nfoligno

That is not a lot of money, and we are going to spend that much (and then some) to replace him. I don't think many (if any) have an issue w/ cutting him. I think the point made is, there is no rush. W/ FA, the draft and a possible decision on Mike Brown due, I don't see the need to rush out and cut him. As soon as we add a player, "he gone", but why cut him before you know. Mike Brown is the key for me. If Brown is staying, then Arch should go. If they plan to release Brown, I simply would not be in a hurry to release Arch.

I agree w/ everyone the draft is more exciting. You have so much packed into 48 hours. But for me, if you ask me right now which I am looking more forward to, I would have to admit it is FA. Maybe that is partially because FA is simply sooner. Maybe it is because there are a few FAs out there I am very high on. But I think a huge reason is also this. Angelo has had far better success in FA than the draft when it comes to the OL. I believe that is the A#1 area we need to address, and believe that w/ Angelo, it starts in FA. Do we go into FA and just spend on a guy like Faneca. Several times in the past he went heavy in FA to attack a top need. OT was a top need, and he signed Tait to a very large offer sheet. When DE was a top need, he made a trade for Wale, who was also going to command a very large new deal. While it never happened, he also went heavy after Kearse, offering a deal I believe greater than Urlachers. WR was looking ugly, and he we quick for Moose. In each of these situations, we had a glaring need, and he addressed it quick and w/ money. While TJ was not nearly as expensive, he too was a very fast addition. For me, it is hard to get too excited about the draft when our FA moves can affect our draft needs so greatly. For example, I want Faneca, or at least one of the other very high end (talent) OGs, but what if Angelo went out and signed an OT? W/ Tait on the other side, I am not sure OT is still such a lock 1st round pick. I really would like to sign Ken Hamlin. I don't think it will happen, but if we do, does that drop Phillips on our need list. I would kill to trade (reasonable deal) for McNabb. If we do that, forget about Brohm, and take a pick off our board. I don't think adding Booker would change plans if there was a WR we liked, but if we sign Bryant Johnson, who is also a young WR, that well could. That's my thing. Our needs are not going to change before the start of FA, yet can change dramatically before the draft.

Agreed the draft/rookie process in the NFL is the best. In baseball, you have a million rounds (or so it seems) and even your top pick will start out in the minors. Most often, those draft picks will spend the next several years in the minors. While I dislike the aspect of baseball that puts no draft picks in the bigs, at the same time, I do like the idea of a minor league. The practice squad is the closest thing we currently have. I had always hoped to make NFL Europe a NFL minor league, but it just didn't happen. Basketball is more similar to the NFL in that you often have a rookie play and even shine. But basketball has a much smaller draft. Its what, two rounds, and that 2nd round is often talked about as a write off. You get some players from it, but their 2nd round is more like the NFL's 6th and/or 7th. I also hate that basketball has no timelimits, thus "kids" can enter the league raw. I just do not see how this is good for the league. Anyway, while there are things I like about baseball and basketball w/ regard to the draft, I agree that football is far and above above those two.

Just curious. FA is very near, w/ the draft not long after. Which aspect of the offseason are you all looking forward to more? Personally, I am looking more forward to FA. OL is our greatest need (not counting QB, where I see little major change), and is the position I think Angelo has seen more quality FAs added, while also being among his weakest positions in the draft. So much hinges on our upgrading the OL, and I think that will begin w/ FA. I am so interested to see how we attack the OL in FA, and believe it will have a major impact on the draft.

