nfoligno

Maybe, but in terms of chemistry, I think it was more than one player. Alex Brown was demoted, and upset w/ his contract situation. Harris began last year talking about his belief he should be among the top paid defensive players. We traded away Harris. The two guys who did get paid both suffered injuries. Point is, while Briggs may not have been a happy guy, I think there were more involved than just him. As for why our D stunk, I agree it was not just injuries, but I also do not think it was so much Briggs. I have said it before, but I believe it had far more to do w/ Babich. I remember toward the end of the year hearing that Babich was going to take the reigns off Urlacher, so to speak, and allow him to free lance more outside the system. And how did he look that last month? I just believe Babich was the reason, more than contracts, chemistry or injuries, to our defense going from elite to sorry so quickly. Sorry, but Berrian being the highest paid would have far more to do w/ how weak the rest of the offense is/was than Berrian himself. As for the belief Berrian is not as good as any of the WRs you listed, I just do not know what to say. I frankly do not even know how you can make that argument. If he was tagged because we wanted to keep him, then no, the tag would not be removed. But that isn't what I am talking about. If you are content to let him leave, you can tag him and then see about trade offers. I don't think Minny would have given us much of anything for him, but (a) inter-division trades is far from unheard of and ( Minny was not the only team looking hard at him. I would simply say this. Look at the market he generated. That is evidence how much in demand he was. I think it VERY likely a team would have offered us a pick in compensation. I think we could have gotten a 3rd for him, but let's say it was lower. So what. Isn't that better than nothing? We simply disagree. It isn't that I want to lose him, but I do not believe he has proven himself worthly of $30m guaranteed, and if that is his demand, I take a pass. I would rather keep him this year, and tag him the following, than simply fork over the coin today. Is it really too much to ask for a 16 game season from him. Not simply in terms of playing, but playing at the pro bowl level he starts the year w/.

Yes, there are many factors you have to look at, but I am not sure I agree w/ your scenarios. Angelo has said before he believes you have 4 or 5 big money players on each side. On offense, what do we have in terms of big money? Kreutz and Tait. Not sure they are even really big money anymore, but even if you factor them, who else. QB? Nope. WR? Nope. RB? Nope. TE? Nope. Point is, I am not sure adding Boldin means you can not keep Hester. When it comes to Hester, I do not think it is a question of whether we can afford him, but whether or not we can agree on his market value. For example, Berrian. Could we have afforded to give Berrian the deal Minny gave him? Absolutely. We choose not to as we believed it was ridiculous money. It is an old argument. Get the proven veteran or draft a player. That proven veteran will cost far more coin, though if the rookie is a top 15 pick, he won't be that cheap either, comes in totally unproven (potential bust) and further, may need a few years to develop. Then I would factor Angelo track record drafting offense in the draft. Sorry, but it is not just below average, but freaking awful. I am not sure I would give up a 1st and the coin for Boldin, though I think he is probably worth it. If we had a better OL and established QB, I would be all for it. We have a SB caliber defense and special teams. If you added a WR like him, it could spell championship. But when I look at the offense we have today, I see far too many holes and a couple years before we should expect such great things.

E is not going to be Flacco. "Decent height"? Flacco is like 6'6 and the tallest prospect. I think E is more likely that Josh Johnson prospect out of San Diego. Skinny and mobile. Pretty sure D is going to be Flacco. Has height and weight. Downfield passes. Accurate. Threw from the shotgun. Not sure who C is, but that is one I do not want. Last thing I want is yet another QB who gets sacked.

Okay, hang on now. Briggs had little to nothing to do w/ our defense sucking this year, so I am not sure why you even made the comment. The point is, there was plenty of expectation for turmoil after tagging Briggs, and there was none. You say he wasn't as good as all those others. While I personally tend to agree, at the same time, it should be pointed out that he is a pro bowler, while the rest... Further, has Berrian even been an alternate? So if our pro bowler didn't create the expected issues, why would Berrian? Huh? You listed nearly the entire defense as "who is better than Briggs", and yet he was tagged. So if we tag Berrian, he is supposed to be our best offensive player? Does that mean the TE in Indy is their best offensive weapon, since they tagged him? Did you see how GB tagged some DT no one has heard of, and got Cle to give up a 2nd for him? Berrian was the best WR on the market. If we tagged him, it would not have killed interest in him. Hell, even if it did, then we remove the tag. Sorry, but Berrian would not have simply signed his tag, which means we could talk trade, then remove the tag anytime we wanted. And by the way, I do not want to re-sign Harris. Maybe if he comes at a deal, great. But IMHO, he is no where near the value he thinks he is. DTs are raking it in right now, and if average guys are getting $20m guaranteed, he for sure will command $30. W/ his injuries and 2nd half disappearing acts, no way do I believe he should get $30m guaranteed.

