nfoligno

A question I always ask though is, how long could Hester continue to score 5 or 6 TDs a season as a return man. You point to Cribbs, who is flat out awesome, but when you look at his scores, there just are not that many. He has 4 this year, but only 1 last year and 3 in his great 2007 season. Look at Cribbs and Cle in general. Cribbs is great. Few would argue. But as great as he is as a return man, does he really make the team better? He breaks off a great return, and the offense still goes 3 and out and punts. That, I believe, was the whole idea w/ Hester. As great of a job as he did in returns, if you don't have an offense to follow through, that benefit just doesn't carry over nearly as much. The idea further was the Hester could help the offense. IMHO, the move from returner to WR was not wrong. The wrong was expecting Hester to be a #1 WR. Further, the wrong was expecting Hester to be a #1 WR, w/ much else behind him to take some pressure away. I think Hester is and can be a solid and effective WR. I think we simply need to get him out of the #1 role. There are plenty of #2 and even #3 WRs in this league who can be game breakers, w/o that #1 label. I do not think Hester could have continued to score 5 or 6 times per year as a returner. Teams would simply focus on him too much, as well as kick away from him. As a WR though, teams can not simply avoid him. I think it also worth pointing out that our return game has been pretty good since he left, w/ DM, Knox and now Bennett all notching scores in the return game.

As I mentioned in another post, even w/ that $2.5m roster bonus, his contract over the next two years doesn't look that high. The bulk of his extension was up-front, w/ most of the money paid in the first 2 years (2008 and 2009) and tied into incentives which he is not meeting. Point is, I think we have time even after that roster bonus is paid.

Harris' contract info 6/19/2008: Signed a four-year, $40 million contract extension through 2012. The deal contains $18 million guaranteed, including a $6.5 million signing bonus and a $3.5 million roster bonus in the first year. Another $2 million is available through incentives. 2009: $620,000 (+ $6.67 million roster bonus due 2/27), 2010: $1.235 million (+ $2.5 million roster bonus due in June), 2011: $2.3125 million, 2012: $2.5 million, 2013: Free Agent. Cap charge: $9.09 million (2009). The bulk of that extension money has either already been paid to him in the form of $6.67 roster bonus paid this year and $3.5m roster bonus last year. Further, he received his $6.5m SB upon signing. Next year, he is due another roster bonus, but is it far smaller, $2.5m). As he has not gone to the pro bowl (part of his incentives) he isn't going to have a lot of "other" money coming his way. Last year and this year, the first two years of his extension, were the expensive ones. The next two years are relatively inexpensive.

Is that cap charge? I really didn't think he was supposed to hit our cap for so much each year. I thought he had signed a pretty team friendly contract. Look. I think Harris is an idiot. At the same time, even this year, I think the DL plays better w/ him that w/o. Before we simply get rid of him, I would like to see what a new coaching staff might get out of him. If you have a lazy player who underperformes, I don't think Lovie is the sort of coach that inspires him. But we could be adding the sort of coach who lights a fire under Harris, or others, arces, and thus Harris could become a much better player again.

Wale is a solid, all around DE. One thing I have noticed this year is his play against the run. Also, he seems to so often make a lot of "smart plays". He is usually the one that sniffs out a screen, or the one that blows up a reverse. Those sort of things. Wale came to us after a 15 sack season. Expectations were as high as you can get. He never lived up to those expectations, but has in fact been a very solid, all around DE. While more gifted, in many ways, I would compare him to Phillip Daniels. If you look at Daniels body of work over the years, he was in fact a very solid DE for us. He was awesome against the run, and while he was never an edge rusher, did in fact post decent sack numbers, while playing in a system not friendly at all to DL sacks. Anyway, if not for the expectations after his signing, I think he would have been viewed differently, as I feel about Wale. Think about Alex Brown. Sorry, but Brown has never been more than average to slighly above average, and yet he is rarely thought of negatively. IMHO, that is because he was a 4th round pick that came w/ minimal expectations. If Alex Brown were a 1st round pick, he would be as villified as Wale, Harris and others.

Far more disgusting thing Harris said, "We had a rough week. I'm going to use that as an excuse," Harris said. "I think that does have something to do with it. ... Dude, it threw my whole week off, my preparation. I was out of sync." That is just pathetic. As bad as Cutler played, it wasn't stupid enough to say the weather or delays were a factor. Sure, it is likely the travel issues were in fact a factor. You hear all the time about schedules and routines, and how any changes in those routines can affect a player, but few players are stupid enough to use such as an excuse.

