nfoligno

All I care about is what we get for Berrian. Seriously, I just do not care too much about a 6th or 7th at this point. What "will be sweet" is if we get a 3rd for Berrian.

What ticks me off about these articles, There was a similar article on the Trib about a week ago. A friend sent me the article and acted like that was the end all be all, and explained away the teams lack of aggression this offseason. I looked over the article, and IMHO, freaking shredded it, and really got ticked off as I did at how ignorant the writers must assume we fans are. I wasn't upset so much w/ the argument itself that teams are standing back due to a bad talent FA, but many of the teams used to support the argument just flat out piss me off. For example, looking at this article, and the first group of teams listed to support the argument. Carolina - This was a team w/ less than $9m in cap space, and yet found a way to re-sign their stud OT and used another $17m in cap space to tag Peppers. No, they have not been out there in FA, but lets not pretend that is by choice. They have no dang cap space to be players in FA. To use Carolina as an example of a team that is not being aggressive in FA is simply an insult IMHO. Indy - Another example. They were $2m OVER the cap at the start of FA, and had numerous in-house FAs they needed to find room to re-sign. They were up against the cap to the point they had to release Harrison, and I think others, in order to take care of others they wanted to retain. Again, a team that have not been players in FA, but stop pretending that is by choice. Minny - As I recall, this was a team w/ 30 freaking in-house FAs. No, they don't want to keep all, but that is still a ton of players they need to work w/. Further, while they did not end up getting him, they were competing w/ Seattle for TJ Hous, so lets not pretend they have not been active in FA. Just because they lost doesn't mean they avoided the battle. The point is, it gets real old reading these articles that excuse the bears lack of aggression this offseason by using other teams as examples, but an average fan could see how bad of an example so many of these teams are. I have no problem if someone wants to make the argument, but stop insulting us fans by using teams like Carolina/Indy (for example) to support those theories. We entered FA w/ $30m in cap space. We had nearly zero in-house FAs who were considered a priority to retain. We had/have no other (non FAs) players who we are looking seriously at extensions. Simply put, we were in a position very different from most any other team out there in that we had a ton of money, and simply not much to do w/ it. Other teams either didn't have cap space, had a ton of in-house FAs they had to work to retain or just a few expensive ones, or have players in a position for early extension preventing their teams from spending too much. As much as the writers want to compare so many teams w/ us, I have seen few examples that really compare. the Panthers, Minnesota Vikings, Indianapolis Colts and Super Bowl-champion Pittsburgh Steelers -- who haven't signed one.

I am surprised Bennett would have been compared to Sharpe, as one of the things I remember some quesitoning was his strength. I have seen Nicks compared to Roddy White, Keyshawn Johnson and Michael Irvin, all of which were considered #1 WRs.

My bad, I meant Britt. I am totally high on Nicks, and after Crabtree, he is my favorite WR in the draft. Total brainfart on my part.

IMHO, the stats you provide yourself show how different Nicks and Bennett are. Take a look at the YPC. IMHO, Bennett's YPC shows him to be a possession WR. Nicks YPC reflects a playmaker. I think this is sort of a misconception. If a WR lacks elite speed, he is automatically considered a possession WR. That is even more so true when he is know for great route running and hands. But that doesn't always tell the whole story. If you look at some other WRs like Keyshawn Johnson and Michael Irvin (two WRs Nicks has been compared to) you find playmakers who lacked that elite speed. Just because a WR doesn't have the straight line speed to burn a DB deep doesn't mean he can't be a playmaker. From everything I have seen and read, Nicks is a playmaker. Bennett is a possession WR. Nothing wrong w/ that, but I think it wrong to say the two are so similar. DHB is a tremendous athlete, but (a) I have an issue w/ the lack of production in college and ( he is a raw talent, and I just do not believe we have the staff in place to develop such raw talent. Finally, I would offer you another scouting report, and one a tad more in depth. No, I am not saying this report is the end all be all, but I do believe it is a bit more in depth. http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1117392

I think the point of the comparison is about size as much as anything. Two things. One, whehter a 3rd or 4th, how many OL drafted at that point should we expect to start day one? Heck, if we draft most any position in that round, he is not likely to start day one anyway. Two, I agree 100% conditioning is always going to be an issue for a player like that. At the same time, I think we have a very good strength and conditioning coach. In fact, he is one of the few I have some level of faith in. Put the big boy on a program, and see what sort of shape we can get him into.