There have been a couple other good, or acceptable ones. Garza was good, for the money. Ayenbedejo was in the pro bowl for the same job we signed him. But overall, I simpy feel like we have not done a good job. QB Talk about ugly. Kordell Stewart. Chandler. Quinn. Hutchinson. Jeff Blake. We signed Griese, which I was thrilled w/, but he has not been as good as I had hoped. RB As I said, TJ may be his best signing. I can't really think of any other FAs. WR Have we really gone to FA for WR other than Moose. I consider Moose a total flop of a signing. I do not even credit him for leadership, as he has too often thrown the QB under the bus, which is not a sign of leadership to me (unless it is Cade McNown under the bus). TE Maybe it was due to our OCs (all three of them), but I would still point out this was considered a need w/ management. If Angelo felt it was solely the OC not utilizing the position, would he have considered it a high enough need to use a 1st round pick? OL Garza and Brown were solid signings. Miller, IMHO, was solid one year but didn't last as long as expected and was flat out awful last year. Tait was a solid addition as well. OL is Angelo best FA position, while also among his worst in the draft. That is a scary thought entering this draft. DE Wale, while a trade, was a move for a veteran. While he has been solid, I still argue he has not met expectations. It was believed he was one of those special talents that makes others on the DL double digit sack artists. What it now appears is he is the sort that can be very good when surrouded by talent (which he was in Miami) but is not the spark we believed. DT Adams played well this past year, and above expectations (other than mine). I do not count Toeina as much as some. I loved what I saw for a game or two, but a couple plays does not make or break a player. Walker was a total bust. While it was a re-signing, I still think re-signing Robinson, who was a DE but projected as a DT in the new scheme, to a deal for over $20m was an awful move. LB Few think about Hunter, but he was picked up in FA (maybe waivers) after not making it w/ GB. Great move that might actually compete w/ TJ when factoring value and expectations. Ayenbedejo is a LB, but has made his name on special teams. CB McQ was a bad re-signing. Wesley and RMJ were also bad FA moves. S Arch. Need I say more? Most of his "hits" seem to be on the OL, which is ironic as it is also our area of greatest need (next to QB). For most of the rest of the team though, I see a combination of (a) bust pickups and ( missed opportunities, as there are too many positions w/o good moves.

T Jones - Possibly his best FA move, as it produced both a very good starter, combined w/ a very inexpensive contract. He went bargain shopping, but came out w/ a steal. Ogun - Wale was not a FA. We traded for him. Solid move, but let me ask this. Has Wale ever met expectations? After 25 sacks in two seasons w/ Miami, he has 31 sacks after 4 seasons here. At one point, there was even talk of trading or demoting him. I liked the move then, and like it today, but it was believed Wale would be that elite pass rusher that made everyone look good, and I am not sure if he has lived up to that. He is a damn good DE, but when we gave him $15m in bonus money, I think our expectations were higher. Tait - Solid move. I didn't care for it as much then as I felt it was too much money for a RT, but now he is on the left side, and capable of either. Moose (which not great for us, still not bad considered) - Still not bad? Come on. If I, and Angelo basher, can give him credit where it is due, why can you not do the same. When we signed Moose, he was coming off a career year, and we paid big for him. He was brought in to make the QBs better, but instead, it appears he needs a stud QB to look good. He has been a league leader in drops, and has been quite to blame the QBs for his woes. This was an awful signing. Clark - One of Angelo's first signings, but how great of a signing was it. While he has now come on, it took long enough. If Clark was such a good signing, why was TE considered a top need for several years after we signed him, and why did we spend a first round pick on Olsen. The DT's last season - Well, how do you want to call this one. We spend big money on Darwin Walker, including a pick, and he was a bust. Adams was solid though, and one I was actually screaming for. I like Toeina, but lets see him for more than a couple games before we make any conclusions. Angelo found some cheap talent, but also spent bigger bucks on a bust. Rueben Brown Fred Miller (before he got old with a quickness...) Both Brown and Miller fall into the category of what I was talking about. He spent money to get a pair of players here who gave us good play for a short period of time. Sure, there have been some good FA moves. There have also been some awful ones. That is how it goes w/ any GM. But when I look at the list as a whole, and look at the number of years, I simply would argue that he has not done well in FA.

I think we have to consider what Faneca brings to the table for us. He would bring his pro bowl level play. That alone may be worth the money, but I think he also brings a thing or two else that may also make the money worth it. I think there is a solid chance we draft an OT in the 1st. While he may not start at LT year one, I think that is likely the plan. A young LT will likely develop much better playing next to Faneca than not. So signing an OG like Faneca would not only add talent to the OL, but give us a far greater chance of developing a young LT. I also love the potential of creating a dominating 1-2-3 on the left. Draft a 1st round OT, put him next to Faneca, who would be next to Kreutz. That trio could pave the way for even Benson to become a pro bowl RB. Finally, as the article mentions, Faneca is a throw back, flat out mean player. Next to Kreutz, we could develop a nasty OL reminicent of the old days.

