Thread: Alabama Offensive Lineman Fluker Meeting With Bears Friday Night

Originally Posted by Riczaj01

KC Joyner had him as a top 10 OG in 2009, Pro-Football referense has him ranked as the 46th best G since 1950.
I looked around on the net, it's hard to find OL rankings for individual players, but I think even this is enough to say that he was an impact player; for awhile.

Wouldn't say he was impactfull at C, but that really wasn't his position.

PFF can blow me, they consistently have him in their top OGs yet the eye test says he is ALWAYS in his own backfield and gets blown up every time he pulls outside. I don't think there's anyone on this board who would say the guy has ever been more than mediocre other than you. The guy is the definition of mediocre OG.

Originally Posted by JustAnotherBearsFan99

Garza has been a good player for us but not great. Every team needs a number of guys like him, who play important roles, but who are not great players. Obviously he's past his prime now.

Garza is a good example of a player who wasn't gifted with great talent, but great heart. Not a great player but I respect the fact he gave the Bears everything he had in him to give.

He benefitted by playing next to a solid veteran when Kreutz was in his prime years.

I respect the man a lot for what he did for us with very modest physical gifts. Also, FWIW, he is a total class act with the fans. He is the guy at training camp who busts his butt in the blistering sun (and you KNOW he's dying) and yet he will still take time to sign autographs forever in that hot sun after practice, with the kids and talk with fans. You know when he does that he wants to shower and rest. But he does it anyway. Good guy.

I'm hardly going to debate the greatness of Garza, I'm not saying he's going into the HoF by anymeans. But that OL in the mid 2000's was the only thing keeping the O in the game; it sure to hell wasn't the "skilled" positions. That OL did a great job for the team back then, if we had that w/Cutler/Forte/Bennett, let alone this past year w/Marshal/Jeffery added to the mix, no one would be bitching about needing "impact G's" etc.

I'll not care one bit if the team goes OL heavy this draft, but be smart about it, there is nothing historically speaking that says you cannot get impact or top tier or starting quality or however you want to define them, G's/C's in the 2nd-3rd-4th rounds(Centers even later); and I doubt very much this year will be any different. Again everyone is acting like this team just needed an OL and the team would have been SB bound(which was their goal), and it's just not true, and it won't be true this year either. This team lacks overall depth, not just a missing LG/C.

That being said if a T drops to us that is worth taking, and rates out higher then any other need position, then I'll be happier then anyone if they can grab him.

Sox, I know the OL is a problem, and I don't disagree it needs adressed, but the total depth of this team was lacking last year; and this D is not going to continue to play at that level, you cannot wait until Urlacher retires to get his replacement in here, and that guy is not on the roster. The WR's lack depth, Marsh/Jeffery/Bennett....and then nobody to count on), The quality of backup DB's is a problem, backup qb is a problem...hell this team not only needs a starting TE, they need a backup TE also(real TE's not H-Backs), and they also need a FB(according to the report someone posted). All that played a role in why the team failed.

Now some of that is going to be addressed via FA, but not most of it; and probably not the imporant pieces. And FA hasn't happened so all this arguing is pointless until we see what/who they bring in. They bring in a G, chances are they are not drafting one round 1 or 2; same w/a T or MLB or TE. They bring in a MLB and or a T, chances are they grab a G in the 1st.

Again I want the OL fixed as much as anyone, I'm just not sure you need to grab a G/C in rounds 1 and 2 to fix it; all the while ignoring other problems. Even if it means just moving back to pick up a 3rd(again most mocks,as of now don't have another T/G being taken after 20, so why not move back if that's the same case on draft day, then grab the same guy you wanted at 20).

Actually Sox, b/c I do respect your opinion more the most on the OL; am I wrong in what I thought I heard about the depth of this OL talent for this draft? What makes the top 3 guys THAT much more then the next 2-3 at the G position? How much help can that rookie LG really be when the LT is probably Webb, and the C very well might be another rookie?

Originally Posted by Riczaj01

Sox, I know the OL is a problem, and I don't disagree it needs adressed, but the total depth of this team was lacking last year; and this D is not going to continue to play at that level, you cannot wait until Urlacher retires to get his replacement in here, and that guy is not on the roster. The WR's lack depth, Marsh/Jeffery/Bennett....and then nobody to count on), The quality of backup DB's is a problem, backup qb is a problem...hell this team not only needs a starting TE, they need a backup TE also(real TE's not H-Backs), and they also need a FB(according to the report someone posted). All that played a role in why the team failed.

Now some of that is going to be addressed via FA, but not most of it; and probably not the imporant pieces. And FA hasn't happened so all this arguing is pointless until we see what/who they bring in. They bring in a G, chances are they are not drafting one round 1 or 2; same w/a T or MLB or TE. They bring in a MLB and or a T, chances are they grab a G in the 1st.

Again I want the OL fixed as much as anyone, I'm just not sure you need to grab a G/C in rounds 1 and 2 to fix it; all the while ignoring other problems. Even if it means just moving back to pick up a 3rd(again most mocks,as of now don't have another T/G being taken after 20, so why not move back if that's the same case on draft day, then grab the same guy you wanted at 20).

If we intend to win now in this window that closes more by the day, we will have to rely on this veteran D and improve the offense IMMEDIATELY. That is our only hopes for winning a SB before Urlacher, Briggs, Peanut, Pep et al retire.

And actually, to replace Urls, you DO wait until he retires and grab your #1 MLB, because he's not going to be "replaced" by anything less than that.

Wrs may lack depth, but they have a star, an up-and-coming stud in Alshon and a reliable veteran who Jay is very comfortable with in Earl. Our OL has nothing close to that kind of depth. It is so bad that Roberto Garza is considered to be our best player there now that our most promising in Louis is injured and not guaranteed to start the season. Allow me to repeat that, ROBERTO FREAKING 34 YEAR OLD GARZA IS CONSIDERED OUR BEST OL!!! That is just freaking pathetic. A TE is nice to have, but a stud there is hardly going to make a difference running past a constantly retreating line of scrimmage. Getting a FB is neither here nor there in this argument.

None of those other problem pose even close to the problem that our awful OL does. Depth is grand and getting younger on D is no doubt an unavoidable eventuality that we will have to look at very hard. However, fact remains that this D is built to win now and this O is still the thing that is holding it back. The thing most holding back our O = our OL. It is not sexy to draft and OG first, but with modern complex aerial attacks and power run games, that position holds an absolute ton of underrated importance to a game plan. Having a go-to OG who you can rely on to keyhole a gap on every single play, run or pass, is a wonderful thing to have.