CrackerDog

Then you shouldn't have said "I am not trying to pretend we have a very talented OL, but I do wonder if the problem is more coaching than talent." I wouldn't have had to spend all this time schooling you again. Glad you finally admitted you were totally wrong.

I can't argue there. In hindsight. But damn if Enis didn't look like he should be a stud coming out of college. Ah well, I have a lot of "misses" on my docket. Glad I'm not GM.

I didn't misquote anyone. It was a generic statement about a population to which you may be a part. I didn't quote you at all. The quotation marks above were intended to indicate a general premise that group ascribes to. I doubt if anyone thought I was using your words there. If anyone did, I've now clarified and I hope you'll accept my explanation. Damn, it really hurts to be compared to NFO.

I'm saying that a team that gives up twice as many sacks tends to give up more hurries, tipped balls, interceptions because of pressure, fewer completions. It's an indicator. Follow? Of course the QB involved plays into it, hence why I support the decision to go with Orton. But in this dicussion you have to take the QB as a constant or you can't analyze the line as the variable. Rex 2006, about 1 sack per game. Rex 2007, about a million sacks per game. Coaching was the same. Rex was the same. Talent? Ah, now MAYBE you get it. Your premise is our coaching is failing all this wonderful O Line talent we have. Read the post that started this thread. Well, I've proven that our line was regarded in 2006 and the staff hasn't changed. The talent has OBVIOUSLY degraded. You COME ON. You certainly can do better than this weak shit. Are you seriously suggesting our line talent today is as good as it was a few years ago? Grow a brain. But that doesn't mean the current crop we have can't be coached up and improve from what we saw the other night. Lord, I sure hope they can. I hope we get some better talent too via picking up a few scraps from elsewhere. The line is the key. I've been crying about our aging line since before last season started. I had a bunch of people here telling me the line was "veteran but not old." LOL! Now all of a sudden I see a few others have come to the same conclusions I reached then. Folks who believe they'd be better at GM than JA is. It's a ferkin' joke! End of rant.

Can they IR him again?

And you still think you could do JA's job better than him? OK, I don't mean to break your balls. I agree with you that there is more to it than the pick itself. I always argued that Randy Moss on the Bears would've been like putting earrings on a pig. When he missed the meeting with the Bears and they passed on him, I agreed with their decision. 20 other teams agreed and the Queens ended up with a GREAT player. He's also a toolbox but I don't really mean this to be a discussion about Moss. The point is, he wouldn've have succeeded here, IMO, given our QB situation. There's a chance any player drafted into a better situation for them may change their fortunes. In some cases, like Benson, I think his lack of maturity would've poisoned his potential no matter where he went. I don't know about Williams but I think the Lions fans I know think he was the same way. Tough to read a guys heart and desire. Tough to know the really important stuff. Lot's of GM's tend to focus too much on the 40 times and not enough on the other aspects that make a guy a good football player and/or person.

Oh, I believe you. No, really I do.

Find me the stats for "hurries" for 2006 and I'll agree. They may exist somewhere but aren't available to me. So, much like the Dow is an indicator of the direction of the stock market, so are sacks for the OL. I'm not saying you can judge an OL's success simply by sacks but the stat we have to track them, compared to other teams, is sacks.

I'm not saying he is... But I wouldn't put money on his sticking with the team at this point either. If he didn't get a signing bonus and he's not producing, who knows? I wish him the best, either way. He's a class guy. I hope you're right and he steps up come game time. However, I haven't seen anything from him yet that justifies keeping him over someone younger and cheaper.

All QB's are pressured. This is the NFL, not fantasyland. The measure of a line is the productivity of the RB's and the sacks it gives up. And no, we haven't changed the line coach.

Let's all pee down our legs in fear.

Funny, everyone seems to be an "I said DJ" guy now. But on the web site, all I recall was a debate between Williams and Benson. I guess my memory is faulty...

The better option, in that draft, given hindsight, would've been to drop back and get a few more picks and not draft that high if you didn't want Benson. I'm saying given the slot, it made sense. Your other "big slash" choice, I believe, was Mike Williams, and he was a bigger bust than Benson. Not sure who else would've been a better pick at the time and at that slot. That's all I'm saying. Had I known what a douche he was, I wouldn't have liked the pick at all. Seeing him cry at the draft should've been my first clue.

No, the simple fact is Rex wasn't sacked in 2006 an inordinate number of times and we already know he's suseptible to it. The coaching then is the coaching now. So, unless they got dumber, it's a matter of the guys on the field and not the dudes on the sidelines. And I don't excuse Rex's picks based on the line play. He always needed to learn to step up in the pocket and/or throw the ball away. That's a basic element of the game he's refused to learn. His bad. The simple fact is the line did a fine job protecting him and they were coached by the same guy you're questioning now.

I've made this comment before. I don't know. If he has a big roster bonus due and we didn't pay him much of a signing bonus, or if his deal calls for mostly game checks rather than a big signing bonus, we could cut him. But only if he isn't what we need and other cheaper answers exist. The chances he'll get cut are mimimal.

Or they turn into Brett Favre. Ask Jason, he knows how tough this relationship can be for a GM! Lloyd and Hester will be on the field most of the time this season, book it. I'm having a brain cramp but wasn't Marty known as a good blocking WR? Damn aging! Anyway, if that's the case, Marty will see a lot of action too if he isn't cut. Bradley will be mending his skirt whether he's on the team or not.

