nfoligno

you can always argue, "what would it hurt". He likely would not be expensive and have experience, but I just am not sure it is worth it. He comes from a system very different from ours, and the transition would not be simple. He has already missed all the OTAs, and would be WAY behind once camp begins. If we were talking about a better talent, fine, but I just feel like he is not worth the trouble. To me, it is would be far more beneficial to look at additions on the OL and at RB. At WR, I am not saying we are "set", but at the same time, any further additions could hurt the reps/PT of some of the players we hope to develop. I see nearly no chance for him to come in at this late point and start, which means PT he gets would take away from some of the younger players we are hoping to develop. No, at WR, I think we will live and die w/ what we have, and I am fine w/ that. In Booker and Lloyd, we have experience. In Davis, we have a good depth player who is looking to do more. In Hester, Bradley, Bennett, Hass and Monk, we have a slew of young WRs we hope to develop. I think we are fine at WR, but need to really focus still on other areas of the offense.

I understand what you are saying, and in part, agree. For example, take Indy. Championship caliber team that went into the season w/ much relying on a rookie RB. Yea, they had Rhodes too, but it was the rookie they were counting on. NE felt they could do it w/ a rookie RB too. But while I can agree w/ the logic, it is only to a point. I would argue that you can make such a move when you have the surrounding pieces in place, but do we? GB found a stud RB in a rookie last year, but also had a very good, veteran OL, HOF QB and solid WRs. When you have the surrounding pieces in place, you are set up well to put more faith into a rookie at one position. However, I do not see us having the surrounding pieces in place. On the OL, we have a rookie LT and have no idea who our LG will be. At QB, we do not even know who are starter is, but neither player contending for the job is proven. At WR? We have a lot of hope. I guess TE is as close as we come to set w/ solid surrounding talent, but that just isn't much. That is why I do not agree w/ the idea of going into the season w/o a better #2 option at RB. The only argument against my argument would be this. If we are not a championship team, and are looking at this season more as a developmental year, then going w/ the rookie RB and less depth makes a bit more sense. But even then, I still think we would be better served, as would the rookie, by having a better #2 option.

I do not think Parker is worth it. Not because I fear there would not be enough balls to go around, but because simply put, he is not that good. In SD, you have an elite RB (who is also a great receiver) and an elite TE. This combination takes pressure off the WRs, yet for years, SD has struggled to find a WR worth jack. The article says the addition of Chambers made Parker expendible. Well, if Parker was any good, they would not have needed to trade for Chambers. Sorry, but he just is not worth it.

I wonder. Did St. Clair really look that good at LG, or was it he looked good compared to what we previously saw? No question he was an upgrade to what we had, but I am not sure how "great" he looked compared to any other competant LG. My top choice is still to add a LG, and Brown (if 100%) is at the top of the list. If we do not add any LG, then St. Clair is likely my choice at LG. You make the argument that w/ Williams being so young, we may well need him as a swing OT. My argument is Williams at LT is exactly why we should play St. Clair at LG. While he is not a "seasoned" LG, he is a far more seasoned offensive linemen than any of the other OGs we could be looking at. To me, lining Williams next to an inexperienced LG could be among our biggest mistakes. And I do not want to hear jack of Metcalf. The only reason he is still on the team is he has pictures of Angelo's wife.

Understand, I don't think he is some great leader. So is there a bit of hipocrocy in this? Sure. But by keeping it so general, he has "plausable deniability". Seriously. Harris signing is a great thing, and we are all thrilled about it, but I just do not see how we can read his comments and not attach it in anyway to recent contract problems. It is one thing to praise Angelo and others for stepping up to the plate. But his comments go much further IMHO. To make numerous comments about how he did not do the things that just so happen to have been the things Briggs and Urlacher did, well, that seems a bit far. I am not sure the extent Harris meant to go, but to me, there is just no question that he, at minimum, had the other contract disputes in mind when he made his comments. Something a person doesn't intend to call out another player or intend to make some serious point. Sometimes they simply say what they feel, w/o realizing how it does in fact call out others. A WR boasts about how he was able to have a great game because he wasn't afraid to go over the middle, and caught everything thrown to him may not intend to point the finger at the WR who showed fear over the middle and dropped some balls, but regardless, he did just that.

