The Bears 1983 draft re-visited: Can Jerry Angelo recapture the magic?

by SackMan on Feb 19, 2009 3:56 PM CST Comment 33 comments

Can Angelo pull off another 1983?

As I've written before, the Bears are entering this off-season with a void at possibly 5 starting positions: RT, WR1, WR2, FS, and SS. That's a little alarming right now. The most important of these positions to fill are RT (it all starts with the line on offense), and Safety (among the most crucial to running Lovie Smith's Tampa-2).

With a weak free agent class unlikely to offer much impact help, the Bears are going to have fill these these voids through the draft. And, in order to gain any immediate and long-term success with such big holes, Angelo's going to have strike gold like the Bears did in 1983.

The Bears landed 7 starters for their 1985 Championship team from that draft... including LT, WR, and S (all in the top 3 rounds). Among the 7 starters, Covert, Duerson, Dent and Bortz combined for 14 Pro Bowl appearances.

If Angelo can land 3 immediate starters in this draft at RT, WR, S... and another eventual quality starter at DE or G, the Bears will be in good shape going forward.

But, if the Bears fail in this draft, it could mark the beginning of the end for the Angelo era in Chicago, as these holes.... un-fixed, may prove to be too much to overcome.

The Bears 1983 draft re-visited.

1983	1	1	6	6	Jimbo Covert	T	Pittsburgh
	2	1	18	18	Willie Gualt	WR	Tennessee
	3	2	5	33	Mike Richardson	DB	Arizona State
	4	3	8	64	Dave Duerson	DB	Notre Dame
	5	4	7	91	Tom Thayer	C	Notre Dame
	6	4	23	107	Pat Dunsmore	TE	Drake
	7	8	7	203	Richard Dent	DE	Tennessee State
	8	8	23	219	Mark Bortz	G	Iowa
	9	9	6	230	Rob Fada	G	Pittsburgh
	10	9	11	235	Mark Zavagnin	LB	Notre Dame
	11	10	5	256	Anthony Hutchison	RB	Texas Tech
	12	11	7	286	Gary Worthy	RB	Wilmington (OH)
	13	12	6	313	Oliver Williams	WR	Illinois

The 2009 Prospects

The Bears still need to replace the production of Bernard Berrian and Mushin Muhammad. However, an especially weak free agent class of TJ Houshmandzadeh and a bunch of stiffs (led by Shaun McDonald, Michael Clayton, and Reggie Williams) should lead them toward the draft.

The 5 top prospects in the draft are all underclassmen, which could pose some risk:

Michael Crabtree, Texas Tech, Sophmore
Jeremy Maclin, Missouri, Sophmore
Darius Heyward-Bey, Maryland, Sophmore
Percy Harvin, Florida, Junior
Hakeem Nicks, North Carolina, Junior

Safety

The incumbent players (Kevin Payne, Danieal Manning, Craig Steltz, and FA Brandon McGowan) have not proven to be true starter material. Unfortunately, there is almost nothing desirable in free agency, and a very weak draft class.

Only Louis Delmas (FS, Western Michigan), is currently projected as a 1st round pick after the Senior Bowl grades. The rest of the top of this weak class projects in the 2 round:

William Moore, SS, Missouri
Patrick Chung, SS, Oregon
Rashad Johnson, FS, Alabama
Sean Smith, S/CB, Utah
Derek Pegues, FS, Mississippi State

With John Tait's retirement a forgone conclusion, and John St. Clair a FA, the Bears are a little desperate right now at RT. There are just a few quality, but not top tier, free agents (Tyson Clabo, Vernon Carey, and Ray Willis), which may kick up an over-bidding war. However, this seems to be a quality draft class for OTs, as there are 7 Tackles projected as possible first round picks (let's hope the Bears actually pick the right one):

Eugene Monroe, Virginia
Jason Smith, Baylor
Andre Smith, Alabama
Michael Oher, Ole Miss
Eben Britton, Arizona
William Beatty, Connecticut
Phil Loadholt, Oklahoma

3 recs | Comment 33 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

You get an automatic rec

for the Beyonce “upgrade.”

I’ll post my comments later.

I'M A MAN! I'M 22!

by ChiFan13 on Feb 19, 2009 3:58 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Sack,

You are on fire the last couple of weeks baby!

Keep up the good work!

