defiantgiant

I'm worried that you're right. The only thing that makes me a little hopeful is that Martz was just out of football for a year, and the Bears were a little reluctant to bring him in without looking at a bunch of other guys first. Maybe that'll be enough to make him more amenable to change, maybe not. If the only other option is dealing Olsen, though, then I really hope it's enough. Martz could easily be gone next year, and moving Olsen for anything less than overwhelming value (a first-round pick or a young talented starter at a need position) would be prioritizing a one-year coordinator over a solid player for the next 8 or 10 years. I mean, if New England wants him and they want to send Brandon Meriweather, then by all means. But if we're talking about getting a #44 pick for a guy who we drafted at #31, who is (for all his faults) better than he was when he was worth the #31 pick, that's not good value. Matt Bowen wrote a pretty good column on Olsen, and he makes a better case than I can for why the Bears would be stupid to trade him. Stopped clock; twice a day.

I haven't heard any reports that Peppers was specifically discussed. They may have just been trying to catch up with his agent before Friday rolls around, make sure they're on his speed dial, etc. I don't think that would constitute tampering.

Here's a fourth option, though: Lovie and Angelo sit Martz down and say "Hey, we know what you've done in the past with TEs, but this guy is young and talented, and we've invested in him. Figure out how to use him, even if it means doing something differently." I mean, he's supposed to be this incredible offensive mind, but how good can he possibly be if he can't adapt to the personnel in front of him? Doesn't it make more sense to tell him to figure it out, rather than losing a young player who could hold down that position for 8 or 10 years? Just remember that it's Angelo doing the drafting. I'd much rather have the player you already know than a total unknown.

Unless I'm misreading the article, it doesn't say this. In fact, it says "...the entire McCaskey allotment could wind up going to Peppers." It sounds like the concern isn't that they couldn't afford him, it's that if they landed him there wouldn't be much left over to get anybody else. If "up-front money" means "committed for 2010," then $25 million would definitely be enough to get Peppers. Estimates vary on what kind of deal he'll get, but the reports I've read have said that he's looking for $18 million a year with $40 million guaranteed over the life of the contract, and that he's more likely to get in the neighborhood of $12 to $15 million annually with no more than $30 million in total guaranteed money. Now, some of that money is going to be a signing bonus, for sure, so the first year will cost the most. But there's no way that a deal with only $30 million guaranteed would cost $25 million in the first year.

I hope it doesn't. Olsen's more valuable than that. I'd trade him for a chance to draft Eric Berry or something, but not for a 2nd.

He has poor instincts in coverage, takes bad angles, and doesn't wrap up. If he didn't have ridiculous measurables, he'd be a late-round pick. But we've already seen what happens when you pick a safety based on athletic ability over instincts, and I'd rather not see it again.

Greg Bedard from the Journal-Sentinel agrees with you. He's saying the rumor is that Olsen's on the block, and Rotoworld is reporting that some people at the Combine think he could go to the Pats for one of their 2nd-rounders. Personally, I'd hate to see him get dealt, unless it's for something way out of proportion to his value, like a high 1st.

He ran a ridiculous time. Official time was 4.43, but a lot of scouts had him at 4.3 flat or faster. I still wouldn't touch him with a ten-foot pole.

I think the problem with Olsen has been consistency. He doesn't consistently use his body to shield the ball from defenders, and he doesn't catch consistently enough in traffic. He flashes great hands, and he flashes the ability to box a defender out (like a receiving TE ought to) but he has lapses in both. If he were to put it all together, he could be an upper-tier receiver at the tight end position. Not an all-star like Antonio Gates or Tony Gonzalez, but maybe a Dallas Clark or a Chris Cooley type of player. The only way I'd be OK with moving Olsen is if we could get a first-round pick for him, or a comparably talented young player. But I don't see any teams offering enough to make it worthwhile.

Really, we're moving him to ANOTHER spot in the secondary that he hasn't played before? And it's the one position where we have 3 or 4 guys in the mix already? When it's clear that he's only good as a nickel? I hate this coaching staff.

Yeah, it sounds like they're releasing him to get out of his contract for 2010, and then they're going to offer him a multi-year deal.

Dude broke 23 MPH on the first run. Oh man.

Definitely. This draft being pretty deep in free safeties, o-line and running backs, the Bears could still come away with some quality players at need positions, even with no first and no second.

So I'm watching the RBs at the Combine right now, and Ben Tate from Auburn looks pretty good. If he's around when the Bears pick in the 4th, I really wouldn't mind them using a pick on him. He runs with a lot of power, has pretty good hands, and could definitely help us out in short-yardage.

That's not true. This draft is absolutely stocked with quality free safety prospects. Here's the list of guys who are being talked about as starting-caliber safeties: Eric Berry (1st round) Earl Thomas (1st) Taylor Mays (1st-2nd) Nate Allen (2nd) Chad Jones (2nd) Morgan Burnett (2nd-3rd) ...and then there are borderline starters like Major Wright, TJ Ward, and Larry Asante, as well as corners who could move to safety, like Chris Cook. A lot of these guys are going to get pushed down in the draft this year, on account of the number of quality safeties ahead of them. There could very easily be a starting-caliber safety available where the Bears pick at #75.

