nfoligno

I think the D looked like crap, but also tend to agree the O was mainly to blame. I do not know, as I don't have the stats in front of me, but I thought I heard on the radio that each of Tenn's TDs were like 50 yard drives, or less. One was much less. Tenn was getting the ball w/ great field position all day, and we really just didn't give up that much. W/ that said, I think two key reasons our D is getting ripped are: a pass rush that was so bad, it has become a national talking point and our inability to make stops on 3rd downs. Two go together, but still. Sapp talked about we gave up a 3rd and 10. He talked about how 3rd and 10 in the cover two is "gravy" and should never be converted, but we showed such a lack of discipline in giving it up (I think it was a bootleg). I definitely don't think the D looked good, and due to the talent/salary we have on D, there is more than enough reason to rip them in general, but in terms of why we lost this game, I agree that is far more on Rex.

But the two sides of that go together. You get pinned deep, and go three and out. You punt the ball, and your defense then makes a stand, but you end up getting the ball back in crap position again. Our offenses inability to pickup 1st downs and get out of those bad field positions only meant that either (a) the defense was going to allow a short field score or ( our offense would get the ball back, but in crap field position again. Orton has been in bad field position, but because our offense w/ him under center does a better job of at least picking up a couple first downs, you punt the ball deeper, and thus (if the D holds) avoid being right back where you started from.

Sapp actually touched on this a bit, as have others. Our scheme is not a prevent, but it is a sort of bend/don't break. Basically, in the cover two, you simply try to keep everything in front of you. That doesn't mean if the WR runs 30 yards downfield, you just keep him in front of you. It means you line up your LBs and DBs at certain points on the field, and keep everything in front. As Sapp, and others said, in this system, the idea is to make the offense drive 10 plays (or whatever) to get downfield and into the endzone. The idea is that, in that period of time, your defense will make a play, whether that is a sack that forces a kick or a turnover. But there lies the problem. We are doing it right, keeping everything in front of us, but we are not making plays. We are not getting sacks. We are not forcing fumbles, or picking off the ball. Because our defense is not making plays, the other team may need 10 plays to get downfield, but they do get downfield and eventually score.

Very possible. While Marinelli would be far from my first choice, at the same time, I think he would be an upgrade. He is not looking great as a head coach (how many do in Det) but he is a far more proven DC. He is proven in terms of game planning and in-game calling. In Babich, we have a LB coach who Lovie felt could handle the next step, but thus far, that remains much in doubt. While Marinelli may still run a system I am not a big fan of, at the same time, I think he would do a far better job of running it. Our D may never reach its potential (IMHO) w/ Lovie as our coach and running his scheme, but if we get a more proven coach like Marinelli, I think it could come much closer.

Sapp touches on a good point about the DE's. We have Philip Daniels Jr and the III playing over there. We dont have the top level pass rush DE, which I guess is one reason we seem to take one every draft. He also shredded Anderson, though he couldn't think of the name and just said, "#97". Said on one play, Harris made a great rip move to beat his block, but Anderson tried some off-balanced spin move, and actually went down to the ground and took Harris down w/ him. He shreds our DEs, but I am not sure he believes we simply do not have the talent. He starts out blasting our coaching, actually saying it looked like we didn't even watch film. He said Tenn has a certain blocking scheme, and he saw nothing in the game that he would expect to see to try and beat that scheme. Felt we did the same ol same ol, w/o game planning to attack their blocking scheme in a particular manner. He went on to really rip our DEs, but while he attacked them individually, also seemed to again, attack the coaching and or scheming/game planning. Basically said our DEs just run at the OTs, and do little to nothing (in terms of moves) to get past their man.

