nfoligno

Pix, couple things. He did have a lot of picks, and is the sort of aggressive downfield QB who is going to have more picks than a conservative system QB. With that said, i think it worth pointing out that Denver RBs were dropping like flys last year, and Cutler was forced to throw the ball more. He was one of only 2 QBs in the league w/ over 600 pass attempts. The other was Brees, who actually had only one fewer int. Getting away from specifics though, how much can we nit pic. Honestly, if Manning were available, I absolutely believe there would be bear fans saying he doesn't play well enough in the postseason, and isn't worth it. If Rothlisberger were available, a bear fan would say he is only average. Rivers would be questioned for playing behind a stud OL. Eli didn't look as great w/o Burress. Point is, you can find a reason to question any QB in the league, today and going back. Farve in his prime threw picks and took risks, but that is simply part of what you get w/ an aggressive QB. If all we ever do is nit pic QBs, how will we ever get a franchise QB? There is simply no such thing as a perfect QB. The closest thing to a perfect football player was Walter Payton, and maybe he just spoiled us. We can not hold out for perfection. In Cutler, you have a young, pro bowl QB. In Cutler, you have an incredibly rare situation of a player being available unlike most any time in the past. Are there questions on Cutler? Sure. But at the same time, I would argue he is simply FAR MORE proven than any other option we have seen, or will see.

No question there are going to be fans who rip Angelo no matter what, just as there are fans who will always find reason to praise him. I am not talking about the extremes though. There will always be those at the far end of either side who will blast away regardless of logic and reason. By and large though, I think the public outcry against Angelo will be less if the deal which is ultimately made is one simply out there. For example, I recall numerous fans wanting to go after Haynesworth in FA, w/ the idea of him playing next to Tommie Harris. Then Wash made a ridiculous offer, and I have never once heard a fan since attack Angelo for not getting Haynesworth. Thus, I think it simply about what the ultimate deals ends up being for. If it would have taken our entire draft and pro bowl players too, I just do not think as many fans as you think will rip him. If it ends up being a deal more in line w/ what we could do, I think you will see plenty.

I think that depends. If, for example, Detroit sends both 1st round picks, I can't see how many fans could rip Angelo. Or if Wash were to offer Campbell (a QB perceived to have greater upside than orton) and their 1st (about what, 5 picks in front of ours) as well as a package of picks, can Angelo be ripped. The point is, if another team simply creates a package the bears are "unable" to match, that is one thing. Where i think Angelo would be ripped is if the ultimate deal ends up being something the bears were simply "unwilling" to match. For example, lets say NYJs get Cutler by sending two 1st and a 3rd. That is a package the bears "could" match or better, but would be seen as unwiling. That is the sort of situation I think Angelo would be ripped.

This is a problem, IMHO, w/ fans looking at Pace. The assumption is Pace would be a two year stop gap, but I am not so sure we should count on that. It was believed Miller was a couple year stop gap, but it was more like one year, and the 2nd year he was awful. It was believed moving Tait would give us a couple years of solid play at RT, but that didn't even last one. I realize Pace is superior to both, yet at the same time, there is little question his play is on the decline, not to mention the 4 consecutive years of injury. As players get older, the injuries come more often and usually, the rehab lasts longer too. We agree adding Pace is a stop gap measure. Where we disagree is the expectation of how long he puts off the need, and further, if we do not draft OL now, we will only once again find ourselves in the same situation we find ourselves today. You can only put off your problems for so long. At some point, you need to deal w/ your problems in a long term manner, rather than simply trying to fix the same issue every year or two.

