Pats would have taken Bowman right after us

[dawhizz]

Either you like the pick or you don't, but the Pats were poised to take Zack Bowman if the Bears hadn't:

 

http://blogs.suntimes.com/bears/2008/04/be...re_pa.html#more

[nfoligno]

But they were in a position to do so. In blasting the pick, I have even said numerous times that if we were a team like NE, we could afford to take a flier on a player like Bowman. NE is a team w/ some needs, but far fewer than we. They are, w/o the draft, would still be expected to challenge for the SB. We needed the draft not for depth or future players, but for immediate starters.

 

When you are a good team, you are in a better position to take fliers like this. When you are looking for some upgrades, or looking for some youth and/or depth, that is one thing. But when you go into the draft needs starters at: OT, OG, QB, RB, WR and maybe S and DT too, you can less afford to take fliers on players who are expected to need several years to develop, and who have very high degree of injury risk.

[jackie hayes]

But they were in a position to do so. In blasting the pick, I have even said numerous times that if we were a team like NE, we could afford to take a flier on a player like Bowman. NE is a team w/ some needs, but far fewer than we. They are, w/o the draft, would still be expected to challenge for the SB. We needed the draft not for depth or future players, but for immediate starters.

 

When you are a good team, you are in a better position to take fliers like this. When you are looking for some upgrades, or looking for some youth and/or depth, that is one thing. But when you go into the draft needs starters at: OT, OG, QB, RB, WR and maybe S and DT too, you can less afford to take fliers on players who are expected to need several years to develop, and who have very high degree of injury risk.

I think you're underestimating how important Bowman could be, even this year. It's pretty likely that, with injuries and all, he'll see some time as a nickelback later in the year. And there was noone in the 5th who would be a clear starter anywhere, not even over St Clair (who I think did a solid job last year) at lg. Picking a high-upside corner who has the legit ability to start for us in a couple years (I know our guys are signed, but corners can go real fast), who could also contribute this year, on passing downs, at the very least, is a solid move.

[SoxFan1]

I think you're underestimating how important Bowman could be, even this year. It's pretty likely that, with injuries and all, he'll see some time as a nickelback later in the year. And there was noone in the 5th who would be a clear starter anywhere, not even over St Clair (who I think did a solid job last year) at lg. Picking a high-upside corner who has the legit ability to start for us in a couple years (I know our guys are signed, but corners can go real fast), who could also contribute this year, on passing downs, at the very least, is a solid move.

I totally agree. While CB wasn't exactly one of our biggest needs, Bowman was once considered 1st round talent. And if gets healthy and shows that, then we get a 1st rounder in the 5th. Someone that could have been mentioned with Cromartie and Jenkins comes to us 4 rounds later.

[balta1701-A]

I totally agree. While CB wasn't exactly one of our biggest needs, Bowman was once considered 1st round talent. And if gets healthy and shows that, then we get a 1st rounder in the 5th. Someone that could have been mentioned with Cromartie and Jenkins comes to us 4 rounds later.

At which point...we swap Vasher or Tillman to some team with an extra QB and bam, all the Bears problems are solved!

[BearSox]

It amazes me that people actually get upset about picks from the 5th round and later...

[nfoligno]

I think you're underestimating how important Bowman could be, even this year. It's pretty likely that, with injuries and all, he'll see some time as a nickelback later in the year. And there was noone in the 5th who would be a clear starter anywhere, not even over St Clair (who I think did a solid job last year) at lg. Picking a high-upside corner who has the legit ability to start for us in a couple years (I know our guys are signed, but corners can go real fast), who could also contribute this year, on passing downs, at the very least, is a solid move.

 

And I personally think you over-estimate how much Bowman is going to contribute this year.

 

Bowman might have 1st round skills, but he has late round development. He was a JUCO college transfer a few years ago. Now I read fans talk day and night about lesser competition from a college that isn't from one of the major conferences, but a junior college is a step below that. He started 5 games at the end of 2005. He was w/ Nebraska for three seasons, though his entire 2006 season was wiped out due to injury. This last year, due to injuries, he played in only 11 games, and started only 4. So he has a total of 9 starts. I am not saying he doesn't have skills, but those skills are raw. Even when healthy, he spent most of his time as a nickel DB, and that was not exactly on a good defense.

 

So I simply have a hard time seeing Bowman so quickly being ready to be a major contributor on defense. He is going to need time to develop. This year, I think he will be behind both McBride and Graham, and that is assuming he can stay healthy, which he has struggled to do.

 

As for a pick I would have rather had, who I think very well could have started, the immediate answer for me would be Schuening. IMHO, he would have been our starting LG.

