defiantgiant

I'm on the fence about Baldwin. On the one hand, you can't teach that kind of size and vertical leap. On the other hand, he doesn't run great routes and gets virtually NO separation from DBs even at the college level. He can run away from guys down the field if he has time to build up a head of steam, but he doesn't separate on crossing routes and out routes, because he just doesn't get out of his routes quickly at all. That's a killer in Martz's offense, where the one thing WRs have to be is insanely sudden getting into/out of their routes. Baldwin just doesn't have that explosiveness, and he often gets totally blanketed on short-to-intermediate routes. At Pitt he managed to make a lot of plays with the DB in his hip pocket, but I'm not sure he'll have the same kind of success in the NFL, where he's going to see CBs who can be 6'1" or taller. If a team needs a size/speed guy to run primarily vertical routes, I could see them going for Baldwin. For example, he'd make sense for St. Louis, since they've got guys like Clayton and Amendola who can handle the underneath stuff. But the Bears have deep threats covered; they need a go-to WR on short and intermediate passes, and I don't think Baldwin can be that guy in Martz's offense. That's the real problem with the second tier of wideouts this year: guys like Baldwin and Leonard Hankerson have the size and good enough speed to run vertical routes, but they don't have the quickness or route-running to make the plays that the Bears were missing this year.

I do wish this team would go back to running behind an old-fashioned fullback. I know it's not part of Martz's offense, but look at the running backs who ran behind Lorenzo Neal or Tony Richardson. A real bulldozer at FB can make your running attack lethal. That said, it's not like Forte did poorly this year, and I don't see Martz going for a pure run-blocker like Karney. It's too bad, really. I do hope we replace Manumaleuna with somebody who can actually pick up a blitz, though.

Why bother with this guy? He's 31 and not great in pass protection. The Bears aren't short on backup-caliber tackles: Omiyale and Shaffer would both be above-average backups. Plus, there are several young guys (Webb, Williams and Herman Johnson) who need to get a lot of first-team reps on the offseason so Tice can figure out what we've got in them. They could develop into quality depth players, one might even be a future starter. Adding a vet could block those guys from moving up the depth chart, like what happened with Marty Booker and Earl Bennett. Black would be a good pickup for a team that has its starters set, but needs to shore up the middle of its depth chart at tackle. The Bears have the middle taken care of: they need to add players at the top.

Yeah, I'm with you. No reason not to kick the tires, but I wouldn't expect him to have much left at 34, after two years out of football.

Forte had a career-high YPC running behind the same OL. Over the last 9 games of the regular season, Forte averaged 4.9 yards a carry. Taylor averaged 1.6 per carry over the same span. They were facing the same defenses and running behind the same o-line, but Forte was more than three times as productive as Taylor. I'm not saying that the OL didn't suck, because they did. But Forte revealed himself to be a player who can be productive even when the blocking isn't great and defenders are leaking into the backfield. Taylor revealed that he'll get what's blocked for him and nothing more. Like you said, I don't care if Taylor stays or goes. He's a better backup than Kevin Jones or Adrian Peterson or any of the other guys we've had in the past, so I guess there's that. If he wants to stay, though, he needs to renegotiate the rest of his contract on the cheap, so it reflects what he's really bringing to the table. The Bears paid him $7 million this year because they needed to buy a change-of-pace RB since they didn't have the ammo to get one in the draft. If he won't renegotiate, I say cut him loose, draft a short-yardage RB on Day 3, and use the extra cash to shore up the o-line. Or just give it straight to Forte - he's earned it.

My concerns with Haynesworth are injuries and work ethic. The guy has earned a reputation for being lazy and out-of-shape, and he was dinged up a fair amount this year for the Redskins. If we're going to trade for a DT on the cheap, I'd rather take a flyer on Amobi Okoye from the Texans. He doesn't fit anywhere in Wade Phillips' 3-4, but he has the right kind of physical ability to play either DT spot in a Tampa-2. If Marinelli can get him motivated, he could be a decent reclamation project at the 3-technique. Plus, he's relatively healthy, and because he was the youngest player ever drafted into the NFL, he's still only 23 (whereas Haynesworth will be 30 by the time next season starts.) I don't know if trading for a guy is necessary, though. With so few teams running a Tampa scheme these days, undersized 3-techniques are going to fall in the draft. Drake Nevis from LSU could fall to within reach of the Bears' 2nd-rounder - a lot of teams won't have a position for him, just because he's 6'1" and 285 pounds. But compare that to Tommie Harris or Warren Sapp when they were in college: Tommie was 6'2.5" and 292 pounds, while Sapp was 6'2" and 285. I'd rather use a 2nd on Nevis or trade a 4th for Okoye than make a play for Haynesworth. David Carter from UCLA is another potential 3-technique who could be had in the 4th-5th, although I think some 3-4 teams will look at him as a DE.