I have no problem w/ St. Clair as a short term starter. That is exactly what you want in a backup. At the same time, he is still a backup. I like him as a backup, but if we enter the year with him as a starter, that is a problem. To me, that is like going into the year w/ AP as our starting RB. I like AP as a backup. I think AP can come in and do well enough as a short term starter. I do not want to start the year w/ him. These guys are backups for a reason. As for starting St. Clair this year and getting a replacement later, why? This FA had numerous OGs, and we had plenty of money.

To begin where you finished. First, if St. Clair is starting for us, I will be sick. He wasn't awful last year, but also was replacing Miller, than Metcalf, so my grandmother would have looked like an improvement, and she passed away several years ago. He wasn't horrible, but was not that good either. Sorry, but if he was starter grade, he would be starting for us. It isn't like he is some untested guy. He was a starter for StL, then demoted and allowed to leave. We brought in him, but soon after sought his replacement. Is he like wine and gets better w/ age, or are we simply so used to drinking Boone's that he looks like an upgrade. Second, if we sign Olivea, he will be a starter. I want to lockup Gould, but how soon Edinger bombed after we re-signed him scares me a bit. Regardless, I would like to lock him up. Harris on the other hand? Though we have plenty of coin, it will make me sick if we hand him $30m guaranteed. I remember thinking Brown LONG ago, but at this point, I think we will wait until after the draft. If we sign Brown now, we are not going to draft a RB, and while opinions vary on whether we should or not, I would argue that w/ a class as strong and deep as this one, I would hate to close off such an option. I agree OT/QB in the first two rounds makes the most sense. Then again, that likely means we will draft CB followed by DT.

