I'm not convinced Manning can co-exist with Fox, though. But I assume they hashed all that out, and basically that Fox is on board (at the insistence of Elway) with letting Manning do his thing. I'm skeptical, though.

That's nuts.

Possibly. Which part, though?

From my link:

Yeah, I get all that. I'm saying those numbers seem low. Tom Brady had 5 dropped/tipped total last year, and that number seems low to me from the games of his I saw.

That looks to me like a substantial credit to Eli, at least as pertains to 2010.

Did you read the other link? His raw INT% in 2010 was 4.4%. His adjusted rate was 4.3%.

Filed to ESPN (1): Denver and Jets have encountered hangup in language in Tim Tebow’s contract that could nullify trade.

God Bless the Lawyers who found the language and might be able to stop this abomination.

I also have to think that if there is any city where Tebow would really not fit in, and where his religiosity would not play, it is NYC.

I also have to think that if there is any city where Tebow would really not fit in, and where his religiosity would not play, it is NYC.

Maybe it's a good place for him, then. He can be a football player without having that aspect of a rabid fanbase creating a distraction. I never got the sense he *needed* that stuff in order to be comfortable as a Denver Bronco.

Did you read the other link? His raw INT% in 2010 was 4.4%. His adjusted rate was 4.3%.

Did you read the rest of my post, which suggests that you might want to look at the other guys too? The 4.4% raw INT was the highest of anyone in your link, the 4.3% adjusted rate ranks eighth.

I also have to think that if there is any city where Tebow would really not fit in, and where his religiosity would not play, it is NYC.

Huh. New York never struck me as an intolerant place.

Huh. New York never struck me as an intolerant place.

Well, not if you're liberal, anyway.

the 4.3% adjusted rate ranks eighth.

Which is still pretty bad. I'm not sure what your point is.

Re: the Saints situation

Hurry home early, hurry on home
Boom Boom Mancini's fighting Bobby Chacon

Man I hate American football. Hate it.

Which is still pretty bad. I'm not sure what your point is.

I think I made my point in 2698. Billyshears was completely correct, however much you want to derp derp derp about SBB and Jack Morris. Your argument about Eli's interception rate being unchanged, while ignoring that everyone else's went up, was crap. What else can I say.

God Tebow Bless the Lawyers who found the language and might be able to stop this abomination.

FTFY

Your argument about Eli's interception rate being unchanged, while ignoring that everyone else's went up, was crap.

I think you are confusing me with Fancy Pants Handle. I didn't say derp about SBB or Jack Morris, he did.

I said his INT rate didn't change much and that it still stunk after adjustments. Neither one of those are false. He was still one of the worst in the league at throwing INTs even after adjustment. Yes, moving down the rankings is a credit to him, but when it's from worst out of 27 to 8th worst out of 27 it's still lousy.

I think you are confusing me with Fancy Pants Handle. I didn't say derp about SBB or Jack Morris, he did.

I apologize. My memory was that you had concurred; that's not really a fair characterization of your post.

I said his INT rate didn't change much and that it still stunk after adjustments. Neither one of those are false. He was still one of the worst in the league at throwing INTs even after adjustment. Yes, moving down the rankings is a credit to him, but when it's from worst out of 27 to 8th worst out of 27 it's still lousy.

It's closer to average than to worst.

Anyway, I'm not going to get too worked up if his interception rate is 4.3% instead of 3.6% or whatever, especially when the other guy is more likely than not yielding a few games to a backup who's worse than 4.3%.

I apologize.

It's all good, no worries.

EDIT: Fair point on the second part.

And now the Tebow trade is official. This will be fun.

And now the Tebow trade is official. This will be fun.

No kidding.

Huh. New York never struck me as an intolerant place.

It doesn't have to be. It just means there might not be lots of non-denominational right wing Christians to build a fanatical Tebow fanbase. Not that those were the only members' of Tebow's fanatical Denver fanbase. But it's perceived to be the bulk of it.

New York is a pretty big place. There are a lot of non-denominational right wing Christians in New York. There is also a lot of everyone else, which is the difference between New York and say, Jacksonville.

Also, did you know that Saved by the Bell is now on Netflix?

It doesn't have to be. It just means there might not be lots of non-denominational right wing Christians to build a fanatical Tebow fanbase. Not that those were the only members' of Tebow's fanatical Denver fanbase. But it's perceived to be the bulk of it.

Does he need a fanatical fanbase for some reason? As long as the Jets' fanbase isn't openly hostile to him because he happens to be outwardly religious, I can't see how it matters.

I said his INT rate didn't change much and that it still stunk after adjustments. Neither one of those are false. He was still one of the worst in the league at throwing INTs even after adjustment. Yes, moving down the rankings is a credit to him, but when it's from worst out of 27 to 8th worst out of 27 it's still lousy.

Kurt has defended my position more effectively than I could have, but I do want to note that I was originally responding to a post about how Eli fared in comprehensive metrics. An adjustment in interception rate of the magnitude noted would significantly affect Eli's performance in a such a metric.

Let's not overlook that Tebow's fan base mushroomed when he started winning.

Does he need a fanatical fanbase for some reason? As long as the Jets' fanbase isn't openly hostile to him because he happens to be outwardly religious, I can't see how it matters.

I don't think so, he's never given me an impression he needs it. I wrote earlier it might be a good thing for him and Jets if there's less of all the Tebowmania stuff, he can just be a football player.

"I do not agree with this situation," Namath said. "I can't agree with it. I just think it's a publicity stunt. I really think it's wrong. I can't go for it."

Didn't the Jets way overpay for Namath out of college in large part to sell tickets?

Kurt has defended my position more effectively than I could have, but I do want to note that I was originally responding to a post about how Eli fared in comprehensive metrics. An adjustment in interception rate of the magnitude noted would significantly affect Eli's performance in a such a metric.

Football Outsiders' own metric had him with the exact same rank of 15th in 2010. Even if you make such an adjustment (and, obviously, you'd need to make it for everyone), how high is it possibly going to lift him? I highly doubt it pushes him into the Top 10.

I know I don't watch all the games, but what I see at FB Ref is pretty clear. Year-in, year-out (including his legitimately excellent 2011), he throws more INTs than most QBs. And even taking every snap of every game, he's not enjoying similarly high ranks in other counting stats like yards or TDs. It doesn't make him a bad QB, but it isn't something you can just shrug off in an evaluation of him either.

