jason

You could be right, but the fact that he was so good at first and then so average his last year, puts me a little on Burfict's side rather than being 50/50 with the coaches. That was a team supposed to do great things, and they all did poorly. They underperformed for the talent they had. That reeks of poor coaching. Points of agreement: -Better 3-4 ILB prospect than 4-3 In regards to the OL vs. LB comment, I don't view this through a single lens. Evaluation is a prism, and I believe a LB can be much less talented than many other positions and still be quite a big success. LBs, particularly inside LBs, can get by on toughness, the ability to read angles, the ability to anticipate, and being very sound tacklers. Call the package "football instincts." The history of the league is littered with guys who didn't have the measurables yet did well in the NFL at LB. Hell, if you go to google and type "NFL Undersized" the first thing it tries to fill in is linebacker. Funny you mention Haas though, because I still contend he should be in the league.

What's funny is that exact same, sound, fool-proof logic gets shot down when talking about future HoF diva WRs.

I'd say the draft is a gamble. However, just like in Vegas, there are safer gambles with better associated percentages. The first round is like craps, about 50%/50%. By the time you get to the 6th and 7th rounds, it's like a nickel slot machine. There are first round busts for all positions, but the likelihood of getting a all-pro at LT greatly increases if you pick one up early.

Exactly. Which is why it makes so much sense to consistently draft OL high.

This is exactly my thought process. The Bears tell him they are his last chance. If they cut him, he's out of the league for good. If he doesn't pan out, easy to cut him. But if he controls is extra-curricular activities, he could be a player. I have only watched a few, but when I did watch Burfict was a pretty decent player. Raw, but emotional. Big hitter, yet uncontrolled. The coaches aren't at fault for Burfict's poor draft prep, but they could easily be a contributing cause of on-field production. With the other players you have listed, you've essentially provided the Dez White paradox, where a less talented player gets on the field more, and produces more than a better player as a result of the coaches benefitting their favored player. As for 6th and 7th round draft philosophy, we couldn't be anywhere near different. I couldn't care less about a guy that late who has the right attitude or has NFL-translatable skills (whatever that really means). There is a good chance a 6th/7th rounder isn't making the team anyway, so it's better to take gambles on those guys. Look for the guys with attitude problems but high motors, the guys who put up numbers but got arrested for drugs, the guys who were all-American one year but blew out an ACL the next. The way I see it, maybe 1 guy in 10 from those later rounds makes the team, and even then he's marginal at best. If you're already going in with a 10% success rate, you might as well shoot for the moon and get that one guy who has the potential to be an all-pro.

I'm pretty sure Max Komar drove me in a cap a couple weekends ago in Atlanta...or maybe he bagged my groceries the other day? Either way, they could cut his ass five more times and it would still be inconsequential to the team's overall composition.

I don't live in TN any more, but I will be going to the TN game. Come hell or high water.

This is football, not a fashion runway. Favorites: 1. Bears - Classic, bad ass, relatively unchanged over the years 2. Raiders - Again, classic and simple, great color combo 3. Lions throwbacks Least Favorite: 1. Green Bay. The combo of putrid yellow and diarrhea green just doesn't work. It's ugly. 2. Seahawks new one. Ugh. Looks like a neon crayon package threw up. 2. Seahawks lime green. WTF?

Hate. Hate. Hate. The Bears have problems in primetime night games. It's been that way for a long time.

Correct answer. The DE/DT talent available when the Bears draft will most likely be higher rated than the #3 or #4 LT prospect.

Edwin Williams should be worried.

He sure as hell plays faster than his 40 times. I think he could be one of the biggest steals of the draft if he ends up going in the 6th or 7th like most mocks seem to think. The guy has explosion towards the ball, hits like a ton of bricks, has great anticipation for snap-counts, is pretty sound in gap responsibility, is a fairly sure tackler (more of a hitter like Briggs), fights off blockers well, and simply makes plays. The fact that he's immature and didn't prepare for the draft/combine should only be red flag warning, not a reason to ignore his production on the field. It wasn't too long ago he was an All-American and considered a first round pick. To be honest, the way he hits, acts, talks, and swaggers all over the place reminds me a lot of the characters on the 85 Bears team. I'd love to see the Bears use a 6th or 7th on a guy like him - it's not like those draft picks regularly amount to much anyway. And who knows...maybe his coaches DID screw him up?! It's not like we haven't seen our fair share of poor coaches in Chicago underutilizing or poorly using the assets in their control (*cough* Shoop doing everything *cough* Turner sending Wolfe up the middle multiple times *cough*).

Agreed. And if they do draft CB in the first, it's a stupid move.

Disagree. If it's a need, it's a need. Hell, the Bears took Wilbur and Rivera in the first and second rounds of the SAME draft.

Yep. For the Bears, there is virtually nothing to discuss for the players listed. Good thing they won that game at the end of the season.

Seconded. The draft value chart says it would cost too much.

Good points, especially number 2. But there's also a reason why "too far into the forest to see the trees" is a saying.

