nfoligno

Okay, I am sure many have read about this by now, but it is being reported that we (Bears) are playing some games w/ the media. Sunday nights game is on NBC, and it appears standard operating procedure is for Bob Costas to interview numerous players/ personnel from each team. Well, the bears refused to have anyone appear for Costas, and NBC was forced to use some local media guys to give insight leading up to the game. There are going to be a couple trains of thought. Some will say, "who cares. Its about what happens on the field, not off." To an extent, I can understand this belief. But more and more, I just disagree. We have all heard the phrase "perception is reality" Well, consider for a moment the bears perception, and how real is sure seems to be becoming. These interviews w/ Costas are often used as PR vehicles for a team to put out the positive messages and spins. Instead, local media guys are going to fill in, and wanna bet they have less than a glass half full view of things? Cutler and this team is facing loads of scrutiny right now. Why the hell (a) add another "controversy" to the mix, ( antaganize the media further and © blow off a prime opportunity to put your spin on the season to the viewing public. Its called free press you idiots. The potential PR value of such interviews would be worth more than 100 billboards you spend money on. I read one guy, I think Telander, who puts this on Cutler, but I don't agree w/ that. Even if Cutler didn't want to talk, how the hell does that affect Angelo, who also refused. No, to me, the refusal came from much higher up than our QB, and then rolled down. Not the other way. To me, this simply further shows the incompatence of this organization. Yea, I realize a win against Phily, and no one remembers this issue. And if we lose, fans will be talking about the play on the field rather than this media insult. At the same time, where do the majority of fans read about the team? Yup. The media. Most on this board usually read/see through BS that is written, but I would argue the vast majority of fans rely on those media articles and interviews. So for many fans, when there was an opportunity for the team to offer some positive spin on current issues, instead fans will hear on prime time a far more negative view point, w/o anyone from the bears to rebutt it.

Reading a Q&A w/ Matt Mosley, who is a local guy for the Cowgirls, and knows the Eagles well, he was asked to name 3 weaknesses for Phily. His response, Chris Gocong is playing out of position at MLB, so he's thinking too much rather than reacting right now...Moise Fokou is a rookie starting on the strong-side. That's a mistake waiting to happen...And the Eagles don't have enough bodies in the secondary. When you have Dimitri Patterson covering Antonio Gates one-on-one late in a game, you have big-time problems. If their MLB is a weak spot, I hope to see a lot of (a) slants and ( more Forte receptions. If their SLB is a rookie, and struggling, that should bode well for our TE. Frankly, I would really like to see us use Clark here to attack the rookie. Also, as their secondary is hurting, attack them downfield. Use Olsen outside a ton to create further mismatches. If Patterson has to cover Olsen one-on-one, Olsen should win that battle early and often. Phily is known for their great defense, but that rep is based on the past, not present. This is a defense that we can, and should, attack. On the flip side, while it was not in the Q&A, I hear plenty about Phily due to living in Dallas. From everything I have heard, Phily lives on the big plays downfield. In the last couple weeks, teams have essentially played a cover two against them. Teams have worked hard to take away the big plays, forcing Phily to dink and dunk down the field. They simply don't have the consistency in their offense to do this. They can score on an 80 yard play, but not often on an 80 yard drive. As disgusted as it is to say, playing Lovie bend but don't break cover two scheme could actually benefit us this week. Don't allow Jackson or Macklin to beat you for huge plays. Force them to drive the field piece by piece. This limits their offense so much more than most realize. You would think Phily could easily adjust and kill you w/ underneath patterns, but that just isn't their offense. Take away what they do best, and they are far less scary than you would think. No, I don't think we are going to win this game. While they have weaknesses I think can be exploited, I don't have confidence in our staff to actually do this. I fully expect Turner to try and run the ball on Phily, despite their secondary being such a weakness right now. And it would be just like the Chicago Bears to finally drop the cover two and go all out aggressive in the one game such a scheme could actually be beneficial.

