jason
-
Posts
8,658 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jason
-
-
I agree our personel has been inept at the QB position. Can this even be argued. But over the years, I have to say, I am not sure "approach" is the key issue.
Look at our last 11 drafts/years. We have tried nearly every approach. We have:
Drafted a QB in the 1st - Cade & Rex
Traded a 1st for a veteran - Mirer (ouch)
Tried to find 2nd round developmental QB prospects - Morena, Krenzel, Orton
Looked for backups for other teams behind solid starters - Quinn
Signed veterans - Stewart, Chandler, Miller, Griese, Blake,
Took a flier on well thought of young players - Hutch
Ironically, about the only thing I have not seen us try is drafting a QB day one, after the 1st round (rounds 2 and 3). Not saying that would have mattered over the years, simply pointing out that we have tried many different approaches to getting a QB.
I think we have sought a QB in many different ways. We have simply done a poor job (a) evaluating QB talent and (
developing that talent.This is a perfect example of why I don't think the problem is the style of approach. As you have shown, every avenue has been attempted. I believe the problem is, and seemingly always has been, a combination of scouting and coaching.
Scouting
Scouting, well, that's obvious. As I have stated many times, I think that a well-informed fan could have done just as good as our FO has done over the past 20 years when it comes to drafting as a whole. The defensive drafting may have taken a hit, but the overall product would have been as good or better. Hell, put twenty people from this board together, have them evaluate talent, watch games, and come to draft conclusions and I think the team would be overall better over that period of time.
I think you (nfo) have hit on something when you mention the long line of defensive minded guys running the Bears. When a person knows something well, they tend to fall back on that knowledge when there is a difficult decision ahead. And when they try to step outside their comfort zone, and end up getting burned (Enis, McNown, Grossman, Benson), there is more of a tendency to gravitate right back to the familiar.
Coaching
I have only liked two Bears' OCs in my lifetime: Turner during his first go-around with the Bears, and Crowton. Regardless of success, the thing I liked is that they tried to attack. They didn't go for the safe route; they didn't nitpick; they didn't call for 3 yard passes on 3rd and 9. They tried to attack, and it made the Bears offense dangerous. It has only been during their respective reigns that the opponents have had to gameplan for the Bears' O. Nearly every other year, it was just a matter of a team knowing that if they got above 20 against the Bears' D, they were probably going to beat the Bears.
-
Although, it is a lot less likely that an UDFA will become a contributing or starting QB in the NFL.
-
I don't expect him to jump in right away, but "late round development" didn't hurt McBride last year. I expect he'll be at least behind McBride, and probably Graham to start the year. Okay, but have two corners injured out of five is something we're quite familiar with. And if he can jump ahead of Graham at some point, he's almost certain to see some time at nickelback.
Why would Schuening be a starter at lg if Beekman isn't? Beekman is an unathletic, highly-ranked guard who went in the 4th. Schuening is an unathletic, highly-ranked guard who went in the 5th, with one less year of NFL coaching.
I know we need a guard, which is why I was intrigued by Nicks and Cousins in the middle rounds. But we don't need just any guard. Schuening was not a good fit, and he would have been VERY unlikely to beat out St Clair.
Why exactly wasn't Schuening a good fit? Odd sounding to me considering the fact that he was highly regarded in most arenas as one of the top 5 Guard prospects coming into the draft. Add in the fact that Beekman couldn't beat out an immobile, one-armed, geriatric (NFL-age anyway), and the Bears could easily have started a mid-rounder who had talent but slipped (like your boy at DB). The only difference, of course, is that Tillman and Vasher are considered good, if not all pro, and nobody outside of the Bears has heard of Beekman.
-
Holy cow, that looks like Millen's draft pattern. Almost all WRs. Randy Moss, Chad Johnson, Reche Caldwell, Randel El, Ashley Lelie, Mike Williams, Sinorice Moss, Chad Jackson, and Dwayne Jarrett.
LOL. I didn't even realize that. Too funny.
However, that just shows how long the Bears have needed offensive firepower at the WR position. Each and every year the Bears need it, but never seem to get it. Therefore, one of the needs each year is WR. I suppose that's why I have vivid memories of wanting to draft various WRs.