[jackie hayes]

And I personally think you over-estimate how much Bowman is going to contribute this year.

 

Bowman might have 1st round skills, but he has late round development. He was a JUCO college transfer a few years ago. Now I read fans talk day and night about lesser competition from a college that isn't from one of the major conferences, but a junior college is a step below that. He started 5 games at the end of 2005. He was w/ Nebraska for three seasons, though his entire 2006 season was wiped out due to injury. This last year, due to injuries, he played in only 11 games, and started only 4. So he has a total of 9 starts. I am not saying he doesn't have skills, but those skills are raw. Even when healthy, he spent most of his time as a nickel DB, and that was not exactly on a good defense.

 

So I simply have a hard time seeing Bowman so quickly being ready to be a major contributor on defense. He is going to need time to develop. This year, I think he will be behind both McBride and Graham, and that is assuming he can stay healthy, which he has struggled to do.

 

As for a pick I would have rather had, who I think very well could have started, the immediate answer for me would be Schuening. IMHO, he would have been our starting LG.

I don't expect him to jump in right away, but "late round development" didn't hurt McBride last year. I expect he'll be at least behind McBride, and probably Graham to start the year. Okay, but have two corners injured out of five is something we're quite familiar with. And if he can jump ahead of Graham at some point, he's almost certain to see some time at nickelback.

 

Why would Schuening be a starter at lg if Beekman isn't? Beekman is an unathletic, highly-ranked guard who went in the 4th. Schuening is an unathletic, highly-ranked guard who went in the 5th, with one less year of NFL coaching.

 

I know we need a guard, which is why I was intrigued by Nicks and Cousins in the middle rounds. But we don't need just any guard. Schuening was not a good fit, and he would have been VERY unlikely to beat out St Clair.

[jason]

I don't expect him to jump in right away, but "late round development" didn't hurt McBride last year. I expect he'll be at least behind McBride, and probably Graham to start the year. Okay, but have two corners injured out of five is something we're quite familiar with. And if he can jump ahead of Graham at some point, he's almost certain to see some time at nickelback.

 

Why would Schuening be a starter at lg if Beekman isn't? Beekman is an unathletic, highly-ranked guard who went in the 4th. Schuening is an unathletic, highly-ranked guard who went in the 5th, with one less year of NFL coaching.

 

I know we need a guard, which is why I was intrigued by Nicks and Cousins in the middle rounds. But we don't need just any guard. Schuening was not a good fit, and he would have been VERY unlikely to beat out St Clair.

 

Why exactly wasn't Schuening a good fit? Odd sounding to me considering the fact that he was highly regarded in most arenas as one of the top 5 Guard prospects coming into the draft. Add in the fact that Beekman couldn't beat out an immobile, one-armed, geriatric (NFL-age anyway), and the Bears could easily have started a mid-rounder who had talent but slipped (like your boy at DB). The only difference, of course, is that Tillman and Vasher are considered good, if not all pro, and nobody outside of the Bears has heard of Beekman.

[nfoligno]

I don't expect him to jump in right away, but "late round development" didn't hurt McBride last year. I expect he'll be at least behind McBride, and probably Graham to start the year. Okay, but have two corners injured out of five is something we're quite familiar with. And if he can jump ahead of Graham at some point, he's almost certain to see some time at nickelback.

 

Why would Schuening be a starter at lg if Beekman isn't? Beekman is an unathletic, highly-ranked guard who went in the 4th. Schuening is an unathletic, highly-ranked guard who went in the 5th, with one less year of NFL coaching.

 

I know we need a guard, which is why I was intrigued by Nicks and Cousins in the middle rounds. But we don't need just any guard. Schuening was not a good fit, and he would have been VERY unlikely to beat out St Clair.

 

One. McBride is a near exact opposite to Bowman. McBride was a 3 year starter at a Divsion I school. He was a far more experienced and polished prospect. He fell to the 7th because his upside was simply not considered great. Most viewed his potential as not much more than that of a nickel DB. At the same time, he was a more developed player who was more likely start be ready to contribute right away, rather than a prospect like Bowman.

 

Two. When there is talk of rookies contributing, I am not sure I agree w/ the logic of assuming not one, but two injuries. If you assume two injuries at most any position, you can assume the rookie plays. If we drafted a rookie QB, I think most would not expect him to contribute this year, but if you start to assume multiple injuries, then you would argue that even a rookie QB would contribute. When I talk of rookie contribution, I am assuming he does so based on his ability, not simply because he is the only man left standing.

