nfoligno

Sort of like when we drafted that DE from Penn the same year we drafted Rex, what the hell was his name?, and almost immediately changed systems to one which he was a poor fit. Not saying the DE would have even been worth a damn, but the point is, it rarely works out well when you get a player for one system, only to soon after change systems. Our DT Adams experienced a similar situation. I believe he too was from that Penn DL, right? Anyway, he is drafted for a particular system, and then SF changes system to one in which he quickly became a non-factor and a poor fit. This is a big concern. Then again, I just do not know the owners will allow Angelo to go out and spend big, much for some of the same reasons as above.

Wait a minute. I thought we were talking about wishing injury on Bears (players/ownership). Wishing injury on Farve is another matter entirely. Living in Dallas, I am more torn than I can explain. W/o question, the three teams I hate the most in the NFL are GB, Minny and Dallas (not in that order necessarily). Minny has the double whammy w/ Farve, but I live in Dallas, which puts Dallas at the forefront. If Minny and Favre win, it sucks, but I really have no one to get in my face about it. If Dallas wins, I can't explain the hell I would have to live w/ on an everyday basis. So in the end, do I root for Farve? Just can't do it. When someone asks, I give one of two answers. Are you rooting for Dallas or Minny? 1. I am rooting for Al Quieda 2. I am rooting for Minny to win on a last second passing play in which Ware drops Farve for good. Dallas loses and Minny's playoffs are essentially over w/ the loss of Farve.

I actually do give Virginia credit. Here is a team/company that has been around a VERY long time, and has always been run (president) by a family member. Say what you want about the reasons, but I think more credit is deserved than realized when she put a non-family member in charge. Honestly, I just do not think many fans realize how big of a decision this was. As for Ted and the stadium, yes, he absolutely does get credit. Could anyone w/o the last name McCaskey have gotten the deal done. Maybe. But in the business world, just because someone else "might" have been able to get a deal done does not meant you do not give credit to the one that did. Further, the stadium deal we did eventually get done was far better than expected (for the bears). Leading up to that point, I do not recall any who expected us to walk about w/ concession sale profits and some other things we got. So he deserved big props for that. Criticize him for the hiring of Angelo. No argument. Criticize him for not stepping in sooner and putting on more pressure. Fine. But in evaluating Teddy, I don't think you can take away from the positives just to make a case against him. Trust me. Hiring Angelo is enough of a negative that you don't have the cheat the positives.

I find it a bit funny. I say I am hacked off that missed out on Alex Gibbs. Tice is not a bad looking OL coach, but sorry, Gibbs rep is far and away greater. Anyway, I said I was upset we didn't get Gibbs, and what is the response? Why would we hire an OL coach before we have an OC and know what our offensive scheme will be. So what exactly has changed since then. That I know of, we do not as yet have an offensive coordinator, nor an offensive scheme. So do we know have to find an OC that fits w/ Tice and his blocking scheme, or will Tice potentially have to teach a blocking scheme different from what he is used to, or maybe we don't care about whether a blocking scheme matches the offensive scheme. Personally, I don't think it is that big of a deal, but those were the argument/points made against me when I mentioned Gibbs.

Jerry Jones is willing to spend money, and cares about his team. He too heads down to the sideline, but often is ripped when he does it. Grass is always greener. You say you would rather an owner like Jones or Snyder, but I think you would be shocked at how many of their fans wish their owner would sell the team. Here in Dallas, the team has started to do well of late, but you would be shocked if you heard fans here. Until a couple weeks ago, a comment thought among fans was the team would not win another SB so long as Jones owned the team. Fans here have been praying Jones would give the team to his son, and take a hike.