Fair question, but here is how I would answer that. One. Before I even get to point one, let me just say I am sorry. I didn't mean to rip you. Maybe I was just in a bad mood. W/ that said, to be honest, I would have considered "your" opinion at a greater level than those of some blogger, which I think is all that guy is. Someone regurgitating stuff he has heard. More than ripping you, I was trying to make the point that ESPN's inside blogger info is actually nothing new to those on this board. My intent was not to rip you so much but to laugh a bit at ESPN. On the other hand, the interviews I threw out there were from NFL people. I even qualified it some, at least w/ Sapp. Sapp is a player who played for Lovie, and was a very integral part of his cover two system. Sunquist was a personnel guy I think. Point is, both offer experience. I don't post just anything I hear, but when football people give info like this, I think it is worthwhile. And that goes back to the original point. I would have considered "your" analysis as a coach of much greater value than something a blogger threw out there. Two. While some of what was said in the interviews has been discussed, there was also some new info. Your ESPN blogger may as well have been getting his inside info by reading our message boards. Anyway, you asked:) Seriously, I did not intend to rip you, though I guess I did. I'm sorry about that. On a sep point, if you go to the Score's website, you can listen to the Sapp interview. I would love to get your opinion, particularly on the beginning part when he talks about how Tenn was blocking us, and how we seemed to have no clue how they were going to block, as though we hadn't watched film. Frankly, some of what he said went over my head (blocking assignments and scheme names) but I would love to hear what your thoughts on it are.

Few owners would send a coach packing w/ that much coin still owed. But here is an angle I am not sure too many have talked about here. Many assume Angelo's fate is tied to Lovies. Whether true or not, I would be surprised if Angelo didn't see that as a very real possibility. So, if Angelo's fate is tied to Lovie's, and Angelo believes Lovie is sinking both of their ships, he may step in. Babich is Lovie's boy, but that may not be enough of Angelo see's Babich on a similar plane as Shoop. Further, Angelo may tell Lovie who to hire as a DC. For example, despite who Lovie wanted originally, he was told to hire Rivera. Angelo may force Lovie to hire a DC that is not just a cover two guy. Point here is, while Lovie may be the HC of this team for now and for a while due to his contract, if Angelo feels Lovie is threatening his career too, he may step in and direct Lovie to make moves he would not otherwise make.

Couple interesting interviews. The first was Mully & Hanley interviewing Warren Sapp. Now, people can say what they want about Sapp, but he knows Lovie (played for him) and knows the system. Further, the following comments, according to Sapp, stem not just from watching the game, but from watching film of the game. Sapp starts out talking about the type of protection Tenn is using, and goes on to basically rip the bears for the way the rushed the passer. He flat out said it was like Chicago never watched tape, and didn't game plan to attack the type of blocking scheme Tenn uses. I think he even took it another step, saying you really couldn't see much of a game plan of any sort w/ regard to the pass rush scheme. This may have been among the most damning stuff of the interview. Also hits our DEs, saying they did very little. Said they seem to basically wait for Harris to do something. Several times in the interview, he went back to this and hits on the DEs lack of play. He did have positive things to say about Harris, but said Harris can't rush the passer alone. Said Dusty gets a nice push, but that's about it. Now maybe this is an old DT taking up for a DT, and thus attacking others on the DL, but I didn't get that feeling. Moved on to the LBs, and how we fake blitz Urlacher. I loved his comments. He even used the term I have been using. "No man's land." Sapp said he hates that play/look. Talked a bit about how Urlacher is the shoot out of a cannon player, and making him run up and then run backward eliminates what makes him great. He actually said that even if the opponents believes Urlacher is going to blitz, its not a good thing as he pulls extra protection into the middle, so when Urlacher doesn't blitz, that just leaves an extra blocker to hit our DTs. Asked if he see's a difference in Urlacher, and he said its all the DL. Said the DL is playing so weak, offenses are finding it easy to block Urlacher and take him out of plays. Kind of hit Dusty, our nose tackle, on this point. Also went on to say we should play Marcus Harrison more. Said he likes Dusty's motor, but the results just are not there. Likes what he has seen from Harrison, and thinks he should play more. Sort of touched on the point our DL has made about quick passes. Said if the QB "pumps", its on the DL, but quick passes are on the LBs and coverage. We basically knew that, but I think he does touch on how you can't blame the DL for the for the quick passes, which to me, implies we need to do a better job of short coverage. Also, listening to Mike Murphy, and he was playing clips from a Ted Sunquiest interview. Ted was asked about players talking out after the game. Ted said that when there is not a good line of communication to the coaches, then players are left w/ little alternative but to air it out in the media. Now, he does not know for a fact that Lovie/Babich or whoever do not provide an open line for communication, but after the latest press conference when Lovie got VERY defensive about his scheme, and went further to state that no player on his team has a problem w/ the scheme, well, I think you can very easily see why players may not feel they can speak w/ Lovie if they do not agree w/ the playcalling or scheme.

