nfoligno

Just trying to understand. I will use a specific example. This year, I drafted Rashard Mendenhall in the 13th round. The way I have done it in the past, it would mean I get to keep Mendy for a 12th round pick. Am I to understand that w/ your way, I could keep Mendy, but I would have to give up my 1st round pick? To continue. I drafted Hakeem Nicks one round later. Now, I am not saying he is a player I would want to keep, but... If I wanted to keep him, instead of someone else, I would normally expect to give up my 13th round pick, one round higher than I took him. If I go off what you said, I would have to give up a 1st? And if I wanted both he and Mendy, I would have to give up both my 1st and 2nd round picks to get Mendy and Nicks. Just trying to best understand how you have done it in the past, as it is pretty different from what I have seen.

The main reason I am not a big fan of multiple keepers is I love the draft, and when you have 2 keepers, you are taking potentially 20 players, good to great players, out of the mix. That just seems like a lot. Suddenly, you are drafting 2nd tier guys in the first round. Also, by making it only one keeper, it makes it really interesting, as owners have some tough choices.

How about this. Holmgren is hired as President of Football operations. Cowher is hired as HC Shanny is hired as OC Gruden is hired as QB coach Hey. A guy can dream, right

Probably my only concern with Cowher is the offense. I mean, all those years w/ Cowher, Pitt was a run offense. In fact, now w/ new coaching, Rothlisberger has really jacked up his numbers as Pitt is now, believe it or not, a passing offense. While there is nothing wrong w/ a run oriented offense, is that really what we would want after giving up so much for Cutler? This is not to say I would not love to get Cowher, but just questioning the look of our offense if we did get him. Also, if the report/rumor is true, and the upper management see's Cutler as the teams top asset to build around, would adding a defensive HC really be how to do that?

Honestly, I do not know if anything has been made "official". Have you sent Pix an email? Here is how I would vote. Keeper. You can keep any ONE player you drafted, and who remained on your roster the entire year. If you want to keep that player, you must give up a draft pick one round earlier than you drafted him. That means you can not keep your first round picks. That is how I have done it in the past, and a way I thought worked pretty well. As for payouts, how about..... 3rd place gets $25. 2nd place gets $50. 1st place gets $125. What do you think.

If true (a) really interesting to know who it is "above Angelo" thinking this way. ( if Angelo is indeed out of the loop, it could well mean he would be out with Lovie, and a coach/GM could be coming in. Of course, even if true, ownership could hear what the upper tier coaches want, crap in their pants, and tell us they still love Lovie:) If not true, someone would string up Hub to giving Bear fans false hope.

Read this on the Trib's site, talking about the Cutler pick. The tape shows: The Bears line up in shotgun formation with Matt Forte in the backfield next to Cutler. The receivers are Johnny Knox, Earl Bennett, Olsen and Devin Hester. The Eagles rush only three men, but defensive end Trent Cole puts an inside move on Orlando Pace and gets by him. Josh Beekman, who is blocking no one, does not help Pace, and Cole pressures Cutler. Freaking pathetic. I have seen this happen WAY to often this year. We face a defense that rushes only 3, and yet they still manage to get pressure on Cutler. I do not want to hear about how our OL played well, or even better. Never should we allow pressure on the QB when the D only rushes 3. The Trib did not point this out to defend Cutler. In fact, they specifically say Cutler locked onto Olsen, and never even looked at Bennett, who was in one-on-one coverage or Forte, who was open in the flat. Nor am I trying to excuse Cutler for the pick. The point here is ONLY to focus on the OL, and the questionable belief that they played well.

It is truly sad how low the bar has been set. OL doesn't get Cutler killed, they have played well. Defense only gives up 24 points, they played well. Wow have we sunk low.

While I am not arguing Cutler was missing WRs, I am not sure I would agree our OL played well. I have heard that quite a bit, and just do not agree. I saw us using a lot of max protect and power formations, and that helped keep Cutler vertical more often than not. But should we really credit the OL so much? If the OL were truly playing better, much less well, I would think we would not need to use the extra blockers so much and could instead provide Cutler more weapons. Also, even though we used extra blockers, I saw Cutler on the move often. And then there is the run blocker, which again, was just poor. Sure, there was the one big play, and on that play Beekman in particular (as well as Kreutz) made great blocks, but for the most part, our OL did little to nothing to open up holes for the RBs. At best, it may be said our OL was poor in run blocking and average in pass protection. I would actually say though that our OL was awful in run blocking and below average in pass protection, and much of the credit goes to our using extra blockers, which again, hurts as much as helps as it minimized the number of weapons/targets at Cutler's disposal.

