Lucky Luciano

more yet

triple post

another double

come on... you are purposely taking that statement way to literally. of course you are not going to take back to back qb's with a high first round pick. but if you have a average/decent+ qb on the roster (like orton with POTENTIAL or a miller quality qb with POTENTIAL) this does NOT stop you from drafting one who has a real chance at becoming a franchise qb in the first. in this vein it is the same thing that the chargers did with rivers and brees. if both turn out to be special you have a very valuable trade in your future. if not you have the best of the two to run your offense. i will state this, if you draft one 'high', i repeat, 'high' in the first round to me this does NOT stop you from drafting someone with real potential in the 2nd round down in following years until you actually HAVE that franchise qb on your squad. first read above. then understand that watching manning PLAY you could tell he had real talent as the season went on. would i have drafted someone in the following rounds who i thought could be a real franchise qb the following year? the answer is yes, until manning proved he was the real deal. then trade the player if he had talent, keep manning and do it all over again. if you think this is some kind of crazy thought process, look at what our division rivals did with brett favre as their franchise qb. they drafted and traded some pretty good qb's during his tenure who had real trade value. why? because they had the brains to look ahead. hmmmmmmm.... haven't i, others, AND you discussed this in detail on WHY lovie smith and jerry angelo will NOT be fired for 1-3 years? so no matter how bad we have been coached (ultimately it all comes down to the head coach) over the last 2+ years, no matter how bad angelo has drafted over the last 7 years, are their jobs in serious jeopardy this offseason? now why do you think that is? wow. the entire mccaskey family would have to be freakin mental vegetables to have watched, been involved running and owning in this franchise for decades, to not even get it when any fan off the street could tell them the answer. if this is correct, they should be institutionalized for their own safety and ours. on to angelo... how do you think we GOT him? HE was hired CHEAP!!! the old addum that you get what you pay for and holds true in this instance in spades. i am not even sure you could say he WAS an excellent defensive scout. he was in charge of player personnel in tampa since 1987 yet the bucs drafted HORRIBLY until mccay showed up. actually very similar to US!!! let me get this straight... are you telling me because we won 13 games in 2001 and got our asses handed to us like a hat in the playoffs that you would have passed on a pro-bowl qb like bledsoe for jim miller? are you serious? he never even started a complete season in chicago since we got him in 1999. here is some more stats i want to "throw out": in 2001 we ranked 24th in passing yards; 12th in TD's; 13th in INT's. he passed for 2299 yards and averaged 164.2 yds per game that year. this is surely enough justification to reach out for a proven pro-bowl qb in my opinion. we needed 2 things coming out of the 2001 season: 1. a pass rushing defensive end 2. a quarterback who was more than just average. i have said this before and i will say it again... this is the year we should have traded UP, not down. whether the bengles would have done it or not is another story but i WOULD have given up 2 firsts to get carson palmer or at least tried (after all we are not talking of trading out of the top 5 with them). this is not from hindsight but because this guy was the best prospect for a franchise qb since p. manning. there is no way anyone can tell me that angelo considered grossman a franchise qb, or even better than leftwich, and yet traded down and picked a DE before him. it was a cheap and safe pick for angelo. as far as wolf pressing gb to pick him? sure why not? you have favre in his PRIME at that time and it fits the plan of gb drafting qb's and trading them or at the least having good ones to back up favre. if not that then what better way to screw chicago than wolf saying that? what ever. i do have to ask... WHO thought we had our franchise qb in chicago? jerry angelo? for what accomplishments? in 2003 he wanted to groom grossman behind a guy that was a complete bust in pit. finally grossman played in 3 games (after the bears were eliminated from playoff contention) and was injured his rookie year. he followed this giant accomplishment by being seriously injured in his 3rd start (1-3) in the 2004 season. all that grossman had at that time was potential and nothing more. we went into the 2005 season with hutchinson, orton and grossman ending up with blake replacing hutch and another seriously injured grossman in preseason. how about if i talk about bringing in free agent drew brees? but then we wouldn't have wanted to damage our sure thing franchise qb, grossman's, ego considering how much he had done for us and get a pro-bowl calibre free agent in his prime. which stats are those? the ones that proved bledsoe was better than anything we had on our team during those 4 years that we didn't get him? or the stats that any competent nfl gm or president could see as plain as the nose on your face that we needed stability at this position with real talent and passed it by in the draft and free agency time and time again? BLEDSOE: I can see the argument that we should have traded for Bledsoe in 2002, or at least that we should have more seriously looked at upgrading QB, but (a) I simply would argue there were more questions about Bledsoe than what you are recalling and we were coming off a 13 win season w/ Miller. Frankly, I think there is a FAR greater argument that we should have been looking at a