Yeah, I'd like to add an impact blocking TE, but I wonder what it would mean for the guys we've got on the roster. Maybe if we go with three running backs (Forte, Bell, and a new guy, maybe?) we can take that extra roster spot and carry 4 TEs. Otherwise, somebody would have to go, and I'd hate to lose any of our current TEs. I'm also very worried that the coaching staff will do something stupid with Olsen just because Martz doesn't like to use receiving TEs. We need to adapt the scheme to the personnel, not the other way around.

I hope that it's just the internet, and that Chilebear's safe and sound.

If he were willing to be the #2 back, I'd love to have Jones return. But he's the best back on the open market right now, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Houston or Seattle or San Diego to offer him a starting job.

You're being just as contradictory. If a guy doesn't get very many carries, his average is less useful as a statistic. If a back gets one carry and it goes for eight yards, can you really point to his 8.0 YPC as evidence that he should get more carries? There's a reason that YPC tends to go down as workload goes up: it can be misleadingly high when the sample size is too small. By way of a for-instance, Wolfe's 5.5 YPC in 2009 is largely due to a single gadget play: a fake punt where they direct-snapped to Wolfe, and it went for 36 yards. How often are they really going to run that fake punt if they give him more carries? If you look at the remainder of his plays, the actual rushing plays, he got 84 yards on 21 carries, for an even 4 yards per carry, not 5.5. To me, Sproles' 343 yards on 93 rushing carries is much more impressive performance than Wolfe's 84 on 21, even if Wolfe's average is higher. The stats are bad enough, but they're really just backing up what I've seen from Wolfe every time he's played. He just can't do in the pros what he did in college. He tries to juke every defender and it NEVER works. I have literally never seen him make a tackler miss or break a tackle. He's not incredibly fast in a straight line compared to successful scatbacks, he's not quick enough laterally, and anyone who gets a hand on him can get him to the ground. I would love for Wolfe to emerge as a legit change-of-pace, but nothing I've seen in any of the carries he's gotten has made it look like he will.

A lot of these restricted free agents are going to be out of the Bears' reach, since we don't have a first or a second. It's been reported that OJ Atogwe is going to get the 1st and 3rd tender, so the Bears can't touch him. Nick Collins is also going to get the highest tender, apparently, so he'll be out of the running too. The Steelers are trying to resign Ryan Clark. A lot of these guys are going to be staying right where they are.

I disagree: better never than now. Tillman's at least a league-average corner, and while he might be an above-average safety, it wouldn't be for very long. Since we play so much zone at corner, losing a step isn't going to hamper him like it would for a man corner, but moving to safety could easily get him injured a lot worse. He could last a lot longer as a corner than as a safety, and it's not like we have anybody behind him who could take over at corner. If we're going to have to add a starting player either way, I'd rather we leave Tillman where he is and go after a safety.

Oh man, that would be a train wreck.

"Sproles-type back" is a pretty major stretch for Wolfe. Sproles had more yards last season than Wolfe has in his entire career. I don't think Wolfe has earned more carries: he doesn't make guys miss and can't break tackles. And when he does get carries, he's WAY too inconsistent. He'll break 30 on a gadget play about once a season, then the next game he'll be under 3.0 a carry.

There aren't very many safeties in the NFL lighter than 200 pounds. Ed Reed is the only one I can think of, and he's having some injury issues now. Also, our free safeties do a lot of tackling: Lovie doesn't use a traditional centerfielder at FS, like teams that play a lot of Cover-3 or single high coverage. I'd bet that Tillman would have to hit at least as often as he currently does, but with bigger distances to cover and a bigger head of steam, which means harder collisions. Nick Collins from Green Bay? He's 26. Or do you mean Charles Woodson? He's 33, but he's a corner, not a safety. Capers did move him around in the defense this past year (like when he moved to the slot to shadow Greg Olsen) but he's far from a full-time safety. There are plenty of corners in their 30s who are still elite players, not so much with safeties. As for Sharper, he's very much a centerfield-type safety like Reed. They play him mostly in coverage and let him make plays on the ball. I'm not saying that there are NO good safeties over 30 in the NFL, but Sharper's the exception, and people are still wondering if he's at the end of the road. It's possible that we could get 5 years out of Tillman at safety, but I think it's much more likely that we'd get 1 or 2. I mean, the guy is hurt for at least a couple of games a season as a corner, and how many back/shoulder injuries has he had now? To think he'd prolong his career at safety, you'd have to think that our safeties take LESS punishment than our corners. As far as I've seen, that's just not true. Don't get me wrong, I'd love Tillman's skill set at safety. He'd be awesome at it, and a secondary of Bowman-Robinson-Tillman-Afalava wouldn't be bad at ALL. I just worry that it wouldn't last very long, and then we'd be right back in this same situation in a year or two.

Yeah, I'd like to stick with Bell as the #2 or maybe the #3 if we can bring in an upgrade. At this point, I'm not sure that Westbrook would be a great option as a #2 back. He's got a lot of mileage, and his knee and concussion problems are no joke.