jackie hayes

I'm confused... The NFL has had a rookie salary cap for each team. Did that go out the window when the owners opted out of the labor deal? Or do people mean something different, something like the NBA slotted system?

From rotoworld, to the surprise of exactly noone: They're referring to a SN "team report", which is worth a read, even though it doesn't have anything too surprising. Although they seem to believe Lloyd has a pretty strong hold on a roster spot ("With veterans Marty Booker and Brandon Lloyd in place..."), which would surprise me. http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=429544

Uh oh, Cedric. Tank'll tell you what the Bears do to you when you speed.

That would leave Hester as the only option for stretching the field. Not good news.

From the Sun Times: http://blogs.suntimes.com/bears/2008/05/or...of_firstte.html Interesting, but maybe the coaches were just trying to defuse the talk that they were determined to give Grossman the job. Discuss.

The Onion offered some comments on the worst NFL draft picks. For the Bears: Some other good ones: Link.

A sure thing in the 3rd round is a mediocre player, and a sure thing in the 5th is a bad player. If you're a sure thing good player, you're long gone. Panning risky picks in the middle and later rounds is ridiculous.

Well, okay. Lloyd had 2. He was competing with guys like James Thrash, and came awfully close to catching absolutely no passes. Todd Yoder kicked his ass in receptions. I liked watching him with the 49ers, but he was on an offense that was comically bad (ours is a juggernaut, in comparison), and since then he's been one of the biggest busts and worst wide receivers in the NFL. That's not to mention that he wasn't exactly a great clubhouse guy. If he impresses in camp and makes the team, fine, but I'm not going to lose sleep if we cut someone who's been a complete joke for two seasons. I don't care one bit about his experience -- his experience is not exactly the kind I want on this team.

With the glut of receivers, IR is just about the ideal solution. If he made the team as a 6th receiver, he'd probably be inactive most weeks, anyway. Booker, Bennett, Hester, and Davis are locks. I can't really imagine the Bears dropping Bradley, as he's the best deep threat with Berrian gone. Hass and Lloyd are on the bubble, but that's a full group already. IR seems almost inevitable.

I would love a trade for Quinn, but it's just not going to happen until Anderson gets another strong season in the books. They resigned him, but it was a fairly short-term deal, because they don't fully trust him yet, and they want to have the choice of switching to Quinn if the wheels fall off early this year. I'm a big fan, but short of an absolutely absurd offer (start with two first rounders and work up from there), he's untouchable. I wouldn't be surprised or upset if the Bears bring in a veteran qb to compete with Hill and Hanie, but don't count on any available vet beating them out.

Watch Beekman's tape from BC. He's very ineffective in space, which is one of the main knocks on Schuening. I think Brown did a decent job with us until recently. Metcalf sucks in every regard. St Clair is okay. Basically, our guards need to be able to pull and block downfield. We haven't had anyone great in that regard in a while, but Brown and St Clair have been the best, imo. That's one of the things that Grubbs does exceptionally well. If he had lasted to 31 in last year's draft, I would have really been torn between him and Olsen.

And there's always the chance Bowman gets IR'd, as JA likes to do with rookies. But if he's healthy (big if), I'm just guessing he moves ahead of Graham midway through the season. We'll see. Just given the nature of their play, cbs are going to be injured more often. Tillman has often missed a game or two, and been slowed for a couple more. Vasher obviously isn't a model of health. Our qbs have suffered more from incompetence than injuries over the years, although both have been important. Lately, though, it's been more of the former.

I already replied to the Schuening/Beekman thing in another post, so just on the Bowman thing -- I may not be as big a fan as Graham as you are. I think there's a good chance he moves ahead of Graham -- probably not right away, but sometime during the season. I'm not "assuming" two injuries at corner, either, just saying it is possible, and we've seen it often enough on the Bears -- just remember when we had to actually use Hester as a db a couple years back. (You can't compare it to qb -- there are a lot more cb injuries that qb injuries.)

My point isn't that Beekman is good, my point is that being ranked high as a guard is not very meaningful, since many college guards aren't that good (they are mostly the linemen who aren't good enough to be tackles or centers). Beekman was similarly ranked relative to other guards in the 2007 draft. But both classes were rather weak. (And yes, I realize there are exceptions, like Albert, maybe Rachal, and Grubbs is truly an exceptional lineman, very much worth a first-round pick. There just aren't many.) Schuening is not a good fit because he is simply not quick enough. The Bears love to pull the guard on running plays, and St Clair played well because he was quick and fast enough to get outside and block effectively at the second level. (Not that he's especially talented -- I'm only saying he was good "enough".) That was always the issue with Beekman -- if you watched his game tape in college, he was effective at the line, but he never seemed able to do any damage downfield. Schuening is that same sort of blocker -- he's fine in-line, but there were a lot of questions about his lateral quickness, and his straight-line speed is pedestrian at best. So we drafted Beekman and it didn't work. (I mean, we'll see -- but it's not looking good.) Why draft Beekman again? You know the saying about insanity -- doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Instead, the Bears picked two late tackles who are considered good athletes (relative to where they were picked -- they obviously aren't the best). We've tried the lunch-pail types, it didn't work, we moved in another direction. Sounds good to me.