For those who live in Chicago, are you familiar w/ Shiner Bock Beer, and if so, do you know if it is available in Chicago now? And for those who believe this forum is for bear related topics only, um, I heard Nate Vasher likes Shiner. Does that work for the tie in:)

How's the saying go. Thats great kid. Don't get cocky. I too reeled of 5 straight wins, only to drop my last two. Big week this week against the #1 team.

first off, i never stated there weren't multiple owner structures in the nfl. but what concerns me and what i am talking about is OUR'S. I realize we are talking about ours, but the point is, you make out like ours is so different from the norm, and I simply question that belief. lets look at the bears management structure: 1. imbecile owners: according to you, you don't believe the mccaskey's at this time are involved with control of the football side of this franchise. by changing the president of football operations you believe the mccaskey's, specifically mikey, will fall into the 'presidents' spot and then take control. so, at this time they 'supposedly have no say in personnel decisions and defer total control of football operations to an ACCOUNTANT. how really dumb is that if true? that leaves... How dumb is that? Not at all. They leave the football side alone, which a hell of a lot better than what we have here in Dallas, where the owner is also the president, GM and wanna be head coach. We have an ownership that enjoys their skybox suite and signs the checks. Sounds good to me. As for leaving the business to an accountant, again, just not as outside the norm as you want to make out. 2. president and #1 bean counter ted phillips: someone who not only stated but who has PROVEN he knows nothing about running the football side of the franchise. when mikey was kicked upstairs ted phillips didn't have the football brains to even begin to know how or where to find a GM to replace the idiot bastards son. so, he had to hire ANOTHER corporation to find one which it took months to do. so it seems like a good idea that when you next fire your GM (it does happen) that you now have to hire someone to figure out who to hire again because the president of our franchise has no clue and those above him are not involved? hmmm... even IF we fired angelo who is going to decide who replaces him? the same corporation? what are their credentials? giving us angelo?? if so, months later the availability of most free GM's and football minds are GONE again and you end up with the slop in the bottom of the bucket that will work cheap AGAIN. One. Yea, he used an outside company, which for the record, we were are not alone in doing. That company did a search and narrowed the list, which WE then made the decision on. I actually have little issue w/ the use of an outside company. My only issue is the length of the process it took. Two. This is what Ted did then. It does not mean it is what he would do today. Then, he was new to the role, and it was his first time dealing w/ such issues. He was involved in the process (said himself in interviews) and may not feel as incapable of making such decisions in the future. also, does it also stand to reason he has no clue on what to do with our college and pro scouting staffs? does he have any input on draft day? but then how important could that be? seems laughable doesn't it. Sorry, but it is simply not that unusual to have a President who runs the business side of things, and then below him is a person in charge of the football operations. For us, that role is filled by Angelo. that leaves... (drumroll).......ta DA!!!..................... 3. GM jerry angelo: whos bio reads... "He was handed the reins of the Chicago Bears football operations on June 12, 2001 as the team's first general manager since 1986 (Jerry Vainisi). Angelo has 40 years of football experience, including 20 as a NFL scout and 22 in the NFC North Division (includes 15 years in former NFC Central Division). He oversees the Bears entire football staff including football operations, personnel and coaching along with all decisions regarding the draft, free agency, trades and the salary cap." that folks, is IT!! we have no checks and balances. our GM is in charge of everyone and everything involving the actual football side of our entire franchise!! so in essense we have nobody in the entire upper AND lower structure of management who even KNOWS enough about football operations to not only make a judgement on our GM's performance but who to replace him with if they did!!! seems to me THAT'S why you would hire a president who understands the WHOLE picture and not someone who's claim to fame is his niche on how to structure the freaking salary cap and communicate with city and state officials. THIS is why a mike holmgren type for president would be a very good move by the corporate management of this franchise. it would give us checks and balances on the football side of running this franchise instead of putting it all on one individual, angelo, and expecting him to manage or fire himself. So that is what all this is about. We need more checks and balance? To what extent? If your president is so involved that he is in the war room 2nd guessing the GM on draft choices, you think that is a positive? If the Prez is telling the GM he doesn't like this player or that player, and does not allow the GM the authority to run the team, you think that is a positive? Man, that right there screams to the sorryness of so many teams out there today. If Angelo is in charge, then he is in charge. You let him do his job, and if he doesn't get it done, then you replace him. You further pretend it takes a football genius to make the call whether or not Angelo is getting it done. Sorry, but it doesn't take Jimmy Johnson or Bill Parcells to make that call. At some point, you are going to lead up to a non-football person making decisions. Lets say we hired Holmgren as the president, and we still suck. Is it your opinion that at no point can Mikey or ownership realize it isn't working out and fire Holmgren? The point here is that at some point, you are going to have a non-football person making decisions. You seem to feel the football person has to be at the president level, while we (and many other) teams feel comfortable w/ the football guy being the GM. THIS