nfoligno

Really not the point. I could talk about how I want this big, fat wide body DT because I love that sort of player manning the interior of the DL, but I know that is not what we do. I have to live w/ what we have, and what we have is a cover two system. No different in talking about TO. You can say the past is a problem w/ our coaches, but they are still going to be our coaches next year. I am 100% against adding TO, but part of the reason is not just TO, but that I do not feel we are a team that would fit. I think TO has to have a strong QB, not to mention a good one. His QB must have great confidence, because TO is at some point going to attack it. When Orton throws deep, and overthrows TO, I see nothing but bad happening. Further, I do not think Lovie is the sort of coach that could make it work. Lovie is far more like Wade Phillips. He is more an enabler than a discipline guy. W/ Parcells, TO was kept better in line, but under Wade, TO went downhill. It is almost like TO has a natural tendency to go downhill, but if you have a strong QB and coach, they can be barriers to stop the downhill plung. Orton and Lovie would not even offer a speed bump. One of the only teams that I could see TO fitting, at least short term, is Tenn. In Tenn, there is no question he would be the man. No other WR comes close. We would fit this aspect as well, but not the rest. In Tenn, Collins is a solid veteran, and one I doubt is going to have his confidence shaken by a loud mouthed WR. Further, in Fisher, you have a coach quite ready to put his foot up TO's arce when he starts going downhill. Tenn has a solid overall team, and thus are more likely to do well. And w/ that run game, TO may find more space. Simply put, I think Tenn offers (a) the best chance for TO to be happy and ( the best QB/coach combo to keep him in line when he isn't happy. In Chicago, I see a train wreck. I doubt seriously our QB or offense in general will be enough to keep him happy. And I do not think we have the QB or coach capable of dealing w/ him when he isn't happy.

Honestly, I would love to get a FB that can't run, as it would likely mean taking that damn FB dive out of the playbook. As for receiving, its nice, but just not that important to me. For me, I just want a FB that can freaking block. Give me a guy who can actually knock a defender OUT of the hole, rather than simply help clog it. Give me a blocker who, when our QB drops back to pass, can actually pickup the blitz and knock the guy backward, rather than simply try and get in the way. I want a FB w/ the mentality of a tackler, who tries to inflict pain everytime he locks up w/ the defender. I am tired of these finese blockers are can do a little of everything, but nothing well.

Maybe he is done. I am simply not sure. Here is what I think. Two years ago he suffered a big injury, and didn't play much. Prior to that injury, he was looking as solid as ever. Last year, I think he stuggled some w/ off-field crap, as well as facing the reality of his new role. He is no longer a #1, and frankly, I am not sure he is even a starter. But I do believe he can still be a productive WR. I would love to see Holt playing opposite Hester, and w/ Harrison in the slot. Bennett plays on 4 WR downs, in the red zone, and likely rotates even slot reps w/ Harrison depending on situation. Harrison has lost much of what he had, but when you start out so high, even after a bit of a drop, you still have a fair bit left.

