nfoligno

Why do we need Weaver? We have McKie. J/K. Along w/ the OL, I have wanted a legit FB for years and could never understand why we liked McKie. He is a weak blocker. He can't run the ball. He supposedly can catch, but so what. He makes a 3 yard catch and is immediately tackles. If the key asset of a FB is receiving, I would expect him to be capable of doing more after the catch. Angelo likes the type of FB that can do it all. Personally, while that sounds nice, I would settle for a FB that can simply blow holes open for Forte to run through. At this point, I would love to have a FB like Damien Shelton, who was very one dimensional, yet also very good in that one dimension.

Couple thoughts on this. One. I am not totally against the idea of a competition at LT, but I just question how well Williams fits at RT. Per all his scouting reports I read, he was considered more of a finesse OT than a powerful one. He was considered a better pass protecter than run blocker. His strength was very much questioned. Of all the LT prospects in the draft, he was viewed as the one w/ the least capability of moving to another position. He was built perfectly to play LT, but a very questionable fit/build to move to RT or inside. So that begs the question. While a competition at LT sounds great, if Williams loses the competition, what then? If he isn't a fit at RT, are you really helping the team? Two. I believe the discussion you mention was about Britton, who has been a LT in college, but most feel is best suited to play RT in the pros. At the same time, it is not out of the question he could play LT. It isn't like he is a 340lb OT who has not chance to play LT. RT is simply seen as his best option. In fact, I would argue he has a better chance to fit at LT than Williams at RT. Anyway, I would start the year w/ Williams at LT and Britton at RT. If all goes well, we have our bookends for years to come. If however, Williams fails, I don't think Britton couldn't be looked at for the LT job. Not ideal, but still in the cards.

The way I would look at it is, if on draft day, the OTs are gone and we are looking at using our 1st round pick on a WR, I would much rather send that 1st to Az and get Boldin. Most of the WRs I like in the draft are referred to as potentially being like Boldin. If we are going to use our 1st on a WR, why not just get the real thing. But I would not want to make a deal prior to the draft. I still think OL is our top need, and like several who could be available in the draft. If all are gone however, I would be all for this trade. Part of me does wonder however whether it would even take a 1st. If az is willing to trade him, which I am not sold on, and the market for him is not a 1st round pick, could we not try to get him for less? What if we talk to Az about packaging our 2nd this year, and another high pick next? Maybe that doesn't get it done, but I would be on the phone talking to Az about it.

Seriously, I just have to wonder about all this. I am wondering what scouts had to be honestly expecting. Everything I have read said he was also considered a "fat boy" in college, and yet he was a stud on the field. Was the expectation he would suddenly show up ripped? Remember our fat boys from years ago (Traylor/Washington). What do we think they would have looked like w/o their shirts. Never mind, no one wants that image. Looking at some of Smiths numbers. 40 - 5.28. No, not good, but then again, how about looking at that number in comparison. Jason Smith, who is now considered the top OT in the draft, posted a 5.22 at nearly 20lbs lighter. In fact, looking at the top 10 OL, I don't think any were over 310lbs, and thus I just have to wonder what exactly should have been the expectation for an OT weighing in at 325. 3 cone - 7.88. Again, not great, but the 10th best OL put up 7.62, and again, I think all the top 10 were on the lighter side. Similar is seen in the shuttle as well. A big area of concern is also strength, looking at his 19 bench presses, but I think it should also be pointed out that he has the longest arms of all the OTs in the draft, and looking the others w/ 35'' or better, all were in the low 20s. So while he didn't do that well, I have to wonder how much is about his actual strength v how much is about his long arms and the bench press not being a good indicators. Instead of just looking at his numbers in a stand alone way, how about looking at them relative. Monroe is either the #1 or #2 OT according to most, yet his numbers were far from great. He is about 15-20lbs lighter than Smith, and yet his numbers were not that much better. 40/5.28. He did 4 more reps (23) than Smith, but also is 2'' shorter in the arm, and lets not pretend 24 is so great either. Point is, I think people were looking for great numbers, but I just question the expectations. He is heavier than most any other top prospect, and his numbers were not that much worse than the other top OT prospects, though they are all lighter. If you go off the numbers, Jason Smith, Monroe and Oher would not be considered a top tier OT, and yet all are.

