nfoligno

No question. I mentioned the union will want to take any "savings" and will likely try to increase the salary floor and/or up the veteran minimum contracts. But from what I have heard from Goodell and other owners, it doesn't sound like they are opposed to this. It isn't that the owners are trying to save money off this, but more they are trying to limit the money thrown at unproven players.

I would say Bullocks is a lock to go, and may not even make it to camp. After that, I think it is between Steltz and Payne.

One. I never cared for Harris, but a key reason was he was a SS we were playing at FS. That is something I think some forget. We started playing Harris at FS, and that is when he was looking like crap. Or when Brown was playing FS, there were many times we played Brown, our FS, in the box and dropped Harris back deep. On paper, the depth chart may read one thing, but the way we used the players was different. Remember, Lovie thinks the safeties are interchangable. Harris sucked playing centerfield. Personally, I was never a fan either way. Even at SS, I felt he was late on reads/breaks and dragged down players from behind rather (after a good pickup) rather than knock them back. I agree many were happy to see Harris go. At the same time, I don't think many expected our safety situation to become as bad as it has, nor did most expect us to go through so many players trying to find a replacement. I still don't think Harris is that great, but he is better than what we have. While I think some of the players we have could play SS, if we intend to lineup a rookie at FS, having a veteran at strong is a better way to go. Two, as for giving up Williams, the staff didn't really seem to think a ton of him at SLB, and thought of him more as a WLB, which is a position not likely to need a replacement for a while. If Williams is not going to do anything but play special teams and ride the pine, may as well get something for him. He would be set to be an UFA after this year, so better to lose him and get something back.

One. I think I read it is somewhere around picks 12 - 15 where you see the end of the ridiculous contracts. That is why most talks I have read regarding a rookie wage scale revolve around the initial dozen picks. You don't need to set rules for all picks as the rest fall into place after these. Two. It sounds like the rookie wage scale is something both sides actually agree on. Union doesn't want to talk about it too much as it is a bargaining chip, but the union represents veterans, not unsigned draft prospects. The union will likely push to raise the floor by the amount teams will save from the cap (or something to that effect) to make sure the money is still spent, but in the veterans pockets rather than the rookies. Sucks to be next years #1 pick (if all this plays out) as he will about cry when he see's his contract and compares it to Staffords.

I don't mind if he doesn't get picks, but I don't really want a guy who looks (first) to make a big hit either. I want a guy who tries to make a play on the ball. It doesn't bother me if he doesn't come away with it, so long as he prevents the other guy from getting it. Ints are so often talked about for DBs, but I think PDs are as important, if not more so.

Understood, but there is another way of looking at this. Lets be honest for a moment. Regardless how you feel or what you say about Beekman, the staff just doesn't love the idea of starting him. The first year he started, the ONLY reason he did was due to several other players going down with injury. He was not going to even be allowed an opportunity to compete at OG until there were some injuries that forced the move. Then he starts that year, and while I though he did "okay" the staff was pretty set on finding a replacement. As bad as Omiyale played, the staff really struggled to bench him, and even after they did, they soon gave the job back to him over Beekman. To me, Beekman is similar to Graham, or even to Adams. Graham got to start his 2nd year, and did okay, but the staff just never seemed to like him, and this past year, he was not even given an opportunity. I remember in camp how players who didn't even make the team were getting reps over him. Then there is Adams. Man, this guy has never done anything but provide solid and steady play. Rarely spectacular, but solid. Yet the only time he gets a look is when other teams the staff pushes to the front utterly fail. We can talk about Beekman, but IMHO, the staff just doesn't care for him and want to replace him. I do hear you though. Regardless who we sign, if that player doesn't earn it, he should not be on the field. At the same time, I just feel we need to do more to improve our OL. Right now, we are likely to start either Beekman or Louis, which I would not call much of a competition. If we don't add Faneca, are we not making a similar mistake? Beekman is going to likely start, whether he earns the job or not, simply because we have no other options. Is that really better than if we hired a veteran who was handed the job? Seems like about the same problem, but for me, I see more potential OL improvement if we add Faneca.

