Bears don't plan to add a back

[balta1701-A]

Pass the kool aid Jason. Because, it must be a great flavor.

 

 

 

 

Well, that was a well balanced, rehearsed, logical argument with solid and clearly made points.

 

Anyway...the only kool-aid here is named Chris Williams. It's a flavor I've never tasted yet. If it's pretty good, then it's going to fuel our running game better than Gatorade. If it's a bad flavor, then the offense is going to struggle again.

[nfoligno]

I understand what you are saying, and in part, agree. For example, take Indy. Championship caliber team that went into the season w/ much relying on a rookie RB. Yea, they had Rhodes too, but it was the rookie they were counting on. NE felt they could do it w/ a rookie RB too.

 

But while I can agree w/ the logic, it is only to a point. I would argue that you can make such a move when you have the surrounding pieces in place, but do we? GB found a stud RB in a rookie last year, but also had a very good, veteran OL, HOF QB and solid WRs. When you have the surrounding pieces in place, you are set up well to put more faith into a rookie at one position. However, I do not see us having the surrounding pieces in place.

 

On the OL, we have a rookie LT and have no idea who our LG will be. At QB, we do not even know who are starter is, but neither player contending for the job is proven. At WR? We have a lot of hope. I guess TE is as close as we come to set w/ solid surrounding talent, but that just isn't much.

 

That is why I do not agree w/ the idea of going into the season w/o a better #2 option at RB. The only argument against my argument would be this. If we are not a championship team, and are looking at this season more as a developmental year, then going w/ the rookie RB and less depth makes a bit more sense. But even then, I still think we would be better served, as would the rookie, by having a better #2 option.

[Pixote]

That is why I do not agree w/ the idea of going into the season w/o a better #2 option at RB. The only argument against my argument would be this. If we are not a championship team, and are looking at this season more as a developmental year, then going w/ the rookie RB and less depth makes a bit more sense. But even then, I still think we would be better served, as would the rookie, by having a better #2 option.

 

I agree to an extent, but if we could sign a veteran who has good credentials "cheap" with an incentive laden contract based on playing time, a one year deal, what would it hurt? If Forte is the RB we hope he will be the veteran brought in would never reach his incentives and be a cheap insurance policy. If Forte gets injured, or does not perform like we hope and expect him to, then the veteran backup would be a valuable asset to the team.

[LT2_3]

I agree to an extent, but if we could sign a veteran who has good credentials "cheap" with an incentive laden contract based on playing time, a one year deal, what would it hurt? If Forte is the RB we hope he will be the veteran brought in would never reach his incentives and be a cheap insurance policy. If Forte gets injured, or does not perform like we hope and expect him to, then the veteran backup would be a valuable asset to the team.

 

Well, when we start talking about the type of contract we want these potential RBs to sign, we have to consider what they would be likely to accept and at what point in time.

 

The only RB out there that I would be really interested in would be K Jones - at this point in time. However, I don't think that he would want to sign a 1 yr deal - at least at this point in the offseason. If any of the guys currently available are STILL available in mid August, I could see them accepting a 1 yr deal at that point. However, the problem is that we would probably have to offer at least a 2 year deal at this point in the offseason.

 

I see a need for another RB unless we're planning on AP spelling Forte. I think that whatever plan they develop, they need to bring Forte on a bit slowly so he doesn't hit the proverbial "rookie wall" after having had 15-20 rushes per games for the first 12 games. That's what Indy did with Addai. They would alternate a larger number of carries with fewer early in his career. His carries went 7, 16, 3, 20, 13, bye, 11, 17, 18, 13, 13, 24, 16, 11, 8, 15, 21 for a grand total of 226 carries his rookie season and an average of 14 carries per game. He split carries with Rhodes with carries of 16, 14, 14, 15, 20, bye, 13, 3, 4, 14, 9, 15, 12, 8, 19, 2, 9 for 187 carries.

 

That's awesome for a rookie and I think a well planned distribution to bring him along slowly.

