LT2_3
-
Posts
686 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by LT2_3
-
-
I don't blame Frank Omiyale for sucking. I'm sure he is trying hard. I blame Angelo for bringing him to be a starting guard, and the coaches for starting him there and playing him out of position. He's a back up tackle.
I don't see how you can blame Angelo for bringing in Omiyale to play guard when he was slated to be RT when he was signed. It was later after Angelo signed Lovie's buddy Pace that the COACHES moved him to guard.
This is a perfect example of what was wrong last year. Angelo brings the guys in and the coaches play the wrong guys at the wrong positions.
-
I think it's a load of crap.
Sure, there are a few things they could have done differently, but most of that is attributable to hindsight.
Have the Bears spent lots of money? Yes. After the SB, the re-signed their own guys. (That's a move a coach would want to do because a front office would want to do their jobs and make the evaluation of outside talent relevant by - you know - getting a few of the guys they found as upgrades)
Neither the Taylor deal nor the Manu deal are huge. If Peppers hadn't been signed, this idiot would be railing on the fact that the Bears should be doing more.
As for Cutler's interceptions, I contend that he would have thrown fewer if Turner hadn't been such an idiot and had gotten Aromashadu on the field earlier in the year like Cutler had been asking.
Any time someone comes out with a suggestion like this, I ask what should have been done differently specifically?
Which players should have been signed in FA, and which different players should have been drafted?
Without including this stuff, it's just a piece that throws out accusations and never suggests solutions. The fans can identify with the perspective from their frustration, and it sells papers, but is it helpful in any way, shape, or form? No.
I still contend that the biggest issue for the Bears since the SB was Lovie getting his new contract, more power, and Peter Principalling the entire organization.
Since he started hiring his buddies and using the Bears coaching staff as his own personal affirmative action program, they haven't been able to develop a Polaroid. His increased input into the draft process has resulted in questionable (at best) picks. It prevented the drafting of guys that might be an upgrade to "his guys" that he really likes, but might be declining.
What has the "urgency" this year done? It made Lovie start listening to the other people around him that know more about the NFL than he does. It's ridiculous to load all of this on Phillips and Angelo too.
Morrissey is an idiot and always will be.
-
I think he's a pretty good fit, at least a better fit than Davis or Olsen. If I remember right, Dez was the 3rd alternate for TE a couple years ago based on blocking skills. He didn't have a good year yards wise, but ended up goin to the pro bowl that year as a special needs long snapper.
Martz wants a guy who can block first then catch. That's what Clark can do. He's just not as young as the other guys.
I think it's also a matter of roster spots and age. If they're going to keep 2 blocking TEs (Manu and Angulo) and 2 receiving TEs (Olsen and Davis) then the roster spots are pretty set. While Clark could fit in as a swing player for either group, he's old, and has 1 year left on his contract.
-
Huh?
Even if they were able to persuade Atogwe to sign an offer sheet today, we wouldn't know if we got him or not for another week while all the other top grade safeties would have been signed.
or
If you want to make sure you get a top level guy, you don't do it in the RFA market.
-
I like Sharper but I would much rather have Atogwe as he is younger.
Me too. It's just that if you put your eggs in an Atogwe basket, then you don't know if they hatch for awhile - and the hatching is far less certain.
With the other guys, you know pretty quickly if it's possible.
-
I know...I'd like to see the Rams-to-Bears pipeline pan out for once. Maybe Atogwe can make that happen. He certainly looks like he'd be a good player in our scheme, and all we have to do is draw up an offer sheet with something ridiculous like "$50 million in guaranteed money if he plays on the same team as Steven Jackson" and we're set. I know the league frowns on poison pill offers, but as far as I know, there's no actual sanction for it.
A few points:
1. A "poison pill" can not alter the principal terms of the contract. The type of poison pill that can be used is like Hutchinson's where it guaranteed the same dollar amounts. So while it's still possible to do, it's not quite as poisonous as some might think
2. Even with a poison pill, the Rams have the right to match the contract - which they might decide to do anyway.
3. There is no way to force the player to sign the offer sheet. This isn't a "get it done quickly" type scenario. The player might sit on the offer and even if he signs it, the Rams can sit on it for a week before they match or decline.
