QBs left on the board...

[jackie hayes]

Weak argument. How many good seasons have the Bears had over the last 20 years?! How many good QBs? How many good WRs? What position other than LB have they been very successful with?

 

EXACTLY! You can't answer those questions!

 

I think that anyone on this board who devoted some time to watching every game possible, studying highlight reels, looking at stats, and absorbing a good deal of information could easily have just as good a track record as the Bears front office. We may have a completely different team, with completely opposite strengths, and a different identity, but I don't think it's even remotely impossible.

 

I have heard several fans on this board who have a fairly decent knowledge of players going into the fourth and fifth round. And that's just a random passion for the stuff, not a full-time job.

 

When JA and the Bears' front office starts to pile up winning seasons like the Patriots or the Steelers, then come talk to me about what the Bears' front office "knows".

 

WOW.

[Da Bears 88]

well, all of a sudden everyone here are scouts and know more then the Bears FO.

Look who's talking.

 

You act like you're a know it all on here.

[jason]

 

WOW.

 

Clever reply. You really showed everyone. Now why don't you tell me where I'm wrong? Why don't you point to the multiple years of successful drafts? Why don't you send me a link of where the Bears had more than two or three good years in a row in the last two decades? Why don't you list the reasons why the Bears' front office seems to be so smart?

 

Better yet, why don't you just print off a list of QBs the Bears have had over the last twenty years and rethink the supreme confidence you have in the Bears' front office.

[jackie hayes]

Clever reply. You really showed everyone. Now why don't you tell me where I'm wrong? Why don't you point to the multiple years of successful drafts? Why don't you send me a link of where the Bears had more than two or three good years in a row in the last two decades? Why don't you list the reasons why the Bears' front office seems to be so smart?

 

Better yet, why don't you just print off a list of QBs the Bears have had over the last twenty years and rethink the supreme confidence you have in the Bears' front office.

You're the one claiming that most people on a message board are better than any front office that doesn't accomplish what the Patriots and Steelers have accomplished, and I'm the one that has to "show everyone"?

 

Your bluster is just freakin sad. But still so funny. And so:

 

:lolhitting

[jason]

You're the one claiming that most people on a message board are better than any front office that doesn't accomplish what the Patriots and Steelers have accomplished, and I'm the one that has to "show everyone"?

 

Your bluster is just freakin sad. But still so funny. And so:

 

:lolhitting

 

Re-read the original post. It's all about reading comprehension. More specifically, pay attention to this part:

 

I think that anyone on this board who devoted some time to watching every game possible, studying highlight reels, looking at stats, and absorbing a good deal of information could easily have just as good a track record as the Bears front office.

 

The point - which clearly went right over your head multiple times - is that the Bears' front office HAS NOT had consistent success for quite some time. Therefore, they are not above criticism. When, and if, they ever get to be year after year competitors because of solid drafts, late day steals, and good draft moves otherwise (like the Steelers and Pats), then your argument holds water. Until then, it doesn't.

[Connorbear]

I think that anyone on this board who devoted some time to watching every game possible, studying highlight reels, looking at stats, and absorbing a good deal of information could easily have just as good a track record as the Bears front office.

We've gone round and round on this one before. I disagree with this statement. I am not saying they are above criticism. I definately think they have real problems drafting offensive talent. This, however, is what they do for a profession. This is what they have done most of their lives. If someone on this board were to devote yrs to doing the above plus traveling and meeting with coaches, players, etc...then maybe they could have the same track record.

 

Peace

[jackie hayes]

Re-read the original post. It's all about reading comprehension. More specifically, pay attention to this part:

 

I think that anyone on this board who devoted some time to watching every game possible, studying highlight reels, looking at stats, and absorbing a good deal of information could easily have just as good a track record as the Bears front office.

 

The point - which clearly went right over your head multiple times - is that the Bears' front office HAS NOT had consistent success for quite some time. Therefore, they are not above criticism. When, and if, they ever get to be year after year competitors because of solid drafts, late day steals, and good draft moves otherwise (like the Steelers and Pats), then your argument holds water. Until then, it doesn't.