I agree change is necessary, and think it will happen. What I am not sure I agree with is the idea of 3 year deals. Thing is, it often takes 2 to 3 years for players to develop in the NFL. Players seem to develop faster in the NBA. But if a player takes 2 or 3 years to develop in the NFL, then you really are not getting much value for that top pick if you have to re-sign him the first time he plays at a high level. The rookie salaries are going to be reduced, but they are still going to be significant. I just can't see limiting contracts to 3 year deals when it often takes that long for players to develop in the NFL, especially when you are talking about QBs who often sit the first year or so.

Totally agree that Lovie has always said the two safeties are interchangable, but that is simply not true. We continually pickup in-the-box safeties, and then wonder why they lack coverage skills. While I do not know enough specifically about Wright, I agree that so many of the drafted players are too similar. You mention Steltz, Payne and Gray. I would add Afalava, Harris and Todd Johnson to that list. I disagree with your comments about the DEs, as I really don't see the similarities. Haynes was about as far removed from that pass rush specialist group as you can get. He was drafted for Jauron and Blache, but then we immediatly changed schemed and he didn't fit. He was more of a power DE that could (theoretically) stop the run and could may some plays in the pass rush. He was more like Phillip Daniels. Wootten, while I don't really agree with the pick, is a player with huge upside, but also huge bust potential. Not sure why you say he can't rush the passer. Injury killed his college career, but prior to the injury, as I understand it, he was considered a 1st round prospect due in large part to his ability to rush the passer. Angelo has taken risks drafting players who fell in the draft due to red flags (character or injury) and this kid would fall into that category, but I would not compare him to Bazuin. Those three DEs are VERY different. Finally, you say we should have done whatever necessary to move up for Allen. He was the 5th pick in the 2nd round. Do you know what it would take to move up that far? Forget giving up this years draft. That wouldn't get close. We would have had to start giving away future picks too. Honestly, it may have cost us our 2nd round pick next year. The only S I think that 5th could have helped us get would have been Burnett, who I read Angelo was high on. But Allen was simply out of reach w/o mortaging future drafts. So I agree 100% about the FS/SS issue, and have been saying as much for years myself. Disagree w/ the listed DEs as examples and disagree we had a shot at Allen.

I love the idea, just don't see Lovie doing this. Adams is a similar player, though most would say Henderson is better. But the point is, Lovie has only played Adams due to others failing to step up. Lovie just doesn't like to play DL who can't rush the passer. Personally, I love the idea of having one big boy inside, but that just isn't Lovie.

Faneca and Beekman are near opposites. Faneca is struggling some in pass protection, but was still solid in run blocking. TJ and the rest did very well running betwen Faneca and (I think) Ferguson. Beekman did okay in pass protection, but was simply weak in terms of run blocking. I would rather have Faneca at this point. I think Cutler can deal with the pressure when Faneca allows it (and make no mistake, it is nothing as bad as Omiyale or Pace). but we need a player who can open holes, and that is Faneca. And as I have argued in the past also, having a player like Faneca will help Williams. Ferguson's play improved once Faneca arrived, and Ferguson often points to Faneca as a key factor in his improvement. I think Williams could develop far better lining up next to Faneca than he would next to Beekman.