Yea, I liked Grimm as well back then. Like how I feel about building up the OL, I too like the idea of OL coaches rising up the ranks. Most OL coaches simply have the demeanor I love. As for Gibbs, I would have loved to get him too, but there was a bit mroe too it. He retired, was out for a year, and then joined Houston, but there was much in Houston to pull him out of retirement that we didn't posses. Houston has Kubiak, who was the OC in Denver when Gibbs was the OL coach, and further, Houston hired Alex Gibbs son to run, I think, the secondary, so he had an opportunity to work w/ his son. Point is, he had a lot of reason to come out of retirement w/ Houston that just was not there w/ us. Now, if you are going back to when he left Denver, before picking up w/ Atlanta, that is another story, but I really don't recall the specifics of that.

You don't get blown-out as much as the Bears have and keep a coach. Absolutely, no way, no how. This team has quit and I expect far more comments ripping the coaching staff to come from players in the up-coming week. Honestly not sure I expect this. The players like Lovie. Lovie runs a player friendly environment, and none want a coach like Cowher coming in and making their lives hell. Even now, as I read comments from Kreutz, Briggs and others, they seem to point more to Angelo than to Lovie.

Jamar Williams is a FA and he wont' be back because he never got an opportunity. I think he should be starting on the outside with Briggs playing in the middle. I wanted to see what Briggs could do there because it would allow the Bears to play Williams on the outside and Roach which would be a pretty athletic linebacking corp and open up the possibilities of moving Urlacher for a 2nd round pick. Got it. If the CBA is not signed, then Williams is a RFA though. I would also have liked to see Briggs in the middle. If Briggs could have played MLB and Williams WLB, then it could have put us in a position to deal Urlacher. Tommie Harris needs to go because he makes a lot of money, runs his mouth like an idiot, and quite frankly isn't very good. He's the typical make excuse type of guy and that attitude doesn't belong on the Bears. Money will be a big factor, but I was under the impression his contract, moving forward, was not that big. I thought we gave him a chunk up-front in the form of a roster bonus, thus not spread out, and also tied a bunch to incentives, which he will not reach.

Based on what? I remember well in the offseason. He was our biggest FA for the defense. He was a great DL coach that just couldn't be a HC. Now back on the DL, our guys would look so much better. Young players would develop and veterans would get back to form. Heck, I even bought into the hype. But what has he done. What players have improved under Marinelli? Harrison, Anderson and Gilbert were a trio of DL that I read a lot about w/ regard to Marinelli developing. I have seen little to do development from any. Harris too was a player who Marinelli was supposed to make look like Warren Sapp, but Harris has been so bad many bear fans want him gone. I honestly can not think of a single DL that has improved this year. Now, that may not all be on Marinelli, but at the same time, I don't see why any would think he has done a good job or think he should stick.

Mendy was taken in the 1st round, w/ the 23rd pick. In order to have gotten him, we would have had to not draft Williams in the 1st. Now, I realize that would be fine w/ most, but if we are going to do "shoulda, coulda, woulda", I would rather go back and draft Albert or Otah, two OTs taken shortly after our pick (before Mendy). Fix the damn OL first.

Coaching Staff: Everyone but Dave Toub/Rod Marinelli. Toub/Marinelli may go because of what happens but I think whomever the Bears bring in will consider keeping those two individuals. I don't see any reason Marinielli should be excluded. There was so much hype, but who on our DL has looked improved? I am not necessarily putting it all on him, but I see nothing that he has done positive to keep a job when all others are fired. Players: Tommie Harris I go back and forth on him. I don't know that I would simply cut him, but I would not look at him the same either. I would like to see what Harris would do if (a) we had a different coach and scheme and ( he was rotated more. Adewale Ogunleye He is a FA anyway, and simply will not be re-signed. Brian Urlacher I would not get rid of him. He isn't the player he once was, but is still a damn good LB, and one that puts the entire D playing at a higher level. Jason McKie Preaching to the choir. Orlando Pace Hell yes. Roberto Garza Why? I have never been a big Garza fan, but he has probably been our best starter this year. Now, I realize that isn't saying much, but when you have so many holes on the OL to fill, does it make sense to get rid of one of the few non-holes. I would love to replace him one day, but we have bigger holes to fill first. Craig Steltz He's still on the team? Hunter Hillmeyer I have no problem with Hilly. Frankly, I would rather keep him and keep our LB corp intact and work to fix other areas. Mark Anderson FA anyway, and gone. Maybe: Kreutz I personally would have no problem with this, but feel our OL has too many holes to deal w/ all at once. I think Kreutz will be in his final year, and will most likely just play it out. Jamar Williams Huh? Why? He is cheap and has played well when given a chance. Why in the world would you get rid of him.