Agreed that Faneca will cost a shit load, but at the same time, do not expect him to get the same as Hutch, or Leanord Davis, or some others you might think of. As great is Faneca is, he is 31, and the reality is few, if any, are going to offer him the same sort of deal as Hutch got. He simply is not going to get a 6 year deal, which means he is not going to get the same bonus either. What I think is possible would be to look at Hutch's deal, and play w/ the numbers a bit. Offer less money, due to fewer years, but at similar averages. I looked it up, and it looks like Hutch actually got a 7 year deal for $49m, w/ $16m guaranteed. What I think we should be doing is looking at similar averge money, but proportioned for 4 years instead of 7. I just do not see anyone offering him a 6 or 7 year deal, which simply means the money is not going to be the same.

Angelo is a bargain shopper. He often buys cheaper product that is okay short term, but the cheaper quality doesn't ware well, and is trash after a year. When he decides to splurge, he ends up w/ last years style and regrets the purchase shortly after making it. Angelo has a good track record drafting defensive players, but drafting offense and FA in general are FAR more questionable. Seriously, think about the FAs he has added and I think it is a struggle to come up w/ many that were good.

Agree on Hass, but I do not think it is so simple when talking about young OL. If you play Hass, and he sucks, no one is really "that" hurt by trying to develop a young WR. If you play Beekman or Oakley and they suck, your QB might get killed. If the staff felt Beekman and Oakley were so bad toward the end of the year that they could not protect the QB, then they have no business being on the field. OL may be the only position on the team I would argue you can not simply throw out a young player just because you want to see him. To play OL, the coaches should have some level of comfort w/ the player. Any other position on the team might hurt the teams chance to win, but and young OL that isn't ready can get your QB hurt. There is no question about Hass, but it is harder to knock the staff w/ regard to the rest last year. A BIG part of that is because we played a lot of guys due to injuries, but I am not sure Lovie avoids playing young players. Payne was getting PT prior to his injury, and supposedly was even the reason we traded Harris. McBride may have gotten on the field due to injury, but it also says something that we played him at CB and not nickel, thus the staff put him ahead of a fairly high priced veteran. Wolfe got in the game here and there, and then when we were "mathmatically" done, Angelo saw to him getting more reps. Olsen was on the field most of the year, but that is Turner not drawing up plays for him IMHO, as opposed to Lovie holding a young player back. I have MANY gripes about Lovie, but playing young guys I don't think is one of them. Yea, there is Hass, but IMHO, that is about it.

I do nothing right now w/ him. Hey, I agree. He sucked last year. At the same time, I would simply like to know what else is going on at S this year. Is Mike Brown returning. If he is, then Arch is gone. If not, we have little at S, either as starters go, or in depth. McGowan showed enough to warrant a shot at the starting job. Payne is a young player the staff is high on, but is totally unproven, and lost nearly a year of development potential. Daniell Manning just freaking sucks, but hey, he is young. My point is, if we decide to let Brown go, I think we keep Arch on the roster until we do something either in FA or in the draft. No rush to cut him, as it isn't like we are going to create a bunch of cap space doing so. Keep him around until after we sign a FA, or draft a rookie day one.

Couple things. One. I agree that Hass should not be "written off". My only point is that we should not "count on him". Those are two extremes. Saying you write him off is near equal to not even putting him on the 53 man roster. Saying we are going to count on him going forward, thinking starter, is another extreme in the opposite direction. To me, he is on the squad, and should be given every opportunity to prove himself and elevate his position. I hope he can move up, but I am not going to "count on it" to the point that I do not try to upgrade my WR corp. Two. I do agree that it should be an open competition. If we sign Booker, I have to think it would be at the expense of Moose. While I think Book is an upgrade, significanlty, they are too similar in style to keep both for the cost. So I think if Book is signed, Moose is gone. At the same time, I would not give any guarantees to Booker. I would tell him we want him. I would tell him how I would envision him in our offense. At the same time, I would make no promises. He has to understand that anyone can win a starting job, and and that if a young player like Hass beats him out, then that is simply the way it is. I personally do not think Booker would have an issue w/ this. Any veteran that fears losing his job to a WR who was what, 6th on the depth chart last year and is basically an unknown, is not a WR I want on the team.

