nfoligno

Talk about a brain fart.

I agree w/ much of what you said, and have been saying similar for a while now. If this were a re-building year, it would mean to me blowing it up and building from the ground. That would put some of our veterans in line for a trade, rather than new deals. Like you, I think the team feels the D and STs are both strong and built for several years. On offense, we has a lot of work to do. I have said this before, but go back to the year Orton started at QB. Our offense was about as bad as it gets that year, yet our D and STs not only kept us competitive, but actually pushed the team into the playoffs. I think the staff is looking at similar this year, and next. I think the staff is looking at the offense as a multi-year building program, and they are hoping the D and STs can keep us going until the O is capable. W/ that said, while I agree on the players we will be drafting, I disagree w/ the idea none beyond our 1st round pick is likely to see much action. If we draft an OG w/in the first 3 rounds, I think he would have an excellent shot at starting. Metcalf, IMHO, will not make the 53 man roster. So Beekman will be a rookies only competition. If we draft a RB in this range, I think he has a great shot at quickly coming in and getting some reps early on. I think most realize this is a make or break year for Benson w/ the Bears. Any RB they draft early, they are going to want to get reps in to develop him sooner and faster. Similar at WR, if we draft one in this range. We have little on the roster now at WR, and if we draft one in the top 3 rounds, I think he will be getting some action. He won't start, or even be the #3 WR, but he will get plays and be given a chance to produce. And if we draft Hester (FB), which i would love, I think he could beat out McKie. Point is this. I agree this is a building year, but you hurt that building process by delaying the development of the rookie class. If this truly is a building year for the offense, you are FAR better served playing your rookies (and other youth on the team) now, letting them develop, and hasten their development. As for how well we play, you argue injuries on D are key. Sure. I agree w/ that. But also key, IMHO, is Babich. I think his coaching of the defense, more than injuries, led to our defensive collapse last year. It was his first year running a defense. So to me, how good our defense depends more on how much Babich improves.

As I said in my post, Ryan would be tops, w/ Clady next, but I am sorry. I still don't see the point. Hey, I would rank Jake Scott ahead of them all. I would rank McFadden up there too. So while I sort of get the response, I still don't see the point in ranking players no one thinks will fall to us, especially when all we are doing is choosing one player.

Where have you read/heard the bears are not interested in Otah? We brought him in for a visit, and sent "supposedly" our some of our name guys to his pro day workout. It seems like just about every mock out there has us taking him. Just curious where you read, or what you read/heard, as I can't recall reading anything like that (our not having interest in Otah).

I know you throw out there that not all will be available, but that touches on the one issue I have w/ the poll. If all these players were available, I would take Ryan. Clady would be next. But that is the problem. While anything can happen in the draft, I think it a massive reach to believe either of these two players fall to us. So w/ that said, I voted for Albert, who among those I believe will be available, is tops on my list.

These stories always kill me. I read about how a player's agent wants to play hardball, because he doesn't want to be viewed as accepting a deal considered less than market value, but at the same time, if they play hardball, he is not likely to be the top pick, and while he may not fall far, he is likely to end up w/ a contract worth less than whatever the #1 team is offering. If he falls to KC at #5, I would bet the deal he gets is considerably inferior to the deal Miami is offering. The agent was boast about how the deal was a solid deal for the #5 pick, but the reality is the deal would be less than what Miami offered, and the player would miss out on being the #1 pick in the draft.

