defiantgiant

I like the pick. Guy sounds like a Tampa-2 OLB to me, and the issues with strength and reading offenses can be fixed to some degree in the pros. I remember when Urlacher was first in camp with the Bears as a rookie, people were talking about him looking lost, not trusting his eyes, etc. Now he's one of the best in the game at reading and diagnosing the play. Also, Thomas (from what I've read) has the things that you can't train up: speed, change-of-direction, and range. Combine that with good tackling technique, and he should at least be a good ST player, with a chance to develop into a contributor on defense. Nice value in the 6th.

I'm not crazy about Enderle, but it's the 5th round. It's hard to get mad about a player in the 5th. The thing that really worries me is taking Conte in the 3rd, when there were still some immediate impact players available. Conte might end up being a good developmental project, and I'm sure he'll help on ST in year one, but there were some guys still on the board who could have filled major needs on offense/defense. I really hope they're planning a couple of targeted, high-profile moves via free agency/trade. They need another interior o-lineman, and they need a #1 wide receiver in the worst way. However, if they can get that done, I'll be completely satisfied with this offseason. After all, if they do that they'll have revamped the o-line, found Cutler a go-to guy, and finally replaced Tommie Harris after years of waiting. That's everything they need to do to make another run at the NFC North title.

I'd be all right with adding Jenkins, but only if his contract is pretty cheap/incentive-based. He's been injured constantly the last few years, so the Bears need to limit their risk as much as possible with him. From 2008-2010, he started 29 games out of a possible 53 (including the post-season.) When he's healthy, though, he'd be the most disruptive DT on our roster, and a great guy for Paea to learn from. Lutui I don't know about. Arizona's whole o-line was awful last year, and I'd be worried about adding a guy who was a part of that. I'd much rather look at a guy from a successful line, like Baltimore or Atlanta had. I'd rather have Marshal Yanda from Baltimore or Justin Blalock from Atlanta. Davin Joseph from Tampa, too, provided that his foot checks out OK. Richard Marshall would be a great pickup. He's perfect for a Tampa 2 (good in zone coverage, one of the better tackling CBs in the league) and has wanted out of Carolina for a while. He could step right in at RCB across from Tillman, which would give us really solid depth, with Jennings and Bowman as pure backups. Plus, he's only 26, so he could take over for Tillman down the road. Also, the Bears desperately need to find some receiver help in FA. Even if Sidney Rice ends up a restricted free agent, Minnesota only tendered him at the 1st-round level. I'd be more than happy to give up next year's 1st for Rice, provided that his hip checks out OK. Taking a WR in the 2011 draft isn't going to make the same immediate impact that signing Rice will. Plus, he's at least as talented as Justin Blackmon or Michael Floyd, and he's still just 24 years old, only 2 or 3 years older than the WRs coming out in next year's draft. So giving up a 1st to sign him isn't mortgaging the future necessarily, and it would get us a go-to WR starting from Day 1.

Also, here's some stuff on Conte from a Cal fan on another board: My two cents: I would much rather have had a guard or a WR, at least in principle. But Moffitt, Hudson, and Rackley were gone, and none of the remaining guard prospects were slam-dunks to be starters. Same thing with the receivers: you'd be looking at #2/#3 types like Tandon Doss or Cecil Shorts, or developmental projects like Edmond Gates. If Conte turns out to be an OLB, then I like the pick. We really did need to get a developmental LB in this draft: both Urlacher and Briggs are getting up there, and Pisa's always hurt. Even if we can re-sign Nick Roach, we needed to address the position. Plus, I do trust Angelo and Lovie to manufacture OLBs. They always seem to be able to pick guys on the cheap and coach them up at that position. If Conte's really a safety, though, then he better turn into the next Chris Harris. It's one thing to spend a 5th-7th on a safety, like Angelo does every year. It's not a big deal if those guys are just special teamers and backups. The last time we spent a 3rd-rounder on a safety, though, it was Major Wright; that early in the draft, you're expecting to get an eventual starter. Yeah, actually, that might make even more sense if he can get big enough to handle it. The MLB's role in our base Tampa-2 look is basically a Cover-3 FS. Even if Conte might not have quite the coverage skills to stay at FS, maybe he could be a poor man's Urlacher and play MLB. He'd have to put on a LOT of weight, though: I'm OK with having a 225-pound OLB like Pisa, but I really wouldn't want to see a Mike linebacker smaller than 235-240.

