nfoligno

One. I absolutely agree we need to upgrade the OL. I have said as much for years. W/ a crap OL, it only highlights our WRs inability to get quick sep and find holes in a secondary. While I do not think much of our WRs, I would agree any group of WRs will improve w/ a solid OL that can give the QB time. I would like nothing better than for us to add Gross to replace Tait, draft Duke to replace Garza and re-sign St. Clair to replace Beekman, who would be a soon replacement for Kreutz. Two. W/ that said, our depth chart at WR has become similar to our backup QBs. In Chicago, backup QBs were always the most popular. The starter stunk, so the belief was the unknown guy backing him up had to be better. Rarely did that prove true, but it didn't matter to fans. Ditto w/ our WRs. Whether it is Hass, Rideau, Bennett or whoever, Bear fans seem to really fall in love w/ the fringe depth WRs who don't get a chance, believing they are pro bowlers in waiting. Maybe. But while I agree an upgraded OL would benefit, I also think our WRs suck, and we need to upgrade here as well. It is not one or the other, but both.

Chicken and the Egg. TEs and RB accounted, by far, for the majority of our catches and were integral in the passing game, but the question is, was that because our WRs couldn't catch a cold, or because the WRs were simply never the focus. Sorry, but I have a hard time believing that WRs just are not that important in our offense. We have legit weapons at TE and RB, but how many offenses can you point to that were successful w/o a legit WR option? The only two I can think of are KC and SD, but (a) Gonzo and Gates are two elite TEs, and as much as we may like Olsen, he has a LONG way to go before such a comparison and ( first Priest and then Larry Johnson in KC while LT in SD. We all love Forte, but he has not proven himself remotely close enough to such a comparison. I would also like to point out that, when these offenses were clicking, they both had two of the best OLs in the NFL. So, you "might" be a pretty good offense w/o a good/great WR, but the only teams I can think of had pro bowlers at TE, RB and OL. We have some talent, but nothing close to the caliber it takes to offset the lack of a WR. For me, I just have to consider all the times Orton (a) seemed to search forever looking for an open option and ( passes were dropped by WRs, often forcing us to punt. You can argue or question how much of an upgrade we need at WR. Do we need a great WR, or just some upgrades. I would argue that, unless we see massive upgrades on the OL and in quantity (if not quality) at WR, then I think we need to see a singular massive upgrade, and TJ would represent that. As for how much would I give TJ, I can tell you this. I would absolutely give him Berrian money. IMHO, he is a much better WR than Berrian. He would help this offense far more than Berrian. And the reality is, we have it to spend. Let me ask you. Where do you want us to spend the money? We will have around $25m (assuming no cuts) in cap space w/ virtually no in-house players to extend or re-sign. From past posts, it does not seem like you are on board w/ signing any of the top DL, OL or WR. One way or another, we will use our cap space, so how do you want to use it? What I want to know it, how much of a problem is it really? Yes, our WR's are reguarded as bad, but how much do we REALLY want to use them? Greg Olsen & Des Clark combined for 95 catches and almost 1000 yards. I look, for Olsen's numbers to see a big increase again next year, and I look to see one helluva a lot more from the rookie Kellen Davis, who looked great in training camp, but didn't see much time with Clark in front of him. Then you have Matt Forte who had 64 catches for 484 yards. AP's always been very good at catching the ball also. What I'm saying is that we don't necessary need a solution. Turner always talked about "stretching the field" but I'm not certain that's as important any more. That does not utilize Kyle's strengths which is in the shorter passing game. IMO, I think a big receiver like Justin Gage would do great with Orton right now. I don't think that would hold true if Orton were still QBing. So while I think Housh would immediately be our best WR, I don't think having him is that critical. I think we could have damn near the same success with a guy like Bryan Johnson, who has good size. That being said, it'll be interesting to see how much demand there is for Housh. I would think he would generate a deal similar to what Bernard Berrian signed last year, 6 years 43 million $$$. I don't see the Bears paying anywhere that amount of money for Housh.

One thing I think will be interesting to see is what happens this year w/ CJ. Last year, Cincy turned down Wash's offer of two 1st round picks for him. If they now accept only a 2nd round pick, they will seriously lose face. Will they eat their share of humble pie and just take what they can get for him, which is going to be FAR less in value than what they could have gotten last year, or try to save face and demand the moon or just keep him. Frankly, I think CJ sticks w/ Cincy this year. Especially if they lose TJ, they will have nothing at WR for their franchise QB. I can see them simply holding onto CJ, unless someone makes them another ridiculous offer.

