Not Convinced

[ChileBear]

Brad Briggs writes in the Sun Times that Marinelli feels Harris is "Ready to Go." BUt Marinelli's statement was:

 

He SEEMS PRETTY healthy?????? Doesn't fill me with alot of confidence. And if Harris is not back we better be looking at another anchor for the DL.

 

[azbearsfan]

Brad Briggs writes in the Sun Times that Marinelli feels Harris is "Ready to Go." BUt Marinelli's statement was:

 

He SEEMS PRETTY healthy?????? Doesn't fill me with alot of confidence. And if Harris is not back we better be looking at another anchor for the DL.

 

 

I assume thats why we drafted Gilbert. If Tommie can't get it together, his time is short.

[nfoligno]

I think that statements simply has more to do w/ the type of practice they have had to this point. Playing in shorts, couple times a month, or working out in the weight room, Harris may well look fine. I think the reserved aspect of his statement likely has more to do w/ the fact that it is the offseason and a players health often looks different in shorts than it does after a week of playing in pads.

 

The other thing I would throw out there for shits and giggles. Sometimes the "way" a statement is made doesn't carry over to print. Play w/ it in your head for a moment, but I can easily put into my head a tone which makes the "seems pretty healthy" statement come out such that it nearly makes fun of those questioning his health.

 

To often, people make comments which, in the interview, sound one way, and yet after people read it in print, it comes out sounding totally different.

 

Brad Briggs writes in the Sun Times that Marinelli feels Harris is "Ready to Go." BUt Marinelli's statement was:

 

He SEEMS PRETTY healthy?????? Doesn't fill me with alot of confidence. And if Harris is not back we better be looking at another anchor for the DL.

 

[nfoligno]

While I am not saying Harris' health isn't a factor, I think it is more about our simply taking DL pretty much every year. The entire D revolves around the DL, and in particular the DT. After the inability of our DL to rush the passer, combined w/ some contracts ending, I think we would have been drafting DL regardless of Harris' health.

 

I assume thats why we drafted Gilbert. If Tommie can't get it together, his time is short.

 

[defiantgiant]

While I am not saying Harris' health isn't a factor, I think it is more about our simply taking DL pretty much every year. The entire D revolves around the DL, and in particular the DT. After the inability of our DL to rush the passer, combined w/ some contracts ending, I think we would have been drafting DL regardless of Harris' health.

 

Yeah, plus it's not an either-or proposition regarding whether Harris can play. It's not the case that he'll either go back to being the old Tommie or we'll replace him with Gilbert. It could very well be the case that periodically spelling Harris (presumably with Gilbert) is enough to get good production out of him and avoid reinjuring his knee. It's not like d-linemen, even franchise guys like Harris, need to be on the field for every snap: look at what the Giants do with their d-line. The one spot on the team where the Bears have a lot of quality depth and talent is the defensive line. If we can implement a rotation like the Giants', I wouldn't mind seeing Harris on the bench sometimes. Especially if that means that Tommie can come in fresh in the fourth quarter and help the defense put some games away for a change.

[nfoligno]

Agreed. One of the biggest questions surrounding Tommie when he was in the draft was whether or not he could be a full time player. At Oklahoma, he was part of a rotation. But that seemed only to create a nice fit for us, as we use a rotation ourselves. Personally, I think we were forced to use Harris more than the staff would have liked. Its hard to spell the guy as often as you would like when your 2nd starter sucks, much less the rest of your depth.

 

I honestly think Tommie is going to have a very good year. I have said it before, but IMHO, a huge reason he looked bad last year was Dusty. After Dusty left the rotation, and Scott/Harrison stepped in, Harris began to look considerably better (so did Urlacher for that matter). Scott and Harrison were far from great, but Dusty was just so bad that he really hurt those around him.

 

Yeah, plus it's not an either-or proposition regarding whether Harris can play. It's not the case that he'll either go back to being the old Tommie or we'll replace him with Gilbert. It could very well be the case that periodically spelling Harris (presumably with Gilbert) is enough to get good production out of him and avoid reinjuring his knee. It's not like d-linemen, even franchise guys like Harris, need to be on the field for every snap: look at what the Giants do with their d-line. The one spot on the team where the Bears have a lot of quality depth and talent is the defensive line. If we can implement a rotation like the Giants', I wouldn't mind seeing Harris on the bench sometimes. Especially if that means that Tommie can come in fresh in the fourth quarter and help the defense put some games away for a change.