One, Loadholt in the 3rd? Why just just say we draft Nicks in the 2nd? Come on. Loadholt is the 6th rated OT behind Britton, who is expected to be drafted around our pick. You think Loadholt that goes the back part of the 1st, the entire 2nd, and half of the 3rd w/o being drafted? To be honest, after solid workouts, I think Loadholt will go the route of Duane Brown last year, and end up going in the late 1st. Two, if we draft a DE in the 2nd round, I will puke. Yea, let's go get a 4th DE (AGAIN) before we have starters at other positions.

As happy as I was the DL coach was let go, and Babich was demoted, I was equally disappointed we kept Drake. Not only in development, but our WRs are all the time running the wrong routes, screwing up blocking assignments or just botching plays. How do we not hold "their" position coach responsible. Is Drake still around due to the Texas ties? I am not 100% letting Turner off the hook, but I really think the bigger problem is Drake. It is not Turner's job to make sure each and every one of his offensive players learns the playbook. That is what we have position coaches for.

I don't know. In space, he is going to get beat. But inside, he has so much size, I think it is simply going to be more difficult to get "around" him or "through" him. Look, I don't think he is a prospect anyone "loves". I just think Bear fans are tired of smaller OGs getting pushed straight back by bigger and stronger DTs, and the idea of Johnson simply is appealing. Here is a pretty good scouting report on him, actually comparing him (though less athletic) to Stacy Andrews. http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/518158

One, most talking about him are talking as a 3rd or 4th round pick. And w/ the 3rd, I think many are thinking about the potential compensation pick, at the end of the round. I would argue these are 2nd day picks and you can take more risk on a player like Johnson. Two, I am not sure that he is projected to OT. I am have seen projected as both OT and OG. I think he will be an OG. Three, at least for me, it has been partially about the fun. We have tried the athletic, finesse OL route. Now try something different, and I would say a 365 lb OG would be different.

Take a look at the below linked scouting report on Nicks (and you can also use this to check out DHB and whoever else). It is very detailed, http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1117392 They compare Nicks to Keyshawn Johnson (far cry from Bennett) and DHB to Ashlie Lelie. Nicks also gets a overall grade of around 7.3, while DHB is around 6.7 (I think that is more similar to Robiskie and more of a 2nd round grade). DHB is a great looking prospect, but the kid is just so raw it is sick. I am tired of going after track stars and athletes and want to begin focusing on football players. That means we look at some who may not have the best 40 time or 3 cone or vertical, but put them on the field and they can simply play. Put them in pads and they show burst, rather than the guys who look like freaks in shorts.

Two others I have seen him compared to are Roddy White (recent) and Keyshawn Johnson (not so recent). Like Irvin, I think a key is simply in the way he plays. You have many WRs out there who list 6'3, 6'4 or more, but they simply fail to utilize their height. They wait for the ball to get to them, rather than attack it. They jump up, but do not time it best, and catch the ball even (in the jump) w/ their head, rather than high above. In other words, they do not catch the ball at its highest point. They knew how to use their body to shield a defender. When the QB throws, only the WR is going to be in position to make a play on the ball. These guys ran great routes, and just new how to get open. They also had upper body strength that allowed them to more easily get clean releases off the LOS. And anything thrown in their zip code was caught. These are the things said about Nicks. Many love burners. Nicks is not one. He is faster than some likely think (he is not Bobby Engram), but he is not going to likely have many 80 yard TDs after catching a 10 yard slant. So freaking what. As w/ the above WRs, you just do not have to have elite speed to be a stud. A "compares to" I have seen for Robiskie is Amani Toomer (at his best). I see nothing wrong w/ that. Toomer was a damn good WR few give credit. If we were to get Robiskie in the 2nd, and he became Amani Toomer, I think few bear fans would complain.