I'm not so sure that Conte's position is going to be FS in the pros: I think he might be a better fit at SS or even OLB. Like some people in this thread have said, he played mostly corner and some OLB in college before switching to safety this past season. For one thing, I don't know that he's got the skillset for an NFL free safety: apparently while he has a lot of range and 4.55 speed, he still needs work on his reads and awareness in coverage, and his biggest strengths are pursuit and tackling. Also, Cal's coaches asked him to drop almost 15 pounds his senior year: he played at 199 after being as big as 212 before. Looking at photos from this past season, he looks like a wide receiver at 6'2-5/8" and 199...he'll need to bulk back up in the pros (unless they're planning on moving him to CB, which doesn't seem like a great idea.) The good thing, though, is that Conte's not one of these guys who's maxed out for his frame; in fact, he looks downright skinny at 199. Obviously, he can get back up around 215, since he played at about that weight before. If he can throw on another 10 pounds on top of that, I could see him being a small Sam linebacker like Tinoisamoa. Pisa goes 6'1" and is generously listed at 230...a lot of the time his playing weight is around 220. I could see Conte starting out at SS, but eventually moving to OLB if he can get up to the 225-230 range without losing too much speed. I mean, if you've got a former DB who's almost 6'3" and 225+ pounds, and his biggest strengths are range, athleticism, physicality, and reliable tackling, to me, that's a developmental Tampa-2 linebacker. I say list him at SS as a rookie, let him concentrate on special teams for a year, and plan on moving him to OLB if he outgrows the safety position.

Yeah, that's what I thought at first, too. But the more I thought about it and remembered watching him play, I didn't think of him as that small. So I went back and watched some highlights from '08 and '09...the dude may be 5'9", but he makes a TON of plays on the kinds of passes you usually associate with big receivers: back-shoulder throws, end-zone fades, jump balls in tight coverage, etc. Plus he's WAY better at beating a jam than any of our current WRs. I think, more than a big receiver, the Bears need a receiver who can't be easily jammed and who fights for the ball in the air. That's what Jay Cutler had with Brandon Marshall, and clearly it made him better. I think Steve Smith can do that, too, as long as he's still got something in the tank.

Oh yeah, I know. I just threw it out there because he played free safety/rover in college and when he declared for the draft, apparently at least 10 teams thought he could play free safety in the NFL. Yeah, that doesn't seem to help anybody. How much better would Danieal Manning be if they'd just stuck him at SS from day one? With Williams, I don't think it's quite as bad: every team shuffles linemen from time to time, usually when somebody gets hurt. I'm not worried that spending a season at guard could hurt Williams' career, they just need to figure out his best position going forward and then stick him there.

I'd be pretty happy with that haul. If Angelo and Ruskell come away from the first three rounds with two starting OL and a disruptive 3-technique, I'll be ecstatic. Watkins could step right in at RG, and Carpenter would give us some flexibility about whether to keep Williams at LG or put him back at LT. Also, I kind of like Shiloh Keo, and he totally seems like an Angelo/Ruskell pick. Late-round pick on a safety (which Angelo seems to do every year) who's kind of a low ceiling/high floor player (Ruskell all over.) The guy's kind of slow to be a starter in our scheme, but he hits super hard and has nice ball skills. Worst-case scenario, he could be our next Tim Shaw and make his living just demolishing people on special teams.

