Lucky Luciano

this is the problem i have with angelo... these 6th and 7th round picks are throwaway picks. they to me look to be afterthoughts that have no or little chance to make any real impact in our starting lineup. i did some research in the other string i started and it is quite eye opening as to where real offensive line talent is generally drafted if you want starters.

here is an interesting note... only 3 teams in the entire nfl, colts, chargers, texans, had fewer than 3 starting offensive linemen that were drafted/non-drafted in the 5th round or higher. many had 4 starters and many had 5 starters drafted in these higher rounds. i think this is a pretty good indication of what rounds the quality is located for offensive linemen. so to me that says the bears (who have drafted 2 players in the 1st rd, NONE in the 2nd rd, 1 in the 3rd rd, 1 in the 4th rd, and NONE in the 5th rd in EIGHT YEARS of jerry angelo's tenure in chicago) are having to rely on free agents who are either on their last leg of nfl play, highly overpriced, or 2nd tier or less talent whose teams have not renewed their contracts due to quality concerns.

well, here are the numbers for starting linemen: falcons: 2009 3 out of 5 LT baker 1st round pick 2008 falcons LG blalock 2nd round pick 2007 falcons C mcclure 7th round pick 1999 falcons RG ojinnaka 5th round 2006 falcons RT clabo undrafted falcons 2007 3 out of 5 LT gandy 1st rd pick 1994 rams LG blalock 2nd rd pick 2007 falcons C mcclure 7th rd pick 1999 falcons RG forney 7th rd pick 2001 falcons RT weiner 2nd rd pick 1998 SH giants: 2008, 2009 3 out of 5 LT diehl 5th round pick 2003 giants LG seubert undrafted C ohara undrafted RG snee 2nd round 2004 giants RT mckenzie 3rd round 2001 jets vikings 2009 3 out of 5 LT mckinnie 1st rd pick 2002 vikings LG hutchinson 1st rd pick 2001 SH C sullivan 6th rd pick 2008 vikings RG herrera undrafted RT loadholt 2nd rd pick 2009 vikings ===== seattle 2009 5 out of 5. LT locklear 3rd rd pick 2004 SH LG sims 4th rd pick 2006 SH C spencer 1st rd pick 2005 SH RG unger 2nd rd pick 2009 SH RT willis 4th rd pick 2005 SH tampa bay 2009 4 out of 5 LT penn undrafted LG zuttah 3rd rd pick 2008 TB C faine 1st rd pick 2003 cleveland RG joseph 1st rd pick 2006 TB RT trueblood 2nd rd pick 2006 TB i am curious as to how you are determining the quality of these offensive lines? is it from personal observation? if not what are the factors you are using to determine how the bucs and seahawks lines rated against the rest of the nfl? anyway, the giants you mention have 3 out of 5 players drafted in the first 5 rounds. although i have no idea whether the falcons line is good or bad they too have 3 out of 5 drafted in the first 5 rounds. i guess what you should do is go through the nfl roster for starting offensive linemen and compare this number to the number of starters drafted/non drafted below the 5th round and compare the numbers. this would give you accurate numbers for comparison. as far as angelo's MO... do you really believe what you said that there is more to angelo's line of thinking than drafting quality offensive linemen through the draft? you have no problems of never drafting linemen higher than the 6th or 7th round or with their quality? REALLY? you don't see any conflicts with the salary cap by trying to bring in QUALITY free agent linemen who are young and not at the end of their careers (like tait type players)? do you believe, or not, that continuity is a factor involved as to how an offensive line performs?

