jason

Agreed. A 2nd TE or a slot WR in this offense is nothing but a luxury. Same goes for nickle DB. There is a reason they are a nickle and not a starter.

That is not the point at all. This has been explicitly stated on more than one occasion. It's a hindsight 50/50 draft, with us saying we could have picked better players at the spots available given that we aren't included in all the inside knowledge that would have given us a better idea of where players would actually fall. Without that knowledge, we obviously can't forecast future rounds. But since we'll never get that knowledge, we have to pretend that we did/would have, and make picks accordingly.

I didn't read it that way. That's a quote straight from the article. They mention the trades, but those three players were their choices should they stick at their original 22.

That's almost exactly as I looked at it. Long/Bostic - Need and BPA, but not purely either Ogletree/Warford - Need and BPA, but not purely either Floyd/Warford - BPA over need Trufant/Warford - I would have hated this Given that Green could be had in the 4th, and some had him rated higher than Bostic, the Floyd/Warford changeup seems acceptable.

As a member of the TalkBears groups redoing this draft, I vote Floyd only because Warford is available at #2 and it sets the rest of the draft up pretty well (as stated previously). 1. Floyd, DT, UF 2. Warford, OG, UK 4. Green, LB, RUT 5. Swope, WR, A&M 6. Washington, LB, UGA 7. Fragel, OT, OSU But I'm very pleased with the Long selection.

Regarding the Rams pick at 22... "The Rams sat at 22. They wanted Ogletree and were reasonably confident he'd be there. But they'd been talking with Houston at 27 and Atlanta at 30 about moving down to recoup some of what they'd give up to acquire Austin. Their fallback guy was UCLA defensive end Datone Jones, but if he and Ogletree were gone, they'd take Kentucky guard Larry Warford." If there is discussion about Warford at 22, even though it's later stated in the article that they'd be slightly disappointed about all their other guys being taken earlier, then Long at 20 doesn't seem too out of this world.

The problem is, many acknowledged that point, but still said that Webb was worse (hence your mockery of my tagline). You tried to prove otherwise with the flawed statistics. You equated the two players before Bushrod even signed. You pointed to stats as validation of your beliefs and mentioned them alongside Emery as if it were his single source of info. That all blew up when Emery decided to sign Bushrod, which displaced Webb, then drafted a player with the intention of giving more challenge to Webb. All of this points to the facts that: Emery doesn't like Webb as much as you thought he might, and that he believes Bushrod is far superior to Webb (which everyone believes other than you, Lovie, Tice, and Webb's family).

I firmly believe a player's destiny is shaped by his past. This is especially true for professional athletes because they've been coddled nearly their entire lives for being the BMOC. I suspect it's probably even more true for offensive linemen, many of who were fat as children and are more prone to give up when faced with serious adversity. (I know this is a vast over-generalization, but you don't see many ripped offensive linemen) When guys like Williams get pushed around a bit, don't excel like he has his entire life, get dumped on by a coach who apparently couldn't develop, evaluate, or coach offensive line talent if his life depended on it, and suddenly their motor is not the same, their production is not the same, they are not the same.

Just to further disprove that stupid Football Outsiders link, here's proof that continuity has no bearing on offensive success, and the change of continuity from year to year does not necessarily have a positive correlation with the change in an offenses productivity from year to year. Year Team Cont. Score Off. Rank Cont.Score 08 Off. Rank Cont.Change Off.Rank Change 2009 NYJ 48 17 48 9 0 -8 2009 TB 40 20 35 19 5 -1 2009 ARI 39 11 48 4 -9 -7 2009 DAL 39 14 31 18 8 4 2009 CAR 38 21 25 7 13 -14 2009 PIT 37 12 39 20 -2 8 2009 MIA 35 15 39 21 -4 6 2009 TEN 35 16 45 14 -10 -2 2009 ATL 34 13 38 10 -4 -3 2009 JAC 34 24 32 24 2 0 2009 NO 34 1 28 1 6 0 2009 CHI 33 19 48 15 -15 -4 2009 SD 33 4 33 2 0 -2 2009 HOU 32 10 48 17 -16 7 2009 MIN 32 2 32 12 0 10 2009 NYG 32 8 48 3 -16 -5 2009 PHI 31 5 30 6 1 1 2009 SF 31 18 29 22 2 4 2009 SEA 30 25 26 25 4 0 2009 BAL 29 9 27 11 2 2 2009 GB 29 3 30 5 -1 2 2009 NE 29 6 35 8 -6 2 2009 CLE 28 29 30 31 -2 2 2009 CIN 27 22 37 32 -10 10 2009 KC 27 23 29 26 -2 3 2009 STL 27 32 25 30 2 -2 2009 DEN 26 20 48 16 -22 -4 2009 IND 26 7 29 13 -3 6 2009 DET 25 27 21 27 4 0 2009 OAK 25 31 29 29 -4 -2 2009 WAS 23 26 29 28 -6 2 2009 BUF 21 28 30 23 -9 -5 NEXT!