And if those scouts are from Det and Minny? Read an article yesterday talking about this, and how funny the reports are. Teams drafting behind us who like Smith are going to do everything they can to kill his draft stock so that he may potentially fall to them. Think about it. If Detroit or Minny (just using them as examples) like Smith, and both need a RT, are they more likely to try and pump up his value so he is gone or say his workout bombed and then grab him when he falls.

Lt2, What is shared and what does a team keep. I think it used to be that a team's ticket sales went into the shared "pot" but ancillary profits like concessions, parking, etc, the team kept. Is that still the case? How about merchandise? Frankly, at the end of the day, this is one of those arguments no one can win, at least not unless the teams open up the books. A team can show a profit of $5m, but we have no idea what sort of salary and bonuses the execs (the McCaskey's) are giving themselves, and thus no way to know how legit that $5m profit is. Big difference in that final number depending on whether Virginia (for example) has a salary of $250k or $25m, or whether she has a profit sharing deal in place. Point is, unless the books are opened up, it is all speculation. That is one thing that could be interesting to see in the next CBA negotiations. If the owners claim to be going broke, and are trying hard to push the NFLPA's to reduce their %, I think the owners will have to open up their books. We may not have access to that data, but you can bet the report ends up going public, and we will see more date than ever before.

That is all well and good, but when have you heard/read our staff even talking about him? IMHO, it is pretty telling when the staff seems to forget about a player. You just have to wonder what sort of a chance he will have in camp if the staff can not even remember his name when talking about our future of the OL.

I had the same thought. The NFLPA paid for this report. What did anyone expect it to say. Further, as the report mentions, they are not exactly going off known numbers. W/ the exception of GB, they did not have the other 31 teams books open to them, and thus I think all "evidence" is a tad questionable.

Which means we will draft WR

Agreed. While I am not going to do the homework, I would not be surprised to find that while 1st round RBs do well, you will find more later drafted RBs also doing well at a much higher percentage than at OT. So while both may have similar 1st round stats (a) RB is not a need for us in the 1st round and ( if RB is also a position that hits at a high rate later, it may be better to hold off and wait rather than go after that top RB. I would further argue that if we do add a solid OL in the 1st, that too will increase the likelihood of our current RBs having a great career.

Sanchez, Smith, Oher, Britton, Maclin, Brown. I rank Sanchez #1. Over and over again, I read those who's opions I respect say that while most all agree he would have benefited from another year of school, they also say he very well could have then been the #1 draft pick. He has all the tools, and the moxie/leadership. What he lacks is experience. He is not likely to take the path of Ryan or Flacco playing strong as a rookie, but I do feel he offers legit chance to be a franchise QB. We have Orton to start this year, but Sanchez could be our future. As much as we talk about so many other positions of need, we have gone far too long w/o a franchise QB to pass on this opportunity. May be a total bust, but at QB, I am willing to take the risk. Smith too is a risk, no question, but I can't get past his being the #1 OT prospect before the workouts. In the top 10, I might feel more iffy on the risk factor, but at 18, I just can't pass on talent like him, at an absolute need position. I have been high on Oher for a long time, but I have to admit, Britton is really closing the gap. I am simply not a fan of Maclin, despite the rave talks. I just see him too similar to Hester, though more developed. I just question how well he would do for us, especially paired w/ Hester. As for Brown, to be 100% honest, I do not know as much about him, but I am not a fan of players who few are sure if he is a DE or LB. He can rush the passer, which we need, but can he be an every down DE? I don't know. Not saying I would absolutely pass if he were there, but I just would not take him over the other 5.

