nfoligno

But he was not a FA, and we already had him as a backup for "not much loot". Nice thought, but what is it based on? Is it based on anything Turner has done, or incidated might be done? I don't think so. I could argue Wolfe might be effective as a WR, but unless our staff indicates we may do it, is there is a point in using that argument to justify his drafting? Turner absolutely could do a reversal, and even make the two TE set our base package. Who knows. If that comes to pass, then I would take everything back and say this was not a bad move at all. But all evidence points to the opposite thus far. In previous stint w/ Chicago, and later w/ Illinois, did Turner ever really utilizie two TEs? And? I understand your point, but again, why not then wait to make a move until after you find a new coach, and know the plans of that new coach?

I have no problem drafting two WRs. Hell, I would have no problem drafting three if we liked them enough. Hester is a project. While there is great potential, he regardless is a total project. Bradley has shown so little in his time w/ the bears it is sad. Davis is a "nice" receiver, but nothing more. Hass? Who knows. I look at the group of WRs we have on our roster, and struggle to come up w/ a signle team they could start for. Sure, we can probably think of a few, but not many, and it would be far more an indictment on those teams than positive evidence for our guys.

But we just spent a 3rd on a RB last year. We also have spent a high 4th and late 3rd on a pair of LBs in the last two drafts. So while we have drafted one first day RB, and a pair of LBs (one first day, one early 2nd) we have taken a grand total of ZERO WRs. Not just day one, but zero WRs for the entire draft for the last two years. Some might try to argue Hester, but we drafted him to be a DB/return man, and while we have moved him to WR, that was not the original intent. At WR, we currently have Bradley, Hester, Davis and Hass. Sorry, but that if freaking pathetic. At LB, we have Urlacher, Hunter, Williams and Okwo. We need one of the youngsters to step up, but that player will be playing next to a stud. At RB, we have Benson, AP and Wolfe. While I am not going to pretend this group is proven or great, I think our chances of (at minimum) getting by is far greater than w/ the WR group. It isn't that I have an issue drafting a RB. I am all for it. At the same time, our need at WR is as great, if not greater. Personally, I would argue FAR greater. I would argue that you can upgrade the RB outlook by upgrading the OL (which is planned), while upgrading the WR by upgrading the QB (which is not).

That is one of my things. I think Turner is a single TE set OC. We have two TEs capable of starting. Committing to Clark w/ this deal tells me we do not intend to bench him. I am sure Olsen will play, but I do at the same time believe his PT will be significantly less. Again, if I had more faith Turner would use the two TE package more, I would love this deal. My issue is not w/ Clark, nor the deal itself, but as it applies to our scheme.

But can you look at one w/o the other? If you have a 3-4 defensive coordinator, does it make sense to draft/sign a 260 lb DE that is may be a good 4-3 fit, but would be an awful 3-4 fit? Would you say, I like the draft pick, but question the DC? Turner is our OC. If we make moves that do not fit w/ that OC, do those moves make sense?

Not a fan of this move. I have no problem w/ Clark, but I do not see it. IMHO, we were set up last year as well as we will ever be to use a two TE set. Our WRs were weak. Our OL stunk, and we could have used the extra blocker. Our tailback was not a great pass blocker. We had a solid TE (Clark) as well as a 1st round pick TE that is capable of spreading the field. I screamed for more two TE sets last year, but rarely did we use it. The only time I saw us use the two TE set was out of a power formation, which we always ran from. I would like this move if I believed we truly would employ a two TE set. As it is, I think Turner is a one TE guy, which simply makes me question the move.

I think it was reported $1.5m base, $1.5m bonus (so it's a $3m hit regardless of bonus or base) and up to $2m in incentives. As Lt2 said, it would not be a surprise if those incentives were written in as LTBE, so we would take the $2m cap hit this year, and any amount he does not meet would credit next years cap.