That's an incredible statement. You cannot be serious. I don't care what the guy does off the field, there isn't a corner in this league that can cover T.O. one-on-one. One run plays, he's easily one of the top 2-3 blocking WRs in the game. Yes, he may drop more balls than his team likes. But, what he does after the catch is better than anything we've ever had around. EVER. If you attempt to name 20 WRs in the league that are better than him, if you were honest, you would soon realize how silly that statement is. Sorry, but living here in Dallas, I see more Cowboy games than I would otherwise care to, and hear WAY too much about them. Everyone who considers him to still be so elite, I just have to ask. How many Cowboy games are you all watching? I will say this much. At times I wonder how much is lost and how much of it is just mental. There were a couple games last year where he just took over, but that was only in a couple games. In the vast majority, he looked far more passive. He route running was a joke. He wasn't even trying to get open. Focus and concentration were just not there, likely partial reason for all the drops. So I don't know how much of his downplay is lost skills and how much is that he just didn't give a crap. The one thing I will give him. When near the goal line, he would take his game to another level. I am NOT dismissing that, but we need someone who can get us into the red zone before we worry too much about a weapon inside there. As for top 20, or whatever, I'll give you a list of WRs at the end of this post I would take over TO. He'll make Orton look better. He'll make Olson one of the better TEs in the league. He'll make Matt Forte's like much, MUCH easier. He'll immediately make our team better and possibly add 2-3 more Ws to the schedule. Funny how that is the same logic Dallas used, but at the end of the day, most felt he hurt Romo more then helped. Everyone, national and local, has been talking about it, and not just now, but all through last year. It was so obvious that in games following TO's outbursts, you could tell Romo was really forcing the ball to TO. But there were two problems. One, TO would drop too many and two, TO wasn't getting open, and thus many of the forces passes were knocked down or intercepted. I don't have the stats now, but the local sports station here checked, and most (just can't remember the number) of Romo's picks were on pass attempts to TO. Further, film study also showed that other players were open, but Romo was trying to force it to TO regardless. Why do you think Dallas got rid of TO. The A#1 reason was they felt Romo could develop better w/o him. So when some say TO automatically makes Orton better, I question that. Is he a weapon we do not have. Yes. I get the reasoning. At the same time, history has also proven otherwise. He does as much to damage QBs as he does to help them. Don't ever dismiss the mental aspect of the game (see Rex Grossman). And TO has a way of shredding a QBs mental makeup. Orton is not the greatest downfield passer, right? How exactly do you think TO will react when he runs downfield and the ball sails over his head. Do you think he will run back to the huddle and tell Orton, "Well get them next time". Yea right. We always have this debate about character guys on the team, whether they can help us or not. I can't believe that a bunch of you guys would rather lose a ton of games with a team full of choir boys, then win the Super Bowl with the like of Tank Johnson, T.O. or Michael Vick. Some of you would rather have folks that go to church with Lovie than guys that would be at the Super Bowl with Goodell. This argument gets so old. Kills me when a poster says/assumes that just because a fan doesn't want one of the worst characters in the league, we must then ONLY want choir boys. Give me a break. I think most fans would accept a level of questionable character, but then there are a select few players who are just so freaking out there in terms of character they are simply not worth the risk. You don't have to let him marry your daughter. We just need him to torch his man for a few hours on Sundays and help us win games. The other factors are secondary. Tell that to SF, Phily and Dallas. WRs I think are better than TO: Fitzgerald Andre Johnson Calvin Johnson Brandon Marshall Steve Smith Reggie Wayne Randy Moss Wes Welker Boldin R. White Bowe Gennings Housyourmama Colston These players I think are absolutely better than TO at this point. After this group, it gets closer, and the arguments will be heavier, but I would also take over TO: S.Moss, Ward, Evans, Driver, B.Edwards, Holt, Driver. Biggest problem I see, w/ the idea of adding TO is, I think you need a very specific set up to make it work. ESPN radio talked about it this morning too. You need a very strong QB and HC, neither of which we have. He would eat Orton alive and shred any confidence he might have. And Lovie would do jack about it. I can see TO having a good year (short term) in a city like Tenn, where I think Collins and Fisher can better keep him in control (again, short term) but Chicago is dang near the anti of what I think it will take to keep him in line.

I don't know. Cutler, at least right now, doesn't cost anything great. You are going to have to eventually offer him a new deal, but not today. IMHO, if you believe the story, I would think Warner fits. Some time back, Angelo said, "Its all about the QB". He sure gave everyone the impression he was intending to make a major play at QB. There really want not much out. Warner was known to be an upcoming FA. Warner was a player Angelo showed interest in a few years ago. But to get Warner, we would likely have to offer up something like 2yr/26-28m, as we would have to outbid Az by a fair bit, or we would need to attach a 3rd year to the deal. Point is, IMHO Warner is who (if you believe Kirwan) would best fit the comments against what we know about the team. If that is the case, I am glad ownership held Angelo back.

