283 Comments

Training Camp Diary: Jimmy Graham Makes the Comparison

| August 6th, 2021


You can argue the health of the offensive line is important. But really, it’s not. It’s August 6th.

You can argue the depth at corner is an issue. But really, it’s not.

The only thing important right now for the Chicago Bears organization is Justin Fields. And that’s why today’s diary is just this Adam Jahns Tweet, quoting Jimmy Graham, a guy who has been around.

If you’re getting sick of Fields-specific posts, I have a recommendation for you: find another blog.

Tagged: , , ,

132 Comments

ATM: For 2021 Bears…Russ or Bust.

| March 30th, 2021

The San Francisco 49ers trading up to the third pick didn’t just hurt the Bears because it meant three quarterbacks would go in the first three picks. It also hurt because the trade illustrates what the cost will be for Chicago to get into position to select either of the other two premier quarterback prospects.

The 49ers traded three first round picks — including the 12th pick in 2021 — to move up nine spots. Even if the 49ers win the Super Bowl the next two seasons, the value of the picks they surrendered far outweighs the value of the pick they got. More likely, they’ll pick somewhere between 16th and 25th, which really blows the value charts out of the water.

What that means for the Bears is that even if two of the quarterbacks get out of the top 10 — possible, though not likely — the cost to move up to say 12 with Philadelphia is going to be astronomical. And doing so would firmly take the Bears out of the Russell Wilson sweepstakes because, even if the Bears have a quarterback the Seahawks would want, they wouldn’t have the draft capital to make the trade work.

It has to be asked, what is more likely:

(1) That the Bears trade three first round picks and solve their decades-long quarterback crisis with Mac Jones, Trey Lance or Justin Fields.

Or

(2) That they use those picks to trade for Russell Wilson, who then solves the quarterback crisis himself.

The answer is pretty clear.

Read More …

Tagged: , , ,

187 Comments

Torn: How to Handle QB Position Between Now and September

| March 18th, 2021


This is one of the more bizarre off-seasons in Bears history.

It began with a year-end presser that sent Chicago sports radio into a tizzy and made the word “collaboration” a punchline. (The reaction to this presser was quintessential Chicago media. I’ve never heard so much unwarranted weeping into handkerchiefs.)

It then became about two star quarterbacks on the market: Deshaun Watson and Russell Willson. The excitement around the former has been muted by his evil organization’s reluctance to answer their landlines and the lawsuits now developing around the quarterback. (If you don’t think Watson’s legal troubles originate inside the Texans, you’re not paying attention. These are bad people.)

The excitement around the latter came to a crashing halt on Tuesday, with the Seahawks balking at a deal that had been negotiated for weeks and Andy Dalton signing in Chicago.

But is the Wilson deal dead? Adam Schefter sure doesn’t think so and any conversation about how the Bears need to approach quarterback between now and opening day starts with that question.



Until the Seahawks and Wilson make a public commitment to each other and the 2021 season, such a commitment does not exist. What we know:

  • Russell Wilson doesn’t want to be on the Seahawks any longer.
  • GM John Schneider was willing to let the quarterback leave.
  • Head coach Pete Carroll was not.

The Bears should keep calling, and keep increasing their offer, until that commitment is made or until the weekend of the draft.  At the same time, the team should not lose sight of Watson.

Read More …

Tagged: , , ,

84 Comments

Bears Should Be Patient as QB Carousel Spins

| March 16th, 2021


Seattle might not be ready to trade Russell Wilson today, this week or even this month. But that does not mean he will not become available and the Bears need to be ready to pounce when that time comes.

The same is true for Deshaun Watson.

Houston and Seattle really don’t want to trade their franchise quarterbacks, because no team really wants to make such a move. However, they ultimately might have to and the best chance the Bears have at getting a franchise quarterback is still through those two guys. Keep in mind, Jay Cutler wasn’t traded until April 2 because that’s how long it took to convince Denver they had to move him.

This might seem a rather scary proposition, but it also might be the club’s best option.

Imagine a world in which the Bears could keep all of their 2021 draft picks and still add either Watson or Wilson. That is looking more possible each day as other teams in the market for QBs look to make permanent moves in the draft. With that, they risk entering the 2021 season with Nick Foles as the starter, if Houston and Seattle remain stubborn.

That really isn’t the worst thing. Foles looked horrendous at times last year, but at least some of that was because they couldn’t protect him. Even Patrick Mahomes needs protection. The one game they had Sam Mustipher at center and Foles at quarterback, they scored 23 points, despite a right side consisting of Rashad Coward and Jason Spriggs.  That won’t happen again in 2021 as the Bears figure to spend an early pick, assuming they have one, on a tackle.

