nfoligno

Hey, one can only hope Big Al goes fruitloops and lets him walk! If you are going to follow that dream, I would just as well dream St.L allows their FS to walk while Carolina allows Peppers to walk. Stranger things have happened, but I simply see no chance Oakland allows him to walk. I think they will at least tag him w/ plans to trade him, and the price of that could be steep. I really don't think system comes into play here. Osa would simply enhance any system. Also, and I know you agree with this, it would allow us to shift or morph the cover two system into something a little more effective, as a lot of folks think the cover two, as a whole, has been figured out.( quite the same as the 46) Imagine not having to worry about one side of the field. You can now roll your safety or use him as a freelancer in the fassion of Ed Reed or Taz. First you say system doesn't matter, but then you say we could change our system w/ him. I agree he is a talent such that he would be good in any system. That isn't the point though. In talking about him, you are talking about spending huge bucks. My point is, while he would be good in any system, his value in some systems is greater than in others. In our system, he obviously would have value, but I simply believe the value of a shut down corner in a cover two system that uses FAR more zone coverage than man is not nearly as great. Thus, if the value is not as great, would he be worth the contract. Examples: If you have a defense run by Blache that stresses stopping the run and staying in your lanes, would it make sense to spend massive money on a DE like Freeney? Elite pass rusher, but if in a run first defense, would you really get value? If have a smash mouth offense that tries to run the ball 55-45 ratio, and sticks w/ shorter passes when it does go to the air, would it make sense to spend huge on an elite, downfield WR? You can talk about changing systems, but that is another issue. My point is, if you look at our system, there are certain positions that are simply not as highly valued as others, and CB is simply not as highly valued of a position in the cover two. Now, as for changing systems, what about Lovie makes you think that will happen? He has already flat out said we will not be changing our systems. We are talking about the same guy who let Rivera go due (per rumors) to not being cover 2 enough. Sorry, but I see no system change until Lovie is gone, and thus, I just question the value of elite CBs in our system. You want a legit FS, I say Tillman has better odds of being that than anyone we could draft. It's not like his measurables are not prototypical for the position. Now, if we can find one via FA, I'm for it. As far as the reasoning of moving our best CB to FS is moot with the signing of Osa. Anyway, I don't think much of Tillman as a CB. I just don't think he is sudden enough. His movement is best in a straightline, which also leads to free. One, I just do not see us getting Osa, and thus we would be moving our top CB to FS. Two, I am not sure I agree Tillman has better odds of playing FS than a FS we draft. Sorry, but I'll take the kid who played FS throughout college over the guy who, that i know of, has never played the position. Three, does anyone know how Tillman would feel about this move? Moving from CB to FS is something some CBs due immediatly out of college, or later, soon before retirement. CBs soon after a big contract, while still young, do not often seem to make such a transition. I am not sure Tillman would be too keen on this idea. I would rank our defensive needs as FS or CB upgrade 1a and 1b. Still with the addition of Osa, you tremendously upgrade two positions with one signing. Sorry for the deadhorse argument. I don't see CB as close to a 1b need. I feel stronger about the starting tandem of Graham/Tillman, w/ Vasher #3 than I do many other units. While you say the addition of Osa would upgrade two positions, I personally feel a FS like from St.l would do the same. Agreed on offense. Let me add that I would like for us to draft the best FB availible, even if we draft him a round higher than needed. Preaching to the choir. I have wanted a legit FB for years. I could care less if he can catch or run. I want a FB that can plow holes and lead our RB. Agreed again. Teams will be onto our strengths if we can't make them pay for trying to stop them. I may not have explained that too well, but I think everyone gets that. That is my biggest fear heading into the season, that our staff buys the mirage of this past season. I fear Angelo believing our defense is awful, and needs major changes. And I further fear Angelo believes our OL played well last year, and will only improve w/ Williams. Hester developed, and we have Bennett w/ some other young WRs, and WR just isn't as huge of a need for a run first team, particularly one w/ two solid TEs. So my fear is we focus too much on defense, rather than offense.

No, not all three picks will be great, but there is a good chance one is. Would you rather have Tommie Harris and TJ or Boldin? Just using one example. I also have to throw this out there. Everyone is saying Boldin is a proven stud, and under the impression it is automatic we get the same WR who now wears a red jersey, but I think history has shown that FAs or veterans you trade for may be proven for one team, but are yet unproven for another. Sure, Boldin is more proven than a draft pick, but I do not think it is such a set in stone issue that he would be an equal stud for us. Our offense is so different, in terms of system and talent, than what he has in Az, that you have to wonder exactly what his impact will be. Not saying Boldin would be a bust for the bears. Just saying I think fans need to temper expectations a tad. To me, it is simply an easy decision. If Boldin costs anything close to what Roy Williams cost, I would rather have Hous. Sure, I think Boldin is better, not to mention younger, but the cost (in picks) is simply too great for a team w/ so many other needs.

I see absolutely no chance we move Kreutz out this year. No question we have to think about our future, but w/ so many holes on the OL, I just can't see us moving Kreutz. Though he is FAR from his pro bowl play, I am not sure he is the top priority right now. Tait and Garza are greater priorities right now, IMHO, and LG is nearly as weak. I think you also have to remember that, though Beekman played decent at OG this past year, he was drafted to play center. In fact, the staff didn't want to even look at him last year at OG, but were forced to due to injuries. I remember several coaches talking about how Beekman doesn't have the size to play OG. I don't think the future outlook for him has changed. I think he is still viewed as our center of the future, and thus, feel OG and RT are more likely moves for us.

IMHO, his arm was moving forward, but the key was, he lost the ball before his hand, arm, elbow, were in a forward position. Basically, the ball was loose when his arm was still back, in a cocked position. Per the announcers, the booth looked at it (w/o play stopped) and automatically agreed it was a fumble. Sorry. I wanted Az to win as well, but it was a fumble. The ball was loose before his arm began to move forward.

Cap hit is the same whether you trade or cut the player. The only difference to this "may" be that, under the new rules, you can designate a player to be your post June 1st cut (regardless when you cut them) so as to spread the cap hit over two seasons. If you trade the player, you likely have to eat the full cap hit up front, though I am not 100% positive of that. I just don't see the point of trading Vasher right now. He would put a serious hit to our cap. His trade value as VERY low coming off a poor season, 2nd season w/ injury, and high contract, plus you then factor the cap hit. To me, it just seems our best direction is to just keep him for another year and see if he can turn it around w/ new coaching. If not, we can make a move next year, when the cap hit will not be quite as great. Tait likely has minimal trade value as well as his base salary is going to be higher than his worth. Wale could have some trade value though. Though he is not coming off a good year, I think the value of DEs is such that player get over-rated, and he could bring back something if we choose to deal him. My not be much, but a 4th or 5th could be in the cards.