 

[Guest TerraTor]

Agreed. One of the biggest questions surrounding Tommie when he was in the draft was whether or not he could be a full time player. At Oklahoma, he was part of a rotation. But that seemed only to create a nice fit for us, as we use a rotation ourselves. Personally, I think we were forced to use Harris more than the staff would have liked. Its hard to spell the guy as often as you would like when your 2nd starter sucks, much less the rest of your depth.

 

I honestly think Tommie is going to have a very good year. I have said it before, but IMHO, a huge reason he looked bad last year was Dusty. After Dusty left the rotation, and Scott/Harrison stepped in, Harris began to look considerably better (so did Urlacher for that matter). Scott and Harrison were far from great, but Dusty was just so bad that he really hurt those around him.

 

 

Gotta say im fed up with Tommie Harris. Just like the rest of the guys who got huge deals have done nothing or been hurt constantly.

[lemonej]

Agreed. One of the biggest questions surrounding Tommie when he was in the draft was whether or not he could be a full time player. At Oklahoma, he was part of a rotation. But that seemed only to create a nice fit for us, as we use a rotation ourselves. Personally, I think we were forced to use Harris more than the staff would have liked. Its hard to spell the guy as often as you would like when your 2nd starter sucks, much less the rest of your depth.

 

I honestly think Tommie is going to have a very good year. I have said it before, but IMHO, a huge reason he looked bad last year was Dusty. After Dusty left the rotation, and Scott/Harrison stepped in, Harris began to look considerably better (so did Urlacher for that matter). Scott and Harrison were far from great, but Dusty was just so bad that he really hurt those around him.

I'm sure you meant Adams and Harrison because Scott was not on the team last season. I'm not as optimistic about Harris as you are since IMO he is entering Mike Brown territory as far as injuries are concerned. I can't tie his poor play to Dusty because Dusty was gone early and Harris had some weird behavior going on to the point that the team suspended him for a game. His head was not 100% on the field last season and he had some off the field issues that contributed to that.

[nfoligno]

Damn, I swear I say Scott when I mean Adams so dang often. Oh well.

 

One thing that really settled it for me was an interview w/ Warren Sapp. Sapp was being interviewed on the Score, and apparantly he watches film and reviews for NFL.com. Anyway, he really went to town on Dusty. He pointed out plays where Dusty was so bad that he would actually get blocked into Harris, thus nulifying both of our DTs. He went on to give many more examples.

 

This was something I had thought myself, but Sapp talking about it only validated it in my eyes.

 

Understand, I am not saying Dusty was the only problem. Harris' injury are too well known. Further, I agree also that Harris' head may have created an issue as well. But I also believe Dusty was a huge part of our problem last year. Not only do I believe he hurt Harris, but (as Sapp talked about too) Dusty's poor play was also really limiting Urlacher. While we do not emply the wide body DTs to "block" for Urlacher, I have also heard Lovie talk about how he believes that in our system, the DTs are expected to force double teams, thus keeping bodies off Urlacher, but in a different way.

 

So while I do agree Harris was part of his own problem, I also simply believe Dusty was a huge part of the problem too.

 

I'm sure you meant Adams and Harrison because Scott was not on the team last season. I'm not as optimistic about Harris as you are since IMO he is entering Mike Brown territory as far as injuries are concerned. I can't tie his poor play to Dusty because Dusty was gone early and Harris had some weird behavior going on to the point that the team suspended him for a game. His head was not 100% on the field last season and he had some off the field issues that contributed to that.

 

[Mongo3451]

Yeah, plus it's not an either-or proposition regarding whether Harris can play. It's not the case that he'll either go back to being the old Tommie or we'll replace him with Gilbert. It could very well be the case that periodically spelling Harris (presumably with Gilbert) is enough to get good production out of him and avoid reinjuring his knee. It's not like d-linemen, even franchise guys like Harris, need to be on the field for every snap: look at what the Giants do with their d-line. The one spot on the team where the Bears have a lot of quality depth and talent is the defensive line. If we can implement a rotation like the Giants', I wouldn't mind seeing Harris on the bench sometimes. Especially if that means that Tommie can come in fresh in the fourth quarter and help the defense put some games away for a change.

