nfoligno

Agreed 1000%. While it has happened, I just have not often seen our DBs beaten deep by opponents WRs. On the other hand, we are getting eaten alive by the quick passes.

One thing a hurry up offense does is it forces the defense to keep the same personnel on the field. There is not time for substitutions. TB said one reason they started to go w/ the hurry up was they felt we were winded, and thus the hurry up takes advantage of that. Also, you can't sub players, which means you can't bring in fresh players, but also means you can't change your packages. If you have players who can create mis-matches, this can be effective. Olsen is a player that comes to mind. If we hurry up, we can split him wide, and the defense can only defend him w/ players they have on the field. Of you show him wide on the first possession, and then move him inside. Point is, you can create mis-matches by not allowing a defense to alter their personnel.

Agree and Disagree I agree we should shut down Tommie until he is 100%. I simply saw little from him in the first three games to make me think we are better off w/ him until he is healthy. I disagree on our DTs being "fine" last night. I thought they stunk. I saw no penetration. They were decent against the run, but were not facing a great RB either. But we had zero pass rush last night, and our DTs were part of that problem.

For the record, from what I read, both cases went to the grand jury, but were no billed. In otherwords, the prosecutors presented their case to a jury, and didn't believe the evidence waranted a trial. I know what you are talking about w/ rich people hiring expensive attorneys, or plea bargaining, or backroom handshake deals, but that sure doesn't appear to the be case here. I don't think Benson's attorney even is allowed in the room for grand jury testimony. So while he could still be guilty, this is about as close as it gets to proving actual innocence. Basically, a jury just said the charges were BS, and threw it out. W/ all that said, I would still argue Benson was guilty of bad decision making, particularly on the 2nd incident.

From the Trib, http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune....s-could-mi.html Harris says he will play, but Lovie doesn't sound as sure. The way harris has played, does it matter. I honestly wonder if Dusty and Harrison would not be a better starting duo of Harris is in fact hurting.

I am thinking 7 wins, unless we start to see some injuries, then the number drops.

Nice thoughts, but seriously? Singletary = Urlacher Urlacher is light years past Singletary in pure athleticism, but no where close in terms of smarts. Wilson = Briggs Wilson was a playmaking LB, while Briggs is a tackle machine. Wilson was a solid pass rusher, and also picked off a lot of passes. Briggs has never had more than 2 sacks in a season, nor more than 2 picks. Dent = Ogunleye/A. Brown If you put Wale and Browns' sack totals together maybe. Sorry, but its not even close. McMichael = Dvoracek I think they are similar in mentality, but thus far, that is about it. Fencik = M. Brown Similar, but I have seen little from Brown this year to put him close to Fencik. Frazier = Tillman Maybe. Suhey = McKie Wow. Not remotely close. Hilgenburg = Kreutz Kreutz has been declining for years, and IMHO, has not looked very good this year. Hilly was awesome. Butler = Gould Okay. McMahon = Orton (a bit of a stretch??) I am an Orton supporter, but this is a huge stretch. Payton = Forte (I know, a REAL stretch and blasphemy..but similar no?) No. Sorry, but while we have talent on the team, I don't see how this group even compares to the '85 group.

That is the best/worst quote of them all.