No argument there. It is one thing to try to stockpile 2nd and/or 3rd round picks, but another entirely to stock pile 6th and 7th round picks.

Few points. - On Osa, it is not a question of whether or not I think he would improve our secondary. He is an elite talent, and would obviously improve our secondary. But for the, it is a matter of (a) how much and ( at what cost. The franchise tag prices just came out, and according to those numbers, CB is the 3rd highest paid position behind QB, and just behind WR. Elite CBs make sick contracts, and Osa is due to hit paydirt (if he even makes it to FA, which I personally doubt). An issue for me is, I just do not believe our system puts enough value on the CB position to justify the cost. I talked about this ad nauseum in another post. During draft time, when scouts are evaluating players, have you not read them talk about this player being a more man coverage guy vs another who is more likely a better zone coverage fit? Those zone coverage CBs are always discussed for teams who run cover two defenses. That is because our scheme simply does not require elite CBs. Look around the league at other cover two defenses, and tell me what elite corners play for those schemes? I honestly can not think of one. So if the scheme does not require, and would not truly utilize the talents of a shut down corner, how can you justify the cost? - On moving Tillman to FS. Personally, I am not a huge fan of the idea. I understand the reason for the talk. It goes back to when he was drafted, and the DC then said he could be a pro bowl S if he didn't workout at CB. Add in his hands, and I see the reasoning. My issue is, I am tired of the experiments. Instead of moving our best CB to FS, why not instead go out and get a true FS? I said the same for our LT position for years. For so long, we moved players who were previous starters at OG or RT, and tried them LT. Tait was the best success, but was short term and never great, IMHO. Finally, we had to draft a legit LT, which is what I felt we should have done a decade ago. Ditto at FS. Instead of experiments, I just want to go out and get (draft or FA) a legit, experienced FS. - On how I rank our needs. I should point out that I do not rank DE as high as I might imply. Rather, I believe our staff ranks DE as a top priority need. I personally believe we have talent which has been held back by Babich, and feel (hope) Marinelli can get more out of what we have. In fact, the only position on defense I view as a priority is FS. I believe we are better fixed for talent at CB than some believe. I think Tillman is a solid CB for our system. I look at Vasher, and point out his decline coincided w/ Babich taking over, and believe the changes in coaching will elevate his play. Further, I believe Graham looked very good last year, and could be a solid starter as well. So I personally do not view CB as a high need, and like DE, feel coaching will offer better results. FS is the one position (SS would be next) where I simply feel we lack talent, and do not feel coaching changes are enough to compensate. Where I believe we have our greatest needs is on offense. On defense, other than FS, I simply believe the talent is there, but Babich's run defense made it look like we were devoid of talent all over. I believe, hope, that our coaching changes proves we are more solid than most believe at DL and CB. On offense however, I believe we simply lack talent. On the OL, I do not see a position I am happy w/. Williams will take over at LT, and we have to simply hope that works out. But other than LT, I do not like our current, or future, options. Beekman played decent, but far from great, and I think will be moving to center before long. Kreutz has seemed to decline each year, and is closer to a liability than an asset. Garza sucks in my mind, and Tait is just a hair better than Fred Miller, which says a lot about how I feel. So I believe we need major changes/additions on the OL. After the OL, WR is a close 2nd for me. Even if we significantly upgraded our OL, I do not think we have the talent at WR to take advantage. Hester may or may not evolve, but other than him, I have seen little reason for hope, and question how much development we should expect from Hester when no other WR can provide a solid 2nd option. So here, like OL, is an area I feel the issue is about talent, rather than coaching. Let me put it this way. I believe our defense, w/ the personnel we have in place now, and the coaching changes made, can once again be a top 10 defense. Maybe not dominant, but top 10. On offense, I think we could go backward as much as forward if changes are not made.

I think that is fan reasoning vs GM reasoning. No GM is going to say, "I suck drafting in the 1st, so get me out of that round". Fans may say that, but not the GM. However, many GMs will trade down using other reasoning.

There is another way to look at it. If you trade down, and in turn get multiple picks, each pick may have a lesser % of hitting, but you do in fact have more opportunities to hit. Consider gambling. You go to the horse track, and look at the odds for each horse. If you spread your money around picking several horses who may not have the same odds as the favorite, are you an idiot? Personally, what I can't stand is to discuss mock drafts that incorporate the idea of trading down right now, when there is too much up in the air. At the same time, we have a lot of holes, so if we wanted to trade down, picking up extra picks, I question whether that is simply stupid or not. Putting all your eggs in one basket is not always the answer. Picks in round one may have better odds of success than picks after, but I wonder how much that is offset when you are able to grab extra picks in those "after" rounds. I never took stats in college, but just wonder if your odds w/ those extra picks are really less than the odds w/ just that 1st pick. No argument the odds are greater when comparing a 1st against a 2nd, but how does that % change when you factor more than one pick against the one. Lets say you dropped out of the 1st round, and picked up a 2nd, 3rd and 4th (just throwing it out there). Are you so sure the odds of hitting on a player w/ that 1st are so greater than the odds of hitting on the 2nd, 3rd OR 4th?

Exactly! If I knew we were going to spend our 1st on a WR, then I too would rather simply get Boldin. The problem for me is, as great as our need for a WR is, we have numerous other needs as well. Thus why I talk about how I would trade our 2nd and 3rd (for example) if we would also use our 1st on OL. In that, we would see a huge upgrade at WR AND OL, rather than just WR. I think that is the problem most pro Boldin for a 1st guys are facing. We have many needs on this team. No question WR is one of them, but far from the only one. Most would love to have Boldin, but at the same time, see so many other needs that giving up so much just for WR is questionable.

