jason

Wasn't there a bet on this board between two members about how well Lovie would do? Or how well Lovie would do vs. another coach? Something like that?

Yeah, but you are comparing two people to one!

Fine. Don't use a pick (I certainly never suggested a 2nd rounder). Just sign some average backup TE with potential. That's not ignoring the position. Martellus Bennet has been proven expendable this year. What's more, he may have been culpable in some of Cutler's 50/50 INTs, because without him in there, there wasn't nearly the same number is miscommunications. In fact, I can't remember a single miscommunication between Cutler and Miller.

It is certainly the cheaper option, no denying that. I am just not sure the Bears should ignore Forte - a proven stud, versatile, workhorse - for a young guy who has one semi-successful year under his belt, and another who has done nearly nothing. Put another way, what if Langford gets hurt or simply regresses?

I like them too, but the sacks are still underwhelming. If they played over 900 snaps they still would have only had, based on average plays per sack, about one more sack.

Makes more sense to part with Marty, make Zach Miller the starter, and draft the "up and comer". Then the Bears are in virtually the same position as at RB that so many seem to like. Miller is way more than capable of holding down the fort for a year or two while a rookie gets up to speed.

I disagree. Forte is EASILY better than every guy on that lost aside from Charles. More like $5M per year, upwards of $5M guaranteed. Do that for 2-3 years front-loaded, and it is appropriate.

The team was atrocious last year. Can't blame Forte. They had two capable guys on the roster. That was my point. The only real good reason to draft Langford was to hamstring Forte in contract negotiations. Business-wise, it makes some sense, but I'm not a big fan.

Im obviously more in favor of Ragland since I think the Bears need a monster in the middle, a thumper, but if somehow the Bears took Jack in round one and Smith fell to two...holy shit that would be scary. Assuming they play...durability concerns are problematic for us since it has bitten Chicago more than once with high picks. We need high floor guys more than high ceiling.

By that reasoning though, they should have never drafted Langford. Forte and Carey were fine, and Langford was only drafted because Carey never got carries, so nobody knew his ability. That's why I was against the Langford pick when there were so many other holes to fill.

We know that happened with Urlacher for a fact.

Just like Peanut. Just like Urlacher. Forte wants to remain in Chicago. http://www.csnchicago.com/bears/workhorse-...-stellar-career I think this article is basically a sign that he won't be with the Bears next year.

For all intents and purposes, he was let go. He wanted to stay in Chicago, and would have worked with the Bears if they were even remotely interested in signing him. Just like Urlacher, all they had to do was bargain with him, give a "thanks for being a legendary Bear player"-bump above league minimum, and he likely would have retired a Bear.

I think that's something else to consider, but, you're right, there are a ton of ways to evaluate this. Too many moving parts. The best way we really have is to see where a player is picked and what his career ends up being. Trying to quantitatively determine your suggestion would be a nightmare with free agency, coaching changes, injuries, etc. We know the Bears just from the past 10 years have had some drastic swings and most don't have anything to do with the rookie draft picks. For instance: 2004 they went 5-11 and then drafted Cedric Benson, Mark Bradley, Kyle Orton, et. al. The next year they went 11-5, but it wasn't because of any of the picks. It was because half the defense made the pro-bowl and they were an automatic turnover machine. BTW - The one thing everyone is ignoring in this equation about how different the picks are is how much they are worth. Every team uses the draft value chart to some extent, and even from 7 to 6 there is a difference that is worth a high 4th round pick. For a team like the Bears that needs so many positions upgraded, that kind of value is important. What if the Bears were able to trade down 5-6 spots and pick up an extra 2nd rounder? That has to be considered as well. I'd rather have a team full of 2nd round guys who make the pro bowl every other year than a team full of average guys surrounding a HoF'er.

He makes me nauseous as a return man, but I'm not so sure your first sentence is true. He is one of those guys who doesn't look like much, but he seems to understand routes and how to get open. And his hands when catching passes are sure from what we've seen. A lot of times those type of players are not impressive, but they just continually find the soft spot in the zone or come back to an escaping QB. Eight catches in the last game are still eight catches. He was pressed into starting, and he played against starters from the other team. Who is to say he can't do that for the majority of a season as a 4th WR?

:pray :headbang

On this, you're dead on. But guess what? The Spurs do it all the time. And the NBA hates them for it. But they seem to be doing pretty well as a franchise as a result of resting their guys. Speaking of them, they bombed out one year when Duncan went down, and ended up getting a great draft pick: Tim Duncan. Those two played pretty well together for a while.

Exactly. Except Lovie, even though I hated when he won those season-ending, meaningless games, was perpetually on the hot-seat, so he wanted to pad his coaching record and save his job.

I'm just sick of the argument is all. 72% in favor, even though we both thought it would be higher, is enough. That is a high percentage. 72% is something I'd take to Vegas and become a millionaire many times over. Keep in mind I never said the Bears should try to lose the games. I'm just saying that when the team is obviously in need of a lot of help, it has a statistical probability of helping the team long term to lose (not on purpose) and get a better draft position. I believe all the data in this thread pretty much proves that point.

I'll be upset if Ragland and Nkemdiche are there and the Bears draft Jack.

Absolutely, unequivocally, 100% hell no. No. Horrible, horrible idea. The Bears need way too many positions. They need at least 2 on the OL, one or two on the DL, two or three LBs, probably a WR, and a partridge in a pear tree.

He was let go at least one year too early. I called it. Bad decision by the front office. He would have helped a lot this year.

Don't you think the finger pointing SHOULD be elsewhere on the Jets? BM put up 109 catches, 1502 yds, and 14 TDs. As for Fitzpatrick, he absolutely shit the bed vs the Bills this year, throwing a third of his year's INTs in just those two games. Marshall is not the reason the Jets lost. And he wasn't the reason the Bears lost.

CASE CLOSED. Lock this thread.

I think Manziel honestly becomes a Cowboy, and that leaves only Cleveland and SF as potential QB destinations.