Forte vs Angelo

[nfoligno]

Maybe I wasn't clear. I was saying our NFL scouts seemed to have done okay. We have brought in quite a few FAs, both high dollar and on the cheap, and done relatively well. I was trying to say I would can all the college scouts. Point I was trying to make was Angelo always takes the fall, justly, but the college scouts too should be considered when talking about our crap drafts.

 

So some NFL scouts may stick.

 

Basically, I would fire pretty much everyone and make them re-apply for the job.

 

Agreed. Everything. Especially the college scouts. Those guys are horrible. Fire every one of those blind morons.

 

[madlithuanian]

Now you're talking!

 

 

 

Basically, I would fire pretty much everyone and make them re-apply for the job.

 

[madlithuanian]

Dammit! Oh well! a broken clock is right 2 times a day...

 

JA's first draft was '02 but he got the job in '01 after the draft...Tillman was '03.

 

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

When did I say he drafted "studs?"

[nfoligno]

You said,

 

And for the record, for every Michael Haynes, there's a Lance Briggs. The Bears seemingly draft like s***, but all you have to do is go back and look at past Patriots and Steelers draft and realize that they miss on 1st, 2nd, and 3rd rounders as well.

 

My point was teams like NE, Pitts, etc miss on top 3 rd picks, just like all do, but better offset those misses not simply with average hits, but with stud level hits. So if you want to point to teams like NE and Pitt, and say they miss on picks to as a way of defending Angelo's draft record, then I'd argue you have to look at the hits, and deeper, the level of those hits.

 

Everyone misses. If you had a team that never missed, they would likely win every SB. But every team misses. Unfortunately, we miss too often, and don't hit enough to compensate. Worse, we have drafted next to none in terms of studs, which makes the misses even more glaring.

 

 

When did I say he drafted "studs?"

 

[BearsFan1974]

You said,

 

And for the record, for every Michael Haynes, there's a Lance Briggs. The Bears seemingly draft like s***, but all you have to do is go back and look at past Patriots and Steelers draft and realize that they miss on 1st, 2nd, and 3rd rounders as well.

 

My point was teams like NE, Pitts, etc miss on top 3 rd picks, just like all do, but better offset those misses not simply with average hits, but with stud level hits. So if you want to point to teams like NE and Pitt, and say they miss on picks to as a way of defending Angelo's draft record, then I'd argue you have to look at the hits, and deeper, the level of those hits.

 

Everyone misses. If you had a team that never missed, they would likely win every SB. But every team misses. Unfortunately, we miss too often, and don't hit enough to compensate. Worse, we have drafted next to none in terms of studs, which makes the misses even more glaring.

 

We consistantly miss though. It's almost painful to look at the draft and see players that were taken behind our busts...especially ones in that are successful players in the same position:

 

Mark Bradley (39) vs Vincent Jackson (61)

Danielle Manning (42) vs Roman Harper (43)

 

Just little $hit like that...not big names but names that are better than what we got.

[nfoligno]

You can find the same on every team.

 

Look. No question we have had our misses, but IMHO, more than the misses what stands out are the mediocre hits.

 

Take our 1997 draft as an example. We took Curtis Enis with the 5th pick. Ouch. Worse in hindsight when thinking about how we passed on a deal that could have had us move down and take Fred Taylor plus get an extra pick or two. BUT, as bad as that pick was, we also drafted Kreutz and Parrish. Parrish was a solid DB, but in the Kreutz pick, we got a decade pro bowl center. Missing on a top pick is something every team does, and hurts, but not only hitting but getting a stud compensates.

 

Angelo misses a lot, just as every GM does. But Angelo's hits are more of the average or okay variety.

 

We consistantly miss though. It's almost painful to look at the draft and see players that were taken behind our busts...especially ones in that are successful players in the same position:

 

Mark Bradley (39) vs Vincent Jackson (61)

Danielle Manning (42) vs Roman Harper (43)

 

Just little $hit like that...not big names but names that are better than what we got.

 

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

You said,

 

And for the record, for every Michael Haynes, there's a Lance Briggs. The Bears seemingly draft like s***, but all you have to do is go back and look at past Patriots and Steelers draft and realize that they miss on 1st, 2nd, and 3rd rounders as well.

 

My point was teams like NE, Pitts, etc miss on top 3 rd picks, just like all do, but better offset those misses not simply with average hits, but with stud level hits. So if you want to point to teams like NE and Pitt, and say they miss on picks to as a way of defending Angelo's draft record, then I'd argue you have to look at the hits, and deeper, the level of those hits.

 

Everyone misses. If you had a team that never missed, they would likely win every SB. But every team misses. Unfortunately, we miss too often, and don't hit enough to compensate. Worse, we have drafted next to none in terms of studs, which makes the misses even more glaring.

What "studs" have the Patriots drafted?

 

They have a RB by committee annually, their WR's aren't spectular but are made up for by their TE's, and pass rush isn't anything to write home about. This year, they took Shane Vereen in round 2 and he hasn't done anything, same with Stephen Paea. Last year, they took Jermaine Cunningham and Brandon Spikes in round 2. How's that going for them?

 

Let's not confuse "deeper level of hits" and "studs" with the fact that they lucked out one year and got Tom Brady. Without him, the Patriots are irrelevant and it wouldn't matter if they hit on every pick if they didn't have Brady. Hell, they cut Meriweather prior to the season and the Bears picked him up. He was a former 1st round pick for them.

 

All I'm saying is yes, the Bears need a few drafts like Green Bay, where they got Raji and Matthews. But a starting point are guys like Melton (stud in the making?), Tillman (who knows if he would've been a stud CB without the Tampa 2), Briggs (stud), Kreutz (stud), Carimi (maybe in the future?), Hester (ST stud), and Chris Harris (not a stud but ended up being a good player). Now they just need to draft guys who are impact players and playmakers. And, they traded 3 of those picks for Cutler who was a stud but they have done nothing to surround him with talent via FA.

 

We consistantly miss though. It's almost painful to look at the draft and see players that were taken behind our busts...especially ones in that are successful players in the same position:

 

Mark Bradley (39) vs Vincent Jackson (61)

Danielle Manning (42) vs Roman Harper (43)

 

Just little $hit like that...not big names but names that are better than what we got.

61, really? That means every other team passed on Jackson too. Let's not make it out to be like Angelo took some scrub WR and then the next pick was Jackson or anything. 20 other teams after that Bradley pick also passed on Jackson.