How Bout Dem Bears?

Oat23 wrote: »

You're always so negative on here. What does Emery have to do for you to be happy? We needed an offense, he gave us a terrific one. Defense is bad? He is fixing that too. He's a proven DE, and along with Houston and Young there is so much potential there. The rotation will be a helluva lot better in 14' than 13'. It also allows the team to do a lot of different things with the 14th pick.

Sacks are king at the end of the day. He had more than Peppers, he is a better player and we got him for a lot less than Peppers was going to cost. Emery is doing a great job.

I prefer to call it balanced, critical and analytical rather than just dawning the navy and orange jersey every time we do anything - nothing wrong with that. I tell it as I see it - you were the one claiming Martz and Tice were geniuses once upon a time.:o

I said I like the signing but have concerns. I loved the Houston one and have no concerns on that at all. I liked the Young one but was concerned that he mightn't look as good without Suh & Fairley and that we had no depth. Obviously we do now, so it makes that signing even better.

kennyb3 wrote: »

I guess we'll never know if I was wrong or not. And I note you left out the fact I wanted McCown as the QB for a couple of years first not a rookie. and anyway that wasn't what I actually wanted, what I wanted was to secure Cutler at a more reasonable rate given we had leverage.

I'm sure you'll be back on to let me know if McCown fails in Tampa (under totally different circumstances).

If you don't like my posts ignore them, or at least counter argue rather than label me as negative.

McCown will be 35 when the season starts. Two years at most. You could give the #14 rookie 5 years, but if he hasn't got the talent then he won't be a good player. It would have been a terrible decision to go that route.

How much better could we have done? Better safeties probably, but you don't give up the franchise QB for safeties.

I won't be back with 'I told you so's' when he fails either. I wish him the best, but I don't see it working at all. I said this before the season even ended. He would have been adequate here, but nowhere else. There will be no reason for me to come back and say I told you so as just about everyone thinks the same as me.

No prob. On the plus side you're getting the best DE of the last decade on a decent deal, and he can certainly still get to the QB. It could be very good, it just depends on Jared. I'd be more confident of his performance had he gone to a top contender like the Seahawks for less money though, with all respect to the Bears

Oat23 wrote: »

McCown will be 35 when the season starts. Two years at most. You could give the #14 rookie 5 years, but if he hasn't got the talent then he won't be a good player. It would have been a terrible decision to go that route.

Again you ignored the bit about what I really wanted (as well as my other post) but fine. So players can't be developed? Not sure why we have a draft that goes beyond one round so by your logic.

Oat23 wrote: »

How much better could we have done? Better safeties probably, but you don't give up the franchise QB for safeties.

With another what $14m this year - who knows? Another DT, a LBer, a good safety etc. Would we perform any better/worse than me might this year? As I said it can't be proved either way, if it could I'd try.

Oat23 wrote: »

I won't be back with 'I told you so's' when he fails either. I wish him the best, but I don't see it working at all. I said this before the season even ended. He would have been adequate here, but nowhere else. There will be no reason for me to come back and say I told you so as just about everyone thinks the same as me.

Well you must be right so.

kennyb3 wrote: »

Again you ignored the bit about what I really wanted (as well as my other post) but fine. So players can't be developed? Not sure why we have a draft that goes beyond one round so by your logic.



With another what $14m this year - who knows? Another DT, a LBer, a good safety etc. Would we perform any better/worse than me might this year? As I said it can't be proved either way, if it could I'd try.



Well you must be right so.

Some of the best players the bears have had the past 10 years have come in the latter half of the draft, since Angelo was useless in the first round. So I don't think anything of the kind. I just think it would have been a huge mistake to let the best QB this team has had walk away and go with a career backup and a rookie. You cannot win without a QB. Ponder, Sanchez, Freeman...do you believe these guys could have been superbowl winning QBs had they sat the first two years of their career? For me, they are just not good enough. You can try to develop a guy, but if he doesn't have it then he doesn't have it. It is that simple. Emery knew that and it is the reason Cutler is still here.

kennyb3 wrote: »

I prefer to call it balanced, critical and analytical rather than just dawning the navy and orange jersey every time we do anything - nothing wrong with that. I tell it as I see it - you were the one claiming Martz and Tice were geniuses once upon a time.

I said I like the signing but have concerns. I loved the Houston one and have no concerns on that at all. I liked the Young one but was concerned that he mightn't look as good without Suh & Fairley and that we had no depth. Obviously we do now, so it makes that signing even better.

I missed this because in 7 years on Boards, I still have not learned I should use the 'go to newest post' button and instead go straight to the last one in the thread.

I thought Martz was an offensive genius? Oh well. He had history. How was anyone supposed to know he was past his time. Lets not forget who was the OC before him. I was just happy that we didn't have that anymore.

