nfoligno

I would rather see McBride or Graham at the nickel. What role is Manning playing now? Will the coaching staff ever stop screwing with this kid? I would like to see McBride or Graham work out of the nickel too, but wonder why that doesn't seem part of the plan. I really just am not a fan of our nickel situation right now. As for "screwing w/ this kid", I think you can look at this from different angles. On one side, you can say the staff continually moves him around, and thus he never has an opportunity to develop. On the other hand, you can say he has been handed the job at various positions, and never done enough to warrant keeping it. Many players dream of getting the chances and opportunities he has. I mean, he was handed a FS job. He was handed a #3 CB spot, and put into the starting lineup after an injury. He was this year handed the nickel spot. We can argue he is moved around too much, but if he sucks everywhere we put him, I am not sure how much we can blame the staff.

Saw this in the Sun Times, http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/be...-bear27.article Per the article, DM will no longer be our starting nickel DB. Who will be is speculation at this point, and the article points to two possibilities. (a) Payne becomes the starting SS, and McGowan (the only other DB w/ nickel experience) becomes our nickel. ( Payne becomes our starting SS, and plays nickel when the nickel replaces the SS, rather than the SLB. Couple thought here. (1) Does anyone else not raise an eyebrow that we cut RMJ at a time we are not confident in our nickel DB? It was one thing to cut RMJ if the staff felt DM had developed and gave the staff confidence in him, but if he is being demoted, that doesn't appear to be the case. RMJ gets blasted around here, but I always thought he was a solid nickel. He bombed when he was inserted at CB, and became a fan favorite to hate. The defenses very own Rex Grossman. But just because he can't play CB doesn't mean he isn't a good nickel. (2) I can't see McGowan as our nickel. Watching him play SS, the area I thought he stunk was coverage. He was good enough when attacking the LOS, but anytime he played off, and in coverage, he looked flat out awful IMHO. (3) Payne may be good, but you have to think his lack of experience will hurt. (4) While i know there is a difference between nickel and CB, why can't we work one of our backup CBs at the nickel spot?

And yes, I dish it out to you because I know you take it well, we have fun, you dish it back and we add to the content around here. I think everyone else enjoys our "fights" but we'll always need to clarify to the rookies that we're just talking smack and it's "no blood no foul." FYI, just as a funny, I just two days ago was trying to explain the term, "no blood, no foul" to my wife, and she was horrified. I just laughed.

LOL

Did you ever read that Miller was injured though? I read Brown was playing w/ one arm. I read Tait was playing through some sort of injury. I don't recall ever reading Miller was injured. He simply seemed a couple years to late in retirment.

Mariotti v Skip Bayless in a cage death match. Now that would be something to pay for. The reality is, both had a job of trying to incite bear fans. Some of their articles may have made legit points, but due to their history, it doesn't matter as they ruined their credibility already. I agree w/ much of what he said, but would never (a) quote him or ( take his articles seriously. Some here have made the same points. Even if he writes an article supporting my statements, it wouldn't matter to me. He simply has no cred, and is irrelevant.

He also knows the system, scheme and the OG he would line up next to, if he plays. There are reasons for him to choose Chicago.

Kind of thought the same. I know teams are doing better w/ their cap space, but most teams spend most of their cap, saving a bit for unseen needs, but not usually the sort of money we are seeing, unless they are looking to re-sign some of their own veterans. I am not saying the numbers are wrong, but they do see to go against all previous reports we had previously seen.

Mind if I jump in? One, I would say if Miller is looking for a paycheck, then getting cut midseason means little, as he still gets his guaranteed money. Two. He may not be as confident as you that Williams will be back midseason, and even if he is, ready to simply take over for St. Clair. Three. He may see a greater opportunity to start. He may think that if St. Clair can't cut it at LT, we might (despite comments) move Tait back and then insert Miller. In the end, I think there are too many "what ifs" attached. Even if, and it is an if, Williams is back midseason, there is no guarantee he would start at LT. St. Clair may be doing well. The team may be doing well and not want to mess w/ chemistry. Williams may be 100%, but not look ready to start regardless. And as for automatically inserting St. Clair at LG, that assumes Beekman stinks and/or Metcalf (though I admit this is a good assumption). All in all, while I understand your question, I think it is based off many "what ifs" of assumptions Miller may not see as likely as you.