I am not in Detroit, and maybe don't know the entire story on RW, but Boldin was screaming for a trade last year, and is expected to only scream louder this year. I don't recall such from RW, but as I said, may simply not know.

do you really think lovie smith is so stupid that if our corners could play bump and run, forget about man coverage but like the cover 2 actually dicatates in the first place, he just doesn't want to do it? i just find it mindboggling that people would believe that any nfl head coach with a defensive background would purposely play his corners 5-10 yards off the line of scrimmage every game and give up 5-10 yards to a receiver untouched continually and call it his "scheme". For the record, the 2nd quote was from another post of yours which I incorporated. Allow me to answer your question w/ a question. You give the idea that our CBs suck, and are incapable of playing in such a way as to work in a cover two scheme. Well, if that is true, why did we spend money to retain them. Do you believe Angelo did this behind Lovie's back, w/o his signing off on the move? I doubt that seriously. I think our keeping our CBs very much had the stamp of approval from Lovie. If that is the case, then I have to believe also that he believed Vasher and Tillman did in fact fit in our scheme, which sorry, would seem to blow your argument out of the water that (a) our CBs can not play press coverage AND ( Lovie would never run a system that doesn't use CBs near the LOS. just to be sure i am getting you... you say the cb's are not good enough to play up man coverage yet it appears your pet peeve is why our coaches don't scheme to play them up man in coverage OR on the LOS in zone coverage more often? No, I am saying I have no idea whether our CBs can play press coverage or not. IMHO, it is not part of our system, and not something we spend much time practicing, and thus, not something I would expect our corners to do well. Also, there is a difference between lining your CBs on top of the WR and 10 yards deep. IMHO, even if your CBs are not great in press coverage, they do not need to be lined up 10 yards deep. Understand something. Lovie has MANY times talked about how his system relies on players keeping everything in front of them. The deeper our corners play, the more they keep WRs in front of them. Thus, I would argue how we line up our CBs very much fits into what Lovie has always talked about w/ our system. I simply don't care for the system. just for the record, even when our D was top 5 our pass defense was POOR!! we overcompensated for poor corner play with good + pressure from the defensive line. we also at that time had a good safety in mike brown who also helped to smooth the edges of our corners playing so soft. in the mean time other offenses figured out how to beat us which we don't have the tools to counter. Explain how you judge our pass defense to be poor. Our team seemed to be among the league leaders in preventing big plays. Our team always seemed to rank among the top in terms of take aways. This is something I just do not think you get about Lovie's system. Go back to his days running St.L's defense. It was NEVER about shutting down opposing WRs and offenses. Lovie's system has always allowed WRs yardage, but the idea was to prevent big plays and force teams to use many downs to move down the field. In this ideal, it gives a defense more opportunities to make "plays" on the ball, and thus create turnovers. I think you judge a pass defense on whether or not we simply shut down an opposing WR or offense, but that has simply NEVER been Lovie's MO. Preventing the big play and creating many turnovers is what Lovie's defenses were always known for, and that is what we had, at least until Babich took over. So you argue our pass defense was poor, and I argue it performed just as Lovie wanted. what matters is that there is not enough quality/talent in our entire defensive backfield to even trade one for a 3rd round pick!!! you don't think another team would give us a 3rd round pick for briggs? or urlacher? or tommy harris? would you give one for polamalu (sp)? one for the kid in oakland? champ bailey? dawkins? mcalister? Now we are talking about a 3rd? I thought we were talking about 1st and 2nd round picks. Regardless, after the last two years, I doubt many would give us jack for any of our players. However, coming off the SB, when our defense was playing well, I do think we could have gotten a 3rd for Tillman. Not sure about Vasher. BUT, I would argue the CBs in a cover two are not usually the high value players. Look around the league at other teams who run the cover two. How many of them have top tier CBs? Personally, I can not think of any. When you look at cover two defenses, you usually find top tier DL and upper tier LBs. CBs are simply not considered the value position in a cover two. no i am not missing that point. it doesn't have to do with scheme unless you think our cover 2 is something different under lovie smith than any other coach using the cover 2. it has to do with confidence in his players abilities which seems nonexistant. either that or he really is stupid. First, as said above, tell me what elite corners are playing in a cover two. I honestly can't think of any. Second, I do agree with what has already been said. It is not just the cover two, but Lovie's cover two. Urlacher once said the players called it the Lovie Two, implying the system we run is similar to the known cover two, but also specific to Lovie. first, i wasn't at the game and it is truely vauge in my memory without revisiting it so i can only talk in generalities in this instance. onward: when blitzing 'can' a defense play a larger zone? sure. does that mean your corners are or aren't playing man? no. again... there are a multitude of zone type defenses some mixed with man. do you consider it a zone just because they are giving this big of a cushion? if that is the case we never play man coverage. watch where the corner is lined up. see where the safeties are lined up. is the corner trailing the wideout with a deep safety for over the top help? are there 2 safties playing deep? is he passing him accross the field to the safety, linebacker or the other corner? No, I am not saying we are in a zone just because our CBs are playing off the LOS. I just whether we are in a zone by how the CBs play the WR after the snap. When our CBs put their stress on preventing the sideline, and try to funnel the WRs into the middle of the field, where the LB or S take over primary responsibility, then we are in a zone. Do you recall, in the Houston game, where Daniel Manning was burned deep. It was nearly identical to the SB loss. The CB kept the WR in front of him to a point, and then released the WR to the S who was taking the deep coverage. Unfortunately, our FS failed in both occasions. Also, in each occasion, the CB saw the S wasn't in position, and tried to get back to the WR, but it was too late both times. So the CB too often is seen as the bad guy, but in reality, it was the responsibility of the S, and the coaches have even said as much. Often, it is hard to tell if the CB is playing zone because we allow so many quick passes, but I look at how the CB plays. If the CB is playing to a specific area (sideline) and looks like he is allowing the WR an opening in another area, it usually means he is releasing the WR to another zone. Problem is, we too often leave that next zone open, and the WR makes the play. It looks like the CB blew it, but in reality, the CB did as he was supposed to do, but the LB or S was not in position to handle his zone. i have to add to this also, the cover 2 is DEPENDANT upon the corners not letting the receivers get off the line untouched, period. otherwise you will get exactly what we have seen in chicago playing zone OR man. Sorry, but I simply disagree w/ this, and further, go back to our re-signing Vasher and Tillman. If both are so incapable of press coverage, and if press coverage is an element the cover two relies upon, why were they re-signed? The fact that both were re-signed seems to be evidence that press coverage is not the all important element of the cover two, or at least the Lovie two, you think it is. explain to me your description of that game's corners and safeties playing man coverage and compare it to what you see in other games. what are the specific differences to you? I talk above about what our CBs do playing a zone. They keep the WR in front of them up to a certain point in the field, where they "release" to the S. They take away the outside (sideline) and funnel the WR into the middle, where the LB or S is expected to take over. Contrast that to man coverage, where the CB will not look to take away one area, but play tight (not necessarily at the LOS) w/ the WR throughout his route. He is not looking to funnel the WR into another area to another player/position/zone. the biggest PROBLEM is wracking up 3-5 hundred yards passing a game. how can you expect any defensive line, including the 85 bears, to stop a continuous 2-3 step drop and release? if your corners are covering the receivers tight can that happen as often as it does in chicago? nobody seems to realize that that extra second waiting for a receiver to clear can make the difference between a completion and a sack. I think many fans realize this, and is also why many fans have not been huge fans of Lovie and his scheme. It is why I have said how our DBs play has been a constant pet peeve of mine. I agree that, if our CBs were to press more, it would give the DL a greater chance to get to the QB. Even if they could potentially get beaten, it would require the QB to hold the ball longer, and thus allow the DL more time to get to the passer. But that just has never seemed to be part of our system. Our system allows the short stuff. Sorry, but go back to when Lovie was in St.L. Same thing. He allowed the short stuff, w/ the belief that offenses struggle to move the ball 80 yards for a score on 10+ play drives. In Lovie's eyes, if our defense forces an offense to run so many plays, it allows us more opportunities to force a turnover, and thus make a stop. i agree you need to generate a pass rush to be successful. but to do that you need to be able to hold the receivers from being open for at LEAST the minimum amount of time it takes your linemen to get there. we can't/don't do that. Hey, we agree, but where we disagree is whether or not Lovie see's things that way. Even when we were a top 5 defense, I felt Lovie held us back from being truly dominant. Then, we forced more turnovers, which led to a greater overall ranking, but I always felt that if we played more aggressively, we could actually put fear into opposing offenses, rather than just trying to frustrate them. yea i do remember 2001 and what we needed then was a pass rushing defensive end to be successful. our corners weren't great but they did play a lot tighter/better coverage than anything we see today not to mention we had two pro-bowl caliber safeties. i just don't see how this is a waste of money improving your entire defense with one key player. One, our CBs played tighter coverage, but that was a totally different scheme, under very different coaches. My point was, do you really think Blache wanted a Freeney like DE for his system that was based on stuffing the run? Then, we wanted 300lb DE who could stuff the run first, and get to the QB 2nd (or 3rd). IMHO, if we had a DE like Freeney, he would have gone to waste as he would have been too restricted. FA's factor cash first and foremost. add to that do you think a db from oakland, for gods sake, wouldn't see an improvement in chicago? if not then we truely are a sad franchise at this point in history. You act like we would be the only team going after him. My point is, often FAs get similar top offers from more than one team, and choose the team they feel is the best fit. A few years ago, we made a strong run at Kearse. Phily made his a very similar offer to ours. As I recall, Philly offered more total guarantee money, by a million or so, but in more installments than ours, thus it could be argued both offeres were VERY similar. He choose to go w/ the team he felt would better utilize him, and that was not us. No argument that money is #1, but unless you plan to make him an offer that blows the doors off all other offers, I bet you he will consider other factors, and how he is used and in what sort of scheme will be one of them. you keep saying the same thing over and over. our staff wouldn't deploy our corners up because of scheme. how do you know that? you yourself say they are not good playing up!!! so why should they? so they can get beat every other down? I don't think our CBs are good playing up, but also state part of that is likely due to practice, or lack there of. Since Lovie came to the team, we have had more than just Vasher and Tillman, and yet regardless who is playing CB and what WR we are facing, we continue to line up our corners the same way. So to me, it simply has nothing to do w/ the CB or WR, and everything to do w/ the system. Sorry, but regardless how bad you may think our CBs are in press coverage, there is no reason to play them 10 yards deep against the likes of Bobby Wade, which we did. I just throw Wade out there as an example of a WR who doesn't have speed, yet we played identical to how we played a WR like Steve Smith. Even if young CB is not great in press coverage, there is no reason to show such respect to a WR who lacks speed. That our CBs play every WR the same tells me it is system, as opposed to the skills of the CB. would angelo be dumb enough to draft a cover 2 type of corner in round 1? i certainly hope not. any corner i drafted on the first day would be one i projected to be a cover/lockdown corner. Is this not further evidence? Since Agnelo came to the bears, how many CBs have we drafted in the first? Heck, how many CBs were even rumored to be our pick? Angelo has never seemed to consider the top tier, shut down corners. Does that not speak to how we view the position as it relates to our system? finally... when have they ever had a true cover corner to put on the field??? do you truely believe that bringing woodson in 3 years ago would have made NO difference for this defense? are you serious?? But again, that is the point. Our system is not one in which the CB position is as highly graded, thus why we have never tried to get the elite cover corners in either the draft or FA. I know you wanted woodson, but the fact that we never even made a run at him, well, does that not say something. I think the problem is, you want players based on how you would run a defense. Hell, you have my vote, as I think you and I are more on the same page when it comes to how we would run a defense. Problem is, I just do not think our staff agrees. Lovie is a cover two corner, and like it or not, elite shut down corners are not seen in cover two defenses. Think about pre-draft talk every year. Every year, you read scouting reports on CBs, and often you read scouts talk about whether a CB would be viewed as a better man coverage or zone coverage DB. Often, those reports often go on to say something like, "Player X lacks a, b, c abilities, and is more likely suited to go to a defense that plays zone, like w/ the teams that run cover two systems. So players in the draft who are considered to lack man coverage skills are often discussed as potential picks for teams that run the cover two. Sorry, but I think your argument is FAR MORE about our system and staff than about our personnel. I would love to add an elite CB, but then again, I would love a system that would better utilize such a talent.

