nfoligno

Thank you. I have been scrolling through the guide, trying to find out when they would replay our game. I swear it seems like I have seen the replay listed for every game but ours. I was able to watch the game online, which was great, but I just don't think that equal the ability to record it, and rewind when you want so you can focus on certain things.

My guess is we are waiting for cuts, but don't be too sure we will just be looking at the older veterans. While we are awful on the OL, some teams are stacked, and could end up cutting quality youth. Those are teams I think we should be looking at. Sort of like how a team may look at who we cut at DL, LB or CB, we should be looking at teams w/ solid depth at OL and who they cut.

One, just because he isn't sacked doesn't mean there wasn't pressure. Many of Rex' picks over the years were a direct result of his throwing the ball under pressure (often off his backfoot). Two, didn't we change OL coaches between then and now. I know we have changed numerous other position coaches, but not sure about the OL. Regardless, I still believe we struggled, even that year, when facing teams that blitzed and stunted. Early on, our OL looked great, but then (I think) Minny sort of exposed both the OL and Rex, and after that, teams began to attack more and more. In the first 8 weeks, Rex was sacked only 6 times. After that? 15. I would also point to the SB. I think most recall Rex coming under a ton of pressure, but he was only technically sacked once. Just because the stat line only shows one sack doesn't mean he wasn't pressured, or that our OL did a good job.

I recall I, and some others, wanted Derrick Johnson. Turns out we would have been right in the sense of getting a good player, but as he slipped all the way to 15, he would have been a reach. That was really an ugly draft. Quite a few of the players in the top 10 have been proven to be total busts (Alex Smith, Benson, Pacman, Troy Williamson, Mike Williams) while a couple others who looked good early on, now appear headed for bustdom (Ronnie Brown, who some believe could be moved this year, and Cadillac). Not that I want to take the time, but that has to be one of the worst top 10 drafts for some time. Pretty ugly when you, using hindsight, still have to stretch to find a good pick, or you simply have to say, "we should have traded down".

You talked in a circle with most of this post and I couldn't follow you. So, I'll just say I agree with your comment above as several QB's running the West Coast Offense have had nice careers without much more than an occasional deep toss to keep people honest. It can be done and with the weather conditions in Chicago, I'd say it must be done for a significant portion of the season. I think we basically agree. I agree a deep threat, a legit deep threat, can very much open up the field. Look at what Welker was able to do last year whe NE added a deep threat in Moss. Talk about opening up the middle of the field. At the same time, while it can do wonders, there are other ways to open up the middle, and especially to back guys out of the box, w/o having a big play threat. By the way, 10% is pretty often for attempts at the deep ball. And if Rex was 50% on those, I'll eat my desk. Grab some salt. He was 52.1% on 31-40 yard passes, and while he only chucked it 7 times for over 41 yards, he completed 5 for 71.4%. The point though is that, even though Rex would throw deep, it didn't get defenses to backoff. IMHO, on the majority of downs over the last two years, this team has faced stacked boxes. I think our RBs would attest to this in a heartbeat. So having a deep threat isn't always enough to get defenses to back off out of the box. Even w/ Rex to Berrian as a threat, defenses still attacked, thus I question the argument that if we went w/ Rex over Orton, we would open up the field.

