adam

Odds seem low for a team with such a bad record last year. Those odds make it like we have an even shot at the playoffs as NYG, WAS, PHI, ARZ, LAR, SF, DET, MIN, TB, NO, CAR (non-Division winners last year).

Trubisky's agent is the same as Mariota and Wentz and the problems are related to offset language. It will really suck if he misses any part of training camp. For all we did to get him, he needs to be in camp. http://www.csnchicago.com/chicago-bears/bo...t-training-camp

The money is locked in, so the agents had to figure out other things to negotiate, like guarantees, offset language, and upfront money. These are where the sticking points occur, because teams have a set way that they do business and that doesn't always align to an agent's agenda.

They add up their scores and give a cumulative grade for each unit, so because Long, Whitehair and Sitton were so high, we could have replacements OT's and we would still be top 5. The problem is, LT is probably the most important spot on the line, so it needs to be weighted. I think we are probably a top 12 unit which is still good enough.

Probably for added security and to project attendance prior to the event. The most annoying part is you can't place an order for multiple days, but you can choose up to 50 tickets.

Check this out from Football Outsiders: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-anal...sted-games-lost We had the highest "adjusted games lost" since 2000, with 12 players that each had 6 or more AGL, wow. We missed more games than the 5 teams with the least amount of time missed combined. Also, we have the most time missed over the last two years (2015 and 2016 combined) as well. A little extra analysis using the numbers. On average, we have missed the most games of any team over the last 3 years. Interestingly enough, the top 5 teams in the last 3 years with the most games lost to injury all have losing records over that period as well. So even if you can overcome one bad year, it looks like it can be cumulative (one year impacts another). 2016 CHI - 155.1 (3-13) SD - 127.8 (5-11) MIN - 120.6 (8-8) NYJ - 110.5 (5-11) WAS - 101.5 (8-7-1) 2015 NYG - 138.7 (6-10) WAS - 119.1 (9-7) BAL - 96.1 (5-11) NE - 93.3 (12-4) CHI - 92.8 (6-10) 2-yr AVG 1. CHI - 124.0 2. WAS - 110.3 3. SD - 108.2 4. NYG - 95.6 5. SF - 90.7 2014 NYG - 137.1 (6-10) SD - 119.1 (9-7) IND - 104.7 (11-5) OAK - 103.6 (3-13) SF - 101.8 (8-8) CHI - 101.6 (5-11) 3-yr AVG 1. CHI - 116.5 (14-34) 2. SD - 111.8 (18-30) 3. NYG - 109.4 (23-25) 4. WAS - 103.4 (21-26-1) 5. SF - 94.4 (15-33) The Giants offer us a ray of hope. When injuries have piled up, they have had losing records of 6-10, but when healthy (in 2016 with only 52 AGL) they went 11-5 with virtually the same team. BAL improved by 3 games, and OAK by 4 games the year following an injury-riddled year. So we have the potential for a 3-4 game bump by just getting healthy. That coupled with actual more talent on the field could yield 4-5 wins from last year. Maybe we look at OAK as an example, they went 3-13 with a ton of injuries in 2014, then 7-9, followed by a 12-4 season which was only derailed by an injury (to Carr).

It should and hopefully it will improve his "vision"

This makes absolutely no sense. They are projecting a projection? To me, every win would have almost equal value, because if we didn't have 8-9 wins going into Week 17, the Minnesota game would mean nothing. Just look at their first comment or game; so DAL vs NYG in Week 1 is going to shift playoff chances for both teams by 24-25%? So more than half of the Giants season's playoff chances comes down to Week 1? Come on, this is beyond ridiculous. So I can see weighting the games based on Division, Conference, and home and away with each situation weighted slightly different, but this is silly. Now to answer your question, yes 11%, I think it is more like 25%, but at this point I can understand the low assessment.

Wow, hard to be more subjective than to have an opinion of an opinion. Of course other NFL Executives don't like what the Bears did, because it went against conventional wisdom. How can KC have a better grade than the Bears by giving up 2 1st's for Mahomes? The Packers with the 2nd best offseason, wtf ever. This is complete and utter garbage. I didn't realize this was a link to ESPN, which explains the ridiculousness of the article.

With Meredith's injury and White's injury history, if Decker is cleared healthy, then I would do it. He played 3 years with Fox, so there is that connection as well.

Not bad but Howard without a reception? Also, no other RB other than Cohen with one? You would have to scale those numbers back even more to account for the RB's. Also, I can't see White having less than 10 yards per catch. That would be bad. So other than White and the lack of RB's in the totals (meaning that the 370-3700 would have to be reduced if you weren't including RBs.

I figure between 360 and 380, on average about 23 a game.

