nfoligno

I guess I am not talking about SB. But if the question is, what do we need to see to have an average offense, I would argue the answer is first and foremost, the OL. If we have that, I think we can have a "nice" level of production from multiple players, w/o a star emerging, and yet still be pretty solid. Then, combine that w/ a dominant defense and special teams, and I think we can see good things happen. That doesn't mean SB, but simply a good overall team. Wash made the SB this past year. Who was a star. Portis had less than 1,300 yards, and just below a 4 ypc average. Top WR had 800 yards. TB had a journeyman QB. Top rusher had right at 4 ypc, and top WR had 1,014 yards. No stars here, but a decent enough offense to win w/ a great defense. Similar w/ Seattle. Engram was their top weapon, and that says a lot. I am one of his biggest supporters, but if your best weapon is a possession WR, then I think it fair to say you are not winning w/ offensive stars. Pitt - Who here would you call a star? Rothlisberger? Good QB, but a star? Parker was a very good RB, but not what I would call a star. He had solid production, but a 4.1 ypc avg is far from stellar, and Pitt taking a RB in round one tells me they do not believe he is a star either. Top WR was Holmes, who had less than 1,000 yards. Ward may have once been a star, but was not last year. Again, decent enough offense w/ a great defense. Jax - No great QB, and receivers were barely good. Sound ground game, and Fred Taylor was quite good, but is he a star? Did he even go to the pro bowl? All these teams had upper tier defenses, solid special teams, and an offense that may not have been great, but was good enough to take advantage of what their defenses provided. If we have a sound OL, I think we can see similar, even w/o a star emerging. But the question remains, can our OL be solid?

I am not so much worried about the OT combinations, so much as simply teams w/ upper tier RDEs who will matchup w/ Williams. DEs like Freeney, Kearse and Allen pose a threat to the very good, veteran LTs, and a rookie is likely to need help. In general though, the type of DE I worry about w/ Williams is one who has both power and quickness. Williams is more of a finesse LT, and while he may have some trouble w/ the elite (Freeney) I think will be better matched up w/ pure speed, edge rushers. But those who have power to go along w/ speed are the type that concern me. To be honest, more than DEs, I worry about DTs. We have no idea who our LG will be, but whoever it is doesn't bring a load of confidence. Garza is okay, but not great, and Kreutz has not been playing at an elite level for a few years. We are likely to provide help on the left for Williams, which means our interior needs to handle their own, but may be unable in more than a few games.

I suggest an obscure location out in the 'burbs where you might end up third or fourth in line at worst. I can go pretty much anywhere I want around here, and due to my zip code, would it matter? Look, I do not know all the rules. What I know is I have had difficulty getting tickets for various things in the past (not just Bear games) and know plenty of others who have similar problems. I remember trying to get tickets to the World Series when the Sox were playing the Astros. I was trying to get tickets to a Houston game. I was calling a local ticketmaster number in texas small town, as I was told I would have a better shot then. I also had two computers going, and had a group of friends doing the same. None of us got through, but scalpers did not seem to have any shortages of tickets on hand. Sure, I realize I am talking about the World Series, but the point is still the same IMHO. Fans try to get tickets, and can't, but scalpers seem to have no troubles.

Regarding OT, maybe I am missing something, but did you not think Tait sucked last year? We are not simply moving Tait to make room for a rookie. We drafted the rookie in order to move Tait. I do not know if it is injury or what, but Tait's play at LT last year was flat out weak. IMHO, he didn't take as much heat because LG and RT positions were simply SOOOOO bad, but Tait was pretty bad as well. So that is why I am not sure of your point at OT. Tait is moving to RT because the staff believes he can still be a good RT, while at LT he is FAR from good. Garza might well be capable of playing LG, but that is an unknown, where as his play at RG has been okay. W/ Tait, we are moving him out of a position he played poorly, in order to put him at a position we feel he can play well. That is not the situation we face w/ Garza.

I believe he was calling for Hester to be the "step up" player to surprise. He also said the OL and other parts would have to play at least decent, but that we need a big time boost from a surprise like Hester. I guess I don't see it that way. To me, it is all about the OL. If the OL is as bad as last year, it will domino and no other unit will be capable of stepping up. QB won't have time, and thus WRs are less likely to do much. No holes means little comes from the RBs too. However, if the OL can play well, I don't think we need any huge playmakers to step forward. Solid OL can allow for a solid, but not spectacular, run game. Solid run game benefits the QB, as defenses can not just tee off him. Also, solid OL means better blockings, which buys the QB time. This also buys the WRs time to run their routes. IMHO, we could have a solid offense w/o a single individual putting up a pro bowl performance, so long as the OL steps up. If the OL looks like it did this year though....well, lets just say Hester could have more return TDs than anyone else on offense.