How did you come to the decision that Pace and Flozell were done but Faneca's not? I'm wondering because I loved the Pace signing. to start with, based on my eyes. I do not pretend to watch every team out there, but: I saw a lot of Pace due to having Steven Jackson on my FF team, and watched his awful play. You could see him play higher, which usually indicates a player who can no longer bend their knees very well. He was slow off the snap, and would simply get beaten up. He also seemed to miss a lot of time due to injuries. The older a player gets the more often they are injured and the slower to recover. My opinion was solidified when reading the opinion of others. The group of FAs was pretty weak last year (often is at OT) and yet there was so little interst in his HOF LT. Only two other teams showed any interest in Pace (I remember Baltimore was one) and even Balt said they were interested only as a RT, and even then, he would not be given the job. We were the only team that felt he could not only play, but play LT. For the record, it wasn't that I hated the idea of adding Pace. My issues with his addition were (a) I did not want him to play LT. If he were signed to play RT, fine, but I argued against the idea of moving Williams to the right side to make room for Pace. I felt Pace was done as a LT and Williams was an awful fit on the right side. ( I wanted to draft OL, and I knew that if we added Pace, we would ignore OL in the draft. Flozell. Again, its the eyeball test. Living in Dallas, I watch plenty of Flozell, as well as hear plenty about him. He was just awful for Dallas last year. He was as much the joke of Dallas fans that Omiyale is to Chicago fans. Flozell was not just an awful player, but also one that constantly was flagged for penalties. Players who suck tend to "cheat" a bit. They try to come out of the snap a second sooner, or grab a handful of jersey. That was Flozell. Honestly, if you lived here and heard half of the comments about Flozell, you would not have to ask why I feel the way I do. On Faneca, once again, I saw a good amount of Jets games. Frankly, I just enjoyed watching Sanzhez as much as anything. Faneca did have some trouble in pass protection at times, yet I would still point out he was blocking for a rookie, and Sanchez too often was the problem. He would hold the ball too long (for which the coaches got on him earlier in the year) or he would move in the pocket right into a defender. I am not absolving Faneca. His play in this area was not as good as it once was. At the same time, I just do not believe his play fell off the cliff the way I have seen from Pace or Adams. The cliff may be on the horizon, but I think he still has another year or two of solid play. Last week I said the Bears would get a veteran OG. You asked who that'd be since none are available. Faneca! I'd have said that a week ago but was busy My eyes are correctly rolling

I read on PFT where they talked about a post-draft Q&A w/ Goodell, where he talked about how teams would spend $600m in guaranteed dollars on draft picks this year, and that half (or more) would be busts and thus better than $300m would be wasted money. He pointed to Stafford specifically and talked about how Stafford would get between $40 and $45m guaranteed, yet has never stepped onto a NFL field, much less proven himself. It really is a joke. An unproven rookie drafted at the top of the 1st round is going to be amont the top paid players at his position, if not the top paid, and yet he has proven nothing. Manning, Brady and the like should be the top paid QBs in the game. Not some kid who has yet to throw his first NFL pass.

Pace was a bad signing, but I don't think Faneca is the same. When we signed Pace, most in the league believed he was done. As I recall, only two other teams showed any interest, and that was only at RT. We were the only team that felt he could not only still play, but still play LT. Faneca plays a different position. Decline at OG is not as noticable as at OT, much less LT. Also, Faneca did play well last year. Pass blocking was not as good, though protecting a rookie QB, much of their OL "looked" weaker in that area. But his run blocking was still solid. I think Faneca would be far more like when we signed R.Brown. He isn't a long term solution, but a solid short term fix.

I'm sorry, but there is something a tad wrong there if it shows Omiyale only allowed 2 sacks. Also, while his pass protection may have dropped some, I believe his run blocking was still very good. At the end of the day, I would far rather have a pro bowl veteran like Faneca lining up next to Williams than Beekman. Nothing against Beekman, but I just do not see him helping Williams development, yet I do see that from Faneca. It isn't like I just want to add any veteran OL out there. I was dead against adding Pace, and spoke out against Flozell when he was cut by Dallas. But in Faneca, I see a player more like R.Brown who still has something to offer and could bring stability to the left side of the OL, ugrading our OG position and aiding the development of Williams.

Fanace was good last year. Everything I read was he was cut due to 2010 salary.

I would be all over this. Fanace would be like when we added R.Brown. He woudl upgrade our OG position, and just as important, his addition could be key in the development of Williams. Having a solid veteran like Faneca could really help Williams transition at LT.

No argument. My point was not specific to Ben, but to the prior statement that Goodell tends to jump ahead of the legal system. Defiant said he agreed w/ Goodell this time, but wasn't as on board with other times Goodell acts before the legal system can play out. I was talking more in general as to that point than specific to Ben.

