nfoligno

I agree 100% on the booing, and was sick when it was happening. For me, it is one thing when the fans boo a starting player during the regular season to show displease, but your backup QB in a preseason game? Sorry, but that is just embarassing. I mentioned the blow off, but more than that time, I was noticing how Hanie and Orton were always talking to the coach on the sideline, and Rex was no where in sight. Why? So to me, it appeared the "blow off" began way before he even entered the game.

Sorry, but chemisty and player relationships are part of the game. How often did we read about Benson's relationship w/ his teamates, and how standoffish he was. I am not saying Rex is ANYTHING CLOSE to that, but the point is, it is part of the game.

Particularly embarassing considering who they were playing. Frank Gore, fine. But other than Gore, come on. That was about the biggest bunch of no name WRs (other than old man Bruce) and they were freaking schooling our DBs. Consider how much sicker the stats would have been if Alex Smith could hit the broad side of a barn. Several times WRs were WIDE open, only to be missed by Smith. And Gore wasn't the only RB hurting us. Clayton and Keasey were hurting us too. Oh yea. O'Sullivan. 7 of 8 for 126 and one TD. Are you kidding? This is the Europe league guy we said Chris Leak was better than. Ouch. There is no question we are loaded w/ talent on defense, but exactly when should we expect them to start playing? As for Kyle and the offense, wow. In all honesty, I thought the OL was "okay", which is 100 times better than expected. I honestly felt a big reason Orton looked like he was w/o pressure at time was due to his own play. I mean, Rex came in w/ the same OL, and actually against SF's 2nd string D, but seemed like he was hard under pressure every down. More than ever, I think Rex causes his own pressure issues. Couple drops by receiers, but all in all, a solid passing day. Orton to Davis? Who wouda thunk it? Run blocking was "okay". The OL did a great job a couple times, but by in large I thought the run blocking was fairly week and Forte had to work his arce off for what he got. He got it done w/ vision and cut backs. No question in my mind that if Benson were the starter, he would have had a sub 2.0 average and been caught behind the LOS often.

Completely agree. Frankly, I never understood why he signed w/ us. I guess he felt it was hit best chance to win a starting job, but at the same time, if I were him, I would have looked at the offense and wondered if it was my best opportunity to win. I thought he made a mistake then, and really feel that way now.

First, I recall Hanie and at least one other (besides Kreutz) after that one 3 and out. It wasn't just Kreutz and Lovie. And he didn't really acknowledge Kreutz. He bumped fists w/o even looking at him. Look, I am not making a big stink out of it, but this is the first game after Orton was named the starter, and IMHO, he simply seemed detached. It wasn't just one the one occasion. Why did it seem like Hanie was always right there w/ Orton and the coach after an offensive series, and rex was no where near?

No chance Rex gets cut. But... Let me say this. While it isn't going to happen, IMHO, the only chance Rex will ever have is outside Chicago. Did you hear the fans booing him. He's the freaking backup QB in a preseason game, and he is getting boo'd, at times when he wasn't even really at fault. Like when he threw it away after no one picked up the blitz. Also, did you all notice the sideline? There would be Orton, talking to the coach, and Hanie was right there. Rex? Not even in the picture. After Rex went in, and went 3 and out on one possession, he walked off the field and didn't say crap to anyone. Other players were trying to hand pops (or whatever you call it) or ass slaps, or whatever, and Rex would barely notice, looking straight ahead and walking by. Rex seems disconnected from the team, and hated by the fans. He isn't going to be cut, but does anyone at this point think he made the right call re-signing w/ us?

I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone is basing opinions simply off (a) preseason W/L records or ( what we have seen, or not seen, in preseason. Even before preseason, we had question marks at nearly every position on offense. Then we lost Williams, which made a unit already a question mark that much greater of a concern. So it isn't like this was a team w/ huge expectations that is simply getting off to a slow start in preseason. I will say this. I think everything depends on the OL. While I am not very optimistic, I would also say there is a chance the OL can come together. St. Clair will never be a pro bowler, but if he can simply play decently well.... Beekman has looked better, in preseason and practices, than I think the staff expected. Frankly, I like him starting over Metcalf. So if Beekman can give us some quality in the middle... Point is, while much of the negative feelings is based around the OL, at the same time, if that unit can gell and step up, I think this team can end up being quite good. No question we have the talent on defense, and one of the best (if not the best) special teams in the NFL. While our offense has more question marks than just the OL, if the OL can step up, I think the other parts can fall into place as well. So if the OL can step up, I think this can be as 10-12 win team. If the OL is anything like what we saw against Seattle...well... I think a top 5 pick is far more likely. To me, the play of the OL is that big of a swing issue for us.

