Would You Trust This Man To Draft Your Team?

[lemonej]

I did a little digging and started compiling some stats on JA's draft picks and came up with some pretty telling numbers.

 

 

83 total picks out 10 drafts.

 

12 of the picks considered reaches at the time they were selected with a consensus of scouts and fans. 15%

 

13 of the picks had an injury history or character issues when the Bears selected them. 17%

 

58 of the 83 picks are no longer with the team. 70% That is the most telling stat that points to poor drafting.

 

With 3 on IR and 1 on the PS,that leaves 21 of JA's 83 picks currently still with the team. 25%

 

I'm a lot more disturbed after looking at all of these numbers and realize why this team cannot sustain any success because of the constant turnover of the roster and the lack of developing of draft picks.Then factor in the constant turnover in the assistant coaches and we have the constant up and down seasons recently.Then factor in some of the bad decisions made on the field by Lovie and you wonder how he actually has a winning record in his tenure. The key to any sustained success is continuity and that has not been the case under this GM. The only unit that has remained with a core of players is the defense which is why it is the strength of this team. 4 players on defense have been with the team since Lovie has been here they all are starters Urlacher,Briggs,Tillman and Idonije. 2 are draft picks of JA 1 is a draft pick of another administration and the other is an undrafted FA that I believe JA signed.This team has a chance to have back to back winning seasons for the first time in quite a while and the GM's lack of adding quality depth to the roster and now that could be in jeopardy.

[madlithuanian]

Damning numbers to say the least.

 

Very interesting to see spelled out what so many of us were feeling in our gut...besides the indigestion from the last 2 weeks of games!

 

 

 

I did a little digging and started compiling some stats on JA's draft picks and came up with some pretty telling numbers.

 

 

83 total picks out 10 drafts.

 

12 of the picks considered reaches at the time they were selected with a consensus of scouts and fans. 15%

 

13 of the picks had an injury history or character issues when the Bears selected them. 17%

 

58 of the 83 picks are no longer with the team. 70% That is the most telling stat that points to poor drafting.

 

With 3 on IR and 1 on the PS,that leaves 21 of JA's 83 picks currently still with the team. 25%

 

I'm a lot more disturbed after looking at all of these numbers and realize why this team cannot sustain any success because of the constant turnover of the roster and the lack of developing of draft picks.Then factor in the constant turnover in the assistant coaches and we have the constant up and down seasons recently.Then factor in some of the bad decisions made on the field by Lovie and you wonder how he actually has a winning record in his tenure. The key to any sustained success is continuity and that has not been the case under this GM. The only unit that has remained with a core of players is the defense which is why it is the strength of this team. 4 players on defense have been with the team since Lovie has been here they all are starters Urlacher,Briggs,Tillman and Idonije. 2 are draft picks of JA 1 is a draft pick of another administration and the other is an undrafted FA that I believe JA signed.This team has a chance to have back to back winning seasons for the first time in quite a while and the GM's lack of adding quality depth to the roster and now that could be in jeopardy.

 

[LT2_3]

I did a little digging and started compiling some stats on JA's draft picks and came up with some pretty telling numbers.

 

 

83 total picks out 10 drafts.

 

12 of the picks considered reaches at the time they were selected with a consensus of scouts and fans. 15%

 

13 of the picks had an injury history or character issues when the Bears selected them. 17%

 

58 of the 83 picks are no longer with the team. 70% That is the most telling stat that points to poor drafting.

 

With 3 on IR and 1 on the PS,that leaves 21 of JA's 83 picks currently still with the team. 25%

 

I'm a lot more disturbed after looking at all of these numbers and realize why this team cannot sustain any success because of the constant turnover of the roster and the lack of developing of draft picks.Then factor in the constant turnover in the assistant coaches and we have the constant up and down seasons recently.Then factor in some of the bad decisions made on the field by Lovie and you wonder how he actually has a winning record in his tenure. The key to any sustained success is continuity and that has not been the case under this GM. The only unit that has remained with a core of players is the defense which is why it is the strength of this team. 4 players on defense have been with the team since Lovie has been here they all are starters Urlacher,Briggs,Tillman and Idonije. 2 are draft picks of JA 1 is a draft pick of another administration and the other is an undrafted FA that I believe JA signed.This team has a chance to have back to back winning seasons for the first time in quite a while and the GM's lack of adding quality depth to the roster and now that could be in jeopardy.

 

Interesting. Not to be a smart ass or anything, but don't you need to compare that to other teams before you can draw any meaningful conclusions?

 

One additional point though, drafts are only ONE way for teams to acquire players. Even if every player on a team was drafted, teams would have 100% turnover roughly every 7 years. Saying that 58 of 83 picks are no longer on the team (or 25 of them are on the team) doesn't mean much. It actually means that 50% of the current roster has been drafted as long as you consider that the 3 ST positions (LS, K, P) are seldom drafted. It's the 53 man roster that should put things in perspective. I mean, to take it to the extreme, if you look back over the past 20 years instead of 10, then there are even MORE guys drafted still not on the team. Sure, that doesn't account for the fact that almost no players have 20 year careers. Then again, railing against the number not on the team over 10 years doesn't account for the career average being only 3.7 years either.

