Who is valuable?

by GeauxBears on Dec 3, 2008 1:34 PM CST Comment 68 comments

Right now, we are still sort of in position to make the playoffs (playoffs?!), but regardless of whether we get in or not, we have pretty much seen what this team is capable (or incapable) of doing this year.

There are posts and comments every day about whether or not to fire the folks that run our beloved ball club, but I am curious as to which players you think have job-security (as starters or back-up with playing time) going in to next season.

In my opinion, no one's job should be safe next season with the exception of Forte (maybe that's a little dramatic)...

Who is safe? Who should be cut? Any young uns that you hope to see make a splash next year? Any old-timers that should be phased out?

2 recs | Comment 68 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

First guess

There will be competitions for CB, SLB, DT, LG, WR.
Maybe QB, SS/FS, P, or FB.

Who we keep behind Forte could be interesting as well.

--Torch

by torch on Dec 3, 2008 1:49 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

BUILD AN OFFENSIVE LINE! For crying out loud.

And add a WR who can actually get separation from somebody. Our WRs suck donkey balls.

Then… get a DT who can actually stop the run, so we don’t have to use 8 guys all day long to do that.

I'm not going to even bother trying to update this sig everyday anymore... that's what the standings column on ESPN is for.
Updated on May 25, 2008

by SackMan on Dec 5, 2008 6:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

A lot depends on who comes to the market

no use shaking things up unless there is a better option available.

I think all the Bears should do this offseason is focus on OL and Receivers.

Then use the draft on defense. JA seems to get that right usually.

To add directly to your question our TEs are also safe.

Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!

by WCG on Dec 3, 2008 1:52 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

OL was a concern last year

and Angelo got right on that.

I’m cynical about what we’ll do in the offseason. Angelo has to do something worthwhile. If he makes a decent trade, I’ll throw a party.

I'M A MAN! I'M 22!

by ChiFan13 on Dec 3, 2008 2:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

got right?

How do we know Angelo got right on the OL?

The only move he made hasn’t worked out yet.

Bringing moderation to a place I don't moderate.

visit the mindful mission

by big_lowitzki on Dec 3, 2008 2:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I want to make the playoffs

but I am worried if we sneak in that Lovie and JA will think we are on the right direction and not put out the money to fix what needs fixed.

Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!

by WCG on Dec 3, 2008 2:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

?

That was sarcasm, big. He could’ve gone out and gotten somebody, but chose not to.

He got Chris Williams in the draft (who got injured) and Buenning in the preseason (who I can’t remember playing this year). Stellar group, those two.

I'M A MAN! I'M 22!

by ChiFan13 on Dec 3, 2008 2:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

ah...

… makes more sense.

I thought that you meant that he got IT right.

Bringing moderation to a place I don't moderate.

visit the mindful mission

by big_lowitzki on Dec 3, 2008 2:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

He got it right if he was going for one of the worst OL in the league. lol

I'M A MAN! I'M 22!

by ChiFan13 on Dec 3, 2008 3:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Here are my recommended offseason moves:

Defense:
- Cut or trade Vasher
- move Hillenmeyer to special teams or cut him
- Promote Nick Roach or Jamar Williams to starter
- Draft a DE in the 2nd round
- Draft a WR 3rd round
- CB/DT/Safety in rounds 4-7

Offense:
- Promote Chris Williams to either LG or LT
- Either keep St. Clair at LT or move to LG
- Resign Lloyd cheap, make him the #2
- Let Booker go
- Move Hester to backup #2 and starting #3
- Move Rashied Davis to #4 WR
- Trade to pick up either Bolden or Burress (I would love to see a conditional pick in 2010 that could range between a 2nd and 5th rounder for Burress like what Jets and Dallas did with Farve and Pacman or a straight up trade for Bolden)
- Draft an OG in the first round
- Sign a free agent veteran QB
- Develop Hanie another year

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Dec 3, 2008 3:11 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I forgot about Beekman

Have Chris Williams, St. Clair, Beekman and Tait, compete for LT, LG, and RT.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Dec 3, 2008 3:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

hillenmeyer

- move Hillenmeyer to special teams or cut him
- Promote Nick Roach or Jamar Williams to starter

Hasn’t that already happened?

And what should be waiting Hanie to develop in to? A good #3 QB?

