David Haugh

[Uncle Buck]

I wanted to solicit some opinions about the David Haugh article that appears in the Chicago Tribune today; I'd post a link but I am too technically deficient to do so. He writes as if he is Ted Phillips offering an open letter to the fans. His premise is that Ted and the McCaskey family is as angry as the fans, but blames the team's problems on the talent rather than coaching. As Ted Phillips he believes Jerry Angelo and Lovie Smith deserve one more chance to right the ship. He cites fiscal responsibility as a reason for this decision.

 

Personally, as far as the Bears and the McCaskey's are concerned, the cost of blowing up this management team is less than the future lost revenue as this team teeters on the brink of irrelevancy. The Hawks are Stanley Cup contenders, the Bears run the risk of fallng behind. The McCaskey family must have someone within the family ranks that have some business sense, they all can't be members of the lucky sperm family.

 

But back to Haugh, I can't believe he would write this article, is he so concerned about his access to the team that he continues to write rear-end kissing drivel? I don't need a sports writer who is over the top but they should call a spade a spade. 10 seasons out of the last 14 have been losing seasons, while all of this does not hang on Angelo or Smith, three straight years of disapppointment screams for accountability.

 

So does anyone agree with Haugh's premse in this Larry Mayer like article?

[flea]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/footb...,7734672.column

 

that one?

[Uncle Buck]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/footb...,7734672.column

 

that one?

 

 

That is the one, Thanks Flea!!

[Connorbear]

I wanted to solicit some opinions about the David Haugh article that appears in the Chicago Tribune today; I'd post a link but I am too technically deficient to do so. He writes as if he is Ted Phillips offering an open letter to the fans. His premise is that Ted and the McCaskey family is as angry as the fans, but blames the team's problems on the talent rather than coaching. As Ted Phillips he believes Jerry Angelo and Lovie Smith deserve one more chance to right the ship. He cites fiscal responsibility as a reason for this decision.

 

Personally, as far as the Bears and the McCaskey's are concerned, the cost of blowing up this management team is less than the future lost revenue as this team teeters on the brink of irrelevancy. The Hawks are Stanley Cup contenders, the Bears run the risk of fallng behind. The McCaskey family must have someone within the family ranks that have some business sense, they all can't be members of the lucky sperm family.

 

But back to Haugh, I can't believe he would write this article, is he so concerned about his access to the team that he continues to write rear-end kissing drivel? I don't need a sports writer who is over the top but they should call a spade a spade. 10 seasons out of the last 14 have been losing seasons, while all of this does not hang on Angelo or Smith, three straight years of disapppointment screams for accountability.

 

So does anyone agree with Haugh's premse in this Larry Mayer like article?

I have no issues with the article. Haugh is doing his job. I don't agree with him. I don't see a way you are going to be able to bring in a good OC and DC with the head coaches job in flux. I think everything should be about getting the right coaching staff in for Cutler and to me that means this coaching staff goes.

 

Peace

[madlithuanian]

Huagh for this past season, and much of the prior, has lost any bite. He does appear to be a Bears apologist.

 

I wanted to solicit some opinions about the David Haugh article that appears in the Chicago Tribune today; I'd post a link but I am too technically deficient to do so. He writes as if he is Ted Phillips offering an open letter to the fans. His premise is that Ted and the McCaskey family is as angry as the fans, but blames the team's problems on the talent rather than coaching. As Ted Phillips he believes Jerry Angelo and Lovie Smith deserve one more chance to right the ship. He cites fiscal responsibility as a reason for this decision.

 

Personally, as far as the Bears and the McCaskey's are concerned, the cost of blowing up this management team is less than the future lost revenue as this team teeters on the brink of irrelevancy. The Hawks are Stanley Cup contenders, the Bears run the risk of fallng behind. The McCaskey family must have someone within the family ranks that have some business sense, they all can't be members of the lucky sperm family.

 

But back to Haugh, I can't believe he would write this article, is he so concerned about his access to the team that he continues to write rear-end kissing drivel? I don't need a sports writer who is over the top but they should call a spade a spade. 10 seasons out of the last 14 have been losing seasons, while all of this does not hang on Angelo or Smith, three straight years of disapppointment screams for accountability.

 

So does anyone agree with Haugh's premse in this Larry Mayer like article?

