nfoligno

I give up. I tried to look through the history, but just don't care enough. There were others who felt strong about the OL. Maybe not as strong as you and I, maybe equal, but no question we were in the minority. Half the board seemed to want Mendenhall in the 1st. Another 40% seemed to want an OT in the 1st, but were not on board w/ going OL w/ other picks after. I would say another 5 or 6% might have been fine w/ getting another OL w/ in the first 3 or 4 rounds. But there was a very tiny minority that were in favor of truly drafting OL hard and heavy. I remember throwing out how I felt we could draft OL in every round. I said it sort of as a joke, an exaggeration, but at the same time, it wasn't a great exaggeration. I had a sig that was my mock draft, and every player drafted was OL. For all I know, every one of those players I liked pre-draft will turnout to be busts, but the point is still this. As you said, w/o an OL, whats the point of having QB, RB, WR and TEs.

With that being said, I strongly suspect we will see an announcement very soon as to who our starter will be. I have to believe they would want that decision made before the start of next week's game. I think the decision has been made. IMHO, if they were still unsure, we would have seen more of Orton in the game. Now w/ that said, it could still go either way. They could feel they saw enough good from Rex, and thus there was no need to keep Orton in there longer. Or, more likely IMHO, they could have felt Orton had the edge leading into the game, Rex needed to do something w/ his playing time, and if they didn't feel he did, Rex may have made their decision (in favor of Orton) for them.

Then again, maybe that is the best way to evaluate our QBs. I don't care what we do between now and the start of the season, I think any hope for a great OL is false hope. Most likely, our QBs are going to be spending a lot of time under pressure this year, thus seeing what they do now under pressure may be a better evaluation than if (like in the KC game) the OL actually looks good and protects the QB. Whoever is going to start for us will face a ton of pressure. We should accept that and see who deals w/ the pressure better now.

NEVER trade high picks when you are not a good team. Its one thing to trade a late 1st round pick, and another to pull a NO, who thought they would be good w/ the addition of Ricky, and their pick ended up a top 5 pick.

If we added Miller, I think the staff would be moving Tait back to LT and St. Clair to LG. Um, that would be the OL we finished w/ last year, and we all recall how great our OL was last year. The sick thing is, it is possible our OL this year could be worse. I have said it for weeks, but like our coaches, I think many on this board have been going off a few too many assumptions. Assume Williams will be capable of starting, and an upgrade to Tait. Then assuming St. Clair, a journeymen veteran, can man the most difficult position on the line. Then assuming Beekman, who had shown nothing, could start at LG and be an upgrade. Assume Tait is fine on the right because last years issues are solved by the position move. I was hopeful too, but the reality is, our OL sucks.

