nfoligno

Changes that need to happen: 1 - Adams needs to start. It is clear that Dusty needs to regroup. I have NO issue w/ Adams starting, but wonder why Harrison is not considered here. Harrison impressed me what I have seen him in there. He has seemed to get more penetration, and further, Harris seems to play better w/ Harrison in there. As the pass rush is so inept, why not start Harrison. W/ that said, it isn't like our run d is very good w/o stacking the box, so I can see the reason to start Scott. If we start Scott though, I want to sub Harrison in a lot more on passing downs. I think there is a VERY good chance we see this starting this week. 2 - Graham needs to start. Vasher needs to know that money will not dictate a starting role. It is really incredible how Vasher has fallen. Whether it is Vasher, Babich, scheme, or whatever, Vasher has not been effective and must sit. I think the staff actually see this as well, as we saw a lot more of Graham at CB last week. That could take the next step very soon. I would add though, I would like to see Vasher move over to nickel rather than simply ride the pine. Sorry, but DM is flat out worthless, and frankly, none of our safeties can play coverage. Vasher was a damn good nickel for us, so I would like to see if he can play at nickel again before I flat out bench him. I think there is a very good chance we see Graham start at CB this week, especially w/ Vasher running off at the mouth to go along w/ his poor play. I do not expect to see my follow-up desire though (Vasher to nickel), as I think we will see Vasher move to CB and Graham work nickel, or DM plays nickel w/ Graham at CB. 3 - Manning takes over kick returns. No question, and the papers indicate that will start this week. It will be interesting to see how much change there is. While I agree Hester is struggling, I also think our special teams as a whole is not playing well this year. DM already announced to return kickoffs this week. 4 - Jones takes at least 5 carries a game. Agreed. Not because I think he offers so much, but because I think we need to run the ball more and further, don't need to feed Forte the ball 30 times, particularly as he is one of our top receivers as well. I think we could see KJ getting more reps, but this one is not as known. 5 - Booker needs to sit until healthy. Bennett should get his reps. I think I would make Booker a 3rd down receiver. I am not sure I would play Bennett though. I am not against getting him some looks, but don't think he should be inserted just because. I just have no idea how he looks in practice. In camp though, he looked pretty poor, so that is all I have to go off. I think we should simply focus more on Lloyd, Davis and our TEs. Unfortunately, I am not sure we will see this move as Lloyd is in the staff's dog house and the staff doesn't seem to see the problems w/ Booker. 6 - Beuning or Metcalf take over for Garza. He is the weakest link on the O-line. I agree Garza has not been good, but I have never seen anything to lead me to believe Metcalf would be an upgrade. Beuning? No idea. I think we see no change w/ Garza. The only change I think might occur is on the other side, w/ Williams playing LT and St. Clair moving inside to LG, as Beekman sits. I would rather play Beekman over Garza, or move St. Clair to the RG spot, but I just don't see the staff benching Garza. 7 - Roach gets one more game. If he fails, go back to Hillenmeyer. Agreed. Hunter is not a great cover guy, but personally, I think the issue is our staff trying to make him one. In the ideal situation, our 3rd LB takes a seat and a DB comes in for nickel downs, but our nickel DB situation has been so bad, Hunter was forced to play those nickel situations. I would like to return Hunter to the starting role, as I think he is a better run defender, and simply not have a 3rd LB in for nickel downs. I think you might get your wish. Roach has gotten his shot, and just hasn't done enough w/ it. I think Hunter will return to the starting lineup this week or next. 8 - Lloyd and Davis are starting WRs with Hester as the #3. This is how it should be, but I think Lloyd is deep in the coaches dog house. I don't see this, due to the dog house element. I think we will continue to see Hester and Booker start, while Davis plays a lot of slot. Lloyd will get in the game, but is simply not going to get the same level of action prior to his "I won't play if I am not 100%" comment. Peace

