Pace a "priority", would play LT

[dawhizz]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0...0,1624787.story

 

I think this is a smart way to go about it. Williams is clearly the LT of the future, but after a injury-plagued first year, it makes some sense to have him at RT, learning and watching one of the best in recent years man the left side until he's ready to take over. Sounds like the Bears are making a real push.

[azbearsfan]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0...0,1624787.story

 

I think this is a smart way to go about it. Williams is clearly the LT of the future, but after a injury-plagued first year, it makes some sense to have him at RT, learning and watching one of the best in recent years man the left side until he's ready to take over. Sounds like the Bears are making a real push.

 

 

I like to move to get Pace.

[dasox24]

Pace would be fantastic... Get it done, JA!

[Stinger226]

Pace would be fantastic... Get it done, JA!

I think the more bodies the better chance we have at being a better football team.

[Wesson44]

I think the more bodies the better chance we have at being a better football team.

 

Yes I like it too let's go JA pick up the Pace!!! LOL

[nfoligno]

Moving Williams to RT is stupid as hell IMHO. I am going to save the argument of whether or not we should add Pace at all for the other thread already talking about that. But the issue I have here is the idea that we would play Pace at LT and move Williams to RT, though I question if that is even the actual plan. It was mentioned by this writer, but it seems many other writers felt Pace would play RT.

 

Last year, leading up to the draft, we all knew OT was a priority, and we all read tons of scouting reports on Williams, as well as the rest of the OTs. One thing that always stood out to me, and part of the reason I was never that high on Williams was he was viewed as strictly a LT. He was considered a finesse OT suited to play LT due to his athleticism, but lacking the power and strength to play RT or even move inside. There were many threads talking about how Williams posed the greatest boom/bust of the OTs, because while he was viewed more strictly as a LT, others were considered more capable of moving to a different position. Williams was deemed to have greater upside at LT though, which was our key need, and thus our pick.

 

But now we would consider moving him to RT? Come on. From what I have read, we want to add size to the OL and have even talked about mauler style OL for the right side. Everything read to date implies we want to beef up on the OL, and moving Williams to the right side would seem to counter that idea.

 

Further, I have to ask, does this really help his development? He has already missed year one. If we add Pace and he plays two years, that means the franchis LT we drafted would not play LT until, at best, his 4th season. That sounds good to everyone here? If we wanted a RT, there were superior RT prospects on the board. We drafted Williams to be our LT, and to me, talk of moving him now seems like we are giving up a little to easily on him.

 

Sorry, but this just does not make sense to me. It sounds far too much like another short term bandaid while hurting the development of the only damn OL we actually drafted.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0...0,1624787.story

 

I think this is a smart way to go about it. Williams is clearly the LT of the future, but after a injury-plagued first year, it makes some sense to have him at RT, learning and watching one of the best in recent years man the left side until he's ready to take over. Sounds like the Bears are making a real push.

[madlithuanian]

We develop offensive players?

 

Moving Williams to RT is stupid as hell IMHO. I am going to save the argument of whether or not we should add Pace at all for the other thread already talking about that. But the issue I have here is the idea that we would play Pace at LT and move Williams to RT, though I question if that is even the actual plan. It was mentioned by this writer, but it seems many other writers felt Pace would play RT.

 

Last year, leading up to the draft, we all knew OT was a priority, and we all read tons of scouting reports on Williams, as well as the rest of the OTs. One thing that always stood out to me, and part of the reason I was never that high on Williams was he was viewed as strictly a LT. He was considered a finesse OT suited to play LT due to his athleticism, but lacking the power and strength to play RT or even move inside. There were many threads talking about how Williams posed the greatest boom/bust of the OTs, because while he was viewed more strictly as a LT, others were considered more capable of moving to a different position. Williams was deemed to have greater upside at LT though, which was our key need, and thus our pick.

 

But now we would consider moving him to RT? Come on. From what I have read, we want to add size to the OL and have even talked about mauler style OL for the right side. Everything read to date implies we want to beef up on the OL, and moving Williams to the right side would seem to counter that idea.