1. vasher, tillman, mcbride have all three been beaten badly multiple times at the LOS. whether graham is ideal or not and has or has not i can't say for positive but unless he is playing "Lovie's Cover 2" that requires him to always play a deep cushion every play i certainly don't remember seeing him play bump and run on the LOS. One, multiple times? So what. Every DB in the league, including the elite, have been beaten multiple times. I am sure you mean, more, but I think many of us would argue we just have not seen them in press coverage enough to really say. Two, I have also always wondered how much of the problem is due to how much time we practice press coverage. If I am right, and press coverage is not an integral part of our defense, than I have to wonder how much we practice it. If we do not practice it much, should we expect great results the few times we do see our DBs try it? I really think this is a chicken and egg argument. I believe you argue that we do not press at the LOS often because we do not have the talent. Some of us argue that we do not press because we do not have coaches who like to press. Who is right? We may never know. 2. huh? you mean like bryan robinson? or r.w. mcquarters? or p. daniels? or r.manning jr.? or d. wesley? or t. metcalf? or w. holdman? or hester? or your very own vasher? or urlacher? or moose? or h. burris? or k. stewart? or c. hutchinson? or j. quinn? or b. johnson? or k. jones? or b. lloyd? or dick jauron? or john shoop? Okay, I agree the idea Angelo never over-paid for a player is questionable, I also think you were trying to just throw out every name you could think of. The point was not really whether a player turned out or not, but whether Angelo paid market value at the time he paid them. Put aside what you think of Tillman and Vasher today. If they were FAs when we paid them, do you really not think they would have gotten offers equal to what we paid them. That was Brad's point. Most on your list I think would fit into that category as well. Heck, some on your list didn't receive much more than the minimum, so how can you really talk about their being over-paid. Argue whether we should have brought them in at all, fine, but over-paid? peanut is a top corner? then you believe we could get a first or second round pick for peanut this offseason? vasher? the guy we have been discussing may get cut if not for the overpayment cap hit by angelo? are you saying then it's babich's fault our corners got eaten alive last season? or for that matter over the last 5 years? you also mention, after commenting on how good our corners are, that our secondary "sucked"? I wondered about the "top corner" comment too. If Brad meant top corner on our team, I guess I would have to agree. If he meant top corner in the league, I would say not even close. W/ that said, our corners have not been eaten alive for the last 5 years. I am not sure where you are even coming from on that one. We were actually a very solid pass defense under Chico. I think that is his point. W/ these same players (mostly) we were a top 5 defense, but under Babich, closer to bottom 5. You ask if it is Babich's fault got eaten alive last year. I would say partially. I would point out that both Vasher and Tillman suffered injuries, and Tillman played most of the year w/ a bum shoulder which hindered his ability to tackle or break up passes, but w/ that said, I think Babich was a factor as well. Vasher talked about it at one point, but was so villified at the time his comments were not well received by fans. He talked about how he isn't the one telling CBs where to lineup. The implication there is, coaches tell the CBs to line up 10 yards off the LOS, so don't blame the corners when there are so many easy completions underneath. He also talked about how, under our staff's system, the CB is expected to take away the outside, and give up the inside, w/ the idea the LBs will take that area. So a CB is expected to prevent the WR from catches near the sideline, and are expected to funnel the WR into the middle of the field. Vasher said that flat out, and makes perfect sense for our system. Problem is, our S and LB pass defense this year was bad, and thus those slants were easy completions. Vasher's point in that rant was, the CBs are getting blasted for doing what they are told to do. So yes, I do think Babich deserves a large part of the blame for the play of our CBs this year. look, your entitled to your opinion on what will fix this mess we call our DB's. you think we are fine with what we have on our roster and i say a top cover corner FA makes not only our secondary better by light years, but our entire defense. Hey, a top player at any unit on either side of the ball makes the team better. A top WR makes the offense better. A top OL.... A top DE.... A top DT..... The greater question is, what player brings the greatest level of improvement. IMHO, of the positions I just ticked off, CB would rank at the bottom. I believe an elite WR, OL, DL would have a much greater impact on the team than CB. I would also add FS. I believe an elite FS would have a far greater impact on the secondary specific, and defense as a whole, than CB.