Bringing moderation to a place I don't moderate.

visit the mindful mission

by big_lowitzki on Dec 4, 2008 10:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Seriously?

Giving up on him already?

Let him develop for a year big. It’s not that big of a deal. See what happens…if he doesn’t look good, I’ll be standin right next to you sayin he should be cut. But you gotta at least see.

I'M A MAN! I'M 22!

by ChiFan13 on Dec 4, 2008 11:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree...

He’s a rookie QB, and it is a good situation for us to be in having him develop in the background. Hanie won’t have a problem holding a clipboard for a couple of years, and as long as he shows promise during practices, he should get a little playing time here and there.
Good ball clubs have good depth, especially at QB. How could we possible benefit from cutting Hanie?? I have to say… it was a scary image in my head after the draft was over, and our roster showed 2 QB’s… leave Hanie alone and let’s see what happens.

Residence: Portland, Oregon Pro Team: Da Bears NCAA Football: LSU Baby!! Make sense?

by GeauxBears on Dec 4, 2008 11:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Where...

… did I say that the Bears should cut Hanie?

Bringing moderation to a place I don't moderate.

visit the mindful mission

by big_lowitzki on Dec 4, 2008 11:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I have ...

… no problem letting Hanie hold a clipboard. At all.

But I don’t expect him to develop into anything more than a better clipboard holder.

Bringing moderation to a place I don't moderate.

visit the mindful mission

by big_lowitzki on Dec 4, 2008 11:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's absolutely fine

But at least give him a chance to prove that he’s not.

I'M A MAN! I'M 22!

by ChiFan13 on Dec 4, 2008 11:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And I should say this now

not this season. Give him a chance to develop over the offseason and see how he does in the preseason next year.

I'M A MAN! I'M 22!

by ChiFan13 on Dec 4, 2008 11:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Again...

I never said that the Bears shouldn’t keep him, did I?

I simply find it amusing that many people around here actually expect Hanie to develop into something useful.

Bringing moderation to a place I don't moderate.

visit the mindful mission

by big_lowitzki on Dec 4, 2008 1:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No, and I never said that you did

so I don’t really know what you’re getting at?

I’m not expecting him to turn into a Tony Romo, but what the hell? Giving him a shot doesn’t really require a lot of the organization.

I'M A MAN! I'M 22!

by ChiFan13 on Dec 4, 2008 1:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It is possible

Although it may be nothing, there is no reason to figure him out of the plans as of right now. He is one of our future options and we need to give the guy a year or two more on the team.

People see potential and want to try to develop that and see if it leads anywhere, roll the dice on him.

Your statements confuse me. In one hand you say, what should we expect him to be, a #3 QB and on the other, you say you are fine with him on the team.

I don’t think I want any developmental project on our team, that we project to only be a #3 QB. He has to have starter potential and be hopeful to at least be a very good #2. Otherwise get rid of him. I never want to expect that we need to keep #3 to play football. That guy should see one game a year, maybe.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Dec 5, 2008 10:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Honestly though,

At this point, Hanie might be our better option at #2. I mean, we picked up the kid just to see what could happen, and he very well may end up being #2 if we let Sexy go after the season is over.

Hanie still needs to prove that he can develop into a solid back-up QB, and we know as well as any team in the league that we need a good #2.

But your comment also can be interpreted as (and I may be wrong here) we don’t need a #3 QB (“Otherwise get rid of him”). Due to the increasing number of injuries we are seeing in the league, especially early in the season nowadays, a guy #3 on the depth chart can quickly be bumped up to #2, or a starter. While a #3 QB is only typically considered an emergency QB, it is incredibly advantagous to have solid depth at every position, especially skill-positions.

I agree that if Hanie does not develop into a solid QB, we should not keep him on the roster (whether he is a 2 or 3 doesn’t matter), as with any player on our roster. But you are right, we need to give him some PT at some point to evaluate his potential.

Residence: Portland, Oregon Pro Team: Da Bears NCAA Football: LSU Baby!! Make sense?

by GeauxBears on Dec 5, 2008 11:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I mean if we don't believe the #3 has a future, get rid of him.

Yeah you need 3 in this league unless your have Brett Farve and Peyton Manning, but if you waste that spot on a guy who has no potential then your GM is a fool.

