nfoligno

Been thinking that for a while. Lovie goes the Billicheck route when it comes to discussing player's injuries. I am not sure he is lying to us so much as to himself. I think he is hearing the best case scenario, and convincing himself to go w/ that. What really bothers the hell out of me is how it was reported prior to the draft he had back issues. After the draft, some were saying the report was sent out by teams hoping he would fall, but I recently read where the writer stood by his story. Maybe that is to be expected, but when you factor his being out two weeks now w/ a back injury, one's eye brow does tend to raise a bit.

That is where I was going too. I do not think any one player on the entire team symbolizes what I think of when I think of the Chicago Bears, more than Kreutz. He is a blue collar guy. Though he is a pro bowler, he is not out partying and getting into trouble w/ the law. He is old school nasty. He is a leader. There may be others who are more likable, more talented, more this or that, but when I think of Chicago Bears, I think of Kreutz.

Problem is, or one of the problems at least, that we moved forward w/ (IMHO) plans based on best possible scenarios taking place. - We assume a rookie can start at LT. - We assume Tait can move back to RT. - We assume St. Clair can play LG. - We assume no injuries. We plan on our #3 OT starting at OG, and do not have an OG worthy to step in if a starter goes down. If everything goes according to plan, things look great. But when you assume so much, it is bound to collapse like a house of cards. A rookie at LT was potentially the biggest questionable assumption, and look at the domino effect. The guy we planned to start at LG has now had to move outside to LT. We look like crap at LG now because we had no depth. Our backup center is now getting time at LG, which hurts all the more w/ Kreutz recent injuries. Often I read excuses about how we lost due to injury, but good teams prepare for injuries. Sure, you can rack up so many injuries that no preparation would matter, but this situation is not even close. If our OL sucks this year, we have only ourselves to blame.

Again, I am more arguing w/ Jason, who I believe has before asked, "Why can Wolfe not be the next Warrick Dunn"? As for his being a 3rd down back, as I mentioned in another post, (a) Why do we need one? W/ Benson, a 3rd down back made more sense, but did we need a 3rd down back when TJ was the starter? If Forte is half the hype, it would seem he is the best back to have in the backfield on 3rd downs. ( More than receiving, Wolfe must first prove he can block to become a 3rd down back.

I know how Jason feels, and was likley talking in more general terms than specific to the threat. With that said, while I agree Wolfe offers more as a 3rd down back, the one thing I believe he must prove first is that he can block. As crucial as anything else for a RB on 3rd downs is the ability to block. He will not always be a target, and often will have to block. Can he? Even when he is a target, he will often likely have to first chip block and then go into his route. Let me ask this though. Why do we need a 3rd down back? W/ Benson, it made more sense as he was not a good blocker and not very fast, but now it looks like we may have a starting tailback who should also fill the role we previously had to replace on 3rd downs. When TJ was our starter, we didn't pull him on 3rd downs because he was our best 3rd down back too. Might the same not be true of Forte? I have no problem w/ using Wolfe more, as a change of pace, but (a) I am not sure we need a 3rd down back role and ( Wolfe must prove he can block before we can trust him w/ such a role, if we do in fact decide we need one.

In looking at which QB starts for us, I read about many things each does well, but that got me thinking. What traits are going to be most important. Downfield passing is one that so often comes up, but simply not what I consider all that important. In a perfect world, it would be great to have a QB that can connent deep w/ his reciever, but I just question how much of our game will be centered about that. We have Hester to run downfield, but beyond the WR, or even the QB, I simply question our OL. How many here believe we have an OL that can pass protect long enough to allow WRs to run deep routes. IMHO, if we try to allow deep patterns to open up, we will see a lot of sacks. Pocket poise. This is an area I have always felt is key, and w/ our OL struggling again, should be again. Rex has never looked good IMHO in this area. Orton has looked better, but enough? As QBs wear red jerseys in practice, I don't think we will know this until the preseason games are played. Accuracy - This is a huge key IMHO. I am not simply talking about how completes 5 or 6 in practice. I have read about many one handed grabs, or catches where the receiver just made a great play on the ball. What I would like to know his which QB has looked best hitting WRs in stride. IMHO, one of the biggest keys to out passing game this year will be yards after the catch. Hit Hester on a short crossing route in stride, and he can go the distance. Hit Booker in stride, and watch the chains move. On the other hand, hit those same WRs, on those same routes, but make the WR slow his route to make the catch, and watch his YAC drop to nill. So often I have watched our guys reach back to catch the ball, taking themselves out of stride, and they got tackled immediately. At the same time, I watch opponents hit their WRs on short routes, in stride, and then easily out-pace the DB for a nice 1st down. So for me, it isn't simply who has the better completion %, but where did the QB place those passes. There are many other attributes, but pocket poise and accuracy are two of the biggest I am looking for out of these two QBs. I don't care nearly as much as far they can throw the ball downfield. That is likely 5% of less of the passes anyway. I am far more concerned about the other 95% of the time.

