jason

Welcome to my world. I've been tired of the school boy approach for a while. I don't give a damn if the dude has issues as long as he can play. Hell, Deven Hester was dumber than a salad coming out of college, but he could play. Vontaze Burfict had red flags all over the place coming out of college, but look at what he's doing in Cincy. This goes back to the epic "Should the Bears sign Terrell Owens or Randy Moss" discussions this board has had numerous times.

I mentioned something like this weeks/months ago. 1st - Jones 2nd - Fluker That'd be great. And if Jones happens to fall into the second because of his upcoming foot surgery, trade up and do this: 1st - Warmack 2nd - Jones 2nd - Fluker I'm joking...kinda...

Bingo. Who passes up free consultation from qualified experts?

Your points make sense. I agree that any exterior analysis is ultimately inconclusive, but I still believe a picture can be painted if it's done thoroughly enough. Very thorough analysis, no matter that flaw, is almost always better than just look and feel. This is particularly true in terms of OL analysis in football, because since our very first game we've been trained to watch the football. Hell, it's the same in any sport. Watch the ball. So when a quick out pass zooms to Hester in the flats, the OL is ignored. It's normal viewing tendency. But if someone were to actually watch the game the way I did those two games earlier in the year, where I went back and forth on the DVR, multiple times per player on the OL, to specifically watch their movement and performance, then even from TV a very good idea can be had about the player's performance.

As if the National Championship game couldn't have made my point any more clear. Jones > Teo' As a Notre Dame fan living in the heart of SEC country (Alabama), there is something entirely different about football down here. It's particularly true about Alabama since the fan base is so rabid and there are no pro teams to speak of in any sport. That, and the performance put on last night, is one of the reasons I previously said I wouldn't mind a trade up into the second round if it were possible for the Bears to pick Warmack, Fluker, AND Barret Jones. Of course, that's not going to happen, which is why I think the best possible draft start for the Bears (assuming no FA movements) would be Jones in the first, Fluker in the second. Until the OL problem is solved by more than bandaids, the offense will never perform and Cutler will get beat up.

Dude. Stop. Briggs is still an all-star, and Urlacher is an above average MLB. We've been spoiled over the years by his athleticism, but he's still above average. Oh, and by the way, Thomas is still a second year guy. And to be quite honest, I don't think Roach or Hayes is all that bad.

If you know what you're looking at, and know about football, you can usually tell what the specific OLineman was supposed to do. There are times when you may be wrong because they reacted to a blitz late, tripped, covered for another guy, etc., but more often than not it's pretty clear what their assignment was. Having the coaches tape helps tremendously, no doubt.

It happens to others, without a doubt. But I don't believe it happens to the others as much as Webb and the guys on the Bears OL. Hence, why the Bears OL and offense has sucked for multiple years. It's why I've been saying for quite some time that the sacks are an incomplete measure of effectiveness, and there should be pressures included among other things. I'd love for some NFL-connected person put together a stat that measures each player, on a play by play basis, and then aligns that with their teammate OLinemen on the same plays. I'm confident we'd find the Bears' OL take turns screwing up, which is why it looks so bad. Meanwhile, this "horrible GB OL" that everyone loves to bring into debates like this would be shown consistent in their problems. When bad, multiple are bad. When good, they're rock solid. It sure didn't look like they were a bad OL this weekend when Rodgers was sitting back and picking the Viking secondary apart. Seeing and quantifying all others from all other teams would make the data complete, but it's unrealistic to do so. It's enough to watch the Bears players and evaluate how well they are doing, so that an intelligent statement can be made that says something like, "Webb only allowed two pressures and one sack, but on five different other plays he got destroyed when it just so happens the play went the exact opposite way." This is how coaches review film. The end result is nice, but each player gets an evaluation on their assignment irrespective of others (i.e. what did YOU do on that play).

I can almost guarantee it's not that complex. Which is one of the reasons why there was so much discussion and disagreement on the Bears OL after various games this year. I actually broke down each lineman's play on each play and put it into a spreadsheet so that they could be properly evaluated. Quantitatively evaluated. It's much better than the typical, "But I thought he played well, because I saw the game." Yeah, that doesn't tell nearly the entire picture. For instance, if Webb gets blown up, and it just happens to be a play where Cutler rolls the other way, and there isn't a hit/sack, most people will forget the play. There are countless examples like this, and your thoughts about additional help fall right into the analysis.

I forgot to reply to this. It would kill me to pass on Teo', but depending on how the draft played out, I could pass on him for stud OL talent. I just don't honestly believe LB talent is very difficult to find or cultivate. Find ball, hit ball carrier, tackle. I know that's incredibly simplistic, but that's what LBs do from pee-wee to the pros. To go further, I'd pass if Warmack, Cooper, or Jones is there.

