Lyer says show Faneca the $$$

[adam]

Eventually they were solid pick-ups, but immediately they were huge dissappointments. In their first seasons with the Bears:

 

Tait: Played RT for arguably the worst o-line the NFL has ever seen. Shea & Q-Mitchell were the main culprits, but he was part of a god-awful mess. Don't forget Tait was only 28 when we signed him.

 

Wale: Was injured most of his first season with the Bears & his 15 sacks dropped to 5. He only started 12 games. This is the first season with Chicago he's lived up to his paycheck.

 

Thomas Jones: He was mediocre enough that we targeted Cedric with the #4 pick the next year.

 

I forgot to mention that last year's major acquisitions were Arch & Walker.

 

In other words, whatever player we pick up, we had better not expect great results immediately.

I never looked at it that way, but if you take that perspective into your search, you will seriously handicap yourself.

 

Jones mediocre? He had almost 1,400 all-purpose yards.

 

A 90% Faneca is still better than most of the guys on our line at 100%.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

What scares me is:

1) His age. The guy's 31 years old already and he'll want a 5 year deal.

2) Why is Pittsburgh ready to let him walk? Pittsburgh and New England have a talent for letting good players walk at the right time.

3) Unless they sign with New England, FA's rarely do as well as expected. Big name guys the Bears have signed in the past few years, Moose, Tait, Wale, and even Thomas Jones, had very questionable first seasons. Maybe they were bad because the players around them were bad, but they were still bad. In other words, if we signed Faneca, he's likely to have a down 2007. So we'll be hoping for more in 2008 when he's 32?

 

I'd just rather we don't over-pay for a guard, and if we do, find one who is not as old.

Like my boy Jacob Bell, who's 27

[kledanhoj]

Nobody has mentioned Jordan Gross.. He's the top tackle in FA, can play both sides and is only 28..

If we were going to fix the line this OS, I'd say go after both Gross and Faneca..

 

sure it would cost some money, but we could then concentrate on drafting some offensive playmakers in the draft..

 

If not, we need to sign Briggs and Berrian long term and draft OL early..

 

We are going to spend the money regardless... I'd much rather spend it on OL. That's the heart of the offense of any team.

[kledanhoj]

Then again Ryan Lilja is a 4th year OG with the Colts. He is young and the team really likes him but they may not be able to bring him back.. Much younger, probably a little cheaper than Faneca.

Joseph Addai has looked good since his rookie season..

[BearSox]

Nobody has mentioned Jordan Gross.. He's the top tackle in FA, can play both sides and is only 28..

If we were going to fix the line this OS, I'd say go after both Gross and Faneca..

 

sure it would cost some money, but we could then concentrate on drafting some offensive playmakers in the draft..

 

If not, we need to sign Briggs and Berrian long term and draft OL early..

 

We are going to spend the money regardless... I'd much rather spend it on OL. That's the heart of the offense of any team.

Nobody mentioned him because he will get franchised, if he hasn't already, by the Panthers.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

Nobody mentioned him because he will get franchised, if he hasn't already, by the Panthers.

Exactly.

 

And probably the same with Lilja. Colts guys don't succeed if they are drafted by another team. The system of Indy really makes players look great.

[nfoligno]

1) His age. The guy's 31 years old already and he'll want a 5 year deal.

 

No question that is an issue. At the same time, his age could keep the overall contract from reaching the likes of Hutch, and I would also point out he has shown none of the signs of age. For example, when we signed Fred Miller, he was already starting to show signs, and the decline should have been expected.

 

2) Why is Pittsburgh ready to let him walk? Pittsburgh and New England have a talent for letting good players walk at the right time.

 

It's funny. We so often believe we have cheap ownership, but I think the Rooney's far and away blow us out of the water in terms of cheap. Pitt is very much known for letting solid veterans go because they are simply not willing to pay market value.

 

3) Unless they sign with New England, FA's rarely do as well as expected. Big name guys the Bears have signed in the past few years, Moose, Tait, Wale, and even Thomas Jones, had very questionable first seasons. Maybe they were bad because the players around them were bad, but they were still bad. In other words, if we signed Faneca, he's likely to have a down 2007. So we'll be hoping for more in 2008 when he's 32?

 

I do not recall Tait having a down year when he came over. I do not think TJ had much of a down 1st year either. He didn't have great stats, but did damn well that year regardless. Wale had a down year, but how much of that was due to being traded so late in the offseason, and having had sat out camp (dolphins) prior to that. Moose didn't have a down 1st year. He has simply sucked since coming over.

