Right side done

[Wesson44]

http://www.windycitygridiron.com/2016/4/5/...-to-be-reckoned

[bradjock]

http://www.windycitygridiron.com/2016/4/5/...-to-be-reckoned

 

You sure? Who is our swing tackle? We sign two G/C's in Ramirez & Larsen. Both are solid veterans who could compete for a starting job with Slausen and Grasu. Meanwhile at the tackle position we have Massie, Leno, and Tayo Fabaluje (we have a couple other guys I've never heard of).

 

If Leno is bad, I could easily see us moving Long to LT. It's much easier to replace him than Leno.

[BearFan PHX]

I could see them going with

 

Long LT

Slauson LG

Ramirez / Grasu C

Ramirez / Larson RG

Massie RT

 

If Long can handle LT, that'd be a pretty damn good OL.

 

I know the more likely scenario is:

 

Leno LT

Larson / Ramirez / Slauson LG

Ramirez / Grasu C

Long RG

Massie RT

 

Which is pretty good, but all teams would like to have a stud at LT, and unless that's Long, we don't have one. That's why I wonder if they will look at Long at LT, they can afford it with the Ramirez and Larson signing.

 

Massie was a great signing. That's a set piece of the puzzle that frees Long to try LT, or dominate next to Massie. Either one is a serious block to build on.

 

Grasu should be bigger, having been in the weight room, and that should help him at the NFL level.

[jason]

Pretty much agree with the point of the article. Long should be in at RG where he belongs. Massie should combo with him to make the right side really strong.

 

Please let Stanley fall to 11.

[scs787]

I was against a LT early in the draft at the beginning of the off-season as I thought there were bigger problems than Leno and they wouldn't be able to do as much as they have done in FA. Now that they have done a ton in FA, I think they should target one early.

 

Problem might be is after Tunsil and Stanley, there are question marks on whether anyone else can stick at LT. Conklin might be able to, but I'm not sure he's really worth the pick at 11. If we can trade down to 20, I think he has fair value there. Spriggs is a guy I like and would hope he drops to the 2nd, but I have my doubts he makes it.

 

Might still have to fit a square peg in a round hole so to speak by taking a guy who might not profile as a LT. If it doesn't work out you can always shift him over to RT and cut ties with Massie ( who I don't think got a lot of guaranteed money) after a year or 2.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

I was against a LT early in the draft at the beginning of the off-season as I thought there were bigger problems than Leno and they wouldn't be able to do as much as they have done in FA. Now that they have done a ton in FA, I think they should target one early.

 

Problem might be is after Tunsil and Stanley, there are question marks on whether anyone one else can stick at LT. Conklin might be able to, but I'm not sure he's really worth the pick at 11. If we can trade down to 20, I think he has far value there. Spriggs is a guy I like and would hope he drops to the 2nd, but I have my doubts he makes it.

 

Might still have to fit a square peg in a round hole so to speak by taking a guy who might not profile as a LT. If it doesn't work out you can always shift him over to RT and cut ties with Massie ( who I don't think got a lot of guaranteed money) after a year or 2.

Many NFL scouts have Conklin over Stanley after the senior bowl. They say he is more athletic than they thought. Le'Raven Clark is also one of the few names mentioned as an NFL LT also, besides Spriggs.

I think Tunsil, Stanley, and Conklin are top 15 names. Taylor and Clark may get picked late 1st. Spriggs will be 2nd or early 3rd. So if the Bears want a potential LT, they have to draft early. Joe Haeg will also be gone rd3.

[Stinger226]

I was against a LT early in the draft at the beginning of the off-season as I thought there were bigger problems than Leno and they wouldn't be able to do as much as they have done in FA. Now that they have done a ton in FA, I think they should target one early.

 

Problem might be is after Tunsil and Stanley, there are question marks on whether anyone else can stick at LT. Conklin might be able to, but I'm not sure he's really worth the pick at 11. If we can trade down to 20, I think he has fair value there. Spriggs is a guy I like and would hope he drops to the 2nd, but I have my doubts he makes it.

