Lucky Luciano

first of all he is/was behind another starting tackle in dallas if i am not mistaken. second and most important.... this is NOT the same type of defense we run in chicago. there is NO comparison between what they run and a cover 2.

first, i never said tank was "elite". i said he was a good #2 tackle and better than what we have and in my opinion it is a large PART of the reason we get no push up the middle. and who disagreed with you or nfo? now, are you saying rivera stunted more than babs and that's the reason why we get no push up the middle anymore? if so show me the game stats that there was more stunting by rivera and that has caused a drop off of pressure from our tackles on the qb.

hold that phone a little tighter, YOU'RE the one who said there was not much drop off from dusty to tank! does the unreliability of dusty staying healthy skew the actual fact that production from dusty doesn't equal that of tank over a 3 year period? so then what you are saying is that it takes TWO of our tackles to equal one tank? one to stop the run and one to rush the passer? if harrison is so great why isn't HE starting? my bad on missing the two. i am doing both. first: it was stupid letting him go (i DON'T want to start that type of thread again so take it for what it's worth) second: if it takes TWO players to equal one, that's not a loss to you?? that's like saying that mark anderson and alex brown equals richard dent.

huh?? that makes NO sense at all. don't you think the production of key players are reflected by the guys in the trenches next to them?? you say our de's were not better because of tank. i contend that one of the major problems of our de's is they are NOT getting any help by our tackles push up the middle!!! the qb's are NOT getting flushed out of the pocket so our de's can GET their hands on them. as it stands qb's have a solid ring of offensive bodies forming a pocket to step up INTO!! look up the sack stats since tank left. a. brown: 2004 - 6 sacks 2005 - 6 sacks 2006 - 7 sacks 2007 (no tank) 4.5 sacks 2008 9no tank) 3 sacks after 1/2 season walley: 2004 - 5 sacks 2005 - 10 sacks 2006 (injury year?) 6.5 sacks 2007 - (no tank) 9 sacks 2008 - (no tank) 1.5 sacks anderson: 2006 - 12 sacks 2007 - (no tank) 5 sacks 2008 - (no tank) 0 sacks could it be that tank and tommie together got enough penetration to, at the least, harass the qb? hmmm sorry, but this has nothing to do with the push your tackles get in the center of the line. you are entitled to your opinion as am i. but i think there would be a difference with a tackle that has that initial quicknes/burst of speed along with the power to push your guards and tackles back into the pocket. with dusty we just haven't seen it.

ok, what is the biggest problem on defense this season? if you said rushing the passer you get a cigar. let's look at tanks stats in chicago: 2004 - 1 start played in 16 games - 12 tackles, 9 solo, 3 assists - .5 sacks 2005 - 4 games started and played in 16 - 25 tackles, 19 solo and 6 assists - FIVE sacks with 2 passes defended 2006 - 14 games and 10 starts - 26 tackles, 22 solo, 4 assists - 3.5 sacks, 1 safety, 1 pass defended hmmmmm that's NINE sacks in 3 season and THREE passes defended!!!!!!!1 now let's look at our friend dusty: 2006 - 0 games played 2007 - 1 game played, 1 game started - 1 tackle, 1 solo - 0 sacks 2008 - 8 games played, 8 games started - 22 tackles, 18 solo, 1 assist - 0 sacks hmmmm, NO sacks, NO passes defended now, tell me WHO was the bigger contributor to what ails this franchise?

sorry but i just have to disagree on multiple aspects. i DON'T believe dusty is even close to the production we got out of tank as our #2 tackle. tank was good not only at stopping the run but putting pressure on the qb. he not only had pretty good speed for a guy that big but was quick off the snap and had a lot of push up the middle. how many times have you seen dusty knocking down an opponents thrower? so to me that makes dusty a one dimensional tackle, at least at this point in his career, and one not even as good as keith traylor at stopping the run. rivera? what does rivera have to do with quickness and power coming out of the blocks for a defensive tackle to get push up the middle? it's not like we are playing a totally different scheme since rivera left and especially the tackle position. we still are putting them into the gaps. as far as the d as a whole i agree. we need/ed a dc like rivera who isn't a yes man and has more options in his bag of tricks.

