Lucky Luciano

hehehehe ya, that leaves us with either a stupid gm, stupid coaches or both. everyone except angie KNOWS metcalf is a freakin drone!!! so i just honestly can't imagine a single reason why beekman or even oakley didn't get some playing time when r. brown went down. it's truely mindboggling!!!

here's the problem.... 1. beekman is either so terrible that he couldn't replace a one armed guard and THEN couldn't replace metcalf who is probably one of the worst offensive linemen we ever had in chicago!! OR..... 2. if beekman is worth a tinkers dam then this coaching staff is so inept that they can't even TELL the difference between good or bad linemen. that's maybe the scariest thought of all!!!

screw stockpiling picks. if that jake long looked like a real OLT i'd trade up to get him.

did i watch the team in 2001? uhhhh... yea. sure we mixed it up, sure colvin in a very narrow sense COULD be considered playing a DE position in a particular play in this type of 3-4 PREVENT DEFENSE. but to say that colvin's stats or sacks should be considered as a DE is about as realistic as saying we ran a 3-4 defense instead of a 4-3. first of all what you are talking about is a bastardization of a 3-4 type of defense in which colvin is in a 3 point stance on the LOS and robinson playing NT. at times it appeared as a 3-4 but this is basically a 3rd down 3-4 zone type pass defense with options to blitz. colvin was spread out a bit wider of the RT than is normal even in the 3-4 to get an edge on rushing the passer. also in this type of defense we moved our safeties/corners up to the LOS in a 2 point stance similar to linebackers in the traditional 3-4 where they played a step outside of colvin. would our safeties now be considered linebackers and any corners filling in their positions now safeties? how would you now rank green's or parish's sacks that season? as linebackers? just for curiosities sake, you mention if colvin stood next to a de and attacked the qb you WOULD consider it as a linebacker sack. well i have to ask, how many times did colvin sack a qb from this prevent defense and how many from our traditional 4-3? do you know? again i want to point out that this is NOT in a 4-3 scheme. these times you are talking about consisted of daniels, robinson/boone, colvin. it's not like we had daniels, traylor/washington, robinson, and colvin with him in the traditional 4 down linemen at the DE position. not sure i get that. the traditional 4-3 DOES require the DE's to attack the passer no matter what blache says. i just don't agree that our DL did all of what it was supposed to do. if it did you would NOT need to blitz as often as we had to. blitzing is dangerous and if that is the only way you can get to the passer with consistancy you are going to get beat by the teams with good qb's more than not. again i disagree. rice would have been PERFECT in our scheme. if we had daniels playing LDE and rice playing RDE with the buda's in the middle we would have been plain out awsome. we could have had veribly the best defense in the nfl!! so... when blache says sacks are over-rated don't you think it's because he doesn't have the personel to DO it? what else can he say to keep face and keep his defense on a positive note not only to the media but to his players? here is my opinion, yet another stupid move made by angelo because he is POOR at evaluating offensive talent. engram prior to his 2000 injury had 2 seasons in a row with nearly a thousand yards each. in fact here is part of his bio: "Climbed into seventh on Chicago’s all-time receptions list with 246 catches. Shattered career-high with team-leading 88 receptions in 1999, the second-highest single-season total in Bears history. Led Bears with 64 receptions in 1998. Moved into starting role in second year with Chicago. Best rookie season for a Bears’ wide receiver in catches, yards, and touchdowns since Willie Gault (1983). " yet he would let a known productive commodity in a #2 receiver go and keep dez white who burned up the stat sheets with 87 yds his rookie season. but then lets look at the amazing dwayne bates who we also kept. 1999 - 2 for 19yds; 2000 - 4 for 42 yds; 2001 9 for 160. yup, great decision there angie you freakin moron. as far as hindering booker? i believe it would have enhanced bookers career by having a legitimate #2 receiver. booker was a j. rice type receiver. not fast but quick with great routes and good YAC's. this combo would ALSO have supported that idiot terrell and given him a good platform to learn under (not that it would have done any good). i agree it was similar but comparing DE's: these guys were all-pro/pro-bowl ends. LDE - burnett - 10.5 sacks; RDE - mccrary - 6.5 sacks, compared to daniels and robinson? HUGE talent drop off. well, i don't think i can disagree too much that our offense was horrendous in that game. not surprising though, eagles 18th ranked d against the run and 2nd against the pass.