Here is the issue I have w/ your evaluations. I am not going to argue that Graham and McBride provided good value considering the round. I agree that getting a player that late who simply makes the 53 man roster, whether as special teams or as depth, is doing well in terms of value. My issue is w/ the idea that CB is not a great concern because Angelo has a good record of finding CBs later in the draft. Simply getting good value out of a late pick because he makes the roster or plays special teams means little when talking about needing players to actually play CB. Graham, for example, may be considered a good value for where we got him, but if he isn't considered starter worthy, then you can't really use him as an example of Angelo finding CBs for us. Let me try it another way. If you believe CB is a need, I think it wrong to simply say Angelo can get that w/ a late pick. Players like Graham or McBride may have been good value picks, but if they can't start at CB, then they really don't factor into the discussion of trying to find starter quality corners. Does that make sense? I have said all along that Angelo has done decent in terms of finding players later in the draft that are good enough to make the 53 man roster. At the same time, that doesn't mean those same players are worthy of starting positions, or that we should feel confident Angelo can fill a hole, not just for depth or special teams, but for a starter grade position, w/ a late pick.

I remember '97 and '98 (unfortunately). We sucked. I could not stand Wanny, and wanted massive changes. In my head, I knew we needed to lose in order to improve. But when it was game time, there was no part of me that did cheered for anything but positive play by the bears. I remember we won a couple games at the end of '97. I think we also won a game, maybe 2nd to last, in '98. No good came from those wins. They knocked us out of the top spots of the draft. At least in '97, they hurt our chances at organizational changes. Logically, losing was simply the best course. Yet everytime the games began, I cheered loudly for the bears and at no point in time did I want anything but a win.

I'm not sure everyone is crying for Jerry Jones. In fact, I think more people bring up teams like the Colts, Steelers, and Pats moes than the Cowboys or Redskins. Anone would be envious of the colts, steelers and Pats due to how successful they have been. But just to ask, how much of that is ownership? Is Kraft the reason NE is successful or Billichek? Yes, I realize Kraft hired Billichek, but that isn't the point. Did you realize that NE has a similar structure as we, w/ a non-football, family member, attorney as president. They hit jackpot when they hired Billichek, and I think few would argue w/ that. But does that one great hire mean their ownership is really so great? Not too long ago, many would have said similar about Jerry Jones, who had hired Parcells. Then Parcells leaves and Jerry is seen in a very different spotlight. Its easy to point out to small handful of teams like the above, and say "I want that". So does everyone. But I would simply argue it is more about the management than the ownership. The owners got lucky in a hire they made. If Angelo had turned out to be someone like Polian, wanna bet how many other teams fans would wish they had owners as great as ours? Funny to say, I realize, but to me, that is the difference in the perception. Take a look at the teams in the league, and then consider the ownership situation for each. I think you will find most of those teams have fans that very strongly question how good their ownership is. People just want success. When you're not getting it, virtually ANY alternative appears better than the status quo. At least there is a gillmer of hope vs nothing. Would you rather swing hard and miss or attempt to bunt...and still miss? How about swing for contact and just try to get a hit. Does it have to be swinging for a homerun or trying to lay down a bunt. Honestly, not sure exactly how this analogy applies, but hey, you started it

I can understand the thinking. The belief is the team will never reach the levels we all want w/ the current admin, and thus you sort of find yourself hoping for bad to happen in order for good. One step back in order to take two steps forward. That sort of thing. At the end of the season, I cheered hard and loud to beat Minny and Det. I just can not watch a game w/o hoping for the best. At the same time, there was a part of me that sort of didn't like doing well, as I knew it likely meant keeping Lovie around. I understand the logic, but often disagree w/ the length some go, like when some fans say they wish Virginia would just die.