QB in the draft that year than adding a veteran. such as? MCNABB: But doesn't McNabb fall into the category of players you knock of for going after in the past? McNabb is an older veteran, and one w/ red flags. His play has been inconsistent in recent years, and he has had several injuries taking him out of the seasons. I would love to get McNabb, but (a) I doubt he will be available after leading his team to the postseason as he has and your nuts if you think you can get McNabb w/o guaranteeing him the starting job. You talk about adding him and letting him compete w/ Orton, but that is a joke. No way he leaves Phily for a team that doesn't offer guarantees. Further, If the reason we didn't get him was due to not making guarantees, you would blast the team for that too. chandler? he was way past his time in the nfl. stewart? he was terrible and designated as a backup before coming here behind another bad qb. so which players are you talking about? i already stated that bledsoe at 30 was a great choice. mcnabb? he is still playing at a very high level and most if not all his injuries are not throwing related. he has 2-4 good years left to play which is plenty of time in the nfl to turn a team around if you are committed. as far as getting him? i never said he was a good possibility and can't believe the eagles will part with him next season or the one after. as far as being nuts? with the stable of qb's in chicago if mcnabb didn't have enough confidence in himself to believe he is better and would win the starting job then i wouldn't want him here. so in reality THAT is a joke. One. It is just SOOO easy to say we should have traded up, but hindsight always looks easy. Sorry, but look at the absolutely insane deals made in that time period to move up. Remember Ditka giving up an entire draft, and most of the following years draft, for Ricky Williams? As opposed to now when teams beg others to take the #1 pick off their hands, the #1 pick then was like gold. I am sure you will argue we should give up whatever it took, but that is simply not living in reality. Not to mention, the #1 pick that year was Couch. Wanna consider how bad it would have been to give up say two #1 picks (2nd would have likely been a top 5 if we did that) for Couch? Two. I really think you try to pick at this to prove your point. The reality is, we did value the QB, and spent a top 15 pick on a QB. If Cade turned out to be more like McNabb, are you going to tell me you would be reflecting how we should have moved up in the draft to get couch rather than down to get the QB we wanted for better value? Come on man. It has nothing to do w/ trading up or down, but simply who we took. Three. To continue that point, you say we should have just taking Pepper at #7, but do you really think Pepper would have been even a good QB if we did? Pepper went to an ideal system, and looked great for a while. Soon after, he busted, but do you think we had a system to match Minny's? In Minny, they would max protect to keep Pepper free. And he had a pair of absolute studs to throw to, not to mention Robert Smith in the backfield. The bears had the razzle dazzle offense where we often went w/ an empty backfield, putting unbelievalbe pressure on a rookie QB, and did so w/ a bad OL and weak surrounding talent. James Freaking Allen was our best RB then. So even if we stayed put and took Pepper, or traded up and took Couch, we would have stunk just the same. Oh yea, and throw in trading for Akili Smith. The reality is, there was one great QB in that draft (McNabb) but it is TOTAL and PURE hindsight to say we should have done whatever possible to take him. 1. no that is not hindsight. THAT is why you hire COMPETENT staff including coaches, gm's and scouts. so they can give you a real educated evaluation of not only what you are getting but what you can mold him into. you stay away from the combine escelator production prospects like the akili smith's and boller's but when you do get the p. manning's and the c. palmer type players you pull the freakin trigger. does that mean you hit every time? no. maybe you get a couch or a leaf, but if you NEVER make those gambles you end up being exactly what we are today and have been for longer than anyone wants to remember!!! and most important you do like the bengles do. if you don't succeed getting one drafting high you keep trying until you do. 2. first of all don't say we did value the qb by spending a top 15 pick on one. that is plain ridiculous. we put so MUCH value on both first round qb picks we traded DOWN to get them!!! if you think the qb you picked is a franchise quality qb, and you sure as hell should, then isn't that enough for you to draft him in the spot allotted to you or even trade UP to get him????? otherwise that means that these qb's were valued less by the entire nfl than 15-22 other players INCLUDING yourself. 3. now do i get out the quiji board? hell, do you think under ditka joe montana would have been a HOF qb? does that mean you don't draft him? how about p. manning? because mora is an idiot do you pass on him too? i think the point you and this entire franchise is missing is you FIRST find the talent then build your franchise around him. Hey, I agree w/ this. I said several years ago we should hire an offensive consultant, but where you and I disagree is in the reason we don't. I think it has ZERO to do w/ money. really? then just what is the reason you don't hire even one expert or a consortium to fill a position you have failed to find in 40 years? you think guys like the walsh's or the tuna's (don't much like him but have to throw it in) or the holmgrens or anyfreakinbody that knows how to look at college talent and see the potential and groom it to be successful in the nfl will do it for nothing? so if not money then what exactly is it?