 

So, to get K Jones signed before TC, I think we would have to offer him a 3 year deal with maybe $4 mil in signing bonus, with salary escalators it he hits certain parameters based on games active for and rushing yards. It would be a base contract of 3 years $7 million or a max deal of 3 years $17 million. I think that's a contract that Jones would sign. It would also allow the team to release or trade him with tolerable consequences after 1 year if he's not that good and Forte is awesome. That would allow us to "rent" him for a year for $5 million - but allow the cap hits to be spread as 2.33 mil, 1.33 mil, and 1.33 mil if we only keep him for 1 year.

 

That sounds reasonable to me because I'm not too hip on AP having most of the carries early in the season to get Forte acclimated and prevent him burning out at the end of the season when we will need him for the playoffs.

[nfoligno]

Either you miss my point, or did not intend for your post to be responsive to mine.

 

I am in favor of adding a RB. While I have high hopes in Forte, I do not believe we have anyone to offer him solid competition, nor do we have a solid backup plan in case he is injured or doesn't develop as quickly as most hope.

 

This is an unpopular statement, but to me, AP is the problem. AP is a VERY well liked player/person. He is a great special teams player, but at RB, IMHO, he should be no more than a #3 RB. While unproven, I actually like Wolfe more than AP for that #3 role. Simply put, he offers more in terms of different/change of pace, than AP does.

 

So AP is not a #2, and Wolfe is a better #3. Again, this is in my mind. So I would be very much in favor of adding a RB like Jones to be our #2. (a) he would provide our rookie w/ a better level of competition, and force the rookie to earn his starting role ( I believe Jones offers a greater difference in style to Forte than AP, and would thus also be a better back to split carries w/ the rookie, so we do not run him into the ground and (3) while I want Wolfe to pan out in a change of pace role, I think Jones can provide us that if Wolfe doesn't get it done far more than AP.

 

Does this mean AP has no role on my team. Not necessarily. I am a strong believer in special teams specialists, and would have no problem keeping one extra RB who such a specialist. To me, a 4th RB like AP is more valuable than a 6th LB or 6th/7th DB or whoever we often consider our specialist. I would have also considered going w/ only 2 TEs, and having a 3rd on the practice squad, if it allowed me a 4th RB like AP.

[Pixote]

That sounds reasonable to me because I'm not too hip on AP having most of the carries early in the season to get Forte acclimated and prevent him burning out at the end of the season when we will need him for the playoffs.

 

 

Good points made. Personally, I think we need to bring in a RB for insurance, Personally, I like the idea of Kevin Jones the best, but Personally, I don't think the Bears give a damn about what I think and will not bring in a veteran, LOL.

[nfoligno]

The only point I would argue is whether KJ would or would not sign a 1 year deal.

 

You previously argued this is the dead time of the year for FA signings, so is there really that great of a difference between a signing today and in August? In fact, I would argue there could be a less likely chance of a 1yr deal in August. If a player is willing to wait until then, he may simply choose to wait for a team to suffer an injury, at which point the FA gains a bit of leverage. Maybe not much, but more than he had.

 

Reasons I think KJ "might" consider a one year deal.

 

(a) It sure does not seem like he has had many suitors thus far.

( Some teams could be looking at him strickly as a backup/depth, but in Chicago, he would have the opportunity for more. While we just drafted Forte and like him, if we tell him competition is open, then he has an opportunity to prove himself and earn potentially a greater role here than most any other team can offer.

© Even if the rookie starts, as it is a rookie, he can be promised that if he does well enough, can still have a significant role on the offense, ranther than simply sit on the bench.

(d) There is little interest in him today, but if he signs a one year deal, he will have the chance for a healthy season and some decent/good numbers, allowing him to re-enter FA next year in potentially a greater position. Any 3 year deal he gets today will be for minimal money, but if he can better establish himself in 2008, then he could find his way to a far better contract, rather than prove himself and be stuck in a deal he isn't happy w/ (ala Thomas Jones).

 

Not saying it is a sure thing, but I think there are absolutely reasons he could sign a 1 year deal w/ us, and sooner rather than later.

[madlithuanian]

Good point!

 

Quite similar to why Griese signed with us...

 

The only point I would argue is whether KJ would or would not sign a 1 year deal.

