nfoligno

I am not so sure. NE is a team w/ their sights set on the SB, and nothing short of that. Brady has been having all sorts of issues w/ his health since the surgury. If they do not have a healthy Brady, and sent Cassel packing, what happens to their season. Cassel as an insurance policy might be a very expensive insurance policy, but it is a short term one, and if it helps make it back to the SB, is it not worth the price? If they start getting better news on Brady, then maybe, but I just have not read enough good news about Brady for me to expect a trade, at least not thus far.

One. Trading player for player is something fans often talk about, as they often want to get rid of their own garbage, but frankly, doesn't often happen in the NFL. It does happen, sure, but not very often. Two. I am not saying we couldn't get a deal done if we wanted. What I am questioning is why we would want. If you are going to give up as much as you will have to for Cassell, you should be in a situation where that is the player you believe puts you over the top. I question the sense for a team more loaded w/ holes than answers giving up a fortune to get a player. Three. We are not talking about a sure thing. Far from it. We are talking about a kid who never started in college. He started this year and played extremely well, but at the same time, he was in about as ideal of a situation as you will find. He had a good OL, incredible weapons to throw to and maybe the best coaching in the NFL. Pull him out of that environment, and place him in a situation where the OL is among the league worst and "Wrs go to die", and I question how well he would do. My point about Minny is, they far more fit the first point. If they had a franchise QB, I think most would agree they would have had a much greater shot at the SB this year. In Minny, a QB has maybe the best OL in the game protecting him. Far easier to develop when you are not under extreme pressure every snap, and can sit back in the pocket allowing players to develop. In Minny, a QB has the best run game in the NFL to take pressure off. How many defenses are going to focus their attack on the QB w/ Peterson in the backfield? Like w/ the OL talk, w/ a RB like AP, not to mention Taylor, no defense is going to focus on the QB, making his transition and development that much easier. While Minny does not have the WR talent like Moss/Welker, they do have Berrian, which sure seems like more than we have at this point. So he does have a solid WR to work w/, as well as a solid TE. I would also point out they have a defense such that not many teams are going to light up the scoreboard, and thus again, pressure is lessened for the QB. I really hope it doesn't happen. I hope NE fears Brady's health, and tagged Cassell because they truly want to keep him around for insurance. I do not want him going to Minny as I think they could be damn scary w/ a legit QB under center.

I agree Leftwhich may have options available to him that offer a greater opportunity to start, and further agree it is not strongly likely we sign him. Where I disagree is in your ranking of remaining FA QB. Sorry, but Simms is so far down my list it is not even funny. I have beaten this dead horse often before, but will continue to do so. Simms sucks. He is a Grossman clone. He lacks field awareness. He is slow in decision making. And worst of all. When pressured, he crumbled. It was no different in college. At Texas, w/ an elite OL and great weapons, he was rarely under legit pressure. The only team capable of putting pressure on him was Oklahoma, and they had his number. Oklahoma knew then, what I am saying now. Pressure Simms and he will fold. He is simply a mentally weak QB. I swear to you, if not for his last name, he would be done. I would argue that, if not for his last name, he would not have even started over Major Applewhite, and thus, would not have been drafted as high as he was. He would not still today be considered a player worth looking at. This is a kid who has done jack shit, but due to his last name, continues to get press. While I am not saying any of the below options are great, if we are looking for a relatively young QB to sign cheap, but who would offer a more reliable #2 than what we have: Losemen - He is 27 and has decent/good size. In his one full season starting, he put up decent (not great) numbers. 3,000+ yards, 19/14 TD/Int ratio, 62.5 completion % and a 85 QB rating. He has had his problems over the last two seasons since, but I would say he still have a greater upside than most. Also a key for me is, while he has not worked out for Buffalo, that is the only team he has worked w/. Some players simply do not fit/workout for the teams that drafted them, but perform well elsewhere. I give a bit of a leg up to a player who has only played for one team, rather than one who has failed for numerous. Boller - Never great, and not often that good, but again. Good size (6'3 220) and right age, 27. Failed in Baltimore which has not had much of an offense for him to work w/. Injuries as much as talent hurt his NFL career. If looking for a starter, far from my first option, but a #2? He has 53 games of experience but is still young, and IMHO, still has some upside. Again, like Losemen, failed for the team that drafted him, but has not failed elsewhere yet. David Carr - Admittedly, I have always been a fan of his. In Texas, fans could never understand what the organization was doing. They drafted their franchise QB, but seemed to always surround him w/ Chicago like OLs. Yes, he had weapons, but the pass protection was so bad, it would make ours look allpro. Has been a backup behind two set veterans since leaving Houston, and played reasonably well when given the ball. I personally think Carr has greater upside than many other available QBs, but at the same time, not sure he is the best fit for us. Carr is a bit like Drew Bledsoe. If he has an OL to protect him, he can look pretty darn good. But if he doesn't have that OL, he doesn't have the escapability to buy time or compensate. Patrick Ramsey - I always thought he was a pretty decent looking QB on a pretty bad team in Wash. Injuries effected him as much as talent. Since leaving Wash, he has been a backup QB w/ few chances to see the field playing behind Cutler. All four of these QBs have game experience, are still relatively young (27-29) and have good size (smallest being 6'2). All were highly regarded at one point, and could fall into that category of not working out for their drafted team, but finding success elsewhere. I would take any one of these players over Simms or Rex, and believe any of them would provide a solid backup to Orton. Further, I think we can sign any of these guys to a 2+ year deal on the cheap, which could be key. If Orton is one and done after this year, I would hate to enter 2010 a player like Hanie as our only signed QB.

Not speaking on Ramses specifically, but I do believe what we need as much as anything is a WR w/ great route running ability, as well as quickness in and out of breaks. If that is Ramses, fine. Height is great, but route running and quickness are more key for me. On Olsen filling that role, to me, the problem is that Olsen is all we have for that role. While I agree w/ your points, at the same time, I would say we limit Olsen too much due to our need to play him as we have had to do. Imagine if we had a better WR option and didn't have to use Olsen on the shorter routes. I think Olsen could be a legit downfield playmaker for us, particularly attack the deep seem, but so long as we have so little at WR, we will have to continue to use him short, which simply limits his effectiveness. I would also point out we limit the potential mismatches. If we are limited to using Olsen in only shorter range, defenses less have to worry about putting faster players like DBs on him, which would otherwise create size mismatches. Defenses are more able to use bigger SS' or LBs on Olsen if we are limited in our we use him, and thus, we do not get the mismatches we might like. While different, I would point out how years ago we had to change how we used Booker. Early on, Booker was used far more often downfield. Not saying he was ever a speed receiver, but he did attack defenses deeper downfield, using route running and quickness rather than speed. But soon after, due to lacking any other reliabel targets, we were forced to use Booker as an underneath route running damn near exclusively. While he was effective and still did well, it limited his overall effectiveness and potential. To me, Olsen could be so much more than what he has been thus far, and a key reason for that is our lack of complimentary weapons.

I think Davis actually runs very crisp routes, and that is why he so often is able to get open. The problem w/ Davis is he just can't catch the damn ball. Hester absolutely does not run crisp routes.

CHICAGO BEARS — At some point, the Bears will have to address their quarterback situation. There were times last season when Kyle Orton appeared to have a good handle on things, but after sustaining an ankle injury, he was not the same productive player he was earlier in the year. The Bears need a marquee player on offense, someone they can build around and make all the other pieces fit. They need someone they do not have to manage but who can run a complete offense. The need is there, but I doubt the Bears will be serious players. They have the 18th pick in the first round, but they hate to part with picks. I think Minny offers a much more ideal situation for Cassel. In Chicago, we just do not have the OL or WRs in place to expect great results. If we had all the pieces in place on offense, minus the QB, I would be far more in favor of taking such a gamble on a QB w/o a more proven track record, but w/ more holes than positives, I just do not see this as a good fit.

As I said to Mongo, I would absolutely prefer to add a legit FB, and have beaten that drum for years. BUT, I fear our staff doesn't value the FB position as much as you or I, and if we are not going to add a legit FB, I would much prefer to give AP a shot, rather than simply continue w/ the worthless McKie at FB.