First, I wasn't specifically talking to or about you. I used your quote mostly because it mentioned pessimism. There are other "We're going 0-16" types out there much worse than you. You aren't a "Bears suck!" type of guy. I just like reaming you, regardless. Nothing personal. Well, if you didn't use my quote, you could have avoided a bit of lashing out. I agree there are some here who like to drop bombs w/o giving support for their comments. Personally, I have no problem is someone wants to throw out "Angelo Sucks" so long as they support the claim, and are prepared to back it up. Wait. I say that, so maybe it is a bad example. Okay, I don't mind if someone says, "Mike Brown Sucks", so long as they can support their claim. Second, I'm not drinking the kool-aid dude. Look at what I've said recently. There's a way to do it without being a dick, which is what I think some here are doing. I've said we could win 6 to 10 games this season, hardly a kool-aid soaked opinion. To throw words back at you, while you may not be a total kool-aid drinker, you know they exist. Third, some here have had an agenda against Lovie and/or JA for years now. You and I both know that. I'm not going to name names. I know everyone here claims to be a Bears fan but it sure seems to me that those folks are hoping for a bad season to vindicate themselves. Face it, over the last three seasons, we've had our #1 QB go down and still make the playoffs, made it to the Superbowl, and then have a terribly unluck season for injuries and QB play only to see our team produce a respectible record (7-9) given the circumstances. During those years we've also done very well against our #1 rival. So, if I feel like kicking a little ass later in the year should things turn out well, as I hope they do, those pricks damn well have it coming. Putting their egos above the best interests of the team means they deserve whatever they get from me or anyone else. My point is that saying "Gosh, I know I shit all over Jerry and Lovie and dragged this team through the mud for three months but dang it, I was wrong. Golly gee willikers guys, I'm so embarrassed I'm eating some crow. I'm back on the bangwagon now. Go Bearsh!!!!" AIN'T GUNNA STOP ME FROM STOMPING THEIR GUTS OUT. One, sure, some have an agenda, but I would like to believe they do so w/ the belief a change would be for the best of the team. I know you don't like to talk politics, and I am not getting into a political discussion, but I think a good comparison could be this. There are people who flat out dislike Bush, and trash the hell out of him. That doesn't mean they don't love their country. It simply means they feel their country is better w/ a change. to me, same thing around here. A true bear fan can trash Angelo or Lovie, but do so only because they believe the team can do better. Now, I would say such trashing is allowed in house only. I trashed Rex often around here, but damned if I would allow some Vikqueen fan do so. Two, I said this for myself as well, but feel free to rip away. Though I would point out how you trashed me for "I told ya so" posts. Regardless, when you stick you neck out, you should be prepared to have your head chopped off. Fourth, this is the time of year to have a little hope. There isn't a team out there who will be 0-7 on opening day. Some of these douchebags here take all the joy out of being a fan! Jeez, I'm 43 years old and still a kid at heart. Some of these dudes act 89. That is such a nice thought, but while anything can happen on any given Sunday, that doesn't mean this is the time for hope for everyone. There are plenty of teams who, even fans know, are just not likely to be good. I would say that even the biggest nay-sayers will "hope", but it is another thing to expect. We all argue around here, but once the wistle blows, we all cheer for our team and hope.