to me fisher is the real deal and in my opinion the best head coach in the entire nfl. the guy can coach teams with and without talent, not to mention he can actually coach players to be better than they are. after the superbowl they were in cap hell and had to dump all their money players yet fisher got the absolute most out of the talent he had. he also seems to be able to bring in talented coordinators and coaching personnel that just plain get the job done. sighhhhh..... at the time we were looking around for a HC and ended up with jauron, i believe, i was hoping there would have been a way we could have offered fisher the moon to leave the titans. i think that is the same year they re-upped his contract.

i really don't want to bring up the tank debates again but i have to say i think it was a mistake letting him go. some food for thought... could tank missing in action in chicago have anything to do with how our d-line and especially t. harris has played since he left? hmmmmmm, i wonder.

i really hope you are right but i wouldn't count on it. the titans have a real defense that can not only get to the qb but plays the pass well. they will be sending the dogs and unless our o-line has a pro-bowl day look for a lot of pressure and/or sacks. this is the worst case nightmare scenario for any qb coming into his first game of the year. man do i wish fisher was the HC in chicago.

i agree... the talking heads, including hampton, are off base on this one. who gives two $%!&'$ WHO spikes the freakin ball.

here's the deal... at this point grossman is one of the best backup, #2 qb's, in the nfl. this is not competition for our starting job anymore. everyone should really be happy we have this quality of a backup in chicago. especially when we look back at the quinn's and burris's that have started here. that said, he is in all probability going to play like a #2 and have ups and downs like any other backup qb in the league. to boo him or complain about a #2 qb's play etc. unless it becomes consistently atrocious is just plain silly. if it comes to that point, our coaching staff should get the boo's for not replacing him by that time with another backup, not grossman.

i have to disagree with *reservations. if you look at our needs as a team vs. individual positions drafted, 2007 is a poor draft for the health of our franchise. round 1 i expect very good to excellent starters. round 2 i expect good to very good starters. round 3 i expect good+ starters/backups who may take a year or two to develop into quality starters. here is why i question this... offense: linemen - without any doubt we were at critical mass to draft offensive linemen. we virtually had no left tackle, our left guard remembers the maine, our center is aging fast, our right guard has played average, and we have a good+ right tackle playing the wrong position (LOT) and is himself getting up in age. it's innexcusable for a gm to not to take this into account!! to draft ONE lineman in the 4th round, a smaller replacement projected to play center in probably the strongest position on our aging offensive line, is mindboggling. if you want quality players you draft tackles in rounds 1-2 and quality guards in rounds 2-3. rounds 4-5 for project guards and good depth. quarterback - was also a real need. we were going into the 2007 season with an eratic, oft injured grossman whose contract was UP at the end of the season. his backup was griese, an aging vet nobody would project as a quality starter for the long haul, and orton a young qb who had played average at best the previous year. a first day pick, if the quality was there, was certainly warranted. if you want quality players you draft qb's on the first day. wide receiver? - the only real threat to play #1 was on the last year of his contract. it could be said this would have been a wasted pick without any real qb in our future and maybe so. running back - we were set with our 5th pick in the draft and even let a producing free agent running back, jones, leave. so that left us solid at that position with peterson and any ham and egg free agent to fill in at #3. tight end: fairly solid but not spectacular at that point. usually picked in rounds 3-4 unless one is exceptional. defense: defensive ends - good to very good DE's with plenty of depth. brown, ogy, anderson, odoniji. no need what-so-ever. tackles - all pro harris, tank a good+ tackle plus a lot of depth. no need there for a first day pick. linebackers - probably the most solid position on our entire team. all-pro's briggs and url with an average hilly, and plenty of depth even if briggs was in the final year of his contract. safeties - this was the only position on defense that warranted a first day pick. manning was failing to fill in the free safety spot and brown was always injured. this is a critical position in the defense we run. cornerback - again a solid starting crew in vasher and peanut. no first day priority. that leaves us with offensive need at the top of the list and safety for the first day. and what do we do? other than olson, a no brainer pick in the first round, we draft at every position of strength on our team. we draft bazuin, an injured de from a small school in round 2, a position we are in no need at all, we draft okwo in round 3 a physical reach at a position we are strongest in, and our 2nd pick in the 3rd round we pick a small runningback from a small school who projects as a special team player due to his size in another very strong position on our team. this does not lead to "panning out very well", in my opinion, when you ignore completely the real needs of your team on the first day. - Olsen + (looks to be breaking out) - a solid pick but a no brainer as he dropped further than expected for this good of a player. - Bazuin - (el busto) - a complete mistake drafting not only a player of this calibre from a small school but a defensive end at all. - Okwo - (el busto but Angelo did go get Nick Roach who has looked very good on special teams) - a REACH for a player of this talent into a position of strength on our defense. - Wolfe + (leads special teams in tackles this yr; just scored his 1st TD) - again another reach for a player whose physical aspects project him as a special teams player or at best a #2 runningback. in my opinion, you DON'T draft first day players to be special team players or for depth!!! these should be the quality potential all-pro pro-bowl calibre talent. 2nd day picks: i question angelo on trading down from higher picks to draft these late round players in the 7th round when we usually just cut them. where is the value in that? anyway... - Payne + (starting and leading the team in tackles and interceptions) a decent 5th round pick at a need position. so far he is playing average at best with a lot of room for imporvement. - Graham + (has started last 3 games and is a special teams stud) - another decent 5th round pick. the problem does rise as to whether we needed another defensive back or offensive lineman more. - McBride + (started 9 games last yr and did a very good job in relief last week) - again a good pick at this position in the draft (7th round) so on a final note, first day picks round 1-3 are critical picks to get right. not only is this where you are putting up major portions of your salary cap, but is where you find the best athletes you expect to be QUALITY starters. this is where angelo has failed to a major degree. *it's too early to give any of these players a true grade as to their value at this time.

