What sort of RB do we want?

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Here's an idea...how about putting (or at least trying) Hester in as an RB??? Maybe a "scat back" type of runner? He is obviously elusive and realistically his talents as a return specialist are going to diminish and/or teams are going to figure out how to defend against his returning. As long as the line is decent enough to protect him from getting stuffed behind the line. Meanwhile, they could also bring in another legit bruiser type back (Turner or the like) and compete with Benson.

 

 

[fenom283]

Here's an idea...how about putting (or at least trying) Hester in as an RB??? Maybe a "scat back" type of runner? He is obviously elusive and realistically his talents as a return specialist are going to diminish and/or teams are going to figure out how to defend against his returning. As long as the line is decent enough to protect him from getting stuffed behind the line. Meanwhile, they could also bring in another legit bruiser type back (Turner or the like) and compete with Benson.

 

Yeah so we can have a LB or DL take out our only weapon on offense. He needs to stay at WR and keep returning that it. Hell he can barely handle WR dont give this kid so much.

[kyyle23]

I always thought we were premature in releasing Columbo... boy, would he look good as our RT for now and many more years.

 

How is that possible? When the Bears released him, there were many that felt he would never play again due to the nerve damage in his knee and lower leg. His knee injury in St louis was horrific, Im surprised he is able to walk, much less play offensive line.

 

One front-office member said several times during the last few seasons that if the Bears had 53 players with Marc Colombo's determination, they never would lose.

 

That's how hard he worked, but Colombo's battle back from a gruesome left knee injury suffered as a rookie in 2002 ended Tuesday -- at least with the Bears. They placed him on waivers and signed veteran offensive lineman John St. Clair to take his spot.

 

Colombo, the first first-round pick made by general manager Jerry Angelo, was a promising prospect as a rookie with a nasty demeanor and a love for the game. But he dislocated his knee in his fifth start, and nerve damage made his recovery long, painful and ultimately unsuccessful in the eyes of the club.

 

The Bears predicted that he would be back for training camp in 2003, but he missed the entire season. He remained on the physically unable to perform list until Week 10 last year. When he got back on the field, he was not the same player as the injury robbed him of strength and flexibility. At 6-8, Colombo needed to bend to get leverage. Orders came from the front office to play him at the end of the season, and he started the final two games but did not perform well.

 

Colombo was relegated to No. 2 at right tackle during camp this summer, and with the Bears keeping only eight linemen on the roster, they needed a more versatile player. St. Clair, who blocked for Bears running back Thomas Jones at Virginia, can play all five positions, though he is viewed mostly as a tackle and said he is most comfortable there. He started 16 games at right tackle for the Miami Dolphins last season but was waived Sept. 7.

[BigDaddy]

If I were Lovie Smith, I would change the running game. First, I would fix this o line once and for all and then instead of trying to find the next Barry Sanders, I would be trying to lock on to an honest to God FB who actually runs with the ball. Who knows, maybe Benson would run better between the tackles if it were softened up a bit by a guy with powerful legs, low to the ground and somebody that can punish tacklers. Hey, Benson might even become the change of pace between the tackles.

[Connorbear]

Again. As I said above. That is a nice sentiment, but w/ salary cap, I am not sure how practical it is. You can not afford to have a $5m/yr backup RB. We were not happy w/ Benson (a 1st round pick) backing up TJ. No way, unless we have simply given up on Benson, would we be okay w/ a 1st round pick backing him up. Adding a 1st round pick RB or Turner is not adding competition. It is replament. Pure and simple.

 

Agreed. Someone like Chris Brown from Tenn would be a better fit from a salary perspective.

 

Peace

[nfoligno]

I think VERY few bear fans will be happy w/ Brown, but that is who I see us going after. We wanted him this past offseason, but for some reason he picked Tenn over Chicago. Brown has a history of injuries, yet at the same time has proven a capable RB. He has never been much of a receiver, but I believe is a good blocker. I can see him being a RB that would (a) add competition ( not cost too much © provide improved depth in the event of a Benson injury. Further, he is of similar style to Benson, and thus no changes in system are required.

 

Like I said. Brown is exactly who I can see us going after. In many way, I think he is similar to TJ. Not so much in style, but being a veteran who had shown potential and ability over time, but never fully met expectations.