TOs in red zone are most likely on Turner. Even if Cutler calls the TO, the reason is likely that either (a) it took so long to get the playcall in that we don't have time to lineup or ( after lining up, and reading the defense, it looks like they have our number. I agree TOs can not only kill momentum, but offers the defense time to get established against us also. Honestly, I would love to allow Cutler more freedom. Look at how well Cutler seems to move the ball in a two minute drill. In a two minute drill, there is not time for the OC to make every playcall, and often the QB becomes the OC. Cutler seems to do a pretty solid job moving the offense when he (IMHO) is calling the plays. But like you said, we then get into the red zone, call a timeout, and Turner sends in the play. As w/ the comment that we need to open up and spread out the offense, I also think we need to take the reigns off Cutler. Yea, I know all about the picks, but I honestly believe that if we open it up more, and give him more freedom and authority, our offense will only improve. My opinion here likely has as much to do w/ my confidence in Cutler as it does my lack of confidence in Turner.

I absolutely rather have Culter and Forte to build around. I personally like to live life forward and not dwell on past mistakes or what have you. The important thing to do is learn from past experince and make better decision going forward. With that said I think the Bears are a few players away from being a good team on both side of the ball but it must start with a rebuilt offensive line. I think it starts w/ both lines. While we have numerous problems on offense, I don't think adding anything other than OL will provide significant improvement. On the defensive side, I feel the same. While there is little question we have needs in the secondary and at LB, IMHO, until we get our DL right, it won't really matter what we add in the back 7. If we can't rush the passer, two pro bowl CBs would look average to below average.

You and I have always been on a different page a bit when it comes to TJ/Benson. I was not against drafting Benson. TJ was simply not the proven stud at the time that he becamse after we drafted Benson. Add in that he was basically a bust for two prior teams, and went down w/ injury most every year of his career, and I simply understood drafting a RB when you felt you were looking at a "special" player. Frankly, most anytime you are in the draft and believe you are looking at a truly "special" player, I think you should do it. I remember when we drafted Urlacher. Minter was our MLB at the time, and while not elite by any means, he was solid and we had far greater holes. But I think most would agree drafting Urlacher was the right move. It does not always workout that the player you believed was a special player turns out to be so, but I just can't fault drafting such a player, even if over greater needs. And no way I can fault the team for drafting Forte, though as I am sure you will recall, I was all for OL that year as well. But Benson was not only unproven, but had so many character red flags that there was simply plenty of reason to question him too. Understand, you have few peers on this board as strong as I in the fight for OL. At the same time, while I fully agree our OL has been in major need for years, that does not always mean our drafting a RB was always the wrong way to go.

So I write a lenthy post explaining how much Cutler and Forte factor into the change, and you highlight one line I use? Come on man. Last year's OL was absolutely awful. You and I have both talked about how that OL was so much worse than perception due to Orton being an upgrade over Rex and limiting Orton to 3 step drops. But that OL, especially in pass protection, was simply dreadful. I doubt DLs any less surprised beating our current OL than they were last year. As with this year, I think last year DLs were licking their chops for their game against us. Further, as aggressive as defenses have been against us this year, I don't think it was any less last year. While we had a better run game last year, we had no downfield passing game, and thus teams were able to stack the box and attack us. I saw us try the run screens last year, and just like every year before that, it didn't work. So while some of what you said is a factor, I am not sure that it is different from last year, and thus does not explain why we can run it this year but could not last. So what else has changed? At the end of the day, the single most logical explanation is Cutler. The change is not 100% due to him, but I would say he represents the largest share of the reasoning here.

In the red zone, if we want to get all 3 TEs in there, the only way I would consider it would be if Olsen were split outside. Just like between the 20s, we need to do a better job of opening things up in the endzone. This past week, Cutler's early endzone pick came from our being in a heavy package. We need to spread it out more, as well as making sure Cutler has enough targets.