I know I don't watch all the games, but what I see at FB Ref is pretty clear. Year-in, year-out (including his legitimately excellent 2011), he throws more INTs than most QBs. And even taking every snap of every game, he's not enjoying similarly high ranks in other counting stats like yards or TDs. It doesn't make him a bad QB, but it isn't something you can just shrug off in an evaluation of him either.

The bolded part is just simply not true, at least over the last four years (I think even a casual look at fb-ref would confirm that he took a leap forward after the 2007 season; I would agree with the consensus that from 2004-07 he was not great):

In 2011 he ranked 4th in yards, T-6th in TD passes and T-7th in interceptions.
In 2010 he ranked 5th in yards, 4th in TD passes and 1st in interceptions.
In 2009 he ranked 10th in yards, T-8th in TD passes and 11th in interceptions.
In 2008 he didn't rank among the top 10 in yards, T-10th in TD passes and he threw 10 interceptions, which was fewer than all but three teams.

Edit: If you want, you can throw in the postseason numbers over the same timespan - 275 yd/g, 9 TD's, 3 INTs. Or you can shrug them off, that's fine too.

The bolded part is just simply not true, at least over the last four years (I think even a casual look at fb-ref would confirm that he took a leap forward after the 2007 season; I would agree with the consensus that from 2004-07 he was not great):

Until 2011, he'd never been great in the regular season. He took a step forward from OK to good/very good from 07 through 10. If he maintains 2011's performance, he can be considered great.

Edit: If you want, you can throw in the postseason numbers over the same timespan - 275 yd/g, 9 TD's, 3 INTs. Or you can shrug them off, that's fine too.

I'm not Ray, so I'll throw in the postseason numbers. I think the outstanding postseason numbers are what elevates him into the second tier of current quarterbacks. Without them, he's below Cutler, Romo and Stafford (though obviously the latter may need to do more work for your tastes).

Until 2011, he'd never been great in the regular season. He took a step forward from OK to good/very good from 07 through 10. If he maintains 2011's performance, he can be considered great.

Well, how about the substance of the post? Year-in, year-out, is he enjoying similarly high ranks in other counting stats like yards or TDs as compared to interceptions, or not?

<i>I'm not Ray, so I'll throw in the postseason numbers. I think the outstanding postseason numbers are what elevates him into the second tier of current quarterbacks. Without them, he's below Cutler, Romo and Stafford (though obviously the latter may need to do more work for your tastes).<i>

I'd say the former has quite a bit of work to do to be clearly above Eli, unless you want to play the "you have to watch Cutler every game to know how great he is" card (or unless you want to shrug off *his* interceptions).

I'm not Ray, so I'll throw in the postseason numbers.

Different sport, different game. I don't mind factoring in the postseason for QBs.

Well, how about the substance of the post? Year-in, year-out, is he enjoying similarly high ranks in other counting stats like yards or TDs as compared to interceptions, or not?

If you look at the full body of his work, no. He's been closer to the top of the leaderboard in INTs to a greater degree than he has been any of the other categoreies. If you decide to start his career in 2008, then yes, his numbers in the other counting stats are in line with his INTs.

I'd say the former has quite a bit of work to do to be clearly above Eli, unless you want to play the "you have to watch Cutler every game to know how great he is" card (or unless you want to shrug off *his* interceptions).

I think as a result of the excellent postseasons, Eli's in that class of QB where I'd place Cutler. If you want to put him ahead, I wouldn't object. Just as Eli's rather unimpressive regular season record (if you look at the previously cited Football Outsiders' QB ratings, this year's 6th-place ranking is the first time he's gotten below No. 9) gets a boost from his postseason numbers, Cutler's value got a boost, in my eyes, in his absence. Without him the offense was simply incapable of moving the ball against anyone. I never was much of a Cutler backer until I saw just how atrocious that entire offense is without him behind center.

So, I guess I'm playing the "You Have to Watch Cutler not play every game to know how great he is" card. (-:

Kurt has defended my position more effectively than I could have, but I do want to note that I was originally responding to a post about how Eli fared in comprehensive metrics. An adjustment in interception rate of the magnitude noted would significantly affect Eli's performance in a such a metric.

And I think this is completely wrong. Interceptions are typically at most 25% of any comprehensive metric. Going from last to eighth last is going to move you maybe two places total.

And that aside, the only data I have seen provided here was for a total of 14 games in one year. We have Eli's whole career to look at, which tells us he throws a ton of picks. If you want to say that with average luck he would have a 84 career QB rating instead of 82, have at it. That's still barely above average.

I can't remember, do the football outsiders numbers attempt to adjust for weather at all? I think that can have a pretty big impact on QB stats. For instance, (and I think I brought this up before) Matthew Stafford played 11 of his 16 games last year in a dome. Eli played 3. Tony Romo played 9 games inside. I know at least the old Giants stadium was known for it's swirling winds as well.

I don't know how much it moves the needle, probably only on the margins, but Stafford played nearly 4 times as many games as Eli in domes. That has to help your stats.

And that aside, the only data I have seen provided here was for a total of 14 games in one year. We have Eli's whole career to look at, which tells us he throws a ton of picks. If you want to say that with average luck he would have a 84 career QB rating instead of 82, have at it. That's still barely above average.

Nobody's making a HoF argument, so I'm not sure why we're talking about Eli's whole career. He threw more interceptions at a higher rate in each of 2005, 2006 and 2007 than he has in any of 2008, 2009 or 2011, even though he became a substantially more aggressive passer in 2009. That's why there has been so much focus on 2010 - it's the outlier in many respects in the last 4 years of data, which is all anybody is really concerned about when thinking about how good Eli is right now. If evaluations of his performance in 2010 are adjusted upwards due to the recognition of bad luck, that makes his career trajectory and current level of ability a lot more clear.

Obviously, this is imperfect, and flawed because we don't know the adjustment for all QBs, but this isn't akin to the Jack Morris example cited earlier. Any QB only throws interceptions on a small percentage of passes, so bad luck on a few passes above and beyond what is expected has a significant effect on the overall rate. Over a career's worth of throws, this luck should even out. I'm not sure that it does in a single season. In that case, I think actual observation is useful.

Different sport, different game. I don't mind factoring in the postseason for QBs.

You don't understand what you are watching.

If you look at the full body of his work, no. He's been closer to the top of the leaderboard in INTs to a greater degree than he has been any of the other categoreies. If you decide to start his career in 2008, then yes, his numbers in the other counting stats are in line with his INTs.

In the context of the present discussion (how good is Eli right now; your use of the present tense - "is enjoying"), I don't have any problem whatsoever with starting his career in 2008.