is your "we live in reality" reality. you say you want to "fire" everyone below ted to keep this real. well who has enough authority or intelligence to make the decision to fire anyone in football operations if it isn't either our clueless president OR the mccaskey family? Once again. You seem to believe this is rocket science. How many owners around the league know little more about football than you or I, and yet seem capable of year in and year out making such calls. Just because Ted Phillips is not a "football mind" doesn't mean he can't see this isn't working. It doesn't mean he can't look at Angelo's draft picks and FA signings and decide the value of the GM based on those merits. You make out like this is rocket science, but it is not. Hell, I would point out that you are no more a football guy than Ted, and yet you seem to believe you are of sound mind to declare he and everyone else should be fired. And again, even if we fired Ted and hired Holmgren (a) you are having a non-football person (ownership) making that hiring, and by your own logic, they are not qualified to do such and ( how does Holmgren ever get fired. If you argue Ted is not qualified to know when to fire Angelo, how could ownership ever fire Holmgren? moving on: let's look at the pats management structure. true the president isn't possibly football savvy but look at the football side of the structure he is smart enough to establish. he has hired a verrrry capable vice president and senior football advisor who is also considered the GM. this is who their president replaced pioli with. they also have hired a director of player personnel to govern the day to day operations of the department. the supporting staff of these two leaders is large and capable. see any differences there like maybe checks and balances and accountability? pats: 1. Jonathan Kraft - President Jonathan A. Kraft is the president and chief operating officer for The Kraft Group, the holding company of the Kraft family's varied business interests. He is also the president of the threetime Super Bowl Champion New England Patriots. As president of the Patriots, Kraft oversees the management and strategic planning of each department within the organization. He also works closely with his father to represent the Patriots in all league matters and has served on multiple NFL owner committees. http://www.patriots.com/team/index.cfm?ac=...bio&bio=549 2. Senior Football Advisor - Floyd Reese Floyd Reese will enter his 33rd NFL season in 2009, including 18 seasons in player personnel and 15 seasons as an assistant coach. He joined the Patriots on January 27, 2009 after serving 13 seasons as the executive vice president/general manager of the Houston Oilers/Tennessee Titans franchise from 1994-2006. He also served as the assistant general manager of the Oilers for four seasons from 1990-93. Reese served as an assistant coach with Detroit (1975-77), San Francisco (1978), Minnesota (1979- 85) and the Houston Oilers (1986-89). http://www.patriots.com/team/index.cfm?ac=...o&bio=33602 3. Director of Player Personnel - Nick Caserio Nick Caserio was named director of player personnel on February 21, 2008, after serving in a number of roles for the Patriots' personnel department and coaching staff. He enters his ninth season with the Patriots in 2009 and his seventh season in player personnel. He will oversee the day-to-day operations of the department. I fail to see the check and balance. You have a non-football guy in charge of everyone. Reese (going off your comments) is in charge. If Reese wants to do something that Caserio disagrees with, what are you saying happens. Nick is the check and can block Reese from doing it? I doubt that. If you just mean he provides feedback, opinion and comment, why is it you don't give Gabrial or DePaul credit for being capable of such w/ Angelo. There is no check and balance here different than w/ the Bears. ======================================================= you mention the steelers: the rooney family is one of the founders of the NFL. unlike our mccaskey's they seem to understand what it takes to run an organization in this era. look at the staff they employ and the differences between theirs and ours: http://news.steelers.com/team/frontoffice/ it's actually structured with checks and balances in most of the key areas and broken up into manageable divisions. the rooney's seem to HAVE the football savvy to understand what makes or breaks GM's and coaches and where to find one if needed. also look at their scouting personnel in football operations alone... "Football Operations Kevin Colbert, Director of Football Operations Doug Whaley, Pro Personnel Coordinator Ron Hughes, College Scouting Coordinator Joe Greene, Special Assistant Mark Gorscak, College Scout Phil Kreidler, Pro/College Scout Kelvin Fisher, College Scout Bruce McNorton, College Scout Dan Rooney, College Scout Dave Petett , Blesto Scout Bill Nunn, College Personnel Rob McCartney, Player Personnel Intern" Dude. How can you even try to make such an argument. Their structure is the same as ours. The only difference is you actually list their scouts. What, you don't think we have scouts? Pitt is family owned. Like Chicago. Oh, and by the way, we too are a one of the founders of the NFL. They have a pres who is not a football guy. Sound familiar. Below this, you try to show a bunch of names and make out like they are different, but they are not. Colbert is equal to Angelo Whaley is equal to DePaul Hughes is equal to Gabrial. After those guys, you just list a bunch of team scouts. What, you don't think we have scouts. Oh yea, and you even list an intern. Sorry, but you can try to list names and spin this as you wish. If you want to say Angelo sucks. I have no problem with that. If you want to say Gabrial, DePaul and our scouts suck, be my guest. But what kills my is this idea that there is only one correct way to set up the organization, and that is to have a football guy be the president. I disagree 100%. What matters is not the structure nearly so much as simply the men in the positions. If Holmgren came on and hired a joker for a GM, our structure would not look any better. However, if Ted replaced Angelo with a GM that turned out capable, I doubt you would give a crap about our pres lacking football insight.

