jason

Without considering FA moves, I go LT, WR, CB, DE, LB in that order. But, of course, that's all dependent on the flow of the draft. If the top 4 LT prospects are gone, and only Blackmon is gone of the WRs, then you wipe the drool from your mouth and pick Jeffery or Floyd. If, however, there is a run on WRs and all those guys are gone, then one of the top LT prospects is there and you do a happy dance before picking the LT. If both of those positions are just picked over and over, you curse the Bears for winning in week 17 and then go BPA.

I agree with this for the most part. FS - Conte is something I can live with. I didn't think he did poorly. DE - Izzy isn't the answer. He's too inconsistent. Some games he's a beast, and then he disappears for a month. LB - I don't think this is as big of a need. I think LB is the easiest defensive position to draft, the fill, and to coach. The guys in there now are good for another few years, and when they're done it shouldn't be too difficult to find good players to fill in. Maybe not an Urlacher kind of player, but close enough to do the job well.

GB, NO, and IND are teams that are virtually all offense all the time, and have all Hall of Fame QBs who can thread a needle at 50 yards. GB has the best blend, but I really don't think Nelson is that great. I think he's a product of the system. Same thoughts go for the #2 and #3 guys in NO. As I said in the other reply, Harrison and Wayne are completely different players. Wayne is the big #1 everyone is talking about, and Harrison is a lightning quick possession guy who runs full speed out of his breaks. And PIT/NYG aren't even worth addressing really; they're WRs aren't that great. I will admit, however, that your thoughts about Atlanta are the best comparison to what is being discussed. While White is only 6', he's thought of as a big WR. And Jones is without a doubt a big WR. So, that's an interesting comparison, and a potential example of how the double big WR thing could work.

You completely misunderstand my point. In fact, you only prove my point. Fitz & Boldin - Are completely different players NE - Moss and Welker, completely different players. Indy - Harrison and Wayne (Clark is a TE) are completely different players. Phi - These two are pretty similar, but this is a stupid example because Jackson is 5'10" and Maclin is a generous 6'. What everyone keeps talking about is a big WR who is a bonafide #1. So, with all that said, if the Bears get V.Jackson and/or Bowe (both are big, explosive, #1 WRs), and then getting Blackmon/Jeffery/Floyd (big, explosive, #1 WRs) doesn't make a lot of sense. The combo that's getting thrown around is Madden stuff. There needs to be a balance in WRs, a mix up of talents that complement each other. If the Bears grab VJax or Bowe in FA, then they probably would be fine as is, and have a great blend of speed (Knox, Hester) and possession (Bennett) guys who would work well together without having to shoulder the burden of #1 WR status.

I've watched this one back and forth, but yeah, I'll go ahead and call you crazy. No way in hell Webb is a probowler. No way. His feet are atrociously slow, he doesn't get a good lean when run blocking, and he's too high when pass blocking. No freaking way. No way. If the Bears don't sign a LT, it should be Carimi. The problem is, the Bears need a RT and a LT, because Louis was clearly a better LG than a LT. If, however, everyone is dead set on the idea of Carimi being a probowl RT, then they still need a LT. Two situations make the most sense (from left to right) with how the Bears typically draft. -Carimi, C.Williams, Garza, Louis, FA/Draft -FA/Draft,C.Williams, Garza, Louis, Carimi Now, if they sign a good FA OG, then either Louis or Webb will probably end up starting at one of the OT positions, and that will clearly be the weakest position on the OL, and a hole the Bears will need to address (again) the following year. But if they signed an OG, and they were smart, they'd do the following: -Carimi/C.Williams, FA OG, Garza, Louis, Carmi/C.Williams

One of the things I keep seeing from many posters is something along the lines of "Get VJax and then pick up either Floyd or Jeffery in the first round." Isn't that a little too Madden GM, and a little away from the realities of an offense? Aren't they the same types of players?

Jay Cutler's body probably disagrees with the last part.

Me too.

And that we don't have the Warren Sapp/Tommie Harris guy. The Lovie-2 needs a pass rushing DT, a hyper-mobile MLB, and a smart FS who takes the right angles. Right now the Bears have just the MLB, but even Urlacher will lose speed eventually.

Old news. We almost all called it when the situation set up the way it did.

This is awesome. I dont' want to ruin the surprise.

Isn't the entire point to the first post I made in this thread the very proof that I'm not thinking of this in a black and white manner? When/if the Bears let go of Lovie, he will certainly be rehird, but that has just as much to do with the respect thing as it does with constant recycling of coaches in the professional ranks. The simple fact is, Lovie is a really nice guy, doesn't appear to be too demanding, he's fiercely loyal, runs a really soft mini-camp that the players love, and absolutely never throws anyone under the bus. That's why he's respected. Which is good. But what isn't good is the fact that when people say Lovie is respected, they rarely mention his ability to coach, to create gameplans, to adjust to game situations, or to improve his players' abilities. BTW - I like that you said there is "quite literally no talent on this OL." Far too many people are talking themselves into the idea that Webb, E.Williams, Omiyale, Spencer, and Louis aren't at best average, and at worst atrocious.