You talked in a circle with most of this post and I couldn't follow you. So, I'll just say I agree with your comment above as several QB's running the West Coast Offense have had nice careers without much more than an occasional deep toss to keep people honest. It can be done and with the weather conditions in Chicago, I'd say it must be done for a significant portion of the season. By the way, 10% is pretty often for attempts at the deep ball. And if Rex was 50% on those, I'll eat my desk.

I see this as an issue someone brings up every preseason and then our guys do a fine job tackling during the regular season. Briggs had a bit of trouble for a game or two last year but they got it corrected. You aren't going to use your high priced offensive talent as tackling dummies for your neanderthal D guys. This isn't 1967. When Rex was in there, they blitzed almost every down. Lighten up, DQ boy. They do. I stated that earlier. You should've just said you didn't know what we practiced and left it at that. Now I know your wife wears the pants. We don't stunt as much as other teams because of Lovie's scheme. We do, however, stunt. And we certainly practice against stunts when the game film suggests a team does a lot of it. Again, not something you can do too much in camp when you expect vanilla. Film and the line coach ought to cover these things during the regular season. I don't think we have difficulty against stunts any more than anyone else. Our blitz pickups have been lacking this year and during a few games last season. Sometimes it's talent, sometimes it's bad luck, sometimes it execution, and sometimes the coaches blew it or the QB didn't recognize something. It isn't as black and white as you suggest with this "is it talent or coaching" question. I get it already... Geez man, it's like you try to wear your opponent down by asking the same question 30 different ways. Are you Chet Coppock? 1. I already said they were unprepared given this was the 2nd preseason game. 2. It's early and our line hasn't had a chance to gel. New guys in new positions. Some are slipping in regards to ability. 3. Des Clark was hurt on our second series and was splitting time before that. How many plays was our veteran TE in for and were they plays Rex was pressured? 4. Our starting RB is a rookie and he was in there for most of the time the bad shit happened. 5. I'd need to watch the game again, which I won't do, to say whether you're correct or not about Kruetz being killed by stunts. I will, however, watch for it Thursday night. That said, however, how much coaching does a guy like him need to recognize and react to a blitz or stunt? You seem to be spitting these things out of both sides of your ass. We have the same coaches we had in 2006. Grossman played every game and was sacked a total of 21 times. A little over 1 per game. We've already agreed he isn't the best at recognition and he tends to hold the ball too long. We also know that a good chunk of those sacks came in 2 or 3 games. Most of the time he was sacked once or wasn't sacked at all. The line coached by the same dudes we have now was getting it done then. In other words, your entire argument just took a huge torpedo. I'd say this is a question of age and time to gel. Go back to ripping on Jerry for not being as good a GM as you. You have a better argument there.

Actually, yes, I saw it plenty in 2006 and 2007. Our TE had a wonderful year working that part of the field. Moose was more effective (although still sucked) because he generally didn't get the best corner and wasn't doubled as often as Berrian. It also helped Rashied, Jones and Mckie who all had nice years catching the ball. AP had better than 50 catches last season and our TE's both compiled nice numbers. We need someone filling Berrian's role on this squad or those numbers will suffer. I agree with your other comments regarding Orton not being a rag arm and I'm not someone arguing for Rex based on this aspect of football. But you can't ignore the fact that a team that doesn't have a deep threat (or one that refuses to incorporate it into the game plan regardless) generally finds it tougher in the middle of the field.

They tackle plenty during the pre-season games. And this isn't exclusive to the Bears, by any stretch. You don't game plan for the pre-season. Maybe a little for this third game coming up. It's always been a bit of a gentleman's agreement that teams remain vanilla in these two first games. Look at what Packers fans are saying about their game last week. Rodgers was terrorized and they weren't ready either. Somewhere along the way, someone forgot to tell a few coaches that this was the agreement. It doesn't mean our guys are being poorly coached. Duh. Ever notice our QB Rex had a reputation for getting rattled when you blitz him? Dumbest thing you've ever said. Of course (notice the spelling) we practice stunts and protections against stunts. Get off your rump and out to camp once and see. Our O Line ain't good. Our TE's and RB's are rookies or second year guys. Do the math.

Bullshit. You still have to do it and if our guys can't get it done in the line with a fully developed game plan whereby that pass rush is dampened by our running threat and play action, we're dead. Hester can be a deep threat this year. And you don't need 7 step drops to go deep with someone as fast as Hester. Five should be plenty. This part is correct. But his real value will be the threat he poses causing teams to double cover him. That leaves the underneath open for slow old guys like Booker. PS. I would ignore it normally but I'll be damned if you haven't used the wrong version of the word "course" something like 439 times here. Coarse, the way you're spelling it, means rough. Usually I'm just schooling you on football but thought I'd tackle something a little different today.

No question.

OK, Nfoligno did read your mind. I thought you might be implying something larger when you said "I would not be surprised to see JA bring in another QB as a #3 or #2." The #2 or #3 part had my imagination noodle going.

First: Why don't you knock off the one/two sentence troll crap? Second: Look here. At about 1 minute into the highlights you'll see if Kyle can throw the deep ball... TO HESTER! Third: WHO'S YOUR DADDY?!?!?!?

Look here. At about 1 minute into the highlights you'll see Kyle's idea of a dink. OK, so he hasn't been known for this and his career isn't littered with this type of highlight... But it was his last regular season game and it was to the man we all hope can step up to be a #1 WR this season. Promising. Further, the first year of his career was hugely successful even if he was playing more dink and dunk. You can't blame the guy as he was a rookie and did what he was told to do. If rex would've done that, he may still have the job! I'm most happy that the Bears were decisive. Dragging this decision out would've made no sense at all.