Hold on. Do you have any idea how many former "cap guy", coaches, GMs and players there are out there? Are we really supposed to take everything any of them say as fact? Hey, I am not saying it isn't possible, but at the same time, I do question it. If he simply said THIS YEAR the owners were cash strapped and were somewhat tying Angelo's hands, I might be a bit more willing to believe it. I expected as much going in. I am not 100% sure if this is still true, but not long ago, the bears were the only team in the NFL who's ownership sole source of income was the team. That means, if the team wasn't doing great, the owners weren't doing great. By all reports, the economy is hitting the teams, and thus I frankly expected us to be a little tighter than normal. However, Kirwan didn't say it was specific to this year, but said this has been the situation over the years, but I would argue the teams actions simply defy his words. The team has shelled out an incredible amount of money re-signing their own. Further, they have given out big bonuses to FAs. And while it didn't happen, we offered Kearse as much as $20m. That simply does not sound like a GM w/ his hands tied behind his back by ownership. Not even close. Kirwan talked about how it is more important for Angelo to hit in his drafts because he isn't allowed to spend money, but that just has not been the reality. Finally, when reading the article, to me it just came off as an Angelo apologist. Angelo is excused for his lack of interest in FA because of ownership. Angelo has "some" misses (understatement alert) in the draft, but they are highlighted because of his inability to spend money. He just seems to be providing excuses for Angelo. Meanwhile, I would point this out. He learned in the TB system, which may get their share of FAs, but relies FAR MORE HEARVILY on (a) the draft and ( retaining their own players. I may not always like it, but Angelo style in Chicago is VERY similar to the style of McKay in TB. Thus, I question placing the blame on ownership when Angelo is going along the same path he learned under and has always said he believes in.

Sounds good to me. Also, while some say we need a #1, I can't help but wonder what happens to Hester if we add both Harrison and Holt. To me, they would give Hester a great opportunity to develop into a #1.

I will take it even further. As usual, when things were going good or pretty good, he was being a good enough boy, but as soon as he wasn't getting his, same ol same ol. Even when Dallas was winning last year, he wasn't happy unless he was getting his. At one point, he alluded to Romo being racist, which had to be why he was throwing to Witten over him. Film review showed the reality was Witten was able to get open. TO wasn't. But that didn't mean crap to TO. All he knew or cared about was he wasn't getting his. In the first month of so of the season, it began. The team was hot, and winning. After 5 games, I believe they were 4-1. They were doing very well, and the offense was scoring. But TO wasn't putting up the big stats, and he didn't feel he was getting enough looks, and thus the bad feelings began. When the team started losing, it got really bad. But one of the best examples was late in the season when they beat NYGs pretty handily, but TO didn't do much after the game. He pouted all week. That the team won didn't matter to him. All he cared about was the lack of stats. TO just isn't worth it.

Jason and I agree on so many areas, but this is not one. Jason seems to think that if we do not want one of the worst locker room cancers, that means we must only want boy scouts. Black and white w/o any grey in the middle.

Here is the thing. There is a great difference between not wanting TO and only wanting boy scouts. TO is part of what I could consider a very select group of players who are simply not worth it. We are not talking about passing on a guy who simply showboats or is an ass w/ the media. TO goes so far beyond, it is incredible. You say there is no question having him improves the team, but why then did 3 teams feel they were better w/o him. Dallas was willing to eat nearly $10m in cap just to get rid of him. Further, if he is still so great and worth the issues, why then is it that nearly every team has said they want no part of TO, and only a couple teams are considered even to be considering him, or maybe they simply have not yet come out (as have most) and said they want no part of him? I also disagree he is a top 10 WR. Frankly, I honestly am not sure he is even a top 20 WR anymore. Seriously. As I said in another post, it is WAY beyond the drops. He simply does not get open anymore, which points to a major dropoff of quickness. That was one of the biggest problems in Dallas. He wasn't getting open, which was also a key reason he had one of the worst pass attempt- catch ratios in the NFL. To me, he is so like Moose it is not even funny. So lets summarize. He undermines the coaches and QB. He creates cliques on the team, and uses them to play players against each other. He not only bashes his QB and players in-house, but takes his issues to the media. He drops balls at a rate that would embarass Dez White. He fails to get open or get separation like, well, most Chicago Bear WRs. He screams at the QB for not throwing him the ball, even when he is blanket covered, and when the QB forces the ball to him, he doesn't make the play. Yea, that is a guy I want on my team.

What about Orton. He started most of his rookie year, and most of last year. Or did you mean consecutative years.

Nevermind.

Give PFT time. They rely on others to feed them info as much as anything else. On Sirus, it was less heard and thus PFT likely never got wind of the story. Now that it is in the Sun times, I would bet you we see something about it on PFT. My point is simply this though, and it happens so dang often. One person says something, which may or may not be true, but it is then repeated by bigger sources and suddenly becomes fact. The info didn't change, just the outlet.