 

[clnr]

Huagh for this past season, and much of the prior, has lost any bite. He does appear to be a Bears apologist.

Refreshing if you compare him to Rosenblom and Morrisey.

 

[madlithuanian]

Nah. Rosenbloom is far more negative of the franchise. Morrissey the same really... They don't appear to be on the Bears' payroll, but they still love stirring it up and generally writing poorly...

 

Refreshing if you compare him to Rosenblom and Morrisey.

 

[DABEARSDABOMB]

Haugh should realize who the Bears were playing. A horrendous football team with one of the worse defenses in the league, including run defenses and up until the very end of the game this team still couldn't run the ball.

 

WE have the most inept rushing game in the NFL and it is one of the worse rushing games of the last decade. The team is complete trash, imo, especially the offensive side of the ball. The bright side is the team has the WR's that can be #2 through #4 and solid enough TE play (although I'd deal Olsen for a 1st or 2nd rounder if we could and find something else cause I think we could use the picks) but the line is beyond pathetic and we desperately need a #1 WR. Oh and playcalling.

[madlithuanian]

Amen!

 

I think you'd be able to sell the Broolyn Bride is you could get a 1st or 2nd for Olsen! A 3rd if you're lucky, probably a 4th.

 

Haugh should realize who the Bears were playing. A horrendous football team with one of the worse defenses in the league, including run defenses and up until the very end of the game this team still couldn't run the ball.

 

WE have the most inept rushing game in the NFL and it is one of the worse rushing games of the last decade. The team is complete trash, imo, especially the offensive side of the ball. The bright side is the team has the WR's that can be #2 through #4 and solid enough TE play (although I'd deal Olsen for a 1st or 2nd rounder if we could and find something else cause I think we could use the picks) but the line is beyond pathetic and we desperately need a #1 WR. Oh and playcalling.

 

[Uncle Buck]

Nah. Rosenbloom is far more negative of the franchise. Morrissey the same really... They don't appear to be on the Bears' payroll, but they still love stirring it up and generally writing poorly...

 

 

Rosenbloom and Morrissey tend to be on the other end of the spectrum, which I admit to enjoy, but as far as Haugh, it just seems like he spends far too much print space making excuses for the Bears management team. Three years of no playoffs and he believes another chance is in order for Lovie. How would he spin away the 100+ years of Cub suck a tude?

[madlithuanian]

Agreed!

 

Rosenbloom and Morrissey tend to be on the other end of the spectrum, which I admit to enjoy, but as far as Haugh, it just seems like he spends far too much print space making excuses for the Bears management team. Three years of no playoffs and he believes another chance is in order for Lovie. How would he spin away the 100+ years of Cub suck a tude?

 

[lemonej]

I have a different read on this article. IMO Haugh is writing as if he were Ted Phillips and qualified that by saying he doesn't presume that he knows what Ted is thinking. He also threw some points in his Teddy speech that sounds like the Bears expect a lockout to occur and who gets paid during lockouts? Coaches and GMs.Thus by retaining both Lovie and JA they won't be on the hook for both them and a new coach and GM during a work stoppage. So in essence he is writing what more than likely ma be the scenario that plays out this offseason. I'm not saying I agree with the article because if Ted doesn't think that both the coaching and the talent isn't suspect he needs to be replaced also. The other alarming thing that comes to mind with this scenario is that maybe the Bears won't replace Turner with an OC from outside but may promote from within like in the past with John Shoop and give Pep Hamilton the job(I just went in the bathroom to hurl).

 

For the record every beat reporter snuggles up to the teams they cover here in Chicago and makes me want to puke some times with some of the fluff pieces they write and "softball" interviews they conduct so as not to ruffle any feathers of management or the players. You can throw Haugh in with all the others including Brad Biggs,Zack Zaidman,Jeff Dickerson,John Mullin and Mike Mulligan.Most of the negative columns about these teams are done by the columnists like Morrisey and Rosenbloom. Boy do I miss Bernie Lincicome who did give a damn who he pissed off and believe it or not the Score's own Terry Boers was that way when he wrote a column.

[madlithuanian]

 

Good points...

