nfoligno

Offensive solid player - Davis. I think Indy is going to bring a ton of pressure, and from what I have seen, Davis gets off the LOS and finds open areas quickly, giving Orton a quick option to get rid of the ball. Offensive weak player - Tait. I think we will help St. Clair and Beekman/Metcalf on the left a lot, which means we are going to ask Tait to play on an island much more. Mathis has RDE speed on the left side. Tait may win a lot of running play matchups, but could really be exposed on passing downs. Defensive solid player - Anderson. I think Indy knows they have problems inside, which means they will (a) slide extra protection inside and ( Manning will be looking for the rush up front. They means our DEs will likely have more one-on-one matchups. Not taking away from Wale or Brown, but I think Anderson does the best of the group, and gets pressure on Manning. Defensive weak player - Man, I just have a bad feeling that several could be the goats. I think Indy will matchup Wayne on Tillman, and I have seen nothing to lead me to believe he can handle a WR like Wayne. I think A.Gonzalez could eat up our nickel, whether that is McGowan or DM. But the player (unit) I am going to say is the DT, as I think we are going to have the highest expectations from this group. W/ Indy's interior issues, many expect a big game from our DTs, and if they fail, I think this would prove the biggest disappointment.

For the record, from everything I have read, it sounds like DM is no longer our nickel. I thought I read McGowan will be our nickel, w/ Payne our SS.

What is the point in bringing this up? Jerry Angelo just gave him a crap load of money. Maybe, intead of calling jerry out (which IMHO this does) he can work on not blowing tackles and earn his new money.

Aren't you in my league? Kenny Watson for sure, if you are in my league.

Your right. It does look nice. To be honest, I rarely check out the site. Stories all seem a bit fluff. Softball interviews and frankly, I just rarely get any legit info from them. They are the opposite of a Mariotti piece, which I also usually avoid.

Bradley can easily get banged up laying around on a lawn chair. Besides Metcalf, who in that group was injured during practice? Several have been limited due to prior injuries, and a couple more were injured in games. I understand the point you want to make, but I simply don't see how this list of injured players gets you there. Seems like you are taking some spin lessens from our countries politicians these days.

I saw this article too, and agree w/ a large part of it, but where I disagree is regarding the OL. If there was a great QB out there, and we passed, fine. But as I recall, Rex was actually considered one of the better/best FA QBs, which says a lot about the FA class this year. Berrian got #1 WR money, which again, says a lot about the FA class. At the same time, if you are going to pass on the passing game and simply try to build defense, teams and the run game this year, then OL should be a part of that. Further, while I can understand not grabbing the short term reaches for the passing game that would not have great immediate, nor long term benefits, I disagree that building up the OL would have fallen into that same category.

So a QB is not upper tier unless he wins a SB? Payton Manning was not an upper tier QB until he bounced us out of the SB? Oh. And how many SBs did Marino win? He has 1 1/2 seasons of looking great. Now, if we were talking 1 or 1 1/2 out of a 5 year career or something, that would be one thing, but he has lit it up pretty much since getting the starting nod about a year and a half ago. He has made the pro bowl the only two years he has started. Is there room to further grow. Obviously. But to say he is not even in the upper tier? You listed two QBs you would put ahead of Romo, plus the two obvious ones, but would that not still make him top 5? That seems pretty "upper tier" to me, especially when we also categorized an higher "elite" category. I agree he needs a greater body of work to be "proven". I agree he still has room to grow, particularly in the post-season. But I disagree w/ the idea he isn't an upper tier QB right now, today.

Look, I am not Cowboy fan, but at the same time, the kid was lights out last year. He was probably the #2 QB in the game last year (behind Brady). I am NOT saying he is truly the #2 QB in the game, but just take a look at the numbers he put up last year. When you look at his TDs/yards/Comp %/ QB rating, etc., he put it all together last year, and following up a great 1/2 season the year prior. Maybe he has not "solidified" his spot among the elite, but I would say he is right up there. Seriously, who do you rank ahead of him? Brady & Manning, obvious. But after those two, I think the arguments can commence. If you want to only consider Manning and Brady as elite, and exclude Romo as not having enough time proven, fine. But to say he is not even in the upper tier? Pro Bowl the only two years he has played, and numbers that actually put him in the Manning/Brady department. Since Romo has been a starter, who (other than Brady/Manning) has been better?