Are you saying you don't think the story is legitimate? Pat Kirwan is in the "inner circle" of people GM's will talk to. What I found odd is that Kirwan said as much as he did. Angelo will probably blacklist him for that. Just like I said in your, "Angelo sabatage post", it must be higher than Angelo. Guess what, this is close to confirmation as you are ever going to see. Actually, yes I do question the original interview. This is different. My point here is another writer re-writing the story does not substantiate the original one bit. It only gets the message out to a larger group. As to the original, I do not listen to Sirus, and while I do know who Kirwan is, I am not sure he is such an "inner circle" guy that GMs reveal their deepest secrets. If true, this story is simply huge. I just do not think many realize how huge. Yes, it is big because owners are closing the purse to the GM, but that honestly is not such an original story. It happens to many teams, particularly in today's economy. But a GM telling the media that he wants to sign FAs, but his hands are tied because the owners won't approve of such moves, that to me is simply a huge story. Such is often enough rumored in Chicago and other cities, but rarely do you hear of a GM coming out and saying such. To me, this would be near career suicide for a GM. Not only would he find himself in hot water w/ his current employer, but how many other owners want to hire a guy who called out his previous bosses like this? This is how coaches find themselves coaching the college ranks and how GMs find themselves in broadcasting. That is partially why I find the story a tad disbelievable. I don't believe Angelo would tell a media guy something like this, and if he did and it were true, I think we would already be hearing the story all over the place and see Halas circling the wagons. To Conners post: The Bears are indeed cheep, and they may rightfully have to be. The 10 mil they ratholed last year kept us out of the playoffs. They will rathole more this year as well. And you will probably never hear of them having cap issues(which is a good thing). Untill we see their P&L statement, we not know if they can afford to spend or not. Sorry, but just because we didn't want Berrian doesn't mean we are cheap. For all the minor dollar arguments you want to throw out there, I can point to the record dollar amounts our team has in reality been spending. Angelo comes from a philosophy that you build your team through the draft and retain those players. That is what he learned in TB. It is a difference in philosophy rather than simply being cheap. IMHO, all you have to do is look at the coin we have shelled out each year, regardless whether it was to FAs or keeping our own in place. If we let Briggs walk, but then spent big on a FA, would we then be free spenders, because we spent big in FA.