IMHO, we need to be spreading it out more. 2 TE sets or our power formations do little to advance the ball. We can't run from our power sets, and frankly, we take away weapons while doing little to improve the blocking. All these power sets do, IMHO, is make defenses more aggressively attack. What I would really like to see is more spread formations. Use more 3 and even 4 WR sets. I want to see DA used more often. I also want to move Olsen around more, like we did last year. I just have not seen us moving him around this year like we did last year. Start him at TE, but then split him outside. Have a set where you have Olsen and Hester on the outside, while rotating between Knox, Bennett and DA. When you look at what Forte did last year, a couple things stand out. 1. Forte had a 6.2 ypc avg in 0 TE sets. That number decreases w/ more TEs. 1 TE - 4.0. 2 TE - 3.6. Olsen I think is a key here. He simply is not an effective blocker, so having him in there as a TE does little to improve the blocking, but does guarantee an extra defender in the box. Get him outside and get a defender out of the box. 2. The more WRs on the field, and thus the more spread out, the better Forte ran. In 2 WR sets, Forte had a 3.6 ypc avg. In 3 WR sets, that avg went up to 5.2 (a huge jump). In 4 or more WR sets, his ypc avg was an amazing 6.2. We need to do a better job clearing out the box. As our players can't block them out of the box, we need to use the WRs on the outside to get them out. From a passing standpoint, I think this would help also. Even when Cutler has had time, it doesn't appear our receivers do a good job of getting open. Well, if you add the number of weapons, you thin out the defense, and improve the chances of Cutler to find an open receiver. Once I called for 2 TE sets, but now, I think we need to move away from that. Olsen, while I am not saying he should become a WR, needs to be put in motion more often, creating mis-matches as we did last year. Also, we need to get more weapons on the field to give Cutler more options.

I think you can look at a few things, and yes, Cuterl is a big part of it. There is more to it than just sitting there and floating a 10 yarder. For one thing, the QB has to be able to move. Often, the QB is back-peddling and "selling" the pressure. Another part of this is, the QB is often throwing off his backfoot. Rarely do you see a QB set and step into his "floater" on a RB screen. Usually, the QB is moving backward and tosses the ball before the rushers get to him. Mobility and throwing off their backfoot were not strengths of our past QBs. Also, there is a mental toughness element in there too. To really make it work, the QB needs to hold the ball until the last second. If he throws it too soon, the rushers have not gone deep enough into the backfield, and could still make a play. The QB has to hold the ball until it appears the rushers are on top of him, then get rid of it. And while you talk about it just being a 10 yard floater, I think it is a touch harder than that. You are throwing w/ loft, as you are having to get it over the heads of numerous rushers who are on top of you. And the pass has to be solid. If the RB has to come back to the ball, or adjust much to the pass, it takes him off course and will take him away from his blockers. So, yes, I do believe having a QB like Cutler does absolutely help here, but there are also some other factors. one is Forte. We saw last year what he could do as a receiver. And I think our OL works well for this. When running the screen, your OL will often act like they have been beaten. Well, that isn't difficult for our OL to fake. At the end of the day, much depends on a very aggressive defense. It worked so well against SF because they were attacking so hard against us. No question if we continue to use this play, opponents will adjust, but that is the point. You adjust to a play like this by playing off more. By making the opponents believe this is a legit option, they simply can not attack as aggressively, and that will benefit the team as well.

Also read, I think on PFT, that it may have been pure grain alcohol, but who carries that into a bar? And, I agree about the anti-freeze aspect too. Not only color, but again, who is carrying that around. I guess it is possible someone ran out to there car, but I think it more probable something more at hand was simply used, whether that be visine or something else.

Yeah, you're right: the "pay me" shoes are probably a clue that the guy's not going to come cheap. I think he could still be worth it, though. He's young and he can cover, which we need desperately. Old argument I have been in too many times. As much as I agree we could use help at CB, at the same time I know well there is only so much money that will be spent in FA, and I want to spend that money along the lines. Both lines suck, and are not likely to get much better w/o serious upgrades. Wale has been our best on the DL this year (not saying much) and he is a FA and likely gone. I have seen nothing from any DT to give me so much as hope, much less confidence. On the other side, there is simply a lot of work to do. I am a firm believer that it starts upfront. You can have the best cover corners in the NFL, but if you have no pass rush, they are simply going to get beaten. On the other hand, if you have a solid or better pass rush, average CBs could suddenly look good. Just like I believe on offense, you start w/ the OL and move out from there. If you have the best weapons in the world (WR) but an OL that can't protect for even 3 seconds, those weapons are wasted. However, if you have a solid or great OL, average talent weapons end up looking good due to the time they have to get open. So I love the idea of adding a stud CB. For me though, it would be similar to suggesting we add a stud WR, w/o fixing first the OL.