I'm not saying I really know how good AP is, but I don't really think the coaches the Bears have had know either. As we have all learned, there is a difference between a practice player and a game player, and it's pretty painfully obvious that the coaches have just given the position to Rex (and others) based upon practice. When AP has been in with a somewhat competent offense, he's done fairly well. He's not a stud, but he's a solid pro who could easily be a #2 IMHO, if not for the fact that the Bears have had a garbage offense for the better part of the last two decades. Again, when a player has been on the team for as long as AP, I simply find it hard to buy into "we still don't know" comments. I think we know well what we have in AP. That is not a bad thing, but I simply think we have come to expect too much of him. If what you say is accurate, then we should consider our scouts incompetent, and those who make draft decisions incompetent. In other words, the scouts, JA, and the coaches basically picked a guy to do a single thing as the up-man, with the possibility of minimal carries, and when it didn't work out, they felt the pick was a waste. Personally, I don't think that is the case. I think that he should be considered a viable option at RB. Furthermore, if he is to be used as an up-man on ST, which I think is a GREAT IDEA, then the coaches need to figure out a way to help him out and prepare him for the role. I have little faith in any of the coaches, and I see no reason why he can't do well if given the chance...I suspect that they saw him do one or two things poorly, and immediately made a rushed decision - something that has happened numerous times over the past decade. My argument then was better, as I don't recall the quotes today, but based on things said inside the bears org, and outside, I simply came to that conclusion. I am not sure how stupid of a move it would have been. In Wolfe, they saw a player who could help and protect two of our "supposed to be" elite players in Hester and Benson. I disagreed w/ the move, but if you think about it, we were coming off a SB appearance, and they were drafting not w/ rebuilding in mind, but finishing the puzzle. Benson was to be our RB, but we could use a 3rd down back. Hester was unreal as a return man, but we needed to protect him after watching a fumble in the SB on a squib kick. We were drafting for specific roles as much as anything. I disagreed w/ the pick, but understood the logic. I know you think Wolfe can be so much more than what most feel. Hey, I have NO problem giving the kid a shot. At the same time, much the same w/ Forte, I hate counting on that. Rex and Benson are two prime examples IMHO of where we have failed in counting on high pick rookies w/o having a solid veteran backup option.

Why? I mean, sometimes the role of a leader is to lay down the rules. By Harris making these comments, he (a) does a little to put Briggs/Urlacher in the place and ( sets the tone for future negotiations by younger players. To me, his comments had as much to do w/ future negotiations. Maybe it was a message to Hester. Maybe not Hester specific, but whoever is next. Maybe it is a message to the rookies. Point is, whether it was 100% intended or not, I think his statements said this, Look at Briggs. He whined forever, and in the end, got the same deal he was offered at the start. And that was all along a fair deal. Look at Urlacher. He got a massive contract, and is now whining, which was getting him no where. Look at me. I wanted a new deal, but never went to the media or complained about my situation or disrespected my team. Now I am the highest paid DT in the league. If you want a deal, follow my lead and not Urlacher or Briggs. Whether this was his intention or not, this was the effect IMHO.

Just not sure it is so simple. It is one thing to praise the team and all for stepping up to the plate, but when you specifically talk about things like "keeping negotiations in house", not "talking about each other", "not going to the media and disrespecting the team", I just have to think that is at least a veiled swipe at Briggs and/or Urlacher.

