nfoligno

The only two I have on issue w/ on that list are Alex Brown and Clark. Brown signed a 5 year extension just a couple seasons ago. While he finished strong, he was also coming off the bench for most of the year. I am not questioning his being part of the core, yet at the same time, w/ a couple years remaining on his deal, I just didn't see the reason to give him another extension. It's one thing to keep your core intact, but do you have to extend players who only played a couple seasons of an extension you already gave. Clark was not due to be a FA until next year, and w/ Olsen in the fold, I simply didn't see the reason to extend him. We spent a 1st round pick on Olsen, and he looked good as a rookie. To me, it seemed like a perfect situation. We still had Clark for another season while Olsen continues to work into the offense and begins to take over. Next year, Olsen fully steps into the #1 role. We may still be able to sign Clark, who may not receive great offers in FA due to age and being a part time TE, or we could simply look at add TE depth elsewhere. If we used more 2 TE sets, I could better understand the move, but as much as I would like to see that, I have not seen anything from Turner to lead me to believe that is going to be a significant part of our offense.

PFT has a piece talking about how the players union sent a memo to the league, or to whoever, requesting an interpretation of a certain section of the CBA which talks about rookie signings and how that clause would be affected w/ the potential of an uncapped year. As PFT talks about it, the clause would not likely affect the less expensive rookies, but depending on how the clause is interpreted, the more expensive rookies could see a bigger effect. Thus, it is possible we will not see many 1st round picks, especially the top half of the round, signed until this interpretation of this clause is better understood.

It was a response to Pix

Do you have any idea what you are putting on this kid? I checked the stats. You have to go back all the way to 2001 to find a rookie RB who received 300 or more carries. That was Tomlinson, who didn't even have 4 ypc average. In that same span, only TWO RBs (AP & Portis) had the 1,300 yards you are throwing out there for an expectation. 2 RBs in the last 7 years. I know you talk about our "pounding the rock" but (a) we have heard our coaches say that before, including last year, but it didn't mean too much and ( we have to be careful not to kill our RB his first season. As it is, college players enter the NFL and have to play more games than what they are used to, which often leads to rookies hitting a wall. If you make him a workhorse from day one, I think you will find him wearing down sooner rather than later. I also think the 4.4 ypc is a bit questionable w/ our entire offense a question mark. Frankly, I think if he has Anthony Thomas rookie rushing numbers, we should be pretty thrilled (278-1183 4.3 ypc avg & 7 TDs). OL is a huge question mark, as are QB and WR. We can hope it all works out, but how often does it when you have that many questions. Here is what I see. 275 carries for 1,073 yards. That is a 3.9 ypc average, and every yard was hard faught. Throw in 6 rushing TDs. I also see 55 catches for 450 yards and two more scores. I agree 1,300 yards is a better standard for the elite RBs, but would also point out that few rookie RBs meet that standard. I have no problem w/ him cracking 1,000 his rookie year, than jumping higher after that. I just do not think you realize how rare it is for a rookie RB to burst onto the scene as a bona fide elite RB stud. Most look very solid as a rookie, and then take a bigger step the following year.

With all said, I'm going to jump out on a limb and say Forte is my candadate for leading all rookies in rushing this year. My vote would go to Jonathan Stewart who was drafted by the Panthers. Yea, we have Det in our division, but we also have Minny twice (best run defense) and GB (solid run D). Carolina gets Atlanta and NO twice each, neither of which can defend the run, and frankly, TB is no longer more than average in that regard. Carolina has a solid OL, and a passing attack that has to be respected, thus fewer stacked boxes. He may not get it, but I think he is set up to succeed more so than Forte, who is in a tougher division, behind a questionable (at best) OL, an inconsistent passing attack (at best) and will face stacked boxes the majority of snaps.

Normally, I would say you trade for the player for two reasons. One, if the player hits the market, there is no guarantee you will get him. Two. SB. If you trade for him, you do not have to give him a SB, and the SB he already received does not count against the new team. But while both are positives, $4.7m in base for this year is still pretty dang high, especially for a player not expected to start. I agree Oakland is going to cut him, and agree further that if we want him, we are better of waiting. There will likely be some interest, but I doubt so much so that he will warrant more than a meager contract.

I have no problem w/ the idea. Lamont Jordan can actually be a solid backup, but I wonder at the wording. "potential suitor" may not have anything to do w/ actual interest. It may be nothing more than a writer thinking of any team that might have a need for a backup QB.