 

Might still have to fit a square peg in a round hole so to speak by taking a guy who might not profile as a LT. If it doesn't work out you can always shift him over to RT and cut ties with Massie ( who I don't think got a lot of guaranteed money) after a year or 2.

The problem they say about Stanley is his focus and desire. Conklin is said to be a nasty attitude guy with a high motor. I have seen Conklin and Decker both rated ahead of Stanley. I think Stanley is not the 2 nd OT taken in the draft.

[Wesson44]

You sure? Who is our swing tackle? We sign two G/C's in Ramirez & Larsen. Both are solid veterans who could compete for a starting job with Slausen and Grasu. Meanwhile at the tackle position we have Massie, Leno, and Tayo Fabaluje (we have a couple other guys I've never heard of).

 

If Leno is bad, I could easily see us moving Long to LT. It's much easier to replace him than Leno.

When I say the right side was done...I meant for the starting position. We are well me.....Im not a big fan of Leno at the LT spot so its a spot where some of our focus needs to be

[Mongo3451]

Pretty much agree with the point of the article. Long should be in at RG where he belongs. Massie should combo with him to make the right side really strong.

 

Please let Stanley fall to 11.

Amen! You and I have carried this message since the old board. Now is the time! Find a way to draft Stanley and put this to rest for the next decade. It may not be our biggest need, but at least it would complete one unit on the team. The foundation! Once you have a foundation, you can build. It's simply a philosophy that takes a little more time, but built to last...

[scs787]

The problem they say about Stanley is his focus and desire. Conklin is said to be a nasty attitude guy with a high motor. I have seen Conklin and Decker both rated ahead of Stanley. I think Stanley is not the 2 nd OT taken in the draft.

 

Where have you seen that?

[jason]

Amen! You and I have carried this message since the old board. Now is the time! Find a way to draft Stanley and put this to rest for the next decade. It may not be our biggest need, but at least it would complete one unit on the team. The foundation! Once you have a foundation, you can build. It's simply a philosophy that takes a little more time, but built to last...

 

Yep. I still don't see how people can disagree. It's basically irrefutable. Every time a great OL is put together, the skill positions excel. And more often than not, when a bad OL is put together, the skill position players, no matter how good, suffer. If this OL is built up as a primary strength of the team, the need for a RB immediately disappears. Large holes for Langford and his speed means huge, breakaway plays.

 

If it's not addressed, however, the OL is always going to be an issue. The QB never feels completely safe. The RBs continue to get blasted in the backfield. And the protections need to shift to protect the OL weaknesses.

[adam]

Everything starts from the trenches, if you can protect the QB or open holes, your max capability on offense is only so high. Same on defense. If that DLine or front-7 can't apply pressure and prevent RB's from getting to the 2nd level, you will never win consistently.

 

With that said, I am excited about the prospects of Massie and Long on the right side.

[DABEARSDABOMB]

Yep. I still don't see how people can disagree. It's basically irrefutable. Every time a great OL is put together, the skill positions excel. And more often than not, when a bad OL is put together, the skill position players, no matter how good, suffer. If this OL is built up as a primary strength of the team, the need for a RB immediately disappears. Large holes for Langford and his speed means huge, breakaway plays.

 

If it's not addressed, however, the OL is always going to be an issue. The QB never feels completely safe. The RBs continue to get blasted in the backfield. And the protections need to shift to protect the OL weaknesses.

We don't agree often, but when it comes to oline and its importance we agree every time and I have zero problem taking a tackle early this year if we think that is the best player on the board (or close to it). I feel the same way about the dline, especially pass rushers.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Yep. I still don't see how people can disagree. It's basically irrefutable. Every time a great OL is put together, the skill positions excel. And more often than not, when a bad OL is put together, the skill position players, no matter how good, suffer. If this OL is built up as a primary strength of the team, the need for a RB immediately disappears. Large holes for Langford and his speed means huge, breakaway plays.

