Jump to content

nfoligno

Super Fans
  • Posts

    4,931
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by nfoligno

  1. Draft order is already set based on prior standings? Does that mean worst team drafts 1st. Fine for this year, but I would hate to stick w/ that for fear of teams tanking to get top pick. Back to keeper talk, I think we have to go step-by-step. First, ask for a vote on 1 or 2 keepers. No rules or specifics, but simply how many. Then, once we have decided on how many, we can talk details.
  2. Zimmer was beyond a long shot to begin with. If it is true that NY was interested in Fewell too, we could have been in a situation of passing on a pretty good guy for the long shot chance at another. Not worth it. Zimmer is going to have a number of teams offer him DC positions, not to mention potentially HC interviews. In Chicago, we have a lame duck HC, GM and Prez. An aging defense and a scheme the HC is going to force feed. Frankly, it isn't a situation where I would expect a top tier candidate to find attractive. There are others in the league who would have been more exciting, but when you sit back and consider the situation, I think Fewell looks like a pretty solid candidate.
  3. Martz would get Cutler freaking killed. In Martz system, Kitna was sacked more than any QB in the league. Yea, bad OL, but what bothered the hell out of me (I had Kitna in FF as a backup and followed) was Martz did nothing to help Kitna get away from pressure. Sound familiar? You, I, and others have complained about how Turner didn't do enough to help compensate for weak protection. Well, neither did Martz. Further, Martz system doesn't utilize a QB on the run. You can talk about how you hope he does this or that, but if something is not part of his system, I think you are lying to yourself if you think he suddenly will write it into his playbook. I get the idea of going for it, and it is likely a one year job, but I would rather that OC not get out QB killed. Look, I think a big reason you want Martz is because you (a) don't want someone like Bates and ( don't think we will get anyone else exciting. I get that. But that still just doens't feel like a good reason to me to hire Martz. Especially w/ a QB like Cutler, and what I think could be an exceptional group of young receivers, I don't want a John Shoop. I want someone who can maximize our passing game. No question. But that still isn't enough reason for me to like Martz. I think he is a horrible fit for our talent. I don't think he would get along w/ Cutler, and think his system would hurt not only Cutler, but the team as a whole. Frankly, I would rather get a guy w/o experience (but who was previously involved in a good passing game) rather than Martz. I have seen what Martz brings to the table. No thanks. He is like so many others who make a name for themselves when everything was perfect, but after leaving that situation, their rep takes a dive. Lets be honest. Its not that difficult to look good when everything is perfect. IMHO, a coach is far more impressive when he gets more out of less, and I just don't see it w/ him.
  4. Honestly, we all get hung up on the scheme, as do I. The scheme is part of it, but as often is said, we only run the cover 2 30% (or whatever) of the time. We can go back and forth about the scheme, but I think the biggest issue is the playcalling. We run several schemes. Sure, the cover two, or I would add simply soft coverage schemes, are the most used, but I have seen us run many. I have seen our corners at times press. We have play a safety in the box, or even dropped a DE into coverage. Our problem is playcalling. Simply put, Rivera was a better playcaller than Babich or Lovie. That doesn't mean Rivera was perfect, but better. Also, as much as we talk about how predictable Turner was, I think Lovie was more so. Teams knew from watching tape that when they were forced into 3rd and long, we would run X (usually a very soft cover two) and thus teams could call a play to beat that. Rivera mixed it up more, and thus it wasn't so easy for an OC to know what to call. That is a big reason why I think that we can still be decent/good on defense, even w/ Lovie. That doesn't mean I want Lovie around, but just that I think if we had a good playcalling DC, it can happen. Further, unlike w/ Lovie, a DC like Fewell who holds players accountable would be a nice change.
  5. Bowling, there is no agreement at all. First, if you look at the poll, there are three who voted for 2 keepers, but three votes for 1 keeper, just in different formats. Further, I have posted that my friend also wanted one keeper. He doesn't post on this board, so he couldn't bote, but I cut and pasted his opinions. I would also like to point out that anyone could vote on this board, thus we don't even know if the votes were strictly by league owners. If we end up w/ 2 keepers, so be it, but even looking at the pole, I don't think that is what the majority of owners at this point wants.
