nfoligno

It seems like everyone is waiting for Holt to be released, which is most likely to happen soon. As I understand it, he is due to receive about $1.5m in bonus money on 3/17, and Stl is expected to cut him prior to that, but should we wait? The top reason he has not drawn trade intest is his contract. I think his 2009 base salary is in the neighborhood of $6.5m, and when you add the bonus, his salary/cap hit for 2009 is quite high. This has prevented teams for looking to trade for him, even though Stl is reportely only looking for a mid/late day two pick in return. But I am reading about more and more teams who are interested in him, and will likely make a run at him. The question I have is, would he want to come to Chicago if he was on the market? If teams w/ better QB situations and/or better teams are making a run at him, what are the odds of him willingly coming to the team "where WRs come to die"? Giving up a late round pick for Holt is not an issue IMHO. The issue is his current contract. But (a) if we trade for him, then we get him, while we are at serious risk of not getting him if the choice is his ( while his 2009 money would be high, we would not have to worry about a decent sized SB or longer term deal, which may be necessary to entice him to come to Chicago and © w/ the amount of cap space we have, it isn't like we can't afford him. What the hell else are we going to do w/ all the cap space we have. So instead of sitting back and waiting for him to be released, why not just send Stl a late round pick and get him.

Nicks is still my favorite WR, but Robiskie is a close 2nd. Iglesias is probably my 3rd choice. All three of these WRs have one common knock on them. They lack great straight line/ 40 speed, and are thus not considered game breakers. That is fine w/ me. IMHO, we have that WR (potentially) in Hester, and what we need more than anything is a complimentary WR, which I think all three of these WRs would fit very well. Problem for me is, I question whether Angelo feels the same way. To read his Q&A, he sounds like he is after a #1 WR. I really fear that if he is there, he would rather get a WR like DHB. I like him, but just feel he is the wrong WR for us. While he may be among the most physically gifted WR in the entire draft, he is also among the most raw, and likely going to need the most development. Our history developing WRs is not great, which makes me really question drafting a WR like DHB, who I think could go the route of Bradley, another talented, but raw WR we drafted. If we draft DHB, I think he will be another WR who looks better after leaving the bears than he ever did for us.

Follow-up, First off, thanks. The article was quite interesting. Have to be honest. After reading that article, I am actually a bit worried about the new CBA. I really have not been concerns about it, figuring things are just too good, everyone would realize that, and both sides would work it out. But while things are good, it doesn't sound like they are as good as they appear. Packers made a $21m profit in a year that found an extra $10m due to a couple home playoff games and some other things, but what I take away from that is, they would otherwise have only make a $11m profit. That is pretty dang low for a major company, which an NFL team is. And w/ the way player salaries and bonuses are rising, it may not be long before those profits disappear all-together. So the owners may have more reason to fight than I realized. Back to the cap. So before, if the salary cap was, for example, $100m, the amount the teams received was about $166. Just curious. Do you have any idea what-so-ever what sort of money we are talking about when we say, "all revenues". How great of a difference is there. I guess I am just curious if teams are not getting double the cap, or if factoring all revenues only adds a little bit when spread out between 32 teams. One other thing. The Packer article you provided (again, thanks) discussed past season revenue. Was that under the new or old CBA (not sure when it changed). If made a $21m profit under the new CBA, w/ all revenue factored, that doesn't look good moving forward. Final question. While Chicago is a major market, we do not own our stadium, though we do receive more revenue under the new terms. But do you know if GB owns their stadium. I guess what I am getting at is, if GB only made a $21m profit, I just wonder what sort of profit we made.

Lt2, Question, In all this discussion, the money each NFL team is given is discussed in theoretical terms. Do you, or does anyone in public, know what the dollar amount is? Is the money each team is given by the league what the salary cap number is, or is it different? Also, most know what the salary cap it, how do you figure the floor. Is it a % of the cap, or what? Finally, and I become confused on this only after readying your discussions. Just using a number out of the air here. Each NFL team is given $100m. Is there are specific amount of money from that which must be used on player salaries, or is the salary cap floor meant to serve that purpose. Thanks in advance.

Should actually be interesting. I would say Buffalo should prove a pretty good example as to how he may have been for us. QB situations are similar. While my proven, I would compare Hester w/ Evans, and as I don't think Buffalo's other WRs are much, overall picture at WR is similar. Finally, I am not sure they have much of an OL, so again, similar. I was never in favor of adding him, but it should prove interesting to see how this plays out.

