nfoligno

That is still my plan B. I think adding one S is a must, but I think the best option would be to add two. But w/ Brown still under contract, w/ the possibility DM can develop, w/ McGowan finishing strong, we can afford to add just one safety and let the rest fall where it may. But as much as poor safety play affects our defense, I think adding two S' should be the goal.

Disagree. If we improve the OL, then we will improve the run game. IMHO, the biggest difference between 2006 and 2007 was not the loss of TJ, which many argue, but the play of the OL. In 2006, our OL was very solid. Not great, but very solid. In 2007, Brown played 1/2 the year w/ one arm and stunk, but was better than our depth. Miller was awful, and now it appears injury was part of that too, but age was likely a factor as well. Tait and Kreutz both struggled, but part of that IMHO was trying to compensate for Brown. I think Garza was also affected by Miller. If we can upgrade OG and OT this year, I think we can see a big improvement in our run game. If we can draft a LT in the 1st, and he can actually play LT, we could then move Tait to RT, and upgrade two positions. If we can sign a upper tier OG to replace Brown, I think you then upgrade at OG and would then see Kreutz return to form as well. So by adding a LT and LG, I think you would see improvement accross the OL, and I believe you would then see a significant improvement in the run game as a whole.

"My saying that AP is better then CB I'd compare with saying McGowan is better then Arch. Neither one is great, but you go with the lesser of two evils. " Not to nit-pick, as I know it was just an analogy, but I don't care for the analogy. I think McGowan has potential as a starter. I do not feel that way about AP. Also, Arch has truly proven to be the bad player he is. I do not believe the same can be said of Benson, who looked good prior to this year. Anyway, I know the main point was "two evils", but I disagree there too as I do not see Benson as a known evil. A potential one, yes, but known? I have not gone there yet. "As for AP's blocking, what do you expect from a 5-10 running back? He's not as good as Thomas Jones but at least he gets himself into position." I don't care what size he is. He is a RB in the NFL, which means he should be able to block. He is only 1 inch and 10 lbs lighter than Benson, and heavier than many other RBs I have seen put solid blocks on blitzers. He gets into position, but that is not enough. Far too often I saw him get into position, but then not so much as slow down the pass rusher. That is unexceptible. I hope your correct that there is more upside with Benson. Either way, for whatever reason CB appeared to be better when he was the #2. We simply cannot continue with CB as our #1 when this coaching staff does not trust him. Do you think there's any chance in hell we'd consider letting CB throw a pass? I have to question just a bit why some have not cut him a bit of slack after the injury. So many talked about how AP would do so well, but after Benson went down, it only continued to prove how poor our OL is. Even the best RBs struggle w/o blocking. I would point to Sean Alexander as an example. He has not looked nearly the same since losing Hutch. The simple truth is, few RBs look good behind poor OLs, and ours is most definitely poor. People have also ripped Turner to shreds. Anytime Benson seemed to be getting into a nice rhythm and breaking off some nice runs, he would be benched, because "that was how we wrote up the plays during the week". You say Benson was better as a #2. I would argue that it is very possible Benson stunk this year, at least in part, because of our OL and playcalling. It is VERY possible Benson is simply a total bust. But it is also VERY possible he can be a damn good RB if we put together an OL that can actually run block. "Adrian Peterson is not a great running-back, but he's the best one on this team. I'd love to see us bring in someone else, but then what the hell do we do with Garrett Wolfe?" I believe Benson is the better runner. I think AP is well ahead of Benson when it comes to smarts, but a part of that is experience. Given time, I believe Benson can be a good blocker. He was not always where he should be, but when he did engage, he flat out stood up the blitzer. Being where you are supposed to be takes experience, and that is something difficult to come by when we bench him on any passing down. His receiving leaves much to be desired, but there are quite a few RBs in the league who teams are very happy w/ that do not catch the ball great. As far as Wolfe, while this is not a popular idea, I would not be opposed to cutting him. Frankly, I never saw the logic in drafting him. He will never be a starter. To me, I just do not see how you can keep both AP and Wolfe. One or the other, and I would much rather keep AP. What I would like to do is upgrade my #2 RB position and move AP back to #3, which is where I think he should be. If Benson fails again next year, then we will then be looking at a starting RB, but I think we need to give it another year and I do not see Wolfe being a factor in the future.

