southsideirish

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Apr 29, 2005 -> 03:40 AM) Ah, but he's "guaranteed" to be a huge guy on returns. Okay. Sorry, perhaps he's Dante Hall, but most special teamers are just not that important. Or maybe I've forgotten how far that Chad Morton signing got the Redskins. Funny, btw, that you use Keary Colbert as an example: "Holds the University of Southern California career record with 207 receptions, sixth on the all-time Pac-10 list, topping the previous mark of 204 by Kareem Kelly (1999-2002)...2,964 career receiving yards rank third on the Trojans all-time record chart (eighth on the all-time Pac-10 list), surpassed only by Kelly (3,104) and Johnnie Morton (3,201, 1990-93)...Gained more than 100 yards receiving in six contests and caught a pass in his last 36 consecutive games...Joined Keyshawn Johnson (1,362 yards in 1994 and 1,434 in 1995) and Mike Williams (1,265 in 2002 and 1,314 in 2003) as the only players in school history to gain more than 1,000 yards receiving in a season twice in a career." From http://www.nflplayers.com/players_network/...k.aspx?ID=35662. Kinda maybe a little more experienced than Bradley? And maybe that helps. Could you stop with all this 'they're not guaranteed to be pro bowlers anyway' stuff? We know that, that's not the point. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Please. I never said he was guaranteed to make a big contribution as a kick/punt returner. I said he could. He has just as much a chance as doing that as any of the players you pointed out making huge contributions to their respective teams. That is just the way it goes. He don't know what they will do no more than I do. That was my point. Nothing more and nothing less. I wasn't using Keary Colbert as a perfect comparison to Mark Bradley, that is obviously a ridiculous comparison. My comparison was to how plans change. You may not have plans for him to be a contributor, but then something happens, such as an injury or poor play. YOu just don't know what is going to happen. Just because they don't plan on him playing and starting does not mean he can't or won't. That was my comparison. You took it out of context, but that's ok. I never said they are not guarnteed to be pro bowlers. Where did this come from? A select few are pro bowlers. I believe I said starters or key contributors. If they are not starters or key contributors then the team must be doing something else with them. Maybe this something else would be considered developing them. Maybe they are developing them because they are projects and not NFL ready just yet. That's all.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Apr 29, 2005 -> 03:15 AM) "Start" was the wrong word -- I should have said "contribute". Just a mistake, sorry about that. Every one of the guys I listed is more ready than Bradley to contribute in 2005/2006. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> contribute? Hmmm, I am sure Bradley will be contributing on special teams. I thnk they plan on making him a kick or punt returner. You can make a big contribution doing that. I highly doubt ALL those guys are going to or are guaranteed to make a contribution that could be as significant as that.

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Apr 29, 2005 -> 03:18 AM) There's a big difference between being an instant starter and being a basically special teams only player your first year. Only a handful of first rounders are going to start right away, but there are an awful lot of rookies that are going to end up playing fairly big roles by the end of the year. It sounds like the Bears have no intention of making Bradley a starter, or even making him the 3rd WR based on what they have said. A lot of the guys taken on the first day will at least have a chance to start, even some second day guys might squeek into significant playing time. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That is what they say now. Who knows what happens in the mean time. They may not plan on it, but I don't remember Carolina making any big plans for Keary Colbert to start last year either. Steve Smith gets hurt and here comes his opportunity. Sometimes talent and hard work forces itself onto the field. We are just going to have to wait and see.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Apr 29, 2005 -> 03:09 AM) That's not what projects means -- you might be as ready as you're ever going to be and still bust. That's not a project -- those guys don't need teaching, they need another vocation. A project is someone who simply doesn't have the skills/experience to start now. I'm not saying Bradley won't be good -- eventually. Maybe he will. But he's a much bigger risk than most 2nd round picks (none of which is a sure thing, we all agree on that). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That is exactly what I was saying. Most picks in the 2nd round do not have the skills/experience to start now. s***, a lot of 1st rounders don't even have that. Bradley may be a higher risk, but he will also be a higher reward.

