nfoligno

Agreed. The bears would not leak what they plan to offer or are offering like this unless Forte balked at the offer.

LOL. Hey mut, Add Jason into that mix of OL screamers as well. But yea. Few are against the OL, but many would rather get a skill position over the trench dogs. Angelo always said he took the highest rated player on our board on draft day. Frankly, I might not disagree with that statement. The issue I have is with creating that draft board. It is my opinion that Angelo (and some of the staff around him) simply values other areas more than OL. Thus when creating a big board, OL get ranked by us lower than what most would. For example, say there is this DE most consider to be around pick 50 value (just using a number). And this OG most would consider in the 30 pick value range. On our board, it would not surprise me to see that same DE in the 30 slot while the OG was in the 50, simply because that's how Angelo values the two positions.

One. Disagree you can simply do the math like that. Are you willing to do that for every RB out there? Other RBs had as few carries as Forte, but with solid or better ypc avg. Shall we do a little math and boost their numbers too? If so, I think we would see a shocking number of RBs with great stats. No. It just doesn't work that way. The only previous time he had over 300 carries, his ypc avg was below 4.0. How do you know more carries doesn't also equal lower ypc average as the body wears down. Maybe not, but that unknown is why you can't assume. Yes, our OL was "god awful" last year, but go back to the list I provided of RBs who had more yards than Forte, and who also played beyond dreadful OLs or on awful offenses. I said he was valuable. Never said otherwise. I'm only saying (a) he isn't elite as I think some Bear fans want to think he is and ( we need to take a step back if we are looking to give him a huge payday.

The original post compared Forte today (market value) to Gore in 2007, when he received his contract. 2007 was Gore's 3rd season. Honestly. I have been out of the loop a bit, and don't know what a fair contract for Forte is today. I simply believe (a) Forte may not be in the class some here put him and ( I don't want to dish out a huge contract for a RB that isn't elite.

I like Matt Forte. I really do. At the same time, I also think he may be a little over-hyped around here. Yesterday I read fans questioning if they would trade Forte for Chris Johnson. Today, comparing Forte to Gore, in specifically comparing him to Gore in 2007 (as that was the contract discussed). When Gore signed that deal, he was coming off a season with about 1,700 yards (5.4 ypc avg) and 500 yards receiving. Again, I like Forte, and I want to re-sign him, but I also don't want to simply give him whatever he wants. Forte had just over 1,000 yards this past year. Yea, we didn't have a good OL or offense in general, but take a look at RBs who had more yards than Forte, and I think you will find several ran behind poor OLs and/or on bad offenses. McCoy (Phi), Benson (Cin), McFadden (Oak), Hillis (Cle), Jackson (StL), MJD (Jax), Charles (KC) & Foster (Hou) all had more yards than Forte, and all were on pretty poor offenses and/or behind bad OLs. And before it's brought up, several had just as few carries as Forte. Further, Forte has yet to be an effective blocker IMHO, which hurts/limits the offense. Look, I'm not saying don't pay him. I'm not saying he isn't a good RB. I simply question the belief he is an elite RB. Heck, I'm not even sold he is a top 10 RB. Sure, he may be up there in FF due to his receiving, but as a RB in the real world? I'm not sold he is elite. RB is one of those positions, IMHO, that you can more easily find solid players. Further, it's one of those positions where players more quickly break down. Thus I question giving out the huge contracts to RBs unless they are truly special. Now, I don't know what Forte is looking for. Maybe he is looking for a reasonable contract. But I just feel some put him on a higher tier than where he may belong.

I'd argue both. Some issues are more philosophical differences with various board members lined up on either side. For example, shut down corner vs pass rush. One believes a shut down corner forces the QB to hold the ball longer, thus allowing DL more time to drop the QB. The other side argues a great pass rush pressures the QB sooner, easing the job of the secondary and often forcing the QB into bad passes, and thus turnovers. I bet you would find such a debate on any board. Other issues are more Bears/Angelo specific. For example, the issue near and dear to your heart and mine. OL. Yes, Angelo did draft an OT in the 1st round this year. Yea. Yet regardless of this move, OL is still one of (if not the) top concern on the offense. I have always felt there were some positions Angelo either lacked the ability to evaluate, or didn't value as highly and thus lesser players were brought in. I see OL being an example here, and thus why I can be absent for a year, and still know OL will be a key debate.

