nfoligno

Just checking, but if Forte is hit with the Franchise tag, and does not sign it, would he technically be "holding out"? By tagging him, the bears retain the rights to Forte, but he is not under contract. Just like when you have a rookie who has not signed a contract. Everyone uses the term holdout, but that isn't correct. He isn't under contract, thus he is not officially a holdout. Thus a team can not slap him with fines. I thought it the same for franchise tagged players. If they refuse to show up for camp or whatever, they can't be slapped with fines as they are not under contract.

IMHO, all the more reason for him to just shut up and play. If everyone is saying Angelo needs to pay up, then Forte has no reason to make it an issue himself. Just continue to play as he has, and let everyone else do the talking. In doing this, he wins all around. But when he continually talks as he has, IMHO, it only serves to create tension and problems.

Your left? J/K. Welcome back. And your "break" was no where near as long as mine

While you know I'm on board with firing Martz/Angelo, on a sep point, I wish Forte would STFU In the offseason, the bears made him an offer. He felt he was worth more and turned it down. That's the business side of football. Either side could make their case. Forte had the opportunity to put up a good year and cash in. Just shut up and go about your business. IMHO, the reason this is still the story it is, is in large part due to Forte continuing to talk like this. Look. Don't misunderstand me. Forte is playing incredible, and earning money with each game. But I just wish he would shut up. Seriously. This is why GMs don't like to work on deals during the season. It becomes a distraction.

Well yea. If the WR is even with the defender, the only way a defender can impeed the progress of the WR is by holding him. that's illegal. The same rule applies on special teams with the gunner in that if the gunner is even with the defenders, the defender can no longer block the gunner without holding. In order for the block to be legal, you must be in front of him. But that is also my point. If you line up two DBs opposite the WR, you are not only created a jam, but in a way you are creating a wall. It is harder for the WR to get past the two defenders, and thus get even with them. With two defenders, it is easier to keep the WR in front of you and not get slipped. Could the two defenders block the WR all day. By rule, yes. But in reality, maybe the refs would eventually throw a flag, even if the blocks were legal. However, I would argue you are near a lock to significantly slow the WR up. If you limit Johnson this way, you give your DL a much better chance of getting to Stafford.

Agreed. I would have liked to see discussion about the coaching staff and management as well, but can't argue with much. I will say this one thing. IMHO, our DL has not been as bad as they have been made out to be. They set the bar very high week one, and have not matched that, however, I think they have been pretty decent to good. I've seen opposing QBs getting rid of the ball much quicker. Part of the issue is our DBs continue to play so far off the LOS, they give QBs easy quick release outs. It's really difficult for a DL, any DL, to pressure the passer when WRs are open immediately. WRs seems to also be open for quick slants, again, making the job of the DL tougher. I'm not saying they have been great, but I don't think QBs are often just sitting back in the pocket on 5 and 7 step drops. The two work together. A DB can't cover a WR all day, so without any pass rush, even the best DBs will get burned. Vice versa, if the DBs are giving WRs loads of space, then the best DL isn't going to generate consistent pressure. I'm not saying our DL is great, but I do think they have done better than some have credited them for. If our DBs could press, or the staff would allow them too, I think our DL may be getting to the QB more often, but as it is, every time the QB feels pressure, he has an easy, wide open target.

I don't know. I have seen games where the DB flat knocks the WR on his ass right out of the gate. It's totally legal to do this. I remember when you had Martz in Stl, several teams defended by drilling the WRs at the LOS. Stl adapted by using Holt in motion a lot. Putting a WR in motion is the best way to avoid this as it is so difficult to jam a WR in motion. I agree there is a risk to getting a call, but disagree it's against the rules. The DB has to be careful about how he jams. He can not hold the WR, obviously. But I don't see how it's against the rules. IMHO, the bigger reason why you don't see this is, if the WR breaks the jam, it is a near lock for a score. If you pulled a 2nd DB, likely a safety, to double at the LOS, then you likely have little or no help over the top. If the WR beats the jam, likely nothing between him and the endzone. Thus its a super risky defense, and flies in the face of everything Lovie teaches (keeping everything in front of the DB). However, I still think it's feasable, and yes, even within the rules.

