nfoligno

D. Manning - will not hurt us to be gone. Cap friendly for whoever may want him. But who would want him? Maybe another team would believe they could develop a player we couldn't, but how much value does he have? R. Manning -Obviously already on the block. Cap friendly for us and may fill a huge need for a deprived team. Problem is, I see him having about zero value. We are not even playing him, thus his value is at an all time low. If we wanted to trade him, it would make more sense to use him and showcase him more to set up a trade. Right now, I think team expect us to cut him. A. Adams - Looking good for us, but we are deep. Cap friendly for both. This would scare the heck out of me. Adams is that sort of player our staff never appreciates, but who too often is needed. While we have loads of talent at DT, I just do not trust the players we have, due to injury or experience. I. Idonije - Again, we are deep. Buffalo still may want. Cap friendly again. I could see this one. I think he has "some" value, but how much? Also, he is a favorite of Lovies. A. Ogunleye - Please no booing here. He would hurt, but an OL would help more than his loss. Not going to boo, but I think it would be a bad move. He is our best DE, and if our system relies on pressure from the front four, I fear how bad his loss would be felt. We generates little enough pass rush from our front four w/ him. What would it be like w/o? M. Anderson - young talented enigma. Has value for contract and potential. No way would I trade Anderson. He has shown far too much potential. Double digit pass rushers are simply too great of a commodity to trade away. Coming off a poor season, his trade value simply is not equal to his value to the team. We can't do it due to contract, but I would trade Alex Brown before Anderson. M. Brown - Instant help for a team that needs a FS piece of the puzzle. Again, value. Who is going to give us jack w/ Brown's injury history. Further, and again, his value to the team is simply far greater than his value in a trade. Safety is now one of our more questionable units on defense. Brown's loss would be heavily felt. L. Briggs - Did not sign a monster deal, so is very tradable. We'd eat some bonus, but could net a stud player. Depth behind him. How much of that deal was guarnateed? We might have to eat more than just "some" bonus money. He may have once been tradable, but I am not sure he is now. Vasher and Tillman - Blasphemy! Not really. Good players with solid market value. Again, they would hurt... Again, contract issues. We just re-signed them, and both received solid bonus dollars. I think we would likely have to restructure several players just to absorb the cap hit we would receive. Lastly, Olsen and Clark - I don't see this as a fix, as they ae currenly involved in the OL/WR solution to our woeso see anyone go. We just gave Clark new money, and Olsen is the expected replacement. I see several issues w/ a trade. We can trade players like RMJ or DM, who have little value to the team, but who would likely get us very little in return value. Others might offer more return value, but would the player we receive off-set the hole we would create, like if we traded a player like Wale, Anderson, Brown, Vasher, etc. The other thing to consider is this. Are we one player away from greatness? If we were, I could see my way to trading more value. But even if we did get a solid OG or OT in return, would that really be the difference? I am not against a trade, but I think getting someone available is simply more likely.

