jason

1. defiantgiant's quote is what I responded to: "I'm not crazy about a lot of aspects of Baldwin's game, but he does bring exactly what the Bears' WRs are missing - a big red-zone jump-ball threat. I mean, his height/reach/vertical leap combination is in the same conversation with Calvin Johnson and Larry Fitzgerald. He's not as fast or shifty as either of those players, but he has the potential to be elite in red-zone situations." For that express purpose, it's stupid. If the dude is Larry Fitzgerald reincarnated, then it's not as bad of a move. I still hate it in RD1, especially given his production against inferior opponents. 2. Why is it that when there is disagreement someone always says chill out, or something similar? This is a civil discussion. If anyone is excited about it, it's you. Especially when considering the DA situation that makes drafting a WR in the first round somewhat illogical. 3. We simply disagree on whether or not Aromashodu got a shot and I don't think Tommie Harris cements the deal for the coaches. We saw what Aromashodu can do on the field when given a legit chance. He blew up. Then he got buried last year. I'd rather have a player who shits the bed in practice and then destroys the league in games, versus the opposite of that. Essentially you're using the inverse "Dez White Argument," a guy who allegedly tore it up in practice and then replaced his hands with bricks when gametime rolled around. Again, using logic, if the Bears WR did poorly enough that you think a WR needs to be drafted in the first round, then it stands to reason that they shouldn't have been playing the entire year when other options were present; others should have been given opportunities to at least see if they'd improve the offense. The gametime opportunity never came for Aromashodu. That means the Bears are either happier with their WRs than you and some others (my hope), or that they are incompetent evaluators or vindictive towards players (my fear). 4. Yes, doing mocks is fun. And you should notice I didn't say much about the rest of your mock. But, this is a message board, and the greater majority of content on message boards is debate. I'm debating your first round selection of a lesser-known WR, who you originally seemed to want because he's "elite in red-zone situations," from a smaller school, who put up average stats against average teams, and got completely shut down against the one SEC team he played against.

I didn't say mine was gold, but if getting a WR in the first round is done so the Bears have a jump ball threat in the end zone, then yes, it's garbage. Secondly, DA did not get a chance. What alternate universe Bears games did you watch last year? DA was in the doghouse almost the entire year, and it wasn't really fair considering one of the main things you want is a WR. If the Bears need a WR, then surely those who played didn't do well enough in your eyes, which means they should have explored the DA option. Which they didn't. If the OL is deep, it still has an upper crust. And that upper crust is much more important than drafting a tall WR simply because he ::might:: be able work in jump ball situations. Because as well all know, if the BPA presents itself later, JA and crew might just go after that player. Which means OL gets skipped til rd.3. Wash, rinse, repeat. To say that there aren't really talent differences between the first, second, and third rounds is so utterly ridiculous it's not even worth addressing.

That may be true. I was simply replying to the tired garbage everyone keeps using in defense of a WR being drafted early. The "we need a red zone threat who can man-up, box-out, and get a jump ball" is a bogus argument. As if the jump ball is the primary weapon for a cold weather team when in the red zone. As if scheming and a strong running game, which has the added side effect of successful play action, don't create a near non-requirement for that type of player. If the Bears' front office thinks a WR is needed - a concept several here agree with (not me) - then I sincerely hope it's not a narrowly focused grab at a tall WR who can be good on specific types of plays. Semi-related note...if that's the player they want, I'd like to see Aroma given a shot to fulfill that need.

I'm really enjoying the back-and-forth, but if you think JA has done a good job drafting for this Chicago Bears team, then you must have missed a good portion of the Bears' games recently.

If the purpose is so narrowly focused as to get an elite red zone, shield the DB, jump ball threat, then they need to throw the damn ball to the two MEGA-TE's the Bears have already! And if that's not good enough, then pick one of the following later. Cheaper. Terrence Toliver, LSU - Solid Tori Gurley, South Carolina - Good prospect, looks the part, overshadowed by Jeffires Chris Matthews, UK - Tons of praise, tall, fights for the ball, blocks hard downfield Kris Durham, UGA - Overshadowed by AJ Green DeAndre Brown, Southern Miss. - Injury history, but measurables make him worth a late round pick

WHOA!!! I mean, this is something many of us have thought was the right move, but it still wasn't something I expected the Bears to do. Judging from the last few years, Angelo must have a hard time getting shorts over his huge nuts. Go big or go home!

