Kiper and McShay

[Mongo3451]

A video is out on ESPN.com with Mel Kiper and Todd McShay discussing the draft. Surprisingly, Kiper picked the Bears as the team that helped itself the most for this year. He also said we had the best UDFA signing in Caleb Hanie, saying he has an NFL arm and could be a quality starter in the future. You know me, I could give a crap what Kiper says, but it was nice to see the good pub.

[ChileBear]

A video is out on ESPN.com with Mel Kiper and Todd McShay discussing the draft. Surprisingly, Kiper picked the Bears as the team that helped itself the most for this year. He also said we had the best UDFA signing in Caleb Hanie, saying he has an NFL arm and could be a quality starter in the future. You know me, I could give a crap what Kiper says, but it was nice to see the good pub.

The Czar over on Fox Sports also gives us an A for the draft, saying we picked up QBs as UDFAs that will be just as good as what we could have drafted.

[adam]

The Czar over on Fox Sports also gives us an A for the draft, saying we picked up QBs as UDFAs that will be just as good as what we could have drafted.

There is no way a UDFA QB is going to be better than a QB drafted in the 4th round.

[Connorbear]

There is no way a UDFA QB is going to be better than a QB drafted in the 4th round.

Not to be a pain in the arse, but have you ever heard of Tony Romo?????

 

Peace

[Felix]

Not to be a pain in the arse, but have you ever heard of Tony Romo?????

 

Peace

Green = sarcasm

[Connorbear]

Green = sarcasm

Thanks. Prophet - my apologies. You learn something new everyday.

 

Peace

[adam]

Thanks. Prophet - my apologies. You learn something new everyday.

 

Peace

 

No prob. Just a little joke to start the day.

[jason]

Although, it is a lot less likely that an UDFA will become a contributing or starting QB in the NFL.

[Connorbear]

Although, it is a lot less likely that an UDFA will become a contributing or starting QB in the NFL.

Very true, however, going forward the Bears need to consider all options. No one can dispute we have been miserable with handling the QB position. They must fix this.

 

Peace

[DABEARSDABOMB]

Although, it is a lot less likely that an UDFA will become a contributing or starting QB in the NFL.

I agree, but in general, its pretty much unless the guy is a 1st round pick it is pretty rare for the QB to end up being the starter of a super bowl champ anyway. The only exceptions to that rule tend to be late round picks who people completely missed the boat on (ie Brady/Warner (who was Undrafted).

 

So really, considering what a total crapshoot QB's are, I have no problem going this route as both guys the Bears got have the physical tools to be a quality QB.

[Connorbear]

I agree, but in general, its pretty much unless the guy is a 1st round pick it is pretty rare for the QB to end up being the starter of a super bowl champ anyway. The only exceptions to that rule tend to be late round picks who people completely missed the boat on (ie Brady/Warner (who was Undrafted).

 

So really, considering what a total crapshoot QB's are, I have no problem going this route as both guys the Bears got have the physical tools to be a quality QB.

Agreed and half of those QBs taken in the first round end up busting. We have had such a crappy run of QB luck that we need to consider all options going forward.

 

Peace

[Lucky Luciano]

Agreed and half of those QBs taken in the first round end up busting. We have had such a crappy run of QB luck that we need to consider all options going forward.

 

Peace

 

disagree

 

it's not that we have bad qb luck, bad qb karma or anything else. the truth is we, as a franchise, make extremely poor management decisions.

 

this franchise has not had anyone with a clue (INCLUDING angelo) in modern football history, with the exception of jim finks and jerry vaniesi (sp), who knows not only what player personnel they are looking at in this position, but don't give two $&!%$ whether they find/found one at all!!!

 

certainly the mccaskey family could care less or it wouldn't have been run this way for over TWENTY YEARS!

 

so yea, that's why we pick reach players we are already overburdened with instead of qb's with potential, even when they are in desperate need of one, and look at the walk-ons or someone else's trash to run our offenses.

