nfoligno

Yea, they will tender him at the highest level, which would require a 1st and 3rd. If I am going to give that up, I think I would just as soon get Boldin.

Regarding the 3 UFAs you mention, TJ - Looks like the top of the class, and will be paid a bundle. I think he is worth it, but he is not young and the cost will be great. Engram - One of my all time favorites, and prior to this year, he defied his age. But w/ age comes injuries, and just as bad, it becomes harder to heal from and play through injuries. Not a fan of adding Engram, unless its as a WR coach. Gaffney - I think it is more than just being buried behind greats. He was w/ Houston for 4 years, and now NE for three. I think the reality he, he is nice depth, but not a guy you want to count on. There are others on the list who may raise an eye brow, and may evoke a bit of interest, but here is the thing (at least for me). Other than TJ Hous..., I do not see a #1 WR on the list. There are a few decent #2s, a host of #3s, and a few less than proven players who could become #2s, but I am not sure I really even see any potential "#1s". So in FA, its TJ, and then a huge dropoff. Then there is the Boldin potential, but I still have to question what sort of compensation we would be talking about. That is part of why I have really started to think more and more about the draft. I know all about the bust potential in the draft, but at the same time, it really looks like we have limited options.

For the record, pretty sure Lance Moore is a RFA. That is how he is listed in PFW. Also, if you check, he is in his 3rd season, so the 4th should be restricted. They way he has played this year, you can bet they will slap a 1st, and maybe 1st and 3rd level tag on him.

We simply disagree. First, the league does not, even basically, say not to take suppliments. If they did, frankly, it would make things much easier. Second, I personally believe only in a reasonable level of responsibility. You say, "if the players are unsure", but how much greater of a level of sure could there be? Both the drug company and the league hid the truth. Seriously. Is the new rule then that any player that wants to take a supplement must first send each and every bottle to a lab for testing? Short of that, there is no way to be 100% sure. And if that is the rule, I think it is simpy messed up. If I were running this show, I would give the Saints players a pass, as they seemed to take every step reasonable to make sure they were in the right. The Minny players? If they can not show they called the hot line, then they didn't use every resource available, and I have less issue w/ their being punished.

Damn. I did not realize he was that old. This is his 8th season. W/ so many players hitting the league at 20ish, being 31 after 8 seasons seems high. I guess he started in the NFL a bit older than most. Still, while I do understand what you are saying, there are some huge differences between TJ and Moose. I know you are not necessarily comparing the two so much, but simply use him as an example. Still, there are differences between he and Moose, as well as he and old veterans in general. One. As mentioned above, while he is 31, he turned 31 not that long ago, and will still be 31 at the start of next year. More importantly though, he is in only his 8th season in the NFL. Most 31 or 32 year olds have more seasons under their belt. Also, he played more sparingly his first two seasons, and thus only has 6 seasons of true wear and tear. Two. TJ is not a speed receiver. A WR who bases his game on speed and downfield threat will show the effects of age much sooner and more dramatically. I think if you look around the league, you find that possession receivers last much longer. Three. While age is absolutely a factor, I think it is alway important to look at other things. Often, players play well into their 30s. I believe that you can look at numerous factors, as well as the play in general, and see signs of decline before it happens. I do not believe TJ has shown the signs of decline. Far from it. This year, the offense around him has been flat out awful. Their QB situation is so bad, Rex may actually be an upgrade. Their run game is so bad, they signed and start Benson! Their OL is so bad, it makes our look all pro. Even w/ all this, TJ is on pace for over 100 catches and over 1,100 yards. As the only player on the team worth attention, he is still producing. I don't think you see that often from a player ready to decline. Four. As much as anything, I like his consistency. Look at his numbers over the last 4 or 5 years, and you see consistent improvement. Yea, this year will reflect a dropoff some, but I would argue that doing so in the situation he is in is an even greater accomplishment than putting up big numbers when everything was going well. The last point is, for the record, why I never liked the Moose signing. He was an inconsistent WR throughout his career, and what do we do. We sign him after he has a single great (career best) season and pay him (and expect) as if that were the standard. That always made me sick. Look, I would absolutely love to get Boldin, and even if it costs us in a trade, would still find out what it would take to get him. But if the asking price is a 1st, or more, I am simply not sure his value through a trade would be equal to getting TJ w/o giving up the picks.

With regard to the potential for it being a masking agent, I'll be honest. I know very little about this stuff and can't speak on that either way. As for the blanket edict being easier. I agree. But is easy always good? There have simply been times when players showed exactly what they took and it was flat out obvious there was no attempt to use an enhancing substance. For exmaple, Jim Miller. Yet these players receive the same punishment someone like Merriman gets. Sorry, but I think that is wrong. More specific to this story though, I simply believe it shows a dramatic flaw in the process. The drug company hid the banned substance. That alone makes me question whether or not to come down on a player. But the situation is made worse. Two of the NO players called the league hot line for drugs, and the ingredients listed were all legal. So the player have done everything short of sending the drug to an independant lab for testing, which is flat out unreasonable IMHO. To make matters worse still, it has been shown the league knew of the hidden ingredient, and didn't let the player know, or even update their freaking hotline so player who did take that extra step could find out. I understand the rules and the reason for the rules, but when an individual does everything in their power to make sure they are staying on the right side of the law, and still get nailed, then I think there is a major failure in the system. Instead of recognizing this, the league seems to take a "tough @#$#" stance.

