Some other notes from OTAs

[defiantgiant]

The Sun-Times just posted some other notes from Bears OTAs. In the secondary, Woodny Turenne apparently looked good (you can see him doing drills in the rookie minicamp video, he's wearing #47) and Zack Bowman is back at corner. Apparently the move to FS was just a depth thing, like Idonije playing tackle since Harris and Harrison are out.

 

The thing I found most interesting is this note about the offensive line:

 

"Here is how the second team offensive line stacked up--LT Cody Balogh, LG Frank Omiyale, C Tyler Reed, RG Dan Buenning, RT Kevin Shaffer. Buenning worked in practice as a backup center for most of the second half of last season. Offensive coordinator Ron Turner has suggested he'll be in position to compete with Roberto Garza at right guard. The Bears have expressed their confidence in Garza however."

 

It's been made pretty clear that there's a position battle at LG between Josh Beekman (who's running with the first team) and Frank Omiyale. It makes sense to have Beekman on the first team, since he's the incumbent and the job is his to lose. The interesting thing (insofar as OTA depth charts are interesting) is that Buenning's been moved from second-string C to second-string RG. If the author's right in his assertion that Buenning's move there is part of a competition with Garza, then I'm all for it. Again, Garza's the incumbent, so he runs with the first string, but I would love for Buenning to push him for the starting job. If Buenning's over his injuries, I think he's got far more upside than Garza as a run blocker. Whenever he was healthy and starting in Tampa, he did a great job run-blocking. In his 25 starts, the Bucs had a 100-yard rusher 11 times. In 9 of those 11 games the team was over 125 yards rushing, and 3 were over 180 yards. And that's when he was blocking for Cadillac Williams and Michael Pittman, neither of whom are on Matt Forte's level, in my opinion.

 

I'm OK with us going into the season with Pace-Beekman-Kreutz-Garza-Williams, but I think there's reason to believe that Pace-Omiyale-Kreutz-Buenning-Williams could be a lot better.

[nfoligno]

While I am not necessarily disagreeing w/ your comments, I do question the overall picture.

 

LG - I agree that Beekman is running w/ the 1st team now due to being the incumbent, but we didn't sign Omiyale to a sizable contract to sit on the bench. I think this beginning depth is in principle only, sort of like when we told Briggs he had to start out as a backup after his contract dispute. Omiyale may start out as a backup, but I think there is little question the plan and expectation is for a switch here.

 

RG - I have no problem w/ the idea of Buenning over Garza. I have never been a big fan of Garza, and personally believe the only reason he has not stood out more (in a negative way) is because those around him were also so bad. With that said, I think the staff truly does like Garza, and feel this may not be as even level of a competition as some may want. I think this is a situation where Garza has to lose the job more so than simply Buenning winning it.

 

IMHO, if the staff were truly as questionable on Garza as I (and others) Shaffer too may be in the mix at RG. Shaffer is due to battle Williams, but there again, I think it is very much Williams job to lose. If the staff didn't like Garza, I think Shaffer would be in the mix at RG, with the idea he could kick back out to RT if Williams fails. But Shaffer is, from what I can tell, only being looked at RT.

 

Pace - Omiyale - Kreutz - Garza - Williams. IMHO, I think that is 95% likely our starting OL this season. I also think this OL should be a considerable upgrade from last year.

 

A concern may be the future. In 2010, we could see as many as 3 new faces. We just have no idea how long Pace can go. Kreutz has been on the downslide for some time, and I could be wrong, but isn't he due to hit FA in 2010? And Garza has been discussed. The hope is we have "some" candidates in place to step in. If Pace does depart, we may be able to slide Williams over and insert Shaffer to RT. If Kreutz is gone, we may be able to insert Beekman. And then there is Buenning for Garza.

 

But that is a year away. Right now, I am just happy that we look to have an improved starting group on the OL, as well as improved depth.