Why did we draft Wolfe? I touched on this elsewhere, but wanted to throw it out there again. I have seen talk of Wolfe being a potential every down RB. I have seen the Warrick Dunn comparisons, and talk of 20-25 touches per game. The idea is, if Benson doesn't step up w/ his final chance this year, Wolfe could take over, and that he simply was not given enough opportunities this past season. IMHO, this is not what he was drafted for. IMHO, the role we saw for him on draft day was not that of an every down RB. On draft day last year, the belief was Benson was more than ready/capable of stepping up and becoming the stud starter. I say this because if we didn't feel that way, we would not have traded away TJ. So we felt we had our starting RB in Benson. We did not need a 20-25 touch RB. I argue the staff was looking for a RB w/ different traits. I think in Wolfe, the staff felt we could add a good 3rd down/ change of pace RB. One who had more speed/quickness than Benson. One who could supplement or compliment. Not one who could replace. Also, I think a key reason for drafting Wolfe was special teams. The prior year, we saw (including in the SB) teams short kicking to avoid Hester. Angelo and Lovie even talked about lining up someone who could return the ball to better take advantage of those short kicks. In wolfe, I think they saw a player who could fill that role. In camp, I know we worked him in that role, but from all reports, he struggled in the return game, and I don't believe we ever saw him in that role during the season. The point of all this is, I do not believe our staff/scouts ever envisioned Wolfe as a starting, 20-25 touch RB, and thus, I am not sure we should expect that of him. Does this mean there is no way he could fill that role. No, I am not saying that. But I questioning the idea, and do not believe our staff ever scouted him that way.

Regarding this being a rebuilding year, I have said this before, but will throw it out there again. IMHO, what we are trying to do is rebuild on offense, while maintaining our defense and special teams in order to be competitive. A couple years ago (when Orton was starting) we were great on defense and special teams, while our offense was awful, and we made the playoffs. I think that is sort of what we are looking at doing this year. I think Angelo believes we have a special teams and defense good enough to keep us in games and keep our team competitive. Offense on the other hand needs a near over-haul, and that is not going to be done over-night. So we start working on the building of the offense, now, while the other units keep the team competitve. The hope (theirs) is our offense steps up quick enough that our D and STs are still great. This is where I am not sure I buy into the plan. For this plan to work, I think we would need to see a significantly improved offense by 2009, and a good one by 2010. I would love that, but have little confidence in our seeing it happen. We need so much on offense, and Angelo's history drafting offense is such that I simply have little faith.

I think he was waived last year.

Hey, we are in full agreement about drafting/fixing the OL. Hell, I was even making an argument (theoretical) about drafting OL w/ our first four picks. W/ that said, and while I do believe all our back could/should be better w/ an improved OL, I would state the following: One. This is supposed to be a very solid draft for RBs. There are the upper tier guys, but also solid backs after that. If a RB was there after the 1st who our scouts felt could be a feature, every down back, I would have no issue drafting him. If we get an OT in the 1st, then we can look at the OL again in the 3rd, I think a RB could easily be argued for the 2nd. Two. You do not have to pursuade me that improving the OL should improve our RBs. At the same time, I think Benson has shown enough questionable play (character for me more than actual play) to put his future w/ us in question. AP is a backup/special teams ace. Sorry, but everyone has wanted to make it out like he is a solid RB who should be a starter, but he is not. And Wolfe. You want to believe he is the next Warrick Dunn. I simply do not buy that one. I don't think the staff even envisions him that way. IMHO, when Wolfe was drafted (a) it was w/ the idea he could be a change of pace back, as the thought was Benson was ready to step up and be a stud and ( he could be a return man, giving Hester a breather here and there, as well as line him up for the short kickoffs. I simply do not believe we ever thought of him as a starter or more than a change of pace/ special teams guy. So even if our OL improves and our RBs look better, if a RB falls to us who the scouts/staff believe could develop into a big time, every down, RBs, I see no problem w/ drafting him.

