Drafting for a Better Future Instead of an Ugly Present

[tshanno]

 

http://bearingthenews.com/?p=1400

 

Drafting for a Better Future Instead of an Ugly Present

 

Benjamin Franklin once wrote, “All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse.”

 

 

It is with that in mind that I note Dan Pompei‘s review of the outside linebackers in this year’s NFL draft for the Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-0419-nfl-draft-outside-linebac20110418,0,4899973.story). Here’s what he says about the Bears need there:

 

“Only one outside linebacker, Lance Briggs, is under contract for next season. It is likely the Bears will bring back others with expiring contracts, but for now they can’t be certain. As a result, it seems certain the Bears will look to add depth at the position in the draft.”

 

I’ve got a suspicion the Bears might be looking to add more than just special teams depth here. Briggs will be on the wrong side of 30 in November and middle linebacker Brian Urlacher will be 34 in May.

 

A few days ago, Pompei wrote a nice column about how good teams don’t draft to fill immediate needs (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-0417-pompei-bears-chicago--20110416,0,5218497.column). They draft for the future:

 

“Too many NFL general managers look at their draft needs through reading glasses, studying just what’s in front of their noses. What they really need are binoculars so they can see what’s coming in the distance.

 

“It’s a trap to examine the Bears’ roster and determine they must select an offensive tackle and a defensive tackle with their first two picks in the NFL draft because that’s where their most glaring holes are.

 

“A better plan, depending on how the draft falls, might be to ignore those positions for the time being.”

 

Pompei goes on to suggest that holes are better filled in free agency. I could not agree more with this sentiment.

 

The linebackers are a strength of this team but age is going to eventually catch up to them if the Bears aren’t careful. They left those linebackers with expiring contracts go to free agency because they recognize that. They’ve tendered Nick Roach under 2010 rules as insurance but by leaving Pisa Tinoisamoa off the roster, they’ve left themselves open to draft another young starter if he falls to them. That could be Akeem Ayers, who the Pompei has rated as the second best after Von Miller (who will almost certainly go in the top five picks).

 

Yes, the Bears have needs at the line of scrimmage. No doubt about it. And yes, fans are going to be upset if they don’t draft some players to fill those gaps. But free agency awaits and drafting for the future is still what its all about.

 

If GM Jerry Angelo does it right, he’ll take the best players left on the board in this draft. And the best guy to take could easily be a linebacker in the early rounds. That’s because, as Franklin said so well, seeing the future is the key to avoiding present changes for the worse.

 

[jason]

http://bearingthenews.com/?p=1400

 

Drafting for a Better Future Instead of an Ugly Present

 

Benjamin Franklin once wrote, “All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse.”

 

 

It is with that in mind that I note Dan Pompei‘s review of the outside linebackers in this year’s NFL draft for the Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-0419-nfl-draft-outside-linebac20110418,0,4899973.story). Here’s what he says about the Bears need there:

 

“Only one outside linebacker, Lance Briggs, is under contract for next season. It is likely the Bears will bring back others with expiring contracts, but for now they can’t be certain. As a result, it seems certain the Bears will look to add depth at the position in the draft.”

 

I’ve got a suspicion the Bears might be looking to add more than just special teams depth here. Briggs will be on the wrong side of 30 in November and middle linebacker Brian Urlacher will be 34 in May.

 

A few days ago, Pompei wrote a nice column about how good teams don’t draft to fill immediate needs (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-0417-pompei-bears-chicago--20110416,0,5218497.column). They draft for the future:

 

“Too many NFL general managers look at their draft needs through reading glasses, studying just what’s in front of their noses. What they really need are binoculars so they can see what’s coming in the distance.

 

“It’s a trap to examine the Bears’ roster and determine they must select an offensive tackle and a defensive tackle with their first two picks in the NFL draft because that’s where their most glaring holes are.

 

“A better plan, depending on how the draft falls, might be to ignore those positions for the time being.”

 

Pompei goes on to suggest that holes are better filled in free agency. I could not agree more with this sentiment.

 

The linebackers are a strength of this team but age is going to eventually catch up to them if the Bears aren’t careful. They left those linebackers with expiring contracts go to free agency because they recognize that. They’ve tendered Nick Roach under 2010 rules as insurance but by leaving Pisa Tinoisamoa off the roster, they’ve left themselves open to draft another young starter if he falls to them. That could be Akeem Ayers, who the Pompei has rated as the second best after Von Miller (who will almost certainly go in the top five picks).

 

Yes, the Bears have needs at the line of scrimmage. No doubt about it. And yes, fans are going to be upset if they don’t draft some players to fill those gaps. But free agency awaits and drafting for the future is still what its all about.

 

If GM Jerry Angelo does it right, he’ll take the best players left on the board in this draft. And the best guy to take could easily be a linebacker in the early rounds. That’s because, as Franklin said so well, seeing the future is the key to avoiding present changes for the worse.

 

Nice article, completely disagree with the premise on multiple points. First, who's to say "drafting for the future" doesn't also satisfy the present needs? The two are not mutually exclusive. Second, taking BPA as a hard and fast rule doesn't make sense if a team already has great strength at that position. That creates a situation in which the flaws are magnified because the players "drafted for the future" may never help the team on the field because they'll be forced to sit behind players for several years. Sure, it worked for GB with Rodgers, but that's probably the exception to the rule. Third, good LBs are a dime a dozen. Especially in this scheme. Those guys can easily be found in mid/late rounds. Not to mention the fact a significant number of NFL LBs on rosters who went undrafted. Finally, this line of reasoning only works when the holes aren't glaring. Little holes are easy to fix. It can sometimes be done with scheme. Medium holes may require a free agent stop gap and scheme. But buying deck chairs and a band for future guests on the Titanic doesn't stop the water from gushing through the massive hole in the side of a sinking ship.

