If we dont pick up anybody in FAgency(draft)

[scs787]

I see Johnsons stock has risen quite a bit since the last time I checked out his scouting reports.

 

The question is...How high? 3 of the 4 mocks I've looked at have him gone before 20.....Then what?

[Stinger226]

I see Johnsons stock has risen quite a bit since the last time I checked out his scouting reports.

 

The question is...How high? 3 of the 4 mocks I've looked at have him gone before 20.....Then what?

There is a real good chance the LT Johnson will be gone, then we need to take Johnathon Cooper who will still be available. I hope we get Bushrod so we dont have to go with a 2nd LT because he wont be a day one starter.

We need to get two OLs this off season, and a guard will do find. Taking Barrett Jones would be a reach at 20, so hopefully Cooper will still be there.

[scs787]

If we MUST take a guard in the first I'd prefer they just trade down where Cooper could still be there or grab Warford or a Jones plus pick up a 3rd rounder.

[Bears4Ever_34]

I'm a bit hesitant on taking someone like Lane Johnson with a 1st round pick because of that "Project" label. I haven't spent enough time really getting to know more about each player in the draft yet, but that label scares me. We just spent a first round pick last year on a project in McClellin who barely played. Is Johnson legit enough early on that he could become an impact player right away, like 1st rounders are generally suppose to do? I'd feel more comfortable if it was Warmack or Fisher.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

If Warmack is there, draft him. I don't care who's there.

 

If Johnson is there but Warmack isn't, it's hard to pass him up, but as I've said, he might be 2-3 years away. Buyer beware.

 

If neither are there, trade down and get a 2nd and a 3rd.

[Stinger226]

I'm a bit hesitant on taking someone like Lane Johnson with a 1st round pick because of that "Project" label. I haven't spent enough time really getting to know more about each player in the draft yet, but that label scares me. We just spent a first round pick last year on a project in McClellin who barely played. Is Johnson legit enough early on that he could become an impact player right away, like 1st rounders are generally suppose to do? I'd feel more comfortable if it was Warmack or Fisher.

Johnson is not a project, he is a legit 1st round, that will need to stronger, but you can say that about most linemen getting drafted. He will play his first year, and improve each year. He will be a good NFL player.

[scs787]

Johnson is not a project, he is a legit 1st round, that will need to stronger, but you can say that about most linemen getting drafted. He will play his first year, and improve each year. He will be a good NFL player.

 

There are still "experts" who say he's not a finished project so it's not crazy to think that. At this point I wouldn't wanna risk him not being there.

 

 

[Stinger226]

There are still "experts" who say he's not a finished project so it's not crazy to think that. At this point I wouldn't wanna risk him not being there.

The problem is any decision you make has risk. I think we are better off finding our LT in FAgency(less risky) and drafting a stud OG in the draft, there should be one there at 20. Cooper is a top 15 rated player and would start from day one.I would love Warmack but he wont be there. Also the thought of moving down and getting an extra pick and then taking Jones or Warford would work well too. I think we definitely need to address the Oline early waiting until our second pick to get one of those three OGs are the chance none of them are there, and the next tier of OLine are a drop off, then were back to waiting until they develope.

[jason]

Well not to be technical with you Brian but all (or most at least) good OL's and the men within were probably drafted. But we don't really agree..per se.

 

Using our own Bears as an example:

 

2006 team (the one that last made it to the Super Bowl) made up of OLmen including Ruben Brown, John Tait, Roberto Garza and Fred Miller. All of which were not drafted by the Bears but signed as FA's.

 

1985 team (the last team before '06 that went to the Super Bowl) actually two (LT Covert and RT Van Horne) were drafted in round 1 and the other three were not; LG Bortz (drafted round 8), Center Hilgenburg (not drafted) and RG Thayer (drafted round 4).

 

The example of "crabs" I gave was in deference, not in agreement, to the anology of the "sex" one earlier offered up. Like Terra Tor I'm a little skeptical at drafting OL in the first round....Unless you get that Barret Jones from Alabama.

 

I think the implication is that good OLs that are sustainable for multiple years are the ones that are drafted. The fact that one can be pieced together is out there, but it's one that needs constant attention at least every couple years.

 

For the record, there has to be a cutoff point in terms of NFL draft talent evaluation that divides what used to be done from what is currently done. There were more rounds, less sophisticated everything, and much better likelihood of finding a late-round gem 20+ years ago.

[bowlingtwig]

There are still "experts" who say he's not a finished project so it's not crazy to think that. At this point I wouldn't wanna risk him not being there.

I would argue that none of the players here are finished project. If they were i would be scared

[Lucky Luciano]

For the record, there has to be a cutoff point in terms of NFL draft talent evaluation that divides what used to be done from what is currently done. There were more rounds, less sophisticated everything, and much better likelihood of finding a late-round gem 20+ years ago.