Wow, do I disagree w/ you w/ regard to FBs. Not only do I disagree w/ the idea that FBs are so easy to find, I would argue it has been some time since we have had one ourselves. We have either had a FB like Shelton, who was a great blocker, but had no other skills. Or we have had a FB like McKie, who is considered capable of pass catching (though I have seen little). We often talk about all-purpose RBs, but IMHO, the same is true for FBs. Just a few years ago, I remember opponents could predict our plays based on which FB was in the game. If Shelton was in, it was most likely a running play. If he was out, pass play. I am not a fan of McKie. Not in the least. I think his blocking sucks. He is supposed to be a solid receiving FB, but I see little after the catch ability. And he is not a FB that takes handoffs either. While most talk about OL, RB, WR, etc., I still think FB is a big need for us. I hate watching other teams (Minny, SD, KC, etc) run the ball. It isn't just a matter of their having stud RBs, but also having FBs that blow up whoever tries to fill the hole. We on the other hand that just sort of throws in a FB that helps clog up the hole. As for how many FBs we keep, and whether or not our drafted RB could be that FB, I would say this depends greatly upon who we draft. I have read that Forte could play FB, and if so, maybe. But that is one, and most other RBs I have read we have interest in has speed over blocking ability. As for the idea of keeping a 4th RB. Hey, I have no problem w/ the idea. I simply off history. How many times have we as fans talked about keeping one extra WR, only to see him cut. How many times do we talk about keeping one extra OT, only to see him end up on the practice squad. I remember arguments for a 4th QB, or a 3rd kicker who would specialist in kickoffs or long distance FG attempts. Point is, so often we as fans talk about tweaking the depth chart this way or that, but rarely do I see the staff agree. I like, and agree, w/ the argument using the logic of AP being a special teams specialist, but then again, I am one who has always argued in favor of keeping special teams studs.

I didn't like him in the draft, and felt he was a bad pick then. He is a bear now, and I happily cheer for him, but at the same time, I think you are missing the point. The point is not so much whether people "like" him or not, but how we see our roster playing out. Assume for the moment Angelo and Lovie do in fact plan to keep him for another year to give him one more shot, which I think is a more than reasonable assumption. Now, assume we draft a RB w/in the first three rounds. There is no guarantee for this, but the way Angelo has talked, and based off expectations, I think this is also a fair assumption. So if we do this, two roster spots are basically locks. This leaves one of two options. Option one is a choice between Wolfe and AP. Option two is we carry 4 RBs. Options two is possible, but when have we done this before? While it is possible, I think it more likely we still carry three RBs, and thus, we are back to option one. So do we carry Wolfe or AP? Lovie is AP's biggest fan. AP has more experience, is a more all around RB, and is (now that Ayenbadejo is gone) probably our best special teams player. Personally, it would not be the end of the world if we kept Wolfe over AP, but at the same time, I think AP would have a considerable edge. So it isn't so much an issue of "liking" Wolfe or not, but a numbers issue. If we only keep 3 RBs and we draft a RB relatively early, who is the odd man out. If that situation does come to pass, I think Wolfe could find himself on the outside looking in.

Talking about an all OL draft was a joke/exaggeration to make a point. The original post mentioned drafting 4, to which you argued, to which I replied. - Tait is "very good". I am not sure I would agree w/ that. Maybe he can be again if he slides over to RT, but I am not sure whether or not we can say he is even good if he stays on the left. Kreutz I would agree is still very good, but as I said, for how much longer, and then factor his contract. Garza is adequate? Okay, but when did we say "okay" to adequate? - Sure, you can always say you need depth. My points though would be the OL is more pressing than many others, and OL often take longer to develop than many other positions. Of those you mention... CB - We recently re-signed both starters, and a rookie last year looked dang good. LB - We just re-signed Briggs, have pro bowl MLB under contract through 2011, and Hunter resently re-signed. Add to that drafting Williams and Okwo the last two years, and I am not sure why we need depth here. DL - We are 4 deep now at DE. Maybe could use a DT, but I would argue this is a position that needs less development, as more rookie DTs step up than OL. WR - No argument there, and if this were a better WR draft, I might be more for it, but this draft looks ugly at WR. RB - Agreed, and could easily be taken day one. QB - No argument here. FB - Yes, but most FBs are later picks. Again, you were going off the belief I seriously was advocating taking OL w/ every pick. I was not. I would likely not even take OL w/ the first four picks, but if it played out a certain way, it would not upset me too much. For example, Albert in the 1st, Baker falls to us in the 2nd, Pollack is there in the 3rd, and Rachal or Nicks in the later 3rd. That would be starting out the draft w/ four OL picks, and I would not have an issue w/ it. Would I like to see RB or QB mixed in there? Hell yes, but if no good QBs are there, and RB doesn't play out as we want in the draft, it would not upset me if we did as I mentioned above. We would immediately fill current holes, upgrade our depth, and create a situation where OL may be a strength for a long time.