Here is the thing, Lovie and JA need to win soon. Pace makes the Oline better for next year, which is all they should be worried about at this point. While I am not saying there isn't a level of truth in that statement, at the same time, it is an awful statement. Usually, your coach is looking little more than to the next season, while the GM is expected to look more long term. The two are expected to equal things out. If we are in fact in a situation where the GM and HC care only about 2009, I think we are in more trouble than we though. As much as any teams wants to build for the coming season, it should not come at the expense of the future. W/ that said, i am not sure I buy into that. If we used that argument, why not sign Holt? There is little question he would upgrade the team in 2009, and most arguments against adding him surround the effect he would have in future years. But if the GM doesn't care about the future, then I would think we would have done this deal. I could argue similar for other FAs we have passed on. If Williams is the real deal then they can shift people around, but if he is not then we dont have wait around for another draft pick to develop. But how do you know if he is the real deal if you do not even give him a chance. If we bring in Pace to compete w/ Williams, is there any question Pace would win that competition? Even on the decline, Pace should be able to beat out a kid who has yet to start an NFL game. So how you are judging whether or not Williams is the real deal? If you are judging this based only on camp, then I question the process. A player has to get the chance to prove himself one way or another, and if we add Pace to play LT, I simply question how we find out whether Williams is the real deal or not. This makes extra sense if we are truely a player in the Cutler sweepstakes. Get a vet Oline solidified so we can all watch the super all star that is Jay Cutler. I would still argue against adding Pace to play LT, but if we were to trade for Cutler, adding Pace to play RT would make more sense. The thing about adding Cutler is, you are not just doing it for 2009. If 2009 were all we cared about, we could have just signed Warner. What makes Cutler so attractive is his age combined w/ his skills. You are trading for Cutler for now AND the future, and thus should be looking to build your OL to protect Cutler for the long term, not just for 2009.

Let me get this straight. You want to sign Pace and let him compete w/ Williams, who has never started a game? Yea, that is a fair competition. It is fairly obvious Pace would win, and if he didn't, then he was really a wasted signing. So what then. You have a 1st round pick sitting on the bench? How much exactly is he developing while getting splinters?

My fear is Angelo is "showing" interest more to avoid bad PR than because he truly intends to not only be involved in serious discussions, but honestly plans to give up what it takes to get Cutler. While the price may not go so high, I think to enter the game, we have to be prepared to give up as much as two 1st round picks, a 3rd and Orton. Doesn't mean that is our first offer, but a price I personally think it could get up to. If you don't intend to spend $100, you don't sit down at the $100 dollar table in Vegas. If the deal ultimately is something we simply could not match, like if Detroit sends both 1st round picks, fine. But what would make me sick is if most any other team were able to get a deal done, as I would view that as they simply out bid us.

The fact that the first thing McDaniels did is trade to trade for Cassell, who has a ton of questions himself, is crazy to me. If Cutler is so damn good, why would you do that? I think it is more about McDaniels and the system he knows and is used to. Cassel not only fits his system, but is who ran it last year. In Cassel, he saw his best chance to start w/ a new team and quickly install his system. Cutler may not be a perfect fit for his system and either way, will take time to adjust to it. Cassel simply meant a more smooth transition into that system. More than just asking that question, I think you should consider how most are blasting McDaniels and how this very young new HC has so quickly destroyed his reputation. That could change w/ time, but after a move like this, he may not even get the chance. The second thing is that I wouldn't be opposed to getting him as I think he is better than Orton. But some of the proposals in this thread are crazy. Give up our whole draft. And then trade away the best running back we have had since Neal frikin Anderson. Like I said, if we can get him for our first this year and a player like Harris or Hester, I'm good with it. But some people are acting like this guy is Dan Marino. Honestly, I have not seen the trade proposals. I would actually not be as opposed as you to trading Forte. Sorry, but check the records. RBs are simply put easier to find in this league than QBs. I love Forte, but he simple reality is, he is more replacable than a franchise QB. W/ that said, giving up our entire draft AND forte? Um, sounds a little extreme. I see the trade value being two 1st round picks (this year and next) as well as a 3rd, and potentially even a 5th. Now, if players are added, you can subtract the value from the picks. For example, if we offered Harris, I think it would be our 1st and 3rd, plus Harris, for Cutler. Something like that. But our 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc plus Forte seems to be high, and IMHO, way over the top of what any other would offer.

