nfoligno

I can see it both ways. W/ the uncertaintity at SLB and Urlacher's recent play, I can see us keeping an extra LB, especially if that last LB is considered a big player on special teams. On the other hand, I can easily see the staff believing (especially if we sign Pisa) that we have 3 solid veteran LBs, and the need for extended depth is less. Further, w/ so many injuries/ question marks in the secondary, we may need extra depth there. Further still, we all know how our staff loves the DL, thus they may want to keep the extra man there. In the end, I think we keep 6 LBs. It could be pretty interesting to see who the final LB would be. Assuming we add Pisa, he, Urlacher, Briggs, Williams and Freeman are near locks in my eyes, leaving a crowded field fighting for the final spot. With the priority for that last spot be which player is more versatile and provide the best insurance (Hunter) or which player offers the best potential on special teams?

Can Williams backup Urlacher? I ask because, w/ Williams on the roster, Hunter continued to be referred to as Urlacher's primary backup, even though he was starting at SLB at the time. The staff had to think Hunter a significantly better option at MLB if they were willing to scramble at two positions in the event Urlacher went down.

In an ideal world, I think it would have to be Bowman. When you are talking about the deeper parts of your roster, I think you go w/ the guy w/ more upside. The other side of this is special teams. Who ever gets that final DB slot I think would be expected to play very well on teams, and thus the better DB may not get the gig if he can't show the ability to play teams.

Really not sure how great of a factor Rivera is. He was an undrafted rookie FA. Few of them make the team. Not saying it is out of the question, but I am simply not sure we should factor him "too" much, especially at this point, w/o having seen much of anything of him. I know many are going to be down on Hilly, and that is fine. I want Pisa too. The one thing I think needs to be thought about, which you did, is how our backup MLB will be. Even when Hilly was starting at SLB, he was also our immediate backup for Urlacher. I question whether we have a guy on the roster right now who would to start at MLB if Urlacher went down over Hilly. Hunter would not bring Urlacher's range (understatement alert) but may well be our best bet. Freeman and Williams I think would be fairly safe. I actually think Hunter may be next due to his MLB backup ability, which I am not sure others have shown. I believe many are putting Roach in the next spot as he took the job from Hunter last year, but from what I read, the staff did not feel he did much after getting the start. Further, I think it says a lot that we are looking to upgrade. I think Roach very much could be on the bubble, especially when you consider Hunter would be capable of backing up two positions. LaRoque is another to watch, as I think he is considered one of our better special teams players. Malast, Riley and Rivera were undrafted FAs, and more likely than not playing for a shot at the practice squad. I think it would come down to Huter, Roach or LaRoque, and I just think Hunter may have an edge due to his ability to backup at two positions rather than one.

Do you realize how "pro bowl" like the numbers you threw out there are? Looking only at the NFC, as we are talking pro bowl. Only 4 QBs had more than 3,500 yards. Brees and Warner blew that number out of the water, but each also had out of their mind seasons I think few expect to see duplicated. Rodgers and McNabb also were in the 4,000 (give or take) range. The rest were under 3,500. Only 6 QBs had 20+ TDs. Point is, I think even you would say you are throwing out numbers that hedge on the conservative side, and even then, his numbers would still put him in the pro bowl light. I don't think any (at least not many) expect 4,500 (what he had last year) to 5,000 yards. Only two other (besides Cutler) QBs had that many yards, and both play for pass happy teams in domes or warm weather (Brees/Warner). While Cutler played in neither a dome, nor warm weather, he did play on a team w/ (a) horrible defense and ( RBs that went down every game. Thus, he had to pass more. In Chicago, he will (should) have a better defense and run game, thus will not have to throw as often. At the same time, that could also improve his: completion %, YPA, TDs and Int ratio. I can see 4,000 yards, 25 TDs, 15 Ints, 65% completion and 7+ ypa. I think those numbers would put him in pro bowl contention, and make Bear fans VERY happy.

Other than those 2 things it's pretty solid even though it doesn't tell anyone anything new that's been paying attention since the trade. Honestly, that is sort of the one negative about being a member of this board. When you read articles from magazines, newpapers, or whatever, most often you are like, "Duh. Knew that weeks ago". Clayton or whoever does a cap breakdown about a month after you. The Trib will do "in depth" looks at our roster months after we have gone through a FAR more detailed discussion. ESPN will do their team by team looks, and look at stuff so basic we can only laugh. Not that I am complaining, but the vast majority of what I read from the "media" regarding the bears offers little "new" information.