I would say multiple problems. One. If we are talking about a WR screen, that is difficult for us to run because our WRs do not get respect enough to back the DB off the LOS. It can work well when the WR has space to make the catch and juke the DB. As our WRs gain no respect, and are facing DBs who chuck them at the LOS, there is no space to work w/, and thus a DB is in their face as they are making a catch. Two. QB size. May not be an issue w/ Orton (I sure he has plenty of others) but I have seen Rex' passes knocked down too often because he can't throw over the DE on the outside. Three. If we are talking about RBs, I think the key issue is the OL, and even there, you have a couple issues. (a) Most of the time we try this, it seems the QB has to get rid of the ball before the play is really set. Because of this, our blockers are not ready to get in front, and the RB is often not even looking back yet. Or even if all that is okay, the pass is not great as the QB was hurried. ( As already mentioned, our OL simply are not very good at pulling. How telling is it that R.Brown, who is nearly up for social security, was considered our best pulling OL. Even when the RB does catch the ball, he is usually blown up because the OL supposed to be out in front are not in position. © coaching. One of the things that drives me nuts is how often we try this play, only to have an illegal downfield block penalty called. I think Kreutz is among the worst offenders. You can't make a block until the RB has the ball, and Kreutz (and others) make their blocks too early, and thus the play is called back. That, to me, is coaching. Four is the QB. Nearly every time I have seen Rex throw a screen pass, he does so off his backfoot. Whether other QBs do it that way or not, when Rex throws off his backfoot, it usually means a bad pass. While short, you need a good pass for the screen to work, and rarely does the pass seem to fall into the RBs hands in such a way to allow yards after the catch. More often, the RB has to catch a ball thrown behind him, or simply off, negating momentum. All in all, I think we have not had personnel to make this play work, and even if we did, do not seem to have coaches that know how to coach players on this sort of play. It's too bad too as this is a play that could really expose an overly aggressive pass rush defense. What is really sad is how often I see this play work to perfection against us, only to see laughable results when we try it.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Not to mention, I never brought up AP starting. Those were other posters. I don't believe I ever said YOU said AP could start for other teams, but as you admitted, many others did. I simply think we tend to over-value our own too often. I have seen many say Jamar Williams could start for other teams. Based on what exactly? I don't think it is apples to oranges. Every teams fan will do it, but so often I have seen bear fans say this player or that player could start for another team. Then when that player gets a shot to start for us, we realize how questionable those comment were. You're telling me that Olsen couldn't start in Oakland or Miami..or in Atlanta? I could rattle off more. Oakland drafted Miller last year, who as a rookie, on a horrible offense, had 44 catches and looked pretty darn good. Miami traded w/ Dallas for Fasano, who was I think a 2nd round draft pick out of Notre Dame. Could Olsen start over him? Maybe, but it would be no sure thing. Fasano did little w/ Dallas, but was also behind one of the top TEs in the game. His opportunity to start was far less than Olsens. Atlanta - I have never even heard of their TEs, so yea, Olsen would have a great shot to start there. I guess though, for me, when we talk about how a player could start elsewhere, the though should not be by default. If another team had a very spare backup LG, and a fan said he could start in Chicago, he may actually be correct, but would that really be saying much positive about the player? Saying Olsen could start in Atlanta, for a team that has nothing at the position, is not exactly a compliment. And that is the point. When you, or others, say this backup or that backup could start for another team, is your point (a) that he may suck, but other teams have nothing so even our guy could start, or ( that our backup is very good, and buy league standards, would be considered a starter. I think you mean the later, thus finding the handful of teams who simply are awful isn't very meaningful to me. The arguement was whether or not JA drafted legit starters. I believe he did in Olsen. I'm not annointing him to the Hall of Fame, pro bowl,etc...I simply said he could start on a number of clubs. And I truly believe that. I'm sure many others would agree. Again, see above. If your comment is simply that there are teams that simply suck at TE, and Olsen could start for them, fine. I don't particularly considered that a compliment or positive, but fine. Olsen was drafted I believe because he was highly regarded, fell into a great draft slot, Clark's not getting any younger, and Clark wasn't all that consistent early on with the Bears. I alwasys thought Olsen has a chance to be more of a Shannon Sharpe typoe of player...he's got speed for his size. Maybe even in a Dwight Clark mode. Not that he's in their calibur at the moment...but in terms of those kinds of smaller, faster players. (Or larger,slower in Dwight's case if I were to compare to a WR). He's dropped no more balls than Shockey... - Don't get me wrong. I wanted Olsen, and like the kid. But my thing is, his arce needs to start developing. His blocking looks awful right now, and that could hurt his playing time. The staff doesn't like WRs who can't block. Wanna guess how they feel about TEs who can't block. As a receiver, maybe Shockey has had more drops, but while I don't know where to get the stats, I recall reading that Olsen was among the league leaders in drops per pass attempts. I remember it well because it surprised me. I can deal w/ some drops, but you better be better in other areas. Let me ask you this. How much have you read about Olsen in camp? I have read a ton about the rookie, and how he has caught everything thrown his direction, and how impressive he has been blocking. Olsen? I just haven't read much, but have read about numerous drops. I still think Olsen has more potential (theres that word again) than any TE in camp, but also believe he needs to start taking those necessary steps forward to turn potential into production. And his being as weak as I saw in blocking is a big deal for me. He may not be the biggest TE in the league, but at 6'5 265, I just don't believe he should be getting pushed around like what I saw. Davis is the same weight, 2 inches taller, and simply has appeared to be a far better blocker.

