jackie hayes
-
Posts
393 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by jackie hayes
-
-
From rotoworld, to the surprise of exactly noone:
Bears CB Ricky Manning Jr. will reportedly be on the trading block when training camp begins.Manning Jr. has fallen behind starters Charles Tillman and Nathan Vasher, youngsters Corey Graham, Danieal Manning, Trumaine McBride, and possibly rookie Zack Bowman on the depth chart. Manning Jr. also has a huge contract. The Bears are crazy if they think they'll get anything for him. Jul. 1 - 11:12 am et
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.
-
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:
Word is that Kyle Orton took the majority of the snaps with the first team at quarterback during the two-hour practice. The team has not laid out how it is going to orchestrate the competition between Orton and Rex Grossman, but one can assume that means Grossman will receive the majority of the snaps with the first team on Tuesday. Smith did announce on chicagobears.com “they are both coming into the competition on equal ground.”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:
Various Players, Bears: No one is sure exactly why the Bears decided to take every player in the seventh round of the draft, but odds are that this will not work well for them
Some other good ones:Derrick Harvey, DE, Jaguars: Although Jacksonville could use an outside pass rusher on their defense, Harvey is just a guy Mel Kiper made upJohn David Booty, QB, Vikings: An athletic quarterback with an accurate delivery, but scouts say Booty struggles when playing for monumentally shitty organizations
William Hayes, DE, Titans: In a brain-dead move of epic proportions, the Titans select Hayes 103rd when any cross-eyed inbred could see they could have easily taken him at 126
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.
-
Hass should be available for the practice squad I believe as he has not been on an NFL roster for enough starts to prevent the move. I am not sure how much Lloyd is on the bubble. Yes, his contract guarantees nothing, but at the same time, I believe the lack of experience we have at WR heading into 2008 not only puts him on the roster, but fairly high on the depth chart.
If we jump Lloyd, do you realize how lacking in experience we are at WR? Yes, we have Booker, but w/o Lloyd, the rest of the WRs had a combined 23 catches last year. If we are trying to provide weapons for the QB, I question the logic of giving your QB a bunch of young WRs who need to develop and are unlikely to bring a consistent game to benefit the QB, and offense.
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.
-
I question your review of Beekman. For the record, I liked him then, and still do now. The biggest knock on Beekman seemed to be strength. He was not considered strong enough, and our staff has repeatedly said the same. He had to get stronger in order to play OG in the NFL against FAR stronger DTs than he faced in college.
Schuening does not seem to have the same knock. That doesn't mean he is w/o knocks, but I think many/most of his knocks applied to him at RT, but are dimissed at OG.
Also, I question how much our OG needs to be athletic. Brown was not athletic. Maybe early in his career, but when we got him, nope. Metcalf, his backup. Nope. Frankly, while it is always talked about, we have not really seen many athletic OGs, at least not in a long time. So I am not sure how much athleticism we expect of our OGs.
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.
-
One. McBride is a near exact opposite to Bowman. McBride was a 3 year starter at a Divsion I school. He was a far more experienced and polished prospect. He fell to the 7th because his upside was simply not considered great. Most viewed his potential as not much more than that of a nickel DB. At the same time, he was a more developed player who was more likely start be ready to contribute right away, rather than a prospect like Bowman.
Two. When there is talk of rookies contributing, I am not sure I agree w/ the logic of assuming not one, but two injuries. If you assume two injuries at most any position, you can assume the rookie plays. If we drafted a rookie QB, I think most would not expect him to contribute this year, but if you start to assume multiple injuries, then you would argue that even a rookie QB would contribute. When I talk of rookie contribution, I am assuming he does so based on his ability, not simply because he is the only man left standing.
Also, on this point, if we did suffer two injuries at CB, I can actually see us moving DM back to CB over Bowman.
Three. Re Schuening v Beekman - I am not sure I agreed w/ either the comparison or your comments on Schuening. While not super athletic, I have not read he is flat out unathletic. He was not considered to have the footspeed to play on the edge, but his athleticism for playing inside is different. One of the top knocks on Beekman was strength, which proved true, per our staff, last year. Schuening does not seem to have a similar knock. He is a three year starter, and was considered a top 5 OG.
Maybe he would not start, but I think his chances of starting would have been pretty solid, and FAR better than Bowman's chances of even playing nickel. Also, you assume as many as two injuries to get Bowman into a contributing role, yet do not seem to assume an injuries to OG, a position we have dealt w/ plenty of injuries as well.
I do not understand why you think Scheuning was not a good fit. He was not "just any OG". He was considered a top 5 OG on most every board I saw. As for fit, I do not understand your logic. Heck, you seem to contradict yourself some when you say Beekman, an OG we drafted, was unathletic like Scheuning. While I disagree w/ that statement, if the two are similar and we drafted Beekman, why is Scheuning not a fit?
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.)
-
Why exactly wasn't Schuening a good fit? Odd sounding to me considering the fact that he was highly regarded in most arenas as one of the top 5 Guard prospects coming into the draft. Add in the fact that Beekman couldn't beat out an immobile, one-armed, geriatric (NFL-age anyway), and the Bears could easily have started a mid-rounder who had talent but slipped (like your boy at DB). The only difference, of course, is that Tillman and Vasher are considered good, if not all pro, and nobody outside of the Bears has heard of Beekman.
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.
-
And I personally think you over-estimate how much Bowman is going to contribute this year.
