Bentley

[Wesson44]

In watching past games with the Bears against the Saints Bentley looked very good. Now I don't know how good he is after being injuried but he was good in the past. This brings me to our Oline. Can he play guard? Yes he can. But the qustion is do we need him? We drafted Adams and we have Garza, Metcalf Beekman,Balogh, Barton and Oakley in the roster. After watching last years line I still think Garza is weak on the right side at RG, Metcalf look better playing on the right side than the left and we don't know what we have in the other players. I think that not playing Beekman last year tells me that something is wrong with his game. How would this sound.

 

Williams = LT, back up St.Clair

ST.Clair/Bentley = LG, Backup Adams

Kruetz = C, Backup Bentley/Oakley

Bentley/Garza = RG, Backup Garza

Tait = RT, Backup Barton

[ASHKUM BEAR]

Williams = LT, back up St.Clair

ST.Clair/Bentley = LG, Backup Adams

Kruetz = C, Backup Bentley/Oakley

Bentley/Garza = RG, Backup Garza

Tait = RT, Backup Barton

 

LT Williams [st. Clair]

LG Brown [Metcalf]

C Kreutz [beekman]

RG Garza [barton]

RT Tait [Adams]

 

I see us bringing back Reuben Brown before adding Bentley. Brown would be a cheaper, shorter term answer. We need to develop our line from the draft IMO before spending high dollars on FA's. Chester Adams has been taking most of the snaps w/ the 2nd team offense. Beekman 2nd team Center. Barton will probably go to the practice team, but I'd like him to step up and take 2nd team LG from Tyler Reed.

[Pixote]

I honestly think St Clair would be an excellent starting OG for us. As a OT I thought he sucked, but when they switched him to OG late in the season I thought he did an excellent job. However, the Bears seem to like him as backup to OT. Maybe if we couldget some depth at OT they would consider leaving him at OG. I would love to see a Lineup of

 

OLT - Williams

OLG - St Clair

OC - Kreutz

ORG - Graza

ORT - Tait

[balta1701-A]

At WR, we've already thrown so much depth at the position that adding more people for tryouts will just hurt the chances of the ones already there.

 

I'm not convinced we've dumped nearly as much depth in to the O-Line. If he could be had cheaply, then he's an option.

[Mongo3451]

name='Pixote' date='Jun 22 2008, 04:43 PM' post='40890']

I honestly think St Clair would be an excellent starting OG for us. As a OT I thought he sucked, but when they switched him to OG late in the season I thought he did an excellent job. However, the Bears seem to like him as backup to OT. Maybe if we couldget some depth at OT they would consider leaving him at OG. I would love to see a Lineup of

 

OLT - Williams

OLG - St Clair

OC - Kreutz

ORG - Graza

ORT - Tait

 

Agree that St.Clair looked good at OG and is probably better than anyone else we have for the position. But, until they bring in someone that can backup the tackle spot, I believe he should remain there. His value is simply greater at T, than the upgrade he would provide at G for two reasons. 1) because Williams is unproven. 2) because we have no depth, outside of St. Clair in case of injury. As bad as he is at tackle, I would want him fresh and focused only on that position. I doubt Williams will be a bust, but I never imagined Benson would bust either.

[nfoligno]

I wonder. Did St. Clair really look that good at LG, or was it he looked good compared to what we previously saw?

 

No question he was an upgrade to what we had, but I am not sure how "great" he looked compared to any other competant LG.

 

My top choice is still to add a LG, and Brown (if 100%) is at the top of the list.

 

If we do not add any LG, then St. Clair is likely my choice at LG. You make the argument that w/ Williams being so young, we may well need him as a swing OT. My argument is Williams at LT is exactly why we should play St. Clair at LG. While he is not a "seasoned" LG, he is a far more seasoned offensive linemen than any of the other OGs we could be looking at. To me, lining Williams next to an inexperienced LG could be among our biggest mistakes.

