nfoligno

Your opinion in this is well known. I have never known anyone who valued the OL as little as you. In your eyes, we should be able to plug just about anyone in on the OL, and it will work out. I disagree. I might have agreed w/ you more if we spent money in FA on the OL, which I know you wanted to do, but that ship has sailed. I know you can name off a few OL still in FA, but I don't see how it matters. If the team is looking at redoing deals for Harris, Hester, Urlacher, Gould and Anderson, I think it shows we do not intend to spend the money necessary to add FA OL. You may not like that, but it is what it is. So w/ that information, we need to address the OL in the draft. Do we need skill position players? Absolutely. At the same time, the issue many here have is, w/o significantly upgrading the OL, any skill position players we add will look like a bust. If we add a WR in the 1st, how good can he look when the QB is on his back due to a lack of blocking. If we draft a RB, how good can we really expect him to look when he is meeting his first defender in the backfield, and having to fight just to get back to the LOS? Until we upgrade our OL, no skill position players will be able to look good. Thus, many here want to first build up the OL. In doing so, we might even be surprised and find a player or two currently on the roster step up. Further, later (next year) when we do add skill position players, they will be in a better position to step up due to the improved blocking.

There are two things I do like to find on those "major" sites. One is now, during draft time. None of us can likely give great reviews of every player in the draft. Thus having in-depth scouting reports on players in the draft, particularly from the sites who employ NFL scouts, is a great tool. I put no stock though they sites talk about teams depth, team needs, or the like. I know that stuff well enough. I do though like the scouting reports. Two is when, particularly former players, break down game tape on team plays. That can be truly informative. I love when they tell you what a play is called, and discuss the assignments of each player, and show tape to reflect how well a player meets those responsibilities.

Take a look at Ricky Williams. He doesn't see a problem w/ smoking some wacky weed, but I think the team feels different due to his suspensions. I have a bigger issue w/ Manningham who tried to lie about the issue, even though test results were out there. If you have a player that tried weed in college, but was up front about it and has shown he has moved past that, I can accept it. But if (a) a player lies about it or ( has multiple failed tests showing he didn't learn his lesson, I have a much greater issue.

Agreed, not only on Bazuin, but on most of the '07 draft in general. Bazuin - This just didn't make sense to me, especially after Anderson had the year he did. The only thing I can think is we made this pick w/ the expectation of moving Brown, but regardless, drafting a #3 DE (assuming we move Brown) was still very questionable in the 2nd round. I also very much disliked our pair of 3rd rounders. Most reports I read about Okwo seemed to have his value more as a special teams player. His upside didn't appear great. Wolfe was simply a horrible pick IMHO. Day one is too early to take a 3rd down back w/ no potential to become a starter.

Disagree, both in general, and specific to this year. It is simply not as simple as you make it out. Often times, the 4th or 5th best player at one positions is better than the 2nd best at another. This year, would you not agree the 5th best OL is better value than the 2nd best QB? Now we all can (and will) continue to argue whether Mendenhal (2nd rated RB) is better than the 5th OL (which could be Albert, Otah, or Williams, depending on who you ask), but the point I would make is that it is not as simple as (much less common sense) the 2nd best RB being better than the 5th best OL. That point is very much in dispute. Stupid? You say plenty of pro bowl caliber OL were drafted outside the 1st, but just because it has happened, does not mean those players are seen in this draft. Hey, Brady was drafted in the 6th. Does that mean we should wait until the 6th any year to draft QB? Just because a team found that player late in one draft does not mean every draft will provide such. This is not to mean there are no OL after the 1st who "could" be great, but to question your logic. Further, and specific to this draft, I would argue the dropoff at RB after the 1st is less than the dropoff at OL. To help this point along, I provide a link to a new piece from PFW http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/NFLDr...value040808.htm At OT, after the 1st round, you have: 1 mid 2nd round value. At RB, after the 1st, you have: 4 2nd round values. Thus, using this chart, it is better value to get that OT in the 1st, and then you would have several RBs to choose from in the 2nd. If you go RB in the 1st, you are far less likely to find good value at OL in the 2nd. Not this cite/source is not gospel. I realize that. But I also think their value chart coincides w/ popular opinion. This is a very strong draft for blue/red chip OL, but considered to have a steep/deep drop after. At RB, you have solid value also, but it is considered to run deeper, meaning you can get better value later at RB than at OL. To sum up, while I am not saying it is impossible that an OL drafted after the 1st couldn't go on to be great, I am saying there is a very solid argument that your post-1st round value at RB is greater than at OL, and the value of the 5th best OL v the 2nd best RB is very much in question. I have my opinion, but the key is I don't believe it is right to say EITHER side is "stupid" or lacking "common sense".