I see GM and Minny both being pretty good this year. While they have a question at QB, they do have a potential replacement for Favre. Further, I would point out they have most every other piece in place. GB has a solid OL, solid RB and good WRs. They may have a question at QB, but also have all the pieces in place to make the transition more smooth. They also had a solid defense last year. They lost Favre, but IMHO, were simply in a better position to deal w/ that as they have so many other areas already solidified. Minny could be very good this year. Here is another team that is VERY questionable at the QB position, but similar to GB, they are pretty set around the QB. They have potentially the best OL in the league, and potentially, the best ground game. An OL and ground game like Minny has makes the job of the QB far easier. Jackson won't have to often put the offense on his shoulders to win games. Further, while they may not have a great WR corp, they did upgrade w/ the addition of Berrian. Their defense was pretty darn good last year. They were beasts against the run. They struggled against the pass, but also added one of the league's premier pass rushers, which could help the secondary tremenously. Maybe they won't have a great passing offense or pass defense, but IMHO, being able to run the ball and stop the run will go a LONG way in this league. Detroit? Who knows. Their Detroit.

special teams can not get any better. Agreed. While I think teams will be good/great, there isn't much room to improve. Most likely, teams will more than ever avoid Hester. Quite frankly, I feel our OL and WR situation is worse than last year. I am not saying either are good, but worse? OL - Same at C and RG. I would argue we improved at RT. LT? Frankly, I am not sure St. Clair is a drop from what we saw out of Tait last year at LT. He was pretty bad. While it isn't looking good at LG, it was a massive hole last year too, so I am not sure we actually downgraded. So overall, while I am not sure we improved much, I am not sure how much worse we are either. WR - I don't consider Moose's departure a downgrade at all. Booker may not be much, but I would argue he is no worse than equal, if not an upgrade. Berrian's departure is the only issue, and while I do not believe any one player will match his numbers, at the same time, I wonder if Hester and Lloyd won't provide adequate replacements. I would argue, by all reports, Davis is improved over last year. And Hester, if he has developed as much as it appears in camp, is a weapon we lacked last year. I think there is potential that our WR corp is better than it was last year, but at minimum, I am just not sure I would argee we downgraded. We simply were not good last year, and even w/ Berrian's departure, I am just not sure we are worse off. I also feel our RB and TE situation is better. Agreed. RB - Forte, while unproven, sure seems like an upgrade to Benson, and Wolfe looks pretty good thus far too. TE - Clark doesn't appear to have lost anything. Olsen is a year developed, and I it appears we upgraded w/ our #3 TE, who some wonder if he shouldn't be getting more looks than he has been. I would add that it appears we will run more 2 TE sets, which in itself is an upgrade, as we are getting better weapons on the field, where as last year we rarely saw 2 TE packages, and thus had one of our better weapons sitting on the bench. Will it be enough to off-set the worst OL in the league? Probably not. Unfortunately, even if we were upgraded at every other position, it is hard for those positions to shine w/o an OL paving the way. Turner better have his best season as a coach this year or it will bring our D and ST down with it. Not super optimistic. I have seen little from Turner since he joined the team that gives me much reason for optimism. Running more 2 TEs sets though is a nice sign. I don't have any problem with 25th until I see improvement in the OL. The 3rd pre-season game should tell a lot. Agreed. As good as the defense is, if the offense is bad enough, it can easily negate a good defense. And frankly, I need to see MUCH more from Babich before I accept the greatness of our D. They may be great on paper, but do we have a DC that will allow that paper to become reality? Maybe it all works out, but w/ so many questions at so many positions, particularly key positions, I just do not see reason for high pre-season rankings.

