jason

I'd be happy with the trade down if we got two #2s. I'd be unhappy with the draft. WR is the third or fourth position of need, and I wouldn't like a WR that early...despite how much potential Baldwin has.

It's possible. I have seen more than a few sources that say teams are scared of his light weight and frame. Is it likely? Maybe not. You're probably right that someone will take a chance on him in the late 2nd. Which I think would be a reach.

It seems to me that if the players wanted to negotiate, and actually find a middle ground, they would have just asked for an extension to evaluate the proposal made by the owners. At the 11th hour or not, the offer from the owners is consequential and should have been evaluated. Don't you think? I don't think it would make it impossible for them to turn the offer down. The NFLPA could evaluate and then put out in the media the various reasons why the offer wasn't good enough. To me, regardless of whether or not the NFL's offer was poorly timed or premeditated as a bargaining chip, the NFLPA just doesn't really seem like they want to negotiate. They'd rather attempt a hard line, play games in the media, and roll the dice in the courts.

Balta - Where are you getting your version of the timeline with the "down to the hour" breakdown? I haven't seen this anywhere. From what I've seen, the $1Billion went to $600+ million, and then to $300+ million...the owners are willing to give back 2/3rd of their original bargaining request. Here is one article that shows the NFL is willing to negotiate. Here is an article with the $137 million dollar slap in the face from the NFLPA.

I actually wouldn't be upset with this draft. It focuses on the Bears' real needs (OL & DL), while appropriately minimizing those positions I don't think are as big of a concern as some here feel they are (WR). Considering a 5th round WR and a 6th round FS probably won't make the team anyway, I think it would be better to see a Center at one of those positions. Centers are underrated in this year's draft, and underrated in general, and some of the best guys are projected as 5th-7th rounders. Aside from Wisnewski and Kirkpatrick, any of the Centers could fall to the 5th or beyond. I'd like this modification: 1. Sherrod, OT, Mississippi State; Solder, OT, Colorado; Carmini, OT, Wisconsin (At least one will be there; take him. I hope it's Sherrod; he's a freaking monster who is probably still holding a block from his last game.) 2. Marcus Cannon, G, TCU; or Rodney Hudson, G, FSU (Hope for Cannon) 3. Drake Nevis, DT, LSU (Other teams are scared of his lack of size. Lovie Smith loves his DL to look just like Nevis. He looks like a perfect 3 technique to me.) 4. (Beast, 4.39 in the 40, stud tackler, great instincts. What else do you need?) 5. (Good instincts, good tackler, great athlete, bad hands, questionable character. Sounds good to me.) 6. Alex Linnenkohl, C, Oregon State; or Zane Taylor, C, Utah (I'd be happy with either.)

MadLith...that is exactly the timeline. I suppose there could be other details thrown in there, debating points and what-not, heresay that is unsubstantiated. Unfortunately there isn't one single website that both sides are willing to get behind and verify, so the best we have is a paint by numbers with a few missing numbers. But the numbers we have lead to the timeline.

For the life of me I really can't understand how someone could side with the players on this. It's a simple timeline: 1. Players get great CBA that doesn't end until 2013 (2006-2012). I believe all but two teams (Bills and someone) agreed. 2. Economics change; they always do. Owners realize the players will be content with the current model until 2013. 3. Owners vote to opt out of CBA in 2008 (takes effect in 2010). Owners unanimously agree on this. 4. Two long years pass without negotiations. This doesn't help the owners at all, and serves to help the players because they were so happy with the current CBA. 5. Owners and players meet for negotiations. 6. Owners come down from $1B stance to $320M. Even as a kid I knew that meeting on my side of the middle in a negotiation was a good thing. 7. Players counteroffer with $137M, which is borderline ridiculous, and a sign they don't want to really negotiate. 8. Owners offer to let a third party auditor view the complete books. 9. Players refuse the auditor offer because the NFLPA wants to see the complete financial information. Apparently a trusted third party - something used in businesses, security, computers, etc. world-wide - is not sufficient. 10. NFLPA Union decertifies. This stops collective bargaining. This stops negotiation. This ensures litigation. 11. Owners lock-out That's a simplified timeline, but accurate. Numbers 7 & 8 should be damning evidence that the NFLPA doesn't really want to strike a fair deal.

Excellent overall post. The bolded part is the key to this entire debate.

What if your boss told you that he was personally losing money from the business venture through which you are paid? Would that be sufficient? Or would you demand that your boss opens his books?

