nfoligno

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2009/12/cutler-3.html Report: Cutler may lobby for USC coordinator ESPN.com reports: If the Bears hire a new offensive coordinator in the offseason, Jay Cutler likely will lobby for USC offensive coordinator Jeremy Bates, multiple sources have told ESPN's Adam Schefter. Bates worked with Cutler in Denver, where he was an assistant to Mike Shanahan. When Shanahan was fired, Cutler told the team he would only stay in Denver if Bates stayed, according to Schefter's sources. Bates left the Broncos to coach at USC. Schefter's sources say that if Bates wants to join the Bears, USC will let him. I realize it says Bates worked w/ Cutler in Denver, but does anyone know the extent of his duties w/ Denver? Did he call plays? Was he part of the drawing up of weekly game plans? On one hand, I would love to add a coach Cutler is comfortable w/ and who has experience in a solid system. On the other hand, I really don't want our next OC to be a first time playcaller.

You mean like when Brian said we can win w/ our run game and defense? Give me a break. If Brian were honest, he would discuss the fault on his side of the field. Our defense is freaking awful, yet Brian said little to nothing about that side of the ball. He choose to only attack the offense. Sorry, that is not honestly. That is chicken-@#@#

I've defended Turner in the past, and will say this now. Turner is not our worst coach, or problem, but niether is he part of the solution. I do not believe Turner is as bad of an OC as Lovie or Babich are/were as DCs. At the same time, that is a relative statement, and is by no means deserving praise. Last year, I argued Turner did well w/ what he had. It was a poor OL, rookie RB, average to below average WRs and an average QB, and yet our offense did fair. But this year, Turner has shown he can not adapt. He simply refuses to do things that give his players an opportunity, and should be ripped for such. I still think our key problem in terms of coaching is on the other side of the ball. I simply feel we have far more talent on the defensive side of the ball, and our coaches are simply incapable of maximizing that talent. On offense, our OL is simply so bad that I feel few OCs could compensate. Now, Turner has not done what I (and many) have said would give the players a chance, but still, I think our offense would blow w/ this OL regardless what we tried. Turner is a problem. I just feel that if we were listing our problems, he would not be at the top. Up there? Sure. But not at the top.

I was sick the day I heard we made the trade. Here is a kid who was a top 5 pick, but thus far has looked like a bust. His own coach said that if he didn't step up his sacks this year, he would be considered a bust. So we spend a 2nd round pick on a kid whose own coach has labeled him a bust?

Agreed all around. One. Knox does not play Hester's position. I can understand the argument that, Knox has developed quickly for a rookie, and thus someone might argue he can more quickly develop into the role Hester plays, but Knox has not played Hester's position and has not shown he can. Regardless, a team needs multiple WRs, and I just question trading a WR right now. Two. As you said, Knox is not bigger. That is simply wrong. Three. No way we get a 1st, much less a 1st and 3rd. Honestly, I think a 3rd would be about as much as we could hope for, and I am not even sure we get that. As a return man, it has been a while since Hester showed that great ability, and I am not sure whether coahes around the league believe he still can. As a WR, there is a lot more skepticism than optimisim on Hester. I just do not see anyone giving that much for him. The window to trade Hester is closed. There was a time his value was high, and he may have warranted a nice value in return (though I don't think we ever would have gotten a 1st and 3rd). Now? His market value is way down. He has shown nothing as a returner. All you have to do is watch teams punt right to him w/o fear. As a WR, again, watch how few teams feel the need to double team him. If he were a value close to what has been proposed, teams would not kick to him and would double team him. Sorry, but while it isn't that I think we can't afford to trade Hester, I just don't see the value.

