Chisoxfn

I assume Bears probably see at least 1 of these QB's there @ 20 and probably still at least one or two there when they pick in 2nd round (or at least they could move up without paying an arm and a leg to get one in 2nd round): Lawrence - No Shot Fields - No Shot Wilson - No Shot Lance - Maybe @ 20; Unlikely past that...probably unlikely he is there at 20 (but he might be there at 15 or 16 where maybe you can go get him - if you really like him; got to think the Wentz stuff and lack of film this year hurts his stock Jones - Maybe @ 20 or in Round 2 - Tua stinking it up and throwing to historically amazing talent has to cast at least some doubts Trask - Highly likely @ 20; potential in round 2; How much do teams ignore that bowl performance over the body of work. I happen to think Trask has a lot of skills that translate to NFL QB today. Ability to step up in the pocket and feel pressure, track through his progressions, and throw a hella accurate ball. Arm strength not huge - but I think arm strength can be overrated (and this is coming with someone who loves those toolsy QB's). Jamie Newman (George; Former Wake Forest transfer) is another interesting name to watch (probably more as a 3rd round type of guy). Kellen Mond is another guy - still pretty raw, but good athleticism and the type of person a team like the Bears should invest a draft pick in; maybe they hit, but if they don't, still good potential to be a very cost effective back-up and maybe the type of asset you can also flip (if you find a franchise guy another way).

I'm not mad if they take a flyer on Kluber and/or Richards.

We try to - but doesn't always happen.

No worries - I did assume at least a few people probably were posting in the other thread only to get the dreaded "lock" comment :). You too!

Given how much of a crapshoot closers are, that is probably the last place I would have invested the cash. That said - my answer probably has just as much risk, but I'd rather spend a bit more on a front-line starting pitcher and/or allocate some extra cash to extend Lynn/Giolito (and see if I can acquire/extend a starter). I don't love long-term cash tied into pitching, period (so my answer is hypocritical in nature as is my follow-up answer). It is one place I think Jerry has been right. And I can think of so few times he has been wrong - but I think this team has enough young arms that you could throw $100M at Bauer for 3 years and see if he bites (or go $70M for 2 years for all I care). For example - I would have been fine earmarking some funds to extend Lynn and make sure I get Giolito (I like longer term in this case because you are betting on someone younger and in Lynn's case, while there is risk due to Lynn's age, I think his age also means you don't have to go long-term so less chance of an albatross). That said - I don't hate the move - in the sense that if you are going to spend money on FA, I prefer going cream of the crop or waiting a long time for the market to play itself out. I don't like the middle of the pack game, feel you have a > risk of overplaying the market (from a price perspective) with all the same perils of free agency. But now that they've done this - I need to find some more pitching and do like the fact that on paper, this pen can shorten the game up quite a bit (which is another way you can handle not having as deep of a rotation - at least once you get into the post-season). My revisionist history move is I would have rather used some prospect capital and payroll to get Yu Darvish vs. Liam. But I recognize Yu comes with his own risk so not a slam dunk choice by any stretch of the imagination and this move preserves prospect capital for other potential moves.

I will say I am lukewarm on this move. I just don't like the use of salary resources on a closer. I like Liam and he makes the team better, I jus think if the Sox are as payroll limited as I assume they will be, there were probably better uses of the funds, however, I hope Liam crushes it for next 4 years and also hope I'm wrong and JR goes deeper in his pockets than I expect over next handful of years.

Me - I had to seperate this into a new thread. Didn't need 80 pages of historical garbage. Lets get the big news in its own thread.

@RockRaines Thinking of you as I watch this game. As a big 10 homer I hope OSU can make some big half time adjustments and shock the world!

This is an extremely fair take. Very concise Ninetrain.