[Connorbear]

disagree

 

it's not that we have bad qb luck, bad qb karma or anything else. the truth is we, as a franchise, make extremely poor management decisions.

 

this franchise has not had anyone with a clue (INCLUDING angelo) in modern football history, with the exception of jim finks and jerry vaniesi (sp), who knows not only what player personnel they are looking at in this position, but don't give two $&!%$ whether they find/found one at all!!!

 

certainly the mccaskey family could care less or it wouldn't have been run this way for over TWENTY YEARS!

 

so yea, that's why we pick reach players we are already overburdened with instead of qb's with potential, even when they are in desperate need of one, and look at the walk-ons or someone else's trash to run our offenses.

I would say up the point sweaty Teddy hired Angelo you are right. Since that time we have been in the playoffs 3 times and the SB once. Angelo does an extremely good job with talent on the defensive side of the ball (Tillman, Briggs, Vasher, Anderson, Hillenmeyer, T Harris, A Brown, McBride, etc). He also has done well with special teams. His weakness has been on the offensive side of the ball and specifically at QB. I recognize that this may eventually be his downfall. I am hoping he can right the ship.

 

I dislike the McCaskeys as much as the next Bears fan but I recognize the fact they realized they were screwing up big time and gave control of the team to sweaty Teddy.

 

Peace

[nfoligno]

I agree our personel has been inept at the QB position. Can this even be argued. But over the years, I have to say, I am not sure "approach" is the key issue.

 

Look at our last 11 drafts/years. We have tried nearly every approach. We have:

 

Drafted a QB in the 1st - Cade & Rex

 

Traded a 1st for a veteran - Mirer (ouch)

 

Tried to find 2nd round developmental QB prospects - Morena, Krenzel, Orton

 

Looked for backups for other teams behind solid starters - Quinn

 

Signed veterans - Stewart, Chandler, Miller, Griese, Blake,

 

Took a flier on well thought of young players - Hutch

 

Ironically, about the only thing I have not seen us try is drafting a QB day one, after the 1st round (rounds 2 and 3). Not saying that would have mattered over the years, simply pointing out that we have tried many different approaches to getting a QB.

 

I think we have sought a QB in many different ways. We have simply done a poor job (a) evaluating QB talent and ( developing that talent.

[Lucky Luciano]

I agree our personel has been inept at the QB position. Can this even be argued. But over the years, I have to say, I am not sure "approach" is the key issue.

 

Look at our last 11 drafts/years. We have tried nearly every approach. We have:

 

Drafted a QB in the 1st - Cade & Rex

 

Traded a 1st for a veteran - Mirer (ouch)

 

Tried to find 2nd round developmental QB prospects - Morena, Krenzel, Orton

 

Looked for backups for other teams behind solid starters - Quinn

 

Signed veterans - Stewart, Chandler, Miller, Griese, Blake,

 

Took a flier on well thought of young players - Hutch

 

Ironically, about the only thing I have not seen us try is drafting a QB day one, after the 1st round (rounds 2 and 3). Not saying that would have mattered over the years, simply pointing out that we have tried many different approaches to getting a QB.

 

I think we have sought a QB in many different ways. We have simply done a poor job (a) evaluating QB talent and ( developing that talent.

 

that you draft or pick up personnel in FA is a moot point if you don't have anyone who knows what they are looking at. even so over the last 20+ years we have bypassed the best talent to try and get the cheapest draft pick, which they call VALUE picks, we could find. a perfect example is cade mcnuthing and rex grossman.

 

so instead of hiring good management personnel that DOES understand what they are looking and aggressively going after the best talent in the draft, we use a shotgun approach and pick up players that won't hurt the franchise TOO much financially if they bust out.

[CubbiesFan07]

that you draft or pick up personnel in FA is a moot point if you don't have anyone who knows what they are looking at. even so over the last 20+ years we have bypassed the best talent to try and get the cheapest draft pick, which they call VALUE picks, we could find. a perfect example is cade mcnuthing and rex grossman.

