Magnetic Curses

I think he would be an average #2 at best. He's had success here and there, mainly between week 9 and week 12. He's had just 68 attempts this year. I don't see him as a starter, and I'd rather have my backup RB be capable of taking over when the starter needs to be replaced. What he said. he's successful whenever he gets the carries. again, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't be quality.

I think he would be an average #2 at best. He's had success here and there, mainly between week 9 and week 12. He's had just 68 attempts this year. I don't see him as a starter, and I'd rather have my backup RB be capable of taking over when the starter needs to be replaced. "average at best" is a bold statement concerning a guy who has 356 yards on those 68 carries, good for a 5.2 average. i wish all our rb's were that average.

Just looking through a couple of mock drafts, it looks like Vernon and Lewis are the two names that have come up, but it seems like everyone's in agreement that TE is the way to go for the Bears in the first round. they say that vernon is a better all-around TE, and more suitable to the bears run-first offense. I guess it depends on what you read because this page thinks he belongs in a passing offense. Granted I'm not too sure about the quality of the source in this case. this guy says different: http://football.about.com/cs/nfldraft/a/bl_mockdraft_4.htm

Don't get me wrong, I really like what Jones has done. I thought it was a very shrewd move signing him for relatively cheap (for a starting RB). He's not going to be a salary cap killer. He's also not good enough to hold out for a better contract. He's been a good RB for the Bears. And hopefully as soon as he's done Benson will be there to pick up the slack. I would have preferred Angelo draft a WR in the first this year, somebody who could help immediately at a major need position, as opposed to RB, which wasn't a big need. But Benson is here now, and they have to plan on him being the guy within the next year or 2. It's almost a must to have 2 capable RBs in the NFL. There's no reason to get rid of Benson or Jones without an equally talented back in there. Peterson is a decent back, but I don't want him as a #2. Plus, isn't he a FA after this year? There's enough carries and injuries to go around, no need to get rid of RBs at this stage. i don't think there's any reason to believe that peterson isn't a quality #2 back. what more does he have to do?

Don't get me wrong, I really like what Jones has done. I thought it was a very shrewd move signing him for relatively cheap (for a starting RB). He's not going to be a salary cap killer. He's also not good enough to hold out for a better contract. He's been a good RB for the Bears. And hopefully as soon as he's done Benson will be there to pick up the slack. I would have preferred Angelo draft a WR in the first this year, somebody who could help immediately at a major need position, as opposed to RB, which wasn't a big need. But Benson is here now, and they have to plan on him being the guy within the next year or 2. heath miller would have been a great pick, if we could have traded down.

Just looking through a couple of mock drafts, it looks like Vernon and Lewis are the two names that have come up, but it seems like everyone's in agreement that TE is the way to go for the Bears in the first round. they say that vernon is a better all-around TE, and more suitable to the bears run-first offense.

There's no way they can take the cap hit, they just gave him $18m didn't they? Jones was taken in the 2000 draft, after Lewis and before Dayne and Alexander. Guys taken the year before are Edgerin and Williams. Thomas hasn't come close to the success of the best of this bunch. He has 28 career TD's, 2 more than SA has this year alone. I know you think I have an unfair bias against older players, but the longevity factor with backs is just a fact of life in the NFL. Nobody is looking to lock up Alexander longterm this year because they know it'll bite them in the ass in a couple years. Look at Priest Holmes. He started his career being used as sparingly as Jones (saving him for later) but after he turned 29 he slowed considerably and couldn't hold up. I'm betting Jones has a 2006 similar to his 2005, but unless he has a back taking on a good chunk of the load he'll be much less of an impact runner by 2007. RB is a young man's game. Larry Johnson can thank Vermeil's limited use of him early to time up well with his impending free agency and next big contract. There are very few Curtis Martins in the league. The Bears should not give away Benson and put all their eggs in the Jones basket. They especially shouldn't do it if they are getting lesser value than a #4 pick should normally get you. good points, i'll admit when i'm wrong.