 

I think the main problem with this line of thinking is that it looks at draft picks as more than merely prospects that are there to compete for roster spots. UDFAs that had injury or character risks that beat out drafted guys are looked at as guys that made the draft picks looks bad instead of diamonds in the rough that got polished up real nice. It also assumes that FA guys like Okoye can only earn a roster spot if a drafted guy was a bad pick.

 

Just for fun, of the 91 players drafted by the Patriots over the same span, how many do you think are still on their roster? 27. That's 64 guys drafted no longer on their roster or --- wait for it -------- 70%!!!!

 

I'm not saying your collected stats are meaningless, but that they don't provide meaning without the context of being compared to other teams that are viewed as more successful. Check out some other teams for fun.

 

 

 

[madlithuanian]

Buzzkill!

 

But no, you make a great point. It would be great to see other teams' stats.

 

A few things come to mind (some of which you touched upon):

 

1. Maybe it's good to see how many guys on roster made pro bowl and/or were starters

2. Look at the longevity of draftees on a team (ex. How long was Grossman on the team? How long has Hester been on?) Maybe using some type of percentage?

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting. Not to be a smart ass or anything, but don't you need to compare that to other teams before you can draw any meaningful conclusions?

 

One additional point though, drafts are only ONE way for teams to acquire players. Even if every player on a team was drafted, teams would have 100% turnover roughly every 7 years. Saying that 58 of 83 picks are no longer on the team (or 25 of them are on the team) doesn't mean much. It actually means that 50% of the current roster has been drafted as long as you consider that the 3 ST positions (LS, K, P) are seldom drafted. It's the 53 man roster that should put things in perspective. I mean, to take it to the extreme, if you look back over the past 20 years instead of 10, then there are even MORE guys drafted still not on the team. Sure, that doesn't account for the fact that almost no players have 20 year careers. Then again, railing against the number not on the team over 10 years doesn't account for the career average being only 3.7 years either.

 

I think the main problem with this line of thinking is that it looks at draft picks as more than merely prospects that are there to compete for roster spots. UDFAs that had injury or character risks that beat out drafted guys are looked at as guys that made the draft picks looks bad instead of diamonds in the rough that got polished up real nice. It also assumes that FA guys like Okoye can only earn a roster spot if a drafted guy was a bad pick.

 

Just for fun, of the 91 players drafted by the Patriots over the same span, how many do you think are still on their roster? 27. That's 64 guys drafted no longer on their roster or --- wait for it -------- 70%!!!!

 

I'm not saying your collected stats are meaningless, but that they don't provide meaning without the context of being compared to other teams that are viewed as more successful. Check out some other teams for fun.

 

[lemonej]

Interesting. Not to be a smart ass or anything, but don't you need to compare that to other teams before you can draw any meaningful conclusions?

 

One additional point though, drafts are only ONE way for teams to acquire players. Even if every player on a team was drafted, teams would have 100% turnover roughly every 7 years. Saying that 58 of 83 picks are no longer on the team (or 25 of them are on the team) doesn't mean much. It actually means that 50% of the current roster has been drafted as long as you consider that the 3 ST positions (LS, K, P) are seldom drafted. It's the 53 man roster that should put things in perspective. I mean, to take it to the extreme, if you look back over the past 20 years instead of 10, then there are even MORE guys drafted still not on the team. Sure, that doesn't account for the fact that almost no players have 20 year careers. Then again, railing against the number not on the team over 10 years doesn't account for the career average being only 3.7 years either.

 

I think the main problem with this line of thinking is that it looks at draft picks as more than merely prospects that are there to compete for roster spots. UDFAs that had injury or character risks that beat out drafted guys are looked at as guys that made the draft picks looks bad instead of diamonds in the rough that got polished up real nice. It also assumes that FA guys like Okoye can only earn a roster spot if a drafted guy was a bad pick.

 

Just for fun, of the 91 players drafted by the Patriots over the same span, how many do you think are still on their roster? 27. That's 64 guys drafted no longer on their roster or --- wait for it -------- 70%!!!!

 

I'm not saying your collected stats are meaningless, but that they don't provide meaning without the context of being compared to other teams that are viewed as more successful. Check out some other teams for fun.

LT I'm speaking about this GM and this team (because that is who I'm a fan of) who has had 10 drafts and without doing the research I'm guessing that the average life of an NFL player isn't 10 years and there is only 2 players who he has drafted that have been here 9 years. BTW Our LS currently the longest tenured Bear on IR was actually drafted by the previous regime.

 

Since you brought up the Patriots for example,how many Super Bowls have they appeared in during JA's tenure? How competitive has that team been in that same span? The answer may be why they have jettisoned some of their draft picks.They also have traded some of their picks and recieved early round picks for them basically fleecing other teams for players like Richard Seymour and Matt Cassel. The other difference is they don't wait to pull the plug on a bad draft pick see Merriwether for that example.When it comes to personnel decisions I can't compare this organization with the Patriots because of the production on the field.

