BearFan2000

Excellent post. It is hard to disassociate past failure, disappointments, etc. with any new GM, staff, roster, drafts, etc. Most of us have been fans for as long as we can remember. Longer for some of us shorter for others, but life long none the less. Personally at 40 I still remember the 80's and the rise of the Bears to dominant World Champs followed by the slow decline into mediocrity with a few random successful years sprinkled in the mix to the rise of the mid 2000's and the gut wrenching super bowl loss to the Colts that we should have won followed by another decline as the D that lead the resurgence grew old. To the Trestman years which saw the Bears go from competitive to a complete lifeless joke of a team. Pace, Fox, etc. inherited a team with a toxic culture that was complacent about losing and looking bad doing so. When we look at Bears drafts it's hard to not let past head scratching drafts (both at the time and more so in hindsight) cloud how we look at this years draft which is not what we or anyone expected the Bears to do. It's easy to look at this and associate it with the failure of past drafts by the likes of Emery, Angelo, etc. It does hinge a lot on the success or failure of Trubisky. The rest of the picks all have question marks either due to competition each player faced or, injury concerns in Jackson's case. We all expected a somewhat defense heavy draft. We ended up going QB, TE, S, RB, OL. Only one defensive pick and one with an injury concern. I do believe Pace has earned the benefit of the doubt. Even the best GM's make mistakes or have subpar drafts, it happens. But Bear nation has been fairly jaded by the past and when we have a draft that doesn't fit our idea of good we immediately associate it with that past. We see it and start thinking "here we go again." It may very well end up being a below average to bad draft. But what's done is done, we'll have to see how it plays out. Just because a player came from a small school doesn't mean they aren't talented or lack the tools to be good NFL players. Shawnee and Cohen both dominated where they were, it'd be far more concerning if they were just average or slightly above average. Granted dominating Div 2 competition vs Div 1 is something to consider. The full details of what went down leading to us giving up two 3rds and a 4th to move from #3 to #2, may never fully be known. There is a lot of speculation, hearsay, etc. I don't believe Pace would have made the move if he was sure he could get Trubisky at #3. I tend to think that either he knew or had reason to believe he would be gone by #3. Either due to teams wanting our spot or teams looking to deal with SF who had advertised loudly that #2 was up for bid prior to the draft. Pace and his people clearly had Trubisky as their #1 prospect on their board right or wrong. The move ensured they got their guy, if they'd stayed at #3 and someone else jumped to #2 to grab him you lose out on your top choice of the QB's.

And the flip side of that is look what we've given our staff's to work with at the QB position. There is a reason that list of starting QB that used to get thrown up compared to Favre was so full of duds Till we sold the farm for Cutler we changed QB's like underwear. Speaking of trading the farm for Cutler you can always speculate what the picks we gave up for Jay could have garnered us. That set us back draft wise for years, possibly even still feeling the impact of it. Can't make gold out of turds. We either seem to have the guys who have talent but suck at leadership and attitude, or the guys with great attitude but limited talent, or guys who'd be decent if they could stay on the field. Trubisky presents the opportunity to change that pattern.

Glennon would have to be awfully naive to not know the landscape of things when he signed the contract. He was a backup at Tampa with limited NFL starting experience joins a team starved for a consistent good to great QB. A very high likelihood we would spend a high draft pick on QB possibly even at #3 overall. Yes his contract guaranteed money for 2017 is starter money, after 2017 theres little guaranteed money. He signed a 1 year prove it deal no matter how you slice it. That alone is less than total commitment by the Bears. My gut feeling is the drama of his feelings being hurt is more a mountain out of a molehill. Would it be annoying to sign with a team only see them draft someone who could take your job at #2 overall? Sure but if he's any kind of competitor, he won't feel threatened but will welcome the competition, and would motivate him to work harder not to lose the job. That said the part of this situation that is a bit crappy is that he was invited by Bears brass to attend the draft party at Soldier Field amongst the fans when Trubisky was picked. That's crappy and put him in an awkward position, especially if he wasn't told they might be drafting a QB high either prior to attending or even as early as when they were talking to him about signing here. Which takes me back to the point about him being very naive if he wasn't aware of the possibility that even with signing him they might take a QB high. And realize it's a business decision to not put all your eggs in his basket.

