nfoligno

For me, it still always comes back to mental side of it. Sorry, but a guy that big and athletic....If he wants to block, he can learn to block. Blocking is not the sort of "skill" that can not be taught. That is not to say anyone can learn to be a pro bowl blocker, but if a person is willing, he can learn to be effective. That is the key though. Willing. Two key areas IMHO here. One is, you have to be willing to put the time and effort into the learning part. On this point, I have never heard a single comment that Olsen is a slacker or poor student. I have never heard that he skips or shows up late to practice, or that he gives anything but 100% Tuesday through Saturday. The other point is willing to take the body pounding felt when blocking. I have never heard he wasn't willing to get physical. In fact, I would point to some of the catches we saw him make last year. Though drafted for his speed and downfield ability, he often played over the middle for us, and made a lot of catches in traffic. I don't recall him alligator arming the passes. I don't recall him blowing plays as he prepared for the hit. I don't recall him going down at the first sign of a tackler. Players who do this are less likely to get excited about laying out a player on a block. So Olsen has the size. He is a willing student. And he appears willing to deal with the physical demands. Now for we upgrade (big time IMHO) our OL (and thus blocking) coaching. Willing and talented student meets good teacher. Recipe for success. Again, I am not saying he will ever become a great blocker, but I think he can be good enough that it is not talked about so often as a weakness. Gates, Gonzalez, Witten and most other receiving TEs are not good blockers, but you don't hear about it so often because they are such good receivers AND because they learned to block well enough that it wasn't considered a joke.

I agree with what you have said. I do not think Campbell is an upper tier QB. He is not a guy I would consider a franchise QB. But he can be a solid QB for your team if you have the OL to protect him. He is similar in some ways to Leftwhich as his two key faults appear to be a slow release and decision making. If you have a good OL to protect him, these faults are more hidden. He is not a QB I would want to build a team around, but if you have pieces already in place, he can be a good QB.

Agreed. While I think we have seen more in terms of play on the field from the WRs, we are similar at DT in that we may not have proven players, but we have several players w/ talent and potential who could develop into something good, if not special. At positions like FS and CB, I don't even see the potential or hope for an average starter to emerge from the depth chart. While I would agree with you in that regard as to DT, I am not sure I would agree at DE, where I question the talent of our depth. But I would still place DL (either DE or DT) behind FS, OL and CB.

Yea, Olsen doesn't have bad hands. He actually has very good hands. He made some tough catches in traffic. I recall a couple end of game drives that he was making very crucial catches. They were not downfield or considered big plays, but they were first downs that moved the chains and kept drives alive. I think Olsen is solid in terms of running routes and hands. Two areas I think he has struggled are: One. Blocking. Yea, this one is very well known. I don't think Olsen ever really had to block at Miami. While he will likely never be that good of a blocker, there are a couple things to consider. While he lacks in this department, I have never once read that he is an unwilling blocker. There are some who simply play scared. I don't think that is the case with Olsen. Also, we just added Tice, who is considered very good in terms of OL and TEs, and hopefully can help develop Olsen in terms of blocking. Finally, Martz system aside, I don't think there is an expectation for Olsen to ever become "that" good of a blocker. Few top tier receiving TEs are also considered good blockers. Two. He needs to better use his size. There are players who are not that big, but play big. They do very well timing jumps. They block the other player well, and position themselves well. Olsen doesn't do this. I read one person who said he he may be big, but he plays very small. He really needs to work in this area. Finally, a big point IMHO when it comes to Olsen still goes back to how he has been used. Part of this is Turner, and part is due to how ineffective our overall protection has been. Olsen was drafted to be a TE that could stretch the field. He was drafted due to his athleticism and speed. He is a tough matchup for a LB to stay with downfield. But our pass protection has been so bad since he joined the team that he has been used far more on short routes. If we send him downfield, the QB would be on his arce before Olsen could make a play, thus he is used more like a possession TE, which is a waste of his strengths. If we improve our OL blocking, I think we may well see Olsen become an upper tier TE. To me, more than blocking or anything else, what Olsen lacks is downfield opportunities. Give him that, and I think fans would see the reason he was taken in the first round.

We paid a lot of money for a player who won't be on the field much then.