  6. I don't know for sure, but probably. It is a pretty standard keeper rule. I bet it can be set up, either automatic by rule, or manual.
  7. Drunk, Yea, Option 3 is "similar" to what I, or Papabear, would like to see. Differences: 1. As you mention, giving up a round higher than drafted. This doesn't mean much for later rounds, but has more significance in early rounds. It prevents you from keeping a 1st. And you can keep a 2nd round pick (a guy who was a near stud last year) but it will cost you your 1st rounder. Just puts a bit of extra "thinking" in there. 2 After 1st, no round limit. I think option 3 had mentioned limiting the keeper to the top 6 rounds. I don't like that at all, and would rather no limit. 3. I don't care for any of that Supplemental pick stuff for teams that don't choose to keep a player. That is rewarding someone for not drafting well the prior year. The whole idea of keepers is to reward a team for a keep draft. As bear fans, we all know too well about the idea of rewarding an individual doing a poor job, but I would rather not follow our team's philosophy. Agreed totally that you can only keep a player one year (original plus keeper year). One other proposal, and I don't know how this could be done exactly w/ our league, but I would like to establish our draft order earlier. It may not matter when looking at a late round keeper, but whether or not you keep a player in the 2nd or 3rd round (for example) may depend greatly on whether you have the top pick, 10th pick or whatever. While I like the idea of rewarding a team for doing well, doesn't 6 out of 10 teams making the playoff seem a little high? I don't know. No big issue for me either way. I'll talk to my friend for his input as well.
  8. I would argue because it rewards too much an owner who simply lucked into a high pick. For example, if I had the top pick and took AP this year, is it really fair that I get AP next year just because I got lucky when I got the top pick. If I had the 10th pick, and most of the top RBs were gone, and I was forced to take a WR or QB, is it fair that I have to miss out on one of those stud RBs. Ultimately, for me, it is about what the purpose of a keeper is. For me, a keeper is a reward for hitting on unexpected talent. Because I had a high pick and took the best player, is that really something to be rewarded. Frankly, I wish we had settled this issue before our last draft. I drafted some players later in the draft, like Hakeem Nicks, who I didn't expect to be great for me this year (though he was pretty dang good) but did it because i thought he would be a great keeper. I know Papabear did as well, and I think some others did too. Its a big deal when you find out where you draft. If you end up with the 10 pick, you know you are not going to be able to draft the top guys. If you allow 1st round picks to be keeper, then you are sort of punishing that person consecutative years, IMHO. Calibears last year got the 2nd pick and took AP. What if he ends up with the 10th pick this year? Is it really right that he gets to keep AP again? For me, it is far more fun when you are talking about keeping a player you took late in the draft, who developed into something. When you have it that way, like in football, you are thinking about next year as well as this year when drafting.
  9. Comments from PapaBear, who does not post on this site, I feel strongly about three things with regards to keepers: First, I feel we should only have 1 keeper. When people start keeping 2, the draft gets too diluted. And we should be able to keep a player from any round. I’ve never heard of the concept of only being able to keep players in the top 6 rounds. That’s dumb. I actually took players late in this draft with the intent on being able to possible keep them. Second, I think we should be required to give up a draft pick one round ahead of where the player was drafted. Otherwise, like you say, it rewards people who were lucky enough to get a high 1st round pick last year. 1st rounders should be off limits, and 2nd rounders should only be kept if you’re willing to give up a 1st. This opens up the draft MUCH more at the top. To me, keepers should reflect a guy you stole somewhere in the middle to late rounds. It shouldn’t necessarily be just keeping your best player or your top pick from last year. There should be some strategy involved both in drafting (like when I took flyers on guys late who I felt might be keepers this year) and in deciding who you keep (having to weigh the player vs. giving up a pick one round ahead of where you drafted him), while at the same time not totally depleting the draft with 2 keepers or 1st and 2nd rounders being kept. Third, I feel that you should only be allowed to keep players who you a) drafted and kept on your roster the entire year. This was a rule put in place in my live league. At first I didn’t like it, but after two years of it, I really like it. It adds to the strategic value of the game and doesn’t reward someone who happened to have waiver priority or got to their computer 1st to pick up a FA. PapaBear believes, as do I, we should be looking at one keeper, who was drafted and on the roster the entire season. The cost for that keeper should be one round higher than taken, which eliminates 1st round draft picks, and makes owners think hard about keeping 2nd round players (often studs as well) as that would cost them their 1st round pick. Other than preventing 1st round picks, there should be no other limitation of what round a player drafted can be kept. As Papabear said, I too drafted players late in the draft based on the belief we were in a keeper league and some players may not be huge impacts on my team this year (actually last) but would be in the future.