Drunkman, While I am closer to agreeing w/ you in general about Wolfe, I think some of the comments you are trying to argue w/ are pretty poinless. Speed - Yes. Wolfe is the fastest RB on the roster. Forte is fast for his size, but not even close to Wolfe. AP? Um, no. KJ. Frankly, there is no way to really know how fast he is right now, but especially as he is still not 100%, I think it VERY safe to say he is not close to as fast as Wolfe. Even prior to his injury, it would be close, but now? Quickness - There are ways to test this, and I would argue those tests are better than the much talked about 40 time to talk about speed. 10 yard dash, as well as the vertical and long jump all are good measures of burst. The short shuttle is a great measure of quickness too, as it shows how well a player can excelerate, cut, and excelerate again. I am not saying I know how each player did in these, but I am saying there are ways to measure quickness. Aside from all that though, I think it pretty safe to say he is the quickest RB we have. It was one of his key attributes coming out of college, and one of the areas coaches have raved about too. He is quicker than AP and Forte, and again, as KJ is not even 100%, safe to say he is not as quick as Wolfe. Pass catching - This is wide open to debate, and far from fact. AP is a pass catcher, and Forte is supposed to be as well. Wolfe was considered one of the best pass catchers in the draft, so I think he ranks up there w/ them. Where I think Jason distinguishes Wolfe from the other two is his ability after the catch. As Jason see's it, all can catch the ball, but AP does little after the catch, where as Wolfe as the quickness and speed to rack up the YAC. This is far from fact, but the argument does have quite a bit of logical reasoning. Open field running - Again, this is not fact. Wolfe may well have the best moves to avoid the tackle, but at the same time, there is more to open field running then this one feat alone, IMHO. If you are good at avoiding a hit, but go down easily once hit, are you the best open field runner? What if Forte is good at avoiding tackles, though not as good as Wolfe, but better breaking through tackles when a defender gets his hands on him? On pure speed and quickness, I think it safe to say Wolfe is tops. In that, I would agree w/ Jason. But I am not among those that believe that means he is a great RB. There is a lot more to being a RB than simply winning track competitions.

Surely if he gets the ball more often we can expect more similar plays Didn't you, and many others, say the exact same thing about Mark Anderson two years ago? Look at what he is doing on a limited basis. Make him as starter and watch his sack numbers hit pro bowl levels. Well, he was made a starter, and his numbers (and play in general) tanked. I am not saying Wolfe should not get more plays. I am not saying he shouldn't get more opportunities. But just because a player does some good things when in a limited role, does not necessarily mean he would be capable of providing that same play on a greater level. Every time you see a relief pitcher shut down the opponent in an inning, do you immediatly believe he would be a stud as a starter?

The only two I see are Forte and Harrison. Forte is the obvious, non 1st round pick, who is expected to produce on a high level, but that would not be much of a surprise. Harrison is the next likely candidate. He has an opportunity to win a starting job, especially as Dusty is still nursing an injury and hasn't proven much of anything thus far. Further, even if he doesn't start, the 3rd DT will play a lot, so he still has a ton of opportunity. I don't see Bennett having a huge impact this year. Maybe I am wrong, but while I think he will make some plays, he will struggle as a rookie and not see enough reps to make a big name for himself. Many say Steltz, but I am not as convinced. The rest suffer from a depth chart issue.

Agreed that it would be tough to keep that many. Has anyone heard anything about Toeiana yet? I know it is early, but I haven't even seen his name mentioned. The reality is, he had some good plays at the end of the season, when we were w/o healthy bodies, but despite that, he may not be in the plans.

Easy, for me at least. Hester every day. I was never a Berrian fan, and always thought he was too inconsistent and over-rated. He looked good to bear fans, but that is more relative. He was the best looking chic in a room full of ugly chics. Still ugly, but compared to the rest, freaking Miss America!