Az, I know you love you think all fans are just plain stupid, but do you feel the same about Brian Billick. Announcing the game, he too said he just didn't understand our play calls near the goal line. He too said he predicted playaction. After we ran our play, he said he just didn't understand stand the playcall and flat out called out Turner. What Jason said is the same thing a former OC and HC announcing the game said. I personally do not think it takes a former NFL HC to see this, but doesn't Billick's comments really put into question your calling out Jason as you did.

You're actually helping make my point: Adams was a 1st-round pick, didn't perform up to expectations, and then got traded for a 2nd, based on his youth and the fact that he still has a lot of unfulfilled potential. That's almost exactly what I'm projecting for Olsen, and Olsen has come MUCH closer to living up to his draft status since he came into the league. So how does that make it unlikely that Olsen goes for a 2nd and a Day 2 pick? Adams was also a top 5 pick, while Olsen fell to the 2nd to last pick of the 1st round. There is a big difference here. I would further point out that DEs (especially those w/ pass rushing potential) are considered a far higher premium than otherwise. Yeah, Angelo was stupid in the Gaines Adams trade. Another GM wouldn't have to be stupid to give up a 2nd and a later pick for Olsen, though: Huh? JA gave up a 2nd round pick for a DE who went top 5 a couple years ago, and was stupid, but a GM that gives up a 2nd AND later pick for Olsen, who went 2nd from last in the 1st would not be? look at the Braylon Edwards trade, which was widely considered a pretty smart move for the Jets. Braylon's another former high pick, MUCH more of a rehabilitation project than Olsen, and he went for a 3rd, a 5th, and two young players who are now starting in Cleveland. If Rex Ryan gave up two picks AND two decent players for the chance that he could coach Braylon out of his drops, don't you think somebody would send something comparable for the chance that Olsen could continue getting better as a blocker? Again, you try to compare a top 5 pick to the 31st pick. However you want to think about it, 30 teams could have had Olsen and passed, but in Edwards and Adams, you have top 5 pick players, and thus many teams may have wanted them but couldn't get them. Also have to point out two further things. One, you say NY sent two players who are starting, but those two were at the bottom of the Jets 53 man roster and were special teams guys. The main reason they are starters for Cle is because Cle sucks. Also, Edwards may come w/ some red flags (character/drops), but the reality is, he also had about 80 catches for 1,300 yards and 16 scores on a bad offense. Look. I love that we drafted Olsen and that we have him today. I just question the value you put on him if we put him on the block, so to speak. Is is possible a team would send us a 2nd for him? Sure. Just like w/ the Adams trade, the NFL is full is sucker GMs. But I think you would find his value to be considered far closer to a 3rd than a 2nd, much less 2nd plus another pick. As fans, we always tend to over-value our own. I'm not saying we should be trying to move Olsen. I think he's a guy we can build around and continue to develop, the same as Hester. But with the kind of talent deficit the Bears have right now, there are very few guys on the roster who I'd call untouchable. If somebody wanted to offer Olsen's fair value on the trade market, the Bears front office would have to at least consider it. I would only trade Olsen if another team offered well above "fair value". Yes, we are lacking draft picks and have no shortage of holes, but if we trade Olsen, IMHO, we simply create another hole.

Yeah, I could see Knox eventually being a DeSean Jackson type of player down the line: he makes great use of his vertical speed, and he has shown some nice instincts for a rookie receiver. Like Jackson, he's pretty undersized, but it doesn't seem to matter, because defensive backs have to play so far off of him. In a year or so, I think our receiver corps could compare pretty well to a group like Philly's: no real #1 and no particularly big receivers, but a bunch of smaller, faster guys who are tough to cover one-on-one and a QB who can buy time with his feet and spread the ball around. While I am not saying the comparison doesn't work, I am not sure I would call Knox undersized. He may tend to the lighter side, but he is 6'. Jackson is 5'10, though I think he must have been wearing shoes when they measured him. I don't know what sort of WR Knox will end up, but I see the overall team comparison w/ Phily. While not comparing the players fully, but more in general: Jackson and Maclin could be similar to Knox and Hester. Celek similar to Olsen. And Westbrook or McCoy can be similar to Forte. But for this to happen, we need to build up the OL. If the OL can't protect, WRs will not have time to run downfield routes and Cutler will be forced to throw short. I think you can be successful with that kind of group: look at the pair of wideouts Dan Marino had - Mark Duper and Mark Clayton were both like 5'9", but they were fast as hell and very productive for the Dolphins. While I am not arguing that an offense w/ smaller/quicker WRs can work, I would say I can't go along w/ using the Marino led Phins as an example. The game was different back then. That was before WRs got big. If you had a WR 6', he was considered pretty big. If you had a taller WR, he was also slow as hell. Today, 6' is considered more than norm than not, while teams also have more and more 6'3, 6'4 and even above that at WR. So I just can't use the older teams as an example when the standard then was so different. 5'9 was small, even back then, but not nearly as ridiculous as it would seem today.