I found the whole thing funny as hell. Terra walks a tight line between humor and troll. It really depends on what sort of mood you are in when you get yet another "Urlacher injured at practice" thread, or you read the 100th "Bears suck" post of the day. I am not saying a pessimistic post explaining why the bears suck, but literally saying "bears suck". Then in the other corner you have Cdog, who loves to dish it out. I am probably one of the few he lets loose on, and its because I knows I don't take it personal. So we had two pit bulls ready to go, and Michael Vick hosting the party. Terra. Question Mike Brown's ability to play, fine. Call him an asshole, and expect to get some legit heat for it. Talk about flat out unjustified. Cdog. As has been pointed out, you missed the humor, and frankly, along the lines you should have truly appreciated. You say you don't take stuff personal, but I think his post got to you, maybe just a bit. It took you off-guard, and you reacted. Hey, as far as I am concern, let the two go at it. More legal than a dog fight and more fun than watching our defense.

GO BUCKS! Man, I'll take Barton over Miller. Sorry, but Miller was simply awful last year. He wasn't just bad on a play here and there, like Tait at LT, but freaking awful on Metcalf tier. We have young RTs who we may not be thrilled are our primary backups, but (a) I am not sure they are actually worse than Miller and ( they at least have upside, while Miller has been going downhill for years now.

It is so rare, that I just didn't recognize it.

My only thing is, I think he may well be our best nickel DB. He is not remotely even a decent starting CB, but there is a big difference in how a starting CB and nickel DB play. As solid as Graham and McBride may be at CB, I am not sure (simply based on a lack of seeing them) how good either can play nickel, and I simply do not care for DM. I undertstand the move, but do wonder if we will look back and feel we may have cut our best nickel. He was always a great nickel in Carolina, and I think he was for the most part for us. It was when we inserted him into a starting role, due to injuries, that he simply failed.

I am not arguing that point, in fact, that is in fact part of my point. I am not saying a GM should tell fans he believes the player to be a 50/50 gamble. My point is questioning Angelo saying he would tell us that.

I was just never the biggest fan. He had one big year in college, right? And then he entered the draft early. I would like to see a 1st round pick a tad more proven than he was. Further, I didn't care for why he had only one big year. I think he was on the team two years, behind RBs that were not exactly "special" and still couldn't win the starting job. Not saying he isn't a solid talent and all, but I think a big reason he was as hyped and loved as he was on this board is that he went to Illinois. If he played for some other, outside the state college, i doubt Bear fans would have been drooling over him as much as they did.

do I expect the same level of intensity we see in a Packer game, or any regular season game for that matter? No. Coming off an awful season where our D ranked near the bottom of the league, do I expect to see a greater sense of urgency than we have. Yes.

Is Babich an in your face coach? I don't know. But reading your post made me think about this. Rivera was very much an in your face coach. Players said that when they screwed up, Rivera let them know it immediatly, and often loudly. Is Babich that way? I read all the time fans talking about this coach or that coach (often I read Landry mentioned), but let me ask this. What sort of assistants did those more stoic coaches have? I can see it working if you have a HC that is more calm and all, but only if that HC has assistants who are the opposite. The calm Captain still needs a loud drill sergeant. When we had Rivera under Lovie, I think it worked better. Lovie was calm, but had Rivera to sick on slackers. I could be wrong, but I don't think that is Babich's style. I thought Babich was more like Lovie, which means we don't have that drill sergeant, and that could be a big part of the problem. No clue on offense, but I don't think it is the same situation. The defense is filled w/ proven veterans, which is simply a group that tends to get complacent. Younger, unproven players are less likely to need the drill sergeant, as they are working their butts off for roster spots, playing time, or whatever. Few on defense have to worry about losing their jobs, regardless how they play, and thus may need a bit of extra push from the staff. Lovie has never provided that. Rivera used to. Can Babich?

Sure, Rex is a nice guy, but lets be honest here. He had a choice this offseason. He was a FA, and choose to sign w/ Chicago. He knew the situation, and choose to stay in chicago, thinking chicago offered him the best chance to win. He didn't win. He didn't get it done. Sorry, but while he is a "good guy" that doesn't alter the fact. He knew how the fans felt, and knew the situation. He had a shot, and didn't do enough w/ it, and now he is the backup. He may not like it, but especially after the last game, I think few can argue the staff made the wrong call.