The reason I agree with this is, I see the same things Turner is talking about. IMO – Orton came back from his injury, playing not to re-injure. Once that creeps into your mind, things like going through your reads and instinctive timing with the receiver go out the window. It basically keeps you getting “in the zone” so to speak. If you look at Orton with the game on the line, he always seemed to up his game. (as in forgetting about staying healthy and just playing) Another factor I recall reading about, and was also discussed on this board. There was a ton of talk about all the work Orton did in the offseason to improve his footwork. I don't recall the specifics now, but something about changes in his footwork improving many areas of his game. Anyway, when he came back (too soon) from injury, he wasn't 100% able to plant on his foot, and thus all the footwork improvements basically went out the window. So (a) footwork improvements made were gone ( inability to plant affects your passing, timing and accuracy. As his health regained, and his ability to plant w/ his foot and put full pressure on it, so did his timing and accuracy, not to mention confidence. Now, some may blame Orton for coming back too soon. That is understandable IMHO. At the same time, we were looking at a possible post season, Orton before the injury seemed fully in charge of the offense, and we were going into a game w/ our rival. I can understand why he felt rushed to get back out there, even if in hindsight it appears to have been a mistake. Again, I agree with Turner on this. Orton was showing good accuracy downfield prior to the injury. It wasn’t great, but good enough to keep the opponent honest. Yea. Orton may not have the greatest arm strength, but frankly, I do not recall it being considered a weakness coming out of college either. He seemed to gain a bad reputation in this regard through his rookie season because we had him on such a leash, but he was a rookie, and I do not think he was asked to take a ton of risks, especially not w/ the defense we had at the time. But because of that year, I think many were led to believe he simply lacked arm strength, and I have always questioned that. I have said all along that I think he does have the arm strength to go downfield, but what he really lacked was timing, and despite what so many want to believe, timing isn't automatic. It takes time working w/ a receiver to get it down. This is an area I expect to see improvement, especially w/ Hester who he has now had time and reps working with. Not mentioned, but the one area I really questioned Orton was his decision making toward the end of the year. Some picks were due to timing, which I would relate back to the injury, but some others were flat out bad decisions/reads. At times, it simply seemed like he was not "seeing the field" as he was before, and throwing the ball right to defenders. He also began to stare down receivers more, whereas earlier in the season he seemed to do a much better job of looking off the DB before making the pass. I do not know if this was due to footwork, confidence or what, but it was an area he went backward on and needs to be addressed in the offseason. Field awareness was the biggest positive I felt Orton had over Rex, and w/o that...... Turner has to convince me on this one. I do agree that they are not the same player. But Turner has to show me he is able to get Forte off the field. There was another question in that interview regarding Forte’s touches being high and Turner agreed they don’t want to run his dick in the dirt. But the unwillingness to play players like Bennett, or even Williams (at guard) late in the season when the people ahead of them were atrocious lets me Turner gets locked into personnel. That may be the case, but I think the RB situation was different. In the WR and OL examples you throw out, I see a key difference. While you do not want to "run Forte's dick into the dirt" at the same time, you are taking a known asset off the field for an unknown asset. You are not talking about replacing a weakness w/ an unknown (OL/WR) but replacing a strength w/ an unknown, and that is very different IMHO. I think it is more a matter of having such a level of confidence in Forte that you struggle to take him out of the game, especially when so few others had stepped up. W/ Wolfe, I truly do believe it comes down to pass protection. In Forte, we finally found a RB that was solid in this regard. Forte was a big reason Orton was not killed as often as Rex in the past. In Wolfe, I think the staff questioned his ability to pickup blitzes, and for a team that already struggled to do such, I can understand holding back on him until he better proved himself in practice in this regard. Blah blah blah. I don’t want to find any more reason to use AP as a skill position player. He strikes fear into no-one. I won’t settle for anything less than a real fullback this year! Understand, I have screamed for a FB for years. BUT (a) I simply do not believe our staff places as much value on a true FB that can open holes for the RB as I would like and ( I think the staff (particularly Lovie) simply loves AP, and will continue to find ways to use him. If that is the case, and we are not going to truly upgrade at FB, I would just as soon give AP a try over McKie, who I think is basically worthless. I don't think McKie is a very good blocker. He can catch a short pass, but immediately goes down and rarely seems to gain more than a couple yards on passes. And those FB dives tells the story of his ability to run w/ the ball. So, while I agree w/ the idea of adding a legit FB, if we are not going to do that, I would rather give AP a look at FB than continue w/ McKie. The O-line was the weakest link last year. That being said, they played better than I thought they would. My hope is that was all left out because they feel our O is going to be prominent with the new OL additions they are planning and don't want to tip off the enemy.(Like they don't know) We can only hope. My biggest fear is that, w/ our OL playing above VERY LOW expectations, our staff falls into the mis-belief that they are better than they are, and that adding Williams to LT will be the answer to all our questions. That is my top fear this offseason, as I agree our OL sucks. IMHO, the OL stunk, but looked better than expected due to Forte/Orton, rather than due to their own play. Orton was light years better than Rex, IMHO, in terms of field awareness and getting rid of the ball/ not taking sacks/ quickly getting rid of the ball, and thus the pass protection "seemed" better. And Forte was simply able to (a) slip through the smallest holes ( quickly burst through a hole before it closed, which wasn't long and © able to better change direction and make something out of nothing. If you think about Forte's best runs, they were often him bouncing outside when the expected holes was in fact a wall of defenders. So I simply feel Forte and Orton made the OL look better than it was, which wasn't much anyway. My fear is Angelo and Co buy into that misconception and further believe Williams addition is all the OL needs. If that is the case, I see our offense more likely to take a step back this year.

I absolutely ripped AP last year for his blocking, but would also point out that prior to last year, he was considered a very good blocker and this is an area that can be further worked on. I truly do not know why his blocking seemed to tank last year. But he is a hard worker and I have more faith in his ability to work toward improvement.

Thanks for posting that in this boring ass time. Three things that jumped out at me: I thought everyone could use a break from Lucky and my debates #1. Greg Olsen is the #1 reason we're not desperate for a WR. Sure our WR's are still not good, but Hester & Olsen were 1 & 2 in receiving yards for the Bears this season. It makes a helluva a lot more sense to draft another WR in rounds 2 or 3 and let those two continue to develop, rather then going all out for Boldin or Housh. Honestly not sure if I would read so much into that. The question was specific about using Olsen at WR, and Turner's point was we will not move him full time, but that we will continue to use him often all over. Not necessarily saying you are wrong, but just that I think you are reading too much into this specific answer. #2. I suspect the AP to FB is nothing. We've heard about the 2 RB formations since we drafted Benson and it's NEVER happened. AP is a good blocking RB, but he's no lead blocker. If we're serious about him playing FB, we'll hear stories in July how AP bulked up 20 lbs in the off-season. If that don't happen, there's no way it happens. I take that back, if we acquire another RB we really like we might convert him, but didn't we like Jones? For the record, the questioner referred to Larry Centers. Centers was 6' 225lbs. I don't think Centers was ever a true lead blocking FB, and I am not sure that is the idea for AP, if there is even an "idea" here. But frankly, I am not sure he would be any less of a blocker than McKie. #3. Turner explained why Wolfe doesn't touch the ball on offense. Based on Turner's comments, does anyone think this will change? I think so. To me, it sure sounds like he is looking at Wolfe w/ future plans. To me, it sounds like it is on Wolfe. Our staff has always felt a RB needs to prove capable of being able to block before getting much of a chance. Was that not always the knock on Benson, and he was a top 5 pick. If we are going to make a top 5 pick prove himself as a blocker before he gets key action, do you think there would be a lesser expectation for a 3rd round pick? I think Wolfe must prove capable of blitz pickup and blocking, and if he can do that, he will see more action.

Well, it is the Bear's own web site, and I would guess they pick and choose questions, just as most do. I don't know. He took a couple tough questions (FB dive, Orton lack of deep play, Bennett) but I would suspect there were many more questions sent in, and some administrator choose the questions. Something like that. Then again, maybe it is all smoke.

