Draft strategy for olinemen

I've been thinking about how we draft a dline guy high every year, and an army of safeties. Would it be crazy to draft a fairly high oline guy every year or so? Even if it was a 2nd or 3rd round high-quality prospect to let Tice coach up? You would never have to pay top dollar for oline FA's.

With 5 positions represented on the oline, and with backups, that's 9 or 10 players we invest in there. It's a significant percentage of your team - numbers wise. And the entire offense relies on that line as the foundation - so that your expensive skill players can truly play to their FULL potential.

You'd have your own stream of young/talented players coming into the system. I'll bet you could have one of the better olines in the NFL if you followed this - and you would never be in a crisis mode where the whole oline was substandard.

Your preaching to the choir here. It's long overdue to at least marshal some picks in that direction. Not all experiments, switches, projects, and/or castoffs work out much of the time.

I would love to see the O-line get some real attention, but don;t think that much focus makes sense with the holes we still have as well as the anticipated future holes such as LB. Both lines need more focues than we have given them. In this day and age, pressure on the QB is paramount. And with a QB that means as much to the franchise as Cutler does, the O-line not only makes sens in a W-L scenario, but also makes sense in terms of protecting a current investment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bearsinhouston

I would love to see the O-line get some real attention, but don;t think that much focus makes sense with the holes we still have as well as the anticipated future holes such as LB. Both lines need more focues than we have given them. In this day and age, pressure on the QB is paramount. And with a QB that means as much to the franchise as Cutler does, the O-line not only makes sens in a W-L scenario, but also makes sense in terms of protecting a current investment.

---

If the roster was fairly set, at least as much as you ever are in the NFL, maybe this could be a viable plan moving forward. I'm not saying spend 1st round picks like this, but maybe a 2nd or 3rd on a quality guy who has upside to be rock-solid with some coaching. You can't do this if you're always in crisis mode. It's a plan for a team that CAN identify talent & coach it up.

I can't really say that this draft was a very deep one for lineman. The options for tackle were pretty bad in fact. This next draft however could be filled with some pimps though.

There are always going to be pressing needs in the draft. It is what a team emphasizes that determines their philosophy and direction. Yep we need LB's,CB,probably even another DE. But there will be a time where other things for a few years need to take some precedence over other positions. O-line is one of them. Imagine the shock and horror if no DL was drafted for one season? Hopefully we can stop drafting SS and use that for Oline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by short faced bear

There are always going to be pressing needs in the draft. It is what a team emphasizes that determines their philosophy and direction. Yep we need LB's,CB,probably even another DE. But there will be a time where other things for a few years need to take some precedence over other positions. O-line is one of them. Imagine the shock and horror if no DL was drafted for one season? Hopefully we can stop drafting SS and use that for Oline.

---

Good post. Its real hard to argue against having gone for a DE in RD 1 this year and a very talented WR sitting there for the Bears in RD 2. Those really were pressing needs, especially with the loss of Knox. If the Bears were able to get that Jax DE that burned us, who knows...maybe DeCastro is a Bear now. We'll never know.

Drafting Olineman is the only way to build a decent line and you do need to keep doing it with regularity because some will get injured and some will become FA's in there 5th year. It's the least expensive way to go about it.

When you start going after guys like Nicks and some of the others top FA's your talking about deals that average $7-$8 mil per year. How many of those guys can you afford when you have multi million dollar contract for your core players. Hell the salaries of all five Bears starting lineman doesn't add up to $7 mil. Not even close. You're talking about paying an OG as much as Urlacher???

We've got a few All Pro types on this team that earn big bucks. Are we gonna pay on OG as much of more than we pay Urlacher or Briggs? You do that and you really blow your salary scale all to hell. Some have said we paid too much for backups but what good will and top notch OG do for us if Cutler goes down or we lose Forte or Marshall? The Packers won the 2011 SB with a line no better than ours but they had great depth. Enough guys as backups who were just a notch below the starters and they rode on those guys backs all the way.

Quality depth at key positions is a must. We probably added 5 players this offseason for what Carl Nicks would have cost us. The overall impact of paying guys the kind of money he got would end up doing more harm than good. We would lose key players in FA because we didn't have enough cap space to keep them. The only player on a team that can almost singlehandedly win or lose a game if the QB. Not an OG, an OC or even a LT.

With the new CBA and the salary scale for rookies drafting lineman is even more attractive. The value of Gabe Carimi's entire rookie contract is a little over $7 mil for four years. Ben Grubbs would have cost us almost that each year for four years. You could put an entire line full of 1st and 2nd round draft picks out there for less money than Carl Nicks is getting.

When the Bears signed John Tait people were saying we paid LT money for a RT. Hell OG's are getting deals better than Tait right now. Building that line through the draft with an occasional FA pickup who isn't looking for a top dollar contract is the only rational way to get the job done. I'm sure Emery and his scouting staff will unearth much better Oline prospects than JA ever did. Other teams found them.

http://www.dabears.com/images/smilie...ang[1].gif
Soul, that may be the best post I've read on this board in the short time I've been here. I strongly agree with every word.
http://www.dabears.com/images/smilie...ang[1].gif

This strategy is the way it is supposed to work if you are able to bring in capable guys and develop them. JA was not bringing in capable guys (some times not bringing in anyone). Then you have to be able to develop them. Tice seems to be able to do that, but he is fairly recent also.

If you are not bringing in new capable guys and are able to get them to play at a high level, then you really only have a choice of mediocre play or bringing in high priced gunslingers. The Bears are averse to paying big money for most Ol positions, so we have been getting by with the alternative - mediocre play.

Emerys job is to change that. It hopefully will start working this way for us in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soulman

Drafting Olineman is the only way to build a decent line and you do need to keep doing it with regularity because some will get injured and some will become FA's in there 5th year. It's the least expensive way to go about it.

When you start going after guys like Nicks and some of the others top FA's your talking about deals that average $7-$8 mil per year. How many of those guys can you afford when you have multi million dollar contract for your core players. Hell the salaries of all five Bears starting lineman doesn't add up to $7 mil. Not even close. You're talking about paying an OG as much as Urlacher???

We've got a few All Pro types on this team that earn big bucks. Are we gonna pay on OG as much of more than we pay Urlacher or Briggs? You do that and you really blow your salary scale all to hell. Some have said we paid too much for backups but what good will and top notch OG do for us if Cutler goes down or we lose Forte or Marshall? The Packers won the 2011 SB with a line no better than ours but they had great depth. Enough guys as backups who were just a notch below the starters and they rode on those guys backs all the way.

Quality depth at key positions is a must. We probably added 5 players this offseason for what Carl Nicks would have cost us. The overall impact of paying guys the kind of money he got would end up doing more harm than good. We would lose key players in FA because we didn't have enough cap space to keep them. The only player on a team that can almost singlehandedly win or lose a game if the QB. Not an OG, an OC or even a LT.

With the new CBA and the salary scale for rookies drafting lineman is even more attractive. The value of Gabe Carimi's entire rookie contract is a little over $7 mil for four years. Ben Grubbs would have cost us almost that each year for four years. You could put an entire line full of 1st and 2nd round draft picks out there for less money than Carl Nicks is getting.

When the Bears signed John Tait people were saying we paid LT money for a RT. Hell OG's are getting deals better than Tait right now. Building that line through the draft with an occasional FA pickup who isn't looking for a top dollar contract is the only rational way to get the job done. I'm sure Emery and his scouting staff will unearth much better Oline prospects than JA ever did. Other teams found them.

---