Look at KC. Thigpen looks like he has potential. What if they were just carrying some smuck at the third spot who had no shot of getting better. That team would have 2 crappy starters competing next year. Now they have a guy they hope can continue to improve. Same thing with the Browns last year when Derek Anderson came out of nowhere (no comment on this season). You need a guy that still is getting better their or when he makes it into the game your season is already over.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Dec 5, 2008 4:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

#3 and starter potential?

How many #3’s in the NFL have starter potential?

Bringing moderation to a place I don't moderate.

visit the mindful mission

by big_lowitzki on Dec 5, 2008 2:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The young ones should

If you are a strategic person, you use that spot for rookies or projects to develop them into someone who can be better than your current starter or backup. The #3 QB rarely sees action in any game that counts. I think Cleveland has gone to the #3 and Detroit and Kansas City. Good teams don’t play their third unless their is a rash of injuries to both QB’s.

So yeah that #3 spot is where you take a gamble on a guy who you hope to replace the #2 or #1. If he can’t move up, then you replace him with a new project or rookie who you still believe has the upside to be better one day than the other two.

If your strategy is to leave a guy at #3 forever with no potential to move up, then it is a very poor strategy and a waste of a spot.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Dec 5, 2008 4:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

you didn't answer.

How many #3’s have legitimate starter potential.

I don’t want to know how many #3’s have played. I want to know how many teams have a #3 quarterback that has the legitimate potential to be an every-week starter in the NFL.

Bringing moderation to a place I don't moderate.

visit the mindful mission

by big_lowitzki on Dec 5, 2008 4:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe...

We do. I know GB does… they have Brian Brohm and Matt Flynn… not sure which one is 2 and which is 3, but either way, they could both be starters in this league in 2 or 3 years.

And honestly, any team that has a rookie (or maybe even 2nd year player) at Qb in the 3 spot has a QB that could develop as a starter…. because with rookies, you never truly know what could happen…

Residence: Portland, Oregon Pro Team: Da Bears NCAA Football: LSU Baby!! Make sense?

by GeauxBears on Dec 5, 2008 5:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'll throw Miami, New England, Tampa Bay, and Baltimore out there too

So far all the teams named have an arrow going up for their team and have good GM’s. Warner was a #3 and look how he helped turn around the Rams. Teams that see the #3 as an investment will one day be rewarded.

I also through out Kansas City in another post and look what they found. A guy they are hoping could be their #1.

Are you saying just get a bad #2 and make him your #3 or are you saying that you want a guy at #3 you could see moving up?

I can tell you my strategy and I obviously think it is a good strategy is to use the #3 QB spot as a project QB that you hope can move up, then dump him if he plateau’s and still is bad.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Dec 5, 2008 5:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

so...

… one team?

Bringing moderation to a place I don't moderate.

visit the mindful mission

by big_lowitzki on Dec 5, 2008 6:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You must have missed the 5 I added to the list.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Dec 6, 2008 11:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'll add the Bears as well.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Dec 6, 2008 11:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

heh...

… if you say so.

Bringing moderation to a place I don't moderate.

visit the mindful mission

by big_lowitzki on Dec 7, 2008 8:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No comment on Miami, New England, Baltimore, Kansas City, Tampa Bay, and Green Bay.

There are teams out there doing it which is impressive considering so many teams aren’t even looking for a starter like Pittsburgh, Indy, Dallas, New Orleans, and San Diego.

Considering how hard it is to fine a good QB let alone have a guy in the wings developing, I would say that is pretty impressive # of teams trying to have a guy in the development process that could one day start at #3.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Dec 7, 2008 3:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

How does...

… New England have a #3 who is starter material? Or Baltimore? Or Kansas City? Or Tampa Bay? Or are you just making up teams that you hope may have a good #3 quarterback who supposedly has starter potential.

I mean… Kansas City doesn’t even have 3 quarterbacks listed on their depth chart.

Green Bay is the only team that I would give you that may have a #3 with starter potential.

Bringing moderation to a place I don't moderate.

visit the mindful mission

by big_lowitzki on Dec 7, 2008 10:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No, I'm naming guys in development

KC started the year with Croyle and Huard in a battle to start, Thigpen was the #3.

