nfoligno

Nice attempt to twist, but I have been more than vocal enough in saying I believe the QB position is simply different. In Bowman, we took a flier on a player who (a) has little experience above JUCO level, as he was injured most of his time at Nebraska ( his injuries were not minor, and were a reason many teams took him off their boards completely. Bowman has skills. No question. But he is a big time project w/ mostly JUCO experience, and an even bigger risk due to the significant injury history. And further still, Bowman is a high risk project at a non-need position. Sorry, but that is simply different from drafting a QB. QB is arguably our top need, compared to CB which is among our least.

I agree time will tell. Personally, where I felt we screwed the pooch was passing on Brohm. While I like Forte, and think he can be a solid RB, I think Brohm can be a franchise QB. Now I fear he will be a franchise QB for our biggest rival. Your right. Time will tell. But how sick will bear fans be if, down the road, Brohm is indeed a franchise QB for GB?

And that sort of short term thinking can doom a franchise. Yes, we needed starters, but not just for this year. Steltz may well start this year, but if they liked Booty, and he was able to develop and start in a couple years, I would say that is a FAR better pick than getting an in-the-box safety for now. Is Angelo trying to save his job? How often do we read about GMs getting short sighted. If we draft a QB, it may not be for a couple years that QB develops, and in that time, if we suck, the GM could be gone. Was Angelo concerned about his job, and could that be why he went w/ immediate help over a potential future QB starter?

But they were in a position to do so. In blasting the pick, I have even said numerous times that if we were a team like NE, we could afford to take a flier on a player like Bowman. NE is a team w/ some needs, but far fewer than we. They are, w/o the draft, would still be expected to challenge for the SB. We needed the draft not for depth or future players, but for immediate starters. When you are a good team, you are in a better position to take fliers like this. When you are looking for some upgrades, or looking for some youth and/or depth, that is one thing. But when you go into the draft needs starters at: OT, OG, QB, RB, WR and maybe S and DT too, you can less afford to take fliers on players who are expected to need several years to develop, and who have very high degree of injury risk.

Something you will be happy to know. ESPN put out a mock draft for 2009 (its just about fun this early) and they have us drafting at #7, taking..... 7. Chicago Bears -- Tim Tebow*, QB, Florida It's almost certain that the Bears will need a quarterback come next offseason. Unfortunately, next year's crop of signal-callers does not look promising at this point. Bears fans won't be thrilled if the team uses a high pick on another Gators quarterback following the failed Rex Grossman experiment, but Tebow's unique blend of skills and rare intangibles might be too good to pass up. Should Tebow elect to leave school early, however, his uncommon skill set could make him the most difficult prospect at any position to grade. That is right, another Florida QB. Is this okay though since he isn't a Spurrier product? I agree on Rex. I believe you are likely correct on Orton, though at the same time, I do feel he has earned the right to compete for a starting job. I think it was inept to pass on Brohm. I would have liked to draft Brohm and give Orton the start this year. If he fails, then the rookie can step in and begin his development.

Why not. QB is the most important position in football. Some would argue this point, but not many. We suck at this position, and have for some time. Some would argue this point, but again, not many. We didn't draft a single QB. I easily see logic behind ripping the bears for not drafting a QB. At the same time, it a thing or two should be mentioned. W/ regard to King specifically, he criticized the bears for not drafting a single QB in the last three years, not just this year. Also, you talk about panning the draft, but few have done that. Most are giving us anywhere from a B- to a B+. Even fans like myself who are trashing Angelo for passing on Brohm (or pick your favorite QB) still give the draft a pretty decent grade (B- for me) based on who we took. Are you asking this year, or down the road. This year, I do not believe Ryan, Flacco, Brohm or Henne would have helped us. It is rare for a rookie QB to help a team, and when that does happen, you usually see (a) tremendous supporting cast ( great coaching staff and/or ( QB gifted w/ skills beyond simply throwing the ball, like a Vince Young. If you are asking what QB after this top 4 could have helped us ever, I don't know. At the same time, I look at a group of other QBs who other teams felt could develop into NFL QBs. I would further throw out there, and have several times, that if we are going to take fliers on players, why not on a QB? Could we not take a flier on O'Connell instead of Harrison? Booty instead of Steltz? Dixon, Johnson, Ainge, Brennen, Woodson, Flynn.... I have not a clue if any of them will turn into NFL QBs, but I would have rather taken a flier on finding a franchise QB, rather than a 3rd TE, or a 4th/5th CB, or yet another freaking DE. Yes, the bears met needs w/ the 1st 3 picks, but I would argue they had far more than 3 needs on offense. Further, I would argue they could have met their needs AND obtained a QB (not to mention OG). The draft is absolutely about who you get, and in that regard, we grade out pretty well, but the draft is also about needs not met. Not taking even a flier on a QB hurts, as does not grabbing an OG until the 7th round.