Manningham is supposedly falling down boards. Check out the top story on PFW. Manningham "supposedly" tested positive for dope, but denied it. So he gets two strikes. One for the test, and one for the lack of admitting it (honesty). The story went on to talk about how he showed up at the combine a bit out of shape and unprepared, and didn't seem to get on track until he hired an agent, which puts into question his committment. Point is, I understand why you didn't think he would fall, but it is now appearing there are reasons why he is falling, and not just in a fan run mock draft.

Something I find funny about these videos. Not sure I speak for everyone, but I'll bet I speak for the majority. It is sort of comical how superficial these in-depth team pieces are. I mean, pull up just about any website. Whether you are looking at team reports on CBS Sportline or team draft previews on ESPN, NFL.com or where ever, after finishing the piece, I walk away w/o having learned a thing. Some years back, I would have killed to get team specific info like that. Remember, I live in Dallas. Today, w/ the internet and a board like this, I read/listen to these pieces, and the only thing I can say is, "duh". Hey, guess what. NFL.com thinks we might look at on OT in the draft. CBS thinks we might not be content w/ Benson. CNNSI says we could use a WR. Wow. These really tell us so much I seriously have to laugh. I think most any on this board could probably do a better job writing about the bears than what I get from most of these sites. These team specific reports are for the average fan who follows box scores more than details.

There has been "talk" of this happening for about a year now. The problem is, when Urlacher signed his deal, it was a very big one, but also one w/ a ton of years on it. Since then, the cap and contracts have soared. It is an inevitable situation when a top tier player signs a very long contract. At some point, that contract will simply not resemple the level of the player, and that is what has happened w/ Urlacher.

I understand why you believe it is apples and oranges. My point is, if we are going to bash a player for being selfish, I think it should be accross the board. You say Urlacher is proven, and Benson was not. No argument. On the other hand, Benson was negotiating his first deal, where as Urlacher has actually signed a deal and is looking for the team to tear it up. So it isn't the same, but my point was simply that if we rip a player for being selfish, then it should be applied to all.

Didn't you just the other day agree Benson is selfish becasue he held (rookie deal)? Yea, I know Benson was a rookie and Urlacher the face of the team. At the same time, the argument against Benson never talked about his status, only that he should put the team before his bank account and get to work. Now, as it is about Urlacher, you are okay w/ it?

Hold the phone. You say, like me, you agree Urlacher should be able to holdout. That is not what I said. I said I have no issue w/ his looking for a new deal, but also said I was fine w/ it while he kept it behind the scenes. I do not agree w/ players taking their gripes to the media (the same media by the way Urlacher boycotted this past season) or holding out. Like any job in life, there is no rule against going to your boss and asking for a raise. However, making it a public issue is a problem for me.

