OTA news

For all things Chicago Bears

Moderator: wab

User avatar
Bearfacts
MVP
Posts: 1693
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:33 am
Location: Colorado
Has thanked: 721 times
Been thanked: 157 times

Moriarty wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 1:52 pm https://okstate.com/sports/football/ros ... nkins/8963

This has the tallies at 7 LT, 26 RT, 2 RG (as a freshman)
Good find. I saw another site that listed 3 at OG but as I posted I'm not implying Jenkins was a OG at OSU only that he had played OG before. What may be more influential is that at least some scouts and GMs believed he might be better off playing OG in the NFL. But in the end all that counts is where the Bears decide to play him not where I think he should play.

So all I did was offer and opinion based on how similar I see Jenkins in comparison to Kyle Long. That's it. It's just my own personal opinion. I actually have more than one opinion unlike other body parts I do have only one of.
User avatar
Bearfacts
MVP
Posts: 1693
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:33 am
Location: Colorado
Has thanked: 721 times
Been thanked: 157 times

wab wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 12:42 pm
Bearfacts wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 2:13 am I though 60 catches for just over 600 yards was kind of a breakout type year last season. The only thing lacking was TD and that was because Nagy kept subbing in Graham in the red zone eclipsing any chance Kmet may have had to ring up some scores. With as much as we may spread the ball around what's a fair expectation for Kmet in 2022?
I think a Dalton Schultz (80/800/8) type season is attainable. 75 catches for 780 yards and 6 TDs would be nice.
There. That's what I was looking for, some benchmarks. :toast:
User avatar
Bearfacts
MVP
Posts: 1693
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:33 am
Location: Colorado
Has thanked: 721 times
Been thanked: 157 times

wab wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 2:17 pm
Moriarty wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 1:52 pm https://okstate.com/sports/football/ros ... nkins/8963

This has the tallies at 7 LT, 26 RT, 2 RG (as a freshman)
Playing in 2 games at RG as a freshman doesn't exactly qualify as experience.

It may not qualify as significant experience but it does meet the basic description of having had experience. So......once again wab I'm not claiming Jenkins is an experienced OG but rather that he has had some previous experience playing OG. OSU saw him as a better OT than an OG or they simply had a bigger need for him as an OT. I'll wait to see how the Bears envision him.
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8411
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 909 times
Been thanked: 1277 times

Bearfacts wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 9:18 am
The Marshall Plan wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 3:52 am

While I don't disagree it seems like we're gonna have to wait at least one more year for Poles and Flus to evaluate the OL we have now and how well they fit the roles Getsy has planned for them. Between the 2021 draft and this years draft we've invested in 6 OL and signed another (Patrick) as an UFA. We aren't yet in the hunt for a deep playoff run so we should probably see what we have already.

If two of the rookies from this draft and both Jenkins and Borom can own starting and/or primary backup roles that should give Poles a much better idea of what and who he needs to target next spring. We also need to know whether or not Patrick is the guy who resolves our long standing problems at OC. I like the chances of some of these guys succeeding.

True, Jerry Angelo essentially went out and bought himself 80% of his OL through FA but I think we all realize that's not practical or affordable now. We may be able to add a piece or maybe even two but Angelo added four. Kruetz was the only Bears draftee (3rd round in '98) and speaking of that Miller was a 5th round pick in '96 and Garza a 4th round pick in '01. Only Brown and Tait were originally 1st round picks and Brown was nearing the end of his career. So it's possible for Day 3 draftees to succeed as well.

Poles has already begun to build his OL from the draft he just didn't have multiple Day 1 or Day 2 picks with which to do it so he made trades to pick up enough picks to add 4 OL on Day 3. So he is working the plan of building via the draft just as he said and by next spring we may know more about how successful his first swings at doing it are. There are a ton of successful NFL OL who weren't 1st or 2nd round picks so let's see how lucky we got with Poles gambles on the guys he did draft or sign as UFA.
I think you messed up the quoting there.
Image
User avatar
Heinz D.
MVP
Posts: 1040
Joined: Fri May 06, 2022 4:29 pm
Location: Tri-State area
Has thanked: 947 times
Been thanked: 158 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 3:52 am Would anybody here rather have Grossman than Fields? Doubtful. So imagine what Fields could do with a line like that?

That's why you build from the ball out. It works.
So...the Bears are just throwing garbage out there, and crossing their fingers it all works out?
My mother's love was inexplicably linked to kickball.
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12025
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1201 times
Been thanked: 2138 times

Heinz D. wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:02 pm
The Marshall Plan wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 3:52 am Would anybody here rather have Grossman than Fields? Doubtful. So imagine what Fields could do with a line like that?