If I recall correct, you are in 2nd place in our FF league. Thus, the only thing I will be telling Pix about you is....well...er...um.....actually, I better keep that to myself as some younger kiddos could be reading this post, and I don't want to upset any parents

The Knox pass was way too far. The Hester pass was pretty out there too. The Olsen pass ticked me off as well. He reached, and it seemed to damn near graze his finger tips. Most everyone in the bar also felt Olsen should have laid out for that one. Make no mistake. Cutler's pass was not on target, and it would have been a great play by Olsen. At the same time, Olsen didn't even attempt to make a play on the ball. Further, if Olsen wants to hold himself out to be one of the elite TEs in the game (he said this pre-season) then he needs to go and get that ball.

Wow. Great minds think alike. I was in the process of posting nearly identical comments.

Down in Arizona they have several players do a quick route while a 1 or maybe 2 go deep. And you do this by flooding the secondary w/ weapons. That is what I really want to see. IMHO, the extra protection helps only a little, while the extra targets could help a lot. We load up our protection, but as they are not very good blockers anyway, that protection still breaks down rather quickly. You might buy and extra second or two, but if you send out fewer weapons, they are still not able to get open, and thus Cutler is still running for his life. What I would like to see is to simply spread it out. Go 4 wide. Bennett and Olsen can run short to intermediate routes, and after a quick chip, Forte is an option in the flat. Meanwhile, Knox and Hester are forcing DBs to respect the deeper stuff. Mix up the personnel, at times using a speed guy on a cross slant while Olsen attacks downfield, but you get the point. In doing this, Cutler has not just one, but as many as 3 quick release options. If the defense recognizes this and decides to play cover rather than attack, they Cutler has more time in the pocket and can push it downfield. But no. We do the opposite. Rather than spread it out, we dumb it down. Rather than give Cutler more weapons and targets, we give him fewer. Oh yea, and we continue of force him to stay in the pocket, which we all know can last little more than 3 steps, if that.