Baltimore had Kyle Boller, Troy Smith, and Joe Flacco. All of them have potential to start. Boller was the starter coming in, Smith and Flacco were #2 & #3 respectively and both were still in development and getting better. Boller had plateaued but was #1 on the depth chart until he was injured.

Tampa Bay, was carrying Grbac, Griese, Simms, Gradkowski, Luke McCown and Josh Johnson to start the season. Most believe that Simms and Gradkowski hadn’t plateaued yet being so young. And of course Josh Johnson was a rookie they were developing, I assume as a hopeful starter one day.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Dec 8, 2008 9:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Troy Smith?

Seriously?

Does anyone actually think that Troy Smith has NFL starter material?

And yea, Tampa Bay has a bunch of scrubs. And still has a bunch of scrubs.

Bringing moderation to a place I don't moderate.

visit the mindful mission

by big_lowitzki on Dec 8, 2008 9:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

At the same time

Who thought Tom Brady or Matt Cassel would be starters?

I'M A MAN! I'M 22!

by ChiFan13 on Dec 8, 2008 10:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

a lot

Brady was a surprise, but I think that a lot of people have been pretty interested in Cassel.

Of course, I don’t believe that Brady ever was a #3, and I am not sure that Cassel was ever a #3.

Bringing moderation to a place I don't moderate.

visit the mindful mission

by big_lowitzki on Dec 8, 2008 4:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Re Cassel

I mean, I know Pats fans were interested in Cassel, but the guy hadn’t started a game since HS. I mean, there wasn’t a long (or substantial) track record

I'M A MAN! I'M 22!

by ChiFan13 on Dec 8, 2008 4:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Back to your original point

You don’t think #3 spot should be used to develop a potential starter.

What would you use it for? An expensive second backup. A cheap crappy emergency QB.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Dec 8, 2008 2:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I didn't say that

You don’t think #3 spot should be used to develop a potential starter.

Where did I say that?

All I am saying is that it is silly to expect Hanie to develop into anything, and it is silly to expect a #3 QB to be a legitimate starter candidate.

Teams can, and maybe even should, use the #3 QB slot to develop a player. But the vast majority of teams do not have #3 QBs who truly have starter potential.

Bringing moderation to a place I don't moderate.

visit the mindful mission

by big_lowitzki on Dec 8, 2008 4:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It's silly to expect

a low round or UDFA QB to develop on the Bears… period.

On the other hand… it’s not so silly to expect a 3rd string QB to develop on the Patriots.

One team knows how to scout, coach, and develop… the other team doesn’t . End of discussion.

I'm not going to even bother trying to update this sig everyday anymore... that's what the standings column on ESPN is for.
Updated on May 25, 2008

by SackMan on Dec 8, 2008 6:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Potential is the key word

No one knows until you work with a guy and give him a chance to learn, work with him more on his fundamentals and one day insert him into games. I’m sure no one in Kansas City thought anything of Thigpen or anyone in Dallas thought Romo would be near the top of the NFL QB lists or Kurt Warner in St. Louis was going to be a possible Hall of Famer, but it happens.

All you have is potential when you bring a guy in. What Hanie can be is very undertermined, but many feel he has a good start and is worth spending some time on to see if he can get better. I feel that way.

The guy looks like a natural leader, looks calm in pressure situations, has good mobility, good instincts, throws somewhat accurately, and appears to smart. He’ll need to continue to work on accuracy and reading coverages. He hasn’t been battle tested, but he has some talent worth looking at more.

No one thinks he is a for sure thing, but some do believe he could become something.

My main point is, there is no reason to squash people who think he may be something. If they say he is definitely the future, I understand that, but I haven’t read that yet.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Dec 8, 2008 8:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

he looked

like all those things in preseason against scrubs right?

by mike b on Dec 8, 2008 10:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Of course, I understand the competition

The only thing I’ve said is that he has some potential and I would like to see more of him. That is what most have said.

Leadership and mobility should carry over to any level of football. Accuracy will catch up with him if he doesn’t continue to improve. He’s a project like most rookie QB’s.

Do you want to keep the guy or get rid of him?

Why so negative on this guy? We just want to keep him around and see him play more.

Know one knows how good or bad he’ll be yet. Do you?

