jason
-
Posts
8,809 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jason
-
-
In some of those you have to consider where they're playing though when you compare their numbers. Meachem and Manningham were what, the 3rd options on their clubs, while Williams was the first option supposedly on the Bears? Royal had what, the Tebow throwing to him? Presumably if the Bears sign any of them, they immediately become Cutler's best target.
That said, yes, signing a legit WR is still the priority and should be the only reasonable option.
Agreed. On the same token, you have to consider who I'm comparing them to. I'm comparing to the Bears' WRs and the Bears' offense with the Bears' OL and the changes they've encountered over the last several years.
-
You say the bold like the bold would be a bad thing though. The Bears WR's are so weak, so undermanned, that even doing that would be a substantial upgrade.
That said, yes, Colston and VJax still need to be the #1 and #1a targets in some order, because the upgrade of a legit #1 would be monstrous.
I don't necessarily think it's bad in terms of depth, but it's not the right move. And I don't necessarily agree that any of those guys would be a substantial upgrade over Bennett, Hester, Knox, and Williams.
Meachem (40/620/6) = Knox (37/727/2)
Royal (19/155/1) = Hester (26/369/1)
Manningham (39/523/4) = Williams (37/507/2)
Robinson (54/858/11) Bennett (43/481/1)
The only one that doesn't make sense is Robinson and Bennett, mostly because I couldn't think of a better way for the FA WRs to align with the Bears' WRs. But Robinson doesn't interest me all that much. Despite his size and speed, he's very injury prone and I think he just got lucky last year. The stars aligned. The minute he gets sitned it wouldn't surprise me if he got hurt and turned into a waste of money. Otherwise, what upgrades have the others really provided?
-
He could be gone, as well as Floyd at 19, but do you think he is a good enough of a prospect to take at 19? The highest I see him rated is the 28th best player, so strictly from a BPA pick there should be other options to get a blue chip player. Now maybe move down 10 spots and pick us an extra 3rd and draft him, OK. I think he could turn int o a good player, but of the best prospects he is said to need time to develope. I want someone that can make an impact right away and he could not be that guy. As I rate the WRs Blackmon, Floyd, Wright,Randle are the only ones this year that could make a big impact.
First part: Hell no. If the Bears stay at 19 and get a guy who wasn't even close to the first round radar before the combine, it will be a horrible move. It will be a reach. He is not the third best WR available, and probably not the fourth, regardless of what all the post-combine slotting has said.
Second part: If the Bears move down? Then yes, it's not as bad of a move. It falls in line more closely with where he should be drafted. The combine workout warrior stuff is troubling to say the least.
-
None of those are solutions. Helpful hands, but not what we really need. Anyone other than Colston or Jackson will be considered a whiff by Emery...at least on paper. Barring, of course, if he gets Mario Williams.
We simply need one of three of those guys in order for FA to not appear to be a bust. Time will tell, but at the moment and on paper, that's how it appears.
Completely agreed.
Meachem, Manningham, Eddie Royal, and Laurent Robinson just add more pu-pu to the pu-pu platter of WRs. The only one out of the group that actually interests me somewhat is Meachem. But that's mostly on the intuition I have regarding him being in a prolific offense that spreads the ball around, yet he got decent catch numbers, and the fact that he has world-class speed. In the end he sounds a lot like Knox and/or Hester, but I wonder if he could do better and produce more if he were on an offense that didn't run so well with so many pass-catching options.
Colston or VJax are the only two FA WRs that really make a lot of sense. Otherwise it's the old fantasy football dilemma of having a bunch of #2 and #3 guys who get you 50yds per week while losing to the team that has 2 or 3 top-dogs who get 100yds and a TD.
-
That would be stupid for them th let Brees go and sign Manning. For one it will cost more to sign Manning than Brees. Second Manning is basically still hurt and Brees is not. Third Manning will have to learn the Saints system and get on the same page with the WR'S as Brees already knows the ins and outs of the Saints system. And last the coaches know what to do with Brees and how to use him......Manning will be changing plays and the coaches will have to follow his lead which they might not want to do.