My point was meerly that I didn't have a problem w/ the game plan going in. Though other teams have done well enough passing on us, I still think it was a legit belief that if you shut down their run game, you would shut down their offense. So I agreed w/ the idea of stacking the box and keying on the run. W/ that said, doing this puts pressure on the CBs, and they failed. Further, when it was obvious they were able to pass on us at will, adjustments should have been made, but they were not. That is a huge issue I have. The coaches say we simply need to execute better, but if the players are not executing, do you not need to do more than simply tell them to do better? That is when you need to make changed, whether to scheme or personnel, but our staff simply sticks their heads in the sand and hope the players start executing better.

IMHO, the KC angle makes the most sense. I just do not recall Baldwin looking so good in camp as to expect much of anything.

So did Anderson his rookie year.

You expect more? Seriously? So if I were to go back and look through the old posts, I would see you throwing out predictions for our offense greater than what we have seen thus far? We have an OL that was considered awful going into the season. We have a QB who few thought of as more than a game manager, and that was if he did his best. We have a group of WRs who few thought could be a #2 for most teams, much less a #1 in the mix. We have a rookie RB. Sorry, but you honestly expected this offense to be even average, much less good? I would argue Orton has gone way above expectations. I would argue the OL, while far from even good, has held it together better than most expected. I would argue we have a group of WRs few still now think much of, but have done better than expected this year. And while many might have expected decent things from Forte, I would even argue he has surpassed expectations, particularly in the receiving department. I was VERY anti-Turner last year. Even this year, there are plays I disagree w/. At the same time, I just do not think we can avoid giving him credit where it is due. This is not an offense anyone expected to do much, but they have actually been a major factor in our winning season, particularly w/ the defense struggling as it has. As for Crowton, I'll give you he was creative and different, but at the same time, the league sure did seem to figure him out. So while he was different at one point, he did little to adjust when teams starting to tee off on our QBs. And what about that idea of being balanced. You don't think we were pass happy w/ Crowton. You and I will never agree w/ regard to Crowton. While I agree he was a definite change of pace, I still today think he was one of our worst OCs. I will just never get over the idea of having such an inexperienced QB (Cade) and making him run a very complicated system, w/ so many empty backfields. Maybe he would have looked good w/ Warner under center, but w/ a green QB, it simply was a bad system to run.

That was awesome. Thanks.