Hey, I like the kid too, but seriously? Dallas has a young, upper tier QB in Romo, who they just signed long term. If Dallas signed Hanie, his likelihood to start goes way down, and thus the liklihood of his haunting us for years.

Now with that Bowman was cut, IMHO if they thoght so much of him I might have had to part ways with McBride. Not because he is a bad player, but if Bowman is bigger, stronger and faster he can match up better with the taller WR teams have, like the Chargers who's WR average 6'1 in hieght compared to the 5'9 McBride One point that should be made is, Bowman is eligible for the practice squad, while McBride is not due to playing time last year. W/ Bowman, there is a legit chance he sticks w/ the team, whereas McBride would simply be gone. Also, while McBride has not looked good this year, he did look solid last year in a starting position, and that likely gives him some benefit of doubt.

Well, we have two great LBs. So? We have tried it this way already. Is this guy better than Urlacher? If not, how is he going to win us a SB? Sorry, but time to change plans. Time to draft offense. Find a QB. Find OL. Find WR. Whatever. We tried it w/ defense, and it didn't happen. Now its time to build an offense.

One. Yes, I do believe there are bad picks that work out and good picks that don't. I think few here would agree w/ taking a kicker in the 1st round. But what if, years later, history showed every other 1st round option would prove to be a bust, while that kicker became the greatest ever. Would that mean it was a good pick? I personally would say it was a bad pick that worked out great. Similar, you have plenty of situations where a team takes a player, who most any scout would agree among the best available, and who fills a position of need, but for whatever reason, it doesn't workout. The player may be a bust, but that doesn't always mean the pick was wrong. Two. Agreed BPA and need are balancing acts. I do not believe in big reaches for need. However, if you enter the draft w/ a grouping of needs, I think you can usually matchup need w/ one of the top BPAs. It may not be the next name on your list, but if your BPA is a MLB, and your next BPA is a LT, grab the LT. Three. Brown was coming off a poor season? He may have been out-shined by Anderson that year, but Brown was coming off a career high 7 sacks, 3 FFs and 2 interceptions. All stats that matched or bettered career highs. In fact, Brown was coming off such a good season, he wanted a new deal. Bears, on the other hand, were looking to demote him in favor of Anderson. That isn't because Brown played poorly, but because we had a rookie that looked like Dwight Freeney.

Lloyd/Davis I don't know if those two will start, but I think those two earned the starting jobs. I would say Bennett and Bradley are absolutely out, and Booker is out too, in terms of starting spots. That leaves Lloyd, Davis and Hester. While we intend to work Hester into the offense this year, I am not sure they want to make him the instant starter. Also, I still think he could be most dangerous from the slot. If we go off reports, Hester has done enough to warrant consideration though. Key I think is he has displayed better than expected route running and knowledge of the offense. Still, I think Orton has shown the most chemistry w/ Davis and Lloyd, who has simply made some great plays on the ball. I would start those two, w/ Hester subbing for one, as well as playing out of the slot. Even if he is not a starter, Hester can play a very large number of the snaps. Booker could become a 3rd down specialist, ala Engram. Of if a starter fails to continue solid preseason play, Booker could move up (assuming he looks good himself). What I am really interested in though, more than who starts at WR, is how much we use two TE sets. We are far more solid at TE than at WR, and I would have to have two of our TEs on the bench the majority of the time. In a two TE set, Hester and Davis could be the starters, and when not in a two TE set, LLoyd and Davis, w/ Hester in the slot.

