Interesting article on FAs 2010

[Pixote]

There is an interesting article on NFL.com about Free Agency in an uncapped year and how it is not going to be lucrative for players and the new rules for FA that are involved. It seems to me it might make it even more difficult to obtain key FAs to rebuild an OL which is what we so desperately need.

 

NFL.com Article on 2010 Free Agency with Uncapped Year

[madlithuanian]

Just our luck!

 

Make me question JA's move to get Gaines Adams even more now... He should be well versed in this matter.

 

There is an interesting article on NFL.com about Free Agency in an uncapped year and how it is not going to be lucrative for players and the new rules for FA that are involved. It seems to me it might make it even more difficult to obtain key FAs to rebuild an OL which is what we so desperately need.

 

NFL.com Article on 2010 Free Agency with Uncapped Year

 

[defiantgiant]

The crop of offensive linemen is especially bad. The best tackles on that list are Mike Gandy and Levi Jones...yikes. The interior linemen aren't much better, either: Keydrick Vincent, Ben Hamilton, and Stephen Neal are all OK, but the youngest guy among them is 31.

 

At least Dunta Robinson will still be hitting FA if there's no new bargaining agreement. We could use that dude.

[madlithuanian]

I think the hope is that we'll take what we can get... Not take what's leftover...

 

The crop of offensive linemen is especially bad. The best tackles on that list are Mike Gandy and Levi Jones...yikes. The interior linemen aren't much better, either: Keydrick Vincent, Ben Hamilton, and Stephen Neal are all OK, but the youngest guy among them is 31.

 

At least Dunta Robinson will still be hitting FA if there's no new bargaining agreement. We could use that dude.

 

[fenom283]

I would love to pick up Aaron Kampman he would be an upgrade at DE.

[bowlingtwig]

I would love to pick up Aaron Kampman he would be an upgrade at DE.

That list just scares me. Lets all hope that an agreement gets done in time.

[defiantgiant]

That list just scares me. Lets all hope that an agreement gets done in time.

 

I really hope it gets done this year, but I'm worried it won't: the problem is the owners, not the players' association. The uncapped year in 2010 is also a year with no salary floor, and I know there are a lot of teams in the league that would LOVE to be able to spend less money next year. The more cash-poor owners in the NFL probably want to drag their feet so they can have a year without a minimum salary floor, then start negotiating next year so that there won't be a holdout/lockout situation in 2011.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

The crop of offensive linemen is especially bad. The best tackles on that list are Mike Gandy and Levi Jones...yikes. The interior linemen aren't much better, either: Keydrick Vincent, Ben Hamilton, and Stephen Neal are all OK, but the youngest guy among them is 31.

 

At least Dunta Robinson will still be hitting FA if there's no new bargaining agreement. We could use that dude.

The best OT on the market will be Marcus McNeill.

 

And Dunta Robinson hasn't been very good at all this year.

[defiantgiant]

The best OT on the market will be Marcus McNeill.

 

And Dunta Robinson hasn't been very good at all this year.

 

I was talking about the best OTs in the event of an uncapped year. McNeill only has four years of service: he won't hit free agency unless a new CBA gets done. If we go into 2010 with no new CBA, guys have to have six years' service to hit unrestricted free agency.

 

If there is a new CBA, there will be a bunch of decent tackles slated to hit FA: I'd like to see Jeremy Trueblood or Tyson Clabo, who are both real road-graders at RT. McNeill's a Chris Williams-type finesse LT; he wouldn't help the run game much.

 

Also, you're right about Robinson this year. He held out for all of the offseason, and he hasn't really gotten a good start. He seems like a guy who needs a change of scenery; hopefully the Bears could sign him to a low-risk deal, make him prove that he can play like 2008 Dunta Robinson, then lock him up.

[nfoligno]

I was screaming for us to sign Clabo this past offseason when he was a RFA, and I think would have cost us a 2nd or 3rd round pick, which I felt was worth it for a solid, still young, starting grade OL. For no compensation, I would obviously love to get him.

 

As for Robinson, I would love to get him, but regardless how this year goes, I don't expect him to be very cheap. That was the entire contention this past offseason. Simply put, he wants to get paid. He is considered one of the better/best young CBs in the game. Even mediocre CBs get significant contracts. Hell, look at the deal we gave a nickel DB (RMJ) a few years ago.

 

I just do not see Robinson signing a low risk, prove yourself, contract.

 

I was talking about the best OTs in the event of an uncapped year. McNeill only has four years of service: he won't hit free agency unless a new CBA gets done. If we go into 2010 with no new CBA, guys have to have six years' service to hit unrestricted free agency.