To be honest, I like DHB. Hell, I like him a lot. I think, if drafting to the right team, he could be a stud to cause Bear fans to scream in the future. But the "right team" is the key. I think back to Bradley. Bradley was never a starter in college. He was a part time player w/ tremendous upside and pure athleticism, but very much lacking in football development. We were not able to do jack squat w/ him. Then we draft Bennett. One of his big assets in the draft reviews was intelligence and smarts. If asked prior to the draft, I think few would have said he would struggle to learn the playbook. And yet, what happens. I know many are going to rip Turner for this, but not me. This is all Drake. Seriously, what the hell does Drake do? If we give Drake a prospect like DHB, it would be as wasted as putting a naked Angelina Jolie into a gay man's bed.

Agreed on Britton. IMHO, he is a higher rated prospect than given credit for, but as pure RTs are not valued as high, his value is lower than it should be. I have no problem w/ the idea of moving up for Nicks or even Robiskie, but I am not a fan of Hicks. Too many drops and a reported lack of concentration worries me. We have had enough issues w/ WRs who struggle to catch the ball to draft one who enters the NFL w/ such questions.

No thanks. While I like Duke, just say no to DHB. I like him overall as a prospect, but what makes anyone think we can develop such a raw talent. If we draft him, I think we will see a great player, but not until he leaves the bears. He is simply too raw, and if we are going to draft a WR, I think it has to be a more developed/polished one.

Weak. If you just said, Vikes sign Holt, at least it would have been accurate, rather than this weak garbage.

I am surprised no one has mentioned this, or maybe I just missed it, but in an interview which the Trib showed, Bennett flat out said he struggled to learn the playbook, and that held him back. He said he didn't understand the playbook until mid season. Even once you understand the playbook, there is a gap between understanding the plays, and knowing them to the point you can play w/ instinct, rather than thinking about the play the whole time. Most all of us have questioned his absence on the field, but I think this does in fact get Turner off the hook somewhat. Its one thing to look at the failures of our WRs and ask how much worse Bennett could be, but if he didn't even know or understand the plays, I think his sitting on the bench is justified. Being on the field isn't going to help learn the playbook. It is only going to make you look like an idiot, and potentially hinder confidence, and thus development. Bennett said that around mid season, he begin to understand the playbook, and Turner has said that by the end of the year, he seemed up to speed, which I would take to mean he not only could remember plays, but reached a point where he was playing w/ instinct. So maybe Bennett will be ready to go this year. I still think WR is a high level need, and would also still love to see us add Holt and a rookie. At the same time, this news does (a) at least in my mind, better explain why Bennett was on the bench and ( offers a bit of hope we have an in-house player ready to step up and help fill a huge hole.

I love Nicks. I have screamed for Duke for a long time now. At the same time, I just can't help but feel we would be missing out if we passed on RT in the 1st/2nd. You say 2nd tier OTs are.... I would argue those are more like 3rd tier OTs, and w/ a large area between 2nd and 3rd at that. I would actually even say Britton is a borderline 1st/2nd tier OT. Frankly, I think he is a 1st tier OT, but as he is considered strictly as a RT, that makes his tier a tad more questionable, at least for scouts. Loadholt I view as 2nd tier, though the high end of it. I think Beatty is also 2nd tier. But after that? I think there is a pretty wide gap between this group and the next, and question if we expect any OT after this group to start day one, which I think we need. I simply can not tell you how much I would like to add Nicks, yet at the same time, because of our current situation, I am simply not sure we can afford to. If we had not neglected OL for so many years, maybe we would not be in this situation, but we did, and we are.