Maybe, but right now scouts inc has 4 OT's ranked in the top 32. They have Oher ranked the lowest @ #23, and I've seen early mocks saying all four could be long gone by the time the Bear's draft. It could easily see the Bears taking Andre Smith, Jason Smith, Eugene Monroe, or Michael Oher if available. Then again if we signed Gross, that would make it a mute point. IMO that's part of the reason we don't go nuts spending big money on DE or OT in free agency. While our situation at those spots isn't great, it's far from bad. It's more logical to hope guys improve and draft potential replacements, rather then "making it rain." This is where we disagree. Sort of. I think Tait sucks, and the only reason he has not been called out more than he has is reputation. IMHO, last year he was about as bad as Fred Miller the year before. At DE, I actually agree our situation is not THAT bad, but at the same time, I believe our staff does feel it is "that" bad. So, if we spend big on one in FA, we can then focus on the other in the draft. Now, as for whether or not we would spend our 1st round pick on an OT, while that would be GREAT in my eyes, do you truly believe Angelo would spend back to back 1st round picks on OT? I just have a very hard time seeing that. My guess is we're taking the "best player available" between OT & DE. Profootball Weekly's latest mock has DE Aaron Maybin from Penn St. going to the Bears at #18. Scouts inc. ranks Maybin much higher. Maybin? I know little about him, but everything I have read indicates he is more of a Merriman type. From what I have read, he is considered more of a 3/4 DE/LB. I think his stock as a pure DE would be lower. Again, I would love it, but just can't see us drafting OT a 2nd year in a row. Angelo took one last year, but was on record talking about how he preferred to sign veteran OL as he believes OL is an area rookies just take longer to develop. I found a blurb from profootballweekly http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/The+W...cwest011009.htm saying that San Fran will lot Johnson walk since they like their other young WR's better. That's not exactly a glowing endorsement for BJ. Teams were reluctant to sign him for fear there was a "Steve Breaston" effect in AZ, and that he was much better because of Boldin & Fitz. Apparantly there might be something too that. That tells me BJ will not be sought after and come very cheap. Which makes me wonder: Is he any better then Lloyd? I could be wrong, but I think PFW also has him ranked as one of the top WRs in FA though. While he is FAR from some sure thing, I think he will have more FA interest than you believe, especially in such a weak class of WRs. It seems like after Housh & Antonio Bryant, about every other WR available will be signing for damn near the minimum. That makes drafting one early even more imperative. If history tells us anything, its that many FAs we think would warrant no more than the minimum, will sign for considerably more. No question there is a drop after TJ and Bryant, but at the same time, the weaker the class, the more inflated the contracts eventually will be. I'd be happy for either or. What I'm really afraid of is that this will be the year the Bear's decide to be cheap again. I could easily see us doing very little and just sitting on that money. I go back and forth on this one. On one hand, I have a hard time seeing us going after the likes of Gross or TJ. On the other hand, when has Angelo ever "sat" on cap space? There have been years we were not active in FA, but at the same time, we were spending big bucks on extensions. We simply do not have the in house players to extend or re-sign this year. Thus, how else are we going to use that cap space? While I have a hard time seeing us going after the big names, I have a harder time seeing us (a) signing a whole bunch of middle of the road players to use of the cap space or ( not using our cap space.

CJ? Are you kidding? Forget for the moment the character issues. He flat out stunk last year. He is not a WR that can make an average QB good. He is a WR that needs a QB w/ solid deep ability to get him the ball. This year proved, IMHO, that w/o a QB like Palmer, CJ is just not much by way of a threat. He is a one trick (downfield) pony, and while that is a great trick, if you don't have the QB to mesh w/, he is then a no trick pony. No to mention he wants more money and would cost us picks.

How about Carolina? No question they are a running team, but sure seem to have some solid WR stats at the same time. I also think the idea that we are a running team is a bit of a misconception. We talk about it, but if we look at the stats, I think we find we sure sling it around plenty often. We are not some big time running team. We may like the idea of that identity, but I just don't think that is the reality.