 

Also, on this point, if we did suffer two injuries at CB, I can actually see us moving DM back to CB over Bowman.

 

Three. Re Schuening v Beekman - I am not sure I agreed w/ either the comparison or your comments on Schuening. While not super athletic, I have not read he is flat out unathletic. He was not considered to have the footspeed to play on the edge, but his athleticism for playing inside is different. One of the top knocks on Beekman was strength, which proved true, per our staff, last year. Schuening does not seem to have a similar knock. He is a three year starter, and was considered a top 5 OG.

 

Maybe he would not start, but I think his chances of starting would have been pretty solid, and FAR better than Bowman's chances of even playing nickel. Also, you assume as many as two injuries to get Bowman into a contributing role, yet do not seem to assume an injuries to OG, a position we have dealt w/ plenty of injuries as well.

 

I do not understand why you think Scheuning was not a good fit. He was not "just any OG". He was considered a top 5 OG on most every board I saw. As for fit, I do not understand your logic. Heck, you seem to contradict yourself some when you say Beekman, an OG we drafted, was unathletic like Scheuning. While I disagree w/ that statement, if the two are similar and we drafted Beekman, why is Scheuning not a fit?

[jackie hayes]

Why exactly wasn't Schuening a good fit? Odd sounding to me considering the fact that he was highly regarded in most arenas as one of the top 5 Guard prospects coming into the draft. Add in the fact that Beekman couldn't beat out an immobile, one-armed, geriatric (NFL-age anyway), and the Bears could easily have started a mid-rounder who had talent but slipped (like your boy at DB). The only difference, of course, is that Tillman and Vasher are considered good, if not all pro, and nobody outside of the Bears has heard of Beekman.

My point isn't that Beekman is good, my point is that being ranked high as a guard is not very meaningful, since many college guards aren't that good (they are mostly the linemen who aren't good enough to be tackles or centers). Beekman was similarly ranked relative to other guards in the 2007 draft. But both classes were rather weak.

 

(And yes, I realize there are exceptions, like Albert, maybe Rachal, and Grubbs is truly an exceptional lineman, very much worth a first-round pick. There just aren't many.)

 

Schuening is not a good fit because he is simply not quick enough. The Bears love to pull the guard on running plays, and St Clair played well because he was quick and fast enough to get outside and block effectively at the second level. (Not that he's especially talented -- I'm only saying he was good "enough".) That was always the issue with Beekman -- if you watched his game tape in college, he was effective at the line, but he never seemed able to do any damage downfield. Schuening is that same sort of blocker -- he's fine in-line, but there were a lot of questions about his lateral quickness, and his straight-line speed is pedestrian at best.

 

So we drafted Beekman and it didn't work. (I mean, we'll see -- but it's not looking good.) Why draft Beekman again? You know the saying about insanity -- doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Instead, the Bears picked two late tackles who are considered good athletes (relative to where they were picked -- they obviously aren't the best). We've tried the lunch-pail types, it didn't work, we moved in another direction. Sounds good to me.

[jackie hayes]

One. McBride is a near exact opposite to Bowman. McBride was a 3 year starter at a Divsion I school. He was a far more experienced and polished prospect. He fell to the 7th because his upside was simply not considered great. Most viewed his potential as not much more than that of a nickel DB. At the same time, he was a more developed player who was more likely start be ready to contribute right away, rather than a prospect like Bowman.

 

Two. When there is talk of rookies contributing, I am not sure I agree w/ the logic of assuming not one, but two injuries. If you assume two injuries at most any position, you can assume the rookie plays. If we drafted a rookie QB, I think most would not expect him to contribute this year, but if you start to assume multiple injuries, then you would argue that even a rookie QB would contribute. When I talk of rookie contribution, I am assuming he does so based on his ability, not simply because he is the only man left standing.

 

Also, on this point, if we did suffer two injuries at CB, I can actually see us moving DM back to CB over Bowman.

 

Three. Re Schuening v Beekman - I am not sure I agreed w/ either the comparison or your comments on Schuening. While not super athletic, I have not read he is flat out unathletic. He was not considered to have the footspeed to play on the edge, but his athleticism for playing inside is different. One of the top knocks on Beekman was strength, which proved true, per our staff, last year. Schuening does not seem to have a similar knock. He is a three year starter, and was considered a top 5 OG.

 

Maybe he would not start, but I think his chances of starting would have been pretty solid, and FAR better than Bowman's chances of even playing nickel. Also, you assume as many as two injuries to get Bowman into a contributing role, yet do not seem to assume an injuries to OG, a position we have dealt w/ plenty of injuries as well.

