JA looking to move up to draft a safety

[bradjock]

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/...aft-safety.html

 

As per the Trib. IMO, I see us doing something like giving up Olsen and our 3rd for another team's 2nd.

[Wesson44]

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/...aft-safety.html

 

As per the Trib. IMO, I see us doing something like giving up Olsen and our 3rd for another team's 2nd.

IMHO i think we should not move in the draft order. We have no ammo now without our 1si and 2nd round picks this year. We just need to make a move for Sims(OG) and Atogwe(FS) and draft BPA.

[AZ54]

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/...aft-safety.html

 

As per the Trib. IMO, I see us doing something like giving up Olsen and our 3rd for another team's 2nd.

 

Seems like a lot to give up for a 2nd Rd pick. I suspect JA is trying to do something with a package deal like that and for sure Brown is involved and I'm sure he'll listen to offers involving Olsen. I just prefer to keep Olsen around.

[bowlingtwig]

Seems like a lot to give up for a 2nd Rd pick. I suspect JA is trying to do something with a package deal like that and for sure Brown is involved and I'm sure he'll listen to offers involving Olsen. I just prefer to keep Olsen around.

I seriously doubt Olsen is going any where.

[nfoligno]

Remember the TJ trade? We traded TJ to simply move up in the 2nd round. I hated that move then, and would hate the idea of using Olsen simply to move up in the draft now.

 

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/...aft-safety.html

 

As per the Trib. IMO, I see us doing something like giving up Olsen and our 3rd for another team's 2nd.

 

[Mongo3451]

Remember the TJ trade? We traded TJ to simply move up in the 2nd round. I hated that move then, and would hate the idea of using Olsen simply to move up in the draft now.

That being said, would it surprise you?

[nfoligno]

To be honest, yes. I honestly do not believe we are looking to trade Olsen. I think this is more a media/fan thing than a reality.

 

The day we hired Martz, the media and fans began to talk about potentially trading Olsen as he didn't appear to fit in Martz scheme. Since then, all I have read from Halas is that Olsen was once very concerned about his position in the offense, but after meeting w/ Martz, is now content w/ his role. Its one thing for coaches to lie. Happens all the time, and frankly, they often have to for various reasons. If they annouce they are looking to deal Olsen, but don't find a good deal, it makes keeping him pretty difficult.

 

But there is less reason for Olsen to lie or be nice. If he were not satisified w/ whatever Martz explained of his role in the offense, I think we would hear from him much more about wanting out.

 

Further, its one thing for coaches to avoid a subject, but they have gone out of their way to explain how much a part of the system Olsen will be.

 

Maybe I am just off on this, but I think the trade talk is more media and fan speculation. I put it up there with Tillman moving to FS, which has been talked about by the media and fans for years, but the staff has always been absolute in his staying at CB.

 

That being said, would it surprise you?

 

[defiantgiant]

Remember the TJ trade? We traded TJ to simply move up in the 2nd round. I hated that move then, and would hate the idea of using Olsen simply to move up in the draft now.

Well, but we also traded Jones because he wanted more money than Angelo was going to pay him, and to clear the way for Benson. Wasn't the deal between Jones and Angelo basically that if he kept quiet and played well for 2006, we'd deal him to a team that would pay him what he wanted? In any case, Olsen's at the off-season program, and it doesn't sound like he's in a comparable situation to the one that got Jones dealt.

 

I'd be much happier trading a future pick for a 2nd this year: if it were me, I'd move our 3rd and a 2nd next year to grab Nate Allen or Morgan Burnett in the 2nd. I mean, what are the odds that a free safety class like this one comes around again next year? Guys like Allen or Burnett, in a normal year, wouldn't have Eric Berry, Taylor Mays and Earl Thomas ahead of them, pushing them down in the draft. And if getting a similar quality FS in a subsequent year would take a higher draft pick, that makes trading a future pick seem like not such a bad idea. A 2nd and a 3rd isn't too much to pay for a borderline 1st-round talent at a huge need position.

