jason

Good points nfo. Allow me to add to them by making a related comment. How many on this board respect and admire what LT2 does with the salary cap? How many times has he been right when the guys on TV and the major sports sites (ESPN) have been wrong? More than a few times. Is LT2 a professional cap manager? Not that we know of. So, what he does is pretty amazing! How does he know all of what he knows without being involved with an NFL team? Simple, he puts in time, effort, love, and fanaticism into what he enjoys. If I were a GM, I would contact LT2 and hire him to be a cap manager, and that's it. Manage the cap, know everything about it, and ensure that the organization is financially sound. And you know what? He'd probably do just as well in his first year as many who have done it professionally for several years.

Pocket Kings? Hmmm....I don't know....they're not pocket Aces....better fold pre-flop and walk away from the table just to be sure.

I still think that if Bradley could ever stay healthy, he'll turn into a solid pro with explosive potential. That guy always looks fast and strong when he's in the game. It's just too bad he sees the field two times a year. If he's healthy and produces, Monk continues to fight back from injury, and Devin Hester figures it out, the Bears suddenly have a stacked WR corp in a year. Bradley, Hester, Davis, Bennett, Booker, Lloyd, Monk

Which is all the more reason to draft QBs consistently and try to find a winner. If it's a crapshoot, and we never really know when one will turn out, a team has absolutely nothing to lose - and everything to gain - from taking QBs in the middle rounds (3-5). A flyer on Dennis Dixon, Josh Johnson, Colt Brennan, JDBooty, or someone else. I'm sure that the stats on later round guys at all positions are nearly the same. Lots more hits near the first round, lots more misses near the end. So, what's the harm in picking a QB when it's obviously a need position? It's certainly better than picking a third-string, run-blocking TE who may not even be a TE.

I appreciate the kind words and thoughts. I think that after every draft I can remember, I have been disappointed in a few picks. However, I don't think I've felt I could have done better each year. There have been a few years when the Bears hit solid gold (Urlacher & Brown year), and it's hard to argue with a few of the diamonds in the rough that have been found, but there is a reason the Bears have been in the cellar for the majority of the past twenty years. The word fan comes from fanatic, and I'm definitely that. I follow this stuff an unhealthy amount, have coached, currently ref, and spend countless hours reading reports, looking at box scores, scouring the internet for videos, and watching highlight shows. And I have a full job, and a girlfriend, and a family, and travel, and other responsibilities. And I still feel that with all that in my way, I would have done just as good of a job over the past twenty years as the guys running the Bears. I may not know more about football than the GMs and scouts, but I am pretty safe assuming that I know more about football than the majority of fans. And as such, I am fairly confident I could have done just as well as the Bears organization. Honestly, how could one not!? The more I think about it, the more ridiculous it is that anyone would argue otherwise. If the Bears had had consistent success, or even a whole bunch of winning seasons, then I might think otherwise. But I've seen too many drafts of safe players, backups, reaches, and just plain old garbage picks in positions of non-need. As for your breakdown, I can see how one could think that way. I happen to disagree is all. I think that OG was a major need, and was ignored. I think that Forte is the completely wrong pick, and I have shown via videos that Benson looked pretty good when the OL actually did anything. Fixing the OL with multiple picks made more sense, saved the Bears money, and had the greater possibility of making the coaches/FO look better in the long run. Now, they're essentially putting an end to Benson, and more than likely Wolfe.

Agreed. Moss had character issues. However, the point of this is whether or not someone could do as good as the GMs. I loved Moss at the time, thought he looked unstoppable, and didn't care that he played against inferior talent. I would have drafted him. Furthermore, I have gone on record NUMEROUS times stating that I would draft troublesome players, trade for troublesome players, and play troublesome players. I don't blame the Bears for passing on him. I completely understand it. But the point is, I would have drafted him. As for RB need and Enis, I disagree. At the time I thought Raymont 'Ultraback' Harris and Rashaan Salaam, while not great, were better off than other positions at that time. Also, I hated the Enis pick. I've gone on record numerous times stating my love for the homerun hitter type RB, and Fred Taylor was definitely higher than Enis on my list. Mike Williams...meh...since he never played for the Bears, nothing can be proven. The facts go against me since he is a bust, but I think the Bears were just prime for a WR that year, and waiting for someone to come in and be the go-to-guy.

