nfoligno

I have heard talk about that. Big discussion on local sports radio down here, but it is not going to happen. Frankly, no one even understands who or why that talk started. One. They have Barber, who just finished his 3rd season. He has improved each year. 975 yards this year while splitting w/ JJ, but had nearly 5 ypc avg. 24 TDs in his last two years, and had 44 catches this year as well. And did you see him in their playoff game w/ NY? Can't blame the loss on him, as he had 22-130-1 (4.8 ypc avg.). The dude is a stud, and is why they are going to let JJ walk. RB is far from a need on this team. Two. Though they have two #1s, Cle simply won too many games this year for Dallas to move up for McFadden. Dallas has the 22nd and 29th picks in the draft. That is barely value enough to get inside the back end of the top 10, and to be honest, value chart or no, I doubt they could even get into the top 10. McFadden is a top 4 draft choice. IMHO, either Atlanta or Oakland will take him. To move up to #2 or #3, where they would need to get to guarantee McFadden, their ENTIRE 2008 draft would not be enough (in terms of value chart) to make the jump. No one here in Dallas really understands where the talk came from. Frankly, it just doesn't make any sense. RB is a strength, and they would have to give up this years draft, and part of next years to get McFadden. Simply makes no sense. Dallas could go in several directions, and w/ two 1st round picks, they "might" move up for the right players, but they have enough needs that they may be content to sit and take whoever falls to them. They need OL, as they were never that great and will lose some players. They could draft WR, which is not a top need, but w/ TO and Glenn's age, it is a need. QB, RB and TE are not needs. On defense, they need playmakers at DE, LB and S. If we were to trade w/ Dallas, our 1st for their two 1sts is not an equal trade. Their 22nd pick and 2nd round pick for our 14th is a value.

{quote} and {/quote} using Brackets intead of braces. No apologies, of coarse. As I said, I probably misunderstood it. Regardless, assumptions away..... That's the thing. I do not believe we are "already strong" at many positions. CB, TE and DE are the closest thing I would point to. No to DT due to Harris' injuries and soon to be FA status, and no other DTs on the roster proven. LB might have been in the past, but Urlacher showed a human potential for injury and we are not proven after Briggs. On offense, what is a strength, other than TE? So while there are times I might agree, in general right now, I think we need to just take a bunch of BPA's, w/ a keen eye toward certain positions. I just do not think we are strong enough at most positions to try and draft for a small grouping of needs. I think you misunderstand me. I like Griese. Heck, I think he is the best QB on our roster, though that doesn't say too much. But he is a very expensive backup, particularly if he is seen as a #3, which is possible if we re-sign Rex and want to look at Orton. If we re-sign Rex, we will have a battle between Rex and Orton for the start, and I think Griese is #3. If Rex is not re-signed, I think we see a battle between Orton and Griese, w/ a rookie on the bench. Well, Faneca is my #1 FA priority. Yes, I know he will not be cheap. Yes, I know he isn't a kid anymore. Regardless, he is my top priority. Faneca just turned 31. That is not young, but not as old as some others. He is not just a pro bowler, but arguably one of the best in the game. He is also not only a veteran, but a leader. In my ideal world, we draft a LT. What better way to help a rookie LT develop than to put him next to a veteran like Faneca. McKinnie was considered a very good, young LT, but it wasn't until after adding Hutchinson that he was considered elite. Drafting Clady, Otah or Baker, and put him next to Faneca and Kreutz, and we might have a trio like McKinnie/Hutch/Birk. OG is still a player I would not mind at all drafting, even w/ Faneca. I have never been that impressed w/ Garza, and believe we can never have too much OL talent. But many have talked about tagging Berrian. If we do that, then we are only renting him for a year. That means we still have little for the future, and drafting a WR may be just as important as if we do not keep Berrian at all. If we sign Berrian long term, I still am not sure that takes WR out of our plans. Moose is nearly done. In fact, I might argue he would be considered for cutting if we were not so thin at WR anyway. Hester is the best ever return man, but we have no clue if he will ever be more. Bradley has done so little, and seems to always be in the coach's dog house, that I don't think we should be counting on him much either. Anyone else to discuss. The reality is, w/ or w/o Berrian, we are thin at WR. WR is a need more than you may be willing to admit.