A big part of me simply wonders if grade was even an issue here, or if we simply were not looking at QB. What I believe is this. If we drafted a QB this year, I think we would likely still not start him in '08. So, assuming Rex/Orton still do not pan out, the rookie steps in in '09. While in his 2nd year, he would still be a first year starter, and the assumption would have to be he would struggle. So it would be more likely 2010 before we really hope to emerge on offense. IMHO, Angelo and Co didn't want to go that route. Instead, they are trying to build around the QB in hopes that one more year of confidence in our current QBs pays off. So I believe it wasn't so much about grade as much as simply not wanting a QB, which would essentially set up a building project for the offense. I think Angelo is still trying to win now. I believe that is the logic, but do not agree. I think we have given Rex enough opportunities, and he has simply not done enough w/ those opportunities. As for Orton, while I would love to think he could be great, I think the odds are not real high. I would have, and did, argue against a QB in the 1st, but feel it was a mistake to pass on Brohm in the 2nd. At that point, we had already secured our LT, and were still in position to build around the QB position. We didn't have to just do one or the other. We could have built around the QB position, while also adding a QB. If Rex/Orton break out. Great. I would much rather be in a situation like Cle w/ two QBs we like, rather than having none. Final point. I read over and over again about how we can add a QB next year if Rex/Orton don't work out this year. Poor logic IMHO. Getting a QB is simply not so easy. Take one when you can. We do not have a clue what next year's class will be like. Several QBs who were considered studs heading into the 2007 college year fell by wayside, while Ryan and Flacco leaped up the boards. Just too hard to predict. Look at what GB did. They may well have their QB in Rogers, but regardless, grabbed insurance on their bet by drafting Brohm and Flynn. I like that plan far more than ours, which once again simply banks on faith in QBs who have proven jack. I don't care how good the players in our draft turnout. If 10 years from now I have to see stats showing how many different bear QBs have started in during the career of Brohm, as we have suffered w/ Favre, I will be sick.

Fine, but that only strengthens the point of the original post which started this thread. Then we only have one QB on the roster, and that is a 5 year failed project, thus all the more reason we should have drafted a QB. I still disagree on Orton. I am not saying he is worth shit. I am saying we have not seen enough to know whether he is "the shit" or just plain shit. Not sure why you have an issue w/ the idea of letting him compete in camp. Either he proves you wrong, which you should be hoping for, or he proves you write. No hard, no foul. But again, if Orton is shit, as you say, then it only strengthens the argument we should have drafted Brohm.

For the record, my position. Rex is not a starting QB in the NFL. Orton? I have my doubt (to say the least) but would like to give him a chance. That does not necessarily mean a chance like Rex got where he is the unquestioned starter w/o competition. But I would like to allow Orton a chance to go into camp and see what he can do. Further, I would not dumb down the system any. And this is key for me. Orton played as a rookie, and it was a safe offense he was running. Hey, he was a rookie, so fine. When he took over last year, Turner seemed to do it again. Does Orton needs this dumbed down, conservative version? Maybe. But I would like to throw him into a normal system, which utilizes both the short and deep field and let him sink or swim. I see no reason not to allow this. Understand, I am among the loudest in screaming it was wrong to pass on Brohm, or any QB in the draft. At the same time, I want to give Orton a legit chance, which I simply do not believe he has had yet, but that he has in fact earned.