There was a Sun Times article I posted a while back that showed how our defense does not use the Cover Two nearly as much as some believe, but also showed how we predominatly use the cover two on 3rd and long, and how badly we get beaten when we do such. Back to your comments. Thing is, I have actually even seen us blitz at times, but it just doesn't matter because even when we do the right thing w/ one unit, we F it up in how we use another unit. As mentioned a billion times, I saw us on a couple 3rd and long plays blitz (once even w/ two blitzers) but at the same time, our DBs were playing deeper than ever. That is exactly what happened on one 3rd and long play where McNabb dropped back, it appears our blitz was going to be effective, but before any had time to get near McNabb, he got rid of the ball to (maybe Jackson) on the left side. Bowman had played so deep that he was not even in the picture, and the WR was past the first down marker (easily) before Bowman could get up to make the tackle. Collisnworth spoke for some time about this, and how questionable it is to blitz the QB while doing nothing to impede the route of the WR. By giving the WR so much cushion, you flat out negate the blitz. What so disgusts me is, I have seen us do so well on 1st and 2nd down. I have seen us actually move up and press the WRs some, or at minimum, not give them massive cushions. I have seen us blitz from multiple areas, and put pressure on McNabb. I have seen us play well on 1st and 2nd down, forcing the opponent into 3rd and long. That is the goal of any D, and puts in you a situation to pin your ears back and attack. That is when a D can really start to make plays. But that is also where we, under Lovie, throw out everything that worked well and put you into that solid situation. That is where you then shift back into the bend/break cover two scheme. That is when you see the CBs literally give the WRs 10 yards of cushion, only to immediately backpeddle on the snap, leading to even more cushion. That is when you see the safeties drop so far back they can not hope to be part of the play. Someday. Someone will explain all this to me, as I am just a lowly fan. But I just do not understand getting away from what works so well, only to turn to what doesn't, and do so in the absolute worst times for such a move.

I SOOOOOOO go back and forth on this. On one hand, it can't be worse, right? Wrong. We got rid of Shoop, only to add Shea. It can always get worse. But lets say we do can Turner. On one hand, I think there are numerous reasons to believe the OC position could attract solid talent. (a) While we are not thrilled at the moment with our players, especially along the OL, there are also some players we have which could be attractive for a coach. PFW had a piece talking about how some coaches would love to have an opportunity to run an offense w/ Cutler behind center. Teams like Cle, Buf, Oak or many others may look for coaches, but think for a moment about their QB situation. Would you rather run an offense led by Cutler or Quinn? Besides Cutler, while we may lack established players, we do have a solid group of young talents (Knox, Forte, Bennett, Olsen and yes, even Hester). ( Taking over an offense w/ a potential lame duck coach has its negatives, but also positives. On the positive note, an OC would have a year to show something, and if he does well, could potentially position himself to take over the team as the HC. © Even if the job ends up as a one year deal, it would still be a promotion for many solid talents. There are only so many jobs in the NFL, and the number gets smaller and smaller the higher up you go. Even if not the ideal situation, if a team offers you a job as an OC, and it is an upgrade from your current situation, most often it is a good move to make. On the other hand, (a) Like players, most coaches like stability. Even if the job is a potential promotion, if you believe the HC and/or GM may change in a year, you are taking a big risk as you could be looking for a new job in a years time. In-stability like this will push many qualified candidates to other teams, or they will stay in place until something more stable comes along. ( Many believe that while Lovie is not the offensive mind, he has maintained a level of control. As stated by many of late. Lovie likes to win w/ defense and a solid ground game. If an OC is not sure whether or not the HC is on board w/ his style of offense, it may not be a good situation. I often hear about Martz, but if Lovie wants to be a run oriented offense, is Martz a good fit? OCs that want to open it up may not want to coach for Lovie if the belief is they are not sold on such a system. © Money. While some might argue (as I did earlier) that a coach might see the job as basically a one year stint before taking over as HC, it could also be argued you are still not likely to get the upper tier guys as we are not going to pay our OC a huge amount of money. For example, what if Shannahan didn't receive an offer from another team as a HC. Some might argue he could come here as an OC, and would be in a prime situation to take over as HC in another year. But would we actually pay our OC enough to get someone from that upper tier? Honestly, I could go back and forth on this all day. In the end, I think the OC job under Lovie would appeal to many who are currently below the level of OC. For them, the job is a promotion, which means more pay and an opportunity to prove themselves, and they would get this opportunity with a pro bowl QB at their disposal. I think the upper tier candidates would not view the opportunity highly, but the job may look good for the assistants of the league. The question is, would hiring another teams RB or QB coach (or whatever assistant) be an upgade for us? We would be getting a guy with no prior experience running an offense, would have to learn on the job, and might have a HC pushing to run the ball and tighten the grip on Cutler. That is why I just don't know here. As much as I want to upgrade Turner, at the same time, I just wonder if it is truly beneficial to do so w/o also letting Lovie go.

Mid/late 80s? Hell. Where has the Bears D of a couple years ago gone? It really is sickening watching how easily teams march down our throats to start games too. Does that not have to reflect directly on Lovie? I guess some will want to give him credit for our D making some adjustments, but why is it that with a week (or more) to prepare for a game, our D looks flat and lost out of the gate.