it was the quality and effectiveness of our defensive ends in this portion of our discussion. in my estimation i believe/believed that our de's were the weak link in our entire 2001 defense including the eagle game, while you infer that this was not the case and cite the eagle P.O. game as an example of their prowess. by the way the stats i posted are not what i am relying upon for my opinion, they just enforce my conclusions on the subject. my analysis was based upon what i saw during the 2001 season and before. even if our de's were good at run stopping they were poor pass rushing de's as a whole. you couldn't be any more wrong if you believe ANY linebacker should be considered a de in a 4-3 defense and his stats count as such. the scheme is absolutely meaningless and the stats as to who those sacks belong to are clearly stated in any statistic. otherwise you could have colvin go to the pro bowl as a de when he played in a 4-3 type defense!! it will NEVER happen!! they call it a BLITZ. because if the linebacker, or any db for that matter, rushes the passer his duties are either picked up by another player to compensate, or not, and it leaves a vacant spot on the field someplace that can be exploited by an offense. not to mention, what would you consider linemen that stunt a lot? in a system you are talking about there would be no way that you could keep track of anything because each position would change per down. one down tackles would be de's and de's would be dt's. if you had linemen dropping into coverage would they be safeties or linebackers? how would that look on the draft boards? he's a tackle, de, linebacker, safety? you say there is no difference between colvin and anderson? are you serious? have you ever seen anderson lineup in the linebacker position? how many times has he dropped into coverage or covered a tight end? how often does he play behind the LOS? he is what you said he is, a situational pass rushing de. i have to ask... do you also consider wilbur marshall as a defensive end? do you know how many times he lined up on or near the LOS in the 46 defense? quite a few. how bout otis wilson? same thing. you also stated that b. robinson moved inside while colvin was outside of him. does that mean robinson was a tackle and his stats should be considered as a tackle those years? does that make dent a dt? or hampton a dt when wilson lined up outside? you'd have statisticians blowing their brains out if your system was considered viable. and this means what? that it is our scheme to have to blitz our linebackers and db's to sack the qb? is that what you are saying? sorry, but it is critical for your de's to pressure and sack the qb. without it you have to gamble and blitz which can kill you. caught up in the yards stat? if you don't see that this is pertinent as to how many sacks, hurries and knock downs your de's have during a season then there is nothing i can say to help you out. you will just have to believe me or not that it IS important in understanding how many attempts your de's had to sack a qb, how many they attained and how they ranked against the passing yards these qb's gave up compared to the rest of the nfl. i can argue the results too. if your defensive ends can't get to the quarterback and you need to blitz, or "scheme" as you call it, 80% of the time you harass a qb, you will be in and out of the playoffs in a blink of an eye. you just can't sustain a continuous blitz package against good passing qb's without getting toasted more often than not. what they thought prior to the season starting is a moot point. as i have stated and i believe yourself also, if we had gotten a true pass rushing de in rice our team would have been miles better. by mid season we did look like we had a chance and COULD possibly go all the way. a true pass rushing de could very well have changed that entire season and the results even with miller at qb. i also have to ask where you found the information on why we cut engram because we were rebuilding and wanting to give our young wr's more playing time? engram was only 27 years old and only a 5 year vet in 2000. does that make some sense to you? it was not similar at all. a 3-4 is relying on basically 4 linebackers in leu of the de position. they are not leaving gaps in their defense by blitzing. if this works so well by blitzing a downed linebacker continuously why doesn't every team in the nfl use this system? why don't WE still use this system? is it because if you blitz you leave holes in your defense that GOOD teams can beat you with? that's why it's critical that your dl can get to the qb and NOT have to do this.

