Mongo3451
-
Posts
6,748 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Mongo3451
-
-
I think we have to consider what Faneca brings to the table for us.
He would bring his pro bowl level play. That alone may be worth the money, but I think he also brings a thing or two else that may also make the money worth it.
I think there is a solid chance we draft an OT in the 1st. While he may not start at LT year one, I think that is likely the plan. A young LT will likely develop much better playing next to Faneca than not. So signing an OG like Faneca would not only add talent to the OL, but give us a far greater chance of developing a young LT.
I also love the potential of creating a dominating 1-2-3 on the left. Draft a 1st round OT, put him next to Faneca, who would be next to Kreutz. That trio could pave the way for even Benson to become a pro bowl RB.
Finally, as the article mentions, Faneca is a throw back, flat out mean player. Next to Kreutz, we could develop a nasty OL reminicent of the old days.
Agreed on all accounts. There is something to be gained by a rookie tackle learning a work ethic, technique and a nasty demeanor from a pro-bowler/SuperBowl winner. I also want Rueben Brown starting at RG next to Tait. Backups to be St.Clair, Garza, Beekman and another rookie.
-
Archulletta is on the books for 730K this year. Do we keep him as a cheap backup or is he worthless to us? I have my opinion, but...
-
Well, IMO, it would be best to sign someone like Max Starks to be our RT for the next 7 years (at least), as he would be as good or probably even better then Tait at RT for a longer period of time. Tait only has 2 or 3 years left on his contract, and at the worst, will be a quality starter at LT. After all, he played up to a pro bowl level last year, and outside of about a 3-4 game stretch (when he did have some injury issues), he wasn't that bad. Then we could draft a guy to develop at LT either in the middle rounds or early next year.
Also, I'd resign Brown to a cheap deal. He still can be a quality player and was injured last year. By all sounds of it, he wants to return, and if healthty, he is still decent. The I'd draft an OG in round 2 or 3 to compete with Garza and be insurance for Brown (along with St. Clair who turned out to be alright at LG).
Agreed on Brown and St Clair
How did Tait play up to a Pro-Bowl level last year? Secondly, Max Starks doesn't even start for the Steelers. Lastly, I don't the stats on this, but how many mid round selections develop into starting caliber left tackles? We've got to get an early round LT. The draft is too deep, not to get a good one in the 1st or 2nd.
I can accept grooming an LT only if he is a big enough drop off from Tait to warrant grooming. In any case, if you are grooming the guy, you do it at RT. No to Starks. Too expensive and not needed.
-
Tait, while did not have a great season, was far from terrible last year. He had a couple of real bad games, but there were some health issues as well. A move to RT would be ideal, but there are no LT's out there and having a rookie start at LT is not always a good idea (unless that rookie is Joe Thomas).
It would be OK if Tait went to the right and we start a rookie at left.
Reason is; Tait is a natural RT of almost pro-bowl caliber. At left tackle he is average at best. Moving him to the right will tremendously improve the right side of the line. I don't think a highly drafted tackle is going to be a tremendous drop off. Especially given that the right side will be locked down. You only have one side that ever needs help. You can manage that while developing a player. Tony Ugoh comes to mind as a guy that did OK in a circumstance that was less than ideal, but got the help he needed and thrived.
-
Who do you expect to get for Hester then? Besides picks, that's all we could get.
Listen, if teams start kicking to Rashied, or whoever we have back there on kicks with Hester, he's a non factor. If teams start punting it out of bounds every time, he's a non factor. Why not trade him now? His value will never be higher.
That's why he's so valuable now. We lead the league in field position because they kick it out of bounds.
-
I am not certain if you are saying we did run two TE sets, but one had to block so we were unable to utilize the two TEs as receivers at the same time, or if you are arguing we could not lineup two TEs at the same time because defenses would play a bigger package. Since I am not sure which is your point, I'll address both.
