jason

Very good post. I completely agree with the BPA based on tiers approach to drafting. I would put WR in the 3rd tier, and potentially move OT into the 2nd tier based upon whether or not the staff thinks Carimi can still play/compete at RT. If not, then OT is definitely in the second tier because no way in hell Webb is the long-term answer.

That's too much risk on potential for me.

You're showing nothing. We are collectively not the same as we are individually. Furthermore, 20/20 hindsight (i.e. the actual release and the subsequent lack of interest from other teams) makes the decision tainted. But, if we were to go back in time, and if this board were the clandestine deciding body for Chicago Bears personnel decisions, and if this board collectively voted in the majority to release Urlacher, I would have voiced my opinion vehemently, lost the battle, and have been relatively content with the decision, because I still think we could do just as good of a job as the "professionals" do considering the appalling lack of success and number of ridiculous personnel/management decisions made over the past 20 years.

I readily admit to being absolutely shocked nobody has picked him up. That, in and of itself, may indicate it was the right decision. There may be something else that the NFLers have whispered about that we all don't aren't privy to.

It's for that exact reason that this draft worries me more than most in the recent past. It provides a lot more latitude to pick based purely BPA while ignoring position of need. In my opinion there has to be a balance of sorts. If the next Joe Montana is there in the first, and everyone knows ahead of time he's going to turn out that way, then you draft him - Cutler be damned. But, unfortunately, we don't know that, which is why team need must be a factor.

For me it's obviously Cooper. As for the other two, I'm almost always opposed to drafting a LB in the first round, but if it is between Ogletree and Austin there really isn't a decision to be made. It's Ogletree. I mean, how many years does the notion of a bad OL being linked to a bad offense have to be proven to Bears fans?

It's a great idea, but Cutler hasn't had time to utilize 5 receivers since the day he got off the plane in Chicago. If the OL is porous, again, it won't matter the weapons the Bears have. If you recall correctly, the same thing was said last year when the Bears got Marshall. It was a bunch of "OMG! With Marshall, Hester, Bennett, and Forte, we're nearly unstoppable!" And then after the draft it was "Holy hell! Marshall, Hester, Bennett, Jeffery, Forte, and Rodriguez! This will be Cutler's breakout year!" Comparing them to the Packers just doesn't work. The Packers pass-block MUCH better than the Bears, and get penalized far less, which is a recipe to their success. It doesn't matter if you add Megatron to the mix if 4 of the 5 OLinemen are on roller-skates every other play; Cutler simply won't have time to exploit the positives of the skill players.

Jordan!? Are you kidding me?! A guy who some have described as "raw" because he lacks rushing technique and relies exclusively on athleticism?! A guy who is coming off a shoulder surgery?! A player who is almost universally considered as someone who needs to bulk up?! He'll go high because this is a weak year for pass rushers, because he's fast/explosive, and he shows the most potential, but there is no way he's a #1 overall guy.

Any answer other than this one is wrong.

If the Bears didn't already have 3 QBs on the roster, I guess I'd be the only one on board with the idea. What's to lose? Sign him to a no-guaranteed money contract and tell him he better be perfect. If he's fat, he's cut. Lazy, cut. Falls asleep during a team meeting, cut. Eats with his elbows on the table, cut. Even as a fat-ass, his talent level almost certainly outweighs Matt Blanchard's.

If you go back and look at the archives, you'll find that not only did I mention Burfict multiple times as a potential throw-away 6th or 7th rounder (something that happened with the Bears' picks anyway), I also said Massie would have been good in the 4th. In fact, there were others that expressed the exact same sentiment, even listing him as one of the BPA when it was the Bears turn to draft in the 4th. After the early run on OL, the draft-value was returning to that position around that point of the draft, and it was plainly obvious the Bears still needed OL help...well, obvious to everyone except the people running the Bears.

Good post. I think #2 is likely.

