nfoligno

I think you misunderstood this thread. That or I need to go back and re-read the original post. The question posed has nothing to do w/ right now, or this season. The question posed was whether it would be a good idea to re-sign Rex next year to be the veteran backup behind Orton, rather than try to find a different veteran in FA.

Yea, I think it is time for both the team and Rex to move on.

With all do respect, maybe in your mind, but I seriously doubt in the mind of most voters. Forte has a 515 rush yards and a 3.5 ypc average, compared to Johnson, who has 549 and a whopping 5.3 average. Add in that Forte is going into his bye, while Johnson has already had his, and w/ Indy this week, Johnson is likely to pad the lead. Hey, we all like much of what we have seen from Forte, but he ranks high due to his high number of carries. Voters will look at averages, and Forte's average is very Benson like. One other who I think will get a lot of support is Matt Ryan, who we made look like an MVP, much less OROY.

When? I recorded the Minny game last night off NFL.com, and intend to watch tonight. Let me know when we ran that so I can watch for it. Were we simply in our moose package? Did we run the ball or pass? Was the FB in as well as the TEs? Where was Olsen lined up? Sorry for all the questions, but I am just really interested to know, if we did in fact run a 3 TE set, how we did it.

Preaching to the choir. I have been on the bandwagon to get rid of Mckie for some time now. Personally, I just don't see what he brings (positive) to the table. In the past, we had some (Shelton) who were great run blockers, or some (Pritchett) who were supposed to be solid receiving FBs, but to me, McKie is not special at either. In fact, I think he is a below average blocker, and while he may have decent hands to catch the ball, he does little to nothing after the catch. I would love to see a 3 TE set. You can have Olsen split out wide. Davis and Clark initially line up off-tackle. W/ this formation, I just think you can do a lot of things. As both Davis and Clark are good blockers and pass catchers, then can stay back to protect or run a route. They can chip block, then run a route, or separate. You can also have Davis motion into the backfield as a lead blocker (FB position, as you said) or run block from the line. Point is, there are many avenues you can go, and w/ Olsen and Hester running downfield routes, defenses would have to respect that as well. But I doubt seriously we will ever see anything like that.

While I agree, I think he is sitting because Clark and Olsen have been solid. To bring him in, you have to sit either Clark or Olsen, and neither have played their way to the bench. Me, I would personally still enjoy a 3 TE set, w/ Olsen splitting out wide, but we are not going to see that, and thus are not likely to see Davis unless Clark or Olsen go down w/ injury. Davis will get time this year on special teams, and get practice reps at TE, and may be able to step into a greater role in future years.

Maybe, but the way our secondary is dropping like flies, he could see more playing time simply based on being a veteran w/ experience. If you think about it, we are really lacking in the experience department at safety, so it would not shock me if we were to see him (not right away) start to play dime packages.

I was on Olsen about his blocking since the offseason, and especially during the preseason, but I am backing off a tad. Tony Gonzalez, Antonio Gates, Kellen Winslow, Shockey. None of these elite pass catching TEs are considered good blockers. I was on Olsen's case because he was not a good blocker, but also because of the number of drops. He is starting to look more and more like he has the potential to be an elite pass catching TE, and I think you simply accept less in terms of blocking. Do I want him to improve his blocking? Obviously. But I doubt he will ever be considered a good blocker. At the same time, if he develops into a pro bowl TE, I doubt many fans will mind.

Gotta agree w/ others. Not sure what you are watching. Clark has been a big part of the offense. He may not have the FF stats, but that is because he is essentially in a TE by committee situation. Further, Clark is a MUCH better blocker than Olsen, and thus I think we are often using him to block more often, especially as Olsen develops more and more into a legit weapon.