 

the difference in today and days past is the number of franchises that exist in the NFL today.

 

since 1976 they have added 5 franchises to the NFL. with a 52 man roster that is a 260 player PER YEAR reduction in talent. that means that anyone drafted after #27 in the first round is in reality 2nd round talent. this reads the same for each round after.

 

SUMMARY: they 'ain't makin' anymore football players than they were 50 years ago. it's not like baseball where you can bring in out of the U.S. talent. it's a U.S. based sport where nearly 100% of the talent is created in this system.

 

so if anybody mentions we need more franchises they are completely nuts or just plain greedy (like corporate NFL). we don't have enough talent to go around as it is.

[bowlingtwig]

the difference in today and days past is the number of franchises that exist in the NFL today.

 

since 1976 they have added 5 franchises to the NFL. with a 52 man roster that is a 260 player PER YEAR reduction in talent. that means that anyone drafted after #27 in the first round is in reality 2nd round talent. this reads the same for each round after.

 

SUMMARY: they 'ain't makin' anymore football players than they were 50 years ago. it's not like baseball where you can bring in out of the U.S. talent. it's a U.S. based sport where nearly 100% of the talent is created in this system.

 

so if anybody mentions we need more franchises they are completely nuts or just plain greedy (like corporate NFL). we don't have enough talent to go around as it is.

Exactly look at teams like jax. Teams like this actually hurt the overall play of the game

[Alaskan Grizzly]

I think the implication is that good OLs that are sustainable for multiple years are the ones that are drafted. The fact that one can be pieced together is out there, but it's one that needs constant attention at least every couple years.

 

For the record, there has to be a cutoff point in terms of NFL draft talent evaluation that divides what used to be done from what is currently done. There were more rounds, less sophisticated everything, and much better likelihood of finding a late-round gem 20+ years ago.

 

Actually Lucky L addressed sorta what I was going to say. I agree that the "talent pool" is getting diluted. And what we did "20+ years ago" is a whole lot different than what we are doing nowadays. Gone are the days of "traditional" team building where players make a name for themselves with one team and they stay with their team throughout their career. A few factors because of this are, like Urlacher, eventually a player gets old and not able to perform like he did when he was younger. Yet still has the skill and knowledge a lot of teams would give anything for despite it not being what it once was. Then there is the almighty dollar that can be used to lure a player away from a team after only being with that team for 3-5 years.

 

Both models of OL building can fall victim to the "needing constant attention" as with the FA signed solution obviously the player ages out of the system. Where the second (drafting) can find the player look for a higher paying offer from another team once their rookie contract runs out. Not as likely, but still a probability.

[jason]

Both models of OL building can fall victim to the "needing constant attention" as with the FA signed solution obviously the player ages out of the system. Where the second (drafting) can find the player look for a higher paying offer from another team once their rookie contract runs out. Not as likely, but still a probability.

 

All true, but the possibility of having the same guy as a bookend for 10 years on your franchise is almost impossible via FA.

[Mongo3451]

the difference in today and days past is the number of franchises that exist in the NFL today.

 

since 1976 they have added 5 franchises to the NFL. with a 52 man roster that is a 260 player PER YEAR reduction in talent. that means that anyone drafted after #27 in the first round is in reality 2nd round talent. this reads the same for each round after.

 

SUMMARY: they 'ain't makin' anymore football players than they were 50 years ago. it's not like baseball where you can bring in out of the U.S. talent. it's a U.S. based sport where nearly 100% of the talent is created in this system.

 

so if anybody mentions we need more franchises they are completely nuts or just plain greedy (like corporate NFL). we don't have enough talent to go around as it is.

I completely reject this theory. The population growth of 62 million could support 5 teams. The population in 1976 was 8mil/team in the NFL. Since then, the ratio is 12.4mil/team. Plus we can factor the emergence of Samoan players makes the pool deeper.

[Stinger226]

I completely reject this theory. The population growth of 62 million could support 5 teams. The population in 1976 was 8mil/team in the NFL. Since then, the ratio is 12.4mil/team. Plus we can factor the emergence of Samoan players makes the pool deeper.

It was diluted for a while but now days smaller schools have better coaching, condititioning and prospects in general are drawn from a larger pool.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

It was diluted for a while but now days smaller schools have better coaching, condititioning and prospects in general are drawn from a larger pool.

 

I was going to say that teams aren't looking at just the top level Division I schools as much. A few examples, Joe Flacco (Univ. of Deleware), Danieal Manning (Abileine Christian), Brian Waters (North Texas), Brandon Marshall (Central Florida), Pierre Garcon (Mount Union) and the list goes on. There is defintitely something to be said for good scouting now a days.

