adam

I would think something like leadership/locker room/System Knowledge has to play a part in there somewhere.

As long as it is from the pool of: (OL, WR, LB, CB). Those are the only 4 positions I can see using a 1st rounder on. They all could come and immediately fill a need or provide youth/depth.

Sure you can ask the right people to get the answers you want, but it does seem like the consensus around the league, from an economic and administrative standpoint, was that the Bears move was justified. With the tight salary cap, they didn't have the freedom to give him anymore money without limiting what they could do elsewhere. Listening to NFL Radio, almost everyone agreed that it was the hard right over the easy wrong. Once you get away from the cloud of loyalty that surrounds a move like this, logic normally arises. Also, nothing was stopping Urlacher from accepting that contract. He ultimately had the choice to return, except for once it was not on his terms. It would be different if they didn't even offer him a contract at all. I thought that the Bears should've offered more, but after picking up Williams and Anderson, I am having second thoughts.

Actually, it will come down to what type of WR's Trestman wants. Bennett might fit the mold perfectly, or he may not fit at all (with the need for speed in the slot). I would take Moore and a rookie slot WR over just Bennett as the #3 with Brown currently penciled in at G.

If Urlacher does sign with someone else, it will be for less than the Bears offered him, and probably won't happen until after training camps start. I suspect this will be the same thing with some of the other older vets.

Yeah, he had one of the worst seasons ever for a starting TE.

That would mean he would need over 125 targets for that many receptions, since he only had 19 receptions on 44 targets last season.

I don't know how I missed this, but Kellen Davis was actually signed by the Browns to a 1-year deal. The deal is contingent on him actually catching a pass. http://sports.yahoo.com/news/browns-sign-t...09620--nfl.html

With only 5 picks, I don't know if we can afford to go OT, especially after signing Bushrod.

Another possibility is Earl Bennett at $2.35, especially if we are targeting a speedy slot WR in the 1st o 2nd round.

Some of those guys will end up on the practice squad. Carimi will move to G, and we will draft one for sure. I would say that we draft an OG and WR on offense. The only other position may be C.

Yeah, pretty close, and hard to say we are not better going into this year. If we go OG, LB, WR, DT, CB in the draft, we will be looking pretty good. OG comes in and starts, then get the speedy slot WR as an upgrade, get the young LB who will take over in the middle, go CB for nickel, or add depth at DT. Depending on who is available at what slot will determine the order. I see OG being addressed in first two rounds, then depending on who is available WR/LB/CB going in the other early pick. QB – Cutler RB – Forte TE – Bennett WR – Marshall WR2 – Jeffery TE/FB/WR3 – Rodriguez/Bennett LOT – Bushrod LOG – Brown/Rookie C – Garza ROG – Carimi ROT – Webb LDE – Wootton/McClellin LDT – Melton RDT – Paea RDE – Peppers WLB – Briggs MLB – Williams SLB – Anderson LCB – Jennings RCB - Tillman SS – Wright FS – Conte

If the money is right, this would be a great pickup and another upgrade to the OLine.

For the defense in the draft, it looks like the order of priority would be LB, DT/CB. The draft is really starting to take shape. If we stay with 5 picks, I can see us going OL, WR, LB, DT, CB. If we get some extra picks by trading down, then we can always draft 2x OL or maybe a late round QB.

Actual height is sort of deceiving because some guys have no neck and are 2 inches shorter than the guy next to them but their shoulders are at the same height. So if he has good arm length, it can negate some of the height issues.

Wow, I really like this signing. He was mainly cut due to cap reasons and is an actual upgrade over Roach for a lot less money. Starting LB's looks pretty solid: Briggs-Williams-Anderson. Then we draft an LB and we are looking pretty good. Jason, this really adds to our draft flexibility now. We are now forced to take an LB early unless it is a great value. I know health will be a concern, but that would be the same with Urlacher. Taking a step back and looking at this, Williams/Anderson > Urlacher/Roach, especially considering what we paid for them.

Absolutely, anything is possible, but Arians brought Stanton over from Indy, so I don't think they would trade up to draft a QB. They still will draft one, but I don't see it being in the first few rounds.

I would take Brown, Minter, Ogletree, Bostic, or Reddick for MLB, or take one of these guys, stick him on the outside while he learns the defense, and plug Williams in the middle for this season.

I would not be upset with that draft. OLine would go from a weakness to a strength with the addition of Bushrod, Warford, and Schwenke. I am growing on Austin and wouldn't mind Bailey, Minter, or Amerson with pick 50 either.

That is great, we have enough youth in that position.

Arthur Brown?

The funny thing about the Urlacher situation is that he could have accepted the offer and then the Bears would've been blasted for bringing him back or lauded for their loyalty. Seems like a lose lose proposal to me. It was Urlacher's choice not to accept what he considered a low-ball ultimatum.

Stinger, good analysis. I believe that SF would be the most logical trade partner for a bunch of teams. I see them wheeling and dealing often as they would not have the roster space for 14 new players. I see them coming down to 8-10 picks, with probably 2-3 trades, or one monster trade. For BUF and ARZ, they have so many needs, it is hard for me to see them drafting early in the 1st, then moving up and taking 20 while losing other picks. I would assume they would trade out of the top 10 with someone else looking to move up, then taking their biggest need. Also, from what I have read, ARZ is pretty happy with Stanton at QB. So MIA would be the other logical trade partner since they have 11 picks.

I like this scenario the better, but the Raiders have pick #66, the 49ers don't pick until #74.

Here is a new look on draft value: http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/...ick-value-chart