Several responses/comments. One. Regarding our WRs, I personally question how much of a "pleasant surprise" they ever were. Even when our offense was clicking, it was far more due to our TEs and Forte in the passing game than to our WRs. Take a look at our WRs stats, and they are pretty dang ugly. Lloyd is really the only WR that appeared to be a surprise for a short period, but really, that was 2 games (one legit big game). I would argue our WRs have not looked very good this year. Our offense was playing well enough that this was not made a big issue, but Orton's injury has really exposed this unit once again. Two. Regarding the OL. As one of the loudest (Jason being the other) screaming for OL upgrades, I would like to respond here. At no point in time have I felt our OL was playing well this year. I have said all year they were getting pushed around in the run game. Further, I have said many times that IMHO, they are not that good v the pass rush either, but Orton masks that weakness better. I think Orton does a very good job pre-snap. Further, I think Orton does a better job of quickly working through his progressions and getting rid of the ball. And when he doesn't get rid of the ball, he does a better job moving in the pocket (sometimes really just taking a couple steps forward) to avoid the rush. I said early on. Rex makes our OL look worse than they are, and Orton makes them look better than they are. So, for me (and Jason) it isn't just the GB game, or even the Tenn and GB games. I think you would find we have never felt the OL was playing well this year, and that OL has been and remains one of, if not the top, need for this team.

I can understand the move to the starting line last year. When you have a rookie pass rush specialist that posts 12 sacks, you can't help but wonder what he would do w/ more opportunities. It didn't work. While a change should probably have taken place sooner, at least they didn't wait until the end of the season. I can actually even understand not moving him all the way back to specialist to start this season. He didn't work as a starter, but (a) I am sure they worked w/ him in the offseason, thus thinking he could develop more of an all around game and ( you hate to demote him too far to quickly. So I understand his being considered a rotation DE rather than situational pass rusher to start the season. The problem I have is, we all can see how ineffective he has been, and yet what changes have been made. Further, if you read the article, his own freaking comments indicate his belief that his lack of sacks (compared to his rookie season) are due to not playing as a specialist, when he doesn't have to worry about the run. This goes back a bit to when players started to talk to the media, and I pointed out Ted Sunquist saying that if there is not an open line of communication between player and coach, you will see players talk to the media, who is then their only outlet. Sure sounds to me like Anderson knows he should be used in pass rush situations only. So this begs the question. Just how bad is the communication between coach and player that Lovie/Babich continue to use Anderson is such a way as that Anderson himself knows is not what is best.

One thing I take away from this is something Anderson himself says. Anderson said that in his rookie year, he was used as a pass rush specialist, coming in on obvious passing downs only. In that role, he looked like a stud. Then he was moved into a starting position, where he struggled. Now, he is not starting, but is not simply playing passing downs either. He is playing series, according to him, and thus can't "pin his ears back" and just attack the rusher. He said, when he plays, that he doesn't know if it is a pass or run. Now we can all argue that, as a DE, he should be able to play effective regardless. That's what a DE does. But if this is true, would it not be better to remove him from the "rotation" and simply play him on passing downs as a specialist? If the guy can't play the run, then don't try to make him into something he is not.

Avoiding the question. I know how you feel about Orton, and our QB situation, but that is beside the point, or at least the point of this question. Assume we are going to go w/ Orton. Further assume we are going to go w/ Forte. I think both of these are valid assumptions. I believe I know you well enough to know you would want a stud OL added over a stud WR. Okay, so we are going to add OL. Sure, you want a bunch, but when has Angelo added a bunch? He spent a 1st one year on an OT, and then quit. He spent a lot of money on an OT one year, and that was it. He drafted another OT this past year, and that was it. So I think it fair to assume we might see one significant upgrade, but not a ton. So off these assumptions, we have one OL position we can upgrade next year. What position/player on the OL are you going to focus on?