Agreed. Rex has never proven to be that accurate of a passer. His best season, in terms of accuracy, was 56%. Hardy "very very accurate". His last two seasons, when he played significantly, his numbers were 54.6% and 54.2%. That is closer to bad than "very very accurate". He does have a quicker release, but at the same time, that quicker release is negated by his inability and slowness to read defenses. As for stronger arm, as I have already said, IMHO that is yet to be seen. Orton was considered to have a strong arm in the draft. Maybe that is bogus, but the two opportunities he had to play (rookie year and late last year) he seemed to be playing in a dumbed down system where he was trying not to make mistakes more than he was trying to move the offense and win games. That is one reason I am curious to see this years camp. I have to imagine that if there is truly an open competition, both QBs will be playing the same scheme. If Orton truly lacks arm strength, we will know soon enough.

In some ways, I think we might actually agree. I agree the structure of the org was bad. I agree ownership meddled when Angelo took over, w/ regard to Jauron. I agree that he and Jauron did not work well together, and that made bad things worse. But... - In talk of why Angelo would take the job, I think you missed the point. The argument was made that Jauron had total control, including the draft and all personnel moves, as opposed to what I have said, control over the 53 man roster. My point was, in argument against Angelo being w/o control was, why would any GM accept the job if they had no authority to do their job? - I agree Angelo was handicapped at the beginning. At the same time, I also believe he did little to compensate for this handicap, and in fact, made it worse. I am NOT making Jauron out to be an Angel. He was a stubborn ass himself. But I none-the-less fault Angelo too. - Back to the offense. First, why 3 years for the offense? Lovie started in '04, and thus Angelo has had (prior to this off-season) 4 drafts to build the offense. Are you saying three because of the OC change? I do not think you can give a GM a clean slate every time an assistant coach changes. Angelo has had 4 drafts (if we do not count the Jauron days) and we still have one of the worst offenses in the league. Second, I question how much your Jauron days argument applies to the offense. Angelo come to the team w/ a defensive scheme already in mind. I do not believe he ever had an offensive scheme in mind. Further, if you look at the draft, it simply lacks offensive players drafted. I am simply not sure how much we can simply blame Jauron. Was it Jauron's choice to pass on offensive talent? Was it Jauron's choice to draft questionable offensive talent when it was available? I guess when the day comes and Rex is finally written off as a bust, that too will be Jauron's fault and not Angelos? While I have arguments w/ you about the Jauron era, I do agree the argument is better when looking at the defensive side of the ball than the offense. On the offensive side of the ball, Angelo simply did little, and what little he did, didn't prove very good. Just look at Angelo's history. If you throw out the final two rounds, which rarely provide better than depth, look at how much Angelo has addressed the offense. 2002 1st round w/ Columbo - Injury related bust 3rd round w/ Metcalf 2nd, 4th and 5th round picks went defense, and the two offensive players drafted provided the team nothing. 2003 Rex was the later 1st and 2 WRs in the 5th. 6 defensive players taken in the top 5 rounds, double the offense, including 3 1st day picks and the 3rd pick of the 2nd day. 2004 3rd round for Berrian and 5th for Krenzel. 1st, 2nd, two 4th and a 5th for defense. 5 to 2 ratio here. 2005 Finally he goes offense w/ his first 4 picks. Benson (bust), Bradley (bust), Orton (more than likely bust) Currie (bust). 2006 Back to defense as the 1st 5 rounds are all defense. 6th and 7th round picks are offense, and nothing to write home about. Hester is now offense, but he was drafted to be a DB, so I refuse to count him. 2007 This is the year most expected him to go all out on offense. We were coming off a SB game, and got there w/ defense. He does draft some offense, but nothing close to what many expected. Olsen looks good. Wolfe looks like a 3rd down back and Beekman is not even getting a look at OG, and didn't get a look last year when we desperate at the position. Bazuin, Okwo, Payne and Graham also drafted for defense. So if you look at his history, (1) he has never really applied himself to the offense and ( when he has, he has found VERY little success. This year we hope the tides change, but we have to hope this years crop is simply better than his history has shown.