And even after all the signings we still didn't know if we had a legitimate WR on the roster and currently you could make a case that we have "1" solid WR on the roster (Lloyd). Thank you Jerry Angelo, all because we didn't offer Berrian the franchise. Never has this franchise made a more assinine move than letting BB become an unrestrictred FA. This team's WR depth is absolutely atrocious and it put the offense in a position where all it could possibly do was fail. We simply disagree on Berrian. I simply never thought he was great, and not worth the money Minny gave him. You talk about how little we know about the WR position, but it isn't like Minny has a great track record. The fact that this team was actually spewing BS about Bradley being a #1 and just 3 games into the season he's already released should really show you just how little this squad has at the WR position. We have Brandon Lloyd, Rashied Davis (arena leaguer for a reason), Marty Booker (he can just retire), and Devin Hester (aka, dumb as rox). All I can say is its time to play Bennett a lot more since he actually has a future (unlike anyone on our WR Corps not named Lloyd and Hester (his contract guarantees he has a future in Chicago). Agreed that our handling of Bradley was a joke. I am not as down on Davis as you. I don't think he should be starting, but I do think he has proven to be a quality NFL WR. He simply should be a #3 or #4, not a #1 or #2. Booker? We will know soon enough, as I think we are going to see a lot more of him. You want to see more of Bennett. I have no problem w/ that, but at the same time, I think Bennett has to prove himself to earn time. I would get him more snaps to provide him an opportunity to do just that, but I would not force feed him into the offense simply because he has more of a future w/ the team. That would be a huge dis-service to Orton and the rest of the offense, and would show we have learned nothing from the Bradley mistake.

I don't agree at all. The check box fiasco was embarassing, but I do not believe it had an effect on Colvin. (a) We lost Colvin one year after signing Holdman to a new deal. Holdman's contract had the poison pill aspect, but it was in the first year. After the 1st year, his contract became more reasonable, thus did not prevent us from signing Colvin. ( Urlacher was more likely a deterant to signing Colvin than Holdman. Urlacher was only two years into his deal, but it was obvious he would need a new deal before long, and it would be a big one. © Holdman got DE money from NE, which was simply way too much for us. His role in NE was simply a greater one than in Chicago, as they played a 3-4 which more utilized a player like him. I disagree he was ever a "tremendous" linebacker. I always liked him, but IMHO, he was never more than average, at best, as a LB. He was a tremendous pass rusher, and as a 3rd down pass rush specialist, few were his equal, but as a LB, he was no more than average, and probably below average in terms of pass defense.

Over-reacting a tad here? I think the point was that, even though Payne and Hunter may have had more responsibility for Stevens, it is unlikely either are who Stevens was talking about. You are not Payne's only fan. He is a bear, and thus he has many fans. That generalization aside, I have always liked him, and didn't understand why he didn't seem to be getting more looks at SS early on in mini-camp than he did. BUT he also has often looked lost in coverage. He has tremendous athleticims and can deliver a pop, but in terms of play recognition, he is not there yet. Part of the reason for his high tackle numbers is his area/man is too often open. He makes the tackle, but actual good play would have meant no reception, and thus not tackle. It you watch, he is more often trailing behind a play, and that is because he is late to recognize the play and thus late to react. His run defense and inside the box play is much better, but at this point, he is like most every SS we have had for years. Good run defender, but weak in pass coverage. Oh yea. And he isn't a rookie. I know he didn't play much last year, but he did see the field and did practice, and is not a rookie. I am so tired of reading about a player being in his rookie year, even though he has been in the league multiple years.

Here is what I recall. Colvin was allowed to walk purely due to money. Angelo tried to re-sign him early, before he was a FA, but no go. He ended up getting a very large (relative for the time) contract from NE. Something like $25m maybe. It didn't bother me nearly as much we let him walk, due to the coin, but that we did so little to replace him. I think his replacement was Knight, who was not good as a pass rusher, or as a LB. Holdman was another story. We actually slapped the transition tag on him. KC tried to sign him to a poison pill offer sheet, which we then matched. I think the poison pill was a first year roster bonus of $4m or greater. Again, you have to remember that was a big cap hit at the time. So anyway, we kept Holdman, but I think he dealt w/ injuries soon after, and was never again the same level LB.

Sorry, but Hunter is a much better LB than Colvin ever was. Holdman was better, but at a totally different position. You think Hunter was weak in coverage? I think you forget how bad Colvin was. Colvin was not a good LB. He was a great pass rusher, but I think fans forget, he did that as a situational pass rushing DE. He got very few sacks from the LB position. Most all of his sacks came w/ his fingers on the ground. Hey, I liked Colvin too, but he was never a very good LB. He was a great pass rusher, but from a down position, not as a blitzer. We have Anderson for that role.

