jason

So would that make me an expert? After all, I regularly talk to a bunch of college players, coaches, and trainers, not to mention a ton of college officials and even pro officials. Hell, I've personally had discussions with many people you see on TV on Saturdays and Sundays. I'll reiterate the post above this one: 40% success rate.

"Trained" professionals? Trained how? IF they are trained, who trains them? The simple fact is, a guy many consider one of the best (Bill Polian) admitted the draft is a crap shoot. Less than that!! 40 freaking percent. If they are trained, their training sucks. As for qualifications, it sounds like the process of being a scout is just about like any other job. It's more about networking and connections (particularly having played) than some sort of "football recognition"-talent. The people doing the hiring still assume the people being hired know football. And their knowledge of football amounts to 40%, which basically averages in the horrible scouts/coaches/GMs in with the guys who knock it out of the park year after year. This is not some sort of degree they earn where the information they process is irrefutable (i.e. engineer, programmer, mathematician). I think what's laughable and presumptuous is that you hold these guys in such high regard. Especially since the Bears have had such shitty drafts over the past 20 years. This is over the span of multiple coaches, one GM, countless scouts, and potentially another GM (the jury is still out). It's not like we're talking about someone who has provable knowledge that leads to provable results (i.e. doctor). We're talking about guys who were in or around football, had a passion for it early on, more than likely got a foot in the door because of a connection, and slowly worked their way up. I've personally seen people get their start by working as a GA for their father or for a father's friend. Does that mean they know more about football? No. Does it mean they know more about evaluating players? Maybe in terms of the verbiage used at that level, but not necessarily in terms of talent recognition (see 40% above). Does it mean they know what the organization and their boss wants them to look for? Certainly, but only a few teams can point to that as a positive trait, since there are only a few teams that have consistently done well in the draft.

I'm willing to bet I watched just as many games as most scouts. Probably more. And I probably watched more individual plays over and over than they did. For example, I have a DVD in my office computer from one of the top-dogs of NFL officiating with a compilation of nothing but defensive and offensive pass interference penalties. But go ahead and continue thinking that people on message boards know next to nothing about football, and people on football websites know everything. You do realize the majority of the people writing about football are people just like us, right? You realize Walter Football is this guy?! Yeah, he definitely looks like a knows a ton more about football than any of us. He has a website after all!! Who the hell is Mel Kiper, Jr. and Todd McShay? Just because they have access to the ESPN film vault doesn't suddenly make them all-knowing. They're just guys like us who watch football, judge football, and evaluate players. I bet neither of those clowns has ever put on a helmet...unless you count Kiper's hair. And as for former players, a lot of those guys are borderline retarded, and know how to play because they won the genetic lottery. Emmitt Smith is considered by some (better not be anyone on this board) to be the best RB of all time, but he can barely form a coherent sentence. One of the most ferocious defenders of all time (Dexter Manley) was actually illiterate. Because they run faster and can lift more doesn't automatically make them better at talent judgement. The simple truth is, a lot of people who participate on message boards know quite a bit about football because they played or were involved in many ways, but couldn't continue for a variety of reasons (most likely just weren't athletically gifted enough). I'd be willing to bet someone on this board has coaching experience. Others have probably played at the college level. Accept what you want, but the idea that people who post on message boards somehow have lesser opinions is incredibly short-sighted.

"That's a huge move!" said nobody.

I admit it's an interesting idea, but surely some of those same genetic freaks have turned into offensive linemen. Also, it would be easier to accept that theory if the Bears OL didn't actually suck for so long. Since they just suck it's a far more simple answer. Occam's Razor and all.

I was honestly shocked by these NFL ratings. I watched a TON of college football this past year, and there is no way in hell I'd rate Brown ahead of Ogletree. No way. It's head-shakingly unbelievable to me, to be quite honest. Brown plays slow and his instincts appear to be poor at times. Ogletree plays very fast and appears to have pretty good instincts.

Martz's system didn't suck. It's just that he wasn't versatile or able to adjust to an OL that was absolutely dreadful. His system works when he has a competent/average OL blocking, and it excels when he has an above-average OL blocking. It's just that he never ran into a situation where the OL sucked so bad and submarined nearly every play he called that required more than a three-step drop and a single second in the pocket.

But every one of those years I warned that the OL was going to stop/hinder the progress and potential of not only Cutler, but also the entire offense. And every year I was right. Let's hope Emery fixes that this year by drafting an OG (1st round if Cooper or Warmack are there), and a Center. I'd love to FINALLY see the offense set up for success for a change.