Saw on the Bears site some Q & A w/ Turner. As would be expected, not a whole lot of earth shattering news, but hey, its slow as hell, and I think others are getting tired of Lucky and my's back and forth Check out the bears site for full Q & A, but some of the basics. Hester - Felt the light turned on for Hester in the final 6 weeks, and said it was then Hester simply began to play, rather than think. Very high on his future. Bennett - Asked by Bennett couldn't get playing time, Turner essentially said the game was just too fast for him. Over and over again, continued to say Bennett wasn't playing as fast, or at NFL speed. Did say it often takes player several years to adjust from college to NFL speed. Frankly, seemed like a fairly generic answer, but you have to wonder just how bad it was. I mean, the kid was supposed to be really smart, quick learner and all, and yet the game was just too fast for him? Anyway, Turner said Bennett did start to get up to NFL speed at the end of the year, and they tried to get him on the field more (some). Generic, "offseason will be very important for him". Brett Basanez - Very high on him. Said he heavily recruited him out of HS, but didn't do a good enough job to land him. Mentioned playing against him each season (Illinois). Said, "He’s an athlete. He can run. He’s got great accuracy and good touch, and he’s very intelligent.". Sounds like he may be considered a tad more than camp fodder, but I still doubt he there to push anyone but maybe Hanie. Chris Williams - Not much there. Said he will be great. After injury, took time to get into game shape, but made strides and will be the starting LT next year. FB Dive - Actually asked why he used it so much, and questioner said it was predictable. Loved that one:) Began by talking about how they try to mix things up so as to not be predictable. Went on to say they only used it twice in short yardage and 4 times out of 30 in goal line situations. What I did take away from this was his defense of the play, saying, "It’s a quick-hitter play that we think can work because everyone’s keyed in on Matt Forte" which leads me to believe we will see this play again next year. If we do, I can only hope it will (a) be a different FB and ( behind a different interior OL. Olsen to WR? - Talked about how much Olsen was moved around, as he played TE, WR and even FB. Mentioned Olsen played WR as much as 15-20% of the time. Said Olsen will not move full time to WR, as he likes the matchup issues Olsen creates at TE, but expect to see him continue to play all around. Orton development - Maybe I am just naive (sp?), but I honestly believe Turner when he speaks highly of Orton. Doesn't mean everything he says is true, but I really do get the feeling Turner is in fact high on Orton. Turner said he believes Orton is a long term solution to our QB problems. Talked about how well his development was going prior to the injury, how the injury seemed to kill his timing, but how his timing seemed to get back to him again at the end. Orton lack of deep ball - Turner seems to truly believe in the need for the big play, but also believes Orton is capable of such. He said Orton did miss on some deep balls, but went on to say it wasn't all his fault. He implies the biggest issue was a lack of timing between Orton and the WRs, also mentioning a lack of practice reps between he and the WRs. Mentions injuries, and I get the impression he means WRs, but not sure who he is talking about. "The more he’s around them and the more experience he gets, he’ll hit those. A lot of it has to do with practice. We had some guys who couldn’t practice as much as they wanted because of injuries. If you’re not throwing those things full speed in practice, it’s hard to hit them in the games." Is Wolf Sproles - While he speaks well of Wolfe, and also believes Wolf has a role in the future, he doesn't sound like he see's the two RBs are being that similar. Says that while they are similar in height, Sproles has more power in his lower body and is more compact. He does mention Wolfe's ability in the screen pass and explosion. He talks about AP getting reps Wolfe may have due to confidence in AP, particularly in regard to blitz pickup. I get the impression that if Wolfe get more impress the coaches in terms of blocking and protection, we may see Wolfe more and more phased in and AP phased out. AP at FB - This was one of the more interesting ones, IMHO. Someone mentioned the idea of AP at FB, similar to Larry Centers. Turner called the question great, said it was a great observation, and even said it was something they have talked about. Said it is something AP can do, and mentioned the idea of a backfield w/ both AP (as the FB) and Forte as the halfback. Interesting idea IMHO. I am not sold on AP as a lead blocker, but would not mind taking a look at this. IMHO, AP would offer FAR MORE potential from the FB position when it comes to passing or handing off to the FB. Interesting question, and even more so w/ Turner saying it is something they have talked about. I think this may rely on Wolfe, and his ability to improve or impress in blocking. If Wolfe can improve his blitz pickup, and thus phase AP out of the RB rotation (and knowing how the staff loves AP) we could see AP move more to the FB position. As expected, there was not a ton of new info, but some tid bits worth talking about, and again, its a slow time.

Always been a gripe about mine. I would say, many coaches around the league force players to work w/in their system, rather than alter/mold the system around particular players. However, it just seems like the best coaches are the ones who do a better job of not simply forcing a square peg into a round hole, but finding better ways to utilize that peg. For me, an even greater indictment is the analogy of this past SB. More than once (many times in fact) the announcers discusses how Pitt was shutting down Fitz (at least most of the game). They pointed out how Pitt was running an inverted cover two in essense. They used their physical safety (Polamalu) to press Fitz at the LOS, and then played Ike Taylor as the secondary, over the top cover guy. Further, while they used this scheme, they used many others, mixing it up constantly so Az could not easily adjust. My question is this. If Lovie were the DC of that Pitt defense, does anyone truly believe he would have come up w/ such a scheme? Or would have have simply played "his" scheme, and expected the players (working in that scheme) to simply win the matchups.

