nfoligno

Seriously, we need to fire our trainers and team doctors. I mean, this is an injury Kreutz first dealt w/ early 2008, which means he has essentially been playing two seasons w/ a weakened achillies. No wonder why he looks weak out there. What bothers me too is it took a "second opinion" to recommend surgury. I can't help but wonder if either team doctors have not told him for the last two years that he didn't need surgury. Of late, I have l really begun to question our medical staff.

IMHO, Dan shows bias, but not necessarily purily in favor of everything Chicago. Anytime there is an anti-Cutler article, he seems to be the author. Often he seemed to say Cutler was responsible for the OL problems. I would watch Omiyale get totally blown off the LOS, as the DT would be in Cutlers face about the time he got the shotgun snap, and yet the next day Dan is saying he watched the film and the pressure was due to Cutler holding the ball too long. Now, I realize Cutler didn't live up to many fans expectations, but damn. That line just sucked, and no way can I credit someone who would defend it the way Dan seemed to do all year. Maybe he was BFFs w/ Harry Heistand. When Pompeii was doing draft coverage w/ Sportingnews like a decade ago, I really liked him. Then, I would have put him up there w/ Buchbaum. In reading his pieces though about NFL games, I just have not been so impressed, especially since joining the Trib.

Got it. Hey, I fell for the hype too. "Marinelli was our biggest FA signing." Remember that. Marinelli would be the saviour of our DL, and w/ improved play of the DL, it would cause a ripple effect on the defense. While I am not saying he isn't a good DL coach based on one year, at the same time, I have no seen it. Frankly, how good of a coach has he been since he was the DL coach in TB, where he had tremendous talent? Is it possible that his coaching ability is a tad over-rated? I realize we don't have all the talent in the world on the DL. At the same time, I just don't feel he did much w/ what he had. I don't think I saw improved play from Brown or Wale. Harris was much the same as before, and Marinelli didn't seem to be able to light a fire under him the way many thought he could. Harrison was supposed to be a steal in the 3rd round, but we can't even get him to seem to care enough to stay in shape. Gilbert was supposed to have all this raw talent, but we never saw development of that talent. Anderson was supposed to be back to rookie form, and while he did have more flashes than the previous year, he was still far removed from that prior disruptive force. We traded a 2nd for Adams, and while it was midseason, he was coming from a similar scheme, and I think expectations were that he would help immediately, and yet he never showed jack. I just don't know where he helped the DL, either w/ regard to veterans or young players. Again, that isn't to say he sucks, but only that I question whether (a) he should still be considered such a strength or ( he should be in line for a promotion.

Do you think Plank is less experienced than Rivera was? Rivera was a LB coach w/ Phily for some years, and a quality control guy for us for a few years prior. Still don't really know what the hell a quality control coordinator is. Plank was a DC in the Arena league for 3 years. Then he was a HC in the Arena league for 3 years, and won the coach of the year award in two of those years. He was then an assistant DB coach for Atlant and NYJs. You think Rivera was more experienced than Plank? I think it may come down to how you view his coaching time in the Arena league. To me, coaching in the arena league is not that different (in a lesser/greater manner) than being a college coach. Yes, it is different, but is it that much for coaches? I understand if we are talking about players, and I understand many rules are different, but the same could be said of college. At the end of the day, he still proved capable of coaching men to play football. Tell me. If Plank was an OC for 3 year and then the HC for 3 year of a college, would that make a difference to you?

Nap time would only make things worse for me as I could not even shout w/o getting into trouble. It sounds like some others have much better luck w/ their wives and kids. My wife could not care less about football. She allows me my vice, but has no interest in it herself. Fine w/ me as I have no interest in Ballet. At the same time, it is one thing to allow me this vice or simply not really care about it. Its another to spend half the afternoon in front of the TV and tell her and the kids to stay away, be quiet, or whatever. In my house, it is simply so much better to simply leave. Wife is not upset. Kids don't learn new words. Get to watch the game w/ 50-100 other bear fans, even though I live in Dallas. And no fear of breaking my TV when Cutler throws another pick or Rodgers throws another score against us.