First things first. How the hell do you put pieces of the previous post in a box like that? When I try to hit the quote box, I end up putting the entire post in a box. W/ regard to "assumptions", my reasoning for the comment was a previous post of yours where you say drafting a QB in the first three rounds would be "assinine". You seem to later reason this based on the assumption we will sign Rex. I suppose that was the reason for the comment. We are all making assumptions, but to say one idea (drafting a QB in the first three rounds is assinine, and basing that on an assumption, well, I just had an issue w/ it. If I misunderstood, I am sorry. I read your post in full, but to be honest, especially at the end, I think we are arguing even though we actually agree. I do not want to write off the idea of drafting a QB, WR or RB in the first three rounds. I think there are plenty of times when a player slips in the draft, whether due to questions (injury, character, tweaner size, small school, etc) or simply because he didn't fit the need or scheme of teams in front of us. So if a player slips, then I think we should be looking to draft that player. QB - I would have no problem taking a QB, even in the 1st, if I better liked the guys in the draft. As it is, it doesn't look like a great QB class, at least not at the top. Later though, maybe as high as the 3rd, I would consider it, but only if a QB I (being Angelo and the scouts) graded high was there. I am not sold we keep Rex. If we do, I think there is a good chance we let Griese go. I am simply not high on Rex or Orton, and question whether either are truly franchise QBs. If we felt a franchise QB was there for us, I think we should take him. RB - We actually agree. I want a mid tier FA RB added. But again, w/ that said, if a RB we liked slipped, I would not mind taking him. NOT in the first, but pretty much anytime after that. I disagree w/ the idea that a rookie RB can not be productive immediately. RB is one of the positions that tends to develop quicker than most. Often rookie RBs either flat out break out, or simply become very productive. W/ that said, I think any rookie we draft would have to be one that proved capable of blocking in college. That seems to be an issue for us. The last two RBs we drafted had blocking as a question mark coming in. WR - I am not high on taking a WR this year, but that is more due to the talent I think will be there than it is due to the idea itself. We simply have little by way of WRs, and while WRs tend to take longer to develop, you often find rookie WRs that can step in and be productive, so long as you do not put too much on them. Again, I do not see it as likely, as I think this is a weak class. But while we are spending so much time arguing, it is over the general, as I otherwise agree. In the first, I would find it hard to see anything other than OT. W/ 4 OTs considered solid LT prospects, and of solid grade for our pick, it seems like we have that rare situation where our top needs fits a ton position strength in the draft. The only player I can see, other than OT, in the first is S Kenny Phillips. Even w/ him, I would be hard pressed to pass on a LT. But, as an example, if we had Phillips graded out as a top 10 player, while 3 LTs (Long, Clady & Otah) were already gone leaving Baker, who we grade out in the 15-20 range, I can see the argument to take Phillips. But my ideal would have us taking a LT in the 1st. After that, I would be looking at S as our top need, but there would be a big list of secondary needs I would consider based on BPA, and RB/WR would be among that group.

When talking about the offseason, and in particular, the draft, as early as January, we are all making assumptions. My issue was w/ the following comment from an earlier post, "I also think taking RB or QB in the first 3 rounds is assinine much less the first round" As I was able to understand, at least a good amount of his reasoning to say drafting QB in the first three rounds is because he assumes we are going to sign Rex. We all make assumptions, but throw out comments like "assinine" based off assumptions, then that is what I felt needed to be called out.