I have no problem with Atogwe as a player. I just see him as a fall back possibility if Rolle and Sharper fall through because they will sign somewhere first.
-
http://www.theredzone.org/BlogDescription/...an/Default.aspx
Harris could be released if Bears add Peppers or Kampman
Mar
4
3/4/2010 9:48:40 AM | More
Neil Hayes of the Chicago Sun-Times reports that adding Julius Peppers or Aaron Kampman to the mix would be an upgrade, no doubt, but it could mean Tommie Harris gets released. Two sources said Harris still is a strong candidate to be cut before his bonus is due in June, despite general manager Jerry Angelo and coach Lovie Smith expressing confidence he can bounce back next season.
--------------------------------------------
why release a DT cuz u add Julius Peppers? Considering i only know of two on the roster
The reasoning is two pronged:
1. If the Bears spend a bunch on other players, they might feel the need to release Tommie to cover the costs
2. They are the media and half the stuff they float out there is complete and utter crap just so they can drive people to their website to generate advertisement revenue
-
Promise???
I'm not sure that would be realistic, but any chance TT would quit starting these whiny posts?
-
Apparently Angulo's gone everywhere Tice has been a coach. He's a big guy (6'8" 270 pounds) but I can't imagine that he'll make the final roster. Olsen's the starter, Clark still has a couple of good years left in the tank, and Kellen Davis looks like he's progressing really well. If Davis can keep improving as a blocker and a red-zone threat, there really won't be any room for another TE on the roster.
As for Peterman, he was in camp last year, if memory serves. I don't remember him doing anything particularly notable, though.
Angulo apparently is a GOOD blocker as opposed to the other guys who could be described as fair or adequate. It's the difference between a good blocker and a good blocking TE too. Maybe he could block at FB too. I dunno. I like a guy 6'7" weighing 270.
-
But the more they raise the prices the more difficult it is for true fans to afford to go. The stadium will still be packed but will be more of the rich executive types who can actually plunk down that kind of money to go or to treat clients. What little I make at my job makes it prohibitive to go as it is. The timing isn't the best either as the team has sucked big time the last three seasons. So they're going to raise the prices to go see an inferior product..... good plan.
I think it's great. The more people that give up their season tickets, the quicker I can climb the list and get mine.
-
-
What would it take to make me happy with the offseason?
The end of it. Really. I'm ready for training camp to start.
-
Other than the first 3, I think all of these players have been playing on their rookie contract. The extension rule that you and other message boards aggreed to is irrelevant IMO.
You are correct about the first 3. That being said, what objective criteria would you propose using for evaluating players? When a fan evaluates his own team, it's usually the case that guys that didn't excel get tagged as "busts" or bad draft picks. Sometimes players don't work out for various reasons whether it be injury, change of scheme, poor coaching, or whatever. I think it's important to evaluate draft picks in that light.
For instance, how would you rate Benson as a draft pick now? I blame his failure with us on the coaching staff. If he did poorly here and then goes on to play well elsewhere, it sounds to me like the coaching staff doesn't know their head from a hole in the ground. But that doesn't make him a bad draft pick.
The extra on Berrian was due to their being 3 starters, 3 role players, and 2 busts listed in the post I replied to. Yes, he is a solid 3rd round pick. However, I wouldn't have counted him as a starter as he may have been considered in the previous post. He did start for the Bears at one point, but was not able to continue that role as he moved on. Ie. I don't consider Danielle Manning a starter at safety, even though he has started that position several times.I really don't care what Berrian did once he left the team in terms of this discussion about draft picks. He was a starter here and left via free agency for a big money deal. I also think WRs are a unique position in that they are not only subject to scheme change, but QB change as well. In 2008 with the Vikes he had almost 1000 yards and 7 TDs. That's a starter in my book. Then Favre comes to town and he likes different guys. If Favre stays retired this time, he might become Sage's best friend and put up awesome numbers again. I also think he was dinged for a portion of the year as well.
