nfoligno

Honestly, I am not sure how much the cover two is a good scheme even in general. Back in the day, TB ran the cover two and since then, many have tried to copy it. Further, many of the assistant coaches from those TB teams have moved on to higher positions, thus bringing the scheme with them. But have any replicated the success of those TB teams? I personally believe those TB teams were such that they would have thrived w/ or w/o the tampa 2. If the '85 bears had not used the 46, wouldn't they have still be great? TB dominated, IMHO, more due simply to the talent they had rather than the scheme that talent played in. Further, even if the scheme as part of it, I would argue it was a newer scheme, and thus it took teams longer to counter it. That is also harder to do w/ a little used scheme. Like the 3-4. It is hard to be good against it when so few teams run it, and thus you just don't practice playing it as much. But as more teams have moved to the 3-4, more offenses have gotten better at compensating. For the recrod, I realize TB did not invent the cover two, but it was not used for some time, and when they used it, few others did. Point is, I just don't think the cover two is an effective scheme. you can say it works if you have the right parts, but I would argue (a) the same can be said of any scheme, and good coaching adapts a scheme to talent, not the other way around and ( if you had the perfect players for the scheme, you would be effective running most any scheme, as you simply would have a defense loaded w/ talent, key in which would be pass rushers. Pretty much any scheme works if you have multiple good to great pass rushers. Back to us, I agree that we get totally picked apart when we run the cover two. For me, this is a combo of: (a) poor personnel to run the scheme - We don't have the DT, MLB or the FS to run this scheme, much less the rest. ( pass rush combined w/ soft coverage - When you don't have elite pass rushers, you only compound the problem by playing as soft of coverage as we do. Thus, WRs find huge openings to make plays. Further, against any zone coverage, if the QB has time in the pocket, holes can be found in the zones. © adapting - I simply believe OCs have better learned how to not only beat, but to absolutely exploit, the cover two.

Frankly, even when we have not put the extra man in the box, we are not often in cover two. A Sun Times article pointed out how we really are not in the cover two more than maybe 35-40% of the time. What was truly damning though IMHO was that the majority of the time we have the opponent in 3rd and long, we move into the cover two. Our D may play well on 1st and 2nd down using one scheme, but always seems to shift into cover two on 3rd and long. When you then look at our being the worst 3rd down defense in the NFL, I think it really speaks ill of the scheme. As for when we have used an 8 man box, honestly, I think that has more to do w/ our opponent. When you play Stl, you game plan S.jackson. When you play SF, you game plan Gore. Teams that are one dimension on the rushing side are about the only ones we are capable of stopping (not counting the likes of Cle, which can't do anything well). As bad as we are, when facing a team that can only run the ball, we can look good. If a team is one dimensional on the passing side, we still get killed. Example would be how Az came into their game against us so bad in terms of rushing that all-time futility records were discussed. But in that game, we devoted so much to defending the pass (which we still couldn't do) that we gave up a ton of rushing yards as well. Teams that can run AND pass? No chance. My point here is, while our D has looked better when putting an 8th in the box, I would argue that was more due to who we played. If we play an 8th in the box against GB, Rodgers would have a field day.

I believe Turner and Harry leaving are not only possible, but likely. There has to be a scapegoat after a season like this. If it isn't going to be JA or Lovie, then it has to be Turner, and I think Harry goes w/ Turner. I also think making Lovie hire a DC is not only possible, but likely. What I think far more questionable is who that DC is. It would not shock me if we simply promoted Marinelli to the DC spot. So filling the empty DC spot w/ someone I think likely, but what I would call "hopeful" is that we fill that spot w/ a non-cover two DC.

Yes, it was Briggs. I liked Briggs as a writer for the Sun times. I read in the Trib the other day that for some reason (seemed fairly mysterious) he very suddenly left the Times and the Trib very quickly hired him on. I think Briggs is a good enough beat writer. Most media does this, but I think the Trib as much or more than others, tends to assign a certain role/personality to their writers. I have no proof, but I think numerous writer's job is to actually be an attack dog or apologist. After reading this piece, I can only hope Briggs was not hired on and told to be some glass half full writer, because if so, he just lost all cred.

Assuming JA and Lovie are kept, what hope is there? First, we replace Turner. I think that is the one which most expect to happen, and one I think few bear fans would disagree with. Despite hope and prayer, Shanny is not going to take an OC job, even one w/ a good chance to become HC in a year. Frankly, I am not sure we are likely to get much by way of proven coaching w/ a HC so on the hot seat. If Houston continues to struggle, Kubiak could be let go, and he would be a very interesting candidate. Weis as often been talked about, as well as the OC from USC who formerly worked w/ Cutler in Denver. Point is, there are potential solid alternatives out there, and while a change at OC may not be enough, it would help. Second, I think if both JA and Lovie are kept, JA will push hard to add a DC. Now, while I think this aspect likely, what I am "hoping" for is JA pushes Lovie to get away from the cover two yes men. I am not saying we need to go to a 3-4. Nor am I saying we need to add a DC Lovie neither likes (Washington situation) or have a situation where Lovie has not say. If Lovie is still the HC, he still has a say. But like when we added Rivera, get a DC that is outside Lovie's box. Get a DC who has a base of knowledge greater than with just the cover two. Lovie can still have a say on the defense, but make sure the DC has some say as well and is allowed to change things up more. Third, we replaced the bulk of our defensive staff last year. Do similar this year. Harry needs to go. I believe Harry was a Turner boy, so if Turner is gone, this one could fall into the likely category. A dream here would be, if Kubiak is canned along w/ his staff, to get Alex Gibbs. When it comes to the OL, few match Gibbs. He was the Ol coach for Denver ('95-'03). He worked for a couple years helping Atlanta build up what has become a very good OL, and signed on w/ Kubiak in Houston last year. On the hype meter, think when we signed Marinelli to coach the DL, but Gibbs actually got results as Houston's OL was no longer the weak spot on their team. Gibbs would be the dream, but the point is to get an OL coach that can help this unit. I would love to see Drake go as well, but frankly, I think Drake is more a Lovie guy than Turner guy, and thus not as likely to go, especially w/ the development of a rookie (Knox) and 2nd year WR (Bennett). So on the assumption we have to keep JA and Lovie, (1) Replace Turner (2) Add DC not of Cover Two mold (3) Replace OL coach I am not saying these moves would make us great, and they are a far cry from what I want, but if my hands are tied behind my back (keeping JA and Lovie) I think these moves would help move us in the right direction.