 

Another good thing about Brown. He is still only 26 years old.

[madlithuanian]

I follow...

 

 

 

The key part of my claim there is that they may well be mutually exclusive. In other words, if I think it's important to focus on the O-Line in round 1, then that precludes the Bears drafting a first round RB, which is what some poeple here are suggesting.

[madlithuanian]

Drafting another LT would be ideal! Damn the competition, etc!

 

I'm just from another school on OL...I like the FA mode and a later round than first. For every Joe Thomas, there's a Mandrich. Same could be said of all the positions really... I guess I'm more of the mind that we have SO many holes, that in the 1st we should virtually take the best available. I'm content in honesty with OL, RB, QB, WR, LB, S....andy of those that's a worthy candidate should make a positive impact on this club. I don't want us to reach.

 

Plus Angelo could be using the term "competition" as BS.

 

1. He could legitimately mean that, and maybe bringing in a complimentary back that differs from Benson.

2. He could be BS'ing and has no intention of making any change at RB.

3. He could be BS'ing and completely want a replacement.

 

THis is a tough year to make judgement calls about this team. The past few season seemed a bit more easy. Now, there's just too many holes!

 

A fairly young home run hitter that can catch, block and do some damage up the middle. Kind of a lot to ask for!

 

Um. Yea, that sounds great. How about we just draft LT:) I would argue the combo of: a) homerun hitter between the tackles power and c) pass catcher are a fairly rare combo. You have some in the league, but not many. So while it is great to imagine all that, I am not sure it is so simple as saying that is what we are looking for.

 

As for Mendenhall, and Stewart and all the other 1st round RBs I have seen mentioned and discussed, I am not sure those are who we should be talking about. I am not sure bringing in another 1st round RB qualifies as "competition". Seems a tag more than that to me. And beside that point, I still think we would be much better off w/ an OT in the 1st round. Look what Joe Thomas and the rest of the improved OL did for Jamal Lewis. That improved OL made a has-been RB look almost young again.

 

W/ regard to Michael Turner, once again, I am not sure that is competition. If we add Turner, it will cost a boat load and he will not be coming in if he might not even be the starter. He is going to want a guaranteed starting job after sitting behind LT for so long.

[jason]

Drafting another LT would be ideal! Damn the competition, etc!

 

I'm just from another school on OL...I like the FA mode and a later round than first. For every Joe Thomas, there's a Mandrich. Same could be said of all the positions really... I guess I'm more of the mind that we have SO many holes, that in the 1st we should virtually take the best available. I'm content in honesty with OL, RB, QB, WR, LB, S....andy of those that's a worthy candidate should make a positive impact on this club. I don't want us to reach.

 

Plus Angelo could be using the term "competition" as BS.

 

1. He could legitimately mean that, and maybe bringing in a complimentary back that differs from Benson.

2. He could be BS'ing and has no intention of making any change at RB.

3. He could be BS'ing and completely want a replacement.

 

THis is a tough year to make judgement calls about this team. The past few season seemed a bit more easy. Now, there's just too many holes!

 

I will literally protest the Bears next season if they draft a RB in the first round. I will not watch one game. Period. The RB situation may be a problem, but we'll never know if the OL sucks. In order to really determine if Benson's a flop, the OL needs to be fixed. Just look at Jamal Lewis this year. Before the year, you would have been hard-pressed to find more than a handful of people on his side. But with that line, all the sudden he is rejuvenated. The same holds true for this team. For any of you to suggest that the Bears should go after a RB in the first is pure insanity.

 

If the Bears get a RB in the draft, it should be a mid to late round upside guy, someone who has the incredible speed to take it to the house, but for some reason or another wasn't the #1 all the time or wasn't highly regarded for some minor reason.

 

If the Bears go after a RB similar to Benson, it'll be incredibly stupid, a waste of money, and self-defeating.

 

OL, OL, OL...fix the problem up front, and I guaran-damn-tee the running game and the passing game improve exponentially.

[nfoligno]

First, let my start w/ Angelo's comment on competition. I do not believe it is BS in such a manner that he intends to do nothing. While I, and most, have talked about his meaning we bring in a RB to compete w/ Benson, I have also considered the posibility that his comment was BS in that he may consider a top tier FA. He could still call it a competition, even though it would not be.