I don't know what to say about D. Manning either. I think he's a guy the coaches screwed up. It's hard to say he was a bad draft pick because he's been on the field alot in at least 4 different positions outside of special teams. But he's never excelled in any one of them. I think it's because the coaching staff kept playing musical positions with him.
True, special teams contributions often gets lost in the shuffle. I had forgotten about that and was looking at him soley as a Running Back. That certainly wasn't the role he was drafted for, but yet he found a niche. I'm not sure how I would evaluate the pick without thinking about it a while, since I would probably expect more out of a 3rd rounder.This is another one where I blame the coaching staff for a lot. Wolfe has been productive on draw plays and swing passes. Why did Turner insist on running him up the middle? Why not swing him out wide? Answer? Turner has the creativity of a piece of drywall.
It's no puffery to push my point of view. It was just saying look at other peoples point of views as him as a player so far. Personally, I had compared him to Bennett and got knocked down a peg by everyone. They basically said he showed up fat, out of shape, and showed no potential. While it may be early to label him a "bust", I do think he will need to step up this year. If he doesn't, he won't be be likely to get a contract outside of his rookie one per your criteria.Well yeah, he did show up out of shape, but I disagree that he's shown no potential. He started 9 games last year and had 2 sacks. At the very least, he's a definite role player and therefore not a bad pick.
As for the criteria I mentioned regarding players signing a contract extension: That's not the only criteria. Players that haven't reached that opportunity yet aren't judged by it in some form of projection. For guys on their rookie deals, you have to look at if they start, are in a rotation, or if they are behind a great player that doesn't get injured. Jamar Williams is a perfect example. Is he a bust even though he rarely sees the field? No and it's because he plays behind Briggs. He can be called an unknown, but he can't be called a bust.
Are you really friggin serious with this BS? Damn, you caught me. I post only on this board, but my inside source tells me that Virginia McCaskey is one of the 50-100 people that come here at this point in the season, and she's senile looking for our ideas. I mean come on, I'm trying to get my fire the staff agenda out there. They aren't doing well enough at that themselves. They haven't been rocked in the papers, on the radio, in their own press conference, by coaches not wanting to come here and interview, or by them flat out turning down jobs. It's my own new idea I want to get out there, even tho it was stated no where in my post.Sarcasm noted. However, ever since the billboard, some fans feel empowered that their bitching might make a bit of difference so they've turned it up a notch. The metaphorical rag was not aimed at you.
I don't think you can judge a person as a success or failure in anyone round actually. My disagreeing with you on who is successful in the third round actually isn't a slight against the staff in itself. You have to look at the body of work. The fact you got so defensive about it is a slight against whether you can be be objective or not.I agree that you have to look at a body of work, but I also think you have to look at who's fingerprints are on which decisions. Angelo has done pretty well when the HC worked for him. When Jauron and Lovie both got their new contracts and more juice in decision making, things went downhill. In between those 2 situations and the coach worked for Angelo, we went to a SB. Since Lovie got his juice, we've gone downhill fast.
I actually posted, because I didn't see your post as objective. I know you are an "Angelo Superfan". That's your thing and that's cool, but I think it blinds you to reality sometimes IMO. You often seem to be polishing a turd to fight off the hordes of brainwashed zombies coming to attack your super hero JA, to realize that it's a turd and their is no horde of zombies, and JA is just a man.Actually, I try to be as objective as possible. It's just that it's impossible when no one will agree to defining objective criteria. When all anyone else ever does is produce subjective (and often harsh) opinions, what difference does it make if I swing the pendulum the other way in an attempt to show how ridiculous it is?
The prevailing attitudes of the hoards of brainwashed zombies never allow for an understanding of extenuating circumstances. It's all absolutes. This guy sucked so it's Angelo's fault. Does it matter that Dan Bazuin was injured in training camp his rookie year and was never able to regain the burst that got him drafted in the 2nd round? No. That's irrelevant. Angelo picked him, he didn't work out, so therefore he was a bad pick. (I would also throw in here that I read it was Lovie that really wanted the guy anyway) Add up a few of these, exaggerate a few more, and that's what brainwashes the hoards of zombies. They're simply following the wave of emotion with their pitchforks and torches. Because there are so many of them doesn't justify their opinion, it just means they are sheeple.
