB position says you take him at #3.

 

----------------------------

 

On the heels of the Bears/Trubisky rumors come the Browns stating they might take him #1 overall. Who is playing who? Do the Browns want Chicago to trade up to #1? Or does Chicago want Cleveland to trade up from #12 to #3 to take their QB? If Pace takes both of Cleveland's 2nd Rd picks and #12 overall I'd be very happy.

 

What would you do with #12 overall, three 2nd Rd picks, and the early 3rd Rd pick?

 

Ramczyk OT, Awuzie CB, Baker S/NB, Shaheen TE, Cupp/Zay Jones WR, and followup with QB Peterman in the 4th Rd.

 

 

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Just because I'm curious; why is Trubisky (at QB) even THE topic of discussion? What has he done? Who has he played against? He's got what 13 games started under his belt and??? Is it because "experts" like Kiper and Mayock deem it so? He didn't play on an NFL style offense and of those 13 starts has a record of 8-5 so again, what gives? Granted I live in Alaska so it's possible I'm removed a bit from reality but still I wonder.

 

Of course if Cleveland or SF think he worthy then fine by me.

[Lucky Luciano]

You're right about the cash not being an issue, but that's not a sound way to run a franchise. You don't spend huge money on someone you plan on sitting on the bench just because you have extra cash.

 

If the Bears pick a QB at #3 this year, I'll be very upset. It will be a bad move for a variety of reasons, one of which is the Glennon signing. A #3 pick should be a person that comes in and start immediately. If it's a non-QB, that person should make an immediate impact because, presumably, they're better than the player at the position at which they were drafted. If it's a QB, you want that guy in immediately to get as many reps and knowledge as possible. Sure, there are some guys who have sat for a few years and have become very good, but the general consensus is that a 1st round QB needs to get in and get the reps.

 

i disagree.

 

first the "huge money" contract for glennon is NOT a huge money contract. it is in the bottom third of qb salaries currently being paid in the nfl. it is what it costs to have a starting qb that is even competent. it is a friendly keep or cut contract if it does not work out.

 

second... the drafting of a player in the first round that for some reason HAS to start the first year and make an immediate impact (even in the top 5 picks) is in my opinion ridiculous. it is what the bears have done since mike mccaskey took over as GM in 1987 and jim finks and jerry vainisi were now by-products of this franchise. the let's 'win it now' (and keep our jobs) type of drafts and get the guy most ready to start is total BS. this is why we have had TWO superbowl appearances in FIFTY ONE YEARS!!

 

immediate "reps" for a future franchise qb is NOT required. the packers have done exactly that with favre and rogers (not to mention all the draft picks they have acquired for other qb trades). anybody here be upset to have a top 5 pick qb sit on the bench for 2 or 3 years and come in and have a HOF career? i know i wouldn't.

 

someone previously asked what qb's next year are going to be worth waiting for. well? anybody?

 

how many are there? what if there are injuries or guys not wanting to come out? where in the draft are they projected to go? assuming we have an even AVERAGE year, which i believe we will at LEAST have that which puts us mid first round, how are we going to move up into the top 5 to draft one if he is that good or even POSSIBLE if someone else needs the franchise qb also? even doing so it's still a calculated risk he won't return dividends and have cost us MANY extra draft picks we can't afford to lose.

 

so to me IF the qb's in this draft look to have a future as an above average starter or franchise qb then TAKE HIM!! if he sits then so what? who cares? as stated by others... what a 'liability' that would be if BOTH turn out to be great. can you imagine the draft picks we could acquire trading one? it would be the FIRST time this has happened since johnny lujack and bobby layne. the bears kept lujack, who was soon injured and done, and sent layne to the lions to become a HOF player. screwed again but what an opportunity we had.

 

 

 

 

[Chitownhustla]

You're right about the cash not being an issue, but that's not a sound way to run a franchise. You don't spend huge money on someone you plan on sitting on the bench just because you have extra cash.

 

If the Bears pick a QB at #3 this year, I'll be very upset. It will be a bad move for a variety of reasons, one of which is the Glennon signing. A #3 pick should be a person that comes in and start immediately. If it's a non-QB, that person should make an immediate impact because, presumably, they're better than the player at the position at which they were drafted. If it's a QB, you want that guy in immediately to get as many reps and knowledge as possible. Sure, there are some guys who have sat for a few years and have become very good, but the general consensus is that a 1st round QB needs to get in and get the reps.

