our fearless leader speaks

[Lucky Luciano]

September 8, 2010

BY NEIL HAYES nhayes@suntimes.com

 

''It's not like you have to have five all-stars at the position,'' Angelo said recently. ''You've got to get five guys who are good enough to play well together. That's the key to offensive-line play. The Giants, two years running, had the same offensive line. No real household names, but they were very, very good and the continuity of having those five play together was critical.''

 

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/be...-bear08.article

 

here is some of the complete nonsense from our fearless leader that every fan (and especially if we had a real president of football operations who was qualified to do his job) should note.

 

1. "the continuity of having five play together was critical". then why in the H E double hockey sticks do you hire semi-retired bandaids like o. pace, r. brown and fred miller to come in and finish out their careers here in which we usually get 1-2 years max play out of them before aged performances force retirement a year later than it should be.

 

is that continuity angie? when you are changing the offensive line every year or two? by bringing in MORE free agents because you can't fill the holes with young prospects you FAIL to even waste draft picks on?

 

2. ''It's not like you have to have five all-stars at the position...No real household names ". are you a complete idiot or do you just think we are? just because YOU have never heard of these players does that mean the rest of us are living on another plain of existence?

 

well let's see what their OL looks like... LT diehl age 29 - 2009 pro-bowl; C o'hara age 32 - 2008, 2009 pro-bowl; RG snee age 27 - 2008 all-pro, 2008, 2009 pro-bowl.

 

i guess you're right angie, only THREE of them are all-stars.

 

 

 

[nfoligno]

I don't have as big of an issue with adding veterans. R.Brown was actually a very good pickup for us. My issue is that he didn't follow this up by drafting young OL to develop, and I don't mean 7th round draft picks. If he added veterans, but at the same time used draft picks on OL, we would have been able to develop young OL to replace the veterans. But no. Angie would sign the veterans, and wait to make a move (draft or FA) until a year after the veteran was done.

 

Angelo once flat said in an interview he didn't like drafting OL because they take too long to develop and that he preferred veterans. There was a time I think this may have been okay. There was a time when OL just were not that expensive. LTs may have been pricey, but RTs, OGs and even centers were pretty inexpensive. You could go into FA and get very good, young OL. But times changed. OGs today make big bucks once reserved for only LTs. Angelo didn't change with the times. He continued to go the FA route, but found quality young players in FA too expensive, so thus went after the bargain old guys. This worked well for Brown. Maybe worked decent for a year with Miller. Bombed with Pace. But to me, the point is still not simply adding the veterans, but not backing up such a move with draft picks ready to step in when the old guys were done.

 

here is some of the complete nonsense from our fearless leader that every fan (and especially if we had a real president of football operations who was qualified to do his job) should note.

 

1. "the continuity of having five play together was critical". then why in the H E double hockey sticks do you hire semi-retired bandaids like o. pace, r. brown and fred miller to come in and finish out their careers here in which we usually get 1-2 years max play out of them before aged performances force retirement a year later than it should be.

 

is that continuity angie? when you are changing the offensive line every year or two? by bringing in MORE free agents because you can't fill the holes with young prospects you FAIL to even waste draft picks on?

 

2. ''It's not like you have to have five all-stars at the position...No real household names ". are you a complete idiot or do you just think we are? just because YOU have never heard of these players does that mean the rest of us are living on another plain of existence?

 

well let's see what their OL looks like... LT diehl age 29 - 2009 pro-bowl; C o'hara age 32 - 2008, 2009 pro-bowl; RG snee age 27 - 2008 all-pro, 2008, 2009 pro-bowl.

 

i guess you're right angie, only THREE of them are all-stars.

 

[Lucky Luciano]

I don't have as big of an issue with adding veterans. R.Brown was actually a very good pickup for us. My issue is that he didn't follow this up by drafting young OL to develop, and I don't mean 7th round draft picks. If he added veterans, but at the same time used draft picks on OL, we would have been able to develop young OL to replace the veterans. But no. Angie would sign the veterans, and wait to make a move (draft or FA) until a year after the veteran was done.

 

this is what separates the men from the boys as GM's go... the draft, plain and simple.