Foles doesn’t have to be the only option.

Jacoby Brissett is capable, will likely be cheap and would surely be an upgrade over what Mitch Trubisky has been for much of his career. Or they could take a flier on a player like Tim Boyle, who has been impressing people in Green Bay for years. Boyle has won competitions against Brett Hundley, Deshone Kizer and Jordan Love the last three years and has actually been impressive, with a passer rating better than 100 in the preseason, though that context is needed. He could be another Matt Flynn or Craig Nall, but he could also be another Matt Hasselbeck.

Read More …

Tagged: ,

89 Comments

Bears Need to Force Action on Russell Wilson

| March 2nd, 2021

Once Russell Wilson has been dangled in front of the faces of Bears fans, little else will do. And recent reports out of Seattle make two things clear:

  • Wilson doesn’t want to keep beating his head against the wall in Seattle.
  • Seattle doesn’t want a QB who publicly speaks his mind.

None of that would matter except, shockingly, the Chicago Bears just so happen to need a quarterback and Wilson listed them on his list of teams to which he would accept a trade. Like the Texans with Deshaun Watson and the Packers with Aaron Rodgers, the Seahawks seem to have little interest in trading their star quarterback right now. Doing so would actually cost Seattle $39 million in 2021; keeping Wilson would cost them $32 million. Paying $7 million to get rid of a franchise quarterback is bad business, no matter how upset they might be with him.

So, what can the Bears do? Well, there is an unconventional way in which the Bears and Seahawks could work out a trade.

The teams would have a handshake agreement to finalize the trade after June 1, and doing so would mean trading Wilson is only a $13 million cap hit for Seattle in 2021 and they’d save $19 million — that math is much better for them. The teams couldn’t necessarily exchange draft picks in 2021, but — in theory — the Bears could make a pick with the idea that they’d be trading that player to Seattle. The cleaner way would be to not include any draft picks until the 2022 season, but the Bears have to be flexible.

The problem, however, is that Seattle couldn’t use any assets they would get from the Bears to make trades. If they’re trading a franchise quarterback, they’d surely like to get one in return and there’s no telling if that could happen with the 20th pick. The Bears would surely want to know if they have the 20th pick to use or if it’s traded before then. Then again, Seattle doesn’t ever want to pass anyway, so maybe Nick Foles would be good enough for them.

Read More …

Tagged: ,

184 Comments

Monday Musings: A Few Final Thoughts Ahead of Tonight’s Game vs Seattle

| September 17th, 2018

Photo by Otto Greule Jr of Getty Images


The Bears host the Seattle Seahawks tonight and, since I’m DBB’s resident Pacific Northwest dweller, who better to share some last minute pregame thoughts? So here it goes:

I’m still stinging from last week’s loss (and you probably are, too) but let’s hope the Bears have moved on…

There’s no way to get around it: Last week hurt. No team should blow a 20-point lead, even if they’re facing one of the greatest QBs of all time. It was a missed opportunity to start the season with a statement win, but in the end Green Bay just found a different way to break our collective hearts. That being said, Week One needs to be the last thing on the Bears’ mind when they run out onto Soldier Field tonight. I’ve mentioned my love of tennis and Roger Federer before, and one of the things that makes him great is his fantastic ability to erase painful losses from his memory. He learns, but he doesn’t dwell. Let’s hope the Bears take the same approach.


Ah, memories…

The last time the Bears played the Seahawks was 2015 in Seattle. It was the 3rd game of John Fox’s tenure, and Jimmy Clausen was starting in place of an injured Jay Cutler. The Bears lost 26-0. (I don’t care enough to check, but I’m pretty sure the Bears only managed one first down the entire game.) I watched with a handful of Seahawks fans, and honestly it was so pathetic they couldn’t even muster the energy to make fun of me. Regardless of how disappointing last week’s loss was, it doesn’t hurt to remember that things used to be much, much worse.


This game feels about as “must win” for the Bears as any Week 2 game could…

The Bears have the more talented roster going into tonight’s game, and that was true even before Bobby Wagner, Doug Baldwin, and KJ Wright were declared out, with several other key Seahawks players listed as doubtful. If the Bears can’t manage a win at home against a rebuilding and busted up Seattle team, then we might be in for a much rougher season than any of us were expecting.

Read More …

Tagged: , , ,