What we repeatedly see from our DL is that they wear down as the game goes on. I have been preaching about keeping them off the field for years now. (TOP) All might think that is easier said than done, but it has a lot to do with the scheme we run and most importantly the inability of the offense to produce sustained drives that control the clock.

 

I was reading "Chalk Talk" yesterday and something Larry Mayer wrote reminded me of that. He gave the stats of points we gave up and our highest totals came in the 2nd and 4th quarter when the defense is tired. We all can remember watching the games last year and thinking, where the hell did the pass rush go!!!? This was mainly in the 2nd and 4th quarter. Maybe DFG can provide stats by quarter on the pressure our D applied.

 

Anyway, yes depth is a huge issue as rotation will help to preserve the legs of our rushers. Scheme is another huge factor in that, we need to get the pressure with the front four, period. Our LB's suck at blitzing and are more effective playing in their traditional alignments. If we blitz, I'd rather see it from the DB's. Lastly, is the offense. If Cutler, Forte and company can provide 3 more 1st downs a game, we dominate the clock and keep the DL fresh. All the while, we are doing to them what they have been doing to us.(wearing their DL down) That is Bear football in December. IMO - the components are in place.

[lemonej]

Damn, I swear I say Scott when I mean Adams so dang often. Oh well.

 

One thing that really settled it for me was an interview w/ Warren Sapp. Sapp was being interviewed on the Score, and apparantly he watches film and reviews for NFL.com. Anyway, he really went to town on Dusty. He pointed out plays where Dusty was so bad that he would actually get blocked into Harris, thus nulifying both of our DTs. He went on to give many more examples.

 

This was something I had thought myself, but Sapp talking about it only validated it in my eyes.

 

Understand, I am not saying Dusty was the only problem. Harris' injury are too well known. Further, I agree also that Harris' head may have created an issue as well. But I also believe Dusty was a huge part of our problem last year. Not only do I believe he hurt Harris, but (as Sapp talked about too) Dusty's poor play was also really limiting Urlacher. While we do not emply the wide body DTs to "block" for Urlacher, I have also heard Lovie talk about how he believes that in our system, the DTs are expected to force double teams, thus keeping bodies off Urlacher, but in a different way.

 

So while I do agree Harris was part of his own problem, I also simply believe Dusty was a huge part of the problem too.

I agree with you about Warren Sapp's commentary,especially since he played in this scheme under Marinelli. I just believe the Bears were expecting too much out of Dusty when he was not in either Scott or Tank Johnson's tier of play.With all the new additions on the d-line I believe a favorite of mine last TC Toeina(sp?) might get cut. When I think about Dusty he just reminds me of Chris Zorich after the first couple of years when he was on the field for more snaps than he should have been.

[bowlingtwig]

I agree with you about Warren Sapp's commentary,especially since he played in this scheme under Marinelli. I just believe the Bears were expecting too much out of Dusty when he was not in either Scott or Tank Johnson's tier of play.With all the new additions on the d-line I believe a favorite of mine last TC Toeina(sp?) might get cut. When I think about Dusty he just reminds me of Chris Zorich after the first couple of years when he was on the field for more snaps than he should have been.

I have read Sapp's comments and while I respect his insight I believe that you will see a different Dusty this year because Marrinelli will have no problem getting in his face about. However if Dusty doesn't turn things around either his performance is that bad or his injured once again I would have to bet that he would be getting the pink slip. I believe during camp and preseason the biggest question mark is going to be about the DLine and not the WR. I am not so worried about the WR as I am worried sick about the dline. However I believe our Dline will b e very good this year and I look for Gilbert to step in and either push Dusty or take over as the starting DT opposite Harris.

[defiantgiant]

What we repeatedly see from our DL is that they wear down as the game goes on. I have been preaching about keeping them off the field for years now. (TOP) All might think that is easier said than done, but it has a lot to do with the scheme we run and most importantly the inability of the offense to produce sustained drives that control the clock.

 

I was reading "Chalk Talk" yesterday and something Larry Mayer wrote reminded me of that. He gave the stats of points we gave up and our highest totals came in the 2nd and 4th quarter when the defense is tired. We all can remember watching the games last year and thinking, where the hell did the pass rush go!!!? This was mainly in the 2nd and 4th quarter. Maybe DFG can provide stats by quarter on the pressure our D applied.

