Wesson44 Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 Gaines update The tight end has a Monday morning flight to Chicago to meet with the Bears' staff May 8, 2009, 12:33 AM By: Jeff Dickerson Updating our previous entry, both the Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune now report that Michael Gaines will indeed visit the Bears on Monday. Vaughn McClure of the Tribune notes that Gaines has a 6 a.m. flight out of Detroit, and that the tight end is leaning toward the Bears over the Jets. Gaines tells McClure that he was initially caught off guard when first contacted by Lovie Smith last Thursday. "I'm not going to lie, I was kind of shocked because of who I am,'' Gaines told the Tribune. "I'm a blocking tight end, and you all don't have tight end-issues in Chicago. You have [Greg] Olsen. You have [Desmond] Clark. You have a good corps of tight ends there. So to get the call, I was very surprised." It sounds like the Bears view Gaines as a potential contributor at multiple positions on offense. "Lovie sold me on the fact that he didn't see me as just a tight end, but as a fullback, too," said Gaines to McClure. "When I was with the Carolina Panthers, they moved me around. I was a fullback. I was on the line. They move me around so much and I blocked for so many different areas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 He's 6'4", 277, so it looks like we want more of a bigger blocking FB... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defiantgiant Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 He's 6'4", 277, so it looks like we want more of a bigger blocking FB... If they want to play him at fullback, I'm all for it. We could use more of an in-line blocker to pave the way for Forte. If they're looking at him as a tight end, I guess that means they're really giving up on Kellen Davis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 If anything, I think it shows that Lance Louis didn't do much during the mini camp to impress coaches, as he was being looked at in the same roles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemonej Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 If anything, I think it shows that Lance Louis didn't do much during the mini camp to impress coaches, as he was being looked at in the same roles. What you said and the fact that they miss John Gilmore more than they are willing to admit. In essence they chose Davis over Gilmore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixote Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 If anything, I think it shows that Lance Louis didn't do much during the mini camp to impress coaches, as he was being looked at in the same roles. I an guessing Olsen, Clark, & Davis remain our 3 TEs. Louis I think will be looked at as a developmental OLman If we sign Gaines I suspect it will be for FB & an occassional extra blocking TE in certain situations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoofHearted Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 I an guessing Olsen, Clark, & Davis remain our 3 TEs. Louis I think will be looked at as a developmental OLman If we sign Gaines I suspect it will be for FB & an occassional extra blocking TE in certain situations. Agreed on the first two counts, but I think both his time at FB and TE will be highly limited/situational. Not sure why we need another TE even though I'll admit our system loves it's edge blocking from the position like it loves pass catching from the FB. But hey, at least the blurb about him being used at FB shows me our staff finally realizes McKie can't be playing on the goaline. Now if they would just realize he shouldn't be playing ever. I hope it doesn't knock Kellen off the roster though, because despite his bad blocking, the guy showed a ton of potential as a pass catcher last PS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Agreed on the first two counts, but I think both his time at FB and TE will be highly limited/situational. Not sure why we need another TE even though I'll admit our system loves it's edge blocking from the position like it loves pass catching from the FB. But hey, at least the blurb about him being used at FB shows me our staff finally realizes McKie can't be playing on the goaline. Now if they would just realize he shouldn't be playing ever. I hope it doesn't knock Kellen off the roster though, because despite his bad blocking, the guy showed a ton of potential as a pass catcher last PS. Dez Clark is getting older, and Davis is the ideal replacement. To me this indicates we're eliminating the FB position, or at least having a TE play that FB spot. That makes all kinds of sense to me. Intead of carrying 3 TE's & McKie, we carry 4 TE's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixote Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Dez Clark is getting older, and Davis is the ideal replacement. To me this indicates we're eliminating the FB position, or at least having a TE play that FB spot. That makes all kinds of sense to me. Intead of carrying 3 TE's & McKie, we carry 4 TE's. Or, Conspiracy Theory no. 124525: We are preparing to trade Greg Olsen and our 2010 2nd round selection in the NFL draft for A. Boldin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoofHearted Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 To me this indicates we're eliminating the FB position, or at least having a TE play that FB spot. That makes all kinds of sense to me. Intead of carrying 3 TE's & McKie, we carry 4 TE's. If it means not having to see McKie waste a spot on the field, I guess I'm for it, but I'm still a big fan of the FB when you have an actual quality player back there. I find it highly doubtful though, that Turner would eliminate the traditional FB from his offense, because his playbook is designed for the heavy use of one. Even when he began using the 2 TE set a lot more often last season, Jason was still seeing th efield quite a bit. It wasn't until he went down that we pretty much went to 2 TE/TE in the backfield as FB. At 6'2" 275, I suppose he could play the backfield h-back role though (Yeah, he is actually 6'2", not his listed 6'4"). Even better if he lost 15 pounds, however doubtful that is, because he isn't the most fleet footed guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Or, Conspiracy Theory no. 124525: We are preparing to trade Greg Olsen and our 2010 2nd round selection in the NFL draft for A. Boldin. I'll laugh if this does happen... But than I will be sad once I realized we lost Olsen... but happy again once I realize that we have Q! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defiantgiant Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 If it means not having to see McKie waste a spot on the field, I guess I'm for it, but I'm still a big fan of the FB when you have an actual quality player back there. I find it highly doubtful though, that Turner would eliminate the traditional FB from his offense, because his playbook is designed for the heavy use of one. Even when he began using the 2 TE set a lot more often last season, Jason was still seeing th efield quite a bit. It wasn't until he went down that we pretty much went to 2 TE/TE in the backfield as FB. At 6'2" 275, I suppose he could play the backfield h-back role though (Yeah, he is actually 6'2", not his listed 6'4"). Even better if he lost 15 pounds, however doubtful that is, because he isn't the most fleet footed guy. There are FBs in the league close to Gaines' size: he might be less of an H-back and more of a jumbo fullback. I've mentioned Madison Hedgecock (6'3" 266 lbs.) already, but check out Sean McHugh: he's a 6'5" 265-pound former Lions tight end (sound familiar?) who the Steelers picked up and moved to fullback. He was their starting fullback from week 7 of last season onward, and it seems like that turned out pretty well for Pittsburgh. He definitely opened some running lanes for Willie Parker. If Gaines can be another McHugh at the fullback position, I'm all for getting the guy. He wasn't a great receiver as a tight end, but I feel like even a mediocre receiving TE will be more than adequate to catch little dump-off passes as a fullback. The Bears need to get better blocking up front for Forte; if this guy's an upgrade over Jason McKie, I say they go for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Or, Conspiracy Theory no. 124525: We are preparing to trade Greg Olsen and our 2010 2nd round selection in the NFL draft for A. Boldin. Horrible idea. Trade an up and coming TE for WR who's on the downside of his career, whines like a high school girl who got dumped at the prom, and wants more money on a contract he just signed a couple years ago (i.e. he's greedy). On top of that it's esentially giving up a 1st and 2nd Rd pick for Boldin which is even more than the Cards are asking for but I'm absolutely certain they'd make the deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Horrible idea. Trade an up and coming TE for WR who's on the downside of his career, whines like a high school girl who got dumped at the prom, and wants more money on a contract he just signed a couple years ago (i.e. he's greedy). On top of that it's esentially giving up a 1st and 2nd Rd pick for Boldin which is even more than the Cards are asking for but I'm absolutely certain they'd make the deal. Agreed that it's a horrible idea. (even though I don't believe it's actually Pix's idea) Olsen should catch 85-100 balls this year and go to the pro-bowl. I really look for more 2 TE sets this year. Now that we have Pace, Williams and Shaffer to shore up the bookends, we can actually deploy both TE's in routes to open up the playbook. That with Cutler mobility and cannon will go a long way in offsetting the lack of proven talent at WR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defiantgiant Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Horrible idea. Trade an up and coming TE for WR who's on the downside of his career, whines like a high school girl who got dumped at the prom, and wants more money on a contract he just signed a couple years ago (i.e. he's greedy). On top of that it's esentially giving up a 1st and 2nd Rd pick for Boldin which is even more than the Cards are asking for but I'm absolutely certain they'd make the deal. Yeah, it'd be an incredibly bad deal for both parties. The Cards' system hardly ever uses the TE as a receiver - they're almost exclusively blockers, and Olsen is a terrible blocker. The Cards would be getting a very poor fit for their offense, and we'd be exchanging this receiver: 6'5" 255 lbs., 25 years old, 4.45 in the 40 ...for this receiver: 6'1" 217 lbs., 29 years old, 4.71 in the 40 and losing a second-round pick, to boot. I was all for getting Boldin and I was happy that Jerry tried to move a second for him on draft day. He's a slow, reliable split end with a few good years left: a second-rounder seems like appropriate value. If we had picked up Boldin for our 2009 second, that would have been great. Giving up Olsen and a second would be insane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Gaines update The tight end has a Monday morning flight to Chicago to meet with the Bears' staff May 8, 2009, 12:33 AM By: Jeff Dickerson Updating our previous entry, both the Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune now report that Michael Gaines will indeed visit the Bears on Monday. Vaughn McClure of the Tribune notes that Gaines has a 6 a.m. flight out of Detroit, and that the tight end is leaning toward the Bears over the Jets. Gaines tells McClure that he was initially caught off guard when first contacted by Lovie Smith last Thursday. "I'm not going to lie, I was kind of shocked because of who I am,'' Gaines told the Tribune. "I'm a blocking tight end, and you all don't have tight