1. in a previous post i listed FIVE good pro-bowl corners that play in the cover 2. you don’t consider r. barber, d. abraham, a. williams or ty law good corners? does that answer your question? incidentally, the bucs brian kelly was considered a good cover corner playing opposite barber. Kelly and Abraham are two perfect examples IMHO. Both were CBs who looked great in TB, but once they left, both were exposed as being far from stellar. Kelly was nothing in Det, and sure not the savior they signed him to be. Abraham went to NYJ, and was never the CB they thought they were getting. In TB, they were in a system that was ideal for their talents, but once they left, they looked average at best. That is essentially my point. CBs in the cover two are often system talents. I do not think either Abraham or Kelly would be considered shut down corners. Barber? He has never left TB so he is harder to judge, but I also thought he too was refered to as a zone or cover two corner, rather than ever being in the category of shut down corner. Law is the closest example of a shut down corner, but I would call him an exception to the rule, and not the rule. Also, notice how your examples are all from TB? you then state that other corners playing the cover 2 are better playing bump and run than ours. isn’t this the point of our entire discussion? that our #2 quality corners are poor at it and CAN’T with any consistency?? One, I said others "may" be better playing bump and run. This is a big point for me. You believe, I think, that we do not play bump and run because we do not have the talent. I believe we shy away from bump and run due to Lovie's system. I do not think it is an area our players work on, and thus, our players are not likely to look good at it in the rare occasions we try it. If it was a focus of our system, and thus something we worked on often, I think our corners may in fact look better at it than you might believe. I simply do not believe it is part of Lovie's system, and thus not something we work on, and thus our CBs never look good if they do try. sure these corners are/were great playing in zone, cover 2, type defenses but they were more than just that. each of these players ‘could’ play up tight to get their hands on receivers and cover them to the point where they left their zones. most also could play man coverage when asked to at a high level. I simply question this. The key for me is, I question how much of the system used man coverage, and question how great of man coverage skills these CBs had. When you read lists analyists put together of the top shut down corners in the league, I would argue you rarely find a cover two corner on the list. Law may be the exception, but he is not the rule. 2. our argument has revolved around the importance of having a corner, even in lovies system, that can play bump and run up on the LOS and cover receivers. not only when asked to play man coverage at times but even playing within the definition of the cover 2 type of defense. you argue that in lovies system he would never play corners up even if he had a pro-bowl quality cover corner on the roster and that by design he would play this type of player 5-10 yards deep anyway. my contention has been that although we have decent/good #2 corners they can’t play up tight because they would get beaten playing that type of defense on an island and this is a reason lovie does not put these players in that position even when the situation dictates he do so. again, i will state: if lovie has 2 corners who have the ability to play bump and run and he chooses not to when we are giving up this much yardage in slants etc. in critical game situations then he needs to be fired. this is not only bad coaching but even below amateur football intelligence. Hey, this is part of why I have been in favor of firing Lovie for years, despite our win/loss record. Beyond what is seen w/ cover two teams around the league, I go off what I hear Lovie talk about, as well as the players. How many times have you heard Lovie talk about how, in his system, he wants players to keep everything in front of them. CBs play off the LOS to keep WRs in front of them. If a CB plays on top of the LOS, the WR is even w/ them, not in front. That is simply not part of Lovie's system. i did answer this question for you in a previous post but i will elaborate if you like... because angelo is a *poor general manager. But do you believe Angelo and Lovie are so not on the same page? When it was Angelo and Jauron, many/most felt the two were rarely on the same page. Angelo had one type of team in mind, and Jauron another. But then Angelo was able to hire Lovie, and most believed the two were on the same page. Do you believe Angelo would simply make deals against the wishes of his coach? Do you believe that either (a) Lovie told Angelo that Tillman/Vasher were not capable of both starting in his system, but Angelo blew off his opinion or ( Lovie just didn't speak up? I think Lovie felt Tillman/Vasher were solid starters for his system, and conveyed such to Angelo, which prompted Angelo to extend both players. I do not believe Angelo extended both players w/o Lovie signing off. If I am right, and Lovie signed off on the deals, then it has to be believe Lovie felt the two CBs were good enough for his system. If, as you believe, neither can play bump and run, and yet Lovie still liked each, then it has to lead to the belief that the ability to play bump and run is simply not as key in Lovie's scheme as you think it should be. i want to ask YOU a question now. if you had corners that could play up tight on the LOS and play bump and run would you play them 5+ off the LOS (negating any chance to put your hands on a receiver without getting a penalty) and have them backpeddle another 5 to keep the receivers in front of them EVEN when the other teams in the league consistently gain 5-10 yards every play? would you?? I have made my position clear MANY times. I would play them tighter to the LOS. Even if they are not capable of playing bump and run, I would line them up 4-5 yards deep, and not 8-10. Even if they were not great in bump and run, I would still put them closer to the LOS, and simply alter my positioning of the S. I would not give WRs a free pass. But I am not the coach. lovie is. it is a fact that the cover 2 defense requires bump and run corners, or “press” if you like, in it’s description. what you are saying is lovie has abandoned this aspect of the cover 2 and just purposely plays all of our corners 5-10 yards off the LOS in a continual soft, soft, cover scheme. if jerry angelo agrees that this is a viable type of defense and supports lovie in this type of a system then he is not only a bad gm but he is a fool. Look, I agree it is a bad system. The difference in you and I is, you believe it is a system based around the talent we have, while I believe it is simply the system. I again go back to this. If we played way off the LOS for speedy WRs, but moved up for slower guys, I would better agree w/ you our playing deep was simply due to a lack of confidence in our CBs. Yet when we play 8-10 yards off the LOS for WRs like Bobby Wade, I have a hard time believing it is about talent, but instead simply is what our system is. Our WRs are not great beating the press. When you watch our WRs play, they too often get held up at the LOS for too long. As bad as that is, our WRs are not the only WRs in the league to struggle beating the press. And yet, even when we face off against other WRs equally bad beating the press, we continue to play 8-10 yards off the LOS. I'm sorry, but I simply do not believe it is just about Vasher and Tillman's perceived limitations. It's one thing to not trust their ability to press Steve Smith. He beats the press, and he is gone. But when you face Bobby Wade, even if he beats the press, is he really going to hurt you? No! But it doesn't matter. We play every WR the same, and thus to me, it is hard to say how we play is based on talent (ours or theirs) but simply based on our system. *both vasher and tillman are/were good/decent #2 corners that could become much better players with someone who could take up the #1 position at cb and give them safety help at the very least. i also project one of them could play at a high quality in another position if anyone had the brains to try and position them there. Many things would make our CBs look better. I would start w/ coaching. A strong FS would be 2nd for me. A strong pass rush is right there w/ a strong FS. Adding a solid or great #1 CB is simply not as high on my list. If we had a stud CB, but everything else was equal, I think we would continue to see our other CB getting beat, and often. Further, I do not believe that strong #1 would be as much of a shut down corner as you think, as I think we would limit him too much w/ our system. Just for argument sake, lets say we were to add Osa, and were going to play him outside the system essentially. Basically, we would match him up w/ opponents #1 WR, and tell him to shadown and shut down. If that were the case, I would FAR more agree w/ all your comments. Problem for me is, I do not believe we would do that. I think we would add a player like that, and force him to play our system, which would limit his impact. What about Lovie's coaching leads you to believe we would mold our system around talent? Regardless the player, Lovie has always forced players into his system, rather than mold the system to the talent. The best example is Urlacher. Urlacher has OFTEN been on record as not being the biggest fan of the cover two. I think he would far better like a system like Baltimore, which allows far more roaming and reacting in the middle. But instead of molding a system around our franchise player, we force our franchise player to play our system. 1. when do you sign players a year before they are free agents? if they are franchise quality players and are in good health. if they are very good players that have a body of work to refer to in past years and in good health (NOT one year wonders). if they are good players that have only had a single good year and/or with possible injuries that will effect play and you can do so cheaply. Sorry, but look around the league and I think you will find Angelo's strategy far more the norm than you might think or like. 2. angie tried to sign colvin? of course colvin wanted good money. he was one of the top sack leaders in the nfl. why didn’t we have the money to sign him? hmmmmm.... maybe because angie forgot to check freakin restricted free agent boxes on w. holdman and dwayne bates and had to sign BOTH for a good chunk of change (and later released bates anyway the SAME season) letting our only player with double digit sacks leave in free agency because he didn’t have the money? that angelo? yup he sure was ahead of his time. One. As I recall, Bates did not cost us much, and definitely not a "good chunk of change" that prevented us from other signings. Two. As I recall, we did have the money in FA to sign Colvin, but choose to go in another direction. It wasn't about Holdman, and definitely not Bates. Simply put, Colvin was a below average LB, but great pass rush specialist. Angelo felt that pass rush specialist role could be filled by another (Knight I believe) and he was simply wrong. Frankly, I too felt Colvin was over-priced in FA. My problem was never letting Colvin walk, but in how we used the money instead. Colvin was an ideal fit for a 3-4 team (which signed him). I was fine letting him walk, but felt the money should have been spent on upgrading our DL, which we did not do. Similar to when we let Parrish go, and expected a kid to step up (Green). Sometimes, I can understand letting a FA walk, but I disagree w/ how we deal w/ the replacement. and holdman looked good to you? the guy who couldn’t cover his own ass with both hands and put up the amazing sack total of FIVE over his illustrious 8 year career? the guy we CUT the following season? THAT warrick holdman?? Sorry, but your nuts. Holdman did look good, very good. In fact, I think he was a pro bowl alternate for us. In his 3rd year for us, he had 107 tackles, 1.5 sacks, 3 FFs and 1 pick. Compare that to Briggs 3rd season. 107 tackles, 2 sacks, 3 FFs and 2 picks. Damn near identical stats. You try to knock Holdman by saying he had only 5 sacks for us, but hell, do you realize Briggs has only 6 sacks in his 6 seasons for us? Not sure that you can go off that stat. Urlacher and Holdman formed a damn good combination. But in Holdman's next season, he went down w/ injury, playing in only 4 games. He was injured the following year, and that was a year of hell for our entire defense. He was gone after that season. At the time, Holdman was a VERY good looking LB, and appeared on the way up. He had a damn good 3rd season, was a pro bowl alternate, and it looked like we had a great LB duo. Injuries killed him for us, and he never was much for us again. So sorry, but you can try to re-write history all you want, but Holdman was a very good LB for us. rarely ranked high in passing yards? in st. louis his passing yard rankings were 11th, 12th and 12th. in chicago his team ranked 15th, 5th, 11th, 27th and 30th. isn’t this his ‘system’ as you say no matter who runs it? Hold on here. In Stl, he had one of the best offenses in the game helping his defense out. Do you not think that matters. Frankly, it has always been a key point of mine. Lovie system fails when he doesn't have that same elite offense. In Stl, he had the greatest show on turf which allowed his defense more rest and more opportunity to gamble. In Chicago, when we did rank higher, it was also w/ Rivera running the defense. It may have been Lovie's defense, but Rivera also had his personal touch on the unit, which is also a part of why he was allowed to walk. My point is this. When you look at some defenses like Phily, Baltimore or Pitt, they challenge everything and try to prevent the opponent from gaining a single yard. At no point in time has that appeared to be Lovie's mentality. He is far more of a bend but don't break coach, and that is my point. i have to ask, in chicago wasn’t our pass rush from the d-line superb the first 3 years? when that fell off what were the results in total passing yards? our corners were exposed as being unable to cover receivers longer, or even at all, to make up the time needed to get to the qb thus giving up more yardage. is this due to lovie’s scheme as you believe and completely our pass rushers fault or is it because both of our corners are no better than average #2’s (which you admit they are)? Yes, our pass rush fell off after the first 3 years. But I go back to Babich, which to me is the single greatest factor. I also think you over-simplify this. Our pass rush went from very good, to non-existent. Its one thing to see a drop off in coverage when your pass rush is not as great, but another thing when your pass rush is non-existent. IMHO, the best CB duo in the league would struggle to maintain coverage w/ a non-existent pass rush. Also, I would point out how different the play of our LBs has been in the last two years. Coverage under Rivera was not just about the CBs, but also the LBs, who played a key role. Under Babich, our LBs were used very differently, and