WrigleyField 22

I think you are misinterpreting the notion of "blackball", which is probably due to people misusing it. There isn't a decrease coming down from on high saying you cannot sign the guy. The point is the league is filled with people who are outright bigots, as well as cowards who hide behind the BS storyline of "distractions". That combines to mean limited to zero opportunities, which is effectively being blackballed. Well whatever the reasons for him being out of the league the whole year, I think you understate the reality that has on his likelihood of stepping in and being a contributor at age 32 or 33. I want my team to make the best football decision and not try and correct some past league injustice. Would it be really cool if those aligned? Yea, but at the end of the day, I'm not convinced at his ability to contribute beyond what we can get elsewhere.

The likelihood of finding a better football fit for the cost is very low. But if it's that important to you to not be the team to break the blackball, so be it. Are you out of your mind or suffering from poor reading comprehension?

Here's a pretty decent article that digs a little deeper than "the 4th best safety in football went all year unsigned and also had gay rumors" http://thebiglead.com/2013/09/20/reviewing-the-case-for-kerry-rhodes-being-blacklisted-is-it-an-age-thing/ Again, just taking the league and applying the averages of the rest of society, we know there are going to be quite a few bigots or people who otherwise just don't want to be bothered by it all, so I'm sure some teams wouldn't consider him, and some of those teams probably even needed a safety. But I think the case for league wide blackballing is tenuous. And for whatever reason he spent the whole year not playing at age 32, I don't see a huge upside bringing him in now.

If Rhodes was as good of a safety as Peyton was a QB, without question. But he isn't and even as the number four safety in one year by PFF, he doesn't have the consistent track record that suggests he might step back on the field an additional year on the wrong side of 30 and solve our safety problems. I'm not opposed to giving him a chance but I hardly see him as a guy to solve our S issues. I'd like a little more of a sure thing. I'd pay no more than the minimum to him, with little to no guaranteed money. IF he was blackballed, that really does suck and it saddens me, but I don't want my NFL team to be the one to break the blackball just so I can be proud they aren't a bunch of cowards, if he isn't the best football fit. Thats the real question. I am 100% certain at least some teams would not sign him due to the controversy over his alleged sexuality. I think theres several more teams who just had no safety need. And we pretty much know for a fact he priced himself out of his former team who offered $3m in March, before the April controversy, which he turned down. I am struggling to readily accept a league-wide collusion to keep him or Kluwe off the field.

I'm not sure I want a guy who was out of football for a year. Blackball be damned.

Any WR who project as good return men? (Or DBs for that matter).

Jumbotron is a brand, like Kleenex right? Maybe it's not accurate? Maybe it's just a small video board.

I don't want to say its easy to find a late round or even undrafted C because it's not, but a lot if teams seem to fill the spot that way and it seems the most important part of this is having the guy learn for 2-3 years. So even though Garza should be upgraded, if he's holding the spot for another year or two until we hand it over to Boggs (not sure what they think of him though on my limited knowledge I'm not high on him) or someone we get this year, it's not the worst thing in the world. It's not my preference but the money is probably better used elsewhere. The only guy I could really see as a smooth transition is La Puenta because he should have the basic calls down from his time with Kromer, but it doesn't make sense to spend a lot more on him that whatever Garza would cost and I think he will. I think you get a guy like that if you don't believe Boggs or any prospects in the draft or from practice squads are ready to be groomed, as La Puenta is young enough to stay as a fixture. I did read somewhere recently that this is a good draft for C (no 1st round types but plenty of mid to late round depth).

Just take Clowney. There won't be any trade up advantage unless St Louis were to trade out.

Agreed. Doesn't Tucker have experience running a mixed front in Cleveland? Could work in his favor. Ultimately I think even any 3 man front we decide to run won't be the traditional 3-4 with two man gaps, but we'll just look to disguise as much as possible and just bring in the best playmakers we can.

Nice ballpark with a massive burger I failed to finish.

Bottom line the Bears have almost always been in a solid cap situation so I don't expect that to change dramatically. Finally having a big money QB makes it a little tougher, but I'm sure they'll have room to make improvements.

Sammy Watkins just seems like the prospect to me that you don't pass up. He has that kind of crazy potential (but still pretty advanced skills wise) that exceeds current needs, and is a different receiver than the guys we have. He's a play-maker, and I just wouldn't pass that up. I do agree with raw though, he's just not going to be there. Most of the mocks that show him dropping are showing that mainly because they have the top 10 going QB crazy. I think ultimately, some of those teams will pass QB early, and probably because they get a guy like Watkins. There were still be plenty of QBs taken later in round 1 and in round 2, but I don't see the QB fury thats currently being projected by many mocks now. And fwiw, I don't feel the same about Evans, so if Watkins goes early and Evans is the WR dropping, I don't pause much to still go D (maybe just a little). Seems many places still have Evans over Watkins, though.

Well, he kicked it right at the guy, I thought it was pretty clear he was trying to get the ball deflected off of him. Someone needs to draft that kicker in the first round. The ability to aim your kicks at defenders so they deflect back to your guys would be a pretty valuable skill to have i would think. Teams will adapt to it eventually. Round 3 at the highest.

Watkins won't get past Detroit at 10. I hope to God, he's gone before 10. Amen to that.