Seriously, how awesome is it that his first NFL sack knocked Favre into retirement? I think I'd call Wootton a future cornerstone, or at least a building block. I think he's got a lot of potential as a base DE type of player: solid against the run, provides an average pass rush across from your main pass-rusher, maybe subs out for a nickel DE or kicks inside on 3rd and long. I could definitely see him as our starting LE in a year or two...basically, I see him taking over Idonije's job. It's easy to forget, since Izzy just now had his breakout year, but he's going to turn 31 this season. I like the idea of having a young guy on deck with a similar skillset. As for Melton, I'm really interested to see what he does, but I'm trying not to get my hopes up. If he makes the transition from college RB to DE to disruptive three-technique, it'll be pretty unprecedented. I'll be happy if it works out, but I think he could definitely end up as an Anthony Hargrove type: a specialty pass-rushing DT who only plays inside and only on nickel downs. That's not bad return on a 4th-round pick or whatever Melton was, so I don't think it'll be the end of the world if he doesn't transform into the next Tommie Harris.

I'd rather trade down and make a play for Rice than pick Baldwin. The Bears need an immediate contributor at WR, and rookie WRs very rarely make a big impact. Between Baldwin's so-so route running and Martz's incredibly demanding offense, I'd be pretty surprised if he were able to win a starting job as a rookie. I think he's an incredibly talented player, and down the road he's going to be a legit #1 target, but picking him in the 1st when he won't be an immediate starter seems counter-productive. If Pouncey, Watkins, Marvin Austin, and all the top tackles are gone (like in Mayock's mock,) I'd rather trade down into the early 2nd and add some extra picks. I'd much rather have James Carpenter and Drake Nevis in the 2nd than Baldwin in the 1st. Then we can go after Rice and try to get Cutler a go-to receiver that way. Also, here's another thought on the WR front: what about Steve Smith? Apparently he wants to go to a contender rather than stick around and rebuild with Clausen and company (who can blame him?) I've been hearing a LOT of people suggest that the Panthers are working with him, and they're going to shop him when trades can happen again. He should be cheap, too...I've been reading that he could go for a 4th or even a 5th. The more I think about it, the more I could see the Bears dealing a 4th or so for Smith. After all, they seem to love trading with Carolina, and our last big trade for a WR was for Moose. Plus, Smith is a great fit for Martz's scheme. He's quick and explosive out of his cuts, which Martz needs above just about anything else. He may only be 5'9", but anybody who's watched him play will tell you that he routinely wins jump balls over much bigger DBs. In fact, I don't think anybody in the league fights harder for the ball in tight coverage. That's just what Cutler needs, and what our current WR group is missing. Getting Smith on the cheap would give us a #1 receiver for Cutler for right now, and let us develop a later-round WR for a couple of seasons. Rather than pick Baldwin at #29, I'd much rather get Smith as a stopgap and spend a Day 3 pick on Cecil Shorts or Courtney Smith or DeAndre Brown.

Well, I'm not involved professionally yet...I'm just a second-year law student. But one of my courses last semester was on legal remedies, so I've been really interested in the injunction part of this litigation, since it brings up a lot of the issues that we discussed in that class. I only know a little bit about anti-trust law, though, so if I've got anything wrong, somebody who knows more about that field please pipe up and tell me. When it comes to the anti-trust stuff, I'm mostly just reading the Sherman Act against some past cases and Judge Nelson's ruling. No, I don't think the players' contracts are really at issue. Each individual player has a contract with an individual employer: his team. The issue here is the behavior of all of those employers as a group. Again, I'm not an antitrust expert at all, but I think I've got the big picture right: The most helpful question to ask isn't "why can't the NFL teams, as a group, tell the players to go away right now?", it's "why would they ever be allowed to do that?" Ordinarily, a bunch of employers getting together and agreeing among themselves to fix salaries or lock out employees would probably be an antitrust violation. The reason that the NFL is allowed to do things like that is because of an antitrust exemption. They normally get that exemption because they have a CBA that they negotiated with the players union. Once the CBA expires and the union disbands, they don't get that exemption any more. The shortest answer is that you don't need to have a monopoly to violate the Sherman Antitrust Act. Section 2 of the Act deals with monopolizing an industry, but Section 1 makes it a violation to make any "contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy" to restrain trade. To violate Section 1, you need to have three things: (1) an agreement (2) that unreasonably restrains competition, and (3) that affects interstate commerce. So an agreement or conspiracy among the individual NFL teams that restrains competition in the pro football labor market would normally be an antitrust violation. The only reason that they can actually do things like set a league-wide minimum salary is because the CBA exists. One main case on this point, if you want to read it, is Brown v. Pro Football, Inc. In Brown, the DC Circuit held that the NFL was allowed to set league-wide practice squad salaries, because of an exemption to antitrust law (called the "nonstatutory labor exemption") for employment terms governed by a CBA. That exemption says, basically, that restraints on trade created by a CBA are immune from antitrust law as long as they only affect the parties to the CBA. Instead, they're governed by labor law. The court in Brown also explicitly lays out the players' options in a situation like this one: either stay a union and pursue a remedy under federal labor law (bringing a complaint before the NLRB or striking, for example) or de-certify their union and sue under antitrust law. It's kind of murky (to me, at least) what happens when the CBA expires and the union stays certified (Powell v. NFL and McNeil v. NFL deal with that to some extent) but that's not what's happening right now. Right now there's no CBA and no certified union, and all the cases make it pretty clear (and the NFL even admitted this in Powell) that when that happens, the normal antitrust rules apply to the NFL teams. Without a union and a CBA, they're like 32 individual employers, which means they can't get together to fix wages or lock out employees.