That's why you build from the ball out. It works.
So...the Bears are just throwing garbage out there, and crossing their fingers it all works out?
Yea, pretty much. They have two established players on the entire line, Whitehair and Patrick - that's it, and neither are all that great. Out of 5 starters, we have 2 established players - that's awful. Then we have two unproven 2nd year Tackles, and absolutely nothing at RG. And all that is there behind them to push them are late round drafted rookies + a bunch of guys that clearly suck: Mustipher, Dakota (RIP), Davenport, Simmons. The talent level is absolutely laughable. I do believe that Getsy will run a lot and get the ball out quick - much quicker than McNagy - so despite the poor talent we may still play better. But just being better isn't good enough - we have to be a LOT better than we've been. A whole lot better. There's a strong argument that the talent level is actually worse than last year.

If we want to be a contender, there simply has to be better talent out there. You can't just scheme everything, at some point your players have to be better than their players - particularly in the playoffs.

He's playing the long game, so while this year should be pretty rough I hold out hope that he meant what he said about focusing on OL play and will address it properly next offseason. And yea, it would be good to see some of these rookies get some action so we know if any of them can play.
User avatar
Heinz D.
MVP
Posts: 1040
Joined: Fri May 06, 2022 4:29 pm
Location: Tri-State area
Has thanked: 947 times
Been thanked: 158 times

dplank wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:40 pm Yea, pretty much. They have two established players on the entire line, Whitehair and Patrick - that's it, and neither are all that great. Out of 5 starters, we have 2 established players - that's awful. Then we have two unproven 2nd year Tackles, and absolutely nothing at RG. And all that is there behind them to push them are late round drafted rookies + a bunch of guys that clearly suck: Mustipher, Dakota (RIP), Davenport, Simmons. The talent level is absolutely laughable. I do believe that Getsy will run a lot and get the ball out quick - much quicker than McNagy - so despite the poor talent we may still play better. But just being better isn't good enough - we have to be a LOT better than we've been. A whole lot better. There's a strong argument that the talent level is actually worse than last year.

If we want to be a contender, there simply has to be better talent out there. You can't just scheme everything, at some point your players have to be better than their players - particularly in the playoffs.
"Laughable"? Based on your personal scouting of OTAs? And all the work you put in on the guys they picked up?

First off--explain how it's "laughable". This will be fun.

Next--you DO understand that teams rebuild...right? They reset their rosters, cast off older, underperforming (and often, overpaid) players? This is a thing in the NFL?

And lastly--do you think that, with a move or two here or there, the Bears are "contenders" THIS year? Seriously? You honestly think that with a different off-season--with YOU as the GM, I guess?--the Bears win the Super Bowl this year? Explain that, as well, please.
dplank wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:40 pmHe's playing the long game, so while this year should be pretty rough I hold out hope that he meant what he said about focusing on OL play and will address it properly next offseason. And yea, it would be good to see some of these rookies get some action so we know if any of them can play.
How does this statement mesh, at all with ANYTHING you've posted, above it? :-?
My mother's love was inexplicably linked to kickball.
User avatar
Stormtrooper
Practice Squad
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu May 26, 2022 10:37 am
Location: Tar Heel State

I like turtles
If my cat pisses on me one more damn time...
User avatar
LacertineForest
MVP
Posts: 1635
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:39 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Has thanked: 1751 times
Been thanked: 323 times

Stormtrooper wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 8:48 pm I like turtles
Lmao, not the post I was expecting after the previous exchange. Well played.
User avatar
docc
Head Coach
Posts: 3811
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:33 pm
Location: Outpost of Reality S.E. Arizona
Has thanked: 935 times
Been thanked: 168 times

Image
User avatar
Bearfacts
MVP
Posts: 1693
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:33 am
Location: Colorado
Has thanked: 721 times
Been thanked: 157 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 4:14 pm
Bearfacts wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 9:18 am

I think you messed up the quoting there.
Yeah I did TMP. I wish this platform would simply allow us to highlight what we want to quote not have to quote an entire post then delete what isn't needed. I still fuck this up quite often......sorry. :ashamed: :kickme: LOL
User avatar
Bearfacts
MVP
Posts: 1693
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:33 am
Location: Colorado
Has thanked: 721 times
Been thanked: 157 times

Heinz D. wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 7:12 pm
dplank wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:40 pm Yea, pretty much. They have two established players on the entire line, Whitehair and Patrick - that's it, and neither are all that great. Out of 5 starters, we have 2 established players - that's awful. Then we have two unproven 2nd year Tackles, and absolutely nothing at RG. And all that is there behind them to push them are late round drafted rookies + a bunch of guys that clearly suck: Mustipher, Dakota (RIP), Davenport, Simmons. The talent level is absolutely laughable. I do believe that Getsy will run a lot and get the ball out quick - much quicker than McNagy - so despite the poor talent we may still play better. But just being better isn't good enough - we have to be a LOT better than we've been. A whole lot better. There's a strong argument that the talent level is actually worse than last year.