First, while Kreutz has been on the decline, I am not sure it can be written off as simple as saying age. I think there is more to it than just age. Also, I would point out that while Kreutz has shown levels of decline, Faneca has not. In fact, many have said Faneca has seemed to improve his play in recent years. Second, while some positions see a fairly hard wall at age 30 or so, other positions play well into their 30s, and I think OL is one of them. This goes back to the later part fo the 1st point. You can't just look at the birth date of a player and assume to know. Some players fade early, while others continue to play at a high level long after the norm. I think there are things you can look at better than just birth dates. For example, looking at a WR, I have seen where a factor many GMs look at is their YPC average which seems to be a solid indicator of a player on the decline. At RB, you can look at, among other things, his yard per carry average. For OL, it is a bit more difficult, but from everything I have read, he has shown none of the signs of decline. I don't recall the deal Faneca received, but lets say it was a 5 year deal. Will he play that out? If he does, what level will he be at when all is said and done. I don't know the answers. But I'll throw out the following. One, I think he has more than a year or two left under the belt. 5 would be on the high side, but I don honestly believe he has a solid 3 to 4 years in him. That isn't to say he can't play 5 years, or even more, but I am talking more about the high level of play. Two, I would also argue the first couple years of the deal could be considered the most crucial, as in the first 3 years, he would be helping develop our LT (Williams) and potentially a new center (I think Kreutz is a FA in 2010). After that point, you may see his play decline a bit, but if things worked out and the LT and Center were developed, then I think the dropoff in his play would be less noticable. Understand. If we went out and signed a stud LT, I would not have been calling to sign a stud LG, much less one who has seen so many years. But we have made a big investment (money and 1st round pick) in our LT, and I think adding a player like Faneca would have done wonders to help that young LT develop. There are other routes you can go, but (a) a younger OG of his caliber is going to cost a ton more (see Hutchinson) ( an OG of lesser ability is not going to improve the OL as much, and may not help the development of your young LT as much and © you can always go the draft route, which is fine, but how difficult is it to develop two young OL who lineup next to each other. I understand all the arguments against, and worked through them myself a year ago, but I simply believe the benefits out-weight the negatives. Faneca is gone, but I think we are going to be in a similar situation next year, as Williams will essentially be a rookie starter.

Right now? No. But long term? Upgrading the OL could "help" the defense now, as it "could" keep the offense on the field longer and thus the D on the sidelines and help put more points on the board, which helps any offense. But my point was for the future as much as present. We have (or believe we have) our franchise RB in Forte. We have (or pray we have) our QB of the future in Orton. IMHO, when you get your QB/RB positions filled out, it is incredibly important to build the OL to protect those investments. As good as Forte and Orton have played this year, imagine if we actually had a good OL, rather than simply an OL which has done better than expected based on VERY low expectations.

Here's a question for you. If you or I were GM, we would go heavy OL, but we both know that is not Angelo's way. So lets just say, for argument sake, we are only going to add one stud OL, whether it be draft or FA. Assume for a moment, even if it is a rookie, he is a stud prospect. So the question is, if you can only add one player to the OL, what position would it be? Part of me would love to say LT, as I have never been sold on Williams, but we just spent a 1st rounder there, so I have to simply hope he pans out. I can not see him playing RT or moving inside, thus I have to leave him at LT and pray. That leaves 4 positions. Kreutz has slid a ton, and I think this is an area we need to consider, but if I have only one player to add, I'll keep Kreutz. That leaves 3 spots to consider. Of those 3, I think OG is the biggest problem. Tait has been far from spectacular, but I think he is okay enough, and having moved to RT, could be acceptible for another year or two. If I had only one spot to add a stud, it would be LG. Williams is going to be essentially a rookie next year. IMHO, we are doing him a dis-service lining him up next to Beekman, Metcalf, St. Clair, or anyone currently on our roster. If we could add a stud LG, I think it would have ripple effects on the OL as a whole. I think we could see a quicker development from Williams, and potentially have a very good left side. Further, I think if we added a stud LG, we could see a bit of resurgence from Kreutz. Finally, while we would have done nothing to improve the right side of our line, if we improved the left side enough, it could force defenses to focus on the left, thus making life easier for the rigth. So if I could only add one stud, for me, it would be LG. Of course, that is why I so wanted Faneca, who I believe is looking very good for NY, but that option is gone. Still, I think this could be a position we (a) realistically look to address and ( would have the greatest impact.