  10. If Mike were involved, it would be much worse. If Mike were involved, our problem would not be the lack of blue chips, but any chips.
  11. Do I like the idea of Martz? Hell yes. He would make the offense dangerous again. He would put up 30+ a game. And don't be mistaken about his time after St. Louis, because Kitna tore it up with Martz. What has Kitna done without Martz? Yeah, that's what I thought. Yea, I remember Kitna having a nice little FF season there putting up nice yardage totals. But did that pass happy offense of Martz really make that offense successful? Or did he just inflate the passing totals? In 2006, Kitna put up a whopping 4,200 passing yards. But he threw only 21 TDs, while also tossing 22 picks. Further, he was sacked 63 times. And talk about pass happy. Kita launched the ball about 600 times, not to mention the 30 something carries he had, and you know those were broken pass plays. Take out Kitna broken play runs, and they had only about 270 carries that year. That is greater than a 2-1 pass/run ratio. In 2007, Kitna had another big year in terms of passing yards, but only 18 TDs, and 20 picks. And once again, they dropped back to pass nearly 600 times while running it less than 300. Kitna threw a ton. No doubt. But was the system really a good one? He threw for a lot of yards, but not a lot of scores. He got the QB killed in a pass happy system, which also saw a ton of turnovers. He all but refused to run the ball. Yes, I realize that team had many issues, and the OL was high among them. But that offense, while it inflated Kitna's numbers, was not very successful, and I would add put added pressure on an already struggling defense. SF was another story, as Samauri Mike become HC and really pushed Martz to run it more and run a different system. The results were pretty bad. In Stl, Martz truly made a name for himself, but he also had great pieces in place to get it done. Give him credit, no question, but he has not proven capable of equalling that success elsewhere. Further, I think he has also shown to be yet another coach who forces players into his system, regardless whether they are a good fit or not. His offense puts up more yards through the air, but at the sacrifice of yards on the ground. Further, he could move the ball downfield, but could not score. When I look at what we have, and look at Martz' system, I just do not see a good fit. That does not mean I want a John Shoop, conservative system, but I don't think we need the mad scientist either. We need a coach who will utilize the players we have on the roster, and run a system that puts them in a position to do well. I think Martz would get Cutler killed, and we would not see a reduction in turnovers, and may in fact see an increase. I like the idea of an experienced OC, with a history of success, something the Bears have not had in...well, forever. I agree here, which is a key issue of mine w/ Bates. While he has a good relationship w/ Cutler, I want a more proven signal caller. Further, I just have an issue w/ the idea of looking at coach who, I believe, we would have no interest in if not for his ties to Cutler. Do I fear he may waste TE talent? Yes, based on his history. But it is not like Turner has maximized the talent on the roster. You guys act as if Turner was the reason for any TE success, rather than a hindrance (which is what he was). Turner didn't maximize the talent of our WRs, but does that mean we shouldn't try to add someone who would? In SF, Martz all but ignored Vernon Davis. One year after he is gone, leads the team w/ something like 80-1,000-13. Give me an OC that makes our offense formidable again, and I can live with the "possibility" that he won't use the TE right. Of course, since he is a bonafide offensive guru, I prefer to cross my fingers and have faith that he will maximize Olsen's talent...something NEVER done by Turner. Again, I want to do more than cross my fingers that a coach will do something history suggests he won't. I want an OC that will run a system based on the talent we have, rather than force our talent into a system which it may not fit. I want an OC that will make our entire offense a weapon, rather than just make our QB a FF favorite. I want an OC that will help produce more scores and fewer turnovers, while I think Martz will not improve our scoring but would get Cutler that interception record. I want an OC that does more to help the QB from getting killed, not one that puts the QB in position to be murdered. I too want a good, experienced OC that will make our offense one to be feared, both on the ground and through the air. I simply do not think that is Martz.