I understand what you are saying, but..... While Orton "might" be better able to avoid turnovers, I think he would also really struggle to pickup 1st downs and move the ball, much less score. Lets say Orton does prioritize avoiding turnovers. That means he is often throwing it away, or simply taking the sack. While that may sound good, it also leads to a lot of 3 and outs. W/ a defense like ours, that is simply going to kill a team. Just avoiding turnovers does not mean a QB, or an offense, is getting it done. How many games might Orton have like 150 yards passing if he simply avoided turnovers? W/ a ground game that is lucky to get you 50 yards, how often is that going to equate to points, much less wins. So maybe Orton does avoid some of the turnovers Cutler has thrown. At the same time, I also think Orton would fail to move the ball and our offense would fail to score. In the end, the result is likely the same. I do agree on Cutler. His ceiling is simply much higher. Orton, on a good day, is a 250 yard and 2 score passer. Even this year w/ all his weapons, that would still be considered a very good day for him. Cutler is a 300 yard and 3 score type QB. This is the ceiling aspect. If you look at the floor aspect, Orton may have fewer turnovers, but fewer overall stats as well. On a bad day, Orton is a 150 yard and zero score QB. Even when Cutler was throwing the picks, he was moving the ball and putting up yards, as well as at least one score, and often more. Both are frustrating as hell, but I just do not think our offense would be any better this year w/ Orton under center. I think Orton would have many games w/ 150 yards or less, and no scores. The lack of picks sounds nice, but in the end, both end up as losses.

I think Lovie mentioned something about run defense, blah blah blah, but most reports I have read seem to question whether the decision was related to his work at practice. As Lovie not long ago told us Harris was sitting out for a game due to injury, only for us to find out later he was not injured, I am not sure we can put much faith into what Lovie says. Lovie seems to be trying to involve younger players more of late, and Adams would stand to reason to be among them. Sorry, but I don't buy the run defense stuff. I think it is more likely the guy wasn't pleasing the coaches in practice. Now, that could mean he simply was not performing well enough, understanding the plays and assignments well enough, or simply screwing around. Who knows. Right now though, this guy does not look very good.

That said, I think Adams is more of a long-term project that people are letting on. Right now, he's basically got a killer first step and nothing else - very few pass-rushing moves, very little lower-body strength to bull rush. He's more Mark Anderson than Mark Anderson: all straight-line speed. One thing, though: I remember reading that past offseason was the first time Adams ever did squats. Think about that for a minute. If the coaching staff thinks that Adams can pack on another 15-20 pounds of bulk with a real training program, he could have a lot of potential, but we probably won't see it until next season. He needs to add a bunch of weight and spend every waking hour with Marinelli learning his swim move, rip move, hump move, etc. Then we'll see if he was worth the 2nd-rounder. Its a pretty sad statement when a player is considered a long term project when he was a top 10 draft pick and has been in the league a couple years. You talk about Adams adding 15-20 pounds. Where is that coming from? If we were to bring in a new coach, okay, but Lovie likes his DEs in the 260-265 lb range. Why would Lovie try to get Adams into the 280s? Also, this occurred to me the other day: if Adams can add 20 pounds and Gilbert ends up at LE, our starting DEs will be MUCH bigger (6'5" 280-285 pounds) than the usual Tampa-2 undersized guys. If we rotate Harris and Harrison at under tackle, we'd basically be a big nose tackle away from having a normal 4-3 front - that could make the transition a lot easier if we eventually ditch the scheme entirely. Again, I don't know where the Adams gaining weight is coming from, but also, the staff has already said Gilbert is being developed at DT. I agree DE makes sense, but once they added Adams, they announced Gilbert would work at DT. I think Lovie envisions Brown - Gilbert - Harris - Adams (with Harrison rotating at DT)