I think as a result of the excellent postseasons, Eli's in that class of QB where I'd place Cutler. If you want to put him ahead, I wouldn't object. Just as Eli's rather unimpressive regular season record (if you look at the previously cited Football Outsiders' QB ratings, this year's 6th-place ranking is the first time he's gotten below No. 9) gets a boost from his postseason numbers, Cutler's value got a boost, in my eyes, in his absence. Without him the offense was simply incapable of moving the ball against anyone. I never was much of a Cutler backer until I saw just how atrocious that entire offense is without him behind center.

So, I guess I'm playing the "You Have to Watch Cutler not play every game to know how great he is" card. (-:

Not much to add here. I get it, but (a) we don't know how the Giants would have done with Jared Lorenzen or David Carr, and (b) it's a bit odd to jump Cutler over Eli based on his *not* playing.

Not much to add here. I get it, but (a) we don't know how the Giants would have done with Jared Lorenzen or David Carr, and (b) it's a bit odd to jump Cutler over Eli based on his *not* playing.

Hey, Carr is 30-45 for 340 yards with 3 TD and no picks in his Giant career, so clearly, Eli is actually holding the Giants back.

I'd like to know how David Carr would've performed if he ever got to play behind a professional offensive line.

In the context of the present discussion (how good is Eli right now; your use of the present tense - "is enjoying"), I don't have any problem whatsoever with starting his career in 2008.

I don't know that I stipulated that the present discussion was limited to how good Eli is right now and thus we can only start it at 2008. But OK, I'll play.

Based on his play since 2008, Eli is a second-tier quarterback, with the possibility of breaking into the upper tier if his performance in 2011 is his new level. Do you disagree?

Nobody's making a HoF argument, so I'm not sure why we're talking about Eli's whole career. He threw more interceptions at a higher rate in each of 2005, 2006 and 2007 than he has in any of 2008, 2009 or 2011, even though he became a substantially more aggressive passer in 2009. That's why there has been so much focus on 2010 - it's the outlier in many respects in the last 4 years of data, which is all anybody is really concerned about when thinking about how good Eli is right now. If evaluations of his performance in 2010 are adjusted upwards due to the recognition of bad luck, that makes his career trajectory and current level of ability a lot more clear.

2008 Eli threw interceptions by at far the lowest rate of his career. And has showen he can't actually stay at that level in the 3 seasons since. If you want to adjust his 2010 int rate downwards for being unlucky, then you absolutely have to adjust his 2008 up for being lucky, and that year drops back to the 2005-2007 pack.

Setting that issue aside, Manning has 2 pretty good years (three if you want to elevate 2010 to his 09 and 11 levels). By adjusted QB rating (works similar to OPS+) on football-reference, those come in at 111 and 112.

Matt Schaub has a career rating of 111, with years of 121, 119 and 116.
Ben Roethlisberger has a career rating of 112, with years of 130, 122, 122, 121 and 115.
Tony Romo has a career rating of 118, with years of 123, 121, 119 and 117.
Philip Rivers has a career rating of 116, with years of 127, 126, 120 and 115.

Wanting to put Eli in that group is simply wishful thinking.

Based on his play since 2008, Eli is a second-tier quarterback, with the possibility of breaking into the upper tier if his performance in 2011 is his new level. Do you disagree?

Only to the extent that I think people are overrating his 2011. I think he's been basically the same player from 2008-2011, gradually improving, with 2011 as his best season but basically in line with the previous three.

i think Eli is definitely a second tier QB, presuming we define the first tier as Brady, Brees, and Rodgers. (Peyton was in this group prior to the injury, I don't think you can put him in any group right now)

Of the 4 guys listed in 2738, I would definitely rather have Eli than either Schaub or Romo. (Eli hasn't missed a game in his career, Schaub has been a starter for 3 years and has played 16 games in only half of those seasons). I'm a Giants fan, so I'm clearly biased against Dallas, but I would rather have Eli quarterbacking my team than Romo. (But like I said, I've seen Eli quarterback my team to 2 titles in the last 5 years, so I could definitely be biased).

As I said before, I think Eli's stats are hurt a little bit by his weather situation. A lot, I don't know, but I think at least some. His QB rating is lower in every month of the season, for his career. Now part of that is because the Giants have generally had a more difficult schedule later in the season, but I think playing games in NY in December (as well as other NFC east cities, Dallas excepted) can't help your stats. I also think Eli should get a boost for never missing a game. I'm sure part of that is luck (and he's not the only guy, Rivers hasn't missed a start, Brees has missed one game the last 7 years, 07 was the only year Brady has missed any time, etc), but part of it is skill in avoiding hits, and if I am looking for a franchise QB, I want a guy who doesn't miss any time.

I think Eli is in the second tier of QB, with the guys like Rivers and Roethlisberger, and as much as I dislike him, probably also Romo as well. (Though Ben has started 16 games just once in his career; he's had a lot of 15 game starts, which could be due to resting him in the last game of the season? Not sure).

Why would you use adjusted QBR? QBR is the "total average" of football stats, because it relies heavily on completion % (the batting average of football stats).

I much prefer AY/A or NAY/A ("Net" includes sacks). I know sacks are "sometimes" the QBs fault but I think it's only partial... so I like to average adjusted and net adjusted. These are also + adjusted to a 100 scale. As I posted on the last page.

That said - Schaub/Ben/Romo/Rivers/E.Manning are all firmly in the 2nd tier -- but only if you ignore Eli before 2009. But Aaron Rodgers was in this tier too, until 2011.


You know, by adjusted rate stats it's awfully hard to tell the difference betwen these 5 guys, Brees, Petyon, and Brady. The last 4 (including Rodgers) all have a few ridiculous 140-150 years. Well, Brees has two 130+ years.

I thought the DVOA breakdown showed a cleaner break, but I am a bit too lazy to look it up.

Why would you use adjusted QBR? QBR is the "total average" of football stats, because it relies heavily on completion % (the batting average of football stats).

I would have used DYAR personally, but FO is a bit unwieldly, and pfr has player pages which are much more user friendly for such purposes.

I much prefer AY/A or NAY/A ("Net" includes sacks). I know sacks are "sometimes" the QBs fault but I think it's only partial... so I like to average adjusted and net adjusted. These are also + adjusted to a 100 scale. As I posted on the last page.

That said - Schaub/Ben/Romo/Rivers/E.Manning are all firmly in the 2nd tier -- but only if you ignore Eli before 2009. But Aaron Rodgers was in this tier too, until 2011.