I feel similarly for Orton, but believe in Grossman's physical abilities much more than Orton's. Why? Serious question. Orton has bigger size, and IMHO, seems more capable of moving in the pocket. Rex is may not be the statue Jim Miller was, but is he far from it? About the only physical ability Rex may have on Orton is arm strength, but even that is questionable IMHO, as we have yet to see the team allow Orton to open things up. We have seen Orton twice. Once as a rookie, w/ a dumbed down system, and again after not playing for a long time, again, in a dumbed down system. Orton was supposed to have good arm strength (pre draft reports). We have yet to see that, but I wonder if that is due to his inability or circumstances not allowing him to play in a system like Rex. But back to the question. What physical abilities do you think Rex has over Orton.

One. I have seen that wikpedia article in the past. You should know that while Wikpedia is a nice site, it is not entirely factual. I could go onto Wikpedia and write an article about Crackerdog, and I could get very colorful . Some might be true, but not everything. Two. Look closer at what that article says, and put it in line w/ what I said. The article says Jauron had control over the player roster. Is that so different from what I said? I said he had control over the 53 man roster, and even mentioned the example of Jauron cutting an Angelo draft pick for what many believed to be spite. But that does not mean he has control over the draft or FA. Think of it this way. He had the power to fire, but not the power to hire. He could do w/ those already on the team as he wanted, but he could not add to the team as he saw fit. If he had total GM powers, AND Virginia was so behind him, then why did we hire Angelo at all? Seems to me, if this was all true, then we would have simply promoted Jauron. Three. Michael Haynes. You want the short or the long. The short? I think Angelo simply was drafting for need. He was looking for a pass rusher, and haynes was the best on the board. The Long? I think Angelo didn't get the guy he wanted that year. That was the year we traded down, and shortly there after, a run on DTs began. I think he was looking at Jimmy Kenney, who was taken one pick in front of our new pick. He then just took whoever was the next best pass rusher on our board. Actually, he traded down one more slot before he did this. I have said this before, and continue to. When Angelo can prove capable of building more than one side of the ball, I will give him the credit you do. Until then? Solid high level defensive scout.

Disagree on several areas. DJ have the final say so over the roster decisions and for the most part, the final say in who we drafted. This can not be debated as it was well documented by the press during the DJ/JA era. Oh, I will debate this as it may be the first time I have ever even heard it. At the time, Jauron had final say over the 53 man roster. But I have never heard it told that he had totol, near or much of any, control over who the team brought in, or who was drafted. In fact, I specifically recall a time when he cut a player Angelo drafted, and this was largely done as part of the power play between the two. He was never a Jauron player, and Jauron wanted to "hit" Angelo. I believe this happened after Angelo did something else, w/ a player, to tick off Jauron. So yes, I will argue this point plenty. Jauron had, in his contract, power over the 53 man roster. But who was brought added to the team, via draft or FA, was totally on Angelo. Sorry, but if what you say is true, than Angelo just dropped 5 notches in my book. He was so desparate for a job that he took a position where he was a figurehead w/o control? Come on. Jauron had some power in his contract, but I think you over-state how far it reached. By your thinking, are you saying we should not credit Angelo for: Alex Brown, Adrian Peterson, Tillman or Briggs? Are you saying Jauron drafted those guys? Therefore, JA was a lame duck GM during the DJ era. He couldn't even get rid of Shoop-da-Poop OC. No argument Shoop was a big point of contention between Jauron and Angelo, but I would argue Shoop was not close to the cause, but part of the power struggle. IMHO, the rift between Angelo and Jauron began much sooner. Heck, I think it goes as far back as Engram being released. I have always wondered, if Jauron and Angelo were not at war, whether Jauron would have supported Shoop the way he did. Everyone talks about it as pure blind loyalty, but I have always felt it was far more a matter of Shoop being part of a power play between the two. I personally think JA has been an excellent GM. A Jim Finks? No, there will be very few as good as Finks was. How many GM's are in the HOF? However, I think his successes are documented enough to put him in the top 5 GMs in the league today. Yes, he has had some failures in the draft. But tell me what GM, including Finks, who did not screw the pooch on a few of their draft selections? Man, it is not an exact science by any means. It is more of a crap shoot with educated guesses than a Doctorate Degree in Football. Every GM has failures. To think otherwise is ridiculous. In a draft where you have 6 or 7 selections, finding 3 solid to good players is more often than not considered a success. But one thing I do not believe can be avoided is how poorly he has built the offense. Sorry, but IMHO, the role of the GM is not to simply build one side of the field. Angelo's background is defense, and he has risen high, but I have yet to see that he is capable of more than what he background began w/. On paper, we may have the best defense in the league. Angelo gets huge credit for that. Massive credit. At the same time, we have one of the worst offenses in the league, and have pretty much since he joined the staff. His failures in drafting QB, RB, WR, OL have hurt this team as much as his solid drafting on defense has helped. Now maybe that changes this year. Maybe Olsen steps forward. Maybe the trio of offensive players he drafted step up. But that is a maybe we will not see until the future. Until Angelo is able to build a decent offense, I simply do not see how he can be considered top 10, much less top 5. I am very glad he has proven capable of finding defensive talent, but until he proves he can find talent on both sides of the field, I think such praise is simply unwarranted.