dam double posts

here's the deal... any time you get a chance to draft a qb with potential to be a franchise qb (unless you have one in his prime) you do it. then you build your offense around HIM, not the other way around. if you don't have the expertise to find good/great scouts as an owner or gm you hire someone competent who does, and hire these key personnel. you just don't sit there for years on your hands. in truth, i seriously just can't believe that even the mccaskey family is too stupid to figure this out. it just comes down to are you willing to spend extra money for a quality product that doesn't give you any more financial returns. the answer is obvious. who did we have at the helm in 2002-2006? 2002 jim miller and jeff chandler combined for 3316 yards; 2003 kordel stuart, jeff chandler and rex grossman combined for 2905 yards; 2004 chad hutchinson, craig krenzel, j. quinn and rex grossman combined for 2641 yards; 2005 orton, grossman, jeff blake combined for 2201 yards. what a freaking joke. BLEDSOE: "The slide continued into 2000's 5-11 season. While Bledsoe threw a career low 13 interceptions that year, he was sacked 45 times." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Bledsoe 1. not so sure you could say in 2000 that the pats had an "elite" offensive line. in fact bledsoe took a beating in new england. 2. he was traded to the bills in 2002 (pre-grossman) at the age of 30 and passed for over 4000 yards and made the pro-bowl. he followed that with 3 more years of solid football until 2006 when he fell off the charts. would the pats have been receptive to a trade with a team outside of their own division in 2002? absolutely if we had made an offer. could we still have drafted a qb in the first round to groom behind bledsoe? absolutely. even picking up FA bledsoe after his tenure in buffalo would have been a good stop gap move especially when you look at the talent on our squad in 2005. an always injured grossman who had proved nothing and we could have groomed him to replace bledsoe if he was good enough. MIRIER: mirer was not old when we traded for him. he was about 27 years old and in his 4th year in seattle. he was sitting on the freakin bench the year before we traded for him with a personal record that year, 1996, of 2 and 7!!! we traded a top 5 pick for a qb who was benched with a total of 20 wins in FOUR YEARS!! this guy had ONE season where he even played in 16 games (his rookie season 6-10) AND one partial season where he was above 500 and that was in 1995 with a record of 7-6-0!!! the bear personnel who figured that trade out should have been fired, rehired, and fired again. then made to permanently disappear. MCNABB: i feel the same about mcnabb as i did about bledsoe. hire him and let the best qb play on sunday. if it's not orton (who i do like and think he may turn into a good qb) then draft another talented qb high in the draft and let orton compete. if we got 4 years out of mcnabb, that is four years we have a real chance to win a superbowl and time to groom his replacement. what ever hatley was, he chose to ignore the most important position in football. he traded down to get cade mcnown instead of up to get mcnabb or couch. in FACT he could have picked pepper at #7 but didn't have the guts to pick that high. just curious... what could the scouts and hately been looking at on game film of mcnown? the guy was a PR pick and not picked on the quality of his play in my opinion. as far as angie goes, he should have been sat down and if he couldn't figure out offensive drafting then hire someone who could to help him. if he wouldn't go along with that then it was time to move on. it was a propaganda sell to the fans for 40 years. it is/was cheaper to build a defense than pay for a good offense, qb's or wr's. the difference is you don't win championships with defense alone, but you make more money.