Or you could read the rest of what you wrote, which included this:

When JA and the Bears' front office starts to pile up winning seasons like the Patriots or the Steelers, then come talk to me about what the Bears' front office "knows".

It's all about reading comprehension, indeed.

 

You want to prove that you're more capable than the Bears front office, then put in the work and prove it. Otherwise, shut the freak up. But there's a reason fans who say shit like that are one of the most laughable cliches on the internet.

 

But, hey, they do use bold AND underline. Together! If that doesn't signal extreme intelligence, I don't know what does. It must be true!

[jason]

Or you could read the rest of what you wrote, which included this:

 

It's all about reading comprehension, indeed.

 

You want to prove that you're more capable than the Bears front office, then put in the work and prove it. Otherwise, shut the freak up. But there's a reason fans who say shit like that are one of the most laughable cliches on the internet.

 

But, hey, they do use bold AND underline. Together! If that doesn't signal extreme intelligence, I don't know what does. It must be true!

 

I'm done arguing with you. The whole "then do it" argument is stupid. You act as if someone can just call up the Bears and say, "Hey, I think I can be a good scout and/or general manager", and they give you a shot.

 

As for using bold and underline, I was only focusing on portions of text you were too stupid to read. It may not be supreme intelligence, but it takes more effort and smarts than a rebuttal of "shut the freak up" - which sounds like a little kid not getting their way. Besides, you still don't understand what I wrote:

 

"When JA and the Bears' front office starts to pile up winning seasons like the Patriots or the Steelers, then come talk to me about what the Bears' front office "knows"."

You replied:

You're the one claiming that most people on a message board are better than any front office that doesn't accomplish what the Patriots and Steelers have accomplished, and I'm the one that has to "show everyone"?

 

I didn't say that all fans were better than all teams' front offices. I just noted that the Bears have had a poor track record over the last two decades, and that a person who pays attention to college football fairly religiously (or plays/coaches/refs) could probably do just as well. I honestly believe this. There are many studies out there that say people make up their minds about important decisions within the first few minutes of seeing something. I believe that the front office guys spend a ton of time talking themselves out of common sense picks because, often times, they are too flooded with data to see the obvious.

 

Until the Bears front office can consistently put a winner on the field, their draft choices will be criticized.

[jason]

We've gone round and round on this one before. I disagree with this statement. I am not saying they are above criticism. I definately think they have real problems drafting offensive talent. This, however, is what they do for a profession. This is what they have done most of their lives. If someone on this board were to devote yrs to doing the above plus traveling and meeting with coaches, players, etc...then maybe they could have the same track record.

 

Peace

 

True...something they do for a profession. And what would their longterm evaluation be for that profession? If you take out the salary cap portion of the GM's job - something I think JA is a master at - and just look at the picks, one could easily argue that they have been borderline incompetent over the last 20 years.

 

Just because someone does something a long time doesn't mean they automatically are good at it or know better. Often times, people that have been doing something a long time are set in their ways, and fail to step outside the box for fresh ideas and/or suggestions. Anyone who has helped their father or grandfather with a task around the house can attest to this.

 

One can't discount their experience; it's incredibly valuable. But their track record with that experience isn't great.

[jackie hayes]

I'm done arguing with you. The whole "then do it" argument is stupid. You act as if someone can just call up the Bears and say, "Hey, I think I can be a good scout and/or general manager", and they give you a shot.

 

As for using bold and underline, I was only focusing on portions of text you were too stupid to read. It may not be supreme intelligence, but it takes more effort and smarts than a rebuttal of "shut the freak up" - which sounds like a little kid not getting their way.

 

Until the Bears front office can consistently put a winner on the field, their draft choices will be criticized.

You are a cliche. Congratulations.

 

And your "smarts" apparently don't extend to the meaning of the word "rebuttal". It was more like a "challenge". Like, you know, do what you say can easily be done but somehow never is. Don't worry, you're not the first blowhard to refuse to back up point one. You're in...company.

[jackie hayes]

I'm done arguing with you. The whole "then do it" argument is stupid. You act as if someone can just call up the Bears and say, "Hey, I think I can be a good scout and/or general manager", and they give you a shot.

