Is it time to rebuild....again???

by diehardbearfan on Feb 10, 2008 3:32 AM CST Comment 36 comments

As a bears fan my entire life I have to ask this question, even though I hate what it means per se`??? Should the bears go into re-building mode? I unfortunately... think yes. We went to the superbowl over a year ago now, and then had the usual superbowl loser downfall. I know this is really depressing, but..........we don't have a clear-cut quarterback (and for the record, I don't think that Orton had his fair chance down the stretch, like grossman and griese did)...just look at the passing stats....passing attempts is mostly what I am talking about). We don't have a running game, which most bears fans like myself is what we come to expect from a tema that "comes off the bus runing", and we have a deteriorating offensive line......which in my opinion is the most important part of a decent offense. So, I have to ask the true football fans (not just us die hard bears fans), what should the bears do??? I have my own opinions, which I personally think would do the trick, such as bringing in one of the best receivers out there like I don't know.......Chad Johnson and getting rid of some of the veterans that are costing the team a lot of money for non-performance. I am talking about players like......Moose, Adam Archuleta, Fred Miller, Brian Griese, and worst, but not least Cedric Benson and his contract hold out/non-top five performing @ss, who bye the way drove out Thomas Jones. Other players that I feel can go because they are going to want money that they may or may not deserve, but won't bring a championship regardless are........Lance Briggs and Bernard Berrian.
I am not saying that free agency is the answer that us bears fans are looking for, but I do think that there needs to be a shake-up, unfortunately for us bears fans, the McCaskeys, won't put out the money that us bears fans have paid for years to win another championship!!!

Poll

Shoul the bears go into re-building mode?

0 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 36 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

No

There is no such thing as rebuilding. You may have down seasons but to jettison older parts and accept losing because of inexperienced young players is a mistake.

by Chad on Feb 10, 2008 1:31 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Depends on the talent of the young players.

And the sport, of course. A team should always play its best players, regardless of "experience". If only the Bulls (different sport, I know) had eschewed your idea, they might be winning and have a brighter future right now.

by tyger1147 on Feb 14, 2008 10:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I partially agree.

I think in the NFL you are in one of three phases: championship caliber, retooling, and rebuilding. The Falcons, Raiders, and Dolphins are probably the only teams I would say are rebuilding. There are probably 8 teams that are championship quality or very close. And the rest or retooling. That is where we are.

I think the biggest errors for Bears fans are one, to think we are the team of this past season. That was a horrible year. Actually the Packers had a year similar two years ago and finished .500. We were in every single game of the year (except Dallas). All the games were close, we just didn't get the breaks. This year the Packers got the breaks and won many close games and look like they are amazing. That could be us this year.

Second, we can't think that all of are problems will be fixed in one year. There are too many needs. If we can dominate on defense again, or add some regular points on offense, you will see a winner again. I think the defense only needs minor help (a safety), because we were just destroyed by injuries last year. I don't believe that will happen to the same extent twice.

Two years to retool is different than scrapping the team. Rebuild means scrap it all and start over. Retool means make a couple offseason moves and add some players through the draft.

Although dumping all the players you mentioned sounds nice, it isn't realistic that we will dump ALL of them. We'll be lucky to dump any of them. No one wants are under performing scrubs. They definitely don't want to pay their salaries. Trades are going to be slim to none and we will get low value. I do agree though that we should at least try, but it probably won't work.

You play to win the game!

by #23 on Feb 10, 2008 2:09 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

misconception

Am I the only Bears fan that is sick of the misconception

"the McCaskeys, won't put out the money that us bears fans have paid for years to win another championship!!!"

This is the NFL, it isn't the MLB. There is a salary cap on how much money teams are allowed to spend on their rosters every year. The Bears, just like most every team in the NFL, spend almost all the money allowed under the salary cap. So, the notion that the Bears are this cheap organization that won't spend enough money to be good is just not true. So, everybody please stop writing about the McCaskey's being cheap. There really isn't even a McCaskey that is a decision maker for the Bears anymore, they are simply the owners. Ted Phillips and Jerry Angelo are the people incharge or the roster and the cap.