THIS.
You might as well set fire to the Superdome. Brees is absolutely loved in New Orleans. Cutting him and getting Manning would be one of the top ten stupidest moves in NFL history.
-
I've got to admit, I was a big fan of Angelo's bargain shopping last year. Roy Williams, Marion Barner, Amobi Okoye, the dude from the Jets whose name I can't remember. Not to mention Brandon Merriweather. Wow that was bad.
Lesson learned: There is a reason why they are cheap. If we sign one or two top tier guys, I'll be thrilled with the bargains.
Roy Williams - Disappointed us all because we had such high expectations, but the dude put up stats comparable to Mario Manningham, who has caused more than one FA boner on this site.
Marion Barber - Had a pretty decent year except for one game that has tainted him in the eyes of some.
Amobi Okoye - Showed flashes of his talent and potential, not really a bad pickup.
Vernon Gholston - OK, bad pickup.
Brandon Merriweather - Below average pickup.
I thought the moves were brilliant at the time. And I still think it's a good idea. Whenever possible the Bears should look to players who have shown exceptional talent or potential, or who have shown production, but have been pushed aside for whatever reason and have minimal interest around the league. If those players have failed to live up to their talent or potential, yet have shown glimpses of greatness, it doesn't hurt to sign them to cheap(ish) contracts and hope they pan out. It's certainly a gamble, but if inspiration grows roots it could bloom into on-field production. You never know if you can inspire or teach a player to live up to his hype. If things don't work out, cut'em. No problem.
-
The fact that Enderle couldn't get time behind a real bad Hanie and then was leap-frogged by McCown tells me he's not right for this league.
While I love all these back-up options, the truth is you can't pay a huge sum for a #1 Qb and then pay for a good back-up. Who is the back-up for the Saints? The Patriots? Chargers? Hell, who is Eli's back-up?
Jeff Garcia was an option that would have worked and he wouldn't have been super expensive. He's been around, knows the league, would provide accurate, smart throws, and will not create locker-room drama. He signed late in the year last year with Houston. He would have been the perfect backup.
-
It wont be a big loss, we have better options and shouldnt be jumping in for a driven price. The Bears werent going to jump on him with out a try out and if he does look good, the competition would have driven the price up anyways. He could be a good addition, but as a 3 or 4 wideout not our #1 focus in FAgency.
He's a better #2 option in FA than anyone else that has been mentioned. 50 yards a game would not be difficult for him to get at all, and that would be 800 yards a season. Add in a guaranteed 6 or so TDs, at least, and the threat of red zone jump balls, and he's a bigger upgrade than just about anyone else out there being considered for other than a #1 gig.
IDK if the price would have been driven up on him if the Bears had jumped in early. Nobody was buying at first. Same as TO. If they had him in for a visit/try-out, and liked what they saw, they could have been prepared with a contract right then. It's entirely possible he would have taken it, or at least been more apt to work towards an agreement during negotiations, since he wasn't getting other offers. Now, however, he knows that other teams are looking at him as a viable alternative. Before they were not.
If he does well this year, I view this as Emery's first mistake. When a team has a problem, it needs to be addressed by whatever means possible. All avenues need to be exhausted until it is no longer a problem.
-
Had action been taken immediately, he was for the taking. The Bears could have already had him. At a discounted price no less. But now that he has done well at a try out, there goes that idea. It may all be rumors, but if multiple sources are saying he "lit it up," then he's far from washed up.
http://eye-on-football.blogs.cbssports.com...475988/35114661
-
It is getting close to the start of free agency, so lets put it down in a post what we think we will get.
I am assuming after Forte we have 22 mil of cap space.
rookie pool- 5 mil
signing our own free agents-6 to 8 mil Bell,Idonije(DT), Stelz,Jennings,Graham,Okoye
L. Robinson/WR/Dal
Porter/CB/NO
Carlson/TE/Sea
Bell/LT/Buf
Royal/WR/Den
This is not what I prefer but what I think the way they may go as far as positions and players.
