nfoligno

Well, we have ourselves a bit of a war and peace novel, and I would advice all others to pass, but I don't want you to feel your work went to waste, so.... come on... you are purposely taking that statement way to literally. of course you are not going to take back to back qb's with a high first round pick. but if you have a average/decent+ qb on the roster (like orton with POTENTIAL or a miller quality qb with POTENTIAL) this does NOT stop you from drafting one who has a real chance at becoming a franchise qb in the first. in this vein it is the same thing that the chargers did with rivers and brees. if both turn out to be special you have a very valuable trade in your future. if not you have the best of the two to run your offense. i will state this, if you draft one 'high', i repeat, 'high' in the first round to me this does NOT stop you from drafting someone with real potential in the 2nd round down in following years until you actually HAVE that franchise qb on your squad. Okay, got it. I think we do come very close to agreement. Having a good (not great) QB on the roster, I agree, should not prevent you from seeking an upgrade. If you have a "good" QB on the roster, I would not use more than a 2nd though. Understand, I am saying and established, good QB. But I think the point is, if you do not have a franchise QB, you should always be looking for one. Now, I would disagree that if you spend a 1st on a QB one year, you could/should use as high (but no higher) as a 2nd on a QB the following year. If you spend a 1st one year, I would spend no higher than a 4th the following. The year after that, I would consider as high as a 2nd based on what that QB had shown over his first two years. But this is arguing small stuff, and I think by and large we agree on the overall idea. first read above. then understand that watching manning PLAY you could tell he had real talent as the season went on. would i have drafted someone in the following rounds who i thought could be a real franchise qb the following year? the answer is yes, until manning proved he was the real deal. then trade the player if he had talent, keep manning and do it all over again. if you think this is some kind of crazy thought process, look at what our division rivals did with brett favre as their franchise qb. they drafted and traded some pretty good qb's during his tenure who had real trade value. why? because they had the brains to look ahead. But how many QBs did they draft high, or even relatively high, during Favre's time? I have no problem drafting QBs, even when you have a stud, but where I have an issue w/ is drafting a QB on day one in that scenario. Day one picks should be starters, and if you are a stud, then your pick will not be a starter. I disagree w/ the idea of drafting a player w/ the intent to trade him. hmmmmmmm.... haven't i, others, AND you discussed this in detail on WHY lovie smith and jerry angelo will NOT be fired for 1-3 years? so no matter how bad we have been coached (ultimately it all comes down to the head coach) over the last 2+ years, no matter how bad angelo has drafted over the last 7 years, are their jobs in serious jeopardy this offseason? now why do you think that is? Sorry, but you can scream about your financial conspiracy theories till your blue in the face, but I think you ignore too much. Why is Lovie not more on the hot seat? Maybe because he is the 2nd winningist coach in the NFC over the last four years. Only the Giants have a better record (by one) than the Bears over the last 4 seasons. Because, while we didn't make the playoffs, we finished w/ a winning record, our 3rd in 4 seasons. Because Lovie took us to the SB a couple years ago, which is a big leap for an organization that hadn't been to the SB since '85, and frankly, hasn't seen many post seasons since either. While I flat out do not like Lovie, at the same time, I think it is VERY understandable why he is not on the hot seat w/ the owners as much as he may be w/ you or I. The flat out fact and reality is, Lovie has had more success w/ this team than any coach since Ditka. on to angelo... how do you think we GOT him? HE was hired CHEAP!!! the old addum that you get what you pay for and holds true in this instance in spades. i am not even sure you could say he WAS an excellent defensive scout. he was in charge of player personnel in tampa since 1987 yet the bucs drafted HORRIBLY until mccay showed up. actually very similar to US!!! First, I don't recall our hiring Angelo cheap. No, I am sure his deal was not top tier, but I don't recall there being a big deal made about how we nickel and dimed him either, unless you are simply making that statement because we hired an unproven GM. As for Angie, I began to argue for him, but I stopped and deleted. I don't like him, and you are not going to force me into a position of defending him:) Seriously though, we went w/o a GM for many years, and after Mikey was kicked out, we hired one. let me get this straight... are you telling me because we won 13 games in 2001 and got our asses handed to us like a hat in the playoffs that you would have passed on a pro-bowl qb like bledsoe for jim miller? are you serious? he never even started a complete season in chicago since we got him in 1999. here is some more stats i want to "throw out": Two things. One. I am not talking about what I would have done so much as understanding the reasoning for why we did as we did. It is a copy cat league, a statement most in the NFL would agree w/. At the time, we were copying the Ravens, who went to and won the SB w/ a very similar team. Great D, solid to great run game, and journeymen QB. Two. I think you are making Bledsoe out to be some incredible player everyone had a shot at, but I just don't recall it that way. I don't recall there being massive interest in him at the time, and frankly, he wasn't a FA. I don't know. While there are times I think I would more tend to agree w/ you, in this situation, I just think there is reason to understand why we didn't make a big play for Drew. in 2001 we ranked 24th in passing yards; 12th in TD's; 13th in INT's. he passed for 2299 yards and averaged 164.2 yds per game that year. this is surely enough justification to reach out for a proven pro-bowl qb in my opinion. Stats do not tell the whole story. Our not having big passing totals was not all about QB play. (a) Our system was based on running the ball, which is going to create lower passing numbers. ( Our D shut down opponents so much, the need to pass for big numbers was less. © Our D often created great field position, which I would argue is relfected in our offense not putting up great yardage totals, but ranking near top 10 in TDs. That means our offense was scoring, but simply not needing to move the ball as far to do it. I really think you are forgetting something. Who was our HC and OC at the time? We had coaches who wanted a conservative running offense. If that is your system, you don't go out and make a big spash at QB. we needed 2 things coming out of the 2001 season: 1. a pass rushing defensive end 2. a quarterback who was more than just average. i have said this before and i will say it again... this is the year we should have traded UP, not down. whether the bengles would have done it or not is another story but i WOULD have given up 2 firsts to get carson palmer or at least tried (after all we are not talking of trading out of the top 5 with them). this is not from hindsight but because this guy was the best prospect for a franchise qb since p. manning. there is no way anyone can tell me that angelo considered grossman a franchise qb, or even better than leftwich, and yet traded down and picked a DE before him. it was a cheap and safe pick for angelo. as far as wolf pressing gb to pick him? sure why not? you have favre in his PRIME at that time and it fits the plan of gb drafting qb's and trading them or at the least having good ones to back up favre. if not that then what better way to screw chicago than wolf saying that? One. You have absolutely no way of knowing if we did call Cincy or not. Teams make tons of phone calls behind the scenes, and we hear only a bit of that. For all you know, Cincy made it clear they were not trading the pick, and everyone else backed off. You just do not know. Two. There is no way Angelo considered Rex a franchise QB, or even better than Leftwhich? Why not. As