this is what separates the men from the boys as GM's go... the draft, plain and simple. having said that, i don't have an issue adding veteran FA's under 'specific circumstances': 1. replacement due to injury. if you lose a front line starting player then you can go after these end-of-career players who may have 1-3 years left in their tanks as long as you draft their replacements high enough to give you hopefully a high quality player replacement when it's time to move the older veteran. our problem is, as you know, we never do this. 2. replacement due to the inability to sign your own FA's due to cap limitations. again you can do the same as the scenario above although good GM's should see this coming ahead of time and negotiate prior to the contract end or compensate in the draft before it comes into being. 3. your GM has missed picking a good starter in the draft. face it, this happens from time-to-time as nobody can pick gold with every pick. in this instance you can either pick up your aging player and again draft his replacement or go for a quality FA with a lengthy career still ahead of him and pay the big bucks. that said, if your draft picks are continually poor it's time to evaluate why. is it the picks you are making and the round you select them in (you or the scouting staffs choices)? is it the inability of your coaching staff to mold/coach these picks into front line players? also to continually ignore drafting potentially high quality players in the slots they dictate on draft day and expect to fill these positions on the offensive line the way he has done so, is ludicrous. so is the missmanagement of FA's you do bring in... i can't even begin to state how stupid it was to bring in tait, a high quality right tackle at a tremendous cap hit and play him at a different position (than where he was rated good in the first place) nearly his entire tenure in chicago. these are just some of the reasons angie is a poor GM. you have to have vision and long range insight. by neglecting drafting players that need time to develop you will, in this dimention of reality, never/rarely have QUALITY players to fill these slots except through free agency and quite frankly there are numerous reasons why this will NOT work in the long haul. the cost is too much and you will rarely see key players such as qb's, LT's, superb DE's and CB's who are not past the peak of their careers and starting on the downward slope. it also clearly shows the inability of having CONSISTANCY on your offensive and defensive lines that angie somehow now believes is important (only 8 years to late) but continues to do nothing about as was clearly shown in this years draft.

could anyone really wonder why our offensive line has had serious personnel problems over angelo's tenure? hmmmm

here is some of the complete nonsense from our fearless leader that every fan (and especially if we had a real president of football operations who was qualified to do his job) should note. 1. "the continuity of having five play together was critical". then why in the H E double hockey sticks do you hire semi-retired bandaids like o. pace, r. brown and fred miller to come in and finish out their careers here in which we usually get 1-2 years max play out of them before aged performances force retirement a year later than it should be. is that continuity angie? when you are changing the offensive line every year or two? by bringing in MORE free agents because you can't fill the holes with young prospects you FAIL to even waste draft picks on? 2. ''It's not like you have to have five all-stars at the position...No real household names ". are you a complete idiot or do you just think we are? just because YOU have never heard of these players does that mean the rest of us are living on another plain of existence? well let's see what their OL looks like... LT diehl age 29 - 2009 pro-bowl; C o'hara age 32 - 2008, 2009 pro-bowl; RG snee age 27 - 2008 all-pro, 2008, 2009 pro-bowl. i guess you're right angie, only THREE of them are all-stars.

don't take this to the bank but i believe we are playing up on all three downs for the most part. i really haven't focused on our corners as much as other aspects so am not sure if we are getting jams at the LOS or not. in any case it is an improvement as far as scheme goes that should have been changed 5 years ago. whether the talent and coaching can turn our past cover 0 corners and safeties into productive nfl players is yet to be seen in regular season.

well then welcome to the world of rollerball. houston, houston, houston, houston......

1, that is a possibility. when it comes to the point that the quality of the game is about the same as watching nfl europe or canadian football (no disrespect intended to those leagues or it's fans. they were/are what they were/are) then what is the point? at this space in time the game is already teetering on the brink of the abyss compared to what quality of play was performed 20-30 years ago. the lack of player and coaching talent due to expansions and the changing of the rules by outside football sources to engage the attention span of imbeciles to watch games that score as many points as basketball is destroying the game. when college football is a rougher sport physically than the nfl there are serious problems that need to be reviewed. one of the biggest problems/dangers is that the new generation of nfl viewers will have no comparrisons of quality play to hold up to scrutiny and thus in a short period of time this newer generation will not even know they are seeing a second or even third rate product anymore. that is what is really sad. 2. if i could get tickets to go to a game in the weather of 2-3 weeks ago for free, i wouldn't go. watching people have heat strokes just doesn't do it for me. 3. i already buy less merchandise. but if it comes to buying into the quality of NFLE teams i'm done buying it altogether. 4. absolutely no. i believe you are dead wrong. the nfl does NOT come out ahead, it just comes out richer.