No major disagreements. Regarding DT, who do you mean when you say, "one bona fide start"? I assume you mean Harris, but as you said, he is inconsistent. At this point, he looks like a rotation player, but I am not sure he is even a bona fide starter anymore. Adams might be next, but while he may be viewed as a bona fide starter for some, our coaches sure don't seem to think so. The only reason he gets on the field is due to other DTs the coaches want to start failing to play well. Disagree DE is a luxury pick. It is not as high of a need as other positions. I agree there. But I only see one legit starter, albeit a pro bowl player. Anderson bombed the last time he was given the starting role, and despite "some" flashes last year, I question the idea of him as a starter. And I just don't get the Idonije love. He is a nice depth chart player, but more? If the staff thought so much of his ability as a DE, why has he been moved from inside to outside several times. It seems like for the last 3 years he has been asked to add or lose like 30lbs to move positions. If the staff really felt he could be such a player at one position, why continually move him? The main point of disagreement though is CB not being in the top 5. Here is a position where, even Lovie said this, you need 3 starters due to so many teams playing 3 and 4 WR sets, or having TEs of such receiving ability that you need to play a CB on them. We barely have 2. Tillman is solid, but has been going downhill IMHO and has appeared more injury prone. Bowman was okay, but lets not pretend he is a stud, and he has so much injury history that one year does little to prove he can be relied on to stay healthy. But even if these two are considered solid starters who can stay healthy (which I would argue), what do we have behind them? Honestly, I do not see a single CB on our roster ater these two who could step in and play if the need arose. Some would say Graham, but the staff is more against his playing CB than Adams. Even when hit with injuries, the staff didn't seem to want to insert Graham. I read Hoke didn't think Graham was fast enough to play CB. Then there is the little guy Moore. We were not doing well at CB last year, yet at no point did Moore see the field. All that is left is Turenne, and I shouldn't have to say much about him. We by no means have studs to start with, but our depth is more lacking here than at most any other position. Even on the OL, I think there is more reason for hope with players like Beekman, Omiyale, Shaffer and maybe even Louis, who we have seen nothing from but at least the staff seems to like. Can't even say that about our #3 and #4 CBs. While I would still consider FS, OL and DL ahead of CB, as we lack starters there and not just depth, I would put CB after that. We "might" have our two starters, but both have injury histories and we have simply no depth behind them.

You know I am always for the OL, but I would add the DL. At the end of the day, I simply think we need to work on our trenches, both sides. For the OL, we have Williams, but frankly, all are question marks (long term) after that. I think we can pass on a center as I believe Beekman could start, but honestly, I think long term we could use 2 OGs and 1 OT. It is possible a player or two on the roster is in fact part of the long term picture, but I have seen little to offer evidence as to such, thus I don't think you can plan on it. At the same time though, despite the addition of Peppers, our DL is still a question mark, especially now we the dumping of Brown. Anderson was great as a rookie pass rush specialist, but bombed as a starter, and while he showed flashes last year, I am shocked that is considered enough to warrant a starting job. Idonije to me is AP. A nice backup, or even rotation player, but NOT a player I want to rely on heading into a season. At DT, we have Harris, who is a shell of his pro bowl self. We have Harrison, who has shown little to nothing. We have Adams, who I like but the staff doesn't. We have Melton, who I still view as a project little should be counted on. And we have Gilbert, who couldn't even get on the field last year. There may be some players who fans can hope for a good year, but I don't see a lot of evidence, and for a scheme that relies on the front four (as do most frankly) we don't have that much to base expectations on. After the trenches, I would look at the secondary. We all know we need a FS, but CB to me is right behind FS in terms of need. Tillman has been fading, and while we got a decent season from Bowman, he is no sure thing and still an injury concern IMHO. After these two, we have NOTHING! I am not saying we have proven studs at WR, but anyway I look at it, I see more reason for hope at WR than I do at OL, DL, FS or CB.

I too have always read that Martz does not help his OT and doesn't like to use potential weapons as blockers. At the same time, doesn't this seem to conflict with how he uses the TE? Martz views the TE as essentially a 6th OL. While that isn't max protect, it also is not leaving your 5 OL to solo block. If Martz keeps a TE as a 6th OL, is that really so different from any other offense that uses its TE as a weapon while keeping the RB in to block? Yes, I realize it is different in terms of angles and assignments, but it is still 6 blockers. Have to ask. If Martz does not help the OTs w/ chip or double teams, what does that blocking TE do? On passing downs, unless there is a blitz over the TE, who is he supposed to block if not the DE?