 

having said that, i don't have an issue adding veteran FA's under 'specific circumstances':

 

1. replacement due to injury. if you lose a front line starting player then you can go after these end-of-career players who may have 1-3 years left in their tanks as long as you draft their replacements high enough to give you hopefully a high quality player replacement when it's time to move the older veteran. our problem is, as you know, we never do this.

 

2. replacement due to the inability to sign your own FA's due to cap limitations. again you can do the same as the scenario above although good GM's should see this coming ahead of time and negotiate prior to the contract end or compensate in the draft before it comes into being.

 

3. your GM has missed picking a good starter in the draft. face it, this happens from time-to-time as nobody can pick gold with every pick. in this instance you can either pick up your aging player and again draft his replacement or go for a quality FA with a lengthy career still ahead of him and pay the big bucks.

 

that said, if your draft picks are continually poor it's time to evaluate why. is it the picks you are making and the round you select them in (you or the scouting staffs choices)? is it the inability of your coaching staff to mold/coach these picks into front line players?

 

also to continually ignore drafting potentially high quality players in the slots they dictate on draft day and expect to fill these positions on the offensive line the way he has done so, is ludicrous. so is the missmanagement of FA's you do bring in... i can't even begin to state how stupid it was to bring in tait, a high quality right tackle at a tremendous cap hit and play him at a different position (than where he was rated good in the first place) nearly his entire tenure in chicago.

 

Angelo once flat said in an interview he didn't like drafting OL because they take too long to develop and that he preferred veterans. There was a time I think this may have been okay. There was a time when OL just were not that expensive. LTs may have been pricey, but RTs, OGs and even centers were pretty inexpensive. You could go into FA and get very good, young OL. But times changed. OGs today make big bucks once reserved for only LTs. Angelo didn't change with the times. He continued to go the FA route, but found quality young players in FA too expensive, so thus went after the bargain old guys. This worked well for Brown. Maybe worked decent for a year with Miller. Bombed with Pace. But to me, the point is still not simply adding the veterans, but not backing up such a move with draft picks ready to step in when the old guys were done.

 

these are just some of the reasons angie is a poor GM. you have to have vision and long range insight. by neglecting drafting players that need time to develop you will, in this dimention of reality, never/rarely have QUALITY players to fill these slots except through free agency and quite frankly there are numerous reasons why this will NOT work in the long haul. the cost is too much and you will rarely see key players such as qb's, LT's, superb DE's and CB's who are not past the peak of their careers and starting on the downward slope.

 

it also clearly shows the inability of having CONSISTANCY on your offensive and defensive lines that angie somehow now believes is important (only 8 years to late) but continues to do nothing about as was clearly shown in this years draft.

[nfoligno]

Lucky, hope your not expecting an argument from me.

 

(a) I have never been a fan of Angelo, and felt he did a poor job from the start.

 

( In particular, OL is one of the areas I have most attacked him. While he did try various ways for a QB (striking out) he at least swung the bat. When it came to OL it was more like 3 called strikes and his bat never lifted off his shoulder.

 

this is what separates the men from the boys as GM's go... the draft, plain and simple.

 

having said that, i don't have an issue adding veteran FA's under 'specific circumstances':

 

1. replacement due to injury. if you lose a front line starting player then you can go after these end-of-career players who may have 1-3 years left in their tanks as long as you draft their replacements high enough to give you hopefully a high quality player replacement when it's time to move the older veteran. our problem is, as you know, we never do this.

 

2. replacement due to the inability to sign your own FA's due to cap limitations. again you can do the same as the scenario above although good GM's should see this coming ahead of time and negotiate prior to the contract end or compensate in the draft before it comes into being.

 

3. your GM has missed picking a good starter in the draft. face it, this happens from time-to-time as nobody can pick gold with every pick. in this instance you can either pick up your aging player and again draft his replacement or go for a quality FA with a lengthy career still ahead of him and pay the big bucks.

 

that said, if your draft picks are continually poor it's time to evaluate why. is it the picks you are making and the round you select them in (you or the scouting staffs choices)? is it the inability of your coaching staff to mold/coach these picks into front line players?

 

also to continually ignore drafting potentially high quality players in the slots they dictate on draft day and expect to fill these positions on the offensive line the way he has done so, is ludicrous. so is the missmanagement of FA's you do bring in... i can't even begin to state how stupid it was to bring in tait, a high quality right tackle at a tremendous cap hit and play him at a different position (than where he was rated good in the first place) nearly his entire tenure in chicago.