Yeah, the lack of another legit receiving threat and the o-line's failings in pass pro really limit what the Bears can do with Hester, to the point where he becomes easy to defend against. The protection really only holds up long enough for those 1-step screens or quick slants/hitches, and every defense in the league knows to key in on Hester for those plays. With Vincent Jackson, we could fake the screen and then hit Jackson over the middle on a cross or a slant when the linebackers/safeties overcommit to Hester's side. That'd make defenses play the quick screen honestly, which means we can go back to Hester on it the next time. With some decent pass protection, we could fake the quick screen and then throw deep to a wideout running a go or a skinny post on the other side. Even if it's just Johnny Knox on the deep route, that would still be a workable play if the line could hold up. I don't think I saw the Bears pull that off once this season, though - they just don't give Cutler enough time to run a play like that. I'll say this, though - even though he was limited by his personnel, Martz still put together a better package of plays for Hester than Ron Turner ever did. The screen game, the reverses, motioning him into the slot...Martz clearly gets how to use Hester, which makes me hopeful for next season (provided we can get some better blocking and another WR to take the heat off.)

I think it's like Danario Alexander a year ago - #1 receiver talent when he's healthy, but it's pretty unlikely that he's going to consistently stay that way. I'd still take a gamble on Brown on Day 3. CBS Sports thinks that he's going to be a 6th-rounder, but I'd even consider reaching for him when the Bears pick in the 5th. If it pans out, he's a starting wide receiver in his rookie year.

Yeah, I'd be surprised if the new transition tag didn't contain some explicit prohibition against poison pills (although the teams have been self-policing that pretty well since the Hutchinson thing went down.) The franchise tag, though, I think might stay the same - the players may not like having to wait a year to get a long-term deal, but the tag pays them really well for that one year. If they change anything about it, it might be just to make it impossible (instead of just really expensive) to franchise somebody two years in a row.

All right, well, realistic or not, I'm definitely trading for Fitz in my next Madden franchise.

Eh, even if Jackson gets tagged, Chicago can still trade for him. Nobody's going to go the sign-him-and-give-up-two-1sts route when they can just trade for his rights. I'd just as soon get Rice (provided he's healthy) and not give up any picks, but I don't think the trade price for Jackson is going to be exorbitant. Look at the article balta1701-A linked to: even before his holdout, the Chargers were willing to give up Jackson for a 2nd and a 4th. It's not like that price could have gone up in the last year. As for Mankins, man, I don't know. It sounds like the Pats actually want to keep him, but who knows with Belichick. They stick to that next-man-up philosophy more than any other team in the league. The one thing I do know is that trading with the Pats never works out well for anybody but the Pats.

So apparently the franchise and transition tags are still going to exist, despite the ongoing CBA negotiations. Teams will have from February 10th to February 24th to apply franchise and transition tags as normal. It's basically a lock that at least a couple of the highest-profile free agents (Mankins and Vincent Jackson among them) are going to get franchised. On the other hand, two NFL scouts think that Sidney Rice will get transition-tagged, because the Vikings will want to use the franchise tag on Chad Greenway. That'd be great news for the Bears and anyone else who wants to sign him - whereas the (non-exclusive) franchise tag means that any team to sign the tagged player has to give you two 1st-rounders as compensation, the transition tag only gets you the right to match the other team's offer. So if a team offers Rice a multi-year deal that the Vikings won't or can't match, they could sign him and not give up any draft picks in return. That could be good for a team like Chicago - if they can come up with the cash, they could keep the picks that San Diego would want for Vincent Jackson (not to mention the whole draft-pick-trading problem with the CBA negotiations) and use them on more o-line, a new under-tackle, maybe a corner to develop behind Tillman. Also, it'd be a nice bit of revenge for Minnesota outbidding Chicago for Berrian.

