nfoligno

Disagree on several points. One, I disagree that leadership at the WR position is not as important. Maybe if you have a bunch of veteran receivers, but we don't. We have a lot of WRs who are still developing, and having a WR like Booker is huge IMHO. I have read where both Hass and Bennett have talked about how much they have been learning from Booker, who has taken on a mentor role. Some may argue that is the coaches job, but I think history has shown how much players on the field can be teachers in ways staff can not (especially our staff). Two, I disagree w/ the idea that whoever looks best in camp should automatically be kept. Too often in the past we have seen players look great in camp, but were exposed in real games. Knight, the DE/LB we had some years ago immediately comes to mind. I remember him leading the team in sacks one camp, but the guy was nothing when it mattered. Also, it should be pointed out that some, like Hass, may look good, but how often is he looking good against 1st string. Just because a player looks good beating the bottom of our depth chart players doesn't mean he should be given the job over a guy who has been working against our first string. It's one thing to make catches against our rookie DB, or even Graham, and another to be catching the ball against Tillman or Vasher. I like Hass, as do many fans. But I simply disagree w/ the idea of keeping him over Booker. If Booker looked like garbage in camp, fine. But what have you read which would suggest such. If Booker was truly looking bad, do you not think we would have read more about that? You say we can not know what to expect of Booker, but I think the staff does have a level of expectations w/ Booker, and a lack of talk about him more likely simply means he is meeting that level of expectation.

Regarding a lack of talk of Booker, this is my opinion. I think Booker is having a solid camp, but as that is the expectation, we are not hearing much. I would argue that you hear most about players who are giving a performance outside of expectations. If a player is below expectations, we hear about it. If a player is really out playing expectations, we hear about it. If a player is simply meeting expectations, you rarely hear much. How much have we read about Hunter, for example? I have read about a couple young LBs having a solid camp, but does that mean Hunter is threatened? I don't think so. I think we simply don't hear about Hunter because he is playing up to expectations. Also, IMHO the main reason Booker has not been given the starting job yet is because the staff doesn't want him to be a starter. The staff has said it many times, but they want speed and playmaking ability in their starters. I think in the staff's ideal world, Hester and Lloyd (or Bradley) would step up and earn starting jobs, allowing Booker to work out of the slot. Then you have homerun threats on the outside, and a chain moving inside. So Booker not being named a starter has more to do w/ the staff hoping the greater speed/threat receivers step up to win the starting jobs. In fact, I would argue that Booker still being considered for the starting role is more a positive of Booker's play than not.

You mentioned guys like Booker to keep the chains moving, but isn't that why we have 3 seemingly very good TE's? No. IMHO, we are talking about two totally different things. Can a TE work underneath and help move the chains. Sure. But they do not go about it the same way. TEs help move the chains through (a) mis-matches and ( exploiting an overly aggressive defense. What I am talking about w/ Booker may end w/ the same result, but how you get there is very different. Booker gets it done w/ great route running, and the rest of what I mentioned before. TEs get it done more w/ size, mis-matches and exploiting the blitz. I am not saying one is better than the other, but I would say you can have Booker run routes nearly anytime, where as you can not always send the TE out like that. Sometimes the TE simply has to stay back to block. Isn't that why we're thrilled with the combo of Lloyd & Hester, because they can both stretch the field and open things up while our TE's work the middle? First, I would point out they have to prove more than speed to open things up. IMHO, this is a common misconception. Rex has hit Berrian deep many times to burn opponents over the years, but did that ever get defenses to respect our passing game? Just having a downfield threat at WR isn't enough. Hitting that WR once in a while is not enough either. Until we can hit that WR downfield w/ some level of consistency, we will not see defenses back off. That means (a) the OL has to prove capable of holding a block long enough for deep routes to develop ( the QB must prove capable of getting the ball downfield, and accurate enough for the WR to make a play on the ball and © the WR must prove capable of not simply having the speed to get downfield, but the ability to track the ball in the air and make the damn catch. Point is, as explosive as Hester is, I do not believe we are going to see defenses playing back just because he is in the game running downfield. We have a lot to prove before we see that. It's tough not to love Hass. The guy works his ass off. agreed, though I would say the staff seems immune to this affection. This has been a gripe of mine for years about Angelo, and then Lovie. They seem to really fall in love w/ the high talent guys who are all potential, while solid football players tend to get lost in the shuffle. Scott was a solid DT for us, but wasn't a high enough talent. I would say the same for Adams, who was one of our most consistent DL last year (IMHO) but I believe the staff would like nothing more than to replace him. At WR, its the same thing. This staff never appreciates an Engram like player, which Hass is. Some may argue Hass has more talent, but in what they offer, they are pretty similar. But even if he makes the team, where does he see time on the field? If he makes the team, he's the 6th WR. Not to mention Olsen sometimes lines up as a slot receiver, so that would make him the 7th WR. Last year it was a wasted roster spot having him on the roster. I don't know why he can't play special teams, but he doesn't. That decreases his value also. This is a huge key, IMHO. The 6th WR has to be able to play teams. Was Hass even active last year? I wasn't aware he couldn't play special teams. I thought he was simply not on the game day active roster due to pure numbers, as opposed to an inability to play teams. I'm afraid Bradley will never regain the speed he once had. But we still view him as a guy with the potential to be an elite receiver. If you're going to waste a roster spot, you might as well do it on a guy who will help you in the future. I absolutely see the logic in what you are saying. If you have a deep depth chart guy, unlikely to see the field, it makes more sense to have a guy w/ more potential. Personally, I simply view Hass as having greater potential. He may not be as talented, but I simply believe he stands a greater chance of becoming a legit NFL WR than Bradley, despite pure athleticism.

