nfoligno

Love some of your comments. Yes, I think our team, and many others, covet athletes over football players. You ask how Mike Brown would be viewed. Today, he would be viewed as a high ceiling (potential pro bowl) w/ bottomed out floor due to injuries. If you go back to the draft though, he would have been considered a high floor, mid level ceiling. His lack of pure (40 time in shorts) athleticism would have lowered his perceived ceiling, yet his intelligence and instincts seen in college would have raised his floor. Daniel Manning was the opposite. Due to his athleticism, his ceiling was sky high, but due to his playing in a small school, and questionable instincts seen in college, he floor was bottom out level. Great example. If both were in the draft, I would far more prefer a Mike Brown over a Daniel Manning. Putting all prejudices aside, Brown would reflect the football player who may never be in the pro bowl, but is a very good starter and helps your defense. DM would reflect a player who could be a pro bowler and flat out dominate, but could also be flipping burgers in a few years if he simply doesn't get it. W/ regard to Orton v Rex, I am not sure this is a great example. Rex is considered a gamer too. He does not have the measurables, athleticism, a rocket arm to compensate for other negatives. Basically, he lacks many of the intangibles, but has a "moxy" the staff love. Orton actually has many of those intangibles, but has not shown the same moxy.

I do not think it is blasphemy to talk trade w/ any of our players. I would not deal Hester for Chad Johnson, though I think there is value there. I simply do not believe our team, as it is set up right now, can deal w/ a player like CJ. Both of Dallas' #1 picks. Yes. I would do that. As incredible as Hester is, I think his long term value for the team is less certain. We need so much, that 3 #1 picks would be simply too much ammo. And frankly, there are few players in the league, IMHO, who would not be worth two #1 picks, and none are on our team. I would take two #1 picks for anyone on our team.

F Him. Yea yea yea. It is all part of the game. This is the business side of it. I don't care anymore. There were players you expected this from, and then there were players who were supposed to be above this shit. Back when he was drafted, I recall his agents not getting it done in contract negotiations, and Urlacher flat told them to get it done, and he would not miss a minute of camp due to contract crap. A few years later, Urlacher still has two years left, but the bears give him a new deal, and one that dwarfted all prior contracts handed out by the organization. Over the last year or so, he just doesn't seem the same. He was always a friendly, fan favorite. He seemed like a kid who knew he was getting paid to do what he loved. Now? I just don't think he enjoys it. He was playing petty games w/ the media throughout last year. Now this? So let me understand this. On one hand, he says his injuries are so serious that he is contemplating retirement. On the other hand, he wants a new deal w/ new money throw his way. Um, does anyone else see the stupidity in this? He is coming off a weaker than normal season, riddled w/ injury and w/o a pro bowl. Further, the team is coming off a shit year. And he chooses now to try and hold the team hostage? This is the face of the franchise? This is our team leader? I really hope we play hardball w/ him. We own him for 4 more seasons. If he retires, it will hurt the team, but does anyone really believe he will retire. And it isn't like he can retire and return to play for another team in a year. Even if he retires, we still own him for the next 4 years. He can talk about holding out, but then he will just start paying us. Sorry, but I am not fully bitter. F Urlacher. F Harris. F Hester. This only proves my point that it is worthless to sign players to new deals, before the expiration of their original deals. They will play for a couple years under that new deal, then demand more money. Screw them all. Make them play out their deals, and like Briggs, see if the market is really what they think. I have a feeling that as highly regarded as many of these players are, they would be in for a bit of shock if they really tested the market. Urlacher - not just an injury, but a chronic back problem. Not a good injury, particularly for a LB. Wrong side of 30, and coming off a sub-par year. Harris - Dealt w/ injuries the last couple years. Disappears in the 2nd half of seasons, when he is on the field at all. Great DT, but may not fit every teams scheme, which limits options. And anytime you have a player spouting off about being among the highest paid, it will scare off many potential suitors. Hester - Already arguably the greatest return man of all time, but history is pretty clear. Return men do not have a huge window in which they are dominant. While Hester seems to have broken the mold, I still think most will question how long he will be as devestating as he currently is. While he is far better, I think you need only look at how fast Dante Hall's shooting star came back to earth. If he wants to be paid as a top tier WR, I think he must first prove he can play WR. Briggs thought himself worth more than $20m in SB. He got around $13. We played semi-hard ball w/ Briggs, and I think that is exactly what we should be doing w/ the rest of these players.