I think you have a few too many assumptions in your post. "I mean specific to us this year. It's based on the guys on our roster and contract lengths. I expect us to re-sign Grossman and like the luxury of having Griese around. We can draft a QB next year depending on what we learn from Rex and Orton when Orton's a UFA anyway." One, I am far from confident we re-sign Rex. Two, if we do, I think Griese is gone. Others, both on this board, and in the papers, have said as much as well. Two, you say "depending on what we learn from Rex and Orton". Sorry, but how long to we have to see a player? "If we're going to be stuck with 4 RB on the roster this season, I'd rather the guy we add be a 2nd tier FA that would be easier to both get on the field at full speed and cut ties with if he doesn't work out. If we draft a guy in the 2nd or 3rd and Benson plays to his potential and the rookie takes awhile to get up to speed, then we're stuck with another high draft choice that isn't producing much." I guess I fail to understand your point. If Benson plays to his potential, what would a rookie taking time to develop matter? You wish to avoid a RB day one for fear he may not be good enough. How is this really different from any other position? There is always risk when you draft a player, but if you let fear and "what ifs" prevent you from taking a player, I am not sure you would ever put together that great of a team. "Looking at mocks now is pointless. All the rankings will change after the combine. Heck, look at how they've changed after a week at the Senior Bowl when most of the top guys didn't even play. I'm not convinced we have a franchise QB on the roster, but one more year of evaluation of Orton and Grossman will tell us a heck of alot more if we do. The key to this is that Grossman will sign a contract that will make releasing him pretty painless, and Orton is a FA after next season. Any drafted QB will ride the pine this year anyway." Couple things. One, again, you are assuming we re-sign Rex. What happens if we do not. While I do not expect anyone to throw big bucks at him, I do not think it will take "that much" to pry him away from us. Two. Yes, if we draft a QB this year, he will "only" ride the pine. Your point? Many, if not most, might argue that is the way it should be. "Let me clarify: I think this WR draft class is weak at the top, but solid in the middle. What I've read is that guys will go in the 3rd this year that would've gone in the 2nd other years." I have not read anything like that, and am not sure how it is. All I have read is how weak this WR class was, and not simply at the top end. W/ a group of underclassmen making the jump, it improved, but take a look and I think you will find that several of those underclassman are in fact those considered the top of the class. I think this is not only a weak class a the top, but through and through. Also, I would argue that logic would say WRs will be over-valued this year. They often are anyway, as they are a skill position, but w/ the weak FA class, their value will rise. Further, WRs that would normally be late 1st will got in the top half. WRs that should be 2nd round will go late 1st. This will go on and on, and I doubt you will find many good value WRs. "I agree that the FA WR class is thin. I think Berrian will get franchised." Finally, we agree. "Don't get me wrong, if a guy with incredible talent at any position falls to us inexplicably with our picks in round 2 or 3, I would want us to take them. However, that doesn't happen often unless there is something wrong with them that caused them to fall in the first place." Can not agree here. Sometimes a very good player falls for no other reason than the position he plays. Olsen fell to us last year and was not a player that seemed to have many questions. But he plays TE, and teams in our range simply didn't have TE has much of a need. How about when we got Tommie Harris. "Now something I will be watching this year is Angelo in round 3. He's always done well in round four and I've attributed that to Angelo and his team having a knack for reevaluating their board for the guys remaining after the first day. The first day only has 2 rounds this year so I'm looking forward to his 2 3rd round picks to see if the trend continues. :)" Now this is a great point. I agree we do well in the 4th, when we have time to sit back and re-evaluate what has happened. In some ways, Angelo is like our coaches. Not great at in-game adjustments and in need of time.

Problem I have w/ Starks is, he is a pure RT. No way he plays LT. So we keep Tait at LT, and Starks at RT. If we do this, I am not as confident we draft OT in the 1st. I do not think Tait is ready to retire, and we are not going to draft a 1st round OT to sit him for a couple years. So to me, signing Starks is giving up on one of the OTs in the 1st, which I think is a mistake.

"Bryant Johnson can't get open. He only caught passes when Boldin and Fitzgerald were on the field. I know we have a lot of needs, but your ideal offseason is overvaluing a lot of mediocre players..." I do not agree w/ that statment at all. Do you watch AZ games. I am not going to say I watch them all, but I tried to watch them when I could. Johnson is the player that has been an after thought. He was taken the same year, and ahead of, Boldin, yet it was Boldin who broke out and not Johnson. Then they took Fitz, and Boldin was never given much of a look again. Johnson took longer to develop, though on the other hand, most WR take a couple years. He happened to have the bad luck of joining the team the same year another rookie WR was ready to put up a 100+ catch season. Boldin was far more an exception to the rule. Anyway, Johnson has continued to develop. At numerous points, Boldin or Fitz went down w/ injuries, and Johnson stepped in and stepped up. For the record, I am not trying to make out like he is going to be a stud #1 WR. I think he could be a damn good #2, which frankly is what i think of Berrian. I think someone will look to sign Berrian as a #1, and I just do not think he is. I think Johnson should come at a FAR cheaper price, and yet would offer very similar talent. We still need a #1 WR, but I do not see one in this draft, or FA, much less on our own team.

I also think taking RB or QB in the first 3 rounds is assinine much less the first round. I would also add that since this WR group is pretty deep, taking one of them in the first is assinine too. Question, when you talk against taking a RB or QB in the first 3 rounds, do you mean specific to us this year, or just anyone, anytime? I am against RB in the 1st, but have no problem if one falls that we love after that. I might be Benson's biggest supporter on this board, but since joining the bears, he has not produced, had the right attitude or proven capable of avoiding injuries. Basically, he has been the anti-Benson from Texas. I do not want to draft a RB in the 1st, but after that, I think would be a fine option. QB - To be frank, I just do not know enough about the QBs. Woodson is the one I see us taking in most mocks, at least the ones that have us drafting QB, and I have read from too many that feel he will be a bust. But after the 1st, why not draft a QB. Are you under the impression we have a franchise QB on the roster? WR - Gotta disagree about how good the WR class is this year. It has been improved, due to the underclassman declaring, but a key reason they opted into the draft is because of how weak this years class was. Their addition makes the class acceptable or passing, but not much more. There is no blue chip WR (top 10) and frankly, only a handful of 1st round grade WRs. The best WR this year might have graded no better than 5th or 6th best last year. Final point. I am pretty sure you would agree the FA WR class is flat out weak. The best FA (not named Moss) is actually on our roster, and we are only luke warm to re-signing him. W/ the weak FA class, it likely will only over-value the draft class.