QUOTE(T R U @ Apr 29, 2005 -> 02:52 AM) Just throwing something out there.... but besides the fact there are a lot of players who arent projects, most people in rounds 1-3 arent projects... The second day of the draft is when you find out who did the real scouting thats when most of the "projects" and potential players to help you down the line.. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ok, so most of the players in rounds 1-3 are not projects? They are for sure NFL starters? Nothing to work on? No busts? They are ready to step into the NFL right now and start? What the hell are you smoking?

QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Apr 29, 2005 -> 02:37 AM) Heh. I'm pretty burnt on the draft, but I will tell you I feel Bradley was a big time strech in the second round. Justin Miller was there for the taking and would have gone in the first round if he wouldn't have been arrested the week prior to the draft and Nugent will be a staple for the Jets' kicking game for years to come. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Some have him as a steal. I guess we will have to see. I don't think the Bears are in need of DB help as much as WR help, but that is JMO. Plus I said nothing bad about Nugent. If you have 3 picks or more in teh first 2 rounds then you can do that. However, when you have 2 picks in the first 3 rounds, you can't.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Apr 29, 2005 -> 02:39 AM) Matt Jones is a project, I'll grant you. But he's also switching positions while making the leap. Mark Bradley already made the switch to wr, and he didn't do much of anything. Now the Bears are saying he won't do much of anything for at least a couple more years. This sounds good? Who is not as much a project as Mark Bradley: Looking at the list, I'd say basically the entire 2nd round, excluding Bradley. But for sure: Baas, Pool, Brown, Ruud, Cody, Bullocks, Burnett, Arrington, Roth, Nugent, Barnes (still a project, just not so much), Cody, Miller, Babineaux, Thurman,... Every draftee is a project in a sense. But a high second round pick, and the guy won't contribute until next year at the earliest, that's some real faith, right there. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> All those guys are projects. Give me a break. Who knows when he will contribute? Neither you or I know that. I would never project something like that. Who knows?

QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Apr 29, 2005 -> 02:29 AM) Justin Miller <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hmm, I think he is. I don't see him as a standout DB that is ready right now to make an impact. Later yes, but not right now. Maybe the kicker the Jets took. He is pretty much good to go. Did you want a kicker?

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Apr 29, 2005 -> 02:25 AM) My thinking too -- which is why all this praise for picking the guy is really confusing me. (Some people have questioned it, but a lot of people -- including Kiper, but not just him -- have said that this was a very smart pick. I dunno.) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Who is not a project in the 2nd round? Half of the 1st rounders are projects. That is a really ludicroud statement to make. Very few players are ready to start in the NFL right out of the draft.

QUOTE(T R U @ Apr 29, 2005 -> 02:19 AM) Its hard to tell who is joking and who isnt when you have people like southsideirish saying stupid crap like that and actually meaning it.. my bad jackie.. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Read your own posts. You haven't posted one intelligent thing yet. At least you are consistent, because I havent seen you post anything intelligent since you've been posting here.

QUOTE(T R U @ Apr 29, 2005 -> 02:23 AM) haha your not supposed to use your EARLY 2nd round pick on a project like that... they should have made a smarter WR choice or a complete diff pick <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Who is not a project in the 2nd round?

