Article on the tackle situation

[Connorbear]

I agree that Williams should go on the IR. We need to move forward for this yr. Better safe than sorry.

 

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/be...-bear09.article

 

Peace

[AZ54]

Not necessarily. What I've read about these operations is that physical therapy/rehab can begin as little as 4 weeks out depending on what type of surgery. It appears as if Williams operation is among the simpler less risky types for herniated discs. So if he starts rehabbing between weeks 4-6 he'd be getting about 6 weeks on the weights to get back in shape. I just prefer that the team be cautious with him and not try to rush him back on the field if he's not ready.

[nfoligno]

Not necessarily. What I've read about these operations is that physical therapy/rehab can begin as little as 4 weeks out depending on what type of surgery. It appears as if Williams operation is among the simpler less risky types for herniated discs. So if he starts rehabbing between weeks 4-6 he'd be getting about 6 weeks on the weights to get back in shape. I just prefer that the team be cautious with him and not try to rush him back on the field if he's not ready.

 

I think that is why I think I IR him.

 

(a) If we don't, I fear his being rushed back. Not just by the team, but how about by himself. How much might he rush his own rehab in order to get back? As much as many want him back this year, I think we should be far more concerned about his career.

 

( Can we afford to simply give up a roster spot? W/ all our problems on the OL, can we afford to play a large part, or even the majority of the season, light at depth.

 

This goes back to my issue w/ this staff. Most in the world know you hope for the best, and prepare for the worst. Listening to the staff talk, I just feel like they were expecting/planning on the best case scenario, and if that doesn't come about, well, they will deal w/ that when it happens.

[bradjock]

(a) If we don't, I fear his being rushed back. Not just by the team, but how about by himself. How much might he rush his own rehab in order to get back? As much as many want him back this year, I think we should be far more concerned about his career.

 

I disagree. We have him signed for 5 years. Why would we rush him back for half the season? My guess is that we're saying, "We'll keep him on the 53 man roster, he'll be back!" as a PR move. We'll wait and see what happens.

 

( Can we afford to simply give up a roster spot? W/ all our problems on the OL, can we afford to play a large part, or even the majority of the season, light at depth.

 

I think for the first couple weeks we can give up that roster spot. This would do two things:

1. Wait & see how Williams recovery is coming. By September 15th we ought to have a pretty good idea as to his progress and whether or not he'll be able to return.

2. Weeks 1 & 2 the injuries typically aren't that bad, so the roster spot is not as critical.

 

Either way, We have almost a month until our first game. By then we might decide to IR him anyway.

[nfoligno]

I disagree. We have him signed for 5 years. Why would we rush him back for half the season? My guess is that we're saying, "We'll keep him on the 53 man roster, he'll be back!" as a PR move. We'll wait and see what happens.

 

Re-read what I said. I talked about HIS rushing HIMSELF back. Players tend to do that. Players who were 1st round picks w/ high expectations can tend to do that even more.

 

I think for the first couple weeks we can give up that roster spot. This would do two things:

1. Wait & see how Williams recovery is coming. By September 15th we ought to have a pretty good idea as to his progress and whether or not he'll be able to return.

2. Weeks 1 & 2 the injuries typically aren't that bad, so the roster spot is not as critical.

 

Um, aren't the injuries already pretty bad? Williams and Metcalf are both out. Kreutz missed quite a bit of time.

 

Maybe we have time to wait, but then again, if we are going to eat a roster spot, does that also not mean we are not going to add a player? Not that I want Miller, but I'll take Brown or Bentley.

 

Either way, We have almost a month until our first game. By then we might decide to IR him anyway.

 

As said above, my concern is that if we do not IR him, we will not add a player either.

[bradjock]

Re-read what I said. I talked about HIS rushing HIMSELF back. Players tend to do that. Players who were 1st round picks w/ high expectations can tend to do that even more.

 

I disagree. I'd expect a guy without the guaranteed money and no job security to rush himself back out of desperation to prove himself. When has a 1st round pick ever rushed himself back too soon? I can't remember any who have, but I do remember Cedric refusing to come back his rookie year after being cleared by doctors. He gave us the famous quote, "I've got my future to worry about."

 

As long as he's cleared to play, let him rush himself back. If he gets reinjured, we shut him down.

 

Um, aren't the injuries already pretty bad? Williams and Metcalf are both out. Kreutz missed quite a bit of time.

 

The injuries aren't bad overall. Metcalf should be back by week one, and Kreutz never misses games. So you're realistically looking at one player. Normally we keep 9 offensive lineman (counting Patrick Mannelly) and we de-activate one at game time. Williams would just be that one.

 

When I was talking about bad injuries, I was thinking more of last year when we had multiple safeties, cornerbacks, and defensive tackles all injured. That makes the situation more desperate where you have to free up room so you can field a team. Overall, we're in great shape health-wise.

 

Maybe we have time to wait, but then again, if we are going to eat a roster spot, does that also not mean we are not going to add a player? Not that I want Miller, but I'll take Brown or Bentley.

 

I agree like hell with that. But IMO, even with Williams injured we still have an open roster spot. With Tait, Garza, Kreutz, Metcalf, & St. Clair as the 5 starters, I assume we'll keep Beekman since he was picked high, and Williams is the 7th. I view guys like Reed, Oakley, and Adams as expendable. So we have a spot open.

 

If we signed a guard, we'd probably have to make Metcalf the back-up tackle, even though he's terrible. He has played their before.

 

I do wonder if we're serious when we talk about how good Beekman's looked. That sounds like total BS to me.

 

 

 

As said above, my concern is that if we do not IR him, we will not add a player either.