 

Why should I go back 20 years when this team didn't have a true GM for that whole time? You do remember Hatley,Graves and Tobin who were all scouts that were the Personnel Directors when Mikey took over and fired Jerry Vanisi the last GM before JA. All I'm saying is that with a coach and GM team in place for as long as Lovie and JA have been, there should be a bigger core of drafted players on this team enhancing the the good acquisitions of Cutler and Peppers which should have been putting this team over the top instead of hoping to make the playoffs 2 years in a row.

 

While we are still on the subject of drafting good or as you say acquiring good, take a look at the defending Super Bowl Champs roster and see how many players on that roster is drafted and developed by them. The object of this team should be to win the Super Bowl and just like when the Bucaneers won teams emulated their style which is why both our GM and coach have jobs.We need to take a page out of their book and draft and develop some players we pick. We do have to play the current SB champs twice a year.

[LT2_3]

Buzzkill!

 

But no, you make a great point. It would be great to see other teams' stats.

 

A few things come to mind (some of which you touched upon):

 

1. Maybe it's good to see how many guys on roster made pro bowl and/or were starters

2. Look at the longevity of draftees on a team (ex. How long was Grossman on the team? How long has Hester been on?) Maybe using some type of percentage?

 

The trouble with using pro-bowls is that if you draft the second best center in your conference, he's a great pick but never makes the pro-bowl.

 

The trouble with starters is that Aaron Rogers would be a considered a bad pick until he starts - keep in mind that any analysis can only be a snapshot in time.

 

My method of analysis would be to break players into 6 categories:

 

1. played out their rookie contract - 1 point

2. got an extension - 2 points

3. traded for draft pick - 1

4. let go in FA and got a comp pick for them - 1

5. released due to injury - 0

6. released due to lack of skill - (-4) points

 

Bonus points for:

 

4 bonus points for All-pro

2 bonus points for Player of the month

.5 bonus point for player of the week

 

Then you add up (or subtract) all the applicable points over a given period of time and compare all 32 teams. The main issue for me is that teams aren't penalized for role players or injuries, but benefit for guys that get honors. I don't count Pro-bowl appearances because they are 1/3 from fans and 2/3 from players and coaches that only play 13 of 32 teams in a given year - and how do you count guys that are alternates or get in as alternates either?

 

Obviously people could weight things differently, and sure, Grossman would be 2 points, but Brady would account for over 30 points all by himself.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

Look at some of the more recent Colts' drafts too. Hughes, Ugoh, Gonzalez, etc. Yuck.

[lemonej]

Look at some of the more recent Colts' drafts too. Hughes, Ugoh, Gonzalez, etc. Yuck.

Gonzalez was Sazenbacher a few years ago. He may have been one of the reasons why Sazenbacher went undrafted. Ugoh just got signed today by someone as a fill in. Of course I got pissed about that. BTW wasn't he in the draft with Chris Williams?

[Chitownhustla]

Interesting. Not to be a smart ass or anything, but don't you need to compare that to other teams before you can draw any meaningful conclusions?

 

One additional point though, drafts are only ONE way for teams to acquire players. Even if every player on a team was drafted, teams would have 100% turnover roughly every 7 years. Saying that 58 of 83 picks are no longer on the team (or 25 of them are on the team) doesn't mean much. It actually means that 50% of the current roster has been drafted as long as you consider that the 3 ST positions (LS, K, P) are seldom drafted. It's the 53 man roster that should put things in perspective. I mean, to take it to the extreme, if you look back over the past 20 years instead of 10, then there are even MORE guys drafted still not on the team. Sure, that doesn't account for the fact that almost no players have 20 year careers. Then again, railing against the number not on the team over 10 years doesn't account for the career average being only 3.7 years either.

 

I think the main problem with this line of thinking is that it looks at draft picks as more than merely prospects that are there to compete for roster spots. UDFAs that had injury or character risks that beat out drafted guys are looked at as guys that made the draft picks looks bad instead of diamonds in the rough that got polished up real nice. It also assumes that FA guys like Okoye can only earn a roster spot if a drafted guy was a bad pick.

 

Just for fun, of the 91 players drafted by the Patriots over the same span, how many do you think are still on their roster? 27. That's 64 guys drafted no longer on their roster or --- wait for it -------- 70%!!!!

 

I'm not saying your collected stats are meaningless, but that they don't provide meaning without the context of being compared to other teams that are viewed as more successful. Check out some other teams for fun.

 

i would like to see the difference between us and the pats and the pack.

 

my biggest gripe with JA is his misses on 1st and 2nd rounders. those 2 rounds can not have misses to sustain a good team. im taking a shot in the dark but i bet JA has one of the worst track records in the 1st and 2nd rounds

 

[LT2_3]

LT I'm speaking about this GM and this team (because that is who I'm a fan of) who has had 10 drafts and without doing the research I'm guessing that the average life of an NFL player isn't 10 years and there is only 2 players who he has drafted that have been here 9 years. BTW Our LS currently the longest tenured Bear on IR was actually drafted by the previous regime.

 

From articles I've read, the average career length is 3.7 years. That's why I brought this all up.

