jason

Just stirring the pot. I didn't like the pick either. It was bad position-wise when considering that draft, and everyone knew it then as well as now. We needed FS and DT more, and the FS market disappeared after our pick. It would have made more sense to go FS then CB/DT.

http://www.talkbears.com/forums/index.php?...hl=Fuller+draft

Keep in mind I'm the guy who has CONSISTENTLY called for the Bears to add players at any cost. I don't care about image to be quite honest. I want studs. I called for TO, Moss, Burfict, etc. Nobody talks about all the negative guys on previous championship teams; they talk about the championships. On the field, Marshall was not a guy to be traded. He was a monster. That's what I want.

I understand. But he didn't have a negative impact while on the field.

I told you guys I wasn't thrilled with the pick more than once. I just didn't like him a lot. I was/am all aboard the bandwagon, hope he rebounds with a fury, but I just had a bad feeling. I obviously didn't predict this, but wish we didn't trade away a pro-bowler for the uncertainty of a rookie (who ends up with a leg fracture).

Bushrod Slauson Montgomery Long Mills Ola Grasu Ducasse

Something I've mentioned more than one time. The move to the 3-4 could be a costly one.

Maybe a combination of both? The D is probably a little weak since they are learning a new system, but I think just about everything is in place for Cutler to have a breakout year. 1. Great coaching staff 1a. Run-heavy offensive gameplan (likely helps the defense some) 1b. Likely exploiting Cutler's mobility 1c. Proven success/experience 1d. No chance of team mutiny 2. Solid OL who will be taught how to block (even if RT might be weak, AGAIN) 3. Finally have a blend of WRs 3a. No WR security blanket (I contend Marshall may have been a negative for Cutler) 3b. A stud slot WR (never had one) 3c. An absolute burner who is actually a WR (assuming White gets healthy) 4. Diversified RBs 4a. Forte is still a stud 4b. Langford has breakout speed 4c. Rogers is a great scat-back who actually has some power 5. Still has a mismatch at TE To me, all that says Cutler has an improved year. If he fails, it will most likely be due to bad OT play.

I like the idea as well, but the build from within philosophy doesn't work as frequently when the players being groomed are UDFA. And Ducasse is a journeymen who hasn't been able to break the starting lineup in 5 years (which is pretty much the opposite of building from within). IF those are the guys being groomed, I'm very skeptical. Either draft high enough and often enough that there are ample investments amongst the OL to actually build from within, or you need to go out and get guys like Mathis. You can't try the build from within philosophy with scrubs and cast-off journeymen.

Exactly. And, besides, for the Cutler-haters it would serve as the ultimate nail in Cutler's coffin if he were to fail behind a good/great OL.

It is not a simple matter of disagreement, and you know it. Those stats are overly simplified nuggets extracted from minor, simple details in a very complex game involving many moving parts and strategies. I could provide ten reasons that legitimately question each of those stats, and you could come up with ten more. Hate Cutler all you want.

You must not work in the data world. Just because a stat is compiled and true doesn't mean the desired or proposed conclusion is accurate. Correlation and causation are not necessarily linked. We do agree, however, with one thing. If the QB continually makes mistakes, something must be done. I believe that is accomplished by either: A ) Getting a new QB - Not feasible B ) Ensure Cutler sticks to the offense, something that aided in McCown looking so good - Unlikely given Cutler's past C ) Making the OL good enough for Cutler to be comfortable and find open WRs - Best, most feasible answer, which has the added benefit of improving the running game as well Hence, it makes sense to go after Mathis.

The answer to your question is that PFF stats are borderline worthless pieces or nuggets of data that do not tell even remotely close to a complete picture. But the biggest piece of this puzzle that simply can't be quantified is, how does the QB who constantly gets pressured react when there is no pressure, but he thinks there is, or will be? Cutler has been beaten and battered here, and it's pretty obvious over the past two or three years that he feels like there is going to be pressure on damn near every play. Is that a flaw? Sure. But you don't fix that flaw by doing anything other than protecting him, which, coincidentally, would improve if Evan Mathis were signed to play OG next to Kyle Long.

That's freaking comical. Looks at the article...yep...PFF "stats".