 

The Sun-Times just posted some other notes from Bears OTAs. In the secondary, Woodny Turenne apparently looked good (you can see him doing drills in the rookie minicamp video, he's wearing #47) and Zack Bowman is back at corner. Apparently the move to FS was just a depth thing, like Idonije playing tackle since Harris and Harrison are out.

 

The thing I found most interesting is this note about the offensive line:

 

"Here is how the second team offensive line stacked up--LT Cody Balogh, LG Frank Omiyale, C Tyler Reed, RG Dan Buenning, RT Kevin Shaffer. Buenning worked in practice as a backup center for most of the second half of last season. Offensive coordinator Ron Turner has suggested he'll be in position to compete with Roberto Garza at right guard. The Bears have expressed their confidence in Garza however."

 

It's been made pretty clear that there's a position battle at LG between Josh Beekman (who's running with the first team) and Frank Omiyale. It makes sense to have Beekman on the first team, since he's the incumbent and the job is his to lose. The interesting thing (insofar as OTA depth charts are interesting) is that Buenning's been moved from second-string C to second-string RG. If the author's right in his assertion that Buenning's move there is part of a competition with Garza, then I'm all for it. Again, Garza's the incumbent, so he runs with the first string, but I would love for Buenning to push him for the starting job. If Buenning's over his injuries, I think he's got far more upside than Garza as a run blocker. Whenever he was healthy and starting in Tampa, he did a great job run-blocking. In his 25 starts, the Bucs had a 100-yard rusher 11 times. In 9 of those 11 games the team was over 125 yards rushing, and 3 were over 180 yards. And that's when he was blocking for Cadillac Williams and Michael Pittman, neither of whom are on Matt Forte's level, in my opinion.

 

I'm OK with us going into the season with Pace-Beekman-Kreutz-Garza-Williams, but I think there's reason to believe that Pace-Omiyale-Kreutz-Buenning-Williams could be a lot better.

[defiantgiant]

While I am not necessarily disagreeing w/ your comments, I do question the overall picture.

 

LG - I agree that Beekman is running w/ the 1st team now due to being the incumbent, but we didn't sign Omiyale to a sizable contract to sit on the bench. I think this beginning depth is in principle only, sort of like when we told Briggs he had to start out as a backup after his contract dispute. Omiyale may start out as a backup, but I think there is little question the plan and expectation is for a switch here.

 

RG - I have no problem w/ the idea of Buenning over Garza. I have never been a big fan of Garza, and personally believe the only reason he has not stood out more (in a negative way) is because those around him were also so bad. With that said, I think the staff truly does like Garza, and feel this may not be as even level of a competition as some may want. I think this is a situation where Garza has to lose the job more so than simply Buenning winning it.

 

IMHO, if the staff were truly as questionable on Garza as I (and others) Shaffer too may be in the mix at RG. Shaffer is due to battle Williams, but there again, I think it is very much Williams job to lose. If the staff didn't like Garza, I think Shaffer would be in the mix at RG, with the idea he could kick back out to RT if Williams fails. But Shaffer is, from what I can tell, only being looked at RT.

 

Pace - Omiyale - Kreutz - Garza - Williams. IMHO, I think that is 95% likely our starting OL this season. I also think this OL should be a considerable upgrade from last year.

 

A concern may be the future. In 2010, we could see as many as 3 new faces. We just have no idea how long Pace can go. Kreutz has been on the downslide for some time, and I could be wrong, but isn't he due to hit FA in 2010? And Garza has been discussed. The hope is we have "some" candidates in place to step in. If Pace does depart, we may be able to slide Williams over and insert Shaffer to RT. If Kreutz is gone, we may be able to insert Beekman. And then there is Buenning for Garza.

 

But that is a year away. Right now, I am just happy that we look to have an improved starting group on the OL, as well as improved depth.

