jason

Agreed. But those teams are not the Bears, and haven't been the Bears as long as I've been alive. The second part of the equation "grind down the clock" is definitely something Lovie Smith is a fan of, but the "build a lead using the passing game" part is very abnormal for the Bears. I'd love for them to turn into the Patriots 2.0, but until that happens the Rodriguez draft pick is curious.

Way to completely ignore the post I made that has some very valid points. It's not so much "can this hurt" as it is "do the Bears have a better option." Since the Chicago Bears don't play college football, and Melton didn't make it into the NFL as a FB, and Clutts actually did make it into the NFL as a FB, I'm believe the Bears have a better option at FB. As for the videos, the first one is a gaping hole that you or I could have gone through with ease. The second one, who the hell is ULL? Louisiana Lafayette? Yeah, because that's totally the same as the NFL. The one thing I will say is, he appears to have some skill running the ball. But it just makes much more sense to have an NFL FB playing FB for a team in the NFL. Otherwise we need to go to the well and see what hidden talents the current roster has so we can maximize their production. I know Briggs played some RB/K and Urlacher played some RB/WR in HS, and Urlacher got some reps as WR in college, maybe we should let them each carry the rock a couple times, Briggs can attempt a chippy FG, and Urlacher can go out for a bubble screen or two. How can it hurt? Right?! Isn't that the logic being used? College NFL College

Isn't the point to have one TE who excels at blocking and one who excels at receiving? For a collective group that so desperately wants a balanced offense, you sure sound like a group who wants a 70/30 pass-run ratio. Davis, Rodriguez, Spaeth, if in that order on the depth chart, and the first two are used together, make this more of a passing team than a running team.

No matter what ANY of us say, the Bears will do what they want. But, then, what the hell is the point of this message board?! It's to put out our individual opinions. Period. Also, it's a complete fallacy to say a 295lb guy is better than a 260lb guy blocking. That's just ridiculous on numerous levels, the first of which is physics (i.e. Newton's second law). I think you're only looking at the "mass" part of the formula. Regarding position changes, they happen every day, but this one is not common. Among the OL or DL, this is common and the players are widely regarded as somewhat interchangeable. Even WR/DB is fairly similar, requiring the same movements, bursts, athletic ability, knowledge of the game. But changing from DT to FB is completely different. Not only that, but the primary job of a FB is to block. The primary job of a DT is to tackle. Unless you're stating that the coaching Clutts has received in his efforts to be a FB are almost completely moot, then it stands to reason he'd be a better blocker. This is a guy who has made it into the NFL by saying, "I will hurl my body at another player so that someone else can get the glory." He was not highly thought of, had to battle his way into the NFL with that sacrificial attitude, and it is not something to take lightly. That's why he's a better blocker. Well, that, speed (see above physics thought), and human kinetics (i.e. lower to the ground causes greater stability). You're saying I'm not looking at the big picture, but that is really where I think you're failing. All you're seeing is "bigger person = better blocker," which isn't terribly surprising considering your infatuation with tall WRs. My debate is not about doing anything to make the Bears better. Utilizing unorthodox ideas is obviously not something I'm against, otherwise I wouldn't have been one of the few people in favor of Martz. If this were all about lining up a bigger guy in the backfield and saying "run to the left and flatten any guy you see is the wrong color" every team in the NFL would have wanted to draft Javorskie Lane out of Texas A&M, or grabbed some other near-300-pounder in the 7th round as a potential FB. Unfortunately for that flawed line of reasoning, this is not something NFL teams do. My point is about the Bears running the team in the mold of how Vince Lombardi coached, running a play so perfectly that it doesn't matter what the opponent does. And at this current point, Melton is nowhere near that execution. Aside from that, if the Bears plan to use Melton as one of their primary rotational DTs - which is obvious - then utilizing him elsewhere only increases fatigue and decreases potential defensive impact. It's the same argument that has been made against Hester since he started playing WR. Bad idea unless this is just OTA goofing off or fill-in duty.

To me there are only two options: Khalil and AP. Allen only has a few more productive years left. Since AP is injured, and has taken some pounding, I think Khalil has the most upside for years to come. Plus, franchise LTs don't come very often; franchise RBs come quite a bit more often.