But Grossman had the full playbook to work with and Orton only had the dummies guide to playbooks version. I just hope the light goes on for one of them and we actually have an NFL quality QB this year. Circular argument. "Orton had fewer picks than Rex per game." "But Orton benefited from a dumbed down playbook where he didn't take risks" "Orton had fewer TDs per game" "But Orton suffered from a dumbed down playbook where he didn't take risks" I understand Orton not having an opened up playbook his rookie year. We were winning, w/o him taking risks, and had a defense such that we could afford to be conservative on offense. Last year, we were conservative w/ him I think due to rust. The guy hadn't seen the field for a year and a half, and rarely even got practice reps as the #3 QB. How much should we have expected. Now is another story. I will be ticked if we see dink and dunk from him tomorrow.

Seriously guys. If Orton was an good at all there would be no competition. Just curious, but why? Seriously, I am not sure why you are an Orton basher. Rex has fans and he has bashers, but at least he has enough of a body of evidence for fans to make an informed opinion. Why exactly do you think Orton is garbage? Because he didn't play great as a rookie? Because he didn't "light it up" in the couple games he was given a chance last year? Because he didn't force the staff to look at him over golden boy and the wondering veteran? Not being a smart arce, but I truly don't understand why some fans are so dead set against Orton. I am not saying he is any good, but at the same time, I fail to understand why anyone believes they can have such an informed opinion of him. In a post, you said it isn't that you blindly follow Rex, but simply think Orton is such crap. Not to call BS exactly, but I wonder if it isn't that you really are such a Rex backer that you have to attack Orton, because the only way to prop up Rex is to attack his competition. Like I said. I have seen some good things w/ Orton, and plenty of bad. What I do not understand is the absolute hatred of some for him, and the comments that he sucks based on his rookie year and 3 games last year.

But I could swear that I heard he will get some series with the first team as well...just after Orton. Maybe I read or heard wrong. Well, at WR and TE, I think you can easily argue there isn't a GREAT level of difference between our 1st and 2nd string. Evidence of that is how we have not even determined yet who is the 1st and 2nd string. At RB, I believe they did say Forte will be getting more carries too. At OL, I can see it going either way. On one hand, they are short handed and may have to play the 1st string longer. On the other hand, how much do you want to risk, this early on, your few healthy starters left? I would not be surprised to see Tait, Garza and Kreutz come out sooner than others. Beekman will likely start at LG (IMHO) but move to center after Kreutz enters, w/ Oakley stepping in. So St. Clair and Beekman technically are starters, but could easily play longer. Anyway I look at it though, Orton and Forte are not likely to have great protection, but Rex could find himself blocked by a sieve.