I'm all for getting Boldin, but I do still believe we have to consider everything. Boldin is not a FA. We have to trade for him. While I am not opposed to trading for a player, I do believe the price matters. I am not sure I am willing to give up a 1st and 3rd (for example) and then provide him w/ a new deal which makes him one of the top 5 highest paid WRs in the league, which I bet is what he demands. I think I would rather just sign TJ Housyourmama. IMHO, TJ has proven he is not just a compliment to CJ. TJ is a #1 WR in his own regard. I like Boldin more, but if giving the choice between getting TJ w/o compensation and Boldin for whatever AZ demands, I think I would just as soon get TJ.

I think the 4 game suspension is mandatory, and I don't think there is much wiggle room in that. Either the player is found guilty or he isn't. IMHO, there is a very real problem w/ the rule. A player in this situation, who did all he could to make sure he was doing nothing wrong in taking a diaretic supplement receives the same punishment that a player like Merriman, who flat out takes roids receives. The league looks at it black and white, w/o grey. To me, that is simply weak.

Also, they could waive the commitment, but they didn't for Caleb Campbell, and they probably shouldn't for anyone in the same boat. The armed services are not going to waive committments. As you mention, Caleb dealt w/ this this past year. He was initially told he could serve in the armed services why playing football. The idea was, as a pro player w/ a high profile, he could serve his country in a PR role, helping recruiting. He was told that if he was drafted, he could serve in this capacity, but if he were not drafted, he would simply serve. He was then drafted, but the higher ups in the armed services over-ruled the prior position, and simply told him he could not play football and would have to serve like any other enlisted man.

Jason, I'll make this one short. You want Bennett to play. Okay, me too. WR is one of the few positions you can work a player into the game w/o making any major changes. It just would not be difficult to start getting Bennett some reps. I have no problem w/ this. I do disagree though with the idea Bennett can be a #1. Sure, anything is possible. Until a player plays, anything is technically possible. But I think few would agree he has #1 WR potential. You compare him to Harrison, but didn't Harrison have more speed, at least earlier in his career? He was a 1st round pick too. I see Bennett's potential, based on scouting reports, as being a #2. He supposedly has the hands and route running, but simply not the speed. To me, that screams #2 WR.

Hampton talked about this on the Score a couple weeks back. As a former player, Hampton was pressed to talk about how much a coach actually motivates players. Obviously paraphrased, but this is how I recall his comments. Hampton said a coaches ability to motivate on game day is HIGHLY over-rated. He basically said that a player, at that point, is either motivated or not, and little a coach can do will have an affect at that late stage. But he went on to talk about how a good coach used a process of motivation throughout the week. He talked about how, as a player, the coaches would begin to use motivational tools beginning Tuesday or Wednesday. You have the obvious. New clippings or hyping rivalries. Then he talked about other things. Like watching film and how individuals would be matched up, and calling out players to do this or that. He said you have to do more than just teach the Xs and Os during the week, but find a way to put emotion into it. He explained all this better than I. He went on to talk about how good Rivera was in this regard. Rivera knew how to connect w/ players during the week and motivate them for game days. He then went on to rip Babich in this regard. He said he coaches in a detached way during the week. He goes about the Xs and Os, but doesn't add the emotional factor, or inspire the players throughout the week. Thus, he said, is why you often see our players playing so flat on game days. As fans, its nice to think of men getting paid millions to play a game having enough self motivation all the above isn't necessary, but that simply isn't reality. Reality is, coaches do need to find ways to motivate the players. Rivera was able to do this. Lovie/Babich are not.

Sorry, I know this is not a popular opinion for a bear fan, but it just isn't so simple. Players are responsible for what they put in their bodies. Yes. But should there not be a reasonable expectation here? Should a player have to send any drug they consider using to a lab to be tested? Short of that, it sounds like at least the NO players made a best effort to be clean. The ingredients of the drug were listed on the bottle, and did not list the substance banned by the league. Even still, from what I have read, two NO players made the extra effort to call the league Drug Hot Line. According to this hot line, there was nothing in the drug on the banned list. To make matters worse, the leagues doctor apparantly did find out the drug had the banned substance, and took no measures to make sure this fact was known. He did not even see too it the substance was added to the list on the hot line recording. Seriously, what more is a player supposed to do. We can talk about players responsibility, but I think there has to be a reasonable level to that. Further, by having the hot line set up, it seems like the league is sharing responsibility here. Now, I have never heard/read that the Minny players to the added step of contacting the league's hot line. Thus, I have no problem w/ their suspension. I do feel the NO players should be excused though. At some point, you have to say a player did everything in their power to be in the right.

