The Bears offseason

[David]

it's also worth noting that zach miller graded out really horsefeathering well last year

 

i'm not a big believer in injury prone-ness (in most cases, I think it's purely bad luck - unless it's basically the same injury/issue being aggravated over and over or something), but he definitely has as solid a case as any for being an example of that...so whatever.

 

EDIT - This was from PFF's top free agent TE's

 

2. Zach Miller

2015 team: Chicago Bears

 

Miller is an interesting case — he was drafted in 2009 but to this point has only logged 1109 career snaps, and in 2015, he saw his first regular season playing time since 2011. He enjoyed a solid year in Chicago, posting the seventh-highest receiving grade among TEs while catching 81 percent of passes thrown his way and forcing 11 missed tackles – both figures ranked among the top ten at the position. Miller was particularly great late in the year with 18 of his 34 catches coming during the three-game stretch from Week 14 to 16. It will be interesting to see what happens given that he’s over 30 years old with a somewhat lackluster career resume and last season graded negatively as a run blocker. Teams could see his low mileage as a positive trait, however, and based on his play in 2015, Miller can definitely contribute in the passing game.

Edited April 26, 2016 by David

[jersey cubs fan]

kevin white resembles an offensive difference maker, especially behind one of the best WR in the league.

 

i don't know if he is one, but he definitely resembles one about as much as a rookie with zero snaps can

Yeah, I'm not playing the Kevin White is basically another first rounder in this draft game. They've already lost his rookie year, which is a huge loss in the value/cap hit game. He's also one guy. They need lots more.

 

I'd be happy with Elliot, or one of the offensive lineman here, and probably more happy with either over one of those boring linebackers.

[WrigleyField 22]

I'm not a need person either, but this team needs offensive improvement in a big way. Sufficient coverage doesn't win football games.

I'd say sufficient coverage in football meanseason a lot. Merely not sucking at every spot is a pretty big deal. Then you play to the strengths of whoever your star players are.

 

They've done quite a bit already to improve O and D, but a third CB and S, and probably a DL (depending on your view of the 2014 guys) are pretty big needs to meet the sufficient threshold on D. Or OLB because while Houston and Young are sufficient they'll be gone soon.

Edited April 26, 2016 by WrigleyField 22

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm not a need person either, but this team needs offensive improvement in a big way. Sufficient coverage doesn't win football games.

I'd say sufficient coverage in football meanseason a lot. Merely not sucking at every spot is a pretty big deal. Then you play to the strengths of whoever your star players are.

 

They've done quite a bit already to improve O and D, but a third CB and S, and probably a DL (depending on your view of the 2014 guys) are pretty big needs to meet the sufficient threshold on D. Or OLB because while Houston and Young areaders sufficient they'll be gone soon.

Yes, it means a lot. It's why the Bears were a respectable 6-10 and not a pitiful 4-12.

 

But they weren't a good offense and need lots of help. They have coverage, but they need impact on both sides of the ball. This offseason has had a lot of people obsessed with defensive improvements and ignoring the offense and it is baffling to me. The offense needs better players.

[WrigleyField 22]

Of course if the argument is just that they still need a lot either way to be SB contenders, they are more than a year away no matter what, so that just goes back to BPA, which I support.

[Tim]

One argument that would persuade me about Elliot is that having a true feature back plays to the strength of this coaching staff.

[David]

I'm not a need person either, but this team needs offensive improvement in a big way. Sufficient coverage doesn't win football games.

I'd say sufficient coverage in football meanseason a lot. Merely not sucking at every spot is a pretty big deal. Then you play to the strengths of whoever your star players are.

 

They've done quite a bit already to improve O and D, but a third CB and S, and probably a DL (depending on your view of the 2014 guys) are pretty big needs to meet the sufficient threshold on D. Or OLB because while Houston and Young areaders sufficient they'll be gone soon.

Yes, it means a lot. It's why the Bears were a respectable 6-10 and not a pitiful 4-12.

 

But they weren't a good offense and need lots of help. They have coverage, but they need impact on both sides of the ball. This offseason has had a lot of people obsessed with defensive improvements and ignoring the offense and it is baffling to me. The offense needs better players.

 

The defense didn't have "sufficient coverage" in the vast majority of spots.

[David]

One argument that would persuade me about Elliot is that having a true feature back plays to the strength of this coaching staff.

