Lucky Luciano

i have no problem bringing him in for a workout. if he is healthy enough to play sign him as a stop gap player through the rest of the season and see how he plays. IF he can't adjust to free safety then cut him. simple as that. we could shore up the weakest position on our defense. how could we lose?

if we're talking new DC i want wade phillips if he is not under contract. he SHOULD have been the replacement THIS season for tucker.

i agree with you it's preseason. the final outcome or even scores don't mean a lot. i don't expect to see exotic blitzing schemes and stunting but... what we are NOT seeing are fundamentals. even in vanilla schemes you need to see basic football skills and smarts. in past teams you knew that these things were there because you have seen them performed in the real season previously. this is not the case with this team. our team is showing none of those things. what is worse is we are seeing the same mistakes that were made last season over and over again. THAT is concerning stuff that our coaching staff should have been working on all preseason. can it turn around when they play for real? sure. but if they can't even perform the basics in a 3rd preseason game it's a leap of faith to assume they will when we start the season. if it takes us 4 real season games to even grasp these concepts that is FAR too long and could put ourselves out of contention before we hit stride.

i disagree. with how this defense is looking we will need to average about 75 points a game on offense. LOL!! seriously... DEFENSE: even in a vanilla preseason mode the players STILL look confused and unsure where their assignments should be. i can't emphasize enough that the pursuit was overrunning misdirection plays all first half leaving an entire open field for their RB to run around RT for massive amounts of yardage. this is the same CRAP we saw last year when out LB's and DE's were being sucked inside on misdirection plays making our safeties and corners make plays on TE's and RB's and it hasn't gotten any better. there just is plain flat out no containment. next... again we see this loose cover nobody defense with holes big enough to park a mack truck in for easy receptions by anyone with a pair of hands. i was hoping with lovie gone we would see an end to that for the most part. obviously just dreaming on that aspect. holes up the middle? yikes. even in the red zone they are gaining 6 yds. a carry not to mention our corners playing so soft behind the receiver at times (IN the endzone) that ANY reception is an automatic TD. i have NEVER been a tucker advocate and unless we see a complete turnaround from this preseason garbage it is going to be a very, very LONG season with tucker trying to break the record for bad that he installed last year (just what does it take to get fired in this organization?). SPECIAL TEAMS: wow!! did we ever even get to the 20 yard line on kick returns? that was 4 tries!! blocking assignments? WHAT blocking assignments? and again we were completely lost on containment and guys staying in their lanes just like last season on the punting team. when our kicker continually is the only guy near the returner that's a freaking problem. so like tucker... just what does it take to get fired from this team as a coach?? this squad is going to kill us this year if this isn't just preseason vanilla. OFFENSE: i see absolutely no reason to be worried about most of what you are seeing with maybe the exception of our right tackle position. this is preseason and shaking out the rust and fitting in contending starters at TE, WR and RB. cutler looks just fine out there. a few bone head plays? like that is any type of surprise? this is the way he works and did so before we acquired him. there is no perfection in the NFL. even the greats have/had their moments each game that have/had you scratching your head. the same goes for the dropped balls which were critical in a number of instances. don't worry about it YET. it's part of the game. one critical aspect of our offense on coaching. for god's sake LOSE the pulling guards plays inside the 5 or 10 yard line. it's amateurish college crap that will fail more times than not for a loss you can't afford in that situation.

the NFL was a bit different in that era. there was no salary cap and there were only 28 teams vs. 32 teams of today. that is a huge difference maker in the amount of quality players being drafted (over 200 more players of today and roughly 88 more starters per year out of the talent pool). plus today with the cap in place your high pick draftee's salaries can limit what you can accomplish if one becomes a bust or is injured. we have SEEN this personally in chicago with our first round busts do to injury, talent or the combination of both. also the type of play, the rules, and the speed of the game were different 25 years ago. that said... if it were me i certainly would never have put the 5th pick in the draft on special teams as a kick returner as a rookie even in THAT era. then again nobody ever contended campbell or hanifan should have been inducted into the hall-of-fame as NFL coaches either. i think the RISK does not even come close to the reward. but then, to each his own. so it goes.

