
nfoligno
Super Fans-
Posts
4,931 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by nfoligno
-
One. You will go into camp w/ someone listed as our 1-2. You have to. When our 1st team that takes the field, someone has to play WR, and those two are going to be who are pencilled in as the 1-2 guys. That will be Booker. Frankly, it may not be Lloyd. That 2nd starter very well may still be Bradley. If camp were to start today, I think you would have Booker on one side, w/ Hass as the #2. You do not like to hear that, but it is written in pencil, and wide open for change. On the other side, I actually think Bradley will still warrant the nod, though Lloyd I would argue has a leg up on taking the job from him. Honest, I am not sure how the staff handles Hester. I would likely simply make him a slot WR where we can move him around more, make use of his YAC ability, and take advantage of his quickness and cut ability best. How the rookie fits in depends on what sort of WR he is. If he is a big WR, or possession guy, then obviously he jumps into the mix w/ Booker/Hass. To be frank though, I think right now Booker and Bradley are the starters, and it is up to the rest to change that. I am sure the staff is plenty open to change. We do not have a high priced WR (Moose) or an expected pro bowl tier guy (Berrian). We have an older possession guy that we like, but know doesn't have a place in our future plans (Booker) and another young guy we like, but has not done jack in the two years since we drafted him, and has not shown much by way of polish. So expect plenty of competition. Just hope whoever do start do so for their positive play, and not because they simply sucked less than the rest.
-
I do not understand what is going on here. I am a WELL KNOWN Angelo basher. I seem to take a critical look, very critical, at everything he does. Here is something that I see no downside, and plenty of upside. Lloyd showed quite a bit of improvement in his first three years, and looked like he was about to take another step. Some have said it, as will I. He was very comparable to Berrian. But he went to Wash, who signed Randle El the same year, and already had Moss, and Cooley. For whatever reasons, he failed (miserably) in Wash. Maybe he didn't fit the system. Maybe he just sucks. But when you look at his time and development in SF, I think it shows more promise than what we saw in Wash. While other teams are giving out $8m for Andre Davis and $16m for Berrian, we sign a young WR, similar to Berrian, for closer to the league minimum. I simply see little reason to dislike this signing. If we signing him for more years or money, fine. But a one year deal for minimal? Where is the downside?
-
I disagree we signed him "for a tryout" but agree that is the deal he got. I think we are looking at him as being a significant contributor who we can so easily afford. I think he is looking at this, not so much as a tryout, but more a one year deal to prove himself and get a bigger payday later. One year deal can be tryouts, but they are not always just that. Often a player will take a one year deal to improve him value. A guy coming off an injury or bad season will take a one year deal so as to avoid the long term committment in a bad deal. Do well, and get paid far more the following year. I look at it this way. We have a tiny bit more than nothing. Booker was a great signing, IMHO, but is short term. He will help us get buy until we can find our future at the WR position. Bradley has done so little, there is simply no reason to expect much. Hester? So much natural talent, but there is no telling if he can translate to WR. That's it. Lloyd comes in as a 26 year old WR w/ 5 years of experience. No stats in front of me, but I think he had more catches his rookie year than Hester and Bradley last year combined. He imrpoved each of his first three years, and then bombed after going to Wash, where frankly many go to die. So is he a #1? Very doubtful. But can he be a starter. For our roster this year, likely. For the future, hopefully.
-
Well, lets just say this. Success is subjective. Success is the achievement of a goal, or goals. In your opinion, and it is you opinion, the only goal is the SB. I disagree. For many, that is the goal. For many others, there is simply no expectation of a SB, and goals are different. For a team like that, goals could be development of youth, doubling your win total, making the playoffs, winning the division, or whatever. I am not saying a GM will admit this going into the season, but you often do hear them talk about this after. Also, you asked who's expectations determine success. I would again argue that success is subjective. As a fan, I have little hope of a SB for the bears in 2008. Not at least w/ the team I see now. My expectations. I would probably talk about defensive goals and development of players on offense. QB would be nice. Playoffs might be a goal, but no, the SB is not the goal going in. Does that mean when we lose in the playoffs, I will right away say no problem, they met expectations. No. As teams do better than expected, hopes and expectations jump up, mainly off emotion. But after a bit of time, you can step back and say the season was a success. I might point to 2001 as an example. We were supposed to be worst in the division. Even the GM thought little of the team. Then we win 13 games and make our first playoff appearance in however long. IMHO, then and there, the season was a success. We exceeded the goals of most any. But as we played better and better, we started to raise hope and expectations, so when we stunk against Phily, we were ticked. But later, I think most were able to step back and realize just how well the team did. Fankly, this is likely a pointless argument. As said, it is a subjective issue. There is no right and wrong. Success is based off goals. Your goal is the highest one set. It's a great goal, but often (IMHO) unrealistic and unfair.