 

If there is a new CBA, there will be a bunch of decent tackles slated to hit FA: I'd like to see Jeremy Trueblood or Tyson Clabo, who are both real road-graders at RT. McNeill's a Chris Williams-type finesse LT; he wouldn't help the run game much.

 

Also, you're right about Robinson this year. He held out for all of the offseason, and he hasn't really gotten a good start. He seems like a guy who needs a change of scenery; hopefully the Bears could sign him to a low-risk deal, make him prove that he can play like 2008 Dunta Robinson, then lock him up.

 

[defiantgiant]

I was screaming for us to sign Clabo this past offseason when he was a RFA, and I think would have cost us a 2nd or 3rd round pick, which I felt was worth it for a solid, still young, starting grade OL. For no compensation, I would obviously love to get him.

Yeah, for real. Getting him as a UFA would be huge. The only thing I don't like is his age; I'd rather have Trueblood if only because he's two years younger. But yeah, I'd take Clabo in a heartbeat if Trueblood wasn't on the table. He and Dahl are absolute bulldozers on the right side for Atlanta.

 

As for Robinson, I would love to get him, but regardless how this year goes, I don't expect him to be very cheap. That was the entire contention this past offseason. Simply put, he wants to get paid. He is considered one of the better/best young CBs in the game. Even mediocre CBs get significant contracts. Hell, look at the deal we gave a nickel DB (RMJ) a few years ago.

 

I just do not see Robinson signing a low risk, prove yourself, contract.

Yeah, you're right: the "pay me" shoes are probably a clue that the guy's not going to come cheap. I think he could still be worth it, though. He's young and he can cover, which we need desperately.

[nfoligno]

Yeah, you're right: the "pay me" shoes are probably a clue that the guy's not going to come cheap. I think he could still be worth it, though. He's young and he can cover, which we need desperately.

 

Old argument I have been in too many times. As much as I agree we could use help at CB, at the same time I know well there is only so much money that will be spent in FA, and I want to spend that money along the lines. Both lines suck, and are not likely to get much better w/o serious upgrades. Wale has been our best on the DL this year (not saying much) and he is a FA and likely gone. I have seen nothing from any DT to give me so much as hope, much less confidence. On the other side, there is simply a lot of work to do.

 

I am a firm believer that it starts upfront. You can have the best cover corners in the NFL, but if you have no pass rush, they are simply going to get beaten. On the other hand, if you have a solid or better pass rush, average CBs could suddenly look good.

 

Just like I believe on offense, you start w/ the OL and move out from there. If you have the best weapons in the world (WR) but an OL that can't protect for even 3 seconds, those weapons are wasted. However, if you have a solid or great OL, average talent weapons end up looking good due to the time they have to get open.

 

So I love the idea of adding a stud CB. For me though, it would be similar to suggesting we add a stud WR, w/o fixing first the OL.

[bowlingtwig]

Yeah, you're right: the "pay me" shoes are probably a clue that the guy's not going to come cheap. I think he could still be worth it, though. He's young and he can cover, which we need desperately.

 

Old argument I have been in too many times. As much as I agree we could use help at CB, at the same time I know well there is only so much money that will be spent in FA, and I want to spend that money along the lines. Both lines suck, and are not likely to get much better w/o serious upgrades. Wale has been our best on the DL this year (not saying much) and he is a FA and likely gone. I have seen nothing from any DT to give me so much as hope, much less confidence. On the other side, there is simply a lot of work to do.

 

I am a firm believer that it starts upfront. You can have the best cover corners in the NFL, but if you have no pass rush, they are simply going to get beaten. On the other hand, if you have a solid or better pass rush, average CBs could suddenly look good.

 

Just like I believe on offense, you start w/ the OL and move out from there. If you have the best weapons in the world (WR) but an OL that can't protect for even 3 seconds, those weapons are wasted. However, if you have a solid or great OL, average talent weapons end up looking good due to the time they have to get open.

 

So I love the idea of adding a stud CB. For me though, it would be similar to suggesting we add a stud WR, w/o fixing first the OL.

Your right. I would start with the OLine 1st and foremost. Cutler has proven that he can get the job done with the WR's, TE's and Forte. It looks like we are also getting DA back finally, and if you remember back to preseason Cutler was absolutely enamored over this guy and went bat for him to make sure that he made the team. He is big, with some speed(although not like Hester or Knox) with pretty good hands. Now if we can get some OLineman in here who are quality guys in both pass and rush it would be huge)

[defiantgiant]

So I love the idea of adding a stud CB. For me though, it would be similar to suggesting we add a stud WR, w/o fixing first the OL.

