ADVERTISEMENT

Corey Davis WMU - 5th pick

[QUOTE="corbi296, post: 421652, member: 538"

Like I said, it's a trade I probably would not have made. I have watched very little of Trubisky but the little I have seen, I like. I would likely have stayed at #3 or traded back a little and drafted Deshaun Watson, a kid I love. .....

Comparing Trubisky with Watson there must have been some major negatives that the Bears saw in Watson, at least for their system. Curious what those were.[/QUOTE]
He wasn't accurate and threw to many INTs
 
If the Bears are a playoff contender that likely means Glennon is playing well - so then what do you do next. doesn't moving up to draft trubisky really send the message that pace doesn't think glennon is the answer - which then leads to the question, why did you overpay him to begin with?
If he plays well, he or Trubisky will have excellent trade value and the Bears will get some picks back.
 
If he plays well, he or Trubisky will have excellent trade value and the Bears will get some picks back.
A team this bad shouldn't be wasting free agent money or draft picks on redundant parts - unless Pace has no confidence is either the guy he gave $18m per year to or the guy he picked #2 overall. This roster isn't deep enough for those games - they need some corners, safeties, wide receivers, tackles.
 
A team this bad shouldn't be wasting free agent money or draft picks on redundant parts - unless Pace has no confidence is either the guy he gave $18m per year to or the guy he picked #2 overall. This roster isn't deep enough for those games - they need some corners, safeties, wide receivers, tackles.
The amount of money it costs to retain Glennon for one year is not the issue. The Bears had plenty of cap space after releasing Cutler. The opportunity cost of the Glennon deal is insignificant. The Glennon deal gives them a starter while Trubisky "develops." If Trubisky is ready in year two, the Bears can retain Glennon as insurance or trade him at an attractive salary (if Glennon puts up decent numbers, which he is capable of doing, IMO).
 
The amount of money it costs to retain Glennon for one year is not the issue. The Bears had plenty of cap space after releasing Cutler. The opportunity cost of the Glennon deal is insignificant. The Glennon deal gives them a starter while Trubisky "develops." If Trubisky is ready in year two, the Bears can retain Glennon as insurance or trade him at an attractive salary (if Glennon puts up decent numbers, which he is capable of doing, IMO).
You are right - the bigger problem is who is developing trubisky - no veteran QB's worth a damn on the roster (sorry mark Sanchez) and dowell loggins is inexperienced and bad.
 
Me plodding through two pages of catfighting:
200w.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Windy City Cat Fan
A team this bad shouldn't be wasting free agent money or draft picks on redundant parts - unless Pace has no confidence is either the guy he gave $18m per year to or the guy he picked #2 overall. This roster isn't deep enough for those games - they need some corners, safeties, wide receivers, tackles.

The Bears still have ~ $30mm of cap space. That is not a scarce resource right now.
 
Still waiting for you to answer those two questions.

I gave you two examples, long and Earl Bennett. You gave me examples of known team cancers in Marty Bennett and Brandon Marshall. You have yet to provide any articles or direct quotes from the others. Waiting on standby
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT