nfoligno

you don't have to tell me about OL, but even if OL is your #1, #2 and #3 priorities, that doesn't mean you can't take care of other positions at the same time. This year, for example, I was all over OL, but would have still drafted Brohm in the 2nd round. I would have gone pretty heavy w/ OL after that, as well as adding OL in FA too though. Point is, there is no reason we shouldn't be able to work on both the OL and QB.

I know many feel they have an elite run game due to AP, and frankly, I laugh. To me, it is simple. They have an elite run game due to their OL. Before AP, they added Chester the molester (that never gets old:)) and had a damn good run game. He is average, but behind that OL, he was damn good. AP is a damn good RB (though I agree w/ you on injury concerns) but behind that OL, damn good becomes HOF. It is like Jason's sig. Great OLs, like Minny, make an average RB good, good RB great, and great RB HOF. If AP went down w/ injury in game one, I would say they still have a great run offense, as an average RB like Taylor can look great behind that line.

I will agree he has done better in FA (on offense) than in the draft, though it would be hard not to w/ his draft record. Then again, Clark was so great we spent years talking about needing a better TE. And while TJ was a great pickup, Angelo also drafted Benson w/ TJ on the roster and traded away TJ. Problem is, too many of his offensive FA moves have been older FAs who have a short window to play well. R. Brown, Miller, Moose (for example). They may give you a year or two, but are simply bandaids. If you can't find talent in the draft, you are going to be in trouble. Do you want any crushed candy on that double dip?

Hey, I said I would suck as a GM, but sorry, even us lame fans would have our hits. And hey, I can make a great chocolate/vanilla twist, not sure about the strawberry. But my kids insist I am a genius in this area

I would add that, as we are now going w/ Orton, a less experienced QB, I think we are more likely to keep Booker, a more experienced WR. Maybe it is a false sense of blind faith based off years past w/ Booker, but I simply am not as worried about him. There are several veterans in camp who we really don't read anything about, but to me, that is because they are simply meeting expectations. To me, if we were reading more articles about Booker, it would likely not be a good thing. Seriously, I doubt there would be many articles if Booker were looking good, but if he were looking bad enough to be cut, I think we would read a ton about it.

Saying you prefer a veteran is all well and good, but few veterans who are more than short term bandaids become available. Next year, sure, we look at FA and the trade market, but the draft should also be looked at. Frankly, I would say we use both.

We have an elite D and a running game that may just surprise you. We had an elite D. We hope it is again. And even when elite, were we very good against the run? As for our run game, if they are good this year, yes that would be a surprise. I like Forte, and even Wolfe, but simply question the OL. BTW, do you realize what that Vikings elite running game produced the second half of the season? AP played in 6 games and averaged 50 yards per game. 3.8 per carry. He added only an average of 10 yards receiving. But AP wasn't their only RB. While AP struggled in the 2nd half, they also had Chester Taylor who did pretty darn well himself. In the 2nd half, I think they rushed for under 100 yards only a couple times for example, in one game AP struggled (14 carries for 3 yards) Taylor picked up the slack gaining 101 yards. In another, AP struggled w/ 36 yards on 11 carries, while Taylor rushed for 83 on 10. Minny was the #1 run team in the league, and it wasn't even close. 2,600 yards. 5.3 avg. 164.6 ypc. 22 TDs. They led the league in every rushing category. Sorry, but they were elite. I know he was hurt but he was fairly healthy when we played him the second time and he looked pretty human in that game. A lot of teams thought that. And his running style will always make him susceptible to injury. Vikings fans may have a lot to look forward to but they also have a lot to worry about, IMO. If AP were their only RB, I too may have some questions, but he is part of a running tandem, w/ a former 1,200 gainer to split carries w/. As much as you might try to take away from them, the numbers really kill your point.

Um, to quote Cracker, I think you two need to get a room

Too old and a family to support to be taking minor risks, must less big gambles. At the same time, I just think some idiolize these guys a bit much. Its one thing when talking about football players. The best of us would look pathetic trying to replace Metcalf, DM or any of our favorite whipping boys. Hell, Benson is better than any of us. But when you talk about GMs, what skills do they have exactly you believe is so beyond any of us. Were they born w/ natural skills that simply make them GMs? Sorry, but in so many ways, a GM is a business man. He is a manager. And believe it or not, many around here are the same. Look at Lt2. Could he be a cap manager for an NFL team? Maybe. Not sure. But is it so outlandish to believe it is possible? In football, just as in many sports, you have positions the average joe could never consider being capable of doing. For example, I could never coach. As much as I blast Turner, I would be a joke on such a level that would make Crowton, Shoop, Shea and such look HOF. I simply do not think GMs are on such a level some of you do. Some are former players, scouts, or whatever. Others were simply business majors who got into the field of sports.

St. Clair played well the other night. Are you even watching these games? They had a backup and/or someone for the rotation. Sorry, but I am watching the games, and didn't think St. Clair played all that well. To be fair to St. Clair, he isn't a LT, but isn't that a knock on a staff which had him as our primary backup? And drafting a boatload of O Line guys in this draft would've prevented that or better prepared us for this? Draft and FA, for the record. And to answer your question. Yes. I am not even sure what your argument against this would be. Either you think Angelo is just that bad drafting OL, and thus drafting OL would not help, or you don't think having quality OL makes a difference. You may not but Jason made that exact claim. That started it. Let him fight his own battles. But I undersand his thinking, and thus can't help but to jump in And regardless of where the info comes from, he has it and you/Jason don't. If you were the GM you'd have it. He is and he does. And he still isn't living up to what Jason thinks he could produce with little or no information. But I would argue we have access to far more info than you pretend to realize. You asked, for example, what the depth chart is for the OL in NY. Then you said we could look it up, but Angelo doesn't have to. I call BS. I bet you that if you asked Angelo point blank the same question, he would have to refer to info provided to him. I question his knowing, off the top of his head, nearly as much as you think. He would refer to info provided to him, much the same way you, I or Jason would have to look up the info to answer that question. In the end, I think we can all come up w/ the answers. I talked about this above. The point Jason makes is that he could do it without this information and hence why I called bullshit. You're picking a straw man out to fight about. Frankly, based on your comments here, I probably wouldn't let you serve me an ice cream cone at the DQ, let alone run my favorite football team. One, again, I think you give Angelo too much credit. He would have to look up the info, just as anyone else would. Two, if the ice cream is yellow, I might recommend taking a pass myself. There's that straw man again. But to answer your question, the buck stops with JA. Nobody here has ever put their livelihood on the line with making a pick in the draft. Doesn't matter where he gets the info, the point is he has it and makes good decisions, usually, with it. Below, you state that whoever is pulling the strings for the offense isn't getting it done, but here you say the buck stops w/ Angelo. If that is the case, should he not be held accountable for the failures on offense? Bernard Berrian was just signed away from us for #1 receiver money. The Vikings seem to think you're wrong. They're an NFL franchise and you're a dude on the internet arguing with me. Benson was the right decision at the time. Bust. Bringing Tait in was a major coup when it happened. He's served us well for a few years and now seems to be slipping. Olsen is widely thought to be a great TE and we may have found another great one this draft. We haven't had a good TE in Chicago in my adult lifetime. Ever heard the one about a blind dog finding a bone? Or how about a broken clock being right twice a day? Point is, hitting on one or two offensive players in what, 7 years?, doesn't prove a whole hell of a lot. If it does for you, your standards are pretty damn low. Berrian is not a #1 WR, but is a good WR, and a solid value for the 3rd round pick he cost the team. Good pick. But that is about it, and again, in how many years. You want to use Olsen, but sorry, that is still up in the air. Until production is discussed over potential, I do not believe you can use a player to support your argument. Would you try to use Forte. He has yet to carry once in a real game, but has shown tons of potential, so would you use him? As for Tait, now we are getting away from the draft, which is fine, but again, you also expand the field for failures. BTW, I agree with you on one point here, I think JA ought to get some kind of "O Consultant" because whoever the Wizard has behind the curtain pulling the strings for him on O, ain't gitten 'er done as consistently as any of us would like. But I think you know well Angelo is not going to hire an O consultant. So my question is this. If Anelo is great in building a defense, but fails miserably fielding an offense, is that good enough? All those internet experts... so little time.

I didn't get to watch Olsen as much in the Seattle game, but I DVR'd the KC game, and was shocked at just how back his blocking was. Olsen makes Benson look like a good blocker. The other issue I have w/ Olsen would be the drops. As I recall, from an article, Olsen was among the league leaders in percentage of drop passes per catch attempt last year. I read posters talk about how he wasn't brought in for his blocking, but (a) if he can't block, he will not be on the field as much and ( if he can't block, he better be Gates-like as far as receiving. I still think Olsen has loads of potential, but I am simply disappointed in his lack of development thus far.