Oakland just drafted a couple WRs though, and Al in fact got his speed guy in DHB, along w/ a pretty good looking rookie in Murphy. As for Wash, you never know, but it just seems more like a dream. Again, if someone offered up a 2nd, I would take it, but (a) I just do not think his value is what some here would like to see and ( I think he has plenty of value to this team, but simply needs to be in a different situation.

I would argue that in Az, they have receivers such that it makes anything look easier. One of our problems is our WRs need time to get separation. They simply don't create immediate sep like some other more seasoned WRs do. That hurts when you want to go w/ quick, 3 step drops. It sounds great, but if the WRs isn't open, you still can't complete a pass after 3 steps. With that said, I do agree there are so many things you can do to compensate for poor OL. One issue IMHO is, we have actually tried to go to the 3 step drop, but while we do this with the QB, we do not do this enough w/ the playcall for the WRs routes. There will be one WR who is running a quick strike route, but the rest of our weapons are running routes that require more time. That means if the one WR running the quick route is covered, the rest of the WRs still have their backs to the QB after he has taken the 3rd step. I compare this to how our coaching on defense will blitz the QB, but give the WR 10 yards of cushion, which negates your blitzing efforts. If we tell Cutler to get rid of the ball after 3 steps, but don't give him enough weapons running quick routes, you negate the idea of the 3 step drop. Obviously, there are the rollouts, and many other options available to compensate for weak OL play which we just are not seeing too. One thing I was surprised about. Phily is a very aggressive defense. After we ran the RB screen so well the prior week, I thought that would be a significant part of our scheme this week, but did we even run it. Once again, it seems our coaches out-think themselves. Something works well, so our staff begins to think the other team will adjust to him, and then goes away from what worked without first making the opponent prove they can stop it. Is there any wonder why I believe our coaching staff is our greatest problem?

You know I will never complain about improving the OL. I just question whether or not we are best off trading Hester. If someone offered a significant value, fine. But I would not simply "take what value you can". Hester has value to this, and any, football team. The probelm IMHO is not that he can't play WR, but simply that he is not a #1. You say he and Knox are the same. Well, what if Knox develops into a starter, and we can move Hester to the slot, which is where I think he is best. I know you said Knox is a slot receiver, but why can he not be more. Knox has shown a lot of potential as a rookie, and I think there is no reason to believe he has hit his ceiling. Knox was always supposed to need time to develop. That he has developed as quickly as he has is a positive IMHO. I would absolutely love to see what might happen if he had a better WR coach. Sometimes it is a situation of addition by subtraction. I do not believe that is the case here though. It isn't that Hester is a bad player. I simply think he is not in the right position. Heck, he might even look good as a #2 if we had a more legit #1 opposite him. Our track record of find, much less developing, WRs simply sucks. While Hester is not a #1, he is not garbage either. We need to be looking to add right now far more than we need to subtract.

At the end of the day, our D gave up 24 points. Sorry, but our standards have really been lowered for us to consider that solid play. The whole idea of the D playing well enough to win is questionable. Absolutely we need to see more from the O, but at the same time, I think we also need to expect far more from the D. It really makes me sick how low we have dropped the bar that giving up 24 points, and allowing nearly 50% 3rd down conversions, is playing well enough.

Honestly though, what is Hester's trade value. I doubt it is as high as some here would like to believe. Lets say we can get a 3rd for him, which I frankly am not even sure would be possible, but even if we could, do you all honestly believe we could find a WR better than he in the draft. IMHO, the problem is not nearly so much that Hester can't play WR, but that he is simply not a #1. Just because he is not a #1 doesn't mean you get rid of him. The solution, IMHO, is to upgrade and get a better #1 WR. If Hester is not in the #1 role, we may find him to be a far better WR. And I still believe our WRs (a) will improve if the OL improves, as the WR will have more time to run routes, ( will improve with time, as they (outside of Hester) are still very young and © will improve with better coaching.

Agreed. Even on the rare occasions when he does have time, you can see the clock buzzing in his head. At this point, regardless whether or not there is pressure, he seems to expect pressure, and thus seems to be pressing and hurrying passes, even when he doesn't have to. Another thing Cutler used to do well is take off and run w/ the ball, but he has seemed more hesitant to do so as a Bear. You have to wonder if it isn't because he just doesn't want to put himself in a situation where he gets hit again. It is really sad what we may be turning Cutler into. I think this can all be rectified, but I do believe our OL and system in general, has screwed him up.