jason

I sure as hell hope you are counting the Super Bowl in your count of "exactly 1 chance he was given where he failed".

It's funny to me. I HATED the Benson selection. I knew TJ was good. Unfortunately, Benson was selected at #4. Then TJ was released, making Benson the #1 guy. I fully supported him once he was on the field, but now as the #1, I really wanted him to succeed. He did OK the first year splitting carries. Then, last year, the Bears regressed on offense because of OL sucked so badly. And, of course, Benson did poorly. So, now, it's the same thing all over again. I find it funny that I'm not a Benson supporter, trying to tell everyone the guy has talent if the OL would do well. When he gets an OL, he's good. Of course, the Bears drafted a RB again, which I feel is another mistake. The Bears, and in large part the Bears' fans, are like bad investors. Some times you have to give an investment time to mature, and if you try to take money out too early, then the investment doesn't pay out like it should/would if you just allowed it to do what it's supposed to do. It'll happen again this year. The Bears OL will improve, and Benson will look a lot better. Then the questions will come out about why the Bears drafted a RB. And I'll sit back, hope the Bears get something for whichever RB they get rid of, and get irritated about the deja vu.

WR: It could easily be argued that the Bears regressed. However, I'll give them a constant. They didn't get better or worse. Booker and MuhMuh are a wash. The loss of Berrian hurts because he was the only one that consistently stretched the opponents' D. The other guys are unknown and unpolished. OL: They got better, but is it enough? I don't know that it is, and I think that there was a definite need at OG that wasn't addressed soon enough. RB: I'm not sure about this one. This could easily be subtraction by addition. Forte is an unknown, and I'll be pessimistic until he shows otherwise. Benson is moody and this could easily spell the end of his sorry career. The Forte drafting could also spell the quick end to Wolfe, who will probably not see many carries while Forte and Benson battle it out for the #1. IMHO it's somewhat upsetting, considering the fact that the OL played so miserably last year. The year before, when the OL played well, Benson did well, and looked good in his opportunities. I really think that the only thing that needed to be fixed was the OL. QB: Same every year... Defense: This is where I think the Bears made huge strides, but it's not necessarily because of the draft. Sure, there was Harrison, but he's a huge risk. The real impact will be made by the lack of injuries. The Bears will be returning Harris, Urlacher, PNut, Brown, Vasher, Dusty, Bazuin, and Okwo to full health/strength. I fully expect the Bears to be a top 5 D/ST if there are relatively no injuries next year.

Easy for me because I happen to believe your final statement is ridiculously false. Pepp may be damaged goods, but when healthy, he is a weapon far beyond Grossman or Orton.

It will be a shame and a waste if Bradley is healthy this year, and doesn't get to see more playing time because the coaches gave up on him and end up giving his time away to other WRs. I swear that dude could be a star if he could stay healthy.

This is a perfect example of why I don't think the problem is the style of approach. As you have shown, every avenue has been attempted. I believe the problem is, and seemingly always has been, a combination of scouting and coaching. Scouting Scouting, well, that's obvious. As I have stated many times, I think that a well-informed fan could have done just as good as our FO has done over the past 20 years when it comes to drafting as a whole. The defensive drafting may have taken a hit, but the overall product would have been as good or better. Hell, put twenty people from this board together, have them evaluate talent, watch games, and come to draft conclusions and I think the team would be overall better over that period of time. I think you (nfo) have hit on something when you mention the long line of defensive minded guys running the Bears. When a person knows something well, they tend to fall back on that knowledge when there is a difficult decision ahead. And when they try to step outside their comfort zone, and end up getting burned (Enis, McNown, Grossman, Benson), there is more of a tendency to gravitate right back to the familiar. Coaching I have only liked two Bears' OCs in my lifetime: Turner during his first go-around with the Bears, and Crowton. Regardless of success, the thing I liked is that they tried to attack. They didn't go for the safe route; they didn't nitpick; they didn't call for 3 yard passes on 3rd and 9. They tried to attack, and it made the Bears offense dangerous. It has only been during their respective reigns that the opponents have had to gameplan for the Bears' O. Nearly every other year, it was just a matter of a team knowing that if they got above 20 against the Bears' D, they were probably going to beat the Bears.

Although, it is a lot less likely that an UDFA will become a contributing or starting QB in the NFL.

Why exactly wasn't Schuening a good fit? Odd sounding to me considering the fact that he was highly regarded in most arenas as one of the top 5 Guard prospects coming into the draft. Add in the fact that Beekman couldn't beat out an immobile, one-armed, geriatric (NFL-age anyway), and the Bears could easily have started a mid-rounder who had talent but slipped (like your boy at DB). The only difference, of course, is that Tillman and Vasher are considered good, if not all pro, and nobody outside of the Bears has heard of Beekman.

LOL. I didn't even realize that. Too funny. However, that just shows how long the Bears have needed offensive firepower at the WR position. Each and every year the Bears need it, but never seem to get it. Therefore, one of the needs each year is WR. I suppose that's why I have vivid memories of wanting to draft various WRs. If they had drafted Randy Moss, however, I'm sure the memories would have been different.

It's obviously going to be Williams. As for Forte, I actually don't think he'll do much this year. I think he'll serve as motivation for Benson, and with a better OL, Benson will do better. Then the Bears will have a RB quandry, and be forced to give carries to Benson while wishing they could give them to Forte.

The ending was funny. I wonder, am I the only one that noticed his offensive line just happened to be awesome?? Huge holes. All but about three runs were basically offensive line highlights, with him busting through to the second level before anyone sniffed him.

I don't know much about Gabrial; so, I really don't know his background. However, as far as Angelo goes, I think it has something to do with his inability to evaluate offensive talent, but also the coaches he has had to work with. Each coach wanted "their guy" that fit into "their system". As a result, IMO, the average picks were made. What I mean by that is the collective wanted a guy who looked like he would have solid numbers, solid production, and be a spoke in the wheel. What they don't do, however, is look for the guy who might explode onto the NFL. It's the old-school "3 yards and a cloud of dust" mentality. I fear that it may be too ingrained in the city of Chicago, the team, and the fans to get away from it. Hell, the only guy with an imagination who has been involved with the Bears on offense in the last 20 years has been Crowton, and he got run out of town. He may not have had the best ideas, the best tools, or the best gameplans...but he tried to be explosive. So, the long answer is, both. I think part of it's on the owners, part on JA, part on the city's mindset, and part on the coaches. Although, I tend to put more of the blame on the coaches than anyone else. Our offensive coaches have been horrible for quite some time.

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.