"No need to address both as I meant that we don't use it because it was not a good option with our crappy line." So, I'll address "2"
2. I REALLY disagree w/ the thinking that when you OL is weak, you avoid two TE sets because a D would "play a bigger package". I would argue (a) this does not often happen. If a team has two TEs, you most often simply counter it w/ your base package. You still use your LBs and SS to matchup w/ the two TEs. Likely your SS takes on and your SLB take the other, unless your WLB is big enough or your MLB is fast enough. How do you think the D would play bigger. Do you think they would add a 4th LB to their package, or add another DL? I can think of rare occasions I have seen this, and even then, it was to counter a run game and not a two TE package. (
if a D did try and add a bigger defender to their package to counter two TEs, you likely would be in a better position to take advantage. You would then force a team to take a starter out of the lineup and insert a backup, who our TEs would be more likely to expose. Further, if they did this, they did this, they are more likely putting their CBs on an island against our WRs, thus creating yet another mis-match for us to exploit."Think of a 4 reciever set" 2 WR's and 2 TE's... Do you counter that with a base package or a nickel. The answer is base, which is bigger in a passing situation. This also what the Defense wants if you are a weak OL team. This why I vehemently disagree with you statement below. Why? Because you have just shortened the field and placed more men in the box. Who cares if the DB's are on an island if you the QB is on his back. The OL has to be good to runa 2 TE set, because the defense has to respect that they will get burned by cheating up and putting the DB's on an island.
No, I would argue that if you have a situation where you have a weak OL, two TEs can be a great scheme. You simply have more options for blocking and route running. The D would not know if both TEs were going to block, run a route, seperate w/ 1 blocking and 1 running a route (and they would not know which would run the route), of if the TEs would chip block then run a route. I felt all year as I watched our OL fail that using two TEs would greatly help out, but we simply rarely used it. I simply question whether the two TE set is something Turner really is on board w/. It may be a set he uses some, but not a set he would base his offense around, and if he isn't going to use it enough, then there is simply no point in having two very good TEs.
Finally, I go back to the point of what is the point in re-signing Clark early. To me, you sign players early when you, like you said, try to get them before their market value goes up. Assuming Olsen gets more and more reps, it is more likely than not going to take away from Clarks numbers. So I simply do not see Clark's value going up. That means we should be able to sign him a year from now just a easily as we could sign him today, if not easier.
"This part is simply a difference in philosophy" I see Clark as a core player that can be signed cheaply now. Yes, he may be signed almost as cheaply next year and maybe not. I simply don't take that risk on a low dollar contract. Not a big deal though. Also, running teams find great benefit in 2 TE sets. IE: Running play action draws a LB instead of a Safety. Thing is, your line has to be strong enough to establish the running game before play action can be called. This we could not do last season. The year before, play action was pretty good.
At the same time, I would point out that anytime you lockup a player, you are taking a risk. What if Clark has a bad year. What if he has an injury. You always take that risk when you lockup a player, which is why I simply do not see the point in locking up a player early when you really are not getting anything out of it. I just see far more potential downside than I see the upside.
So to summarize, (a) I think Turner is more of a single TE guy, which questions the need to have Clark longterm w/ Olsen on the roster and (
simply do not see the reason to re-sign Clark a year early when we are unlikely to get much out of the deal. We can sign him just as easy and cheap in a year as we could now, so why take on the risk? Turner has been quoted as saying he wants to run 2 TE's more. I don't see where you get he's not a 2 te guy.
-
I blew that last post. But to answer your question Jason: I would not mind either one of those guys if the situation was right. I am just not sure if any of our QB's could keep them happy. How can Ocho be unhappy catching some of the prettiest thrown passes in the NFL. Sure they don't have a D. But what is worse? No D or no camera time for Ocho? As far as Moss is concerned. If we win, he will perform and make our QB's better. He's that good. But again, how could you leave the Patriots? Only reason I see is a bank breaker.
-
So, everyone is so down on the Bears' WRs. I happen to think the bunch isn't actually that bad, but they simply don't get much chance since the line has done so poorly, the running game blew this year, and the QB play has been as inconsistent as Bea Arthur's bladder. Nonetheless, there are two guys who are available for big money, but are pretty much sure to produce.
1. Randy Moss - I'm sure the Pats want to keep him, but what would it take to go after him?
2. Chad Johnson - He's clearly not happy in Cincy.
Do you want them? If you don't, and it's for a reason other than financial, then I just don't buy it. You can't have everything. You either get great, prima-donna WRs, or you get the guys we have now. The great WRs who don't have big heads are few and far between.
-
First off, Childress loves Jackson. 2nd off, Jackson was in his 2nd year and many Viking fans do like him. You mustn't forget that QB's don't develop overnight. And when you play in the WCO, you need to be able to get out the pocket and make passes while running. Did I ever say anything about scrambling? No. And Pennington is as good as gone.