I hear you on the idea of Goodell waiting, but has there been an occasion when he has suspended a player who was later shown to be innocent? I ask because, while he does for some players hand down suspensions before any legal issues are resolved, it seems like there is always additional reasons/factors involved. Goodell seems to have a team of investigators going over the details of each incident. Further, I believe he personally has a sit down w/ the player before any action is taken. For some players though, I think Goodell believes in his mind that regardless of how the police/da move forward, the NFL can't simply turn a blind eye. I think there is also a level of knowing the reality of the legal system. If you are rich, you can often get off. Some of these small town DAs will avoid charges because, and this is sad, but they can't afford to try a player/person who has high dollar attorneys that can extend a case for years. At the end of the day, I just can't really think of a situation where Goodell came down on a player who was later shown to be free and clear, not just of the charges, but of the allegations as a whole.

Before anyone gets their panties in a wad, I would point out this involves the personnal conduct policy, which the bears have come up against before, and could one day again, and thus can be argued this is Bears related. There will be those who say if Ben isn't convicted (or even charged) Goodell should not do anything, but I disagree. Especially in a criminal case like rape, it is very difficult to prove guilt. Look at past cases that hit public like this, and often the victim becomes the accuses. She is called a whore or whatever. Anyway, it isn't unusual for a case like this not to make it to court due to how difficult it is to prove. With that said, there seems to be a lot of evidence and testimony against Ben. Further, this is the 2nd allegation of a similar nature against him, which doesn't help. From what I have read, it doesn't seem contested that (a) Ben was paying for drinks for under age girls. ( The girl in question was drunk © Ben had sex with her in a public place. It is in question whether that sex was consented, but I don't know if that matters (for the purpose of this discussion). Providing alcohol to an under-age girl is illegal. Having sex, consentual or not, with a drunk girl is against the law. Sex in public is against the law. There are plenty of questions which will never be known due to the he said/she said nature, but regardless of that, there seemed to be plenty to level a hard suspension at Ben. Further, I have yet to hear that Ben is fighting the suspension. If Ben was so innocent, and all allegations were bogus, would Ben so easily accept this punishment?

Sorry, but this assumes all those passes go to these players, which I doubt seriously happens. You leave out Kevin Smith who had 40 catches. And while they added Sheffler, I doubt Pettigrew leaves the picture. Also not factored are (a) their OL has not been improved that much and ( we added Peppers. Theoretically, we should be able to apply more pressure, which in turn should negate their ability to pass the rock. Further, we also get back urlacher and Pisa. So lets see. They added Burleson and Sheffler, and we add Peppers, Urlacher and Pisa. I think we come out better here.

First, why are you comparing Scheffler, at TE to Northcutt, a WR? Even if you want to say he was the 3rd option, I would argue that was still Petigrew, who may have had 5 fewer catches, but also missed the last 6 games. When talking about Sheffler, I think you have to look at the other TEs on the Lions roster, who actually played pretty well last year. Det had a trio of TEs that actually played pretty well. Maybe Sheffler is an upgrade to any of them, though I am not even certain about that, but I am not sure he is that great of an upgrade. As for the WRs, I am not trying to say Johnson or Northcutt were any good, and yes, Burleson is an upgrade, but if what you have is total crap, just because you upgrade doesn't mean it is a player I fear. Look at the bears last year. I think any would agree Bennett was a significant upgrade over Booker, yet would Bennett be a player you fear or worry about? Burleson is an upgrade, but still not a player I worry about. If Bowman can't handle him, then the problem is not the weapons Det has but who we have to start because Bowman is going to face MUCH better talent than that. Back to Sheffler for a moment. I would also point out that while they get Sheffler, we also get back Urlacher and Pisa. I'll take that matchup. At the end of the day, did Det upgrade their arsenal? Yes. But is it an upgrade that worries me? Nope. Especially when I look at (a) their OL which still sucks and ( their run game which still sucks. Calvin will always be a player to respect as he is awesome, but I just don't believe their additions really change that much. Their #2 WR is better, but still not one I fear. Their TE may be better, but again, still not one I really fear. I would point to the other side of the ball as an example. They added Vanden Brosch, who is a good DT and w/o question an upgrade to what they had, but he is no longer a player that really worries other teams. He is an upgrade, but just not a good enough player to worry that much about. If they had added Holmes to play opposite Calvin, now that would be another story, but while Burleson is an upgrade, I still just do not see him as the upgrade necessary to worry about. If we can't cover him, then we have bigger issues.