I don't expect him to jump in right away, but "late round development" didn't hurt McBride last year. I expect he'll be at least behind McBride, and probably Graham to start the year. Okay, but have two corners injured out of five is something we're quite familiar with. And if he can jump ahead of Graham at some point, he's almost certain to see some time at nickelback. Why would Schuening be a starter at lg if Beekman isn't? Beekman is an unathletic, highly-ranked guard who went in the 4th. Schuening is an unathletic, highly-ranked guard who went in the 5th, with one less year of NFL coaching. I know we need a guard, which is why I was intrigued by Nicks and Cousins in the middle rounds. But we don't need just any guard. Schuening was not a good fit, and he would have been VERY unlikely to beat out St Clair.

I didn't twist, you just weren't clear. No fliers except on qbs, but taking a flier on a qb you're marginally interested in is absolutely crucial. Got it.

That confuses the hell out of me, too. There's nothing special about the status of being drafted. Those guys in the 7th are just not that much different than undrafted free agents, which we have 2 of. Though I don't see why Henne wouldn't have been an option in the 2nd, too.

I think you're underestimating how important Bowman could be, even this year. It's pretty likely that, with injuries and all, he'll see some time as a nickelback later in the year. And there was noone in the 5th who would be a clear starter anywhere, not even over St Clair (who I think did a solid job last year) at lg. Picking a high-upside corner who has the legit ability to start for us in a couple years (I know our guys are signed, but corners can go real fast), who could also contribute this year, on passing downs, at the very least, is a solid move.

From the thread about NE taking Bowman if we didn't: From this thread: You even mention safety as one of the positions we might need starters at now, but then you blast the gm for getting someone they think can start. Now, I expect you'll respond with something about it being different with a qb, which is fine, but if you believe that, you should say that in your criticism. You can't have it both ways, blasting someone for not caring enough about starters this year, then blasting him for caring about starters this year.

We've already got a ton of wide receivers -- Booker, Bradley, Hester, Lloyd, Hass, Davis, Bennett, Monk. That's 8, and we'll keep 6 at most. I'm not saying it won't happen, but it would have to be someone pretty special.

No, I believe next year's class looks particularly bad. The idea, I think, is that we have two young qbs who are better bets than most qbs available this year. And even though the class doesn't look good now, a lot can change in a year. Worst comes to worst, you pick up a vet next year, or you make a big offer for one of the Browns' two qbs. We will have options.

We gained Lloyd, too. It's going to be a very competitive camp for the wideouts.

They might have taken Clady over Williams, and moving up to grab Mendenhall would have been less prohibitive, so they might have done that. But then there's a good chance they miss Bennett (or Henderson, if Bennett fell to the next pick in the third). But it's hard to say without knowing their grades -- if they had Mendenhall and Forte close enough, if they preferred Williams's polish over Clady's upside, it might be basically the same draft. And I like Bennett and Henderson, so I'm not sure I'd be much happier with that draft. Eh -- we'll never know, and it's not a huge difference, so it's not something I'll worry about. Edit: Oops, Harrison, not Henderson.

Adams would have to truly excel to beat out St Clair at LG. I doubt that call. But one of Lloyd and Hass is out, maybe both (depending on Monk's play in camp and preseason). I guess Bradley could be cut instead. That would bum me out, and I don't think it's very likely, but I wouldn't completely rule it out. I also doubt Runnels makes the team. I'm guessing 4 hb and 1 fb, with McKie edging out Runnels.

Dude, you're done. You said so. Reading...comprehension...ya know... You've said is that a screen name could clearly perform better than the Bears fo. Meaning, they'd have more success. You said also that noone could say the Bears know anything until they achieve success comparable to the Patriots and Steelers. If that's your standard, you should hold your many fan GMs to the same standard. Unless you want to say, Noone can say the Bears know anything until they are this good, but these posters know something even though they aren't even nearly this good. (Btw, I wasn't challenging you to become a scout or gm. Just do the analysis on your own and justify what you say. And don't give me a 'waste of time' line -- it's not like you couldn't make big money doing it.) But, hey, you're done. I wonder where this post even came from.