Second Round RB's

[Zod]

Here are some second round reasons why the Bears shouldn't pick Rashard Mendenhall in the first round.

 

(In no particular order)

Ray rice

Felix Jones

Matt Forte

 

There are quite a few RB that look like they will be able to improve the run game. I personally want Chris Johnson because I still believe speed kills (4.24). But there is a strong possiblity Jonathan Stewart will fall to the Bears because of his injury.

[Guest TerraTor]

Here are some second round reasons why the Bears shouldn't pick Rashard Mendenhall in the first round.

 

(In no particular order)

Ray rice

Felix Jones

Matt Forte

 

There are quite a few RB that look like they will be able to improve the run game. I personally want Chris Johnson because I still believe speed kills (4.24). But there is a strong possiblity Jonathan Stewart will fall to the Bears because of his injury.

 

I cant imagine there are any other lineman in the later rounds... better grab one fast, Benson needs someone to recover his and/or fall behind

[madlithuanian]

Regardless of how we don't get Mendnehall (as I feel we will be long gone before we pick...), there does seem to be some quailty out there. I'm not well versed on enough of those guys other than Jones and Stewart. I'm a bit weary of Jones... I like Stewart despite the injury. I really don't know enough about the other guys to really have an educated opinion. Their highlights look good for sure. And I do tend to agree that having a total speedster would be nice.

 

Do you know if Johnson can handle an NFL beating?

 

Here are some second round reasons why the Bears shouldn't pick Rashard Mendenhall in the first round.

 

(In no particular order)

Ray rice

Felix Jones

Matt Forte

 

There are quite a few RB that look like they will be able to improve the run game. I personally want Chris Johnson because I still believe speed kills (4.24). But there is a strong possiblity Jonathan Stewart will fall to the Bears because of his injury.

[Guest TerraTor]

Regardless of how we don't get Mendnehall (as I feel we will be long gone before we pick...), there does seem to be some quailty out there. I'm not well versed on enough of those guys other than Jones and Stewart. I'm a bit weary of Jones... I like Stewart despite the injury. I really don't know enough about the other guys to really have an educated opinion. Their highlights look good for sure. And I do tend to agree that having a total speedster would be nice.

 

Do you know if Johnson can handle an NFL beating?

 

Stewart will go top20. Hes too good not to. Felix Jones to me is a product of his offense and of course the player he subbed for.

[Guest TerraTor]

Stewart will go top20. Hes too good not to. Felix Jones to me is a product of his offense and of course the player he subbed for.

 

Im really starting to like Jamaal CHarles, Hes about as smart as benson is fast tho. Oh well.

 

Speed, Power, Rather Light. But seems to play with alot of heart and passion, something his old teammate completely lacks

 

 

I think we shold get another 2nd rounder somehow and take him. I really think we should get Manningham or Hardy with our #46(?).

[Iguana]

Regardless of how we don't get Mendnehall (as I feel we will be long gone before we pick...), there does seem to be some quailty out there. I'm not well versed on enough of those guys other than Jones and Stewart. I'm a bit weary of Jones... I like Stewart despite the injury. I really don't know enough about the other guys to really have an educated opinion. Their highlights look good for sure. And I do tend to agree that having a total speedster would be nice.

 

Do you know if Johnson can handle an NFL beating?

 

 

I do. and if you question if Johson can, you'd have to question if Charles can. they are the same size. And Felix is within 5-10 pounds of both of them

 

One thing I noticed is that ECU runs a more tradition offense....at least it looked like form the highlights. Most of the other schools with top backs run some sort of spread. the ECU offense looked pretty similar to what the Bears run from what I saw. And with Johnson, I love how he doesnt show boat and 'acts like he's been there' when he scores.

 

the other guy I really like is Forte. He does a LOT of things really well and is probably the most complete back available.

 

my top 3 are

 

CJ

Forte

Charles

 

If we end up with any of them, I'll be happy.

[Zod]

The thing is if Chris Johnson (or any of these backs) are draft by the Bears they will be in a two back rotation, which is common now days in the NFL.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

Williams OT, Caldwell WR, Forte RB, Henne QB, Young OG is what I want. Period.

[bradjock]

Here are some second round reasons why the Bears shouldn't pick Rashard Mendenhall in the first round.

