jason

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.

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.