 

If it's not addressed, however, the OL is always going to be an issue. The QB never feels completely safe. The RBs continue to get blasted in the backfield. And the protections need to shift to protect the OL weaknesses.

 

You know where I stand on this. Again using the example of Dallas who has 4 of their 5 (?) OLMen drafted in (or near) the first round ended up 4-12 last year. Whereas Carolina with one guy who was drafted in the first round was able to make the SB. More of their (Carolina) 1st round talent were skill players. (Which coincidently translates to BPA). Conversely Denvers team relied more on their defensive players. Of those, Von Miller, was a first round pick. Oh and how many 1st rounders are (were) on Denvers OL?

[ASHKUM BEAR]

You know where I stand on this. Again using the example of Dallas who has 4 of their 5 (?) OLMen drafted in (or near) the first round ended up 4-12 last year. Whereas Carolina with one guy who was drafted in the first round was able to make the SB. More of their (Carolina) 1st round talent were skill players. (Which coincidently translates to BPA). Conversely Denvers team relied more on their defensive players. Of those, Von Miller, was a first round pick. Oh and how many 1st rounders are (were) on Denvers OL?

Dallas was a mess last year. Lost Romo, Bryant, and traded Murray. That is hard to over come. The year before, they had a playoff win stolen from them by a catch rule and the NFL's luv of Erin Rodgers. I would say they are closer to that playoff team than a 4 win team this season.

Regardless, they need to get BPA at many positions and LT is a hard one to find.

[lemonej]

When you are trying to add cornerstone OL you should try your best to acquire them as early in the draft as possible. Currently the only Pro Bowl lineman on the Bears was drafted in the first round.One of the best OL in team history had 2 1st rounders, a 4th an 8th and a UDFA. Covert,Van Horne,Thayer, Bortz and Hilgenberg. OL can be found throughout the draft but, when you want to protect the edges invest in early draft prospects IMO.

[jason]

You know where I stand on this. Again using the example of Dallas who has 4 of their 5 (?) OLMen drafted in (or near) the first round ended up 4-12 last year. Whereas Carolina with one guy who was drafted in the first round was able to make the SB. More of their (Carolina) 1st round talent were skill players. (Which coincidently translates to BPA). Conversely Denvers team relied more on their defensive players. Of those, Von Miller, was a first round pick. Oh and how many 1st rounders are (were) on Denvers OL?

 

That's utterly ridiculous.

 

The Cowboys juggled 4 starting QBs last year, and Dez Bryant only played 9 games. Meanwhile, McFadden had one of the best years of his career behind that OL. So, simply put, behind that OL, the only starters to skill position remain healthy (including Witten) had great years.

 

Carolina was pure Cam Newton. It's not even funny how poor their team offensive stats look when you exclude his contributions. Just go through the team receivers and you'll see nothing stand out. Same for their rushers. But Cam Newton just had a ridiculous year.

 

As for Denver, they had no first round OLinemen and they won the SB. With defense. Remind me again, how did their offense look last year?

 

[bradjock]

That's utterly ridiculous.

 

The Cowboys juggled 4 starting QBs last year, and Dez Bryant only played 9 games. Meanwhile, McFadden had one of the best years of his career behind that OL. So, simply put, behind that OL, the only starters to skill position remain healthy (including Witten) had great years.

 

Carolina was pure Cam Newton. It's not even funny how poor their team offensive stats look when you exclude his contributions. Just go through the team receivers and you'll see nothing stand out. Same for their rushers. But Cam Newton just had a ridiculous year.

 

As for Denver, they had no first round OLinemen and they won the SB. With defense. Remind me again, how did their offense look last year?

 

So Dallas has a great o-line and is terrible because of position players. Carolina and Denver win with bad o-lines, because of other players. Aren't you making the argument that having an overall well-rounded team more important than just having a good o-line?

 

If Ronnie Stanley somehow slips to #11, I'd be thrilled if we took him since he'd be the best player available. Otherwise, we are better off drafting d-line where there is a far greater need.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

That's utterly ridiculous.