 

(In no particular order)

Ray rice

Felix Jones

Matt Forte

 

There are quite a few RB that look like they will be able to improve the run game. I personally want Chris Johnson because I still believe speed kills (4.24). But there is a strong possiblity Jonathan Stewart will fall to the Bears because of his injury.

 

It's debatable which one of these guys are better, but I doubt one is head and shoulders above the other. That being said, won't one of these guys slip to round 3, especially when the Bears have the 9th pick?

 

At this point I'm convinced the Bears will draft 0-line in round 1 and round 2. There's a ton of depth in the draft at o-line and we have tons of needs.

[madlithuanian]

It's all a crap shoot!

 

What the heck! I just fear a bit with manningham...

 

Im really starting to like Jamaal CHarles, Hes about as smart as benson is fast tho. Oh well.

 

Speed, Power, Rather Light. But seems to play with alot of heart and passion, something his old teammate completely lacks

 

 

I think we shold get another 2nd rounder somehow and take him. I really think we should get Manningham or Hardy with our #46(?).

[madlithuanian]

Thanks for your assessment!

 

Given that, I wouldn't have issue with Johnson...

 

I do keep readin about Forte (here and elsewhere...) Seems good as well.

 

I do. and if you question if Johson can, you'd have to question if Charles can. they are the same size. And Felix is within 5-10 pounds of both of them

 

One thing I noticed is that ECU runs a more tradition offense....at least it looked like form the highlights. Most of the other schools with top backs run some sort of spread. the ECU offense looked pretty similar to what the Bears run from what I saw. And with Johnson, I love how he doesnt show boat and 'acts like he's been there' when he scores.

 

the other guy I really like is Forte. He does a LOT of things really well and is probably the most complete back available.

 

my top 3 are

 

CJ

Forte

Charles

 

If we end up with any of them, I'll be happy.

[madlithuanian]

I can live with that...

 

Williams OT, Caldwell WR, Forte RB, Henne QB, Young OG is what I want. Period.

[Zod]

Williams OT, Caldwell WR, Forte RB, Henne QB, Young OG is what I want. Period.

 

I think this year's crop of WR is very weak and Caldwell could be had for a third rounder. So you can still have what you want but probably not in the order you expect. Apostrophe'

[ParkerBear7]

Depending on how the draft goes and who the Bears target; a back I like that will be there in Round 3 or 4 is Thomas Brown out of Georgia. He is a solid 5'9" 204lb with good combo speed, vision with the ability to go between the tackles when needed. This would allow the Bears to address some other areas should they deem RB not best player available at earlier rounds.

[bradjock]

Thanks for your assessment!

 

Given that, I wouldn't have issue with Johnson...

 

I do keep readin about Forte (here and elsewhere...) Seems good as well.

 

This is why I love the pre-draft: Forte's fast, a great blocker, a great receiver, and a "high character guy." I'd be thrilled if we took him in round 2. Yet, I'd never heard of him before January.

[jason]

It's debatable which one of these guys are better, but I doubt one is head and shoulders above the other. That being said, won't one of these guys slip to round 3, especially when the Bears have the 9th pick?

 

At this point I'm convinced the Bears will draft 0-line in round 1 and round 2. There's a ton of depth in the draft at o-line and we have tons of needs.

 

I would absolutely love that.

 

Then in the third, one of those RBs will be there, as will some decent WRs with question marks, as will the QBs with question marks.

 

Imagine getting a franchise OT, OG, and still having two third rounders to grab a combo of Manningham and Forte, or Johnson, Chris and Johnson, Josh.

 

The Bears draft can go either way, but what happens in the third is where the success can be found.

[AZ54]

I'm always leary of making decisions based on a YouTube highlight reel but of the players listed here's my thoughts:

 

Johnson: At first thought he was the typical speed rusher in college, all straight ahead one cut type, just run like hell. They usually don't fare too well in the NFL. Then they put in some clips of inside runs and he showed good balance and a willingness to put the shoulder down. He showed some inside moves as well and vision to see the back cut. Doesn't have much power though. Damn he's fast! He'd be a good complement to Benson. Doubt he can carry the load fulltime.

 

Stewart: He'd be a good replacement FOR Benson. Can handle the whole package with enough speed to break the long runs, inside power runs, and vision.

 

Jamaal Charles: Same initial though as Johnson but he showed a lot of patience when there was nothing there and often found a way to get free. Really craft runner in tight space and willing to put his shoulder down as well, not a lot of power. Made some very good catches in the open field and has the speed to make the long run. He'd be a great complement to Benson.