far as trading down, that is simply about being a good GM in the draft and not reaching for players, but getting them w/ better value. Take this year for example. If we felt Forte was a better RB prospect than McFadden and others taken ahead, and knew we could get him in the 2nd, what is the problem w/ drafting as we did. I guess you would argue we should have taken Forte in the 1st if we felt he were that good, but again, that is all about knowing/feeling the draft and players values. There is no reason to believe we didn't in fact believe Rex would be a franchise QB. I didn't, but we are talking about Angie. As for Wolfe, the news really didn't come out until after the draft how high he was on Rex, and how much he wanted GB to draft him, so saying it was to make us take him is a stretch. And regardless of what GB's situation was, if Wolfe felt he was worth a 1st round pick, then he isn't looking at Rex as just being a good long term backup. He is looking at Rex as having greater potential than that. i do have to ask... WHO thought we had our franchise qb in chicago? jerry angelo? for what accomplishments? in 2003 he wanted to groom grossman behind a guy that was a complete bust in pit. finally grossman played in 3 games (after the bears were eliminated from playoff contention) and was injured his rookie year. he followed this giant accomplishment by being seriously injured in his 3rd start (1-3) in the 2004 season. all that grossman had at that time was potential and nothing more. we went into the 2005 season with hutchinson, orton and grossman ending up with blake replacing hutch and another seriously injured grossman in preseason. Now you are preaching to the choir. Our GM and staff felt Rex was still our franchise QB. I didn't. how about if i talk about bringing in free agent drew brees? but then we wouldn't have wanted to damage our sure thing franchise qb, grossman's, ego considering how much he had done for us and get a pro-bowl calibre free agent in his prime. Again, you are preaching to the choir here. One, I felt we waited too long to replace Rex. Two. I never understood the idea of not wanting to give Rex competition, fearing it would hurt him mentally. If your QB is that weak mentally that he can't deal w/ competition, then he is not a franchise QB. 1. no that is not hindsight. THAT is why you hire COMPETENT staff including coaches, gm's and scouts. so they can give you a real educated evaluation of not only what you are getting but what you can mold him into. you stay away from the combine escelator production prospects like the akili smith's and boller's but when you do get the p. manning's and the c. palmer type players you pull the freakin trigger. does that mean you hit every time? no. maybe you get a couch or a leaf, but if you NEVER make those gambles you end up being exactly what we are today and have been for longer than anyone wants to remember!!! and most important you do like the bengles do. if you don't succeed getting one drafting high you keep trying until you do. Again, nice thought, but I question the reality of it. You really make it sound so easy, but I think if you look at the league (not just us) and history, you will find it is anything but. Finding that franchise QB is no easy or simple thing to do. You say, you should give up whatever it takes to move up in the draft to get that sure thing, but history has shown there is no sure thing. You say you might get burned by taking a Couch or Leaf, but the problem is, if you gave up future #1s as well, you just kill yourself. I agree w/ the idea of going after a QB, but I do not agree it is so easy to move up in the draft to get one. I am rarely in favor of giving up a future #1 pick. To bust potential is too great, not just for the player, but what the long term effects on the team can be. 2. first of all don't say we did value the qb by spending a top 15 pick on one. that is plain ridiculous. we put so MUCH value on both first round qb picks we traded DOWN to get them!!! if you think the qb you picked is a franchise quality qb, and you sure as hell should, then isn't that enough for you to draft him in the spot allotted to you or even trade UP to get him????? otherwise that means that these qb's were valued less by the entire nfl than 15-22 other players INCLUDING yourself. Sorry, but this is simply ridiculous. In the draft, you have to factor the value of a player, as well as other team needs and such. You very well may look at a player and view him as a franchise player, even if the rest of the league doesn't. Your board is not going to match everyone elses. I mean, come on. By your argument, players outside the first couple picks can't be considered frachise because you would say other teams passed. I disagree that a team can't view a player not expected to go in the top 10 as being a franchise player. Further, I disagree it is best to move up to get a player if they believe they can get that player later. If I write out my board, and Grossman is my 2nd rated QB, and I know he is likely to be available in the middle of the 1st round, and I have a high pick, there is no reason for me to simply reach for him. It is simply smarter to trade down and get him. 3. now do i get out the quiji board? hell, do you think under ditka joe montana would have been a HOF qb? does that mean you don't draft him? how about p. manning? because mora is an idiot do you pass on him too? i think the point you and this entire franchise is missing is you FIRST find the talent then build your franchise around him. I just think there is more to it than that. Sure, you mention Manning and Montana, and those two are so good the rest doesn't matter, but they come around how often? I agree you should always seek out a franchise QB, but at the same time, I disagree that is all that matters. I swear you act like you should ignore everything else until you find that franchise QB, but I would argue you will never find that franchise QB until other parts of the puzzle are in place. really? then just what is the reason you don't hire even one expert or a consortium to fill a position you have failed to find in 40 years? Ego. I don't think the owners having anything to do w/ this. If Angelo hired an offensive consultant, he would first have to really swallow some pride. Few GMs can handle as much. Seriuosly, while we as fans talk about this all the time, how often do you actually see it happen in real life? you think guys like the walsh's or the tuna's (don't much like him but have to throw it in) or the holmgrens or anyfreakinbody that knows how to look at college talent and see the potential and groom it to be successful in the nfl will do it for nothing? Holmgren? I am not sure he has looked like such a genius since leaving GB. And you mention Tuna. Didn't jerry spend the money to bring in Tuna? How did that workout. You seem to think it is always about money, but I would argue that often enough, it has been proven that simply throwing money at the problem just does not always spell victories. Danny Snyder has got to be your favorite owner in the league. He goes out and gets a hall of fame HC, and offers enough to get him out of retirement. He then spends so much on his coordinators as position coaches you would think they were all headcoaches. And yet, how well has Wash done? You think any team that doesn't spend like this is cheap, but I would argue it is simply a difference of philosophies. Jerry Jones for example is an owner few would call cheap, but he has never been willing to pay for his coaches. He hired coaches on the cheap, often going to the college ranks to get them. When they want too much control, he says good bye. He finally broke w/ his ways in hiring Parcells, but that didn't work out, and now most believe he will be worse than ever. Further, Jones is the GM in Dallas. By your rationale, that would make him too cheap to hire a GM, right? The point is, you always believe that when a team doesn't spend, it is because they are cheap, but I think there is ample evidence that it is often simply a difference in philosophies. Snyder has a philosophy that you must love, and yet how well has it worked for them. Jones is considered cheap by few, yet runs his team in such a way you would have to consider cheap by your reasoning. I agree we have problems on our team. I simply disagree it is all about money. so if not money then what exactly is it?