thus again, a factor in our weaker pass defense. Further, and I believe you agree, the FS play in the first 3 years (Mike Brown) was significantly different than in the last two. If you point is, our CBs are not great shut down corners, and were exposed when these other factors came into play, I would agree. Hell, I never thought our corners were great. I don't think anyone did. How often did you hear the comparisons to 1985. Our corners then were not considered great shut down corners, but w/ the front 7 we had, they sure looked great. Not comparing the overall teams, but the point is still there. I don't think anyone ever though Vasher and Tillman were elite corners who you build a defense around. They were solid system corners who worked well in a zone defense which had solid surrounding parts. Frankly, I am not even sure where our argument is on this. You have said we have two decent #2 CBs. I agree w/ this. Our disagreement is more about how we would use a #1, if we were to add one, and less about the level of talent in our current corners. yes!! i understand the cover 2 system (although if you are right i don’t understand this lovie 2 system). example: i said this before, look at jauron’s defense. that too was a bend don’t break defense. the difference was our corners, zoom (pre-injury) and mcquarters (pre-sucking) being our #1’s and peanut our #2, could actually cover receivers (along with 2 very good safeties) without a best in the league pass rush. the problem was that there was no relief from our d-line leaving them on an island forever. now we have just the opposite. Apples and Oranges. Jauron may have been bend/don't break in the passing game, but is was about as drastically different of a schem as you can get w/ the cover two. Also, you point out that we then used Zoon and McQ in press coverage, but that is a key point, as when Lovie came in, we used those same players off the LOS. I remember this point very well, because it was then I began screaming about how we used our CBs. Zoom was never a great corner, but IMHO, one thing he always did well was press. McQ was decent in the press too, and each were used (as you said) in Blache's system that way. Once Lovie took over though, I immediately saw both CBs begin playing further and further off the LOS. I remember then screaming about it. You comment about McQ, saying "pre-suck", but has anyone thought about how McQ began to really suck after Lovie came in? After leaving the bears, he went to NYG and was a pretty good CBs. Never great by any means, but when there was a pass rush, he was a pretty darn good one. He played physical at the LOS, but after Lovie.... So, even you mention our using Zoom and McQ in a more physical way, but when Lovie came, off the LOS they went. And that is how we have always played our other CBs. Sure, you can talk about a play here or there, but the main lining up of our CBs under Lovie seems to have always been well off the LOS. 1. if the gm and lovie are on the same page in this insane type of defensive scheme you describe then anything that they do or don’t do surprises me not at all. also please explain why angelo drafts players rounds ahead of where they would normally go? or wears 2 left shoes? or parts his hair on the back of his head? or rolls ball-bearings around in his hand when they aren’t rolling around in his head? You sort of lost me here. I have been an outspoken Angelo basher for many years. My point in prior posts was not to defend Angelo, but to point out how I believe he and Lovie have been on the same page, and thus, moves by Angelo should be viewed as approved by Lovie. In turn, if Angelo extends a pair of CBs long term, we should also assume Lovie felt confident in those two CBs. If, as you say, those two CBs are incapable of press coverage, and yet Lovie signed off on their extensions, then by logical deduction, Lovie does not place as high of a level of important on press coverage as you think he should. 2. and you don’t think our d-line pressure on the qb was better in 2004-06?? or we had a pro-bowl quality safety on the field??? i know they probably have NOTHING to do with it but it might be something to think about. Sure, our DL put more pressure and our S play was better. Never argued this point. I have said all along Babich sucks, and killed our defense in a far greater way than the talent on the field. did i ever say that? or did i say “force the receiver inside with position”? lovie is fine with short, quick, uncontested 5-10 yard passes every down? if so he is nuts. I don't think he is fine with 10 yard uncontested passes. I think he is fine w/ 3-5 yard passes. One area I think our CBs fail, outside of the scheme, is how they respond after the snap. I think our CBs line up where they are told, but nearly immediately turn their hips or begin back-peddling. Contrast this w/ how I saw Graham play toward the end of the season. He was lined up well of the LOS, but as soon as the QB turned to throw a quick out to his man, Graham broke toward the WR. WR catches the ball in the flat, but Graham has already closed, and this is key, Graham makes a solid tackle. Thus the Wr gained MAYBE 3 yards on the play. Though Graham was lined up well off the LOS, he (a) didn't immediately backpeddle on the snap ( quickly broke toward the WR and © made a solid tackle, not allowing the WR extra yards. Particularly after the injuries, Vasher/Tillman struggled in these areas, and that too affected their play. Point though is, IMHO, that play by Graham I described perfectly exemplifies what I believe Lovie envisions. About the only "extra" aspect for Lovie would be stripping the ball, but for me, that is as bad as good as our players too often go for the strip and fail to make the tackle. run into coverage? dude, all he has to do is run right at any cornerback on this team at the snap. he automatically has a 5+ yard cushion and AT the snap our corner continues to backpeddle even MORE!!! that’s not a “hole” it’s a freakin galaxy. he has done absolutely NOTHING to impede any route any receiver makes and by the time he engages it is not legal to touch him. this is like practice for any qb. their timing has been already nearly perfected without a pass rush. Not much argument here. As said above, our CBs are in a bad situation/system, and then make it worse. The play I described w/ Graham is more how I think Lovie wants things. He still wants our CB well off the LOS, but I do not think he wants the CBs to immediately backpeddle. So, in my eyes, we have our CBs put into a bad situation, and then our CBs make it worse. If they were going to just backpeddle on the snap, I would much rather see them near the LOS. But again, the CBs quick move backward seems to have appeared in the last two years, which again, makes me wonder how much of the issue is coaching. what i am saying is we scored over 30 points in two games this season and won both. if you want to compete today you need to put up points just to make it to the playoffs. Hey, I am not arguing against the idea of scoring points. I am not looking to go back to the days of Shoop, trying to get to double digits and hold our opponent to single digits. My point is you don't need to score 30 to win. If you have a good defense, and score 21 points, I think you should win most of your games. look below at the top competition. these teams averaged 36%, MORE than 1/3, of their games scoring over 30 points. cards – 10 games over 30 points – won 9 falcons – 5 for 5 panthers – 7 for 7 ravens – 5 for 5 colts – 6 for 6 phins – 2 for 2 vikes – 4 for 5 giants – 7 for 7 eagles – 5 for 7 bolts – 5 for 7 titans – 6 for 6 Okay, wait a minute. How about not over-simplifying this too much. Are all these teams you list what most would consider offensive powerhouses? I don't think so. Some may have scored 30 or more better than a 1/3 of the time, but (a) how many of those points were defensive or special teams and ( how many of those teams have defenses that led to great field position, and thus more points. In 2006 (SB year) would you say we had a great offense? Well, that year we scored 30 or more points in 7 of our games (not counting playoffs). I just do not think many would consider us an offensive power house, yet by your reasoning, we were a 30+ scoring machine at 43.75%. Now, look at your teams above. Cards, Colts, Giants (w/ Burress) and Eagles are teams I think most would consider big time offenses. Atlanta, Minny and Tenn are teams would great ground games, but not exactly electric offenses expected to drop 30. Ravens (rookie QB), Phins and Bolts are hardly considered electric either. I look at the above group, and more than electric offenses, what I see are some damn good defenses. It isn't one or the other. I agree you have to score points. But I think we can have a defense that can hold opponents, while offensive upgrades would allow us to score. don’t you agree that pass defense is our weakest link on defense? even with improvement from our d-line can we outscore these types of teams? even when we were hitting on all cylinders going into the superbowl, what was the main concern? can we stop manning. One. No, I think pass rush far and away is our biggest issue on defense. Now, I would point out I think/hope coaching alone provides a partial answer, but I think the coverage is dependant on the pass rush far more than the other way around. I think elite pass rush can make average coverage look great. On the other hand, I do not believe elite coverage can make average pass rush look good. Here's why. If you have an elite pass rush, the QB will only have 3 seconds before he is pressured. Even an average CB can hold that long. However, if you have an elite CB duo, they still can only hold their man for so long before the WR finds an opening. Just because your DL has time, that does not mean they can get it done if they are only average. An OL can hold a DL indefinitely, but a CB can not hold a WR thus. In our SB year, we were concerned about Manning because he was one of the greatest QBs of all time. No matter who was playing Indy, Manning would have been the concern. Not sure of your point there. Yes, our is a weakness, but I would argue (a) the lack of a pass rush has made that group look worse than it is and ( FS more than CB is the weakness in the secondary. That and coaching. if we had made it to a superbowl this last year and say against the cards, i know it’s impossible, but say we did. how many points would warner and boldin/fitz have put up on us? how much of that do you believe would have been with their running game? even with orton playing as good as he did in the first half of the season, could we have stayed up with them in a scoring fest? Of coarse not? What is your point. That is why they were a SB team and we were not even a playoff team. I think a better point, for argument sake, would have been if you pitted our SB losing team against their SB losing team. Even then, I would say they win, but despite what you think, not just due to our CBs. They were just a better team. Let me ask you this? You watched the SB, and thus know how Pitt defended Fitz and Co. They pointed it out enough during the game. They talked about how Pitt's DC used an inverted cover two (never heard of that before). Basically, they used Polamalu to press Fitz at the LOS, and as Fitz began to beat the press, Ike Taylor (their most physical CB) joined in over the top. Now, also consider the assortment of blitzes and pass rush angles sent at Warner. Take away the talent issue and just tell me this. If Lovie were running the Pitt defense, do you honestly believe he would have thought to do these things to stop Fitz. Pitt didn't beat Az because Ike Taylor is such a great CB that he shut down Fitz. Pitt used some very creative scheming to stop Fitz. Talent aside, do you honestly think Lovie is a coach capable of such? IMHO, regardless of talent, Lovie would have simply ran our normal defense, and we would have been eaten alive. yet with one player like the kid from oakland we could compete with anyone defensively. we have the money to get 2 big players this offseason. one the cb and the other an offensive player of our choice. First, when you say we have the money, you are talking about cap space, not reality. Asante Samuel and Nate Clements I think have set the bar, and Osa will likely be looking for a deal that provides around $20m+ in upfront bonus, and an average salary of around $10m. That is a ton of coin. Regardless of our cap space, I can not see us spending that sort of money on one player, while also adding another top FA at OT or WR. what experiment? every single season teams draft tackles from college to play guard. every season teams draft corners to play safety or defensive ends to play linebacker and so on. sure there are exceptions and your left tackle or qb are just some of them. but how could you compare moving a strong safety to free safety? or a corner to safety? it’s been done numerous times in the nfl. if the guy has the wheels and coverage skills what is the big deal? with us we do this with guys that have none of the requirements to play either position. My point is, while experiments are not unusual, when you constantly use experiments at a position, and it fails, at some point you need to consider getting a legit position player. You don't think trying a CB or SS at FS is an experiment. I disagree. I do agree is often happens, but my point is, if you have tried that over and over again, w/ nothing but failures, at some point you need to instead simply look at getting a player w/ experience at the position, rather than hoping a player w/o the experience can make the transition. Back to my original point, I simply believe adding a legit FS like the one from Stl, would have a greater impact on our secondary than adding Osa. More than talent at CB, I think our secondary has been hurt by (a) coaching ( pass rush and © lack of a legit FS. As pointed out, both Tillman and Vasher were effective a few years ago when (a) we had different coaching in Rivera ( we had a strong pass rush and © we had a better FS in Brown. I believe we will see an improvement in coaching (addition by subtraction w/o Babich). I believe we will see a boost in our pass rush due to Marinelli and again, taking Babich out of the playcalling. The one area I do not see improvement is at FS, where I simply feel we lack talent. Honestly, for all our pages of discussion, I honestly think it boils down to this. I believe that if we added an elite CB, we would regardless use him in a zone coverage system and play him off the LOS. Coverage would most likely be better, simply due to better talent, but the level of difference would not be what you would expect. Further, I believe if we used a CB in such a mannor, we would limit him and not get value. If, I believed, as I think you do, that we could add an elite CB and simply play him man against opponents best WR, that would be another story. That would more fall in line w/ the sort of defense I would like to run. BUT, that is not the defense I believe Lovie would run, and thus why I am against spending big on a CB like you want. If we are going to resign ourselves w/ Lovie's scheme, I believe adding a FS is going to provide far greater results than adding a CB.