 

Anyway, yes depth is a huge issue as rotation will help to preserve the legs of our rushers. Scheme is another huge factor in that, we need to get the pressure with the front four, period. Our LB's suck at blitzing and are more effective playing in their traditional alignments. If we blitz, I'd rather see it from the DB's. Lastly, is the offense. If Cutler, Forte and company can provide 3 more 1st downs a game, we dominate the clock and keep the DL fresh. All the while, we are doing to them what they have been doing to us.(wearing their DL down) That is Bear football in December. IMO - the components are in place.

 

I don't have the quarter-by-quarter stats, unfortunately, but I agree with you about our D-line wearing down. Between the amount of time the defense spent on the field and the relatively thin rotation at DT, the d-line just couldn't stay effective for a whole game last year. It's going to be an issue that the coaching staff will need to address, going forward: even if Tommie can get over his knee problems enough to contribute in games, his conditioning is always going to be a problem, since they constantly hold him out of midweek practices now.

 

Basically, I agree with your take on the defense: we need to add quality contributors to the d-line, ensure that the offense spends more time on the field, or both. I'm pretty satisfied that Angelo's added interior d-linemen who can contribute. I'm excited for both Gilbert and Harrison, and I think the two of them plus Harris and Anthony Adams will be more than enough to have a good rotation on the inside.

 

The offense worries me a little more. As much as I like our offense's potential, I can't say for sure that we have the pieces to run down the clock like we did 3-4 years ago. Look at it this way: when the Bears' defense was firing on all cylinders in 2005 and 2006, we had a good-to-very-good run-blocking offensive line and a heavy two-back rotation in the running game. We ran the ball 488 times in 2005 and 503 times in 2006 (8th and 5th in the NFL for rushing attempts, respectively.) That's a recipe for eating up a lot of clock and giving your defense time to rest. For a high-effort, turnover-driven defense like ours, it's vital that guys get to rest for a long time between series. Even with Forte's heroics last year, the Bears only ran the ball 434 times, good for 15th in the league. To get back to where we were in 2006, we need to add around 70 carries to that number. Maybe Kevin Jones will step up and give us 100 carries next season, but it's certainly not a given. And our offensive line, while it has some interesting young pieces, isn't the road-grading group that we had in 05-06. I'm holding out hope that our offense can keep the defense on the bench, but I don't think we'll know what we have until a few games into the season.

[bowlingtwig]

I don't have the quarter-by-quarter stats, unfortunately, but I agree with you about our D-line wearing down. Between the amount of time the defense spent on the field and the relatively thin rotation at DT, the d-line just couldn't stay effective for a whole game last year. It's going to be an issue that the coaching staff will need to address, going forward: even if Tommie can get over his knee problems enough to contribute in games, his conditioning is always going to be a problem, since they constantly hold him out of midweek practices now.

 

Basically, I agree with your take on the defense: we need to add quality contributors to the d-line, ensure that the offense spends more time on the field, or both. I'm pretty satisfied that Angelo's added interior d-linemen who can contribute. I'm excited for both Gilbert and Harrison, and I think the two of them plus Harris and Anthony Adams will be more than enough to have a good rotation on the inside.

 

The offense worries me a little more. As much as I like our offense's potential, I can't say for sure that we have the pieces to run down the clock like we did 3-4 years ago. Look at it this way: when the Bears' defense was firing on all cylinders in 2005 and 2006, we had a good-to-very-good run-blocking offensive line and a heavy two-back rotation in the running game. We ran the ball 488 times in 2005 and 503 times in 2006 (8th and 5th in the NFL for rushing attempts, respectively.) That's a recipe for eating up a lot of clock and giving your defense time to rest. For a high-effort, turnover-driven defense like ours, it's vital that guys get to rest for a long time between series. Even with Forte's heroics last year, the Bears only ran the ball 434 times, good for 15th in the league. To get back to where we were in 2006, we need to add around 70 carries to that number. Maybe Kevin Jones will step up and give us 100 carries next season, but it's certainly not a given. And our offensive line, while it has some interesting young pieces, isn't the road-grading group that we had in 05-06. I'm holding out hope that our offense can keep the defense on the bench, but I don't think we'll know what we have until a few games into the season.

One thing that I kinda worry about, in a good way of course is the offense scoring 2 quick because of the ability that Cutler has throwing deep with accuracy as well to go along with the deep threats that we have at WR.