I see this as an issue someone brings up every preseason and then our guys do a fine job tackling during the regular season. Briggs had a bit of trouble for a game or two last year but they got it corrected. You aren't going to use your high priced offensive talent as tackling dummies for your neanderthal D guys. This isn't 1967. Sorry, but I have seen more tackle issues than just a few here and there, and even the players said they have not been a good tackling team. You should've just said you didn't know what we practiced and left it at that. Now I know your wife wears the pants. First, despite all you want to believe, you don't really know what we do in practice either. Second, while I am only using logic, it is valid, despite how you want to twist it. Third, I never said I wear the pants in the family. Are you married? I assume you are not if you believe otherwise. We don't stunt as much as other teams because of Lovie's scheme. We do, however, stunt. And we certainly practice against stunts when the game film suggests a team does a lot of it. Again, not something you can do too much in camp when you expect vanilla. Again, you say we do stunt, but I have not seen it in games, and prefer to trust Idonije when he says we do not, over your beliefs. And again, this isn't a recent issue. This isn't my seeing something in our 2 preseason games, but something seen for several years. Film and the line coach ought to cover these things during the regular season. I don't think we have difficulty against stunts any more than anyone else. Our blitz pickups have been lacking this year and during a few games last season. Sometimes it's talent, sometimes it's bad luck, sometimes it execution, and sometimes the coaches blew it or the QB didn't recognize something. It isn't as black and white as you suggest with this "is it talent or coaching" question. I never said it was black and white. My point is, we have always been content to simply pin the blame on players, but at the same time, the problem seems wide spread enough to question if the problem ends there. I never said it is all or nothing. I never said Metcalf's (for example) failures were simply due to bad coaching. Sometimes a player just sucks. But at the same time, I believe there is ample enough evidence to suggest the coaching may too be a problem. I get it already... Geez man, it's like you try to wear your opponent down by asking the same question 30 different ways. Are you Chet Coppock? Anyway that works 1. I already said they were unprepared given this was the 2nd preseason game. But you continue to pretend I am just talking about one or two preseason games, or pretend I am talking about a new problem. I am not. 2. It's early and our line hasn't had a chance to gel. New guys in new positions. Some are slipping in regards to ability. See above. This is a problem I have seen going back a few years. 3. Des Clark was hurt on our second series and was splitting time before that. How many plays was our veteran TE in for and were they plays Rex was pressured? More of the same. There were plenty of games last year where I saw Clark blow an assignment. This is NOT a new revalation. 4. Our starting RB is a rookie and he was in there for most of the time the bad shit happened. Again, you just can't seem to get past the idea this is not a recent problem. 5. I'd need to watch the game again, which I won't do, to say whether you're correct or not about Kruetz being killed by stunts. I will, however, watch for it Thursday night. That said, however, how much coaching does a guy like him need to recognize and react to a blitz or stunt? You seem to be spitting these things out of both sides of your ass. Well, practice makes perfect, and lack of practice... well.... I'll let that famous imagination of yours finish the statment. We have the same coaches we had in 2006. Grossman played every game and was sacked a total of 21 times. A little over 1 per game. We've already agreed he isn't the best at recognition and he tends to hold the ball too long. We also know that a good chunk of those sacks came in 2 or 3 games. Most of the time he was sacked once or wasn't sacked at all. The line coached by the same dudes we have now was getting it done now. In other words, your entire argument just took a huge torpedo. I'd say this is a question of age and time to gel. Go back to ripping on Jerry for not being as good a GM as you. You have a better argument there. I guess this is the crux of our dispute. You think our inability (if at all) to block/protect stunts and blitzes is a recent thing. I disagree. Even in 2006, I think you saw the problem. After the first grouping of games, teams seemed to "figure out" Rex and our offense. They began to attack more. Teams began stunting and blitzing more, and often to effective results. Rex didn't always have high sack totals, but in several games where he had only one sack, he at the same time would throw 2, 3 or 4 picks. So it isn't just about sack stats.

I believe the team signed Kreutz in 2002, and I don't believe his falloff began for a few years after that. In fact, wasn't Kreutz one of Angelo earliest moves?

- Personally, regarding Kreutz, I think it is a lot of different things, some of which may be simply on him. I think playing next to different players nearly ever year. Playing w/ a revolving door at QB. Playing w/ mostly garbage guys next to him. Being asked to do too much. Trying to do too much on his own. Several different OL coaches, not to mention OCs. I think there are many things that can be looked at w/ him, some of which might just be basic things like resting on his rep. At the same time, when talking simply about line calls, that is just something I would not expect to suddenly go from a positive to negative. - I have not said, nor am I saying, that we never practice picking up stunts or blitzes. But I do question how much we stress this. You say we have a scout team that runs the opponents defense. Your right, but (a) don't we do this for just a couple days a week? I thought we practices the first part of the week w/ our starters v our starters, and later in the week we incorporated the scout team and opponents game plan. ( isn't our scout team composed of our lesser players? Would our offense benefit best practicing picking up the blitz when Urlacher, Briggs, Brown, etc blitz or when our special teams players blitz. Ditto w/ the stunting. Again, I am not saying we don't ever practice it, but I am saying that if we don't stunt or blitz that much, then our offense likely is not getting work in these areas as much as needed. I go back to this. Even in 2006 when our OL looked good overall, they seemed most beatable by blitzes and stunts (and the 3-4, but that is another discussion). So even our good OL seem to struggle in this regard. At some point, do we not have to begin looking harder at the staff? Its one thing if just our young stuggle, or bad players, but when our better players look dumbfounded against these rushes, might the problem not also be practice and coaching?