Hey, it is offseason, and right now, most arguments are about the same old same old stuff. I love the long debates. For others who do not want to get involved, I would suggest simply skipping when you see Lucky and myself going at it

I don't think that player is on the team yet. I think we will be getting a player in FA, maybe the draft, and will then see our roster change. I think this kid will battle Hanie for the #3 spot, while a player not yet on the team will be our #2.

I didn't see/hear it that way at all. The interview is available on podcast, which I listened too myself. - Starts out being asked basically who he might be looking at, and he gave a very broad and generic answer of not narrowing it down before he FA begins and teams show interest. Basically, he said there was no point in looking at 32 teams in only a handfull are going to show interest. Said he "just wants to win" which was basically the theme of the interview. - Asked about Chad Johnson, and how much of a distraction he was this year. Kind of laughed and said CJ was actually less of a distraction this season than in most previous. Mentioned some distractions in the offseason, but said he was fine once the season began. - Asked about Benson, and bear fans would likely laugh at his response. Said he doesn't know why he had the rep he did in Chicago, but in Cincy, he was a very hard worker who went all out everyday. Even talked about how Benson would run over players in basic walk throughs to make the point how Benson was always a hard worker, whether practice or actual game. - Asked about his style of WR play, he talked about how he felt he had been pigeon holes somewhat as an inside or possession WR, yet feels he is far more. Said the team has lacked others who could play the inside, and thus he was forced to play that role, but feels he can, and will, be much more for his next team. The key thing I got out of this was, he wants to be a main guy and not a compliment. He talked about how he can go downfield, and go up and make a play on the ball, even if covered. This is where Brian gets his "asked Waddle if he played in the NFL". TJ was trying to make his point, and began by asking Waddle and Silva, "Do you know football, did you play football". The interview began w/ TJ being told (I think it was a generic intro) that Waddle was a 6 year NFL player. Anyway, TJ went on to talk about, if you watch him play, you would understand he isn't just an inside WR, but has the tools to play the outside position as well. You can say it was a bad way to "set up" his point, but I did NOT get the impression he was being a jerk. Also, it was Waddle who said he (waddle) wasn't very good and not as good as TJ. TJ NEVER said Waddle was not very good, which is the impression Brian is giving w/ his comments. - He did say he liked Rex, though he doesn't know him personally. Said he knows Rex is not the QB anymore, but basically was making the point he likes Rex' aggressive style of play. Also said he felt Hester might have had a better year if Rex were the QB as Rex would have taken more deep shots. Did go on to talk about Orton some, though he said he didn't know as much about him. He did know Orton played a few years ago as a rookie and did decent, and said he looked better this year. Talked fairly positive about Orton, but I did get the impression he might prefer a QB who is aggressive. - Had to laugh, as Waddle did, at one point. He was asked if he would sign w/ a team if provided a good offer day one of FA, or wanted to be "wined and dined" for a while while he checked out all offers. Said if a good offer was made out of the gate, he would take it, and went on to say he wasn't a women and didn't need to be wined and dined. Pretty funny. - The interview was being wrapped up, and he threw something out there unasked. Talked about Lovie coming from Dungy's system and coaching roots, and spoke glowing of Dungy, and basically said anyone who learned under Dungy and followed similar principles ran a team he would want to play for. Maybe not the greatest interview, but did not come off as a jerk or ass, as you stated. Just seems you went into this looking for reasons to attack him, and found them, whether they were there or not.

Brown and Vasher are totally different situations as Brown is a FA, while Vasher recently signed a new deal, and moving him would cause a significant cap hit. I personally would like to re-sign Brown, and despite Angelo's comments, think it could happen. Angelo (or maybe it was Lovie) talked about how we can't afford to re-sign Brown. I call BS, but frankly, I don't think Brown will have a great market. I can see Angelo signing Brown down the road for basically just over the minimum. As for Vasher, I still just do not see the logic toward moving him. Tait is another story though. Unlike Vasher, Tait would not cost us cap space, but would in fact open up a considerable amount. Sure, you don't cut him unless you also add, but if (for example) we were to go after an OT like Carey or whoever, I would have no problem cutting Tait. You can find a backup cheaper than what he would cost.

Agree w/ Pix. As much as I love to talk draft and offseason, every scenario you ever through out there involves trades, which just makes it more difficult for me to get into. Right now, there is simply WAY too much up in the air. Players stocks are going to rise and fall. FA is going to chance what teams priorities are. Draft day value is simply not going to be the same in 2 months as it is today. With that said, No freaking way we should give up that much for Boldin. Look, I think the guy is great, but for a team w/ so many needs, that is simply FAR too much to give up. Trading Vasher for a 5th/6th makes no sense and would make me sick. I'm sorry, but I have yet to read a reason why we should get rid of Vasher. He is coming off a bad season, but so is most of our defense. He would cost us a ton in cap hit. W/o Vasher, we create yet another hole we need to address. Sorry, but I just don't see the logic if getting rid of Vasher. To me, the logical thing to do is keep him another year, and whether he plays CB or nickel, see if he can turn it around w/ different coaching. If not, you can move him then, and w/ a lower cap hit.