Yea, the backup QB is always the most popular in Chicago. Sad but true. I like what I saw from Hanie, but also keep it in perspective. Right now, about the only thing I consider w/ him is hope for a possible future QB, but absolutely no expectation for the present. Honestly, I just don't get the Simms love fest. He has never been a very good QB. Even back in college, he was a bit of a choke artist, and Oklahoma would own him. He could dominate North Texas, but when faced w/ a team that could rush him, he would cumble. Sound familiar? If we had an awesome OL, then maybe, but then wouldn't Rex and Orton likely look better? No, at this point, i simply don't see the point in adding Simms. We made the choice to ignore any QB options this offseason, so we may as well stick w/ that plan. Plus, I wonder how much of Rex and Orton's mediocre play thus far us due to the OL, and further wonder what QB we could add that wouldn't suffer the same w/ our OL issues. We should be looking at ways to fix the OL. Do that, and who knows, maybe our QBs won't look quite as bad.

By and large, I agree. On defense and teams, he has done well. But.... (a) When those are your focus, do you get equal credit. When you draft DL every year, and ignore the OL, do you get equal credit for doing well on defense? Just curious. If I am building a baseball team, and I spend all my money and picks on bats, while my pitching stinks, should I really get full credit? His job is to focus on both offense and defense. If he focuses all (or most) of his resources on one side, I am simply not sure he should get full credit for what he does w/ that side. ( You mention Hester, and while he is the best return man of all time, should it be mentioned that we evaluated him to be a DB? You want to include all avenues, from FA to trades. I get that. My counter point would be this. Much like you want to look at the whole picture, so do many of us. The job of the GM is not to build one side of the ball. The job of the GM is to build a team, and IMHO, Angelo has had more than enough time to do that, and has failed. It isn't like we have an offense, but are missing a QB. Or like we are just that one special WR way. We are a freaking offense away. Is our offense today better than it was when he took over?

Nice look. In general, I would say Angelo is good at some things. He is good at drafting defense. He has hit in pretty much every round of the draft. From early picks like Harris, Tillman or Briggs to 2nd day picks like Alex Brown, Vasher or Anderson. On defense, he has done a good job. The problem is his drafting on offense. It is beyond pathetic, and a BIG reason why we are where we are offensively. Also, I think he gains a bit of reputation off some drafts or picks, but that rep is a misconception. Like the idea he owns rounds 2 through 5. He had one great year which made this rep, but otherwise, I would hardly say he has owned those rounds. Angelo is a hell of a defensive evaluator. If we wanted to hire a new GM, I would recommend Angelo for defensive assistant to the GM. But Jerry just sucks on offense.

Sorry, but I have never gone along w/ the "he could start for another team" argument. I remember how about a year ago, reading so many talking about how AP could start for many teams in the league. I know you talk about how Olsen isn't a starter because we have a solid veteran in front of him, but.... (a) Its not like Clark is a pro bowler. In fact, Olsen was drafted to replace Clark, and for several years, most screamed for us to draft a TE. Clark is a good TE, but not so good he should be holding back a 1st round pick, IMHO. Two. If Clark is that good, then why did Angelo draft a TE? I was all for drafting Olsen, but right now, I would say he has a LOT to prove. He has looked like a flat out poor blocker. You might say he was brought here for his receiving and not blocking, but he sure does seem to drop a lot of balls. I think he has tons of potential, but right now, I am not sure I would agree he would start for many teams. Most any team would take him for his potential, but right now, I think he is a backup for a reason, and it isn't just Clark.

