adam

That was from the article, I think JA did a great job on defensive talent.

So scouting and recommending Rex Grossman is seen as a good thing?

How many QB's did we start during his tenure? Just like in Tampa Bay, Angelo was always good at finding defensive talent, but was completely inept at finding offensive talent, especially at QB and WR. He was decent for the most part, but I believe he needed to be replaced a few years ago. About the Super Bowl appearance, 14 different teams have made a SB appearance since 2001 (almost half the league). 10 teams have had multiple Conference Championship visits during that timeframe, with 5 of those teams winning it all (6th will be this year). Only the Eagles (5), Bears (2), Jets (2), and Panthers (2) have multiple Conference Championship appearances without a SB victory. For a franchise ranking during Angelo's reign, it would go something like this (giving 5 pts for SB win, 3 for SB loss, 2 for Conf loss, 1 for winning season): 1. Patriots (3 SB wins, 1 SB loss, 1 Conf loss, 11 winning seasons) *Pending this year (31*) 2. Steelers (2 SB wins, 1 SB loss, 2 Conf Champ losses, 9 winning seasons) (26) 3. Colts (1 SB win, 1 SB loss, 1 Conf Champ loss, 9 winning seasons) (19) 4. Eagles (1 SB loss, 4 Conf Champ losses, 8 winning seasons) (19) 5. Packers (1 SB win, 1 Conf Champ loss, 8 winning seasons) (15) 6. Giants (1 SB win, 6 winning seasons)* Pending this year (11*) 7. Saints (1 SB win, 1 Conf Champ loss, 5 winning seasons) (12) 8. Ravens (2 Conf Champ losses, 8 winning seasons) (12) 9. Jets (2x Conf Champ losses, 7 winning seasons) (11) 10. Buccaneers (SB victory, 6 winning seasons) (11) 11. Bears (SB loss, Conf Champ loss, 5 winning seasons) (10) 12. Seahawks (1 SB loss, 6 winning seasons) (9) 13. Titans (1 SB loss, 5 winning seasons) (8) 14. Chargers (1 Conf Champ loss, 6 winning seasons) (8) 15. Falcons (1 Conf Champ loss, 6 winning seasons) (8)

I know some might be franchised and/or re-signed, but here are a few: Welker, Colston, Bowe, V. Jackson, Wallace, Wayne and then the next tier would be guys like: Lloyd, Simpson, D. Jackson, Meachem I would say Johnson is somewhere in between those two groups, and his antics are on par with Ocho and TO.

He is not even a top 5 FA WR option, I'll pass.

Licht would bring some fresh new perspectives into the organization, and he definitely knows what a perennial SB contender looks like. Like some others have mentioned, if Emery was that good, why has he not been offered a GM position before? According to this guy, Licht is in his top for 10 GM Candidates (#7): http://blog.therazzreport.com/?p=270

No one guy is going to make a huge impact, but I believe anyone will be better than JA at this point. Just by removing him and Martz, we gained 2 wins.

Check at the line of scrimmage? No-huddle? OMG, that alone is going to be an upgrade for this offense.

lol, I know. I was just being sarcastic. He is just giving his clear biased opinion. Briggs and Suh should've been on there for sure.

Looking at mock drafts, and at other teams' needs and such, I would say that it is a very unlikely scenario. Kuechly, Hightower, and Richardson will all be gone before Jeffery. Also, don't forget about Kendall Wright and David DeCastro. I would take one of them at 19 if the scenario you presented actually occurred. The other option would be to trade down to the mid-20's, and pick up another 3rd rounder. You could then take 2 of our 3 3rd rounders and move back into the 2nd. Giving us a 1st, 2x 2nds, and a 3rd, or we keep the 3rd, and go with 1 1st, 1 2nd, and 3 3rds. IMO, I think we stay at 19 and pick up the BPA as long as it is WR, OL, and possibly CB depending on someone dropping.

It is because he is doing a 3-4 man, lol.

I would take Forte over Peterson for the ability to catch out of the backfield. For all the praise AP gets for his running and explosiveness, he had less yards per carry and per game than Forte. Also, with his torn ACL and MCL, I doubt he will ever be the same.