Are we talking about Rex? If so, I agree whole heartedly.

I would take an entire draft of freaking OL. 1. While it is a nice thought, I am not sure you can flat out expect every player you draft to be a stud, much less even a starter. Just because you draft two OL does not mean you have found two NFL starting OLmen. Sometimes you have to draft more than one to get it done. I remember Phily drafting DBs w/ their first three picks. Can't recall the position, but I think I remember GB doing similar, as have other teams at times. Its a numbers game. You figure you need two, and if you draft enough, you are bound to find two good (or better) guys in the bunch. If you find more than 2, then you have a "good problem". If you still can't find two, then you need to find a new job. 2. While we have two glaring holes, I am not sure how great we are outside those two holes. Kreutz play has declined over the last couple years, IMHO. He is about to turn 31. He has 10 seasons of wear on him, and considering he is a smaller center that takes on big boys, you have to wonder about the wear on his body. Further, I think he is near the end of his contract. While it would be nice to always think of players like Kreutz retiring as a bear, the reality is we may not be willing to pay him what another team is. Tait is 33 years old, and I think we saw this year the beginning of the decline in his play. Most believe (as do I) that a move to RT could slow that decline, as the RT does not have the athletic demands of a LT. Regardless, he is on the downside of his career. Garza - To be frank, heading into last season, I thought he was our weak link. I am still not sure how good he is. As bad as the rest of the OL played last year, Garza stood out as our best, but that is like calling someone the tallest midget in the room. Point is not to say any of these three need to be replaced this year, but to point out it may be a question how much longer we should rely on our 3 non-hole positions on the OL. It may not be long before they are holes, and I would rather have a player in the pipeline to step in, as opposed to going through all this again. 3. Angelo said himself that OL often take time to develop. We may be forced to start a rookie (or two) this year, but if we do have potential up-coming holes on the OL, the smart play would be to have someone developing today that may be able to step in tomorrow. Beekman is the only player on the roster I think "might" fit that bill. 4. Even if we do add a pair of rookies that can start at OG and OT, our depth still sucks. I think last year (not to mention 2002 through 2005) should have taught us the value of depth at OL. I am not saying we should, but drafting OL for the first 4 picks is not as out-landish as you think. Terra however may need a trip to the emergency room for a quad bypass.

Devils advocate. I think the cap is a factor, but I would argue it is far from the deciding factor. Some years back, Angelo had no problem cutting Cade McNown, even though the move meant taking a cap hit. I would further point out that our cap situation then was far worse than now, and we were less in a position to eat the money. And we still made the move. When we traded Booker for Wale, we did so shortly after signing Booker to a new deal. I do not recall the specifics, but I believe we did take a cap hit for trading Booker. I do not know what the cap hit would be. If it were to be $10m, that obviously would make a deal nearly impossible, but I have not heard anything to lead me to that belief. If it were $3m or less, it would hurt, but may not be the ultimate deterant. IMHO, the cap is a factor, but draft position and potential are greater factors. When we drafted Wolfe, I do not believe we ever envisioned him as a starter. He is a 3rd down back w/ potential use on special teams as well. To me, AP is his competition, not Benson. Think about how we have dealt w/ Rex. Rex has been given opportunity after opportunity, and even now, he will get yet another opportunity. Benson played w/ TJ for two years, and then got his opportunity, but got that opportunity when the entire offense fell apart. I think Angelo want to, at minimum, give Benson one more year w/ an upgraded offense, and then decide how to move on from there.

I personally have no problem w/ Beekman. He was among my favorite picks in our draft. I thought then he could be a solid OG, and even after his lack of PT, still think he can develop. My key issue is w/ the logic in the original post that Beekman and Metcalf provide enough such that Brown's departure doesn't create a big hole, or that we need not look at OG prior to the 4th round. I like Beekman, but no way do I see OG as anything but a high need. And Metcalf should not even be mentioned in our plans. He has had 6 years, and has never looked like he should be our starter. Can't even just rip the staff, as Metcalf did play last year, and played so poor we moved St Clair inside to replace him.