[defiantgiant]

I have read Sapp's comments and while I respect his insight I believe that you will see a different Dusty this year because Marrinelli will have no problem getting in his face about. However if Dusty doesn't turn things around either his performance is that bad or his injured once again I would have to bet that he would be getting the pink slip.

 

I don't think Dusty's as good a candidate for a rebound season as the rest of the d-line. His problem has never been effort or technique, that I've seen. He just doesn't have the anchor to be stout against the run, and we play him as a nose tackle. I think Dusty might be a lot better suited to being a 3-technique, even though he probably wouldn't be spectacular at that spot.

 

As much as I usually hate it when Bears players go to other teams in the division (see also: Bernard Berrian) I think we should try to deal Dusty to the Lions. We could probably get better value for him than he's worth, as the Lions have very little at DT, to the point where they're picking up waiver wire/practice squad guys to try to fill the position. They've got Grady Jackson and Chuck Darby (who are both in their 30s with significant recurring injury problems,) then a bunch of young guys with little to no starting experience behind them. As bad as he is, Dusty could get a lot of playing time in Detroit, maybe even a starting job. Trading him for a conditional pick based on playing time would make sense, given his injury history: I'm thinking a 5th-7th rounder that could escalate up to a 3rd-4th if he starts for most of the season. With the Lions' situation at the position, the Bears could end up getting decent compensation in a scenario like that.

[nfoligno]

I was about to respond in a similar way as you regarding Dusty. Effort was never his problem. He has a non-stop motor, but was effectively running in place, or against a brick way. Now, maybe Marinelli can work w/ him and get more out of him. Who knows. But I don't agree w/ the idea that "Marinelli will get in his face" as a way of pushing him.

 

Not sure I see the trade potential you mention. Dusty was a 3rd round pick that has been basically a bust. He has been injured every year, and when he was healthy, didn't look good at all. Further, he is in his contract season (I believe). Thus I just do not see much trade value for him, especially not a 3rd/4th. I realize you are using 3rd/4th based on PT and such, but I don't think another team would even offer that. I think Dusty "might" warrant a 7th, but honestly, even that is uncertain.

 

I don't think Dusty's as good a candidate for a rebound season as the rest of the d-line. His problem has never been effort or technique, that I've seen. He just doesn't have the anchor to be stout against the run, and we play him as a nose tackle. I think Dusty might be a lot better suited to being a 3-technique, even though he probably wouldn't be spectacular at that spot.

 

As much as I usually hate it when Bears players go to other teams in the division (see also: Bernard Berrian) I think we should try to deal Dusty to the Lions. We could probably get better value for him than he's worth, as the Lions have very little at DT, to the point where they're picking up waiver wire/practice squad guys to try to fill the position. They've got Grady Jackson and Chuck Darby (who are both in their 30s with significant recurring injury problems,) then a bunch of young guys with little to no starting experience behind them. As bad as he is, Dusty could get a lot of playing time in Detroit, maybe even a starting job. Trading him for a conditional pick based on playing time would make sense, given his injury history: I'm thinking a 5th-7th rounder that could escalate up to a 3rd-4th if he starts for most of the season. With the Lions' situation at the position, the Bears could end up getting decent compensation in a scenario like that.

 

[AZ54]

Not sure how many times last season I saw Dusty just stand there instead of making some attempt at a pass rush. Early in the year he was ok getting some penetration but after a few games he just basically stood there.

 

 

[ChileBear]

Not sure how many times last season I saw Dusty just stand there instead of making some attempt at a pass rush. Early in the year he was ok getting some penetration but after a few games he just basically stood there.

Dusty is one of the odd men out on the DL. He is most definitely on the chopping block with TC ready to start. If he's gonna stay, he needs to have one hell of a camp.

[bowlingtwig]

Dusty is one of the odd men out on the DL. He is most definitely on the chopping block with TC ready to start. If he's gonna stay, he needs to have one hell of a camp.

I agree that Dusty has got to step up otherwise he will out. My gut feeling says that if he stays healthy he can do it. I don't know why I feel like that though. However if he comes down with any injury during TC or preseason just wave goodbye.

[defiantgiant]

I was about to respond in a similar way as you regarding Dusty. Effort was never his problem. He has a non-stop motor, but was effectively running in place, or against a brick way. Now, maybe Marinelli can work w/ him and get more out of him. Who knows. But I don't agree w/ the idea that "Marinelli will get in his face" as a way of pushing him.