1. It is none of the players' business what is in the owners' books. I'm sure the owners have provided basic numbers that spell out their side of the case. 1a. It only takes a second of consideration to realize that the owners' books contain a considerable variety of financial information that could potentially cause strife not only between the owners and the NFLPA, but also between the owners themselves. 2. Is it more likely that a group of billionaire businessmen with significant business acumen understand the financial impact or a group of millionaire players, many (if not most) who are considered to be slightly less than average intelligence. The deal will get done because not every player in the NFL is a megamillionaire, and eventually the cost of their 8 cars, 3 houses, leech family members, exotic pets, and 12 man posse will catch up to them.

I don't know if it's necessarily about TDs. It's about field position. I believe Hester had the best KO return average in the NFL. The other guys weren't bad either. It was definitely an advantage the Bears had. Now that advantage is lessened.

There is a difference now, however. The touchbacks are happening more frequently. Moving the line to where it was before will cause quite a few more touchbacks. Janikowski will be kicking them out of the endzone. The kickers are getting bigger and stronger now. Hell, Janikowski probably would have been Nagurski-esque if he played back in the day.

There is a huge difference between a mid-rounder (i.e. 3rd/4th) and a 7th round guy who almost never makes the team. The 7th round draft pick has such a ridiculously low possibility of making the team and contributing that it's not really a risk. It's just picking up a guy who lasted until the later rounds.

I share the same concerns about Webb. Let's hope he's Big Cat 2.0. As for one of the two (Martz or Tice) having to leave for success, I think it's one of those things I don't want to think about. I hope for success, but it's tough not to be a bit pessimistic as a Bears fan. Maybe they can compromise and find a great middle ground, or one of them will acquiese.

I'm cool with draft smoke-screens, but if they are wasting too much time on scouting a mid-round RB, then it's a waste of resources. At a certain point they should be devoting their time to improving what's wrong, not trying to deceive opponents about a 3rd or 4th round RB who the Bears probably won't draft. The bad part is, most teams probably realize the Bears shouldn't draft a midround RB, but past draft choices have been iffy enough that they have to worry about it, smokescreen or not.

This shows me that Rashard Mendenhall is just as stupid as Adrian Peterson. The analogy is utterly ridiculous.

Thanks for the post! For the most part I like the list. But the fact that they're even looking at a RB who could go in the mid-rounds is disgusting to me. Horrible, horrible direction if they're even thinking about it.

Agreed. I was already on the side of the owners, but this cements it. It strikes of nothing but childishness. It's the equivalent of taking your ball and going home because people won't play by your rules.

Pay no attention to az. His elitism is supposed to be proof of his vast experience and knowledge. You should feel lucky he even participates on this board. Besides, the board is pointless since we don't work in the NFL. They know better than anyone on this board, despite the fact that everyone on the board - and everyone who has seen the Bears play - has been in agreement for multiple years that the OL is probably the weakest aspect of the team. He is still trying to wrap his head around the fact that the Martz' awesome offense actually made drastic changes during the season, completely morphing from a traditional Martz offense to a more run-oriented attack, improved after the by week, and somehow still managed to be 21st in scoring despite the utter failures at OL that couldn't protect a pocket passer with great mobility for more than 2 seconds.

HAHA. Nope, Omiyale did nothing to me personally. He does, however, represent what has bugged me about this franchise for quite some time. The problem is twofold. First, they simply haven't addressed the OL like it should have been. I don't know if this is due to philosophy or what, but as a former thread pointed to, we've ALL said that OL is a priority for 3-5 years. Aside from the Chris Williams pick, it has been unaddressed. Second, when a major need is identified, the Bears don't always address it in the draft with an early pick. It's not a good time based upon ratings, and then "well our guy didn't fall." I fear this is going to happen again. DT in the first, then "well, none of the current OTs are rated high enough," then "oooh, we love [insert small school WR/DB/S here]," and the Bears are stuck picking an OLineman in the 4th. I hate it. If something is the major problem, you address it, and then address it again until it's unequivocally fixed. As for the questions: **Can we replace the entire line? Obviously not. Do I want them to? No. But I would LOVE to see 2 of the first 3 rounds spent on OL. In fact, I think if 2 of the first 3 rounds are NOT spent on OL, it's a mistake. 1) I don't like Webb, but there is no way he's worse than Omiyale. I could get a sack off Omiyale. Webb has potential, maybe. It seems the Bears now have high and low rated OTs (Williams and Webb) who just might be better suited to play Guard. Either way, Webb has a much higher floor than Omiyale, in my opinion, and he showed promise in the running game on multiple occasions. 2) I don't know if Williams can be a good OT, much less a LT. The problem is, other guys sucked so much that Williams had to move to help out the team. This tells me he's the best lineman on the team. If he's good enough to switch positions and still be better than the backup, then he's pretty damn good. For what it's worth, I don't think he played that poorly last year. Then again, maybe he was overshadowed by Omiyale and Webb? 3) Good question. I think Tice (i.e. Webb is not a typical Martz player) wins, and it hurts the Martz offense. I can just see them in a draft war room, Tice drowning out everyone else because of his size and voice. What I hope happens is that Tice wins, and then Tice and Martz get together to make it work for the Bears offense by making the offense versatile running and passing.

