Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 RT @skjensen: RT @RavensInsider: Hearing #Bears are a logical destination for Ravens guard Ben Grubbs if he leaves Baltimore. Nothing concrete right now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan Grizzly Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 RT @skjensen: RT @RavensInsider: Hearing #Bears are a logical destination for Ravens guard Ben Grubbs if he leaves Baltimore. Nothing concrete right now Wonder why "logical"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted February 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 Probably because he's a good OG and the Bears OL sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TerraTor Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 Probably because he's a good OG and the Bears OL sucks. Ha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 Probably because he's a good OG and the Bears OL sucks. haha. Couldn't have said it better myself. Grubbs would be an improvement over an OG currently on the Bears roster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted February 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 haha. Couldn't have said it better myself. Grubbs would be an improvement over an OG currently on the Bears roster. Not only this, but Grubbs is a 28 year old Pro Bowler. He'd be an upgrade on virtually any team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 Probably won't get paid near as much as Nicks either. I'd be fine with Grubbs, a CB, and a B wideout (if they can't get an A wideout). Than focus on WR and DE in the draft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 I think if the Bears go with a guard, it is because I am wrong (and Jason is right) and the Bears still think that Williams can play tackle (or at least RT), with Carimi playing the other spot. If the Bears think that is the case, than Grubbs makes sense. Either way he immediately becomes the Bears best lineman, the hard part is that guard is just not near the position of need compared with tackle, however, again, if the Bears really think Williams can play tackle, than that is another story. I personally think the Bears don't think he can, however, I could be wrong. I just think if they did, he would have played there as opposed to Webb (unless Tice just felt that Williams was more versatile and while he was the better tackle, the combination of Webb and Williams on the line at the same time was better; vs. anyone else the Bears would have put out at guard to start the year). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 I think if the Bears go with a guard, it is because I am wrong (and Jason is right) and the Bears still think that Williams can play tackle (or at least RT), with Carimi playing the other spot. If the Bears think that is the case, than Grubbs makes sense. Either way he immediately becomes the Bears best lineman, the hard part is that guard is just not near the position of need compared with tackle, however, again, if the Bears really think Williams can play tackle, than that is another story. I personally think the Bears don't think he can, however, I could be wrong. I just think if they did, he would have played there as opposed to Webb (unless Tice just felt that Williams was more versatile and while he was the better tackle, the combination of Webb and Williams on the line at the same time was better; vs. anyone else the Bears would have put out at guard to start the year). Ravens are not in a good cap position, so he probably will leave. If Nicks gets the 60 mil as he wants, I would say Grubbs will be getting 45 to 50, which would be what we would be paying a #1 WR. I see them throwing money at one of the FA tackles before this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan Grizzly Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 Ravens are not in a good cap position, so he probably will leave. If Nicks gets the 60 mil as he wants, I would say Grubbs will be getting 45 to 50, which would be what we would be paying a #1 WR. I see them throwing money at one of the FA tackles before this. This was one of the reasons I asked the question earlier about "logical choice"? And as DBD pointed out above it is not the team's primary need. To look at a player like Grubbs, to me, doesn't seem logical at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 I think if the Bears go with a guard, it is because I am wrong (and Jason is right) and the Bears still think that Williams can play tackle (or at least RT), with Carimi playing the other spot. If the Bears think that is the case, than Grubbs makes sense. Either way he immediately becomes the Bears best lineman, the hard part is that guard is just not near the position of need compared with tackle, however, again, if the Bears really think Williams can play tackle, than that is another story. I personally think the Bears don't think he can, however, I could be wrong. I just think if they did, he would have played there as opposed to Webb (unless Tice just felt that Williams was more versatile and while he was the better tackle, the combination of Webb and Williams on the line at the same time was better; vs. anyone else the Bears would have put out at guard to start the year). But wouldn't it be glorious if they got Grubbs AND got a LT in