DaaBears!!!

by North Side Irish Bears on Feb 11, 2008 11:19 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

You are completely right.

You only have so much to spend and we pretty much spend most of it. Yes, we don't go crazy on one player, but our money philosophy is similar to the Patriots. You build through the draft which keeps your salaries low. You let guys go if they want huge contracts.

I thought last year we gave Tillman and Vasher pretty nice deals. Not the maximum possible, but they were decent.

You play to win the game!

by #23 on Feb 11, 2008 12:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

RE: Misconception

Well I must say that you must be related to the McCaskeys for that outburst, but I think you are the one with the misconceptions. We all know that there is a salary cap in football, however, if the bears aren't a cheap organization why is it that they are consistently way below the salary cap? If they aren't cheap, why does about half of their first round picks within the last 10-12 years hold out for more money???? If the bears aren't cheap, why did it take them so long to give Lovie the money he deserved and let Ron Rivera go instead of renewing his contract??? Yeah, that didn't really hurt the bears defense this year did it. If the bears aren't cheap then why haven't they brought in a big name free agent, other than players that are past their prime??? All of these issues are no coincidence. As far as the bears having a similar money philosophy to the patriots, the big difference there is that the patriots apparently are better at drafting than the bears, so I guess they can afford to be cheap. Building your team through the draft is a great philosophy, however, when it comes to the bears they should just either trade their first round pick every single year for a proven player that you probably still won't have to pay first round money for or if they really want to be as cheap as they seem to be then just trade out of the first round every year to get more picks. The bears have to be the worst first round draft experts in the league within the last 12 years. Here's the list of the bears first round for the last 12 years. Now ask yourselves how many of these players have actually worked out for the bears. Then ask yourselves if the bears should keep their first round picks or trade to get a high priced player and pay him the money that they virtually waste year after year in the first round.

The following is a list of first round draft picks of the Chicago Bears professional American football team. [1]
Year     Player     Pos.     School     Pick #
2007     Greg Olsen     TE     Miami     31
2006     No Pick     --     --     --
2005     Cedric Benson     RB     Texas     4
2004     Tommie Harris     DT     Oklahoma     14
2003     Michael Haynes     DE     Penn State     14
    Rex Grossman     QB     Florida     22
2002     Marc Colombo     OT     Boston College     29
2001     David Terrell     WR     Michigan     8
2000     Brian Urlacher     LB     New Mexico     9
1999     Cade McNown     QB     UCLA     12
1998     Curtis Enis     RB     Penn State     5
1997     No Pick     --     --     --
1996     Walt Harris     DB     Mississippi State     13
1995     Rashaan Salaam     RB     Colorado     21

"I have no comments at this time.....well, other than what I just posted."

by diehardbearfan on Feb 11, 2008 9:26 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I'll try

"If they aren't cheap, why does about half of their first round picks within the last 10-12 years hold out for more money????"

The Bears have developed a track record of having all their picks signed as early as any other team, including first round picks. Benson is clearly an exception. Angelo has been the GM since the Columbo pick, and Hatley before him certainly had adifferent signing approach than Angelo.

If the bears aren't cheap, why did it take them so long to give Lovie the money he deserved and let Ron Rivera go instead of renewing his contract???

We'll cover Lovie first. Because of Dick Jauron. Jauron's team went 13-3 and he got a nice extension. Then the team sucked again and thhe front office felt that they got a little too quick with the dollars. Since Love is the very next coac hI'm sre they don't want to make the same mistake, which is why they let him go another year. Lovie's agent negotiated through the media, which is a common tactic. It blows the negotiations out of proportion.

Rivera: Lovie didn't want him. Lovie wanted Babich. It's just that simple. Not about Money

If the bears aren't cheap then why haven't they brought in a big name free agent, other than players that are past their prime???