Personally, I still think Gage and Wade were fine enough picks. They were taken in what, the 5th or 6th round? Gage has become a solid starting WR for Tenn. Wade is a nice depth WR. But I think, for the round they were drafted, they turned out to be decent enough values. I doubt Bradley makes us regret the decision, but it would not shock me if he looks better elsewhere then he did in Chicago, though that isn't saying much.

No argument, but if Stevens is trying to say he exposed a player, I think that assumes the player is considered very good, and was shown otherwise. I just don't think Hunter is a player who would be called out, as if he is over-rated or something. Hunter is the unknown of the defense. IMHO, Stevens comments only make sense if he is calling out players who have greater reputations. He can be calling out our pass rush, which was non-existant. He can be calling out our LBs, who may not have been responsible for covering him, but play the position that often does, and are tops on the team in terms of reputation. He can also be calling out our secondary. Point is, while Hunter and/or Payne may have been primary in covering him, I don't think calling out either makes sense. His "exposed" comment indicates a player (or players) he feels are over-rated, and as neither Hunter, nor Payne, have established reputation, I just don't see how they would be logical choices. That is why I think it is really our LBs he is saying were exposed.

Benson: Benson was the biggest bust on the above list, but also the only selection which made sense. Yes, the Bears did have Thomas Jones, but the Bears offense was in flux. Terry O’Shea was fired and Ron Turner was brought in. Thomas Jones was not considered a good fit for Turner’s system, which required that “power running game”. Benson was expected to be just that. He was a prolific collegiate running back, who would get stronger and stronger as the game wore on. Everyone expected him to do more of the same in the NFL and no one could have predicted his eventual hold-out and unwilligness to play with the team. Expect Jason to be all over you for this, as he (a) said TJ could be a great back in our system and ( said Benson would be a bust from day one. I agree w/ you though. Benson was considered a top 5 pick, and while not all agreed, TJ was not totally proven and was a bust w/ two prior teams. The pick "made sense" but turned out to be a bad pick. Mark Bradley: The Bears made a statment selecting Bradley early in the 2nd round of the NFL draft. The statement wasn’t a good one either, it was a bad one. No one expected Bradley to jump off the board this early. Sure he had physical potential, but his collegiate production was non-existent and he had injury issues. The above was why experts had Bradley projected to go somewhere between the 3rd & 4th rounds. So why take the chance on a project like Bradley? Especially when the Bears WR corps was in need of immediate help. Remember, Berrian had yet to emerge and the belief in Chicago was that the Bears needed to get a WR whom could be groomed by “Moose”. Roscoe Parrish, Vincent Jackson, and Chris Henry were all available and had much better collegiate stats and plenty of “athletism”. Agreed. Not only did this turn out to be a bad pick, but was an illogical pick from the start. WR was a need. That is not questioned. But Bradley, while talented, was not even good enough to crack the starting lineup in college, and it wasn't like there were elite WRs in front of him. Bradley was a player Oklahoma couldn't develop, and I always questioned why we took him. We needed a WR, but also one that could step in right away. Bradley was very raw as a WR, and most felt that he would need more time than normal to develop. We didn't have 3-4 years to wait for a WR to develop. Dan Bazuin: Of the 4 players above, this was the worse pick. The Bears selected Bazuin in the 2nd round, when they already had three above average defensive ends on the roster (Mark Anderson, Alex Brown, & Adewale Ogunleye). The move screamed “luxury pick”. The problem was that the Bears weren’t in a position to make a “luxury” pick. They had a poor WR corps (Berrian and an Aging Moose), no depth at safety (Brown always injured and no one else had emerged), and an aging offensive line. So I ask why pick a defensive end out of Central Michigan? Instead of nabbing Bazuin, the Bears could have taken tackle Ryan Harris out of Notre Dame or WR James Jones. Heck, had the Bears not traded down in the first place to get Bazuin, they could have selected