 

You previously argued this is the dead time of the year for FA signings, so is there really that great of a difference between a signing today and in August? In fact, I would argue there could be a less likely chance of a 1yr deal in August. If a player is willing to wait until then, he may simply choose to wait for a team to suffer an injury, at which point the FA gains a bit of leverage. Maybe not much, but more than he had.

 

Reasons I think KJ "might" consider a one year deal.

 

(a) It sure does not seem like he has had many suitors thus far.

( Some teams could be looking at him strickly as a backup/depth, but in Chicago, he would have the opportunity for more. While we just drafted Forte and like him, if we tell him competition is open, then he has an opportunity to prove himself and earn potentially a greater role here than most any other team can offer.

© Even if the rookie starts, as it is a rookie, he can be promised that if he does well enough, can still have a significant role on the offense, ranther than simply sit on the bench.

(d) There is little interest in him today, but if he signs a one year deal, he will have the chance for a healthy season and some decent/good numbers, allowing him to re-enter FA next year in potentially a greater position. Any 3 year deal he gets today will be for minimal money, but if he can better establish himself in 2008, then he could find his way to a far better contract, rather than prove himself and be stuck in a deal he isn't happy w/ (ala Thomas Jones).

 

Not saying it is a sure thing, but I think there are absolutely reasons he could sign a 1 year deal w/ us, and sooner rather than later.

[LT2_3]

The only point I would argue is whether KJ would or would not sign a 1 year deal.

 

You previously argued this is the dead time of the year for FA signings, so is there really that great of a difference between a signing today and in August? In fact, I would argue there could be a less likely chance of a 1yr deal in August. If a player is willing to wait until then, he may simply choose to wait for a team to suffer an injury, at which point the FA gains a bit of leverage. Maybe not much, but more than he had.

 

Reasons I think KJ "might" consider a one year deal.

 

(a) It sure does not seem like he has had many suitors thus far.

( Some teams could be looking at him strickly as a backup/depth, but in Chicago, he would have the opportunity for more. While we just drafted Forte and like him, if we tell him competition is open, then he has an opportunity to prove himself and earn potentially a greater role here than most any other team can offer.

© Even if the rookie starts, as it is a rookie, he can be promised that if he does well enough, can still have a significant role on the offense, ranther than simply sit on the bench.

(d) There is little interest in him today, but if he signs a one year deal, he will have the chance for a healthy season and some decent/good numbers, allowing him to re-enter FA next year in potentially a greater position. Any 3 year deal he gets today will be for minimal money, but if he can better establish himself in 2008, then he could find his way to a far better contract, rather than prove himself and be stuck in a deal he isn't happy w/ (ala Thomas Jones).

 

Not saying it is a sure thing, but I think there are absolutely reasons he could sign a 1 year deal w/ us, and sooner rather than later.

 

When it comes to KJ, his entire schedule is dependant on his workout scheduled for June 28th. Nothing is going to happen between now and then. That's when his negotiations will really start with ALL interested teams and his first preference won't be a 1 year deal.

[Lucky Luciano]

besides the possible age and/or injury to existing key players over this rebuilding period, we still did not draft enough players to fill the positions on offense that have held us back and CAUSED this rebuilding process. when you rebuild you need to develop prospective starting players to replace the existing problems. each of our problem positions takes time to develop and most would agree that a 2-3 year LAG may not even be enough time to develop them EVEN if we had them!!

 

Agree and disagree.

 

I would make the point that we had too many holes to expect filling at in one draft.

 

I agree players take time to develop. I disagree we should expect a 2-3 year LAG for each player drafted though. At least one player IMHO stands a chance to develop far more year one, at least based on his position. While numerous positions in the NFL take time to develop, some have more immediate dividends, and RB is one of them. Many rookie RBs excel.

 

Also, I think some other players can be developed to the point of being considered solid, if not good, after one year. That would mean we could be competitive next year, and w/ further additions, could contend, though QB (see below) is still our glaring issue.