Then we simply disagree. If one guy is a practice stud, but sucks in the game, you put the other guy in and give him a shot...even if he isn't a great practice player. What harm can be done? Look, I really do not know any specifics w/ regard to Bennett, but you really do not believe a guy on the bench or in Bennetts situation, has to show anything to play? He should play no matter what due to the failures of the guys ahead of him? What if he is struggling to learn the playbook? If you don't know the playbook in practice, why should the staff expect you to suddenly know it on Sunday? I really don't have a problem w/ Bennett playing. Heck, w/ this staff, there is just no telling. For years, I just could not understand why we would continue to play guys who were worthless on the field when there were young guys on the depth chart who "may" do more. Maybe they wouldn't, but it makes sense to give them a look so you know. Think about how you almost agree near the end here with the outfield analogy. Now think about the number of hits versus the number of balls to a bored outfielder in the game. Now compare that to the number of balls thrown to our WRs a game. I see a very directly relateable ratio. Sorry, but I just think the analogy of centerfield in baseball and WR in football are day/night differences. I know what you are trying to say, but just don't care for the analogy. I have played outfield, and frankly, it is easy for the mind to wonder. You are out there deep, and would have to shout to be heard by the nearest person. You could go numerous innings and never move your feet. Very different for a WR though. He isn't just standing around, and that alone to me is a huge difference in holding attention. Further, the centerfielder is one of 9 positions who may be in position to make a play. The WR is one of a smaller number. Further, we are talking about our starting WRs here, so we are talking about players who are the first and second reads on most passing downs. There simply is FAR less to understand when a starting WR loses focus. I think this is semantics. I think of a slot guy as a starter, albeit not an every-down starter. Maybe it is semantics. I think of a slot WR as your #3 WR. He doesn't start, as the base is a 2 WR formation. When he comes in, he lines up on the inside and usually matches up w/ the opponents nickel DB, not their starting CB. So (a) your slot WR doesn't need to know the entire playbook necessarily, as he isn't on the field for every play and ( your slot WR doesn't matchup w/ starting caliber corners. Also, your slot receiver works the inside area, and is usually given a free release, as opposed to starting WRs who more often are jammed at the LOS. And maybe most important, the slot receiver is not usually considered a QBs go-to option, and thus is not as counted on. So it may be semantics, but I am just giving you an idea of my thought process. I think Hester can develop into a weapon in the role I describe, but I just do not feel he has the consistency (or potential for such) to be an everydown starting WR. Agreed...but before the Bears spend a #1 on a WR - unless an absolute steal drops to them - I'd say Bennett and others need to get a shot. For instance, why the hell did Rideau, Haas, and Monk not make it? I don't know about Monk, but from all accounts the other two were lighting it up at practices and mini-camps...so that weak argument by the coaches can't be used against them. I have NO problem w/ the idea of giving other receivers more opportunities. In a small way, I think we have some as Booker seems to have be nearly written off while others were given an increased role. But I agree this needs to go deeper. W/ that said, I still question the idea that giving these WRs an increased role would change much. Do you honestly believe any of these players can develop into a legit #1 WR? IMHO, at best, we can hope one develops into a #2, and more likely they develop into a valuable rotation player. But what I feel we lack is a legit #1. We have a bunch of guys who "might" be capable of developing into a #2 or #3, but I just don't see the #1 in the group. Used to, I believed w/ a solid OL and run game, having a group of #2s would get it done, but I now believe we really need a #1.

i STRONGLY disagree. quite frankly we and just about every cover 2 team plays that set 40% or less not to mention over the last number of years this system has been figured out and needs serious tweeking to be effective. that means you are playing 'basic' man coverage for the majority of time your defense is on the field. in my opinion at LEAST one good cover corner is needed if you want a good pass defense. that is why passing on charles woodson was a critical mistake angie made. with a woodson type cover corner we could have moved peanut to free safety (or even if they were stupid keep him as your #2 cb) and get by with an average + #2 like vasher or graham. And I strongly disagree w/ your strong disagreement. You assume that if we are not playing a cover two, then we are in a base man coverage, but that is simply not correct. We run more packages than just those two. As Lovie talked about a while back, we run (other than cover two) cover one, cover four, and many other packages. Regardless what package we are in, the vast majority of the time, we run a zone coverage, not man. For the record, understand. I am not a fan of zone coverage, but Lovie is. You talk about how we only run the cover two 40% of the time, or even less, but that has nothing to do w/ zone v man. We run many different packages, and most of them use zone coverage. I know this, as much as anything, because I watch how our CBs play and HATE the zone. It makes me sick when I see our corners let WRs go for the safeties and stick in a zone. But that is the sort of coverage Lovie loves. I would love a CB like Woodson, or others, who are more in line w/ coverage corners, but we don't run the team. Frankly, it isn't just Lovie, as I believe Angelo like the zone style corners too. you also need an all-pro quality free safety for this system to work with even average corners. we don't have the safeties and our corners are below average which compounds the problem. Now here, I strongly agree w/ you. How we have handled our safety position has made me sick for years. It turns my stomach every time I hear Lovie and co talk about how our safeties are interchangable. That is BS. Your SS simply does not need the speed or coverage ability your FS does. Period. Mike Brown was an exception, as he was smart enough to compensate for a lack of pure speed. But even those smarts are not enough now, as he simply seems to have lost too much. But look at every other freaking safety we have drafted. They are all in the box strong safeties. DM doesn't count as he was drafted to be a CB. I agree we need a HUGE upgrade at FS. read above in regards to a shut down corner. also, in our scheme the corner is NOT expected to play off the LOS. i don't know where you came up with that but it is not true in most instances if you have the right personel. the corners in this system are SUPPOSED to play up where they can put hands on the receivers (bump and run) at the LOS to slow him up and move him into the center of the field where your LB and safety zones pick him up. THAT is why you need a fast/smart free safety to be able to give support to the corners by covering a lot of ground. Where do I get this. From watching all our games since Lovie came here. W/ the exception of a play here and there, when have you EVER seen our corners play on the LOS. And I am not just talking about Tillman and Vasher, but go back to when Lovie started w/ us and had McQ and Azumah. Regardless who our CBs have been, all have lined up off the LOS. Either every CB we have used for the last 5 seasons defies the coaches instructions, or our CBs are told to play off the LOS. Also, I would point out that Lovie and the players both talk about how a main element of our scheme is to keep everything in front of you. So when our CBs line up off the LOS, that is what they are doing. Keeping everything in front of them. The idea is to force the opponent to make 10+ plays or so to get down field for a score, and the idea further is that in those 10+ plays, your D has that many opportunities to make a play. and yes, you are right that the corners should be good tacklers and are used to support the run and tillman excels in that aspect. but i have to point out that the reason peanut/vasher do NOT play up is because they are bad at doing so because they can't contain or play with the speedsters not because lovie would like his corners playing 10 yds off the LOS. I agree neither are great matchups w/ the speedsters of the league, but our CBs play off every WR, not just the speedsters. They gave freanking Moose an 8 yard cusion. WRs who are barely faster than my grandmother, who passed away several years ago, are given a wide cushion. It has nothing to do w/ the speed of the WR.

