nfoligno

I would be fine taking Britton only if Smith/Oher were long gone and Maclin was gone also. I would hate to see DHB/Harvin drafted b/c we have our shifty WR in Hester. Agreed on only taking Britton if Smith/Oher are gone. Agreed on not wanting to see us draft Harvin. While I agree that I don't want DHB, I disagree on your reason. I am not sure I would call DHB another "shifty" WR. Frankly, I think he may have more pure raw talent than any WR in the draft, but also feel that raw talent is something we likely could never develop. Honestly, I am not big on Maclin either. I actually see him very similar to Hester. WR. RB. RS. He can do it all, but how well will he do any one thing in the NFL. Maybe he is a great WR prospect, but at the same time, I just feel like it is Maclin who is too similar to Hester. I am NOT taking away from him. I just question if he is the best fit for our team. For some reason, the way you see JA taking DHB, I see him taking Harvin. The reason I see him going Harvin is because of Kyles short game. Harvin would be able to make big gains out of the 5 to 10 yard pass plays. I see the reasoning, but disagree about it happening. For the record, the same reasoning I am about to give is also why I am feel there is little chance I will see any of the WRs I truly want added to the team: Nicks, Robiskie, Iglesias. I think Angelo wants a #1 stud. I do not think that is Harvin, and I don't think Angelo would either. While I question Maclin, he could easily see that. I also think he would view DHB that way. I understand what you are saying about the short game, but especially after listening to Turner, I wonder if Angelo believes Orton's lack of a deep game is all about Orton, or more about the surrounding pieces.

I don't know. Seems like coaches and GMs answer this sort of question all the time. I am not sure it is against the rules for Angelo to say he called Denver and asked for permission to discuss Cutler. At the end of the day, I think the simple point is, while an trade w/ the bears is VERY unlikely, Angelo should at least be looking into this. That doesn't mean we would know for certain whether he did or not, but just talking more theoretical.

I am not saying Angelo won't go OT in the 1st. I am simply questioning whether he would take another OT who has red flags, like Smith. That doesn't mean he wouldn't take Britton. If you look at the two times he did draft an OT, he was when his back was against the wall. That is why I question whether or not we should sign St. Clair. IMHO, if we sign SC, we will not draft an OT in the 1st, which is the #1 think I want to see. If we do not sign SC, our options at OT are really ugly, and thus he may again feel pressed into drafting another OT, which would be fine by me. If we do not draft an OT, right now my bet would be, if he is there, DHB. While I would much rather get Nicks, I simply feel like DHB is the type of WR he would covet.

I think most on this board (most) would be in favor of drafting a FS at 18 if one were available of decent value, but as it stands, none of the FS appear to even be worth a 1st round pick, much less the 18th pick. I am not hard against reaching, like I once was, but you have to draw the line, and I think FS would simply be too great of a reach. It would not shock me if Angelo was to look at DEs, but I just question whether any of the DEs who should be there at 18 are really worth it, or that great. It seems like this year, there are a lot of DEs who are expected to be OLBs in a 3-4, or were very inconsistent in college. I understand what you are saying. Defense by far didn't meet expectations. While the offense was far from great, it likely did exceed the expectations of most. However, I think there is an expectation that coaching more than just personnel was key to the defensive issues, and that has been addressed, while on the other side of the ball, personnel more than coaching appeared to be the problem.

Few things: One, Angelo has always tried to do right by his veterans and release them sooner rather than later if that was the intention. Two, They could be any number of reasons for the timing. Maybe, like Holt, Metcalf has a bonus written into his deal that would have paid him if he were on the roster after a particular date. Maybe Metcalf simply read the tea leaves, spoke w/ Angelo, and asked to be cut loose sooner rather than later. Maybe the bears asked Metcalf to take a paycut after the Omiyale addition, and cut him after no agreement. Point is, I do not think many here considered him part of the plans, and most expected this move sooner or later. Three, only other point is, this should have nothing to do w/ St. Clair. We have $25+m in cap space, and thus any veterans we release should have nothing to do w/ the salary cap.