We can also negotitate w/ Booker. And if we cut Moose today, he could talk to other teams before the start of FA. There is a rule in FA that a veteran of "X" number of seasons who is cut prior to the start of FA, can talk w/ and sign w/ a team prior to the start of FA. Basically, it's a rule thrown in there for the older vets. It's also the rule that allowed us to sign Moose in the first place. Carolina cut him prior to the start of FA, and we then signed him, again, still before FA began. Booker falls into that same category, as he meets the veteran requirement.

Here's the problem. You have been banging the drum for Hass for some time, and frankly, you got me on his bandwagon. You enlisted me last year, and particularly toward the end of the year, I was screaming w/ you at the coaches for Hass not getting so much as a look, even when we were totally done. But there in lies the problem. No matter how much you like him, or how much potential you think he may have, it really just doesn't matter unless he is going to get a legit look. Our staff has shown nothing to lead me to believe he will get a legit look. Whether that is because Hass isn't showing much in practice, the staff being blind, or maybe the banged Lovie's daughter. I don't know. But if he isn't going to get a look from the staff, or even a freaking name drop from them, I do not see the point in factoring him. It isn't that fans have written Hass off. The staff more seems to have, and thus fans follow suit.

Actually, I think my wife may have a rule book that also applies, and I am pretty sure there is a more harsh penalty for breaking her rule book than yours.

It's a pointless argument. There is technically no rule to prevent it, but in reality, you simply will not see it. There is ZERO reason for a player to agree to this. Rules were created in the NBA for such deals, but do not apply in football. Hey, there is no rule that says I can't hook up w/ Angelina Jolie, but......

Compare it to when Angelo dropped Engram. Was Engram done? I think Engram has well proven he was far from done. But Angelo took over a team he thought stunk, and development of younger players took a greater importance. When Angelo came in, we had a slew of young WRs many thought could develop into something. David Terrell - top 10 pick rookie. Dez White - High 3rd round pick entering 2nd year. Booker & Bates - 3rd round picks entering their 3rd year. That's four 1st day draft picks w/ 2 or fewer years of experience. In addition, we had Robinson one season removed from setting the team mark for receiving yards (1,400). Two other young WRs on the roster were Merritt and John Capel, who I believe were both rookies that year. So Angelo comes in and simply cuts Engram. Though Engram was probably the best WR on the team at that time, keeping him would have lessened the reps of the young WRs the team was high on, and since Angelo had no clue we would win 13 games that year, development took priority. Now look at Miami. Ted Ginn was a top 10 pick this year. Derick Hagan was a 3rd round pick last year, and has shown some big flashes. Camarillo is a 2nd year player who started to show something at the end of the year when given a chance. They have three young WRs they want to develop, and are a near lock to add another young WR this offseason. They are unlikely to be good this year, and development will be a priority. That means they do not want an older WR who isn't in the long term plans taking reps away from their youth.

I would actually be more expensive this year, though it could be cheaper after. This year, according to Lt2, we save $100k by cutting Moose, so cutting him is basically as wash cap wise factoring bonus against '08 money. But we would then add the contrat of Booker. If Booker gets $1m (not saying that is what it would be, but simple math) we would then be spending about $1m more against our cap in '08 than if we simply kept Moose and didn't sign Booker. So this is not a money saving avenue, at least not for '08. I could be cheaper in '09 and after, but for this year, it would actually cost us cap space, and would not make it easier to sign Berrian. My argument is that Booker is enough of an upgrade to Moose that he is worth the extra initial coin. Further, I would argue there is a good chance Booker is cheaper after this year than Moose would be. I would further, further argue that Moose is not part of our post-'08 plans, and we may as well move on sooner rather than later. Right now, the only reason to keep Moose is because we have no better options. Booker provides a better option.