If they had drafted Randy Moss, however, I'm sure the memories would have been different.
-
It's obviously going to be Williams.
As for Forte, I actually don't think he'll do much this year. I think he'll serve as motivation for Benson, and with a better OL, Benson will do better. Then the Bears will have a RB quandry, and be forced to give carries to Benson while wishing they could give them to Forte.
-
The ending was funny.
I wonder, am I the only one that noticed his offensive line just happened to be awesome?? Huge holes. All but about three runs were basically offensive line highlights, with him busting through to the second level before anyone sniffed him.
-
Good call on LT2.
Let me bounce something off you. Maybe unrelated to this thread, but something I have been thinking about.
IMHO, Angelo (as a former defensive scout) simply has an eye for defensive diamonds in the rough. He can find those hidden gems better than he can find offensive gems set on the surface, right in front of him. Isn't Gabrial also a former defensive background scout?
Anyway, here is the question. If the above is true, is it better for Angelo do what he did, draft a bunch of defensive fliers as the odds of HIM "hitting" on a defensive player are greater, or for him to draft offense regardless, even if he is not good at it, and the odds are lower he will hit.
Sucks to have to ask that question, but until this draft (which the results are far from known) Angelo has seemed like a pretty good evaluator of defensive talent, w/ the ability to find gems after the top rounds, while being flat out poor on the offensive side of the ball.
Question part two. Is the problem Angelo finding offensive talent or our coaching staff's inability to develop that talent.
Sorry for the sidebar, but something I wanted to ask.
I don't know much about Gabrial; so, I really don't know his background. However, as far as Angelo goes, I think it has something to do with his inability to evaluate offensive talent, but also the coaches he has had to work with. Each coach wanted "their guy" that fit into "their system". As a result, IMO, the average picks were made. What I mean by that is the collective wanted a guy who looked like he would have solid numbers, solid production, and be a spoke in the wheel. What they don't do, however, is look for the guy who might explode onto the NFL. It's the old-school "3 yards and a cloud of dust" mentality. I fear that it may be too ingrained in the city of Chicago, the team, and the fans to get away from it. Hell, the only guy with an imagination who has been involved with the Bears on offense in the last 20 years has been Crowton, and he got run out of town. He may not have had the best ideas, the best tools, or the best gameplans...but he tried to be explosive.
So, the long answer is, both. I think part of it's on the owners, part on JA, part on the city's mindset, and part on the coaches. Although, I tend to put more of the blame on the coaches than anyone else. Our offensive coaches have been horrible for quite some time.
-
Good points nfo. Allow me to add to them by making a related comment.
How many on this board respect and admire what LT2 does with the salary cap? How many times has he been right when the guys on TV and the major sports sites (ESPN) have been wrong? More than a few times.
Is LT2 a professional cap manager? Not that we know of. So, what he does is pretty amazing! How does he know all of what he knows without being involved with an NFL team? Simple, he puts in time, effort, love, and fanaticism into what he enjoys. If I were a GM, I would contact LT2 and hire him to be a cap manager, and that's it. Manage the cap, know everything about it, and ensure that the organization is financially sound. And you know what? He'd probably do just as well in his first year as many who have done it professionally for several years.
-
By his logic, I suppose it would have been okay to move up from our 2nd round pick, into the 1st, and then draft Brohm. Because then the odds go up, right?
If you do not gamble, how can you win. Is a QB in the 2nd a gamble. Sure. And the odds go down after that. That does NOT mean you just quit the table.
Pocket Kings? Hmmm....I don't know....they're not pocket Aces....better fold pre-flop and walk away from the table just to be sure. <_>
-
I still think that if Bradley could ever stay healthy, he'll turn into a solid pro with explosive potential. That guy always looks fast and strong when he's in the game. It's just too bad he sees the field two times a year.
If he's healthy and produces, Monk continues to fight back from injury, and Devin Hester figures it out, the Bears suddenly have a stacked WR corp in a year.
Bradley, Hester, Davis, Bennett, Booker, Lloyd, Monk
-
If you look at the past 10 Super Bowl champions, the QB's have came from the 1st Round (5 times), 6th Round (3 times/Brady), 9th Round (1 time/Johnson), and undrafted (1 time/Warner). Going back to 1980, only 2 QBs that were selected in the 2nd-5th rounds won a Super Bowl (Theismann and Montana).