Problem is, while you can find RTs and OGs in FA, stud LTs simply do not hit the market. Sorry, but it is not that difficult to get yourself a S or a RB in FA, but it in order to get a franchise LT, you almost always have to do so through the draft.

Question w/o inteding insult. Do you watch the USC games, or are you just going off NFLCountdown. For the record, I have that website in my favorites, and it is one I use as well. I would not say it is the best. Since Buchbaum dies, frankly, I do not find any one so far an above the rest. I simply try to use them all. Anyway, I ask because your comments very much mirror NFLCountdowns. I personally like both, but feel Baker is in fact a solid 1st round LT prospect. Further, while I like Otah, there are aspects about him that make me question his value for us. One. I see him being a RT. I realize he is a solid athlete despite his size, but he does tend to have trouble w/ speed rushers, and I think his size will only grow. I see him as a RT in the NFL. That is a need for us, but ideally, we would be far better served finding a LT and moving Tait over. Two. One site talks about how he is still a fairly raw player and will need good coaching to develop at the next level. Sorry, but I have little confidence in our staff in this regard. I tend to believe players that develop on our squad are players that would develop anywhere, and those who need the extra coaching turn out like Daniel Manning. So I still grade Baker between Clady and Otah.

So I would go with Fargas, J Jones, or Turner, whichever we could get at the most reasonable cost. I think either of the 3 would be an excellent addition to our team. I can see Oakland opening the wallet for Fargas, who looked very good this year, and easily out-shined both of their previous expensive RB additions (Lamont Jordan and Rhodes). I can not see J Jones coming to Chicago. I doubt seriously his brother would have good things to say about us. I have a feeling TJ would tell his brother to get a whole lot of money before signing anything. Turner. Just no way. One, I do not thing Turner is quite as fast as you may think. He has nice burst, but is considered SD' power back. Remember the game against us? LT wore us down w/ speed, and then they used Turner as a bulldog up the middle. Anyway, w/ that said, Turner will likely be the top RB in FA. He is going to be looking for a big contract, and is not going to be joining a team talking about competition. Turner means we are 100% giving up on Benson, and Benson will not even be in the mix. I want to add a RB as well, but I do not believe we can be looking at the upper tier of FA RBs. Sorry to say, but we are going to be looking more at the likes of Chris Brown or Musa Smith.

Why do you have Baker graded so low. Most everything I have read not only has him as a 1st round pick, but higher than Otah. I think Otah went into the year graded higher, but since, Baker seems to have passed him on most boards. So why do you believe Baker is not only behind Otah, but could drop a couple rounds?

Angelo says good bye to Turner Seriously, what is it about backups that make bear fans drool. How many thought that once AP started, we would be rushing for 150 yards per game. Yea, Turner is better than AP, but is also going to be seeking a pretty big contract. He will no longer be running behind a great OL, which is exactly what SD has. SD also has one of the best blocking FBs in the league. I am sorry, but adding Turner IMHO would be a waste of money. I would rather focus our money on OL, S, WR and QB.

One. Sure, it is no guarantee a rookie could play LT, but you have to take a shot. I would say if the rookie wasn't ready to play LT, he would more likely start at RT. But I believe several rookie OTs started as rookies on the left side in the last couple years, and several did quite well. Two. I do not believe many expect to draft a rookie QB and play him right away. I believe most who want to draft a rookie QB are looking beyond 2008. You get him now, and let him begin his development, while you at the same time fix other areas. Then when he does start, you hopefully have holes filled before he takes over. Three. as for drafting an OG in the 1st, I have not seen any studs who are considered top 15 picks, while there are as many as 4 OTs who are. Further, while the price for OGs can be high in FA, OTs are even more expensive, and frankly, harder to find that top talent. Hutchinson is an elite OG. How often do you see an elite OT in FA? They are rarely available, and thus if you want a stud, you need to draft one. I think we would be better off drafting an OT like Clady, and then spending money on an OG like Faneca.

