jason

That's pretty much the exact reason why I never wanted Favre on the Bears. The mere idea repulses me.

And Madden postpones his "surprise" return to the NFL.

Yeah, I read that too. But until he can come in and actually produce as a guard, then he's a question mark. Tackles don't automatically make good guards (vice versa also).

If only they ended up playing like Wilbur and Doug.

Omiyale played OT before the Bears. Buenning is average. Beekman did OK last year, but not well. If you have to throw in the fact that he "gives good depth", then he's clearly not a stud. Garza is past his prime, and sucks. Reed is the only one who gets a pass because he's young. Unless someone drastically steps up, improves, or makes the transition from OT to OG, then I still see it as a problem.

I'm interested in Burress, just like I wanted Owens and Moss. However, given the fact that the Bears have more WRs on their roster than they have shown competence to develop or utilize, I'd say that Plax would basically be a waste of multiple draft picks. It's time for Lovie and the gang to actually see if they have talent in the current WR corps before signing more FAs. Besides, if we're talking about "one" piece still missing...it's not a WR...it's a good OG.

Probably fun to follow their team, but I'm not a huge fan of their cheerleaders. The one in the front-middle may be related to the banjo kid from Deliverance, and the ginger on the front right looks like she needs to try out for the football team.

I'm most worried about the Vikings on offense. I don't care who they put at QB when you have that many weapons. Give a blind guy a nuke and he'll still probably do some damage. I'm most worried about the Packers on defense. They were already pretty good, and I think the transition to the 3-4 will happen almost immediately. Their LB crew is scary.

Don't know if you guys have seen this or not. Pretty impressive, albeit unimportant when it comes to how well someone performs on a football field.

Double Post

True, WR can play ST. But is that what the Bears have resorted to? Drafting players for their ST abilities? Call me crazy, but I'd rather have a guy who was dominant at another position versus a pretty decent guy who also has potential on ST. As for Buenning - Moderatly pessimistic On one hand, I feel like anyone worth a damn would have leap-frogged Garza. On the other hand, I know how hesitant this staff is to put new blood into the lineup when they have their favorite.

I like the way you are thinking. I was piecing mine together and you posted before I got it done. 3-68 Ramses Barden WR 3-99 David Bruton FS 4-105 DJ Moore CB 4-119 Tony Fiammetta FB 5-140 Duke Robinson OG 5-154 Marcus Freeman OLB 6-190 Al Afalava FS 7-246 Mitch King DE 7-251 Graham Harrell QB

The same can be said for all the WR picks. Or any position for that matter. It's never good to draft a surplus when you know it's a surplus, but the Bears still need an OG. The current OGs aren't that good; and Garza just plain sucked last year.

Actually, I didn't watch the draft. Had I watched it, I would have been dumbfounded. Actually, I still am. And I'm irritated that he wasn't taken late when he could have been. Weight and character caused him to drop some say. Well, I've seen the games...and he destroys DTs and MLBs. Period. As for "where" I wanted him, I did the mock draft thing for the Bears months ago, and it was based upon what the majority of the mocks said at the time. I just pieced it together that way.

Now that you know how all the teams thought, and how some picks went high, and some picks dropped, what would you have done differently? The Rules: -No trades that didn't happen -Picks must be made based upon players available after the Bears pick in each round Who would you have picked?

The people I want to see given a shot: Mitch King - DE - Iowa Derek Pegues - DB - MSU Ian Johnson - RB - Boise State Graham Harrell - QB - Texas Tech Brannen Southerland - FB - Georgia Javorskie Lane - FB - Tex. A&M

Sorry. No it doesn't. 1]You don't have to throw the guy away to get a deal done. 2]Also, you don't dump your franchise guy. 3]Urlacher hasn't declined so much that he's not still really good. 3a]Urlacher's struggles are more a result of poor defensive scheme than his declining skills.

Overall, not bad, I'd be a bit surprised. But drafting a LB that high is ridiculous considering the talent on the team and the deficiencies at other positions.

Scuba diving in Destin, FL. I'm fairly certain, like many here, that the Bears will grab a WR with their second round pick. I'm fairly certain that I'll view it as a desperate selection (unless lots of WRs drop) of about the 7th best WR. This will not make me happy. I'd rather just look at the results, be semi-optimistic, and hope some holes are filled.

With the 37th pick in the 2009 NFL Draft, the Seahawks select Sean Smith, CB/S, Utah. They have need at Safety and CB...they figure out where to put Smith and watch him go. Pixote and the Bungles...on the clock.

I happen to think Collinsworth is one of the top two or three announcers going in the NFL right now. He has timely information, correct information, and critical analysis. My hands down favorite NFL sportscaster is Jaws; that dude is awesome.

Agreed on everything. Madden has sucked for years. Madden has sucked Favre for years. It's high time both got the F out of football so they can retire together somewhere on a ranch.

1-4? Really? Green Bay = win (tough game, but beat them last year with a lesser team) Pittsburgh = loss (hardest of the first five) Seattle = win (another tough game, but easily winnable) Detroit = win (gimme) Atlanta = win (barely lost last time on a fluke series of events at the end of the game) I can easily see a 4-1 start.

Perhaps all of that is true. Perhaps his bad calls get more focus from me than others. But, you're right, I watch more games than most, and I'm an NFL fan. I typically watch 6 or 7 games each weekend thanks to DVR, and more if you include the flipping around when the Bears aren't playing. By and large, however, it just seems that Turner makes more bad calls than other OCs. Even if one just looks at the opposing team's offensive plays, there are far too many times where the opposing OC makes a call that comes completely out of nowhere and confuses the Bears' defense. How often can anyone say the same for Turner's calls? Very rarely does it look like he completely outclassed an opposing DC and called a game that kept the opposing defense on their heels the entire time.

I only mention the dive play and the Wolfe play because they stood out more than the others. People rarely remember the smaller details when there are bigger problems that steal the spotlight. Put it this way, there are a ton of important air-raids that happened during WWII, but only a handful are known by the majority, and only one really stands out: Pearl Harbor. The point is, people have a natural inclination to remember one incident that can be used as an example, rather than the details along the way. Go back week by week in the forum's archives, and you'll find complaining about plenty of what Turner did...not just those stupid plays. As for the Muhammed example, way to purposefully be obtuse. There are plenty of options that don't have him running the fly pattern, which is a pattern on which he A]hardly ever gets separation, and B]hardly ever gets a positive result. But that play happened several times during several games...for some strange reason. The one part we will agree upon is the part of your post that I highlighted. I agree. However, I just don't think that Turner is all that good at the predicting, adjustments, educated guesses, or probably chess. He just doesn't do what you mention that often, which is why I don't consider him to be a great offensive mind. The offense was horribly predictable the last few years.