PDA

View Full Version : Not so positive news on Bensons progress..


pellepelle_10
03-20-2008, 03:49 AM
Just thought I'd fill you guys in on some info from Pro Football Weekly stated today.



Benson's ankle injury could alter draft plans

With unproven second-year pro Josh Beekman and mediocre-at-best seventh-year pro Terrence Metcalf considered the front-runners for the starting OLG job, and journeyman John St. Clair shaping up as the starter at right tackle heading into the draft, itís easy to see why the consensus among team sources is that the Bears remain committed to bolstering their offensive line with their first pick (14th overall) in late April. But the way we hear it, the Bearsí need for help at running back may be greater than the team is letting on, with rumors circulating that the ankle injury that prematurely ended underachieving featured back Cedric Bensonís 2007 season might actually be serious enough to potentially threaten his career. With the Bears being more tight-lipped than ever regarding injury information, itís hard to get an exact gauge on Bensonís ongoing rehab. Daily team observers tell us Benson has been a regular at Halas Hall this offseason, but nobody has seen him actually working out. The best guess is that, at the very least, the verdict on Benson will remain out until he actually tests the ankle for the first time in training camp. In the meantime, the Bears are said to have every intention of addressing their need for RB help in the draft ó but probably not until the third round, where they think they could still find quality help. However, if Arkansas hotshot Darren McFadden somehow falls through the cracks in the first round of the draft and is still available at No. 14 ó a scenario our draft insiders believe is entirely possible ó our sources suspect GM Jerry Angelo and his crew might have to think long and hard about possibly switching gears.

toonsterwu
03-20-2008, 03:54 AM
I'm assuming this is the same ankle injury from a month ago? The one where they said that Benson could lose a step or two from the surgery? Or did something new flash up?

awfullyquiet
03-20-2008, 03:56 AM
maybe he's got a glass ankle like wood has a glass arm (or back). either way, for the most part, it will more align their draft plan with our draft plans. and that is one that includes an RB on day 1.5

toons. good morning.

regoob2
03-20-2008, 07:41 AM
Sounds like speculation, nothing definitive in that post. We need a inside runner imo for depth.

toonsterwu
03-20-2008, 07:47 AM
Morning AQ.

Here's a question to all -

Say the top 4 OT's are off the board. What do we do for the first?

Do we

- Take Branden Albert - We do need help at guard, and he can be groomed for tackle. A RT type can be found in the 2nd/3rd.

- Take Rashard Mendenhall - Some rumors say he's been our number 2 option behind Chris Williams. He certainly would provide a new option, a legitimate starting option in comparison to Peterson/Wolfe.

- Deal down and

a) Try to position ourselves for Jonathan Stewart, which likely means we can't go too far down, so as to not give an opening for a team to jump up

b) Try for a QB - I firmly believe a 2nd QB will go round 1, and perhaps 3 in total.

c) Do a Columbo - Reach slightly for an OL guy out of need.

d) Draft a WR.

Gay Ork Wang
03-20-2008, 07:58 AM
Id like Albert and Mendenhall, trading down for Stewart would be also okay with me. I just dont want a WR or a 1st QB. The WRs would succed with Orton and Grossman playing behind that crappy line and noone is going to stack 8 in the box with Benson running. The QBs are all kinda at the same lvl and we should drat 1 in the 2nd or 3rd IMO

BeerBaron
03-20-2008, 10:01 AM
trading downs always appealing but i think in a situation where none of the OTs are available, we would go mendenhall if we couldnt trade down.

VoteLynnSwan
03-20-2008, 10:07 AM
Hopefully this means we take Mendenhall if he's available... He is perfect for what we need, he's a local kid, is very personable, and is a tremendous talent.

This is obviously a huge issue though... If we go RB in the first... we still have huge holes on the OL, and big holes at QB and WR. So lets say we go RB in the 1st... where do we go after?

well what if Brohm is around in the 2nd? He may just be too good to pass up in that position...

so in that scenario, we have a RB, and a QB. What about OL? Would we use both 3rd round picks on OL? and expect them to start in 1-2 years? I don't know that that would be wise persay... but Brohm and Mendenhall would certainly be an upgrade at their respective positions

bearsfan_51
03-20-2008, 10:23 AM
Morning AQ.

Here's a question to all -

Say the top 4 OT's are off the board. What do we do for the first?

Do we

- Take Branden Albert - We do need help at guard, and he can be groomed for tackle. A RT type can be found in the 2nd/3rd.

- Take Rashard Mendenhall - Some rumors say he's been our number 2 option behind Chris Williams. He certainly would provide a new option, a legitimate starting option in comparison to Peterson/Wolfe.