Reading a Trib article talking about what to do if/when Pace is healthy. Article mostly seems to point to the greater need of finding out whether Williams is their LT or not, but in reading the article, Briggs makes the following comment. While he has been maligned for his play much of the season, he held up blocking the Vikings' Jared Allen solo before being hurt. I read that and just froze. To say he blocked Jared Allen solo is equal to saying, hey, Jonathan Quinn started at QB. Just because you point out a situation a player was in doesn't factor how they played. Yes, we did put Pace on Allen solo (still can't figure that one out) but Allen abused Pace all day. When Pace left w/ injury, I think most initially thought we benched him because he was playing so poorly. If Pace was simply beat by Allen, that would be one thing. Allen has been a monster all year, and pretty much every other sane team out there double teams him. But Pace has been equally bad regardless of who is lined up against him. Simply put. Pace is done. We can keep him on the roster as a sign of respect to the future hall of famer, but I would be more disgusted w/ our staff than I think I ever have been if we re-insert him at LT, and move Williams back to RT.

The more I think about it, the more I believe JA and Lovie are tied together. Lets say JA gives Lovie enough rope, Lovie continues to lose the team, and our ownership eats his contract and fires him at the end of the season. Lets say we keep JA and hire a new coach. Well, if JA continues to fail in adding talent, he isn't going to see the end of his contract, but what then. Usually when a new GM is hired, he is allowed to hire his own HC. Remember the problem when JA was stuck w/ Jauron? What is the point of hiring a new coach and keeping your GM if you are even questioning the GM now. If you think you even might be looking to replace JA in the next year or two, it doesn't make sense to fire Lovie and add a new HC now. The problem is, I fear this line of logic could keep both JA and Lovie around for another year.

Actually you are. How does he know Cutler is much better than he's looked? Pro Bowl stamp. How did he so undervalue Orton playing injured with a mediocre supporting cast? No Pro Bowl stamp. Although I think you greatly overestimate how down JA was on Orton, nevertheless, if that's your assumption, then I think just it proves my point. Only 3 QBs make the pro bowl, right? That doesn't mean a QB has to be in the pro bowl to be considered a franchise, or potential franchise QB. Its not just that JA didn't feel Orton "was" a franchise QB, but that he didn't believe Orton had the potential to be a "franchise QB". Also, you use wordings like "never saw him as a franchise QB" and "he is simply a better QB". If that was all you ever said, nfo, we wouldn't be having this discussion, but that's been your m.o. in responses to me...to color your past statement in a less insulting light and to basically rebut accusations I never even made (a straw man argument). I'm very specifically talking about whether Cutler, and a fifth for Orton, two 1sts, & a third was a good deal considering our terrible OL needs. wrt this discusiion, I don't care if Orton isn't a franchise QB or Cutler is simply better, nor did I ever say otherwise. One. Yes, I believe Cutler is worth what we gave up for him. Two. I disagree when you say it doesn't matter what we would have done w/ the picks, or whether Orton is a franchise QB. That isn't accepting reality. If Angelo had a proven track record of not only drafting OL, but "hitting" when he did, the situation would likely be different. If that were the case, Orton would have looked better, and QB may not have been considered a key need for us. But that isn't reality. Reality is, we lack the ability to put forward an elite OL, and thus the need for a QB who didn't need an elite OL was greater. Further, I think it absolutely matters what the GM of our team believes. If the GM of our team is not a fan of our QB, and further states that, "its all about the QB" then I think it very likely we would use a high pick, likely a 1st round pick, on a QB. If you are doing that, then (a) Orton value to the bears is less and ( one of the two #1s you are giving up would have been used on a QB anyway. You can argue this doesn't matter, but I believe it does. I am sure you want to argue Cutler wasn't worth 2 1st round OL, which we could have drafted, but I just don't think that is realistic. I think it far more realistic to ask whether Cutler was worth a 1st round WR and a 1st round QB, which is what I think we would have done w/ those two picks. I think Cutler is absolutely worth more. I know you believe otherwise, but I am giving you my point of view. Angelo would have used a 1st round pick on a QB, and thus the value of that pick is less in my mind. Ok, that one made me laugh. A guy with an injured and surgically ravaged arm who is infamous for being noodle armed? This is exactly the type of stuff I'm talking about, Nfo. Apparently in your mind that was showing that you are fair minded? It doesn't come off that way to others...unless that was tongue in cheek. I hope so. This was regarding Pennington. For the record, I was thinking of Pennington w/o any injuries. Pennington was never considered to have a great arm, but frankly, I always disagreed w/ the noodle-arm stuff. Didn't Pennington play w/ Moss in college, and didn't Moss catch plenty of deep balls? I am sorry, but you want to talk about fair minded and how I come off. Over the years, when listening to ESPN, Fox Sports, CNNSI, NFL Network, whoever you want, have any talked about Orton as having gream arm strength? Not that I recall. In fact, I recall many who speak to the opposite. I often enough defended Orton, as I never felt his arm was nearly as weak as others argued. I think Orton has average arm strength. Not weak, but not strong either. Cutler is considered to have maybe the strongest arm in the NFL, but for some reason, you seem to believe they are equal, and any who doesn't think Orton has equal arm strength is being negative. Come on man. Orton can throw a deep ball, but he does so w/ a greater level of arc, and the more arc, the less accuracy. Cutler, and our own WRs have talked about this, damn near throws a 40 yard pass on a rope. I read a columnists column the other day where he non-chalantly tossed off that Cutler's boring numbers last week were, sure, the sort of thing you get from typical, boring Orton, but not good enough. I thought "yeah right", and sure enough, Orton has never thrown for single digit completions (Cutler's had 8...and we won) all season, and the one time he threw for as little as 11, he also had 2 TDs & no picks, 50 more passing yards and a 134 QB rating. In this very thread someone referred to Orton as nothing more than a checkdown QB (I forget the actual words used). Never mind the fact that Orton is hitting 40+% of his passes from both 20-30 yards out and 30-40 yards out on 29 pass atempts in those regions compared to Cutler's 34. I'm not being some conspiracy theorist here. People really do have distorted ideas. Sorry, but just throwing out these numbers ignores the offensive challenges each faces. It is a little tougher to throw a downfield pass w/ accuracy when you have a DE in your face (Cutler) compared to when you have enough time in the pocket to tie your shoes. It is also not considering that Orton has a playmaker like Marshall, who can really go up and get the ball, while Cutler has less developed WRs who have enough trouble catching balls that hit their hands, when they are open, let alone jump balls when covered. And it doesn't take into consideration that Orton benefits from a solid ground game, preventing teams from focusing too much on one area, while we have the worst rushing attack in the NFL, and defenses don't have to stack the box or worry about the run. One more thing about Orton's numbers. You excuse his latter part of the season last year due to coming back from injury too soon, but what is the reason for his big drop in numbers in the 2nd half of the season this year. Many analyists say that once DCs got film on Orton and Denver's scheme, they were able to adapt and deal w/ it better, and a key was taking away the underneath patterns which hurt Orton's overall game. He wasn't able to consistently hit deep, and w/o the shorter patterns, Denver simply wasn't effective. In his first 6 games, Cutler had 8 TDs and 1 pick. He put up solid yards each game, w/ his only lower yardage game being a blowout win. In his last 6 games, Cutler has 5 TDs and 6 picks. He has broken 200 yards only twice, and his passer rating has dropped as well. Point here is honestly not to bash Orton, but you continue to point out how great he looks in Denver, but his star is not nearly what it was earlier in the season.

