jason
-
Posts
8,809 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jason
-
-
Hill, Fleener, Adams, and Jenkins are all interesting choices in the 2nd round if they are available. It's too bad most of them will be off the board by the time our 2nd pick comes around..
Yep. For the Bears, there is virtually nothing to discuss for the players listed. Good thing they won that game at the end of the season.
-
I probably wouldn't make any of those deals. We have an opportunity to add quite a few solid players and I'm fine with that. If I moved up, it would be to get the LT out of USC.
Seconded. The draft value chart says it would cost too much.
-
Agreed for two reasons:
1. It's a damn opinion. Sometimes the best evaluators are wrong and sometimes the worst evaluators are right. In the end, it doesn't mean a damn thing either way. I've never understood why people get pissed at someone like Dilfer for his football opinion. He was wrong about Cutler's injury. Now he's praising him. Either way, who gives a damn?
2. Most of us spend far too much time spouting our opinions. I concede to knowing far less than Dilfer about football.
Good points, especially number 2. But there's also a reason why "too far into the forest to see the trees" is a saying.
-
For the record, if OL isn't improved I don't think the Bears have a legit chance at the Super Bowl. They'll be a fringe playoff contender. However, if they strike gold and land a stud DE in the draft, maybe a guy who is from a smaller school or underperformed a bit at a bigger school, if the coaches can coach him up, the defense could offset whatever offensive deficiencies there may be. In my opinion, DE is really the only other legitimate first round need besides LT.
-
On the bears website it has
Spencer as center
Garza at Guard/Center
C Williams at Guard
Carimi at Tackle
Webb at tackle
Louis at Guard
I have already posted what I think will happen this camp, But overall it appears that C Williams will be at guard , this to my dismay.I am of the thought process that Williams should be left tackle and move Louis to let guard, Spencer to center and Garza back to Right side guard, Keep Carimi where he was. I believe it would make the best line we had in a longtime. I like Tices way of coaching bnut I question his stance on Webb. But reading all the reports on Webb he would have probably been a 1st rounder if he stayed at texas.
This is virtually identical to my thoughts on the subject if no OL is drafted. Williams-Louis-Spencer-Garza-Carimi makes too much sense in numerous ways.
In regards to the original topic of this thread, I think shoring up the OL is the key, and has been the key, for multiple seasons. Cutler has a cannon and is accurate, but his mechanics and aim get worse when he gets beat up and tentative. Forte is a stud, but his ability is minimized when the OL lets DTs in the backfield. The WRs haven't been the best route-runners, but have raw talent and speed, and would greatly benefit from an OL that can hold blocks longer, thus allowing for more complex and deeper developing routes. All that points to the OL's deficiencies. Putting the players in their originally intended, and best suited, positions just makes sense. And the offense would have loads of improvement as a result.
-
Heard Trent Dilfer talking QB's yesterday. Of one of the topics, he said Cutler would join the ELITE club this year. He talked about his tougness and maturity. Even mentioned that his body language changed. We all know Cutler has great talent, but I saw what Dilfer saw last year. Looking for great things from JC this year!
I'd like to hope Dilfer is right, but as we've seen in the past, once Cutler starts getting his ass handed to him, his mechanics change. Unless the Bears get Webb out of the starting rotation with a much better replacement, we could see whatever body language changes that have been made go right back to square one.
-
This is very flawed research for a variety of reasons. I'll run through a few...
1. Pro Bowls are often based on notoriety more than performance
2. Pro Bowls are for the best of the best, and a great player who is stuck behind a future HOFer is destined to get very little PB consideration. You will see the same four names recycle (e.g. Long, Thomas, Clady) for several years because they are the best and get a reputation as the best (see #1)
3. Just like styles make fights in boxing, so too do offenses make OTs. A system that puts pieces in a position to succeed is more likely to produce PBers.