[nfoligno]

Well, but we also traded Jones because he wanted more money than Angelo was going to pay him, and to clear the way for Benson. Wasn't the deal between Jones and Angelo basically that if he kept quiet and played well for 2006, we'd deal him to a team that would pay him what he wanted? In any case, Olsen's at the off-season program, and it doesn't sound like he's in a comparable situation to the one that got Jones dealt.

 

The point wasn't to look at similarities in the situations, but rather in the trades. We traded a veteran to move up in the draft. Not to get another picks, but simply to move up. The same is being suggested with Olsen. I said I didn't like the deal w/ TJ then, nor do I like the idea w/ Olsen now.

 

I'd be much happier trading a future pick for a 2nd this year: if it were me, I'd move our 3rd and a 2nd next year to grab Nate Allen or Morgan Burnett in the 2nd. I mean, what are the odds that a free safety class like this one comes around again next year? Guys like Allen or Burnett, in a normal year, wouldn't have Eric Berry, Taylor Mays and Earl Thomas ahead of them, pushing them down in the draft. And if getting a similar quality FS in a subsequent year would take a higher draft pick, that makes trading a future pick seem like not such a bad idea. A 2nd and a 3rd isn't too much to pay for a borderline 1st-round talent at a huge need position.

 

Maybe I just have no scouted the top safeties enough as I know we don't have a high enough pick, but our 3rd this year and 2nd next year seems pretty steep. There is just no telling how good we will be this coming season, especially w/ a tougher schedule. What if our pick is high? That means we could be spending a high 2nd round pick, as well as a 3rd rounder to get the 5th or whatever best FS in the class. Maybe a great class of FS', but that simply seems like a lot to give up.

[madlithuanian]

Honestly, I do not trust Bungelo to draft....

 

Getting a 2nd this year mortgaging the future yet again will hinder the potential for a real GM once one arrives. Assuming the McCaskey's don't blow it again. Which is a hell of an assumption, I know.

[Stinger226]

Well, but we also traded Jones because he wanted more money than Angelo was going to pay him, and to clear the way for Benson. Wasn't the deal between Jones and Angelo basically that if he kept quiet and played well for 2006, we'd deal him to a team that would pay him what he wanted? In any case, Olsen's at the off-season program, and it doesn't sound like he's in a comparable situation to the one that got Jones dealt.

 

The point wasn't to look at similarities in the situations, but rather in the trades. We traded a veteran to move up in the draft. Not to get another picks, but simply to move up. The same is being suggested with Olsen. I said I didn't like the deal w/ TJ then, nor do I like the idea w/ Olsen now.

 

I'd be much happier trading a future pick for a 2nd this year: if it were me, I'd move our 3rd and a 2nd next year to grab Nate Allen or Morgan Burnett in the 2nd. I mean, what are the odds that a free safety class like this one comes around again next year? Guys like Allen or Burnett, in a normal year, wouldn't have Eric Berry, Taylor Mays and Earl Thomas ahead of them, pushing them down in the draft. And if getting a similar quality FS in a subsequent year would take a higher draft pick, that makes trading a future pick seem like not such a bad idea. A 2nd and a 3rd isn't too much to pay for a borderline 1st-round talent at a huge need position.

 

Maybe I just have no scouted the top safeties enough as I know we don't have a high enough pick, but our 3rd this year and 2nd next year seems pretty steep. There is just no telling how good we will be this coming season, especially w/ a tougher schedule. What if our pick is high? That means we could be spending a high 2nd round pick, as well as a 3rd rounder to get the 5th or whatever best FS in the class. Maybe a great class of FS', but that simply seems like a lot to give up.

The only problem I have with drafting a safety is, he will be a rookie and chances of the 4th or 5th rated safety having an impact on a team so in direr need of an impact from that position. I would pefer to get one in free agency and add a draft pick to help develope for depth or eventually starting, getting us back to signing Atogwe.

[Guest TerraTor]

I know they want Morgan Burnett, thats the guy

 

However, i cant see the worth in moving up with no picks and many holes unless its for a star like Berry or Thomas, Mays. Obviously, we have no firepower for that anyway.