[Lucky Luciano]

I completely reject this theory. The population growth of 62 million could support 5 teams. The population in 1976 was 8mil/team in the NFL. Since then, the ratio is 12.4mil/team. Plus we can factor the emergence of Samoan players makes the pool deeper.

 

i'm sorry but you are wrong. this has NOTHING to do with population size or venue locations.

 

it has to do with 'X' amount of large school programs that support this very expensive sport. the amount of these schools are nearly the same as they were half a century ago. the amount of players on EACH of these large A class schools is the same and it has nothing to do with student body size or population. every college is recruiting HIGH SCHOOL players to fill these limited roles, example... there are still eleven players on each side of the ball that start. so the talent pool depth is nearly the SAME as it was in 1960.

 

the difference in how the NFL drafts? they NOW out of necessity are drafting from lower tier schools who are smaller or less funded just to fill the ranks. think about it... over a 10 year period there are 2,600 players who were not good enough to even get drafted in the first seven rounds 30 years ago and are now drafted by teams in the NFL.

 

the smaller schools USUALLY have poorer quality talented kids in their system to a degree. there are always exceptions now and there were exceptions to this rule 50 years ago. walter payton is one example. but the reality is that there is just so many quality players available in high school. so many quality players who transgress into the college ranks. and finally there is just so many quality players who are worthy to play in the NFL. so in this instance, more is less.

 

this is just one reason why the quality of play in the NFL has suffered and instead of doing something about the cause they just change the rules to try and mask the actual problems that are faced in NFL play in this century for the sake of money.

[Mongo3451]

i'm sorry but you are wrong. this has NOTHING to do with population size or venue locations.

Disagree again.

 

 

it has to do with 'X' amount of large school programs that support this very expensive sport. the amount of these schools are nearly the same as they were half a century ago. the amount of players on EACH of these large A class schools is the same and it has nothing to do with student body size or population. every college is recruiting HIGH SCHOOL players to fill these limited roles, example... there are still eleven players on each side of the ball that start. so the talent pool depth is nearly the SAME as it was in 1960.

There are more large schools generating college ready players than ever before. There never used be any type of nutrition, strength and conditioning at a lot of schools. Now, you have year round programs and camps dedicated to grooming the next generation. As far as talent pool depth and 1960. That's just speculation until you can give some data that tells me there are the same amount of "quality" kids playing football than 1960.

 

the difference in how the NFL drafts? they NOW out of necessity are drafting from lower tier schools who are smaller or less funded just to fill the ranks. think about it... over a 10 year period there are 2,600 players who were not good enough to even get drafted in the first seven rounds 30 years ago and are now drafted by teams in the NFL.

Wrong again. With TV and ineternet coverage, better athletes are going to smaller schools because they no longer need to attend Notre Dame to get exposure. And the smaller schools are simply getting better. Part of that is because there are so many kids playing football that are better. The scouting process has also broadened to glean that talent.

 

 

the smaller schools USUALLY have poorer quality talented kids in their system to a degree. there are always exceptions now and there were exceptions to this rule 50 years ago. walter payton is one example. but the reality is that there is just so many quality players available in high school. so many quality players who transgress into the college ranks. and finally there is just so many quality players who are worthy to play in the NFL. so in this instance, more is less.

My argument stands on the quality of the high school pipeline. They are simply bigger, stronger, faster, practiced and more savvy than 30 years ago.

 

this is just one reason why the quality of play in the NFL has suffered and instead of doing something about the cause they just change the rules to try and mask the actual problems that are faced in NFL play in this century for the sake of money.

So, in your opinion, parity is a result of poor play vs what I think is better play. I think this subject needs more input from the rest of the group.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

the smaller schools USUALLY have poorer quality talented kids in their system to a degree. there are always exceptions now and there were exceptions to this rule 50 years ago. walter payton is one example.

 

Well if you're talking small schools vs "usually having poorer quality talent" and in the last 50 years; I think Jerry Rice (Mississippi Valley State), Barry Sanders (Oklahoma State), Jack Lambert (Kent State), Ed "Too Tall" Jones (Tennessee State University), "Mean Joe" Greene (North Texas) and even Mike Singletary (Baylor - pre RGIII) would disagree.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

Well if you're talking small schools vs "usually having poorer quality talent" and in the last 50 years; I think Jerry Rice (Mississippi Valley State), Barry Sanders (Oklahoma State), Jack Lambert (Kent State), Ed "Too Tall" Jones (Tennessee State University), "Mean Joe" Greene (North Texas) and even Mike Singletary (Baylor - pre RGIII) would disagree.

Oklahoma State is a good football school.