1. Rex is not as good as Orton. But I don't fault him for the loss yesterday. He can only do what he can. This staff should have seen that floor and made moves accordingly running the ball more and taking the ball out of Rex's hands. Maybe to an extent, but at the same time, you are not going to beat a team like Tenn w/o some level of success through the air. If your QB, regardless who it is, can't hit open WRs, you simply are not going to get it done on offense. 2. To say our D is piss poor, isn't fair to piss. I'll get into details, but the bottom line is this defense is awful. We're like the Pat's in SBXX. Doing everything we can to stop the run...at all costs. Thus, giving any QB we face everything they want. Time, options, birthday gifts, Christmas cards, free gasoline... Honestly, I don't have a big issue w/ the game plan going in. Collins had done very little through the air, while Tenn has been running on opponents like an elite college team does against an inferior opponent. We went in w/ a plan to shut down the run, something few have been able to do, and were successful in that regard. The problem I have is not making any adjustements when it became obvious Collins was capable of beating us through the air. 3. Babich is not an NFL coordinator. He cannot figure this out. Whether it's Zombie Smith forcing his hand and not standing up to it, or being solely responsible for the planning & scheming, it is clear that he is not a pro. He should be fired right now. However, what should happen within the realm of possibilities is that Lovie takes the reigns over completely...and then bounces Bobby B at the end of the season. This time, not tealling us to trust him. THis time, it's obvious. Agreed he should not be an NFL DC. Agreed he should not have the job today. Agreed that, while said may be true, it does little benefit to actually fire him, and Lovie simply taking over the playcalling would be of a greater benefit. 4. Zombie Smith's time is over. I've been all over him for a while, but it's painfully obvious his team is losing respect for him. Smith should coach the rest of the season, and if we get more of the same, he should be fired. But, again, in reality world, and given his contract, he'll be given yet one more season to continue to stay the course and look for one dim flicker amoung a thousand points of light. He's good enough and has good enough talent to keep retaining a job like Wayne Fontes did for so many years in Detoit. Yep, that's what we have folks. Wayne Fontes. Good enough to keep a job, not good enough to do much else. Agreed once again. Just imagine how bad we would look right now if Orton were not stepping up? Damn that Orton. If he just sucked as expected, Lovie may not be our future coach. Since Orton is looking good, we are likely to win enough that Lovie sticks. My only hope is Angelo steps in and demands Lovie (a) fire Babich and ( hires a DC who is more than a yes man running Lovie's scheme. You know. Like a Rivera. 5. Our over-paid players. These whining babbies need to put up. From Harris to Urlacher to Vasher (to Hester)...these guys are not getting it done. And yes, please see #3's & 4, that hinder their productivity. But, at some point they need to do something! Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and theese guys I don't think have had a sack all year! (I know, they have, but I'm on a roll...) Overall, these over-paid players are full of lip service. Call out the coaches then! We know there are ways to do it without really doing it. Sorry, but as much as I respect a guy who keeps his business in the locker, I also respect a player who tells the truth and wants better for the fans. I honestly go back and forth on this one. As much as we, as fans, would love to hear the leaders of the team simply come out and rip the coaches, how often does that go over well? We have seen it w/ other teams, and no matter the situation, whether the player is right, a leader, respected, whatever, it just does not go over well. Players are really in a bad situation in this regard. If they express their feelings, they are panned. If they don't, and simply keep quiet as they can't produce, they are panned. On one hand, it is easy to say the player just needs to shut up, step up, and get it done. On the other hand, if the player simply is not put in a position to get it done, how much can he be blamed when the results are not there. Now, here's the good... A. Forte! Love this kid! I was not high on him in the draft, and boy was I wrong! I was a Mendy guy... But, know full well my plate of c row is grilled with Sweet Baby Ray's and tastes great! I liked him in the draft, though I thought we reached a bit for him. My only issue then was not so much w/ him, but w/ taking a RB over QB/OL in the 2nd round. As good as Forte has looked, while Orton and the OL have exceeded expectations, it sure looks like I was wrong, and I am glad as hell for it. B. Orton has shown hew is a starting QB in this league! It's been fun watching him grow as a player these past week. HTe injury is unofruntate, but dang, it looks like we have something to hope for. All I can add to that is, imagine how much better he might look w/ an improved OL and WR corp. While our OL has done better than expected, it is still a LONG way from being good. And while our WRs may not suck as bad as expected, they are also still not very good. Does any other QB who has shown similar success as Orton this year, does any have less to work w/ ? C. The O line is not nearly the train wreck I expected. We still need to build on it for the future, but kudos for keeping it together. Agreed. I still think they are well below average in run blocking, but have pass protected better than expected. W/ that said, I also think a large part of that is Orton v Rex. Rex has a way of making an OL look worse than it is, while Orton has the opposite effect. D. Olson. He's turning into a fine TE. I still think his blocking sucks, but if he can develop as a receiving TE as we have seen, that will not be nearly as important. Here's the indifferent... i. WR's. We seem to be doing well enough. No one's really fantastic, but we don't seem to have a lot of dead weight either. I don't know. Our WRs look pretty bad. If it were not for Forte being a good receiving RB, and having legit options at TE, how bad would this group look? We have gotten very little production from the WR position this year, and I think this is a huge need going forward.

