nfoligno

Right now: It's baptism by fire for Williams. As a matter of fact, I would encourage Williams and Beekman to spend a lot of time getting to know each other in an anticapatory way. No question on Williams. What is mind boggling is, when we should be playing Beekman at OG, we actually moved Omiyale back into the starting lineup for the "most important game of the year." Talk about messed up. Otherwise, yes, he should be back at OG. W/ that said, one thing I would be curious about would be playing Beekman at Center for the rest of the year. Absolutely no chance we would do that, but I would sure love to see Beekman play center for the rest of the year to get an idea if he can replace Kreutz or not. Move Hester back to PR/KR/slot. He won games for us in this role. He has done nothing to win for us as WR. Disagree w/ this one. One, you have to face a tad bit of reality. Hester signed a new deal, much of which is based on WR tied incentives. He is not going to willingly give up those incentives, and frankly, I doubt he gives up the WR role either way. Not only that, but I argued all along that his value as a return man was short term. History shows that. Teams eventually adjust and adapt. While moving Hester out, move the other Devin in the #1 spot. I have no issue w/ giving him more playing time, but #1? How about he prove himself a bit more before we elevate him that far. While we are on the subject of WRs, how about activate Iglesias and de-activate Davis. STOP trying to establish the run game. That is almost blasphemy from me to suggest, but... Sorry, our OL is so bad, let us try to establish a run type offense through short passing and the occassional shot downfield. I'm not sure if I've seen play action work all year. Honestly, I am not sure how much we have really been trying to establish the run of late. I have no defensive suggestions for this year. I do. Make the CBs start pressing our WRs at the LOS more. If they get beat, so what. they are anyway. See if they can play more physical and prevent the dinks and dumks all day long. Start playing Gaines Adams and Gilbert more. Gave up a 2nd for Adams and a 3rd for Gilbert. Also, try to get Jamar Williams and DJ Moore playing time. All young players who have any potential future need to get playing time and increased looks. I am not saying we bench Briggs to start Williams. Pick your spots. Move him around between LB positions, but get him on the field more often. Offseason: Fire Lovie and staff during the week 17 post game interview and not allow him another "trust me" moment. Announce the hiring of Cowher and give him the podium. I'm done with this staff. I'd only keep the ST coach and the ball boy that runs fast. That's only if Lord Cowher sees fit. I don't care how it is done, so long as it is done. Cut Pace, sign the best left OG out there, Hell yes. Solid veteran OG will not only upgrade that position, but give Williams a big leg up in terms of development at LT. sign best big reciever out there, While I have come around on our needing a WR, and as you said, preferably a bigger one, I only have an issue w/ the "best" comment. We have tons of holes, and simply are not going to have the money to spend big to fill all those holes. Wrs in particular can get expensive. Very expensive. As much as I think we need a bigger WR, I just don't think we need to "blow our wad" on a guy like Brandon Marshall, or an equally expensive guy. cut/trade Harris, I don't see much trade value, and frankly, don't see the point in cutting him. His play has actually improved of late. I sort of wonder if a coach like Cowher couldn't light a fire under him. If we have no one better, there is no point in eating the cap just to get rid of him. As bad as he is, he is likely still our best DT, which is a sad statement. But again, you can only do so much at once. Now I will say this. He may not be a starter anymore. cut/trade Vasher, cut AP, cut Shaffer or Omiyale(you pick), let Vasher has ZERO trade value, especially w/ his contract. Cut. AP as well. Time to get RB depth that actually provided depth at RB. I'll take Omiyale over Shaffer. At least w/ Omiyale, we can say he is young and could still develop/improve. Also, we need to look at him at OT. I don't recall Shaffer's contact. I have no problem cutting him, but would rather let him compete in camp. If he doesn't earn a spot on the 53 man roster, bye bye. If he does, he sticks. Anderson walk, sign Wale to a modest extension, Anderson walk, fine. But you think we are going to sign Wale to a modest extension? We are talking about DE, a position where average players get "paid". Wale has been actually having a pretty good year. While he will not warrant a mega deal by any means, he could well warrant a good bit more than a "modest extension". make the effort to move Tillman to FS(no-I will never get off that bandwagon), No thanks. Not so much because I don't think he can do it, but (a) I think we need an experienced FS, not yet another converted player throw into the FS spot and ( while I agree we could use another starting caliber WR, the other side is significantly worse than Tillman's side. sign a back up RB, cut Wolfe, I would sign a backup RB, but I don't really see the need to cut Wolfe. I like him as a #3, and further, he is one of our best special teams players. sign a DT, sign a CB. Um, are you Danny Snyder? Seriously. Just take a look at how many players you want to sign in FA. Not only that, but most of the positions you want to sign are considered premier positions. After eating a LOT of money firing all our coaches, and then signing a big name like Cowher, you think we are going to shell out another $100m in bonuses? If all this could be done by the first week of free agency, I'll be fine. BTW - keep Url and Olsen. Url is still a top 2 player on a very weak defense. We don't get equal value for trading him. Olsen is the only reliable target Cutler has, is smarter than Nfo thinks and is also Cutlers buddy. (keep the franchise I have zero problem keeping both, and while I do not think Olsen is too bright, that does not mean I want to dump him. I would like to find someone who can toughen him up a tad. Hope I didn't forget to get rid of any dead weight. How about Rashied Davis. Draft a road grader OT and OG. They are now your starting right side if Omiyale / Shaffer suck for the next 5 games. Beekman is now the backup center and Garza the flex guard. Now draft the best RB and FB you can find.(Cut McKie - finally) Whatever is left take on defense. Gear up for next year.