 

Pace and Fox can not afford to go into next season with a rookie QB and a bunch of bums backing him up. Pace and Fox signed Glennon to a team friendly deal in terms of other qb contracts and how easy it is to get after one year. Glennon is taking a risk by coming to the Bears, he has one year to prove he is a starter and probably knows the Bears will be adding a rookie QB. If Glennon plays lights out he lives to play another year. If he is mediocre the rookie will take over sooner then later.

 

 

If the Bears brass feel one of these QB's is a franchise QB then they have to take him, its a 10 to 12 years decision with QB's. I get that another position or player may provide more gains next year but if the Bears HIT on a qb they are set for 10 to 12 years.

 

 

 

 

[dawhizz]

Honestly, the approach by the Bears doesn't seem that hard to figure out and it seems to me with the Bears picks and the amount of work they have done on these guys they should be able to execute it:

1) If there's one guy you love and see as a can't miss, franchise guy, you take him at #3 and don't look back. (I find this unlikely because no one seems to think any of these QBs are "can't miss" guys, but it's possible).

2) If there's another position player you see as a can't miss, franchise guy at #3, you take him and figure out QB later (see below).

3) If there's a couple guys at QB you love, you try to trade down a bit if possible and still put yourself in a position to take one of them. In the unlikely event one is already gone, you probably take the other at #3.

4) If you don't love any of the top QBs, go elsewhere in the 1st.

5) If you went somewhere else in the first, and a guy you really like is still there at #20, you start figuring out how you can trade back into the 1st and take him.

6) If one of the top four QBs is still there when you pick in the 2nd and you like him, you take him.

7) If there's a 2nd tier guy you really like (Webb, Peterman, Dobbs, Kaaya), you evaluate the QB market and determine if you should take him with your pick in the 2nd, trade down in the 2nd and take him, trade up from the 3rd to the late 2nd and take him, or stay with your pick in the 3rd and take him.

 

I would be pretty surprised if the Bears don't take a QB in the first three rounds and can't see it being anyone other than someone from this list: Trubisky, Watson, Mahomes, Kizer, Webb, Peterman, Dobbs, or Kaaya. I have favorites and least favorites, but I don't hate any of those guys, but the real questions will be where was the Bears QB drafted, was it good value, and did we adequately address our other needs.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

i disagree.

 

first the "huge money" contract for glennon is NOT a huge money contract. it is in the bottom third of qb salaries currently being paid in the nfl. it is what it costs to have a starting qb that is even competent. it is a friendly keep or cut contract if it does not work out.

 

so to me IF the qb's in this draft look to have a future as an above average starter or franchise qb then TAKE HIM!! if he sits then so what? who cares? as stated by others... what a 'liability' that would be if BOTH turn out to be great. can you imagine the draft picks we could acquire trading one? it would be the FIRST time this has happened since johnny lujack and bobby layne. the bears kept lujack, who was soon injured and done, and sent layne to the lions to become a HOF player. screwed again but what an opportunity we had.

 

EXCELLENT POST Lucky. Couldn't agree more. Especially like the idea of potentially having a 'good' problem with two decent starting caliber QB's that could be trade worthy.

 

Again the fact of how Glennon's contract is set up tells me plenty. Nothing guaranteed like when they signed Cutler to that ridiculous contract a few years back.

['TD']

I would love it if they went Trubisky.

 

My interest in the NFL and Bears has waned the last few years, be it never ending reign of Cutler or the GM's running the show, they got me to where i watched maybe 5 games last year (not going to get political, but other reasons too.)

 

I would legitimately get excited and here posting and checking posts everyday if they drafted Trubisky. I think it's a shot of excitement a lot of fans would have, and rejuvenate the base a little.

 

He's got everything I like in a qb, goes through progressions, doesn't turn the ball over, and decent size. That comes with low expectations coming out due to experience, which may let the fan base give him some room to grow.

 

 

[AZ54]

I would love it if they went Trubisky. My interest in the NFL and Bears has waned the last few years, be it never ending reign of Cutler or the GM's running the show, they got me to where i watched maybe 5 games last year (not going to get political, but other reasons too.) I would legitimately get excited and here posting and checking posts everyday if they drafted Trubisky. I think it's a shot of excitement a lot of fans would have, and rejuvenate the base a little. He's got everything I like in a qb, goes through progressions, doesn't turn the ball over, and decent size. That comes with low expectations coming out due to experience, which may let the fan base give him some room to grow.