although not entirely accurate there is a lot of truth to that statement. i know in the past we have adjusted our defense to stop the run vs. passing teams but... even throughout those games we seemed to lack adjustments when we actually stopped the run and were getting killed by a passing attack when the other team changed tactics. i think a great example of what hampton has said is us moving our backers up to the LOS. it seems they worked on this scheme before the season started to stop mannings audible passing attack in our opening game. it worked. THEN they continued to keep running this same set throughout the rest of the games even after other teams seem to have found the answer on how to exploit it. another problem with the backers up in a 5-6 man front is our blitz packages are extremely limited as to where our blitzing backers can come from. in other words we seem to show our hand at where the pressure could/would come from. plus, up the middle our success at pressuring the qb with a blitz has been nominal at best. it seems when we blitz our backers OR corners/safeties from the outside we have had more success. EDIT: i would also like to point out it nearly eliminates a delayed blitz by our backers, especially url, as the timing is all wrong to do so and this has had some success in the past. i think it also 'could' be said that we may be causing more fatigue than is necessary with all this movement to our key players always moving up and backpedaling out and especially our MLB who has to cover deep zones in cover 2 sets. it also could be said that our backers are moving back at the snap when they should be moving up or laterally to make plays.

i can see trying to put a good spin on someone knocking your players when they are struggling, but this may be over the top. lovie... are you serious??? he asks us to look at the last game after stating we got some good pressure. good pressure on who? matt ryan was in a bubble the entire game. does he think we are blind, stupid or both?? if not he has some serious problems. haley... rounding into shape? he is back to his old self? our defensive line LOOKED like they were dancing with the stars the entire game!!! if harris is back to his old self and this is the performance we are going to expect from him throughout his career, this is another angelo bust. this is plain scary hearing nonsense like this from our coaches.