Here is NFL.com's scouting report analysis on him, Compares To: D'BRICKASHAW FERGUSON-New York Jets...Like Ferguson, Williams relies on finesse moves and his long reach over power. Both need to improve their overall strength and add bulk to handle the demanding task of playing left tackle. Williams might be a better fit at guard early in his career, so as not to expose him against speedy edge rushers. He can mirror the quicker defender in the short area, but he is marginal taking on second-level defenders and needs to improve taking proper angles when working in space. He has the frame to get bigger, but needs to play with more tenacity. He is a smart student, but will miss a few assignments due to mental lapses. With just adequate hip snap, he would be a liability starting at left tackle as a rookie, but he has the makeup, size and desire to improve. He actually did play LG early on in college. He started at LG most of 2005, before their LT went down to injury and Williams took his spot (for good). Not all OGs are maulers. There are actually plenty of inside OL who use angles and leverage to make their blocks, rather than simply trying to overpower their opponent. As I said, it may be far too early to talk about this, but: (a) LT is the most difficult spot for a rookie to begin his career (on the OL) as it is. ( The above is made only that much more difficult when not paired w/ a solid veteran OG. © While his injury is minor, is has kept him out of camp thus far, and w/ each missed practice, his development suffers. (d) As I mentioned, it is not uncommon for a rookie OT to play inside for a year or so while adjusting to the NFL, then to move back outside. This transition is easier than one from college LT to NFL LT. (e) If he does continue to miss practices, and isn't ready to start at LT, can anyone imagine our sitting Williams on the bench? Would he not be an upgrade to Metcalf?

Read in the Sun Times that our QBs are working out of the shotgun quite a bit. That is something we have VERY sparingly done in the past. I don't think Kreutz is a big fan of the shutgun, and w/ a slower runner like Benson, delays handoffs were never going to work. Now, w/ quicker/faster RBs in both Forte and KJ, it seems like we may be in a better position to use the shotgun now. Also, wasn't Orton a shutgun QB in college? In fact, wasn't one of the pre-draft knocks on him whether or not he could play under center? I never expected us to use the shotgun much, but if we are spending a lot of time practicing it, it does make me wonder. Also, could this be a "slight" insight as to the staff's thoughts on the QB situation? Playing out the shotgun would seem to be better for Orton, who has more experience in that role.

I believe most all would agree, LT is the most difficult position on the OL. It is hard enough for a rookie to start at LT, and w/ each missed practice, Wiliams chances might drop a bit more. Further, we are reading how St. Clair is "supposedly" looking pretty good at LT. I wonder if there is a chance Williams is moved inside for the season. If he can't beat out St. Clair at LT, I have a hard time seeing him sitting on the bench. Lovie doesn't talk like he will simply start Williams, regardless how he looks, though we all know better than to take Lovie at his word. Still, I wonder if a move inside isn't possible. Many other 1st round OTs were initially moved inside. Gallery stuggled at LT, but did well inside once moved. Ditto Leanord Davis. This may be a way to get him on the field, begin his development into the NFL, w/o putting him at a position he is not ready for. Also, I wonder if working next to Kreutz wouldn't help the kid's development, more than working on the outside next to only St. Clair.

Last week, there was some discussion as to Hester's value, and how it may stack up against Berrian, on the field and financially. W/o getting into the on field contributions, I was thinking about the contracts now that Hester has signed. Berrian signed a 6 year deal. Hester signed a 4 yr extension on a deal w/ 2 years remainings, thus essentially a 6 year deal. Berrian's deal has a max value of $42m. Hester's deal has a max value of $40m. Berrian got $16m in guaranteed money. $5m SB, $8m 2008 roster bonus and $3m 2009 roster bonus. Hester got $15m in guaranteed money, though I have not read yet how that money is broken up. The two deals are pretty darn similar. Now I will say there are two aspects of the deals I do not know about which can seperate them more. (a) Berrian's deal calls for him to receive (I believe) $23m in the first three years. $16m of that comes in the form of his bonuses, while the other $7m would come from base salary. We know Hester's deal has $15m guaranteed, which would factor into this, but I have not read what the rest of his first three year structure would look like. ( Hester has that $10m incentive tied to his final season, which I think it unlikely he triggers fully. I read he would have to play like Fitzgerald, and sooner rather than later. Per the Sun Times, he is far more likely to earn $2-3m of that (more obviously depending on how fast he develops). But the point is, a sizable chunk of his contract is tied up in incentives. I know some of Berrian's deal is tied up in incentives, but no idea how much. In the end, I think more of Berrian's deal is solid (non-incentive), but the two deals are not "that" far apart, and if Hester does in fact develop as a WR, the gap could pretty quickly close.