First, "smarter" for an unknown is difficult to prove. It's why I've always said you can't know for sure what player A on team X would have done if drafted by team Y. Having said that, the word "right" is still subjective. It's an unknown what he would have done on the Bears next year. What we do know, however, is that he has been statistically significant for the success of the defense. When he was out, they did worse. That is irrefutable and has been discussed ad nauseum. Was it right financially? Perhaps. The Bears appear to have gotten pretty good value for their FA acquisition money. Unless the FA LBs turn out to have kick ass seasons, it's ultimately an unknown. If they dominate, we pretty much know Urlacher wasn't going to dominate, and therefore it was the right decision. IF they don't dominate, we are left wondering if Urlacher would have done better. We are left wondering if Urlacher would have had better defensive adjustments and calls. We are left wondering if Urlacher's leadership and knowledge would have benefited the team more than his lessened speed would have hindered the team. We do know he was injured last year, got healthier as the season progressed, and his statistics showed improvement as health improved. Who's to say Urlacher finally cleared his injury hump from the previous offseason (his workouts appear to indicate that he's in great shape), and wouldn't have put up a better season than last year? In the end, it's all an unknown and you can't prove right or wrong. It's all what-if work.

You said "experience." I took that to mean "related to football experience." You know, just like most of the people who have been touted as "experts." They played, coached, etc. And as for that, I have done, and am doing, much more than just playing in high school. I think we simply disagree on the success rate for late rounds. 40% is just not that high. And I'm sure that was Polian's thoughts for all GMs for all rounds. Figure just the 4th-7th rounds and that percentage has to drastically fall. There have been plenty of times since I've been on this board that I have heard someone tout a late-round pick, see the Bears skip over him, and then find out that guy turned into a good pro. For instance, last year the Bears drafted Evan Rodriguez in the 4th, Isaiah Frey in the 6th, and Greg McCoy in the 7th. One is still an unknown, and the other two suck. If you look back, however, I wanted Vontaze Burfict pretty badly. I thought he had the "it factor." Looks like last year, in terms of 4th-7th rounders, I would at least be 1/3 and the Bears are at best less than that. And to be quite honest, do you honestly think I would have passed on Bobby Massie in the 4th round? You can go back and search the boards; I'm quite sure I mentioned it more than one time instead of the Rodriguez pick. BTW - He started 16 games last year as a rookie. So now we're talking about 2 players who performed well last year, would have probably seen significant time on the Bears roster in 2012, but the Chicago Bears management went at best 1 out of 3...let's call it 0.5 out of 3. Generally speaking, my batting average last year (at least 2/3) was better. Caveat: I've always said it's impossible to know what a player would have done on another team. It's entirely possible Carimi would be in the probowl if he had a different OL coach and different system, and someone like Massie could have come to the Bears and gotten cut after training camp. EDIT - I forgot that Nate Potter was drafted one pick after McCoy in the 7th. That was another player I thought would do well as a late rounder. Looks like he took over the starting role at the end of the season.

Because all the teams in the NFL have been run incredibly competently over the last 20 years or so. Please. During a stretch of time you could have had a dart-throwing monkey do better than a few teams. But they're lumped into the "professional" or "expert" group because Ozzie Newsome has had a few monster drafts and the average play out. That's ridiculous. Absolutely every single person on this board would have done better than Matt Millen while GM of the Lions. Every single person.

1. I am on record. 40% is not some sort of crazy success rate that is difficult to replicate. 2. You assume I have no football experience. That's incorrect. 3. Your assumption about a lessened success rate is just that, an assumption. I think we've proven as a board that we have hits and misses, and if we really chose to go back and look at any poster's success rate since they've been debating, I'm willing to bet it's probably slightly better than 40%.

There is definitely a difference. But that main difference is just that they happen to work in the arena. I would love to do that for a living, but unfortunately didn't think about it as a career path when young. And keep in mind I never said I, or this board, would dominate as a collective GM. I have simply stated over and over again that we'd do just as well, and probably a bit better. After all, a 40% rate (what Polian said) is not that high of a mark. Imagine other fields having a 40% success rate?! You'd fire your doctor, lawyer, broker, plumber, electrician, accountant, etc. with that kind of "success." The word "expert" is tossed around far too loosely for people who work at a 40% success rate, particularly when considering the his a Chicago Bears message board and we've seen countless bad moves. I completely disagree with you on many things, but I honestly think you'd bat better than 40% if making the moves on your own. Or at least at 40%.

So would that make me an expert? After all, I regularly talk to a bunch of college players, coaches, and trainers, not to mention a ton of college officials and even pro officials. Hell, I've personally had discussions with many people you see on TV on Saturdays and Sundays. I'll reiterate the post above this one: 40% success rate.

