nfoligno

Or, add both and dictate both the run and pass. Add Duke, and let him compete (beat out) Garza. AND add Britton, and let him compete (beat out) Shaffer. If we did this, we would have (a) upgraded our starting OL short term ( upgraded our starting OL long term and © upgraded our depth. Trust me, i realize this is a pipe dream, but am I not allowed to dream?

What is the value of an entire draft? The idea itself sounds big, but after the 1st, what is really the value of the rest of the draft. If you look at the trade chart, the value, assuming you had the 18th pick in each of the next rounds, you would add up to about 700 points, or equal to around the 26th pick of the draft. So we really are talking about the equivalent of two #1 draft picks. Who would I trade that for? I realize you, and others, are looking for one name, but my answer is many. I think there are many (relative) players in the NFL worth two 1st round picks, or again, the equivalent of an entire draft. W/o doing much checking, I would throw out there: QB Rivers, Cutler, Rothlisberger and (if healthy) Brady. I would likely also do this for Manning, but only not if I were starting from scratch. After 11 seasons, I am not sure if he would be the right player to build a team around. RB AP? I might do that, but I am not 100% sure. AP is a young stud, but RBs go down to easily and often, and AP has already suffered injury. As great as he is, I am not sure I would give up two #1s for him. WR Some might disagree, but I definitely believe there are WRs who are worth two #1. Fitzgerald immediately comes to mind. Andre Johnson too. OL For the OL, I believe you have to be looking at the LT position. Some years back, I said I was willing to give Seattle two #1s for Walter Jones. A few years later, I am not sure I would still do that due to his age, but for other LTs? They are some damn good LTs who have entered the leauge in the last two years who it think already are worth it. Joe Thomas, Jake Long and Clady. While I am sure there are some, I just can not think off the top of my head other veterans, but the above three are already among the elite in the league, and still very young. DL I already heard Mario Williams, and would have to agree there. Ware, Peppers, Freeney, Jared Allen. LB Honestly, I am not sure I would give up 2 #1s for a LB. As great as a LB may be, there are simply too many great LBs out there. This position is simply not as difficult to find great talent as some of the above positions. DB I would point out that I do not think a CB is worth two #1s in our system, but in general, yes, the league's elite CBs could be worth that. To be totally honest, I do not know anymore who the truly elite are, but Champ (in his prime) or a Neon Dion shut down corner is easily worth the picks. If I had to choose just one, it would likely be one of the QBs, and likely not Manning. Honestly, it might be Big Ben, who I think may be among the most under-rated QBs in the league. The guy is awesome, but just never seems to get the credit most other QBs who do the same would. Not sure if it is him or the team he plays for, but he is nearly an after-thought when talking about the elite QBs, and yet I think should absolutely be considered in the mix.

One. If we added Duke in the 2nd, I would be far happier. While maybe not the Oher/Britton - Duke combo I would love, adding Duke, to go along w/ the 2 OL FA additions would be much better than expected. I simply have a tough time seeing him drafting Duke now. Two. If we do not draft Duke, or any other OL ready to start now, will our OL be upgraded w/ Williams, Omiyale and Shaffer. Likely. Not absolute, as Williams and Omiyale are really unknowns and Shaffer is coming off a horrible year, but I will say I think our OL would be upgraded w/ these three starting. At the same time, I think the question has to be asked. How much of an upgrade? When you have one of the absolute worst units in the league, simply upgrading that unit doesn't say much. Statistically, our defense last year was better than the year before, but if it still sucks, how much can you hang your hat on their not sucking as bad as the year before. I didn't just want an upgrade. I didn't want to go from a bottom 5 OL to a mid or low 20s ranking. I felt there was a legit opportunity to take a weakness and make it a strength. Could that still happen? Maybe. But if we believe that Omiyale and Shaffer will be that good, I think our expectations may be a tad high.