If we want to be a contender, there simply has to be better talent out there. You can't just scheme everything, at some point your players have to be better than their players - particularly in the playoffs.
"Laughable"? Based on your personal scouting of OTAs? And all the work you put in on the guys they picked up?

First off--explain how it's "laughable". This will be fun.

Next--you DO understand that teams rebuild...right? They reset their rosters, cast off older, underperforming (and often, overpaid) players? This is a thing in the NFL?

And lastly--do you think that, with a move or two here or there, the Bears are "contenders" THIS year? Seriously? You honestly think that with a different off-season--with YOU as the GM, I guess?--the Bears win the Super Bowl this year? Explain that, as well, please.
dplank wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:40 pmHe's playing the long game, so while this year should be pretty rough I hold out hope that he meant what he said about focusing on OL play and will address it properly next offseason. And yea, it would be good to see some of these rookies get some action so we know if any of them can play.
How does this statement mesh, at all with ANYTHING you've posted, above it? :-?

Ya' beat me to it. :thumbsup:

My comment would have been "What part of rebuilding an OL from scratch is so difficult to understand"?

If ya' can't afford to buy what you need the only other option is to build it over time yourself and that's what Poles is doing.
User avatar
Bearfacts
MVP
Posts: 1693
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:33 am
Location: Colorado
Has thanked: 721 times
Been thanked: 157 times

docc wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 11:45 pm Image
All except some of the blonde ones. Some are light as air. :mrgreen:
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8411
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 909 times
Been thanked: 1277 times

dplank wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:40 pm
Heinz D. wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:02 pm
So...the Bears are just throwing garbage out there, and crossing their fingers it all works out?
Yea, pretty much. They have two established players on the entire line, Whitehair and Patrick - that's it, and neither are all that great. Out of 5 starters, we have 2 established players - that's awful. Then we have two unproven 2nd year Tackles, and absolutely nothing at RG. And all that is there behind them to push them are late round drafted rookies + a bunch of guys that clearly suck: Mustipher, Dakota (RIP), Davenport, Simmons. The talent level is absolutely laughable. I do believe that Getsy will run a lot and get the ball out quick - much quicker than McNagy - so despite the poor talent we may still play better. But just being better isn't good enough - we have to be a LOT better than we've been. A whole lot better. There's a strong argument that the talent level is actually worse than last year.

If we want to be a contender, there simply has to be better talent out there. You can't just scheme everything, at some point your players have to be better than their players - particularly in the playoffs.

He's playing the long game, so while this year should be pretty rough I hold out hope that he meant what he said about focusing on OL play and will address it properly next offseason. And yea, it would be good to see some of these rookies get some action so we know if any of them can play.
I agree with every word of this.

This organization hasn't valued the offensive line since the mid 2000s. You can't draft like four or five late round picks hoping something sticks at positions as critical as OT. Those are the guys you want protecting the potential franchise QB?

The later rounds of the draft are supposed to build up your special teams and for true diamonds in the rough.

I don't understand why other people argue against this so much. To me anyway, it's a basic Football 101 kind of a thing. Bigger, more aggressive and more talented guys up front (on both sides of the ball) are going to push back smaller, less aggressive and less talented guys and therefore move the ball in the direction you want.

But people think you can just razzle dazzle your way around things. You can't.

For all the glitz and glamour certain players and certain positions get, those players have the TIME to do what they need to do because the guys up front create that time for them.

Then we are bombarded ad nauseum with YouTube videos about QB footwork, release time, and how that 0.02 of a second is the difference between Trent Dilfer and Aaron Rodgers or some crap.

Well OK. What is an extra 3 seconds worth on every single play? That's what great OL players do.

Or creating holes for the RB that you can drive a truck through? What's that worth?

The five starting OL are the most important positions on the field.
Image
User avatar
malk
Head Coach
Posts: 3625
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:10 am
Has thanked: 133 times
Been thanked: 204 times

dplank wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:40 pm
Heinz D. wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:02 pm
So...the Bears are just throwing garbage out there, and crossing their fingers it all works out?
Yea, pretty much. They have two established players on the entire line, Whitehair and Patrick - that's it, and neither are all that great. Out of 5 starters, we have 2 established players - that's awful. Then we have two unproven 2nd year Tackles, and absolutely nothing at RG. And all that is there behind them to push them are late round drafted rookies + a bunch of guys that clearly suck: Mustipher, Dakota (RIP), Davenport, Simmons. The talent level is absolutely laughable. I do believe that Getsy will run a lot and get the ball out quick - much quicker than McNagy - so despite the poor talent we may still play better. But just being better isn't good enough - we have to be a LOT better than we've been. A whole lot better. There's a strong argument that the talent level is actually worse than last year.

If we want to be a contender, there simply has to be better talent out there. You can't just scheme everything, at some point your players have to be better than their players - particularly in the playoffs.

