Lucky Luciano

in my opinion cutler was concussed or suffering from the pounding he took not only during this game but the past three in which he took a fantastic beating. nobody can take that amount of punishment for this long a period of time without consequences. to me the tell was when he was running for the sidelines and flicked the ball out at the last second. i believe there was something wrong with him at that time. it also could account for him holding the ball so long on some plays or missing open receivers and some of his decision making. i also believe that if you have people knocking you down every single time you set up to throw the ball it has a mental effect on a qb, especially when there is no single area they are coming from. one time it may be around left tackle, one time around right tackle, other times through either guard. you come to the point when you have no confidence at all that you are not going to get destroyed every play. so of COURSE it effects your game!! if you want to take anything to the bank this is it... cutler is one tough SOB and not only has he taken a beating this season, including pre-season, but last year as well and still puts it all on the field. so any talk of cutler being some kind of wimp or pussy and not wanting to get hit is pure unadulterated B.S.

got to really disagree with this statement "The best defenses never have to blitz". i consider the 85 bears and the steelers of the 70's the top defenses in modern era football and both used blitzes extensively. in my opinion it takes good/great coordinators to blend a standard rush with creative blitzing for a total package. lovie/marinelli/babich's idea of a blitz is so bad it's laughable to opposing offenses. we lock up our linebackers (like the last game, like the last FOUR years worth of games) into showing blitz at the LOS and then drop them back into some screwball coverage that when the snap of the ball takes place our LB's are out of position and moving in the wrong direction OR if they do blitz, they are caught up in the wash of the linemen blocking our tackles (who NEVER get penetration) and never progress past the pileup in the middle.

if it came to no choice but one or the other i would give it to *martz and hope he has changed/learned enough to be a good HC. i just see no redeeming factor in lovie smith to dictate any extension ever. i like the idea BrianBear came up with referring to paying martz a ton of money to stay as OC unless we shake lovie (hopefully) out and then some thought has to go into it depending upon lovie's replacement (although with shanny gone off the market, i can't really think of any very good offensive minded head coaching material at the moment who would come to chicago and be qualified to run this franchise in a great capacity). another idea came to me at the end of the '85 superbowl when i saw ryan getting lifted off the field like ditka. why not have 2 head coaches share the ticket? could it work with a coach like cowher and martz? it would be interesting to hear his view on something like that. *all talk of martz is a bit premature at this point. i do like what i am seeing but we need to let the season progress before we really anoint him as 'all that and a bag of chips'. at this point though i will say he is the best OC i have ever seen in chicago. he needs to continue to grow as the season goes on and work on consistancy.

martz... our offense actually appears to have a game plan and is able to make real gametime adjustments. he is the best offensive coordinator we have had in chicago in over 50 years and has turned our generic ball control offenses of the past into an attack offense that is a real threat to opposing teams. with that said, he has his faults also. in the packer game we did a lot of 5-7 step drops that nearly got cutler killed (in fact i am amazed at cutlers toughness, it just can't last taking that kind of a beating). we should have turned that down the same way as against the cowboys and a lot faster. he has to realize we don't have an orlando pace in his prime and am working with cannon fodder like frank oh-my and shaffer (not even counting our poor guards!!). in fact i can't believe they threw webb in at RT as he was absolutely miserable in pre-season and played no better monday night. as far as promoting martz to HC? i would PREFERABLY have martz continue as our OC even with a new coaching staff and hopefully a new GM and president. he may be like buddy ryan in that aspect, a very good to great coordinator but a liability at HC. but if it came to lovie or martz i would take martz any day of the week and roll the bones. other teams may see this the same way unless they are really desperate for a head coach.

here is where you go for it on 4th down and goal from the 1 (or in field goal range for that matter)... 1. it's your last drive of the game in regulation time and you are behind more than a field goal. 2. your kicker has a compound fracture of his kicking leg or he is mentally experiencing interplanetary travel. in nearly every other instance you ALWAYS take the points and you certainly kick a field goal to tie up a game no matter what quarter it is. it's stupid coaching not to do so for many reasons. this is another of lovie's glaring faults... stubbornness. to prove a point he will put his team at risk to lose a game to show the media, or the football world, he was smart making the same mistake in previous games.

mcmahon went there too although i believe he wore a bear jersey to the white house after the packer superbowl win. how cool is that?

if the 75th anniversary is referring to the 1995 season then #22 belonged to RB robert green.