 

I completely agree with you that the lines are the most important part of a team, and our most glaring weakness. However, I definitely wouldn't put a good corner on the same level of importance as a good wide receiver. A stud corner is nearly as important as a good quarterback: after the linemen, they're the most crucial position and one of that hardest to "manufacture" from lesser talent. Wide receivers aren't nearly as critical, and you can take less-talented guys and fit them into a scheme, like the Dolphins have, and still get a very productive passing game.

 

I can think of VERY few good defenses that don't have at least one stud corner; in almost any defensive scheme, you have to have one. That's actually one of my biggest problems with the Tampa-2: a lot of the scheme revolves around compensating for corners who can't necessarily cover a good receiver one-on-one. Unless you have an absolutely elite pass rush, you're going to get exposed at corner. Even if you DO have a best-in-the-league pass rush, it's not like you're better off than you would be if you had a stud corner. Best-case scenario, it's a wash. Worst-case scenario, it's the Bears' pass defense from the last couple of years.

[lemonej]

I completely agree with you that the lines are the most important part of a team, and our most glaring weakness. However, I definitely wouldn't put a good corner on the same level of importance as a good wide receiver. A stud corner is nearly as important as a good quarterback: after the linemen, they're the most crucial position and one of that hardest to "manufacture" from lesser talent. Wide receivers aren't nearly as critical, and you can take less-talented guys and fit them into a scheme, like the Dolphins have, and still get a very productive passing game.

 

I can think of VERY few good defenses that don't have at least one stud corner; in almost any defensive scheme, you have to have one. That's actually one of my biggest problems with the Tampa-2: a lot of the scheme revolves around compensating for corners who can't necessarily cover a good receiver one-on-one. Unless you have an absolutely elite pass rush, you're going to get exposed at corner. Even if you DO have a best-in-the-league pass rush, it's not like you're better off than you would be if you had a stud corner. Best-case scenario, it's a wash. Worst-case scenario, it's the Bears' pass defense from the last couple of years.

As with all defenses teams run variations of them as do the Bears. The original version of the Cover 2 was run by the Steelers of the 70's and they had a HOF CB in Mel Blount plus 2 HOF LBs and an HOF DT.

The next best team to run the defense was Tampa in the early part of this decade with a group of 4 potential HOF players including Ronde Barber at CB. He along with Warren Sapp, Derrick Brooks and John Lynch could get voted into Canton in the future.

The next tier of teams that ran this scheme are the Colts and the Bears with the Colts having 2 potential HOF player on D (Freeney and Sanders) and the Bears having maybe one Urlacher or Briggs.

 

This shows why the Bears have had limted success running this scheme. Their talent has not been on par with the other teams I mentioned above.The other problem is you have to have a ball control offense to keep this defense off the field because with today's rules players can't be as physical as the Steelers of the 70's could and even the Bucs. Thus allowing teams more time to pick this defense apart. To continue to run this scheme without adressing the lines and trying to get some potential HOF players is stupid. The likely-hood of that happening without top draft picks playing to their potential and not having them at all doesn't sit well with me.

[nfoligno]

Understand. I am not saying I would not love to have a great CB. I am absolutely not saying that I would not love to have a great DL AND at least one great CB. My point is an issue of priority. I think we absolutely have to fix the DL first and foremost. Until that happens, I simply believe a great CB would be essentially wasted.

 

In a perfect would, I would say we upgrade both DL and CB, but in reality (a) we have few draft picks to use and ( we have limited money that will be spent in FA. So, when I look at the more limited resources available, while also factoring the massive needs on the OL, I see less ability to fix both DL and CB. Thus, if I have to choose between upgrading the DL and CB positions, I would first choose to upgrade the DL, then focus after that on the secondary.

 

I completely agree with you that the lines are the most important part of a team, and our most glaring weakness. However, I definitely wouldn't put a good corner on the same level of importance as a good wide receiver. A stud corner is nearly as important as a good quarterback: after the linemen, they're the most crucial position and one of that hardest to "manufacture" from lesser talent. Wide receivers aren't nearly as critical, and you can take less-talented guys and fit them into a scheme, like the Dolphins have, and still get a very productive passing game.

 

I can think of VERY few good defenses that don't have at least one stud corner; in almost any defensive scheme, you have to have one. That's actually one of my biggest problems with the Tampa-2: a lot of the scheme revolves around compensating for corners who can't necessarily cover a good receiver one-on-one. Unless you have an absolutely elite pass rush, you're going to get exposed at corner. Even if you DO have a best-in-the-league pass rush, it's not like you're better off than you would be if you had a stud corner. Best-case scenario, it's a wash. Worst-case scenario, it's the Bears' pass defense from the last couple of years.