ESPN Offseason Grades

Probably a lot of doooon't caaare.

ESPN had Bill Polian, Louis Riddick, Matt Williamson & Field Yates grade all 32 teams. The BEARS had the 10th best offseason with a "B" grade (although GB got the 2nd best grade of an "A-," and they did shit). MIN was 5th with a "B+." DET was 22nd with a "B-."

Requires Insider, but here's the BEARS part:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/insider/story/_/id/12913383/offseason-grades-all-32-teams-nfl

Chicago Bears: B

Re-signed: CB Sherrick McManis, QB Jimmy Clausen, TE Dante Rosario

Veteran additions: CB Alan Ball, S Antrel Rolle, TE Bear Pascoe, WR Eddie Royal, RB Jacquizz Rodgers, DE Jarvis Jenkins, ILB Mason Foster, DE Pernell McPhee, OLB Sam Acho, LS Thomas Gafford, C Will Montgomery, DE Ray McDonald, S Malcolm Bronson, OT Paul Cornick

Veteran subtractions: C Brian De La Puente, CB Charles Tillman, S Chris Conte, ILB D.J. Williams, S Danny McCray, ILB Darryl Sharpton, OG Eben Britton, K Jay Feely, LS Jeremy Cain, WR Josh Morgan, OLB Lance Briggs, FB Montell Owens, DT Stephen Paea, DE Trevor Scott, WR Brandon Marshall, S Anthony Walters, C Roberto Garza, OT Paul Cornick, OLB Khaseem Greene

Draft picks: 1-Kevin White (WR), 2-Eddie Goldman (DT), 3-Hroniss Grasu (C), 4-Jeremy Langford (RB), 5-Adrian Amos (DB), 6-Tayo Fabuluje (OT)

Analysis: Polian said he would have handled the Jay Cutler situation the same way the Bears handled it -- keeping him as the starter, given the money guaranteed to him this season and the fact that there wasn't a viable replacement option -- but is anyone excited about the status quo at quarterback? Trading Brandon Marshall made sense under the circumstances, but did it make the Bears better? Vic Fangio was a good hire at defensive coordinator, but does Chicago have the personnel to run his base 3-4 scheme? It was an offseason filled with trade-offs, one reason the endorsements carried qualifiers.

"I guess they did well," Williamson said. "Losing Marshall and getting White, adding a center, hiring a good offensive coordinator in Adam Gase -- the offense should be pretty good. Going to a 3-4 on defense, I thought they might need 10 new starters, but now I look at their defense and do not think it is awful. They are not contenders, but I give them a B grade."

Riddick was the only analyst to give the Bears an A grade. He loved McPhee's addition and predicted the ex-Raven would "rip it up" in Fangio's scheme.

"The coaching staff is star-studded with a lot of brain power in 'Fanny' and Gase," Riddick said. "Whether Antrel Rolle can be the jack of all trades at strong safety in that 3-4, that is key. Eddie Goldman, if he can stabilize the nose, that is key. They are building it strong down the middle. I like how they have done it from the top down, GM to coach to coordinators and then strengthening the roster down the middle. Now, we'll see if it works."

I think the Bears have had more of an A-/B+ free agency. The media is going to overlook many of our FAs because McPhee was our only splash signing for an abysmal defense. Yet, we have quietly acquired a respectable defense with under the radar signings of Ray Mcdonald, Mason Foster, Jarvis Jenkins, Alan Ball, Antre Rolle, and Sam Acho. Plus Eddie Goldman and Amos should find themselves some playing time.

On offense we have improved at Center, backup RB, and I would even say WR. I am hopeful that the combinationof Eddie Royal AND Kevin White over-compensate for the loss of Brandon Marshall ( I say this as a B-Marsh fanboy). Plus, Mills has a bit of competition and could be replaced and ultimately upgraded over.

While a team can only make so many substantial upgrades, the only position I wish the Bears did better at improving was at Safety. Yet I am reminded of how much teams were vastly overpaying for safties in the offseason. Maybe it was better we bite the dust and allocate our resources elsewhere this year.

Regardless I am not suprised with the B grade, but am more pissed about the Packers getting graded so highly. Apparently they win the offseason for overpaying mediocre players not named Aaron Rodgers and draft below average.

Our offseason exceeded my expectations by a long shot. That being said, we had such a deficiency in talent, it will take at least one more offseason of this caliber to be a true contender.

I give the coaching/FO moves an A+, solid B+ in FA for not spending big and using it to set up the draft for bpa. And give the draft itself a B+ too. Overall I think it was an A-/B+ offseason


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can't wait to see what the team looks like with the new coaching staff and schemes. There could be some players that way exceed my expectations based on the coaching changes alone.

Dumpster Fire said:

I can't wait to see what the team looks like with the new coaching staff and schemes. There could be some players that way exceed my expectations based on the coaching changes alone.

Click to expand...

This goes along with my opinion that if they go something like 9-7 next year their entire coaching staff should get a bust in the pro football HOF. And that coaching staff from last year should be prevented from even coaching a Pop Warner team. Everyone here is talking about the great upgrade to the coaching staff. We will see what we will see?