come on... where any player lines up during a given play in a 4-3 defense is totally inconsequential. if you used that standard you could say the same for all the LBer blitzes not to mention safety and corner blitzes, which were coming off the LOS at various times. you are right i am sure about my statement that the ranking was 19th. as i stated i wasn’t sure where they were ranked and the piece of info i gleaned that from was sketchy at best. YES you are correct that our run d was so good it FORCED other teams to try and move the ball through the air. but here you are wrong about the 29th ranking against passing yards given up is a joke. that stat IS important. that means that even when our defense KNEW that the other teams near only option was to pass against us they still put up a massive amount of yards and we didn’t stop them. YET... knowing that and the number of passing attempts, or chances our de’s had to harass and sack the qb, they ranked at best just below *500 (and in my opinion even lower) in defensive end sacks compared to the rest of the nfl!! THAT is why our lb’s and db’s have such a high sack total. because we had to BLITZ to pressure the qb so much. also it stands to reason that with a great run defense that teams in the red zone DID struggle to score td’s. they couldn’t run it in and playing in the red zone condensed our pass defense to legitimately stop them. that is normal and understandable. you are quoting out of timeframe. these were the players we needed in 2001/2002 when it really did look promising to go all the way, NOT 2-3 years later when angie decided to address these problems. in fact if the bear organization had half a brain they would have solved that de problem for years by getting simeon rice IN 2001. this isn’t any hindsight or even considered a reach at the time. it was a very good pass rushing ball player who wanted to play in chicago for very reasonable money. i would also like to point out that bledsoe was a free agent IN 2002 but again we ignored the best prospect in free agency since rice the previous year and maybe the best qb prospect qb to reach free agency since steve young. how good would we have been if we had used free agency to our advantage? ------------------- *below are the stats for defensive end sacks in 2001. this also MAY not take into account any teams that ran a 3-4 defense where actual linebackers were possibly listed into their sack totals and are not listed here. leonard little - 14.5 stl grant wistrom - 9 stl tyoka jackson - 3 stl chidi ahanotu - 2 stl sean moran - 2 stl STL 30.5 SACKS kgb - 13.5 gb vonnie holliday - 7 gb john thierry - 3.5 pack billy lyon - 2 gb jamal reynolds - 2 gb GB 28 SACKS michael strahan - 22.5 nyg kenny holmes - 3.5 nyg frank ferrara - 1 nyg NYG 27 SACKS marcellus wiley - 13 sd raylee johnson - 9.5 sd adrian dingle - 1 sd albert fontenot - 1 sd maa tanuvasa - 1 sd SD 25.5 SACKS john abraham - 13 nyj shaun ellis - 5 nyj rick lyle - 3.5 nyj NYJ 21.5 SACKS hugh douglas - 9.5 phil derrick burgess - 6 phil n. d. kalu - 3 phil brandon whiting - 2.5 phi EAGLES 21 SACKS patrick kerney - 12 atl brady smith - 8 atl chuck wiley - 1 atl ATL 21 SACKS simeon rice - 11 tb steve white - 5 tb marcus jones - 3 tb TB 19 SACKS reinard wilson - 9 cin justin smith - 8.5 cin vaughn booker - 1.5 cin BENGLES 19 SACKS jason taylor - 8.5 mia lorenzo bromell - 6.5 mia kenny mixon - 2 mia david bowens - 1 mia adewale ogunleye - .5 mia MIA 18.5 SACKS tony brackens - 11 jac renaldo wynn - 5 jags paul spicer - 2 jac JAGS 18 SACKS robert porcher - 11 det james hall - 4 det tracy scroggins - 2 det alonzo spellman - 1 det DET 18 SACKS joe johnson - 9 no darren howard - 6 no willie whitehead - 2 no NO 18 SACKS aaron schobel - 6.5 buf byron frisch - 3 buf phil hansen - 3 buf kendrick office - 3 buf erik flowers - 2 buf BUF 17.5 tyrone rogers- 6 clev courtney brown - 4.5 clev greg spires - 4 clev keith mckenzie - 3 clev CLEV 17.5 13. PHILLIP DANIELS - 9 chi 47. BRYAN ROBINSON - 4.5 chic 78. ALFONSO BOONE - 2 chic 15 teams are ahead of chicago for defensive end tallied sacks. if you don’t want to consider boone as a de (which he is not) it puts the bears defensive end totals 17 behind other teams in the nfl and tied with 3 other teams at 13.5 in the bottom half of the standings. ========================================================================= jevon kearse - 10 ten kevin carter - 2 ten robair smith - 2 ten henry ford - 1 ten TENN 15 SACKS aaron smith - 8 pitt kimo von oelhoffen - 4 pitt rodney bailey - 2 pit PIT 14 SACKS andre carter - 6.5 sf john engelberger - 4 sf chike okeafor 2.5 sf bobby setzer - 1 sf SF 14 SACKS duane clemons - 7 kc eric hicks - 3.5 kc rich owens - 3 kc KC 13.5 SACKS regan upshaw - 7 oak tony bryant - 5 oak josh taves - 1 oak trace armstrong - .5 oak OAK 13.5 SACKS bruce smith - 5 wash marco coleman - 4.5 wash kenard lang - 4 wash WASH 13.5 SACKS mike rucker - 9 carolina chris slade - 2.5 car jay williams - 1 carolina gillis wilson - .5 carolina CAROLINA 13 SACKS chad bratzke - 8.5 colts cchukie nwokorie - 5 colts brad scioli - 4 colts COLTS 13 SACKS bobby hamilton - 7 ne anthony pleasant - 6 ne NE 13 SACKS michael mccrary - 7.5 bal adalius thomas - 3.5 balt marques douglas - 1 bal BALT 12 SACKS lance johnson - 5.5 min talance sawyer - 5 vikes stalin colinet - 1 min VIKES 11.5 SACKS keith washington - 4 den reggie hayward - 3 den bertrand berry - 2 den kavika pittman - 1 den kavika pittman - 1 den DEN 11 SACKS greg ellis - 6 dal peppi zellner - 3 dal demetric evans - 1 dal DALLAS 10 SACKS antionio cochran - 4.5 sea michael sinclair - 3.5 sea SEATTLE 8 SACKS fred wakefield - 2.5 ariz tom burke - 2 ariz mao tosi - 1 ariz kyle vanden bosch - .5 ariz CARDS 6 SACKS