4. The Bears offense has stunk since forever, and attention will not be focused on it as a result
5. Pro Bowls for OTs often come as a result of unit cohesion and productiveness. The Bears have neither.
6. Pro Bowls for OTs often come as a result of a group that is collectively good, with a higher leaning towards early draft picks. One has to only look at the last time the Bears made it to the Super Bowl to see a perfect example. Tait (1), Brown (1), Kreutz (3), Garza (4), Miller (5). Consider that by the time Miller got to the Bears he was 9-year vet who had been kicking ass for the previous 7 years, and that's much more than a 5th rounder. Garza was an established vet on the rise; Kreutz was a pro-bowl center, Brown was a pro-bowl OG with gas in the tank, and Tait was a veteran, pro-bowl LT.
7. Smart teams continually reinvest in the OL, specifically the OT position, through the draft. The only SB team in the last five years that didn't follow this logic was IND, and we all know that's because their collection of WRs, TEs, and Peyton Manning (and his lightning-fast release) makes playing defense against them nearly impossible.
2009 - NYG coming off a SB win in 2007, they draft a 2nd round OT (Beatty) who replaces their OL weak-link (Diehl [5])
2010 - NO wins the SB, and despite having a 2nd rounder (Stinchcomb) and a 4th rounder who would soon be a Pro Bowler (Bushrod), they draft an OT in the 2nd (Brown)
2011 - GB wins the SB, and despite having a 2nd rounder (Clifton) and a 1st rounder (Baluga), they draft another OT in the first (Sherrod)
2011 - PIT loses to GB in the SB, and looks to replace their 5th round OT (Scott) with a 2nd round OT (Gilbert)
To sum it up...
Do the Bears need a Pro Bowl LT to succeed? No.
Do they need to consistently try to get a Pro Bowl LT, through the draft or through trade, to succeed? Yes.
-
Hate the idea.
First of all, the defense is predicated on getting pressure, but that predication is based upon interior pressure more than exterior. DT is much more important in the Lovie-2 defense.
Second, this team is not in a position to put all of their eggs in one basket. There are still multiple holes to fill.
-
NFL.com gave Kirkpatrick a higher grade than Claiborne and most mocks have Claiborne being a top 5 pick. There isn't a ton of difference between either guy in terms of talent. If you are going with BPA approach then Kirkpatrick most likely will be that if he's there at 19 over guys like Reiff, Martin, Mercilus, Ingram, and probably Coples etc... If you value need over BPA, then those other guys are better picks but not the better player. The Bears need to inject more young talent on the defensive side of the football for when guys like Peanut, Urlacher, and Peppers start to decline as players.
Interesting grades. Better is relative. No player is a lock. In the draft, nearly nothing is certain.
What are certainties, however, are the holes on the Bears' roster.
A solid draft approach should be neither BPA nor need-based; it should be a combination of the two. If you have a C and an F, it makes a lot more sense to get that F to a C before you try to turn the C into an A. A bunch of C's aren't pretty, but they won't tank the overall score. An F will bury you in all facets of life. Only as strong as your weakest link, and all that.
-
How long is it going to take the Bears before they realize Devin Hester is a terrible WR? The thought of him being limited from his kick return duties is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.
Disagree/agree.
He is not a terrible WR. In fact, he's probably a little above average. His stats, ability, performance, and sheer athleticism prove this.
At the same time, moving him away from ST in favor of more WR reps just doesn't make sense. Afterall, he's the best returnman in the history of the NFL.
-
That's actually why he would be great here. His skills translate best in a zone coverage defense like ours. He's not a Darell Revis that's going to be physical at the LOS and play alot of man to man. He's got Asante Samuels skills of anticipation and the instincts to thrive in a Chicago Bears defense.