1. i'm going to go out on a limb and say without looking it up (like i did with the offensive line) that 75% + of the starting defensive linemen in the nfl were drafted in the 5th round or higher. what does that mean? that statistics (IF you looked them up) should dictate that if you want to field starters on the defensive line your best chance to do so is by drafting from the 5th round higher with a few exceptions. does this mean you always get quality players if you do so? again as i stated in another post, about the O-line, the answer is no. it depends upon the quality of the personnel you have scouting and evaluating talent making the picks. what you stated "By this logic, we have a good defensive line because we draft so many d-lineman." does prove one thing... that the people running this organization are bad at doing their jobs and nothing more. the model for drafting quality players is still the same. 2. on offense: what this "logic" of drafting 5th round or higher dictates is that the movers and shakers in this franchise have FAILED to even give us a CHANCE of finding quality players to start on our offensive line by trading down, out, or picking another type of players (see defensive draft picks above in your own post) in the quality rounds. it's nearly impossible to draft quality players if you rarely or never try to.

another cracked packer fan on the verge of cannibalism.

could any of that have to do with the organizations abilities to judge talent and coach? anyway, if you look at it, 3 out of 32 is not a very good percentage and pretty telling as to where most of your talent is coming from. does this mean it's a sure thing drafting players in these higher rounds? absolutely not. it still requires good personnel to scout and to sift through all the information and actually pick good players in the draft. but by limiting your picks the way we have and relying on FA's to fill your OL it is a recipe for disaster.

this is the problem i have with angelo... these 6th and 7th round picks are throwaway picks. they to me look to be afterthoughts that have no or little chance to make any real impact in our starting lineup. i did some research in the other string i started and it is quite eye opening as to where real offensive line talent is generally drafted if you want starters.

here is an interesting note... only 3 teams in the entire nfl, colts, chargers, texans, had fewer than 3 starting offensive linemen that were drafted/non-drafted in the 5th round or higher. many had 4 starters and many had 5 starters drafted in these higher rounds. i think this is a pretty good indication of what rounds the quality is located for offensive linemen. so to me that says the bears (who have drafted 2 players in the 1st rd, NONE in the 2nd rd, 1 in the 3rd rd, 1 in the 4th rd, and NONE in the 5th rd in EIGHT YEARS of jerry angelo's tenure in chicago) are having to rely on free agents who are either on their last leg of nfl play, highly overpriced, or 2nd tier or less talent whose teams have not renewed their contracts due to quality concerns.

well, here are the numbers for starting linemen: falcons: 2009 3 out of 5 LT baker 1st round pick 2008 falcons LG blalock 2nd round pick 2007 falcons C mcclure 7th round pick 1999 falcons RG ojinnaka 5th round 2006 falcons RT clabo undrafted falcons 2007 3 out of 5 LT gandy 1st rd pick 1994 rams LG blalock 2nd rd pick 2007 falcons C mcclure 7th rd pick 1999 falcons RG forney 7th rd pick 2001 falcons RT weiner 2nd rd pick 1998 SH giants: 2008, 2009 3 out of 5 LT diehl 5th round pick 2003 giants LG seubert undrafted C ohara undrafted RG snee 2nd round 2004 giants RT mckenzie 3rd round 2001 jets vikings 2009 3 out of 5 LT mckinnie 1st rd pick 2002 vikings LG hutchinson 1st rd pick 2001 SH C sullivan 6th rd pick 2008 vikings RG herrera undrafted RT loadholt 2nd rd pick 2009 vikings ===== seattle 2009 5 out of 5. LT locklear 3rd rd pick 2004 SH LG sims 4th rd pick 2006 SH C spencer 1st rd pick 2005 SH RG unger 2nd rd pick 2009 SH RT willis 4th rd pick 2005 SH tampa bay 2009 4 out of 5 LT penn undrafted LG zuttah 3rd rd pick 2008 TB C faine 1st rd pick 2003 cleveland RG joseph 1st rd pick 2006 TB RT trueblood 2nd rd pick 2006 TB i am curious as to how you are determining the quality of these offensive lines? is it from personal observation? if not what are the factors you are using to determine how the bucs and seahawks lines rated against the rest of the nfl? anyway, the giants you mention have 3 out of 5 players drafted in the first 5 rounds. although i have no idea whether the falcons line is good or bad they too have 3 out of 5 drafted in the first 5 rounds. i guess what you should do is go through the nfl roster for starting offensive linemen and compare this number to the number of starters drafted/non drafted below the 5th round and compare the numbers. this would give you accurate numbers for comparison. as far as angelo's MO... do you really believe what you said that there is more to angelo's line of thinking than drafting quality offensive linemen through the draft? you have no problems of never drafting linemen higher than the 6th or 7th round or with their quality? REALLY? you don't see any conflicts with the salary cap by trying to bring in QUALITY free agent linemen who are young and not at the end of their careers (like tait type players)? do you believe, or not, that continuity is a factor involved as to how an offensive line performs?