I guess it depends on whether this team thinks they can win, or if they think they can contend. If it's the former, then, sure, let some scrubs battle it out and try to develop some homegrown talent. But if it's the latter, then I don't care about player development at the sacrifice of the team, and also Cutler. The team, and Cutler, have sacrificed for far too long because of sub-par to atrocious OLs. If it means investing more money on the OL to protect the guy who is the focal point of the team, regardless of who that is, then you should do it. It's baffling to me how long this must go on for people to realize the OL is the one spot besides QB you don't want to have major issues. And if you have major issues at QB (hopefully it's a rookie and not just a scrub like Moses Moreno), then you sure as hell should have a dominant OL to protect. The Bears have had good offensive production only one year of the past several, and it's the one year where the OL played well. I don't care how many 1st round WRs the Bears get. If the QB is under pressure, it won't matter. Long story short...yes...bring Mathis in for a look. If it was all contract related like some of the reports are saying, then putting him at RG and Long at RT would create a monster OL for the Bears, and would virtually guarantee a top 10 offense this year.

This proposal is why I'm not elated with the defensive prospects yet. Houston? Young? Allen? Bostic? That's a lot of talent sitting in the back seat.

This thread is the reason why I didn't like the draft pick. Another RB isn't really necessary. It basically throws Carey into the back-burner. That's too bad for a guy who hasn't received a chance to show what he can do on the field.

NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Anyone interested in an all-Long right side? Even diminished he has to be better than Mills.

Very weak competition he got those stats against. Pass.

An undersized back who was nasty elusive, but was used in the worst possible ways while on the team. As for the "2" backs, Benson was already smelling like a bust or head-case, and you're not actually counting Adrian Peterson, are you? They needed someone who could be a little more elusive out of the backfield when they got rid of Thomas Jones. Regarding Hester, the prevailing thought at the time was that it was better to kick out of bounds than kick to Hester. Or short kick it. Many thought Wolfe would be an up-back on free kicks, perfect for when the teams tried to avoid Hester. Also, keep in mind that this was the year they planned on the beginning of the Hester as WR transition. The Bears needed a dynamic playmaker on offense, and they may have drafted one, but we'll never know because the mental midgets running the offense at the time.

As do I, but I doubt it's the exact same as the new balls they get for each game. Break out the football one day, inflate it, deflate it, go between a range of 1 PSI. If you can honestly tell the difference each time, then you should apply for the job in the NFL. I bet if we introduced another football with similar but different PSI you'd have trouble telling them apart. Nope. We often feel under and over inflated balls as officials. Had an arena game this weekend and there were a few that were over-inflated by about .5, and nobody could tell the difference when we grabbed the footballs. One was very underinflated and we threw it back. It's got to be a lot to really notice.

This is the one that hurts the most for me. Raymont Harris (Ultraback!) was coming off of 1000+ yards in 13 games with 10 TDs and nearly 4ypc. The Bears had just drafted Rashaan Salaam 3 years prior, and in his rookie year he was over 1000 yards, but injuries hampered him after. Between the two the Bears were fine. Then they went and signed Edgar Bennett, even more reason not to draft Curtis Enis. And let's just throw a few logs on the fire. That was the year the Bears got James Allen, that little over-achieving spark plug who later went on to his own 1000+ yard season. Meanwhile the Bears were starting John Thierry and Carl Reeves at DE. Figuring out the better one is like picking up the clean end of a turd. Oh, and right after the Bears picked, Grant Wistrom and Greg Ellis went off the board. I was partial to Ellis, but would have been happy with either. Meanwhile part 2, some nobody named Ron Cox - not to be confused with Bryan Cox - was starting at OLB. Who was on the board? Keith Brooking and Takeo Spikes. I loved Spikes coming out of Auburn. To put the final nail in the coffin, Randy Effing Moss was in that draft, and I would have given my first born if the Bears had drafted him. I was a HUGE fan. I have never wanted a player more than Randy Moss. But of course the upper management knew better since they trotted out the studly combo of Bobby Engram and Ricky Proehl. Worst draft pick you ask? Curtis Enis. Curtis freaking Enis.

I still say Wolfe was a good pick. He was just used horribly, unprofessionally, in the worst way possible, by a simpleton who almost certainly sniffed a lot of glue as a kid andshould never have seen an NFL field.