 

yes it is true we have too many holes to fill in one draft. as i see it, that has been angies biggest problems. you have to have a clue on not only who to draft, but WHEN. he drafts the same position players (defense) on the first day of the draft year after year and ignores the obvious shortcomings on offense until the situation is beyond critical. at this point it's too late unless you give up a season or two to give rookies a chance to get up to speed in the nfl or are forced to spend top dollar for free agents and short term fixes.

 

2004 -

LT - q. mitchell - who for X's sake replaced gandy at LT. need i say more?

LG - r. brown (32 years old) with metcalf, a third round pick by angie who seems to want to force this bum into the lineup to save face, as depth who having been in the nfl for 2 previous years was atrocious by ANY standard when forced to play. this is WHY we got a 32 year old free agent reuben brown in the first place!

RG - s. edwards (an undrafted player?) with r. tucker (always injured) and m. gandy (who was a complete bust at LT) for depth

RT - tait

 

in 2004 not a single player has played next to each other on the entire OL.

 

in 2003 we dumped a good RG in villarrial and replaced him with a walk on in edwards who was playing LG. we thought so much of metcalf filling in at LG we brought in aging free agent r. brown to play LG.

 

we dumped a FA experiment in a. gibson at RT and angie buys another RT in 2004 at a huge price in tait. tait in his prime was a good move at RT but was wasted by lack of talent surrounding him and having to move him to LT in 2005 which WASN'T his strong point.

 

so you ask, what does all this tell you? like maybe NOW is the time to draft some offensive linemen for our future starters at guard and tackle? hmmmm.........

 

2005 -

LT - we move tait from his all-pro position at RT to have him play average at LT.

LG - we start r. brown, 33 years old, and back him up with garza another questionable FA at LG who has knee problems.

RG - we demote edwards at RG and replace him with metcalf who has never done anything to show he belongs in the nfl. now edwards is our back-up RT and RG.

RT - we fill an all-pro RT's position with an aging RT, at the end of his string, in f. miller. we also have a still injured columbo who we then cut or trade to dallas. we pick up an average back-up swing tackle in st. clair.

 

we did not drafted a single offensive lineman in 2004 to replace...

 

A. an aging r. brown. or for that matter draft any STARTER quality depth or future starter replacements at guard on EITHER side.

B. a left tackle in q. mitchell who, to say the least, was BAD!!

 

on top of that, the ONLY offensive linemen that have played next to each other in the 2005 season are kreutz and r. brown. so much for continuity.

 

again, what does all this tell you? one of the most important aspects of your franchise needs some serious work by drafting OL for not only your future but your present.

 

2006 -

LT - tait remains at LT backed up by st. clair

LG - r. brown is still plugging away at 34 years old.

RG - garza replaces a totally inept metcalf. we also cut oft injured tucker AND edwards depleting our depth even more.

RT - 33 year old f. miller is now our starting RT for 2 years in a row. he is playing average at best and is declining in talent. our backup is st. clair.

 

we did not drafted a single offensive lineman in 2005 to replace...

 

A. our LT in tait so we could move him back to his original position.

B. an aging LG in r. brown or a replacement/starter for metcalf or garza at RG.

C. a RT to replace an aging miller in a year or two IF you are dumb enough to want to keep a high priced tait out of his best position.

 

2007 -

LT - tait continues to play average and out of position.

LG - r. brown at 35 is showing his age AND is injured.

RG - garza starts again for the 2nd year in a row and plays average at best.

RT - a 34 year old miller is playing like someone 84.

 

in the 2006 draft, with our offensive line aging fast, we drafted 1 offensive lineman in the 6th round who didn't even make the roster.

 

how stupid is that? setting new records for BAD offense for a club known for bad offenses throughout the last 4 decades says it all. that we don't have a single backup player or future starting GUARD this coaching staff feels is better than a one armed 35 year old player is mindboggling. the state this club that i am commenting on is not through 20/20 hindsight but by logical deduction that anyone with even a drop of nfl insight could plainly see by just looking at our roster. it is only common sense that you have to draft players a year of two in advance of a critical situation coming due or suffer the consequences such as we did and DO.