Fine, let's look at AY/A and ANY/A (NAY/A btw). And because I am feeling generous, lets just look at 2009-2011, which makes Eli look best:


Yeah, still not seeing it.

I didn't realize ANY/A included adjustments for TD and Int. I was looking at Net yards per attempt, which adjusts for Sacks, but not for INT and TD.

Eli is 7.3, Ben is 7.1 (gets killed for all the sacks he takes), Rivers is 7.6, Schaub is 7.4, and Romo is 7.2.

It has everyone a lot closer, with Rivers clearly above everyone else, but Eli right there with the other 4 guys. (Don't know if that is the best measure, but I am not sure how i feel about including TD and Int into the mix, though certainly you'd want to at least adjust for turnovers). Also, Rivers does play in one of the more friendly stadiums, though not a dome.

To me, I would throw Schaub out of the mix for his injury issues, and I'd say the other 4 are all pretty close. But like I said, I am partial to Eli.

I would have used DYAR personally, but FO is a bit unwieldly, and pfr has player pages which are much more user friendly for such purposes.

Just use the position pages and go by year. Tedious, but doable. Here's the top 16* each year, DYAR. I've bolded Eli for easy reference.

*Arbitrary end points! I figure top half of the league is enough. Which it turns out it is when you get to 2010. I honestly picked that number before looking at the data.


Rk/Player/DYAR

2008:

1. D.Brees 1,921
2. P.Manning 1,783
3. P.Rivers 1,522
4. K.Warner 1,404
5. J.Cutler 1,380
6. C.Pennington 1,172
7. M.Ryan 1,167
8. D.McNabb 1,048
9. E.Manning 1,032
10. A.Rodgers 932
11. T.Romo 879
12. M.Schaub 863
13. J.Delhomme 828
14. D.Garrard 824
15. K.Collins 738
16. J.Campbell 655

2009:

1. T.Brady 2,170
2. P.Manning 1,936
3. P.Rivers 1,915
4. D.Brees 1,845
5. B.Favre 1,808
6. M.Schaub 1,796
7. T.Romo 1,589
8. B.Roethlisberger 1,390
9. A.Rodgers 1,294
10. E.Manning 1,105
11. K.Warner 1,057
12. K.Orton 887
13. M.Ryan 828
14. J.Flacco 815
15. C.Palmer 739
16. D.McNabb 619

2010:

1. T.Brady 2,137
2. P.Manning 1,679
3. P.Rivers 1,652
4. A.Rodgers 1,514
5. D.Brees 1,360
6. M.Ryan 1,348
7. B.Roethlisberger 1,238
8. M.Schaub 1,173
9. J.Freeman 1,031
10. C.Palmer 1,009
11. J.Flacco 906
12. K.Orton 869
13. M.Vick 835
14. M.Cassel 795
15. E.Manning 792
16. S.Hill 650

2011:

1. D.Brees 2,544
2. A.Rodgers 2,268
3. T.Brady 2,235
4. T.Romo 1,591
5. M.Stafford 1,446
6. E.Manning 1,396
7. M.Ryan 1,339
8. P.Rivers 1,334
9. B.Roethlisberger 1,092
10. M.Schaub 833
11. M.Vick 818
12. A.Dalton 807
13. A.Smith 668
14. J.Flacco 631
15. C.Newton 619
16. M.Hasselbeck 607

If you want to adjust his 2010 int rate downwards for being unlucky, then you absolutely have to adjust his 2008 up for being lucky, and that year drops back to the 2005-2007 pack.

The evidentiary basis for adjusting the 2010 season was fully set forth in posts 2692 and 2693. If you have any basis for adjusting the 2008 season, I'd love to see it.

DVOA is a bit more work to re-order but here's Eli's year by year rankings for that time period and the names listed in 2742 for comparison:

Eli: 9th, 11th, 20th, 8th
Schaub: 8th, 6th, 13th, 5th*
Romo: 10th, 7th, 9th*, 4th
Rivers: 2nd, 1st, 3rd, 9th
Roethlisberger 27th, 8th, 2nd, 11th

*Injured for part of season

Fair enough @2742. What I find interesting is that I had supposed that QBs were "stratified" big 3, next 5 (the group Eli is just under), big batch of average, then the dregs and career backups. It seems more continuous that that at least averaged over a few years. Not sure you can say Eli is worst of the 2nd tier or best of the average!

So if you use DYAR over the last 4 years, you get:
1) Rivers: 6,453
2) Schaub: 4,665
3) Romo: 4,493
4) Eli: 4,325
5) Ben: 4,008

May need to revisit Schaub. That 2009 season was a monster.

May need to revisit Schaub.

If you want to give any kind of adjustment or credit for playing time (not saying you should or shouldn't), Eli will slip down on that list. Romo over that time span had 13 missed starts and essentially a whole game missed this season that he started (he was injured after 2 attempts in Week 15 this year), Schaub missed 11, Roethlisberger 6.

In other words, DYAR/G:

Rivers: 100.8
Romo: 88.1
Schaub: 88.0
Roethlisberger: 69.1
Manning: 67.6

May need to revisit Schaub.

FWIW, I think you are overstating the injury concern wrt Schaub. He played all 16 games in 09 and 10. Then last season, he tore a ligament in his foot when being tackled. That can essentially happen to any QB, and is mostly random (unless you are taking a ton of sacks). Since 08 he has missed fewer games than Brady. Are you going to slap the injury-prone label on Tom just because Bernard Pollard rolled his fat ass into his ankle?

Roethlisberfer, I would argue, had the worst o-line of the bunch over the past years. He also had the suspension.

The evidentiary basis for adjusting the 2010 season was fully set forth in posts 2692 and 2693. If you have any basis for adjusting the 2008 season, I'd love to see it.

My evidence is 'every other year from Eli Manning's career'. If a hitter has 7 of 8 years with a BABIP under .300, then I don't need any further evidence to claim the 1 year where he managed a .350 was fluky. Manning has clearly demonstrated that he isn't capable of keeping his int rate that low, without being lucky.
If you want to adjust seasons where Manning suffered bad luck, you have to be willing to also consider those where he got lucky. Otherwise you are just cherry picking.

He also had the suspension.

Poor guy! What bad luck!


My evidence is 'every other year from Eli Manning's career'. If a hitter has 7 of 8 years with a BABIP under .300, then I don't need any further evidence to claim the 1 year where he managed a .350 was fluky. Manning has clearly demonstrated that he isn't capable of keeping his int rate that low, without being lucky.
If you want to adjust seasons where Manning suffered bad luck, you have to be willing to also consider those where he got lucky. Otherwise you are just cherry picking.