He's a junior...do we know he's going to be in the draft? i assume that if he's projected as a late first-rounder, he'll want to cash in.

some drafts have us taking vernon davis.

Or a trade. Angelos has been pretty good with trades. oooh, what about ced benson and our pick to the cardinals for the likely #9. that way we can pick up lewis and forget all about the RB controversy? We don't have the cap space to take that sort of hit. what about a trade up for hawk?

Or a trade. Angelos has been pretty good with trades. oooh, what about ced benson and our pick to the cardinals for the likely #9. that way we can pick up lewis and forget all about the RB controversy? Jones is not an elite back. He's had injuries each of the past two year, and might not have more than 2 years left in him. You are basically saying the Bears should spend the #4 in 2005 and #25-28 in 2006 on a TE that many believe will be available later in the first anyway. No thanks. They need the RB depth (where is this controversy?) and would take a major salary cap hit on that deal. Draft picks lose significant value as soon as they are used. I wouldn't sell my new car right after buying it, and I wouldn't trade an early 1st round RB one year after drafting him. Don't get silly going after a need position unless that guy is a sure thing stud. This guy doesn't sound like a sure thing by any stretch. but jones has been an elite back this year. he's run largely behind a line going up against 8 man fronts. the trend with jones has been to improve every single year, there's no telling if next year will be even better for him. i'm not sure where you see decline, most backs lose about 2 games per year anyway due to bumps and bruises. he's in his prime, that's gotten better every single year in the league, why start predicting a dropoff next year? where isn't the controversy? jones will likely start next year as the #1 back, push benson's development back another year, meanwhile, the best back we have might be peterson, anyway. well bocf seems to think we can't take the cap hit anyway, so why bother even pursuing this conversation?

Or a trade. Angelos has been pretty good with trades. oooh, what about ced benson and our pick to the cardinals for the likely #9. that way we can pick up lewis and forget all about the RB controversy?

if you think they're "a mold for all that's wrong with the game", you probably should be able to pinpoint why you don't like them. i, for one, love ricciardi's team. Well, I mentioned that I think they helped to drive salaries up this off-season. It's mainly the money-spending thing, I guess. They've been in the bottom 1/3 in baseball in attendance for 5 years in a row (barely beating out teams like Cincy, Colorado, and Pittsburgh), and yet they're able to spend like there's no tomorrow? I mean, I don't HATE them..... they just don't ever seem to have much personality. well, they play in canada, which isn't good for press here in the states, canadians don't seem very big on the sport either, it hasn't caught on really anywhere, so that could be another factor. plus, they play in the same division that boston and new york play in, which is death. JP will have the competing at some point, it looks like he's starting to turn them around.

But those guys are often there. I'm not asking them to reach for a O lineman. Obviously we don't know how it will play out, but they could be picking very late in the 1st, and the top skill position players will likely be gone by then. The Bears have several positions where they could use some help, so I wouldn't put any arbitrary bonus or penalty on different positions. If anything, if there was a lineman graded the same as a RB or WR, I'd take the lineman this year, since they have no young depth there and do have some talented young receivers and a surplus at RB. oh, i agree with drafting by need first, don't get me wrong. and you clarified yourself by stating that you wouldn't reach, even if the need was there. so, i gotcha.

I agree. They have some big name and impact players at some spots, but they have a lot of young/inexperinced/subpar players who they are counting on to support the big names, especially in the lineup. Adams, Zaun, Rios at the bottom won't win any division titles. However, the top of that rotation, if it stays healthy, could be very dangerous and keep them in the mix. zaun may be the most underrated catcher in the major leagues. both adams and rios are pretty decent looking young players that look to be ready to break out. that team is loaded with young talent, maybe not a ton of power. i don't see a major hole.

if you think they're "a mold for all that's wrong with the game", you probably should be able to pinpoint why you don't like them. i, for one, love ricciardi's team.

that actually seems like a deal, at this point. he could have pitched this season, and if he was anywhere close to being decent, he could have commanded bigger numbers. but nearly 10 mil per isn't bad, either, especially for a kid once traded for matt karchner.