 

2008 -

we finally draft highly, LT, a dire need on the OL but AGAIN fail to have the intelligence and forsight to draft a guard or another tackle before the 7th round. so that puts us yet again at a disadvantage NEXT season + not to mention this one. if you want quality guards you draft them in rounds 3-5 (even the 2nd) until you get your starters. then once set, you draft their replacements.

 

if you want quality players in the most important position in your offense, next to qb, you have to plan in advance how to get it done within the scope and limitations of the nfl salary cap. this is only possible, long term, through the draft.

 

why now and not later.... rookie linemen can come in and play reasonably well if surrounded by good veteran talent but still need that extra year to gain the experience to work as a cohesive unit and understand the nuances of nfl defenses. when i stated in my previous post there was a 2-3 year lag i was specifically talking about the OL and QB positions and not the rb or wr positions you commented on. these OL positions NEED this break in time to become aquainted with the complexity and the speed of the nfl. these are the guys that can make or break your franchise by keeping your #1 player, the QB, clean and off the IR.

 

one only has to look back at our drafts to realize how pathetic our gm has done. it's his job to find the talent not only on the field but finding personel to teach/coach them to be better players (specifically qb). that is his main job in my opinion. it's not enough by a long shot that he works our cap figures well. that is what you hire the bean counters like phillips for to negotiate contracts with the gm's input.

 

so in conclusion.....

 

in a good franchise where the owners really understand football our gm would be walking on thin, thin, thin, ice and headed for deep water. here they give him extensions. so until we get someone who not only can judge and draft offensive talent but hire coaches and trainers to COACH this talent we do draft we are going nowhere fast with only a short term anommaly as our only hope.

[nfoligno]

You say his preference will not be one year, but don't you think that depends on his offers?

 

Some FAs simply take whatever they can get today, and not thing about tomorrow. Others will take the smaller deal today in order to be free to take a bigger deal tomorrow.

 

Not sure it is such a lock which way he would go.

[WheresMyronBaker]

Nfo - you allude to something I said a while back. AP is the problem. That is because his ST skills are significant and the number of RB slots isnt.

 

I think if you are JA, you have to save Lovie from himself and find a way to move AP. Id like to think you could get a 7th or conditional for him. Once he is gone you have the freedom to sign a Kevin Jones if he is physically able...and then its hardly a matter for consternation.

[nfoligno]

One, I would not get rid of AP prior to signing Jones. You lose too much bargaining w/ Jones by trading AP first. Also, while I want to add KJ, or some other solid veteran, my main thing is competition and insurance. What happens if Forte (God forbid) goes down in camp w/ an ACL? Yea, we have KJ to start, but now Wolfe is our #2 and we have no #3. No, I would rather keep AP around, at least for a while, until our RB situation pans out.

 

Two, I still think I would rather keep him and go w/ 4 RBs. I simply feel a 4th RB (who is a speical teams stud) is more valuable than (for example) a 3rd TE or a 6th LB or a 7th DB.

[Lucky Luciano]

Nfo - you allude to something I said a while back. AP is the problem. That is because his ST skills are significant and the number of RB slots isnt.

 

I think if you are JA, you have to save Lovie from himself and find a way to move AP. Id like to think you could get a 7th or conditional for him. Once he is gone you have the freedom to sign a Kevin Jones if he is physically able...and then its hardly a matter for consternation.

 

i'm not sure i go along with this train of thought.

 

peterson is a very good special teams player who is always in the mix on tackles in coverages. as a 3rd down back he is adequate and can get the job done one in that slot is expected to do. the problem (thanks angie) is wolfe. now we have 2 third down type backs.

 

the question is which gives you the most bang for the buck? peterson has proved his worth year after year. he doesn't cost much and is a major locker room plus.

 

another question is how many hits can we keep putting on our special teams coach? we keep slaughtering his squad and expecting him to put the same quality back on the field each year. his saving grace is that angelo keeps drafting ST players instead of starters and acquires ST free agents on top of that.

 

that said it would be a major loss on ST's for peterson to be gone.

[LT2_3]

You say his preference will not be one year, but don't you think that depends on his offers?

 

Some FAs simply take whatever they can get today, and not thing about tomorrow. Others will take the smaller deal today in order to be free to take a bigger deal tomorrow.

