BearFan PHX

Pix, What a great post! There are a few more points one can make from the chart too. First off, you put a value of 3,000 points on Cutler, as a first over all pick. I would argue that a proven Pro Bowl QB is worth more than ANY ONE pick in the draft. Further, since we don't have to pay him his signing bonus, he is worth even more. So for you to put a value on him of ONLY 3,000 points is WAY low. Good! If we show that we got a great deal even if he was only worth that 3,000 - then we got an even better deal if he was worth more, which he MUST be. We gave: This years #1, pick 18, which is worth 900 points. We also gave a 3rd rounder, pick 84 (I think) which was worth 170 points. We gave next year's #1 too. They always devalue next year's picks, so to say it might be worth the 10th pick at 1300 points is WAY overkill. Again, let's use your number, but certainly, the deal was significantly sweeter for us. Had you guessed the 20th pick instead for example, you'd only be talking about 850 points. And that's without the devaluation for it being next year's draft. We also go their 5th rounder, I don't know which one it is, but the worst one is 28 points. Again, using numbers that make the deal look worse than it really is, I'll go with 28. So we end up with Orton + 900 + 170 + 1300 and then subtract 28 points for the 5th rounder. By that math, we paid Orton + 2342 If you assume that Cutler was worth 3000 points, then Orton was worth 658 points, or the 29th pick in the draft. In other words, ANGELO GOT A FIRST ROUND PICK FOR ORTON. Think of it this way: 1) Angelo trades Orton for a low FIRST round pick: #29. He's a genius GM just for that, right? 2) Angelo then packages four of our picks: The 29th he just got for Orton (640), our 18th (900), our 3rd rounder (170) and next year's first rounder (realistically anywhere from 1300 points down to 600 THEN, and even LESS now because it's a year away) for the first pick overall (3000) and a 5th rounder. If we DO make our next year's pick worth all 1300 points, then this was an even trade on points. Whatever you think it could be discounted from there is either value that Angelo took from the table (we didn't have to pay) OR means that he got even more for Orton - either way, another brilliant GM moment. 3) Angelo then turns around and picks Jay Cutler, a Pro Bowl QB with 3 years of experience with the first pick. We all know first round picks are risky. Hitting it right is SO important - another great GM move by Angelo. 4) Finally, Angelo finds a loophole that allows him to sign this first round draft pick without his Singing Bonus counting against our cap! He manages to sign the first pick overall with no signing bonus at ALL. This means you can cut him any time with no cap hit, and it means he is VERY cheap under our cap. This is GM move of epic proportions. Also, all of this assumes that Cutler is worth only 3,000 points., Anything more is ALSO value Angelo didn't have to pay. Guys. This was a MASTERFUL move. Anyone who says we overpaid is not understanding that Denver got robbed because they screwed up, and we swooped in to pick up the pieces. Pix - thanks for coming up with the idea to analyze this by draft value! I thought it was interesting to then figure Orton's worth. Wow. Angelo got a First rounder for him. And in the real world, where our next years first isn't worth anywhere near 1300 points (I thinks its worth about 500) and Orton is only worth about 400 points at BEST (high 2nd round), and No-Signing-Bonus-Cutler is worth easily more than 4500 points, Angleo got Cutler for at LEAST 2500 points less than he's worth. THAT is like creating the 2nd pick overall in the draft out of thin air, and then using it to select Cutler. WOW.

WR: Hester TE: Olsen OT: Pace OG: Williams OC: Kreutz OG: Omiyale OT: Shaffer TE: Clark WR: Bennett QB: Cutler HB: Forte Big winners: Forte, Olsen, Bennett, the Defense & Williams' development under Pace Go ahead and play with the OL if you like, you know Lovie and Ron will.

Guys, we do this every year. We get impatient, while Angelo waits for value. He is a good poker player. He takes risks when he feels it's a good idea, and certainly, he has lost his share of those gambles too. But when it comes to value - be it trading down, or later round picks, Angelo has shown to be a shrewd character. Wait until camp starts, then look at the roster he built. There's no need to go out and make a big money splash if you don't believe fully in the talent that's there, and can wait for something similar at a lesser price. From the cheap lurking seats...

Whoever is playing the Lions? In all seriousness, I predicted 9-7 or 10-6 with a first round playoff loss at the beginning of the season. That's pretty much how it's been although I have been disappointed by the defense, and pleasantly surprised by the offense. it's a crime to go 10-6 and miss the playoffs though - that's just weird - when was the last time a 10-6 team didn't make the payoffs?

Theoretically, if Williams does come back later in the season to help us, at which position would you play him? I know the guy is a LT, and if you have him in camp, that's the only place you put him - you let him learn, make his mistakes etc. and become a LT. But if you get him late in the season, making a playoff run, I wonder if that's a good idea. Byt hen, you don't want to have problems protecting the QBs blind side. You don't have reps and games to spend. But Williams is a talent. I wonder if putting him in at one of the guard positions gives a boost to the running game as we round the bend? Having an OT outside of him might be like giving him training wheels. it would lessen the impact of a breakdown, or rather a schooling in NFL pass rush. You know every new OL has to learn those things under fire, and i would have started Williams at OLT at the beginning of the season if it had been my call, and he was healthy. But given the situation and timing, would you put him in at OG if we're making a serious run at the playoffs? That do you think? OLT or bust, or some kind of rookie half year OG experiment?

Don't forget to consider the scheme. I think Buddy Ryan's play design and play calling were simply on another level from what we have now. Part of it was that he was just a great DC, but part of it was that the NFL had never seen some of the pressure tactics that Ryan employed before. In 1984, many pass plays had no hot read or protection scheme for handling the blitz. They weren't able to adjust on first downs to multiple blitzers, and we did it all the time. That put the offenses into a hole, and into a passing situation, where again pressure was appropriate. Only Dan Marino's super fast release was able to balance the 1985 Bears' pressure package. Today, every pass play has both route and protection options for the QB to call at the line. That is because of the 1985 Bears' scheme.

I read this the other way - I think starting Orton and then Rex the first week and then switching it up the second is giving an advantage to Orton. Assuming they are equal in talent, then Orton looks like he developed, and Rex looks like he regressed given the change in quality of opposition. I think the staff is giving Orton the edge, but Grossman has a chance to win out IF he performs. He sure didn't last week against the 2nd string.

We have a paid scouting staff on salary. What else DO they do but scout possible talent? Just because they're looking at someone doesn't mean they want him - maybe they want to be doubly sure that they DON'T want him - you know "due diligence" and all that? Angelo has been well known for, and pretty successful at filling out the depth of the roster. Maybe this is all about looking at Simms, Ragone and Hanie for 3rd string, and next years possible QB situation? So let's not jump to conclusions just because we have guys there scouting. Until we have answers at the QB position, I think they should LOOK at everything.

I don't think that's how it works Pix - the team that claims him must add him to THEIR active roster. There is no right of first refusal for the team that had him on their practice squad.

Sorry, but it is ridiculous to think that if we simply knew the terminology that we would be better at this than the pros. It always looks like that from the outside. Those without technique assume that the technique is the hardest part. Those that actually acquire the technique are in a place to understand the deeper art to it. Everyhting looks easy from the outside. So, yeah - I understand a fan's ego - but that's all it is.

Actually 3rd and long is an excellent time to play zone. there is a lot of ground underneath that you can give up, and then multiple tacklers converge before the first down. If guys didn't execute, then fine (I didn't see the game) but three deep zone is exactly the right call for 3rd and 15. Also, you have to understand that whatever coverage we're running, our defense is predicated on the D line getting penetration. This is training camp - guys have no legs and so the 1 gap defense we play will look bad while the guys are tired. That's why depth on our DL is so important to us in the season too, btw, and why guys like Bauzin or whomever are more valuable on our team than they would be on a 2 gap team. Hence, JA's attention to the DL on draft day. This is the same stuff we read about the Bears (since Lovie brought the 1 gap) in the early preseason every year. Relax, or if you need to worry - do it about the OL - THAT is a problem!

I think the idea is to give Forte the start, and have KJ ready in the wings for when he hits the rookie wall around week 10. I predict we'll see KJ getting snaps in games at or around week 6. If Forte struggles, or KJ shines, all bets are off of course. But the acquisition of KJ, given that he's injured, and needs time to learn blitz pickup responsibilities, is about the second half of the season. Forte will get his shot early and often.

Very interesting idea. And while I don't have anywhere near enough information to offer an actual answer... Everything I've read says he's a quick athletic finesse pass protecting type who doesn't run block that well. I think that doesn't sound much like a running team's LG, but again, what do I know about it? Nothing.