 

I agree with everyone, why not sign a guy (Atogwe) who we know can play and keep picks to make something out of our Oline, which is herendous, need i mention that Frank Omiyale is still on the team

[Connorbear]

Well, but we also traded Jones because he wanted more money than Angelo was going to pay him, and to clear the way for Benson. Wasn't the deal between Jones and Angelo basically that if he kept quiet and played well for 2006, we'd deal him to a team that would pay him what he wanted? In any case, Olsen's at the off-season program, and it doesn't sound like he's in a comparable situation to the one that got Jones dealt.

 

I'd be much happier trading a future pick for a 2nd this year: if it were me, I'd move our 3rd and a 2nd next year to grab Nate Allen or Morgan Burnett in the 2nd. I mean, what are the odds that a free safety class like this one comes around again next year? Guys like Allen or Burnett, in a normal year, wouldn't have Eric Berry, Taylor Mays and Earl Thomas ahead of them, pushing them down in the draft. And if getting a similar quality FS in a subsequent year would take a higher draft pick, that makes trading a future pick seem like not such a bad idea. A 2nd and a 3rd isn't too much to pay for a borderline 1st-round talent at a huge need position.

Absolutely do not let Angelo trade future picks to move up this yr. He should be on the fence just as Lovie is. No way should he be allowed to screw the pooch for his possible replacement.

 

Peace

[bradjock]

Absolutely do not let Angelo trade future picks to move up this yr. He should be on the fence just as Lovie is. No way should he be allowed to screw the pooch for his possible replacement.

 

Peace

 

I wouldn't mind trading future picks if it wasn't so damn expensive. Remember a few years back when San Diego gave us their 3rd and next years 3rd for our 3rd round pick? That's just nuts. (I'm thinking we used the pick on Garrett Wolfe and traded down the next year so it didn't help us much anyway . . . )

 

 

[bradjock]

Remember the TJ trade? We traded TJ to simply move up in the 2nd round. I hated that move then, and would hate the idea of using Olsen simply to move up in the draft now.

 

I agree with you. But don't you think we'd likely do it again? There doesn't appear to be much love out there for Olsen.

[defiantgiant]

Maybe I just have no scouted the top safeties enough as I know we don't have a high enough pick, but our 3rd this year and 2nd next year seems pretty steep. There is just no telling how good we will be this coming season, especially w/ a tougher schedule. What if our pick is high? That means we could be spending a high 2nd round pick, as well as a 3rd rounder to get the 5th or whatever best FS in the class. Maybe a great class of FS', but that simply seems like a lot to give up.

I really think Nate Allen would have a shot at the first round in any other year - he's the fourth-ranked FS prospect behind a once-in-a-decade prospect (Berry,) a phenomenal athlete (Mays,) and a free safety with enough speed and coverage skills that people are projecting him as a starting-caliber corner (Thomas.) If Earl Thomas doesn't fall to the Cowboys at #27, they could easily take Allen there. Here's his scouting report:

Read & React: Comes downhill to attack tight ends between the linebackers. Reacts quickly when a corner is in trouble and has the speed to catch free receivers from the opposite hash. A step slow to pick up misdirection and bootlegs but recovers nicely; still typically makes the play a few yards downfield.

 

Man Coverage: Good straight-line speed and fair change of direction abilities, but struggles to stay with receivers downfield when lining up in the slot, as you would expect from a safety. Slow, high, choppy backpedal. Should match up well against NFL tight ends in the flat.

 

Zone Coverage: Good range to get from the hash to the sideline on deep throws. Good height and vertical to win jump balls. Solid last line of defense, bringing his hips to stop receivers in their tracks. Will pound a receiver over the middle. Will take incorrect angles to the sideline at times, relying on his speed too often. Makes quarterbacks pay for underthrown balls, stepping in to make the interception more often than not.

 

Closing/Recovery: Will get to the ball when it's in the air, knocking the receiver or the ball to the ground. Doesn't always take correct angles when the play is in front of him, but has the speed to recover - preventing a big play from becoming huge.