He's playing the long game, so while this year should be pretty rough I hold out hope that he meant what he said about focusing on OL play and will address it properly next offseason. And yea, it would be good to see some of these rookies get some action so we know if any of them can play.
Your closing paragraph is everything though. We were never going to go after a stud lineman at stud linemen prices given that we aren't competing this year and we had a cap situation. So the calculation really is how important is it to see what we have from Jenkins, Borom, any rookies that show enough, compared to the more middling linemen we could have signed. I agree that the lowball offer was a mistake, and I'd certainly be happier with another solid looking player with upside signed this offseasn, but outside of that I think it's more important to see what the rookie contract players have than go after mid priced vets. That means we might have to take some lumps but I absolutely disagree it means we aren't taking the line seriously.

Sure we could have drafted someone earlier but Brisker and Gordon look pretty exciting so I can forgive that as perhaps BPA picks who also fill needs. But it isn't like we're running out known shithouses, we're going with unproven players with some promise.
"I wouldn't take him for a conditional 7th. His next contract will pay him more than he could possibly contribute.".

Noted Brain Genius Malk, Summer 2018.

(2020 update, wait, was I right...)
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12025
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1201 times
Been thanked: 2138 times

Yea that’s why I included it - folks struggle to understand nuance (not you). So I figured if I ripped on this years OL talent that I had to reinforce that I understand it’s a multi year process. I get it.

But I also am clear eyed about what we have up front for this upcoming season and I’m tired of waiting for my GMs to do something about the OL. We should’ve gone after Armstead, and not because I’m trying to win in 2022 but because I want to win the 4 years after (assuming he’s on a 5 yr deal).

On one hand folks keep saying it’s a multi year process, then on the other they don’t want to sign anyone to a long term deal because we aren’t trying to win in 2022. It seems logical but really isn’t. Because you have to secure talent when it’s available, and lock it in so it’s rostered when you intend to compete! So what if his first year with us is a rebuild year, give him a year in the system and getting acclimated to Fields and Monty et all.

This thought that we are going to buy a great team in one offseason and compete immediately is flawed big time. Next offseason won’t have enough talent available at all of our need positions - so I wanted to spend a year ahead. Just like a few years ago I wanted to lock up Trent Williams when he wanted out of Washington even though we already had two T’s - but we didn’t and he found a home in SF instead then re-upped.

Future planning needs to consider the availability of resources in the thought process. The best talent won’t always be available at times convenient for our rebuild!
User avatar
Bearfacts
MVP
Posts: 1693
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:33 am
Location: Colorado
Has thanked: 721 times
Been thanked: 157 times

FWIW.....https://www.bleachernation.com/bears/20 ... -steelers/

Couldn't figure out where else to put this but any hope of bringing Ogunjobi back on a one year deal is over. Let's see how this works out for Pitt and then we may know whether or not Poles made the right decision.

Adam Schefter
@AdamSchefter
Former Bengals’ DT Larry Ogunjobi has signed a one-year deal with the Pittsburgh Steelers, per source.

Ogunjobi now will have played for the Browns, Bengals and Steelers, leaving the Ravens as the lone Ogunjobi-less AFC North team.
3:40 PM · Jun 21, 2022·Twitter for iPhone
User avatar
Bearfacts
MVP
Posts: 1693
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:33 am
Location: Colorado
Has thanked: 721 times
Been thanked: 157 times

dplank wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 6:57 am Yea that’s why I included it - folks struggle to understand nuance (not you). So I figured if I ripped on this years OL talent that I had to reinforce that I understand it’s a multi year process. I get it.

But I also am clear eyed about what we have up front for this upcoming season and I’m tired of waiting for my GMs to do something about the OL. We should’ve gone after Armstead, and not because I’m trying to win in 2022 but because I want to win the 4 years after (assuming he’s on a 5 yr deal).

On one hand folks keep saying it’s a multi year process, then on the other they don’t want to sign anyone to a long term deal because we aren’t trying to win in 2022. It seems logical but really isn’t. Because you have to secure talent when it’s available, and lock it in so it’s rostered when you intend to compete! So what if his first year with us is a rebuild year, give him a year in the system and getting acclimated to Fields and Monty et all.

This thought that we are going to buy a great team in one offseason and compete immediately is flawed big time. Next offseason won’t have enough talent available at all of our need positions - so I wanted to spend a year ahead. Just like a few years ago I wanted to lock up Trent Williams when he wanted out of Washington even though we already had two T’s - but we didn’t and he found a home in SF instead then re-upped.

Future planning needs to consider the availability of resources in the thought process. The best talent won’t always be available at times convenient for our rebuild!
Seems we square up pretty well on this as far as our thinking goes. Whatever mistakes Poles may have made so far like not uppong his offer to Bates or pursuing a vet OT like Armstead I'm willing to forgive and chalk up to having his plate full deciding who to get rid of and who or what to add. By my observation Poles is very methodical but also very thorough.