Disagree. While it is all a crap shoot, I think another key is personnel front offices. Some are just good, while others are not. You talk about quantity over quality, but quantity does not necessarily get you quality. Haynes and Rex? There is your quantity, but where is the quality. It doesn't look like trading down and adding picks really helped us any. Another example is last year. We traded down in the 2nd, and then took Bazuin, Wolfe and Payne. SD took Weddle, a solid S, w/ the pick we traded down from. Blalock and Ugoh were a pair of OL many here were high on, and I think both turned into solid players this year. The year prior, we traded out of the 1st, and took D.Manning and Dusty w/ our two new picks. Still hope for Dusty, but how many starts after two years? I am not saying we should trade up. For Clady, it depends on what sort of grade we have on him. If it isn't much different from the others, then we don't think about it. If it is significantly different, then I think there is logic to do it. As for the other scenario, to me it is similar to what Cle did last year, w/o giving up a future 1st. I understand the idea of loading up on picks, spreading out the risk, but I would also point out that the further down the draft you go, the greater risk the pick is. The 3rd round pick and 5th round pick you might give up have greater bust factors than the 1st round pick you would ultimately take. We talk about the draft being like craps. Well, okay. Two guys walk up to a craps table w/ $150. One guy puts $50 on the 6, 8 & 10 hardway bets. The other bets $50 on the point and then backs it up w/ $100, a typical bet. While the first guy has spread his bet out over three bets, his bets have weaker odds, and statistically, the 2nd guy is still more likely to win than the first.

Absolutely understand what you are saying. On one hand, I really want to just move on. Make a clean break, and just begin a new process. On the other hand, this is simply a ugly year for a team looking to improve at QB. I am not sure there is a veteran out there any better than Rex or Griese, and while I am not putting Orton in there, he deserves a shot himself. Rex is like being in a bad marriage. You have so much invested in the woman, both in time and feelings, that the idea of divorce makes you sick. On the other hand, there is also the feeling the marriage will not last, and at some point you are going to have to move on. Why prolong it? Just file the papers and begin the process of looking again. FYI, above isn't my experience, but my brother in law is working on his 3rd.

Isn't sarcasm a great thing?

Awesome. Now we are set. Last year's trio were so good, why should we change.

Hey, I think this is in fact a very solid, and deep draft for OTs. I know less about the OGs. That was not my point. My point was only that I would not go off what the Pitt GM says too much, as he has too much reason for spin.

Today I am reading that we not only want to re-sign Rex, but that we are confident we will. What I do not understand is, why the hell would Rex want to come back? Even more questionable, why would Rex want to re-sign w/ us before FA begins. 1. Rex has been shredded by his own fans and media in Chicago. 2. The market this year for QBs is so bad, Rex would likely be the top of the heap. 3. We are not going to offer a long term deal, and thus Rex would be banking on having a great year then hitting FA hot, but, (a) While we all hope for better, we have not today improve the OL a bit, and have in fact created a pair of holes ( We have just sent packing both starting WRs from last year, including Rex' favorite target. What is remaining is pretty damn ugly. © While some (like me) still hold out hope, there is no proven RB on the roster to take pressure off Rex. So if Rex is banking on a good year to improve his marketability, there is little reason on the bears current roster to indicate he will have the weapons at his disposal to do so. 4. In addition to the above, he supposedly has been told he is guaranteed nothing, and may in fact not even start. So again I ask, why would Rex re-sign w/ us, and especially, why would Rex re-sign early w/o even testing the FA market. If I were Rex, I would view the bears as much a fall back plan as the bears appear to view Rex. I would test FA, and see what some other QB desperate teams might offer. Beyond money, I would be interested in what teams wanted me that actually had an offense.

I read more and more about this guy. He was an OG in college, but finished the year at LT. I am reading he is a stud OG, and many/most believe he can move to LT in the NFL he is so good. He is going to be a 1st round pick, but w/ such a solid OT class, he is more likely to last to the back half of the 1st round. I mentioned earlier about trading up into the late 1st. Could he be a target too. The more I read about him, the more I love. If you believe the writing, at worst, he is a stud OG. At best? He could be a stud LT. If we do not take a OT w/ our 1st pick, what about moving up and taking him next?

I am not saying we will, as Angelo has not shown an inclination to move up in drafts, but I wonder if there is an argument for a move up in a couple different situations. Situation one Clady has really risen since he was first mentioned on this board. At one time, there was belief he could be there for us. Now, it is a virtual lock he will not. This situation hinges on Long to a large degree. If Stl takes Long, I think it Clady doesn't make it out of the top 10. If Stl takes DL though, as many mocks have them doing, Long could slip a bit more. Oak is the next team, but Oakland could be looking at McFadden (despite the Fargas deal). I doubt Long slips past KC. So then you have Baltimore as the most likely to look at Clady, but if Clady slips past them, he may drop all the way to Denver, who would not likely pass. So the questions are (a) how much higher of a grade do we have on Clady over the other OTs and ( how much would it cost to move up a couple spots to leap frog Denver. Would Buffalo take our late 3rd to drop 3 spots? If so, would Clady be worth our 1st and late 3rd? If Clady is the answer at LT, and allows us to move Tait to RT, I think so. Situation two There is a pretty decent chance S Phillips makes it to us, but if he does, he will not last long after. At the same time, w/ a good OT class, we could be looking at numerous OTs with our 1st pick, but the pickings could be far slimmer by the time we pick in the 2nd as many teams in between are expected to take an OT. Then there is the QB issue. I have seen many who are high on Broham, and many others high on Flacco. Flacco is rising, and may no longer be available for us in the 2nd, and Broham is a near lock to be gone by then. So the point is, a lot of the very solid prospects will be there for us in the 1st, but not the 2nd. Thus, I ask whether it is worth us using one of our extra 3rd round picks to move into the back end of the 1st round. If we have two 1st round picks, we could come out of the round w/ a combo of: - Broham/Williams (or Cherilius or Baker) I think Otah is gone by late 1st - Otah/Flacco - Phillips/Flacco - Phillips/OT How the draft goes down dictates everything, but I just wonder if we would not be better off getting two of these prospects most like, as opposed to one and a pair of lesser prospects w/ our 2nd and 3rd.