 

Does it? Fox teams are notorious for doing the multi-back thing. Don't know anything about Loggains.

[WrigleyField 22]

One argument that would persuade me about Elliot is that having a true feature back plays to the strength of this coaching staff.

That's a weird reason. That's why you pick a guy in the third round, not the first round.

 

The persuasion should be that he has as good a chance as anyone in the past 9 years to be the next Adrian Peterson.

[David]

I think going from the worst LB corps to one of the best in the league is going to have a lot more of an impact than the perception seems to be, whatever your opinion on the actual importance of the position may be.

[Tim]

One argument that would persuade me about Elliot is that having a true feature back plays to the strength of this coaching staff.

 

Does it? Fox teams are notorious for doing the multi-back thing. Don't know anything about Loggains.

Isn't he generally known as running and TOP focused? Even if he's swapping in & out with Langford to keep both guys fresh, it can still play to the strengths of the staff.

 

Now, if the argument against that is that it's stupid to draft based on the strengths of the staff when coaching turns over more frequently than the players, I get that.

[Tim]

One argument that would persuade me about Elliot is that having a true feature back plays to the strength of this coaching staff.

That's a weird reason. That's why you pick a guy in the third round, not the first round.

 

The persuasion should be that he has as good a chance as anyone in the past 9 years to be the next Adrian Peterson.

I guess I haven't paid enough attention - is he really rated that highly?

[jersey cubs fan]

The defense didn't have "sufficient coverage" in the vast majority of spots.

So spend your 3rd - 7th picks on "sufficient coverage" players.

Use the 11th pick in the draft for the biggest difference maker.

 

That also why they went out and signed three free agents.

[WrigleyField 22]

I'm not a need person either, but this team needs offensive improvement in a big way. Sufficient coverage doesn't win football games.

I'd say sufficient coverage in football meanseason a lot. Merely not sucking at every spot is a pretty big deal. Then you play to the strengths of whoever your star players are.

 

They've done quite a bit already to improve O and D, but a third CB and S, and probably a DL (depending on your view of the 2014 guys) are pretty big needs to meet the sufficient threshold on D. Or OLB because while Houston and Young areaders sufficient they'll be gone soon.

Yes, it means a lot. It's why the Bears were a respectable 6-10 and not a pitiful 4-12.

 

But they weren't a good offense and need lots of help. They have coverage, but they need impact on both sides of the ball. This offseason has had a lot of people obsessed with defensive improvements and ignoring the offense and it is baffling to me. The offense needs better players.

I've been pretty concerned about the offense, but think they've already done a pretty good job of improving and stabilizing the line. And they should hopefully get like 20+ extra games from Jeffery, White, and Royal. They gave lost a bit, including Gase, but the D has always hado a longer way to go than the O.

[WrigleyField 22]

The defense didn't have "sufficient coverage" in the vast majority of spots.

So spend your 3rd - 7th picks on "sufficient coverage" players.

Use the 11th pick in the draft for the biggest difference maker.

 

That also why they went out and signed three free agents.

I dont even disagree with this philosophy, so I'm not sure what we're going back and forth about, lol.

[WrigleyField 22]

One argument that would persuade me about Elliot is that having a true feature back plays to the strength of this coaching staff.

That's a weird reason. That's why you pick a guy in the third round, not the first round.

 

The persuasion should be that he has as good a chance as anyone in the past 9 years to be the next Adrian Peterson.

I guess I haven't paid enough attention - is he really rated that highly?

Depends on the evaluator obviously, but he is at least on par with Gurley who looks to have been worth his slot last year. So I'm not saying he was the prospect AP was, but he's the next best thing.

[jersey cubs fan]

One argument that would persuade me about Elliot is that having a true feature back plays to the strength of this coaching staff.

That's a weird reason. That's why you pick a guy in the third round, not the first round.

 

The persuasion should be that he has as good a chance as anyone in the past 9 years to be the next Adrian Peterson.

I guess I haven't paid enough attention - is he really rated that highly?

 

I don't think anybody thinks next Peterson but they do consider him to be potentially the next best thing. I was strongly against drafting RB early a decade ago, but that is when RB was going top 3-5 all the time, and you'd get far down the list in a hurry. If you can get a really talented one and get him at 11, that's still very good value in this day and age.

[David]

i just think there's like 1 RB in football who is a real difference maker to the point that he's that much better than the guys who you could otherwise have play there. It's not a thing worth chasing.