There has been a lot of talk about problems on the OL. Who will start at LT. Who will start at LG. However it pans out, consider who will more likely be protecting Rex Grossman tomorrow night. LT - Cody Balogh LG - Anthony Oakley C - Josh Beekman RG - Tyler Reed RT - Kirk Barton How many starts does this group have combined? Um, would that be zero? Wanna bet Rex is petitioning the league front office for the right to wear a red jersey in the first pre-season game.

As a bear fan, we may be temped to risk it.

1. Let's say Williams misses the first couple weeks. How bad of a wound is that? Is that something recoverable? W/o his missing more time, I am already wondering about his injury. Around the draft, rumors of back problems surfaced. Lovie is known for downplaying injuries. Finally, w/ each week that passes due to his "day to day" injury, you simply can't help but to wonder. 2. What other moves could the Bears have made to avoid this circumstance? Was there an O-Lineman out there at a reasonable price that someone else signed that the Bears should have picked up? Or should the Bears have sacrificed one of Harris, Urlacher, or Hester to get the cap room to go after a higher priced guy? Or not drafted Forte in the 2nd or that WR in the 3rd and focused on the OLine instead? One. Yes, I would say there were other OL available who were not massively expensive. Damn if I can recall today, but I believe there was the guy from SD (reports of drugs were bogus) and I think Smiley. There were others who could be had w/o breaking the bank. No, they were not studs, but at least better than Metcalf. Two. I do not believe we had to sacrifice Harris, Urlacher or Hester if we wanted a high priced FA. Now I might have held off on a couple other smaller deals (Clark and Brown for example) but it could have been done. You simply have to be a tad creative in the working of the contracts. I am NOT talking about going out and acting like Wash, and adding every high priced FA on the market, but I disagree w/ the idea we could not enter the market and add one. Three. Yea, my draft would have looked different. Not to say OL I drafted would have worked out, and maybe I would have missed on some damn nice talent, but I would have simply drafted more OL. Let's throw out Forte in the 2nd. We were sold on him, and it was a need. After Forte, I think the bears started looking more at value, but IMHO, simply do not value OL very highly, thus why there are always other positions considered best available over OL. Bennett - Solid prospect I like. No question. But how great of a talent is Bennett, and how great of a dropoff was there after him. Maybe there was such a drop. You can definitely argue the need at WR. But, again, while I like Bennett, I am not sure he brings so much to the table that he couldn't be passed on. In the 3rd round, we took Bennett and Harrison. Two solid prospects. But there were also numerous solid OT and OG prospects available. Once again, we simply choose any position other than OL. W/o going round by round, player by player, the point I think is, we took an OT in the 1st, and then passed on OL until the 7th round. We were picking 2nd and 3rd string players while a starting position on the OL was still in question, and the depth on the OL was worse than any other position. If this were the only year, fine. But since Angelo has joined the team, when has he shown in the draft any legit respect for the OL? The OL (starting and depth) has pretty much been a high need since Angelo joined the team, and yet every draft he seems unaware. Yea, he drafts an OL here and there, but never w/ a committment, IMHO. He absolutely seems committed to filling the DL and LB units 10 deep each. But while we draft DL and LBs who are destined for special teams, OL pass threw our fingers. Also, aren't there still options available on the market if Williams can't go? R.Brown and Bently are often mentioned. I was shocked by something I read today that Angelo or Lovie said. When asked about the problems on the OL, he said something to the extent that we have some typical camp injuries and are not panicking. He went on to say he knows Brown is out there, and knows what Brown has to offer, but that we are simply not there yet. Sorry, but how arrogant. What, day before the season begins you think you can give him a call and he will be there? And he will be 100%? Williams has missed two weeks, and I have heard little to make me believe he is close to putting the pads on. And we are not talking about Kreutz, who can afford to miss some time. We are talking about a rookie looking to start at LT. A tough enough task in itself. Metcalf is likely done for the preseason. Our left side is flat out ugly. What exactly are we waiting for? Oakley to be injured?