First, I understand the logic that Angelo wouldn't have carried out due diligence with respect to OL drafting or wouldn't have had the wisdom to support Orton. But the nature of the question here is what should JA have done, so that's not a particularly interesting argument is it? and "he should have kept Orton and drafted OL" is an appropriate alternative for debate. I'm not sure you want to hang your hat on JAs alleged cluelessness as a basis for your recent Cutler/Orton arguments with me. Especially since your commentary has been well more derogatory than you ever admit when directly replying to me. This very thread...Orton would be a "gaping hole". I didn't have to look far did I? Earlier this season suggesting having Orton rather than Cutler's worst performance as a pro vs. GB wouldn't have won us that game we barely lost. And you made me do it! My point is not to simply "hang my hat on JA" but to use some level of realism w/ what we "should have done" mixed in. It is always nice to talk about a perfect world, but that world doesn't exist. If you want to talk about the "what ifs" of keeping Orton and the picks, I think you also have to consider what would have been likely if we had done that. I simply argue that it is not likely we would have addressed the OL different than we did, and thus Orton would be playing behind this OL. http://www.talkbears.com/forums/index.php?...ic=4563&hl= "He simply didn't have the arm to be a legit long ball QB, and thus took fewer chances." Not having the arm to attempt even one deep pass per game on average (Orton had 11 in 15 games) suggests a weak arm my friend. In your defense, you may not have meant it that disparagingly, but they were your words. I believe you said though that I said Orton was a weak armed QB. There is a big difference between saying Orton doesn't have the arm to be a long ball QB and saying he is weak armed. Orton can take shots deep, but no, I do not think he has the arm to do such consistently. When Orton does throw deep, you can see the increased arc on his passes, which a QB lacking a great arm will do. But again, you argued that I said he was a weak armed QB, and I didn't. It is one thing to say a QB doesn't have the arm strength to be a legit long ball passer, and another to say he is weak armed. http://www.talkbears.com/forums/index.php?...ic=5071&hl= "Second, I would say that it is harder to develop a young WR when you lack a good QB. With QBs like Rex, Orton and all the rest of the scrubs we have thrown out there, you need WRs to help prop up the QB..." Again, I don't think you fairly took into account what I said. I was not calling orton a scrub. What I was in fact saying, or meaning to say above, is the rest of the QBs are scrubs. Rather than likes all the QBs like Hutch, Cade, Quinn, etc., I simply lumped them all together in the scrub category. As for the first part, yes, I do believe WRs develop w/ a QB like Cutler more so than they would a QB like Orton. I probably should have said "great" rather than "good". I do think orton is a good QB, but he is simply not great. There were more gems from you, Nfo. Some of them only take going through my past responses to you. I don't know about gems. You said I called Orton weak armed and a scrub, but I don't think even these posts you use prove that. Also, I would argue that while you might be able to find some negative posts, they would not reflect my comments as a whole. I have always supported Orton, especially as Rex was starting. I said all along we were better off w/ Orton. After we traded for Cutler, you can likely find more posts that you will consider negative, but they were only so in a comparative manner. I liked, and still like, Orton. I simply believe Cutler is a superior QB. That is far more a pro on Cutler than a con on Orton. The bottom line is that there was a throng of fans/media breathlessly praising our new savior QB while rewriting history and slagging off Orton to ridiculous extents (I had no problem with the ordinary type of slagging). You were, sure not always, but all too often, part of that. (To anyone) Have your opinions, be ridiculous if you want, you don't even have to eat crow if you'd rather just move on, but don't come back months later and try to sell me that it never happened. When you say things like "I never said Orton isn't a good QB" and "I think I've been pretty consistent in supporting Orton", you're either deluding yourself or lying. Sorry, but this is simply BS. I posted for several years that Orton should (a) be part of a legit competition w/ Rex and ( that Orton should start over Rex. I spoke often about how much better his pocket presence was then Rex. After we added Cutler, yes, I thought we upgraded, and said so often, but that doesn't mean I suddenly hated Orton. Sorry, but if you ask any NFL person, they will tell you Cutler has a much stronger arm. Even our players talked about that. Many players and NFL guys talk about how Cutler can "make all the throws". When did you ever hear anyone say that of Orton. I think you confuse hating Orton w/ liking Cutler. When you talk about "deluding yourself" I would argue that is just what you are doing if you believe Orton would be successful behind this OL, w/ our run game as poor as it is.