A conditional pick? Huh? We are talking about a teams #3 TE, and who the team (after one year) is looking to upgrade/replace. I kind of agree w/ your first thought. Often, we get really high on this player or that player, and we get so upset when the team cuts him. Honestly, I think we like him far more than the staff. We liked him for his size and potential in the receiving game, but it sounds like the staff wanted him for his blocking, and if he struggles in that regard, then his value (in our staff's eyes) is minimal. Now, I would just like someone to explain why our #3 TE has to be a solid blocker, but our starting FB doesn't.

Did we draft 3 CBs this year, not to mention another in the 3rd last year? How about LB? Point here is, I think our staff believes we have added a solid collection of talented WRs. What they need now is time and reps. In the staff's mind, adding a veteran WR only takes away from that playing time. Now, that doesn't mean we would balk at adding a stud like Boldin, but I don't think the staff feels adding a spare veteran is worth it at this point. Honestly, I tend to agree. I really like what we have added at WR. I think Bennett, Iglesias and Knox. Kinder and Rideau offer nice sleeper candidates. That's not to mention Hester. I pointed this out the other day, but I kind of wonder as it is how we are going to spread the ball around. We have a pair of solid TEs, w/ one who could elevate to a higher level this year. We have a RB who could be in the upper tier league of pass catching RBs. We have Hester on one side, and then there is a solid group of talented youth. If we add a veteran to the mix, I think it would come at the expense of the development of another.

I'm really not that optimistic this year. I love Cutler, and he will make this team better, but we still have a ton of holes. Besides for QB, RB, TE, OT, UT, MIKE, and WILL, there isn't much depth or talent on this team. While I agree we have question marks, at the same time, I would also argue that we have more potential answers than in recent years. It's one thing to discuss whether Orton or Rex will step up and give you enough, and yet another when you talk about having a QB like Cutler. I also disagree on the idea that we lack depth. In fact, I would argue we look better in terms of depth than in recent memory. We need a no. 1 receiver. We got some solid guys at WR, but Hester is at best a no. 2, IMO. Do we have that one stud #1? No. But I think we have more talent at the WR position than in a long time, and further, would argue that with a legit QB like Cutler, the play of our WRs is most likely to elevate. I have always argued, and continue to argue, that having a stud #1 is not nearly as crucial as having a stud QB w/ quality at the WR position. I would much rather have a stud QB and a bunch of #2 WRs over a stud WR and a mediocre QB. Our interior of the OL is still lacking a physical presence. Interior OL is a question mark, yet at the same time, I would argue we have taken steps to upgrade. Whether or not those additions truly equal improvement will be answered down the road, yet again, at least we have potential answers in place. Omiyale is a bigger interior player than we have had in the past, and helps bring that potential physical presence. Further, if our bookends are upgraded, which appears to be the case, I think it has a bit of a domino effect. If you have solid play by your LT, it makes the job of the LG much easier. Also, w/ the QB/RB combo we have, the job of the OL becomes a bit easier. It will be harder for defenses to attack the LOS, as we have seen in recent years, with a QB like Cutler under center. And we have a RB which can (a) hit the hole quickly and ( squeeze through smaller holes. I am not saying our OL was good in recent years, but would argue that w/ the passing game we had, it was made to look worse as defenses stacked the box and attacked the LOS w/ more defenders. The OL could look much better simply by having a QB forces defesnes to play more honest. Not loving any of our options at FB. However, this isn't a crucial spot. Agreed FB is more than just a question mark, but in fact a legit hole, but as you said, not a crucial position on our team. NT is a big question mark. Dusty sucks, can Harrison play the run? Adams is a decent, but not overly impressive option. Sure, NT is a question mark, but (a) we have potential young answers ( if the youth doesn't pan out, we have a decent player at minimum in Adams and © we have a coach in place who can get more out of players. DE is by far the biggest question mark. Brown is solid. Ogunleye, outside of 1 year, has been a bust and has been declining. Anderson seems more and more like a 1 year wonder. Melton? Idonije is more a special teamer. Again, the Marinelli argument. I have always believed our problems on the DL had as much, if not more, to do w/ the coaching than purely about the personnel. Also, I disagree w/ the comment that Wale has been a bust outside of one season. I would agree he has not lived up to expectations, but that is not the same as saying he has been a bust. He had two seasons w/ solid sack numbers (10 & 9) and in the other three seasons, his sack totals were 5, 6.5 and 5. You say Brown is solid, but Brown's sack totals are not much better than Wale's off seasons. I think Wale gets a lot of crap due to expectations as much as actual play. If Marinelli can upgrade the DL as a whole, I think Wale could see double digit sacks this year. Only decent options at SAM. Not a crucial spot anyway. One, I am really hoping we sign Pisa, which would IMHO change this question mark. Two, as you said, not a crucial position, as this is not even an every down position. Outside of Tillman, there is a lot of questions about the other guys. Actually agreed. However, we did just draft a highly touted CB, and further, you again have the coaching element. Also, another domino effect position. If we get improved pass rush from the DL, the DBs will look much better. Payne still needs to prove he's a player. Who is our FS? No argument here. While I like some of the potential answers at many positions, Safety is less so. I don't like any option at SS. At FS, the hope is (a) Bullocks can look good in our system ( an improved pass rush eases the burden on the FS and © Graham can develop into a legit FS, though that make not be until 2010. Back to the original point though. Every team in the league faces question marks. To me, a crucial key is whether or not a team has potential answers for the question marks. We have a few spots which I don't really even care for the potential answers (FB, SS) but many, if not most, questions have pretty solid potential answers. Also, if you look at the individual parts, it may not look as good as if you take a step back and look at the team as a whole. Should the offense be better? I think most would say yes. We may still lack in some areas, but for once, we have a legit QB w/ solid potential receivers. Further, we have an OL which should, at minimum, be an upgrade from last year, and a very good looking RB. Should the defense be better? I would say yes, if for no other reason, than the demotion of Babich, who I still believe caused more holes in our defense than talent alone.

