Lucky Luciano

with everyone talking about dumping the coaching staff, who are you replacing them with?

what a joke. every aspect of the chicago bears is garbage. it's a waste of time watching this team underperform week after week, year after year.

i gotta say i'm in fox's corner at this time. he has everyone playing hard and the locker room to my knowledge has been solid. right now we are a project in the making. i don't see a complete overhaul in our coaching system as a good thing at this time. our defense is starting to shine so if fox goes so probably does fangio. this throws our offense into another tailspin as seen with cutler for his tenure in chicago and our defense is again in limbo if a new coach wants to NOT be handcuffed to a previous regime, like we have STUPIDLY done in the past, even IF fangio wants to stay. i gotta believe fox and co. get more time to turn this around. the only exception >>might

here is the problem... i THINK whitehair is the better blocker (can someone verify this who has access to game film rewinds?). although with that said he has also come up with some critical holding calls to go with the bad snaps. whatever the case these bad snaps HAVE to stop. whether benching him for a while or spend the entire practices having him long snap, someone needs to do something about this. the qb needs to have the confidence in his center to get the ball cleanly to him. maybe have our special teams long snapper work with him on this problem may offer some help.

i have to step in on this... although i missed the last half of the 4th quarter, sims in my opinion is not a worthless blocker. the two plays i took notice of his failure to contain he was lining up on the left side next to leno and trying to block a premier DE in suggs one on one. THAT is a complete mismatch. there is no way a normal TE can be expected to do this on his own. our OC should have known that and if trub had more experience he probably could have compensated on how to react to this mismatch with either an audible or rolling out to his right. i also saw some nice blocking from sims in our running attack to seal off lanes for our rb to hit. one problem is with so many bodies on defense in the box they can mix up stunts and any blitz packages they may choose to run also. this was a decent defensive game plan on the ravens part capitalizing on our limited play calling and a rookie at the helm. on your next point i completely agree. EDIT: on whitehair... i have no clue what is going on with his snaps. he has become a serious liability with these miscues. the one cost us yardage and a down in our own red zone. the one that was snapped on the ground and rolling into the endzone could have cost us a TD or safety if we had not called a time out. something has to be done about this problem.

i have to agree on this. i am not sure what the problem is with whitehair. second year players seem to run into a slump and possibly this is the case. whatever it is he has played poorly at center this season and either has to improve or be replaced. just too many bad snaps and penalties.

1. what do you mean by unprepared? the game plan on offense was lacking. some of this is probably on loggains but my guess this also was a simplified basic game plan to give the rookie qb in his first start something to work into the starting position. it also has to do with the quality of our wide receivers and the injuries we have at that position. they wanted to incorporate a more solid running game to take off the pressure on trub. this didn't seem to work as expected. that said, loggains at this point is a serious question mark for next season as our OC. i think he is a good plus QB coach though alll in all. the timeouts are an unknown without confirmation from the coaching staff. it could have been a poor coaching hitch or it could have been the rookie QB having problems with the call or the defensive adjustments. 2. a bit early but i agree. he looks like he could turn into a quality qb. 3. sims: a large TE that in my opinion was brought in for blocking purposes and mismatches in receiving in the red zone. we were/are iffy on our tackle position which has in the past been a problem protecting our qb. this option i believe was enforced to create another good blocker in pass protection who could move to either side of the line to help out our tackles. another benefit for sims is his blocking abilities in a run game which seems this team was/is still trying to make a dominant force. whether this has been implemented correctly or not i can't say but in my opinion it was a good pickup. wheaton: i can't say one way or the other. leno: i know everyone wants to make him a scapegoat. in my opinion he is average playing LT. it could be a whole lot worse (anyone remember the logs we have had at that position in the past like pace, omiyale uhh, and the unforgettable web?) in free agency you don't find high quality LT's unless their career is nearly over. this signing gives us a window to draft one and for the most part not kill our qb waiting for one. 4. we drafted shaheen because miller is old and a tower of glass. sims was brought in for his blocking. brown is average. shaheen brings speed and size to the table. this is the move for the future. whether he pans out is another question. he being a rookie and from a smaller school is going to take time. i have no problem with us drafting him. 5. the injuries are a problem. i don't know how this compares to the rest of the nfl but throughout the league there are a lot of them. the vikings themselves have serious injury problems. packers also. a 'possible' way to compare would be analyze the type of injuries and where they occur. at home or away? also how many injuries to other team players playing in chicago. how many injuries are soft tissue, how many are joint injuries, how many are broken bones (these can't be judged as preventable in my opinion). similar to the philly problems they had in the past that caused numerous injuries due to the crap field.

