nfoligno

* Orton looked solid and seems to be showing growth. Nice to see after we watched Grossman regress. Let's hope this continues. Coming weeks will be a big test. Remember, two years ago, Rex started out looking very good, but as teams got more game tape on him, they learned how to attack him. While there is tape on him from the past, I am not sure how much value the film from his rookie year is, and his time last year was minimal. I think he has the ability, but how he plays when defenses adjust to him will tell a lot. * Atlanta and Minneapolis next. It makes tonight's game all that much more interesting. Both are games the Bears can win but we're going on the road to Atlanta. Pretty surprised by Atlanta this year. They are not a great football team, by any means, but it was questioned if they would win a game. They have played much better than expected. We should win, but it doesn't look like the cake walk it did prior to the season. Minny will be a tough game. Winable, but tough. I think they are much better off w/o Jackson at QB, even if their current starter isn't all that. * Peanut has made amends for his brain-fart that cost us a game. Way to man up, Nut! Looking at the stat line, something about Peanut that stood out was more PDs than tackles. I much prefer for my CBs to have more PDs, as higher tackle numbers usually means they are allowing the catch. Great job Peanut. I hope opponents WRs call him out every week. * Booker's catch was one for the highlight films. Outstanding. And I have to admit, I wasn't a fan of bringing him back. Glad the Bears GM and coaching staff are smarter than me. It looks like he can still "git 'er done." Booker is not a great WR anymore, but is a solid veteran who can help this offense, which is what we need. * Who else was pissed off about that Hester fumble? He cost me a bunch of points in fantasy not to mention costing the Bears D a much-deserved shutout. His play at WR has been improving but his bread and butter is the return game. He seems timid. Anyone else seeing this? Although, I have to admit, his athletic ability, to be able to stop on a dime and reverse field on the TD pass, was amazing. Nobody could keep up with him there. That play is unstoppable. I think he is looking for the homerun on every return. I actually like the way D.Manning (who I can't stand on defense) has played. When DM catches the ball, the simply takes off downfield. Hester seems to dance around a lot looking for the big holes. The homeruns are great, but I would really like to see more consistant gains out of Hester. * Roy Williams is a huge friggen tool. It always stuns me, even after all the times I've seen it, how selfish some of these guys can be. Is there something in the DNA of a typical NFL WR that makes them this way? TO's remarks yesterday after his team won are another example. I just don't get it. Um, where did he go to school? That would be Texas. Vasher may be the exception, but wow do Texas players really seem to be weak mentally. So long as Mack Brown is running the show, I think Texas will put out talent on the college level, but I think I would just as soon avoid drafting Texas players. There are some good ones, but way too many busts coming out of that program. * And no, I don't want Roy Williams on this team, to answer the question in another thread. I know the guy has talent and can really make plays... But I don't want the cancer. I don't want the selfish play. I don't want to see drops out of a guy who supposedly is "Mr. Perfect" in his own mind. Did anyone else notice how when the ball wasn't perfectly thrown he ranted and raved on the sidelines, hammering his own QB? But then when he was hit in the hands and just outright dropped it, he acted like nothing had happened? I mean, TOOLBOX! Be consistent at least! If you're going to demand perfection from others, be a perfectionist! Hypocrite! Agreed. I know we need talent at the WR position, but just question the value of these prima dona's. When things are going well, they are incredible, but they seem to fold too easily as soon as things go downhill. Dallas loses one game, and TO is spouting off. Chad Johnson gets worse and worse as the team struggles, and only makes things worse. Moss was awesome for NE so long as things were going well, but as soon as they started to go south a bit, instead of stepping up, he seemed to be stepping out. Roy? I don't even have to talk about him. The Prima Dona WRs can look unbelievable, but when the chips are down, they fold. * I'm starting to get the feeling that there are a lot of god-awful football teams in the NFL this year. Seriously, who scares you? Maybe, with a little luck, we can be the tallest midget this season. Who knows. I'm not predicting Superbowl but damn if I see a team out there I think we can't beat. Let's stay healthy, keep "stacking wins" and see where this leads. If Orton continues to progress and this wasn't just about playing the shitty Lions, maybe we've got something here. That's the funny thing about preseason predictions. GB, Minny, NO and Seattle were all predicted to be among the top, but none have really stepped up. At the same time, some teams who were not expected to be so good are looking better than expected (NYG, Wash, TB, Atl & US). I agree there are few dominant teams, in either conference. At the same time, I also think some teams we expected to be easy are not. But I agree w/ you, that this is a good year for us. There is no reason we should not be able to go far.