ALL cornerbacks get beat on certain days in their careers. i think you also should take a look at the specific games and determine for one thing what was his physical condition? who was he playing with and against, what were the circumstances on that particular day weather wise? what kind of defense complimented him? you mention dion sanders. is he considered a shutdown corner to you or by himself? if so i am confused. the “chuck” rule i believe we have been discussing in which a corner cannot molest a WR after five yards was implemented in 1994. if this is the case do you not consider sanders a shutdown corner from that point on? in fact one of his best seasons as a cb (statistics wise) was IN 1994 when he played for the 49ers. i also have to quote from some dion stats: in ’89 he had 8 passes defended in ’90 he had 18 PD in ’91 he had 14 PD in ’92 he had 4 PD in ’93 he had 8 PD in ’94 he had 14 PD in ’95 he had 8 PD in ’96 he had 9 PD in ’97 he had 7 PD in 98 he had 8 PD in ’99 he had 6 PD in 2000 he had 9 PD in no way does this correlate with your theory of “flat out shut down the WR he played” . of course other teams went to the weaker defender, of course other teams schemed against him, but this certainly does not relate to a flat out complete shutdown where they never throw into his area and if they do he automatically intercepts it. the physical corners you seem to be talking about are guys like mel blount, mike haynes, etc. that did rock their world physically and the rules certainly did change because of guys like this. well if you’re playing a lot more cover 2 scheme and you say we will “play more” it either means we are going to play cover 2 ‘nearly’ exclusively or that you weren’t playing it a majority of the time in the past and are going to implement it more. also you must take into consideration that we were going to play more cover 2 last season because our corners were both injured along with our safeties. we didn’t have the personnel to use man coverage. you could also argue that our defense was a lot worse which included our ability to stop the run. i can’t argue a case i know almost nothing about. i have, as stated, not watched these players much and can’t comment on their value or lack thereof. here is what our defensive ends did in 17 games... 13.5 sacks by our de’s – 4.5 for bryan robinson, 9 for daniels 5.5 sacks by our dt’s 29 sacks by our lb’s and db’s for overall sacks compared to the rest of the league, i believe we were ranked 19th. in total defense we were ranked 29th in yards gained by passing. on the eagle playoff game, here is a quote from pro football weekly: “Early on, the Eagles’ offensive line is getting the better of the Bears’ defensive line as it is giving McNabb all day to throw and is blocking well on running plays. Early in the final period, McNabb is putting up fantastic numbers — 20-for-32 passing for 212 yards and 5-for-44 rushing.” the bears ended up with 2 sacks, NONE by de’s or tackles. you can say what you want but 2 things came out of that game for me and the following season needs. 1. a new quarterback 2. a pass rushing defensive end we never got either. as a final note i want to say that if you have a top ranked pass rushing defensive end on the draft board he will hold more value than any other defensive position.

i agree the limits put on the corners are way over the top and have hurt the game but... maybe not the true shutdown corner in the old sense but i believe bailey/woodson type players still can be considered shutdown players. they limit the amount of throws made into their coverage areas by draping the wideouts using positioning and speed. that is shutdown in the modern sense and has huge impact on the rest of your defense. if we were playing stickly zone more than not our corners would be playing up on the LOS and moving them into the center of the field like it is scripted in the cover 2. rather than that we are playing off 5-10 yrds so they don't get beat deep. that is a basic man coverage scheme when they don't pass the wideout to a safety or backer by turning him in and dropping back into his zone on the field. man coverage. you are entitled to your opinion but i take dan hampton over anyone on that entire defense. to prove my point, if you look at the stats and more importantly the win/loss record with him in and out of the lineup it tells the story dramatically. the freeny urlacher scenario i can't answer as i have not seen freeny play that much. if you asked me whether i take hampton or url i take hampton without even a second thought. it is true the MLB may be the generals on the field in most instances but the meat grinder is your DE's. if they don't get to the qb the game is over. a perfect example of this was in 2001, a year you talk about a lot. they had very good players on that defense except for one aspect... they could NOT rush the passer off the ends. this was our worst aspect that season and the final game proved that in spades. mcnabb had all day to move around before releasing the ball.