 

Oh, I wasn't trying to say the situations at LG and RG are exactly the same. You're right: I think it's almost a certainty that Omiyale beats Beekman, and that Beekman moves to backup C behind Kreutz. The Garza/Buenning thing should be on more equal footing.

[nfoligno]

The Garza/Buenning thing should be on more equal footing.

 

"should be" or "could be"?

 

I agree the battle between Garza and Buenning "should be" on equal footing. What I question is whether or not it will be.

 

You know how some players always seem to be favored by our staff? Some believe there are questionable pictures of Lovie, which forces Lovie to continue starting/using those players. Well, I think Garza has those pictures now.

 

On a serious note, I just question whether the competition will be open or truly legit. Whether you or I agree, the staff seems to be pretty content and confident in the play of Garza. I just do not think they are looking to replace him. That means he will enter camp as the set starter. Now, a set starter can lose his job, but I would not consider that an open competition.

[AZ54]

Heading into last season I stated the IMO Lovie had lost his willingness to let players battle for starting jobs and simply gave too many veterans the nod. It was that way in 2007 and again in 2008 and the results were bad. This offseason I felt he was going back to the way he started with the Bears and keeping everything open. It would be a shame if he didn't give Buenning a chance to win a starting job, especially with how average Garza has played, but it would be in character for Lovie to do so.

[nfoligno]

While not disagreeing, just curious. When you talk about how the results were bad, who are you thinking about. I ask because, for example,

 

Many complained about Rex not getting an even leg against Orton, but I personally would not say the results were bad.

 

Forte was essentially handed the job, and again, I would say the results were pretty good.

 

Not trying to defend Lovie, just curious who you are thinking about. Who started last year as a backup that should have started?

 

Heading into last season I stated the IMO Lovie had lost his willingness to let players battle for starting jobs and simply gave too many veterans the nod. It was that way in 2007 and again in 2008 and the results were bad. This offseason I felt he was going back to the way he started with the Bears and keeping everything open. It would be a shame if he didn't give Buenning a chance to win a starting job, especially with how average Garza has played, but it would be in character for Lovie to do so.

[lemonej]

While not disagreeing, just curious. When you talk about how the results were bad, who are you thinking about. I ask because, for example,

 

Many complained about Rex not getting an even leg against Orton, but I personally would not say the results were bad.

 

Forte was essentially handed the job, and again, I would say the results were pretty good.

 

Not trying to defend Lovie, just curious who you are thinking about. Who started last year as a backup that should have started?

First of all I think all of this is just premature discussion since its OTAs in May. When I went to TC last year I saw how the Bears essentially were going to line up on offense during the season because they were almost exclusively lining up in 2 and 3 TE sets. Well that 2 TE set was almost their base offense most ofthe season. One other thing I saw was Orton and Grossman alternating snaps. Things couldn't be more equal than that.

 

As for Forte getting the job handed to him. I don't agree with that because I feel they had no one else to assume the spot. During TC Kevin Jones was on the sideline with Devin Hester and Chris Williams. Garrett Wolfe is not an every down back and AP isn't either. With Benson banished from the team who else was there? I say Forte earned the job by showing that he was able to recognize blitz pick ups.

 

As for your last comment I agree with the fact that aside from the O-line there wasn't much need for open competition. This year I think that even Kreutz should have to prove he deserves to remain in the starting line up.

 

This year there should be competition at:

 

Both OG positions Beekman/Omayale Garza/Buenning

Backup RB Jones and Wolfe

WR Hester,Iglesias,Rideau,Knox,Davis and Kinder

FB McKie and Gaines

SLB Roach and Hillenmeyer

CB Vasher,Graham and Moore

FS Bullocks,Graham and Manning

SS Payne ,Stelz

Nickel Manning, McBride and Moore

Dime McBride and Moore

[defiantgiant]

This year there should be competition at:

 

