bradjock

I still think Nicks is worth the 18th pick. Top end of his value, but i think it is there. Most mocks I have seen have him graded out in the 18-26 range. Do you really think we'd ever "reach" for a player like Nicks in round #1? This is my new favorite draft site since it projects where over 700 players should be drafted http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/prospec...amp;start_row=1 They have him listed as #34 with a 40 time of 4.51. It's been well documented that taking a WR in round #1 is risky business. I can see us going after DHB because he has the potential to be a legit #1 (although he doesn't have great hands which is troubling). But there's no way we take Nicks. As for trading down, I think options come up on draft day, though it is harder to predict today. A team might want to jump ahead of Minny and a few others after us for Britton. Or maybe a team is in love w/ DHB. A team could like a CB who falls to us, or even a DL. Point is, you just never know. Teams fall in love w/ a player, and sometimes are willing to move up to get him. Personally, I still question the logic of moving down. I think we are best off simply standing pat, and taking a player at 18. I would much prefer to do this rather than move down, watch a run at a position begin, and end up on the outside looking in. If you can get a #2 and a comparable #1 the next year, why wouldn't you do it? Or if you could get 2 #1's. I'd move down in a heart-beat. Although it ultimately depends on the talent available. Last year the elite OT were going to be gone quickly. The previous year Greg Olsen wasn't going to last. Both of them were damn good talents that we couldn't have grabbed later. That certainly was not true of the 2006 draft when we traded out of the #25 spot.

I'll take that one step further: One not draft a WR in round 1 & 3??? In 2003 Arizona went Bryan Johnson #1 & Anquan Boldin #2. The next season they surprised everyone by taking Larry Fitzgerald as the 3rd overall pick. There seems to be several "3rd round talent" WR's who should be around. Looking at http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/prospectrankings/TSX/2009 at #84 & #98, who might be available include Iglesias, Mike Thomas, Louis Murphy, Mohammed Massaquoi, Derrick Williams, Kevin Ogletree, Ramses Barden & Jerrett Dillard. As it stands, we only have 3 NFL caliber WR's on the roster, and Rashied Davis needs to go back to special teams full time. Meanwhile there hasn't been a single rumor of the Bears showing interest in a WR. Tori Holt is making the rounds, but apparantly the Bears aren't on his list. On a side note, I wonder if there is a conflict between JA & Lovie with playing rookies. Last season, Angelo really didn't give Lovie much other choice then to start Chris Williams. I can see us not adding a veteran drafting a guy like DHB so that we're forced to start him as the #2. That being said, are we really sure that Angelo won't go DE or DT early??? Although we have 8 who are guaranteed to make the roster (Tommis Harris, Dusty Dvoracek, Anthony Adams, Marcus Harrison, Alex Brown, Adewale, Mark Anderson, Israel Idonije . . . plus Matt Toenia is around). But if Marinelli is really that good, we might actually take a "lets see what we have" approach. But I agree. Assuming we're not going to sign a veteran, which doesn't seem likely, we need to draft 2 WR's very early.

Huh???? Ok, the hold outs & bitching is one thing, but you've ignored: 1. His rookie year when he was cleared to play but refused citing that he had his future to worry about. 2. Taking himself out of the Super Bowl & not returning (it was never offiical, but as per the SCORE he could have returned but didn't) 3. After TJ was gone, bitching to the media that his teammates had been out to get him. 4. Stating he did the best he could with the offensive line he had (in other words he threw them under the bus.) 5. Getting arrested twice in the same month. Not to mention his 3.0 ypc average, his stone-like hands, or the fact he never knew the play-book. I don't care about what happened when he was a rookie. The fact he continued to suck while be an ass-bad is what bothered me.

Actually #18 is a spot where we can trade down. Carolina traded up around there last year, and the previous year Cleveland made the move to draft Brady Quinn.

I've disagreed with the notion Angelo would go WR at #18, but I'm starting to rethink that for 2 reasons: 1. O-line is no longer a necessity: Schafer is solid, durable & can start at RT for the next 3 years. 2. WR is a necessity: Hester's explosive yet mediocre, while Davis & Bennett are better slot receivers. While we always wanted St. Clair & had immediate interest in Shafer, have you heard a single WR to the Bears rumor? Last year I was furious we dumped Fred Miller, moved Tait to RT, and did nothing until the draft. Of course the plan all along was to draft a starting LT. It could be the plan this year is to draft a starting #2. Turner ALWAYS talks about stretching the field. Even if DHB can't catch the ball or run a route, with his size & speed he's a home-run threat who will stretch the field. If we don't draft an o-lineman in round 1, we'll basically be drating a back-up, so why bother? As for safety, I like Noot's line of thinking. There should be a run on safeties in round II, and then there will be a significant drop-off. IMO, safety is like OT in that we need to draft one in the 2nd round or not even bother. The exception to that being our plethora of 7th round picks.