 

so instead of hiring good management personnel that DOES understand what they are looking and aggressively going after the best talent in the draft, we use a shotgun approach and pick up players that won't hurt the franchise TOO much financially if they bust out.

 

We made the Super Bowl last season. Our only hard-point to get a hold of is the QB position. I think that other picks we have in our starting lineup (a lot of 3rd 4th and 5th rounders) provide a sense of leadership to the team. So IMHO we've had some great drafts in the past.

 

So we screwed up at a primary position (QB), but we've made a lot of progression in the WR & Defense areas of the team. Glass half full

[nfoligno]

I don't want to argue to much here, as I agree w/ the overall sentiment. but....

 

- I agree we have not had personnel that was any good at evaluating QBs. Personally, I think a key issue is coaching. Who was the last truly good QB we have had. Jimmy Mac, right? Who was our HC? Ditka. An offensive guy (multiple meanings). Since Ditka, have we had a HC w/ an offense background? Nope. How much might that play into our lack of finding a QB?

 

- W/ regard to value v going for it, can I take that to mean you feel we should have been looking to trade up in drafts? When we drafted Rex, you are upset we traded down to get better value. What QB do you think we should have traded w/ our pick instead. I will give you Cade though. I still to this day believe Hatley intended on drafting Pepper, and felt he would be there after the trade down, but then Minny shocked everyone by taking a QB, and we grabbed Cade saying he was our boy all along.

 

- W/ that said, what other QB did we have an opportunity to draft at the top of a draft that we passed on?

 

So is the issue you have that we have traded down for "value QBs" rather than trading up for franchise QB? This is an issue I understand, and somewhat agree w/.

 

1999 - We had the 7th pick. I so wanted McNabb, but he was set to go high. As I recall, Hatley did talk trade, but the asking price was simply insane. Back then, teams were still looking for the next Ricky Williams for two drafts sort of deal. We needed to jump for 7 to 2, and it simply was not doable.

 

2000 - We took Urlacher w/ all QBs still on the board. Pennington, the top rated passer, fell to 18. Sure glad we passed on him.

 

2001 - Only QB taken in the 1st was Vick. Didin't like him then, and now.... Good move not moving up for Vick.

 

2002 - We had the 29th pick in the draft, and there was no way we were moving up (thankfully) to the top of the draft for Carr or Harrington.

 

2003 - This was a year I might agree w/ you. We had the 4th pick, traded down for two 1sts, and got Rex w/ the later 1st. I never wanted Rex. I was VERY high on Palmer, and no, that is not just said in hindsight. But I do not kwow what Cincy would have wanted for the #1 spot. Could we have been aggressive in that move. Yes? But w/o knowing what Cincy might have asked for, at some point aggressive becomes stupid.

 

2004 - We had the 14th pick. We may have been able to jump a few spots to get Rothlisberger. Manning and Rivers were out of our reach at the top. But we just drafted Rex in the 1st the prior year. No way we were trading up for Big Ben.

 

2005 - Could have moved up for Alex Smith, but stood pat for Benson. Even knowing Benson, I am not sure that was the wrong choice.

 

2006 - We picked at the end of the 1st. I actually wanted to move up after Leinart and Cutler began to fall, but that was a pretty big jump, and no telling what it would have cost.

 

2007 - Do you believe we should have taken Flacco at 14? I don't. Brohm in the 2nd yes, but is that the sort of aggressive play you say we have avoided?

 

I think we made a mistake, but I am not sure how often those "bold moves" would have been either doable, or a good idea.

[chitownman]

I have to totally agree with you rational here Nfolingo in your assessment from what everyone is saying. There are still things that may still be done that we all still have no clue on. I for one have not been happy with the way drafting has been going and even wrote a letter to Mickey McCaskey when they drafted Curtis Ennis way back when. I feel that the organization is struggling to still figure out itself and decide how to produce a yearly winner. Providing glimpses of success once in a while may be acceptable to the organization however, it is the fan base that you have to work to keep them wanting to come back and to spend the money on your product. I personally do not think that they will ever get this right and we are all stuck until we all collectively decide to boycott professional sports completely. We need to hurt them where is does most and unfortunately it will not happen.