Understood. However, while I don't think Lovie will be sent packing, I do believe Babich is as good as gone. Lovie may still be in place, but Rivera proved a DC can be successful under Lovie. So I think the window is still open, but that is assuming we upgrade our DC.

This is absolutely one area we agree. I too believe that if you build up a solid/great OL, average players will look very good. On the other hand, I think it much harder to have a very good QB excel behind a weak OL, and ditto w/ RB. Even mediocre QBs can look good when behind great OL. However, even the great Manning has looked average when his OL struggles. Like you, I simply believe you build through the trenches first. Look at Cle last year. Their OL was awesome, and you had a questionable QB (Anderson) and an over the hill RB (Lewis) look pro bowl. This year, their OL has struggled, and the result is Lewis looking his age and Anderson now being on the bench.

Of course, I'd amend that to read: 1) Lovie - for requesting/keeping Babich 2) Babich - for having no clue I know you are not looking for an argument here. Obviously, I was just looking at the players, but I am on record many times saying I feel our #1 problem is coaching. I simply have too hard of a time believing that our players all got this bad this fast. 3) DEs - bad, but coached to "circle the wagons" No argument, but at the same time, (a) I have not seen the intensity I have seen in the past and ( as little as I think of Babich, he was the DC last year, and we had far more sacks. Wale (9), Urlacher & Anderson w/ 5 each and Alex Brown (4.5), and Brown did that basically after only getting in as a starter the final month of the season. So I agree Babich is hurting this unit, but I also do not believe the unit is w/o their share of blame. 4) CBs - bad, but coached to give the cushion and the slant That is why I have not blasted the CBs for giving up inside slant routes. At the same time, I don't think you can ignore the weak tackling and coverage (outside of the slants). Also, there have been several times our CBs gave up the out pass, and if we believe Vasher, that should never happen as that is one of the few routes they should be primed to take away. 5) DTs - bad, but having a difficult time when the rest of the D is not doing their job To be honest, this is one of the few areas where I think personnel is key. I think Harris is working hard, but Dusty is doing too little next to him. That is why I feel we should be starting Harrison (his lack of playing time is on the coaches). Harris had what, 8 sacks last year. He is on pace for 1/2 that this year. I think the other areas key off harris more than visa versa. I can easily factor coaching, but at the same time, I also think our #2 DT position is failing to get it done, and that is hurting Harris.

I don't know connor. I've heard the interviews and read the comments as well. Frankly, it is hard to distinguish one press conference from another, as his comments all seem to be the same, over and over. But to me, I think it goes beyond words. Just because a person says, "sorry", does that automatically mean he is, or that you believe him? Sometimes you have to listen to the way it is said. One issue I have is, Lovie will talk for some time about failed execution (which to me implies blame on the players) and then say that as the head coach, he is ultimately responsible. But how sincere is that? Its like talking for 20 minutes about one thing, and then throwing out a quick, "oh, and by the way", and expecting that last point to be viewed as sincere. When I listen to Lovie, I do not believe he feels he is at fault. When he, over and over again, says, "the scheme is fine", he seems to be saying the #1 thing he is responsible for is not the problem. When he uses the term "execution" one hundred times, I think he implies the fault lies w/ the players. To then throw out that, as head coach, he is ultimately responsible simply does not ring sincere to me.