[*]Obviously, I'd like to see the line perform better. I predict they will, actually. You'll see Orton in there from the start and I believe now that the QB battle is over, we'll find the game plan much more balanced. We aren't trying to see what our QB's have but rather work our entire O. This means we'll be keeping the D a bit more off balance. The 49ers terrorized the Packers last week and made them their bitches. If we perform better than that, it should be meaningful. I would add to that, OLs so often talk about how difficult it is to block for different QBs, as each QB plays different. For one QB, an OL may feel it can push the DEs wide outside, but for another QB that drops back further, you may be blocking the DE straight into the QB. So now, w/ our having settled on a QB, the OL can begin to block specific for that QB, which also may help. [*]Hester take one to the house. Just curious. Are you think in terms of WR or KR/PR. Far more meaningful for me if he took one to the house as a WR, as we know he can do it on returns. [*]Orton hit on a deep ball to Hester or Bradley or anyone else for that matter. More than one would be icing. That would be nice, but I would be just as happy to see Orton hit Hester, in stride, and watch Hester race to the sideline, then turn it up field for the endzone. [*]I'd love to see Booker get open. Once! And catch the ball:) [*]The D Line get consistent pressure on the QB. More specific, for me, is pressure out of our unknowns. I know Brown, Wale and Harris can penetrate (Anderson is out). I would like to see Dusty, Harrison and Idonije get penetration. [*]I predict the TE's will have near 50% of the receiving yardage but hope I'm wrong. Would this be an awful thing, especially if we are running a lot of two TE formations? Sure, it would be great to see production from the WRs, but at the same time, we have big TEs who can get downfield and be playmakers themselves. I would see this as a positive, as it would show development out of Olsen and Davis, and that in itself could be a big boost to this offense. [*]Forte put up at least 100 yards of total offense while he's in there. Personally, I am more worried about his ground game than as a receiver. Key for me is better than a 4 ypc average, w/ at least one run over 20 yards. Also key, w/ regard to Forte, is improved blocking. [*]I predict a successful screen play to Forte. Probably a TD! Now this is really going out on a limb. [*]I'd like to see Lovie get a touch animated at least once. Show us he's alive. Wow. And I thought asking for a successful screen play was asking for too much. [*]I predict Bradley will look like he's free and clear for a TD but will trip over his skirt. How can he get free and clear running in high heels? [*]I hope Urlacher hits Gore so hard he never considers running for President again. Oh wait... LOL! [*]I hope with the pressure off, I hope Grossman looks solid against the #2's. I wonder how much we will even see him, as the soon to be HOF inductee Hanie should play most of the snaps after Orton. [*]I'd like to see some evidence that we're running as close to our full playbook as possible with Orton in there, even given this is the 3rd preseason game. I'd like to know that he's really grown since what we saw his freshman year. Agreed 100%. While I think 90% of Orton's game will be underneath, I want to see that he "can" run a full offense, and not a trimmed down one.

Hold the phone cdog. Yes, I am pessimistic, but I also have said I don't want to talk about the draft now, and I have made no win/loss predictions. Regardless of that, tough if you don't like fans who are pessimistic. I personally see little difference in what you complain about, from others who have to sit through post after post by fans drinking kool-aid, and who give false hope. Frankly, I think the combo of the kool-aid drinkers and the pessimists (I would actually say realists) is a key reason why the boards are great. If everyone simply talked about how great the team is, where's the fun. Admit it. You love the arguments. If this board was filled w/ nothing but fans who all felt we were going to win the SB every year, your number of posts would be minimal. How many times can you post how Orton is going to the pro bowl? It's the back and forth most fans on this board enjoy, IMHO. Now, I personally don't care for the "Rex Sucks" posts, or the "Bears suck" posts. I don't care for posts that are negative, w/o even providing analysis or support for their beliefs. I will state an opinion, negative or not, and provide reason for that opinion, and then defend it. If I am shown to be wrong. So be it. But this would be one boring ass board if everyone was just a bunch of ra-ra cheerleaders. The reality is, there are more than enough reasons to be negative right now. You choose to stay positive, and believe this team can be great. Fine. But w/ so many holes and question marks on offense, I think you have your head in the clouds. You want to call me out after the season. Be my guest. But if the team is bad, get ready to be blasted for your kool-aid drinking, head in the sand, nothing is wrong philosophy.

NFO does NOT like this. I HATE talking about the draft before Halloween, much less before the start of the season. I admit I am very pessimistic about the season, but at the same time, I just can't start talking about the 2009 draft this early.