end-issues in Chicago. You have [Greg] Olsen. You have [Desmond] Clark. You have a good corps of tight ends there. So to get the call, I was very surprised." It sounds like the Bears view Gaines as a potential contributor at multiple positions on offense. "Lovie sold me on the fact that he didn't see me as just a tight end, but as a fullback, too," said Gaines to McClure. "When I was with the Carolina Panthers, they moved me around. I was a fullback. I was on the line. They move me around so much and I blocked for so many different areas There trying to shore up all our weaknesses last year. Short yardage situations. Plus using 2 TEs sets, gives us one blocker and one pass catcher in that formation, more flexablity. He will help alot, and will block better than McKie and probably catch a few more balls out of the backfield. Excellilent idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defiantgiant Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 "I'm not going to lie, I was kind of shocked because of who I am,'' Gaines told the Tribune. "I'm a blocking tight end, and you all don't have tight end-issues in Chicago. You have [Greg] Olsen. You have [Desmond] Clark. You have a good corps of tight ends there. So to get the call, I was very surprised." It sounds like the Bears view Gaines as a potential contributor at multiple positions on offense. "Lovie sold me on the fact that he didn't see me as just a tight end, but as a fullback, too," said Gaines to McClure. "When I was with the Carolina Panthers, they moved me around. I was a fullback. I was on the line. They move me around so much and I blocked for so many different areas" I was just re-reading this part of the article. I love that he's already got some fullback experience. We need a real mauling in-line blocker at both TE and fullback (in my mind, McKie and Des Clark are both adequate at blocking, but nothing more) and it sounds like Gaines could be both. This addition should help us out immensely in those goal-line and short-yardage situations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Agreed. A true blocker has been needed and he appears to fit that role. I hope they do limit his touches though. He's been a bit of a fumbler. Didn't he caugh up the ball in Soldier last year and helped us seal the game? I was just re-reading this part of the article. I love that he's already got some fullback experience. We need a real mauling in-line blocker at both TE and fullback (in my mind, McKie and Des Clark are both adequate at blocking, but nothing more) and it sounds like Gaines could be both. This addition should help us out immensely in those goal-line and short-yardage situations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Anyone else think that an improved blocking TE/FB also has the ability to make Wolfe a much more effective runner? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 I don't see why not. Although I think a playcall from the OC that isn't completely moronic would work even better. I think we all know what I'm referring to... Anyone else think that an improved blocking TE/FB also has the ability to make Wolfe a much more effective runner? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 I don't see why not. Although I think a playcall from the OC that isn't completely moronic would work even better. I think we all know what I'm referring to... If you're going to slam Wolfe in to a bigger D-Line, having a bigger guy in front of him to absorb the first blows might actually make it work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Let's not give the brain trust that much credit! ...yet! If you're going to slam Wolfe in to a bigger D-Line, having a bigger guy in front of him to absorb the first blows might actually make it work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Who's gonna be the 25 on O in the final roster? QB: Cutler | Hanie | Basanez RB: Forte | Jones | Wolfe | Peterson FB: McKie | Gaines (TE) TE: Olsen (WR) | Clark | Davis WR: Hester | Bennett | Iglesias | Davis | Knox OT: Pace (LT) | Williams (RT) | Shaffer OG: Omiyale (LG) | Garza | Buenning | Beekman C: Kreutz Works for me. Hopefully we just stack the practice squad with D and O lineman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoofHearted Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Get rid of Bas, and reevaluate AP (yes I said it). I realize AP is a staff favorite, and a good ST leader, but that's not so irreplaceable especially with a fourth HB. To tell you the truth J Will, Wolfe, Izzy, Roach, and Larocque all looked much better on ST last year, IMO, so it's not like losing Dejo who was the clear ST ace. Now we added Freeman, and one of HH or Roach should be constants there, Kellen did an impressive job taking up lanes, as did Steltz, there's countless options from DB to use as gunners, and we just picked another good ST'er in Gaines. So, if you ask me, I have no problem letting AP go, even though I know our staff will probably never make that happen. We could very easily go with 23 on O, but if I was forced to take 25, I'd go with what you have minus Bas, swapped for another OL or maybe sixth WR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 You'll rarely ever see a team go into a season with no less than 24 on one side of the ball. During the season the numbers will change based on need and injuries, but usually going into the season, most teams have 25 O, 25 D, and 3 ST (even though several of the players on O and D are ST players mainly). We are definitely going to carry 3 QB's, and Basanez looks like an almost lock for the 3 spot. As for AP, I'm not big on him, but we all know with Lovie as the HC, AP will be on the team. And it's never a terrible thing to have 4 RB's with the amount of injuries that happen at that position. Just look at Denver last year. They had like 7 RB's injured. 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.