Tell me this. If I read your comments right, you are saying Angelo simply runs such a different system than Jauron, that the combo was doomed from the start, and thus it is not right to judge Angelo prior to his getting his coach. Is that what you are saying? Really? I know you used an IT example, as it is what you know, but should a GM be so specialized? Is the role of the GM not greater than such a specific area. For example, Angelo has done a solid job building a defense (aside from replacing Brown), but is that enough? Do we write off his offensive failures by saying that isn't his forte, as his background is defense? My issue w/ Angelo during Jaurons time is he didn't even seem to try. At least, that is the way I felt. To me, he tried to build a system that supported what he wanted, rather than support the coach. That, again to me, is simply recipe for disaster.

This is just my thoughts, not that Brian is greedy, but he wants to get the majority of what the Bears owe him upfront so he can walk away with the better portion of his contract. I have a huge problem w/ this line of thinking. The bears do not owe him jack. Brian has received a signing bonus already. He has money left on his contract, but that money is in place under the assumption he will be playing. The bears do not owe him the $22m, of whatever money is left on the deal. Brian owes the bears 4 more seasons, and in turn, the bears have agreed to pay him a certain amount for each of those seasons. The idea the bears owe him money is beyond me.

It is being discussed because it is probably the slowest time of the year right now, so there isn't much else to talk about. There are many types of leaders, but I think the key for the discussion is Mike Brown. When Brown is out, the defense suffers. Brown is not the best athlete on the field. Not even close. He is great, but is he great like Harris or Uralcher? Is he great in a way that can not be replaced? In so far as play, I am not sure. Thus the reason for the direction of the discussion. Leadership. IMHO, it is Brown's leadership that has never been replaced. You cay players don't call each other out, but that is not always the case. It was Brown that said that one year the defense sucked. I recall Brown getting in Mike Greens face once when he botched an assignment. Mike Green is like a coach on the field. We may not be able to replace "that", but I think it a valid question whether or not someone will step up to try and take that mantle. You say we have a lot of leaders or potential leaders, but who? I am not sure I have seen much leadership from this group. Many you might say lead by example, but in terms of field generals, I have seen none.

But the question is, if Brown goes down, who can take over that role? I think we have leadership potential on the DL, and that can help in the huddle and locker room, but I am not sure leadership on the DL can really help once you lineup. Pretty hard for the DT to yell to the FS. So I think we need a leader to emerge from the back 7. I have seen nothing to lead me to expect this from Briggs or Urlacher. I think Hunter could, but has never taken that role. I haven't seen much from Tillman or Vasher for me to expect that. Right now, about the only hope I have would be for Steltz. He did exhibit some of those qualities in college at least. Other than him, I am not sure who else to expect that field general role from.

Last year he was coming off a SB in which he played like crap. Further, while we were in the SB, Rex was pretty bad the 2nd half of the season, and he knew it. In camp last year, there were absolutely stories like this about how hard he was working on fundamentals and such. Regarding Pep, not saying it isn't his fault, but (a) I believe our QB issues pre-date his arrival and ( Turner is supposed to be good w/ QBs and has supposedly been working w/ Rex for a while now, so how much falls on him. As for the last line, I had to laugh a bit. QBs w/ talent? Hey, every QB in the league has talent. They would not be getting an NFL paycheck if they didn't. But not every QB w/ talent has what it takes to start in the NFL, and as much as fans do not want to admit it, that may simply be the case for our group.

That is just what I was thinking as I read this. I had to check the date of the article again to make sure it was current. Rex has always done all the right things and said all the right things. Effort is not his problem. His problem is how he handles the pressure of the rush.

