Sgt Schultz

The problem with Darnold is he looked better in a scheme designed to minimize the damage the QB could do. That is not all on him, the QB room when Wilks took over and we started running the ball was Darnold, Walker, and Mayfield. Who could blame them for emphasizing the run first, second, and third? Pickles might have looked good in that offensive scheme........Well, maybe not, but you get the idea. Let's face it: Darnold is just the latest in a line of a rather dismal QB history. Remove Cam and Jake and the last 20 years are not exactly a who's who. Is he the worst? No, Pickle's 3:9 TD to interception ratio is pretty hard to beat by mere mortals.

I've had a month that has me asking why I keep doing what I am doing. Don't get me wrong, the money is great, but the aggravation factor and the fact I turn 62 in July offsets the money significantly.

Happy birthday, Casillas. Enjoy your week off work. I have one coming up in a month, and I may survive until then.

While we are on the subject of draft picks that panned out, will our new DC and crew (re)discover how to use Chinn? He was very good, until our previous staff figured out what he was very good at and moved him away from that.

I think this is spot on. The way the Bridgewater situation unfolded was my first clue that Rhule had no clue.

That concerns me more than anything else. From what we know, the Bears are happy with Fields, so they don't need the #1 pick given who everybody else is salivating over. But 9 may be too far unless they have a long list of players they want in the first that are roughly equal in their rankings. Something like this could involve us trading with Seattle to get to #5, then moving up to #2 after Chicago swaps with Houston. I doubt we would need to move to #3 to satisfy the Bears, but 9 may be too low.

Well, we have the first runner up Arizona Cardinals. They went even further and not only pushed all the chips into the center for Murray after they were talking about parting company with him, but did the same thing with Kingsbury at almost the exact same time. "Let us make a place for you at our poker table, Mr. Bidwill."

I was reading something yesterday that said the Falcons have high hopes for Ridder. It may be true or not (don't remember the source), but if there is any truth to it, they will continue to build the rest of the team and give him a chance for a year or two.

We may......a 9th rounder from the St. Louis Cardinals, Baltimore Colts, or Houston Oilers.

One of the reasons the other 31 teams aren't following this model is that it has produced one Owl and two NFCC appearances in the last 13 seasons. It is just too many gyrations, too much risk, and too many variables that are out of their control for too little payoff. The Rams and Bucs have as many Owls in that time, and the Rams more Owl appearances by only pushing all their chips to the center of the table once.

I thought it was "Chosen" Anderson these days. Apparently that name change was wishful thinking on his part?

I've been wondering for a while whether the Ravens were sold on continuing on with Jackson once his contract wound down. People get enamored with him because he is exciting to watch. Unlike a lot of QBs that can run, he is a good NFL passer.......right up until the playoffs start. Then his passing numbers take a dramatic downturn. I know, I know, the Ravens didn't do enough to put talent around him. But it is the same talent that led to better passing production and efficiency from him during the regular season. Once the playoffs start, his completion percentage drops a bit, but his interception rate goes up, his TD rate drops to about a third, and his sack percentage goes up quite a bit. Granted, that is not all on him, but the difference when the playoffs start is that you can expect to see the opponents defense bring their "A game." Both in execution and the game plan. Thus far, Jackson's counter has not lived up to the spotlight. If you are sitting in the Ravens' chair, you begin to wonder if he can get it done when the playoffs start. In fairness, that collar is often unfair to put on somebody. The Cowboys wonder(ed) the same thing about Prescott, but the difference is, Dak's playoff numbers aren't dramatically different than his regular season numbers. The difference is Dak's lower numbers are within the realm of opposing defenses just being stingier in the playoffs. Lamar's dropoff is more than that, whether that is on him, playing through injuries, his OC's and their game plans, or the rest of the team fading around him. This may be a pending divorce that has been a longer time in the making than some realize.

That they are. And to some degree have been doing for a few years now. It is reminiscent of the Hurney era here, that every year we "were only a couple of pieces away" except we 1) never seemed to acquire the proper pieces, and 2) partially because of #1, we were always a little further than we thought. They may be hoping he can successfully make them a scavenger, like Tampa was this year. The division is bad, and given the Bucs situation, if we don't improve (and identify a QB) and the Falcons don't improve, they can win the division. That's a lot of IFs. They look to me like the Titanic. They have hit the iceberg, have water rushing into six compartments, and they are trying to stay afloat by addressing one compartment at a time while the ship is sinking. I'd have been much more concerned had they magically found a way to draft a QB, filling that gap on a rookie deal.