 

Since you brought up the Patriots for example,how many Super Bowls have they appeared in during JA's tenure? How competitive has that team been in that same span? The answer may be why they have jettisoned some of their draft picks.They also have traded some of their picks and recieved early round picks for them basically fleecing other teams for players like Richard Seymour and Matt Cassel. The other difference is they don't wait to pull the plug on a bad draft pick see Merriwether for that example.When it comes to personnel decisions I can't compare this organization with the Patriots because of the production on the field.

 

I agree with this 100%. This is why I'm saying that the % of drafted players still on a team is a questionable stat. In your original post, you called it telling. I point out that the Pats have the same percentage and perhaps it doesn't tell us that much. So, while the Pat's have had more 1st-3rd rounders due to trade, they have also had a decent number of misses. The point is that NO team has EVERY pick turn out, and when teams are playing at a high level, it's harder for even top picks to make the team. You lose a higher pick that can't make the team and a guy at their position gets injured and letting them go makes you look bad.

 

Why should I go back 20 years when this team didn't have a true GM for that whole time? You do remember Hatley,Graves and Tobin who were all scouts that were the Personnel Directors when Mikey took over and fired Jerry Vanisi the last GM before JA. All I'm saying is that with a coach and GM team in place for as long as Lovie and JA have been, there should be a bigger core of drafted players on this team enhancing the the good acquisitions of Cutler and Peppers which should have been putting this team over the top instead of hoping to make the playoffs 2 years in a row.

 

You shouldn't go back 20 years. My point was to bring up that looking at the number of drafted players over the past 10 years still on the team is a bit misleading when the average career length is less than 4 years.

 

While we are still on the subject of drafting good or as you say acquiring good, take a look at the defending Super Bowl Champs roster and see how many players on that roster is drafted and developed by them. The object of this team should be to win the Super Bowl and just like when the Bucaneers won teams emulated their style which is why both our GM and coach have jobs.We need to take a page out of their book and draft and develop some players we pick. We do have to play the current SB champs twice a year.

 

I agree with the concept, but don't think things are as bad as you are implying if you look at what other teams have done over the same period. If you want to use playoff appearances as the measure, then go ahead and do so and leave the draft out of it. The draft is an inexact science. As people have pointed out, look at the Colts recent drafts. Even the Pats realize that a draft pick is taking a prospect based on how well you think they might pan out. They've taken multiple guys in the 2nd or 3rd round that were boom or bust prospects - and many of them busted. The type of stats you're coming up with here are completely meaningless without context.

 

As I said, if you want to complain about the lack of success in either getting to the playoffs or in winning superbowls, then please do so. However, once you bring the draft into it, there is always the question of whether it's a problem with the talent selected, or the coaching that fails to develop it. Can you honestly tell me that you think the Bears would have had the same results with the same players with Belichick as HC instead of Lovie?

[madlithuanian]

It looks like you've thought this out well!

 

Those #'s work for me!

 

The trouble with using pro-bowls is that if you draft the second best center in your conference, he's a great pick but never makes the pro-bowl.

 

The trouble with starters is that Aaron Rogers would be a considered a bad pick until he starts - keep in mind that any analysis can only be a snapshot in time.

 

My method of analysis would be to break players into 6 categories:

 

1. played out their rookie contract - 1 point

2. got an extension - 2 points

3. traded for draft pick - 1

4. let go in FA and got a comp pick for them - 1

5. released due to injury - 0

6. released due to lack of skill - (-4) points

 

Bonus points for:

 

4 bonus points for All-pro

2 bonus points for Player of the month

.5 bonus point for player of the week

 

Then you add up (or subtract) all the applicable points over a given period of time and compare all 32 teams. The main issue for me is that teams aren't penalized for role players or injuries, but benefit for guys that get honors. I don't count Pro-bowl appearances because they are 1/3 from fans and 2/3 from players and coaches that only play 13 of 32 teams in a given year - and how do you count guys that are alternates or get in as alternates either?

 

Obviously people could weight things differently, and sure, Grossman would be 2 points, but Brady would account for over 30 points all by himself.

 

[madlithuanian]

I follow. To me, JA just doesn't pass the smell test. There could be other reasons for the reeking smell, but it just seems like far too many early round busts or not-so-greats...

 

i would like to see the difference between us and the pats and the pack.

 

my biggest gripe with JA is his misses on 1st and 2nd rounders. those 2 rounds can not have misses to sustain a good team. im taking a shot in the dark but i bet JA has one of the worst track records in the 1st and 2nd rounds

 

[lemonej]

[quote name='LT2_3' date='Dec 7 2011, 10:26 PM' post='9

 

As I said, if you want to complain about the lack of success in either getting to the playoffs or in winning superbowls, then please do so. However, once you bring the draft into it, there is always the question of whether it's a problem with the talent selected, or the coaching that fails to develop it. Can you honestly tell me that you think the Bears would have had the same results with the same players with Belichick as HC instead of Lovie?