pre draft i was all in on watson and was a bit disappointed when they moved up and picked trubisky. after reading about trub and watching some of the highlights i was sold on him as a top quality pick. however it turns out i think trubisky was the pick and am glad we chose him. i agree with you he has the most upside of any qb in this draft. speaking of urlacher... wasn't it you who sang the praises of him before the draft? it was you or someone else i don't remember now. whoever it was sold me big time on urlacher. at the time i projected him as a safety who i think he could have excelled at also.

i don't know how much more 'linear' your point of view as stated can get. A to B to C = final result. A: you draft a player in a position of need who starts immediately or... B: if that player isn't ready to start day one you pass on that player to draft another player who is touted as ready to start no matter what position he plays even if that players long term analysis says he may be an inferior player over the span of his career. C: you then wait for the next draft, the next draft or the next draft to find that player in the position you covet who HAS to start on day one. FINAL RESULTS: you could wait an entire decade for a player of that quality and when he shows up on the draft board unless you are picking #1 every single year you won't even get a sniff of him. welcome to the real world. next: of course every player drafted will hopefully help your franchise for the next 5-10 years. i stated it. although of note, there is a huge difference between "help" and play at the highest talent level. if that long term highest quality player starts day 1 or not should be of no consequence in determinng if he should be drafted in that slot or not. you are grasping at 'straws' (not strawmen). did i ever state that you did say they were right most of the time? no. but the mcnown example is a perfect analysis of your trubisky consensus "he should not have been the #2 overall. Period." because he wasn't ready at this point in time and didn't start game 1 of the regular season. by your own words and intent you would have drafted mcnown over trubisky because he was most ready to start game 1 according to the talking heads. add all of this to the fact that the team hired an unknown qb who they thought could give them a quality performance and could be a valuable asset in the future while we groomed our first round pick (or not our first round pick). you never would have even given him a single start to confirm or deny his capabilities. sighhh.... now you can forecast the events and results in an alternate universe or dimension? again, according to you, you would NEVER have drafted them in the first place. and IF you did for some unknown reason you would proclaim yourself to be smarter than at least 11 head coaches and their offensive coaching staffs and start them every game no matter what? am i getting that right? the key words in this sentence are "as early as possible". that does not make 'MUST be ready to start game 1' a hard rule of do or die. nothing is a substitute for real game experience? does that mean practice, studying game film or watching how the game develops on the sidelines has no intrinsic value? why even have the players go to camp or practice. just throw them into a game. eventually they will learn the correct way to do things in professional sports right? bumps and bruises? you mean like david carr? or our very own jay cutler (i realize he was not a rookie so don't bother) who was beaten to a bloody pulp? those kind of bumps and bruises will help him learn "lessons" and gain great experience in the nfl? it's a tough enough jump into the nfl so why not give your players every advantage you can to enhance and prolong their careers?

this linear thinking is what MAY win battles or skirmishes but not the war. pace OBVIOUSLY does not have a doubt (as much as one can predict in the entire draft scenario of the NFL) that this guy has the POTENTIAL to become a franchise qb. you on the other hand want skill players who without a doubt start day one or as the media consensus pushes "the most ready to start" player. what GOOD gm's should be looking for in the draft are players who can play at the highest level for 5-10 YEARS and not just be able to play at HOF level their rookie season to appease the masses in the media or the stands that one year. it's fools gold nonsense that this franchise has done for decades. cade mcnown was one of if not 'the' "most ready to start" qb when we drafted him according to the media. how did that turn out? look at my post of HOF quarterbacks in this thread that were very high first round picks. every one of those listed did NOT start the entire season. in your 'scenario' we would have passed on each one of those players because they were not ready to start the opening game in their rookie season thus "not worthy" according to you. finally... did you REALLY believe we could have won a superbowl this season EVEN if we started trub? seriously? you keep harping about how the bears should tank the season so we get a better draft pick next year. how does that fit into this scenario?