Exactly, exactly, exactly. All the clamoring for WR in round 1 makes little sense unless a big time FA is signed to be the actual #1. It all starts up front. Give Cutler enough time, and even the aforementioned David Terrell would be able to get open consistently.

I like the guy, and think he was a much better coach than he is given credit for, but the Ricky Williams thing seals the deal. Hell no.

You're right; it is pretty smart. It allows lesser DBs. The problem is, it requires a superior MLB, a dominant inside DT, and an intelligent FS. Without those three, there are massive, gaping holes all over the F'ing place because those two DBs aren't playing man; they're just sitting in a zone somewhere that the WRs can work around. There's a reason why average QBs always seem to put up decent passing yards against this D. Brian Griese throwing for 400+ yards anyone?

Mad is right on three things: 1) Welcome to the board 2) OL is a much higher priority than TE, especially since Edwin Williams and Chris Spencer are not good. 3) A TE in the second would be a bad idea, and a waste of a draft pick for this team. Other positions are much higher need...like your picks in rounds 3-5.

Um, except that is something completely different. You just basically supported my statement. Has he held on to wins while having the lead? It appears so. Does he step on their necks and put games away? Absolutely not. You didn't come close to even hitting this one in the same ball park. Very true, both are considered good at their positions. Both are well liked. But I haven't seen that much out of the DL under Marinelli's tenure. If anything, Peppers seems a bit less impactful overall than when he was in Carolina. And Tice, regardless of how much people think of him, has improved the OL very little while in Chicago. Regardless of all the fluff media pieces, the OL still sucks, and there has been nearly no noticable improvement from anyone other than probably Louis. Agreed. They don't win games. But the difference is, Bellichek doesn't straight up lie to us. He just deadpans. Oh, and he's a significantly better coach than Lovie. And by significantly better, I mean it's so uneven it's comical. So he's got that, and his three Super Bowl wins, going for him. The Lovie-2 scheme, by design, tries to significantly slow down the game, hope for turnovers, but rarely does it actually attack. It dares the opponent to go slowly down the field, piece by piece. He'd prefer his offenses to play the same way. It's not "believing" not to lose; it's "playing" not to lose. Of course he wants to win. But to do so, he plays not to lose. This is kind of the same thing as #1. When Lovie's teams get the lead, they don't continue to crush the opponent. Sometimes the accumulation of effort leads to a lopsided score, but it's not common. A ten point lead and Lovie is looking at the clock. This is not speculation; it's exactly what has happened the entire time he has been in Chicago. Being content with holding on to the lead is what Lovie is all about. It's been moderately successful while he's been here, but it's not the same as being aggressive and trying to put the game out of reach (i.e. "playing to win").

It's definitely an odd situation. Lovie's positives: -Gets players to play hard -Players love him -Players are willing to stand by him and persuade others to come to the team Lovie's negatives: -Defensive system is outdated and flawed -Won't step on an opponent's throat when leading a game -Believes in "playing not to lose" more than "playing to win" -Almost exclusively hires his cronies and friends -Nearly a complete failure at player development -Has horrible game management -Has even worse time management -Has even worse instant replay intuition -Has even worse press conferences -And if he was involved in the draft, he's much more interested in his defense than offense\ All that said, if he can continue to bring in big name free agents, it's easier to overlook his flaws.

He was indeed a pass catching TE. But he was also a pass dropping TE, a ball fumbling TE, and one of the weakest "big" TEs in the NFL. I see no reason the Bears can't get the same type of production out of Kellen Davis. He may be slower than Olsen, but his hands are just as good, and he shields defenders better than Olsen ever did. And, although we haven't seen it, I'm willing to bet he fights for contested balls better than Olsen does. I liked the guy, but I wasn't terribly upset to see him go, regardless of the reasons for his departure.

Yeah, because an employee who has never done something before is exactly the kind of guy you want running your multi-million dollar operation. Unless that guy, whoever it is, has been elbow-deep in the business of draft picks, scouting, and salary cap, then it's not a wise move. The more experienced guy, in terms of GMs, is probably a better answer. And particularly so for an organization that has clear management problems.

AMEN. One of the best posts ever put on this board.

If he's been pulling the strings since he's been in GB, then he's a quality GM with a history of successful drafts, an offensive-lean to his picks, and with more hits than misses on the big picks. I also like the consistent effort to find and cultivate QB talent. And taking him away from the Packers is a win-win for the Bears...assuming he was the one behind the picks.

Same damn thing happened with Jauron the moron.

But since JA has done nearly nothing successful to address the two major areas of need for the Bears (i.e. OL & WR), and those deficiencies directly affect any OC's ability to implement their complete system (regardless of what it is), it's an even more positive sign that JA is gone. Seriously, imagine being told you are the OC of an NFL team, but then being forced to use only half of your playbook because when you try the other half the team shits the bed? Many like Martz leaving, but the fact that JA got fired should have a more positive impact.

And as long as the Bears have a HC like Lovie Smith (unless the new GM ignores his HC), there will be significantly more focus on defense than offense, a desire to shorten the game as it compliments Lovie's defense, and a problem with any OC that attempts other than a vanilla offense intended to burn time more than score points.