Personally, I see little that can be done for this season beyond simply hoping players really step up. What I think we should be focusing on at this point is future seasons. - We have a lot of talent at WR and TE. Development of these players is crucial to our future success. - Same w/ RB. - On the OL, I just don't see them coming together this year, but maybe we can develop a few players for the future. Beekman/Oakley and Barton come to mind. - I doubt our QB of the future is on the team. We should put loads of resources into the QB position, and prepare to add a QB next year. - Defense is solid now, but (a) we can work on aspects of our scheme that may have held us back in the past and ( we should try to get some of our younger players additional reps for the future. Steltz, Payne, Graham, McBride, Williams, Anderson, Harrison.

I have a Vikings fan buddy. He's looking at this season as a glass half full. Why? His QB is unproven at best and is already hurt. His defense can't stop the pass. His team hasn't done shit since he was in grade school and hasn't ever won a Superbowl. He isn't the type to openly crow but if he were, I'd remind him that but for a career long field goal by Ryan Longwell, our team records would've been exactly the same for 2007! Sure, they've got a better O Line than us but most of the other aspects of the team favor the Bears. He gets to be optimistic, so DO I!!! I think Minny fans have plenty to be optimistic about. Sure, they could tank, but their team is looking pretty good right now. - QB - Yea, Jackson is unproven, and frankly, just doesn't look very good, but w/ an OL and ground game he has in front of him, he doesn't have to be great. Hanie would probably do well in that offense - Defense can't stop the pass - That was true last year, but at the same time, they went out and traded for one of the league's premier pass rushers. Maybe that doesn't translate into good pass defense, but I think the real point is, they recognized a weakness, and were aggressive trying to fix it. - Also, while their pass defense may or may not be improved, they also had the best run defense in the game. If you have an elite run game and run defense, I think you have plenty of reason for hope. Minny may suck. I don't know. But I absolutely see why a Minny fan would be optimistic right now, especially w/ the rest of their division either looking flat out awful, or going through the sort of soap opera as we saw (and loved) in GB.

They can add a QB, and put Hanie on the PS, keeping Rex on the roster.

One reason the O Line is in bad shape is because of the injury. You don't need to bash the pick. If he was healthy, we may not be having a conversation about the line. At least not to this extent. Sorry, but I would argue the problem is more than one injury. The problem is we didn't prepare for injuries. We drafted a LT, and expected him to be our starter. Who was his backup? The guy we intended to start at LG, and who himself I think was questionable in that position. His backup? Metcalf. That's ugly. IMHO, when you have a unit that has suffered injuries year in and year out, that should tell you how important depth is. Not us though. The line improved toward the end of the season. Further, it could be said that the biggest disappointment in the line thus far is Tait. Hell, who would've seen that coming? He wanted to be moved back to his more natural position on the right side and thus far it's been a more difficult adjustment than anyone could've predicted. One, the line improved, but isn't that relative? What, we went from being the worst to 5th from worst. Its not like the line was playing well at the end of the season. More a matter of just how bad they played prior. As for Tait, I think more than you think wondered if he wasn't simply slipping. A move to RT was hoped to help, but many still felt there was a very real need to add depth. Especially after watching how fast Miller went downhill, more should have been done to prepare for the possibility of Tait going downhill. No, you don't. Tell me right now how many O Lineman are on the Jets and who they project to keep. How about the Steelers? I know you can look it up and I know you can guess at who they'll keep. Not the point. Jerry knows this information right now, without looking it up, and can project, based on a knowledge of the entire landscape, who will be available, at what price and who best to chase when it happens. You don't. Sorry, but this is bogus. What, you think Angelo is the wizard of Oz? He knows about these things because people feed him the info. You think he himself scouts every team? Hell no. If you, I or Jason were the GM, we would have a flood of people providing us this info. While I am not saying I could be the bears GM, at the same time, I think this is a false argument. If any of us were, we would have the same tools at our disposal Angelo has now. You assume that either we would have to know all this stuff on our own, or you assume Angelo knows this info on his own. Both are inaccurate believes. I'm not saying there aren't questionable moves by anyone, least of all JA. His mistakes are clear. But you couldn't carry his jock. And neither could I. Fans love to believe they'd make all the right decisions. You say we'd be missing a few guys we all now love. Damn dude... That's pretty arrogant. Look at this roster. For better or worse, one hell of a lot of our players come from deep in the draft. If you're that knowledgeable, you belong in a GM role somewhere for a team. Otherwise, you're just a guy with an opinion, like the rest of us. IMHO, I would argue many of us would be able to hit on numerous picks later in the draft. That is because we would have scouts and personnel directors helping us, the same as Angelo. Again, not saying I could do it, but I am saying you seem to pretend any of us, if we had the job, would not have the tools Angelo does. Let me ask you this? Why is being the GM so different from being a manager of any number of other companies? I bash coaches, but there is no question I am a pure arm chair QB in this regard. I know a few posters have coaching experience, but I don't. I know that if I coached a team, I would be ripped worse than Shoop and last a shorter period than Crowton. But to me, being the GM of a team is more about management. You have scouts feeding you reports on this player and that player. In the end, you make the decision, but do so based on reports provided from others. Angelo would shred me in putting a defense together. No question in my mind on that one. He is a former defensive scout, and simply put, he knows defense. On the other hand, I have not seen anything to make me believe he knows offense to the point he should be given such credit. At no position on offense has he proven himself. In general, I doubt I would be a good GM. I simply am not great w/ numbers. On the other hand, I do feel fans have tools today we lacked in years past. Look at the info out their prior to the draft. In years past, you had Kiper, and even that was a huge upgrade to what was previously out there. Today? Today you have loads of sites who actually employ ex-scouts, GMs and or coaches. You get scouting reports on not just the top players in the draft, but the bottom players as well. I laugh when I read someone so easily dismiss a fans ability to draft. No question a fan would have more than his fair share of misses, just as GMs do, but on the other hand, I think fans today have the tools to have some late round hits too.