He should be moved to FS. At the same time, someone needs to kick Vasher in the arse. He needs to earn the money he is being payed starting next yr. Vasher and Graham at starting corrner next yr with Bowman and McBride as the backups (draft a corner as well). It isn't that I believe Tillman can't play FS, but question whether Vasher is a better CB than Tillman. If not, then can we afford to move Tillman and replace two CBs? I like what I have seen from Graham, but at the same time, should it not be pointed out that last year, many felt McBride could become a starting CB, but this year, he seems to have really tanked. In an ideal world, I would love to move Tillman to FS and Vasher to nickel, where I have ALWAYS felt he was best suited to play. But that would mean two new starters, which I am not sure we can afford. If I were to say right now, I would make Graham and Tillman my starters and Vasher my nickel. Tillman has not looked great at CB, but IMHO, he has looked a lot better than Vasher, and he at least has a legit injury excuse. I think we can be fine at CB w/ what we have. Where I think we really need to look to upgrade is FS, which SHOULD be easier than finding a replacement at CB. IMHO, many plays where the CB looks exposed is really the fault of the FS. Often, the CB is supposed to release to the FS but the FS is late getting over, and thus the WR makes the play. It looks like the CB gave up the play, but in reality, it was not his responsibility, but the FS. We do not have a FS, and that should be a priority heading into next season. In fact, I would argue FS is our greatest priority on the defensive side of the ball.