My prediction is Wright gets cut, and Braverman ends up on the P.S. White 72-954 - 8 Meredith 44-526 - 3 (misses 4 games due to thumb injury) Cruz 52-613 - 4 Miller 42-428 - 3 Wheaton 38-558 - 2 Sims 33-316- 3 Shaheen 20-216 - 2 This does not include RB's or other WR/TE's with less than 20 receptions. I think we have a QB change near the bye, so some guys get targeted more than others based on the QB and game plan. I think White has a strong but not spectacular year, and the TE three-headed monster appears totaling 95-960 - 8 TDs not including a little from Brown. I think Shaheen starts the year slow but plays a bigger role the last 4 weeks. Cruz ends up with the 2nd most in all the categories.

If my math is correct, that is 512 completions and 5,856 yards passing, both destroying NFL records. These numbers are borderline laughable. Braverman won't make the active roster, and I would be shocked if Cunningham had that production. Also, I doubt Cohen has more than 20-30 rushes all year, if he even makes the team.

#Bears waive QB Connor Shaw. per Twitterverse I liked his potential, but with Trubisky, Glennon, and Sanchez, not much room for him.

Interesting that we pull the trigger after the White injury.

Dak started as a rookie from Week 1?

http://www.chicagobears.com/news/article-1...80-4c02c2055a19 A few things to note. The notion that Glennon was not called or notified at all is now completely debunked. He was called 10 minutes after the pick and the next morning. So this also ties back into the secrecy scenario and the need to keep things quiet. Glennon was at the Bears draft party, so why would they invite him, then draft a QB in the 1st...... I am glad Glennon is taking all this in stride, or at least saying the right things. I am actually hoping he has a great year, which will ultimately benefit us in some way shape or form.

Some great photos in the gallery of that article. The White disappearance (potential injury or aggravation of injury) is concerning but still too early to be too worried about it.

Man, if that was the plan, Pace is a genius. He had everyone fooled. I agree on the 2018 perspective, we are still a year away from seriously competing unless a few players make massive jumps this year.

Could they be concerned about Long's ankle, and the left side will need the opposite dominant leg than the right side.

Lucky, the only other option would be if Glennon is playing good but not great and we are out of the playoff picture before the trading deadline, I would potentially look to move Glennon then and either start Shaw/Sanchez, or Trubisky if he is ready. There is no rush, but I also don't want to miss on the window to move Glennon when that seems to be the ultimate plan.

There has to be a logical way to think about this. Each player has a grade at each position, by projecting what they would do at the new position, you would just need to find the right combination where you are not making the overall line grade worse than before. Massie and Leno were the clear weak links to the line, so we would need to replace them while only having a minimal impact to the interior. Have other teams moved Pro Bowl Centers out to Guard and Tackle before?

Scouts and GM's don't have to always agree, they get a vote, but that's it. Also, there is the PR backlash, does the GM have enough balls to sell the house on a QB and put all his chips on the table and sink or swim with that QB? I think Pace basically did that by moving up 1 pick. The Bears were in a unique position to give up the least but still give the traded team (SF) a great pick (#3) in return. So SF gets "their" guy and a couple of extra picks to look like clear winners and masterminds. No other team had that capital to give besides CLE but due to their sabermetrics view of the world, that would not be in line with their new process. Cleveland might've been fielding calls for #1 and turned down all offers. Since teams don't have to discuss who they would pick in the trade, there could've been several teams looking to move up to take Trubisky. We know we had offers to move up to #3 and SF had offers to move up to #2, so it is logical to assume the same happened for CLE at #1, and some of those could've been for Trubisky. Based on some other articles on the topic, Trubisky was #1 (on his small sample size), so that possibly changed other teams assessments of him. They had him #1, over Luck, Newton, Mariota, Winston, Carr, Wentz, not Manziel, Manuel, Bridgewater and Locker, though I am sure he was rated higher than all of them. After hearing about the rookie minicamps and the struggles of Mahomes and Watson, I think we found a gem in Trubisky. Just reading thru some of the articles of the QB's and the initial impressions, most of Watson's are praising him for his "work ethic" (like saying she has a nice personality) but not comparable to the high praise Trubisky has already seen for that small timeframe. Mahomes has basically received the "work in progress" "not ready for primetime" tag. So just on that, I think Pace got it right. I wanted Watson, and was ok with him at #3, so I hope Pace proves me wrong.

3 scouts had him rated one of the best to come out in the last few years, but I think the other 29 had him rated pretty high too. The problem with this is most teams that were not looking for a 1st or 2nd round Qb probably didn't scout him that hard, so the true assessments will come from only a handful of scouts and teams. If you count the Bears, that is 4 teams that had him very highly rated as well. If he started more than one season, he is definitely going #1 to Cleveland. We will see how it works out, but Cleveland has now passed on Wentz, Trubisky, and Watson.