 

Rice: Great balance, ok speed but not a lot of power in that little body. Seems like a second day pick versus Rd 2.

 

Jones: Typical college speed rusher, give him a big hole and let him, at least that's all they put in those clips. Saw nothing much on the inside runs to indicate how he'll fit into our offense. I'd prefer Johnson or Charles over him.

 

Forte: Can replace Benson. (when I say this I mean he can be the fulltime or at least primary RB, the role Ced was drafted for).

 

So from what I saw I'd take Johnson, Charles, or Forte in Rd 2. Stewart is a no brainer there too but I expect he'll be gone by then. Which brings me back to my post weeks ago on the Bears RB situation. What we do depends on what we feel about Ced. While there's talk we won't cut him because of his cap hit we might since we have the cap space and if he's lost a step and isn't working hard at rehab why keep him? He won't be equal to last years performance. In that case we need a RB big enough to handle the load, splitting time with AP.

 

Yet if there's good reason to feel Ced will recover fully by training camp, at least enough to handle 12-15 carries/game then we could go with more of a complimentary speed back. In this case we see what Ced has this year, and then if needed go get another big RB next year. In this situation AP is gone but don't be surprised if he gets traded ala Chris Harris during training camp.

 

Knowing JA, all the predraft chatter with Mendenhall, Charles, and especially Forte probably means we want Johnson in Rd 2.

[Mongo3451]

I'm always leary of making decisions based on a YouTube highlight reel but of the players listed here's my thoughts:

Nice!

 

Stewart: He'd be a good replacement FOR Benson. Can handle the whole package with enough speed to break the long runs, inside power runs, and vision.

 

Jamaal Charles: Same initial though as Johnson but he showed a lot of patience when there was nothing there and often found a way to get free. Really craft runner in tight space and willing to put his shoulder down as well, not a lot of power. Made some very good catches in the open field and has the speed to make the long run. He'd be a great complement to Benson.

 

Rice: Great balance, ok speed but not a lot of power in that little body. Seems like a second day pick versus Rd 2.

 

Jones: Typical college speed rusher, give him a big hole and let him, at least that's all they put in those clips. Saw nothing much on the inside runs to indicate how he'll fit into our offense. I'd prefer Johnson or Charles over him.

 

Forte: Can replace Benson. (when I say this I mean he can be the fulltime or at least primary RB, the role Ced was drafted for).

 

So from what I saw I'd take Johnson, Charles, or Forte in Rd 2. Stewart is a no brainer there too but I expect he'll be gone by then. Which brings me back to my post weeks ago on the Bears RB situation. What we do depends on what we feel about Ced. While there's talk we won't cut him because of his cap hit we might since we have the cap space and if he's lost a step and isn't working hard at rehab why keep him? He won't be equal to last years performance. In that case we need a RB big enough to handle the load, splitting time with AP.

 

Yet if there's good reason to feel Ced will recover fully by training camp, at least enough to handle 12-15 carries/game then we could go with more of a complimentary speed back. In this case we see what Ced has this year, and then if needed go get another big RB next year. In this situation AP is gone but don't be surprised if he gets traded ala Chris Harris during training camp.

Thanks AZ54, that was a nice breakdown of the backs.

 

There is only one type of back I’d like to see drafted. Power 1st with speed a close 2nd. To be a good playoff/cold weather back you need to be able to take that 1st shot and break it off. I just want them to move the chains, eat the clock and break off an occasional. That is what they drafted Benson for and I still think he has a chance to be that guy. Problem is, the odds dictate he be challenged. If we go RB in the 2nd or early 3rd, it has to be Forte. No way Stewart lasts that long.

 

 

Knowing JA, all the predraft chatter with Mendenhall, Charles, and especially Forte probably means we want Johnson in Rd 2.

The dark arts are in effect!

[Iguana]

This is why I love the pre-draft: Forte's fast, a great blocker, a great receiver, and a "high character guy." I'd be thrilled if we took him in round 2. Yet, I'd never heard of him before January.

 

 

I was listening to an interview of him on Sirius a couple days ago. He sounds like a real quality character guy. I'd love to have him on the Bears

[madlithuanian]

Good to know. Thanks for the insight iguana!

 

I was listening to an interview of him on Sirius a couple days ago. He sounds like a real quality character guy. I'd love to have him on the Bears

[BUZZMAN2333]

A guy that could be had in the 5th round probably is Cory Boyd from South Carolina.