-
I think this is a great signing. I am an Angelo basher, but I have to give him credit for how he has played his hand in FA w/ regard to Wrs. Just look at what Berrian, Porter, Davis and others are getting. That is a true joke. Instead of giving a mediocre WR 4 times what he is worth, I much prefer the route Angelo is going. Lloyd developed and improved each of his 3 years in SF. He goes to the black hole called Washington, and falls off the face of the NFL. He is only 26 years old, and is well worth the shot. And that we got him on a one year deal is cake.
-
Did you read my post? I didn't say every year is success, no matter what. I even said that for some teams, some years, I would agree w/ the SB or bust. But to argue that a 10 win season after a 2 win season is anything but a success is a bit of a joke. Once again I have to ask, did you read my post? Like NE this past year, I would argue that in '86, we were the SB defenders, and expected to win it again. While the team was good that year, I agree the season was not a success. To me, when talking about success, I think you have to factor expectations. Do you honestly "expect" the team to win the SB every year? That is beyond unrealistic. For example, you draft a rookie QB who you intend to start. You expect the SB regardless. Or, you are coming off a 2 win season. I don't care what you do in the offseason, you expect to go from 2 wins to SB? Sorry, but I call BS if you say you do. When you are at a level (like NE is now) where you are expected to win the SB, then I would agree anything less is not a success. If you are not expected to win but a few games, and you make it to the playoffs, then I would argue your season was a success. Huh? First you seem to question me for saying NE wasn't a success, talking about all their records, then you go on to say yourself that NE, along w/ every other team, did fail and was not a success. Huh? Sorry, but your logic and reasoning is so out there, it passes comical. Frankly, it is scary. By your definition, there is not a successful team in the NFL, as every team's "success percentage" would make the worst baseball players batting average look high. A couple teams have more than a handful of SBs in their franchise history, but no more than a couple. If people saw things like you, turnovers would be unbelievable and suidides would be at an all time high.
-
I am going to leave the Hass aspect alone, as I know your position, but as far as Bradley goes, he has had opportunities, but has not stepped up. Hey, I am not going to argue his talent. I would even agree that, in pure talent, he has it over Booker. But it take more than talent in the NFL. The thing I think everyone has to remember w/ Bradley is, he was far from developed in college. He was not even a starter, and FAR from polished. That is not the end of the world, but since coming to Chicago, he has dealt w/ injuries and other things, which has limited his development time further. So he is still relatively raw. Does he have talent? Sure. But on the other hand, is he going to be ready to step into a starters role? I doubt that. My hope is he can be productive this year, while at the same time, taking steps in his development, but I simply do not see him being polished enough to be a starter and beating Booker. W/ our OL still unsettled, as well as QB and RB, I simply think we need Booker starting to give some semblance of experience on the field. We need a guy who is open and catches the ball. That will be Booker. While others have more talent, Booker is the one guy polished enough for our QB to count on.
-
I have no problem w/ this, though I would say that if Booker can not beat out Bradley or Hester, then we have problems. You might argue that if this happens, it means Bradley and Hester stepped up, but I have little confidence they can take that big of a leap that quickly. More likely, I think we enter camp w/ Booker set at one position (though that can chance depending on play) while the other position is more open.
