nfoligno

This is one of the big problems with angie. his drafts are anemic and he fills the holes he created himself with 2nd and 3rd tier FA's that are bargain basement cheap, temporary, stop gap players. this relates to an unstable average offensive line at best that needs young top tier talent infused to bring any semblance of long term stability. the crux is he never drafts these replacements to groom into starting jobs. for any GM, whether he is more defense oriented or not, to not understand this concept is inexcusable. Hope you are not looking for an argument. Angelo looks to average veterans, which provide short to results, but are never more than bandaids. That might be "okay" IF he were following this up w/ solid drafted prospects who develop and are capable of taking over when the bandaid peels off, but when you follow up the bandaid pickups w/ 6th and 7th round draft picks, the results should be easily predicted. even when angie made a big FA splash, to get even with the chiefs franchise, he still screwed it up. when tait was brought in for a huge contract and was forced into playing on the left side out of position, a red flag should have been raised to draft with a first day priority a LOT as the future starter and move tait back into his all-pro position. as it turns out we highly overpaid tait to play out his career in chicago on the wrong side at a mediocre level! For the record, I personally believe the intention all along was for Tait to move to LT. That is my opinion. Regardless, you again are going to get no argument for me we should have far more focused on the OL in the early part of the draft. For year, Jason and I have screamed for an infusion of talent on the OL, while most on the board talked about how good the spare, older veterans were. the same can be said of his qb merry-go-round. forget the poor drafting, he even had the chance to bring in 2 pro-bowl quality qb's, still in their prime, at minimal cost to the franchise and failed to do so. instead he goes the cheap FA backup for players such as the griese, stewart, and hutchinson type players. it's mind boggling. I think this simply had to do w/ blind faith in the QB he drafted. How much does it say that he didn't even want to add a veteran who could/would compete w/ Rex. 1. drafting as many safeties as he has, we still don't have a single sure thing starter even AT strong safety (let alone FS). it has been complete failure on his part for 7 years. the only quality safeties in chicago during his tenure he never even drafted, m. brown and t. parrish, and in fact let one go in free agency his first year. Again, you are not going to get an argument from me. Like the OL, I have always felt S was simply a position he never placed a high value on. He let Parrish go, and replaced him w/ Mr. Irrelevant. This is an area Angelo has tried to fill w/ quantity over quality. Whether in the draft or FA, I simply have never felt Angelo ever truly valued the safety position, and all the late 2nd day picks seem to offer evidence of such. 2. if what you say is even remotely true then he ranks as one of the worst gm's in the entire nfl and should still be employed as a scout. not as a GM in control of our franchise.

lol. Never said you don't have the "right" to be negative. It just gets old doesn't it? And because we have been so crappy for decades, I would think that you would be happy with the recent string of better days. Winning record in 3 out of the last four years, SB appearance, being in play for the division championship... Clearly this is better than having the number 5 pick every year, and therefore we should be happier about this, right? Is it perfect? No. But to have the same amount of negativity when things are getting better says something about those people. If if and buts were candy and nuts, it would be christmas all year long. Always laughed at that saying. You say, "if" we won this game or that game, we would be in the playoffs. Great. But many teams could say the same thing. The reality is, we have missed the last two playoffs. Further, while we did better than expected last year, would you truly argue we were a good team? Our defense stunk. Our offense was mediocre at best. Somehow, we won 9 games, but I just do not see us as a consistently good team. Further, I have argued that sneaking in the backdoor of the playoffs is not something we should strive for. In this day and age of mediocrity, the vast majority of the league is in the playoff hunt every year. To me, that is just not a good enough way to consider yourself as being close. Being close, to me, is being of such a level that each year, you are considered in the hunt to go deep in the playoffs or to go to the SB. That doesn't mean you go to the SB every year, much less win it, but simply that you are on such a level as to compete on that level. I don't see us as being close to that. Regarding scheme, I'll try to avoid a novel in my response I do recall you calling at the staff some for holding players accountable, etc. I would argue this though. That is usually the job of the HC. Well, that has not changed, so I wonder how much we will really see a change in that area. My issue w/ coaching was far more about playcalling, which we are more likely to see a change, but that is not an area I recall you questioning the staff as much. For the record, I do believe coaching changes made will be a big factor. I have actually argued we do not need to see a major overhaul on defense, as I believe coaching more than talent held up back. The only area on defense I think we flat out lack talent, and thus coaching is not going to help, is at FS, which I think you actually agree with. On offense though, we do not have the coaching changes to rely on, like on defense, and that is also where I simply feel we truly lack the talent. I think we are still in dire need of OT, OG (not to mention depth) and WR. That also does not even factor depth at QB and RB. I am not upset, like some others, that we did not go after CB, DE, DT or SLB in FA thus far. These are positions I feel we have talent, and changed in coaching, as well as health, can provide significant improved results. FS, OL and WR are another story, and these are positions I am most upset we have seen so little action, and no, I do not consider adding a guy who started one game in 4 years, w/ two teams, as the solution. I do remember us arguing about blitzing. I said it was a gamble and the best defenses dont need to blitz. You argued for more blitzing and stunts. How did that work out last year? One, while I did want to blitz more, I screamed all year long at how we blitzed. When you blitz, if your DB is playing deep off the LOS, you too often negate the blitz as you provide the QB an easy out. Further, I didn't like how we seemed to nearly always blitz from the same angle, which made us too predictable. Further still, I screamed at the combo of blitzing when (a) the DB was playing so off and ( Urlacher was playing so close to the LOS. What this did was allow easy slants, as the DB was too off to get into the play and the LB was out of position to cut off the slant. It is one thing to blitz a ton. It is another to blitz effectively, which I do not feel we did. Two, as for the stunts, I still did not often see them. When I did, most later in the season, they showed more effectiveness than when we simply rushed straight up. Personally, i think we will see a ton more stunt, as that was a key aspect of the scheme when Marinelli was in charge of the DL in TB. Sapp stunted about as much as any DT I have seen. I can only hope we see more of that next year.