again i disagree on your CB job description. in cover 2 the corners DO play man a lot more than not. this is why peanut gets hammered when playing against the quick/fast receivers, same with vasher. this also is a problem that we have seen extensively in chicago when vasher went down. there was no way for the poor corners that replaced them could compensate and especially without help from the safeties who played badly themselves. if we had woodson/bailey at corner our entire defense would be better. the fast-break receivers would not cause us to play our corners 5-10 yrds off the LOS because we lacked the speed and quickness to keep up with them. this would be HUGE in our pass rush if we could tie up wideouts for a longer period of time and stop the qb dump offs for the 5-8 yrd gains and ALSO stop the deep routes from developing. i still say the league rules DICTATE you have better cover corners because they can't muscle the wideouts to slow them down or hand fight them down the field. you need corners to not only keep up with these players but be in a good one-on-one cover position for passes defended and int's. this also is true as to why the cover 2 does not work well with teams that have multiple reciever threats and/OR good running games where your safety has to help stop the run. you can't bottle them all up moving them into the middle because your field has been extended by dropping your safeties and MLB into deep coverage. you HAVE to have corners to cover man. in regards to your 3-4 scheme... you could be right but couldn't it also be possible that this type of scheme was also implimented because of the lack of really good defensive ends? this way you can take the tweener small DE's and make linebackers out of them in this type of system. it also is a reality that there are more good linebackers than defensive ends thus easier to fill your defense with better quality players to compensate. again, IMO, if you see a white/hampton/dent defensive end they are worth their weight in gold, especially on the draft board, compared to any other defensive player. these type of players are far scarcer than tackles or backers.

i agree that LB's could and should be thrown into the equation along with DT's. but IMOP, they would still fall behind the qb, olt/de and cornerback as for value.

you are correct that longetivity, spreading out salary over 10-15 yrs vs. 5-8 for a RB in the cap age, does have it's merit as to value but there are also a couple of other reasons... 1. good+ OLT's were a premium (being scarce) even prior to the start of free agency and the cap. it is compounded now because of the expansion of the league. over the last 25-30 years the league has added 6 teams. there is now even less to choose from than was true in the past making the premium line position of OLT even harder to find. this also is without a doubt, true with your quarterback position. there just is not enough bodies to fill the vacancies because the pool to choose from (college ranks) has basically stayed the same size while the number of teams drawing from this pool has expanded. 2. as your good OLT's will rarely or NEVER reach free agency until they are used up, the other positions become more expensive because the salary of your OLT's has dragged them along. this means because of the cap that you can't pay the other line positions comperable money for an extended period of time. thus these very good ROT or interior linemen hit free agency at a high premium and other teams with either a young under contract OLT or an OLT that is average, snap up these players to compensate and make their line as good as possible. this is why the draft is paramount to find offensive linemen especially if you want a primo OLT. it also SHOULD be reasonably easy to find good+ guards in the draft to fill these spots and that is one of angies greatest failures. here are in my opinion the top position, franchise players: first and foremost quarterback. next can be a tossup between OLT's and defensive ends and next your cornerback and finally your runningback/wide receiver position. moving on... i know some have said that zone defenses such as ours means you don't need the good cover corners and i think you said with the rules in play today the cover corner is not as important as before. i disagree with these thoughts. in my opinion it is even more important to get the cover corner. you need someone who is fast and can cover like a demon to make up for these crappy rules the nfl has implimented. also i'd like to mention about our cover 2... it is not true that a good cover corner wouldn't excel in this system as we only use it occasionally (like the old 46) and are asking our corners to cover man in many instances. that is the reason i wanted woodson in chicago when he was a free agent. we would have been SO much better in coverage and it would have given our linemen even more time to get to the qb.