  12. didn't you just tell me in a previous post a few weeks ago that you would be afraid/concerned if we fired ted phillips, like i suggested, because mikey might step in and be involved in management again so you were against it? yet now we hear that mikey and not the board, not the mccaskey consensus of family members voting on propositions, nobody else except ginny and mikey actually had the final say in the discussions according to phillips himself? No offense, but you are twisting what was actually said. The quotes state the Phillips "discussed" the moves with ownership, and later clarified that ownership meant Mikey and Viginia. But you twist "discussion" by instead saying "ginny and mikey actually had the final say." No where in the article does it say that. If that is what you believe, it is speculation. It is just as possible they told Teddy, "whatever you think". Point is, quotes talk about a discussion and you talk about their making the decisions. If I go to my boss to talk over a subject, that doesn't mean he is deciding and telling me what to do. that means every major decision made is in those two's hands exclusively if teddy is to be believed. like whether or not to hire a new president and who? this seems to come with complete control over every major decision he makes. like complete control over what the supposed gm does in his capacity like hiring and firing coaches or even player acquisition? who our scouts are and how many we employ? isn't THIS the entire football operations portion of a franchise and is it not actually controlled by mike mccaskey whether he sits in the freaking control room draft day or not?? I guess I don't see where you are getting all this. Because these two were who Ted discussed this situation, you leap to the conclusion that (a) those are the only two who ever are part of the decision making and ( Ted must go to them w/ many other things, like duties of the GM and lesser coaching hires, etc. Just seems like you are making some big leaps. Further, might I point out that it is also possible the family had already held their own in-house discussions, and then Mikey and Virginia discussed it with Ted. I do not know, but is Ted part of the Board? If not, often in business, the board will meet, and the President (or whoever) will then meet with certain reps from the board, rather than the entire board itself. all phillips appears to be is a shield for the mccaskey family. same with angelo. they take the heat and the slings and arrows that mikey and the mummy would get if major decisions turn bad and fall flat. no wonder teddy is such an important cog in their machine. he does the dirty work. This has been your opinion all along, and frankly, it is not a surprise that you would take pretty much anything and make this leap. I honestly think that you believe Angelo is on the phone w/ Mikey in the 7th round of the draft, telling Angelo who to pick.
  13. Mikey is, I believe, Chairman of the board. I don't think anyone ever thought he was totally removed from the business. For me at least, I think he key is his no longer being part of the everyday operations of the team, as he was some years ago. Whether or not to fire the HC and GM are not everyday decisions. I don't think there is a team in the league which would would not have the owners taking part in such decisions. Some time back, Mikey was in the war room on draft day. He was a key figure working w/ Wanny on each and every FA move. There is a big difference from being part of the everyday operations to being part of such discussions as mentioned below. I know everyone would prefer Mikey to just go away, but that just isn't reality.
  14. I specifically said I was not counting special teams players. Maybe that isn't fair, but my point is really more about finding players on offense and defense that are pro bowlers. I will say that Hester is more an exception to this rule. I think we have had a couple special teams pro bowlers (tacklers) who are great, but not really the point. Hester is an exception as he was a special teams player that was truly a difference makers for the games as a whole. Still, even if I added Hester, that is simply still not a bevy of studs.
  15. Again...or one virtual stud. The good one do just that. Want me to list 'em? Here's a few of the playoff teams: AZ 2008 - Cromatrie 2007 - L. Brown 2006 - D. Letui 2005 - Rolle 2004 - Fitz, Dansby This is awesome, but lets continue and see if this is the rule or the exception. GB 2008 - Finley 2007 - Harrell 2006 - Jenning, Hawk, Jolly 2005 - Rodgers 2004 - 0 Here is the key point. We are talking studs, or virtual studs. Finley has shown to be a good looking TE, but he is no stud. We are not talking about solid or even good starters, but studs and/or virtual studs, as you like to say. Difference makers. Finley is a good looking, young TE, who is the #3 receiver on that team. Harrell? In his 3 years in the league, I think he has missed more games than played, and had minimal impact. In fact, would he not be closer to bust than not? Jolly may be solid, but he is hardly a stud or close. Hawk is solid, but again, is he really a stud? If you are going to use someone like Hawk, or Jolly, then Angelo is going to have a lot more names added to his list too. These are not studs or difference makers. Solid starters, okay, but we are talking blue chip players. So in 5 years, Jennings and Rodgers. Indy 2008 - Garcon 2007 - Ugoh 2006 - Addai 2005 - 0 2004 - Sanders Garcon? You have to be kidding me. Addai? On that incredible offense which rarely finds a stacked box, he has not cracked 1,000 yards or had a 4 yard per carry average in the last two years. Sanders is a difference maker when on the field, and Ugoh is damn good, but this is not a great list of difference makers here by any stretch. Balt 2008 - Flacco, Rice, Zbikowski 2007 - 0 2006 - Ngata 2005 - 0 2004 -0 Zbikowski? Hardly. Flacco, Rice and Ngata, fine, but that is 3 in 5 years. Just to name a few... Even your examples sort of reflect that teams simply don't usually find 1 stud per year (average) much less 2.