IND - Top offensive team, at least at one time they were and we shut them down at home. I thought our D was great that game. That's what we all thought at the time, but Indy has proven to simply not be that great of a team this year, and their offense has really struggled. So while the D looked great, Indy's play since that game has put that a tad in question. CAR - Our D did pretty good this game, I'd put it on the offense for blowing this game. Olson fumble in 3rd Quarter really shifted the momentum. CAR just marched 52 yds down the field, but the Bears held them to a FG. After the kick off, Hester runs is out of the endzone 24 yds and the first play was to Olsen who fumbles giving CAR the ball at the 26 yd line and Stewart blows us up for 19yds and a TD. After that our O couldn't do anything and only got one first down. Defense didn't play "bad", but we were facing a team w/o their best offensive weapon too. And w/o receivers to fear, we still allowed a rookie RB to tear us up pretty good. TAM - We shut there run down almost 100% allowing Griese to dink/dunk. He did throw for 407yds, but don't forget Kyle through the pick 6 in the 2nd quarter and an INT in the endzone when throwing to Forte. Also, with 3:11 left in the game it was 3rd and 2 and we ran play action and no one was open, another 3 and out. Thats when Griese marched 79 yds to tie it up and put it into overtime. No one is saying our offense is perfect, but was it ever expected to be? Like w/ Carolina, TB was w/o their top receiver (Galloway) and yet Griese had 400 yards. You can say it was dink and dunk, but we allowed it w/o ever adjusting. PHI - Another good offensive team, held McNabb in check. Once again the D was pretty good. Once again, we face a team mssing their top weapon (Westbrook) and once again, their offense doesn't miss a beat. Buckhalter had 16 carries w/ a 4.1 avg? Huh? Defense did pretty good. Not great, but pretty good, which is partially why we won. DET - We should have shut them out, D was pretty good though Seriously, its detroit. ATL - Our game plan was to shut down Turner and put it in the hands of a Rookie QB, we shut down the NFL leading rusher at the time, but the rook tore our secondary up. I think we would have won this one if we wouldn't have squibbed kicked it. Lovie also agrees. But should it have come down to that? We made their rookie look all-pro. It is one thing to say you are going to make priority #1 shutting down the run, but should the defense not be good enough to also stop a rookie QB? Heck, how about slow him down. Zero sacks. MIN - Game plan once again was to shut the run game down, I think if AP didn't break off a 54 yd td we would have accomplished that part of the game plan. Once again, our secondary allowed Ferrotte to throw for almost 300 yds. In the end, we won and we should be happy. Hey, everyone is happy, but I think you are missing the point. We are so happy, we are thinking playoffs, but to think like that, we also have to hope all phases of our team are capable. Right now, the defense simply doesn't look good. Ferrotte (not exactly a pro bowl QB) had 300 yards and a couple scores, and we allowed 3 rushing scores as well. Oh yea, and once again, minimal pass rush. Looking over the first 7, I think our D has done well. We've changed our D game plans unlike what Hampton says (keys:Manning, McNabb, Delhomme, Turner, Graham/Dunn, Peterson). I still don't see alot of changes during the game, but have we ever in 5 yrs w/ Lovie? Our key will be to get healthy on D during the bye week and to game plan on shutting out Detroit before facing Ten. The TEN game plan will be like ATL/MIN by concentrating on defending the run. Hell, lets talk about Rex Grossman or Cedric Benson bahahaha You think our D has done well? 2nd from last in the league against the pass. Yea, we are 11th v the run, but does that really wash? And we are around 20th in points allowed. Sorry, but any way you want to dice it, our D has not done well. I don't fault the secondary too much, but the play of our front 7 (where we have so much money tied up) has simply not been good. PO

Listening to Hampton on the Score today, and he threw a couple things out there: (1) He said we do not adjust on defense for different opponents, and simply believe our scheme will work equally effective against anyone, regardless of what sort of offense we face. That isn't to say we do not see ANYTHING different, but that we run the same scheme regardless of what we face. (2) There was a lot of talk about motivation after the flat defensive performance(s). Hampton said a coach doesn't get a player ready for a game by screaming and yelling on game day, but does so throughout the week. He talked about how a coach begins dropping comments here and there, and working a players psyche on Wednesday, and continuing through sunday. He talked about how good Rivera was at this, and how much of that was from Buddy Ryan. But the point was, you mentally prepare a team/unit throughout the week. Hampton said Babich doesn't know how to prepare a team. In fact, he went on to say, "Babich doesn't have a clue how to emotionally prepare this team." Wow. That is damning. (3) There was a goal line stand, where we gave up the short rushing TD. Hampton pointed out Brown, and used the example to show how far he has fallen. Can't recall who it was (I think it was actually a CB) who stopped the RB short w/ a below the waist wrap. The RB didn't go down, but was stood up, and Brown came in for the hit/wrap. But even w/ the RB stood up for Brown, he could do little, and the RB fought through Browns hit to get into the endzone. There was a time Brown would have put such a pop on that RB that he would have been out of the game.