Um, are we talking about the same Moose who threw his own QB under the bus when he was still a bear? If he had no problem shredding his own player, I don't see much reason to believe he will keep his mouth shut now that he is not even w/ the team.

Not sure if I buy a trade. Let me ask you. How good do you expect us to be? Even if we did make a trade, how good do you think we would be? I mean, we could trade a spare for a spare, but how much would that really help. If we want to do something, we have to make a significant trade, but if we did that, what would we give up? And how much do we want to give up if this is not a playoff/SB team? Agreed 100% about the draft philosophy, and I have pretty much sreamed as much for years. Every year I have wanted OL, and every year I have watched Angelo draft anything but. I swear he seems to view OL as a necessary evil in the draft. What I would like to see is him apply his philosophy of the DL to the OL. On the DL, we can be 3 or even 4 deep at a position, and he drafts another player or two regardless. We had Wale, Brown, Anderson and Bazuin, and yet regardless, he drafted another DE this year. Every year, he seems to draft one, or more, DL player, numerous of which are top 4 round picks. OL? Most years we are lucky to see a 7th rounder. Is there any wonder why our OL sucks?

Hey stranger. Good to see a post from ya. A couple of things I'd like to add for comment: On Olsen. There was one play where he was lined up on he left side, and the play was a run behind him. He was the LAST guy off the LOS, in fact, I think he forgot the snap count. So everyone and their uncle was moving for a full two counts before he got out of his stance. Come on. You're not a rookie and you may not earn your keep being a blocker. But know the snap count or you're going to find yourself relegated to a specialist. Yea, I have actually sort of bashed Olsen already. I recorded the game, and after noticing a couple questionable plays, started to focus on him a few times. His blocking was horrendous. The man is no small fry, but when he would engage, he would get pushed around like a ragdoll. I couldn't believe just how bad he was. Didn't matter whether he was blocking a DE, DT, LB or what. He was moved around as if he weren't there. Also noticed his being a tick late to move off the snap. Some would talk about how blocking was never his strong suit, but I didn't realize it was a flat out weakness either. Further, I keep reading about him dropping ball in practice, and he dropped quite a few last year too. This guy was a 1st round pick. I think it fair to expect more than what we have seen so far. Right now, I am wondering if this years 2nd day TE couldn't challenge. Some rays of hope for our OL in that Tyler Reed, Kirk Barton and Josh Beekman were positives. I thought Beekman got out in space and shielded pursuit on a few outside plays. I'm so tired of seeing our OL pull out and then let everyone run past them. It's not enough to get there. You gotta find someone and take them out of the play. I didn't notice Reed much. I liked much of what I saw from Beekman. As much of a positive as it was for him, how much of a knock was his play on the staff that wouldn't give him a chance. Think about that. If Metcalf were healthy, Beekman would still be backing up Kreutz. Metcalf? As for Barton, I actually wanted him as early as the 4th or 5th round of the draft. I was thrilled we got him, especially as late as we did. I had been disappointed I hadn't heard anything before now. I actually was hoping we would give him a shot at the ROG position. Can we stop trying to force the round peg in the square hole with Bennett on the KOR? Holy smokes that was bad. Speaking of bad, Danieal Manning indeed does still suck. Um, you want our staff to stop forcing the round peg? That is this staff's forte. And regarding Manning, I said the identical thing already. I have yet to see what he is good at.

Look, I know there are some bad ones but he makes a killing does JA off 2-5 round picks. Period. Look. My daughter believes Strawberry Shortcake is real, and wants to visit her and her friends. Believing it to be true, and actually being true, are two very different things. You throw out comments about how Angelo owns the 2nd through 5th rounds, but I have given lists, and while you make funny little comments, you really offer little evidence to support such claims. 2002 Brown in the 4th was solid/great. But the 2nd, 3rd and two 5th round picks were busts. 2003 Great 2nd and 3rd w/ Tillman and Briggs. 4th and 5th? Not bad. This was actually one of those really bad 1st round, but pretty solid after, years. 2004 Bad 2nd w/ Tank. Good 3rd w/ Berrian. Great 4th w/ Vasher. Bad 5th w/ Leon Joe. 2005 Bradly, Orton, Currie. Not a great middle draft. 2006 Great job w/ Hester, and Anderson in the 5th was a great find. D.Manning, Dusty and Jamar Williams all have yet to prove jack. 2007 Still a bit early to really say about anyone. Does Angelo have some hits between the 2nd and 5th. Sure. He would be gone if he didn't. But the idea he owns these rounds I think is laughable. I think he gained such a rep in 2003, but when you take an honest look, his middle rounds simply are not that great.