Looks like his son-in-law is going to Seattle. For me, this is a double bit of good news. While I hate that Marinelli is Lovie's old BFF, as well as strictly a cover two guy, I do like him as our DL coach, where he should actually be an upgrade for us. Also, if I read the Trib correct, his son-in-law will be taking the LB coaching job w/ Seattle. As Berry made a point to talk about how much he would love to coach for Chicago/Lovie and continue to work w/ his father-in-law, the fact that he is going to coach the same position we have open in Seattle tells me we told him no thanks. I am flat out thrilled w/ this. Also, I have to wonder if that decision would have been Lovie, or if Angelo stepped in. I have a hard time seeing Lovie not wanting Berry, so I wonder if Angelo told him adding Marinelli is fine, but adding his son is more than fans could deal w/.

I hope we re-sign Brown. While I do not think Brown can play FS anymore, and feel FS is our top need on defense, at the same time, I also think Brown can still be an excellent SS, and showed that this year after he was moved. We have a couple young SS' (Payne/Steltz), but neither looked ready to take over. If we were to re-sign Brown, who I do not think would be expensive, it would allow us time to develop the young guys, and ( allow us to draft a FS w/o losing the leadership in our secondary. In fact, not just the secondary, but Mike Brown is the closest thing I have seen to leadership on our defense. While we have good to great players, I really would not call any of our players on defense (other than Brown) leaders. They may have the lead by example leadership, but only Brown seems to accept the vocal leadership duties. So I would love to re-sign Brown, but only so long as we are looking at him strictly as a SS, and seek out a good FS in either FA or the draft.

Now that was funny. Too add just one piece, we also still have an idiot paying for the crappy music.

For the most part, I agree. For me though, and I read/heard Angelo's speech as well, I just feel like the only players in FA that I can see actually fitting his idea of actual upgrade would be older QBs (Warner/McNabb). The rest I just don't see as being of a level that would constitute a major upgrade. At best, they would offer competition for Orton. That is why I talk about the draft. Looking at what is available, if Angelo is serious about getting serious about QB, then the draft is the only way I can see him going. You mention Ryan and Flacco being exceptions to the rule, and I agree that their instant success is an exception, but I would not agree that doesn't mean drafting a QB is anything but the rule if you want long term success. I don't know if we would be looking at round 1. More than expectations, I think it is about what QBs are available. There is still too much time to know really what QBs will be valued where. This time last year, Flacco was a fringe late 2nd round value, but by draft, he was considered late 1st, and then Baltimore took him mid 1st. So while there is still a lot to play out, if we want to be serious about QB, I think we should be looking at adding a FA to (a) push Orton and ( provide depth. On top of that, you add a QB in the draft, whether that rookie be in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd. That gives us two QBs at the top, either of which are capable fo starting now, and a rookie we can allow to develop for at least a year. If Orton (for example) excels, then the rookie will ride the pine. Picking where we are, that is not a cap killer by any means. If Orton doesn't work out, then the rookie will get his shot. Basically, I think we are in a similar situation as Cle, who had Brady Quinn and Anderson. They were able to allow Anderson his time, and when he flamed out, can now turn to Quinn, who isn't as green as he would have been if he was thrown directly into the fire.

I realize you said hypothetically, but I just don't see it happening. IMHO, the only way it could happen is if something seriously wrong, like an injury, was found in the QBs. You say other teams have drafted or signed QBs recently, and that may be true for some, but there are still too many teams desperate for a QB ahead of us. And don't forget, this is a copy cat league, and after watching what Matt Ryan did for Atlanta, I think teams are going to be as high as ever on finding the next Matt Ryan. Teams in front of us I think would be a good bet to draft QB. Det - Obvious reasons. StL - They may have recently signed Bulger, but they also benched him this year, and in trouble at QB. KC - While they may be happy w/ Brodie, that is far from certain. Seattle - After watching their season tank when Hasselback went down, combined w/ Hassel's age and mileage, I can see them looking hard at QB. SF - They got by w/ Hill, but I can't see them viewing him as long term. Wash - They didn't seem happy w/ their QB play this year, and in fact, seemed to dumb down the offense for their QB. Honestly, I can't see either making it out of the top 5. If that happens, not only would I consider taking one, I would move up to get him.

And you think adding Marinelli as our DL coach constitutes "significant" change? Sorry, but adding yet another Lovie BFF who doesn't know crap other than cover two doesn't sound like change to me. It sounds like more of the same. Maybe Marinelli can improve the play of our DL, maybe, but I would not call his addition significant change.