If you go back to my original post, I asked how we (as the bears) should be looking at the draft (this year). I agree it varies between year to year and team to team, but I was simply asking about us, this year, and it appears we agree. I do not think we can afford to gample and take big risks. I am not saying we don't look at player's ceilings, but at the same time, I simply think the player's floor must be a major factor. Defense and STs are great, and we can not afford (IMHO) to take 3+ years to get the offense into shape, and 3 years is generous if we start drafting busts.

I have damn near stopped gambling all together in Vegas. I have come to know so much of the "free" side of Vegas, that I go for the fun, and gamble only a tad. No matter how much I try, once I start gambling, I have a hard time knowing when to say when. Especially if I throw down at a craps table.

Couple points on this. One, I am not ready to blast Hester. To the best of my knowledge, Hester has said nothing to the media, and has not made this an issue. Hester can not help it if a loud mouth pops off like this. Two, I have a real problem giving Hester a new deal right now if he is looking at himself as a WR, and looking to be paid among the upper tier of WRs. As much potential as he has, and as much skill as he has shown, he has not shown yet that translates to WR, thus I do not understand the idea of giving him a contract that pays him among the elite WRs. Frankly, I even have a problem giving him a new deal that does not pay him the big bucks he seeks. What happens if gets a deal that gives him a sweet bump, but this year he becomes the next Steve Smith? If he is unhappy now, imagine how unhappy he will be a year from now. To me, it just does not make sense to shell out for him now. The risk is far to great paying him among the elite WRs, while at the same time, I think there is too great of a chance that if he does excel at WR, he would be unhappy w/ any deal given to him that does not reflect that upper tier of WRs. I mentioned this before, but this goes back to my issue w/ the idea of locking up player before they breakout. I am not a fan of shelling out top tier deals before a player proves such a value. At the same time, i think it too often backfires when you sign a player for a reasonable contract prior to their breakout. Look at TJ or Alex Brown. We signed both player (extension for Brown) to reasonable contracts, but as soon as they out-produced their deals, they were complaining and demanding new deals. What once worked so well, I simply think has less value today.

Another analogy I like. Ever go to Vegas, or simply hit a casino? If you win $1,000, it feels pretty damn good. You can go out and buy a new TV, or something. If you lose $1,000, it is worse than just a bad feeling. Lose $1,000, and suddenly you are looking at whether or not you can pay all your bills. If you are married, you are worried about what your wife is going to do if/when she finds out. It has always been my opinion that losing $1,000 is more negative than winning $1,000 is positive, even though you are talking about the same amount of money.

We are talking about the draft. We are talking about a basic crapshoot. There is no "definitve evidence" proving anything. In the draft, you can see 100 QBs taken in the 6th fail, but teams will continue to draft QBs in the 6th looking for the next Brady. W/o question you have your LTs and Urlachers. Players who had some flags, and who had high ceilings, but lower floors. No question you have plenty of examples of such players. But that isn't the point. Take the WR examples of Kelly and Manningham. Kelly for injury/speed and Manningham for character. 10 years from now, either one could be considered a perennial all pro. That is their potential. But their floor is flipping burgers. So it is back to the question of floor v ceiling. You can point to Gallery and LT as examples, but I would argue those are exceptions more than examples. Though w/ Gallery, I would say he is some ways proves the point. He had high potential, but his floor was higher too, and I would argue that proved true. Gallery never became the stud LT, but he is today a very, very good OG. Very good starting OG is a fairly high floor. Compare him, for example, to the player picked #2 (same as Gallery) the prior year. Charles Rogers was taken by Det. His ceiling was incredible, but he has some big flags too, and had a lower floor. While Gallery's floor was as a starter at a different position on the OL, Charles floor has proven far worse.

I like the baseball analogy. All-pro stud = home run pro bowl alternate = triple upper tier starter = double average starter = single quality depth, or rotation player = sacrifice deep depth or worse = strike out Everyone loves the idea of home runs. Especially skill positions, which would be like an out of the park home run. At the same time, as much as a home run would help, I think a strike out would hurt more. To continue the baseball analogy. You are down 10-2 heading into the 7th. A home run is a great idea, but it is one run. When you are down like that, I think it is more key to simply get on base and get something going. In this draft, I think we need a group of singles and doubles. We can hope some turn into triples or better, but I think the key is getting on base, as we simply can not afford strike outs.