Actually, yes, I saw it plenty in 2006 and 2007. Our TE had a wonderful year working that part of the field. Moose was more effective (although still sucked) because he generally didn't get the best corner and wasn't doubled as often as Berrian. It also helped Rashied, Jones and Mckie who all had nice years catching the ball. AP had better than 50 catches last season and our TE's both compiled nice numbers. We need someone filling Berrian's role on this squad or those numbers will suffer. Are you saying defenses played back on us? Are you saying defenses didn't stack the box and attack us? Wow, that is not what I saw and I doubt what our players (especially our OL and RBs) saw. I saw such a lack of respect for our passing game it was sad. If we had Chad Johnson on one side and Terrell Owens on the other, it wouldn't matter. It wasn't our WRs who were disrespected so much as our QB. If Rex see's a rusher on his heel on the 3rd step, deep patterns are a waste. Defenses attacked Rex, w/ the idea of getting to him before he had time to fire downfield. By in large, it worked. I know the numbers you are talking about, but I am not sure if that is simply because of Berrian working downfield. Don't forget that 2006 is when we finally got Rex to start all year. Before him, the likes of Hutch, Quinn, Krenzel, Stewart, Mathews, Chandlier (please let me stop here) where the QBs. You can argue we were able to do more because Rex could throw downfield, or it could simply be that Rex was a better QB than the hacks listed. I simply question the small number of downfield throws having the effect you claim. In 2006 (I think we would agree Rex' best year?) Rex threw 48 passes 31-40 yards downfield. I assume this is long enough to "deep threat" status, 48 times. That is 48 times out of 480 pass attempts. 10%. He also had 7 passes over 41 yards. Of the 48, he completed 25. So he completed 5% of his downfield passes. I question how much that 5%, or even the 10% if you go off attempts, equates to all the stats you throw out there. I think those stats have far more to do w/ having a different game plan, better QBs, better run game (2006 at least), and better receivers (better than the likes of David Terrell and Co. at least). I agree with your other comments regarding Orton not being a rag arm and I'm not someone arguing for Rex based on this aspect of football. But you can't ignore the fact that a team that doesn't have a deep threat (or one that refuses to incorporate it into the game plan regardless) generally finds it tougher in the middle of the field. Sure, a team w/ a "legit" deep threat has an advantage. But I would make two points. (a) A legit deep threat is not simply having a receiver w/ speed, or a QB w/ an arm. A legit deep threat is having a QB/WR combo that hits downfield consistent enough to warrant a defenses extra attention. If Rex only hits downfield 5% of the time, that is not going to be enough to back off a defense. So just chucking it 2 or 3 times a game, maybe completing one, doesn't mean we have a deep game. I would argue we have not had a legit deep game, even w/ Rex and Berrian, and would further point to how defenses continued to play us as proof. ( While I agree it is best if you can have a legit downfield threat, at the same time, I think you can do quite a bit w/o it too. Whenever a team blitzes, there is an open area/receiver. If your QB can quickly find and hit that receiver, you can make the defense pay for blitzing. If you attack the outside as well as inside, you can spread out the field. If you mix up where/who you send, you can beat a defense. There are simply many things you can do to counter a defense that stacks the box, besides simply chucking it downfield.

