Following the Cubs' lead

[jason]

Short and simple, the Cubs sucked but made moves that secured a future. Should the Bears just accept sucking for another year, maybe even tank?

 

There are countless articles about how Epstein built the Cubs. I like this one a good bit:

http://www.bleachernation.com/2014/02/19/b...sting-the-plan/

 

Having said that, maybe that's the plan all along? The Glennon 1-year deal fits. The build up to next year's mega-QB class fits. If the Bears get a top 2-3 pick, that's going to bring a windfall of action. They'll likely get way more back than they gave up this year to get Trubisky.

 

Use a sharpie to pencil in Trubisky as the starter in '18, stack the team with free agents, pick up a tackle (McGlinchey in ND or Adams in Wash), and make a push for the playoffs. By 2019 the team should be primed to actually contend for the SB.

[Lucky Luciano]

Short and simple, the Cubs sucked but made moves that secured a future. Should the Bears just accept sucking for another year, maybe even tank?

 

There are countless articles about how Epstein built the Cubs. I like this one a good bit:

http://www.bleachernation.com/2014/02/19/b...sting-the-plan/

 

Having said that, maybe that's the plan all along? The Glennon 1-year deal fits. The build up to next year's mega-QB class fits. If the Bears get a top 2-3 pick, that's going to bring a windfall of action. They'll likely get way more back than they gave up this year to get Trubisky.

 

Use a sharpie to pencil in Trubisky as the starter in '18, stack the team with free agents, pick up a tackle (McGlinchey in ND or Adams in Wash), and make a push for the playoffs. By 2019 the team should be primed to actually contend for the SB.

 

this sounds very reasonable... good take.

 

as stated before this is not a superbowl contender this season and the expectations of us making it so should be realistic. quite frankly i did project a winning season this year which could happen but without glennon doing a 180 i can't see this as the case. he just plain, to this point, looks like the face of every bad QB we have run through this organization for decades.

 

we still are bringing in and evaluating talent. our offensive line has holes along with our receiving corp. on defense we still are not there on our defensive line putting pressure on the qb. we also have a waaays to go on our DB situation. it all takes time when going from a semi pro team talent pool to playing with the big boys.

 

for whatever reason, the injuries we keep suffering are also hindering our successes. for that i have no solution for other than to say this is happening throughout the league.

 

accept sucking - possibly in the right context but as far as the tanking goes... i don't believe that will happen and it should not ever happen. that is how you would completely lose a locker room.

[madlithuanian]

I hope so...

 

We need continued depth at the OL and secondary. And now we need starting calibur WR's...

 

Short and simple, the Cubs sucked but made moves that secured a future. Should the Bears just accept sucking for another year, maybe even tank?

 

There are countless articles about how Epstein built the Cubs. I like this one a good bit:

http://www.bleachernation.com/2014/02/19/b...sting-the-plan/

 

Having said that, maybe that's the plan all along? The Glennon 1-year deal fits. The build up to next year's mega-QB class fits. If the Bears get a top 2-3 pick, that's going to bring a windfall of action. They'll likely get way more back than they gave up this year to get Trubisky.

 

Use a sharpie to pencil in Trubisky as the starter in '18, stack the team with free agents, pick up a tackle (McGlinchey in ND or Adams in Wash), and make a push for the playoffs. By 2019 the team should be primed to actually contend for the SB.

 

[AZ54]

The battle for QBs in the 2018 draft will be interesting. We figure to at least have a top 10 draft pick.

 

Teams needing QBs:

 

Jacksonville

Browns (the Kizer pick could put them in the worst spot of not being sure or certain they have their future QB while a future franchise QB is available at their pick)

Jets

Buffalo

Arizona (Palmer likely to retire)

Pittsburgh (Ben likely to retire)

SF

 

There will be 7 teams in serious need of a QB, regardless of where Kirk Cousins ends up. There are likely 3 top QB talents.

 

On the outside with aging QBs or questions at QB are the Giants, Bengals, and New Orleans. Probably all 3 will consider a QB at some point in the draft.

[DABEARSDABOMB]

The battle for QBs in the 2018 draft will be interesting. We figure to at least have a top 10 draft pick.

 

Teams needing QBs:

 

Jacksonville

Browns (the Kizer pick could put them in the worst spot of not being sure or certain they have their future QB while a future franchise QB is available at their pick)

Jets

Buffalo

Arizona (Palmer likely to retire)

Pittsburgh (Ben likely to retire)

SF

 

There will be 7 teams in serious need of a QB, regardless of where Kirk Cousins ends up. There are likely 3 top QB talents.

 

On the outside with aging QBs or questions at QB are the Giants, Bengals, and New Orleans. Probably all 3 will consider a QB at some point in the draft.

I look forward to hopefully being able to move down and accumulate some picks.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

Short and simple, the Cubs sucked but made moves that secured a future. Should the Bears just accept sucking for another year, maybe even tank?

 

There are countless articles about how Epstein built the Cubs. I like this one a good bit:

http://www.bleachernation.com/2014/02/19/b...sting-the-plan/

 

Having said that, maybe that's the plan all along? The Glennon 1-year deal fits. The build up to next year's mega-QB class fits. If the Bears get a top 2-3 pick, that's going to bring a windfall of action. They'll likely get way more back than they gave up this year to get Trubisky.