 

I do not understand why you think Scheuning was not a good fit. He was not "just any OG". He was considered a top 5 OG on most every board I saw. As for fit, I do not understand your logic. Heck, you seem to contradict yourself some when you say Beekman, an OG we drafted, was unathletic like Scheuning. While I disagree w/ that statement, if the two are similar and we drafted Beekman, why is Scheuning not a fit?

I already replied to the Schuening/Beekman thing in another post, so just on the Bowman thing -- I may not be as big a fan as Graham as you are. I think there's a good chance he moves ahead of Graham -- probably not right away, but sometime during the season. I'm not "assuming" two injuries at corner, either, just saying it is possible, and we've seen it often enough on the Bears -- just remember when we had to actually use Hester as a db a couple years back. (You can't compare it to qb -- there are a lot more cb injuries that qb injuries.)

[nfoligno]

One. It isn't that I am so high on Graham. I just feel Bowman, assuming he can stay healthy, will take time to develop. I do not see much of anything from him this year. After that? If he stays healthy, he could well be our nickel DB ahead of McBride and anyone else. He has talent more than any of our depth. I simply believe it will take longer to refine that talent, as I see it as very raw.

 

Two. More CB injuries than QB. That may be true for most teams, but I am not sure if it is for ours. My theory. Sid Luckman, toward the end of his career, was driving down the street and hit a truch carrying mirrors. So many were broken that the normal 7 year rule was extended to 70, and also extended past him and to the position itself for the team.

 

How else do you explain how an organization as old as ours could have a QB history as awful as ours.

[nfoligno]

I question your review of Beekman. For the record, I liked him then, and still do now. The biggest knock on Beekman seemed to be strength. He was not considered strong enough, and our staff has repeatedly said the same. He had to get stronger in order to play OG in the NFL against FAR stronger DTs than he faced in college.

 

Schuening does not seem to have the same knock. That doesn't mean he is w/o knocks, but I think many/most of his knocks applied to him at RT, but are dimissed at OG.

 

Also, I question how much our OG needs to be athletic. Brown was not athletic. Maybe early in his career, but when we got him, nope. Metcalf, his backup. Nope. Frankly, while it is always talked about, we have not really seen many athletic OGs, at least not in a long time. So I am not sure how much athleticism we expect of our OGs.

[jackie hayes]

And there's always the chance Bowman gets IR'd, as JA likes to do with rookies. But if he's healthy (big if), I'm just guessing he moves ahead of Graham midway through the season. We'll see.

 

Just given the nature of their play, cbs are going to be injured more often. Tillman has often missed a game or two, and been slowed for a couple more. Vasher obviously isn't a model of health. Our qbs have suffered more from incompetence than injuries over the years, although both have been important. Lately, though, it's been more of the former.

[jackie hayes]

I question your review of Beekman. For the record, I liked him then, and still do now. The biggest knock on Beekman seemed to be strength. He was not considered strong enough, and our staff has repeatedly said the same. He had to get stronger in order to play OG in the NFL against FAR stronger DTs than he faced in college.

 

Schuening does not seem to have the same knock. That doesn't mean he is w/o knocks, but I think many/most of his knocks applied to him at RT, but are dimissed at OG.

 

Also, I question how much our OG needs to be athletic. Brown was not athletic. Maybe early in his career, but when we got him, nope. Metcalf, his backup. Nope. Frankly, while it is always talked about, we have not really seen many athletic OGs, at least not in a long time. So I am not sure how much athleticism we expect of our OGs.

Watch Beekman's tape from BC. He's very ineffective in space, which is one of the main knocks on Schuening. I think Brown did a decent job with us until recently. Metcalf sucks in every regard. St Clair is okay. Basically, our guards need to be able to pull and block downfield. We haven't had anyone great in that regard in a while, but Brown and St Clair have been the best, imo.

 

That's one of the things that Grubbs does exceptionally well. If he had lasted to 31 in last year's draft, I would have really been torn between him and Olsen.

[DABEARSDABOMB]

And I personally think you over-estimate how much Bowman is going to contribute this year.

 

Bowman might have 1st round skills, but he has late round development. He was a JUCO college transfer a few years ago. Now I read fans talk day and night about lesser competition from a college that isn't from one of the major conferences, but a junior college is a step below that. He started 5 games at the end of 2005. He was w/ Nebraska for three seasons, though his entire 2006 season was wiped out due to injury. This last year, due to injuries, he played in only 11 games, and started only 4. So he has a total of 9 starts. I am not saying he doesn't have skills, but those skills are raw. Even when healthy, he spent most of his time as a nickel DB, and that was not exactly on a good defense.

