Lucky Luciano

yet again we look for other teams sweepings as our best hope to fill our qb roster, guys that can't even cut it as a #2 on other teams. if not that we are betting the future of the franchise on a walk-on qb to be our savior. one caution i might add... gruden is not a bad evaluator of qb's and can actually coach them. if we are hoping to pick up his garbage it may just be that... garbage. this is what they should have done 3 decades ago and i have been screaming for this for 2.5 of them. if you don't have scouts and personnel to evaluate the college players you fail. if you have a gm who knows less than nothing about qb's and doesn't hire good scouts and personnel to evaluate these players to give him a clue, you fail. if you don't hire coaches and advisers that can push the talent you draft you will fail. but then it comes down to priorities doesn't it? ever wonder why we can draft good running backs in our history yet don't have any idea what to do at the most important position in football? because it's an afterthought!!! we are so concerned with defense or on offense who contributes the season we draft them that we are always on the edge of the cliff when it comes to getting IMPORTANT personnel that needs a year or two before he is going to contribute. this includes your quarterbacks AND offensive linemen. they should build a thousand foot high statue of jim finks in front of halas hall just to remind everyone how it is done.

disagree it's not that we have bad qb luck, bad qb karma or anything else. the truth is we, as a franchise, make extremely poor management decisions. this franchise has not had anyone with a clue (INCLUDING angelo) in modern football history, with the exception of jim finks and jerry vaniesi (sp), who knows not only what player personnel they are looking at in this position, but don't give two $&!%$ whether they find/found one at all!!! certainly the mccaskey family could care less or it wouldn't have been run this way for over TWENTY YEARS! so yea, that's why we pick reach players we are already overburdened with instead of qb's with potential, even when they are in desperate need of one, and look at the walk-ons or someone else's trash to run our offenses.

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH another case in POINT... we just drafted ANOTHER TE!!!!!!!! for WHAT??? angelo is nuts!! edit: i would like to add he has major character issues and would be eliminated by teams that value character. i guess the main targets are for angie is to draft injured players... i give up.

apparently i would be happy if we stop drafting the same positions year after freakin YEAR while we ignore the offensive line and quarterback position!!!! you name FIVE true guards taken so far. which ones could we have drafted already? all of them except albert? do any of them project as starters in the NFL? hmmmm. another question... who is our backup RT if tate moves over there? sinclair? beekman? oakley? metcalf? tate is getting old. who do we replace him with if he moves to RT? how long does it take to groom offensive linemen? 2 years? 3 years? where is this guy on our roster? oh yea thats right, we will pay a lot of money for an average one who can play out the last string in his career and change him out again later. who really needs continuity on your offensive line or YOUNG studs on your roster. not us that's for sure. who is our #3 qb? who is our qb if the ones we have fail? oh yea... we will be a running team with anyway with all the running backs we now have so why worry about the passing game? do we REALLY need yet another fricken #2 or #3 receiver? well we just drafted another one. so that leaves us with how many WR's? 5? 6? more? any of this sound familiar? jerry angelo has been here since 2001 and yet we don't even have a freakin backup guard that can play better than an ancient one armed brown. that is truly a milestone for a franchise. unfreakin believable!! we don't need to draft and cut players in camp... we need to draft players who can START!!!!!! now on to the chicago bears biggest afterthought... we have been living on POTENTIAL at the qb position for SIX YEARS now and yet angie keeps trading down for crap extra picks we already are glutted with and we cut anyway. just for curiosities sake, where are we going to put this sixth safety? do you know how many safeties we have drafted since that idiot angelo has BEEN here??? are we are now going to be carrying 4 running backs? how many DT's we gonna keep on the roster? how many defensive ends? how many corners since we just drafted ANOTHER one again ahead of a real NEED on this team!! yea i'm getting real sick of six years of GARBAGE out of our draft.

here's the deal... we DON'T need a lot of bodies to fill up special teams we need QUALITY players. yet angie continues the same old same, old CRAP. we trade down again and again until we hit the lowest rounds where he feels comfortable drafting players that if they are busts it's no surprise. it's CHICKEN S$!& drafting. we get in the first round guys that most idiots could pick and from then on we reach or trade down because he doesn't have a freakin clue. the TOP need in this draft was quality offensive linemen. so what do we do? draft one in the first round and it's mission accomplished. in case angie didn't realize it we need freakin GUARDS!! some guards in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th round would have been nice. so what do we get? drafting a RB probably a round ahead of where a good GM would pick him, iffy receivers, slow safeties (which we neeeeed fast ones in our cover 2 crap), and frickin defensive tackles. not to mention we get a DT who has a serious problem with his knees AND he has drug arrest problems. why in the hell not just keep tank johnson if we draft his clone? i've about had it with this guy. he has no grasp of the reality on this team. we keep drafting the same people over and over and over and ignore the quality players in the draft we really have a need for to get cannon fodder.

ok i'm starting to believe this guy is a real running back and not another variation of wolf. just to let you know where this is coming from, one of the reasons i questioned this guys value is in the same pro football weekly 2008 draft guide that said he lacked speed they posted his 40 time as 4.63. some tight ends have better speeds than what they had posted so thus the major concern on my part. as some others posted i would rather have gone after another need if the quality player was there but if not this guy sounds like he can compete for the starting job which in my opinion is a must for a pick that high so i can live with the pick.

i'm NOT saying what quality forte is or is NOT because i have never seen him play in my life. i am only going on what i read. i am also NOT saying these rags know JACK about anything. if they are wrong that is what i want to know and why they are wrong. if they project him in their rag as being only a FB possibility and it's true then the pick was nuts. if they were wrong then THATS what i want to know. that he is a HALFBACK that is projected as a starter when we drafted him. if for some reason he is a specialty back, if for some reason he is REALLY a fullback then angelo has brain damage drafting him in the 2nd round!!!!!!!

