Jump to content
North Side Baseball
Old-Timey Member
Posted

Here's the heart of the King article for me:

 

The Bears finally have the quarterback they've longed for. If anyone thinks the Bears paid too much, let me show you the 14 men who have been first-round picks for the Bears in the last 15 drafts: John Thierry, Rashaan Salaam, Walt Harris, Curtis Enis, Cade McNown, Brian Urlacher, David Terrell, Marc Colombo, Michael Haynes, Rex Grossman, Tommie Harris, Cedric Benson, Greg Olsen, Chris Williams. Let's eliminate judging the last two, from 2007 and 2008, because they don't have enough on their résumés yet. Let's look at the other 12.

 

Stars: 1 (Urlacher).

 

Very good NFL starters: 1 (Tommie Harris).

 

NFL starters: 2 (Walt Harris, Marc Colombo).

 

Had some moments, but ultimately failed: 3 (Grossman, Thierry, Haynes).

 

Busts: 5 (Salaam, Enis, McNown, Terrell, Benson).

 

Four of the 12 became consistent NFL starters, or better. An awful, awful track record. That is why Angelo, a career scout who has too often loved draft picks more than A-Rod loves himself, wasn't very emotional talking to me about what he gave up.

 

 

Also note, while Walt Harris and Marc Colombo did indeed become NFL starters, they wound up being starters for other teams, either entirely (Colombo), or partially (Harris). They should probably be put into the next lower category in terms of Bears success. Colombo for sure.

 

This was a no brainer. In all likelihood, we just traded Cedric Benson and David Terrell for a pro bowl, 4,000+ yard QB. Or Grossman and Haynes. You can argue the potential of 1st round picks all you like, but the reality is, in terms of the Chicago Bears, they were likely not going to provide anywhere near the value of a solid QB.

  • Replies 4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

I think Columbo's and Harris's rankings are fine. Its Thierry and Haynes that belong with the busts.

 

Also, if you don't throw out the past two years, Olsen looks like he'll be at least somewhere inbetween "starter" and "very good starter". Williams is a complete unknown at this point.

Old-Timey Member
Posted

No, I think he's right about Olsen. Look at it this way - what if Olsen blows his knee out tomorrow and loses his speed, can't be what he was going to be? He goes down as a guy who had some moments, but ultimately failed.

 

In terms of the Bears, why would you keep Colombo & Harris where they are? They washed out of Chicago, ultimately. Well -- maybe not Harris. It took him a good long while to be productive though.

 

I agree on Thierry and Haynes. What moments did Haynes even have? I think I remember one good pick 6 from him.

Old-Timey Member
Posted

Today's "I was not aware of that" number (thanks to Peter King, oddly):

 

Kyle Orton's 2009 base salary: $995,000

Jay Cutler's 2009 base salary: $1,040,000

Difference in salary: $45,000.

 

So, with the money not being spent on a first round pick (which I will assume would have been more than $45k), this was actually a cost-cutting deal for this year.

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Today's "I was not aware of that" number (thanks to Peter King, oddly):

 

Kyle Orton's 2009 base salary: $995,000

Jay Cutler's 2009 base salary: $1,040,000

Difference in salary: $45,000.

 

So, with the money not being spent on a first round pick (which I will assume would have been more than $45k), this was actually a cost-cutting deal for this year.

 

Yea. We have a little more money to blow.

 

Denver is responsible for his whole signing bonus.

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Today's "I was not aware of that" number (thanks to Peter King, oddly):

 

Kyle Orton's 2009 base salary: $995,000

Jay Cutler's 2009 base salary: $1,040,000

Difference in salary: $45,000.

 

So, with the money not being spent on a first round pick (which I will assume would have been more than $45k), this was actually a cost-cutting deal for this year.

 

Yea. We have a little more money to blow.

 

Denver is responsible for his whole signing bonus.

 

I know it hits their cap number, but are they actually paying the rest of the bonus? Or was that already paid lump sum up front?

Posted
Really interesting quote from Angelo from that article:

 

"I've kind of changed about draft choices, particularly first-rounders,'' Angelo told me. "I don't have the same conviction on ones that I used to. It's the money, the totally unrealistic expectations, players coming out younger and not as experienced, players with too much time on their hands and too much money and not being grounded enough. I've become a little pragmatic about the first-round picks. They've been looked at like the Holy Grail for so long.