Even here in Dallas, the talk is pretty negative. Dallas does not do well in December, and has some really tough games ahead (SD, @ NO, @ Wash and Phily) I think the belief here is they will go 1-3 from this point, and even that one win at Wash will be very tough. Phily and NY both could push ahead of Dallas, leaving them out of both the division lead and wildcard spot.

I'm seeing a lot of bashing of our WRs. Remember, it's very easy to bash the WRs poor production when the OL is screwing up, the RB has a 3.3 yard average, and your QB is leading the league in picks. Understand, I am going to overall agree in general that we can't lay too much at the feet of the WRs, yet at the same time, I would not excuse them either. While I would not say our WRs "are the" problem, I would say they are part of the problem. When WRs are running the wrong route, failing to get sep/open, failing to make the same reads as the QB, failing to get clean/quick release off the LOS....when the WRs fail to play at a high level, they are going to make life for the QB harder. I still believe it is all about the OL. At the same time, if our WRs did a better job of getting open more quickly, Cutler may be able to get rid of the ball faster, which backs these aggressive defenses off our OL, which..... Point is, it all goes together. While the WRs are not THE problem, they are also part of the problem. Watching him on the field, his quickness does get him separation (and he is still very quick), his athleticism absolutely translates (I love his hustle too), and he has much better hands than I ever would have guessed possible two years ago. How long has he been playing the position? I hate to use a loaded word but I can't think of a better one now...don't be myopic about this. If we get to the point where we have a working offense, having a guy like him will become very important. If by some chance Knox is a replacement, it's just dumb luck, not because his qualities are easy to replace. And remember, at this time last year we thought we had a gem in Corey Graham...the year before that it was someone else. To clarify, I agree with everyone saying he's worth more to us at this point than we'd get for a draft pick (unless we can get Dan Snyder in on a bidding war, lol) that we would just have to spend on a WR if we weren't in dire need of OL. In general, I agree. I think too many fans placed unrealistic expectations on Hester. I too said all along that we simply can not expect him to develop so quickly. Rookie WRs enter the NFL more polished at WR than Hester, who was only a part time WR in college. And as he played so many position, he never truly developed at any one. His first year w/ us, he was a DB and return specialist. His 2nd year he was still a return specialist, but given a handfull of plays on offense, but even then it was mostly gimmick. It wasn't until his 3rd year he was truly moved to WR, and thus he is only in his 2nd season as a WR. Frankly, he has developed at this point more than I would have expected, and unlike others, I do not believe he has hit the ceiling in terms of developing at WR. With that said, I do not think he is a #1 WR. But I do not understand the attitude that if he can't develop into a stud #1 we have to get rid of him. W/ a QB like Cutler, you don't just want one quality WR you can count on, but many. Look at NO and most other potent offenses. They have multiple threats. I want to keep Hester because (a) I don't think his value is good enough to warrant trading him and ( I think he can still develop further. Maybe not a sure #1, but a solid WR just the same. W/ our history of weak WRs, I just don't understand the attitude of getting rid of one who does have as much ability as he. Also, I'm not ready to give up on (before we've had a chance to field an offense that can take advantage of it) the idea of Knox, Hester, & Olson all on the field at once causing fits because they're all as fast as it gets at their positions. Heck, I would throw Bennett in there two. I really think Cutler could look excellent (w/ an improved OL) if we had Knox (in his 2nd year) on one side, Bennett on the other, w/ Hester in the slot, and Olsen at TE.

In the end, didn't he do that with Jauron. I a pretty tired right now, but I seem to recall a lot of chatter about Angelo giving Jauron rope to hang himself w/ toward the end.

And Denver would have the top pick in the draft!

Um, I believe that would be nearly a 1% chance, which frankly, I think may be optimistic. But yes, I do expect Lovie to point out that we are not mathmatically eliminated.