Seriously, look at your own list. Are these players you really plan your offseason around? It is one thing when you have the likes of Briggs, Harris and/or players of similar caliber due to hit FA. But in this list, what do you have? Wale - Here is a player who has under-performed. One of our worst aspects on defense has been our lack of pass rush, and Wale is part of the problem. From all reports, we are more looking to replace/upgrade here rather than try and re-sign or extend him. DM - Looked solid as a nickel, but is he really a player you plan your offseason around? More to the point, is he a player you go conservative now because he will be a FA later? And is he really a player who will command a contract large enough to be a major hinderance today? Anderson - Great rookie year, and then two flops seasons. He is a depth chart guy right now. Heck, I would argue he is not even a lock to make this years roster, much less be a player we reserve cap space looking at his future FA period. Idonije - Another depth chart/reserve guy. If things go right, how much does he even see the field? IMHO, Idonije's main contribution comes into play if others fail. He is likely our #4/5 DT. As a DE, I am not sure where he really even fits in. Again, this is not a player we hold back on our current cap space for. Orton - Here is the only example of a player we may have serious consideration for. I am not saying we will not re-sign any of the others, but I just do not think any of them are of such a level that we really factor today their future FA status. Orton is the exception, but is even he a player we have to reserve so much cap space as to go so conservative today when we have $34m in cap space? You act like we are tight against the cap, and need to be conservative today in order to sign a bunch of our own players tomorrow. I would argue that (a) we have so much cap space today that we should not be so concerned w/ tomorrow and ( none of the players you list, especially those after Orton, are of such a level as to merit such consideration. You act like we have Briggs, Harris, Hester and Tillman hitting FA next year, but the reality is, we have so so so much less in terms of talent hitting FA next year. As for your question, no, you don't spend money just to spend it. At the same time, I ask you. Are the FAs who are signing deals right now really so bad? You really don't think any of the FAs signing deals elsewhere could offer upgrades to this team?

I totally agree it is very unlikely. McDaniels might feel Cutler isn't the perfect QB for his system. He wanted Cassel, a QB who he had the previous year and was great. But if you take Cassel out of the equation, the situation changes entirely. At the same time, I don't think you can ever write off a situation where a player wants out and asks to be traded. Is it likely we could get Cutler. Nope. Angelo aside, we just do not have much to offer by way of QBs for Denver. At the same time, I just feel we should be making phone calls and trying anything possible to make something happen. In the end, it is unlikely we could make anything happen, but it sure would be nice to read we tried, rather than sit back and just assume nothing is possible.