My biggest issue is timing. Most players ask for more after a big season. But Urlacher? The team is coming off a bad year, which is even more disappointing coming off a SB appearance. Urlacher is coming off one of his most inconsistent seasons. While he finished strong, his play through the year was considered by most as below average (his average). He is coming off a year which he suffered not only an injury, but one labeled chronic, meaning it may not simply be something of the past. That is one of my biggest problems here. The timing. The timing honestly makes me wonder if he doesn't know his injury is worse than he leads on, and he isn't trying to get a big payday now, knowing his days of playing at the high level we have come to expect is in question.

They tried. They were willing to give him upfront money, and additional money in the form of roster bonues for every remaining year of the contract. They were not just offering incentives, but giving him extra money for simply being on the roster. But Urlacher doesn't want that. He wants guaranteed money. Not incentive money. Not future payouts. He wants a nice, fat bonus this year. I have a problem w/ that, and disagree w/ the article. Might Urlacher go down as an icon for years to come? Maybe, but it depends on his actions going forward. The bears have had many greats over their time, but they do not always rate icon long term . Urlacher could be that, but his recent antics will put that into jeapordy.

Better? Maybe. I only said it wasn't a blowout in difference. You and I listed groups well above and well below. I simply question whether you can say those three are "well below". We had one big season, in terms of playoffs which you want to stress. Is one out of 6 really enough to separate us? You can use playoffs, but what if I just used seasons above .500? How about rankings? Point is, there are many ways we can look at it. Playoffs are one. Winning seasons is another. The simple fact this can be argued is maybe enough. I agree we would probably be ahead of Wash, but both being in the middle of the pack. Cincy? Sorry, but most say the AFC has been better than the NFC, and yet they have double the .500+ seasons we do. Oh yea, and their one playoff loss was to the SB champion Steelers. Look. I am not saying Cincy has been great, but I think they have been pretty similar to us. We have had a great defense and a crap offense. They have had a great offense and a crap defense. KC? Sorry. But they have 3 winning seasons and one .500 season. That is compared to us having two seasons, above .500, and 4 under. Yea, they lost their two times in the playoffs, to Indy, but the fact is, they have been a more consistently good team than we have over the last 6 years. It isn't so much that I think these teams have been so good, but that we have been that bad. 4 out of 6 seasons w/ a losing record. How can you think we should be in anything but the bottom half?

Having a bunch of cap space doesn't mean that there are better players out there than what you've already got. If we continue the shopping analogy, it's like you're shopping in Soviet Russia. Instead of shopping at a store with stocked shelves, there might be one thing available per catagory with a bunch of damaged packages behind it. The products available aren't top shelf and you've got alot of competition to get them. So you are saying Brian Robinson for $25m was a smart signing? I realize there may not have been great options at some positions. Before even looking at your link, I specifically recall it being a horrible group of QBs. At the same time, I disagree there was nothing out there. I will have to do a bit of checking, if you wish, but while I recall some positions being a joke, others I felt were pretty solid. I looked at the article you provided, and while it gave some names, it really didn't give that much. It gave a couple names on the high and low side of each position, but not too much else. The bottom line from my perspective is that you can't change a team in one season - and it doesn't matter how much cap space you have if there isn't anyone out there better than the guys you already have. If they are on a par from a prospect level, you are merely introducing change for the sake of change at that point. I agree you can not change a team over night, though Wash seems to try every night. At the same time, my point is, it sure didn't seen Angelo did much to try any sort of change, nor to improve. Also, while our actions and inactions in FA was not that much, our draft was flat out pitiful. When you run on a strategy that stresses the draft and dismissed FA, then you better draft well. So the combination of a FA that doesn't add anything and a draft that failed, simply wasn't a great start, to say the least. And admit it! The reason we didn't do as well the following year was because we missed Shane Matthews and James Allen too much on offense. Without their talent, we were sunk! Actually, I thought it was the loss of Carl Powell and Frankie Smith.

We can hope the new guys learn from him, but I do not expect any of them to replace Brown's leadership, which is the aspect of him that makes him great. IMHO, we need to see other players/positions step up and take on a leadership role. I do not mean lead by example, but an actual vocal leader. Harris seems like a potential candidate. I think Hunter could be, but he may feel a bit insecure as the weakest of the three at his position. Frankly, that is a problem for me, and why I think we fail when Brown is out. Do we have any leaders on this defense? We have great players, and you can argue some lead by example, but do we have any true, vocal leaders? I am not sure.

