jason

I've seen several mention the hope that the Bears do not reach on draft day. This is especially true with the first round pick. Made me think of the following question: Would any of these guys be a reach? Tyron Smith Anthony Castonzo Nate Solder Mike Pouncey Gabe Carmini Derek Sherrod If the answer is yes, then it's a bit of surprise to me. But that's player evaluation for you. People disagree. If the answer is no, then there is no reason one of those guys shouldn't be available when the Bears pick. And the guy who they have rated the highest should be selected.

It doesn't surprise you because it's a move that would potentially piss off a lot of Bears' fans, and the drafting habits over the last several years have done just that. Unless there is a serious run on OTs, then we shouldn't hear those words.

Yes...this team is stacked with young, promising talent and there is a satisfactory backup at most positions.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

To me the schedule looks tough... ATL W - I watched them beat the Bears last time. They could do it again. But they don't have homefield. NO L - New Orleans is just a better team in my opinion. GB W - Home vs. GB, win. CAR W - Carolina sucks. DET W - This game scares me. I know it's Detroit, but this is a MNF game. The Bears are atrocious on MNF. MIN W - I don't think MIN will be nearly as good this year. TB L - Let down game because 1) London, 2) The Bears will be looking ahead to the bye PHI L - MNF vs. Philly, after London, this could be an ass whoopin DET W - Still Detroit, and in Chicago SD L - SD had the best offense and defense last year according to stats. Theire ST is horrible. But the new rules minimize the Bears' advantage OAK L - Long flight, rowdy crowd, improved team that can run with aggression. Lot of speed. KC L - Same formual as with Oakland, but they also have Bowe. DEN W - I see Cutler ripping their asses apart SEA W - I'm continually unimpressed by them, but I think Lynch could give the Bears' D problems. GB L - Away vs. GB, loss. MIN W - MIN will be out of the playoff hunt, and the Bears will be fighting to get in or improve position

http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/bears/post...k-by-week-picks http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/break...6916046.graphic 10-6 and 9-7. I'm more inclined to agree with the latter.

Nice article, completely disagree with the premise on multiple points. First, who's to say "drafting for the future" doesn't also satisfy the present needs? The two are not mutually exclusive. Second, taking BPA as a hard and fast rule doesn't make sense if a team already has great strength at that position. That creates a situation in which the flaws are magnified because the players "drafted for the future" may never help the team on the field because they'll be forced to sit behind players for several years. Sure, it worked for GB with Rodgers, but that's probably the exception to the rule. Third, good LBs are a dime a dozen. Especially in this scheme. Those guys can easily be found in mid/late rounds. Not to mention the fact a significant number of NFL LBs on rosters who went undrafted. Finally, this line of reasoning only works when the holes aren't glaring. Little holes are easy to fix. It can sometimes be done with scheme. Medium holes may require a free agent stop gap and scheme. But buying deck chairs and a band for future guests on the Titanic doesn't stop the water from gushing through the massive hole in the side of a sinking ship. Make no mistake. The OL is the Titanic. Worst in the NFL by far. Potentially one of the worst OLs in NFL history. It needs help fast and often, or the conductor of the ship (Cutler) and the primary motor (Forte) won't be serviceable for very long.

I would jizz on the TV if that draft happened.

Hey guys...just thought I'd fill you in on something I heard over the weekend. I was at an officiating clinic where there were several big names in college and the NFL. Officials mostly, but there were a few director of officials and assorted leadership there as well. Aside from a bunch of great football talk, I heard the following tidbit: Just in case the labor problems continue, the NFL already has an 8 game schedule in place for the following season. Does that mean it'll happen? Not necessarily. But the way I heard it, they are preparing for the worst, and an 8 game schedule - which would start at what would normally be week 8 or 9 - is definitely a gloomy scenario.

I like this one.

But that's COMPLETELY different. The NFL wants the rookies to attend the event that is held every year (i.e. the draft and all that comes along with it). The NFLPA is attempting to create a rival product to persuade the rookies away from the draft.

First, I'm glad we don't have the #1 pick, and these aren't the selections. I saw where this was going before voting. CB - Not as big of a need, and won't impact the game like a #1 should. Would be underutilized in the cover-2 anyway. WR - Not as big of a need, and won't dominate like a #1 should. Would have to fight through a WR log-jam and produce for coaches who aren't fond of rookie WRs. DT - Need, AND has a better chance of dominating like a #1 should. He'd start Day 1 and produce immediate results. This is a no doubt slamdunk.

Now THIS, I disagree with. Is DT help needed? Yes. Clearly. Is DT help needed more than OG or OT? No. Period. Unless there is a massive, unforseen run on OGs and OTs, the Bears should grab whichever OL guy is there at the end of the first. There should be more than one to choose from.

Yes...the three-technique DT is absolutely essential for Lovie's version of the cover-2. Either that or get two 2-gap guys built like Ted Washington and Keith Traylor, and move shift one of them closer to a double-team in the B gap. The former collapses the pocket and forces the QB into the DEs going wide, the latter shuts down internal running and allows a LB to get on the QB Autobahn. The problem the Bears have right now is that they're going with the former, and none of their guys can really attack the B gap with enough force to make the DE's path to the QB worthwhile.