agree and disagree. before jim finks '74-'82/jerry vanisi, along with muggs halas, it was not a top priority to draft one that high or simply PAY one the money good ones were getting. between 1960 and 1973 the bears drafted 3 qb's in rounds 2-3 (not a SINGLE 1st round pick). 1960 round 3 don meredith; 1969 round 2 bobby douglas; 1973 gary huff round 3. is it any wonder we were never in the running for a title in that superbowl era? the only priority put on this position was by finks drafting mcmahon, a top 5 pick, in 1982 after building his offensive line, with 3 offensive tackles picked in the first round, d. lick, t. albrecht and k. van horne. jerry vanisi, 83-86, continued drafting offensive line talent by drafting jim covert T first round in '83 along with guards thayer 4th rd, and bortz 8th rd. after vanisi's stint in chicago mikey 1987-98 (also wanny took control of the gm position in his first stint and worked with the boy genius in regards to our drafts) took over the reins. this imbecile drafted ONE first day qb, harbaugh rd. 1 '87, in 12 years, and the likes of b. snyder rd. 7 '89, p. justin rd. 7 '91, w. furrer rd. 4 '92, m. moreno rd. 7 '98. the only redeeming factor was bringing in free agent eric kramer who was the 2nd best free agent at the that position at that time '94. this move was completely offset by bringing in rick mirer in one of the most stupid trades in modern football to replace HIM in '97. now we can get to our recent dilema... we traded down, instead of UP, to get mcnown in '99, we traded down to get grossman in 2003, instead of UP in the first round AGAIN. then we draft a head scratching pick in craig krenzel, 5th rd., and finally we get a decent 4th round pick in orton. so i agree the scouting has been bad for over the last 20 years. but in my opinion it also comes from cheap owners, poor management, and poor coaching. the unwillingness to pay for more scouts, or better ones, BAD gm's whose mindset appeared to be that qb's are not as important as defense and a running game which is exactly what we got. add to this we never hired top offensive minded coaches to go along with it. each and every one of these "veterans" were either OLD and on the last leg of a career or came with serious baggage and spotty careers. it can be said we passed on drew brees and we also passed on bledsoe in his first round free agency from the pats. these were top of the line qb's who were free agents and carried no compensation to their former teams yet we never even gave them a look. you have to put miller, who was a backup, whose injury MAY have been the deciding factor in his career. this i don't agree with: you mention our offensive line and not drafting at these positions. this is only true when our very own jerry angelo takes over the position of gm. prior to this we have drafted many linemen and a portion of them first day picks. the problem was that either our scouts were terrible/not enough or whoever was making the decisions to draft them was horrendous in the later decades. finally, the half hearted tries and bad football decisions we have made in this franchise for 40+ years are simply nowhere near enough. to think that any corporation/business can go 40+ years and fail to obtain one obvious piece of the puzzle that would make them successful is beyond comprehension. so no, i don't believe "luck" has a damned thing to do with it.

sorry for double post

agree and disagree. before jim finks '74-'82/jerry vanisi, along with muggs halas, it was not a top priority to draft one that high or simply PAY one the money good ones were getting. between 1960 and 1973 the bears drafted 3 qb's in rounds 2-3 (not a SINGLE 1st round pick). 1960 round 3 don meredith; 1969 round 2 bobby douglas; 1973 gary huff round 3. is it any wonder we were never in the running for a title in that superbowl era? the only priority put on this position was by finks drafting mcmahon, a top 5 pick, in 1982 after building his offensive line, with 3 offensive tackles picked in the first round, d. lick, t. albrecht and k. van horne. jerry vanisi, 83-86, continued drafting offensive line talent by drafting jim covert T first round in '83 along with guards thayer 4th rd, and bortz 8th rd. after vanisi's stint in chicago mikey 1987-98 (also wanny took control of the gm position in his first go and worked with the boy genius in regards to our drafts) took over the reins. this imbecile drafted ONE first day qb, harbaugh rd. 1 '87, in 12 years, and the likes of b. snyder rd. 7 '89, p. justin rd. 7 '91, w. furrer rd. 4 '92, m. moreno rd. 7 '98. the only redeeming factor was bringing in free agent eric kramer who was the 2nd best free agent at the that position at that time '94. this move was completely offset by bringing in rick mirer in one of the most stupid trades in modern football to replace HIM in '97. now we can get to our recent dilema... we traded down, instead of UP, to get mcnown in '99, we traded down to get grossman in 2003, instead of UP in the first round AGAIN. then we draft a head scratching pick in craig krenzel, 5th rd., and finally we get a decent 4th round pick in orton. so i agree the scouting has been bad for over the last 20 years. but in my opinion it also comes from cheap owners, poor management, and poor coaching. the unwillingness to pay for more scouts, or better ones, BAD gm's whose mindset appeared to be that qb's are not as important as defense and a running game which is exactly what we got. add to this we never hired top offensive minded coaches to go along with it. each and every one of these "veterans" were either OLD and on the last leg of a career or came with serious baggage and spotty careers. it can be said we passed on drew brees and we also passed on bledsoe in his first round free agency from the pats. these were top of the line qb's who were free agents and carried no compensation to their former teams yet we never even gave them a look. you have to put miller, who was a backup, whose injury MAY have been the deciding factor in his career. this i don't agree with: you mention our offensive line and not drafting at these positions. this is only true when our very own jerry angelo takes over the position of gm. prior to this we have drafted many linemen and a portion of them first day picks. the problem was that either our scouts were terrible/not enough or whoever was making the decisions to draft them was horrendous in the later decades. finally, the half hearted tries and bad football decisions we have made in this franchise for 40+ years are simply nowhere near enough. to think that any corporation/business can go 40+ years and fail to obtain one obvious piece of the puzzle that would make them successful is beyond comprehension. so no, i don't believe "luck" has a damned thing to do with it.