IMHO, calling him out for being late to meetings/training, furthering the issue of his being upset about Bradley's release, and also going public w/ his being upset about his "out of wedlock child", are far worse than if his knee was simply hurting. I agree the staff often tries to hide or cover up injuries, but to me, these recent events have made for a MUCH greater issue than if his knee was simply not 100%. So, given the teams history, I understand your thinking, but don't see it being the case here.

Um, when did I say we needed to go through a rebuilding mode? I said, personnel wise, we should have one of the best defenses in the league. I questioned whether our coaches would allow for that defense to shine, but didn't question the talent. Even now, as many question the pass rush ability of our DL, I still believe the issue is coaching rather than personnel. On offense, I supported the move to Orton. Yes, I wanted to draft a QB, but not to start this year. I said we needed to build the OL, for now and the future, but how is wanting to build the OL equal to rebuilding the entire team? Have we played better than I expected? Yes. While some will disagree, especially bears88, I attribute that more than any one area to Orton. Our receiver position is as bad as I can recall, and yet he is doing a very solid job IMHO. W/o mistakes. Obviously not. But i think he has been running the offense well (for the most part) keeping the D fresh and moving the offense to score points. Many will say our OL, but personally, I have not been impressed w/ the OL. I think Orton's pocket presence is making them look a bit better than they are/have been. And Forte is slipping through tiny cracks, and thus, also making them look better. I didn't say Forte over Orton, because I think more was expected of Forte.

Crackerdog will now be a chiefs fan. He just loves Bradley soooo much.

Now that is the biggest under-statement I have read in a LONG LONG time.

Funny how you show up w/ this sort of posting after wins. Where exactly were your posts when we were 1-2? So now that we are a .500 team, you are screaming from the top of your lungs? Huh?

As I said to Lt2, it is hindsight in the sense of after the draft, but no really considering how they have actually looked. If we went off that, Forte would likely be a 1st round pick. I simply am not going to read into too much w/ regard to Brohm as of yet. He is a rookie QB, and I am not sure what you expect of a rookie QB. Possibly more than any other position, QBs need time to develop. Maybe I am simply wrong (wouldn't be a 1st by any means) but I still would have preferred we came away from this last draft w/ a QB. I was high on Flacco, but would not have taken him w/ our 1st pick, which is what it would have cost us to get him.

Two different levels of hindsight. First level would be immediatly after the draft, before the players do a thing. This sort of hindsight allows you to take a step back from the draft, and consider how you might have done it if you had a chance to do it over again. The second level would be after the players have shown something. Then Forte would likely be a 1st round pick, Williams could be a 2nd day pick and Bennett? Who knows.

Vindicated? Seriously? Chris Williams T - Injured and out. Oh yea, and injury red flags had other teams passing on him. Matt Forte RB - Stud in the making. Earl Bennett WR - Rookie WRs may not always explode onto the scene, but has he even been active on game days yet? Marcus Harrison DT - Looking okay. Craig Steltz DB - Barely made the 53 man roster. Zack Bowman DB - gone Kellen Davis TE - Made the team, but not much of a role. Deep depth. Ervin Baldwin DE - Didn't make the team. Chester Adams - Gone LaRocque LB - Nope. Kirk Barton T - Bye bye Marcus Monk - see ya. 6 of 12 are already gone, and only 2 actually playing. That is vindication?

Not sure how valid the question is. Many wanted Flacco, but I am not sure even those who wanted him wanted to trade up so far to get him. The reality is, Baltimore took him way higher than most felt he was worth. I would also point out there is no way to know where Forte would have been drafted if we had not taken him. Baltimore took Rice later in the 2nd. SD took Jacobs and then Det took Smith, before our 3rd round pick. While I am not saying Forte would have made it to our 3rd round pick, I do think he could have fallen to the back end of the 2nd round. So, if we are going to play hind-sight, why not say we move up w/ our 3rd round pick into the 2nd round to grab Forte, rather than move up to the mid 1st to grab Flacco? If we are going to play a bit of hindsight, I still think OL in the 1st, Brohm in the 2nd and then move up to grab Forte in the late 2nd. We would have given up Bennett and maybe Bowman (early 3rd and early 5th) to get this done.