Nfo, you're basically making the argument that JA needs the "pro bowl" stamp to know he's got talent with a struggling QB...when the OL is that poor. That's an argument I've never heard you make before, but I suppose you could be right. JA isn't known for his offensive player evaluation prowess. I'd like to think (since Cutler's our QB now) that he'd need less OL talent to succeed than Orton, but two first rounders and a 3rd less? ....it doesn't seem likely since Orton had a 92 qb rating going into his mid-season injury last year on a mediocre OL with sub-par rushing and this year has about that again if you take out his emergency game he played injured (in which his play was still light years ahead of that game's starter Chris Simms, for reference, and proof that any QB cannot make it on with Denver's O). I am not necessarily saying our QB has to have a pro bowl stamp. What I am saying is JA was not sold on Orton. After the season, what did Angelo saying when asked about our problems on offense. "Its all about the QB." Remember, he had to do a bunch of sidestepping as tons of questions came in after that as to what he thought about Orton. Throw in the little respect/opportunity Orton ever got, and I just do not think JA ever thought too much of Orton. In fact, IMHO, when Denver asked for Orton to be part of the trade, JA likely didn't think about his addition as anything more than a throwaway extra. It isn't that JA needs a pro bowl stamp on a player, but I simply do not believe JA ever saw Orton as a legit franchise QB. Remember, this is the same GM who talked about a "special" RB, and then drafted Benson because he didn't believe TJ was special enough. It isn't that I am saying Orton isn't capable, but that as long as Angelo didn't believe it, we were likely to use one of those draft picks on a QB. In JA's defense, and I've never heard you make this argument, but I always keep it in the back of my mind...I don't think JA ever intended to give up two 1sts, a 3rd, and his up and coming QB with another year left on his cheap-ass contract (that would have given us marvelous depth). Dan Snyder did that to us and JA had the balls to up the ante anyway. Unfortunately, it may have cost him his job. Though consider that having rooks on the OL may have granted Orton some benefit of the doubt in JA's mind, if you're really going to look at him as that simple minded. By next year they'd be 2nd year guys and we'd have another 1st round rookie to mix in (though drafting out of pure need can be dangerous, admittedly, as is that much OL youth, but beggars can't be choosers). Maybe I am wrong, but it seems like you are assuming we would have drafted OL last year if we had not made the trade. One, I go back to the quote, "its all about the QB". I think it as likely, if not more, that we may have actually tried to draft a QB last year, rather than OL. Further, I would say to look at Angelo's history. He has never been big on drafting OL. He said himself he believes OL a position/unit that needs a lot of time to develop, and thus why he prefers to sign veterans. Even if we had not made the trade, I don't think you can assume we would have drafted OL high, and thus there is no reason to believe our OL would look better this year, or have better prospects next. As for what he intended to give up for Cutler, who knows. I think it more simply a matter of our not really believing Denver was serious about trading him, and once we found they were, we were willing to pay the piper. You talk about Orton, but I simply believe his value was less in the eyes of Angelo than you think, and thus never really a key factor in the trade, at least not for Angelo. Its sort of like the swap of 5th round picks. To Denver, that likely didn't seem like a big part of the deal, but it resulted in our getting Knox, and thus you could argue (in hindsight) it was a big part of the trade. Ditto w/ Orton. I don't think JA ever thought Orton more than a backup QB, and thus his addition to the trade was simply never valued on our side near what it was for Denver, or has proven to be. I will say this though, you're making an interesting point while still keeping your overall opinion, which is just fine...but I remember you specifically lumping Orton in with our past QB failures at the beginning of the year. I believe "scrub" was the word you used. A couple of months before that you called him weak-armed, which I only remember because it shocked me knowing that you, while I don't agree with your analysis every time, are one of the most knowledgeable on the forums. You never responded to me in that post. Even your post in this thread referred to Orton as a "gaping hole". You just like to use dramatic language then, is that it? Whatever then, I believe you when you say you never disliked Orton, but I'm still calling you out on a little revisionist history. Before you "sort of call me out" please show posts where I came down on Orton to such an extent. I think I have been pretty consistent in supporting Orton. No, I never saw him as a franchise QB. Can't recall who, but someone mentioned Pennington, and I think that is a pretty good comparison. Like Pennington, Orton is a player who needs to be in the right system, with nearly all the pieces in place. You say he played pretty well last year. Yes, he did. I can't tell you how many times I called for him to play over Rex, and talked about his pocket presence. But while I never thought as little of Orton as many, I also never saw him as a great QB. He was one who needed great supporting cast, while I see Cutler as one who can elevate those around him. Unfortunately, the OL is simply so bad that I honestly believe Manning would look bad. But I look at the WRs. W/ Orton, I just don't think WRs ever really developed. W/ Cutler, as poor as the offense is, I think our WRs have done far more in terms of development. Look at Denver last year and this year. This year, with a better run game, Orton has one 300 yard game and zero games w/ 3 or more scores. At this point last year, Cutler had 6 300+ games (not to mention one over 400) and 3 games w/ 3 or more scores. W/ basically the same weapons to work with, Cutler simply did more, and IMHO, that is because he is simply a better QB. That is not a knock on Orton. I think Manning is a better QB than Cutler, but I am not knocking Cutler in that statment. I liked Orton. I just saw in Cutler a more legit franchise QB who could do more with less. Continuing that statement, w/ Cutler, IMHO, if we fix the OL, our offense could really be solid, even w/ the weapons we have now. W/ Orton, I would not only feel the need to fix the OL, but also to add a stud WR. There may have been a time or two when I let off steam, but I honestly do not recall ever truly attacking Orton, or using extreme language. I did that often enough for Rex, but often spoke as positive of Orton as I did negative of Rex. One final point on this. I don't ever recall saying Orton was weak armed. In fact, many times I think I argued he had a better arm than advertised. I specifically recall pointing out that Orton gained a rep among bear fans of a weak arm after a rookie year when he was restricted and asked to not loose games, but said that he had a better arm than we were allowed to see. No, he doesn't have Cutler's arm, but frankly, I think his arm is better than Pennington's, for example. Orton would still be a Bear this year if he had refused to play hurt last year. That's my opinion. He wasn't just banged up, he was hobbling. Although your point that he wouldn't have survived this year isn't without merit, it's tough to predict what could have happened with those draft picks adding to the mix and that also providing some benefit of the doubt. I don't know that he would still be a bear if he didn't come back from injury. Damned if you do.... If he didn't come back sooner, JA may have seen in Orton a player who couldn't play 16 games, and after Rex, may not have had patience. Orton was in a no win situation. Back to the draft picks, again, you are assuming we would have drafted OL. You honestly believe we would go OL in the 1st two years in a row? That goes very much against Angelo's history and comments. I personally think it just as likely we would have tried to draft a QB. Hell, what if we moved up in the draft for Sanchez or Freeman? Would we be better off? Even if we didn't draft a QB, I think we most likely would have drafted a WR in the 1st. W/ this OL, I doubt any rookie WR would have developed at all, and thus I don't think Orton would have found help vie the draft. So I still argue that if we had not made the trade, we would likely be looking at drafting a QB next year, which for me, lessens the amount we gave up.