What a shock. Out of about 10 points, that one is the only one in which you have a comment on.

Personally, I think Lovie is safe for another year, but Babich will be on the hotseat. Now if Lovie pulls and Jauron, and chooses to fight for Babich, that is another story. But I think Lovie gets another opportunity, while Babich goes the scapgoat route. Now, would could make this interesting is, if players speak out more and more, and it appears Lovie has lost the team, then I wonder if he could go. I don't see it reaching that level, but after reading some of the players comments, I have to wonder. Hampton is talking on the Score about how Urlacher doesn't like the scheme. Harris, Brown, Brown and Vasher have all been starting to talk some, and yet still holding back. If all the players you are heavily invested in can't support the coaches scheme, I am not so sure you can keep the coach.

David Haugh of the Trib offers his 5 ways to fix the Bear's D, http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/footb...,1073982.column 1 Stop stacking the linebackers at the line of scrimmage so much to fake blitz. Agreed 100%. I've talked about this myself. Urlacher is being used to fake blitz, then drop back into coverage. This looked great week one, but since then, I think teams have figured it out and the effect is negated. Worse, it takes urlacher out of position to do much of anything. Basically, he is trying to get back into position, but is more often still in no-mans land when the pass is made. As Haugh mentions, Urlacher always seems a step behind the play, and a big reason for this may be how we line him up before the snap, making his job that much more difficult. Some believe Urlacher is simply old, slow or whatever. Maybe. But even if all that is true, are we not only making the situation worse by the way we are playing him? IMHO, the fake blitz offers minimal (if any) benefit. We need to simply let Urlacher play, and stop the BS. If he fails then, we can rip him, but we need to give him an opportunity and again put him in position to make plays. 2 Be sticklers and smarter about the alignment of cornerbacks and safeties. Two issues are covered here. First, start having the CBs press more. That doesn't mean they press 100% of the time, but the point made is that if you mix it up, it makes you less predictable, and prevents the opponents from so easily game planning how to beat our corners. I would add this. If you notice, our CBs often start out on top of the LOS, but it never fails, they backpeddle and drop well off the LOS just prior to the snap. Who do they think they are fooling? If you never press the WR, showing press prior to the snap simply is not believable. If you do press some of the time, then when you show press pre-snap, the QB can't assume anything. Another point made is that we seem to be playing Payne in the traditional FS role, regardless what his position actually is. The point is further made that we play Payne too deep. We have him so deep that, while he may prevent a bomb, he is otherwise taking out of the play. He is too deep to help the CBs on 99% of the plays, and thus we are essentially playing w/ 10 men on defense. 3 Give right cornerback Nathan Vasher more time off. Haugh argues to replace Vasher w/ Graham in the starting lineup, but further argues to use DM as our nickel and I guess simply bench Vasher. I agree w/ the Graham move, but feel we would be better served moving Vasher to nickel. I simply do not understand the belief that DM is a quality nickel. Vasher was once a great nickel for us, and before we simply bench him, I would like to see him at nickel first. 4 Consider a creative, out-of-the-box schematic adjustment to maximize talent. Haugh is not saying we should scrap the cover two, but simply more often try different things w/ players more than overall scheme. He talks about blitzing our LBs from the edge more, as opposed to always sending them up the gut. Move around our DL similar to how some other teams do. Try to matchup a bigger, slower OT w/ Brown or even Anderson, rather than just having Wale go agaisnt him. Or even move Harris to DE on some plays when you have a slower footed OT. Move Brown inside. I remember our doing a lot of this sort of thing when Rivera was here. We would blitz the corner, w/ a Safety moving up to play the WR. We would stunt more. We would send our LBs from different angles, rather than simply blitzing them up the gut. Under Babich, I think we "show" a lot of different things before the snap, but by the time the snap happens, we end up doing the same ol same ol. 5 Get Lovie Smith more involved in the defensive calls, and let people know it. Hell yes. I simply do not think Babich has shown he can call a game. While I am not certain Lovie can, I think he needs to step up and take control. Some might try to say he already does, but when I watch the sidelines, I don't think I ever see Lovie calling plays. Lovie may have gotten more involved w/ the D Monday through Saturday, but I think he is still leaving it up to Babich on Sundays. I think it is high time for a change here.