This is world-class nitwittery. Insert Billy Madison quote here.

FWIW, I think you are overstating the injury concern wrt Schaub. He played all 16 games in 09 and 10. Then last season, he tore a ligament in his foot when being tackled. That can essentially happen to any QB, and is mostly random (unless you are taking a ton of sacks). Since 08 he has missed fewer games than Brady. Are you going to slap the injury-prone label on Tom just because Bernard Pollard rolled his fat ass into his ankle?

He also missed time in 2007 and 2008. He's been a starter for 6 years, and played 3 full seasons. Brady has missed games in one season. Schaub has missed a significant part of 3 seasons. At the same time, you are probably right that a lot of it is luck. No one is playing through a torn ACL, sometimes things just happen. But also some of it is avoiding hits, which brings up...

Roethlisberfer, I would argue, had the worst o-line of the bunch over the past years. He also had the suspension.

Agreed Ben's o-line isn't that good, but he also holds onto the ball forever in an attempt to try and make a play, which while a lot of run to watch, is going to lead to taking more hits than the average QB. (Though he is clearly an extremely tough dude, not trying to knock him. It's a testament to his toughness that he hasn't missed more time). But he is more likely to get injured than someone who doesn't take a lot of sacks. You can probably throw the suspension out as far as missing time, though I'd prefer my franchise QB not to be accused of sexual assault on multiple occasions.

Yes, I think the perceived gap between Rivers and the big four (Peyton/Brees/Brady/Rodgers) is that his most recent year was his worst. People would probably be surprised if Rodgers slipped to 8th in 2012 and Rivers jumped back to 1st or 2nd in the NFL, but we probably shouldn't be.

Yes, I think the perceived gap between Rivers and the big four (Peyton/Brees/Brady/Rodgers) is that his most recent year was his worst.

I think also it's that all 4 of those guys have played in the last 3 super bowls, and Rivers hasn't made one yet. Whether that is fair or not is a different story.

Tebow flew to New York Thursday afternoon, but the contract issue forced the Jets to postpone his introductory news conference until Monday.

An introductory news conference... for a backup QB?

we're two weeks out from the draft, and i really have no idea what the eagles are going to do. offense..defense..player..position..trade up..trade down..i've just got no clue about it.


i'm hoping for kuechly, and i like cox, but i'd also be really, really happy with gilmore. i think gilmore has all-pro potential if he's moved to safety, and i think he could start there day 1. he's a little thin, but with his length, speed, coverage ability, and ball skills, i think he'd be an absolute terror playing back there.


as for guys i don't want, i want nothing to do with an offensive lineman in the first 3 rounds. i want nothing to do with brockers. i'm not a huge fan of drafting another WR, and there doesn't appear to be a must-get RB or TE where the eagles pick in the mid-first round.



and w/r/t tannehill, i think it would be kind of hilarious to see the reaction here if the eagles traded up into the top 5 to get him. i don't really want anything to do with him, myself (especialy not if they have to trade up to get him), but with how much this town freaked out about drafting kevin kolb, i think the reaction to getting tannehill would be amazing.

Re: Eagles

I pretty much agree, I could see the Eagles going in about 20 different directions.

Personally, I'm devastated over the Peters injury; in 30+ years of watching the Eagles he was easily the best O-lineman I've seen on the team, and the unit in general played very well despite some growing pains with the rookies Kelce and Watkins. That said, it's not a great draft for O-lineman and Bell is probably better than anyone they could plug in immediately. Dunlap is versatile and they still have Vanderwelde from last year's draft.

Other than that, I'm OK with going anywhere:

QB: I'm OK with Kafka as the backup and they have Trent Edwards as a veteran. It's probably time to start thinking about the future starting QB and if they can't get one in the first, getting someone to replace Kafka (he could be a FA in 2013) or develop and trade a la Kolb/Feely is worth considering. Not in love with Tannehill.

RB: McCoy is great obvious but he had more snaps than any other RB in the league. Of course the Eagles don't run the ball all that much but an injury would be devastating. Ronnie Brown was terrible and Dion Lewis showed pretty much nothing as a RB or KR. Would like to see an RB somewhere in rounds 3-5.

WR: Feel really good about Jackson, Maclin and Avant. Steve Smith was as bad as Ronnie Brown and Riley Cooper has limited upside. I could see them going for a WR in rounds 2-4.

TE: Don't see a need for anything here. Celek has become a great all-around player and Clay Harbor has developed nicely.

DE: Cole is a stud and Babin had a huge year. There's room for a rotational guy though, if Graham doesn't make a big comeback he's Jerome McDougle.

DT: Patterson and Jenkins had nice years, Landri was a revelation and Dixon, if healthy, is stout against the run. Definitely need some youth here, however, and the Eagles play 4 DTs pretty regularly. Would love Poe or Cox.

LB: Still a weak point, IMO. Basically you have Ryan, who has Pro Bowl potential but still some questions and injury concerns and a bunch of situational guys. I like Rolle the best but it's not like he's Seth Joyner. Definitely a need here for a more physical presence, don't even care if it's only a 2-down guy as the other Eagles LBs (Chaney, Matthews, Clayton) are probably better in coverage or as blitzers than playing the run.

CB: As crazy as it sounds, I'm perfectly OK with taking a corner high. This team has lived off its CB play for decades. Frankly, I'd rather keep Asante Samuel than any of the others but that's not likely to happen. Nnamdi is not young and didn't play at All-Pro level last year. DRC was a bust and I'm not optimistic about him. Haven't seen enough of Curtis Marsh to make a judgment. The Eagles consider "Nickel CB" to be a starter as that position is on the field at least as much as the WLB.

S: A few people, including Mel Kiper, have the Eagles taking a S in the first. I'm all for this. Despite occasional flashes of brilliance, I don't trust Nate Allen at all. Given the sorry state of their linebackers and the inability of the corners to tackle, the safeties have huge responsibility in this defense and none seem up to the task. The organizational philosophy is not to draft safeties high but they haven't adequately replaced Quentin Mikell let alone Brian Dawkins.

RB: McCoy is great obvious but he had more snaps than any other RB in the league. Of course the Eagles don't run the ball all that much

? Not sure I'm following this; the two parts seem inconsistent.

? Not sure I'm following this; the two parts seem inconsistent.