Regarding Clayton, it is also possible he is going off how the staff is simply leaning. It may be that, whether simply his own opinion of based off what staff tells him, that he believes Orton has the edge. The book on our two QBs seems pretty set. Rex is a great practice QB who can make all the throws, but struggles under pressure. Orton doesn't have all the throws in his game that Rex does, and is not going to be nearly as effective downfield, but does better under pressure and makes fewer mistakes. He won't win the game as often, but will not lose it either. Clayton may believe we have the mindset that if we can win w/ offense and special teams, we may prefer a QB who simply doesn't lose games. That would explain our leaning toward Orton, regardless what is seen thus far in practice.

My understanding is they no longer plan on using Idonije on special teams as a wedge buster. I wonder who is planned to take his place. I am surprised they had him gain that much weight as in our scheme the DTs are not usually that big, they want them quick and able to penetrate into the backfield, not the big body run stopper which it appears Idonije might be more built for at his new weight. While we want our DTs to penetrate, and do not want the 350lb wide bodies (ala Ted Washington) our DTs are not "that" light either. Give or take 5 lbs, I believe all our others DTs are about 300lbs. Dusty was way light at 265. Per the article, while he added 40 lbs to get to 305, he has also dropped 10 lbs and is now at 295, right in line w/ the other DTs. While we do not want the wide bodies, at the same time, they still have to be capable of holding their own against the run, and that would prove very difficult for a 265lb DT.

Who knows how things will play out, but you are getting WAY ahead of yourself. If both have good seasons, it may prove difficult to keep KJ. Health is the main thing that has held him back in his career. If he stays healthy this year and has a good season, he would likely have starting role offers. We can only offer RBBC. A good recent example is Julius Jones. How many Jones RBs are there? Anyway, in Dallas, he didn't have the most productive season of his career, but did well and the team had success w/ the 1-2 combo of him and Barber. Dallas wanted to keep the two together, but Jones wanted to be "the man". So he bolted for Seattle, and Dallas drafted another Jones (felix) to replace Julius. Anyway, the point is that even if the two do well this year, and we want to keep KJ, it may not be so easy. If, like Julius, he wants to be "the man", he may not want to stay in Chicago, where he is going to be part of a RBBC.

Unbelievable about Idonije. I guess it makes sense though. At DE, we have two starters who are proven, and have not shown any injury problems in the past. And we have a 3rd rotations DE who racked up double digit sacks his rookie year. At DT though, while we have loads of potential, we also have loads of concerns. Harris is a stud, but w/ a history of injuries. Dusty could be great, but an even worse injury history. Harrison is a rookie and unproven. Adams did a great job (IMHO) last year, but is not viewed as a great option. So while we have lots of bodies w/ talent, we have far more concerns at DT than at DE. One concern I have regarding Idonije's new playing weight is special teams. I thought he was one of our better teams players. I know he carries the extra weight well, but how will that extra 30 or 40 lbs effect his running full steam downfield? We have already lost Ayenbedajo. You hate to lose too many of your good teams players at one time. W/ regard to Bazuin, while I expect him to make the team, the cards are stacked against him to do much more than be a special teams player. Unless there is an injury or Anderson really falls from grace, I am not sure Bazuin will even get enough looks to make that much of an impression.