tackle Tony Ugoh. I hated this pick, but would point out this was done at a time when Alex Brown was crying about his deal and seeking a new deal or a trade/release. We ended up re-signing Brown, but that was a total unknown at the time. So I think we drafted Bazuin w/ the expectation Brown would be gone before too long. I still didn't like this pick though. Anderson was looking awesome for us at the time, and Bazuin was a #3 DE, assuming Brown was out of the picture. While I realize we use a rotation, I would still argue a 3rd DE is a luxury compared to starting OL needs at the time. Mike Okwo: I can see some logic in the Okwo selection. The Bears were looking for insurance on Lance Briggs. The problem was the Bears already had a LB they loved, Jamar Williams, who was capable of stepping in for Briggs. Another argument could be made that the Bears were to get depth at MLB, but if Urlacher were hurt, Briggs would have slid into the middle with Williams/Hillmeyer cover the OLB’s. Bottom line there were far more pressing needs on the board than to use the selection on an under-sized, un-athletic linebacker from Stanford. RB Michael Bush would have been a tremendous value pick, but the Bears had just made another horrendous pick prior to the Okwo one (Garret Wolfe). Factoring in Wolfe’s selection, the best pick would have been safety Tanard Jackson. Yea, there was similar logical reasoning here as w/ Bazuin. While we were set w/ Briggs/Urlacher/Hunter, it was unknown whether Briggs would remain w/ the team, and this was a move to shore up the depth. But, as you said, we had just drafted Williams who the staff really liked. Anyway I slice it, this was a luxury pick, and again, w/ such glaring needs at starting positions on offense, simply not a good choice. Based on the above it’s hard to give Angelo a pass on three of the four failed picks. It’s one thing when a player busts or gets hurt, it happens (see McNown/Benson/Columbo). But it’s another when the pick was doomed from the get-go. In fact, When you look at the the list of Angelo’s failed selections, you see plenty of them which fall into the “no sense” category and its those picks that Angelo will have to get away from. When Angelo’s picks make sense, they pan-out. It shouldn’t come as a shock either as Angelo is one of the best talent evaluators in the game. So Jerry, please, lets learn from the past and do a better job addressing team needs via the draft. It worked in 2008 when the majority of the picks adressed needs, had value, and flat out made sense. I have felt for years his drafts lack logic. We have starting positions open, and yet he drafts guys who are expected to rate no better than 3rd, 4th or 5th on our depth chart. Further, I think another mistake is all the defensive players he continues to take when our defense is strong, and our offense stinks.

I don't think it is Hunter, or Payne. As said, Payne is new and doesn't have a reputation yet. Hunter isn't new, but does he have some great reputation? I don't think so. He is largely the unknown LB on the team. Did he matchup against Vasher? IMHO, his comments were leveled at Urlacher and Briggs. While not exactly accurate, they play positions which more traditionally cover TEs, and are considered elite players at their positions. IMHO, he was calling out Briggs and Urlacher, and maybe Mike Brown, but as Brown hasn't really played much in years, more likely our LBs.

I think I would be more hessitant to add him as a DC than as a HC. As a DC, he would have to call the game, and that is an area he is unproven. As a HC though, I simply believe he has the skills to do well there. Relationship, Motivational, etc. With that said, I don't see it.

Sorry, but hell no to Billick. He was brought in because he was an offensive guru, but Baltimore's offense has traditionally been average or bad under him. Players fail to develop, and they simply overall are not good. Their defense is outstanding, but that isn't what he was brought to Baltimore for.

Does Pitt's GM and Scouting dept come w/ Cowher? You say he did a lot w/ little, but that team was incredible finding talent. As the owners rarely kept their talent, the ability to continually find solid replacements said a lot. I like him though, and agree somewhat. He would not be the worst hire in the world, and maybe would be the exception. There are a few defensive backgrounded coaches who I would not be opposed to. He might be one, as would Cowher. But I still feel an offensive minded coach is what this teams needs more than anything.