Byron Leftwich: What the heck happened to him anyway? He was supposed to be the best free agent quarterback available, and I haven't even heard a rumor about him other then he might resign with Pittsburgh. He's proven he's a good back-up and he'd definitely keep Orton on his toes. Like some others have said, I just don't see this as a god fit. I actually always liked him, but I just don't see him being a good fit for us. If we had a really good OL, maybe, but while I felt Orton made the OL look better than it was last year, I think Leftwhich would make our OL look even worse than they are, which is pretty bad to start w/. Khalif Barnes: At 26 years old, he could be our starting RT for the next 6 years. I'd like to sign him AND St. Clair. I would not mind this at all, but at this point, I don't see it. He has visited several teams, and we have not been among them. IMHO, Angelo likely views St. Clair as either equal or better, and simply views SC as the player for us to add, rather than Barnes. Jared Page: At 6-0, 220 lbs, he's considered a big free safety. That's exactly what the Bears need. He is a restricted free agent for Kansas City, but I wonder how much immediate cap space they have left after the Cassell deal? We stole Tait from the Chiefs when he was restricted . . . I don't know Page's situation, but I do not believe it is the same as Tait. Tait was slapped w/ the transition tag, which means KC had the right to match a deal offered, but if he didn't, there was zero compensation. Assuming Page is simply a RFA who KC tendered an offer, that would mean we would have to compensate KC for signing him. Now, I guess the question is, what level did they tender him, but most RFAs are tendered at a 2nd round pick or even a 1st and 3rd. D.J. Hackett: He's extremely injury prone, but ESPN has him rated very high and I love what they had to say about him: Hackett has excellent size and above-average straight-line speed. His long stride can be deceptive and allow him to get behind a secondary. He can use his long frame and excellent catching radius to get over defenders and catch in traffic. He has become a legitimate red-zone threat. He has excellent hand-eye coordination and consistently plucks the ball away from his frame. He shows a decent burst out of breaks and can separate from defenders with his cutting skills. He still needs work on his route running, but is learning how to set up defenders and avoid telegraphing his intentions. He lacks great top-end speed and won't blow by many defenders on go routes. His durability is questionable. Hackett started to come into his own in 2007, but he missed most of the season's first half and four games late because of ankle injuries. In four NFL seasons, he has yet to play a full 16-game schedule. Hey, at this point, beggers can't be choosers. at the same time, if what we need is consistency and stability, is Hackett a WR we can rely on?

In an ideal world, I absolutely would prefer to sign SC, thus keeping our options open in the draft. But this is not a perfect world, as we Bear fans know all to well. You seem to think I am only considering the 1st round, or maybe Oher. But my concern is that we would pass on OL round 2, round 3 and who knows how long after. If we sign SC, in Angelo's mind, I think we have our bookend OTs. We have already signed Omiyale, who may be looked at for OG, but if needed, could swing outside (ala St. Clair). So heading into the draft, he would want to add OL depth, but in the past, when in the draft would he add OL depth? I think twice he went OL as high as the 4th, but otherwise it was a bunch of 6th and 7th rounders. That is my fear. Not that we pass on OL in the 1st who would likely be a reach anyway (Britton), but that we continue to pass in rounds after w/ Angelo believing our starting group is set. I simply do not believe angelo places as high of a value on individual OL players, particularly in the draft. Thus, when our pick comes up, OL simply are not going to be the top rated players on our board. So unless we have desperate need, as we did his first draft and last, we ends up taking just about any other position. Think about last year. Just because we signed Williams didn't negate our OL needs, and yet he was drafting positions we were deep at, or players who were VERY unlikely to see the field. He was taking a 4th DE or 3rd TE when we still had starting questions on the OL. I think we would see more of the same this year, but w/o the 1st round OL. So I understand the bird in hand thing, but fear signing SC would be a step backward more than forward.

From the Trib, There has been no movement in talks with offensive tackle John St. Clair, whom the Bears have identified as their top off-season priority. St. Clair would take over the right tackle spot vacated by John Tait, who is set to retire. "Top off-season priority" "take over at RT" While most of us consider SC solid depth and a pretty good value due to his versatility, it sure seems like our staff simply believe him to be a solid starting RT. While I am not saying we would pass for sure on OTs in the earlier part of the draft, if we signed SC, I do think the odds are better than not. If we sign SC, we will then have added (in Angelo's mind) a starting OG (Omiyale) and RT, and thus will only be looking for depth. In past year, when looking for OL depth, he wouldn't begin until the 4th, and usually not until the 6th.