I heard from a source close to the media that they are just blowing smoke to get ratings and accumulate clicks. It sounds credible to me. Honestly we know how this works. all the build up to the draft, then the draft is done and outside of UDFA signings there's not much NFL news so you gotta talk and write about something so why not speculate, and even invent drama to get people's dander up or sound like they have something relevant to say when truth is the ones that know what's going on for sure are those in the organization, and even then there are employees who don't know all the details of relationships, who told who what within the management, staff, and Pace. Just like at my job I don't know every detail about the goings on. I can only speculate on things I'm not privy to. I don't buy that he was told to take a QB no matter what, not sure also how much I buy that Pace and Fox are at odds. I have no doubt that Pace and upper management had communication on the draft and I don't doubt they offered their opinions but ultimately the decision was by Pace and his draft room staff. The personalities on the Score tend to get worked up and exaggerate. It riles people up and some of the callers sound like they don't know their arse from a hole in the ground. I'd take what you read/hear with a grain of salt. They will work every angle they can to find a story even if half what they say is speculation or outright lie.

Comes across as a team player, didn't complain when he had to sit behind Williams, made the most of his opportunities and was prepared when he did see the field and made the most of his time when he got the starting gig. I've seen articles trying to stir up/play up animosity between him and Glennon, based on "a source" (most likely a writer's own opinion) controversy makes for click bait. He seems to have a good head on his shoulders, intelligence, and is coachable. I like that he never gave up or let circumstances get the better of him. His time in Chicago might be similar to his time at NC where Glennon will likely be the day 1 starter but Mitchell will be prepared for his opportunity be it in relief, or be it taking the job from Mike. I don't see a guy who will stir the pot and pout from the sidelines.

Great post well researched, thought out and well put. The talking heads ("experts") want to look and feel smart in the moment even if in hindsight they look like idiots. So they will stick their finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing and report accordingly. We get blasted for doing what other teams have gotten praised for doing. These "experts" don't take the time and look deeper than the surface of teams they have no interest in. They look at our 3-13 record and make assumptions and act they know it all. Your also right about their hindsight 20/20 analysis if the Trubisky era turns out good they will about face and act like they knew it'd work. Initially I felt gut punched watching this draft play out, each pick and move left me scratching my head, but, I'm suspending judgement on how this will work out. Pace has taken a risk but, you have to take risks sometimes. Outside of a handful of times the Bears taken far less risky steps to try to solve the QB problem. I got to looking at the Bears QB draft history and risk is not something often involved. I've listed QB's we drafted back to the last couple years McMahaon was here. Not exactly a list of NFL who's who. Trubisky is our highest QB taken since the late 80's, second highest was McCown, followed by Grossman, and Harbaugh. Also drafts prior to 1993 had 12 rounds instead of 7. In this same stretch we didn't take a QB in 1988, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013, 2015, & 2016. That's 17 drafts out of 31 we didn't bother taking a QB. Of the 14 times we did half were round 5 or later, 4 were first round, etc. For the most part we've spent our QB draft picks on guys who were at best backups. A change of strategy can't hurt. We've been QB challenged for so long, when Jay Cutler is the best you've had statistically for nearly 3 decades that is sad. People are quick to forget that Pace's first two drafts were pretty decent and last years looks to be one of the better drafts we've had. To suddenly say fire everyone when this draft didn't go the way many of us thought or hoped it would is a bit knee jerk. I can't blame Pace for taking a different strategy and taking a shot at solving the QB position long term. It may take a few tries to nail it. But not trying guarantees you won't nail it unless you stumble onto a Brady type late pick gem. We've spent mid/late picks on QB's for much of the last 3 decades what's that gotten us? Trubisky will likely need some time to develop the Bears as a whole are probably a year or two from being real contenders giving him time to work into the system. In the short term we have Glennon to start 2017 from there is up to Glennon, Trubisky, and the staff to determine. 2017 R1 2 Trubisky 2014 R6 183 Fales 2011 R5 160 Enderle 2010 R6 181 LeFevour 2005 R4 106 Orton 2004 R5 148 Krenzel 2003 R1 22 Grossman 1999 R1 12 McNown 1998 R7 232 Moreno 1992 R4 107 Furrer 1991 R7 190 Justin 1990 R3 63 PT Willis 1989 R7 192 Snyder 1987 R1 26 Harbaugh

