BearFan PHX

I don't think he meant 4-3, I think he meant 4 man defensive front i.e. Nickel (4-2)

No he means when we are in Nickel with 4 DL and 2 LB, which is a lot given all the 3 WR sets in the NFL.

Glennon 2016 10/11 90.9% 75yds 6.8avg 1 TD (9.1%) 0 INT (0%) Rating 125.4 (sample too small) 2014 117/203 57.6% 1,417yds 7.0avg 10 TD (4.9%) 6 INT (3%) Rating 83.3 2013 247/416 59.4% 2,608yds 6.3avg 19 TD (4.6%) 9 INT (2.2%) Rating 83.9 Career 374/630 59.4% 4,100yds 6.5avg 30 TD (4.8%) 15 INT (2.4%) Rating 84.6 Cutler 2016 81/137 59.1% 1,059yds 7.7avg 4 TD (2.9%) 5 INT (3.6%) Rating 78.1 (small sample) 2015 311/483 64.4% 3,659yds 7.6avg 21 TD (4.3%) 11 INT (2.3%) Rating 92.3 2014 370/561 66% 3,812yds 6.8avg 28 TD (5%) 18 INT (3.2%) Rating 88.6 2013 224/355 63.1% 2,6,21yds 7.4avg 19 TD (5.4%) 12 INT (3.4%) Rating 89.2 Career 2,782/4,491 61.9% 32,467 7.2avg 208 TD (4.6%) 146INT (3.3%) Rating 85.7 When it's all said and done: Cutler is 3% more accurate Cutler throws 15% longer passes Glennon throws 4% more TDs per pass Cutler throws 38% more INTs per pass So Cutler and Glennon have similar skill sets, but Cutler throws longer more often, resulting in higher yards per pass, and significantly more interceptions, but not more TDs. A guy like Brett Favre throws long risky passes, but he wins a lot of them too, so lots of interceptions and lots of TDs. Cutler doesn't really throw more TDs than Glennon, he just takes more risks.

Glennon is reportedly on a team friendly deal. There is nothing about his signing to prevent Pace from taking a QB with the #3 pick if he thinks someone is worth the value. Having a vet at the helm that you can jettison while seeing if a rookie has the goods is a fine plan, especially given how hit or miss rookie QBs are. I cant say that Pace WILL take a QB at #3, but I can say that if he thinks one of them is worth it, there is no cap problem with paying Glennon this year and developing a young QB under a rookie contract. Since picking QBs isnt easy, it makes sense to take a shotgun approach and see what develops. And of course these arguments work equally well for a QB taken in the 2nd or 3rd rounds too. Pace can take the BPA at #3 regardless of position, QB or not.

Good GMs address needs in Free Agency before the draft so they are free to go BPA. If a great player isnt available in free agency, then it is important to address the position, but not to overpay. If you do that, and make good evaluations of players and draft well, you build a team. Otherwise, you end up overpaying for players, and you never catch up with the curve. We've been doing that for decades. Now someone has the balls to tear it down and build it right. It takes time, but not signing big names to huge contracts, and having the patience to build the team is exactly what we need. We're doing the right things, the key is whether we draft the right people. These signings give us the flexibility to draft value. The real test will be in who we choose. But this approach to Free Agency is the right one. And in truth most of these players improve the team, but they don't take them over the top. Studs at fair prices are only found through the draft.

I think when all the smoke clears, it will be Shaw, maybe Hoyer and Trubisky/Watson

You never want to go into the draft with a NEED. If you have any glaring holes, you want to sign Free Agents to fill them. Obviously you can't always put quality free agents into every position, but you want to have the flexibility to make best player available picks, and have at least a backup plan for every position in case you cant draft them because other opportunities arise, a player gets taken right before your pick etc. You can count on the Bears signing a free agent wide receiver for example.