but he's not going to succeed until the team makes an investment in the rest of the offense....it's just that Angelo has to build an offensive line Wouldn't that be true if Orton were under center? Wouldn't that be true regardless who the QB is? It doesn't matter whether you have Farve, Brady or Pennington. You can not simply put a QB on an awful offense and expect him to be great. Regardless who, or what type of QB you have, you have to build around him. I am sure you will say we have fewer picks now, but (a) I would argue you need to build less w/ a QB like Cutler vs a QB like Orton. That is my opinion. You look at Orton doing well this year, but he has an elite OL, and numerous solid or better WRs, not to mention a solid ground game. But I would argue that Cutler doesn't have to have as much talent to make the offense play at a higher level. While I agree a WR upgrade would benefit him, at the same time, I would also argue that he would look pretty damn good now, w/ the WRs we have, if only he had an OL capable of blocking. ( I still argue we would have used one of our picks on a QB. I know how Orton looks this year, but how would he look if he were on our offense? Some say he would have fewer picks. Fine. But I would argue he would still look like crap, and as our GM was never sold on him in the first place, there would be little reason to believe he would suddenly be confident in him. Thus, we would likely still be looking to upgrade at QB. So we have fewer picks, but I still argue that one of those picks (likely top pick) would be ear-marked for a QB. Sorry, but I would much rather have Cutler than Tebow or McCoy, or whatever rookie QB you want to throw out there.

Do I have this understood correctly: Gilbert is impressive in practice yet we're not sure if he can replace the unimpressive DTs on the active roster? Sounds about right, though it is not coaches who are saying he is doing well in practice. I can't tell, but it is either Angelo or Brown (I assume Alex) who said that he practices well and looks good. I like what Brown said. He is a rookie. If he doesn't get onto the field this year, he will be a rookie next year too. Get him out there. Honestly, I fear the whole situation w/ Gilbert. When our scouts looked at him, and liked him, what position did they project him at? DE or DT? Seems like our staff has thought of him as yet another one of those versatile guys who can play anywhere, but does a player ever really develop to his full potential when constantly shuffled around? Remember Russell Davis, years ago. DT in college who we drafted to play DE. Failed rookie year at DE, then we moved him inside, never gave him a chance, and cut him in his 2nd year. Went on to Az and played very well. While a lesser pure talent, we have shuffled Idonije around so damn much. Seems like every offseason we are asking him to add or drop 30+lbs. I really hope we don't screw around w/ Gilbert that way.