When Turner talks about needing to get a "good supporting cast" and "getting players around him", it sounds to me like he is in fact offering a vote of NON-confidence in our WRs. He all but said our WRs suck and Orton had nothing to work w/. So while Turner may be supporting Orton, the fact that he is at the same time knocking the WRs shows he is not "just" offering confidence in a player. I understand you take everything w/ a grain of salt this time of year. If Angelo came out and said our #1 priority was this or that, I would tend to believe that was way down our list of priorities. At the same time, listening to Angelo's press conference the other week, it really felt more like he was doing more than throwing out BS. He was being very critical of numerous players, and not seeming to hold back. If he truly had the confidence in Orton that Turner does, it seems like he went out of his way to slap him in the face. Maybe you are right, and it is all part of a sandbagging plan. Maybe Turner is not as high on Angelo as he is leading on, while Angelo likes him more than his comments indicate. I just not so sure. I think Angelo truly believes (a) the key problem w/ our defense (other than maybe past assistant coaches) is the lack of a premier DE ( our OL was solid © while our WRs didn't step up, lacking a good QB held them back and if we upgraded at QB, our WRs would look good and (d) DM is still our FS of the future. Personally, I disagree w/ all these ideas. Maybe they are not what Angelo believes, but at this point, I lead toward believing it is how he views things.

I realize you were speaking in relative terms when you said the OL played "extremely well" this past year, but regardless, I disagree. Were they as bad as expected? No. But I would not say they were good, and I am not sure I would go so far as to even say decent. Run blocking was awful. It is a miracle Forte made it through the season alive, much less w/ good numbers. But as good as Forte is, his YPC was often poor, which is IMHO due to the OL simply failing to open holes. Heck, many of his big runs came fromt cutting back against the grain when the OL failed to make a hole. In other words, Forte did so much on his own. When there was a hole, it was freakishly small, and closed very fast. If Benson were still on the team, he would have never gotten through the holes Forte did, or at least not before they closed. Many said our OL may not have looked good in run blocking, but did well in pass protection. Sorry, but I again disagree. Did you know St. Clair led the league in sacks given up by an OT? And many here felt St Clair did better than Tait, who did his best Fred Miller impression in 2008. And as bad as the OTs were, I am not sure the interior was much better. IMHO, the OL flat out stunk, but the difference to me is, Orton was simply able to more quickly get rid of the ball. If we still had Rex behind center, IMHO, no one would be talking about how the OL did better than expected. Rex would have better shown the OL's deficiencies. Orton simply did a better job of masking those deficiencies. Look how Orton played toward the end of the season. After the injury, he never looked the same. Frankly, he looked very Rex like. Suddenly, it once again appears our OL can not block. I realize it isn't all the OL, but at the same time, I simply believe our OL sucks, and that Orton (when healthy) did a better job masking that. Again, while I realize you made your comments speaking relatively, the reason I bring it up is, I fear this is how Angelo truly sees things. I honestly fear Angelo believes the OL performed well, and that adding Williams to the group will make our OL great. I think he believes Tait is not yet done. Garza is solid. Kreutz still has it. And while I am not sure he believes in Beekman, he likely thinks we have enough depth for a starter to emerge. That opinion is my fear. What I see? We may well have a solid/big upgrade in Williams, but he is a total unknown, and Clady aside, not every young LT develops instantly. Beekman played well considering, but was not solid. I like him in depth, and think he could be our eventual starting center, but I just didn't see the consistency in his game, and felt his pass protections was just the other side of weak. Kreutz is looking closer and closer to done. Maybe if he had a pair of legit OGs oposite him, he would look better, but he is no longer a player who can hold the center w/ our OGs are not good. Garza sucks IMHO, and it baffles me how our staff can think so highly of him. Tait was awful, and IMHO, the weakest link to our OL last year, which is just flat out sad as I think he likely had the highest expectation moving back to RT. While I am a realist enough to know it will never happen, my dream would be to add Gross to start at RT. Also, using some of the money saved by cutting Tait, re-sign St. Clair to inside. Draft Duke Robinson. Williams - St. Clair - Kreutz - Duke - Gross. That is a starting OL I believe can protect the QB, and blow open holes for Forte.

0-16 Orton goes down in week 1 (ala Brady) and Hanie is given the ball and performs as an undrafted rookie in his first start would be expected to. Forte spends the season running into a wall of defenders, as our OL falls are their collective arces asking for the plate number of the mack truck that just ran them over. DL fails to generate a pass rush, and the secondary continues to be exposed, and fans continue to say it is all Urlacher's fault. Lovie and his BFF's are fired after the season, as Marinelli wonders, "Why me", w/ yet another 0-16 team on his resume. Okay, not really, but would ya'll expect any less of me:) Slow day at the office.