Forte, Bush, Clutts. If Forte isn't big or strong enough, or doesn't run hard enough, or doesn't run with enough forward push, then the Bears have Bush. If Bush can't fit the bill with his extra 20 or so pounds, then Klutz is a battering ram with 20 or so more pounds than Bush. Melton has no business in the backfield. I don't care where he played part-time in high school or college. Most of the guys in the NFL were superstars at multiple positions at the lower levels of football. As far as Brown and Edelman at DB, that's apples and oranges, or a bad idea, for multiple reasons. First of all, the Bears are not the Patriots. Second, Lovie is not Belichick. Third, Edelman got beat like a rented mule on more than one occasion. Hell, Edelman was a QB in high school AND college. If scouted today he would be labelled "athlete," which is why his position change makes slightly more sense than Melton's. And, last but not least, the most important difference: both Brown and Edelman were used as emergency options, which is not what's being discussed with Melton. Clutts is 6'2", 260lbs FB. Melton is 6'3", 295lbs DT. Give me the shorter guy, with the lower center of gravity, the faster guy with a history of dishing out snot-bubbles, the bull in a China shop with a penchant for head-on collisions, over the guy who is still trying to figure out how to excel at his chosen position.

So, if Davis is so highly sought after, and the Bears believe in him so much, and he is such a great fit for the Bates/Tice attack, and Briggs thinks he's the best thing since sliced bread, why was Rodriguez drafted? http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/footb...0,7334055.story

This has to be a clear cut sign that Williams is playing at LT, right? I mean, there's no way he could be worse than Webb; so if there is competition, true competition, Williams has it. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/footb...0,3935877.story Williams - Spencer - Garza - Louis - Carimi That is better than last season, but it sure as heck would have been nice to have more done.

Hate the idea. First of all, he needs to focus on playing his assigned role on defense better before being used elsewhere. Until he shows major improvement he should not be focusing energy or effort elsewhere. Secondly, if the Bears want/need a FB, they damn-well should have drafted/signed one they like enough to play ahead of a DT.

Agreed. Give me ten Zach Thomas-type players over ten Lavar Arrington-type players any day of the week.

When you pick out two bits of data that flow contradictory to the sea of data proving the opposite, yes, you will be wrong. But if compromise is what you're after, then I concede that the two Bears' OTs have not aligned with the aforementioned sea of data if you are admitting above - I think you are - that the two Bears' OTs just happen to be the outliers, the anomalies from the norm.

My statement was not because of the trendy nature. I've hated the cover-2 defense for quite some time, and have said so. And don't fool yourself. The reason the Giants held the Patriots in check wasn't the cover-2. They dominate on defense because they have a stable of completely nasty DEs who cannot be blocked without each getting a consistent double-team. This allows them to play whatever defense they want. With a dominant pass rush, just about any defense is successful.

You don't think Cutler would have meshed with TO? Considering TO has made every offense he's ever been on better, and the fact that Cutler was openly campaigning for more WRs even after Marshall was acquired, I think he'd jibe quite well with TO. Other than off-the-field stuff, I think Cutler would love the idea of throwing to TO instead of Sanzenbacher.

Precisely.

You can disagree, but you'd be wrong. The statistics for this sort of thing, if you were so inclined to actually look for them or crunch the numbers yourself, overwhelmingly say that the higher you're drafted, the better chance you have of not only making the team, but playing well and becoming and all-star. It's not up for debate. Using the Webb vs Williams+Carimi at OT is such a disingenuous argument that I won't even address it except to say it's beyond apples and oranges; it's apples and Bob Dole.

I think he's got a bad attitude, but I also think some of this is overblown over the course of his 15 or 16 years. And he's apparently a great teammate while on the field. Aside from that, it still says nothing about his athletic ability...which was my entire point, and my thought process as to why the Bears - a team so desperate for WR help for multiple years - should have taken a flyer on him.

The Bears area already solid, but to take the next step I think the following needs to happen: 1. McClellin makes a significant impact - This would take weight of Peppers' shoulders and allow more defensive freedom 2. The defense needs to continue the trend away from the cover-2, and allow more rush/blitz freedom from the athletes being acquired. 3. Hester has more time on ST and less time at WR, which would help field position and result in a few TDs 4. Webb needs to be benched, the OL needs to be retooled, and Cutler needs to stay upright, which would solve the non-existent WR problem 5. Tice needs to prove he can call an effective offensive gameplan

First, I'm not mad, nor was I mad. I just think it's funny that someone as smart as you could continually avoid the question being asked. It's like you're in politics. To answer your question, a 2nd rounder starting on day 1 would make more sense than an UDFA starting on day 1. It's just common sense. It's so common it's not even worth talking about. I mean, there is a reason why the draft happens, and it's been statistically proven OVER AND OVER again that the higher the round the more likely to succeed. There are outliers for sure, but the overwhelming statistical data says that a player drafted higher has a better chance of succeeding. So, a 2nd rounder taking over a starting job would make more sense logically than an UDFA, and would be less of an indicator of the previous starter's ability, since, ya know, the guy who was drafted was considered good enough to get drafted in the 2nd round. The point is not whether the UDFA or 2nd rounder earns the job; the point is how weak the person was he is replacing. If an UDFA can come in and start, that has a higher likelihood of meaning that the replaced starter was not very good. Speaking of when people were drafted, enough with the "he was supposed to go in round X" nonsense. If he was supposed to go there, he would have. All 32 teams passed on him time and time again for whatever reason. They didn't like what they saw enough to draft him. Period. The fact that a hair-piece personality and multiple bloggers thought the dude was a 3rd or 4th rounder means absolutely nothing when all 32 teams decide he's not worthy of even getting a call in the 7th round.