What I don't understand is how Urlacher, who says w/ every word how much he hates the limelight, yet his actions speak otherwise. I wanted Urlacher in the draft. I have always liked him. When others talked about how over-rated he was, or how he had lost a step, I felt he was simply not being used properly, and thus was not able to maximize his strengths. He is frankly gifted on a level that would make most historical Bear greats jealous. At the same time, he (IMHO) has never fully accepted his role. Often, he has been as divisive as not, which is not what you expect from a leader. He has been ripped by Singletary for his lack of time studying film. He has never taken on the mentality that could have put him over the top. He is like a player who can reach high levels w/ pure athleticism, but has never done what was necessary to become the legend he could have been. And this recent issue just makes me sick. To me, he is coming off as a player sour that he isn't in the spotlight. He is also coming off as a fool when he spends all his time blasting Cutler, Forte, and even Turner, while saying we need to rely on the defense more. And he says this in one of our defenses most inept games in recent memory.

For the record, I never said Orton isn't a good QB, or that he can't be a good QB. But on this offense, I simply do not believe he would have looked good. Look at it this way. The team was not sold on Orton. Even before the Cutler trade, Angelo had made comments indicating he wasn't totally confident w/ Orton as the future of the franchise. I personally do not believe Payton Manning would look good in this offense. I am not knocking Orton when I say he would have struggled. Thus, we would have a QB our GM was not sold on in the first place, who would likely not have a good season on an awful offense. Thus, I think it very likely the team would have chosen to look for a new QB, and likely high in the draft. That isn't to say it would be the rigth or wrong move. Simply what I think would have been the logical thinking of Angelo. This, remember, is the same GM who drafted Benson because he didn't believe TJ was special enough. Thus, I simply believe we would have likely used a 1st round pick next year on a QB, if not this past year. So when we talk about not having a 1st round pick in 2010, I just don't really think of that as a horrible thing, as I believe that pick would have likely been for a QB anyway. And despite how Cutler has played, I think we are much better off w/ Cutler than we would be drafting a rookie QB in the next draft. As for your final statement, Nfo, however, should have no excuse since he apparently knew all along how bad our OL was going to be., while I never thought our OL would be that good, I also did not think it would be THIS bad. I disagreed w/ how we handled the OL in the offseason, but never did I think it would actually be worse than last year. And beyond just the OL, in FF, I actually felt so highly of Forte (in a PPR league) that I would have drafted him as high as #2, and maybe even #1. That is because he did well behind a poor OL last year, and as said, I didn't think our OL would be this bad. I know how you feel about Orton. I know how you feel about Cutler. I do not think you understand how I feel though. I like Orton. Always have. As much as I have always bashed Angelo, I actually said then I felt the Orton pick was a damn good one. I thought it was nuts we didn't give him more of an opportunity when Rex was here, and felt he could be a good QB if we fixed other aspects of the offense. W/ Cutler, I felt we had a QB who could (a) look good behind a less than good OL and ( do more w/ the young weapons we had in place, rather than needing to go out and get stud WRs. I still believe Cutler is all that. IMHO, this OL is simply so bad that even an all-pro QB would look pretty poor behind it. This does not even factor Turner. At the end of the day though, you have to get past what you, I or any other fan may think/thought of Orton. Angelo has never been his biggest supporter, despite having drafted him. Angelo said it all when asked about our O issues, when he said, "its all about the QB". Regardless whether or not Orton is a QB that can get to and win the SB, I don't think Angelo felt this way, and thus, he was most likely to go out and seek a QB who could. If Angelo believed, "its all about the QB" he was most likely then looking to add a QB who would improve the rest of the offense, rather than improve the rest of the offense for the QB. That is why I say we would have drafted a QB. Not because Orton wasn't capable, but because the man in charge never felt he was.

Disgust w/ Urlacher. He is injured and out for the season. He is a player who has always showed nothing more than contempt for the media, despite being the "face of the franchise". A player in his situation, you would think they would fade into the background for the rest of the season. Nope. He agrees to have a media guy spend a couple days w/ him, and then drops some bombs leveled against the players who are out there working, while he is sitting on his couch. Sorry, but that is f'ing pathetic.

Honestly, I said that in disgust w/ Urlacher. In reality, we are not going to get enough value to offset the value he brings to our defense.

