nfoligno

Harris is the only one I might tend to disagree w/, though I would say it is close. Harris is the one DCs now say they game plan for, not Urlacher. We do not have a single proven DT other than Harris. Whoever starts next to Harris will be unproven. In fact, it is likely our #2 and #3 DTs do not have jack for experience in them. Dusty due to injuries the last two years and Harrison as he is a rookie. Even if one of them step up, or another DT does, the dropoff in talent is likely to be pretty big. The other problem is, so much of our defense relies on the DT. Lovie always talks about how it all starts upfront. We rush our DEs to the outside, to push them inside for the DTs. If the DTs do not penetrate, then there is no pressure, and all is lost anyway. Mike Brown is a huge piece, not so much for his pure talent, but for his brain on the field. He simply makes everyone around him play better. Further, it is questionable whether we have a replacement for him still. It seems, going off OTAs, the staff is looking at Steltz to back him up, but Steltz is more of an in the box safety, making it a bit questionable how well he plays FS, especially in place of Brown. On the other hand, if our CBs are healthy and our SS position is improved (from Arch) then the loss of Brown might not be felt quite as much. Last year, we had both CBs down and Arch at SS was as bad as an injury to a starter, thus the loss of Brown was felt that much more. If all the rest are healthy, his loss "might" not be as crucial as last year. If everyone on the DL is healthy but Harris, I think the effect there is dramatic.

Has Urlacher even been a leader? In terms of being the face for the franchise, that may always be. MLB and RB are simply two positions Chicago are famous for. We have had great players at other positions, but the LB and the RB are simply above the rest. So by the simple fact that Urlacher is a MLB, I think he is simply going to continue to be the face of the organization, though I think he will more and more find it more like Mt. Rushmore w/ multiple faces in the mix (Harris & Hester). But in terms of leadership in the locker room, I think the change has already begun. The reality is, Urlacher was never much of a leader. I always read about how he might lead by example, but he was not one to really speak out. He had the instincts on the field to feel where the play was going, but not the ability to help direct those around him (ala Mike Brown). An example I would go back to is film study. This was always an area Urlacher was criticized some for not putting enough time into. I guess he felt he was a stud and didn't need it, but I specificially recall Singletary calling out Urlacher on this. Anyway, if you are telling the rest of the team (though actions) that film study is just not that important, are you really leading. Urlacher is a freak and a stud. But I have always questioned the idea of his being a leader. Harris' face may never have the marketing value of Urlacher, but his voice can carry much further.

Sorry, but gotta agree w/ Conner. Early on, Urlacher seemed the good boy, but since then, more and more makes you wonder how much star status went to his head. From his marriage issues to Paris freaking Hilton, to the very hateful custody battle, to the whining w/ the media, etc. No, sorry, but I do not think he has handled it well. Since he put the star on his door, he began living a life that simply seems different from the one he lived all his life. Last year, his antics w/ the media was simply pathetic, and to follow that up w/ his whining about money and threats of retirement and holdout this year, well, I just feel his leadership is lacking.