Actually, my problem with the entire idea that is being pushed in this thread is that we suddenly have a good back in Forte. We simply don't know that. He could be the next Salaam, Enis, or Benson. It's always nice to bring guys in, but until the guys we have are given a chance to excel, we will never know what we have...and we'll always be searching. If Forte doesn't have it, then AP and Wolfe should get the ball more. If they don't have it, THEN the Bears should search out other options. If the Bears go get veteran leadership (i.e. Alexander or Jones), then that is basically saying that AP and Wolfe are nearly pointless...and given some of the things we've seen each do - AP more than Wolfe, obviously - it's just impossible to say. I am a bit confused in your argument. On one hand, you seem to say you have an issue w/ the "statement" forte is a good back, as we just do not know. I agree w/ you on this. On the other hand, it seems like you just want to live and die w/ what we have, rather than bring in competition. Is this accurate. For me, if you took AP out of the equation, I think I might agree. Forte has not had his chance, and I would agree Wolfe has not either. AP though? He has been on the team what, 6 years. In that time, he did little to make coaches think he was a starter. He has had some good runs, and even some good games, but is simply not a starter. Go through the history of the NFL and try to find a RB that broke out his 7th season. It just doesn't happen. To me, AP is a solid #3/special teams. But there lies the rub. Few believe Wolfe should be our #2. IMHO, that is the issue for most. While everyone likes AP, most still feel he is more a #2 than a #3, but we have Wolfe, who is viewed as a #3. That is the whole issue IMHO. Fans simply want an upgrade at #2. A RB that can compete w/ Forte, make him earn the job, and be a solid replacement if needed. And, yes, I think Wolfe has the potential to be more than just about anyone on this board is saying. I hear the words that call him a clown, a midget, a pure third down back, a waste, garbage...and the guy hasn't been given the shot. I don't see how anyone can relegate him or downplay him when he hasn't been given a chance. I'm sure Barry Sanders would have received the same scorn from this board until he started killing the opponent...and even then I'm sure some of it would have continued. What's to lose with letting Wolfe get carries and seeing, maybe, just maybe, if JA picked up the next Dunn? The chance seems to have worked out for every other team that's taken a chance on the guy. Ask Ohio State if he's a third down back. First, your better off sticking w/ Dunn as your example. I have never liked when people try to use some of the greatest players in history as an example. Those players are often an exception, rather than the rule. Surely, you are not going to say Wolfe has Payton or Sanders skills. Because unless you think he has that level of skill, to use the geatest ever as exapmles doesn't work. I admit, I have pre-draft bias. Before the draft, I read quite a lot about him. He was touted by a couple local sports writers I respect. But he was considered a 2nd day pick, 3rd down back, special teams player. Even those who were touting him and among his biggest supporters did not view him as a 1st day pick w/ the potential to be an every down starter. Further, I still do not believe our own personnel people thought that of him. I still believe he was drafted w/ the belief Benson would be our franchise tailback, and Wolfe could be a solid change of pace, 3rd down opion. Further, I think Wolfe was drafted right after the SB, when we watch Indy squib kick to avoid Hester. I think he was drafted to be the "up" returner, but per coaches, he didn't look great in practices in that role, so it didn't happen. I just do not believe our own scouts ever even envisioned Wolfe being a starter.

PFT has a piece, using quotes from Harris, saying Harris could be calling out Urlacher and Briggs. Reading the quotes, I tend to agree, or at least calling out one of them. In another thread, the title is, "Harris showing leadership". Interesting thought. Is Harris really calling out other players, and if he is, is he showing leadership? Before anyone answers, think back a couple years when Farve had some choice comments for Walker, and the way he was handling his negotiations. I seem to recall most every bear fan blasting Farve. Is this really different. I don't know that I have a problem w/ his comments, as they are pretty much dead on. The issue to me is, I prefer to think about our best 3 players on D being tight, especially as our D will have to carry us this year. Anyway, here is PFTs piece, which is based off a Sporting News article. HARRIS TAKES JAB AT TEAMMATES Posted by Mike Florio on June 21, 2008, 8:51 a.m. Though the AP headline-writers focused on the homage to the late Fred Blassie, the real import of the comments of Bears defensive tackle Tommie Harris regarding the “classy” nature of talks culminating in his new contract with the team is that Harris has taken a shot at linebackers Lance Briggs and Brian Urlacher. “We didn’t try to go out there and talk about one another or dispute different things,” Harris said of his efforts to get a new deal. ”I feel like we did it all in-house.” “I would never go out and talk about the Bears in front of the media or disrespect my team,” Harris added. It could make for an interesting dynamic in the locker room when training camp opens, especially if Urlacher’s less-than-classy (in the obvious opinion of Harris) efforts to land a new deal have yet to pay off. Though Harris doesn’t expressly call out Briggs or Urlacher, it’s likely that either or both of them will conclude that Harris has stuck his nose in a place where they think it doesn’t belong.