This would be awesome. I do not believe anyone thinks Booker would be our savior. At the same time, I simply believe he is what our offense needs, and has needed since his departure. He would add a WR that can move the chains, and provides a reliable target for the QB, whoever that may be.

You ask what our options are? Well, while I would agree that if we draft an OT, even if we take one w/ our 1st pick, he may not be ready to start at LT. At the same time, I think it is legit to believe he could start at RT. I would further argue that if we take an OT w/ the 14th pick of the draft, it is not only reasonable, but expected, that he would start. So then you are talking about Miller being a backup. I could accept that if he were cheap, but he is FAR from cheap. He is far too expensive to be a backup, which is what i think he would be if we draft an OT in the 1st. Further, I would argue that St. Clair didn't appear to be a dropoff from Miller, and to me, that is as much a testament to Miller as it is St. Clair. I guess for me this is a no brainer. This is a very good draft for OT. We draft an OT (1st or even 2nd round OTs should be capable of starting). If that rookie can get it done at LT, awesome. If not, he starts out at RT and Tait sticks another year or so at left. Depth is an issue, but Miller is too expensive for depth, and is released. St. Clair is our primary backup, and then we look to FA/draft for a 4th OT. Final point. Not only is nearly $6m ridiculously high for Miller, but the $3.4m we can save against the cap is simply too much to make this even a question. If we had to eat cap dollars to cut him, then maybe you suck it up and keep him another year, but that is too much savings v what you get (and at the price to get him) to keep.

I think Parcells is over-rated. Here in Dallas, you would not believe how bad he was blasted. He reminds me some of Ditka, who was considered so great after great success, but then it just seemed like the game passed him by. Parcells improved Dallas, but also held them back and made some very questionable moves, including personnel. Dallas improved their personnel under Parcells, but it was not all Parcells, and some of the bad moves have been more directly tied to him. A couple years ago, Parcells was very high on Spears, but his staff (and Jones) really liked Ware. He was finally convinced that Spears would be available w/ their next pick, but Ware would not, and made a deal w/ Jones to draft Ware first, and then get Spears. Well, Spears has been a bust, while Ware (who Parcells never really wanted) has been a pro bowler. It was also all Parcells, who wanted to trade down the prior year because he wanted Julius Jones over Stephen Jackson. Last year, Parcells was super high on Carpenter, who has been a bust. Two of the players Parcells was highest on are now on the block (Carpenter and Spears) as they have been busts. It should also be pointed out the staff really liked Romo, but Parcells was against playing him and prefered the likes of Testaverde and Bledsoe to the young Romo. I am not saying Parcells sucks, but his record in Dallas was far from great, and it was not until he left that Dallas really seemed to take that next step. The point? While Parcells has the rep., I question how much we should base our opinion of Booker based on that rep, which simply may not be equal today to what it was years ago.

I believe releasing Moose would basically be a wash when factoring bonus money v this years base pay. We could designate him as our June 1st cap hit (though we can cut him anytime we want) and spread his cap hit over two years, thus saving money this year. But more likely, if we cut him, factor it as a zero on the spreadsheet, and bump up the salary cap any amount we sign Booker. My argument would be (a) Booker is not likely to generate a big payday and ( while it would raise our cap to replace Moose w/ Booker, I would argue that it is also an upgrade, and thus worth the raise in the cap.