It isn't that I care whether or not we IR Pace. But moving a player off the PS to start at RT? While development is key, OL is a tricky area as poor play on the OL can (a) kill the development of numerous other positions and ( get your franchise QB killed in the process. You know how, w/ this OL, we often say, "it can't get much worse"? Well, if we start putting PS players into the starting lineup, it could get worse. So w/ the OL, I think we have to walk a careful line. LT - Williams makes sense. Played LT in college, and that is where he worked last offseason prior to his injury. Also where he is projected and matches best his strengths and weaknesses. LG - Beekman - Started at LG all last year, and did pretty well. This year, not as great, but also only given limited chances and needs more time to work himself in. Even w/ that inconsistency, I would argue he was better than Omiyale and opened more holes in the run game. C - Kreutz - While I would love to get Beekman reps, just not going to happen, and this late in the year, a switch at center may hurt (Culter) more than help overall. RG - Garza - Kills me to say it, but one of the most consistent players this year. May not be long term, but can't totally revamp OL in one swoop. RT - Omiyale - OT is where he had been developed prior to the bears, and where he was thought the best fit, prior to the bears. W/ Williams moving to LT, we have no young RT of the future, and thus Omiyale could be a good match. Short hook, but give him a try. If he struggles at RT as he did at LG, pull him and insert Shaffer. These are OL moves that makes sense in terms of future and development, while also not putting Cutler in serious risk.

I have no problem w/ a fan who buys season tickets, and sells a game or two they can't attend. Heck, I don't have a problem w/ a fan who sells a game or two at a premium in order to offset part or all of the cost of the season tickets. Honestly, these fans (IMHO) are not the problem. The problem is not the fans who attend most, but not every, game. The problem is the businsess who make a living by buying up a large amount of tickets and selling those at premium prices.

Trade Urlacher to Denver and get back some of the picks we sent them.

The key statement I disagree w/ is, The more I talked to Greg, the more I believed the Bears would have been better off keeping Kyle Orton and the draft picks. Okay, so Cosell reasons that Cutler may be the best pure passer in the NFL and is in general a great QB. In my mind, that is a player you build around. It is easier to build an offense around a player like that than it is to find a player like that in the first place. If we had Orton, sure, we would have more draft picks. But we would also still have one big hole (QB) we would need to use one of those high draft picks on. That is one of my big "things" I don't believe many consider when talking about what we gave up. If we didn't make the deal, and we had Orton, does anyone believe Orton would have looked good this year? Not knocking Orton, but w/ this OL and the rest, Orton too would have looked like crap. That means we would have likely been looking at a QB w/ our 1st round pick next year. So while we gave up two #1s, I honestly think of it more like one #1, as the 2nd would have likely been used on a QB anyway. And I would MUCH rather have Cutler than any QB Angelo might have chosen to draft next year.

This staff is simply inept. They want to use Payne because he may help more against the run w/ St.L really only having S.Jackson as an offensive weapon. I get the thinking here, but (a) St.L sucks. If you really have to tweak to this extent to matchup w/ Stl, you are worse than you realize, ( priority should be on development, yet this is the sort of move that goes in the opposite direction. Frankly, at this point, we probably should just throw Graham out there to FS. That I thought was the intended projection by this staff for him, but he was viewed as lacking experience and thus didn't start. But if the idea is Graham to FS, play him there. Don't continue to play someone who's only future (best case) is at SS. Also to note what was discussed at the end of the article about Gilbert. Angelo said he is ready to go, and gives the impression he should play. It is then mentioned though he could be left out due to numbers, as we only dress 7 or 8 DL. If that is the case, while this may not be popular, I think I might have to make Idonije or Adams inactive. Hate to do that, as both are popular players around here. I personally like Adams a lot. But I don't think there is a whole lot more developing for eitehr of these two. I am not sure how great of a future either has w/ the team. With the last five games, i think we would be better served getting Gilbert reps and seeing what he can do more than whatever contribution we get from Idonije or Adams. Personally, I think I would make Idonije inactive, as he and Gilbert are too similar while Adams is basically the only run stuffing DT we have. Many are going to say we should just make Harris inactive. There is a bit of logic there as you can say he is playing hurt, and you are just shutting him down. On the other hand, two reasons I would keep him active: (a) He has actually played a lot better the last few weeks, and if there is any thought of moving him in the offseason, your only chance of getting ANY value is if he finishes the year strong. If we deactivate him, you may as well cut him. His value is gone. ( As said, he has been playing better, which gives you a better potential look at the 2nd DT, as well as the DEs. When Harris is disruptive, he puts the rest of the DL in position to make plays. He isn't as disruptive as he once was, but is more so than any other on our DL. I simply feel w/ him in there, the other DL have more potential to show off and develop. Further, if we rotate him more, we may get more out of him.