Agreed, but his absence from the NFL is not due to a lack of physical ability or talent, as some have so incorrectly claimed. Teams are just weighing the baggage against the talent (i.e. off-field vs. on-field) and deciding the equation doesn't work out in their favor. That's fair, and TO is the blame. I've said this all along. I just get tired of hearing the naysayers talk about how the Bears have needed a WR year after year after year, and then when TO is available literally year after year after year, they don't want him because he's not a Boy Scout. There are WRs who fit the mold of uber-talented and model citizen, but as a group they are generally more animated or difficult to work with. TO's stats say he can still play in the NFL. Drew Pearson says he can still play in the NFL. Period. Now that the Bears have Marshall it's moot, but in years past it wasn't. To be so adamantly against TO on the Bears, while at the same time claiming the majority of the Bears problems on offense are related to a weak WR corp, is just contradictory unless a person is averse to all risk or chance. TO could have been the solution to the Bears problems for several years, but it's much more easy as an organization to take less risks, perpetually hang around .500 for a decade, string along a fiercely loyal fan base, and never go for the kill. It's precisely the reason we all shit ourselves when the Jay Cutler and Julius Peppers deals happened; we couldn't believe it.

Yes, I chose my words carefully. He's obviously not the guy who will put up stats like his ridiculous decade from 1998 to 2008: Per Season: 14+ games per year, 77 rec., 1151 yds, 11.5 TDs Per Game: 5.4 rec, 80.6 yds, 0.8 TDs So it's "almost exclusively about baggage," since he is not going to be the number one WR in the NFL. But to continue to pretend he can't play, despite what Drew Pearson says and despite TO's last season with the Bengals when he still tore the league a new asshole (14 games, 72 rec, 982 yds, 9 TDs...which is still 5.14 rec, 70 yds, and 0.64 TDs per game), is utterly ridiculous. TO can play, and can play better than a great many of WRs in the NFL. It's just a matter of whether a team wants to deal with his baggage.

Haven't logged in for a bit - the news cycle is tired and the arguments are old. But since this was directly addressed to me... This isn't completely about him being a bad guy. Sure, he missed a scheduled appearance at a hospital. That's bad. But I think this is also about an owner who wasn't happy with the contract he signed, and probably drafted, because it wasn't the kind of deal he wishes he would have made at the beginning. Owens signed a much-hyped deal with the Wranglers, giving him a piece of the team. But it paid Owens only for home games Let me know the next time you have a contract for a strict 40-hour work week and the boss wants you to come in for another 40 hours of overtime but not get paid for it. (And before you reply, yes, I know there are differences, and I'm sure that everyone who ever posted on a message board will say they work 20-hours overtime every week, walking to work uphill, both ways, in snow, etc., etc.) But since we're on the subject, check out this article in which the GM for the Wranglers - who just happens to be Drew Pearson, a person whose status, history, and reputation pretty much makes his opinion undebateable - gives his opinion about TO. "It's very difficult to get back into the NFL, especially at that age, to me, there's no question he could play in the NFL. When I see these receivers that are playing, there is no question Terrell could still play in the NFL. But it's not what happens between the lines with Terrell, unfortunately. It's how he handles things outside the lines." And that has been my stance the entire time. He can still play; there is no question. The reason he's not in the NFL is almost exclusively about his baggage.

As LT2 pointed out, moot point. However, Winslow is essentially the TE version of a certain WR that everyone rails against because of his attitude. Hell, Winslow even had a major leg injury!

Mostly temperment. Probably some of it's because of his physical decline. I still contend a TO at 75% is better at WR than Hester, Thomas, Weems, Sanz at 100%. Oh well...he made his bed, he can lay in it.

You STFU. If you don't like reading it, sit on your thumb and read another thread. I can't help it if LT2 won't just concede that I've met the criteria he's posted with multiple links.

Way to avoid the question. 3 rookies made the roster. Surprise, surprise, they were all first rounders. 1.1 Cam Newton 1.2 Von Miller 1.4 AJ Green No UDFA rookies made the all-star game.