 

Still, I lead against that interpretation. I think he was very disappointed in Benson this year, but he also talked about how Benson did seem to turn a corner shortly before the injury. He said he didn't understand why it took so long though. Thus, I simply think he feels adding competition will quicken Benson's rise.

 

As for drafting best available from, OL, RB, QB, WR, LB, S, as you mention. First, let me just say, this follows what I have always believed. I do not believe in pigeon-holing your selection and reaching for a need, nor do I feel you draft best available, regardless of need. I think you have a grouping of positions you feel are among your high priorities, and draft the best available at one of those positions. That is what it appears you want to do as well. The reason I talk about OL though, is because it is a position I feel we will best match need and best available.

 

OT - Long will be LONG gone. After Long though, you have Clady (assuming he enters), Baker and Oher. All three would be solid values at our position, and would fill a massive need.

 

RB - This RB class is shaping up to look pretty good, and where we pick, we could well be facing a very good RB. At the same time, (a) as said already, I think Angelo is looking to add competition and not yet ready to simply replace, which may mean RB is not a round 1 option, and ( I think we can get quality RBs later than the 1st. I would argue it is far easier to find RBs after the 1st round than it is LTs.

 

QB - This is a very real posibility. I just do not know. I don't know enough about these QBs, and frankly, am simply not sure we will look to take one in the 1st. Most likely, a 1st round QB is not going to help us for a few years, and I am not sure Angelo is going to use our 1st pick on a player who isn't going to help the team now. I think he still believes we are a SB team (when healthy) and a QB is not going to help us get back to the SB, at least not for a few years.

 

WR - This is an ugly draft for WRs. At 14, we could be looking at the #1 WR in the draft, and that is no great thing. I have not seen any WRs this year that would be considered among the top 3 in most other years.

 

LB - We have drafted two LBs in the last two years, and the team seems high on Williams. While I am not sure there is a true blue chip LB in the draft (borderline maybe) it does appear to be a fairly deep draft at LB. So if we want, we can get one later, but I think we are more likely going to give one of our recent draft picks a chance first.

 

S - This is the one position I can see us going if we do not go OT in round one. If Phillips from Miami falls to us, he could be very difficult to pass on.

 

Still, I go back to this. Regardless what Angelo said about focusing on the offense, I think that is by far the most glaring need. The defense went downhill this year, but more than on offense, I think that can be blamed (at least in part) to injuries where we saw starting FS, both CBs and both DTs lost to injury, as well as Urlacher playing through pain and SS being wasted space. While our defense needs help, particularly at S, if we went into next year w/o any upgrades to the defense, they could still be solid. I do not believe the same can be said of the offense.

 

It isn't often we have the luck of having a top need match a position considered deep in the draft. Adding an OT in the first may well meet both need and best available better than any other position.

 

Final point. I understand what you are talking about when you talk about FA OL over draft picks, but I would argue finding long term LTs rarely comes from FA. Teams rarely let quality LTs go, and when it does happen, the cost is ridiculous. We went the FA route w/ Brockemeyer and Tait, as well as trying to move some athletic OGs over (Tucker/Gandy). We are still in search of a true LT. If Baker, Cady or Oher are there, I think we simply have to go OT. If we want to improve the offense, I see not better way than fixing the OL. I would add a FA OG (I want Faneca). Put Baker or Clady at LT, move Tait to RT, insert Faneca, and I think our OL could once again be awesome. Doing this will open holes for Benson and give Orton time in the pocket.

[LT2_3]

First, let my start w/ Angelo's comment on competition. I do not believe it is BS in such a manner that he intends to do nothing. While I, and most, have talked about his meaning we bring in a RB to compete w/ Benson, I have also considered the posibility that his comment was BS in that he may consider a top tier FA. He could still call it a competition, even though it would not be.

 

Still, I lead against that interpretation. I think he was very disappointed in Benson this year, but he also talked about how Benson did seem to turn a corner shortly before the injury. He said he didn't understand why it took so long though. Thus, I simply think he feels adding competition will quicken Benson's rise.