Couple points One. I disagree it is a push between Moose and Book, or that Moose has a step on Book. While I am not saying Booker is fast, I have seen nothing from Moose to lead me to believe he is faster. They may be similar in many areas, but the one area I have to give a big edge to Booker on is hands. Booker still catches everything thrown his way. Moose? It's about 50/50 whether he makes the catch. Two. I would love to draft a WR in the 4th that is in the Engram mold, but I simply do not think it is so easy. We tried last w/ Wade, and it didn't work. Many thought it would be Hass, but he couldn't get onto the field. I would add that I still think this is a weaker WR class in the draft, and players will be over-valued due to that. Three. I want to draft a WR if one is available, but do not see how that is exclusive of signing a WR like Booker. I think Berrian is gone, and while we may not cut Moose, his value is minimal based on what I have seen. Sad thing is, we are so weak at WR that Moose is still our best. So IMHO, we can afford to add more than one WR this offseason. Four. While I am all for drafting a WR, I do not think we should expect much from him, especially if we draft a WR in the 4th. I simply look at our WRs, and feel we are totally lacking. Do we have potential? Yes, but I would argue that potential is in downfield threats (Hester/Bradley). I don't see a WR that is likely to develop into that underneath guy to help the QB. Things may change, but as of today, we do not have a good, much less great, QB. We have one of the worst OLs in the league as well. To me, we need a WR that QB can rely on. I do not see that on the team. I do not see that added through the draft. Booker well could be that WR though. Price is a big question. While I would not expect him to get much, the WR class in FA is so weak, who knows. Hell, I think so little of our group of WRs, I can make an argument for keeping both he and Moose.

I have a few comments. One. I disagree w/ the comment that most of the times Hester went deep, he was covered. Frankly, I oftens saw him open downfield, but either the QB didn't hit him, or he dropped it. To be honest though, I just didn't see him go downfield often, which I never understood. When he went downfield, he drew double coverage (as you mentioned) but often I saw his speed flat out beat the CB and he also would get behind the S. But what I didn't get was why we didn't do it more. Even if the play wasn't designed for him, at least he drew that safety away. Two. Sure, the idea of Berrian and Hester is great, but how often did you really see that? There isn't an OC in the league that wouldn't love to field a group of speed threats, but they are worthless when (a) your OL can't hold their blocks, ( the WRs struggle getting clean/quick sep off the LOS © the WRs run questionable routes and (d) the WRs drop the freaking ball. I have screamed for a possession WR like Engram since we cut him. Booker did well in that regard, but then we traded him. Since we sent Booker packing, we have not had a WR who the QB could simply count on. More than anything IMHO, we need a WR that gets off the LOS clean, makes sharp breaks, knows where the freaking 1st down marker is, and catches everything thrown to him. That is Booker. So often we ask how much better Rex and Co. might have looked if they had a reliable WR to throw to. Well, while Booker may not be a game breaker, he could be that reliable WR that moves the chains, provides fresh sets of downs, and allows our playmakers to make plays. If Bradley, Hester (or whatever speed WRs we use) can focus on downfield routes because a reliable WR like Booker is underneath, it could open up the offense far more than simply fielding a group of speed threats. Three. I would personally cut Moose (which would basically be breaking even w/ the cap) and sign Booker in a heartbeat. I think Booker is simply far better. Moose was inconsistent through his entire career, and we signed him after a career year w/ lofty expectations. Since we signed him, he has not come close to showing the same level. I would blame it more on the QBs if not for all the drops. Booker may not be young, but he appears FAR better than Moose at this point in their careers. W/ all that said, I don't see it happening. How many times do we as bear fans talk about bringing back this former player or that former player, only to see Angelo show zero interest.

I think the 2nd reciever he means is Winslow, and that is hard to argue w/. Winslow may be a TE, but is as good as most any 2nd WR in the game. As for the OL, it may not be "the best", but they were damn good, and one of the best. I so want a QB, but I do have some hessitation w/ Anderson. While he had great stats for the year, he seemed to be lights out one game, and mediocre the next. In the back half of the year, his hot games were far fewer, and less hot, and in his final three games, when they were in a playoff run, he was simply not good. What I hate to think, but have to wonder is, many QBs start out hot when they are unknown, but then, as opponents have film on him, the shiny star begins to fade. So just how shiny is the star. If we were talking about a 2nd, I would be all for it. He will command a big contract, but I would risk that. Giving up a 1st and the deal is a bit tougher to swallow. The other concern is, if we give him the big contract, how much money will that leave for us to spend to upgrade the offense, and in particularly the OL. Does spending big on Anderson make sense if we can not significantly upgrade the offense around him?