Both OG positions Beekman/Omayale Garza/Buenning

Backup RB Jones and Wolfe

WR Hester,Iglesias,Rideau,Knox,Davis and Kinder

FB McKie and Gaines

SLB Roach and Hillenmeyer

CB Vasher,Graham and Moore

FS Bullocks,Graham and Manning

SS Payne ,Stelz

Nickel Manning, McBride and Moore

Dime McBride and Moore

 

I agree for the most part, but I doubt Wolfe gets a real shot to unseat Jones, and I definitely don't think Manning's in the conversation at free safety. Lovie's coaching him personally at the nickel spot (where he's done very well,) and he's definitively shown that he can't handle free safety. I'd be shocked if the team did anything other than give him reps as a nickel back and let him develop in one position for a change.

 

Also, I guess I could see the Bears keeping Graham in the mix at corner, but I really hope that they commit to moving him to safety. D.J. Moore should be more than adequate to push/back up Vasher at RCB, and Graham will need the reps to learn the free safety position, which he played for all of 2 games in college. I hope this move to FS is permanent, and I hope they stick with it, as I think Graham could eventually turn out to be even better as a safety than he was at corner in '08.

[nfoligno]

This year there should be competition at:

 

Both OG positions Beekman/Omayale Garza/Buenning

 

In general, I agree there will be "competition" at both OG spots. Neither spot is set in stone. However, I do not consider this an open or equal competition. We just signed Omiyale to a nice sized contract. While it may not be a huge deal, it is far greater than you expect to pay a backup. I think the staff absolutely envisions him starting over Beekman. Similar, I think the staff views Garza as their starter. Now, this doesn't mean Beekman and Buenning don't have a chance, yet at the same time, I don't think they are entering this "competition" on equal ground. I think each has an uphill battle to knock off the guy at the top.

 

Backup RB Jones and Wolfe

 

Disagree. I don't see this as a competition. These are two very different RB, who i think will be looked at and used in different ways. If Forte goes down, I do not think we will insert Wolfe to the starting lineup. What I think camp will serve for these two will be an opportunity to increase their role/snaps.

 

WR Hester,Iglesias,Rideau,Knox,Davis and Kinder

 

Take Hester out, and I agree. I think Hester is basically a lock to start. After him, I think it is far more of an open competition, and maybe our most open competition on the team. Bennett may have the edge entering camp, but I don't think the fight to unseat him is nearly as uphill as w/ other positions. Not only is this a competition for the #2 starting job, but the entire depth chart.

 

FB McKie and Gaines

 

I wonder if this is really a battle in the staff's mind like it is in ours. I think Gains has an opportunity to become a focal point in our offense as a blocker, but the two play different positions, and thus I am not sure this is truly a competition.

 

SLB Roach and Hillenmeyer

 

This one is likely alongside WR as the most open, though if we sign Pisa, I am not sure how open this position would be. At that point, it may be more of a battle to see who sticks w/ the team.

 

CB Vasher,Graham and Moore

 

If you go off what the coaches say, Graham is out of the plans here, and not part of the CB competition. It is really between Vasher and Moore. I think Vasher has a significant edge/advantage here, but it is still possible Moore could unseat him. Still, I think this is Vasher's job to lose.

 

FS Bullocks,Graham and Manning

 

I don't think DM is part of the equation here. I rarely have ever heard DM's name mentioned in terms of our FS position. I think the staff has pretty much given up on him for that role, especially as they like what he did as a nickel DB. This is between Bullocks and Graham, and I think Bullocks has a big edge here. Graham may be the future, but I think it may not be totally realistic to expect him to transition so quickly.

 

SS Payne ,Stelz

 

Could Afalava not be added to the mix here? I don't see why not, as neither Payne, nor Steltz, have done anything to put themselves above a late round rookie coming in an taking the job. Honestly, while I am fairly excited about our competition in numerous areas, this is not one.

 

Nickel Manning, McBride and Moore

 

Honestly not sure this is a legit competition. You can argue all positions have some level of competition, but I think this is an area the team is planning/expecting DM to play and the competition could more be about who his backup will be.