 

Make no mistake. The OL is the Titanic. Worst in the NFL by far. Potentially one of the worst OLs in NFL history. It needs help fast and often, or the conductor of the ship (Cutler) and the primary motor (Forte) won't be serviceable for very long.

[madlithuanian]

Agreed. Tom's article is well presented, but, like you said, drafting for the future and for the now need not be mutually exclusive. My gut feeling regarding drafting, besides QB, no other position than OL is really a "future" related pick. You can make cases for WR and CB being such, but I think OL is the unglamorous "draft for the future" pick. It's a position that does seem to have more longevity in it than most. The candle burns long, and not necessarily hot, like RB or DL.

 

Pomei has long been shilling for the McCaskeys that I have virtually no respect for his opinion any more. I almost see this article as a smokescreen favor to the McCaskey's so he can get invited to the next dinner at Gibsons.

 

Do we need a youth movement at LB? Yup! But, not necessarily right now. There is no Laurinaitis to get. So, pick up a guy in the later rounds and hope Angelo strikes gold again in a late round. We need OL addressed in BOTH FA and the draft. Like you say, it's the freakin' Titanic breathing doom upon it's occupants, not the USS Minnow loaded with 2 hot chicks. If we nab a blue chip DL in the first, I think I can proceed w/o a barf bag, but the next 2 picks better damn well be OL. Other than that, it's all OL with shots in the dark at a few other positions. I just think we need to walk out of the draft with one OL that can play now, one that looks to have a solid future and a DL (hopefully Tackle) that has a solid future and can contribute now in spurts.

 

 

 

Nice article, completely disagree with the premise on multiple points. First, who's to say "drafting for the future" doesn't also satisfy the present needs? The two are not mutually exclusive. Second, taking BPA as a hard and fast rule doesn't make sense if a team already has great strength at that position. That creates a situation in which the flaws are magnified because the players "drafted for the future" may never help the team on the field because they'll be forced to sit behind players for several years. Sure, it worked for GB with Rodgers, but that's probably the exception to the rule. Third, good LBs are a dime a dozen. Especially in this scheme. Those guys can easily be found in mid/late rounds. Not to mention the fact a significant number of NFL LBs on rosters who went undrafted. Finally, this line of reasoning only works when the holes aren't glaring. Little holes are easy to fix. It can sometimes be done with scheme. Medium holes may require a free agent stop gap and scheme. But buying deck chairs and a band for future guests on the Titanic doesn't stop the water from gushing through the massive hole in the side of a sinking ship.

 

Make no mistake. The OL is the Titanic. Worst in the NFL by far. Potentially one of the worst OLs in NFL history. It needs help fast and often, or the conductor of the ship (Cutler) and the primary motor (Forte) won't be serviceable for very long.

 

[defiantgiant]

Tom, it's a very well-written article, and I absolutely agree with the premise that good teams draft future starters before they have glaring needs at the position. I fully expect Angelo to spend one or maybe two picks on linebackers before it's all said and done, but I expect him to do it in the middle or late rounds of the draft. There are a few major problems with the Bears drafting a linebacker in the early rounds.

 

First, a 4-3 linebacker is unlikely to be the best available player early on: this is an unusually thin crop of 4-3 linebackers, especially at the top. There are Von Miller and Akeem Ayers (who'll probably be gone before the Bears' 1st-rounder) and then Bruce Carter and Mason Foster (who'll probably be gone before their 2nd) and then a whole lot of guys who aren't worth a 1st or a 2nd. This is partially because a majority of the top LBs this year are 3-4 players only. OLBs like Brooks Reed, Justin Houston, and Sam Acho would be DEs in a Tampa-2 scheme. ILBs like Martez Wilson, Kelvin Sheppard, and Mark Herzlich probably don't have a position at all in a Tampa-2. I'd feel differently if some guy in this year's draft were the next Urlacher, but there's nobody like that here. The class of 4-3 LBs this year is much, much worse than the group of D-line and O-line, and it's likely that spending our 1st on a linebacker would be a major reach.

 

Second, for all his drafting faults, Jerry Angelo has demonstrated that he can pretty reliably find starting-caliber linebackers in the middle rounds, or even as street free agents. He inherited Urlacher, sure, but beyond that he's never needed to devote major draft resources to LB, and we've always had a good group there. From third-rounders like Briggs to UDFAs like Nick Roach, Angelo's proven that he can restock the LB position with quality young players without spending high draft picks. I don't see why that should change now.

 

Third, a Tampa-2 scheme can use smaller linebackers than any other defense currently in use in the NFL, and only a few teams are still running Tampa defenses. Players like Brian Rolle, Lawrence Wilson, and Greg Jones could develop into starters in a Tampa defense, but they're going to be available deep in the middle rounds, because for most defenses they'd be sub-package players or special teamers. When it comes to LBs who are scheme-limited to a Tampa defense, the Bears will only be competing with Indy, Tampa, Minnesota, and maybe Carolina. Of those four, only Tampa and Carolina have major needs at linebacker. So at least a couple of the 4 or 5 good Tampa-only LBs should fall pretty far. Why would Angelo spend a 1st on a linebacker when he can be fairly confident that a starting-caliber player's going to fall to him in the 4th?

[selection7]

Kind of unrelated but I thought it kind of interesting and didn't care to make a new topic. Two of this writer's top 10 all time NFL busts (they're all from the post-free agency era though) are Bear picks. Enis and Terrell. Each draft slot is ranked separately though...that is, it's suggesting Enis was worse than any other #5 pick only...similar for David Terrell at #8.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_...?urn=nfl-wp1194

 

To be fair, both had talent, but their contracts and future contract expectations were way too high for what realistically they were bringing to the table.