adam

I like his speed to the ball carrier, you don't even see him in the frame, and then BAM he is hitting the QB.

3 pages about Tim Tebow: :puke

It looks like all he needed to do was keep his head up because he was leading with his right shoulder, but puts his head down at the last second which puts his head out first.

Thanks, that was my goal.

54 is no longer on the team, so she needs to remove the jersey.

Can't have a better role model than Marshall to show him the way though.

The Midway Mafia? The Hit Squad? The Really Good LB Corps from Chitown? Yeah, and I like the versatility of the rookies, they can play multiple positions, and all these LB's can hit. Briggs: Greene: Same hit: Bostic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCEWISyExwk Same hit: Williams:

Others have us as a possible landing spot: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/done-jets-6-j...-172833551.html but how can he backup someone like this:

Like this?

Yeah the funny thing is that very rarely is a player drafted on the exact spot he is projected outside of the top 10, so everyone else either drops and becomes "value" or is taken early as a "reach". To me though, every player taken early is not a reach. Long fills a huge need for us and will likely start from day one. To me, if you draft a starter in the 1st, he is not a reach.

I would not waste the roster spot.

Define reach, he was the 20th pick yet Lane Johnson and Ziggy Ansah went 4 and 5, and they have very little experience on OL or in football altogether. I just think the term reach is subjective and relative to how the draft plays out. 5 OL taken in top 11 and 6 in top 19.

A "D" for Long is BS, he wanted Trufant or Eifert there instead of Long. Eifert would be the 5th passing option after (Marshall, Jeffery, M. Bennett, Forte). So a TE2 is good value at #20? Trufant is not a Cover-2 Corner, and if he is only playing Nickel this year, is that worth it at #20? A Rotational DT like Floyd or Williams at #20? Maybe, but Long fills a huge need and is going to contribute from Day 1 making the entire Offense better. I can't see lower than a C+ assuming people think we took him too early. In a way grading the draft with the pick numbers is deceiving. Long was actually a 20-49 pick, and Bostic was a 50-116 pick. Just taking all pick #s out, picking up Long, Bostic, Greene, Mills, Washington and Mills with only 5 picks is a great draft. You could even say for values sake that we did trade down and got Long at 35, but picked up Greene in the 70's with our 3rd rounder we acquired. Greene would still be a good pick and Long then becomes a better pick, kind of funny when you look at it that way.

35 (2) - Arthur Brown, LB (Went #56 to the Ravens, 21 slots late) 50 (2) - Kyle Long, OT (Went #20 to the Bears, 30 slots early) 74 (3) - Brian Schwenke, OC (Went #107 to the Titans, 33 slots late) 101 (4) - Marquise Goodwin, WR (Went #78 to the Bills, 23 slots early) 117 (4) - Logan Ryan, CB (Went at #83 to the Pats, 34 slots early) 153 (5) - Zac Dysert, QB (Went at #234 to the Broncos, 81 slots late) 157 (5) - Bennie Logan, DT (Went #67 to the Eagles, 90 slots early) I was close (lol), I got 1 player correct in the draft, wrong slot, and 2 other positions right.

Like a few have said before, we really can't change the draft in terms of adding trades. The only thing you can do is replace the original selection with someone selected after our pick. So for #20, do you take Long, Floyd, Trufant, Ogletree, Hopkins, or Eifert? Also, you would have to address OL in the first 2 picks, but I don't see any other OL worth #20, so it would have to be Floyd-DT, Trufant-CB, Ogletree-LB, Hopkins-WR, and Eifert-TE in the first. So for the first two rounds, the only logical alternative choices would be: Ogletree and Warford That is the only way to realistically compare the draft to: Long and Bostic I think we did really good from 4-7, so I wouldn't necessarily change anything.

I am just thinking in terms of picks without reaches (from where they were projected). I actually need to see who had the best draft based on original draft ranking vs actual draft slot.

Oh no, I could care less what baseball team you root for. I have friends that like the Cubs, Sox, Cardinals, and Brewers, yet we all are Bears fans, that is all that really matters. I was just thinking "Hitmen" since this LB corps really fits that label.

That would really throw off the offense.

Why does that matter? I was just using a random Chicago nickname. I wasn't saying that was their name, just that they could end up being a really good LB group. Thanks for the geography lesson though.

If Long didn't go to us, which I am sure teams were watching for after the Pugh selection, I am sure teams would've been trading up to get him in the mid-20's. No way he makes it out of the first.

Mongo, I just think regardless of Peppers, we still have SMC and now Washington. I think Peppers situation is more dependent on the two young guys, if they produce he becomes expendable. So CB and C have to be the top two priorities (2 contracts on aging vets and Garza). Getting a Forte replacement a year or two before Forte breaks down is a good idea. If anywhere, I would put DE in the 2nd tier of needs with WR, TE, and QB.

Did they ever play LB in the same year? I thought Harris moved to DE in 1986 and didn't play in 1985, which was Rivera's first real year. So they never actually played LB at the same time, only 4 of them. I am just saying the potential is there with the mix of veterans and youth to have an incredible year.

I know there are a lot of if's, but if the 2 vets work out, and the rookies play to their potential, could this possibly be the best group of LB's ever? Just seems like I have never seen a team with 5 LB's that could potentially be starters. I am really excited about this bunch.

For me, we are in a great position for next offseason, I think the top priority will be getting a top flight CB so we have some flexibility with Peanut and Jennings. If everyone sticks, then LB is no longer a need IMO, Safety should not be a need (hopefully Hardin can get on the field), and DE should not be a need (SMC and Washington need to perform). Maybe DT as the only other major need on Defense next to Melton (or if he becomes too expensive). For offense, I would say RB (Forte has a lot of mileage) and C will be major needs, WR and possibility TE as minor ones. For QB, it will depend on what happens with Cutler. I would not draft high unless this is his last year. If he is re-signed, I would look to bring So my priority would be (CB, C, RB, DT), then (WR, TE, QB). The best part is we can fill some of these in Free Agency and don't have to fill all of them in the draft. I like how Emery did it this offseason with Bushrod, Slauson, and Bennett, not even counting Williams and Anderson, then filling in the rest of the holes in the draft. As a whole it is hard to say this offseason has not been a huge success.

The Vikings probably had the best draft overall, the top 3, but also Dawkins in the 7th? That was a good pick as well.