First, when you say other teams develop "late round" OL, I am not sure how true that is. While there no question are examples, I am not nearly as sure there are tons of 6th and 7th round picked OL starting in the NFL. If we had spent a bunch of 2nd, 3rd and 4th round picks on OL who failed to develop, I would far more agree w/ you. But take a look at the OL we have drafted, and I think you will find the majority were in the 6th and 7th rounds, or were undrafted rookie FAs we brought in. While I am NOT going to defend our OL coach, at the same time, I am not sure how much we can bust his chops for not developing 6th/7th rounders. Second, I hear all the time about how we do not play rookies, and I am just not sure how true that is. I could be wrong on some, but didn't all these players start at some point during their rookie seasons? - Columbo - Alex Brown - Tillman - Briggs - Tommie Harris - Tank Johnson - Berrian - Orton - Chris Harris - McBride - Forte On top of that, I would point out Williams was slated to start but was injured prior. Further still, I would add into that list the following players, who may not have started, but played significant minutes their rookie years: Bobby Gray, Todd Johnson, Ian Scott, Wade, Gage, Vasher, DM, Hester, Anderson, Olsen, Harrison, Steltz. I think we got a bad reputation because we don't (at least not usually) simply hand the job over to the rookie, but make them first earn it. I think that was especially seen w/ Benson. Many screamed about our not playing Bennett, but then we recently read all the reports (including from Bennett himself) that he simply couldn't get down the playbook. Its one thing to still be learning, but if you do not even know the plays called in the huddle, it is harder to argue that player should be on the field. I think we do in fact play our rookies, and have zero issue w/ the concept of making a rookie "show up" before handing them the job. Third, I see a difference this year looking at Britton as opposed to Williams last year. I know what you mean, but this is something I would point out. Britton is a highly graded out RT, but the value of RTs is simply not as high. In fact, I might even argue he is the top graded RT, as all OTs likely to be drafted in front of him are viewed as LTs. To me, Britton is more similar to Cherilous from last year, who I think was regarded as the top graded RT. Fourth, you and many seem to argue in the extremes. You talk about our 1st round pick and late round picks, but I am arguing just as much for the in between. Why can we not spend 2nd or 3rd round picks on OL? Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? If we add veterans, then I understand the need drops some in the draft, but does it have to go from 1st to 7th? Why can't we add a 2nd or 3rd rounder to compete w/ and or develop behind the stop gap veteran signed?

I would actually add Holt, but then again, he would be the only FA WR added, and thus would less likely affect our drafting of a WR, while Pace would represent our 3rd OL signed in FA, and more likely push OL way down our draft board, or off it all together.

Um, are we looking for a LT? I thought we already had one. I "might" agree more starting QBs were drafted after the 1st round than LTs, though I am far from certain on that one, but that is beside the point. We have already drafted our LTs, and I would argue against the idea that you can find a QB easier than a RT in the 3rd round or whatever after the 1st of the draft.

Moving Williams to RT is stupid as hell IMHO. I am going to save the argument of whether or not we should add Pace at all for the other thread already talking about that. But the issue I have here is the idea that we would play Pace at LT and move Williams to RT, though I question if that is even the actual plan. It was mentioned by this writer, but it seems many other writers felt Pace would play RT. Last year, leading up to the draft, we all knew OT was a priority, and we all read tons of scouting reports on Williams, as well as the rest of the OTs. One thing that always stood out to me, and part of the reason I was never that high on Williams was he was viewed as strictly a LT. He was considered a finesse OT suited to play LT due to his athleticism, but lacking the power and strength to play RT or even move inside. There were many threads talking about how Williams posed the greatest boom/bust of the OTs, because while he was viewed more strictly as a LT, others were considered more capable of moving to a different position. Williams was deemed to have greater upside at LT though, which was our key need, and thus our pick. But now we would consider moving him to RT? Come on. From what I have read, we want to add size to the OL and have even talked about mauler style OL for the right side. Everything read to date implies we want to beef up on the OL, and moving Williams to the right side would seem to counter that idea. Further, I have to ask, does this really help his development? He has already missed year one. If we add Pace and he plays two years, that means the franchis LT we drafted would not play LT until, at best, his 4th season. That sounds good to everyone here? If we wanted a RT, there were superior RT prospects on the board. We drafted Williams to be our LT, and to me, talk of moving him now seems like we are giving up a little to easily on him. Sorry, but this just does not make sense to me. It sounds far too much like another short term bandaid while hurting the development of the only damn OL we actually drafted.