 

I don't want to argue to much here, as I agree w/ the overall sentiment. but....

 

- I agree we have not had personnel that was any good at evaluating QBs. Personally, I think a key issue is coaching. Who was the last truly good QB we have had. Jimmy Mac, right? Who was our HC? Ditka. An offensive guy (multiple meanings). Since Ditka, have we had a HC w/ an offense background? Nope. How much might that play into our lack of finding a QB?

 

- W/ regard to value v going for it, can I take that to mean you feel we should have been looking to trade up in drafts? When we drafted Rex, you are upset we traded down to get better value. What QB do you think we should have traded w/ our pick instead. I will give you Cade though. I still to this day believe Hatley intended on drafting Pepper, and felt he would be there after the trade down, but then Minny shocked everyone by taking a QB, and we grabbed Cade saying he was our boy all along.

 

- W/ that said, what other QB did we have an opportunity to draft at the top of a draft that we passed on?

 

So is the issue you have that we have traded down for "value QBs" rather than trading up for franchise QB? This is an issue I understand, and somewhat agree w/.

 

1999 - We had the 7th pick. I so wanted McNabb, but he was set to go high. As I recall, Hatley did talk trade, but the asking price was simply insane. Back then, teams were still looking for the next Ricky Williams for two drafts sort of deal. We needed to jump for 7 to 2, and it simply was not doable.

 

2000 - We took Urlacher w/ all QBs still on the board. Pennington, the top rated passer, fell to 18. Sure glad we passed on him.

 

2001 - Only QB taken in the 1st was Vick. Didin't like him then, and now.... Good move not moving up for Vick.

 

2002 - We had the 29th pick in the draft, and there was no way we were moving up (thankfully) to the top of the draft for Carr or Harrington.

 

2003 - This was a year I might agree w/ you. We had the 4th pick, traded down for two 1sts, and got Rex w/ the later 1st. I never wanted Rex. I was VERY high on Palmer, and no, that is not just said in hindsight. But I do not kwow what Cincy would have wanted for the #1 spot. Could we have been aggressive in that move. Yes? But w/o knowing what Cincy might have asked for, at some point aggressive becomes stupid.

 

2004 - We had the 14th pick. We may have been able to jump a few spots to get Rothlisberger. Manning and Rivers were out of our reach at the top. But we just drafted Rex in the 1st the prior year. No way we were trading up for Big Ben.

 

2005 - Could have moved up for Alex Smith, but stood pat for Benson. Even knowing Benson, I am not sure that was the wrong choice.

 

2006 - We picked at the end of the 1st. I actually wanted to move up after Leinart and Cutler began to fall, but that was a pretty big jump, and no telling what it would have cost.

 

2007 - Do you believe we should have taken Flacco at 14? I don't. Brohm in the 2nd yes, but is that the sort of aggressive play you say we have avoided?

 

I think we made a mistake, but I am not sure how often those "bold moves" would have been either doable, or a good idea.

[nfoligno]

Wow, and they call me pessimistic.

 

While I question the direction, I am not to the point of believing we will never win a championship w/ a walkout.

 

After Finks and the rest of the group which brought us a SB, we have gone downhill. No question. I think adding Mark Hatley was a step in the right direction, as he was the first legit personnel guy we had in a long time. But he was just a step. While I thought highly of Hatley, our power structure sucked, and that was soon to be addressed when Angelo was hired. Now I am not an Angelo fan, but will say that our hiring him represented another step in the right direction.

 

I am not sure we will win a SB w/ the current group (Angelo/Lovie) but it is possible. We were in the SB two years ago. But for this team to have continued success, rather than a good year or two here and there, I think we will need a change, and starting at the GM level. I pray this draft proves me wrong, but I do not believe Angelo is a good GM in that he can only build 1/2 of a football team. That is fine if you are the head D or O scout, but not if you are the GM. Further, I do not believe Lovie is a good coach.