Offense: Iglesias is my pick. While I am not saying he will be the new Royal, I do think he will provide very solid, consistent play. Bennett is an obvious choice, especially w/ Cutler, but I simply feel Iglesias has greater potential. Defense: Vasher is my pick here. I think injuries and coaching, not to menion lack of pass rush, killed his recent play as much as himself. I think Vasher takes the starting job back and runs w/ it. I think we once again see the "interceptor" of old.

Isn't Davis still eligible for the practice squad? I don't think he saw the playing time necessarily last year to lose his eligibility, or did he. I think Davis' odds of making the team dang near tanked when we signed Gaines. Indications, as well as direct comments, prior to the draft implied we were looking for a blocking TE. While I don't think our staff talked much specifically about Davis, the implications were obvious. We expected more development in terms of blocking from Davis, and were now looking to upgrade that role. In an ideal world, I think our staff would love to stash Davis back on the practice squad, work on developing his blocking, and then have a capable replacement when Clark is done. Personally, what I would not mind at all seeing is our going w/ 4 TEs, and simply doing away w/ the FB position. IMHO, Gains could be a better lead blocker than McKie, and add greater versatility, as would our other TEs. And as an added bonus, we would no longer have to worry about that damn FB dive play

This year there should be competition at: Both OG positions Beekman/Omayale Garza/Buenning In general, I agree there will be "competition" at both OG spots. Neither spot is set in stone. However, I do not consider this an open or equal competition. We just signed Omiyale to a nice sized contract. While it may not be a huge deal, it is far greater than you expect to pay a backup. I think the staff absolutely envisions him starting over Beekman. Similar, I think the staff views Garza as their starter. Now, this doesn't mean Beekman and Buenning don't have a chance, yet at the same time, I don't think they are entering this "competition" on equal ground. I think each has an uphill battle to knock off the guy at the top. Backup RB Jones and Wolfe Disagree. I don't see this as a competition. These are two very different RB, who i think will be looked at and used in different ways. If Forte goes down, I do not think we will insert Wolfe to the starting lineup. What I think camp will serve for these two will be an opportunity to increase their role/snaps. WR Hester,Iglesias,Rideau,Knox,Davis and Kinder Take Hester out, and I agree. I think Hester is basically a lock to start. After him, I think it is far more of an open competition, and maybe our most open competition on the team. Bennett may have the edge entering camp, but I don't think the fight to unseat him is nearly as uphill as w/ other positions. Not only is this a competition for the #2 starting job, but the entire depth chart. FB McKie and Gaines I wonder if this is really a battle in the staff's mind like it is in ours. I think Gains has an opportunity to become a focal point in our offense as a blocker, but the two play different positions, and thus I am not sure this is truly a competition. SLB Roach and Hillenmeyer This one is likely alongside WR as the most open, though if we sign Pisa, I am not sure how open this position would be. At that point, it may be more of a battle to see who sticks w/ the team. CB Vasher,Graham and Moore If you go off what the coaches say, Graham is out of the plans here, and not part of the CB competition. It is really between Vasher and Moore. I think Vasher has a significant edge/advantage here, but it is still possible Moore could unseat him. Still, I think this is Vasher's job to lose. FS Bullocks,Graham and Manning I don't think DM is part of the equation here. I rarely have ever heard DM's name mentioned in terms of our FS position. I think the staff has pretty much given up on him for that role, especially as they like what he did as a nickel DB. This is between Bullocks and Graham, and I think Bullocks has a big