That leaves us in need a WR,DE, CB,LB,OL, so with this as a start we draft.
#1 Mercilus/DE/Ill
#2 Randle/WR/LSU
#3a Norman/CB/CC
#3b Carder/ILB/TCU
#4 Jones/OC/Geor
#5 Egnew/TE/Miss
So the Bears would have at WR next year:
L. Robinson
E. Royal
R. Randall
D. Hester
E. Bennett
J. Knox
D. Sanzenbacher
Seems sort of ridiculous to me to devote that much to the WR position, and that much FA/Draft to the WR position in one year. If that happens, there will be minimal change in the offense because Robinson is fast but unproven (stats not dissimilar from Knox), Royal had a big rookie year and dropped off the map after that (comparable to Hester as a player), and a rookie will have minor impact while fighting for targets and catches in an offense with, by your proposal, 7 WRs. You've essentially created the pu-pu platter of WRs.
I'm guessing you think Knox isn't coming back, Sanz will get cut, and Hester is going back to only ST?
-
The Bears don't need Jackson to be a 80+ catch guy. They need him to catch 65-70 passes and be a good 3rd down and red zone target. They have Bennett too, and for him being "average" up to most NFL wideouts, he's proved to be a good one here with Cutler. Also, they'll probably draft another WR in the first 3 rounds.
Oh, and don't give me the "he has a bad attitude stuff." I'm happy he does. Hester, Bennett and Sanzenbacher are all kind of no-emotion no-talk guys. Talk a little s*** here and there. This is f***ing Chicago. As for the DUI's, so what? Michael Floyd has what, 2 or 3 of those? We all still want him too.
All in all, if you think Jackson has to be the savior and be Larry Fitzgerald East, stop. He'll come here and be a good player with about 67 catches and 9 TD's annually.
Bolded Part: That's how I've felt about Moss and TO for years and years.
-
If you were correct in that its hard to define what exactly Gregg Willians knew of this then yes, I'd agree, you must be innocent until found guilty. However here's the problem Gregg Williams has...he kept records and so far it seems clear he administered the program.
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcsouth/post?id=31925
This column says Williams didn’t invent the use of the bounty system, which almost certainly is true. But it says his big mistake was keeping such detailed records. No doubt about that. The NFL says it has 50,000 pages of evidence, including 18,000 emails.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
For those who put up the Abu Ghraib analogy, despite all the media's best efforts to portray it as such, there was never any proof that was an official policy administered by the officers in charge. The troops in charge of the detention facility were acting on their own, however, many were involved. The officers were guilty of negligence in failing to monitor the activities of those who reported to them.
In contrast it appears Gregg Williams was in charge of the bounty program and it seems clear he was running the show therefore it was an expectation of all who worked for him to participate. To follow on to your analogy if someone hires a person to kill someone else then who is more guilty? The usually go after the person who hired the assassin more aggressively although both get punished.
As a former officer I can tell I know we can go to jail for implementing illegal activities such as what happened at Abu Ghraib. Since so many believe officers get off lightly I can state for a fact a coworker mine who failed a drug test spent a year in Ft. Leavenworth. No enlisted personnel on my base ever had a similar penalty for the same offense.
Interesting anecdote at the end there. I can tell you from my experience on the other end of the rank spectrum, I saw higher ranks often get off with less punishment or chastisement (or a bad eval) and lower ranks made example (UCMJ) of because as many saw it, harsher punishment on the higher ranks effectively ended their career. Where the lower ranked individuals could easily climb back up to their former rank. This was at numerous locations with numerous units. As for Abu Ghraib, I put up the analogy because military was mentioned. And without this getting into a weapons-grade pissing match or ID card battle, I think the fact that the officers got off with a slap on the wrist and a legal shell game of blame between Pappas, Wood, and Jordan proves my point and disproves the opposite. The fact that you say "can go to jail" and that none of the officers actually did go to jail says a lot.
