nfoligno

It is asinine to speculate that Kyle would have gotten more or done differently because that is impossible to predict. He is injured. Come on. We know Orton is injured, but that doesn't prevent anyone from saying what could have been. Just as many talk about how, in previous years, our D may have looked w/ this guy or that guy healthy. If Brown was healthy, does he give up the deep bomb in the SB the way DM did? This is typical talk. We know Orton is injured, but that doesn't mean we can speculate how he might have fared. I do understand your overall point though. You can not always put the same expectations on a backup as you do a starter. At the same time, I would make the following points. A. Rex is not a typical backup. He was our starter for the last however many years, and was in a close battle for the job this camp. So I think one can place a higher level of expectations on him than w/ many other backups. B. We were facing a backup QB who looked pretty good.

Gotta defend 88 a tad bit here. Here is a post calling him out. Sure, he can handle it different, but at the same time, I think often the opposite side of his BS arguments are just as bad. I mean, many here have been for or against a player, but how often is there a thread calling us out by name? Maybe 88 deserves it, but come on. Lets not pretend he started this thread here. IMHO, the cubbie fan is just as at fault. Bad enough his hero went down in flames, but to have to come on the board and be called out?

I think about Ray Lewis. Few would say Lewis wasn't among the best LBs, if not overall defenders, in the game. Then the team changes their scheme, and suddenly, Lewis looks old and many question if he is done. Then the team alters their defense again, and Lewis is better utilized in the new scheme. Suddenly, he looks re-born. Every player loses a step after enough snaps, but IMHO, what we are seeing here is far greater. Sure, it is possible Urlacher simply is done, but I tend to question that. Few on our vaulted defense are playing worth a jack. Are they all too old, slow or just simply done as well? I go back to last season. For much of the season, Urlacher looked simply bad. He looked slow and weak. Then I remember later in the season reading about how Babich took the reigns off Urlacher and told him to simply play off instinct. Stop worrying about scheme so much and just play. Suddenly, Urlacher looked like a new man. In those final 5 games, he had: 41 tackles, 2 sacks & 4 ints. I remember reading where Urlacher said he felt constrained, and when allowed to free-lance, was simply better able to flow to the play and use instinct. In other words, he stopped having to think too much and was able to simply play. I wonder how much that is the case again this year. He is in a scheme that holds him back and takes away his playmaking ability. Maybe that is flat wrong, but it is similar to what I saw last year. I just question that he dropped off "that" much "that" quickly, and think there is more too it. If it was just Urlacher sucking up the field, then fine. But our problems go way beyond him, and to me, that implies our problems are greater than any one (or a few) player(s).

By your below rationale, maybe the problem is we let Alfonso Boone go. Boone had 2 sacks in 2006, and thus that proves he could get to the passer, right? In 2005, we had Boone, Michael Haynes and Idonije all getting sacks from the interior. None are playing DT for the bears now (Idonije barely). Coincidence our DL sucks today? Maybe it is because we lost all them. Come on. Do you realize how good you are making Tank out to be? In 2005 and 2006, our DL racked up a ton of sacks, not to mention our LBs as well. Today, little to nothing. You honestly think Tank is such a stud that his loss is such a difference? He is the reason Harris has gone from elite to absent? He is the reason Wale went from double digit sacks to 1.5? Or Anderson from 12 to nada. Or Urlacher from 6 to nada? Seriously? You think Tank Johnson is such a stud, and elevates the players around him that much? And yet he isn't even good enough to win a starting job in Dallas? I know you like Tank, always supported him and felt it was a mistake to cut him, but your over the top on this one. To stake the position that our DL sucks today simply due to the loss of Tank is so out there, I don't even know what to say. Tank was good, but to have had the impact you make out, he would have had to have been one of the best DTs of all time.