Not BS or truth. There is no mention of "sources inside Halas" or anything like that. It is simply the opinion of a writer. Nothing more. Frankly, I would strongly disagree. The logic used is a bit simplistic. Easier to admit error after three years than one. Okay, that may be true if all things were equal, but they are not close to being so. Benson was a top 5 pick compared to Wolfe's late 3rd status. I would argue it is far easier to admit error on a late 3rd round pick than on a guy picked a few spots prior to the end of the day. Contract is also a factor, whether we as fans like it or not. I do not know that contract status of Wolfe, but based on where he was drafted, I would have to believe the cost of cutting him lose would be near zero. On the other hand, we would take a cap hit for cutting Benson lose. Finally, I would point to the potential of either. If you put Wolfe behind a solid OL, does anyone here truly believe he could be a legit starter? Wolfe is a 3rd down back/ special teams player. That is his ceiling. Opinions differ, but even now, I would argue the ceiling/potential for Benson is still greater than that of Wolfe. If Wolfe were thought more of, why would we be talking about drafting a RB this year? If we were so high on Wolfe, why not just let him compete for the starting job? The answer is Wolfe is simply not a starter, and was a mistake the moment we drafted him. To me, Benson is a lock. Any day one RB we draft is a lock. The only questions are (a) do we keep 4 RBs on the roster and ( if not, will it be AP or Wolfe to hit the door. Frankly, if we drafted a RB high (1st two rounds) I could see AP hitting the door. Lovie would be against it, but to me, it would make more sense. AP, not Benson, is the player Wolfe would be competing w/ for PT.

Totally valid and fair point, IMHO. But my reply would be this. Who is our coaching staff heading into 2008? If we changed staff, I might think different. Then I fight think a player the staff was down on could get new life. But w/ the same staff returning, I see no reason to believe Beekman will become a favorite of the staff.

I read that piece last night and thought it was awesome. It hit on an area I had not considered. Many have talked about picks like Gallary being total busts, but the article puts a different spin on it. Gallary is a bust in the sense he never lived up to the hype, but at the same time, he is today a solid starter on the OL. Not at LT, where he was drafted and expected to play, but inside. The team didn't get the value out of him they hoped for, but he is not close to being a bust that a QB, RB or WR would be if they were not able to hack it. That is one reason why I love the idea of drafting Albert. He has the potential to play LT, which is a huge need for us and, if that happened, would w/o question make him an awesome value at 14. But IMHO, if he can't play LT, he could still be a pro bowl level OG. Some would argue that is not worth the 14th pick, but I would argue that point myself. Otah is considered to have the potential to play LT also, but if not, is also considered to be a potential pro bowler at RT or OG. So while the ceiling on several of these OL is high (potential LT) the floor is far lower than the skill position players. One point I would sort of argue w/ the article. The piece talks about how not as many OL drafted become pro bowlers. One argument I would make on this point is that pro bowl OL often sit on that roster a long time, making it more difficult for new talent to take the spot. At QB, RB and WR, you have far more pro bowl roster turnover than on the OL, where a stud may be the starter on the pro bowl for a decade. So if you draft an OL, he very well may be a pro bowl level player, but that doesn't mean he will be on the pro bowl. I think this is about turnover on the pro bowl roster as much as it is new talent being pro bowl level. Also, I think it is harder for the new OL talent to break into that roster. It is harder becuase you don't have stats to really go off of. If a RB breaks onto the scene and puts up 1,500 yards, he is likely to get tons of votes to be on the pro bowl. At OL, often players who were there last year just get re-voted on. W/o the stats, fans (and often players who have not played agains that team) have no idea a new player has stepped up. Absent stats, I think many just vote on reputations, which are harder to earn than simply putting up great stats one year.