 

Dime McBride and Moore

 

Yea, this will be an open competition, but as our nickel is likely locked up w/ a non-CB, I think the dime DB is most likely whoever loses the #2 CB role.

 

Can't recall if it was your or another who mentioned Kreutz potentially being in a competition this year too, but I don't see it. As it is, we will have 3 likely new starters on the OL (Pace, Omiyale and Williams or Shaffer). Kreutz may be on the decline, but I think the team will go w/ him to keep some stability, and especially w/ a new QB, I think the staff will go w/ the veteran center. I don't see Kreutz' job being in jeapordy.

[defiantgiant]

Yeah, you nailed it: Manning's our nickel back. He did very well there last season, and the coaching staff learned the hard way that he needs to be locked in at one position.

 

One guy I think we've been neglecting is Glenn Earl. He could end up in the mix with Payne and Steltz at strong safety, potentially much sooner than Afalava will. Earl's not anything to write home about, I don't think, but he's got 31 NFL starts, which is more than Payne, Steltz, and Afalava put together.

[AZ54]

While not disagreeing, just curious. When you talk about how the results were bad, who are you thinking about. I ask because, for example,

 

Many complained about Rex not getting an even leg against Orton, but I personally would not say the results were bad.

 

Forte was essentially handed the job, and again, I would say the results were pretty good.

 

Not trying to defend Lovie, just curious who you are thinking about. Who started last year as a backup that should have started?

 

 

Results were bad in terms of team performance. I'd have to spend some time thinking back over the last couple seasons for specific player situations. The most clear examples that come to mind quickly for me are Alex Brown (demoted in offseason), Adams not seeing playing time until late last year despite Dusty's rapid decline in performance early in the season. Aside from that, my point was more one of the fact that he was coddling his veterans and they no longer felt challenged to work hard. I think even Lovie himself was complacent after he got to the Superbowl and was handed his huge contract. He seemed to have an arrogance after he threw management under the bus to get it. The last two seasons there just hasn't been much passion on the field and I hold him accountable for that.

[BearSox]

nfo, I agree with mostly everything you said.

 

As for DIME back, I think that will for sure be Graham (If Bullocks wins the FS job, which I believe he will). However, we rarely use the DIME package in the first place, so this is pretty much pointless argument.

 

I think we'll see Iglesias at the no. 2 with Bennett as the slot. However, I see Olsen getting a lot of time split out wide in Iglesias' spot. I think Iglesias is a better compliment to Hester than Bennett is, and Bennett is a good fit in the slot, so that's my logic behind that.

 

I could see Gaines overtake McKie. We like our FB's to catch, and Gaines is a converted TE. However, I don't think it'll happen.

[AZ54]

Gaines is a TE, period. If he makes the team I can see him being a FB in a heavy or jumbo package that is used for short yardage situations (i.e. 4th and short) yet if we do that will we insert 3 OT such as we did with Williams at the end of last year?

[Wesson44]

Gaines is a TE, period. If he makes the team I can see him being a FB in a heavy or jumbo package that is used for short yardage situations (i.e. 4th and short) yet if we do that will we insert 3 OT such as we did with Williams at the end of last year?

 

You say Gaines is a TE period,but so is Olsen and we used him at FB on certain plays. Gaines is a better blocker than McKie and I could see him as a FB becaause of his blocking and catching abilities.Now is we moved him to a FB only role I don't think we would do that, but the problem now is that We have Olsen,Clark,Davis and Gaines at TE along with McKie and Davis at FB so do we keep 4 TE's and 2 FB's? Who is the odd man out Kellen Daivs (TE)and Jason Davis(FB)? We also have Lance Louis who is a TE but we are playing him at guard, and Fontael Mines at TE(gonna get cut).IMHO I would be hard pressed to cut Kellen Davis TE at 6'7 because he can provide such a mismatch in the red zone in the two TE set. I think this will be Clark's (6'3. 244lbs 11th yr) last year with the Bears with Gaines (6'4, 277 lbs 6th yr) taking his place.