It is difficult to make any significant changes during a regular week. You can tweak this or that, but larger scale changes are difficult during a regular week, when you have to spend about 1/2 the week specifically game planning for the opponent, rather than focusing too much on internal changes. So often teams look to the bye week as an opportunity to make larger scale changes. Also a time when many teams make coaching changes/adjustments, which also affect scheme. Anyway, will we make any significant changes, or will we continue to say our scheme and game planning are fine, and that it is all on execution. There is plenty of history with Lovie to suggest few changes will be made, but I think we may actually see some changes. In the past, when the D has struggled, you can say it was due to major injuries. Yes, we have some injuries now, but (1) was our D playing great when Tillman and Vasher were healthy and (2) our front 7 is healthy, and yet under-producing. So, while we have suffered injuries, I am not sure we can simply write off our problems so easily. Few things that are possible: (1) Is Babich in the booth or on the field. Where ever he is, maybe he switches (again). (2) Could Lovie start taking over some/more of the in-game playcalling? (3) Increased blitzes - We blitz a fair bit now, but I wonder if we won't see more blitzes from different angles. (4) Stunts - This is something that has not been a part of our defense, but I did see a few stunts in the last game. One thing I would really like to see, but do not believe we will, is our CBs playing closer to the LOS. I think that would really have a significant impact on the defense, but just do not think that is something we will see, whether due to coaching or players.

Hey, its a bye week, so how about a little fun. Here is how I see some of our players (offense) finishing the year statistically. Orton: 3,900 yards - 24 TDs - 8 picks. Forte: 1,150 rushing yards - 11 TDs - 56 catchs - 480 receiving yards - 2 TDs. Olsen - 60-900-6 (I think he is on the verge of taking over as a lead receiver) Clark - 45-525-2 Lloyd - 60-750-4 Davis - 50-660-3 I think our run game is going to continue to struggle. Forte may have a good/big game here and there, but I think he will continue to struggle on the ground, due in largest part to our OL. Meanwhile, Orton is going to have to take it to the air much as he has the last 3 games.

I love the idea of our going 7-2 over our next 9, but I just question whether we are consistent enough of a team to do that. In particular, I question whether we can real off 6 straight wins to finish the year. There have been times our D dominates, but then other times where our D looks just flat out awful. They are times when our offense looks unstoppable, but other times you wonder if they can move the ball. Special teams was outstanding yesterday, but other times is getting torched. So the question I have is, can this team be consistent enough to meet these expectations? Chicago: Currently 4-3 Week 8: Bye Week 9: DET – W – There is no way we lose this one If it were not for the bye week, I would almost consider this a potential upset. I could see our coming off a big win, and looking ahead to the matchup w/ Ten. But w/ a bye week, I just don't see any reason we should lose this one. It's not going to happen, but I would love if Det were to upset Wash this week. I just hate playing a team that is winless. Week 10: TEN – L – I hope I am wrong here but they are looking mighty good Tenn is a good, solid team. I think Tenn is very similar to Carolina. Solid defense. Not a great QB, but not a bad one. Solid OL and great 1-2 punch at RB. It took Carolina a late comeback to win, but our offense is better since then. This is at home, and I am calling for an upset victory here. Week 11: @GBP – L – Assuming Rogers is healthy at GB I see a loss We are GBs 1st home game after a few rough road games. I think home field wins this one. Week 12: @STL – W – I see no problems here as long as we contain Jackson Funny. This team looked like one of the worst in the league before the coaching change. But since then they are 2-0, beating two VERY good teams (Wash/Dallas). This is still a month away, but may not be the push over we think, and will be in Stl. I see an upset against us here. Week 13: @MIN – W – If we can beat them with no starting DBs healthy, we can do it again Minny gets GB, TB and Jax before playing us, and I think they will feel pretty beat up. Orton will have another big day against their non-covering secondary. Week 14: JAX – W – Jacksonville is on the slide Jax is about to be on their way up. They are 3-3, but their next three are: Cle, Cincy & Det, so lets just say 6-3. Then they also have Minny and Houston, so their next group before playing us is not too difficult, and they can get into a groove. Game is in Chicago though, and we will win. Week 15: NOS – W – At home I feel we can take them – they have NO defense Nor do we. Brees was getting it done w/o Colston or Shockey. Bush should be healthy, and I think this will be too much for our defense. I like Orton, but in a shoot-out v Brees, I think he loses. Week 16: GBP – W – Crucial game that gives us the lead in our division We will not be swept, and hold at home. Week 17: @HOU – W – We will finish the season strong with a win here Agreed. Chicago final total – 11-5 I see us going 6-3, w/ those 3 spread out a bit more, giving us a 10-6 record heading into the playoffs, which will be more than enough to win our division. GB looks pretty solid, but they have a very difficult schedule coming out of their bye. Minny simply doesn't look that good, and have a difficult finish to their schedule. We may not have homefield advantage, but we enter the playoffs, and for a change, enter w/ a pro bowl QB.