all part of the game. Most "leaks" I would venture are intentional to float ideas out there to see what reaction it gets from fans, media, other Teams, and players. You float a series of lies laced with a few partial or whole truths. It's all about getting other teams heads. Most GM's though by this point are pretty set on their plans and backup strategies/scenarios. It just drives us fans nuts trying to decipher what's true and what isn't. Like the Floyd thing last year that rumor was true, there were also plenty of false rumors as well. Just glad tonight is the nigh we start to find out for sure. I for one can't wait. Already told the wife, I'll be distracted the next three days LOL

I agree. If we go DB with our #3 pick I'd rather it be one of Adams or Hooker (in that order). Both are rare talents and would bring game changing abilities to the secondary provided Hooker stays healthy. We have two wild cards picking ahead of us who the heck knows what Cleveland will do, it's Cleveland nuff said. Niners could go any number of ways and will depend a lot on what the Browns do at 1. Who knows we could be sitting at 3 with Garrett on the board.

That's my thinking as well. Browns and/or Niners could be wild cards. If either of them flinches and pulls the trigger on a QB or say Browns take QB, and Niners take Fournette we are in a golden position to have our pick of the defensive studs at the top. If they both wiff and we can take Garret it's a no brainer. But even if one of the two does our pick becomes instantly more valuable. It is exciting, and while these are rumors and the smoke is thick with the draft starting in mere days this would be a dream scenario. I'd be happy with Garret, Thomas, Adams, etc. at 3. It would certainly change the landscape of the top end f the draft a bit. No doubt Pace's phone would be ringing off the hook with teams wanting to jump up for Garret.

Didn't hear the report on the heard, but trading up from #3 for Watson or any of the QBs would be asinine. However if they are referring to trading up from #36 that makes more sense. Or some combination of trading down from #3 and using the extra picks as ammunition to move into the back half of round one makes sense too.

That's why I'd prefer Adams to either Allen or Hooker. Not that all three won't have a big impact on their teams. I'd prefer going with the one with fewer question marks. As for who we'd regret not taking hard to predict even immediate impact much less 2 years from now but if your talking long term I'd say Watson or Keizer. I think both will need some grooming but I think both have bright futures as starters. I'll also throw Adams into the group because I feel like he could be one of those rare enforcers at safety. Allen and Hooker qualify too as teams will pass possibly/likely pass on them due to questions about health, and they may go on to have long productive careers. Risk/reward. It's also hard to know how this draft will go anyone we name here could be someone we draft. It'd be an interesting question to ask after the draft knowing who we passed on. Definitely can't wait for the draft day to be here to find out how it all goes down. It's like waiting to open presents on Christmas/birthday.

Seem's eerily familiar somehow. I think we've ben watching that movie for Cutler's tenure here. Fool me once, fool me twice, etc. I'd rather have a mechanically sound QB than a guy who's all over the place which can work in college but rarely works in the NFL.

That would be a nice scenario. Aside from something like this I'd prefer we stay at 3 take a defensive stud, trade back into the back half of round one and take a QB if we are set on taking a Watson, Trubisky, Keizer, etc. I don't want the #3 pick used on a QB not worthy of that pick just because he's a QB. I seriously doubt Pace will take a QB at 3 if we stay at #3. You don't throw away the value of taking a stud defensive player there to reach on a QB who has question marks and they all do.

No doubt, if Cleveland is that stupid which we know they possibly are. And if SF some how ops to pass as well, it's a literal no brainer that you take Garrett at #3. I doubt it happens though. Cleveland has the picks to trade for an additional later first round pick in order to take Garrett at #1 and taking Trubisky later in the first. In the same vein we could stay at 3 and take BPA, and trade up from our 2nd (36th) pick into the mid/lower first round and take a QB there. Nabbing a Defensive stud at 3, and getting a QB to groom behind Glennon would be a good start. We could even trade down a few slots from 3 still get a stud, and pick up extra picks. There definitely will be options available especially depending who's there at 3 and Pace's phone starts ringing. I wish the draft were this weekend 15 more days. This is when the rumor mill starts going nuts.