Agreed. I think there is a big difference between a QB being a "game manager" to "playing not to lose". I think Orton is a game manager, but as you said, that doesn't mean we wont try to score points.

I was not a big Dusty fan on draft day, as I just didn't feel DT was a top need at the time, but have since really come to like this kid, despite the injury issues. I was at the Houston/Chicago preseason game last year. It was just preseason, but Dusty impressed me more than any other player on the field. It wasn't half as much about the results so much as the intensity of his play. He really played like an animal. He didn't just play the game. He attacked it. Even on the sideline, he displayed a level of intensity, roaming the sidelines and looking like he was ready to tear someones head off. Watching him took me to a time of old school bears. Not trying to put him on a pedestal, but the way he played was simply something fun to see, and I really hope he can stay healthy enough to stay on the field. If he can, I think the potential is incredible, particilary w/ the players he will be on the DL w/.

What is amazing is, we can talk so long and still not communicate. A. I think the problem is more than any one thing, and have said as much. I don't think the problem is JUST coaching, nor do I think it is JUST any one thing. I think the problem is a combination of multiple variables. B. While it has been assumed, and I admit may in fact be, that talent is the A#1 problem, I have come to wonder more and more how much our coaching is at play. And yes, to the point where I wonder if coaching is not as much, or even more, a problem than simply saying talent. Let me ask you this. In general, and not just w/ regard to the OL, do you believe Angelo is simply a defensive evaluating genius, and (in terms of the draft) an offensive idiot? Because if the problems on the OL, as well as the rest of the offense, are in fact about talent, then I think that is what you have to believe. On the other hand, as you have pointed out, Angelo has had some very solid veteran offensive finds/pickups. So that may actually put a dent into the idea he is an idiot evaluating talent. So what is the difference between drafting offensive players and getting them through trade and FA. Well, one difference is that veterans are already developed players. Drafted players however, must be developed. Thus, again, I wonder how much of the issue is coaching and development. Gage and Wade are two fairly recent examples of players who never developed w/ us, but have since developed into solid receivers w/ other teams. Not saying either are great, but they have shown a level of development unseen in Chicago. As much of a Rex basher as I am, at the same time, I wonder if one day he won't go to another team and develop to a level he never did in Chicago. I wonder if Berrian takes it to another level. So, it comes back to Angelo v Lovie and Co. Again, remember, I am an Angelo basher, so it isn't like I have some bias here that favors my argument. I simply have come to wonder if Angelo is truly so inept evaluating offensive talent in the draft, of the a larger part of the problem isn't our staffs inability to develop the talent he brings in. Beekman might be a recent example for the OL. While I am not saying he has looked great or anything, I would say he has looked a lot better than the staff expected. I mean, this staff refused to even give him a look, much less an opportunity. They were not planning on considering him at OG this year either until injuries forced their hand. And yet, he hasn't looked that bad, which says a lot about a guy who has not even been practicing at OG. Maybe its all Angelo. Fine. Then we just need a new GM, as I don't believe getting it done on one side of the ball is enough. Or maybe Angelo isn't as bad as I have felt, and the greater problem is the staffs inability to develop the talent he brings in.

Gotta agree. I am been ripping Rex, so this will likely be taken as bias, but I am watching the game now (I taped it) and thus far, Rex has not looked good. We can talk about the OL, but when the defense sends 7, and you have 6 blocking, a guy is open. Also, even though they are blitzing heavy, most all the passes I have seen thus far have been to covered receivers, or even double covered. Also have to question those who ripped Tait and said St. Clair was looking okay. St. Clair is getting abused.

