defiantgiant

I don't think the issue's cap, it's cash. It's overwhelmingly likely that there's not going to be a cap for the 2010 season, so I'm pretty sure they could pay his $4 mil roster bonus and $8 mil salary with no cap concerns. If they wanted to resign him, they could frontload the deal so that most of it paid out this year, and duck the cap restrictions that way. The problem is that they already have the league's highest-paid safety, Adrian Wilson. Wilson is going to make a little over $7 million this season, and Rolle would make at least $12 mil if they kept him. No team wants to pay nearly $20 million in one year to their safeties, regardless of the cap. Whoever's doing contracts for the Cardinals has really shot himself in the foot: they keep giving players these unsustainable contracts full of escalators, watching them hit all the escalators, and then having to ask them to renegotiate later. It happened with Wilson and with Larry Fitzgerald, and it's the reason they can't keep Rolle. As for the Danieal Manning comparisons, I can definitely see it, especially since the Cards sometimes use Rolle as a pseudo-nickel back and ask him to cover the slot receiver when they go to the nickel package. But Manning doesn't make half the plays on the ball that Rolle does, and the cost/benefit might work out such that Rolle's worth it, warts and all. Plus, the FA safety market is looking thin this year, and I wouldn't bet on a starting-caliber safety dropping to Chicago in the 3rd. Rolle could easily be the best available option.

True, and Matt Bowen's already speculating that the Bears could make a big-money offer to Rolle. The guy's clearly looking to get paid: the whole reason he's not expected back in Arizona is that he isn't willing to take a pay cut to stay. If Lovie and company want to fix the defense this year and keep their jobs, they need to get out the checkbook for players like Rolle and Kampman/Peppers. EDIT: Also, if we got him in FA, we'd be able to use the 3rd-rounder on Myron Rolle. Rolle/Rolle would be a HUGE upgrade over Manning/Afalava.

Oh MAN. Come to Chicago, Antrel. He's a little bit of a gambler in coverage, but he makes a ton of plays. He'd be a huge upgrade at free safety, and he's still only 27. Rumor has it, though, that he wants to go back to Miami and play for the Dolphins. We'll see, maybe Angelo can pry him away.

He's certainly fast enough, but what I keep hearing from Florida fans is that he's a total headhunter and never wraps up. We've got that already in Kevin Payne, and it doesn't work in the pros. If Jon Asamoah fell to us in the 3rd, though, I'd love for Jerry to take him. He's not on Iupati's level, but the guy looks like he could step right in as a starter at LG and develop into a good-to-very-good player. He was rated as a 2nd-round talent by a lot of people, but with Iupati, John Jerry and Maurkice Pouncey all ahead of him, maybe he'll get pushed down to the top of the 3rd.

Yeah, I'm with you. I just don't see any safeties on our roster that are above replacement level. If we can fix the FS position so we could afford to draft Rolle, I'd love to have the guy: he's clearly head and shoulders above Payne/Steltz/Afalava in terms of talent. Also, Rolle's big, and that would be a welcome change. One of the reasons (I think) that the Bears have had such an awful time trying to nail down the safety position is that we keep drafting these undersized guys like Mike Brown, Danieal Manning, and Brandon McGowan...it seems like every Bears safety is 5'10" and a biscuit over 200 pounds. And none of them can stay healthy. Meanwhile, Rolle's 6'2" and after he cut way down for the Senior Bowl, he still weighed in at 218 pounds. I could see him playing at 225 in the NFL, and that size difference could make him a durable safety, which the Bears badly need.

Oh, I completely agree. But Rolle has range and instincts that most of our current SS guys seem to lack. If we could find a way to bring a real centerfielder into the fold, I'd be OK with drafting Rolle to play opposite him. Kevin Payne has apparently forgotten how to wrap up, Steltz hasn't been able to make an impact outside of special teams, and while Afalava showed some promise, he also blew some big assignments, which we already get too much of from Danieal Manning. I think Afalava could still develop into a league-average SS, but Rolle looks like he could be a difference-maker at the position, which I don't see in Afalava. That said, we'd probably have to use our 3rd rounder to get Rolle, which makes it unlikely that we'd be able to get a centerfielder at free safety too. The free agency options aren't great, either: Ryan Clark from the Steelers, Jermaine Phillips from the Bucs, Sean Jones from the Eagles, Mark Roman from the Saints. None of those guys are real ballhawking free safeties. Unless somebody on our current roster magically steps it up, I think Rolle's going to be a luxury we can't afford. Which is a shame, because he looks like he's going to be great.