here is a problem I have w/ this. Kreutz used to be considered very good in calling protections. I always thought he was like a catcher who was known for calling a good game, as much as for his ability to hit or throw out runners. Now Kreutz has played quite a few years, has some mileage, and may be wearing a bit. I can understand that. But did he suddenly get stupid? Seriously, think about this. Didn't his downturn, not just in physical play, but mental, seem to occur shortly after Lovie took over? It seems like, despite the pro bowls, numerous fans have been calling out Kreutz for several years now. I understand players losing some physical ability, but how often do they suddenly forget the mental part. Heck, usually they continue to gain in that department, and try to use that aspect to compensate for a loss of physical tools. I am not saying it is purely coaching, or that we have pro bowl talent wasted. But if our defense doesn't stunt or blitz a whole lot, and our offense is freaking awful blocking these, might there not be a correlation? Phily is considered very good in blitz and stunt pickup. They also have a defense that stunts and blitzes a ton. Again, correlation? So often, I have seen fans talk about how much our offense benefits from practicing against our defense, but I am starting to wonder about that. We may have talent, but we run a pretty vanilla defense. Maybe that is why so many other, less talented, defenses that are a bit more coplex seem to give us fits.

They tackle plenty during the pre-season games. And this isn't exclusive to the Bears, by any stretch. Wow. So they have a month and a half (or whatever) of camp and practice, and you think the key is they tackle in the few series our starters play in pre-season games. Damn man, you got it. Who cares what they do for 90% of the time. So long as they practice that 10% or whatever. This may not be exclusive to the bears, but do you not agree tackling has been a problem for this team? I am not talking about this non-season, but in recent years. No, I'm not saying the problem is exclusive to the bears, but what the hell does that matter. What matters is, we have been a shoddy tackling team for several years now. When you have a problem, and it isn't a short term problem, I think you have to begin (a) finding the cause and ( finding the solution. The bears flat out said they were a poor tackling team last year, and were going to work on it this year, but if they don't even allow tackling in practice, how can you really work on it? You don't game plan for the pre-season. Maybe a little for this third game coming up. It's always been a bit of a gentleman's agreement that teams remain vanilla in these two first games. Look at what Packers fans are saying about their game last week. Rodgers was terrorized and they weren't ready either. Somewhere along the way, someone forgot to tell a few coaches that this was the agreement. It doesn't mean our guys are being poorly coached. Welcome to 2008. I do recall the gentlemen's agreement stuff you are talking about, but whoever or whenever, that idea has seemed to fall by wayside. This is not the first year (or even the 2nd) I have heard this team complain about another team playing too hard or whatever during a preseason game. Oh, and pointing out how the Pakers are crying too, well that just makes it all better. So we aren't alone crying about how hard another team plays in preseason games. We can join a whiners club, and the Packers can be the first to sign up w/ us. Great. Just curious. Did you see the play Jamar Williams had the pick? We blitzed RMJ on that play. I guess we threw a sprinkle into our own vanilla, huh? Duh. Ever notice our QB Rex had a reputation for getting rattled when you blitz him? Um, yea. And wouldn't that be all the more reason to work harder on blitz pickups? Dumbest thing you've ever said. Of course (notice the spelling) we practice stunts and protections against stunts. Get off your rump and out to camp once and see. One, I would LOVE to get out to camp, and maybe one day will. You can buy me an ice cream. You don't have to convince me. My wife is the one who would need to be convinced. Two, I am not saying we NEVER practice picking up stunts and blitzes. What I am saying though is, how much do you think we do it? You say we stunt? Well, I guess you would know better than Idonije, right? He was asked last year, point blank, if the team stunts. He said no, and tried to then backpeddle a bit by talking about how our DL is so good it doesn't need to. Now that is the dumbest thing ever said. If we don't stunt, why would we practice it a lot? No. Sorry. Despite your going to camp, I think you may read into things at times how you want. A Chicago Bear Player said point blank we do not stunt. I personally can not recall seeing us stunt in a game. And then there is Cdog saying we stunt and practice stunts. Sorry, but wanna take a poll here and see how much other fans have seen us stunt? Again, this point is this. We have seen for years an inability to block against stunts and blitz pickups. Further, despite your belief, few others (I believe) think we do in fact stunt, and most believe our blitzes are pretty lacking. Not many, and when we do, they are usually not very imaginative. So while our offense may work on these aspects some in position drills or whatever, I doubt they spend a whole lot of time working on it as a team, as these are things our defense doesn't do, and thus things our offense isn't as prepared for. So often people talk about what a great test our offense gets every day in practice because of how good our defense is, but if our defense doesn't stunt, blitz or tackle, how good of a practice is our offense really getting? Our O Line ain't good. Our TE's and RB's are rookies or second year guys. Do the math. Really? Kreutz has been killed by stunts and blitzes. He's not good? Tait and St Clair, two veterans, were embarassed on one blitz against Seattle that saw neither block a man, as both stood around while the LBs they should have picked up had free paths to the QB. You talk about TEs and RBs being rookies or 2nd year guys. Last year, AP looked freaking horrible in blitz pickup. Desmond Clark, while otherwise considered a good blocker, seemed so often out of position when he should have been picking up a blitzing LB. It isn't just this year and it isn't just the rookies or 2nd year guys. This is a problem we have seen for several years, and one that spreads from young to older veterans. As the problem has a window greater than this year, and spreads throughout so many players, I think you then need to look at what the constants are. Well, that would be coaching.

