selection7

Well, I'm not technically one of those people but we're just used to Rex being ahead. Plus, Rex will always get more of a look being a first round pick. But no one knows, not even that new WR dude who accidentally mouthed off, or probably even JA himself. It's part of what should help make the Bears and interesting team to follow in 2008.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if we make it back to the Super Bowl this year (nor would I if we don't). It would take Rex or Kyle finding themselves and Url not being injured (as well as a lack of injuries in gerneral of course). Nagging injuries to the OL hurt us last year so it's not inconceivable that even without our new #1 draft pick our OL could be much improved. These days, unless you are the NE Pats, having a good record the year before is not a prerequisite to getting to the Super Bowl. We've certainly got some talent: Url, Briggs, Vasher, Tillman, Tommie, Dusty, Wale, Mark Anderson, Alex & Mike Brown, Hester, Greg Olson, Gould, Maynard. Look around the league. Other teams are not as well off compared to the Bears as some of you seem to think. Oh, it'll also take a better year from Babich and Turner. We were legitimately better than every NFC team 2 years ago. It wasn't a fluke.

Interesting original post Nfo. Sometimes it's hard to get through to the bottom line when you read the writeups by the draft pundits and sports columnists.

Interesting points. I think it's true that some teams that apparently have great college scouting really just have great position coaches...or at least some combination of the two.

What things last season did Rashied do badly? Catch? Not get separation (open)? Block? I know he wasn't a big part of the offense, but I have trouble evaluating Bears receivers because of the offense and quarterbacking and coaching that goes along with being a Bears WR. It would certainly be possible to some extent if you paid close attention to what the guy was doing when he was on the field but I don't watch Bears games that way (like I'm trying to break down tape). Runningback is easy, for example, because the camera stays on him most of the time, so I don't have to do anything special to notice how he's doing; WR is different since they're often off the screen and their success depends on the QB. ....so anyway, I am seriously asking, not trying to make a point. 2 years ago I thought maybe Davis could be a not thrilling but happy to have him type of slot WR just like 3 years ago I thought Mark Bradley could develop into a #1 WR for all I knew. Didn't work out.

JA's not going to redo a rookier contract (only a four year one at that) with two years left unless Hester gives him an offer he JA can't refuse. This is maybe some posturing for next offseason. I think JA considers verteran contracts a little different, especially if it's a nine year deal...but let's be honest, how interested are we in making sure in 2008 that we'll still have Urlacher's services at age 35 (after his current contract runs out at age 34)? An extension to Urlacher right now wouldn't be about securing his services, just keeping him happy. Meanwhile, if you really think Hester is the future, right now is a great time to renegotiate, because he'll only get more expensive if he becomes a great WR too. But I think Lovie and Angelo know that part of Hester's success is Dave Toub and his top-notch special teams, so they're not going to let Hester take them for too much of a ride after they put him in such a great situation to succeed, effectively making him a star and multimillionaire (in exhchange for Hester helping to make the Bears a contender).

I think the idea is that 18 year olds have to go through one of the most thorough, intensive, and hopefully life-changing preparation regimens you'll see before becoming a soldier and being asked to possibly kill, but they've got nothing but a few "drink responsibly" ads on at midnight to prepare 18 year olds for the responsibility associated with drinking. Add to that that 18 year olds have continually failed (to say the least) to prove responsibility with respect to alcahol over history and you have an arguement that at least isn't nonsense. However, I still agree with you because those points aren't enough to make up for the difference between killing and drinking. It's a tough situation becasue at HS graduation a kid that's not college bound is looking for opportunities (and ways to pay for college) but at 21 they often have fallen into a routine with however they've been making their living and view a future at college as unlikely. Some also feel that at 18 they can still be molded, while at 21, if they've grown up to be losers, it's too late to change them. Oops! Is that getting off topic? Ok, enough then, lol.

I think the second most fascinating aspect of it (behind Urlacher changing positions) is that the Bears reportedly felt Briggs performance dropped off "dramatically".

Yes, perfect! Haha. So I don't win any awards for being observant...what else is new. Actually the truth was that the "auto-reply" thing seemed somewhat random to me but I didn't think that was important to state. Now I realize that some of the time I've been hitting the "reply" button, and the rest of the time I've been hitting the bigger "add reply" button without realizing it, which explains the so-called randomness of the problem I was experiencing.