Brown is a FA, and I have read nothing to lead me to believe re-signing him is a big priority. So right now, we have Garza, Metcalf and Beekman. I believe we have Oakley too. Metcalf was flat out awful this past year. He was thought little enough of that the staff preferred a one armed Brown over him, and frankly, we saw why. Even after Metcalf was promoted, he then lost his job to St.Clair, who ended up starting at LG. Though we will actually take a cap hit releasing him, I think it will happen. He showed this past year he is not even a good backup, and is a waste of roster space. After 6 years in the league, I do not think we should be expecting much improvement from him. So that means we have only Garza and Beekman, who did little to impress the staff last year, and while I like him, he is a 2nd day pick and not exactly a high end prospect. So the point is, even if we sign Faneca, we could still easily add another OG to the mix. That player would likely not push Garza this year, but could eventually, and provide us a backup in the meantime. At OT, I would not be too quick to assume Tait starts at LT. That may well happen, but if we draft an OT in the 1st, I think the hope would be he can start there immediatly, while Tait moves to the RT position, which most feel would be his best position. It obviously depends on whether the rookie is ready for the right side or not. To me, this is the ideal situation. Draft OT (Clady, Otah or Baker) and play that rookie at LT. Sign Faneca, who plays next to the rookie, thus hopefully reducing the learning curve. Much easier to adjust to the NFL when you are playing next to one of the best OGs in the game. Then Tait is on the right side, and our entire OL goes from a weakness to a strength. Further, if we do draft another OG (or OT) day two, we add to our depth and help off-set the age issue.

Just for the record, I too had Derrick Johnson at the top of my list. I drooled at the idea of that trio of LBs. Benson was my 2nd choice. I was not sold on TJ, and felt (as did most reports I read) that Benson would be a stud RB for years to come. Did that come to pass? Obviously not. While there is still very much a chance "the light turns on" I also have to admit that most RBs breakout sooner rather than later. Still, the point was that it is harder to blast a GM when he takes a player that is considered easily worthy of the draft slot. RB was listed as a need on most sites, and Benson was considered a top 5 pick by most as well. For me, it is similar to when Hatley drafted David Terrell. I recall how so many pre-draft reports claimed he might be the best prospect in the entire draft. His grade dropped some, due in large part to a suspected leg injury, but few questioned his talent. It didn't work out, but I would not attack Hatley too much for the pick itself. I also agree drafting is somewhat like gambling. It is not all luck. Someone who goes to Vegas and plays craps needs to study first. You should know what "playing the field" is, or betting "the hard way" rolls. You should know which bets provide the best odds. An even better example might be Texas Hold 'Em. If you ever watch it on TV, they talk about the odds when you are holding this or that. Luck may provide you the cards, but if you study the game, you better know what to do w/ whatever is dealt. In the draft, luck is w/o question a factor, but so is scouting. IMHO, NE did get lucky in Brady, yet at the same time, their scouting department gets tons of credit too, as does their GM for taking him. Look at us w/ Hester. Did we expect him to be the best ever? Probably not. At the same time, taking a return specialist in the 2nd is very unusual, so we did think a lot of him. And we did take the risk. So I agree. The draft is very much like gambling. There is luck involved, as there is study and knowledge. I would add too that risk taking is a huge factor. When we drafted Urlacher, he was a man w/o a position, and considered a tweaner. I saw him in mocks going from the 5-10 range to the 15-20. Hatley took the "gamble" and it paid off. The problem I have is, Angelo (and our scouts) seem far more knowledgable in defense than offense. It feels like a guy who knows craps is trying his hand at roulette. He might hit on a couple, but not often.