One, I agree our lack of penetration inside is a problem. Two, but I would argue our DEs are a bit part of the problem. It hurts the defense when opponents are able to single block our DEs, and IMHO, how we rush our DEs is a big reason teams can do this. When you know how a player is going to rush the passer, you make it easier for the OT, and thus there is not the need to double our ends. Three, Because of #2, opponents are better able to devote extra blockers inside, thus making life more difficult for our DTs, but also providing extra help to cover inside blitzes. Few interior blitzes I have seen have been effective, while outsite blitzes seem to have a much greater effect. IMHO, part of this is because opponents are maxing out interior protection, thus when we do blitz from the outside, it is less likely to be picked up. I agree that allowing more freedom in how our Des attack the passer potentialy leaves us more exposed to some runs, as well as reverses or end arounds. At the same time, I think the benefit of increased pass rush out-weighs the potential damage of those runs. Stopping the run is great, but if we do not find a way to better pressure the QB, we are in trouble just the same. Finally, I would add this. If we could improve our pass rush w/ the front four, we would free up our LBs more, thus allowing them to better position themselves against the run. Right now, we are having to blitz our LBs at lot (often inside). If we allow our DEs to better attack the QB, we may be exposed to outside runs, but we would free up our LBs mroe, and we have LBs w/ the sideline-to-sideline speed to cover the edges if they are not having to blitz.

1) Running a conventional play to Forte has a better chance of success. The previous three plays, which happened to be runs, which happened to be when the Eagles KNEW the Bears were going to run, tallied 16 yards. I would disagree w/ this. 1st run netted 2 yards. Then we passed for 4. Then we were in 3rd and 4, and it was not automatic we would run. If we ran and didn't pick up the 1st, Phily would have plenty of time to score. 1st down was more important here than clock, and Phily was not fully committed to just the run. This is when Forte hit them for 10. Forte then picked up 2 and then 4 yards. This time, on 3rd and 4, clock was everything, and Phily was sold out to stuff the run. Sorry, but while a Forte run may not have been a bad call, trying something different to pick up the 1st down is just as good in my book. 2) Running an end-around has a higher risk of turnover. How much higher? I understand the logic, but if you send a rookie into a pile, I think there is a decent chance of his being stripped, especially when that is going to be just what the defense is going after. 3) There was just over a minute left, and the point was to run down the clock first, and get the first down second. Basically agree, but I just don't think running the end around was as bad, for example, as a pass here. You are still killing the clock. And that is what we did. We didn't get the first, but also kept the clock running, and punted w/ about 28 seconds remaining, giving them 17 seconds for their final drive, w/o timeouts. I don't mind trying something different, but I think it's idiotic to do it at that time. And I simply disagree. I understand your logic, but at the same time, for an offense that has been simply so predictable, I can not attack the OC for trying something different.

I think that has to do with the player himself. I thought Polite outplayed him in preseason and showed more running and catching it. I would have been happier if we would have dropped McKie for Polite. I am not at all against the idea of using a FB for more than blocking, but I simply do not believe we have a FB very good at doing such. Frankly, I don't think much of McKie's blocking either. On a side, w/o trying to be too great of an ass, by questioning the staff for keeping McKie over Polite, are you not doing similar to what you have been ripping Jason for? If we use prior reasoning, we must simply assume McKie is the best option because those who get paid to make such decisions made the call. I think we are using the TE's well. But I have to admit, every time Olsen catches it I am waiting for the fumble. True, but everytime I see a pass, I cringe as I am waiting to see the ball bounce off the receivers hands. He doesn't like anything that isn't Forte up the middle. lol. The fact is that Philly had stacked the run and anything we ran was not going anywhere. Play action would have been good their but you want to keep the clock running I do understand Jason's comment, and running near the sideline when you are trying to kill the clock is the most legit point (IMHO), but still disagree.

Come on AZ. You just talked about how you dismiss Madden, but in doing so, you are dismissing a HOF coach, and one who is still very involved in the game. If you are simply going off the "cred" level, how do you have enough cred to dismiss (or even disagree) w/ anything a HOF coach says? I would further point out the interview I have mentioned in the past. Former bears, you know, men who actually played in the NFL, called out our coaches for the same things Jason did. I just blows my mind when a poster tries to pretend that we as fans have no right to an opinion, and should simply accept anything and everything the staff does or says, simply because they are there and we are here. Come on. When Lovie says, "trust me", you actually do? Always?