First, I can't say that I hate where we pick. Seriously, that seems to be what fans say every year, and I once did myself. No matter where we picked, it was bad. If we picked 5th, fans would say the draft was 4 deep. Pick 4, it is 3 deep. I have come to believe that it doesn't matter where you draft, but simply how you draft. Angelo has had two top 10 picks, yet it was a pick at 14 that was his best. 2nd best? 31st pick in the 1st round. So to me, it really doesn't matter where you pick, but simply how you pick. Second, over the years, I have changed my opinion on reaches. Once, I ranted and railed if it seemed we reached even a tad for a player. More than anything, value was key. I would argue that if you wanted a player who was a reach, trade down and get him in a slot which offered better value. But over the years I have changed because (a) I believe I have seen examples of when we traded down for a player/position, but then who we wanted was gone, and we were left w/ something less and ( I have seen when others (and even we) have reached (public opinion) for a player, but that player was who the team wanted, they got, and few today consider them reaches, or even remember the team reaching. Examples of when I believe we traded down and didn't get who we wanted. Many would argue, but it is simply what I believe. 1999 - We had what, the 7th pick in the draft. The top 3 QBs were taken 1-2-3, and we traded down looking to get "our" QB for a better value. We drafted Cade that year at #12. IMHO, we were targetting Culpepper, who was taken (obviously) by Minny one spot ahead of us. But few, if any, expected Minny to go after a QB. W/ Cunningham, Brad Johnson and even Jay Fiedler, their QB situation (at least short term) appeared set. It was believed Minny would look to add a player in the draft who would offer immediate impact. But they took Pepper instead, looking to the future. Our guys always said Cade is who they wanted, but what else are they supposed to say. IMHO, it was Pepper they were after, but once Minny took him, they went for Cade to save face. 2003 - Again, we have a top 10 pick (4th) and trade down. IMHO, we were looking to get one of the many DTs who were so highly ranked in the draft. While that didn't translate in the NFL, there were 4 DTs who were graded out as top 10 picks, as well as Suggs, who many had us taken as high as 4th. IMHO, w/ so many DL in the draft, I think we traded down thinking we could get extra pick(s) (received an extra 1st for the trade) and get one of the guys we wanted for better value. But then there was a run on DL, where 5 were taken between the 4th and 12th picks. In fact, when it came time for us to pick, we traded down another spot, IMHO, because all the guys we liked were taken. We then took Haynes at 14 and Rex at 22. I have also wondered over the years if it was Boller we liked, or Rex, but that doesn't matter. IMHO, the key here was DL, and I think we didn't get our man after trading down. Now, our man likely was a bust anyway, but still. That's not the point. 2006 - I know few are going to agree, and so much of what Angelo has said over the years sure makes it sound like DM was our target all along, but I have always believed he wasn't. That year, I think we were really after a LB. Briggs was due to hit FA, and many felt we were not going to be able to keep him, and we nearly were not. So much of our defense had come to rely on the LB duo that I believe we were after one of the many LBs who were projected in the late 1st, early 2nd. To that point, they were all still on the board. But after we traded down, 4 LBs went w/in the first 6 picks of the 2nd round: DeMeco RyansD'Qwell Jackson, Rocky McIntosh and Thomas Howard. I have always believed it was one of these LBs (or several) we were targetting, but didn't anticipate such a run on LBs, and thus all were off the board before our traded down pick was due, thus we drafted a little known player in Daniel Manning. The other side of this is when a team appears to reach for a player, but does so w/o a 2nd thought. The A#1 time I saw this, and the time I really began to 2nd guess the idea of value, was in 2002. Far and away, the player in the draft I wanted was Dwight Freeney. At the time, he was considered a late 1st round value, and thus I thought he would be there for us. Then his stock began to rise, and it was believed he would go in the early to mid 20s, thus I began to scream to move up and get him. Well, I screamed for nothing. Indy shocked everyone by taking him at 11, which was considered a huge (10 spot or more) reach. Dungy didn't seem to care. He said Freeney was the player they felt they had to have. They knew he would never make it to their 2nd round pick. When asked why he didn't trade down, he said it wasn't worth the risk. Getting a player at for better value was simply not worth the risk of losing out all together on the player they really wanted. Thus they "reached" for a player in 2002, and I think few today even remember that. An example I would throw out there for the bears is Hester. Some would argue other teams had interest in him to, near our pick, so many he wasn't a reach. I would argue he was a reach, but more teams than we were willing to reach to get him. Regardless, he took him and while so many (including myself) felt he was a reach then, how many even think about the round he was drafted in, much less where, much less whether he was a reach or not. Today, we only think about what he has done on the field. I am not saying we should take a late 2nd round value in the mid/late 1st round. But I do not scream as much about reaching and value as I once did. If Nicks (for example) is a player who our staff loves, who our staff believes can really make a significant difference on the team, but may be considered by most a reach, so what. Take the player and let those critics talk to you when the guy is putting up 1,000 yards. And if he is a bust, does it really matter if he was a reach or not. Then the story is only about how your 1st round pick was a bust, not whether he was a reach or not.

Damn, your right. He did win a couple playoff games early on w/ SF. Okay, I will alter the point. After hitting FA, when teams signed him to put them over the top, how many playoff wins does he have? Better

Sorry, but I have to ask how this offers merit to the previous post. All this article does is essentially cut and paste the comments previously made by Kirwan. Nothing new is added. There are no new sources or different quotes or comments. There is little difference between this article and Mad's post from yesterday. Both simply show what Kirwan said. Simply because the Suntimes ran the story doesn't offer any legitimacy to it. If Briggs had sources that supported the story, that would be one thing, but all Briggs does is offer Kirwan's comments to a larger public.

I know about the heroics in the SB, but the point is still that TO, in all his years in the NFL, has never won a playoff game. I realize it can't always be pinned on him, but at the same time, how many other elite WRs are w/o a single playoff victory. Maybe a couple, but the one or two I can think of have been in the league half (or less) as long. For a Wr who is viewed as one to put a team over the top, it hasn't worked out to well that way. I realize we need weapons. I realize he would likely get a ton of passes going his way. At the same time, I would point to Moose. While TO may be a better talent, I see a similar situation. Despite the lack of other targets, I just can not see TO being happy. One other thing to point out. TO is as big as it comes in terms of name recognition, but I feel the level of play is no where close to the reputation. Many talk about the drops he has every year, something we are familiar w/ in Chicago, but something less known/discusses is TO's inability to get open. This may have once been an area he excelled, but no more. TO cried because Romo wasn't throwing thim the ball, but many here in Dallas did film reviews that showed TO was simply not getting open. Whether he played lazy or simply no longer gets in and out of his cuts as quick as he once did, TO does not get seperation from the DB. Now, in TO's mind it doesn't matter. He can have 3 DBs draped all over him, and still believes he can make the catch, but that belief is simply in his head. Drops aside, TO had a horrible pass attempt to catch ratio in Dallas. The drops get talked about, but the real key was, TO could not get open, so when Romo would force passes to him, DBs were in position to make a play on the ball. That was the key reason Romo threw to Witten more and more. TO may still be a quality WR, but I just do not think he is anymore a talent worth the baggage. One final thing. Our coaches threw a shit fit over Brandon Lloyd, and some of his comments. How do you think they would react to TO?