sorry, but NO we don't. let me clarify this... i am specifically talking about our defensive backs as should have been clear in my post. our d-line and backers are a different story. you certainly can't believe that half a defense (and even that half has some serious problems) that fits this scheme is considered adequate to play a cover 2. i don't care what angie drafted for since lovie arrived. the point is the corners and safeties are not adequate to run it effectively. corners: 1) peanut was NOT drafted to play in lovies cover 2 scheme. peanut was drafted to cover the big receivers in our division like moss and (names escape me at the moment) the big receivers in green bay. he did that job well. he was complimented then (supposedly) with quick fast corners like mcquarters who could play with and cover the smaller faster wideouts. then came the cover 2... the pluses with peanut is he is great against the run which IS a requirement for the cover 2, he is a very good tackler in open space also a plus in any scheme. the biggest problem with peanut is as our #1 cb he CAN'T play up on the LOS and jam the quick recievers. unless he has greatly improved and our coaching staff is hiding his talent, he doesn't get his hands on the receiver at the snap to slow up or change his route or for that matter turn and run with them. he has numerous times gotten toasted trying to do this as the receiver just jukes him and blows on by untouched into his route with peanut 2-5+ yards behind. 2) vasher can't play bump and run at the LOS either. he is an average tackler with average speed and again, unless he has improved greatly and our coaches just hide his talents, he gets ripped playing up against any fast receivers. safeties: 1) m. brown was also not drafted to play cover 2. a cover 2 defense is paramount in having fast, smart safeties that can cover large chunks of ground in coverage. in the past brown compensated for his lack of speed with football smarts. 2) fill in a name here... d. manning was drafted for his speed but certainly doesn't have the football smarts to play in this type of defense. payne? how good is he in coverage, how fast? an unknown at this point as he has some issues. steltz? so, which safeties in chicago, in your estimation, are adequate to play this type of defense if all the cover 2 pieces are in place? huh??? you say we have the players to play this type of defense but it doesn't show on the field? that doesn't make any sense. if it doesn't "show on the field" isn't it a logical conclusion we don't have the players to play this scheme as it was intended? or maybe you think our entire coaching staff is insane? if you don't believe this is a requirement in 'most' instances of a corner in the cover 2 to jam the receiver at the LOS and/or move him off his route and/or cover him until he either moves into another zone towards the center of the field or gets safety help on a deep route you are mistaken. i don't know of any defensive scheme that is construed to give up 5-10 passing yards in the flats or on slants uncontested every play except in deep prevent. common sense should tell anyone that when you give that kind of cushion you have literally let all receivers go completely unmolested in their routes because of the 5 yard rule!! the ONLY reason we can get away with it is if the d-line is getting serious pressure on the qb. in other words we are compensating for the failure of one point of our defense with above average play from another. you "question" that our corners are NOT bump and run corners??? i guess i don't understand. in one sentence you are talking about how big of a cushion they give and the next you say they are bump and run corners. are you saying lovie/babich specifically want to give that big of a cushion to wide receivers when their players CAN play bump and run defense? if that is the case lovie and babich need to be fired immediately for gross stupidity. about the NO playoff game. did you look at the tape of that game to see where our corners WERE playing in regards to the LOS? they could have played off and still been man coverage. we could have just plain played less cover 2 than normal. even if peanut did play up, which is in contention, does colston relate to the type of receiver that peanut CAN cover well up and what he was drafted to do? so look it up and tell me specifically how and where we played and not just that brees "said" we played man coverage. i don't know about you, but if our corners were good enough to put their toes on the LOS and jam the receivers at the line and follow them into coverage i would be extatic. the point is, unless you have some information otherwise, our corners aren't good enough to do it. as far as your statement of 3-5 yrds off. would it be better than what we are doing? yes if they didn't get burned consistantly. but... they would have to be moving toward the LOS to do it legally or standing still. that would be disaster as the quick wideouts would blow by them without slowing down. again i will state... if this coaching staff intentionally has our corners playing that soft IF they could play bump and run tight coverage they should be fired. PERIOD!!! huh again!! what benefits our safeties? that our corners can't play tight coverage at the LOS? or if they did that the safeties would be trying to get into position to cover wide open receivers in full stride by themselves because our corners are trailing them by 5 yards??? haven't you been watching the bears over the last 8 years? they HAVE tried bump and run. the reason we are running the soft corners is because they get BEAT like drums!!! if they could play tight they would be. even i don't think lovie is that stupid.