B-He did well enough drafting and signing people to get us back to the super bowl. And he is gold getting draft picks signed and rewarding our own. Ironically, while few players remain from the old regim, how many are considered key players? Best OL and two of our best defensive players. We got to the SB, but after last year, we have a bit to prove it was more than a fluke. Yea, we re-sign our own, but do so at the expense of adding more talent in FA. C- I'm sure at the time they liked Benson. I'm sure they thought he wasn't going to be a big piece of crap. And the talk of the time was Mike Williams. There was talk abotu MW, but I think there was talk about more than just he. Lot of trade down talk as well. Also, I am simply not sure how much of the MW talk was legit, and how much came from fans and media who simply linked a top prospect w/ a need. I'm just saying it would interesting to look at other GM's drafts and have something to compare JA to. Sounds like a fun research paper. In your work, I would like to see a comparison against all current GMs. Do a round by round evaluation. Create a point system to grade the various player, and factor the round in the point system. I want a thourough review. For extra credit, you can compare Angelo against former GMs.

Yea, I think I refer back to that site nearly once a day. Sort the draft by team, year, or position. Great tool.

How about this. Tank, a vilified Bear, leaves the team. He talks about what a crap player Benson (still w/ the team) was. How about that for an example. Wanna bet Tank would find far fewer bear fans attacking him. It isn't who is doing the attacking, but who is being attacked.

Yea fine. He is a selfish turd. Maybe an alcoholic. A downright jerk. Whatever you want to call him, I've said it twice. But does that mean he is wrong?

BP #2- He obviously is concentrating if nfo's statements are right- he's having a great TC/pre-season. Randy Galloway, a local guy here (who I can't stand) shredded Jones for adding Tank, but has had to admit he "may" have been wrong, as Tank has been a good boy. Further, in camp, he is looking like a man possessed. Dallas fans are talking about Tank in the pro bowl this year. The hype is high. I said this before, but if Tank talked about how much he loved Rex, or how good he thought Rex was or could be, would posters say Tank should shut up and focus on his own camp. Hell no. But only because Tank speaks negative about Rex is he blasted. Last year, I believe Rivera told his players Rex was mentally soft and would crack under pressure, thus recommended his D to blitz the hell out of him. Bear fans attacked Rivera as a bitter man. If Mike Brown was let go, and told his teamates Rex was weak, wanna bet how fast Bear fans would shred the hell out of Brown? No player who speaks ill of the boy wonder is safe.

Didn't Rivera say just about the same thing, or maybe he told his players such. At the time, I believe bear fans shredded Rivera, calling him bitter. At some point though, doesn't the blind loyalty of Rex have to be questioned? Rex is ripped from one end of the league to the other. From players to coaches to scouts to GMs to the media. Not all, but wide spread enough. And yet bear fans hear such comments and simply blast the speak, whether its a hall of fame QB, former bear coach or former bear player. Whoever it is, seems to have no credibility in Bear fans mind because it is Rex being attacked. I understand attacking anyone who questions your team or player, but come on. This idea everyone out there is stupid? Tank may not be the best role model, but why are his comments so easily dismissed. What if he were in Dallas talking about how Rex was unfairly criticized, and how Rex could be one of the best QBs in the league. Would these same posters say Tank is not a bear and should just shut up. Hell no. They would use his comments as if they were gospel. But since Tank spoke negative about their savior.....