Caught this from the Sun Times Briggs' deal has protection for team after 2009 The Bears have never had issue with the performance Lance Briggs has provided on the field. Ultimately, it’s why general manager Jerry Angelo said at the combine that he did not have a problem investing in the three-time Pro Bowl linebacker long term as a core player after he earned more than $7.2 million last season with the franchise tag.... But they’ve also protected themselves in the future. Briggs’ $3.3 million roster bonus for 2010—the final roster bonus in the deal—does not come due until June 10 of that year. That’s three months after most roster bonuses are paid at or near the start of the league year in March. What it means is the Bears will be able to decide whether or not they want to stay on the hook for the contract, or if they want to cut ties. The key is they will have time to make that decision after free agency and the draft have taken place. Briggs is going to be well paid in the first two seasons. He will collect $8.805 million this year and $6.1 million in 2009. But after that, if Angelo decides for whatever reason he doesn’t want to go forward, he can get out of the deal with minimal impact against the salary cap because the contract included a signing bonus of $4 million. The bulk of the bonus money is contained in three roster bonuses totaling $11.8 million. Those first two roster bonuses are payable in March, the first last month, and the next in March 2009. Key point of the article was Briggs late 2010 roster bonus, which could put Briggs in line for a 2010 departure. For me at least, that wasn't the key to the article. How little his SB was. When LT and I have talked about Briggs deal, I do not recall our even having considered so little of his bonus money being in the form of a SB. Nearly $12m of his bonus dollars are in roster bonuses, w/ over $3m not due until 2010. So two things from this. One. Our current cap space is lower than expected. While I believe we were going off the assumption most of his bonus money was in the form of a SB, meaning spread out over the life of the deal, instead most is in roster bonuses. Briggs will hit us for nearly $9m this year. More than the franchise tag hit we accepted last year, and far more than expected. Two. As the article point out, after the first two years making big bucks, while we hope this would not come to pass, he would be relatively easy to cut. W/ so little in SB and most in roster bonus, we would not take much of a hit by cutting him. Final point. W/ less money in cap to play w/, how does this affect Urlacher demanding more coin? We are talking w/ Harris now, who appears to be our top priority. Gould and Hester are not far behind, and I read we want to lock up Anderson too. Do we have the coin to get all this done, sign our rookies, AND give Urlacher a new deal?

When it was talked about that Urlacher may be looking for a new deal (when it was believed Lance would hit paydirt), I argued against those who basically called out Urlacher. This ticks me off though. For me, it was one thing when it was behind the scenes, and he wasn't making it an issue. Telling a reporter he is going to skip workouts is another thing. And I do not even want to hear about how they are voluntary. Urlacher is obviously using them to make a statement, and thus this is an issue. He is not coming off his best season. He struggled last year w/ a back problem, which has been called chronic, and puts his future situation into question. We finally resolved the Briggs situation, and now must deal w/ this. We are coming off an awful season, and when we as fans really want to see the team commit themselves to winning, the last thing I want to see are players committing themselves to pushing the team for more money. Personally, I understand why Urlacher wants a new deal. I don't know if the deal he signed is even legal these days (for a new deal) w/ the newer CBA. Regardless, I do not have a problem w/ his talking to the team about a new deal. I do have a problem w/ his talking to the media (the same media he basically boycotted all year) and skipping OTAs to make a statement.