"Trained" professionals? Trained how? IF they are trained, who trains them? The simple fact is, a guy many consider one of the best (Bill Polian) admitted the draft is a crap shoot. Less than that!! 40 freaking percent. If they are trained, their training sucks. As for qualifications, it sounds like the process of being a scout is just about like any other job. It's more about networking and connections (particularly having played) than some sort of "football recognition"-talent. The people doing the hiring still assume the people being hired know football. And their knowledge of football amounts to 40%, which basically averages in the horrible scouts/coaches/GMs in with the guys who knock it out of the park year after year. This is not some sort of degree they earn where the information they process is irrefutable (i.e. engineer, programmer, mathematician). I think what's laughable and presumptuous is that you hold these guys in such high regard. Especially since the Bears have had such shitty drafts over the past 20 years. This is over the span of multiple coaches, one GM, countless scouts, and potentially another GM (the jury is still out). It's not like we're talking about someone who has provable knowledge that leads to provable results (i.e. doctor). We're talking about guys who were in or around football, had a passion for it early on, more than likely got a foot in the door because of a connection, and slowly worked their way up. I've personally seen people get their start by working as a GA for their father or for a father's friend. Does that mean they know more about football? No. Does it mean they know more about evaluating players? Maybe in terms of the verbiage used at that level, but not necessarily in terms of talent recognition (see 40% above). Does it mean they know what the organization and their boss wants them to look for? Certainly, but only a few teams can point to that as a positive trait, since there are only a few teams that have consistently done well in the draft.

I'm willing to bet I watched just as many games as most scouts. Probably more. And I probably watched more individual plays over and over than they did. For example, I have a DVD in my office computer from one of the top-dogs of NFL officiating with a compilation of nothing but defensive and offensive pass interference penalties. But go ahead and continue thinking that people on message boards know next to nothing about football, and people on football websites know everything. You do realize the majority of the people writing about football are people just like us, right? You realize Walter Football is this guy?! Yeah, he definitely looks like a knows a ton more about football than any of us. He has a website after all!! Who the hell is Mel Kiper, Jr. and Todd McShay? Just because they have access to the ESPN film vault doesn't suddenly make them all-knowing. They're just guys like us who watch football, judge football, and evaluate players. I bet neither of those clowns has ever put on a helmet...unless you count Kiper's hair. And as for former players, a lot of those guys are borderline retarded, and know how to play because they won the genetic lottery. Emmitt Smith is considered by some (better not be anyone on this board) to be the best RB of all time, but he can barely form a coherent sentence. One of the most ferocious defenders of all time (Dexter Manley) was actually illiterate. Because they run faster and can lift more doesn't automatically make them better at talent judgement. The simple truth is, a lot of people who participate on message boards know quite a bit about football because they played or were involved in many ways, but couldn't continue for a variety of reasons (most likely just weren't athletically gifted enough). I'd be willing to bet someone on this board has coaching experience. Others have probably played at the college level. Accept what you want, but the idea that people who post on message boards somehow have lesser opinions is incredibly short-sighted.

"That's a huge move!" said nobody.

I admit it's an interesting idea, but surely some of those same genetic freaks have turned into offensive linemen. Also, it would be easier to accept that theory if the Bears OL didn't actually suck for so long. Since they just suck it's a far more simple answer. Occam's Razor and all.

I was honestly shocked by these NFL ratings. I watched a TON of college football this past year, and there is no way in hell I'd rate Brown ahead of Ogletree. No way. It's head-shakingly unbelievable to me, to be quite honest. Brown plays slow and his instincts appear to be poor at times. Ogletree plays very fast and appears to have pretty good instincts.

Martz's system didn't suck. It's just that he wasn't versatile or able to adjust to an OL that was absolutely dreadful. His system works when he has a competent/average OL blocking, and it excels when he has an above-average OL blocking. It's just that he never ran into a situation where the OL sucked so bad and submarined nearly every play he called that required more than a three-step drop and a single second in the pocket.

But every one of those years I warned that the OL was going to stop/hinder the progress and potential of not only Cutler, but also the entire offense. And every year I was right. Let's hope Emery fixes that this year by drafting an OG (1st round if Cooper or Warmack are there), and a Center. I'd love to FINALLY see the offense set up for success for a change.