 

Signing a FA is a risk, particularly when it is an expensive one, but previous failures should not prevent you from continuing to try. You talk about NE, but in years past, they avoided the higher cost FAs and only went after he lower tier guys. This year, gaining the likes of Adalius Thomas, Stallworth, Welker and Moss were all huge in their efforts.

 

I'd just rather we don't over-pay for a guard, and if we do, find one who is not as old.

 

Hey, his name was Hutch, and we had our opportunity, and passed. I am not usually as big on spending so much for an OG either, but this year I feel that a player like Faneca could have very real chain reaction. I think we are going to draft an OT, and feel Faneca would be a great person to "help" that young player. I think if we had Faneca, it would better allow us to start a rookie at LT, thus allowing Tait to move to RT, thus upgrading another position. I also think Kreutz' play has fallen off, and think part of the reason is inconsistency at OG. So adding Faneca could improve Kreutz. Much the way a great QB can improve the level of play of those around him, I think Faneca could have a similar affect on the OL this year.

[nfoligno]

I do not want Starks. It isn't about Starks, but his position. If we sign a RT, then we are basically giving up on upgrading our LT position. I mean, if we spend to sign Starks, and have Tait on the other side, we are not going to draft an OT high in this draft, and IMHO, that would be a travesty. We are in the unique position of a top need also being a top talent position in the draft. Signing Starks would mean we pass on that.

 

I like Tait fine, but he is not a great LT, and his play/speed will only continue to decline w/ age. We should be looking to move him to RT, as opposed to signing an expensive RT.

[BearSox]

Exactly.

 

And probably the same with Lilja. Colts guys don't succeed if they are drafted by another team. The system of Indy really makes players look great.

Lilja won't get franchised. The colts are gonna use their tag on Dallas Clark. The Colts can get Fred Miller and turn him back to decent. They have the best OLine coaches in the league and play in a great system. Odds are that they let both of their guards go and then sign some no name and draft an unkown prospect and turn them into above average starters.

 

And Lilja and Scott both will be crap or at the very best mediocre for whichever team signs them.

[bradjock]

We are in the unique position of a top need also being a top talent position in the draft. Signing Starks would mean we pass on that.

 

That's what I thought in 2006 when TE was a top talent in the draft. That's all we heard or talked about for 4 months. Des Clark went on record as saying he knew it was inevitable and that he looked forward to the challenge. Hell, we even traded down to get extra picks and STILL didn't draft a TE.

 

I remember telling my buddy, "The only thing certain about this draft is that the Bears will take a TE on day one!" Wow.

 

Of all that talent, after 2 seasons, none of the top TE's drafted have distinguished themselves and none of excelled. (at least that I'm award of.) Because so many teams filled their TE needs that year, Greg Olsen falls all the way to #31 to the Bears. Hell, right now I'd take him over Vernon Davis, the guy some moron posters were declaring, "We should trade our entire draft for him!" (Now I have that stupid Garth Brooks song about "unanswered prayers" going through my head.)

 

Just because we sign Starks, doesn't necessarily mean we'd pass on a LT. The rookie will take at least one year before he's ready to start at tackle, and we still have a guard position to fill.

 

I would not be the least bit surprised if we continue with Fred Miller.

[bradjock]

It's funny. We so often believe we have cheap ownership, but I think the Rooney's far and away blow us out of the water in terms of cheap. Pitt is very much known for letting solid veterans go because they are simply not willing to pay market value.

 

The thing is, both of those teams are EXTREMELY smart about letting players walk. How many of their previous "stud FA's" went on to greatness somewhere else? What kills me is that both of these teams are in the Super Bowl hunt year in and year out. Sure Pittsburgh took 2006 off, but they bounced right back. To me that proves that you're better off tweaking you're line-up each year, letting some big names walk (Lance Briggs), and pick and chose very carefully about who you bring back. New England will let Asante Samuel walk, but they made sure they locked up Richard Seymour.

 

I do not recall Tait having a down year when he came over. I do not think TJ had much of a down 1st year either. He didn't have great stats, but did damn well that year regardless. Wale had a down year, but how much of that was due to being traded so late in the offseason, and having had sat out camp (dolphins) prior to that. Moose didn't have a down 1st year. He has simply sucked since coming over.

 

It's tough to measure Tait individually, but his first year with the Bears our o-line was easily the worst in the league. (Yet Kreutz made the pro-bowl???) If TJ was that good, why did we draft Cedric?

