Matt Slauson

[Krauses]

Obviously we just drafted four olineman, but IMO besides Kelly the others may need a year to develop. Slauson was a top 10 guard last year and played every single snap.  Any chance we go get this guy plug him in day 1 and let the rooks develop?

[MrNLM]

He was an LG. Not a big deal to move him to RG... practically the same thing. However, putting him between a rookie Center and a rookie Tackle(or Good[rookie-ish]) may not be condusive to his production.

 

What say you?

[richard pallo]

2 minutes ago, MrNLM said:

He was an LG. Not a big deal to move him to RG... practically the same thing. However, putting him between a rookie Center and a rookie Tackle(or Good[rookie-ish]) may not be condusive to his production.

 

What say you?

Maybe it helps Kelly and Good develop faster, I don't know.  They cut him to put Whitehair there a player we could have drafted.

[Krauses]

5 minutes ago, MrNLM said:

He was an LG. Not a big deal to move him to RG... practically the same thing. However, putting him between a rookie Center and a rookie Tackle(or Good[rookie-ish]) may not be condusive to his production.

 

What say you?

Think it would definitely benefit the two. Especially Kelly having a veteran next to him and 

[MrNLM]

5 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Maybe it helps Kelly and Good develop faster, I don't know.  They cut him to put Whitehair there a player we could have drafted.

meh.

[MrNLM]

2 minutes ago, Krauses said:

Think it would definitely benefit the two. Especially Kelly having a veteran next to him and 

I like this spin on what I said. He would HAVE to be better than the veteran Guards we already have to take him on. Having said that, do we let someone go? Do we go into training camp with one more OL and figure it out then? Seems like it comes down to salary cap implications in this hypothetical conversation...

[Krauses]

17 minutes ago, MrNLM said:

5 minutes ago, MrNLM said:

I like this spin on what I said. He would HAVE to be better than the veteran Guards we already have to take him on. Having said that, do we let someone go? Do we go into training camp with one more OL and figure it out then? Seems like it comes down to salary cap implications in this hypothetical conversation...

 

He is better than the veteran guards we already have. Is 13th rated guard by bleacher report for what that's worth.  Also played center last year for bears when they were desperate. So cut Harrison and sign him slauson for 2 mill and it's only about a 1 million dollar deal.

[jskinnz]

I would estimate the chances of signing a middling talent like Slauson at this point lies somewhere between no and he'll on. The colts don't want him. p>

[MrNLM]

7 minutes ago, Krauses said:

He is better than the veteran guards we already have. Is 13th rated guard by bleacher report for what that's worth.  Also played center last year for bears when they were desperate. So cut Harrison and sign him slauson for 2 mill and it's only about a 1 million dollar deal.

So, yeah, I would do that in a heartbeat. If you want to dig a bit further... you could find out if cutting Harrison(or whoever) would be best as a post June 1st cut money wise. I doubt it would considering he was a UDFA... wasn't he?

[Krauses]

14 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

I would estimate the chances of signing a middling talent like Slauson at this point lies somewhere between no and he'll on. The colts don't want him. p>

I live in Chicago area and watched nearly every game last year. He was better than Kyle long and was their best offensive lineman. If he's middling then what are our current right guards?

[BOTT]

I wanted him 3 yrs ago.  Now?  I'd ask Philbin to take a look at him.

[jskinnz]

6 minutes ago, Krauses said:

I live in Chicago area and watched nearly every game last year. He was better than Kyle long and was their best offensive lineman. If he's middling then what are our current right guards?

 

When I say middling talent I think I actually oversold his ability.

 

1)  He is not significantly better, if at all, than what they already have on the roster.  

 

2) They just invested a ton of picks on players they need to work with and develop.  Bringing him in does not help their progress.

 

3) He is the type of player at this point in his career that a team signs if they have injuries in training camp.

 

So like I said - will they sign him?  Not very likely.

[MrNLM]

40 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Maybe it helps Kelly and Good develop faster, I don't know.  They cut him to put Whitehair there a player we could have drafted.

was thinking about this statement from a hypothetical standpoint.

 

You say we could have drafted Whitehair, but if we did then the Bears would not have cut Slauson, Hypothetically, we are in a better position here than if we HAD drafted Whitehair. We got TJ Green AND could potentially sign a top 20 Guard(according to PFF) who would cost less than TJ Green would in his respective draft slot.