 

Not sure it is such a lock which way he would go.

 

Well obviously it depends on his offers. From what I've read, he's already visited with SOME teams and talked parameters a little bit, but he's waiting until after his workout.

 

The way I see it for different time periods regarding KJ signing a deal:

 

Now until June 28th - he's not signing nothing - unless he gets a great deal from someone he's already visited with that is willing to pay to keep him from working out.

 

June 29th - July 15thish - This is when he's going to look to sign a multiyear deal. Early enough that he can make a full TC. If he doesn't get those types of offers, he may wait until a RB gets injured in camp. I think it's at that point that he would consider a 1 year deal if that's all that's available.

 

My biggest thing against KJ signing a 1 year deal is that teams wouldn't want to sign him to a 1 year deal. Because contracts aren't guaranteed, teams have no reason to sign guys to one year deals. All they have to do is put in roster bonuses that don't get paid if they are released. That way the team literally has the option of what to do. The only time players want a longer deal is if it increases their guaranteed money - giving them more security. So in this case, I think a team would want at least a 3 year deal so they can keep the guy around for somewhat cheap if he pans out, and I think Jones would want the security of the signing bonus of a 3 year deal. Worst case scenario, if Jones signs a 3 year deal with a modest signing bonus and gets injured again, he could easily sit year 2 of a deal on IR. If he gets injured on a 1 year deal, he simply becomes a FA when his deal expires and probably doesn't get a salary that year because he isn't under contract.

 

I'm not against KJ signing a 1 yera deal with us, I just don't think it's likely because I don't think a front office would want a 1 year deal, and I don't think Jones would want one either.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

yes it is true we have too many holes to fill in one draft. as i see it, that has been angies biggest problems. you have to have a clue on not only who to draft, but WHEN. he drafts the same position players (defense) on the first day of the draft year after year and ignores the obvious shortcomings on offense until the situation is beyond critical. at this point it's too late unless you give up a season or two to give rookies a chance to get up to speed in the nfl or are forced to spend top dollar for free agents and short term fixes.

so in conclusion.....

in a good franchise where the owners really understand football our gm would be walking on thin, thin, thin, ice and headed for deep water. here they give him extensions. so until we get someone who not only can judge and draft offensive talent but hire coaches and trainers to COACH this talent we do draft we are going nowhere fast with only a short term anommaly as our only hope.

 

Great breakdown Lucky, I do agree we need to be constantly drafting O-line. Every year, I'm on this board and chat room on draft day listing the potential players I'd like Angie to pick. We are currently at a place were we need to look to replace Tait already as it may take 2 years for that player to develop. We probably missed his best years to be a great RT by failing to draft LT until this year. We've also put the other offensive talent we've drafted in poor postion. We've seen Rex look spectacular when he has had time to sit in the pocket. I know some people would like to disagree, but thats my opinion. Looking back recently here are some minor and major F-ups. I still praise Angelo, just wish he'd "get" the Offensive side of football.

 

2006 DRAFT:

RD2-42 Daniel Manning-drafted b/c Browns injury history, he still hasn't developed, missed a probowl LT

Marcus McNeil OT Auburn~~~~~~~started all 32 games at LT probowl level

RD4-120 Jamar Williams-drafted b/c Briggs demands, either should of been better than Miller last year

Ryan O'Callaghan OT Cal~~~~~~started 6 games last year on New England last year

Jon Scott OT Tex~~~~~~~~~~started 4 games for Detroit last year

 

2007 DRAFT:

RD2-62 Dan Bazuin DE-Ego pick, unless plans were to relase Ogun soon. Yanda has looked decent at RT

James Martin OT Boston College~~Colombo's backup at RT as rookie

Marshall Yanda OT Iowa ~~~~~~~started 12 games for Baltimore as rookie

 

2008 DRAFT:

RD3-90 Marcus Harrison DT- Could be a stud, but G higher need

Mike McGlynn~~~~~T/G Pitt I believe we would have taken him, Phi traded 1 spot above us to take him

O'neil Cousins G/OT~~~~~~~Texas El-Paso

Kory Lichtensteiger G/C~~~~~Bowling Green

Hind sight is 20/20, but we could have had two starting OT. 1 who is a probowler. I am glad we drafted Beekman who I thought would be contending to start at G, but is a good insurance policy for Kreutz. I also had Barton for Ohio State a lot higher than a 7th RD pick and hope he can compete next year for a G or T position.