Honestly, I can't think of very many halfbacks in the NFL that could have carried a subpar team on their backs the way Forte did last year. He WAS our running game, and most of our passing game too, all with very little help. Turner's awesome at what he does, but he couldn't have done what Forte did. The sad thing is, one of the first RBs that come to mind would be Thomas Jones, who also carried our team when we lacked at OL, QB and WR. Thomas Jones not only was capable of hard yards, but also big plays and was a solid receiver too. Regarding Turner, while I agree w/ some of what you said, don't be so quick to take away from him either. While he did have a solid OL last year, he also had a rookie QB and teams were absolutely stacking the box to stop him. I agree he would not look nearly so good behind our OL. I just don't want to take away from what he is or has done. The pieces were absolutely not all in place when he took over, as they had a rookie QB. Final point. Nice to go back and talk "what-ifs" but even if we did sign Turner, does anyone truly believe we would have used that 2nd round pick on an OL? Heck, if fans recall, many (myself included) were looking at that 2nd round pick for a QB. Brian Brohm was the favorite of many, and from what I have read, he has sucked for GB. Henne was another, though fewer Chi fans liked him. I think I would rather have Forte and Cutler than Turner and Brohm.

I was screaming for us to sign Clabo this past offseason when he was a RFA, and I think would have cost us a 2nd or 3rd round pick, which I felt was worth it for a solid, still young, starting grade OL. For no compensation, I would obviously love to get him. As for Robinson, I would love to get him, but regardless how this year goes, I don't expect him to be very cheap. That was the entire contention this past offseason. Simply put, he wants to get paid. He is considered one of the better/best young CBs in the game. Even mediocre CBs get significant contracts. Hell, look at the deal we gave a nickel DB (RMJ) a few years ago. I just do not see Robinson signing a low risk, prove yourself, contract.

Also, Pace told reporters the other day that he got his bell rung and he was going for a concussion test...I think it's pretty clear what happened. The disappointing part of this is, it took Pace getting a potential concussion to be taken off the field. Prior to hearing this, there was at least the small glimmer of hope the staff simply realized he sucked and pulled him for ineffective play. I guess I was giving our staff too much credit.

Only responding to the Urlacher part because you said you were "part serious." Urlacher's injury was such that doctors said playing right now, w/ the injury, would risk permanent damage, resulting is loss of use of his hand for the rest of his life. I don't think Urlacher's not playing is an issue of not "toughing it out." W/ that said, I otherwise agree. This team is soft.

Here's the thing, though: the difference between a team that can't run the ball and a team that can isn't very much, in terms of yardage. Compare a crappy running team like the Bears (3.8 yards per carry, 26th in the league) to a great rushing team like the Panthers (4.8 YPC, 4th in the league) and the difference is a single yard per rush. You and I know that one yard is significant, in terms of separating the successful running teams from the unsuccessful ones, but it's not significant in terms of whether a coach chooses to run or pass. Totally disagree. If you are getting 3 ypc, you are not as likely to continue to run the ball a lot, as it simply is not working. If you are getting bigger chunks of yards though, you are more likely to carry the ball more. You mention Carolina. Well, Carolina has a worse defense than we do, but because they are better running the ball, they have done it more often, and a lot more often. Carolina has over 1,400 yards rushing, compared to our 767. Despite their poor defense, they stick w/ the run because, simply put, they are good at running the ball. Also, you mention our 3.8 ypc, but in reality, it is not even that good. Forte has a 3.4 ypc avg, yet Wolfe, AP and even Cutler all have solid ypc averages that skews the overall average. To put it another way, if you're in a situation where you need 7 or 8 yards, it doesn't matter whether you're the Panthers or the Bears, you better throw it. If you're consistently in a position where you desperately need big yardage, like the Bears have been so often, you're going to be throwing it all the time. It wouldn't matter if the Bears were averaging 5 yards a carry, we couldn't afford to run it when we're constantly playing 21 points behind. That might explain why we don't run well in a couple games, but we have only been blow out a couple times. Against SF, we were in that game until the end, yet Forte had about a 2 ypc average. It has not mattered whether our defense played well or not. We simply have not been able to run the ball. You also say whether you are a good or bad team running the ball doesn't matter when you need 7 or 8 yards. Sure, but the argument is that when you are a good rushing football team, you do not as often need 7 or 8 yards on 3rd down. A good rushing football team gets more yards on 1st and/or 2nd down, putting you in better 3rd down situations. We are often in 3rd and long due to our inability to run the ball. Look at the Bengals, who've been stomping everyone with their running game. Their average isn't very good at all: they're 22nd in the league with 4.0 per carry. But they're close to the top of the league in rushing attempts per game, so they pile up a lot of yards at the end of the day. And they can afford to run it a million times a game because they have a really solid defense and a highly effective passing game. If the Bears had the Bengals' defense and passing game, we could be effective running the ball even with a lowly 3.8 YPC. Disagree again. The defense has been inconsistent, and at times blown out, but in plenty of games, our defense has kept the opponents score down. Look at the Atlanta game. We were never more than one score down, and in that game throughout. Our passing game was working as Cutler threw for 300 yards, yet despite our D playing fairly well and our passing game working, Forte ran the ball 15 times for 23 yards, or a 1.5 average. Look, I agree it all connects. It is hard to run the ball when (a) your defense stinks and you are in a hole and ( your passing game is not clicking. By that same note though, it can also be argued that a defense struggles when the offense stinks and they are on the field all day, or the passing game struggles when you can't run the ball. It all goes together. You try to argue (I believe) that our inability to run the ball is due to our defensive struggles and inconsistency passing the ball, but I just can't agree. Even when our D plays well, and our passing game is working, our run game has still sucked.