 

And I do not want to hear jack of Metcalf. The only reason he is still on the team is he has pictures of Angelo's wife.

[Dabears33]

I believe that Bentley would be a definate upgrade at the a very weak position. He would come in and help out Williams right away. As of right now, I believe LG is the weakest part of our offense (which is a pretty weak offense as is). If we want to be a running team we need a strong LG because Williams in not known as a great run blocker. I know a lot of people want Rueben Brown to come back, but he is more of a question mark than Bentley. If we don't win the Bentley sweepstakes, it wouldn't hurt to see if he's healthy. I just think we need an upgrade in order to compete this year.

[Pixote]

I believe that Bentley would be a definate upgrade at the a very weak position. He would come in and help out Williams right away. As of right now, I believe LG is the weakest part of our offense (which is a pretty weak offense as is). If we want to be a running team we need a strong LG because Williams in not known as a great run blocker. I know a lot of people want Rueben Brown to come back, but he is more of a question mark than Bentley. If we don't win the Bentley sweepstakes, it wouldn't hurt to see if he's healthy. I just think we need an upgrade in order to compete this year.

 

Yes, I agree. After all the discussion that has gone on in these forums, about the QBs, RBs, & WRs, it all boils down to how good our OL is this year. Without a good OL, all skill positions on offense will struggle.

[madlithuanian]

I think we do... But I'm not willing to go into a bidding war for him. If he comes reasonably, then I'm all for it.

 

In watching past games with the Bears against the Saints Bentley looked very good. Now I don't know how good he is after being injuried but he was good in the past. This brings me to our Oline. Can he play guard? Yes he can. But the qustion is do we need him? We drafted Adams and we have Garza, Metcalf Beekman,Balogh, Barton and Oakley in the roster. After watching last years line I still think Garza is weak on the right side at RG, Metcalf look better playing on the right side than the left and we don't know what we have in the other players. I think that not playing Beekman last year tells me that something is wrong with his game. How would this sound.

 

Williams = LT, back up St.Clair

ST.Clair/Bentley = LG, Backup Adams

Kruetz = C, Backup Bentley/Oakley

Bentley/Garza = RG, Backup Garza

Tait = RT, Backup Barton

[mancunian]

How about moving Garza to the left guard spot and trying Beekman or Metcalfe at RG. Who ever wins the RG spot would be playing between 2 good vets from whom they could learn something./

 

Just a thought

[madlithuanian]

Doesn't sound half bad to me...

 

How about moving Garza to the left guard spot and trying Beekman or Metcalfe at RG. Who ever wins the RG spot would be playing between 2 good vets from whom they could learn something./

 

Just a thought

[nfoligno]

I thought about the same, but I think the hessitation is the added "change". We know we will have a new face at LT, LG and RT. The only area we have some semblance of continuity is C-RG. If you move Garza (a) you then only have Kreutz returning to the same position, and chemistry is flat out gone and ( w/ Garza at RG, I think we can at least expect a solid right side. If we move him, we are likely to still have a questionable left side, but now also likely have a questionable right side. Instead of having one likely questionable side of the LOS, and one strong side, we would then have two questionable sides, and no strong area to rely on.

[madlithuanian]

I follow...

 

However, why not make the case to keep Tait at left and move Williams right? That way we have a strong vet at LT, C, and RG? But, I fully understand that you want to get Tait in his strongest spot and get Williams rolling in his spot. Bottom line, I'd be more inclined to keep Tait at LT if I felt the O line was the only question mark...in other words, we could delay WIlliams' growth if we knew we had a legit shot at greatness. I just don't see that case, so you may as well give everyone reps.

 

I thought about the same, but I think the hessitation is the added "change". We know we will have a new face at LT, LG and RT. The only area we have some semblance of continuity is C-RG. If you move Garza (a) you then only have Kreutz returning to the same position, and chemistry is flat out gone and ( w/ Garza at RG, I think we can at least expect a solid right side. If we move him, we are likely to still have a questionable left side, but now also likely have a questionable right side. Instead of having one likely questionable side of the LOS, and one strong side, we would then have two questionable sides, and no strong area to rely on.