"Well, lets just say this. Success is subjective. Success is the achievement of a goal, or goals. In your opinion, and it is you opinion, the only goal is the SB. I disagree. For many, that is the goal. For many others, there is simply no expectation of a SB, and goals are different. For a team like that, goals could be development of youth, doubling your win total, making the playoffs, winning the division, or whatever." you are talking about a achieving realistic goals for a team for a season and i agree. you CAN have success achieving goals, you CAN have success exceeding expectations. you can feel good about how the season (within reason) went, you can feel good about your prospects for the next season. but this doesn't correlate to whether that particular season is a success or a failure. i could argue a number of things and reasons why our goals were not met in most any season except '85 if i wanted to and why any given season was not a success even achieving these expectations. so where would the yardstick be placed in your type of success/loss argument? there is only one winner and only that team's season was a success. the other 31 teams failed whether they met expectations and goals they set for themselves or not. the superbowl winner is in the books. they are set in stone and nothing can change that. everything else is just an afterthought. "Also, you asked who's expectations determine success. I would again argue that success is subjective. As a fan, I have little hope of a SB for the bears in 2008. Not at least w/ the team I see now. My expectations. I would probably talk about defensive goals and development of players on offense. QB would be nice. Playoffs might be a goal, but no, the SB is not the goal going in. Does that mean when we lose in the playoffs, I will right away say no problem, they met expectations. No. As teams do better than expected, hopes and expectations jump up, mainly off emotion. But after a bit of time, you can step back and say the season was a success." again, you are talking about expectations and goals. you can say your goals and expectations for the season were a success and i can possibly agree, but i will never say the results of that season is a success unless you get a ring. "I might point to 2001 as an example. We were supposed to be worst in the division. Even the GM thought little of the team. Then we win 13 games and make our first playoff appearance in however long. IMHO, then and there, the season was a success. We exceeded the goals of most any. But as we played better and better, we started to raise hope and expectations, so when we stunk against Phily, we were ticked. But later, I think most were able to step back and realize just how well the team did." for the last time i'm going to argue this. the season was not a success. we did exceed some expectations, we did exceed some some goals but this does not put chicago in the books as a superbowl winning team.

uhhhh.... no. exactly right. just like a potentiometer with a bad solder joint. "I would even argue that if you own a company and you lose money that can be considered a success under certain circumstances. Its too complex a topic to even try to compare the two and it doesn't help your case at all." absolutely... if it is your plan to lose a billion dollars and you lose 2 billion, that's success. you exceeded your expectations. "What you should compare it to is an old western gun fight. If you lose, your dead. Not something with so many different ways to interpret success and failure." hmmm...

it's NOT a success. it's an IMPROVEMENT!!!!! if you play on an nfl team and you watch the superbowl at home you think they pat themselves on the back and say UREEKA!!! this season sure is a success? YES i read your post. you seem to have some very different expectations of results than i do. if you don't get in or win the superbowl but you don't get in or win it as poorly as the previous season that reads success to you. expectations to me DON'T determine if a season is a success or not. winning does!! i also have to ask... who's expectations determine success and failed seasons for you in the nfl? the franchises/coaches/players? the media? yours? you ask if i expect to win the superbowl every year. of COURSE NOT. does winning more games than i expected make that season a success? of COURSE NOT!! it makes it a better season than i had hoped for and that's all. i still failed to achieve the only goal that determines success and failure in the nfl... winning the superbowl!! "Huh? First you seem to question me for saying NE wasn't a success, talking about all their records, then you go on to say yourself that NE, along w/ every other team, did fail and was not a success. Huh?" because it is the inconsistancy of what you are saying. like there is some magic formula to determine success and failure when it is purely simple winning or losing. don't ask me, ask any coach if his season is a success that loses or is not in the superbowl. "Sorry, but your logic and reasoning is so out there, it passes comical. Frankly, it is scary. By your definition, there is not a successful team in the NFL, as every team's "success percentage" would make the worst baseball players batting average look high. A couple teams have more than a handful of SBs in their franchise history, but no more than a couple. If people saw things like you, turnovers would be unbelievable and suidides would be at an all time high." look... if you own an nfl team, if you coach an nfl team, if you play on an nfl team your season is not a success if you fail to get a ring that particular year. SURE teams can be called successful with win loss records or schemes over the years. did we have success beating the packers last season? YES. BUT... you CAN'T say that individual season was a success if you lose. it doesn't matter if you are better, it doesn't matter if you just missed winning it all. you have evaded SUCCESS that year, period. that is the point i have been trying to drive home a thousand words ago.