odd that everyone on this board seems to love Tom Waddle, Bobby Engram, and Mike Hass (all three perceived to have been given the short straw on talent, but the long straws on heart and effort), but seem so down on Wolfe. Not sure I agree w/ the analogy. I am not sure I would agree the WRs you mentioned were short on talent. They simply lacked speed. Great route running, great hands and knowledge are as much a talent as speed. Questions of Wolfe have more to do w/ his size rather than talent. He is a talented player, but does he have the size? IMHO, the problem is more AP than Wolfe. I think most fans have no issue w/ Wolfe as a 3rd down back style player. The problem is more about numbers and AP. Fans want a greater level of competition for Forte. AP does not offer that. Nor does Wolfe. If we bring in a RB to provide competition, and maybe an upgrade in case Forte is injured, or simply doesn't live up to the hype, then we have 4 RBs on the roster. Few expect the staff to dump AP, do as much as anything to his special teams play, which means Wolfe would be on the chopping block. IMHO, if we had a #2 RB that was simply put, a better option at RB, then I think there would be more love for Wolfe. The real issue/thing is, you view Wolfe as a potential Dunn like every down back, and many others simply view him as a nice 3rd down, change of pace back.

Nice, but I have to say, this is one that is better told w/ the full fledged F bomb, though I understand the need for the alteration. Still, LOL.

Have to agree w/ Mongo. Man-law would be against words difficult to pronounce, or words which force others to look up/ask the meaning. W/ that said, great call on the commercial twist. laughed my arce off w/ that one.

Besides Hester, I know the staff talked about Anderson too, though that is likely not a big concern. Urlacher and Hester are the keys at this point.

I avoid the word "re-build", as it draws more argument. As I see it, we are looking to field a solid defense and special teams, and hoping to build the offense while the other two units carry us. I think the staff does hope to contend w/ D and STs, and hopes those two units can be good enough to get us into the playoffs (ala 2001) while the defense develops. Then, in a couple years, the O will be ready to take on their fair share. At least, that is what I think the staff is thinking. What just bothers me is, while we have added some pieces, I do not think we have done enough to support the development of those we added. LT - Williams has to develop, starting at LT as a rookie which is one of the most difficult assignments, while starting next to a mediocre to awful LG. WR - We hope to develop Hester and Bennett, and some others, but do them no favors w/o an addition at QB. RB - Forte will start, but will he have holes to run through? QB - We want to give Rexy another shot, and/or see if Orton can develop, but what do we surround him with? A bunch of kids who need to develop also. We do not have one solid unit to lean on. We have a bunch of players who we want to develop, but who will be counting on others who are trying to develop. That is a difficult way to develop talent. GB seemed to have WRs, RBs and OL develop at rapid pace, but they also had a QB who could help hasten their development. A team like Denver puts together a great OL, which helps develop a young QB, RB and or WRs. What do we have. Bennett and Hester have to rely on Rex or Orton, and visa versa. Forta has to rely on our OL, and visa versa. We just don't have the key, solid unit to stabalize us, and it could hurt all units in the end.