I understand what you are saying, but would have a couple responses. One. We are talking about the draft. TO and Moss are a pair of proven studs w/ baggage. In the draft, we are talking about unproven potential studs w/ baggage. The proven v unproven is a big difference. Two. While I am not often in favor of getting character-challanged players, I do see the times it is beneficial. NE is a prime example. When you have built something solid, and you are looking for that one player/piece to put you over the top, you can better take on the challenge. When you have a team filled w/ established veterans, you can take on that challenge. When you have a coaching staff experienced w/ those character challenged players, you can better handle the situations that come up. IMHO, we fit none of those areas. I do not believe our staff is in a great position to deal w/ a TO or Moss. We do not have the veteran leadership on offense to deal w/ such a personality, and in particular, not at QB where most teams look for leadership. And we are so weak on offense, that a player like that may well help, but the offense will likely still struggle, and these players have proven they only create problems when their offenses struggle. Three. When I posed the question, I mentioned character as one red flags, but that was only one flag. Four. Last year, I could have understood going for a greater risk player. Though it was a deck of cards, we were coming off a SB appearance and it seemed as though we were in search of depth and future more than immediate starters. This year, we are in search of numerous immediate starters, and I simply feel are less in position to take big risks. Hitting on 2 of our first three picks this draft could quickly put up back in contention. Missing on 2 of our first three picks (especially the 1st) could set up back years, IMHO.

I usually follow the same train of thought. In the first, maybe the 2nd too, go for high floor guys. After that, you can start getting more and more risk taking, going for the high ceiling guys w/ red flags. This year though, I feel we need to be more conservative beyond the 1st or 2nd rounds. I simply feel we can less afford a bust now, than in a year we are more set and looking for future stars or current depth. W/ regard to Manningham, I want no part of him. Its one thing to make mistakes in college. We all do. It another thing to not learn from those mistakes, or own up to them. I simply do not see the potential for growing w/ him, at least not the liklihood that would have me draft him.

I do not see Brohm lasting to our 2nd round pick either, but two points I would make. One. While I am not a big Kiper fan, history is history, and his record isn't too shabby. Its one thing when some fan web site talks about this player going here or that player going there, but when some of the bigger names talk about it, I think it lends some credence, if that makes sense. So while I do not think it happens, Kiper saying he will be there simply has more value than if some fan site says it. Two. While I think Brohm is the #2 QB in the draft, I also think there is a legit chance he could fall as other QBs have a chance to go ahead of him. I am NOT high on Henne, but I have read quite a few that are. I do not think it is beyond reasonable belief that a team could rank Henne higher than Brohm. Then there is Flacco. This is a bit more of a reach, IMHO, but possible. Flacco has to be considered more in need of development, but at the same time, he is the biggest QB w/ the strongest arm. So he has a couple traits that you are either born w/, or you are not. I do not think Brohm will be there for our 2nd pick, but maybe there is a reason Kiper does.

I read a posters comments on a player, and it got me wonder. What do you all think is more important in this draft, for the bears. Often player, particularly after the 1st, who have the highest value may also come w/ a lower floor, or a great bust potential. Esentially, you have the chance to get a guy who could have been a 1st round pick, and could be a pro bowl player (or maybe just very good) but comes w/ some flags, whether it be character, injury history/potential, tweaner, position change, etc. So the question I have is, are we better off going after the player w/ a lower ceiling, but higher floor, or the player w/ the higher ceiling yet lower floor? For me, I have to take the higher floor guy. That is for the 1st round, and frankly, much of the draft. I think when a team is more set though its roster, you can take greater risks, but that is not us. We need to come out of this draft w/ a high number of players who can not only contribute, but likely start. We just can not afford to draft busts this year, and I think higher floor guys should be looked upon higher. I have heard about the WR Kelly potentially slipping to the 2nd, partially due to a bad 40, but also due to knee issues. I have heard about Manningham dropping due to character. While I am not always one to avoid red flag players, this year I think we should.