I can say "rebuild" but can Angelo? One of the biggest issues I have w/ the WR situation is the QB situation. If we had a great QB, I could better deal w/ having less at WR, as a great QB can make WRs look better than they are, especially if we upgrade the OL to provide WRs time to run routes, and the QB time in the pocket. But we do not have a great QB. We "might" bring back Rex, but how much can we expect from Rex if we do not provide him w/ solid WRs. IMHO, expectations can only go down w/ Orton. I mean, can we truly expect much of Orton if he has no one to throw to? IMHO, the first thing we need to do is improve the OL, and that is one area I think will happen. I honestly believe we are going to go hard after Faneca. Then, I think we use our top pick on an OT. While it may not work, I think we try the rookie, who will play next to Faneca, at LT and move Tait to RT. That move should also benefit Garza. So the OL improves all around. But we can not stop the improvements there. There is absolutely no way we can head into the season w/ Berrian and Bradley are our starters. Allow them to compete, fine, but no way we go into the season w/ those two as the best options. I think signing Booker should be done. While he will not cost the vet minimum, he will not be "that" expensive, while he could at the same time become the QBs best friend. He isn't a playmaker, but a chain mover, and that is something our QBs need. You mention Stallworth, and I think that is a possibility. He is not going to be cheap, but will not get Berrian money either. I think one thing teams may look at is his play this last year. He was on an elite offense, and still didn't put up big numbers. He is a deep threat, but inconsistent on the field, and off due to injuries. So i think his price drops, but at the same time, he would provide a prime compliment for Booker. At the same time, he should not cost so much that he would hinder the development of Hester and Bradley if they are ready for a move up. Then there is the QB issue. I think it is obvious the staff wants to re-sign Rex. I personally think he could have a greater market than some expect, and further believe that if we are not quick enough to add more at WR, he would have little reason to re-sign w/ us. Either way, I think we draft a QB, maybe as high as the 2nd round. If we re-sign Rex, it will likely be a one year deal, and if we draft a QB too, we cut Griese. If we do not re-sign Rex, then Griese and Orton battle for the start while the rookie develops.

I agree that an improved OL should help the QB, WRs and RB. I agree w/ that. But I would make two points beyond that. (a) While I agree that is what should happen, it is not a guarantee. Cle is a great example of how a much improved OL can benefit all. On the other hand, I simply use Minny as an example of how it is not a sure thing. ( While an improved OL, or even a great OL, can make everyone look better, bad players still don't end up looking that good. Just like how a great QB can make an average WR look good, and a good WR look great, but a bad WR still looks bad because he still has to catch the ball. So now, look at our positions we hope the improved OL will help. QB - I do not know if it is Orton, Rex, Griese, or some unknown. Right now, I think Orton is the most likely to be our starter next year. I believe you are a big Orton supporter. I like him too, but I while I think he has absolutely earned the right to compete for the start, I also have to admit he may be crap. You may disagree, but there is simply not the evidence to prove otherwise yet. Thus, if he is simply not an NFL starting QB, not even an improved OL is going to help him. RB - While I personally believe in Benson, much like you w/ Orton, and believe an improved OL can make Benson a pro bowl RB, I also have to admit there is every possibility he is simply a bust. I have to admit that an much improved OL may only help Benson improve from crap to not as awful smelling crap. WR - Will an improved OL help Hester learn where to lineup, or what route to run. Will an improved OL help Bradley stay healthy? Will an imrpoved OL turn Davis into a playmaker? That was my point. It is easy enough logic to believe (and I do) that improving our OL should improve the rest of the parts. At the same time, I argue that it is also possible that our parts are beyond help, much like Minny. Like Minny, it is possible our QB and WRs simply suck, and no OL can improve them.