Honestly, I am not sure how many truly dislike the signing of Shaffer if looked at as an individual move, w/o considering other aspects. I have no issue w/ Shaffer. I pointed out the swap situation only because I thought it funny when considering Angelo's previous comments, but that is truly a minor issue. I was never a big fan of St. Clair. I liked him for depth, but little else, and didn't like the idea this year or last of "planning" on him as a starter. To me, St. Clair is a nice backup plan, or plan B, but I just never liked the idea of him as Plan A. No, the greater issue is the expections this creates leading up to the draft. Anything can happen, but while I will continue to hope, I will not be holding my breath. The issue is not just the signing, but how that affects further moves. I said some time back I didn't want to re-sign St. Clair for the same reason. I simply see VERY LITTLE chance Angelo will draft an OL early after watching him address OL in FA. Remember, Angelo talked last year about how he does not like to draft OL in the first place. He said he believes OL takes longer to adapt to the NFL than most other positions, and doesn't like to draft a guy who may play well for another team after being developed by us. He said that is why he prefers to sign veterans who have already been developed. So, heading into the draft, I simply can not see him doing what he doesn't like to do in the first place. I think Angelo believes he has added two starters, and will look to the later rounds for depth, but not be looking early in the draft for more immediate upgrades. To me, this is just the status quo. Angelo has continually sign bandaid OL, and while that has provided a few short term payoffs, they are just that. Short term. And when combined w/ the lack of OL in the draft, there is never anyone ready to take over when those short term FAs need to be upgraded.

BPA??? Who would you have rather had? Look at the first round from last year: With the exception of Matt Forte in round II, there were no studs we passed up, other then o-lineman. Not my point. I simply wonder whether Williams was truly the "BPA" on our board, or whether he was the best OT available. My point is, I believe we do not rank OL as highly as we do other positions, and thus OL is always lower on our board. So when Angelo says we drafted the BPA on our board, I believe it is true, but question the creation of our board in the first place. As for last year specifically, there were a group of DBs who were drafted near our spot. I wonder if our board actually had Williams graded over all of them, or whether we simply took the best OT available. Understand, I am NOT knocking our taking an OT. That isn't the point. My point, and I realize it is one I will NEVER be able to prove, is simply the belief that we do not, when creating our board, grade OL as highly as we do other positions. More importantly, what our the best "BPA" options this year at #18??? Unless someone falls, and with the exception of linebacker, the BPA will be a WR or OT. Both are major needs, both are likely to be the BPA, and everything indicates we'll be taking one or the other. Besides LB, WR and OT, there are several DL who many project around our pick. It would not surprise me at all if our board had several DL ranked above the WRs and OTs. As for your saying the BPA will likely be WR or OT, I would agree if we were talking about my board, your board, or many others, but I just wonder if Angelo's board would have an OT ranked up there, as well as wondering how many defensive players he would have graded higher than the WRs. Try to understand my point here. Angelo is a former defensive scout who worked his way up the chain. I think he has a defensive bias when looking at players. Thus, when grading players and creating his board, I think he simply favors defensive players.

I personally think numerous players would fit the bill. I think you are most likely looking at QB, LT, WR, DL and CB. I think of it this way. Is an entire draft worth that much more than two #1 picks, which is the value of a franchise player? I am not so sure. If I have to give up my entire draft for a franchise player I can build my team around, I think that is worth it. The draft is a total crap shoot, and the later the round, the worse the odds. Think about it this way. If you use your picks, and all but one turns out to be a bust, but that one pick is a legit franchise player at a premier position, would most not say it was still a good draft, despite all the busts? Look at 2005. That was an awful draft for us, but imagine if Orton (drafted in the 4th) were to turnout to be a great, pro bowl QB. I would say that draft was a success, despite the bombs, simply because we walked away w/ a franchise QB. Getting multiple quality or very good players is always great, but if you walk away from a draft w/ one elite, franchise player, I think you have done even better than if you walk away w/ several good players. Thus, I think it would be worth it to give up an entire draft for numerous players in the NFL.

You never know w/ any GM. All you can do is guess and predict based on past. Angelo has had 23 draft picks on day one. He has drafted OL in 3 of those slots, two of which were in his first year. Since then (2002) Williams was his only OL draft pick. Further, I would argue the two times he drafted OT in the 1st, it was a need pick and not BPA pick. Further still, he has drafted 5 or 6 OL in rounds 6 and 7. So my point is, historically, Angelo does not draft OL early. Especially after his two "big" FA signings were both OL, I just have a hard time seeing him following that up w/ a day one OL draft pick. I think you know I would love it if he did, but just am not holding my breath. I do agree w/ the draft philosophy for the most part though. I disagree w/ the idea of pure BPA, but agree more so w/ the idea of drafting BPA at a select group of positions. Problems I have here are (a) I do not necessarily agree as to what our top tier, or even 2nd tier, need areas are and ( do not have a great deal of faith in our "board". As we have a defensive scout background GM, I feel he gives heavier weight to the defensive prospect when creating our board, and thus we grade defensive players higher than offensive (especially OL). Thus, while Angelo will honestly say he may be drafting the BPA according to our board, it is how we set up that board which I question.