One. If I said playoff games, that was in error. Through the entire post, I was talking about playoff seasons. In 6 years, we had 2 playoff seasons. Two. I do not believe I am "skewing the perspective" by looking at seasons over .500. I think most would agree that a season below .500 is a bad season, and as good as any line to set. On the other hand, I think your wanting to look at cumulative win/loss records far more skews the perspective. For example, if you looked at 2001-2003, we ended up w/ a total win/loss record of 24-24, but does that tell the whole picture? In that, we had one big winning season, followed by two sub .500 seasons. We won enough games in one year to offset when looking at the cumulative total, but I don't think 1 winning season in 3 would be considered average or acceptible for most. Three. I have had the argument over the 2001 season in the past, and frankly, it can go either way. I choose to not use it. Not to avoid the wins from that season, but due to the title of this thread. Did Angelo have an effect on that season? Sure. I have argued the same myself in the past. But he only had a partial effect. Most of that team was assembled prior to his start, and even the draft had concluded. Like I said, I can see the argument either way, and have argued both sides of the coin. But if we are looking at the GM as a whole, I simply am not sure we should count 2001, when he didn't join the team until mid June, two months after the draft and well after the start of FA. Four, as for looking only at the last 3 seasons, why? Different coaching staff, but so what. Was Angelo not in charge in 2002? I know the story of why he may have had to keep Jauron, but to me, there was more to it. To this day, I feel Angelo did little to support his coach. Whether Jauron was his coach of choice or not doesn't matter. The role of the GM is not to sabatoge the coach. Also, even if I only did look at the last 3 seasons, it is only partially different. I have said before the job of the GM is not to simply create on good/great side of the ball, but to create an entire team. The offense basically had one average season, and has otherwise been a league wide joke. If Angelo can only build a defense, then he should nto be the GM. We can come up w/ hundreds of different ways to examime the job of the GM, but tell me this. At the end of the day, do you not think most owners/team judge the job of the GM based off wins and losses? GMs, if the draft enough talent, can often get by longer than a coach, but ultimately, wins and losses rule the day. Angelo survived one head coaching change, as he was not the main reason Jauron was kept. He has also survived several assistant coaching changes. But do you think if we fail again, and Lovie begins to feel the heat, Angelo won't. I will say this. I believe Lovie is the last coaching hire for Angelo w/ the bears. If the team continues to fail, it will not only be Lovie on the chopping block. Angelo will not have another opportunity to hire another HC.

Thanks for jumping in. I think there is little to no argument the Bears were a cheap team in years past. I still love, I think it was Ditka, who said Halas threw around pennies like they were man hole covers. But to me, the change happened around 1998. I think that was the year we signed Phillip Daniels and Thomas Smith. Prior to that year, we failed in FA, at least partially because we were never willing to cough up the SB money top tier FAs were commanding. That year, we opened the wallets. Since then, the team has shelled out numerous large/huge SBs and upfront cash. Like you said, which I simply do not think Lucky understands, you can spend well over the cap in any given year by spreading out large bonuses that only partially count against that years cap. Lucky will look at the smallest personnel issues. Even the scouts he wants to show. Maybe we have a few fewer scouts, though I agree w/ you we are likely closer to the average, but you are talking about a VERY small amount of money when looking at the whole picture, and I just don't think you can say we are cheap because of it. To me, the key to knowing how cheap an organization is, is by looking at what you pay the players. If we lost Harris because we were not willing to give him the big SB, or Harris/Urlacher and others, then I can see the argument. But so long as we are spending on players, I just do not see how you can say we are cheap because we "might" spend a little less in some areas which simply do not add up to big bucks.

My list is a bit different. In the last 6 years, the Bears have 2 seasons over .500, and have been to two playoff games. In those 6 seasons, the defense was considered good/great twice, while the other 4 seasons ranked mediocre to bad. The offense? The offense had one season ranking respectible. The other 5 seasons were in line w/ the leagues worst. Simply put, while we may want to think different, when looking at the whole of 6 seasons, this has not been a good team, and has been far closer to a team others laugh at. You have only a handful ranking above the bears, and a lot ranking below. I simply disagree. Maybe if you highlight our two winning seasons only, but if you look at all 6..... Teams I would rank above the bears over the last 6 seasons. - Dallas - Makes me sick, but yes, Dallas. 4 of 6 winning seasons, and 3 playoff appearances. - Denver - 5 of the last 6 seasons w/ winning records, and 3 playoff appearances. - GB - I can't believe they were not on your list. 5 of the last 6 seasons at or over .500, and 4 playoffs. - Indy - KC - They stunk bad this year, but 4 of their last 6 w/ winning records. - NE - NYG - 4 of 6 winning seasons, 4 playoffs and one SB win. - Phily - 5 of 6 .500 or better and 4 playoffs. They have been one of the most consistent winners, right along w/ NE. - Pitt - SD - Sea I would say those teams were absolutely above the bears in the last 6 years. Teams I would say were worse. AZ Buf Cle - Actually a bit close, but their two winning seasons (same as us) were at the opposite ends of our model. Too many bad years inbetween. Det - And hell is still hot Hou Mia Oak SF StL - I didn't realize it had been so long since those great seasons. The rest I put in the middle. The teams you put below us which I disagree w/. Atlanta - 3 of 6 seasons at .500 or better and two playoffs. Cincy - Not sure why you think we have been better. 4 of their last 6 at .500 or better w/ an offense to match our defense. KC - Funny. You say they were worse, and I actually say they were better, not just equal. Minny - 4 of 6 seasons at .500 or better and a playoff. NO - See above. 4 of 6 at .500 or better, and a playoff. NYJ - 3 winning and 3 losing seasons, w/ 3 playoffs. That's one more winning season and one more playoff than us. Tenn - 4 of 6 .500 or better. Wash - Similar to us, 2 winning seasons and 2 playoffs. The rest are in the middle. But we have set a pretty low bar over the last 6 seasons. We have two good/great seasons, and 4 crap ones. To give that sort of performance a B is to accept mediocrity. We would so like to think more of ourselves, but can we. That are 10 or more teams I think easily are ahead of us for this time span. There are another 9 or 10 I think below us. That puts us in the middle, but when I look at the other teams in the middle, I think quite a few would be a bit ahead of us. If I were to rank all 32 teams over the last 6 seasons, I think we would rank somewhere in the 17-20 range. That my friends is not a B grade. That is a C or C-.