 

So I simply have a hard time seeing Bowman so quickly being ready to be a major contributor on defense. He is going to need time to develop. This year, I think he will be behind both McBride and Graham, and that is assuming he can stay healthy, which he has struggled to do.

 

As for a pick I would have rather had, who I think very well could have started, the immediate answer for me would be Schuening. IMHO, he would have been our starting LG.

Cromartie, the Chargers selection (2 years ago) was incredibly raw as well but his athletism was off the charts. I'm not saying Bowman is quite as off the charts but he has a similar checkered past health wise and a relatively similar skill set (size/speed combo) and with proper coaching and time could turn into a tremendous pick.

 

However, given McBride/Manning/Graham (plus Tillman/Vasher) I have my doubts as to how much Bowman will play this year (I think the Bears will work him a lot in training camp and just have a longer term plan with him). The exception to that rule is if the Bears are comfortable enough in Graham/McBride to release Manning (but given last years injury problems with Vasher/Tillman that would be a mistake, imo).

[nfoligno]

Here is a question. I think pretty much always, your depth chart DBs play special teams. For a player w/ such a history of injuries, is that a good idea?

[nfoligno]

I was a huge fan of Grubbs too, as well as Blaylock and Ugoh.

 

Playing in space is a knock on Schuening, but more so in terms of playing RT. He was an OG soph and junior seasons, but was asked to play RT his senior year, and struggled some there. Most of the talk of his issues playing in space arise from this, and are more a point to say he should not be viewed as an OT in college, rather than to say its an issue at OG.

 

You say our OG needs to be able to pull and block downfield. For me, at this point I would be happy w/ an OG that can simply block the freaking man in front of him.

 

Damn I wanted Faneca. I know he was expensive as crap, but imagine how much better our OL would look now w/ him. Further, imagine how much better the development of Williams would be playing next to Faneca.

 

That is a concern for me too. While we are all high on Williams, rookies most always struggle on the left side. Whoever we start at LG is not going to help Williams, and alternately, Williams is not likely to help that OG. I am really hoping we move Garza over. I think we can better afford a bit of a dip at OG between Kreutz and Tait, as opposed to between Kreutz and a rookie LT.

[nfoligno]

Just given the nature of their play, cbs are going to be injured more often.

 

With that comment, I then have to ask how wise it is to draft a CB w/ such a history of injuries?

 

I too would not be shocked if he gets the Angelo red shirt treatment. I also think Monk will finish up training camp getting red shirted to IR.

[Connorbear]

With that comment, I then have to ask how wise it is to draft a CB w/ such a history of injuries?

 

I too would not be shocked if he gets the Angelo red shirt treatment. I also think Monk will finish up training camp getting red shirted to IR.

I definately see Monk being put on IR. Manning JR is going to be traded to someone needing CB depth. I would be happy if we can get a 5th for him.

 

Peace

[BearSox]

With that comment, I then have to ask how wise it is to draft a CB w/ such a history of injuries?

I too would not be shocked if he gets the Angelo red shirt treatment. I also think Monk will finish up training camp getting red shirted to IR.

Because he has first round talent and the risk was worth taking in the 5th freaking round.

[AZ54]

I see Bowman listed as having chronic tendonitis in his knee (or knees) during training camp and going on IR. I just don't think his knees are ready for an NFL season, not even playing on special teams. He'll go through training camp though because that's valuable experience for him.

[Mongo3451]

Cromartie, the Chargers selection (2 years ago) was incredibly raw as well but his athletism was off the charts. I'm not saying Bowman is quite as off the charts but he has a similar checkered past health wise and a relatively similar skill set (size/speed combo) and with proper coaching and time could turn into a tremendous pick.

 

However, given McBride/Manning/Graham (plus Tillman/Vasher) I have my doubts as to how much Bowman will play this year (I think the Bears will work him a lot in training camp and just have a longer term plan with him). The exception to that rule is if the Bears are comfortable enough in Graham/McBride to release Manning (but given last years injury problems with Vasher/Tillman that would be a mistake, imo).

I like your comparison to Cromartie and honestly he compares physically to him. Bowman also finished up the year with a strong Bowl game, giving teams a snippet of his ability. One last thing, scouts are saying the same thing about Bowman as they did Peanut. He can become a very good FS if he doesn't make it as a corner. Isn't that the position we are desparate to upgrade? D Manning has no instincts and M Brown is all instincts and no consistent health. Bowman, only if healthy, has good instincts and superior athleticism to both. I'm all in for this pick in the 5th.