 

Trubisky is also pretty good throwing while on the run both to his left and to his right 10-20yds downfield, sometimes further. That is the main reason I prefer him over the other top candidates since the other attributes are pretty close among them. I think he'll be the best among this group in the future when plays break down, plus his own scrambling ability is very good.

 

Mahomes can throw on the move as well but his decisions when on the run scare me and in the NFL the players chasing him will be faster which will force him to speed up his decisions. Mahomes is not as athletic either so that combined with his bad habits forcing the ball when on the run usually ends badly.

 

 

[Stinger226]

Trubisky is also pretty good throwing while on the run both to his left and to his right 10-20yds downfield, sometimes further. That is the main reason I prefer him over the other top candidates since the other attributes are pretty close among them. I think he'll be the best among this group in the future when plays break down, plus his own scrambling ability is very good.

 

Mahomes can throw on the move as well but his decisions when on the run scare me and in the NFL the players chasing him will be faster which will force him to speed up his decisions. Mahomes is not as athletic either so that combined with his bad habits forcing the ball when on the run usually ends badly.

The value of a top 5 pick is generally QB, LT, edge rusher. Thomas and Allen fill the role of edge rusher, no QBs or LTs are of high value enough to be worthy of that #3 pick. If we draft a S that high , he would need to be special. I heard a interesting podcast with Greg Gabriel on it. He stated on good a player Adams is and a great leader, but said he did not have special traits. He stated that if the medicals turn out okay for Hooker that he is a special player and would be more valued at #3. He also stated that even if you overdraft a QB, none truly have the value of a top 10 status.The best teams also draft the BPA players no matter what the need, so if you one of these QBs could turn out to be a starter, then you have to assign a risk factor to them. So if you grab a developmental QB in 2 or 3 or take a 50/50% risk factor at #3, which puts you closer to a SB? I guess that is the question Pace must answer. Is it better to have an all pro DE or S? Or draft a QB that turns out like Cristian Ponder or Jake Looker, or on the upside a Bartels? If they view a QB with enough upside to take at 3, then you take them, if not draft the BPA, period.

 

I have always thought of Thomas or Adams would be our best choices that high but have since changed my mind. I have been reading a lot about them and listened to many podcasts and both of them have to many questions on them to draft that high. The two answers that keep coming from most of these experts is Allen and Hooker are special players worthy of drafting at #3. So they have to answer the question of that their medicals will be okay, then you have to draft one of them. If not you take a safer bet like Adams.

So the question remains is there any QB that they view will be at least a mid level type of QB upside? ( I do not believe that any of these QBs are of top 10 upside in this draft)

So Tribisky has been compared to Romo and Cousins the most.

They just have to view what player gives them the most value at #3, it has to be a special player, or average QB, that is the question they will answer in two weeks.

 

My take on what happens:

 

I think someone values the QB a great deal to take a risk and trades up with us to get one of the QBs.

I believe that will be Cleveland, so we get their #12 - 33-65 and 145

 

At 12, I have a sneaky suspicion that Allen is the one that slips in this draft and we could still grab him at 12.

At 33 we grab a Budda Baker/S and then at 65 grab a Zay Jones or Quincy Wilson

 

this way we could get one stud and 3 potential starters out of one pick that has a high risk of failure

 

[dawhizz]

Trubisky is also pretty good throwing while on the run both to his left and to his right 10-20yds downfield, sometimes further. That is the main reason I prefer him over the other top candidates since the other attributes are pretty close among them. I think he'll be the best among this group in the future when plays break down, plus his own scrambling ability is very good.

 

Mahomes can throw on the move as well but his decisions when on the run scare me and in the NFL the players chasing him will be faster which will force him to speed up his decisions. Mahomes is not as athletic either so that combined with his bad habits forcing the ball when on the run usually ends badly.

 

In the admittedly few games I've watched of both Mahomes and Trubisky, I came away with the impression that their arms are fundamentally very similar. The difference is that Mahomes tries to do crazy things that occasionally work, and Trubisky stays true to his fundamentals. Honestly, everyone keeps saying "man, if you can get Mahomes to break his bad habits, with his arm strength, watch out", whereas I'm starting to feel like Trubisky is already what Mahomes would look like without his bad habits.