Az, could things. One. I don't think Cutler is compared to George that much in terms of QB play. The comparison is simply due to the fact that Jeff George was the last QB in a trade situation like this. Highly touted prospect still in his youth. So the George comparison is really nothing more than trying to find a past time a similar trade was done in order to talk about trade values. Two. I understand you are not sold on QB, but let me ask you this. If you are not sold on Cutler, what is it going to take? In Cutler, you have a young, QB who developed quickly enough to make the pro bowl w/ in his 1st three seasons. I am not going to work down his good and bad traits, but just ask yourself that simple question. If Cutler isn't good enough for you, who is? In terms of veterans, I am not sure how you think you would ever have a chance at a better prospect. If we are talking draft, the highest graded out prospect ever would still be a far greater risk than Cutler, not to mention the question of whether we would be in a position to get him. I think that, at least for me, is the point you are missing. Is Cutler a sure thing? No. There is no such thing. But Cutler probably does represent the closest thing I have seen to a sure thing. Further, if there was ever a player to take a gamble on, it just seems like he represents that ideal risk/reward factor. You say you are not sold, but honestly, what is it going to take. When can you point to a time when we had a better opportunity?

One. Your "who says" question will only be answered for sure in the future, but I would argue history is not on the side of your crystal ball. It isn't "just" that we haven't drafted OL in the 2nd or 3rd rounds since Metcalf. It's that the ONLY OL we have drafted in Angelo's 7 years is Metcalf. THE ONLY ONE! As for your argument of, does Pace better our OL, then let me ask you this. Would most any hack veteran WR I might name improve our WRs corp in 2009? Our WR corp was/is so bad that I might argue most any WR we might add would upgrade significantly improve the group. Say we brought in Curry, or Furrey, or McDonald. I would argue any would improve our WR corp. Now say we pass on WR in the draft because we have already "significantly upgraded" our Wr corp. Play w/ names and examples, but I think you get the point. Just because you upgrade doesn't mean you have done the right thing. If you have the 30th ranked OL, and "upgrade it" to the 22nd spot, most would say 8 spots is a significant upgrade, and yet I would say it is still a bad OL.

Allow me a moment to understand what you are saying. You think it "very unlikely" we will find a difference maker OT in the 3rd or 4th, yet you think we will find a difference maker QB? How is that again? Okay, moving on. You think our situation on the OL is just so good (if we sign Pace) that we don't need to draft OL, and yet you talk about drafting a LB instead? Um, I think either Briggs or Urlacher are better at the LB position than ANY of the OL, even including Kreutz or Pace. If you think LB is a high need, you must think OL is an absolute.

Glad it made sense. Immediately after that post, I got some more coffee, because I realize that my attempt to put my thoughts into writing was very suspect, or at least more suspect than usual. I needed a serious caffine hit.

First, I would not sign Pace. Second, if we did sign Pace, would I draft an OL in the 1st? Maybe if Smith or Oher fell, but probably not if it was Britton, who I actually like very much. But while I might not draft an OT in the 1st, I would have OL among my top needs in the next couple picks. For example, I would absolutely still look to draft an OL in the 2nd round, not to mention the 3rd. I wuold allow that rookie a chance to compete inside at OG. If its an OT like Loadholt, he can play OG for a year, and then potentially move outside. If its a player like Duke, we simply lock up our OG spot. The point is, I do not blow off OL this year (late round picks are not different enough) and simply wait to see Pace fall off the cliff before dealing w/ the issue. I draft a player today and then hope to be prepared tomorrow. Just for the record, regarding the specific names you mentioned: Maclin - I am VERY much in the minority, but I am not a fan of his. When I look at our team, I simply believe WRs like Nicks, Robinskie and even Iglesias would offer more than a greater athlete/prospect like Maclin. Sanchez - If he fell to us, I would take him over any other prospect discussed. While I am not 100% sold on him (no one seems to be), I am sold on his potential. While he will need time to develop (a) we have Orton for this season ( if he were more developed, he wouldn't be availabe for the 8th pick, much less the 18th and © the potential reward of a franchise QB is worth the risk.