Nice arguments, but I think it is a bit more simple than that. See bears try to run. See bears run get stopped. See bears pass the ball more. IMHO, that is a big reason we have seen so many WR screens this year. Everyone trash talks those screens, but I think we are using those instead of a run. Even when those screens are well defended, they usually get a few yards, which is as much or more than a run would get us. Meanwhile, I think there is a greater chance for those screens to get bigger yardage. You can look at the defense, or point to any other area you believe stats will back it up. At the end of the day, we pass the ball because we can't run it.

Thing is, you can go back and question how we have handled the various QBs, and I think Rex' dad does have a point. It is a total mind set. It is a HC who says we get off the bus running, not caring about reality. It is a GM who just doesn't really get it. Who believes he can patch together an OL and only now has decided "its all about the QB." It took him how long to figure that one out. From our scouting to our coaching, I there it is very valid to question it all. You mention Cade. Cade was likely destined for failure, but I will to this day argue against how we handled him. I watching Minny insert a young QB (Culpepper) into that offense, but they did some things that really helped out a young QB. They had a solid OL, and still kept extra blockers back to help. they tried to run the ball more often. they kept safety outlets for him to dump off too. Contrast that w/ how we handled Cade his rookie year. Remember the razzle dazzle offense? We had a rookie QB, asked him to learn a very complicated system. We didn't care to run the ball, meaning teams viewed us as one dimensional and could tee off on the QB. While Minny would max protect to keep Pepper safe, Cade got to deal w/ empty backfields. Many veteran QBs would struggle in that system, but to ask a rookie or young QB to run it was just assanine. I actually thought we did a fairly good job w/ Orton his first year. We didn't ask him to do too much, and developed him. But then we threw that away by (a) not even allowing him to compete for the job after that and ( like media and some fans, held agaisnt him aspects of his game that were likely more attributable to his being a rookie. While Orton doesn't have an elite arm, it is not nearly as weak as some act, but because he was a dink and dunk QB his rookie year, that is all many felt he could be. Even w/ Rex, we draft our "franchise QB" and then how many weapons did we provide him? It isn't one thing. It is many. And at the end of the day, I think Rex' dad has something when he simply says this organization doesn't know how to develop a QB. We get a QB and no weapons. We get a QB and some weapons but no OL. We get OL and weapons but no QB. You get the point.

I can't help but to think about Houston. I remember when Houston drafted David Carr to be their franchise QB, but after drafting their franchise QB, even fans couldn't explain why they did so little to protect him. They got their QB for offense. They even worked to add RB and WRs to give Carr weapons. What they did not do was build an OL to protect him. It didn't matter what RBs they added. It didn't matter how many weapons they gave Carr to work with. Every week, Texans fans watch Carr take the snap, and almost immediatly run for his life. I could be wrong, but I think he led the league for several years in sacks and QB hits. Now, say what you want about Carr individually, but even the least aware fans realized how awful of a plan it was to add franchise players w/o doing jack to protect them.