I don't agree so much on season ticket holders. Are they part of the problem? Sure. But a minor part, IMHO. If you took out the ticket brokers, and season ticket holders sold some of their tickets, I do not think we would have any issue w/ that. The problem is the brokers. You can call out season ticket holders who sell their tickets to the GB game simply to recover the costs, and I have no problem w/ questioning their fan-hood, but that to me is a sep issue. It seems like whatever laws/rules are passed, brokers (as Mad said) are one step ahead. They pay the "street people" $5 bucks to spend the night in line, so the first 20, 30, 50 spots are taken up by the brokers. They have machines that get through the phone lines faster than the average person. They have more tricks and gimicks than can be imagined. Personally, I would love a law banning all above market ticket sales. Maybe that is simply un-american, but I just don't care. It bothers me fans can not go to games unless they can afford double, triple or worse, mark up prices. It bothers me the games are for the fans, and yet so often, fans are the ones who can not afford to go. I guess it is the way it is, but it just bugs the hell out of me.

I am not sure I agree w/ your example. That analogy would work if the staff felt Garza is better at LG, but I have never heard such. Tait is not being moved just for Williams. We drafted Williams because Tait was no longer any good at LT. Many assume the two OG positions are interchangable, but that is not so. RGs are usually more power, while LBs more often are expected to pull and show a greater level of athleticism. Maybe Garza could play LG, but since he joined the team, I believe he has always been considered a RG, so maybe his fit at LG is not ideal. If we move Garza to LG, I am not sure we can simply assume he stabalizes our LG position. We have no idea how well the transition would go or how well he would play there. That is why I say if we made this move, it is questionable whether we even upgrade. Further, I look at it beyond individual positions, but also sides. Right now, we have a solid right side and a questionable left. That means our extra blockers (RBs, FBs, or TEs) can more often focus on helping the left side. It also means our RBs have a greater chance of picking up those needed yards on 3rd and 1 to the right side. If we made the move, both sides of our OL would be questionable. Extra blockers have a greater area to work. QBs have a greater area to be careful of, and RBs do not have a go-to side of the LOS. Having two stable sides on the OL is great, but if you can not have that, I would rather have one stable side than none.

I missed the part of the discussion talking about how it looks on TV. Agreed, that is looks like a total sell out each time. I think it is more than just a couple hundred seats that are empty at games, but also agree the percentage is not great. I don't have an issue w/ season ticket holders who sell their tickets, and I have a feeling few do. My issue is with the system in place which creates too many opportunities for brokers to go in and buy up so many tickets, while fans have little opportunity.

I thought about the same, but I think the hessitation is the added "change". We know we will have a new face at LT, LG and RT. The only area we have some semblance of continuity is C-RG. If you move Garza (a) you then only have Kreutz returning to the same position, and chemistry is flat out gone and ( w/ Garza at RG, I think we can at least expect a solid right side. If we move him, we are likely to still have a questionable left side, but now also likely have a questionable right side. Instead of having one likely questionable side of the LOS, and one strong side, we would then have two questionable sides, and no strong area to rely on.

Now here is a dog who's bowl was spiked.

Not to nitpick, but there are rarely any empty seats. When there are empty seats, it usually has to do with really bad weather on gameday - that and the only time I can actually remember any was the New Years eve game that got switched to primetime at the last minute. I don't know. While I can not say I have been to "that" many games in Chicago as I life in Texas, every time I have gone up there for a game, you can find PLENTY of guys trying to sell tickets up to, and during the game. Same here in Dallas, and I would assume pretty much everywhere. If there are tickets still available through scalpers outside, not to mention the ones on-line that never are sold, there must then too be empty seats.

Exact-a-mundo! I actually do not have a problem w/ Leftwhich. He has not suceeded in the NFL, but has not been bad either, and could still improve in the right situation or under the right guidance. But that is beside the point. We are going into the season w/ Orton or Rex as the starter, and whoever loses the starting competition, will get the first opportunity if something happens to the starter (either injury or he just flat out stinks). If we need to go to our 3rd QB, the season is done, so what is the point of playing a journey veteran at that point. At that point, you are better off simply throwing the rookie into the fire. Hey, Orton did well enough when thrown into that situation. Of coarse, this would only upset me more that we passed on QBs in the draft, but that too is beside the point.

My key issue w/ Leftwhich is, as I understand it, he has a windup and slow release. Jax tried to hasten his release, but never could. Not sure if it is simply mechanics, or how quickly he reads/processes the field, but either way, a slow release behind a very questionable OL is asking for trouble.

I have always questioned the line of thinking about how great our defense was before the injuries. What is this based off? 2 1/2 games? We started the season against SD, but take a look at SD's first month. They were not a very good team early in the season, and in fact, were pretty bad. Then we played KC, one of the worst teams in all of football. We held Dallas for the first half. I remember that game well. Defense did well, but I also remember Dallas playing pretty conservative in the first half, and then playing very aggressive in the 2nd half. Especially here in Dallas, all the talk was about how they opened it up in the 2nd half. So injuries were part of it, but only a part. I am not arguing that our defense was hurt by injuries. That is a losing argument. At the same time, I do question whether injuries should have prompted a fall from top 5 to bottom 5. Yea, we lost a lot of good/great players, but also still had quite a lot of good/great players on the field. Even w/ the injuries, we still had a lot of talent, and more talent (I would argue) than many other teams that did better than we did. Cincy, NO, SF, Houston, Stl (to name a few). Even w/ our injuries, did we really have less talent on the field than these teams? Injuries were a part, but to me, coaching was also a big part of it, and that coaching has not changed. Should our defense be good this year? Sure. But will it be so dominating that it can over-come the offense. Of that, I am not so sure. Further, we keep saying that (if healthy) the defense will be great. That nice, but it is realistic? Every team is hit w/ injuries. We may have been hit w/ more than our fair share last year, but we have several players we rely on big time who have a history of injuries (Brown, Harris & Urlacher) and when talking about expectations, shouldn't we factor that?

Also - signing KJ prior to dropping AP would cause us to lose any leverage in getting anything for AP...so thats give and take there.... Yes, but you yourself talked about a 7th round pick or something very low like that, and to be frank, I doubt AP is worth "that" much in a trade. So I do not factor that as greately. On the other hand, signing a veteran FA has a lot more give and take, so bargaining power could be a bigger deal.

One story/interview I always think about is one time last year when Idonije was interviewed on the Score. He was asked how much they stunt. There was a long pause, and his response was they do not need to stunt because they are good enough to get the job done one-on-one. I do not recall who it was talking to him, but remember it was a couple former bears. They asked a few more questions, and after the interview was over, began blasting the staff talking about how arrogant it is to think you are so good that you do not need to stunt, or use any other moves that most every DL executes to create openings. I was as sick as the former bears. Another example of weak coaching, IMHO, is how we use our DEs. I used to blast Brown for taking those REALLY wide angles to the QB, until I realized/was told, this is taught to our guys. In our scheme, the idea is the DEs take wide angles which (a) prevents the QB from dropping deeper to avoid the inside push and ( often pushes the QB into the DTs red zone. Problem is, if the DT doesn't beat him man/men, then the QB essentially has one Big-A pocket to sit in, and we have taken our DEs out of the pass rush picture. I have always hated this. IMHO, we have solid DEs, but do not utilize them well. How often do you see our DEs use an inside move? Damn near never. Anderson, his rookie year, used an inside swim move all the time to great effect. While light, he used his speed to get the OT off-balance to the outside, then cut inside w/ a swim move to beat his man. His rookie year, I remember Dent talking about how he could not believe a rookie seemed so strong in techniques most veterans take years to learn. Last year, I am not sure I EVER saw him go to the inside. All those moves Dent praised him for displaying simply disappeared. My belief is the staff, once he became a starter, began to force him to rush "their way" which resulted in 7 fewer sacks while playing many more downs. A former bear made the point that, even the most average OT can usually beat the best DE if he knows how he is going to rush every time. Instead of worrying whether you are going to get beat inside if you over-extend to the outside, you simply put everything into pushing the DE further outside, taking him out of the play. You expose yourself to inside moves, but if the DE only rushes to the outside, it doesn't matter. What is flat out disgusting is, in the cover two, you put put most all the responsibility of QB pressure on the DL. The DL is supposed to be able to get pressure w/o blitzes or help, thus creating more potential for turnovers. But the way we force our DL to rush the passer, we often negate their potential. That is why I say, on paper, we have one of the best and deepest DLs in the league, but on the field, thanks to coaching, that DL simply does not come close to meeting those expectations.

In a very large way, I agree. If the OL can play as solid as they did, for example, two years ago, we could see a big improvement on offense. I do not think believe solid play by the OL equals a pro bowl Rex. You allude to this, but the OL is not "solely" responsible for QB protection. IMHO, more than simply DLs attacking Rex, the blitzes have pressured him, and while the OL is partially responsible, they are not solely responsible. IMHO, opponents will continue to send the house, and you can not block the house. When this happens, the QB must find the hot receiver and make quick decisions to take advantage. I have yet to see Rex capable of this. But, I do still agree that if our OL can play significantly better, than the offense as a whole will be better. While I would not expect pro bowl from Rex, I would expect more. I think Rex will always be an inconsistent QB, but if we have a solid OL, we might see more good than bad. Combine that with a solid run game, which a solid OL should provide, and you have the makings of, at least, an average offense, w/ the potential for more. With all that said, I simply do not have great expectations for our OL this year. Many seem to automatically expect upgraded play at LT, but I question that. So few rookies come in and play LT at even an average level. As weak as Tait was last year, I think Williams could be worse. I think Williams can develop into a damn good LT, but question such lofty expectations his rookie year. Then, combine that would our situation at LG. Whether it is Metcalf, St. Clair, or whoever, I do not think our LG situation looks good. That is bad for the LG position specific, and our entire left side as a whole. I think you then can once again see Kreutz trying to do too much, which simply negates his effectiveness usually. I think we should be pretty strong on the right/strong side, but feel our left side could give Forte and our QB problems all year. Finally, I would throw out there the chemistry factor. I am a believer that OL, possibly more than any other unit on the field, needs time together to gell and for chemsitry, and w/o such, usually does not look very good. LT is new. Tait has played RT before, but it has been a while and he has never lined up next to Garza. Likely a new LG as well. So you have 3 likely changes on the OL, and that can have ripple effects on the other two. I would love for the OL to quickly click, but feel that is not very likely, and w/o the OL, the domino effect begins.

I basically agree. I do not think Harris made those comments w/ an agenda in mind, but I think the end-result was similar. In praising how his negotiations were handled, particularly by himself and his agent, I think he does call out Urlacher and Briggs. Again, I am not saying that was his intend, but simply the effect. I do not have an issue w/ it. Personally, I think it is a good thing. As a Trib article talked about, Harris is taking over the "face of the org" mantle, and setting the tone. His comments, IMHO, make the point that all should follow his lead. That includes top players like Urlacher and Briggs, as well as younger players who will be seeking new deals in the near future. Hester has seen how poorly Briggs and Urlacher dealt w/ their situations, and the result. He saw how well Harris dealt w/ his situation, and the result. Harris words only put an exclamation point on the issue.

On paper, we have an incredible defense, from the DL, through the LBs and to the secondary. But my issue w/ the defense is (a) injuries and ( coaching. I still believe coaching holds this defense back, and while injuries were big last year, I also still contend coaching hurt the defense, and we have the same system and coaching in place this year. As for injuries, while it is nice to think about what our defense can do when healthy, I think we also have to be realistic and look at player's history. Some players, like Vasher or Tillman, I think we can write off their recent injuries, as they do not have a history of such, but harris, Urlacher and Brown has greater history of injuries, and Urlacher's is considered "chronic", which I think puts into question his ability to be strong for 16+ games. On offense, the question is can the unit even be average, allowing the defense to get it done. I think that is very debatable. Did we upgrade at QB? Not that I recall. We have a totally new group of WRs, and I think it questionable whether we upgraded, and would further wonder how quickly they "mesh" w/ the QBs. Forte "could" be an upgrade, but is a rookie and our depth isn't great. Then there is the OL. I think we upgraded at RT, but I am not sure how much (if at all) we upgraded elsewhere, and our OL was more than one upgrade from being good. On offense, it isn't just one question, but several questions at nearly every position. There may be a lot of hope, but that is a lot of questions which need a positive answer in order to see us simply as solid. I would love to drink the kool-aid w/ you, but simply find it difficult to do so at this point. More than players, coaching prevents me from getting too excited, especially on defense.

No. I think we have a very good, and deep DL, but as much as we love our DL, they do not produce the sack totals, nor are they dominant against the rush. We do not have a double digit sack man. Wale is our closest. Brown is a hot/cold pass rusher IMHO, and can usually be counting on for 6 or so. Harris is still improving, and if healthy, "could" be a double digit guy, but we have yet to see that. If Anderson goes back to rookie form from a situational role, it would give our DL a big boost, but that remains to be seen. When you look at our DL on paper, you would think it would be flat out dominating, but we simply have not seen much of that. Maybe for a couple games, but not consistent. Personally, I still think the problem is coaching as our DL is just too vanilla, but that has to be factored too.

One, I would not get rid of AP prior to signing Jones. You lose too much bargaining w/ Jones by trading AP first. Also, while I want to add KJ, or some other solid veteran, my main thing is competition and insurance. What happens if Forte (God forbid) goes down in camp w/ an ACL? Yea, we have KJ to start, but now Wolfe is our #2 and we have no #3. No, I would rather keep AP around, at least for a while, until our RB situation pans out. Two, I still think I would rather keep him and go w/ 4 RBs. I simply feel a 4th RB (who is a speical teams stud) is more valuable than (for example) a 3rd TE or a 6th LB or a 7th DB.

You say his preference will not be one year, but don't you think that depends on his offers? Some FAs simply take whatever they can get today, and not thing about tomorrow. Others will take the smaller deal today in order to be free to take a bigger deal tomorrow. Not sure it is such a lock which way he would go.

I think we are going off the assumption he is cut, and thus his current contract is not a factor.

The only point I would argue is whether KJ would or would not sign a 1 year deal. You previously argued this is the dead time of the year for FA signings, so is there really that great of a difference between a signing today and in August? In fact, I would argue there could be a less likely chance of a 1yr deal in August. If a player is willing to wait until then, he may simply choose to wait for a team to suffer an injury, at which point the FA gains a bit of leverage. Maybe not much, but more than he had. Reasons I think KJ "might" consider a one year deal. (a) It sure does not seem like he has had many suitors thus far. ( Some teams could be looking at him strickly as a backup/depth, but in Chicago, he would have the opportunity for more. While we just drafted Forte and like him, if we tell him competition is open, then he has an opportunity to prove himself and earn potentially a greater role here than most any other team can offer. © Even if the rookie starts, as it is a rookie, he can be promised that if he does well enough, can still have a significant role on the offense, ranther than simply sit on the bench. (d) There is little interest in him today, but if he signs a one year deal, he will have the chance for a healthy season and some decent/good numbers, allowing him to re-enter FA next year in potentially a greater position. Any 3 year deal he gets today will be for minimal money, but if he can better establish himself in 2008, then he could find his way to a far better contract, rather than prove himself and be stuck in a deal he isn't happy w/ (ala Thomas Jones). Not saying it is a sure thing, but I think there are absolutely reasons he could sign a 1 year deal w/ us, and sooner rather than later.

Either you miss my point, or did not intend for your post to be responsive to mine. I am in favor of adding a RB. While I have high hopes in Forte, I do not believe we have anyone to offer him solid competition, nor do we have a solid backup plan in case he is injured or doesn't develop as quickly as most hope. This is an unpopular statement, but to me, AP is the problem. AP is a VERY well liked player/person. He is a great special teams player, but at RB, IMHO, he should be no more than a #3 RB. While unproven, I actually like Wolfe more than AP for that #3 role. Simply put, he offers more in terms of different/change of pace, than AP does. So AP is not a #2, and Wolfe is a better #3. Again, this is in my mind. So I would be very much in favor of adding a RB like Jones to be our #2. (a) he would provide our rookie w/ a better level of competition, and force the rookie to earn his starting role ( I believe Jones offers a greater difference in style to Forte than AP, and would thus also be a better back to split carries w/ the rookie, so we do not run him into the ground and (3) while I want Wolfe to pan out in a change of pace role, I think Jones can provide us that if Wolfe doesn't get it done far more than AP. Does this mean AP has no role on my team. Not necessarily. I am a strong believer in special teams specialists, and would have no problem keeping one extra RB who such a specialist. To me, a 4th RB like AP is more valuable than a 6th LB or 6th/7th DB or whoever we often consider our specialist. I would have also considered going w/ only 2 TEs, and having a 3rd on the practice squad, if it allowed me a 4th RB like AP.