I think it would at best push the team to a "C" grade. If he turned in to Carson Palmer or Drew Brees, a "B", Peyton or Brady an "A". Bascially agree. If Orton were to become a decent/pretty good QB, that alone could turn the grade to a C. Normally, you need much more success, but as we are a Chicago Bears, finding one servicable QB would be enough to boost the grade that much. For me, if Orton became Palmer/Brees, our grade would be an A. Let me ask you this. What if we went into the draft, and the Devil offered you this deal. The rest of your draft would be a total flop, but you would also find a pro bowl QB on day two. Will you take it? I think most bear fans would take that deal in a second.

Not sure how much this tells us. If a QB hits a WR 5 yards beyond the LOS, but that WR is hit in stride and turns it upfield for a 20 yard gain, statistically, that would be no different from a QB who hit a WR 25 yards downfield and was tackled immediately. Watch Brady hit Welker. That is a combo that will put up a very nice ypc, yet VERY few of Welkers completions are actually caught downfield.

For the most, we agree. The one area of disagreement is arm strength or downfield ability. My point is not that, in general, this is a worthless trait. My point is specific to us. I think it VERY realistic to say our OL is not looking great. It was awful last year, and I am not sure (a) St. Clair is a big upgrade over Tait or that Metcalf/Beekman/whoever is an upgrade over a one armed Brown. Also, w/ all the changes, even if you had individual upgrades, I think you take a chemistry hit, which I think is essential to an OL playing well. So, on the assumption we are not going to have a very strong OL, the question I would ask is, how often will the QB have the time in the pocket to allow WR to run downfield routes. Having a strong arm is great, but if you are sacked before the WR gets downfield, how much has that arm helped? For the record, I am not saying it is fine to have a noodle arm QB. If the QB can even throw 15 yards on a rope, then you have trouble. But to me, 90+ % of your passes are not downfield, and those are far more crucial than the couple downfield shots you take. Do you shorten the field some? Sure. But I would argue it this way. Okay, you have Rex who is capable of throwing deep. Regardless, defenses stack the box and show ZERO respect for the downfield threats because they can attack the QB to avoid such threats. Downfield speed is not feared because a QB can't throw downfield from his back. On the other hand, if you have a QB who is hitting WRs in stride, you are more likely to force defenses to respect the passing game. If the QB is hitting a receiver left open due to the blitz, that can have as dramatic effect as a QB who hits a receiver downfield.

We can hash out stats all day. Statistically Rex is a better pro. And nfo it doesn't matter if Rex throws picks in bunches cause he also does the same with TD's. Bottom line is that I would rather watch Rex move the ball with the chance of a pick then watch a dink and dunk Shoop like affair with Orton in. I'd rather watch the gunslinger then watch mr 3 and out. I'd rather watch a guy who can hit a long ball in stride then a guy who skips a 12 yard comeback. And I would rather watch a guy who was the last quarterback to get us to the Super Bowl then Mr Mediocre. Doesn't mean I dont get mad when Rex effs up. I do. What is more exciting to watch? To me, the excitement is in wins. If our defense was mediocre, than Rex would be the choice as he has more ability to win games. But w/ a dominant defense, we do not necessarily need a QB who can put an offense on his shoulders and win games. I am NOT speaking simply about Orton, but about style. If Orton skips everything, then he is out, but I think you are using a couple throws and making out like that is all he ever does. From the camp reports I have read, he seems to be doing far better than you make out. No question. Rex is a QB who can throw for 3 or 4 TDs in a game. That is awesome. But he is also the sort who seems to be more likely to throw 3 picks the following week. I would rather have a QB who simply throws 200 yards and 1 or 2 TDs than one who throws for 300 yards and 4 TDs one week, followed by 150 yards and 3 picks the next. And Gak, the reason the offense was dummied down is cause Orton was not good enough to handle it. And with a dummied down offense he threw 9 td's and 13 pics. Um, the dude was a rookie, who was not even expected to start. If the OC simply expected Orton to jump full tilt in w/ the entire playbook, he should be fired. I don't care if Orton had the strongest arm in the league, you simply can not ask too much of a rookie QB, especially one who wasn't expected to start, but only did so after your starter went down in camp.