1) You say Bennett shouldn't automatically get on the field because the guys in front of him are playing poorly, but why shouldn't he? It's the same garbage thought process that kept Dez "Stone Hands" White in the game, because he's good in practice. Sooner or later a guy has to produce on Sunday; and if he doesn't, you bring in someone who hasn't had the chance. It's a better option than bringing out the same guy who doesn't produce week to week. You say the coaches can "only do so much", and it's up to the player to produce. I agree. And that's why Bennett should be in there. Even if the others do better in practice, your theory holds that the other guy has to get a shot when the ones who start aren't producing. The problem here is, at least for me, I have no clue how Bennett looks in practice. If he looks pretty decent in practice, but others simply look better, I would agree w/ your point. If Booker looks great Monday through Saturday, but bombs on Sunday, while Bennett looks decent in practice, Bennett should play. BUT, if Bennett looks awful in practice, then I do not agree he should get into the games. If, and this is a big if as we don't know, but if Bennett simply looks lost in practice, I just do not agree he warrants a spot on game day. I am not talking about being a great practice player, but I do believe a player needs to prove he could help or is competant before getting playing time. St. Clair looked awful in Minny. Many want Williams to play. But what if during practice, Williams was getting consistently blown off the ball. What if Williams looked weak and slow. Would you still argue he should play? Just because the guy who is playing isn't playing well, does not mean to me the guy behind him should automatically get a shot. I think the guy behind him still must show the staff something to warrant that opportunity. Now, that is NOT to say Bennett hasn't. My point is only that, w/o knowing, I just do not believe we can say he should be in there, no matter what. 2) Yes, our WRs have had drops. That's on them. As a high schooler I played center-field in baseball. I know that when we had one of those games where the ball never came to me, and when the ball never made it to me in the air in a catchable position, those games were hard to keep concentration. I'd say the WRs are the same way. I don't blame as many on the WRs as some - Connor mentioned one during the chat session that I didn't think was catchable - but I think a lot of it is concentration, and the fact that they are unaccustomed to getting the ball repetitively and consistently. Not sure I buy this one. That would be one thing if we were talking about our #4 WR getting on a field a few times and maybe getting one or two looks a game, but we are talking about starting WRs who are getting thrown to enough to keep their concentration in the game. And further, how many of the drops came in either 3rd down situations or in the red zone. Sorry, but concentration should NEVER be a problem in these situations. Further still, we are talking about receivers who are often the first or second reads. These guys should not lack concentration. If you were talking about a guy who was the 4th or 5th read, I could better see your point, but a guy who knows he is one of the first two reads should be ready. I just do not buy your argument, nor your analogy. You talk about playing centerfield, and I do know what you are talking about. You have 9 innings, and a minimum of 27 at bats. If during the game, you have a load of strikeouts or infield hits, I can see the outfield's attention wandering a bit. But I just do not buy the idea that our WRs get so few looks. 3) We disagree on Rashied Davis. He doesn't have stats, but you can't use the # of catches against him considering the facts that A) The Bears aren't known as a passing team, B] The Bears have had bad OCs for a while, C) The Bears have had either a bad OL or QB for a while, and D) The Bears have had several players on the same level, thereby keeping the totals low for just about every player. Not to mention the fact that at best he's been the slot-WR, a #3 guy on the Bears offense...which doesn't amount to catches. In my viewpoint, when he has been in the game, and when he's had the ball thrown to him, he's made more plays than not. I understand all our offensive issues. At the same time, while I have no problem saying Davis is a decent looking WR, and have said in the past I believe he can be a solid slot (#3) WR, I simply disagree his body of work leads to the belief or expectation that he is a solid starting WR in the NFL. He is a nice slot guy. That is where he has played in the past, and the position (IMHO) that best utilizes his skill assets. But that is different from being a starter. He was given the starting role this year, and IMHO, has simply not proven he is capable. He has had other games w/ the drops. Whether you want to call it concentration or whatever, he simply has not proven a capable starter, much less a go to WR, which again, is the main crux of my argument. 4) Hester has the talent to be a #1, but maybe not the head. He's almost the opposite of Marvin Harrison. I'd say he'll never be more than a good #2 (with improvement), and end up resembling Bernard Berrian. Now there is a statement we can agree w/. There is little question of Hester's pure athleticism, and thus potential ability. But in the NFL, you need more than that. You need the head to go along w/ the talent. You need to be able to master the playbook. You need to master route running. I have heard former players talk about this. If the WR is standing on the LOS before the snap, and having to think about the playcal and what he is supposed to do, he has already lost the battle. He should simply "know" what his assignment is, and be able to focus on what the defense is doing. If while running his route, he is thinking about the route, rather than simply running in instinctually, then he is less likely to have the focus and concentration to beat his man and finish the play. I just question whether Hester has the head to ever be a consistent WR threat. I believe Hester can be a weapon as a slot WR, w/ a more limited playbook. If he has to learn the entire playbook and all the routes, I think he will struggle. If he has to only learn a portion, I think his chance to master that smaller amount is better. I just do not see him ever having the consistency in his game to be a legit starter. Even if I did go along w/ your belief that he can be a solid #2, that still goes back to my original point of not having a #1 WR on this team. 5) Regarding the WR or OL idea, I think both would help, and I want both. But I think OL would help more. I also think that a stud WR drafted by the Bears would be wasted behind this coaching staff. First and Second rounders do better in the NFL? Where was Bennett drafted again? But, yes, a stud WR would help some. One, Bennett was drafted in the 3rd, not the 2nd. Two, we agree on the OL. My point is NOT that we shouldn't draft OL, but (a) if there are no OL of value w/ our pick, WR to me is the 2nd choice to consider and ( if we are simply not going to draft OL in the first (remember, we are talking Angelo here) then WR to me is the next best option to improve this team. Not just the offense, but the team. Three, you say a WR is wasted w/ this staff, but I could argue the same about OL (as well as most other positions). How many OL have we drafted and developed? Kreutz was the former staff. Tait St. Clair and Garza were developed elsewhere. Beekman was drafted by us, and is starting, but that same staff was ready to start Metcalf and didn't consider Beekman a legit option at OG until injuries forced the issue. That is as big of a knock on our staff's ability when it comes to the OL as any. While there have not been a ton of OL drafted by this staff, I would point out the few that were showed little development. Can you say Metcalf? Heck, I would argue WRs have developed more than OL w/ this staff. Wade and Gage showed a greater level of development and play for us. Berrian never turned into the stud #1 we wanted, but developed more than any OL we drafted. Davis was a defensive player, and yet has developed into a WR, whether slot as I believe or #2 as you believe. On the whole, I think we agree more than disagree here. I still believe, as you, that OL is our #1 priority. At the same time, I have simply come to believe the need for a #1 WR is greater than I believed in the past. In the past, I felt that if we build the OL, one of our current WRs would step up to become a #1. Maybe not a stud, but a #1. I know believe that none of our current WRs have #1 capability, and further, question whether any of our current WRs really even have #2 capability. While I believe improving the protection for Orton is a must, I also believe we must give him better weapons than what he currently has to work with. I was never a big fan of Berrian, but he would be a HUGE upgrade to what we currently have on the roster.