NFC - I would most like to see the Saints I guess, but frankly, anyone but Minny, GB and Dallas would be fine w/ me. AFC - I'll take SD. Not who I think, but you asked who I would cheer for.

I liked Pompei when he was covering the draft for SportingNews, or at least I did when it was free coverage. I stopped reading him when they wanted money for their coverage. But really since he joined the Trib, his job seems to be the PR man for the Bears. Honestly, there are some writers who are such devils advocates that you really have to think their job description is to criticizie and antagonize fans. Even when things are going well, these writers find something negative to talk about. Pompei seems like the opposite, and I honestly wonder if that isn't his job. How else do you explain anyone who defends this OL. They are called out by every announcer during games, many of which are former NFL guys. They are called out by most every analyst. But there is Pompei, defending the group and trying to say they are not that bad. Hugh?

I cannot understand how anyone could "not get the hate." I understand that it is the Bears site, but one would think that a section like that could be left to be somewhat truthful and straightforward...and if not, then I guess we can all just accept "Lovie speak," which is similiar to what you see when you watch any politician talk. I don't think it does the Bears organisation any favors to constantly refuse to acknowledge, or at the very least minimise, problems. I do not suggest "ripping the team," I suggest that an honest acknowledgement of problem areas would go a long way to making me, and likely many others, feel happier, and I don't think that is too much to ask. I guess I will have to accept what it is, but it doesn't mean I have to like it. You mention politician talk. Take that to another level. If you went to President Obama's web site, a site run and supported by Obama and his staff, would you expect honest assessment? Would you expect one of the site writers to question Obama's decisions? Hell no. If you want more honest assessments, you do not use a source paid for by that which you want to assess. You go there expecting to read the fluff pieces. It isn't just that way w/ the Bears, or even sports. I don't know who you work for, but if you work for a company that has a web site, how often do you think you will find articles on that web site which question or criticize decisions or moves made by your company. It just doesn't happen. If it did happen, that writer would likely be fired and the article would disappear from the site. Just the way it is. As far as the O Line not being the only problem, that is true, but is there another area of the team that is a bigger problem? We may have problems in some other areas, but for my money the O Line is no question the number one reason we suck! Any who have read my posts knows how I feel about this. I have screamed (w/ Jason in particular) for OL help for years. I argued years ago 2 #1s was worth it for Walter Jones. I argued Faneca was worth the very high contract dollars. I agree 100% that our OL is our greatest problem, and that it is our greatest need moving forward, and the 2nd need is not even close. In fact, I would argue OL is our #1, #2 and #3 top needs. With that said, I simply would not agree that all our problems on offense are solely due to the OL. No question OL is far and above the rest, but lets not pretend the rest are playing well if not for the play of the OL. And while the OL makes all playcalls very tough, I have seen Turner do little to even try and compensate.

Honestly, I blame coaching as much as anything there. Any cover two has holes. IMHO, the way Lovie/Babich run their version, the holes are even bigger. Urlacher is such an athlete, he can make these holes smaller. He simply has the range to cover a greater amount of turf. There are still holes, but they are smaller. When Urlacher is out, those holes become huge, as we simply have no player capabale of covering such ground. But if you altered the scheme, you may not have such glaring holes that need a uber-athletic MLB to cover and close.

RB - You think Forte changed that much in ONE year? I don't know, but I will say this. He would not be the first player to look very good as a rookie, only to look very different in their 2nd year. In fact, it happens often enough that there is a term for it (sophmore slump). Heck, he isn't even the only RB from last years rookie class to see such a dip. Steve Slaton, who also tore it up last year, has stunk this year. Forte is also not the only Bears RB to see a similar change, as A-Train won rookie of the year honors, followed by a much lesser career. I am not saying we should write off Forte, or that he will go the A-Train route. I am saying though that I do not believe he has been as good this year, OL woes or no. Personally, I am still expecting to year after the season is over the he was dealing w/ a nagging injury throughout the year. Even on plays where he has broken into the open, he just does not seem to have the same burst he had last year, and no way you can blame that on the OL. WR - Some evaluation can be done, but it can't be complete. The one I disagree with the most is your thoughts on the short route on 3/7. This has happened with ALL WRs under Turner, not just these guys. First, as I said, no, the evaluation is not going to be complete. I just do not believe you ignore what you see and write it all off as the problems of the OL. As for the later part, while it is true this has been a problem w/ most WRs under Turner/Drake, I would also point out we have rarely really gone after those stud WRs. We have more gone after more raw and developmental prospects who we can get later in the draft (though we often enough take them earlier) or cheap FAs. Regardless though, I just wonder how much of this can do w/ coaching. Running to the 1st down marker on 3rd and 7 should be as obvious to a WR as catching passes thrown to him. You should not need great coaching to teach a WR that on 3rd and 7, you don't run a 6 yard route. I fully blame Turner when we run a 1 yard WR screen on 3rd and 7, but when its 3rd and 7, and the WR breaks into his route after 5 or 6 yards, I put that on the WR. I blame Turner for not smacking the WR in the head afterward, but seriously, that just isn't something you should have to teach a WR.

