adam

I hate NE.

I guess most of the GM's are dumb then. Only 7 OLinemen have been drafted in the Top 16 (first half of the first round) in the last 5 years. That is 7 OL selections out of 80 picks (8.8%), even though the OLine makes up over 20% of your starting team. That number goes up to 11 out of 80 for the 2nd half of the first round (13.8%). If you move into the first half of the 2nd round, that number goes up again to 15 out of 80 (18.8%). Also, no OLinemen has been selected with the #1 pick in the last 10 years. Orlando Pace was the only one selected #1 since 1968 (selected in 1997). OL = unsexy

Classic.

Since OL is not a sexy pick, hopefully other teams will go with RB, WR, and QB, and leave us with a solid OL pick.

The only plus is that they don't have to travel too far. Games in SD, SF, and SEA are brutal for travel, especially with tight schedules.

Felix, love the Sig. A Pirate hat would be sweet.

5 Dome games, and 1 with a Retractable roof.

It will be nice to get a look at some of these guys during the bowls.

New QB and new OC. I am all for McNabb.

Re-post: http://www.talkbears.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1592

Hopefully the Giants running game shows up like they did this week. That will at least make it a game, because Eli is not going to win the game for them.

Some OL take a year or two to get used to the speed of the game. I wouldn't count any Linemen out until they've had an opportunity to start on a regular basis.

I am not fudging any numbers. I think you missed the point. I was saying since 2002, so 2002 until 2007's draft. Not just the 2002 draft and how many Pro Bowls they made. My data was the total # of players to make at least one Pro Bowl since being drafted in 2002 until now. What other measure would you use for top players? The only time it is a popularity contest is after their first selection - just like the Gold Glove in baseball.

Top 10 picks are not necessarily a guaranteed success, but the odds of getting a Pro Bowler are 1 in 3 for the Top 12 picks. That is pretty decent odds. Since 2002's draft, 24 draft picks in the top 12 spots have made the Pro Bowl. That is 24 out of 72 picks or exactly 33%. For picks 13-32, that goes down to 17 out of 120 picks (14.1%). For the 2nd round, only 14 made it out of 192 picks (7.3%). For the 3rd round, only 7 made it out of 192 picks (3.6%)*. For the 4th round, only 6 made it out of 192 picks (3.1%)*. * The 3rd and 4th rounds actually have a ton of compensatory selections, so the percentages are actually much lower. So based on the numbers, the higher you draft, the better chance you have for an impact player.

I would say the money priority should be Harris, Briggs, then Berrian.

The funny thing is, Minnesota can say that about all of our QB's as well. Jackson is not that good, but if he becomes a better passer, it is gonna suck playing him and AP twice a year for the next decade.

The defense looks so much faster to the ball with him in the game. I can't explain it, whether it is confidence or something else, but he brings more than just raw skill to the team.

Yeah, I think the incentive laden deal would be the most logical route as well. With Brown in the lineup, the Defense is clearly better. I don't know if the stats reflect that, but it appears that way.

Ha, that is funny, I never realized how little McGowan has played: McGowan - 22 games played in the last 3 seasons. Now Brown is no better: Brown - 21 games played in the last 4 seasons. The crazy thing is Brown played 16 games a season for 4 straight years before getting injured in 2004. At least he has shown he can stay healthy. McGowan has never played a full season.

Has Turner ever been good? I think it comes down to bad evaluations. These guys never should've had the job in the first place.

Interesting fact. So he will end the season playing between 75-80%, just enough to not get Franchised again. http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/be...earnt24.article

Really, Briggs over Harris? So OLB is more important than DT?

How about Peterson, last 3 games (43 rushes - 108 yards, 2.5 ypc).

Going into the offseason with a winning streak is definitely something positive, but how much would that outweigh the losing record and worse draft pick? I want to see the Bears win, but also want them to have the best draft position as possible. Even if they don't actual pick someone, dropping from #11 to #17, is the equivalent of losing a late 2nd round pick. Having the better draft pick also gives them more options. Pick, trade down, trade up for less, etc. Also, the Bears have had the 2nd hardest SoS this season, so they would draft last after all the team's of the same record, with the exception of Philly. Either way, playing NO in Chicago gives the Bears a favorable matchup. My best scenario would be a Bears win and still get a mid teens pick (13-15).

No way. Tillman excels at CB. Why mess that up? The transition is not that easy either. I would rather sign Brown to an incentive-laden deal, something that pays him by number of snaps or something along those lines. If he stays healthy, he gets paid, if not, it is low risk for the Bears.