Never? There have been some amazing all-time great franchise tackles taken very early. Tait was a first round draft pick (14th overall). I would have no problem if they selected a top notch tackle in the first, they should be somewhere around the mid 20's, so they won't be getting a huge impact player, regardless. I'd wait until the 3rd or 4th for centers and guards though, and I'd take a late project for any O line position. I meant for the Bears. I don't believe in that kind of stuff. QBs don't work out for the Bears either, but I wouldn't stop trying to develop them. They've had no success with early RBs, but I wouldn't pass on one just because. Columbo was on his way to being a solid tackle before that injury. If there is not an impact TE available, and an olineman rates higher than anybody on the board, I would take that lineman without hesitation. The Bears are old on the line, and need reinforcements. That mid 80's offense was built around some very early O line draft picks. Covert and Van Horne were each first rounders. i know i've been disagreeing with you a lot lately goony, i actually DO agree with you on a lot of other issues, but i have to say that a team should pick skill positions first and lineman later, unless guys like gallery or tommie harris are there--guys who are head and shoulders above their peers. just the way i look at it.

So not only does he pick against the Bears for like the 15th time this season, but he has no idea that Minnesota was eliminated from the Playoffs last week???? HAHA. I can't wait to see the playoff predictions. NY Giants 48, Bears 3. They are picking bad teams to score 3 TDs against the Bears, what do they think good teams would do? i like it. i think the fox sports guys picked against the bears every game during their 8-game winning streak, no sense in stopping now.

Yeah Moose, Bradley, Berrian and even Gage is a nice foursome to have in there. Especially if the latter 3 start to blossom. And the better Grossman gets, the better these guys will look too. Even at the Bears "weak" spots (with the exception of TE which you noted above), they have young talent that is hopefully only going to get better. I really think this Bears team is going to only continue to get better. This isn't like '03 where it's a fluke thing...I think this is really the start of a nice run here for the Bears. I think they can stay away from drafting WR early next year. TE is a must, and some younger O line depth would be valuable to develop. But I'd also like to see them keep drafting 3rd and 4th round defenders that they've had great success turning into solid regulars. These players are very cheap for their first few years, and can be used to plug holes when the current defenders start getting more expensive. I'd also like to see them draft a QB late. They should draft one every other year. With Rex and Kyle fighting for the starting job next year, a rookie could sit and learn for a few years without much pressure. With Orton's experience he'll be fine for the backup next season. And I'd rather have my 3rd guy be a potential starter down the road than a journeyman. i disagree. i'd rather have one clear-cut starter, as grossman will be if he can stay healthy, one young QB a year or two out of school, as orton will be, and one experienced journeyman.

the fact remains: does any rational human being, including rogers for the sake of argument, believe that his trade could come to realization? i doubt it. the sheer fact that there are 4 pages dedicated to his assinine trade proposal would point to the probability that a sports columnist writes things to get people talking at the water cooler, on-line, barroom, card table, etc. while i don't think that careless was saying that rogers aims at writing a sports version of "Baby with man-boobs born to gay couple" or "Chewbacca-man found living in Tomb of Christ", he did write his article to stir discussion, which is what columnists are paid to do. this makes for more readers ("did you see that idiots new column? what a dumbass" or "did you read phil's new column? it was pretty interesting") , which newspapers like. if no one reads the paper, selling ad space would be impossible, that's simple logic. you don't need to be in the business to know how that works.

moose hasn't lived up to his billing, has publicly embarassed his QB, and dropped more than a few important passes. grossman needs to get in his face on his next drop.

