My Mind is Made Up...

[Mongo3451]

This is a building year. I'm not sure if we can quite call it a "re-build" based on what our moves have been. Our moves have indicated, we are happy with where we are are on defense and content with what we have left on special teams. In a re-build year, we may have seen a sign and trade with Alex Brown. We would have seen Arch and M. Brown cut. We would not have seen Rex and Kyle BOTH back. (just one)

 

Therefore, this is what I see happening on draft day. I see us drafting players that are able to provide depth, with the potential to become solid long term contributors. Say we draft OT, QB, RB and OG with our 1st four picks. I would say only the 1st round OT has a chance to start, with the RB getting PT as the year goes on. All = building. The short term benefits of this off-season will be minimal. Get ready for a long season of hoping the Defense and Hester can provide enough magic for us to be competitive.

 

IMO - until we get the OL fixed and find a franchise QB, we will not contend for anything. Our defense can only have a strong identity/ as long as our offense can control the clock. (which it can not or will not)

 

Prediction with no major Defensive injuries: 9-7 wildcard. Full season of Mike Brown 10-6

Prediction with major Defensive injuries: 6-10 #8 pick in the draft.

[nfoligno]

I agree w/ much of what you said, and have been saying similar for a while now. If this were a re-building year, it would mean to me blowing it up and building from the ground. That would put some of our veterans in line for a trade, rather than new deals. Like you, I think the team feels the D and STs are both strong and built for several years. On offense, we has a lot of work to do.

 

I have said this before, but go back to the year Orton started at QB. Our offense was about as bad as it gets that year, yet our D and STs not only kept us competitive, but actually pushed the team into the playoffs. I think the staff is looking at similar this year, and next. I think the staff is looking at the offense as a multi-year building program, and they are hoping the D and STs can keep us going until the O is capable.

 

W/ that said, while I agree on the players we will be drafting, I disagree w/ the idea none beyond our 1st round pick is likely to see much action. If we draft an OG w/in the first 3 rounds, I think he would have an excellent shot at starting. Metcalf, IMHO, will not make the 53 man roster. So Beekman will be a rookies only competition.

 

If we draft a RB in this range, I think he has a great shot at quickly coming in and getting some reps early on. I think most realize this is a make or break year for Benson w/ the Bears. Any RB they draft early, they are going to want to get reps in to develop him sooner and faster.

 

Similar at WR, if we draft one in this range. We have little on the roster now at WR, and if we draft one in the top 3 rounds, I think he will be getting some action. He won't start, or even be the #3 WR, but he will get plays and be given a chance to produce.

 

And if we draft Hester (FB), which i would love, I think he could beat out McKie.

 

Point is this. I agree this is a building year, but you hurt that building process by delaying the development of the rookie class. If this truly is a building year for the offense, you are FAR better served playing your rookies (and other youth on the team) now, letting them develop, and hasten their development.

 

As for how well we play, you argue injuries on D are key. Sure. I agree w/ that. But also key, IMHO, is Babich. I think his coaching of the defense, more than injuries, led to our defensive collapse last year. It was his first year running a defense. So to me, how good our defense depends more on how much Babich improves.

[madlithuanian]

Agreed. I think I used the term, re-build, but it really is a building year. (Can you re-build an O if you never had one?) Sorry...had to throw that out there.

 

I see us 8-8... I think the D and Hester keeps us close, but the O will disappoint. However, we we draft Mendenahall, it'll be 16-0.

 

I agree w/ much of what you said, and have been saying similar for a while now. If this were a re-building year, it would mean to me blowing it up and building from the ground. That would put some of our veterans in line for a trade, rather than new deals. Like you, I think the team feels the D and STs are both strong and built for several years. On offense, we has a lot of work to do.

 

I have said this before, but go back to the year Orton started at QB. Our offense was about as bad as it gets that year, yet our D and STs not only kept us competitive, but actually pushed the team into the playoffs. I think the staff is looking at similar this year, and next. I think the staff is looking at the offense as a multi-year building program, and they are hoping the D and STs can keep us going until the O is capable.