No they wouldn't as long as the current personnel staff stays the same. My post and I'll say it again is about JA and his picks.Thats why I titled it the way I did. The reason why I bring the draft into it is because I'm a draft nerd and spend my Saturdays looking at games and compiling notes for the draft guide that I have produced for my family and friends for the past 7 years and I have been able to recognize quite a few guys that were NFL worthy. Belichick's picks have sucked since Scott Pioli has left and the Colts picks have sucked since Bill Polian let his son have a bigger role in personnel. IMO if their HOF QB that they drafted was playing it wouldn't matter. The same can be said for the Patriots who also have a HOF QB they drafted and developed Thats not my point I don't care what"other teams" do because I have been watching the Bears since 66 not the Patriots or Colts( who at the time I started watching was in the NFL with the Bears). That means for 45 years I have been aware of the guys they selected in the draft and who made the picks. I can remember Papa Bear trading a draft pick to the 49ers for the now renowned OL Guru Howard Mudd and saying what the heck was that. I also remember when a real HOF GM Jim Finks took over and started to build a playoff team. The playing field was different then as there was no FA and players were bound to one team sink or swim but the formula for winning wasn't. Build your teams in the trenches and draft or acquire a franchise QB. If you look at the current playoff contending teams in the NFC they all have drafted and retained their draft picks a little better than the Bears. They then add other players to a solid core and sustain success longer. In the NFC North GB and DET have drafted and developed more of their recent draft picks than the Bears.The Vikings are in the same category as the Bears retooling with FAs every year. This team for the first time during JA's tenure started 4 O-Linemen he drafted on opening day. Of the players that have longevity in this league OL is among the leaders but JA has refused to select them. I know you saw the numbers and started dissecting them but,my numbers were to support my opinion that JA does a poor job drafting players for his coaches' schemes. Of his drafts the one that has become the core is the 2008 draft which has yielded 4 starters on offense and 2 starters on special teams. Chris Williams,Matt Forte,Earl Bennett and Kellen Davis. Craig Steltz and Zack Bowman on special teams who have on occassion started on defense in the past. So I say this current group of coaches have developed these players who started this season still playing on their rookie contracts and only one has signed an extension. Who's lap does that fall in?

[LT2_3]

Dude - you are obviously more than welcome to your opinion. However, you are trying to use stats from past drafts to support your opinion, but those stats can't mean what you claim they do because they are similar to what are considered the best franchises. You are saying that Angelo missed on too many picks and therefore he sucks. I'm saying even the best teams missed on the same percentage of picks so if you want to show he sucks, you have to do it another way.

 

On a side note, in the same vein of Belichick minus Pioli and Polian saddled with his son, I think that Angelo does better when the HC doesn't have much say in personnel matters. He comes in and cleans house and we go 13-3. Jauron gets a big extension and final say over the roster and we suck. Angelo brings in Lovie and we make the playoffs 2 years straight. Then Lovie gets a huge extension and no longer reports to Angelo and we suck. It comes down to brass tacks and Lovie makes concessions to keep his job, and lo and behold, we make the conference championship. IMO, we need to keep the coach out of personnel matters, but it seems that every time we have success and the coach gets more juice, things go badly.

 

 

[lemonej]

Dude - you are obviously more than welcome to your opinion. However, you are trying to use stats from past drafts to support your opinion, but those stats can't mean what you claim they do because they are similar to what are considered the best franchises. You are saying that Angelo missed on too many picks and therefore he sucks. I'm saying even the best teams missed on the same percentage of picks so if you want to show he sucks, you have to do it another way.

 

On a side note, in the same vein of Belichick minus Pioli and Polian saddled with his son, I think that Angelo does better when the HC doesn't have much say in personnel matters. He comes in and cleans house and we go 13-3. Jauron gets a big extension and final say over the roster and we suck. Angelo brings in Lovie and we make the playoffs 2 years straight. Then Lovie gets a huge extension and no longer reports to Angelo and we suck. It comes down to brass tacks and Lovie makes concessions to keep his job, and lo and behold, we make the conference championship. IMO, we need to keep the coach out of personnel matters, but it seems that every time we have success and the coach gets more juice, things go badly.

Sarcasm intended ,thanks for giving me permission to have my own opinion and then contradicting that statement by saying how I should use my stats I compiled. Missing on picks is not the only reason why I'm not happy with the way JA has performed(I don't believe I have ever used the word sucks in this thread referring to JA).He has missed on FAs and trades. He has not supplied this team that now has a franchise quarterback with the right players to keep him upright and off the ground since he has been here nor has he given the staff on offense some adequate young players or FAs to utilize this season. Here is this years additions on offense from our GM: Carimi, Spencer, R. Williams, Spaeth, Barber and Sazenbacher. While all have played only a couple of these names are probable for next years roster.When it comes to evaluating a GM what should it be based on?

 

If you believe that the HC should not have the final say over his 53 man roster and that the GM who hired him, with the idea that he was bringing in a guy who shares a similar philosphy, didn't have anything to do with his extension then obviously you and I will never agree on this subject. If any GM, personnel man or even owner(Jerry Jones and Al Davis) has the final say over the roster what power does the HC have over the players? When Chris Harris was first made inactive then subsequently cut after that do you really believe that was JA or Lovie's call?When Lovie has done some things that for him is out of character by calling players out publicly, was that through JA? When the team president, GM and HC had that press conference after that terrible 09 season and we all referred to them as the 3 Stooges and then they drop serious coin in FA for Peppers,Taylor and Manumaneula, who made concessions the HC or Teddy and JA?