Also, rec’d… might even bump it…

Things will get better as they improve...

by Dane Noble on Feb 19, 2009 4:01 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I think only 4 OT are projected 1st rd

Grades are as follows so far:

Ranking the OL at the NFL scouting combine
Player Pos. School Ht. Wt. Grade
1. Eugene Monroe OT Virginia 6-5⅛ 310 97
2. Jason Smith OT Baylor 6-4½ 300 96
3. Andre Smith OT Alabama 6-4⅞ 341 95
4. Michael Oher OT Mississippi 6-5 309 93
5. Jamon Meredith OT South Carolina 6-4¾ 289 83
7. Eben Britton * OT Arizona 6-5½ 310 82
8. Phil Loadholt OT Oklahoma 6-8 347 81
9. William Beatty OT Connecticut 6-6 291 77

by tfrabotta on Feb 19, 2009 4:20 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

and no

he can’t recpature it..unless he fores himself and hires someone who knows what they are doing like in Arizona..Rod Graves?? Hmmmm didn’t he used to work somewhere else???

by tfrabotta on Feb 19, 2009 4:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

err. fires himself..

by tfrabotta on Feb 19, 2009 4:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

the first 4 are going in the first

and Britton has almost assured himself a spot there with them. Loadholt, Beatty and Meredith might be able to work their way in.

I am like your Dan Aykroyd and biglow would be Jane, the ignorant slut. -Chad

by thecoolest on Feb 19, 2009 4:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

If you were desperate

but none outside of the top 4 would be worthy of the bears at 18. The bears would have to trade down to look at the other guys or else we ould be reaching.

by tfrabotta on Feb 19, 2009 4:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Good post, pity we don't have a higher pick

I’d love to either get Crabtree or Monroe..

#34: You'll be missed!

by Chanman25 on Feb 19, 2009 7:13 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Damn

That was quite a draft. I was reading about the Bears’ SBXX run on wiki last week.; it’s enough to make you weep.

by Spongie on Feb 19, 2009 8:22 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Lol...

I read the wiki a while back too. Good times… good times.

Things will get better as they improve...

by Dane Noble on Feb 19, 2009 8:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hell yeah

You can argue who the BEST team ever is, but there’s no way you can argue who the most dominant team ever was…..85 Bears.

by McRipper on Feb 19, 2009 9:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

From an interview with Emery Moorehead before our more recent SB appearance...

…describing the Bears’ defense of that era, he said their basic plan was to try to take out the QB; if they managed that, then they would try to take out the replacement, too. With a D-line including the likes of McMichael, Danimal, Dent and Singletary ruling the middle behind them… ah, nostalgia.

We even had a passing game in those days!

by Spongie on Feb 20, 2009 1:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

what made the 85 bears defense so dominant

from other defenses likee 2000 ravens, 2002 bucs, and 08 steelers is how they dominated teams during the peak of the live ball era.

"blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda and we'll go from there"
-Lovie Smith

by ifuwannacrownem on Feb 19, 2009 9:15 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I'm a little confused by your comment.

I’m a big fan of the live ball era, and not so big a fan of instant replay. Replay seems to protect offenses from losing the football, more often then it awards defenses. To me, I just cant stand it.

The premise of the game is to hold on to the ball… and these days, ball carriers have too many nit-picky rules working in their favor (ex: his knee hit first, or his elbow hit first, before he started to lose the ball). If you lose the ball, you lose the ball. That’s the way it should be as far as I’m concerned.

Plus, the turnover is probably the most exciting play in the game… as they come as surprises (unlike a team in the redzone punching in an inevitable TD). And, they can significantly alter the outcome of a game.

All that being said, the ‘85 Bears didn’t have to contest with instant replay, which likely would’ve taken away many more fumbles than it would’ve awarded them. On the other hand, the 2000 Ravens, 2002 Bucs, and 2008 Steelers may have taken the ball away more times, if it weren’t for replay and our stupid “down by contact rules” saving the day for the offense.

"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that.

We know it's the most valuable position on the football team. We've gone through so many scenarios at that position we can write a book, moreso on what not do."

-- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
.

by SackMan on Feb 20, 2009 12:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

sorry for the confusion

just my opinion, not a fact. valid point though. the down by contact rule is a jittle shoddy. it’s unfair the number of times a back has put the ball on the ground and he gets a free pass

"blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda and we'll go from there"
-Lovie Smith

by ifuwannacrownem on Feb 20, 2009 6:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with Sackman on this one

there are too many ifs in football. On a TD pass you have to come down, get two feet in, got to the ground and still have the ball, but on a running play you just have to graze the white line.

Was the QB out of the pocket and did the ball get back to the line of scrimmage. Screw that. If the ball isn’t going to a receiver you were throwing it away.

Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!

by Adam T on Feb 20, 2009 8:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm kinda thinking the other way on this one...

While y’all do have great points, I have to argue the other. In my opinion, if the catch is really a catch, then it should count, even if the refs got it wrong and the camera got it right.

Same for a fumble… you don’t want to take the ball away from a team who didn’t really fumble under the rules of the game. It is an awesome thing to have the technology we have to make sure things got called correctly.