 

The Cowboys juggled 4 starting QBs last year, and Dez Bryant only played 9 games. Meanwhile, McFadden had one of the best years of his career behind that OL. So, simply put, behind that OL, the only starters to skill position remain healthy (including Witten) had great years.

 

And why was it they 'juggled the QB's" to begin with? Because their starting QB got hurt...not once, but twice. Behind that 'excellent line'.

 

Carolina was pure Cam Newton. It's not even funny how poor their team offensive stats look when you exclude his contributions. Just go through the team receivers and you'll see nothing stand out. Same for their rushers. But Cam Newton just had a ridiculous year.

 

So when you say Cam had a 'ridiculous year' what exactly do you mean, passing or rushing? If you mean rushing he really only had 630 yards rushing which is good but it isn't 'all time great'. Add that Johnathan Stewart (yes that old guy Johnathan Stewart) had just over 900 yards rushing and you can certainly consider his 'contributions' noteworthy. By the way, Stewart was a first round pick out of Oregon. If you meant passing then I'd first have to ask, who caught those passes? First let me mention that Newton passed for ~3,800 yds. In comparison; A. Rodgers passed for ~3,800, J. Winston - ~4,000 yds; R. Fitzpatrick - ~3,900 yards and our very own J. Cutler - ~3,600 yards. So really a 'pedestrian' attempt when it comes to passing. On the other end of those you had Greg Olsen (former 1st round pick of the Bears) with ~1,100 yards rec and T. Ginn (former 1st round pick out of Ohio state) ended up with ~730 yards.

 

As for Denver, they had no first round OLinemen and they won the SB. With defense. Remind me again, how did their offense look last year?

 

So in this point, what are you trying to tell me? That somehow the lack of offensive linemen, never mind none of them being 1st round draftees, helped the team win the SB? Isn't that my point?

[Alaskan Grizzly]

So Dallas has a great o-line and is terrible because of position players. Carolina and Denver win with bad o-lines, because of other players. Aren't you making the argument that having an overall well-rounded team more important than just having a good o-line?

Thank you.

[jason]

So Dallas has a great o-line and is terrible because of position players. Carolina and Denver win with bad o-lines, because of other players. Aren't you making the argument that having an overall well-rounded team more important than just having a good o-line?

 

If Ronnie Stanley somehow slips to #11, I'd be thrilled if we took him since he'd be the best player available. Otherwise, we are better off drafting d-line where there is a far greater need.

 

Not exactly.

 

Obviously a well rounded team is a great thing to have, but that's difficult to do. You have to hit on so many players to do that. Building up the OL allows for lesser skill players because the holes are bigger in the running game and the passing time is greater. Dallas was a mess, and the only guys who did well were McFadden and Witten. Disregard Witten because he's been consistent. McFadden has not. He got behind that big OL and had the 2nd best year of his somewhat disappointing career. Hence, great OL and average RB equals greater results for that RB.

 

[jason]

And why was it they 'juggled the QB's" to begin with? Because their starting QB got hurt...not once, but twice. Behind that 'excellent line'.

 

Fail. Try again. Romo double-pumped before tucking it and the Eagles blitzed on the play. The OL didn't fail him. The Eagles had a better defense dialed up for the empty backfield. You know you can look this stuff up before you post, right?

 

So when you say Cam had a 'ridiculous year' what exactly do you mean, passing or rushing? If you mean rushing he really only had 630 yards rushing which is good but it isn't 'all time great'. Add that Johnathan Stewart (yes that old guy Johnathan Stewart) had just over 900 yards rushing and you can certainly consider his 'contributions' noteworthy. By the way, Stewart was a first round pick out of Oregon. If you meant passing then I'd first have to ask, who caught those passes? First let me mention that Newton passed for ~3,800 yds. In comparison; A. Rodgers passed for ~3,800, J. Winston - ~4,000 yds; R. Fitzpatrick - ~3,900 yards and our very own J. Cutler - ~3,600 yards. So really a 'pedestrian' attempt when it comes to passing. On the other end of those you had Greg Olsen (former 1st round pick of the Bears) with ~1,100 yards rec and T. Ginn (former 1st round pick out of Ohio state) ended up with ~730 yards.