I think Lovie has done a good job overall and isn't even close to being on the bubble for me. I'm a bit more patient than you, I guess. Unless we're talking about Nfoligno's nonsense, that is. Well, if you are going to drag me into this:) I am down on Angelo, and have been, but also give credit where it is due. On defense, he has drafted well. Not only drafted, but brought in players outside the draft. Simply put, Angelo can scout/evaluate defensive talent. Problem is, he has shown little ability on the other side, and that is a big reason I blast him. If he were our head defensive scout, I would give him HUGE props, but his responsibility if for both sides of the ball, and he has simply done very little on that side. As to our coaches, I have little respect for them. Sorry, but I truly believe we got to the SB in spite of our coaches, rather than due to them. Look at the talent we had on the field on defense, and the lack of injuries we suffered. Does it take genius coaching to get good results out of great players? Turner - Part of me want to give him a bit of a pass, as he has not had much to work w/. But then I see our playcalling and game planning, and I just can't give him a pass. Wolfe up the gut gets all sort of talk, and is an example, but I think the problems go so far beyond that. I don't think he has been good in the area of Xs and Os. So often, I see us pass against a weak run defense/ good pass defense, and hear Turner talk about how they expected us to run, so we passed. That is a nice thought, but you are still pitting our weakness against an opponents strength, rather than attacking their weakness. ( How many players on offense really developed? I blast Angelo, but is every pick THAT bad, or is part of the problem our inability to develop talent? Babich - No question we suffered many injuries, but is that enough to totally give him a pass. Did injuries at some areas cause awful tackles in others? Our tackling is embarassing, and doesn't that have to come back to the coaches? I also hate what I saw from our DL last year. I have harped on this before, but we run a very vanilla pass rush. To me, it is incredible how well our DL can do at times considering how little we scheme to enhance their play. We don't stunt, or use mis-direction. Our DEs take nearly exclusive wide angles to the outside, and rarely, if ever, use inside moves. Then you have our pro bowl LBs who are not good tacklers. We wanted to use them to attack more, but did we ever use mis-direction or hide the blitz, or did we simply send them up the gut? Some say the problem is our LBs don't know how to blitz well, but again, is that not coaching? I am not going to rip the secondary much, as I can't expect much from them when you don't generate much pass rush. And this doesn't even touch the run defense. Yea, injuries were a factor, and a big one, but not the only factor IMHO. I have said this before, but even w/ the injuries, I argue we still had more talent on the field than many other teams who played better. IMHO, we have loads of talent on defense which masks weak coaching. When that talent level is dropped, the inability of our staff comes to the front. Lovie - Just not a fan. IMHO, he was over-rated when he came in. St.L was never a great defense under him. They gave up points and yards, but were able to create a ton of turnovers (due in large part to having a great offense that put the D in great situations) and gained a rep off those turnovers. W/o turnovers though, his defenses are very average, if not below. Under him, our defense shows shoddy technique, and very vanilla play. Sometimes talent makes that vanilla play look good, but sometimes you need more from the coaches to create better opportunities, and I don't think Lovie has it in his book. I also question his personality. W/ Lovie as the coach, how often does our team reflect that mean attitude you want in a football team. More often, our players act laid back. And how about the off-field issues our team suffers. How much of that is due to a coach who doesn't bring much fear to the table, and is more often the understanding parent who lets you get away w/ anything. Yes, we went to the SB, but I simply question how much of that was coaching, and how much of that was simply having the talent to get there. I grade a coach more whether a team over-produces or under. If a team over-produces, based on talent, I figure they were well coached. How often can we really say our team over-produced?

Frankly, I have said for a while Angelo should hire an offensive "special assistant" or "consultant". He can stay the GM, and keep the power, but bring in someone w/ a better knack for the offense. As great as that sounds, at least to me, its not going to happen.

But the statements about Oakley and Beekman are certainly encouraging. How much of a statement was made about the two? All it really said is that IF either step up, Metcalf could be gone. Other than saying Beekman did okay in the first pre-season game, which we all have said too, they really didn't offer anything more regarding the two, and said nothing about the play of Oakley. Not picking a fight here, just pointing out they didn't really say much more than the two have a shot.

Dude, seriously, WTF? You answer my posts within like 13 seconds. You must be sitting there with blisters on your finger from hitting the refresh key at supersonic speeds. Happy. I waited to reply this time. I'll try to slow down for you. I didn't mean to go too fast for you. PS. That special class you refer to must teach how to use the quote button, eh? Still prefer to use the bold feature.

Is Kordell Stewart still playing. We can bring him back to run around the pocket. Actually, maybe that is why we brought Booker back.

Selective posting again crackpot?

I'll meet you on the playground when your "special" class gets out.

Yes, and I intend to take the gold. Speaking of which, I am sorry about the rejection letter you received from the selection committee. Unfortunately, I have to agree w/ the committee. Being stupid is not a recognized handicap, and thus not a qualification for the special olympics. As they said though, there are plenty of stupid people in the world, so if you wanted to start up your own stupid olympics, I am sure you will have plenty of contestants. I'll bet you would be great in the women's gymnastics events.