It does, to a degree, maybe take a little bit of the human aspect out of it… but not much. Then again, when I take the same logic and apply it to baseball (we are inevitably close to having IR on baserunning vs. throws/tags), then I do think maybe it’s not the best idea… let the umpires call it and leave it alone.

So, I’m going in a circle here, and actually arguing with no one. But bottom line while it’s on my mind… if a play is called, it is only fair to both teams that it is called correctly, on a consistant basis.

Things will get better as they improve...

by Dane Noble on Feb 20, 2009 9:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm more at odds with the fumbling issue and instant replay.

The object of the game is to hold onto the ball until the play is over. To me, that means: after the ball carrier is tackled and the play is over, he gets up off the ground with the ball in his hand.

The knee touching the ground first is a bunch of BS. Hold onto the ball!

"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that.

We know it's the most valuable position on the football team. We've gone through so many scenarios at that position we can write a book, moreso on what not do."

-- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
.

by SackMan on Feb 20, 2009 10:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

“The object of the game is to hold onto the ball until the play is over”
“The knee touching the ground first is a bunch of BS”

You don’t think the play should be over when the knee touches the ground? You a fan of rugby Sack? :)

Things will get better as they improve...

by Dane Noble on Feb 20, 2009 10:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Like I said before.... that rule is BS

Hold onto the ball. Period.

Some rule dictating whether your knee hit the ground first before you lost the ball, is just a bunch of a BS… cause: you lost the ball!

When the refs call it a fumble, and then they have to look at the replay and reverse the call because “his knee hit the ground first,” it’s BS. They initially called it a fumble, cause he lost the ball!

"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that.

We know it's the most valuable position on the football team. We've gone through so many scenarios at that position we can write a book, moreso on what not do."

-- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
.

by SackMan on Feb 20, 2009 10:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I still agree with Sackman

how many guys go to the ground and reach and claw and scramble for the extra yards. If you are going to be on your back and reaching your arm out for the extra yard then the ball is fair game.

Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!

by Adam T on Feb 20, 2009 11:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, but they dont usually get the spot

when they are down and still reaching…

Things will get better as they improve...

by Dane Noble on Feb 20, 2009 12:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

don't care

if you don’t have the hand strength to hold on to the ball when you reach out, don’t do it.

If you don’t tuck the ball away when being tackled, your fault.

Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!

by Adam T on Feb 20, 2009 1:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Or,

Smart players know that sometimes, they will get the break, and get that extra half yard when they are reaching out… while knowing that if the ball gets swatted out while there knee is down it will not be ruled a fumble.

Typically, if it is not a first down conversion, half yard spots wont be challenged, so why wouldn’t they reach for that little extra?

Things will get better as they improve...

by Dane Noble on Feb 20, 2009 2:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not saying the players aren't smart

for taking advantage, just that I like the idea of the play ending when everybody gets off the receiver or runner and the team mates help him up.

Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!

by Adam T on Feb 20, 2009 2:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Lol...

You are a rugby fan too then…

Things will get better as they improve...

by Dane Noble on Feb 20, 2009 2:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm a fan of rugs

I have two or three in the house. Is that close enough?

Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!

by Adam T on Feb 20, 2009 2:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You're the boss,

So if you say it is good enough, the good enough it shall be. :)

Things will get better as they improve...

by Dane Noble on Feb 20, 2009 3:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

one is enough,

as long as it really ties the room together.

by Gone Savage on Feb 22, 2009 11:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Did I Pee On Your Rug?

OH! STEWIE!! GET OUT THE WAY BOY! GET OUT THE WAY!
-Stacey King

by ifuwannacrownem on Feb 22, 2009 2:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

+100

To you and Savage…

+100

Things will get better as they improve...

by Dane Noble on Feb 22, 2009 3:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

forward progress

I understand why this rule has to be in existence, otherwise offensive players would just get picked up and carried backwards, yet I wish that they would mark the ball back a couple of yards on the good hits to reward the defense.

by isrealidonije on Feb 20, 2009 9:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Angelo should take notes

on this draft. Pulling Covert, Bortz and Thayer set the Bears and Payton up for the next few years and then Neal Anderson after that. With Williams at one end, if Michael Oher is there, I think the Bears should consider him. That said, and had Angelo been so wise as to shore up the receiver position with FA (damn you!) he’s going to have to go receiver and hope that he can scoop a tackle in the second round. Oher won’t be there. Safety should be the third pick assuming that the Bears don’t sign an aging Sharper for a quick fix (and a huge kick in the balls to Brown – would have kept him). Forget it I say Angelo does the usual and hits 1 out of 5 picks … Bazuin, Okwo and Michael Haynes all over again.

by junkhorse on Mar 2, 2009 8:36 PM CST reply actions 0 recs