When Angelo makes a bad pick I'm more than willing to admit it. Haynes was a bad pick. Roe Williams was a bad pick. Okwo is someone I don't know enough about. He was picked for depth when we thought Briggs was leaving but he hasn't turned up elsewhere either. I don't really rate guys drafted in the 5th or later as possibly being bad picks. The omissions that I haven't addressed yet? Grossman I call an injury issue since he had season ending injuries how many years in a row? He became afraid of getting injured and it effed up his mobility and confidence. Dusty had injury issues. Bradley had injury issues. I have no problem with Tank. I blame losing him on Virginia. Have I left anyone out?
There are many flavors in life, and people are partial to each be it chocolate, strawberry, vanilla or what have you. Each person will say their kind is best, and to them they are right. Because they don't like your very berry strawberry, doesn't mean they are out to destroy it, depressed, or on the rag.The bolded part above is untrue. Intelligent people would say that their kind is best to them or their preference. They would not try and suggest an absolute valuation on something that is obviously subjective. To do otherwise is either "Puffery" in an attempt to persuade others toward their opinion, laziness in not saying what is meant, or plain old stupidity for not knowing the difference.
Puffery - noun - exaggerated condemnation especially for promotional purposes
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/puffery
I'll admit that I sometimes engage in puffery, but it's almost always in reaction to opposing views using the same tactic.
My apologies to you 'TD' if my statements using Puffery aimed at someone else doing the same struck you the wrong way. I'm ALWAYS interested in having an objective discussion of just about anything.
-
This depends on where you consider a player successful. In discussing this concept with others on other boards, in an effort to equalize a fan's criticalness of their own team when comparing the competency in drafting of different teams, it was universally agreed that if a player got an extension after his rookie contract expired, the player was not a bust even if they were a non-playing backup. In fact, it was one of the key factors that was universally agreed upon because it was one of the few objective criteria that could possibly be used.75 percent prodctive player rate?Terrence Metcalf? No...
In this instance, if we are comparing Angelo with Polian of the Colts, that means that we don't rate Polian's drafted, but non-playing OL backups as busts either.
Lance Briggs? friggin awesomeBernard Berrian? productive, sure wanted paid and don't start where he plays at now tho after getting paid
Dusty D? Has no production so far
I'm with you on those guys. Why does where Berrian plays have anything to do with a discussion about 3rd rounder draft choices? He's obviously was a very good 3rd round draft pick.
Garrett Wolfe? Not Productive and plays no rollDisagree. He was our top special teams tackler before getting injured. That's a definite role - I think it's ironic that he was developed by the special teams coach though.
Okwo? not in the leagueBennett? Decent but not special
I'm with you on those guys too.
Harrison, has been gettin dogged on the boards, not produtiveWTF does dogged on the boards mean? Internet posting fans don't like him? That's about as meaningful as a poll of Repubicans that say they think Palin is qualified to be President.
The bottom line is that he's in the rotation at DT and he's been somewhat productive. That is certainly not a bust unless you're using puffery to boost your point of view.
Gilbert and Iglesias, unknown...I see one Kick ass player, 2 productive players and 5 busts so far. I don't think just because you weren't cut, doesn't mean your productive. I see a 37.5 percent productive rate so far with 2 unknowns and a wasted 3rd rounder on a nickle back for a couple years.
I guess it's a matter of perspective.
It IS a matter of perspective. It's a matter of motivation too. Are you trying to do an objective evaluation? Are you simply bitching and moaning in an effort to build public support for getting someone fired because your team isn't as successful as you would like?
Or the third option; (and I'm not aiming it at anyone - just mentioning that it exists) are you a generally unhappy person that uses the internet as their personal tampon to catch the flow when on the metaphorical rag?
Or if none of those fit your motivation in your mind, how would you characterize it?