Maybe no one is talking about Palko, but I believe when Flacco was there, Palko was the set starter, and even their team MVP back in '04. Flacco may have been the better QB, but when you are behind a more established QB, you often do not have the opportunity to prove it. He wanted to play. He plays a position that only starts one person, and plays a position college's scout and bring in scholorship players to play it. I do not see this as a big deal. I mean, he wanted to play football, and went to a school that was going to give him the opportunity to do so. You can say he avoided competition, but I am sorry, in college, you do not see the big schools host that much of a QB competition. Like in the NFL, colleges have the prospects they bring in and give scholorships to, and those are the kids that are essentially names the starters. His competition is absolutely a concern. If he put up the stats he did, w/ his size and arm strength, against top competition, he would be a top 5 pick, and not in our reach. Because he did it against lower competition, there is that question mark, and thus a player we have a chance to take. That is not to say we should take him, but only to say we would not even have an opportunity if he did it against top competition. Also, on level of competition, a key for small school prospects is how they perform at the senior bowl when matched up against upper end competition. According to every source, he was the best looking QB, and one of the best looking prospects in general, at the senior bowl. He was facing top end competition, and performed very well. While these were not his highest completion percentage games, I think it also worth noting he still played well in most of those games. In 4 of the 5 games you mentioned (his last 4) he still had pretty good games w/ QB ratings of 150, 128, 126 & 113. He also threw zero picks in those games. So while his completion percentage may not have been as high (though only in Appalachian was it low) he still had pretty good games regardless. I hadn't read that his release is so slow. I have read he has a unique release/throwing motion. I have read his release isn't fast, but I have not read it is slow. What I have read is that his throw speed, or RPM as scouts talk about, is so good that it offsets the release. He may not get the ball out as quick as some, but the ball gets there quicker than most, and thus the two are offset. As you said, it was just one game. Accuracy is considered a huge asset for Flacco. Not only that, but I think you need to take a closer look at the Delaware St game. He had a freaking 150 QB percentage. He didn't rack up huge stats, but that may have something to do w/ a RB putting up nearly 300 yards, and the game being a total blowout. They were up 44 - 0 until a fumble recovery was returned for a TD in the 4th quarter, giving State their only points for the game. Not sure why you would pick this game as an example. And by the way. You mention his 55% being low. Rex had better than 55% only twice this entire year. This could be a legit issue, though I have not read a lot about his telegraphing passes. At the same time, he has so many positives, including arm strength and football intelligence (from what I have read), I wonder how great of an issue this is. You say he is at least a 2, or maybe 3, year project, but what QB is different? I don't just mean this year, but any year. While there have been exceptions, I would argue that most any QBs take 2 or 3 years to develop. It doesn't matter if they come from USC or Appalachian State. QB is not a position many come in and are simply ready. I always laugh at that idea, and point to how Cade McNown was said to be the most NFL ready QB in that class. Also, if not now, when? Any QB we take later in the draft will have just as many question marks, and likely not as high of a ceiling. If we simply pass on QB this year, we only prolong the whole process. W/ all that said, I think it comes down to football IQ. I honestly do not know enough about him to speak on this. Is he considered a smart QB who picks up the offense and truly knows it, or is he a QB that somewhat struggles w/ the playbook? Is he the sort that not only learns his offense, but also can read a defense. That is the sort of QB, regardless from what level of competition, that I think develops quicker in the NFL. I honestly do not know where Flacco is in football IQ. From what I have read, he is not a threat to run, but is pretty solid avoiding the rush, throwing on the run and stepping up in the pocket to buy time. One thing I read in this area that is as positive as anything is when they talk about how he will stand strong in the pocket, and doesn't seemed flustered by the rush. That is key for me, as it goes to the mental aspect. I remember when Simms came out. I said I didn't want any part of him because I watched him a lot, and anytime he was rushed, he simply broke down. He lost sight of the field and seemed to get that 'deer in the headlights' syndrome. From what I have read, Flacco is quite different. That is the sort of QB I want. I am always hessitant for fast risers too, but small school prospects may be a different matter, at least to a degree. Small school prospects are not as highly scouted during the year, and do not have the name recognition due to where they play. Scouts talk about this all the time. Teams focus on the big schools, and small school prospects don't get the notice or review, and thus do not start out as highly rated. He finished the year as about a 3rd round prospect, but then rose due, as much as anything, to finally getting a lot of notice and analysis. Then he goes into the senior bowl and plays against the top competition he had not faced before, and looked great. That jumped his grade considerably, as it should. He is now considered a late 1st, early 2nd prospect. That is a pretty big jump, but again, I think it has more than anything to do w/ being a small school prospect, and that is simply how things go. I am not 100% sold on him, but I like him quite a bit. I feel it is an absolute must that we find a QB this year and begin developing him. We need to find our franchise QB, and the longer we wait, the longer the develop process.

Ignore duplicate post

One, I would take Williams too, but I am talking about what I think Williams will do, not what I would do. Two, who would teams trade up for? As you said, Mendenhall, and I would say Stewart as well. There are a few Corners that are getting high grades, and that is simply not a need for us, but is for others. DT/DE is not a great position in the draft, but at the same time, that could force teams in need to move up to get one of the higher rated ones. WR is the other position. Many have talked about the group being deep, but there are some very different WRs, and some teams very well could be high on a couple, likely available for us, but not high on those who could fall to the back end of the 1st. Three, as for trading down for the QB, that is always a risk, but I think that is when you have to make choice on how far you trade down. If we went to the very end of round 1, we would be at greater risk, but if we drop 10 or so spots, that would be harder for a team in the 2nd to trade up, getting a team to totally drop out of the 1st round. If you take a look, there are not many, if any, teams in the 1st after us that would be looking at QB, so it would have to be the top 10 of the 2nd round looking to make a move into the 1st, which is not as easy.

1. I am all for re-signing and exending our own. At the same time, we went into FA w/ $30m in cap space, and all we are doing is extending the status quo. 2. While I agree it is a solid draft for OT, it is also a solid draft for RB and WR too. Those are needs as well. And hey, we need to draft a QB. So my point is, we have needs at just about every position on offense. All those needs are solid in the draft, but only ONE was solid in FA. And we show no interest in that one? 3. Angelo is on record that he believes OL is one of those positions that take longer to develop in FA, and that is why he prefers FAs, which is evidenced by how he has handled our OL since coming to Chicago. So now, when we are in dire need for immediate upgrade on the OL, we are suddenly going to plan on rookies?