Warning. Long post. Longer than my usual that is:) here's the deal... any time you get a chance to draft a qb with potential to be a franchise qb (unless you have one in his prime) you do it. then you build your offense around HIM, not the other way around. Sorry, but I disagree, at least when you say "any time". When you invest a 1st round pick on a QB, you do NOT follow that up by taking another QB the following year. Sorry, but you simply do not do that. No team does. When you draft a QB in the 1st round, you have to allow time for that QB to develop. Now, I will agree we allow too much time, and wait too long, but I do not agree w/ the idea that you draft a QB anytime you do not have one in his prime. QBs take time to develop. Matt Ryan aside, few look pro bowl their first season. In 1998, Indy drafted Manning, and he went on to have a year in which he threw for more picks than TDs, and had a QB rating that would more resemble Rex or Orton. By your theory, they should have drafted Culpepper the following season, rather than Edgerrin James. if you don't have the expertise to find good/great scouts as an owner or gm you hire someone competent who does, and hire these key personnel. you just don't sit there for years on your hands. No argument here. I would argue the issue is not about money though. Look at our current coaching situation. We have stunk on D for the last two years, both under Babich. Do you believe it is because we are too cheap to fire him that we don't, or is it just because he is Lovie's boy? Point is, you always want to believe money is the reason behind everything, but I simply disagree. in truth, i seriously just can't believe that even the mccaskey family is too stupid to figure this out. it just comes down to are you willing to spend extra money for a quality product that doesn't give you any more financial returns. the answer is obvious. One, yes, I think the McCaskey's are too stupid. W/ that said, I just don't think it is about money. We have owners who are not very good football people, and who hired a man who I believe is not a very good GM. It isn't that Angelo is too cheap, or isn't allowed to spend, so much that he simply doesn't have the knowledge. He was an excellent defensive scout, but I think the evidence shows his knowledge is limited to that side of the ball. who did we have at the helm in 2002-2006? 2002 jim miller and jeff chandler combined for 3316 yards; 2003 kordel stuart, jeff chandler and rex grossman combined for 2905 yards; 2004 chad hutchinson, craig krenzel, j. quinn and rex grossman combined for 2641 yards; 2005 orton, grossman, jeff blake combined for 2201 yards. what a freaking joke. You are not going to get me to argue. At the same time, I think you are just throwing out stats w/o considering the entire story. In 2002, we were coming off a 13 win season led by Jim Miller. I think there was reason enough to go w/ him in 2002, but it didn't work. In 2003, it was obvious we were going backward and not forward after that 13 win season, and needed to move in another direction. So instead of relying on journeymen QBs, we drafted a QB in the 1st round. Now, you can argue we should not have traded down, but trading down only passed on Leftwhich, who was FAR from a sure fire franchise QB. We took Rex Grossman, who I NEVER wanted, but would point out Ron Wolfe (considered by many a QB guru) was a huge fan of and supposedly was pressing GB to draft, though he was only a consultant at the time. So while it didn't work out, I am not sure we can sit back and say that (a) better options were there or ( we didin't make QB a priority. 2004 - We just drafted our "franchise QB" the prior year. I guess you would argue that we should have taken Loseman that year instead of Tommie Harris, but I would argue not a team in the NFL would have done such a thing. We believed we had our franchise QB in Rex, and were going to allow him the time to develop, and were not going to make a decision after his rookie year. 2005 - Basically, see above. It was believed Rex was going to be our QB. Also, I would add that w/ the 4th pick in the draft, there was not a QB worth considering. Alex Smith was the #1 pick, and no other QB went until the late 1st round. Not a good year for QBs. 2006 - This was the year where I really wanted a QB, and I loved the top tier coming out. Problem was, we were drafting at the end of the 1st round, and the top tier (3 QBs) were taken in the top 12 picks. You can talk all you want about how we should have traded up, but that is a near impossible trade w/o multiple (same year) 1st round picks. I can't think of a single team that made that great of a leap. So this was a year I would agree passing on a franchise QB would have been a mistake. At the same time, we just were not in a position to do it. You can argue we should have taken one later, but wow was that just a bad year for QBs. 2007 - We were coming off a SB (loss). While inconsistent, Rex led the team to the SB, stayed healthy all year and seemed to take steps forward. While I still didn't like him, I can understand the team believing in him. AND, we were picking 31st, so it isn't like we were in position to draft a franchise QB here. 2008 - Time will tell who is right, but I would agree w/ you here. Man did I want a QB. I loved Ryan, but there was no way to get him. I really liked Flacco, but Baltimore was ripped for taking him as high as they did. We would have had to take him even higher. What made me sick was passing on Brohm in the 2nd. Well, Forte looks like a total stud, and Brohm thus far looks like a dud, but I would still tend to agree that walking away from this draft w/o a QB was just wrong. Point is, you can toss out stats, but they do not always tell the whole story. IMHO, the problem was not nearly as much that we didn't care about the QB position, but instead the level of faith we put into the "franchise QB" we drafted. Not only did we wait too long to lose faith, but we refused to even allow competition, which I have always railed against. BLEDSOE: I can see the argument that we should have traded for Bledsoe in 2002, or at least that we should have more seriously looked at upgrading QB, but (a) I simply would argue there were more questions about Bledsoe than what you are recalling and ( we were coming off a 13 win season w/ Miller. Frankly, I think there is a FAR greater argument that we should have been looking at a QB in the draft that year than adding a veteran. MIRIER: You are NOT going to get me to say this was anything but an awful move. I never liked it. The original point was that we did something providing evidence how much we valued the QB position, and that we tried yet another avenue to get one. It was an awful move, but the point all along was simply that we did try. MCNABB: i feel the same about mcnabb as i did about bledsoe. hire him and let the best qb play on sunday. if it's not orton (who i do like and think he may turn into a good qb) then draft another talented qb high in the draft and let orton compete. if we got 4 years out of mcnabb, that is four years we have a real chance to win a superbowl and time to groom his replacement. But doesn't McNabb fall into the category of players you knock of for going after in the past? McNabb is an older veteran, and one w/ red flags. His play has been inconsistent in recent years, and he has had several injuries taking him out of the seasons. I would love to get McNabb, but (a) I doubt he will be available after leading his team to the postseason as he has and ( your nuts if you think you can get McNabb w/o guaranteeing him the starting job. You talk about adding him and letting him compete w/ Orton, but that is a joke. No way he leaves Phily for a team that doesn't offer guarantees. Further, If the reason we didn't get him was due to not making guarantees, you would blast the team for that too. what ever hatley was, he chose to ignore the most important position in football. he traded down to get cade mcnown instead of up to get mcnabb or couch. in FACT he could have picked pepper at #7 but didn't have the guts to pick that high. just curious... what could the scouts and hately been looking at on game film of mcnown? the guy was a PR pick and not picked on the quality of his play in my opinion. One. It is just SOOO easy to say we should have traded up, but hindsight always looks easy. Sorry, but look at the absolutely insane deals made in that time period to move up. Remember Ditka giving up an entire draft, and most of the following years draft, for Ricky Williams? As opposed to now when teams beg others to take the #1 pick off their hands, the #1 pick then was like gold. I am sure you will argue we should give up whatever it took, but that is simply not living in reality. Not to mention, the #1 pick that year was Couch. Wanna consider how bad it would have been to give up say two #1 picks (2nd would have likely been a top 5 if we did that) for Couch? Two. I really think you try to pick at this to prove your point. The reality is, we did value the QB, and spent a top 15 pick on a QB. If Cade turned out to be more like McNabb, are you going to tell me you would be reflecting how we should have moved up in the draft to get couch rather than down to get the QB we wanted for better value? Come on man. It has nothing to do w/ trading up or down, but simply who we took. Three. To continue that point, you say we should have just taking Pepper at #7, but do you really think Pepper would have been even a good QB if we did? Pepper went to an ideal system, and looked great for a while. Soon after, he busted, but do you think we had a system to match Minny's? In Minny, they would max protect to keep Pepper free. And he had a pair of absolute studs to throw to, not to mention Robert Smith in the backfield. The bears had the razzle dazzle offense where we often went w/ an empty backfield, putting unbelievalbe pressure on a rookie QB, and did so w/ a bad OL and weak surrounding talent. James Freaking Allen was our best RB then. So even if we stayed put and took Pepper, or traded up and took Couch, we would have stunk just the same. Oh yea, and throw in trading for Akili Smith. The reality is, there was one great QB in that draft (McNabb) but it is TOTAL and PURE hindsight to say we should have done whatever possible to take him. as far as angie goes, he should have been sat down and if he couldn't figure out offensive drafting then hire someone who could to help him. if he wouldn't go along with that then it was time to move on. Hey, I agree w/ this. I said several years ago we should hire an offensive consultant, but where you and I disagree is in the reason we don't. I think it has ZERO to do w/ money.