hold that phone a little tighter, YOU'RE the one who said there was not much drop off from dusty to tank! does the unreliability of dusty staying healthy skew the actual fact that production from dusty doesn't equal that of tank over a 3 year period? Actually, I said, "Frankly, I am not sure he was even better than Dusty or Harrison". Maybe I should have said "and" rather than "or". You are pointing out Dusty alone, but my point was that we have both Dusty and Harrison in the rotation, where as we used to have Tank and Scott. As for the 3 years v injury, the point was you can not compare the stats of a player who has 9 games v that of a player w/ 3 years. so then what you are saying is that it takes TWO of our tackles to equal one tank? one to stop the run and one to rush the passer? if harrison is so great why isn't HE starting? You act like it was all Tank, but it wasn't. We have always employed a rotation. Tank may have started, but he rotated w/ Scott (and others) pretty often. My argument is that Dusty/Harrison is little different from that of Tank/Scott. first: it was stupid letting him go (i DON'T want to start that type of thread again so take it for what it's worth) Not trying to restart that thread, but we disagree. Tank showed, like Benson, that he simply could not stay out of trouble. You can argue the level of the trouble, but he simply did not seem to understand how to avoid the situations that continually got him in trouble. Sometimes it takes a big thing, like being cut, to make you realize you have used up all your chances and to turn things around. second: if it takes TWO players to equal one, that's not a loss to you?? that's like saying that mark anderson and alex brown equals richard dent. As said, you seem to pretend Tank was an every down starter, and that we didn't utilize a rotation until he left. That is simply wrong.

huh?? that makes NO sense at all. don't you think the production of key players are reflected by the guys in the trenches next to them?? Yes, but what I agrue is not the general, but the specific. I do not believe our DL benefited from Tank so much as Tank from them. you say our de's were not better because of tank. i contend that one of the major problems of our de's is they are NOT getting any help by our tackles push up the middle!!! the qb's are NOT getting flushed out of the pocket so our de's can GET their hands on them. as it stands qb's have a solid ring of offensive bodies forming a pocket to step up INTO!! look up the sack stats since tank left. I would agree our interior is hurting our exterior, but I simply do not believe that is due to the loss of Tank. You make out like Tank is a super stud who makes the rest of our DL elite, and w/o him they are busts. As for your stats below, I think you have to look at them a little deeper. a. brown: 2004 - 6 sacks 2005 - 6 sacks 2006 - 7 sacks 2007 (no tank) 4.5 sacks 2008 9no tank) 3 sacks after 1/2 season One, you fail to point out that in 2007, Brown was the #3 DE while Anderson got the start. Later in the season, when Brown was elevated back to the starting job, he did well. Also, as you point out, Brown has 3 sacks in a 1/2 season, which would project to 6. In otherwords, Brown is on pace for pre-tank stats. walley: 2004 - 5 sacks 2005 - 10 sacks 2006 (injury year?) 6.5 sacks 2007 - (no tank) 9 sacks 2008 - (no tank) 1.5 sacks As you point out, Wale had 9 sacks w/o Tank, so I am not sure we can say his low sack total this year is due to Tank's absence. anderson: 2006 - 12 sacks 2007 - (no tank) 5 sacks 2008 - (no tank) 0 sacks Again, you fail to point out elements. Anderson was a rookie stud when he was a situational pass rusher, but failed as a starter. So you state "no tank" but you fail to point out another major change. could it be that tank and tommie together got enough penetration to, at the least, harass the qb? hmmm Sure they did. But could it not have also been due to how Rivera used our DL, rather than how Babich does? As I have also said in another post, Harrison has 2 sacks on the year, which would project to be similar to Tank's numbers. IMHO, it isn't so much the #2 DT that is hurting us so much as the #1. Tank is just sucking arce this year. sorry, but this has nothing to do with the push your tackles get in the center of the line. Absolutely disagree. Right now, our DEs are doing nothing to force the QB up in the pocket, as was the case in the past. In fact, our DEs are being negated so much that QBs are able to back-peddle away from the interior, making it that much harder for the DTs. Also, I would point out the difference in how a team can devote blockers and protection. In the past, our DEs were doing enough that opponents had to devote extra protection on the outside, which opened things up inside. Now, when I watch the game, our DEs are handles w/ single blocks, while the interior is stuffed w/ extra protection, both to deal w/ the DTs and the inside blitz, as that seems to always be where we blitz. you are entitled to your opinion as am i. but i think there would be a difference with a tackle that has that initial quicknes/burst of speed along with the power to push your guards and tackles back into the pocket. with dusty we just haven't seen it. I am not trying to make out that Dusty is a great pass rusher. I tend to agree he is more a run stuffer, but I would also add that Harrison has been capable of penetrating, and is on pace to put up similar numbers to Tank. Thus I would argue the combo of Dusty/Harrison is little different from the combo of Tank/Scott. In all, while I agree w/ the general ideas you present, I just disagree Tank was such a difference maker. I think our issues on the DL go WAY beyond Tank. Besides that #2 DT position, we have a pro bowl DT and 2 pro bowl caliber DEs, none of which are playing up to expected levels. I simply disagree Tank was ever such a stud that he elevated the play of those upper tier players, and w/o him, those upper tier players suck.