That was pretty much the same thought w/ Briggs, and it worked out fine. Yea, he is gone, but he played for us last year w/ no problems. I was for tagging Berrian, though I didn't want to keep him. I wanted to tag him and trade him, and frankly, I think we could have easily gotten a 3rd for him. Look at the demand for him in FA. Tag him and trade him. Better than letting the only good offensive player Angelo has ever drafted for nothing. I was fine w/ doing nothing more than keeping Rex and extending Orton. The market was sad. I was fine w/ adding Booker as our big name FA, and then throwing in Lloyd as a free side. Again, the market was sad. Not thrilled w/ no activity at safety, yet also understand because once again, the market is sad. The market was not sad at OT though. Faneca, Bell, Scott and others were available. No, they were not cheap, but if we are going to cheap everywhere else, can we not afford to drop a little extra at our top need position?

Wow now Terra. I was making the argument our offense is so weak that several units are equally as much a need as OL. That does not affect my position on the OL though. You and I strongly disagree. I am all for drafting OL. Heck, I have said I would trade up for Clady, and would not mind taking Williams at 14. If we trade down, I would love to add Otah or Albert later. I want FA OL too, but that is in addition to, not instead of, drafting OL. You believe that a great OL can not make mediocre players look better. I disagree. You believe the 1995 Dallas OL wouldn't make Benson look good. I disagree. I believe that if you build a great OL, the offense will follow. I believe that great talent w/o a good OL is wasted. If we trade down, other than QB, OL is what I would be targetting. No need to argue. I know well you opinion. We simply disagree. I just wanted to make my point clear as you seem to think we agree. We don't.

I am not writing off the backfield either, but our two starting WRs are gone, and the group we have may be the worst in the league. At QB, even if we build an OL and Rex improves, he is under contract for only this year. I am not saying OL isn't a need, or even our top need, but I do not think it is far more so than WR or QB.

Your right. The value of their two picks equates to around the 8th pick. I thought that our 1st and 3rd might have been close, but even givng one of our 3rd back would not be equal. Nice thought though. So more likely, as you said, would be to try for a teams 1st and 2nd round picks. Just to be clear, I am reasoning why I think Angelo will trade down. That is not necessarily what I want to do. For example, if Clady were to make it past the top 10, I would call it very likely Denver would take him ahead of us. Rather than trade down, I would actually trade up for Clady. But assuming no Clady, it would simply depend on who is there. I also like the idea of simply staying put and taking Williams, though I think there is a pretty decent chance even he is gone. As much as stockpiling picks would be nice, at the same time, I think it the priority is getting top talent. I think Williams can be a great LT, and finding that player is as important (or more) than stockpiling picks. I will also say this. If we trade down, one player I would really like to see us target is Albert. All pro caliber OG, w/ potential to move outside. He even finished the year at LT, and while he would need more time to develop there, does have the potential for the move.

I think Rex goes into camp as the #1, but that is written in pencil. I believe the job is Rex' to lose, but also believe the staff is open enough that Rex can lose it. Where as in the past I said Rex would need a total meltdown in camp, combined w/ Griese being on fire, I do not believe that is the true this year. If Orton simply plays better, he could well start. So it is on Orton first to step up.

Not a response to Mendenhall specifically, but another gifted RB who had the same question was Tomlinson. I remember all too well the spread offense he ran in, and the questions whether or not he could run in between the tackles. Heck, it was unknown at the time how good his hands were for catching the ball. Catching pitchouts isn't the same as catching passes, and he was unproven as a receiver. Not saying Mendenhall is LT. Not even sure I have a point. Just that reading your post, it reminded me of so many (myself included) who said similar when LT came out.

While you will not get an argument from me about OL being a massive need, or w/ the idea of taking 2 or 3 OL in the draft, I do have to question the "biggest need, by far" thought. I am not going to argue OL, but.. WR - Do we have the worst WR corp in the NFL? Even for those like myself who were/are very high on the Booker/Lloyd signings, the reality is Booker was signed to a 2 year deal and Lloyd got a 1 year deal for the vet minimum. Neither are more than short term help. Bradley has shown so little, it is a joke, and was frankly, in need of loads of development entering the league. Hester is a gifted athlete, but we have no clue whether or not he is a WR. And now we read Davis could be gone. This is just ugly. There is little to love short term, or long term. QB - Wow. How pathetic has this franchise been, and today, does it look any different? RB - Hey, I am a Benson fan, but even I admit he is on his last chance, and as little as the offense appears to be upgrading, I doubt we will see greatness from Benson, which means we again will be looking for a new RB. I am not arguing against OL. I was screaming to draft OL this time last year. My point is only that, as bad as the OL is, the whole offense is pretty freaking awful.