Just for a bit of support, count me on your side for this one. First, in general. (a) Agreed that money talks. How many times have we seen a player forget everything said about what he wants in a new team, only to sign w/ whoever offers the best deal. ( After a player signs, what is he going to say other than to praise the team that signed him. How often do you see a player say, "well, I didn't get much interest from other teams, so I just went ahead and signed w/ the only one that showed my any level of legit interest". Yea, that would go over w/ his current team and fans well. Second, more specific. (a) Lets look back at our team's history. We are the team that put all our eggs in Rex' basket. It is well documented that Warner didn't come to Chicago because he wanted an opportunity to compete, but the team told him he would be strictly a backup. We signed Griese, but didn't give him a chance to compete, and put all our faith in Rex. We drafted Rex, and were going to give him every chance in the world to make it. Does anyone believe we ever showed serious interest in Brees? ( It was fairly well documented then that, while Brees was the hot ticket FA QB, interest was simply not as high as you would think. When Brees hit FA, there were numerous questions about him, like: Injury, how much of his sucess was system related, and how much of his sucess had to do w/ SD having an elite OL, RB and TE. Fans look back and wonder how Brees didn't have half the league going after him, but when he was in FA, it was far more of a debated issue. I remember the bears boards back then, and even w/ bear fans, going after Brees was a hot topic. I don't think the majority of fans were even for the move, much less passionate enough to make a major run at him. There were supporters, but it was far from certain by all. Many fans then, like the staff, still believe Rex had the potential to be great, while Brees was little more than a good QB. © As I recall, Miami and NO were the only two teams to make "serious" runs at Brees. As you said, much of this is done behind the scenes through his agent speaking w/ teams. I believe he went to NO knowing he had two teams w/ serious interest, and after the NO interview, simply made a quick decision between the two teams. I do not doubt NO blew him away, but at the same time, I also have no doubt that if more teams had shown (behind the scenes) major interest, he would have left NO and moved on to see what other team was ready to blow him away. Simply put, at the time, our staff (GM and coach) still had faith we had our own, internal, franchise QB in Rex. Evidence of this was our adding Griese in FA, and not even allowing him to compete for the starting job. We flat out handed the job to Rex. IMHO, this best shows the mind set of the team at the time Brees was a FA, and thus provides evidence that we were never serious, and maybe not even interested, in adding a QB like Brees, who would only come to Chicago if guaranteed the starting job. We were not even looking to add competition for Rex, much less flat out replace him. So I agree we absolutely could have had a very real shot of adding brees. But we didn't have the interest, and NO did. End of story.

I am not against trading for a player in general, but I think it depends on the situation. If you have few holes, and there is a player available (through trade) who you believe puts you over the top, then I think the trade is worth it. But is that us? Is a WR that one missing piece of the puzzle? I don't think so. We have needs all over the place, and I would add that we are also getting old fast at several positions too. I love Boldin, and would love to add him, but if doing so would prevent us from upgrading other areas of need, I just question whether it would be worth it. IMHO, adding TJ Housyourmama and then using our 1st and 3rd round picks (which would be the minimum giving up for Boldin) on need areas would benefit the team overall more than simply adding Boldin.

That is what I have been saying for a while. Ideally, I would have liked to get a stud OG to play alongside Williams, but there just isn't one if FA that I have seen. There is however a solid list of OTs to choose from. IMHO, we should be able to get a solid RT in FA to replace Tait, which is a priority in my book. Then, as you said, we can get a solid/great OG in the draft. Can you say Duke? More and more, I think we stand a very good chance to re-sign St. Clair, and I would start him at LG w/ a wide open competion at RG, hoping a rookie would start, but also looking at maybe Buenning. Beekman go back to being depth, and Kreutz' eventual replacement. Williams - St. Clair - Kreutz - Duke/Buenning/other rookie - FA OT IMHO, doing this would upgrade the OL immediately, as well as set us up for the future.

First, while I understand you said, "for the sake of argument" but I disagree that older QBs are not possible, even factoring Angelo's comments. Just because he finally wants to stress the QB position, that doesn't mean he absolutely believes that he will find our long term answer this year in FA. He may be looking at a plan where he gets a veteran he believes is an upgrade now, while drafting a QB to develop and replace the veteran. Frankly, when I look at the list you provide, I think this makes even more sense, and none seem to be serious upgrades to Orton. Anyway, looking at your list, Chris Simms - HELL NO! I said this many times before, but I want no part of Simms. First, is there not enough evidence how mentally soft Texas players are? I don't want another mentally soft QB. To me, Simms is Grossman. Even going back to college, Oklahoma showed how Rex, er, I mean Simms, would crumble under pressure. Simms did so well at Texas overall because w/ that OL and offense, Oklahoma was about the only D that actually could pressure him, but that isn't the case in the NFL. When pressured, Simms folds. Byron Leftwhich - Leftwhich is a QB who may do well if behind a solid OL, but we don't have one, and if we did, I think Orton could do just as well. J.P. Lossman - This to me is actually an interesting choice. He didn't workout for Buffalo, but did at times show very solid promise. Loseman is a player who I question if his style ever matched his coaching. But I also think he will be among the more targetted young QBs in this FA class. Not to say he will cost a ton, but I think interest in him will be higher than in most. Derrick Anderson (If available) - One year wonder? Stats would sure seem to indicate that. Not a horrible addition for cheap, but would not represent a real upgrade. Kyle Boller - Never been a fan to be honest. He had plenty of chances for a team w/ a better OL and weapons than we have, not to mention coaching and defense, and could not get it done. Luke McNown - Backup quality at best IMHO. David Carr - Honestly, he always intrigued me. I always that it was a joke, and many Houston fans did to, that they invested to heavily in a "believed" franchise QB, but did so little to build an OL in front of him. I always felt he had the talent, BUT (a) he has failed to showcase that talent for several teams since Houston and ( if OL was the issue in Houston, I question how much better he would look for us, w/ our OL. The group of FAs is simply ugly, which really makes the timing of Angelo's statements questionable. More and more, if we are going to make QB a priority, the draft seems the way to go IMHO. Frankly, w/ Orton signed for another year, it would make sense. Orton plays this year while a rookie gets his feet wet w/o the pressure. Any QB we draft will not be a major investment, due to not having a very high pick, thus if Orton did establish himself, it isn't like we would have killed ourselves capwise. On the other hand, if Orton doesn't improve, we will have a young QB to turn to.

My argument is not so much that this group is good, but that it is better than ours. I think you have an inflated impression of our WRs, as you have now placed our group ahead of both SF and Seattle's WRs. I have yet to see a team who has a group of WRs as poor as ours. As for whether Haas should be able to contribute immediately, I will agree the barriers are not there to prevent him from doing just that. At the same time, I am not sold he will. The fringe WRs for the bears in the last few years have seemed to become like the backup QB for the bears, at least for the fans. I guess it is the same rationale. Since our starting QBs always seem to suck, fans always seem to fall in love w/ the backups. Same I suppose goes for WRs now. The group of Wrs we have been putting out there is so bad that any WR in a bear uniform not getting a chance must be better, and ends up becoming fan favorites. I am not saying Haas didn't deserve a chance in Chicago. I am not saying he could not have done better. Nor am I saying he will not do wel in Seattle. I am saying I am far from certain.