Tice an offensive genius? He is a great line coach. But he should never be an OC.

I also thought Devin Hester could be an adequate receiver and that the dude who could jump out of the pool would be class under Marinelli. We are wrong sometimes. Like you were on the Cutler issue .

We are in a position to compete now. I don't believe McCown would give us the same chance.

SameOleJay wrote: »

I agree keeping Jay was needed but this is out of order.


Keeping McCown and drafting aQB in the first or second round may well have allowed is to strengthen much further elsewhere without hindering the offence too much. We’ll just never know.

It would have hindered the offense massively if you ask me. McCown isn't as good as Cutler, and as I said, you don't know what you are going to get with a rookie going from the NCAA to the NFL. You would have McCown for 2 years, but then when it comes time for the young guy to step up, if he can't, you're f*cked. The top linebacker and safety you got 2 years before after letting Cutler go aren't going to help fix that problem.

Oat23 wrote: »

Some of the best players the bears have had the past 10 years have come in the latter half of the draft, since Angelo was useless in the first round. So I don't think anything of the kind. I just think it would have been a huge mistake to let the best QB this team has had walk away and go with a career backup and a rookie. You cannot win without a QB.

You won't get be arguing against the fact he's the best QB we've ever had. But he's also the most expensive and he's also misses games through injury. As I've repeated numerous times my main issue is how much he was paid. He's paid just short of elite money, he's also payed as a 16 game QB but hasn't played 16 games since 2009. So to summarise I think we should have been paid less because;

(a) We had leverage in McCown - regardless of whether it was repeatable - he played awesome given the system and weapons. You point that out to Jay.

(b) His other options were what? Tampa in that division? The Raiders? Who else had the cap? Again use it as leverage

(c) The injuries. If you pro rata his games to pay it's actually crazy money.

(d) The home town discount/help the team discount.

All 4 seem to have went out the window imho. That was my issue.

I simply pointed out a viable alternative - it wasn't my number one option by any stretch but I was challenged to do and happily obliged.

Oat23 wrote: »

Ponder, Sanchez, Freeman...do you believe these guys could have been superbowl winning QBs had they sat the first two years of their career? For me, they are just not good enough. You can try to develop a guy, but if he doesn't have it then he doesn't have it. It is that simple. Emery knew that and it is the reason Cutler is still here.

Firstly no I don't believe any of these guys are SB winning QB's.

But I have to stop you there - why are we using the term SB winning QB's? Jay hasn't won one of these and hasn't shown he is close to winning one? If you are going to tell me he has the potential I'd like to know what that's based off.

I don't want to get into ripping Jay apart - I've gone over the negatives before (interceptions, records v GB, lack of playoff wins etc) so it's old ground.

I just think we should be talking about QB's in the context of getting to a playoff until we actually get to one again.

Now getting back to the QB's - You are picking specific ones to suit your agenda. I just find it hard to believe that there isn't one QB in this whole draft that doesn't have the potential to be developed by Trestman into someone that could lead the team down the line - because that's what your essentially suggesting.

Oat23 wrote: »

I missed this because in 7 years on Boards, I still have not learned I should use the 'go to newest post' button and instead go straight to the last one in the thread.

I thought Martz was an offensive genius? Oh well. He had history. How was anyone supposed to know he was past his time. Lets not forget who was the OC before him. I was just happy that we didn't have that anymore.

Tice an offensive genius? He is a great line coach. But he should never be an OC.

I also thought Devin Hester could be an adequate receiver and that the dude who could jump out of the pool would be class under Marinelli. We are wrong sometimes. Like you were on the Cutler issue .

We are in a position to compete now. I don't believe McCown would give us the same chance.

I wasn't trying to mock you, simply I'm frustrated that you can't seem to for a second concede you might be wrong (even if we never find out) and was a bit annoyed in you labelling me negative rather than counter arguing, it seems you took offence to post. As I said I might be a bit negative but only when I feel it warrants it - I don't always agree with others and to be honest it frustrates me that fans sit back clap every move by the GM and then we don't make the playoffs or win a superbowl again. It's not all roses and daisy's and GM's and coach's f'uck up - it's just analysing that and offering opinion and discussing it.

Oat23 wrote: »

It would have hindered the offense massively if you ask me. McCown isn't as good as Cutler, and as I said, you don't know what you are going to get with a rookie going from the NCAA to the NFL. You would have McCown for 2 years, but then when it comes time for the young guy to step up, if he can't, you're f*cked. The top linebacker and safety you got 2 years before after letting Cutler go aren't going to help fix that problem.