Understand something. I am NOT agreeing w/ Angelo's way. But here is where I disagree. Some believe Angelo has his hands tied by a cheap ownership, and that is why we don't sign some players, or why we let Berrian walk. I don't see it that way. I think it is far more simply about Angelo's philosophy, which you can trace back to TB and use as an example. Angelo was w/ TB for many years, right? He learned under McKay. In that model, you do not build your team through FA. You build your team through the draft, and you spend money to retain the players you develop. You use FA to add depth and take some plunges on players that get you over a hump, but you do not build your team through FA. I understand this logic, but believe there is a large area between the way Wash does things and the way we do things. I think we can continue to build through the draft (though better drafts would help) but simply also feel we can do a better job of adding through FA. Also, you talk about Angelo waiting for the market to play out and set prices, but again, that is how Angelo learned to do it, and how he has always done it. I simply disagree it is about being cheap and more a matter of it being his philosophy. He sets a price on a player, and if that player's market goes higher, he passes rather than adjusting his price/value on the player to the current market. I disagree, but simply view it as Angelo's way. Allow me to give an example, all be it not a direct one. Here in Dallas, we have the well known owner Jerry Jones. I do not think many would call him cheap, and yet in numerous areas, he could easily be called such. He is usually the team's GM. If that were the case here, our owners would be said to be too cheap to hire a GM. He usually has a very low paid coaching staff, and has often said he believes it is all about the players and not the coaches. He usually signs college coaches or assistants, as do we, but when we do it, our owners are cheap. Who calls Jerry cheap. Even at a few positions on the team, Jerry has been very cheap. Jerry has never been big on kickers, punters or long snappers, and the team usually has some of the lowest paid in the business at these positions. He simply refuses to spend money at these positions. Again, if that were done in Chicago, he would be called cheap, but in Dallas, that is simply considered jerry's philosophy. That's the thing. I think our fans are quick to always say our owners are being cheap, even though many other teams not considered cheap do the same things. however, due to our history, our owners just can't get away from the rep, regardless how much they do actually pay out.

I could live w/ that, somewhat. But I actually fear that if we get St. Clair, we would not even look heavily at OL in the 2nd round. If we get St. Clair, I can easily see Angelo believing we have our starting LT and RT, and only need depth. When he needs OL depth, he most often looks in late day two of the draft for that. Think about this. The only two times Angelo has drafted OT high was when it was a position of dire desperation (Columbo/Williams). Otherwise, the OL is something Angelo looks for much much later in the draft. And that is my fear. If we were to get St. Clair, then draft a WR in the 1st and OL in the 2nd, I would be okay w/ that, especially if neither Oher, nor Smith were on the board for us in the 1st. But I simply fear we would be more likely to start looking for OL in the 4th round or later thinking we only need depth.

Sure we will still need a tackle, but if we re-sign St. Clair, and Angelo believes SC will be our starting RT, then we are simply looking for depth. Drastic difference entering the draft looking for a starting RT and looking for depth. If we are only looking for depth, I can easily see Angelo looking in rounds 4-7, as he has so often done in the past. If however he is looking for a starting RT, that is much more likely round 1-3, and more likely 1st or 2nd.

The last post was more specific to Lucky, as he and I have a long standing discussion/debate over our team's finances.

Best case scenario at WR you gave a worst case, so I wanted to give a best case. - Hester - Holt - Bennett - Robiskie - Rideau/ Davis Now, when I say best case, I am talking about practical and reality. Of those Wrs available or potentially available, I see no one that would help more than Holt. Holt would be a tremendous upgrade, offer veteran leadership to a very young and inexperience group, but due to his age, he would not be a long term answer and thus WR would still be considered a need. Thus we draft Robiskie. I actually like Nicks better, but unless we trade down, I don't see his being a Bear, while Robiskie is nearly as good in my book, would be a greater value pick and very well could be there for our 2nd rounder. And before some get critical, I placed Bennett over Robiskie simply because he has a year of practice w/ the team. I would have no issue if the rookie beat him out for the #3 spot. Point is, we give a shorter field, solid route runner and pass catcher (Holt) to play opposite Hester. This helps Orton and could help Hester, as he may more often be able to run deeper patterns. We would also be able to develop and use often our two young WRs in Bennett and Robiskie. As for the 5th spot, it would likely be Davis, but the simple of it is, whoever looks better on special teams wins the job.