Unless the dude rides a glow in the dark cycle and dominates w/ a frisbe, no pass.

Say what you all will, but according to most here in Dallas, Tank is having an absolute great camp. Local beat guy said he was having the best camp of any player. As for the comment about Rex, why exactly should we be so quick to dismiss it? One of the things I have so often read about was how the team was 100% supportive of Rex. No matter what, he was their guy. What if that isn't the case?

I thought you were saying we were "trading" for players, which is why I asked. Tait was signed as a RFA. Miller and Brown were on the market due to age/salary combo. Garza was on the market, to a great extent, due to teams questioning his lack of an ACL, or whatever. Problem is, much of what we do would be considered bandaids. Brown and Miller were on the downside of their careers when we got them. Something left, yes, but how much. Moves like this can be good for a year or so, but not usually much more. Tait has been a good pickup, but he too is sliding. Several months ago, there was an article in the paper. It blew my mind, but Angelo actually said he prefers to sign OL, rather than draft them. He said they take time to develop, so he prefers to get them developed, rather than draft a kid and develop them himself. Problem w/ this is, it is harder and harder (not to mention expensive) to sign OL now unless they are on the downside of their career. So you bascially have to draft them, but to me, it just seems like Angelo views drafting/developing OL as a necessary evil.

I think that X's and O' wise our coaches are decent. They are some things that I would do differently as far as play calls and such. But I dont think they do a good job teaching technique as I see our guys often doing things and I am like WTF. And alot of times I dont know if it is just the player being lazy, cause I see our defense look like they go through the motions sometimes, or its poor teaching. I would think that it is tough to get some of those guys to do what you wanted. As a high school coach, I am much more in control of the players. If my MLB doesn't hustle I can make him run, sit his butt down, etc. I wouldn't think they could or would do that to Url or Briggs. I see Briggs do poor fundamentals all the time. He misses a ton of tackles, but also makes a ton of plays. Imagine what he would do if he just used better technique when breaking down and tackling. Also our coaches player development is suspect IMO. Look at Daniel Manning, dude has a ton of physical talent but they jerk him around and he doesn't look like he is coached up. JA loves to take the small school guys and thats fine is you have good teachers as coaches. I dont think we do. I agree about the technique, though I am not totally sure about Xs and Os. Especially Turner. I just am not a fan of his playcalling. On defense, it is a bit harder to tell, but too often we seem to be in the exact opposite D we need for a particular offensive play. We call a blitz to one side as they happen to call a bootleg to the other side. Outside blitz on an inside run. That sort of thing. Honestly, I just do not think much of our coaches. I think our players do as well as they do more in spite of our coaches, rather than due to them. Ditto w/ player development. Some players like Briggs or Vasher (for example) I think would develop no matter what. Others, like you mention D.Manning, are players w/ loads of raw talent, but need to be developed. That just doesn't happen for us too oftne. I have seen several posts talking about Angelo drafts, and many 2nd day picks are pointed out as doing well, but for other teams. Leon Joe and others. Well, most 2nd day players are high in talent, but in need of more development. What does it say that these players need to leave to develop? The thing that I was always told as a young coach was "at the end of the day, the players reflect the coach". Now that I am experienced I always tell that to the younger guys because they will make excuses on why their kids aren't doing what they need to do. The job of a coach is to get the players to do what you want them to do by whatever means possible. The same method might not work with everybody because everyone learns differently and has a different background. A bad coach will just say this is the way it is and its the players fault. Something I have always thought is this. A team that over-achieves is well coached. A team that under-achieves is not. Lots of grey in between, but it is a general thing I have always felt. It seems like our team (players individually, and the team as a whole) too often under-achieve. I mean, how many players can we say truly are over-achievers? Thats why it sucks when you see Bobby Wade's , Justin Gage's, and Chris Harris' go and be productive elsewhere. Thats kind of an indication of how our coaching staff is. I like Lovie, but I'm not sure of our position coaches. Not a fan of Lovie. (a) the position coaches you are not fond of, were his hires. ( if they are not getting it done, it is his job to make a change. © I hate his defensive scheme, and feel much of Babich's weaknesses are really Lovie (d) and finally, I have to ask if Lovie isn't part of the problem w/ character and off-field issues. Lovie is a choir boy, but also a tad nice and too easy. If Benson was a slacker in practice, would he get away w/ it if Cower or Fisher were the coaches. Tank? Briggs? Players taking it easy. Players playing sloppy (technique). I mean, how much of this is Lovie, and how much he allows players to get away with.