here is the problem with your analysis.... we don't have the personnel to run the cover 2 to utilize it to it's full advantage (if there is one anymore. i am not a fan of this either). you ask why we don't put our corners closer to the LOS. this is extremely important in this type of defense. the answer is they are not bump and run man corners. we have seen this in the past where peanut did play up and got his hat handed to him by quick/fast wideouts. the same thing WITH vasher. whether either has improved any since lovie has been here is unclear but clearly in the past they got toasted playing bump and run. can they be coached to compensate? i don't know. i would think it could be possible to adjust their technique but if it is, our coaching staff hasn't found the answer to it. second... we don't have safeties to play this type of defense. yet we continue to pound square pegs into round holes to run it. so that leaves our entire db's at a disadvantage running it.

not so sure... i did see tillman lining up as the R corner, i believe, to cover white specifically. whether this was done throughout the game or on specific occasions i can't testify to without looking at the tape. but it did happen.

this is not totally correct. the outside backers, and briggs if you like, job is to key on the fullback, the running back and tight ends (and throw in mobile qb's into this mix if they come up) 'generally'. what is happening in our scheme is the wide outs are blowing by any zone covered by the backers because the corners are playing so far off the LOS that by the time they engage it's 5-10 yrds past the LOS. if as you say the backers were to move to the sideline to cover these wideout slants and curls they would be totally out of position and the corners job would be to stick his thumb up his arse and watch every play develop in front of him. now.... your statement that we play 40% or less cover 2 is probably true though. which brings us to the brick wall we have run into since lovie has been in chicago. if we HAD picked up a primo 'cover' corner around 3 years ago like we sure as hell should have we wouldn't be having these discussions nearly so often. instead we let woodson go to our rival in green bay while we have 2 highly paid starting corners who CAN'T play bump and run man coverage because they plain suck at it.

QUOTE (balta1701-A @ Oct 13 2008, 12:19 PM) * Here's the question with that statement...if Norwood takes it at the goal line and returns it 50 yards, how much time does it take off of the clock compared to the shorter return from the squib kick? norwood must be the fastest human on the planet.... "January 29, 1988 in History Event: Canadian Ben Johnson breaks own 50-yard dash world record at 5.15" http://www.brainyhistory.com/events/1988/j...988_160858.html

i have said this before and will say this again.... the reason these slants and passes into the flats for 8-10+ yards nearly ALWAYS works is because we play our corners about 5 yds of the LOS. as soon as the ball is snapped they start backpeddling. this leaves the receivers with about 8 or more yards of free space. i would also like to mention that this leaves every receiver untouched in his route because we CAN'T touch him after 5 yds!! so, as soon as the ball is thrown our corners make their play (which is too late) and the end results are an easy completion that moves the sticks. for this god forsaken cover 2 crap to even WORK you need the corners to play bump and run at the LOS to slow up their routes and move the receivers into the center of the field. the reason we don't do this is because in the past both our starting corners CAN'T play bump and run without getting blown up by the quick and fast receivers. yet our coaches continue to use this approach game after game!! i would also like to make one comment... if our defense has given up 10+ yrds per pass throughout the game, why would you give them great field position with a squib kick and the chance to do it all over again? ESPECIALLY when both your starting corners with experience are out of the game with injuries!!!!!!!!!!!! EDIT: add to this fact that even our nickle players, mcbride AND d. manning were out with injuries along with peanut and vasher.