I didn't say you were stupid, just that you were being stupid on this one. And it's completely true. Why you hold on to this flawed concept of continuity over talent is beyond me, because it's simply wrong. In every sport, on every level, if you give me a team of more talented guys - and I'm not talked about a marginal difference - the guys who have better continuity will lose. The Lakers example is a horrible one because it has almost zero to do with continuity, and almost everything to do with Kobe being a ball hog, two elite big men who didn't get the ball enough, and a head coach with an ill-fitting offensive system and a non-existent defensive system. Talent is important. Continuity is important. But if you have to sacrifice one, talent is not the one to sacrifice. An OL full of 7th round guys who have several years of continuity is simply not going to do as well as an OL full of non-bust 1st-3rd round talent. Period. Ignore it all you want, but you're always going to be wrong. Why is this so difficult for your to comprehend? You do realize the NFL teams attempt to make draft picks in sequential order because they figure the earlier rounds have better players don't you? Nobody covets all 32 picks in the 7th round. If continuity were so much more important than talent, then WHY DOES ANY TEAM CHANGE OLINEMEN? Riddle me that. Also, I think you should recheck the football outsiders continuity score link you posted. The Bears had a 33 according to their chart (take 48, subtract 2 for extra starters, then 3 for line changes, then [16-6] for longest stretch). That puts them 12th in continuity, and they sucked. Don't like that, go back to the year before when the Bears were PERFECT in continuity score according to football outsiders. And guess what? The offense sucked again! If you're going to provide a link to something, at least be sure you comprehend it and it supports your side of a debate. Side issues: -TO would have helped the team on the field. The Bears needed another reliable WR. Particularly when Alshon went down. I can't prove it, but you can't disprove it either. Teams stayed away from him more for his antics and lack of longevity than anything else. -Williams got screwed in Chicago nearly the entire time he was on the team. The fact that Webb is being kicked around like a tin can kind of proves that he shouldn't have been starting (something nearly everyone has been saying for a while). If Williams got half the chance that Webb got to start at a single position he might have actually lived up to his lofty first round potential.

Like all rugby fanatics, and likely Teddy Bridgewater directly after that Bostic hit, you are just not seeing clearly. You continue to ignore what others post and reply with rugby highlight videos. The two are not the same. The biggest hits in the NFL are bigger than the biggest hits in rugby, and they are certainly more frequent.

I'd rather be Bridgewater for that one specific hit. But that hit by Tuilagi is probably the hardest hit that guy will ever take. Bridgewater will take many more hits just like the one in the Bostic video. Further, the frequency of head on hits (i.e. when both players are running towards each other and do not slow down) is very uncommon in rugby. In football it's a teaching point. I'm not saying the rugby guys don't take hard hits, just that the type and frequency are lessened. Hell, the most dangerous thing in rugby is the scrum, not the big hit.

Well, this season should prove or disprove your point. Bushrod will not be lined up next to either of the Saints' beastly OGs. He will be lined up next to a decent FA pickup or a rookie. If Bushrod performs well, I expect you'll take away your mocking signature line (since it really isn't about OG+OT, and it's really about your Webb love). Or will you make an excuse and say Webb would have done just as well if he had Slauson/Long lined up next to him?

That's only factoring in position, and not need. The Bears obviously weighed both. Kyle Long may have been a slight reach (even though his father said other teams intimated his son wouldn't make it out of the first round), but he's no more of a reach than Tyler Eifert would have been a bad selection for the Bears.

I've watched plenty. I've played some. It's not the same. I've been to New Zealand where they take it VERY seriously. As a rugby fan I imagine you know this. The sports aren't the same. The physics aren't the same. The rules aren't the same. If the rugby players tried to make/take hits like the NFL, and as often as the NFL, those guys would be crippled fairly regularly on the pitch. The physics of it is the key. Way more force in football hits than rugby because of the basic structure of the game (mainly the rules in rugby). Sure, there are some big hits, but it's just not the same as the NFL. People freaking DIED playing football back in the day, and it became nasty enough the game was almost abolished. The whole "manliness" thing is not feasible because the athletes are ridiculously faster, stronger, and bigger now. There would probably be a death every Sunday if the NFL players didn't wear pads. I know you're young, but you should educate yourself on the topic. Or just read this article about a guy who could have gone to the NFL but played rugby instead. Cardio? Sure. Rugby all day. Manliness? Way off base.