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Dec 9, 2008 10:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly...

The purpose of this post was to try and identify whose roster spot is safe, and whose may not be. Hanie is a #3 QB, isn’t taking any real money on payroll, and can do nothing but move up. I don’t understand why folks want to see him cut either. It ain’t like cutting him loose will do something for our team.

Residence: Portland, Oregon Pro Team: Da Bears NCAA Football: LSU Baby!! Make sense?

by GeauxBears on Dec 9, 2008 10:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

again...

… who said to cut him?

Bringing moderation to a place I don't moderate.

visit the mindful mission

by big_lowitzki on Dec 10, 2008 8:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Pats have

Kevin O’Connel and Matt Guiterrez. They are preparing those guys for the post Brady years.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Dec 8, 2008 9:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree minus two things

1) Cut Hillenmeyer. We can draft a special teams player.
2) Rashied Davis needs to find his hands, otherwise I want him punted out of Halas Hall ASAP.

Other than that, you nailed it.

I'M A MAN! I'M 22!

by ChiFan13 on Dec 3, 2008 3:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Earl Bennett

could easily be Davis minus the drop problem

Derrick Rose-2009 ROTY Tyrus Thomas-2009 MIP...hope I'm at least half right

by CHCOWNTHECENTRAL on Dec 3, 2008 3:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah and he is younger, cheaper, and we drafted him, so we should check him out

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Dec 3, 2008 4:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't be opposed to Rashied leaving, but the benefit is this...

- he can play special teams
- he is familiar with the offense and the QB is familiar with him
- he excelled in the slot in 2006 when called upon
- he seemed to play much better in limited action then full time

You know they said a ton about how good his hands were this preseason and how hard he had worked. I can’t say anything about his work ethic but his hands look more like pans these days.

Hard to explain why he isn’t catching anything. He was tough in 2005. I remember him taking big shots and holding on to the ball.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Dec 3, 2008 4:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Trade Vasher and picks for Boldin

leave Hester as the 2 receiver he has way more upside than Lloyd not to mention he is definitely more of a deep threat

Derrick Rose-2009 ROTY Tyrus Thomas-2009 MIP...hope I'm at least half right

by CHCOWNTHECENTRAL on Dec 3, 2008 3:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I would be fine with Hester and Lloyd splitting time evenly.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Dec 3, 2008 4:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

At #2 and #3

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Dec 3, 2008 4:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Forget #3, I don't think we have had a #3 all year, oh yeah we do

It is called TE split wide.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Dec 3, 2008 4:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

we should.....

Im thinking that we should trade vasher and pick to arizona for anquan boldin probably 2nd 3rd and 6th picks (i know it is high but boldin is worth that much easily)

then if we can, trade out of the first for a second and a fifth and pick up a OT or possibly which ever LB makes it out of the first probably cushing to play outside line then take a lineman with the fourth then a DE and a DT in the fifth

by scespy12 on Dec 3, 2008 6:55 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

LB and OT?

Tait is still good enough to man the right side, and the Williams/Roach combo will do just fine at the SAM. Who says the Cards would want Vasher anyways? His value is down, and if I were JA just offer a 1st rounder and a lower pick for Boldin. Keep Vasher in the mix at CB cause a team can’t have enough depth in the secondary. Draft a DE in the 2nd round, safety in the 3rd, guard in the 4th, and then add some depth at RB or WR in the 5th. Anything after that is for special teams…CBs and maybe a hybrid LB/SS, take a flyer on an undrafted free-agent RB.

"I'm not so mean. I wouldn't ever go out to hurt anybody deliberately - unless it was, you know, important, like a league game or something." - Dick Butkus

by propheteer on Dec 3, 2008 7:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I would be fine with a 1 and 5 or 6 for Boldin

He is definitely worth it.

I doubt we have the space in our cap for him though, but getting rid of Vasher would free us up. If we could even get a 4 or a 5 for him, we would clear space and could use that pick on another CB. We still have Bowman to develop who was out. Also, we could have picked up Ty Law this year for I believe the veteran minimum.

I would not be in favor of using a 3rd round pick on a guard. If we are drafting OL, I want to see that in the first round. First rounders are pretty safe, after that it is just a guess and you hope to get lucky. I don’t want to waste a third on a get lucky pick. I would rather see us get a new CB or Safety or another WR or QB there.