I'd love to have Rolle if we could also get somebody else, somebody with better ball skills, to play FS. Then we could let Rolle compete for the SS job, which I'm sure he'd win, since that's really where he belongs. He's assignment-sound, he doesn't make mental errors, and he's definitely a hitter. He looks like an impact player at safety, he just doesn't really get his hands on many passes, which the Bears really need more of in the secondary.

I hope you're not serious.

OK, I agree that you need leaders on any professional sports team. But if when you say "winner" you mean "leader," then just say "leader." People who use "winner" to mean "leader" are conflating a real quality (a player who can inspire/lead his teammates to play better) with an imaginary quality (a player who has a winning record just by willing it to happen or some other magical process.) Like the other guys here have been saying, you don't necessarily measure a leader by how often he wins, especially if (like Cutler) he's been put in a bunch of lousy situations. Some good leaders lose. Look at Peyton Manning after Indianapolis lost to the Saints - I bet his teammates would still tell you he's a good leader. That's because leading and winning aren't always the same thing. And you don't necessarily need the quarterback to be your leader, either, but that's the only position where people talk about "winners" or "just getting it done." By all accounts, Kreutz was the leader on offense when the Bears went to the Super Bowl. He provided the nasty, smashmouth, blue-collar attitude that defined that offense, especially in the run game. He made the guys around him, most of whom only had a couple of years left in their careers, play at an extremely high level. He set the tone for that team. But that's being a leader, not a winner. Because the next season Kreutz went 7-9, just like everybody else on the Bears, and I don't think anybody here would say he was less of a leader in 2007 than he was in 2006. Would you say he became less of a "winner" that year, in the sense you're using the word, where a winner is a player who "leads/wills/inspires his team to victory"? If not, then we're talking about the same thing: a leader. Just take out the "to victory" part of that sentence, and I'm on board with you 100%. I'm willing to bet that everybody on that Bears line would tell you that Kreutz was the same leader during their 7-9 season that he was in their 13-3 season, but leadership doesn't always equal victories. To sum all that stuff up: my beef with the "winner" myth is that it's a superstition, and it's used to justify the assumption that quarterbacks with losing records are bad leaders. A lot of commentators look at a guy like Cutler and say "oh, he's not a winner." And what they really mean to imply is that he's a bad leader or a bad competitor. But they don't back that up by talking to his teammates (who say he's a great leader) or talking to his coaches (who say he's extremely competitive.) They back it up by pointing to his team's win/loss record, which is just wrong. When people say "Cutler's never been a winner, even in college" they're saying he's a lousy leader or he's uncompetitive because his teams lost. But like nfoligno said, the guy doesn't play defense, and his defenses have always been putrid. He could have been General Patton...he still wouldn't have been able to lead Vanderbilt to victory in the SEC, not with that defense. Same goes for the Broncos, and (like it or not) for the Bears this season. The best leaders in football still need a team around them to have a winning season.

My main concern with Bulger as a backup would be that he'd necessitate major changes in the offense. He and Cutler are very, very different quarterbacks. Bulger doesn't have anything like Cutler's escapability or arm strength, which would mean we'd have to change the offense to suit Bulger's skill set if Cutler were to go down. I like Hanie as the backup, since he seems like a very-poor-man's Cutler in terms of his skills. Hanie might not have anything like the same talent, but at least they could keep all the same plays in the playbook if he had to step in.

Oh man, I'm jealous. In Virginia, we just broke the all-time record for snowfall in one winter, and I think that was something crazy like 55 inches. And as I write this, it's snowing AGAIN.