 

As for using bold and underline, I was only focusing on portions of text you were too stupid to read. It may not be supreme intelligence, but it takes more effort and smarts than a rebuttal of "shut the freak up" - which sounds like a little kid not getting their way. Besides, you still don't understand what I wrote:

 

"When JA and the Bears' front office starts to pile up winning seasons like the Patriots or the Steelers, then come talk to me about what the Bears' front office "knows"."

You replied:

You're the one claiming that most people on a message board are better than any front office that doesn't accomplish what the Patriots and Steelers have accomplished, and I'm the one that has to "show everyone"?

 

I didn't say that all fans were better than all teams' front offices. I just noted that the Bears have had a poor track record over the last two decades, and that a person who pays attention to college football fairly religiously (or plays/coaches/refs) could probably do just as well. I honestly believe this. There are many studies out there that say people make up their minds about important decisions within the first few minutes of seeing something. I believe that the front office guys spend a ton of time talking themselves out of common sense picks because, often times, they are too flooded with data to see the obvious.

 

Until the Bears front office can consistently put a winner on the field, their draft choices will be criticized.

You're DONE! Until you add to your answer.

 

You then stress "all", when my word was "most". And you didn't "just" talk about the Bears, you mentioned the Patriots and Steelers as the standards that would allow someone to claim the fo knows what it's doing.

 

I don't care about your beliefs, nor how honestly you hold them. It doesn't make them any less ridiculous.

[jason]

You are a cliche. Congratulations.

 

And your "smarts" apparently don't extend to the meaning of the word "rebuttal". It was more like a "challenge". Like, you know, do what you say can easily be done but somehow never is. Don't worry, you're not the first blowhard to refuse to back up point one. You're in...company.

 

It's cool. I know you can't defend what the Bears FO has done over the last 20 years.

 

Most people in the real world don't have the opportunities to follow dreams like being an NFL scout; so, you obviously present a bogus challenge that can't be pursued. Basically you used an ad hominem because you can't refute the actual item at hand: the fact that the Bears don't have a very good track record when it comes to the draft.

[Da Bears 88]

You're DONE! Until you add to your answer.

 

You then stress "all", when my word was "most". And you didn't "just" talk about the Bears, you mentioned the Patriots and Steelers as the standards that would allow someone to claim the fo knows what it's doing.

 

I don't care about your beliefs, nor how honestly you hold them. It doesn't make them any less ridiculous.

You should become the next Bears GM, because you know everything.

[jason]

You're DONE! Until you add to your answer.

 

You then stress "all", when my word was "most". And you didn't "just" talk about the Bears, you mentioned the Patriots and Steelers as the standards that would allow someone to claim the fo knows what it's doing.

 

I don't care about your beliefs, nor how honestly you hold them. It doesn't make them any less ridiculous.

 

And you STILL DON'T GET IT. I'll go slowly for you.

 

1) I mentioned the Bears front office as a team that can be criticized for not having great draft success.

Bears != All teams

 

2) I mentioned that if a team doesn't have success, then they can be criticized.

Bears = not a lot of success

 

3) I mentioned two teams (Pitt & NE) that have had success. If fans question their drafts, considering past history, then there is just cause to say that the fans should just trust what the FO has done.

Bears != Pats/Steelers

 

What all that means is, when there is success, it's difficult to question the person with the success. Nobody questioned Walter Payton's training methods. Nobody questioned Dan Marino's delivery after a few years. Nobody questioned Eric Dickerson's upright running style.

 

When the Bears have continuous success with their drafts, then they will have players/fans/teams/GMs/reporters/etc. believing in them. Until them, it's a crap shoot. And just like craps, there is pretty much a 50/50 chance that someone else who puts in a little work will do just as well as they have over the years.

[jackie hayes]

You should become the next Bears GM, because you know everything.

One of these days, and I'm sure it will be completely by accident, you are going to actually post something with content. It will be very frightening, but please try to keep a hold of yourself. We NEED your inanities and unsubstantiated nonsense.

 

Like this, when the clear implication of everything I've said is that I don't know much. Classic 88...