  16. Pix, Only comment I would make is, at least in keeper leagues I have played elsewhere, you usually give up a draft pick one round higher than the one you used. The reason for that is two fold. (a) It prevents teams from keeping 1st round draft picks, which you really do want to avoid. IMHO, you really lose something when a team gets to keep the best players in the league. ( You put an added bit of "ouch" factor in the keeper, which makes an owner have to think a bit. I think a key here is 2nd and 3rd round picks. Players in the 2nd and 3rd round are very often studs. Take Reggie Wayne. Lets say you got him in the 2nd round. Well, if you want to keep him, you would have to give up a 1st round pick. That makes you really think about it. The one round higher rule doesn't really mean much for teams who "hit" on late round picks. If you took a player in the 15th round and have to give up a 14th round pick to keep him, it doesn't mean a whole lot. But what it does do is make owners think a bit extra when it comes to the upper tier players in the game. For me, personally, keepers leagues are more about rewarding owners who found solid picks later in the draft, rather than just about allowing a team to keep their higher pick studs consecutative years. For me, it makes it more fun as owners start looking at rookies later in a draft. They start looking more at players who may not have high expectations immediatly, but look like great development guys. Its more fun because while you are drafting for today, you are also thinking about the future.
  17. Seriously? For a few year stretch, he was a good corner is a cover two system, but I don't think he was ever considered an elite cover corner. Not even close. Even when he was at his best, was he ever even talked about for the pro bowl? Not that I recall.
  18. I do not recall Harris making the pro bowl. If he did, it wasn't with Chicago. Not sure what you mean that he didn't have any top picks. He had a top 10 pick in 2003, his 2nd draft, but traded down. He had a top 5 pick in 2005, and took Benson. Harris and Williams were both top 15 picks. If you are doing a good job, you are not likely to have a bevy of top picks, and the bad teams get the top picks. Picking later in the 1st round is not usually an excuse for good GMs. Sorry, but two position players making the pro bowl (3 if Vasher made it one year) is not that impressive when talking about 8 years. In fact, I would say it is pretty unimpressive. And pro bowls aside, there simply are not many difference makers. Beyond Harris and Briggs, who are really difference makers that Angelo drafted.
  19. Question. When you say, "keep any one player" in the first option, does that imply the loss of a pick, or you simply keep a player w/o any consequence? I like the idea of one keeper, but feel you almost have to give up a draft pick in the process. I do not like the round 6 cutoff. For me at least, a big part of the whole keeper notion is rewarding the pick of a more unknown player, which is usually drafted later. Often in a keeper league, a team will use some later picks for rookie or young players who have not done much of anything yet on the hope they will develop. That is the key payoff, IMHO, of a keeper league. If you limit it to only the top 6 rounds, you are really only looking at keeper players who were likely already good. So I am not sure this is what the first option was, but I would vote to keep one player, while giving up a draft pick (say 1 round prior to the round the player was drafted).
  20. I thought he was a pro bowl alternate. Okay, either way. It doesn't really change my point. The point was not about finding a guy who once made a pro bowl, but finding blue chip players who see multiple pro bowls. I honestly, I don't even want to get too hung up on the whole "pro bowl" thing itself. Mike Brown was a blue chip stud, IMHO, but I do not believe he ever went to the pro bowl. That seemed to always go to Brian Dawkins, who was also very deserving. But Mike Brown was a difference making stud for the team. Frankly, pro bowl bid aside, I would put tillman above Vasher (as I think most would) despite Vasher having a pro bowl on his resume and Tillman not. But Tillman, IMHO, is not even a red chip player, much less a blue chip.