Yeah, I totally agree. Olsen should have a long career ahead of him, and he has the talent to be a very good, maybe even elite receiving TE. Trading him away would be robbing Peter to pay Paul: whatever step forward we could take at another position with the pick, we'd almost certainly take an equally big step backward at TE.

Show me how many interceptions weren't Peyton Manning's fault. We don't know how many were or weren't. My guess, though, is that the Colts' receivers screwed up a lot less than the Bears' did. Doesn't seem like a stretch to think that Reggie Wayne wasn't falling down trying to stem off a route or running into the back judge on a square-in. And Peyton had an offensive line that didn't have him running for his life every down. For all we know, every single one of Manning's interceptions was his fault. Regardless, you're assuming that the proportion of interceptions attributable to other players than the QB is a constant across different teams with different levels of experience and skill at the other positions, which is a pretty tough assumption to swallow. It's true, QBs are judged by wins and losses. It's not true, however, that they're FAIRLY or RATIONALLY judged on wins and losses. Why should they be, when no other position is? Is it because of their responsibilities for the offense? Brian Urlacher's the quarterback of our defense, for all intents and purposes. All the calls go through him, he gets everybody lined up, he makes sure guys are doing their jobs. Does anyone even know Urlacher's win-loss record? No, because nobody in their right mind would think that the team's wins and losses are on him alone. What makes quarterbacks different, other than this superstition that they can magically influence a team to win regardless of how well they play? Did Trent Dilfer somehow become a "winner" once he got to Baltimore? No, he was the same mediocre QB, only with a once-in-a-decade defense and a heavy-duty running game. That's the thing...whenever anyone tries to fall back on this "wins are a stat" argument, they resort to superstition like "some guys are just winners." Tell me about just being a winner. Can you coach it? Are people born with it? Are there winning drills that some QBs ran in Pop Warner practice, while other QBs ran those stupid losing drills? Or is there a more rational explanation like, say, winning being a matter of how good your entire team is versus how good opposing teams are? I'd say it's the latter, especially when you consider guys like Urlacher and Mike Brown, who were drafted in the same year, and both started as rookies. Aren't they equally "winning" players because they played for the same team and therefore have the same win-loss record? If so, then that's true of anybody who happens to start for that team at the same time, which sure makes it seem like wins are a team stat. If not, then you have argue that you can't judge a winner based on how much he wins, which is ridiculous.

It's also a 40-TD pace, which would have made Cutler the #1 scoring QB in the league. And I've said this before, but win record is not an individual stat. It just isn't. Go to nfl.com and pull up the career stats for any quarterback: they don't list wins/losses among their stats. Extrapolating the team's record like it's Cutler's stat just doesn't make sense: you really think the team would have gone 8-8 if Cutler put up 240 points for the offense? Also, 18 interceptions is too many, but I'd hardly call it "obscene." In fact, it wouldn't have been THAT out of place among the best QBs in the league. Peyton Manning got picked 16 times this season. Is that obscene? Kurt Warner and Eli Manning had 14 picks each; Tom Brady and Carson Palmer had 13 apiece. In my post I specifically said that Cutler needs to get the interceptions down. But he's always going to throw more than somebody like Kyle Orton. That's what kind of player he is. If Chicago wanted somebody who wasn't ever going to take risks, they would have kept Orton.

If we can get Kampman on a 2-year or 3-year deal and his knee is OK, we could finally have some pass pressure from the front 4. He wouldn't be a long-term solution like Gaines Adams was supposed to be, but he could have a couple of seasons of high-level play left in him, and he'd make it less urgent for Henry Melton and Jarron Gilbert to contribute right away. Which is good, since they were both incredibly raw coming out of college. Green Bay says they want to make him an offer, but he's very limited in their new 3-4 scheme, and unless they want to start using a lot more 4-3 looks, they're not going to be able to play him where he's effective. I read somewhere that he nearly went to Minnesota a few years ago, so obviously he's not averse to switching teams in-division. I'd be very OK with it if Angelo wanted to make a move for Kampman.