 

As for drafting best available from, OL, RB, QB, WR, LB, S, as you mention. First, let me just say, this follows what I have always believed. I do not believe in pigeon-holing your selection and reaching for a need, nor do I feel you draft best available, regardless of need. I think you have a grouping of positions you feel are among your high priorities, and draft the best available at one of those positions. That is what it appears you want to do as well. The reason I talk about OL though, is because it is a position I feel we will best match need and best available.

 

OT - Long will be LONG gone. After Long though, you have Clady (assuming he enters), Baker and Oher. All three would be solid values at our position, and would fill a massive need.

 

RB - This RB class is shaping up to look pretty good, and where we pick, we could well be facing a very good RB. At the same time, (a) as said already, I think Angelo is looking to add competition and not yet ready to simply replace, which may mean RB is not a round 1 option, and ( I think we can get quality RBs later than the 1st. I would argue it is far easier to find RBs after the 1st round than it is LTs.

 

QB - This is a very real posibility. I just do not know. I don't know enough about these QBs, and frankly, am simply not sure we will look to take one in the 1st. Most likely, a 1st round QB is not going to help us for a few years, and I am not sure Angelo is going to use our 1st pick on a player who isn't going to help the team now. I think he still believes we are a SB team (when healthy) and a QB is not going to help us get back to the SB, at least not for a few years.

 

WR - This is an ugly draft for WRs. At 14, we could be looking at the #1 WR in the draft, and that is no great thing. I have not seen any WRs this year that would be considered among the top 3 in most other years.

 

LB - We have drafted two LBs in the last two years, and the team seems high on Williams. While I am not sure there is a true blue chip LB in the draft (borderline maybe) it does appear to be a fairly deep draft at LB. So if we want, we can get one later, but I think we are more likely going to give one of our recent draft picks a chance first.

 

S - This is the one position I can see us going if we do not go OT in round one. If Phillips from Miami falls to us, he could be very difficult to pass on.

 

Still, I go back to this. Regardless what Angelo said about focusing on the offense, I think that is by far the most glaring need. The defense went downhill this year, but more than on offense, I think that can be blamed (at least in part) to injuries where we saw starting FS, both CBs and both DTs lost to injury, as well as Urlacher playing through pain and SS being wasted space. While our defense needs help, particularly at S, if we went into next year w/o any upgrades to the defense, they could still be solid. I do not believe the same can be said of the offense.

 

It isn't often we have the luck of having a top need match a position considered deep in the draft. Adding an OT in the first may well meet both need and best available better than any other position.

 

Final point. I understand what you are talking about when you talk about FA OL over draft picks, but I would argue finding long term LTs rarely comes from FA. Teams rarely let quality LTs go, and when it does happen, the cost is ridiculous. We went the FA route w/ Brockemeyer and Tait, as well as trying to move some athletic OGs over (Tucker/Gandy). We are still in search of a true LT. If Baker, Cady or Oher are there, I think we simply have to go OT. If we want to improve the offense, I see not better way than fixing the OL. I would add a FA OG (I want Faneca). Put Baker or Clady at LT, move Tait to RT, insert Faneca, and I think our OL could once again be awesome. Doing this will open holes for Benson and give Orton time in the pocket.

 

Excellent breakdown Nfo. I think this is another one of those mark the calander situations where we agree.

 

The only thing I'd add is the old chestnut "The best way to build a team is from the lines out"

 

We have a perfect opportunity to get a good LT prospect with the 14th pick that allows us to sign them for 6 years, but is one of the lowest contract slottings that can be signed for 6 years.

 

Without getting caught up in the shiny new offensive skill position player type thing, I can't imagine us taking any other position than OT if there is a good value available.