Good to hear from you. It's been some time. Yes, I would consider Andre Smith. If I had a top 5 or even a top 10 pick, I would probably pass. As bad as it is to ever miss on a 1st round pick, top 10 picks have the added bonus of killing your cap on misses. At 18, I think you can begin to afford taking greater risks, especially on such high reward. Many considered Andrea Smith the #1 OT prospect in the draft until the combine, even w/ the character flags. So if we could get potentially the top prospect OT at 18, yea I would consider that. The real question is, would Angelo? He has been burned by some players w/ character issues of late. Even the ones who did not ultimately burn the bridge, it is likely they added to Angelo's heartburn. Will Angelo see past the red flag and take the risk. I would also point out that he took a risk on another OT last year, also in the 1st round, who had red flags. Yes, those red flags were injury while Smith's is character, but I question whether Angelo would draft consecutative 1st round OTs who many others dropped or removed from their boards due to red flag issues.

Damn, rookie mistake. Double post.

I talked about this in another post the other day, but I just question whether it is worth it (trading down). If you really like Britton, and you feel he can be your starting RT, why risk trading down and losing him? Is it worth an extra 3rd or 4th round pick if, at the end of the day, you don't get the player you wanted in the 1st? Sure, its a gamble. You could trade down, gain and extra pick, and still get your guy. My question is, are the potential winnings of the gamble worth the potential losses? Think of it in terms of gabling in Vegas. You don't have much money to play w/, but you do have money reserved for your rent. Like any 1st round pick, the point of the rent check is to show the value of the pick/ money. So anyway, lets say you have $1,000 set aside for rent. If you gamble w/ it and win, hey, you get $1,000. Great. But if you lose it, you just lost your rent check. Is that potential extra $1,000 equal to the potential lost $1,000? I don't think so. For me, even if he is a slight reach (and I am so sure he is anymore) I just feel a slight reach is better than risking not getting the player you want. Another key factor is looking at some of the teams picking after us. 21 - Phily - They are dang near desperate for OTs. 22 - Minny - They have flat out said addressing RT is a high priority, and many mocks even have Britten currently going to Minny. These two teams alone would prevent me from trading down and expecting Britton to still be on the board. And there is just not enough value in trading down from 18, but above 21.

To me, I think the biggest key here is, beyond draft pick compensation, getting a QB. We simply do not have a QB to offer Denver to entice them into a trade, and I do not see Denver trading Cutler w/ the group of QBs they have on the depth chart now. Now, the one interesting thing I can see, and have mentioned this before, is if in the draft, when their pick comes due, if Sanchez is there and they like him. I could then see Denver possibly trading Cutler and drafting Sanchez. If that happens, and we were the team that traded for Cutler, Denver would then have the 18 pick to draft defense. But w/o a solid QB included in the trade, or the ability to draft a QB, I just can not see the logic in Denver trading Cutler.

Just a couple comments. You mentioned the final 3 OTs taken last year, and wondered how they did. Cherilus started slow, from what I have read, but by the end of the season, he was considered one of, if not the, top OL on the team. That may not be saying much, but he showed enough in his rookie year to be considered an OL you can build around. Baker didn't start immediately, I think, and suffered some minor injury setbacks, but when he was on the field, was considered a solid member of the OL, and considered a legit part of their successful run game and OL overall. Brown was considered a very bit "hit" for Houston. Their OL has struggled for years, and Brown was considered a key piece to the rebuilding of their OL, which is no longer considered a weakness. For a change, Houston enters the offseason w/ OL not being among their top needs. Frankly, it is a bit sadening in that our OT pick was the only one of 8 who didn't step up for their team as a rookie. Beside the 3 mentioned: Long - Considered an immediate stud for Miami, and a LT to build an offense around. Clady - Could have been the offensive rookie of the year he played so well, and I think even earned a pro bowl nod. He quickly established himself as one of the top LTs in the league. Otah - Immediate starter and big part of Carolina's great run attack. Albert - Still saddens me to think about. Early set back w/ minor injuries, but quickly regained health and took over at LT. While the team struggled overall, his play was considered a shinning light. 8 OTs taken in the draft, and only one failed. That one just happend to be our pick. Agreed that OT has been seen as the position least likely to fail in the 1st round. It is among the safest picks, and also represents one of our greatest needs, if not our greatest need overall. In Britton, you have an OT who is not considered in the same tier as the rest, but the biggest reason for that is not a lack of talent but the believe he can't play LT, which is simply graded higher. Decent LT prospects get higher grades than elite RT only prospects. Britton is considered only capable of playing RT, and thus why his grade is lower. But that is just the thing. We need a RT, so he would seem a great fit. As for the FS position, you will get no argument from me about our need there, however, there are simply no FS' remotely close to being a value at 18. Heck, it is very questionable if any FS in the draft is worth a 1st round pick. Thus, I just do not consider FS part of the discussion as to our 1st round pick. #17 Gosder Cherilus to Detroit--He was projected 31st overall, late 1st-early 2nd #21 Sam Baker to Atlanta--He was projected 64th overall, late 2nd-early 3rd #26 Duane Brown to Houston--Projected 58th I don't know how successful they were, but Cherilus started 13 games, Sam Baker 5, and Brown 16. What was even stranger is that teams were trading up to get these guys. So based on what happened last year, even though ESPN has Britton rated #33 (for what it's worth) it's easy to believe he'll be a 1st rounder. Ideally, we resign St. Clair as insurance in case they suck. That being said, I'm nervous as hell about the outlook of our safety position and IMO, it's seeming more and more inevitable that it's a necessity for us to draft one in rounds 1 or 2.