look pixote, i figure you didn't want to have a "conversation" about it when you tell me that the weather starting in the 2nd week of august is basically no different than the weather in september and expect me to believe it. i do realize there are exceptions to everything including the weather as i actually saw snowflakes in july once and 70 degree weather in january (it was also me that gave the reasons why extending the season into february or possibly march also was not a good idea). but in a normal, general sense these unusual weather patterns are aberrations. i think you are generally off on your injury statements and there is no real body of evidence to suggest most players are waiting to get operated on just to get out of training camp. could they be waiting to see if physical rehab might work in some instances before using surgery lead to you month later statements? or as i stated swelling and other bodily injuries may not be favorable conditions for doctors to operate in? ask one. i also believe you are off base, pun intended, when you state that there would be no attendance or television rights conflicts with MLB starting the season in the 2nd week of august. do you remember how the NFL and MLB adjust air time for the world series to help each in ratings and attendance? plus... even the CUBS usually aren't mathematically out of the race by that time. so now MLB is going to adjust it's games away from half it's weekend revenues at the prime time for pennant race battles for the NFL? if you want 18 games a season that is fine. i just personally hope the nfl doesn't listen to you and people of the same mind. i gave some of my reasons why 18 games is a bad idea for the quality of play and the health of the nfl as a whole and think differently.

let's have a 30 game season. that should work out for everyone.

wow, can you imagine full gear, full contact real games starting in the middle (or earlier) of august and all your starters suited up for 4 quarters in the hottest month of the summer? also it could be why they wait a month a lot of times to have surgery is to let their bodies heal as much as possible and let the swelling go down before invasive surgery? in august wouldn't the nfl now be competing with major league baseball for fans, attendance and television rights?

i forgot to mention the weather. by extending the season into february you now have the worst weather of the year for cold weather teams to contend with. this not only effects nfl play but fan attendance. it could also mean a very large play disadvantage for teams competing in colder climates.

in the 14 game past, the regular season usually ended within the first or second week of december. with a 16 game schedule which includes, a bye week, we are now ending regular season play around the 1st week of january. with an 18 game schedule and the extra bye week you suggest we are now extending the regular season nearly into february. that means post season playoffs will just about fill february up (with the wildcard game which i believe was included in the 16 game season). this leaves the superbowl very close to happening in march. this extended period of time leaves little window if/when players have offseason surgery or concussions to recover from before they start camp and prepare again for the coming regular season. this plus the normal wear and tear on the bodies, especially joint wear, of added regular/post season games leaves little time for the body to heal. the quality of play on the field is surely going to suffer both from an injury standpoint and if, as you suggest, an extension of the number of players on each roster. right now because of league expansion we are extended to the point that many players starting in the nfl today would not have even quality wise been backups thirty years ago. this is ESPECIALLY true of the skill positions such as qb which even before league expansion of the 70', 80's etc. (not EVEN mentioning the addition of the AFC in the 1960's) was a drastically low pool base for average + players. next: if you raise the rosters by 7 players to 60 as you suggest this subtracts 224 players from the market, which already is low to nonexistent in quality ball players, to fill your roster needs from other teams cuts as it stands today with a 53 man roster. the reality of the matter is there is just so much physical talent to go around. the only area nfl teams are drawing talent from has NOT expanded since the modern era of football came into being and probably long before that. this is one reason teams are drawing a lot of players out of 2nd and 3rd tier schools in the draft.

i don't agree. although the risk for a player can be extensive, pre-season or not, your premium players usually are only working a game and a half to two games max during pre-season play when you count up the actual time in. also in this time they are 'supposedly' getting into game shape where they are adjusting to actual blocking and tackling to hopefully reduce their chance of injury. i also believe you are really upping the chances to burn your players out physically sooner over the life of their career playing this many games. their chances of injury are escalated as the season wears on from the natural wear and tear on their bodies for this long of a period of time. take url's calf injury for instance. he would be nearly forced to come back sooner from injury to play in the regular season. i do agree with you there should be some kind of rookie salary decline. it's just getting way out of hand. in a perfect world i would like to see them cut the pre-season to 3 games and the regular season to 14 again. i would also like to see a lock on the number of teams in the nfl. it is already watered down talent we are seeing play with this many franchises in the league.