Which is all the more reason to draft QBs consistently and try to find a winner. If it's a crapshoot, and we never really know when one will turn out, a team has absolutely nothing to lose - and everything to gain - from taking QBs in the middle rounds (3-5).
A flyer on Dennis Dixon, Josh Johnson, Colt Brennan, JDBooty, or someone else.
I'm sure that the stats on later round guys at all positions are nearly the same. Lots more hits near the first round, lots more misses near the end. So, what's the harm in picking a QB when it's obviously a need position? It's certainly better than picking a third-string, run-blocking TE who may not even be a TE.
-
Jason-I love your passion to Talkbears and well thought out discussions. I don't always agree with you, but your thoughts are always interesting. The one I love the most about you is after every draft, you argue how you would have done better. Heck, somethimes I think I could do better myself. One thing you or me or anyone for that matter don't know is the top managements plans and goals (ie. Harris contract, Bensons health, Bazuin's inability to learn the defense)
I'm 80% happy with all the picks, I would have liked to see a couple of things different, but I can't complain.
Williams-(A) I too liked Albert, he was intriquing especially how fast he climbed in a month and at least his floor was LG, but Williams is a smart, well rounded LT and a position that will set a team for 8 years if he pans out.
Forte- (A) He was our guy all along, I'd prefer to trade down 5-8 spots, maybe we tried but we got our guy
Bennett- (A) I was really high on him. Does everything you'd want out of a WR. May be our best WR in a long time
Harrison (B ) I really wanted best OG, but we do have Beekman/St. Clair and with Harris mentioning a hold out, and ?'s on the rest of our DT's, Harrison may fill a huge need. Look at the dropoff last year after injuries.
Steltz (B ) The more I read/watch about him, my grade might change to an (A). Everyones first impression is an in the box safety (Arch) who is slow. The coaches have him graded to play both S's and there are plenty of highlights with him playing nice coverage.
Bowman © This is a gamble pick, he pans out 2-3 years this will change to an (A) if not an (F). CB was also a need last year as Tillman/Vasher both missed a lot of time and our D dropped big time. Bowman has been compared to Cromartie of SD b/c of the potential but injury history, if he turns out to Cromartie no one here will complain about the pick.
Davis © I love him as a TE, big & fast like Olsen. TE was a need, but we should have taken either Brennan or Woodson. This is my only major regret was missing these QB's, but I don't dislike Davis.
Baldwin (D) who the hell is this guy, Lovie's nephew? If we were drafting BPA my guy Josh Barrett should have been taken (fire Angelo)
C. Adams © Don't know much about him so he gets a C probably as good as Metcalf
J. LaRocque © Once again, don't know much about him and really don't care.
K. Barton (A) I would have drafted him earlier, that's how much love I have for him. Would have went higher (injury)
M. Monk (A) Big fast WR that uses body well (CAN YOU SAY OUR MARQUES COLSTON)
I would of like to see Schuening/Radovich, Brennan/Woodson, Barrett SS, but if those are the only misses (G and QB) I think well be ok, a rookie G especially RD3 or later will most likely need a year to beef up like Beekman and the QB would be a project (Krenzel,Leak). I think were better off finding someone like Volek than a rookie right now.
I appreciate the kind words and thoughts. I think that after every draft I can remember, I have been disappointed in a few picks. However, I don't think I've felt I could have done better each year. There have been a few years when the Bears hit solid gold (Urlacher & Brown year), and it's hard to argue with a few of the diamonds in the rough that have been found, but there is a reason the Bears have been in the cellar for the majority of the past twenty years.
The word fan comes from fanatic, and I'm definitely that. I follow this stuff an unhealthy amount, have coached, currently ref, and spend countless hours reading reports, looking at box scores, scouring the internet for videos, and watching highlight shows. And I have a full job, and a girlfriend, and a family, and travel, and other responsibilities. And I still feel that with all that in my way, I would have done just as good of a job over the past twenty years as the guys running the Bears. I may not know more about football than the GMs and scouts, but I am pretty safe assuming that I know more about football than the majority of fans. And as such, I am fairly confident I could have done just as well as the Bears organization. Honestly, how could one not!? The more I think about it, the more ridiculous it is that anyone would argue otherwise. If the Bears had had consistent success, or even a whole bunch of winning seasons, then I might think otherwise. But I've seen too many drafts of safe players, backups, reaches, and just plain old garbage picks in positions of non-need.