Agree we may not be in a great position to force a restructure, but why question a move to nickel. That makes more sense than half the moves I read about on this board. Remember, Vasher was a dang good nickel for us when Azumah and McQ were our starters. In fact, he was his solid play at nickel that warranted his move to the starting lineup. If Graham beats him out for the starting job, why would we not look at him at nickel? Yea, DM to FS is ugly, but I think that may be in the cards either way.

Yea, I realize that in one season, he put up the stats (minus the TDs) w/o Fitz and Warner. But my point is, FAs are not the sure thing fans make them out to be. FAs have a pretty high bust factor too. Just look at the history of all the big contract FAs, and how few really propelled their teams to the big game. I think Boldin would be great. My point is only that he is not a sure thing just because he is previously proven.

Then again.... There is no question NE has FAR greater WRs for Cassel, but I would point out that Minny has a FAR greater OL and RB. Frankly, this move makes sense to me for Minny. Think about it. If you asked around, what do you think most would say was the top reason Minny didn't go further this year. I think most would say QB. If you put Cassel behind our OL, w/ our WRs, I think he would be a bust. But in Minny, he would have one of the league best OLs and RB to keep pressure off him. While Berrian may not be great, I bet you Cassel could do more w/ him than Jackson/Frerotte. Further, while it is a #1 pick, it is the 22nd pick in the draft. For a team that believes it is a QB away from the SB, I think this move would make sense. Sure, it is a gamble, but IMHO, they are simply in a better position to (a) take a gamble like this and ( offer a FAR better situation for Cassel to step up in. IMHO, the big question on Cassel not so much about what he can do w/o Moss/Welker but what he can do w/o Billichek.

