Do you trust Angelo's drafting?

[nfoligno]

What are you talking about. Angelo had total control since the day he took over. Maybe he didn't have the coach he most wanted, but that doesn't mean jack when it comes to who he drafted. I recall well numerous players Jauron wanted to keep who Angelo cut, and visa versa.

 

That is a freaking weak excuse to say Angelo wasn't responsible for the players he drafted prior to Lovie coming in.

[nfoligno]

Sorry, but you misunderstand what this was all about.

 

Jauron had control over the 53 man roster, but he has NO control over how was signed or drafted. I suppose you could try to make the argument that if Angelo drafted a player in the 1st round, like Haynes, that Jauron didn't like, Jauron had the power to cut him, but would you really try to make that argument?

 

Jauron did not have any control over who was signed in the offseason, nor did he have any control over who was drafted. That was all Angelo.

 

Another point. You mentioned 2001, but Angelo did not draft until 2002. He came in later in 2001, after the draft. He showed up in time to cut Engram, which was all Angelo. Yea, great freaking move. But he had nothing to do w/ the 2001 draft.

 

Also, for the record, would it be your belief that Angelo gets no credit for: Alex Brown, Adrian Peterson, Tillman, Briggs, or Scott? If you take away all those players, you might be hurting Angelo more than helping. But regardless, I think you are wrong on this one. Angelo had full control over the draft since 2002, his first draft. By contract, Jauron might have had the right to cut a 1st round pick, but seriously. Let's be real.

[nfoligno]

Gotta jump in.

 

"You can nitpick details all you want." Is this what you do when it is pointed out you made an incorrect statement? You said we drafted Benson the same offseason our biggest signing was TJ. That is not nitpicking, that is simply wrong.

 

You then want to attack saying Benson wasn't a "slam dunk". The previous comment made was that you can't blame Angelo as he "looked like a sure thing". At least to me, that is far from flat out saying a player is a slam dunk. Lets be honest. There is no such thing. I remember how much of a sure thing Robert Gallary was, and now there is question whether he can be a starting OG, much less the franchise stud LT he was said to be. Point is, the common held belief was that Benson was a stud. Fans may not have been thrilled, but go back and check out what the scouts said, and the vast majority listed him as a top 5 pick. That doesn't mean he was a slam dunk, but the perception was he was a top 5 value, and we took him in the top 5. That was the point made.

['TD']

Sorry, but you misunderstand what this was all about.

 

Jauron had control over the 53 man roster, but he has NO control over how was signed or drafted. I suppose you could try to make the argument that if Angelo drafted a player in the 1st round, like Haynes, that Jauron didn't like, Jauron had the power to cut him, but would you really try to make that argument?

 

Jauron did not have any control over who was signed in the offseason, nor did he have any control over who was drafted. That was all Angelo.

 

Another point. You mentioned 2001, but Angelo did not draft until 2002. He came in later in 2001, after the draft. He showed up in time to cut Engram, which was all Angelo. Yea, great freaking move. But he had nothing to do w/ the 2001 draft.

 

Also, for the record, would it be your belief that Angelo gets no credit for: Alex Brown, Adrian Peterson, Tillman, Briggs, or Scott? If you take away all those players, you might be hurting Angelo more than helping. But regardless, I think you are wrong on this one. Angelo had full control over the draft since 2002, his first draft. By contract, Jauron might have had the right to cut a 1st round pick, but seriously. Let's be real.

 

 

 

"Then, during the 2003 season, Ed McCaskey died, thus spreading out the shares he had, and allowing the other McCaskey children to take the majority share away from Virginia and Michael McCaskey. Thus this led to Angelo finally being elevated to full GM and powers (instead of name only). It also signaled the end of Dick Jauron, who was fired at the end of the season."

 

I wasn't even thinking, but Ed McCaskkey turned over the reigns long before he died. In 99 they brought in Phillips to run things. Virginia votes all of the stock for their family 80%ish, and there was never a consortium of the "Other kids" that over through Michael and Virginia. In fact, I think Ed didn't even own stock. Plus, Ed didn't die during the "2003 season". He died in the beginning of April.

 

That blows up that guys whole story.

[nfoligno]

What people have to understand about Wikpedia, which was the source quoted, is that you do not have to be an expert to write up a Wikpedia report. I could write a report for Wikpedia. Anyone can. At least, that is my understanding.