 

Sounds like Angelo is picturing Ced Benson when he's saying that.

Posted
After careful consideration, and some convincing by Mike Greenberg on Mike and Mike, I will have reversal of thinking on Plaxico Burress. I do not want the SOB near the Bears. I hope he's not a consideration by the Bears front office. I rahter trying to win with Hester and Bennett as the WR, then bring in this arrogant, POC. I much rather try and see if Lance Moore of the Saints can be had, instead of Burress.

I wouldn't make any decision on who I'd like to see them get based on Mike and Mike. That said, I'd be all over getting Lance Moore too if he didn't cost too much. I don't see that happening though.

 

I know that, but I do like Mike and Mike, and the stories of Plaxico berating an police officer, etc, etc is why I don't want the SOB. Greenie may a good point about Plaxico doesn't play for the fans, his teammates, or the coaches, Plaxico plays for himself. Everything happens on HIS schedule. That's why I don't want him, he isn't a team player.

Posted
Lance Moore would cost money and a 2nd round pick. That would make #99 the Bears first pick. Granted, Moore would be better than any 2nd rounder the Bears could bring in, but you can't keep giving up draft picks for players with larger salaries. Good teams build thru the draft, and despite they would be bringing in another young WR, at some point you gotta sign all these guys.

 

I usually agree with you, but I think this year is the exception. Since the beginning of the NFL draft the Bears have gone through the draft without having a first or second round pick only twice; 1970 and 1978. For the most part the Bears usually hold onto the 1st and 2nd rd picks at the time of draft, but considering the trade for Cutler, I think you put yourself into a window of opportunity you have take advantage of. I'm not saying give up 1st and 2nd rd picks every yr, because that would be foolish, but periodically forgo draft picks in favor of known quantity is sometimes (not always, mind you) a better bet for a franchise. Now if Harvin, Bey, Hicks, or Iglesias (whom I think the Bears like and would take if given a chance) happens to fall to the 49th pick (which I'm sure one will) that changes your thinking. But again considering you just pull off the trade of the century for your franchise, wouldn't it make more sense to acquire a known quantity at a position you need to upgrade then to acquire an unknown quantity? I do think the Bears will keep the 2nd round pick and take Iglesias (my guess, they just seem to like Igesias, and Sooner boys altogether), but I just think the Bears should consider all options in FA/trades before the draft.

Old-Timey Member
Posted
LAKE FOREST, Ill. – Donning a gray t-shirt and orange shorts, quarterback Jay Cutler worked out with his new teammates inside the Walter Payton Center Monday as the Bears kicked off their voluntary offseason program.

 

Throwing a variety of passes during individual drills, Cutler displayed the arm strength, quick release and athleticism that helped him earn a Pro Bowl berth last season when he played for the Denver Broncos.

 

http://www.chicagobears.com/news/NewsStory.asp?story_id=5713

Community Moderator
Posted
Really interesting quote from Angelo from that article:

 

"I've kind of changed about draft choices, particularly first-rounders,'' Angelo told me. "I don't have the same conviction on ones that I used to. It's the money, the totally unrealistic expectations, players coming out younger and not as experienced, players with too much time on their hands and too much money and not being grounded enough. I've become a little pragmatic about the first-round picks. They've been looked at like the Holy Grail for so long.

 

Sounds like Angelo is picturing Ced Benson when he's saying that.

 

I think Ced really burned Angelo.

Posted
Really interesting quote from Angelo from that article:

 

"I've kind of changed about draft choices, particularly first-rounders,'' Angelo told me. "I don't have the same conviction on ones that I used to. It's the money, the totally unrealistic expectations, players coming out younger and not as experienced, players with too much time on their hands and too much money and not being grounded enough. I've become a little pragmatic about the first-round picks. They've been looked at like the Holy Grail for so long.

 

Sounds like Angelo is picturing Ced Benson when he's saying that.

 

I think Ced really burned Angelo.

 

I would have loved to have seen Jerry's reaction to Benson crying when he was drafted. I was not happy about that one. It wasn't a "oh I'm so happy to have this dream fulfilled cry", it was a confused, pissed off cry.