As for your breakdown, I can see how one could think that way. I happen to disagree is all. I think that OG was a major need, and was ignored. I think that Forte is the completely wrong pick, and I have shown via videos that Benson looked pretty good when the OL actually did anything. Fixing the OL with multiple picks made more sense, saved the Bears money, and had the greater possibility of making the coaches/FO look better in the long run. Now, they're essentially putting an end to Benson, and more than likely Wolfe.
-
On Moss - I believe 20 other teams passed on Moss. Look, he blew off an interview with the Bears. He was obviously a problem child because his skill was definately top 5 but he fell into the 20s. You can't blame the Bears for passing on him given that 1. RB was clearly a greater need and 2. Moss was judged as a huge character risk. Just wish the would have taken Taylor instead of Enis.
On Milke Williams, you can believe all you want that given different circumstances he would have panned out. The one fact that we know is he is a certified bust.
Peace
Agreed. Moss had character issues. However, the point of this is whether or not someone could do as good as the GMs. I loved Moss at the time, thought he looked unstoppable, and didn't care that he played against inferior talent. I would have drafted him. Furthermore, I have gone on record NUMEROUS times stating that I would draft troublesome players, trade for troublesome players, and play troublesome players. I don't blame the Bears for passing on him. I completely understand it. But the point is, I would have drafted him. As for RB need and Enis, I disagree. At the time I thought Raymont 'Ultraback' Harris and Rashaan Salaam, while not great, were better off than other positions at that time. Also, I hated the Enis pick. I've gone on record numerous times stating my love for the homerun hitter type RB, and Fred Taylor was definitely higher than Enis on my list.
Mike Williams...meh...since he never played for the Bears, nothing can be proven. The facts go against me since he is a bust, but I think the Bears were just prime for a WR that year, and waiting for someone to come in and be the go-to-guy.
-
Overall, I thought it was a pretty good draft, looking at the individual players we got. At the same time, I can not help but feel this draft will go down as the draft that could have been. I feel we missed the bus on some players, and while there are later picks I like individually, I question the selections due to who we passed on.
1st - I like Williams. I like him a lot. At the same time, I can not help but feel Albert will be a far better player. Williams may indeed be the better, immediate, prospect, but down the road, I think we look back and wonder why we didn't take Albert
2nd - Forte - I like Forte. I think most do as well. This fills a need, and w/ a player most like. At the same time, I feel it was a massive mistake passing on Brohm. For years and years, we have suffered as the media continually posted the stat showing how many QBs we have started in the time Farve has started for GB. W/ a group of QBs on the roster that make us a league wide joke, we pass on what I believe will be a franchise QB. Worse, GB ends up getting him. So while I give Forte a solid grade, I just can not escape the feeling we missed out on Brohm.
3rd - Bennett - I love this pick. Not a burner, but runs crisp routes and can use his route running to get open downfield. I see him as a Booker like Wr, maybe more. Some say Hines Ward, and i have seen others compare him to Boldin. Point is, while not a burner, he knows how to get open and use the field, and could become a damn good WR for us.
W/ that said, we could have gone Brohm/Jamal Charles w/ these two picks, which I feel would have been far greater than Forte/Bennett.
3rd - Harrison - I called it prior to the pick, at least to those I was watching the draft w/. I just knew Angelo would go DT here. He can't help himself. While many love this pick, I do not. The off-field issue isn't the biggest for me. It was a single issue, and he does not seem like a consistent problem player. At the same time, I hate when I read about a player w/ a questionable motor, and who brings inconsistent play to the field. Further, I just do not get the fit. He is considered a run stuffing DT. I thought we liked gap shooters. We sent Ian Scott packing, and I am not sure I see that much difference.
While we were looking at a #3 DT, we still had big needs at OG.