 

 

I have a different read on this article. IMO Haugh is writing as if he were Ted Phillips and qualified that by saying he doesn't presume that he knows what Ted is thinking. He also threw some points in his Teddy speech that sounds like the Bears expect a lockout to occur and who gets paid during lockouts? Coaches and GMs.Thus by retaining both Lovie and JA they won't be on the hook for both them and a new coach and GM during a work stoppage. So in essence he is writing what more than likely ma be the scenario that plays out this offseason. I'm not saying I agree with the article because if Ted doesn't think that both the coaching and the talent isn't suspect he needs to be replaced also. The other alarming thing that comes to mind with this scenario is that maybe the Bears won't replace Turner with an OC from outside but may promote from within like in the past with John Shoop and give Pep Hamilton the job(I just went in the bathroom to hurl).

 

For the record every beat reporter snuggles up to the teams they cover here in Chicago and makes me want to puke some times with some of the fluff pieces they write and "softball" interviews they conduct so as not to ruffle any feathers of management or the players. You can throw Haugh in with all the others including Brad Biggs,Zack Zaidman,Jeff Dickerson,John Mullin and Mike Mulligan.Most of the negative columns about these teams are done by the columnists like Morrisey and Rosenbloom. Boy do I miss Bernie Lincicome who did give a damn who he pissed off and believe it or not the Score's own Terry Boers was that way when he wrote a column.

 

[defiantgiant]

I think you'd be able to sell the Broolyn Bride is you could get a 1st or 2nd for Olsen! A 3rd if you're lucky, probably a 4th.

Umm, Olsen was a consensus first-rounder during the 2007 draft (a lot of people were shocked that he lasted until #31,) he's still only 24, and this year's TE crop is not very good once you get past Gresham. He's got more ability as a receiver than most TEs in the league, and while his blocking is still mediocre, it's better than it was when he went #31 overall in the draft. Is there any particular reason you think that nobody in the NFL would be willing to spend more than a 4th on him?

 

There's no way the Bears wouldn't get at least a second and an early Day 2 pick for Olsen. When Jeremy Shockey got traded to the Saints, he went for a 2nd and a 5th. Shockey's a somewhat better blocker than Olsen (he's still not great, and he whined a lot about how he hated to block) but he was also 3 or 4 years older, a major character concern, had significant nagging injuries (he hadn't played a 16-game season in his entire career) and a broken leg, and was coming off a season arguably less productive than Olsen's 2008:

Shockey 2007: 14 games, 14 starts, 57 receptions for 619 yards (10.9 YPA) and 3 TDs

Olsen 2008: 16 games, 7 starts, 54 receptions for 574 yards (10.6 YPA) and 5 TDs

 

Again, Shockey went for a 2nd and a 5th after that season, with all his baggage and injuries and everything. Olsen's on pace this season to have 65 catches for 601 yards and 8 TDs, all on a MUCH worse offense than Shockey's Giants. If we were to put him on the trade block, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see him bring back a late 1st. At a minimum, I'd expect someone to offer a mid-to-high 2nd and a 3rd.

[nfoligno]

You say he was considered a solid 1st round value, so why would nobody in the NFL be willing to offer up more than a 4th. While I think his value higher than that, I would spin the question the other way.

 

Leading up to the draft, I agree he was considered a 1st round pick. Expectations were pretty darn high for the kid, and many pointed to the likes of Gates, Gonzo, etc when talking about his receiving potential. His blocking ability wasn't really tested in Miami, and was thus either considered an unknown or negative. What has he done since the draft to not only validate, but improve on, that status?

 

He didn't breakout as a rookie, as many expected.

 

In his 2nd year, he did more, but still was the #2 TE and not showing off that explosive ability most expected. That leads us to this year.

 

This has been a very mediocre season for him, and I would say this in just about every facet.

 

As a receiver, he has great speed and size, but:

 

His route running isn't great, and he doesn't often separate himself from the defender.

He has shown a tendency toward the drop, often on easy catches.

While he has size, he doesn't seem to effectively utilize that size. Too often I have seen smaller DBs defend him as he doesn't do a good job of either (a) shielding the defender or ( going up and getting the ball at its highest point.

 

And beyond the receiving, the blocking was more an unknown in the draft, but he has proven pretty dang bad in that area. Not only that, but in his 3rd year, he has shown little sign of improvement. I would add that he plays soft. He might have 30-50lbs on a guy coming at him, but he still tends to allow the other guy to win the battle.