If you phrase it like that, which is essentially a way of saying "Omiyale sucks, but what else could they do?" then I have less a problem with it. However, Omiyale might be the worst OLineman I've ever seen in an NFL game. And if other teams also have to put in "swing tackles," then that means he's worse than most of those guys as well. See above. If you refer to him as Plan D, then you don't fall into any of the categories I listed and my rant wasn't directed to you. I had a problem with the phrasing is all. "Nice swing tackle," made it sound like he was a good option coming off the bench. Which he wasn't. He was a bad option coming off the bench. Maybe it's just the word "nice" that irritated me. "Nice" is not a adjective I would use to describe anything he did on the football field. In fact, I honestly think there must be plenty of guys out there who are trying out in various secondary football leagues who are better than Omiyale. They just lack the drive, discipline, finances, resources, connection, etc. to try out or be seen. Hell, I saw a guy last year in a semi-pro game who was burying 60-65yd Field Goals with ease in pregame, went 1-2 from just under 50 during the game, and bombed every kickoff deep into the end zone. I asked him why he wasn't trying out somewhere, and he replied, "It costs a lot of money to travel and try out." If a random kicker with that sort of talent is out there, then SURELY there is an Omiyale replacement (because kickers are much harder to find). Having said all that, if Omiyale is Plan C or D (I contend he can be no higher than D), then that is even more of a reason for the Bears to draft OL early and often. Because that would mean the Bears had to resort to the fourth option when filling out a starting offensive line this past year. And that's just plain disgusting.

I refuse to let this go any time I see it posted on any board. WTF games did you watch last year that would lead you to believe Omiyale is a "nice swing tackle," much less a nice regular tackle?! It sickens me that the season is only a few months old and so many are already to trump up the memory and concept of Omiyale because it suits some sort of convolutely draft philosophy. Say it with me: Frank Omiyale sucks. To say otherwise is either ignorance from someone who didn't watch the games, straight up lying from someone who watched the games, or a complete lack of understanding and memory from someone who watched the games. Under no circumstances is Omiyale a nice player at any position. If you like a DT in the first or a DB in the second, just say so. There's no need to sell us a bridge in Brooklyn.

Huh? You blame the owners even though they met the players half-way?

Different point, it has no bearing on whether or not Benson should have been drafted. And aside from that, it's impossible to determine what a Player A on Team B would have been able to do. If Tom Brady were drafted by the Texans, he wouldn't be the current version of Tom Brady. He'd be Sage Rosenfels.

I am decidedly in the owners corner. The thing that I always hear is "the average players' career is 3 years." So F'ing what!!! During those three years, even if they are the lowest paid guy on the team, they get the minimum NFL salary, which is something like $300-$400K per year. They make in their three years what many people make in 8-10 years. Cry me a river. I have a problem with this, but that's not the entire issue given that these guys are the product. I think where the problem arises, for me at least, is that it's difficult to see these BILLIONAIRE owners collectively making decisions that lose all of them money. I just don't see it. These people are, by and large, successful business owners who know about making money. They know about success. They know money, the bottom line, debits and credits. The players, meanwhile, are, on average, not very bright. Sure, there are some very bright guys, but it is my contention that many are idiots, and the percentage is greater than average. If one side knows what is right and wrong with a complex financial deal, it's my belief that it would be the owners. If one side is going to be greedy without knowledge, it's my belief that it would be the players. Overall, I have less of a problem with educated, previously successful business owners making money with a business venture - make no mistake, that's what an NFL team is. It's an investment. I just find it difficult to believe that all these owners would be making this stuff up. They know what it is to make money.