Nfo, I agree about Briggs - it'd be a steep dropoff from him to Williams, but I could see somebody giving up a late 1st or early 2nd for him: he's exceedingly durable (missed like 3 or 4 games in his whole career) has made the past 4 Pro Bowls, and is young enough to still have pretty major value. It would suck to lose Briggs, but if somebody offered a 1st, I can't imagine we could afford to say no. There would be a dropoff, but at the same time, in Williams we have a young player w/ upside who may prove to be less of a dropoff than some might otherwise think. But key for me is, I just do not consider Briggs a game changer. When Urlacher goes out, you see a tremendous ripple effect on the defense. He is a player OCs game plan for. I just don't think the same is true of Briggs. I'll throw one more name out there: Greg Olsen. He's young, has a ton of ability, and could attract some serious interest. And for all the reported "chemistry" between Cutler and Olsen, they haven't been a very effective duo on the field. We could bring in a blocking TE (like Gilmore was) for next to nothing, and have Des Clark and Kellen Davis as our main TEs. Olsen's almost in the same category as Briggs: he'd be a big loss, but I think a team like New England (who have a bunch of Day 1 picks and some lousy TEs) could offer enough value for Olsen to make it worth it. First, what would his value be? We took him in the late 1st. Since then, has he even become the player he was expected to be on draft day? I don't think so. I don't think he would net us a 1st. Maybe 2nd, but just as likely a 3rd. Second, I would not make this trade. We need to add weapons for Cutler, not take away. Olsen is a weapon, and often Cutler's favorite. Heck, I would point out that many times, teams put their top CB on Olsen. Imagine how much less our WRs may look if opponents didn't have to factor Olsen. Right now, I think Olsen is the only weapon we have that opponents game plan for, as proven by top CBs playing him.

On O, I think Kreitz could get a 4th... I don't think we could get a 7th for Kreutz. He will be in the final year of a deal, and while I don't have the number, you can bet his base will be pretty high (final year of deals usually are). His play has really gone down hill, and his absense from the pro bowls says more than just we Bear fans see this. Throw in his age and mileage, and I just do not see another team looking to trade for him. If he were a FA, sure, there would be teams that would show interest, but not if they would have to pay him what we will next year and not if they would have to give up a draft pick to get him. On D, I think Tillman also has value. Same with T. Harris. I did mention Harris. I really don't know how much value Tillman has. Not like he was ever a pro bowl CB, and his play has only gone down hill. Add in the injuries and contract, and I just don't think he would have much value in a trade.

I don't think it is a matter of making a decision based on an individual because Cutler asks for him. I think it is a matter of signing a coach that works well with Cutler. Cutler is the player this team needs to build around, both in terms of talent and coaching. You would not, for example, look to sign a run first and often coach when you have a QB like Cutler. You need to find an OC that runs a system that fits Cutler. I don't think you look at Bates because Cutler asks for him, but you look at Bates because (if) Bates appears to be a coach who's system would fit well with Cutler and you believe a coach like that could maximize Cutler's strengths.

While I agree his value a couple years ago was much higher, at the same time, I do not think his value was ever a 1st and 2nd. In fact, I am not sure I would agree we could have even gotten a 1st. I think we may have gotten a 2nd round pick. Even looking back I can't blast the staff for not trading him. While his value has tanked, I think even in hindsight, you have to consider the situation. We were coming off a SB appearance. The team didn't appear to have a vast number of holes, and we did still have draft picks at the time (and FA) to enhance the team. IMHO, we could have continued to improve the team w/o having to trade a young player like Hester. While there is a lot of reasons to try and acquire draft picks today, I am not sure the same can be said then. The reason we have tanked since then, not counting coaching, is poor drafting and FA moves.

