Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 Chris Mortensen just reported on SC that he has been the most impressive QB at the Pro Bowl. He has a rocket arm, and great physical tools, like his 6'6 height. If we could get him for our 1st and 3rd which is obviously what Cleveland is looking for, I'd do it instantly. So, now with the trade for Anderson, here's my latest Bears mock draft 1 (2nd round). Gosder Cherilus, OT, Boston College 2. Johnathan Hefney, S, Tennessee 3. Jerome Simpson, WR, Coastal Carolina 4. Jamaal Charles, RB, Texas 5. Andre Fleullen, DT, Florida State 6. Chad Rinehart, OG, Northern Iowa Thoughts on picking up Anderson? Thoughts on my newest mock? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 I'd be OK with that. I may opt for a LB (give the new Url news) or a WR in the earlier rounds... Chris Mortensen just reported on SC that he has been the most impressive QB at the Pro Bowl. He has a rocket arm, and great physical tools, like his 6'6 height. If we could get him for our 1st and 3rd which is obviously what Cleveland is looking for, I'd do it instantly. So, now with the trade for Anderson, here's my latest Bears mock draft 1 (2nd round). Gosder Cherilus, OT, Boston College 2. Johnathan Hefney, S, Tennessee 3. Kevin Smith, RB, Central Florida / Jamaal Charles, RB, Texas 4. Jerome Simpson, WR, Coastal Carolina 5. Andre Fleullen, DT, Florida State 6. Chad Rinehart, OG, Northern Iowa Thoughts on picking up Anderson? Thoughts on my newest mock? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 I wouldnt want to bank on anything based on whats going on in practice for the Pro Bowl. Its like the And 1 mix tape guys, nobody is playing real hard, especially on defense. Also, with how many bigger needs we have it wouldnt be a good idea to lose the 14th overall pick in a strong draft for offensive tackles. Even if we got a new qb he isnt going to be able to do anything without a much improved offensive line, a better running back and improved wide receivers. Dont forget about the money he is command in the extension we would have to sign him to also. I wouldnt want to risk losing two good draft picks and tying up a lot of money in a QB who has only had one good season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 just say no the Anderson. He would be god awful without 2 stud receivers and the best O-Line in football. If I had that line and those two guys to throw the ball to, I'd probably have a QB rating above 30... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Chris Mortensen just reported on SC that he has been the most impressive QB at the Pro Bowl. He has a rocket arm, and great physical tools, like his 6'6 height. If we could get him for our 1st and 3rd which is obviously what Cleveland is looking for, I'd do it instantly. So, now with the trade for Anderson, here's my latest Bears mock draft 1 (2nd round). Gosder Cherilus, OT, Boston College 2. Johnathan Hefney, S, Tennessee 3. Jerome Simpson, WR, Coastal Carolina 4. Jamaal Charles, RB, Texas 5. Andre Fleullen, DT, Florida State 6. Chad Rinehart, OG, Northern Iowa Thoughts on picking up Anderson? Thoughts on my newest mock? 2 picks - no way. I would give up the #14 pick for him - that would be it. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TerraTor Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 No way. The guy is nothing special. and even if he was, theres no talent around him outside of Olsen who we seem to not allow on the field Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Most impressive at a Pro Bowl practice when this afternoon the guys on NFL network were laughing at how lazy everyone was at the practices. Maybe Anderson is trying to show off his talents in order to get out of Cleveland. That's not a good situation for him with Quinn on the bench. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted February 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 just say no the Anderson. He would be god awful without 2 stud receivers and the best O-Line in football. If I had that line and those two guys to throw the ball to, I'd probably have a QB rating above 30... 2 studs? Try 1 in Braylon Edwards. Best OL in football? That award goes to NE or MIN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted February 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 I wouldnt want to bank on anything based on whats going on in practice for the Pro Bowl. Its like the And 1 mix tape guys, nobody is playing real hard, especially on defense. Also, with how many bigger needs we have it wouldnt be a good idea to lose the 14th overall pick in a strong draft for offensive tackles. Even if we got a new qb he isnt going to be able to do anything without a much improved offensive line, a better running back and improved wide receivers. Dont forget about the money he is command in the extension we would have to sign him to also. I wouldnt want to risk losing two good draft picks and tying up a lot of money in a QB who has only had one good season. Actually, the things these guys are doing right now in the Pro Bowl isn't just for s***s and giggles, they are out there trying to impress, especially a guy like Anderson who like somebody said may want out of Cleveland. Now, come game time Sunday, they won't be trying, but as of right now, they are. Look, he's a guy who would finally end our annual saying of "When will we get a real fricken' QB?" Flacco has been compared to this guy, so pick your poison for all the Flacco-lovers. Also, it's not a big deal to re-negotiate his contract if we trade for him. With this, we could let Rex walk, sign Ayanbedejo, 4 years, $12 million or so, let Briggs walk, give Berrian 5 years, $25-$30 million, and then re-negotiate Anderson after the year. And, with this trading, we wouldn't have to use a draft pick on a QB, like Flacco or Woodson. We could use our first pick (actually our 2nd rounder) on an OL, say Cherilus like I have, then a S, then a RB, either Smith from UCF or Charles from Texas, then a WR to compliment Berrian and Hester, then a DT which seems to have JA jerkin' it, then a G. It's just a thought. I don't want to be bashed by this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParkerBear7 Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Not a bad idea but overall I like your other idea better of Bringing back Rex, Berrian and signing J. Walker if he becomes available. FIX OL, Address RB Competition and Draft a QB of the future, S help etc. This way we would have less of a gamble while have the ability to add depth through