this is what separates the men from the boys as GM's go... the draft, plain and simple. having said that, i don't have an issue adding veteran FA's under 'specific circumstances': 1. replacement due to injury. if you lose a front line starting player then you can go after these end-of-career players who may have 1-3 years left in their tanks as long as you draft their replacements high enough to give you hopefully a high quality player replacement when it's time to move the older veteran. our problem is, as you know, we never do this. 2. replacement due to the inability to sign your own FA's due to cap limitations. again you can do the same as the scenario above although good GM's should see this coming ahead of time and negotiate prior to the contract end or compensate in the draft before it comes into being. 3. your GM has missed picking a good starter in the draft. face it, this happens from time-to-time as nobody can pick gold with every pick. in this instance you can either pick up your aging player and again draft his replacement or go for a quality FA with a lengthy career still ahead of him and pay the big bucks. that said, if your draft picks are continually poor it's time to evaluate why. is it the picks you are making and the round you select them in (you or the scouting staffs choices)? is it the inability of your coaching staff to mold/coach these picks into front line players? also to continually ignore drafting potentially high quality players in the slots they dictate on draft day and expect to fill these positions on the offensive line the way he has done so, is ludicrous. so is the missmanagement of FA's you do bring in... i can't even begin to state how stupid it was to bring in tait, a high quality right tackle at a tremendous cap hit and play him at a different position (than where he was rated good in the first place) nearly his entire tenure in chicago. these are just some of the reasons angie is a poor GM. you have to have vision and long range insight. by neglecting drafting players that need time to develop you will, in this dimention of reality, never/rarely have QUALITY players to fill these slots except through free agency and quite frankly there are numerous reasons why this will NOT work in the long haul. the cost is too much and you will rarely see key players such as qb's, LT's, superb DE's and CB's who are not past the peak of their careers and starting on the downward slope. it also clearly shows the inability of having CONSISTANCY on your offensive and defensive lines that angie somehow now believes is important (only 8 years to late) but continues to do nothing about as was clearly shown in this years draft.

could anyone really wonder why our offensive line has had serious personnel problems over angelo's tenure? hmmmm

here is some of the complete nonsense from our fearless leader that every fan (and especially if we had a real president of football operations who was qualified to do his job) should note. 1. "the continuity of having five play together was critical". then why in the H E double hockey sticks do you hire semi-retired bandaids like o. pace, r. brown and fred miller to come in and finish out their careers here in which we usually get 1-2 years max play out of them before aged performances force retirement a year later than it should be. is that continuity angie? when you are changing the offensive line every year or two? by bringing in MORE free agents because you can't fill the holes with young prospects you FAIL to even waste draft picks on? 2. ''It's not like you have to have five all-stars at the position...No real household names ". are you a complete idiot or do you just think we are? just because YOU have never heard of these players does that mean the rest of us are living on another plain of existence? well let's see what their OL looks like... LT diehl age 29 - 2009 pro-bowl; C o'hara age 32 - 2008, 2009 pro-bowl; RG snee age 27 - 2008 all-pro, 2008, 2009 pro-bowl. i guess you're right angie, only THREE of them are all-stars.

don't take this to the bank but i believe we are playing up on all three downs for the most part. i really haven't focused on our corners as much as other aspects so am not sure if we are getting jams at the LOS or not. in any case it is an improvement as far as scheme goes that should have been changed 5 years ago. whether the talent and coaching can turn our past cover 0 corners and safeties into productive nfl players is yet to be seen in regular season.

well then welcome to the world of rollerball. houston, houston, houston, houston......

1, that is a possibility. when it comes to the point that the quality of the game is about the same as watching nfl europe or canadian football (no disrespect intended to those leagues or it's fans. they were/are what they were/are) then what is the point? at this space in time the game is already teetering on the brink of the abyss compared to what quality of play was performed 20-30 years ago. the lack of player and coaching talent due to expansions and the changing of the rules by outside football sources to engage the attention span of imbeciles to watch games that score as many points as basketball is destroying the game. when college football is a rougher sport physically than the nfl there are serious problems that need to be reviewed. one of the biggest problems/dangers is that the new generation of nfl viewers will have no comparrisons of quality play to hold up to scrutiny and thus in a short period of time this newer generation will not even know they are seeing a second or even third rate product anymore. that is what is really sad. 2. if i could get tickets to go to a game in the weather of 2-3 weeks ago for free, i wouldn't go. watching people have heat strokes just doesn't do it for me. 3. i already buy less merchandise. but if it comes to buying into the quality of NFLE teams i'm done buying it altogether. 4. absolutely no. i believe you are dead wrong. the nfl does NOT come out ahead, it just comes out richer.