Wow do I think this is a bad way to look at the stats. IMHO, you can not look at just the total yards on offense. If the defense is good/great, then the offense will have a shorter field, and thus the yards are going to be less. A team w/ a garbage defense (a) will often have a longer field to score and ( will often be playing from behind, and thus need to push the ball downfield more. If you have a defense that is shutting out the opponent, you are not going to continue to throw bombs for yardage in the 4th quarter when you have a solid lead. If you want to consider the offense, while not perfect, I think the scoring stat is far better. Simply put, was the offense good enough to take advantage of their defesne and score. '02 - TB - Lowest ranking offense on this list, coming in a 18th, but also a sick defense that year. Their defense was not just great, but outstanding. And still, 18th ranked scoring offense that didn't turn the ball over (+17 take away/give away ratio) '03 - NE - 10th in scoring '04 - NE - 12th in scoring '05 - Pitt - 9th in scoring '06 - Indy - 2nd in scoring. '07 - NYG - 14th in scoring. So, w/ the exception of TB, every team was in the top 1/2 in terms of scoring on offense, and that TB team's defense was close to #1 accross the defensive stat sheet. So I would argue that you do need more than a mediocre offense to win.

I think he is saying we have seen mor of Rex to make a judgment, while Orton is still more of an unknown, and therefor, could be more than what some believe. I don't believe he ever said Orton was a stud. Only that he believes Rex is a dud, and Orton may not be.

The bears need a QB and have ignored the position in the last three drafts. What is "jackass" about that?

Agreed that OLs take time to develop. Should our OL be improved? Yes. But we were one of, if not the, worst OL last year. To be simply better does not mean good. More than most positions, I think an OL takes time to develop as the OL needs to form a report w/ each other. You do not gain that sort of chemisty day one. We will start three players this year who did not start the year last year. LT - I think fans may be expecting a bit much from Williams. How many rookies come in and play great at LT? Not many. I like the pick, and think Williams can become a damn good LT, but to expect that immediately may be a bit much. Further, we are not going to have a real strong LG for him to play next to, which is not going to help his development. Drafting Williams is EXACTLY why I wanted to sign Faneca, and yes, I know how much he cost. If we had Faneca at LG, I believe the development of Williams would have been MUCH greater. One more point on LT/Williams. While I think Williams may well be an instant upgrade to Tait (last years version) against the pass, I question how much of an upgrade he will be in the run game. He is not considered "that" strong. He does not have the demenor you like in an OL. His run blocking was considered a knock, not a plus. Thus, I believe his run game will need time to develop. So while he may do better than Tait against the pass, I am not sure how much he will add (at least immediately) in the run game. LG - Brown was awful last year, but is St Clair that good. He looked good replacing Metcalf, but so would my grandmother who passed away a couple years ago. Further, pairing him w/ a rookie is not an ideal situation. C - I still love Kreutz, but his play has declined. RG - I have never liked Garza, but on the OL last year, he damn near looked like a stud. RT - Tait will be an instant upgrade to Miller, no question, but while he has plenty of experience at RT, he has never played next to Garza, and the two I think may need time to form a report. I think our OL should be better, but question whether that "better" will be enough to be considered good, or a strength. I do think our OL should improve as the season goes along, but wonder if they will be good enough this year for the rest of the offense to step it up.

I believe it was Minny that showed how Rex tends to crumble under pressure, and from that point on, teams began sending the house at him. Rex simply does not "see the field" quick enough to find the open receiver when under pressure. Further, Rex does not seem to have a good feel in the pocket. There were times I saw a rusher coming right at Rex, directly in front of him, and Rex did not seem to notice until it was too late. It was only worse when the rusher came from the outside. You look around the league, and you see the good QBs simply seem to feel the pressure. They take a step up in the pocket to make a rusher miss, barely, but miss none the less. Further, when Rex is pressured, and moves to avoid the rush, he seems to take his eyes off the field. He all but puts his head down to get away from the rush, while better QBs move to avoid the rush while still looking downfield to make a play. So the book on Rex seems to be, pressure him and the odds are, results favor the defense. Better OL protection helps, but if a defense makes a commitment to sending the house, then it is on the QB because you can only block so many at a time.

June 1st is no longer really a valid date. Used to, you had to wait until June 1st to cut a player in order to spread out the cap hit. Today though, teams have done a FAR better job managing the cap, and in recent years, June 1st activity is minimal. Then the league passed the rule which allowed a team to cut a player prior to June 1st, while essentially claiming him as a June 1st cut, thus spreading out the cap hit. June 1st aside, there will be player released, but I am not sure it will be on June 1st like in the past. There will be player cut simply because of roster number crunches. For example, we are likely to cut Arch in the near future. RMJ could be on the way out too IMHO. Many talk about our RBs, but I do not think we make a move until camp. FA is not over, but at the same time, I just do not have a lot of confidence Angelo is looking to build much through FA. We have a nice amount of cap space, but Angelo seems to be holding that in reserve in order to re-sign a group of current bears.