I'm cautiously optimistic about these two positions. If we can trade back up into the 2nd round, there's a ridiculous number of quality free safeties this year, way more than a normal year. Eric Berry and Taylor Mays are the big names, of course, but then there's Earl Thomas, Nate Allen, Morgan Burnett, Chad Jones, Major Wright...it's a long list. We won't be able to get Berry, Mays, or Thomas probably, but I'd be pretty surprised if more than 3 teams picked safeties in the first round. Those three guys could push Allen, Burnett, and the rest into the second round. If Jerry can trade back up into the 2nd, we could have our pick from among some very good free safeties. I am simply not high on moving up in the draft when (a) we have numerous needs ( little should be expected from FA and © w/ little ammo to trade, we are likely talking about a package involving future picks. Back to FS, as much as I want one, OL remains higher on my priority list. As for cornerback, the one thing Jerry's proven he can do in the draft is find good defensive backs on day 2. With all the juniors declaring early, I think he should be able to find a good developmental prospect to eventually replace Peanut. Somebody like Walter Thurmond, Dominique Franks, or Amari Spievey could be available on Day 2. Everyone always says this, but is it really that true? The only truly qualified starting CB on our roster is one Angelo took high in the 2nd round. Heck, he was nearly a 1st round pick. He found Vasher, who was an excellent nickel DB. Vasher appeared to be a solid starter for a short period of time, but was he truly a very good starting CB or did he just have a good season or two? CBs Angelo has drafted: Roe Williams (3rd round) bust Tillman (2nd round) good starting CB. Vasher (4th) How do we even evaluate Vasher? Alfanso Marshall (7th) nothing Rodriques Wilson (7th) who? Daniel Manning (2nd) Not sure whether to count him as a CB or FS Hester (2nd) Drafted as a CB, right? Graham (5th) - I like him, but staff sure doesn't McBride (7th) - Looked good for a couple games as a rookie, and downhill (cut) since. Bowman (5th) - Good looking when healthy Moore (4th) - Couldn't even make the active roster once this year, despite all the injuries. Vasher and Bowman were drafted day two, and both were starters. Graham and McBride showed some talent in fill-in situations, but neither have been considered much more than depth chart players, and McBride has since been cut. I always read fans talk about all the players Angelo gets in the 2nd day of the draft, but who are we talking about?

When there is talk of a new HC and/or GM, you will always hear from the family. Honestly, I sort of have to chuckle to an extent. No, our ownership is far from ideal. At the same time, I also think many fans suffer from "grass is always greener". Here is Dallas, we have a very well known owner. He spends money like Bear fans want, and obviously cares very much about football. Then again, Jerry Jones is also the GM of the team. He rarely hires big name coaches, as he doesn't seem to value coaches a great deal. He ran off Jimmy Johnson, believing Jimmy got too much praise, and replaced Jimmy w/ a bunch of college and other unqualified guys. Then he changes course and hires Parcells, but meddles w/ moves like Terrell Owens and some forced draft picks, and things don't workout. Then he makes moves like hiring an OC before the HC, and neutering the HC. Point is, I think many bear fans would say Jerry is a better owner than the McCaskey's, but I am not sure that is really true. Jerry got lucky when he hired Jimmy Johnson. He hired Jimmy because, as a college coach, he was cheap and Jerry didn't believe in paying much for coaches. Since Jimmy, this team has really gone downhill. And yet Jerry is still considered a bit ticket owner. To me, he is simply a slightly luckier version of Danny Snyder. In Pitt, you have a very highly respected family ownership in the Rooney's, but consider a thing or two. Their fans scream nearly every year as so many of their best players leave in FA because (a) owners won't dole out the big bucks to keep them and ( owners put in place a rule prohibiting the team from negotiating contracts w/ more than 1 year remaining. Pitt has seen so much success, but how much of that is due to ownership? NO has an owner that threatened to leave the city while they were dealing w/ a natural disaster. AZ gained the reputation as the arm pit of the NFL, w/ an ownership cheap on a level that made ours look free spending. The list goes on and on. Sure, there are some truly great ownerships in the NFL, but I would say the majority (if you ask their fans) are far from great. I think the reputation our ownership gained over the years (well deserved) prevents many fans from realizing the changes. I simply do not believe the problem is nearly so much about ownership, or Ted Phillips. I think the problem is w/ our GM and down.