I am sorry, maybe I missed it, but where are you arguing the points. I have said that GMs have different levels of authority. There are many GMs who have absolute power, while others have most of the power, but the coach or team president retains some control over certain areas. There are plenty of examples of either. I didn't argue that Angelo was w/o absolute control or power when he came in. I said Jauron had control over the 53 man roster. Jauron also had control over his assistants, hence the whole fight over Shoop. But that does not have anything to do w/ who Angelo decided to draft, or sign in FA. And it does not mean his control in the war room was anything but absolute. You seem to take a comment that Angelo didn't have absolute control, and decide on your own that must have meant the first drafts were not of his own making. Sorry, but that is not what the story was saying. I understand what the writing might have been trying to get at. When Angelo came on board, he was told he could not fire Jauron that first year. Then after 13 wins, he was basically forced to re-sign him. Angelo was forced to head a team that was coached by a group that did not share his philosophies. It was not "his" team. And the same time, since the day he showed up, he did try to make it "his" team. That first off-season, he cut Egnram. His drafts and FA signings were of his own as well. I understand that a point in time came when Angelo full control, but prior to that date, his actions were still his own. Jauron was not telling him to draft this player or that player. Hell, I even remember a point when Jauron cut a guy who Angelo drafted and liked, and which the two were butting heads over. This was an example that shows how it was not Jauron calling the shots in the war room.

My bad, and I am sorry. I was in a bit of an antagonist mood last night (more so than usual). Again, sorry for the accusation. My point though was, most I think grade those two OTs as mid 1st round grades, and thus I am not sure it is right to classify them as slight reaches. IMHO, they are no more of a reach than either of the WRs or RBs. The poll like question poses should simply be which would fans prefer. I too want the OT, and to me, it is not even close. IMHO, neither WR is that great, and would not be a mid 1st round pick in most years. This is an weak WR year, and thus their grades and draft slotting is over-valued. RBs are not over-valued, I don't think, but I do not in any way want to draft a RB again in the 1st.

What people have to understand about Wikpedia, which was the source quoted, is that you do not have to be an expert to write up a Wikpedia report. I could write a report for Wikpedia. Anyone can. At least, that is my understanding. I am sorry, but it is ridiculous to make an argument that Angelo was not a GM until 2003 or 2004, or whatever was said. He was hired mid 2001 as the teams GM. You have many GMs around the league, and not all have the exact same powers. Many coaches retain power over the 53 man roster. The point of this is so the coach has final say as to who starts, who sits, and who simply isn't good enough to be on the team. That is not uncommon, and was the situation we had w/ Jauron. That in no way affects Angelo, and who he drafted or signed. Angelo had full power in the draft. He did not have Mikey standing over his shoulder telling him this or that, nor did Phillips. And Jauron likely had input, but no authority. In the war room, on draft day, from the first draft Angelo ran (2002) he was in charge.

Here is the problem, at least as I see it, w/ you point. You ask the question, what if that CB is the next Sanders. My answer is, how would find that out? W/ Tillman and Vasher ahead of him, that rookie would not even have an opportunity to start. Hell, he would have to fight just to become the nickel back. The only chance he would realistically have would be if one of our corners went down due to injury. Look at SD. They have LT. What if a RB was far and away the best prospect? Even if they drafted him, and he had the potential to be the next Tomlinson, would they ever find that out, or would whatever team that signed him after he left SD find that out? Regardless how good a player may be, if you are already set at a position, the odds go down that player's potential would ever be realized. That is why you have to factor need. A prospect may have all the talent in the world, but he has to go to a team (a) that he would be a good fit and ( has a need for his talent. If we draft a CB in the first, regardless how good he "could" be, I doubt we would ever see that potential as he would be burried on the depth chart.

Disagree also on the use of the word "reach". I have seen both OTs graded in many drafts as top 15. Further, I have to ask if you are not showing a bit of bias here. I think an argument can be made just as easily that one of (or both) RBs or WRs are a reach as much as one of the OTs, yet only for the OT do you use the word reach.

You have to understand. When you start looking toward the next year by Holloween the previous, you tend to start things ahead of time. This time last year, few (if any) were making up mocks. But after yet another year like this one, I am surprised people waited until the end of the bowl season.

Gotta jump in. "You can nitpick details all you want." Is this what you do when it is pointed out you made an incorrect statement? You said we drafted Benson the same offseason our biggest signing was TJ. That is not nitpicking, that is simply wrong. You then want to attack saying Benson wasn't a "slam dunk". The previous comment made was that you can't blame Angelo as he "looked like a sure thing". At least to me, that is far from flat out saying a player is a slam dunk. Lets be honest. There is no such thing. I remember how much of a sure thing Robert Gallary was, and now there is question whether he can be a starting OG, much less the franchise stud LT he was said to be. Point is, the common held belief was that Benson was a stud. Fans may not have been thrilled, but go back and check out what the scouts said, and the vast majority listed him as a top 5 pick. That doesn't mean he was a slam dunk, but the perception was he was a top 5 value, and we took him in the top 5. That was the point made.