i certainly will not be the one to say baboonich is not a major problem. but... while everyone is quick to point out our defense carried us to a superbowl in '06, our defense had GLARING weaknesses even before we made our run at a title. those specifically being our corner play AND us fielding only ONE safety (mike brown). against top competition passing attacks our weakness at corner was compounded as was demonstrated in the superbowl with authority. the only saving grace was that our d-line was playing top notch ball and in many instances diminished our poor play (playing off the LOS) most of the season. so yea, denny green wasn't far off in his estimation of the scheme and talent we fielded. we were overcompensating in one area of defense for lack of talent in another. i would like to emphasize the reason, again, why our corners play so far off the LOS. it is because they do NOT have the skill sets to play bump and run coverage NOT because lovie see's this as a viable solution to a defensive scheme. it was tried when lovie got here and was EVEN tried this season. peanut, vasher, graham and any other corner currently on this squad consistanly got/gets burned for big yards and TD's when they play it tight with speedy receivers. so the ONLY option left is to play back and hope you get a pass rush to compensate for this weakness and keep the receivers in front of you. unless everything i have read is incorrect, then yes,, it is very necessary. it only stands to reason. with the new 5 yrd chuk rule it is imparative to get your hands on the receiver on or close to the LOS. otherwise he has a guaranteed untouched route every time the ball is snapped in which case you are totally reactionary and the qb's timing is no different than in practice. our corners are starting out backpeddling and giving them a cushion between 5 and 10 yds, even in the red zone which is mindboggling, which they will and DO take nearly every time using slant routes, curls, go routes etc. not to mention any extra yards after catch. the 5 and 10 yard zone toward the center of the field is where they SHOULD be moving the receivers into so they CAN be covered by the linebackers and deep safeties after disrupting their routes and timing. THAT is how the corners should play in the cover 2. i have said this before a number of times and given links to confirm it. here is another one i just found....... http://phi.scout.com/a.z?s=67&p=2&c=630910 i don't totally agree with everything that this guy said (i still believe in order for the safeties to cover a lot of ground and even play up, strong, and drop into zones they need SPEED and good coverage skills!!) but the basics of the cover 2 are there. i agree that there appears to be a lot more talent than was shown by our play for the last 2 + years. and YES i agree our coaches have failed even using this defunct type of defense to be creative or instructive enough to give us any edge at all! there is NO adjustments or tweaking any system we have seen from this staff except what they went over in practice which may or may not work for a single series or even leftovers from training camp. game adjustments for individual opponents and preparations are nearly nonexistant and THAT is definately a coaching failure. sure it still can work at times. this "cover 2" system has been around since the 70's. it came into focus during the 80's - 90's to counter the west coast offense (specifically the 9ers). the problem with it is you have to mix aggressive play (i agree again) with this basic prevent type of defense to be effective or to "disguise" it as you say. you also need the correct personnel to run it effectively. we don't and that is why we give up those 6-10 yard passes nearly every down EVEN when our d-line is hitting on all cylinders. if you remember the 46 defense, the counter was a short 3 step drop and quick release (ask moreno if that works). that holds true when scheming against the cover 2 sets. the d-line just doesn't have time to get to the qb before he hits the slant/whatever for a good gain and ESPECIALLY when the receiver comes off the line untouched and has a pocket in the zone emptied out of defenders. one final comment: yes we do use the cover 2 around 30%. that means we more than likely will use it with a 3rd and +5 down, in passing situations, against 2 minute offenses, and/OR against a pass oriented offense. we are virtually fooling nobody and that is the problem you, me and half the world has against this coaching staff and the cover 2 system. it and THEY have been figured out.

it comes down to 2 things... 1. we don't have the player personnel to run the cover 2 correctly. we don't have any corners who can play bump and run, we don't have fast safeties (especially at free safety) who can cover, and NOW we don't have a d-line to rush the qb. yet with all this we see no changes in philosophy by our coaching staff on how to utilize the talent we do have. 2. MOST importantly, the cover 2 defense just plain doesn't work anymore and hasn't for the last 3-5 years. it's been figured out by offenses how to beat it. the problem is our coach is not good enough to change the scheme because it is all he knows. without it what can lovie contribute as a head coach? he knows nothing about offense and nothing but the cover 2 type of defense. don't you think this is the main reason lovie keeps wanting to hire cronies who ran the same system as he did/does or is tutoring assistants under him to do the same?