-
While I understand your thinking on the whole building and rebuilding. I would agree that rebuilding in particlar does not have the meaning it once did. For a while, often due to poor cap management, teams would be forced into a position of truly rebuilding. They would be over the cap w/ only 70% of their roster filled. These teams were not about winning now, but trying to fill the team w/ inexpensive young players and look to develop for the future. Today, teams do a better job of the cap and the process is different. But lets take a closer look at our situation. Now I preface this w/ the understanding that we may well still do more in FA. But assume for the moment we do not. You say we should not overpay for mediocre talent in FA. I agree. At the same time, even if Bradley and say Hackett, have the same grade, it is likely based on potential. I doubt anyone would expect Bradley to be Hacketts equal this year. Does that mean we have to sign Hackett. No. But I think it does mean we are placing the development of one player over adding a player that could benefit the team more in the short term. And there is NOTHING wrong w/ this. In itself, this is would not consistitute talk of "building". The reason I think this does come into play is when you look at the offense as a whole. Where are we set? QB? No. RB? No. WR? No. OL? No. TE is the only area. You always enter a season w/ unproven question marks at positions, but when one side of the ball is littered w/ so many question marks, who also happen to be young, then I think you very well can call it a building process. My opinion is we are trying to keep the defense and special teams playing at a high level for 2008 (and beyond) while the offense is so bad, we are looking at that side of the ball more as a development for the future. I think we are hoping that side can develop young players for the future, while not being so bad as to offset the teams other strengths. I think the plan (hope) is to draft a slew of offensive players who will have a high chance of starting. So I do think Angelo is thinking 2009 for the offense, but that does not mean he is giving up on 2008 for the team. A few years ago, Orton led a very average offense which did little more than avoid mistakes, while the defense carried us to the playoffs. I personally have no problem w/ this approach, at least this year. The market was flat out awful. To put together a good offense for 2008, we would have to mortage the future, though I still wanted Faneca (or would still take Scott or the SD OG). So I think we are looking at the offense in a two year plan more than one year, and hope that our offense can develop into something for 2009, but for 2008, we are going to have to rely on defense and special teams to win games.
-
You must be one of the most depressed individuals on the planet. Are you a cubs or Sox fan. If Sox, at least you were happy once in the last 100 years. So as a Bear fan, you have not been happy for 23 years? I mean, why would you be happy for all those loser teams? That is how a fan feels the day following a playoff exit, but I just do not see how you can really live that way. If your team wins 2 games one, but then wins 9 and goes to the playoffs the following year, it may be upsetting when they exit the playoffs, but I would argue that season a success regardless. I will say everything changes by the situation. For NE this year, I would agree that anything short of SB is a failure. On the other hand, TB won 4 games two years ago, and then won 9 games this year and won their division. No SB, but I think you would be hard pressed to argue they did not have a successful season. Cle is an example of a team I would argue had a successful season w/o even a playoff appearance. They went from 4 wins to 10. That is freaking awesome improvement, and did so while finding a team loaded w/ young talent that stepped up. So while there are times when I can agree w/ the SB or bust mentality, I disagree w/ the idea that every season that does not result in a SB was a failure.
-
A couple key differences. Moose was very expensive. McCareins will not be. Moose was old as dirt. McCareins is not young, but on the right side of 30. Moose is slow, very slow. I don't think McCareins is a speed burner, but does bring more big play potential. McCareins may not be great, but IMHO, he would be a great pickup. The staff obviously wants to develop Bradley and Hester. If we add another more expensive veteran, that would more greatly cut into the PT of the two young WRs. Adding a pair of veterans in the mold of Booker and McCareins helps our passing game, while at the same time, are not close to being big money or big ego enough that they will not hinder the development of our young guys.
-
I do not recall well, but often when a situation like what you say takes place, a team is trying to avoid getting hit by the league for releasing an injured player. As I recall, few thought he would make any real sort of recovery. And while he has made it now, I don't think he was 100% right after we let him go. Frankly, before this year, I didn't think he was very good w/ Dallas.
-
Another way of looking at it could be the only time he took a good OL was in the 1st round w/ Columbo. No, he did not work out here in Chicago, but that was injury related, and I think Columbo has since proven himself as a solid OT. So maybe what this is, is an argument why we need to take an OL in the first, and not wait, as Angelo does not appear to hit on OL he takes later, as he does w/ some other positions.
-
There is a difference between going outside, and a sweep. You can run off-tackle, which does not requite top end speed. On the other hand, to run a sweep, you need more speed than what Benson has shown. Further, you usually need blockers who can get lateral, which ours were worse than weak at.