Bradley is in his 3rd year, but that doesn't mean he is experienced. Davis is obviously more experienced, but I am not sure he is counted as really a veteran. Lloyd. He's been in the league, but has simply too many questions. I read in an article today that while Hass is the favorite of so many, he simply doesn't seem to impress the staff. One issue Hass has is a clean release off the LOS. Booker may not be the most talented of the group, but at the same time, when it is 3rd and 7, he is still my first option. I do not think there is a receiver on the roster better at (a) knowing where the 1st down marker is, ( getting a clean break off the LOS, © making a good cut to gain additional sep, (d) being where he is supposed to be and (e) catching the damn ball. This staff seems to put too much emphasis on big play potential, not realizing you need receivers like Booker to keep the chains moving so your playmakers have more opportunities. Booker makes the roster w/o question in my mind. Frankly, I think Hass should make the roster, but it would be in favor of Bradley.

I think the only thing holding this back from being an F is that Orton is competing for a starting job. If he isn't the starter, or fails, then it is w/o question an F. But what is the grade, just for sake of argument, if Orton wins the starting job this year and plays well. How much does finding a solid QB, on the 2nd day, off-set an otherwise awful draft?

One thing that could be interesting is how the backup plays in each game. Everyone is talking about who starts, and how they look. One thing I am curious to see is how the #2 QB does in each game. I am not sure if there is a big dropoff from our starting receivers to our 2nd string, both at WR and TE. But there is a big dropoff in OL. Whoever the #2 QB is will most likely face a ton of pressure. I am curious to see how each QB performs under such a situation.

Maybe I am confusing the point. I am not trying to say Orton has a great td/int ratio. I am not saying it isn't possible he has just as bad as "bad rex". Frankly, I am not TRYING to say much of anything about Orton. My point is about Rex. If Rex threw one pick per game, I could deal w/ that. My problem is how often one pick leads to two. Two leads to three. And at least once, three leads to four. My problem is w/ Rex, and his seemingly inability to move past one pick (or is it learn from it) and avoid more. Mentally, I just don't think he has it. I remember a time, I believe during SB season, when Rex was playing so bad there was talk of pulling him. Talk mostly by fans. Instead, the staff simply has a sit down w/ him about avoiding the turnovers. Rex went on to have a good game or two, where he looked more in control, but then slipped back into multiple pick throwing form. I just don't think he learns. I am not some big fan of Orton. In fact, I was among the few at the time who didn't even give him (or Turner) that much credit for his rookie year. Sure, he didn't turn it over often, but he didn't move the ball either. His rookie year, defense and special teams won games. I hear about how he didn't lose games, but that doesn't mean he was good. It really doesn't take much to go three and out. But, like you said, that was his rookie year. At minimum, he at least showed some poise and didn't collapse as a rookie. More than anything, I consider Orton an unknown, and simply believe he deserves a chance, which he is getting right now. When it comes down to it, I guess i would go w/ the unknown over the known in this case. The unknown may be as bad, or worse, than the known, but until we try, we won't know.

I have looked at the stats, and you totally glossed over my point. The point is not whether each throw picks, but how Rex bunched them so much. Throwing a pick in a game is not good, obviously, but rarely the end of the world. Throwing a bunch of picks though? That is big. When Rex was throwing 3 picks in a game, he has negated any good he has done. Regarding Orton's "magical rookie year", I have actually argued otherwise. I don't give him a ton of credit. Yea, he was a rookie and didn't make a massive amount of mistakes, but he did nothing to help the team either. If you do not throw a pick, but at the same time simply go 3 and out, well, both suck. I am not arguing against that. Still, for me, what I think it comes down to is this. I simply do not believe Rex has it upstairs. When things are going good, he can really roll. But when things start to go back, the floor falls out. Rex doesn't seem to me to be capable of forgetting that last bad play and moving on. That is a death note for a QB. Is Orton different? Don't know. But I'll give him a chance. Understand something. It is NOT that I think Orton is so good. It's that I think Rex is so bad. Orton may be as addicted to potato chips as Rex, but we let him open the bag, we won't know.