Nicks and Robiski are two of my favorite WRs in the draft. The problem that I see is in terms of draft day value. While I have warmed up considerably to the idea of Nicks at 18, I am simply not sure the staff would agree as I am not sure many would consider him a solid value at 18. As for Robiski, I am not sure he makes it to our 2nd pick, but would be a HUGE reach at 18.

Some things that stood out to me. In terms of a trade, trades are very difficult to do. I know there was a lot of talk about Matt Cassel. The real problem with the Matt Cassel trade from my perspective was the contract. He had signed his franchise tag, which was approximately $15 million, so that means that in the ’09 season he has a $15 million guaranteed contract in hand. To do something now in terms of a new contract, that’s going to be an exorbitant amount of money, which is fine if you know for sure he’s the guy. It’s a little bit easier for Kansas City and Denver to feel good about him because they were with him (new Chiefs general manager Scott Pioli and new Broncos head coach Josh McDaniels worked with Cassel in New England). But to bring somebody in and say he is the guy and pay him an exorbitant amount of money given that he’s guaranteed $15 million in ’09, that’s why most teams were cautious about going forward. It wasn’t the draft compensation. It was the contract that people were focusing on. One, I think saying the $15m was the key problem is weak. If he said Cassel would expect a new, huge deal, and we were just not sure enough to give him that, then I could understand. But we are a team w/ over $30m in cap space, and should easily be able to afford the $15m one year hit. Just seems like a bit of a cop out. Two. I note a bit of an inconsistency here. He says we don't know enough about Cassel, and that KC and Denver has coaches who know more and thus the greater comfort level. Okay, fine. I can see the logic there. But later in this interview, talking about Dawkins, he indicates that if Phily's staff doesn't want him, then why should everyone else. I personally think that logic is idiotic, but if he is going to use that logic, would that then not be a reason to go after Cassel. By that logic, those who would be most in the know were hot after Cassel. It is less about our not getting Cassel to me so much as the way he talks about it. "Trades are hard". Are you kidding me? He did a nice job [in 2008]. But let’s not forget who he was with. He was with the New England Patriots; a pretty good football team with a good supporting cast and a great system. Is that guy going to be the same guy in another system with different personnel around him? It’s hard to say. He did a fine job, so there were rewards with him. But there was great risk as well. Um, didn't Angelo before tell us it is all about the QB? It isn't about the OL or the WRs, but the QB. Now he is saying it isn't about the QB, but the surrounding talent and system? With Brian Dawkins, he’s 35 years old. He’s a great player, but Philadelphia put a limit on what they were going to pay him and they know him the best. You have to understand that it’s not just, “Do you want the player?” Certainly there are players out there, but at what cost? And what does that cost do to your salary cap and to other things you may want to do internally and/or in free agency. You have to be patient as you go through this process. It’s not a matter of not wanting to spend the money. The cap is how you want to allocate the money. When we look at a player, we have to put a value on that player, and then we have to stay disciplined to stay within those parameters. With 14 players being franchised, it makes free agency less attractive, and the players that do get out in free agency are making an exorbitant amount of money because it’s a supply and demand business. Said this before, but to say we didn't go after a player because his team didn't make a big offer makes no sense. By that logic, you would never sign a single FA. Also, you says its not about money spent but the cap, yet we have $30m in cap space? Again, huh? JA: Naturally, we’re going to look at that real hard, in all likelihood in the draft. We’re not looking for backup wide receivers. What we want are potentially starting wide receivers. We have a nucleus of receivers that we feel good about in terms of twos, threes, fours and fives, and if we carried six, a sixth receiver. Part of that ties into special teams. What we’re looking at is the top of the wide receiver position. Where does that come from? It comes with a premium receiver in free agency if there’s one out there and/or in the draft. Yes, it’s a position that we are looking at. Spin or truth. To me, is sounds like Angelo is all but saying he intends to go after a WR in the 1st, but does anyone truly believe he would be so open about that? One thing that does cause questions is this is, does he not view Hester as a #1? He says he feels good about our twos, threes, etc, but indicates we do not have that #1 WR. Does that mean he views Hester as a #2 and not a #1. If that is the case, does that mean we will be looking more at a WR like Maclin in the draft, rather than a Nicks, who most would consider more of a compliment or #2?