1. so what? compare the number of times you remember seeing our corners play up on the LOS vs. the number of plays they were beaten for big/critical yardage or TD’s. don’t ask for specific games as i don’t have them, only a recollection of peanut getting eaten up by fast receivers and vasher getting beaten/out juked and trailing a receiver for large yardage or TD’s. Hey, I remember them getting beat also. I just don't recall it starting w/ the DB on the LOS. Vasher is a sucker for the pump fake. Tillman is a bit of a sucker for that as well, but also simply gets beat w/ speed WRs. my opinion of what we currently have: vasher - although not a speedster, does he have the speed to play corner in the nfl with the right technique? possibly. does he also lack nfl quality burst speed? i don’t know but if he does he is in the wrong position. watching him play may seem to indicate that. i do know what he doesn’t have is the speed to recover if he makes a mistake like missing the jam and/or getting blown-bye off the LOS by fast receivers. am i for cutting him loose at this point like some suggest? no. with better talent opposite him he could make a suitable #2 especially with good safety play. here is another scenario... vasher played not only CB at texas but *safety as well. this would be a serious option for us moving him to the FS position if we picked up a cover corner to utilize his ball-hawk capabilities (which he does have). he certainly has enough speed to play that position and his size is adequate. *you being a texas fan i’m sure could give some real input into this. tillman – has good size and average speed. plus pretty much the same description of him as vasher with the exception that peanut is a ‘very’ good tackler in open space where vasher seems to struggle some (at least recently). the same could be said for tillman’s ability to play the #2 role with a better #1 corner and even switch roles if larger receivers if a gameplan dictated. he also needs good safety help. the same could be said for moving peanut to FS. he played safety in college so it’s not like this is some drastic change from linebacker to tight end as we have done in the past. he has the perfect capabilities to play this position. so basically we have two good/decent #2 corners. with the addition of a #1 cover corner either player could project to be a very good + FS with a MINIMUM learning curve increasing our quality at three starting DB positions. I would agree w/ the statement that we have two good/decent #2 corners. Frankly, there isn't a big argument there. Our argument is far more about the importance of having a #1 CB in our system. Over and over again, we discuss this, but I have yet to see you answer my question. Take a look around the league at other teams that run the cover two, and tell me how many pro bowl CBs you find. Cover two corners on other teams may be better playing bump and run than ours (not saying much there) but one thing to me that stands out. Those CBs are most often considered great zone coverage corners, rather than great man coverage or shut down corners. 2. this, to me, may be one of the most damning things since smith came to chicago. forget good coach bad coach scenarios. we are talking about football rudimentary basics that transcend down to pop warner. to think that any coach, let alone an nfl coach, would devise a defense (or scheme if you like) that purposely leaves a zone open for a 5-10 yard gain continually without adjustments is beyond belief. Hey, by and large, I agree. At the same time, reality is just that. I think you would agree our CBs due in fact play that far off the LOS, and we see little adjustment. Also, I have another question for you, which I have asked before, but you have not answered. To cut off a followup point of yours, I do not believe our CBs simply play off the LOS due to their inability, but due to Lovie and Co. To further this point, I previously asked the question. If the cover two requires a CB to be able to play bump and run, and yet both Tillman and Vasher are totally incapable of such, why did we re-sign them? ok. we paid robinson good+ money for 5 years as a DE in 2002 then move him to tackle the same year and then cut him in 2003. mcquarters has one above average season in 3 of his career with another year left on his contract. angelo signs him to a big 6 year contract extension in 2002 when he didn’t need to and then cuts him after the 2004 season when his production has fallen over the previous 2. i don’t think even you would disagree that resigning metcalf for ANY price isn’t ridiculous. we actually let a producing linebacker go in colvin to pay w. holdmans lucrative contract extension. does anyone on earth think he was worth much more than base salary from his body of work? this kind of GMing is what angelo is known for. he admits he wants to reward players who have good seasons. that’s all fine and good but give them a freakin bonus that year instead of multi year high impact contracts prior to their original contracts expiring. you could ask if he really is rewarding them for having a good season or just being cheap trying to beat other teams bidding on them when their final year comes up. it’s a risky business to try this and it seems angelo has lost more often than not playing this game. Frankly, I am not sure of your point anymore. The issue was how much we over-pay for players. Though, in hindsight, numerous deals look outrageous, I would argue many/most were at the time w/ in market. Take McQ. McQ was signed toward the end of one season, w/ his due to be a FA the following, so I am not sure what you mean when you say we didn't need to sign him. He was having a great year, and looked on the way up. Most fans were in favor of that signing, and the money was very much w/in market. I remember well, as I ripped Angelo, not for signing McQ, but because we signed him about a week or so AFTER the deadline to allocate money toward that years cap. Sometimes, especially looking back, deals look awful, but look around the league and every year players sign for stupid money. The market you may like or want is not necessarily the actual market players find. You talk about letting Colvin go, and signing Holdman, but Angelo very much tried to re-sign Colvin, but Colvin wanted the big bucks in FA. Frankly, I had no problem w/ our passing on the money NE offered. And come on. Holdman's deal was not huge, and frankly, he was a very good looking LB at the time, prior to the injuries. You say this is the sort of GM'ing Angelo is known for, but it is what many GMs are now known for. Tampa Bay, the system in which Angelo learned, was really a bit ahead of their time. Now, today, it is very typical for teams to aggressively re-negotiate w/ their players in order to lock them up and keep them off the market. By doing this, you (a) reward good play and keep morale high, ( keep your better players off the market and © maintain a better cap situation. Many/most teams now do this, and it is a huge reason why FA classes have not been great in a while and why teams don't have to cut so many players around June 1st. Teams are not as often over the cap, and re-signing your own is a big reason. I hate that I am in a position of defending Angelo, but you make out like the philosophy he has is so wrong, cheap and out there, but in reality, it has become far more the norm. W/ salary cap in place, this is exactly how teams manage the cap. rivera WAS better than this idiot babich but you need to look up some stats of your own. only ONE season out of five did we have a top 10 defense in regards to passing yards against us. here are the stats: First, before going year by year, I have said MANY times that this is all Lovie, and have often pointed to Lovie's time running St.L's defense. Lovie may not like to use the term bend/don't break, but that has always been his mentality. A Lovie defense will give up yards. The goal of this defense is not to prevent yards, but to prevent TDs and force turnovers. The team plays softer between the 20s, hoping to make the opposition use more snaps to move downfield, and in turn, give the D more opportunities to force a turnover. As such, a Lovie defense will rarely rank high in terms of passing yards, but "should" rank decent/good in terms of scoring and should rank near the top in terms of turnovers. So w/ this in mind, lets take a further look at your years. 2004 - 6 gms over 200 yards per game; 3 gms over 300 yds with a game high of 350 against the vikings; ranked 15th for total yards passing with lovie; 3 games where opponents combined for over 400 yards of offense One, should it not be pointed out we had the 32nd ranked offense? Does that not affect our defense? W/ that said, while we gave up plenty of yards, we ranked 17th and 15th in TDs/Ints, which is middle of the road. Not bad for a team w/ the worst offense in the league. 2005 - 5 gms over 200 yards per game; 1 gm 300 yds ranked 5th total yards passing (here is your only top 10 season); 0 games where opponents combined for over 400 yards of offense Not just top 10, but 5th in passing yards, 1st in TDs allowed and 2nd in Ints. 2006 - 4 gms over 200 yards per game; 2 gms 300 +; ranked 11th total yards passing; 1 game where opponents combined for over 400 yards of offense See, here is a prime example. Ranked 11th (just outside the top 10) in passing yards, but ranked 9th in passing TDs, and 2nd in ints. You said 2005 was our only top 10 year, but I would argue 2006 was also. We may give up some yards, but scoring is what matters. Hey, Warner threw for nearly 400 yards, but Big Ben is walking home w/ a ring. 2007 - 5 gms over 200 yards per game; 5 gms over 300; ranked 27th total yards passing; 6 games where opponents combined for over 400 yards of offense 2008 - 9 gmes over 200 yards per game; 2 gms over 300 yds; 1 game 407 yards; ranked 30th total yards passing; 4 games where opponents combined for over 400 yards of offense I combined these two years, as both were under Babich, and it has been my argument for some time that Babich was the single greatest reason for our defenses downfall. if you notice the trend, it peaks the second year of smith and continues downward to date. why? i say one reason is because the nfl has figured out exactly what we were doing and countered. i would also like to add that in my opinion any time your defense gives up 3-4 hundred yards total offense to opponents that is NOT to solid or good. I don't see how you can talk about 2006 as a downward year. We ranked top 10 in passing TDs, and when combined w/ our 2nd ranking in ints, that spells success in Lovie's world. I guarantee you Lovie could care less about yardage ranking if he can have an 18-24 TD/Int ratio. Also, our run defense was top 10 that year. Overall, our defense in 2006 was top 5 (5th in yards and 3rd in points). You give the impression that we had one good year and went downhill after, but that just isn't the case. First year was not good, but also better than the previous and was just our staff's first season. We were a top 10/5 defense the following two years, but then let Rivera walk and promoted Babich. Our defense tanked since. As for the last comment, are you saying Pitt doesn't have a solid or good defense? Warner alone had around 380 passing yards. My point is, I just do not think you understand Lovie's system. Lovie's system will allow more yards. Hey, I too would love to see a shut down defense that punches an offense in the mouth, but that is not, and has never been Lovie's style. Lovie allows yards between the 20s, but stresses avoiding the big play and creating turnovers. i couldn’t and won’t deny babs is “partially” to blame. believe me i am not giving any coaches on this staff, besides our special teams coach, much credit for anything. i too understand how injuries effect these results. i too blame our coaches for playing our corners so far off even on wr’s they SHOULD be able to cover. but again... if we run anything like the definition of the cover 2 that has been implemented in the nfl for years and NOT that this is some screwball scheme by lovie, i question the statements he made or you inferred that he made. yes in this type of defense he is supposed to move the receiver inside but how in the hell can he do that from 5-10 yards downfield? One. As said before, if Vasher and Tillman are so incapable of playing in a cover two (because they can't bump, as you say) why did we re-sign them. You can't believe Angelo just did this against Lovie's wishes. Two. Are you going to say we played pump and run coverage in 2005 and 2006? I am not talking about here and there, but often? I sure missed that. Same CBs but very different results. no matter what you or anyone else tells me, to make this work (unless they are playing a deep prevent) a corner has to be able to lay hands on or force the receiver inside with position and move him into these zones to be covered by safeties or linebackers and if nothing else disrupt the qb’s timing. when playing so soft or moving backwards like all our corners do it is illegal for them to do so after 5 yards giving every receiver an untouched route!! that means there will ALWAYS be an open zone to make these slant/curls 5-10 yards downfield. our backers are completely out the picture when the receiver makes his break and unless the safeties are playing it tighter than this type of defense calls for they are too far back to disrupt the play all the while our corners are leading the receiver and out of position. Well, we simply disagree. You do not need to put your hands on a WR to alter his direction. A WR is going to attack open areas. Our CBs play off the LOS and toward the inside. That means the CB is exposed to short, quick passes, which I think Lovie is fine w/, and slant routes, which ideally lead into the S/LB. It isn't just an ability to put your hands on the WR, but being in an area and thus the WR being covered. A WR is not going to (unless he is wearing a bear uniform) just run into coverage. He is going to run toward the holes and openings. That is how our CBs direct WRs routes. Now, w/ that said, please understand. You and I agree in so far as my personnal opinion. I would MUCH rather the WR hit at the LOS. I HATE the way our CBs play. My arguments have NOTHING to do w/ personal opinion, but how I explain and interpret Lovie. Lovie has been the HC for 5 seasons now. At no point since he has joined the team has our CBs pressed at the LOS. Again, I am not talking about the occasional snaps, but to an extent it appears to be a legit part of our base defense. I has not mattered who was playing CB (McQ, Azumah, Vasher, Tillman, McBride, Graham) and it has not mattered what WR they were matched up against. We played the Bobby Wade's of the NFL the same as the Steve Smith's. Through all the CB/WR matchups in Lovie's 5 seasons, the only consistent trend has been our CB playing well off the LOS. Frankly, that is how I recall Lovie's defenses in St.L as well, and one of the reasons I was NEVER on board w/ his hiring. i do not totally disagree that an offensive FA player may be more important to the overall improvement on our team. but unless we completely blow up our offense i just don’t see us being able to compete with high octane offenses putting up 30 and more points. i don’t see us being able, even with a top FA wr or offensive lineman, putting up that many points against high scoring playoff quality teams that have good defenses. Okay, wait a minute. Our defense was terrible this year. W/ that, I think you would agree. As you appoint at least partial blame to Babich, I can only believe you expect "some" level of improvement this year. You talk about how we can't match the teams putting up 30, but in an AWFUL defensive year, we only allowed 3 teams to break 30 points on us, and we won one of those games. Point is, I am not sure about the idea that teams light it up on us, or that our offense would be incapable of matching that scoring output. As mediocre as our offense was this year, do you realize we finished the year ranked 14th in scoring. Look at our offense. 14th? You add a good/great WR and solid/great OL and IMHO, we could rank top 10. i truly believe we can afford BOTH with our salary cap position this season. if we got our high priced cover corner our defense again turns into a top ten contender. with then picking up a good/very good FA lineman or receiver we improve our offense to the point we can complete with the high scoring teams by limiting them to less than the norm amount of points that we can score. the money is there and it’s time angelo used it. I simply believe we have the talent to get back up there on defense w/o all the changes. As said, it is my believe our defensive downfall was more coaching than talent, and thus the coaching changes were the biggest offseason upgrades I felt our defense could get. On offense, I just think we lack talent. If there are no changes, right now, I think our defense see's a big leap up the boards due to coaching. However, if no upgrades were in the cards, I see our offense taking a considerable step backward. as far as the corner vs FS? i say we GET a quality FS just using the personnel we currently have on this roster. try both of our present corners out at FS to determine which is better. whoever that is still improves our #2 corner position by not only giving great safety support but he already is familiar with this system AND is signed long term with major portions of the contract bonus money already paid out. Sorry, but I am well on record w/ this one. Sometimes I can deal w/ experiments, but at some point, after enough failed experiments, enough is enough. I am tired of getting strong safeties and trying them out at FS. To me, that is similar to how we tried out RT, RG and/or LG's at LT for years, and finally had to draft a legit LT. It's time to end the experiments and just go out and get a FS. IMHO, the FS out of StL would benefit the team FAR more than adding Osa.

I was surprised as well, but the announcers said then, and the league has said since, the booth did a quick review, and felt further looks (which would warrant a game stoppage, as not necessary. Frankly, I agree. While his arm did go forward, I just felt it pretty obvious the ball was jostled before his arm began a forward movement. Whether his arm is going forward or not at that point, once the ball is no longer in control, doesn't matter. He didn't have control, and more shot-putted the ball as he no longer had a grip on it. I would have understood if it did go to a booth review, but I just don't see it as a big deal as (a) I think it was clearly a fumble and ( its not like a change in that play would change the game. Sure, it is possible Az could score on a hail mary, but lets not pretend it was truly a game decider. I look at it this way. It was a moment each team had to step up. One team did. The other team did not. \

Saw the article, and really had to question any article titled, "Plenty of attractive pieces", and then leads w/ Chris Simms.