4th - Steltz. Individually, I like Steltz. At the same time, I question our need for yet another in-the-box safety. Arch is not a factor, but we do have McGowan and Payne, who has yet to really get a shot. S was a need, but IMHO, the need was at FS, not SS. I simply do not believe we needed to be adding another in-the-box SS who struggles covering routes. Again, we ignore the OL, and instead draft a position I do not feel was a need.
5th - Bowman - Maybe my most hated pick. Talk about drafting at a non-need position. We have two young, solid, starting CBs who are signed long term. We drafted a CB last year (McBride) who started over a veteran when Vasher went down w/ injury, and looked damn good. Also have Graham in depth. Everyone talks about Bowman's potential and upside, but his injury history is not minor. Blew out his knee one year, and Patella tendon the next. Further, as he was a junior college transfer prior to that, and played little after the transfer due to injury, this is a major project player. So we drafted a big time project, w/ major injury history, at a position we were already solid.
This is the sort of pick you do not mind when you are coming off a SB win, w/ few needs, and are in position for luxury pick/gambles. We still had big needs to address, and I just do not feel this was a good pick. People talk about his potential, but w/ Vasher and Tillman locked in, what is his potential. Nickel DB? And that is if he can stay healthy and develop. Huge gamble at a non-need position. Huge mistake, IMHO.
5th - Davis - First, is he a TE or DE. He played both as a senior. My 2nd most disliked pick. We just drafted Olsen in the 1st, and re-signed Clark. Could use a 3rd TE, but seriously. St. Clair is still our starting OG, and we have no depth on the OL, and yet we are drafting a #3 TE?
7th - Baldwin - Entering this draft, the three positions I would have said we were most stocked would have been CB, TE and DE. Well, we just drafted a CB and TE, so it only makes sense to now draft a DE, right? Brown and Wale starting, w/ a great #3 in Anderson. Bazuin was just drafted, and no clue how we find a way to get him on the field w/ the other three on the team. Baldwin may be a good player, but you can only have so many players at one position. How does Baldwin fit in?
7th - Adams - We finally draft an OG, and not a very good one. Big OG, but considered very unathletic. One review said it best. Big boy w/o athleticism, but will likely make the roster due to a lack of depth. Not exactly a glowing endorcement.
7th - LaRocque - When listing the need positions, I guess I forget LB, but Angelo didn't. To continue the trend, Angelo looks at what positions are non-needs, and drafts a prospect.
7th - Barton - Actually love this pick. Not very athletic, but a blue collar sort of worker who find a way to get the job done.
7th - Monk - Another pick I love. Hell, I love the name. Injuries in his senior year killed his stock, but he has plenty of upside at a major need position. PRIME candidate for Angelo's red shirt program. Spend a year on IR to further allow the knees the regain health and strength, while he learns and develops through practice and study.
If I simply look pick by pick at the individual players, I actually like most all of them. Davis is a great example. I actually very much like Davis, and think he could develop into a nice TE, and was a good value. At the same time, I just have to question drafting a #3 TE over other need positions. People talk about taking the BPA, but you can only have so many players on the roster, or at various positions. You are not going to start 3 TEs (though that could be interesting) and taking a deep depth chart guy over positions where you still need a starter is highly questionable, IMHO.
Here is the draft, IMHO, that could have been. This is not simply using hindsight, as these were the picks I was calling for when they were happening.
1st - Albert - I have no problem w/ Williams, and Williams may actually be better for us this year. I simply believe that in years to come, Albert will be a pro bowl starter, and Williams will not. I think we drafted Blake Brockermeyer (who I actually felt was a damn good LT) over a player who has the potential to be a Walter Jones.
2nd - Brohm - You want to win, you need a QB. There have been exceptions to the rule, but they are exceptions. If you want to win and be a long term successful team, you need a franchise QB. We do not have one, and passed on one here. Worse, our rival took him.
3rd - Jamal Charles - Frankly, I like Forte better, but Brohm/Charles is a great combo IMHO. The difference between Forte and Charles is simply not close to enough to pass on a QB like Brohm.
3rd - Caldwell - Solid WR prospect w/ speed to get downfield, and YAC ability to make a short pass into a big gain.