Bullshit. You still have to do it and if our guys can't get it done in the line with a fully developed game plan whereby that pass rush is dampened by our running threat and play action, we're dead. Hester can be a deep threat this year. And you don't need 7 step drops to go deep with someone as fast as Hester. Five should be plenty. I am not saying Hester never runs a deep pattern. Not even close. But the reality is, regardless who our QBs is, those deep patterns are simply going to be a small part of his game. He will run some deep patterns, but IMHO, if that is the majority of what he runs, he will be wasted. Say what you will, but if he runs mainly deep patterns, he will find the QB on his back the majority of the time. I want to get Hester the ball, and to me, that means most of his pass' will be short ones he can turn up field. Does that mean I would not ever send him deep? Hell no. I want to really mix it up. Heck, I even want to move him around the LOS to better free him up. I simply think many fans focus too much on bombs, when the reality is, even w/ Rex, that was only a very minor part of the passing game. One more thing. While Rex is more the gun slinger, I disagree w/ the idea Orton simply has a rag arm. I have seen him hit receivers downfield. He may not throw it on the same rope as Rex, and may not take as many gambles downfield, but that doesn't mean he isn't capable. I like the article that talked about how Orton has the downfield potential, and the more and more comfortable he gets under center, the more likely he is to begin taking more gambles. This part is correct. But his real value will be the threat he poses causing teams to double cover him. That leaves the underneath open for slow old guys like Booker. This sounds so great in theory, but have we seen it translate into reality? I am talking about for us. Rex has the cannon, right? Berrian was considered a downfield threat, and one of Rex' favorites, right? So, w/ that pair starting together, and Berrian running plenty of downfield patterns, why did we continue to see defenses stack the box? To me, that is a misconception of those who want Rex to start over Orton. This idea that w/o Rex, we don't threaten downfield and allow defenses to play a smaller field agaisnt us. Problem w/ this thinking is, w/ Rex, defenses played that small field against us. Rex may be capable of hitting a downfield target once in a while, but that never bought him defenses respect. For every one downfield toss, he was sacked three or more times, and often turned it over a few more. So even w/ Rex, defenses continued to stack the box and attack, because they simply didn't fear our QB. Hell, we saw it once again the other night as Seattle went after Rex. To me, defenses are more likely to stack the box w/ Rex, because they feel he mentally folds when attacked. Orton may not rip apart defenses downfield, but if he can hit the hot reads, or find the open receivers (left open due to the blitz) that can counter and backoff an aggressive defense far more than hitting a downfield WR once or twice a game. PS. I would ignore it normally but I'll be damned if you haven't used the wrong version of the word "course" something like 439 times here. Coarse, the way you're spelling it, means rough. Usually I'm just schooling you on football but thought I'd tackle something a little different today. Actually, I know I do it about 1/2 the time, and just don't take the time to care. So long as people know what I mean, I don't bother w/ the rest. I am sure if an english teacher were on this board, he/she would pull his/her hair out.