If he's in the backfield to chip block and then float out as an outlet receiver, he's on the field "for the snap" but it's not a running play.

Despite occasional flashes of brilliance, I don't trust Nate Allen at all.

he looked really good prior to getting injured, and then he looked really bad after getting injured. i don't know that he can't get back to being the player he was as a rookie, but i just don't think he will. coming out of the draft, he was all about speed and range, and if he's lost even just a tenth of a second off of his 40, he's just not a viable option at FS. he's small, and if he doesn't have the speed to cover a ton of ground in deep center, you just can't put him out there again.

i don't think you can expect him to be what you thought he was going to be when you drafted him. and if i'm right about him (and i really don't know that i am), i think you've gotta treat him as a sunk cost, and go into training camp expecting to cut him.

? Not sure I'm following this; the two parts seem inconsistent.

McCoy had 273 carries, which is a solid but not unusually large workload. He had 48 catches, which is a pretty high but not extreme number. As Sam alluded to, he's going to be in the game as a play-action decoy or chip blocker, which doesn't register a play for him but involves him taking abuse.

Moreover, if you take away Vick's rushes, most of which are scrambles on designed pass plays, the Eagles hardly ever run the ball. After McCoy and Vick, the Eagles' most frequently used rusher was Ronnie Brown, who had 42 carries, and Dion Lewis, who had 23 carries. I'm not going to look at every team but I am pretty sure that's a pretty low number even in today's NFL. Frankly, the Eagles don't have a running back on the roster that I'd trust to carry the ball more than one or two times a game to give McCoy a breather.

i don't think you can expect him to be what you thought he was going to be when you drafted him. and if i'm right about him (and i really don't know that i am), i think you've gotta treat him as a sunk cost, and go into training camp expecting to cut him.

Yeah, I was never really high on him to start with. He did look great for a few games as a rookie. His upside is that he can play a great center field and make enough plays on balls to get 5-6 INTs a year, which would be a pretty good player. He's not a blitzer or run-stopper or a big hitter and not great in single coverage.

To me the guy who the Eagles really need to be what they thought is Jaiqawn Jarrett. He was drafted with a reputation for being a ferocious hitter -- if he can be a physical player and in-the-box safety, I think you can live with Allen.

NFL schedule was released yesterday.

Bears' first five games:
IND
@GB (Thursday)
STL
@DAL
@JAC

Really, 4-1 should be the goal.

49ers have a brutal stretch in the 2nd half when they play at home, at New England, then at Seattle in consecutive weeks.

It looks to me like the best the Bears can hope for is 10-6 without some severe luck. Anything from 8-8 to 10-6 wouldn't surprise me. I think games 7 through 11 is going to be a tough stretch for the Bears.

And for about the 17th year in a row, the Giants' schedule is much easier in the early going.

First 5 games:
DAL
TB
@Car
@Phi
CLE

Last six:
GB
@Wash
NO
@Atl
@Bal
PHI

I think it depends on how good you think the Bears are.(***)

Last year, when Cutler got hurt, I think they were a better team than the Lions. And I think they're probably better than the Lions still, but worse than the Packers. The Packers do figure to regress a bit, though; 15-1 is no team's true level.

A quick glance at the Bears' schedule:
IND - should be a win
@GB - loss
STL - win
@DAL - probably a tossup, but I see the Bears as a better team than Dallas
@JAC - win
DET - tossup, but in Chicago
CAR - Bears are the better team, and at home; likely win
@TEN - on the road, but Bears should be better
HOU - Texans are probably a little better, but Bears are at home; a tossup
@SF - loss
MIN - no reason to lose this game
SEA - should win
@MIN - obviously tougher than a home game vs. the Vikings, but still should be a win
GB - at home, might be a tossup; I'll give the Bears a loss
@ARI - tough trip
@DET - very tough trip

I see five "easy" games (IND, STL, @JAC, MIN, @MIN) to go along with three near-certain losses (@GB, @SF, @DET).

Of the other eight, there are three against most-likely inferior teams on the road (@DAL, @TEN, @ARI). At least one of those should be a win, maybe two.

The other five are home games against CAR, HOU, SEA, DET, and GB. Winning three is a must for a playoff contender, which a healthy Bears team almost certainly is. Four wins is a very real possibility.

That's 9-10 wins.

The Lions are roughly the same quality of team as the Bears, but their schedule is a bit tougher. They travel to Philadelphia instead of Dallas, which is comparable, and host the Falcons instead of Carolina, which is more difficult. Aside from the two games against each other, the Bears and Lions have twelve identical games.

The Packers have a few much tougher games: @HOU and @NYG, though they get the 49ers at home.

I actually like that the Bears play in Lambeau in week two on a Thursday. The teams are quite familiar with each other, and it's early in the year, so the short week effect is mitigated. And I'd rather the Bears play in Lambeau early than late in the season.

I think the Bears have about equal chances of winning the division as missing the playoffs. The NFC Central has three of the top twelve teams in the entire league, in my opinion.

(***) Major assumption: all teams discussed are at full health.

I mean this is a pretty LOL exercise since teams can and will look a whole lot different by September.

But I'll play. I'll break the season down by quarters:
Eagles schedule

Week 1 @ Cleveland
Week 2 vs. Baltimore
Week 3 @ Arizona
Week 4 vs. Giants

Couple of tough games but the Eagles should get off to a decent start this year. If the Baltimore or Giants games were on the road, I'd say 2-2 but 3-1 should be very realistic, and 4-0 eminently possible. Cleveland's a win, IMO; they should be able to sack Flacco 4+ times and limit damage in the passing game. Arizona will be tough but should be a revenge game coming off last year's debacle. For starters, let's put one of the high-paid CBs on Fitzgerald near the goal line. Giants game will be tough.

Prediction: 3-1

Week 5 @ Pittsburgh
Week 6 vs. Detroit
Bye
Week 8 vs. Atlanta
Week 9 @ New Orleans

I'm counting the Pittsburgh game as a loss. Lions game should be a win. Reid is still undefeated following the bye, Vick is motivated to play Atlanta and frankly, the Eagles just seem to own the Falcons. By Week 9, New Orleans should be in better shape re: coaching situation, and that should be a loss.

Prediction: 2-2

Week 10 Vs. Dallas
Week 11 @ Washington
Week 12 vs. Carolina
Week 13 @ Dallas

The fun part of the schedule. The Eagles WTFowned the Cowboys last year. Washington is going to be improved, I think, although Vick has destroyed them in the past. Carolina looks to be an improved team, but that should be winnable. I think they sweep the Cowboys and drop one to the Skins here. I will say that having to deal with RG3 and Cam back-to-back may be rough.

