nfoligno

Right now, Willaims is probably my #1 choice. He is my 3rd best OL, and I think Clady is LONG gone. To be honest, I am not sure Williams gets past Denver. As for Oakland/Fargas/McFadden. Fargas was not given big bucks. He was given good money, but nothing that would prevent them from drafting a stud if they feel one is there. In fact, I would point to us as an example. I think TJ was more proven w/ the Bears than Fargas w/ Oakland, and we took Benson. McFadden is graded higher than Benson, so I think the logic is easily there.

One, reports were very mixed on his weight. As I recall it, the staff said he was not over-weight but some reporters said he looked over weight. Two, wanna take a look at the beginning of camp this year? It's called the off season, and more players than you might think come into camp w/ a little pudge.

$3.5 for 2 years. Do not know how much is guaranteed, how much is up front, how much in year one, etc. But $3.5 over 2 years is chump change.

And? I assume you were posting this to stress the negatives, but there are quite a few positives as well. In fact, I think it only serves to enhance the argument the issue may be as much what we have surrounded him w/ and the way we have tried to use him as opposed to just Benson. If you believe this report so much, then I wonder why you think he is a bust, as opposed to just feeling he has been misused. Also, it said he was the 3rd best RB, but that isn't some big knock. As I recall, there were three RBs taken in the top 5 that year. Brown, Benson & Cadillac. To call Benson the 3rd best is not exactly some huge knock.

A bit ironic. He is drafted high by AZ, and is the young stud. later, he is in Chicago, and has short term memory as he cries about Benson being giving the job. Now he goes to NY, and wanna guess how he will feel about yet another young stud being drafted?

I think he went to college at Northern Illinois, or some other local school, but I do not know where he grew up.

Why do you still want BJ? I liked him too, and mentioned his name very early on, but to me, it was either Booker or BJ. I do not think it was ever both. BJ is young, and has more upside. No argument. But regardless, both are fairly similar WRs. BJ is not a speed receiver. He uses size and power. You can even argue he is a younger version of Booker, but IMHO, if we were looking to sign BJ, we would not have signed Booker. I think we are going to at least enter the draft w/ the WRs we have now. I can see a situation where Angelo believes he has added a veteran WR to free up Bradley and/or Hester to become the downfield threats we feel they can be. Probably throw in a rookie, and I see a situation where we are trying to develop a young group of WRs, w/ Booker as the solid veteran possession receiver to help them along, not to mention help the QB stay on the field. In a market where Berrian, Walker and even Andre Davis get paid so much, I just do not think we should expect to see much more at WR. At this point, I think our money is FAR better spent on the OL.

Yes, Payton had a weak OL to run behind early on, but come on. If we compare everyone to Payton, we are going to be found wanting for a long time to come. There are a handful of backs in the league that can do well w/o great OLs. LT quickly comes to mind. But backs like that are the exception and not the norm, and I do not believe you should compare Benson to those exceptions, regardless where he was drafted. I would add that our passing game, or lack there of, was also an issue. Not totally making excuses for Benson. He is one season away from total bust status, but I think we need to upgrade his blocking before we totally write him off.

I have been one of Benson's biggest supporters, and while I still think he can be very good if we improve the OL, at the same time I want to add another RB to the mix. I was not happy w/ our trio going into last season, as I never agreed w/ those who said AP was a capable starter, and never liked the Wolfe pick. I am all for adding a RB like Jones or Ward, or if not, taking one in the draft. No, I do not want to get one in first round, but I do want to add a RB in the draft. Like you, I considered OL a high priority last year, and was VERY disappointed we passed until day two. I liked the Olsen pick, but hated when we ignored OL the rest of day one, and ended up w/ Wolfe and Bazuin. So I want to add competition for Benson, but at the same time, still hold out hope he can step up w/ an improved OL.

I have seen many mention this, and it drives me nuts. AP was awesome for Minny last year, but how much was AP and how much was the OL? Seriously. We are talking about an OL that made Chester the molester look like a stud. I am not trying to take away from AP, but it is much easier to look like a stud when you have massive holes to run through, and often do not meet w/ resistance until a DB is in the way. From what I read, Jones has shown more interest in us than we have in him. Isn't Derrick Ward a RFA? I have absolutely no problem going after a 2nd tier RB in round three. I am not sure a 2nd tier RB from the 3rd is worse than Jones or Ward. My thing is, I do not want to go after a 3rd down specialist RB w/ nearly zero upside as a starter in the 3rd. No more Wolfes. Get a guy who has the potential to be a starter, not the potential to be a good special teams/ #3 RB.