Your premise is our coaching is failing all this wonderful O Line talent we have. Read the post that started this thread. Well, I've proven that our line was regarded in 2006 and the staff hasn't changed. The talent has OBVIOUSLY degraded. You COME ON. You certainly can do better than this weak shit. Are you seriously suggesting our line talent today is as good as it was a few years ago? Grow a brain. One, I think the talk of sacks frankly got us off point. Two, I still disagree about how good our OL was in 2006. Was it better than last year? Sure. Same talent? Basically. Injuries and age took their toll. But in 2006, I see sort of two seasons. At the start, our offense was incredible, and our OL was part of that. Then opponents began blitzing and stunting, and after that, sack totals went up. Did the OL change from the first half of the year to the 2nd? No. What changed is how defenses attacked us, and our OL/offense was not able to compensate. But that doesn't mean the current crop we have can't be coached up and improve from what we saw the other night. Lord, I sure hope they can. I hope we get some better talent too via picking up a few scraps from elsewhere. The line is the key. I've been crying about our aging line since before last season started. I had a bunch of people here telling me the line was "veteran but not old." LOL! Now all of a sudden I see a few others have come to the same conclusions I reached then. Folks who believe they'd be better at GM than JA is. It's a ferkin' joke! I think you misunderstand. You make out like I am saying Fred Miller would have been a stud this past year if it were not for coaching. No. What I am saying is: (a) I think coaching as been PART of the problem. Even when our OL was better, they appeared suceptibe to stunts and blitzes. It isn't just once in a while either. Man, so often when we see the opponents attack us this way, our guys flat out look lost. And again, I am not just talking about the Metcalf's of the OL/offense. Veterans, who are considered solid or better, simply look lost and confused when a defense stunts and blitzes. The other night, when Seattle dropped their two DEs into coverage, and blitzed their two OLBs, our two OTs stood there w/o a clue what to do. you can say St.Clair and Tait suck, but I offer the idea that they are simply not prepared, and that is coaching. And before you say, "it was the 2nd preseason game" it is just one recent example. Clark is another who is a solid veteran, but can also kill us on blitzes when he doesn't pick up a guy who the staff even say was his responsibility. ( Talent is a problem, and a big one. How can you think I feel different when you criticized me for the "I told ya so" posts. I have been screaming for OL for years. Talent is w/o question a problem on this team. At the same time, I don't think it is the only problem. © While we haven't drafted many, we have drafted some OL through Angelo's time. None have done jack. Is Angelo just that bad of an evaluator? Maybe. Or another posibility is that some of these players might have been better than what we have seen, but were not coached/developed well. Frankly, w/ our history on offense, I think the problem is more than just one thing. I think it is more than just not being able to draft talent, but a combo of that AND not being able to develop players we draft, w/ Berrian being maybe the lone exception.

Interesting. So by your logic, in 2005 (year before the SB when few thought much of us) our OL was a top 10 pass protecting unit. We were tied for 10th in fewest sacks given up that year. I don't even see what you are trying to prove here. In the SB, our OL gave up only 1 sack. Does that mean they did a good job protecting Rex? I think most who watched the SB would question that thought. Sacks are a measure, but not the one and only, of pass protection. Frankly, I am not sure why you are even arguing this. Is it just because you love to argue? There have been games where I have watched our defense rush the hell out of another QB, but rack up few actual sacks as the QB kept throwing the ball away. But so long as the sack numbers are not high, our defense didn't pressure the QB? Come on Cdog, you can do better than that. Another problem w/ this concept is it doesn't factor the QB enough. You have two teams, both w/ crap OLs, but one has a good QB who can scramble and avoid trouble, while the other has an older veteran pocket passer that should have retired a few years prior. Wanna bet which team gives up more sacks? Doesn't mean that OL was so much worse than the other, but the QB simply couldn't handle the pressure.

