LT2_3

LOL. Me too. I got 5 out of 10. At least 12 years of posting. I feel old.

It was definitely dabearsshrine. Jeff Timms named the site after his "shrine" of Bears memorabilia that he had in his home. His original home page for the site had pictures of it. Some clever googling turned this up for me: http://www.nflfans.com/bears/newtrivia.html My moniker is my initials and an incremental counter of how many times I had to change my ID back in the days when that was easier than affecting an actual password change. If we're counting posts from past board iterations, I think Pixote and I would probably be 1 & 2 considering we've lost multiple thousands due to domain changes and board software upgrades where that info didn't come across. I've lived in northern Ilinois my whole life and became a diehard Bears fan at about age 10 when we drafted a pretty good RB from Jackson state.

A scenario for a rookie starting at a high injury position with 2 starters and 2 backups seems pretty likely to me.

Just like the current high price of gas too.

And speed. You can't train or coach up speed.

For what reason? You're just a negative person?

And it kills the clock.

Playing out of position? He's playing the same position he played in college. He's not tall? He's the same height as Terrell Suggs and two inches taller than Dwight Freeney. He's not big? He weighs the same +/- 8lbs (which can be changed through training) as Jared Allen, Dwight Freeney, Terrell Suggs, and Andre Carter. Dude - you just don't know WTF you are talking about.

FYI - he's the same size as Mercilus - 6'3" 260#

I dunno. He didn't look very good to me when he was playing Arena football.

double post

I agree that he has the ability to fire them if he wants. However, it's all about timing. The scouting year runs from draft to draft. If Emery fired them all, he would have no ability to replace them until after the draft anyway when scout contracts expire.

I wouldn't complain with that either, but is that with Webb as a starter or swing tackle/backup? And what round are you thinking of for a guard? My point is that it's unlikely that we will be able to draft an OLT at 19, and depending on the drafted guard, they may not be able to beat out Edwin Williams. I just keep seeing people suggesting that we throw resources at the Oline, but unless they are a grade A stud, they might be a wasted pick and there really hasn't been a proven upgrade available in FA at a reasonable price either. The bottom line is that you can't really draft an Olineman and expect them to be an immediate improvement - unless they are REALLY NFL ready. - as in going in the first round.

With all these potential OLTs and how injured they have been in recent years (which is why they are available anyway) I can't see any of them as someone we can count on. I realize it's fashionable to suggest getting both a FA and draft someone to develop, but the fact still remains that we are only going to carry 8 OL on the 53 man roster - 5 starters and 3 backups. Now people can suggest we "stash" then on the practice squad, but that could only be for drafted guys, and any taken high (as has been suggested in rounds 1-3) would then get poached by other teams. The bottom line is that we have Webb, C. Williams, Garza, Louis, Carimi, Spencer, and E. Williams taking up the top 6 spots.

Are you defining "Hate" as anything other than just giving him anything he wants? I ask because he probably has only 2-3 more years as a top 5 in the league RB. Granted, he could do it for longer, but I don't see the point in giving him a contract as he will. If he does, then that's unexpected due to the high number of miles he has on his wheels.

I wish I knew where Jensen was getting his numbers. I think he's way off. I'll try to come up with a more realistic number tonight.

Why? Do you feel it's a waste of money? Roster spots? What's the issue? And our special teams ranking would plummet from being #1 in the league to somewhere around 26th most likely. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamst

The concept of getting all your special teamers through the draft is a recipe to have crappy special teams. Signing an experienced guy to play special teams to a contract that averages $1.2 million per year (which is really not a lot) is a value signing. The bottom line is that most drafted players aren't superstars on special teams as rookies unless they are taken in the first or second rounds. I think limiting draft picks to players that can play special teams is really shortsighted when an experienced veteran like Weems doesn't cost much. It's not like signing Weems (or the other special teams guys) precludes us from signing anyone else. It's definitely NOT an either / or situation. I think some here don't like those signings because they would prefer other ones. The thing is that in FA, the best players get signed first whether it's DE, WR, returner, or ST gunner. Letting the good ST guys go to other teams and getting lesser players would just be stupid.