 

But w/ that said, if we continue to suck, I think both will be gone and seek replacements. One positive spin I would throw out there is that, while it has been a slow process, w/ each change, we have seen improvement. Ted Phillips was an improvement over Mike McCaskey. Hatley/Jauron were improvements over Wanny. Angelo/Lovie were an improvement over Hatley/Jauron. Hopefully, our next GM/HC combo will be another improvement, and hopefully, the improvement that gets us over the top.

 

I still pray the current combo gets it done, but my faith in the current combo is all but lost.

[jason]

I agree our personel has been inept at the QB position. Can this even be argued. But over the years, I have to say, I am not sure "approach" is the key issue.

 

Look at our last 11 drafts/years. We have tried nearly every approach. We have:

 

Drafted a QB in the 1st - Cade & Rex

 

Traded a 1st for a veteran - Mirer (ouch)

 

Tried to find 2nd round developmental QB prospects - Morena, Krenzel, Orton

 

Looked for backups for other teams behind solid starters - Quinn

 

Signed veterans - Stewart, Chandler, Miller, Griese, Blake,

 

Took a flier on well thought of young players - Hutch

 

Ironically, about the only thing I have not seen us try is drafting a QB day one, after the 1st round (rounds 2 and 3). Not saying that would have mattered over the years, simply pointing out that we have tried many different approaches to getting a QB.

 

I think we have sought a QB in many different ways. We have simply done a poor job (a) evaluating QB talent and ( developing that talent.

 

This is a perfect example of why I don't think the problem is the style of approach. As you have shown, every avenue has been attempted. I believe the problem is, and seemingly always has been, a combination of scouting and coaching.

 

Scouting

Scouting, well, that's obvious. As I have stated many times, I think that a well-informed fan could have done just as good as our FO has done over the past 20 years when it comes to drafting as a whole. The defensive drafting may have taken a hit, but the overall product would have been as good or better. Hell, put twenty people from this board together, have them evaluate talent, watch games, and come to draft conclusions and I think the team would be overall better over that period of time.

 

I think you (nfo) have hit on something when you mention the long line of defensive minded guys running the Bears. When a person knows something well, they tend to fall back on that knowledge when there is a difficult decision ahead. And when they try to step outside their comfort zone, and end up getting burned (Enis, McNown, Grossman, Benson), there is more of a tendency to gravitate right back to the familiar.

 

Coaching

I have only liked two Bears' OCs in my lifetime: Turner during his first go-around with the Bears, and Crowton. Regardless of success, the thing I liked is that they tried to attack. They didn't go for the safe route; they didn't nitpick; they didn't call for 3 yard passes on 3rd and 9. They tried to attack, and it made the Bears offense dangerous. It has only been during their respective reigns that the opponents have had to gameplan for the Bears' O. Nearly every other year, it was just a matter of a team knowing that if they got above 20 against the Bears' D, they were probably going to beat the Bears.

[madlithuanian]

Great points...

 

I agree. What we've seen is a very gradual improvement over the past 20 years once it hit rock bottom AD (after Ditka). I'm not thrilled by the snail like pace we are improving, but at least it is improvement.

 

I just generally get bummed that so many other francihses seem to get it, and then it's us, the laughing stock of the league. Even in our SB year, we were ridiculed (probably rightfully so) as a smoke and mirrors team. I just want to instill some type of solid arrangement within management, coaching and personnell that mimics the Steelers. Yeah, they don't have as many rings as the Pats in recent history...but they play hard D, run the ball well, and have a good passing game. Most importantly, they alwasys seem to be in the mix in the playoffs. We, on the other hand, alwasys seem to be on the outside looking in.

 

The Lovie regime did quite well at this, and maybe this last year was the oddity...but I have my fears with our coaches and management.

 

 

Wow, and they call me pessimistic.