hmmmmmm...... just HOF quarterbacks: namath drafted #1 - played in 13 games started 9 games - 14 game season troy aikman drafted #1 - played in 11 games, started 11 games - 15 game season Bobby Layne drafted #3 (bears) - played in 11 games, started 1 game 12 game season John Elway drafted #1 - played in 11 games, started 10 games - 16 game season Terry Bradshaw drafted #1 - played in 13 games, started 8 games - 14 game season Bob Griese drafted #4 - played in 12 games, started 10 - 14 game season Len Dawson drafted #5 - played in 3 games, started 1 - 12 game season Sammy Baugh drafted #6 - played in 11 games, started 5 games - 11 game season Steve Young drafted #1 - played in 5 games, started 5 games - 16 game season Sid Luckman drafted #2 - played in 11 games, started 7 games - 11 game season Otto Graham drafted #4 - played in 14 games, started 9 games - 14 game season

how is a stop gap player a hindrance to any rookie and especially a qb? it limits his learning the system by trial of fire? i don't believe that at all. in complex positions like qb, LT wr and cb these are skills that take time to adjust to in the nfl because the the vast gap in player quality and speed between college or semi pro and the nfl. limited action, watching the game from the sidelines and viewing game film has to be a plus in the mental aspects of this sport. you also assume that the player the bears coveted in the draft, qb, was actually going to be there when the bears picked. if they targeted one specific qb and he was gone then what? what if you had to draft a player who really needed a year or even two to become acclimated to the nfl? or what if that qb was destined to be an average at BEST qb in their opinion? that is one MAIN reason they chose glennon. they thought, wrongly as it turns out, that IF that player they wanted wasn't there they may have gone at a different position in the draft in round 1 or have chosen a qb who wasn't capable of their vision of the future or one who took multiple years to show his talent.

agreed. in this case, hind sight is 20/20.

i'm sorry but that is not even realistic. they picked up glennon as a stop gap qb or maybe a dark horse who with more time could be a 'good' qb and had targeted a qb in the draft. in my opinion it was a smart move even if the cost was salary wise high. it gave us in theory time to groom a young qb to compete in the nfl when we filled out our offense in the draft which included offensive lineman. it also gave us a possible 'good' qb as trade bait for future picks. there is no possible way you would not have started glennon for at least the time involved he started for us. it would have been stupid to not even give him a shot at starting. did it turn out? NO it did not. i don't think anyone could have perceived glennon being this bad. the decisions were sound but the results turned out not as expected. so it goes.

i have to agree with you. what could anything have possibly hurt this team by taking out glennon? really though, i never have seen a team quit at the start of the 4th quarter before. i have seen them play bad before and i have seen them start a rb or te because both qb's were out injured, but never have i seen them give up and run the ball up the middle play after play with that much time left in a real game with a first string qb calling the plays. it was mind boggling. even if they didn't put in trubinsky throw the ball downfield. even if it's intercepted or incomplete at least look like you are trying to win the game at that point in time.

i don't recall EVER seeing a team quit at the start of the 4th quarter. we were down by a lot but cheezus h. ceerist, run the ball for an entire quarter? why not just kneel on it and save the wear and tear on our running backs? this was a shameful pretense of an nfl game.