I give them credit for the 6 yard drive. If they scored 3, sure, then you can say they didn't earn those 3 points. But they did get into the endzone. How many times over the years have you seen our D (or special teams) hand the offense the ball w/ 1st and goal, only to see us walk away w/ 3? The STs gets credit for putting the offense into the great situation, but I think you still have to give the offense credit for capitalizing on that opportunity. I think they also get credit for a couple drives that ended w/ 3. Again, if they were given the ball and went no where before settling on a FG, then I can see not crediting the offense, but picking up 20 or 30 yards in order to get into FG range does count. Agreed that it is too bad our offense finally shines when the D tanks. Imagine how good this team would look right now if the D was playing up to expectation while the O was playing as well as they are.

tackles are a poor way to judge a CB. Aside from a tackle here and there in run support, a CB getting a tackle means he allowed the WR to make the catch. I would much rather see lower tackle numbers and higher PDs stats, which to me indicates better play for the CB.

I don't think you can look at it that way. For several years, the special teams have given the bears good field position, but the offense could not capitalize. Even if they move the ball only 20 or whatever yards for a FG, they still did move the ball and put points on the board. Special teams was a factor, but the reality is, our offense was good enough to capitalize on chances, and thus deserves credit. So does the special teams, obviously, but I don't think you can take away from the offense. Orton had 280 yards and 2 scores on the books, though one was taken away at the goal line as credited as a fumble recovery. Not to mention the big Booker drop that would have been 6. I think there is reason to question our run game right now, but I do not think there is much to question our passing game, which is working pretty darn well, and w/o great weapons.

Agreed. Still, they kept him so they must feel he is a worthwhile development prospect. Bring in a vet to back up Kyle next yr (if Kyle continues to play like this) and leave Hanie as the #3. We need our draft picks to address the other issues we have (safety, o-line, etc). Time will tell, but I am simply not sold on just how much they like Hanie. They kept him, but it isn't like they had a boat load of options. For all we know, he was simply considered the best of a weak bunch. If Orton shines this year, I can easily see our getting a veteran to backup Orton, and then going w/ Hanie as our 3rd, but I also think the odds of our drafting a QB to compete w/ Hanie for that 3rd spot are fairly high.

Get ready to loose it. I would say the odds of our drafting 3 OL in the first three rounds rates about slim to none. That simply is not Angelo's style. I think you are better off simply hoping for two, but even there, I think the odds are not great.

I guess you can put me in the minority on this one. I think this is a very good deal for both teams. For Dallas, they finally get a WR to replace Terry Glenn. No other WR has been able to step up since the absence of Glenn, and now teams are really focusing more and more on TO. W/ Roy Williams opposite TO, you immediately have one of the best WR combo's in the game. Add to that Witten, who may be the best TE in the game, and a hell of a ground game w/ Barber/Jones, and that is one sick offense. Romo is out for 3 games, but Brad Johnson can likely be servicable w/ the above weapons, and by the time Romo is back, RW will have had time to learn the system and gain some comfort. More than anything though, this move is likely for the playoffs, which I think they are still VERY likely to make, whether as a division winner or wild card. They gave up a lot, but (a) they are likely to be picking closer than not to the backend of the round, ( they had extra draft picks and © this is a move made in hopes of a SB, and if they win the SB, who will argue the picks were not worth it? For Detroit, the season is as good as over, and Roy Williams was heading out regardless, but w/ this move, they just secured a bunch of draft picks. And it isn't like they are w/o receiving weapons w/o Roy. Many will say TO and RW can't get along, but I think so long as the team is winning, TO will remain happy, and I think this moves does a lot to keep this team winning.