I am sorry, but on one hand, you blast ownership saying they always hire defensive coordinators and are too cheap to hire to big dogs, while also saying we need to do like Halas when he hired Ditka, who was a defensive coordinator and came to us on the cheap.

While you may not be able to conclude, there are still so many little things you can look at so as to evaluate. RB - OL is a huge problem, but at the same time, I also just do not believe Forte has been the same runner he was last year, and not always can the OL be blames. He just looks slower and doesn't seem to have the burst. It isn't like he had huge gaps to run through last year, but he was very quick to get to the LOS. This year, even when there is a hole, it is closed by the time he gets there. Part of that is on Forte. Also, his blocking has been pretty bad this year. I also think his vision has not seemed to be what it was. There have been times when AP, Wolfe and that kid off the PS entered the game and made a play, which just seemed to add to the questions levied on Forte. WR - While the OL is at play here, I think you can better evaluate the WRs, even w/ a poor OL. - Does a WR get clean releases off the LOS. This really has little to do w/ the OL. Often when I am able to focus on the WRs, they seem to struggle to beat the press. - Route running - Man, not only are the WRs often running sloppy routes, but they are not always even running the right ones. Also to note is how often a WR makes their break after (example) 5 yards on 3rd and 7. Some want to blame Turner, but that is wrong. On 3rd and 7, the WR is supposed to know where the 1st down marker is, and get to that point. Far too often I have seen our receivers catch the ball a yard or two shy of the 3rd down marker. That is not on Turner, Cutler or the OL. That is the WR not knowing where the 1st down marker is and cutting their route too early. Ball tracking is another area I have questioned our guys. Several times I have seen Cutler air it out, only to see Hester (example) seem to slow his route and then try to speed up, only to see the ball land a yard or two in front of him. When Cutler throws the ball, he is leading the WR. If the WR changes speeds, the pass is not going to be on target, but for some reason, our WRs too often seen to change up their speed when the ball is in the air, and I think this has to do w/ tracking the ball. Sort of like in Baseball when you see a centerfielder initially step up, only to realize the ball is deeper. He tries to run to the wall, but is late and the ball goes over his head. Fighting for the ball is not an area I have been impressed by our guys either. Nor toughness, as DBs seem to bully our WRs, and even TEs, far too often. Look, I said we can not make any conclusions, but I do believe you can make evaluations. Hester simply does not seem to me to have the potential to ever be a consistent WR threat. He can make plays, but simply lacks the all-around game to be an effective #1, and I don't mean a Steve Smith stud #1, but a WR who is the QBs first read, and capable of "usually" getting open and catching the ball. Bennett looks like a nice #2, possession WR. More than most, I think better coaching could really help his game and consistency. Knox? Wild card. He has loads of talent, but frankly, makes a lot of boneheaded plays, likely due to being a rookie. Still, I just don't know if he is a #1 either. Iglesias has really disappointed me, but even w/o, he would be similar to Bennett. We have upgraded at QB. If we upgrade at OL, these WRs may well be good enough to get it done. IMHO though, if we really want to see the full potential of this WR group, we also need to add a legit #1. That, like the other aspects, would elevate the game of the unit as a whole.

D is a huge problem. Although I wonder what a better DC would bring to the plate? We still have a p*ss poor secondary and super suspect DL, but I wonder if a change of scheme and a more adaptive DC could make an immediate impact. Totally agree that a change in coaching and scheme could really help this defense. At the same time, I don't think Buddy Ryan could make this group a great defense again. Though so much of that SB D is still in place, the talent is simply not what it was. DL - Only Tank is gone, and while he made a difference, his absence alone is not the whole story. Wale is just not consistent, and getting older. Harris is a shell of what he was, and he was a player that really made the whole DL. LB - W/ Urlacher back in the mix, this unit comes as close as any to being as good as it was during the SB run. CB - Tillman is not what he was. He is often injuried, and frankly, just does not appear to be as good of a player as he was then. Vasher sucks, but was good during that run. Bowman is not nearly as good today as Vasher was then. S - He is the biggest difference, IMHO. No Mike Brown. He was simply that much of a difference maker. Not just in his play, but in his leadership, which has never been replaced. We can bring in a new DC and a new scheme. Even still, this D based on talent has tons of holes. A change in coach and scheme may better hide/cover those holes, but I don't see us being a "good" defense w/ the personnel we have. Better coach and scheme might keep from this group sucking so bad, but would I don't think even good coaching makes this a good D. For that, we need changes at coach, scheme and player personnel. Bottom line, this team needs to go FA shopping like it's never done before... I also think Briggs Tillman and Gould are untradable at this point...