Ha. One of the first things I did was check how many posts you've racked up. Thought you'd be over 10k by now

LOL. Nope. It's like a soap opera. You can miss a year, return and find the same characters and same story lines.

Then, he was a $5m+/yr player, and at least NO (if not others) felt he was still a starting DE. Now? Now he will likely be viewed as a rotation/depth DE and closer to the veteran minimum than not. Pretty big difference. I'm not saying we should, nor that it will happen. I'm only saying we have a need at DE (depth/rotation) and as he would likely be cheap, may be worth a look.

Let me guess: Angelo is great. No, Angelo sucks. We need help on the OL to protect Cutler. Protect Cutler and he has time to get the ball to the recievers No. We need a stud WR who can get open quicker so the OL doesn't have to protect all day. We need a stud corner to shut down WRs No. We need a pass rush to limit the time DBs have to cover WRs. That draft pick (insert any) was amazing value BS. That pick was a total reach. The sod sucks. Agreed!!!!!!!! Okay, last one isn't a debate, but I know it was brought up

Doubt he has much left, but I'd not be opposed to a try out. Not sentimental. Just need. We have no 3rd DE at the moment, and may not if Wooten doesn't return with the speed he was showing prior to the injury. Brown isn't a starter anymore, but that doesn't mean he couldn't contribute. Plus he knows the scheme already.

First, I have to laugh. Been gone some time, but little changes. Jason still not happy with the OL To me, the OL is a big concern, but there have been signs of life. RT - Carimi had a bad game. I think many are so high on him (as am I) they assumed breakdowns were the fault of others, but tape showed he had a bad game. I think he will be very good, but we are going to see bad plays/games as well. He's a rookie. RG - Louis started so bad most all thought he would be replaced, but played better in the last game. I think the staff will give him every chance possible due to his youth and potential. Time will tell if that's a mistake or not. Garza - Still shocked he is starting center, but I think that has more to do with staff wanting Loius than Spencer. LG - Williams - I'm still not sold, but getting hopeful. I did watch in slo-mo one play where Williams was pulling right, and flat destroyed. He missed his block, punching at air, then got blown up by another. With that said, most of his play seems to have improved, so there is hope. RT - Webb - Well, he's not Omiyale, right? Personally, I still would have liked to see Spencer at center and Garza at RG. I'd like to see this due to the experience factor. I think our 1st round rookie would have a better shot lined up next to Garza, rather than Louis. Ditto Williams/Webb on the other side with Spencer. More than talent, the lack of experience along the OL worries the hell out of me, especially once the season begins and teams begin to stunt/blitz and mix it up.

Hey Grizz Good to be back and chatting Bears again!

Hey everyone. Been out of the picture for some time. Work banned this site (actually expected me to work!) and life just got busy so little time at home to chat. BUT the block at work seems to be off, and nice timing with the season set to begin. So a hello and shoutout to all my old Bear Buds.

I think most seem to agree that, by rule, it was an incomplete pass, but at the same time, many question the rule itself. At the end of the day, for me, the rule may not be a good one, but it isn't a new one either. Det is not the first team to get hosed by the rule (we have a couple times) and won't be the last.