I am not happy. The only reason we are playing Williams at LT is because Pace is injured. Incredible that is what it took for this staff to make this move, rather than Pace getting abused worse than any LT I can recall. Not St.Clair, Tait, Gandy, Robertson, or whoever else you can throw out there. But the real reason I am not happy has to do w/ two other OL positions. How the hell can we continue to play Omiyale at LG? The only player more abused this year than Pace is Omiyale, and yet we are going w/ him? Beekman may not be a stud, but I am sorry, he is better than Omiyale. I would add that Beekman has more experience than Omiyale, and that could benefit Williams. And if we want to develop Omiyale, play his arce at RT, a position he was developed at and played at Carolina.

For the record, just because Urlacher was not thrilled w/ Jay from day one doesn't mean he isn't jealous. The day the trade was made, Cutler was the talk of the town. The day the trade was made, it was all about Jay. Brian who? Now, w/ that said, I don't think Brian is jealous really. I am not even sure what to call it. Brian is a bit of an enigma. In many ways, he acts like he hated the media, especially the local media, but here he is having a media guy spent days w/ him to do a story. While jealous may or may not be the right word, I do think Urlacher loves the spotlight, and that light is dimming. Not only is Urlacher no longer the key individual, but w/ a QB like Cutler, Urlacher fears the teams defensive identity is fading, and that is just as big of a blow. Urlacher sees himself as the QB of the defense, and as the defense has been the key unit for the team, he has been the teams QB in a sense. Now the team is shifting to an offensive identity, and he doens't like it. As far as I am concerned, tough shit. While I still defend Urlacher in that I feel (a) he has plenty of tread left on the tires and ( he could be even better in a different scheme, at the same time, he kind of is a pissy bitch. He has never really be a great leader. I remember Samauri saying Urlacher needed to spend more time watching films, and Brian just basically disagreed. Said he didn't need to. Many times I have felt like Urlacher acted like a bit of a bitch, and this recent thing is no different.

Exactly. Benson's replacements have done well, but have done well against two of the worst teams in the NFL. It may burn the hell out of bear fans, but Benson is proven to be a damn good back.

Honestly, Briggs injury is really a small blessing as there is just no way we get Williams significant reps w/ him healthy. I will never wish injury on a Bear player, but another player who's injury could benefit the team long term would be Kreutz, as it would give us an opportunity to see Beekman at center. Iglesias needs to play, but then again, activating him would be a good start. Honestly though, we are playing young guys now at WR. I would try and get both he and DA more reps, but at WR, it isn't like youth is being held back by old guys. Agreed on Gilbert, and I would say Gaines Adams too. Moore? That one is a bit tougher, as again, it isn't like we have a bunch of old guys in front of him.

Rotoworld reports that we're starting Chris Williams at LT, and that Jamar Williams is the guy if Briggs can't go. Cato June is just getting over a broken arm, and he's probably only insurance at this point. This would make the most sense, no question. I really hope this is the start of a trend, and that it means we can get guys like Gilbert and Gaines Adams some reps in the next five games. In theory, they're supposed to be starters on the d-line before too long, let's get them acclimated before the beginning of next season. I agree they should both should get more reps. What kills me is, the couple times I have seen Gaines in there, he has been beyond worthless. We still have to play him, but damn, we seriously gave up a 2nd round pick for this guy? I'll go a step further: if Williams settles in well at LT, I think we ought to waive Pace, bring that BC tackle up from the practice squad, then give him and Omiyale a look on the right side. I'd even be OK with putting Lance Louis in at guard for a game or two. This season's in the tank; we need to see if any of these guys can help us next year. We have to be VERY careful here. In most positions, I totally agree, but on the OL, as much as we need to develop the young guys on the OL, we also need to remember our top asset is the one these guys have to protect. No way I throw Louis out there. Simply way too raw. I might give Omiyale a try at RT, but honestly, I would have a quick hook for him. W/ Williams at RT, we may need to play Shaffer at RT. That totally goes against the idea of development, but again, how much are we allowing the rest of the offense to develop if we simply give DL's a free pass to Cutler.