Read the following comments from Turner in the Sun Times, Turner told his boss in no uncertain terms that Orton is the man to run the Bears' offense. ''I feel great about Kyle,'' Turner said. ''Get him a good supporting cast, some people around him, and he can be a really great player. He played that way a lot this past year. If there is a veteran out there that can come in and provide some depth and possibly provide some competition, fine. But we feel good about Caleb [Hanie], too.'' Contrast that w/ comments Angelo made earlier. Angelo gave everyone the impression he was far from satisified w/ Orton, and was actually looking to replace him. Angelo said it is not about the OL or WRs, but all about the QB, leading most to believe Angelo felt our offensive issues were due to Orton, and not the other units. These are not just my interpretation of Angelo's comments, but what most came away w/, and in fact, Angelo has since had to try and backpeddle and clarify. But you really have to wonder. Turner saying, "get him a good supporting cast" seems to highlight his believe that our "weapons" are frankly, lacking. Turner in another article stressed the teams need to get a playmaker. Turner seems to believe the Bears have a legit QB in Orton, but also feels we lack weapons at WR. That comes as little shock to any here, but how much are Turner and Angelo on the same page. I don't know, but I do think it will be interesting to see how this offseason plays out. How much pull does Turner have? If our moves to upgrade the offense are minimal, or if we draft a QB relatively high, while not addressing WR, it would seem to me Turner has absolutely no sway w/ Angelo or Lovie. If however, we make a big spash on offense, whether that be in FA or the draft, maybe Turner does have some clout. Maybe this is simply the norm in the NFL, but since the end of our season, it just doesn't really feel like Angelo, Lovie and/or Turner are on the same page. Turner is screaming for playmakers and to surround Orton w/ a good supporting cast. Angelo says its all about the QB, and implies our offensive problems begin and end there. Lovie turns around and seems to backup Orton. Maybe this is just me reading too much into "offseason BS talk, which is quite possible, but it just doesn't feel like our coaches and GM are on the same page. Felt the same way some years ago w/ Angelo and Jauron, but that was supposed to be fixed w/ Lovie. Now I wonder if we are not yet again in a situation where the GM and coaches vision fails to matchup.