Few things here: One. I am not sure it is valid to point to the Wanny days. While we have the same ownership, we have a different individual running the show, and one who has been VERY different when it comes to money. If I said I would like to get this FA, would it be a valid argument for you to say we won't get him because we don't pay for good players. Just look at the Wanny years. I know what we did then, but that was different management, and thus may not be a good example to point to. Two. Please do not use Detroit as a reference. The idea of comparing us w/ Det makes me sick Three. I know what Angelo said, but I would say there is a very real chance he could stay on past Lovie. I think most would agree Angelo has done a good job bringing in defensive and special teams talent. Right? While it wuold be a bit more debated, I think some would also agree Angelo has added some quality offensive FAs. The one area we have not be able to add talent is offense through the draft. I am not saying he would, but I think Angelo could argue that he has added talent all over, and imply the one area he has been busted on for is more due to the staff's inability to develop such talent. But this little argument aside, the key point is Angelo has added talent to the team. From there, it is up to the coach to win w/ it. If he fails, as you often see in the NFL, the GM can stay while the coach can go. Four. What was Lovie brought in for? His expertise in offense? Nope. Lovie was a DC and brought in to make ours elite. Lovie wanted to hire Babich from the outset, and wasn't allowed. He was forced to hire Rivera, under whom we had an elite D. Then Lovie makes the call to let Rivera walk, and promotes his boy Babich. We go from top 5 to bottom 5 in one year. Please no talk of injuries. We all know that was a factor, but other teams deal w/ injuries too. We had more than our fair share, but IMHO, it doesn't explain such a severe drop. But the real point is, if we bomb this year on D again, Babich has to take the fall. But can he do so alone? He was Lovie's boy all along. Further, he was running Lovie's defense. IMHO, if Babich goes, so does Lovie. Under this situation though, I can see Angelo staying, and think our next coach could FINALLY be one of an offensive background. As to the question whether we would fire Lovie, I don't think 7 or 8 wins would do it. 4 or fewer wins, w/ a garbage defense might. Wins would be "a" key, but I think how our defense plays is also a key. This is Lovie's scheme and his man running it. If our D plays in the regular season as they have in the preseason, I think Lovie very well could be gone, regardless how much we owe on his deal.

I understand what you are saying, but here is the problem i have w/ that. We have "actual" needs, and what you are talking about is "potential" needs. Further, they were "potential" needs based on players who were not FAs, and were under our control. They may have been griping, but they were none-the-less under our control. This year, at the time of the draft, Urlacher was a very unhappy guy, or so he told the media. Situation was similar to our past w/ Briggs. Urlacher may not have been as harsh in his words, but retirement talk was enough to put it on the same level for me. Anyway, the point is, would Urlacher's talk have made LB a 1st day need this year? I don't think so. For me, what it still comes back to is (a) Angelo simply prefers defense and ( Angelo sees more potential in defensive players than offense. I think the 2nd point is partially at least because he isn't a good offensive evaluator, thus defensive players will often look better than offensive in his eyes. We should have been going offense w/ those picks, but didn't.

Sorry, but I disagree. Look at our roster. We are loaded at DE. Last year and this year, there was simply no reason to draft another DE. Even if he did get healthy, and showed a glimmer here and there, when would we play him? Despite all the talk about a rotation, we generally do not use more than 3 in that rotation. If we were talking about an OL Angelo drafted that just couldn't stay healthy (and no signs of injury potential in college), then it would be harder to blame him. But he drafted a player that simply didn't come close to filling a need. He ignored big needs to draft a 4th DE. DAY ONE! Yes, I can blame Angelo. This was as bad of a pick then as it is now.

Okay fine. Still doesn't counter my main points that LBs are an easier/less expensive to replace than OL, WR or QB, and that Angelo is more likely to find a LB later in the draft than an offensive player.

Yea, I just don't get the logic in cutting Hanie. I have not bought into the Hanie mania. I like numerous things I have seen, but am not going over-board. At the same time, he has shown something. For a team absolutely desperate at the position, if you have a guy who has shown something, why not hold on to him and see. I know many would argue it isn't likely he would be grabbed from our practice squad, but that is a chance. For a guy who has shown "something" at a position we have suched at for years, is it worth the risk. Said it before and wil again. Consider the Vegas quote. Only gamble w/ what you are willing to lose.