Prediction: 3-1

Week 14 @ Tampa Bay
Week 15 vs. Cincinnati
Week 16 vs. Washington
Week 17 @ Giants

This part of the schedule is tough to figure. Tampa and Cincinnati could go either way. It wouldn't surprise me if either team makes the playoffs; on the other hand, I could see both of them going 4-12, too. Split the difference and call it 1-1, same for the division games at the end.

Prediction: 2-2

Final record: 10-6

1 week out from the draft, and i still have absolutely no idea what the eagles are going to do. i think cox is probably the most likely target, but he seems to be rising up the boards in the last week or so.

my gut still says that gilmore should be the guy.


but honestly, there look like there are a lot of landmines where the eagles are picking. i'm not really a fan of any of the defensive linemen that are likely to be on the board at 15, and i'm not exactly growing tumescent in anticipation of kirkpatrick or hightower or barron or upshaw (come to think of it, aren't all of those guys from alabama?).


if cox and kuechly are off the board, and if gilmore isn't in consideration, i'd think really long, and really hard about drafting michael floyd. the eagles run a lot 3 wide formations, and floyd's size at WR would add a dynamic to the offense that wasn't really present this past year. i wouldn't be ecstatic about that pick, but i think he'd be a lot more productive for this team than almost anyone else who is projected in the mid-first round.



as for QB, i think foles is my guy. i'd be much happier with him at 46 than with tannehill at 15, let alone tannehill at 7.

Cox sounds like a stud and it would be worth trading up to get him if he can make a real impact. Problem is that sooooo many stud DTs prospects turn out to be duds.

I still cannot get my head around the thought that Fletcher Cox and Stephen Gilmore are two guys that might be top 12 picks in the draft...I can see Cox sort of, but I have no idea why Gilmore is flying up the draft boards.

I still cannot get my head around the thought that Fletcher Cox and Stephen Gilmore are two guys that might be top 12 picks in the draft...I can see Cox sort of, but I have no idea why Gilmore is flying up the draft boards.

because he's 6' and he ran a 4.4 40 at the combine. the NFL is a passing league, and that puts a premium on corners and passrushers.

personally, i like gilmore as a free safety, since i believe he'd be a gamebreaking talent at that position immediately.

ESPN just accused the Saints and their GM Loomis of running a wire that would allow them to hear opposing coaches conversations for the last three years.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/7846290/new-orleans-saints-mickey-loomis-eavesdrop-opposing-coaches-home-games

it looks like my worst case scenario is becoming more and more likely. gilmore is starting to get helium up into the top 10, cox seems to be firmly lodged in the 7-12 range, and kuechly is still one of the top defensive players in the entire draft.


if those 3 guys are gone at 15, and if michael floyd is, as well, i really don't think there'll be a single pick i'd be happy with. i could be persuaded on chandler jones (i am a huge fan of his brother), and i wouldn't be all that upset about kirkpatrick, but i don't think anyone else is a great fit.

oh, and coples. i could be pretty happy about drafting coples.

What about Quinton Coples for the Eagles?

2773. Was it the last three years? Or early in the 2000s?

2002-2004 according to the article. The team won 25 games in those 3 seasons for the record.

The alleged wiretapping ended the year after the stadium was damaged in Katrina then renovated with $$ from the NFL.
Interesting, or coincidence?

Coples doesn't seem to fit the Eagles' mold. For one thing, Coples projects to be a DE in the NFL and he's way too big for an Eagles DE. They have shown a willingness to use big DEs inside as rushers (Darren Howard) but he doesn't seem like a good fit for the Washburn Wide 9; Coples is a guy whose production does not seem to match his talent and the Eagles tend to go for overachiever types -- the Wide 9 requires a lot of running. "High-motor" has become a buzzword for skeptical fans who expect another Reid-Roseman bust.

Guy I think fits their mold and would be a good pick is Mercilus; an observer who follows the Eagles doesn't think they will invest a first-rounder in another DE but they need a younger player at that position, especially if Brendon Graham doesn't pan out.

Would be remiss to not mention that the GREATEST EAGLE EVER, and the most beloved athlete in Philadelphia history, Brian Dawkins, retired.

Another dementia, almost certainly CTE, suicide. Ray Easterling, starting safety for the Falcons in much of the 1970s, including the "Grits Blitz" 1977 team that set the record (still held?) for fewest points allowed.

Sixty-two years old. Steadily downhill for 20 years.

Coples doesn't seem to fit the Eagles' mold. For one thing, Coples projects to be a DE in the NFL and he's way too big for an Eagles DE. They have shown a willingness to use big DEs inside as rushers (Darren Howard) but he doesn't seem like a good fit for the Washburn Wide 9; Coples is a guy whose production does not seem to match his talent and the Eagles tend to go for overachiever types -- the Wide 9 requires a lot of running. "High-motor" has become a buzzword for skeptical fans who expect another Reid-Roseman bust.

Guy I think fits their mold and would be a good pick is Mercilus; an observer who follows the Eagles doesn't think they will invest a first-rounder in another DE but they need a younger player at that position, especially if Brendon Graham doesn't pan out.

that's exactly the role i see coples filling this year if they draft him. i'd agree that he otherwise doesn't really fit the eagles system.

the eagles have babin and cole to soak up a lot of snaps at DE, but they do also have graham, and they also have tapp and hunt. tapp just looks like a guy, but hunt had some disruptive ability when he got snaps late last season.

day before the draft...

i think the eagles stay put at 15, and wind up getting cox, anyway. i really can't see them going with anyone other than him or chandler jones right now.
i think they're into mychal kendricks at linebacker in the 2nd round. if they could pull him at 46, and add him to ryans, rolle, and chaney, that'd be a much improved LB corps from what they had at the start of last year. they're all kind of undersized for the position, but they're also all blazingly fast.
i also think they wind up with a kick/punt returner on day 2 or early day 3. the guy could be a RB (pead), or a WR (hilton), or a CB (boykin), but i think they absolutely have to get a guy to handle those touches so desean jackson doesn't have to.

I predict the Bears will draft somebody shvtty in virtually every round and the only player to do anything will be drafted in the 5th round or something like that.

You got to love SB Nation. Here is a line from their piece on the Bears draft this year,

What's nice about the Bears' position going into this draft is that they have flexibility. They don't have any glaring weaknesses, but they could stand to upgrade, or at least add young depth, at numerous positions.