Point 1 - I don't think that is the coaching staff. They are most likely giving input on what skill sets they need to fill and how certain players fit the skill sets. They are not involved in the money side. That was my point. Correct me if I am wrong. You argued we are slow playing FA because Angelo and Lovie move through concensus, and that due to past times we were burned (big contract deals) they want to avoid similar this year. My point is, such arguments (though I would still disagree) are usually seen in a GM, but not so much a coach. Coaches do not usually seem to think as much about the deals, only the talent. Our talent base at numerous positions is crap. Not many coaches I know of would say, "We suck at OL, but that FA we added a couple years ago didn't workout, so lets not make a big move to fix that area now". Point 2 - As I noted in another thread, there are several players who are FA after next yr that may be extended (Manning Jr, Idonje, Ogy, Orton, and Anderson). See the other thread for my thoughts. One, regarding future players who may or may not need to be extended. How many in that group are on such a level to really be that great of a factor? Its not like when you know Harris, Briggs or the like are nearing the end of their deals, and you know you need to reserve large chunks of cap space for. The group you list is on a level such that it is not even known if we would want to keep them. I assume you meant DM, not Manning Jr., but even in that, you are talking about a nickel. Idonije a depth chart guy. Ditto Anderson. Ogy is a starter, but sure seems like one the staff want to replace more than re-sign. Orton is an exception here, but that is one player. We have $34m in cap space. The group of players you are listing are no where close to such a level that we hold back this year because they are FAs next. Two. We have freaking $34m in cap space. You act like we are tight against the cap and need to really think about saving space for the future, but the reality is we have so damn much space that we could go on a spending spree and still have room to spare for future signings. Point 3 - I agree that most of the big names FA are gone in the 1st week. This yr, however, I think they had a record # of FAs that were tagged (15 I think) and a bunch more that were signed. Maybe Angelo and staff decided the remaining pool of FA did not merit the money at the higher end. The Bears have had some success getting players later in FA most notably Reuben Brown and Roberto Garza. One, I would argue that, w/ all the tags and pre-FA signings, it only increased the need to make quick strikes. The more shallow the pool gets, the weaker the "bargains" you are going to find later and later in the process. Think of FA like the draft. Prior to the draft, and bunch of players who were considered lock 1st rounders choose to stay in school, and thus remove themselves from the draft. A draft that was already considered a tad weak just got weaker. In this draft, do you think you have a greater chance of "hitting" on a player in the early part of the draft, or deeper? The weaker the talent pool, the fewer the late round finds. In a draft that has questionable levels of talent and depth, you don't trade down or wait to make you pick until later. You strike early on, when the talent is still there. Two. You say Angelo has done well getting FAs later in the process, and mention Brown and Garza. Frankly, I would point to each as examples of what we are doing wrong. Garza is a very mediocre players, and most reports say we are hoping Omiyale will replace him. Brown was very good for a year or two, but that was a very short term success story there. The way we do it, we might find mediocre players who can start for a short term, or even good players who are old, and, again, will give us good play for a short period, but what we are less likely to find is a player who is more than a bandaid. Take one of Angelo's best FA additions. Thomas Jones. He was not a top tier, high priced FA, but he was a player who we went after eary and signed him, I think, within the first few hours of FA. On the other hand, we wait and pick up the scraps and get a Kevin Jones. Three. For the record, and I have said this many times before, it isn't like I am saying we should have been players in the Haynesworth sweeps. I am not saying we should be targetting the $100m players. But there have been many FAs signed to much more reasonable deals who I would argue would be not only immediate upgrades, but long term solutions rather than bandaids. Point 4 - I think that Moose and Whosyourmamma's situation were very comparible. Maybe Angelo For the record, I NEVER liked the Moose signing, and said as much back then. I know full well why some see a similarity, but I also see FAR too many differences. Key for me is consistency. In Moose, you had a VERY inconsistent player throughout his NFL career, who we signed after his best ever season, and paid a max premium. In TJ, you have a player who has been quite consistent since development, and who did not find the elite market he wanted, and thus some might even argue was a bit of a bargain. He signed for similar to what Berrian got. TJ is a pro bowl WR, and signed a deal for about equal to one who had yet to see 1,000 yards. Like I said, I know the reasons for comparison. Both are/were on the wrong side of 30. Both are more possession plus WR, rather than elite #1 game breakers. Both often saw their production when playing opposite an elite WR (Chad Johnson/ Steve Smith). Yet, as I said, TJ was a consistent WR for Cincy, where as Moose was all over the map. Further, this past season CJ was a near non-existent player, and it was TJ who drew the attention and focus of defenses, not CJ, and yet still had solid numbers. Moose never showed he could be counted on as a #1, nor consistent. Finally, TJ proved he could do well on an awful offense, as he did this past year. Moose was more reliant on the offense around him. For the record, yes, I wanted TJ, but that is not close to my key argument. Heck, I am more disappointed we didn't sign Brandon Moore, who is a young, experienced starter and signed a deal for $10m guaranteed, compared to our signing a guy who had one start in 4 years, and who we gave $5.5m guaranteed. I think $4.5m difference is EASILY worth the difference between a solid (considered their best run blocker) starter over a guy who had one start in 4 years w/ two different teams.