They brought in Tait just a few years ago for $35 or 40 M. They brought in Muhammad for $36 who is only now arguable past his prime, but that's 3 years ago that he was signed. Thee brought in Miller for big money although he's no longer the player he was when he signed. There haven't been a lot o f"skill position" signings but he Bears didn't have good opportunities to fill a lot of those spots with the existing roster. (Example: Can't go sign a bigtime QB because we think Rex will turn the corner)
They traded for and negotiated a huge contract for Ogunleye, who had a great season this year. The rest of the defense has been drafted, so there's not much to complain about. I like that Angelo has made a lot of under the radar pickups in recent years who have panned out well:
Thomas Jones
Ruben Brown
Hunter Hillenmeyer
Roberto Garza
Isreal Idonije

Not every player on the 53 can have a huge contract.

When they boo you, you know they mean you. George Halas

by allhailmark on Feb 12, 2008 5:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Um... wrong on at least one point.

It's NOT arguable that Muhammed is past his prime.

by tyger1147 on Feb 14, 2008 10:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Fair Enough

He wasn't when he was signed, but we all knew that he would be during his 6 year deal

When they boo you, you know they mean you. George Halas

by allhailmark on Feb 14, 2008 11:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You're right about the first round.

Although, no one argued with you about the first round picks. Most of us agree that we aren't good at first rounders. I will say that Jerry took over in 2002 and I started off bad, but Cedric career isn't over yet, Olsen looks very good, Harris, is amazing, Grossman is still to be determined, and Haynes and Colombo are two that you can definitely peg as disasters. People thought we were crazy for picking Hester in the second round, and now we are geniuses. Some guys, like QB take time to reach their potential. We'll have to wait and see if Rex does or not. Benson has no excuse.

You play to win the game!

by #23 on Feb 11, 2008 9:44 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I can't type.

Sorry, bad day.

You play to win the game!

by #23 on Feb 11, 2008 9:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

First Round

No one has disputed that the Bears have not been very successful drafting in the first round. But, that wasn't my arguement, I said simply that the bears aren't a cheap organization and I think the arguements provided by the guys who agree with me totally disprove your misconceptions about how the bears spend their money. Tait and Moose were the best FA's in there clases and the bears shelled out the green to get them. So if the Bears go out and get Faneca and Turner this year are you still going to be calling them a cheap organization?

DaaBears!!!

by North Side Irish Bears on Feb 12, 2008 11:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'll go ahead and be the first

Of the list of players above, 3 (Urlacher, Olsen, and Harris) were really really good picks (Olsen was a no-brainer, but still). So, that's 3 of the last 8. If you look at the picks in the first round year to year, that is probably about par for picking quality talent in the first round. 10 picks pan out to be pretty good players, with only a few that end up being pro-bowlers. I would argue selecting Urlacher and Harris puts them in a pretty good light. Not to mention that Columbo actually turned into a pretty good player, we just got unfortunate with injuries.

I think most people are overreacting to our situation. Wait patiently for free agency and I think we will all be pleasantly surprised heading into the draft. If we can stay as healthy in '08 as we did in '06, there is no reason we can't compete at a high level.

by mikebdot on Feb 12, 2008 1:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'll go, too

Good:
2007 Greg Olsen TE Miami 31
2004 Tommie Harris DT Oklahoma 14
2002 Marc Colombo OT Boston College 29
2000 Brian Urlacher LB New Mexico 9
1996 Walt Harris DB Mississippi State 13

Bad:
2005 Cedric Benson RB Texas 4
2003 Michael Haynes DE Penn State 14
2003 Rex Grossman QB Florida 22
2001 David Terrell WR Michigan 8

1999 Cade McNown QB UCLA 12
1998 Curtis Enis RB Penn State 5
1997 No Pick -- -- -- (this first rounder was traded for Rick Mirer)
1995 Rashaan Salaam RB Colorado 21
Other:
2006 No Pick -- -- --

The only defense I could make is that 6 picks are either RB or QB (counting the first rd pick for Mirer). I appreciate that the team tried 3 times on a QB with a first round pick. It's unfortunate that none worked out. RB in the first is a mistake to me, unless the player is absolutely phenomenal (Peterson, Tomlinson, McFadden). Good runners come from a good line, most of the time.