One other thing I noticed - Jared Gaither is on that list. According to the Baltimore Sun, Gaither's expected to be an unrestricted free agent and the Ravens probably won't be able to retain him. He's had some health problems (disc injury in his back, which is worrisome) but if he's healthy he's one of the most physically gifted tackles in the league. He can play left tackle or right, has plenty of starting experience, and he's only 24. If he's healthy and has his head on straight, he'd be a HUGE upgrade at tackle over anybody on the roster or anyone available in the draft. I think the Bears should at least kick the tires if he's available for the right price.

Forte deserves a nice-sized extension and he'll get one. I'd be hesitant to give any running back a mega-deal, just because of how short their careers tend to be, but Forte definitely should get a decent chunk of change when the CBA's all sorted out. EDIT: Here's a possible model for Forte's deal - Maurice Jones-Drew has about the same number of all-purpose yards over the last 3 seasons, and he got a five-year, $30.95 million contract with $17.5 million guaranteed (which includes a $9 million signing bonus.) However, Jones-Drew's base salary was only guaranteed for the first two years of the deal (which makes sense, given the nature of the position.) I think $6 million a year max value is a pretty good deal for what Forte brings to the table. They could front-load most of the guaranteed money into the first couple of years, and tie a lot of the later-year value to roster bonuses and stuff like that, so that the contract reflects the lifespan of your average running back.

Totally agree, but Rivers and Cotchery played at NC State, not UNC. Not trying to split hairs, I just grew up rooting for NC State and hating UNC, so I had to get that in there. But yeah, the whole ACC is pretty underrated (outside of maybe Boston College) in terms of producing good pro players. All the skill-position guys from UNC, the offensive linemen from UVa, running backs and defensive backs from Virginia Tech...there are lots of really good pro prospects coming out of the ACC. And I think you're right, it's probably too much to compare Austin to a guy like Haynesworth. Hopefully he's one of these guys like Mike Williams (from Tampa Bay) who are just better cut out for the pros than for the whole student-athlete thing. Plus, a lot of players seem to respond to Lovie's coaching style - maybe Austin would too.

I've heard some wildly differing reports on Solder. Some people think that he's too raw and needs work on his technique, other people think his size/athleticism is going to make him the first tackle picked. I think you're right, though - in this year's tackle class, I'd be very surprised if he fell all the way to the Bears' pick. Now, if he has a really poor showing in the Combine drills or something like that, maybe he could start to fall.

According to that piece, Jackson was available for a 2nd and a 4th, but the Vikings thought that was too much to give up. I'd do that deal in a heartbeat if it were available again this year. Well, true, but the CBA expires on March 5th and the draft isn't until April 28th. So they could have a month-long lockout and still get a deal done prior to the draft, which would mean that there'd SOME time for teams to trade picks for players. I'm not optimistic that they'll get a new deal done before the March 5th deadline, but I hope that they'll at least have it done by the draft. There's too much money at stake for the two sides to let negotiations seriously interfere with the 2011 season, and they have the NHL lockout as a model for how prolonged labor disputes can permanently harm the popularity of a sport. Plus, the decertification threat from the players would expose the NFL to significant antitrust liability in the event of a lockout, and I'm pretty sure that every team that's voted on decertification has voted in favor of decertifying in the event of a lockout. EDIT: Also, there's this joint press release by the NFLPA and the league, stating that they're ramping up negotiations in an effort to have a new deal in place by early March.

So apparently Fitz wants to play for a winner. So it's possible that he'd agree to void the no-trade clause in his contract, if the Cards were in a position to deal him to a contender. Unfortunately, I don't think the Bears are that contender. I agree with AZ54 - I don't see the Bears making a move for him. The Cardinals will probably want a couple of 1sts or a 1st and a quarterback in return, and Chicago needs those draft picks if they're going to be Super Bowl contenders in 2011. I could see a team like the Ravens giving up the draft picks for Fitz. They've drafted so well in the past that they really don't have many needs, and they would definitely be in the Super Bowl conversation with a downfield playmaker at WR. Plus, they could get Fitz and Boldin back together, so they'd have two receivers who have a lot of experience together, plus a great young QB in Flacco.