[jason]

i disagree.

 

first the "huge money" contract for glennon is NOT a huge money contract. it is in the bottom third of qb salaries currently being paid in the nfl. it is what it costs to have a starting qb that is even competent. it is a friendly keep or cut contract if it does not work out.

 

second... the drafting of a player in the first round that for some reason HAS to start the first year and make an immediate impact (even in the top 5 picks) is in my opinion ridiculous. it is what the bears have done since mike mccaskey took over as GM in 1987 and jim finks and jerry vainisi were now by-products of this franchise. the let's 'win it now' (and keep our jobs) type of drafts and get the guy most ready to start is total BS. this is why we have had TWO superbowl appearances in FIFTY ONE YEARS!!

 

immediate "reps" for a future franchise qb is NOT required. the packers have done exactly that with favre and rogers (not to mention all the draft picks they have acquired for other qb trades). anybody here be upset to have a top 5 pick qb sit on the bench for 2 or 3 years and come in and have a HOF career? i know i wouldn't.

someone previously asked what qb's next year are going to be worth waiting for. well? anybody?

 

how many are there? what if there are injuries or guys not wanting to come out? where in the draft are they projected to go? assuming we have an even AVERAGE year, which i believe we will at LEAST have that which puts us mid first round, how are we going to move up into the top 5 to draft one if he is that good or even POSSIBLE if someone else needs the franchise qb also? even doing so it's still a calculated risk he won't return dividends and have cost us MANY extra draft picks we can't afford to lose.

 

so to me IF the qb's in this draft look to have a future as an above average starter or franchise qb then TAKE HIM!! if he sits then so what? who cares? as stated by others... what a 'liability' that would be if BOTH turn out to be great. can you imagine the draft picks we could acquire trading one? it would be the FIRST time this has happened since johnny lujack and bobby layne. the bears kept lujack, who was soon injured and done, and sent layne to the lions to become a HOF player. screwed again but what an opportunity we had.

 

In regards to the bolded, that's what everyone does. Virtually nobody sits a top 5 pick. That's why the Rams and Jeff Fisher got blistered for it last year. If the Bears drafted a top-5 QB and he didn't start, then Glennon better have a monster year. Otherwise everyone would be calling for Fox and Pace to step down, just like what happened to the Rams. And if that top-5 QB sat for more than one year behind an under-performing Glennon (or whoever), but then went on to a HOF career, it's a guarantee he would be doing it under a different coach and GM, because their asses would be gone for not starting a QB who should have obviously been starting to begin with.

 

The Fartv & Rodgers comparison is weak for multiple reasons. First, they drafted Rodgers when Fartv was still a top QB in the league. Of course Rodgers wasn't going to get starts. Second, Rodgers wasn't a top-5 pick. I'm sure if the Packers were bad enough to get a top-5 pick, they wouldn't have been picking a QB to sit behind Farv for 3 years. Third, Rodgers' drop to the late first was a fluke. He was thought of as the #1 overall guy just a few weeks before the draft, and then the bizarre situation of his fall became reality. When he fell into the Packers' lap, they were in the position of a playoff team that had a top 5 offense, and figured to continue their winning ways. They were picking from a position of power (something the Bears obviously can't do). Thankfully for us, their leading rusher and receiver went down the next year, and they sucked.

 

[Lucky Luciano]

In regards to the bolded, that's what everyone does. Virtually nobody sits a top 5 pick. That's why the Rams and Jeff Fisher got blistered for it last year. If the Bears drafted a top-5 QB and he didn't start, then Glennon better have a monster year. Otherwise everyone would be calling for Fox and Pace to step down, just like what happened to the Rams. And if that top-5 QB sat for more than one year behind an under-performing Glennon (or whoever), but then went on to a HOF career, it's a guarantee he would be doing it under a different coach and GM, because their asses would be gone for not starting a QB who should have obviously been starting to begin with.

 

in MY opinion the reason that the rams took so much heat was NOT that they sat their top 5 qb pick but BECAUSE they had him listed as the #3 qb on the roster. if you draft a qb that high he at least has to be your #2 qb getting the reps with the first team in practices and standing on the sidelines during game day. in my opinion it's SMART to do so rather than throw him onto the field if he is not ready yet for the the speed and complexity of the nfl or if the supporting cast is atrocious. it ruins careers. ask the texans what happened with carr. like cutler he was beaten to a pulp and never recovered even IF he had the possibility to become a great player.