Look man, no defense unknown. Agreed that all systems are basically known, but I would say playcalls w/in a system can generate the same sort of confusion Zod (or whoever it was) is seeking. The reason these guys are giving up yardage is the individual efforts not the cover 2. Like that TD to Jackson, thats Mike Brown getting beat not the system. We have gone back and forth enough on this I think. I agree execution is a big part, but also think system (whether you want to say cover two or whatever the name is) is a factor. If our system dictates that our DBs play soft coverage, and a team is beating us w/ quick slants, than I think the system is in fact hurting us. I think nfo is right that you dont change to a defense where the coaches are not familiar with. Thats a recipe for disaster. I have cut, paste, and saved this comment. Expect me to use this early and often in the future And if you bring different coaches with a different scheme at the end of the year, then you probably have to change players to fit the new scheme. Maybe. I would say it depends on the new scheme, and how different it is from ours. I have heard of the cover two, the Lovie two, the Tampa two. They all stem from the same scheme, but are different. If we go away from the Lovie two, and move to a scheme like Dungy's (very similar to ours, yet different) than I doubt you need much change. Frankly, when I look at our personnel, I am not sure how many we would need to change if we simply ran a very generic 4-3. And actually, if Madden says something we should probably do the opposite. That guy is as senile as they get. He has his senior moments, and his love for Farve is way over the top, but I would not write automatically write off what a HOF coach says so easily. Tampa is sitting at 3-1 with a top defense and they are actually in the cover 2 more than us. Maybe we need more cover 2..... As said above, they run a scheme similar, but I would not agree our schemes are identical.

I really saw the DB's laying off the LOS to a point of ridiculousness! Our DB's can lay some wood, so why not bump more often? Your asking the wrong person, as I have no idea why we don't. If I see tillman matched up against someone like Steve Smith, I can better understand. I might still disagree, but I understand. But when I see our DBs show so much respect for the likes of Moose, Mark Clayton, Antonio Bryant, etc., I just don't get it.

Its also entertaining to watch all the hypocracy of people making excuses for Kyle that they would rip Rex for. Its funny stuff. Two points I would make. (a) There were plenty of excuses for Rex early on too. It was only after long exposure to those sort of plays the excuses dried up. If Orton has bad play over a longer period of time, you can bet few here would excuse him. ( While he has not been the "game manager" many expected, and has in some ways been more Rex-like, I would argue he has still displayed far better pocket presence than Rex did. And yes, that includes the awful 2nd half against the Eagles. Orton had a couple plays that were flat out on him, but IMHO, if Rex were in the game w/ that sort of blitz/pass rush, the number of sacks and turnovers would have been even higher. Its also safe to say that we now have a case of Good Kyle and Bad Kyle, so it will be interesting to see if he can overcome the turnovers and sacks as this was supposed to be an area of strength. First, I would say he already did that. Against Phily last night, he had the dreadful 3rd quarter, but his first series of the 4th quarter, w/ a one point lead, he avoided turnovers and sacks, while leading the team downfield and into FG range, putting us up by 4, rather than just 1. On the next series, we basically ran it, but on the 3 yard line, did put it in Orton hands, and he (from the endzone) hit Clark for a 4 yard gain. That may not seem like much, but it was positive yards, and set up 3rd and 4, rather than 3rd and 7. Second, against TB, Orton threw 2 picks, but then led the team on 3 scoring drives. That was one problem w/ Rex. When he turned it over, things only seemed to get worse. It was like those mistakes were in his head, and he couldn't get them out. Orton has made mistakes, but has also shown an ability to over-come them.

After either the Carolina, or the TB game, there was a stat which said we ran the cover two only 40% of the time. W/ that said, I think the issue more surrounds our continuing to run aspects of the cover two, or at least as it is known w/ Lovie. We may not have two deep safeties, and thus are not playing the cover two, but other aspects of the system are still there. We still see our DBs playing off the LOS, and often by as much as 7 or 8 yards. From there, our DBs can not touch the WR as it would be beyond the 5 yard cushion area. And they are very exposed to quick hitch and/or slant routes. We still see the defense playing zone coverage. Zone coverage can be effective when you have a solid pass rush, and can even offer more turnover potential, but w/o a pass rush, it is easier to find holes in the zone. We still rush the pass the same way. We run our DEs to the outside nearly 100% of the time. Wale doesn't have the speed anymore, and is more often simply stopped. Brown hits the edge w/ more speed, but the LT just pushes him far wide, and away from the QB. So technically speaking, we may not often run the cover two, as we often move a safety up, but we continue to run many of the aspects of the cover two, and IMHO, it is those aspects of the cover two that are the problem far more than the schems name sake (where the safeties lineup).