[Connorbear]

True...something they do for a profession. And what would their longterm evaluation be for that profession? If you take out the salary cap portion of the GM's job - something I think JA is a master at - and just look at the picks, one could easily argue that they have been borderline incompetent over the last 20 years.

 

Just because someone does something a long time doesn't mean they automatically are good at it or know better. Often times, people that have been doing something a long time are set in their ways, and fail to step outside the box for fresh ideas and/or suggestions. Anyone who has helped their father or grandfather with a task around the house can attest to this.

 

One can't discount their experience; it's incredibly valuable. But their track record with that experience isn't great.

I understand that just because you do something for a long time doesn't necessarily make you good at it. I work with several individuals who prove that out and I'm sure you do as well. My point would be that this is a full time job (probably more than a full time job from what you hear in the NFL). You make it sound like someone could take up the analyzing film, reports, etc...and be just as good as the Bears while holding down a full time job at whatever they do for a living. I simply do not agree that, on average, someone with limited resources (time, information, training, etc) would do better than someone who does the job for a living.

 

Peace

[jackie hayes]

And you STILL DON'T GET IT. I'll go slowly for you.

 

1) I mentioned the Bears front office as a team that can be criticized for not having great draft success.

Bears != All teams

 

2) I mentioned that if a team doesn't have success, then they can be criticized.

Bears = not a lot of success

 

3) I mentioned two teams (Pitt & NE) that have had success. If fans question their drafts, considering past history, then there is just cause to say that the fans should just trust what the FO has done.

Bears != Pats/Steelers

 

What all that means is, when there is success, it's difficult to question the person with the success. Nobody questioned Walter Payton's training methods. Nobody questioned Dan Marino's delivery after a few years. Nobody questioned Eric Dickerson's upright running style.

 

When the Bears have continuous success with their drafts, then they will have players/fans/teams/GMs/reporters/etc. believing in them. Until them, it's a crap shoot. And just like craps, there is pretty much a 50/50 chance that someone else who puts in a little work will do just as well as they have over the years.

Dude, you're done. You said so. Reading...comprehension...ya know...

 

You've said is that a screen name could clearly perform better than the Bears fo. Meaning, they'd have more success. You said also that noone could say the Bears know anything until they achieve success comparable to the Patriots and Steelers. If that's your standard, you should hold your many fan GMs to the same standard. Unless you want to say, Noone can say the Bears know anything until they are this good, but these posters know something even though they aren't even nearly this good.

 

(Btw, I wasn't challenging you to become a scout or gm. Just do the analysis on your own and justify what you say. And don't give me a 'waste of time' line -- it's not like you couldn't make big money doing it.)

 

But, hey, you're done. I wonder where this post even came from.

[jason]

I understand that just because you do something for a long time doesn't necessarily make you good at it. I work with several individuals who prove that out and I'm sure you do as well. My point would be that this is a full time job (probably more than a full time job from what you hear in the NFL). You make it sound like someone could take up the analyzing film, reports, etc...and be just as good as the Bears while holding down a full time job at whatever they do for a living. I simply do not agree that, on average, someone with limited resources (time, information, training, etc) would do better than someone who does the job for a living.

 

Peace

 

And that's fine. We can agree to disagree. Thinking back over the years, I would have had good and bad picks like anyone else. However, with my limited resources compared to the NFL guys, I am absolutely positive my hit/miss ratio would have been either similar or better than the Bears'. Several players I have really wanted have fallen right by the Bears when available. Sure, I wouldn't have nabbed Urlacher, but I am 100% positive that I would have had just as much success as the Bears have had over the period of time I have actually focused on the draft.

[Connorbear]

And that's fine. We can agree to disagree. Thinking back over the years, I would have had good and bad picks like anyone else. However, with my limited resources compared to the NFL guys, I am absolutely positive my hit/miss ratio would have been either similar or better than the Bears'. Several players I have really wanted have fallen right by the Bears when available. Sure, I wouldn't have nabbed Urlacher, but I am 100% positive that I would have had just as much success as the Bears have had over the period of time I have actually focused on the draft.

Like you said, we can agree to disagree. No issue with that.

 

Peace

[jason]

Just to prove I'm not just pulling players out of the blue, I'll start with 1998.