so instead of giving this portion of the fair share of the purse (that the owners signed and agreed to be fair in their eyes) to veterans instead of mega rookie salaries and bonuses you want to give it to the owners? Not at all. I would simply prefer it went to the veterans. How bad is it when teams no longer seem to want the #1 pick in the draft due to the cost? You still have the cap floor, thus teams have to spend the money. But if they don't have to fork over the massive deals to the top rookies, they would have more to spend on FAs who have earned the money. Think about this. The worst team is rewarded w/ the top pick in the draft, but due to how much they are going to have to spend on that top pick, they are limited in what they can do in FA, and are limited in upgrading the team. And you can say trade down, but of late, teams have not seemed to want to move up to the top spot. I am not trying to take away from the veterans, I just think what rookies make is ridiculous. I would also like to see a cap on bonuses, but no clue how I would make that happen. And again, just because I would limit the bonus dollars to veterans doesn't mean I would limit the money overall spent. This is not my trying to put more money in the pocket of owners, but more looking at how money is spent. i have some 10 year old '98 information on personel (yes i know things have changed but just as an example): chairman of the board - ed mccaskey; president CEO - mike mccaskey; director of community involvement - pat mccaskey; ticket manager - george mccaskey; office staff administration - tim mccaskey; director of player personel - brian mccaskey. any bet that there may be some spouces, sisters, sisters children, uncles or cousins employed? But unless you can tell me how much each are paid each year, I am not sure what is the point. and you just think that when "bonus money" is paid out they just call virginia to cut them a check out of her christmas account? in fact maybe she does. that way she could get a better interest rate on her money when she loans it to her own corporation instead of borrowing it from a bank!! Huh? Lost you a bit on this one. The point is simply that while teams may have X amount of dollars to spend each year, they often go well over that amount due to bonus dollars spent. The point is, if you don't earn solid profits each year, and are thus able to create a sizable cash account for future years, you are not going to be able to go out and get those top tier FAs who command $20-30m bonuses. logical or reasonable in what aspect? you have ONE instance of reported profit in the entire nfl and you "logically" deduct from that profit margins? One, it is the only report we have to go off. Two, I am using logic and reasoning based on that report. Your retort is what exactly? just to open up another can of worms... if the bears had a stadium that held 500,000 they don't get exclusive ticket sale receipts anyway. this is one of the items that goes into a pool to be shared among the league. what they do/or did get was sky box cash if i am not mistaken (and well could be without rereading the old CBA again or reading the new one) and probably a few other perks. Beyond ticket sales, what about parking, concessions and the like. Unless it is part of what was recently changed, it is my understanding a team keeps these sort of profits for themselves, which is also why, until we got our new stadium deal, we always had less money to spend. As we didn't own our stadium, we didn't have these profits. But under our new deal, while we do not own the stadium still, we did negotiate to keep these profits. again and again i have to keep telling you that it's paid for from the allottment from the collective nfl to pay player salaries!! when that rises so do the salaries for players AND the owners!!!! the only way it is not is if you believe taking money out of player salary allottments is just part of the owners profit plan they are entitled to. And again and again I, and Lt2, have tried to point out how teams often will spend over the cap, and do so w/ bonus dollars which are spread out over the life of the deal. Thus, teams can shell out big bonuses and end up spending well over the money provided by the shared revenue. so if the players are not entitled to the percentages written in the contract WHY did the owners sign such an agreement???????? Well, it seems like the owners regret the deal. And understand, I am not nearly as hard set on taking money away from the players as I am for wanting to cut the top rookie deals and bonuses that have gone so high that I think smaller market teams, and those who do not see as great of profits, will struggle to afford more and more. Just because I want to see rookie deals and bonuses change does not mean I am trying to put more money in the owners pocket. But if there was a way to better limit the upfront money a team can pay to a player, then I would argue a better job would be done to even the playing field.