This was already done according to some...on this very thread! I'm not talking about the future. Also, business is business. You can supply consequences without personal vendettas. I'd say we pretty much did that. Drew now knows we'll play hardball right back, won't flinch, and will win, so he'll hopefully think twice about taking us for a ride and settle with only jerking us around instead. Also, that other poster is talking about how you hit reply but it automatically inserts a quote anyway. Ever since I've been on this board up until now I've had to Ctrl-A, then Del to get rid of the stupid auto-quote. I have been very careful to keep the "Quote" button de-selected (i.e. not highlighted). In fact, by default, it's not highlighted, but then you hit only "Reply" and it automatically sticks in the quote anyway. So I guess the mods haven't been having this problem?

I fail to see how sticking to our guns and landing Briggs on the cheap, having the leagues owners band around us, sticking it to Roshenhause and then tagging his co-conspirators with sanctions in the "court system" of the NFL is going to hurt us. Drew is an arrogant shark of a man who will not respond to anything but consequences. ...unless you think he won't even respond to consequences...only bravado. But I doubt he could've gotten where he is without more self-restraint than that.

Nice. If that's true then it adds another element to be considered for Angelo. He doesn't want to handicap himself in the hunt for free agents, but he also doesn't want to lose a possible high compensation pick for next year. In the end, it probably turned out lucky for the Bears that Bernard got a staggering deal from the Vikes rather than just enough to lose him anyway...and Jerry would probably like to capitalize on that.

Will Lance Briggs count as a fee agent signing since he was already on the Bears as a franchise player (who legally could have been franchised again...even though we apparently told him we wouldn't)? If not, then it seems that (according the method this guy describes) if we sign less free agents than we lose this year, then we have a fair shot at getting a really high draft pick next year (about a 3rd rounder) for losing Bernard Berrian. Maybe JA has thought about this because the 3 third round compensations awarded this year all had smaller contracts than Bernard and Bernard got a lot of playing time too. I guess I didn't realize (or had forgotten) you could get compensated with that high of a pick. If you read the guy's post, he seems to be saying that the first necessary qualification is that you lost more FAs than you signed, regardless of worth. Then, all equal value losses are balanced with similarly valued gains...until you are left with the remaining guy(s) you lost who couldn't be matched up with a similarly valued gain...then a compensatory pick is awarded. Well, besideds Lance, we didn't sign anyone that came anywhere close to the contract Berrian signed with the Vikes, and according to that linked post, the new contract salary is by far the biggest factor in determining compensatory picks. Basically, it seems that if we sign one too many players this offseason, we'll lose an almost guaranteed somewhat high draft pick next year.

Ok, I was confused because a couple of posts mentioned a need for LT. ....made me wonder what had happened to Tait. And of course we do have a need to groom replacements at every OL position.

I didn't realize we had given up on Tait already. I know he didn't have his best year, but if he is a weakness on the line then who is a relative strength? And there's always nagging injuries the fans don't know about until the players heal over the offseason and talk about it the next year (or sometimes maybe never).

My problem with seeing someone like him go is I don't feel like I can trust that his lack of production is related to his lack of ability/work ethic ...but is instead related to bad coaching (even as it relates to bad coaching causing bad quarterbacking causing poor WR stats). It's not like I've been breaking down game tape on him to see what he's doing on the typical play (where the ball isn't being thrown to him for one reason or another.)

JA has never left a large amount of of cap space unused during his time here in Chicago right? It's not his money so he doesn't have any strong motivation to do so. A team with no general manager might be more likely to do such a thing.

Arch's hand was broken last year. I don't see how you can get a reputation for being good in the box without being a good tackler ...though I guess it doesn't prove much about his tackling in space. In other words, although it might not have seemed like it last season, surely his second biggest problem is not tackling.

I pretty sure Angelo doesn't have much confidence in drafting either offensive linemen or quarterbacks high. Maybe partly because they get paid so much, but take so long to develop, and bust out so often...but also probably because he (and his crew) truly is better at drafting defense.

Looks like Moose got outperformed last year...in addition to being over 3 years older (and surely more expensive) than Booker. Moose had some value as a leader and a teacher and an example for the other WR's though.

Who knew Brett Favre was so right when he said Javon was going to be fine...just after being injured for the whole season in a contract year? I guess get's the "I told you so" on that one after all.

Lovie gets to claim a pretty dominant record against Favre for the rest of his life.

Seriously?

by trading for him they get him without having to battle for him in free agency plus they get his relatively small contract (for a veteran QB) with no signing bonus...unless Griese demands to renegotiate it.

Man, that's 9 MILLION a year! That's huge money. Bernard only got 7M per year (6yr-42M) and it wouldn't surprise me if his deal is backloaded, ensuring he'll never see that money. EDIT: nevermind, "23 million in the first 3 yrs " is actually slightly frontloaded. ...guess I was wong but geez, that's almost unbelievable how much the Vikes payed for that guy.