1. ted phillips - great bean counter and cap guru. accomplishments: great stadium deal if you are the owner and cheap help. all designed to keep money in owners pockets. 2. jerry angelo - cheap first time GM who is great as a cap guru and, as phillips right hand man, helps keep money in owners pockets. accomplishments: great cap management which helps put cash in owners pockets but after 7 years of drafts has nothing/nothing special to show for it on either side of the ball. hired the cheapest inexperienced coaches and staff possible and sees no need to change any of them after 2 pathetic back-to-back seasons of regressive mediocrity. won't rock the salary boat so gets an "attaboy" from ted and friends. 2. lovie smith - another cheap DC hired by chicago to train as a head coach in the nfl. no qualifying or special accolades prior to his hire in chicago. accomplishments: doesn't seem to learn from mistakes and it's 'his way or the highway' as far as staff goes. doesn't appear to have any idea what an offense should do or even look like. defers all decisions to whatever offensive coordinator seems to be in place. a defensive dinosaur who is living in the past do to lack of creativity and vision. has had some fleeting success in one of the weakest divisions in the entire nfl and embarrassed the franchise by showing they had no business in a superbowl against opponents with real talent running the show. another capable smith to take control of the titanic. 3. ron turner - a cheap offensive coordinator coming off of complete failure as a college coach. DOES have some experience at his job, the one he presently holds, with the same franchise. no others of importance bothered to inquire. accomplishments: has shown no creativity in designing a creative offense and for the life of him couldn't make game time adjustments. a contrarian who consistently out-thinks himself. has had to use sub-par talent, thanks to the GM, but also refuses to replace players who underperform (grossman, entire wide receiver corp, offensive linemen and running backs) with unknown players on team. rarely gets full potential out of any player or puts them in a position to succeed. how much of an influence has he had in playing grossman so long, getting rid of t. jones, never giving hanie any game reps (when game is realistically over), playing metcalf and sitting garza, keeping mckie as a viable fullback, sitting olson, never playing any receivers other than who were considered starters out of training camp, playing a one armed guard while sitting his replacement, etc. etc. etc. so... is it talent or HIM? the chicken or the egg? 4. babich - another cheap prospect hired by our gm who has no experience at his position. a yes man to our HC who has no creativity in his entire portfolio. a man who was not good at what he did previously and rewarded for it with a bigger title and a raise. accomplishments: turned an average + defense into one of the worst in the entire nfl. couldn't make game adjustments if a gun was held to his head. continually puts his players out of position and utilizes their weaknesses against them. a laughable solution to a professional defense in the 21st century. SUMMARY: in a perfect (sane) world... angelo would be fired and replaced by someone with better credentials and a better understanding of the draft and free agent talent. if that person were not out there this season, his power would be cut in half and someone who understands offensive talent hired to compliment him until that person DOES become available. lovie would be fired and shannahan hired immediately for 'BIG' HC money. it's not a question of shoving lovie off the ledge as it is improving your team immediately by huge strides for years to come. if not shannahan then holmgren next season. just SOMEONE who has experience as a HC AND is offensively minded in an nfl geared for offense to win. turner would be history. hire shannahan (if lovie for some reason stays) for big cash to run this circus. if not him then someone else with a lot of OC talent. babich should be launched into the sun and replaced by a reasonably intelligent baboon if a real DC is not available. finally - replace the mccaskey's with someone who is willing to really spend money to bring a winning team to chicago. scrooge mcduck at the very least is a consideration.

1. it took a good+ qb in mcmahon to even get us to the superbowl. defense does not win championships in todays nfl, good+ qb's do. 2. the nfl is NOT the same game as it was 20 years ago. the new rules are hard facts that the nfl is geared to score a lot of points on offense. the OL lines up off the LOS in passing situations, the corners are unable to even TOUCH receivers past 5 yds, the qb's are treated like flag football recipients, and most of all look at the offensive line play. 20 years ago every lineman on every play would have been called for holding. now they grab the defensive player and hold him by his jersey when in the past they were unable to even put their hands on them without a flag. 3. if you will notice, nearly every running back that puts up consistent big numbers in the nfl does so with a good+ passing attack to compliment him and get the safeties and corners out of the box. just running the ball into the line does not work like it did in payton's day. even then how many superbowls were we in with a hall of fame rb and one of the best defenses in the entire nfl? 4. finally, the giants have a good qb, the ravens have a good qb, colts, steelers, eagles, cards etc. also, look at every team that has won multiple superbowls over the las 30 years. this should say it all.

i totally disagree. until chicago can even evolve into the 2nd half of the 20th century, let alone the 21st, by fielding a real qb that can win games on his own merit they will fail no differently than they have for 40 + years. the nfl has changed the rules of the game. if you don't have a very good + qb you will be lucky if you win a sb every 25 years and even then by accident. again disagree. you need an excellent qb who can get the ball to serious wide out threats who stretch the field. if not you will play against 8 and 9 man fronts and your running game will fail. again disagree. bring in someone who will bump heads with lovie and give us a new perspective on defense. an 0 and 16 coach who's defense ranked in the bottom half of the nfl is NOT the answer. maybe better than what we have but still not the answer. forget a college OC. bring in shannahan and pay him like a head coach to stay. or for that matter MAKE him the head coach. again we have a once in a decade chance to get a real offensive minded coach who actually has been a good HC. let's not fumble that ball angie.