As a ND fan, I completely agree with your assessment of last year. The Irish were painful to watch. He didn't get much help from his teammates or coaching. Their record felt worse than 4-8. It has hurt Keizer's stats and potential and partly the reason he opted to enter the draft rather than return to ND this year. Another year in a disappointing Irish program could drop him further. I've felt his situation didn't present the opportunity to shine as much as it could have. It is interesting that the Bears have shown a lot of interest in him. I could see them working some deal to secure him. If we do draft him I hope it means we traded down vs taking him at 3. #3 is too valuable a slot to reach that far, if you want him trade down and get him and an additional pick at least.

Can't help either would not like that pick either. I wouldn't put a lot of stock in all these mocks. They are interesting to look at but I don't think we take OJ at #3. It think our odds of a QB at 3 (or trade down for one) are better than a TE. I would bet it would be between Thomas, Allen, or Adams.

Kinda reminds me a little of Mike Brown. He would be an enforcer in the secondary that we haven't had in a long time. In a heavy passing league having play makers in your secondary that offenses have to account for and even fear is a valuable commodity. He plays with attitude, intensity, hits like a hammer, and has a nose for the ball. He strikes me as the kind of guy who can elevate his teammate's play as well. Safety is a crowded position on our roster with Fuller and Hall possibly moving to safety, but it's also a position not exactly stacked with impact players. I do also like Solomon Thomas at 3 as well as a disruptive force. Allen would be an impact player early in his career but his physical health/longevity scares me a bit at #3. I wouldn't rule out Lattimore either. It'll certainly be interesting to see what we do at 3 or if we trade down for one of the QB's and extra picks. Based on who is there or who likely will be can make it hard to pass up and trade down.

On taking a QB high. Like others on here I'm sure, I've gone back and forth in my mind on taking a QB high. What I don't want is for Pace to feel like he has to bow to the pressure of taking one high to take one high in an effort to "address the situation." We have to address the position but we have to be smart about how we do it. If we feel one is worth the reach to take at 3, or trade down for, then I can understand going for it. It is a risk at 3 as you are passing on players who are safer bets to be impact players, less of a risk by trading down though to do that you are trading out of a spot to take an arguably safer prospect. I could see us going D with our #3 pick. The con to that is with such a high draft pick at 3 which we hopefully won't have next year may mean needing to trade up for a QB next year vs this year having the ammunition to trade down for a QB and extra picks to work with. That said perhaps next year's QB class will have guys more worthy of trading up to get than this years has at reaching or trading down to get. Pace may very well see this years QB class and feel the quality isn't worth spending a pick in the early rounds and will take his chances with Glennon/Sanchez/Shaw holding the position in 2017 and looking to 2018 to re-evaluate with the hindsight of Glennon's first season in Chicago. He would no doubt get flack for not addressing the QB early if at all in this year's draft, but better to make the hard/unpopular right call than blow it to appease the masses who may be happy about us taking a QB high but will no doubt rip him to shreds if the QB fails. I would like to see us take a QB this year, but only if we see one that we believe can be a starter by season's end or next season. I don't see a point in drafting one if all they'll ever be is a backup or average at best. We already have those guys on our roster. What does stink is that our #3 pick comes in a draft where the QB position isn't as strong as it will be next year but none of us want to see us pick this high again next year.

I agree with much of the sentiment on a QB at 3. And it would help the Glennon signing make more sense. It could make it a win win situation. Glennon while he has had limited starts in his career, is still early in his career, has shown flashes, and hasn't had the wear and tear on his body. They are paying him starter money for this coming season. If you draft a QB be it Watson, Trubisky, or Keizer the pressure won't be there to step in and start day one. If you can land one who can be the QB of the future and has that "it" quality to them. He can work his way into the lineup without being forced in. If Glennon proves to be worth the pay and is a good fit for the offense it's a win, if that happens and your drafted QB is also a capable QB of the future, it's a win win and a problem we've never had before. The other scenario is also possible that both would suck and we find ourselves still looking for a franchise QB but then what's new? Nothing risked nothing gained. But I think it's worth taking that risk and grabbing a QB at 3. It's been a position of weakness for far too long to ignore it or take it lightly. We could get lucky later in the draft but the later you pick one the more of a project he'll likely be. Finding the gems like Brady later in the draft are not the norm. That said I also feel DL is a possibility. The stronger our D is the less pressure a new QB and retooled offense will have on their shoulders. We made the playoffs with Kyle Orton at QB and the Super Bowl with Rex Grossman. I would not be opposed to defense here but only if you take a QB somewhere in the first 3 rounds. S/CB is pushing it as it is a deep DB draft I don't think you have to take one that high. Pace does like to go BPA without losing sight of need.