That has been my argument as well. I honestly think fans forget just how bad it was, and what the team "cheap" really was. In the 90s, there was FA, but we were a non-factor. Simply put, we were not willing to shell out the big bonus and upfront money FAs demanded. If a team was not willing to fork over the big bonus bucks, they were simply not going to get the top ticket FAs. This all changed w/ Phillips. I still remember the year we signed Phillip Daniels and Thomas Smith. In hindsight, those two names don't look nearly so great, I realize, but at the time, both were among the elite in that FA class. I think Daniels was considered the 2nd best pass rushing DE (can't recall now who the #1 was) and I think Thomas Smith was considered the top shut down corner in that FA class. For a change, we were players in FA. I think Daniels got $8m bonus, which was a record for the bears at the time, and by some measure. I think Smith got about $6m, which would have been the record if not for Daniels. The change was significant, as we shelled out not one, but two contracts that were record breakers for the franchise. Since then, we have signed many players to big contracts, both in-house and FAs. Arguments can easily be made about the actual players we have gone after, but when talking about Phillips, the biggest key for me is that since he took over, the wallet opened up. And for the record, we began spending even before the new stadium and increased revenue. I am not pretending Phillips is great. I know well Lucky's opinion that we need a football guy in charge. We will never know how much the owners are or are not involved, but one thing I simply do not believe can be argued is that since he took over, this franchise has spent money equal to any other solid organization. The greater failure, to me, is Angelo, and who Angelo has chosen (and not chosen) to spend money on. Now, Angelo was Phillips hire, and he can be faulted for (a) hiring Angelo and ( not having fixed our GM/coach situation. At the same time, one phrase just sticks in my head. It could be a lot worse

But if Cutler truly has sway in who gets the gig, it sounds like the inmates are running the asylum I disagree. Cutler is the key on offense, and we want/need an OC that works well w/ Cutler, both in terms of relationship and scheme. To me, it is not unusual for Cutler to offer input into the decision. That doesn't mean Cutler makes the decision, but I have no issue involving him in the process. My wife is an attorney, and when they would look to hire a new attorney, those candidates would not only interview w/ the head partners, but also have sit downs w/ the other attorneys in the office. The main partner wanted their input as office chemistry was/is important. Even if a person was qualified, he didn't want to hire someone who's personality conflicted w/ the office, thus leading to poor office chemistry. That doesn't mean the staff's decision/opinion was final, but it was a factor, and I think this is a good way to interview.

Everyone keeps talking about all the holes we have but that's not true IMO. #1 Priority: DE--We used our #2 pick on a guy who has lots of potential. Lots of potential? Based on what? His pre-draft status? He was declared a bust by his coach in TB. Since joining the Bears, and working under the "best DL coach in the NFL" he showed nothing. He didn't even show rare flashes of something. I agree we invested a lot in him giving up a 2nd round pick, but disagree w/ the notion he has so much potential. #2 Priority: Either RT or LG--Omiyale looked pretty good at LG by the end of the year. We could move him to RT. We definitely need one o-lineman. I would agree Omiyale improved, but disagree w/ the idea he "looked pretty good at LG" by the end of the year. He didn't suck as bad as earlier in the season, and you have to wonder how much of his early awful play was due to playing next to Pace, but at the same time, I don't know how well he played either. I still didn't see him opening holes for Forte. #3 Priority: Safety--I'd like to see us get the guy from St. Louis. How many years in a row can JA take a guy in the late rounds? I don't think the StL safety will be available due to the lack of a new CBA. I agree this is a top tier need, but my concern is Angelo has always choosen to not only address this position w/ mid to low level draft picks, but has also continually tried to add players that look more like SS' to play FS. We need a centerfielder, yet always seem to try to force a SS into a coverage role. We basically have 2 positions we need to fill and I wouldn't be shocked to see us maintain the status quo at either. Granted, were likely to make a lot more moves, but there's nothing else major. I think other holes are: DT - Harris is a shell of his former self, and I just don't know how much we can count on him. Harrison has shown little to nothing. Gilbert couldn't even get active, and I personally don't think the staff even knows whether he is best as a DT or DE, as they seem to continually change his position. CB - Tillman is fading, and should not be considered long term. Bowman is okay, but I think there will always be the injury concern. Who else do we have. The staff seems to have no confidence in Graham as a CB. Vasher is questionable to even stick, and looked flat out bad when he did get on the field. Moore couldn't even make the active roster. CB seems like a pretty big need, IMHO. On offense, beyond the OL need, I think coaching is the biggest key, though I would say improved RB depth and a FB are needs too.

The last time the Bears took their time in a job search, they got Jerry Angelo!