Yeah, I guess I wouldn't want us dealing a 3rd for somebody like Roach. I do think we could get some value for one of the OLBs, though and we've got to deal from any position that we can afford to. I think Williams might have more value than Roach as he carries a bit of an unknown factor. When he has had a chance, he has looked good, but playing behind Briggs, has seen few chances. Roach has been seen, and frankly, is average at best. You can find a player Roach's tier in FA pretty easily, w/o giving up a thing. Thats just the thing. Even w/ an "iffy" FA this year, players like Williams and Roach are simply not of such level that you can't get one if FA on the cheap. Those seasons were a long time ago. Burgess did nothing in 2001-2004, had two good years in 2005-2006, then one OK season in 2007, then has done nothing since. I'll give you that Burgess might be overvalued had he been coming off those seasons, but several years later he was still worth a 3rd and a 5th. I think we could definitely get a deal like that done for Brown. But my point on Burgess vs Brown is, when has Brown ever shown he can be that double digit pass rusher. I mean, you talk about Burgess having a "OK" season in '07, but he still had more sacks than Brown posts EVER. Brown has value to us, but when it comes to his value around the league, I just don't see it as being that high. At one point, I think you mentioned maybe re-signing Wale on the cheap if we trade Brown. If you are the GM of another team, would you not rather just sign Wale in FA rather than trade for Brown? I totally agree, it would be taking a step back at that position. But we can afford to take a step back at DE, and we desperately need the help elsewhere. If this were an ordinary year, I'd be singing a different tune, but this is shaping up to be one of the worst free-agency years in memory, unless a new CBA miraculously gets done. We can't count on filling those holes in free agency; we need draft picks. I hear what you are saying, but simply do not see the in-house value. Honestly, I don't think Brown would net us more than a 5th round pick. I don't think we would get anything for Williams or Roach. Even in a weak FA year, teams can get LBs like that for cheap w/o giving up picks in the process. Here is the problem, IMHO. I agree we need picks, but at the same time, I see very few players on the team that have market value for a trade. The couple players who may have value, I just do not know whether it is worth trading them. While we have many needs and need picks, at the same time, trading away some of the minimal quality we have may not make sense. Especially when you consider our drafting history. Players who "could" have some value: Offense: Hester - Not the value he was. I think we might be able to get a 3rd for Hester, but that frankly is on the high side. For a 3rd, I am not sure it is worth it. While I do not ever expect him to become a stud WR, I do believe he has developed this year and could become a very solid to good WR. I am not sure I would expect us to see better value from our 3rd round pick than we have now in Hester. That's really it. I don't think there is another player on our offense that would have any market value. Defense: Brown - I honestly do not think Brown could get us more than a 5th. Maybe a conditional 4th. DE's value (especially RDEs) is based on ability to rush the passer, and Brown has never been more than average in this regard. Brown is a 5 or 6 sack per year guy. That's it. Our DL is going to see a lot of turnover, and retaining one starter isn't a bad idea. It isn't that I am against trading Brown. Its that I just don't think his value is enough to make it worth the move. Harris - This is actually the interesting one. I don't think his value is great, but unlike Brown, Harris does have in his history elite tier play. Sort of the Burgess thing. In Harris, another coach may believe he can simply get more out of him than Lovie and Co. If that is the case, we may get some decent value. Additionally, I am not sure what sort of future Harris has for us at this point, so getting great value for him may not be key. If we could get a 3rd, or even conditional 2nd, I would take it. I am not sure we could, but again, players like Harris tend to see more value, even coming off multiple mediocre seasons, as coaches will look at what they once did, and feel they can still do it. Urlacher - I think he might have value similar to Harris, but at the same time, I think he has more value for us on the field. We are going to see a lot of changes on the defense. Keeping a player like Urlacher in the middle may do more to help in the transition. Briggs - Understand, i do not see this happening, but in Briggs, we could actually have our best trade possibility. Briggs is easily our top values player. He has been a stud and pro bowler (thus has a very good rep and thus value). At the same time, I don't think he has proven to be a player that truly is a difference maker. When Urlacher goes down, the entire defense goes down. I am not sure the same can be said if we lost Briggs. Additionally, while it was only against the lowly Rams, Williams showed us that we "may" have a replacement for Briggs. I am not advocating trading Briggs, but in Briggs, we may have our best scenario.

I'll admit that a 3rd for one of our OLBs is a little optimistic, but I don't think it's crazy: I could see a team like the Rams giving up a 3rd in exchange for Roach plus a 5th - I mean, they're starting Paris Lenon right now. Roach is a solid-but-unspectacular kind of player, but he's young and he's a proven commodity: if you draft an OLB in the 3rd round, you're not guaranteed to get a guy who can step right in and help your team. As for the DEs, I really do think we could get a 3rd and a 5th for Alex Brown; Derrick Burgess went to the Patriots for a 3rd and a 5th. Burgess is about as undersized as Brown, worse against the run, has been less productive the past few seasons, and he's a year older and dinged up. Sorry, but I think a 3rd for our OLBs is far closer to crazy than just a little optimistic. If we were to trade a 3rd for a player like Roach, I think you would go nuts. They may not have much, but Roach is of such average talent that I think most teams would just as soon go the draft route. In the draft, there is a pretty good chance you get a player at least as good as Roach, while also having a chance for a far better player. As for Brown, sorry, but still not buying. You mention Burgess, but I would use him as an example why Brown's value just isn't near what you think. Burgess had had seasons w/ 16, 11 and 8 sacks. Brown's best year was 7, and he has averaged around 5 in the last 3 years. Players w/ double digit sack potential are always over-valued, and teams will take more chances on such a player. A player like Brown, who is decent vs the run, and pretty average (at best) against the pass, simply are not going to command as much value. To put Brown in perspective for a moment, consider Phillip Daniels. He was always very good vs the run, but few Bear fans thought much of him as a pass rusher, but Daniels had 3 seasons w/ more sacks than Brown (8, 9 and 9). If we gave up a 3rd and 5th for Daniels when he was 31, how exactly would you feel? As far as Brown's replacement, there are a couple of options: they could move Gilbert to DE, or they could play Adams at RDE and then either resign Wale on the cheap or play Idonije at end full-time. I mean, Angelo shouldn't have done the Adams trade, but we're stuck with it now, and the team has got to get some draft picks somehow if they want to be any good before 2011. DE and OLB are the only positions where we're deep enough to deal somebody without having to turn around and draft his replacement. Dealing Brown would mean we'd get worse at DE, for sure, but DE is one of two spots where we can afford to have a little dropoff in exchange for an upgrade somewhere else. I just view this as taking a step backward as much as anything else. We have a lot of work to do on defense, and I agree we could really use some extra picks to do that with. At the same time, I question the logic of giving up some of the very few players we do have who are solid starters in order to get a pick (or even two). Angelo's history suggests we are not likely to get better value w/ a 3rd round pick than we already have in Brown, even if we could get a 3rd, which I do not believe is the case.