 

Further, I have to ask, does this really help his development? He has already missed year one. If we add Pace and he plays two years, that means the franchis LT we drafted would not play LT until, at best, his 4th season. That sounds good to everyone here? If we wanted a RT, there were superior RT prospects on the board. We drafted Williams to be our LT, and to me, talk of moving him now seems like we are giving up a little to easily on him.

 

Sorry, but this just does not make sense to me. It sounds far too much like another short term bandaid while hurting the development of the only damn OL we actually drafted.

[Iguana]

Sign Pace and Lucas. Trade for Cutler.

 

Get it done, JA

[madlithuanian]

Can we add signing Holt to that mix too?

 

Sign Pace and Lucas. Trade for Cutler.

 

Get it done, JA

[Iguana]

Can we add signing Holt to that mix too?

 

oh yea...knew I was missing someone. that would make for one hell of an offseason and I would think the Bears would be at least NFCN favorites.

[madlithuanian]

I'd tend to agree!

 

oh yea...knew I was missing someone. that would make for one hell of an offseason and I would think the Bears would be at least NFCN favorites.

[akshaz]

Can we add signing Holt to that mix too?

 

If we pull off all of these moves, I'll take down JA's picture from my dartboard, place it in a special place and light candles around it.

[Stinger226]

Moving Williams to RT is stupid as hell IMHO. I am going to save the argument of whether or not we should add Pace at all for the other thread already talking about that. But the issue I have here is the idea that we would play Pace at LT and move Williams to RT, though I question if that is even the actual plan. It was mentioned by this writer, but it seems many other writers felt Pace would play RT.

 

Last year, leading up to the draft, we all knew OT was a priority, and we all read tons of scouting reports on Williams, as well as the rest of the OTs. One thing that always stood out to me, and part of the reason I was never that high on Williams was he was viewed as strictly a LT. He was considered a finesse OT suited to play LT due to his athleticism, but lacking the power and strength to play RT or even move inside. There were many threads talking about how Williams posed the greatest boom/bust of the OTs, because while he was viewed more strictly as a LT, others were considered more capable of moving to a different position. Williams was deemed to have greater upside at LT though, which was our key need, and thus our pick.

 

But now we would consider moving him to RT? Come on. From what I have read, we want to add size to the OL and have even talked about mauler style OL for the right side. Everything read to date implies we want to beef up on the OL, and moving Williams to the right side would seem to counter that idea.

 

Further, I have to ask, does this really help his development? He has already missed year one. If we add Pace and he plays two years, that means the franchis LT we drafted would not play LT until, at best, his 4th season. That sounds good to everyone here? If we wanted a RT, there were superior RT prospects on the board. We drafted Williams to be our LT, and to me, talk of moving him now seems like we are giving up a little to easily on him.

 

Sorry, but this just does not make sense to me. It sounds far too much like another short term bandaid while hurting the development of the only damn OL we actually drafted.

Sign Pace and let the best man win, with the uncertainy of Williams and Paces injury history, they both will end up playing. Pace can teach Williams some stuff. Let Shaffer play RT, Omilyale LG and Buening or a draftee than can play OG, and OT fight for the RG spot and build from there.

[nfoligno]

Let me get this straight. You want to sign Pace and let him compete w/ Williams, who has never started a game? Yea, that is a fair competition. It is fairly obvious Pace would win, and if he didn't, then he was really a wasted signing.

 

So what then. You have a 1st round pick sitting on the bench? How much exactly is he developing while getting splinters?

 

Sign Pace and let the best man win, with the uncertainy of Williams and Paces injury history, they both will end up playing. Pace can teach Williams some stuff. Let Shaffer play RT, Omilyale LG and Buening or a draftee than can play OG, and OT fight for the RG spot and build from there.

[GreatScott82]

Signing Pace would be a solid 2 year stop gap before we draft another OL.

Same goes for Holt, if we traded for Cutler, we would likely deal our 1st rounder and some sort of 2nd rounder which would likely be a WR and an OL.

 

Pace would be a solid pick up. Then get Cutler, and pick up Holt.