But NFO...you can't POSSIBLY do better than the experts that have been doing this for years and years and years! Why even try? Why question their excellence? Afterall, they are pros at their job! And if you had any clue about football, you would already be doing this in a front office somewhere. Your draft sucks compared to JA's.

I don't really think that a RB was needed that high. I hate the TE pick. I'm lukewarm on the DB pick and the DT pick when I felt there were better players available at positions of need. And I can't believe OG wasn't addressed until the 7th, which is basically a warm body for training camp. Gotta go with a solid C. If OG had been addressed earlier, I could have easily given a B- or a B. I love the Vandy combo the Bears got, and think the LSU Safety is going to be a nice addition. I also think that the Monk pick could be a huge steal.

Just to prove I'm not just pulling players out of the blue, I'll start with 1998. 1998 I hated the Curtis Enis pick I loved Randy Moss. 1999 I was absolutely pissed about the trade down for Cade McNown. I was raving about Dante Culpepper for months. 2000 I can't recall who I liked a lot this year. 2001 I actually liked the David Terrell pick. Although, to be fair, if the Bears had selected Randy Moss, there would not have been a need for Terrell that year. Of course, if I remember correctly, I liked Chad Johnson a bit more (could be wrong). 2002 This is the draft the year after the Bears did well, but sucked on offense. They only looked decent because the D was so good. I wanted a WR or OL (WR because Dez White sucked). I thought Colombo was a nice selection, and he has turned into a good pro. IT's just too bad his injury caused him to go elsewhere before getting better. I also liked Reche Caldwell, but in my defense the WR class was weak that year and I don't know what I would have done. I would have easily swayed to Randel El or Ashley Leilie, since the old message board had many backers of those two at the time. 2003 I didn't like Mike Green, Phillip Daniels, or Bryan Robinson going into the draft. I hated RW McQuarters. I liked Woolfolk, Polamalu, Nnamdi Asomugha...in that order IIRC. I didn't know enough about Polamalu to move him ahead of Woolfolk. I thougth the Rex Grossman pick was decent (still think the kid has a chance). 2004 Still disliked the defensive players from above, and also thought we needed OL help. Loved the Tommie Harris pick, one of my favorite guys that year. I also liked Igor Olshansky. None of the DBs that year really stand out in my mind as having moved me. 2005 Despised the Cedric Benson pick. Although, the guy I wanted, Mike Williams, hasn't amounted to anything in the NFL either. I still believe that if Mike Williams had gone to a team that actually used him, and didn't shelve him behind two other first round WRs, he had a chance to be a very solid WR. After the time in Detroit, he was damaged goods psychologically. (someone on the old board nailed this one in pre-draft comments, saying he was a headcase) I also remember liking Jonathan Babineaux and Alex Barron. 2006 Right after a good year. Didn't like WRs. Thought the Bears also needed RT/RG/TE. I thought the Bears reached on Manning, and should have grabbed one of the following: Marcus McNeil, Sinorice Moss, Chad Jackson. I can't recall what happened with the first rounder this year...but I seem to remember a trade down. I wanted Chad Jackson and a TE (Leonard Pope). 2007 Odd that it's this recent and I can't remember that well. I thought the Bears needed to upgrade offense after the Super Bowl season. WR and TE specifically, IIRC. I liked the Olsen pick, but I think I liked Dwayne Jarrett better. So, there's a brief trip down memory lane. I can't say for certain that each and every thing I have said is completely accurate, since I dont' have notes or anything, but it's pretty close to what I remember. I know this for a fact: -The Bears would have had the Culpepper/Moss combo that the Vikings had. I absolutely loved those two guys. The other thing I know: -It's hard doing something like this because my drafts would have been different in each year based upon how well my previous drafts did. And I suspect that there wouldn't have been this ten year need for a WR if Moss was drafted.