Just curious. Are you comparing Moose w/ Boldin? No question our offense failed this year, but I don't think that minimizes our need for a WR. The key is, we need more than just one WR, regaredless how good. We need to drastically upgrade our OL too. That has been my issue all along w/ the idea of adding Boldin. I would absolutely love to see him in a Bears uniform, but if adding him comes at the expense of being capable of upgrading other aspects of the offense, I am not sure if it is worth it. Still, I do believe adding a WR like Boldin could have a dramatic effect on our offense. In our offense, Hester is our #1 WR by default. IMHO, if we were to add Boldin, Hester is dramatically upgraded as well. Further, w/ a greater passing attack, it is harder for defenses to (a) stack the box and ( blitz the QB. But again, it comes back to our ability to make other necessary upgrades. That brings it back to what it would take to get him. If we could get him w/o giving up our 1st, and we could use that 1st round pick on OL, I think the 1-2 punch would create a huge boost to our offense.

To go one further on the "not to mention", he was a total flop for Dallas this past year. W/ 10 games as a Cowgirl, he averages less than 2 catches for less than 10 yards per game. To be honest, I have no clue what he will get. There are always the idiot owner/GMs who defy the market w/ crazy deals. Danny boy last year offered Cincy two #1s for Chad Johnson. The only thing more idiotic than the offer was Cincy turning it down. Think they would take two #1s for him now? I doubt it would work, but what if we offered our 2nd, one of our 3rds, and Vasher? Especially w/ two #3s this year, I think he is easily worth the two picks. His value is in fact great, but maybe Vasher still has enough good reputation to get the deal done. We would eat the cap hit, but also have the cap space to afford that. Also, we have the cap space to sign Boldin to a new deal. I think boldin is most likely to get a 1st plus in trade value, but when push comes to shove, who knows. What I can really see happening is a 2nd round pick this year, and a 1st rounder next year.