One, Forte was great, but at the same time, in the prior three games he was getting drilled in the backfield. Two, As good as Forte has been, his rushing hasn't been huge. Last year was his first over 4.0 ypc average. He's great because of everything he does, but as a pure rusher, he hasn't been the most consistent, and a big part of that is the OL. Three, Even if the OL is run blocking well, that doesn't mean they pass block well. Four, I think Cutler has gotten plenty of blame, regardless of the OL. Cutler isn't given a free pass. With that said, our OL does suck. They had ONE game where they run blocked well, opening holes, but prior to this game, they were getting blown up. Forte was getting hit in the backfield and Cutler was under constant pressure

But why do you believe that. Better coaches in NE could not change the way he plays, and ultimately cut him in large part because they couldn't change him. Why do you believe Lovie, the players best friend, will get him to change when Bilichek couldn't?

What I think fans have to realize is, we are seeing a big reason why NE let him go. He didn't get bounced do to off-field crap. NE has plenty on the team who are not the best characters. It's the inconsistent play on the field that got him bounced. He is a big hitter, no question, but as often as he makes the highlight reel with big hits, he also gives up big plays, often for scores. IMHO, he should be a SS and not relied on for deep coverage. He is a LB with good range more than a FS you want as your last line of defense.

Since your going to double team him anyway, why not defend him as you would the gunner on special teams. Put two defenders on the Line of scrimmage to jam him and keep him from even starting his route. Jam him like you would the gunner. Utilize the 5 yard chuck rule and knock him on his arse.

I'm sure there have been some, but who have we lost because we couldn't afford to re-sign them, or wouldn't shell out to do so? Everyone was up in arms about Briggs a few years ago. The Bears tried to sign him early, but he wouldn't do it. They tried again just before FA. Made a sound offer, but he turned it down. He felt he was worth so much more. Seems his market was not as high as he thought, and finally he returned to the team he said he would never play for again to take whatever they offered. Kreutz was set to hit FA a few years back, when he was still playing at a high level and considered one of the top centers in the league. Everyone moaned about how he would be gone if he hit FA because we would never spend the money to match. Well, Miami made a very nice offer, and we matched it. This past year, he wanted X, we offered Y, and let him walk. I don't hear many crying over that. How about Bernard Berrian. He wanted more than we were willing to give him. He went to Minny. I remember some saying the Bears were cheap, but most felt Minny offered too much. Does anyone feel he earned his new contract? Heck, has he earned the deal we would have given him? It's not a new thing where a team sets a players value at X, while the player believes his value is Y. But I'm not sure how many examples can be pointed to where we lost a player, and regretted it, because we weren't willing to pay him what he felt he was worth. Seems like either the player over-estimated his value and returned, or left and never lived up the money he got. Am I missing any examples? I knock this managment plenty, but one thing they have always done well is in the area of contracts. We sign our rookies early, and for fair deals with minimal controversy. We re-up many of our talented players early on, avoiding FA, and reaping down the road salary cap benefits. So for all those who are screaming we have to pay Forte whatever he wants now, I think we need to take a step back. I'm still not sure he will find the market as great as he thinks, but even if he does, I'm not sure we lose him. I think maybe the biggest hangup I have is, Forte is demanding a contract at FA market value. The whole reason to lock up a player early is to sort of get a break on that value. He is signing early, thus should take a little off what he would get if he were a FA. If his demand is FA market value, why sign him early? What is the benefit to the team?

Not how I read it. Roy Williams was taking the blame. He was 0-4 on passes thrown his way.

You can find the same on every team. Look. No question we have had our misses, but IMHO, more than the misses what stands out are the mediocre hits. Take our 1997 draft as an example. We took Curtis Enis with the 5th pick. Ouch. Worse in hindsight when thinking about how we passed on a deal that could have had us move down and take Fred Taylor plus get an extra pick or two. BUT, as bad as that pick was, we also drafted Kreutz and Parrish. Parrish was a solid DB, but in the Kreutz pick, we got a decade pro bowl center. Missing on a top pick is something every team does, and hurts, but not only hitting but getting a stud compensates. Angelo misses a lot, just as every GM does. But Angelo's hits are more of the average or okay variety.

Well, obviously. Just saying that if you put three of the best WRs EVER on the field, even behind this OL, the offense would be pretty damn good. We'd see crazy arse stuff like a nose tackle, and 10 dropping back into coverage. Even our 5 OL could block a single nose tacke. Um. Maybe