-
So LT2_3, I am not able to have an opinion about a person that I still have no real faith in and I understand what you are saying about the third round however, if you look at everything overall through all the rounds that Angelo (or as I prefer, Jack Ass) and tell me truthfully you are completely satisfied with everyone that was chosen. I personally am not a fan nor will I ever be a fan of Jack Ass. For each positive step he takes, he takes at least three to four negative steps. The Bears have not had a decent General Manager or Talent Evaluator since Jerry Vanisi was let go from his position. Until someone who all the fans are able to respect and trust in regards to player evaluation and getting the right pieces in place. My point is if you look at the third rounders mentioned, you are able to show and look at things that prove that Jack Ass is not that great of a talent evaluator.
Dude - you are obviously welcome to your opinion - just as I am welcome to mine.
Curiously, Angelo did a fine job (SB) before Lovie was given more juice (after SB and new contract) in the decision making process of both draft picks and free agent acquisition.
I also wouldn't trust the coaching staff of Lovie's to develop a Polaroid photo.
Beyond that, I really admire the way Angelo handled the cap when there was one.
You are welcome to your opinion, but don't expect everyone to agree with you. In fact, expect people to disagree even more strongly when you resort to childish name calling.
-
I get his point. At least I think that's his point... It's that our pickets 1-3 historically have not been great, while 4-7 have been pleasing. Most the money is tied up in 1-3. Thus you're throwing big money at bad, but small money at good.
I'm not sure it progresses the argument or anything. I think he's just making an observation that the failure of getting studs (or blue chip players as nfo likes saying) in rounds 1-3 is simply costly... Whether that's a failing of the pick itself or of the coaching staff to develop said players is a different debate.
The rookie pool only applies to the first year of a player's contract. So what difference does it make which player got how much of it after the only year that it counts? I could just be dense on this, but I really don't understand the point. You pay the same amount whether the players are good or bad. The could all suck or all be awesome. It always costs the same.
Also, the rookie pool is calculated AFTER the draft. So if you trade down from a top 5 pick to a late 1st rounder and a 1st rounder next year, you get a smaller rookie allocation this year. You can't spend it anywhere else.
I agree that we'd all like all of our picks to pan out, I just don't understand what the rookie pool has to do with it. Most players don't produce that much their first year anyway. The rookie pool is based on draft slot and that's it.
-
I could be wrong, but I think what lemon was trying to say is given our failings in the early rounds, those picks eat up the most chunk of cash for rookies.
I don't understand the point of bringing that up. It's a sunk cost. You can't use it anywhere else. It's not like we could suddenly get more draft picks and it doesn't affect UDFAs either.
-
First of all I forgot the worst of of his 3rd rounders Roe Williams the very first one. I didn't start this thread to bash JA ,I was just merely showing his trends during this round which will help us try and figure out which way he may go this year in the round.
I get ya Lemonej. My defense of Angelo was more in response to the ranting person that posted just after you.
BTW why should I care about how well another team does in the draft? I'm a Bear fan and want them to select players that can contribute to this team's success. Any other team can go in the toilet for all I care.I do too, I'm just sayin that it's a bit unrealistic to expect EVERY pick to pan out.
If you combine the 1st and 2nd rounds of his drafts with the 3rd round, which until recently was the first day of the draft, the team has gotten minimal return from what represents the bulk of the rookie salary cap each year. That combined with bonus money paid to the 1st rounders( Colombo, Haynes, Grossman and Benson) that didn't pan out is cause for concern. I know better than to get into cap conversation with you but, I don't consider it silly or out of proportion if I see two teams who were in the playoffs when the Bears made their Super Bowl run were there this year and the team that they played in the Super Bowl made it back and has continued to be a contender year after year. That tells me that something doesn't add up.I don't get the rookie salary cap part because it's based on who you draft AFTER you draft them. It's not like you can simply decide to allocate it differently. Perhaps I'm missing your point.
Sure, we all want all of our picks to turn into superstars, it's just that it's an unrealistic expectation.Some guys just don't pan out. It's that way for ALL teams. Angelo really isn't that bad even when compared to the most successful teams in the league.
(I personally blame Lovie and his staff for failing to develop guys and playing the wrong ones.)
-
Thats what I thought. For me, JA's strength is drafting in the lower rounds.