Agreed, that was just a dumbass comment. By that logic, why would we ever sign a FA. If their former teams didn't think enough of them to sign them for similar money... Or how about Wale. If Miami likely him so little they were not willing to pay him and wanted to trade him..... I'll go one further. Do you look at every prospect in the draft that falls to you and say, "Well, all 17 teams in front of us passed on him, so maybe they aren't that good". I know GMs have to play games w/ the media, but to utter such a stupid comment is incredible, especially when the interview is w/ the teams own web site, and Angelo may have even had a copy of the questions before sitting down. Regardless, questions about our lack of interest in FAs should have been pretty obvious going in.

How much have you seen him play? RW sucks. His pass defense makes Payne look all-pro. He is a more pure in-the-box safety than any we have seen. Honestly, he is a LB that plays SS. I would argue he is a worse fit in the cover two, as I think a SS in the cover two has more pass coverage responsibility than other teams that use their SS most often in the box.

"if" he starts badmouthing Orton? How about when. You really think Orton has such a presence so as to avoid that treatment TO gave Garcia, McNabb and Romo? And while I understand it was a bit of a joke (gun range) I think many fans do honestly believe Kreutz would help keep TO in line, which just makes me laugh. Like SF, Phily and Dallas all lacked forceful veterans. Let me ask this. TO is happy enough when everything is going right, but becomes are total ass as soon as things go wrong, and that is when he begins throwing the QB under the bus, among other things. Do you think we are capable of maintaining such a level of solid/good play so as to keep TO happy. TO has been in the league how many years, and has won how many playoff games he started? Could be wrong, but I believe the answer to that is a big fat goose egg.

Looking at the draft a bit, teams that need WR. 1. Det - Hey, they love to draft WRs, right? Okay, not serious here. 4. Sea - Would have been a good spot for Crabtree, but now that they have TJ, he falls beyond. 5/6. Both Cle and Cincy could use a WR, but the defense for each is so bad that it has to be their pick. Cincy, after losing TJ and w/ the status of CJ up in the air, is a possibility, but I still think they draft defense. 7. Oakland. If they were to sign TO, which I have heard nothing about, unlikely they take Crab, but if no TO, then I would say Crab would be a very possible pick. 8. Jax - They have somewhere between little and nothing at WR. They have tried to find one, but have thus far failed. They have many needs, and could go D, OL or even QB, but WR is a need also. 10. SF - No question they need weapons. 11/12 - I think each could use a WR, but both will draft defense. 17. NYJ - Especially after jumping Coles, WR is a high need. Anything can happen, but I doubt he gets out of the top 10. IMHO, Oakland and SF are the lowest he will go.

Well, I can only go off what i have seen, and what I have seen is our SS' getting embarrassed in pass coverage. I believe, in our system, we often play our SS closer to the LOS than the FS. It may be written up as a two deep safety scheme, but the SS is still playing closer than the FS. Anyway, I think our SS usually is expected to cover he intermediate area of the field. The area slot WRs, TEs and RBs usually work is the area the SS is usually expect to cover. Too often I have watch Payne, Steltz, and the rest who we have thrown out there at SS trailing the receiver and making tackles (after the catch) from behind. The SS may not often get burned deep, but does have an effect in the shorter passing game, which may not instantly lead to TDs, but does get an offense a new set of downs and more opportunities. RW entered the league and became an instant fan favorite w/ his hard hitting, but it just was not long before (a) his key tackle move was banned, and thus his overall effectiveness was stunts as he has never been considered a very good tackler and ( he became such a liability in terms of coverage that offenses would target him in the passing game. He was that bad. Here in Dallas, for the last 2 or 3 years, he has been the target of fans wrath as much or more than any other cowboy. RW is the Dallas version of Daniel Manning, but w/ less chance to improve or develop.