Hold the phone. You want to compare 3 years w/ Tank to 1/2 of one season for Dusty? I am not sure I understand that one. One. Dusty has a grand total of 9 games played, and yet you want to compare his numbers w/ those of Tank, who has 42. Two. I never said that just Dusty was equal to Tank, but said Dusty and Harrison. Harrison has 2 sacks thus far, and seems on pace to be even w/ what Tank provided. Three. You say Dusty has no passed defended, while Tank had 3 in 3 seasons. According to ESPN, Dusty has 2 PDs this year. So Dusty has 2 PDs in 9 games, compared to Tank's 3 in 42. Oops. Take a look again at what I said, as well as the stats. We have not simply replaced Tank w/ Dusty, but w/ Dusty and Harrison. If you would like, you can look at the combo of Dusty/Harrison against Tank/Scott, which I think would be more legit. Just curious. Are you just arguing to support Tank, who you always liked, or are you truly arguing our DL's lack of pass rush is due to the loss of Tank?

i DON'T believe dusty is even close to the production we got out of tank as our #2 tackle. tank was good not only at stopping the run but putting pressure on the qb. he not only had pretty good speed for a guy that big but was quick off the snap and had a lot of push up the middle. I am not looking at pure production, because IMHO, much of Tank's "production" was due to the production of those around him. I do not buy and argument that Wale, Brown and Anderson were better because of him. I think the opposite would be true. As for now, our DL as a whole is failing to produce, and thus the play of the current DTs are not going to reflect the production of the past. Personally, I was just never "that" impressed w/ Tank. I thought he was a decent DT, but felt he benefited from those around him more than the other way around. Now this is not to say I think Dusty or Harrison are great. I simply don't believe the dropoff (if any) between Tank and our current DTs is really much. how many times have you seen dusty knocking down an opponents thrower? so to me that makes dusty a one dimensional tackle, at least at this point in his career, and one not even as good as keith traylor at stopping the run. Well, I haven't seen much knocking down of the passer by any of our DL, or defense as a whole for that matter. Is Tommie Harris one dimensional? I sure haven't seen him near the QB. rivera? what does rivera have to do with quickness and power coming out of the blocks for a defensive tackle to get push up the middle? it's not like we are playing a totally different scheme since rivera left and especially the tackle position. we still are putting them into the gaps. Few differences. When Rivera was here, we moved our DEs around more, and created more outside pressure. In doing this, our DTs were more often freed up. That is compared to now when our DEs are often blocked by only the OT, and the opponent often has extra protection inside. as far as the d as a whole i agree. we need/ed a dc like rivera who isn't a yes man and has more options in his bag of tricks. We do agree here. I've had this discussion w/ others before. By and large, we have the same personnel as we did two years ago when our defense dominated. Last year and this year though, we have flat out stunk, and injuries are no longer a valid excuse. You can point to the loss of Tank, but I simply do not agree that is a significant loss. If Tank were on this team today, I doubt seriously we would see any difference.

I think you are giving Tank WAY too much credit. Frankly, I am not sure he was even better than Dusty or Harrison. I think the problem on our defense go way beyond Tank. If you want to go back, and look at one change made which I think carries the greatest level of significant, to me that would be Rivera. W/ Rivera running the D, we were a top 5 defense. W/o, we have been in the bottom half of the league.

Agreed. I was a Benson supporter, but also had to admit it was time to move on. To me, it is similar as w/ Tank. Tank was looking good for Dallas last year, but it didn't matter to me, as I just felt it was time to move on w/ him too. Even if he does well w/ Cincy, or someone else, that doesn't mean he would have done well for us. Sometimes it takes moving on for a player to step up his game. Thomas Jones, while not the cancer, could be another example to point to. If he stuck w/ AZ, I doubt he would have ever stepped up his game.

I think there was a tad more to it, as either that article, or another, talked about Orton telling the coaches he flat out did not like the idea. About how he didn't like the idea of becoming an easy target, to which Turner told Orton to simply run out of bounds on such a play. Point is, it was talked about in current terms and not just preseason/playbook general ideas.