Also hear about some high end WR looking awesome, that doesn't amount to much. Truth is, few WRs on this team amount to much. I am not as worried about the WR class as I am OL in general, and LG in specific. QB and RB after that. The WRs are not going to carry the offense, and are more a by-product of the surrounding talent, while I think there is a greater expectation on the others. If the OL stabalizes, and a QB steps up, I think there will be a domino effect seen especially at WR.

While there is not a ton of signings, there have been some. That OG from SD was signed not long ago, and I think many expect Bently to be signed before long. I am not sure I see the point is coming out and saying we are not looking to add a RB, if that is not the case. What reason is there for spy games? You can just skip the question, and leave it alone. you can leave it open by saying you want to see what we have. While I can understand not coming out and saying you feel it is a dire need to sign a RB, I am not sure what the point is going the opposite direction either. I agree that I can see us signing Brown. He likely will not be expensive. We have a solid relationship with him. If healthy, he is a solid addition. I can see us waiting a bit to see if a young player steps up, but as that is unlikely, can see him being offered a contract.

here is the problem with that scenario: Before getting to the "problem(s)", but me be clear. This is not my preferred scenario, but simply what I see. besides the possible age and/or injury to existing key players over this rebuilding period, we still did not draft enough players to fill the positions on offense that have held us back and CAUSED this rebuilding process. when you rebuild you need to develop prospective starting players to replace the existing problems. each of our problem positions takes time to develop and most would agree that a 2-3 year LAG may not even be enough time to develop them EVEN if we had them!! Agree and disagree. I would make the point that we had too many holes to expect filling at in one draft. I agree players take time to develop. I disagree we should expect a 2-3 year LAG for each player drafted though. At least one player IMHO stands a chance to develop far more year one, at least based on his position. While numerous positions in the NFL take time to develop, some have more immediate dividends, and RB is one of them. Many rookie RBs excel. Also, I think some other players can be developed to the point of being considered solid, if not good, after one year. That would mean we could be competitive next year, and w/ further additions, could contend, though QB (see below) is still our glaring issue. 1. we still have absolutely no depth at guard and in fact we don't even have a real starting guard on this roster with the 'possible' exception of garza. metcalf is a wasted roster spot, beekman can't even replace a one armed guard and is not even considered in the mix to replace that drone metcalf. the rumors have it he is to replace kruetz in the future at center but if he can't even sub as guard how good is he really at replacing a pro bowl player at the center position? I hope you are not looking for an argument from me. I screamed for a veteran OG. They are not as cheap as they used to be, but there were plenty available, and not all were super expensive. I would add that for many teams, this is not a huge issue. OG is not the hardest position to find talent in the draft. We simply make it seem so. that leaves who, that wasn't passed over for st. clair last season at that position? Personally, I am hoping St. Clair start for us at LG. I know he "should" be a swing tackle, but he is also likely the best LG option we have. Further, while he is not a seasoned LG, he is a veteran who would help (IMHO) Williams far more than Metcalf, Beekman or any of the others on the depth chart. 2. all of our tackles, with the exception of the rookie, are aging. by the time this rebuilding process is over they will have a short shelf life themselves and will need to be replaced. are we again going to rebuild after this rebuilding process? again, a 2-3 year lag for a replacement tackle to get up to speed in the nfl even IF he has talent. which also brings into question the lack continuity of your offensive line playing together. Not too much argument here. Tait is 33, and while he "may" have a couple seasons left, I think it obvious he is on the downside of his career. W/ that said, RT is not the most difficult position, or should not be, to fill. I would really like to see Barton develop, but if not, like OG, this simply "should not" be that difficult to fill. LT and C are supposed to be the difficult positions to address on the OL, and we have that in Williams and Kreutz. Problem is, what should be is not reality in Chicago. if we fail to draft these type players, that means that we have to spend BIG dollars for free agents at a position that should be easy to fill in the draft and ignore or go cheap on other skill position players we may need in free agency like receivers and running backs (not to mention players on the defensive side of the ball). Agreed. Look at the money we have spent on the OL w/ Angelo in charge. Tait, Kreutz, Brown and Miller were all higher priced FAs. Our inability to draft OL has forced us to spend a ton of cash in FA, and now we are old and w/o depth. this is the reality of angies failure to draft offensive linemen over the last SIX YEARS!! No question. I scream every year for OL, only to see us pass. Even this year, while we did draft a LT in the 1st, I feel it was a mistake to pass on OL after that until the 7th. While we still had an open spot on the starting OL, we were drafting depth and deep depth at DT, S, CB, TE and even DE. 3. at qb we are existing on a wing and a prayer. both qb's will be free agents or gone when this rebuilding process is over. if both fail to become even reasonably effective average qb's then what? we passed on the possibility to draft a replacement this season yet AGAIN. so add another 2-3 year LAG period to this process even if we can find a quality player to draft NEXT year. the only other option is we can acquire a free agent ham and egger to do the same thing we have done for 40 years. Agreed. I wanted Brohm, and it kills me he went to our division rival. We simply do not seem to put a great enough value on the QB position, which is a large part of why we are in the position we are in. Now moving forward, we are likely going to be looking for yet another new QB next year. That will either be a veteran (either VERY expensive or a QB failed w/ another team) or a rookie. If we took a QB this year, we could at least get a jump start on the development process, and have a better chance next year or the year after. I was talking about what I think Angelo is thinking, not what I would have done. By the time our offense is built, if ever, how will Urlacher and Mike Brown look. Despite other talent we have, I think our defense still is based off those two players. Heck, we do not know for sure Harris will even be around. And what about Hester? Will he be a bear. This will be an iteresting draft class, w/ the top 3 picks being offense. Angelo's history drafting offense is flat out awful, which, despite all the hype, worries me how our golden boys will fair.