I'll throw in another level. I have absolutely no facts to support this belief, and have no idea how I would even go about tracking it down, if I even felt inclined to do so. But I wonder this. We have a GM who was a former defensive scout, and IMHO shows a strong bias for the defensive side of the ball. That same GM is in charge of hiring our scouting department. I wonder if our scouts are not defense heavy. I believe we have regional scouts. One guy in charge of Texas/Oklahoma/Louisiana, or whatever. That or we have a scout in charge of a division, but I believe it is regional. Anyway, if Angelo is in charge of hiring scouts, is it not possible he is filling our regional scouting positions w/ scouts who too may be geared for toward the defensive side of the ball? So here is how I see it. We have scouts better evaluating/finding defensive talent than offensive. Then it goes up the chain, so that in the war room, Angelo has scouting reports that may lean heavy toward defense. That does not mean offense is ignored, and the upper talent may be scouted better, but I think it would also explain how we are more often finding defensive gems later in drafts than offensive. I think our coaching staff is weak in terms of development, and that is part of the issue too. Frankly, there are times I wonder if they are even that good on the defensive side of the ball. Sometimes I wonder if the players that develop are not simply players who were so good, they just didn't need the higher level of coaching to help their development, while players like Daniel Manning, as an example, who needs coaching to develop fail. I understand your argument about city mentality, but am not sure I buy into it as much. The city was fine w/ a vertical offense in the 90s, under Turner in fact. As for Crowton, I do not think his being aggressive upset fans so much as (a) total lack of any effort to run the ball and ( poor results. If the razzle dazzle was effective, w/ or w/o a run game, I think fans would have accepted it. But under Crowton, we watched Cade McNown getting killed, and simply wondered if a committment to the run would have helped more than empty backfield sets w/ Cade McNown under center.

First, it works both ways. If you want to use the OL to defend Rex, then how can you condemn Benson who is even more directly affected by the weak OL play. Second, I would argue that even during our SB run, when our OL was great, Rex went downhill. Rex started out on fire, but teams seemed to shift and adjust to him, and his play went downhill fast. He had a couple more good games, but by in large, I would argue his play was affected prior to the decline in our OL. Last, If they feel Rex and Orton still have upside, enought to lead this team to a SB, then what is the point in arguing. We are done. And while I have said all along we should draft a RB, I simply question why this board so hard fell in love w/ Forte, like he was the only RB in the draft. Give me Brohm in the 2nd and Jamal Charles in the 3rd in a heartbeat. Maybe Forte is better than Charles, but I do not think the difference is so great as to warrant passing on Brohm.

One, you base your info on his injury according to who? The team has said he is 100% NOW, and that reports of how serious the injury was, were exaggerated. Maybe that is a lie. But I think it wrong to state, "Benson is rehabbing from a career threatening injury" as though it was a fact, when it is not. It is a rumor the media reported, which the has continued to contradict. Team could be lying, but the point is, this is far from fact. Two. I have no argument w/ needing a RB to backup/push/compete w/ Benson. I said the same last year, and have never believe Wolfe was that player, thus felt this year we still needed that player. But my point is not whether we needed a RB, but the idea we don't need a QB, which just baffles the mind to me. I could list 100 young and injury free QBs. So what. What is your point. Rex has had his opportunity, and for whatever reason he wants to blame, he has not done enough w/ those opportunities. I will grant that Ortan has never been given the same opportunities, but at the same time, I do not think he is so lock solid that we should assume he simply steps into the role. You say we have two young, healthy QBs. I say we have two unproven QBs who are not locked up for the long term. Our QBs position has been a question mark (at best) for a long time, and we have yet to see anything from Rex or Orton that should lead us to believe the position is solid. I am not saying we should believe Benson is a stud. My point is w/ the idea that we needed a RB more than a QB. How long have we searched for a QB? Wanna guess how my wife feel's when I tell her "I'll take care of that later". That's about how I feel when Angelo says he will take care of the QB spot later. Okay, maybe stud is a tad bit of an exaggeration, but I think you get the point. What did you think of Chester Taylor before Minny signed him? Did you think he was a 1,300 yard rusher? How about taking a look at TJ w/ us. I know bear fans want to think he is a stud, but take a look at his career. Absolutely nothing for AZ. Flash in the pan that couldn't start for TB. After us, he sucks w/ the Jets, and they were looking at RB in the top 5 of the draft to replace him. But w/ us? We put him behind a very good OL, and he was near pro bowl. Maybe he is just that good, but look at his career, and I think the evidence would indicate it was more about our OL. One more example. A-Train behind a solid OL his rookie year was a 1,100 yard rusher w/ a + 4 YPC average. Never the same once that line went down, w/ us or another team. So maybe our AP could not be like Minny's AP, but I do believe our AP behind Minny's OL could look like Chester Taylor. I don't know. Maybe it was a weak year for QBs. Then again, it was a weak year for safeties, and we took one. We took some very poor odds fliers on players day two. While this QB class may simply have nothing to offer, I just believe it is worth a flier on the most important position in football.