I touched on this in another thread, but wanted to throw it out there. I think most here (though not all) would like to see us consider OL in the 1st round of the draft, particularly if one of the key OT prospects fall to us. But this is what is bothering me. If our two key FA signings before the draft are both OL (Omiyale & St. Clair) how likely is Angelo to then take an OT in the 1st round of the draft? IMHO, signing Omiyale and St. Clair does nothing to take away from our needs on the OL. Both are solid depth, and players I would not mind in a competition for a starting job, but neither are players I want to enter camp as the set starters. Yet if we sign both, I just have a hard time seeing Angelo then make OT our top priority in the draft as well. So... Should we hope to not sign St. Clair? If we do not sign St. Clair, I think it safe to assume OT would remain very much a top priority entering the draft. Problem w/ this is, what if we get what we hope (do not sign him) but then no OL is there and we end up walking away from the draft w/o any upper level OL prospects. Or do we simply hope to sign him, and regardless expect Angelo will still prioritize OL in the draft? I'll be honest. Right now, I do not want to sign St. Clair. I would LOVE it if no one else signed him, and we could again look at him after the draft, if we can not add a better OL prospect. But prior to the draft, i would just as soon not see him signed. That would put serious pressure on Angie to get OL, and not wait around until the middle of day two.

Frankly, I can't believe it has taken you so long to jump in on this discussion We have talked about this many times in the past, and simply have a disconnect in our conversations. My point has always been about the bonus money. I have no idea what the actual number a team gets each year is, but a team that is aggressive can spend much more by including greater portions in bonus dollars. It is in those bonus dollars you usually see the difference between frugal and free spending teams. For so many years, the Bears refused to dole out the bonus dollars, and the ownership claimed they simply could not afford to hand over so much up front money. At that time, we were a well known cheap team, and it was well deserved. But about 10 years ago, while Phillips took over, we began to spend more and more bonus dollars, and the cheap reputations lessened, though at a small rate. Then we got our new stadium/deal, and the teams income went up. And it was at this point the team really started to enter the picture for the big ticket players who commanded big ticket bonus dollars. You and I have never seen eye-to-eye on this, but it is in these bonus dollars I point to as what differentiates cheap owners from the rest. It is here where an owner like Danny Snyder gets the reputation as a free spender, while others like Az and Cle (until recently) were considered so cheap. For the record, another team that has always been considered cheap in Pitt. They rarely are in the mix for big ticket FAs, and often have allowed their better/best players to walk in FA rather than re-sign them. But they have also been among the best in terms of drafting and devloping players. If there was ever the anti-Washington, it has to be Pitt. They have proven you don't have to spend w/ the bigs in order to win.

I think using Olsen at WR next year is absolutely in the plans. Turner talked about this in a Q&A. He was asked about moving Olsen to WR, and said they don't feel they need to, and pointed out how much we moved him around and played him at WR. Particularly in the 2nd half of the season, Olsen was used all over. He played outside WR, slot, was sent in motion and even lined up at FB. And that isn't counting his time at TE. I think Olsen playing WR is absolutely part of the plans, no matter what we do in FA or the draft. While I love moving him around, I would much rather that be an option, rather than a necessity.

Tell me this. If our two key FA signings before the draft are OL, do you think we will make OL a top priority in the draft. That may be my top concern if we do sign St. Clair. I just have a hard time seeing Angelo add two FA OL and then making OL our top pick.