It is funny that guys like that have a job in the sports business. Just because they are controversial? They rarely bring up valid points and most of the time just talk out of their 4th point of contact.

I just didn't realize we were that bad (24th), but when I look back, we rarely had good starting position after a kickoff.

For some reason this popped into my brain today and I was surprised there wasn't more mentioned about this during the playoffs. Special teams only seemed to play negative roles in games (SF and BAL) compared to highlights of epic runbacks. For the season, just from watching the games, you knew there would be an impact to most teams with good return games. Almost every other kickoff ended up as a touchback and the Bears would start around the 20 compared to the 30 or 35. So I was curious and looked at some various numbers. None of these are completely conclusive or tied directly to the new rule, but taken into context you can see that the new rule did indeed affect the Bears. The Bears had the best Starting LoS in 2010 and dropped to 24th in 2011. They lost an average of 6.5 yards a drive, the biggest drop of any team. The next closest was KC at 6.19 yards and Pittsburgh, Arizona, and St. Louis all lost over 4 yards a drive as well. Only 7 teams had a better starting LoS than last year, and the teams that benefited the most were Houston, gaining 4.79 yards a drive, and SF gaining 4.71. The other 5 teams all gained less than a yard per drive. The Bears had a starting LoS of 33.37 in 2010 and that dropped to 26.87 in 2011. Just to be sure that this wasn't a one year anomaly, I looked back at the past three years for the Bears, and they were first every year (32.31 in 2009, 33.48 in 2008, 34.43 in 2007). For the entire league, kickoff returns dropped from 2033 in 2010 to 1375 in 2011. A total of 658 less kickoff returns, about 20 per team. The lowest return total was 46 (ATL) in 2010, and only 9 teams had more than that number this year. Atlanta only returned 24 kickoffs this year as a team and 21 players had more than their entire team. So now I looked at the Bears; we only had two less returns than 2010 but averaged 4 less yards per return. Was it the loss of Danieal Manning or was it the rule? Manning only returned 13 for Houston and Houston as a team only returned 29 kickoffs, so the impact was not that big. With us only having two less returns, it seems like we ran some out of the end zone when it would've been better to take a knee. Again, all of this could be circumstantial, but either the rule did impact the team or we really miss Manning on kickoffs. Either way going from 1st to 24th in starting LoS didn't help the team much this year. LoS stats from: http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats

A decent article about Licht: http://bostonherald.com/sports/football/pa...ars_gm_position My only concern about NE exec's is that Bill has so much influence on decisions, you don't know how much his disciples actually did in their positions.

Per Jensen:

I am not saying it is not possible, but there are a lot of higher rated players before Floyd.

You really thing 2x WR's will go in the top 10? I highly doubt that.

Emery and Raye have the most experience and Ross has the most upside.

I just feel like if WR or OL are the best available at #19, you take the player. I would hate to pass up on Floyd to reach for an Offensive Lineman who was not projected until the 2nd round just because OL is the greatest need at that point. You have to weigh value with need. If we do get Bowe or Jackson, then WR would be 2nd to OL as a need, but if we get someone like Nicks, then the needs are similar. I would then take best available of any of the top needs, even if that was not OL or WR at that point (maybe DB or DL). I just hate passing on skill position players.

Even if we pick up a top tier WR in Free Agency, I still believe WR is a need. Knox was our leading WR, and 2nd was Roy Williams, that is pretty sickening. We really could use a true #1 and #2. I would still go OL, WR, and DB in the first couple of rounds. If Floyd is sitting there at #19, how could you pass that up? Bowe and Floyd as the #1 and #2? That would be sweet.

After the 2nd loss by Hanie, I would've taken a chance on him. It is not like he could've played much worse than Hanie did.

I would not mind DeCastro if Floyd is gone. If they both are gone at 19, I would almost trade down and pick up Jeffery, Sanu, or Glenn in the mid-20's. A swap to about 25 could net us another late 3rd round pick. We could then take 2x 3rd rounders and move into the 2nd round, giving us a 1st rounder, 2x 2nd rounders, and a 3rd rounder. That wouldn't be too bad of a haul.

I thought the same thing, but many key players for Atlanta were drafted when he was with them, and I really like KC's 2010 draft.