 

Run Support: When allowed to attack the line, Allen is an explosive, reliable in-the-box tackler. Good last line of defense to prevent breakaway runs. Will add himself to the pile and push back the runner to prevent the extra yard. Not physical enough to get off tight end blocks on the edge. Gets sucked in too far on runs, failing to keep the runner from getting the sideline.

 

Tackling: Generally a secure tackler in the secondary. Gives good effort, and many times is the second man in on a tackle. Gets frozen and loses battles against elusive running backs in the open field. Played a lot of deep Cover-2, and played behind an active front seven - leading to fewer opportunities for tackles in 2008. Aggressiveness and secure tackling; will be a solid special teams player at the next level.

 

Intangibles: Very good student. Sets the defense on the field. Loves the game; works hard on and off the field to improve.

 

I mean, I don't think it'd be a bargain to spend a 2nd and a 3rd on Allen, but I don't think it'd be a bad deal either.

[DABEARSDABOMB]

The only way the Bears should move up is if they are dangling players to move up. Do not trade current or future picks to move up significanlty in this years draft. We need to have a full stock-pile next season cause I'm certain we will have some serious needs to address.

[bradjock]

The only way the Bears should move up is if they are dangling players to move up. Do not trade current or future picks to move up significanlty in this years draft. We need to have a full stock-pile next season cause I'm certain we will have some serious needs to address.

 

Agreed. But what players do we have to dangle? When you're dangling a player it implies you are loaded at a certain position . . .

 

The only position I see us dangling is TE. We could offer Olsen, Clark, or the other TE who's 6-7 and his name momentarily escapes me.

 

That's it. I don't see us with much else to dangle.

[defiantgiant]

Update: Apparently when Lovie went to USF's pro day, he had breakfast with Nate Allen, their free safety. They've basically admitted that he was there to see whether Allen was good enough to be worth moving up for.

[AZ54]

I have no concern here. The entire world knows FS is our #1 target at this point in the offseason. There's no reason to attempt to hide it and it's better to do all the necessary research to make sure we pick the right guy, especially if we are going to attempt to trade up to make it happen. I'll never believe we intend to trade up for a FS until I see it happen.

[defiantgiant]

I have no concern here. The entire world knows FS is our #1 target at this point in the offseason. There's no reason to attempt to hide it and it's better to do all the necessary research to make sure we pick the right guy, especially if we are going to attempt to trade up to make it happen. I'll never believe we intend to trade up for a FS until I see it happen.

Yeah, I'm not worried about them telegraphing the move. If anything, it'll let teams in the top of the 2nd know who to call if they're trying to move down. Like you said, I'll believe it when I see it, but there are a lot of worse moves we could make than trading up for a starting-caliber free safety. We haven't had one since Mike Brown's Achilles problems started.

[nfoligno]

Honestly, I have always laughed about some of this stuff.

 

I remember years ago, when Hatley was running the show, it got out that we liked Andre Carter. I don't recall all the details today, but stories were written about how much we liked Carter. Then SF leap frogged us and took Carter.

 

But what always made me laugh was the idea of our interest in Carter as being news. Lets see. We had no pass rush, and were weakest as end. A pass rushing DE then was as obvious of a need as a FS today. In the draft there were 2 DE considered top 10 picks. Justin Smith was already off the board, and then SF jumped us to get Carter. I remember so many bears fans ripping Hatley and the other guy (I think an assist coach or scout or something) who slipped that we liked Carter, but my question always was, who didn't know? If some really good looking FS was falling to us, does anyone thing other teams behind us wouldn't know we were a good bet to take that FS?

 

If we know what the team needs are, I think other teams are good enough to figure it out too. And if we know which prospects are within that draft range, I have a feeling other NFL teams have an idea too.

 

Yeah, I'm not worried about them telegraphing the move. If anything, it'll let teams in the top of the 2nd know who to call if they're trying to move down. Like you said, I'll believe it when I see it, but there are a lot of worse moves we could make than trading up for a starting-caliber free safety. We haven't had one since Mike Brown's Achilles problems started.