i can agree completely using your backups or even 2nd round down draft picks to temporarily fit in on special teams until they establish the quality of player they are. THEN i'd be damned if i would put a stud starting player on ST for any reason other than to win a superbowl IN the superbowl. i also would NOT put in a first round rookie pick on ST's and especially the core players i list below!!! it is flat out stupid to do so before you know what kind of quality you have in that player and risk injury to someone getting paid that much money and who is THAT important to the health of your franchise to WIN a superbowl. now, i really hate to bring this guy into the equation cause in my opinion he was a terrible QB but... lets say Teebo was a good QB and would have been good enough to get drafted in the top 5 even. he certainly has enough physical ability to play on special teams. would you have started him on ST's his rookie season? in my opinion there are four to five key franchise core players that can make or break a team. in number of importance - QB, pass rushing DE, CB or LT (take your pick on these two). every one of these key players are RARE for a franchise to find a stud even drafting high in the first round. so, would i bet MY franchises future by putting one of these 1st round pick players on special teams his rookie season? no! the chance of injury is more than doubled if you do. but you ask... what about special teams and their importance. this is what drafting well and good choices in free agency does. it fills up these ST spots with lower picked/quality players needed to develop or work their way into a starting position and not risking every down good starters.

i don't see a difference between offensive and defensive players in this scenario. if that's the case, then you're good with this if we drafted a QB number one overall and putting him on special teams? what the league does and what is smart do NOT always coincide.

ummmm.... no. a first round pick is a franchise move. it effects the health of your team, cap and starter quality, for years to come who hopefully turn out to be a part of the core of your offense and defense. to throw specific (as i stated in previous posts) types of first round picks out there on special teams is ludicrous whether it is common practice in the NFL or not. a cornerback is NOT like any other player with the exception of a speed DE and one you will pay through the nose to draft or find in free agency (IF it's even possible) and keep on your roster. to take a chance on this important of a player getting injured by some 2nd or 3rd string wannabe trying to make the team or hold his position as a backup player defies common sense.

that is great on the injury report. on the url playing as a rookie... i believe it is a different scenario. ultimate speed is not as critical to a linebacker or even other positions with the possible exception of a high pick speed oriented defensive end. a corner is all about speed and coverage ability. without speed you can have a good or better #2 corner such as peanut but a high flight cover corner relies on speed without exception.

in most instances i would agree. but with players that are that hard to come by in my opinion it's flat out stupid. would we draft a QB in the first round and put him on special teams? if not then i question their policy with this high of a pick of a player that is this scarce to find quality in. one knee injury on special teams and you have virtually wasted a top flight corner for no reason. and peanut on special teams? he has NO business in there especially considering his quality and age unless it is in a superbowl and you are going all out with the possibility to still win that particular game. EDIT: leslie fraser comes to mind where we virtually destroyed our best corner on special teams play (although being in a superbowl game it is SOMEWHAT understandable though i still believe it was a mistake).

i guess for the same STUPID reason peanut was. i understand you want rookies to get some game experience and a feel for the NFL but.... why put your premium players at risk in a high impact, high risk squad? cornerback is one of the premium positions and next to QB the hardest to replace, or even FIND in the draft, with a high quality starting player.

you may have your offensive tackles flipped?

you are quite welcome:) seriously... as i have stated numerous times i have no problem with infighting on this site. THAT is the instance when anyone can bypass it and if a woman or child reads it it certainly is not crudely or graphically offensive. i don't either unless you want to insist that some of that type of graphic language in your post was called for. you can never convince me that it is acceptable language to use around a woman or a child. actually i just don't care who won or lost. i think with the tone of the language used this SITE lost. and yet again with the censorship BS. what the hell is the matter with all you people?? you think freedom of speech or your non-censorship agenda is some mantra from heaven allowing you free rein to do or say anything you please anywhere you want to say it? if you REALLY don't get it why don't you give your grandmother, mother or your minister a call and repeat to them the same message using them as the point of reference. or maybe if you go to class with your kids stand up before the 3rd grade and start talking like that. see how that goes. i really have no problem with you striking back at all. it was just in the type of content in the message i personally have a problem with. WHY you ask? again... because i do NOT believe it appropriate to speak such in front of women and children. call me old fashioned, in fact call me anything you want to just do it reasonably cleanly. we can banter that back and forth just like this one. as far as YOU or anyone else on this board knowing the age or sex of a person coming to this site to read about the bears is ludicrous. so what does that tell you? you behave or you SHOULD behave, in my opinion, as if the lowest denominator that COULD be on this site is HERE!!! yet nobody seems to understand this. yes let's.