In regards to the Saints, Sean Payton is the COL, Gregg Williams is the LTC, and the players are the enlisted ranks. The primary difference of course is that a military officer has a lot more control over their troops, and an NFL player is still a millionaire who can unequivocally disobey his coaches immoral orders without nearly the repurcussions that would be felt by a soldier with similar actions. Is everyone involved with each of the situations wrong? Absolutely. But it still takes physical effort by the person committing the act.
-
Apparently not. You and I must be the only two left.
Three.
I'd prefer to load up on the OL and make it all-pro from end to end (seriously). Everyone would cry at first, but then an average Joe RB would be good for 5 YPC, and an average QB could find targets if he had 10 seconds to sit in the pocket. It's not realistic in the NFL because nobody would do it, but I think it's a better strategy and it minimizes cost on all the franchise-type skill players.
-
You may need a better analogy.
What's going on with the Saints more closely resembles a group of guys that agree to steal. Let's use a military reference for ease... These guys are privates and corporals. Now, the staff sgt. knows of the plan. But instead of alerting the MP's or his Lt., he does nothing. In fact, his Lt. asks him if he knows anything...and he says no. Now the group of privates and corporals go and steal. Yes, the privates & corporals are guilty. But, by not doing anything to stop it and especially lying to the Lt., the sgt. is basically as guilty, if not more so. It is expected that someone in that position of power set a greater example.
We agree on nearly everything, but you're just plain wrong on this one. Check out, for instance, what happened at Abu Ghraib.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_to...tive_reprimands
BG Karpinski - Demoted.
COL Pappas - Fined.
LTC Jordan - Remprimanded.
SPC Graner - 10 years in prison (served 6.5).
SSG Frederick - 8 years in prison.
SPC Sivits - 1 year in prison.
SGT Davis - 6 months in prison.
The list goes on and on. Shit, most definitely, rolled downhill. Like it almost always does in the military. Those who were responsible for running a tighter ship were punished, but those who actually committed the actions were punished much more severely.
Same goes for the Saints players and their actions.
-
Personally I think that landing Jackson and finding a quality opposing pass rusher is pretty interesting
Yeah but you didn't throw Jackson into the equation on the post to which I replied!
I'm not so sure Mincey is all that interesting, or even a quality pass rusher - much less an upgrade over who the Bears have - but if Jackson is thrown into the equation it's a nice consolation prize. -
Saints are expected to bring Moss in for a workout.
The fact that the Saints are doing this gives me mixed emotions.
On one hand, Moss is probably not the most beneficial player in a locker-room and organization that is currently in turmoil. I've never disagreed with the notion that he's potentially toxic, but the Saints should probably lay low for the moment.
On the other hand, if an offensive juggernaut like the Saints want to give Moss a shot to join their finely tuned scoring machine, it tells me Moss is definitely someone the Bears (who are not a finely tuned scoring machine) should be looking at.
-
It all starts with leadership! Great posts. I got your back!
It may start with leadership, but the players not have the ultimate say when it comes to following through?
Getting a bonus for a big, legal hit/play I don't have a problem with. It's against the CBA, but morally there is no problem in my mind. Ultimately it's the same as getting a sticker on your helmet in college.
Getting a bonus for a big, illegal hit/play I have a big problem with. It's rotten to the core, dangerous, against the concept of sportsmanship, but ultimately the decision of the player. Otherwise we can get into the discussion of why the Pittsburgh coaches haven't been fined/suspended for retraining their players on the art of tackling without using the helmet as a weapon. If the coaches are teaching a player to hit a certain way, and not correcting in-practice mistakes, is this not the same thing? Isn't the only difference a spoken word? As has already been mentioned, the financial incentives being offered are minimal enough that it's not about the money.
It's just like in the military; a person has the individual responsibility to follow moral orders and disobey immoral orders.
-
Perhaps more reasonable and interesting Bears target:
Reasonable? Yes.
Interesting? Not really.