To be honest, when breaking it down: @ IND - Loss. This is probably a loss. @ CAR - Win. This could pretty easily be a win. Their team is not impressive. TB - Win. They don't impress me. PHI - Win. This will be a tough game, but I think the Bears can win. @ DET - Win. I think last year was a fluke. @ ATL - Win. They suck. MIN - Loss. We'll split with them. DET - Win. Like I said, fluke. TEN - Win. The Titans can be scary, but I still think it's a Bears win. @ GB - Win. Why not? No Farv. @ STL - Win. They're not good anymore. And they don't have the turf speed they once did. @ MIN - Win. JAX - Loss. I think their bruising running game is possibly ugly for the Bears. NO - Win. This could be a very close/dangerous game. GB - Win. I think they'll struggle. @ HOU - Loss. I think the Bears may either be resting people, or have a trap game. I honestly don't see how 12-4 is unreasonable. The Lions? The Packers? The only really scary games are against the Colts, Eagles, and the Jags.

And that's fine. We can agree to disagree. Thinking back over the years, I would have had good and bad picks like anyone else. However, with my limited resources compared to the NFL guys, I am absolutely positive my hit/miss ratio would have been either similar or better than the Bears'. Several players I have really wanted have fallen right by the Bears when available. Sure, I wouldn't have nabbed Urlacher, but I am 100% positive that I would have had just as much success as the Bears have had over the period of time I have actually focused on the draft.

And you STILL DON'T GET IT. I'll go slowly for you. 1) I mentioned the Bears front office as a team that can be criticized for not having great draft success. Bears != All teams 2) I mentioned that if a team doesn't have success, then they can be criticized. Bears = not a lot of success 3) I mentioned two teams (Pitt & NE) that have had success. If fans question their drafts, considering past history, then there is just cause to say that the fans should just trust what the FO has done. Bears != Pats/Steelers What all that means is, when there is success, it's difficult to question the person with the success. Nobody questioned Walter Payton's training methods. Nobody questioned Dan Marino's delivery after a few years. Nobody questioned Eric Dickerson's upright running style. When the Bears have continuous success with their drafts, then they will have players/fans/teams/GMs/reporters/etc. believing in them. Until them, it's a crap shoot. And just like craps, there is pretty much a 50/50 chance that someone else who puts in a little work will do just as well as they have over the years.

I'm hoping the Bears can avoid the injury bug on defense next year. IF so, Urlacher, Brown, Harris, Briggs, Vasher, Tillman, Anderson, and others will provide a solid defense. It will also be great to see Dusty, Okwo, and Bazuin on the field to see if they may provide depth/spark. I think the offense will struggle greatly, again. I'm thinking 9-7.

It's cool. I know you can't defend what the Bears FO has done over the last 20 years. Most people in the real world don't have the opportunities to follow dreams like being an NFL scout; so, you obviously present a bogus challenge that can't be pursued. Basically you used an ad hominem because you can't refute the actual item at hand: the fact that the Bears don't have a very good track record when it comes to the draft.

True...something they do for a profession. And what would their longterm evaluation be for that profession? If you take out the salary cap portion of the GM's job - something I think JA is a master at - and just look at the picks, one could easily argue that they have been borderline incompetent over the last 20 years. Just because someone does something a long time doesn't mean they automatically are good at it or know better. Often times, people that have been doing something a long time are set in their ways, and fail to step outside the box for fresh ideas and/or suggestions. Anyone who has helped their father or grandfather with a task around the house can attest to this. One can't discount their experience; it's incredibly valuable. But their track record with that experience isn't great.

