jason

Fact. Go find the best OLs of all time, and I will show you players who went far beyond their actual skill level. I still say Emmitt Smith is slightly above average; he just benefitted from having one of the best OLs in history and looked like one of the best ever. Every other highlight of his is busting through a wide open hole and getting first contact on a LB 5yds deep.

Please go back and find the multiple links that statistically PROVE drafting OL early is better than other positions. It is not a 100% guarantee - no position is - but it is statistically significant. The various links have been shown before, and the historical drafts have been broken down, OL early has better odds than all but, if I recall correctly, one or two other positions. Also, by your reasoning, Kyle Fuller means the Bears should not draft a CB in the first. He certainly hasn't been worthy of a first. One more thing, more OL players mean more holes to fill, so it stands to reason that if the position is not addressed, then any weak link can ruin the chain. Furthermore, they are the first links of the chain. without those links, the others do not hold up. If either stud OT is,there when the Bears draft, they would be crazy to pass.

Other than in the stat sheet, your last statement is simply not true. Maybe in the stat sheet since WRs don't get the INT stat, but that is who should get the INT on that play if he doesn't block the DB. Even if it is a perfect read and they have figured the play out, the defender still is on the other side of the line of scrimmage, and chipping him is on the WR. Also, unless Johnstone spoke specifically with the defender on that play, he can't know if the play was read or if the DB just took a chance.

I think the Bears tried to do the "two rookie OL at the same time" experiment with Long and Mills. Plug in one, pick up another via FA, and the weakness becomes a strength.

I do like it, but I don't think Tunsil makes it to 10. I think they have to drop lower to get him. I'd be happy with Stanley though. He's also great.

We're in the top ten for sure. Maybe better. Unfortunately/fortunately, Nkemdiche appears to have fallen. Reconfigured top 4. 1. Ronnie Stanley, OT, Notre Dame - BOOM. 2. Robert Nkemdiche, 3-4DE, Ole Miss - In my dream scenario, everyone hates his recent issues enough for him to fall to the 2nd Bears pick. BOOM. 3. , OLB, Clemson - Great outside rush. BOOM. 4. Darian Thompson, S, Boise State - Great size, range, skill. Great centerfield option. BOOM 5. , WR, North Carolina - This is partly because he's a pesky Wes Welker type, but mostly because he's a dynamic, fearless returner. Cut Mariani, immediately insert Switzer in as punt and kick returner, and whatever spot on the depth chart at WR Mariani was keeping warm. 6. Noah Spence, OLB, Eastern Kentucky - I don't care about character concerns. Dude looks like a stud. Let him get his head straight in the NFL. Could be a monster on ST with the right motivation. 6. Nick Kwiatkoski, ILB, West Virginia - This guy is going to be a steal late. He's one of those guys who just knows how to play football. A leader. He'd also be a killer on ST. 6. - I saw this highlight and knew I liked him. That's pretty athletic for a TE. 7. Derek Watt, FB, Wisconsin - Yeah, yeah, a Fullback. Why? Well, first of all, I think the Bears need one. He'd help the run game, and he's a great blocker overall. Secondly, he's got good hands - could be a good outlet. Third, he was a stud LB in HS and that translates well to ST play (notice a trend?). And, maybe, just maybe he'd be a bargaining chip for future FA considerations with his brother, JJ Watt.

I don't like Clark for the Bears. I either want a massive guy, a complete brick wall, or a guy that can explode around the edge. I don't want a guy who is above average at both.

No thanks on those guys. I'd rather see the Bears go with an OT in the first round. And, guess what? We just happen to be in prime position to do that. I'd love to see Stanley with our #1 pick.

I was just thinking the same thing in regards to the top ten pick. Tunsil will be gone, but if Stanley is there and not selected... I would go crazy for a draft that starts out with Stanley and Scooby.

RG-Best in the NFL? RT-Above average? Move him back in the middle and find the starting OT in the draft.