Hey, give az a break. He is allowed to biatch, moan and complain all he wants. We all do it. After the draft, there is plenty of griping about this pick or that pick, even though the player is now a bear. I see little difference here. If Rex was the pick over Orton, wanna bet there would be plenty still trashing Rex?

But, keep drinking that delicious kool aid of another mediocre QB. At least you are finally accepting that Rex was a mediocre QB.

For some time, I have wonder if many of the problems we have on the team center around a simple lack of talent, or inability of the coaching staff. More than in recent past, I seem to be reading articles talking about how we run camp, which just really puts a focus on our coaches. For example, for years I have seen our players exhibit some very questionable tackling. Then I read about how we do not really allow our players to tackle, or to finish tackles, in camp. Its more like we practice flag football in camp. The point was made, how can you work on tackling technique when you are not allowed to tackle? But for this, what I am curious about is the OL. Against Seattle, we faced a ton of blitzes. From what I have read, we were taken by surprise by this. For some reason, we didn't expect our opponent to blitz. Okay, fine, it is pre-season, but still. For some time, we have looked pretty damn awful against the blitz, and it is an area I would expect our staff to really work on in practice. But then I also read that we don't blitz a whole lot in practice, which begs the question, how can we work on blitz pickup if we don't practice blitzing? Think about our OL play. How often have you all seen individual OL players just get blown off the line. Take Metcalf out of the equation for this. Sure, it happens, but it seems like the vast majority of the pressure our QBs face is due to opponents blitzing, rather than simply from getting blown of the line, whether through speed of power. Also, we often seem to get killed by stunts. Again, we do not stunt on defense, and thus I think it fair to assume we don't practice it much. If we don't stunt in practice, how can our offense really work on blocking against stunts? I am not trying to pretend we have a very talented OL, but I do wonder if the problem is more coaching than talent. It would be one thing if I watched our individual players just getting blown up, but rarely does that seem to be the case. Most often, it is an issue of a missed assignment. This OL didn't slide over his protection. This OL/RB/TE didn't shift over for the blitz pickup. These are coaching issues more than talent, and unless we alter how we practice, will it ever end?

Maybe, yet at the same time, he is showing something, and his numbers the other day appear better than our QBs. Is their offense that much better?

Rex did have his shot. Pretty much every reporter who was at the practices said Orton had a slight lead after the end of practices. This is the phase most expected Rex to do more. This is when our QBs really don't face a legit pass rush, and where Rex' defeciences were supposed to be hidden. I think, heading into camp, the general consensus was Rex would do well in practice, and by the time the games began, would have the edge in the battle. But according to most, Rex didn't do that great in practice, and Orton actually had the edge. You can question that all you want, but how many practices did you attend. I didn't, and can only go off the reports of those who did, and those felt Orton had the edge. I think too many fans are acting like everything was decided in these two games, but the games were the final evaluation of a month plus long evaluation process. Rex was given an opportunity, and simply didn't do enough w/ the opportunity he was given.

Two points on Orton/Hester deep routes. One, w/ this OL, I doubt we will see many opportunities for the QB to stand in the pocket and hit Hester deep. More likely, if we try to run Hester on a deep route, the QB will be killed before Hester has time to develop his route. Two, I think Hester can still be a big play threat, but instead of catching the ball 50 yards downfield, he can catch shorter, quick slants, and then turn it upfield. To me, that is where he is most dangerous. If he develops that part of his game this year, I think that would be FAR better than his simply getting a big play here and there over the coarse of the season.