CAN turner and hire shannahan. in fact you can CAN lovie and hire shannahan. pay him some big bucks to take over our offense and he will be first in line when lovie hits the bricks. dreaming yet again... in reality we will see a chance for a real coach, and an offensive minded one at that, slip through our fingers.

the blitz's by our LB's moving up on the LOS before snap is beyond pathetic. we have, as you stated, disguised absolutely nothing. if you look at the majority of our blitz's it is url (occasionally our safeties) trying to move up in the guard/center gap and getting dragged into the wash. all this does is make our defense play man coverage and open up zones for slants and curls. the major majority of the time we don't even HURRY the freakin qb let alone sack him. in a 4/3 we should be running normal AND delayed blitz's up the middle using both our strong safety and middle backer while playing a traditional lineup for our backers. we should be alternating blitz's coming off the end using our outside backers like briggs and roach and compliment this scheme with our free safety and corners. if you remember back when we used marshall and wilson very effectively in mixing up where and when our blitz's came from off the edge. even stunting an outside backer at the snap has been successful in the past (of course lovie has never heard of this) and rolling him into the line between tackle and guard or the guard/center slot where the middle backer position was. defensive line stunts are also effective in creating holes to blitz through yet we rarely if ever see it. the bottom line is there is no creativity in how we attack an offense. any team in the nfl can watch one or two games of film and scheme against us for an entire season.

here is another major problem i find on defense... time after time after time we move our backers up to the LOS. they either blitz between the center/guard or usually back out and move into a zone etc. this is complete madness. babich AND lovie should be slapped silly for this. 1. we aren't fooling ANYONE with this crap afer 15 games. in fact we weren't fooling anyone after TWO!! 2. we have just neutralized our LB's from moving up and down the line to keep the OL guessing if, and more importantly, WHERE they may blitz from. 3. we have moved our LB's out of position to do what they are designed to do in a 4-3 defense. now our backers are moving backward at the snap of the ball rather than reacting FORWARD to gain momentum AND the correct angle to make tackles not only on running plays but short passing zones. 4. the blitzes up the middle DO NOT WORK 95% of the time we use it!!! now our coaches many ask... where does it work more effectively? FROM THE OUTSIDE YOU FREAKIN IDIOTS!!! why do you think manning has had success from out there!! yet we continue to pound square pegs into round holes because they are too stupid to adjust or figure it out. we just continue to blitz up the middle with our backers already on the LOS and our opponents already having made adjustments to freakin BLOCK them!! use some FREAKIN safety AND corner blitzes inside out to mix it up and keep them guessing for god's sake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

from the schedule on nfl website all games are on sunday the 28th including a sunday night matchup with denver and san diego. the den sd game is listed as a monday night game on the picksheet page. is this incorrect and if so we don't fill in the total points section for the sunday night game? thanks

i have to say i have never watched this guy play but it seems he is the real deal in a top corner according to everything i have read. he has great size at 6'2 and could cover any big receivers in the game. he has good speed and from what i have read EXCELLENT footwork and technique. a true cover corner. we passed on woodson 3 years ago to our regret. this guy at age 27 seems like he would be a top free agent for us for years and if our staff has ANY brains they would do as you stated and what i stated years ago in moving peanut to free safety. this would immediately improve TWO critical positions in our defense. i am so impressed with what i have read that if the trade deadline isn't over i'd offer the raiders a 6th and 7th round pick to keep him out of free agency. if he hits the market i would make an all out effort to grab this guy up and then go after the best receiver we can find. we certainly have the money in our coffers with an extra $10 mil rollover. great job finding this guy ASHKUM!!

the top priorities for this offseason are... 1. free safety 2. OL - guard AND right tackle 3. wide receiver 4. veteran backup quarterback if there is a killer free safety in the draft pick him in round 1. if not find a better than good one in free agency if possible. draft guard either in the 1st or second round. draft a right tackle in the second or third. if boldin is the answer at wide out get him with this years #1 and another first day pick next year, then mix up the above need scenario. we certainly have the cash for boldin. the mccaskey's have already fattened their pockets with the interest on our $10 mil 7th round cornerback (who was that guy again?) so the cap rollover should pay for at least half his guaranteed salary upfront. then we need a fa vet backup at qb to replace grossman.