how many center prospective offensive linemen do we currently have on our roster? i count 4 - kreutz, beekman, tim walter and pat mannely. here are a couple questions for any offensive line guru's out there... since there is not any competition for starting center but only in a backup situation to replace kreutz (and we've already seen that crap from beekman) why do none of these considered centers practice at special teams long snapping especially since our ONLY longsnapper is THIRTY FIVE freaking years old? wouldn't it be nice if we had someone, who actually is a center, at least practicing to replace our special teams center if something happened to him (which i'm sure would never happen) instead of relying on a 33 year old TE/HB? just wondering.

to me... it looked real bad. if my memory serves me correctly, they had guys coming off both left and right ends without being touched at times. at other times they were running over the designated blocker/s. it seemed hanie (i never saw the cutler series) was continually scrambling around or taking hits after a quick throw to get rid of the ball. the other qb was as bad or worse. i don't think we were prepared to stop blitz packages which after the first one or two we should have been in that mode. some has to do with hanie's reads and missing the blitzes. some on our RB's/TE's or even WR's not getting some chips or even recognizing the blitz coming. in any case this is on the coaches too for not preparing them or making critical gametime adjustments and it cost us our #2 qb by failing to doing so.

i can live with either theory. my statements about angelo to balta was in regards as to why lovie might have stated what he did and is really not worth the time we are spending arguing about it as either, both or even neither could be the truth. as far as the running getting off the bus statements by lovie in shays tenure... that was one strange time indeed. whether lovie was meddling or giving misinformation to the press or whatever, it was an odd situation to say the least and i agree wholeheartedly.

i agree with that statement to a certain point and have in fact argued it myself in the past. a good defensive coach SHOULD understand how an offense is run and be able to at the least make educated suggestions on what direction it should take and what it's pitfalls are and at least generally how to change them. my problem with lovie is that i really don't think he does know much about an offense or if he does he hides it very well. the problems we have consistantly faced in the offenses run since lovie arrived is a testimonial of how he either does not want to get involved or doesn't have the qualifications to do so even being a DC by profession. that is the only conclusion i can come up with as to why shay was flying us into the hard turf from 10,000 feet or that turner performed as poorly as he did for so long a period of time. in truth i don't think lovie is a very good DC either. i think he is like the proverbial one trick pony who just doesn't move beyond past success into the nfl future through innovation and change. seemingly very much like dick jauron. if it looks good on paper that is the way it stays whether reality on the field dictates change or not. again, a good HC with a defensive background (or visa-versa) SHOULD be able to make directional changes in how his opposite is performing his duties. i just can't explain with any conviction why he has not done so in the past.

of course it is more critical for 1st round picks because that is where the combined lot of the best college talent is funneled into. but i seriously disagree with your contention that 2nd and 3rd round talent doesn't effect the quality of your team AND financially hinder a club in a very big way. if a GM continuously misses drafting quality first day players here are the results.... they have wasted a year to three trying to develop a player that will contribute little or nothing to the goal of winning a superbowl. this means that to acquire a player to now fill this starting roster spot they will either have to draft another OR bring in a free agent whose salary is at the maximum for one of his caliber talent. in the salary cap era this is financial suicide for a club to continuously do this. sure he may get credit for bringing free agents into the fold and in fact he has done fairly well at it. but does that NOT emphasise his failure at providing this team with quality players through the draft? that is the financial lifeblood of a franchise. let's look at DA. if angelo hadn't wasted a 2nd round pick on bazuin, d. manning or mark bradley for instance and had chosen a good quality receiver instead would he have even had to? if he didn't pick a receiver in those instances but a quality offensive lineman would we be in the situation we find ourselves at this very moment where we are hoping a 7th round draft pick MAY be good enough to even start at RG (let alone go to a pro-bowl) and not kill our franchise qb? or a safety or a linebacker or a defensive tackle or a defensive end and so on and so on we could have filled numerous roster spots with quality ball players. i realize no GM will hit every player on every draft but when you look at the starting quality player draft record we are faced with we have after 9 first round picks tommy harris and MAYBE chris williams and MAYBE greg olson who nobody would even give us a second round pick for. after 9 second round picks we have charles tillman a #2 CB who was drafted 7 years ago. after 12 third round picks we have lance briggs who was drafted 7 years ago. that is not just bad that is criminally bad. wins and losses relate to the quality starting players you field PLUS the depth behind them and throw in good coaching on top of that (which angelo hasn't provided either). it couldn't be done like the FA skins of the 70's under george allen and it certainly can't be done with exclusive quality FA's in the salary cap era. 1. then you see no need for a GM to draft well to keep his job? 2. if you don't agree angelo is pushing certain players like hester who are the key to his GM survial then who do you think is making hesters case and downplaying the only person qualified (martz) to even understand how an offense is run? is it lovie the offensive genius when he isn't the defensive genius who thinks hester is the best WR on our roster? who?