Yea, it isn't that I have a problem w/ the player, his contract, or signing him over St. Clair. If we had signed St. Clair, even for the low amoung we had been offering, I would have had the same reaction. I posted some time back that I felt we were best served by NOT re-signing St. clair, as I felt that only lessened our changes of drafting OL early. Now, I think the chances are near zero we draft OL early. Not only do I think we pass on OL in round one, but I think we pass in round two as well. In round 3, maybe w/ our conditional pick, but more likely we will look in the 4th and later. In fact, I will throw out this projection. We take one OL w/ either the conditional 3rd or 4th, then two more between our 6th and multiple 7th. Angelo will pretend he stressed the OL w/ so many selections, and even crow about the several more undrafted rookie OL FAs he will add. Meanwhile, we will have: -another WR we can't develop, -another DE so deep on the depth chart he won't get an opportunity, an injury will be thought up and he will be red shirted, er, I mean IR'd. -another DB who will play special teams, -another LB who will receive tons of advice from Jamar Williams on how to keep the bench warm -and another RB who will wonder why AP is still getting carries before him.

One, that is part of my issue w/ this move. IMHO, Angelo never sees the BPA as an OL. I personally believe that our staff simply does not value OL as highly, and thus OL does not rank as high on our draft board, and thus is why they are never the best player available. I would argue the only time we actually draft OL relatively early is when we are drafting for need, and not BPA. Man, I would love to know where Williams was on our board last year, and how many BPA options we passed to take our need pick. Two, I just am not a big fan of the BPA theory. We have too many major needs to simply take the BPA. If the BPA were a RB, would you advocate taking him? What if the BPA were a LB? That is a position some would argue as a need for us. I think drafting a LB would be a nearly wasted pick. I am not saying we should take a major reach for a need, but I do think we should be looking at a select group of needs. If, when looking at our board, there is not a player that fills one of those needs w/in a few slots of where we are drafting, then trade down. I would rather reach a little for a top tier need than take the BPA at a position not in need, or in low-tier need.

Me, take what Angelo says as fact. That's funny. I simply said I found it interesting how his actions so well defy his words. I questioned his words then. The idea that you avoid FAs because their former team must have let them go for a reason was a joke. At the same time, I just found it comical how he talks one day about how you have to question a player on the market because if his team liked him so much, he wouldn't be on the market, only to see angelo the next day (relative) sign a player who was cast off by his former team.

For the record, cap cuts were part of why I disagreed w/ Angelo, but I am not sure how this situation was different. It happens all the time. A player is cut by his team to avoid paying a bonus, but often that team is still in play to re-sign him back if they still want him. That they signed St Clair over Shaffer makes me question how much they wanted him back or how much they thought of him. No question money is a factor, but didn't they sign St. Clair for about the same as we signed Shaffer? At the end of the day, does that not simply mean they preferred St. Clair?

I disagree some on the position coaches. Just reading the stuff our players are saying about Marinelli, while making Marinelli look good, also paints a bit of a negative picture on our past DL coach. They talk about how much he is making them watch film, which implies the prior OL coach did not. They talk further about how much he does w/ them while watching film, making more of a study than just a viewing, again, implying that was not the case before. Finally, several players have made similar comments about how, when Marinelli tells them what to do, he also does a good job of explaining why, thus doing a better job of gettting players to buy into the scheme/moves. Again, all this implies things being done now that were not before. I understand it can not all be put on the position coaches. At the same time, if we are going to hold people accountable, I do not see how we can avoid holding the position coaches accountable when it simply does not appear they are doing their job. I would also point to DM as an example. DM seemed like a player destined to be out of the NFL. He simply didn't show much development. By all accounts, Lovie stepped in an personally began to work w/ DM, and suddenly he starts to develop. Should it not be questioned why our actual DB coach was incapable of producing such results? As for Lovie's style, I don't know. I agree he initially seemed to want a tougher camp, but injuries set us back. At the same time, I question the need to alter the camp, and feel it was more of a conditioning issue than simply the tough camp. We dealt w/ the conditioning issue when we added Rusty, thus I question if we ever needed to soften camp. Further, I would argue against the need for extremes. Lovie may have felt the need to tone down camp, but did he need to make it so dang soft? And not just camp, but throughout the year as veterans seemed to always be getting days off during the week, regardless of how well they played in games.

Two quick things: 1) I don't know about you, but I knew that the Bears didn't need to draft a RB. The year you call "decent" showed much more than enough to know that he was capable of being a very good #1 RB. I remember well your position. But (a) injuries over his career were an issue, thus wondering if he could be relied on as an every down, every game RB and ( while he looked good, or even potentially very good, at the same time, the belief (however wrong) was Benson was a "special" RB. 2) Don't act like Forte won't be crying for a new deal in the very near future. If he doesn't, I'll be shocked. One, I do not believe he would be "crying" for a new deal. Would he seek a new deal. Most likely. At the same time, I am not sure it is a given he would create such a stir as TJ has done over the years, nor do I think it a sure thing he would be the sort of demand a new deal two years after getting his new deal.