Two things make me disbelieve: 1. While Maclain has great blazing speed, he's not considered a great WR. Have you seen a single mock thats projected him to go this high? 2. Cleveland has a ton of needs. They already have Braylon Edwards and they just signed David Patten. While Dante Stallworth may be a question mark, I'd sure as hell rather have those 3 then Hester, Bennett & Davis. Anything's possible, but the combination of having greater needs plus Maclin being a reach makes it highly improbable IMO.

One, that is part of my issue w/ this move. IMHO, Angelo never sees the BPA as an OL. I personally believe that our staff simply does not value OL as highly, and thus OL does not rank as high on our draft board, and thus is why they are never the best player available. I would argue the only time we actually draft OL relatively early is when we are drafting for need, and not BPA. Man, I would love to know where Williams was on our board last year, and how many BPA options we passed to take our need pick. BPA??? Who would you have rather had? Look at the first round from last year: http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft With the exception of Matt Forte in round II, there were no studs we passed up, other then o-lineman. Two, I just am not a big fan of the BPA theory. We have too many major needs to simply take the BPA. If the BPA were a RB, would you advocate taking him? What if the BPA were a LB? That is a position some would argue as a need for us. I think drafting a LB would be a nearly wasted pick. Let's see, the BPA could be: DT, DE, OT, OG, QB, WR, CB, Safety . . . so there's a damn good chance the BPA will be a position of need. Cause we have tons of needs. More importantly, what our the best "BPA" options this year at #18??? Unless someone falls, and with the exception of linebacker, the BPA will be a WR or OT. Both are major needs, both are likely to be the BPA, and everything indicates we'll be taking one or the other.

1. He fits the Bears needs best. He's a solid contributor who can play either side, and he's not a health risk. 2. Ignore the 3 years. If he sucks this year we'll dump him at damn near no cost. Seriously. The 3 years only benefits the Bears, since if he's good he'll have to stick around.

I'm just hoping Benson is walking near wherever Donte Stallworth is driving.

I didn't realize that he'd started 16 games at LT a couple of years ago.

According to the Tribue it's a 3 year 8 million $$$ deal with 2 guaranteed http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune....in-shaffer.html In case anyone was wondering, he was originally a 7th round pick from Atlanta in 2002. I love the fact he never misses a game. Apparantly we view him as being better then St. Clair since we offered him more money. Cleveland fans may call him a turn-style, but St. Clair has the turn-style label when he came. This was a necessary move. Sure we can draft a RT in the 1st round, but we don't HAVE to. My guess is that we'll start Omiyale at LG, and he'll be the back-up LT should anything happen to Williams. We already have a nice back-up at LF in Beekman. FA needs list: WR (Has anyone heard a single Tory Holt rumor???) Veteran back-up QB (Losman, Leftwich & Rex are all available) Honestly, if we take care of those two needs I'll be satisfied (which is a far cry from happy, but not anywhere near wanting to rip of my Bear jersey & urinate on it.)

Angelo is upset because he can't trade that 3rd rounder for more 7th rounders

My guess is that's b.s. Detroit scored a 1st, 3rd, and a 5th for Roy Williams. The situation was comparable that Roy Williams was demanding a big contract. Williams acted like an ass-hat throughout the season, but Boldin pouted and cried like a little girl after the NFC championship game because he didn't get thrown to more often. Arizona just made it to the Super Bowl, why would they dump Boldin for so little? More importantly, does anyone else agree the Bears won't make a big financial move with the financial impasse coming?

Ah . . . my best memories of PFT were back in 2004 where at least once a week for six months they had a post, "Our mole in Chicago tells us the Bears are interested in trading for Adewale Ogunleye." Back then the updates were extremely sporatic and much less credible. Now we don't even have to refer to it as "profootballtalk.com" Most websites are doing the "rumors" "whispers" or "the way we here it" the way PFT does, but nobody does it with the great smart-ass commentary. Heck, the Sun Times & the Tribue both often credit PFT as their source.