4th - Collins - I do not trade down, and instead, draft Collins, who I was very high on. In Collins, you get a guy who can challenge inside for a starting job, but otherwise would be the #3 OT w/ big upside. Everyone agrees he left school a year too soon, and needs to develop him game more, but is a great prospect to grab and do this. Provides solid a solid backup OT, which we do not have, and may potentially replace Tait down the road.
5th - Schuening - OGs tend to slip in the draft, and I feel this way about Schuening. He was a top 5, if not top 3, graded OG that was there in the 5th. IMHO, he could have come in and strongly challenged for the starting job at LG. Instead, we took a major project CB.
5th - Barrett - Okay, I said this is what I would have actually done. Barrett did not end up getting drafted until the 7th, after at least one of our picks, so this would have been a reach. Soid in-the-box safety, but if knee is an issue, we red shirt him.
7th - Hillis - He was the lead blocker for McFadden and Jones. Could challenge McKie as a rookie.
7th - Schwartz - Taking projects now. College OT who may need to move inside w/ a lack of lateral mobility.
7th - Barton - That's right. Yet another OL. I am stockpiling OL at this point. I am filling our depth chart out, and loading up the practice squad w/ prospects.
7th - Monk - I loved this Angelo pick.
Hey, I am not trying to pretend I am such an expert that all these players are going to be NFL studs. At the same time, I feel this would have addressed needs far better and found more productive players for us.
But NFO...you can't POSSIBLY do better than the experts that have been doing this for years and years and years! Why even try? Why question their excellence? Afterall, they are pros at their job! And if you had any clue about football, you would already be doing this in a front office somewhere. Your draft sucks compared to JA's.
-
I don't really think that a RB was needed that high. I hate the TE pick. I'm lukewarm on the DB pick and the DT pick when I felt there were better players available at positions of need. And I can't believe OG wasn't addressed until the 7th, which is basically a warm body for training camp.
Gotta go with a solid C. If OG had been addressed earlier, I could have easily given a B- or a B.
I love the Vandy combo the Bears got, and think the LSU Safety is going to be a nice addition. I also think that the Monk pick could be a huge steal.
-
Just to prove I'm not just pulling players out of the blue, I'll start with 1998.
1998
I loved Randy Moss.
1999
I was absolutely pissed about the trade down for Cade McNown. I was raving about Dante Culpepper for months.
2000
I can't recall who I liked a lot this year.
2001
I actually liked the David Terrell pick. Although, to be fair, if the Bears had selected Randy Moss, there would not have been a need for Terrell that year. Of course, if I remember correctly, I liked Chad Johnson a bit more (could be wrong).
2002
This is the draft the year after the Bears did well, but sucked on offense. They only looked decent because the D was so good. I wanted a WR or OL (WR because Dez White sucked). I thought Colombo was a nice selection, and he has turned into a good pro. IT's just too bad his injury caused him to go elsewhere before getting better. I also liked Reche Caldwell, but in my defense the WR class was weak that year and I don't know what I would have done. I would have easily swayed to Randel El or Ashley Leilie, since the old message board had many backers of those two at the time.
2003
I didn't like Mike Green, Phillip Daniels, or Bryan Robinson going into the draft. I hated RW McQuarters. I liked Woolfolk, Polamalu, Nnamdi Asomugha...in that order IIRC. I didn't know enough about Polamalu to move him ahead of Woolfolk. I thougth the Rex Grossman pick was decent (still think the kid has a chance).
2004
Still disliked the defensive players from above, and also thought we needed OL help. Loved the Tommie Harris pick, one of my favorite guys that year. I also liked Igor Olshansky. None of the DBs that year really stand out in my mind as having moved me.
2005
Despised the Cedric Benson pick. Although, the guy I wanted, Mike Williams, hasn't amounted to anything in the NFL either. I still believe that if Mike Williams had gone to a team that actually used him, and didn't shelve him behind two other first round WRs, he had a chance to be a very solid WR. After the time in Detroit, he was damaged goods psychologically. (someone on the old board nailed this one in pre-draft comments, saying he was a headcase) I also remember liking Jonathan Babineaux and Alex Barron.