While I agree we might offer more security, and a better overall situation than Oakland, I would also say that isn't saying much. Oakland aside, the job security issue is a real problem. We have now lost two coaches who seem to have been at the top of our list (Bates/Fewell) and a likely key reason for each was job security. Now w/ these two, we saw a situation of their choosing another new job over us, which is understandable. But what I fear is, the situation here is bad enough that some other position coaches, or college coaches, could turn down a job here in Chicago, even if it would mean a promotion, due to the job security issue. Everyone wants a promotion, but if there is a good chance that, after a year, you will be unemployed, many would prefer to avoid such a situation. Okay, you have a good job, and are well thought of. Another company comes along and offers you a job which would be a promotion, but then you learn the company is going through changes and layoffs are rumored and even expected in the near future. It is possible these changes do not come about, but do you take a job, even if its a promotion, if you could end up unemployed in a year? Because of this, I fear the coaches we are going to be looking at are essentially the ones no one else wants. Those who are currently unemployed, have no other suitors, and we are their only option for a paycheck. That isn't a very inspiring situation.

Cowher may like NY, but the Giants are in a pretty good position to return to the playoffs next year, which would mean Coughlin is likely safe. On the other hand, I see little reason to expect us to improve much, and thus we are likely to be looking for a new HC when NY is not. Cowher may like NY, but all reports had him also very interested in Chicago.

That sounds nice, but I am not sure how good of a plan that really is. Not only are quality OC and DC candidates being hired, but as that happens, quality available position coaches are also being hired. Those teams that are quick and decisive to hire a new coach also get first crack at the quality assistant coaches available. The longer you hold out, the longer the pool thins out. And lets be honest. Our situation isn't the best, and thus the pool of quality candidates that would actually come here in the first place wasn't deep to begin with. Taking your time and getting it right sounds nice, but I'm just not sure it really works that way. Remember, early bird gets the worm. Or one of my favorites. You snooze you lose.

I don't know about that. There was a ton of talk about Chicago, but I think that had more to do w/ our interest than Fewell's. As soon as NY showed interest, stories seemed to change. Maybe it is about money, but there are numerous other factors that really make me wonder. In reality, if you take a step back, I think you have to ask why the hell he would choose Chicago over NY. They have more talent on D, and he would have not have someone pushing him to do this or that nearly as much on D. He would be able to run his own show more. There is also a FAR greater level of stability there, where as in chicago, the expectation is a one year gig. And while he has worked w/ Lovie, and may in fact have a good relationship, I read he has a greater relationship w/ the NY coach. So why again would he want to come here?

It took you 2 minutes to read that? Might invest in a speed reading program:) Not saying I am wrong by any stretch. I just hate that our process is taking time, and meanwhile, quality assistants like Gibbs are lost.

Let me just say this. For years, I have screamed about our blocking system, and how it never seemed appropriate for our talent. With Benson, we had a scheme more similar, though a lesser version of, a zone blocking system. It was a drop step system that would seem to most benefit quicker, speedier backs, as the hole would not necessarily be determined until the RB took the handoff. Then we dump Benson, and get Forte. He seemed like a solid fit for this system, but what do we read about in the offseason. We are trying to get bigger and stronger, and plan to go w/ a more power blocking technique. This was not only ill-suited for our OL, but also for Forte. But beyond the inconsistencies of talent to scheme, here is the real fun of it. It wasn't ever really effective. TJ did well, but much of that was his making something out of nothing. Forte did well year one, statistically, but his weak ypc average showed the overall stats were a bit misleading. Point is, regardless how we tried to do it, we never could. Alex Gibbs is considered one of the best OL coaches in recent history. Sure, he has a system, but has also done an incredible job of developing players into and within that system. Sound like something we could use here? And speaking of matching talent w/ scheme, Gibbs's system was the one used in Denver. You know, where Cutler did so well. Forte would also seem a good fit for such a blocking system. Hey, I am practical enough. I am not saying we should have hired our OL coach before we hired our OC. I have seen teams go this route, and rarely does it work well. No, my being upset is more general. Gibbs is an OL coaches I have begged for us to go after for year. He was available, but another team was simply quicker on the draw than we. Again.