Um, you mean the way the team didn't want Orton to rot on the roster? The only reason Orton ever got a chance we due to Rex, and then Griese, failing. If not for that, he would have rotted on the pine, and he was a 4th round pick, as compared to an undrafted rookie FA. Honestly, I think fans are higher on Hanie than the staff or team in general.

Sorry, but no way am I putting my faith in hanie. I will wait and see Orton for the entire year before I decide how high of a need QB is. I am still inclined to think top 3, but if Orton continues to develop throughout the entire season, then I could drop QB on my list a bit, but not all the way off it. I don't have any real problem w/ Hanie, but I am not putting any faith in an undrafted QB. That isn't to say I wouldn't love to see him develop, but doing some nice things against guys now flipping burgers does not warrant passing on a QB if that is still viewed as a need.

here is the problem with your analysis.... we don't have the personnel to run the cover 2 to utilize it to it's full advantage (if there is one anymore. i am not a fan of this either). Don't we? All I can say is, the players we have were drafted to play just this sort of scheme. Further, when looking at individual talent, I think it would appear we do have the sort of players for a cover two scheme. We have (supposedly) lighter and quicker DL, supposedly capable of penetrating and pressuring. We have corners who were considered solid zone coverage, cover two style, corners. We also have fast LBs, which is necessary in the cover two. I agree we lack at the safety position, but I am not sure our safeties would look great in any scheme. Understand, I agree it doesn't show on the field, but at the same time, when looking at individual skill sets, our players do appear to fit the cover two scheme, at least on paper. you ask why we don't put our corners closer to the LOS. this is extremely important in this type of defense. It is? When i watch Indy, Carolina, TB and other teams, their CBs often play off the LOS too. Maybe not as much as ours, but they do play off. The idea of the scheme is to keep everything in front. CBs keep the WRs in front until they release, at which point the S is expected to keep the WR in front of them. IMHO, a key isue is how much room we allow though. The CB is supposed to keep the WR in front, but not w/ so much room as to prevent their ability from making a jump on the ball. Further, I think that we are forced to use our LBs near the LOS is hurting too, as the LB in the cover two is expected to be key in making stops and hits on quick slants. the answer is they are not bump and run man corners. we have seen this in the past where peanut did play up and got his hat handed to him by quick/fast wideouts. the same thing WITH vasher. whether either has improved any since lovie has been here is unclear but clearly in the past they got toasted playing bump and run. I question this. I understand that our CBs would struggle trying to play bump and run w/ the likes of Steve Smith. Elite speed can school our CBs in this regard. However, our CBs give space to all WRs, as if all WRs have Steve Smith speed. Did you see how deep we played off Moose? If our CBs can bump and run w/ Moose, then they don't belong on the field. I would point to our game against NO in the playoffs. It is one of the few times we played man coverage. Drew Brees talked after the game about how unexpected that was. It was unexpected because it was a scheme we rarely, if ever, employed. But I think our CBs showed they can (a) play man and ( play closer to the LOS w/ solid effects. Also, I am not saying they should play so close to the LOS that they can tell what the WR eat for breakfast based on his breath. But while that is one extreme, so is how deep our CBs play. So while I am not saying they should play w/ their toes on the LOS, I also think it is mistake to play 7 or 8 yards deep, then immediately backpeddle on the snap. I would like to see them in the 3-5 yard range, which (a) still puts them in a position to turn and run w/o getting burned ( allows for a quicker break on the ball and © puts them in the area that does allow them to bump the WR w/o a flag. That doesn't mean they have to bump every time, but at least allow the WR the thought they may. As deep as they play, the WR doesn't have to use a move at all as he knows any contact would draw a flag. can they be coached to compensate? i don't know. i would think it could be possible to adjust their technique but if it is, our coaching staff hasn't found the answer to it. But has the staff even tried? As it doesn't appear to be part of the scheme, how much do our WRs practice bumping the WRs at the LOS? If you don't practice it, how effective will you be when you try on Sundays? second... we don't have safeties to play this type of defense. yet we continue to pound square pegs into round holes to run it. Actually, I would argue this could benefit our safeties. (a) Because our CBs do not bump the WR at all, and allow clean releases, it leaves the safeties less time to react and get into position to cover. A WR runs a go route against a CB that doesn't even pretend to hinder his route, and the safety simply doesn't have time to get into position, which is made worse by our slower safeties. If you bump the WR, the safety has more time to read, react, and get into position. ( If you bump and delay the WR, you prevent the 3 step drops from being so easy and effective. If you do this, you allow your DL time to rush the passer, which is near impossible on the short 3 step drops. If you provide the DL legit opportunities to rush the passer, the safeties can benefit from the QB pressure. Right now, our CBs do little to nothing, which allows the WR clean releases and allows the QB to make quick throws. so that leaves our entire db's at a disadvantage running it. As said above, I simply disagree. Because of the way our CBs play, it puts our entire defense at a disadvantage. We give the WRs so much space, that we allow easy 5-8 yard completions. This negates any pass rush we might create if the QB is forced to hold the ball an extra second or two, which simply puts more stress on the entire defense. Now if the CBs try to press, and (a) are so bad they do nothing to hinder the WR and/or ( the extra time bought for the DL is to no avail as we still can't pressure the QB, then I would agree we need to re-think the idea, but until we try, how can we know?

