nfoligno

(a) Agree Angelo/Lovie do not develop OL. In fact, I would remind all of Lovie's comments at the beginning of the offseason, when he essentially said he doesn't like drafting OL because he prefers veterans at that position. He believes it takes time to develop OL, more so than at most other positions, and would prefer to simply get a develop player than to develop him himself. That may have worked once, but w/ how much even lesser OGs make in FA now, that plan simply is now too expensive. ( I disagree Miller is a waste of roster space. Few ripped him more than I, yet I do have to say this. When did we ever hear about his injury last year? But it appears he was in fact injured. Why do we not give Miller the same benefit of doubt giving to Reuben Brown, who most everyone wanted. Brown looked like our worst OL last year, even worse than Metcalf or Miller, but then we read about how he was playing w/ one arm, and all was forgiven. Well, per Miller, he was something like 50% last year w/ an ankle injury. When you play injured (1) you suck and (2) you are going to get more penalties, as you try to "cheat" to compensate. Point is, if Miller is healthy, he is an upgrade to our depth. I would not be thrilled w/ him as a starter, but as depth, I have no issue. © Where I do have an issue is, I would not have cut Barton. Sorry, but OL is too big of a position right now. I would have found another player to release or trade. Hell, what about trading Adams. I personally like Adams, but if he isn't even going to be active on game days, and isn't exactly a player we are looking to develop, why keep him. (d) Disagree on Columbo. The belief was he would never play again. It's one thing to hold onto a player like Mike Brown, Rex Grossman or even now Williams, when you expect them to heal and recover. The belief at the time was Columbo was done, and thus he was released. He came back, and warrants credit for doing so, but sometimes there is no one to blame when injuries are involved. Shit happens.

Expect a switch-a-roo. Tait to LT and Miller in at RT. Frankly, w/ Barton still here, that likely would be the plan. Tait is the only LT who I see us considering a LT at this point. I have read talk about Metcalf at OT too, as he played there in college, but agian, he would be a RT as well.

Disagree. It may be "rebuilding" when you are throwing a bunch of youth at starting positions, but filling the backend of your depth chart w/ youth is common practice, not a sign of rebuilding.

1 Colts = Manning knee and was rusty from being hurt. That was good luck w/o question. 2. Panthers are without Smith for fighting. No repeate of the playoff game is a great thing. Also, chance to knock Moose out. 3. Tampa Bay may start Greise against us because Garcia is hurt and having run ins with the coach. Bye bye downfield worries. 4. Philly No real problems They looked awesome, but it was against StL 5. Detroit has no defense Offense wasn't impressive either until garbage time. 6. Atlanta has a new Rookie QB Run game did look awesome, but stop that and you stop Atlanta. 7.Vikings Qb that can't make the important throws Important throws? How about just saying he can't throw. 8. Lions have no defense Might now have a win either. 9. Titians Vince is hurt and mom says he might not play football Injury is minor, and he could be back. I hope so, as I think Collins is better. That D looked awesome though. 10. Packers have a new QB Not sure the new QB is a good thing. He may not be Favre, but looked pretty good. 11. Rams No WR that can hurt you And maybe the worse D in the league. They really looked bad. 12. Vikings Qb that can't make the important throws Lets just say no QB. 13. Jaguars lost two O linemen in the first game They should have healthy WRs by this point, but wow did that team look bad in weak one, both on offense and defense. 14.Saints Colston out for 4-6 weeks He will be back, and this team looked VERY good. 15. Packers have a new QB See above. 16. Texans still looking for a RB And an OL. No question we looked better than expected. And I also agree that several teams really stumbled out of the gate. I would say a few teams did better than expected too though, so it may wash. GB, Tenn, Phily and NO all looked very solid, and I would say better than expected. At the same time, a few teams like Stl, Jax and Det looked worse than expected. Getting Manning in game one, and Carolina minus Smith are two huge breaks. We capatolized on one. Now we need to do it again.

Doesn't the restraining order I filed require you not to respond to me online? So send the police:) OK, I agree... and your analogy was funnier too. But I'm not sure Miller is completely worthless (an old bald tire) if used appropriately. I guess "getting home" will be when the kid is healthy mid-season, hopefully. Hey, I said the Miller pickup is fine. I was, and am, against adding Miller w/ the idea of his starting at RT and moving St Clair to LT, but so long as it appears we are just adding him for depth, which it appears is the case, I am fine w/ it. I am not thrilled w/ our cutting Barton, but admit the risk (another team signing him to their 53 man roster) isn't great.