What bugs the hell out of me as much as anything are two thoughts. One. Our defense was getting decimated, and yet all Urlacher's negative comments seemed to attack the offense. I am not saying the offense played well, but Urlacher was the leader of the defense. If he was going to comment on any area, I would think it should have been the defense. Two, with that said, he really should have just kept his mouth shut. Mike Brown was a true leader for this team. I remember at one point, after injuries began to hurt his career, Brown talked about how he didn't feel he was in a position to be a leader anymore when he wasn't on the field. He had the right of it. If you are not on the field, you should just shut up and not rip those who are. Really, where the one decision I think urlacher should be most ripped for was allowing a media person to spend the day (or however many) with him. If he had not allowed that, and only watched the game w/ friends, there would be no story here. But instead, Urlacher appears to have missed the spotlight being hurt, and by allowing the media into his home, put himself into a position that ended poorly.

That is why I go back to coaching so often. As you mention, it is a joke (and Aikman and others pointed this out over and over again) how we blitz and intent to pressure the QB, but also give the QB an easy out w/ very soft coverage. Another aspect that drives me nuts and is scheme inconsistent is how we play the slant. The way our scheme is "supposed" to work is you have the CB play and take away the outside/sideline, and attempt to "push" the WR inside where the safety and LBs are expected to help. If the WR runs a short slant, the idea is your LB (usually MLB) is there to blow up the play. If the WR runs a deeper slant, the S is there to provide help. But we play our LB on top of the LOS, and thus they are out of position to help on the slant routes. So even when the WR does what he is supposed to do, the LB is out of position to help and thus the WR not ony makes an easy catch, but has space to pickup YAC. I would use what happened to Williams playing LT when he gave up the sack as an example for the above as well. Per all sources, Williams was supposed to have inside chip block help, thus he focuses on taking away the outside. But on the play, the RB didn't come over in time to get a chip, and thus Williams appeared to simply get beat. He essentially did what he was supposed to do, but due to the failure of another assignment, he got beat. That is similar to the above. If the CB takes away the outside and pushes the WR inside, only to have the WR make a wide open slant reception and pickup yards after the catch, we blame the WR, but often the play happens due to the LB not being where he is supposed to be. And I would argue the LB is not there because of how our coaches force him to do that dumbarce fake blitz. Our coach is riddles w/ inconsistent play calls, and why I have always felt coaching was our key problem.

Agreed, and I think you have to look at more than just Hester and Olsen. Bennett barely got on the field last year, but now has 45 catches for 600 yards, and projects to have 60-800. That is not bad for his first year playing. And how about Knox. He has 36 for 415 and projects to have about 50-550. When was the last time we had a rookie Wrs get half that production. I am not sure how much I would say Olsen has really developed this year beyond last, but I would argue we have seen pretty solid development from Hester, Bennett and Knox. In 2005, only one WR had more than 40 catches (Moose 64). 2nd was Gage w/ 31. In 2006, Moose had 60 and Berrian 50. In 2007, Moose had 71, and the only other to have 50 was AP. In 2008, a RB led w/ 60, while two others (Hester/Olsen) just barely cracked 50. This year, we have 3 receivers (Hester, Bennett and Olsen) all on pace to have over 60 catches). That is truly unique for this team. We have struggled to see development from our WRs over the years, and that is one area I think we can really credit Cutler.