[LT2_3]

Sarcasm intended ,thanks for giving me permission to have my own opinion and then contradicting that statement by saying how I should use my stats I compiled.

 

My apologies for saying what I did so poorly. The problem with what you brought up is like saying x number of defects on a manufacturing line is too many without any comparison to established norms.

 

Missing on picks is not the only reason why I'm not happy with the way JA has performed(I don't believe I have ever used the word sucks in this thread referring to JA).He has missed on FAs and trades.

 

When I used the word "sucks", I was paraphrasing. My apologies if I was inaccurate in my assessment. I agree that he has missed on FAs and trades, but how many of those happened before Lovie's extension? There is often a conflict of interest between a GM and a HC. A HC tends to think short term immediate gain and a GM tends to think in terms of acquiring young talent for development. Put more simply, it tends to be a long term (GM) versus short term (HC) type of thing.

 

So, in looking back and getting specific, when a HC gets a huge payday and gets more juice in the organization, his input can override the GM's sound judgement. So, when a GM trades a 2nd round pick for an underachieving former first round DE, did that come from the coaching staff or the GM that would probably like to keep the pick? When a team has a new OC with a new scheme, does the GM tend to want expensive, old and broken down players that the new OC has coached, or would it be his instinct to try and draft someone equally capable or at least try to sign someone significantly younger with fewer recent injuries?

 

Obviously I'm referring to Manu and Gaines Adams there and my point is that those types of gaffes didn't happen before Lovie got his big new contract and the org chart changed from him reporting to Angelo to being his peer.

 

He has not supplied this team that now has a franchise quarterback with the right players to keep him upright and off the ground since he has been here nor has he given the staff on offense some adequate young players or FAs to utilize this season. Here is this years additions on offense from our GM: Carimi, Spencer, R. Williams, Spaeth, Barber and Sazenbacher. While all have played only a couple of these names are probable for next years roster.When it comes to evaluating a GM what should it be based on?

 

The only player listed there that I have an issue with is Roy Williams. I think all of the rest of those were excellent additions. I think the lack of further OL additions has been justified with their improvements during the season. As for the vet WR role, I'm not sure what else could have been done in the truncated FA period and I question how much input Martz via Lovie had on the R Williams choice. How many of those guys will be back next year? I think all but R Williams. How should a GM be judged? I think he should be judged on the decisions he actually makes and not the ones that go against his better judgement but are asked for by the HC who makes roughly 10 times as much money as he does and doesn't report to him.

 

If you believe that the HC should not have the final say over his 53 man roster....

 

I'm going to break this statement into 3 parts for clarity. I firmly believe that 90% of NFL coaches shouldn't have final say over the 53 man roster. That is based on the fact that most of them have no idea about the salary cap and would prefer to sign a bunch of vets instead of developing young talent unless they can obviously see a player's talent in front of them.

 

...... and that the GM who hired him, with the idea that he was bringing in a guy who shares a similar philosphy....

 

A HC and a GM can share a similar philosophy regarding types of players and scheme, but the natural tendencies of a HC to think short term and a GM to think long term will always be there.

 

... didn't have anything to do with his extension then obviously you and I will never agree on this subject.

 

I'm quite certain that Angelo was in favor of giving Lovie an extension, but not to change the org chart to where Lovie reports directly to Phillips instead of himself.

 

If any GM, personnel man or even owner(Jerry Jones and Al Davis) has the final say over the roster what power does the HC have over the players?

 

The coach always has the power to say who starts and who rides the pine.

 

When Chris Harris was first made inactive then subsequently cut after that do you really believe that was JA or Lovie's call?

 

That was Lovie's call.

 

When Lovie has done some things that for him is out of character by calling players out publicly, was that through JA?

 

That was Lovie too.

 

When the team president, GM and HC had that press conference after that terrible 09 season and we all referred to them as the 3 Stooges and then they drop serious coin in FA for Peppers,Taylor and Manumaneula, who made concessions the HC or Teddy and JA?

 

They all made concessions. Peppers was a no-brainer. Taylor and Manu were probably Martz' idea.

 

My main point is that in the years where we had a proper top down structure and the HC didn't have much say in personnel matters, we had VERY successful seasons 3 out of 4 years. 2001, 2005, and 2006 we went 13-3, 11-5, and 13-3. Sure, 2004 wasn't too good, but that was Lovie's first season.

[lemonej]

My apologies for saying what I did so poorly. The problem with what you brought up is like saying x number of defects on a manufacturing line is too many without any comparison to established norms.

 

 

 

When I used the word "sucks", I was paraphrasing. My apologies if I was inaccurate in my assessment. I agree that he has missed on FAs and trades, but how many of those happened before Lovie's extension? There is often a conflict of interest between a GM and a HC. A HC tends to think short term immediate gain and a GM tends to think in terms of acquiring young talent for development. Put more simply, it tends to be a long term (GM) versus short term (HC) type of thing.