Heading into the season, I think even Orton supporters had fairly low expectations. Well, a look at the numbers is a bit surprising. Orton has 198 passes, which ranks him 6th in the league. Far higher than I think most would have expected. Orton has a completion % of 61.6%, which is not great, but very solid. Even better, IMHO, is that he has been over 60% in 4 of his 6 games, and a 5th was 59.4%. He has 1,386 yards passing, which ranks him 8th in the league. His YPA stands at an even 7, which is not bad at all, particularly for a "game manager" which you would expect to be under 7. He has 8 TDs passes, which ties him for 8th in the league. And all 8 TDs are in the last 4 games. He has 4 Ints, and an even 2.0 Int%. Among QBs w/ at least 8 TDs, he ranks 2nd in TD/Int ratio. He has been dropped 12 times (avg 2 per game) which is not bad at all considering how poor our OL is. His QB rating stands at 87.6, ranking him 15th (top 1/2) in the league. I also like that his rating is 80 or better in 4 of 6 games, once again showing consistency. Overall, we rank (as a team) 11th in total offense, and 11th in scoring (24.7). As most of this has been on offense, as opposed to Hester and D, that is all the more impressive. By comparison, Rex through 6 games in 2006 (considered his best stint as a starting QB). 189 pass attempts (9 fewer). 1,387 passing yards (even w/ Kyle). Completion % of 57.9, nearly 4 below Kyle. Further, Rex only had 2 out of 6 games over 60%. Rex had 10 TDs (2 more than Orton) but also had 7 picks (3 more). I think most believe Orton is doing well, but I was simply surprised at how well when looking at the numbers. When you consider how poor our OL is and how little he has by way of receiving options, it is all the more impressive. That Orton is among the top 1/2 of the NFL in terms of QBs, and even top 10 in numerous catagories is very surprising. That our team offense is ranked JUST outside the top 10 is even more shocking. Lets just hope Orton can continue to develop and keep the offense on track.

I would have to look at the tape again too, but this would seem to go against everything our staff has always said about how we play. For years, fans have screamed to move our CBs around to matchup our best CBs w/ opponents best WRs, but we have never seemed willingly to do that. At the same time, opponents would move around their WRs to get better matchups, because we do not move our CBs around. While I too have to look at film, the stats seem to point to Tillman playing WRs other than just White. I realize it is possible for a CB to tackle a WR other than the one he was initially covering, but it is less often the left CB will tackle the WR playing the opposite side of the field, and yet the stat sheet shows that was at times the case. Further still, we don't play man in coverage, we play zone. So if we are not playing man, that is further evidence we are less likely to be moving around our CBs in order to matchup w/ specific WRs.