 

You do realize he was the NFL MVP last year, right? They just don't flip a coin for that thing. He didn't go for 4500 passing and 1000 rushing, but the guys around him weren't that great. Stewart has been a disappointment his entire career, the same as Ted Ginn. I won't argue Olsen, because I've always kind of liked him.

 

So in this point, what are you trying to tell me? That somehow the lack of offensive linemen, never mind none of them being 1st round draftees, helped the team win the SB? Isn't that my point?

 

What I'm telling you is that their offense wasn't great last year. They got to the SB and won it because they had the best defense in the NFL. When they didn't have the best defense in the NFL, but had the best offense, they didn't win the SB. That should tell yo volumes about that team. And if you want to point to previous years when their offense did well behind a similar line, save it. Prior to last year, Manning was still one of the best QBs ever, if not THE best ever, and they had three or four incredible receivers on the team. Nobody in the league can cover Demarius Thomas, Emmanuel Sanders, Wes Welker, and a live body at TE.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Fail. Try again. Romo double-pumped before tucking it and the Eagles blitzed on the play. The OL didn't fail him. The Eagles had a better defense dialed up for the empty backfield. You know you can look this stuff up before you post, right?

 

And what about the second time he was injured? You know darn well had this occurred to Cutler you would be admant that the oline was at fault. You've said so for years that he's had to scramble because the OL has never been able to protect him. Yet when you are shown where a 'top tier' OLine doesn't hold up and allows the QB to get injured you instead blame the QB!? Really which way is it? If Cutler had every OLineman as a 1st round pick and got hurt AND/OR threw and interception, would it be his fault or the Olines?

 

You do realize he was the NFL MVP last year, right? They just don't flip a coin for that thing. He didn't go for 4500 passing and 1000 rushing, but the guys around him weren't that great. Stewart has been a disappointment his entire career, the same as Ted Ginn. I won't argue Olsen, because I've always kind of liked him.

 

Sooooo...how did the Oline affect that? Are we discussing whether the Panthers would have been better in drafting a 1st round Olineman instead of a 1st Rd QB in Newton or???? If you're suggesting no then I'm ecstatic about the assumption that we might agree the Bears should draft a QB in the first round this year. At any rate, the fact the Panthers did not have ANY 1st round OLinemen (save Oher) proves its not necessary to draft Olinemen in the first EVERY time.

 

 

What I'm telling you is that their offense wasn't great last year. They got to the SB and won it because they had the best defense in the NFL. When they didn't have the best defense in the NFL, but had the best offense, they didn't win the SB. That should tell yo volumes about that team. And if you want to point to previous years when their offense did well behind a similar line, save it. Prior to last year, Manning was still one of the best QBs ever, if not THE best ever, and they had three or four incredible receivers on the team. Nobody in the league can cover Demarius Thomas, Emmanuel Sanders, Wes Welker, and a live body at TE.

 

So are you suggesting the Bears should instead draft defense in the first round? I'm even better with that. Hell I'll even agree with you that we don't need a new QB in the 1st if we draft heavy in for defense in the first few rounds. Find us the next Von Miller or JJ Watt and I'll be totally happy.

[AZ54]

It's a team sport so you can't have a glaring weakness somewhere on the field. Aside from that, I really think it's about elite players and where they are on the field determines what you need to put around them. If you have an elite passing QB like Manning, Rodgers, or Brady then you might not need to block for more than 2-3seconds on most plays. It's hard to find those QBs so without one you might want to focus on the Oline.

 

On defense when we had Urlacher and Briggs they helped cover up deficiencies at safety, or on the Dline. They helped a guy like Hunter Hillenmeyer have a decent career. Kyle Long will be good for Massie as opposed to Larsen being there (last year on the Cards). He'll be good for Grasu or Ramirez at center too.