Yeah, they need a QB, but they also need a lot else. Especially on offense. I doubt he ultimately helps their money situation. You have to assume it is heavily back-loaded with some deadlines for accelerators that make those years guaranteed (much like his Raiders contract). They could wind up being a team with a decent defense, good QB, and little else on the offensive side of the ball. I don't think that is an ideal fit for him. This move also probably starts the countdown for their coaching staff. If they thought they had a few years, they need to think again.

Atlanta is the reason I can't buy into the discussions about "we will dominate this division for the next ten years." I'm not bullish on Tampa or the Saints (their bar tab is due), but the Falcons are about a year behind us in the rebuilding/retooling process, and they did not spend two seasons and three offseasons with a buffoon running the show. But, the Bears will tell us we are their #1 pick away from dominating the division until the end of time. They will tell the Falcons or Saints the exact same thing. They'd probably tell the Texans that, too.

While I agree with you, from the Bears perspective, they are going to see every team offering them picks as improving. Of the teams who might be talking to them, we probably have more young pieces in place than most (if not all), so they are going to project us as a playoff team. I think there is a difference between winning a division that was horrible last year and may not be dramatically better this year or next and being a consistently good team or in the running for an Owl. A lot of people on this board don't seem to grasp that, and the Bears are not going to volunteer it in any trade discussions. Case and point: Tampa was not a good team, but they won this lousy division and proved they were not good by getting smoked in the playoffs. That could be us next year (although I would say because of youth, or trajectory looks better than that of an aging Bucs team this year). But, projecting us to be a playoff team the next two years gives the Bears some leverage in the discussions, and I agree with @Varking that, compared to other teams in this discussion, we look pretty good.

No, and if he was that should only get him about $35M. This almost sounds like a Hurneyism......if we pay him like he is elite, he will become elite.

Everything I've read translate to him being smart, and also smart in a football way. That 5 interception number just keeps popping up. Don't get me wrong, I don't want Hooker drafted as the only answer we have to look at, but if he is there at 61, I'm inclined to pull the trigger and say "thank you sir, may I have another."

For whatever reason, I've found Hooker intriguing all year. He has the tools. His age does not worry me, because I am in the group that equates age with maturity, which may help in the "between the ears" transition. The fact that he played in a gimmick offense is not the concern, it is whether he can play in an NFL offense. We have seen college QBs play in pseudo-NFL offenses fail when they get to the NFL, so that is almost a non-factor anymore. I'd find his availability at draft slot 61 equally intriguing.....regardless of what we do at 9. I'm becoming a fan of flooding the QB room and letting Reich sort it out. I don't normally like the idea of throwing the shite against the wall to see what sticks, but we have one QB on the roster right now, we know nothing about him, and we have not had a viable starter or plan for the position in years. For the record, it is not the only position we need, but it is becoming almost a tradition that we enter the season needing one.

Kinda makes you wonder how many times some of us put our hands on the hot stove as kids. Or, as that famous philosopher George Bush once said (or stumbled through), "fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”

Nah, trees will tap dance before that happens.

I was thinking the same thing. A lot can and does happen in a decade, whether it be against the entire league, the division, or even just an single divisional rival. Even teams that go on extended runs have to retool or constantly turn over roster spaces and starters to achieve that, so the team in year ten looks very little like the team in year one. It is a constant chore, not something that you assemble a roster and declare victory for a decade. Unless you are sensationalizing something.........nah, ESPN would never do that.

Our problem was only partially the coaching staff. The percentage of how much was the coaching staff went down on October 10th. Ask yourself this: your QB room is Darnold, Mayfield, and Walker. Add the caveat that there were four years of film on Mayfield that demonstrated what he did relatively well and what he could not do, and we largely ignored that. How many times would you let the QBs in that room throw the football? Given our offensive roster, the only reason this should be a surprise would be that perhaps the percentage of run, run, run would have overtaken it (and maybe it did, the chart does not say). There were games we should have opened it up more, because the opposing defense was good enough to stop the run. But I doubt that changes our percentage that much. The truth is our best option was to run the football as much as we could. Going forward that is not where we want to be, but that was the hand left behind by The Process and his roster building. I noticed that, too. I sort of dismissed the 9ers because of QB issues, but I didn't do any research to find whether their reliance on the run coincided with those during the season. As for the Packers, that was a surprise.

It was one of those story lines that no fiction writer could make up.