Yes. Cutler is the player to build around. Most every other piece is tradable. The only player that likely comes close might be Briggs. While I would not actively look to trade him, if another team made a great offer, I sure would listen. On offense, we have a lot of work to do, but there should simply be little question it all starts w/ the OL. I have seen many bad OLs, but I honestly can not recall ever seeing an OL as bad as this. I know Payton ran behind some dreadful OLs, but that was before I was really into the game. By the time I was more into it, the OL was starting to look good, and then got great. Throughout the 90s and 2000's, there have been some really bad OLs, but for me, none as bad as this, and few even close. What is sad is, last year I think many would have said, "it can't get worse," but it sure did. Short term. I move Williams to LT. That is what we drafted him to be, and I would like to give him an opportunity on that side before I just write him off. Kreutz, as bad as he has been, I likely give one more year as we can only do so much (w/o draft picks) at once. LG is a key for me, and I would fill that with a very good veteran. That would not only shore up our LG spot, but as I have argued in the past, would benefit Williams development at LT as well. Garza is likely safe for another year, though I would be looking to add an OG to develop behind him. RT needs a big boy. Omiyale might be allowed in the mix, but would not be a planned starter. This may be my first draft pick. Bring in a 3rd round pick, and then have a wide open competition between the rookie and Omiyale, w/ Shaffer considered a backup backup plan. So in 2010, Williams - Upper tier veteran FA - Kreutz - Garza - Rookie After this, I would decide whether Beekman can replace Kreutz and look to also replace Garza. If all goes well, we are improved in 2010, and far better in 2010. As bad as our OL is, it is not going to be fixed in one year. We need to make a big start in the offseason, but continue that through the following. On defense, man do we have a long way to go. I think the first thing is scrapping the system. After that, it is going to take some time to turnover the players. Along the DL, we have little to build off. Wale and Anderson are likely gone after this year. Harris has simply lost too much, and while Brown can play, how much longer can we expect that? The hope is young players like Gaines Adams, Gilbert, Harrison and even Melton may develop, but I have yet to see ANYTHING to lead give much hope. At LB, we have Briggs. We should get back Urlacher, and w/ a system change, I think he might play at a high level for a few more years. Pisa, Roach, Williams and Hunter fill the final spot and provide depth. IMHO, this unit could be fine w/ better coaching/scheme, and has enough youth to help when players go down. While I am not saying we are set for life at LB, our needs at DL and DB are too great to focus on LB. CB - It would be interesting to see how they play outside of this system. Bowman has not impressed me, but I also feel he is in the wrong system. Graham has been a good enough player IMHO, but the staff just doesn't care for him. Tillman is okay. No clue if we can ever expect anything from Moore. We could definitely use a CB, but this position would be behind DT, DE and S for me. S - Afalava may be long term at SS, but we need a major upgrade at FS. I think we need to go FA for this. Adding a player like Dawkins (as Denver did) or Sharper (as NO did) could really help short term, and buy us time to (a) find and ( develop a long term FS solution. What is sad is, we have so many holes to fill, and you can only expect to add so much in any one offseason. I would look at add an upper tier FA OG, and draft another OL w/ our 1st pick (3rd round), likely an OT. I would draft and sign a DL, as well as sign a FS. This will not be close to enough, but if we at least fix the OL, I think our offense could play well next year and help carry the D until we can fix that side.

I really don't get the hate here. It is the Bears Web site. Do you think they are going to pay to have an employee totally rip the team? The site is a fluff site in general, both in the mentioned Q&A, as well as articles. It is nice reading at times for little stories, but you should never expect anything more than PR from any aspect of this site. Also, while Larry is toting the line, it isn't like he is saying the OL is just fine. He is, in a very PC way, saying the OL is a problem, but also saying they are not the only problem, which I think is true. Further, saying the entire O is a problem is in fact being critical, which is not the norm for a paid Bears employee. What I have a greater problem w/ is Pompeii of the Trib, who says he watches film and tries to argue our OL is not nearly the problem some make out. He talks about the lack of sacks, and implies if the OL was so bad, we would not rank so low in the league in terms of giving up sacks, rather than point out that Cutler is one of the more mobile QBs in the game and bails out the OL. Then he also says Cutler takes fewer hits, but doesn't discuss how much higher that number would be if (a) Cutler were not so mobile and ( how many of Cutler's picks happened due to pressure. Pompeii tries to look at the OL by using sacks and hits, but what I found surprising was the lack of any mention of QB hurries, which is a far greater indicator of the OL. And if he is truly watching the tape and breaking things down, how about showing how many plays Cutler has to move around to avoid pressure, compared to all the times we watch opposing QBs sip a cup of tea in the pocket for what feels like minutes. I don't bash Meyer because he is toting a line he is paid to do, but what excuse is there for those in the media who are not paid by the team.

About the only assistant on our staff who "might" be considered IMHO is Toub, who is actually getting some talk now outside of Chicago. I personally would not want to (on a go forward basis) go w/ Toub, but I sure would take him over Babich, Marinelli and/or turner.