With Plank, I'll admit bias. Not just because he was a player on that great team, but also because of what several other players he played w/ under Buddy have done since becoming coaches. It's a pretty solid looking group. Frazier, Rivera and Singletary have all earned high respect in coaching. I simply believe it very possible Plank could join this group. That isn't to say all who were on that team and tried to coached hit high levels. Dent is one that comes to mind as someone who just didn't seem to translate super well to a coaching career, but I have also heard that was a bit expected, as many just didn't think he had the coaching skills. Plank though does seem to have the coaching skills. I guess I would simply prefer to go outside the box at this point, and would not mind at all doing so w/ a Bear Great of old. While he may be unproven, so long as we are basically talking about a group of other unprovens, I would simply side w/ him. Further still, w/ Marinelli and Hoke, I just don't care for the idea of promoting/rewarding those who have done nothing to deserve it. Neither our DL nor DBs played well last year, and I just question promoting the coach of either of those units. One last point. Marinelli and Hoke have been around a long time, and by and large, I think they are pretty well known. Plank on the other hand is an unknown. Similar to when we hired Rivera, it is possible we could find a diamond in the rough. Rivera went from, I think, being an assistant position coach to DC for us, and I would argue that worked out well. I would simply have no problem giving the same opportunity to Plank.

While I understand what you are saying, at the same time, I just don't think Marinelli did much last year. I am not blasting him as a coach, but everyone made such a big deal about what a coach like him could do for the DL, and I just didn't see it. That isn't to say I want him to be our DC, only to question how much of a strength I would consider him right now. Honestly, outside of Toub, I am not sure any of our coaches are such that I would consider them a strength.

Honestly, even in downdown like this, I still very rarely find myself on the Bears Website. Larry Meyer doesn't bother me. He is what he is. An employee of the chicago bears. I am far more bothered by the Larry Meyer's who were not receiving their paychecks from the Bears, and yet act like they want to.

Agreed as to Hoke. While Houston's DBs may have led the team in interceptions, I don't think their secondary was ever considered that great. Houston spent numerous draft picks and signed numerous FAs, and their secondary was never more than mediocre. Houston's defense was always a key weakness to the team's success. If not for their offense, led by Schaub and AJ, that team would have been just awful. In his one year w/ the Bears, what did he do for the secondary that was impressive? Tillman didn't seem any better than previous. Vasher was not able to return to form. Bowman was adequate, but I am not sure he developed so much as to credit Hoke. Graham, at least in the eyes of the staff based on playing time, didn't develop. Moore, our top drafted DB who was called a steal by many, couldn't even get on the field. Then there's the safeties. Afalava started strong but faded fast. Payne didn't seem to elevate his status. Overall, our secondary was simply not very good. Pass rush was a huge problem here, but lets not pretend our secondary was good. While I am not sure Hoke deserves to be blamed, based on a lack of talent, at the same time, I am not sure why we would give him credit either, much less promote him.

Didn't know that about Babich. Still make the same arguments though. Babich has not shown a knowledge beyond the cover two. When our D struggled, he didn't show an ability to adapt. As for Marinelli, even beyond the cover two aspect, here is my key issue at this point. Marinelli flat said he didn't want to do it. Lets say Lovie is able to pursuade him to accept the position. Do we really want a guy to run our defense, who didn't want the job. Each level up for coaches comes w/ a far greater level of committment, particularly in regard to time and energy. If a guy didn't want the job, is he really the guy we want for it. As for Tice, he is an experienced coach, but not an experienced playcaller. As I understand it, he has never been an OC and never been a playcaller. I think I have been consistent in that any candidates I have looked at, key for me has been experience as a playcaller. If a guy has coaches for decades, but not been a game day playcaller, I have not been in favor of that candidate. Even though Tice has been a HC, he has not been a playcaller, and thus not high on my list.