According to Angelo, they didn't lie. If you go off what he said, they simply didn't view the injury from 3 years prior as a current issue. So when asked if he had injury questions, Angelo is sticking to the story that Williams had no injury issues, talking in the present tense. I think it is all BS personally. I think he was intentionally skirting the truth, banking on Williams not having problems, and thus the story would never be questioned. But now, w/ the injury, he words, comments and story come into question. So, like a lawyer, he is making the argument that he told the truth, and if you go off what he says now, I can see the argument. I don't buy it, but that is his story, and he is sticking to it. What killed me were some of Angelo comments. Like when he said something about how if the player was 50/50, he would tell us. BS. Or if the player was a risk pick, he would tell us. BS. Come on. Even when GMs take known risks, how often do they admit to such?

Not IMHO. Everything I have read out of Pitt is pretty negative. Seems he appears lost. While I would not think twice if he were a QB, or any of a number of positions that usually takes time to develop, he is a RB, and that is one of the few positions that "get it" sooner rather than later. Right now we have a 2nd round pick RB who appears ahead of the curve, while Mendy appears well behind. That doesn't mean it will stay that way, but just pointing out that it isn't like he is taking the team by storm, like some other rookie RBs thus far. I have read rave reviews of Stewart in Carolian, McFadden in Oakland, Rice in Baltimore and Johnson in Tenn, not to mention Forte in Chicago. At the same time, most of what I have read about Mendy has been pretty negative. I still think OL was the way to go in the 1st, but questions from the get go Williams. He wasn't off my board, as some teams may have done, but he was not my first choice, or even my 2nd. For me, the concern about Williams was more than injury, which didn't come up (at least for us) until late. My concern was that he was too much of a finesse OT. While many felt he would be a solid pass blocker, there were questions as to how well he would run block. He just really sounded to me like Brockemeyer. For me, that isn't an awful thing, but at the same time, I just felt there was better available.

I would call it lying by omission. But didn't we say he was healthy. At the time of the draft, there was a lot of talk about Williams having back injuries. At the time, Angelo told reporters the reports were bogus, and said there was nothing wrong w/ Williams. If we knew he in fact had the red flags, but simply felt they were not a problem, doesn't that still imply a lie?

Dang do I disagree w/ this post. DE's aren't suppossed to go inside unless they are on a stunt. They are suppossed to go from the outside in. And they did do a good job of not biting on the play fakes and roll outs. A stunt is more when you and the DT sort of alternate pass rush lanes. Sort of frog jump one-another. Thus your DE is attacking the OG. That is totally different from a DE who simply attacks the OT differenty. Watch the best DEs in the game, and I am not sure ANY simply attack the edge. Even Freeney, who made a name for himself as a speed rusher, will also use his speed to get the OT off-balance, and then cut inside. Oh yea. And Freeney plays in the cover two as well. And don't complain about Tommie Harris not making an impact. He was making an impact all night because he was being doubled all night. He took up 2 defenders and allowed his linebacker to do the work. The primary goal for a DLineman is not to get pushed back into the linebackers. Also, when Adams, Harrison, or Dvorcek are lined up next to Harris, he makes them better because they only have 1 blocker to beat. First, I would agree Harris is getting double teamed, and that means something, but... (a) Simply taking on a double team is not enough. Great players get double teamed. Elite players beat the double team. Consider WR as a common, easy example. Do you not think Moss is double teamed constantly? Most every teams who has a great WR is double teamed. The elite WRs bust those double teams though. Getting back to DL. Check around. Most teams have a good to great DL who gets double teamed, but the elite DL of the league beat that double team. Harris can, and has, beaten the double team himself. I am not saying different. But I would argue that simply getting double teamed is not enough, not when you are considered (and paid) as an elite player. ( Lovie and Babich have said it 100 times. Our system requires pressure from the front four. In Jauron/Blache days, you would have been right. The job of the DL was to eat up the blocks and clear the lanes for the LBs to clean up. But that is not the scheme we play today. Our DL is expected to generate a pass rush w/o blitzes and LBs. We may use blitzes and LBs some, but that is not the main philosophy of the scheme.

If Forte runs for 1,200 yards this year, but we still get a top 5 pick, wanna bet we draft a RB?