Ugh. Look, I know the dude ripped up Notre Dame this year, and I understand that many want a WR, but it is far from the #1 priority. #3 at best. And if the Bears ARE going to get a WR in the first round, it would be good to get a guy who had more production against a relatively weak schedule and didn't get completely negated against a mid-level SEC team.

HATE IT. No. HORRIBLE, STUPID IDEA. Yes, capital letters were necessary.

Judging from the fact that they have refused to address the OL despite glaring flaws for several years, I won't hold my breath on them making a Belicheckian turnaround based upon what they "learned." And judging from what Lovie constantly preaches, I don't honestly believe he believes that learning trumps his system. He seems more apt to believe that it's all about player execution than potential system flaws that he can learn to overcome.

Looks like a mixed bag here. I am on the side that thinks this was an unnecessary move. Sure, it was predictable and expected, but unnecessary. As I said before, this reeks of the Jauron years (edited: accidentally typed Wanny). Bad coaching that had nearly everyone against him, calling for his head, and then POOF!, a great year. Contract extension followed, and we know how the rest played out. Let's hope it's not a repeat.

For the record, I actually agree with more with you than not, but I included WR and S in there because several others have mentioned it. Personally, I want the following positions to be addressed: OT, DT, OG, C, DE, P, Backup QB...and I wouldn't be terribly upset if it happened in that order.

Agreed. But I hope that's a good sign that everyone agrees, for the most part, on what the Bears need: OL, DL, S, WR. Expect it to get louder around the draft, and a hell of a lot louder if the Bears' management doesn't follow the agreed upon needs.

That's my exact point. I'm not talking about breaking the bank. I'm talking about getting a guy, taking a flyer on him, hoping that he's beyond the injuries and close to his former dominance, and inserting a bunch of incentives into the contract. Win-win for the Bears.

If he signs for close to the minimum, and even if he's only available for 8 games, I still think he's worth it. That's 8 games of clutch plays, bone-jarring hits, and potential game-changing decisions that could be the difference between missing and making the playoffs.

I don't know about that. Even if he's available for 8 games next year, he'd be the best Safety on the Bears' roster for those 8 games.

Honestly, I'd take the Bears' trio Knox > Berrian Hester > Harvin Bennett The improvement from Berrian and Harvin to Knox and Hester is about the difference between Bennett and Rice, IMO. Factor in Harvin's migraines, and I'd rather have the Bears' WRs.

Basically what I've been saying for a while. The WRs are not bad. They are above average, a pretty good group. The OL is just so shitty that the team can't implement the proper offensive gameplan and run routes that take more than 2 seconds to develop. An offensive game plan is severely limited with an OL that can't run or pass block very well, and all pass routes are essentially limited to a 3-step drop if any semblance of success is desired.

He was a stud...and could be again if he could get past the injury bug. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6135553

Wow. I'm completely in shock.

Dead on accurate...and it speaks volumes in many ways. Tice took potentially the worst OL in NFL history, a verifiable flaming pile of shit, extinguished the flames, and sprayed enough perfume on it that at least it didn't smell as bad as it looked. That's why he's getting attention. In the hands of most OL coaches, this OL probably would have paralyzed Cutler instead of just allowing him to get concussed and a torn knee ligament.

I don't understand all the hype over Sidney Rice. He's had a single good year, and that was when Farv was playing out of his mind. He's only been a starter for a year and a half. And on top of that the guy wasn't nearly as good or explosive after coming off of his hip injury and the concussion. I'm definitely not in favor of that signing, because it would cost more in FA than he's worth.

HAHA! That's awesome. Others can use BS can call themselves "America's team," but the Bears are the "World's Team!"

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2011/1/24/1952...-nfl-soap-opera I especially liked the ending.

Yes, that's a whole lot of wasted picks. Which is why they could have been spread around and used on a few OFFENSIVE linemen. It's impossible to know what could have happened if that happened, and there is nowhere near enough data to show whether or not JA and crew have a keen eye for picking something other than disappointing defensive linemen. Right back to the original purpose of this thread. Why hasn't it been done?

Let me get this straight... 1] You note that the Bears draft DL every year 2] You note that the Bears have had success in 2, if not 3, out of 4 picks 3] You note that the Bears have done better in FA than in the draft 4] You say the same practice wouldn't have worked for the OL? Huh?