  21. Keep in mind part of good drafting is retianing your guys and seeing that they deliver for you...otherwise you've just done the dirty work for another franchise. Agree and disagree with that. You have some players, like Berrian for example, who you can point the finger at Angelo. He choose to let Berrian go in FA. Personally, I still agree to this day with that one, but the point is, Angelo had more control over that move. There are other situations though where I think either (a) the coach is more to blame or ( no one is really to blame. If Angelo drafts a player that doesn't get much of a chance on the team, moves on, and plays well for another, then I think you fault the coach. Angelo's job is to fill the roster with talent. It is then up to the coach. If the coach doesn't properly evaluate a player through mini's, camps and practices, and doesn't give a player much of a chance, is the GM at fault? If Jamar Williams moves on and becomes a very good starter for another team, is that Angelo's fault? Other times I am not sure anyone is at fault. Sometimes it is more about the situation. I am an long term Angelo basher, but I could not fault him for Columbo. Columbo not only continually was injured, but it was the sort of injury which was deemed chronic, and at the time, it was questioned whether he would even play football again. Columbo obviously did come back and is a very solid starting RT for Dallas now, but I just can't fault Angelo for that. At the time, all signs pointed to Columbo's career being done. Similar, Dusty is gone, right? Another injury and it was over. If Dusty moves to another team and suddenly finds a well of health and plays up to his draft potential, is that Angelo's fault? I give Angelo credit for finding a boat load of players talented enough to play in the NFL. Even many of his later round picks find jobs in the NFL. That deserves credit. The problem IMHO is Angelo's very weak record in finding blue chip talent. Heck, he doesn't even have that many red chip players to his credit. He has 8 drafts for the Bears under his belt, and a shockingly weak group of upper tier talent. He has plenty of middle of the road players you need on a team, but who do not make a difference. Even most of his better picks would be called nice or good, but are far from great. Alex Brown, for example, was a good pick (especially for the 4th round) and is a good player, but is far from a difference maker. Ditto Tillman. Every team needs difference makers. Potentially our top difference maker was on the team before Angelo (Urlacher).
  22. The problem IMHO is the lack of blue chip players. You say he has a few pro bowlers. If you take out special teams, I only count 2 pro bowlers (Briggs/Harris). Sorry, but in 8 years of drafting, 2 pro bowlers isn't that impressive. Zero pro bowls for the offensive side of the ball too. It is great to draft players who are worthy of the 53 man roster. Some didn't pan out in Chicago, but made another teams 53 man roster. IMHO, that reflects more on the coaches than the GM. Thus I have given Angelo credit for finding NFL quality. At the same time though, you have got to find more star caliber players. 2 stars in 8 drafts is frankly, bad.
  23. 2002 Marc Colombo T Boston College Roosevelt Williams DB Tuskegee Terrence Metcalf G Mississippi Alex Brown DE Florida Bobby Gray DB Louisiana Tech Bryan Knight LB Pittsburgh Adrian Peterson RB Georgia Southern Jamin Elliott WR Delaware Bryan Fletcher TE UCLA One starter in Brown. One long term depth player in AP. That's it. 2003 Michael Haynes DE Penn State Rex Grossman QB Florida Charles Tillman DB Louisiana-Lafayette Lance Briggs LB Arizona Todd Johnson DB Florida Ian Scott DT Florida Bobby Wade WR Arizona Justin Gage WR Missouri Tron Lafavor DT Florida Joe Odom LB Purdue Brock Forsey RB Boise State Bryan Anderson G Pittsburgh Actually one of his better drafts. Haynes was a bust. Rex? Who knows how to grade him. Some will say he led the team to the SB. Other will call him a bust. But he got a very solid CB in Tillman and a pro bowl LB in Briggs. Scott, Wade and Gage were all starters at one point. Just pains me to this day how much I wanted to draft Polamalu, and what a difference he could have made. 2004 Tommie Harris DT Oklahoma Tank Johnson DT Washington Bernard Berrian WR Fresno State Nathan Vasher DB Texas Leon Joe LB Maryland Claude Harriott DE Pittsburgh Craig Krenzel QB Ohio State Alfonso Marshall DB Miami (FL) There was a time this looked good. Harris was one of the best DTs in the game. Tanks was a solid #2 DT. Berrian was our best WR. Vasher was an interception machine and starting CB. Joe was actually a very good special teams player. Oh how things have changed. Harris sort of lived up to pre-draft questions as he was