I should have written "will underperform for a first round CB." Picking up Kirkpatrick because he's great in the Lovie-2 system of covering space and zone is similar to drafting a strict possession WR in the first round for a team like the Patriots that dinks and dunks it all over the field. Both situations are reaches in terms of pure talent as it relates to other players at their position, can be had later in the draft, are not one of the most critical components of the system being used, and if not for the ease with which they'd fit into the team's system the player wouldn't be considered as highly. It would be similar to the Bears drafting Earl Bennett in the first round because they know he can fit in.
Is Kirkpatrick good? Yes.
Would he do well in the Lovie-2? I believe so.
Is he the kind of player you want in the first round? No.
Does he maximize the value of the first round pick? No.
-
The Kirkpatrick pick is not one I would like. He's a special player, but will underperform in the Lovie-2 because he will be called about to sit back into zone and play space more than he will be asked to shutdown an opponent's #1. The reason you draft a CB in the first is to shutdown the opponent's #1. Period. It's the reason guys like Revis are called Revis Island and guys like Tillman have put in a bunch of very good years with virtually no sort of recognition. You don't draft a CB in the first round to sit in a zone the majority of the game. If Defense must be had, the three most important positions in the Lovie-2 are DT, MLB, and FS; the CB position is undervalued.
-
I dont think the OL class and DE class are considered bad. With all the information we have there are 7 OLs that have a first round grade. NFP(which I like) has 8 OLs being drafted in the first round. It may not be great, but bad doesnt apply. According to NFP they have 7 DEs in the top 64 players. Also there mock draft shows 4 being drafted. Define the term bad? Bad for me would be safety, only 2 listed in the top 64 players. Only one will be drafted in the first two rounds.
Agreed. Bad is relative to the year.
-
Urlacher is in his last year at about 10 mil. Do you want to keep a 35(next year) LB at 10 mil for a couple of more years. I think he stays around but not going to get big money. It didnt do much damage with Kruenz as our OL cornerstone. I dont want a high pick at LB but I think if Kuechly falls they definitly think about it. He is a stud and we find a spot for him.
I still think he's playing at a high enough level that the Bears need to pay him well, and that the two parties agree to a justified, respectable end to Urlacher's storied career as a Chicago Bear. Seeing him in another uniform would be a gut punch. Seeing him in another uniform when his body of work should garner a million here or there on respect alone, would be even worse.
It depends on the salary demanded, but if Urlacher is asking for anything even close to reasonable, the Bears should pay it. Even if he's over what they would like, as long as it's not a ridiculous amount (for instance, if he wants a ten year contract), they should look at the difference as a "Hall of Famer"-tax, or something similar, and just do what's right, allowing Urlacher to retire as a Bear.
-
I think we need to add another WR prospect, but it doesnt have to be early. IF Marshall gets some kind of a suspension it changes everything. I think one more added to the bunch is a necessary, but in the 3rd or 4th can still be a good player. Hester is just going to be a special play guy, maybe in on 25% of the plays, so I dont think you can count him at a top 3 Wideouts.
I think he's PERFECT as the #3 WR. His stats, speed, agility, and moderate reliability have all the appearances of a dynamite slot guy who should never have been put in the #1 role. With BM as #1 and EB as #2, the pressure is off Hester and he just gets to rip defenses apart while they're trying to figure out the first two.
-
A high draft pick that takes Roachs place and slides to MLB or WLB wouldnt be a bad thing. What if Kuechly drops? I think we can find a high rated player at a position of need but he is a stud and the BPA , you never know. Get him, play him SLB and dont give Urlacher more money when his contract runs out.
I REALLY hate the idea now. You essentially want to shit on the cornerstone of the defense, the face of the franchise the past decade. That would not work well, and would hurt the Bears in future negotiations with other players who see the lack of loyalty.
-
Definitely ..not much change from 19 to the late 20s
That's kind of why I like the idea. A lot of the trade possibilities depend on what happens before the Bears select, but it seems like they may be sitting at a "reach for the fourth best player at a position"-spot when that same guy will be there several picks later.