Oher will be a top 10-15 pick. I'd love it if he fell to us, but right now that's wishful thinking. Of all the top OT's (Monroe, Andre Smith, Jason Smith, and Oher), Jason Smith has the best chance of falling to us, and he's pretty much Chris Williams all over again. First, I would point out you consider him a 10-15 pick player. 15 is only 3 spots in front of us. Dropping those 3 spots is very realistic. I think many (including myself) find it hard to believe Oher could fall to 18 as he was considered a potential #1 pick last year if he would have come out, but the more I read, the more I think it possible. While few question his actual talent, his motivation has been strongly questioned, and this year the OT crop is deep enough that a good player could slip. Smith could be the OT to fall, but right now, he is the OT who seems to have serious upward momentum, as Kiper has him now as a near top 10 pick, while Scouts has moved him up into their top 32 range, and I bet he climbs their board further. At the same time, Oher is really falling. He is now 23 for Kiper and 20 for Scouts. That may not mean much, but I think it does reflect how his stock is falling right now. I would have agreed with you before the NC, but after watching that game, Duke has dropped on my big board. The combine will be huge. Duke didn't have a great game, and in particular, had one really bad series. At the same time, for me, that only meant he has a greater chance to last to our pick, rather than my dropping him hard on my big board. I would still love to add Duke, and feel he would do wonders for our OL, and offense as a whole. Michael Johnson is a terrible football player and right now is a round 2-3 prospect. Maybin will be a 3-4 OLB, most likely, and has too many question marks for us to take a chance on. Brown would be a good fit, but he's looking like he'll be off the board come 18. Tyson Jackson makes absolutely ZERO sense, unless Lovie's new scheme has us going to a 3-4. I really like Paul Kruger, but not real sure if he'd fall all the way to our 2nd round pick, but 18 would be to high for him. But he does make sense considering it sounds like we are looking for a future replacement for Ogunleye, and we seem to think Mark Anderson can re-find some of that prior technique he had with Marinelli. Larry English could also be a possibility in the 2nd, while we're on the subject. Personally, not a huge fan of MJ, but he does seem to fit our scheme and does seem like the sort of player Angelo would like. And while you say he is a 2nd/3rd round prospect, I have seen many who have him much higher. Scouts has him at 24 right now. I really wanted B.J. Raji prior to the Senior Bowl, but he is dominating it, and will likely go in the 5-15 range. However, if he's there at 18, we'd be fools not to take him. He doesn't seem to be an ideal fit for the Cover 2 with his size, but his play makes him a perfect fit. He can effectively pass the rusher and stuff the run. Him and Harris would be a fantastic DT duo. Marks makes sense as a cover 2 UT, but UT isn't a need and Marks is a borderline round 1 prospect. Peria Jerry, the DT from Ole Miss, is an ideal fit and UT and is the 2nd best DT in this draft, but like I said, UT isn't a need, at least not right now. Question, if you had the option of Oher or Raji, who would you take? He's been falling some and could be here for us. But I'm not that high on him, and I think he's lot like his brother (Vernon Davis), a work out warrior, but doesn't play up to his measureables. I wouldn't mind him, but I think there's a better route for us. Agreed. I am not high at all on taking a CB in round one. I have had this argument before, but while CB is a top pick for many teams, I simply do not feel you need elite CBs for the cover two. Elite CBs are often shut down man coverage corners, and that is not what is needed for the cover two. In our system, whether we are in the cover two or another setup, we most often are playing zone, and you simply don't need the top end shut down corners. I think we are much better off upgrading the pass rush, and FS position, rather than the CB position. We need a FS, but Moore makes little sense as a Cover 2 FS, and his draft stock has been sinking like a rock. Not only did he have a terrible season, but he's sucked it up at the Senior Bowl. Right now, it looks like Louis Delmas and Rashad Johnson are about to jump ahead of Moore. I think all three of them are borderline 1st round, but likely early-mid second round pics. If we could, trading down to late first/early second and picking one of Delmas or Johnson would make a lot of sense. Honestly, I don't know much about the FS' in the draft at this point, but simply believe FS is our one of our biggest needs on defense. In fact, I believe FS is our top need on defense, though I am sure Angelo would disagree. Of that list, Oher or Raji are the clear top two choices, with Everette Brown being a possibility, IMO. Not sure about Brown, but love Oher to the Bears. I am not high on taking a DT in round one, but at the same time, love so much of what I have read about Raji. I'm not so sure on Duke anymore. I'll try and holdoff final judgement until after the combine/pro day, but he's a second round prospect in my mind right now. I'd love Mark Sanchez, but he'll be a top 10 pick most likely. I think Josh Freeman is a legit possibility, but I would prefer not to go with him because his bust factor is off the charts. With the way the draft looks now, my preference would be to trade down to the late 1st/early second and go with one of Kruger, Delmas, Johsnon, or Robinson. However, like I said in a different thread, it's easier said then done to trade down. I simply can't write off Duke due to one game, regardless how big it was. To me, Duke is still a legit stud. Also, I think he will jump back up the boards after workouts, as his athleticism for a man his size is believed to be unbelievable. Agreed on Sanchez. I would consider him a perfect pick, as I see him as having franchise QB potential, but will need time. W/ Orton under contract for another season, we are in great position to draft a player like Sanchez, but w/ the other QBs opting to stay in school, it is a near lock Sanchez doesn't fall to us. I am not high on trading down. I think we need studs and playmakers, and feel you are simply less likely to find that the further you trade down. Also, this early in the game, I hate to discuss trade scenarios, as there is simply too much time between now and the draft and too many unknowns. Some other guys that I wouldn't mind/could see at 18 are: CB D.J. Moore, Vanderbilt - He's a really good CB prospect and is very good in man coverage. This is something we need in a cornerback if we decide to continue with the Blitz Heavy Lovie 2 scheme we ran this past year (yes, I call it the Lovie 2) Disagree 100%. Personally, I love man coverage, but that is simply not a big part of Lovie's cover two. Despite how much we blitz, or how much man coverage makes sense, the reality is, we simply do not use man coverage often. Even when we blitz, our DBs are well off the LOS, and playing zone. You can argue that is due to the talent of our DBs, but I simply disagree. I believe Lovie is a zone coverage guy, and elite man coverage CBs would go to waste in our system as we would ask them to mostly play zone. SAM Clint Sintim, Virginia/Clay Matthews, USC/Brian Cushing, USC - I know this sounds crazy drafting what could be a 2 down player with our 1st round pick, and a 3rd linebacker to go along with our other expensive 2, but right now, all three of these guys are raising up draft boards, and SAM is a big enough need to where we might be willing to go with it if the draft falls where one of these guys are the BPA for what our needs are. This also makes sense since all three of these guys can blitz and we have become a team that likes to blitz at least one backer or DB as well as the front 4 (partially because the front 4 can't get pressure anymore). However, Matthews or Cushing would make more sense over Sintim because they could potentially play MIKE as well. I hear you, but: One. LB is considered one of the deeper positions in the draft, and I think we have a legit chance to find a solid SLB after round one. Two. Until I see more evidence that our staff will better utilize the SLB position, I just can not see my way to adding a 1st round talent. If I felt we would better utilize the 3rd LB position, maybe, but I just do not believe that, even if we had a stud SLB, he would be utilized to the point of getting value. Three. While a stud SLB would be nice, I think it is a luxury, and question going w/ luxury when so many huge holes are seen. I question how much a SLB would help the defense if you still have huge holes on DL and in the secondary. We already have two stud LBs, but that has not been enough to offset weaknesses at DL and secondary. I just do not believe adding a 3rd LB would be enough.