[balta1701-A]

Let me get this straight. You want to sign Pace and let him compete w/ Williams, who has never started a game? Yea, that is a fair competition. It is fairly obvious Pace would win, and if he didn't, then he was really a wasted signing.

 

So what then. You have a 1st round pick sitting on the bench? How much exactly is he developing while getting splinters?

Maybe his back is healing while he's getting those splinters.

 

Random thought, any chance Pace would fit decently at the RT spot?

[ChileBear]

Maybe his back is healing while he's getting those splinters.

 

Random thought, any chance Pace would fit decently at the RT spot?

If Pace is being signed to move Williams over to RT, forget it. Positions are not interchangeable, and we want Williams, our first round pick, to start earning his $, getting into the OL for a long run at it. If Pace is being used as a Rt, the yeah, sign him. But I hope that, if we do sign him, that it doesn't mean we ignore the OL on day one of the draft. That would be a mistake, IMdO.

[akshaz]

Let me get this straight. You want to sign Pace and let him compete w/ Williams, who has never started a game? Yea, that is a fair competition. It is fairly obvious Pace would win, and if he didn't, then he was really a wasted signing.

 

So what then. You have a 1st round pick sitting on the bench? How much exactly is he developing while getting splinters?

 

Agreed. If we sign Pace, he must play RT. Williams' game is more finesse and doesn't have the strength/nastiness to play RT.

 

Signing Pace to play LT would be a mistake IMHO and would take us back to the drawing board. If that's the case, I would disagree with the signing.

[azbearsfan]

Here is the thing, Lovie and JA need to win soon. Pace makes the Oline better for next year, which is all they should be worried about at this point.

 

If Williams is the real deal then they can shift people around, but if he is not then we dont have wait around for another draft pick to develop.

 

This makes extra sense if we are truely a player in the Cutler sweepstakes. Get a vet Oline solidified so we can all watch the super all star that is Jay Cutler.

[nfoligno]

Here is the thing, Lovie and JA need to win soon. Pace makes the Oline better for next year, which is all they should be worried about at this point.

 

While I am not saying there isn't a level of truth in that statement, at the same time, it is an awful statement. Usually, your coach is looking little more than to the next season, while the GM is expected to look more long term. The two are expected to equal things out. If we are in fact in a situation where the GM and HC care only about 2009, I think we are in more trouble than we though. As much as any teams wants to build for the coming season, it should not come at the expense of the future.

 

W/ that said, i am not sure I buy into that. If we used that argument, why not sign Holt? There is little question he would upgrade the team in 2009, and most arguments against adding him surround the effect he would have in future years. But if the GM doesn't care about the future, then I would think we would have done this deal. I could argue similar for other FAs we have passed on.

 

If Williams is the real deal then they can shift people around, but if he is not then we dont have wait around for another draft pick to develop.

 

But how do you know if he is the real deal if you do not even give him a chance. If we bring in Pace to compete w/ Williams, is there any question Pace would win that competition? Even on the decline, Pace should be able to beat out a kid who has yet to start an NFL game. So how you are judging whether or not Williams is the real deal? If you are judging this based only on camp, then I question the process. A player has to get the chance to prove himself one way or another, and if we add Pace to play LT, I simply question how we find out whether Williams is the real deal or not.

 

This makes extra sense if we are truely a player in the Cutler sweepstakes. Get a vet Oline solidified so we can all watch the super all star that is Jay Cutler.

 

I would still argue against adding Pace to play LT, but if we were to trade for Cutler, adding Pace to play RT would make more sense. The thing about adding Cutler is, you are not just doing it for 2009. If 2009 were all we cared about, we could have just signed Warner. What makes Cutler so attractive is his age combined w/ his skills. You are trading for Cutler for now AND the future, and thus should be looking to build your OL to protect Cutler for the long term, not just for 2009.

[nfoligno]

This is a problem, IMHO, w/ fans looking at Pace. The assumption is Pace would be a two year stop gap, but I am not so sure we should count on that. It was believed Miller was a couple year stop gap, but it was more like one year, and the 2nd year he was awful. It was believed moving Tait would give us a couple years of solid play at RT, but that didn't even last one.