[bear trap]

What kind of RB do we go for I say we make a very very hard push for M. Turner. He can be a n/s runner, yet he shows that he can turn on the burners and get out of dodge when things get heated, which for some reason cb doesn't seem to show. A little bit of a speedster with a pounder all in one is just what this offense needed. Why waist another pick on some guy we don't know will pan out? It may be unfair, but I just don't see the "IT" factor in cb. He goes down too easy and doesn't try hard enough for the extra yard. Spend a pick on turner if you have to and sign some o-line help via FA, and we're in the post-season next year no matter who is throwing it. Although in a perfect world we'd trade a 3rd for mcnabb and a 2nd or 1st for turner and get oline help. But that's nothing but a wet dream. Mcnabb, turner, and a good o-line combined with a resigned briggs and berrian. Please santa, everything I got for christmas sucked this year REDEEM YOURSELF! or I'm picketing

[Connorbear]

What kind of RB do we go for I say we make a very very hard push for M. Turner. He can be a n/s runner, yet he shows that he can turn on the burners and get out of dodge when things get heated, which for some reason cb doesn't seem to show. A little bit of a speedster with a pounder all in one is just what this offense needed. Why waist another pick on some guy we don't know will pan out? It may be unfair, but I just don't see the "IT" factor in cb. He goes down too easy and doesn't try hard enough for the extra yard. Spend a pick on turner if you have to and sign some o-line help via FA, and we're in the post-season next year no matter who is throwing it. Although in a perfect world we'd trade a 3rd for mcnabb and a 2nd or 1st for turner and get oline help. But that's nothing but a wet dream. Mcnabb, turner, and a good o-line combined with a resigned briggs and berrian. Please santa, everything I got for christmas sucked this year REDEEM YOURSELF! or I'm picketing

We don't have to trade for Turner. He is a free agent.

 

Peace

[Adibear]

What sort of RB do we want?

 

one that makes more than 2 yards a carry.... <_>

[DrunkBomber]

I think the type of back we need depends on the plan for o line. Right now we have a line that is better suited for a cut back runner, which is one of the reasons Benson is having problems (amongst several other things). If they dont plan on making drastic changes on the line they are better suited going after a shiftier back but if they are planning on retooling the line and adding driving run blocker types it might be beneficial to go after a runner that is comparable to what Benson was supposed to be when we drafted him.

 

Fixing the o line and adding at least one receiver that is reliable would also do wonders for our offense.

[madlithuanian]

I for one wil still watch even if they force feed Grossman, Benson and Fred Miller down my thoat. I won't be happy, and I won't spend a dime on the Bears, but I will watch.

 

But I follow your OL thinking, but wouldn't your thoughts change a bit if we addressed it with someone like faneca in FA?

 

I will literally protest the Bears next season if they draft a RB in the first round. I will not watch one game. Period. The RB situation may be a problem, but we'll never know if the OL sucks. In order to really determine if Benson's a flop, the OL needs to be fixed. Just look at Jamal Lewis this year. Before the year, you would have been hard-pressed to find more than a handful of people on his side. But with that line, all the sudden he is rejuvenated. The same holds true for this team. For any of you to suggest that the Bears should go after a RB in the first is pure insanity.

 

If the Bears get a RB in the draft, it should be a mid to late round upside guy, someone who has the incredible speed to take it to the house, but for some reason or another wasn't the #1 all the time or wasn't highly regarded for some minor reason.

 

If the Bears go after a RB similar to Benson, it'll be incredibly stupid, a waste of money, and self-defeating.

 

OL, OL, OL...fix the problem up front, and I guaran-damn-tee the running game and the passing game improve exponentially.

[madlithuanian]

I for one wil still watch even if they force feed Grossman, Benson and Fred Miller down my thoat. I won't be happy, and I won't spend a dime on the Bears, but I will watch.

 

But I follow your OL thinking, but wouldn't your thoughts change a bit if we addressed it with someone like faneca in FA?

 

I will literally protest the Bears next season if they draft a RB in the first round. I will not watch one game. Period. The RB situation may be a problem, but we'll never know if the OL sucks. In order to really determine if Benson's a flop, the OL needs to be fixed. Just look at Jamal Lewis this year. Before the year, you would have been hard-pressed to find more than a handful of people on his side. But with that line, all the sudden he is rejuvenated. The same holds true for this team. For any of you to suggest that the Bears should go after a RB in the first is pure insanity.

 

If the Bears get a RB in the draft, it should be a mid to late round upside guy, someone who has the incredible speed to take it to the house, but for some reason or another wasn't the #1 all the time or wasn't highly regarded for some minor reason.

 

If the Bears go after a RB similar to Benson, it'll be incredibly stupid, a waste of money, and self-defeating.