If we sign Pace, it would give us a "buffer" for this year. It will be more a need next year. But given our activity, I don't see a problem with not drafting more O-linemen this year if we pick up Pace. But have we not said the same every year, or does it just seem that way? Last year, we drafted Williams to play LT and moved Tait to RT. I would say there was no question Tait to RT was a short term solution, yet we said we would deal w/ that later. Later comes sooner, and we go the same short term route to deal w/ the problem. Same thing inside. Brown was fading fast, and everyone saw it. Yet what did we do in the draft to prepare? Go back a bit, and to me, we see the same thing. We add Miller, and yet fail to draft OT, and thus when Miller is done, we are left w/ a sad hole. It just seems like, since Angelo joined the team, we have had that same view on the OL. We continue to plug in veterans who are either very mediocre or over the hill and say we will deal w/ the problem again when we absolutely have to, at which point we deal w/ it the same way. Continually adding veterans who you hope can just give you a couple seasons, while not addressing the issue in the draft, does little to deal w/ the problem. What happens next year when Pace suffers another injury (hasn't he been hit w/ injury the last 4 seasons in a row?). Oh yea, we will sign another veteran and hope he can give us a good year or two. However, I also believe that these guys, more often than not, cannot be found in the later rounds. Good O-linemen go early and almost never hit free agency in their prime. Similar to Williams, we have to draft a guy in the first 1-2 rounds and let him develop. If we grap Pace, I don't believe that we need to use picks in the later rounds just to "address the position". More than likely, the guys won't pan out to much. We can use those picks for other needs. Understand, I am not saying we "should" draft OL in the late rounds. I am saying we should draft OL early, but expect Angelo to wait until late.

On the other hand, Mike Vick was "suspended indefinitely" on the charges/accusations alone. He was thrown out of the league way before the courts had their say. So, your point on Goodell dropping the hammer w/o a conviction wasn't the case for Vick. I think it likely comes down to the amount of evidence against a person. In many of the human v human issues, it is one person's word against another, and thus there may be a greater need for waiting for the issue to play out. On the other hand, as w/ some other situations, the evidence is such that, while a trial may still be necessary for legal purposes, it is sufficient for league punishment. Also, specifically about Vick, even after the charges came out, was there not a time when Goddell did give Vick the benefit of doubt? I seem to recall Vick meeting w/ Goddell and telling him he was not a part of the fights at all, and Goddell took him at his word and handed down zero punishment. I think that was in the offseason, was it not. But before long, the evidence (which was public due to the celebrity status of Vick) was so over-whelming that Goddell knew he had been lied to, and smacked Vick down for it.

One point I think you are missing. If a player is out of the league, then there is no reason for Goddell to hand down a punishment. If those players were signed to a team, they would likely then be dealt w/. In fact, I would argue that a big part of why they were not re-signed was likely the expectation they would be hit by Goddell, and thus teams simply took a pass. I do not think there is an issue of fans minimizing how bad human against human events are. In fact, i think there is in fact a greater push for greater punishment across the board.

To start with, while Pace may be a future HOF, that has no bearing on him today. I am sorry to say this, but I think some fans may need to sit back and take a more broad look at this. Pace is no longer the player he once was. If he were close to that player, he would have been signed w/ in days of hitting the market. Not only has he found little interest for his services, but it would appear his game has dropped off so much that he will be moving to RT, a position he has never played. That isn't to say he can't play it, but does put into perspective how far his game has dropped. IMHO, when a players game declines that much, you are talking about a real short period of time before it falls of the cliff. Look at Tait, and no, I am not saying the two players are the same. But Tait was a solid LT, but his game faded. It was believed he could move over to RT to prolong his career, but the reality was, he was done. Fred Miller was also a RT, but once his game began to fade, it went fast. Pace was far superior to both, but at the same time, it isn't like Tait and Miller were career scrubs. So I just question this belief that Pace would be such an automatic great RT for us for 2-3 years. If we sign him, I would just hope to get one great season out of him. Moving on, lets say we did sign him. Sure, I would agree OT is no longer our #1 need, but would still maintain it to be a top tier need. Per Angelo himself, OL take time to develop, thus if we wait until Pace is done, we will have waited to long, and once again be in the same situation as we are. That is the point I think some miss in my argument. My issue is not adding veteran OL. Never has been. It is w/ adding veteran OL and then ignoring OL in the draft, which has been Angelo's practice since joining the bears. We have had a revolving door on the OL at all positions except center, which Angelo inherited when he joined the team. IMHO, if we continue to add the sort of veterans we have and are, we will never stop the revolving door, and never have the consistent OL I think we need. We may see an immediate upgrade (though even that is relative) but the long term success will never be there.

