jason

I think it would help, but I think the help would be minimal. I have said it for close to 6 straight years, and for that entire time I've been correct, but it doesn't matter what skill players you add if the OL sucks. The addition of someone like Austin would look great on paper, but Jay Cutler rarely had time for a second read with the blocking he received last year. And make no mistake, Brandon Marshall is the first read. Maybe with Bushrod, and hopefully a high draft pick (crossing fingers), all this will change.

Was it a picture of you getting past him?

HAHAHAHA. That one burns.

Playmaker? Sure. But I hope team need is factored in as we'll. you could draft 5 straight play making WRs, but it won't help the team that much.

Are you planning on quitting the board after the first pick, or after this year? Or maybe it didn't occur to you we could do this for future drafts and begin to form a better picture of the board>GM theory.

Exactly. It's something we've done before (not collectively). What's so difficult to figure out? If players X, Y, and Z are available at the Bears pick, and they select X, but the Board thinks Z would have been a better pick, we pick Z. Three years down the road, if Z kicks ass and X is selling tires in Detroit, then we can pat ourselves on the back.

After the draft the board is usually quiet. This off-season I propose we take on the challenge of acting like a front office and run our own draft. Once the draft is in the books we will know which players are available at our picks. We can setup simple votes for each pick. That's the easy part.

I like the general idea, but there is always one "what if" we can't factor. We never really know what would happen to player X on team Y if he actually ended up on team Z. For instance, Randy Moss would never have exploded onto the league if he were drafted by the Bears. The combo of Kramer, Stenstrom, and Moreno would not have been able to reproduce what Randall Cunningham and that offense did. Most likely, Moss would have seen a significantly smaller number of passes his way, and his attitude would have started much earlier in his career. With his emotion/attitude, it could have derailed his entire career. And that's just one of countless examples.

I think the original message is meant to imply that we can't select a player who is not available. Seems pretty obvious to me. The Bears have #20. Anyone >19 is up for grabs.

And my comment was in reply to a comment stating: "Thats a good comment, maybe he could win some biggest losers competition, but is to far removed from the NFL to be consider a thought." The simple fact is, he IS getting attention, and he's not that far removed.

That's why I'm saying it's my nightmare. If the two OGs are gone, I would have to look long and hard at who is left. I wouldn't be happy with any pick, to be quite honest. And I realize I'm setting myself up for disappointment. If forced to make the decision though, in terms of this year, I'd say DL > CB > LB. The DL will get more into the rotation, potentially win a starting job, and provides better insurance (better than a CB anyway) should the Bears be unable to resign Melton. Melton will demand franchise type money; Peanut and Jennings will not. Of course, this assumes Fluker isn't in the picture as RT (where Carimi ends up moving inside). If that's the case, I choose Fluker.

Um...about that. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100000015...ts-nfl-interest

I respect that opinion because of your reasoning. That's why I always say it's a relatively risk-free proposition to pick up Russell as a 3rd stringer. There is a minor risk to the team if Russell were signed, then showed up fat and lazy. Monetarily it would be no big deal, but it could derail a current third string guy. The way I figure, however, if running a football team, you take these kind of risks. You always try to improve any position. If you have a solid starter, you get a solid backup. If you have both, you get a solid third-string guy with potential. If you have all three, you plant someone on the practice squad who you think could be the #3, or better. You simply never stop trying to improve your roster. And strictly speaking, aside from effort, I just can't see how Russell wouldn't be an improvement over Blanchard. FWIW, he sure does seem to have a lot of respected people in his corner who believe in him. As for the weight, it was always a discussion...but he was a big dude in college as well. He appears to be working hard to shed even more of it and to be in better shape than he was before.

It's a good point, but I hate the concept of drafting to dodge higher salaries. If you have a pro-bowl player, you keep him if at all possible. It's a pretty simple concept. To purposely draft a guy's replacement when the player being replaced is a pro-bowler is just not very smart in my opinion. Further, I don't believe it's smart to draft a guy in the first round if there is no intention of actually starting him. No team has irreplaceable players at all 24 starting positions.

Sigh. This comment again. I realize we don't sway decisions, but this is "TalkBears" not "ActuallyManageBears" for a reason. The point of this board is to discuss what we think about the Bears. And the simple fact remains, there is nearly no downside to the Jamarcus Russell as a third-stringer. He has more talent and skill than probably any third stringer in the NFL. The investment is minimal. He would be an interesting puzzle piece to have now that the Bears are talking about utilizing the read-option. On top of all that, it's not like the Bears can't do without a guy like Blanchard.

Your extension of my logic is a little too far. The two major differences: 1) Russell is actively trying to get back into the NFL. 2) Russell is much closer to his playing days. High rated players DO end up sucking, but like I said, even when he sucked he was better than the Bears current third stringer. Some professional athletes take several years to truly find their niche, their talent, their stride. IF this were to happen, it's a huge benefit to the Bears. There is literally no downside to this concept. I don't know why everyone is so against the idea. It's not like a TO or Moss situation from years ago where they could hurt the team with off-the-field antics and can't be cut because of talent. This guy could be cut for nothing. If a coach, any coach, doesn't like his effort one day, cut him. But, if he does actually try, then his skill level and talent is beyond the required cost to obtain him.

Change the name of this thread to "My nightmares about the draft." A DT would be very upsetting, and a CB would be not what I'd expect from a team whose CBs - BOTH of them - went to the probowl last year.

Agreed. Hate the idea. Especially if the team drops Hester from the offense. That would be contradictory.

Good thread. Wonder where the replies are?

Moore is better. Got in the doghouse. End of story.

But does he suck worse than the current third stringer? Doubtful. Regardless of his weight, attitude, and ability to read a defense, he was the number one pick of the draft for a variety of physical reasons. He has daily shits with the talent of Blanchard.

He's more of a risk than most/many others.

You are so purposely dense sometimes. He's still fat, but maybe, just maybe, he's trying to reform. It might not be quick, but if it happens it's a gamble with huge upside and nearly no downside.

You're probably right, but I don't see the harm in taking a flyer on a no-risk proposition. There is only upside to this idea.

Um, he was a lazy fat-ass. Easy. But that still doesn't mean he doesn't have far, far superior raw talent than a third string scrub. That's why you take chances on players who could have huge upside. They have two choices: Show up and do everything you want them to do, or get cut. It's not like Blanchard wouldn't be sitting by the phone waiting for a Chicago Bears phone call like a nerdy virgin the night before Prom.