- Deal down and

a) Try to position ourselves for Jonathan Stewart, which likely means we can't go too far down, so as to not give an opening for a team to jump up

b) Try for a QB - I firmly believe a 2nd QB will go round 1, and perhaps 3 in total.

c) Do a Columbo - Reach slightly for an OL guy out of need.

d) Draft a WR.

Actually I think in a scenario where all four 4 OT's are off the board, that would almost guarantee Matt Ryan would be do a free-fall (barring a trade up of course).

What are the teams ahead of us that would consider an OT in the 1st?

Miami Dolphins
Atlanta Falcons
Kansas City Chiefs
Baltimore Ravens
Denver Broncos
Carolina Panthers


Of those 6 teams, only the Broncos wouldn't also consider a QB. It's possible that all 4 tackles plus Ryan would be off the board, but man that would be the worst of worst scenarios. The Raiders could also take J.Long, but that wouldn't affect us much.

1)Dolphins- Ryan
2)Rams- C.Long
3)Falcons- J.Long
4)Raiders- McFadden
5)Chiefs-J.Otah
6)Jets-Gholston
7)Patriots-McKelvin
8)Ravens-Clady
9)Bengals-Dorsey
10)Saints-Ellis
11)Bills-Sweed
12)Broncos-C.Williams
13)Panthers-Mendenhall


That would have to be the very worst scenario possible for us. In which case I would go with either Brandon Albert or Gosder Cherilus, assuming there's no trade down possible.

bearsfan_51
03-20-2008, 10:24 AM
Hopefully this means we take Mendenhall if he's available... He is perfect for what we need, he's a local kid, is very personable, and is a tremendous talent.

This is obviously a huge issue though... If we go RB in the first... we still have huge holes on the OL, and big holes at QB and WR. So lets say we go RB in the 1st... where do we go after?

well what if Brohm is around in the 2nd? He may just be too good to pass up in that position...

so in that scenario, we have a RB, and a QB. What about OL? Would we use both 3rd round picks on OL? and expect them to start in 1-2 years? I don't know that that would be wise persay... but Brohm and Mendenhall would certainly be an upgrade at their respective positions
Which is exactly why we need to adress OL before RB, you are much more likely to find a good starting runningback in the later rounds. I hope that this article is right that we don't consider a runningback until the 3rd round. There will still be plenty of good backs available then.

Geo
03-20-2008, 10:52 AM
But if all four OTs are off the board, I think you have to take the BPA in Mendenhall. Maybe it's just me, but I still think that's a great pick for the Bears, and they'll address the interior if not also a tackle later on in the Draft.

This is why I wonder if Chicago (or Carolina) will maybe trade up with Buffalo to pick before Denver, to get the LT they want. Trading up isn't a move characteristic of Angelo, but then again Polian with the Colts rarely trades up nevermind giving up a future 1st last year to get Tony Ugoh. Maybe the situation hasn't occurred yet for that to happen.

bearsfan_51
03-20-2008, 11:17 AM
By the way, this isn't really "news", it's just speculation. If you read the article they don't claim to know anything at all.

pellepelle_10
03-20-2008, 12:28 PM
Morning AQ.

Here's a question to all -

Say the top 4 OT's are off the board. What do we do for the first?

Do we

- Take Branden Albert - We do need help at guard, and he can be groomed for tackle. A RT type can be found in the 2nd/3rd.

- Take Rashard Mendenhall - Some rumors say he's been our number 2 option behind Chris Williams. He certainly would provide a new option, a legitimate starting option in comparison to Peterson/Wolfe.

- Deal down and

a) Try to position ourselves for Jonathan Stewart, which likely means we can't go too far down, so as to not give an opening for a team to jump up

b) Try for a QB - I firmly believe a 2nd QB will go round 1, and perhaps 3 in total.

c) Do a Columbo - Reach slightly for an OL guy out of need.

d) Draft a WR.

You already know my position on this one buddy. I've been preaching Mendenhall and Stewart since day 1.

pellepelle_10
03-20-2008, 12:32 PM
Hopefully this means we take Mendenhall if he's available... He is perfect for what we need, he's a local kid, is very personable, and is a tremendous talent.