Not to speak for Jason, but I believe he would agree. Neither of us imply we HAVE to draft OL, no matter what. If you have your board, and the next OL player is 20 deep, while you are also looking at a DE who you had graded about 10 slots higher (extreme examples), then obviously you don't reach for the OT. My philosophy is not need or BPA, at least not strictly. I go into the draft w/ my overall board. I also go into the draft w/ a list of needs tiered. So lets say I enter the draft with OL, DE and S (just an example) as my tier 1 needs, w/ OL graded highest. When it comes time to draft, the top player on my board is a RB, not even on my list. The next player is a CB, which is on my list, but a lower need tier. Then there is an OT. I grab him, passing over some potentially better players, but going w/ the top need at a close talent grade. The bigger question comes when you have, for example, a DE who you graded high and fell to you, as well as an OT graded w/in the top couple best players available. I would still go OT, though that is not even absolute. But the main point is, I think that so long as you have a broad enough list of needs, you can take the best player available who fills a need, rather than just grab the BPA, regardless of need.

I have no problem bashing the DT position, but I think it should rank 3rd on the list of theft. Number One should go to the DEs, who slightly edge the CBs. While the DT is key in our scheme, so is the DE position. Both are expected to get to the QB. I consider our DEs greater thieves than the DT unit because (1) while Harris is paid a ton, Dusty/Harrison/Adams are really not getting much coin. On the other hand, both starting DEs are making nice money, and Brown is coming off a new deal. So I see one thief v two here. And (2) while Harris doesn't have the numbers, I have seen far more effort out of him than from the DE position. Harris is getting double teams and fighting. Brown and Wale seem more likely to run a coupel steps, stand up and hope to swat the ball. They act as if they are scared the QB will spit on them if they get too close. So DE is my #1 theft position. Number two has to go to the CBs. Again, as w/ the logic above, we have two starters who were recently given large deals, and both have stunk. He we have two players who were considered pro bowl caliber, and yet neither have even looked like starter grade. At DT, you have one pro bowler, and a bunch of unknowns or unproven commodities. Number three then goes to DT. The above logic is why I put DE and CB higher on the theft list, but that doesn't mean our DTs are not thieves.

Do we have other needs. Of course. But I would argue the following: One. We have, potentially, our franchise QB and RB in place. It simply does not make sense to have such pieces w/o protecting them. Two. I would argue, as I have in the past, that building up your OL has a greater domino effect than upgrading most other positions. If you have a solid/stud OL, your QB, RB, and receivers all look significantly better. Further, you can begin to own the clock, and thus make your defense better. Three. While the price of OL has gone up over the years, I would argue the price for OL (outside of LT) is still not as sick as w/ many other skill positions. I have heard talk of Boldin or Hous, for example. Sounds great, but I bet I can buy two upper tier OL for the same price, and I would further argue the two OL would provide a greater benefit. No offense, but I hate your 2009 OL. I look at that OL, and the one thing that really jumps out to me is how bad life would be for Forte. Williams was considered a better pass protector than run blocker. Beekman has done little to open holes in the run game. Kreutz has lost too much. And St. Clair? I just don't view him as a very good run blocker either. This OL may not get Orton killed, though I would not call it a good pass protecting OL either, but I think the run game would suffer too much. IMHO, we need to be looking at replacing BOTH OGs. At RT, I would like to see us either add a young FA to compete w/ Tait, or draft a RT to take over in 2010. Tait may be declining, but we can probably get by for another year if we upgrade the RG position. I just feel our interior is bad. They do little to open holes, and struggle against the blitz. Beekman was drafted to eventually take over for Kreutz, and I think we need to look at him that way. He is good depth, but should not be starting. Ditto for Garza and the rest. I simply do not feel we have a starting grade OG on the roster, and that must change. OL is not considered the sexy pick, but if we build up our OL, I truly believe other players could look far better.