Going off of RME JICO's draft swap with the Texans, we could potentially end up with the following (according to the layout of Walter Football):
1st (26): Stephon Gilmore, CB, South Carolina
2nd (50): Zebrie Sanders, OT, FSU
2nd (58): Vinny Curry, DE, Marshall
4th (111): Ladarius Green, TE, Louisiana-Lafayette
4th (121): Michael Brewster, C, OSU
5th (150): Vontaze Burfict, LB, ASU
I'd consider that a pretty great draft. Gilmore fills a hole (even though I'm not high on him), Sanders should start over Webb (despite his boneheaded play), at the very least Curry gets used as a situational pass rusher, Green probably beats out Davis (and gets rid of some other dead weight on the roster), Brewster gets a year or two of development before he takes over, and the Bears try to catch lightning in a bottle with the type of troubled, misunderstood player for whom Lovie seems to have a soft heart.
-
I think the possiblity exists that a high draft pick could be a LB. Our depth at LB sucks.
As always, I hate that idea. Using high draft picks for depth is a good way to pay rookies a lot of money to sit on the bench, get angry, and wait for the first chance to leave town. Unless a team has no holes, the first round should be to draft a player who is either definitely going to start, or has a good chance of beating out the incumbent to start (i.e. addressing a deficiency).
-
At 6'1" and an indicated older age (I don't know how old), you might have problem fighting for the ball when matched up against a bunch of 6'4" WRs.
-
It sounds like it's not so much about championships but about $$$. The Bengals have more cap room left to spend than any other team. If you want to get paid, that's one of the few teams left.
I'd say 90% of the time it's more about $$$ than winning. Most of today's players are greedy beyond belief, and care more about their three year contract extension than the game in three days.
-
Why a WR though? They have so many already, and even if they cut Komar and Sanzenbacher, they still have BM, Hester, Thomas, Bennett, Knox, and Weems. Then again, they COULD essentially list Weems or Hester as a DB.
Perception. Nothing more, nothing less. Even educated Bears' fans seem to think WR is still a major need, and one that will be addressed by the front office. I contend that BM, Hester, Bennett, Knox is a very good starting four. And if Knox is out, we get to kick the tires on Thomas.
We'll see, I guess.
-
The fact we signed two veterans on the cheap who hope for a chance to start tells me we ain't going CB in round #1. As I mentioned earlier, we don't put that much stock in CB's in Lovie's cover 2 scheme.
Exactly my point about Gilmore. I think he's a great fit for the Lovie-2 because he's very talented, but that means he'd be a good fit anywhere. He's not an ideal fit in Chicago, however, because the defensive system requires much more talent at DT, MLB, and FS, and the CB position requires much less.
-
Wonder what this does to their draft strategy. Tillman, Hayden, Jennings, and Moore are a solid 4, but there's not much after that, unless I'm forgetting someone. I'd still like to see a mid-round pick on a CB.
I think it means CB just got moved far down the list.
OL, WR, DE...wash, rinse, repeat
-
WOW. This is the first thing I've seen that conclusively shows people were encouraging actually injuring someone with illegal tactics. I've stayed somewhat divided from this because I think it's not much different from the sticker system in college if the hits being rewarded are legal. Football is a violent game and people get injured all the time as a result of legal hits. But until this link, I hadn't actually heard someone unequivocally say they were trying to do so illegally (i.e. the head shots to Gore).
"Remember me" shot to Alex Smith = Could occur legally
Re-injuring 49ers PR Kyle Williams = Could occur legally
Taking out someone's ACL = Could occur legally
Now, actually wanting to do someone else harm in this fashion is a somewhat different issue, and any player who wishes to physically injure another player so that the opponent's career is potentially in danger is downright disgusting. Hurting someone with a legal hit is just part of the game. But hoping you actually injure them longterm is very unsportsmanlike.
Some speculation on pick #19
in Bearstalk
Posted
Disagree. If it's a need, it's a need. Hell, the Bears took Wilbur and Rivera in the first and second rounds of the SAME draft.