Yeah, by my count, he gave Cutler a pass on 8 of the interceptions when he actually broke them all down: those were ones where either a receiver messed up, a defensive player made a ridiculous play, or the game situation was such that Cutler had to take a shot. And 18 interceptions is about what I'd expect from Cutler, even in a good season. Does he need to get that number down? Of course he does. But Cutler didn't regress this season as much as the numbers make him out to have done. He was playing roughly the same as he did in Denver, just without the stellar pass protection and a big receiver to bail him out (until DA stepped in.) Also, I think it's worth noting that in the last four games, he had better protection (with Williams on the left side) and a big receiver. In those four, he threw for this stat line: 75/134 (56%) for 852 yards, 10 TDs, 6 interceptions, 81.4 QB rating Not a stellar stat line, but an improvement, and he did it while all the new personnel were still getting settled. After he has a whole offseason to get comfortable with Aromashodu and the new line, I think he could live up to expectations next season.

Damn. Judging from his physique and the little bit of tape I've seen, I figured he'd at least be good in short yardage. Oh well, Deji Karim is higher on my list anyway, and he could be there at the end of the draft when Nance would be available.

I think both of them are guard/right tackle prospects in the pros. Vlad Ducasse isn't going to stay at LT, and he might not even stay at tackle. He has tremendous work ethic and desire to get better, but he's also very raw and somewhat limited in terms of flexibility, lateral range, and redirecting. He was having a hard time with outside-in moves from defensive ends at the Senior Bowl, which could be a problem if he plays right tackle in the NFL: he might be best as a guard. Jerry, I think, is the better prospect. He could probably stay at guard and be great, but at the Senior Bowl he looked like he could be a legit starter at RT. Also, I'd be a little worried about his height at guard, since he's almost 6'6". The Bears could do pretty well with either guy, but I'm not sure either will be around when we pick in the 3rd. From a physical standpoint, both guys have starting-caliber talent, and I could see both of them potentially getting picked in the late 2nd.

Bingo. There's still some good talent in the third round each year, but nobody's going to land good starters in the 3rd each year. Getting a player like Lance Briggs in the 3rd is a massive coup. By way of a for-instance, Baltimore has one of the best-drafting front offices in the league. Here are their third-rounders: 2009: Lardarius Webb, CB - looks like a good CB, could develop into a starter 2008: Tom Zbikowski, SS - backup safety and special teams player 2007: Yamon Figurs, WR - total bust at WR, disappointing kick returner for a guy that fast 2007: Marshal Yanda, OT - started his rookie year, now the swing backup at tackle behind Gaither and Oher 2006: David Pittman, CB - made one career start, was in the UFL last I heard 2005: No pick 2004: Devard Darling, WR - fewer than 600 yards receiving in 5 years with the NFL. Unable to keep a starting job with the Chiefs. 2003: Musa Smith, RB - Backup running back and special teamer 2002: No pick ...and that's from a front office that knows drafting. They got one potential starter, one borderline starter, a pair of backup/special teams guys, and three busts. You just can't hit on every draft pick in the 3rd...if there weren't some risk that a guy wasn't going to work out, chances are he wouldn't be there in the 3rd.

Yeah, he's not going to be a left tackle in the NFL, which will push him way down in the draft. I do think he's got more than enough ability in pass-protection to play on the right side, though, and that's where Chicago needs somebody. With the free agency market being so talent-poor this year, I'm really hoping Lovie and Angelo address RT in the draft.

Brain fart. That should have read "game-breaking." I've watched Holliday play, and nobody who plays football at ~165 pounds is going to break a lot of tackles. And on Nance, I haven't actually seen full-game film of him, just highlights. Anybody who's watched him care to comment more? Specifically, do you guys think he'd be good as a short-yardage back? I'd prefer a guy like Karim with some explosiveness to him, but the Bears were awful in short-yardage and goal-line running this year, and I think they could do a lot worse than bringing in a short-yardage back as a UDFA.