I baited you? Did you read what you wrote to me? Apparantly you think I can't read and can't form a coherent arguement. You've been incredibly antagonistic in this argument. I am simple stating a pretty simple idea, Brett Favre circa 2005 isn't as good as Brett Favre circa 1995-1997, and that his team's misfortunes can be partly blamed on his declining play. You, and many Favre apoligists, like to claim that his astronomical INT rate this season is due entirely to him just trying so much harder now than he did before, to make up for his teammates lack of ability. I take a much more simple approach. In his peak he had a 2.59 TD/INT ratio, and his team was consistently great. Since 1998 he's had a TD/INT ration of 1.33, and his team has ranged from mediocre to good, and is now terrible. I've stated that I don't think he's done, that I think he can still win in this league and that he's still a threat. But his body, at 36, can't do what it once did. And for a guy who relied so heavily on risk taking and his extreme physical talents, that will take a toll. You can name guys like Elway (TD and the OLine won him his Super Bowls), Young (had the benefit of not getting as banged up early in his career, not to mention the best receiver in NFL history), Moon (please, the guy was never a threat for greatness in his later years), Marino (put up numbers but not many results in his 30's) and Gannon (another late bloomer without much wear and tear when he emerged who also had 3 great receivers) and say they've had some success in their 30s. But I'm not saying Favre can't have any success. All I'm saying is he has declined, the results speak for themselves and it shouldn't be surprising to anybody. It's hardly an indictment of the guy. I hate that he's owned the Bears, but respect the hell out of his game. He's been more fun to watch than any Bears player over the past decade, and would probably go down as the greatest Bear ever if he played for this team. I'm much more happy that the Bears beat Favre twice this year than I would have been if they beat Rogers. He's had a great career, and can still be pretty good, but he's not the same. And people should stop pretending that he is. i'll give you that he had a peak in 95-97 in regards to TD/INT, but not in completion percentage and yards. his best season for TD/INT ratio was 96, but since then, he's thrown for more yardage 4 times (98,99, 01, 04) and had a better completion percentage 6 times (98, 01, 02, 03, 04, 05), and it wasn't because he was throwing less, of those 6 years, he threw more passes than he did in 96 4 times. his yards per attempt has been better 4 times (98, 01, 03 , 04) (not counting 97, a year which you included as a peak year) as well.

i don't know, but i'd argue that baseball is the most individualistic team sport around.

Why are you so freaking bitter about this? I acknowledge that his team is worse. I don't think he deserves all the blame, I'm simply saying he deserves some blame for his team's crappy play. You might not be able to see what defense I've had for my stance, but I am pretty confident tha the fault lies in your unmitigated manlust for Favre more so than my failings to accurately analyze the game. Sure he's had to take more risks, but the rate that those risk have turned into failure has increased as well, in part due to his body not being able to carry out the tasks his mind assigns it as well as it did in years past. That's nothing to be ashamed of for a 36 year old QB with as many miles on the tires as Favre. He can still win in this league, and would still be modestly successful on a better team, but he's no longer an elite QB and can't carry a team. He's been blessed with some fantastic talent around him for many years. When things get tough nowadays though he all too often loses the game with an incredibly ridiculous pass attempt. Maybe he's frustrated at the lack of talent around him, who knows, but he makes the decisions and his skill isn't making up for the bad ones. That is a QB in decline. please don't bait me with a statement like this: ...and then ask me why i'm bitter. it sounds like you simply don't like favre, and probably aren't a packer lover. no, i have no "unmitigated manlust" for favre, either. i WILL let you know that i'm bitter at how many times he's beaten us, but still consider him one of the top QBs in the game. one subpar season does not a trend make, and i'd wager that it's your overeagerness to find a downward trend in ANY aging player coupled with your natural distaste for the packers that's fueling much of your opinion regarding favre. one could make a very salient argument that he's the best QB that's ever lived. one could make an argument for a handful of Qbs as well, but i'd take favre any day of the week over any other of those guys. just my personal preference.