 

I am sorry, but it is ridiculous to make an argument that Angelo was not a GM until 2003 or 2004, or whatever was said. He was hired mid 2001 as the teams GM. You have many GMs around the league, and not all have the exact same powers. Many coaches retain power over the 53 man roster. The point of this is so the coach has final say as to who starts, who sits, and who simply isn't good enough to be on the team. That is not uncommon, and was the situation we had w/ Jauron.

 

That in no way affects Angelo, and who he drafted or signed. Angelo had full power in the draft. He did not have Mikey standing over his shoulder telling him this or that, nor did Phillips. And Jauron likely had input, but no authority.

 

In the war room, on draft day, from the first draft Angelo ran (2002) he was in charge.

[balta1701-A]

What people have to understand about Wikpedia, which was the source quoted, is that you do not have to be an expert to write up a Wikpedia report. I could write a report for Wikpedia. Anyone can. At least, that is my understanding.

 

I am sorry, but it is ridiculous to make an argument that Angelo was not a GM until 2003 or 2004, or whatever was said. He was hired mid 2001 as the teams GM. You have many GMs around the league, and not all have the exact same powers. Many coaches retain power over the 53 man roster. The point of this is so the coach has final say as to who starts, who sits, and who simply isn't good enough to be on the team. That is not uncommon, and was the situation we had w/ Jauron.

 

That in no way affects Angelo, and who he drafted or signed. Angelo had full power in the draft. He did not have Mikey standing over his shoulder telling him this or that, nor did Phillips. And Jauron likely had input, but no authority.

 

In the war room, on draft day, from the first draft Angelo ran (2002) he was in charge.

If the Wikipedia source doesn't do it for you, I used that one out of laziness. I can start adding additional press reports on top of that.

Even today, type "Jerry Angelo" into Yahoo's search engine, and the first result that pops up is firejerryangelo.com, a piece of Chicago pop culture that has stuck like a thorn in the side of the franchise. In fact, the Bears took a stab at shutting it down, sicking the hounds from NFL Properties on the site. However, the move didn't do much more than force a few cosmetic changes and give an injection of Big Brother-type hatred to the anti-Angelo crowd.

 

The only weapon Angelo has against his critics is success, and to be fair, his struggles weren't entirely his fault. He took over as general manager in 2001, when coach Dick Jauron had authority over the roster. Yet, it was Angelo who took the brunt of criticism when the Bears went from 13-3 in 2001 to a combined 11-21 over the next two seasons.

 

It would be an understatement to call his first three years trying. There was continuous acrimony over roster decisions between Angelo and Jauron, and even some fracturing in the McCaskey family over who should have ultimate authority. It wasn't until owner Ed McCaskey's death in 2003 that Angelo was eventually empowered with absolute GM responsibilities – authority he flexed by firing Jauron, who at the time remained a popular coach among the players.

 

The subsequent hiring of Lovie Smith was framed as a lackluster choice in Chicago, particularly after Angelo interviewed Nick Saban. And yet, if you traced your finger back to 2003 – Jauron's last season and when Angelo took full control – that is when much of the current roster began to solidify. Draft picks like linebacker Lance Briggs and cornerback Charles Tillman emerged as quality starters. And personnel moves began to cull more successes than busts – including in the vital middle rounds of the draft, where championship teams unearth starters and quality depth. These moves were made in concert with Smith in accordance with their shared philosophy from their days with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

[Steve9347]

I highly trust Angelo to draft defensive players. He needs to bring in a consultant as far as the offensive side of the ball goes though.

[nfoligno]

I am sorry, maybe I missed it, but where are you arguing the points.

 

I have said that GMs have different levels of authority. There are many GMs who have absolute power, while others have most of the power, but the coach or team president retains some control over certain areas. There are plenty of examples of either.

 

I didn't argue that Angelo was w/o absolute control or power when he came in. I said Jauron had control over the 53 man roster. Jauron also had control over his assistants, hence the whole fight over Shoop. But that does not have anything to do w/ who Angelo decided to draft, or sign in FA.

 

And it does not mean his control in the war room was anything but absolute. You seem to take a comment that Angelo didn't have absolute control, and decide on your own that must have meant the first drafts were not of his own making. Sorry, but that is not what the story was saying.

 

I understand what the writing might have been trying to get at. When Angelo came on board, he was told he could not fire Jauron that first year. Then after 13 wins, he was basically forced to re-sign him. Angelo was forced to head a team that was coached by a group that did not share his philosophies. It was not "his" team. And the same time, since the day he showed up, he did try to make it "his" team. That first off-season, he cut Egnram. His drafts and FA signings were of his own as well.