If my car had a flat and all I could find was a purple tire... I'd buy the fricken thing and get myself home. More appropriate analogy. If my car had a flat, and all I could find was an old bald tire, I would still throw it on and just hope not to have a blow out before I could get home.

W/ Chow w/ Tenn at the time, I will say I think his outlook would have been different had tenn drafted him, as Chow pushed for. As for Young, I think he had/has the tools/ability to be a very good QB in the NFL. Many compared him to Vick, due to his running ability, but he also improved as a passer in college, and IMHO, is not just a RB who can throw the ball, like Vick. At the same time, I question whether he has the head or heart. He has struggled to learn, and can't dominate in the NFL on raw talent alone the way he did at Texas. And as for heart. Well, just ask our players what happens to an ex-Texas player who some perceive quit on them.

I'm thinking it would be between Jason Davis (FB) and Mines (TE). Our needs on OL are too great to cut loose Balogh or Reed. Rideau and LaRocque were both borderline to make the 53 man roster, and thus I think we like them too much. Bowman has the draft status, plus was also a borderline 53 roster cut. Baldwin has draft pick status, and is the lone player at the position Angelo loves. So I think it comes down to Davis, who plays a position I don't think we value super high and Mines, who plays a position we are young and stacked.

Yea, I actually know about Barton pre-draft, and listed him as a player I wanted to get in the 5th or 6th, and thus was quite happy to get him where we did.

The one thing that gives me hope is, why would anyone look at OL the bears throw away. If he were a DB, LB, DL or maybe TE, I can see another team looking at who we cut loose, but have a pitiful situation on the OL, and just got Miller off the scrap heap. Barton went undrafted, and while we have read a few good things, I am not sure another team will quickly believe he is that good if WE cut him.

We have to first waive the player, wait for him to clear waivers, then we can add him to the practice squad. That's the point. Most here simply hope we don't lose Barton, and are able to add him to the PS w/o another team putting a claim in for him.

Mack Brown and the Texas system tend to really coddle their stars. Sure, the same can be said about many schools, but I think the evidence shows how true that is of Texas. And before anyone points out Vasher, while a very good player at Texas, he wasn't a star, getting star treatment.

Manning missed the entire preseason, and IMHO, he did look off. Frankly, so did his receivers on a few plays. I might write it off by saying his recievers were afraid of our guys and getting hit, but does anyone really believe that about Wayne? Manning's stats may have still be good by our standards, but his play overall was not very good by his own standards. I am not taking away from what our team did, but IMHO, Manning was simply not making some throws he normally would, and that likely does have to do w/ being rusty. Hey, thats life. Tomlinson skips the preseason, and is usually a slow starter, and we were lucky enough to get him in the first game last year. Sometimes, that is simply luck of the draw. We got to play Indy at a good time. Nothing wrong w/ that.

He has to clear waivers before any team can sign him to their practice squad. If he clears waivers, I see no reason he wouldn't end up on our PS. I suppose Jerry Jones would simply offer him a ton of money to join their squad over ours, but I am simply not sure I see that happening. In fact, we are among the few teams I have read about who has provided a few players contracts greater than the norm in order to secure them on our practice squad.

Your asking a bear fan? How the hell would we know about 63% completion on 3rd downs. Now, if you want to discuss 36% completion on 3rd downs, I think you will find many on this board w/ plenty of knowledge.

Ortons ability to open it up would help, but IMHO, the keys are still (a) OL and ( defense. If the OL can play well, I don't think Orton will have to sling to a ton. We can establish a run game and not have to take a ton of downfield gambles. And the D is an equal, or greater, key. Was the Indy game the rule or the exception. If it was the rule, then I doubt Orton will be asked to do too much this year. If it was the exception, he may have to.

So long as Barton makes it to the practice squad, I would just shrug it off. If Miller is not a starter, and is nothing more than depth, fine. Whatever. But I would not be thrilled if we lost Barton. Not to pretend he is great or anything, but he is a young OT/OG who showed some promise in camp, and we should be looking to develop young OL rather than asking Miller to give up his social security benefits a bit longer.