Is it not "intriguing" to you? I don't think it's a smart draft, and I certainly wouldn't like it (I'd absolutely hate it), but it would sure as hell intrigue me. It would set up a potential move of Ogletree to WLB in preparation for a Briggs' ouster, and put Teo firmly in the middle. Of course, it would completely ignore the concept of need-based drafting, which is something I don't want.

100% agreed. That's one of the multiple reasons I'm opposed to LB in rd 1.

But Brown and Ogletree probably won't be there in the second round. Teo might. And if so, it's a good value.

I'm going off the whole "Fluker to RG" thing. If he moves inside, it's Carimi and Webb at RT. if Fluker stays outside, Carimi slides in and starts. And how is Mathieu not needed? You listed CB as the fourth need. Also, for all others, why the hate for Teo? Because he didn't beat a team of NFLers by himself in the championship game? That game was incredibly lopsided talent wise, with not nearly the NFL-talent on ND as on UA. He will have a very good pro career.

Count me as one person who doesn't side with "everyone" on this. Earl Bennett is a great possession receiver, and should see time on the field. Right now I'd trust him more than any receiver other than Marshall. He's more reliable than Jeffery, has better hands than Hester, and is a much better route runner than probably anyone other than Marshall. Although, I'm not so sure Marshall runs great routes; he may just run good routes and have awesome ability to shield the defender.

I don't like it considering how the draft plays out. The alternative could be: 1. Fluker 2. Teo 4. Mathieu I'd much rather have that draft.

But those guys who work in the league, and right beside the league, and are basically embedded with the teams, know sooooo much! Break out the umbrellas if this happens, fellas, because pigs will be flying and I'm not sure if they have the same aiming ability as birds.

Wow. A wet dream revisionist draft. It would have been glorious.

Good post. Particularly the bolded points.

Ahem... Cough... MLB? It is hit and miss, you're right, but that would have been a huge hit. Especially since the team got rid of Urlacher. Sure would have been a nice 7th rounder last year. I believe Mathieu will be another one of those hits, provided it doesn't cost more than a 3rd rounder. His question marks and measurables are enough to cause some concern. If he's there in the 4th round - which would be insane - the Bears would be equally insane not to grab him.

If that's the case, then it makes the devious, master-mind plan we talked about after the draft last year (i.e. Emery drafting for a future without Lovie while setting up a potential transition to a 3-4) even more realistic. Maybe then McClellin would turn into a more productive player? It may be too early to judge him, but 7 tackles in the rookie year of a first rounder is atrocious.

C'mon man, New York bent him over harder than Ving Rhames in Pulp Fiction.

That's why I always say it, or mean to say it, as a collective. I don't know nearly enough about salary cap stuff - nor do I care - to adequately be a GM, but with guys like LT2 and twig I think we'd have it pretty much covered. Hell, there have been multiple years in the past when the reporters who are supposed to be "close" to the Bears and "know everything" were not nearly as close to the correct figure as LT2 was. It's just funny to me that these guys are put on pedestals, but if you look back in the board history about who we all wanted before Emery was hired, and you can see comments about this guy being a moron or that guy being a horrible selection. If they had been hired by the Bears, all the sudden they're untouchable pillars from which all correct NFL decisions are made? Gimme a break. I can't honestly see how any Bears fan doesn't think they would have done better drafting over the past few years. There isn't one draft since 2003 that we can look at and say, "Wow, that is a great draft!"

I hope you're right, and I hope everyone passes on him, because there is no way in hell he's a late round talent. I've watched him pretty closely the past few years, and he's been a stud for quite some time. He's been kicking ass in the SEC (pretty much the NFL's JV) at multiple positions since he was just a pup. If the Bears get him in the 4th, or in the 3rd after a trade down, it will be a huge steal. He's easily worth a 3rd round pick, and probably should be an early 2nd rounder if his college dominance and versatility has anything to do with it.

Agreed.

If this isn't a sure sign that the Bears need to invest early and heavily in OL, then I don't know what is. With any luck Jones is slipping like some say, and the Bears can get him in the 4th. I'd love to see a Bama OL draft of OG Warmack in the first and C Jones later.

It's possible to support while being skeptical and pessimistic. BTW - I haven't failed to accept he's injury prone. He's older, it's gonna happen. But I also think his skill level and extra attributes make him a worthwhile veteran who makes the team much better (something the stats from last year have proven).