I guess we simply disagree. You say McKie is decent receiver for a FB. I don't see it. Maybe he has "decent" hands, but just being able to catch the ball doesn't mean much. Most of his receptions are short, and he is instantly dropped. He seems to have zero ability after the catch. For a FB, he sure seems to be tackles easily after the catch. So many of his catches seem to be 2 or 3 yard passes, w/ next to nothing in terms of YAC. As for the open field blocking, I guess I just have not seen that either. At the end of the day, I just do not see his value. The #1 thing he is asked to do, blocking inside, he fails at miserably. I do not think he does a very good job in terms of pass protection either. He just does not seem to have to power to matchup against LBs, which is necessary for a FB. And as I have said, he lacks much ability as a receiver. Frankly, I think we would be much better of not using a FB at all. I think Forte would find more holes to run through if we added a receiver and spread things out.

At the end of the day, this is the point I would make. Some will point to the 5 picks as proof Cutler had an awful game. Others will disect the picks to show it wasn't that bad. I would simply argue that, regardless how you view each pick individually, Cutler had an awful game. Now, I have maintained all along that our offense as a whole sucks, from coaching down, and that this loss is not solely on Cutler, but that does not excuse Cutler for the poor game he had.

I disagree. Yea, we have gone many years w/o the ability to run the screen, but I think changes is personnel have effected our ability to make this play as much as just pointing to SF. Cutler makes a difference. You can also see the difference he makes w/ the quick WR screen. That is a play that simply never worked before for us, but of late has actually worked. Also, we have a receiving back in Forte that can actually get it done. Part of it is defenses simply thredding our OL all day, but lets be honest. This isn't the first time we have been in this situation. Even when our OL was decent, defenses still attacked the hell out of us due to Rex being our QB. To me, the biggest key here is simply Cutler, who is capabale of making the throw. As for the 2nd part, I basically agree there. I don't agree as much on the draw plays. IMHO, w/ our OL as bad as it is, all the draw does is give the defense more time to get into the backfield. A draw play w/ this group would likely have the DT taking the would-be handoff. The one thing I just do not understand is the lack of roll outs, which every writer seems to question as well. The roll out is a great way to off-set some of the pass rush. (a) It is easier to rush the passer when you know where he will be and ( it gets Cutler out in space and buys him time. Cutler was considered one of the best QBs in the NFL in this regard, but we just have not seen it. That is one of the most baffling plays, or lack of, for me.

The funny thing about it is, someone here mentioned that McKie is like having another opponent on the DL. When he goes through the hole, he plugs it. He doesn't open anything up; he just stops the first option for Forte. Yea, I mentioned that. But here is the really funny thing. In the last game, I finally saw McKie in a role that may work, at least for a while. That of a decoy. McKie blocks left. Forte takes the handoff w/ an initially look left, but then cuts back to the right. Because McKie goes to the left, the LBs shift that way. I am only slightly joking around here. The few times I saw Forte actually gain yards was when he ran away from Mckie. For the life of me, I will simply never understand this staff. I realize our coaches want a versatile FB. They do not want a 6th OL or pure blocking machine. They want a jack of all trades FB, but in trying to get one, they have a guy that simply is not good at anything.

Hey, I never said not to "kick Cutler in the nuts". Far from it. This is my point. There are some who are trying to nearly absolve Cutler of fault due to (a) awful OL, ( little help from WRs, © no run game what-so-ever and (d) that all the picks were not his fault. There are others who are basically trying to pin the woes of the world on Cutler, realizing that we have other issues too, but Cutler is the QB and it all lays at his feet. I am trying to drive a middle road here. Cutler had a bad game. I don't care of Hester slipped on one or the ref threw a pick. There were other would-pick interceptions where the defense simply failed the make the play. Cutler was forcing bad passes throughout the game. With that said, the effort from our offense was so bad, and so across the board, that I refuse to simply throw Cutler under the bus w/o lots of company.

Exactly, and why I was blasting Lovie. Look, I get it. Coaches lied to the media and fans all the time, especially about injuries. But usually they do this to protect the player and injury. If you say this player has a busted rib, you can bet the next time he plays, that rib will have a bulleye on it. But that isn't the case here. Like when the staff initially led everyone to believe Harris was benched due to health, it was proven as a lie. Look, it goes back to the whole accountability thing. If a player is not giving his all, and you decide to bench him, why try to protect him to the public? By that same right, if Pace is sucking arce, and the team finally decides to bench him, why does our coach feel the need to lie to everyone to protect him?