Sorry, but you misunderstand what this was all about. Jauron had control over the 53 man roster, but he has NO control over how was signed or drafted. I suppose you could try to make the argument that if Angelo drafted a player in the 1st round, like Haynes, that Jauron didn't like, Jauron had the power to cut him, but would you really try to make that argument? Jauron did not have any control over who was signed in the offseason, nor did he have any control over who was drafted. That was all Angelo. Another point. You mentioned 2001, but Angelo did not draft until 2002. He came in later in 2001, after the draft. He showed up in time to cut Engram, which was all Angelo. Yea, great freaking move. But he had nothing to do w/ the 2001 draft. Also, for the record, would it be your belief that Angelo gets no credit for: Alex Brown, Adrian Peterson, Tillman, Briggs, or Scott? If you take away all those players, you might be hurting Angelo more than helping. But regardless, I think you are wrong on this one. Angelo had full control over the draft since 2002, his first draft. By contract, Jauron might have had the right to cut a 1st round pick, but seriously. Let's be real.

What are you talking about. Angelo had total control since the day he took over. Maybe he didn't have the coach he most wanted, but that doesn't mean jack when it comes to who he drafted. I recall well numerous players Jauron wanted to keep who Angelo cut, and visa versa. That is a freaking weak excuse to say Angelo wasn't responsible for the players he drafted prior to Lovie coming in.

NFO, That is a harsh assessment on some of those years. If you draft a Pro Bowler, that in itself is a pretty good draft. You seem to want every single pick to work out, and that is completely unrealistic. I do not agree. If you have a bunch of pick, grab a pro bowler, and a bunch of scrubs, that is not enough to be a pretty good draft. IMHO, each draft should never a couple starters. Ideally, I would like to see one pro bowl tier player, and a at least two more starters, but one player, as good as he may be, from a draft is not enough. I do not think a team can EVER make it netting one player per year. The 2006 draft is a C+? That is crazy, Hester alone makes it an "A". He is the top return specialist of All-time. Sorry, but as I said above, one player is not enough. Like I said, I just do not think one player per draft is enough. 22 starters on the team. Hell, Hester is not even one of those 22. Not taking away from Hester, but one guy per year will never fill out a team. 2004 is a B, with Harris, Berrian, AND Vasher? That is a solid "A", probably an A+. Maybe a B is a bit low, but a solid A or A+ is too high IMHO. One stud, a #2 WR and a #2 CB. Berrian has yet to crack 1,000 yards, which is not really a fantastic Vasher is a solid starter. Okay, B+. If Berrian were to have taken that next step this year, as expected, I would have bumped the grade up to the A level. Still, I think one key point has to be that regardless of the grades, is there any question we have been poor when it comes to drafting offense?

This is a boring ass time of year for Bear's talk. That being said, you mention that JA sucks at drafting offense. I hope like hell he continues the tradition of signing offense and drafting defense. I'd love to see Travelle Wharton at LT for the Bears & Julius Jones at RB. Partially. While there are players on offense I want to sign, I do not see how we can move forward w/o also finding talent on offense in the draft. I do think you undervalue the 2006 draft. The top 5 picks will all be HUGE contributors on this team if healthy. Not to mention, everyone knows who Devin Hester is. D.Manning - I wasn't aware you were a fan. In fact, I thought you were the opposite. While I believe coaching has hurt him more than helped, at the same time, I simply do not believe he will ever make it as our starter. In fact, I think we will replace him this year, and he will fall further and further down the depth chart. Hester - Best return man of all time, but do you believe he will ever be more than a #3 WR, if that? I know this is not going to sit well w/ most bear fans, but what I saw this year makes me think he will never be more than a part time sort of player. He is the sort that can hit on the 90 yard bomb, but at the same time, I just do not think he has the smarts to become a consistent starter. Dusty - At this point, we know very little. He looked great in camp, and I was high on him as well, but how many times has that happened in the past. Crap, I remember Knight was going to have 15 sacks after the camp he had. He has proven no more resiliant to injury than Mike Brown. I have high hopes, but at the same time, they are hopes. Williams - Big shoes to fill. Can we really say he will be a starter, much less more? Anderson - Freaking stud as a rookie, but as a starter, when teams gave him more attention, nothing. He was flat out pushed around this year. Hey, I have high hopes for at least 4 of the 5, but how much of that hope should we count on? If Hester never does jack as a WR, he is proven IMHO, but the rest? The scariest part is the Angelo has had 6 drafts and not one single O-lineman he has drafted has stuck. IMO Metcalf is gone (or should be.) I guess that's why I'm hoping we can sign Wharton. I still want Faneca.

