nfoligno

I've been calling for this for a couple weeks. No other team in the NFL felt Pace was a starting LT anymore. Balt felt he could play RT, but not LT. I guess we thought we were smarter than the league. Anyway, we added Pace and moved Williams to the RT spot as we thought we had a better option at LT. That has proven false. I don't know if Williams is a bust, nor do I know for a fact that Pace has absolutely nothing left to offer. I know that neither look very good at their current positions, and (a) Williams was projected as a LT and Pace may still be capable of playing RT, as I would argue that better suits his current skill set. Maybe this doesnt work, but (a) If Williams is to be our LT of the future, may as well begin the development now ( the next 8 games will not give us any definitive answers, but may give us a better picture as to William's potential on the left side © what the hell can it hurt. Honestly, I can not imagine it being much worse than it currently is.

I agree we will not hire one of the top tier HC candidates, but not for the same reason you give. I would argue those experienced coaches like Cowher, Shannahan, and others, are going to want GM duties as well. With Angelo in place, we are not going to hire a coach who also wants GM duties, thus we are not going to be getting one of the upper tier HC candidates.

I posted the same thing prior to reading your comments. I posted last week an article in the Sun Times that talked about how we always play cover 2 in 3rd and long situations, and how we were the 2nd worst team in stopping opponents in 3rd and long. Simply put, any zone coverage has holes in it, but theoretically, if you can pressure the QB, you can force a throw prior to the WR settling into those holes. But we don't pressure the QB, thus WRs make easy, wide open catching against our zone coverage. It is just incredible to me that, even when we do play well on 1st and 2nd downs, we then play cover 2 on 3rd and long, and then all the good prior effort goes to waste.

I will say this. I liked some of what I saw from Tillman. I liked our playing Tillman in man coverage on Fitz. I agree with you that we needed to be sending help his way, as Fitz is a WR who should be double covered, but I like that we played Tillman in man coverage, and there were times Tillman was able to knock Fitz off his route, or alter the route enough to prevent the catch. When Fitz did make the catch, Tillman was close by. When we played zone, especsially later when Tillman was hurt, Fitz not only made the catch, but did so w/ no defender in the picture. Playing Tillman on Fitz was the right move, IMHO, but at the same time, we should have been sending a 2nd defender over the top to help.

When many say cover two, I think what is really meant is zone coverage in general. And we played zone often. I did see us playing some man coverage, and while Fitz was able to beat the man coverage, I would argue that he was not wide open. When we played zone, their receivers seems to be WIDE open, and I think that is what drives many fans nuts. Also, in 3rd and long, we seem to most often go into zone and cover 2 scheme, and happen to also be least effective. It felt like anytime we put Az in 3rd and long, we went zone or cover two, and Warner found WIDE open WRs to convert. There was an article last week in the Sun Times that talked about this too. More than any other situation, we play cover two when we get the opponent in 3rd and long, yet we were (prior to this game) 2nd from last in the league in stopping teams on 3rd and long. Cover two, and zone defenses in general, have holes. That is simply the way it is. If the offense has time, the receivers can find and settle into the holes of a zone defense. The key is to get pressure on the QB before they can get into those holes, but as we can not pressure a QB, it ends up an easy conversion.

Look, if you traded away a bunch of your depth, or good players, for AJ, that would be one thing. But you didn't simply give away a bunch of players in order to get one stud. You got more in return. From other responses, this deal was not as even as you would like to make it out to be. I was not skewing this any which way. AJ is a total stud, and usually to get a player like that, it simply seems like you have to give up more. You gave up some good players, I am not questioning that, but at the same time, you got more than just AJ in return. Look, the deal went through. I am not crying about it. I thought, and still think, the deal is a bit one sided, and yes, I do feel you far and away got the better of the deal. Correct me if I am wrong, but you made this trade w/ a friend of yours who has 2 wins and is likely out of the hunt. That in itself sends up red flags. That you got a stud, along w/ solid starters like Slaton and Berrian, and a potential player in Wells, simply sent up red flags IMHO. You think it was a fair trade. Fine. I think otherwise, and from responses, so do others. Whatever. It doesn't matter. Deal went through, and it is done.

Dude, don't be an ass. I am not whining or crying. I posted this well prior to my team pulling a Bear-esq flop. I said from the beginning I was not trying to insult, and if others felt the deal was solid, I would simply apologize. Thus far, I have yet to find anyone who felt the deal was anything but one sided. I don't think I am a FF guru. FAR from it. No need for the idiot comments or anything else. I simply posed a question. Your sensitivity in the matter makes it all the more seem question in my eyes.

Its called Bend AND Break.

Yea, the term is sort of like collusion. Basically, when one team is way down in the standings, they send most of their good players to a friend who owns another team. I guess here is why I thought the deal iffy. AJ is one of the top WRs in the game w/ over 150 points. Slaton can't run for crap, but is one of the top receiving backs in the game, and has 120 points. Berrian is a middle of the road WR w/ 75. Beannie Wells has minimal points, but basically just earned the playing time in Az and has begun to play a lot more. Flip side of that. Breaston is about equal to Berrian. Westbrook has been injured, is still injured, and their rookie RB has looked good, and it is unlikely Westbrook ever returns to the role he once had. Westy has around 60 points. Bush has 75 points, and is neither a starting RB, nor a starting WR, for that team. Manningham has the most points w/ 100, but has been injured, and has not done much since week two. When you trade for a WR like AJ, you have to give up some serious players. What serious players were given up to get a stud like AJ. Frankly, when I look at this trade, I don't see a single players given up that equals either AJ, nor even Slaton. To me, this was a very one sided trade, giving up an elite WR, upper tier RB, RB on the rise, and a starting WR. To get this, you would expect big names in return, but players given up like Westbrook and Bush might be former names, but are really not much this year. Again, if no one agrees, I will apologize and move on. I just found this deal very, very questionable.

I have to ask. If others disagree, then I apologize to the two owners, but this looks like what I have always heard called a brother-in-law trade. What do others think? Andre Johnson (Hou - WR) Steve Slaton (Hou - RB) Beanie Wells (Ari - RB) Bernard Berrian (Min - WR) for Steve BreastonP (Ari - WR) Reggie Bush (NO - RB) Brian WestbrookQ (Phi - RB) Mario ManninghamP (NYG - WR)

But what happened right after the SB season? That is sort of the point. If you try to buy an OL, you "might" be able to quality play for a year, maybe even two, but it is short lived. Even when you hit on a player like Reuben Brown, it doesn't last for long. Most any player will say that OL as much, or more, than any other unit takes time to develop. It could be a 1/2 season, or even a full year. By the time the OL does begin to gell, and that is only if you "hit" on your FA pickups, the window will already be ready to close. That may not be the end of the world if you are backup up your FA signings w/ draft picks you develop, and who are ready to step in when that veteran is done. But we don't do that. Instead, what we seem to do is wait to do anything until the situation is dire. Many saw the decline of Tait begin, but rather than prepare, we moved him to RT thinking that would be all that was necessary. When that didn't work, we didn't have much of anything to replace him, and had to start all over. There is nothing wrong w/ looking at FA for OL. The problem is when you rely too heavily on FA. If we had added Pace this year, but also drafted OL, we might be in a better situation to replace him. Instead, we tried to again buy an OL, and ignored OL in the draft. Thus, as those veterans fail, we have no options to replace them.

I really don't see how anyone could complain about what Smith did in his first few years here, leading up to getting us into the Super Bowl. I realize a lot of people got on him for what happened with Rivera, but Lovie admitted that mistake and has taken over and is doing a lot with very little on the defensive side of the ball. Um, to begin, when exactly did Lovie admit letting Rivera go was a mistake. Yea, he essentially admitted Babich was a mistake, but he never admitted letting Rivera walk was a mistake. IMHO, those are two different matters. Moving on, you say he is "doing a lot" with "very little". Not sure about that. While I have no argument that we are not loaded on defense, I do question the idea we are "doing alot". In fact, I think that is a key area many take issue. The belief that Lovie is simply not getting the most out of our players. Bottom line, I think we all forget all of the good that has happened while Lovie was in Chicago. He built us into a team and fan base that expects to win (we didn't expect to win for a long time in Chicago....basically since Ditka left its been bad). Well, this is where we differ. Even back then, I felt Lovie was more along for the ride than in charge. How much our D fell off since Rivera left, IMHO, gives considerable evidence how much of that SB level D was Rivera. Lovie has minimal involvement on offense, so you want to credit him there? No, even back then I felt we were winning inspite of Lovie far more than due to him. I felt that if not for Lovie, our defense would have been FAR more threatening than it was. The defense was restored to order with Lovie, we were the talk of the league for a couple years and are still widely respected and have a coach who is widely respected around the NFL. But was it restored to order w/ Lovie or w/ Rivera? Since Rivera left, that defense has been pretty bad. Just not sure how much of that championship D was Lovie.