[nfoligno]

I don't know. On one hand, I hate to IR a guy who could be back and (a) develop, ( produce.

 

At the same time, I hate wasting roster spots.

 

I also hate to cut young OL. If Oakley, Reed and the rest are just garbage, fine. But at the same time, you hate to give up too soon on young OL.

 

Regarding Beekman, I wondered the same, but he did look pretty good in the game. Granted, its one game and against what could be one of the worst DLs in the league this year, but still, he did seem to hold his own. That very well could give some credence to comments about him we have heard.

 

W/ Beekman, I think we have a classic example of the staff being questionable in player evaluation. It appears they simply do not like him at OG due to his height. They didn't give him a look last year, and didn't seem to plan to give him one this year until injuries forced their hand. Now, that they were forced to move him over from center, it seems like he may have some potential at OG.

 

Makes me think of Hass. A player who could have potential, but the staff just doesn't seem to want to give him a chance due to his lack of speed. Sometimes, I just wonder how much the staff get in the way of player development.

[bradjock]

I don't know. On one hand, I hate to IR a guy who could be back and (a) develop, ( produce.

 

Like I mentioned, I think it's a strong possibly that we'd still IR. It all depends on how he is developing.

 

I also hate to cut young OL. If Oakley, Reed and the rest are just garbage, fine. But at the same time, you hate to give up too soon on young OL.

 

Oakley & Reed spent most of last year on the practice squad, so I doubt there's a burning desire for them around the NFL. I don't see how either of them have much of a future here with the players they have in front of them.

 

One guy I hope we don't regret leaving open on the practice roster is Mark LeVoir. St. Louis seems to be pretty happy with him so far. Now that we are desperate for another tackle . . .

 

Regarding Beekman, I wondered the same, but he did look pretty good in the game. Granted, its one game and against what could be one of the worst DLs in the league this year, but still, he did seem to hold his own. That very well could give some credence to comments about him we have heard.

W/ Beekman, I think we have a classic example of the staff being questionable in player evaluation. It appears they simply do not like him at OG due to his height. They didn't give him a look last year, and didn't seem to plan to give him one this year until injuries forced their hand. Now, that they were forced to move him over from center, it seems like he may have some potential at OG.

 

Why is the height issue a big deal? I really don't understand that. As long as he shaped like a bowling ball and can move, it really shouldn't matter. I'm anxious as hell to see how he looks versus Seattle. If he continues to look good, that would solve a major problem for us. It's also always great to see guys you draft producing.

 

On a side note, with Wolfe, Payne, McBride, Grahahm, Olsen, along with Beekman all producing, the 2006 drafts looking one helluva a lot better. Now we need production from Bazuin & Okwo.

 

Makes me think of Hass. A player who could have potential, but the staff just doesn't seem to want to give him a chance due to his lack of speed. Sometimes, I just wonder how much the staff get in the way of player development.

 

Maybe, but while he looks good, he's still behind Lloyd, Davis, Hester, and Booker. With Olsen working as a WR, Bennett going nowhere, and Bradley's potential, it's going ot be real tough for him to get a real chance. Who do you play him in favor of?

[nfoligno]

Why is the height issue a big deal? I really don't understand that. As long as he shaped like a bowling ball and can move, it really shouldn't matter. I'm anxious as hell to see how he looks versus Seattle. If he continues to look good, that would solve a major problem for us. It's also always great to see guys you draft producing.

 

Frankly, I never realized height was such a big deal for OL. At least, not nearly the way our staff talks about it. There was an article in the trib a few days ago, and they talked at length about Beekman, and his size. I believe it was Turner talking about his size, and further talking about how w/ his size/strength limitations, he has no room for error. One mis-step or hessitation, and the DT will get the best of him.

 

I would also point out something I have seen of smaller OL. They may in fact be fine getting under a DL, and using leverage, but you also allow DL to stay high and bat passes down. If Orton is starting, this may not be "as" big of an issue, but w/ 6'1 Rex, it could be. Rex has enough difficulty seeing over the LOS, not to mention passing over it.

 

Still, height isn't so much an issue for me, but it sure is for the staff. It is why they never were willing to even give him a look at OG until injuries forced their hand. In their book, 6'2 is fine for a center, but simply insufficient for an OG.

 

On a side note, with Wolfe, Payne, McBride, Grahahm, Olsen, along with Beekman all producing, the 2006 drafts looking one helluva a lot better. Now we need production from Bazuin & Okwo.

 

Wow there big fella. The draft may look okay, but lets continue to give some time. Still seems like a collection of backups and special teams players in that group. Also wondering about Olsen, to be frank. He seems to have a lot of drops, looks weak as hell in blocking, and could find himself getting pushed by a late pick rookie.

 

Maybe, but while he looks good, he's still behind Lloyd, Davis, Hester, and Booker. With Olsen working as a WR, Bennett going nowhere, and Bradley's potential, it's going ot be real tough for him to get a real chance. Who do you play him in favor of?

 

Is the question who he plays in favor of, or who he gets a roster spot in favor of.

 

If you mean roster spot, that is easy in my book. Bradley. More than just the injuries. I have heard little truly positive about him in camp in general. I did hear about staff yelling at him for mistakes, but just not much good. Talking about potential is fine for rookies, but players in their 3rd or 4th seasons should be talking about production, not potential.

 

If the question is about playing time, frankly, I just work him in. Bennett may be our higher pick rookie, but he needs earn playing time, and that drop the other night shows he has a ways to go. Otherwise, it is really just a matter of packages. What I saw the other night, I would use him near the goal line though. I think his size, and the way he goes up and grabs the ball, would be a great asset in the red zone. I would think he could offer more than Davis and some others.