Okay a few points. First, I watch a ton of Cowboys games. I have a brother that is a Cowboy fan, so I have to keep up with them in order to squash any hopes he has (same goes with Chargers and Colts). IMHO, I think that T.O. is one of those players that needs a change of scenery every few years to keep him sharp. It prevents him from being content. I would attribute any drop in production to a lack of concentration more than any deteriorization in skills. That's why you still see the high-end production in the red zone. He's a playmaker. Also, he keeps himself in tip-top physical shape. He may be 32. But again, I'd put his skills up there with anyone in the league...... I agree his play is as much about attitude and mental makeup as skill. More than simply saying he needs a change of scenery every few years, here is an analogy I would throw out there for you. Think about when you buy a new car. At first, you just love it, and the world is good. You are taking it to the Car Wash often. You are getting it waxed. You part in the deep reaches of the parking lot to avoid dings. You care for it like a baby. After a couple years, it isn't so shiny. It now has some dings in it. It may even have some new smells. The new feeling is gone, and you really start to sour on your car. You slam the doors shut. You squeez into tight parking spots because you just don't care. You know what i mean. Ditto for TO. When he first got to Phily, it was like a shiny new car, and TO was very happy. Before long, the new wore off, and so did his happyness, and when TO isn't happy, well, we have all seen when TO isn't happy. Same happens in Dallas. Once the new wore off, so did the good boy attitude. Now, I can see how you would take this argument and say we should bring in TO on a short term deal that would not outlive the new feeling. Problem is, I would argue joining the bears would be more like buying a used car, rather than a new one. In Chicago, it would be a matter of games and not seasons before we saw TO unhappy. How many times do you think Orton could miss TO before TO began to go off on him? I just don't think we have the offense, QB or coaching staff to (a) keep TO happy and/or ( prevent the total collapse once he isn't happy. ...which leads to my next point. How could you possibly say that guys like Marques Colston, TJ Housh, Dwayne Bowe, Roddy White, Calvin Johnson, Gennings etc are "absolutely better" than TO? Gimme a break dude. Really?? TJ may be debatable. But, what have the others done to justify such lofty status? Most of these guys are only a couple years out of college and have done very little in this league. Maybe they had ONE better than average season. But, c'mon. Better than TO??!! Clearly, I think you are reaching in order to justify your point. Which of the above listed players had ONE better than average season? Colston had two 1,000+ seasons, and saw the numbers go down this year w/ injury, but when on the field, was an elite WR IMHO. TJ has been pure consistent for some time now. Bowe - Basically two 1,000 yard seasons on a bad offense, w/o a QB. That is impressive in my book. R.White - 1,200 yards, followed by nearly 1,400 yards. Gennings - 630 - 920 - 1,300 yards. That is what I call development. Calvin Johnson best fits your comments, as he has only had one great year, but I simply would say he has developed into an elite WR. You say I should not count these guys because they don't have the long standing productivity of TO, but by your logic, you would rank Harrison and Holt over these guys. Really? I understand that TO has many years of elite play, but I think it well w/in question to ask whether his skills today are what they were. While he has gotten older and his skills have diminished, other young Wrs have stepped up to the front. Yes, I think all these guys would be considered better than TO. No, they may not have the long history TO does, but I think all have passed him. A point that I would agree with you on is how he would respond to Orton's failures. He will cut him very little slack when he leaves plays on the field. But hey, that may work to our advantage by forcing us to get serious about the QB position. How frustrating was it to watch Orton over/underthrow Devin Hester all last year? JA talked a good game after the season. But, now it looks like he's content to go back into next year with Orton as the unquestioned starter. Unbelievable. Not sure I understand your point here. You don't think Orton is trying his best, and TO berating him would up his level of committment? Or is it that you think having a WR like TO would hasten Orton out of town and make us look to a new QB. Either way, I do not see this as a good situation. T.O. is a longshot. But, he could help our team. We'd immediately be a better, more competitive team. That's really all that I care about. What makes T.O. so "out there"? Media interviews?? Gimme a break. No, it isn't the media interviews. Its not the sharpie or pom poms after a TD. These are things I would say are not that out there, especially when it comes to the prima dona position of the WR. What I call "out there" is how he treats his own teamates. Maybe it is because I am in Dallas and get more local stories, but I honestly do not think most realize the extent of what went on here. I am not going to pretend I am at Valley Ranch, but I do hear the "reports", and that is all any of us have to go off of. Per the reports/stories, TO this past season would go out of his way to rip the hell out of Romo all the time in film sessions and meetings. In practice, TO was often seen ripping into Romo. He would call him out and show him up any time he made a mistake, but if anyone was to question him on a play, he would go nuts. He started making a big deal about how Romo was favoring Witten, even though the stats proved Romo threw the majority of balls TO's way. The difference was, a much greater ratio of balls thrown to Witten we caught. There were many studies done, and it was shown that Romo did throw the ball often to TO, but a combo of drops and inability to get open led to a lower number of catches, which was the opposite situation w/ Witten. But all TO cared about was, at the end of the day, he would have X number of catches on the stat sheet, which meant he wasn't getting the ball enough. Never mind that he would catch 3 out of 10 passes that went his direction. And that was Dallas. His antics w/ McNabb in Phily are legendary. Per the reports, he did in Phily what we saw in Dallas too. He created cliques in the locker room, and used that as a wedge against the QB. People talk about a player being a cancer, but I don't think they realize how much a player like TO truly tears a team apart. And that doesn't even touch his calling his QB gay in SF. I just do not understand how anyone can believe TO would be happy w/ Orton when he was so unhappy w/ Garcia, McNabb and Romo, three QBs few could say are anything but better than Orton. Heck, I say bring him in and go hire a counselor if coaching/management can't take the other stuff. Since he tried to kill himself, a counselor would be a good idea, but let another team deal w/ it. Honestly, I just do not think many realize the extent he tears teams apart. You know how Benson used to talk about how Thomas Jones was popular w/ a group of players, and he pitted them against Benson? I have no idea how true that was, but would state that is exactly what TO has done w/ the three teams he has been part of.