i agree but not in hind sight. gould has been putting the ball close to if not ON the goal line on his deep kickoffs. the clock starts when the returner first touches the ball. with 11 seconds in the game there are two possibilities on a deep kick: 1. the returner downs the ball with a fair catch or kneel at the spot of reception, in the endzone it goes to the 20, to give his offense the last shot (2 plays at best) to win the game deep in his own territory. the odds are extremely unlikely to move the ball 40-45 yards in 11 seconds and still have time to kick a field goal even with 2 timeouts. 2. the returner goes all out to score in a do or die situation. to run 100 yards is nearly impossible in a situation such as we were in. the odds are verrry high against doing so. if he goes all out strictly for the zone he more than likely gets tackled with time expired. in fact i can't even remember the last kickoff return for a td against chicago. so... if he goes for or is forced to revert to field goal position in his return and he receives the ball on the goal line, he has to run 60-65 yards (35-40 yard line of chicago) just to down the ball to set up for a field goal. the fastest 50 yard dash in history was run by ben johnson in 1988 at a time of 5.15 seconds. so even a world class runner on a STRAIGHT fast track would take about 6 seconds to run 60 yards. if there is a football player running through traffic that can run 60+ yards in less than 11 seconds in football gear i would like to know who it is. so that leaves the squib... falcons return man fielded the ball around the 30-35 yard line and ran 8-10 yards to around their own 45 yard line in 5 seconds. you just put the other team in a position to make one doeable 20 yard pass (rather than forcing a hail mary most likely out of any qb's range) and a timeout/out of bounds in 6 seconds. close but obviously not impossible. STUPID call lovie!!! end of game, end of story.

have to disagree noots on a few points: 1. the defensive line deserves a complete F- for their performance. there was nothing redeeming about this game from them in any way shape or form. they and the coaching staff lost this game for chicago!!!! we took a rookie qb and made him look like joe montana in his prime. he had open passing lanes all game long, he could have baked a freakin cake behind the line waiting for his receivers to get open (not like that was difficult due to the soft play from our corners). even on rollouts there wasn't a bear within 5 yrds of him when he released the ball 90% of the time. by the way, is tommie harris plain nuts or is he just pissed because of the week off? i don't think i have seen anything like that 'fumble', if you can call it that, in my entire life. lovie should have cracked his helmet open like an egg on the sideline. to think how much has been spent in salary and draft picks to put up what we saw today is simply mindboggling. 2. coaching staff.... F. being behind by SIX points late in the 4th quarter you decide to go for it on 4th and goal??? you decide to run it AGAIN when it didn't work on 3rd and goal??? you take the freakin POINTS unless the game is in the last minute or two of the game!!! do you think that after watching ryan chew up our defensive backs for 8-10 yrd chunks all day in soft zones they could tighten up their coverage?? obviously not. and speaking of mckie, did you see our great FB lead blocker laying on the ground in the hole he was supposed to clear for forte on 4th down? was it REALLY neccessary with ELEVEN seconds left in the game to squib kick it? REALLY lovie???? would it be too complicated for this staff to realize that with SIX seconds left in the freakin game and your opponent is on their own 40+ yrd line there is time for ONE deep play only and the LAST thing you want is to have a soft deep coverage called AND defend it to the middle of the field??????????????????????????? you HAVE to take the sideline away in a situation like that!!!!!!! we may be lost, but we are making good time. what a thoroughly disgusting game.

one concern in regards to the run is that payne has to start tackling better. for what ever reason he keeps trying to tackle backs and te's above the waist and gets dragged for extra yardage. this is something that our coaching staff should have addressed by game 2 but............

if you only look at stats i could possibly agree with your statements. the point is forte is the best looking back i have 'seen' play in chicago in quite some time. it's the elusiveness, the quickness, the speed and power that impress me. he has a rare and extremely important talent needed in a back called 'balance'. payton had it, neil anderson had it, and to some extent raymont harris had it also. the ability to get hit and not only stay on your feet but have the ability to drag tacklers along with him for extra yards. this is a critical component in a pro running back. as many have said it is a bit early in his career to make him an all-pro player but he certainly has impressed me so far. as far as the orton reference... i don't believe i have ever been unfair in his evaluation. he has improved steadily this season building upon good things and actually getting better with the problems he has faced. although it's too early to anoint him our franchise qb, he certainly may just become that if he continues to improve. we will have a better idea what we have in orton by the last few games of the season.

i think our offensive lines run blocking should be a concern more than forte. the holes just aren't there plus we aren't getting much push off the LOS. i give forte a lot of credit for just getting what he is getting.