edge here. Graham may be the future, but I think it may not be totally realistic to expect him to transition so quickly. SS Payne ,Stelz Could Afalava not be added to the mix here? I don't see why not, as neither Payne, nor Steltz, have done anything to put themselves above a late round rookie coming in an taking the job. Honestly, while I am fairly excited about our competition in numerous areas, this is not one. Nickel Manning, McBride and Moore Honestly not sure this is a legit competition. You can argue all positions have some level of competition, but I think this is an area the team is planning/expecting DM to play and the competition could more be about who his backup will be. Dime McBride and Moore Yea, this will be an open competition, but as our nickel is likely locked up w/ a non-CB, I think the dime DB is most likely whoever loses the #2 CB role. Can't recall if it was your or another who mentioned Kreutz potentially being in a competition this year too, but I don't see it. As it is, we will have 3 likely new starters on the OL (Pace, Omiyale and Williams or Shaffer). Kreutz may be on the decline, but I think the team will go w/ him to keep some stability, and especially w/ a new QB, I think the staff will go w/ the veteran center. I don't see Kreutz' job being in jeapordy.

Agreed it is a tad baffling. While I don't think "that" much of him, I do think he has to be considered better than several other teams #2s, much less many other #3s. The only thing I can think of is, Rex and/or his agent, are still thinking he has starter capability. They may not be telling teams he has to start, but may be looking to pickup w/ a team where a chance or opportunity may exist. I know you talk about the humbling aspect right now, yet at the same time, at this point many veterans choose to wait until camps begin. At that point, injuries most always happen, and teams are left scrambling. Maybe it is a bit of a risk, but he may feel it is one worth taking. If he signs now, it would likely be a job with no chance of improving his status as he would be burried on the depth chart. If he waits, an opportunity may present itself which offers far more potential to actually see the field.

While not disagreeing, just curious. When you talk about how the results were bad, who are you thinking about. I ask because, for example, Many complained about Rex not getting an even leg against Orton, but I personally would not say the results were bad. Forte was essentially handed the job, and again, I would say the results were pretty good. Not trying to defend Lovie, just curious who you are thinking about. Who started last year as a backup that should have started?

Dude, the hair on the back of my neck just went up. Possibly more than any other single thing our staff says, that ticks me off. Besides the exceptions to the rule, such as a S like Mike Brown was, how many safeties are truly capable of playing either positions? For years, we have drafted SS', while talking about how the S position is interchangable, only to see that player who could play SS fail at FS. Whether you are talking about Mike Green, Harris, Payne, McGowan, Steltz, or a host of others, I think it is obvious the two positions simply are not as interchanble as the staff would like. Its one thing to craete an ideal player on paper and say that player can be either a FS or a SS, but another to find that player in real life. Sorry, but just as some SS' struggle in coverage, so is true on how many FS' would struggle to play similar to a 4th LB in the box, which is what a SS often is.

Sorry, not buying. Okay, if the idea is to use the guy who has experience at FS, would that not be DM? That aside, you have Bullocks, who has several years at FS (albeit w/ another team) vs Steltz? I don't know. At the end of the day, we are talking about a dang OTA, and an early one at that. it is possible it is no more than the staff more wanting to see the players they have little tape on, where as they have plenty of tape on a player like Bullocks. But while that would explain Steltz as the 1st string FS, it still doesn't totally explain Bullocks at SS.