Oh, make no mistake; I understood you. I just think you're absolutely wrong. Take away Bushrod's awesome OGs and you'll still find he's pretty good. The same couldn't be said about Webb. However, I never wished you wouldn't post. Just that you would see reason - based upon ample game film of Webb sucking the previous couple years - and stop insisting he should start.

You must have seen a different video than me. It's pretty easy to pause the video and see where the crown of Bostic's helmet is in contact with the facemask of Bridgewater's helmet. He does that for the Bears and he's getting a penalty 90% of the time. And 100% of the time if it's against Rodgers.

Please. Don't even bring that rugby vs football shit in here. http://www.diffen.com/difference/American_Football_vs_Rugby NFL: 4600lbs of force Rugby: 1600lbs. of force They are fundamentally different games, but the sheer physics of two football players slamming into one another as often as they do and in the manner they do far outweighs the contact on a rugby field. It's not just the size, speed, and athleticism either; it's the rules and design of the game. In general, NFL players embrace the hit because if specific yards aren't gained they risk losing possession. In general, rugby players defer from the hit so as position the ball towards his own teammate, because the same type of yardage vs. repercussion don't exist.

I agree with the concept your are pointing to, but as long as football players are suing about head injuries, and as long as concussions are happening at an alarming rate across the country, the leaders of football will make every attempt to ban through harsh penalty the use of helmet-to-helmet contact. For instance, this year in college there is a massive change: Hit someone H2H and the player in the 1st half, and the player is ejected the rest of the game. Hit someone H2H in the second half and not only is the player ejected for the remainder of the game, but the entire first half of the next game as well.

My hope: OT: Bushrod, Carimi OG: Long, Slauson C: Garza

The bold part I agree with very much. Regardless of how incredibly wrong you are about Webb, the fact remains that some decisions by the team can be questioned simply because they never allow our alternate reality to play out into reality. Until that happens, we can never know if we were right or not. For instance, the Bears have apparently stated they do not want anything to do with Tebow. The majority of the board agrees. But that doesn't mean he wouldn't be a better option than McCown, or do better should Cutler go down. It's an unknown that can never truly be defended one way or the other. But that's the entire point of a message board. Otherwise it would be a whole bunch of braindead reporting of what the Bears did and each member of the board replying with, "Yep!" or "Uh-huh."

I can use google too. But in reference to your post: 1. Nothing but platitudes and a different team, excuses from a HC who had a garbage team and could be in danger of losing his job this season. 2. See #1. Also, this could be used against you. The Vikings had PERFECT OL continuity, yet they only managed 14th in points and 20th in yards while watching Adrian Peterson go for one of the best seasons by a RB in history. 3. Political correctness when saying, "The Bears' OL sucked" is not an option. 4. Actually disproves what you're trying to say. The Bears OL in 2009 (Pace-Omiyale-Kreutz-Garza-Williams) was horrible and they're 12th in continuity. 5. See #1, but more specifically a shallow, 1 out of 5 attempt to explain what was wrong with the Cowboys, when the answer is much more complex. Look, I'm not saying continuity isn't important. But talent trumps continuity. Why are you being so stupid about this? It's very simple. Take 5 great players who don't know one another and they'll do well. Let them play 3 years together and they will dominate. Take 5 guys from this board and they will suck. Let them play 10 years together and they will still suck. You can take continuity, and I'll take Bushrod replacing Webb. Funny that OL continuity is such an important issue, but DLs regularly rotate out and it's considered a smarter approach. Is DL continuity completely unimportant?

Like others, you confuse desire with a simple option. Desire is the best option, but since it's rarely attainable, and the Bears can't have Tom Brady as a backup, another option must be taken. In that regard, if it were up to me, I'd rather have Tebow as an option than McCown. That's all I'm saying. We saw enough of McCown in 2011 to know that he will never amount to more than a clipboard holder. Tebow proved much more in his limited time. There is no arguing this fact.

Changing the vibe around here, since there is nothing to talk about post-draft, I'd like to discuss what appears to be bad form by our new LB, Jon Bostic. I've heard guys from the NFL to DII officiating say they are trying to take the helmet/head out of hitting, and Bostic needs to make an adjustment. What's more, I watched his and there are several more high hits with bad form. He dips his head to hit, rarely sees his target, and doesn't wrap up. Unless he changes his technique, you can guarantee this guy is going to get penalties for the Bears.

I know you're not replying to me, but I'm certainly not saying that. Again, you paint the world too black and white. It's short-sited at best. If he were on the Bears I'd want him to improve in the first three quarters so that he's a decent backup QB who can throw when needed, and to keep the end of game heroics exactly as they are.