 

Looking at the 2009 draft heres my early expectations:

1-QB-kid out of Georgia ?

2-LG we need to get a starter out of this spot

3-RT if we don't have Tait's replacement on our roster yet, we need to start that process

4-WR Booker/Lloyd aren't spring chickens anymore

5-RB if Wolfe doesn't show up this year, time to move on

[WheresMyronBaker]

One, I would not get rid of AP prior to signing Jones. You lose too much bargaining w/ Jones by trading AP first. Also, while I want to add KJ, or some other solid veteran, my main thing is competition and insurance. What happens if Forte (God forbid) goes down in camp w/ an ACL? Yea, we have KJ to start, but now Wolfe is our #2 and we have no #3. No, I would rather keep AP around, at least for a while, until our RB situation pans out.

 

Two, I still think I would rather keep him and go w/ 4 RBs. I simply feel a 4th RB (who is a speical teams stud) is more valuable than (for example) a 3rd TE or a 6th LB or a 7th DB.

 

I can agree with keeping him around if we do indeed end up overly deep at another position...but in my opinion so long as he would be considered a number 2 or 3 - I would consider moving him.

 

Also - signing KJ prior to dropping AP would cause us to lose any leverage in getting anything for AP...so thats give and take there....

[nfoligno]

Also - signing KJ prior to dropping AP would cause us to lose any leverage in getting anything for AP...so thats give and take there....

 

Yes, but you yourself talked about a 7th round pick or something very low like that, and to be frank, I doubt AP is worth "that" much in a trade. So I do not factor that as greately. On the other hand, signing a veteran FA has a lot more give and take, so bargaining power could be a bigger deal.

[Lucky Luciano]

We are currently at a place were we need to look to replace Tait already as it may take 2 years for that player to develop. We probably missed his best years to be a great RT by failing to draft LT until this year. We've also put the other offensive talent we've drafted in poor postion.

 

great point about wasting a high priced free agent by running out his time in the nfl in the wrong position.

 

these are the kind of gm gaffs that hurt your franchise for multiple years.

[DABEARSDABOMB]

I think it will be assinine if the Bears don't sign a RB. I have had no issues with the way Angelo has handled the QB situation, but if the Bears open the season relying on a 2nd round draft pick to be the guy they are making a huge mistake. I wouldn't tihnk so if I felt that one of the back-ups in house had a shot at developing into a league average RB, but we know they do not (Wolfe doesn't have the size or ability to run in between the tackles and Peterson is a change of pace back, nothing more). Because of that, it means either your rookie lives up to massive hype (plus we are talking about a 2nd rounder so its not as if he's a freak athlete who can make up for his inexperiences with pure athletism) you are going to have a poor backfield.

 

You bring in Jones and all of a sudden if things go bad, you have a guy that when healthy is at least a league average RB and you can make a case that behind a solid line is an above average RB (and healthy). Bottom line, not bringing someone in whose capable of being a league average starter is just stupid.

[Da Bears 88]

I think it will be assinine if the Bears don't sign a RB. I have had no issues with the way Angelo has handled the QB situation, but if the Bears open the season relying on a 2nd round draft pick to be the guy they are making a huge mistake. I wouldn't tihnk so if I felt that one of the back-ups in house had a shot at developing into a league average RB, but we know they do not (Wolfe doesn't have the size or ability to run in between the tackles and Peterson is a change of pace back, nothing more). Because of that, it means either your rookie lives up to massive hype (plus we are talking about a 2nd rounder so its not as if he's a freak athlete who can make up for his inexperiences with pure athletism) you are going to have a poor backfield.

 

You bring in Jones and all of a sudden if things go bad, you have a guy that when healthy is at least a league average RB and you can make a case that behind a solid line is an above average RB (and healthy). Bottom line, not bringing someone in whose capable of being a league average starter is just stupid.

Well said.