But isn't a part of why we were so close to using all our cap space moves like when we signed that DB to a deal w/ like $10m in likely to earn incentives, or however it is termed? We used our cap, in part, but eating 2008 cap space up and pushing it to 2009. I was never for signing Berrian for #1 WR money. Further, I would point out that just because Minny signed him for that deal, doesn't mean it is what we could have signed him for. If we more seriously jumped into the action, it could have easily led to a bidding war that found the ultimate deal signed to be significantly greater than the one that was signed. W/ that said, I do think we "could" have signed Berrian, and done so w/o having to give up on other players. Heck, I would argue that our current $34m in cap space is evidence of that. Most teams backload deals so as to sign more players now, while we continually front load deals to create more cap space later. It would not have been too difficult to afford Berrian last year, while at the same time keeping the rest of the players. We might not have $34m in cap space this year, but thus far, I question if we really need $34m in cap space.

But when were we in a situation like this year. This year, we entered FA w/ as much as $34m in cap space. I can not ever recall us beig close to that figure. Further, for a change, we have little to nothing on the roster that we needed to dedicate a large amount of cap space for, either in our own UFAs or players not yet FAs, but who we wanted to extend. In past years, there were always players who we needed to (a) re-sign or ( extend, which eat up large portions of our cap space. That is not the case this year. For a change, we entered FA w/ a ton of cap space and VERY LITTLE in-house personnel we needed to allocate that space toward. That is why I had hope this year would see a change. We, for once, truly had $34m in cap space to dedicate to FAs. While in the past, we were basically forced to be a little more frugal and conservative in FA, this year we were in a position to take more risk and be more aggressive.

That has been my argument for years. I always hear about how great Angelo is managing the cap, but are we really doing such a good job if we are not best utilizing our cap space, and if we are not stocking out team w/ talent? If a team sucks, but is under the cap every year, some could argue they are done a good job managing the cap, but I think most would say they simply wasted cap space. Also, when so many of the players we do sign fail to live up to their new contracts, again, are we doing such a good job managing the cap? Doing a good job and creating cap space is meaningless if you are not putting a winning team on the field.

I just do not see the players on our team that would bring a 1st round pick in return. Consider, for example, that NE just got a 2nd round pick for Cassell and (forgot who) the OLB. When you look at trades made in recent years, few were for 1st round picks, and the ones that were involved talent I do not see on our team. Who on our team do you really think could net a 1st round pick? Briggs, maybe, but even he I doubt would net a 1st, and no way we are trading him. Who else? I just do not see any players on our team that (a) we would have any interest in trading and ( would net a 1st round pick. For that matter, I am not sure I even see 2nd round pick values.

Maybe because both have the chance to slip in the draft. Consider the year we drafted Harris. Few mock drafts had him slipping to us, but a couple red flags had him fall in the draft, and thus to us. While it is unlikely either Crabtree, or Smith, makes it to us, I do think both are players who are slipping some in the draft, and thus why it is more prudent to interview them.

I am not totally sure I would say Urlacher is a "me first" player, but I will say he is among the most frustrating players I have seen in my time. I was watching an old Chicago Bears History DVD the other day. It talks about all the great players through the years. Then it gets to Urlacher, and Singletary's interview stands out. He talks about how Urlacher may be the most physically gifts MLB the bears have ever had, but continued on to say that he was be as good as he wants to be. That was always the thing w/ Urlacher. He was so physically gifted, he could dominate, but he never seemed to put in the film time, which Singletary nearly begged of him, nor did he ever display the intensity on the field of Butkis. Yes, I realize I am using two of the best ever as a bar, but the point is, if Urlacher wanted, he may have been so much more, which has always been my frustration, and seemingly, Singletary's too.

Jauron had SOME GM powers, but not full. Jauron did not have ANY power what-so-ever when it came to adding FAs. That was 100% Angelo. And that is the crux of my point about that time period. Jauron had other powers, like: he could cut players, he had total authority of his assistant coaches, he had total control over his 53 man roster. Some powers actually over-lapped, like the ability to cut/release a player. Other powers were solely in Angelo's world, and Free Agency was among them. Anything that had to do w/ contract negotiations left Jaurons control and went into Angelos. Also, Angelo had the power to fire Jauron at any time. He didn't actually gain all the GM power you talk about until after he fired Jauron. He always had the power to fire Jauron, but (a) he was pressured from upstairs to re-sign Jauron after the 2001 season and ( he couldn't fire Jauron too soon after re-signing him. After a couple years of failure, the higher powers didn't block the move. It was then Angelo gained total control, and also why (per many sources) we didn't sign Nick Saban. Angelo just got the power, and Saban wanted a Jauron-esq deal. Not going to happen.