Tyason Jackson, a DE who weighs nearly 300lbs. Solid prospect, but not a fit at all in our system, unless we plan to move him to DT.

1.) Right now, our team needs a proven WR that can be a difference maker. We tried going with an older vet last time w/ Moose and we all seen how that worked out. This time, I see the Bears looking to go a little younger. Nate Washington WR 6-1 185 AGE 25 - Washington is an up and coming WR that has nice size and has played for a championship caliber team. He knows what it takes and he can replace the loss of Berrian. Washington is known as a deep threat who has great straight line speed that can stretch defenses. He has good hands and always seems to be open. If we can get this guy in, we can line him up like Berrian, put Hester in the slot and Bennett as the #2 possession WR. I said this in another thread. I have no problem w/ Washington, but only if he is part of a package of two WRs, w/ the other being a solid possession WR. I love the idea of adding Washington so we can move Hester to the slot, but do not like the idea of assuming Bennett can start, much less be our safety valve for Orton. W/ that said, I just do not think this move fits because I think our staff have flat out inserted Hester into one of the starting positions, and I am moving forward in offseason plans w/ that assumption. I do not like the look of Washington on one side, and Hester on the other. One or the other starting is fine, but not both. So assuming Hester is one starter, I simply feel our 2nd starter must be a possession WR. 2) The second FA move the Bears should make before the draft is FS. Enough with the talk of shifting Manning/Tillman/Graham/Vasher and just bring in a true FS. This may not be high on the Bears priority b/c of the log jam of mediocre DB's, but bringing in a true talented FS can help make some of those mediocre DB's look better. Oshiomogho Atogwe FS 5-11 210 AGE 27 - Atogwe is the only true and good FS available. As soon as FA opens, the Bears ought to make it known they want his services. Agreed 100%. The questions are (a) will be make it to FA, as many have said they will either re-sign him prior to FA or tag him, either of which takes him off the market and ( After Atogwe, is there anyone out there you really like. I am very luke warm to the rest of the options, at best. Regarding your draft talk, I love that (a) you stress the hell out of OL. In fact, I had to double check to make sure I wasn't speaking w/ Jason:) ( You are thinking about a young QB. I am not sure about Freeman, but I like Bomar a lot. 3.) With the addition of those two FA, the Bears will have huge flexiblity in the draft and then I'd love to see it play out like this: a's stick together and b's stick together, not 1 or the other. 1-18a Michael Oher OT - I'd be estactic if he were available at our pick, then that would give us an option of releasing Tait and saving about 4-4.5 in cap space. With Thayer saying some great things about Williams, I think we can be set at OT for a decade. 1-18b Michael Johnson DE - He'd be my second choice b/c we need to get a young replacement for Wale. Johnson has huge ceiling, but also a higher floor(bust). I think he'd be a nice toy for Marinelli. -----------------------RD 2------------------- 2-49a Josh Freeman QB - Unless we can bring in a Kurt Warner type QB, I think the Bears can count on Orton like the Packers did w/ Rodgers and not have a proven backup. Freeman and Haine can battle out the #2 spot as the word out of Halas is the Bears are very high on Haine still. 2-49b Phil Loadholdt RT/Fenuki Topui OT - If we don't get a 1st RD OT, I'd like the Bears to grab the best one available RD2. There both huge bodies, and I'm not sure which one projects as the better pro just yet. -----------------------RD 3--------------------------- 3-85a Trevor Canfield G - Canfield is a big bodied G that is a good run blocker. We need to improve all depth on Oline. 3-85b Rhett Bomar QB - I'm not sold on Orton, and since we here very little on extending him, I'm guessing the Bears want to see him perform 1 more year. Bomar can compete w/ Haine for #2/#3 if a vet is not signed to back up. -----------------------RD 3 Comp ------------------------- 3-97a Louis Murphy WR 3-97b Anthony Parker G/ Andy Kemp G/ Louis Vasquez G

Moving Urlacher to SLB is an awful idea IMHO. If you recall, that is where we initially tried Urlacher, but he could not fight off the blocks. More than any LB, the SLB must be able to fight off blocks as he is usually lined up against the TE. Since being moved to MLB, ability to fight off blocks has continued to be the top knock on Urlacher. IMHO, moving him to SLB would only expose his greatest weakness. Personally, the only position I think "could" be considered for Urlacher in a move would be SS. Urlacher still is often matched up w/ speedy RBs in coverage, and thus I think could handle most TEs. He would still play the run and in the box, like a LB, but would simply play w/ more space, which I think fits his game. He played a similar position in college (rover) and is the only move I think would make sense. W/ that said, I still like Urlacher at MLB, but simply want to see our staff do a better job positioning him.