hmmmm.... the real fans. yea, tell me about the "real" fans. describe them for me so i too know the difference between the "real" fan and the fake(?) one like you obviously can. please enlighten me. only from birth and not conception? does that make you a "real" fan or a faux fan in your estimation? your pardon. i didn't realize i was talking to the ruler of the earth. please enlighten your subjects in great detail as to when it is correct to not be politically correct. do i understand those who feel the "need" to use profanity? i guess that is a new concept for me to feel the "need" to use it. is it physical like a drug dependency? is it psychological and can be cured through therapy? is it a vitamin deficiency? and being from rockford and living in great britain gives you this insight to "know the real Chicago"? explain the "real" chicago to me in great detail and how all chicagoans have developed this "need" to use profanity at all times in all situations from cradle to grave. can i assume the cause of this to be through the process of evolution? alien spores? do i understand? yea i understand. here is a GREAT freedom of speech concept for you to do. the next time you take some small children to a *L,SC,V PG movie, stand up halfway through the film and yell FIRE as loud as you can. it's your right to do so and they would be "DISCRIMINATING" against you if they lock you up in a padded cell. you should have no problem getting released and winning that case in court. do it for us and the cause for freedom of speech. and you know this how? you personally can determine the age and sex of every person that not only posts on this site but visits it 24 hours a day to read about the chicago bears? wow! you should join the circus (or have you?). says the great and powerful OZ you need to settle down beavis you'll stroke out. actually i think you may have mispoken. isn't it... children should be seen and not heard? and keep the little woman barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen? but in reality you may be right. what kind of a negligent parent would think their children would be safe on a sports site reading about the chicago bears? so THAT's what a "Masters Degree" means? you graduated from the 6th grade. i'm truly impressed. i only went through the 4th grade myself but i still feel my overall comprehension level is beyond your 6th grade education do to reaching down to pull myself up by my own bootstaps and self taught lerning. so i feel like i trumped ya on that one hyuk hyuk hyuk. "Making the world lily white is artificial...and the Bears are not artificial. And neither are the guys around here." - your quote. well, lets see... ex·trap·o·late - to infer (an unknown) from something that is known; conjecture. conjecture - the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof. how do you know that everyone on this site is a 'guy'? are you omnipotent? ahhhhhh finally.... the old love or leave it line of crap when you don't have the guts or brains to evaluate both sides of an argument along with the merits and detriments of either or both. you are stuck in your macho manly-man world that flew high and fast 50 + years ago. enjoy it and tip another one for me at the pub, a toast to your "Masters Degree" and what it's really worth.

you know, i actually find this offensive. you must have a really poor opinion of what the people of chicago (and their sport fans), as a whole, are actually like. to believe the people of chicago can't be a sports fan and communicate or make a verbal point without using the F word or other extremely crude language in a PUBLIC place is really mind boggling. that is not "not mincing words", it is having no concern or respect for other adults points of view or lifestyles, including their children's, by subjecting them to it for no apparent reason other than a lack of communication skills and good judgement. really? and how many underage children do you take to PG rated movies with the language used below? like a "Pepsi" ad? what exactly does that mean? just so i have this straight, in your opinion reading about the bears is boring unless the posters use vulgarity and crude language? is that what you are saying? really? you mean like this: EDITED "Yeah F - - - you. You DID edit a post of mine, you rewrote words and attributed them to me, as a power hungry admin. Crybaby? Nah, Id just kick your ass if you did it to my face. You're a contentious and arrogant little prick. If admins dont like this language, lets start with the guy who initiated it. Seriously, grow some F - - - ing hair on your b - - - - before you try to challenge me." or maybe: EDITED "Get your tongue out of the guy's r- - - - - for a few minutes and you might be able to see better." and you would have no problem reading this unedited to the children you are hired to protect and their parents? let me know how that goes. dude, you just stated you have a "Masters Degree" and this is the best you can extrapolate? lily white? artificial? did i ever say i was or anyone on this board had to be EVER, or that everyone had to act like they were wally cleaver? how simplistic can you get? look i'm not some holy roller damning everyone to the pits of hell. but as you stated you are an 'educated' man in the field of child protection. does that not mean you SHOULD realize when and where to impliment SOME restraint in a PUBLIC forum for the good of all? this isn't some 'good ole boy' site where we all come to get drunk and put the make on 'cyber chicks'. it's an information site for sports where women, young adults or kids should be able to participate if they see fit and have information on the chicago bears to share with EVERYONE. if TD was correct in his assessment of flea then we have lost a valued participant on this forum for no reason and we are all the poorer for it. doesn't it make you wonder how many others have we lost because of it?