YIKES. Didn't see that. Hey, maybe he'll be available in the 2nd.

I like the way you're thinking here. Dangle the position for a team that wants a QB, possibly the first of the draft, and pick up an extra mid-rounder. Of course, if there is an absolute stud at 10, you pick there. If Nkemdiche is there, you don't trade down.

:headbang :headbang I think it's time to put in backups to determine what this team has for the future.

Yeah, the age thing, in both regards keeps eluding me. One, because Forte doesn't move like an old guy. And, two, because Miller does move like an aging TE. Forte looks quick on the edge, and Miller looks downright explosive. As for the cut vs trade, I didn't consider it. I don't think someone will give a 5th or 6th for an aging TE with health and personality issues.

The thing that bugs me about this discussion is that Forte and Bennet are in similar situations, yet everyone appears to want to keep Bennet, some even pay him more, but Forte should get cut if he doesn't agree to damn near a vet minimum. I don't get it. Forte is more of a RB than Bennet is a TE. Forte is a much bigger part of the offense. Forte is team layer, and Bennet is difficult. Forte means more to the Bears franchise by far.

I thought I saw on the Bears official FB page that White was done for the year.

A month later...anyone think differently? I think Miller has looked damn good. Cut Bennett to get even more cap space, give Miller the nod, and use the extra cash on FAs.

The whole "can't lift..." Is not really a rule, and is up for serious interpretation. It is not cut and dry like you keep presenting it. Even when what's his face said it, he was speaking specifically towards the type of slam in that play. Not all plays where a player gets lifted up.

I meant the other one. The Sproles play for comparison.

Yeah, I do not want to watch something like the Cubs did. Multiple seasons in the dump to reemerge. I am thinking more about the Spurs. Down one year hard because of Robinson's injury, pick up Duncan and dominate.

I can't find video of the play. Can you?

Cutler play-It was a slam, but the momentum of the play was headed that way. There is interpretation involved with whether it was the momentum of swinging him around or an actual pick up and solely a slam. Sometimes when a tackle is made, a defender ends up behind, pulling backwards, and needs to pull upward. That, in and of itself, is not a foul. Rodgers-The last call live looked like a facemask. Turns out no fingers got inside the mask. Pure missed call. Shit happens.

Essentially that's it, but I think getting into the dance by a slim margin just to get dumped by the hottest chick doesn't help a lot for the confidence. Especially when very minor improvements are from year to year, and the hot chick is very likely to dump you the next few years for the same reasons. Setbacks hurt. Michael Jordan didn't even make his HS basketball team at first. If he had, he might have had false confidence and not worked as hard. He has said so himself. Losing now builds character in ways winning does not, and it has the added benefit of better draft position.

It went back several games because I thought, along with others, this team was not very good. That they over-achieved only masked the issue. Even if they lucked out and made it into a WC game, they would lose in the playoffs. That is a 100% certainty. What then? A team that still has the same holes but a worse pick. Essentially the team is a boat with a hole in the front. Just because you luck out, and there is a huge wave, and all the water rushes to the back, doesn't mean the hole disappeared. And it doesn't mean the boat won't take on water in future fishing "seasons."

1. Cutler was tucking the ball and the momentum if the defender was bringing him the way of the slam. It is difficult to determine live whether extra oomph is added to a tackle like that, or if it is just the defender spinning and swinging a runner to the ground. Otherwise there is a flag on every single tackle where momentum carries a player off the ground, and it is not a form tackle. 2. The Brady foul, although incorrect, is a facemask call. There is virtually zero interpretation there. Get a finger inside the facemask, chinstrap, mouthpiece, inside part of the helmet and twist/turn...that is a foul. It just so happens that on this call, there was no finger inside; it just really looked like it. Rodgers' head turned. In real-time it definitely looked like a facemask foul. The first was an interpretation issue. The second is just simply a missed call.