I don't think the officiating had a bearing on the outcome. We can micro analyze every play and find missed calls both ways. What did have an impact is Atlanta not making halftime adjustments and the Patriots made adjustments. I feel like Atlanta got complacent up 28-3 and let off the gas, NE took advantage and went to work. Lack of super bowl experience played a part in it. I remember thinking when Atlanta built that lead and they were celebrating on the sidelines that they need to keep working cause there is a lot of football left to play. You can't let your guard down or take your foot off the gas against a team like the Patriots. Once you lose momentum it's very difficult to recapture it. What ultimately killed the Falcons was the drive where they were in field goal range up by 8 with a chance to extend it back to a two score game. Ryan took a sack because he held the ball too long, then a holding penalty put them out of FG range and rather than a lead extending FG attempt or a TD, they punt and the rest is history. It sucks because I was rooting hard for the Falcons because I'm sick of the Patriots for a number of reasons. But they played a whale of a second half to come back and win and you have to give them props for that. The SB was there for the taking for the Falcons and they failed to realize it's a 60 minute game not a 30.

I'd take the Wilkerson trade in a heartbeat. We'd have to sweeten the pot for sure. I'm sure most of us would take what we can get for Cutler. He has no future here, but to a team looking for a 1-2 year stop gap might be interested. No one like us looking for a long term solution will be interested outside of being a backup and he'd make for an expensive backup. It'll for sure be interesting to see what we do at the QB position this offseason and next season.

Definitely, you look at teams in the league that are more often than not in the conversation/mix and look at the teams that have had or tend to have consistent coaching vs cleaning house every 3-5 years or so. As dirty as it makes me feel you can put the Pats in there too, minus the cheating. Lovie was our longest tenured coach since Ditka, other than that they've short lived. Since Ditka (11) it's been Wanny (6), Jauron (5), Lovie (9), Trestman (2), and now Fox (2 and counting). Our front office hasn't been exactly stable either. Here's hoping that things become stable and we grow a culture of winning that will last. Not sure how long Fox will be here. Fox/Pace inherited a dumpster fire and if you go on record alone you'd say things haven't improved. But I feel like the culture has improved vastly from Trestman's time, and the team has young talent, and will need to keep adding to that through the draft and FA. The Bears were more competitive this year, but didn't have enough talent or healthy body's for it to show in the record. This offseason will be crucial (I know that's obvious).

No argument here, I think we'd all rather see our Bears as a perennial playoff team than what we've had. Can't win it if you aren't it. It remains to be seen if the current ownership/coashes can build the Bears into just that. Sometimes you have to reach bottom before you climb. It's been a drought since mid-late 80's with occasional playoff appearances sprinkled in. We all long for our team to get out of the rut of mediocrity where we aren't bottom feeders but aren't regular contenders either.

Shame on me for missing this game. Sounds like it was a thing of beauty seeing the pompous Packers cut down to size. They are making a habit of choking in the playoffs. Seeing Rodgers frown instead of that arrogant smirk is always a welcome site. While we've struggled to find a franchise caliber QB we've watched the Packers virtually waste one by surrounding him with crap.

I like the enthusiasm, and he has a valid point with the injuries and we were a far more competitive team than our record indicates. Superbowl though is awful lofty. What I find interesting to me is that Jeffery having finished the season as a tagged player. Talking about next year. Now I've been pretty busy and haven't kept up with all the latest news on his contract situation or new contract talks. It at least indicates he wants to be here next year or assumes he will be. Whether that's under the tag again or a new contract. I would be interested in having him back under a new contract but don't want to see us pay him a crazy contract. His health has been a question mark the last few years. Hate to invest a lot of cap space on a player you can't always count on to be on the field.