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Apr 28, 2005 -> 09:23 PM) Where did this idea that we absolutely need a speed guy on the other side come from? If Muhammad is so damn good, why wouldn't we want the same receiver on the other side? Who really cares how fast a guy runs if he is productive? There have been plenty of spectacular WR's that do not have top speed. It's very rare that you are going to actually hit a 40 yard plus streak play in the NFL, especially since our QB play leaves something to be desired. Williams can still stretch the field without running a 4.3. If you have to cover him downfield on a 30 or 40 yard jump ball, that's some major pressure, especially when you get near the red zone. He's still considerably bigger than every DB in the pros, and he has fantastic hands. I've seen him make numerous catches worthy of guys like Moss and Carter, the later being a guy I can see him being very similar too. I think your memory is a little hazy concerning last year's rankings. I read an awful lot of material before the draft, and he was far and away the #2 WR on pretty much everyone's board behind Roy Williams. Reggie Williams was picked to go somewhere around #20, Lee Evans in the latter 3rd of the first round. He was picked to go anywhere between about #6 and #15. The only reason the other two moved up was that Mike wasn't there. Had he played at USC this year, Williams would have been one of the top 3, ranked ahead of Edwards. In fact, Kiper said many times during the draft that he would have been the #1 pick if that had happened. Also, I never said anything about taking Arrington, I wanted us to wait a while to take a power back to complement Jones. Obviously Benson is better than the guys you'd find in the 3rd or 4th, but Williams is better than those guys too, and I'd rather have the significant upgrade at WR than RB given our current personel. I think Jones will be solid if he and the bulk of the line stay healthy. On the other hand, I think our receivers needed another significant threat desperately. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Zoom, you bring up some good points, you really do. I dont agree with you, but I respect your position and I can see where you are coming from. I never said 40 times meant everything, but the fact is Mike WIlliams never gained seperation against college DBs. YOu can still gain seperation without having great speed, but he was never able to. He won't be able to do the same things agaisnt NFL DBs. He is neither quick, not fast. He is a plodder. You do need someone else opposite Moose that can stretch the field. You don't want someone the same and not be able to stretch the field because then they know you can't throw it deep. The field then becomes cut in half. If you have someone like Bradley and Berrian that can fly, then you spread the field and create more room for your RB and underneath receivers. That is why you don't want 2 Moose/Mike WIlliams type guys. My memory is not hazy at all about where he was being ranked. Kiper liked him, but he was slipping and slipping fast. I never once seen him ranked ahead of Larry Fitzgerald or Roy Williams. The highest I saw him last year was 3. But then Lee Evans flew up the board in the final days and so did Reggie Williams. Lee because he can flat out fly. Before the draft everyone knew Fitz, Roy Williams and Evans were going to be the top 3. A lot of mock drafts had it even between Reggie Williams and Mike Williams. It was not a given that he was even top 4 last year. Then all of a sudden Mike Williams is this stud that you MUST have? I just find that wierd. I would really much rather have Mark Bradley and Cedric Benson than Mike Williams and any other RB we would have got with our other picks. JMO

QUOTE(T R U @ Apr 28, 2005 -> 10:45 PM) I think you really should not try to make ridiculous "arguments" when what your saying is complete bulls*** that not one person agrees with because (this may shock you) your WRONG! Look at his stats, he was one of the best WRs in the nation when he was at USC.. your just, AGAIN, making stupid arguments prolly cuz you just wanna read your own posts.. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Another pointless post with absolutely no substance. And why does someone need to have others agree with them in order to be right? Stats do not tell the whole picture. Watch the games. He never got seperation from the DBs in college. NEVER! If he was a TE this would be a different story, but hes not. You don't spend a #4 or even a #10 pick on a posession/slot receiver. It just doesn't make sense.

QUOTE(frahungski @ Apr 27, 2005 -> 08:30 PM) i didn't see this posted elsewhere. at least we made #1 in some sort of rankings...... http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writ...blog/index.html <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I didn't even know anyone read that crap.

QUOTE(Capn12 @ Apr 28, 2005 -> 06:04 PM) Olden days... C'mon now, Wilie Gault isn't old days....I remember watching him every week and I'm only 28. Don't be tryin to make me feel old <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He last played in 93. He last played with the Bears in 87. That is 12 and 18 years respectively. I think that can be considered the old days.

QUOTE(T R U @ Apr 27, 2005 -> 10:47 PM) I agree with you on Benson but come on man.. All I have to say is watch the one handed catch he made Vs Michigan in the Rose Bowl.. Mike Williams is a franchise reciever and comparing him to Mark f***ing Bradley should get you laughed off this site <{POST_SNAPBACK}> T R U you really should learn how to argue a point. Nothing that you have stated had any substance to it at all. One catch makes you a franchise receiver? About getting seperation? He has not proven he could even do that in college. In his final game he wasn't even the best receiver on the field. That would have been Keary Colbert. He has proven absolutely nothing and you think he is a franchise receiver?