Really?

eagles traded up for cox at 12. that's really just about the best possible outcome.

they had to give up a 4 and a 6 to make it happen, so that probably means that there's gonna be some maneuvering back on day 2 to recoup the lost picks.

now, my fingers are crossed for mychal kendricks at 46.

So how did the Bears do?

Can't complain about Cox, for the first time in a long time the Eagles can legitimately claim that they took the best athlete available, filled a need and didn't overdraft.

I'm wondering what the Eagles do at DT now. Patterson had perhaps his best season in several years last year, and seemed to benefit greatly from playing the Wide 9, at least as a pass rusher. Jenkins had his moments but clearly can't play 40+ snaps a game. If Dixon comes back, he's their best run-stopper, and Derek Landri was downright spectacular in limited duty. I like this position a lot now. Cox definitely has the most upside of any Eagles DT since Corey Simon and maybe Jerome Brown (I still consider Brown to be the greatest I've ever seen at the position).

I can't believe no one was willing to take Janoris Jenkins. Hundreds of NFL players smoke pot and have kids with different women. Why is it a big deal in regards to him?

So how did the Bears do?

I'm not excited about the pick. They have an obvious need for a pass rushing DE but I think they emphasized it to a point where they spent a mid first rounder on a guy who will basically be limited to third down passing situations.

I also suspect they could have traded down or waited on McClellan in the second round but they should have a better idea of that than I do.

I am a fan of Emery's offseason overall. I just don't understand why they seem happy to stand pat on the offensive line. DeCastro would have been a huge upgrade for them and there are plenty of undersized pass rushing specialists if all you're looking for is third down help.

That's basically how I feel, Pops. I was really hoping Coples fell to them. I wouldn't mind seeing a trade up now to draft Jonathan Martin.

DeCastro would have been a huge upgrade for them and there are plenty of undersized pass rushing specialists if all you're looking for is third down help.

Like who? Pass rush/pass block is the strike zone control of todays nfl. You can't have too much, and "pass rush specialists" are a lot harder to come by than people assume. Like the 200IP 105ERA+ starting pitcher, you assume its out there are many, but never enough. Dwight Freeney was never great against the run, but you can deal with that if they guy can pass rush for all four quarters.

If the scouting reports are accurate -- that he can provide pressure and do it over the whole game. Then you can live with everything else.

After Tannehill, I think Poe and Coples are most likely to be busts among the guys taken in the first round. Classic Combine warriors/underachievers and I'm glad the Eagles didn't take either one.

Like who? Pass rush/pass block is the strike zone control of todays nfl. You can't have too much, and "pass rush specialists" are a lot harder to come by than people assume.

Just to pull a name I'm familiar with, Darius Fleimg is probably a third day pick who shows similar size/speed. Obviously the Bears think McClellan is elite in this area. My gripe is that he doesn't profile to be an every down DE like Marcilus or Jones from Syracuse. I'm assuming the Bears took an oversized OLB because he is better at the pass rush aspect. My feeling is that even if he is very strong there he is unlikely to be useful on first and second down. If we follow the baseball analogy it's like a closer vs. A starting pitcher. He might be great at what they want him to do but I don't feel like they maximized that pick's value if he can only be in on 15-20 snaps per game. If he is limited to that role then the marginal difference between him and the 20th best pass rusher in the draft is going to be limited.

I'm sure the Bears believe he could develop into an every down DE. I'm just saying that they took a risk on an undersized guy because he is very good at a particular aspect they lack rather than taking someone I view as a better all around DE who doesn't solve the pass rush aspect quite so immediately. I mentioned DeCastro because I think that if the Bears were willing to solve this issue by grabbing a guy whose value is limited to rushing the passer then they could have massively improved their guard situation and taken less value at DE.

Dwight Freeney was never great against the run, but you can deal with that if they guy can pass rush for all four quarters.

But how close does he have to be to Dwight Freeney's pass rushing ability to be worth using on every down?

Like I said, I'm sure the Bears think he can develop into an every down guy. I just don't agree with the type of risk they assumed here. I think it was too much of a "need" pick for the defense. They had a chance to get a more complete player at another area of need and passed. They had a chance to fill the DE gap with a more complete DE and passed.

I'm sure this is full of typos and atrocious grammer but I'm on my phone so forgive me.

After Tannehill, I think Poe and Coples are most likely to be busts among the guys taken in the first round.

There is nothing wrong with picking a guy with a higher bust potential as long as the upside justifies it. I would be totally happy if my team took nothing but risks, as long as the risk premium was attactive. It's not like you NEVER DRAFT AGAIN.

After Tannehill, I think Poe and Coples are most likely to be busts among the guys taken in the first round. Classic Combine warriors/underachievers and I'm glad the Eagles didn't take either one.

there was a part of me that was hoping they'd trade up for tannehill just so i could listen to the backlash on talk radio throughout the entire summer.

As for round 2 my hope is that Stephen Hill falls to Chicago. Cutler is precisely the type of QB to unleash his potential.

As a KC fan, I'm not thrilled with the Poe selection. KC has a history of busts/under performance from high DL picks, and I think Poe will likely join that list. Crennel is a very solid defensive coach, so maybe he can harness that athleticism.

day 2 is kicking off in about an hour.

eagles have 3 picks
top needs are at LB, CB, S, QB, and KR.
depth is also needed at OT, RB, WR.

best players on the board look to be jenkins (CB), fleener (TE), david (LB), martin (OT), and hill (WR)
other names of interest include kendricks (LB), brown (LB), boykins (CB), konz (C), adams (OT), james (RB), pead (RB), pierce (RB), and iloka (S)
and if the eagles absolutely must take a QB, i would be happiest with foles or osweiler. i'd give the benefit of the doubt to the organization if they go with someone else, but i'd really prefer one of those 2.

I have to agree with Pops. I felt that the Bears were better off going with DeCastro. He has a higher upside at a position that I think is more of a need than DE. I do think the Bears have a better than average chance of developing McClellan into an everydown DE, but that's basically his upside.

In the next two rounds I hope they focus on getting people to shore up that offense. Martz's system relied too much on RB and too little on TE. We need another receiver who can actually get some catches (a #2 receiver behind Marshall) as well as a TE. And lots of OL help.

I'd like to see the Bears grab an O-lineman, and either a S or TE/WR in the next two rounds.

Not that my opinions on any of this really matters. The last time I talked about the Bears draft on BTF, Moses (I think) and I argued between Cedric Benson or Mike Williams.