I think most would enjoy competing for conference titles and playoff births. That was a good time.
Chicago Bears 2016-2017 Season
I think most would enjoy competing for conference titles and playoff births. That was a good time.
From 2003-2008, the period we're talking about here, the Bears had 5 probable future Hall of Famers in Urlacher, Briggs, Tillman, Kreutz, and Ruben Brown (for his time with the Bills, but he was still good enough to make a PB with the Bears in 2006). They also had four more very good defenders in Tommie Harris, Alex Brown, Mike Brown and Ogunleye, and an all-time great kick returner, and an all-time great kicker, and for the last half of that period, a very good offensive line.
If the Bears had reasonable qb play during that time period they would have made way more than the one Super Bowl they did.
I was just as frustrated with the inconsistent QB play, but those were some great seasons. I think the defense will get there starting next season. Well, hopefully.
My glass half full perspective skews yet another sports prediction.
Joking aside, what an ugly season.
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/b...we-are-going-to-win-the-super-bowl-next-year/
I'll have what Alshon's having. It will be interesting to see what Pace does with Alshon and it could tell a lot. If Pace let's him go then it's a sign that we are still 2 or 3 years away IMO. He will be 27 next month and there is no need to spend on him with Cam Meredith and Kevin White already in the fold. But if Alshon gets a nice contract then hopefully that means Pace thinks we are ready to compete right now. Maybe I'm reading too much into it.
I'll have what Alshon's having. It will be interesting to see what Pace does with Alshon and it could tell a lot. If Pace let's him go then it's a sign that we are still 2 or 3 years away IMO. He will be 27 next month and there is no need to spend on him with Cam Meredith and Kevin White already in the fold. But if Alshon gets a nice contract then hopefully that means Pace thinks we are ready to compete right now. Maybe I'm reading too much into it.
Illiniaaron
- Geneseo, IL
I think Jeffrey was talking about the new team he will be signing with in the offseason. I wouldn't break the bank on re-signing him-he misses a lot of games and looks uninterested much of the time. Unfortunately the wide receiver position, like many others on the team, is a mess. Meredith is a nice no. 3, and I don't think you can count on White to stay on the field.
Bears coaches will be the coaching staff for the North team in the Senior Bowl at the end of this month. The Browns coaches will be the coaching staff for the South team.
Dear Bears and Browns "Coaching" staffs,
You guys need all the help you can get. Therefore, we will spoon feed you some top prospects and unlimited on the field/in the classroom observation and evaluation time. Please do the opposite of whatever you were planning on doing, so as to not mess this up.
Thank you,
Senior Bowl and NFL Representatives
Illiniaaron
- Geneseo, IL
The NFL came out with its All-Pro teams today. Ridiculously, they had David Johnson as the first team "flex" player and the second team running back. Looking at the stats for the year I think you could make a good case for Jordan Howard as the second team running back.
KBLEE
- Montgomery, IL
It was announced yesterday that David Johnson has an injury that will allow Howard to be the Pro Bowl replacement.
Please no. Drafting QB's is kind of a crapshoot and the 3rd pick isn't the spot to be rolling dice. Either pick a guy that you are 99% sure he can contribute or trade down.
I love that kid, but he is not consistent enough to be the 3rd pick in the draft. I'd look to the secondary most likely. Perhaps OL. QB is a need, but none of the QBs in this draft warrant a top 5 pick. There may not even be any that warrant a top 15 pick. Second round is the first time the Bears should look at a QB. However, even there I'd likely pass. I'd build the rest of the team and worry about QB later.
Illiniaaron
- Geneseo, IL
I'm not smart enough to say who the Bears should draft, but I see a lot of mock drafts have Trubisky going no. 2 to the 49ers and Kizer going to the Bears at no. 3. Some also have Jonathan Allen going to the Bears in the first round. I have a feeling they will trade down to get two number ones and maybe another second rounder.
Illiniwek06
- N of I-80
If the Bears draft a QB at 3, I will be irate. Draft a QB at 36. The difference between the first QB taken and whomever they get in the second round will be marginal/crapshoot anyway, IMO.