This is what I would say to that. While I do not believe we should expect Hester to develop in Steve Smith, it does offer hope that is at least the direction Hester is taking. At the same time, it would only further my argument that we need a possession WR to play opposite Hester, rather than another deep threat playmaker. Steve Smith saw a jump in his numbers year #3, but in that year, Carolina also had Moose and Ricky Proehl, two solid possession WRs. W/ two possession WRs like them to work underneath, Smith was better able to attack deep. I argue that if Delhomme didn't have the underneath options, Smith would have fewer downfield opportunities.

Can I have Welker AND Evans? I agree w/ the idea of having a homerun hitter. My argument(s) is that we may already have one in Hester, and that what we lack is the possession WR that can move the chains, keep the offense on the field, and thus best allows Hester more opportunities to run deep routes.

I agree Idonije has value to the team. I agree his new deal would not be a back breaker. I also agree w/ Az that if we did extend him, it would be after the draft. Where I disagree is the idea we will not look to add a DT. You mention how many DTs we have, but consider it further. Dusty - He missed his first two seasons w/ injury, and this past year was on his way to the bench prior to yet another season ending injury. I think Dusty has a foot out the door. Adams - I like Adams, a lot, and believe he has been on of our most consistent DL over the last two years when on the field, but it just doesn't seem to me like the staff likes him very much. Despite solid play at the end of last season, we (a) drafted a DT relatively high and ( didn't even consider him for the seasoning beginning rotation, much less starting position. He was inactive nearly half the season. While I like Adams, I also believe the staff would have no problem upgrading and dumping him. The reality is, we have a system the starts, not just w/ the DL, but inside w/ the DT. That is where the entire system revolves around. We have Harris, who we hope makes a comeback, but despite the number of DTs on the roster, have no #2 DT that stepped up, at least not in the eyes of the staff. I think it VERY possible we draft yet another DT. If that happens, I think it is more likely Dusty or Adams are in danger, rather than Idonije, but regardless, I do believe DT is a position we will see another player drafted.

I agree w/ others that this pick doesn't make sense, as Jackson would look more like a DT in our system, rather than a DE. W/ that said, I do want to throw out there that I think Kiper is better than most think. I have ripped Kiper in the past, but since ESPN brought in his eventual replacement in McShay, I think Kiper has picked up his game. IMHO, Kiper was one of the best, and original, draft day evaluators in the media. He was the draft guru, and earned that title. But over the years, he got lazy. But recently, w/ his tenure threatened, I think he has regained guru status. Now, I do not think we will draft Jackson, but would add (a) Jackson may well be drafted higher than many think and ( closer to the draft, I bet you he does not have us taking Jackson. His early mocks have more to do w/ value than w/ specific team systems and needs.

Dustin Lyman is who you are thinking of. What really made me sick about Lyman was draft day value. We drafted Lyman in the 3rd round. He was value as a 3rd/4th round pick based on his value as a LB. But we wanted to look at him as a TE, and thus, I would argue we really reached for him. If teams were valuing him as a LB, he would have been projected much lower in the draft as he was a project, but we drafted him at his LB value to play TE. That was messed up. W/ that said, that specific example was from the former staff, as Hatley drafted him in 2000. I am not sure if he was even on the team by the time Angelo came in. Regardless, the point is still the same. Rather than "trying" a player at a new position, it would be nice to simply draft players who are experienced at their position. Rather than draft a SS and hope he can play FS, why not just draft a FS.

I think how we draft in previous years can affect how we draft this year. I just have a hard time seeing Angelo stressing offense a 3rd straight draft. I do agree that, right now, DE seems a likely call in round one. It is viewed by our staff as a high priority, while also looking to be a solid value w/ our pick w/ several DEs likely available and offering solid value. I simply can see us going offense in FA and defense in the draft. As for BJ, it isn't that I think he is the best option, but I simply think we will address WR and OL in FA. We have too much cap space to simply go after two spare players, and I think there is greater value at OT, and thus believe Gross could be an option. Then we will look at a mid-tier WR, and BJ is just an option I am throwing out there. Personally, I would rather TJ Hous and a mid-tier OT, but I think Angelo is more likely to go the opposite, which frankly is fine.