What else is "Lovie" Childress going to say??? Rex Grossman is our QB???? Jackson was a detriment this year due to his lack of ability to consistantly connect on the deep ball. IMO - Rex would be a huge upgrade on that team. The thought almost sickens me.
-
Agree and disagree w/ points.
I disagree w/ the idea of re-signing Clark. I totally understand what you are saying, and while I might agree in theory, I disagre because I have yet to see Turner really utilize the two TE system. We had a solid veteran and a stud rookie this year, while also having a weak group of WRs and a weaker OL. In otherwords, we were totally setup to run a 2 TE set. How often did we? I like the idea, but unless we actually utilize 2 TEs, what is the point. I actually think we may be better of simply trying a system more like KC or SD centered around a single TE.
Further, do you think Clark's market value will be "that" high a year from now? We can just as easily not resign him, avoid committing to him long term, and let things play out as they will.
On Clark: The reason it was hard to utilize the two TE set was the weakness of the OL. Instead of being able to place them both in the route, one would have to provide support. This is because the D can now play a bigger package with our two TE's. A stronger OL will help, but the greatest importance is with some creative play design and winning some of the mismatches. As far as signing him now versus next year is concerned: is you get him cheaper this year than next. Plus you have insurance in an area that you want to remain a strength. I really don't think his contract value will be very high either way due to age and carreer stats, but he is really good blocker and also one of those locker room guys as a bonus.
-
It is easy to simply say we need to have him out there for 20+ snaps a game, but if he doesn't know the offense enough to know where to lineup, how can we do that?
Agreed on all but...
IMO - the 20+ snaps a game are the only way he can succeed with his unique abilities. Otherwise, he will simply be a gimmick waiting to happen; adding value as a decoy/distraction only. It's a tough scenario to debate, because it becomes. "Chicken V Egg" I also believe if he is only a situational player that he may be more of a detriment than an asset, as the the regulars may be better for continuity and diversity of play calling.
-
Hester has great speed. Does that mean he is the best in the 40? No. He has great football speed. And more than speed, he has incredible quickness, acceleration and awareness. These are great attritutes for a WR, but he does not excel in the areas Welker does.
Steve Smith might be the better comparison. I don't think he runs precise routes, but he can go deep and get past the coverage, and can hurt the defense after the catch.
I just think it is a mistake to think of using Hester like Welker. That simply isn't the sort of WR Hester is.
Honestly, I like what you and Bradjock are saying, but also think there is something missing. Hester's plays for the most part are well designed plays for him. The reason they did not work is because he was not on the field long enough to put anyone off guard for the end around, WR screen or quick slant. If he's on Offense20-25 snaps a game he's no longer a gimmick, ALA Steve Smith or Wes Welker.
I'd further propose since Hester has freak skills of HIS OWN, just like Smith and Welker, that he be used like Devin Hester. If he's going to shine they are going to have think for themselves and find what makes him great.
-
Berrian has a pretty poor injury history too. He also gator-arms passes at times if there's gonna be a big hit, and doesn't fight the CB to prevent an INT very well, and how many routes does he run over the middle? I understand the argument that he's had poor QB play hindering his stats but on the other hand when you consider our other WR options he's by far been the best (at least last year) and should have had the lions share of receptions. The fact he didn't get 1000 yards might be a better indication of his ceiling.
In the end I don't think any of this matters because the FA market is so slim at WR. It he's offered huge $$$ it might be in our best interests to let BB go and find a cheaper alternative like Stallworth or Bryant Johnson. I don't think the dropoff would be that great if any.
Spot on AZ54! I've been talking about BB's lack of stugats all season long. I think it's imperative to extend Dez Clark to ensure us a 2 TE package that will offset the lack of talent on the outside. Unless we sign a stud #1 we will be weak at the WR position this year. We might as well have solid guys who can fight for the catch and block.
I stated a few weeks ago to watch how teams stack the box on without BB. I take that back now. IMO - his speed was the only thing respected by defenders last year. They play him over the top and it's all good. Unless he can go to the mid and deep middle he will never draw double coverage. Thus making it easier to cover other areas. That's why he won't be anyone's #1, even if he gets paid like one.
Sign Dez and sign Bryant Johnson if he's available.(no to Stallworth) He's big strong kid and a decent blocker. He's been stuck behind two really good one's in AZ.