2006
Right after a good year. Didn't like WRs. Thought the Bears also needed RT/RG/TE. I thought the Bears reached on Manning, and should have grabbed one of the following: Marcus McNeil, Sinorice Moss, Chad Jackson. I can't recall what happened with the first rounder this year...but I seem to remember a trade down. I wanted Chad Jackson and a TE (Leonard Pope).
2007
Odd that it's this recent and I can't remember that well. I thought the Bears needed to upgrade offense after the Super Bowl season. WR and TE specifically, IIRC. I liked the Olsen pick, but I think I liked Dwayne Jarrett better.
So, there's a brief trip down memory lane. I can't say for certain that each and every thing I have said is completely accurate, since I dont' have notes or anything, but it's pretty close to what I remember.
I know this for a fact:
-The Bears would have had the Culpepper/Moss combo that the Vikings had. I absolutely loved those two guys.
The other thing I know:
-It's hard doing something like this because my drafts would have been different in each year based upon how well my previous drafts did. And I suspect that there wouldn't have been this ten year need for a WR if Moss was drafted.
-
To be honest, when breaking it down:
@ IND - Loss. This is probably a loss.
@ CAR - Win. This could pretty easily be a win. Their team is not impressive.
TB - Win. They don't impress me.
PHI - Win. This will be a tough game, but I think the Bears can win.
@ DET - Win. I think last year was a fluke.
@ ATL - Win. They suck.
MIN - Loss. We'll split with them.
DET - Win. Like I said, fluke.
TEN - Win. The Titans can be scary, but I still think it's a Bears win.
@ GB - Win. Why not? No Farv.
@ STL - Win. They're not good anymore. And they don't have the turf speed they once did.
@ MIN - Win.
JAX - Loss. I think their bruising running game is possibly ugly for the Bears.
NO - Win. This could be a very close/dangerous game.
GB - Win. I think they'll struggle.
@ HOU - Loss. I think the Bears may either be resting people, or have a trap game.
I honestly don't see how 12-4 is unreasonable. The Lions? The Packers? The only really scary games are against the Colts, Eagles, and the Jags.
-
I understand that just because you do something for a long time doesn't necessarily make you good at it. I work with several individuals who prove that out and I'm sure you do as well. My point would be that this is a full time job (probably more than a full time job from what you hear in the NFL). You make it sound like someone could take up the analyzing film, reports, etc...and be just as good as the Bears while holding down a full time job at whatever they do for a living. I simply do not agree that, on average, someone with limited resources (time, information, training, etc) would do better than someone who does the job for a living.
Peace
And that's fine. We can agree to disagree. Thinking back over the years, I would have had good and bad picks like anyone else. However, with my limited resources compared to the NFL guys, I am absolutely positive my hit/miss ratio would have been either similar or better than the Bears'. Several players I have really wanted have fallen right by the Bears when available. Sure, I wouldn't have nabbed Urlacher, but I am 100% positive that I would have had just as much success as the Bears have had over the period of time I have actually focused on the draft.
-
You're DONE! Until you add to your answer.
You then stress "all", when my word was "most". And you didn't "just" talk about the Bears, you mentioned the Patriots and Steelers as the standards that would allow someone to claim the fo knows what it's doing.
I don't care about your beliefs, nor how honestly you hold them. It doesn't make them any less ridiculous.
And you STILL DON'T GET IT. I'll go slowly for you.
1) I mentioned the Bears front office as a team that can be criticized for not having great draft success.
Bears != All teams
2) I mentioned that if a team doesn't have success, then they can be criticized.
Bears = not a lot of success
3) I mentioned two teams (Pitt & NE) that have had success. If fans question their drafts, considering past history, then there is just cause to say that the fans should just trust what the FO has done.
Bears != Pats/Steelers
What all that means is, when there is success, it's difficult to question the person with the success. Nobody questioned Walter Payton's training methods. Nobody questioned Dan Marino's delivery after a few years. Nobody questioned Eric Dickerson's upright running style.
When the Bears have continuous success with their drafts, then they will have players/fans/teams/GMs/reporters/etc. believing in them. Until them, it's a crap shoot. And just like craps, there is pretty much a 50/50 chance that someone else who puts in a little work will do just as well as they have over the years.