[OmahaBear]

Are we actually going into camp without a competition or contravery at the QB position..????

 

Almost makes me feel like I left the Bears for some other team...kinda dirty like... LOL!

[BearSox]

You say Gaines is a TE period,but so is Olsen and we used him at FB on certain plays. Gaines is a better blocker than McKie and I could see him as a FB becaause of his blocking and catching abilities.Now is we moved him to a FB only role I don't think we would do that, but the problem now is that We have Olsen,Clark,Davis and Gaines at TE along with McKie and Davis at FB so do we keep 4 TE's and 2 FB's? Who is the odd man out Kellen Daivs (TE)and Jason Davis(FB)? We also have Lance Louis who is a TE but we are playing him at guard, and Fontael Mines at TE(gonna get cut).IMHO I would be hard pressed to cut Kellen Davis TE at 6'7 because he can provide such a mismatch in the red zone in the two TE set. I think this will be Clark's (6'3. 244lbs 11th yr) last year with the Bears with Gaines (6'4, 277 lbs 6th yr) taking his place.

 

Clark is still only 32, the started TE, and pretty cheap with 1 more year on his contract after this year. It would make 0 sense to cut him unless he completely blows, but there is no reason to think he will suck. TE's usually have a long life span, and even between the ages of 32-35, he should be able to still play at a high level. No reason to think this will be his last year.

 

Jason Davis has no shot at making the team unless McKie doesn't make the team for some reason. Odds are, we'll keep 3 TE's (Clark, Olsen, Davis), 1 FB (McKie), and 1 FB/TE (Gaines).

[AZ54]

You say Gaines is a TE period,but so is Olsen and we used him at FB on certain plays. Gaines is a better blocker than McKie and I could see him as a FB becaause of his blocking and catching abilities.Now is we moved him to a FB only role I don't think we would do that, but the problem now is that We have Olsen,Clark,Davis and Gaines at TE along with McKie and Davis at FB so do we keep 4 TE's and 2 FB's? Who is the odd man out Kellen Daivs (TE)and Jason Davis(FB)? We also have Lance Louis who is a TE but we are playing him at guard, and Fontael Mines at TE(gonna get cut).IMHO I would be hard pressed to cut Kellen Davis TE at 6'7 because he can provide such a mismatch in the red zone in the two TE set. I think this will be Clark's (6'3. 244lbs 11th yr) last year with the Bears with Gaines (6'4, 277 lbs 6th yr) taking his place.

 

 

I think the Bears are adamant about getting a solid run-blocking TE on the field and I think Davis is the odd man out. I don't see us keeping 4 TE but it's possible if Davis plays well enough they view him as Clark's replacement in a year or two. There's a big difference between Olsen's athleticism at the FB position and Gaines. So again Olsens versatility to do the H-back role there will also limit the times Gaines plays TE. Does Davis earn a spot? I'd say it's a 25% probability. I say he gets traded to someone for a conditional draft pick if he makes their roster.

[bowlingtwig]

Clark is still only 32, the started TE, and pretty cheap with 1 more year on his contract after this year. It would make 0 sense to cut him unless he completely blows, but there is no reason to think he will suck. TE's usually have a long life span, and even between the ages of 32-35, he should be able to still play at a high level. No reason to think this will be his last year.

 

Jason Davis has no shot at making the team unless McKie doesn't make the team for some reason. Odds are, we'll keep 3 TE's (Clark, Olsen, Davis), 1 FB (McKie), and 1 FB/TE (Gaines).

I tend to agree with you about Clark. He continues to put up good numbers every year. He may be the starting TE but Olsen is our Featured go to guy. Clark did pretty well last year considering how much Olsen did and how bad our offense was.