look pixote, i figure you didn't want to have a "conversation" about it when you tell me that the weather starting in the 2nd week of august is basically no different than the weather in september and expect me to believe it. i do realize there are exceptions to everything including the weather as i actually saw snowflakes in july once and 70 degree weather in january (it was also me that gave the reasons why extending the season into february or possibly march also was not a good idea). but in a normal, general sense these unusual weather patterns are aberrations. i think you are generally off on your injury statements and there is no real body of evidence to suggest most players are waiting to get operated on just to get out of training camp. could they be waiting to see if physical rehab might work in some instances before using surgery lead to you month later statements? or as i stated swelling and other bodily injuries may not be favorable conditions for doctors to operate in? ask one. i also believe you are off base, pun intended, when you state that there would be no attendance or television rights conflicts with MLB starting the season in the 2nd week of august. do you remember how the NFL and MLB adjust air time for the world series to help each in ratings and attendance? plus... even the CUBS usually aren't mathematically out of the race by that time. so now MLB is going to adjust it's games away from half it's weekend revenues at the prime time for pennant race battles for the NFL? if you want 18 games a season that is fine. i just personally hope the nfl doesn't listen to you and people of the same mind. i gave some of my reasons why 18 games is a bad idea for the quality of play and the health of the nfl as a whole and think differently.

let's have a 30 game season. that should work out for everyone.

wow, can you imagine full gear, full contact real games starting in the middle (or earlier) of august and all your starters suited up for 4 quarters in the hottest month of the summer? also it could be why they wait a month a lot of times to have surgery is to let their bodies heal as much as possible and let the swelling go down before invasive surgery? in august wouldn't the nfl now be competing with major league baseball for fans, attendance and television rights?

i forgot to mention the weather. by extending the season into february you now have the worst weather of the year for cold weather teams to contend with. this not only effects nfl play but fan attendance. it could also mean a very large play disadvantage for teams competing in colder climates.

in the 14 game past, the regular season usually ended within the first or second week of december. with a 16 game schedule which includes, a bye week, we are now ending regular season play around the 1st week of january. with an 18 game schedule and the extra bye week you suggest we are now extending the regular season nearly into february. that means post season playoffs will just about fill february up (with the wildcard game which i believe was included in the 16 game season). this leaves the superbowl very close to happening in march. this extended period of time leaves little window if/when players have offseason surgery or concussions to recover from before they start camp and prepare again for the coming regular season. this plus the normal wear and tear on the bodies, especially joint wear, of added regular/post season games leaves little time for the body to heal. the quality of play on the field is surely going to suffer both from an injury standpoint and if, as you suggest, an extension of the number of players on each roster. right now because of league expansion we are extended to the point that many players starting in the nfl today would not have even quality wise been backups thirty years ago. this is ESPECIALLY true of the skill positions such as qb which even before league expansion of the 70', 80's etc. (not EVEN mentioning the addition of the AFC in the 1960's) was a drastically low pool base for average + players. next: if you raise the rosters by 7 players to 60 as you suggest this subtracts 224 players from the market, which already is low to nonexistent in quality ball players, to fill your roster needs from other teams cuts as it stands today with a 53 man roster. the reality of the matter is there is just so much physical talent to go around. the only area nfl teams are drawing talent from has NOT expanded since the modern era of football came into being and probably long before that. this is one reason teams are drawing a lot of players out of 2nd and 3rd tier schools in the draft.

i don't agree. although the risk for a player can be extensive, pre-season or not, your premium players usually are only working a game and a half to two games max during pre-season play when you count up the actual time in. also in this time they are 'supposedly' getting into game shape where they are adjusting to actual blocking and tackling to hopefully reduce their chance of injury. i also believe you are really upping the chances to burn your players out physically sooner over the life of their career playing this many games. their chances of injury are escalated as the season wears on from the natural wear and tear on their bodies for this long of a period of time. take url's calf injury for instance. he would be nearly forced to come back sooner from injury to play in the regular season. i do agree with you there should be some kind of rookie salary decline. it's just getting way out of hand. in a perfect world i would like to see them cut the pre-season to 3 games and the regular season to 14 again. i would also like to see a lock on the number of teams in the nfl. it is already watered down talent we are seeing play with this many franchises in the league.