McCown isn't as good as Cutler, but he played close if not better for periods last year. Thing is he doesn't need to be given the cap difference and the stronger all round team you can build. McCown hasnt shown the same propensity for getting inured at critical times or throwing picks.

You do realise we are going to have to draft Cutlers replacement next year if not this?

Do you think the team is going to fall apart when it comes for someone else to start?

How long do you think Jay with his injuries will realistically last anyway?I'm pretty sure the guaranteed money all being in the first 3 years is for a reason.

Do you not have faith in Trestmans QB development abilities given what you seen last year? He had McCown, who if he is as bad as you make out is a hack and journeyman, playing like Dan Marino (slight exagerration but he was lights out).

kennyb3 wrote: »

You won't get be arguing against the fact he's the best QB we've ever had. But he's also the most expensive and he's also misses games through injury. As I've repeated numerous times my main issue is how much he was paid. He's paid just short of elite money, he's also payed as a 16 game QB but hasn't played 16 games since 2009. So to summarise I think we should have been paid less because;

(a) We had leverage in McCown - regardless of whether it was repeatable - he played awesome given the system and weapons. You point that out to Jay.

(b) His other options were what? Tampa in that division? The Raiders? Who else had the cap? Again use it as leverage

(c) The injuries. If you pro rata his games to pay it's actually crazy money.

(d) The home town discount/help the team discount.

All 4 seem to have went out the window imho. That was my issue.

I simply pointed out a viable alternative - it wasn't my number one option by any stretch but I was challenged to do and happily obliged.



Firstly no I don't believe any of these guys are SB winning QB's.

But I have to stop you there - why are we using the term SB winning QB's? Jay hasn't won one of these and hasn't shown he is close to winning one? If you are going to tell me he has the potential I'd like to know what that's based off.

I don't want to get into ripping Jay apart - I've gone over the negatives before (interceptions, records v GB, lack of playoff wins etc) so it's old ground.

I just think we should be talking about QB's in the context of getting to a playoff until we actually get to one again.

Now getting back to the QB's - You are picking specific ones to suit your agenda. I just find it hard to believe that there isn't one QB in this whole draft that doesn't have the potential to be developed by Trestman into someone that could lead the team down the line - because that's what your essentially suggesting.



I wasn't trying to mock you, simply I'm frustrated that you can't seem to for a second concede you might be wrong (even if we never find out) and was a bit annoyed in you labelling me negative rather than counter arguing, it seems you took offence to post. As I said I might be a bit negative but only when I feel it warrants it - I don't always agree with others and to be honest it frustrates me that fans sit back clap every move by the GM and then we don't make the playoffs or win a superbowl again. It's not all roses and daisy's and GM's and coach's f'uck up - it's just analysing that and offering opinion and discussing it.




McCown isn't as good as Cutler, but he played close if not better for periods last year. Thing is he doesn't need to be given the cap difference and the stronger all round team you can build. McCown hasnt shown the same propensity for getting inured at critical times or throwing picks.

You do realise we are going to have to draft Cutlers replacement next year if not this?

Do you think the team is going to fall apart when it comes for someone else to start?

How long do you think Jay with his injuries will realistically last anyway?I'm pretty sure the guaranteed money all being in the first 3 years is for a reason.

Do you not have faith in Trestmans QB development abilities given what you seen last year? He had McCown, who if he is as bad as you make out is a hack and journeyman, playing like Dan Marino (slight exagerration but he was lights out).

Who is to say they didn't try to use McCown as leverage and it failed? Cutler might have called their bluff and said he'd hit FA. He is paid a lot, yes. But if he can stay healthy he can lead this team to a superbowl. I have no doubt in my mind about that having watched him play the past few years, especially last season under Trest before he was injured. There are no excuses now, everything on the offensive side of the ball is in place and he has to do his job.

The reason I am talking about SB's is because that is the ultimate goal. If it isn't, why bother? Everybody aims for the superbowl When you draft a quarterback you don't draft him hoping he can lead your team to a few playoff appearances. You draft him hoping he will be the guy to lead the team to a championship in the future. I believe Cutler can do that. I also believe there are rookie QBs in the draft each year that could. An Andrew Luck doesn't come out every year, but QBs capable of leading teams to championships do. The problem is finding them and I don't think it was worth risking so much in the hope that you find one of those guys.

Cutler will be 31 soon. I hope he will be the starter for the next 3 years at least. Yes, we will have to get someone in the draft, but there is no pressure on Emery/Trest now when it comes to drafting the future QB. The three QBs I used in my last post were picked in the first round by GMs under pressure to find a leader. They can take their time and get him in 2015/2016 if they don't see anyone they like this year. If Cutler had left in FA a pick would have been forced this year. I'm confident that whoever they do draft will have a great chance to succeed under Trest. I was not at all happy at the thought of a pick being forced though.