One. If you read my posts, I said that I don't really think it is some big conscience decision to screw Lovie over. More likely, in my mind, it is a situation where Angelo goes out of his way for a coach he has faith in, yet is far more passive when he has a coach he doesn't have faith in. He didn't have faith in Jauron, and thus was not willing to go too far out of his way to stack the team for him. He had faith in Lovie when he first came to the team, and spent a crap load of money on FAs and in-house extensions. But now I think that faith has wavered, and he is less inclined to continue to spend big for Lovie. Two. You think a near playoff season is enough to offset decades are garbage? You don't think we have a right to be a tad negative? We, as bear fans, would never care to admit it, but the reality is this organization over the last two decades has been far closer to Cincy or Az (jokes of the league) than to the good or great teams. We get a couple good years here and there, but over the last two decades, this has not been a well run team/organization. I think we have more than enough right to be a tad negative, and it blows my mind that our standards have sunk to low as to expect happiness over almost making the playoffs. Three. We were "close" to sneaking into the backdoor of the playoffs last year, but I can not believe you think we are close to being a "consistent" playoff team. We lack in FAR too many areas to be considered such. Also, I have to ask you this. In the past, you have argued that our issues were neither coaching, nor scheme, but personnel. You argued that players like Urlacher have simply lost it, rather than his slip in play being due to coaching. You argued that our inability to rush the passer wasn't about scheme or coaching, but lack of talent. Ditto our pass coverage. So how exactly is our defense close if we are not upgrading our talent levels, but simply changing coaching. Further, on offense, you truly think we are close?

One. Since when does a coach (not counting coaches w/ dual GM titles) care so much about contracts? Most coaches come closer to having the "I want this player at any cost" or just do not factor as much the contract and cost aspects. It isn't there job, and simply not what they normally factor as much. Coaches, more often, will provide the GM with input as to what positions are in need of upgrade, and ranking the needs, etc. I don't think coaches usually say, "Hey, we were burned by a FA or two in the past, so lets not spend money this year to upgrade the team I have to work w/". I think you are kidding yourself if that is what you believe. Two. Yea, we didn't spend big bucks last year on FAs, but we were also spending a ton of extending our own players, which may not count in terms of upgrading through FA, it does count in terms of money and cap space spent. This year, we have more cap space than in recent memory, really no one left to expend, and yet are still sitting on our hands. Three, you say we are not yet done w/ the 1st week of FA, but as many articles point out, the top tier of FAs usually go off the boards in the first weekend. While FA technically doesn't start until a particular day, you know full well it begins behind doors long before that. Anyway, at this point, most all top and even upper tier FAs are gone, and before long, we will truly be picking through the scraps. FA is often similar to the draft. Talent at the front, but the longer FA/draft goes, the weaker the talent gets. You might finds diamonds in the rough, but upper tier is usually off the boards early on. Four. You say they decided not to spend gobs of money based on past failures. That is ignorant (the staff not you). Do you stop drafting in the 1st because the previous year was a bust. Should we not have drafted Williams last year because Angelo's previous attempt to draft an OT in the 1st didn't work out? I will never understand that logic. Something didn't work in the past, so we can't try again. Also, I am not saying we should have signed Haynewsorth. In fact, most of the FAs I liked were inked to deals FAR less than what I would consider "gobs of money".

I guess you haven't heard. We are "close". We have the talent now to compete for the SB. We have already added one starting OL, which wasn't necessary, but a luxury. We are likely to bring back St. Clair, who will be considered a huge upgrade over Tait, while we bring back our red shirt freshman to upgrade us at LT. Also, while Kevin Jones was on the roster last year, he was hurt, but is now healthy and is yet anotehr player we are going to bring back to stabalize our RB situation. So don't you understand. We were already close, and all we needed to do was retain St. Clair and Kevin Jones, while adding a bit of depth/competition for the OL. The only question I have is, what city is the SB in next year?