What I think is most fair would be to offer him a middle of the road WR contract, which is pretty sizable these days, while also offering some hefty incentives. That way, we are paying him as the best special teams player, while at the same time, giving him the opportunity to get truly big bucks if he develops into a stud WR.

I think it also relevant that Urlacher signed a freaking 9 year contract, which is not even legal anymore, and has played through 5 or 6 seasons under it. He is our franchise player, yet not only isn't among the best paid at his position, is not even among the best paid on the team. If Urlacher were bitching to the media, and making this a big public issue, than I would have an issue, but as you said, if he is simply talking to the team behind closed doors, and keeping everything inhouse, I see no problem w/ it. I have a much bigger issue w/ a player that signs a 5 year deal and 2 years later is publically complaining than Urlacher who played 5 years of a ridiculous 9 year deal, and quickly tries to begin talks.

I don't put too much into this. In looking at the roster, as it stands today, we would have a competition between this group, but I doubt seriously we enter camp w/ only this group. It is too early to truly declare who is and who is not in the competition. Also, how much of this is pre-draft BS. By pretending that we like our group of OGs, it gives the impression OG is not a top need, but maybe that is pure smokescrean. I would not put too much into this. We still have a lot of time in FA, and the draft, to add an OG, which very well could totally change this picture.

One thing I will be curious to see is how we call plays w/ each QB in camp/ preseason. To be honest, I have never been "that" impressed w/ Rex' deep game. He has made some big downfield passes, but also throws a bunch that miss. Orton on the other hand, seems to get very few opportunities to throw downfield. When he is in the game, we seem to call a shorter field than when Rex is in. Maybe the reason for this is Orton doesn't have a deep game, but I think that we need to open it up w/ him in there to see if he is capable or not. If he is not, that may be a deciding factor as much as anything. But I think we have to give him a shot to fail first.

Angelo loves to stock pile picks, and especially now when we have so many needs, I think it is even more logical. We are not a player away. Not even close. We have many needs, and FA is not offering much, at least not in long term solutions. Further, I look at what I believe Angelo is seeing as our top needs, and I am not sure if the positions matchup w/ where we draft. OT - Long and Clady are gone. I think Williams is gone too, but even if he is there, would we view him as value? After Clady, you have a sizable group of OL that would be considered solid value late 1st, but this high? QB - Though I have seen plenty of mocks w/ us taking Broham at 14, I do not believe he is a great value there. Flacco would be a huge reach. At the same time, neither are likely there for us in the 2nd. RB/WR - While there will be players available at 14 that many would argue are good/great values, at the same time, the draft is deep at both positions, and great values can be had later as well. Key for me though is QB. I think Angelo views getting a QB as a priority, but 14 is too high. If you look at the teams that draft after us in the 1st, the only team that I can see as even a posibility to draft a QB would be TB. However, 5 of the top 10 teams in the 2nd (minus whoever takes Ryan) I think would be very much looking at a QB. So Broham/Flacco may be there late 1st, but likely not by our pick in the 2nd. So, I can see Angelo trading down. Best case scenario would be w/ Dallas, grabbing their two 1sts, but more likely, we trade down and pick up an extra 2nd and more. Then in the first, we grab our franchise QB (we pray). In the 2nd, we have two picks and will grab an OL (maybe Baker) and RB or WR. In the 3rd, we have 2, or even 3, picks to further stock pile RB/WR/OL, and maybe throw in a S. When you look at what we have done on offense, it appears everything is short term. QBs are under short term deals. WRs added are one or two year deals. RB is on a last chance deal. So I can see Angelo trying to trade down, add picks, and simply stock pile picks to address the offense.

Is that draft realistic? Clady is expected to be gone by our pick, and I personally even think Williams will be gone. Flacco is now said to a late 1st rounder, and Charles has had a good offseason and could well be a 2nd rounder. I would love Clady - Flacco - Charles, but I am not sure any of the three will be available w/ those respective picks.

I think Lloyd replaces Berrian, while Bradley is also seen as a replacement. I think Booker replaces Moose, while Hass is also seen as a replacement. So we added two players w/ similar skills sets to the two we lost. We also have on the roster two players w/ similar skills. I think this is competition. Instead of simply relying on Bradley to replace Berrian, we now have a competitition between Bradley and Lloyd. Instead of relying on Hass to replace Moose, we have Booker and Hass. Hester is who I think would replace Davis. I think we are looking at Hester as a #3 slot guy more so than starter, and thus he would replace Davis.