 

 

 

these are just some of the reasons angie is a poor GM. you have to have vision and long range insight. by neglecting drafting players that need time to develop you will, in this dimention of reality, never/rarely have QUALITY players to fill these slots except through free agency and quite frankly there are numerous reasons why this will NOT work in the long haul. the cost is too much and you will rarely see key players such as qb's, LT's, superb DE's and CB's who are not past the peak of their careers and starting on the downward slope.

 

it also clearly shows the inability of having CONSISTANCY on your offensive and defensive lines that angie somehow now believes is important (only 8 years to late) but continues to do nothing about as was clearly shown in this years draft.

 

[madlithuanian]

Was he even in the batter's box?

 

[jason]

Was he even in the batter's box?

 

Hit by pitch.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

I read a stat posted by Brad Biggs on twitter about a week ago that said the Bears have taken ONE offensive lineman in the first 4 rounds of any draft since like 2004. Sickening.

 

Oops. Lucky beat me to it in a thread. Either way, something has to be done. If the team struggles, they need to get rid of the front office, and bring in guys who are willing to draft GOOD offensive linemen.

[madlithuanian]

We need someone that can draft period! We should havce drafted far more OL, but even if we didn't it would be more forgivable if the D guys chosen actually made the cut instead of just having youtubes of pool jumping...

 

If the team struggles, they need to get rid of the front office, and bring in guys who are willing to draft GOOD offensive linemen.

 

[lemonej]

this is what separates the men from the boys as GM's go... the draft, plain and simple.

 

having said that, i don't have an issue adding veteran FA's under 'specific circumstances':

 

1. replacement due to injury. if you lose a front line starting player then you can go after these end-of-career players who may have 1-3 years left in their tanks as long as you draft their replacements high enough to give you hopefully a high quality player replacement when it's time to move the older veteran. our problem is, as you know, we never do this.

 

2. replacement due to the inability to sign your own FA's due to cap limitations. again you can do the same as the scenario above although good GM's should see this coming ahead of time and negotiate prior to the contract end or compensate in the draft before it comes into being.

 

3. your GM has missed picking a good starter in the draft. face it, this happens from time-to-time as nobody can pick gold with every pick. in this instance you can either pick up your aging player and again draft his replacement or go for a quality FA with a lengthy career still ahead of him and pay the big bucks.

 

that said, if your draft picks are continually poor it's time to evaluate why. is it the picks you are making and the round you select them in (you or the scouting staffs choices)? is it the inability of your coaching staff to mold/coach these picks into front line players?

 

also to continually ignore drafting potentially high quality players in the slots they dictate on draft day and expect to fill these positions on the offensive line the way he has done so, is ludicrous. so is the missmanagement of FA's you do bring in... i can't even begin to state how stupid it was to bring in tait, a high quality right tackle at a tremendous cap hit and play him at a different position (than where he was rated good in the first place) nearly his entire tenure in chicago.

 

 

 

these are just some of the reasons angie is a poor GM. you have to have vision and long range insight. by neglecting drafting players that need time to develop you will, in this dimention of reality, never/rarely have QUALITY players to fill these slots except through free agency and quite frankly there are numerous reasons why this will NOT work in the long haul. the cost is too much and you will rarely see key players such as qb's, LT's, superb DE's and CB's who are not past the peak of their careers and starting on the downward slope.

 

it also clearly shows the inability of having CONSISTANCY on your offensive and defensive lines that angie somehow now believes is important (only 8 years to late) but continues to do nothing about as was clearly shown in this years draft.

Lucky I did a little looking to back up your post. Ja has drafted 11 OL since he came on board. 5 OTs and 6 OGs. 6 in rd 7 ,1 in rd 6, 1in rd 3 and 2 in rd 1.

 

Contrary to what I thought he has actually drafted 7 of them since 2007, the problem is that only Chris Williams and Josh Beekman have been drafted before the 7th rd. The other problem is the quality of players he drafted at the position.

 

Check out this list.