Here's my wishlist. Like MadLith, I'm trying to be at least somewhat realistic. I'm also assuming that we draft Gabe Carimi in round 1 and draft John Moffitt in Round 3 or 4. QB - Bring Caleb Hanie back for relatively cheap. WR - Vincent Jackson. This is priority #1. RB - Jason Snelling. Probably a pipe dream, as the Falcons have said that they want to keep their current backfield together. If we could get him, though, Snelling would be a MUCH better short-yardage/goal-line option than Chester Taylor, and he's a good enough receiver (74 receptions from 2009-2010) to play in Martz's offense. They could run some two-back sets and motion Snelling to fullback, which would keep us from having to use Manumaleuna in that role. OG - Marshal Yanda, Justin Blalock, or maybe Davin Joseph. Blalock plays left guard, the other two play right guard. If we got Blalock, that'd give us a veteran next to Carimi to help him make the transition to the pros. If we got Yanda or Joseph, then both Carimi and Moffitt could stay in their college positions, and there'd be the added advantage of them being familiar with one another, which could help the line gel faster. DT - Anthony Hargrove. Hargrove's an undersized pure pass rusher at DT, but that's exactly what the Bears need. He doesn't offer anything in terms of run-stopping and wouldn't be a full-time player, but the glaring hole on the Bears' d-line this season was interior pass rush. If they part ways with Tommie, Hargrove could pick up some of the slack as a rotational player in the nickel package and on obvious passing downs. If it wouldn't cost too much to get him, he could be a decent pickup.

I've heard the same thing, but I assumed that it was just so that the Chargers don't have to let him walk for nothing. Speculation is that Jackson's asking for $9-10 mil a year, and if the Chargers were willing to pay that, they'd have locked him up already. If they were really interested in keeping him, it doesn't make any sense for them to spend almost $11 million on the franchise tag when he's asking for less than that per-year in a new contract. I guess they could tag him to give themselves more time to work out a new deal, but it doesn't make sense to do that when Jackson's camp has made it clear that he doesn't want to be tagged. A tag would give them more time to negotiate, but it could also lead to a breakdown in negotiations and they had that problem already in 2010. Given all of that, I bet they're planning on losing him and they're just tagging him so they can get something in return. If they ARE looking to trade him, I think the Brandon Marshall trade is probably the best barometer for Jackson's trade value. Marshall's off-field problems are probably a little worse than Jackson's, but both players are one run-in with the league away from a long suspension. Marshall was two years younger when he was traded than Jackson is now, and he was significantly more productive than Jackson. If Marshall got traded for a 2nd and another 2nd the next year, I'd say that a 2nd and a future 3rd/4th should be enough to get Jackson, even if he is franchised. That seems like a reasonable price to me, given how badly the Bears need a WR.

Yeah, we don't have the depth to cut those guys loose right now. We need to phase both of them out as starters, but I'd rather cut guys like Lance Louis and Johan Asiata, who are really practice-squad caliber players. Find Garza's replacement (in FA or the draft) this offseason, find Kreutz's replacement next offseason, and then we can do this: Garza: on the bench in 2011, off the roster in 2012 (when he hits FA.) Kreutz: starting in 2011, transition to the bench in 2012, off the roster in 2013 (when he'll be 35 and probably ready to retire.) ...then we'll have a couple of years to worry about building depth behind the new starters, whereas if we cut Garza or Kreutz right now, we'd be one injury away from starting Louis or Edwin Williams. I don't want to see that again.

Well, but the word is that the Bears might hit him with the 2nd-round tender, which would pretty much ensure that he stays in Chicago. Yeah, I could see that happening. I don't think getting Jackson AND Mankins is realistic, but it should be do-able to get Jackson and a less heralded FA guard like Justin Blalock from the Falcons or Marshal Yanda from the Ravens. Both those guys are a year or two younger than Mankins and won't command the massive contract that Mankins will. They're not completely dominant players like he is, but they were both solid starters on top-10 offensive lines, and either one should be a huge upgrade over any of Chicago's guards. Add in Anthony Castonzo or Gabe Carimi in the 1st round and another guard in the 3rd, and the Bears should be able to field at least an average o-line next year.