 

 

Signing a FA is a risk, particularly when it is an expensive one, but previous failures should not prevent you from continuing to try. You talk about NE, but in years past, they avoided the higher cost FAs and only went after he lower tier guys. This year, gaining the likes of Adalius Thomas, Stallworth, Welker and Moss were all huge in their efforts.

 

The kicker is, all those "lower tier guys," along with Tom Brady, helped them to be in the Super Bowl hunt year in and year out. Yes, the guys they brought in put them "over the top," but don't forget they had a huge lead in the AFC championship game just the year before.

 

I honestly believe the Bears will be better off bringing in some guy who makes us say, "Who?" to play guard, the way we did Reuben Brown & Roberto Garza. Garza has been very solid, and Reuben Brown was a pro-bowler with us. This won't be a popular move, but it has a lower risk, and could potentially have better end-results (especially since after negotiations, it'll be, "Soldier Field, presented by Tommie Harris."

[DABEARSDABOMB]

That's what I thought in 2006 when TE was a top talent in the draft. That's all we heard or talked about for 4 months. Des Clark went on record as saying he knew it was inevitable and that he looked forward to the challenge. Hell, we even traded down to get extra picks and STILL didn't draft a TE.

 

I remember telling my buddy, "The only thing certain about this draft is that the Bears will take a TE on day one!" Wow.

 

Of all that talent, after 2 seasons, none of the top TE's drafted have distinguished themselves and none of excelled. (at least that I'm award of.) Because so many teams filled their TE needs that year, Greg Olsen falls all the way to #31 to the Bears. Hell, right now I'd take him over Vernon Davis, the guy some moron posters were declaring, "We should trade our entire draft for him!" (Now I have that stupid Garth Brooks song about "unanswered prayers" going through my head.)

 

Just because we sign Starks, doesn't necessarily mean we'd pass on a LT. The rookie will take at least one year before he's ready to start at tackle, and we still have a guard position to fill.

 

I would not be the least bit surprised if we continue with Fred Miller.

Fred Miller was a walking turnstyle and has too big of a bonus. Sure the team could restructure, but I just don't see it making sense, unless of course they feel there are more pressing needs than the oline and if that was the case i honestly don't know what team JA and the staff was watching last year.

[nfoligno]

I thought of the 2006 TE situation also, but....

 

One. TE is an extremely different position from OT. Not all teams place high value on the TE, where as every team placed high value on OT. Also, you start two OTs, as opposed to one TE. Thus if you have a lot of teams draft OT one year, it is unlikely you will not have teams needing OT the next.

 

Two. While the class didn't breakout as expected, I think the class may still be better than you realize. Did you know that of the top 10 TEs this year, 3 were from that 2006 class. Owen Daniels (63-768-3), Vernon Davis (52-509-4) and Scheffler (50-550-5).

 

Three. I agree they didn't have the impact some expected, but I would also say the situation has been at least a partial cause. While some like Klopenstein and Byrd (both drafted by Stl) simply seem like busts, others may have different stories. Davis dealt w/ some injuries and a very questionable offense, and yet when on the field, he was by far their best playmaker. Lewis has really struggled w/ injury, but may also be a bust. Fasano is being one of the best TEs in the game in Witten (I will never understand why Dallas took him). Pope has become a red zone target, but the team has too many WRs. Dave Thomas was behind Watson, and a slew of pro bowl WRs. Owen Daniels, as soon as they had a real QB, broke out. So while the class may have been over-hyped (aren't they always) I think it was still one of the best TE classes to come out in a long time. 3 of the top 10 in the 2nd year is pretty big.

 

Regarding signing Starks and drafting OT, I just do not think it would happen. When you take a player as high as 14th, I think you do so w/ an expectation of him starting. If we sign Starks, we are locking up RT for years, and Tait is pretty set at LT. I do not think we would be looking at OT at that point. You can make the argument we could draft an OT and play him at OG, but why not just draft an OG? Anything can happen, but IMHO, if we were to sign Starks, it would all but take OT off the board for us.

 

As for Fred Miller, if his price were lower, I could understand, but the money is simply against him. He will hit out '08 cap for nearly $6m, while cutting him would free up nearly $3.5m. St. Clair was better than him last year. I would think, even if we didn't draft an OT, we could add a RT in FA using the money we save, and upgrade. Heck, if St. Clair is an upgrade, it should not be difficult to find better. If Miller didn't have such a high cap hit, or if cutting him didn't net so much in savings, I could see the argument that he was injured last year and we want to give him another shot, but not at the price tag he comes w/. Heck, I think we could cut him and look to re-sign him, if we really wanted to, and still save money.