Its sort of funny how similar the situation for the two teams is. In Dallas: - Major OL concerns. Their OL was a ? entering the season, then they lost two starters in camp. Columbo "might" be back at RT, but that is yet unknown. If he is, he likely will not be 100%. Baron replaced him last week, and his play was reminicent of Pace at LT or Omiyale at OG. Yes, he was that bad. He was burned early and often, and I believe racked up 3 holding penalties to boot. The rest of the OL wasn't good, but Baron really stuck out. I read that Peppers did most of his damage last week lining up opposite the RT. Peppers could have a field day against either Baron or Columbo. - In large part due to the weakness of the OL, Wash was effective sending the blitz too. OL needed help to deal with the DL, thus LBs were more often finding free paths to the QB. If Briggs and Urlacher can attack as they did against Detroit, we could really amp up the pressure on Romo. - Their OC is under fire (big time) for not running the ball. Dallas' OL doesn't pass protect well, but they are huge and do well run blocking. Dallas had a 4.7 ypc avg running the ball, but Jason Garrett (OC) simply didn't call many run plays. Barber (8), Felix Jones (8), Choice (5). 22 runs doesn't sound awful, but its pretty dang low when compared to the 47 times Romo dropped back to pass. And this was a close game throughout. I think Dallas is going to try and run the ball a lot more, not just because they are effective at it, but because Garrett was so ripped for not running the ball more in game one. This will be a tough test. We stuffed Det's run game, but Dallas is far better. OL is big and they have several RBs that can hurt you. Jones is the one to worry about. Barber can plow, but Jones can take it to the house. Not saying we need to stack the box, but we need to maintain lanes and keep them out of the second level. - Roy Williams is an okay WR, and Dez Bryant is a great WR in the making, but missed a lot of time and looked poor. His route running is bad, and he didn't create separation well. The WR without question to worry about is Austin. He has become their unquestioned stud. he will catch it short and pickup the YAC, but kills running downfield. If we leave Bowman on an island against him, we will be burned. - On the other side of the ball, its all about the OL. They have a very good D, especially in the front 7. Ware is a stud, and we really need to double team him. He will move all over the DL, but where ever he goes, so should a TE or RB to compensate. He will embarrass Williams or Omiyale if left on an island. A particular concern is how poorly our OL has played in the past against 3-4s. My top hope this time around is our RBs do a better job picking up the rush. - Two areas to really attack them are with the TE and a speed WR running shorter routes. If knox would run the right route, he could really do some damage. Olsen, if he can hold onto the ball, could be huge. Cooley was Washington's most effective weapon against Dallas. They are aggressive with their LBs upfront, and their safeties are not all that, so TEs can find big holes. As with the Det game, we really need to get the ball out of Cutlers hands as quickly as possible. Utilize quick hits to speedy WRs, and attack the seam with Olsen. Running the ball will be tough, but gotta stick with it. Their special teams is not good, and an area we should really try to win, thus winning field position battle. Their coverage units have struggled, both in game one and in preseason. Their return units hvae not done well either. Heck, their FG kicker even missed his only attempt and has been getting ripped. Its funny, but here in Dallas, many are predicting Dallas to lose. Washington is not considered a good team this year, and for Dallas to not only lose to them, but frankly never looked very good during the game, has many fans here pretty down on the team. If Jason Garrett gets his head out of his arce, this team could be very different, but as questionable as we played in week one, this week has more potential than many may have thought. God I want to win this game.