I never said McCown was a hack either, he is a very reliable backup that played great in an offense filled with talent.

B Marsh is putting stuff up on his instagram of the teams time in Miami. Good to see them all bonding. Cutty came first when they went go karting and he made Marquess Wilson (2nd) carry his trophy around all night...What an ass :pac:

kennyb3 wrote: »

So who is growing an Allen mullet in support of the signing?

Maybe if we were Tennessee fans or something.

How bout dem preseason games?

Personally I find them to be a nuisance, you grit your teeth and pray for no injuries. Philly game might be interesting though.

Good and bad, it's definitely very tough, but will be the same for all NFC North teams.

I like...
- bye week in the middle
- relatively soft opening game
- bye week before game in Green Bay
- playing on Thanksgiving will be fun
- later games at home, will be good for when Cutler's out with an injury

Don't like...
- very few easy games
- two road games before the first Green Bay game

Don't think there's too much else I dislike. Probably a positive we play the easier teams at the end, some of them might have given up.

Planning to be in Chicago at either end of September or early October so the Packers or Dolphins game could be on the agenda. Want to take in a Hawks game while there too so that favors the Dolphins game but would prefer to get to see the Packers.

kennyb3 wrote: »

I think he'll be long gone and even if he's not I think we'll pass. I reckon it will be Pryor or Fuller. Can't wait - though will be sad to see draft season over, just love it - reading mocks, watching tape. Think it's the unknown, the potential!

What about Clinton-Dix, do you think he'll be gone too?

padraig_f wrote: »

What about Clinton-Dix, do you think he'll be gone too?

Yeah i think so, possibly to the Rams at 13 just above us. Not a fan anyway. Manziel killed him in the game against them which isn't a good sign.

kennyb3 wrote: »

Yeah i think so, possibly to the Rams at 13 just above us. Not a fan anyway. Manziel killed him in the game against them which isn't a good sign.

Ok. Seems like a bit of a double-edged sword drafting Alabama players, on the one hand you know they're going to be talented, on the other, you wonder if any deficiencies are being masked by playing with a lot of talent around them & playing under a great defensive coach.

padraig_f wrote: »

Find this guy a good commentator...

DaBearsBlog ‏@dabearsblog

"If I'm Bears, rd 1, I'm trading up ahead of Vikes & getting Donald. Then looking safety later. Donald elite DT. None of these guys elite S."

. @jermaine611 In modern NFL a safety without coverage skills is borderline useless. Tackling a must but ability to step into slot pivotal.

Presume he's talking about Pryor there.

Trading from 14 to 7 would be expensive, just can't see it. It's a deep draft with plenty of nice prospects, I reckon we're more likely to trade down with Philly or the 9ers than trade up. We just don't have the ammo to do it, if we want to really build a roster via the draft.

I think we might trade up in the 2nd if someone like nix makes it out of the first and through the top of the 2nd (assuming we take a cb or safety in the first) as it's far less to give up - we'd likely use our extra 6th.

Some good video breakdowns here:
http://draftbreakdown.com/players/?position=S

Not gonna pretend I know what I'm doing analysing this stuff, but prefer Pryor to Clinton-Dix based on what I've seen.

The UCF one, against Bortles and Storm Johnson is a good watch.



Seems to have a great nose for the ball, always seems to be around where ball is delivered, whereas Clinton-Dix seems to be out of the play more often.

Just so there is no aftertiming (when i moan :pac:)

Players I'd be very happy with in first few rounds (realistically):

Donald
Fuller
Pryor
Gilbert
Nix
Ealy (not at 14 though)
Kareem Martin
Mosley
Murphy
Carrun Reid
Easley
Anthony Johnson
Ego Ferguson
Scott Crichton
Will Sutton

Players I don't want

Hageman (has phil wrote all over it - would hate it!)
HHC Dix
Dee Ford
Bucannon (in the 1st, happy to get him in the 2nd)
Bradley Roby
Christian Jones

Right that's the last post till Sat morning.

Can't wait!

I was really disappointed when Donald went the pick before. I thought for sure he would be on the board for the Bears before the Rams had picked.

Peanut has had a lot of injury problems the past few seasons and has been coming out of games for a few plays because of small injuries. I'm happy with the pick now I have gotten over the disappointment of Donald not being a bear.

DT in round two hopefully, but will a trade up be needed? I don't think Hageman or Jernigan will be there at 51.

Emery is talking about drafting a tall corner that can be converted to safety, but that looks to be a 3rd/4th round move.

2 round pick..... Ego Ferguson.


Makes sense over Nix I guess if we staying in 4-3. Dream now is to trade up in 3rd and take Garoppolo