We may not go after Gross. Frankly, I right now have no clue who we will go after in FA. But I would argue: One. We are set to have around $25m in cap space, and that is assuming we don't make any cuts to players like Vasher, Tait, Wale, who would free up cap further cap space. Two. We have no one due for an extension. All players who has earned an extension, have been given one. Three. We have few (if any) Bears hitting FA we are likely to try and re-sign. In fact, the only one may be St. Clair. Four. I do not believe it is Angelo's nature to load up w/ a ton of FAs. So if we have a bunch of cap space, w/ few in-house signing plans, and are not likely to sign a boat load of FAs, that leaves the options of spending a large portion of our cap on a few players, which means we are likely to go after a big name. I would further add this is in fact Angelo's MO. Some years were didn't go after the big name, but in those years, we had far more in-house needs. We don't have that this year, and could see a year more similer to when we added big ticket players like Tait, Wale and Moose. Gross, Peppers, Suggs, TJ Hous seem like the best options when looking at need/talent. It may be hard to believe we would get any of these guys, but w/ our cap space, I don't see the logic against it .

One. I have no problem w/ Nate Washington, but he is not ultimately what I am looking for. I would be fine bringing him in so long as we brought in another WR. Maybe I am in the minority, but IMHO, more than anything, Orton needs a go-to WR he can count on. We have tried to fill that role for years. After we let Engram go, Booked stepped up, but he also became our #1 WR, and was no longer the possession WR option. Since then, we have never found one, and that was back in '02. We have tried w/ players like Wade, Moose, Booker (2nd time) and many others, but we have simply never found a player like Engram, and I believe our offense has suffered for it. We have got to get a WR who gets quick sep off the LOS. Who runs solid routes, and makes sharp cuts, which again, will keep him open. Oh yea, and one who can catch the damn ball! Finally, one who actually knows where the 1st down marker is. I am tired of watching WRs make their break a couple yards shy of the 3rd down marker, only to be tackles a yard short. I like Washington. He brings a downfield element that we currently only have one player to fill. At the same time, I just feel a possession WR will help this offense more than anything, or at least in terms of the WR position. Hell, I doubt it would ever happen, but I would be open to bringing back Engram. I know many would think it a move no different from Booker's return, but the reality is, Engram has continued to be a very productive WR. Only an injury this past year stopped him. As for Angelo getting better w/ offensive picks, we'll see. He picked offense w/ his first three picks, and one turned out to be a stud. One was lost for the season w/ an injury many were concerned w/ on draft day. The third couldn't get on the field. The year before, we got Olsen, and that is great, but I still think his record is very weak on offense. I would argue the greater reason why we have seen "some" success on offense of late is we actually began to draft more players. In his first 5 drafts, only once did we stress offense. That year, we bombed w/ Benson and Bradley, but did get Orton. When you only draft a few offensive players, your odds of success are simply lower. In the last two years, we have stessed offense far more, and thus are bound to have more hits. This year, if we stess defense, but throw in a player or two on offense, my optimism for those couple players is not great.

Not trying to start a big Angelo argument, but how much of this issue has to do w/ Manning and Freeney. In those two players, you have (I think) the only two veterans to sign a $30+m SB contract. There might be a couple others, but it is a small club. Point is, you have more money to spend (a lot more) when you start a QB like Rex or Orton, rather than Manning, or when you are trying to find pass rushers, rather than having one of the best on your roster. Simply put, you have a lot more money to work w/ when you don't have elite players on your roster. Sure, we have some, but they also happen to be a lesser paid positions. LBs simply don't make the same coin as DEs or QBs. Oh yea, and they have Wayne and Harrison, not to mention some studs on the OL. So again, when your team is loaded w/ elite players, it is a lot harder to keep them all.

I know you love Laurinaitis, but if we took a LB in the 1st, I would puke. Sorry, but (a) we do not utilize the SLB to the point of 1st round value and ( we have far too many major needs than to draft a position we already have two players like Briggs and Urlacher. The only LB (type) I would at all consider is one like Colvin, who could provide double digit sack potential from the LB position.

That's because NE is thought of being a SB contender every year, and thus older vets who have failed to reach the SB will take a lesser offer from NE for a greater chance at the ring. They often have already made the big contracts which set them for life, and are now looking for the ring, where as the younger FAs are still seeking the money.