1) I say it's a combination of bad talent (i.e. drafting) and bad coaching. So, blame lands on JA for drafting (or not drafting) an adequate number of talented OLinemen, as well as Lovie and staff for not competently preparing the guys they have. I think you would agree I have rip Angelo for the OL we have brought in, and (as you say) that we haven't. Still, I just wonder.... When you look around the league, you find a plethera of teams who have starting OL that were drafted on day two. Not every team drafts OL w/ their top picks, but other teams seem more capable of developing these players. Is the problem Angelo drafted Metcalf, or is the problem Metcalf simply was never developed under this staff. Or Beekman. Here we have an OG that was drafted in the 4th, and who was considered a pretty solid (possible day one) draft pick. The only reason he is getting a look now is due to injuries. To me, there is no question Angelo hasn't done enough. At the same time, I have started to wonder if Angelo's one-sided ability isn't more our offensive staff's inability to develop the talent Angelo brings in, and thus he looks incapable of drafting offensive talent. Take for example Justin Gage, who never developed here, but is looking quite solid w/ Tenn. Wade goes to Minny, and his first year there, w/ an awful QB, he has a career year. If those players developed in Chicago, would Angelo look "as" bad? 2) If the Bears do stunt in practice and preseason, I know that I can't recall seeing it more than a handful of times over the past several years. It's something I've screamed for, especially considering the fact that any of our DEs can just be pushed up the field on their outside rush move. You and me both. Since I heard the Idonije interview last year, followed by a group of ex-bears blasting the team for this, I have been talking about it. Those ex-players talked about how an average OT can best a pro bowl DE when that DE does the same thing every time. If that is his only move, you just push him wide, outside of the play. But a pro bowl DE would never use just one move. They may have a key move, but they would also use that to get the OT off balance, then use a different move. Cracker may say we stunt, but when our own player on the DL says we don't, I tend to believe the player first. 3) No man who is married truly wears the pants in the family. Anyone who believes different is fooling himself, or trying too.

Interesting. So by your logic, in 2005 (year before the SB when few thought much of us) our OL was a top 10 pass protecting unit. We were tied for 10th in fewest sacks given up that year. I don't even see what you are trying to prove here. In the SB, our OL gave up only 1 sack. Does that mean they did a good job protecting Rex? I think most who watched the SB would question that thought. Sacks are a measure, but not the one and only, of pass protection. Frankly, I am not sure why you are even arguing this. Is it just because you love to argue? There have been games where I have watched our defense rush the hell out of another QB, but rack up few actual sacks as the QB kept throwing the ball away. But so long as the sack numbers are not high, our defense didn't pressure the QB? Come on Cdog, you can do better than that. Another problem w/ this concept is it doesn't factor the QB enough. You have two teams, both w/ crap OLs, but one has a good QB who can scramble and avoid trouble, while the other has an older veteran pocket passer that should have retired a few years prior. Wanna bet which team gives up more sacks? Doesn't mean that OL was so much worse than the other, but the QB simply couldn't handle the pressure.

I would absolutely say blame rolls up to Lovie. Angelo? That is a bit trickier. He is the GM, and all blame can roll up to him, but while that is technically true, I think the brunt of the blame is below him. Angelo can fire, or demand to be fired, any coach. But short of that, there isn't much he can do. The HC is supposed to manage the coaching staff. I would prefer to simply lay the blame at Lovie, as it is his job to manage the coaches. To me, the more the GM interferes w/ this, the worst the situation becomes.

All QB's are pressured. This is the NFL, not fantasyland. The measure of a line is the productivity of the RB's and the sacks it gives up. Wow, do I disagree w/ this statement. No question "a" measure of the productivity of the OL surrounds the run game, but I think the pass protection is judged by more than just sacks. You can have a QB that excels throwing the ball away to avoid a sack, but that doesn't mean the OL did their job. Just because there wasn't a sack, doesn't mean the OL got it done. Frankly, you usually don't have more than a handful of sacks a game, if even that, but you often have considerably more "QB pressures" or "QB hurries". Those can be as much of an evaluation of the OL as simply looking at the sack stat column. Again Seattle, there was a play where Rex was hit as he was throwing the ball, and the result was a pick. A sack was not credited because the QB got rid of the ball, but I think you would be hard pressed to argue the OL got it done on that play. Sacks are great, but not the end all, be all, evaluation of an OL.