Just curious, why do you question his strength? From everything I have read, that is considered an asset. At the LT position, his pass protection was a tad questionable due to his lack of elite foot speed, but he was considered elite in terms of run blocking, which was attributed to strength. I realize strength in college doesn't mean he will be strong in the NFL, and agree he (like every prospect) will need to gain in strength to meet NFL standards. At the same time, I am simply not sure his strength is considered an area of concern.

Agreed and agreed. Reading into what Turner said, there is no question in my mind he feels we need to upgrade at both OL and WR. To me, it was somewhat shocking that he actually talked about how we limited Orton to 3 step drops to keep from getting him killed. That is an absolute indictment on our OL. Further, he did say, and has been saying, that we need more from the WR position. As it was most likely Turner who held Bennett back, I do not think he views Bennett as being that player to provide a major upgrade to the WR corp next year. So there is no question in my mind that Turner absolutely wants to upgrade both OL and WR. Now we will see how much pull he has w/ Lovie/Angelo.

(a) He didn't play well last year, but was playing LT. Many feel he would do much better at RT, which is where we would be looking at him for. ( While he didn't play well last year, he still was better than St. Clair, who led the league in sacks given up. © It doesn't seem like he is going to get a major contract, and when looking at our OL, we need all the help we can get. Is he an ideal option? Hell no. But is he better than St. Clair. I honestly do not know, but I do not think the answer is so cut and dry.

Agreed, and that is what I said in another post. Frankly, I don't know what Turner would choose to run, but when you look at our personnel, our best set is likely a 2 TE formation as Olsen and Clark as better than most of our WRs, and absolutely better options than any of our WRs beyond Hester. I know longer really know what a WCO offense is, as so many teams run so many different "variations" of it, but (a) we lack WRs capable of solid route running, which I always thought was a key in the WCO and ( our best set w/ our current personnel is most likely a two TE set, which I do not think fits the traditional idea of WCO.

You beat me to it. Turner said, in a Q & A, that we had to run mostly 3 step drops due to our OL. He sounded like he would love to run more 5 and 7 step drops, but knew that would get Orton killed.

While I don't want to argue whether or not our OC sucks, might another reason we don't have a system, or the system our OC wants to run, is because we don't have the players to run it? Just curious. Frankly, so many teams are said to run a "variation" of the WCO, I don't even know what the hell it is anymore. But isn't a key aspect of the system route running? Well, since our WRs (a) struggle to get quick sep off the LOS and than ( are not great route runners, I wonder if we have had the talent to run the system our OC wants. Is the TE a key element in the WCO? If so, what out 2 TE sets? To me, I think the problem in discussing what our system is, is that we may lack the talent to run the system we want. Do you think, if given the ideal choice, Turner would most prefer to run a 2 TE system, and yet w/ our personnel, does he have much of a choice?