this is the same crap angelo has been doing since he got here. replacing defensive players up for contract (or he plans on cutting) who are average and replacing them with average/reach players either in the draft or in free agency. he has done it at safety, DE, DT and LB. it's like a freaking defensive merry-go-round. Honestly not sure I understand your argument. I get the "replacing average players" part. But in Adams, you don't have an average player really. Adams is more likely a boom/bust type. He was a top 5 pick, and thus (talent wise) should not be considered an average type player. Hey, I hate the pick and move and feel we gave up way to much, but I am not sure how this would fit his old moves. Also, I am not sure how you lump in the other positions you use. S - Likely my top complaint over the years. I would agree w/ you 100% here that we replace average players w/ average players. Frankly, I think S is simply a position Angelo doesn't consider a "skill" position, and likely feels it is the "dime a dozen" sort. But I don't think the manner in which he has addressed S comes close to how he has handled DL or LB. LB - How has he replaced average players w/ average or reach players? He inherited Urlacher, and re-signed him. He drafted Briggs to replace Holdman, which was an upgrade. The SLB has seen numerous faces, but is a 2 down position, and just not as key as many want it to be. He has otherwise simply drafted depth. DE - He spent very big on Wale, who looked elite at the time, to replace Daniels. Not a case of replacing average w/ average. Brown was drafted, and developed nicely. Never great, but great value for the 4th. W/ those two starters, we have not really invested huge at DE, drafting a bunch of high talent guys mid to later in the draft for depth. DT - Spent a mid 1st round pick on Harris, and a high 3rds on Gilbert, Harrison and Dusty (two very different types), not to mention drafting many more over the years. If you want to question his ability to evaluate, or the coaches ability to develop, fine. I'll run w/ you on that one. I just don't understand your argument here though. S, LB, DE and DT are a group of positions we have addressed VERY different over the years, and yet you seem to lump them together. all this time he neglects drafting quality players for the holes in this team that take TIME to develop such as qb or offensive linemen and the only reason i can think of why, is he: At QB, I think it is more about evaluating than method. He spent a high pick on Rex. He spent a middle round pick on Orton. He spent several late picks on others. He signed a guy who was the backup behind a solid starter (Quinn) which other teams have found success doing. He has signed both developmental players and older (and even damn old) veterans. And now traded for a pro bowler. Frankly, Angelo has tried to get a QB just about every way possible. I think the issue at QB is far more about evaluation than it is simply how we went about finding the QB. I agree 100% w/ you about the OL, and use Angelo's own words to bash him. Angelo said a couple years ago that OL takes time to develop (more than most positions in his mind) and that is why he prefers to go the FA route. I think Angelo also (like at S) places the value of the OL lower than what many on this board would. He values the LT position, and thus has tried to fill it by twice using 1st round picks, and once spending big money (Tait), but the rest of the positions I just don't feel he values as highly. There was a time that was mostly true. Your LT was the key and the rest were near fillers, but today, OGs make mega bucks and all OL positions are considered at a high level. I think Angelo is stuck w/ a 20 year old mindset that it may be difficult to find a LT (thus 2 #1s and big FA money spent) but the rest of the positions can be easily added. 1. wants players 'supposedly' ready to contribute immediately to cover his arse. I don't see this, as many of his draft picks were actually raw players who were expected to need time to develop, and doing so w/ picks higher than most would otherwise spend. Many teams use 5th round picks and lower on players who are considered raw, yet we will spend 3rd and even 2nd round picks on such players. 2. is keeping this team in money to enhance the cap by bringing in players to compete with others to knock down present player upcoming salary requirements. Don't even get this one and not going there. We spend plenty of money on re-signing our own, as well as adding players through FA. The problem is not saving money for future cap or whatever, but who we actually spend our money on. Like when we needed a WR, and spent big on a WR, but gave that money to Moose. 3. is plain stupid and couldn't tell a good offensive player from a red assed baboon (which bandwagon >>I I like this one. Angelo's background was as a defensive scout. Even when he was at his highest level prior to us, he was working for a team known to have great D but crappy offense. There should be little surprise he has not proven capable of spotting offensive talent, either in the draft or FA.

A 3rd for Roach? A 3rd for Williams? A 3rd and 5th for Brown? Sorry, but while not as bad as the Hester talk, I think you are seriously over-valuing our players. Roach is a backup, who has been able to start some games, but frankly has never been the impressive. I believe you said we can use a 3rd to replace him, and I agree, but would point out most teams would believe the same too. They can use their own 3rd, and likely get a better player than Roach. Williams has been a backup for years. Yea, he just had a great game, against an awful team, but a 3rd? I honestly don't know if Williams would have much of any value. Yea, you and I can talk about his potential, but teams don't give up 3rd round picks for a guy who, after being drafted at the end of the 3rd, has really done nothing. Brown. A 3rd and a 5th? Brown is part of a DL that can't rush the passer. Brown isn't bad. In fact, he is a decent enough DE. He plays well enough against the run, and might get you about 6 sacks. Sorry, I just can't see teams giving up so much for a player like this. I would also point out that if you trade Brown, you now have not one, but both starting DEs positions to fill. If our players were good enough to warrant the values I am seeing in these trade talks, maybe we wouldn't suck and wouldn't need to trade everyone away. I'm sorry, but there just isn't that much on the roster right now to warrant the trade talks.

Just did a bit of checking, and found a report that said Bates was the QB coach for Denver, but was actually calling the plays last year. Okay, how about this. We hire Shanny as HC and Bates as the OC.