One of my key problems watching the Bears w/ my kids is my inability to filter my "potty mouth".

Um, we are talking about a team so impressed with their younger QBs they felt the need to play games forever w/ Farve, and finally signed him. Even now, w/ the potential of Farve leaving, many "rumors" point to Minny potentially trying to strike a deal for McNabb. They do not seem very impressed with the development of their young QB, nor Sage, and feel the need to add a veteran signal caller. That may not be totally on Rogers, but at the same time, I don't see why we would be interested in him at all.

Oh, I disagree with that. As others have mentioned, when a new coach comes in, there are usually some learning curves, and that unit doesn't always immediately take off. If there is the belief that he would have only one year to produce high level results, or be fired along w/ the rest, that is not a situation most would jump at. I know sometimes we are loath to consider the NFL in common man ways, but lets try it. You are well respected in your job, and on the rise. You work for a big company, and you have a VERY secure position. There is another division of the company which is on the verge of a total restructuring, and they want to bring you in. The job would be a promotion, but at the same time, it is also a big risk as there is a high expectation of a shake up. On the other hand, if you stick w/ your good and secure job, more opportunities are very likely. Passing up this opportunity this year may prove huge down the road as other opportunities are likely to come up. Sometimes you have to think long term. In the long run, staying w/ a solid team like SD, which is not likely to see a huge dip in their offense, could well pay off w/ further opportunities, and frankly, better opportunities on staff's not expected to see shakeups. On the other hand, you could take the job, and be unemployed in a year. I really want Chud, but frankly, I was surprised he even agreed to interview with us.

I guess here is the part I don't really understand. While I realize we are close to "signing day" and schools like to hold on to their staffs, at the same time, we see plenty of coaching movement prior to signing day. Seattle, Wash and numerous other teams didn't wait until signing day was over to grab college level coaches off rosters, so why would we?

While I agree, I would also point out that our staff is largely to blame. It is they who hyped Hester as a #1 WR. I remember when the staff would be asked who our #1 CB was (back when both Vasher and Tillman were playing well). Their response was basically telling how we don't have a single #1, but have two #1s, or basically just calling both of our CBs starters. I have heard Lovie do similar elsewhere as well. But for Hester, they went out of their way to declare him a #1 WR. Fans already had over the top expectations for Hester due to his playmaking ability as a return man, making comparisons to Steve Smith. Hester is not a #1 WR, at least not in the sense most of us today in the fantasy football world have come to think of a #1 WR. But that doesn't mean he isn't good. I still don't think fans think enough about the develop of him. He was not a WR in college. He played some WR, as well as many other positions. Point is, he never really developed as a WR in college. When we drafted him, he was initially considered a DB. It wasn't until his 2nd year we even considered using him on offense, and even then it was for a gimick play here and there. By his 3rd season, he was moved to WR, but really, he was still very raw in terms of development at that position. Still, he put up better than 50 catches and 665 yards w/ a solid 13 ypp average. He looked sloppy at times, but what do you expect for someone who is still learning the position. Most WRs enter the league needing to adapt to the speed of the NFL, but Hester had to learn a new position. This year, expectations were very high after a full season at WR and Cutler at QB. It just never clicked. Not just for Hester, but w/ Cutler. I would also add in that Hester's key strength is downfield, and Cutler rarely had time to allow downfield plays to develop. Even still, Hester still increased both catches and yards, and did it w/ 3 missed games. There is no question in my mind that Hester does have value as a WR. He is not a #1 Wr, but that does not mean he doesn't have value. The question, to me is, where exactly does he fit in? Should he continue to start, maybe opposite DA, or should he move to the slot, where he could really be dangerous. That may depend on how DA and Knox develop, not to mention Bennett and Iglesias. I'll say this. DA opposite Hester, w/ Bennett moved to the slot and Olsen in the lineup looks like a pretty solid group of weapons to me. If we can work on the OL and give Cutler time, I really think the weapons are there to have a damn good, if not great, offense. The key to me is still the OL, not the WR.