On Holt vs. Hester - even if it were true that their production were equivalent (it's not, but I'll get to that in a minute) which direction is each player headed in? Ask yourself. Is Holt going to get better once he turns 34, or is he getting worse every year? Is Hester in the same kind of tailspin? No, he's getting better every year. Trading Hester and bringing in Holt would be a minor downgrade at BEST in 2010, and it would be a massive downgrade when you consider how much useful career each guy has left. And considering whether their production actually was equivalent, it doesn't matter whether you look at per-game statistics or per-target, Holt was significantly worse. He got 103 passes thrown his way compared to Hester's 91, but he caught fewer than Hester, and for fewer yards. He played in 15 games compared to Hester's 13, but he had less yardage and fewer touchdowns. AG, I'm not faulting you for using per-game statistics rather than per-target, but neither one makes Holt look better than Hester. He's worse by any measure, and getting worse every year, while Hester gets better. Also, as far as trading Hester for his return abilities, the last time he had a significant number of returns, he averaged just over 21 yards per return. Knox and Manning both broke 29 yards per return this year. If we wanted to trade somebody to a team that needs a return man, let's trade Manning. Nobody's going to give up a premium pick for a guy who's still developing as a receiver and hasn't got his old juice as a returner. I know what Hester used to be, just like I know what Holt used to be, but neither of them is the same player they were 2 or 3 years ago. You have to recognize what they are now. Hester's gone from a world-class returner to an up-and-coming but unfinished receiver, and Holt's gone from a household name to a guy who can't separate from DBs and couldn't get in the end zone in the span of 15 games, with over 100 chances to do it. EDIT: Nfo, if you're curious, Holt's catch percentage was 49.5% this season. And you were right, that's incredibly bad for a starting wide receiver.

I think route-running has gotten to be sort of a phantom issue with Hester. His first year at WR, he had real problems with his routes, no doubt. I didn't see those problems to nearly the same extent this year. Most of the time, he was running the right route and running it correctly. Is he the most polished receiver in the world? Not by a long shot. But he's good enough. Also, what receiver's successes aren't mainly of a "pure planned nature"? Are you suggesting that Andre Johnson just goes out there and freelances? The media played up the issue with the scramble rules, but you're making it sound like that's what separates the wheat from the chaff among receivers. I'd much rather have a guy who can consistently separate and make catches than a guy who can't, but knows exactly what to do when the play breaks down. Same goes for fighting DBs for the ball: yeah, it helps the quarterback, but it's far from the most important thing in a receiver's toolkit. I disagree. I hate to sound like a broken record, but if Hester had gotten as many passes thrown his way as any of the guys on that list, he'd have at least 80 catches and well over 1000 yards receiving, and I doubt any of us would be having this conversation about whether he's a #1 or not. OK, but he's not OUR 3rd/4th. He's our #1. Because we don't have anyone better. Saying that Hester's a "#3 receiver" makes it sound like we'd be better off bumping him down to #3 on the depth chart. By the numbers, we wouldn't...we'd be worse. Now, if you're saying that we would be better off if we could go get two or three new receivers who are better than Hester, of course we would. I mean, the Patriots would be better off if they had two or three receivers better than Randy Moss. Does that mean Randy Moss isn't their #1 receiver? Same goes for Hester, though he's no Randy Moss by a long shot. But that's all sort of beside the point, since we don't have draft picks or trade bait to get those receivers. My point is basically this: the term "#1 receiver" doesn't mean anything when it's used in the way you're using it. It's a term that ESPN talking heads like to throw around, because you can debate who's a #1 and who's not ad nauseam, and nobody will ever be right or wrong, since it's such a nebulous category. The only way you can make it a term with some concrete meaning is to say "a #1 receiver is the guy who's the best on his team." So saying "Hester's not a #1" basically just means "he wouldn't be a #1 on teams with at least one better receiver." OK, fine. Forte wouldn't be a #1 running back on the Panthers. Peanut wouldn't be a #1 corner on the Raiders or the Jets. Cutler wouldn't be a #1 QB on the Colts. Those guys are all OUR #1s, though, and so is Hester.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but here's my understanding: if the CBA isn't renewed, then the union doesn't have exclusive rights with regard to player hires, which would mean that the owners would be free to hire non-union players in 2011. So yeah, I think technically there could be scabs. However, I can't see that really happening. The owners are making too much money to lock out the players and replace them with no-names, and any scab players would have to know that they'd be severely compromising their careers by crossing the players' union. I just don't see a lockout happening: everybody stands to lose a ton of money, both owners and players.