You say your not wired that way, but I think you are. The only difference is, you see the "conspiracy" coming from higher up than I do, and see different motives for that conspiracy. For the record, I say conspiracy and sabotage, but in my posts and explanations, I state that I am not truly suggesting such great concepts. You say GMs do not have a high enough calling to cause pain on that scale for the franchise, but I would argue they do, and we have seen it many times over the years. Plenty often there is a "perceived" rift between GM and coach, and often the two are not on the same page. Heck, I would even argue the job of the two often force such issues, as the GM is expected to think long term while the coach more often is thinking only as far ahead as the next game. A recent publicized spat was scene in SD. For us bear fans, I think we saw this between Angelo and Jauron. You honestly believe Angelo provided full and total support to Jauron? Angelo sat on his hands in FA. Often the players added were not of the style that fit Jauron's scheme. Some believed Jauron even pushed back by benching or even cutting some Angelo drafted players. But can you say you don't see the difference in how Angelo dealt w/ the offseason under Jauron and Lovie. We went from no FA bigger than Desmond Clark to a group of veterans getting over $10m in bonus money. Now, more recently, it seems Angelo is back to sitting back and letting the coaching staff be the fall guys. I mean, do you think we are so, "close"? The way Angelo has seemingly gone out of his way to call out our coaching staff and imply our personnel is set is eye popping. While I have no issue calling out our staff, it is not something we often hear from Angelo. And who out there believes our talent level is ready to compete for the SB? Conspiracy and sabotage are strong words, but I do think Angelo is somewhat setting Lovie up here. If we do well, Lovie will get tons of credit. But if we do not do well, then Angelo has set himself up to say it was on the coach and not him.

Understand, I am not saying Angelo is wringing his hands w/ an evil laugh as he plots to bring down Lovie. It is more likely similar to what milwaukeebear said. Angelo believes he has time on his side, and has lost his belief in Lovie. Angelo see's Lovie as likely being gone after this year, and thus is not willing to spend big in FA because he doesn't want to bring in talent that suits one coach but may not another coach I believe we have simply seen this before. I think it is well enough documented that Jauron was not Angelo's guy. During those years, I think Clark was the biggest, most expensive FA Angelo signed. Think about that for a moment. Clark got, I think in the 3yr/$15m range and was the biggest FA addition for Jauron. Almost as soon as Jauron is out and Lovie is in, we are suddenly big players in the offseason making moves for players like Wale, Tait and Moose, not to mention others like RMJ, Archuleta and others. That isn't even counting when we made big offers to players like Kearse and Randel El, though we did not ultimately get them. It just feels like he is treating the offseason now far more similar to how he did when Jauron was the coach. Basically, Jauron had to win w/ whatever he had, and develop whoever was drafted, but could not rely on FA to add any significant level of talent to the team. Seems like what Lovie should now expect. No argument it is a joke that Angelo has a good chance to stick for a 3rd coaching hiring, but I think that is the way it is. I would say though it is pretty common. Coaches have a FAR shorter life span w/ teams than the GMs do.

No, he won't do it, but that sort of logic has not prevented me from screaming for us to draft OL for however many years now.

Among the most often pointed out issues involving ANY team now trying to make a play for Cuter, it is pointed out that no one has Cassel to offer Denver, which was the key in this. It is less about the new staff disliking Cuter, and more about their simply really wanting Cassel. However, Cuter wants out now, and we have all seen what can happen to a team when one of its star players begins going to the media and saying he wants nothing to do w/ that team. Well, as it has been pointed out, we have no Cassel to offer. Further, Denver, if they trade Cutler, has nothing in depth to replace him. Further still, Denver is not assured of getting one of the top QBs in the draft (assuming they even like them) at 12, much less 18. Well, here is a thought. Nothing happens until draft day. After the 11th pick, if one of the top 2 QBs are available, we make a phone call to Denver offering them the 18th pick (and whatever else to clinch the deal) in exchange for Cutler. Denver can then use their #12 pick on a QB to replace Cutler, while also now having another pick a few spots down to further improve their team. We don't have a 1st round pick, but can think of it this way. No other QB in the draft who would be available for us at 18 comes close to Cutler. We finally get a franchise caliber QB, and Angelo can be seen as true to his word (We are fixated on the QB position). I realize some are not sold on Cutler, but come on. He is a pro bowl, still young QB. Does he have flaws. Sure. What QB out there does not? If we do even consider this, I truly have to wonder what it will take for us to EVER prioritize the QB position.