The Garza/Buenning thing should be on more equal footing. "should be" or "could be"? I agree the battle between Garza and Buenning "should be" on equal footing. What I question is whether or not it will be. You know how some players always seem to be favored by our staff? Some believe there are questionable pictures of Lovie, which forces Lovie to continue starting/using those players. Well, I think Garza has those pictures now. On a serious note, I just question whether the competition will be open or truly legit. Whether you or I agree, the staff seems to be pretty content and confident in the play of Garza. I just do not think they are looking to replace him. That means he will enter camp as the set starter. Now, a set starter can lose his job, but I would not consider that an open competition.

While I am not necessarily disagreeing w/ your comments, I do question the overall picture. LG - I agree that Beekman is running w/ the 1st team now due to being the incumbent, but we didn't sign Omiyale to a sizable contract to sit on the bench. I think this beginning depth is in principle only, sort of like when we told Briggs he had to start out as a backup after his contract dispute. Omiyale may start out as a backup, but I think there is little question the plan and expectation is for a switch here. RG - I have no problem w/ the idea of Buenning over Garza. I have never been a big fan of Garza, and personally believe the only reason he has not stood out more (in a negative way) is because those around him were also so bad. With that said, I think the staff truly does like Garza, and feel this may not be as even level of a competition as some may want. I think this is a situation where Garza has to lose the job more so than simply Buenning winning it. IMHO, if the staff were truly as questionable on Garza as I (and others) Shaffer too may be in the mix at RG. Shaffer is due to battle Williams, but there again, I think it is very much Williams job to lose. If the staff didn't like Garza, I think Shaffer would be in the mix at RG, with the idea he could kick back out to RT if Williams fails. But Shaffer is, from what I can tell, only being looked at RT. Pace - Omiyale - Kreutz - Garza - Williams. IMHO, I think that is 95% likely our starting OL this season. I also think this OL should be a considerable upgrade from last year. A concern may be the future. In 2010, we could see as many as 3 new faces. We just have no idea how long Pace can go. Kreutz has been on the downslide for some time, and I could be wrong, but isn't he due to hit FA in 2010? And Garza has been discussed. The hope is we have "some" candidates in place to step in. If Pace does depart, we may be able to slide Williams over and insert Shaffer to RT. If Kreutz is gone, we may be able to insert Beekman. And then there is Buenning for Garza. But that is a year away. Right now, I am just happy that we look to have an improved starting group on the OL, as well as improved depth.

I'm confused about something. The way I read this, Steltz was 1st string FS and Payne 1st string SS. Then it mentions Graham alongside Bullocks as 2nd string. Assuming Graham was playing FS, why the hell are we running Bullocks at SS? I really just do not understand the continued belief Steltz is a FS. Just move his ass to SS and see if he can develop there. IMHO, we should be heading into camp w/ Payne and Steltz in a wide open competition at SS, and Graham/Bullocks at FS. One more point. I hope we do not screw around w/ Graham as we did DM. Graham was a CB, learned and developed there, and now we are moving him to FS. Fine. But I wonder if this is a permanent move, or one we are just sort of looking at. Point is, I hope we don't shuffle this kid around too much, hurting his ability to develop at any one position.

All I know is that out of all the WRs that have been drafted by the Bears and released by the Bears under JA's tenure only Airese Currie and Jamin Elliott are no longer in the league. Bradley,Wade,Gage and Berrian are all stilll making contributions to NFL teams and we need WRs. Giant and others would likely respond to this by saying we didn't have the QB in place... You know how that argument goes. For me though, it is really more simple than that. How much development did each player show when they were with the bears. Look at the numerous areas of a WRs game, and how much did each WR improve in those areas. Personally, I don't think Berrian ever really even developed w/ the Bears. He always had natural talent. Once he was able to adapt to NFL speed, combined w/ having a "decent" QB (Even Rex haters have to give him the decent label when compared to the likes of Quinn, Krenzel, Hutch, etc.). To me, the QB/speed elements were the reasons for his improved stats more than his game developing. Look at Berrian's last season w/ us. Yea, he had decent enough stats, but (a) his route running was still very suspect ( some plays, he actually ran the wrong route, questioning his playbook knowledge © he still struggled to get clean releases off press coverage (d) same hands issues as w/ many others. Berrian was the best of the bunch, but I question this idea he was a developed WR. He did a pretty solid job running downfield and making some plays, but I never felt his game was very developed or rounded. W/ the other WRs, it only gets worse. It isn't just about the QB, the OL, or the other aspects of the team. When you look specifically at the play of the WR, it has simply been lacking, and further, minimal development (IMHO) has been seen. For years, our WRs have simply not been good at: beating press coverage, running solid routes, tracking the ball, shielding the defender, awareness both of the field and the backfield (QB pressure). Oh yea. And catching the damn ball. We can blame the QB day and night, but lets not pretend the QB is the sole reason our WRs have never lived up to expectations.