That is the combo I am looking for too. I think Bryant Johnson is out. He is getting too much interest, which means the price will be too high, and while I think can be a very good WR, he is too similar to Booker. Yea, younger, but we choose the less expensive this time. I think Hackett is going to come at a price. McCariens is a guy I would like to look at now. I have seen very little interest in him, and like you said, we liked him a while back. He also should be cheap enough that if Bradley or Hester do step up, contract will not force us to keep him in the lineup.

A key point I would make is, Booker was a #2 (and even #3 behind their TE) in Miami until the 2nd half of this past year, while Moose was our #1. Some might argue Berrian became our #1 this year, but I am not even sure of that. He was our playmaker, but I think we looked to Moose more. Your #1 WR is going to see more balls go his way than another teams #2 or #3 options (AZ, Indy and a few others being an exception). And w/ the OL Miami had, the QB usually had enough time to look at the #1 WR, then either dump off or take a sack. IMHO, that explains why Booker's numbers were down as much as anything. He was, at best, the 3rd options behind Chambers and McMichael, and in an offense like that, your QB doesn't often have time to get to the 3rd option.

Now that is funny

Especially if Orton is throwing to him, right

Don't forget Adams. Harris, Dusty, Adams and Idonije give us 4, to go along w/ Wale, Brown, Anderson and Bazuin at DE. I would say there is probably one more spot open, MAYBE two if someone really stands out. Toeaina has a leg up, and frankly, I would be shocked if we didn't draft another DT somewhere in the draft.

No problem w/ that. I guess this might be the question. What is better? A great RT or a good LT? I think Baker's ceiling would be to become a good LT. I do not think he could become great, but is sound and could be a good LT. I look at Cherilous, and think he could be a great RT. I think both his ceiling and floor are higher than Baker, but at the same time, he plays a lesser position. So I have no problem putting Baker above Cherilous, but I think its close and a matter of ceiling/potential v position (left or rigt tackle) is more important to you.

McFadden will not be there. Maybe he drops a couple spots, as some question his character, but no way he falls to 14. If he does begin to fall some, a team would move up to get him. The only way he falls to us is if he breaks a leg between then and now.

Follow-up question. How do you rank the OL after Long/Clady, assuming you have those two at the top. I have Chris Williams next. I think he has the most potential to move to LT, while also being a very good, or better, RT. Otah is next, but I have come to think (actually thought all along) that he is a pure RT, though he could also be a great interior OL, though w/ limited ability at the next level. Albert is actually next for me. I think the guy is going to be all pro, where ever he ends up. I think he "could" be a LT. I know he can be an OG, not to mention RT. The upside on this guy is incredible. Especially if we go into the draft w/o having added a FA OL, he could be a great addition, as he could play so many different spots. Cherilus is next, but he is a pure RT. I still have Baker next, and still believe he could play solid LT. He will simply never be a great LT, but can be a good one.

Last I read, it was around $23 to $23.5m. I wasn't sure as I didn't know how much of Brown's bonus was roster v SB, but the reports seem to be pretty consistent that we used up "approx" $7m of the $30m in cap w/ the new deals. Not pinning you down, but is this a guess or based on something. I have never really known how the pool is factored. I remember a few years back that we were factoring about $3.5m, so $5m today is very possible. Just curious if you know how that works. At the same time, it is also not inconceivable that the contract is a simple one, which could mean a cap hit closer to $3m (about $2m for bonus and $1m base). Or we could have about $20m w/o rookie pool ($23m cap after re-signings and extensions minus $3m for Briggs) to compete w/ Pitt's $17m w/o rookie pool. So it is closer, w/ us ahead by a bit. At the same time, last I checked, Pitt had fewer players on their roster, and more holes to fill. By holes, I mean simple bodies, as the last I saw, they had only like 42 players that were counted in those cap numbers. Further, I am not sure how Rothlisberger's new deal, and it was a big one, hits against their cap. I think it likely their cap went down more w/ his signing. I still believe if this is a move we wanted to do, we could do it. At the same time, as I have said before, I wouldn't, and I don't think we will. I think Angelo is looking at our cap space for current players (Urlacher, Anderson, Gould & Hester) as opposed to making any big FA splashes.