 

He went at the end of the 1st round, and after three years, I think we are still looking at him more based on potential than production. I don't think you give up big for a player like that.

 

You mention Shockey, but two things. One, he isn't just a "somewhat" better blocker than Olsen. He is a FAR better blocker than Olsen. Shockey is in fact a pretty damn solid blocker. In NY, they often compared him to Bavaro. Shockey was the sort to not just get in your way, but to attempt to drive you through the gound all the way to China. Also, most around the league really questioned NO sending so much for Shockey. Sure, you can always hope a team makes a bad call for us, but I don't think you can expect it.

 

I think his value is better than a 4th, but do not agree his value is worth either a 1st, or a 2nd and an additional pick. I think it possible you could get a 2nd round pick for him, though I think a 3rd is most likely.

 

With that said, I would not trade Olsen. We need draft picks, sure, but we also need weapons for Cutler. If we traded away Olsen, we would be creating a hole. I have made this argument before. Olsen is the only player on our offense opponents game plan for, and proof of that is in opponents top CB covering him. If anyone worried about our WRs, do you think Woodson would cover Olsen? No.

 

Umm, Olsen was a consensus first-rounder during the 2007 draft (a lot of people were shocked that he lasted until #31,) he's still only 24, and this year's TE crop is not very good once you get past Gresham. He's got more ability as a receiver than most TEs in the league, and while his blocking is still mediocre, it's better than it was when he went #31 overall in the draft. Is there any particular reason you think that nobody in the NFL would be willing to spend more than a 4th on him?

 

There's no way the Bears wouldn't get at least a second and an early Day 2 pick for Olsen. When Jeremy Shockey got traded to the Saints, he went for a 2nd and a 5th. Shockey's a somewhat better blocker than Olsen (he's still not great, and he whined a lot about how he hated to block) but he was also 3 or 4 years older, a major character concern, had significant nagging injuries (he hadn't played a 16-game season in his entire career) and a broken leg, and was coming off a season arguably less productive than Olsen's 2008:

Shockey 2007: 14 games, 14 starts, 57 receptions for 619 yards (10.9 YPA) and 3 TDs

Olsen 2008: 16 games, 7 starts, 54 receptions for 574 yards (10.6 YPA) and 5 TDs

 

Again, Shockey went for a 2nd and a 5th after that season, with all his baggage and injuries and everything. Olsen's on pace this season to have 65 catches for 601 yards and 8 TDs, all on a MUCH worse offense than Shockey's Giants. If we were to put him on the trade block, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see him bring back a late 1st. At a minimum, I'd expect someone to offer a mid-to-high 2nd and a 3rd.

 

[madlithuanian]

Gaines Adams was also considered an easy first rounder. College prospect does not equate to NFL automatically.

 

Granted, I am being harsh, but Tony Gonzalez, who some say could be considered the best TE of all time only garnished a 2nd round pick. Yes, he's older, etc.. but the fact is, most TE's don't garnish much.

 

Your Shockey example also isn't quite apples and apples. Jeremy has been around a lot longer...

 

Realistically, a 3rd could be had. But I figure NFL GM's aren't as stupid as JA and wouldn't bite on a TE that can't block and doesn't go all out for passes and give up a 2nd.

 

Expect less, hope for more. If you expect more, you are going to be disappointed.

 

Umm, Olsen was a consensus first-rounder during the 2007 draft (a lot of people were shocked that he lasted until #31,) he's still only 24, and this year's TE crop is not very good once you get past Gresham. He's got more ability as a receiver than most TEs in the league, and while his blocking is still mediocre, it's better than it was when he went #31 overall in the draft. Is there any particular reason you think that nobody in the NFL would be willing to spend more than a 4th on him?