One. you assume the WRs were not open, but really, we have no way of knowing that as you can not tell from TV. I just question this a bit because the same WRs seemed to get open w/ Orton under center, so I am not sure we should be so quick to assume they were covered simply because Rex was holding the ball. It very well may be that Rex is simply not as good finding the open WRs. Two. You wanted to see Hester running deeper patterns, but it is also possible that we didn't run as many deep routes to try and hasten Rex being able to get the ball out of his hands quicker, thus trying to negate the pass rush more. Three. You want to use the TE in the deep seem more, but again, that means Rex has to hold the ball more, which allows the DL more time to rush the QB. Again, we may have been trying to avoid this. Four. You want to use the RBs out of the backfield more, but (a) that takes away a blocker, and that is not often a good thing w/ Rex under center and ( wasn't Forte our leading receiver? Seems we did use the RBs out of the backfield quick a bit, even going w/ an empty backfield at times as the RB would split out, which frankly I am not a fan of. I am not saying Turner couldn't have done more, but I think he has done a good job this year. The offense seemed to work pretty well w/ Turner/Orton, so I am not sure we should be so quick to blame Turner when Rex fails to deliver. I think the greater issues were (a) Rex staring down his receivers and ( Rex missing open WRs.

One. While I agree they are not getting it done, I do still think we have to look at the coaches. Vasher has indicated they line up off the LOS because that is what they are told to do. Now maybe they are told to do that because the staff has no confidence in their ability to play at the LOS. But the point is still that it may not be the corners fault for lining up 8 yards of the LOS if that is what they are told to do by their coaches. Two. I do totally agree though on the need to move up. In addition to the two benefits you mention, I would add a couple. - IMHO, they are more suceptible to double moves. WRs can more easily "show" a go route, get the CB to turn his hips, then immediately stop for a come back route. That is an automatic completion of 5-8 yards, w/ potential for YAC. - Playing off the LOS, I think we are also more suceptible to the quick outs. QBs can take the snap and fire horizontal. The WR then catches the ball w/ space in front of him, allowing him a greater opportunity to make a move and beat the CB for YAC. If the CB is pressing the WR at the LOS, there is virtually no chance for such a quick out. I really think Vasher is struggling, and should be replaced by Graham. Graham may not be a shut down CB, but I think he is an upgrade to Vasher right now. Vasher was once a stud nickel, and may be able to regain confidence in that role. Tillman, according to the Score, is still nursing a shoulder injury, and may be a little tentative due to that. Still, I think we would be better off w/ Tillman and Graham starting.

Couple things. One. To be honest, I have listened to very few actual Lovie press conferences. I was just happening to be listening to the Score and heard it. So while I have read some of his past ones on this board, I have not often heard the tone. According to the guys on the Score, as well as the guys they later interviewed regarding the press conference, Lovie had a greater defensive tone, and was somewhat attacking in his tone, compared to other interviews. Two. When I listened to the interview, beyond just the words, I simply got the impression of a HC who was defending himself and his staff, and saying the players are simply not getting it done. Now, to an extent, I agree. The players are not getting it done. At the same time, isn't it getting a tad old to hear lovie declare the scheme is fine?