Ignore

As others have pointed out, if it had worked (which it really should have) then this discussion is totally moot. The crowd seemed pretty enthusiastic to have the team try. Billick, in his commentary, said he would have done the FG but understood the bravado. Some of you say Lovie lacks this. So, in this he was attempting to make a statement. Something tells me that had Lovie decided to do just the FG many would have questioned why he didn't go for the score. The only question I have is why they didn't try Chester Taylor on that run. Earlier in the game, they took the FG. Sure, fans (especially those at the game) want to go for it. Fans go off emotion. Coaches are supposed to go off logic and strategy. Sorry, but this was simply a bad call. Period. Sure, if it worked it looks good, but that "if" is the point. Anytime you go for a risky play, and it works, it looks better, but that doesn't mean it was a good call. You take the points and put the game in the hands of the defense that had 100% shut detroit down in the second half. I don't have a counter for that other than thinking they were doing what you suggested, which is stopping the dink and dunk. The Bears knew that the Lions hadn't gone for the big play...yet...and knew it was coming. Had they done the opposite, the big play would have burned them. In fact I read recently that Johnson wasn't used "by design" for early on. Not really sure why you would do that but either way. Sorry, but the reason they had not gone for the big play prior that was, at least in part, because the bears attacked and didn't give King time. I am not saying Lovie is the only one to do this, but FAR too often coaches go into prevent. There is a reason for the expression "prevent only prevents wins." If were up more than a score, or there is even less time on the clock its one thing, but going into prevent when we did was simply a bad, and chicken @#$# call. Trust the D that played great all game. Don't abandon the scheme that worked. I assume you meant Calvin Johnson in the first sentence. I agree that Bowman should have had help. What about the "Safety"? Was he out of position? Many what ifs....which I understand you're not a fan of. In all reality, my feeling is Darelle Revis would have a hard time one on one with Megatron. Calvin Johnson is not the only factor they have on offense. Jahvid Best was the only player that scored for Detroit in the game and he's a rookie. Brandon Pettigrew gained much adulation last year as a rookie before his season ending knee injury. Heck the guy ran a 4.83 40 in the combine, not too shabby for a TE. Despite what many think, Shaun Hill is not a slouch. In fact he is a pretty decent #2. Obviously he can throw a pretty long and accurate ball. I believe the comment was made during the game that his record as a starter, mostly in SF, is 10-6 and he has a 23 TD 11 INT ratio which again isn't all that bad. And a few others to note; Tony Scheffler, Nate Burleson, Bryant Johnson and Kevin Smith all add up to an improved Offense. One. you said Revis would have had a hard time covering Megatron. I agree, but isn't that all the more reason to double him. If you have a WR that good, doesn't he demand double coverage? Two. You ask what about the safety. I read a detailed report on what happened. We blitzed one DB, and only DM was left in coverage, but Det sent their TE down the deep seem, and DM was forced to cover him, which was the right thing per our playcall. Briggs, by design, releasaed the TE, and DM has to pick him up. That left Bowman on an island. I like that we blitzed, but why are we blitzing a S when Det needs to thrown at or near the endzone? It would seem a LB would be better, if you are going to blitz. If he is burned, then it is a shorter gain and in the middle of the field, which Det needed to avoid w/o any more time outs. Three. Finally, I agree Det has some other talented players, but come on. None are remotely close to Calvin. Good looking rookie, but w/o any timeouts, the rookie is not a great option. Det had to either attack the sideline or the endzone due to time and no timeouts. When you are at the end of the game, you make opponents beat you with lesser players. I used the Bulls of old as an example. Yea, the Bulls had Pippen, Paxon and others, but with the game on the line, did opponents worry so much about them? No. They did whatever possible to stop MJ, and made the others beat them. No different here. Calvin is so far and away more talented than the rest of the offense, he should have been the sole focus of our attention. That doesn't mean you totally ignore the rest, but you simply do whatever necessary to take out their top playmaker.

Sure, stats lie.... But look beyond just the completion stat. Stafford led Det on two scoring drives in the first half, both for TDs. He led them 42 yards for a score, followed by 60 yards and a score. Counter that with Shaun Hill. Aside from the final drive, he had ONE drive over 3 plays, and that was a 4 play drive that ended with an interception. So yes, while I give the D credit, I also hold back going overboard. I grant that this Lions team is improved, but Stafford put 14 on us in the first half. Our D looked good at that time, but nothing like how they looked in the 2nd half against Hill. Next week we get Romo, and that will be a legit test. We do have a thing or two on our side. We talk much about our OL, but that is the talk of the town here in Dallas. Their OL wasn't great to begin with, and suffered several injuries in camp. Columbo is their starting RT, but is hurt. Baron is supposed to be their backup LT, but is playing RT due to Columbo, and was killed. I believe one of their OGs is also hurt and out. Wash owned their OL. Also, Jason Garrett, their OC, has taken loads of heat because, despite having a solid ground game, he liked to run the ball less than Martz. So while this will be a good test for the D, it is also one they have opportunities in.