I would probably be closer to a C- grade overall. He has had too many hits, both in draft and FA, to drop below a C grade, but at the same time, he has too many busts, losing seasons, and missed opportunities to push his grade much higher. I will say this. Grades are ever changing. If last year and this years players develop into something, and the teams begins pumping out winning seasons again, then his grade obviously goes up. But if asked today, I would not go higher than a C- or maybe a C at best. But hey. If we create a defensive personnel director position, I would be all for him getting that job. He has built a hell of a defense. He simply has not (yet) shown he can do more than that.

I agree win/losses can not be the only item used to judge a GM, but I think wins/losses does need to be a factor. Has he brought in talent? Yes? But that isn't the question IMHO. Every single team in the NFL brings in talent. Whether it is Cincy, Det or whoever. No team goes 6 years w/o adding talent. I think you have to look at a bigger picture. In adding talent, I would agree he has added talent on defense, but on offense? If a GM can only bring a positive effect to one side of the ball, then to me, he is a high level scout, or scouting director maybe, for that side of the ball. A GM must add talent to both sides of the ball. I am not as great of an Angelo basher as I once was, as I would argue he has improved since joining the team. At the same time, I simply do not feel we can ever get over the top w/ him. I simply feel he is too lacking for that too happen.

I refuse to compare that way. Has Angelo done a better job than Wanny. Obviously. And the point is.... IMHO, the only way to compare is to compare w/ other NFL teams. So we are not as bad as previous bear teams. So what.

You all are giving him a "B" grade? Angelo has been here for 6 full seasons. While he did join the team in 2001, it wasn't until after FA and the draft. If he were a coach, I would still count that year, but a GMs job is mostly done in the offseason, and he missed that one. So he has been w/ the team 6 years. In those 6 years, he has 2 winning and 4 losing seasons. I don't want to hear snake bit or whatever. You know what, the job of the GM is to have depth to avoid those snake bit issues. His drafts have been weak. He has some hits, and some really big hits at that, but are they enough to even it out, much less carry the day? Especially when you factor how poorly he has drafted in the 1st round. He has built a very good defense, but has anyone stepped back to consider how two of the top keys to our defense were players left over from prior to Angelo? Mike Brown and Urlacher are huge keys to the defense, and those were here before Angelo. Not saying he has not filled the defense w/ other talent, including some top tier talent, but making the point that two of the top players on our defense were not brought in by Angie. Then you look at the offense, and simply put, he has failed miserably. Period. His drafts have been weak to the point of pathetic (though we all maintain hope his more recent offensive players picked will prove different). His FA additions are, for the most part, been short term. The only two exceptions I can think of are Tait and Clark, and until lately, we didn't think that much of Clark (hence spending a 1st round pick on another TE). Sorry, but while we have had a couple exciting seasons, at the same time, when you look at the hole, I do not see how he can have a B or a B- grade. 2 winning seasons our of 6 is bad. Total inability to draft an entire side of the field (offense) is about as big of a problem as any. The job of a GM is not to simply build one side of the field, but to build an entire team, and he has not done that.