Thank you. Even now, I wear my Bears coat w/ pride (also because it is my only heavy coat and its damn cold here, at least by our standards). But I have zero problem wearing my "colors". I may not like what the team is doing, but I would never say I am embarrased or would stop watching the team. One thing that makes me absolutely sick here in Dallas is the number of bandwagon fans. I swear when the team isn't winning, it is rare to see a Cowboy jersey or shirt, but suddenly when they are winning, you see their colors everywhere. At the bar I go to, which has basically become an NFC North bar as a huge host a bear and Viking fans watch games, along w/ some GB and Det fans, there is a lot of hate going on, as you can imagine. I do not even want a Viqueen fan coming over to give positive feedback. I hate them. The only other team fan I am cool w/ is a Det fan who has continued to watch and follow his team, no matter how bad it gets.

I don't necessarily like the Adams move, since I wanted OL, FS or maybe WR with that pick. But I will not judge it as a bust until this time next year. As stated above, we "drafted" a DE with that pick. I am not calling it a bust at this point, but I do think it fair to say this move is not looking good. I understand your logic, but Adams is not a draft pick. He is not a rookie. He is now a veteran (though still young) player, and thus I think it fair to have greater expectations earlier on. No, it may be a bit much to expect him to join a team mid-seaon and immediately win a starting job. At the same time, we are talking about a player who was play, and thus in game shape. He came from a similar scheme that uses similar terminology and sets. I think there absolutely is reason to have expected him to come in an contribute. Now only has he failed to contribute, he has failed to even show a glimmer of flash to evidence why we gave up a 7th, much less a 2nd round pick for him. BTW, Schaeffer getting cut by the Browns had more to do with money than skill. They saved money by getting St. Clair instead. While I agree it was about money, it was also about skill. Simply put, the team didn't believe Schaffer was as good as the contract he signed some years earlier. The team did save about $1.5m in cap space overall, but also had to eat $4.5m in the process. Then, when you factor they signed St. Clair, they in fact saved nothing, as they were still on the hook (looking at the books) for the same money allocated to the RT position. So while his release did factor money, talent was the greater factor. At the end of the day, they saved little to nothing in his release, and felt St. Clair was better at RT than Schaffer, which IMHO, is a pretty damning statement. How has he been in Cleveland? Anyone know? Until last night, I had not watched a Cle game, but I do not believe their OL in general has played well. I have no idea how much of their OL woes have had to do w/ St. Clair, but last night, I don't think he looked very good. He had one pretty bad holding penalty to prevent a sack, and I think may have had more. He was playing Pitt though.

Conner, What I don't think you are really taking into consideration is that biggs now has a new job/employer. With his new employeer, with I think his very first writing, he makes the statement I highlighted. Yes, it is one statement in one article. But it is also an inredibly shocking statement in his first article for his new employeer w/ his new job. I am not reaching out for conclusions here, but I do believe this something worth watching. Biggs has been someone I enjoyed reading at the Times, but he is now with the Trib. Often you see writers who seem to be specialized antagonist or protaganists for the trib. After reading this article, I think it worth point out and watching to see if Biggs is a new protaganist for the Bears on the Trib.

I mostly agree. While I would love to see him improve as a blocker, that isn't key. I could be wrong, but I do not believe Gates is considered a great blocker. But if Olsen is not going to be a great, or even acceptable, blocker, then he needs to play at a MUCH higher level as a receiver. Sure, some of it can be blamed on coaching, scheme, QB, whatever. But Olsen has to share a chunk of the blame as well. Olsen simply has not developed this year the way many expected, and a big part of that is on him. He has dropped far too many balls. Also, he just doesn't seem to do a good job of getting open. Often when he catches the ball, you see a defender right there. Much of this I think will come, but again, if he isn't going to be a good blocker, than he needs to really jack it up as a receiver. I said earlier that I didn't think Gates was an effective blocker, but right now, there is a massive difference between Olsen and Gates. If Olsen is going to be one dimensional, than that one dimension needs to see a huge improvement. One more thing on Olsen. I could far more easily handle his not being a great blocker if he simply showed more toughness. That is probably the top thing that bugs the hell out of me about Olsen. I want to see more fight. I do not want to see 200lb DBs getting higher, or fighting harder, for the ball. When a DB goes to tackle him, he should be making them pay. Maybe we can get Ditka to come in and work w/ Olsen in the offseason. Just let Ditka to instill a mean streak into him.