The Hawk said:

This goes along with my opinion that if they go something like 9-7 next year their entire coaching staff should get a bust in the pro football HOF. And that coaching staff from last year should be prevented from even coaching a Pop Warner team. Everyone here is talking about the great upgrade to the coaching staff. We will see what we will see?

Click to expand...

da fuq?

i don't understand why everything needs some arbitrary grade placed on it.

ZenBear34 said:

i don't understand why everything needs some arbitrary grade placed on it.

Click to expand...

I suppose you could use a star system instead.

Chicago - ***
Green Bay - ****

Now that accurately summarizes their offseasons.

That's cool. Means the Bears aren't paper champions. When they win the Superbowl.

Packer Fan said:

I suppose you could use a star system instead.

Chicago - ***
Green Bay - ****

Now that accurately summarizes their offseasons.

Click to expand...

i just don't understand how you grade something without any results.

it's like if you took a test, and your teacher gave you a grade based on a vague feeling of how you did and how many answers it looks like you got right, even though he would actually be grading the test in the future.

I agree.

I could not have asked more, on paper, than what the Bears did.

I hope it finally translates to the field.

Grading is stupid, but ranking is extremely meaningful within the context of stupid conversation in a dead time of year.

The Hawk said:

This goes along with my opinion that if they go something like 9-7 next year their entire coaching staff should get a bust in the pro football HOF. And that coaching staff from last year should be prevented from even coaching a Pop Warner team. Everyone here is talking about the great upgrade to the coaching staff. We will see what we will see?

Click to expand...

Well I certainly am happy that people paid to be called "experts" in a trade that often requires heavy doses of speculation seem to approve of our offseason transactions.

However, given that we are transitioning to a completely new defense that will likely take two years to overhaul, I think that we should be given an incomplete grade until at least part way through Fox's second season here. Guys who project to be improvements to this team may not appear to be worth the investment until other pieces are put into place around them, and others might be played out of position to cover weak points on our defense while we transition to a 3-4.

gallagher said:

Well I certainly am happy that people paid to be called "experts" in a trade that often requires heavy doses of speculation seem to approve of our offseason transactions.

However, given that we are transitioning to a completely new defense that will likely take two years to overhaul, I think that we should be given an incomplete grade until at least part way through Fox's second season here. Guys who project to be improvements to this team may not appear to be worth the investment until other pieces are put into place around them, and others might be played out of position to cover weak points on our defense while we transition to a 3-4.

Click to expand...

WindyCity said:

I agree.

I could not have asked more, on paper, than what the Bears did.

I hope it finally translates to the field.

Click to expand...

gallagher said:

Well I certainly am happy that people paid to be called "experts" in a trade that often requires heavy doses of speculation seem to approve of our offseason transactions.

However, given that we are transitioning to a completely new defense that will likely take two years to overhaul, I think that we should be given an incomplete grade until at least part way through Fox's second season here. Guys who project to be improvements to this team may not appear to be worth the investment until other pieces are put into place around them, and others might be played out of position to cover weak points on our defense while we transition to a 3-4.

Click to expand...

So you're okay with giving Fox and Pace two seasons in order to evaluate them? That's more than many will do. Folks are pissed off with this organization and while it is truly unfair to expect results right away, I don't know that the McCaskey's and their stupid club President are that enlightened?

The Hawk said:

So you're okay with giving Fox and Pace two seasons in order to evaluate them? That's more than many will do. Folks are pissed off with this organization and while it is truly unfair to expect results right away, I don't know that the McCaskey's and their stupid club President are that enlightened?

Click to expand...

Of course I am okay with that. You don't have to be a student of history to see how the constant hiring and firing the coaches and staff have set back teams like the Browns and the Raiders.

We absolutely have to give them time to turn this ship around - they are implementing a new defense where many of the players on our roster wont fit. If we gave two years to Mel Tucker to turn Lovie's often-successful 4-3 into a really shitty version of the 4-3, management should have no qualms giving proven quality coaches like Fox and Fangio the same amount of time to fix the past regime's mistakes. Good coaches do not accept one year offers in new locations, even when those offers are disguised as a 4-year contract.

Additionally, Pace is a young guy with his first crack at being GM. Last year turned down opportunities to GM other organizations, because he wanted to wait for the right opportunity. There is no way you hire him to be GM without a little breathing room; were that the situation he would have stayed in NO another year.

The Hawk said:

So you're okay with giving Fox and Pace two seasons in order to evaluate them? That's more than many will do. Folks are pissed off with this organization and while it is truly unfair to expect results right away, I don't know that the McCaskey's and their stupid club President are that enlightened?

Click to expand...

We have one legit pass rusher, one starting DB under 30, a rookie NT and 3 ?'s at LB with converted 4/3 DT who really didn't light up the world now playing the 5 tech.

When do you expect this Defense to be playing at a championship level?

On top of all that we need to somehow procure a starting QB we think is or will soon be above average to replace Cutler sometime in the next yr or so.

Guys, patience is the name of the game right now; we're in a big hole and while I like what they've done so far, it' going to be awhile.

(Ray Ratliff is missing from this, but lets be honest, guy is gone by the time they compete anyway/is getting on and isn't the most durable of players)