don't you think comparing it to a profit/loss scenario is a bit closer to what i might be trying to get across than comparing it to the richest man in the world nonsense? like maybe it would relate to ONE individual company and how that ONE company's profits/losses for ONE year, RELATE to that PARTICULAR year being a SUCCESS or FAILURE?? THUS, may not this also relate to how an individual teams SUCCESS or FAILURE in a particular year might be determined by whether they WON or LOST the superbowl and have not a damn thing to do with the fortune 500 or the richest man in the world? for X's sake name off the years since 1985 that YOU consider to be a success!! well, if you can't grasp this then you're on your own.... 1. if you don't win the superbowl, that particular season is NOT a success. 2. if you own a company and it loses money in a given year, that particular year is NOT a success. if you don't want to believe that, fine by me. you can consider every year a success for chicago and take out a million business loans to float your company no matter whether you lose money or not.

so just to get this straight... you are happy whether we win a SB or not. if so, it's people like you that the bidwell and mccaskey type owners simply love. as long as they field a team, that in itself is a success. how about after the '86 playoffs? the '87 playoffs? the '88 playoffs, etc. etc. etc. or even after the 2006 superbowl did you say to yourself... gee this year sure is a success. i would argue to my death that that season was NOT a success. good maybe, better than the last season, giving me hope for the future possibly but considered a success? not a chance. just for the record... did you hear a single player on the SB team say they considered that season a success? a coach? anybody employed in this franchise? if you did they should be fired. well just tell me where that logic comes from? probably the best team in football setting every offensive record imaginable and now you think their season is a failure? sorry but none of that makes any sense. to me it WAS a failure and NOT success for every team except the giants. well, at least that will make the mccaskey and bidwell families very happy.

let's put this in a real business perspective. you either lose money, break even, or make a profit in business. so... if your business shows a loss every year but one out of 25 years does that make your business a sucess? and in essence are you then considered a successful businessman? if the answer is yes, i think you and nfoligno should merge your corporations and hire me at a huge guaranteed salary to run it. "What this boils down to is outdated rhetoric that coaches used to tell their HS teams. In the NFL, you can't go all out to try to do everything in your power to win the SB every year because those short term efforts end up being self defeating in the long term. Look at the Redskins as an example of how NOT to do it. Or you can look at the Giants last year as the way TO DO it. (They signed one free agent, and had significant contributions from all of their draft picks last year and won the SB)" first of all we are talking about professional sports and not amauture sports. in another post someone asked "I hope you dont coach any youth leagues with that nonsense". my answer is no, to take that into youth sports is total and complete nonsense. for me in youth sports it is about building character more than winning or losing. it's about doing the best you can do and if you win that is great but if you lose that is ok too. it is also about playing fair and by the rules at all times without exception. for me the main agenda is for the kids to have fun. now on to your "do everything in your power to win the SB every year". are you talking to me? what has that got to do with anything i posted? again, i don't have a clue what you are talking about. i never even got into this "rebuilding" diatribe you are posting. yet again, i don't know what this has to do with any of my posts in this thread but i would like to make a few comments anyway. if they say johnathan quinn gives us the best chance to win every sunday i am sure you believe them because they know more than the fans or media. if you want to survive on blind faith and believe everything this organization tells you then that's fine by me. i'm happy for you. myself... i believe my own eyes first and foremost. if what i see is not quality then i will state it is not. i don't need some coach to tell me whether cade mcnown is good or bad and i don't need some GM to tell me whether johnathan quinn is good or bad either. so it goes.

some peoples definition of success is different. you are entitled to your opinion as am i. i can say that my definition of success is winning the superbowl and nothing else. you are either a winner or a loser and 2nd place finishes mean nothing.

even going into the superbowl can you really say we weren't half a team? did you really have any faith that our offense could outshoot the colts if our defense faltered? "we're done" is a near future reality for this offensive line. they are all old or not even here anymore. we have a mediocre right guard, no left guard, an aging center, no left tackle and an aging right tackle playing left tackle. this is way to much to believe we can fill that many needs for longer than the short term through free agency using other aging vets or potential prospects which we already SHOULD have on our team. you mention success. to me success is only winning a superbowl. anything else is a kiss from your sister and right now i don't see us as a favorite for winning a superbowl this season. anything is possible but in reality do you? again i reiterate, we are only half a team and that half not what the nfl has given the edge to.