You mention route running maybe being the last thing in his development. I think it is more upstairs that not only will be the last thing to develop, if it does, but the top hurdle that prevents him from being an upper tier WR. Understand, I am not calling him stupid. But I don't think he is super football smart. Nor do I think he has the instincts of a WR. When you talk about elite WRs, most are pretty damn football smart. They can recognize coverage and alter their route in the same way a QB reads it. I just don't think Hester will ever be a smart WR, thus I don't think he will ever be a truly consistent WR. I think he can be a dangerous WRs, and a playmaker for us, but I just don't see him being the sort of WR the QB can truly rely on to (a) get open ( be where he is supposed to be and © catch the ball. That doesn't mean he can't put up 1,000 yards or that he can't be a dangerous part of our offense. I said prior to the season I think Hester can be the sort to have 66 or so catches, but for 15+ ypc, and thus solid total yardage totals. I do not however see him being the sort to catch 90+ passes and be the #1 WR a QB can look to or count on. In a perfect world, what I would love to see is Knox develop into a #1 WR. For the record, I am not saying Fitz or Moss, but simply the #1 read in our offense. Knox has proven both instincts and a quick ability to learn in having such an immediate impact as a rookie. Put Knox on one side and Bennett, who has started to really develop into a nice #2, possession WR, on the other. Put Hester back in the slot where I think he is most dangerous. While Hester may struggle to beat #1 CBs, I think he could really do damage against opponents nickel DBs. Then you put Olsen at TE, and you have a pretty damn dangerous group of weapons for Cutler to work with. Of course, this all depends on fixing the OL, and giving Cutler time in the pocket and the WRs time to run routes, but that is another story.

You say he was considered a solid 1st round value, so why would nobody in the NFL be willing to offer up more than a 4th. While I think his value higher than that, I would spin the question the other way. Leading up to the draft, I agree he was considered a 1st round pick. Expectations were pretty darn high for the kid, and many pointed to the likes of Gates, Gonzo, etc when talking about his receiving potential. His blocking ability wasn't really tested in Miami, and was thus either considered an unknown or negative. What has he done since the draft to not only validate, but improve on, that status? He didn't breakout as a rookie, as many expected. In his 2nd year, he did more, but still was the #2 TE and not showing off that explosive ability most expected. That leads us to this year. This has been a very mediocre season for him, and I would say this in just about every facet. As a receiver, he has great speed and size, but: His route running isn't great, and he doesn't often separate himself from the defender. He has shown a tendency toward the drop, often on easy catches. While he has size, he doesn't seem to effectively utilize that size. Too often I have seen smaller DBs defend him as he doesn't do a good job of either (a) shielding the defender or ( going up and getting the ball at its highest point. And beyond the receiving, the blocking was more an unknown in the draft, but he has proven pretty dang bad in that area. Not only that, but in his 3rd year, he has shown little sign of improvement. I would add that he plays soft. He might have 30-50lbs on a guy coming at him, but he still tends to allow the other guy to win the battle. He went at the end of the 1st round, and after three years, I think we are still looking at him more based on potential than production. I don't think you give up big for a player like that. You mention Shockey, but two things. One, he isn't just a "somewhat" better blocker than Olsen. He is a FAR better blocker than Olsen. Shockey is in fact a pretty damn solid blocker. In NY, they often compared him to Bavaro. Shockey was the sort to not just get in your way, but to attempt to drive you through the gound all the way to China. Also, most around the league really questioned NO sending so much for Shockey. Sure, you can always hope a team makes a bad call for us, but I don't think you can expect it. I think his value is better than a 4th, but do not agree his value is worth either a 1st, or a 2nd and an additional pick. I think it possible you could get a 2nd round pick for him, though I think a 3rd is most likely. With that said, I would not trade Olsen. We need draft picks, sure, but we also need weapons for Cutler. If we traded away Olsen, we would be creating a hole. I have made this argument before. Olsen is the only player on our offense opponents game plan for, and proof of that is in opponents top CB covering him. If anyone worried about our WRs, do you think Woodson would cover Olsen? No.

Sure, it would only hide the problems. Its like cleaning a carpet that needs to be replaced. The stains will not be seen initially, but eventually will surface again. But while this is not ideal, you are still better off cleaning your carpet rather than doing nothing. Lets say we do as I discussed. Again, while not ideal, it could show: - Adding a solid OC and OL coach could be huge for Cutler, our franchise QB, and the OL, which the entire offense is dependant on. Not to mention that we have several young OL that would benefit. The entire team problem may not be fixed, but these moves could go a long way toward fixing one side of the ball, and w/ Cutler and Williams, you have two potential franchise cornerstones that would benefit. - Also, go back to the year we went to the SB. While Rivera was under Lovie, he did more to mix the D up, and players really surged. While I am not saying we would again have a dominant D, at the same time, it could be improved. An improved D paired w/ the improved O could lead to many good things.