I would go w/ Orton myself, but I would hedge expectations about his "solving" anything. Think of it like a puzzle. I don't care who you are. If pieces are missing, you are not going to solve the puzzle. Not only are we missing pieces, but we are missing key corner/border pieces you usually need to start the puzzle.

I can take getting blasted, but, while I do not recall what every poster said/wanted, I think it is a question of extremes. Many, if not most, posters wanted to improve the OL. Many wanted Faneca, or draft and OT, or this or that. Where I think the minority came into play was in how many OL some of us wanted to add. I was not just wanting one or two players. I wanted a huge turnover. I wanted to add (through FA and the draft) starters and an largue influx of depth. I was looking for 3 or 4 OL in the draft, and not a 1st and a group of 7ths. Look, seriously, I didn't want to even begin an "I told you so" direction. There were plenty of fans that could jump into that discussion. Call it a moment of weakness. It was a subject Jason and I were often ridiculed for, and I guess I let out some frustration. My only hope is that (a) some players on the OL play/develop better than expected. Barton, Beekman and Oakley for example. Or ( Angelo has FINALLY learned to value the OL a LOT more than he has in the past.

Huh? When has he EVER made what we would describe as "One helluva a catch." I can think of zero. At the same time I can think of a ton of drops he's had. Sure, most of those were in heavy traffic, but that's my point. I've never seen him do anything that made me say "wow." I'm not saying he sucks, and like I mentioned, I think he can be a good starting TE, but until he makes some outstanding plays, he's never going to be a top tier TE. Agreed. I have been sort of busting on Orton for a while now. He was a 1st round pick who was expected to go higher than he did. I know we have Clark, but it just does not seem like Olsen has developed as expected. We did that a lot in the first pre-season game, especially lining him up as the slot receiver. I think his role probably changed last night after Des Clark went down with the injury. Agreed. We did start running more 2 TE sets in the first game, and was splitting Olsen out wide too. But after Des went down, everything changed. I don't get why Olsen has so much trouble blocking. Everytime he's interviewed he says, "I really need to improve on my blocking." Yet there were times last night he was absolutely torched. I don't get it. This is where I have really been blasting Olsen. He isn't the biggest TE, but he is not small either. I really tried to focus on him in the 1st game, at least the 2nd time I watched the recording. He was as bad of a blocker as the rest of our OL. Defenders were pushing him and moving him as if he were a 200lb weakling. For me, and maybe this is wrong, but its what I believe, but for me blocking is mostly mental/heart. Either you have the desire to block (and the guts) or you don't. Olsen may say he does, but until we see it on the field...... If you took away the draft positions, and compared Davis and Olsen based solely on how they have done in camp, would Olsen or Davis be starting? I have a feeling Olsen would be watching Davis.