well, i guess if you 'assume' it, it must be so. you are "never an opponent of catering to a select few"? then which of your multiple personalities made the statement below? i admire your broad minded approach as to who should or should not frequent this site. after all, i am sure nobody who is not a male over the age of 18 could possibly have anything worthwhile to contribute in discussing the chicago bears anyway. "I" seems to be a very large portion of your vocabulary. yup, 'love it or leave it' is always the best policy in my book. the point is this... every person that does or 'would' contribute to this site is a plus for EVERYONE involved. it expands the knowledge of what this site is all about and why people come here. so why limit it because you or someone else can't keep your fingers off of the F key? if you feel it is some kind of 'heat of the moment' thing and can't seem to control yourself, that is why they put an EDIT button below each individuals post. again, i am not trying to dictate policy here but maybe the site GOD should step in and let us ALL know just what the policies for this site really are and who it IS catering to. inquiring minds want to know.

i am not sure where your "we are all adults" comes from. this is an open forum to the public as far as i know. i have never seen any adult or men only ratings or references on this site. you have a wide variety of posters and readers on here and i can only assume that includes kids, young adults AND women trying to glean information about the chicago bears. believe me i am no prude and i can turn the air blue on occasions that would make a drunken sailor blush. but i try not to do it in public for obvious reasons (at least to me). occasional off color remarks i have no problem with but some of the graphic hard core references are a bit much in my opinion and quite frankly are embarrassing when i can only assume that some folks other than adult males are reading this. that said... i am not trying to dictate any policy or force anyone to adhere to my thoughts or opinions. i am not an admin on here and certainly don't own this site so 'those that be' can do as they wish on here. just my 2 cents worth.

free speech, where anything goes, is not an option on good post boards or forums in most instances for good reason. there has to be rules or you will drive out anyone who isn't a complete loony. most boards are put up by someone who has done the work and spent his/her coin to operate and maintain it and you live or die by their rules as it should be. the best you can hope for is that it is fair and safe for all who wish to participate without unwarranted editing or censoring board related topics or idea's. if there is a reason for an edit let the person know why and what rules were violated and if they continue to break the rules censure them after a warning. a good rule of thumb for all admins... NEVER allow race, religion or politics on a sports board. it's a disaster waiting to happen.

i agree with you that the admins really do need to start cleaning this up before the site turns into a mess. i also agree on the foul language aspect and maybe even some of the avatar's that get too far off base. there is no need for it and it was something that set this site apart from other flame sites with four letter derogatives thrown out with every other word typed by cretins with pubescency issues. i have no problems with infighting, serious arguments or even in-house flaming, but... maybe THINK before you type something you wouldn't want your 8 year old daughter reading would go a long way on this board.

you mean 'roid'-foot the misunderstood punter aka francis the talking mule?

at least the bears weren't stupid enough to draft a punter in the second round. oh wait.... wanny DID that. traded a 10 sack-a-year LEFT defensive end in his prime for a 2nd round pick and drafted a PUNTER!! seriously though, a punter in the 6th is NO big deal especially if he has the qualifications this guy has. this is where you fill you needs on special teams so instead of a guy who probably doesn't make the cut we get a possible high quality punter which we desperately needed.