Okay, many here are ripping the defense, due in large part to their coaching. I am absolutely one myself. While I still think our coaching on the D is poor, here are some reasons why we may be able to get it done regardless. Not all agree Babich or Lovie are a problem as defensive coaches, but regardless, and for those who do, questionable coaching may not be enough to kill this defense. A bit of optimism from a pessimist. This post is dedicated to Crackerdog 1. No, I don't think we have good coaching on the sidelines, but I do think we have a great coach on the field. Mike Brown may honestly be our best defensive coach on the team. He has shown in the past he knows how to inspire teamates when our coaches couldn't. Our defense has many "lead by example" leaders, but few vocal leaders, which I think is necessary. Mike Brown fills that role. Due to injuries, he has not always been on the field to do so, and I doubt he had the confidence to take that role when he was not able to be on the field and help his teamates. But now he is on the field, and once again, we have a good coach. Not only does he have the ability to change the attitude of players, but is a great manager in the secondary. I have watched him move around DBs, telling them what is coming or where to play. W/ Brown on the field, less experienced players play on a higher level. 2. Talent on DL can over come the scheme. I have had the argument before questioning why we don't stunt, or use more mis-direction and the like. I believe we handcuff our DL. That aside, the talent on our DL is such that they may yet be able to over-come such. 3. I have seen little from Brown or Wale, but I have seen Anderson mix up his pass rushing technique. I have talked about this before, but as a rookie, I watched Anderson utilize a host of moves rarely seen outside of seasoned veterans. Dent talked about this and praised the young players arsenal of moves. Last year, he seemed to forget all these moves, and simply employed an edge/speed rush move to the outside. In the 1st (or maybe 2nd) preseason game, I watched Anderson again using rip and swim moves to rush the inside. I watched him use his speed to get the OT off-balance to the outside, only to cut inside. The OT has to cheat to beat Anderson to the outside, thus making him a prime target for an inside move. We didn't see that last year from Anderson, but if the preseason is an indicator, we may see it again this year. Getting Anderson back to that pass rushing mode would be a big boost to this defense. Further, if we see such out of Anderson, it gives hope others will be allowed, or simply do, similar. 4. Tackling has been poor, and while that is sick to watch, at the same time, we have playmakers capable of making plays few others can. They may blow a few plays here and there they should make, but also make plays they shouldn't. 5. Veterans. The defense is loaded w/ veterans. We are not some young group still trying to learn, which would make us more reliant on coaching. W/ such a group of veterans, you have a greater chance of getting it done inspite of coaching. 6. Late last year, Urlacher went on a tear and looked like his old self. I have heard many possible reasons for the resugence, but one I always focused on surrounded some comments he made. Urlacher said Babich gave him the opportunity to free lance more. Babich allowed Urlacher to essentially play outside the scheme, and to go more off instincts. Maybe the problem is the scheme. Maybe the problem is Urlacher never felt comfortable working within the scheme. Either way, Babich allowing Urlacher to play different, and thus going outside the box, gives hope our staff isn't so stringent that they will not consider options beyond the pure cover two thinking. 7. We have playmakers. We may give up plays here and there, and not lead the league in yards allowed, but at the same time, we have playmakers that make stands and force turnovers. The D may allow long drives, but if that drive ends in a turnover, the D will still look pretty good. We did a lot of that in 2006, and may again. We may not have a "punch you in the mouth and not allow a yard" defense, and we may give up yards, but if we can force the turnovers, we can offset the yards given up. And w/ the number of playmakers we have, that is very possible.

I personally can not understand all of the criticism JA is getting. I think he is doing all he can to give us the best chance of winning. Does he do everything everyone on the forum wants, no. Does he do everything I would like to see him do? Of course not. However, I think he is doing his best to give us the "edge". Fans will always look to disagree with management when things are not so rosy. It is far easier to point out mistakes made in the past than successes. All GMs make mistakes in draft selections and personnel moves. This is not an exact science. In many cases it is a matter of the "best educated guess". I think the criticism is very understandable. Angelo doesn't get much criticism for his work on the defense. Maybe a couple posters, but even I give him props on the defensive side of the ball. But the job of the GM is to build both sides of a football team, and to date, Angelo has not shown he can develop the offense. Until he proves otherwise, I think criticism in this regard is very fair. Any time I begin to second guess JA I remind myself what it was like before we had him as our GM and "Mikey" was running the show. With that bit of flashback, I thank (insert who every you pray to, if you do so) that we have JA as our GM. (Trying like h*ll to be politically correct LOL). Is angelo better than Wanny? Few would find a leg to stand on if they wanted to argue different. But we were one of the worst run teams for years. Just because we are better than that doesn't mean we have done so well as to avoid criticism. If you have an offense that is worst in the league, and then is say 25th, it is better, but is it good?