As you said, there is no convincing you otherwise, but I would point out that while you are looking at the play in the games, the staff has also seen the QBs every day in practice, and that also factors. I was not at any of the practices, but most articles I read gave Orton a slight nod over Rex from the standpoint of practices. So to me, I would say it is quite possible both were giving an open competition, but the staff felt Orton had a slight edge through practice, and Rex didn't do enough in the two games to alter that edge. Through the games, Orton may not have outplayed Rex, but at the same time, if he had an edge, he didn't have to. Use a boxing analogy. Going into the final round, one boxer is ahead in point. The other boxer knows he needs a knockout to win the fight, but fails to get it, and thus loses. Entering that same round, the boxer ahead in points knows all he has to do is not lose the fight (get knocked out) to win the fight. Orton may not have been that good in the games, but he wasn't that bad either, so he didn't do anything to lose the job. Rex needed to do more w/ the snaps he was giving in the games, and couldn't. Frankly, I think the decision was all but made after the 1st game. Rex got to play against the 2nd string of a questionable defense, and didn't do much. I think that was the opportunity he really failed. If Rex came in and lit up KCs 2nd string, I think he would have taken the lead in the competition, but he didn't.

I would rather not mess w/ his development. The kid is a rookie who had a bit of a mixed career in college, due in part to himself and in part to coaching changes. But he came to us a kid w/ skills, but needing to develop those skills. Moving him around, and asking him to learn multiple positions could do more harm than good. Think about this. We get a rookie WR and develop him usually at one WR position. We develop a kid as a Z WR. If there is an opening at the Y WR position, we don't move the rookie, as we say he has been learning the Z position. Later, after their rookie year, they learn more, but as a rookie, their education is usually more limited. Right now, I think Davis is looking pretty darn good at TE, and I would simply hate to mess w/ that development.

Sorry, but no way in hell I give Orton ANY power in the decision making process. If you are talking about Tom Brady or Payton Manning, MAYBE. But even then, it is no more than maybe. You have to be very careful about giving players too much power/authority. The fact is, this may be Orton's only year w/ the team as a starter. How can you give him power to make decisions that could affect the team beyond this year? For example, lets say he wanted to keep Booker over Bradley, or maybe even over Hass. Understandable from his perspective, if he thinks the veteran helps him more now, but sometimes a GM has to make decisions that might not be as good for now as they are for later. That is a typical struggle between GM and coach. It only gets harder and more complicated if players get to have a say. As for "who gets quickest sep", who do you think that is? I have read nothing to lead me to believe Bradley gets quick sep. In fact, from what I have seen in game, he usually gets no sep, despite his speed. And Hass? That is the one knock on the kid. He struggles to get sep, due in part to his lack of speed/quickness. He can make great catches, but he has to as he can't break free from the DB.

Split the difference. Very good. Honestly, I may be very much in the minority, but I think T.Jackson will even have a pretty good year. Not great, but I think he will have a pretty solid year, and far better than many expect. Last year, he had a couple REAL bad games, including the one against us. In 2 games, he threw 7 of his 12 picks. W/o that, he wasn't that bad for a young, developing QB. And Minny bought Berrian, who could very well become a favorite target for TJ. And their other young WR, Rice, didn't explode onto the scene, but did seem to develop later in the year. I just look at Minny and GB, who are both entering the season w/ unproven QBs, like us. The difference is, both of those teams have solid to elite OLs, solid to elite run games, and solid at minimum, WR corps. The league has plenty of bad QBs, but IMHO, few QBs are so bad that they would fail in such positive circumstances.

That is a good article. I used to like Pompeii when he was the draft specialist w/ SportingNews, years ago. It may not be equal to if Bushbaum raved about Orton, but that he was so high on him in the draft is telling to me. Another thing that has to raise an eyebrow, at least for me. I didn't realize our former QB JT O'Sullivan was about to win the starting job in SF. Sorry, but that is irritating. We are so desperate to find a starter, and another team finds one in our cast off. He may not be great, and maybe he is winning more due to Alex Smith, but still.

The "Rex show" has had a 5 year run to prove itself. After 5 years, I no longer care about any excuses. Injury, mechanics, bad OL, whatever. After 5 years, I simply do not believe you get the benefit of excuses. People can gripe all they want, but how many QBs get a 5 year tryout w/ one team? Sorry, but even the SB year finished w/ Rex being a bit of a question mark due to the 2nd half inconsistencies. The hope was he would take a step forward the following year, but it looked more like a step back. All that aside, seriously, how many QBs out there can we point to who were flat out handed the starting job 5 years running, w/o playing up to the level of expectation.