Thanks, man! I feel the same way...Lovie & Co. need to just work on bringing along the young guys we already have. Also, to follow up on my last post, here are some standouts from the Texas vs. The Nation Game, where Angelo was reportedly doing some scouting: Jared Veldheer, OT, Hillsdale - Looks like this year's Sebastian Vollmer: a small-school tackle with ridiculous measurables. Huge frame at 6'8" and 315 pounds, and has absurd athleticism for his size...the guy runs a 4.89 40. Dominant LT at his level, but did go to a tiny college in the GLIAC conference. Smooth in pass-protection and consistently negated the best pass rushers one-on-one in TvTN practices. If Martz wants a right tackle who can pass-protect like a left tackle, this would be the pick. NFLDraftScout Projected Round: 3 Junior Galette, DE, Stillman - Undersized defensive end (6'2" 244 lbs.) but has an explosive first step and developing repertoire of pass-rushing moves. Good counter, outside-in, and spin moves, but not much of a bull rusher. Could be either a nickel rush DE or a 3-4 OLB. Character may be an issue - transferred from Temple after being suspended for violating team rules. NFLDraftScout Projected Round: FA Toney Baker, RB, NC State - Prototype size at 5'10" and 229 pounds. Adequate speed, but not exceptional. Had a knee injury in 2007 that required surgery, but returned to play without issue. Powerful rusher, runs behind his pads and lowers his shoulder. Runs through arm tackles and is not afraid of contact. Somewhat limited agility to redirect - made defenders miss in college, but might struggle with it in the NFL. Good hands as a receiver, could develop into a third-down back. NFLDraftScout Projected Round: FA Ryan Perrilloux, QB, Jacksonville State - Interesting prospect. Former LSU player who was a consensus five-star recruit, dismissed from LSU for multiple violations of team rules, but was eventually cleared of most of them. Former coach speaks highly of him, as does his current coach at Jacksonville State. Good size (6'2" 228 pounds) and excellent arm strength. Great touch and placement on deep passes, throws the out route very well. Needs to work on taking snaps from under center, and needs to improve timing/placement on shorter throws. Not a running QB, but is very mobile and can buy time. Is a tremendous natural talent who will be available late in the draft due to his checkered past. NFLDraftScout Projected Round: 7-Priority FA J'Marcus Webb, OT, West Texas A&M - Physical specimen at 6'7" and 335 pounds. Mobile for his size and has plenty of ability in pass protection and run-blocking. Can get to the second level to block linebackers and DBs. Effort and desire to play are concerns. Originally recruited at Texas, where he played 12 games at tackle as a true freshman. Left UT and spent a year in junior college before coming to West Texas A&M. WT's line allowed just 19 sacks in 13 games in 2008, with Webb starting every game at left tackle. NFLDraftScout Projected Round: FA Deji Karim, RB, Southern Illinois - Very elusive, shifty, sudden back. Compact, solid frame (5'8" 210 pounds) and good-to-very-good speed. Good explosiveness and ability to redirect - consistently makes the first defender miss, both in the open field and in the hole. Exceptional ball security - has NEVER fumbled in college. Difficult to bring down after contact, and generates good power from his lower body. Overaged due to 2 years of junior college and missed 2008 with a serious knee injury (partially torn patellar tendon) of the type that has hampered Cadillac Williams' career. Has returned from the injury and subsequent surgery, however, and has been tremendously productive in 2009, rushing for 1694 yards and 18 scores on just 240 carries (over 7 yards per attempt.) Will need to work on his blocking, but could become a high-end change-of-pace back in the mold of Ahmad Bradshaw. NFLDraftScout Projected Round: 7-Priority FA