Weems replaces Knox as returner on ST. I think many seem to forget that he's just working on trying to walk right now.

Actually, anyone saying that a long term contract would save cap space for the Bears really doesn't know what they are talking about. Chances are that any comments like that are coming from Forte's agent in an effort to stir up fan support for a long term contract. There is another point I'd like to throw out there: Guaranteed money doesn't always come in the form of a signing bonus that gets prorated. One of the hallmarks of Cliff Stein's work managing the cap is that there are often roster bonuses involved that hit in the same cap year. For instance, if Forte gets $18 million guaranteed, there might be an $8 million roster bonus and a $10 million signing bonus. On a 5 year contract, the signing bonus would prorate at $2 million per year, but the $8 million roster bonus would hit this year. The benefit of that is that it would save cap space in future years and make it more palatable to release him if he starts to suck. That being said, his cap hit in year 1 would be $8 million roster bonus + $2 million signing bonus pro-ration + salary. Needless to say, that truly points out that signing Forte to a long term deal isn't going to save us any cap space - in fact, it would mean taking MORE cap space.

The problem with looking at player spending vs. the cap is that it's variable. Let's say the Bears sign 3 players with large bonuses this year. Player 1 - 4 years - $16 million bonus with $5 mil salary this year Player 2 - 4 years - $10 million bonus with $4 mil salary this year Player 3 - 3 years - $9 million bonus wit $3 mil salary this year If that is the case, then the bears have spent $47 million this year but only around $21.5 million counts against the cap. Where the newspaper article talking about this is so retarded, is that if you don't sign guys to big new contracts the following year, those same guys from above, if their salaries stay the same, you would actually only pay them $12 million in year 2, but they would still cost $21.5 million against the cap.

Ah - that's right. But still it was 2001 - before Angelo took over.

I think you might be mis-remembering a few things. The one that stands out in that scenario was ending up with Terrell instead of Koren Robinson and the Seahawks leapfrogged us. Only thing there is that it happened before Angelo took over. In 2003 regarding Haynes, Angelo traded down 1 spot with the Patriots to let them take Ty Warren and we took Haynes. Or were you referring to Jimmy Kennedy? The Rams took him with their regular pick. I think it was a surprise, but they didn't trade up to get him. In 2006 regarding Santonio Holmes, he was picked right before our pick, but the Steelers didn't trade to get in front of us. Maybe you are remembering the trade down after that to pick up extra picks, but we weren't leapfrogged. You might have a point about Staley. The 49ers DID trade to get ahead of us, but that's the year we took Olsen and I've always thought that he was the target all along. We had just come off our SB run with Tait playing well as our OLT and only the Die Hard "DRAFT AN OLT!" guys would think that Staley was the target that year. In the case of Morgan Burnett, you may have a point. Everyone knew we needed a Safety and the Packers traded up to pick 71 when our first pick that year was pick 75. That being said though, everyone and their brother was predicting us to take Major Wright before the draft had even started. The fact that Burnett was even available at that point was a shock in and of itself. Add that to the slim pickings in FA at Safety and that's a wee bit nitpicky.

Jason - That disparity of picks sounds about right to me since the DL rotates and the OL does not. I'm also pretty sure it lines up with the number of spots on the 53 man roster that they dedicate to each side of the line as well. Not saying it's the best way to go, but at least it's consistent with their philosophy.

Other than trading a second round pick for a guy that died and spending a couple of 4ths in recent years, just exactly what has been invested in the 2nd DE position recently? I think that Wooten and Melton have done relatively well for 4th rounders. I'm certainly not a huge Lovie fan, but I think people are being a little harsh on this. As for what to do in the first round, I only want a LT if they are a legit LT. I'm not convinced that Williams or Carimi couldn't do the job in a scheme not designed to get bad stats.