I will be honest. I am not on top of some positions as much as others, due to not looking hard at players we have no shot at, or do not fill a need, but just for fun.... 1. Jake Long - Stud LT, and may be among the safest picks in the draft. 2. Matt Ryan - May not be as great of a prospect as some others, but QBs get elevated in the process, especially for us. 3. Chris Long - Some would argue Dorsey, but I think Long has nearly as much upside, w/ a higher floor. 4. Dorsey - What an interior he and Harris would make. 5. McFadden - Next AP? Don't know about that, but a potential stud RB. 6. Clady - Not quite at the level of Long, but a potential stud LT 7. Albert - I have him rated this high. I think his upside may be as great as any, and his floor could be higher than any minus Long. 8. Ellis - Another interior guy I would love to pair w/ Harris 9. Gholston - Not sure how to rank him for us. Top prospect, but really should be in a 3-4, and likely lower on our list than others. 10. Otah - Best run blocker in the draft? For a team that gets off the bus running, this would be a great pick. 11. Rivers - LB class may not be great, but he is. 12. McKelvin - Best CB prospect in the draft, and a damn good one too. 13. Chris Williams - If this were based w/o need, he "might" be a tad lower, but our board has to factor need and fit, so here he is. 14. Stewart - Mendy is the board favorite, but I think Stewart may well be better. Injury doesn't seem to be bothering many. 15. Mendy - I have numerous OL ahead of him, but no doubt he is top 15 value.

Sun Times guy spoke w/ Kiper, and got some stuff to pass along http://blogs.suntimes.com/bears/2008/04/ki...y_need_som.html 1.14—Chris Williams, OT, Vanderbilt 2.44—Brian Brohm, QB, Louisville 3.70—Kevin Smith, RB, Central Florida 3.90—Jerome Simpson, WR, Coastal Carolina 4.110—Stanford Keglar, LB, Purdue Kiper also talks about how the bears were snake bit w/ injuries and such, and says they could return to greatness. Also says they need more "juice" on offense. Other interesting bit from Kiper, though he has us taking Brohm, he really talks up Booty, and says that if he is there in the 3rd, the bears should jump on him. W/ regard to his mock, and w/o knowing who was there when we pick, I love the first three. Chris Williams is not my favorite among the OTs, but is up there, and would be a great addition. Heck, it was not long ago we were unsure whether Williams would even make it to our pick, but since then, Otah moved back up the boards and Albert has soared. Brohm in the 2nd would be awesome value at a top tier need. And Kevin Smith in the 3rd sounds great as well. I don't know much at all about Simpson. WR is a need, but I just question the value of WRs this year. I do not like the pick of a LB, even in the 4th. Our starting 3 are set, and we also have a pair of young LBs in Williams and Okwo, drafted in the last two years, in reserve. If we want to look at D, I would think DT or S would be much greater needs, and I would not mind looking at another OL too. But if the first three picks went down like that, I would be happy enough, again, not knowing who was available, or who he has us passing on.

Personally, while fun, I think talking Ws v Ls at this point is sort of funny. Every year, there are teams that are expected to be good/great that stink (like us last year) while other teams that are supposed to suck, but are good (like Cle). Especially now, prior even to the draft, it is sort of funny. I think there are a couple no brainers. Indy will be good, and Atlanta will not. In between? Well, lets just say there is a pretty big area there. Also, wanna bet what other fans are saying when they see us on their schedule. Hell, Atlanta fans are probably thinking we are one of their few chances at a victory next year.

I have a friend who I watch games w/. He is in the media, and actually knows quite a few people on the team, as well as others around the league. I always give him grief because he is/was tight w/ Wanny. He has actually sat and had dinner w/ members of the McCaskey family. Anyway, he has always said Virginia is the driving force. Basically, while Halas said the girls would be around as long as he lived, I get the sense the opposite is true w/ Virginia. The girls are out as long as she lives. When Virginia dies (God forbid), that will be the ultimate test I suppose. By the way. Last Bear SB was the final season of the Honey Bears. Maybe Ryan leaving and all the other reasons mentioned are not way we didn't repeate, and have stunk since. Maybe it is a Honey Bears curse.

I would also like to add, it appears to me, many others agree. There are 4 votes for Chris Williams. 2 for Otah. 8 for Albert. 2 for Mendy. And 1 for Stewart. I have a hard time believing that if we were truly in position to draft Ryan, 17 people would choose the above over Ryan. Heck, I question whether all 16 who picked Clady would truly take Clady over Ryan, or whether they simply feel there is a small chance Clady is there, and thus a legit vote, while not believing the same about Ryan. Hey, I like Clady. A lot. But in this draft, there is a question of Long v Ryan. I am not sure there is a question of Clady v Ryan. IMHO, most avoided voting for Ryan, not because they would pass on him, but because they do not view him as a legit option, and thus feel their vote would be a waste.