Michael Turner: Would have been overpriced for a relative unknown Agreed. Spend the money on the OL, not on a RB who would not find holes to run through. Bryant Johnson: Pointless considering the fact there is a logjam at WR right now, and the OL stinks so bad that there could never be a valid evaluation. Personally, I disagree here. Adding BJ would have meant (a) we wouldn't have needed Booker ( we wouldn't have felt the need (or Angelo wouldn't have) to spend a high pick on a WR. W/ that said, I don't recall how much he ended up getting. Bernard Berrian: Best WR last year, but not a #1, and not worthy of the tag. Watch him suck this year for the Vikes. Not sure he will suck for Minny, but agree we should have never tagged him. Thing w/ Minny is, Jackson may not be that good, but w/ the OL and ground game they have, he doesn't need to be. Berrian will find himself w/ a lot of one-on-one coverages due to defendses stacking up to stop the run. Derek Anderson: See Michael Turner. Overpriced to get him. Sell high, buy low...not the other way around. Again, disagree. I honestly do not know for sure if I would have done it or not, and I don't recall what it would have cost, but we are talking QB here. I would say Anderson would have been a high risk, but at some point, isn't taking a risk worth it? Chad Pennington: Abso-friggin-lutely not. He would be worse than Rex or Orton with this OL. His noodle arm would have done nearly nothing except throw INTs under pressure. At least with the two we have there is a chance of a ball squeezing through a window. Frankly, I don't think it matters. Pennington was going to play for Parcells. That we basically a done deal immediately. But let me say this. Chad may not have a strong arm, but he is probably still better than what we have. His addition may be short term, but I think I would have more confidence in him than what we have. Faneca: This I completely agree with. The Bears should have realized the weakest point last year. Hell, anyone with eyes, a brain, and elementary knowledge of football should have seen this. Yup. For me, it isn't JUST Faneca. He was the player I wanted, and who I feel would have benefited the OL as a whole the most. At the same time, if they added another good OG, then fine. But we added NOTHING, and simply expected St. Clair to man the position. Drafting QB: Agreed. There should always be a QB blossoming on the horizon. By the way, Colt Brennan looks to be adjusting to the NFL quite well. Frankly, I will never understand that one.

Okay, first, I disagree on Berrian, but that is another story. Point here is, I disagree on Faneca. Did he get a ton? Yup. Elite OGs are making the sort of money that, not long ago, most felt only LTs got. Yea, he isn't young, but oh well. Imagine how much higher his deal would have been if he were. What kills me is, NY signed him for the same reasons we should have. (a) Because he is a stud that solidifies the LG position. ( Because they have a LT who they feel has loads of talent, but hasn't developed as they hoped. They believed adding an elite LG veteran to play next to that young LT, there would be a greater jump in development. So you solidify the LG position, and improve the LT positions as well. They actually hope Faneca has that effect on their center too. Sorry, but I will never understand the thinking. We spend a 1st round pick on at LT. Great. But we also intend to go w/ the winner of Metcalf/St.Clair to man the LG spot. Even if he were not injuried, how well does a rookie develop next to either of those two? I just feel you build in the trenched, both on offense and defense. If we put together a great OL, wanna bet how much better the WRs we do have would look? Maybe Hester becomes a stud w/ a great OL. Maybe not. I don't know. But w/ the OL we have, Berrian would never do a whole hell of a lot.

One. How would having Berrian make a difference when the QB barely has time for a 3 step drop. And DO NOT tell me how defenses wouldn't stack/attack w/ Berrian at WR, because they have been doing it for years. Two. How is it we could afford to tag Berrian w/o affecting any of our other signings, but couldn't afford Faneca w/o affecting them? Sorry, I just don't see how Berrian would make a difference.

Jeez, pat yourself on the back much? I was talking about how our line was getting old before the start of the season LAST YEAR. Several agreed then. Your right. Too much damn back patting going on. Just recall being in the minority w/ Jason, fighting w/ an on-slaught of posters who simply didn't think going heavy on the OL was necessary.

The bad news is that the day's worst OL play result came from Tait, so if we can't get solid, consistent play out of him then I agree, it's hopeless. At that point we're having to replace almost the whole OL. And the sick part? By the time all OL holes are filled, we will likely need a new center too. Its sad to think how far away we are.

Is there? The point is, if this is how our OL is going to play, whatever the QBs are facing now is what they can expect to face during the season. Whether you want to call it pressure or whatever, to me, it is a good way to evaluate our QBs, as they are going to have to deal w/ during the season.

Agreed on the WRs. I think that is partially why they always said they wanted to make the QB decision by now. I think they are planning on matching all positions to the QB position. As they decide on a QB, they decide on other positions, and begin trying to form some continuity.