For the record - when you look at the winningest quarterbacks in the recent NFL, very few of them were #1 or even the top QB selected in their draft class. Looking broadly, when I think of the best QB's in football, I start with the following: Aaron Rodgers = 24th overall Patrick Mahomes = 3rd QB taken in draft (10th overall) Drew Brees = 2nd round pick Russel Wilson = 3rd round pick Tom Brady = 6th round pick Big Ben = 11th overall (3rd QB taken) The above have been the class of the NFL for a long time (or in Mahomes case the current uber elite). Obviously beyond that the Manning brothers were both high picks who have won multiple superbowls in recent years (and retired). Peyton is pretty much the exception over past 20 years as the top pick on the board who has been the star studded QB to win multiple superbowls (I discount Eli Manning because he was so darn mediocre). Obviously we can also look at Watson/Lamar Jackson as guys who might be on this list over time. Watson was a pretty damn high pick, while Lamar Jackson obviously fell in the draft due to concerns over his ability to throw a football. In fact - you could argue the best way you should go is build a darn good football team and system and continually invest in QB's to surround them and hope you hit. Maybe the If you look at the list of the top QB selected...this is it going back over the past 10 years: 2020 - Joe Burrow = TBD = Obviously first year looks good, but injury issues; 2019 - Kyler Murray = TBD = Looks like a pretty solid player, but yet to lead his team to playoffs; 2018 - Baker Mayfield = Solid QB...but I don't think anyone would make a heavy bet on him being in the class of any of the QB's on my initial list 2017 - Mitchell Trubisky = 2nd/3rd tier starter - Solid guy, probable long career as back-up with potential to be a Baker Mayfield type of QB (to the upside) or a Blake Bortles type (to downside) 2016 - Jared Goff = Mediocre QB - 1 elite year, more blah years, likely product of a system, but in his defense, pretty good stats and made playoffs a lot - my personal opinion is he is just a "guy" though...nothing special 2015 - Jameis Winston = Backup - Could be a reclamation project, but no one would peg him as a franchise guy 2014 - Blake Bortles = Backup 2013 - EJ Manuel = Out of Football (I think) = But short lived and awful career (although I do think he beat the Bears at least once IIRC in the heyday of Trestman's stink) 2012 - Andrew Luck = Was very good, looked franchise(esque) but got hit a lot and obvious injury issues / holding onto ball too long. Out of football due to injuries. 2011 - Cam Newton = Very good early career; Not sure I'd put in class of the top tier guys, but you could certainly debate it. Duration was short due to beating he took, but in general my view of Cam is that his career was underrated. Although his window of greatness was shorter than most "franchise" QB's 2010 - Sam Bradford = Long time back-up, highly accurate middle of the road QB, who got paid absurd amounts of money and who was impacted by injuries.

I think if they were just going to hire another football guy (while keeping Pace and Nagy), they still could probably wait a day, especially if they people they were focused on were in organizations who were playing this week.

He also has the lowest average approval rating of any president dating back to back to 1938-1942 under FDR. I couldn't find data beyond that so for all I know it is the lowest ever. So this assertion that everyone likes the guy is just not true, but he does have a very loud, core base. That is 100% true.

The fact that 30% of a party no longer backs him is actually pretty strong - given how much Americans toe party line. Like I said - I would be curious to see some of the stats that happened back in 2000 (or whenever Gore vs. Bush happened). And again - not insinuating that there was an insurrection than - but obviously there was a lot of debate on both sides on whether the elections were "rigged" and whether their was widespread voter "fraud".

Do they have similar polls from 2000 when Bush/Gore happened? I'm just curious if the same question was asked than to a democrat, what % thought, for example, that there was widespread voter fraud in 2000. Legitimate question - not trying to be a smart alleck. Additionally - I truly believe there is a difference between Trump and Cruz. I can't stand them both, but I don't believe for one second that Cruz would want or support violence. Now he may have indirectly led to hit by the use of his words and rhetoric, but I believe Cruz is more a constitutionalist who believes in following the various process and he is simply voicing what many on the right have said, which is open things open and go through more checks. We can all say what we think - which is it is crazy and there have already been 60 some odd cases with no this or that, but what he is asking for is for a pure investigation of the matter. He is not asking people to riot or incite violence. He was not on the stage like Rudy and some of the Trumps telling people to go do x and y. I think of Cruz as the guy who is just a total rightist lawyer who just wants to push everything, but in a pencil pusher type of way that fits his narrative. I can't stand the guy - but I don't necessarily think the guy is demanding an insurrection or anything of the like. He just wants to push his narrative so he can push that same view to parts of the party that he ultimately needs (or at least feels he needs) in order to keep his power, etc. Call it the placate the president without breaching the constitution. Reality is - I think he didn't want to go toe to toe with Trump, so he called for what would be a waste of government resources but would quietly placate his relationship with the party and prevent him from Trump's fire, while also assuming everything would go away in 2 weeks when Biden took over. I think most of the members of the right who were saying those things were doing exactly that as well (not just Cruz). They were purely stating - constitution says we can do such and since #45 has said as much and keeps demanding as much, lets go through the process and show that everything was on the up and up (even if it already has been done 60 times). I will note I won't make that same statement of others on the right who I think are in the exact same camp as Trump and I still think of majority on the right as total spineless in their constant approval of #45 despite so many reckless choices he made. The above are just my views of Cruz and I have no idea - maybe he is just extreme in his wishes as Rudy and Trump.