Response to azbearsfan who said, "I always love the armchair guys that say they can do it better. I always wonder why they dont get a job coaching or being an assistant gm somewhere." The argument just irritates me. Essentially saying that if you are not a NFL GM, you have no business second guessing one. Same thing when I, or any fan, questions the coach. Hey, if you are so smart, why are no not a NFL coach. It is an argument I have always hated and consider a cop out.

To me, it has to be KC. They had an incredible draft. Dorsey was arguably the best defensive player in the draft. Albert was a top OT prospect who many feel could prove to be equal to Long in the long run. Flower fell due to his 40 time, but sure seemed faster than his 40 on the field. Jamal Charles is an excellent compliment to LJ, and a potential replacment, not to mention great value in the 3rd. Cotton is a big TE who can be viewed as Gonzo's future replacement. Morgan was one of the top rated safeties in the draft, and a great value in the 3rd. Solid WR propsect in Franklin. This was an incredible draft, and the best in the league IMHO.

From PFT, BEARS SIGN TEN, TOO Posted by Mike Florio on April 28, 2008, 2:52 p.m. The Chicago Bears have announced the signing of ten free agents. They are: Coly Balaugh, T, Montana; Trey Brown, DB, UCLA; Joe Clermond, DE, Pittsburgh; David Faaeteete, DT, Oregon; Curtis Hamilton, WR, W. Kentucky; Caleb Hanie, QB, Colorado St.; Nick Hill, QB, S. Illinois; Shane Longest, K, St. Xavier, Leslie Majors, DB, Indiana, Nick Osborn, DE, San Diego St.

Good call on LT2. Let me bounce something off you. Maybe unrelated to this thread, but something I have been thinking about. IMHO, Angelo (as a former defensive scout) simply has an eye for defensive diamonds in the rough. He can find those hidden gems better than he can find offensive gems set on the surface, right in front of him. Isn't Gabrial also a former defensive background scout? Anyway, here is the question. If the above is true, is it better for Angelo do what he did, draft a bunch of defensive fliers as the odds of HIM "hitting" on a defensive player are greater, or for him to draft offense regardless, even if he is not good at it, and the odds are lower he will hit. Sucks to have to ask that question, but until this draft (which the results are far from known) Angelo has seemed like a pretty good evaluator of defensive talent, w/ the ability to find gems after the top rounds, while being flat out poor on the offensive side of the ball. Question part two. Is the problem Angelo finding offensive talent or our coaching staff's inability to develop that talent. Sorry for the sidebar, but something I wanted to ask.

He may have the potential to be a blocker, but it doesn't sound like he is anything like Gilmore. He is a raw TE prospect w/ athleticism, but has yet to learn how to really translate that athleticism to the field. He is considered a pass catching TE. He does not at all sound like Gilmore to me.

Nice on the blunt. So let me understand. We need insurance behind Benson, but not Rex or Orton? Competition for our RB is more important than finding a franchise QB? I like Forte, but I am sorry. RBs may not be a dime a dozen, but they are not that far from it. Build the OL, and watch even AP look like a stud. And we could have had both anyway. I just flat out would not have cost that much to move up from the 3rd round if Forte was considered that great.

I didn't say we "can't" carry two QBs on the roster. I said we would not. And we won't. Just like we wouldn't carry a 3rd kicker when fans wanted a kickoff specialist. Just like we didn't carry a 7th WR when fans liked the guy about to get cut. Just like we will not carry 4 RBs. We will not carry only two QBs on the roster. Cracks me up how fans try to tweak the roster this way and that, and at the end of the day, nothing changes.