I don't want Cowher. I like him as a coach, and in many ways, I think he would be good for the team. But, IMHO, it is simply easier to find talented DCs than OCs. Further, while I know many would argue we need a coach who can lead the area we have all our money tied up, I would disagree. We are loaded on defense w/ talent, and IMHO, not in need of a great coach on that side of the ball. Not saying they don't need a coach, but that unit is filled w/ mostly veterans and simply not the same as a group filled w/ youth and average talent. It is on offense we need a superior coach. We need someone who can basically build from scratch. I'll be sick if our next HC is yet another freaking defensive backgrounded coach.

Booker was signed for insurance as much as anything. When we signed him, everyone of our WRs were a huge question mark. Frankly, we didn't know if we had a legit WR on the roster. Lloyd was signed, but was a bust in Wash and wasn't even a lock to make the roster. Davis was a "nice" WR, but it was unknown at how high of a level he could take his game. Hester was moved to WR, but a total unknown at the position. Bradley was declared the #1 WR, but injury and experience red flags, and again, an unknown. Booker was believed to be a more known commodity, and brought in as insurance. Lloyd has stepped up, but no one else. I think we are going to begin to see more of Booker. How well he plays will decide whether he is w/ us beyond this year.

First, let me begin by saying I am enjoying the hell out of this. Much better conversation then the typical, "Orton Sucks, Angelo Sucks, the Bears Suck" threads. So every single coach creates a new and unique scheme? No. There are very few original schemes for offense and defense at this point. Lovies base defense is the cover two. Same as the Colts, Bucs, etc. It is a sound, balanced defense. Again, we are off on verbage. When I talk about scheme, I am not talking about the general scheme, but the one the coach runs. I think you would agree that both Dungy and Lovie run a form of the cover two, but I think you would also agree that each run it differently. When I say scheme, I do not mean generally (like the cover two) but how a particular coach runs it. You said yourself, we run the cover 2 maybe 40% of the time, so when I talk about our scheme, I am not just talking about the cover two in general, but the scheme as our coaches have created it. Does that make sense? If you look at our defensive playbook, it is more than the cover two, I believe you would agree. So I am not saying the cover two sucks, but I do question our scheme, or the way we run it. No I do not think Shoop is a good coach. Again I dont think that he had very much talent, I dont think he could get his guys to do what he wanted, and I didn't think he could call plays very well. This does not mean if he came up with an offensive scheme it would be bad. What if he came up with a scheme and a good coach made it work? But if Shoop created a scheme, would that automatically mean it is good? That's my point. Just because you have a scheme/playbook in the NFL, doesn't mean it is a good one. If you go to coaching clinics, there is an old saying "Its not about the X's and O's, its about the Larry's and Joe's" which means it doesn't matter what you run as long as you can get the players to buy in and get them to their responsibilities. It wouldn't matter if we were running a 4-3 cover two, a 4-4 cover three, a 3-4, a 4-6, or a 3-5-3, if the coaches could get these guys to play responsibility football it would be successful. I might agree w/ that on the HS level, but I would question that in the pros. I believe there are schemes that work on some levels, but not on others, for example. Let me ask you. In 2001, did you like our scheme? Few did. It was a scheme based on max run defense, but didn't do much to pressure the QB. Even if everyone did their job, pass rush was simply not a priority. I don't care how good your secondary is. If you do not rush the passer in the NFL, no secondary can maintain coverage. Thus, I think it appropriate to question the scheme. ok, so basically you are saying that both DT's are double teamed every down. Sorry man, thats just not right. Not what I said, or at least not what I meant. I do believe one of our two DTs are double blocked on every down. I think Harris is doubled on most passing downs, while our 2nd DT (Dusty/Harrison) is doubled on most run downs. But the point is, we do face double blocking inside. Then you usually have a 2nd line of protection waiting to either cut a DT or pickup the inside blitz. That is the point. Offense and defense are