I’m actually more in favor on QB of bringing in a vet and him with Orton and Hanie. If Orton and Hanie doen’t pan out, then next season’s draft, hopefully we have fixed the DL, OL, RB, CB, S, & WR issues. Then we can either
- trade for a proven guy
- draft a QB in the first round & either keep one of our other 3 guys
- draft a QB in the first and bring in a new vet

But at least he will have an OL, solid WR group, and running game to work with.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Dec 4, 2008 10:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Needs

First, We need a dominate guard to solidify our Line. I think if Beekman keeps progressing he can slide over to center once Kreutz is done. WR is a huge hole and If we could really pull off a trade for Boldin we should pull out all stops. Definitely need to take a QB somewhere and tackle can wait for another year. On D, I think we can wait another year at LB, we have depth with Williams, McGlover, and now Roach sliding into start. I think we are in good shape at CB but I think we need to say good bye to Mike Brown. Him and Payne are similar players and we need a free safety which neither are very good at. Draft a stud free safety and move Payne to a more natural strong safety. Definitely need another DE possibly 5th round small schoolk type guy. First pick has to be a guard hopefully.

by tfrabotta on Dec 4, 2008 9:55 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Another option at Safety would be FA

He may be able to find a guy that is still in the development phase that just didn’t fit on someone’s roster last year. It would save us a draft pick. I would think that JA might be able to find a gem out there that no one is noticing in FA.

I think Brown has one more year on his contract, but I might be wrong. Someone here could say for sure, but I thought he renegotiated this year and it was very incentive based. I like keeping Mike Brown for as long as possible as long as it is based on playing time and incentives. No guaranteed stuff.

The thing about Brown is that he is a leader. We lost that on offense when Thomas Jones left and it was part of our collapse. Brown gets vocal with the guys and can spark the whole D. That is a special quality that you don’t want to lose if you have the chance to keep it. We just can’t be paying him huge bucks.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Dec 4, 2008 10:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I love Brown

as a leader and he adds smarts to the defense. But if you think Payne is your future then he needs to start playing strong safety. They both fill that bill but we are desperate need of a free safety. Someone that can cover and get picks, break up passes etc..

by tfrabotta on Dec 4, 2008 11:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Improve the pass rush and you'll see picks

For real! QB’s have all day on this defense this year. We have like 7 games with no sacks. That is ridiculous. If a QB gets hit a few times a game, they’ll start making some poor decisions, throw some balls up, get rid of it quickly to some check downs, throw it behind a guy. Right now, you don’t see that and it hurts INT opportunities. Safety has cost us a little, but the pass rush hurts us nearly every game unless we play the Rams or Lions. Luckily we got 3 games like that this year.

Look at what Jared Allen did to Orton. It isn’t a coincidence. He rushed some throws because he was aware that he had pressure coming all game on him.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Dec 5, 2008 10:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

the bears are a running team

they cannot run the ball.

they need to be able to run the ball.

by mike b on Dec 4, 2008 6:27 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Go make some plays Sunday...

Residence: Portland, Oregon Pro Team: Da Bears NCAA Football: LSU Baby!! Make sense?

by GeauxBears on Dec 4, 2008 10:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Too Funny...

I never would have guessesd that so much time on this fan post would have been filled talking about Caleb Hanie! Seems like half of the comments are about Hanie, and the other half are about how to rebuild the team… Very few folks have actually said who we should keep and who we should cut.

I know ChiFan thinks Garrett Wolfe’s roster spot is safe!

Residence: Portland, Oregon Pro Team: Da Bears NCAA Football: LSU Baby!! Make sense?

by GeauxBears on Dec 9, 2008 10:59 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Ehhh....

Somethin like that. lol

I'M A MAN! I'M 22!

by ChiFan13 on Dec 9, 2008 11:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think with K. Jones likely leaving, that leaves Peterson, Wolfe, and Forte

Wolfe has turned into a great special teams player. I think AP could be on his way out soon. He used to be a good special teams player, but has been inactive more than once this season. I think they see little upside in AP and if we draft a running back or bring in a FA, I could see him cut. I think he is solid though on special teams and as a running back.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Dec 10, 2008 5:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs