nfoligno

The good I saw last night from Forte, IMHO, was vision. All year I have felt his vision, which was an attribute his rookie year, was really lacking. He didn't seem to see the cut back lanes, and thus simply run it up the arce of our OL for no gain. Last night, he seemed to more often see his intended hole was closed, and rather than just run it up the OG/C's arce, he cut to a hole (however small) outside. He also had a couple huge blitz pickups which I think earlier this year he was missing big time. On his big run last night, he seemed to have good vision and was cutting and avoiding tackles. The bad was, he just still does not seem to have the pop and speed we saw last year. On his big gain, I swear that was a run he last year would have taken to the house, rather than getting run down from behind. At the LOS, there were times he would cut to the hole, but simply didn't seem to have the burst we saw last year, and thus he was tackled quickly. And on that long run, did you all see when he toward the end of the run, began to cut back to the middle of the field. That was about the most rounded out cut back I have ever seen. Last year, he was cutting very sharp, but this year his cuts simply lack the sharpness, and burst. He looked better last night, but more than ever, I think Forte may have some sort of injury not being reported.

The guys I really miss are Thomas Jones and Chris Harris. Harris was a hell of a strong safety, and we haven't had a real difference-maker at that position since he got traded. The Jones issue has been done to death, but man did we back the wrong horse on that one. They should have paid him whatever he was asking for and kept him here for the rest of his career. I was never a big Harris fan, but at the same time, I agree his absence was missed. Thing about Harris though, he was never as good for us as he was for Carolina. It reminded me of Parrish. If you recall, for us, Parrish was a great in the box safety but the belief was he was awful in coverage. He goes to SF, and suddently he was (at one point) leading the league in interceptions and looked like an all-around safety. Similar w/ Harris in Carolina. When in Chicago, Harris was a solid enough in the box safety, but look weak when asked to play FS or cover. After the move to Carolina though, he suddenly seemed to have coverage skills. As we are talking about two totally different staffs, its hard to say there is a common reason, but it really did hurt both times to watch. Honestly, I think Angelo has mis-managed the S position since he arrived, and I would point to two reasons. One, I think Angelo (and Lovie) believe the safety positions are inter-changable. They are not. While there are the rare players like Mike Brown who can excel at both, that is the exception, not the rule. We continually added SS' and expected them to also be capable of playing centerfield, which they simply could not do. Two. I personally believe that Lovie simply does not value the S position that much. Just look at how he has drafted, as well as FA. He has drafted quite a lot of safeties, but views them as a mid to late 2nd day draft pick value. Further, most of our FA additions were low end guys as well. Arch was an exception due to his past w/ Lovie. DM too was an exception IMHO, and frankly, I think Angelo saw DM as a potential CB more than simply a pure safety. EDIT: You're right nfo, Colombo was out of football for a little while before Dallas signed him. His injury (dislocated kneecap that caused nerve damage in his lower leg) was a really nasty one, and I don't fault the staff for thinking that it would end his career. He'd missed most of the previous two seasons at that point. If there's one guy who I wish we'd had a crystal ball for, though, it would be Colombo. Who knows how he came back from that injury, but he's been a very good right tackle for the Cowboys, and he hasn't missed time since they got him. Yea. For many players, you can really place the blame on the staff, but I just can't do it w/ Columbo. I think it was very understandable that we let him go. Just like I have a hard time ripping a GM who drafts a player w/o any injury history, but who then blows out his knee (for example) and never lives up to draft status, I just can't fault the bears here for Columbo.

If Davis had only 10 points in your league, I have to assume you (a) do not credit catches and ( do not give bonuses. Last week, Davis had 10 catches for 100 yards, but no scores. Olsen had 3 scores on 70 yards, so 25 points. So it is closer, but I would still go w/ Davis. In SF, Davis is a weapon they force the ball to due to a lack of other options. In Chicago, if Olsen isn't open, Cutler has proven capable of getting the ball to his receivers. As for having Chicago players, personally, I try to avoid them. As a fan, we always tend to over-evaluate our own, which means we would reach for Chicago players in the draft. And as you have seen/done w/ Olsen, too often you expect/hope your players have big games, and thus too often tend to start them over superiour options.

you said teams were "actually drafting and signing players to fit that scheme". you don't think teams would draft players with the talent of dion sanders type of players if they were available to them in the draft? or run schemes differently if they could find players like ronnie lott, asomugha, bailey, or rolle? they draft and pickup free agent zone type players because that is what is available for the most part and what they can afford. It happens all the time. I am more on your side. If there is a player you can draft who may not fit your system, but is the sort who you change your scheme to fit, then grab him. But all the team you see teams pass on a player who is not an ideal fit for their system, while drafting at times lesser player who are better fits. Understand, I disagree with this, but too often coaches are set in their system, and draft players to fit their system, rather than fit the system around the talent of their players. tell me then... which cornerbacks are YOU talking about that can/could have actually played man-to-man coverage you have seen in chicago since lovie has been here. which ones had the skill, size and speed and were capable of playing man coverage? First, understand, I am not saying we have had a Champ Bailey on the team. We have not had a stud, shut down CB. At the same time, when you look around the league, I think there are many CBs who play man who are not amazing shut down corners. Second, I would say it is hard to say what CBs we have had "would" be good in this regard as it is something we do not really practice or work on. Thus, when a player like Tillman does move up and try to play press coverage, he as often as not looks silly doing so. But the question I would ask is, might he look a bit better if we actually practices press coverage? If we tried to develop a player such a way, might they not be better than we most often see? We at times have seen our CBs move up and get killed, but my argument is, what do you expect when you have a player do something you just do not practice and work on much. Third, what CBs could have played man coverage? Frankly, I would say most of our CBs could have. No, that doesn't mean they might not get beat, but I disagree w/ the idea they could not do so. I am sure many remember the playoff game against Carolina when Tillman played Steve Smith in man coverage, and was destroyed. Many would point to that as proof he can't play man coverage. I would argue that Steve Smith has made many elite CBs look silly. Some WRs you simply can not play man. Watch defenses play Az, and how they cover Fitzgerald, for example. Even if you have Champ Bailey, you often double team Fitz because he is simply that good. On the other hand, look at when we played Carolina last year. Our CB was opposite Muhammad. I think you would agree Moose is no speed demon. Yet we played him way off the LOS. I know our CBs lack elite speed, but are they really so slow they have to fear getting beat deep by Moose? That is a big point of mine. We have not had a CB that could play on an island against elite WRs. At the same time, I would argue every week we face far lesser WRs, and our CBs (lacking in speed as they may) could be capable of playing man. Seriously. We faced Minny and our CB lining up opposite Bobby Wade gave him so much cushion you would think we were facing Steve Smith. Are you really telling me our CBs are so slow they can't press Bobby freaking Wade? No, to me it is far less about the talent of our CB than you would argue. While there are WRs in the league that would make our CBs look silly if we tried to play man coverage, the majority of WRs we face are simply less, and such that I just do not understand why our CBs, talent challenged as some would argue, couldn't press. I'll go back to the NO playoff game during our SB run. Vasher and Tillman were our starting CBs. Colston and Henderson were NO's starting WRs. Few would have thought our CBs capable of playing man coverage against those two, but guess what? That is exactly what we did, and with good results. You argue we simply have not had CBs talented enough to play man. I argue we simply have not tried. Tillman can not play man against Fitz, Steve Smith, or many others, but that doesn't mean he couldn't ever play man. You just do not face those elite WRs every week, and few teams have more than one WR you could not play man against. i argue and HAVE been arguing that 'our' cover 2 corners do not help our pass rush and the reason being is that they can't play bump and run tight up to the LOS with ANY consistancy!! i contend that the reason they play off the LOS (again i don't think they should play as FAR as they do) is because they get beat when they play up. But if press coverage is something we very rarely even try, how can the CBs ever look consistent? Remeber when Benson was here. Everyone said he couldnt' block to save his life, thus he was pulled on 3rd downs and kept out of blocking situations. Once he arrived in Cincy, he was not held back, and has developed into a very good blocking RB. Point is, if you don't allow players to do something, how are they ever going to develop or improve in that area? You say they get beat when they play up, but when does that happen? Further, are you telling me our corners are so incapable of playing press that they can't even press the Bobby Wade's of the league? i can't believe anyone would think lovie smith, no matter how much they didn't like his defensive scheme, would purposely play corners that can play bump and run tight coverage and run the cover 2 like it is supposed to be run on paper that far off the LOS. it would be a testament to idocy if he played woodson caliber players back that far for no reason!! You say CBs are supposed to play tight in the cover 2. While I am not arguing this point necessarily, what makes you think Lovie agrees? Think about this. If Lovie's system called for a CB that could play press coverage, don't you think we would have at least tried to draft/find one by now? I would argue (a) that in Lovie's scheme, whatever you want to call it, the DB is supposed to play off the LOS. In fact, I will point out that many times Lovie has said a key element of his scheme is keeping everything in front. LBs and DBs are supposed to always keep their man in front of them. The whole idea of playing press counters that as it would require a DB to play even w/ the WR, rather than keeping the WR in front of him. ( When have you seen Lovie alter his philosophy? While I agree it is mind boggling when we are facing slow, weaker WRs, and yet play them the exact same as if we were lined up opposite Steve Smith, but that is just what we have done. It just doesn't matter what the caliber of player we are facing, we run our scheme the same. By that same line of thinking, I would argue that it doesn't matter what the talent of the CB we had was. He would be asked to do the same thing as seen as being part of the system. To further that last point, I would bring up another general example. Numerous times over the last number of years, we have seen our starting CBs go down with injury. When replaced, the new CB was asked to do the same thing as the former starter. There was never a consideration to talent level. If we inserted a guy fresh off the street, we would ask him to cover as if Tillman were still in the game. Final point, specific to a CB on our team. You asked what DB we have had could play man. I would argue Bowman could, and actually, I think he might be better in a man coverage than in a zone. Bowman played man in college. He has size and speed to match w/ most WRs. Not only did he play man in college, but he also played press coverage. Yes, college isn't the pros, but the point is Bowman (a current starter) has the potential to play man press coverage, but not only are we not playing him that way, we are not even attempting to develop that aspect of his game. if he did/does he should have been fired long ago. On this point, we agree

I understand the thinking, but while we have much we need to add, at the same time, you do not want to give up certain players who are such that you build around. To me, that leaves Cutler and Briggs off the list. Cutler is obvious. Briggs, while he may well offer the most in terms of trade (a) LBs are often under-valued in the market as there are simply so many good ones and ( he is one of the few players we have good enough to build around. I think most believe Harris is gone, and while his value will not be what it was a few years ago, I think there is a decent chance to get decent value for him. Not long ago, he was considered elite. Some may feel he never again will be due to injury, but history has shown there are always teams that feel they can get more out of a player. If a team feels they can get Harris back to that upper tier level, they may be more willing to give up something. A 3rd is likely about has high as we could even hope, w/ a 4th more likely, but frankly, I would take either at this point. I think Hester has solid value, but we need to provide Cutler weapons, not take away. Cutler and Hester have starting to build chemistry, and that is not something I think we want to get rid of. The reality is, we don't have a ton of bargain with. I think we need to address much in FA, and just hope we can hit on some of our mid round picks, as Angelo has done at times in the past.

Vernon Davis is the 2nd best TE in the league this year, behind only Dallas Clark. Even w/ his breakout, 3 score game, Olsen just barely sneaked into the top 10. Davis has more catches, yards and scores. Davis is the #1 option for his team, and often the 2nd and 3rd options as well. Think about this. Olsen had his breakout game putting up 30 points (as my league scores) but as great of a week as he had, Davis also nearly matched putting up 25 points. Frankly, I am surprised you waited to start Davis until this past week. Until Olsen shows far more, and on a consistent basis, there is no reason to sit the 2nd best TE in the league.

2nd - I disagree with your assessment of our WR's, while agreeing with Jurko. I see the primary success of the recievers a result of Cutler hitting with quick strikes. I have yet to see good timing plays that would be the 1st sign of WR's being in time with the QB. Understand. I am not saying our WRs are great. In fact, while others have been trying to give our WRs A grades, I have pushed that back toward a B grade. To me, there is zero question that our WRs have a long ways to go in terms of development. Against Az, there was a play where Cutler was under pressure, and in replay they showed Knox simply running his route downfield and never looking back. If Cutler threw Knox a perfect strike, it would have hit him in the back. On another play, Cutler was scrambling to his right. Bennett had settled in near the middle of the field, but had a DB near him. As Cutler rolled (and the TV guys talked about this) Bennett should have mirrored him and tried to get away from the DB. Instead, he basically just stood there. With all that said however, I think there is no question our WRs have taken big leaps in terms of development. Further, when you talk about what his holding back our offense, can you really say the WRs? Give Cutler tons of credit, I know I do, but don't do so w/o giving at least some credit to the WRs. Every week I read more and more people (as well as listen to the announcers) talk about how much more he is looking like a WR, rather than a return specialist trying to play WR. Another thing Hester has not gotten enough credit for IMHO is his concentration. In the past, he seemed to drop quite a few easy passes due to a lack of concentration, but I have not seen that this year. His route running is getting a lot of praise, and simply put, he is developing nicely into a WR. Does that mean he will be Steve Smith? No. But he doesn't have to be. Bennett has a long way to go in terms of development, but this is also his first year on the field and he is looking pretty solid IMHO. Ditto Knox. At the end of the day, WR was perceived as a huge weakness entering the season. Most felt Olsen and/or Forte would still lead the team in receptions. You can credit Cutler, which is deserved, but I just don't think you can totally take away credit to our WRs. No way anyone would have predicted our top three reception leaders would all be WRs. While you can argue our WRs are not great, I just don't think you can say they are holding us back either. And further, I don't think anyone can say they have not surpassed expectations. Back specifically to Jurko, IMHO he simply is showing bias and an inability to admit he may have been wrong. Not only is he refusing to give the WRs much credit, at the same time, he is making excuses for Olsen while giving him a B grade. Especially when you factor expectations, how in the hell can you even argue Olsen and the TEs get a B grade while the WRs get a C. Olsen was expected to be the top weapon on our offense, and has not come close to that. Further, while he is not only failing to step up as a receiver, he is failing miserably as a blocker. As for coaching, like you, I disagree w/ Jurko, but there, at least I understand his argument. He believes we simply lack talent, and thus why he puts all the focus on Angelo. I also think you can question the talent, but at the same time, agree with you that a far greater problem is in the coaching.

Everyone is giving our grades. I wanted to add this one because it comes from ESPN Chicago, and thus is a bit more knowledgable and indepth than most other national outlets. http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/story?pa...portcard_091111 General manager D+ The offensive line is overrated, getting old and losing athleticism. The free-agent signing of Frank Omiyale was the big mistake of the season so far. He's proven himself to be unathletic and unable to play offensive guard. Let's hope he can be salvaged at one of the tackle positions moving forward. Defensive backs are in a state of disarray. Peanut Tillman isn't getting any younger; Nathan Vasher has been under-performing and the young rookies have yet to step up; and it looks like a lot of these guys are playing out of position. Wide receivers are still have playing two or three positions above where they need to be. That's all on Jerry Angelo's head. While I obviously do not argue most of what was written, at the same time, I don't care for the fact that he didn't even touch on positives. For example, w/o starting another debate, I think we would be in a worse position, now and going forward, if not for the Cutler deal. That deal by itself should push his grade into the C range. Coaching C- There were lot of expectations for this team going in. Looks like the same mistakes are being made over and over, and that's on Lovie Smith's head. Discipline issues, guys not being able to control themselves on the field -- read: Tommie Harris -- ultimately falls on the head of head coach Lovie Smith. He seems to really knock Lovie, but the grade doesn't reflect it as much, IMHO, because he seems to place much more of the blame on talent and Angelo. I personally just disagree. I think Lovie should shoulder a lot more of the responsibility. Jurko makes several comments against Angelo saying players seem to be out of position, but isn't that on the coach. Further, while I think talent is definitely a factor, I also think coaching has made the situation worse. Quarterback B Jay Cutler is the only bright spot on this unit. In his good games, he's really good. In some of the bad games, he's trying to force things and make things happen because of the money that's been paid and the things that were given up for him. Needed to be surrounded with some better talent, and that's the responsibility of general manager Jerry Angelo to make that happen I basically agree here. Running back I To me, I judge it incomplete. How do you judge a running back when you look at the lack of blocking on the offensive line? So what I will judge is his blocking, his blitz pickup and for that I give him a C-. A C- for blitz pickup, blocking on passing and the ability to see and recognize what's happening in front of him. Agree and disagree w/ this. As bad as the OL has been, Forte simply looked better last year, IMHO. And sorry, I would give a much lower grade if we were basing this purely on his blocking and blitz pickup, which I think has been about as week this year as the OL as a whole. Tight ends B I like the way the tight ends have been playing. You got a lot of productivity and production out of Greg Olsen. I thought we'd have more production out of him, but maybe the second half of the season will be better. Des Clark, I wish he'd catch more passes that end up hitting his hands, but for one reason or another, no. They block better than the offensive line but holes in the offensive line cause problems for the tight ends. Huh? Olsen is on pace to equal last years production, outside of TDs. Clark is, by Jurko's comments, not playing consistent. And the blocking in general from this group has been down right awful. Seems to be Jurko is high on Olsen in general, and less prone to knock the grade down based on hope Olsen will improve in the 2nd half, even though the grade is supposed to reflect 1st half results. Receivers C I didn't expect much from the wide receiver position, so they're out-performing expectations. But that only puts them at a solid C. Devin Hester is better suited to play the slot position in three-wide receiver sets. Johnny Knox has been a pleasant surprise, but still will be maybe as high as a No. 2 receiver some day. Earl Bennett, still trying to figure out exactly what he's doing out there sometimes. He has no recognition when it comes to a scrambling quarterback, so times are tough for that wide receiving corps. We still need to upgrade the talent at that position. As I recall, Jurko was very down on this group entering the season, and says as much to begin with, and IMHO simply refuses to give credit here when it is due. Maybe Hester is better suited for the slot, but I would argue that is all the more reason to give him credit for the job he has done to date. And while I agree Bennett still has work to do, he is young and that has to be expected. Still, Bennett has shown a solid amount of development and seems to be turning into a legit starting WR. IMHO, Jurko here simply can't let go of an old argument. He was never high on the WRs, and despite their solid play (solid, not spectacular) he just will not give them credit. It amazes me he gives Olsen a B while he gives the WRs a C. Offensive line F Absolutely miserable. And because of their pitiful play, it's tough to judge the wide receivers and the running back and the quarterback fairly in this regard. So it's unfortunate that the poor play of the offensive line is the F, and it will bring down the grade. The curve came down for the rest of the units in the offense. Can anyone disagree here? Defensive line D+ If it weren't for the defensive ends, this defensive line would get an F. Anthony Adams looks like he's lost sometimes. Marcus Harrison's still out of shape and unable to play a complete game. Tommie Harris has been an enigma. Alex Brown, Adewale Ogunleye and Mark Anderson are the only things that salvage this thing from being an absolute F. I think he may be giving our DEs a tad too much credit, as I think they have been a legit part of the problem, but overall agree. This unit simply has not produced as expected, and it starts at the DT position which has been flat all year. Linebackers C+ Tough to judge this unit because of the injuries that have happened here with Brian Urlacher and Pisa Tinoisamoa. This unit looked to be one of the stronger units going into the season, but because of the injuries the depth has been forced to go ahead and step up and act like the pros. Briggs has played well for most of the season, but he can't be a one-man show. He's got to be careful not to try to do somebody else's job, because ultimately, you end up doing no jobs, so you have to be careful in that regard. Agree this is a hard one to grade w/ 2 of 3 starters out most of the season. Still, if we simply base the grade on the players on the field, I think it would have to be lower. We have been flat out weak in the middle, and as big of holes as our DL has allowed, the LBs simply have not done much either. Also, I see us blitz our LBs all the time, yet see minimal positive results from it. Secondary C Peanut Tillman is your best corner, but he's not a shut-down corner. Trying to figure this unit out. These guys are all playing a mish mash of positions. Al Afalava, for a rookie, has played well at times, but you can't expect this guy to perform miracles when the defensive line is playing poorly. He comes up to fill a hole and it's ten-yards wide. Even the great Ronnie Lott wouldn't be able to fill that type of hole. Maybe the hardest for me to grade. As much as I want to put on the DBs, I have a hard time due to (a) scheme and ( lack of pass rush. They have not played well, but at the same time, I am simply not sure the fault should be squared on their shoulders. Special teams B+ Special teams is the only bright spot. Patrick Mannelly, except for the stupid decision he made against the Green Bay Packers that cost them the game, I give him a B. Robbie Gould gets an A, one of the most consistent kickers and adds a 50-yarder this year. Brad Maynard, I'm going to give a B-. He's had a couple struggles this year in some games, and of the three special-teamers, he performed the most inconsistent so he gets a B-. Key reason I disagree w/ this grade is there is no mention of the coverage units, which have really been poor this year. Still, credit has to go out to the other units which have done well. We inserted Knox as a returner, and he has replaced DM fairly well. Hester looks better returning punts this year than last. Maynard has had some poor kicks, but I think has been good overall. And credit has to go out to Gould.

Honestly, I am going back and forth. Pitt is an awesome D, and you are right that they have been even better since Polomalu has returned. However, Miami has been pretty solid (in FF) too. Miami gives up more points, but are not that far apart in terms of turnover stats. Miami makes up ground in special teams though, where they have more yards and a couple scores while Pitt doesn't do much in the return game. Pitt is better, but the difference is less than you might think. Then factor in opponents. Cincy has a very solid offense (though maybe not as good as we made them look). Solid QB, OL, RB and WRs. On the other hand, in TB you have a rookie QB who is just getting a chance to play, weak OL, worse run game, and not a ton of weapons to speak of. I am still going back and forth on this one.

I assume you are based these grades on expectations. Hester, for example, might get a high grade if you factor expectations, but I am not sure I would give him an A grade otherwise. So, assuming these are expectation based grades... Cutler B+ I would go w/ a B. While there are a tremendous number of factors, the simple of it is he has really made some poor decisions. Make no mistake, I love what he has brought to the table, but I simply believe (OL or not) more was expected from Cutler. Forte D+ I will go a tad higher with a C minus. The only reason is, the OL has simply been so bad that I have a hard time giving a D grade to a player who relies on that unit for production. Hester A I would give him a B+. That isn't a knock on Hester. He has done more to develop in a WR than I believe most expected, including myself. But to give out an A grade simply (IMHO) implies playing at a higher level than I believe any on this team have. Bennett A- I'll go w/ a B. He is on pace for 64-850-0. I think the catches and yards are fairly in line w/ what many were expecting, though his zero scores have to count against him a bit. But while he gets credit for living up to expectations, and looking good in doing so, I am not sure I can handout much higher of a grade at this point. A- and above grades should be handed out for those who really go above expectations, and I think if you did projections prior to the start of the season, both Hester and Bennett are in line w/ those early projections. I think we as Bear fans are simply surprised WRs are actually living up to those projections/expectations. Knox B+ I'll go w/ a solid B. While he was the talk of the town early on, the reality is, he hasn't topped 50 yards in the last 6 games. No question he has gone above expectations (which were near non-existant) as a 5th round pick rookie. At the same time, his role seems to be diminishing more than advancing, and he appears at the moment to be little more than a 3-30 type WR. That he is on the field at all is above expectations, and thus a nice solid grade, but has he really done so much as to warrant higher? Olsen C C minus, and I might be generous at the moment due to the 3 score game he is coming off. Entering the season, he was expected to be our #1 option, and was expected to be in the Witten, Gates, Gonzalez tier. He is currently on pace for catch/yard stats nearly identical to last year, when he was not even starting. Add in some horendous blocking, and I think C minus may be generous. Omiyale F As I have said in other posts, I am not sure an F, or even F minus, does justice to how poorly he has played. Pace F The only thing that makes me not want to give him an F is, he has been better than Omiyale, so unless we start using numeric grades, it is hard to otherwise explain the difference. Pace has not been as bad as Omiyale, but an F is still the right grade. If this were a numeric grade scale, Omiyale would likely get around a 10 (give him credit for a couple good run blocks) while Pace would get maybe a 50. Williams F I'll give him a D+. He has been better than Pace, and I would argue expectations for Williams on the right were less than Pace on the left. He has been bad, and I think a D+ reflects that, but I also feel he has done "some" good things. Maybe he deserves an F, but (a) I believe he is out of position, ( I think expectations were lower for him playing his first season at a new position and © I think he has been better than Pace, and that needs to be reflected. Kreutz D I might have gone w/ a D+, but it isn't even worth the argument. We need to find a LG because Beekman will be moving to center sooner rather than later. Garza C- Absolutely drives me nuts that Garza is our best player on the OL. C minis is fair IMHO. If reflects a fair bit higher of a grade then the rest have received. Garza has been average (at best) in pass protection while fairly ineffective in run blocking, thus a slightly below average grade sounds about right. Entering the season, how many would have predicted the unit that looks the best would be the WRs?

I have Pitt and Miami. Pitt has done VERY well for me this year, as you know having Pitt yourself, but are going against a Cincy team that has looked very good. Miami is facing a very poor TB team, and right now, I am looking at giving them the nod.

I follow. But I htink the one target they have, that has continually confounded us is the TE. Davis is one of the better ones, and I think those mid-range passes are all that's needed to pick up apart. The other weapons aren't there...but I think Davis could be enough to take us out. What TE has continually confounded us? Even Tony G., probably the best TE we have faced, only had 4 catches for 50 yards. We have given up a couple scores to TEs in the red zone, but it isn't like TEs have been shreding us this year. Further, the times TEs have hurt us, they were playing on teams w/ other weapons we had to fear. Tony G had Roddy White and while they didn't do much, the TEs that did hurt us in Az obviously had other weapons to take away our focus. Davis is a dang good TE, especially this year, but that team lacks other threats. Even if Davis does have a big game, I am not sure he alone is enough. The hope is that Cutler and crew can move the ball downfield passing. But, I fear we may be in catch-up mode. However, you're right...SF is not AZ or CIN. They probably are going to be similar in what we saw with SEA. And that game took a lucky miss by their kicker to win. If we have to play in catchup mode, we may as well write off the rest of the games. While SF isn't totally lacking in talent, they are definitely not a team w/ so many weapons that they should be able to run up the score on us. I just do not see SF doing to us what Cincy and Az did, thus I don't see us having to play from behind. I honestly look at no game as a sure win anymore. Detroir could be playing w/o fear and actually proved that they could give us trouble. And is it out of the realm of possibility, STL, also w/ nothing to lose, has a banner day from Bulger picking our D apart...? Not probable, but all of a sudden, I think possible. I am not by any stretch saying ANY game is a sure win, but as bad as we are, Det and Stl are worse. Just like when we played Cle, even a mediocre (or less) performance should still be enough to win. Those are two games we absolutely should win, giving us 6 wins. Lets say we also pull out a win against SF, giving us 7. That could be the end of our wins. We might pull out one more win, but honestly, I am not sure I even see that. 7-9 likely by seasons end, w/ 8-8 being possible, but not necessarily likely.

I have no doubt we have looked at him. We lost Kevin Jones prior to the start of the season, and thus begin the year from behind at the RB position. AP soon after went down, and we were forced to play w/ only 2 RBs, one of which doesn't have much of a role in our offense. Then AP returns only to see Wolfe go down. All the while, Forte has not looked very good. So yea, I can see our looking at what RBs are available. At the same time, I am not so sure this will happen, even if he is still available. First, from LJ's perspective, would you want to join the Bears. The team isn't going to offer him more than the minimum (prorated), and as KC has already paid him for the season, he isn't dying to earn a buck. So the money isn't going to be great. Unless he is blind, he should easily see how poor our OL is, and how few holes he would have to run through. I doubt he was a fan of the OL in KC. Would he really want to join a team w/ the same problems. Finally, his role may also be in question. If we did look to add him, it would most likely be for insurance and depth, w/ some potential spot carries. So while I think there is plenty of reason for the Bears to be looking for a RB, and might even see the argument for our talking to him, I have a much harder time seeing him looking so favorably at the Bears. Two teams I have also heard/read about are Pitt and NE, each of which I would think would be FAR more appealing to LJ. Pitt has Mendenhall breaking out, and are not likely to take too many carries away from him, but whatever his role on the team (a) Pitt is the team he grew up a fan of and has always said he wanted to play for and ( he would have a legit shot at a ring. NE has a much more questionable RB situation, and thus his potential to see a greater role in NE is better. Also, as w/ Pitt, he would be joining a team w/ a legit shot at a ring. No one is going to offer LJ much more than the minimum, so I doubt the ultimate deal will be about money. More likely, he will choose to either join a team for "other" reasons, or sit out the rest of the season as he has already been paid.

Personally, I think both defenses are close to even. I think both QBs are likely to toss a pick, and both QBs are likely to get sacked. I would start Chicago because (a) if both are close, go w/ the team you are rooting for anyway, ( Alex Smith is more likely to throw multiple picks, © Smith holds the ball even longer than Cutler, as much as Cutler takes a beating, he does a better job than Smith of avoiding the sack stat and (d) SF's special teams isn't that good, and w/ Hester/Knox/DM, there is a greater chance for special teams points. I don't care who they are playing, I would avoid KC defense. There are some teams that are so bad you don't bother looking at who they are facing. Frankly, both KC and Oak would fall into that category.

Why I think it potential we could do well. When on defense. SF can run the ball, but are not very good passing it. We can stack the box to stop the run, w/o worrying too much about getting beat through the air. I realize Cincy and Az both torched us on the ground, but Cincy was a multi-faceted offense, while Az was an offense that was so good passing that we over-loaded to stop that aspect. Even stacking the box, I just don't think Alex Smith is good enough, nor does he have the weapons outside Davis, to really hurt us. When on offense. SF is a below average pass defense, and a pretty solid run defense. Since we can't run the ball anyway, their run defense is really not crucial. It is through the air our offense moves the ball, and that is where they are weaker. A key reason SF is not good against the pass is, they simply can't rush the passer. Sound familiar? While our OL is the answer to many teams pass rush questions, the point is they are not a team that does a good job getting after the QB. Thus, even if they do better than their norm, it isn't likely they are going to destroy Cutler the way some other teams w/ better pass rushers have done. Will it all play out this way? Who knows, especially when you factor the coaching. Will Lovie refuse to stack the box against Gore as he refused to do against Benson? Will Turner try to establish the run and attack their strength. W/ our staff, you just never know. But my point is, this is a game I very much can see our winning, and potentially even doing so in such a fashion as to give false hope. After this game, we have 2 out of 7 against bad teams (Det/Stl) and 5 games that frankly, could get ugly.

What sort of makes me sick is, SF really isn't that good. They are not Cle by any stretch, but they are not that good either. I think there is a very legit chance we come to this game and look pretty decent/good. That will put us at 5-4, above .500, and many (at Halas) will think the questions have been answered. But it will be an illusion, just like the Cle game.

I essentially get what you are saying, but... One. You said, "now we see tweener corners starting in the league because we have these cover-whatever schemes that try to compensate for lack of talent because there are so many franchises in the nfl and not enough good talent to go around" I disagree this is why you have the scheme. I believe even you argued in the past that TBs CBs were solid. The cover two was a new scheme, and for that team, it worked. It was not a scheme created to compensate for a lack of talent, on the team or around the league. When you look beyond TB, I would still argue the same. Teams that employed the cover two did not do so because they couldn't get enough talent and had to. Quite the opposite. They were teams run by coaches who saw the system work, and work at a high level, in TB, and tried to do the same. They actually were drafting and signing players to fit that scheme. You and I both hate the scheme, but I simply disagree when you say the scheme was established to compensate for a lack of quality CBs, or any other position. Two. You argue that zone cover corners do not help our pass rush. I would argue it is more about the system (as run in Chicago) than it is the CBs specifically. Go back and consider any CBs since Lovie joined the team. They have all played well off the LOS. It didn't matter whether that CB had exceptional height or speed. It didn't matter if that CB was considered capable of man coverage. Heck, it didn't matter if that CB was squared off against the slowest WR in the league. Simply put, our defense puts the CB far off the LOS. IMHO, that has nothing to do w/ the individual CBs we have seen in Chicago, and everything to do w/ the system/scheme our coaches employ. So on one hand, I agree w/ you very much and have argued the same for years now. It disgusts me when I watch our CBs lining up 10 yards (or more) from the LOS. It makes life easy on the QB and nearly impossible for the DL to pressure the QB. Heck, even Alex Brown made a comment as to such last year when he talked about how no one can pressure the QB when he is able to get rid of it so quickly. (I would argue a DL can pressure the QB on even a 3 step drop if that QB was behind our OL, but that is another discussion). On the other hand, I disagree w/ the belief that our issue here is the CB, rather than the scheme. You mention Charles Woodson. I agree w/o question he is a hell of a lot better than the CBs we currently have, and regardless of scheme, would benefit the team. At the same time, it is also my opinion that if we did have Woodson, we would see him suddenly playing 10 yards off the LOS, thus negating so much of what he could potentially offer. So for some time you have argued we should go after a stud or upper tier CB. I understand fully your argument, but still believe that a stud CB would be wasted on our team. If you have a Woodson (to stick w/ the same example) and then play him (a) far off the LOS and ( in zone coverage, would you not agree we would be wasting his talents. I assume you would argue that our staff would not do that, but I see no reason to believe such. I am not saying we have had a Woodson on the team, but when have we even allowed a CB to try and play to that level? I mean for heavens sake. Our CBs were lined up 10 yards back when facing M.Muhammad. They were lined up deep when facing Wade. IMHO, neither the talent of our CBs, nor the talent of the opposing WRs, has altered how our coaches line up our secondary. As soon as Lovie is gone, and that is beginning to look sooner rather than later, I will jump onto the bandwagon w/ you to better our CB unit. Until then, I just feel it would be a waste, and we need to focus on the trenches. Adding a stud, shut down CB under Lovie Smith would be equal to adding a Dwight Freeney w/ Greg Blache running the defense. If Blache had Freeney, he would tell Freeney to play the run first, maintain his gap, and if he can do so under control, rush the passer. Similar, under Lovie, if we added Woodson, Lovie would tell him to drop back, keep everything in front of him, and make the tackle after the catch, rather than telling Woodson to mix it up and prevent the catch from happening in the first place.

From PFT, Vernon Davis expects to "destroy" Bears defensive front Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on November 10, 2009 9:13 PM ET Like a lot of folks that have watched the Chicago Bears play football in recent weeks, 49ers tight end Vernon Davis is not impressed with what he sees. Unlike most of those folks, Davis has to play football against the Bears Thursday. And you can be sure they will remember his words from this week. "I think we can destroy their front,'' Davis said. "The guys up front, I think we can destroy them. I don't see anything spectacular about their front line." The Bears are 23rd in sacks and 22nd in points allowed on defense. While the 49ers offense hasn't been lighting up the scoreboard, Davis is having a Pro Bowl caliber season. With that, comes confidence. "Their linebackers, I think we can handle them pretty well. I like [Adewale] Ogunleye. I like the way he's playing up front. He's about the only player I like on their defensive line. I think he's doing a good job." The NFL Network should thank Vernon for doing everything he can to hype up its Thursday Night Football opener. UPDATE: Vernon tweets on the matter: "I know people are talking about what I said today. I wasn't trying to take a shot at the Bears. I was showing confidence in my team." Personally, I so would like to think our team steps up and shuts him up. No, I don't mean Tommie Harris tring to punch him in the facemask, but through play, shut him down. When he does catch the ball, light him up. Unfortunately, I fear our defense lacks the heart to do such.

Wiegman is actually 4 years older than Kreutz. Kreutz was a 2nd round pick (I believe) and after a year or so, won the starting job, and the Bears let Wiegman walk. I don't recall if they cut him or if he was a FA, but the team decided to go w/ Kreutz. Can't say as that I blame them. While Wiegman has had a very solid career, I didn't think he was ever that special for us.

LOL. Just having some fun. Knew what you meant.

I pretty much agree all around on the "little things" we do not do. I too have gone nuts watching our OL just stand (really sit as they have been knocked down often) as the play goes on. Also drives me nuts when defenders slow down or stop chasing when they think they can't catch the ball carrier, even though sometimes that guy ends up changing direction downfield. When we spear a guy rather than wrap up. Yea, we simply don't see to do many little things. With regard to some of the players you mentioned: St. Clair - To the best of my knowledge, except when facing the bears, he has looked like crap. Wigeman - Man, he was let go a decade ago, and frankly, for good reason. We simply choose Kreutz over Wigeman, and I don't think that can really be questioned as Kreutz has seen numerous pro bowls. Columbo - Still not sure how much I fault the staff. He could not stay healthy, and as I recall, his injury was on that was deemed chronic and not something he was expected to see a full recovery. I could be wrong, but before signings w/ Dallas, didn't he spend a little time out of football. Maybe not, but the point is, he just couldn't stay healthy and the team moved on. Mike Gandy - Frankly, this one hurts. Up and down OG for us, who was even played some at LT out of need, but stunk when tried. Now I believe he is the starting LT for Az. Considering our OL woes, this one really hurts. Berrian - This one just doesn't hurt for me. He wanted upper tier WR money, and what has he done to earn that? Do you realize we have THREE WRs who have more receiving yardage than Berrian? Benson - Hurts, but well discussed. Thomas Jones - See above. Tank - Finally gave up on an ex-con who couldn't stay out of trouble. He was a so-so player for Dallas, but now seems to be playing well. I don't know. Yea, it would be great to have him today, but if he was not released, how do we know whether or not he would have changed his ways. Orton - I would much rather have Cutler There are others. Gage, Bradley and Wade are often mentioned, but I think we have as good or better right now. Harris, who went on to be a solid S for Carolina may be another example. Polite I believe was a solid FB for Miami too. At the end of the day, every team in the NFL can play this game. Every team in the NFL lets go of or loses player who end up having better success elsewhere. For me, it is less about those we lost and more about the lack of what we have done w/ their replacements. When you look at a team like Pitt or NE, they seem to lose good players every year, but simply do a far better job replacing them.