Few comments. You and I disagree often enough, but one area we have always agreed on is the OL. Few around here would be on board w/ the idea of signing two OL and drafting another in the 1st. I however would be thrilled. I will simply never understand the lack of importance we put on the OL during the offseason. Sure, we spent a 1st on OL this year, but ignored OL otherwise in FA and the draft, and we had more than one OL hole. If you take a step back and look at our OL, how many would be viewed as long term? About the only player currently on the OL I think I would put into that category is Williams, and he is totally unproven to date. St. Clair is a bandaid, and little more, not to mention the fact that he is a FA after this season. Beekman has done an okay job, but is not good enough, IMHO. He could become our center, but again, that is a total unknown. Kreutz has been sliding for years. While I like his leadership, I am not sure I would consider him long term. Garza, IMHO, is simply not very good and has avoided greater levels of criticism only due to the total inept play of other OL. Tait has been on the decline, and I have seen little to make me think that direction will change. I would love to add a veteran OL to line up next to Williams, who will be basically a rookie next year. I would love to add another OL in FA to compete w/ either Tait or Garza. As for the draft, I would love to add another OL early. Whether OG or OT would depend on what that 2nd FA position was, but I would lean toward an OG in the draft, and OT in FA. RTs are easier and cheaper to add in FA, and looking at where we are likely to pick, you can usually grab one of the top OGs, where as you would more likely be looking at the 4th, 5th or whatever OT. I do not agree on Warner though. Warner looks incredible in AZ, but a large part of that is due to the weapons he has. Even w/ a solid OL, I am not sure he would look nearly so good w/ Hester/Davis/Booker/etc as his primary targets. Further, Warner has never been a QB to utilize the TE, which currently is our only legit weapon on offense. I am not saying I would not consider adding a QB, but right now, I think OL and WR are priority over QB. You and I agree on the OL, but disagree on our WRs. I think our WRs are pretty bad. I know you disagree, but when I look at our WRs, I don't see a legit starter in the group, at least not for a team w/ decent options. The other area we disagree on is defense. I disagree the window has closed. I am still of the opinion that our defensive woes have more to do w/ coaching/scheme than to talent. If it was just Urlacher, or just Vasher who showed a decline, fine. But every freaking one of our players, or close enough, have shown a decline. I simply find it too difficult to believe they all got old, slow or just plain bad, all at once. I think it far more logical to believe our talent is not the issue so much as the man running the talent.

I don't see any chance for the following reasons: One. Peppers is a premier player at a premier position. His play was down for one year, but back up w/ 9 sacks so far, and will most likely add a few more to that total over the next 6 games. He is going to hit a major jackpot, and I just don't see it, particularly w/ the amount we have already tied up on the DL. Two. Does he fit our system. Sure, it is easy to say, "Who cares", but so long as Lovie is in charge, I think we have to assume players we add are ones who fit the scheme. Peppers is a 285lb DE who is very strong against the run, and great v the pass. I believe both Wale and Brown weigh in at 260lbs. Just doesn't seem like Peppers fits the classic cover 2 mold. Three. Combining both points, I think it would take a great amount to bring him here. Our D is looking awful, and our scheme is unlikely to entice him to come here. So it isn't like we are going to get a discount, and likely would not be able to add him unless we offered significantly more than other teams who (a) may offer a better fit and/or ( look closer to a SB run. Four. He will be 29 before the end of the season. While that is not old, you have to assume it is going to be a long term contract he signs. What sort of player will he be in 3, 4 or 5 years? I think we have money to spend on offense, as we have far less tied up there, but I just can not see our spending massive on defense when we already have so much tied up on that side of the field.