Sorry, but to me it as simple as this. Oakland made him an offer. We made an appointment for an interview. If both Oak and Chi made offers, and he choose Oakland, I would be more inclined to believe some of the other stuff, but that isn't what happened. Many reasons are possible, but none seem nearly so logical to me as what I said above. He has a firm offer for a job (promotion) from Oakland. He has an interview w/ us, but (a) no timetable on when we may make a decision or ( how likely he would be to get that job offer. I saw where he said this, "I honestly feel that they are being very thorough with their evaluation of candidates so they can ensure they get the right person in there...." I read that, and I see a guy who knew it may be a while before the bears make anyone an offer, and that "anyone" may not even be him. So he took the sure thing. Also, I don't know how likely the Oakland gig is to be a stepping stone for a HC spot. Their offense is simply bad. They are in a dire situation at QB. Russell not only is a bust, but seems to be a bust that doesn't care and doesn't have the respect of his teamates. But that is the QB Al Davis wants to see developed. They don't have great talent at WR and their OL is as bad as ours. This is simply not a good mix of talent. If he turns it around, he may in fact be a HC candidate, but I don't think the odds are very good. Look, understand, it isn't like I was so high on the guy myself. That isn't the point though. The issue I have is with our slow, drawn out process. If he was indeed a candidate of ours all along, then why did it take 10 days to set up an interview?

LOL. They are nice to have when doing the taxes though

Yea, totally different situations. When I go to the bar, I actually don't drink, funny as that sounds. I drink soda or water, which is re-fillable. I do get something to eat, but my tab is usually only around $10, though I usually tip another $10, if not more. I don't drink at the bar as (a) driving and ( don't want those $100 bar tabs. I also really don't have a choise. I have verizon cable, which does not offer the NFL ticket, and I love my cable and have no intention of changing. But honestly, even if the bar tab was more and/or I could get the games at home, off to the bar I would still go. If you have kids, you might better understand. Little rugrats can really be a distraction

One other candidate might sway those odds some. Reports talked about our having interest in Indy's WR coach. As Indy is in the SB, two weeks away, we can't hire him for a while now. We may be thinking about holding out for him, and if that doesn't work, it's back to the safety nets of either Tice or Marz, though Martz sounds like he is getting annoyed w/ the process too. What I truly have no clue about is the DC position. I have not really even heard much about candidates since Fewell choose another team. Is there someone in Indy on defense we like also? I don't think there is any way Angelo allows Babich to be DC again, nor Lovie, and Marinelli doesn't want the job. So not only am I in the dark as to who our candidates are, but I don't really see the safety net we seem to have in place for offense.

I have worked very hard to brainwash (er, I mean educate) my kids (7 & 4) to be Bear fans, and have done so in Cowboy Country. Let me tell you, it hasn't been easy. No way I am going to throw that away just because I disagee w/ what is happening of late. One other point. You said you prefer to watch games at home rather than a Bar. Not me. I love going to the bar. Even when the games are on national TV, I go to the bar. One, the bar I go to is pretty much the "bears bar" for the area. I love yapping on the boards, but Sunday's at the bar are my opportunity for face-to-face Bears talk. Also, it is just so much better when the bears make plays to scream amongst a big crowd of bear fans, rather than alone at home. Two, I don't care what my wife or kids say, I can not ever watch a game in peace. When I yell, my wife chides me. Kids always want this or that. This year, we were playing a night game and I stayed home due to a sick kid and wife. Gotta be the good dad and husband, right? Mistake. Never went more than 10 minutes w/o having to get up for this or that reason. Thank God I have DVR and could hit pause, but it was annoying as hell. Much rather go to the bar for "peace and quiet"