To be fair, it's one thing to be a bust on a team that spent a top-5 pick on you, it's very different to be a bust for a team that got you for a 2nd-rounder. He could never live up to the expectations they had for him in Tampa and still be a worthwhile pickup for the Bears, as long as he ends up a decent starter. As for the gaining weight stuff, I remember reading it around the time of the trade...I'll see if I can dig up the article. It sounded like the coaching staff basically wanted Adams to have a full offseason of lifting and getting stronger before they started working him in. Adams himself put "getting stronger" as one of the big goals he's been working on in Chicago. The guy's built like a basketball player right now..he's got the skinniest legs I've ever seen for a DE. Even if Lovie likes his DEs to be light and quick, Adams needs to muscle up a lot, and from what I've read it sounds like that's what they're doing with him. While I agree expectations and pressure are not as great for him today as they were after being taken in the top 5, I would argue they are still pretty dang high. The team didn't spend a top 5 pick, but did give up a 2nd round pick which (a) is their top pick in the draft, ( is going to be a pretty high 2nd round pick and © 2nd round picks are pretty high in value anyway. Not saying the pressure is equal, but it is still considerable, both for him and the staff, as JA will feel the need to show he was worth the pick. Regarding weight, don't spend much time. I would love to read the articles. I was in Napa Valley on vacation when the trade went down, and really didn't read much until a while after it happened, and as there was also a game, articles about him were a bit lost in the shuffle. But w/ that said, while I can understand working on muscle and strength, I am not sure that equates to weight. Working on getting stronger is a bit of the norm in the NFL, but players are not usually trying to add weight. Understand. I would love to see a 280lb DE that can rush the passer, but that simply is not really what Lovie does. Think about how they have played w/ Idonije's weight. Our staff likes their DEs to be in the 260s. I just can't see our staff wanting Adams to add 20lbs if they want him to play DE. As for Gilbert to DE, that's basically my own wishful thinking, coupled with the fact that Gilbert said he was dropping weight last offseason. He's another guy who's reworking his body right now, from what I've read. He had some baby fat at 285, but he also looks like he has room to add muscle, so I guess he could go either way. Whether he ends up slimming down or bulking up probably determines whether he ends up at DE or DT. I'd be OK with either, as long as they don't try to play him as a 280-pound DT. Again, I think you and I would like the same things, but what our ideal of a DE or DT may be I think is different from what Lovie likes. Lovie likes lighter DL. We just gave up a 2nd round pick for a DE that was drafted in the top 5. I think you would agree the plan is for him to start at DE. I do not think the plan is for him to replace Brown, which means he is viewed as the eventual replacement for Wale. Assuming this, I believe that DE may have been the original thinking for Gilbert, but after adding Adams, we shifted our thinking and plan to play him at DT.

I agree with you, i was just holding out hope that our coaches would get something out of him. Marnelli is suppose to be a great Dline coach. JA had won me over with the Cutler trade but is starting to get me to question him again. 1 not getting a WR in here 2 thinking the oline was going to be ok and now this trade. I am been a die hard JA basher. I loved the Cutler move, and even started to have fun and call him my BFF. Yet despite the Cutler move, the cumulative effect of the rest of JAs moves have destroyed this team. Cutler trade=would do 100 times over Agreed. I honestly believe that if Orton were still here, we would still feel the need to fix all the other offensive positions, but QB would also be added to that list, and likely be at or near the top. That is not a knock on Orton, but simply my believe that Orton would look like crap on this offense, as would any QB, and thus QB would be considered a top need. We have a lot of work to do, but I can't tell you how good it is to feel we have a QB in place to build around. As bad as things are in Det, just ask a Lions fan how much better they feel about the future of their team w/ the belief they have their franchise QB in place, and need to build around him. Signing Pace= are you kidding me Oylmalye= r u kidding I hated those moves then, and now, though I never thought either would be as bad as they have been. Gaines= keeping my fingers crossed but maybe a 3rd would have been better Honestly, I am not even bothering w/ the crossing of fingers. He was a bust for a team with a much better rep of developing defensive players. Sometimes a player just needs a chance of scenery, but even Benson showed more after joining Cincy mid-season than Adams has. Adams has yet to even show a flash of potential. I was among those who bought into all the Marinelli hype, but no more. I am not saying we have a top tier group of players along the DL, and I did not expect elite play. I did expect to see improvement and development, and thus far, I have not seen jack. Along the DL, we have young players likeL: Anderson - One thing rarely mentioned in his stunted development is that he had 12 sacks as a rookie, when Rivera was the DC and Don Johnson was the DL coach. Since both were allowed to walk, Anderson has looked like crap. Was he just a one year wonder, or is it possible Rivera/Johnson were better able to coach/position him to do well than Babich, Haley and Marinelli? Harrison - Here is a player who supposedly was a 1st round talent that fell in the draft due to some character issues. This was a player often pointed to when it was asked who Marinelli could really help. Frankly, I think I saw more flashes of potential from him as a rookie than this year, and even than, the flashers were few and far between. Gilbert- 3rd round DL who comes w/ tremendous athleticism and potential, yet could not even get activated until it was time to "call up" the minor leaguers. And how about Harris? I read dozens (literally) of articles talking about how Marinelli was going to get Harris back to the pro bowl level he once owned. Marinelli was going to do for Harris what he did for Sapp. Marinelli seems to honestly be a very nice guy, but we were sold on how he is an elite DL coach. Maybe our talent really is just that bad, which makes our future prospects that much worse. Or maybe Marinelli is just not as great as advertised. Personally, I think it is a combo. I think (a) talent is not as good as hopes ( Marinelli is not as great as advertised and © talent is limited in a system that may not best suit them, and Marinelli is not allowed/capable of going in another direction to maximize their talent. Also keeping my fingers crossed that Williams plays well at LT and Schaffer proves to be servicable! I'll cross my fingers on Williams. I said when we drafted him that I felt he could be a Brockemeyer like LT, and for the record, I liked Blake. Like Brock, he could be a very good pass blocker, but average run blocker. Schaffer? Lets see. Buffalo felt St. Clair was an upgrade over this guy. Ouch. Frankly, I have more hope Omiyale could develop into a RT.