 

Use a sharpie to pencil in Trubisky as the starter in '18, stack the team with free agents, pick up a tackle (McGlinchey in ND or Adams in Wash), and make a push for the playoffs. By 2019 the team should be primed to actually contend for the SB.

I was saying this after we took Trubisky. We might be in a prime position to trade down and get a kings ransom in the next draft. We have so many needs though. Pass rusher and OT need to be the key focus. WR, CB, and a stud SS can easily be a top pick, but until you have two good OTs and a dominant sack threat the later don't mean much.

[DABEARSDABOMB]

I was saying this after we took Trubisky. We might be in a prime position to trade down and get a kings ransom. We have so many needs though. Pass rusher and OT need to be the key focus. WR, CB, and a stud SS can easily be a top pick, but until you have two good OTs and a dominant sack threat the later don't mean much.

I'd like to see us do what the Rams did when they traded the RG III pick (With Bradford already on their roster). Value wise that was a great football move...albeit in actuality it didn't pan out. I also view this season as a tank year, which is why I'm largely patient with whether we put Trubisky in now vs. later. It all comes down to me about when the coaching staff / front office feels that starting is in Mitch's best interest (i.e., that you truly believe he is prepared to go out and learn from the games.). Part of that also comes down to, when is our oline healthy so that we aren't risking him getting a ton of bad habits running for his life, etc. In a normal course of a season you might not think of those things, but this is a guy who the front office invested as its "franchise" guy and with that they need to do everything to protect its asset and if they think it is safer having him sit out a few extra games, in the grand scheme of things I can't see it hurting his career. On the flipside, if you put him out and he got sacked 6 times a game for a season because he wasn't ready to do all the pre-snap reads and protections and also fumbled a bunch of snaps...well I could see that as being something that could actually be tough to recover from.

 

Essentially you don't want to David Carr him. or hell...Jay Cutler him cause I truly believe the Bears ruined Jay early in his time in Chicago.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

I'd like to see us do what the Rams did when they traded the RG III pick (With Bradford already on their roster). Value wise that was a great football move...albeit in actuality it didn't pan out. I also view this season as a tank year, which is why I'm largely patient with whether we put Trubisky in now vs. later. It all comes down to me about when the coaching staff / front office feels that starting is in Mitch's best interest (i.e., that you truly believe he is prepared to go out and learn from the games.). Part of that also comes down to, when is our oline healthy so that we aren't risking him getting a ton of bad habits running for his life, etc. In a normal course of a season you might not think of those things, but this is a guy who the front office invested as its "franchise" guy and with that they need to do everything to protect its asset and if they think it is safer having him sit out a few extra games, in the grand scheme of things I can't see it hurting his career. On the flipside, if you put him out and he got sacked 6 times a game for a season because he wasn't ready to do all the pre-snap reads and protections and also fumbled a bunch of snaps...well I could see that as being something that could actually be tough to recover from.

 

Essentially you don't want to David Carr him. or hell...Jay Cutler him cause I truly believe the Bears ruined Jay early in his time in Chicago.

It is hard to determine if Glennon is making our o-line look worse or if they are bad. When teams know he is a sitting duck, they know how to attack him. Someone like Trubisky might slow them dogs down because he is athletic and going to move. So they may hold there gap longer instead of instant collapsing the pocket.

[ParkerBear7]

Short and simple, the Cubs sucked but made moves that secured a future. Should the Bears just accept sucking for another year, maybe even tank?

 

There are countless articles about how Epstein built the Cubs. I like this one a good bit:

http://www.bleachernation.com/2014/02/19/b...sting-the-plan/

 

Having said that, maybe that's the plan all along? The Glennon 1-year deal fits. The build up to next year's mega-QB class fits. If the Bears get a top 2-3 pick, that's going to bring a windfall of action. They'll likely get way more back than they gave up this year to get Trubisky.

 

Use a sharpie to pencil in Trubisky as the starter in '18, stack the team with free agents, pick up a tackle (McGlinchey in ND or Adams in Wash), and make a push for the playoffs. By 2019 the team should be primed to actually contend for the SB.

 

 

I agree with the cubs comparison and will add the fact that the Bears have done a very nice job with salary cap Management while building a talented neclueus of young players to build around that we have not seen since Urlacher, Briggs, Colvin, Harris, Brown, Tillman, Hester, T. Jones albeit it was really only on the defensive side of the ball! Pace has been improving the entire roster and is much more balanced approach than past regimes.

[jason]

I look forward to hopefully being able to move down and accumulate some picks.

 

That's what I was hoping for in the '17 draft. It made a ton of sense since there were fewer QB options, making supply and demand in the Bears' favor. It also made sense since there were so many needs, and the '17 draft was considered one of the best defensive drafts in a long time. On top of that, the #3 pick is super high...we might not be that high again.

 

I hope Trubisky turns into Montana or Brady, but I feel like the front office flip-flopped the years of their moves. 2017 should have been the trade down, and 2018 should have been the QB.