Alex Smith? Did we trade for SF's starting QB and move him to S?

Well, before you close the discussion, let me simply point out that Wolfe may be out for a month, leaving us w/ only 2 RBs, one of which is just getting back from injury. While I do not want LJ, at the same time, I also do not know who is available if we need to quickly add a RB. LJ is no longer a good runner, and behind this OL, it would look worse. At the same time, I would point out that LJ is considered good in blitz pickup and is also considered a good receiver out of the backfield. While I would like to think there are better options available, I really don't know. I don't want LJ, and frankly don't think he would consider joining the bears, but before closing the discussion, I would like to see what other options we might have available to us, because we could very well be forced to pickup a RB.

Team MVP: Lance Briggs. Makes plays all over the field, shown leadership, helping as best he can where Urlacher is missing. Not sure I can go along with this one. Makes plays all over the field? He is a tackle machine, but we needed a playmaker, and I just do not think he has provided that. He blitzes a ton, yet has one sack. I have seen more balls bounce off his hands than he has caught (one). He has zero FFs, and I am not sure I would say 3 TFL is that impressive. Look, I am not taking away from him. He is a great LB, and a pure tackle machine, but is that enough? Leadership? How the heck can they say this? Our defense looks like it has quit. Whoever we play at MLB seems to be the playcaller, whether that be Hunter or Roach. Briggis is a damn good LB, but I just question calling him a leader. I get that there are really few candidates for the MVP position of a crap team like ours, but to me, the only one who I can think of would be Cutler. We have no run game, and no OL, and yet Cutler has managed to still give us some semblence of an offense. Further, w/ Cutler under center, despite all the rest of the crap, our receivers have appeared to develop more than at any previous point in as long as I can remember. Cutler is a big part of that. I am not saying he is perfect. FAR from it. But he has kept the offenses head above water when attached to a 10,000 lb anchor (the OL) and still somehow managed to do more to assist the development of a unit we have been lacking in for years. Biggest Surprise: Johnny Knox. Everyone knew he could fly, but nobody expected this. Not even close. Other surprises we might think of are minor. W/o question, Know has been the biggest (positive) surprise. Biggest Disappointment: OL. Their writeup: An offensive line that was expected to be significantly upgraded with the free-agent additions of Orlando Pace, Frank Omiyale, and Kevin Shaffer could be worse than last year's unit based on its uneven performance in the first half of the season. Pace has been a bust at left tackle, Omilaye is a pure tackle who struggled at left guard before being replaced in Week Eight by Josh Beekman, and Shaffer has been a nonfactor. Just sucks how many candidates there are for this award. DL? Forte? Olsen? But I have to agree w/ OL. Forte is a greater personal surprise, but only because my expectations for the OL were never that high, but aside from my personal perspective, OL has to be #1, though DL might be pretty dang close. Player to Watch: Jay Cutler. Basically, the burden falls on his arm since the OL and the running game is nonexistent. I think the player to watch is Forte. He has shown more promise in the last few weeks. I am not sure how much more Cutler can really do, so what more is there to watch for. If Forte however can start getting more production despite the OL woes (like he did last year) then it could really have a ripple effect. Key to second half: Cutler needs to cut down on INTs, Forte & Olsen need to step up, and the defense needs to do a better job of getting to the quarterback. While I agree Cutler needs to cut down on the picks, I also think that is a big product of his having to carry the offense. Forte and Olsen I would have to agree with, as w/ the pass rush comment. So, my questions about this article are as follows: A] If the OL is such a disappointment, why isn't their improvement a key to the second half? B] How much do these clowns get paid to write this obvious drivel? A - As I believe Sky said, I think it is the writer not having any belief this is an area that could really change. To say they need to improve is obvious, but if there isn't the belief that it is possible, then there isn't much point is saying that is a key. The better "key" I think would be for Turner to find more and better ways to run the offense despite the poor play of the OL, rather than the key being for an OL to improve when there simply isn't much reason to think that possible. B - Everyone gets paid too much, but take a step back and look at pieces like this this way. For a casual fan who doesn't that closely follow the bears, or another teams fan simply reading about every team in the league, this piece may have a tad bit of insight. Lets be honest for a moment. How often anymore do you read any pieces that provide you info or anaylsis you were not already aware of, and which we had not already discussed to death on this board.

Okay, difference in terminology. My point was simply that I liked that we were playing Tillman on Fitz, rather than in zone, but agree we should have sent help to that side of the field. Question though. Is it "double coverage" if you are simply cheating your S to that side of the field to potentially help? That doesn't seem to be the same as double coverage, and thus Tillman would still be in single coverage or man. With regard to the CB, I still do not totally agree. Sure, in an ideal world, I would have a couple all-pro CBs. But for me, it starts up front. I believe the pass rush affects coverage far more than I believe coverage affect pass rush. If we had one elite CB, he may be able to take away one option (even their best option) but he is still only taking away one option. A QB still has plenty of options to look at. Take it one further step. Lets say we add an elite CB opposite Tillman, and further say Tillman proves to be a damn good #2. We take away two options, but guess what. A QB still has more options to look at, and if you are not putting pressure on that QB, he has time to read through those options. On the other hand, put and elite pass rusher on the DL. Now you have a situation where the QB is forced to make quick decisions, and hurry throws. Add an 2nd pass rusher, and, well, you get my meaning. If you have a good/great pass rush, you do far more to limit a QB than if you add good/great CB. Just as I believe the OL makes the RB more than the other way around, I believe the DL makes the secondary more than the other way around.