So what is the excuse against the run? Even when Url was yo yo-ing and ended up where he was supposed to be, his angles were crap, he was guessing, running himself out of plays, etc. I would make two points here, both of which have been previously mentioned. First, it is a lot harder IMHO for the MLB to play the run when you are standing over the DT. When you are 5 yards off the LOS, more the norm for LBs, and it is a running play, you are running downhill toward the runner. You have space to work and momentum. When you are standing over the DT, I think it vision is more difficult, blocker find it easier to get to you, and you have no momentum to fight off/past blocks. Second point I would make is regarding the play of our interior DL. It improved when Scott started, and so did Urlacher's play on run downs. I'll address this more later, as I know you talk about this as well. I can't believe, as a coach, you would not agree w/ this. Sure seems like Warren Sapp, Hampton and MANY other former players and coaches I have listened to realize this. Lovie himself said a couple years ago that Urlacher is best when running downhill, toward the play. When you stand him over the DT, he is not running at all, much less downhill. None of the LB's were able to get to their pass responsibilities when they were up to the LOS. Thats why teams were able to complete the slants all day. But Briggs' effort was better, he was making plays in the backfield, etc. Thats why he is in the probowl. Sorry, but once again, this is apples and oranges. How many times did you see Briggs running 20 yards downfield to get into his responsibility? On passing downs, Briggs area of responsibility was FAR shorter than Urlacher's, and thus didn't take nearly as much to get to. Hey, I'm an Urlacher fan, but if you are supposed to be an all nfl linebacker, the bottom line is that he needs to play better. And hey, we have highly paid coaches who are expected to put players into the best position to make plays, and few believe they did that. And as far as the d line getting double teams, who held double teams the year before. Url did just fine then. This answer is an easy one. Last year, Dusty was injured the entire season, and we basically had the same DTs we did at the end of this season, when urlacher's play improved. While I thought I saw it, Warren Sapp was the first person I would consider a near expect to point out just how bad the play of Dusty was. He was not just getting single blocked. Per Sapp, who has a job now as an NFL analyst and reveiws film, pointed out how Dusty was literally getting thrown down/away and his man was then moving onto the next level. That doesn't even count the 5th OL (other OG or center) that was most always free to attack the LB or next level. While no one is saying Adams, Harrison or Idonije are great players, they were light years better than Dusty, and w/ their increased playing time (and starts) blockers were not nearly so free to attack Urlacher. Same last year. Like w/ where we lined Urlacher up, you do not seem to want to admit something most every "expert" has pointed out. Dusty was beyond worthless, and it wasn't until he began to lose playing time, and then was injured, that Urlacher's play improved and our defense as a whole looked much better against the run. And what are the excuses for the lack of leadership from Url this year? How can the Captain of the defesne not have his squad ready to play the last two games? One, urlacher may be a team captain, but he has never been what I would call a leader. He has always been the leader by example type, but he was NEVER been an outspoken or vocal leader. Never. Frankly, the only player on our entire defense I would say is a true leader is Mike Brown, and I think cut back on the leadership role due to years of not even being on the field, and feeling like he didn't have the right to play the role. That is not just my opinion, but something he actually said. Urlacher was a great player, who might help the team on the field, but was NEVER a leader, at least not in the sense he "got the squad ready to play". And if you are going to question having the players ready to play, would the coaches not be the first you look at?

Jason, you don't follow Seattle much, do you? - Hasselback was hurt most of the year. Even when he was playing, he was hurt and trying to play through injury. I think he was actually injured initially in camp. As said elsewhere, Wallace is no Hesselback. Heck, Wallace is no Orton or Grossman. - Not only did they suffer injury at QB, but they also dealt w/ injuries at the WR position. Engram missed the 1st month or so, and then returned, but was playing through injury and pain. Branch basically missed the first 10 weeks of the season, and also was slow in his return. - this offense also dealt w/ injuries on the OL and at RB, where their top runner didn't even net 700 yards. You can argue our WRs had a more sucessful season this year than Seattle, but that really isn't telling the whole story due to the injuries they suffered. W/ that said, Engram is an UFA this year. Branch is a very good WR, but due to his history of injuries, is an unknown. Burleson has been a bust, and was injured most of this year too. Koren Robinson is not a long term answer, and likely not a short term one either. Colbert is actually a WR they added late that I like, but is most likely depth chart at best. Hass actually does enter a situation where, if given a chance, could do something. I think key to Hass' chance will be if Seattle (a) lets Engram leave and ( what their QB situation is, as I have read rumors they could look to trade Hasselbeck, though I can't understand why. But there is little question that Seattle does not have much at WR, and if Hass doesn't do anything there, maybe his not playing here wasn't all about the coaches.

I agree w/ you that Warner's best opportunity to continue playing well is to stay in Az. I agree that Warner is also likely to do that. And I further agree that, regardless of the investment made in Leinart, Az is not likely to let Warner go. They may still view Leinart as their eventual starter, but for 2009, I stil think they will be thinking Warner. W/ that said, while Az may not have a great OL, would you not agree it is better than ours? Understand, i consider our OL to be one of the worst 5 in the league. Warner is a very good QB, or even a great QB. At the same time, I think it is a very valid point that much of his succes is due to surrounding talent. The same can be said of any QB. In Az, he may not have a great OL, but again, better than ours. And that aside, he has the best WR combo in the league. Hell, AZ has a 3rd WR (Breaston) who may be better than any of our WRs. If you took Warner out of Az, and gave him a surrounding cast as we have, I think he would get killed. He may not need both a great OL AND great WRs, but I think he needs one or the other. He doesn't have the mobility to buy time to compensate for lesser OL AND lesser WRs. So while I agree w/ you he is likely to stay in Az, the only area I would disagree is the idea that his play isn't puffed up due to his surrounding talent, whether that be OL or WRs.

For the record, it is two drafts we took QB in the 1st. How many teams draft a QB in the 1st, then draft another QB high the following year, or w/in a couple years? Most teams that invest in a QB in the 1st round go a few years before investing another high pick in a QB. Look, I am not saying QB has EVER been our top priority. But I am not sure it has been as low as many believe. The problem, IMHO, has more to do w/ who we did take rather than simply believing in the importance of the position. If Rex turned out to be the stud the team expected when he was drafted, would you care if that we didn't spend another high pick on a QB soon after? The problem was not passing on QBs in the drafts after, but simply taking Rex in the first place. To me, Angelo's statement that it is all about QB is just baffling. He sounds stupid for the comment. Everyone knows its all about the QB, and for him to say it like he did made it sound like he just realized it. Also baffling is, while I am NOT saying we should be 100% sold on Orton, its is maddening that we NOW believe QB should be a priority, when we previously feared even providing Rex competition. One thing I wonder is, does this maybe provide evidence how soft the staff felt Rex' confidence level was, compared to Orton? By action, it always appeared our staff felt the need to coddle Rex and avoid any words or actions that could potentially hurt his confidence. That is a stark contrast to the way we treat Orton, which simply makes me wonder if our staff doesn't simply believe Orton can handle it, where as Rex couldn't.