$15m before we signed Briggs. All reports I read, and I thought you supported this, showed us to be about $23m after our new deals. We started w/ around $20m, then went up to around $30m after the cuts, then back down to around $23m after new deals/extensions for Orton, Rex, Brown and Clark. Are you counting $8m for the rookie pool? That seems a bit high. From what I have read, Pitt has about $10m in cap space, w/o factoring rookie pool. Yes, I realize that right now, they are counting the $7m for Starks, but from what I have read, they are not looking at keeping him for that. They are not looking to use up that much cap on him alone, but tagged him in order for a market price to be set and to buy time to negotiate w/ him. If we made him an offer w/ a large roster bonus, I think we would get him. I am not saying we should, but only saying I think it is more possible that what you believe. Understand, I am not saying we should. Frankly, I have been against signing him as I do not want to spend big on a pure RT in FA. But I think we could slap a big roster bonus to him (maybe in the $10m range) and steal him for Pitt if we wanted to. Is that a big chunk of our '08 cap space? Yes. At the same time, I do not see us being big players in FA anyway, so signing one big time player to a big roster bonus this year may be better use of the salary cap than spreading it out w/ a bunch of weaker talent players.

For 2008, I take Kitna. For long term, I take Rogers. I do take Rex over Minny's trash, if that means anything.

And thus, you have the bears backup QB. Seemingly, every year Bear fans at some point begin chanting for the backup QB, whoever it may be. It isn't because he is any good, but because whoever is on the field sucks. There is always hope the backup is better than the starter. Of coarse, then the backup comes in and plays like shit, and you then move on to QB #3.

Chaos, I am shocked. I would have NEVER expected you to name Hass

Would Olsen be a surprise? 1st round pick w/ high expectations. Maybe a player you pick to have a big year, but I am not sure you can call him either a sleeper, or a surprise. As for Dusty, maybe a sleeper on the national level, but not on the local level.

Jason, let me start by saying I agree. Let me add that if McFadden were to fall to us, it would mean he has a broken leg. While he might fall a few slots, it is ridiculous to think he falls to us. That is why I had not responded to this poll. While you get some players who are rated top 10 that fall some, it is far more rare to get top 5 players that fall. If you are going to put McFadden in there, why not Jake Long? W/ it said that I agree though, I am curious what your thoughts are if there is a run at OT, which I think is very possible. If you look at the top 15 in the draft, there are a boat load of teams that could be looking at OT. Not only do I think it a lock Clady will be gone by our pick, but I also think Chris Williams will be gone. Otah seems to be dropping some due to an awful combine. He will be there, but if we do not think he has a chance to be a LT, is he worth the 14th pick. Ditto Cherilius, who I think is a pure RT as well. I think Baker will be a solid LT, but never a great one, and is a reach here. So do we reach for an OT, which I think is what we would be doing at 14 if Clady and Williams are gone. Do we draft another position, as wel have many needs. Or what? I already know you response will likely be to trade down, but it is easy to say, and not as easy to do. Give me two scenarios. One w/ trade down and one w/o. For me: Trade down, but no lower than Dallas, picking up maybe an extra 3rd. I say no lower than Dallas because AZ, Hou, TB and Wash are all potential to go OL, while Pitt is a near lock. I do not want to drop below Pitt. If we stay in front of Pitt, I think we can still get one of the high OL prospects. Besides Otah and Cherilius, I would add Albert, who I actually am starting to like the most. He looks like a pro bowl OG, w/ high ceiling potential at LT. I am fine w/ a trade down, but understand, if you trade down much below Pitt, I think you could then be looking at the likes of Baker as your best available. If we do not/can not trade down, the choice is to reach at OL or draft value at another position. If Mendenhal is all that, I might go ahead an take him, while going hard after OL after that. In fact, I might use my extra 3rd to try and jump to the top of the 2nd, or even the back of the 1st, and get whoever the best OL available is. While I am all about drafting OL this year, that does not mean I want to reach, and at this point, I think Otah is a reach at 14. At the combine, he showed very slow feet, and the early thoughts that he could potentially play LT basically went out the windown, and as a pure RT/OG, his value simply has dropped some.