 

I realize Pace is superior to both, yet at the same time, there is little question his play is on the decline, not to mention the 4 consecutive years of injury. As players get older, the injuries come more often and usually, the rehab lasts longer too.

 

We agree adding Pace is a stop gap measure. Where we disagree is the expectation of how long he puts off the need, and further, if we do not draft OL now, we will only once again find ourselves in the same situation we find ourselves today.

 

You can only put off your problems for so long. At some point, you need to deal w/ your problems in a long term manner, rather than simply trying to fix the same issue every year or two.

 

Signing Pace would be a solid 2 year stop gap before we draft another OL.

Same goes for Holt, if we traded for Cutler, we would likely deal our 1st rounder and some sort of 2nd rounder which would likely be a WR and an OL.

 

Pace would be a solid pick up. Then get Cutler, and pick up Holt.

[madlithuanian]

This is the crux of the matter...and the Bears are woefully hideous at that on offense.

 

At some point, you need to deal w/ your problems in a long term manner, rather than simply trying to fix the same issue every year or two.

[azbearsfan]

"

While I am not saying there isn't a level of truth in that statement, at the same time, it is an awful statement. Usually, your coach is looking little more than to the next season, while the GM is expected to look more long term. The two are expected to equal things out. If we are in fact in a situation where the GM and HC care only about 2009, I think we are in more trouble than we though. As much as any teams wants to build for the coming season, it should not come at the expense of the future.

 

W/ that said, i am not sure I buy into that. If we used that argument, why not sign Holt? There is little question he would upgrade the team in 2009, and most arguments against adding him surround the effect he would have in future years. But if the GM doesn't care about the future, then I would think we would have done this deal. I could argue similar for other FAs we have passed on. "

 

How do you know we wont kick the tires on Holt? Is he even released yet? Its not black or white. You can still look towards the future while prioritizing next year. But at this point, if you are the head coach or the GM its tough to look so far into a future in which you might not be employed.

 

 

"

But how do you know if he is the real deal if you do not even give him a chance. If we bring in Pace to compete w/ Williams, is there any question Pace would win that competition? Even on the decline, Pace should be able to beat out a kid who has yet to start an NFL game. So how you are judging whether or not Williams is the real deal? If you are judging this based only on camp, then I question the process. A player has to get the chance to prove himself one way or another, and if we add Pace to play LT, I simply question how we find out whether Williams is the real deal or not. "

 

So, in your mind, starting at left tackle is the only way we will know if C Will is the real deal and the only way to develop. I dont buy it, there are mini camps, preseason and practices to see development and to get better. Also, you need to make up your mind on Pace. If he is in such a decline that he can't play LT any more, then Williams should be able to beat him out. If he hasn't declined that much, and perhaps it was injuries that have been the more the problem, and he is able to show he is much better than Williams, then sign him to play LT. If he can go at LT anymore, then put him at RT. But to just pass on him is crazy.

 

"

I would still argue against adding Pace to play LT, but if we were to trade for Cutler, adding Pace to play RT would make more sense. The thing about adding Cutler is, you are not just doing it for 2009. If 2009 were all we cared about, we could have just signed Warner. What makes Cutler so attractive is his age combined w/ his skills. You are trading for Cutler for now AND the future, and thus should be looking to build your OL to protect Cutler for the long term, not just for 2009.

"

Oh, so really your point is if we sign Pace then there is no way to build the line for the future. I would argue having Williams, Beekman, Omi, Buenning, and whatever draft picks we make this year IS building the oline for the future.

 

Signing Pace makes the line better. We need to do it.

[balta1701-A]

How do you know we wont kick the tires on Holt? Is he even released yet? Its not black or white. You can still look towards the future while prioritizing next year. But at this point, if you are the head coach or the GM its tough to look so far into a future in which you might not be employed.

Holt was officially released nearly 3 weeks ago. He had a roster bonus due mid-march that the Rams didn't want to pay.

[BearSox]

I want Pace and I want him to play LT, but I'd prefer to see Williams then play LG.