I didn't know that...that's reassuring with this year's draft coming up. I'm OK with trading down if there really isn't a value player at OL, DT, or WR, but if one of those guys sticks around, Angelo better stay put and pick him.

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. Give Kreutz a one-year deal (or a two-year that the team can drop after one) and let him play one more season before he retires. Same goes for Garza, although ideally he'd be a swing backup in 2011. I like Webb's potential, especially given how quickly he improved as a 7th-round rookie. Williams, I think, has very limited upside, but he's proven that he can play LT at a good-enough level. With a great LG next to him, I think he could hold down the job on the left side. As for Omiyale - like you said, I like him as a backup. I'd still be praying that Williams doesn't get hurt (again) but Omiyale is better than most teams' benchwarmers. I'd cut Louis, Asiata, and Edwin Williams. They all got their shots at a starting job, and they all blew. If any of them were any good, they'd have shown it by now. Levi Horn, who knows? If he wants to hang out on the practice squad, that's fine. As for Herman Johnson, I have to admit that I'd keep him. He was a bulldozer against some solid SEC defensive lines, and even in the NFL you don't see dudes that size very often. I like him as a project at RG. I mean, the guy's the size of Leonard Davis: I say get a veteran to play right now, and let Tice coach Johnson up for a year. If he doesn't pan out, it's not like he was a big investment. If he does, he could play RG in 2012, and one of our other interior o-line could switch to center when Kreutz retires. So yeah, I think my ideal line would go: LT: Chris Williams LG: Mike Pouncey OC: Kreutz (for a year) RG: Marshal Yanda (fits Angelo's tackles-who-can-play-guard thing) RT: J'Marcus Webb Omiyale (off the bench) Garza (ditto) Johnson (developmental RG, probably game-day inactive at first)

Just to clarify, there aren't any quotes from Angelo about Williams moving to center, or even the dreaded "unnamed source", it's just Neil Hayes saying "there have been discussions" about it. I'd bet a lot of money that this is misinformation and Williams never plays a snap at center. For one thing, he doesn't have the anchor - put him against a nose tackle every down, and he'd make our interior line collapse even more than it already does. For another, it's all well and good to have guards the size of tackles, but there's a reason centers are the shortest guys on the line. Jay Cutler's only 6'3"...how's he going to see the field when the guy standing in front of him is 6'6" and change? I can't think of any team in the league that has a center taller than 6'4", and most of them are like 6'2". If they're ready to move on from Kreutz and want to shift somebody to center, I'd go with Garza. He's actually got experience at the position, plus he's bigger and stronger than Kreutz. He could bridge the gap for a year while Tice works with Edwin Williams or a rookie.