if there is please list them as i didn't see anything that would say this was a professional football team. glennon? hope you banked your salary cause it's the last one you will ever see in the nfl. if they actually start him again fox and pace both better be touching up their resumes. our offensive coordinator? what the hell kind of a game plan was that? if you have that little faith in your qb there is no reason to even start him. just run the pistol or whatever the hell they call it for the whole game. is this some whitehair impersonator? if not, he is playing like garbage. any hack could look as bad as him. where is shaw at these days? if trubisky needs more time someone needs to start this offense that can play in the major leagues. glennon is not even a #3 qb if this is all he has. the defense? what defense? it's not as bad as under tucker but we are closing in on it. so far fangio either doesn't have a clue or else our personnel is worse than imagined. trevathon? that is the best you got? we are not thugs in chicago. you should have been ejected or at least benched. what an ugly, STOOOOPID play. what a god awful game.

i didn't watch the last game closely but the first game he did look bad. hope that doesn't turn out to be the norm.

this sounds very reasonable... good take. as stated before this is not a superbowl contender this season and the expectations of us making it so should be realistic. quite frankly i did project a winning season this year which could happen but without glennon doing a 180 i can't see this as the case. he just plain, to this point, looks like the face of every bad QB we have run through this organization for decades. we still are bringing in and evaluating talent. our offensive line has holes along with our receiving corp. on defense we still are not there on our defensive line putting pressure on the qb. we also have a waaays to go on our DB situation. it all takes time when going from a semi pro team talent pool to playing with the big boys. for whatever reason, the injuries we keep suffering are also hindering our successes. for that i have no solution for other than to say this is happening throughout the league. accept sucking - possibly in the right context but as far as the tanking goes... i don't believe that will happen and it should not ever happen. that is how you would completely lose a locker room.

the vampire!

i can somewhat agree that blaming an entire city for the few MAY be a bit overboard. but... death threats or threats of bodily injury to anyone and more pointedly his friends, family or children ESPECIALLY in this day and age when some idiot mental case wanting his name in the news can be real. i can see where it may sour a normal person or athlete to a city or region and cause him to lash out in a general term. fans need to throw this mindset to the curb. 99% of all athletes are trying their best to be the best. whether they are not successful because of physical or mental limits is inconsequential. the blame is not on the athlete. if anyone is to blame it is upon the organization. the people who hired him or coached him. so for me, the real life vicious fan or media threats in any form are flat out stupid and made by idiots.

totally disagree. if what they said is true, "Conte, who received death threats on social media over his mistakes with the Bears" then that is completely unacceptable. are some snap head bear fans turning into packer fans - the lindy infante coach who received death threats and more from scumbag packer fans? if true, chicago deserves the conte insult for what was supposed to have happened. it's truly embarrassing if that's the case.

agree. they have to open up the passing attack into the medium range and at least once or twice on a long ball to spread the defenses even if glennon doesn't have the touch on those long balls. i think the coaching staff will adjust. this was a shakedown game.

agree. seems like a great kid with a great attitude. just has brittle bones unfortunately.

i missed some of the game but... i thought glennon had a good game. he moved the ball downfield when he had to and made some very nice passes. on the long ball he threw it was a fraction of a second slow but still a very catchable ball if the defender didn't make a good play on knocking it away (or was it holding him? whatever). critical drops at critical times and everybody praises his game for the most part. i am optimistic he can play with adequate protection. i thought our offensive line was average at best. whitehair struggled in that game in my opinion and caused some critical mistakes. the two penalties hurt us not to mention the bad snap. massie looked ok with the exception of the final play where he got beat at a critical game changing moment. i thought leno also looked ok to good through out the game. we need to get long back in the mix. our run blocking was not very good. if not for the moves by cohen it would have been a sad day for our run offense. this was our game plan... run the ball. wide receivers were average at best with no threat downfield and not much separation. out te's looked good, especially simms. on defense i thought our DL looked mediocre at best. not a lot of pressure on the qb in passing downs but they did look good on run defense. hicks looked like he was recovering from a hangover from celebrating his new contract. he looked lethargic at times and out of gas on others. not much from floyd on the outside either. i don't know how good the falcons o line is but the controlled our DL for most of the game. freeman had a monster game at lb. our safeties were ok with the exception of the long gains which killed the game. fuller looked ok at cb and they seemed to limit the falcons offense to a short zone attack. not happy with the outcome but it could have been a lot worse. this team does NOT give up.