Totaly agree, but if they made the TD on the goaline would it be the same talk then? If if and buts..... If Calvin makes the catch, we lose. If Stafford didn't go down with injury...Man, we can play that game all day, looking at it from both sides. We didn't punch it in though. In fact, we didn't even look close. It was sick how they man handled us down there. Thus going for it was simply a bad call. Worse, Lovie is saying he would do it again. Have to agree, Maranelli called the prevent and went back to cover 2, But it was Manning who blew the coverage and should have been there instead Bowman had to single cover, wrong move and outa position on manning. So this is just on Marinelli? Lovie gets credit for how the D played all game, but not for the playcalling at the end. Sorry, but I would think more the opposite. Usually a HC doesn't meddle until the end of the half or end of the game with playcalling. Or maybe in the red zone. It is far more likely Lovie had a hand in the final drive defense. I doint doubt that LS made mistakes in calls. But I have to look at what the offense did during the game (outside of Fumbles) They moved the ball well. So good infact that QB had 108.3 qb rating. The biggest thing that worried all of us here was the O line play and the D. Both played realy well until the final drive. Most coaches will adjust for the next game. Lets see what happens on the turnovers and play calling on D. If bno0th are improved then we know that Lovie is adapting, If not then ILl jump on the bandwagon with you all, But until then lets support them and hope for a win in Dallas. One, I think you are giving a bit too much credit to Lovie for the play of the offense, unless you are crediting Lovie for bringing in Martz. Two, while I do give your D some props for playing as well as they did (a) it was Detroit and ( they looked great against a backup QB. Stafford was 11 of 15 for 83 yards and a QB rating of 86 prior to the injury. I have to wonder if the D looks so great if he didn't leave the game.

Alaskia, I think you are only seeing part of the picture. You say most of the complaints center around discipline. I disagree. Some talk about discipline and the fumbles, but I don't think that is the focus of the attack on Lovie for Sunday. One. Going for it on 4th down. Middle of the 4th quarter, we are down by 2. 4th and goal at the 1. We were not able to move the ball an inch on 3 downs. Rather than hit the FG and take the lead, we go for it again on 4th down with the same results. No gain. If our D was playing poorly, I could understand this better. With a poor D, FG isn't going to win it. But out D was playing outstanding in the 2nd half. Taking the lead with the way our D was playing was smart. Going for it on 4th down after your OL failed to show any push what so ever was not. Two. Defense on final drive. Okay, our D flat shut Detroit down and was playing inspired. Then our staff cut the ballz off our men, and call for a prevent defense. Keep everything in front. Don't get burned for an 80 yard play. First play, 24 yards, followed by 8, 10 and 16. Suddenly, after starting on their own 17, they are on our 25 and in striking distance. Why? Because we abandoned everything that had worked up to that point, and played a prevent defense than only prevents wins. Three. Det does have improved talent, and an improved team, but on offense, there is only one player you need to take out of the equation and that is Calvin Williams. You make someone else on the team beat you. You do not play freaking Bowman one on one against Calvin Johnson. Is is exactly a player like this that caused me to say BS when I hear it is up to the player to play. Its up to the coaches to put those players in good situations, and our staff screwed Bowman over, and nearly our team. This is as stupid as last year, when playing Minny in the first game, we never gave Pace help on the left. We expected him to matchup with Allen by himself. Yea, he has to play the game, but our staff need to put player in better situations. These examples may not seem like much, as all take place at the end of the game, but sorry, it is here and situations like this which seperates good from bad coaches. Lovie is a bad coach.

One, I have always read Forte was an upright runner, which makes him easier to bring down, especially in short yardage situations. Two, while I have no clue how often this is an issue, but on at least one of those goal line carries, I think Forte blew it by not following his block. Manu blocked on the right side, and there was actually an opening. Not a huge one, but enough to score, but Forte was running wide of Manu. Without a lead blocker, Forte was stood up. I don't know if this is often an issue, or simply was an issue on this one down. Three. In the bar, we were screaming to see Taylor on this series. Taylor plays with power, and was more the power runner in Minny. In fact, many questioned how Minny would do in short yardage and goal line situations without Taylor. So we get him and don't use him? WTF?

Griz, there is no question the players blew some plays, and made plenty of mistakes. At the same time, Lovie deserves more blame than you are willing to give him. Going for it on 4th down? Seriously? A FG puts us in the lead, and late in the game at that. I could better understand if our D was playing awful, and there was no confidence our D would be able to make the following stand, but our D was playing stout, and taking the lead should have been the priority. Final Detroit drive, we went away from the D that had shut them down all game, and played soft. We flat out let them march downfield into scoring position. Marinelli is the DC, but no way you can't say Lovie is involved in that, especially as that is such a typical Lovie move. Finally, here we are at the end. Det has ONE PLAYER who, in such a situation you have to worry about. And we put Bowman on an island against him? Final play of the game. Bulls need a basket to score. You think the other team doubles Jordan? No, not comparing Calvin with MJ, but the point is, you focus on the team's best player and make someone else beat you. Yea, players and other coaches made plenty of bone head plays/calls, but in the end, it is the above sort of decisions which separates good coaches from bad, and Lovie proved once again to be a bad coach.