This is obviously a huge issue though... If we go RB in the first... we still have huge holes on the OL, and big holes at QB and WR. So lets say we go RB in the 1st... where do we go after?

well what if Brohm is around in the 2nd? He may just be too good to pass up in that position...

so in that scenario, we have a RB, and a QB. What about OL? Would we use both 3rd round picks on OL? and expect them to start in 1-2 years? I don't know that that would be wise persay... but Brohm and Mendenhall would certainly be an upgrade at their respective positions

I think we definatelly look at OL next if RB is addressed in the 1st. If I were chicago I'd even try to package one of the 3rds (the later one) or a 4th with the 2nd and attempt to move up to select Cherilus if he lingers into the late 1st. This way we can go after Booty in the 3rd or 4th (whichever one we keep) and look at DT and WR assistance in the later rnds. I think Heath Benedict will also be available and he has a good upside.

bearsfan_51
03-20-2008, 12:44 PM
We can get a good runningback in the top of the 3rd, we can't get a good offensive tackle. That is the difference. If we go RB, OT, we're pretty much out of reasonable range to get a QB of the future, unless Andre Woodson magically learns to run the WCO or Josh Johnson develops into a real pro quarterback.

1) Offensive Tackle in the first (Williams-Otah)
2) Quarterback in the second (Brohm, Flacco, Henne)
3) Runningback with the first 3rd round (Matt Forte, Jamaal Charles, Tashard Choice)

That would let us look at guard, receiver, and defensive tackle with our late 3rd, 4th, and 5th rounders.

bearsfan_51
03-20-2008, 12:52 PM
I wouldn't be against Pelle's scenario though. Mendenhall, Cherilus, Brohm/Flacco/Henne, would be a very good first day. I would just worry that we couldn't get Cherilus at 30/31. We must get a bookend tackle.

pellepelle_10
03-20-2008, 01:00 PM
I wouldn't be against Pelle's scenario though. Mendenhall, Cherilus, Brohm/Flacco/Henne, would be a very good first day. I would just worry that we couldn't get Cherilus at 30/31. We must get a bookend tackle.


Hey bearsfan_51

On the trade value chart what would our 2nd, and 3rd or 4th rnd pick get us trading up to the late 1st. I don't have it on me.

bearsfan_51
03-20-2008, 01:02 PM
Hey bearsfan_51

On the trade value chart what would our 2nd, and 3rd or 4th rnd pick get us trading up to the late 1st. I don't have it on me.
The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th would put us at about the 27th pick. Without the 4th rounder we're at the 31st pick. Without the 3rd rounder we're at the 36th pick.

pellepelle_10
03-20-2008, 01:06 PM
Hell even at worst case scenario

1. Mendenhall - RB Illinois
late 1. Cherilus - OT BC
late 3. Drew Radovich - OG USC
4. David Booty - QB USC
5. DJ. Hall - WR Alabama

pellepelle_10
03-20-2008, 01:07 PM
The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th would put us at about the 27th pick. Without the 4th rounder we're at the 31st pick. Without the 3rd rounder we're at the 36th pick.

no these are what I was talking about

2nd, early 3rd for what overall 1st? ______
2nd, late 3rd? ______
2nd, 4th? _____

bearsfan_51
03-20-2008, 01:09 PM
no these are what I was talking about

2nd, early 3rd for what overall 1st? ______
2nd, late 3rd? ______
2nd, 4th? _____
That's what I said. To fill in the blanks the way you have it.

27th pick. (The 2nd and early 3rd would be the same as the 2nd, late 3rd, and 4th)

31st pick.

36th pick.

pellepelle_10
03-20-2008, 01:11 PM
That's what I said. To fill in the blanks the way you have it.

27th pick. (The 2nd and early 3rd would be the same as the 2nd, late 3rd, and 4th)

31st pick.

36th pick.

U said 3rd but i didn't know which one you were talking about. no worries.

BeerBaron
03-20-2008, 03:40 PM
all this talk of trading back up and maybe down.....eh

what are the odds clady, williams, and otah are all gone? i dont think the teams in front of us really view their top need as OT like we do. that to me says that their top player would have to be gone, and i dont think a lot of the teams ahead of them would steal their players.....and yadda yadda etc etc....

i think theres a good 95% chance that at least 1 of the tackles will be there, and the way a lot of them seem rated, my favorite williams might be the leftover.

im not concerned with the first round really

regoob2
03-20-2008, 06:52 PM
If we took or #14 pick and our 3rd rounder from SD we could move up to #11 in round 1. There is a chance Clady could be there, If Clady is there I would love for us to jump in front of Denver and Carolina who both need an athletic LT. We already have traded with buffalo in the past buffalo probably would be picking the same guy they would at 11 anyway cause they seem to have **** value there and everyones happy!