But, teams often do carry more than 4 RBs into camp, and I don't want to hear about the no-names. I don't see anyone chomping at the bit for the RBs who are available, which tells me they could be looking at vet minimum, one year deals. Where exactly is the harm. If they look good, we have competition and insurance. Wolfe or AP could be on the outside looking in. If they do not look good, they are gone. To me, adding a 4th RB is not much different from adding Brandon Lloyd. Many posters have talked about how his contract is nothing, and while some (including myself) feel he may start, others question whether he even makes the team. That is because his deal is such that can be be gone, and we take no cap hit. His contract guarantees him one thing and one thing only. A shot. Why would it be a bad idea to take the same approach at RB?

Once again the Bears are setting themselves up for an offensive disaster. Angelo stated that he was going to bring stability to the QB position. However, he made no effort to do so by keeping Grossman, Orton, cutting Griese, and bringing in a couple long shot UDFAs. The QB position is now weaker than it was last year. Agreed. I really don't see the logic here. I think we blew it by not drafting a QB, particularly Brohm, who I preferred over Henne. But the point is, few (outside bear fans) see much future hope in Rex or Orton, and to put our future hopes in an undrafted rookie FA QB is really reaching, even for the kool-aid drinkers. Angelo stated that he was going to create competition for Benson, not cut him. Drafting Forte would have accomplished that goal. It's understandable that Jerry was forced to rid the team of the negative publicity Ced suddenly created, but that weakened the half back depth back to exactly what it was 12 months ago. It damn sure leaves the position weaker than what it was in '06. If Forte is injured or doesn't excel in his rookie year, Peterson will have to carry the load again, and that will doom the ground game. I can see the argument we upgraded from last year w/ Forte over Benson. Maybe not, but I see the argument. Forte has an all around game, where as Benson failed to catch passes and struggled in pass protection. I will still argue the running was more due to the OL, but Benson didn't shine there either way. Forte is supposed to be a great receiver, and a solid blocker. If so, he can be seen as an upgrade to Benson, but I agree we have failed at the RB position in not adding competition for the starting role. We are putting all our hopes on a rookie RBs shoulders, and we saw just last year how that failed w/ Benson. JA cut Ruben but failed to replace him with a legitimate LG. Beekman isn't even competing for the spot, the Bears say they want St. Clair to remain at swing tackle, That leaves turnstile Metcalf as the anointed one. Guess what? He's going to get the QB killed, and he's too damn slow to pull on the ground attack. Defenses are going to have a field day attacking the Bears' left side this year!! Still today among my biggest pet peeves. If we did nothing else at RB, QB or WR, I could better deal w/ it if we did more at LG. By adding a veteran LG to work along side our #1 pick LT, and w/ Tait moved to RT, we would have the workings of a great OL. A great OL can make average QBs, RBs and WRs look FAR better, and allow them to develop quicker as well. A weak OL has the opposite effect. By not adding a solid LG, not only would I agrue that we hurt the offense, but I would argue we have done little to protect our investments in the draft, as Williams, Forte and Bennett could all