Posted
After careful consideration, and some convincing by Mike Greenberg on Mike and Mike, I will have reversal of thinking on Plaxico Burress. I do not want the SOB near the Bears. I hope he's not a consideration by the Bears front office. I rahter trying to win with Hester and Bennett as the WR, then bring in this arrogant, POC. I much rather try and see if Lance Moore of the Saints can be had, instead of Burress.

I wouldn't make any decision on who I'd like to see them get based on Mike and Mike. That said, I'd be all over getting Lance Moore too if he didn't cost too much. I don't see that happening though.

 

I know that, but I do like Mike and Mike, and the stories of Plaxico berating an police officer, etc, etc is why I don't want the SOB. Greenie may a good point about Plaxico doesn't play for the fans, his teammates, or the coaches, Plaxico plays for himself. Everything happens on HIS schedule. That's why I don't want him, he isn't a team player.

 

There's an awful lot of cops out there who deserve to be berated. And I got news for you, there isn't a single pro athlete who plays for fans. The vast majority play for themself and nobody else. Plaxico is what this team needs. The only thing that would make me shy away is the residual effects of the shooting from a health standpoint, and the potential suspension.

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Really interesting quote from Angelo from that article:

 

"I've kind of changed about draft choices, particularly first-rounders,'' Angelo told me. "I don't have the same conviction on ones that I used to. It's the money, the totally unrealistic expectations, players coming out younger and not as experienced, players with too much time on their hands and too much money and not being grounded enough. I've become a little pragmatic about the first-round picks. They've been looked at like the Holy Grail for so long.

 

Sounds like Angelo is picturing Ced Benson when he's saying that.

 

I think Ced really burned Angelo.

 

I would have loved to have seen Jerry's reaction to Benson crying when he was drafted. I was not happy about that one. It wasn't a "oh I'm so happy to have this dream fulfilled cry", it was a confused, pissed off cry.

 

There were many people who saw the Benson bust coming, based on his lack of burst, his lack of pass blocking ability, his lack of character displayed in college.

 

Yet Jerry still made the pick. Benson was a solid college player but the questions whether he would be able to translate at the next level were glaring, and substantial...

 

I'm still upset with that pick. Saw the bust coming a mile away. I was so mad that day.

Posted
There were many people who saw the Benson bust coming, based on his lack of burst, his lack of pass blocking ability, his lack of character displayed in college.

 

Yet Jerry still made the pick. Benson was a solid college player but the questions whether he would be able to translate at the next level were glaring, and substantial...

 

I'm still upset with that pick. Saw the bust coming a mile away. I was so mad that day.

 

He wasn't worth the pick, but it's hard to define his career as a bust. He's still around and was productive last season. This isn't Curtis Enis. He's already surpassed both those guys as a player. The problem was taking the 3rd RB in the draft at the #4 spot, and thinking a guy who was not going to be spectacular, but if everything works out well, a steady presence, so high. Benson was like the Orton of running backs. He put up some solid college numbers, but was never spectular. He could be a solid pro running back, but nobody you want to throw millions at.

Old-Timey Member
Posted
There were many people who saw the Benson bust coming, based on his lack of burst, his lack of pass blocking ability, his lack of character displayed in college.

 

Yet Jerry still made the pick. Benson was a solid college player but the questions whether he would be able to translate at the next level were glaring, and substantial...

 

I'm still upset with that pick. Saw the bust coming a mile away. I was so mad that day.

 

He wasn't worth the pick, but it's hard to define his career as a bust. He's still around and was productive last season. This isn't Curtis Enis. He's already surpassed both those guys as a player. The problem was taking the 3rd RB in the draft at the #4 spot, and thinking a guy who was not going to be spectacular, but if everything works out well, a steady presence, so high. Benson was like the Orton of running backs. He put up some solid college numbers, but was never spectular. He could be a solid pro running back, but nobody you want to throw millions at.

 

Good point.

Guest
Guests
Posted
Will teams know what kind of suspension Burress will be looking at for next year prior to the draft?
Old-Timey Member
Posted
Will teams know what kind of suspension Burress will be looking at for next year prior to the draft?

 

Burress' hearing isn't until June 15th, correct?

 

I don't see how Goodell would be able to pre-judge a suspension when the legal ramifications aren't worked out yet.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
The North Side Baseball Caretaker Fund
The North Side Baseball Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Cubs community on the internet. Included with caretaking is ad-free browsing of North Side Baseball.

×
×
  • Create New...