-
I am not saying it is absolute. What is in the draft. My point is, there are more than enough who believe that it is not only possible, but highly so, that "are you joking" is basically a weak response. His response was as if I said we would draft a DE. Baron or no, it sure does not sound like Stl believes they are set at OL, and feel LT is a key concern. While they need DL also, they could just as easily go OT. Further, even if they pass on Long, I still see a better than not chance that not only Clady is gone, but Williams too. If Long actually makes it to KC, he goes no further. I can easily see Baltimore taking Clady to replace Ogden, and then you still have Denver grabbing Williams.
-
I just wonder how high we would have to trade up. If he is impressing that much, and Long is gone by Stl, then Clady could move up as high as #5 to KC. If not KC, #8 to Baltimore. I can not see us moving up that much. If he falls a bit more, I do not think it is out of the question to try and leap frog Denver. That is just a 3 spot jump, and w/ an extra 3rd, we can afford it. I think the question is, how high do we grade him. If we are building, Angelo might want to trade down and stock pile picks (especially w/ so many needs). Do we have a high enough grade on him to warrant actually moving up. If we believe he is a stud, franchise LT, then I can see us moving up. If we think he is anything less, then nope.
-
I would take Booker over Clark. Clark may be the only receiver on the team slower than Booker. Booker has better hands and runs better routes. Clark is a better blocker, but in terms of skill player, I would agree w/ Booker over Clark. I agree that Booker replaces Moose, but agree too w/ the idea he is our #1 WR. Two years ago, Moose was unquestionably our #1 WR. This past year, we tried to make Berrian our #1. I think we go back to a situation where Booker, like Moose, is our #1 WR. He runs the intermediate routes a QB can rely on. Its a nice thought for your deep threat to be your #1, but w/o an OL that can sustain their blocks, your #1 really needs to be your possession guy. Though I think we are building, and though I really want OL in the first, I would not totally rule out RB. If you consider this as a two year building project, you are more able to simply take the best offensive talent available. If there is a run on OTs (which I fear happens) and you have a RB graded out well ahead of the next OL, WR or QB, I think it makes more sense to grab that RB. When building, you take the studs that fall to you. I can understand drafting for need better when you are trying to fill one of your few holes, but when your hole is your whole offense, you simply take the best available.
-
Couple things. One. You say you were right about Benson, yet also often talk about how no RB could do well behind our OL. Is that not a bit of a conflict? Two. I do agree that, w/ failures of our OL, TJ would be the better runner. A system Benson could be very good, IMHO, would be Denver. The OL blocks to create a open in a specific place, and often does so. RB makes one cut and bursts through. When I saw a hole this past year, I also saw Benson make a solid cut and show more burst than most give him credit for. The problem was when the hole was not there. TJ is better in that situation. A remember a goal line play when TJ went left, nothing was there, and he cut back all the way to the far right for a score. Great play, and not one Benson would make. Three. A final point. Benson has been in the league what, three years? You say you were right about him, seemingly making a judgement. Would you care to go back and look at TJ's first three years? He too was on an awful offense, w/ an awful OL. He too dealt w/ injuries, questions of his character and motivation. He too struggled w/ competition w/ a veteran (Pittman). Frankly, there are more similarities in the 2 RBs first three years than you may realize. My hope is that a change of scenary is not what Benson needs. I think TJ started to look better once he was placed in a better offense, w/ a better OL. Once that happened, he gained confidence and started to run w/ more authority than he previously showed. My hope is that happens w/ Benson, here in Chicago, after we upgrade on offense.
-
I will say this. I no longer am looking at this in terms of this year. I see this as a season we are basically building, at least on offense. If there is a run on OL, I am wondering if Mendenhall would not be a bad pick. Understand, I don't expect much from him this year behind our OL. I view building our OL as a top need. At the same time, if you think in terms of a two year building program, then it makes more sense to take the best player available (offense) rather than a specific need. Now let me say this. I do not really have an opinion of Mendenhall specifically. I don't know if he is truly a stud or dud. If we have him graded as an all star stud, and a run on OL makes that position a reach, then I can see the logic in taking the stud. I know your opinion full well. If I felt we were looking at competing on a higher level this year, I would agree. But if we are looking at '08 more for development, then best available simply makes more sense, and if a RB is far and away the best available, then RB makes sense.
-
I would add it might be a nice idea to think about how we use players. Too many times I watched us try sweeps w/ Benson. I have no problem using Benson to run off tackle, but I do not know why Turner continued to use him in sweeps when he doesn't have corner turning speed, and we didn't have OL athletic enought to pull anyway. Of course, the one RB we have who does possess corner turning speed (Wolfe) we continually ran inside.
-
This has been my point for some time. In the offseason, you can make some additions and upgrades. You can add pieces to the puzzle. What you do not often see is whole sale change leading to immediate improvement, at least not to the competitive point. Our current needs on offense: QB RB 2 WRs 2 OLs. Does anyone truly think we are going to add all this in one offseason? We can hope some of these spots are filled internally. Hester, Bradley, Beekman, Orton/Rex, Benson all have the potential to take a step up, but (a) I think it VERY unlikely we will see more than a couple, at best, and ( it is hard to step up your game when the rest of the are not playing well. I think the plan is this. Maintain the defense and special teams as much as possible, which keeps the team competite, regardless of the offense (see Orton's rookie year). Add pieces to the offense and develop youth, w/ the intention of continuing to add next year. WR for example. We added Booker, and I think we will draft a WR at some point in the draft too. Booker will start, but the rookie, Hester, Bradley, and maybe even Hass, will all be used and developed this year. When we didn't attack the OL needs in FA, I pretty much assumed this was the plan. Angelo is on record as saying he isn't a fan of rookie OL, and believes it is a position that takes time to develop. If we were truly thinking SB, I think we would have made a quick play for OL. If we are not attacking that in FA, or thinking draft, then I simply do not think Angelo is looking at 2008, at least not for the offense.
-
Regarding Flacco, I was never in on the Flacco man crush. At the same time, I like what I see and hear. At this point, I am not sure he even makes it to us, as many teams at the top of the 1st are in need of a QB, so while he and Broham may not go in the 1st, I think both are likely to go at the top of the 2nd. There is no question we need WR, as well as much more. My argument for Flacco, if we believe he is a potential frachise starter would be this. I do not buy anymore arguments about QBs being viewed as a polished rookie or one that may need a couple years to develop. W/ few exceptions, they all need time. Leinart was supposed to be so polished. Look at Eli. Team was about to give up on him after 2 or 3 years before he seemed to take that next step. There have been exceptions, but by and large, QB is simply one of those positions that I argue everyone needs time to develop. But that in itself may be an argument for some bear fans to take a pass. I disagree. I am sorry, but take a look at our offense. Who here really thinks our offense will be so great? Is there really some 180 proof coolaid that is that strong? Maybe our offense will simply not lose games and our defense and special teams will be good enough to win. I don't know. But the offense is in a building period that is not going to happen over night. If Flacco is a franchise QB that may take a couple years, so what. Get him. What is the point of drafting a WR in the 2nd when you don't have anyone to throw him the ball.
-
Funny, that is what everyone said here too. Right up until the day we cut him.
-
No, I am not joking, and if you check, I think you will find most mocks agree w/ me. For the record, I said he doesn't get past StL. He may not even make it to them. It is all together possible Miami takes him #1. If Miami does not take him, I think they take the other long. As for Stl, do they need a pass rusher. Yes. But they also need to replace Orlando Pace. Yes, they need to find a pass rush, but they also need to protect their QB, not to mention Stephen Jackson.
-
It's a nice thought, and every year, players do fall in the draft. The thing is, I just can not see how it happens. Often when a player falls some, it is because of position/need. If this draft had more top 15 teams w/ RB as a high priority, Mendenhall may not even be in our talks. Heck, Stewart might not either. But RB isn't a top need this year. OT is. Miami, St. Louis, Atlanta, Kansas City, New England, Baltimore, Buffalo, Denver, Carolina All these teams have OT at or near the top of their board of needs. Long does not get past Stl. I have seen Clady in mocks as high as #5 to KC. I hope he makes it all the way to Denver, so Williams might get to us. Frankly, I am not sure Williams makes it all the way to us, much less Clady.