Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 I know someone did this awhile ago, but I just thought I'd check a few mocks around the internet and see their Bears projections for round 1. Here's what I found Walterfootball (Walt)- Michael Floyd Walterfootball (Charlie)- Peter Konz ESPN (Kiper)- Michael Floyd ESPN (McShay)- Kendall Wright Bleacher Report- Peter Konz Rantsports- Michael Floyd Draft Countdown- Alshon Jeffery Draftek- Mohamed Sanu Draft Site- Michael Floyd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Like: Walterfootball (both), Kiper, Bleacher, Rantsports, Draft Countdown, Draft Site Hate: McShay, Draftek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixote Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Isn't it unusual for a Center to be projected as a 1st round pick? I do not recall many centers going in the 1st, or is my memory bad? Konz is a center, correct?I don't see one OLT in the list or am I missing something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASHKUM BEAR Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Like: Walterfootball (both), Kiper, Bleacher, Rantsports, Draft Countdown, Draft Site Hate: McShay, Draftek Jason, you would probably like draftteks first 3 picks for the Lions: RD1 Mike Adams OLT RD2 Cordy Glenn G RD3 Mike Brewster C Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Isn't it unusual for a Center to be projected as a 1st round pick? I do not recall many centers going in the 1st, or is my memory bad? Konz is a center, correct?I don't see one OLT in the list or am I missing something? Generally its the tackles that go in the first round. Guards and centers are usually positions that go later in the draft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Isn't it unusual for a Center to be projected as a 1st round pick? I do not recall many centers going in the 1st, or is my memory bad? Konz is a center, correct?I don't see one OLT in the list or am I missing something? Yes it is quite rare, which either means they expect that center to be stellar or they expect to move him to another position. Chris Spencer, for example, was a first round pick, and he was playing G for the Bears last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Yes it is quite rare, which either means they expect that center to be stellar or they expect to move him to another position. Chris Spencer, for example, was a first round pick, and he was playing G for the Bears last year. 6 have been picked in the first round since 2005 (last 7 years): Mike Pouncey Maurkice Pouncey Alex Mack Eric Wood Nick Mangold Chris Spencer and another 8 selected in the 2nd round since 2005. That is a lot higher than I expected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TerraTor Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 I know someone did this awhile ago, but I just thought I'd check a few mocks around the internet and see their Bears projections for round 1. Here's what I found Walterfootball (Walt)- Michael Floyd Walterfootball (Charlie)- Peter Konz ESPN (Kiper)- Michael Floyd ESPN (McShay)- Kendall Wright Bleacher Report- Peter Konz Rantsports- Michael Floyd Draft Countdown- Alshon Jeffery Draftek- Mohamed San Draft Site- Michael Floyd Without figuring in Free Agency. I cant see how a Center makes this team better. Didn't we just extend a Center 6.55M... To be honest, If Bears sign Stevie or Bowe, I still wouldn't shy away from a WR at 19. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASHKUM BEAR Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Without figuring in Free Agency. I cant see how a Center makes this team better. Didn't we just extend a Center 6.55M... To be honest, If Bears sign Stevie or Bowe, I still wouldn't shy away from a WR at 19. Garza was partially extended because he was under paid for many years and the Bears kept their word on giving him his due pay. I don't see a first RD center either helping this team, but if Brewster was there with one of the 3rd's I'd think the Bears would consider. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Jason, you would probably like draftteks first 3 picks for the Lions: RD1 Mike Adams OLT RD2 Cordy Glenn G RD3 Mike Brewster C If that happened, the Lions would come off like gangbusters. All three will start in the NFL, and the first two have a shot of becoming all stars. Stafford would be able to take a dumb and read the paper before throwing 20TDs a year to Megatron. I pray that doesn't happen. Their offense will become dominant. For the Bears, however, I don't completely like it. I would prefer LT, WR, C, since I think Chris Williams will man LG well enough and if the Bears get a rookie Center with serious talent (more Konz than Brewster) that means Garza gets to move back to his more familiar role at RG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Yes it is quite rare, which either means they expect that center to be stellar or they expect to move him to another position. Chris Spencer, for example, was a first round pick, and he was playing G for the Bears last year. Which is still kind of baffling when you think about it. A first round C playing G and a G playing C. I thought the entire reason the Bears grabbed Spencer was because he could be a stop-gap for Olin's departure. Guess intent and execution are different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Which is still kind of baffling when you think about it. A first round C playing G and a G playing C. I thought the entire reason the Bears grabbed Spencer was because he could be a stop-gap for Olin's departure. Guess intent and execution are different. I think cutler insisted on garza at c, and it changed there plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Which is still kind of baffling when you think about it. A first round C playing G and a G playing C. I thought the entire reason the Bears grabbed Spencer was because he could be a stop-gap for Olin's departure. Guess intent and execution are different. Garza came in and played good. There was no reason to move him. Cutler was happy and that was that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 Garza came in and played good. There was no reason to move him. Cutler was happy and that was that. Then it's yet another example of poor front office and coach player management. If the hole was at C, then either choose plan A. Move Garza or plan B. Get Spencer. Otherwise the Spencer pickup seems somewhat pointless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TerraTor Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 Then it's yet another example of poor front office and coach player management. If the hole was at C, then either choose plan A. Move Garza or plan B. Get Spencer. Otherwise the Spencer pickup seems somewhat pointless. Luckily who you speak of is no longer with Bears. Thank heavens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 Then it's yet another example of poor front office and coach player management. If the hole was at C, then either choose plan A. Move Garza or plan B. Get Spencer. Otherwise the Spencer pickup seems somewhat pointless. I think the point was to make Garza the starter and bring in Spencer as insurance in case Garza failed. Garza knew the offense and how Olin set the protection. With vitually no offseason for another player to learn, it was a great move as the Bears were desparate to solidify the position. Why else do you think they wanted to WAY overpay, an over the hill, Kruetz? That is one move I'll give Angelo credit for. It may seem pointless now, due to Garza exceeding expectations at center. He's actually better at center than guard and was an upgrade over Olin. Good for Garza, as it gave him a nice extension and prolonged his carreer. Spencer can still be the center of the future as he learns his craft from Garza. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 Spencer can still be the center of the future as he learns his craft from Garza. Spencer turns 30 in March, and is only signed for 1 more year. He's not the "Anything" of the future. He might be here for a couple years, but he's not a guy the team is going to develop, he's a capable backup for another couple years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 Then it's yet another example of poor front office and coach player management. If the hole was at C, then either choose plan A. Move Garza or plan B. Get Spencer. Otherwise the Spencer pickup seems somewhat pointless. Spencer was never deemed the starter. It was a depth move and Spencer only started playing when other guys went down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 Spencer turns 30 in March, and is only signed for 1 more year. He's not the "Anything" of the future. He might be here for a couple years, but he's not a guy the team is going to develop, he's a capable backup for another couple years. Which is valuable, especially when said back-up can come in and be decent enough at guard and center. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 Spencer was never deemed the starter. It was a depth move and Spencer only started playing when other guys went down. You're right, he was never deemed the starter. But when the move was made, it certainly had that appearance. It didn't take a genius to piece together a missing center with the acquisition of a free agent center implied that he was probably brought in to be a center. I doubt the move was made strictly for depth. I think it may just may be a leftover FA failure from JA's regime. They probably thought he was the replacement, found out he wasn't as good/prepared/strong/whatever as they thought he was. And then Garza became the default starter the entire year. Spencer's ability to be a spot-starter at C and G is definitely a positive, but he was brought in with the idea that he'd fill Olin's shoes until a Center of the future was acquired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 You're right, he was never deemed the starter. But when the move was made, it certainly had that appearance. It didn't take a genius to piece together a missing center with the acquisition of a free agent center implied that he was probably brought in to be a center. I doubt the move was made strictly for depth. I think it may just may be a leftover FA failure from JA's regime. They probably thought he was the replacement, found out he wasn't as good/prepared/strong/whatever as they thought he was. And then Garza became the default starter the entire year. Spencer's ability to be a spot-starter at C and G is definitely a positive, but he was brought in with the idea that he'd fill Olin's shoes until a Center of the future was acquired. Had the appearance? Appearance of what. It was a depth move and was always sold as that. Never did I see anyone in the front office say he was the starter or even insinuate such. It was a good solid signing and solid move but even than you find a way to complain about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 You're right, he was never deemed the starter. But when the move was made, it certainly had that appearance. It didn't take a genius to piece together a missing center with the acquisition of a free agent center implied that he was probably brought in to be a center. I doubt the move was made strictly for depth. I think it may just may be a leftover FA failure from JA's regime. They probably thought he was the replacement, found out he wasn't as good/prepared/strong/whatever as they thought he was. And then Garza became the default starter the entire year. I'm wondering if the move was a disconnect between Tice and JA. Tice said from the day Spencer arrived he would be the back-up. Nobody believed it because Spencer signed a 2 year 6 million $$$ deal. Tice likes Chris Williams, Garza, and Louis. They can't pass block but they're damn good at run blocking. It ought to be interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemonej Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 We all can pretty much scrap that last offseason which was a scramble for whatever you could get in and get acclimated to your playbook on the fly.To bring in a center without a full off season of mini camps and OTA's and expect him to replace a guy who knew all the calls and adjustments is fantasy.Spencer was a vengence signing by JA to show Kruetz that the team had moved on. I believe he did issue that ultimatum about having one hour to sign the deal the team had offfered or else it would be off the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 We all can pretty much scrap that last offseason which was a scramble for whatever you could get in and get acclimated to your playbook on the fly.To bring in a center without a full off season of mini camps and OTA's and expect him to replace a guy who knew all the calls and adjustments is fantasy.Spencer was a vengence signing by JA to show Kruetz that the team had moved on. I believe he did issue that ultimatum about having one hour to sign the deal the team had offfered or else it would be off the table. Vengeance? We needed some depth on the Oline and Kreutz refused $4mil. The he went off and quit in the middle of the season on the Saints. If that was a vengeance signing I only wish JA had wanted more vengeance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Had the appearance? Appearance of what. It was a depth move and was always sold as that. Never did I see anyone in the front office say he was the starter or even insinuate such. It was a good solid signing and solid move but even than you find a way to complain about it. Yet again, your memory fails you. The VERY FIRST LINK that shows up on google when you type in "Bears"+"Chris Spencer"+"Center" provides this article. They may have planned what happened all along, but there is no doubt Center was first priority and OG was #2 during the signing. The Trib even mentions that he could play OG if the staff feels Garza knows the system better, but later in the season Spencer straight up said he wasn't accustomed to playing guard and got very few snaps. What's more, the signing happened the day after the Olin talks broke down. Hell, the Sun Times didn't even mix words about it. The Daily Herald said, "Spencer is expected to line up as the first-team center, enabling Roberto Garza to move back to right guard." This is not an individual opinion about what was being talked about during training camp. I could go on all day, but I think you get the point. To call this a "depth move" and not a legitimate attempt to fill Olin's shoes is simply incorrect. The move was intended as a replacement. Period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.