Thread: Alabama Offensive Lineman Fluker Meeting With Bears Friday Night

Originally Posted by Riczaj01

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.

Those are good points Ric. As crazy as I am, wanting to draft some studs for the offensive line, it is important to note that it's not just grab a couple of OL players and we're set for the Super Bowl. Everyone here has their dream-draft strategy (me included ). But I realize Emery has a personnel Rubic's Cube to solve with a lot of issues. And money/cap issues too. And it's a moving target he's trying to hit because players don't stay static skill-wise and health-wise.

Changing the subject for a moment. I do enjoy the different viewpoints on the messageboard here. Even in this thread, both you and the others bring up valid points. The truth probably rests in the middle of all of our fan opinions. I'm glad I found this board last March. It's great have a place with smart Bears fans.

Originally Posted by lklrlolnlilklsox

This is pretty spot-on. He's a good solid veteran, a mediocre piece to keep the cap down while you build valuable difference-makers around him. We never did that last part, so he's just been the best of an awfully awful situation. He has never ever been an anchor for an OL, and for every one time he moved a pile forward there's 100 plays where he got driven back. I'll admit I'm a bit biased because I've wanted to replace him since we got him as he is absolute garbage in the run game, but saying he has been an impact OG is a total fucking joke.

That's pretty much it. The interior linemen work so very closely together. Garza is obviously over the hill now, but even in his prime, he needs to be partnered up with a solid player next to him. He had that when Kreutz was in his prime, so he looked OK. But the last few years we've had really bad guards around him - and often the guys next to him were being changed-out. Nothing good can come out of that.

Regarding the run-game, the OL has been pathetic between the tackles. Those three have been owned by dlines. The pocket gets crushed back. On short yardage situations, we never get any push. It's total domination by opposing dlines. It's pretty embarrassing to watch.

Originally Posted by Riczaj01

Garza was an impact player for about the majority of those years though. Ya he's been mediocre to poor the last few, he was a impactful for the Bears at G for well over the majority of time.

Again, look at the top 10 G's and C's in the NFL over the last few years; and the vast majority were not taken in the fist 2 rounds. So in one of the deeper OL drafts I'm to believe that this is the year you cannot get impact outside the top 3 at these positions?

Again I'm all for solidifing this OL w/impact talent, I'm just not sure that the line of demarkation of Impact is top 3.

LOL, Garza was NEVER an impact player. The closest he ever came to a post season award was as a Pro Bowl alternate after the 2011 season and that was based more on need than top performance.

Garza is what he's always been. A very dependable journeyman lineman and just about what you'd expect from most mid round picks. I'd say he's been one of our better FA signings but he's not an impact player in the sense that sox is talking about.

Impact players dominate at their position and elevate the play of those around them. You could say the Kruetz had his era as an impact player but Garza? No.

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).

There were very few places where we lacked competent depth except the OLine Ric and that is pretty much the root of the problem. Our starters were backup quality or at least they played like it and that's about it.

I'm sure Emery is gonna pay some attention to the need to find a MLB but are you paying attention to what he's saying? I don't think so. He just got through saying that he'll draft guys who he feels will have the most immediate impact. If Urlacher is re-signed it won't be to sit on the bench so unless he drafts a guy who can start at SLB if they decide to let Roach go I don't think that will be one of his priorities.

Having said that I believe he may do just that if Roach gets offers above what Emery is willing to pay. I see Roach being in a similar situation to what Manning was in. He's been a starter at SLB and he's proven he can play inside so a 3-4 team may make him a better offer and he's gone. JT Thomas may move up or maybe if the right guy falls in two he takes him but that first round pick virtually has to be the best OLineman on his board when our pick comes.

WR? A think quite a few teams would like to have those three guys as their numbers 1,2 and 3. The Marshall trade and the drafting of Jeffery to be a 1/2 combo means WR isn't a priority anymore. We Joe Anderson as a prospect, some PS guys and we'll see a few more bodies come from FA or as rookies. It's shame Lovie let Sanz go when he did. I think Trestman would have like him.

There are quite a few TEs as UFAs this year and those guys tend to come cheap. We need to upgrade the blocker/receiver type that Davis failed so miserably at but Spaeth and ERod are solid as far as how they can best be used. It really shouldn't be too hard to do much better than Davis but spending a 1st round pick on a TE who may catch 40-45 passes as a rookie over a linemen makes no sense. Marshall will still get the majority of the throws, Jeffery and Bennett will both be more involved in the passing game and so will Forte. So what we really need is another young Des Clark type TE. That's enough to help balance the attack. Even Trestman says that big Gronkowski type TE is not a major need in his offense. We'll find one even before the draft I'll bet.

And last nobody said we couldn't move back if there were several guys still on the board and you'd be happy to have anyone of them but if one or two guy stand out head and shoulders over the others you don't take that risk. You take your guy and this year it's entirely possible that will be the case. It does us no good to keep building talent at skill positions if we can't block well enough to take advantage of it and even though we added significant offensive talent last year it still didn't help in the end. The root of the offensive failures continues to be the line. So that what we fix this year.

Like sox said. Occam's Razor.

One of the main things that frustrated me with the Bears in past years, is the fact that it's really not that tough to build a decent NFL offensive line, yet we failed to build one.

Some positions on an NFL team are very difficult to "get right" but the OL isn't rocket science. It can be a challenge to get, and keep, a solid LT. But the other 4 positions are pretty straightforward to fill. I'm not talking about having the top OL, but rather a solid respectable OL.

If I were Emery/Trestman, I'd have a short-term plan for this season, and a longer-term plan moving forward. If ever there was a stellar class of interior linemen - THIS is that class. It is loaded with talent. I'd grab 2 stellar guys in the draft (heck, maybe even spend a third pick in the 7th round on a quality development guy too).

Then see how the OL looks this year.

If necessary, then next year fix any remaining problems with the OL. Then moving forward I would KEEP the talent high, by grabbing the best "project" each year to add to the mix (this can even be a UFA who truly is WORTH developing...there are teams that have been VERY successful this way). Maybe every 3rd year you spend a high round pick on a high quality young guy. Other than LT, I'd never spend a dime on FA's who usually are a poor value - you overpay for what you get.

This forumula would ensure that we were NEVER in a crisis mode again. It would mean that we would never again see Chicago Bears seasons ruined due to the offensive line crippling our offense. In other words, don't just throw the OL a bone this year and forget it. It's that old saying "those who fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it".... let's never again lose seasons to a neglected OL.

It would also be VERY cost effective. Not cheap. But cost effective. OL guys often play many years at a high level (if you have solid OL guys to begin with). It's just a good value, for the return that your overall offense enjoys. The entire corps of skill positions benefits. You elevate your QB play. And, we've seen teams that do this, have solid running games, even when their starter RB goes down to injury. I always admired teams that do this. Denver used to be GREAT at this. Heck, I remember one year where their 3rd string RB was performing like a starter (after the injury bug hit their RB). It was just "next man up" and keep running strong.

You don't have to have a top oline, but certainly have a decent one. Teams that fail to keep a decent OL are ignorant.

JABF, I agree completely. Even if Emery somehow hit gold by getting a franchise player at any 2 or 3 positions on the o-line, there's no reason not to keep building. I'd be picking an offensive lineman anywhere from rounds 2-7 every year afterwards.