Hell, I think we could go OL even after that I would love to get Oher in the 1st, but would be quite happy w/ Britton also. In Britton, I see a tremendous RT prospect. I actually think he could be even better than Oher at RT, but in Oher, I see a damn good RT and LT prospect, and while we have Williams, he is FAR from proven, and thus why I like Oher. In the 2nd round, I would love to get Loadholt, but just see little chance he falls that far. In fact, he seems to be sneaking into the 1st round. I think he could very well be similar to Duane Brown from last year, who was considered a 2nd round pick, but when the OTs flew off the boards, Houston took him at 26. I consider Loadholt a late 1st/ early 2nd value, but also think his value will go up w/ demand in the draft. I think the idea of Andre Smith falling has come and gone. I also think Oher will be gone before we pick. I think Britton, even if we pass or take Oher, drops no further than 22 (TB, Det, Phily & Minny are all teams who could take him). After that, you just have such a long way until our 2nd round pick, that I have a hard time seeing the next best OT prospect stick around. I think Robiskie is gone by our 2nd pick as well, but also feel there is a greater chance he could fall. He is viewed as more of a possession WR than a homerun hitter, and such WRs tend to slip more than others, as teams often reach for higher ceiling players. Thus I could see Robiskie falling, but less so w/ Loadholt. I swear, I think our OL is so weak in terms of starters, and so light in terms of depth, it would not upset me at all if we really went OL heavy this year. Take Britton in round one and grab Duke in round two. We can go WR in round 3, but use another pick in the 3rd or 4th (compensation pick) on another OL. One thing I would like to prevent is having to make double position changes in case of injury. If we sign Britton and he starts at RT, Omiyale moves inside again. But if either Williams or Britton go down or are not playing well, we would have to make a two position switch as our #3 OT is also our starting OG. I would love to draft two OTs and an OG.

And what tier RT will we have if we pass in the 1st. Loadholt will be gone, and I would call it 50/50 on Beatty even being there. Who is next? Opinions vary, but I'll say this. I see a sizable dropoff after these guys, and as we very well could be looking for that guy to start day one, things could get real scary. At WR, while there is little question there is a great need, I just do not see the need being close to that of a starting RT. If our #2 WR is Bennett, few will be thrilled, however, Orton would still have Hester, Olsen, Clark and Forte who can catch the ball. Ideal situation? No. But a heck of a lot better than our QB being on his back after every snap.

Hey, anything can happen, but in talking about what our plan should be, I just do not believe our plan should include an expectation that a player falls beyond where he is expected to go. That doesn't mean it won't happen, but I question "planning" on it to happen. I simply see little chance Nicks or Loadholt are there for us in the 2nd round. And last year's draft really is not a good measure for this year in terms of looking at the WRs. Last year, well before the draft, many said the 1st round would likely begin and end w/o a WR taken. While considered a relatively deep group, it was not considered one w/ 1st round talent. This year is nothing similar. There is a WR who many have said could be the best player in the draft. Then there are another 4 or 5 WRs who considered solid 1st round values. Could some slip? Sure. But I simply question expecting it to happen. I also see little chance Loadholt makes it to our 2nd round pick. Britton is not likely to make it out of the very low 20s. Loadholt is the next highest rated OT, and his stock has been on the rise. That is a long way to go w/o a single team drafting an OT.

I think we can expect our OL to go through some struggles early on, but improve as the season goes along, and we may even see solid play by the end. I think this is what happened w/ GB a few years ago when they were loaded w/ youth and inexperience on the OL. Not a good start, but a great finish. W/ that said, this could be a year Kreutz earns his money. He may not be the player he was, but he is still an unquestioned leader. Further, you can bet the younger OL will truly look up to him and follow his lead.