Josh Beekman rd 4 2007

Aaron Brandt rd 7 2007

Chris Williams rd 1 2008

Kirk Barton rd 7 2008

Chester Adams rd 2008

Lance Louis rd 7 2009

J'Marcus Webb rd 7 2010

[Lucky Luciano]

Lucky I did a little looking to back up your post. Ja has drafted 11 OL since he came on board. 5 OTs and 6 OGs. 6 in rd 7 ,1 in rd 6, 1in rd 3 and 2 in rd 1.

 

Contrary to what I thought he has actually drafted 7 of them since 2007, the problem is that only Chris Williams and Josh Beekman have been drafted before the 7th rd. The other problem is the quality of players he drafted at the position.

 

Check out this list.

Josh Beekman rd 4 2007

Aaron Brandt rd 7 2007

Chris Williams rd 1 2008

Kirk Barton rd 7 2008

Chester Adams rd 2008

Lance Louis rd 7 2009

J'Marcus Webb rd 7 2010

 

this is the problem i have with angelo... these 6th and 7th round picks are throwaway picks. they to me look to be afterthoughts that have no or little chance to make any real impact in our starting lineup.

 

i did some research in the other string i started and it is quite eye opening as to where real offensive line talent is generally drafted if you want starters.

[nfoligno]

I think a lot of it goes back to Angelo's background as a defensive scout. I have talked about this for years.

 

Seemingly ever year, during the draft, when our pick is on the clock, there are several OL who, if you go off the "experts" would look like solid values, but Angelo always seems to find some DL rated far lower who he loves and picks.

 

IMHO, it goes back to our pre-draft board. When grading players, and creating our draft board, I think there is a heavy bias on defensive players, especially DL, and I think this goes back to Angelo's history as a defensive scout. So when our board is created, players the "experts" would have much lower are higher on our board, and OL "experts" would rank high are lower on our board. Thus during the draft, Angelo can honestly say this DL most call a reach was a value pick in his eyes.

 

That is partially why I think we don't draft OL often. We simply don't value OL as highly, thus OL never seems the best player available when it is our time to pick. The only time we seem to draft OL high is when we pick out of need rather than best player available. When we drafted Columbo and Williams in the first round, does anyone believe those were Angelo's best player available, or simply the best OT available. We took them due to need. If not for such a need, I am sure Angelo would have had 5 DL he ranked higher.

 

this is the problem i have with angelo... these 6th and 7th round picks are throwaway picks. they to me look to be afterthoughts that have no or little chance to make any real impact in our starting lineup.

 

i did some research in the other string i started and it is quite eye opening as to where real offensive line talent is generally drafted if you want starters.

 

[Mongo3451]

I think a lot of it goes back to Angelo's background as a defensive scout. I have talked about this for years.

 

Seemingly ever year, during the draft, when our pick is on the clock, there are several OL who, if you go off the "experts" would look like solid values, but Angelo always seems to find some DL rated far lower who he loves and picks.

 

IMHO, it goes back to our pre-draft board. When grading players, and creating our draft board, I think there is a heavy bias on defensive players, especially DL, and I think this goes back to Angelo's history as a defensive scout. So when our board is created, players the "experts" would have much lower are higher on our board, and OL "experts" would rank high are lower on our board. Thus during the draft, Angelo can honestly say this DL most call a reach was a value pick in his eyes.

 

That is partially why I think we don't draft OL often. We simply don't value OL as highly, thus OL never seems the best player available when it is our time to pick. The only time we seem to draft OL high is when we pick out of need rather than best player available. When we drafted Columbo and Williams in the first round, does anyone believe those were Angelo's best player available, or simply the best OT available. We took them due to need. If not for such a need, I am sure Angelo would have had 5 DL he ranked higher.

I think it's actually that JA has struck out on too many DL. He knows that's the one position the "Lovie Two" needs to succeed. He continually tries to re-invent the wheel. IE: find the next Rice and Sapp. His failure to hit on anything other than Tommie Harris has cost us dearly in drafting other talent. It also doesn't help that Lovie couldn't motivate a goose to shit.

[madlithuanian]

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

It also doesn't help that Lovie couldn't motivate a goose to shit.

 

[AZ54]

It's hard to say what will happen after this sesaon but no matter what I think the Bears should retain Tice. His coaching on the field is one factor but add in that he's better at evaluating Oline talent than anyone else we've had is another good reason to keep him around.