Nice point, but at the same time, I would offer this. You can use his blocking scheme for most offenses, IMHO. What I like is his high success rate developing OL, and greating an effective blocking scheme. I find it hard to believe such a successful scheme could not be incorporated into whatever overall offensive scheme we choose to run.

Agreed. He is a system coach. If he has the right pieces to run his system, he can be very dangerous. The problem comes in when he doesn't have the right pieces, and rather than adapt the system to fit what he does have, he instead tries to force those pieces into his system, even if they are not a good fit. That is my concern in Chicago. We do not have close to the right pieces for his system, and like Lovie and his Tampa 2, rather than admit such and adapt, he would be yet another coach trying to force square pegs through round holes.

Huge yardage stats, yes. But also huge interception numbers, huge sack numbers, an obscene number of pass attempts, and not that many scores. Under Martz, Kitna threw for more interceptions than touchdowns every year. He did throw for 4200 yards in 2006, but he was also sacked 63 times for nearly 400 yards. If you factor sacks into the yardage gained by pass plays, Jay Cutler netted 3462 yards on 590 dropbacks this season, whereas in 2006 Kitna got 3820 on 659 pass plays. If you work that out per passing play, Cutler actually averaged MORE yards gained than Kitna did. All those sacks add up to a lot of lost yards, even if Kitna's totals were inflated by Martz calling a ridiculous number of passes. Exactly. Further, while Jason keeps saying that Martz put up great stats in Detroit, I would point out he put up big passing stats, but the overall offensive stats were lacking. Is your offense really putting up great stats when it is so one-sided? Sure, Kitna had big passing totals, but it came at the expense of the rushing stats. So I think it deceptive to say his "offense" put up big numbers. That just isn't true. His passing game did, but not the running game. If you look at the offense as a whole, I don't think the stats were so great. And then you look at how, though there were big passing yardage stats, there was also a lot of offset such stats, like sacks, picks and a very weak red zone offense. I don't think it's accurate to just point to "the tools Saunders had." After all, Martz had some pretty insane tools on the Rams - Kurt Warner at QB, Marshall Faulk at RB, Orlando Pace at LT. Any way you cut it, that's at LEAST a comparable lineup to Trent Green/Priest Holmes/Willie Roaf. Also, whenever Martz was successful, he had absolutely phenomenal wide receivers, which Saunders definitely did not. Martz had two borderline HOF receivers in St. Louis with Isaac Bruce and Torry Holt, and even in Detroit he had a generational talent in Calvin Johnson. Saunders had Eddie Kennison and Samie Parker in Kansas City. His best receiving threat was a tight end, and he built his offense around that. When Martz went to San Francisco, he proved pretty emphatically that he couldn't adjust his offense to utilize a receiving TE. I think if either of the two was dependent on a highly talented roster, it was Martz. That is a key difference for me. Martz is simply not one who I feel can cater his system to the talent on his teeam. I think he is all about the QB and WRs. Saunders always tried to utilize the WR, and I think Kennison did well under Saunders, but he really never had the WRs to work with. Regardless of that, his offense was still electric because he was better able to utilize the talent at hand. His best receiver was a TE, and his 2nd best was a RB, thus he maximized those positions in his offense, while still getting the most out of what he had to work with at WR. Martz on the other hand, I just do not believe he can utilize talent such as this. Cutler and our WRs would likely put up big numbers, but I fear Olsen/Clark would be nearly forgotten, and Forte may become a great receiving RB, but would struggle to reach 1,000 yards rushing.

Little by little, we are getting our rules down. I obviously vote to lose a round earlier than picked, and that is also how Papabear votes. We also both vote to keep a player one extra year (two total). Anything more IMHO is more like a franchise player, rather than a keeper. Stinger I think didn't like the idea of a losing a round earlier, but he is the only one I have seen voice that opinion. Furthere, I think he may have also not considered keeping players higher than round 5, so that may be different entirely. I vote no round is outside the box, though by rule (round earlier than drafted) the 1st round is excluded. That means a team who drafted a player in the 2nd round (like Chris Johnson) can keep that player, but he will have to give up a 1st round pick to do so. For Chris Johnson, that is still a no-brainer, but for other players, it really makes an owner think twice.