 

1998

I hated the Curtis Enis pick

I loved Randy Moss.

 

1999

I was absolutely pissed about the trade down for Cade McNown. I was raving about Dante Culpepper for months.

 

2000

I can't recall who I liked a lot this year.

 

2001

I actually liked the David Terrell pick. Although, to be fair, if the Bears had selected Randy Moss, there would not have been a need for Terrell that year. Of course, if I remember correctly, I liked Chad Johnson a bit more (could be wrong).

 

2002

This is the draft the year after the Bears did well, but sucked on offense. They only looked decent because the D was so good. I wanted a WR or OL (WR because Dez White sucked). I thought Colombo was a nice selection, and he has turned into a good pro. IT's just too bad his injury caused him to go elsewhere before getting better. I also liked Reche Caldwell, but in my defense the WR class was weak that year and I don't know what I would have done. I would have easily swayed to Randel El or Ashley Leilie, since the old message board had many backers of those two at the time.

 

2003

I didn't like Mike Green, Phillip Daniels, or Bryan Robinson going into the draft. I hated RW McQuarters. I liked Woolfolk, Polamalu, Nnamdi Asomugha...in that order IIRC. I didn't know enough about Polamalu to move him ahead of Woolfolk. I thougth the Rex Grossman pick was decent (still think the kid has a chance).

 

2004

Still disliked the defensive players from above, and also thought we needed OL help. Loved the Tommie Harris pick, one of my favorite guys that year. I also liked Igor Olshansky. None of the DBs that year really stand out in my mind as having moved me.

 

2005

Despised the Cedric Benson pick. Although, the guy I wanted, Mike Williams, hasn't amounted to anything in the NFL either. I still believe that if Mike Williams had gone to a team that actually used him, and didn't shelve him behind two other first round WRs, he had a chance to be a very solid WR. After the time in Detroit, he was damaged goods psychologically. (someone on the old board nailed this one in pre-draft comments, saying he was a headcase) I also remember liking Jonathan Babineaux and Alex Barron.

 

2006

Right after a good year. Didn't like WRs. Thought the Bears also needed RT/RG/TE. I thought the Bears reached on Manning, and should have grabbed one of the following: Marcus McNeil, Sinorice Moss, Chad Jackson. I can't recall what happened with the first rounder this year...but I seem to remember a trade down. I wanted Chad Jackson and a TE (Leonard Pope).

 

2007

Odd that it's this recent and I can't remember that well. I thought the Bears needed to upgrade offense after the Super Bowl season. WR and TE specifically, IIRC. I liked the Olsen pick, but I think I liked Dwayne Jarrett better.

 

So, there's a brief trip down memory lane. I can't say for certain that each and every thing I have said is completely accurate, since I dont' have notes or anything, but it's pretty close to what I remember.

 

I know this for a fact:

-The Bears would have had the Culpepper/Moss combo that the Vikings had. I absolutely loved those two guys.

 

The other thing I know:

-It's hard doing something like this because my drafts would have been different in each year based upon how well my previous drafts did. And I suspect that there wouldn't have been this ten year need for a WR if Moss was drafted.

[Connorbear]

Just to prove I'm not just pulling players out of the blue, I'll start with 1998.

 

1998

I hated the Curtis Enis pick

I loved Randy Moss.

 

1999

I was absolutely pissed about the trade down for Cade McNown. I was raving about Dante Culpepper for months.

 

2000

I can't recall who I liked a lot this year.

 

2001

I actually liked the David Terrell pick. Although, to be fair, if the Bears had selected Randy Moss, there would not have been a need for Terrell that year. Of course, if I remember correctly, I liked Chad Johnson a bit more (could be wrong).

 

2002

This is the draft the year after the Bears did well, but sucked on offense. They only looked decent because the D was so good. I wanted a WR or OL (WR because Dez White sucked). I thought Colombo was a nice selection, and he has turned into a good pro. IT's just too bad his injury caused him to go elsewhere before getting better. I also liked Reche Caldwell, but in my defense the WR class was weak that year and I don't know what I would have done. I would have easily swayed to Randel El or Ashley Leilie, since the old message board had many backers of those two at the time.