Um, not just no, but hell no. I have never been a big Angelo fan (under-statement alert). While he has had his share of hits (mostly defensive) I question his overall success, and further, believe he has gotten to believe too much that he can find those diamonds in the rough players. Now, for the record, I have lately spread the blame around more. A GM is only as good as the scouting department he is surrounded by. I do not know if our issues in the draft (particularly on the offensive side of the ball) is more about player evaluation, or simply Angelo. Further, I have come to really question our coaching staff(s) ability to develop players. I wonder if some players, like Harris or Briggs, are simply so good that they didn't need great coaching to develop. Sometimes I wonder if Angelo "misses" or if players he drafts have the talent, but we simply do not have the coaches that can mold that talent. W/ that said, I am bored as hell today, and it's the offseason, so what the hell:) Year by year. 2002 Marc Colombo T Roosevelt Williams DB Terrence Metcalf G Alex Brown DE Bobby Gray DB Bryan Knight LB Adrian Peterson RB Jamin Elliott WR Bryan Fletcher TE I hated the Columbo pick when we made it. I thought he was a reach for need, and further, questioned his ability to play LT, which was our true need. Roe was simply a horrible pick. Metcalf is still on the team, but Angelo has always seemed higher on him then the coaches. Alex Brown was a great pick. As I recall, the talent was never a question, but the attitude and heart were. In the 4th, he was worth the risk, and it paid off. Gray was a camp favorite, but never much. Knight was supposed to replace Colvin, but was an utter failure. AP is a solid backup RB and special teams ace, and great value. Elliot and Flether were never much more than fodder. Brown and AP save the draft, but I would not say it warrants even a passing grade. D+, maybe C- due to Brown. 2003 Michael Haynes DE Rex Grossman QB Charles Tillman DB Lance Briggs LB Todd Johnson DB Ian Scott DT Bobby Wade WR Justin Gage WR Tron Lafavor DT Joe Odom LB Brock Forsey RB Bryan Anderson G Haynes was a massive bust. Some would argue that he was drafted for a system we were moving away from, but he never made it with another team after leaving us, and proved himself to simply be a big time bust. Rex. Well, let's just say he never lived up to the billing. I hated this combo the day we made it. I was fine w/ the trade down, but hated who we took. I will say I didn't like the Tillman and Briggs picks, but was proved totally wrong. Todd Johnson never stepped up. Scott was a great pick. Wade and Gage were decent value for the picks. Nothing much to say about the rest. I would say this was his best draft, as it produced two pro bowl tier players in Briggs and Tillman, plus several starters in Scott, Wade and Gage. The failure of the 1st round again hurts though. I would still give this a B+. I would like to go higher, especially due to Briggs, but the failure of the 1st round has to hurt the grade. 2004 Tommie Harris DT Tank Johnson DT Bernard Berrian WR Nathan Vasher DB Leon Joe LB Claude Harriott DE Craig Krenzel QB Alfonso Marshall DB Harris was a great pick, but also a no brainer. Tank was a gamble, as he had "issues" going into the draft, and those proved true. Berrian has not taken that next step, but I would say there is no question he proved a solid 3rd round value. Vasher was a GREAT pick. I hated the Joe pick when we made it. I liked the Harriott pick, but he never panned out. Nothing to say about the rest. I guess this could be argued to be our best draft too. Harris compares to Briggs as among the elite as his position. Vasher compares to Tillman, but was better value. Berrian became a solid starter. I think I still put the 2003 draft higher, as I think we got better value out of more picks, and found more starter quality, as well as depth chart players. If Tank didn't tank, this draft would be solidified. Grade B. 2005 Cedric Benson RB Mark Bradley WR Kyle Orton QB Airese Currie WR Chris Harris DB Rodriques Wilson DB This was a bad draft. I was on board w/ Benson, but he has not worked out thus far, and I say that as one of his biggest supporters. Bradley was never a good pick IMHO. He was VERY raw at Oklahoma, as he was only a part time WR for them, and while he showed flashes in college, he has done little more for us. Orton? I actually liked the pick, as well as the idea, but despite starting as a rookie, our not even considering him unless we had no other healthy bodies says something. Harris was a good value, but I never thought that much of him. It took Archuleta to make Harris look good. Grade? F. This grade has potential to go up, as three players still have an opportunity to step it up, but as of today, I see no reason to place a higher grade than F on this year. 2006 Danieal Manning DB Devin Hester WR Dusty Dvoracek DT Jamar Williams LB Mark Anderson DE J.D. Runnels RB Tyler Reed G I am not sure there was a draft I hated more, but was proved wrong in some regards. I hated when we traded down, and hated more still who we traded down for. D.Manning, despite his number of starts, has never become close to the player Angelo hoped, and our putting FS as among our top needs is telling. Hester proved me so wrong it is not even funny. I simply did not believe ANY return man warranted a 2nd round pick. I said then I would not give up a 2nd round pick for Dante Hall, considered the best return man in his prime, but was shown just how game changing Hester was/is. I still think Hester is the exception and not the rule, but regardless, give Angelo credit for drafting that exception. I hated the Dusty pick. I liked him as a player, but felt we had too many needs beyond DT. Now we really need Dusty to step up. He looked good in camp last year, but has yet to prove himself. Jamar William will get his chance, but is stil unproven. Anderson was a shining light in the darkness. Runnels and Reed were nothing. Hester and Anderson give instant cred to this draft, while Dusty and Williams give it more potential. I would give this draft a C+ or maybe B-. As great as Hester is, he is not a starter. As great as Anderson was as a rookie, he failed as a starter. Despite how great Hester is, I believe we need a starter or two to develop from this group to grade it higher. D.Manning looks to me like a failure. 2007 Greg Olsen TE Dan Bazuin DE Garrett Wolfe RB Michael Okwo LB Josh Beekman G Kevin Payne DB Corey Graham DB Trumaine McBride DB Aaron Brant T I loved the Olsen pick, but as much as I like his potential, I think we need to see more from him to really grade him, or this draft, high. Bazuin was not a pick I liked at all. We had Brown and Wale, and Anderson has already emerged. I never saw the point in drafting Bazuin, Even after his red shirt year, where does he fit in. I HATED the Wolfe pick. As a 5th round pick, fine. But 1st day? IMHO, he is at best a 3rd down, change of pace RB, and in the 1st day, I think you should be looking for starter grade/potential players, not depth chart. I thought Okwo was a reach also, but time will tell w/ h im. As Bradjock mentioned, w/ all our troubles at OG, Beekman could not even get activated. That is telling. Payne was looking good prior to the injury, and looked like good value. Graham? McBride looked great, particularly for where he was taken. Brant? Is he still on the team? Still VERY early, but today, I would grade this drarft a D-. Olsen did not have the impact as a rookie expected, but was that coaching or him. I remember seeing a stat that said he either led the league, or was among the league leaders, in drops per pass attempt. Thus far, no starters, and only so so potential for starters here. If our need this year was defense, I might have more optimism, but our need is not defense. Our need is offense, and Angelo has said as much. Through 6 drafts, Angelo ability to find offensive starters, much less studs, has been totally lacking. Worse, his record of drafting OL is pathetic, and that is our top need. My hope is we break the trend, and find that offensive talent that has been missing, but I can not say my confidence level is high. History is simply not on our side.

