Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Greg Olsen responds to Bears GM's 'Mike Ditka' comment


Dpantherman

Recommended Posts

"We're really not looking for Kellen Winslow; we're looking for Mike Ditka," Bears general manager Jerry Angelo said Sunday. "The tight ends that we have now really fit more of the profile we want in the offense. It's no more than that."

Ironically, the roles were reversed the previous offseason, when Olsen pushed Angelo for a trade after the club hired offensive coordinator Mike Martz.

"He came at me hard last year, I understood it," Angelo said. "I told him I'd think about it. Greg is a great kid, works his tail off, and I said 'Greg, I don't see that being in our best interests.' Again, it's about the team, and I said, 'That's going to hurt our football team.' I said you're going to have to suck it up. Just do your job, you have a contract, we paid you well for your services. He's a professional, he took the high rode. I respect that.

http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/bears/post/_/id/4670965/angelo-tight-ends-we-have-now-fit-us

When Greg caught word of it, he responded..

@gregolsen82 (Greg Olsen)

He had him. only 1 who didnt no RT @skjensen: Angelo on Greg Olsen: "We're not looking for Kellen Winslow. We're looking for Mike Ditka."
Gotta love a great player with a chip on their shoulder. This guy is going to be in Carolina for a while.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LMFAO we always rape the bears in one way or another. They thought they were getting rid of a ST S in Harris and we turned him into a pro bowl type player. Then when he was used up we sent him packing back to the bears for picks and a player. They then thought they got a good deal on Peppers but surprise, surprise, as much as they don't want to admit it Peppers is just as lame as Cutler. Now we hose them again....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • If we were a solid winning organization most of us would have no problems with this selection. We would have had a capable starter in place to allow him to be eased into the rotation. If were told prior to the draft that he had been completely cleared health wise, we "probably" wouldn't have a ton of reservations about this selection. If we had picked this young man on Day 3 of the draft most of us would have no problems with this selection because we wouldn't have had to use draft capital to move up and get him. Unfortunately, none of the above were true 1)  We were a terrible team in 2023 and needed an immediate impact player. 2)  He was hurt near the the end of the 2023 NCAA season. We traded up to get him even though we knew he wasn't medically cleared to play in 2024. 3) When training camp started we were hearing stories that the knee wasn't ready. That alone should have raised some red flags. I personally would have red-shirted him in 2024 in order to have him ready for 2025. We had Chubba as our lead back and other guys to fill the #2 and #3 spots on the depth chart. There was no need to rush Brooks unto the field in 2024. Here's our draft history in the 2nd round between 2021 and 2024 2021 TMJ 2022 No draft choice. We picked Matt Corall in round 3 (#94) as our only Day 2 pick. 2023 Jonathan Mingo 2024 Jonathon Brooks. We have taken 4 skill players on Day 2 of the draft for the past 4 years who have contributed absolutely nothing to the offensive side of the football. 3 are no longer on the team. Two of them are no longer in the NFL. One  could possibly never start a game due to a knee injury. This type of poor drafting is why this team has been so bad for the entire decade. 
    • Even limited as he was I still don't think they have replaced his production, and not just the sack stats. The games Clowney missed it was very obvious what his value still was. Risky move but whatever. They only had 32 sacks last year and if that drops then it's going to get ugly. I see the improvement in run stopping but not in pass protect in any way.  
    • I have zero issues with this.  
×
×
  • Create New...