What's somewhat ironic is that he arrived with a less than ideal cap situation, has added talent, and now we're actually in a better place cap wise than when it all began. If he can add talent that can help throughout the summer he's now in a spot where he can do that and still get extensions done for Smith and Monty if he chooses. This part interests me.

Building that OL and the interior of the DL is gonna be a process that may take another year or even two. But at this point knowing Poles intent and his background as an OL I'm trusting him to get the job done others could not or did not. I like what I see in Braxton Jones. He's a kid who could become our LT for a decade and we have to at least see whether or not that's possible by playing him. If we had signed a vet LT we'd be playing him instead and Jones would lose reps and remain an unknown quantity.

I like the two OG prospects he drafted as well although there's less chance that we'll see much of either of them this year unless we have some injuries. I'm kind of waiting to find out whether or not they keep Jenkins at RT or move him to RG. Moving Borom around could be an indication of the latter or it could simply be they see Borom as the swing guy and want him working both sides. If Jenkins isn't moved inside I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Poles sign a RG or make a deal for one during camp or preseason.

But the bottom line is this OL will eventually be built mostly from draft picks. If Jones works out and either Jenkins or Borom can own RT I don't even expect Poles to sign a UFA OT next spring. I think it would be more likely for him to use FA to rebuild his DL since top 3T DTs aren't plentiful in the draft and I believe he'd like to spend his top picks on a WR and another Edge Rusher/DE.
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29805
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 127 times
Been thanked: 1956 times

dplank wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 6:57 am We should’ve gone after Armstead, and not because I’m trying to win in 2022 but because I want to win the 4 years after (assuming he’s on a 5 yr deal).
Terron Armstead will be 31 years old before the season starts and has been in the NFL for going on 10 years now. He has never played a full season in his career.

How is he going to be a building block that helps the team win for the next 4 years?
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12025
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1201 times
Been thanked: 2138 times

Well, according to every website out there and despite what you point out here (which they certainly factored in to their consideration), Armstead was in fact listed as the #1 available Free Agent in the league regardless of position. Couple that with our extreme need at the position, and IMO we should have gone after him. Age and injury history, along with talent and production, were all considered when ranking FA's - and he was #1. I think that speaks for itself unless you think they were somehow unaware of these issues?

We just watched a 39 year old LT outplay everyone else on our team, and he wasn't even in shape to play. 31 is NOTHING at this position, he's likely in his prime right now and will play at a high level for many years.

Not to pick an argument here, but IIRC you had the same age issue when we were arguing about Trent Williams a few years back. Sure didn't appear to be an issue for him. It's a 5 year term, not 20. The injury issue - yes, absolutely a concern and he was discounted roughly 5M/yr for that concern. The signing wouldn't have been without risk. Think about the trickle down effect had we done it - we probably draft a G in the 5th instead of a T and maybe RG isn't such a disaster as it appears right now. Borom/Jenkins battle it out for RT, with the loser being our swing T. It would look a lot different with just one guy added (Bates would have also made a huge difference had we landed him). For all my bitching, Poles fell one FA signing short of making me happy with his offseason.

Speaking of which - I'd still like to throw a flyer at Will Fuller.
HurricaneBear
Head Coach
Posts: 2165
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:56 am
Has thanked: 1852 times
Been thanked: 350 times

I remember reading some vague things(maybe twitter?) about Armstead wanting to be a Dolphin and ruling the Bears and another team out. It may not have been Poles fault. The Bears are not an attractive FA destination. Constant losing franchise, known for weak to abysmal offense, very cold climate....not exactly ringing endorsements. Based on Bates I would assume if Poles had made an offer it wasn't blowing anyones out of the water and if I were a player I wouldn't want to move to Chicago.
User avatar
Yogi da Bear
Head Coach
Posts: 2499
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:43 pm
Has thanked: 209 times
Been thanked: 359 times

dplank wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:40 pm Yea, pretty much. They have two established players on the entire line, Whitehair and Patrick - that's it, and neither are all that great. Out of 5 starters, we have 2 established players - that's awful. Then we have two unproven 2nd year Tackles, and absolutely nothing at RG. And all that is there behind them to push them are late round drafted rookies + a bunch of guys that clearly suck: Mustipher, Dakota (RIP), Davenport, Simmons. The talent level is absolutely laughable.
I agree with everything you said except the last sentence. I think that you can honestly say that our experience level is laughable, but you can't say that about our talent level. THAT is largely unknown at this point. I can say that the athletic ability of our OL is far beyond anything we've had in recent history despite their late round status. We just don't know, as of yet, how that will transfer to the field.