This has been argued before, but hey, I am bored at work:) - Player salaries and bonuses do matter. I have never understood how you don't get this. While there is a salary cap, bonsues can go outside that cap. our cap might be $100m (just using an even number) but in a given offseason, you might shell out $60 or even $80m in upfront bonuses alone. Now, I know you argue that over time it may even out, but the reality is, cheap owners simply do not shell out these bonuses as much. In years past, when Mikey was in charge, we sure didn't dole out the big bonus dollars, and thus were rarely able to attract the big FAs. But over the last decade, we have spent the big dollars. Again, I know you say it all works out in the end due to the cap. If you spend $80m in bonus one year, you are likely to spend far less the next. Still, when an owner does shell out that much money at one time, he rarely considered cheap. - Coaching - I understand your argument, but at the same time, you act like it is all purely about money. Jerry Jones is well known to hire on the cheap w/ his coaches. He has over and over again hired assistants or college guys on the cheap, yet is Jerry considered a cheap owner? Nope. Frankly, if we were to take your reasoning, would we not have to consider Jerry a cheap owner? Would you not argue that not only does Jerry go cheap on coaching hires, but as he keeps the GM title for himself, he saves money. I personally would argue this is far more about ego than money, but if this were the situation in Chicago, I am pretty confident you would argue otherwise. Jerry Jones is one of the more free spending owners in the league, at least in terms of reputation. What differs him from our ownership? Not money spent on coaches. Not money spent on overall structure, as he keeps the GM title for himself, and has a son high up in the business too. Not even Jerry World, the new stadium, as he held the city hostage to get the funding for it. Money spent on players is what has given Jerry his reputation as a free spender, but according to you, that doesn't even matter. If you look around the league, I think you will find many teams go w/ coaches who are unproven as HCs. You have argued how great Pitt's ownership and franchise is, but didn't they go w/ an unproven 1st time HC to replace Cowher. Did they do this to save money because they are cheap? Go back to Wanny. I don't remember how much he was paid, but what I do remember was at the time, he was considered one of the hottest young coaches in the assistant ranks, and we had to beat out numerous teams to get him, sad as that sounds today. I guess I don't understand what it is that makes you think our ownership is cheap compared to the other teams. So many other teams also have 1st time HCs, but that doesn't draw the cheap label. According to you, player salaries and bonuses don't matter, even though that is what is most often considered the key element. Few owners simply build their own stadiums, as most force their city to shell out big bucks. Honestly, if you are not going to factor player salaries, I really don't see what distiguishes one owner from the next.

I personally have not made a big deal about the overall number of pics, and thus I am not making a big deal either about who is to blame on each and every pic. The reality is though, you can do this with every QB in the league. Do you honestly believe all pics were 100% Rex' fault? Even Cutler bashers likely can't say all the pics are his fault. W/ that said.... Many of the pics are his fault, and many others throws were bad throws/decisions which could have been picked off. So while the number is higher than it "should be," at the same time, that number may be lower than what it "could be." Also Jason, while you and I agree 100% on OL, I am swinging back to the belief that WR is a legit need. WR is still not close to the level of need as OL. If we do not fix this OL, it really doesn't matter if we have Boldin, Brandon Marshall, or whoever is the flavor of the day. At the same time, I have also come to believe that, if the OL were fixed, this group of WRs would not be enough. Enough for our offense to be good. Sure. Enough for our offense to be what it should be w/ a QB of Cutler's caliber? No. Blame Turner. You have done that for years. Blame Drake. I have blamed him for years. But at the end of the day, some level of responsibility has to fall at the feet of the players, and even if the coaching/teaching is not the best, at some point you have to also question of coachable/teachable the student is. Hester was always considered lacking in the intelligence department. Olsen wasn't considered much smarter. What the hell is it about these Miami players? While I am happy to go off on the coaching, simply running the correct route really does have to put the player into question. I give a "slight" pass if it was Knox, as he is a rookie, but no other, not even Bennett, should make such a mistake. I tend to believe it was either Olsen or Hester, as the play discussed above refers to the #1 option, and that is not likely to be Knox. Anyway, I just think we lack a weapon defenses have to worry about. We can talk all day about speed, but Hester just doesn't seem able to learn and do the small things that make such a difference. We have a bunch of nice #2s or #3s, but I don't think we have a #1. Now, you can definitely get by and even play well w/o a legit #1, but if we want to see Cutler lead our offense to that level we hoped for, I think we need to get him a playmaking receiver. Again, OL is the priority. But more than before, I just believe WR is a need.

Just listened to an interview where Hub was asked, if the Bears wanted to get rid of Urlacher, what could they get in return. Hub said a 2nd, which surpised the radio guys. Hub reasoned that Urlacher is still a great athlete, and further said much of his downturn in play is believed to be, at least in part, due to his playing in a system that he has never been a great fit for. Hub talked about how Urlacher has never been a big fan of the cover two, and how it only got worse after Rivera left and Urlacher was pushed into more and more zone scheming. Hub said if Urlacher went to a team w/ a more creative DC (mentioned Pitt as an example) that he could again become a premier player. Two thoughts on this. On one hand, if we could actually get as much as a 2nd round pick for Urlacher, it may well be worth it. We have so many holes and no 1st or 2nd round picks, that a 2nd rounder would be a big deal, especially for an agining player who doesn't fit well in our scheme. On the other hand, if we actually were to fire Lovie and bring in Cowher (for example) Urlacher's value to the team could go way up. Hub was also asked about last weeks report about the team reaching out to Cowher, as well as others. Hub said he stands by history, which is no shock. What I liked was something Hub talked about after this, which may seem odd to those who believe Hub simply hates the team. He talked about how many say it isn't like the owers to eat a contract like Lovies, and then said that may have once been true, but said the ownership is far from cheap today. He talked about how many things we have done in recent years that went against what most thoughts was "what our ownership would do", mentioning how much Lovie was paid, the Cutler trade, and the large contracts to so many players. In the end, Hub said he doesn't know whether or not ownership will do it, but said that their reaching out to a guy like Cowher does give hope that may otherwise have not been there. Scary though was when he said he thinks Cowher could demand a deal in the 5yr/ $40-50m range. Ouch!