Ouch! Or should I say "Ichiwawa", so you'll better understand

I swear it seems like Tillman has missed 1/2 of camp, and all that is said is "he was excused for personal reasons". Articles say no one is talking, and frankly, the papers are not making an issue of it, almost like they know what is up themselves, and are showing respect. While I am not trying to be disrespectful, what the hell is going on? Reading the camp report from last night, I saw where Tillman was once again excused for personal reasons. Living in Dallas, I get little local stuff, and was wondering if any of you living in Chicago have heard even rumors what is up. Privacy is one thing, but this isn't a guy missing a couple practices. I really think Tillman has missed around 1/2 of the practices, and in the first pre-season game, he looked pretty bad. He was getting beat by some pretty spare WRs. Several other times I saw him beat, but the pass wasn't on target, so the stats didn't go against him. I'm sure he can pull it together, but whatever his personnel issue is doesn't seem to be short term, and you have to wonder if it is an issue that will carry over into the season. So again, anyone heard anything?

Frankly, I am surprised you even read this. When crucker and I get going, most avoid our thread.

Wow. Does your neighbor have a little kid who helps you w/ comebacks. I think I remember hearing that one back in the disco days. I guess its making a comeback. Like the platform shoes you love so much.

I understand what you are thinking, but understand this. I am not looking for a QB for 2008. I am looking for a QB for 2009 and beyond. I don't care who we bring in. If they are going to play behind this OL, they are going to struggle. No, I am thinking about adding a QB for the future. I think Rex is gone after this year. Orton may have another year, but if he doesn't win the starting job this year, he is not in the plans for the future. This is his opportunity. The great Hanie "could" factor in 2009, but that is a big question mark. IMHO, it is most likely we do not have our future QB on the roster, and thus if a young QB comes available, I would not think twice about picking him up now, to develop for the year, and potentially be part of the mix next year.

Well, when arguing w/ you, at times I have to get down on your level so you can understand.

Saw that. Still, I expect the staff to be stubborn and wait well into the season before making any decisions, if ever. And further still, I regardless see AP as a luxury. 4 RBs?

Is that why you keep getting back up. You have delusions the fight isn't over? Again, I think you simply have seen Rocky one too many times, as you have dilusions you can win.

One. How much will an OL addition really help the offense though? Are we just one Ol away from being a good offense? That is part of the problem. I understand a trade when you are a player away, but we have MANY questions on offense, and I am not sure adding one OL will be enough. Two. I disagree trading away some of that defensive talent you mention wouldn't have a big affect on the defense. If you trade just one of our starting CBs, it could hurt. We hope McBride or Graham could step in, but we don't know. Briggs? Wale? Mike Brown. trading away any one of those players could have a pretty big effect on the defense. Three. I don't want to trade away one of our better defensive talents for the same reason I don't want to move Tait back to LT. On the OL right now, we have a weak left side but look strong on the right. If we move Tait, we would not be strong on the left, and would now be more questionable on both sides. I would rather one strong side and one weak side than two below average sides. Ditto w/ the trade concept. Adding an OL will not make our offense good. Maybe it would prevent us from being worst in the league, but it would still not be good. At the same time, you take a potentially great defense, and make it less. If we talk about trading a player like D.Manning or RMJ, that is one thing, but I don't want to trade away any of our starters, or even any of our DL depth.

Smith saying that the starters may play even longer this week in the preseason game, quite possibly well into the 3rd quarter, I assume to give a chance to evaluate the teams starters in depth. If this is true, would that mean advantage for Orton? If both of our QBs play w/ our starters, but Rex faces Seattle's starters while Orton faces Seattles 2nd string, would that not mean Orton has an advantage in this game?

I've been warned before. I doubt anything is done w/ AP, but I simply see him as the luxury player/ roster spot, and question whether we can afford such a luxury on a team already lacking in depth before sacrificing a spot for Williams.

Agreed that it comes down to how they scouted him pre-draft. As I recall, many eyebrows raised, not because Miami took him, but where they took him. He was considered a reach when they drafted him. But say we thought of him as a 4th round prospect, but Miami took him in the 2nd, that wouldn't mean much today. If he were available, and we thought of him as even a 4th or 5th round pick, it would seem worth bringing him in for a look, if he becomes available that is.