here is the problem. we have had that same mentality not only for linemen over the last 25+ years but for qb's as well. we keep thinking that each player we draft has to be ROY or be destined for the hall of fame by playing every down his rookie season and that he contributes nothing if he isn't an instant starter. you have to put people in place to fill your roster in the future as well as the present. offensive linemen and quarterbacks are the building blocks to your entire franchise and you have to take the possibility they won't start immediately into account. if you don't believe this look at our history over the last 50 years. it means angelo has used the draft as an afterthought when it comes to drafting offensive linemen. you don't necessarily have to draft them in the first round every year but how about the 2nd or 3rd round if the player of quality is there? the players you draft in the 6th and 7th round are 'generally' camp fodder or special teams players. for angie to even have gone two years in a row without picking up a lineman when one is needed as much as it is in chicago is criminal. he either is an idiot or he is so bad at determining offensive talent he just drafts defense so his weakness doesn't show. if not that then what?

i look at it like this... we have had an aging offensive line for some time now and we have had almost no quality depth at ALL even for backup quality players. angie has not drafted a single first day pick in FIVE years and only ONE (a 4th round pick) higher than the 6th or 7th round over that same period. can anyone wonder why we have such problems when we draft cannon fodder fullbacks and handsful of safeties (which we can't even get THEM right). you normally use free agency as a stop gap to fill a position until you can draft a replacement to fill in that spot at a later time or to tweak a need for a superbowl run. not like the freakin redskins of the 70's to fill your roster.

ok..... is this english 'good' for you? "if he thinks you can build an offensive line through FA he is totally inept and completely nuts." you CAN believe this... you will pay a primo price for every offensive line player you hire which... 1. limits the number of good offensive linemen you can field because of the cap. some will have to be mediocre or potential reaches. 2. you will spend more money to get these guys and the rest of your team will suffer monetarily and eventually your good players at other positions will leave. 3. you will never have continuity on your offensive line, which is very important, if primo aging vets are projected to only be on your team for 2-4 years. 4. and finally you will never have a primo LOT. they NEVER reach free agency and even if they did you would pay so much you would be in immediate cap trouble.

if anybody wonders why our offense sucks just look at what we have drafted over our GM's tenure. 2007 - 4th round - j. beekman - C/G; 7th round - a. grant - G 2006 - 6th round (2nd 6th round pick) - t. reed - G 2005 - NONE 2004 - NONE 2003 - 7th round - b. anderson - G 2002 - 1st round - m. columbo - T; 3rd round (2nd third round selection) - t. metcalf - G 2001 - angie not involved in draft - 3rd round - m. gandy - T; 5th round - b. robertson - T 2000 - NON-angie period - NONE this is a pretty impressive list of offensive talent for a GM to draft and especially for one who touts the lines are where you build your team around. not a single offensive lineman drafted is a current starter in chicago since angie has been GM. not ONE!! if he else thinks you can build an offensive line through FA he is totally inept and completely nuts.

angie believes offensive linemen take time to develop? hmmm.... don't you have to DRAFT players to be able to develop them over time? don't you have to be able to draft QUALITY ball players to even be ABLE to develop them?? has he ever seen the packer offensive line? for gods sake, 2 years ago they replaced 2/3 of their interior line in one season with rookies who have excelled yet we can't even replace a single one-armed guard with a quality backup. what kind of contribution was our "developed" 6 year vet metcalf (who we just extended his contract a year or two ago)? what does that say about oakly and beekman when we put a utility backup tackle in to replace the worthless metcalf at guard? that we don't even have backup depth with the players angie drafted or that our coaching staff is so pathetic they not only can't coach them but can't even make a qualified judgement of talent??? this mindset of angie is pure BS and is not only killing us now but will in the future if it doesn't drastically change! if he can't judge offensive talent then for X's sake find someone who can and HIRE them!!!

hey at least dallas and wash tried to win using someone who IS/WAS a good coach and weren't afraid to put money on the line. sure it might be a crap shoot but haven't we had basically CRAP for most of the last 50 years? think it may have been worth a try at least once? if nothing else maybe a former offensive minded HC to become our OC? anyway... here are some of the coaches that did pretty well in multiple venues: so-so coaches: herm edwards .464%, wade phillips, dan reeves, jack pardee, jim mora, sid gillman, joe gibbs (edit: same team but brought back so not sure if this fits the criteria) currently active coaches: dungy, gruden, holmgren, shanahan, coughlin, belichick, chuck knox, shottenheimer, marv levy, vince lombardi, vermeil, weeb ewbank, don coryell, parcells,. paul brown, george allen, , jimmy johnson