I'm done arguing with you. The whole "then do it" argument is stupid. You act as if someone can just call up the Bears and say, "Hey, I think I can be a good scout and/or general manager", and they give you a shot. As for using bold and underline, I was only focusing on portions of text you were too stupid to read. It may not be supreme intelligence, but it takes more effort and smarts than a rebuttal of "shut the freak up" - which sounds like a little kid not getting their way. Besides, you still don't understand what I wrote: "When JA and the Bears' front office starts to pile up winning seasons like the Patriots or the Steelers, then come talk to me about what the Bears' front office "knows"." You replied: You're the one claiming that most people on a message board are better than any front office that doesn't accomplish what the Patriots and Steelers have accomplished, and I'm the one that has to "show everyone"? I didn't say that all fans were better than all teams' front offices. I just noted that the Bears have had a poor track record over the last two decades, and that a person who pays attention to college football fairly religiously (or plays/coaches/refs) could probably do just as well. I honestly believe this. There are many studies out there that say people make up their minds about important decisions within the first few minutes of seeing something. I believe that the front office guys spend a ton of time talking themselves out of common sense picks because, often times, they are too flooded with data to see the obvious. Until the Bears front office can consistently put a winner on the field, their draft choices will be criticized.

You have a good point. Which is why so many wanted to see more of Beekman on the field last year. I would much rather have seen him than Ruben Brown's one arm attack. But this is about potential, and since Beekman couldn't even beat out a one-armed guy who had his best years quite some time ago, it doesn't bring about confidence. Draft picks, on the other hand, are still unknown, and we can at least hope that a guy will do well.

Re-read the original post. It's all about reading comprehension. More specifically, pay attention to this part: I think that anyone on this board who devoted some time to watching every game possible, studying highlight reels, looking at stats, and absorbing a good deal of information could easily have just as good a track record as the Bears front office. The point - which clearly went right over your head multiple times - is that the Bears' front office HAS NOT had consistent success for quite some time. Therefore, they are not above criticism. When, and if, they ever get to be year after year competitors because of solid drafts, late day steals, and good draft moves otherwise (like the Steelers and Pats), then your argument holds water. Until then, it doesn't.

I'm just curious to see what others think. What front office, organization, war room did well in your opinion? I like Baltimore and Kansas City...they both had good drafts, IMO.

The Scheuning craze is simple. He was one of the top rated OGs - in many people's top five - and the Bears need an OG. He also fell quite a bit.

HUH? What the hell are you talking about when you mention the "Mendenhall issue"? The dude went as the fourth RB taken! I'd say that very few will have to get over the "Mendenhall issue".

Clever reply. You really showed everyone. Now why don't you tell me where I'm wrong? Why don't you point to the multiple years of successful drafts? Why don't you send me a link of where the Bears had more than two or three good years in a row in the last two decades? Why don't you list the reasons why the Bears' front office seems to be so smart? Better yet, why don't you just print off a list of QBs the Bears have had over the last twenty years and rethink the supreme confidence you have in the Bears' front office.

Agreed. If you substitute Rinehart as the late third, and Schuening instead of Bowman, this draft is not only a homerun, but a grand slam. I just don't understand the blocking TE pick at all.

Weak argument. How many good seasons have the Bears had over the last 20 years?! How many good QBs? How many good WRs? What position other than LB have they been very successful with? EXACTLY! You can't answer those questions! I think that anyone on this board who devoted some time to watching every game possible, studying highlight reels, looking at stats, and absorbing a good deal of information could easily have just as good a track record as the Bears front office. We may have a completely different team, with completely opposite strengths, and a different identity, but I don't think it's even remotely impossible. I have heard several fans on this board who have a fairly decent knowledge of players going into the fourth and fifth round. And that's just a random passion for the stuff, not a full-time job. When JA and the Bears' front office starts to pile up winning seasons like the Patriots or the Steelers, then come talk to me about what the Bears' front office "knows".

I won't grade pick by pick, but I think the draft gets an overall C. I don't like the Forte pick (unless we learn that the Benson injury is much worse than expected). I don't like the Harrison pick. There were far too many other players available there. I hate the two fifth round picks. Considering the fact that the Bears need OG much more than either position, and a third TE should never see the field when we have Olsen and Clark, it just didn't make sense. Frankly, I'm a bit puzzled by the lack of attention to the OL. The two 7th rounders do little to make me feel better about the fact that the running game is probably going to be ugly again next year.