I mostly agree. My point is simply that it is not totally cut and dry. It needs to be a fluid process that depends on each individual situation. Let me ask you this. Lets say our pick comes up, and a CB we had graded as a top 10 player is there, and we have a significantly higher grade on him than the next best player available, who happens to be say an OT. Would you draft the CB? We have two starters set, and both are locked up w/ good sized contracts, so drafting a CB may not seem like a very smart idea, regardless if that is the best player available. That is the problem I have w/ saying BPA no matter what. I want to draft BPA, but I also still feel you have to take need and your roster in the equation. Picking a stud sounds great, but if you do not have a place for that stud, does it really benefit the team. If you have LT, and a RB was the BPA, how smart would it truly be to take another RB. We have so many needs, that to draft a player who does not fill a need seems impractical.

I know NE fans are smug. No argument there. But each time a team in the future "threatens" the 19-0 record, I am not nearly as sure NE as a team would act so smug. I can not see Brady standing in front of the camera popping a bottle as soon as that team loses a game. For me, it is more about the players than the fans, and I do not think the NE players are nearly as smug as those '72 dolphin players. I also would have loved for that record to be broken by another team, but let's be honest. It was a strong record, not easy to break. Who knows how many more years I would have to see those phins back in the spot light. Further, while I dislike NE, I dislike many teams, and I am not sure how many teams would be likely to threaten the record that I like. At least neither GB, nor Dallas, will be the ones to do it.

Took the words out of my mouth. I am FAR from a fan of the Pats, but I really hate the '72 phins. I have NEVER seen a player or team act as the phins w/ regard to a record. Most often, the record holder praises the person/team on the verge of breaking the record, to the point of cheering for them. It is well worth the Pats winning this year, just so long as the '72 phins and their champaign go away.