I personally do not know how much we play cover 2, but where I think a misconception lies is the idea that when we are not in cover two, we play man coverage, as if cover two is the only scheme we play that uses zone coverage. Sure, there are times I see us w/ only one safety (other safety is in the box) and our CBs do not release, but that is simply not the norm. I don't know percentages. Most talk about 40% use of cover two because I think Lovie alluded to something like that. My point is that, even when we do not use the cover two, we are most often still in a scheme that uses zone coverage. I would also make this point. Regardless how much we are in the cover two or not, that is the identity of our head coach. We are not going to look for players that do not fit our head coaches scheme. Maybe he would be a good fit for the 10-20% of the time you run man coverage (just throwing stats out as I don't know) but are you really going to spend the sort of coin it will take to get an elite CB if he isn't going to be an ideal fit 100% of the time? I go back to the example of 2001 when we had a DL that was expect to (a) stop the run ( maintain their lanes/gaps and finally © get to the QB if you can, w/o sacrificing the above two. Remember, "sacks are over-rated". So back then, w/ such a scheme, would it have made sense to add a DE like Dwight Freeney. He may have been an all world pass rusher, but if we just blew off that talent and asked him to play the run, would the price to add him have been worth it? Now I am sure Lucky would argue you adapt your scheme for the player, but there lies the key. I just do not think our staff does such. We adapt players to the scheme, not the other way around.

i just don't believe that our corners are good enough to play man coverage with any consistancy no matter what scheme they are in. i don't know how anyone can say that after seeing them actually play up and get beat time and again. it has been tried and failed. if the talent really is there, can you name a single DB on our defense that another team would give us a first round pick for? or even a 2nd round pick? a 3rd? I am not saying our corners are good enough to play man. I am saying we do not often play man coverage. You say, they play up and get beat time and time again. I say, "huh". While I am not going to argue their getting beat time and time again, I do question the idea of their playing up time and time again. Understand something. How we line up our corners has been a particular pet peeve of mine for years. Even when our D was top 5 and things were going great, this was an area of criticism of mine. As being a pet peeve, it is also an area I have focused on more often watching games. W/ that said, I just do not see our CBs play near the LOS. Prior to the snap, they nearly always run up to the LOS as if they are going to press, but still prior to the snap, the back peddle 8 or so yards. So we agree w/ the idea that our corners are not capable man coverage DBs. Where we disagree is (a) whether or not our scheme calls for that and ( how often we see our corners in such a situation. As for how many of our DBs would bring a 1st or 2nd round pick in value, sorry, but what does it matter. What players on our entire defense would net such? I question whether even Briggs would net a pick. I mean, any team in the league could have had him w/o compensation, but he returned to chicago as the offers were simply not there. how can i explain us playing off slower receivers? that i can't and it does fall on our coaches whether they don't have the confidence to play anyone up or just plain never practice doing so. believe me i am not defending our coaching staff but still have to call it like i see it and that is lack of real talent at these positions. But I think you are missing the point. That our corners play off even slower WRs implies that how we line up our corners has more to do w/ scheme than anything. I don't care if you think our corners are not very good. That we played 8-10 yards off Bobby Wade says to me it isn't about talent, but simply due to scheme. next... i certainly don't understand your thinking that a corner wouldn't be happy in a cover 2 like we run. just for curiosities sake, don't you think we play man coverage of some sort nearly every time we blitz? last season we were one of the top blitzing teams in the nfl. plus, even you conceded that we only play the cover 2 in the 'area' of 40% of the time. what are we playing the other 60+%? No, I do not think we play man coverage whenever we blitz. FAR from that. When I went to the Houston game, I was able to really focus on this more than I normally can on TV. It just didn't matter whether we blitzed or not. We still played zone coverages. It is something I have screamed about for years. Logic says when you blitz, you need to cover the WRs early so as to not provide the QB a quick option, but we do not. IMHO, that is a big part of why our blitzes are so ineffective. We may blitz, but because we allow such a cushion, the blitz is offset by a quick pass. And no, I am not just confusing our DBs giving a cushion while playing man w/ a cushion while playing zone. When our blitz is picked up, and the QB still has time, I still continue to see our corners release to the safety or LB, or whoever's zone the WR enters. IMHO, it is not simply a matter of whether we are in cover two or not. I have said this many times. Whether we are in a cover 2, cover 3, or whatever, the vast majority of the time I see our corners playing zone coverage. Sure, they do play some man covergae, but IMHO, it is far more rare than what you may believe. I have mentioned this before, but will continue to go back to it as an example/evidence. The year we went to the SB, do you recall how we killed NO? After that game, Drew Brees has some of the most telling comments. He talked about how we were a zone coverage defense, but in that game, we played mostly man. He talked about how all week they prepared to play our zone, and our playing man had them baffled. Many took his comments as a swipe at the coaching staff's inability to adjust, but key for me was the difference in scheme. We were viewed as a team that played zone to the point that teams didn't even practice beating man coverage preparing for a game w/ us. When we actually did play man, it was such a shock, it was difficult to adjust to. how could drastically improving our pass defense be a waste of money? it is the weakest link in a defense that has gotten shelled by even BAD quarterbacks!!! it is the main 'DEFENSIVE' reason we will not sniff a superbowl win in the near future in my opinion. Sorry, but I (and most) would argue the biggest problem is pass rush, or lack thereof. You can have the best secondary in the NFL, but if the QB has all day to throw, eventually WRs will get open. How often have we heard our staff talk about how our defense revolves around the DL getting a pass rush. If we can't pressure the QB, the defense as a whole fails. As to how I can say drastically improving our pass defense would be a waste of money, my point is, if the player (regardless how good) isn't a good fit for the system, you have paid top dollar for a player who will never be fully utilized. Consider this. Most consider Dwight Freeney one of the best pass rushing DEs in the game. Remember our defense in 2001? Big DL who emphasized stopping the run. That was when Blache said sacks were over-rated. What if the bears had Freeney then, but asked him to stop the run first, hold his lane, and get to the QB if you can, but not make it a priority. I think you would agree that would be a waste of talent. You can argue that if you get an elite player like Freeney, you adapt to utilize his strengths. I would agree, but question whether our staff would do such. How disgusted would you be if we added your CB of choice, only to see him play mostly zone defense and play off the LOS. You disagree that is how we would use him, but that is why I think adding him would be a waste. as far as free agents unwilling to come here... remember p. daniels? moose - this is the place where "wide receivers go to die"? remember tait? wale? t. washington? k. traylor? r. brown? Sorry, but what does that have to do w/ anything. I didn't say no FA would come to Chicago. I said FAs factor scheme, and are not as likely to head to a team that uses a scheme that doesn't fit them. Which of the above examples fit such a category. A current example. If Peppers is serious about only wanting to go to a team that will run a 3-4 scheme, do you think he would choose Chicago? finally, you ask if our coaches would utilize great talent if they had it? i believe they would. they would have to be completely stupid to stand on that tight rope without a net. if not then they are just taking up space in chicago until they are eventually fired and we have no hope until they are distant memories. in that case our new coaches next season will have a real threat in house for our pass defense. We just disagree on our staff. I do not believe our staff is the sort to mold a scheme around players, but the opposite. I think they are the sort who have a scheme, and force players into that system. Brian Urlacher was considered elite among MLBs, but has never been a fan of our scheme, and has not been shy to say as much. Most would point out that Urlacher is at his best when behind bigger DTs that can eat up blocks, while he can more freely flow to the plays. Did that ever matter for our coaches? Nope. We simply forced Urlacher to fit into our scheme, ignoring his potential if used differently. Sorry, but I simply believe going after a CB like who you want is a pipe dream. He is not a fit for our scheme, and not a player I think we will show any interest in. Even if we were to go CB in round one, I think you would find us going after a player who scouts praise for his zone coverage.