 

Not sure I see the trade potential you mention. Dusty was a 3rd round pick that has been basically a bust. He has been injured every year, and when he was healthy, didn't look good at all. Further, he is in his contract season (I believe). Thus I just do not see much trade value for him, especially not a 3rd/4th. I realize you are using 3rd/4th based on PT and such, but I don't think another team would even offer that. I think Dusty "might" warrant a 7th, but honestly, even that is uncertain.

 

To be clear: I don't think any team in the league other than Detroit would be willing to trade for Dusty. But for all the improvements the Lions have made elsewhere on the defense, their interior defensive line still looks like an expansion squad. They've got maybe the worst group of DTs I've ever seen, and the position is critical to what Jim Schwartz says he wants to do on defense. I really do think we could swing a trade, if only because of how bad Detroit is at DT. The only two real veterans they have are every bit as injury-prone and ineffective as Dusty, and much much older. The rest of the guys have practically no starting experience between them.

 

I mean, Detroit's starting DTs (Chuck Darby and Grady Jackson) are 69 years old between the two of them. Both of them have bad knees. Both of them have missed time for injuries the last couple of seasons. Grady Jackson is still facing a possible 4-game suspension. Darby was never very good, and Jackson's play has fallen off a cliff the past couple of years. That's a bad, bad situation. Detroit actually has some decent talent at DE, but if they don't make some additions at DT somehow, their d-line is going to be a BIG liability.

[nfoligno]

Hey, I am not arguing about Det's interior DL. It is pretty bad, to say the least. But no matter how bad they are, that doesn't mean they would be willing to give up squat for Dusty.

 

Lets be honest for just a moment. We as fans know Dusty is on the bubble. Even the GM in Det could figure that out as well. If they wanted him, good chance they could just wait. And frankly, they could get a comparable player off the scrap heap anyway.

 

Sorry, but while I agree they have a need, I think you are sipping a little too much kool-aid to think Dusty is worth jack shit. Harrison would likely not warrant more than a 4th. Adams would not likely net more than a 6th. Dusty? Conditional 7th, if that.

 

To be clear: I don't think any team in the league other than Detroit would be willing to trade for Dusty. But for all the improvements the Lions have made elsewhere on the defense, their interior defensive line still looks like an expansion squad. They've got maybe the worst group of DTs I've ever seen, and the position is critical to what Jim Schwartz says he wants to do on defense. I really do think we could swing a trade, if only because of how bad Detroit is at DT. The only two real veterans they have are every bit as injury-prone and ineffective as Dusty, and much much older. The rest of the guys have practically no starting experience between them.

 

I mean, Detroit's starting DTs (Chuck Darby and Grady Jackson) are 69 years old between the two of them. Both of them have bad knees. Both of them have missed time for injuries the last couple of seasons. Grady Jackson is still facing a possible 4-game suspension. Darby was never very good, and Jackson's play has fallen off a cliff the past couple of years. That's a bad, bad situation. Detroit actually has some decent talent at DE, but if they don't make some additions at DT somehow, their d-line is going to be a BIG liability.

 

[defiantgiant]

Hey, I am not arguing about Det's interior DL. It is pretty bad, to say the least. But no matter how bad they are, that doesn't mean they would be willing to give up squat for Dusty.

 

Lets be honest for just a moment. We as fans know Dusty is on the bubble. Even the GM in Det could figure that out as well. If they wanted him, good chance they could just wait. And frankly, they could get a comparable player off the scrap heap anyway.

 

Sorry, but while I agree they have a need, I think you are sipping a little too much kool-aid to think Dusty is worth jack shit. Harrison would likely not warrant more than a 4th. Adams would not likely net more than a 6th. Dusty? Conditional 7th, if that.

 

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. The Lions just traded for Orien Harris, a guy who has just one NFL start in three seasons. Detroit is his SEVENTH team since he came into the league in 2006. He's put up all of 14 tackles in 3 years, of which only 4 were unassisted. If the Lions thought Orien Harris was worth Ronald Curry, I have to think they'd give up a conditional late-rounder for Dvoracek (provided, as you pointed out, that they didn't think the Bears were just going to cut him.)

 

As for Anthony Adams, I think if the Bears were willing to give him up for some reason, he'd bring a lot more than a 6th from Detroit. He's miles better than any DT that they've got: he's relatively injury-free, not too old, has plenty of starting experience, and he's pretty good against the run.