If you want to win a Super Bowl, you generally need to have a franchise QB. There don't even seem to be 20 of those in the league at any given time. Drafting a QB in the low rounds and giving them time to develop does not usually result in anything like hitting on a first rounder. Choosing QBs is difficult, but the question you're really asking here is, go 9-7 to save your job, or make moves to TRY to win a Super Bowl some day? I would hope that Fox and Pace wouldn''t sell out that dream for a couple year's salary. I think they do what they can to build a winner as fast as possible, but not a hollow one, not one that can never reach the summit. I dont see them selling out, and I think if they draft well, including a first round QB if they think there is one worth it, that they will have enough horsepower to go 8-8 or better next year anyway. I dont think they will see these are distinct options, but instead will do some of both. But if there is a QB you like, you take him. If you see a franchise QB that can lead you to the Super Bowl, but you think other GMs won't take him until the 18th pick, you can try to trade down etc, but if he's your guy, you can take him with the 3rd overall pick. Im not saying they will do that. They might take a stud at another position with the 3rd pick, but it will be because they think that is the best move toward winning a Super Bowl, and not just to save their butts. I dont think their butts are on the line this year anyway. Not Pace at least, and that's what really matters to this question anyway.

They get paid market value to sacrifice their bodies, and no one is putting a gun to anyone's head to agree to any contract. To have to pay someone until they are 65 as an NFL starter is ridiculous.

Best Bears outcome is that Cleveland, or someone early overpays with one of their high picks for Garrapolo. That moves all the other QBs down one slot, and that's good news for the Bears. Therefore, the more teams that show interest in Garrapolo, the better. Therefore, the Bears should signal that they are very interested in him, and would be willing to trade the #3 pick overall. And not actually trade for him. Of course a lot of teams will think that too, and they will be showing fake interest too. That also makes a smokescreen for anyone with their eye on a top 3 QB (Kizer, Trubisky, Watson) so i figure a LOT of teams will profess love for Mr. G. at this point.

good analysis.

If there is a franchise QB available, that's gotta be the pick. It's a top need for us. If Myles Garrett is available, even though it's not a top need, you gotta look hard at him too. So this comment isn't so much about who the pick should be, but if we are just discussing team needs, I think we need WRs more than people realize. I doubt it'd be the first pick at #4, but in the first 2 or 3 rounds, I think we will see a WR taken.

exactly, and I dont believe anyone will trade for Cutler either.

exactly. I don't see Cutler getting better than a 7th with a conditional draft pick based on wins.

Who here would want to spend a draft pick to trade for Romo next year?

It's not just whether he is worse, but a GM has to have a plan, a place for Cutler to fit in. For any given game, his skills might be appealing to a GM, for others his poor decision making takes him off the list, but either way, Cutler isnt young. I cant see a GM thinking Cutler is the guy of the future, and you dont spend draft picks on a QB for now. They'll wait until he gets cut because even if he doesnt fall to them, it means one more QB on the market, and that improves the QB they will get likely even if it isnt Cutler. Thats how I imagine a GM would think about this.

I think you guys are missing a huge need at WR. Jeffery is a free agent, White is unproven. I think we will probably need to pick a WR within the first 3 rounds.

2017: New QB development specialist OC and a first round pick QB.

If you are trying to teach Cutler to stop throwing off of his back foot, and across his body, you might not roll him out so much. You might hope that once he corrected those mechanics that you could roll him out, but maybe they knew they couldn't trust him to do it.

I agree 100%. This doesn't look like a bad Bears team. It looks like a bad Giants team, or a Bad Broncos team. I see flashes, and I see holes.

Because it's based on individual people's grades of each play. That's why PFF often comes to conclusions that make no sense at all. That said, whether he is a top 10 player in the league or not (he's not) it certainly does indicate that he's been playing well at center.

I think any time you are in position to grab a player that is considered a franchise QB you do it. Look at how Green Bay drafted Rogers with Favre still on the field. The question isn't what other needs we might have, but rather, are any of the available prospects franchise QBs.

Where do you guys see the All 22?

If you think about it Cubs style, we might be in the lottery this year for a top pick QB next year. I see flashes from this team. Ive seen 8-8 teams that were solid but predictably mediocre. I dont see this team like that. I think this team flashes and regresses. I prefer that kind of bad team, because I think some players are in place, and we are still going somewhere. We might have to look really bad in the standings this year as a building but incomplete team.

I dont think we cut Slauson so much due to age, as due to switching to a more athletic style of blocking, where we ask guards to move further faster. He would have been a good option to have at Center, but you cant see injuries coming, and you cant keep a starter for insurance behind every starter.