 

I live in Columbia and have watched Cory his whole career here. He is an extremely hard worker, good leader, and a heck of a back.

 

He was our 2nd leading receiver last year and he almost never goes down after first contact.

 

I would love to see the Bears get OL's in the first 4 rounds! We need them that badly.

[madlithuanian]

We only need 2 OL's at best...let's not get silly!

 

A guy that could be had in the 5th round probably is Cory Boyd from South Carolina.

 

I live in Columbia and have watched Cory his whole career here. He is an extremely hard worker, good leader, and a heck of a back.

 

He was our 2nd leading receiver last year and he almost never goes down after first contact.

 

I would love to see the Bears get OL's in the first 4 rounds! We need them that badly.

[nfoligno]

I would take an entire draft of freaking OL.

 

1. While it is a nice thought, I am not sure you can flat out expect every player you draft to be a stud, much less even a starter. Just because you draft two OL does not mean you have found two NFL starting OLmen. Sometimes you have to draft more than one to get it done.

 

I remember Phily drafting DBs w/ their first three picks. Can't recall the position, but I think I remember GB doing similar, as have other teams at times. Its a numbers game. You figure you need two, and if you draft enough, you are bound to find two good (or better) guys in the bunch. If you find more than 2, then you have a "good problem". If you still can't find two, then you need to find a new job.

 

2. While we have two glaring holes, I am not sure how great we are outside those two holes.

 

Kreutz play has declined over the last couple years, IMHO. He is about to turn 31. He has 10 seasons of wear on him, and considering he is a smaller center that takes on big boys, you have to wonder about the wear on his body. Further, I think he is near the end of his contract. While it would be nice to always think of players like Kreutz retiring as a bear, the reality is we may not be willing to pay him what another team is.

 

Tait is 33 years old, and I think we saw this year the beginning of the decline in his play. Most believe (as do I) that a move to RT could slow that decline, as the RT does not have the athletic demands of a LT. Regardless, he is on the downside of his career.

 

Garza - To be frank, heading into last season, I thought he was our weak link. I am still not sure how good he is. As bad as the rest of the OL played last year, Garza stood out as our best, but that is like calling someone the tallest midget in the room.

 

Point is not to say any of these three need to be replaced this year, but to point out it may be a question how much longer we should rely on our 3 non-hole positions on the OL. It may not be long before they are holes, and I would rather have a player in the pipeline to step in, as opposed to going through all this again.

 

3. Angelo said himself that OL often take time to develop. We may be forced to start a rookie (or two) this year, but if we do have potential up-coming holes on the OL, the smart play would be to have someone developing today that may be able to step in tomorrow. Beekman is the only player on the roster I think "might" fit that bill.

 

4. Even if we do add a pair of rookies that can start at OG and OT, our depth still sucks. I think last year (not to mention 2002 through 2005) should have taught us the value of depth at OL.

 

I am not saying we should, but drafting OL for the first 4 picks is not as out-landish as you think. Terra however may need a trip to the emergency room for a quad bypass.

[madlithuanian]

That's just silly.

 

You are too obsessed with it...

 

I'm all for drafting OL, and heck, I can even understand 3...but all!? C'mon, common sense needs to prevail.

 

1. Agreed, but why put all your picks in one position? There are MANY other needs on this team! Like I said, I can understand 3...heck, maybe even 4...but not all 8 man.

 

2. We're pretty darn good out side those 2. Kruetz and Tait are very good, and Garza is quite adequate. Yes, you can make a case to start grooming guys...but con't you make a case for just about every position on the team? We need secondary depth, we need LB depth, we need DL depth, we need WR depth, we need a legit RB, we need a legit FB, and we need a QB period. I can't see enough justication to avoid all thos other position for OL alone.

 

3. I think any decent GM would say it takes time...and we should get some OL...just not freakin 8 of them!

 

4. OK, now you're saying only 4 OL? You started off saying all of them! I still think it's silly to go OL for the 1st 4 picks...I still beleive in BPA after filling your needs. Again, we are not just shy at OL...

 

Terra and I may be in hospital beds next to one another if we draft 4 OL with the 1st 4 picks...

 

I would take an entire draft of freaking OL.

 

1. While it is a nice thought, I am not sure you can flat out expect every player you draft to be a stud, much less even a starter. Just because you draft two OL does not mean you have found two NFL starting OLmen. Sometimes you have to draft more than one to get it done.