 

There's no way the Bears wouldn't get at least a second and an early Day 2 pick for Olsen. When Jeremy Shockey got traded to the Saints, he went for a 2nd and a 5th. Shockey's a somewhat better blocker than Olsen (he's still not great, and he whined a lot about how he hated to block) but he was also 3 or 4 years older, a major character concern, had significant nagging injuries (he hadn't played a 16-game season in his entire career) and a broken leg, and was coming off a season arguably less productive than Olsen's 2008:

Shockey 2007: 14 games, 14 starts, 57 receptions for 619 yards (10.9 YPA) and 3 TDs

Olsen 2008: 16 games, 7 starts, 54 receptions for 574 yards (10.6 YPA) and 5 TDs

 

Again, Shockey went for a 2nd and a 5th after that season, with all his baggage and injuries and everything. Olsen's on pace this season to have 65 catches for 601 yards and 8 TDs, all on a MUCH worse offense than Shockey's Giants. If we were to put him on the trade block, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see him bring back a late 1st. At a minimum, I'd expect someone to offer a mid-to-high 2nd and a 3rd.

 

[Mongo3451]

 

With that said, I would not trade Olsen. We need draft picks, sure, but we also need weapons for Cutler. If we traded away Olsen, we would be creating a hole. I have made this argument before. Olsen is the only player on our offense opponents game plan for, and proof of that is in opponents top CB covering him. If anyone worried about our WRs, do you think Woodson would cover Olsen? No.

That's why Olsen stays put. You can equate his value as to when teams would rather kick the ball out of bounds than to kick it to Hester. Olsen brings a special talent and as long as he is drawing interest running routes, I don't give a shit how he blocks. If he's drawing interest in space, he's thrown an indirect block by drawing said interest. Same with Wolfe. It's the ineptitude of our coaching and OL that have rendered him ineffective in the stat category.

[nfoligno]

I mostly agree. While I would love to see him improve as a blocker, that isn't key. I could be wrong, but I do not believe Gates is considered a great blocker. But if Olsen is not going to be a great, or even acceptable, blocker, then he needs to play at a MUCH higher level as a receiver.

 

Sure, some of it can be blamed on coaching, scheme, QB, whatever. But Olsen has to share a chunk of the blame as well. Olsen simply has not developed this year the way many expected, and a big part of that is on him. He has dropped far too many balls. Also, he just doesn't seem to do a good job of getting open. Often when he catches the ball, you see a defender right there.

 

Much of this I think will come, but again, if he isn't going to be a good blocker, than he needs to really jack it up as a receiver. I said earlier that I didn't think Gates was an effective blocker, but right now, there is a massive difference between Olsen and Gates. If Olsen is going to be one dimensional, than that one dimension needs to see a huge improvement.

 

One more thing on Olsen. I could far more easily handle his not being a great blocker if he simply showed more toughness. That is probably the top thing that bugs the hell out of me about Olsen. I want to see more fight. I do not want to see 200lb DBs getting higher, or fighting harder, for the ball. When a DB goes to tackle him, he should be making them pay.

 

Maybe we can get Ditka to come in and work w/ Olsen in the offseason. Just let Ditka to instill a mean streak into him.

 

That's why Olsen stays put. You can equate his value as to when teams would rather kick the ball out of bounds than to kick it to Hester. Olsen brings a special talent and as long as he is drawing interest running routes, I don't give a shit how he blocks. If he's drawing interest in space, he's thrown an indirect block by drawing said interest. Same with Wolfe. It's the ineptitude of our coaching and OL that have rendered him ineffective in the stat category.

 

[defiantgiant]

Gaines Adams was also considered an easy first rounder. College prospect does not equate to NFL automatically.

You're actually helping make my point: Adams was a 1st-round pick, didn't perform up to expectations, and then got traded for a 2nd, based on his youth and the fact that he still has a lot of unfulfilled potential. That's almost exactly what I'm projecting for Olsen, and Olsen has come MUCH closer to living up to his draft status since he came into the league. So how does that make it unlikely that Olsen goes for a 2nd and a Day 2 pick?

 

Granted, I am being harsh, but Tony Gonzalez, who some say could be considered the best TE of all time only garnished a 2nd round pick. Yes, he's older, etc.. but the fact is, most TE's don't garnish much.

 

Your Shockey example also isn't quite apples and apples. Jeremy has been around a lot longer...

 

Realistically, a 3rd could be had. But I figure NFL GM's aren't as stupid as JA and wouldn't bite on a TE that can't block and doesn't go all out for passes and give up a 2nd.

 

Expect less, hope for more. If you expect more, you are going to be disappointed.