[nfoligno]

I am not sure I agree w/ your example. That analogy would work if the staff felt Garza is better at LG, but I have never heard such.

 

Tait is not being moved just for Williams. We drafted Williams because Tait was no longer any good at LT.

 

Many assume the two OG positions are interchangable, but that is not so. RGs are usually more power, while LBs more often are expected to pull and show a greater level of athleticism. Maybe Garza could play LG, but since he joined the team, I believe he has always been considered a RG, so maybe his fit at LG is not ideal.

 

If we move Garza to LG, I am not sure we can simply assume he stabalizes our LG position. We have no idea how well the transition would go or how well he would play there. That is why I say if we made this move, it is questionable whether we even upgrade. Further, I look at it beyond individual positions, but also sides. Right now, we have a solid right side and a questionable left. That means our extra blockers (RBs, FBs, or TEs) can more often focus on helping the left side. It also means our RBs have a greater chance of picking up those needed yards on 3rd and 1 to the right side. If we made the move, both sides of our OL would be questionable. Extra blockers have a greater area to work. QBs have a greater area to be careful of, and RBs do not have a go-to side of the LOS.

 

Having two stable sides on the OL is great, but if you can not have that, I would rather have one stable side than none.

[madlithuanian]

Fair enough, but I was going on the assumption that the trasnfer from RG to LG would be easier than RT to LT... Yes, there would be loss, but the greater loss would occur at the tackle spot vs the guard spot. That's all I was mentioning... Basically that a vet guard could swap positions easier than a rookie tackle starting... And since our offensive skill positions aren't up to snuff, the arguement really is moot.

 

I also know Garza played center...so I think he's got a little more in his repretoire than just a plain old RG. Maybe I'm thinking he can do more erroneously...but I'm just giving him the benefit of the doubt.

 

 

 

I am not sure I agree w/ your example. That analogy would work if the staff felt Garza is better at LG, but I have never heard such.

 

Tait is not being moved just for Williams. We drafted Williams because Tait was no longer any good at LT.

 

Many assume the two OG positions are interchangable, but that is not so. RGs are usually more power, while LBs more often are expected to pull and show a greater level of athleticism. Maybe Garza could play LG, but since he joined the team, I believe he has always been considered a RG, so maybe his fit at LG is not ideal.

 

If we move Garza to LG, I am not sure we can simply assume he stabalizes our LG position. We have no idea how well the transition would go or how well he would play there. That is why I say if we made this move, it is questionable whether we even upgrade. Further, I look at it beyond individual positions, but also sides. Right now, we have a solid right side and a questionable left. That means our extra blockers (RBs, FBs, or TEs) can more often focus on helping the left side. It also means our RBs have a greater chance of picking up those needed yards on 3rd and 1 to the right side. If we made the move, both sides of our OL would be questionable. Extra blockers have a greater area to work. QBs have a greater area to be careful of, and RBs do not have a go-to side of the LOS.

 

Having two stable sides on the OL is great, but if you can not have that, I would rather have one stable side than none.

[nfoligno]

Regarding OT, maybe I am missing something, but did you not think Tait sucked last year? We are not simply moving Tait to make room for a rookie. We drafted the rookie in order to move Tait. I do not know if it is injury or what, but Tait's play at LT last year was flat out weak. IMHO, he didn't take as much heat because LG and RT positions were simply SOOOOO bad, but Tait was pretty bad as well.

 

So that is why I am not sure of your point at OT. Tait is moving to RT because the staff believes he can still be a good RT, while at LT he is FAR from good. Garza might well be capable of playing LG, but that is an unknown, where as his play at RG has been okay. W/ Tait, we are moving him out of a position he played poorly, in order to put him at a position we feel he can play well. That is not the situation we face w/ Garza.