I like Britton and Oher in the 1st, and each are well discussed, but are there any outside the box options to help our OL? Been speaking w/ a friend, and we were looking at Atlanta. Atlanta tendered two starting OL at 2nd round level. Both are very solid starters, and both are also still young. Harvey Dahl (RG) & Tyson Clabo (RT). Dahl is a solid starting OG. he is 27 and I believe started all year, and was part of Atlanta's solid OL. Clabo is also 27, and I think has started the last two years. But both are solid OL, still young, and w/ starting experience. It would cost a 2nd round pick to get one, but I am not sure there are any RTs I like in the 2nd more than Clabo. Now, I know we can try to sign them to an offer sheet now, but what I am not 100% on is if we can do this after the draft. I want to say that, so long as they have not yet signed their tender offer, we can still sign them, and would then give up our 2nd round pick in 2010. Even better by me. How about Britton or Oher in the 1st, Robiskie in the 2nd, and give up our 2nd next year for Dahl. Or Nicks in the 1st and Duke Robinson in the 2nd, while giving up our future 2nd for Clabo. I like either combo. Another though is trading down. I like Britton, but not all are sold. I also really like Loadholt, and I think others do too. But he is a huge reach at 18, and I just see little chance he makes it to us in the 2nd. Thus, we can trade down, maybe even out of the 1st, and pick up an extra 2nd or 3rd. Grab Loadholt and Robiskie in the 2nd. If we have another 2nd, we can get one of the safeties (Delmas or Johnson). And just for fun, in the 3rd we can draft Herman Johnson. Johnson and Loadholt formed one of the best left sides in college football, but both are projected to the right side in the NFL, and I just kind of like the idea of pairing them up for us. I am sure Forte would too. We can throw out tons of trade down scenarios, but the idea in that was to talk about Loadholt. I also like the Atlanta guys, and really wonder what other RFAs are out there who could be had for a 2nd (or less).

W/ the understanding I want to draft OL all the way, I am not sure your statement is true anymore. Used to be, WRs took 3 years to develop. It was near freakish how exact this was, and across the board. But for some years now, more and more rookie WRs either (a) provide legit production to help their team or ( become major parts of the offense, and even stars, as a rookie. The list only expands if you look at 2nd year players. Why the change, i am not sure, but I think it is definitely there. As for OL, I think it is a tad bit of a misconception that OL is easier to just slide in as a rookie. Heck, Angelo himself said he views OL as one of the hardest position to transition, and used that logic to explain why he preferred veterans over drafting OL.

I can't argue. Let me ask you this: Is there any better value at #18 then offensive-tackle? There is no safety, DE, or QB that is likely to be available worth drafting at that spot (although, can you imagine how pissed Bear fans will be if Sanchez is on the board and we pass???) If that question is to me, I would say it is OT followed by WR. If that question is to Angelo, I am sure there will be some small school DE he likes Honestly though, at this point, I am having a very hard time seeing us walk away from the first w/o one of: Oher, Britton, DHB, Nicks. There may be value at other positions, but none are high needs. Some might argue CB, but Angelo said a reason we were moving Bowman to FS was for a greater chance to make the roster due to the depth we have. So I just feel it has to be OT/WR, and find it hard to see one of the above four not being the pick. And while I think there is a chance for a WR, I still think it has to be RT. Like you say below. If your OL sucks, your WRs are not going to do much. Turner flat out said he was forced to limit Orton to 3 step drops last year to keep him from getting killed. Um, how great can a WR be when the QB has pressure nearly immediate? As far as need goes, that leaves us taking an offensive-tackle or WR. If the o-line sucks, the WR's will also. So while Angelo said he didn't want to be forced into drafting an OT, for the 2nd year in a row, he's forced into drafting an OT. Honestly, this is my dream scenario. I was hoping we would not re-sign SC, and got my wish. W/ SC, I just feared we would drop OL on our need list, but that would be a pure mirage. W/ or w/o SC, OL was a massive need. Now, w/ the weakness we have at RT and the OL as a whole, I think it very likely we draft a RT in the 1st, and we might even follow that up w/ another OL by the 4th. What are the odds of drafting two OT's in consecutive years that aren't busts? I don't even want to think about that, but (a) as pointed out before, the odds are better w/ OT than most any other position and ( what are the odds the WR Angelo drafts develops into a star?