the first round!? Win-win!! Then we'd know that: A - They don't really think Webb can play LT B - They don't really think Williams can play LT And we could potentially end up with a lineup like the following (either of which I'd like): Rookie - Grubbs - Garza - Williams - Carimi Rookie - Williams - Garza - Grubbs - Carimi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 But wouldn't it be glorious if they got Grubbs AND got a LT in the first round!? Win-win!! Then we'd know that: A - They don't really think Webb can play LT B - They don't really think Williams can play LT And we could potentially end up with a lineup like the following (either of which I'd like): Rookie - Grubbs - Garza - Williams - Carimi Rookie - Williams - Garza - Grubbs - Carimi I'd be perfectly fine with that. This of course is assuming the tackle is Martin. I'm not sure the Bears could do that (given they would be ignoring wide-out). However, in theory, they could still draft a wideout with there 2nd and 3rd rounder (1st 3rd rounder) plus sign someone like Wayne. And I personally think that could be a win-win situation, especially given the depth of this draft. You might even have to resign Roy to like a 1.5M deal (cause you aren't going to find a guy like him for much cheaper, imo). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 I'd be perfectly fine with that. This of course is assuming the tackle is Martin. I'm not sure the Bears could do that (given they would be ignoring wide-out). However, in theory, they could still draft a wideout with there 2nd and 3rd rounder (1st 3rd rounder) plus sign someone like Wayne. And I personally think that could be a win-win situation, especially given the depth of this draft. You might even have to resign Roy to like a 1.5M deal (cause you aren't going to find a guy like him for much cheaper, imo). Completely agreed. Hell, if they thought WR was that big of an issue, they could get 2 or 3 players from FA, 2nd round, 3rd round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 I'd be perfectly fine with that. This of course is assuming the tackle is Martin. I'm not sure the Bears could do that (given they would be ignoring wide-out). However, in theory, they could still draft a wideout with there 2nd and 3rd rounder (1st 3rd rounder) plus sign someone like Wayne. And I personally think that could be a win-win situation, especially given the depth of this draft. You might even have to resign Roy to like a 1.5M deal (cause you aren't going to find a guy like him for much cheaper, imo). I'm pretty sure we can find someone that tall who can't catch for less money. More than that, what is the point in having a WR who can't catch at any price? Use the roster spot for someone with upside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 I'm pretty sure we can find someone that tall who can't catch for less money. More than that, what is the point in having a WR who can't catch at any price? Use the roster spot for someone with upside. While I realize it would be great to have perfect wideouts, Roy still has some value. He knows the offense, has some sort of relationship with our QB, and is a decent wideout. He's not near as terrible as some people on here make him out to be. The reality is the Bears basically have one wideout on our roster and he's been injury prone (Bennett). Knox is hurt, Sazenbacher is a UFA (smart player but physically, very limited) and Hester is a special teams guy (maybe he makes it as a wideout and with enough other weapons, he pans out, but he too has been a bit injury prone at the wide receiver spot). That means, at a minimum, the Bears need to add 3 wide-outs (replace Knox, Williams, and Hurd). However, I'd argue you probably need to add another (replace Sanzy or just add overall depth given the Bears injury problems and lack of depth). Say you sign one, you still need to draft 2. At that point, you can't pin early season expectations on your young wideouts kicking butt, so you probably need to have another cheap veteran (insert Roy Williams). I doubt the Bears do this much at the position but in my opinion they need to. If Knox was healthy, I wouldn't be as ademant, but you can't expect a 2nd round wideout and a 3rd round pick to just kick butt from the start, so you have to figure those guys grow into the position, which means you need to bring in 2 vets this off-season (1 bigger name; 1 solid but cheap guy that you can go to if needed). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TerraTor Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 But wouldn't it be glorious if they got Grubbs AND got a LT in the first round!? Win-win!! Then we'd know that: A - They don't really think Webb can play LT B - They don't really think Williams can play LT And we could potentially end up with a lineup like the following (either of which I'd like): Rookie - Grubbs - Garza - Williams - Carimi Rookie - Williams - Garza - Grubbs - Carimi Ya start another Rookie at LT.