i STRONGLY disagree. quite frankly we and just about every cover 2 team plays that set 40% or less not to mention over the last number of years this system has been figured out and needs serious tweeking to be effective. that means you are playing 'basic' man coverage for the majority of time your defense is on the field. in my opinion at LEAST one good cover corner is needed if you want a good pass defense. that is why passing on charles woodson was a critical mistake angie made. with a woodson type cover corner we could have moved peanut to free safety (or even if they were stupid keep him as your #2 cb) and get by with an average + #2 like vasher or graham. you also need an all-pro quality free safety for this system to work with even average corners. we don't have the safeties and our corners are below average which compounds the problem. read above in regards to a shut down corner. also, in our scheme the corner is NOT expected to play off the LOS. i don't know where you came up with that but it is not true in most instances if you have the right personel. the corners in this system are SUPPOSED to play up where they can put hands on the receivers (bump and run) at the LOS to slow him up and move him into the center of the field where your LB and safety zones pick him up. THAT is why you need a fast/smart free safety to be able to give support to the corners by covering a lot of ground. and yes, you are right that the corners should be good tacklers and are used to support the run and tillman excels in that aspect. but i have to point out that the reason peanut/vasher do NOT play up is because they are bad at doing so because they can't contain or play with the speedsters not because lovie would like his corners playing 10 yds off the LOS.

here is my two cents worth... i don't think tillman overall is an above average corner and here is why: it has been talked about by me and others for years that peanut can't cover the quick off the line wideouts or the speedsters. in this aspect he is below average as a corner. where i believe he is, or at least used to be, above average was covering the big players who came into the league at that time like moss. he was big enough and physical enough to do a very good job covering them. so this plays him out as average, at best, in regards to covering receivers at this time in the league. also, the league rules have changed even more hampering this type of physical corner play peanut was good at. i do believe as you do that at fs he would be an excellent addition. he has enough speed to play fs, he has size and the physical aspects to excel in this position. he also, in my opinion, is good enough to play tight and actually cover receivers/te's in a free safety role in contrary to what az stated. note: if i am not mistaken (and i could be) he was actually a safety in college who played corner in his final year due to injury of a team mate. and of course we knew better so we continued to force square pegs into round holes and make him a corner. finally... peanut is one of my favorite players. like m. brown i see him giving his ALL on game day and will play through injury. i don't see him taking plays off or dogging it. he is a tough player who really takes pride in what he does even if his physical skills can't match up to the job he is asked to do. i feel this organization has done him a great disservice by not having the foresight or brains to see his true calling at safety or even playing him in a swing cb/free safety position. one last item, anyone who has a tattoo of mr. peanut on his arm can't be all bad.

you don't feel orton can do this then i assume? if that is the case where are you going to find this qb that "could" get him the ball? in the draft? 1. we never draft high enough to get a primo prospect. should we trade up to get one? angie would have a coronary if he moved up an inch in the first round. even when we do have a top ten pick we trade down anyway. angelo couldn't pick a good qb if his name was carved in his forehead. 2. free agency? those chances come once in a generation. example: brees. any quality qb in his prime gets signed, period. you wouldn't trade for an all-pro de without sure thing dt"s? where would you get the money for 2 excellent+ DT's and an elite free agent DE? would you have traded for walter jones in his prime even without an elite qb? for reggie white even without all-pro tackles? i sure would have. you HAVE to be able to draft very well (are you listening angie?) but to get a team over the top you may have to take an elite player when you can get him and build around him with a 3 year plan to win it all.

good analysis noots. a couple of comments: not sure if it wasn't payne who cleaned briggs off of petersen in that long run. maybe not? orton... while a poor performance, the tone was set with the receivers continuous dropping of balls that were directly in their hands. this stopped at least a couple of drives and put our offense on the defensive continuously. payne... is one of the worst tacklers i have ever seen. at least doug plank, another poor tackler who worked well with the sure tackling of fencik, could hit hard enough to at least knock em down while payne just seems to bounce off. also arm tackling big backs and te's above the waist is becoming almost laughable. coaching... this is one poor coaching staff in my opinion. their game plans are as predictable as a high school history book. turner must be a lifelong contrarian. they can't seem to correct mistakes that players continually make game after game that should have been corrected in their rookie training camp (tackling techniques like payne and now graham not to mention a multitude of others). their control (management) of the clock has been atrocious since lovie came to chicago and is only getting worse. their decision making has hit an all time low when you decide to not only run the ball up the middle at the goal line against two all-pro wide body tackles instead of play action or rollouts but actually going for the 4th down td in a game like this when you could have put yourself in a more comfortable lead before halftime is mindboggling incompetence.

ok, ok, let's say you were a gm or someone in charge of player acquisition. you wouldn't make any trades unless you thought it would make you win the superbowl that specific year? not saying you are completely wrong and agree a lot of trades don't work out, but can i assume you would be against an a. bouldin (wr cards) trade? or picking up a seriously good qb in the past? or a killer de?