QUOTE(Mamoscott @ Apr 27, 2005 -> 06:52 AM) I am glad you are here to do my debating for me, because that's exactly how I feel, especially the Benson/LD/Green/Cadillac comparisons. Admittedly, it'll be tough for Benson to be as disappointing as Curtis Enis was, but even if Benson does have some success, it doesn't change the fact that workhorse running backs are fairly easy to acquire these days. Thomas Jones was fine last year, and the Bears didn't need to burn the number four overall pick on another running back. They had greater needs to fill at other positions, and there were other players available with greater potential (Mike Williams). Minnesota signed Antoine Winfield last year and Fred Smoot this year to solidify their secondary. Both of them are under 5 feet 10 inches tall and under 180 pounds. Don't you think the potential receiving duo of Muhsin Muhammad (6'2" 217 lbs) and Mike Williams (6'5" 229 lbs) would give them and a lot of other teams some major problems? The NFC North is littered with terrible secondaries, and we play division opponents 6 games per year. Yet we're content to take a marginal upgrade at running back instead of taking a chance on a potential franchise receiver. I don't like it one bit. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thomas Jones was fine? He couldn't even play the full season! This year we won't have the luxury of having Anthony Thomas backing him up. Can you show me all of the workhorse backs that are so easy to acquire these days please? Then tell me what we would be giving up to acquire these workhorse backs. This was one of the greater needs the Bears had and Mike Williams does not have greater potential. In your opinion he may, but he doesn't. I believe he reached his full potential in college. I think if Williams could get seperation it would give teams problems, but where is the proof that that would happen? Mark Bradley is 6'2" as far as I know that is still bigger than 5'10". Either way the size difference is there. I would much rather have Cedric Benson and Mark Bradley than Mike Williams and JJ Arrington. Cedric Benson is much more than a marginal upgrade and Mike Williams is by no means a franchise receiver. By saying potential I could say the same thing about Mark Bradley. Both receivers have the same chance of being franchise WRs.

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Apr 27, 2005 -> 05:42 AM) It's not the top speed that is the difference (Scouts inc had 4.55 for Benson, 4.51 for Williams by the way). I'm not that one that buys into 40 times that much because you don't play football in shorts in a T-shirt on a track, you almost never run for 40 yards in a straight line, and no one is trying to rip your head off when you're running the 40. Physically they're pretty much the same, but their running styles are very different. Benson runs over and through guys a lot more, Williams is a lot more elusive. I'm not a fan of getting a 220 pound power back in the high first, that's my main problem with the pick. Most of the really good backs his size like Green and Tomlinson have very good speed to supplement their power. I wouldn't have had a problem if he were our 2nd or 3rd round pick, but when we take him #4 over someone like Williams, I'm not happy. Obviously I could be wrong, but my prediction is that we are going to wish we took Mike Williams. I think if things go well he's going to be somewhat like Eddie George- 2 or 3 good seasons followed by a drop off in production and some nagging injuries. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Just a question Zoom, but why do you like Mike Williams so much? He is big and tall, but he never gets seperation and that was in college. NFL DBs are much better than college DBs, so if he got no seperation in college how is he going to get it in the NFL? Also, how does he fit with the Bears? Why would you want identical receivers on either side? You need a speed guy opposite Mushin Muhammed, you don't need someone that is going to get you 5 or 6 yards when you need it. I am much happier taking Cedrick Benson and Mark Bradley than taking Mike Williams and JJ Arrington. I think Arrington will be good, but he also is not a fit for the Bears. He doesn't fit in with what they want to do. I really don't understand everyone's fascination with Mike Williams. He wasn't even going to be drafted in the top 10 last year if he came out. Most had Reggie Williams and Lee Evans ranked ahead of him. Why is he so great this year? Is he as good as Michael Clayton? He was drafted at 15! I just don't see it and I am glad we didn't pick him.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Apr 26, 2005 -> 07:14 AM) I agree about the pitching depth, but their offense doesn't really compare at all. The 2002 Angels offense is more like a poor man's version of the 2004 Red Sox offense. Eckstein .363 OBP, .293 AVG Kennedy .345 OBP, .312 AVG Anderson .870 OPS, 30 HR, 125 RBI Glaus 30 HR, 110 RBI Salmon .880 OPS Fullmer .880 OPS Erstad .283 AVG Spiezio .810 OPS Molina Bench Palmeiro .300 AVG in 263 ABs Wooten .292 AVG in 113 ABs Gil .285 AVG in 130 ABs Nieves .289 AVG in 100 ABs Fabregas The catchers were a major disaster for the 2002 Angels if we're talking offense. Fabregas hit .193 and Molina hit .245. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> We haven't even began to hit. Just wait....just wait.