When they boo you, you know they mean you. George Halas

by allhailmark on Feb 12, 2008 7:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

hold up a sec...

" RB in the first is a mistake to me, unless the player is absolutely phenomenal (Peterson, Tomlinson, McFadden). "

Cedric Benson broke all of Ricky Williams records. So let's see McFadden take a few NFL snaps before we anoint him the next Purple Jesus

by Chad on Feb 12, 2008 8:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Williams

Williams was a scrwe up in the NFL by the time the Bears were drafting Benson, and Benson was thought of as Ricky Williams due to all their similarities.

I'm saying that there's no contest who the better prospect is between Benson and McFadden.

When they boo you, you know they mean you. George Halas

by allhailmark on Feb 13, 2008 4:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Just wondering here...

but who would YOU have taken at the 4th pick instead?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_nfl_draft

Merriman? At 4?

Fact is, he was a great "potential franchise running back". We were going to pay what we paid him to some other player, regardless, so it was a good pick for the talent that was on the board. I'm sick of this second guessing.

Also, for the record, Rex Grossman was not a "bad" pick either. His injuries have sucked. If he doesn't get hurt those seasons, that could have been all the difference. There is no question he is an NFL caliber QB. Shit, Kyle Boller was drafted three spots ahead of them. The rest of the QBs in that draft drafted after him -

#88 - Dave Ragone
#97 - Chris Simms
#110 - Seneca Wallace
#163 - Brian St. Pierre
#192 - Drew Henson
#200 - Brooks Bollinger
#201 - Kliff Kingsbury
#232 - Gibran Hamdan
#241 - Ken Dorsey

Who would you have taken in that draft instead? Dallas Clark?

by mikebdot on Feb 13, 2008 8:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Relax

I'm not trying to second guess the Benson pick. I have no interest in showing knowledge in hindsight. I'm trying to say that you can get almost as good a RB anywhere in the draft as you can with a first round pick. The reason is that RB production is dependent on much more than the skill of the RB. The single biggest difference maker is the quality of the OL.

Benson's performance isn't good enough right now, and at least part of the reason is the OL. Can you agree with that statement?

A RB picked in the 4th round could put up the same numbers as Benson. Do you agree with that?

I wanted Cadillac more than Benson, but it doesn't make any difference. I wanted to trade down more than anthing else. The only thing I'm saying is that there was a risk picking Benson, and the chips didn't fall our way. That makes it a bad pick.

Go ahead and reference Boller, and he sucks, yes. Grossman has had a collection of good games, but he's not a good QB. I'm rooting for the guy, I really am. I want him to succeed. But he's not a good QB. He shits his pants in the face of pressure. He doesn't have pocket presence. He can't throw an intermediate pass as well as a deep ball. He's riddled with flaws. He's not going to be anything but what he's shown us. He looks great against the bottom feeders and looks lousy against the better teams. He's mediocre at best. I'll gladly give you odds if you want to make any bets about Grossman ever making a ProBowl. I'll give you odds against Grossman ever winning another playoff game if you want.

When they boo you, you know they mean you. George Halas

by allhailmark on Feb 13, 2008 6:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm just saying...

That don't put McFadden in the LT, Purple Jesus league yet.

by Chad on Feb 13, 2008 3:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Fine

I'lll conceed that it's early to anoint McFadden as the next AP. No problem. But I think you'll agree that McFadden is the losest draft prospect to AP that we'll see this year, and maybe next year too. No one else has his combination of size, speed, explosiveness. Maybe Mendenhall, but I'd still take McFadden before any other offensive player.

When they boo you, you know they mean you. George Halas

by allhailmark on Feb 13, 2008 6:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I will go on record as saying...

I knew from his freshman year that AP was going to be a special player. He deserved the Heisman that year but they gave it Leinhart.