At the end of the day, I think you simply have a higher opinion of Burleson than I do. In 7 seasons, he once hit 1,000 yards (barely) and that was back in 2004 with Minny. Since then he has been little more than a disappointment. Even take a look at last year. Sure, he put up a respectable 63 for over 800 yards, but it took over 100 passes to get him to that mark. As you have argued in the past, if you force feed the ball to a player, they will end up with inflated stats. So when you throw out there other WRs like Bryant and Northcutt and call them scrubs, I would simply argue Burleson is barely above this group. As for Sheffler, I would argue they already had solid contributions from their TEs. Their rookie had 30 for 346, and he missed basically the final 6 games. 30 catches in the first 10 games of his rookie season is pretty dang good. Heller and Fitzsimmons add in another 37 catches for about 440 yards. So while Sheffler is a good TE (though I still think over rated) they already had very solid production for the TEs they had. Sheffler "might" be an upgrade, but that much of one. At the end of the day, it comes back to the OL IMHO, and they simply have not done a whole lot there. Stafford was only sacked 24 times, but had to run for his life often, throw it away or throw under pressure (part of the reason for the 20 picks). I have argued for years that you can have great weapons, but if your OL sucks, those weapons do you little service. Especially a speedster like burlson who will not have time to run a downfield route before Stafford is under pressure. Further, what have they done to help their dreadful run game? Nadda. This offense was near the bottom of the league in passing, rushing and scoring. Sorry, but the additions of Burleson and Sheffler simply don't do it for me.

Always remember. I thought Smith sucked even the year we went to the SB. I was ripped then for stating my believe that we went to the SB in spite of Lovie. My opinion sure as hell has not gotten better since then. My above arguments are more in general than specific. I do not care for the idea of a micro-managing HC. That doesn't mean he never offers input, direction or even flat out orders, but by and large the HC needs to have some trust in his assistants, especially when talking about the one on the side of the ball the HC knows the least. When that trust fails, it isn't simply time to make a suggestion, but a personnel change. Again, this is a broad and general belief. When it comes to Lovie, feel free to blame him for everything from the development of a WR to the cost of beer at the stadium. Works for me. I never wanted Lovie, and still can't stand him.

To an extent, I agree, but would add, - Our defense, the area in which Lovie was supposedly so knowledgable about, sucked (IMHO) worse than the offense. If he can't even take care of the side of the ball he knows the most, how the hell do you expect him to be able to take care of the offense too. - Its easy to look in hindsight and say we should have done this or that at this point or that point. but in real time, it isn't so black and white. I mean, your saying he should have stepped in w/ Shea, an OC who was in his first and only season w/ the Bears. Especially w/ a new coach (Shea) new system, new players, etc, things take time. How soon is Lovie supposedly to step in and say we need to change? Or think more recent. Last year, it was said prior to the season the OL would need time to come together, and more specifically, Omiyale would need time. He sucked, but Angelo signed him and all knew (similar to a rooke) he would need time. He got some, didn't get better, and was benched. You can argue that should have happened quicker, but how much? At the end of the day, I read your comments and you paint the picture of a real micromanager. What is the point of having all those coaches if the HC is not going to allow them to do their jobs. I know your argument is, if it isn't working the HC should step in, but even then most HCs are going to give their assistants an opportunity to right the ship first. Going back to the Omiyale example, how do you know it wasn't Lovie who ultimately stepped in and demanded he be benched?

You said, But I do still somewhat disagree. When Bennett sits the entire season, that's on both of them at minimum. And that is what I was arguing. Previously, the discussion was a more broad level of how much Lovie meddles w/ the OC. Without judging right or wrong, I simply argued that Lovie does little w/ the offense and our OC is in a way a HC#2.