 

I understand that a point in time came when Angelo full control, but prior to that date, his actions were still his own. Jauron was not telling him to draft this player or that player. Hell, I even remember a point when Jauron cut a guy who Angelo drafted and liked, and which the two were butting heads over. This was an example that shows how it was not Jauron calling the shots in the war room.

[madlithuanian]

You point is well made nfo.

 

Heck, I didn't think we needed him, I wannted Derrick Johnson (I think I have myyears correct!). But once we took him, I figured, well heck...now we're set at RB for years to come! And as it turns out, virtually everyone was wrong about the guy. Unless some lightbulb comes on and he starts training like Sweetness, he's going to be yet another huge 1st round Bears bust.

 

It's so disheartening. And it's a lot of luck. As we toil with bust after bust, NE is relishing in their 6th round QB pick. You can blame some of it on a bad choice, but the draft is like legalized gambling. It takes some skill not to get completely fleeced, but in oorder to be good, you have to be lucky.

 

 

 

Gotta jump in.

 

"You can nitpick details all you want." Is this what you do when it is pointed out you made an incorrect statement? You said we drafted Benson the same offseason our biggest signing was TJ. That is not nitpicking, that is simply wrong.

 

You then want to attack saying Benson wasn't a "slam dunk". The previous comment made was that you can't blame Angelo as he "looked like a sure thing". At least to me, that is far from flat out saying a player is a slam dunk. Lets be honest. There is no such thing. I remember how much of a sure thing Robert Gallary was, and now there is question whether he can be a starting OG, much less the franchise stud LT he was said to be. Point is, the common held belief was that Benson was a stud. Fans may not have been thrilled, but go back and check out what the scouts said, and the vast majority listed him as a top 5 pick. That doesn't mean he was a slam dunk, but the perception was he was a top 5 value, and we took him in the top 5. That was the point made.

[madlithuanian]

Overall, I do. I can certainly pick it apart and find holes. But I think you could do that with about every team's other than the bloody Pats!

 

I think so much of it ammounts to being lucky. Say what you want, the Pats getting Brady in the 6th is lucky! They probably thought at best, that he might be a good 2nd stringer behind Bledsoe. And we were lucky getting the best returner in the history of pro ball with Hester! We thought he might be good for a reutrn once in a while...but not this!

 

So overall, I'm fairly content with Angelo. I think he certianlyhas far more success on D than on O, but that was his MO in Tampa. I really iwsh he'd bring in some onsultant for offense. But I will say with a pich of salt, that I do trust Angelo overall. We could have Millen...or McCaskey.

 

Don't get me wrong, I want to see him do better. But I am content with him leading the charge...at least for now.

 

Last year at this time I was giving JA all the praise in the world, and I still believe the 2006 draft was what you expect & hope for from you general managerevery year. The top 5 players (Danieal Manning, Devin Hester, Dusty Dvoracek, Jamar Williams, Mark Anderson) if healthy could all be starting, and you have a bon-a-fide superstar in the mix in Hester.

 

As great as 2006 was, 2007 was awful. It's seriously made me wonder what the hell JA was thinking:

#1 TE Greg Olsen--Helluva a player, but Matt Millen could have even made this pick. Angelo lucked out in what was arguably our greatest need, fell this far due to the fact so many teams drafted TE's the year before.

#2 DE Dan Bazuin--With 3 good ends already, where does he fit in? This was considered a "reach" for the 2nd round. He looked lost in training camp and the SCORE football guys have nothing good to say about him. (Last year at this time they were praising Dvoracek.)

#3 RB Garrett Wolfe--He reminds of Ahmad Bradshaw who looked great last Sunday for the Giants. Bradshaw was picked in the 7th round. I'd have loved to have Wolfe in the 5th but there's no way in hell he should have been taken this high.

#3 LB Michael Okwo--From training camp to now, everything I heard or read indicates he's been bad & unimpressive. Also considered a "reach."

#4 OG Josh Beekman--He's healthy, the Bears are out of it, and he's never activated. How bad is he?

#5 SS Kevin Payne--Looked good before going out for the season.

#5 CB Corey Graham--Nice special teams guy.

#7 CB Trumaine McBride--Look ok filling in at CB. I like him as a back-up. I'm not ready to start him over RMJ.

#7 OT Aaron Brant--He might have been cut before training camp even started.

 

I do give tons of credit to JA for trading our #2, for a #2 & two #3's. Helluva a deal. That being said, after Olsen, this draft looks pretty horrible IMO. I hope JA can get it together.

[nfoligno]

Just for the record, I too had Derrick Johnson at the top of my list. I drooled at the idea of that trio of LBs.