different. What we are seeing with our DL is not a fair comparison to a 9 man box. An equivalent on defense would be the offense max protecting against a 4 man rush. If they did that, you would have 7 defenders against 2 receivers in coverage. Sounds good to me. Not to me. I don't care how many guys we have in coverage. If the QB is allowed all day in the pocket, eventually a receiver will get open. No matter how many you have in coverage, or how good your talent level is, you can not hold coverage forever. Eventually, the WR or TE finds and opening, and the QB hits him. I truly believe this. I recall a game a few years back. We were facing GB, and did what you are talking about. We rushed 3 and dropped 8 into coverage. We did a good job covering the receivers, but Farve had all day, and eventually, a receiver broke free and Farve hit him downfield for a long score. I recall the play pretty well, and recall the announcers counting how long he had in the pocket, and it was over 10 seconds. No matter how many you have in coverage, they simply can not be expected to cover that long. That simply isn't realistic. At this point, I am tired of this subject. I keep making the same point over and over, and you keep changing yours trying to get into this word play game. First the defense is too plain and soft, next you have given Babich credit for changing things up. Clearly, if you were coach, you would run this amazing defensive scheme where you blitzed and stunted every down and they would never where the blitz was coming from. And clearly I would not run this defense. Just because I dont like your scheme doesn't make it bad. If you could get your players to all handle their responsibilities and made sure that the base defense was sound, I'm sure it would work. Please allow me to clarify. No, I would not blitz and stunt on every down. That in itself would make us more predictable. I would simply like to add more things to our defense. That doesn't mean we would always do any one or two things, but simply have more things to mix it up w/, making us less predictable. And I have given Babich some credit. He has used more looks than expected, but my issue is, despite all the looks, we still end up doing much of the same. Regardless how many looks we show pre-snap, at the end, we still end up blitzing up the gut and using our DEs on wide edge rushes. What I would like: (a) I would like to see our DEs do more than edge rush. Whether that is by design, or simply making our DEs change it up, I would like to see them not always attack the edge, but also go inside. ( I would like to see stunts. I am not saying all the time, but enough so that offenses have to concern themselves with it. © I like that we are blitzing, but would simply like to see us blitz from more angles. (d) I would like to see our CBs press more, especially when our opponent lacks a top end deep threat. Its one thing when you are facing Steve Smith, and it is prudent to respect the receivers deep speed, but we faced Carolina w/o Steve Smith and TB w/o Joey Galloway. Our CBs should be good enough to press cover average speed WRs. Press coverage is a good way to help take away the slants and quick outs. It also prevents/hurts the quick 3 step drops, allowing our DL a more realistic opportunity to pressure the QB. I don't think what I am asking for is unreasonable. I am not saying we should be like Phily or Wash, w/ super complex blitzes and ultra-aggressive schemes. I simply want to see us add more to the scheme to avoid being predictable. What is my requests is unreasonable? I'm not asking to blitz every down, but simply blitz from more varied angles. I am not asking to stunt all the time, but simply add that to the package. I am not asking the DEs to always rush inside and blow off outside containment, but to simply add the potential to the mix. I am not asking for wholesale changes, but tweaks to create a greater level of uncertaintity.

There seems to have always been something going on w/ this kid. Doesn't it seem like he has always been in the coaches dog house? I mean, he has a big game, only to ride the pine after that. We are desparate for a WR last year, and how many snaps did he get. Now this. Lloyd has stepped up, but Davis has been making key drops, Booker has been invisible and Hester is injured. So we cut Bradley? I really wonder if there isn't something we have yet to read about. Bad practice/workout habbits. Questionable locker room kid. Slept w/ Lovie's daughter. I don't know. But he has always seemed to be in the doghouse.

Down boy. Time to put away the magnifying glass and flush the drugs down the toilet.