Well, I would rather give Benson another shot, though I would have no issue allowing AP a change (legit chance) to compete. I think Benson is a better runner than AP. Sorry, but I simply do not see what has been impressive about him. I heard all year long how it was all Benson, w/ many saying how much better our run game would be w/ AP. Well, I never saw it. Also, I was VERY unimpressed w/ his blocking. He reads better than Benson, no question, but I saw AP getting killed by blitzes. He either was flat out blown up, or he dove at ankles and was leaped over. The biggest plus w/ AP IMHO was in his receiving, and thus our ability to not be as predictable. Still, I simply do not see the upside w/ AP, while I do still believe there is upside w/ Benson.

First, I do not buy that he will give us a discount. Many players talk about doing that, and then in the end, most all sign for whoever the highest bidder is. Creighton is a rare exception. Second, I read that too where he was talking about the other factors. I think w/ some expected changes, it is all the more likely he will be saying idios.

Look what Randle El got last year. Berrian will likely be due a very large deal. I'm just not sure he deserves it.

OT - Clady, Baker, Otah (in that order). I think 14 is a tad high for Otah, but just about right for Clady and Baker. S - Kenny Phillips - S from Miami. Could be gone, as he could be a top 10 pick, but if there, he would be tough to pass on. Miami seems to pump out great S' and TEs. After adding Hester and Olsen, Phillips could be another great pickup. QB - Ryan, Woodson, Brohm - I don't know a ton about these guys, but they are all considered top 15 picks. I have seen any of the three listed as high as top 5 to closer to 15, so who knows. There are a couple good things that I see so far. (1) This appears to be a good to great year for OTs, and LTs in particular. I think most would agree this is a small need of ours. (2) When you look at most mock drafts, DL and CB is so littered at the top half of the 1st round that Phillips and some OTs may we drop. If it were not for some of those players, the OTs go sooner. Right now, I think Clady is my top choice, followed by Phillips, then Baker, then Otah.

I look at it like this. We are not going to assume Brown is a backup. If on the team, he is the starter. If Mike Brown is the starter, we are not going to add really good safety. If the player was that good, he would sign w/ a team looking to start him. So keeping Mike Brown means we will not have a starting caliber backup. This would be fine if not for the injury issue, but what it means is, when (not if) Brown goes down, we do not have a great backup. W/ that said, I do not cut him immediately. I would be entering the offseason looking to upgrade both SS and FS, but there are no guarantees. If we can add Hamlin in FA, then Brown becomes our starting SS. If we can then add a S high in the draft, Brown can be released. If we do not add a SS in the draft, we keep Brown. McGowan isn't an awful backup plan, and Payne is in the mix too. Point is, we plan to add two safeties, but until we do, we keep Brown.

Won't even be close. Creighton, his agent, and most around the league have said the deal he signed was significantly less than we he could have gotten if he hit the market. But his family is in Dallas, he likes it here, and see a bright future w/ the team. He flat out gave Dallas a home team discount. One. Berrian would have already been set to get significantly more than Creighton. Creighton signing a cheaper deal to stay in Dallas only makes the difference between the two deals that much greater. Two. Don't expect Berrian to give the Bears a home team discount.

While I have not done a ton of research, it doesn't look like a great draft for WRs, at least not high end. Jackson is most often named the top WR, and much of his skill is as a return man. Even he is considered a mid 1st round pick. Sweed from Texas is considered a 1st round pick based on potential, but he is not as polished as I would like. Point is, while there may be talent, this does not look like a great WR draft.