 

So, in looking back and getting specific, when a HC gets a huge payday and gets more juice in the organization, his input can override the GM's sound judgement. So, when a GM trades a 2nd round pick for an underachieving former first round DE, did that come from the coaching staff or the GM that would probably like to keep the pick? When a team has a new OC with a new scheme, does the GM tend to want expensive, old and broken down players that the new OC has coached, or would it be his instinct to try and draft someone equally capable or at least try to sign someone significantly younger with fewer recent injuries?

 

Obviously I'm referring to Manu and Gaines Adams there and my point is that those types of gaffes didn't happen before Lovie got his big new contract and the org chart changed from him reporting to Angelo to being his peer.

 

 

 

The only player listed there that I have an issue with is Roy Williams. I think all of the rest of those were excellent additions. I think the lack of further OL additions has been justified with their improvements during the season. As for the vet WR role, I'm not sure what else could have been done in the truncated FA period and I question how much input Martz via Lovie had on the R Williams choice. How many of those guys will be back next year? I think all but R Williams. How should a GM be judged? I think he should be judged on the decisions he actually makes and not the ones that go against his better judgement but are asked for by the HC who makes roughly 10 times as much money as he does and doesn't report to him.

 

 

 

I'm going to break this statement into 3 parts for clarity. I firmly believe that 90% of NFL coaches shouldn't have final say over the 53 man roster. That is based on the fact that most of them have no idea about the salary cap and would prefer to sign a bunch of vets instead of developing young talent unless they can obviously see a player's talent in front of them.

 

 

 

A HC and a GM can share a similar philosophy regarding types of players and scheme, but the natural tendencies of a HC to think short term and a GM to think long term will always be there.

 

 

 

I'm quite certain that Angelo was in favor of giving Lovie an extension, but not to change the org chart to where Lovie reports directly to Phillips instead of himself.

 

 

 

The coach always has the power to say who starts and who rides the pine.

 

 

 

That was Lovie's call.

 

 

 

That was Lovie too.

 

 

 

They all made concessions. Peppers was a no-brainer. Taylor and Manu were probably Martz' idea.

 

My main point is that in the years where we had a proper top down structure and the HC didn't have much say in personnel matters, we had VERY successful seasons 3 out of 4 years. 2001, 2005, and 2006 we went 13-3, 11-5, and 13-3. Sure, 2004 wasn't too good, but that was Lovie's first season.

Lloyd you and me have been at this for quite some time now and lets put the cards on the table. You seem to be defending Jerry Angelo and all he does. So I must ask you what was the top down structure in 2001? This team was already in place when he arrived and all he did was tweek the roster to help the coach. So 2001 should be attributed to Mark Hatley so that leaves only 05 and 06 on JA and then what happened after that? Between 2006 and 2010 we had some lean years and what was it based on? The top down structure? Or was it based on the lack of production on the field? The talent was sub par during those years so do you put all this on the coaches or do you put it on the person who is at the top of the personnel tree? I still believe that JA is in over his head and the fact that his HC has a winning record despite our talent pool point to a HC that has constantly supported a GM who he is tied to.I'm not a big fan of the HC right now but I am even less impressed with the GM.I have never had this many answers with you on posts before now and we were both on the old board. So whats up? Is this about JA or what?

[azbearsfan]

Lloyd you and me have been at this for quite some time now and lets put the cards on the table. You seem to be defending Jerry Angelo and all he does. So I must ask you what was the top down structure in 2001? This team was already in place when he arrived and all he did was tweek the roster to help the coach. So 2001 should be attributed to Mark Hatley so that leaves only 05 and 06 on JA and then what happened after that? Between 2006 and 2010 we had some lean years and what was it based on? The top down structure? Or was it based on the lack of production on the field? The talent was sub par during those years so do you put all this on the coaches or do you put it on the person who is at the top of the personnel tree? I still believe that JA is in over his head and the fact that his HC has a winning record despite our talent pool point to a HC that has constantly supported a GM who he is tied to.I'm not a big fan of the HC right now but I am even less impressed with the GM.I have never had this many answers with you on posts before now and we were both on the old board. So whats up? Is this about JA or what?

 

 

I dont think he is defending Angelo as much as he is saying your reasoning about the drafts picks is faulty.

[balta1701-A]

One additional point though, drafts are only ONE way for teams to acquire players. Even if every player on a team was drafted, teams would have 100% turnover roughly every 7 years. Saying that 58 of 83 picks are no longer on the team (or 25 of them are on the team) doesn't mean much. It actually means that 50% of the current roster has been drafted as long as you consider that the 3 ST positions (LS, K, P) are seldom drafted. It's the 53 man roster that should put things in perspective. I mean, to take it to the extreme, if you look back over the past 20 years instead of 10, then there are even MORE guys drafted still not on the team. Sure, that doesn't account for the fact that almost no players have 20 year careers. Then again, railing against the number not on the team over 10 years doesn't account for the career average being only 3.7 years either.

One other thing not noted here, the Bears also gave up 2 mid-first-round picks for a QB named Jay Cutler, and since first round picks likely "Stick" more than any other set of picks, doing that trade would really hurt Angelo's relative stats, but everyone here would do that deal again.

[LT2_3]

Lloyd you and me have been at this for quite some time now and lets put the cards on the table. You seem to be defending Jerry Angelo and all he does.