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Apr 26, 2005 -> 05:08 AM) I definitely agree with you on Arizona, they had a monster draft. Blackstock might be a stud, and Rolle, Arrington and Brown were great picks too. I also agree with the Ravens. Their first two picks were very good (Clayton and Cody is pretty nice), but I'm not sure about the rest of them. I'm also not so sure about Philly deserving an A. I also think that Miami and Minnesota did pretty well on their picks, they both filled some needs. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I absolutely love Miami's draft. Matt Roth in the 2nd is a great pick. Ronnie Brown is a stud and Channing Crowder is very nice as well. Nick Saban seemed to have a plan and stuck with it. Travis Daniels can be very good and Saban knows him well. They addressed team needs very well.

What ist he biggest difference you guys notice with Jon Garland? I was sitting and watching the game tonight and I said to myself, "He is not affraid to let the batter hit it anymore." It seems like he has a lot of confidence in his stuff and will throw it over the plate. He throws strikes consistently. When I first remember him pitching it seemed as if he was trying to strike everyone out. Now he just gets ground ball after ground ball. I love the way he pitches. I hate to make this comparison, but he looks like a young Kevin Brown.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Apr 25, 2005 -> 08:44 PM) I have been thinking about our great start to this season and the negative reaction from sporting press. Many observers are linking our team to the 2003 KC Royals and their great start and 3rd place finish. Over achieving by the pitching staff, and lucky 1-run wins. Many people on this board are wondering if our numbers are going to come back to earth as well, especially when we have to face tough opponents in august etc. KC win/loss splits Month by Month Split W L RS RA WP March 1 0 3 0 1.000 April 16 7 122 95 0.696 May 10 19 131 177 0.345 June 15 12 155 160 0.556 July 15 11 136 125 0.577 August 13 15 146 155 0.464 September 13 15 143 155 0.464 Our April is starting to look alot like KC. Longest Winning Streak: 9 (March 31 to April 12) Lets all hope this is not the case, but what do you think? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> First, I would like to say that our pitching staff is not over achieving one bit. Second, these one run wins are not lucky. We are playing great defense and getting great pitching. We are also running the bases very well. We are playing all around very sound fundamental baseball. That is what helps you win close one run ball games. I have seen more comparisons written about this White Sox team and the 2002 Anaheim Angels. The one thing that is the same between this team and the Angels is the deep starting rotation and bullpen. The 2002 Angels and 2005 White Sox have very similary qualities. The KC Royals did not have a deep pitching staff and they were very young. A lot of things fell apart for that team. We have a lot of proven players and especially pitchers. I would like to believe the comparisons between the 2005 White Sox and the 2002 Angels are better comparisons. Only time will tell. Like many others have said, lets just enjoy the ride.

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Apr 26, 2005 -> 04:21 AM) Well, Kiper liked the Bears' picks quite a bit. He gave them an A-. He thinks Benson has the makings of a star RB, Bradley will add some speed and special teams, Orton was a solid pick, and Curry will contribute. Other teams he liked were Arizona, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Dallas, and Philly. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I loved Arizona's draft. I think they came away the biggest winners. Dennis Green always drafts good. I think they got the best defensive player in the draft in Rolle. In the 2nd they got the perfect fit at RB for Denny Green's system. He loves fast RBs. Really nice 3rd round pick with CB Eric Green. They drafted 2 LBs that they need desperately. SoxFan's buddy Elton Brown was a great pick for them. They needed help on the O-line and he can be a fantastic guard for them. The last pick was a WR who will probably only be on special teams and a return man if he makes the team. Overall it was a great draft. Is it just me or does Kiper always like Baltimore's draft? It seems as though every year he has them as one of the best. I don't know if he is from there or if he is in love with Billick, but something is going on there.