look, the pro football weekly guide is a magazine that cost seven bucks and is on the news stands. if you have some special edition of this magazine that i don't let me know and i will demand my money back. as far as the items you asked about... the PFW guide on page 38 in the RB section forte is listed RB #7. at the bottom of the page is listed "ROUND" and has numbers 1-7 next to it. the highligted numbers in white are rounds 3 to 4 at where he is projected to be drafted. the other guide has a RB section at which forte is the #15 listed back. i assume that is quality of player and if not the magazine is run by cretins. here is what it boils down to... no i have not seen this guy play and am not questioning anyone who has other than to ask relevant questions. i can ONLY judge him at THIS POINT by what i have read in these draft guides. if you disagree with what these writers say then explain it in detail why they are wrong. in fact if forte is NOT and will NOT become a fullback to stay in the nfl and is projected to be a full time half back i will be at least ready to see what happens before i label him. if he IS at best a glorified FB then this pick is horrendous and nobody will convince me any different. FB's just are not this valuable that you waste mid 2nd round picks on them.

i don't know which edition you have of ProFootball Weekly Draft Guide you have but my ProFootball Weekly 2008 Draft Guide says this for his downside: "Runs upright. Takes time to build speed and can be slow to reach the perimeter. Struggles to make defenders miss in the open field. Loses his base and could do a better job sustaining blocks in pass protection. Does not naturally adjust his body and struggles to catch anything thrown behind him. Lacks top-end speed and is not a home-run threat. Production is inflated having faced marginal Conference USA competition." he was ranked to go in the 3rd or 4th round. listed as the 7th best rb in this magazine. here is what is in Pro Football Draft Guide '08: Downside - "Forte is anything but a burner, and his physical running style won't be nearly as effective in the NFL. He's also not very elusive. Forte is really more of a three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust type whose best chance might be to bulk up and play fullback in the NFL. Bottom Line - Forte will likely have a spot in the NFL if he can add fullback skills and become more versatile. He'll likely be a situational hybrid back who could see planty of action on third down and in single-back sets. He could also be an asset on the goal line." as far as trading up at around the 20-25 spot in the first there WERE trades happening. i think the skins? actually traded out and the cost was similar if not smaller than what i stated. Edit: he was also ranked in this magazine as the 15th best running back in the draft.

as i stated i haven't seen any college ball and am going on draft rags but.... IF if forte isn't a potential FULL TIME every down halfback it sucks as a pick!!!

i'm on dial up and could only watch a very limited amount of these video's but although it seemed sped up a bit this forte guy doesn't look like any fullback type runner to me. so those on the know... is this forte guy a real fulltime runningback or another change of pace guy? if it's not a potential fulltime back we got screwed blue and tattooed.

like i said i havent watched either player. i can only go buy what these good/crappy draft books project. but if forte doesn't project in quality as close to the 3rd RB picked in the draft (mendy), and it doesn't seem close, then it was a complete waste of a pick. so you basically wasted a 2nd round pick on an average or poor RB to save an extra 3rd round pick. that's stupid logic if angelo and the other bricks sitting in our war room figure this is how you build a franchise.

ok then tell me why it would have "sucked just as much." you would have basically traded an EXTRA 3rd round pick we had for mendy. the 7th rounder we could have sweetened the deal with doesn't mean jack S$#!& because we have THREE OTHERS in the same round!!!! as i didn't watch college ball this year i assume you did. so tell me how much better or worse mendy is compared to forte and why that pick would have sucked. hey if they picked another OL i'm with that. if they thought a QB warranted that pick, fine i'm ok with that. but if these D!%$# just wanted a RB then why in the holy C$%!#@ didn't they pick one who COULD be an every down back and one who COULD be good???????????????????????????????/

are you seriously comparing forte to tomlinson? really???? if they say tomlinson "looks to make the home run play" doesn't that mean he has the speed and capability to actually physically DO IT???? forte is supposed to beef up just to be a freakin FULL BACK?? what team but us draft >>>potential if these ass clowns running our draft had balls larger than a bee bee they could have moved up into the bottom of the 1st round and gotten MENDENHAL by giving up our 2nd, one of our thirds and a seventh to at least 2 different teams!!! would anyone here want mendy and only have given up our 2nd rounder plus one of our 2 third rounders and one of our million 7th rounders to get him??

i have to admit i have not watched much college ball this year but... if the people who write these draft mags know their arse from a hole in the ground can anyone tell me why we picked forte in the 2nd round?? i quote: Pro Football Draft Ranked #7 - "Runs upright. Takes time to build speed... struggles to make defenders miss in open field. Lacks top end speed. Production is inflated having faced marginal Conference USA competition. Could best fit as a one-back or utility back..." AND he is coming back from a serious injury????? Pro Football Draft Guide Ranked #15 - "More of a three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust type... will likely have a spot in the NFL if he can add fullback skills... Likely a situational hybrid back who could see plenty of action on third down." sounds like a slower version of cedric benson or a MUCH slower version of A-train. so yet again we waste a first day pick on a tweener situational back. it's freakin NUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YES absolutely a good idea. the way it is now is way to small. another idea would be to delete the first group/section of permanent posts (Important Topics) and put a link just below the banner to a separate page with all this info on it. 30-40 posts in this type of format would be awsome.

ask your doctor about the possibility of meniers disease. in the mean time stay away from caffeine and nicotine and a lot of salt till you get a diagnosis. good luck

hahahahahaha this is the bill wrigley recipe on how to build a team. good job.

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.