It sounds damn good in theory, but my guess is that it's not that simple. The key factor IMO is that Holt would have to agree to the trade and be happy with it. At this point Holt is asking the Rams to release him. That means Holt wants to be paid. Technically, the Bears could play hard-ball with him and make him play out his contract (Is it after 2009 he's a free agent?) But the Bears aren't going to trade for a guy just so he can piss and moan & hold out. One, I am not sure I would agree w/, "he wants to be paid". At least not the way it sounds. He knows he is going to be cut. Everyone knows it. He simply wants it done sooner rather than later, while there is still a market out there. That doesn't mean he is seeking a big deal, but wanting to him the market while there are still teams that might be interested. Two. "piss and moan". Um, when have you ever heard about Holt being anything but a solid, positive character. I think it a tad unfair to Holt to assume such a weak character when he has never proven anything of the sort. Also, what is there to complain about if he gets the $6.5m base plus $1.25 bonus he would be due. Not sure what sort of contract you think he might get on the FA market, but I think you are over-valuing him if you think he will get more than that for one year. Three. I don't see him having to sign off on the deal, nor do I see this a situation where we have to ask him if he is okay w/ it. I just do not see him as the sort, and others who have written articles agree, he is the type to simply give it his all on the field. In the NFL, like when we traded Thomas Jones, there's almost always a deal in place. Has KC signed Cassel to a new deal yet? Which means we're not talking so much about what it would cost to trade for Holt, but how much would we pay for him. He's a year older then Housh, and a much more accomplished wide receiver. My guess is he'll be asking for 4-5 years, 40 million with 15 guaranteed. Will we pay that for a 33 year old? Sorry, but I don't see Holt getting what TJ Hous got, which is the numbers you are talking about. Holt is older, and w/ more wear and tear. Further, he is coming off a sub year, and too many questioning how much he has lost. I realize he isn't "that" much older than TJ, but here is the key. Most all, including you below, are questioning whether he has lost it, how much he has lost, and how much he has left in the tank. I recall none of the same questions w/ TJ. Some may have wondered about signing him to a long term contract, but I read none who were questioning if he has already begun the drop. Most have w/ Holt, and he is simply not going to get the same deal. Then there is the question of how good Holt could be with the Bears. His speed has dropped off and he's always excelled playing in the dome on turf. My fear is he'd be the next WR that came here to die. Sorry, but I think you are a tad nuts on this. How much would he help the bears? Come on. His speed could drop off. His eyes could begin to go bad. His hands could suffer from beginning stages of arthritis. And guess what. He would still be an upgrade over what we have. Holt may not have the speed to be the homerun threat on every down, but he is still a great route runner, w/ great hands, who would be a fantastic compliment for Hester. I think that is the key. I think you think I, the bears, or anyone still considers him a #1. I think most view him as a great #2 at this point, which is how I view him, and how I think he would help the bears. Great theory, but it's not going to happen. Wasn't a theory. It was an idea/question I threw out the to board. I know it isn't going to happen. Angelo loves his 2nd day picks so much he trades down in the early rounds to stock up on late round picks.

Seriously, when you factor in agents, who knows. Who is to say an agent isn't telling him to wait for Barnes to sign, and once that happens, St. Clair would become the top OT left in FA, and teams still needing a veteran OL could begin a bidding war. Or maybe his agent is telling him teams are done w/ the spending spree, and he is just as well of waiting until after the draft. Teams who need an OT may be hedging, waiting for the draft, but if they don't get one, they could be desperate. Think about veterans who hold off and actually even wait until camp begins, waiting for a team to lose a player to injury, and thus to become desperate to add a player. Point is, we can never know.

I wasn't just talking about this year. I was talking about other years as well. Sure, we have signed our own, but not many FAs, and that is more so the point. Angelo said himself, and it has been often repeated on this board, that he sets a value on a player and basically holds to it. Either he signs him or he doesn't. Question I have is whether his value factors well enough the level of change in the cap over the years. Further, as much as Angelo, I am talking just in general terms. How often do we, leading up to FA, talk about this player and that player and what we think they are worth or can be signed for, only to see them sign for a contract much greater than we expected. We often then rant and rave about teams over-paying for average players, but that goes back to my point. Are these players being so over-paid, or have we not altered our thinking? Again. This is not one of my conspiracy theories about Angelo. Frankly, it began w/ myself and how I simply did not realize how great the cap had changed over the years, and realized I had not really factored that enough when looking at FAs value. I then realized how many other fans, including those on the boards, likely are in the same boat as so many have also talked about over-paid FAs. Finally, I then sort of wondered how many teams, including our own, are living in the past a bit when it comes to player values. Maybe that one is a reach, but knowing the history of owners and staff in the NFL, it would not surprise me in the least.