There's this college free safety named Brian Ur-something that I keep hearing about... EDIT: Also, I can't imagine a worse position for Williams than center. The guy's problem (to my highly untrained eye) is that he doesn't have much sand in his pants. It wasn't that glaring a problem at tackle, but he gets absolutely pushed around at guard. If they're actually thinking seriously about moving him to center (which I really doubt) he's going to get ragdolled six games a year by Raji, Williams and Suh. I think the best thing to do with him is just accept that his lack of power means he's a left tackle only, put him there, and leave him there. Is he going to be an elite LT? I doubt it very much. But in the limited action he's had there, he's been adequate, with flashes of being very good. Everybody seems to have forgotten that this guy held his own against Jared Allen, in a game where he had a LOT of one-on-ones. For that whole stretch between Pace's benching last year and Williams' injury early this year, he played pretty well. Nothing stellar, but good enough to win with. They need to concentrate on acquiring guys to man the interior line, and let Williams do what they drafted him to do.

Maybe, but if the trial court granted a stay pending appeal, that would be monumentally expensive for the owners. The players have asked the court to require the owners to post a $1 billion bond for the stay, to cover their interim damages if they win on appeal. Given the amount of money the players stand to lose during a protracted appeal, $1 billion is actually a fairly reasonable bond, and I'd think the judge would be likely to require it. Also, I'm pretty sure that injunction bonds have to be fully collateralized, which means that the owners would have to put down $1.5 billion (or get a bank to loan it to them) as a bond for the whole time their stay/appeal is going on. Even for the NFL, that's a big chunk of change. Also, I don't think it's very likely that the appeals court would stay the injunction. If they think the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction, they'll just vacate it. Even if they think there's some factual issue that needs to be remanded back to the trial court, they could just vacate the injunction and remand for reconsideration. The only scenario (I think) where the appellate court would need to consider staying the injunction would be if the owners lose AGAIN and they decide it's worth it to appeal to the Supreme Court. Maybe an individual team could decide not to sign anybody or order its players to sit on their hands, but if multiple teams get together as a group and decide to do that same thing, it will open them up to even more liability in the players' anti-trust suit. At a minimum, the players could use that conduct in the appellate court to support an unclean hands argument, which would make the owners' case against the injunction much harder. Worst-case scenario, multiple teams colluding to keep the players from working (without a stay of the injunction) might even put the NFL in danger of being held in contempt of court. Unless there's a stay, the league is subject to a lawful court order requiring them to open their doors, and they're both aware of that order and able to comply. If it looks like the teams (as a group) aren't complying with the injunction, they'd risk being held in contempt. If the teams don't get the stay they're asking for, it's not like the court is going to force the Buccaneers to sign X number of free agents or hold two-a-days, but the teams as a whole would have to be extremely careful not to do anything that even looked like a coordinated action to keep the players from working. Best-case scenario, it'd hurt them on appeal. Worst-case scenario, they could face a civil contempt proceeding. Well, it's true that the players are challenging the rules that allow the league to act like a league, but that challenge is limited to right now, while there's no certified players' union. I think some of the statements being made about what the players want (like Goodell's op-ed in the WSJ) are seriously overblown: all the league rules that the players are "challenging" will fall right back into place the minute there's a player's union again, and in a legal brief, it's normal to assert every theory that you have a good basis for. What the players are really challenging is the league's right to lock them out indefinitely while CBA negotiations continue. That's the point of de-certification - they're doing it so that they have standing to seek an injunction, in order to force the league not to lock them out. But all of their anti-trust arguments stop the instant the union re-certifies and collective bargaining resumes. The reason Goodell and others are making such exaggerated statements is because they don't really have a case: the NFL conceded (in Powell v. NFL) that the Sherman Anti-Trust Act could apply to restrictions on employment if "the affected employees ceased to be represented by a certified union." That case was the basis for the union decertifying in the Reggie White case back in the '80s, and they were allowed to do it back then. Judge Nelson cited the Powell opinion in her decision, and you can be sure that the players will point it out to the appeals court when the NFL appeals the injunction. Also, I don't know if it'd be that hard for the court to impose work rules: it's been suggested a lot that they'll just take the status quo approach and order the league to operate under the 2010 rules until a new CBA is reached. That seems perfectly sensible to me, and I doubt that the players would argue any anti-trust problems with the league opening their doors in compliance with the injunction. I agree with you that it's a strategic move by the players. I'm sure they don't REALLY want to play with no union, no CBA, no draft, no salary cap, etc. They just needed to end the lockout, so they needed a way to get into court to get their injunction, and it just so happens that this way has been endorsed by the courts (and the NFL) before. Ultimately, I think they just want to make sure they aren't locked out, so the two sides can get back to negotiating on a level playing field. But the fact that it's a strategic move doesn't really make a difference, since the players have made the same strategic move before and it's been upheld. They have precedent on their side, and they have the NFL on record admitting that they can do what they're doing right now.