 

threatening to fire a coach in the first place is STUPID if your draft pick does not perform unless HE drafted the player. in my opinion it is ALSO stupid to fire a GM if one doesn't start in the first season after being drafted. to me it says that a GM has the BALLS to draft for the future and NOT the immediate impact someone may or may not provide. that is what I am looking for in a GM. not someone who only does what everyone else does just to keep his job.

 

The Fartv & Rodgers comparison is weak for multiple reasons. First, they drafted Rodgers when Fartv was still a top QB in the league. Of course Rodgers wasn't going to get starts. Second, Rodgers wasn't a top-5 pick. I'm sure if the Packers were bad enough to get a top-5 pick, they wouldn't have been picking a QB to sit behind Farv for 3 years. Third, Rodgers' drop to the late first was a fluke. He was thought of as the #1 overall guy just a few weeks before the draft, and then the bizarre situation of his fall became reality. When he fell into the Packers' lap, they were in the position of a playoff team that had a top 5 offense, and figured to continue their winning ways. They were picking from a position of power (something the Bears obviously can't do). Thankfully for us, their leading rusher and receiver went down the next year, and they sucked.

 

 

no, it's NOT a weak comparison. to draft a qb in ROUND 1 anytime you better have a plan as a GM. favre had at least 3-5 years of prime play left in him so you tell me how that benefits a team in the SUPERBOWL hunt like they were to use a first round pick on a bench warmer in your scenario. wouldn't it be LOGICAL if your offense was running on all cylinders to draft a high impact player on defense to help you GET THERE?

 

what it DID show was a GM who had the brains and foresight to look that problem in the eye as to what was going to happen within a short time to his franchise with the MOST IMPORTANT position in football. he SAW the value there for the franchises FUTURE and took it!!

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

In regards to the bolded, that's what everyone does. Virtually nobody sits a top 5 pick. That's why the Rams and Jeff Fisher got blistered for it last year. If the Bears drafted a top-5 QB and he didn't start, then Glennon better have a monster year. Otherwise everyone would be calling for Fox and Pace to step down, just like what happened to the Rams. And if that top-5 QB sat for more than one year behind an under-performing Glennon (or whoever), but then went on to a HOF career, it's a guarantee he would be doing it under a different coach and GM, because their asses would be gone for not starting a QB who should have obviously been starting to begin with.

 

 

I think Fisher's ouster was more a deeper issue than him not starting Goff right away. In fact Keenum was starting out not so bad until the Giants game in week 7. Despite Keenums four TOs in that game Fisher first said he'd be remain the starter then shortly after that reversed course again and named Goff the starter. Weigh that with his infamous mistreatment of Eric Dickerson and his general mediocrity while Rams coach; i think is what brought it to a head.

 

The one thing going for Pace is that he didn't sign Glennon to a multi-year (guaranteed) Franchise QB deal. We still really don't know what he's capable of. With Keenum you had to think he'd eventually flame out and had Fischer done a bette job of guaging that he might still have been with the Rams. Again in Fox' corner you have his ability to bring different teams to the SB. All the while using retread QBs. Will he do it again soon? Still remains to be seen, but to me none of this precludes them from picking a QB at 3.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

The value of a top 5 pick is generally QB, LT, edge rusher. Thomas and Allen fill the role of edge rusher, no QBs or LTs are of high value enough to be worthy of that #3 pick. If we draft a S that high , he would need to be special. I heard a interesting podcast with Greg Gabriel on it. He stated on good a player Adams is and a great leader, but said he did not have special traits. He stated that if the medicals turn out okay for Hooker that he is a special player and would be more valued at #3. He also stated that even if you overdraft a QB, none truly have the value of a top 10 status.The best teams also draft the BPA players no matter what the need, so if you one of these QBs could turn out to be a starter, then you have to assign a risk factor to them. So if you grab a developmental QB in 2 or 3 or take a 50/50% risk factor at #3, which puts you closer to a SB? I guess that is the question Pace must answer. Is it better to have an all pro DE or S? Or draft a QB that turns out like Cristian Ponder or Jake Looker, or on the upside a Bartels? If they view a QB with enough upside to take at 3, then you take them, if not draft the BPA, period.