This is almost right. I'll bet that after 2006, if Jerry Angelo had a straight up decicion he would have kept Jones and dumped Benson too. But he was way past that decision point. Angelo made the decision the year he drafted Benson. Once he had done that, and committed those cap dollars, he couldn't cut Benson and afford to keep Jones. At that point, Jones hadn't shown what he could do yet. So yes, Angelo's crystal ball didn't work way back when, but let's not confuse that with making a bonehead decision in 2006, when resigning Jones and keeping or cutting Benson was impossible cap-wise. Let's instead give Angelo credit for quietly negotiating a way for Jones to stay and not hold out for the previous season which brought us to the Super Bowl.

I think they're already using him for the cover of Grand Theft Auto V?

To an earlier discussion about athletes "whining" about getting more money, it was asserted that athletes demand renegotiation when they are doing well, but that teams never ask for any back (or can't) when they aren't. here is an example where they did. Also in Urlacher's statement during his holdout he said: “’But this is the NFL, and if I’d signed it and I’d played like (expletive), they’d have cut me or tried to get me to take less. In my mind, there’s no difference. If they can ‘break’ a contract, I have a right to ask for more if I play well enough.’” Only the signing bonus is guaranteed, so yes, in the NFL, both sides have leverage beyond the signing of a contract, and both do ask for more or less depending on performance.

So, Koren Robinson was cut by the Packers today. Is anyone interested in having him on our squad?

Exactly. You and I seem to see the all Bears' moves the same way.

I have to agree that this isn't so much about knowing that Steltz is going to be a starter, as it is about other concerns. First and foremost, its about roster slots. They KNOW Arch isn't going to be the guy. That much is certain. They do the math, and they realize that they would have to cut someone they want to keep in order to have Arch around as some kind of insurance policy. The thing is, Arch isn't worth much if you do need him, so they pretty much know he isn't going to be on the squad. Therefore, they know they will release him, even if Steltz proves not ready to step up this year, they aren't going to cut any of these guys to keep Arch. The second thing then, is when to cut him. His contract isn't very rich, there's no real cap concern about keeping him until June, and as it has been said before, Angelo has a history of being fair with players, which is decent, and helps us in the free agency market. Lastly, Arch may not find another team. If he doesn't catch on somewhere, or if he is out of the league next year or something, I wouldn't be surprised to see Lovie want him as a position coach. He's a smart player, who understands the scheme. His body just won't get there.

I'd love to hear him say that for himself, especially in time for the chat room this weekend. I have no desire to be dealing with this crap all during the draft too. It would be nice to shake hands and end this.

The question here isn't simply whether Alexander in his current state is better than Benson. He might be. The real question is whether you are SURE that Alexander can be the answer long term. I think we all think that we can't be sure of that. The reason I say this is because keeping Benson, Alexander and Wolfe means that there is no room on the roster for a young developmental RB to replace Alexander / Benson next year. If your idea is to simply replace Benson with Alexander, that IS possible, but it will cost you a cap hit to cut Benson, and I doubt that the upgrade to Alexander is worth that much. The main idea here is that Benson has a year left on his deal, so whoever takes that third slot is his eventual replacement. You can't make that Alexander unless you know that he's the man for you for the next three or four seasons, and I don't think even the most optimistic of us can say that. So, while Alexander might be a better choice right now than Benson, if you were picking teams, and had to fill the slot of 'short term vet while the young guys learns', that isn't really the option. We already have Benson signed, so you'd have to really believe in Alexander. No, the more likely scenario is a young RB behind Benson. Try to get the rookie(s) comfortable on the OL, and play to build a winner for the 2009 season and beyond. Keep in mind that the reason we are here is that last year, having just lost the superbowl, we risked taking the same team, as it aged, back for one more shot. This was a sound strategy, but it just didn't work out. Grossman regressed, and the OL didn't make it through the year without getting too old. Had we only gone to the playoffs in 2006, we might have spent picks on OL and WR, and not picked role players to help out immediately as Partiot-esque 'role players'. Then again, we did take Beekman and Olsen, and they should be a help this year.

OK, good. And if we see each other in the chat room, will we be friendly, or does this argument spill over into every other topic as well? Personally, I'd prefer to compartmentalize it. I would like to think that the Jason in this thread is a different guy than the Jason in any other. If you're up for that, I would be too.

I guess not...

So ARE you interested in proceeding with a handshake and some kind of mutual respect or not?

That would be great. Do you really think its possible? I would like to, so I promise to try. Hopefully Jason will get on board too?