 

W/ that said, while I agree on the players we will be drafting, I disagree w/ the idea none beyond our 1st round pick is likely to see much action. If we draft an OG w/in the first 3 rounds, I think he would have an excellent shot at starting. Metcalf, IMHO, will not make the 53 man roster. So Beekman will be a rookies only competition.

 

If we draft a RB in this range, I think he has a great shot at quickly coming in and getting some reps early on. I think most realize this is a make or break year for Benson w/ the Bears. Any RB they draft early, they are going to want to get reps in to develop him sooner and faster.

 

Similar at WR, if we draft one in this range. We have little on the roster now at WR, and if we draft one in the top 3 rounds, I think he will be getting some action. He won't start, or even be the #3 WR, but he will get plays and be given a chance to produce.

 

And if we draft Hester (FB), which i would love, I think he could beat out McKie.

 

Point is this. I agree this is a building year, but you hurt that building process by delaying the development of the rookie class. If this truly is a building year for the offense, you are FAR better served playing your rookies (and other youth on the team) now, letting them develop, and hasten their development.

 

As for how well we play, you argue injuries on D are key. Sure. I agree w/ that. But also key, IMHO, is Babich. I think his coaching of the defense, more than injuries, led to our defensive collapse last year. It was his first year running a defense. So to me, how good our defense depends more on how much Babich improves.

[Mongo3451]

I agree with YOUR opinion regarding the rookies and their potential involvement. However, our staff’s track record does not reflect an inclination to do so. Also, would love to see Jacob Hester on the roster. With the amount of late picks we have, there is no reason why he should not chosen with one of our 5th’s. I think Babich was as lost as the people he reported to. No doubt he improves this year - IMO.

[brletich]

I agree with YOUR opinion regarding the rookies and their potential involvement. However, our staff’s track record does not reflect an inclination to do so. Also, would love to see Jacob Hester on the roster. With the amount of late picks we have, there is no reason why he should not chosen with one of our 5th’s. I think Babich was as lost as the people he reported to. No doubt he improves this year - IMO.

 

I disagree that we are reluctant to use rookies: Mark Bradley, Chris Harris, Nate Vasher, Danelle Manning...There are others, but I think they were forced into action by injuries, which Manning might have been also. The fact still remains that this staff has always been willing to use rookies, when they do not redshirt them that is...

[nfoligno]

I agree with YOUR opinion regarding the rookies and their potential involvement. However, our staff’s track record does not reflect an inclination to do so. Also, would love to see Jacob Hester on the roster. With the amount of late picks we have, there is no reason why he should not chosen with one of our 5th’s. I think Babich was as lost as the people he reported to. No doubt he improves this year - IMO.

 

One, I have to disagree w/ the staff not using rookies. While our staff has earned a rep of "red shirting" some rookies, that has only been w/ a few, while many more have played early on. I think fans get caught up in Beekman and Hass not playing, as well as the red shirts, but many rookies have seen the field.

 

2007

 

-Olsen may not have started, or played as much as we wanted, but he did play.

-Payne was slotted to play quite a bit, but went down w/ injury.

-McBride not only played, but started. And before you throw out his playing due to need, the staff could have played RMJ, but choose to go w/ the rookie.

-Graham played on STs, and Wolfe did see action too.

 

2006

 

-DM was used basically out of the gate.

-Hester took a lead role in return duties, and even saw time as a DB his rookie year.

-Anderson got a ton of time at DE as a rookie, and produced.

-DV was set to play a key role, but went down w/ injury.

 

2005

 

-Benson didn't start, but saw a ton of action as a rookie

-Orton started a ton as a rookie, though due in large part to the health of our other QBs.

-Chris Harris played a lot as a rookie too.

 

2004

 

-Harris started

-Tank either started, or played in the rotation.

-Vasher was our nickel, and I think got a couple starts too.

-Berrian, Krenzel and Marshall all played as rookies too.

 

So I think it is wrong to believe the staff doesn't play rookies. Not only has this staff played rookies, but done so even when veterans were ahead of them, as seen most recently w/ McBride.

 

Two. On Hester (FB), this would be huge for me. I simply am not impressed AT ALL w/ McKie, and feel upgrading our FB position could be as key to upgrading the run game as upgrading the OL.

 

Three. Glad you have no doubts about Babich improving. I have plenty.