No question that is my concern. Not just with Cutler, but I also see a lot of potential in our WRs, and hate the idea of learning a new system for just one season. And it isn't just learning "a" new system, but one that is drastically different from what they know, and frankly, not common in the NFL. There are days I try to focus on the positive. If we can upgrade the OL, Cutler and WRs have more time and the system has more chance. While I hear about how Martz doesn't use the TE, Martz has also talked about how he has never had a real TE. While there are all the trade rumors, they don't seem to come from Halas, and if we are not trying to dump Olsen, maybe Martz does believe he can utilize him. Before he was hired, I was against hiring Martz because I believed he was simply an awful match for the talent we have and that (a) he would not be around long enough to change that talent and ( he would not adapt to the talent on hand. That is still my fear, but I do gain a tiny sense of hope w/ so much talk from Martz that makes me wonder if he may adapt, if only a little. I mean, if Lovie talks about using a DE on both sides and moving him around based on looks and the O sets, maybe there is hope for Martz to change too.

I guess I should amend that: I haven't seen anything from Kolb in the NFL that makes me think he'll be as good as Rodgers, but it's a small sample size. He had one stellar game against an awful Kansas City defense, and one pretty up-and-down game against New Orleans. He could definitely be good, but I'd be surprised if he ends up being as good as Rodgers. That's not saying a whole lot, though, since Rodgers is arguably a top-5 QB right now. I agree Rodgers is damn good, and there is not much to go on w/ Kolb. My main point I guess is, if you are going to compare, you would have to put GB in the situation as they were in, rather than w/ use of current info. They made the move with as little, if not less, game day evidence of Rodgers as Phily w/ Kolb. Heck, that 2 game stint Kolb had is more experience than Rodgers had through several seasons. And this is just opinion, but I thought quite a lot of Kolb when I saw him. He had more yards against NO (391) than any other put up against NO. He tossed 3 picks to only 2 TDs, but NO (I think) led the league in picks, and this was his first start. Phily couldn't run the ball, and couldn't stop NO to save their lives. I thought Kolb had a pretty solid game against them. Then he followed w/ another big game against KC, who is a weaker team, but this was his 2nd start and he showed quite a bit IMHO. Time will tell, but I think Kolb showed a high level of talent, and there is no way I would place a ceiling on his potential at this point. Yeah, and as good as Brees is for the Saints, it's hard to say that the Chargers made the wrong move. I guess sometimes you need to move on from a good player if the guy you drafted to replace him is ready to go. Provided that the new guy is actually good, of course. That was a messed up situation. Brees was not a stud for SD, and they drafted Rivers, but Rivers rookie year was the year Brees began to break out, followed by an even bigger season after that. It was understandable for SD to draft Rivers when they had Brees, but then Brees turned it up several notches, and they were stuck in a situation of having two elite talent QBs, and went w/ the youth they had invested in. We were in a similar situation, though w/ a totally different result. We had TJ, who had not proven to be a stud (solid, but not even 1,000 yards) and drafted Benson who was considered a sure thing in the draft (hard as that is to believe). TJ then began to break out, and we were stuck in a situation of keeping the proven player or going w/ the talented youth who we invested in. It didn't work out, but it was a similar situation. Yeah, they should. They can bring in a veteran like Bulger to back up McNabb, but Campbell's a starting-quality player. They could get significant value for him from a team like Buffalo. One, I personally think Bulger is crap. Two, I am not sold on Campbell. He would be an upgrade for several teams, but not a QB I would be trying hard to get.

I think that is the fall back option, and would throw in Louis, who the staff really seems to like, as potential competition at OG. But as I said, i think this is the fall back option. I think the preferrence would be to try and upgrade still at either OG or OT. What I really think we have to consider is the future of the OL as much as just 2010. You don't simply draft for that year, but for the future. Right now, IMHO, Williams is the only player who should be considered part of the long term picture. Beekman could move to OG this year, but it is likely he will play center soon enough w/ Kreutz contract up after this year. I still believe Garza is average at best, and would look worse if the players around him weren't so bad they made him look good by default. Shaffer is not part of the future. Omiyale could be, but there has been little reason to offer optimism, much less expectation. We need to continue to add talent and youth to the OL, and no, that does not simply mean throwing a 6th or 7th round pick toward the OL. I want to win now too, but we have a franchise QB and need to think long term as well as short. We need to do what we have NEVER done w/ Angelo in charge. We need to "build" the OL and not just patch it up.