I'm sorry, but any statistic that says only five names on that list graded out better than Webb is flawed. As already mentioned, Loadholt is easily better than Webb. He may not be an all-star, but he's an easy upgrade to Webb. The fact that there are OGs and Cs on the list just backs up my point about it being a crap list. Not blaming you, attacking the data.

QFT. Tice and the coaching staff completely screwed Williams, and thus far Carimi has been tossed around like a $2 hooker. If a player was a stud in college at position X, draft him to play position X. It's not that difficult. As I've said before, going into training camp next year, the LT job should be Carimi's by default, and to lose the job he'd have to be atrocious. If he's just plain bad or subpar, no problem because that's about the same as Webb. May as well try to invest time and reps into your LT of the future instead of trying the Webb experiment for the fourth(?) straight year. While we're at it, let's move Garza back to his actual position of OG, and sign/draft a Center. Enough of this flip-flop garbage.

I hate the idea of releasing Carimi. That's crazy. And a draft that starts out MLB, then TE, would make me puke. But I do like the rest of your draft, particularly the chances taken on talented but troubled players (4th, 6th, 7th). If the Bears had done that last year, like I wanted, they'd already have a starting LB in Burfict, and maybe the successor to Urlacher.

I went high with a 1 and a 2. But I think a 3 is too low. Somewhere in the middle?

Because some have mentioned releasing him, I had the thought, "What would the Bears get for him in trade?" I'm not sure I would do it, but if a team were willing to give a 1st and a 2nd, or something like that, I might do it as the Bears GM.

Hate

Hell, I'm the biggest advocate of OL, OL, OL and even I thought Jeffery was a steal at that moment. When BPA outweighs positional need, you have to go BPA. But I still don't believe there wasn't a single OL player drafted after Jeffery who didn't grade out better than Webb. That's just BS. And if it is even remotely true, it's probably because most of the others didn't get to play. Had that hypothetical 2nd or 3rd round player come to the Bears, he likely beats out Webb in training camp (if given a fair chance), and there is no comparison in grade because no grade on Webb would have been available.

Hopefully those are not the only numbers he is using to evaluate (I doubt he is), because I suspect some seriously flawed data. It's the old "stats lie" thing. Of course, it could be in the words... Did he say no player from OUR second round pick down graded better than Jamarcus? If so, then that's easy. SMC, Rodriguez, Alshon, Hardin, Frey, McCoy...all had disappointing years. But if he's talking about ANY player from ANY team from the second round down, those stats are full of shit.

The Walter speculation may be true, but I'm not a fan of mock drafts that factor in unknowns like trades and potential FA moves.

There are just as many success stories for first round OTs. In fact, this has been done on the board before, and there is a higher percentage of stud OT talent drafted in the first round than any other position (maybe QB was above it, can't recall). If you want a stud OT, you draft early. This has been proven statistically. Unless, of course, some team ignorantly gets rid of a player like that...which doesn't happen often. Tait-Brown-Kruetz-Garza-Miller was a great OL, but, look at their draft status. They may not have all been drafted by the Bears, but they aren't 7th rounders by any means. 1,1,3,4,5. On top of that, Tait was a poison pill contract to KC, and Brown/Miller were lightning in a bottle. All of this has also been displayed on the board numerous times. Kreutz was just a good pick, and Garza was just a good FA pickup. The whole thing together is unlikely to happen like that again.

{{giggling like a little kid}}

If he honestly thought nobody graded out or would do better than Webb, then I seriously question not only his evaluation ability, but also his eyesight. It's gotta be all smoke and mirrors. Webb has graded out as one of the worst starting OL of the last few years.

I would not like that at all. MLB in the first is not necessary, and trying to find another Urlacher is not priority number one. This is the best OL year in recent memory. Pick it early, pick it often. MLB can be had in 3-5 rounds.

I don't have a problem with the 4-3. I prefer the 3-4, but traditional is fine. What I have a problem with is a passive, cover-2, 4-3 system. Something we've seen for years now. I want to see players like Urlacher and Briggs killing QBs as well as making tackles in open space. Any system that has Urlacher back pedaling more than charging the QB is just wrong in my opinion. I know he's fast, but it's defensive castration to take away the killer instinct of players like him. Four sacks in the last three years. That's pathetic. Sure, other MLBs don't have big sack stats either, but a guy with Urlacher's speed is being really underutilized if he doesn't have more sacks and QB hits. He's not the same type of MLB as Ray Lewis, a guy who can fend off a ton of blocks and still make the tackle. We've seen him get buried by blockers more than once. So that leaves a defensive coach with three real options to use the speed: back, forward, lateral. We saw lateral when the Bears had Ted Washington and Keith Traylor. It was magnificent to watch Urlacher run all over the place. We've seen backwards, running deep middle in pass protection (the ultimate reason he was injured). We haven't really seen forward. That, in a nutshell, is why I welcome the 3-4 change. The 3-4 mandates that all LBs are multi-dimensional and could potentially attack at any time. But if they can mix it up somewhat in a 4-3, fine with me as well.