a rotation guy in Oklahoma, and many questioned if he could handle full time duties in the NFL. Tank also lived up to pre-draft character questions, and after many chances, was bounced from chicago. Vasher went down faster than a hooker on saturday night. Not going to knock the Berrian pick. He developed into a good WR but was simply too expensive to keep. What seemed like such a great draft now looks pretty weak. 2005 Cedric Benson RB Texas Mark Bradley WR Oklahoma Kyle Orton QB Purdue Airese Currie WR Clemson Chris Harris DB Louisiana-Monroe Rodriques Wilson DB South Carolina Not a bad draft. For other teams that is. Benson turned out to be a solid starter for Cincy. Orton for Denver. Harris for Carolina. Bradley was as much a tease in KC as in Chicago. Other teams may have been happy, but this was a totally worthless draft. 2006 Danieal Manning DB Abilene Christian Devin Hester WR Miami (FL) Dusty Dvoracek DT Oklahoma Jamar Williams LB Arizona State Mark Anderson DE Alabama J.D. Runnels RB Oklahoma Tyler Reed G Penn State Two great return guys in DM and Hester who have not been able to live up to expectations on offense or defense. Dusty couldn't stay healthy and is gone. Jamar looks nice when you see him, but all we can call him is a backup. Anderson teased rookie year. That is not very impressive. 07 Greg Olsen TE Miami (FL) Dan Bazuin DE Central Michigan Garrett Wolfe RB Northern Illinois Michael Okwo LB Stanford Josh Beekman G Boston College Kevin Payne DB Louisiana-Monroe Corey Graham DB New Hampshire Trumaine McBride DB Mississippi Aaron Brant T Iowa State You know. Looking over this group, did Angelo tell Lovie to F off in the war room? Olsen was the sort expected to leap onto the scene as a rookie, but was held back and never utilized very well. Wolfe has never been given much of a chance, and when he does get on the field, is told to run up the gut? Beekman plays only when no one healthy is available, plays well when he is in, but soon after pushed to the bench. Graham plays very well at the end of last year, than this year is not given so much as a 2nd look. McBride plays well as a rookie when forced into action, but quickly pushed to the back of the depth chart the following season. Not saying all these players are great, but when you think about who seems to always been in the staff's doghouse, don't a lot of those names seem to be from this draft? 2008 discussed. 2009 Gilbert DE San Jose State Juaquin Iglesias WR Oklahoma Henry Melton DE Texas D.J. Moore DB Vanderbilt Johnny Knox WR Abilene Christian Marcus Freeman LB Ohio State Al Afalava DB Oregon State Lance Louis G San Diego State Derek Kinder WR Pittsburgh Early to tell, but doesn't look very good. Gilbert showed nothing. Iglesias was not allowed to move the grass, much less play on it. Melton done in camp. Moore played cards w/ Iglesias on game day. Freeman cut in camp. Louis deep, deep depth. Kinder cut. Knox looked great, and Afalava showed signs, though his play went downhill IMHO as the season went on. I realize it is way early to declar jack, but this is a pretty unimpressive group thus far, minus maybe Knox. One key that has always stood out to me about our drafts was the lack of top tier players. Angelo seems able to draft a lot of depth chart guys. He finds plenty of #2 - #5 WRs, but no #1s. He finds plenty of backups, and average starters, but simply doesn't have a great track record of finding the big stars. He got Briggs. Harris too, but that was a very short lived star. Angelo has worked 8 drafts. Should we not expect more long term impact players? Look for a moment at the 4 years Hatley ran our drafts. Yea, there were busts, but consider also: Kreutz - Perennial pro bowler still a captain of the team today. Parrish - Have we had a better SS since? Mannelly - I know not a star, but I love to give this long snapper credit, and he deserves it still being on the team after more than a decade. Booker - We have not had a WR better than Booker was for the Bears (first time around obviously) Colvin - Have we had a better pass rusher since? Urlacher - Face of the team for years. Mike Brown - Best FS and leader of the defense. There were other solid players and plenty of depth chart guys, but the point is in 1/2 the time, I think Hatley drafted a much higher top tier of talent. I know Booker is not some long term pro bowler or anything, but have we drafted better since? If you wanted to pare this down, I would put Kreutz, Urlacher and Brown who Hatley drafted in 4 years. Angelo might counter w/ Briggs and maybe Harris, but who else, and Angelo had 8 years. Angelo can draft NFL level players who can make 53 man rosters, and some develop into starters, but his inability to find upper tier, pro bowl players has really crippled this team.