find it difficult to develop behind an OL that still may well struggle. All in all, Chicago's offense is in as much trouble now as it was last season, when it finished 26th in the league. AND, they go from the 2nd easiest schedule in '07 to 11th toughest in '08. Things look pretty bleak this year. I don't put a ton of stock into pre-season strength of schedules, but I would otherwise agree. Our offense was among the worst in the league, and the upgrades, at best, were minimal. It seems like we are putting most of our hopes, once again, in defense and special teams, which I think is a mistake. While we are still loaded w/ talent on defense, I still believe coaching holds this defense back. On special teams, we will likely be good/great again, but you do have to wonder what sort of an effect Hester's playing time on offense will have on his return ability.

How similar is this to the early years of Angelo in Chicago? Think about it. For his first couple years, what FAs did he sign? As I recall, Clark was about it. He saved money for re-signing players and looked to the draft to add to the team. He didn't believe we were a SB contender, if after our 13 win season, IMHO. I am not saying re-building, but I would say he was in a building mode, and then later, started to add big money FAs as he began to feel we were a contender. I see similar here. While many fans want to beleive we are a SB contender, I just do not see it. I don't think Angelo does either. I believe Angelo is building right now. He is reserving his money to re-sign our own, so we have them locked up when we do make a run. Further, he is going to allow the young players an opportunity to play, and thus develop. If they struggle, so what. We are not a contender, and can afford to give them some time. Players like Hester, Bennett, Forte and Williams all will play, and be allowed an opportunity to develop.

I don't think I ever intended to compare him w/ the likes of Pacman or Benson. My point was it may not be purely "bad luck" when you put yourself into situations where bad things happen. It doesn't mean he deserves it, or that he is necessarily a bad guy. I just am not sure it is as simple as bad luck when you put yourself into situations where bad things can happen.

Carter was outside the scope. Brown and Carr were busts, but at least they are still in the NFL, and not the penal league. Couch could be thrown in there against Vick. Overall, I think he was a bigger bust, as Vick at least did something w/ his time in the NFL, but I still say what he did to his team in the end hurt more than if he simply were a failed draft pick.

Chris Weinke was a 4th round pick. I would not call that bust material. Kenechi Udeze was picked 18th. Only top 10 were looked at, and if we expanded, I think we would see more bears. Haynes anyone? Ditto w/ JP Losman who was taken 22nd. Robert Galler was taken 2nd overall, but while he has not become that LT expected, has become a damn good OG. Maybe that is still worth discussion, but when you are taken at the same slot as Leaf, the argument ends. Erasmus James is another 18th pick. Only looked at top 10 picks. Fabian Washington was taken 23rd. The deeper in the draft you want to look, the more bears you can include too. Cadillac Williams had a great rookie year, poor 2nd year, and injury pleagued 3rd. But he is still w/ the team that drafted him, entering only his 4th year, and no way he gets the nod over Enis, also drafted 5th.

The article only looked at players 10 years back. The list would obviously have many more names if we continued to go back further.