Just to jump in, where I think the disconnect between you and Brad is, you believe our corners play so far off the LOS because they suck so bad, there is no other choice, while Brad believes we play our corners well off the LOS because of coaching and scheme. You want a stud CB who can stand on the LOS and play man coverage against opposing teams top WR. In that regard, you would argue we prevent the quick dropoff passes and such. I believe Brad would argue that, if we signed a stud CB, we would still use him in zone coverages and line him up well off the LOS, thus wasting his elite talent. I tend to agree w/ Brad. I think our corners line up where they do, not due to talent, but due to scheme. I factor this. It is one thing if our DBs line up well off the LOS against the likes of Steve Smith, but our DBs play way off the LOS against ALL WRs. We could be facing the slowest WRs in history, and we would still give them the same cushion we give Steve Smith. Maybe we don't have great talent at DB, but I think the question is, would we actually utilize elite talent if we had it? You are a die hard bear fan who has followed Lovie since he joined the team. What from his history leads you to believe he would adjust his scheme to accomodate the talent of a particular player. To me, Lovie is far more in the line of a coach who tries to fit all players to his scheme, regardless whether they are good fits or not. So for me, I think an elite CB would be a waste of money, as we would never get value out of him. And frankly, I think we would cause problems because I doubt seriously that player would be happy w/ his role. Hell, along those lines, I am not sure he would ever sign w/ us. Players sign for money, but you can bet they factor scheme. A pass rushing DE is not going to join a defense run by Blache, while a 300lb DE is not going to want to sign for a team that runs a cover two. The raiders corner is not likely going to want to sign w/ a cover two defense, which uses far more zone coverage than man.

While I agree, I would point out the following. (a) Roy Williams was not a huge distraction. If Boldin makes a big stink trying to force a trade, Az is not as likely to get full market value. ( Det traded RW during the season, to a team desperate. IMHO, the market is going to see a higher price for in-season deals than offseason deals. I doubt Az would agree to just a 2nd round pick, but also am not sold they will get as much as Det got, even though Boldin is a better receiver.

When he talks about rotation, he may mean competition. If Tait were to win the RT job, we could look at St. Clair inside, and thus rotate him to OG. Not rotate him like we rotate our DTs in a game, but rotate him in terms of moving him around to find a starting position. What could be interesting is, if St. Clair were to win our starting RT spot, do we hand on to Tait for depth. I am all for cutting him, but if St. Clair is re-signed and starts at RT, AND we cut Tait, we are once again left w/ a weak depth situation at OT. Williams is unproven and coming off injury. What if we need St. Clair to move back to LT, and we have cut Tait. So while I would have no problem cutting Tait, we need depth on the OL, and if we do little more than re-sign St. Clair, I just wonder if we are not better off keeping Tait one more year. I would simply cut him and add another OT, but if we are considering St. Clair for RT, I wonder if we are really planning to emphasize OT, in FA or the draft.

Do you mean Gage would do well with Kyle, or does that include Rex? Rex was never good with the short stuff that is ideal with Gage. But Gage would help Orton a lot. Meanwhile Berrian was never quite as good when Orton was QB'ing. I meant Orton. I do think he may have helped Rex, but no, I was mainly talking about Orton. Again, I understand our letting him walk. Everyone wants to make a big deal about it, but (a) he was far from a star for us and ( he was injured nearly the entire final year of his deal, and we simply moved on. Maybe not Beekman, but name one rookie that we didn't "ease into it" unless out of necessity? Hell, there's little doubt in my mind that Cedric starts last season as the starting RB if he hadn't been arrested. Bennett did see action in one or two games last season, and Orton did throw to him once on a ball that was badly over-thrown. I am not arguing the point. I agree Lovie doesn't seem inclined to start rookies. It happens, but only when (a) we are desperate for a starter and ( they look so good, they win the job. I think a rookie can start for us, but feel like they have a greater hurdle to leap than most veterans. What we do not seem to do is throw a rookie in there to develop them. Bennett is a great example. Even if he wasn't looking good in practice, how is he supposed to develop if he can't get any reps. If we had solid starters in front of him, I can better understand holding him back, but w/ what we had, there was simply no reason to keep him on the bench.

I agree many are trying to make our former WRs greater then they really are. I don't think Wade is really anything more than Davis. Bradley? Just don't think he was ever nearly what fans wanted, and his injuries always kept him on the sidelines. I do think Gage would done well in our system. I never liked our letting him go so easily, but at the same time, I think fans memory gets shaky. He was never a great WR for us, and was injured most of his final season, so it just isn't shocking that we didn't make a big push to keep him after his contract was up. While I am not going to say our staff likes playing rookies, I do have to throw out there, I don't think Beekman is a good example. He didn't play as a rookie because he was a 2nd day pick who was expected to be a backup center. Even this past offseason, the staff was VERY hesitant to look at him at OG because they didn't feel he had the size to play inside. They viewed him as a pure center, but due to injuries, were forced to give him an opportunity, and he ran w/ it. So, point is, while I think it is fair to question our staff's evaluation of Beekman, I don't think it is correct to use him as an example for Lovie not playing rookies.

Why does it take so long to develolp our WRs, well, consider this. In Gage and Wade, we are talking about two late round picks. What were they, late 5th or 6th round picks? As for Bradley, he may have been taken in the 2nd, but he was considered a major developmental project. He had never started a game in college, and while he was considered to have loads of talent, he was also considered very raw. Not enough. How about Mr. Hester, who didn't have a full time position in college, was drafted by us to play DB, and then converted to WR his 2nd year, though was primarily a return specialist. Still not enough. How about Davis, who I think was a former arena league player and defense at that. Point here is, when looking at our WRs over the years, how many are the sort you would expect to develop quickly? When your WRs are from later rounds, or lacked much college experience, you are simply not going to get immediate results. Now, Bennett? I have no clue on that one.