I'm interested to know what Martz & Tice think of our O-line players. It's possible they really like Kevin Shaffer and upgrading the tackle position is not a priority. Possible, but I find that a tad hard to believe. If Tice/Martz liked Shaffer so much, I don't think Angelo and Lovie would be talking about moving Omiyale to RT. Either way, to expect a 3rd round rookie lineman to contribute this season is foolish. If we drafted a tackle he'd be no more then a back-up. But its smart to expect a rookie FS to come in and start? So many want to draft FS with our top pick, expecting that rookie to immediately start. Why should I expect a rookie FS to start and not a RT? Frankly, i think it is harder to find a FS than a RT. And why is it so foolish to think we can find a RT in the 3rd round that can start? Urbik, taken in the 3rd round started as a rookie. Lang, taken in the 4th, started as a rookie. That's just this past year. Is it that you don't think 3rd round rookie OL can start, or just that you don't think Angelo can find them? Finally, I am not sure I have ever said I want to draft an OT in the 3rd simply based on an expectation he would start. As you have said, we have Shaffer who can play right now, but we can not simply draft based on who may or may not start as a rookie, but who can develop also. For too long we have neglected the OL, and the results have been obvious. We are in a great position to draft an OT this year as (a) we have a veteran who can play if the rookie is not ready right away and ( this is supposed to be a great year for OTs in the draft. My key point was simply not to rule out OT in the 3rd round. Most simply assume Omiyale will move to OT. I think that could very well happen, but with this draft is thought to be very god at OT but weak at OG. Thus we could very well draft an OT, and keep Omiyale at OG.

So true. So true. As for Miller, I wouldn't say he sucked in 2006, but at the same time, I would not agree that he was "very good" either. Frankly, I don't think I would agree say he was "very good". I mean, good is better than average, and I don't know how much above average Miller ever was for us. For us, average may have looked very good, but that is relative. It's opinion. There are stats for OL, but even those I think are very questionable. IMHO, Miller was good year one. He was average year two. He was freaking awful year 3. I remember thinking the signs were there for a pretty significant dropoff that final year. Now, I didn't expect a dropoff of the level we saw, but I did think one was coming due to the lesser play (IMHO) from his first year with us to his second.

Seriously, why does anyone want this guy. I know what he once was, but it has been 4 years since that point. How long are people going to hold on to an old memory? For the last three seasons, Bulger has not simply been off his game, but has been awful. I get the idea some want a veteran QB. Okay, fine. Then go get one who can at least manage a game for you. Bulger can't.

Struck Gold with Fred Miller? Um, I don't think so. Miller played well, not great, but well one year, but went straight downhill after that. He was with us I believe 3 seasons, and we only got good play in one of those 3. I would not call that striking gold. I do agree we did well with R.Brown.

Regarding Hamlin. The key thing I would say is, he is very Bear-like. He looked great at one point, then got paid by Dallas in a resigning, and then sucked. He was pretty bad. Dallas actually had pretty good CB play, and even was able to get some pressure from their front, but even w/ this Hamlin was a liability. His coverage was lacking and his tackling was simply weak. It was often joked about how poorly he would tackle. Hamlin has skills, but for some reason, his play the last two years in Dallas was just bad. He was stellar prior to that though. I don't know if a change in D was the cause for his decline, or if he quit after getting paid, but he was pretty bad in Dallas. Would he be an upgrade? Well, yes. When you look at how bad our FS options are, yes he would be an upgrade. If we could sign him for an inexpensive, short term deal, I would say he would be worth the risk, but I would not expect too much.

Yeah, I think the Eagles were in a way worse version of the problem that the Packers had with Favre/Rodgers. Except that McNabb wasn't trying to retire and Rodgers is worlds better than Kolb. Regard Rodgers being better than Kolb, are you sure? Kolb looked pretty dang good when given a chance last year, and while Rodgers is very proven, he wasn't when GB made the trade. In fact, I think more Phily fans are on board w/ the idea of Kolb over McNabb than GB fans were w/ Rodgers and Farve. Another situation that is similar could be seen in SD when they had both Rivers and Brees. Now, Brees has become all-world, but at the same time, Rivers is a damn good QB in his own right. I'll be interested to see if the Skins deal Campbell now. He's better than some of the starting QBs out there. All reports point to Wash planning to deal Campbell.

I still wonder if Omiyale will be moved. Everything I have read/heard says this is a great draft for OT, both in terms of blue chip and depth, but that it is considered a pretty weak draft for OGs. That doesn't mean we can't get a good one, but simply that it may not be as likely. So, if we are sitting there and a great looking RT is available, I wonder if we won't just draft him and keep Omiyale at OG. I am pretty disappointed in our not getting Sims. Just seemed like a perfect fit. Not only would we get an upgrade at RG, but it would also allow us to move Omiayle outside where most say he should play AND we would be better in terms of depth. Further still, while I would still look at OL in the draft, it would give us some more breathing room. Oh well. Sort of just seems like at this point, we are going to simply wait until we see what happens in the draft before making any further moves.