From ESPN Chicago, Talking about the first series after halftime, after Knox returned it to the 8, Turner said, "On (the) second down play, his [Cutler's] primary receiver ran the wrong route," Turner said. "So he's [Cutler] looking for a guy that's supposed to be there, who would have been wide open, so then he gets sacked." Turner refused to identify the receiver in question. "It's easy to blame the quarterback, but everybody has to execute," Turner said. "That's kind of been the story. Especially in the red zone, we seem to botch base plays we've had in, and not give ourselves a chance." Turner has taken most of the blame for the offense, but how does an NFL receiver run the wrong route in that situation? That's not on the offensive coordinator, it's on the player. Dickerson seems to try and give Turner an excuse here saying he takes heat for plays that don't work, but if the WRs run the wrong routes, how can we know. He has a point. The plays Turner draws up may well be good plays. ON THE OTHER HAND! As the OC, it is Turner's job to make sure players know the plays, and their assignments. If this was an isolated incident, maybe you could simply put it on the WR and not bash Turner so much. But this is far from an isolated incident. A coaches job is not simply to write up and call plays, but to also teach and develop players. We have veteran WRs and TEs who still run the wrong routes, and that has to fall on Turner, and Drake. And for the record, I am not arguing Turner would be a good OC is judged solely on playcalling. Far from it. I am simply making the point that even if you did feel he called a good game, development of players is also a part of the job, and you can not simply give him a pass when players continue to make the same dumb arce mistakes over and over again.

While I am all for sending a message, the problem is, who would we elevate if we canned Smith? If Rivera were the DC, then I could see it, but is there really a point in firing Lovie if you are only going to promote: Turner, who deserves to be fired as much as Lovie, Babich, who should not even have a job or Marinelli, Mr. 0-16 himself? Something that disgusted me was how we played Jared Allen, and that goes directly toward the coaching, and is indicative of the problem. How many times during the game did Aikman question our trying to block Allen one on one? He talked about how Allen is the sort of player teams game plan for, and most every team in the league uses a RB to chip block him. Rare do you see a team put their LT on an island against him, but that is not only what we did w/ our pathetic Pace, but we never altered this plan when Allen was destroying Pace. I couldn't believe it, but more important, Aikman couldn't believe it.

While you can question Jauron, at the same time, the team he was HC of: - Went from a 5 win season to a 13 win season. Anytime this happens, no matter how it happens, that HC is going to get major consideration for coach of the year. - Defense was not just good, but outstanding. I think additional credit likely went to Jauron as he was a defensive background coach and our team's D was so great that year. - While the D was great, don't totally take away from the offense. We were not only solid running the ball, but had the offensive rookie of the year in A-Train. We also had a 1,000+ receiver, which is not a norm in Chicago. Offense was far from great, but they were actually pretty solid. We scored 20 or more in 10 of our 16 games, and had 3 over 30. Our offense was able to win the TOP battle, and while the D often set them up, they were able to capatolize. No question that team was all about the D, but at the same time, it isn't like the O was totally absent. Frankly, in a way it was similar to the '85 team. If you go back and look, we won in 85 due to defense first, and a ground based attack on offense. In fact, we scored more through the air in 2001 than we did in '85. Many of us did not want Jauron to win the award as we knew we would then be forced to extend him, and as great of a year as that was, we knew Jauron was not a great coach and wanted a change. At the same time, I would say he very much did deserve that award.

Exactly. Losers complain about this sort of thing. If you don't like that Farve is still out there, make the Vikes pay for such a move. Don't complain about it. Just deal w/ it.

The players always seem to rally around Lovie as the HC, which is not shocking. Lovie is a players coach. Playing for him is easy life for a player, but at the same time, that does not mean it is a good thing. I would also point out that numerous times in the past, Urlacher has been out-spoken against the cover two, questioning how he is used in such a system. Couple things that stood out for me from this article, Look, I love Jay, and I understand he’s a great player who can take us a long way, and I still have faith in him,” Urlacher said. “But I hate the way our identity has changed. We used to establish the run and wear teams down and try not to make mistakes, and we’d rely on our defense to keep us in the game and make big plays to put us in position to win. Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth. Urlacher never seemed to be Cutler's biggest fan, and did like Orton. In some ways, this reminds me of when we drafted Benson when we had a popular veteran in TJ. Regardless, I think Urlacher's statements above don't really factor reality. The reality is, we can't run the ball. We would all love to run it more, but when the OL can't open holes and Forte isn't looking close to what he did last year, you simply can't continue to bang your head against a brick wall, which is exactly what our RBs are running into. Further, while it is a nice thought that you play conservative while the D keeps you in the game, that really isn't the reality of THIS defense. This defense sucks, and playing conservative is not going to win games. When Cutler threw a gorgeous touchdown pass to wideout Johnny Knox(notes) in the corner of the end zone to tie the score at 7, Urlacher was both excited and impressed. “You see him do [expletive] like that, and you’re like, ‘That’s unreal,’ ” Urlacher said. “I mean, there might be five guys in the league who can make that throw; it couldn’t have been anywhere else. It was [expletive] sweet.” He called Knox “one of my favorite rookies of all time. He’s sensational; he just goes out there and plays. Even in training camp he didn’t talk a lot. He played football and won our respect.” This really made me again think of Benson. Is it any wonder why Urlacher never liked Benson. Benson, befoere he stepped onto the field, was talking about how great he would be. Also, he really went off on Dunta Robsinson (CB for Texans) who some have talked about wanting to go after in FA. Gotta wonder how Urlacher would accept him after reading some of his comments. Urlacher didn't seem shy about questioning Turner's play calls, but I would have been more interested to hear his comments about our defensive playcalls.