I find it laughable that some have said that our OL hasn't been addressed since Jerry Angelo in the mid 2000s. What a joke. Angelo's absolute refusal to address the OL was my biggest gripe on him. In the five drafts from 2003 to 2007, Angelo drafted one seventh round guard, one sixth round guard, one seventh round tackle, and one fifth round tackle. In one draft, Poles has drafted as many offensive linemen at higher positions than Angelo did in five friggin' years: a fifth round tackle, a sixth round guard, and sixth round center, and a seventh round guard.

You can lament our offensive line experience, but I don't think you can condemn the talent level. Not yet you can't. We have to see how these guys stack up first. It could be that Poles is an offensive line genius evaluator.
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29805
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 127 times
Been thanked: 1956 times

Yogi da Bear wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 10:48 am
dplank wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:40 pm Yea, pretty much. They have two established players on the entire line, Whitehair and Patrick - that's it, and neither are all that great. Out of 5 starters, we have 2 established players - that's awful. Then we have two unproven 2nd year Tackles, and absolutely nothing at RG. And all that is there behind them to push them are late round drafted rookies + a bunch of guys that clearly suck: Mustipher, Dakota (RIP), Davenport, Simmons. The talent level is absolutely laughable.
I agree with everything you said except the last sentence. I think that you can honestly say that our experience level is laughable, but you can't say that about our talent level. THAT is largely unknown at this point. I can say that the athletic ability of our OL is far beyond anything we've had in recent history despite their late round status. We just don't know, as of yet, how that will transfer to the field.

I find it laughable that some have said that our OL hasn't been addressed since Jerry Angelo in the mid 2000s. What a joke. Angelo's absolute refusal to address the OL was my biggest gripe on him. In the five drafts from 2003 to 2007, Angelo drafted one seventh round guard, one sixth round guard, one seventh round tackle, and one fifth round tackle. In one draft, Poles has drafted as many offensive linemen at higher positions than Angelo did in five friggin' years: a fifth round tackle, a sixth round guard, and sixth round center, and a seventh round guard.

You can lament our offensive line experience, but I don't think you can condemn the talent level. Not yet you can't. We have to see how these guys stack up first. It could be that Poles is an offensive line genius evaluator.
Good post
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7942
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 511 times
Been thanked: 598 times

dplank wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 10:07 am Well, according to every website out there and despite what you point out here (which they certainly factored in to their consideration), Armstead was in fact listed as the #1 available Free Agent in the league regardless of position. Couple that with our extreme need at the position, and IMO we should have gone after him. Age and injury history, along with talent and production, were all considered when ranking FA's - and he was #1. I think that speaks for itself unless you think they were somehow unaware of these issues?

We just watched a 39 year old LT outplay everyone else on our team, and he wasn't even in shape to play. 31 is NOTHING at this position, he's likely in his prime right now and will play at a high level for many years.

Not to pick an argument here, but IIRC you had the same age issue when we were arguing about Trent Williams a few years back. Sure didn't appear to be an issue for him. It's a 5 year term, not 20. The injury issue - yes, absolutely a concern and he was discounted roughly 5M/yr for that concern. The signing wouldn't have been without risk. Think about the trickle down effect had we done it - we probably draft a G in the 5th instead of a T and maybe RG isn't such a disaster as it appears right now. Borom/Jenkins battle it out for RT, with the loser being our swing T. It would look a lot different with just one guy added (Bates would have also made a huge difference had we landed him). For all my bitching, Poles fell one FA signing short of making me happy with his offseason.

Speaking of which - I'd still like to throw a flyer at Will Fuller.

It also speaks to the FA class too though. It wasn't like Alex Cappa, Kirk, and everyones favorite Arob are Hall of Famers here (all got paid!)

Putting aside the Armstead probably giving Miami a discount because he wanted to go there.....it's probably more like a 10 million a year discount if he was 100% healthy and noting the general FA premium on a legit LT

Jason Peters and Andrew Whitworth playing until 39/40 are outliers rather than great data points - and it should be noted that Peters age 35-38 seasons were not anything to write home about (we got exceedingly lucky on him last year IMHO)


I guess here is the heart of the issue on the Armstead question - Why would he be healthier after age 30 and after he signs a big contract with a lot of guarantees?

And that is going to be every year - another year of wear and tear - less practice time to help keep him healthy etc

There is ABSOLUTELY a chance he stays healthy and makes the Dolphins look like geniuses. Absolutely.

I think the likelihood he plays 11 plus games a year over the next 2-3 years is low though -and I think having a guy be hurt on the OL is the worst place for it. Because it does have more of a snowball effect. IMHO

Obligatory - does not getting a Comp pick retroactively soften my stance here? Yes. Yes it does.
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29805
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 127 times
Been thanked: 1956 times

dplank wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 10:07 am Well, according to every website out there and despite what you point out here (which they certainly factored in to their consideration), Armstead was in fact listed as the #1 available Free Agent in the league regardless of position. Couple that with our extreme need at the position, and IMO we should have gone after him. Age and injury history, along with talent and production, were all considered when ranking FA's - and he was #1. I think that speaks for itself unless you think they were somehow unaware of these issues?