What I find funny is, you always say that, but I have read few (if any) posts where anyone thinks of Orton as a savior. Thinking a player deserves a chance is a pretty long way from thinking a player is a savior. And just for the record, what does Orton even have to do w/ this? Is the only way you can hype Rex by knocking Orton? The thread was about 1st round failures. As much as you may want to argue otherwise, Rex thus far has been a 1st round failure. When you draft a QB in the 1st, you expect him to be a franchise QB. After 5 seasons, Rex is still one giant question mark. Yea, he belongs on the previously mentioned list.

Don't be too sure. While that may be the time frame for the CBA to officially expire, the final year is uncapped, and I would bet many owners will be trying to avoid that. The are other potential problems too for that final year, and thus a new deal could be done w/ in the next two years.

First round QBs are drafted to be franchise QBs. After 5 seasons, we still consider him a question mark. He may not be (he isn't) as bad as some on the list, but the point is failed draft picks, and I think he does fit into that group. Heading into his 6th season, he will be in an open competition w/ a 2nd day pick QB who has barely gotten a 2nd glance from our coaching staff. Maybe he is best of that weak bunch, but that doesn't mean he doesn't belong on the list.

mikey may not phoning in the picks but as i have stated in the past: if management is too cheap or too stupid to hire, not only better, but more scouts then it falls on them along with the rest. example... if the scouts we now employ are better at finding defensive players then don't you think we should add some more on the offensive side that can evaluate talent? And I have said before, I just do not believe money is the issue. Years ago, sure. Then we were known to have one of the smallest scouting departments in the NFL. When Hatley and Phillips took over, that department grew into the largest in the NFL. I believe you have made the argument that we still don't know how much the scouts made, thus we could still be cheap, but I think that is a reach. I have not read/heard that our scouting department today is either small in size, or underpaid. If that were the case, wanna bet we would have read about it by now. Now the quality of our scouts I agree can be questioned, but that is a managerial and/or personnel issue. I think Lovie Smith is a big problem for this team. He is very well paid, but money doesn't always mean quality (just ask Washington). Also disagree w/ the logic that we should just hire more scouts. I would argue we should have competant scouts, and should not have to hire 2 scouts for every area/school when other teams only employ one. Think in terms of most any business. How many companies do you think just hire a 2nd guy to work w/ the guy not getting it done. No, the fire the guy not getting it done and replace him. There is no money factor here, simply a personnel one. could ONE of angies many problems be that he is not only looking at players talent wise but how much he thinks he can sign them for? this could be a major problem if he keeps drafting damaged goods or small school talent because he thinks his cap figure duties outweigh choosing the best players. Sorry, but Angelo's history does not support this. Since joining the team, in the 1st round, Angelo has used 5 of 8 1st round picks (including DM in the early 2nd after trade) on big schools. Penn St, Florida, Oklahoma, Texas & Miami. So he has not simply drafted small school talent. He does look at small school talent, especially after the 1st round, but the financial committment for those picks is not great enough to try and argue money is an issue. In fact, I would argue the opposite. Not every team has a scouting department large enough to scout many of the smaller schools, and yet we do. I know how bad you want to say the team is cheap, and years ago, you would have been correct. But since Hatley and Phillips began to take over, a pretty dramatic change began, to the point where I just do not see how you can even try and say we still today are a cheap organization. Whether you are talking about money paid to players, coaches and staff, having a GM, or outside costs such as training facility, scouts, etc., I just think the argument today fails. This is not Halas' team anymore, and it was he who was the real cheap one. Mikey earned the rep., but he was only following in George's footsteps. another approach to this issue is if you draft a major number of players at the same positions, as he does, year after year aren't you bound to have a better chance at finding good players? the problem is you ignore the rest of the teams needs in doing so. another indication relating to this statement... how many safeties have we drafted since angie took over? how many are considered starters? how many linebackers have we drafted? DT's? etc. Agree and disagree. We continue to draft DEs, but if Angelo did draft Alex Brown, and then Anderson as well. At LB, he did draft Briggs, and we may yet find we have talent in the more recent two. Many CBs drafted, but it is a league that needs many corners, and he did find Tillman, Vasher, McBride, etc. It is not always a bad thing to draft depth. What blows my mind is when he already has a solidified position, and then continues to draft at that position. I have no problem w/ continuing to draft safeties, as we have yet to hit on one. Ditto w/ WR. But we have TE, DT, DE, LB, and CBs, so I question the continued drafting of these positions after they have already been solidified.