I think everyone needs to consider our scheme here. I have heard the question or comment about whether Tillman is a good cover corner or not. Frankly, I think that question is a bit moot. In our scheme, you do not need cover corners. In my mind, a cover corner is one who plays man. In our scheme, our corners play zone. Whether we are in a cover 2, cover 1 or cover 4, the majority of the time, we are playing a zone coverage. Do we play man some? Sure, but IMHO, very rarely. In a zone scheme, you simply do not need a shut down or cover corner. In our scheme, your corner is expected to: play off the LOS (though I would argue not as much as our does), show solid instincts, break on the ball, make solid tackles and support the run. There are things Tillman has shown he can do in the past. Right now, he looks poor, but is playing w/ two hurt shoulders, which is effecting his game. I would argue that most of the times in the past Tillman was flat beat was when he was taken out of zone situations, and thus outside the sort of coverage he is better geared to play. In man, there is little question, IMHO, that Tillman is better against the bigger WRs than he is against speedy WRs. He simply doesn't have the speed to matchup w/ the burners, but has shown the ability to fight w/ the bigger WRs for the ball. He probably can't even do that right now though due to his shoulders. If we continue (after this year) to run primarily a zone coverage, then I think Tillman still has solid value at CB. If we were to move to a man coverage though, I think Tillman's value would drop a fair bit. In that event, I think we would nearly always have to roll extra safety help to his side.

I see both sides of this. On one hand, yes, he did play throughout college. On the other hand, there were reports prior to the draft that many teams had dropped or taken Williams off their boards due to potential back issues. Was the report a degenerative back, like Urlacher? Something like that. So while he played throughout college, there was reason to consider him an injury risk going forward.

No way I can see us getting a pck for Gilmore. He was our 3rd string TE. I would love to see a 3rd for Berrian, but I just do not see it happening. Heck, I don't even see a 4th. I still think more likely a 5th.

I'm thinking this is not the last we have heard about this. If reports are true, it sure sounds like there are questionable circumstances involved w/ this one. As I understand it, the diet pills (or whatever) did not list the banned substance. Further, some players from New Orleans actually called the hot line the league has set up, and it listed the same ingredients as the company that made the pills listed. So at this point, I have to say, it sounds like the players did their due-diligence to find out if the pills would be okay or not. Further, it appears the league medical guy knew the pills had the banned substance, but didn't inform the teams or players. Hey, I love the Minny fat boys being suspended, but if I'm a player, I have to ask, what the hell. Are they supposed to send everything they purchase to a lab to be tested before use? Come on. It is bad enough the drug company didn't list the substance, but if the players resource tool is to use this hot line the league has set up, and that too provide inaccurate info, how can you punish the players? Especially when the league own doctor knew the banned substance was in the pill, and did nothing to inform players. Heck, he didn't even see to it the banned substance was added to the list of ingredients listed off on the hot line. Sorry, this one really stinks and I think we have not heard the last of it. It would not shock me if there was an injunction filed by the players.

Hey. If we are talking what I want or would do, that is another story. When most were kissing angelo arce, I was ripping him. Frankly, I was "iffy" on him the day we hired him. Most were simply glad to have finally hired a GM, but I was never so sure he was a good hire. I hated how he handled things when he first came in. I hated how he handled things w/ jauron and his staff. I NEVER liked the Lovie hire. I never felt confidence in Angelo's draft picks, nor his FA moves. All in all, I think it fair to say I have never been a fan:) But we are talking what the team would do, and why. Regarding Lovie, I said he will likely be kept on for another year. I also said the decision would be based largely on money. At the same time, my point was this is little different from what I think most owners would do. Its one thing to talk about eating a few million, but another when you are talking $15m, or whatever the amount is. I think it is a small numbers of owners who would choke that down. I think the majory would try other moves (lower level coaches and personnel) to fix things and hope the HC worked out w/ different surrounding personnel. Regarding Angelo, at least whether he will go or not. I think you would fine that GMs simply have a longer life than coaches. Lovie was Angelo's first HC hire. While he doesn't look to be working out today, it was only two years ago Lovie took us to the SB. Our first SB in 20 years. While I personally believe that we go there in spite of Lovie more than due to him, I doubt perception of most is the same. So I do believe it possible Angelo would get another shot. As I said, I just think his future is more tied to the players than to Lovie. If the players he drafted or signed do well, then I doubt he gets the boot. His coach will, but he won't. But they way. I loved this line of yours, "I'm over it. I'm pissed off." If you are over it, why are you pissed off?

