Why does it seem that way to you? You bemoan the fact that the grades should be given based on the decisions made and ignore the fact the Bears were given the highest grade in the North.
I'll give you assuming Gabriel will suck in cold so that one doesn't make sense, you're right.
But the biggest reasons given as to not give them an A:
Banking on 1 good year from Fuller after trying to trade him and calling him out a year ago is questionable and fair game imo.
Also, lack of depth to pre-injured starters in Long, Floyd, Robinson et al is not basing the grade on "assumed outcome" but rather questionable as to how many key starters are counting on competent med and training staff. Not an unwarranted position imo.
TL;DR - You are right they assumed a negative for Gabriel where none exists yet, but all their other points for why it's not an A are valid imo and I agree also that the bears had a better offseason on paper than anyone else in the North.
Part of my point is that if the Bears got a B- for their offseason, I have a hard time believing any other team got an A or A+ for improving their team.
The Bears turned one of the worst WR corps in the league into something more than respectable (and picked up arguable the top WR FA), got younger on the OL with Daniels, Kush should be coming back.
The Bears also got great value and great talent with the 1st 3 draft picks, which was pretty universally applauded.
Most critics I read from said the Transition Tag move on Fuller was brilliant, i.e. bringing him back was a good idea, not questionable.
I don't see how you can say we are lacking WR depth, I completely disagree. The one hole this team has is OLB.
Pace did pretty much everything he should have done, and did it well (this offseason). There's a lot of room in between a B- and an A regardjng the typical grading scheme. IMO, B- sounds low. That's all I'm saying.