 

While I question the direction, I am not to the point of believing we will never win a championship w/ a walkout.

 

After Finks and the rest of the group which brought us a SB, we have gone downhill. No question. I think adding Mark Hatley was a step in the right direction, as he was the first legit personnel guy we had in a long time. But he was just a step. While I thought highly of Hatley, our power structure sucked, and that was soon to be addressed when Angelo was hired. Now I am not an Angelo fan, but will say that our hiring him represented another step in the right direction.

 

I am not sure we will win a SB w/ the current group (Angelo/Lovie) but it is possible. We were in the SB two years ago. But for this team to have continued success, rather than a good year or two here and there, I think we will need a change, and starting at the GM level. I pray this draft proves me wrong, but I do not believe Angelo is a good GM in that he can only build 1/2 of a football team. That is fine if you are the head D or O scout, but not if you are the GM. Further, I do not believe Lovie is a good coach.

 

But w/ that said, if we continue to suck, I think both will be gone and seek replacements. One positive spin I would throw out there is that, while it has been a slow process, w/ each change, we have seen improvement. Ted Phillips was an improvement over Mike McCaskey. Hatley/Jauron were improvements over Wanny. Angelo/Lovie were an improvement over Hatley/Jauron. Hopefully, our next GM/HC combo will be another improvement, and hopefully, the improvement that gets us over the top.

 

I still pray the current combo gets it done, but my faith in the current combo is all but lost.

[Lucky Luciano]

I don't want to argue to much here, as I agree w/ the overall sentiment. but....

 

- I agree we have not had personnel that was any good at evaluating QBs. Personally, I think a key issue is coaching. Who was the last truly good QB we have had. Jimmy Mac, right? Who was our HC? Ditka. An offensive guy (multiple meanings). Since Ditka, have we had a HC w/ an offense background? Nope. How much might that play into our lack of finding a QB?

 

agree about the coaching and you are preaching to the quire on that subject, but.... if you look at every qb except the finks pick, what qb when they left chicago had any career at all (except hard head's one year flash in indy)? not a single one. that tells volumes about the quality we chose in the draft.

 

W/ regard to value v going for it, can I take that to mean you feel we should have been looking to trade up in drafts? When we drafted Rex, you are upset we traded down to get better value. What QB do you think we should have traded w/ our pick instead. I will give you Cade though. I still to this day believe Hatley intended on drafting Pepper, and felt he would be there after the trade down, but then Minny shocked everyone by taking a QB, and we grabbed Cade saying he was our boy all along.

 

1999 - agree on mcnabb being the pick. where i wanted to go and we should have. smith was too iffy after having moved up that fast on the board before draft day. couch just too plain of a wrapping to pick #1. picking culpepper would also have been an excellent pick for us where we were slotted to pick if we couldn't have traded up for mcnabb. if not pepper than champ bailey was the pick.

 

2000 - url was a good pick with or without hindsight. iguana guy sold me on url a month before the draft. even at projected safety he would have been a phenominal pick. props to him. i will say that if we picked lower pennington would have been a good pick but not an earth shattering pick for us.

 

2001 - agree about vick. not a guy who looked exceptional. i wouldn't have gone up much to get him. if he went in the middle of the top ten and i was there i would have taken him and hope for a cunningham type qb in chicago. as it turns out now i wouldn't give the time of day to a dog killer.

 

2002 - agree it would have been outrageous to move that far up to pick carr or harrington. i will say if we had had a top 10 pick i would have tried for carr without a doubt. how's that for honest hindsight.

 

2003 - i will repeat what i have posted in the past WITHOUT using 20-20 hindsight: this was the year to bet the farm on a real qb prospect, the BEST since payton manning, and move up to the #1 spot no matter what it took and get carson palmer. it was the perfect year to go-for-broke. we had a high pick, were rebuilding and i would have given up our next years #1 to do it. it was the perfect time for us to get there.

 

anyone that says grossman was who they really wanted is fooling themselves. you don't trade down twice if you think your franchise qb is on the board.

