bmags

No, Nagy thinks he has a good offense and if someone just really knows it in their heart it can succeed but keeps getting undercut by gutless QBs. Pace thought Mike Glennon was good.

Show me where I said it was about THE LIKELIHOOD. The whole reason I stopped talking to you about it is because: 1. You took it as a subtweet on your old man “blah the media blah” 2. You cannot read

I do stand with chisoxfn on the point that if you were a bears fatalist this is a great day for you. You already wanted bears to fire sale, this will get a high draft pick next year, you didn’t “sell the future” and it guarantees Pace/Nagy are fired. Worst case scenario was probably like trading for Stafford. A nearly great QB that would have cost a ton in all respects and probably saved their jobs.

This is not realistic it’s a fairytale.

LOL yes this, they sent out a 4th for Foles instead of signing Dalton last year, and what did they learn? That neither foles nor Dalton are starting NFL QBs but ... I don't know how to finish that sentence.

Yeah that's what I don't really get about some of the reaction. For those who wanted Pace out, didn't want them making decisions, this is perfect. No way andy dalton saves their jobs. But if you wanted more (like me) - this makes no sense for a couple reasons, maily to do with money. - Foles contract does not appear to be one where you can save money on a trade due to his signing bonus. But best case scenario here - the bears had good trade interest for Foles as backup. If you think you can get draft capital back for foles, and can't guarantee seattle trades russ, and may need to get a rookie QB, dalton may fit. But it's a weird swap. Foles really was fine to me if they struck out going big - he would be terrible if it's because he beat out Andy fucking dalton. Pace screws himself because he both wants to swing for fences but also panics the fuck out that he'll end up without a spot in musical chairs. And then what? You have to trade for a backup QB as your starter instead of signing a backup QB as a starter? There is no way anybody could justify to themselves that the bears are better with Dalton than Trubisky after watching this. And if you are still going after wilson, great, but you just wasted money for no reason.

Isn't this your best case scenario? I don't understand why you aren't celebrating.

I will say that Tyrod Taylor just made $10mill plus. But why the bears felt they needed to have dalton while also having foles? No idea.

I'd be shocked if we got more than 8 years. I would love to know if players like Vaughn think it's better to sign an extension on this CBA than after

?

I would probably bet against it, but in general this year lines up well for it. And I think it makes sense to assume any QBs go higher than lower. I feel like everytime a QB is mocked in the 20s they go in the low tens, any time they are a high second rounder they go in the 20s. So one of NE, SF, MN could go QB. Denver could go QB. WSH could go QB. There are a lot of borderline cases hard to know what to make of it, and if any of those teams feel like QB is this year for them, they'll probably trade up.

I'm starting to think Trey Lance may be more realistic than Jones.

I don't think we know enough about Mac Jones being a guaranteed top ten just more that it's more likely he's a top ten pick then two months ago according to NFL draft media, but he may have always been a likely top ten or he's still a "if a team likes him" pick. I do like him. I could definitely see him being a pick that is undervalued because of who the top QBs are now, but has some undeniable traits (mainly, accuracy) that are hard to ignore. I think he could be a philip rivers level, but he very well could be teddy bridgewater redux. Yesterday Dane Brugler had bears trading up to 17 to get Jones, Fishbain had bears get him at 20. Daniel Jeremiah's last had him at 27, others had him at 15. I've seen him as high as 7. ?‍♂️

Interesting the way Biggs talks about the bears this offseason, as if all the info he is getting is agent-side/outside F.O.

This dalton thing man. I don't really think it's the bears thinking it is a solution, but there is one part I'm confused by: Foles salary. Spotrac says he is $9 mill to get rid of vs $6 to keep. So some thought was maybe Dalton as backup would be cheaper than foles, but that's not easily apparent to me. There has been interest in foles as mentor, so we will see.

Check out CVS today, they just opened up giving shots. None in Dupage that I saw so may be a drive, but had availability at multiple sites this morning. edit: STarting to fill up but only one near chicago had some availability in Kankakee. Good luck!

confused by Mac Jones sandwich down there

Unlocked down Israel seems pretty similar to “locked down” America lol https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.jpost.com/israel-news/as-israels-malls-reopen-excitement-to-go-back-to-normal-659670/amp

Colome would’ve saved it

Are you in Aurora? They’ve had a few mass vax sites that only run for a day but handle like 2k at a time.

signs 16 year 600 million contract* (*12 void years)

You aren't getting this. It has nothing to do as a comment on Seattle as much as the criticism among bears fans that are even against it as a hypothetical because it's "giving away the future". It is a comment on the NFL and the over the cap teams that are competitive being "wrong" when they didn't win a superbowl and the more conservative teams. And regarding these basebally analogy you are just ignoring the fractured relationship/trade demand aspect. This isn't a team building exercise. No one is advocating that Seattle should trade Wilson because picks are better. They are saying it may be worth moving on, getting picks and $35 million of cap space back in future years than having a poisonous relationship between your top paid player and its coach. Especially when every single offensive play gets touched by that player, and he is the one leading the team on the field. In Baseball, it would be like if Giolito demanded a trade after LaRussa hire, made it known unhappy, and the sox made it known that it was LaRussa's team. They have 3 years left, they don't have to trade him. But is it worth having a player make everyone miserable, and the player miserable? Other sports have shown teams move on in these situations. And a SP is not a Quarterback. It would be more like when James Harden demanded a trade, and had 3 years left, and the rockets were competitive, and had no reason to trade him, and the whole team was built around his skillset. And then they traded him. I think you've proven your point that you refuse to acknowledge the internal dynamics here, but everyone else doesn't have to.

I don't think there is a date, but yes if you can can wait I would.

I do think it's moralistic. I think the tone is that there is something bad and wrong with New Orleans stretching themselves each year and the rams trading out first round picks and being overcap, and something noble and just with the colts hoarding picks and cap. The teams performance? Very similar, but the rams and saints may have a down year in the future where they adjust, while the colts may be less likely to have a 4-12 year, and that's like pushing the payment onto...the children?!

I feel like there's a weird, moralistic tone when it comes to team building in the NFL that I don't see in Baseball. Or maybe it's just the QB position has done this. Like, getting a top 5 QB is so lucky, is such an advantage, that you should feel like bad if you pay to get one when you may not be "ready". The only right way to get one is by building the perfect team that may not even need one, then, only then, are you okay to have one.