We just watched a 39 year old LT outplay everyone else on our team, and he wasn't even in shape to play. 31 is NOTHING at this position, he's likely in his prime right now and will play at a high level for many years.

Not to pick an argument here, but IIRC you had the same age issue when we were arguing about Trent Williams a few years back. Sure didn't appear to be an issue for him. It's a 5 year term, not 20. The injury issue - yes, absolutely a concern and he was discounted roughly 5M/yr for that concern. The signing wouldn't have been without risk. Think about the trickle down effect had we done it - we probably draft a G in the 5th instead of a T and maybe RG isn't such a disaster as it appears right now. Borom/Jenkins battle it out for RT, with the loser being our swing T. It would look a lot different with just one guy added (Bates would have also made a huge difference had we landed him). For all my bitching, Poles fell one FA signing short of making me happy with his offseason.

Speaking of which - I'd still like to throw a flyer at Will Fuller.
I recall my stance on Williams vividly and it had nothing to do with his ability to stay healthy (although he did have injury concerns and had just sat out a year). The Bears weren't going to hand over that much money to him after just resigning Leno...and then sit Leno and his salary on the bench.

My dislike for Charles Leno is legendary here, but I understood from a practical standpoint that they were not going to trade for Williams.

When it comes to the Bears, what I want and what I realistically know will happen...rarely line up.
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7942
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 511 times
Been thanked: 598 times

wab wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 11:46 am
dplank wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 10:07 am Well, according to every website out there and despite what you point out here (which they certainly factored in to their consideration), Armstead was in fact listed as the #1 available Free Agent in the league regardless of position. Couple that with our extreme need at the position, and IMO we should have gone after him. Age and injury history, along with talent and production, were all considered when ranking FA's - and he was #1. I think that speaks for itself unless you think they were somehow unaware of these issues?

We just watched a 39 year old LT outplay everyone else on our team, and he wasn't even in shape to play. 31 is NOTHING at this position, he's likely in his prime right now and will play at a high level for many years.

Not to pick an argument here, but IIRC you had the same age issue when we were arguing about Trent Williams a few years back. Sure didn't appear to be an issue for him. It's a 5 year term, not 20. The injury issue - yes, absolutely a concern and he was discounted roughly 5M/yr for that concern. The signing wouldn't have been without risk. Think about the trickle down effect had we done it - we probably draft a G in the 5th instead of a T and maybe RG isn't such a disaster as it appears right now. Borom/Jenkins battle it out for RT, with the loser being our swing T. It would look a lot different with just one guy added (Bates would have also made a huge difference had we landed him). For all my bitching, Poles fell one FA signing short of making me happy with his offseason.

Speaking of which - I'd still like to throw a flyer at Will Fuller.
I recall my stance on Williams vividly and it had nothing to do with his ability to stay healthy (although he did have injury concerns and had just sat out a year). The Bears weren't going to hand over that much money to him after just resigning Leno...and then sit Leno and his salary on the bench.

My dislike for Charles Leno is legendary here, but I understood from a practical standpoint that they were not going to trade for Williams.

When it comes to the Bears, what I want and what I realistically know will happen...rarely line up.
It wasn't just a Leno thing (though he played into it Cap wise)- The Bears did have cap issues and the pandemic wasn't making things look like more Cap.

That is a marked difference from the Armstead situation alone.

There is also the fact that Williams had credibly sat out. And WFT HAD offered him a lot of money - he wanted out because he thought the team doctors almost killed him and that was his issue.

He was traded to a team with his former coaches. I absolutely think that played a role (major) in it.

BUT Dplank was right that we should have gotten him anyway - cut who you have to cut.

IIRC my personal opinion - I did note the Cap issues. I still liked Williams though. AND I rarely have trouble moving a Tackle to an easier Tackle position or a RT to RG.

Armstead I wouldn't have signed though. Risk/Reward ratio is off for me
User avatar
dave99
Assistant Coach
Posts: 662
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:14 am
Location: Plano Texas
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 172 times

Yogi da Bear wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 10:48 am
dplank wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:40 pm Yea, pretty much. They have two established players on the entire line, Whitehair and Patrick - that's it, and neither are all that great. Out of 5 starters, we have 2 established players - that's awful. Then we have two unproven 2nd year Tackles, and absolutely nothing at RG. And all that is there behind them to push them are late round drafted rookies + a bunch of guys that clearly suck: Mustipher, Dakota (RIP), Davenport, Simmons. The talent level is absolutely laughable.
I agree with everything you said except the last sentence. I think that you can honestly say that our experience level is laughable, but you can't say that about our talent level. THAT is largely unknown at this point. I can say that the athletic ability of our OL is far beyond anything we've had in recent history despite their late round status. We just don't know, as of yet, how that will transfer to the field.