  24. I said this before, but I still believe the Engram-like player is going to end up being Iglesias. It blows my mind we could not get him playing time this year, just as we couldn't for Bennett his rookie year. Iglesias, in college, was a very smart player who picked up the playbook quickly and was a superior route runner. It is simply difficult for me to believe he couldn't grasp our playbook, or his route running suddenly was bad. Bennett is a good route runner, and has good hands, but I think Iglesias will prove the superior player. I think he is very much like Engram, but frankly, Iglesias has more burst. He doesn't have elite 40 speed, so he won't win a ton of go routes, but has exceptional burst in and out of breaks, and can rack up the yards after the catch. Honestly, I am pretty excited about our WR corp. DA showed a ton at the end of the season. Not only did he appear on the same page as Cutler, but I love the way he times his jumps and go up to get the ball at its highest point. That is something I dont' think any of our other receivers (or Olsen) do. I like the possession ability Bennett brings. I love the downfield potential of Knox. I still think Hester can be dangerous if his roles (best suited to the slot) is changes. And I still believe Iglesias will prove to be a damn good WR. I believe (hope) we upgrade the OL. Combine that with a better OC, and I think the group of young WRs we currently have will prove to be a damn good group.
  25. Salaam looked pretty good his first season too. I hope Forte is having his sohpomore slump. But I am concerned. I also don't like his excuse of playing hurt. Seems a bit convenient now and bad players looks for excuses. But I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. And while he led in yards, his average was poor as nfo pointed out numerous time last year when I was drinking kool-aid like free Guinness at St. James' Gate... I said all year it seemed like he was hurt, but at the same time, I do agree. It always feel a tad "convenient" when a player who struggled through the year comes out AFTER THE SEASON is over to say he was playing hurt. Doesn't mean it isn't true. For example, when it came out late that Reuben Brown was playing w/ one arm, there was plenty of proof and evidence of how bad the injury was. Something like w/ Forte is harder to provide evidence, but as a radio guy here always says, "just watch the damn game". Flat out, Forte did not seem to have the burst or speed he did last year. That isn't something that just happens in a sophmore slump. That is something that happens when a player is hurt. Okay, the jury is still out on a final grade, but at the end of the day, Forte has 2,167 rushing yards and just under 1,000 receiving yards after two years. Those are great numbers for a 2nd round pick. Period. All these guys had better years than Forte. That's over 50% of the runners, and 2 on one team. Forte needs to prove more. It should be pointed out though that Forte had more rushing yards than all but 3 of those guys the prior year. Many of those players are coming off a better year, but have just as much to prove as they didn't have the prior success, and thus could flop next year the way Forte did this year. Bennett is borderline. And on a team with a real #1 WR, he'd be a bench warmer like he was for us last year. You could just as easily argue that Bennett could look far better on a team with a real #1. The fact is though, Bennett was a starter, and put up solid numbers in his first year as a starter. I'll let you say Harrison was humbled by this past season when he shows up in shape and on a tear this upcoming training camp. Until then, it's lip service from him. Agreed here. Seriously though, I think you have a bit of a lofty idea of what the norm is. As I think Conner, or maybe someone else said, while you always hope for the best, 2 starters is about the norm from a draft. Not just from the bears, but around the league. Getting 3 or 4 starters, as well as a couple more contributors, makes that draft a damn good one, by anyones standards. Now, the final grades have yet to be doles out, and I still believe the key is Williams. If Williams becomes a 10 year starting LT, then that draft is a A in my book no matter what happens with the rest.
×
×
  • Create New...