Illiniwek06
- N of I-80
You need an elite QB to have a legit shot in the NFL. I'm fine with drafting a QB. Figure out the QB and you can build around him. Building a solid team with no answer at quarterback puts you in the spin cycle of 8-8 records with no high draft picks. Draft the best QB you see and if he misses you will suck again next year and get another shot at it. If you find a good young QB there is plenty of $ to build a decent roster around him.
The roster is so far from a Super Bowl that you can't just take the best QB. If there was a truly elite QB, you take him. For example, if Peyton Manning is available you can draft him. But he's not. If you think Kizer or Watson is a truly elite QB then draft him. But drafting the best QB can backfire. You can get Sam Bradford or J. Russel or the first Carr brother, or any other failed first round QB.
On the other hand, if you get your roster to the point that you only need a QB you can at that time trade a first-round pick for the Garappolo or Romo or Manning or whatever QB is available.
Of course there can be a bust at any position, but it seems to me that QB busts set teams back more than any other position.
Trading a first round pick for a super bowl caliber quarterback is not how this works. It's not how any of this works. Garappolo is going to cost a team dearly in picks and he is nothing more than a wild card at this point too. Teams dont trade quarterbacks that are elite. It just doesn't happen.
You do not need an elite QB if the rest of your team is built properly. Look at Denver last year. Look at how competitive KC has been in recent years. Cincinnati for several years before this one. Miami was 10-6 this year. It's a fallacy that you need a great QB. It makes life easier, but it's not a prerequisite. We all point to the teams with great QBs, but most of the time they have lots of great players around them and a great coaching staff. Perhaps Rodgers in Green Bay is an exception, but that is why they often have slumps somewhere during the course of a season.
More importantly, I would never argue against drafting an elite QB. My point was that you don't just draft the best QB available because there are no elite NFL QBs in this draft. Spending money on the next JaMarcus Russel, Ryan Leaf, or David Carr is not really going to help a team get better just because they happen to be the best QB in a given year.
I think the fallacy there is knowing that there is no elite QB QB in this draft. I'm not saying you have to take one in the first round but I would sure be taking one in the first three rounds and keep doing it until you find your guy. Getting your team to be "competitive" can be the kiss of death. I'm not crossing my fingers that the Bears can get to 9-7 next year and miss the playoffs by a game or get bounced in the wild card round. I want the Bears to get to 13-3 and have legitimate shots at winning for multiple years. In my opinion you don't build that without an elite QB at the heart of your team.
First three rounds is much different than with the 3rd overall pick in the draft which is where this discussion started. I don't think anyone would argue against using a pick in the first 3 rounds on a QB. It's #3 overall that is the problem. Heck, I'd be OK with taking a QB in the first round if you can trade back to around 20/25 and get extra picks. But if you stay put at #3, you have to hit on a big time contributor. There are no sure fire hits at QB in this draft. Is there likely to be a good QB, sure. But I don't think that anyone can say with any certainty who that will be.
I realize the Bears suck at drafting and have for a long time but how many guys have been good enough that they have drafted that you wouldn't trade them in a few years later for a lottery ticket on a great quarterback. I would challenge you to come up with 10 names from the last 20 years. That's 140 picks, give or take. When you are lost at QB it is malpractice to not address it in each draft. Your opportunity cost is minimal.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree. For me it is this simple - the Bears are so bad that they were the third worst team in football. They have huge needs all over the field. Therefore you draft the best player regardless of position. That is where the discussion ends for me.
You understandably put a premium on the QB position. And if Andrew Luck, Peyton Manning, Jameis Winston, or any of the other guys that were considered certain pro bowlers were available, you take him. Unfortunately for the Bears, they have a top 3 pick in a draft without a QB that is worthy of that pick. The top QB according to McShay is Trubisky who he ranks 28th. The top QB according to Kiper is also Trubisky, but at 16th. Trade down and take one, absolutely. Take Watson or Kizer in the second round - great. Just not with the #3 overall pick.