One. Agreed Brown gave us a few good years. Actually disagree on Miller, who I think gave us one good year, and then stunk. But the point is still the same. Whether they gave one, two or three good years, who did we have ready to step in and replace them? It isn't that I am so against adding veterans who can give us a couple good years. My problem is doing this w/o following through in the draft. Two. I think you "slightly" misunderstand my point. If we were to add all these veteran OL we have, and then hit the draft and say took an OL in the 2nd round, or traded down from our 1st and did something w/ that. Or even our 3rd, fine. I just do not believe we will. Right now, after signing Omiyale and Shaffer, I personally believe OL becomes (in Angelo's mind) a 4th round or lower pick. Maybe our conditional 3rd, at best. If we add Pace, I think the 6th round is the highest we see OL drafted. That is my problem. It isn't an either or situation. Either draft OT in the 1st or we suck. We can do both (draft and veterans) but I think Angelo believes we can add more and more bandaid OL and then throw a bunch of late round pick OL to develop, but our history shows that plan doesn't work.

First, I would point out that Williams was the only OL drafted in the 1st last year that didn't start, so I am not sure we should simply expect that moving forward. Second, you say drafting hasn't been their strong suit lately, and I assume you mean OL. My response would be that when you draft so few, misses become more obvious. Every team has their misses, but when you just draft just a couple OL (3 in the first 3 rounds in 7 years), the misses become more apparant. Instead of drafting an OT once every could years, maybe try to draft multiple and we will see more success stories. Just imagine if we had the same philosophy on the OL as we do on the DL or secondary. We have had plenty of DL and DB misses, but we have drafted so freaking many, that we have also found hits which allow us to better forget and forgive the misses. When you draft 10 DL, and only 3 are hits, at the end of the day, that means you still have 3 solid or starting players, if not even potentially studs. However, if you only draft 2 or 3 OL, and they don't breakout, it looks like you just can draft OL, but maybe you are just as good drafting OL and DL, but you don't match numbers. Know what I am trying, poorly, to say. Damn I need more coffee. Final point. I get that adding Omiyale, Shaffer and potentially Pace upgrades our OL from last year. My issue is, when you say, "as long as we draft one by the 3rd) that is where I have an issue. Right now, I think there is a low chance we draft OL prior to the 4th, which our conditional 3rd as the top spot I can see happening. If we add Pace? I think OL becomes a 5th, 6th or 7th round pick, and no higher. That is where I have a problem. I don't mind adding bandaids, so long as you are also adding the young prospects to develop to replace those bandaids. Think of it like this. Your kids gets a bad cut which needs stiches. Before you get stiches, you have to cover the wound on the way to the hospital. The OL Angelo continually signs are those temporary wraps. No problem w/ that. The problem is he doesn't follow up by drafting prospects (the stiches) so you can have long term solutions.

Their system is all about quick releases. Thus their pass blocking can look better than it is, yet their run blocking was considered poor, and thus why OL is considered a need for NE. Regardless, if you knock one team off the list, the point is still valid. Many teams need an OT, and yet only one or two OTs are there to be drafted.

A big key for me is a player who has past character issues must show he is ready to move on and grow up. While having a beer is not a biggie, if he is on probation and can not drink, and yet he does, has he really learned from his past and made a decision to change?