 

I remember Phily drafting DBs w/ their first three picks. Can't recall the position, but I think I remember GB doing similar, as have other teams at times. Its a numbers game. You figure you need two, and if you draft enough, you are bound to find two good (or better) guys in the bunch. If you find more than 2, then you have a "good problem". If you still can't find two, then you need to find a new job.

 

2. While we have two glaring holes, I am not sure how great we are outside those two holes.

 

Kreutz play has declined over the last couple years, IMHO. He is about to turn 31. He has 10 seasons of wear on him, and considering he is a smaller center that takes on big boys, you have to wonder about the wear on his body. Further, I think he is near the end of his contract. While it would be nice to always think of players like Kreutz retiring as a bear, the reality is we may not be willing to pay him what another team is.

 

Tait is 33 years old, and I think we saw this year the beginning of the decline in his play. Most believe (as do I) that a move to RT could slow that decline, as the RT does not have the athletic demands of a LT. Regardless, he is on the downside of his career.

 

Garza - To be frank, heading into last season, I thought he was our weak link. I am still not sure how good he is. As bad as the rest of the OL played last year, Garza stood out as our best, but that is like calling someone the tallest midget in the room.

 

Point is not to say any of these three need to be replaced this year, but to point out it may be a question how much longer we should rely on our 3 non-hole positions on the OL. It may not be long before they are holes, and I would rather have a player in the pipeline to step in, as opposed to going through all this again.

 

3. Angelo said himself that OL often take time to develop. We may be forced to start a rookie (or two) this year, but if we do have potential up-coming holes on the OL, the smart play would be to have someone developing today that may be able to step in tomorrow. Beekman is the only player on the roster I think "might" fit that bill.

 

4. Even if we do add a pair of rookies that can start at OG and OT, our depth still sucks. I think last year (not to mention 2002 through 2005) should have taught us the value of depth at OL.

 

I am not saying we should, but drafting OL for the first 4 picks is not as out-landish as you think. Terra however may need a trip to the emergency room for a quad bypass.

[nfoligno]

Talking about an all OL draft was a joke/exaggeration to make a point. The original post mentioned drafting 4, to which you argued, to which I replied.

 

2. We're pretty darn good out side those 2. Kruetz and Tait are very good, and Garza is quite adequate. Yes, you can make a case to start grooming guys...but con't you make a case for just about every position on the team? We need secondary depth, we need LB depth, we need DL depth, we need WR depth, we need a legit RB, we need a legit FB, and we need a QB period. I can't see enough justication to avoid all thos other position for OL alone.

 

- Tait is "very good". I am not sure I would agree w/ that. Maybe he can be again if he slides over to RT, but I am not sure whether or not we can say he is even good if he stays on the left. Kreutz I would agree is still very good, but as I said, for how much longer, and then factor his contract. Garza is adequate? Okay, but when did we say "okay" to adequate?

 

- Sure, you can always say you need depth. My points though would be the OL is more pressing than many others, and OL often take longer to develop than many other positions. Of those you mention...

 

CB - We recently re-signed both starters, and a rookie last year looked dang good.

LB - We just re-signed Briggs, have pro bowl MLB under contract through 2011, and Hunter resently re-signed. Add to that drafting Williams and Okwo the last two years, and I am not sure why we need depth here.

DL - We are 4 deep now at DE. Maybe could use a DT, but I would argue this is a position that needs less development, as more rookie DTs step up than OL.

WR - No argument there, and if this were a better WR draft, I might be more for it, but this draft looks ugly at WR.

RB - Agreed, and could easily be taken day one.

QB - No argument here.

FB - Yes, but most FBs are later picks.

 

Again, you were going off the belief I seriously was advocating taking OL w/ every pick. I was not. I would likely not even take OL w/ the first four picks, but if it played out a certain way, it would not upset me too much. For example, Albert in the 1st, Baker falls to us in the 2nd, Pollack is there in the 3rd, and Rachal or Nicks in the later 3rd. That would be starting out the draft w/ four OL picks, and I would not have an issue w/ it. Would I like to see RB or QB mixed in there? Hell yes, but if no good QBs are there, and RB doesn't play out as we want in the draft, it would not upset me if we did as I mentioned above. We would immediately fill current holes, upgrade our depth, and create a situation where OL may be a strength for a long time.