 

2003

I didn't like Mike Green, Phillip Daniels, or Bryan Robinson going into the draft. I hated RW McQuarters. I liked Woolfolk, Polamalu, Nnamdi Asomugha...in that order IIRC. I didn't know enough about Polamalu to move him ahead of Woolfolk. I thougth the Rex Grossman pick was decent (still think the kid has a chance).

 

2004

Still disliked the defensive players from above, and also thought we needed OL help. Loved the Tommie Harris pick, one of my favorite guys that year. I also liked Igor Olshansky. None of the DBs that year really stand out in my mind as having moved me.

 

2005

Despised the Cedric Benson pick. Although, the guy I wanted, Mike Williams, hasn't amounted to anything in the NFL either. I still believe that if Mike Williams had gone to a team that actually used him, and didn't shelve him behind two other first round WRs, he had a chance to be a very solid WR. After the time in Detroit, he was damaged goods psychologically. (someone on the old board nailed this one in pre-draft comments, saying he was a headcase) I also remember liking Jonathan Babineaux and Alex Barron.

 

2006

Right after a good year. Didn't like WRs. Thought the Bears also needed RT/RG/TE. I thought the Bears reached on Manning, and should have grabbed one of the following: Marcus McNeil, Sinorice Moss, Chad Jackson. I can't recall what happened with the first rounder this year...but I seem to remember a trade down. I wanted Chad Jackson and a TE (Leonard Pope).

 

2007

Odd that it's this recent and I can't remember that well. I thought the Bears needed to upgrade offense after the Super Bowl season. WR and TE specifically, IIRC. I liked the Olsen pick, but I think I liked Dwayne Jarrett better.

 

So, there's a brief trip down memory lane. I can't say for certain that each and every thing I have said is completely accurate, since I dont' have notes or anything, but it's pretty close to what I remember.

 

I know this for a fact:

-The Bears would have had the Culpepper/Moss combo that the Vikings had. I absolutely loved those two guys.

 

The other thing I know:

-It's hard doing something like this because my drafts would have been different in each year based upon how well my previous drafts did. And I suspect that there wouldn't have been this ten year need for a WR if Moss was drafted.

On Moss - I believe 20 other teams passed on Moss. Look, he blew off an interview with the Bears. He was obviously a problem child because his skill was definately top 5 but he fell into the 20s. You can't blame the Bears for passing on him given that 1. RB was clearly a greater need and 2. Moss was judged as a huge character risk. Just wish the would have taken Taylor instead of Enis.

 

On Milke Williams, you can believe all you want that given different circumstances he would have panned out. The one fact that we know is he is a certified bust.

 

Peace

[ASHKUM BEAR]

True...something they do for a profession. And what would their longterm evaluation be for that profession? If you take out the salary cap portion of the GM's job - something I think JA is a master at - and just look at the picks, one could easily argue that they have been borderline incompetent over the last 20 years.

 

Just because someone does something a long time doesn't mean they automatically are good at it or know better. Often times, people that have been doing something a long time are set in their ways, and fail to step outside the box for fresh ideas and/or suggestions. Anyone who has helped their father or grandfather with a task around the house can attest to this.

 

One can't discount their experience; it's incredibly valuable. But their track record with that experience isn't great.

 

 

Jason-I love your passion to Talkbears and well thought out discussions. I don't always agree with you, but your thoughts are always interesting. The one I love the most about you is after every draft, you argue how you would have done better. Heck, somethimes I think I could do better myself. One thing you or me or anyone for that matter don't know is the top managements plans and goals (ie. Harris contract, Bensons health, Bazuin's inability to learn the defense)

 

I'm 80% happy with all the picks, I would have liked to see a couple of things different, but I can't complain.

 

Williams-(A) I too liked Albert, he was intriquing especially how fast he climbed in a month and at least his floor was LG, but Williams is a smart, well rounded LT and a position that will set a team for 8 years if he pans out.

Forte- (A) He was our guy all along, I'd prefer to trade down 5-8 spots, maybe we tried but we got our guy

Bennett- (A) I was really high on him. Does everything you'd want out of a WR. May be our best WR in a long time

Harrison (B ) I really wanted best OG, but we do have Beekman/St. Clair and with Harris mentioning a hold out, and ?'s on the rest of our DT's, Harrison may fill a huge need. Look at the dropoff last year after injuries.