 

I have always thought of Thomas or Adams would be our best choices that high but have since changed my mind. I have been reading a lot about them and listened to many podcasts and both of them have to many questions on them to draft that high. The two answers that keep coming from most of these experts is Allen and Hooker are special players worthy of drafting at #3. So they have to answer the question of that their medicals will be okay, then you have to draft one of them. If not you take a safer bet like Adams.

So the question remains is there any QB that they view will be at least a mid level type of QB upside? ( I do not believe that any of these QBs are of top 10 upside in this draft)

So Tribisky has been compared to Romo and Cousins the most.

They just have to view what player gives them the most value at #3, it has to be a special player, or average QB, that is the question they will answer in two weeks.

 

My take on what happens:

 

I think someone values the QB a great deal to take a risk and trades up with us to get one of the QBs.

I believe that will be Cleveland, so we get their #12 - 33-65 and 145

 

At 12, I have a sneaky suspicion that Allen is the one that slips in this draft and we could still grab him at 12.

At 33 we grab a Budda Baker/S and then at 65 grab a Zay Jones or Quincy Wilson

 

this way we could get one stud and 3 potential starters out of one pick that has a high risk of failure

If they trade down, I would think they do so for a QB more in line to their value. The Bears are throwing the offer out there to trade down already. The top 6 teams all have that out there. It is out there that the Bears are interested in Trubisky, Watson, and I am assuming Kizer with as many meetings they have had with him. I think with Kizer, they have more questions to ask, that is why they are giving him extra time. I think the goal is to get a QB whether at 3 or by trading down which looks difficult with every wanting to move down. If they dont trade down, they have an idea that it will cost multiple future picks to move up in 2018 unless they finish poorly again.

[Stinger226]

If they trade down, I would think they do so for a QB more in line to their value. The Bears are throwing the offer out there to trade down already. The top 6 teams all have that out there. It is out there that the Bears are interested in Trubisky, Watson, and I am assuming Kizer with as many meetings they have had with him. I think with Kizer, they have more questions to ask, that is why they are giving him extra time. I think the goal is to get a QB whether at 3 or by trading down which looks difficult with every wanting to move down. If they dont trade down, they have an idea that it will cost multiple future picks to move up in 2018 unless they finish poorly again.

IF they value a QB for that high of a pick, then they have to take them, but you have to go off of your own evaluation, everybody is all over the place on true value of QBs in this years draft.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

IF they value a QB for that high of a pick, then they have to take them, but you have to go off of your own evaluation, everybody is all over the place on true value of QBs in this years draft.

I think Glennons contract says they will draft a high end prospect (Trubisky, Watson, or Kizer). Glennon will start the season off and if he plays well and the Bears are in playoff reach he keeps the job. If he struggles and the Bears are out out it, they move to plan B and start progressing the draft pick. The projections for the Bears will be low as it is, so having this developmental year is not all bad and could net one more year with those higher picks to close any holes still open. The McCaskeys are on board for this rebuild and know they need a QB to make this turn around last, so I don't see Pace or Fox being in any hot seat if they don't meet a certain criteria either. Either way, I see them going all out this year or next on the QB. My guess today is Watson.

[AZ54]

I think Fisher's ouster was more a deeper issue than him not starting Goff right away. In fact Keenum was starting out not so bad until the Giants game in week 7. Despite Keenums four TOs in that game Fisher first said he'd be remain the starter then shortly after that reversed course again and named Goff the starter. Weigh that with his infamous mistreatment of Eric Dickerson and his general mediocrity while Rams coach; i think is what brought it to a head. The one thing going for Pace is that he didn't sign Glennon to a multi-year (guaranteed) Franchise QB deal. We still really don't know what he's capable of. With Keenum you had to think he'd eventually flame out and had Fischer done a bette job of guaging that he might still have been with the Rams. Again in Fox' corner you have his ability to bring different teams to the SB. All the while using retread QBs. Will he do it again soon? Still remains to be seen, but to me none of this precludes them from picking a QB at 3.

 

I think Fisher was already done with the Rams the year before they left STL. They were working through the move to LA and the owner just wanted him around to help that transition. No new HC would want to walk into that fire storm the year before they were approved for the LA move. For his troubles Fisher was given a contract extension before the season and then allowed to ride off into the sunset with a couple extra years pay. Every time you saw Fisher on TV he looked like a man going through the motions of being a HC even early in the season.