Sorry, but the way it was posted, it looked to me like you were quoting someone. If it was from some media source, I would call it a fluff piece. But simply a write up by a fan, I would simply call it an optimistic post, or one written through rosie goggles. Couple points I would make though: One. Beekman was not red-shirted the same as Okwo and Bazuin. Those two were put on IR, thus when the team stunk at the end of the year, they were not allowed to get any PT. Beekman was never IR'd. He was available to play, but the staff choose not to play him. The is an important issue IMHO, as the previous red shirts were put on the IR early on (sometimes questionably IMHO). Beekman was not. Two. How long does it take to build up strength? Beekman was not on IR, which means he should have been working out w/ Rusty throughout the season. So he had 3 months or whatever to build up strength. Even if he did improve his strength, does it not mean something the staff still considered him too weak? Three. A key point w/ other prior red shirts is they were in a number jam. Okwo was our #3 WLB, behind a pro bowl starter and also behind another young player. Bazuin was even deeper down the chart. Similar for other past red shirts. I am not so sure Beekman would have been considered so far down the list. Metcalf (wrongly) was probably ahead of him, but you usually want more than one backup OG. So I do not believe he faced the same number crunch other red shirts faces, which tells me it was more about his ability than previous red shirts. Four. Final point has to do w/ our moving forward. You mention how Beekman will battle Metcalf for the spot, but why should this give us confidence? Metcalf was an utter failure last year when given the opportunity to step up, and had not stepped up in the what, 6 years he has been w/ the team. I think it a huge mistake to even factor Metcalf in our plans. So the question is, do we really want to go into the season w/ Beekman basically slotted to play OG? I liked the pick myself, but he has not shown jack, and I see no reason we should not be looking to upgrade our OG position. I would happily take Albert in the 1st round w/ the intention of playing him at OG for a year, and then hopefully moving him to LT. This is not a great year for OGs, so after Albert, there may not be an OG we like before the 4th (which is the round you talk about) but if there was an OG we liked, I would have no problem taking him in any round.

Thank you. This piece was pure fluff. The whole time I was expecting to read about how after a year of training w/ Rusty, his new weight is this, or now he benches 30+ times, or whatever. Nope. Not a bit of info on his current strength. The other thing that stood out for me was the part that said w/ him and Metcalf in the fold, LG is not a need. LOL. You have to be kidding me. Who wrote this, his mom?

Where is this from?

It can be made cap friendly, to some extent, but it will still have bite. Players are not simply seeking the big SB anymore. They want the big SB, but in addition, want big first three year payouts. Freeney, for example, got nearly $38m in the first three years. $30 of that was in his bonus, w/ another $8m over three years. That may not sound like much, but not long ago, a player would get a big SB, but also around $1m or so for the first few years of the deal, w/ heavy backloads written in. Berrian is another example of this, as he was making a big issue, not about the SB, but about the first 3 year payout. As for how cap friendly it will be, consider this. Freeney got a SB of about $30m on a 6 year deal. If it was a straight SB (which would be the most initial years cap friendly), then he has a $5m/yr cap hit for his bonus alone. Then there is the other $8m to factor. If that $8m were spread out $2m, $3m, $3m, his cap hit for the next three years would be: $7m, $8m & $8m. Is that the sort of cap friendly number you were thinking of?

From the sound of it, negotiations are picking up. The Sun Times is reporting Harris' camp has received a new offer from the Bears. Harris was supposed to meet w/ Rosenarce to discuss the offer. The Sun Times was also showing the top 3 DT contracts The article talks about how Harris is going to want to be paid more than any on this list, and any offer from the bears below Kelly's, would likely not go over well. My question is this. Last year, Harris said he believes he should be paid in line w/ the top defensive players in the NFL. He didn't say top DTs, but defensive players. I have also read that Rosenarce is likely going to use Freeney's deal as the base to work from. Freeney signed a 6yr/ $72m deal w/ $30m signing bonus, w/ $37.72 paid out over the first 3 years. Freeney's deal blows out of the water the deals signed by the DTs, which makes this negotiation very curious. If the bears use Kelly's deal, and work up from there, while Rosenarce uses Freeney's deal, and maybe moved down, that still leaves a very large gap. Can the two sides meet in the middle, or will either side move enough to even get close? To me, this will come down to Harris' camp demands. If he truly feels he should make Freeney money, I am not sure I see this deal happening, and frankly, I am not sure we should do it. The injuries and 2nd half disappearing acts really make me question whether he should be paid in line w/ Freeney.