I want to start w/ where you finished. I do not have to think our team has done well the last 6 years to "think much of our team". Cincy - You think we are so much better? W/ Palmer, TJ Hous, Chad Johnson & Rudi, they have an offense that can match our defense. They are a one sided team, just like us. They have a bad historical rep, well earned, but have tried to turn it around, which they have struggled to so. At the same time, are we that much better? We are in the media for negative publicity thanks to the likes of Tank, Briggs and Benson more often than for anything good. Cincy can feel our pain. I am simply not sure why you feel we have been so much better than they have. They have four seasons of .500 or better, compared to our two. They have bad publicity, but we don't? Wash - We may have a bit of an edge in the rep department simply due to how much everyone hates Snyder, but have they really been that much worse than we have? In terms of winning and playoffs, they have been our equal, which is not saying much. While they have the Snyder bad publicity, we have the criminals. I would give us a bit of an edge in the rep, but when you look past that, at the end of the day, as bad as they have been, I simply am not sure how you think we have been so much better. I think as fans, we tend to get a bloated idea of our own team. That is normal. But if you ask around the league, I think we are among those teams they always hope to see on their schedule, and the fans chalk us up as an easy win, just as we do when we see Detroit.

Four - Yes Angelo was in charge in 2002, but he was stuck with players and contracts that came before him. So say you consider Phillip Daniels a 7 out of 10 and it would cost money to trade or release him for a few years, Angelo was kinda stuck with him at that position. Especially after he took a cap hit for releasing Thomas Smith the year before. To use a Parcellsism, he didn't have money with one trip shopping for groceries to throw out the old crap and restock the pantry all in one trip. For any draft driven team, it takes a few years once the new guy comes in. Check out the roster turnover from 2000-2004 and how systematically Angelo has replaced starters with "his guys" each year. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/chi/ Your last point is the only want I really want to respond to, as I strongly disagree. IMHO, Angelo had the ability in 2002 more than ever to do w/ the team as he wished. Maybe my memory serves me wrong, but as I recall, we actually had quite a bit of cap space heading into 2002, but at the same time, also had a slew of UFAs and RFAs. IMHO, he made some really bad decisions that year. He had money to play w/, but how he choice to play w/ that money simply didn't prove to the be right choices. You talk about how you can't clean out the cubbard in one swoop, but that year where you nearly could. We had cap space, and choose to spend it on our own FAs rather than allow them to leave and bring in better players. For example, I would point to Brian Robinson. He was our LDE, and no more than average at best. Prototypical run stuffing DE. So what do we do? We signed him to a $25m deal w/ something like a $5m bonus. Funny how small that sounds today, but it was a pretty sizable deal back then. What made the deal even more questionable was, even then, many felt Angelo was looking at Robinson as a DT, not a DE. Sure enough, by 2003, Robinson was moved inside, where he never really did well. So we spent a nice chunk of change on a LDE, with all intentions of moving him to DT, where he was not proven, yet paid handsomely anyway. The bears also re-signed RW McQuarters in 2002. And while it technically happened at the end of 2001, as he didn't get the deal done until a couple days after the deadline, the deal didn't count against 2001. That always ticked me off. As I recall, Rex Tucker got a 7 year deal, and Boone a 5 year deal that year too. Not saying all were bad, as we also shelled out for Kreutz and Booker. Just making the point that we spent a ton of cap on our own, so a GM that wants to make changes was in a position to do so. Oh yea, and one player we allowed to leave that year, Parrish, has yet to be replaced. So we had a year where we spent all our cap space resigning our own, few of which earned their new contracts. I think our biggest outside FA signing was Chris Chandler. Now combine that with a draft that saw the first day picks of Columbo, Roosavelt Williams and Terrance Metcalf. Ouch. Yes, we got Alex Brown, but he was not close to enough to off-set the total waste of 1st day picks. So we can talk about how rough Angelo had it, but IMHO, his 2002 offseason did as much to doom the team as it did himself. He made some questionable decisions on what bears to keep and what bears to allow to leave. He added nothing via outside FA. And further, added little to nothing via the draft. So you can blame circumstances, but IMHO, Angelo did much to make those circumstances worse.