Also, Gonzalez is almost a decade older than Olsen, that's why he only garnered a 2nd. The Gonzalez trade is a totally different kind of move: it was a short-term win-now move by the Falcons, where Olsen would be a potential building block for the future (like the Jets trading for Braylon Edwards.) Age and potential play a major role in how high a draft pick a player will command, since you're giving up the opportunity to draft some 22-year-old who could be part of the team for a long time. That's why the Saints didn't have to give up a 1st for Shockey: having "been around a lot longer" doesn't help his value, it hurts it.

 

Yeah, Angelo was stupid in the Gaines Adams trade. Another GM wouldn't have to be stupid to give up a 2nd and a later pick for Olsen, though: look at the Braylon Edwards trade, which was widely considered a pretty smart move for the Jets. Braylon's another former high pick, MUCH more of a rehabilitation project than Olsen, and he went for a 3rd, a 5th, and two young players who are now starting in Cleveland. If Rex Ryan gave up two picks AND two decent players for the chance that he could coach Braylon out of his drops, don't you think somebody would send something comparable for the chance that Olsen could continue getting better as a blocker?

 

I'm not saying we should be trying to move Olsen. I think he's a guy we can build around and continue to develop, the same as Hester. But with the kind of talent deficit the Bears have right now, there are very few guys on the roster who I'd call untouchable. If somebody wanted to offer Olsen's fair value on the trade market, the Bears front office would have to at least consider it.

[madlithuanian]

I think I'm more making a point that JA is a dummy for making the trade! Only if JA is the GM fool giving up high picks, would it make sense. Most other GM's would give a lot less.

 

You are right, it's apples and organges to a large extent regarding Gonzalez. But you're getting a proven commodity w/ TonyG. With Olsen, you only get potential. And as nfo mentioned with Shockey...you're getting a far more proven blocker than Matador Greg. WR's tend to be valued higher than TE's in the NFL in general. And the Jets gave up much lower than a 2nd and gave up some average players. I'd have had no issue with that with Adams. I just do not remotely see any GM giving up a 2nd for Olsen straight up whether it be high or low on the board. The only possibility would be some team having 2 2nd round picks, one of which is a lower pick, and big hole at a pass catching TE, and are on the verge of a SB run. Maybe a team like Cincy...or Arizona...

 

I'm OK moving Olsen if we could get a #2! Otherwise, it's best we just utilize his skill sets here beter.

 

 

 

You're actually helping make my point: Adams was a 1st-round pick, didn't perform up to expectations, and then got traded for a 2nd, based on his youth and the fact that he still has a lot of unfulfilled potential. That's almost exactly what I'm projecting for Olsen, and Olsen has come MUCH closer to living up to his draft status since he came into the league. So how does that make it unlikely that Olsen goes for a 2nd and a Day 2 pick?

 

 

Also, Gonzalez is almost a decade older than Olsen, that's why he only garnered a 2nd. The Gonzalez trade is a totally different kind of move: it was a short-term win-now move by the Falcons, where Olsen would be a potential building block for the future (like the Jets trading for Braylon Edwards.) Age and potential play a major role in how high a draft pick a player will command, since you're giving up the opportunity to draft some 22-year-old who could be part of the team for a long time. That's why the Saints didn't have to give up a 1st for Shockey: having "been around a lot longer" doesn't help his value, it hurts it.

 

Yeah, Angelo was stupid in the Gaines Adams trade. Another GM wouldn't have to be stupid to give up a 2nd and a later pick for Olsen, though: look at the Braylon Edwards trade, which was widely considered a pretty smart move for the Jets. Braylon's another former high pick, MUCH more of a rehabilitation project than Olsen, and he went for a 3rd, a 5th, and two young players who are now starting in Cleveland. If Rex Ryan gave up two picks AND two decent players for the chance that he could coach Braylon out of his drops, don't you think somebody would send something comparable for the chance that Olsen could continue getting better as a blocker?

 

I'm not saying we should be trying to move Olsen. I think he's a guy we can build around and continue to develop, the same as Hester. But with the kind of talent deficit the Bears have right now, there are very few guys on the roster who I'd call untouchable. If somebody wanted to offer Olsen's fair value on the trade market, the Bears front office would have to at least consider it.