Agreed! Why run it at all. One. For the first time in God only knows how long, our offense is looking pretty damn solid. Why mess w/ trick plays and trick schemes? Two. In the Wildcat, your QB becomes a very live target. Miami sort of took teams by surprise w/ this, but I think you will find more and more defensive players who are told, if they run the wildcat, your job is to take the QB out. When you run the wildcat, all QB protection rules fall by wayside. Why the hell would we put Orton in jeapordy?

I agree it will be intersting to see how he does against Tenn, but I am not sure we should say that is the barometer. That is a hell of a D, and not one I think we should expect Orton to play great against.

Coach- Jeff Fisher, Titans (Mike Smith, Falcons) I would have to go w/ Smith. Atlanta was not supposed to win 4 games all year, much less in their first 7. What Tenn is doing is awesome, and he gets bonus cred for keeping Young on the pine. If he were to go 16-0, then he might trump Smith. Short of that, I just have to give Smith the nod. Defensive POY- Albert Haynesworth, Titans (Justin Tuck, Giants) I like the thinking. There are some other players w/ better or slightly better stats, but while their individual play has been solid, it has not appears to elevate the play of their units as much as w/ Albert and Tuck. Also tend to agree on the nod to Albert, as he is so good against the run, while also being so disruptive v the pass. Offensive POY- Drew Brees, Saints (Clinton Portis, Redskins) I think I would have to go w/ Portis over Brees. Brees has been exceptional, and done it w/ his top weapons hurt, but the team is only .500, and while he is well ahead in yards, other QBs are looking as good or better. Rivers, for example, has 19 TDs to 6 picks, while Brees has 15-7. Portis meanwhile, leads the league in rushing (about 250 more yards than the next guy) and scoring, w/ a sick 5 ypc. Also, Wash is looking dang good w/ a 6-2 record in a very good division. MVP- Drew Brees, Saints (runner-up: Clinton Portis, Redskins) Still going w/ Portis. See above. Offensive ROY- Chris Johnson, Titans (runner-up: Matt Forte, Bears) Right now, I think it is between CJ and Ryan. Ryan likely gets the nod, as it is simply far harder for a rookie QB to do well compared to a RB. Further, Ryan is doing more w/ less. I know how much Bear fans want to put Forte in this mix, but he is no longer even top 10 in rushing, and has a weak 3.5 ypc. Yes, I know about his total yards, but still, unless he starts becoming more effective running the ball, it isn't going to happen. Defensive ROY- Chris Horton, Redskins (runner-up: Curtis Lofton, Falcons) I would say Mayo is 2nd, but agreed on Horton. Thoughts? Yours?

I don't think we have two months. I am not sure of the exact date, but it is prior to the end of the season when you are able to still allocate money against the '08 cap. I remember a few years ago the bears re-signed Walt Harris to a new long term deal. It was during the season, but a few days after the deadline, and thus none of his new deal was able to count against that current years cap space.

I would add that this years garbage could turnout to be solid next year. Prior to the season, when you saw Atlanta, did you really think it was going to be a hard game? Year to year, there is simply too much change to assume a bad team one year will be bad the next, except Detroit

Conner, two things. One. What source are you using to say we are $9m under the cap. That seems a tad high, as it seemed we used up most of our cap dollars in the offseason. Further, I thought we used up a lot of our remaining space to front load some of Harris' deal. Two. Assuming for just a moment we are that much under the cap, or any relatively significant amount. I do not consider re-signing Brown. Sorry, but while he is among my favorite bears, he looks pretty weak out there to me, and I just can not see the point in keeping him around. When he is ready to retire and coach, I would be happy to look at him again. I can't really see doing anything w/ Lloyd. Has he shown some flashes? Sure. But seriously. He has a couple games as a bear before the injury. Simply too little to base a new contract on, unless he was willing to sign a super bear friendly deal, w/ I seriously doubt. Kyle? No, not yet. I am among his supporters, but imagine if we re-signed Rex to be new, big contract after the first chunk of the SB season. We have Kyle for another season after this one, and after that, we still have options. Point is, I want to see (at least) one full season before I consider long term deals. We are talking about the QB position, and even if we are not talking Payton Manning money, we are going to be talking big dollars, and I need more evidence before I commit such. St. Clair - I have no problem signing him long term, but only if he is willing to sign for backup money. Higher level backup money, fine. But I do not believe he is a future starter for the team, so why would we pay him like one? One thing I would consider is (if this is even possible w/ the rules) tweaking current contracts to front load some of their money in order to lighten their contracts in future years. Re-work a contract to make a greater part of the signing bonus a roster bonus, or something like that. That way you use up all our current cap space, while providing extra breathing room down the road.