Bowman might have 1st round skills, but he has late round development. He was a JUCO college transfer a few years ago. Now I read fans talk day and night about lesser competition from a college that isn't from one of the major conferences, but a junior college is a step below that. He started 5 games at the end of 2005. He was w/ Nebraska for three seasons, though his entire 2006 season was wiped out due to injury. This last year, due to injuries, he played in only 11 games, and started only 4. So he has a total of 9 starts. I am not saying he doesn't have skills, but those skills are raw. Even when healthy, he spent most of his time as a nickel DB, and that was not exactly on a good defense.
So I simply have a hard time seeing Bowman so quickly being ready to be a major contributor on defense. He is going to need time to develop. This year, I think he will be behind both McBride and Graham, and that is assuming he can stay healthy, which he has struggled to do.
As for a pick I would have rather had, who I think very well could have started, the immediate answer for me would be Schuening. IMHO, he would have been our starting LG.
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.
-
Nice attempt to twist, but I have been more than vocal enough in saying I believe the QB position is simply different.
In Bowman, we took a flier on a player who (a) has little experience above JUCO level, as he was injured most of his time at Nebraska (
his injuries were not minor, and were a reason many teams took him off their boards completely. Bowman has skills. No question. But he is a big time project w/ mostly JUCO experience, and an even bigger risk due to the significant injury history. And further still, Bowman is a high risk project at a non-need position.
Sorry, but that is simply different from drafting a QB. QB is arguably our top need, compared to CB which is among our least.
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.
-
People need to realize that no matter what QB we could have taken in the draft, not one of them was going to come in and start right away, and I'm damn sure none of them were going to become franchise QB's and take us to the Super Bowl. People are getting there panties in a bunch becayse we didn't pick one, but the QB position was incredibly weak this year. Ryan should not be the 3rd overall pick, and Joe Flacco definitely doesn't deserve to be the 18th overall pick.
I find it confusing that people would have been so much more satisfied if we picked some random QB in the 4-7 rounds. Is it going to make that big of a difference? No. If everyone knew Tom Brady was going to become a stud, he wouldn't have been drafted 199 overall. Things like that don't happen often. Get over it. We didn't pick a QB. Move on. Booty or Dixon or Johnson or Ainge is NOT going to lead the Bears to the Super Bowl.
There were 2 realistic options that could have made a difference for the Bears. One, picking Brohm in the 2nd round. Two, picking Woodson late in the draft.
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.
-
But they were in a position to do so. In blasting the pick, I have even said numerous times that if we were a team like NE, we could afford to take a flier on a player like Bowman. NE is a team w/ some needs, but far fewer than we. They are, w/o the draft, would still be expected to challenge for the SB. We needed the draft not for depth or future players, but for immediate starters.
When you are a good team, you are in a better position to take fliers like this. When you are looking for some upgrades, or looking for some youth and/or depth, that is one thing. But when you go into the draft needs starters at: OT, OG, QB, RB, WR and maybe S and DT too, you can less afford to take fliers on players who are expected to need several years to develop, and who have very high degree of injury risk.
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:
But they were in a position to do so. In blasting the pick, I have even said numerous times that if we were a team like NE, we could afford to take a flier on a player like Bowman. NE is a team w/ some needs, but far fewer than we. They are, w/o the draft, would still be expected to challenge for the SB. We needed the draft not for depth or future players, but for immediate starters.When you are a good team, you are in a better position to take fliers like this. When you are looking for some upgrades, or looking for some youth and/or depth, that is one thing. But when you go into the draft needs starters at: OT, OG, QB, RB, WR and maybe S and DT too, you can less afford to take fliers on players who are expected to need several years to develop, and who have very high degree of injury risk.
From this thread:
And that sort of short term thinking can doom a franchise. Yes, we needed starters, but not just for this year. Steltz may well start this year, but if they liked Booty, and he was able to develop and start in a couple years, I would say that is a FAR better pick than getting an in-the-box safety for now.Is Angelo trying to save his job? How often do we read about GMs getting short sighted. If we draft a QB, it may not be for a couple years that QB develops, and in that time, if we suck, the GM could be gone. Was Angelo concerned about his job, and could that be why he went w/ immediate help over a potential future QB starter?
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.
-
Thank you! The title was quite enough. I'm looking for a possible starting OG, backup OT and 3rd QB. Possibly a WR, if they are high enough caliber.
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.
-
And you STILL DON'T GET IT. I'll go slowly for you.
1) I mentioned the Bears front office as a team that can be criticized for not having great draft success.
Bears != All teams
2) I mentioned that if a team doesn't have success, then they can be criticized.
Bears = not a lot of success
3) I mentioned two teams (Pitt & NE) that have had success. If fans question their drafts, considering past history, then there is just cause to say that the fans should just trust what the FO has done.
Bears != Pats/Steelers
What all that means is, when there is success, it's difficult to question the person with the success. Nobody questioned Walter Payton's training methods. Nobody questioned Dan Marino's delivery after a few years. Nobody questioned Eric Dickerson's upright running style.
When the Bears have continuous success with their drafts, then they will have players/fans/teams/GMs/reporters/etc. believing in them. Until them, it's a crap shoot. And just like craps, there is pretty much a 50/50 chance that someone else who puts in a little work will do just as well as they have over the years.
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.
Goodell thinks the rookies are getting paid too much
in Bearstalk
Posted
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?