jason

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.

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%.