 

[nfoligno]

You're actually helping make my point: Adams was a 1st-round pick, didn't perform up to expectations, and then got traded for a 2nd, based on his youth and the fact that he still has a lot of unfulfilled potential. That's almost exactly what I'm projecting for Olsen, and Olsen has come MUCH closer to living up to his draft status since he came into the league. So how does that make it unlikely that Olsen goes for a 2nd and a Day 2 pick?

 

Adams was also a top 5 pick, while Olsen fell to the 2nd to last pick of the 1st round. There is a big difference here. I would further point out that DEs (especially those w/ pass rushing potential) are considered a far higher premium than otherwise.

 

Yeah, Angelo was stupid in the Gaines Adams trade. Another GM wouldn't have to be stupid to give up a 2nd and a later pick for Olsen, though:

 

Huh? JA gave up a 2nd round pick for a DE who went top 5 a couple years ago, and was stupid, but a GM that gives up a 2nd AND later pick for Olsen, who went 2nd from last in the 1st would not be?

 

look at the Braylon Edwards trade, which was widely considered a pretty smart move for the Jets. Braylon's another former high pick, MUCH more of a rehabilitation project than Olsen, and he went for a 3rd, a 5th, and two young players who are now starting in Cleveland. If Rex Ryan gave up two picks AND two decent players for the chance that he could coach Braylon out of his drops, don't you think somebody would send something comparable for the chance that Olsen could continue getting better as a blocker?

 

Again, you try to compare a top 5 pick to the 31st pick. However you want to think about it, 30 teams could have had Olsen and passed, but in Edwards and Adams, you have top 5 pick players, and thus many teams may have wanted them but couldn't get them. Also have to point out two further things. One, you say NY sent two players who are starting, but those two were at the bottom of the Jets 53 man roster and were special teams guys. The main reason they are starters for Cle is because Cle sucks. Also, Edwards may come w/ some red flags (character/drops), but the reality is, he also had about 80 catches for 1,300 yards and 16 scores on a bad offense.

 

Look. I love that we drafted Olsen and that we have him today. I just question the value you put on him if we put him on the block, so to speak. Is is possible a team would send us a 2nd for him? Sure. Just like w/ the Adams trade, the NFL is full is sucker GMs. But I think you would find his value to be considered far closer to a 3rd than a 2nd, much less 2nd plus another pick.

 

As fans, we always tend to over-value our own.

 

I'm not saying we should be trying to move Olsen. I think he's a guy we can build around and continue to develop, the same as Hester. But with the kind of talent deficit the Bears have right now, there are very few guys on the roster who I'd call untouchable. If somebody wanted to offer Olsen's fair value on the trade market, the Bears front office would have to at least consider it.

 

I would only trade Olsen if another team offered well above "fair value". Yes, we are lacking draft picks and have no shortage of holes, but if we trade Olsen, IMHO, we simply create another hole.

[Mongo3451]

 

Maybe we can get Ditka to come in and work w/ Olsen in the offseason. Just let Ditka to instill a mean streak into him.

Or lord Cowher...

 

[defiantgiant]

I just do not remotely see any GM giving up a 2nd for Olsen straight up whether it be high or low on the board. The only possibility would be some team having 2 2nd round picks, one of which is a lower pick, and big hole at a pass catching TE, and are on the verge of a SB run. Maybe a team like Cincy...or Arizona...

Or the Patriots, who have THREE 2nd round picks and a lousy receiving tight end in Ben Watson.

 

And nfo, remember that in Braylon's one good season, he got the ball thrown his way 153 times - he barely caught half of his targets that year. Don't get me wrong, that was a monster season, but it wouldn't do anything to convince a GM who was worried about his drops, which is what was hurting his value. A lot of receivers would put up big numbers on that many attempts, the same way a mediocre running back can still pile up big yardage if he gets 400 carries. For reference, look at Hester's per-target production this year: if he saw 153 passes come his way, he'd have 95 catches for 1199 yards, and we'd be talking about him in the same conversation as 2007 Braylon.

 

I'm really not one to overvalue our players, but I guess the reason I see Olsen having a lot of value is the mix of potential and production: both Adams and Edwards were much more risky trades than Olsen would be, but at the same time, Olsen has more unfulfilled potential than a player like Shockey. I don't think we should be trying to trade him, but I think some teams could be interested enough to make it worth considering.