I hate this move. We entered the offseason in need of MAJOR upgrades on the OL. Instead, we get the same sort of moves we have seen for years. Basically, we signed St. Clair and Garza all over again. We signed a couple guys who "may" be an upgrade over what we have, but that is due more to how bad our previous situation was. These moves are bandaids, and not permanent fixes. Problem is, if anyone believes Angelo will follow up these moves by drafting OL as well, they are fooling themselves. I would not expect Angelo to draft an OL now prior to the 4th round, which I think it is joke. In a perfect world, I would actually like this move as we needed to much added to our OL, but we live in Angelo's world, and in Angelo's world, we just solved our OL problems, and now will enter the draft looking for some late round prospects to develop for the distant future. One final point. I have to laugh a bit. In Angelo's big Q & A a few weeks ago on the Bears web site, he talked about FA. In it, he talked about how you have to question FAs as they were not deemed worthy of being re-signed by the teams, and added that those teams know them best. Well, we just signed an OT who Cle not only didn't want back, but actually felt John freaking St. Clair was an upgrade to. Regardless if that is true or not, when looking at this in the context of Angelo's previous statement, you have to scratch you head just a bit.

I agree there is a financial risk, but am not sure the risk is so great where we sit at 18. The top of the draft right now is a joke, and one thing I believe will change in the new CBA. The top pick in the draft is supposed to help a struggling franchise, but due to the financial risk of the pick, it is more like an all or nothing bet. It is hard enough to deal w/ a bust, but when that bust is tied to a $30m+ in guarantees, it is nearly impossible. I mean, what does it say that it seems like each year the top pick team wants to trade down, but can find no takers. It can easily be argued you have similar financial issues w/ the top 10 picks, but after that, the risk (financial) really begins to drop, and at 18, while there is an obvious financial risk, I just do not believe it is such a great one that you try to trade down to avoid.

Pretty much agree here. I have said all along that I believe we have (minus FS) the talent on defense. I just can't get away from the fact that so littler personnel changed since we were a great defense leading up to the SB, while our coaching changed dramatically. Not just w/ Babich, but also our DL coach was changed. Since then, our DL has essentially tanked, and our defense as a whole has just been bad. If it were just Urlacher, or Wale (pair of older players) I could better understand the argument that we just got old, but our problems have been across the board. Vasher went from pro bowl talk to sucking. Urlacher fell off a cliff. Tillman, even when healthy, has appeared weaker. No pass rush and iffy run defense. While you and I never saw eye-to-eye on the debate of scheme, one area I think we agreed on was our coaching being a problem. Now, that coaches has changed, and the players can now only point fingers at themselves. That is why I want to see a very offense-based draft. As much as I question Turner, at the same time, I feel he has gotten FAR more production out of far less. But at the same time, IMHO, if we do not provide him better talent, I can easily see our offense taking a step backward this year.

Then again, the last time we made such a move, we ended up w/ Daniell Manning. Further, while Angelo has said DM was always the target, I still believe we intended to get one of the highly touted LBs, but after there was a run, we took DM and said he was our man all along. You say there is better value at the end of the 1st, but what position or players are you talking about. OL? If we wanted a center, I would agree, but I am less convinced on OT. At 18, we have a shot at Oher, and if he is gone, I think Britton is a solid value at 18. At the end of the 1st, I think both are gone, and the only OT of value I can see is Loadholt, who I am on record saying I think could be like Dwayne Brown, and go in the 1st round this year due to a run at OT. I assume you mean WR though. At 18, value debates range for Nicks, Britt and even Robiskie, and I can see these WRs being a better value at the end of the 1st or early 2nd, but would also wonder who will be off the boards. Used to, I was all for trading down and getting better value, but I now believe the risk is simply not often worth the reward. The reward is getting a player you like for better value, but the risk is losing out all-together on the player(s) that you like, and thus I just think the risk is greater than the reward. When I look at teams that pick after us, I see many that are likely looking at OT and WR. If there is a run at these positions in the backhalf of the 1st round, well, I just would rather start a run than be at the end, or outside looking in.