If Watkins, Pouncey, and the top 5 tackles are all gone by #29 (which is a possibility,) then I'd be OK with trading down. The Niners' picks at #45 and #76 are worth about the same as our #29...that'd give us 4 picks in the top 100. Then we could go: 45: James Carpenter, OT, Alabama 62: Drake Nevis, DT, LSU 76: Will Rackley, OG, Lehigh 93: Niles Paul, WR, Nebraska ...or: 45: Jon Baldwin, WR, Pitt 62: Orlando Franklin, G/T, Miami 76: Terrell McClain, DT, USF 93: Jason Pinkston, G/T, Pitt We'd have a lot of flexibility in terms of which positions to take where. Personally, I'd be happiest with the first scenario: trade down, still land a starting-caliber player in Carpenter, and grab an extra offensive lineman in the process. But taking Baldwin in the 2nd would look a lot less like a luxury pick if we had another 2nd and two 3rds to shore up the lines.

Yeah, I guess getting Watkins at #29 wouldn't be the end of the world. Guard is a huge need position, and there are only three guys who I think could be Day 1 starters: Watkins, Pouncey, and maybe Rodney Hudson. With Pouncey climbing up draft boards and Angelo saying that he doesn't have a 1st-round grade on Derek Sherrod, I could see Watkins being the pick. Also, here's some more on Terrell McClain from Pro Football Weekly: "McClain's pro-day workout was one of the best in the country. He looked like a young Warren Sapp going through drills, but his tape does not come close to matching. In three years as a starter, he has never recorded more than three sacks in a season. He’s not known as a worker. His toughness, effort and competitiveness are questionable. He easily loses focus and has been too much of a flash player throughout his career. He could warrant interest as early as the second round, but he will require a demanding position coach to maximize his potential and overcome the "underachiever" label." I really hope the Bears don't reach for McClain in the 2nd; it sounds like there's a significant bust factor there. Marinelli is as good a position coach as there is, but it's hard to get performance out of a guy who just doesn't have the work ethic. We all saw what happened with Marcus Harrison: dude has all the talent in the world, but he's too lazy for Marinelli to get anything out of him.