Just read it on PFT.

Good story . . . although being in Texas, I'd thought you were getting ready to say it was Cedric Benson. But then I remember it was March. When the hell has Cedric Benson ever seen the inside of a gym in March???

Thanks Pix! That's awesome to see what everyone is predicting. I do wonder how many of those sites had their mock drafts done prior to St. Clair signing with Cleveland. There was the assumption that we'd resign St. Clair & he'd be our starting RT. The possibility was still open we could take an offensive tackle, but not a necessity. As of right now, it seems like a foregone conclusion we'll take the best offensive-tackle available.

Agreed. The article also does not address: 1. How many teams can't afford to spend as much due to the recession. My guess is there are legitimately hurting financially. Unlike the Bears who are in a large market and continue to easily fill the stadium. 2. How many of these teams have suffered significant losses. We've essentially lost: --A very good back-up QB who knew the system (Rex) --A former pro-bowl safety (Brown) --Both offensive tackles (Tait & St. Clair) --Two WR's I'm not complaining that we've lost any of these guys, just that we've lost players & it's opened up glaring holes on this team that we've done little to fix.

The Chicago Sun Times reported yesterday that we would sign him purely for depth. My guess is he's likely to not make the team, unless we're desperate.

Good info. I'll add that Mulley & Hanley on the SCORE discussed how St. Clair basically signed 3 one year deals. Cleveland only guaranteed him $600,000, and if they decide to cut him in training camp, he's screwed. The Bears were offering 1.5 guaranteed. Up until the point we sign another veteran, I'm wishing we'd have brought him back. Even if we draft a RT #1, that's an uncertainty, and Chris Williams is even a bigger uncertainty.

I can't argue. Let me ask you this: Is there any better value at #18 then offensive-tackle? There is no safety, DE, or QB that is likely to be available worth drafting at that spot (although, can you imagine how pissed Bear fans will be if Sanchez is on the board and we pass???) As far as need goes, that leaves us taking an offensive-tackle or WR. If the o-line sucks, the WR's will also. So while Angelo said he didn't want to be forced into drafting an OT, for the 2nd year in a row, he's forced into drafting an OT. What are the odds of drafting two OT's in consecutive years that aren't busts?

It makes sense to me. The Bears have traditionally been "team players" when it comes to doing what's best for the league. Doesn't it make sense that we've avoided making any damn effort to improve this team because of money?

No love for St. Clair!!! Come on!!!! My take is that you reward guys who are willing to "get it done." St. Clair started at RT, LG, caught a TD pass against KC in the home opener in 2007, and he started every game as our starting LT in 2008. Yet we've replaced him with . . . I wonder if Omiyale will be playing a different position tomorrow. The money involved is what's mind-boggling. We couldn't match 9 million??? How damn cheap is Angelo required to be???

More importantly, the SCORE this morning seemed to indicate that St. Clair would be a back-up in Cleveland. Which makes me wonder: 1. Why would they pay that much for a 32 year old back-up 2. With just a few years left in his career, why would he want to ride the bench? My guess is this is a negotiating tactic on his part. It's like he's determined the Bears pay him just a little bit more money before he signs.

I'd counter your argument with this: Good players are going to be successful no matter where you play them. Heck, Urlacher would have been the greatest safety the NFL has ever seen. And he'll make the hall of fame as a linebacker. Q-Mitchell would have sucked where-ever you put him. He sucked at guard so we moved him to tackle? That was one of the most insanely idiotic ideas ever. It would be like if we said, Jon Quinn sucks as the #2 QB so lets make him our starter. As for the 3 you mentioned: Omiyale: Being moved to LG is a demotion of sorts. My guess is that damn near every LT in the league would make a kick-ass LG. But you move a LG to LT, and it's a recipe for disaster. Assuming we sign St. Clair & draft another OT fairly early, it's a good move. Zack Bowman: We didn't move Peanut to FS since we were too considered about injuries . . . so we're moving Bowman there? What REALLY scares the hell out of me is that this indicates we're not that concerned about upgrading the safety position. Yet, the only time our defense has been great under Lovie, is when Mike Brown was rolling. To me that's proof grabbing a top safety in the 2nd round of the draft is a priority. Idonije: The complaint should have been last season when we moved him to DT. The guy is ok at both positions, but good at neither. I'm just hoping that moving him back to DE will help our special teams. He'd be the #4 or #5 DE or DT either way, so what difference does it make?