I hear it over and over, so I wanted to check a bit. There is probably some legit study piece out there that went into far greater detail, but when looking over the 1st round OL drafted in the last 10 years, it sure does seem like OL is a pretty safe pick. Does that mean there we no busts? Obviously not, but the number simply seems less. One potential reason, IMHO, is how many OTs were drafted in the 1st, who were expected to be LTs, but didn't make it there and ended up becoming solid RTs or inside OL. Their inability to play LT may have been a disappointment, yet at the same time, still being a solid or better starter is a huge plus. Is there any other position where you can draft a player, and if he can't make it there, he has a good shot to make it after a move? Drafting a CB who might become a FS is about the closest thing I can think of. OL drafted in the last 10 years. Ryan Clady Chris Williams Branden Albert Gosder Cherilus Jeff Otah Sam Baker Duane Brown Levi Brown Joe Staley Ben Grubbs D'Brickashaw Ferguson Davin Joseph Jammal Brown Logan Mankins Robert Gallery Shawn Andrews Jordan Gross George Foster Kwame Harris Vernon Carey Mike Williams Bryant McKinnie Levi Jones Marc Colombo Leonard Davis Kenyatta Walker Jeff Backus Chris Samuels Stockar McDougle Chris McIntosh Kendall Simmons John Tait Matt Stinchcomb Luke Petitgout L.J. Shelton Aaron Gibson Steve Hutchinson Kyle Turley Tra Thomas Mo Collins Victor Riley Alan Faneca That is an impressive list of starting OL there. Some didn't make it at all. Some didn't make it at their expected position, but moved to another position and played well. The point though, is there another position where we would see as solid of a list? While I am not saying we can't consider WR, QB or other positions, more and more evidence supports our going after OL in round one. The bust ratio is simply MUCH lower, and I just feel we can not afford another bust.

The things I am reading about this guy is that yes, he could be a flat out dominant player, however his attitude and percieved flakiness are really starting to rub NFL scouts and GMs the wrong way. No argument there, but then again, that is why we are even talking about him. Not long ago, he was considered the top rated OT in the draft, and most likely a top 5 pick. At 18, he was not even worth talking about. But due to the red flags he has raised, he could potentially fall to us. No argument about the character concerns. You always have to weight risk v reward. If we had a top 5 pick, or likely even top 10, I would pass. But at 18? At 18 I have to really think about it, as the risk is there, but the reward is simply so great.

Hey, I get it. His workout was less than impressive. At the same time, I am simply among those who question the value of all these tests. If a guy was dominant in college, then I just question all this offseason stuff. Its one thing for the small school guys, as you may question how their speed/strength looks against better competition, or for lesser known prospects in general, but when you are talking about the major prospects, I just question a lot of this stuff.

Just to point out though, he looks as he did during the college season when he was dominating. What would you expect to see if Ted Washington would have taken his shirt off. Do you think he was ripped? Smith is a big boy. That is what he was when he dominated, and what he will most likely be when he plays in the NFL. I just wonder why everyone suddenly expected a guy who was always fat to suddenly show up at the combine looking like a greek god. Take a look at the history of 350lb players. How many looked good w/o their shirts on. Now, the decision to take his shirt off is another story.