I know running on 3 and 6 happens, but that's usually when teams are backed up and don't want to risk a pick 6 or they need a couple of extra yards for punting room. You are not gonna tell me offensive coordinators do this with confidence they will pick up a first down. I think it's pretty obvious that being on the 50 yard line, we got conservative and figured we'd play the field position game. Luckily it worked out and we were able to lengthen the leash a little bit, but not totally until we took a 2 possesion lead. Well, you pointed out how we ran on 3rd and long "more than once", but one of those times were due to the "backed up and don't want a pick 6" you mention yourself. While you seem to now allow that as an exception, you didn't appear to make any such exception before when calling Turner out for the playcall. Maybe it was obvious, but I do not agree it is such a sure thing. You say you can't be convinced. Fine. But I have seen enough it done. Again, that doesn't mean it is the norm, but doesn't mean it simply means we lack confidence in our QB. Sometimes you simply see the defense play in such a way that you just know you have a chance for a big ground gain. As for the passing on 3rd and short the first couple of times, those are common situations to run OR pass so the analogy doesn't hold up to running on 3rd and 6 from the 50 in the 1st qrtr. I don't think anyone lacks confidence in Kyle being accurate and making good decisions under 5 yards. The pass on 3rd and 1, we had momentum and a relatively comfortable lead judging by the game flow at the time so the decision to take a shot at that point was not one i'd call Super Ballsy, even though I liked the call. Sorry, but no way. Normally, if we see our OC call for a pass play on 3rd and 1, that OC gets bashed and we hear comment after comment about how we have no confidence in our OL or RB to pickup one measly yard. In fact, I would argue this is more close to your argument then the situation you provide. Picking up a 1st down on 3rd and 6 is far from a sure thing, whether you pass or run. Just because the QB drops back w/ the ball, doesn't mean we pickup the 1st down. On the other hand, would we not absolutely expect our RB to get the 1st down on 3rd and 1. So, since a RB getting the 1st down on 3rd and 1 is such a high level of expectation, if we don't do it, I think that would more likely justify the argument you throw out about lacking confidence. On the other hand, as 3rd and 6 is not even a 50/50 thing, doing something unexpected just doesn't seem like a lack of confidence in the QB. Again, I'm not knocking Orton, I like what HE did very much. I'm not even completely knocking Turner, I like how we opened it up more in the second half. My fear is that in future games our running attack might not be as good as sunday's and we may hold Kyle's leash too tight until it's too late for him to do anything about it. I get that you are questioning Turner more so than Orton, and I am not some huge Turner fan, so it isn't like I want to defend him myself. Yet at the same time, I simply disagree w/ your assumptions and logic to get there. I do agree there will be times we need Orton to open it up more, but (a) I think the other day had more to do w/ how well our run game was working, rather than a confidence issue and ( I think we are going to see more and more of Orton "opening it up" as we go on.

Re: Carolina. Agreed they will be a bit tougher, at least for our offense. I have always felt Indy's D was over-rated, and at least part of their success was in Manning and Co building a lead and making opponents one dimensional, which allowed Freeney and Co to tee off. Carolina though has a DL which can stuff the run and get to the passer. I think once again our TE will be key. On the other side of the ball, we simply need to stop the run. W/o Steve Smith, their passing attack should not be feared. Delhomme is solid, but w/o weapons. Their offense is in their RB duo (Williams/Stewart) which has looked very good. Stop those two and you stop Carolina.

His job is no longer to attack the bears. IMHO, all the hate for Mariotti is sort of funny. It is my belief that Mariotti was just doing his job. I believe his job was to be an attack writer. He was the Howard Stern of the paper. His job was to rile up Bear fans. But the thing about this sort of position is, it is short term. It works for a period of time, then, instead of getting upset, you begin to ignore. You know what he is going to say, and you just skip his pieces. His schtick works for a while, but then gets tired and played out, and then the writer becomes expendible. I think the same happened w/ Bayless, though I also personally believe Bayless truly believed what he wrote. Point is, I understand why everyone hates Mariotte, but at the same time, I think he simply did what he was expected to do. Understand, I have ZERO respect for him. He is a hack. But now that he is no longer under the Sun Times, he can say what he wants, and maybe he doesn't hate everything Chicago as much as some thought.

Turner v Rex is something I wondered too. I think it is a bit of both. For example, in defense of Turner, we have tried to run RB screens in the past, but they simply have failed miserably. Rex simply is awful throwing of his backfoot, which you often see on these screens. Rex just never did a good job setting up the screen, and it failed. Not just do to Rex, as Benson was also part of the problem, but the point is, personnel hurt our ability to run the screen in the past. But I would point to another example which I think goes against Turner. All last year I screamed for 2 TE sets. Our WRs were simply nothing special (not even Berrian, who lacked any level of consistency). On the other hand, Clark was very solid, and Olsen is simply a constant matchup problem for defenses. Yet how often did we see 2 TE sets last year? More to the point, how often did we pass the ball when we did see that formation? Against Indy the other night, I saw a ton of 2 TE formations, and it seemed like most of our good pass plays came out of this formation. So while I think personnel did hold Turner back in some regards, I also still believe Turner did not do enough to help the offense in the past.