After some morale victories out west, we need to see the Bulls get back on their winning ways so they can really leverage those moral victories and not just bury themselves multiple games under .500. I don't want to find out 2 weeks from now the team is now on a 6 game losing streak. In some ways - reinforcements will help, in other ways, the offense has always been more awkward when Lauri and Wendell are on the floor with Coby and Lavine. It actually felt like everyone benefited from Lauri being out of the way a bit - which might be something we see later in the year when the Bulls eventually move Lauri anyway.

On head coach - I think that risk is real which is why I assume Nagy stays. He just isn't near incompetent enough that I think they need to make that move now, nor do I see them investing in a bonafide top of the draft pick where you build the whole franchise with him where you would want to risk the loss of the system. It is very clear next year we will see an early (but not top 10 pick) added to the team plus a likely veteran to go with Foles and if Nagy is the guy - he can prove that his system works well enough to continue to be the guy and get another chance or the front office can go another direction a year from now. I don't see the Bears getting any top HC now - especially knowing they need to get the front office in place first. I do think the president job would potentially be pretty desirable though. Story franchised - presume they would get keys to kingdom and a very good contract from an ownership group who is largely not known to medal.

I don't believe you get rid of people because one decision went wrong (with few exceptions - obviously there are some things that it just takes one mistake). Everyone knows finding QB's is difficult and a huge crapshoot. One can not argue the thought process Pace made. He scouted and identified his guy and went to get him, he surrounded him by who he thought was a top offensive coach, and than he was aggressive getting Pace in his perceived window. Now in hindsight, I would argue his first mistake was if he thought he was going to go QB in that draft where he ended up selecting Mitch and he had any doubts on John Fox, he needed to pull the trigger on a new head coach there - so revisionist history would say mistake 1 was not getting his coach in place so the young QB only knew that system). Obviously we could go into whether he should have drafted Mahomes or not - but I don't think any team was taking Mahomes that early in the draft - the only real debate is Mitch vs. Watson and why he made that move. Now in terms of mistake 2 - I am not saying this in hindsight, but I was one of the only people on this board saying he was wrong when he got Mack (and I still to this day believe that to be the fact). I said he was too wreckless and premature on the moves that he made. I have no idea if I am right or wrong, but I do know had the Bears waited an extra year (or at least until the trade deadline) before mortgaging the future, they would have likely been in a better position to read the tea leaves. I would also say where Pace missed was his over-aggression towards his guys and his unwillingess to think big-picture and long-term and leverage his draft capital both ways. The franchise gave up too many top picks to get "their" guy and what it did was leave the team devoid of depth and better talent. Pace's 1st round selections were bad, but beyond that, with the picks he actually made, I really can't argue his draft record much. In fact, I would largely say his 2nd round and later was pretty good in nature, but you also can't afford to whiff on 1st round picks like he did (White / Floyd / Mitch) and to have given up draft capital while rarely receiving much back...too often they robbed from the future to pay the now and I don't believe they ever had the team where that made sense...if anything, when they were in the midst of their rebuild, they should have been doing the opposite - stocking up for the time where they were going to need to be more aggressive. But just missing on Mitch alone - I don't see as a reason to get rid of him. I don't know the Foles thing and I do agree a GM should get his coach the guy he wants. I'd also say unless they went with Dalton, the reality is, none of the guys most people wanted did much of anything this year at QB. But if you look at the TE misses and the cash spent there, plus the Quinn miss - that starts to add up, especially when all of that stuff came at the expense of the oline, which really made it difficult to judge much anything on the offensive side of the ball.