LT, did you watch the game? Yea, we put up a lot of total yards, but... (a) Cutler was sacked four times, hit more, and under pressure much of the game. You don't expect this line, game one, to provide great protection, but the protection Cutler got was pretty weak. ( Sad thing is, the pass blocking was far better than the run blocking, which was atrocious. One of the best testiments of an OL is the ability to get a push at the LOS for short yardage gains. In these situations, our OL was getting flat blown up and blown backwards. © While Det has improved, it isn't like we were playing that good of a defense, so to me, that is an even bigger indictment. Yea, we put up some solid passing yardage stats, but the OL was not really the catalyst to that. If the OL doesn't get better in a hurry, Cutler will get knocked out, and you can forget about Forte.

Okay, start with the bottom 10. St. Louis 4 Buffalo 3 N.Y. Jets 3 N.Y. Giants 3 Atlanta 3 Minnesota 3 Kansas City 2 Washington 2 Detroit 2 Bears 1 From this group, I think 6 teams would easily be considered to have bad OLs. Of the other 4... NYJ - Only in the last maybe two years has the team seen an OL turn around. They have used some expensive FAs to improve their OL, but the anchor is still their top drafted OL. Still, I would argue that the list shows years 2003 - 2007, and during that period of time, their OL was pretty bad. Atlanta - Honestly, I don't know their OL as well. I know their OL has of late been pretty good, and they are a rare team that seems to find late round gems even finding productive starters out of undrafted FAs. I guess if you are good enough scouting OL and developing, you can get away with not drafting as many high. Minny - One reason Minny didn't draft as many was due to having found long term stable starters. For example, we have not had to worry about center for many years because we found a franchise center in Kreutz. Minny had Birk and McKinnie, neither of which were part of this report, but are long term starters. Loadholt and Sullivan, two current starters, were drafted but after this study. That leaves Hutchinson, who they paid heavily for. So I am not sure this report reflects what Minny has done on the OL, as 4 of their 5 starters were drafted outside the window this study looked at, yet the key point is still that 4 of their 5 starters were drafted, and drafted high. NYG - Actually, I think NY is a good example of the problems with not drafting. NY had a good group drafted prior to the window from the study, but they didn't continue to draft OL, and now those starters are fading and OL (last year and this year) has become a key concern for the team. So 6 of the 10 teams that failed to draft OL are considered to be bad OL teams. Of the remaining 4, Atlanta is the only one I would say is a legit exception to the rule. Minny is outside the box as they have drafted more OL than the study reflects, but did so before and after the window looked at. NYG are a great example of what happens to a team that doesn't draft, as their OL has faded and is now a key problem for the team. Okay, top 10 that drafted OL. Tampa Bay 9 Carolina 7 Miami 6 Baltimore 6 Indianapolis 6 Philadelphia 6 New Orleans 6 Seattle 6 New England 5 Cincinnati 5 6 of the top 10 teams are considered to have very good OLs (Car, Bal, Indy, Phi, NO, NE). Of the remaining four, Seattle actually did have a very good OL for quiet some time, but only recently has it faded. In fact, prior to last year I think their OL was considered very good. So through the period of time this study looked at, they drafted many and had very good results. They lost several of their drafted OL, and lost a couple others to injury. Cincy for years was dreadful, but the years of drafting OL has seemed to payoff. Their OL came together last year, or do you think Benson is simply that good? TB and Miami are proof that nothing is for sure. They drafted a lot of OL, but that didn't seem to help. So yes, I would say the majority still reflects the rule. The rule is not absolute, as there are examples of teams that drafted a lot but were bad and teams that didn't draft extensively but did well regardless. But I find it hard to argue the majority in either the top 10 or bottom 10 don't reflect the general rule that is you need to draft OL in order to have sustained success.