Still missing the point. $21m, per the report, put them amont the top revenue teams in the NFL. First, I would argue $21m is less than what i think many fans would expect. Second, I would point out that $21m ranks among the top tier revenue teams. What do the lower teams profit? If $21m is aroung top 10, what does the bottom 10 look like? $1m? $5M? Third, as the article points out, that $21m was a huge year for GB, and around $10m higher than the previous season, meaning something more like $11m would have been a more usual profit. Fourth, take away the top tier teams, if the rest profit more along the lines of $5 or $10m, that doesn't leave a ton of "extra cash" or "cash on hand". For example, the article also pointed out how teams are trying to put back money in case of emergency, like if there is a strike or lockout. Further, and I do not know how much GB spent in FA or on extensions, but how would that profit margin look if they, as we have of late, shelled out massive contracts on player extensions. Fifth, what does the future look like? If a team is making around $10m in profit today, what happens in another couple years as players salaries continues to rise exponentially? You harp on $21m, but the article even says that is likley around top 10 tier. You do not seem to give thought to what the lower half of the league profits. Yea, $1 or $5m is a huge deal for you and I. Hey, I would take it. But how many major companys do you know of that would agree? And enough of the big oil companies who are getting $500 BILLION profits per year. Comparing and NFL team w/ them is like trying to compare an NFL team w/ a mom and pop plumbing company that has a 1/2 dozen clients.

I think a key point is the two home playoff games, which is going to raise the team's revenue for that year. How many teams get two home playoff games? The article said they received about $10m more that year, due to the playoffs and other increases, more than in the past, but how much of that can be counted on every year? So they were just outside the top ten, but it took one of their best seasons to get that sort of a payday. What is the revenue for a team that (a) doesn't own their own stadium and ( doesn't even make the playoffs. I think many/most fans believe the teams are getting massive revenues, but this article puts that into question, at least in my mind. And here is the kicker, at least for us. GB is an exception to most rules, as the only publically owned team, but are we not the only team who's ownership relies soley on the team as it source of revenue. That was at least the case a few years ago, and I think is still today. The point here is, while most owners can accept no profit, minimal profit or even a bad season because they can offset team weak profit/losses w/ other areas of revenue, our ownership relies on the teams revenue as their sole source of income. I would love to know how much we made (profit/revenue) of late, and how we stack up against the league. I would doubt we are very high on the list as (a) we do not own our own stadium, and thus profits are lower and ( we have not had many home playoff games to increase that profit stream.

Remember when we signed Phillip Daniels, and he got something like $8m SB, and that was considered top tier money at the time? Today, that is a tad more than we have given an OL who has started one game in the last 4 years, w/ two different teams. In the last few days, I have been discussing FA w/ some friends, and in those discussions, I came to realize something. We all had been shocked in the last couple years at the deals FAs have been signing. The idea of giving X of dollars to some average player was simply shocking. To me, the money given to average/just above average players has been even more shocking than money given to big ticket players, who have always been overpaid in FA. Anyway, in our discussions, what we hadn't really thought about was how greatly the salary cap has risen over the last 5-10-15 years. A contract given to a "good" player 5 years ago would reflect the sort of contract given to a FA teams take a flyer on today. The cap has simply risen at such a rate, I wonder if we (fans and staff) sometimes get caught up in yesterday's value and thinking. To put things in perspective, take a look at the salary cap, and how much it has risen in the last 15 years. 1994 $34.6m 1995 $37.1m 1996 $40.77m 1997 $41.45m 1998 $52.38m 1999 $58.35 2000 $62.17 2001 $67.4M 2002 71.1M 2003 $75m 2004 $78.78 2005 $85 2006 $102.5M 2007 $109m 2008 $116.7M 2009 $127M The cap today is 4 times what is was 15 years ago and double what it was just 10 years ago. We have supposedly offered St. Clair what, like 3yrs/$15m, or something like that. 5 years ago, that would be considered a pretty nice deal, but today? Think about it in terms of % against the cap. I don't know. Maybe I am just spitting into the wind. But I read over and over again about how Angelo puts a price on a player, and often is not a player in FA as he is not willing to go above that price. I just wonder if our prices are doing a good enough job of factoring the changes in the market. I realize we are not the only inactive team, and I have the same question for those other teams. But when you look at the way the salary cap has risen, I just have to wonder if all 32 teams have adjusted their market values of players accordingly. Are the players signing deals today as over-paid as we have said. Or are they getting closer to market value, but we are still 5 years in the past in looking at what a players value should be?