It funny you guys are in love with both Braden Albert and Chris Williams and aren't they both like HURT and not playing right now!!! Sorry, but do you really not see the difference? Williams suffered a major injury related to a previous problem, known at draft time. Albert, to my understanding, has a minor injury that is not thought to be very serious.

What makes me more frustrated is that Tony Ugoh was projected in the combine as an athletic starting LT prospect and while the team new they had an aging OL the Bears got cute and traded down for a guy that they just cut! Not just Ugoh. I was screaming for Blalock too. Blalock, Ugoh, and one other (can't recall now who) were who I was really wanting to see. Blalock by the way became a starter at LG. Not a position we need or anything. And whats up w/ Ugoh. You think we need a LT? Ugoh could be starting at LT this season after replacing Miller last season at RT. Then they copuld have added Braden Albert this year instead of Williams and plugged him in at LG but what do I know I am no draft guru! Albert is who I wanted this year too. As I saw it, Albert had HUGE upside at LT. I also felt his floor was upper tier OG. Both are positions we need, so he seemed like a win/win situation. Williams I feared was LT or bust, and felt he was too finese for a run first team. Think Blake Brockemeyer. That's not a bad thing, but no close to what I felt Albert could be.

I was about to disagree, as there are 1st day picks like Roo Williams, Haynes, Tank, Benson and DM that could give Bazuin a run for his money, but then I think I realized part of what you are talking about. While those players listed didn't work out, they did fill a need. Bazuin not only didn't work out, but the reasoning for drafted the position in general can be questioned. We drafted a player high who didn't even fill a need, even though we had many. So I think I see your logic, and agree. Bazuin may not be Angelo's greatest bust, but may yet be his worst pick.

We really need to be looking at teams stacked on the OL. I bet teams will be looking to see who we cut on the DL, CB and maybe even LB. we are set w/ our starters, and a player we cut could still be a solid prospect for another team. Similar, there are teams stacked on the OL. Those are the teams we should really be looking out for. I would not have minded even looking at a trade. I saw where Dallas traded for an OG (I think w/ Denver) and only gave up a 2010 5th round pick. A late pick two years from now for a guy who, according to some here, could even have an opportunity to start. Some would say just wait until the player is cut, but if that happens, you have to deal w/ (a) competing w/ other teams and ( signing bonuses.

If you altered the term "cheap", we might agree more. I simply take issue w/ the idea the team is cheap. Take for example our getting coordinators instead of proven HCs, or maybe not paying assistants elite salaries. Would the savings of all this even hit bonus of one of our big player signings? I think some confuse philosophy w/ being cheap. Would anyone call Jerry Jones cheap? And yet, Jones has always had the philosophy of hiring unproven, coordinator (or college) HCs. Of late, he hired Parcells and Phillips (though Wade wasn't exactly expensive). But was he cheap prior to that? No. He simply had a philosophy in coaching hirings, and changes his philosophy, which didn't work either. I think we, like numerous other franchises, have a coaching philosophy. Some mistake that for being cheap, which I think is wrong. We may disagree w/ the philosophy, but that is what it is. This team believes a young unproven guy to be a better choice than a HC w/ experience, but most likely a questionable track record. I mean, how many HCs who are available are great? If they were great, why are they available? Just because the team chooses not to hire a proven HC doesn't mean they are cheap. It just means they have a philosophy that a young, unproven guy is better. Sometimes it isn't that a team/person is cheap, but the problem simply lies in the decisions. Look at Snyder. He is far from cheap, but horrible decisions has doomed the team. He went out and paid top dollar to bring back a HOF coach, and then paid top dollar for a bunch of assistants. That didn't work out either. If you want to question our philosophy, or decision making process, I am w/ you. But if you say we make our decisions because we are simply cheap, then I would simply have to disagree.

He plays a position I had zero interest in, and thus glossed over in the draft. I was not as aware of many CBs as well, as I simply didn't see us considering them. I may well have read his name 100 times, but it didn't stick as he simply wasn't a player I viewed as a legit prospect for my team.