 

OL, OL, OL...fix the problem up front, and I guaran-damn-tee the running game and the passing game improve exponentially.

[madlithuanian]

OK. I'm sold!

 

You make great points.

 

As I mentioned earlier, I would content with OL...I just want good value. And I don't want to miss a HR hitter at any position we've discussed just because our OL is not up to par. I just don't want to fall in the trap that we MUST draft OL.

 

First, let my start w/ Angelo's comment on competition. I do not believe it is BS in such a manner that he intends to do nothing. While I, and most, have talked about his meaning we bring in a RB to compete w/ Benson, I have also considered the posibility that his comment was BS in that he may consider a top tier FA. He could still call it a competition, even though it would not be.

 

Still, I lead against that interpretation. I think he was very disappointed in Benson this year, but he also talked about how Benson did seem to turn a corner shortly before the injury. He said he didn't understand why it took so long though. Thus, I simply think he feels adding competition will quicken Benson's rise.

 

As for drafting best available from, OL, RB, QB, WR, LB, S, as you mention. First, let me just say, this follows what I have always believed. I do not believe in pigeon-holing your selection and reaching for a need, nor do I feel you draft best available, regardless of need. I think you have a grouping of positions you feel are among your high priorities, and draft the best available at one of those positions. That is what it appears you want to do as well. The reason I talk about OL though, is because it is a position I feel we will best match need and best available.

 

OT - Long will be LONG gone. After Long though, you have Clady (assuming he enters), Baker and Oher. All three would be solid values at our position, and would fill a massive need.

 

RB - This RB class is shaping up to look pretty good, and where we pick, we could well be facing a very good RB. At the same time, (a) as said already, I think Angelo is looking to add competition and not yet ready to simply replace, which may mean RB is not a round 1 option, and ( I think we can get quality RBs later than the 1st. I would argue it is far easier to find RBs after the 1st round than it is LTs.

 

QB - This is a very real posibility. I just do not know. I don't know enough about these QBs, and frankly, am simply not sure we will look to take one in the 1st. Most likely, a 1st round QB is not going to help us for a few years, and I am not sure Angelo is going to use our 1st pick on a player who isn't going to help the team now. I think he still believes we are a SB team (when healthy) and a QB is not going to help us get back to the SB, at least not for a few years.

 

WR - This is an ugly draft for WRs. At 14, we could be looking at the #1 WR in the draft, and that is no great thing. I have not seen any WRs this year that would be considered among the top 3 in most other years.

 

LB - We have drafted two LBs in the last two years, and the team seems high on Williams. While I am not sure there is a true blue chip LB in the draft (borderline maybe) it does appear to be a fairly deep draft at LB. So if we want, we can get one later, but I think we are more likely going to give one of our recent draft picks a chance first.

 

S - This is the one position I can see us going if we do not go OT in round one. If Phillips from Miami falls to us, he could be very difficult to pass on.

 

Still, I go back to this. Regardless what Angelo said about focusing on the offense, I think that is by far the most glaring need. The defense went downhill this year, but more than on offense, I think that can be blamed (at least in part) to injuries where we saw starting FS, both CBs and both DTs lost to injury, as well as Urlacher playing through pain and SS being wasted space. While our defense needs help, particularly at S, if we went into next year w/o any upgrades to the defense, they could still be solid. I do not believe the same can be said of the offense.

 

It isn't often we have the luck of having a top need match a position considered deep in the draft. Adding an OT in the first may well meet both need and best available better than any other position.

 

Final point. I understand what you are talking about when you talk about FA OL over draft picks, but I would argue finding long term LTs rarely comes from FA. Teams rarely let quality LTs go, and when it does happen, the cost is ridiculous. We went the FA route w/ Brockemeyer and Tait, as well as trying to move some athletic OGs over (Tucker/Gandy). We are still in search of a true LT. If Baker, Cady or Oher are there, I think we simply have to go OT. If we want to improve the offense, I see not better way than fixing the OL. I would add a FA OG (I want Faneca). Put Baker or Clady at LT, move Tait to RT, insert Faneca, and I think our OL could once again be awesome. Doing this will open holes for Benson and give Orton time in the pocket.

[Iguana]

A good one.