Orton may turn it over some, but like Rex? Throwing one pick isn't the end of the world. Not when Orton does it, and not when Rex does it. It's the multiple turn over games that are a killer. In 2005, playing as a rookie, Orton tossed two or more picks only 2 times, and had no multiple pick games last year. Rex had two multi pick games last year. The year before, he had 5 games w/ 3 or more picks, and another one or two w/ 2. This doesn't even factor the fumbles and botched snaps. So yes. Orton can turn it over as well. But for Rex, picks are like chips. You can never have just one.

An even worse thought? As bad as the OL may look now, imagine when the starters take a seat in the preseason games. Think about that for a second. The 1st string OL will take a seat, but either Orton or Rex will enter the game and still be trying to win the starting job. I feel sorry for the rookie QB who will be in the game later.

LOL

I wanted Alberts and others too, but I am not sure that is the key point. Whether we should have drafted Williams, Albert, Otah, or whoever, personally, I think the real loss was not drafting more OL. We had to have Forte in the 2nd. Okay, fine. While I like Bennett, was he such a prospect that we just couldn't do w/o? Or Harrison? Rinehard, McGlynn, Cousins, Collins, and many others could have been had in the 3rd round. Then we took Steltz in the 4th, passing on (among others) Hills from Texas, who you mention. We took a player in the 1st who we thought would become a solid LT. Fine. Great. But that still left a big hole at LG, not to mention depth. We were taking 3rd and 4th string players at other positions, while a position like OG still had an opening at starter. Some might argue that we simply take a best available approach. Maybe, but if so, I would argue we do not value OL in pre-draft grades, thus explaining why Angelo has found so few OL as the best available, in so many drafts.

We agree on one thing. AP doesn't get jack for carries this year. If KJ is out, AP will get some touches to we don't over do it w/ Forte, but if KJ is healthy, AP may not see the offense once. The question is, how do you split carries between KJ and Wolfe, if both are healthy. If healthy, I think KJ is going to see FAR more carries, and Wolfe will be more of a gadget play here and there. You say KJ is the luxury. I might agree if not for the experience factor. W/o KJ, AP (probably our least talented) RB is our most experienced. We are counting on a rookie to lead us. Wolfe has no more than a handful of carries. AP, which a fantastic special teams player, is simply not a very good RB. KJ was not a luxury. He was a need. Our backfield is simply lacking too much in depth. To me, AP is the luxury. W/o AP, I would argue our 1-2-3 backfield makes sense. AP is a special teams specialist who we have at RB on the depth chart. He is the luxury.

I also talk about this in "reading or seeing the field". The ability to see that FS lean in one direction. The ability to immediatly see one receiver is double covered, and to quickly find your next target. To see that LB who showed blitz prior to the snap is in fact back peddling into the path of the receiver about to break accross the middle. Rex is slow to see/read the field IMHO. That problem is magnified when he is pressures, and forced to make decisions prior to getting a read on the field, and thus his throws become a greater gamble, as he has not accounted for all the potential problems. I have no idea how well Orton is reading the field. Can he be worse than Rex? God help us if that is the case.

Something truly pathetic about all this is how we have other offenses pieces in place, but how the hell are those pieces supposed to do jack w/o an OL. QB - Rex? Orton? No clue if either are worth jack at this point, but what does their outlook look like w/o an OL? RB - So we draft a RB who we love. We feel he is going to be the steal of the draft. He will be the franchise RB Benson never was. But we stick him behind this OL? LT would struggle behind our OL. WR - We have a franchise player in Hester, who we desparately want to develop. How can we develop him though if the OL can't protect the QB long enough for a WR to run his route? Bennett? Bradley? TE - So we have a 1st round pick TE. One of his top assets is his ability to get deep in the secondary. He can use speed against LBs and size against DBs. But like w/ the WRs troubles, w/ an OL, he is going to be relegated to blocking and dump off passes. So we have made an effort to add weapons, and hope to develop those weapons, but did not build an OL which will allow us to do so. Say you want to build a house. You pick out some beautiful, expensive windows (energy effecient) and spend extra for the upgraded roof. Then you build the walls of the house out of cardboard. That about seems like the logic of this team.