Tom, it's a very well-written article, and I absolutely agree with the premise that good teams draft future starters before they have glaring needs at the position. I fully expect Angelo to spend one or maybe two picks on linebackers before it's all said and done, but I expect him to do it in the middle or late rounds of the draft. There are a few major problems with the Bears drafting a linebacker in the early rounds. First, a 4-3 linebacker is unlikely to be the best available player early on: this is an unusually thin crop of 4-3 linebackers, especially at the top. There are Von Miller and Akeem Ayers (who'll probably be gone before the Bears' 1st-rounder) and then Bruce Carter and Mason Foster (who'll probably be gone before their 2nd) and then a whole lot of guys who aren't worth a 1st or a 2nd. This is partially because a majority of the top LBs this year are 3-4 players only. OLBs like Brooks Reed, Justin Houston, and Sam Acho would be DEs in a Tampa-2 scheme. ILBs like Martez Wilson, Kelvin Sheppard, and Mark Herzlich probably don't have a position at all in a Tampa-2. I'd feel differently if some guy in this year's draft were the next Urlacher, but there's nobody like that here. The class of 4-3 LBs this year is much, much worse than the group of D-line and O-line, and it's likely that spending our 1st on a linebacker would be a major reach. Second, for all his drafting faults, Jerry Angelo has demonstrated that he can pretty reliably find starting-caliber linebackers in the middle rounds, or even as street free agents. He inherited Urlacher, sure, but beyond that he's never needed to devote major draft resources to LB, and we've always had a good group there. From third-rounders like Briggs to UDFAs like Nick Roach, Angelo's proven that he can restock the LB position with quality young players without spending high draft picks. I don't see why that should change now. Third, a Tampa-2 scheme can use smaller linebackers than any other defense currently in use in the NFL, and only a few teams are still running Tampa defenses. Players like Brian Rolle, Lawrence Wilson, and Greg Jones could develop into starters in a Tampa defense, but they're going to be available deep in the middle rounds, because for most defenses they'd be sub-package players or special teamers. When it comes to LBs who are scheme-limited to a Tampa defense, the Bears will only be competing with Indy, Tampa, Minnesota, and maybe Carolina. Of those four, only Tampa and Carolina have major needs at linebacker. So at least a couple of the 4 or 5 good Tampa-only LBs should fall pretty far. Why would Angelo spend a 1st on a linebacker when he can be fairly confident that a starting-caliber player's going to fall to him in the 4th?

Haven't updated this thread in a while, so here are some more prospects the Bears worked out. Niles Paul, WR, Nebraska - private workout with the Bears, can't find out who exactly. The Jets and Vikings also worked him out. I think he's an interesting prospect as a physical, possession receiver with enough speed (4.45 in the 40) and great after-the-catch ability. He'd certainly bring a different dimension to the receiving corps at 6'1" and 225 pounds. I see him as a better fit for a West Coast offense, where he could run less challenging routes and rely on his ability to get yards after the catch. If the Bears think he can run the routes in Martz's scheme, though, he'd be good value early on Day 3. Danny Watkins, OG, Baylor - private workout with the Bears, don't know if it was with Tice specifically. I like Watkins, he looks like one of the more NFL-ready linemen, but I'd be worried about drafting a guy who's already 26. He'll be a good starting guard, but might only last 5 or 6 years instead of 9 or 10. Cecil Shorts III, WR, Mount Union - this is kind of interesting: he revealed that he's had private workouts with "two NFC North teams" but no indication as to who those teams are. So I guess it's a 50/50 that he worked out with the Bears, maybe better when you consider that they're more likely to be shopping for a WR than, say, the Packers. Shorts reminds me a little bit of Steve Smith from the Giants...he's just average in terms of size/speed/athleticism, but he's very slick running routes, knows how to get open, and he's a reliable catcher. Could be very productive in a Mike Martz offense, but Earl Bennett already does a lot of the same things well. Terrell McClain, DT, USF - most of us know this guy's name by now. Good under-tackle prospect, although people are starting to talk about him as a 2nd-rounder and I think that'd be a reach. Angelo, Lovie, and Tim Ruskell were all at his Pro Day (as was Bill Belichick.) I see him as being in that tier of DTs with Jurrell Casey, a notch below Drake Nevis and several notches below Marvin Austin. If we're going DT in the 2nd I'd rather have Nevis, but if McClain lasts until the 3rd round, I'd be very OK with Chicago moving up in the 3rd to grab him.