 

2004 - agree couldn't draft another #1 without seeing what we had unless it looked a lead pipe cinch that dropped to us which it didn't.

 

2005 - same situation

 

2006 - too far to go for iffy talent. if i could have traded up would have looked at LOT talent.

 

2007 - too far to go for iffy talent

 

2008 - no qb talent that high but would have talked to miami about long.

 

two in the last 8 years should be enough. i don't feel like going back through the 80's and 90's at this time.

 

I think we made a mistake, but I am not sure how often those "bold moves" would have been either doable, or a good idea.

 

there are good times to make your move and not good times. the palmer move was the best. we had a high pick and could probably have moved if we gave up a following years first with it. next was the mcnabb move. again i would have traded a lot to get to him on the board including the next years first. those looked like real quality qb's at the time and proved out to be good enough to have put us in a different echelon.

[adam]

2006 - We picked at the end of the 1st. I actually wanted to move up after Leinart and Cutler began to fall, but that was a pretty big jump, and no telling what it would have cost.

 

2007 - Do you believe we should have taken Flacco at 14? I don't. Brohm in the 2nd yes, but is that the sort of aggressive play you say we have avoided?

I think your years are messed up. We had #26 in 2006 and traded to the 2nd round, and this draft was 2008.

[nfoligno]

I think you (nfo) have hit on something when you mention the long line of defensive minded guys running the Bears. When a person knows something well, they tend to fall back on that knowledge when there is a difficult decision ahead. And when they try to step outside their comfort zone, and end up getting burned (Enis, McNown, Grossman, Benson), there is more of a tendency to gravitate right back to the familiar.

 

An example I would throw out, while not apples to apples, I think does hit on the idea. Are there any college teams you are a fan of, or watch more than others. For me, it would be Texas. I am not a big fan, but watch most all their games. In doing so, I see more of the players, and often fall in love w/ then in the draft. As you said, it is a matter of going w/ the player you know.

 

I believe Angelo's college is defense. When looking for the BPA, players from his school (defense) are simply seen in a better light than those not in his school. The good is, he has found some defensive gems after the early rounds. The bad is, we have created a team loaded on one side, and empty on the other.

 

Regarding your two coaches, I am not even going to go there. I think you and I have had enough Crowton/Shoop discussions, and the board can use a well deserved break

[nfoligno]

While I understand, and agree, at the same time I have to say that it still has to depend on what the other team(s) asked in trade. As I said before, thre is a point where aggressive moves become suicide.

 

Ditka gave away two years worth of drafts in order to get Ricky. Suicide. I also blame that trade for our inability to get McNabb. As I recall, we did in fact show interest in moving up, but NO wanted a kings ransom. Ironically, we asked for the same ransom when NE and Jax wanted to move up for Enis, and ended up taking him ourselves.

 

An example I think would help your point. Last year Cle moved up to get the QB they wanted (Quinn) giving up a future 1st in the process. Anderson sort of changed their plans, but I would rather have their problem of two QBs rather than none.

 

Regarding Palmer. I am not sure there has been a QB I have been higher on since I started really following the draft. I so wanted to get him. Problem is, you can want all you want, but you need two to trade. Cincy had the top pick, and were locked in from nearly the get-go w/ Palmer. As I recall, they even signed him prior to the draft. It is difficult enough to trade up for a player, and another to get a team who has been sold on that player to give him up. I would have given a lot for him, but w/o knowing what it would have taken, I just am not sure how smart of a move it would have been.

 

I am all for aggressive moves to get a franchise QB. I am for aggressive moves to get a franchise player in general. I remember a few years back saying it would be worth a two 1sts to get Walter Jones, and still believe that would have been true. Ditto at QB.

 

That is what is so frustrating about this year. We had a QB, who I feel is going to be a franchise QB, fall into our laps, and we passed. Worse, then GB takes him. Now I have to hope I am totally wrong, knowing the crow I will have to eat, because if I am right, GB could be a power for the next decade.