Maybe I'll take the time to look at this more detailed tomorrow, but.... (a) OL is far worse than it was last year, and you know what, last year it sucked. OL this year has been on a level that has fan far older than me wondering when they last saw a unit this poor. And screw the stat about sacks. As Randy Galloway (local radio guy) say's, just watch the damn game. Cutler is under pressure before he has time to look up. He is on the run nearly very snap. And the sad thing is, they might be better in pass protection than run blocking. ( As said before, I might look up the stats tomorrow, but I doubt our run game is better this year than last. In fact, i would suspect it is FAR worse. © It is possible we have more passing yards, but I would argue you can't have those increased passing stats w/o the picks, at least to some extent. Sure, some could have and should have been avoided, but if w/ everything as bad as it is, you only move the ball downfield by taking chances. Sometimes it pays off, and sometimes it goes the other way. When your OL sucks, you have no run game and your WRs are lacking, you can avoid picks, but you are likely also going 3 and out on a pretty consistent basis.

At a minimum we have average players on defense. Some IMO are good players (above average) and others might be below average but the sum is not below average in talent. Bottom line is that we should at least have an average defense yet we don't, we're one of the worst (if not the worst) defense in the NFL. We are heading downhill rapidly so if we aren't at the bottom we will likely finish there. You can't tell me this is all because Harris is not the same player, or that Url is out, or that Pisa is out. Pisa was competing with Roach to decide who started so that can't be a huge dropoff or the coaches were lying about Roach. I watch a lot of games and it's just a fact that other teams seem to have their players in the right spot more often than we do. The only thing left for me is that the players no longer have confidence in this scheme and why should they? Where is our talent level? I don't know, and that can be argued all day, but what I will say is this. I have seen defenses w/ far less talent play better. Period. We do stupid sh** such as blitzing while having our CBs 10 yards off the LOS so QBs have immediate quick outlets and then WR have lots of free space to run. Has anyone else noticed that lately our CBs are playing well in man-to-man coverage, far better than we play in our drop back "here-take-10-yards" zone? Bowman in particular seems a lot more comfortable in man-to-man than he is in our zone. Agreed. And off what you are saying, I think a key issue is we force square pegs into round holes at times. Bowman has the skills to play man, yet we force him to play soft zones where he lack of experience burns him. I've been screaming about how our DBs play off the LOS, and today, I heard Aikman ranting and railing about that throughout the game. The other week, it was Collinsworth going on and on about it. It isn't just some dumb ass fans complaining about this. It isn't some crackpots in the media. It is former players, coaches, scouts, GMs, etc. Everyone seems to notice this but our staff. Also, did you see/hear the play where Aikman made a big fuss about how we had Hunter playing over the line (LOS), only to have him drop deep after the snap. He couldn't get deep enough, quick enough, and thus a big play for Harvin over the deep middle. Again, yet another play Aikman points out and bashes which many here have screamed about for a couple years. Even when we had a more athletic MLB, asking him to start over the line, only to drop back 20 or 30 yards just didn't work. W/ Hunter. It's just stupid. Lovie came out after halftime and told the TV reporter that he was upset over the turnovers and that was killing our team. I laughed because he must be so busy calling defensive plays he missed how bad his defense was. I'm not happy about the INT in the endzone but damn that shouldn't kill your entire game. Unless your defense can't stop anybody and responds by giving up an 80 yard TD drive. INT's happen to lots of teams. Peyton Manning has thrown two picks in each of his last two games. He's still undefeated. Kurt Warner has thrown multiple picks in some Cards games yet they keep on fighting. He has less of an excuse than Cutler because he's throwing to the same Pro Bowl WRs as last year. Still they come back the next game and play hard. To their credit, announcers made the same observation, pointing out that anytime a defense does X, Y, Z so poorly, they need to be looked at and not just a couple turnovers. Lovie has lost this team. A long time ago.

I hated the move then, and said so. What I could not get over was, no other team in the league felt he could play LT anymore, and frankly, only one other team showed interest even at RT. Yet our staff felt they were smarter than the rest. Its one thing when you are talking about taking a chance on a younger player, but Pace? Not only did we agree to play him at LT (no competition by the way) but we moved our "franchise LT" to the right side, further delaying his progress. I was not thrilled w/ the Schaffer move, but not "that" against it. I did not care for the Omiyale move at all, especially when I saw contract numbers and the position we were set to play him at.