And? What's wrong w/ that:) And I would say I "bent" the rules. Not changed them. Nothing wrong w/ bending the rules, so long as the rule doesn't snap. And even if that happens, you can always find a way to pass the buck

Ryan, and I would argue w/ anyone all day who would argue other. While we do not have an OL in a position to help the QB, at the same time, there is not a single position in football harder to find than a franchise QB, especially for this franchise. If we have a franchise QB fall into our laps, we would be idiots to pass. Albert. I was high on his some time back, and was then blasted for how bad of a reach he would be. I was really shredded for even throwing out the idea of Albert at 14. Now it is questionable whether he even falls to us. I have seen more and more talk about KC being very high on him, and could be looking at him over Clady. Also read NE is high on Albert, as are Buffalo and Carolina. I truly believe Albert is this years version of Dwight Freeney, at least for me. Then, I remember talking about Freeney at a point when I was blasted, as most felt he would be a reach w/ our 29th pick. I said he would not only be a good draft day value, but would be a perfect fit in our system at a position of need. Soon after, there was talk about a few other teams immediately in front of us looking at him. Then Indy freaking takes his near top 10 range, and the player who was once considered a reach w/ our pick went 18 slots ahead of us. I feel similar w/ Albert, and now envision a situation where he goes a full 11 picks in front of us. More and more, I think KC will take him. While Clady is considered the higher grade, Albert is a better fit in their system, and that very well could affect how "their board" grades him.

QBs have fallen, as you point out w/ Leinart and Quinn, but those were the 2nd QBs, not the first. I would argue it is far less likely when talking about the top QB falling in the draft, particularly when so many QB needy teams are in the top 10. As for my vote, I voted based on the players I felt were "possible" to fall to us. IMHO, to vote for Ryan or Clady is simply a wasted vote. It is like a Democrate voting for Gore to be president. It just is not going to happen, and is a wasted vote.

I had always heard it was Virginia who didn't like the Honey Bears and wanted them gone.

One, I have to disagree w/ the staff not using rookies. While our staff has earned a rep of "red shirting" some rookies, that has only been w/ a few, while many more have played early on. I think fans get caught up in Beekman and Hass not playing, as well as the red shirts, but many rookies have seen the field. 2007 -Olsen may not have started, or played as much as we wanted, but he did play. -Payne was slotted to play quite a bit, but went down w/ injury. -McBride not only played, but started. And before you throw out his playing due to need, the staff could have played RMJ, but choose to go w/ the rookie. -Graham played on STs, and Wolfe did see action too. 2006 -DM was used basically out of the gate. -Hester took a lead role in return duties, and even saw time as a DB his rookie year. -Anderson got a ton of time at DE as a rookie, and produced. -DV was set to play a key role, but went down w/ injury. 2005 -Benson didn't start, but saw a ton of action as a rookie -Orton started a ton as a rookie, though due in large part to the health of our other QBs. -Chris Harris played a lot as a rookie too. 2004 -Harris started -Tank either started, or played in the rotation. -Vasher was our nickel, and I think got a couple starts too. -Berrian, Krenzel and Marshall all played as rookies too. So I think it is wrong to believe the staff doesn't play rookies. Not only has this staff played rookies, but done so even when veterans were ahead of them, as seen most recently w/ McBride. Two. On Hester (FB), this would be huge for me. I simply am not impressed AT ALL w/ McKie, and feel upgrading our FB position could be as key to upgrading the run game as upgrading the OL. Three. Glad you have no doubts about Babich improving. I have plenty.

Now that is what I am talking about. I would take Albert, but also like Williams. Throw in Rachal, and I would be doing cartwheels. I do not see us drafting WR day one, but then again, if Thomas fell, I would jump. I do not see any chance of this though, as I am reading more and more that he is considered the top WR this year, and likely the first WR off the board. I am not as high on Forte as some, but for a late 3rd, hell yes. I would love your mock, and while I realize you are going off the mock slotting provided, I simply do not think most of those key players after the 1st will be available in those slots come draft day.

Agreed. OT is considered one of, if not the top need position for the bears. While there is no chance Long falls to us, his going #1 or lower does have an affect. If he does not go #1, while I still think he won't fall, he could drop to KC. More and more reports have KC now looking at Albert, who otherwise could be a player we are looking at. Point is, how early the top OT goes could dictate how quickly other OL go off the board, thus affecting our pick.