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 Johnny Knox is scheduled to be 100% by July. We're not replacing him yeet. And Earl Bennett is damn good with Cutler. I can't forgive Roy Williams for his drop in the KC game that cost us a touchdown. If that was his only mistake, it's forgivable, but he gave us more bad than good this year. Sanzy is a nice #5 WR except he can't play ST's. Although he's been one of our more reliable WR's. Sign V-Jack, Colston, or Buffalo's Johnson and the rest will be easy. While I realize it would be great to have perfect wideouts, Roy still has some value. He knows the offense, has some sort of relationship with our QB, and is a decent wideout. He's not near as terrible as some people on here make him out to be. The reality is the Bears basically have one wideout on our roster and he's been injury prone (Bennett). Knox is hurt, Sazenbacher is a UFA (smart player but physically, very limited) and Hester is a special teams guy (maybe he makes it as a wideout and with enough other weapons, he pans out, but he too has been a bit injury prone at the wide receiver spot). That means, at a minimum, the Bears need to add 3 wide-outs (replace Knox, Williams, and Hurd). However, I'd argue you probably need to add another (replace Sanzy or just add overall depth given the Bears injury problems and lack of depth). Say you sign one, you still need to draft 2. At that point, you can't pin early season expectations on your young wideouts kicking butt, so you probably need to have another cheap veteran (insert Roy Williams). I doubt the Bears do this much at the position but in my opinion they need to. If Knox was healthy, I wouldn't be as ademant, but you can't expect a 2nd round wideout and a 3rd round pick to just kick butt from the start, so you have to figure those guys grow into the position, which means you need to bring in 2 vets this off-season (1 bigger name; 1 solid but cheap guy that you can go to if needed). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 Johnny Knox is scheduled to be 100% by July. We're not replacing him yeet. And Earl Bennett is damn good with Cutler. I can't forgive Roy Williams for his drop in the KC game that cost us a touchdown. If that was his only mistake, it's forgivable, but he gave us more bad than good this year. Sanzy is a nice #5 WR except he can't play ST's. Although he's been one of our more reliable WR's. Sign V-Jack, Colston, or Buffalo's Johnson and the rest will be easy. I think we should target Coslton out of the blocks, and say pickup E. Royal. Then go LT with the first and a WR either in 2 or one of the threes. I think Ruben Randle in the second would be a big addition or Criner in the third. So we have Colston, Randle, Bennett, Royal, and Hester as a special play guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 Ya start another Rookie at LT.... If it's a first round LT then it's a better option than Webb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 Johnny Knox is scheduled to be 100% by July. We're not replacing him yeet. And Earl Bennett is damn good with Cutler. I can't forgive Roy Williams for his drop in the KC game that cost us a touchdown. If that was his only mistake, it's forgivable, but he gave us more bad than good this year. Sanzy is a nice #5 WR except he can't play ST's. Although he's been one of our more reliable WR's. Sign V-Jack, Colston, or Buffalo's Johnson and the rest will be easy. I haven't read too many articles speaking with confidence that Knox will be back and healthy. That was a really really serious injury he suffered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 I haven't read too many articles speaking with confidence that Knox will be back and healthy. That was a really really serious injury he suffered. The problem is he didnt like contact without the injury, he is screwed with a serious spine issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 I haven't read too many articles speaking with confidence that Knox will be back and healthy. That was a really really serious injury he suffered. Even if the reports right now say there's a decent chance of Knox being 100% by July, you have to have some plan for what you do if he's not. Dude's wearing a damn back brace right now. Small setback, small delay in athleticism recovery, and then there goes the WR corps if you don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 We cannot count on Knox this season for the simple reason that he can't workout. Being in that body cast means he has atrophied quite a bit and if he is able to return to football getting his core strength back will be key to preventing a similar injury in the future. IIRC he starts working out sometime in April. I just can't see him getting it all back together in a four months. At best he ends up one of our reserve WRs and he sits inactive for the first half of the season as he gets back in shape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 Well, this would appear a bit more likely. I hadn't saw this (but maybe it was posted a month ago), but the SunTimes was reporting back in January that the Bears are going to consider giving Williams another shot at LT. http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/4722/chris-williams Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 There was a report today that the Saints are still far apart on getting Brees to sign a long term contract. They will place the franchise tag on him if no deal can be reached by Monday. Could mean Carl Nicks gets thrown into the mix here unless the Saints are ready to fork over a fortune for their All-Pro guard. 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.