I don't know about that. Vasher was our nickel before he earned a starting job, and he was pretty dang solid in that role. In fact, I also thought he would be a better nickel than starter, but then he simply did better as a starter than I expected. Still, his skills work well for nickel too. Your nickel will usually line up against a slot receiver, and that receiver is usually a smaller but quicker WR. IMHO, quickness and agility are far more important than size or pure speed for a nickel DB.

chris johnson isnt a starer, he has a few long runs in spot duty. Not to say Forte has been super, but i think the ROY looks like this right now Dude, come on. One, CJ is the starter. Take a look at the gamebook, http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamecenter/2...KC_Gamebook.pdf Two, "a few long runs in spot duty"? He has 103 carries, which ranks 13th in the league. Not as many as Forte, but FAR more than "spot duty". And he has about 40 more yards than Forte w/ about 40 fewer carries. Add in Forte on a bye and CJ facing the Colts, and the gap will only continue to rise. Sorry, but while Forte has a bright future w/ the bears, he is not a ROY.

Agreed, but all in that company have much better ypc averages. There is a lot I like about what I have seen from Forte. I like how quickly he seems to have picked up blocking. I like how he looks as a receiver. I like some of the cuts he makes and the burst. W/ that said, I still think we need to see more out of him as a runner. I fully realize our OL is weak. I fully realize opponents have been stacking the box. Still, these were never valid arguments to excuse TJ, Benson or AP when they struggled to run the ball, so I question why they are legit today for Forte. Like I said. I do like Forte, but he needs to start averaging better than 3 or 3.5 ypc.

From the Sun Times, http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/be...-bear23.article The only question I have is, why it took so long? Did the staff not feel Rex could utilize the 2 TEs as well, or did they not feel Olsen was ready last year. I know we did use 2 TE formations some last year, but nearly always, we ran out of that formation. It wasn't really part of our passing offense until this year. Now, if only I could convince Turner that Kellen Davis would be better on the field than McKie, we could use 3 TEs (plus 1 WR) and take yet another step

Some others w/ more total yards than Forte, who has 515/223 for 738: AP - 684/65 for 749 Barber - 540/247 for 787 Gore - 535/246 for 781 S. Jackson - 508/259 for 767 There may be others, but those are the ones I expected to see a solid amount of receiving (though APs were lower than I expected).

And they would be wrong. Forte has 515 rushing/ 223 receiving, for 738 total yards from scrimmage. Portis has 818 yards rushing. So w/o looking any further, all you have to do is see the leading rusher, who has more rushing yards than Forte has combined, to know Mully and Hanley are wrong.

Or Indy. Forte tore them up as if he were still in college.

Okay, I just re-watched the game, and here is what I saw. After the Payne pic, and near the goal line, we did go into what I believe we call our Moose package. In this package, we have 3 TEs, 1 FB & 1 RB. We have ZERO WRs in this package. It is a pure power play. We ran from it, and then eventually did playaction out of it. That's fine on the goal line, but what I am talking about is using it between the 20s, not just as a goal line play. And part of my point in using a 3rd TE is to get rid of Mckie. Keeping Mckie in the package only helps clutter it. What I would like to see is our start out w/ Hester outside, but the rest inside. The opponent is forced to give up quicker coverage players and go w/ power defenders. Then I have Olsen split out wide, and thus create a mismatch w/ whoever is set to cover him. Olsen and Hester work deeper, which likely forces double coverage on Hester deep, while Olsen would have a mismatch and large open seem to work w/. Meanwhile, we have multiple options w/ Davis and Clark, not to mention Forte who has proven he can block and/or be a legit receiver. I just think this formation provides many opportunities, as well as mismatches, while at the same time, I would argue we give up little to nothing by way of blocking (Mckie does little) or weapons, as I am not sure any of our WRs are that much of an upgrade over our TEs.