 

Regardless you first have to build your roster to fit your schemes. As you do that through the draft you expect to find a few of those elite players over the years. We did with Kyle Long and Jeffrey. Perhaps Goldman will get there but the cupboard is bare on D.

 

Right now what's clear to me is that while Fox/Pace like Cutler they are not going to put the burden of winning games fully on his shoulders (as Peyton had in Denver his first few years). We're going to run the ball and we're going to find another RB to pair up with Langford. We're going to build the Oline in front of them too.

 

I will say that I like this approach. These days teams have their nickel D on the field 60% of the snaps. To build a roster that way means your D is getting lighter. If we can build a strong running attack, especially with just the front 5 linemen then we will wreak havoc as Dallas did a couple years back with D. Murray. If the trend in the league is toward more passing I'm ok going against the grain.

 

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

It's a team sport so you can't have a glaring weakness somewhere on the field. Aside from that, I really think it's about elite players and where they are on the field determines what you need to put around them. If you have an elite passing QB like Manning, Rodgers, or Brady then you might not need to block for more than 2-3seconds on most plays. It's hard to find those QBs so without one you might want to focus on the Oline.

 

I think Denver's defense disproved the elite QB theory for both NE and Denver this year. Not only did they dismantle Tom Brady and his normally heroic efforts in the AFC title game but essentially carried the Broncos to the SB. I wouldn't necessarily say they did that the whole season but when it counted, they did. A few years ago Seattle did the same thing and before that Baltimore in 2001 and the Bears in '85. Which ties into your next comment. This applied to our run in '06. Rex did good but there's almost no question the Bears D carried most of the load that year.

 

On defense when we had Urlacher and Briggs they helped cover up deficiencies at safety, or on the Dline. They helped a guy like Hunter Hillenmeyer have a decent career. Kyle Long will be good for Massie as opposed to Larsen being there (last year on the Cards). He'll be good for Grasu or Ramirez at center too.

 

Regardless you first have to build your roster to fit your schemes. As you do that through the draft you expect to find a few of those elite players over the years. We did with Kyle Long and Jeffrey. Perhaps Goldman will get there but the cupboard is bare on D.

 

I think one thing to remember was 'we got lucky' with Long. Yes he was a first round pick but most everyone at the time, and several here, questioned that pick (the fact it worked out and Phil Emery chose him really sucks). The 'experts' concluded it was a stretch to pick him that early because he had only been playing oline in college for two (?) years. These are the same "experts" that told us Gabe Carimi and Chris Williams were 1st round worthy, and we know where that got us. That's why I say most people here could do as good a job analyzing college talent as some of the hacks like Kiper or Mayock. Anyhow, I digress...

 

Right now what's clear to me is that while Fox/Pace like Cutler they are not going to put the burden of winning games fully on his shoulders (as Peyton had in Denver his first few years). We're going to run the ball and we're going to find another RB to pair up with Langford. We're going to build the Oline in front of them too.

 

I don't know that "like" is the right word, its probably more like tolerate. Remember just about a year ago there was much speculation they were doing everything they could to trade him but they got zero takers. But yes, I agree they are going to build around him because he's the best we've got. (If they draft a QB early then we'll know how invested they are in him going forward). You're right they will probably draft a RB. Question is will it be early or late in the draft? Fox is generally a RBC type of guy so would he need a 1st round talent like Henry or Elliott or could they find what they need later on? As far as the Oline goes, I think they've done pretty well in building it up so far. What more do they need? Why draft a LT (in the first if that's what's suggested) not knowing if he's going to be the next Carimi or Long at that position? Too risky.

 

I will say that I like this approach. These days teams have their nickel D on the field 60% of the snaps. To build a roster that way means your D is getting lighter. If we can build a strong running attack, especially with just the front 5 linemen then we will wreak havoc as Dallas did a couple years back with D. Murray. If the trend in the league is toward more passing I'm ok going against the grain.

 

If the trend is definitely more towards the passing game then all the more reason to look for a superb edge rusher. Hence why, IMHO, you look for that quality player in the 1st and/or second round. Or more stud players to bolster the defense that will eventually win you that championship.