Okay, I'll bite and play a little devils advocate. First, I do agree we need to figure out what is wrong. That is true for most positions after the year we just had (actually two years). But looking more detailed and specific. - Moose - Why did he fail w/ the bears, yet do well w/ another team. I think there are many things here. For one thing, while Moose was awful in 2007, so was the entire offense. Do you realize though that Moose had numbers very similar in 2006 w/ us as he did this year w/ Carolian? In 2006, Moose had 60-860-5 w/ a 14.4 ypc avg compared to this year in Carolina when he had 65-923-5 and a 14.2 ypc avg. Those are very similar numbers. So while so many have talked about how great Moose was this year compared to w/ us, the difference is just not that great outside of his final year. W/ that said, look at the offense Moose was in this past year. W/ us, Moose was starting opposite to a still developing Berrian. He had a lack of consistency at QB, and a average to below average OL. In Carolian, he played opposite Steve Smith, who this year had over 1,400 yards, a better QB situation, one of the best OLs and one of the top run games. The #2 WR in such an offense is bound to put up better numbers than in our system. Much has been made about other WRs doing better elsewhere than w/ us, but at times, I think a bit much is made of that. There are three WRs typically mentioned. Bradley, Wade and Gage. Bradley was a bust for us, but the biggest key was his inability to stay healthy. Take this past season for example. Yea, Lovie said he was set to enter camp as our #1 WR, but he then went down w/ injury AGAIN, which plagued him every year w/ us. Bradley went to KC, and immediately had "some" success, but shock, went down w/ injury and was really not that effective after. Wade is also mentioned, but I think some forget the history w/ Wade. Wade was a decent enough WR for us, and really, I question how much better he has been since. I think some forget he was cut largely due to his fumble issues as a returner, combined w/ injuries his final year w/ us. He was deemed expendable. Since, he has become a decent WR, but nothing to write home about. Gage is a player many talk about also, but I think many are forgetting history a bit. Gage was not cut, but simply not re-signed. In his 4th year (final contract year) he suffered an injury, and the team simply choose not to re-sign him. Some would point out his better numbers after leaving, but seriously, have so many forgetton the QB woes the years he was w/ us? The only year we had a legit starter was 2006, but that was also the year he suffered injuries and barely saw the field. Prior to that, shall I remind fans of who we played at QB. Is there really any wonder why a WR would fail w/ those QBs. So while I am not going to argue the idea that we have not developed WRs, I think much of that also has to do w/ the QBs we trotted out there each year. You say Hester was set to be our #1 this year, and that didn't happen. I would argue there was never the belief Hester would instantly turn into a legit #1 this past season, but the hope was he would develop, and eventually be a potential #1. Well, he more than doubled his catches and yards, and took some pretty big strides at the WR position this year, so I would argue he did meet expectations, but that some held unrealistic expectations. IMHO, the biggest reasons we have failed at WR are (a) we have lacked surrounding talent. We have started the likes of Krenzel, Quinn, Hutchinson, Burris (the list goes on, but is sickening so I will stop. We have never stressed building up the OL, and even when it was good, it was old and short lived. Few WRs are going to excel when you have a mediocre OL and a bad QB. ( We have never had that legit #1 WR, which makes the life of the rest of the WRs harder. It is far easier to excel as a WR when you have another WR like Steve Smith on the other side of the field. for years, we have had #2s and #3s, and expected them to play like #1s. © So why have we not had a #1? Well, I think most #1s comes in the 1st round of the draft, and we have not spent a 1st on a WR under Angelo. We spent a #2 on Bradley, who was a very raw project coming out of college (never started a game in college) and two #3s, one of which was Berrian who did develop. The only big FA we added was an older veteran who had been inconsistent throughout his career, but we signed him off a career year. I said then it was a bad move. So I would argue our efforts to gain a #1 WR have been lacking. WR is a position that has a big bust %, but most teams try to offset that by drafting more WRs to hedge their bets. We didn't. We would draft one WR, after the 1st (often day two) and put all our eggs into one basket. So I guess this is where I leave it w/. While I am not going to say we have done a good job developing WRs, at the same time, I question our committment to the position. In 7 years, we have drafted one project in the 2nd, two in the 3rd, and otherwise relied on a bunch of later round picks. Further, the FAs additions have been very few and far between. So while I question the development aspect, I even more question the overall committment to the position specifically, as well as the offense as a whole.

Do not misunderstand my comments to mean our staff is good in terms of development, or recognizing talent. But at the same time, have you not noticed how every WR deep on our depth chart, or on our practice squad, is the 2nd coming? It might be one thing if we were just talking about 2nd (Bradley) or 3rd (Bennett) round picks, but every undrafted rookie FA we bring in is considered a potential pro bowler. I agree w/ the argument we should have been playing these kids more. I can not explain why Bennett, and the rest, could not get a snif of playing time when the WRs in front of them were failing miserably. At the same time, I do still just get the sense the depth chart WRs have become very similar to the 3rd string QBs for the bears. The unknown is always better than the known, at least until the unknown becomes known that is. While I agree our team does little to develop WR talent, to me, that is only a greater reason to sign a solid, developed, veteran rather than draft a WR in the 1st round. If our team is so lacking in the ability to develop talent, why spend our top pick on another WR? And I know some will argue we have no ability to utilize veteran WRs either, but who have we brought in? Booker? He looked washed up in Miami, but many (including myself) felt he might still have something left. He didn't. Moose? Yea, he has done better this year, but not exactly great, and is on a MUCH better overall offense. Moose should have never been considered a #1, but in our system, he was too often looked upon that way. What other veterans have we brought in. Just because it didn't workout w/ those two veterans, we write off adding any more veteran WRs. Hell, by that reasoning, we have not gotten it done drafting WRs either, so I guess we just give up on the position all together since nothing has worked. I simply think you have to take it on an individual basis. While the age may be similar, I contend TJ Hous is a very different player/situation than Moose. Moose was a very inconsistent WR who we signed coming off a career year, and one in which blew out of the water his previous seasons. TJ on the other hand has proven to be a very consistent WR, and further, one that can excel in an offense that makes ours look stellar. Everyone wants to compare TJ to Moose, but to me, they are worlds apart. If our staff truly is inept in their ability to develop WR talent, to me, that only furthers the reasoning to sign already developed talent. Also begs the question why the hell our WR coach (Drake) still is employed.