It's all relative. Smith was given a handsome contract becasue the media pressure at the time was huge. Also, it didn't seem completely inreasonable, and compared to other HC's, it's wasn't a bank breaker. However, I think they still are cheap when they can be. And that would include not paying out Lovie and bringing in a new high priced HC. Watch and see... I may be proven wrong, but I think that the next Bears HC is yet again another up and comer coordinator that we don't have to pay much... First, I would throw out there the problem is w/ the term cheap. If Lovie were due, after this season, $3, $4 or $5m, and we would not cut him due to that simple fact, then I would agree w/ the term cheap. But if we owe him $12-15m (not sure the exact figure), I am not so sure I would call that "cheap". Few owners in the league, IMHO, would cut a HC who is owed that sort of money. As for who they replace Lovie w/, again, I think what you refer to has more to do w/ philosophy than cheap/frugal. Jerry Jones, for example, never believed in spending too much money on his coaches. He would go after college coaches or assistants, but was not an owner to go after the big name, hot candidates. Would you call Jerry Jones cheap? He finally did sign his big fish (Parcells) and that didn't work out either. To me, just because you go after a hot prospect assistant coach, rather than a big name retread, doesn't mean you are cheap. It is simply a difference in philosophy. Regarding players, they have to pay them. There's a cap and ceiling in the league. Also, they have given control to the GM (which is good for the most part), and getting players signed, etc falls under that. I have argued this many times in the past. Every team has to spend a minimum amount of money. Yes. But even w/ the cap, there are ways you can sep the cheap from the non. A key is in bonuses. Years ago, we flat refused to provide the big bonuses that good FAs demanded. Our ownership would not dip into the coffers for the upfront coin. Since about 1998, that changed. Over the last decade, we have shelled out bonuses as well as any. Whether it is to reward in-house players, or to sign others like Wale or Tait. Cheap owners try to avoid the big bonus dollars, and we do not. Smith's fate lies in his own hands for the next 2 years and Angelo is tied to it. Angelo won't fire Lovie because of pressure from the top... Listen to me now, believe me later. I agree we are VERY unlikely to fire Lovie, but I just do not believe you can write it off so easily as being due to cheap ownership. Again, I think you would be hard pressed to provide many examples of where owners cut loose a HC who was owed the sort of money Lovie is due. It has happened, I'm sure, but is far from the norm. Most owners would ride it out another year, especially when that coach did take you to the SB and was coach of the year. Wasn't he? I think we are likely to see changed, but more from the bottom than the top. Also, I think Angelo's fate is more tied to the players than to the coach. Forte is looking very good for Angelo. Williams not so much thus far. If Williams does develop though, to go along w/ Forte, I think Angelo will be breathing a sigh of relief. If the players he brings to the team look good enough, regardless of wins/losses, then the GM can say the problem is w/ the coach, and get another chance.

Agreed the formula, whatever it is, is very complicated, and IMHO, subjective. I am not sure every signing counts. For example, when you sign undrafter rookie FAs, I am not sure they count. I am not sure minimal salary guys even count. I think the key is among the more significant signings, as well as losses. I think there is a decent chance we get something for Berrian, but while he was a starter and our leading receiver (like that means much), he was not a pro bowl player or a franchise guy. But he was a starter and was signed by another team for big bucks, which I think factors. IMHO, I would hope for a 5th, but expect a 6th or 7th. I doubt very seriously we would get a 4th for him.

