Chisoxfn

New coaching schemes, health and Trubisky are major X factors. I also think in general the defense overachieved relative to its talent a year ago. All that said I agree the roster is much improved.

Context is always helpful. I stand corrected haha. Thank you!

May 15th

As much as I love football and cheer for big hits, if I have any say, my kid are never playing tackle football. As in NEVER EVER. Easy for me to say cause as much as I love playing football (like flag, etc), I was always too big of a wuss / never wanted to get routinely crushed like that. Never have I said, man I really want to get crushed and/or crush others.

Excellent - Always good when my memory is reaffirmed on things like this. Hitting a players wallet is usually a good step in the right direction. The hardest part is sometimes it is really difficult to tell. I say that because even if there isn't a lot of contact, sometimes the reason you go down is because you aren't expecting a certain move or your just out-of-balance and the slightest touch can take you down (maybe cause I'm not coordinated enough but I've certainly had this happen to me in my rec old man league games). And I assure everyone, i'm not looking to flop (I won't take a charge or flop...hell with that).

Wasn't Grayson Allen suspended for tripping (+ had incidents shoving a coach, etc. I don't quite view them in the same lens. I do agree I would support a more stringent flopping rule. I thought NBA has talked about it from time to time. Can't remember if at one point players could be fined for it?

So I take it, we were thinking about moving up for Roquan Smith. In general, I think Pace gets it wrong with his "move up 1 pick" approach, unless you think another team is going to jump you for said player. In the case of the Bucs, you had to know the strongest trade offer would be QB based. I can't imagine with 2 QB's on the board that a team would have made a bigger off to "jump up" for Roquan than one of the QB's.

Which I would flat-out call smart. I want my teams players flopping where it is advantageous too. Michael Jordan, the greatest ever, was always fouled. Its only natural. But just my opinion. Bottom line, I want players on my team doing what they can to maximize their value. If they have an art to get a few more fouls called (to their teams advantage) awesome. Now if you are flopping and not getting the calls, than that isn't helping you and you should stop. There is "flopping" and there is effective "flopping". Offensively, prime Derrick Rose would have benefited from ways to maximize foul calls on him. He was always hacked with minimal calls and I think it was related to the fact that he didn't play his hand like he should (in this case, I'm not giving an example of "flopping" just talking about how you work the system / refs to maximize foul calls).

He's the single greatest player in the NBA and has done so with zero off the court issues. He also has completely put his team on his own back on numerous occasions, including this most recent series. Guy is incredible and he's also been very good in game 7's. 2nd highest game 7 scoring avg in NBA history (behind only Jordan).

Having not watched much of Mitchell until the postseason all I can say is damn what a rookie. And Westbrook is just fun to watch.

This Utah OkC series has been phenomenal.

I think if Armstrong is there, he will be the pick.

I just watched some clips of Miller. I would have never guessed his 40 time after seeing his moves and acceleration / quickness. Wow. He also made a ton of what I would call nfl caliber catches.

Haha

This is actually the first year where we didn’t accumulate picks. In other years I feel we would trade up early but trade down later and largely stay net neutral in terms of picks. But yes...you trade down in general a few times...build draft capital and in future years and drafts you are always starting with a head count to be flexible (to move up or down as value emerges).

I don’t disagree but we are basically losing the 4th pick to move up one round (since next yrs 3rd is the equivalent of this years 2nd). I presume, given how aggressive they were for wideouts (trying for Ridley) was more about Bears only having a few wideouts they really liked and they decided the grade combined with the needs (and relative drop off in their ways) made it worthwhile.

Miller would seem to be a stellar fit for this offense.

My view was the price was somewhat fair. Future 2nd less valuable than this years so we basically gave up a 4th to get a pick a year earlier. In general I don’t like trading future draft capital (unless I’ve already accumulated assets from other trades) but I like the wideout we got.

Reports are the Bears tried to trade up yesterday to get Ridley. I presumed that was the case, but someone on the score reported that a little while ago.

Yes - Armstrong was on a bad team, but he put up 15.5 sacks in 3 seasons at Kansas. Landry did that and than some in 1 season at boston college. That said, just 5 last year which is concerning. That said, those 5 sacks happened in his first 6 games of last season (prior to him injuring his ankle). Basically he started to suck after his so called ankle injury.

The reason I think he might be a great buy low candidate is he was both slowed down by an ankle injury (yet played through it) and got more attention than any other dlinemen in college. Both because of his ability but also because he was by far the best player on a lousy defense. When you put those together, you could see a guy who could be due for a major breakout because from a pass-rushing perspective he supposedly has tremendous bend and a really good first step. Not a great run defender, but the guy can get to the QB. Now if you don't think the double-teams / ankles are the reason his production was down and it is a more permanent issue, than that is another story.

He is a no doubt hall of famer, imo. One of the most productive TE's ever and a guy who did everything the right way. Checks all the boxes.

If that is the case, I could see him sliding pretty far. Specifically around the back.

I will be fair and transparent. The Arizona trade would not have been enough for me to move down. I would have needed more and I don't think the Raiders got enough. I think the Raiders did it because the guy they had atop their board wasn't necessarily slotted overall where they wanted and thus they could take a "reduced" value in their own eyes because they were still going to get the guy they wanted.

Do people think Landry's ankle injury was permanent? Or is there something else?