Just to throw a little "glass half full" optimism at this. I agree 100% that Tait needs to be replaced sooner rather than later. I agree Garza is flat out a weak link. But in terms of future, we may not be as bad off, so long as we make moves now. LT - While he is unproven, he is also a 1st round pick who came to us w/ loads of potential and expectations. The injury hurt, but I do not think there is any reason to believe he can't play LT for us. C - I agree Kreutz has been on the decline for years, though I have always said that I believed part of that was due to not having much by way of OGs on either side of him. He is no longer a player who can carry the entire interior, but may still be a solid player if he only has to worry about his own position. W/ that said, there is no question his play has been on the decline. But I think the PT Beekman got this year went a long way toward giving us hope. Beekman was viewed as Kreutz' backup and likely eventual replacement. I think he did better than most expected this year at OG, but I also still believe he is viewed long term as moving back to center. While nothing is certain, I do believe he showed enough this year to give reason for optimism that we have a compatent replacement for Kreutz. OG - Again, this is a glass half full take, but while I am not content w/ our starters, we do have a player in our depth that gives "some" reason for hope. Buenning was a very solid young OG for TB prior to his injury. We signed him on the cheap w/ the plan of letting him heal, and looking (IMHO) at 2009 rather than 2008 when we signed him. In 2009, he should be fully recovered, and could offer a very solid starter for us. I believe he played LG for TB, and thus could fill in nicely for us there. If we add a veteran RT and draft relatively early (if not the 1st round) an OG, I think our OL will have tremendous potential for 2009 and beyond. But it all starts w/ this offseason. If we (Angelo) buy into the OLs better than expected play too much, and do not view OL as a top need, not only do I see us taking a step back in 2009, but we will only lengthen the time needed to improve the OL for the future.

Just to throw a little "glass half full" optimism at this. I agree 100% that Tait needs to be replaced sooner rather than later. I agree Garza is flat out a weak link. But in terms of future, we may not be as bad off, so long as we make moves now. LT - While he is unproven, he is also a 1st round pick who came to us w/ loads of potential and expectations. The injury hurt, but I do not think there is any reason to believe he can't play LT for us. C - I agree Kreutz has been on the decline for years, though I have always said that I believed part of that was due to not having much by way of OGs on either side of him. He is no longer a player who can carry the entire interior, but may still be a solid player if he only has to worry about his own position. W/ that said, there is no question his play has been on the decline. But I think the PT Beekman got this year went a long way toward giving us hope. Beekman was viewed as Kreutz' backup and likely eventual replacement. I think he did better than most expected this year at OG, but I also still believe he is viewed long term as moving back to center. While nothing is certain, I do believe he showed enough this year to give reason for optimism that we have a compatent replacement for Kreutz. OG - Again, this is a glass half full take, but while I am not content w/ our starters, we do have a player in our depth that gives "some" reason for hope. Buenning was a very solid young OG for TB prior to his injury. We signed him on the cheap w/ the plan of letting him heal, and looking (IMHO) at 2009 rather than 2008 when we signed him. In 2009, he should be fully recovered, and could offer a very solid starter for us. I believe he played LG for TB, and thus could fill in nicely for us there. If we add a veteran RT and draft relatively early (if not the 1st round) an OG, I think our OL will have tremendous potential for 2009 and beyond. But it all starts w/ this offseason. If we (Angelo) buy into the OLs better than expected play too much, and do not view OL as a top need, not only do I see us taking a step back in 2009, but we will only lengthen the time needed to improve the OL for the future.

Just to throw a little "glass half full" optimism at this. I agree 100% that Tait needs to be replaced sooner rather than later. I agree Garza is flat out a weak link. But in terms of future, we may not be as bad off, so long as we make moves now. LT - While he is unproven, he is also a 1st round pick who came to us w/ loads of potential and expectations. The injury hurt, but I do not think there is any reason to believe he can't play LT for us. C - I agree Kreutz has been on the decline for years, though I have always said that I believed part of that was due to not having much by way of OGs on either side of him. He is no longer a player who can carry the entire interior, but may still be a solid player if he only has to worry about his own position. W/ that said, there is no question his play has been on the decline. But I think the PT Beekman got this year went a long way toward giving us hope. Beekman was viewed as Kreutz' backup and likely eventual replacement. I think he did better than most expected this year at OG, but I also still believe he is viewed long term as moving back to center. While nothing is certain, I do believe he showed enough this year to give reason for optimism that we have a compatent replacement for Kreutz. OG - Again, this is a glass half full take, but while I am not content w/ our starters, we do have a player in our depth that gives "some" reason for hope. Buenning was a very solid young OG for TB prior to his injury. We signed him on the cheap w/ the plan of letting him heal, and looking (IMHO) at 2009 rather than 2008 when we signed him. In 2009, he should be fully recovered, and could offer a very solid starter for us. I believe he played LG for TB, and thus could fill in nicely for us there. If we add a veteran RT and draft relatively early (if not the 1st round) an OG, I think our OL will have tremendous potential for 2009 and beyond. But it all starts w/ this offseason. If we (Angelo) buy into the OLs better than expected play too much, and do not view OL as a top need, not only do I see us taking a step back in 2009, but we will only lengthen the time needed to improve the OL for the future.

I think most here would like to re-sign St. Clair, but I think there are two questions/issues. One. What role would we tell him we envision for him. We just drafted Williams, so it is unlikely he would be told he would have a legit opportunity to start at LT. So would we tell him next offseason would be a similar plan as this last offseason? He will be part of a competition for the LG spot, and if anything happens to Williams, he would again move over. Problems I can see here are (a) while it is possible, I do not think we hand him the LG spot w/o competition, but what if we tell him he would have the leg up in a competition, yet at the same time another team simply offers him a starting job ( what if he likes playing OT better than OG, and another team makes him an offer to play OT. Two. Money. While I would not say he has played great this year, I will say he has played the most difficult position on the OL, and done so (at least) w/o looking bad. I don't think anyone would say he was the weakest link on our OL, or even close. Some might even say he was solid. I am not sure any other teams would view him as a long term LT, but he played well enough at LT, plus has experience at RT and OG. So w/ all this, I just wonder if he may not be offered more than we are willing to pay him. There is a fairly decent crop of FA OTs this year, so that may help. I personally don't think money will be the issue, but guaranteed playing time may be.