Lija was re-signed by Indy. Not sure about the other two, but I would add they are pretty significant dropoffs from Faneca, and may not be more than minor upgrades.

Not to discount, but this could also be a bit of PR spin by the Steeler's GM. They are about to lose Starks and Faneca, two of their top OL, and respected veterans. Pitt is not a team that traditionally attacks FA w/ big signings. Thus they are most likely to seek Starks and Faneca's replacements through the draft. So telling fans this is such a great draft for OL could be a bit of PR spin.

I can see us doing it w/ one or two big signings, but IMHO, there is simply zero chance we retain both Berrian and Briggs, while also re-signing Harris. It is a cash issue. You are talking about shelling out $60m or more in cash. You really think the McCaskey's are going to open up the purse to that extent at once. Not only that, but you are not even improving the team. All you are doing to cash strapping the org in order to maintain the status quo. What I would like to see, or can see, is re-sign Harris and then get Faneca. Everyone is concerned about Faneca, but if we front load the deal, we protect ourselves down the road if age creeps in.

What do we have. After cutting Moose and losing Berrian, our WRs are not studs either. We can hope all we want about Hester and Bradley, but the evidence thus far does not place them any higher than Minny's group. As for run v pass blocking, they may be better run blockers, but their pass blocking is damn good too. Especially the left side. McKinnie, Hutch and Birk are great pass blockers.

I started to talk about this in another thread, but felt it might be an interesting topic to start new. We have something like $30m in cap space. I think we can all agree we are not going to spend $80m in cash, or whatever, to sign 4 or 5 big names, including our own. So the question is, how will we use up all that space. Signing a bunch of mid tier FAs will not use up the space. W/ that in mind, I am wondering if we will see some big roster bonuses this year, as opposed to using just signing bonuses. By doing this, we would still use up the cap space this year, while at the same time, improving our situation in the future. Harris would be a prime candidate. I still feel he has to come down off his declaration to be the highest paid defensive player (see Freeny's deal). So what if he will take say $25m in bonus money, w/ about $10m in roster bonus against this year, and the other $15m in SB. We would still have $20m or so in cap, while lessening the cap hit for Harris in future years. I think this is exactly what we did w/ Tait. We ate a big bulk of his bonus up front, lessening his future cap hits. Again, I simply do not see us shelling out $80m in cash, so why not allocate more of what we do spend against this years cap in order to free up more future cap space.

Agreed. In an ideal world, I would love to keep Briggs. At the same time, that is the way things go. Sometimes you simply lose good players. Good teams lose good players, but they are able to replace them. IMHO, this will be a big test for Angelo. Will either Williams or Okwo be capable of stepping up? As for Tommie, I have said this before, but I simply do not see the reason to re-sign him now. If he is willing to give up on some of his demand in order to secure a deal early, and to have the security now, great, but that is not the MO of Rosenarce, so I would not count on it. The one and only argument for re-signing Harris now would be the big amount of cap space we currently have. If we signed him now, and gave him say $10m roster bonus, to go along w/ another $15m SB, that would greatly take down the future cap hits. If we are not going to sign either Briggs or Berrian, I can see the sense in that, as we would still have the cash to add a Faneca, BUT I would still want Harris to give some. If he says he wants a Freeny deal or nothing, I give him nothing, and promise him he will be tagged a year from now.

Agreed, but the question is the one you finish w/. Minny has one of the best OLs in the game. How good did Tavarius Jackson look? He has as good of a run game as a QB can ask for, and when he dropped back, plenty of time. Yet even w/ teams stacked to play the run, and minimal blitzing because that could weaken their run defense, Minny still had an inferior passing game.

People continue to talk about McNabb because reports continue to mention McNabb as a potential player for a trade. Most recent reports talk about Baltimore making a move to get him. Is it likely he comes here. Nope. Is it possible. I would say yes, it is possible. For that reason, he continues to be discussed. As for Rex, and QB solution, I agree. It is easy to rip Rex, while much more difficult to offer a solution. At the same time, that does not automatically mean Rex, who is going to his FA, is the solution either. To be honest, I am in the camp of it is time to move on. I would rather look at drafting a QB this year, allowing Orton and Griese to compete for the start, while the rookie develops, as opposed to re-signing Rex. That isn't my favorite plan in the world, but options are limited. Sort of like w/ WR. Options are very limited this year.