Unhappy Urlacher to skip Bears' 1st voluntary workout By Vaughn McClure Tribune reporter April 6, 2008, 11:42 PM CDT For the second year in a row, the Bears will be without a Pro Bowl linebacker for the start of their voluntary off-season program, in part because of an unresolved contract situation. Brian Urlacher told the Tribune on Sunday he plans to skip the first day of workouts, slated to begin Monday, and left open the strong possibility that he will bypass the Bears' entire voluntary off-season program, which includes organized team activities (OTAs). The face of the Bears franchise informed the team of his intentions to remain in Arizona rather than attend the program at Halas Hall. Urlacher cannot be fined for missing voluntary activities, according to the NFL Players Association collective-bargaining agreement. But the team could take internal action that stops short of formal discipline. For example, when running back Thomas Jones and Lance Briggs skipped the voluntary off-season portion of workouts in 2006, coach Lovie Smith briefly demoted the starters upon their return. For reasons unrelated to his contract, Urlacher avoided some off-season workouts last season. He didn't want to comment publicly on his decision for this season. It was fellow linebacker Briggs who missed voluntary workouts last season over a contract dispute and now it's Urlacher's turn—albeit in a much quieter way. Urlacher wants a contract extension but has been relatively low-key about it, leaving the negotiating to his representatives, who have been in constant discussions with the Bears for the last six weeks. Urlacher, who is signed through 2011, made $3.95 million last season—the same salary he is scheduled to make in 2008. Since last season ended, the Bears have rewarded tight end Desmond Clark and Alex Brown with multiyear extensions, and even gave quarterback Kyle Orton a one-year extension. Urlacher said his recovery from neck surgery has nothing to do with his status for Monday. He has been cleared to participate and anticipates making a full recovery when he returns to the field. Urlacher is not the only Pro Bowl-caliber player around the NFL to decide to skip the beginning of voluntary workouts because of a contract issue. Albert Haynesworth, the Titans' defensive tackle, made the same decision after Tennessee designated him to wear their franchise tag. Vikings center Matt Birk also is sitting out. Bengals wide receivers Chad Johnson and T.J. Houshmandzadeh also protested by skipping workouts. The Bears are likely to be without receiver Rashied Davis, who hasn't signed a one-year offer from the team.

yellow rose of texas? I think the sea of bear jerseys suffice. If you ever want to join, just wear your pink urlacher jersey so we know you

Not Rockford, but Dallas. Anyone in the DFW area, Bear fans are invited to join up at a bar called TNTs. This is where bear fans (anywhere from 50-100) go every week to watch games.

I don't normally spend my time criticizing everything he does, "but you started it". That has to be imagined as said in a young kids high pitched voice. I have issues w/ Angelo. I have issues w/ Lovie and many of our staff. I comment here and there, but save the big rip job/posts for responses. Also for the offseason.

The short and simple of it. Yes.

Hey, Jauron led the team to 13 wins. I guess he was a great coach, right? Yes, I realize we went to the SB, and Lovie was the HC, but even then, I felt the team won more in spite of coaching than due to it. Here in Dallas, the Cowgirls won a SB under Barry Switzer, and wanna guess how much respect or credit he gets? Our team was absolutely loaded on defense and special teams, and those two units carries us to the SB. To me, respect for a coach is largely seen when players over-achieve. That is often a sign of good coaching. How many player, or how often, have you felt we were playing better than we should? Even in the SB year, I often felt our defense was held back. Also, as was also pointed out, Rivera ran that defense. Once Lovie ran Rivera out of town, what happened to our D? When we were looking at Lovie originally, I was not thrilled. His defenses in Stl were simply not that good. They produces a high number of turnovers. Angelo's scheme was part of that, but so was having an offense that allowed the D to take chances and to force teams to be more aggressive than they wanted to be, as they were playing from behind. But his defenses were never great v the run, and were average at best in regard to scoring. As good as our defense was in that SB run, I always felt it could have been better. I always felt they were held back, and believe Lovie was the reason for that. And how about the offense. Just like Angelo gets blame for his one sided success in the draft, should Lovie not take heat for his one dimensional teams? Maybe I am too hard on him. Maybe I just never gave him a chance. But at the end of the day, I look at his coaching, and simply am not impressed.

Yes, all states have a min 21 drinking age. I believe Louisiana tried to go against the Fed Gov't on this, and kept the limit at 18 for a while, but the Fed said Louisiana would not get any Federal highway funds if they didn't change their law, which they did. They don't enforce it as strictly as some, but they do have the law on the books. Personally, I have always felt the law was ridiculous. I will never understand the argument that a person is old enough (18) to fight for their country and vote for the president, but not old enough to drink a beer. That just seems stupid. But it is the law for every state.