[jersey cubs fan]

I've been pretty concerned about the offense, but think they've already done a pretty good job of improving and stabilizing the line.

 

I think left tackle is a huge hole and Slauson is now on the wrong side of 30.

 

I think the line is short-term stable, but very thin and nowhere near a strength. If your line isn't a strength then your skill positions players have to be if you want to actually be good.

[jersey cubs fan]

i just think there's like 1 RB in football who is a real difference maker to the point that he's that much better than the guys who you could otherwise have play there. It's not a thing worth chasing.

I think you are wrong.

 

And taking the best RB at 11 isn't chasing. Trading up to get him, or taking him at 3 is chasing. But this would not be anything like that.

[WrigleyField 22]

i just think there's like 1 RB in football who is a real difference maker to the point that he's that much better than the guys who you could otherwise have play there. It's not a thing worth chasing.

That's not true at all, or if it is it describes every position but QB.

 

There are plenty of difference makers at RB. The bigger issue with the investment is probably this shelf life issue. Where a lineman, QB, or WR can dominate into their 30s, RB as a while will give you less years on average.

[David]

i just think there's like 1 RB in football who is a real difference maker to the point that he's that much better than the guys who you could otherwise have play there. It's not a thing worth chasing.

That's not true at all, or if it is it describes every position but QB.

 

There are plenty of difference makers at RB. The bigger issue with the investment is probably this shelf life issue. Where a lineman, QB, or WR can dominate into their 30s, RB as a while will give you less years on average.

 

without even getting into shelf life, i think we have enough weak spots that adding a 1st round talent at one of them will have much more of an impact than taking snaps from langford and carey and giving them to zeke elliot will.

 

or maybe PFF is right and langford sucks ass and then i'm completely wrong.

[WrigleyField 22]

I've been pretty concerned about the offense, but think they've already done a pretty good job of improving and stabilizing the line.

 

I think left tackle is a huge hole and Slauson is now on the wrong side of 30.

 

I think the line is short-term stable, but very thin and nowhere near a strength. If your line isn't a strength then your skill positions players have to be if you want to actually be good.

LT is not a huge hole. Leno was basically an average LT, and that was as a second year 7th rounder. Not that he couldn't fall off, of course, but LT is no more important than any other individual line spot, IMO. Slauson is aging, and like I said I always want to see them investing in the OL development, but crossing the 30 threshold for a OG/C isn't the same as a RB.

 

But the "need" philosophy is okay with short term stable anyways. Which neither of us seems to support anyways. So yea. Whatever.

 

Give me Conklin. Trade Slausson for a 4th rounder as has been rumoured. I'd be happy.

[WrigleyField 22]

i just think there's like 1 RB in football who is a real difference maker to the point that he's that much better than the guys who you could otherwise have play there. It's not a thing worth chasing.

That's not true at all, or if it is it describes every position but QB.

 

There are plenty of difference makers at RB. The bigger issue with the investment is probably this shelf life issue. Where a lineman, QB, or WR can dominate into their 30s, RB as a while will give you less years on average.

 

without even getting into shelf life, i think we have enough weak spots that adding a 1st round talent at one of them will have much more of an impact than taking snaps from langford and carey and giving them to zeke elliot will.

 

or maybe PFF is right and langford sucks ass and then i'm completely wrong.

I don't think Langford sucks ass, but do think his impact was overrated. He's a nice rotational piece.

[jersey cubs fan]

i just think there's like 1 RB in football who is a real difference maker to the point that he's that much better than the guys who you could otherwise have play there. It's not a thing worth chasing.

That's not true at all, or if it is it describes every position but QB.

 

There are plenty of difference makers at RB. The bigger issue with the investment is probably this shelf life issue. Where a lineman, QB, or WR can dominate into their 30s, RB as a while will give you less years on average.

 

without even getting into shelf life, i think we have enough weak spots that adding a 1st round talent at one of them will have much more of an impact than taking snaps from langford and carey and giving them to zeke elliot will.

 

or maybe PFF is right and langford sucks ass and then i'm completely wrong.

not sure why you frame it taking snaps from langford and carey. If you take one of these LB they are likewise going to be "taking snaps" from an already existing linebacker. There isn't a dominant defensive force likely to be available at 11. If there was, great, go ahead and take him.

 

Also, without a great passing attack, they already have to replace Forte just to get back to their uninspiring offense.