 

Benson was my 2nd choice. I was not sold on TJ, and felt (as did most reports I read) that Benson would be a stud RB for years to come. Did that come to pass? Obviously not. While there is still very much a chance "the light turns on" I also have to admit that most RBs breakout sooner rather than later. Still, the point was that it is harder to blast a GM when he takes a player that is considered easily worthy of the draft slot. RB was listed as a need on most sites, and Benson was considered a top 5 pick by most as well. For me, it is similar to when Hatley drafted David Terrell. I recall how so many pre-draft reports claimed he might be the best prospect in the entire draft. His grade dropped some, due in large part to a suspected leg injury, but few questioned his talent. It didn't work out, but I would not attack Hatley too much for the pick itself.

 

I also agree drafting is somewhat like gambling. It is not all luck. Someone who goes to Vegas and plays craps needs to study first. You should know what "playing the field" is, or betting "the hard way" rolls. You should know which bets provide the best odds. An even better example might be Texas Hold 'Em. If you ever watch it on TV, they talk about the odds when you are holding this or that. Luck may provide you the cards, but if you study the game, you better know what to do w/ whatever is dealt.

 

In the draft, luck is w/o question a factor, but so is scouting. IMHO, NE did get lucky in Brady, yet at the same time, their scouting department gets tons of credit too, as does their GM for taking him. Look at us w/ Hester. Did we expect him to be the best ever? Probably not. At the same time, taking a return specialist in the 2nd is very unusual, so we did think a lot of him. And we did take the risk.

 

So I agree. The draft is very much like gambling. There is luck involved, as there is study and knowledge. I would add too that risk taking is a huge factor. When we drafted Urlacher, he was a man w/o a position, and considered a tweaner. I saw him in mocks going from the 5-10 range to the 15-20. Hatley took the "gamble" and it paid off.

 

The problem I have is, Angelo (and our scouts) seem far more knowledgable in defense than offense. It feels like a guy who knows craps is trying his hand at roulette. He might hit on a couple, but not often.

[madlithuanian]

You read my mind! I too was salivating over what would have been with that trio!

 

I'm fully with you on your TJ, Benson...and even Terrell assessments.

 

I also think we're on the same page regarding the gambling aspect. (heck chalk it up to a trifecta!)

 

HERE'S HOPING ANGELO DOESN'T CRAP OUT THIS DRAFT!

 

Just for the record, I too had Derrick Johnson at the top of my list. I drooled at the idea of that trio of LBs.

 

Benson was my 2nd choice. I was not sold on TJ, and felt (as did most reports I read) that Benson would be a stud RB for years to come. Did that come to pass? Obviously not. While there is still very much a chance "the light turns on" I also have to admit that most RBs breakout sooner rather than later. Still, the point was that it is harder to blast a GM when he takes a player that is considered easily worthy of the draft slot. RB was listed as a need on most sites, and Benson was considered a top 5 pick by most as well. For me, it is similar to when Hatley drafted David Terrell. I recall how so many pre-draft reports claimed he might be the best prospect in the entire draft. His grade dropped some, due in large part to a suspected leg injury, but few questioned his talent. It didn't work out, but I would not attack Hatley too much for the pick itself.

 

I also agree drafting is somewhat like gambling. It is not all luck. Someone who goes to Vegas and plays craps needs to study first. You should know what "playing the field" is, or betting "the hard way" rolls. You should know which bets provide the best odds. An even better example might be Texas Hold 'Em. If you ever watch it on TV, they talk about the odds when you are holding this or that. Luck may provide you the cards, but if you study the game, you better know what to do w/ whatever is dealt.

 

In the draft, luck is w/o question a factor, but so is scouting. IMHO, NE did get lucky in Brady, yet at the same time, their scouting department gets tons of credit too, as does their GM for taking him. Look at us w/ Hester. Did we expect him to be the best ever? Probably not. At the same time, taking a return specialist in the 2nd is very unusual, so we did think a lot of him. And we did take the risk.

 

So I agree. The draft is very much like gambling. There is luck involved, as there is study and knowledge. I would add too that risk taking is a huge factor. When we drafted Urlacher, he was a man w/o a position, and considered a tweaner. I saw him in mocks going from the 5-10 range to the 15-20. Hatley took the "gamble" and it paid off.

 

The problem I have is, Angelo (and our scouts) seem far more knowledgable in defense than offense. It feels like a guy who knows craps is trying his hand at roulette. He might hit on a couple, but not often.

[Connorbear]

Angelo has been outstanding on defense and horrible on offense. He needs to bring in someone to help him on the offensive side of the ball.

 

Peace