Phily would have had double digit sacks if Rex were the starter.

I think Turner did better this game, but there are still a few bonehead plays that just make a rational person scratch their heads. I think Turner has done well this year. Do I agree w/ every playcall? Hell no. But I have a feeling we would call out particular playcalls of any coach, from any game. Overall though, when I look at the talent level on offense, I simply think they are exceeding expectations. Granted, expectations were VERY low, but the point is, our offense is playing better than most expected. -Anytime McKie gets the ball it's pretty much a bad decision Agreed. When we throw it to him, he is instantly dropped. He has no moves to give him any chance for YAC. And there is simply no reason to give him the ball over Forte. -The size advantage the Bears' TEs have was used well, but not enough Agreed we need to focus on the TE position even more, but I like much of what I have been seeing. I loved it when I saw Olsen split out wide. Still want to see a 3 TE package. -The late end-around was idiotic Why? In the 2nd to last series, Hester had a run for 15 yards. We were facing the league's top run defense. Forte averaged 2.3 ypc for the game. I have absolutely no issue trying to do something different. The reality is, we have an average offense, at best, and were facing a very good defense. I liked our trying different things last night.

By and large, I think you are preaching to the choir around here. I don't think many here are big fans of the cover two. I think Az would argue the system is not so much the issue so much as execution of it, but I am not sure he would be against scrapping the cover two either. I have my own opinion of the cover two in general, but regardless, I just don't think we are in a position to play it. Lovie has said plenty often that, in order for the cover two to work, you need your front four to be capable of rushing the passer. Our front four, whether due to scheme or simply due to execution, are not getting it done. Rarely does our DL pressure the passer. Most pressure, what little there is, comes off the blitz. So if we are incapable of getting done that which the cover two relies on, then I think we need to consider changes. But here is the problem. What experience does our staff have in defenses other than the cover two. Lovie worked in the cover two at TB, and then ran it in Stl, before bringing it here. Babich? When has he worked in a system other than the cover 2? I doubt you will have many aruge w/ you about scrapping the cover two, but the question is, what system is our coaching staff knowledgable in other than the cover two. W/ regard to Orton on the bootleg, I have no issue w/ it at all. It is a way of buying time against a pass rush our OL was incapable of stopping. It isn't something I want to see often, but I see no reason we scrap it all together.

I agree he makes some stupid calls, but IMHO, last nights problems (2nd half) were far more about simply facing a superior defense. The OL was getting killed, and the replays showed that our receivers were incapable of getting open. You can try to do a lot of things (scheme wise) but if your players are playing so poorly, there is simply only so much you can do. I do think we tried to mix it up a lot. We saw several end arounds, as well as fake end arounds. Then there was also the attempt to have Booker throw the ball. I liked how we did this after several end around attempts, making it more believable. But our receivers simply could not get open. We also had Orton rolling out on several bootlegs to try and free him up some. IMHO, Turner did a lot to try and counter Phily's pass rush, but in the end, it is up to the players to do a better job.

Dusty was steamrolling everyone I know that. Serious or sarcasm? I thought Dusty got owned. He got little push, and no penetration. I watched pretty closely, and he was most often single blocked, and could do nothing against his man. I really like Dusty, but do not believe he had a good game at all.

Maynard actually had a great overall game, besides just that one punt. I believe he had 8 punts total. 1. High punt fair caught at the 20. Not great, but not bad. 2. Dropped another at the 5, returned for 8. 3. Hit a high 40 yarder which Jackson muffed. 4. Nailed a 50 yarder that was downed at the 4. 5. Nailed a 67 yarder that went out of bounds at the 4. 6. W/ his heels at the back of the endzone, hit a 44 yarder. That may not sound great, but IMHO, the punter does a good job just getting rid of it, much less sailing the ball to mid-field. 7. 32 yarder dropped inside the 20, no return. 8. 58 freaking yarder to the opponents 22, taking them out of field position to truly make a comeback attempt.

And did you notice our splitting him out? At one point, he was playing the outside receiver position. I thought that was great, and w/ a lack of actual WRs, we should be looking for more and more ways to utilize our TEs.