sure. the question he asked was "Can anyone tell me why Smith would be so insistent on Hester being a #1 starting WR even if Martz wants him in the slot?". don't you believe it's angelo calling the shots on hester's status/position to the media? or do you think it's lovie? i personally don't think lovie knows enough about offense to force a situation like this with martz (and for that matter i don't think angelo knows much more than lovie but would set the conditions anyway if it helped his agenda). for six years? how long does it take in your estimation to decide whether your qb is a franchise quality player and dependable? was it lovie's or angelo's decision to keep the merry-go-round going for that long? yes. but again, isn't this a perfect example of what i was talking about? you could be right but didn't angelo just give him a new contract? he must be onboard to at least some degree. it wouldn't surprise me either if he did. but... if he is a walk-on does he even get a second look? if we cut him does any other team jump at the chance to pick him up and put him on their final 53 man roster? i don't believe i ripped angelo at all. i just explained my theory of why hester may have been pushed ahead of more deserving players for the starting role. angelo is on the hot seat for his job (or at least if this organization was competent he would be). he has failed in the most important duties a GM can perform. he has failed to hire a good coaching staff and has failed over the last 8 years to draft quality ball players to fill his roster. every chance he gets he is wanting to push what few draft picks did turn out whether they deserve it or not just to keep his job. do you disagree with that?

you could be right about the contract size as a/the factor. but i also believe at this point in angelo's tenure in chicago he is on the firing line and needs to justify at least SOME of his draft picks which have been dismal to say the very least. a GM can't rely on free agency success or failure exclusively in this cap rich era of football to justify his existence. also draft status 'could' account for some of the offensive decisions like how grossman was penciled in as starter for such a long period of time without real competition. same could be said why thomas left and benson stayed or why d. manning was considered a starter at safety when his accomplishments didn't justify his status if one wanted to argue those points. if gilbert remains on this team without a fantastic amount of improvement this season it could also point to draft status rather than talent.

i think my major concern with beekman is he was getting manhandled in pass protection and got nearly no push of the LOS in running downs. he HAS to be able to hold the point of attack in pass protection as center as he is the key to the success or failure of pocket development. he literally was getting run over on pass protection against the chargers. i understand he may have been practicing as a G mostly in camp but to me it is no excuse for the collapse whether he plays G or C especially for a player starting his fourth year in the league. this does not bode well for his replacement of kreutz in the future. this is one reason last season i was hopeful that angie would have stayed put in the 2nd round and picked unger a good center prospect with size and talent who went to the seahawks.

in my opinion: hester was a high draft pick and one of the few by angelo that actually did something. although... his production in the area of returns has dropped like a rock and if he can't justify hester as a real receiver OR the CB he was drafted to be it appears to the world another poor draft choice. that is major justification by a GM when he has shot so many blanks in past drafts. that was one reason i stated the condition of frank oh-my. he was a highly paid free agent and if he couldn't even break the starting lineup in THIS group of offensive linemen would have certainly made the acquisition of frank at that price questionable to say the least.

the fact being that lovie knows nearly nothing of offense (or at least keeps it a secret if he does) speaks volumes on how much influence jerry angelo has on the effect of who is going to start or considered by him to be the premium player at X position due to who angie drafted or which free agent he pursued. example: why else would frank oh-my have been penciled in as starting LG last season and remained so until the media/fan firestorm moved him out? same with pace. can anyone truthfully say either of these players deserved to start there after a game or two?