True, college talent doesn't always turn into pro talent. However, if the WRs are as bad as so many think they are, then there is no reason Bennett isn't seeing playing time. He'd have to be damn-near braindead or have a serious injury to not get on the field. Unless of course the coaches... As bad as players in front of him may be, that doesn't mean he automatically should be in. How do we know how he looks in practice? If he is struggling to learn plays, or runs poor routes, or drops the ball in practice (as I too often saw in camp) then while the WRs in front of him may not be that good, it doesn't mean he is automatically a better option. The common component to the previous problems and the current situation is a bad OL. Perhaps Rex and Benson wouldn't have been so bad behind a stellar OL? True, Orton > Rex, and Forte > Benson. But, once again, perhaps the inadequacies of the OL displayed the faults of the previous two a little more? Who's to say that an OL with a different set of faults wouldn't display Forte's faults, but would accentuate Benson's positives? I would argue that two years ago, we had a damn solid OL. Individual talent may not have been great, but as a unit, they played very well. In that year, the year we went to the SB, Rex started out strong, but then showed his true colors. And Benson? Even behind that OL, w/ TJ running so well, did he ever look great. Maybe for a play here and there, but you never saw the consistency we saw from TJ. And you didn't seem to touch on the main point. How many drops have we seen from our WRs? When the ball bounces off the WRs hands, how can the QB or OL be blamed? You misunderstood me. Hester is not a great WR, and I see the same faults you do. However, we all know his combination of speed, strength, dexterity, pure athleticism, and SPEED is probably a combination that no other player in the NFL possesses (with the exception of maybe the Viking's version of AP). The problem here, once again, is coaching. Don't get me wrong. I think you know well I am not a fan of our coaches. At the same time, that doesn't mean every player is coachable. Miami tried Hester at WR, but he failed to develop there. We have tried it, and we are seeing many of the same things we read about him struggling w/ at Miami. He may have all the athleticism in the world, but that does not mean he can become a WR. Personally, I think he can become a good, or even great, slot WR. But I simply question whether he will ever become a consistent enough WR that he should be considered a starter, and further, question whether he could ever be a #1 WR. I know you say you are not calling him a great WR, but that is sort of the point. When I look around the league, and look at the better or best offenses, most have a legit #1 WR. I struggle to find a great #2, much less a #1 on our team. We'll just disagree here. The guy has looked solid for more than one year. This has been a down year for him. I just don't understand how you come to this conclusion. In his previous 2 seasons as a WR, he had 17 and 22 catches. When was he ever solid? GOOD! This is in regard to our agreeing about Olsen. At the same time, should our TE be our best weapon, and by a long shot? Few teams in the league get by w/ a solid TE and weak compliment WRs. I don't want to ignore WRs. That was never my point. I just don't like the idea of a 1st Rd. WR. It has never been my focus either, but: One. In the past, I felt a stud WR would go to waste in our system. I am not so sure anymore. As bad as our OL is, I think Orton does a good job (usually) of making them look better. Further, I think if he had a legit weapon at WR, things could really go up. Two. I look around the league and see what upper tier WRs can do, and how they can help average QBs, and just salivate at what a stud WR could do for Orton. Three. While there are plenty of 1st round busts at WR, if you look at the top WRs in the league, the majority were 1st round picks, and most of the rest were 2nd round picks. Few WRs drafted after the 2nd round have become elite. While I am not saying we have to take a WR in the 1st, my key argument is that WR should be #2 after the OL. If we are not going to draft OL in the 1st, WR would be at or near the top of my list. I would still prefer OL in the 1st, and then maybe a WR in the 2nd, but if there is a stud WR in the 1st, or we are simply not going to draft an OL in the 1st, I am not sure any position would help this team more than WR. We can fix both, but I believe the OL fixes will make the WRs we have much better. I don't believe the reverse is true to nearly the same extent. By and large, we still agree here. If you can develop an elite OL, everything else looks good. But again, what if OL is not the 1st pick? IMHO, getting stud WR would benefit our team more than any other, non-OL, position. Further, I look at this year. I think you would agree we do not have a good OL. Even w/ that, IMHO, if we had an upper tier WR, our offense would really be capable of taking off. In this last game, how many drops did we have. How often were our WRs simply unable to get open. If you throw in a stud WR, how much better might Orton have looked? We simply do not have a go-to WR. One who gets open and can be relied on to run their route and catch the damn ball. Even w/ our OL, if we had that, I believe our passing game could really take off. Further, how much would our other receivers benefit from having a stud WR lining up on the other side. Our WRs are so poor, that I often have seen defenses matching up DBs and double coverage on our TEs. That is sad. I don't think it means we were wrong. I think it is more a testament of how darn good Forte is, because the OL still sucks. The Bears definitely don't need a RB now, but if they drafted one and he turned out to be the next Barry Sanders, we still wouldn't be wrong about the priorities of the team being confused. The point is though, we argued that we could draft a pro bowl caliber RB, and he would still bomb behind our OL. But, the reality is, a good RB can in fact help make the OL look better. I would further argue Orton (minus the Minny game) has done the same. Often this year I have heard people say our OL is better than expected. IMHO, that is more a matter of Orton and Forte making them look better than they are. Further, if you were to add a stud WR to the mix, I think our OL would simply look that much better. Again, this is not to say we should ignore OL. That is still my #1 priority. Heck, my #1 and #2 priority. But at the same time, I no longer believe that improving our OL is enough. I simply now believe that, even if we build a great OL, we will still have very mediocre WRs. Sloppy route running is for the most part on the coaches...drops are obviously on the players. No question I question our coaching. At the same time, I also believe a coach can only do so much. You can coach a player day and night how to run routes, but it is still up to the individual to execute. You can coach a player how to best gain separation, but ultimately, it is on the player to get off the line and get open. You can throw a thousand balls at a player during the week, but he still has to catch the damn ball on game day. I look at our WRs, and simply see very little for the coaches to work w/. Davis and Hester are our starting WRs, and IMHO, neither are better than slot WRs. Many of our coaches, I am happy to blast, but I most blast coaches (position) who fail to develop solid talent. I look at our DL, and see plenty of talent. So when they fail to perform, I can easily rip the coaches. At WR though, I simply do not think we have very good talent. I still am fine blasting the coach, but the reality is, I don't think a coach has a lot to work w/ at WR.

I would complain, for three reasons. One. I do not want to draft defense in the 1st round. Yes, I have seen our D play this year, but still believe the issue is far more coaching than personnel. We have invested so much (money and picks) on our defense, I believe it is about time we began to invest in our offense. Two. I do not know whether Orton is our QB of the future, whether we intend to draft one, sign one or trade for one. What I do know is that if we enter next year w/ our OL so weak and WRs who belong on special teams more than offense, it likely won't matter. We drafted a RB who looks like he may be special. How about we help him out, and whoever the QB will be, and start to build the offense. Three. I do not want anyone from the University of Texas. I watch most Texas games. I went to college about 20 minutes from there, and cheered for them starting nearly two decades ago. I think Mack has done a great job recruiting, and built one hell of a college program. But as much as I believe all this, at the same time I also believe Texas does VERY little to develop their football players off-field. Very little is done to mold boys into men. This may not hold true across the board, but I think it most seems to hold true w/ players who are stars while at Texas. I am not just talking about the sort of off-field issues that deal w/ the police, but character issues. Too often you read about these guys having a lack of motivation or work ethic. Being lazy and/or sloppy in their practice habbits. To me, it is like they were stars in college, and thus believe stardom is a God given right, as opposed to something you must work hard at. Some example: Vince Young - Do I really need to say anything here? Michael Huff - I have not heard too much, but I could swear I recall reading articles questioning his work habits at Oakland. Benson - See Vince Young. Derrick Johnson - Exception to the rule. Roy Williams - Prima Dona WR who was considered a locker room cancer and shipped out of town. Mike Willaims - Lazy OT who didn't put in the work to develop in the NFL. Quinten Jammer - I think he finally became a good CB, but not until he grew up, which took a while. Leanord Davis - Supposed to be an Orlando Pace tier LT, and was eventually moved inside, and there were plenty of reports questioning his work habits. Ricky Williams - See Benson. There are players from Texas who I would take, but the "stars" rarely seem to make it in the NFL, whether due to over-rated talent or due to character flaws. I think I would prefer to simply take a pass.