Hageman seems like he may fly up the boards. I can definitely see the injury concern if we had our choice of both, but Nix could provide real value if he drops. Obviously teams should have a real strong grasp on their medicals so if a Emery did pick him I'd trust it. I am all for BPA though. I don't think there's a spot on D where the 14th pick wouldn't provide an upgrade. On offense, obviously we wouldn't get a QB and a G or T would be hard to justify unless you thought Slauson could move inside to C. The thing is, I don't see a RB or TE being best available at that spot. So it comes down to mostly if you would take a WR there and to that I'd say yes (although I may disagree on rankings and Watkins may be the only guy I really see as BPA there).

Seems about right.

What? The biggest change is Hardin and the college CB to NFL S pick isn't that weird. Shea was definitely a tweener position, but he didn't change his position. These guys are pretty much playing their prospect positions. Long I think played a little of each at Oregon and is new to any position anyways, and may yet bump out to OT but started at OG due to inexperience. Bostic played inside at Florida and was rated by most pundits as a ILB prospect. ERods role changed a bit but he was a rookie with a unique skill set and an uncreative OC. But he basically lined up in the same spot, but was just used as a lead blocker instead of a pass catcher. The best case to this theory is Shea but in reality the "position" is pass rusher and if your a 3-4 it means OLB and if your 4-3 it means DE. Bad fit, but he was put into the same role. From the press conference yesterday, I kinda wonder if Emery has learned a bit from some of these "athlete" picks. We'll see. Not sure what there is to learn really. None of these guys was a workout warrior in the classic sense. The biggest lesson is perhaps to care a little bit more about scheme for (especially on defense). The lesson for Hardin is more about health and the lesson about Erod more about character. But even still that doesn't mean you never take those risks. It takes quite a large sample IMO to tell if a guy really has trends, and if we include what info we have on Emery's non-GM influence there really is only one true trend I can see, which is he likes size at WR.

What? The biggest change is Hardin and the college CB to NFL S pick isn't that weird. Shea was definitely a tweener position, but he didn't change his position. These guys are pretty much playing their prospect positions. Long I think played a little of each at Oregon and is new to any position anyways, and may yet bump out to OT but started at OG due to inexperience. Bostic played inside at Florida and was rated by most pundits as a ILB prospect. ERods role changed a bit but he was a rookie with a unique skill set and an uncreative OC. But he basically lined up in the same spot, but was just used as a lead blocker instead of a pass catcher. The best case to this theory is Shea but in reality the "position" is pass rusher and if your a 3-4 it means OLB and if your 4-3 it means DE. Bad fit, but he was put into the same role. They're playing their positions now, but each of them may be changing next year, per the press conference today. They specifically mentioned Shea as an LB, Bostic maybe having to move outside, that Hardin was a CB that couldn't cut it as a S. The problem is that it ignores those that didn't switch positions. Frey, Jeffrey, Mills... From the press conference yesterday, I kinda wonder if Emery has learned a bit from some of these "athlete" picks. We'll see. Even a LB moving from inside to outside or vice versa isn't the most unusual thing or some sign of a trend. I think Briggs was evaluated as a possible ILB and Urlacher started as a OLB and struggled. If it had been Anderson to go down instead of Williams, I think it's very likely Bostic is still the replacement. It's just relative position versatility.

Nix had knee surgery (I believe). That's the only reason he's below Hageman. People don't really know what to expect from him, but I think he'll be fine. Hageman is intriguing though. Strong as an ox. 6-6 in the middle of the D would be beautiful. But despite being bigger, I think Nix is quicker off the ball. Also allows you to put him at nose if there's a hybrid D or 3-4 D in place. My thoughts exactly.

What? The biggest change is Hardin and the college CB to NFL S pick isn't that weird. Shea was definitely a tweener position, but he didn't change his position. These guys are pretty much playing their prospect positions. Long I think played a little of each at Oregon and is new to any position anyways, and may yet bump out to OT but started at OG due to inexperience. Bostic played inside at Florida and was rated by most pundits as a ILB prospect. ERods role changed a bit but he was a rookie with a unique skill set and an uncreative OC. But he basically lined up in the same spot, but was just used as a lead blocker instead of a pass catcher. The best case to this theory is Shea but in reality the "position" is pass rusher and if your a 3-4 it means OLB and if your 4-3 it means DE. Bad fit, but he was put into the same role.

As it stands now you'd have to take Watkins at 14. Things will change a lot, but right now that value sounds too enticing to pass up. I just don't see it happening. It looks like on most mocks, we're picking Hageman with Nix still on the board. Is the consensus Nix has dropped below him? Either would be good.

CAP GENIUS CLIFF STIEN!! Loving that structure, and I'm guessing the slightly higher AAV is making up for the fact he can be dumped without consequence in three years. I'm sure if we wanted a more traditional structure that AAV would have fallen. So I definitely prefer this structure.

Yeah, it's wonderful. I took some on an international flight and was out before they were serving dinner. Worked like a charm.

he missed a game after the Giant game because the line couldn't protect him. He missed a game after getting a cheap-shot from a Texan player on a busted play. I think those are the only concussion games. But if there was an injury that actually begot injuries, it's concussions over most. I don't think it's a huge deal, but hopefully for that and several other reasons it's structured to be easy to walk away from.