According to this side, Nicks and Robiskie each ran a 4.49, though I have seen other sites liting Robiskie as high as 4.48 and Nick as low as 4.52. Regardless of any slight difference, from what i can tell, each are considered near identical in terms of speed. I think Nicks is more often graded higher, and that is likely as much about total production as it is simply about talent. Nicks set school freshman records his first year, then continue to see his numbers climb finishing w/ 1,200 yards and 12 scores this last year. Robiskie didn't really play until his junior year, when he then exploded. But his numbers went way down this past year, due (according to most) system changes on the team. But the point is, Robiskie has one good year to Nicks two or three. So while the two players are VERY similar, I think Nicks is usually graded out a bit higher due to the greater body of work. To me, that would appear to make Nicks seem like the safer bet or sure thing, though Robiskie could be viewed as the better value. I loke both, but I do like Nicks a bit more.

Initially, I wanted to love the idea. Then I thought about it a bit and have some questions. How many OL in college are really so light that they could play FB? It's one thing, for example, when you have a college DE who may need to play LB in the NFL because you do see 240-250lb DEs in college. However, how many college OL are even under 280? Also, if you did find an OL that was in fact light enough, he would need some level of quickness. There really is no point in having a FB if he can run. If it was only about the initial block, then you could just use a 6 OL you have on the depth chart, but a FB need to be capable of blocking at the next level. While the OL take care of the DL, the FB needs to get to the next level and take out the LB. I am just not sure you are going to find many college OL who are light enough, and yet w/ the speed, to block at the 2nd level. TE could be another story. Heck, toward the end of last season, I saw us lining up Olsen as a FB. The only problem I can see here is height. Usually, your TEs are going to be 6'4, 6'5 or more. At least these days, most TEs seem to be up there. I don't think you usually want your FB to be so tall, as it is much harder to get down and block in-line. Otherwise I might even suggest looking at Kellen Davis, but Davis is 6'7, and I just question how well he could in-line block. I love the outside the box thinking, but I am just not sure how many OL or TEs are out there who would be solid FBs. Let's be honest just for a moment though. My wanting to add a pure, bruising, blocking FS is about as likely to happen as our adding a 350lb run stuffing DT. I would love to see both, but our coaches do not like either.

I don't know about that. It seems to be the SS actually plays more coverage in the cover two than in a more basic 4-3. Think about it. The cover two, by definition, plays both safeties deeper and in coverage. Thus the term, cover two. Contrast that w/ how many other teams use their SS, as an in-the-box safety that acts more like a 4th LB.

I don't know. Many NFL free safeties are ones who were great college CBs, but lacked the speed or whatever to play CB in the NFL. Right now, that is the question on Jenkins, and why he could fall. In Jenkins, you have an elite tier player, and one who would likely fill a hole. He would fit as a cover two corner, or could be a FS. Either way, he would likely be a fit on our team and there is little question about the value.

But according to our coaches, the two safety positions are interchangable. I would argue Phillips is better in coverage than anything we have now. Whether he was to play FS or SS, I simply think he would have provided us an upgrade, not to mention adding leadership and experience.

We don't really need a safety. We are set w/ Steltz and Payne.

Honestly, not a clue. I really think the pure blocking FB is sort of going away anyway, and thus we don't even see many coming out of college.