Yea, I think there is reason to worry. I am not as worried about Kreutz. Old time veteran who doesn't need every second of practice as much as some. And coaches tend to be overly conservative w/ veterans like him. Slight injuries that would not keep them out of games, or even regular season practices, will have them riding a bike on the side during early camp. Williams does worry me. I am not making a big deal about a back spasm, but (a) it was back issues which supposedly was hurting his stock draft day and ( more than any, he needs every second of camp. It was never certain he would start day one, as rookies starting at LT simply is not the norm. But w/ each missed practice, you have to think his chances of starting drop that much more. That means St. Clair starting at LT. How many years since he has lined up there? Had to be in St. Louis, right? Even then, it was not more than a couple games. He is not a very good LT, and I am not sure he would be an upgrade over Tait last year, which was not very good. Worse, while I am not sold on him as an OG, he is likely the best option we have, and if he has to start at LT, that means we drop in talent at OG too. So at OG, we have Metcalf? Yikes! I am not thrilled w/ the idea of a rookie starting at LT next to St. Clair at LG. But St. Clair at LG next to Metcalf? Our QB and RB don't have a chance. Worse is when you consider we are talking starters. Depth? Tait is not spring chicken, and plays next to an OG w/o an ACL. As I believe, so goes the OL, so goes the offense, I would easly say this is my biggest worry. If the OL sucks, the QB, RB and WRs will have no chance. If the OL plays well, that doesn't automatically mean the rest will play well, but it gives them a far better opportunity. If he is healthy, I really hope we sign R. Brown. A good, experienced LG would solve many of our problems IMHO. W/ Brown at LG, I would feel better about the learning curve w/ a rookie LT, or even a veteran like St. Clair who simply isn't a very good LT. Having such crap at LG only piles on our concerns at LT. Add a solid veteran LG, and the issues at LT do not seem to glow.

Yea, crucker knowns he is an idiot, and doesn't have a problem when I call him one:)

Come on guys, lets keep to debating the issue and stay away from the personal attacks. Can't tell if this was directed to Crackerpot and I or not, but if it is, we just have fun w/ each other. Neither take the barbs serious.

Alright, let try to bring this one back. I would not give Hester more than #2 WR money. Does that really eat up that much cap space? I am not talking Boldin or Housyourmama #2 money, but average #2 WR money. Not even sure what that exactly is, but I doubt it is such a great cap consequence. I would absolutely argue he is worth that. The more he improves at WR, the more his contract value goes up, as it should. But then you get back to the question of what to do w/ him now. Frankly, I will throw another wrench into the equation. I have no problem signing players early, but to me, they have to give up something too. If we so choose, we can have Hester cheap for two more seasons. He may not like that, but that is like in the NFL. If he wants a new deal, he will not get full market value, as he is (in my eye's) getting a big raise early. It may not always play out that way, but I simply do not believe in giving a player a 100% full market value deal before they are FAs. The player has to facter that he is getting his new deal early, and consider what his outlook would be playing another two years for basically the minimum. I really question how this will get done. About the only way I can see it is if we (a) offer a mid-grade #2 WR contract ( add in a significant future bonus, which a team will not eat unless the player is still playing at a high level and ( throw in a bunch of "reachable" incentives. I know you mentioned incentives before. While I do not believe they can be the main crux of the contract, they will be part of it. The two tiered bonus is how I think this can get done. Say he has a $10m bonus set for 2010, three years from now. If he has not become a legit WR by then, we may be less likely to pay that 2nd bonus, and let him walk. It's our out. On the other hand, it gives Hester the opportunity for bigger bucks, and in the alternative, the potential to hit FA and seek another new deal.

PS. Learn to use the QUOTE button you dope. My bad. I assumed you were smart enough to figure it out. My mistake. Dumbarce! Which is simply incorrect if you know anything about how the team is forced to slice up the cap money. He isn't as valuable as a #1/#2 WR. Period. His position dictates that. You can argue all day long that the field position makes him as valuable to the team but the reality is, it doesn't work that way. Normally, I might agree, but: (a) I think Hester creates an exception to the rule. Time change, and so do the rules. It wasn't long ago that only the LT made premier money. They you saw the RTs making big bucks. Now even OGs make big bucks. There was a time when kickers didn't make much, but of late, you have seen their pay sky rocket. Similar w/ punters. Point is, just because historically, a position was not paid big bucks doesn't mean it will always hold true. ( While he isn't proven as a WR, he does play the position, and did rack up 300 yards and a couple scores last year in limited opportunities. Bradjock threw this out there already, but if Hester were an UFA this year, who do you think would have received the bigger contract. Hester or Berrian. I think Hester would have.

If you watched the guy play in college you could see he had skills, problem was that MSU was some what of a running team last year and didnt really get Davis involved as much as they could have. Actually, last year was the first time he really got involved in the offense. Prior to last year, he did very little, but became a far bigger contributor last year. I am not sure character is that great of an issue. Single events do not bother me so much as a history of issues. What my two concerns are (a) reports of a lack of motivation and ( blocking. Blocking is a key. Especially w/ this staff, if you can't block, you can't play.