I find it laughable that some have said that our OL hasn't been addressed since Jerry Angelo in the mid 2000s. What a joke. Angelo's absolute refusal to address the OL was my biggest gripe on him. In the five drafts from 2003 to 2007, Angelo drafted one seventh round guard, one sixth round guard, one seventh round tackle, and one fifth round tackle. In one draft, Poles has drafted as many offensive linemen at higher positions than Angelo did in five friggin' years: a fifth round tackle, a sixth round guard, and sixth round center, and a seventh round guard.

You can lament our offensive line experience, but I don't think you can condemn the talent level. Not yet you can't. We have to see how these guys stack up first. It could be that Poles is an offensive line genius evaluator.
Poles certainly does have that reputation. But then again Nagy was supposed to be the great QB whisperer and it turned out the whispers were just soul crushing sonic blasts.
I think if the last few years have taught us anything it is easy to assign too much credit to this person or that. Maybe the "genius" was just good at positioning himself and playing politics.
It's up to owners and upper management to sort all of that out in hiring. Given the Bears history, too much optimism seems misplaced.
So some skepticism is in order, but as we are just fans foolishly wasting time and money on this football team we are entitled to brush much of that aside and see only the silver lining.
The dark clouds can come later.
The secret is to work less as individuals and more as a team. As a coach, I play not my eleven best, but my best eleven.
~Knute Rockne
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12025
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1201 times
Been thanked: 2138 times

RichH55 wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 11:56 am
wab wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 11:46 am
I recall my stance on Williams vividly and it had nothing to do with his ability to stay healthy (although he did have injury concerns and had just sat out a year). The Bears weren't going to hand over that much money to him after just resigning Leno...and then sit Leno and his salary on the bench.

My dislike for Charles Leno is legendary here, but I understood from a practical standpoint that they were not going to trade for Williams.

When it comes to the Bears, what I want and what I realistically know will happen...rarely line up.
It wasn't just a Leno thing (though he played into it Cap wise)- The Bears did have cap issues and the pandemic wasn't making things look like more Cap.

That is a marked difference from the Armstead situation alone.

There is also the fact that Williams had credibly sat out. And WFT HAD offered him a lot of money - he wanted out because he thought the team doctors almost killed him and that was his issue.

He was traded to a team with his former coaches. I absolutely think that played a role (major) in it.

BUT Dplank was right that we should have gotten him anyway - cut who you have to cut.

IIRC my personal opinion - I did note the Cap issues. I still liked Williams though. AND I rarely have trouble moving a Tackle to an easier Tackle position or a RT to RG.

Armstead I wouldn't have signed though. Risk/Reward ratio is off for me
It wasn't even about cutting anyone, we still needed and signed a swing tackle that year. All I was arguing for at that time was making either Leno or Massie a one year overpriced swing tackle, so that we could land Williams and keep him long term. Then next offseason, both Leno and Massie had easy outs in their contracts and we could drop one or both. It was a fairly minor overspend - FOR ONE YEAR - and I made that point repeatedly. But, like I said, there's ALWAYS an excuse not to do it. And bursting spend at one position for a single year was just too much to ask apparantly.

Wab, you didn't talk about injury but you did talk about age I believe, and I even think the age at the time was about the same as Armstead is now.

Rich, I agree going with folks he knew played a part. My gripe was it didn't appear that we even tried (although it's possible I suppose that we did try and kept it quiet - doubt it tho). Poles not trying for Armstead is what bothers me, if he had tried and Armstead went to Miami because he preferred to play there I wouldn't blame Poles at all. Again, I suppose it's possible he tried and it went unreported, but I doubt it.

Yogi, agree with your post and that we shouldn't assume those draft picks aren't good. But odds are what they are, they were drafted late for a reason, and on top of that they are rookies. So I just don't put any faith in low drafted rookies making a Year 1 impact, maybe they develop over time but this upcoming year is what my post was about.
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29805
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 127 times
Been thanked: 1956 times

I didn't really care about his age THAT much. I cared about the cost. But that's neither here nor there at this point.

I was anti Armstead for a variety of other reasons.
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7942
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 511 times
Been thanked: 598 times

"Wab, you didn't talk about injury but you did talk about age I believe, and I even think the age at the time was about the same as Armstead is now."

I think for me - it's not age - as much as injuries - I think Armstead has basically had every part of him injured - Knees to Shoulders - and lots of surgeries - I feel like he came into the league injured - And don't get me wrong Armstead has been a warrior about it - He could/should have missed MORE time over the years to be honest

What I remember about Trent Williams was this: https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/888 ... ources-say

Never knocked him down Ray
Post Reply