-
It depends on what the salary is each year. So they may sign him to a 5/40 with a 20 mil signing bonus. If his salaries were 2, 2, 4, 4, and 8 mil; then the cap hits would be: 6, 6, 8, 8, 12 mil with the bonus or guaranteed money ($4 mil per year) pro-rated over the life of the deal. In reality they are paying him $22 mil this year, but only $6 mil counts against the cap. After that point, they can release him at anytime, but would take a cap hit immediately for the remainder of the bonus that was not yet applied to the cap. So if Forte was released after year 3, they Bears would have a cap hit of $8 mil in year 4 without Forte, but would not incur anything in year 5.
So to Forte, he could essentially double or triple his guaranteed money with a new deal compared to the $7.7 he is getting now. A new deal, with creative salaries also could reduce the cap hit for the first few years compared to the franchise value at RB.
See, I'm actually good with math and you kind of lost me with this post. To clarify:
Salaries per year: 2,2,4,4,8 = 20
Guaranteed money prorated per year: 4,4,4,4,4 = 20
CAP HIT
Year 1: 2+4 = 6 (i.e. Salary + Guaranteed prorated money for the year)
Year 2: 2+4 = 6
Year 3: 4+4 = 8
Year 4: 4+4 = 8
Year 5: 8+4 = 12
Cap Hits Total: 6,6,8,8,12 = 40
So, the cap hit is the guaranteed money that year - which is prorated for cap purposes over the lifespan of the contract (i.e. 4), plust the actual yearly salary (i.e. 2). Notice that the initial cap hit is the full dollar value of the contract.
The trick: The player actually gets the entire signing bonus / guaranteed money (i.e. 20) and the yearly salary (2) right away. So the team pays, in this situation, over 50% of the money of a five year contract in the first year. This is exactly why I am sick and tired of players signing these kinds of contracts and then bitching in year four about their salary.
-
They knew he might very well be facing them twice a season. Avril was adamant he didn't want to be tagged. We'll see how this plays out over time but a hold out for the first part of the season is quite possible.
Which is kind of stupid considering he's not in the top 5 of DEs out there, much less the average of them (which puts him somewhere around 2.5).
-
I'm not sure tying that much money into one position would be very good, but it would be fun to watch that.
Which position are you talking about? I'm guessing it's DE. If so, I sort of agree, but by having Williams and Peppers, the Bears could essentially underspend on DTs. Six in one hand...
-
Good point, but where do the players take responsibility for their actions?
Who is more wrong, the player who laid out the hit or the coach who looked the other way when their players are likely quite involved in making arrangements for an extra few bucks, which I might add they obviously sorely need, to put a bit hit on a fellow player?
Would you suggest that a coach get fired and allow the player to have a one-game suspension?
Ooops, I forgot, this is the age of no one taking responsibility for themselves and blaming authority for everything....never mind.
VERY good point
Any suspension given to a coach should be less than or equal to the same suspensions given to the players who participated.
-
That is actually good news.
Foster is very comparable to Forte IMO, great running the ball, excellent catching the ball, both young.
At this point in their careers Foster would probably be considered by many as the better of the two.
So now the Bears have a legitimate bargaining point with a reasonable figure to work with.
Exactly. Foster > Forte. Similarly, Forte > Lynch. Both differences are by similar degrees. I'd say the gap between Foster and Forte is greater than Forte and Lynch.
What that means:
Foster got 8+ million per year.
Lynch got 7+ million per year.
Forte should get somewhere in between.
This should not be that hard to figure out. If the Bears offer 7.5 and Forte doesn't accept, tag him for insurance and start looking for trading partners.
-
I'd be happy with that. Unless of course, there is a run on OTs in the first, and the Bears don't have one fall. Then it's not as pretty.
Vincent Jackson a Bears target?
in Bearstalk
Posted
Yes, and I see it as a valid comparison. I believe Robinson had a fluke year. Take that away and the numbers are VERY close, the players are VERY similar, and I'm not sure any of them are actual upgrades. You have to figure that a good player is a good player on any team. And if these guys were studs, they would have emerged as more than the #2-#4 guys that they are.