Couple things. A - I am not saying Angelo is simply pure garbage in the draft. But some act like he is the greatest, and I even read a post yesterday seeming to say all his mid round picks were good. All. B - All GMs have hits and misses. No question. Actually, I would even say Angelo has had a solid share of hits. My true issue w/ Angelo is his hits most all seem to be on defense. Being a defensive drafting genius is great, but if you can't draft offense too, then it isn't enough in my book. C - Who is to say it was Mike Williams if it wasn't Benson. I recall several fans being high on MW, but how do you know we were. Or even if we liked MW, how do you know we would have drafted him? Really, you don't know. For all you/I know, we would have drafted Rolle, Merriman, or whoever. Or if we didn't like Benson, maybe we would have traded down. Also, regardless, the point is still that we did take Benson.

Why is the height issue a big deal? I really don't understand that. As long as he shaped like a bowling ball and can move, it really shouldn't matter. I'm anxious as hell to see how he looks versus Seattle. If he continues to look good, that would solve a major problem for us. It's also always great to see guys you draft producing. Frankly, I never realized height was such a big deal for OL. At least, not nearly the way our staff talks about it. There was an article in the trib a few days ago, and they talked at length about Beekman, and his size. I believe it was Turner talking about his size, and further talking about how w/ his size/strength limitations, he has no room for error. One mis-step or hessitation, and the DT will get the best of him. I would also point out something I have seen of smaller OL. They may in fact be fine getting under a DL, and using leverage, but you also allow DL to stay high and bat passes down. If Orton is starting, this may not be "as" big of an issue, but w/ 6'1 Rex, it could be. Rex has enough difficulty seeing over the LOS, not to mention passing over it. Still, height isn't so much an issue for me, but it sure is for the staff. It is why they never were willing to even give him a look at OG until injuries forced their hand. In their book, 6'2 is fine for a center, but simply insufficient for an OG. On a side note, with Wolfe, Payne, McBride, Grahahm, Olsen, along with Beekman all producing, the 2006 drafts looking one helluva a lot better. Now we need production from Bazuin & Okwo. Wow there big fella. The draft may look okay, but lets continue to give some time. Still seems like a collection of backups and special teams players in that group. Also wondering about Olsen, to be frank. He seems to have a lot of drops, looks weak as hell in blocking, and could find himself getting pushed by a late pick rookie. Maybe, but while he looks good, he's still behind Lloyd, Davis, Hester, and Booker. With Olsen working as a WR, Bennett going nowhere, and Bradley's potential, it's going ot be real tough for him to get a real chance. Who do you play him in favor of? Is the question who he plays in favor of, or who he gets a roster spot in favor of. If you mean roster spot, that is easy in my book. Bradley. More than just the injuries. I have heard little truly positive about him in camp in general. I did hear about staff yelling at him for mistakes, but just not much good. Talking about potential is fine for rookies, but players in their 3rd or 4th seasons should be talking about production, not potential. If the question is about playing time, frankly, I just work him in. Bennett may be our higher pick rookie, but he needs earn playing time, and that drop the other night shows he has a ways to go. Otherwise, it is really just a matter of packages. What I saw the other night, I would use him near the goal line though. I think his size, and the way he goes up and grabs the ball, would be a great asset in the red zone. I would think he could offer more than Davis and some others.