Further evidence Lovie is calling out the players, "But you still have to execute when it's called" Sorry, but there is no other way to read that comment. He is referring to execution after the play is called, thus taking babich and himself out of the equation. Only the players are left. So yes, Lovie is calling out the players. I have heard several interviews with him before where he has said that "we need to execute better" and he usually says that "starts with me as the head coach". Unless I missed part of the interview, I didn't hear him throwing the players under the bus. Is he stubborn? Hell yes. Does he need to make changes? Hell yes. However, I don't believe he was saying the players are the sole issue. The team as a whole (coaches, players, etc) need to execute.

1) The Bears haven't had a good offensive talent evaluator in eons Yea, I'll give you that one. 2) The Bears haven't had a good offensive mind since Crowton Dude, I just puked on my key board. 3) The Bears haven't run a successful, balanced offensive scheme since maybe Turner's first go-around Okay, cleaned off the key board, but the kkkkk kkkey is sticking a bit. Seriously though, been watching much bears this year? They have seemed pretty balanced. Maybe having a legit QB combined w/ a legit RB was the key more than just the OC. Hard to be balanced when you have Rex and Benson. 4) Those making the decisions about who should start on offense and who should sit have been consistently stubborn, ignorant, and proven wrong. Hey, at least they chose Orton over Rex. I would also argue a few other decisions (offense) were uncharacteristically pretty good this year. For example, IMHO it was a good move not moving Tait back to LT, and keeping him at RT. It was a good call giving Beekman a shot at LG and keeping him there after Metcalf was healthy. So some of the decisions seem pretty sound this year. Gage, Wade, Berrian...and now Bradley - Making an immediate impact with the Chiefs, a team with an absolutely wretched QB, and giving a big F'You to his former Bears' coaches (who kept him in the doghouse for no reason). You say "in the doghouse for no reason", but isn't it more accurate to say no reason we know about? I mean, the reality is, we have no reason what-so-ever why he was in the doghouse, assuming he was. But you have to believe there was a reason he was in there. As we have no idea what that reason is, we have no idea if it was legit or not. Not sure Berrian belongs in this group. The other three were released because it wasn't believed they had enough to offer. Berrian was offered a deal, but Minny gave him fairly sick money. That was just a business decision, and one I frankly agreed w/. Gotta love these coaches. To be honest, I am loving Turner this year. I think he has the offense playing well, Rex' start aside. I mean, look at who we have on offense, and look at where we rank in the league. I think that is pretty solid evidence to support Turner this year. I hate to see how well Bradley is doing, at least in regard to our cutting him, but also still just wonder why we cut him. Again, i just think there is more to the story than what we know.

Just being a smart ass. I know that is shocking, but hey. Mondays bring out the smart ass in me. Then again, so does every day that ends in a Y.

As I have said elsewhere, there are right and wrong ways to retaliate. When a guy gets in your face, hitting him upside the head....Wrong way. But a CB? You run the ball 30 or whatever times in a game. That's 30 times it is legal to flat out waylay the dude w/ a block. Man, there are many ways to shut a guy like that up. Sure, you can say score on him, but I still think there is more to the gamesmenship side.

Sorry, but I disagree. Finnegan is an example, and nothing more. This team doesn't seem inspired to me. They too often seem to lack heart. Overall, in general, something just seems missing. They don't have that fire, and to me, the Finnegan example is just that. An example. IMHO, the 2005 defense had fire in its belly. Even when they began to struggle at times, they usually still seemed to have that fire, or would find it. Like in the AZ game when they started out w/o fire, but then burned the house down. This year, I just don't see it. IMHO, if Finnegan was punking our players in 2005 as he did yesterday, he would have paid a price for it. You say it has nothing to do w/ the loss. Maybe it doesn't. Then again, maybe it is a prime example to point to of how soft this team has become.