If Pouncey's there when we pick in the 1st, I'd love that pick. Likewise with McClain in the late 3rd (which I think is the right spot for him.) You could probably flip-flop Moffitt and Greg Little, though: CBS Sports has Moffitt as the #137 overall player, 7th-rated guard. If the Bears want him, I'm sure they could get him with their 3rd- or even 4th-rounder. If they go OG in the 2nd, they could probably get somebody like Will Rackley from Lehigh. Again, you could probably flip-flop Carpenter and Moffitt, since I'm not sure Carpenter would fall all the way to our 3rd - CBS Sports has him at #57 overall, and he's right after Marcus Cannon on their list of OTs. But I REALLY like the picks, though - Carpenter's racked up a ton of starts in a pro-style offense, was productive against the highest level of competition, never missed a start due to injury, very polished, etc. He looks like he should have a short learning curve, which is great, since the Bears need to draft at least one Day 1 starter up front. One thing I'm curious about: where do you see the Bears playing Carpenter? I've heard a lot of people say that he's probably a right tackle or a guard in the NFL...if that's right, he could kick inside and move Williams back to LT, or Webb could move over to LT and Carpenter could replace him on the right side. What do you think his position is? Personally, I'd be OK with either. I think my ideal scenario is kind of a hybrid of your two: RD1. Mike Pouncey, G, Florida RD2. James Carpenter, G/T, Alabama RD3. Terrell McClain, DT, USF RD4. Greg Little, WR, UNC or Niles Paul, WR, Nebraska (I think his character issues and subpar senior year will drop Paul lower than his ability warrants. If Greg Little doesn't fall this far, I'd be OK with Paul...I think he's got a little bit of T.O. to his game.) RD5. Jake Kirkpatrick, C, TCU RD6. Justin Rogers, CB, Richmond ...Pouncey and Carpenter would give us two Day 1 starters on the line, moving either Williams or Webb to LT and putting Omiyale and Garza on the bench. McClain could work his way into the DT rotation as a rookie, and Little or Paul could rotate in at WR. So that's two rookie starters, two guys who at least contribute their first year, and two developmental players for down the road.

I like this a lot. Carimi and Franklin would help revitalize the o-line; I'd be very OK with a line of Carimi-Williams-Kreutz-Franklin-Webb, with Omiyale as the swing tackle and Garza backing up all three interior spots. All of a sudden that's a very young, talented o-line, with just one aging vet left in the starting lineup. They'd just need one more decent year out of Kreutz, and then they can look for a center in next year's draft. Also, we'd finally have some size and power up front, with a bunch of guys who go 6'6" to 6'8" and 315-335 pounds. Plus, I have to think Martz's 5-man protections would work a lot better with 4 guys on the o-line who were LTs in college. I think both Casey and Hogan would be GREAT value in the middle rounds. Both guys are likely to slip because they're not ideal for every scheme, but they'd be very good fits in the Bears' D. Casey's not an elite talent like Marvin Austin, but he's probably got a higher floor than Austin does. He reminds me a little bit of Sedrick Ellis: short/squat player, above-average in terms of quickness and pass rush, surprisingly powerful for his size, etc. The one guy I couldn't see the Bears going for is Herzlich. I love the guy and think he'll be a great player for somebody, but I don't think he has the range or athleticism to play in a Tampa scheme. If we're picking a linebacker in the 5th, I think it has to be a rangy guy who can play in coverage, like Brian Rolle from Ohio State or Mike Mohamed from Cal.

Yeah, the Bears aren't in a position to get a rookie WR who could step right in. I'd still love to put together a trade for Vincent Jackson, once picks can be traded for players again (presumably after the draft, so they'd be 2012 picks.) Regardless, the top two needs have to be o-line and three-technique DT, and the #3 need is probably o-line again. Doesn't leave much room to get an impact WR. Maybe they take a look at a late-round guy like Courtney Smith from South Alabama, I don't know. ...at least Justin Blackmon and Michael Floyd will be in next year's draft. Blackmon could develop into an incredible receiver for a Mike Martz offense.

I was hoping that Michael Floyd would declare for the supplemental draft. That way we could have loaded up on the lines in this year's draft, and then spent next year's 2nd (which is extremely high for a supplemental pick, so we'd probably get him) on a borderline-1st-round-caliber receiver. As is, I think you're right - it's probably got to be FA. I don't think any of the receivers likely to be available when we pick in the 2nd are guys who can make an immediate impact. If somebody like Baldwin falls that far, that's a different story, but I doubt that.

Yeah, true. When he was hired, we heard all about how Martz likes to send 5 receivers out on every play, but during the bye week he clearly realized that he was going to need 1-2 extra blockers on any given play, just to keep Cutler alive. I'll be interested to see if he gives Olsen more pass patterns once the o-line is shored up, or whether that just means Olsen spends more time on the bench. I hope it's the former.