Yea, that is the way it pretty much goes. Also why I worry about the new CBA negotiations. The players like the 60% they get now. How do you think they will feel to basically getting a paycut. Frankly, it just feels like the whole thing got out of control. While the owners, players, union and league in general all share faulk, I would add that fans also share fault. Why do owners charge as much as they do? Because they can. Take a look at the stadiums, and they are full. Season tickes? Several year waiting list. It doesn't matter if teams suck, or what they do. Fans still support their teams and buy tickets. So long as this happens, what is the incentive for owners to charge less? To a lesser extent, it is like buying a movie ticket. I paid $10 the other day. It hacks me off when an actor gets $30m to do a movie, and when the costs trickle down. By the time it gets to me, I end up spending $30 to take my wife to the movie and get some popcord/drink. That hacks me off, but so long as I pay it, what is their incentive to lower the costs? We can complain about the costs, but it is sort of false so long as we continue to support that which keeps costs up.

First, I do not think you even mention Tank in the discussion. If you do, then you have to factor all the 2nd round picks. Second, I question looking at any picks prior to Angelo (Enis/Salaam). To ask what the problem is, but go back that far when the org set-up was far different, doesn't work IMHO. So what is the problem. I would say there is no "one" problem, but a host of problems. Columbo - Angelo's first pick. He has actually turned into a solid OT, but could not stay healthy for us. If he had a history of injuries, then I would have no issue putting this on the GM, but I do not believe Columbo did, and thus would chalk this up to bad luck. Haynes - Hated this pick even then. Some would argue Haynes was drafted for one system, which we almost immediately changed, and it was a big change. That is true, but as Haynes never made it w/ another team, not even as a competent backup, then I would argue he was simply a bust. Rex - Another I didn't care for the day we drafted him. He was a winner w/ heart and leadership. Great, but he was a shorter QB from a questionable system that often produced smoke and mirror QBs. But hey, QB is one of the toughest positions to draft. Harris - I doubt any will complain about this one. Benson - Just simply bad scouting. DM - Yea, he was a 2nd rounder, but we traded down from the 1st round (supposedly) w/ him in mind all along. Angelo said we would have taken him in the 1st, but felt we could trade down and get him for better value. Thus, I will include him. To me, DM poses the question of scouting v coaching. DM was an elite athlete, but from a smaller school and in need of sound coaching to develop. Was this simply a matter of poor scouting, or poor development from the coaching staff? Olsen/Williams - To be determined. In Haynes and Benson, there is plenty out there questioning character, which really makes me question how much our staff looks at beyond pure NFL skills. On the other hand, they drafted Rex more on character and charisma (IMHO) than based purely on football skills. To answer the question, I guess I have no freaking clue I do not think it is any one thing. I don't think it is Mikey calling down and telling the staff what to do. I think the problems are between coaches, scouts and GM, but not necessarily in that order. I think our scouts can be questioned for their scouting reports. I think coaches can be questioned for the lack of development of many players. And I think Angelo can be questioned simply because he makes the decision of who to draft. Beyond the 1st round, one problem I have w/ Angelo is, I think he falls in love w/ some players/positions, and ignores needs and/or what I would call a strategy. For example, take this year. We have two solid starting DEs (Brown/Wale) and a stellar #3 DE (Anderson). Yet last year we drafted Bazuin, which was questionable, and this year we draft yet another DE? Or we have a veteran TE we just locked up for a few more years, and last years 1st round pick TE. And then we draft another? These players may be good, but if they are so deep on the draft chart, how will you ever find out? It kills me how fans have given Angelo so much credit for his drafting, but I have never been that impressed. I find it fairly ironic that the two players on defense who, if they suffer injury, seem to set our defense back the worst, were the only two players on the defense who Angelo did not draft/sign (Urlacher/Brown).