[madlithuanian]

I thought hte O line as a whole sucked...not necessarily one guy. I also am looking at a body of work...not just one year. He's done a fine job...and if he didn't have a turnstile next to him, maybe that turns out differently. The problem is that there are too many variables to just flat out say Tait cannot be a legit LT anymore based on last year.

 

This conversation is bordering on silliness though. My initial thought is based on only doing so if the offensive skill positions were good enough to warrant the thought of such. Sure, there are arguements for and against it, and you are obviously against it. I would be, in theory, for considering it.

 

 

 

Regarding OT, maybe I am missing something, but did you not think Tait sucked last year? We are not simply moving Tait to make room for a rookie. We drafted the rookie in order to move Tait. I do not know if it is injury or what, but Tait's play at LT last year was flat out weak. IMHO, he didn't take as much heat because LG and RT positions were simply SOOOOO bad, but Tait was pretty bad as well.

 

So that is why I am not sure of your point at OT. Tait is moving to RT because the staff believes he can still be a good RT, while at LT he is FAR from good. Garza might well be capable of playing LG, but that is an unknown, where as his play at RG has been okay. W/ Tait, we are moving him out of a position he played poorly, in order to put him at a position we feel he can play well. That is not the situation we face w/ Garza.

[AZ54]

Tait was hurt last year and missed a few games where St. Clair filled in for him. He returned but it was clear his ankle injury hadn't fully healed and it affected his movement. As a result he was pushed around a bit easier and had more trouble with the edge rushers.

[Mongo3451]

name='nfoligno' date='Jun 25 2008, 01:16 PM' post='41030']

Tait is not being moved just for Williams. We drafted Williams because Tait was no longer any good at LT.

Tait doesn't suck at LT, he's just a better RT. He makes the right side better, more than he weakens the left side with his departure.

 

Many assume the two OG positions are interchangable, but that is not so. RGs are usually more power, while LBs more often are expected to pull and show a greater level of athleticism. Maybe Garza could play LG, but since he joined the team, I believe he has always been considered a RG, so maybe his fit at LG is not ideal.

I think you just argued against yourself on that one. Garza is a finesse player and Metcalf a power player. Under that scenario, Garza would be better suited for the left side. When we signed Garza, he was introduced as insurance for all 3 interior positions. I'm not arguing for this, but in theory you could make the right side the power side and the left side the finesse side with a switch of Metcalf and Garza. Q: Isn't Larry Allen a LG? (the most powerful human to ever play OL)

 

If we move Garza to LG, I am not sure we can simply assume he stabalizes our LG position. We have no idea how well the transition would go or how well he would play there. That is why I say if we made this move, it is questionable whether we even upgrade. Further, I look at it beyond individual positions, but also sides. Right now, we have a solid right side and a questionable left. That means our extra blockers (RBs, FBs, or TEs) can more often focus on helping the left side. It also means our RBs have a greater chance of picking up those needed yards on 3rd and 1 to the right side. If we made the move, both sides of our OL would be questionable. Extra blockers have a greater area to work. QBs have a greater area to be careful of, and RBs do not have a go-to side of the LOS.

IMO- improvement to the LG situation does not lie on our roster at this point in time.

 

Having two stable sides on the OL is great, but if you can not have that, I would rather have one stable side than none.

Very true.

[Wesson44]

You are making a point that Garza can't play LG. If you look at the film in back when he first joined the Bears Garza was playing LG and Metcalf was playing RG, so Garza can play both..

[BigDaddy]

You are making a point that Garza can't play LG. If you look at the film in back when he first joined the Bears Garza was playing LG and Metcalf was playing RG, so Garza can play both..

 

Yes but the question is, how well? I'm still a bit disappointed that we didn't get some more o linemen. I'm just hoping the real reason for that is that there will be some better talent available via trade or cuts in training camp.

[madlithuanian]

Thanks for the info! I was unware of that...

 

You are making a point that Garza can't play LG. If you look at the film in back when he first joined the Bears Garza was playing LG and Metcalf was playing RG, so Garza can play both..