BeerBaron
03-20-2008, 06:55 PM
If we took or #14 pick and our 3rd rounder from SD we could move up to #11 in round 1. There is a chance Clady could be there, If Clady is there I would love for us to jump in front of Denver and Carolina who both need an athletic LT. We already have traded with buffalo in the past buffalo probably would be picking the same guy they would at 11 anyway cause they seem to have **** value there and everyones happy!

well, idk. im not as high on clady as some are. i think hes got a thin lower body and might have some issues with NFL run blocking.

the only way i do that though is if another OT other than long goes in the top 10. say long goes to the rams or falcons and the chiefs reach for clady or otah.

with the broncos and panthers ahead of us, they could each take the remaining tackles in that situation leaving us SoL.

so if that happens, iw ould be ok with jumping ahead of them for a gurantee on a tackle. but if only long goes, i dont think id do it because even if they each take a tackle, we would still get one

regoob2
03-20-2008, 08:14 PM
Chris Williams is a poor mans Ryan Clady imo. I think Ryan Clady is a better run blocker also and finishes blocks better.

BeerBaron
03-20-2008, 08:41 PM
Chris Williams is a poor mans Ryan Clady imo. I think Ryan Clady is a better run blocker also and finishes blocks better.

could be, idk. im no offensive line wizard.

but from what ive seen and heard, i personally prefer williams. theres just something about him i like a little more...versatility maybe

i dont think either would be a bad pick and id be ok with them at least

Smokey Joe
03-21-2008, 12:25 AM
If the big 4 tackles are gone by 14 (I highly doubt the Ravens take a tackle 51), I'd probably try and get a trade down, but if we couldn't find a partner, I'd go with Brandon Albert.

bearsfan_51
03-21-2008, 09:49 AM
If the big 4 tackles are gone by 14 (I highly doubt the Ravens take a tackle 51), I'd probably try and get a trade down, but if we couldn't find a partner, I'd go with Brandon Albert.
No probably not, but I could see it if Matt Ryan is off the board. Ogden is retired and their options to replace him are pretty meh..

DaSuperfan
03-25-2008, 05:19 PM
The thing that bothers me the most is the fact that there is a distinct possibility that the JA is tipping his hand before the draft has started. Everyone knows that we need an OT, but JA should do his best to keep that a secret and create a lot of doubt as to what direction we'll be going in the first round. I'm hoping any information leaked from a "source" inside the Bears organization is all smoke and mirrors.

Geo
03-25-2008, 06:37 PM
I'm not sure I buy that, pretty much anybody who watched the Bears last season saw that the OL was a big letdown compared to the previous two years when they were strong contenders. Also, it's not hard to imagine the Bears need some talented youth, most likely and notably including a left tackle of the future, if you give the roster a look.

BamaFalcon59
03-25-2008, 06:41 PM
Do not worry about runningback. Give the ball to this man.

http://www.chicagobears.com/userfiles/image/default/Wolfe_inside113007.jpg

Seriously though, I think he should get increased touches in a dry offense.

awfullyquiet
03-25-2008, 06:59 PM
Do not worry about runningback. Give the ball to this man.

http://www.chicagobears.com/userfiles/image/default/Wolfe_inside113007.jpg

Seriously though, I think he should get increased touches in a dry offense.

i do not disagree with you. he'd be a great #2 to someone someday :p but, for right now, i'd like to get 5-15 touches in the game.

SFbear
03-25-2008, 07:09 PM
i do not disagree with you. he'd be a great #2 to someone someday :p but, for right now, i'd like to get 5-15 touches in the game.

I think his size(or lack thereof) and ability make him pretty dangerous during draws and screens. He had a little sucess with this last year including some decent 20+ yard plays.

I will have to go out on a limb and say that I disagree with Ron Turner about Wolfe being the perfect kind of back to run right up the gut against the Viking's on short yardage situations.

BeerBaron
03-25-2008, 07:59 PM
I think his size(or lack thereof) and ability make him pretty dangerous during draws and screens. He had a little sucess with this last year including some decent 20+ yard plays.

I will have to go out on a limb and say that I disagree with Ron Turner about Wolfe being the perfect kind of back to run right up the gut against the Viking's on short yardage situations.

ron turner said that we should send 5'7 180 garrett wolfe straight into 310+ pounders kevin and pat williams?

and this guy is our offensive coordinator.....

bearsfan_51
03-25-2008, 08:00 PM
Well I don't think the plan is to have him run into them...

BeerBaron
03-25-2008, 08:03 PM
Well I don't think the plan is to have him run into them...

i dont think thats ever teh plan but when you have 600+ pounds of run stuffer in front of you....its hard to miss them