Yea, sorry, but I will never understand this idea that because we criticize our team, that means we need to become the fan of another. Many of us are blowing off steam. If anywhere, I would think this the place to do it. Make no mistake. When some puker fan comes up to me, I do not disparage MY team. I point out they will be watching the SB from the same vantage point as we. I point out who has more championships and players in the HOF. I gladly point out the sad way they exited the postseason, w/ yet another turnover on a day of turnovers. When here on the boards though, and among Bear family, I am more open to be honest and vent. I am ticked off at how this team has run since we lost the SB. That does not mean I will not watch every game, nor does it mean I will do anything but cheer for my team to win. I am a Bears fan, and IMHO, I can criticize my team. No one else can. Just like in my house. My son was late in line when God handed out common sense. I can say that, but I will take a swing at any other who does (not counting my wife:) )

Most of the time those interviews are going to point to the positives of one rather than the negatives. At the end of the day, I honestly think it is this simple. Oakland made him a firm offer. Chicago had made an appointment to interview him. Even if he liked Chicago, he would be taking a huge chance putting Oakland on hold while he continued the interview process. Oakland could simply turn their attention toward another candidate, and if he didn't get the job in chicago, he would be stuck. Can I just ask though what took so long to set up the interview? Ravens were knocked out of the playoffs 10 days ago, and he was only now supposed to fly to Chicago? If he was on our list all along, why did it take so long to bring him in?

Well, Cable's situation in Oakland is so bad that it makes Lovie's situation look stable. I mean, there are still questions today whether Cable will be the HC for 2010, much less beyond. If Oakland can find someone, no reason we can't.

Actually, my bad on saying Marinelli. I meant Babich. He had been only a position coach, and then Lovie elevated him to DC. No argument Marinelli has loads more coaching experience than Plank, but (a) Marinelli has said he doesn't want the job. Even if we convince him to take it, do we really want a guy in a positon he didn't want and ( as said, one of the top things I like about Plank is a more broad base of defensive knowledge. You talk about Marinelli's many years of coaching, and there is no disputing that. At the same time, I think most of his experience comes in the form of cover two. I have argued many times that having a coach experienced in the cover two is not a problem for me, but the problem comes up when that coach is only experienced in the cover two. When that scheme isn't working, such a coach simply lacks the knowledge to change or correct it. That was a big reason I liked Rivera years ago, before we hired him. Coming to the bears, he was experienced in several different scheme, including time as a player in the 46. Further, he would learn the cover two under Lovie, and thus further broaden his knowledge. I see such a situation as very much a positive. Contrast that w/ someone like Babich. Babich, as Rivera, lacked experience above that of a position coach, but unlike Rivera, Babich's entire coaching career was in cover two schemes. Its all he knew. If there were breakdowns in that scheme, he would not have as much knowledge to use to make changes. That is sort of how I see it w/ Plank. Plank has a greater base of knowledge. Is he an unknown. Sure. But I am simply more willing to take a change w/ someone like him. Not really sure how Tice even factors into this, as I thought we were talking defense and DC. On offense, I have been of the opinion that we need a more experienced guy as he will basically be a HC#2. That was a key reason I never liked Bates, for example. Frankly, Tice doesn't even fit the category of what I want as, that I know of, he has never been a signal caller himself, moving directly from position coach to HC. That's why I liked coaches such as Chud and Al Saunders, among others.

That's just it. If he choose a team, even a considered lesser team than the Bears, but a team that offered more long term security, it would be one thing. But Al Davis has not even declared that his HC is safe today, much less a year from now. The situation in Oakland is even less stable than in Chicago, which is saying a ton. Further, look at the potential of each offense. Oakland has a poor OL, like we, but are weaker in the skill positions, especially at QB. The chance of both success and stability in Oakland is far worse than in Chicago, and yet he still choose Oakland over us. IMHO, the reason is simple. Oakland made him an offer, while we openly have said we are not ready to make an offer yet and want to drag out the interveiw process. A bird in hand.....