Draft. The price of Anderson flopping would much greater than the cost of the resigning Rex, Berrian etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 I think the 2nd reciever he means is Winslow, and that is hard to argue w/. Winslow may be a TE, but is as good as most any 2nd WR in the game. As for the OL, it may not be "the best", but they were damn good, and one of the best. I so want a QB, but I do have some hessitation w/ Anderson. While he had great stats for the year, he seemed to be lights out one game, and mediocre the next. In the back half of the year, his hot games were far fewer, and less hot, and in his final three games, when they were in a playoff run, he was simply not good. What I hate to think, but have to wonder is, many QBs start out hot when they are unknown, but then, as opponents have film on him, the shiny star begins to fade. So just how shiny is the star. If we were talking about a 2nd, I would be all for it. He will command a big contract, but I would risk that. Giving up a 1st and the deal is a bit tougher to swallow. The other concern is, if we give him the big contract, how much money will that leave for us to spend to upgrade the offense, and in particularly the OL. Does spending big on Anderson make sense if we can not significantly upgrade the offense around him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted February 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Not a bad idea but overall I like your other idea better of Bringing back Rex, Berrian and signing J. Walker if he becomes available. FIX OL, Address RB Competition and Draft a QB of the future, S help etc. This way we would have less of a gamble while have the ability to add depth through Draft. The price of Anderson flopping would much greater than the cost of the resigning Rex, Berrian etc. Finally somebody likes me plan/idea I have another option: what about a trade of Anderson and a 3rd rounder to a team like Oakland who might budge on Dorsey at 4? They'd give us their 2nd and their 4th (assuming they only 1 have in each round, of course), and we'd give them Anderson and a 3rd rounder. This way, they could get Dorsey, a stuffer up the middle, and Anderson, a pass rushing machine. They'd be tempted by his sack #'s, but they may not know his run D isn't even above average. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 2 studs? Try 1 in Braylon Edwards. Best OL in football? That award goes to NE or MIN Have you forgotten who their TE is? And yeah, their OLine is argueably the best. I personally feal that it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParkerBear7 Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Finally somebody likes me plan/idea I have another option: what about a trade of Anderson and a 3rd rounder to a team like Oakland who might budge on Dorsey at 4? They'd give us their 2nd and their 4th (assuming they only 1 have in each round, of course), and we'd give them Anderson and a 3rd rounder. This way, they could get Dorsey, a stuffer up the middle, and Anderson, a pass rushing machine. They'd be tempted by his sack #'s, but they may not know his run D isn't even above average. One problem --- Oakland has QB J. Russell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParkerBear7 Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Have you forgotten who their TE is? And yeah, their OLine is argueably the best. I personally feal that it is. NYG's & INDY's OL is not that shabby either. Their Bears certainly had trouble pressuring their QB's! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 NYG's & INDY's OL is not that shabby either. Their Bears certainly had trouble pressuring their QB's! I think the Giants line overachieved this year. They are a good group though. And Indy just has a great system for their OLine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoBear Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 One problem --- Oakland has QB J. Russell I think he was talking about Mark Anderson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted February 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 I think he was talking about Mark Anderson. Yes, I was definitley talking about Mark Anderson, not Derek Anderson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted February 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Have you forgotten who their TE is? And yeah, their OLine is argueably the best. I personally feal that it is. Next time say "They have a stud TE and a stud WR", b/c when you say "They have 2 stud receivers", I automatically start thinking of all the WR's Cleveland has and at first I thought you meant Jurevicious, which is why I said "That's only 1 stud", b/c Jurevicious is clearly not a stud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Next time say "They have a stud TE and a stud WR", b/c when you say "They have 2 stud receivers", I automatically start thinking of all the WR's Cleveland has and at first I thought you meant Jurevicious, which is why I said "That's only 1 stud", b/c Jurevicious is clearly not a stud. What does a tight end do? He receives the ball... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 What does a tight end do? He receives the ball... Its still a different position. Most people knew what you meant but you cant really fault anyone for being confused by the statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iguana Posted February 10, 2008 Report Share Posted February 10, 2008 no thanks. I'd rather take OL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted February 10, 2008 Report Share Posted February 10, 2008 Its still a different position. Most people knew what you meant but you cant really fault anyone for being confused by the statement. Well, next time I will use pass catchers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted February 10, 2008 Report Share Posted February 10, 2008 I don't take much into pro-bowl practice although I do think it is worthy to take notice to his tools. While a lot of the players may be in lackkadasical states and screwing around for the pro-bowl when you have better arm strenght than some of the best at the game it should be noticed. Still, Anderson played behind a stellar oline, had legitimate offensive weapons (Braylan is awesome) and would be comign to a far worse situation in Chicago. I think it is best not to give up two first day picks and cap room when the Bears clearly have more dire needs (ie in the trenches...in this case the offensive line). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.