I agree w/ much of what you said about Orton. Many of his positives we agree on. We absolutely disagree on the wind up. I cringed yesterday on some plays as he began a wind up. His windup is not as slow as Leftwhich, but is similar. Most QB coaches teach the QB to hold the ball already cocked and high. Then you pull the rest of the way back and send it sailing. Orton holds the ball around his mid section, and more in front of him. He then brings it back, then up, then cocked deep, and then lets it fly. This windup (a) puts the ball in a dangerous position for a DE to swip out of his hand when in throwing motion ( gives the DB and extra second to make a jump on the ball and © can off-set some timing issues. It's not just me either. As Orton has been starting, and is now getting talk about being in the picture next year, he is getting far more scrutiny, and most all have talked about his wind up motion. It may not be the end of the world. Not ever successful QB has perfect mechanics, but combined w/ his accuracy, it is an issue. W/ that said, I like Orton. I loved the pick when Angelo made it, and I am a well known Angelo hater. I never gave Orton a ton of credit for his rookie year, as he really didn't do much of anything, but at the same time, I put that on the staff. IMHO, our staff hurt his development by not allowing him to play. When you tell a QB to simply not make mistakes, he is not going to develop. He looked much better against NO, and in that game, it appeared we took the chains off. But as much as I like him, I am not confident going into next year w/ him as the starter. I would have NO issue w/ him being in the mix, but I do not want to go into next year w/ him as the starter. If he beats out whoever to earn it, great. But I want him to have to earn it over a solid QB. McNabb is still the guy I want, if that is even a possibility. As for Griese, to me, it depends on whatelse we do. If we let Grossman walk, I would say we keep Griese. We would likely draft a rookie, and sorry, but Orton is not veteran enough for me. If we took a QB high (1st or 2nd round) I would likely say we go w/ Griese and Orton in a competition to start, while developing the rookie. Ideally, Orton wins, and Griese is the #2, w/ the rookie developing. But my ideal would be to add McNabb w/ Orton as the backup.

3rd best in the NFL. Actually, as S.Taylor is not longer playing on this earth, 2nd best. W/ that said, there are other safeties I like better, but many of them suffered injuries this year and derailed their seasons, much like our very own Mike Brown. Dawkins is among my favorites, but has been injuried much of the year. Adrian Wilson is one of my favorites. Deon Grant has had a pretty good year in Seattle too. But they are not available. Hamlin has had a very strong year, and Dallas will likely try to keep him, but will have a number of areas they are going to need addressing, in particular their OL. Gotta protect the golden boy. Hamlin is not going to cost anything like other pro bowl safeties (Reed, Polomalu, Sanders) but would be a great addition for us.

Why sign Harris early? What is the points? First, Harris has suffered through injuries the last two years. While I realize the talent he is, we are also talking about a massive amount of money, both in guarantees and overall, and it is not often you want to give that sort of coin to a player w/ injury issues. Second, what is the rush. I understand signing a player early when you feel he is about to breakout, and you want to lock him up prior to this happening. Basically, the player gets security while the team gets a potential discount. I understand signing a player early when they say they want to remain, and are willing to give a home team discount. What I do not understand is signing Harris early. Harris has already said he believes he should be paid as one of the top defensive players in the league. Most point to Freeney as the sort of coin Harris will be seeking. That sure doesn't sound like a discount to me. So why hurry to sign him? His price tag is unlikely to go up. If he has a great year, great. He will be seeking about the same sort of deal he is seeking now. Some may fear we could lose him in FA if we don't sign him. I would argue we can always slap the tag on him, as many teams do. And unlike w/ Briggs, we stand strong and make no promises. Play or don't get paid. I want to see 16 injury free games before I give him $30m up front.

What are you talking about? Hamlin has been voted to the pro bowl. Since Sean Taylor will not be starting (call it a hunch) Hamlin will be the starter, as he is listed as the reserve safety for either FS or SS. Thus, of the 32 safeties, he was voted 3rd. He has 5 picks on the year, as well as 15 PDs (more than any bear). Dallas has seen both starting CBs on the bench for periods of time this year, and Hamlin has been key is helping cover opponents better WRs. Seriuosly do not know what you are talking about. Hamlin has had a very good year this year, and was deserving of the pro bowl nod he got. Where are you getting that he has been bad this year? Do you even watch Cowboy games.

Never said, "kick him to the curb". I didn't say I want to cut him. I just want to upgrade at FS. He can continue to develop as a backup. Sorry, but while you say he has improved, I haven't seen it. I continue to see questionable coverage instincts, as he is slow to read the play, and slow to break. He has speed and athleticism, but also takes bad angles. Once there, he is a poor tackler. I simply have not seen the improvement you claim, and sure as hell not enough to enter 2008 w/ confidence w/ him. For me, FS ranks up there w/ OL and QB as positions of need. If we added Hamlin to our defense, combined w/ health, I think we would be solid again. If we go into next year w/ McGowan or a rookie at SS, while DM is still maning centerfield, I think it would be a HUGE mistake.