One thing that bothers the hell out of me is his seemingly total disregard for authority. I do not want to make a big stink about traffic violations, but did you read about how often he is pulled over for speeding and reckless driving? That in itself is far from a deal breaker, but what bothered me was the way he handled it, by chewing out the officer. He is yelling at the officer, saying crap like, "Do you know who I am" and "I know your bosses and you better let me go if you know what is good for you". That sort of garbage. Regarding his gun case, he has attorneys telling him the DA is putting up a good offer. His attorneys are trying to get him to take the plea deal, but Plax doesn't care what his attorneys think. Also remember NYG's recently making Plax a contract offer, which Rosenhause advised him was a good offer and it would be in his best intrest to take, but again, he doesn't care what his agent advises, and not only refuses the offer, but goes to the media and blasts the team saying the offer is pitiful. That isn't to mention how he has dealt w/ the coaches, blowing off the rules and snubbing the team's authority figures every chance he gets. Someone who wants Burress will try to look at each of these situations in a bubble and argue them, but IMHO, when you look at the collection as a whole, you find an individual who simply has no respect for authority, and in a team sport, that is simply not a good thing.

What are you talking about? "Equally as horrid"? One. I personally wouldn't say Orton was "horrid" on the deep ball. He simply didn't have the arm to be a legit long ball QB, and thus took fewer chances. He was 28 of 50 for 287 yards and a 56%, and finishing w/ only a 5.78 ypa due to (a) the fewer attempts thrown and ( not many of his deep balls ended in homeruns, also noted by only 2 TDs on 28 completed passes over 30 yards. Cutler? 88-149-959 and a 59.1% completion and a 6.44 ypa. Also, 8 of his long balls went for a TD. So what this tells me is he is likely hitting his receiver deep in stride more often, and thus why he nets more yards on average and more TDs. More of Orton's long balls, which were caught, were not in stride, thus not allowing the WRs YAC or greater TD potential. While many of Cutler's balls would better hit the WR in stride, a great number of Orton's long balls were thrown in a way that would take the WR out of stride (many passes behind the WR forcing the WR to completely turn his body). Sorry, but I do not see how you can argue that, even from the 30+ range, Cutler isn't a significantly better QB.

Could be wrong, but I think it was after the draft Graham was talked about at FS. I think the staff is VERY high on Moore, and may believe he has a greater upside at CB than Graham. Further, I think it may come down to this. Take Graham out of the equation for a moment. Where are we weaker? CB or FS? I think most all would say FS, and by a landslide. Whether it is Vasher, Moore, or even McBride, our outlook at CB is better than our outlook at FS. Thus, you look at Graham there.

First, let me just say, as hard as i was on him, I too am shocked someone has not picked him up. Often 1st round pick QB fail w/ their 1st team, but rarely do they not get another chance w/ another team. Someone always thinks they can do a better job of coaching a young talent, and will take the flyer on the kid. Carolina? Yea, he would have Moose again, but how did that workout the first time? Seems to me, I recall Rex being among the QBs Moose threw under the bus. I think Rex needs to go to a team w/ a well reputed QB/OC coach who can help him. The reality is, Rex still does things today which were viewed as flaws in his game coming out of college. Whether it is a matter of his not being capable of learning/developing/changing in those areas, a fault of the coaches he has worked under, or simply an inability to connect and work w/ those bears coaches. Whatever the reason, I think wherever he goes, he needs to find a coach who can help him.

I believe Angelo himself mentioned Graham to FS. Bowman was mentioned in the move, but I am not sure what level of expectations are there. Angelo said, basically, he was being moved to S because it was his best chance to make the roster, implying we were loaded at CB and his odds of making the roster at CB were not great, but when looking at our S talent, his odds were much improved. But when he talked about Graham to FS, I got the impression that was more w/ a greater level of expectation.