i give the bears draft a solid B+ to A- fuller - a high quality cover corner we have needed.... forever. trumps a safety or DT any day of the week. ferguson - i like this pick. this appears to be a SOLID tackle to shore up the worst run defense in our entire history. whether he turns out to be a top pass rusher is unimportant to me. i want someone who does NOT end up 5 yards downfield after the snap of the ball or end up, like paea, standing in front of the RT after a guard shoves him down the entire line. here is what USA Today Sports pre-draft edition says about him: "PRO's: Does a good job of exploding and extending low and crossing the face of a blocker. Good lateral quickness. Naturally strong at holding his ground. Played in a rotation his first two years for the Tigers where his main job was to help secure the middle of the defense. Plays with leverage on blocks and is rarely sealed. Finishes pursuit on plays to the outside. When rushing the passer, has good hand strength to control movement. CONS: Needs technique work as an inside pass rusher. sutton - another DT who is more of a pass rusher type tackle. makes up for our loss and trumps all who wanted donald. carey - to me a superb pick. THIS is the guy we need in short yardage. like an ironhead hayward type of back who can still start if needed. the value was there and not in a safety at this point in the draft. again we build strength upon strength for the future. vereen - THIS was the time to move up and pick a player with some real potential and at a position of need. giving up a 5th rounder next season is no big deal. to me anything after the 4th is reasonable to trade out of. sometimes even the 4th unless you are moving up big in the first 3 rounds for a very special player. finally... the last 2 years drafts are the first time since jim finks and jerry vanesie (sp?) were in charge that i am not angry on draft day. his scouting department seems light years ahead of what we had pre trestman and post finks (time will tell over the next few years as these drafted players develop or fail). PLUS: emery held to our position in the first 3 rounds instead of the idiotic trading down we saw from angie compiling a hundred 7th round draft picks we usually cut during camp or picking second quality players that looked like angies scouting departments main concern was how much free beer was served during their evaluations. in my opinion his drafts are geared to win superbowls by picking players who do NOT need to necessarily be the "most ready to start player" and "win it now" nonsense we have heard bear management, draft anylizers and fans spout for decades. PLUS: he is using stop gap veterans in many instances to give potential primo players he drafts a chance to become aclimated into the NFL. especially given what angelo left us on this depleted, talentless, aging roster he has moved this team forward as much as any GM possible given the restrictions. PLUS: he focuses on key players and positions needed to WIN superbowls. 1. quarterback - first and foremost surrounding him FINALLY with at least SOME quality talent on the offensive line to keep him off of the IR. another aspect of your QB is receivers - marshall and jeffrie - a stroke of genius bringing in marshall to work with cutler and young draft talent until they reach an NFL level. finally someone sees a need for high quality talent in this important aspect of todays game. 2. defensive ends - no more hanging on to an aging player who is not producing anymore (or ever) but setting up the future with time to find replacements for aging or depleted players with still hungry veterans or veteran prospects. this gives us time to groom future draft picks that we hopefully won't be able to draft in a top 10 environment because of our record. 3. cornerbacks - to me this is the key every GM since finks has failed at and a major component in winning multiple superbowls. all that TRIPE about not needing very good to excellent CB's because we run a zone/cover nobody defense is ludicrous and always has been. you need to draft these guys high in the first round generally because everyone wants one. this draft was the time to go for that position while we still had a pick that high. since the 1990's the NFL has become do to rule changes a passing league and if anyone thinks that a high end safety or a pass rush exempts this need for a high quality cover CB is in my opinion delusional. know the importance of key positions and draft them well. this is how you build dynasties and win multiple superbowls.

agreed but that is always the risk in the draft. but... the only players that can compare to a CB in value are QB, LOT and DE. if the film shows out that gilbert can play and he truly looks like a man coverage player i would TAKE him.

first, i want to qualify that i do not watch much college ball anymore and i am not basing any decision on how the players actually performed, just on what is written in this article. that said... the most important and hard to fill position in the group from that article to me is hands down cornerback. that leads me to take a lightning fast 6-0' CB justin glbert over any other player in that list. we have not had a #1 shutdown, man-on-man CB in chicago since i can remember and it has hurt us for decades. the need is there especially in today's pass oriented NFL. peanut is all but done and even then he was never a #1 CB in my opinion. we need REAL talent to fill this position and not some flyer on a guy in later rounds. we will probably not be picking this high again for sometime and the talent requirements at that position demands you draft one high in the first for your BEST chance at finding gold. there is absolutely no possible way i would take any kind of safety OR a defensive tackle over a corner of that caliber.

if they determine he isn't mental a possible scenario would be sign him to a LOW 2 yr. contract and use him as trade bait as the season progresses if some teams qb goes down. let him play preseason to showcase his abilities under trestman and we might get a 3rd round pick or higher for him. similar to what the packers had done during the favre era. if he doesn't shine in preseason then cut him.