so what are you suggesting? that we wipe the board clean and go back to the system of the 20's-80's? players can work for minimum wage with no benefits including medical or retirement? no rights of free agency? robber baron owners? i'm sure trickle down economics will work terrific in the nfl again. I have always felt it an act of desperation when someone has to use such extreme examples to try and prove a point. Yea, that is what I am suggesting. Players should make the same as my car wash guy. Give me a break. What I do find funny is, I think few fans realize how many players actually make more than the owners. I think there is a perception the owners are raking it in, and yet this report would seem to contradict that. Am I saying anything extreme should be done? No. In fact, I don't recall stating any action should be taken. Only putting a question to the idea our owners are so rich and pocketing too much. If I were to recommend actions though, yes, I would alter some of the pay structures. I would immediately begin w/ the draft. I consider it a crock a player totally unproven on the NFL level gets paid equal to the leagues top tier elite. after paying all expenses including top CEO salaries!! how many mccaskey’s are on the payroll that comes out of these franchise expenses before net profits are calculated and for how much? Hey, it is quite possible, and I would absolutely love to know. Maybe the team profits $10m after Mikey (for example) is paid a $100m salary. I have no clue. Nor do you though. stop it... you’re breaking my heart. Your not a little girl, so I could care less if your heart is broken. It is simply business reality though. In all the time you have bashed the team and ownership for being cheap, I bet you were under the impression the team was racking in the profits. At least, that has always been the impression you have given. Sorry, but to find out our team might only profit $5m (or whatever the amount is) should be somewhat shocking, and yet you choose to simply write it off. uhhh, you mean after the salary cap and owners share goes up? isn’t that what is generating the rise in contract sizes? compare the cap today to 10 years ago. Actually, I am thinking far more about bonus dollars. You can talk about how it all works out in the end, but an ownership has only so much actual cash. Only a few years ago, a $20m bonus was simply shocking, and now we are seeing $30m bonuses being paid out. Sorry, but you can talk until you are blue in the face, the smaller market teams and the owners who do not have seperate cash cow businesses simply are going to be left behind in terms of ability to go after the top FAs because they can not afford to pay out the bonuses being talked about. It is about cash, plain and simple, and a team that only profits $5-10m per year is simply not going to have the cash to shell out the bonuses like other teams who have owners w/ other businesses that can supplement their cash on hand. this is pretty comical. YOU pull a lowball figure out of your arse and then argue points in reference like it was a fact! I have many times said I don't know, and yet I try and use logic and reasoning. If the $21m GB made in profit is around top 10, do you think there is only a difference of a couple million between the top 10 and bottom 10? I think it VERY reasonable to believe there is a greater gap between the top earning teams and the bottom earning teams. Then there is the 2nd aspect of this. Where do the Bears fit in. Well, we do not own our own stadium, which is going to lessen our profits compared to other teams. Even though we stadium is essentially new, it has the smallest capacity of all NFL stadiums. When Dallas new stadium opens, do you realize they will have a capacity around 30,000 more than us? So small stadium we do not even own. Then factor the low number of home playoff games, and the profits continue to drop. Sorry, but I think it very reasonable to believe our franchise is no where near the top tier, and likely not even in the middle tier. I would suspect we are in the bottom 10 in terms of profit. Thus why I talk about a profit of $5m-10m. I do not take this as fact. Not even close. But I do believe it is a logical belief. Have you offered anything to support different? Do you have anything to offer that would support a belief our team is high in the profits food chain? in reality, these are sport franchises that operate 4 ½ months a freakin year to generate income. the absolute maximum number of games they can possibly play per year is 20 and ½ of those are on the road! how much more profit do you think they ‘should’ generate and where do you think this added income should come from? Well, when mediocre players begin getting $5-10m signing bonuses, and the top tier get more like $20m or more, than I think you have to see greater profits, otherwise your team is going to simply be unable to compete w/ the big boys. How much is enough? Who knows. But unless something is done about the cash players are getting up front, the teams that do not earn as great of profits are simply going to have a difficult time finding the cash on hand to compete at such a level. and finally........ this is a day to remember when i am arguing with a person that thinks the bidwell and mccaskey type of owners are being mistreated and deserve, not only sympathy, but more money from the players and fans. it's simply mindboggling (but it does put a smile on my face i give you that). When did I EVER say they should get more money from the fans. I think ticket prices are already a joke. However, I do believe owners deserve a greater share. Sorry, but you want me to feel sorry for the players? Yea, right. And I never said we should give any owner sympathy. I only advocate greater understanding.

Hands tied by the salary cap? Not sure, but do you simply mean cash? We have MORE than enough in terms of salary cap to make something happen.