Steltz (B ) The more I read/watch about him, my grade might change to an (A). Everyones first impression is an in the box safety (Arch) who is slow. The coaches have him graded to play both S's and there are plenty of highlights with him playing nice coverage.

Bowman © This is a gamble pick, he pans out 2-3 years this will change to an (A) if not an (F). CB was also a need last year as Tillman/Vasher both missed a lot of time and our D dropped big time. Bowman has been compared to Cromartie of SD b/c of the potential but injury history, if he turns out to Cromartie no one here will complain about the pick.

Davis © I love him as a TE, big & fast like Olsen. TE was a need, but we should have taken either Brennan or Woodson. This is my only major regret was missing these QB's, but I don't dislike Davis.

Baldwin (D) who the hell is this guy, Lovie's nephew? If we were drafting BPA my guy Josh Barrett should have been taken (fire Angelo)

C. Adams © Don't know much about him so he gets a C probably as good as Metcalf

J. LaRocque © Once again, don't know much about him and really don't care.

K. Barton (A) I would have drafted him earlier, that's how much love I have for him. Would have went higher (injury)

M. Monk (A) Big fast WR that uses body well (CAN YOU SAY OUR MARQUES COLSTON)

 

I would of like to see Schuening/Radovich, Brennan/Woodson, Barrett SS, but if those are the only misses (G and QB) I think well be ok, a rookie G especially RD3 or later will most likely need a year to beef up like Beekman and the QB would be a project (Krenzel,Leak). I think were better off finding someone like Volek than a rookie right now.

[DrunkBomber]

I have an idea. Anyone who thinks they can pick better players then JA list what you would have done differently, realistically though, now instead of after you already know who panned out and who didnt.

[azbearsfan]

I always love the armchair guys that say they can do it better.

 

I always wonder why they dont get a job coaching or being an assistant gm somewhere.

[nfoligno]

1st - Albert - I have no problem w/ Williams, and Williams may actually be better for us this year. I simply believe that in years to come, Albert will be a pro bowl starter, and Williams will not. I think we drafted Blake Brockermeyer (who I actually felt was a damn good LT) over a player who has the potential to be a Walter Jones.

 

2nd - Brohm - You want to win, you need a QB. There have been exceptions to the rule, but they are exceptions. If you want to win and be a long term successful team, you need a franchise QB. We do not have one, and passed on one here. Worse, our rival took him.

 

3rd - Jamal Charles - Frankly, I like Forte better, but Brohm/Charles is a great combo IMHO. The difference between Forte and Charles is simply not close to enough to pass on a QB like Brohm.

 

3rd - Caldwell - Solid WR prospect w/ speed to get downfield, and YAC ability to make a short pass into a big gain.

 

4th - Collins - I do not trade down, and instead, draft Collins, who I was very high on. In Collins, you get a guy who can challenge inside for a starting job, but otherwise would be the #3 OT w/ big upside. Everyone agrees he left school a year too soon, and needs to develop him game more, but is a great prospect to grab and do this. Provides solid a solid backup OT, which we do not have, and may potentially replace Tait down the road.

 

5th - Schuening - OGs tend to slip in the draft, and I feel this way about Schuening. He was a top 5, if not top 3, graded OG that was there in the 5th. IMHO, he could have come in and strongly challenged for the starting job at LG. Instead, we took a major project CB.

 

5th - Barrett - Okay, I said this is what I would have actually done. Barrett did not end up getting drafted until the 7th, after at least one of our picks, so this would have been a reach. Soid in-the-box safety, but if knee is an issue, we red shirt him.

 

7th - Hillis - He was the lead blocker for McFadden and Jones. Could challenge McKie as a rookie.

 

7th - Schwartz - Taking projects now. College OT who may need to move inside w/ a lack of lateral mobility.

 

7th - Barton - That's right. Yet another OL. I am stockpiling OL at this point. I am filling our depth chart out, and loading up the practice squad w/ prospects.

 

7th - Monk - I loved this Angelo pick.