One, while we have failed to add pro bowl FA OL, I think Angelo believes we have added solid players. Tait has been a starter for years. Fred Miller was solid for a year. Brown for several years. Garza has been, in Angelo's mind, solid. St. Clair has been a big part of our OL, at RT, LT and OG. So I think that in Angelo's mind, while he may not have added pro bowlers, he has added solild players. Problem is, even when he adds an OL who "may" be considered solid, it is very short lived. Two. I NEVER said it was a good philosophy. I said I at least understand the logic. That does NOT mean I agree w/ it, only that I understand it. If you go back, I think you will find that few on this board more than I (and Jason) have screamed to draft OL more. I have been screaming to use our top pick on OL for years. Heck, I have even talked about using entire drafts for OL. Three. Agree that OG, RT and S are usually easier positions to find in the draft. Here is why I personally believe we have failed in these areas. S - I think this goes to philosophy. Angelo and Lovie believe the two safety positions are interchangable, and thus they continually draft SS' w/ the belief they can also play FS. They can't. On paper, maybe they say the two positions are interchangable, but in reality, that safety is a more rare find. Most safeties can excel at one or the other, but not both. As they have tried to find that ideal SS/FS hybrid, the margin for error is less, and thus why we struggle to find a FS that can actually cover. OG/RT - I talk about this in another thread. IMHO, Angelo simply does not place as high of a level of value on OL as many others due. He talks about drafting the best available, but that is according to the pre-draft boards our staff create. When we create our board, I do not believe we grade OL as high as many others, and thus OL is graded out lower. So on draft day, when it is our turn to draft, OL is simply not the best available talent. Many other teams might have an OL player as the best available, but because we do not value/grade them as high, they are always lower on our board. Thus why we draft pass rushing specialists no one has ever heard of over OL. On our board, that DE was graded higher.

But I would argue that was because he felt the players he already added in FA could continue to play. He believed Tait could play RT. While it didn't work out, from what I read, there were greater expectations Beunning could play last year. They were relying on their previous FA addition of Garza to play at a higher level than he did. Heck, when we faced issues on the OL, what did we do? We added Fred Miller. We may not have continued to add FA OL, but I would argue (a) we continued to rely on previously added veterans and ( OL is simply not an area Angelo seems to place as high of a level of value as in other positions. To me, that is a another key reason I believe we continue to pass on OL in the draft. We so often hear Angelo say that he believed he took the best player available in the draft. I think that is true, at least in his mind. But I also believe he placed a lower value on OL, and thus when (before the draft ever begins) we create our draft board, we grade OL lower than other positions. Angelo values a fringe pass rushing DE no one has heard of higher than OL many view as a potential starter. Thus, when we pass on the OL for that DL or DB, Angelo honestly says we took the best player available because on our board, that player may have been. But my point is that, in creating our board, we simply do not place as high of a grade on OL, and that is why we fail to draft many OL. If Angelo placed a higher value on OL, they would rank higher on our board/charts, but instead he values so many other positions at such a higher level, that we never find ourselves in a position where OL is the best available talent on the board. Hell, I would argue that even when we drafted Columbo and Williams, they were likley well down our board in terms of best available, but we reached in those years for need.

Few comments for ya Jason. One. While you point to our record last year, I think many would say that we could have been a 5/6 win team just as easy as a 9/10 win team. Such is the state when your team is as mediocre as we are. Two. You say we are close, but close to what? The playoffs? Okay fine. But in the NFL today, is the same not true of most every team. Each year, you have a small group of teams (like Oakland or Det) who can not even say they are close to being .500, much less playoffs, but I would argue the vast majority of the NFL can argue they are close to being a playoff team. That is how it is in the more balanced NFL of today. But so what. I don't want to be "close" to being a playoff team. I want to be close to being a SB team, and you think we are that? I think AZ would have humiliated us last year. We might have been able to sneak into the backdoor of the playoffs, but we were not "close" to being a legit SB team. That should be what we are trying to be. Not close to being a playoff team. Three. You say we didn't get any good breaks as far as turnovers are concerned, but I would disagree. I saw many potential offensive turnovers end up in our favor, as a DB would drop and easy pick, or we would recover our own fumble. I'm sure you were referring to defense, but offense counts too. As for defense, you make your own breaks, When a potential pick bounces off our players hands, you don't say we didn't catch break. The Defender just blew the play. Four. Despite our record, I have a difficult time understanding how we are so close when our laundry list of needs is so long. Positions that I think are question marks (and I am not even counting positions that I feel were question marks due to coaching) QB, LT, RT, OG, OG, C, FB, WR, CB, FS, SS. That doesn't even factor depth chart. That is a long list. Five. You say, "it's not difficult to see them taking another step forward", but I can just as easily see a major step backward. You are among the few who have screamed to focus on the OL w/ me over the years, and yet so little has been done. I am not sure we have upgraded our OL thus far, and I can just as easily see our offense taking a step backward this year if we do not do more on the OL. What happens to this team if Orton or Forte go down w/ injury? On defense, I think we will be better due to coaching changes, but right now, my key concern is offense, and I just see little reason for expectation of "taking another step forward".