I have wondered for some time about everyone's assumption Omiyale would replace Garza. The staff never wanted Beekman to play OG. They felt he didn't have the size. While he may have played above expectations last year, I never felt they viewed him as more than a backup OG and potential future center. I think Garza flat out sucks, but simply have always felt it was Beekman who the staff 1st wanted to replace. Many on this board continue to factor Buenning, but I just am not so sure how much he is in the plans. From what I read, from either Angelo or Smith (can't recall which) he was brought in for 2008, not 2009 as some have said, and was considered a disappointment. Further, when I have heard out staff talk about our OL and the future look, I have never once heard them mention Buenning as being in the mix. I am not saying he can't enter camp, look great, and step in, or maybe an injury could give him a chance, but at the same time, I do not think the staff is expecting much from him.

I would disagree Jauron lucked into that defense. He and Blache built a pretty dang good defense, but injuries and a GM that refused to help destroyed them. We talk about recent injuries, but they are nothing like what our defense suffered back then. Further, take a look at what Angelo was doing during that time. He simply refused to use FA to add jack shit, and I would also argue that he didn't add players who fit Jauron/Blache's scheme. I am not calling Jauron a great/good coach, but I simply disagree he lucked into that 2001 season. In fact, I would argue that if not for injuries, our 2002 and 2003 seasons may have been much better. You can argue injuries should not destory a team, but (a) we really suffered a great deal of injuries and ( Angelo did little to nothing to provide depth for those teams, and thus injuries were felt all the more. I think Jauron is a pretty good coach for TO. I also think the one year deal is key, as TO "should" be on his best behavior. It is the next team that signs him for more than one year I feel sorry for. I think TO is likely not going to be happy w/ the number of passes he sees coming his way. I think his catches and yards will not be great this year, though I think his TD total could still be pretty high.

Aside from just Bennett, I think a key to Jason's argument is how WRs leave our team and seem more productive. No one is saying they become pro bowl after leaving, but several WRs have left and looked better. At the same time, I simply feel you have to look at the situations each of them found after leaving the bears. Gage is one of the WRs most often pointed to, but in Tenn, he found a pretty good offense that simply lacked receivers. But in this offense, teams had to really load up the box to stop the rookie and White, and w/ that OL, it made the running game even more effective. That makes the life of a WR much easier. Bradley is another, but he had a couple games and was then hurt AGAIN. You can argue he wasn't given a chance, but I think a key to his time in Chicago was the staff getting tired of his constant injuries and inability to play. KC gave him a chance, and that was very short lived as they found him as brittle as we did. Wade - I think many forget, but Wade was cut FAR MORE due to his problems on special teams, and the fumbles, rather than simply for his receiving. He was a decent depth chart WR. In Minny, he was in an ideal situation. Elite OL and run game, making WRs life easier, and then they even upgraded their WR personnel, so Wade didn't face quality DBs. Moose - IMHO, I believe w/ Moose it was a mental issue. I think Moose lacked confidence in the QB play, and just lacked concentration. Add to that, back in Carolina, he had a better QB, great OL and elite run game, not to mention playing opposite a WR in Steve Smith would commands all the double teams Moose was getting in Chicago. It is easy to talk about how WRs have done better after leaving Chicago, but I think when you look at the situation a tad deeper, you find it is about much more than just the WRs. I would also point out one thing Jason (and I) have screamed about for years is the OL. In most all situations, WRs who have left the bears have gone on to play for teams w/ solid OL, and that makes things easier for the WRs. Pretty hard to look good when your OL is as bad as ours.