 

The only knock on this is longevity with the team. Slauson would be out of town much sooner than Whitehair.

[Krauses]

4 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

 

When I say middling talent I think I actually oversold his ability.

 

1)  He is not significantly better, if at all, than what they already have on the roster.  

 

2) They just invested a ton of picks on players they need to work with and develop.  Bringing him in does not help their progress.

 

3) He is the type of player at this point in his career that a team signs if they have injuries in training camp.

 

So like I said - will they sign him?  Not very likely.

He is significantly better than every right guard we currently have on the roster.  And since when does sitting behind a veteran for a year while improving in weight room and NFL technique not help a raw rookies progress?

[jskinnz]

25 minutes ago, Krauses said:

He is significantly better than every right guard we currently have on the roster.  And since when does sitting behind a veteran for a year while improving in weight room and NFL technique not help a raw rookies progress?

 

Let's revisit this in a month.  And again in the month after that.  And then again in training camp to see if Slauson has been added to the roster.  

[buccolts]

51 minutes ago, BOTT said:

I wanted him 3 yrs ago.  Now?  I'd ask Philbin to take a look at him.

 

OK, what bet did you lose this time?

 

[BOTT]

4 minutes ago, buccolts said:

 

OK, what bet did you lose this time?

 

None.  Just makes me laugh.  I almost went Bieber, but couldn't do it....

[MrNLM]

3 minutes ago, BOTT said:

None.  Just makes me laugh.  I almost went Bieber, but couldn't do it....

Good man!

 

[esmort]

I don't think it's going to happen, but I wouldn't be against them kicking the tires and giving it a go if they thought we would benefit from both adding an instant upgrade starter as well as giving the rookies time learn and get stronger. 

 

Besides if Thornton isn't good enough to hold off Slauson and stake his claim at RG this year than he is a waste of a roster spot and needs to go. 

[akcolt]

I would sign him. Clark is s OT but needs a year I believe. Haeg will be a G but could use some time. Do we really want to rookies on the OL?

 

Slauson finished the No. 18 in Pro Football Focus' 2015 guard ratings, with a top-ten rank in pass protection. He allowed one sack in 16 starts, and just turned 30 in February.

 

I believe Thorton is going to be better in the ZBS. That doesn't mean he will stay healthy. What could it hurt? It would assure that we never have to see Holmes or Harrison again. Slauson could serve as back up C too. 

 

If Thorton wins the job then Slauson backs up all 3 interior line positions. I think drafting Clark is a sign that we aren't as high on Good as we let on. I expect Reitz to start at RT. Clark takes over next year.

[Gavin]

On ‎5‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 9:11 PM, jskinnz said:

 

When I say middling talent I think I actually oversold his ability.

 

1)  He is not significantly better, if at all, than what they already have on the roster.  

 

2) They just invested a ton of picks on players they need to work with and develop.  Bringing him in does not help their progress.

 

3) He is the type of player at this point in his career that a team signs if they have injuries in training camp.

 

So like I said - will they sign him?  Not very likely.

1.He is significantly better the Hugh Thornton. Its not close. He had that 5th best overall grade in the league at Center to PFF an 86.2 grade (I don't consider PFF the be all end all on grades and I question them sometimes but they are the best out there are and get backed up by former coaches with a combined 400 years experience)

 

3.He just turned 30 in February. Not old

 

But I agree they wont sign him. Grigson probably doesn't think he is good enough for the little that is worth if we are being honest but 19 NFL teams subscribe to there data and several college teams

[evilleseniorfan]

Fire whoever passed on Whitehair!

[BOTT]

On May 4, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Gavin said:

1.He is significantly better the Hugh Thornton. Its not close. He had that 5th best overall grade in the league at Center to PFF an 86.2 grade (I don't consider PFF the be all end all on grades and I question them sometimes but they are the best out there are and get backed up by former coaches with a combined 400 years experience)

 

3.He just turned 30 in February. Not old

 

But I agree they wont sign him. Grigson probably doesn't think he is good enough for the little that is worth if we are being honest but 19 NFL teams subscribe to there data and several college teams

I don't think teams subscribe to pff for their player grades.

[Gavin]

5 minutes ago, BOTT said:

I don't think teams subscribe to pff for their player grades.

I think most look at the grades but obviously teams keep their own grades. I think teams are most interested in PFF's Premium stats which are not available to the public anymore