Okay, conspiracy theory in me here. Some years back, Angelo had a coach he didn't want. At that time, think back on how active we were in FA. Something between little and nothing was added in FA. Angelo did VERY little to upgrade this team during that time, and it showed in how weak our personnel was. Then Jauron is gone, and he gets the coach he wants in Lovie. Nearly immediately, he begins to be a player in FA. We then see him making some big moves like adding Tait, Wale and Moose, among others. Now look at this offseaosn. It starts out w/ all the talk from Lovie indicating he believes the team has the talent, and only coaching has held them back. Many articles are written about how Angelo shined a big spotlight on Lovie, and seemed to put him on the hot seat. Then FA begins, and Angelo is looking like the GM from the Jauron days. Many have argued whether Lovie and Angelo are tied together, but I wonder if Angelo feels he has another coaching hire in him, and is already looking beyond Lovie. Does anyone but Angelo believe this team is really so "close" or that we have the talent? That has been what he has been saying, and now his actions seem to backup his words. If we tank this season, will he say he had the talent but the staff failed? Just wondering, but it just seems like Angelo's actions today reflect how he handled the team under Jauron, rather than how he handled it under Lovie earlier on. It just has not seemed like Lovie and Angelo have been on the same page, and more and more I am wondering if Angelo has not already given up on Lovie.

I said "was", though I also blew it and said, "be". My point was what my ideal OL would have been entering FA. Now? Replace Moore w/ St. Clair. Problem for me is, if we add St. Clair and Omiyale in FA, I see little chance of our adding Oher in the 1st, and nearly no chance we add Oher and Duke. So it is a bit of a catch 22. While the OL I would like to see would have St. Clair, at the same time I think adding him at this point would kill the draft for me.

Honestly, pretty much every guy we've signed. In most cases, JA seems to get bargains. Even after having a crappy season, how much would Harris have made if he'd hit the open market? My guess is that it'd be more then we signed him for. I don't know. I understand your point, but here is mine. The argument has been made that when Angelo doesn't sign a player, it is because another team overpaid, and when Angelo signs a player, it is assumed we signed him to a good deal, and I am just not so sure it is so simple. One, sort of comparding apples and oranges when you talk about player we re-sign who were not FAs. When players have time left on their deal, they do not usually get as much as if they were in FA. Two, when we miss out on a player because another team offered more, it is assumed by bear fans the other team overpaid, but might it not also be that we didn't judge the market for that player? As for Harris, who knows. If he were to hit FA, would he be viewed as elite? He is coming off a pretty mediocre year, and has numerous injuries. Maybe he gets a deal that blows what he signed out of the water, but I think it is also possible he could get less. He's young, yet he's been in the league. He looked great at LT last season (although it was just one start) and he can play multiple positions. At worst he's a very good back-up, at best he's a starter. I think some team would have at least given him damn near that much. Understand, I am not saying we paid him so much money. My point is, just because we signed him, lets not assume it was automatically a good deal. While his agent was saying as many as 11 teams were interested, we really have no idea what the level of interest was. For all we know, no other team was offering close to $5.5m guaranteed. At this risk of starting another, "How do you define 'over-paying' for a player" argument, yes we spent a lot of money on a guy who might be a back-up. But it was worth sense we're desperate for youth and versatility at the position. If I'm Carolina with Gross & Okwo manning the position, there's no way I pay it. Agreed here, and I have said as much. Value of a player for one team is not always the same as w/ another team. We were desperate, and thus may have paid more than other teams, but that doesn't mean we overpaid. It's true there are a lot of different ways of looking at it. The Vikings made Bernard Berrian, a good but not great WR, one of the highest paid in the game. Being the highest paid, you'd expect him to be one of the best, and he's not. I ripped them at the time. On hindsight, there's no-way IMO Minny makes the playoffs without him (they damn near didn't anyway). So while they paid too much, he was damn well worth it to them. That is partially my point. The main thing here is, everyone talks about market value, but what is value. As you mention w/ Omiyale for us and berrian for Minny, a players value for one team can be greater than his value for others. My main thing is simply quesitoning the idea that Angelo's always seems to know player's value. It is as if it is assumed anyone we signed was a good value, and anyone we don't was over-priced. You really trust Angelo that much?