You question what I am watching? I could return the comment, as most any bear fan I speak w/ is quick to call out DM. Sorry, but he has sucked. More than any player on the team, he missed tackles. He goes for the ball, and is tossed to the side. He has only 2 picks on the year, and has only posted a pass deflection in 4 games. He is coming off a high tackle game, but so what. Sorry, but a high tackle stat is not very telling IMHO for a S. If anything, it usually means the receiver first caught the ball, which means the play was made. I have read some who believe the coaches screwed up his development, but you are the first I have read who simply believes he has played well and that FS should not be a concern heading into the offseason.

I don't know that Brown has ANY trade value. To trade him, another team has to be willing to accept him w/ his current contract. Due to reliability, he is not worth that money. Not only that, but I just do not see another team giving us anything in return for him, not w/ the injury issues. As far as him as a bear, I simply think we need to move on w/o him. Now, again, I wait until after we have a replacement in place, but (a) Mike Brown will not enter 2008 as a backup for the bears and ( I do not trust him enough to enter the year w/ him as a starter.

QB - The one thing about Orton I have seen that I love is pocket presence. He simply seems to have a better feel for the pocket. When a defender is closing in on him, he moves to avoid the rush w/o taking his eyes off the field. That is a huge plus. W/ that said, his accuracy leaves much to be desired and while he has arm strength, I do not like how much of a windup he has. Reminds me of Leftwich. I like him for depth, but no more than that. This is still a huge need. I think Rex is gone. Still not sure if this will be McNabb, a rookie or what, but this is a position that must be addressed. McNabb is still my top choice, if he does in fact become tradable. I do not think his market value would be extreme. Frankly, a 3rd this year and maybe a future could might get it done. Phily may not want to trade him, but there is so much talk of their looking to do so, and there has been so much talk from McNabb, that I think it is very possible. RB - Not sure what we do here. Regardless what some think or want, Benson will not be cut. Especially since he lost out on most of his incentives, I believe he is now a relatively inexpensive player. I like AP, but he is not a starter, and frankly, I think is a #3 RB. Wolfe did some nice things, but I think we need an upgrade to our RB corp. I do not see Benson leaving, nor AP. So that means we either have to let Wolfe go, or we do not upgrade. While not popular, I think I would like to bring in a better #2 RB and let Wolfe go. This would also move AP back to where I think he should be, and allow him to focus on special teams, where he is great. FB - Big area of need for me, and one that should not expensive, whether in FA or the draft, as FBs are 2nd day picks. I simply do not like McKie. When we made the move to him, it was due to his ability to catch the ball. He was never a great blocker. Frankly, I have not been impressed w/ his receiving, particularly what he does after the catch. What I really want is a lead blocker. I want a FB that paves the way for our RBs and is better picking up the blitz. WR - I would love to see massive changes, but I wonder how much we can really do. The FA crop is weak, as is the draft. While originally against it, I now wonder if we aren't better of simply tagging Berrian. Take another year to see if he can take that next step. If not, bye bye. If he can, re-sign him. It will hurt to eat up a bunch of cap, but it is better than over-paying for him on a long term deal we may regret before long. If we keep Berrian, we can then cut Moose. Doing this saves money, which can help off-set the cost of tagging Berrian. I would then look to FA for a mid tier guy. Bryant Johnson is a WR I would love to add. I think he could be solid, but has been burried behind a pair of pro bowl WRs in Boldin and Fitz. I would also draft a WR, but not until day two. Berrian and Johnson would be the starters, w/ Hester as our slot WR, unless he continues to develop and moves up the depth chart. TE - Nothing to do, expect I would make this a greater aspect of the offense. Whatever we do at WR will not be huge, and we can off-set an average group of WRs by better utilizing our two solid TEs. OT - This is our first pick in the draft. Jake Long would be ideal, but