Sorry, but $21m profit, and what would be considered a near record year, is not that great for a major corporation. Sure, if you own a small store or something, you would be doing back flips day and night, but for a major corp, I am just not sure that is as great as you think, especially when compared to other teams. Also, a key point here was the $21m coming in a year after GB made changes to increase revenue, as well as having two home playoff games, which also is going to jack up team revenue (outside of shared revenue). If not for the added success, their profit would have been more like $10 or $11m. Now I am sure you are going to laugh and talk about how much money that is, but sorry, it just isn't as much when talking about total profit for a major company. Finally, I think a key issue here is the concern about players salaries rising at the rate they are. As salaries are climbing so fast, can owner's revenue keep up?

Up until now, most all the talk has been surrounding the top 4 OTs in the draft. Britton seemed like an after-thought. But his stock seems to be on the rise, and I am not sure how much, if at all, he would be considered a reach at 18 now. Assuming the top 4 are gone, should Britton be a consideration? Reading up on Britton was pretty interesting. As I can tell, there are two key knocks on him. (a) He comes from a spread offense, but I would argue that more and more teams are using this, and you can not dismiss players from the spread offenses. They may require more evaluation, but w/ so many colleges using spread systems, you have to still look at them. ( Some question his foot speed, but that is because he played LT in college, and most who have that question also follow that up by saying he would be a great fit at RT, where his lack of elite footspeed, later quickness are not as big of an issue. So basically, I think it comes down to this. While the top 4 OTs all may be capable of playing RT, they are all considered LT prospects, which is the elite OT position. In Britton, you have an OT prospect who is is primarily considered a RT, and thus has a reduced grade. If we were talking about last year, when we needed a LT, fine. But today, what we need is a RT, and thus I am not sure if questions of his ability to play LT should matter, so long as everyone views him as a top RT prospect. More and more, i think Britton should very much be in the mix when we talk about our pick. The question, I know fans will throw out there, is who would would take Britton over. If Oher or Smith fell to us, I would not them over Britton. Other than those two, I think we are talking about the WRs. I just do not see any defensive players I would consider a very good value in the 1st round. Of the WRs, I would take Britton over Harvin and DHB. I think Harvin is too much like Hester, and I am simply not a fan. I love the potential DHB offers, but just do not feel he is a good fit for us, and feel he would go the Bradley route if we drafted him. Many will throw out there Maclin. Frankly, I think he is gone. Even if he falls to us, I am sorry, but I am simply not a fan. I just do not feel Maclin is the sort of WR we should be looking for. I get a little more questionable when I consider Nicks or Britton, but ultimately, I would go Britton. When I look at the WRs and OTs who are most likely available in the 2nd round, I see solid potential WRs, while I really just do not like what I see at OT. So I think a combo of maybe Britton - Iglesias (assuming Robiskie is gone) is much better than Nicks - Loadholt. Now, if only I could get Angelo to consider a combo of Britton - Duke, but I know better than to even dream Angelo could stress the OL that much.

Honestly, I could care less about the 40 times. I swear, I dang near laugh at this drill. A kid looks like he has blazing speed and is untouchable in college, on the field, in games, and then has a sub-par 40 running in shorts on a track, and suddenly he is considered slow. Scouts and GMs always talk about how unimportant 40 times are, and yet they still seem to place so much consideration for it on draft day. W/ that said, From what I have read, Nicks and Robiskie had nearly identical top 40 times. I have seen Nicks 40 range between 4.48 and 4.492, but it just does not seem there is a great difference between the two. I think the key between the two is Nicks had a more productive collegiate career, while some question whether Robiskie is a one year wonder. Nicks had 660 yards as a freshman, followed by 960 and 1,200. He was productive from start to finish, and displayed consistent development. Robiskie didn't do much his first two seasons, but then broke out his junior year w/ 935 yards. But then followed that up w/ a big slide his senior year posting only 535 yards. Now, many point to the change in the teams system and other things, but at the end of the day, Robiskie only had one big year, and could not follow it up, and thus he has more questions surrounding him. On the other hand, as I mentioned, the 40 times are a joke, but some of the drills I do put more weight into, Robiskie did quite well (20 shuttle, 3 cone and vertical). I think Robiskie offers a slightly higher ceiling, but I also think he has a lower floor due to his lack of overall production in college. A question in my mind is whether we are better off w/ Nicks in the 1st or Robiskie in the 2nd, though I am not sure Robiskie is there for us in the 2nd.