after boiling all this down this is what you are saying... Hell no this is not what I am saying. 1. you have no problem with ownership. the mccaskey's are running this franchise just as well as the new england patriots and are as knowlegible as the rooney family when it comes to football knowlege and operations because they are related to george halas. they are completely blameless if the football operations in this franchise fail. You have to be kidding me. At what point did I even come close to saying such. All I said was that our structure is not the problem. That doesn't mean I think the individuals in place are so great. Back to ownership, I specifically said a key reason I do not want to fire Turner is our ownership would then be in a position to make football decisions. I don't care what you think of Ted, I would take his decision making over Mikey and family. That alone shows I do not care for our ownership. My only comment close to positive about ownership was stating we were a founding franchise, which I brought up only because you said the Rooney family was a founding franchise, and implied that was a difference between them and us. 2. having said the previous you are content with ted phillips overseeing football operations in this franchise and are content with whatever process he chooses our GM with. being the president he doesn't need to know anything except how to structure contracts and be a lie'ason with the public to perform his duties. When did I say I was content w/ Phillips overseeing football operations? I never did. The man below Phillips in in charge of football operations. Sure, he is over that GM, but then again, if you have a president/GM, then you still have football lacking ownership over that level. Regardless how you try to structure it, you are still going to have a non-football individual over football operations at some point. I simply see little wrong w/ Ted. He is not over football operations. that is what we have a GM for. And for the record, he has little to do w/ contracts, other than approving the total spending probably, as we have I believe Jim Miller who deals w/ that. Ted fills the same role as the president of the Patriots. He doesn't get involved in the day to day affairs of the football team, but runs the franchise. That is a bigger deal than just being a PR man, or whatever else you want to minimize the job into. 3. you are ok with no accountability from anyone in upper management, especially our team president, if our current GM fails or our future GM's fail. the blame can be attributed to nameless, faceless corporations that find these key people for us. (incidently i would like you to post the facts with links to show how many other franchises choose their GM's this way and their success rate). For the record, an article today mentioned our using the 3rd party to handle our search, and it also mentioned we did this at the request of the league, which as I recall, was at the time trying to push just such a partnership. Angelo is the only hire of Ted, and I have ripped Angelo to shreds over the years. W/ that said, often times a GM gets more than one coaching hire before he is fired. If the next GM Ted hires fails too, then yes, I would be more on board with Ted being on the hot seat. As of now, I just do not feel we are there. I would allow him another opportunity. And how about the recent reports/rumors that we have put out feelers to the upper tier guys (Cowher, Shanny and Gruden). No 3rd party seems to be used here. my crazy ideas... 1. hire a true professional that understands the football side of operations and who has the knowlege and expertise to 'hire' and fire a GM and understand the why of both. someone who can oversee various departments like college scouting and the draft. title? president. How many teams have this? How many teams have a football guy as president, while also having a seperate GM. Seems to me when a team brings in that stud GM, they are also making him the teams president. I gave a couple examples of teams who have a non-football guy as pres w/ a football guy as GM. What teams are you trying to model after that have a football guy as pres and a sep GM. Tenn has Fisher as both HC and President, while sharing GM duties essentially w/ the owner, Adams. Indy has Polian as both president and GM. Balt has Cass as President (an attorney) and below him is Newsome as the GM. SD has Spanos as pres (he is the son of the CEO and a non-football guy) w/ AJ Smith as the GM Phily has Banner as Prez, known as a salary cap/contract guru, w/ Reid as the HC/GM. I struggle to find a team that follows the structure you think is not only best, but is basically the only way to do it right. Few teams, none I could find, have a football guy as prez w/ a different guy as the GM. Most teams that might have a Holmgren like Prez, would also have him as the GM. I am not saying that in itself is wrong, but it goes against your argument about checks and balance. 2. have this knowlegable president hire a new GM to run hands-on football operations and oversee the progress the new GM does or doesn't make. Again, who does this? 3. have this GM accountable for drafting quality picks and players that are a need and have a GM that can see the long term effect of these drafts and how players will relate to the future health of the franchise. No argument here. The argument is above this level. I agree Angelo has failed, and agree he needs to be replaced. We simply disagree that we must have a football guy above him. have this new GM hire a new coaching staff that is qualified and not just working cheap to break into the head coaching position. something novel like one with previous head coach experience in the nfl and offense oriented. No real argument here either.

I agree it would be a bandaid. Maybe a good bandaid, but regardless, not a long term solution. Its funny. I spend years blasting Angelo. He then makes a move (Cutler) which has me really excited, and even calling him my new BFF. But after years of ripping Angelo, after I finally speak positive about him, most everyone else seems to have turned. I don't care how Cutler turns out. I said than and still today. Cutler was a freaking great trade and move. With that said, the body of work is still very lacking. Angelo has always made a point of saying he is a draft first guy, but the lack of playmakers from our drafts over the years can't be over-looked. While he has found "nice" players later in the draft, which does deserve credit, they are not players that put a unit, much less a team, over the top. His draft history is simply weak. And his FA signings not much better. While Angelo has not done a good enough job adding talent, the situation has only been made worse by a coaching staff seemingly incapable of (a) developing the talent brought in and ( best utilizing that talent. Lovie and Co know only one system, and a player is shoved into that system, whether they are a good fit or not. Turner may have a more broad base of knowledge in terms of systems, but is simply so predictable, it doesn't matter. And he too seems incapable of best utilizing talent. Replacing Turner w/ Martz may well be an upgrade at OC, but we are in a situation that needs major changes, not tweaks.