w/ the two wins we finished the season w/, we have no shot at him. Clady, Baker and Oher (in that order) would be solid additions. Ideally, we draft Clady and play him at LT immediatly, moving Tait back to RT, thus upgrading two positions. OG - I want Faneca. Yes, I know he isn't young, but he is not on the downhill slide either, like Miller and Brown. It will be expensive, very expensive, to sign him, but I think he would be worth it. Adding him would see multiple secondary benefits. One, if we pair him w/ a rookie LT, it should make life for that LT much easier, and help w/ the young man's development. Two, putting him on our OL could help Kreutz regain his pro bowl form. IMHO, part of why Kreutz has been playing at a lower level is due to having to do too much, or trying to do too much. On the other side, while I am not the biggest fan of Garza, we allow him to compete w/ Metcalf, Beekman (who I hope can get strong w/ an offseason strengthening program) and a rookie (3rd or 4th round) DL - I would look at a DT in the 2nd day of the draft, and maybe even as high as the 3rd round w/ one of our two picks, if one falls that we love. Harris has been injury prone, and there is no guarantee we keep him after this year. I love Dusty, but he has not proven himself and also has been injury prone. The rest are nice depth, but not what I want starting necessarily. DE - I would not do a thing as far as additions. I do make Brown our starter again, though Anderson would still get pleny of reps in rotation. Bazuin is coming off a red shirt year, and may provide further depth. LB - I allow Briggs to walk. Yes, I saw the hits he put on players last night, and I know how good he is. At the same time, I simply believe we have too many needs to afford Briggs at the price he wants. I would add a veteran in FA, 2nd/3rd tier, so we have a veteran in the mix, and not just unproven Williams and Okwo. Also, I keep Ayenbadejo. He is not going to be cheap (for a backup LB/ special teams player) but I don't care. I read he could want $2m. I give it to him. Until our offense and defense are truly fixed, we can not afford to drop on special teams, and he is a stud special teams player. CB - RMJ is gone. I actually like him, but it appears he has lost his job to McBride, and is too expensive to be 4th on our depth chart. W/ Tillman, Vasher and McBride, I think we have a solid trio. I look to the 2nd day of the draft, and lower tiers of FAs for added depth, but I do not make CB a huge need area. SS - McGowan has been impressive IMHO. Payne could also be in the mix. What we do here depends on what we do at FS. I think we need to add a veteran at one spot, and draft for the others. If we add a veteran FS, then we can draft a SS in the 2nd round to compete w/ McGowan. If we draft a FS, then I think we may need to add a SS (G.Wilson?). FS - I want Ken Hamlin. I wanted him last year, and Dallas signed him cheap. He has played very well, though he still should not be that expensive. D.Manning has been awful. While I believe part of it is coaching, the reality is, we need to upgrade. W/ weaker S play, we usually see Urlacher have to drop deeper, taking him away from his playmaker role. So I would like to add Hamlin in FA, and draft a SS in round two to compete w/ McGowan. This should upgrade our starting unit, as well as depth. Mike Brown? I do nothing until I have upgrades in place. I am looking to upgrade our safety position, and if we can do that, I cut Mike Brown. I love the guy, and think the world of him, but I do not feel we can rely on him any longer. I also do not feel he is a backup. If we do not add both a FS and a SS (draft and FA), then we may have to keep Brown. I do not cut him w/o first upgrading, but as soon as we do, I let Brown walk. I truly hate to do it, but do not see how we can afford to continue relying on him. So Faneca would be my expensive FA. Hamlin would by my some-what expensive FA. After that, I would be adding numerous mid-level FAs. As for the draft, Rd 1 - OT (Clady is my top choice, w/ Baker 2nd) Rd2 and 3 - S/OG/WR. Day two - WR/QB/CB/FB.

I believe the reasoning would be who blocks the MLB, compared to who blocks the OLB. I believe more than any position, beyond the DL, the MLB is who lead blockers go after. Further, you far more often have a free OL block the MLB. Often Briggs is free to attack the ball carrier because it is Urlacher who the offense is seeking out to block. If you move Urlacher outside, theoretically, you might free him up more and get him away from more blocks.