 

 

[BearFan2000]

Honestly, everyone keeps saying "man, if you can get Mahomes to break his bad habits, with his arm strength, watch out", whereas I'm starting to feel like Trubisky is already what Mahomes would look like without his bad habits.

 

Seem's eerily familiar somehow. I think we've ben watching that movie for Cutler's tenure here. Fool me once, fool me twice, etc. I'd rather have a mechanically sound QB than a guy who's all over the place which can work in college but rarely works in the NFL.

[lemonej]

I think Fisher's ouster was more a deeper issue than him not starting Goff right away. In fact Keenum was starting out not so bad until the Giants game in week 7. Despite Keenums four TOs in that game Fisher first said he'd be remain the starter then shortly after that reversed course again and named Goff the starter. Weigh that with his infamous mistreatment of Eric Dickerson and his general mediocrity while Rams coach; i think is what brought it to a head.

 

The one thing going for Pace is that he didn't sign Glennon to a multi-year (guaranteed) Franchise QB deal. We still really don't know what he's capable of. With Keenum you had to think he'd eventually flame out and had Fischer done a bette job of guaging that he might still have been with the Rams. Again in Fox' corner you have his ability to bring different teams to the SB. All the while using retread QBs. Will he do it again soon? Still remains to be seen, but to me none of this precludes them from picking a QB at 3.

 

I'm puzzled. Did Fisher ban Dickerson from the Rams facility or something? I know he was traded when Vermeil was coach.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

I'm puzzled. Did Fisher ban Dickerson from the Rams facility or something? I know he was traded when Vermeil was coach.

 

Yeah, right before Fisher was let go it got out he and Dickerson had been feuding. Here's one of several articles.

 

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/11/jeff-fishe...ngeles-rams-nfl

[bradjock]

I think Glennons contract says they will draft a high end prospect (Trubisky, Watson, or Kizer). Glennon will start the season off and if he plays well and the Bears are in playoff reach he keeps the job. If he struggles and the Bears are out out it, they move to plan B and start progressing the draft pick. The projections for the Bears will be low as it is, so having this developmental year is not all bad and could net one more year with those higher picks to close any holes still open. The McCaskeys are on board for this rebuild and know they need a QB to make this turn around last, so I don't see Pace or Fox being in any hot seat if they don't meet a certain criteria either. Either way, I see them going all out this year or next on the QB. My guess today is Watson.

 

This is a REALLY weird year for the draft. Normally at this time I feel like I have a pretty good idea of the top 12 picks. There are always surprises, but lots of predictability. This year? There are 9 days and 22 hours until the draft, and aside from Myles Garrett, I have no damn clue. What I know is:

1. We want to draft a QB. But there is not one worth taking at #3 and at least 4 will be gone by our 2nd round pick.

2. We'd love to trade down--but there's not a player worth moving up for another team to get.

3. The consensus is we draft a secondary player--except this regime undervalues the secondary position and instead want to focus on the front 7.

 

 

 

 

[ASHKUM BEAR]

This is a REALLY weird year for the draft. Normally at this time I feel like I have a pretty good idea of the top 12 picks. There are always surprises, but lots of predictability. This year? There are 9 days and 22 hours until the draft, and aside from Myles Garrett, I have no damn clue. What I know is:

1. We want to draft a QB. But there is not one worth taking at #3 and at least 4 will be gone by our 2nd round pick.

2. We'd love to trade down--but there's not a player worth moving up for another team to get.

3. The consensus is we draft a secondary player--except this regime undervalues the secondary position and instead want to focus on the front 7.

You're right. Not only is this draft weird, but the Bears draft needs are also. Pace brought in FAs to cover nearly every need. This draft is open to grab the best player available or reach on a difficult position to fill like QB. This draft has Garrett then about 10-12 players that can go anywhere in no order.

[BearFan PHX]

You're right. Not only is this draft weird, but the Bears draft needs are also. Pace brought in FAs to cover nearly every need. This draft is open to grab the best player available or reach on a difficult position to fill like QB. This draft has Garrett then about 10-12 players that can go anywhere in no order.

 

yup.

[DABEARSDABOMB]

I still fully believe that we will draft a QB in the 1st round. I don't know which one or where we will pick him, but I don't see us not drafting a QB in the 1st round.