I still think you are under-rating these two teams. Minny Grant broke off the one long run, but otherwise was averaging about 3.1 ypc. Grant is a very good RB, and GB has a very solid OL, so his being held as much as that does speak well of their run defense. As for the pass defense, Rogers looked very good, but (a) I think many here under-rate Rogers ( again, he has a very good OL protecting him and © he has some excellent weapons at this disposal. Minny still has a very good DL, and while Jared Allen did little, he was facing a very good LT in Clifton. Are we so confident St. Clair is equal to the task? Jackson looked terrible, and for a reason. He is terrible. Regardless, that is one awesome run offense, and it will be even better once McKinnie returns. GB Rogers is unproven, but that doesn't mean he isn't good. If it was all on him, I would not be too concerned, but he steps into a very good situation. All the other parts on that offense were in place, so he doesn't have to play at an extremely high level to play well. GBs defense is solid as well, though I think more needs to be seen. Not sure we can assume they have a poor run defense simply because Minny ran on them, just as I am not sure we can assume they have a stout pass defense because Jackson couldn't pass on them. Neither team is elite, but I think both are solid. The team that really surprised me this week was Seattle. Wow did they look bad. Dallas, Phily and NO all look to be very good this year. I hate to say this, as I hate the team, but I think in the NFC, Dallas is the team to beat, w/ Phily as a possible 2nd team. After those two, I think it is far more open. Some good to very good teams in the mix, but no one as well rounded great.

Sorry, but the stats prove you are wrong. Is running the ball on 3rd and 6 the norm? Of coarse not. But it does happen, and that doesn't mean the team lacks confidence in their QB. Go to ESPN, and look at last years stats for RBs. Check out there splits, and it will show you how many carries the back had on various downs, from 1st and 10 to 3rd and 6. I think you will find most every back has carries in the situation you are talking about. Does Addai getting a 3rd and 6 carry mean Indy lacks faith in Manning? No. But sometimes you look beyond the situation you mention. If you are in 3rd and 6, but the defense is playing back expecting pass, then you may have a shot to pickup a 1st down on the ground. If the defense goes into a nickel or dime, and you believe you can block the extra DBs on a run play, then take a shot. You say we tried it more than once. We did it 3 times. The first went for a 50 yard score. It worked once, so we tried it again later, and it didn't work. The 3rd time was more due to the situation. It was after Hester choose to bring out the KO and got dropped at the 3. After two plays for nothing, we ran the ball, which is not as uncommon as you think. You may not get the 1st, but key is giving your punter breathing room. Honestly, I just think you are making too big of a deal about this. We were running the ball effectively, so we tried to run on some common passing downs. I have no problem w/ this, if for no other reason, we tried something that was not expected. I would also counter your point w/ this. Three times we passed in 3rd and short situations. If you lack confidence in your QB, would you put the ball in his hands on 3rd and short? 3rd and 2 - Pass to Olsen for 7 and a 1st down. 3rd and 2 - Pass to Forte for 4 and a 1st down. 3rd and 1 - Pass to Clark for 26 and a 1st down, setting up a TD. By your logic, should we assume we lack faith in Forte because we passed in situations more traditional for a run?

Scary? My team looks like crap. I must have been drunk to draft some of the guys I did. I like some, but (hindsight 20/20), man I made some stupid calls. Picks I really like (Cotchery, DeSean Jackson, Chris Johnson) Cotchery has always been held back by a QB w/o an arm. Farve may throw picks, but I don't care. He will get the ball downfield to Cotch, and I think Cotch becomes a big play threat this year. Jackson has stood out in camp, and w/o any other healhy WRs on the team, is going to be a key player in their offense. He has shown chemistry w/ McNabb, and I think will be a great player in a YPP league. Chris Johnson is a home run hitter on a run 1st, 2nd and 3rd offense. He may not get as many carries early, but I think he will start before the end of the season, and will be the RB to catch the ball as well. Picks I question what I was thinking. Ocho Cinco - He could be great, but w/ concerns about injury (which were later proven worse than expected), I pulled an Angelo. Fred Taylor - I like Taylor in general, but took him too high, especially in a PPR league. Leinart - Ouch! At least he was just a 3rd QB. Tatum Bell - Not even on an NFL team right now. May as well have drafted Benson.

I think it is the Black and Blues Brothers. I was part of the Friday Night draft.