McFadden can become a great player for sure, but I'll have to see first.

by Chad on Feb 13, 2008 7:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Leinhart?

Who the hell is that?

Leinart.

by Chad on Feb 13, 2008 7:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Grossman is NOT TBD

by tyger1147 on Feb 14, 2008 10:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You're Right

Grossman should have done much better last year. I mean he played three games, got jacked by unblocked lineman on every other play, no running game, WR's dropping touchdown passes. Yeah, those first three games were enough to see his progression.

In his final 4 games, I thought he looked decent. He wasn't turning the ball over and he was making first downs. He made quicker decisions. He still was making the big play. He just looked like he had learned a lesson sitting on the bench. I would like to see some more from him before making the final call on his career. I know if we don't someone else will.

You play to win the game!

by #23 on Feb 14, 2008 1:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh Yeah

I think Peyton Manning looked pretty poor in both games verse the Chargers. Why? Maybe because his line wasn't protecting him. 6 picks in one game... ouch!

You play to win the game!

by #23 on Feb 14, 2008 1:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

well we

never really accomplished anything besides winning a bad nfc, so what exactly did we build to?

"Kyle Orton and Jack Daniel's could be the greatest songwriting duo since Rodgers and Hammerstein." - DJ Gallo

by mike b on Feb 12, 2008 9:57 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I disagree

the giants accomplished winning a bad nfc this year and they are world champs, I think you are trivializing las year, we were an aggressive defensive sheme away from winning a superbowl.

-leopoldjones

by leopoldjones on Feb 14, 2008 12:23 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

they also won the superbowl beyond winning a bad nfc.

to me a fluke sb appearance, which is what it is so far, doesn't mean we built to something. two playoff appearances in a row is nothing.

"Kyle Orton and Jack Daniel's could be the greatest songwriting duo since Rodgers and Hammerstein." - DJ Gallo

by mike b on Feb 14, 2008 1:03 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

really

what is something to you, jeez we would have had a great season had our entire defense been hurt all season, and how was it a fluke we throttled half the nfc and crushed new orleans in the nfc championship game, there is no such thing as a fluke superbowl appearance with the 2001 new england patriots being the only exception, but I suppose that would have been nothing also because they didnt go to the playoffs in 2002

-leopoldjones

by leopoldjones on Feb 14, 2008 5:28 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

"would have had"

MEANS NOTHING. absolutely nothing.

if the bears do nothing this next year, 06 was a fluke event, not a result of a "built" franchise. you have have sustained success to have built anything of value.

"Kyle Orton and Jack Daniel's could be the greatest songwriting duo since Rodgers and Hammerstein." - DJ Gallo

by mike b on Feb 14, 2008 10:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

"If the bears do nothing this next year"

MEANS NOTHING. absolutely nothing.
3 play off appearances and a superbowl visit is a pretty big accomplishment there are at least 20 teams that cant say that even if we are bad next year that doesnt make 06 a fluke, it just means 06 is what we were building to and we fell just short. There are only like 5 teams in the nfl that live up to your standard of "sustained success" and there are way more that 5 successful teams.

-leopoldjones

by leopoldjones on Feb 16, 2008 3:28 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

3 huh?

in what? a decade? woweee!

"Kyle Orton and Jack Daniel's could be the greatest songwriting duo since Rodgers and Hammerstein." - DJ Gallo

by mike b on Feb 16, 2008 5:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

if you think we suck so much

then why do you even post, go to the patriots blog they need more complainers

-leopoldjones

by leopoldjones on Feb 17, 2008 12:24 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

good for you

that you'll settle for very little. some of us want more.

"Kyle Orton and Jack Daniel's could be the greatest songwriting duo since Rodgers and Hammerstein." - DJ Gallo

by mike b on Feb 17, 2008 1:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I dont want to keep replying to your comments

but I also dont want to concede to your stupid "you need to win a superbowl every season for it to be considered a successful one" so dont reply to this so it can be over

-leopoldjones

by leopoldjones on Feb 17, 2008 10:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs