nfoligno

Don't get me wrong. If we are going to talk about "hope", well, I hope w/o question that Martz can make all our dreams come true. At the same time, I just need more reason to believe. You are not the first I have read/heard say, "I hope he has learned from past mistakes" or "last shot..." But, He lost his HC job in Stl, and had to take a step back. That demotion didn't seem to effect his thinking at all, and he (a) continued to run the same system, regardless of how much he got the QB killed and ( he fought w/ his HC regarding his scheme, which I believe was the "rift" between he and Marinelli. So he is fired from Det, and moves on to SF. Still no HC job, and again settles for an OC gig. Many would then likely argue he was in a situation where his star had faded and he needed to come to grips with reality, so to speak, but that didn't seem to happen. Once again he is fighting w/ his HC (Singletary) over how to run the offense. As I recall, Singletary wanted to emphasize the run more, and Martz essentially refused. So once again, he is out of a job. Frankly, while some hope he checks he ego and learns from the past, I fear it will be even worse now. Marinelli and Martz are more the sort of HCs to involved themselves in how the offense is run, even though both are defensive background coaches. That is simply more their style. Lovie is far more of a hands of HC when it comes to the offense. Then factor in the friendship factor. I think Martz is going to have more freedom than he has had since his demotion. He will essentially be a HC#2 on our team, with less restrictions than he has had since losing his HC job in Stl. Thus, I fear we will not see a more humbled version of Martz, but an even greater ego version of Martz. As I have said before, I can see us racking up better passing yardage, but at the expense of the ground game. I see a lot more QB sacks, and a continued high number of turnovers. I also see a poor TOP, and team losses. When a reporter dares to question the offense, and how it has factored into the loss, I do not see Martz saying, "my bad" but essentially becoming even more defiant.

I used NFL.com as a source, 2008 TOP/G for the Bears was 28:36 http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?sea...mp;d-447263-n=1 and in 2007, it was 28:29 http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?off...mp;d-447263-p=1 The site you provided give TOP (net of OT) I am not sure what "net of OT" is, but that may be the discrepency.

Thanks for the link. It was an interesting interview. Couple things I took away from this: Hester - Martz flat out said he envisions Hester playing the nickel, and compared him to how he used Az-Hakim. He said in that role, Hester could be "stupid-good". I am really on board w/ this move. IMHO, Hester never should have been eleveated to a starting role, but less that of our #1 WR (first look). That isn't his fault, but the fault of our staff for their inability to add more talent and develop talent they had. Hester, IMHO, will be moving back into a role he is best suited for. Martz talked about Hester matching up against defenses #3 DB or even LBs, and the mismatches that can create. Hester's pure numbers could actually dip, but his effectiveness could dramatically increase. DA - He was asked about the other Devin, and his first comment was speed. Its funny how DA is so well known for being the tallest receiver we have, but he is also a damn fast one too. He may not be Brandon Marshall, but he brings a similar skill set as he has both size and speed. Martz overall gushed about the WR position saying the position as a whole is a diamond in the rough. Players may not be as "established" but have so much talent and potential as to create a major attack. IMHO, his comments left little doubt in my mind that WR is way down on our list of offseason plans. Olsen - I was not thrilled at all w/ this aspect of the interview. Martz flat out said a TE first lines up on the LOS and has to block, and then can run routes and be a receiving weapon. I actually found it funny that Martz talked about Olsen's blocking ability. Has he watched film. Martz when so far as to say that if a TE can't block, you may as well lineup an extra WR. I think this begs the question of what happens when Olsen starts whiffing on blocks, as we have all seen. Will Martz continue to plug in Olsen, even if he can't block. Will he bench Olsen in favor of a TE like Clark, who is a more effective blocker? Will he use Olsen more from a WR position/role? I don't know what is going to happen, but listening to this interview gave me zero confidence in the future of Olsen. As much as I liked what he said about the WR, I dislikes his comments on our TE. Run game - He said what I have always heard him say. It isn't about how many times you run the ball, but how effective you run it. That is such a contrast to the old mentality of just plugging away until good things happen. Still a big worry of mine. He talked about how a 10, 12, 15 yard run makes a defense stack the box, but what happens when Forte is running for 3 yards. Does he abandon the run all together? There are fans here who have no problem becoming a pass happy team after so many years of boring offenses, but I just don't see how that plays out in Chicago. When the elements get bad, you simply have to be ready to pound the ball. Also, as mentioned in another thread, I fear what happens w/ our TOP if we get pass happy, and we simply don't have a defense to compensate for a bad TOP. One thing not discussed, and I wish it was, is the OL. I would have liked to hear them ask him about the OL, and ask what he might do to compensate "if" the OL is not playing well, as it has not for the last couple years. Final note. If ever I had a reason to dislike Martz, his final piece of the interview solidified it for me. He said he is a lifelong Cub fan.

They were near identical. 28:37 in 2009 and 28:36 in 2008. Not sure I see the point. In 2008, our pass attack did little to help TOP, but we were better able to run the ball to offset. Near opposite in 2009, as our passing attack was better, but an inability to run the ball made it impossible to hold a TOP edge. That is the (a) fear w/ Martz. Even if our passing attack is good, not running the ball hurts TOP, and thus puts more pressure on the defense. Everyone makes a big deal about how he improved the offense in Det (2006/2007) but in both seasons, Det was the 2nd worst team in the NFL in TOP. Det had a really bad defense, and even though their offense had more overall yards, they still were awful in TOP and placed a far greater burden on the defense.

I saw your earlier reply post to my own and am now just getting caught up. To address that point first. As I told another poster earlier on, your interpretation of numbers are different than mine own. I too wrote down Hester's numbers and compared them to the other "main" recievers on the roster and he proved nothing extraordinary compared to them. Something else I didn't point out was that not only was he the "#1" receiver but he also had at least one year on the other youngsters and still was not able to seperate, or define himself as the primary receiver. Just to jump in w/ two comments on this, 1. When it comes to numbers, I think one of the key numbers talked about is percentage of passes thrown his way which were caught. That does in fact imply an ability to get open. Look at Holt as an example to the opposite, just as he has been recently talked about elsewhere. Holt has lost more than just a step, and in Jax, he really struggled to get separation. That is really shown in how many of the passes thrown his way fell incomplete. Sure, some were simply bad passes, but many were also defended as he just couldn't get enough sep from the DB. Hester however was able to get open, and thus a very high percentage of passes thrown his way were caught. When Hester's numbers have been thrown out there, I think that is one of the biggest, or most important, ones to look at. 2. You say he has a year of experience on the other young WRs. That is true on one level, but not entirely true IMHO. I would argue other receivers on our team, while less experienced on the NFL level, are actually more experienced WRs. That is something that just doesn't get enough consideration. Hester was not a WR in college. He played some WR, but played so many other position, including even defense, that he never really developed at WR that way other WRs on our team had. Bennett entered the NFL a far more polished WR than Hester. Heck, even Knox as a rookie was a more polished WR than Hester. Hester may have been more adapted to the speed of the NFL and the playbook, but at the same time, he was also still in the process of learning to play the WR position, thus I am not sure it truly accurate to state he was more experienced than the other, younger WRs on the roster. Remember, the first year he was a Bear, he was actually considered a DB, and the 2nd year, he really only was considered a gimick WR. It was not until his 3rd season he was actually tudored to be a WR. The key for me is he has continued to develop. He is still not a polished WR, but again, he is continuing to to develop, which to me shows he has not hit his ceiling yet. Again my point is his trade, or should I say tradeable, value. Hester has the possibility of being partially decent WR but he does have those other intangiables that other teams might want or need. That primarily being as a return man. Unfortunately he is about a year removed from it and hasn't had the chance to show his skills so his trade value is diminishing daily. As far as the WR value, it is a non-factor to other teams. IMHO, if Hester had the trade value he had a few years ago, I think many more fans would be on board w/ the idea of trading him today, but that value is gone down considerably. His value as a WR, as you said, is very minimal. He has proven he can play WR, but has not proven yet he can play at a level that would attract a ton of trade value. As a returner, he once looked like the best returner EVER, but for the last two years has looked average or below average. His trade value is simply so low that you have to really ask whether it is even worth it. Hester still has potential, both as a WR and returner, and I would argue his value to the team is greater than his trade value. That is why I think most fans are not on board w/ the idea of trading him. It isn't that he is considered an untradable player, but that is value in a trade just isn't there. I actually did address the Randy Moss, Wes Welker and Tom Brady relationship and who you or I might think is the #1 versus how Brady looks at it. Moss produces more in the way of TD's but Welker is "looked at" a larger percentage of the time. So, who would be the #1 in that situation? I say, like another poster earlier stated, the #1 WR idea is a misnomer (he actually said "stupid"). Personally, I think the world of FF has altered the perception of a #1 WR. When someone says #1 WR today, I really think they are more talking in terms of FF. If you were to take away the FF perception, a #1 WR would simply be one that is the first read, which Hester in fact most often has been in our offense. So in that sense, he has been our #1 WR. And if you read the first half to this post you will see that I don't believe that the Bears are without "trade bait". I just don't see the trade bait. Hester just doesn't have the trade value. If you believed half the arguments you use to give the impression of his having trade value, why then even trade him. No, I think the rest of the league right now see's him in the same light as you, which is why you want to get rid of him, but also why other teams would not be willing to give up anything of substance for him.

Honestly, I think it is a situation that is hard to really spin that positive, and thus they are trying to instead gloss over it. Insert it i while all the Martz hoopla is going on. Is it possible that: -Marinelli was near the top of their list all along, both Lovie and Angelo's. -After Fewell, they really never considered anyone else to be better than Marinelli and really did simply want to focus on offense -All the talk of Marinelli not wanting to be the DC was just that, talk. His comments came when the team was supposedly looking at Fewell, and he didn't want to rock the boat. After Fewell was out of the picture, he made it known he was ready for the jump. All this is possible, and may in fact be reality. Problem is, perception is so different from this, and I really don't know the team can say anything to change that perception. Percpetion is they wanted Fewell, and struck out. They looked outside the organization, but found little or no one interested who (a) fit Lovie's litmus test and ( would go over any better with fans. So they convinced Marinelli to take a job he didn't want. Whether that is reality is for higher powers to know, but I would argue that is the perception, and little the team says is likely to change that. So, they are instead trying to hype the Martz story. Even though Martz too would seem a fall back option, he has a resume that can much better create hype.

In the past, I almost always was on board w/ the idea of adding a player like Holt, often using similar arguments as you present. I don't see it that way for us today though. In the past, there may have been a young player or two I wanted a veteran to help with, but today, we have a larger number of good looking, young WRs. Adding a veteran at this point would do more harm than good, IMHO. Though you might argue Holt can teach them some things, at the same time, he would also be taking away playing time. You can only learn so much from the sideline. I think they may well learn a lot more if Holt were not on the team, as they would be on the field. This may be a shocking idea for us bear fans, but honestly, I see so much talent at WR, I wonder how we spread it around. Hester is going no where, despite what a few fans want to believe. His trade market is simply not high, and we are just not going to get value for him. He may not start next year, but he will have a significant role. DA is a player many (included Cutler) wants on the field. Bennett started all year, and his development continues. Knox is a playmaker who simply needs more time and snaps to develop. And then we have a 3rd round 2009 rookie who couldn't get on the field, but who could be the 2010 version of Bennett. I am not for spending the coin to get a stud #1, but at least then it would make more sense as that player would be an upgrade. Holt? Holt this year was simply not very good. He was thrown to a ton, but didn't get a lot of catches. A key reason is he has simply lost too much and struggled to get open. I know. I had him on my FF team as I thought he had more left in the tank, but he doesn't. IMHO, adding Holt would be a similar mistake as our signing Pace. It was believed Pace still had some tread on the tires, and could teach Williams. It turned out that the tires were bare, and all he really did was hold back Williams, who didn't look good until after finally replacing Pace on the left. I think it would be similar w/ Holt. If we added him, all he would do is take away playing time for one or more of our younger WRs. We did a similar move 2 years ago when we signed Booker. If we didn't have Booker on the roster, wanna bet Bennett would have played. I have no clue how good Bennett would have been, but I can't believe he would have been worse than Booker, and then he would have entered this past year more seasoned than he was. Sometimes adding a veteran to mentor makes sense, but I don't think that is the case for us at WR.

My thing with Hester is, I just do not believe enough fans realize the learning curve. The kids was a freaking DB just a couple years ago. He was a part time WR in college. While most young WRs enter the NFL and have to adjust to NFL speed, learn playbooks and such, Hester had to learn a new position, while also doing all that. Simply put, his learning curve was greater, yet fans expected him to immediately be as great of a WR as he was a returner, and that just was never realistic. The key for me is he has continued to show improvement. Will he ever be a #1, the way media or FF owners think about a #1. Maybe not. But he doesn't have to be. For so many, it seems like Hester has to either be Steve Smith or he is a bust, and I just don't get it. He could be a great #3, as you mention. If opposite a better #1, he could also be a great #2. I'll say this. I have seen enough development that I sure don't want to just give up on the kid.

I like this draft. No way do I spend any picks on WR. Agreed. Honestly, I don't get it. For years, we have had crap at WR. While I am not going to pretend we were loaded w/ pro bowl WRs this past year, I will say this. For the first time in as long as I can remember, we had a group of good looked, talented, young Wrs who showed development and promise. Every offseason fans complain that we don't draft well and/or don't develop players. Well, if we never give the young players an opportunity, how can they develop? Hester - I swear, to some fans it is like he has to be either Steve Smith or he is a bust. Hester may never be a great WR, but I think he can be a good one. I really just do not believe many consider what sort of learning curve he had. Rookies were on the team last year w/ more experience as a WR than Hester. He has shown development each season, and that is what we should be looking for. Bennett - Not a stud, but stepped up in his first year as a starter, showing develop and solid possession WR play. Knox - He was a rookie, who many (myself included) felt would need a couple years to develop and adapt to the NFL speed coming from a small school, but he hit the scene running (pun intended). His role was limited, which I think was a very good thing, but w/ time his learning and role will expand. DA - He was set to have a major role, but then suffered an injury just prior to the season. Since we really only used 3 WRs in Turner's offense, and the 4th WR was always a special teams guy, he found no role until late in the year when Hester was injured. But when given a chance, he shineed. Iglesias - Still going to give the kid props. I think he was essentially red shirted the way we did Bennett. Bennett didn't appear to have a spot his rookie year w/ veterans on the team, and again, Turner's system which didn't utilize many WRs. We didn't have the veterans last year, but I think it was a similar situation. If we couldn't find a role for DA, why expect one for the rookie Iglesias. Knox got the nod due to his speed, but Iglesias is similar to Bennett, though faster/quicker. Anyway, I still think this is another young player who will have a role on this team. Point is, we have a group of young, talented receivers here. We also finally have a QB who can help a WR develop, rather than having a QB who needs WRs to prop him up. I love our WR corp, and see no need to add to it. IMHO, changes along the OL and playcalling are what this offense needs, not the addition of another WR.

All we can go off is someone's past. Look at Det when Martz took it over. Their OL was crap, and yet he still had Kitna taking 5 and 7 step drops. I think Kitna had around 60 sacks that season, and may have led the league.

One, it is pretty sad that our GM is incapable of interviewing candidates for offense and defense at the same time. Two, even if that is true, it would seem to make more sense if we were talking about looking outside for the new DC. Sorry, but if Marinelli was next on the list after Fewell, there is no reason to wait a month to get it done. Even if Angelo is such a weak GM that he truly has to focus on offense, is still just doesn't seem to make that much sense. How difficult could the interview be w/ Marinelli.

Do we not have enough to be miserable about? You know, I am sure they had a good time seeing each other and "jamming", and maybe some needed some coin, but damn. That was just bad.

While I would not have been in favor, they would have been better of simply making this move right away. Here is the thing that really makes me sick. Marinelli said he didn't want the job. About a month ago, all the papers had him saying he didn't want the job, and he was happy working on the DL, and didn't feel his job was done there. Hell, just about a week ago, his own agent again said he didn't want the job. So what we have is a DC who didn't want to be the DC. How great of a situation is that?

Here's the reality of the situation. Lovie wanted to hire Fewell however there was no way he would choose the Bears over the Giants. With the Giants he was getting better talent and a chance to run the defense on his own (Couglin's expertise is on offense). He would have been #2 to Lovie here on defense and we all know that. Just want to disagree that it is reality Lovie wanted Fewell. It was reportedly fairly early on that Lovie wanted Marinelli. IMHO, Lovie "wanted" Marinelli and Martz, but like w/ Martz, Angelo wasn't on board, thus Lovie was forced to look elsewhere. They felt their next best option was Marinelli who Lovie had tried to hire when he was originally hired. I would have preferred they wait to interview Williams but its over so we move on. If they felt Marinelli was their next best option, why did it take a month? That it took so long gives the impression that he was a safety net, and a last choice situation, rather than next best option after Fewell.

Big congrats and good luck.

That is what I thought originally, but after thinking about it more, I don't think so. Assuming record sucks, I think Lovie is gone either way. I believe the argument/logic for keeping Lovie is to avoid paying two coaches (Lovie and whoever we hire) to not work. Is that really the case though? Even if there is not a new CBA in place, whoever we hire would have plenty of work to do from assembling and getting up to speed his staff to scouting the college ranks. At some point, if there is still now CBA, sure the staff would have less to do and we would be paying two coaches, regardless, I still think they would do it. Something to consider is this. If there is a lockout, there will be some really ticked off fans. You can bet that owners know what happened to baseball, and will be concerned about the loss of popularity. However, if we were to hire (for example) Cowher, how do you think Bear fans will be when actions does return. More than most teams, there would be huge hype among bear fans. Nothing would surprise me at this point, however, I honestly do believe if we have a bad season, CBA or no, Lovie is gone (and Angelo too).

I took it as a playing being realistic. Hester was likely flat out told, or led to believe, we will look to more limit his receiving and increase his returning. Rather than cry about it, he says he is on board w/ the idea, and in fact likes it that way. It isn't that he doesn't like, or doesn't want, to be a WR. But more that he doesn't believe fighting w/ the team on what position/role he plays will in the end be helpful to his career.

I didn't necessarily say our offense would "suck". I said they would not be consistent. I think I had Cutler tossing about 20 Tds. Also, while it may not have been mentioned, I think Gould could have a ton of FGs. I said I think Cutler will increase his yards by about 500. I just don't think we will be consistent in the red zone, which is going to lead to a lot of Gould FGs. No, I don't think our offense will be that good, but I don't think I ever said they would suck. On defense, yea, I kinda do believe we will suck. We have sucked for the last three seasons, and I don't really see why many would be that optimistic about our outlook for next year. If we added a great DC, I am not sure he really has that much to work with, and it doesn't look like we are likely to add a great DL. I am also considering our schedule next year, which is no cake walk. Home: Detroit, Green Bay, Minnesota, Philadelphia, Washington, New England, N.Y. Jets, Seattle Away: Detroit, Green Bay, Minnesota, Dallas, N.Y. Giants, Buffalo, Miami, Carolina GB, Minny, Phily, NE, NYJ are all very good teams, and should be again next year. Who knows w/ Wash. They are not a great team by any means, but I would say upgraded considerably in terms of coaching, and are more likely than most to see big FA activity. I honestly don't know about Seattle. Lets say we win against Det, Wash and Seattle at home. Away games are always harder, but at the same time, we have some easier opponents. Dallas is a pretty dang good team, as much as I hate to say that. I should be at the game, so I will be praying for a win. Buffalo and Det are very winnable. Miami is a pretty good team, but is not great. Carolina is as up/down as we are, but it should also be noted they went 4-1 after benching Delhomme. Moore is nothing special, but they have a great run game and a lesser QB can do well. So away, I see 4 winnable games. Lets say we win 3 of those 4. For the record, when I say we have games against winnable teams, that doesn't mean to imply there is no chance to win against the other teams. More a matter of that I question whether we should expect to win. I think we will finish the season w/ about 6, maybe 7 wins. I think we will likely finish the year winning a couple games that are meaningless, and as our teams starts to gell a little more, but by that time it will be too late. Ok, so you being the pessimistic believing that our offense will really suck this year and we know that you believe that this defense will suck once again without a major change. What do you think our record will be. 1-15. maybe 2-14

I also think our defense will be greatly improved. Why? W/ the addition of Martz, we have been pretty focused on the offense, but why do you believe our D will be not only improved, but greatly improved. The return of Urlacher alone will help the defense. That is one point I will agree w/ immediately. At the same time.... DL - Unless we add someone like Kampman, which I don't think we should "expect," where do you see the improvement. Wale is a FA, and it does not sound to me like he will return. While not great, I think it fair to question whether his replacement will be an upgrade. The only thing Harris has shown is that we can't count on him. Harrison was a total disappointement, and even his attitude is now in question. Can we really expect much from Gilbert, who showed nothing last year, or Melton, who spent the year on IR. Brown is a nice player, but I think what we have seen is what we will get. I question expecting much more than what we have seen from him at this point. The guy we traded a 2nd round pick for, and who was pegged to replace Wale, passed away. I just don't see why any would expect much from this group, and so goes our DL, so goes our defense. CB - Is there really reason to expect a great improvement from this group? Tillman seems to be going downhill more than the other way around, and doesn't seem able to stay healthy. Bowman could improve, but that may only slightly offset Tillman. Depth is seriously lacking. S - Unless we add a player, we simply do not have a FS on the team. Not really even one to develop. We have a bunch of SS' who struggle in coverage. FA could alter the opinion here, no question, but looking at our team now, I question why you expect such improvement from a D that has been pretty bad since the SB.

Last year, he had to learn a new playbook, but that new playbook was likely not that different from the one he knew in Denver. This year, he will have to essentially learn a new language. I agree he "should" have more chemistry w/ the receivers. My fear is the new scheme will essentially negate that improvement of chemistry. I also think the extra 5-7 step drops, increased reliance on OTs holding blocks w/o chip block support and a significantly harder schedule will lead to lower passing scores.

Sorry, but I do in fact believe it. With Turner, while it was a different system, it was still similar, and the terminology was the same. There was a far less learning curve than there will be w/ Martz. That learning curve, IMHO, will affect both Cutler and the WRs. I also think that, even if our OL is slightly improved, we could see Cutler under a ton more pressure. The first Minny game aside, Turner would often use RBs to chip block pass rushers, but that is not something Martz often does. Martz leaves his OTs exposed and relies on them to not only block on an island, but do so on 5 and 7 step drops. That is going to hurt. Also, just take a look at our schedule. Things change every year, but right now, our 2010 schedule looks pretty damn tough, and far tougher than our 2009 schedule. So we will be in a new system which screamed learning curve. I question how well this system is suited for our talent. And we will be facing stronger competetion than this past year. Sorry, but as much as I would love to believe Cutler has even as many, much less more, scores than this past year, I just don't see it. I think he will have fewer scores, while his picks will remain high. He will have more yards, which is a near given in Martz system, but I do not think those yards will equal the big increase in TDs.

Jason, Of all people on this board, at no point in time did I expect you to agree with me. In fact, I frankly expected a longer, and much more critical reply from you. For one thing, you like the potential Martz brings. You have hated our offense since the departure of Crowton. While Crowton was a failure by most standards, you still preferred him as he was exciting and had a new and attacking mentality. In many ways, Martz is a more experienced and greatly improved resume version of Crowton. So it is obvious why you would love the move to Martz. I don't. I "might" feel a tad different if I believe his running of the offense would be for more than one year. Probably not, but that would at least kill one of my key arguments. I just believe running Martz' offense will take time for our players to learn and then produce. Make no mistake. There will be plenty of big plays to get excited about, but IMHO, there will still be a total lack of consistency, and thus we will still lose in the end. If he were more than a one year coach, which is simply what I believe, there may be a greater element of hope of our players not just learning the playbook, but running it w/o having to think about it, and thus producing on a consistent basis. Even then, I have my doubts about Martz fit for our team though. Back to Turner, you will get no argument from me that he was lacking overall as an OC, but at the same time, I also think the lack of talent made him look worse than he is. While there is more that he could have done, a lot more, at the same time, I don't think I can recall an team ever winning w/ an OL as bad as ours was last year. Then add in Forte's fallen star, and our #2 going down before the season go going, not to mention the entire offense having to try and create chemisty around a new QB, and I think there was a recipe for disaster. Turner didn't do enough to hold off such disaster, but honestly, I question how many OCs would have looked good w/ an OL such as ours. Most everyone talking about Martz as a positive seems to throw in there "if the OL is improved." Well, I can't help but wonder if Turner may not have looked better if the OL were improved and the players having the year of working with each other.

Not to eff you up too bad here, ( I usually agree with most of what you say) but the consensus was that it was the players that needed to change. Harry didn't get them working together right until late in the season. That's what hurt him. Consensus of who? No one is going to argue our OL talent was lacking. At the same time, more than enough also called Harry into question. Frankly, I have called him out for years. While we may not have spent nearly enough draft picks on our OL, I still think there has been more than enough reason to question the player development along that unit. Heck, even when we have a young player who seems to have developed, the staff can still be questioned, like: Beekman - Here is a guy who the coaches flat out said was not an OG, and would not even give him an opportunity to work there in camp. Then several OL go down w/ injury, and the coaches have to move Beekman to LG just to have a body. Beekman does well and "takes" the starting job. Next year though, he is moved again, and again essentially dismissed by our staff. Williams - Few in the draft thought he could play RT. In fact, one of the knocks on Williams was the belief he was boom/bust based on the believe he would either make it at LT or not at all, while other potential LTs can move to RT or inside if they can't play LT. The belief was Williams was very well suited to play LT, but lacking at other positions. So what do we do? We move him to RT and he looks awful. Hell, the only reason we even got to look at him at LT this year was Pace going down with injury. Angelo has not brought in a bevy of talent along the OLs, but at the same time, harry has done a crap job working with the players who are brought in. I would also like to add how freaking bad our OL seems to be in blitz recognition and pickup. Every year our OL seems to struggle against any sort of misdirection pass rush. Whether that comes from stunts, shifting, blitzes or whater, our OL seems to be clueless who they are supposed to pickup. That is 100% on the OL coach IMHO. There may be surprising guys available. We'll have to wait and see. I think some teams are going to try and prove that they aren't making enough money from a CBA perspective, and Angelo is on the hot seat and will be looking for bargains. That is sort of the point though. Angelo will be looking for bargains. How much can we expect to upgrade with bargains? I think Tice will get more out of them though. That's his thing - making guys expected to be average or worse, better. No offense, but isn't that exactly what everyone said about Marinelli and the DL last year? I don't have a ton of hope for our OL as a whole this year. What I am really hoping to get from Tice, and see from our OL, is: Williams develop into a franchise LT, or at least show further positive signs that is where he is headed. Williams becoming a 10 year LT for us would be huge. Further the development of other young OL on the roster, like Beekman, Omiyale, Louis and any rookies we draft. I don't expect big things this year. Talent isn't great. Chemistry will not be great. And the offense overall will be going through massive changes. I don't think Kreutz, Garza or Shaffer are part of the long term plan, and may not even be part of the post 2010 plan. So for me, the biggest key to 2010 is seeing solid development from the young OL we have on the roster now, and those who we will add this year.

One. In Det, yes, they saw a huge jack in offense in Martz first year, but Martz was not the only change. No one is going to mistake Kitna for a great QB, but would you not agree he was a huge upgrade over Joey Harrington? That is who was running Det' offense before Martz got there. Kitna, a couple years earlier when starting for Cincy tossed 26 Tds to only 16 picks. In SF, Hill and JT were nothing special, but the prior year, the team went through 4 QBs due to injuries. Not many offenses are going to do well when they go through 4 QBs. I am not taking away Martz' contribution, but at the same time, I think there was more than "just" Martz in looking at that first year change. As for points... Kitna had 21 TDs to Joey's 12, and they only had 1 fewer rushing score. So yes, they scored more. On the other hand, Kitna had 10 more interceptions than Joey. Kitna also fumbled the ball 3 times. Further, Kitna was sacked 63 times to Joey's 24. An extra 9 scores is great, but how much of that is offset by all the increased turnovers and sacks. One final point. You are assuming we are going to score more, but I am not so sure. In both Det and SF, he took over awful offenses. For those offenses, the only direction to go was up. In Chicago, as up and down as our offense was, we actually did score. Cutler had 27 passing scores. Its one thing to take over an offense run by Joey Harrington and his 12 TD passes and create improvement. But Cutler threw for 27 scores. You think Cutler will have a ton more passing TDs? I don't.

One. I think it will be tougher than you make out. Even if you accept the WCO is more complicated to learn than Air-C, I would still say there is an issue in a WR having to learn a totally different system. I don't really care what the system to system issue is, any new system takes time, and that is something we do not have. Two. While the terminology may not be minor in the WCO, it is at the same time also by and large the standard terms used, not just in the NFL, but also in many college programs. I mean, it isn't like the "go" route is one thing for one team and another thing for another team. So even if the numbering system is more simple than the WCO, I would argue the WCO terminology is so common that it is in fact the easier one. What's easier. Learning a slightly more compicated class taught in English, or a less complicated class taught in another language you have to learn first. What also really ticks me off is, and a key why I didn't want Martz, is I flat out see this as a one year thing. Unless we hire an Air-C scheme coach after this year, which is absolutely the minority, we will have just about wasted a year in terms of talent. Three. Back to the scheme issue. One thing you always hear players (and coaches) talk about is the learning process. You have to learn a playbook, which in itself is not easy, and more difficult for some than others. But simply memorizing the playbook is barely half the battle. Over time, yo uhave to learn it and be comfortable w/ it to the point that you can play on instinct rather than having to always think about things. Hester talked about how just last year, especially later in the year, he was able to start playing off instinct rather than always being out there thinking. I would say the same for Bennett, who spent is rookie year studying, and his 2nd year getting to that point where he could play off instinct. Now those WRs are back to square one. I don't care how simple the system supposedly is. If they get there at all this year, it will not be until late in the system before players can play instinctively. By then, will it matter?