The only one I am at all concerned w/ (and that is relative) is Forte. Williams is set to start, and will seek a nice sized contract, but w/ his draft spot, that would have been offered anyway. Forte though is expected to start, and 2nd round deals are not that great. He, IMHO, would have a more legit argument that the expectations for him are greater than his draft slot contract we are likely to offer. Its one thing when a 2nd round pick (or later) steps up and surprisingly takes a starting job, but we flat out are planning for him to be our starting RB, and thus I can see his seeking more compensation than would otherwise be normal. So while I do not see problems signing Williams, or Bennett, I do see the potential for issues w/ Forte. Does anyone know who Forte's agent is?

I don't know. I do not know of any stadium that has been 100% financed by the public. Even the stadiums that are not paid for at all by the team also have a big chunk paid for through an NFL loan, which team must pay back. So while the owner may not pay upfront, they are still paying for the costs, or at least partially. As for building new stadiums in pace of stadiums not as old as you would expect to be replaced, I think the key is suites. Suites are the key to bigger profits, and until more recently, stadiums were not built w/ those nice executive suites. I do think the owners will have to open up the books if they want to make this case. If they open up the books and show a significant reduction in profits since the last CBA was agreed to, and can show how new stadiums and the economy, as they argue, are the key, then I think there is a valid argument, but it starts w/ their opening up the books. No one is going to take the owners word at face value w/o evidence.

But that was also the point of the workout for teams. If he shows himself healthy, or ahead of schedule, then it is a totally different story.

Are you so sure Wolfe is the one that "should" go? IMHO, AP in many ways is the problem. To me, AP is not that different from Ayenbedajo. Stellar special teams player who simply doesn't bring that much to the table in offense/defense. Maybe AP brings a bit more in that regard than Ayen, but at the same time, Ayen was a better special teams player. I think you agree AP is not a #2 RB. So just take special teams out of the mix for a moment. If it were between he and Wolfe for the #3 role, which do you think brings more to the table. IMHO, it very well may be Wolfe, though he still has more to prove. But in Wolfe, I think you have more of what you look for from a #3 back. IMHO, AP is simply a lesser version of Forte, or what we hope Forte is at least. He is a very average runner. He is a weak blocker. As a receiver, he has solid hands, but at the same time, nothing electric after the catch. Wolfe is a prototypical speed back. He has the speed to turn the corner and break a long run. He, per the scouting reports, has excellent hands (wasn't he considered one of the best receiving RBs in the draft?) and has the speed and quickness to not only run routes, but pick up significant YAC. So IMHO, Wolfe potentially brings an added dimension to the table as a #3 RB, where as AP offers little more than depth in case your starter goes down w/ injury. But if you had an upgraded #2 RB, then you would not need your #3 RB to fill in for that role. That is why I like Wolfe as the #3 over AP. But then there is the special teams aspect. I still believe 4 RBs is the way to go, though I just do not believe the staff would ever do it. What I would do is go w/ 2 TEs and 4 RBs. Our 3rd TE is little more than a special teams specialist anyway. We have two very solid TEs who do not have a history of injury, and thus the need for added depth there is less. On the other hand, we are very unproven at RB, and the need for depth is greater. I would keep AP as a 4th RB looking at him more like the 3rd TE, as a teams specialist. I would have a 3rd TE on the practice squad just in case, but feel the need for a 4th RB is greater than the need for a 3rd TE.

With regard to Wolfe, a couple comments. One. I disagree when you say he has "proven he can not carry the load". I do not think he can. I do not think he was even drafted for such a role. But I disagree w/ the statement that he has proven he can't when he has not had an opportunity to prove anything, either way. Two. If he can not carry the load, so what. Do you think he was drafted for that purpose? Does every RB on the roster have to be capable of carrying the load? Many teams have a 3rd back who is not considered capable of carrying the load, but serve a purpose just the same. I essentially agree, and have said as much plenty of time as well. Our roster lacks both depth, and a RB capable of competing w/ or pushing Forte. We have a rookie who we HOPE can be a #1, and two #3s.

Don't forget the head of the players union. IMHO, what changes, if any, are made to how rookies get paid will really tell the world what sort of power the agents have. Veteran players, owners and fans all seem to want a change. The players union, or at least it head, says no way, but if his union (the players) want the change, you have to think his position is open to change. That leaves the agents. With both sides wanting a change, if nothing happens, i think you have to look squarely at the agents. IMHO, a change will be made. I think Upshaw knows this, but is looking at this as a bargaining chip. He will allow for a change, but only after getting the owners to give up something in return, probably raising the floor, or minimum amount teams have to spend, or something like that.

Turnovers is big. The year we went to the SB, we were +8 in turnovers (4th in the league). Last year, we were -1 (17th in the league). We went from 24 picks to 16, and also saw fewer FFs. This is a big issue for our defense. We do not run a defense (though I wish we would) that tries to bust the opponent in the mouth and stop them on every down. We give up plays looking for the turnover. When you get them, the defense can look good, even if they give up yards. But when you don't..... This is a problem I have always had w/ Lovie. Even when he was the DC at St.L, he was bigger on turnovers than simply making stops. His D's then would not rank that high in yard or points allowed, but would rank high in turnovers, and thus be considered good. I have never liked that all or nothing scheme. Turnovers are great, but if you rely on them too much, and they don't come, you are going to lose. That, IMHO, is a big part of what happened last year.

Does the offense hurt the defense. No question. I was among the few who felt the SB loss was FAR more on the offense than the defense. Everyone looks at the score board, or how Manning picked his way downfield, but I always looked at it different. W/ the exception of the one botched play, we kept one of the best offenses in the game to a dink and dunk game. Further, we forced how many turnovers, and did so against an offense that simply did not turn the ball over. IMHO, the defense did about as well as it could have w/ the situation they were in. Last year, again, the offense was poor. The defense had to over-come both injuries and a bad offense. At the same time, I do not want to take away a level of responsibility of the defense. One. While the offense was far worse, and the defense had many injuries, I would still argue there was reason to expect far more from the defense than the offense. Just look at the lineup. Defense, even w/ the injuries, fielded how many good to great players. Now look at the offense, and tell me how many they had. Two. There were times when the defense forced a 3 and out, or a turnover, only to return to the field before they drank a cup of gatorade due to the offense. But there were other times the defense had no excuse. One thing that always bugged the hell out of me is how our D looking in the first series after halftime. In this situation, the defense has no excuse. They are fresh, and should be ready, but too often, offenses drove it down their throats in this first series. To me, that is a lack of quality coaching, as well as players who come out of halftime unprepared and not ready. Three. More than the offense or injuries, the area of our defense that disappionted me was the DL. Even w/ injuries, we had more than enough talent to expect far better results than what we saw, IMHO. I am not arguing the O hurt the D. That is an impossible argument to make, IMHO. But I also go back to expectations. Going into the season, who really expected much from our offense? On the other hand, what were the expectations of our defense. As bad as our offense was, and it was bad, they actually ranked ahead (by a hair) of the defense. In scoring, they were shockingly 18th, w/ 20.9 ppg. Yes, part of that was special teams, but return points are still part of the final score, and provide the defense with more breathing room. I am not trying to argue the offense was good. They weren't. But lets not pretend the defense would have been good otherwise. Plenty of blame lays at the feet of the defense.

More than Hester, I think Olsen could be a key. Do I think we will use him in such a way to make it happen, well that is another story. But if we could use Olsen in a way similar to Gates or Gonzo, he could be that special player. I would love to say Hester, but while the talent is there, I think it will take more than just the potential a player brings. I think a player must get it done w/ consistency. There were games where Rex hooked up w/ Berrian for a deep pass, resulting in a TD. Those plays did nothing to force defenses out of the box though. So long as those plays were the exception and not the rule, defenses continued to attack Rex, knowing it more likely they would win the battle. Hester can be more electric than Berrian, but can he even be as consistent as Berrian was, which wasn't that much. In terms of who can provide that big play, and do it on a more consistent basis, the only player I see fitting the bill is Olsen. He has the size/speed to create mismatches every time on the field, and is simply more experienced and knowledgable at this position. If we can start using him to attack the deep middle, defenses wil be forced to adjust, which will open up the box.