I could be wrong, but I think he sat out mini-camps, rather than training camp. I believe both he and Briggs (same agent) sat out mini-camp. Seriously, I know many loved TJ. I think he can be a solid RB too, but the guy has been a bit of a jerk since being in the NFL. He was a top 10 pick bust for Az. I could be wrong, but I believe Benson actually showed more for Chicago than TJ did for Az. He then moves on to TB, where he yet again can't win the starting job. (Michael Pitman held him back at Az & TB) We take a flyer on him, signing him to a contract which was modest for FA, but not a bad size for a two time bust. He does decent his first year, but also missed a pair of games w/ injury (a prior red flag). He doesn't breakout for the team though, and does little to kill concerns of health, and thus the bears draft Benson. Almost immediately, there was a rift between Benson and TJ, not to mention Benson and TJ's buddies. It got even worse as TJ had a big year, and yet the team still had their big investment in Benson. Then TJ begins crying about his deal, and wants either new money or a trade. Holds out mini camp, and finally agrees to play on the condition the team will trade him after the season, which happens. But the drama continues for TJ. Only two seasons after NYJ trade for him and give him a contract that makes him happy, TJ is now demanding yet another new deal, and skipping the teams conditioning program. All I have to say is, I am glad we have Forte now.

Sometimes?

Good call on Anderson/Brown, as that is what I recall as well. So often, you hear stories (from other teams) about how some veteran took a rookie under his wing and really helped develop him. I don't think you see that much from our guys. Maybe some, but not often. I also wonder how much of a factor this is in our young players slow, or inability, to develop. We can all talk about coaching, but I just do not think you can take away from the mentoring aspect either. Many talk about how Benson cried about the defense, but I also remember Benson being very much at odds w/ TJ. Sure didn't seem like TJ did much to take him under his wing.

Few points. One, if the reasoning is experience would benefit Williams, I would argue Beekman is far more experienced. Omiyale has been "in the league" for 4 years, but I think half of that was on Atlanta and Carolina's practice squads, and he has only one start to his name. Beekman has been in the league, on an active roster, two years and started every game last season. I think Beekman offers more "experience" to help Williams than Omiyale. Two. If there is an idea to slide him to LT if Williams doesn't pan out, would he not be better served playing RT then? If we stick him at OG, and develop him inside, I would think it would then be more difficult to move back outside, or at least more difficult than if he were playing RT and then moved to LT.

I don't know if we can read anything into workouts, but if we did, I might begin to believe Angelo is looking to trade down. IMHO, numerous players we have looked at or shown interest in are players who many would view as a reach at 18, but are not likely to be available in the 2nd. I wonder if we might not see another trade down into the late 1st or early 2nd.

Agreed. Personally, as far as fans go, he wasn't exactly wanted in the first place. As I recall, very few were in favor of supporting him leading up to the draft. From there, it was basically a down slope. He fought w/ ownership over money. Funny thing here is, so many call our team cheap and would often side w/ the player, but not when they didn't like the player to begin w/. Funny thing is, over time the numbers came out and it did seem in fact like the teams was offering less than market value for the draft slot, but few remember or care. To fans who didn't like him in the first place, he should have felt honored to be drafted by the bears and taken whatever was offered to him. But as bad as it was w/ the fans, it was worse in the club house. Benson entered a situation where he was the player drafted to replace a veteran who was very liked and respected by the team. From the get-go, Benson was a target. Unfortunately, he didn't have the mental makeup to deal w/ this, and thus things really tanked. In the end, I think Benson is a good player (though not great) and he sure seems to have found a better situation in Cincy. His teamates sure seemed to support him, and even raved about his work habits. Benson was a problem, but to be honest, I wonder how much of the problem still remains in Chicago. I have said for years I feel our team lacks leadership. As poorly as we develop young talent, I sort of wonder how much Benson was the problem and how much Benson was yet another example of a greater problem on our team.

I know much of your point was sarcasm, but I simply believe we signed Omiyale to play OG and believe all signs point to that as well. I think they viewed him very much like St. Clair heading into last year. He was be our starting LG, but would be the first option to move outside if needed. Right now, there is that need, but I think we will see a RT added in the 1st round, and then see Omiyale back at LG. Look, I do not totally get it either. Omiyale has been in the NFL for 4 years now. He has been w/ two teams. The entire time, he was viewed as an OT, and the one game he started, was at OT. So I was never 100% sure why we viewed him as an OG. W/ that said, it is very much in our staff's nature to a player, who everyone else views as one thing, only to view him differently. They seem to also see in-the-box safeties, and believe they are FS'.

I could sell you ocean front property in Arizona. Angelo however, I couldn't sell a glass of fresh, cool ozarka water in the middle of a desert.