Good stuff, Tom, and I happen to agree. While Martz may employ the deep drops more than others, if the interior of the line holds up, there would have been countless opportunities last year for Cutler to step into a comfortable pocket to make a throw. At that point all the OTs have to do is protect against the interior spin while they ride the DE out wide. I know this because the way the Bears run their defense creates a picture perfect example of how a QB can step into a pocket where the DTs haven't gotten through. I mean, how often have we seen the the Bears' DE's go around wide, see the DT's get nearly no pressure, and see a QB step forward calmly for a completion? All too often unfortunately. Hell, it seems that every time the Bears' play a journeyman type QB the guy has a great day and the announcers fall in love with how "well" the guy is playing (while ignoring the Bears' lack of interior pressure). If a high rated OG or OT is available in RD 1, the Bears need to draft him.

I've been saying it all along. We do not need a big WR. The WR position is not the problem. I think it's just a lot easier to be enamored with the idea of a stud WR than it is a stud player on the OL. No matter which WR the Bears add, if the OL is not addressed, the WR will not be a stud. This is nearly unequivocal. When Cutler was given ample time last year he carved secondaries apart. Unfortunately, he didn't get ample time all too often. Again, WR is not a big need. Maybe 4th or 5th in the pecking order.

I'd be happy with the trade down if we got two #2s. I'd be unhappy with the draft. WR is the third or fourth position of need, and I wouldn't like a WR that early...despite how much potential Baldwin has.

It's possible. I have seen more than a few sources that say teams are scared of his light weight and frame. Is it likely? Maybe not. You're probably right that someone will take a chance on him in the late 2nd. Which I think would be a reach.

It seems to me that if the players wanted to negotiate, and actually find a middle ground, they would have just asked for an extension to evaluate the proposal made by the owners. At the 11th hour or not, the offer from the owners is consequential and should have been evaluated. Don't you think? I don't think it would make it impossible for them to turn the offer down. The NFLPA could evaluate and then put out in the media the various reasons why the offer wasn't good enough. To me, regardless of whether or not the NFL's offer was poorly timed or premeditated as a bargaining chip, the NFLPA just doesn't really seem like they want to negotiate. They'd rather attempt a hard line, play games in the media, and roll the dice in the courts.

Balta - Where are you getting your version of the timeline with the "down to the hour" breakdown? I haven't seen this anywhere. From what I've seen, the $1Billion went to $600+ million, and then to $300+ million...the owners are willing to give back 2/3rd of their original bargaining request. Here is one article that shows the NFL is willing to negotiate. Here is an article with the $137 million dollar slap in the face from the NFLPA.

I actually wouldn't be upset with this draft. It focuses on the Bears' real needs (OL & DL), while appropriately minimizing those positions I don't think are as big of a concern as some here feel they are (WR). Considering a 5th round WR and a 6th round FS probably won't make the team anyway, I think it would be better to see a Center at one of those positions. Centers are underrated in this year's draft, and underrated in general, and some of the best guys are projected as 5th-7th rounders. Aside from Wisnewski and Kirkpatrick, any of the Centers could fall to the 5th or beyond. I'd like this modification: 1. Sherrod, OT, Mississippi State; Solder, OT, Colorado; Carmini, OT, Wisconsin (At least one will be there; take him. I hope it's Sherrod; he's a freaking monster who is probably still holding a block from his last game.) 2. Marcus Cannon, G, TCU; or Rodney Hudson, G, FSU (Hope for Cannon) 3. Drake Nevis, DT, LSU (Other teams are scared of his lack of size. Lovie Smith loves his DL to look just like Nevis. He looks like a perfect 3 technique to me.) 4. (Beast, 4.39 in the 40, stud tackler, great instincts. What else do you need?) 5. (Good instincts, good tackler, great athlete, bad hands, questionable character. Sounds good to me.) 6. Alex Linnenkohl, C, Oregon State; or Zane Taylor, C, Utah (I'd be happy with either.)

MadLith...that is exactly the timeline. I suppose there could be other details thrown in there, debating points and what-not, heresay that is unsubstantiated. Unfortunately there isn't one single website that both sides are willing to get behind and verify, so the best we have is a paint by numbers with a few missing numbers. But the numbers we have lead to the timeline.

For the life of me I really can't understand how someone could side with the players on this. It's a simple timeline: 1. Players get great CBA that doesn't end until 2013 (2006-2012). I believe all but two teams (Bills and someone) agreed. 2. Economics change; they always do. Owners realize the players will be content with the current model until 2013. 3. Owners vote to opt out of CBA in 2008 (takes effect in 2010). Owners unanimously agree on this. 4. Two long years pass without negotiations. This doesn't help the owners at all, and serves to help the players because they were so happy with the current CBA. 5. Owners and players meet for negotiations. 6. Owners come down from $1B stance to $320M. Even as a kid I knew that meeting on my side of the middle in a negotiation was a good thing. 7. Players counteroffer with $137M, which is borderline ridiculous, and a sign they don't want to really negotiate. 8. Owners offer to let a third party auditor view the complete books. 9. Players refuse the auditor offer because the NFLPA wants to see the complete financial information. Apparently a trusted third party - something used in businesses, security, computers, etc. world-wide - is not sufficient. 10. NFLPA Union decertifies. This stops collective bargaining. This stops negotiation. This ensures litigation. 11. Owners lock-out That's a simplified timeline, but accurate. Numbers 7 & 8 should be damning evidence that the NFLPA doesn't really want to strike a fair deal.

Excellent overall post. The bolded part is the key to this entire debate.

What if your boss told you that he was personally losing money from the business venture through which you are paid? Would that be sufficient? Or would you demand that your boss opens his books?