Give it some priority. Both of the times you mention, the Bears had an opportunity to pick a better QB with a higher pick. But, they chose to trade down and get a cheaper "second tier" guy. Don't forget that Rex was our SECOND pick that year. We picked Michael Haynes first. In 2003, we did trade down, and took Rex w/ our 2nd pick, but would it have mattered. If we didn't trade down, the QB would have been Leftwhich. If, after the trade, we used our 1st pick on QB, and didn't take Rex, it would have been Boller. Were either better than Rex? In 1999, we traded down, but the only QB we missed on was Culpepper, who to this day is who I think we wanted, but didn't expect Minny to take. Regardless, Culpepper looked great w/ Moss, Carter and Smith, not to mention a great OL, but after a couple years of looking great w/ Minny, has looked like garbage, so I am not sure we actually missed out on anything. Again, I say make the position a priority. Don't trade down. Use our highest draft pick to select the best QB on the board. In fact, I'd be okay with trading UP for a change instead of trying to corner the 5-6 rounds. It is easy to say take the top QB available, but if we did that in '99 or '03, would it have really mattered. To answer your question about Rodgers, there is no way he'd be as good as he is if he played for the Bears. We also put little stock in QB development. If we draft a QB with a high pick, we need to supplement that with a premier QBs coach. I agree w/ this, but would add you also need to surround that QB w/ talent. I never understand what Houston did. They drafted Carr, but every year Carr was there, they also had one of the worst OLs in the game, and did little to improve that. Now, I am NOT saying it would have mattered in Carr's case, but my point is, if you draft a QB, you also need to build an OL and give him weapons to work w/. Just as I feel we need to help Forte by building an OL.

the only priority put on this position was by finks drafting mcmahon, a top 5 pick, in 1982 after building his offensive line, with 3 offensive tackles picked in the first round, d. lick, t. albrecht and k. van horne. jerry vanisi, 83-86, continued drafting offensive line talent by drafting jim covert T first round in '83 along with guards thayer 4th rd, and bortz 8th rd. This statement would seem to more go along w/ my opinion. Just drafting a QB isn't going to matter unless you can build around that QB. If we drafted Ryan or Flacco, does anyone honestly believe they would have matched their solid seasons if they were bears? W/ our OL and WRs, how well would they have fared? My point was, we have tried to get a QB, and tried many ways, but none worked out and further, w/ the surrounding talent, even if we had better scouted the QBs, I wonder if it would have mattered. now we can get to our recent dilema... we traded down, instead of UP, to get mcnown in '99, we traded down to get grossman in 2003, instead of UP in the first round AGAIN. then we draft a head scratching pick in craig krenzel, 5th rd., and finally we get a decent 4th round pick in orton. so i agree the scouting has been bad for over the last 20 years. but in my opinion it also comes from cheap owners, poor management, and poor coaching. the unwillingness to pay for more scouts, or better ones, BAD gm's whose mindset appeared to be that qb's are not as important as defense and a running game which is exactly what we got. add to this we never hired top offensive minded coaches to go along with it. We have gone back on forth on this, but I just do not believe money is the issue so much as (a) poor scouting/ talent evaluation of QBs and ( frankly, never prioritizing offense as much as defense as a whole. each and every one of these "veterans" were either OLD and on the last leg of a career or came with serious baggage and spotty careers. it can be said we passed on drew brees and we also passed on bledsoe in his first round free agency from the pats. these were top of the line qb's who were free agents and carried no compensation to their former teams yet we never even gave them a look. Brees I agree w/. Unfortunately, we (Angelo) still thought Rex was the man. As for Bledsoe, I am not so sure about that one. I don't recall him doing much after NE, unless I am missing something. Bledsoe was a very good QB when surrounded by great weapons and protected by an elite OL, neither of which we had. Was Mirer old when we traded for him? I didn't think he was. Quinn was not old either, but just bad. How do you feel about McNabb? If we don't make a play for him, would you say we were cheap? If we do, and it doesn't pan out, would you then just talk about his age? you mention our offensive line and not drafting at these positions. this is only true when our very own jerry angelo takes over the position of gm. prior to this we have drafted many linemen and a portion of them first day picks. the problem was that either our scouts were terrible/not enough or whoever was making the decisions to draft them was horrendous in the later decades. One, I think you have go back only so far. I am not talking about the entire history of the team, which is simply too great to look at. Two, prior to Angelo, we had Hatley and Co. At the time, which I can not tell you how much they made, nor can you, I can say we had (per articles written then) the largest scouting dept in the league. I would also add that we actually did have talent on the OL. Hatley drafted Kreutz. We had Big Cat for a long time at RT. We had Weigman at center too, until Kreutz took over, and he is STILL playing. Hatley also spent big (relative for the time) to get Brockemeyer, who was considered an elite LT, and while never a great run blocker, was an elite pass protector. But when Angelo took over, it was another story. He said himself he felt it took longer to develop on the OL than any other position, and preferred veterans. But even w/ that, he did a poor job of adding veteran talent. I believe Angelo just never valued OL, or offense in general, and I believe that likely goes back to his experience being that of a defensive scout. finally, the half hearted tries and bad football decisions we have made in this franchise for 40+ years are simply nowhere near enough. to think that any corporation/business can go 40+ years and fail to obtain one obvious piece of the puzzle that would make them successful is beyond comprehension. No huge argument, but again, I do not think it serves much good to go back 40 years. There is simply too much change over the years to do so. W/ that said, I think a huge problem is that we have always been a franchise build on defense and running, and feel the team as a whole got caught up into that thinking and never made QB the priority it should have been. so no, i don't believe "luck" has a damned thing to do with it. I agree that luck isn't the key. I would say scouting and management are the keys. I do believe we have tried to find a QB, at least in the last decade, more than you believe, and tried it many different ways, but simply put, none panned out. Am I saying that is all about luck? No. But I do not believe it is a simple lack of caring. It is more a matter of (a) poor scouting ( poor coaching and © average to simply bad surrounding talent.

I am fine w/ adding Marinelli as the DL coach, but question adding him as the DC. He has no playcalling experience, as he was never a DC. He went straight from DL coach to HC. If we are bringing him in to simply work on the DL, fine, but if we are thinking about him as our DC, I think that is a huge mistake. And I say that w/ a record level low opinion of Babich. I would not mind demoting Babich to LB coach (which I would take over hiring Marinelli's son-in-law for the same position, but feel we need to really upgrade the DC position, and just question why anyone would feel Marinelli would offer that improvement.

Sorry, but that is apples and oranges. Briggs would often play close to the LOS too, but upon the snap, would still be in or near his area of responsibility, while you would see Urlacher running 20 yards deep into the secondary to get to his area. I am not dismissing Urlacher of all blame for his play, but at the same time, there are just too many former players and coaches who are pointing to how we used Urlacher as simply being poor. Lovie once said Urlacher was best when running downhill, meaning attacking the LOS, yet we had him doing the exact opposite. Coaching may not be 100% to blame for Urlacher's play, but it is a huge aspect of it. I would also point out that his play seemed to improve when Adams and Harrison took over for Dusty, as Urlacher didn't have OGs so easily locking onto him.