I didn't look in detail - but I don't get how 2/3rd's can say he deserves much of the blame and 2/3rd's can say he deserves no blame. I guess you are more breaking it down to the republican segment - which I think is fair. But unfortunately I think that goes back to something I've said on here many times - people on the right have been put into this box and no matter how much they disagree with the views of the extreme right (and I really believe that the vast majority of people who are republican actually don't believe the extreme views, but they answer the way they do in polls because they are so tired of being constantly called horrible, etc by the other party. I actually think we are seeing a dangerous precedent where companies are basically putting Parlor out of business. I know nothing of Parlor other than it is more of a conservative outlet. I am sure there are things that happen at parlor that should be shut down - but I am sure there is similar that happens on facebook, twitter, etc. If someone just took a blanketed take down of the other side - I think you'd see the other side revolting as well. I just wish more people acted with their principles more and focused on the constitution and our democracy more when serving office than their individual best interest and/or the parties best interest (and I know everyone is going to come in and tell me just how the democrats always play the rules and this or that, but lets be honest, the vast majority in politics have no spine and flip flop when it suits them and/or their party the best. We have seen the reality is most on the right (who hold office) have no spine and I'm not surprised because politicians, in general are really under control of so many other arms who got them where they are at. I also believe in different circumstances we would see the same on the left, where they would more defend their party vs. go to pure principal but too many ignore the pure hypocrisy that exists in politics. None of the above absolves the seriousness of what happened last week - which was very clearly tied to Trump and radicals with one agenda on the docket. But I am more like Tex and believe that democracy will live on and don't for a second buy into the extreme's of either party but also recognize we have to respect and take serious what did happen. Without doing such - could put us at a greater risk of what could come. We are going to need more people to put their party aside right now and to first and foremost focus on ridding us of this pandemic and hopefully with it, we might be able to rid ourselves at the polarized cancer we have created within this country. If we want to keep engaging in a tit for tac, we will all lose. And while I think Biden has a really really difficult task in front of him, I think he is one of the few individuals cut out to potentially take on this battle and potentially go down as one of the better presidents of all time (if not best - when history looks back on the circumstances that he entered in with).

Since there was some talk of various polls out there, ABC news had a poll that said 2/3rd's of Americans said that Trump deserved a "good amount" or "great deal" of blame for what happened at the capital. But I think it shows that while there are certainly extremists on the right - the entire right doesn't absolve Trump (regardless of what some members of the right say or do). Not the 100% we would all like to see, but 2/3rds is still a pretty strong majority in this day and age. https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-remains-defiant-amid-calls-232641346.html

Technically from all the reports out there, something went horribly wrong in exit interviews with Pederson and ownership. This isn't about accountability - there was an obvious disagreement on what next year was going to look like and the plan changed (cause Pederson was going to be kept). It sounds like Philly's whole situation is a pretty big mess and is probably one of the few jobs in maybe a worse spot than the Bears (or at least a similar spot - depending on your views of Wentz/Hurts).

Really good post - I agree with it all. I also agree with you on need for stability.

My preference is Rick Smith (former Houston Texans guy). He seemed to do a real good job, has ample experience, and I think would be the right role to evaluate the org and than come up with a decision. Ideally you pair him with someone like Shah from Steelers org or the Chiefs guy, etc. I dont' know the Bears will go to that extreme - but I would be pretty open to that.

I largely agree with you on Pace. I do think he was very proactive in building state of the art facilities, managing COVID with protocols, significantly enhancing the strength & development programs, etc. He also has had some good draft picks - but to your point he has had some massive bust FA signings and completely failed at the QB position (under essentially every angle). It is those reasons why if I were in charge, I would move away from him. I just don't know that the McCaskey's will do it - I do expect they will bring in a new football guy though (the only question is, will Pace still be there or are they going to move Pace into a president role or will Pace report into this new guy). I don't know that answer but am curious. Total status quo would be odd. I'm not even thinking about the coaching staff. I don't like Pagano but if Nagy moves on from him, they are likely not going to get some solid electric DC hire (given Nagy being on the hotseat).

I'm going to guess Bears go with status quo but new president/football guy in charge....give him a year to get lay of the land and start to lay out LT strategy (with or without Pace and/or Nagy). In reality - it is probably best any Bear fan could expect knowing how expensive it would be to entirely clean house. You just have to hope whomever they identify for that job is really really good and he can go find really good people. I would hope if that was there plan - they have already a really good framework in place, but you do wonder if last week against Packers and this game against Saints potentially drove increased conversation to maybe shift that plan a bit more. I'm not in a huge hurry with Nagy - because I don't think he is a Trestman like coach. Meaning, I do think Nagy can win with talent. Is he the best coach in the league, no, but I don't think he's a clown car of a coach like Trestman either. With Pace - there are a lot of good - but man he has had some really big misses.

I want Smith as president and the Steelers guy as GM. I can live with Nagy if those two are good with him. I also am okay with Riddick as one of the guys as well. Haven’t paid a lot of attention to the coaching candidates, but I would be open to Todd Bowles getting another shot. I’d have to do a bit more research. I also like the KC OC (yes I actually would not be afraid to try another KC OC). Probably not interested in a college coach. Shaw went out of favor a few years back but I always liked his style for an NFC North team. I think unlikely bears spend that much money though so probably most realistic is another year of Nagy with new front office (including president) to make decisions. I should note - Nagy frustrates me a lot - but I also like how team has bounced back from adversity at times through him. Just hate how bad our offense has been under him.