If you want to rip the guy, at least base it on his first rounders.....
To correct my post, I meant Nick Kaczur instead of Logan Mankins.
The key problem with an analysis like this is that unless you look at a guy's career over 20 years, it's always such a miniscule sample size and there are so many contributing factors.
Ron Wolfe's reputation was built with Favre and alot of smoke and mirrors.
-
Here is his 3rd round body of work:
2002 Terrence Metcalf
2003 Lance Briggs
2004 Bernard Berrian
2005 No Pick RMJ ?
2006 Dusty Dvoracek
2007 Garrett Wolfe, Michael Okwo
2008 Earl Bennett, Marcus Harrison
2009 Jarron Gilbert, Juaqin Iglesias
The one thing that seems to be a recent trend is drafting a DL to play DT 3 out of the last 4 years and the last 2 in a row.
Well it all depends on how you look at things.
The way I see it, out of 10 guys, you have 2 that are too soon to tell, 3 starters, 3 role players, and 2 busts. That's a 75% productive player rate with 2 incompletes.
WTF do you guys expect in the 3rd round anyway?
I've had similar conversations on other boards and it usually boils down to where you draw the line on whether a draft pick is successful. What I've found is that fans grade tougher on their own team than they do other teams.
The best teams in the league have similar numbers in similar rounds. For the Patriots, for Logan Mankins, there are Guss Scott, Shawn Crable, and Dave Thomas.
My point is that it's normal. It's like someone saying "OMG - you missed 5 days of work last year due to sickness!" But they fail to mention that the national average is a higher number than that.
This is the silly season where things get blown out of proportion. Angelo actually has a pretty good record in the third round when compared to the rest of the league.
-
You mean from a team that went 7-9 with no talent on defense and an offense that accumulated over 5100 yards with Jon Kitna at QB?
When Matt Millen is buying your groceries, it doesn't matter how good the chefs are.
-
Turner essentially had free reign over the offense so while he didn't have authority to fire/hire I'm pretty sure he could have gone to Lovie and said I need better help coaching the Oline and a change would have been made. IMO if Turner asked for that it would have fit in with all the changes after the bad 2008 season and the poor Oline play and I can't imagine Lovie refusing the request. If he did we should have fired Lovie back then.
Not to eff you up too bad here, ( I usually agree with most of what you say) but the consensus was that it was the players that needed to change. Harry didn't get them working together right until late in the season. That's what hurt him.
We're going to get a chance to see if it's talent or coaching/system when we see what Tice does with these guys because I can't see any significant changes coming to the Oline via FA or draft. I don't consider a 3rd Rd OG a significant talent although that's likely the best pick we can make.There may be surprising guys available. We'll have to wait and see. I think some teams are going to try and prove that they aren't making enough money from a CBA perspective, and Angelo is on the hot seat and will be looking for bargains.
I think Tice will get more out of them though. That's his thing - making guys expected to be average or worse, better.
-
Is it just me, or does Garrett Wolfe gain new value on the roster? I think he could be what Trung Candidate was supposed to be.
-
It's not like Martz is dumb, and I don't think his system is inherently bad or unsuited to our personnel......
I disagree. The offense is not suited to our personnel. It's also not suited to our home field for that matter.
In this offense, it pretty much requires 2 left tackles - one of which plays on the right side. This is why we went after Tait as hard as we did the year Shea was implementing the same offense. I don't have any idea how we would be able to find another qualified tackle for the right side in a year where we don't pick until the 3rd round, and there will be virtually no free agency.
Also, I don't think this offense translates well to wind, cold, and slippery turf conditions.
I think if we read that they are installing field turf at Soldier Field before a decision is made, I think we'll know which direction they are going.
Why Do I Agree With This So Much?
in Bearstalk
Posted
Well that's a far cry from bringing him in to be a starting guard. The coaches mis-evaluated him and I don't think they gave him reps at tackle like Angelo said they would at the time of that article.
That article shows that Angelo brought him in as a prospect at a couple positions. It was up to the coaches to determine where he should play and they picked the wrong one after he'd shown promise at tackle in Carolina.