-
The O-Line depth also allows you to trade down in the 1st and still pick up a quality pick. Someone is always there looking to move up to get their guy. I would be ecstatic with a trade down into the 20's while picking up a late 2nd rounder. We would then have 5 picks in the first 3 rounds.
Totally agree! This draft is rumored to one of the deepest in years. Especially, with a record amount of underclassmen declaring. With five picks in the 1st 3 rounds, I'd expect 2 OL and 3 BPA.
-
DRAFT
If we have a chance at some of the players mentioned and we take some OL im gonna flip. If u use a high pick on an OL and they suck, and to me they are all pretty much the same, he is useless. Cant play any other positions or special teams.Drafting OL that high is stupid. There are always guys under 30 on FA. Most of them are proven starters and can be plugged in. ""Notice how we only have 1 OL who we originally drafted.""
How's that last part been working out lately??? Drafting OL is a priority. Nuf said.
-
Issue w/ transition tag.
I think the transition tag is more for a player you really want long term. If we slapped the transition tag on Berrian, you can bet another team will in fact present an offer sheet to him. Yea, we have the right to match it, but if the whole point is to not be locked into a long term deal for big bucks for Berrian, then what is the point. You still let him walk, and do so w/o compensation.
I think the Franchise Tag is the way to go if we can't work a deal out. At this point, I think Berrian is too valuable to lose. Imagine who opposing defenses will respect on our offense if he is not on the field? Losing him will allow our opponents to creep a little closer to the line of scrimmage. Making any line, QB or RB improvements we make in the off-season moot.
If we weren't still in the window of being a contending football team, I would say nevermind, as I really don't care for his lack of toughness and instincts. Right now, he's all we have that's both proven and effective.
-
I can not see AP leaving, period. He contributes in so many ways I think he is safe to stay.
I hate to say it, but if we got another RB to compete with Ced, I could see AP going. He is one of those players that people love, but he doesn't separate himself as a running back and Brendan is better on ST. I hope he retires a Bear though.
-
Regarding Babich, no question he had to deal w/ a lot of injuries, but his adjustment to such was non-existant. Also, and I have said this before, but even w/ the injuries, we still had a lot of talent on this defense. Far too much talent to be ranked among the worst defenses in the NFL.
If we had an average talented defense, and suffered the injuries we did, I could understand. But we had a top tier defense, and even w/ all the injuries, still had a lot of talent. So while injury was an issue, I simply do not buy it as an excuse.
Further, how we dealt w/ those injuries to me was a huge problem as well. Example. The cover two only works when you can get pressure w/ your front four. If your front four can not generate a good pass rush, then it becomes easy to find holes in the zone. Due to injuries at DT, as well as other reasons IMHO, we didn't get a great pass rush up front, and thus made the zone easier to beat. Yet we did little to counter this.
During the Jauron years, one of the top complaints was our inability to adjust. A scrub would replace an injured starter, and we simply asked the scrub to step up, rather than realize the play of your 4th or 5th DB is not equal to a pro bowl starter, and thus adjust. To me, this staff did the same thing.
I think it is a combination of bad coaching, arrogance and injuries.
-
I also think Welker is special, but Mike Hass is special too. The reason you make the case for Welker is he has finally been given the opportunity to separate his talents from those of his peers, Hass has not. To be fair though, Welker's opportunity didn't come easy either. So let's not talk about "oh if Hass was that good then why hasn't anyone tried to take him" If Welker is that good...why did he go undrafted? Why was it that he wasn't even invited to participate in the combine? Why was he waived by San Diego after 1 game? Why couldn't he get on the field at all as a receiver with Miami in 2004? Why did he hardly get on the field as a receiver in 05? Why did Miami continue to ignore his talents in 06, only putting him on the field in 3 & 4 receiver sets when he ended up catching 67 passes that year. There are a number of reasons why, but I'm glad someone noticed him and he finally got his shot.
Mike Hass, who had a much more impressive collegiate career deserves his...that's all I'm saying. Yeah they are separate talents now, but not due to physical skills. Hass is more than just someone who works hard....he won the biletnikoff award. It wasn't a fluke...he can get open and he can catch everything. He's the kind of player that makes a QB comfortable. The big difference I see between him and Welker as of right now, is opportunity.
It's possible you've never seen Hass play....Here ya go...