For the record, if OL isn't improved I don't think the Bears have a legit chance at the Super Bowl. They'll be a fringe playoff contender. However, if they strike gold and land a stud DE in the draft, maybe a guy who is from a smaller school or underperformed a bit at a bigger school, if the coaches can coach him up, the defense could offset whatever offensive deficiencies there may be. In my opinion, DE is really the only other legitimate first round need besides LT.

This is virtually identical to my thoughts on the subject if no OL is drafted. Williams-Louis-Spencer-Garza-Carimi makes too much sense in numerous ways. In regards to the original topic of this thread, I think shoring up the OL is the key, and has been the key, for multiple seasons. Cutler has a cannon and is accurate, but his mechanics and aim get worse when he gets beat up and tentative. Forte is a stud, but his ability is minimized when the OL lets DTs in the backfield. The WRs haven't been the best route-runners, but have raw talent and speed, and would greatly benefit from an OL that can hold blocks longer, thus allowing for more complex and deeper developing routes. All that points to the OL's deficiencies. Putting the players in their originally intended, and best suited, positions just makes sense. And the offense would have loads of improvement as a result.

I'd like to hope Dilfer is right, but as we've seen in the past, once Cutler starts getting his ass handed to him, his mechanics change. Unless the Bears get Webb out of the starting rotation with a much better replacement, we could see whatever body language changes that have been made go right back to square one.

This is very flawed research for a variety of reasons. I'll run through a few... 1. Pro Bowls are often based on notoriety more than performance 2. Pro Bowls are for the best of the best, and a great player who is stuck behind a future HOFer is destined to get very little PB consideration. You will see the same four names recycle (e.g. Long, Thomas, Clady) for several years because they are the best and get a reputation as the best (see #1) 3. Just like styles make fights in boxing, so too do offenses make OTs. A system that puts pieces in a position to succeed is more likely to produce PBers. 4. The Bears offense has stunk since forever, and attention will not be focused on it as a result 5. Pro Bowls for OTs often come as a result of unit cohesion and productiveness. The Bears have neither. 6. Pro Bowls for OTs often come as a result of a group that is collectively good, with a higher leaning towards early draft picks. One has to only look at the last time the Bears made it to the Super Bowl to see a perfect example. Tait (1), Brown (1), Kreutz (3), Garza (4), Miller (5). Consider that by the time Miller got to the Bears he was 9-year vet who had been kicking ass for the previous 7 years, and that's much more than a 5th rounder. Garza was an established vet on the rise; Kreutz was a pro-bowl center, Brown was a pro-bowl OG with gas in the tank, and Tait was a veteran, pro-bowl LT. 7. Smart teams continually reinvest in the OL, specifically the OT position, through the draft. The only SB team in the last five years that didn't follow this logic was IND, and we all know that's because their collection of WRs, TEs, and Peyton Manning (and his lightning-fast release) makes playing defense against them nearly impossible. 2009 - NYG coming off a SB win in 2007, they draft a 2nd round OT (Beatty) who replaces their OL weak-link (Diehl [5]) 2010 - NO wins the SB, and despite having a 2nd rounder (Stinchcomb) and a 4th rounder who would soon be a Pro Bowler (Bushrod), they draft an OT in the 2nd (Brown) 2011 - GB wins the SB, and despite having a 2nd rounder (Clifton) and a 1st rounder (Baluga), they draft another OT in the first (Sherrod) 2011 - PIT loses to GB in the SB, and looks to replace their 5th round OT (Scott) with a 2nd round OT (Gilbert) To sum it up... Do the Bears need a Pro Bowl LT to succeed? No. Do they need to consistently try to get a Pro Bowl LT, through the draft or through trade, to succeed? Yes.

Hate the idea. First of all, the defense is predicated on getting pressure, but that predication is based upon interior pressure more than exterior. DT is much more important in the Lovie-2 defense. Second, this team is not in a position to put all of their eggs in one basket. There are still multiple holes to fill.

Interesting grades. Better is relative. No player is a lock. In the draft, nearly nothing is certain. What are certainties, however, are the holes on the Bears' roster. A solid draft approach should be neither BPA nor need-based; it should be a combination of the two. If you have a C and an F, it makes a lot more sense to get that F to a C before you try to turn the C into an A. A bunch of C's aren't pretty, but they won't tank the overall score. An F will bury you in all facets of life. Only as strong as your weakest link, and all that.

Disagree/agree. He is not a terrible WR. In fact, he's probably a little above average. His stats, ability, performance, and sheer athleticism prove this. At the same time, moving him away from ST in favor of more WR reps just doesn't make sense. Afterall, he's the best returnman in the history of the NFL.

I should have written "will underperform for a first round CB." Picking up Kirkpatrick because he's great in the Lovie-2 system of covering space and zone is similar to drafting a strict possession WR in the first round for a team like the Patriots that dinks and dunks it all over the field. Both situations are reaches in terms of pure talent as it relates to other players at their position, can be had later in the draft, are not one of the most critical components of the system being used, and if not for the ease with which they'd fit into the team's system the player wouldn't be considered as highly. It would be similar to the Bears drafting Earl Bennett in the first round because they know he can fit in. Is Kirkpatrick good? Yes. Would he do well in the Lovie-2? I believe so. Is he the kind of player you want in the first round? No. Does he maximize the value of the first round pick? No.