Yeah, the agent thing isn't going to be a huge drag on anyone's stock, I don't think. It's comparable in my mind to what AJ Green did - it's just part of the reality of NCAA athletics at this point. The bigger concern with Austin comes from the widespread reports that he's fairly selfish and immature. If he's going to be Albert Haynesworth 2.0 in the locker room, I think teams will be hesitant to spend a 1st-rounder on him. Who knows, though, maybe some franchise with a tolerance for poor character (Cincinnati) or the coaching staff to whip guys into shape (New England) will decide to take him in the 1st.

Here's my list. Must Keep Kreutz - there's nobody on the roster to replace him, and he should have a year left. Re-sign him to a short-term deal with incentives. Danieal Manning - Without him, depth at safety becomes a major problem (no pun intended.) Wright and Harris would be the starters, but the next guy up would be who? Steltz? Manning's young, pretty durable, at least average at SS, and a top-10 KR in the league. Hopefully he doesn't want a mega-deal and the Bears can get him for something close to his actual value. Pisa Tinoisamoa - another short-term, incentive-laden deal, specifically one that protects the Bears in case of injuries. Pisa's a borderline-elite player when he's healthy, and he makes the LB corps that much more effective. Anthony Adams - criminally underrated in the middle of the d-line. Adams isn't flashy, but he's consistent and steady. He's basically the player Dusty Dvoracek was supposed to be when we drafted him. Depth on the interior line is pretty suspect as-is, so losing Adams would really hurt. Should Try to Keep Rashied Davis - mostly for his special teams contributions. Also, he wasn't as terrible at WR this year as he has been in the past. I'm OK with having him rounding out the bottom of the WR depth chart, and he's definitely pretty good on ST. Corey Graham - provides quality depth at CB, and is a beast on ST. Definitely should re-sign if possible. Brian Iwuh - will be very cheap to retain, and can allow the Bears to let Roach walk, making it easier to retain Pisa. Caleb Hanie - restricted free agent (unless the new CBA changes things) and should be pretty easy to keep. Knows the offense, and should have been our #2 QB all along. Is he the best backup in the league? Not by a long shot. But if you're down to your backup QB, things are pretty bad already. Brad Maynard - had a down year this year, but is probably still an average punter. Keeping him would be nice for continuity, but it wouldn't be the end of the world if we had to bring in a new leg, especially given our ST coaching staff. Let Walk Todd Collins - this guy is done. What a mistake, bringing him in this season. Desmond Clark - I love 88, but it's clear that he's not going to get any playing time in Martz's offense. Should have another year or two left if he goes to some team that runs a WCO. Devin Aromashodu - I was never a fan of this guy. He got over half his yards for the 2009 season in one game against Antoine Winfield, who was so hobbled that Aromashodu could basically run straight past him on go routes. Doesn't run great routes, doesn't work out of the slot (according to Martz) and only really offers size. If the Bears get a tall receiver in free agency or the draft, Aromashodu's completely expendable. Garrett Wolfe - he's taking up a roster spot that could go to a legit short-yardage back, and he offers next to nothing on offense. Too small, too easy to tackle, and his quickness never made a difference against NFL defenders the way it did in college. His ST contributions are nice, but there are other guys who can do that and also be decent backups.

I'm gonna be slightly more optimistic. Thinking we split with the Lions and Packers, sweep the Vikes. The Lions are on a major upswing, and I think next year is the season they finally start shaking things up in the division. And as tough as the Packers look right now, I can't see us getting swept. Lovie always seems to come up with a way to beat them at least once. Also, we beat the Vick and the Eagles this year, don't see why we can't do it next year. I was on the fence about the Saints, but they have the kind of short passing game that always seems to give the Bears' defense fits. Atlanta was a tough pick, too, but if they get another starting-caliber receiver to pair with Roddy White, that's going to be a scary offense. That puts us at 11-5, should be in decent shape for at least a wildcard, maybe the division. ATL L CAR W SEA W KC L SD W DET L GB W MIN W NO L TB W PHI W DEN W OAK W DET W GB L MIN W