 

I'll agree that there have been some boneheaded moves made while Angelo has been here, but I believe it's a solid and valid question who those moves belonged to and whether Angelo had the juice to block them at the time.

 

So I must ask you what was the top down structure in 2001? This team was already in place when he arrived and all he did was tweek the roster to help the coach.

 

I disagree that Angelo "tweeked the roster to help the coach". In fact, I would suggest that Angelo purposely denied Jauron a bunch of veterans that he would have preferred to keep. Let's start on the defensive line. Gone were starters Flanigan and Wells along with Van Tuinei, Troy Wilson, Brad Culpepper, and Clyde Simmons. The LB corps lost veterans Sean Harris and Barry Minter. Also cut loose were previous high picks Enis and McNown along with vet guard Todd Perry and vet receivers Bobby Engram and Eddie Kennison.

 

Now to me, that sounds like a new GM cutting deadwood that the previous brain trust had kept around.

 

So 2001 should be attributed to Mark Hatley so that leaves only 05 and 06 on JA and then what happened after that? Between 2006 and 2010 we had some lean years and what was it based on? The top down structure? Or was it based on the lack of production on the field? The talent was sub par during those years so do you put all this on the coaches or do you put it on the person who is at the top of the personnel tree?

 

I think that we also have to look at what happened to the coaching staff after Lovie got his big new contract. The most obvious and talked about was Lovie's decision to let Ron Rivera go and promote Bob Babich in his place. Also let go were QB coach Wade Wilson, DL coach Don Johnson, Asst. OL coach Harold Goodwin, and Off. QC coach Mike Bajakian.

 

So, how drastically different were the 13-3 2006 team and the 7-9 2007 team? Was Thomas Jones personally responsible for a 5 win difference? Was Darwin Walker so much worse than Tank Johnson that the team tanked? It makes sense to me that the new DC and DL coach made the biggest difference - and that's not on the GM.

 

I still believe that JA is in over his head and the fact that his HC has a winning record despite our talent pool point to a HC that has constantly supported a GM who he is tied to.I'm not a big fan of the HC right now but I am even less impressed with the GM.I have never had this many answers with you on posts before now and we were both on the old board. So whats up? Is this about JA or what?

 

All this has to do with is that I think Angelo's getting all the blame when it's what I see as a structural problem. I'm a firm believer in a top down structure where the coach reports to the GM. I hated the setup when Jauron and Hatley shared power, loved it when Angelo got the juice back after hiring Lovie, and hated it again after Lovie got his extension.

 

Just think how it might change the dynamics. With a top down structure, Angelo is in charge. He has personnel people on one side of the table, and coaches on the other - they all report to him. Now after Lovie gets his extension and makes somewhere between 8 to 10 times as much as Angelo, it works completely differently. Did Angelo retain final say on draft day? I think he probably did - but with the understanding that if he completely went against Lovie's wishes, he could be replaced FAR more cheaply than Lovie. It's just my impression that Angelo does a fine job when he's actually in charge.

[selection7]

One other thing not noted here, the Bears also gave up 2 mid-first-round picks for a QB named Jay Cutler, and since first round picks likely "Stick" more than any other set of picks, doing that trade would really hurt Angelo's relative stats, but everyone here would do that deal again.

Not everyone! I was one of the holdouts back in the day, and at this point much of what I'd warned against has been proven true (I'm not an I told you so type though). It was a trade I have hope may still help us, say...6 years down the road from that trade, but up to this point, looking at the totality of these last 3 seasons, at best, it's not helped.

[ParkerBear7]

I do that deal again! Cutty is the real deal! Now lets get him some WR and protection.

[balta1701-A]

Not everyone! I was one of the holdouts back in the day, and at this point much of what I'd warned against has been proven true (I'm not an I told you so type though). It was a trade I have hope may still help us, say...6 years down the road from that trade, but up to this point, looking at the totality of these last 3 seasons, at best, it's not helped.

If you're looking at how this season turned out and thinking anything other than "Jay Cutler is perhaps the most underrated player in the NFL", I have no idea what you've been watching.

[azbearsfan]

Not everyone! I was one of the holdouts back in the day, and at this point much of what I'd warned against has been proven true (I'm not an I told you so type though). It was a trade I have hope may still help us, say...6 years down the road from that trade, but up to this point, looking at the totality of these last 3 seasons, at best, it's not helped.

 

 

Part of the problem with Cuts has been his OC. If he had an OC who would consistently try to maximize Jays strengths, instead of coaching with his head up his ass until he gets put in timeout by the HC and Oline coach.

 

If Jay had a better OC, then I think his performances would be better.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

Part of the problem with Cuts has been his OC. If he had an OC who would consistently try to maximize Jays strengths, instead of coaching with his head up his ass until he gets put in timeout by the HC and Oline coach.

 

If Jay had a better OC, then I think his performances would be better.

Martz wasn't a bad OC this year. Yes, he had his dumbass games like vs GB and NO, but Cutler really came on at the end of this year and week 4 and on this year.

 

With Todd Graham going to ASU, I really hope this means Martz is back next year.