-
I'm hoping the Bears can avoid the injury bug on defense next year. IF so, Urlacher, Brown, Harris, Briggs, Vasher, Tillman, Anderson, and others will provide a solid defense. It will also be great to see Dusty, Okwo, and Bazuin on the field to see if they may provide depth/spark.
I think the offense will struggle greatly, again.
I'm thinking 9-7.
-
You are a cliche. Congratulations.
And your "smarts" apparently don't extend to the meaning of the word "rebuttal". It was more like a "challenge". Like, you know, do what you say can easily be done but somehow never is. Don't worry, you're not the first blowhard to refuse to back up point one. You're in...company.
It's cool. I know you can't defend what the Bears FO has done over the last 20 years.
Most people in the real world don't have the opportunities to follow dreams like being an NFL scout; so, you obviously present a bogus challenge that can't be pursued. Basically you used an ad hominem because you can't refute the actual item at hand: the fact that the Bears don't have a very good track record when it comes to the draft.
-
We've gone round and round on this one before. I disagree with this statement. I am not saying they are above criticism. I definately think they have real problems drafting offensive talent. This, however, is what they do for a profession. This is what they have done most of their lives. If someone on this board were to devote yrs to doing the above plus traveling and meeting with coaches, players, etc...then maybe they could have the same track record.
Peace
True...something they do for a profession. And what would their longterm evaluation be for that profession? If you take out the salary cap portion of the GM's job - something I think JA is a master at - and just look at the picks, one could easily argue that they have been borderline incompetent over the last 20 years.
Just because someone does something a long time doesn't mean they automatically are good at it or know better. Often times, people that have been doing something a long time are set in their ways, and fail to step outside the box for fresh ideas and/or suggestions. Anyone who has helped their father or grandfather with a task around the house can attest to this.
One can't discount their experience; it's incredibly valuable. But their track record with that experience isn't great.
-
Or you could read the rest of what you wrote, which included this:
It's all about reading comprehension, indeed.
You want to prove that you're more capable than the Bears front office, then put in the work and prove it. Otherwise, shut the freak up. But there's a reason fans who say shit like that are one of the most laughable cliches on the internet.
But, hey, they do use bold AND underline. Together! If that doesn't signal extreme intelligence, I don't know what does. It must be true!
I'm done arguing with you. The whole "then do it" argument is stupid. You act as if someone can just call up the Bears and say, "Hey, I think I can be a good scout and/or general manager", and they give you a shot.
As for using bold and underline, I was only focusing on portions of text you were too stupid to read. It may not be supreme intelligence, but it takes more effort and smarts than a rebuttal of "shut the freak up" - which sounds like a little kid not getting their way. Besides, you still don't understand what I wrote:
"When JA and the Bears' front office starts to pile up winning seasons like the Patriots or the Steelers, then come talk to me about what the Bears' front office "knows"."
You replied:
You're the one claiming that most people on a message board are better than any front office that doesn't accomplish what the Patriots and Steelers have accomplished, and I'm the one that has to "show everyone"?
I didn't say that all fans were better than all teams' front offices. I just noted that the Bears have had a poor track record over the last two decades, and that a person who pays attention to college football fairly religiously (or plays/coaches/refs) could probably do just as well. I honestly believe this. There are many studies out there that say people make up their minds about important decisions within the first few minutes of seeing something. I believe that the front office guys spend a ton of time talking themselves out of common sense picks because, often times, they are too flooded with data to see the obvious.
Until the Bears front office can consistently put a winner on the field, their draft choices will be criticized.
-
Why aren't we crazy about Beekman, then? Because, although he's a consistent guy inline, he may not be athletic or fast enough to pull or operate in the second level. So now the clear choice is a guy who's...basically the same. Alright then.
You have a good point. Which is why so many wanted to see more of Beekman on the field last year. I would much rather have seen him than Ruben Brown's one arm attack.
But this is about potential, and since Beekman couldn't even beat out a one-armed guy who had his best years quite some time ago, it doesn't bring about confidence. Draft picks, on the other hand, are still unknown, and we can at least hope that a guy will do well.
Marcus Monk
in Bearstalk
Posted
It will be a shame and a waste if Bradley is healthy this year, and doesn't get to see more playing time because the coaches gave up on him and end up giving his time away to other WRs. I swear that dude could be a star if he could stay healthy.