First, original point was, his post was not so out there as to prompt the normal response. I'll grant you, 99% of his posts would prompt a shut the hell up response, but saying a college QB should be on our radar is not one of them. Second, correct me if I am wrong, but Leinart was the 2nd QB taken, w/ Cutler going after. Thus only one QB (like Bradford) needs to jump in to potentially mix things up. Third, while this does look like a weak QB class today, that depends on what happens w/ the underclassmen. If several underclassmen thrown their hats in, it could get interesting. I am not saying they would leapfrog Stafford, but if a team thinks some of the other QBs are very good, they could draft another position early and look at QB later. Among the underclassmen who I think could be seen as 1-2 round picks if they come out (Bradford, who could be top 10), Tebow_Florida, Harrell_TT, Sanchez_USC, McCoy_Texas). Fourth, while I am not saying QB should be our top pick, I am not dismissing it either. We saw a great start from Orton, but what if he bombs the rest of the way? Are you so sure what we have seen from him in the first half of the season is what we should expect long term? I think the impact Ryan has had in Atlanta could go a long way toward pushing franchises to really looking at that top pick QB. I agree we have many needs (though I still believe our coaching staff makes it look like our list of needs is greater than what it really is) but if QB is not set, then QB should still be among our top concerns.

Brianbear, your off on this one. Yea, his posts get old, but he didn't respond w/ the expected Rex is great/Orton sucks post. He threw out the name of a QB who he said should be on our radar. Sorry, but there is absolutely nothing wrong w/ this post. Maybe the guy is a top 5 pick. Then again, Leinart was supposed to be a top 5 pick, and fell to 10. And I would say he isn't alone in top 5 picks falling on draft day. Point is, all he said was we should have this college QB on our radar. What's wrong w/ that?

I think a big part of that is due to what defense GB was in. The Score just mentioned this too, but GB played much of the game in the nickel. They were often using DBs to lineup against our TEs. So playing against a nickel D, I think inside runs are understandable. Problem is, their DL simply whipping our OL.

Your right. He was the DL coach for nearly a decade for TB, though he was "asst H/C" toward the end. He went from position coach to HC. My bad. Okay, take me out of the group that thinks he would offer an upgrade. We need a coach who is a proven signal caller.

I agree we need to make a change, but also feel out blocking on special teams is looking bad this year. There was one punt return that stood out for me where the opponent just flat out toasted our blocking to get in Hesters face far sooner than what should have been. On KO returns, again, I think our blocking has looked poor. So while I am all for making a change, at the same time, I think our problems are greater than just who is running w/ the ball.

My first choice would be a DC that would be allowed to run a different scheme, but assuming that is not an option w/ Lovie as head coach, Marinelli is likely the top choice. Marinelli, like many others, has not proven capable of being a head coach, but he was a successful and proven DC. Adding him would be an upgrade to Babich, IMHO. It may not be the change many of us want, but it would be an upgrade at least.

I don't think it is so much that Payne is getting a free pass, but more a matter of when looking at our defense, so much more was expected of so many others. Heading into the season, there were many on this board who felt we had one of the best DLs in the league. Thus far, our DL looks flat out pathetic. Heading into the season, we thought we had not only a great pair of CBs, but solid depth w/ Graham and McBride. But these guys have not shown an ability to cover even mediocre WRs w/ mediocre QBs throwing the rock. Heading into the season, we thought we had the best LB trio in the game. Briggs has been solid, but not spectacular, IMHO, and Urlacher has (for the most part) been un-noticed. Heading into the season, we thought we were in great shape w/ a healthy Mike Brown, but his play at FS prompted (IMHO) a move to SS for him. Maybe that wasn't the whole reason, but he was not doing much from the FS position. So while I think most would agree Payne has not played well, at the same time, I think when you consider expectations, Payne was likely the lowest on the list, and thus not getting as much criticism.

I would also like to point out that many questioned Anderson due to a dropoff in the 2nd half last year. 1st 8 games 148-257-2108 yards. 19tds - 9 ints (that includes 2 rushing scores) 57.5 Comp %. 8.2 ypa. 2nd 8 games. 150-270-1679 yards. 13 tds - 10 picks (includes 1 rushing score) 55% comp. 6.2 ypa. So Anderson's numbers really went down in the 2nd half of the season, and his final 4 games were even worse, and those were against lesser defenses. So Anderson, and Cle as a whole, really took the league by storm, but Anderson's fade began last year, and many questioned whether he was going to be great long term. Frankly, I think even Cle held reservations, thus why they never traded Quinn.