I enjoyed that video clip. I have seen him play, thus my point about great hands!! I think you missed my point though. Not dissing Hass at all. I miss the days of Tom Waddle. It always amazed me that he only came in in spot duty. Welker and Hass are completley different, that remains my point. Welker is rare and has found his niche. He'll never be a #1 reciever type, but will continue to be a leading reception getter. His rarity comes from his ability to get yards after the catch. He runs soooo low, catches everything and has jitterbug moves. I can see how he was overlooked in college as they probably didn't know what to do with him or played a college system. But Hass has the hardware from college and prototypical size. A higher percentage of NFL players have Hass' skillset than of Welker and there he can get lost in the shuffle. I hope he at least gets a shot, whether he makes it though may not be up to him. His talents may not separate him.(see Chris Zorich) It took the Patriots to recognize Welker had IT. It may just be that the are smarter than everyone else. That whole Brady thing in the 6th round still kills me.
-
Starting with the offense:
1) Start FA by re-signing Rex, Berrian, and R.Brown. Cut Miller and Metcalf.
2) Re-negotioate Moose or cut him.
3) Trade or cut Griese.
4) Target a good OG via FA. Also take a long look at St. Clair's grades at guard before overspending.
5) Absolutely draft an OT early. The draft is deep and we can get good value. Maybe even with the 1st 2 picks.
6) Draft QB in round 2/3. I like Flacco and Henne.
7) Draft RB in 3/4. BPA in round 5 on.
On defense:
1) Cut Walker, Archuletta and RMJ. Possibly trade Idonije if Bazuin can play.
2) Sign Briggs if we can.
3) Restructure M. Brown and pray he stays healthy. He is still a key. (Have Payne bunk with him at camp.)
4) Sign a good vet FA S. If possible. One that knows how to hit
5) Start A. Brown and sub in Anderson.
6) Give the Samoan a chance next year. We need a run stuffer.
7) Get healthy a Tommie and Dusty back. They looked nasty together. The 45 minutes it lasted.
On ST:
1) Prepare to lose Brendan. Special teamers can not hold you hostage on contracts. He's damn good, but we have holes to fill.
2) Design plays for Hester on squib kicks.
3) See if Beekman or Garza can long snap. Mannelly is the best in the biz, but a luxury. The roster spot may be needed with the newcomers on the OL.
That's enough for now.
-
Tavaris Jackson isn't crap people... he's a good young QB who has shown he can be a NFL QB at times.
Hmmm.. Kinda like Rex, but worse.
-
There is no reason to not bring Rex back. We know we can get him cheap because his stock is about as low as it can be between the injuries and inconsistent play. Like others have said he knows the offense.
If that doesnt work out Orton has shown he is capable of being an NFL qb.
We have more reasons to keep Rex than cut him. If we let him go, he's going to Minny to start. He is so much better than what they have. Could you imagine that line and RB duo and Rex's ability to hit the seam, deep out and fly. Play action will be sick and Minny becomes contenders. While I'll say I like Orton better, we simply need to sign Rex to keep hin out of enemy hands. They have money to sign Berrian too.
-
That's just not true....Welker can not flat out fly. From the article I posted above..."Try as he might, Welker could do no better than a relatively sluggish 4.63 seconds on a grass field." The only article I can find listing Welkers 40 time entering the draft is this and it has him listed with a 4.6.
Speed is not everything...and if that's all these coaches are going on ...then lets get these morons out of here and get some coaches with some smarts. If these guys aren't looking at all the aspects of a wide receiver then they're not doing their jobs. Route running, good hands, precison cuts, toughness, blocking and doing every dam thing you can to either catch the ball or make sure the DB doesn't catch the ball are all just as important if not more so than just flat out speed.
Hass and Welker are two completely separate talents. IMO - Welker is special. He catches everything, runs lower than anyone I've ever seen, and can seriously cut. Speed is not the issue that separates the two. It's that Welker has the ability to separate his talents from those of his peers. Hass has great hands and works hard. Sometime that's just not enough. If we going on hard work and desire, I'd make all of you stop talking about Sid Luckman being the last great Bear QB.
-
Do We Keep Arch?...
in Bearstalk
Posted
I think we all agree he sucks. I think he will be deemed worthless in camp. No need to cut him sooner than that. It's sad that safety was supposed to be a position of GREAT strength last year. Now, it is close to the weakest in the NFL. We have to get some hitters in the secondary.