I am not as down on Turner as you. I do feel he is slow to adjust, but at the same time, I saw a lot that I liked last year. But when other teams began to adjust, he was slow to return the favor, or didn't at all. But I also give him some credit. You say I nailed it on the head, but I think either I did a poor job of stating my case, or you misunderstood it. My point is that we do in fact lack the talent on offense. I argue that we have talent on defense, but coaching limited them. On offense, while I am not saying Turner is great, I feel it is far more simply about the lack of talent. On some level, I just have to wonder how much we could truly expect from Turner last year. Seriously, think about our personnel. We had an OL which was so bad, we specifically limited our QB to 3 step drops. Further, we had WRs who struggle to get off the LOS clean, struggle to get quick seperation, run sub-par routes, and then display a high percentage (relative) of drops. Combine that w/ the OL and 3 step drops, and I just question how much we should have expected. I give credit to Turner for using 2 TEs sets as much as he did. Further, I give him credit for moving Olsen around so much. But at the end of the day, I simply believe it is personnel more than coaching that has held our offense back. While I feel we can be better on defense simply w/ changes in coaching and scheme, at the same time, if we had a legit genius OC, I question how much better our offense would be.

I think S is still very much in play for the draft. Remember, besides Brown, we also lost McGowan this offseason, and thus were short two safeties. From what Angelo and Lovie have said, it appears we are looking at DM as a nickel, not safety, otherwise I think the staff would have talked about him in terms of competition at FS, rather than just point to Steltz. So we needed to safeties, and we just added one on the cheap. This may allow Angelo, in his mind, not to reach for a safety early if the value is not there, but I am not sure it means we will simply pass on safety if one is there we like.

True, but the exact same thing could have been said about Brett Favre a couple of years ago. Un, how far back are you going w/ Favre? He's been bitchin and moaning about his contract and other things for a while now. In 2007 Holt when for 1200 yards & 7 touchdowns. He's younger then TO, and he's not a piece of crap. I don't know how much he'll get, but it'll be one helluva a lot more then what TO received. Think about how many teams wanted Housh. Was Holt ever considered as elite as TO? I don't think so. Holt's game was based far more around speed, while TO's wasn't, and thus if the believe if he has lost a step, than is a pretty big knock. Honestly, I just think he will not get the sort of coin you think. Maybe, or it could be that Holt's agent has expressed that his client won't be happy going to any team. Neither one of us know for sure, but I'm surprised he hasn't drawn any interest in trades. Sure, we can't know for sure, but most media (and we both know they are always right ) seem to all tell the same story. Teams are not jumping to trade for him because (a) the expect him to be a FA soon and ( no one wants to add him w/ the contract that comes along w/ him. That 2nd point, if true, is also a big reason I think you may be surprised by the deal he eventually signs. He's lost a step, but he's still considered a #1. Teams will pay for that. Is he. Seems like most everything I have read implies different. I have read few who believe he is still a #1, as most believe him to be a great #2 at this point, but no longer a #1. I can't argue that he'd improve the Bears, I was just pointing out that it may not be worth paying an ass-load of money (which you can't convince me he won't receive) to run down field and let Orton over-shoot him by 20 yards. One. He is not the sort of WR who is going to be running tons of downfield patterns. He is, and has been for a while now, the sort of WR who runs short and mid slants, makes the catch in stride, and then does the rest w/ RAC. Take a look at his YPC. From 1999 through 2004, his YPC was never below 14. Then it went to 13, 12.8, 12.8 and 12.4. He is still a great WR in many ways, but he is not the downfield threat I think you remember. Two. You comment about not paying a WR who Orton will over-shoot, then what is the point of even moving forward. If you feel Orton is that bad, what is the point of even thinking about upgrades. I guess you don't want any WRs in the draft who have speed? I don't know. That just seemed like a very defeatist comment. Three. Cost. I am not sure either of us truly know what the cost is, but I will tell you this. While I am not going to say I want him at any cost, I think this may be one of our best opportunities in some time. Everything the bears WRs fail at is what Holt excels at. For all the comments of our coaches inability to develop, in Holt you have a WR who needs none. For all the comments about prima dona WRs, and whether they are worth the headache or not, in Holt you get a damn good WR w/o the crap. For all those who question Orton, Holt should help provide an answer. Want to know if Orton can be more than a short term starter for us. Well, the current personnel is not going to help answer that question, but Holt could.

Ouch! I think someone just got pimpslapped, and it wasn't Angelo