QUOTE(T R U @ Apr 26, 2005 -> 01:20 AM) haha like 3 hours later.... WOMP WOMP <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sorry, I forgot I was not allowed to eat. I must be on here at all times awaiting your next post. WOMP WOMP.....

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Apr 25, 2005 -> 11:56 PM) You should be shot for saying that. How can you say Williams didnt fit their needs? Did we need a WR? Uuum, yes. JJ Arrington? Uuum, yes. How does he not fit the system? Elton Brown is a big-time blocker. Have you even seen this guy play? Didn't think so. How is Chang garbage???? The coach didnt throw the f***ing ball for him did he???? What the f*** are you talking about. This "it's the system, not the player" bulls*** is pissing me off. Ok, Hawaii can insert a 12 year old girl and she will be a great because of the system??? My ass. You think the Broncos have great Rb;s b/c of their "system".....bulls***. If they put me in to run, that attomatically means I will get 1000 yards right? Sure, why not! Why NOT draft Dante Nicholson....he's better than Chris f***ing Harris and comes from a winning, successful organization! Once again....why NOT draft an OLB. I dont hear you complaining about Rodriques motherfuciking Wilson! He's a f***ing pothead criminal! Holdman = overrated, even when with the Bears. Brown = getting old. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wow, someone went off the deep end. I know we don't get along SoxFan, but damn! Your projections are only your opnions as are mine. 1st Williams does not fit the Bears needs. He is the exact same type of receiver Moose is. What we need is someone that can stretch the defense on the opposite side of him. Mark Bradley was drafted for that sole purpose. Bernard Berrian, if he can catch the ball, is also better suited for this than Mike Williams. He doesn't fit our team. I don't think he fits Detroits team either. JMO. I don't see him as this great WR that you see him as. He is a big dude that doesn't run routes very well or get a lot of seperation. I like that we went for a speed guy here and someone that can stretch the field. Mike WIlliams can't do that. He is not Randy Moss. 2nd JJ Arrington is a smaller speed back. Will he be good? Yes I think so. He will be good in a system, such as Denny Green's in Arizona, that utilizies his skills. The Bears are not that team. They want a punishing grind it out type of back. I am not saying that JJ wont be good, I think he will be very good in Arizona. I think Benson will be awesome here, but I don't think he would be the best fit for Arizona. JMO. 3rd we don't need offensive line help at this moment. We addressed this need in free agency. It would be kind of silly to address this need in the draft when we don't have to. 4th Chang is horrible. That is all they do in Hawaii. It is a run and shoot offense. s***, the whole conference just likes to put up points. He is not an NFL QB. He is much better suited for the CFL or AFL. Again this is just my opinion. I have seen plenty of his games and there is nothing that I liked about him. 5th I don't care if anyone is a pot head or a has a criminal history in college as long as it doesn't hurt the team. Somtimes you get caught up in the wrong situation. I will just have to hope that Angelo did his homework and did his background checks. I don't think Rod Wilson is going to make or break this draft for the Bears anyway. I read something about him after the draft and they were unsure about where they were planning on using him. He played so many positions in college. He could play LB or safety. He seems to be someone they would like to develop, but are just counting on him to contribute to special teams. 6th Chris Harris was taken a round after Donte Nicholson. You won't know if he is better than Harris. If you think he is then I will take your word on it, but I don't think this is something the Bears really have to worry about. If Chris Harris helps out on special teams then I think that would be great. He could be someone they would like to see and possibly develop. I don't think taking a chance on a 6th rounder is that bad. Holdman and Brown may be old and over rated but they are proven and most likely better than either Rod Wilson or Donte Nicholson. We will have to see how it all pans out. Take care of yourself. Watch your blood pressure.