[BearSox]

I tend to agree with you about Clark. He continues to put up good numbers every year. He may be the starting TE but Olsen is our Featured go to guy. Clark did pretty well last year considering how much Olsen did and how bad our offense was.

Yep, they are both starters actually. Clark is the starter at the true TE position, while Clark starts at the Hybrid TE position where he can be put out wide at receiver, FB, or TE.

[bowlingtwig]

Yep, they are both starters actually. Clark is the starter at the true TE position, while Clark starts at the Hybrid TE position where he can be put out wide at receiver, FB, or TE.

LOL I think you meant to say that Olsen starts at the Hybrid TE position.

[nfoligno]

Isn't Davis still eligible for the practice squad? I don't think he saw the playing time necessarily last year to lose his eligibility, or did he.

 

I think Davis' odds of making the team dang near tanked when we signed Gaines. Indications, as well as direct comments, prior to the draft implied we were looking for a blocking TE. While I don't think our staff talked much specifically about Davis, the implications were obvious. We expected more development in terms of blocking from Davis, and were now looking to upgrade that role.

 

In an ideal world, I think our staff would love to stash Davis back on the practice squad, work on developing his blocking, and then have a capable replacement when Clark is done.

 

Personally, what I would not mind at all seeing is our going w/ 4 TEs, and simply doing away w/ the FB position. IMHO, Gains could be a better lead blocker than McKie, and add greater versatility, as would our other TEs. And as an added bonus, we would no longer have to worry about that damn FB dive play

 

I think the Bears are adamant about getting a solid run-blocking TE on the field and I think Davis is the odd man out. I don't see us keeping 4 TE but it's possible if Davis plays well enough they view him as Clark's replacement in a year or two. There's a big difference between Olsen's athleticism at the FB position and Gaines. So again Olsens versatility to do the H-back role there will also limit the times Gaines plays TE. Does Davis earn a spot? I'd say it's a 25% probability. I say he gets traded to someone for a conditional draft pick if he makes their roster.

[AZ54]

I have no clue if Davis is eligible for the practice squad but I really wonder if in fact the coaching staff is so enamored with him. The knock on him coming out of college was a lack of work ethic. If that is the issue for sure I wouldn't mind putting him on the practice squad and seeing if he "gets it" but on the other hand if we got a conditional late round pick for him I'd probably take that too.

[Mongo3451]

I have no clue if Davis is eligible for the practice squad but I really wonder if in fact the coaching staff is so enamored with him. The knock on him coming out of college was a lack of work ethic. If that is the issue for sure I wouldn't mind putting him on the practice squad and seeing if he "gets it" but on the other hand if we got a conditional late round pick for him I'd probably take that too.

We'll definately have to leave Davis to the coaching staff, as we have no clue what his ethic is at this time. Hopefully he comes into the off-season program full bore. He is an immense talent that I hope is not wasted.

[nfoligno]

A conditional pick? Huh? We are talking about a teams #3 TE, and who the team (after one year) is looking to upgrade/replace.

 

I kind of agree w/ your first thought. Often, we get really high on this player or that player, and we get so upset when the team cuts him. Honestly, I think we like him far more than the staff. We liked him for his size and potential in the receiving game, but it sounds like the staff wanted him for his blocking, and if he struggles in that regard, then his value (in our staff's eyes) is minimal.

 

Now, I would just like someone to explain why our #3 TE has to be a solid blocker, but our starting FB doesn't.

 

I have no clue if Davis is eligible for the practice squad but I really wonder if in fact the coaching staff is so enamored with him. The knock on him coming out of college was a lack of work ethic. If that is the issue for sure I wouldn't mind putting him on the practice squad and seeing if he "gets it" but on the other hand if we got a conditional late round pick for him I'd probably take that too.

[flea]

Watched a coupkle of Cal's games & saw the UDFA FB we picked up, think I'd prefer him on our PS