I think it is a matter of theory v reality. In theory, you have two (healthy) Mike Browns. But was a great SS. He could play in the box, strong against the run, and cover the intermediate area. He wa also a great FS. Not the athleticism many crave, but the instincts and smarts to easily make up for the lack of athleticism. So if you had two Mike Browns on your team, then yes, your two safeties are interchangable. In reality though, most safeties are better at one and weaker at the other. More are better in the box safeties, but struggle downfield v the pass, or are better centerfielders, but struggle in the box. So I think in theory, Lovie believes the two positions are interchangable, but that theory is based on having two safeties who are simply that solid at both. In reality, those safeties simply do not grow on trees, and are harder to find.

I mentioned this in another post, but I think this year for Benson may depend on (a) health and ( attitude/heart as much as w/ his actual stats. If he shows up to camp in great shape and puts up the sort of effort one would expect from a player w/ so much to prove, then maybe his career in Chicago will not be over. Rex I think is simply gone. As for how he would do elsewhere, I think Rex could be good if he goes to a team w/ a good coach, the right system, and w/ solid weapons at his disposal, not to mention good protection. Hell, I think he could be a pro bowler in the right situation (in the NFC). I look at Eli Manning. He was considered VERY inconsistent, but they changed up the offense and he had an OL and some weapons that stepped up for him. Now few question Eli as they did before. I just do not see that here. I do not think we have the coaching to help Rex, nor the offense for him to work w/. Not now, and down the road.

Actually, I like the mowing analogy. Damn I don't want to do it. Has to be done on weekends, and I can think of 100 things I would rather do on weekends (golf being #1), but once I get out there, I end up staying out there all day working on every aspect of the lawn and often moving on to other projects, and having a ton of pride in my work. Maybe the analogy isn't perfect, but I'll say I understand your meaning. W/ all this said, and even if we agree on this being true w/ Benson, I'll say it is something that damn well better change. I remember David Terrell used to take it easy all week, but said he ramped it up game day. That always disgusted me. I don't care for hearing about proven veterans that slack off in practice, much less an young player w/ EVERYTHING to prove. Benson has a LOT to do and show. I am very suspect as to how our OL will be next year, so I doubt we will see him prove himself, but stats aside, I would at least like to see more attitude and heart outside of games. I think he needs to show up to camp in the best shape of his life and run w/ abandon, in practice and on game day. I really liked Grimm. I did not like Lovie then, and like him less now. I would have loved to get not just an offensive minded coach, but a blue collar old in-the-trenches guy.

Fans have called out the OL, but how much has the staff. Sure, we hear the staff talk about OL as a need, but w/ two starters gone, that is pretty obvious. I have not heard a single coach say one critical words about Tait, Kreutz or Garza, and all three deserve to be called out. I agree w/ your final point. I think this is Rex and Benson's final seasons. It can be argued that a solid or better season by either should extend their time, but IMHO, neither are set up for success this year. Honestly, I think this is a developmental year for our offense. I think Lovie/Angelo hope to be competitive w/ defense and special teams (2001) buying time for young players on offense to develop. So I just think the odds of Rex or Benson having a good/great season are remote. RB needs and OL and QB needs protection and weapons. We have provided our RB little to run behind, and our QB little to work with. So I think Benson and Rex are gone after this year. What will be interesting to see is how they fare w/ another team.

Not long ago, here in Dallas, a mom went to jail (short stint) for allowing their daughter to have a party at their house, w/ alcohol. Old argument. Parents say the kids will drink anyway, so it is better to have it under supervision, w/ keys taken at the door. Otherside of the arguments simply says it doesn't matter, and it is not only breaking the law, but teaching the kids it is okay to break the law. Point is, mom went to jail for contributing to minors, and some other charges stemming from the party. It may not seem like a big deal, but if that mom can go to jail, even if it was only for a few nights or whatever, so can Leinart. And Leinart has so much more to lose.