Flozell sucks. He gets roasted by fans and media here in Dallas. Good sign how bad his game has gone downhill, he gets a bunch of flags thrown for holding, false starts and such. When players rack up the flags, often a sign they are having to "cheat" because they can't get the job done by talent.

I wonder if we might not add (maybe through the draft) a heavy RB who can also play FB. The FB position is really not used in Martz scheme, so is there even a point in carrying one? I would not be surprised to see us carry 4 RBs and 4 TEs.

That is the real key isn't it? I am not in favor of this move, but that can be offset somewhat at least if we use the money on a player like Sims or Atogwe. If we simply are making this move to recover part of the cost of the Peppers contract, that would tick me off, especially considering how much we gave to a one dimensional TE. I mean, we gave Manumaleuna $2m SB, $3m roster bonus, as well as the rest of the contract money. Manumaleuna will earn as much this year as we just saved cutting Brown. As much as Manumaleuna may help the offense, I believe Brown would have done more for the defense.

Well, but we also traded Jones because he wanted more money than Angelo was going to pay him, and to clear the way for Benson. Wasn't the deal between Jones and Angelo basically that if he kept quiet and played well for 2006, we'd deal him to a team that would pay him what he wanted? In any case, Olsen's at the off-season program, and it doesn't sound like he's in a comparable situation to the one that got Jones dealt. The point wasn't to look at similarities in the situations, but rather in the trades. We traded a veteran to move up in the draft. Not to get another picks, but simply to move up. The same is being suggested with Olsen. I said I didn't like the deal w/ TJ then, nor do I like the idea w/ Olsen now. I'd be much happier trading a future pick for a 2nd this year: if it were me, I'd move our 3rd and a 2nd next year to grab Nate Allen or Morgan Burnett in the 2nd. I mean, what are the odds that a free safety class like this one comes around again next year? Guys like Allen or Burnett, in a normal year, wouldn't have Eric Berry, Taylor Mays and Earl Thomas ahead of them, pushing them down in the draft. And if getting a similar quality FS in a subsequent year would take a higher draft pick, that makes trading a future pick seem like not such a bad idea. A 2nd and a 3rd isn't too much to pay for a borderline 1st-round talent at a huge need position. Maybe I just have no scouted the top safeties enough as I know we don't have a high enough pick, but our 3rd this year and 2nd next year seems pretty steep. There is just no telling how good we will be this coming season, especially w/ a tougher schedule. What if our pick is high? That means we could be spending a high 2nd round pick, as well as a 3rd rounder to get the 5th or whatever best FS in the class. Maybe a great class of FS', but that simply seems like a lot to give up.

To be honest, yes. I honestly do not believe we are looking to trade Olsen. I think this is more a media/fan thing than a reality. The day we hired Martz, the media and fans began to talk about potentially trading Olsen as he didn't appear to fit in Martz scheme. Since then, all I have read from Halas is that Olsen was once very concerned about his position in the offense, but after meeting w/ Martz, is now content w/ his role. Its one thing for coaches to lie. Happens all the time, and frankly, they often have to for various reasons. If they annouce they are looking to deal Olsen, but don't find a good deal, it makes keeping him pretty difficult. But there is less reason for Olsen to lie or be nice. If he were not satisified w/ whatever Martz explained of his role in the offense, I think we would hear from him much more about wanting out. Further, its one thing for coaches to avoid a subject, but they have gone out of their way to explain how much a part of the system Olsen will be. Maybe I am just off on this, but I think the trade talk is more media and fan speculation. I put it up there with Tillman moving to FS, which has been talked about by the media and fans for years, but the staff has always been absolute in his staying at CB.

Remember the TJ trade? We traded TJ to simply move up in the 2nd round. I hated that move then, and would hate the idea of using Olsen simply to move up in the draft now.

Its a situation a bit similar to what we have w/ Olsen, though maybe worse. Sims is a solid OG. I have read quite a few "NFL people" who believe that. I know the people in Seattle are baffled by the decision, as he was considered one of their top OL. Problem is, they have new staff with new schemes, and he is simply considered a very poor fit for their new blocking scheme. So while his value just went downhill for Seattle, it remains very strong for others.