This thread is too long for such a simple question but I'm jumping in. I do feel our Oline struggles against stunts and it's been this way for at least a couple years. However, they really struggle against 3-4 defenses. Kyle Orton said it best though that the whole pass protection thing against blitzes (stunts whatever) is a unit evaluation not just Oline. Over last year at the top of the list Fred Miller, Metcalf, Ced, AP, and Rex all had breakdowns resulting in a sack or bad play. Not everyone made the boneheaded play everytime but as fans the cumulative effect shows clearly. Defenses know this and they don't bank on any single guy making the mistake but rather that one will be made and our QB and WR weren't good enough to overcome it. - Agreed on the 3-4. I mentioned this before too. To me, many teams struggle against the 3-4, and a key reason is due to a lack of practicing against it. Who are usually the best defenses against the 3-4? IMHO, usually its the team who's defense runs the 3-4. Pitt, for example, always has been solid blocking the 3-4. A key reason IMHO is because they see the 3-4 so much from their own defense. - That follows through to the stunt/blitz argument. If we don't stunt or blitz on defense, then our offense simply isn't as exposed to it. Sure, they practice a few times a week against a scout team that will stunt or blitz, as the opponentes wil, but that is a small level compared to if our defense actually did this itself, and our offense's exposure to this was more common place. - Finally, as you said, the problem seems beyond one or two players, but is simply wide-spread. That is why I question coaching over talent, though both are factors. If it was just a few individuals, then I would be more prone to say it was personnel, but as it is wide-spread, I look at the staff more. Clark, for example, is a veteran who is considered a good blocker, but way too often I have seen him flat out miss assignments. I have seen plays where he is expected to recognize and block a LB blitzing his side, but he doesn't even attempt a chip block before going into his route, and thus the LB has a free path to the QB. Clark is not some low-talent youngster. Tait, Kreutz and others often appear baffled on blitzes and stunts as well. Again, not low talent youngsters. I am not a fan of Hiestand and made that clear last year. I've never figured out his love affair with Metcalf who IMO has never looked good in a game. Nobody seems to develop with this guy. He hated Beekman all preseason and yet he hasn't been anwhere near as bad as Metcalf was last year. He said Beekman was too small to play the position yet Garza is the exact same size? And worst of all, Hiestand said the Oline was playing well last year and fans didn't know what they were talking about. Agreed. Frankly, I see the same issue beyond just Hiestand. Too many of our positions seem to lack development. Often I believe that our players develop inspite of coaching. Players who develop for us would have developed regardless. Too few players we draft who are considered high in raw talent, but needing development, never seem to make it. I was always an Angelo basher, and still am, but more and more I have wondered if the problem is Angelo's inability to find talent (particularly on offense) or our staff's inability to develop that talent.

I think that is sort of the point though. The belief was, our left side may suck, but so long as the right side is strong, we can deal w/ it. But if Tait is not as strong as expected, then the effect would be tenfold. I don't expect a Fred Miller collapse this year, but (a) fear we may have to protect Taits side more than expected and ( fear we may have to concern ourselves w/ replacing Tait sooner than expected.

I'm not saying, hey Kyle who do you want us to keep? It's more like, now that you are the man; tell us what and who you ar most comfortable with. It happens everyday, everywhere. The bosses then go to their meeting rooms and weigh all the options. Getting input the starting QB should be part of the process. My bad using the word "power", that probably triggered an involuntary spasm. First, and I have said this before, but I just don't think you can compare a sports team to other businesses. It simply rarely matches up. Second, as another said, if a QB gains chemistry w/ a receiver, it should be obvious to the staff w/o asking for input. Explain how asking for input complicates things? It's a standard way of finding the best possible scenario. Kinda like us fixing the Bears woes, one post at a time. LOL First, I would argue it does complicate things. What if the staff disagrees w/ the QB, and doesn't make the move the QB recommends? Then you can create a bitter situation w/ the QB. Second, you can create locker room problems. What if the QB feels he has more chemistry w/ one player, but the other is a player w/ more locker room respect. It's one thing if the GM is the bad guy, and another IMHO when the QB is the bad guy. Their, where does it end? Do you ask Tommie Harris what DT he feels more comfortable w/? Do you ask Urlacher what backup LB he feels best about? No, I simply do not see the reason to seek this sort of info from the QB, or any player. To me, more bad than good can come from this. Did I mention Bradley in my post? (Please do not embelish) Whoever gets the quickest sep, would be the one who the coaches feel get the quickest sep. All I'm saying is, if it's close, go with the best fit with the QB. It's not like any of the bubble guys will ever be great ones that got away. First, as said before, the staff should be able to see which WR has the most chemistry w/ the QB. Second, I disagree that a bubble player doesn't ever become the one that got away, as it has happened many times for many teams.

An article the other day said we let him go, at his request, so he could find a spot w/ another team where he would have a better chance to make the 53 man roster, as it didn't appear he would get that opportunity w/ us.