OTs go high in the draft. While OGs can go high, they often slip and slide. Buy an OT in FA, and then draft an OG no lower than the 4th, preferably in the 3rd.

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/be...mully04.article

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=333919&src=148 Hell yes. Can't agree more, as I know Jason will agree as well. You just can not ignore OL in the draft as we have and expect to have a good OL. Adding FAs as we have, you might have a year or two in there where the OL plays well, but it will never see consistency. I would further argue against the FA route we have gone by pointing out the OL, more than most units, needs time to develop chemistry. When you add older vets who are not expected to have more than a year or so left, you just will not have sustained success. Even if Pace played better, he was a short term solution. It would be one thing if you add veterans like Pace, while also drafting OL to develop, but we have added the veterans w/o drafting the youth. Thus, when the inevitable happens, and the veterans start to nose dive, you do not have anyone waiting in the wings, and have to start all over again.

For me, there is an article on the Sun Times that is an even better indictment of Lovie. The Sun Times article talks about defensive ranking, and uses Lovie's standard against him. He points out the Lovie has always been dismissive of the "overall defense" ranking as it only factors yards, and has always referred to Aikman's ranking, which considers many factors, especially 3rd and long conversions. We rank near the bottom in 3rd and long defense, and rank is the 20s in Aikman's overall defensive ranking, which is the lowest ranking since Lovie joined the bears. Further, the article, which spends a nice portion on 3rd and long, points out that in those 3rd and long situations, we see the cover 2 scheme the most. The fact that we suck in 3rd and long, and that we most often use cover 2 in such situations, really puts a bullseye on Lovie's back.

Sorry, but that is simply not true. While he may not be one to call out individual players, too many times last year he made a point to say the scheme was fine, but the problem was in the execution. Right there, he was (a) defended his BFF Babich, not to mention his own scheme and ( throwing the players under the bus in saying the scheme and playcalling were fine, but the players just failed to execute the plays/scheme. If given the choice between throwing the players under the bus and questioning his scheme, he seems to prefer the former rather than the later.

From the sound of some of what I have read, it seems we may be doing just this. Turner has said we are going to pair down the playbook, but several others have said a more full meaning of that is we are going to limit the 7 step drops and call more 3 and 5 step drops, as we did last year w/ Orton. I have no problem, and agree with this. As you said, it is a good way to take the edge off the pass rush. If a DE believes you are going to fire after a 3 step drop, it is virtually impossible to pressure, thus many DL will not pin there ears back, but make an initial move, then get ready to try and bat the ball down. As you said, this could help for when we do choose to call a 7 step drop. The only thing for me is, while this is an effective thing to do, and something we need to see, there are still other things (bootlegs and rollouts), as well as other playcalled, which also could limit the pass rush, and which I think we need to see. We do not need to simply become a quick fire offense. We need to change things up, but we do not have to go from one extreme all the way to another extreme.

Slight difference between a peer sticking up for you and your coach. At the office, it isn't that great of a shock when a co-worker says his friend did a good job on a report, even if he knows it isn't the truth. On the other hand, for the boss to stand in a board room, and tell everyone the employee did a good job, when everyone in the room knows otherwise, is simply much worse.

That sounds all well and good, but it can be said of most anything. HC and DC hate each others guts. So long as they win, no one cares. QB and WR can't stand each other. So long as the W's continue, no one gives a rats damn. GM and coach don't get along.... Winning is the obvious cure all, but every team is going to deal losing also, and it is then every little thing comes up and frankly, can in the end matter.

No question there is always spin. then again, most every coach spins too. But when you spin, the spun story needs to at least be believable. That is a problem I think Lovie has. Either Lovie thinks we are all that stupid, and believe whatever comes out of his mouth, or he just doesn't care.

Maybe Lovie has a split personality, and the two sides are playing good cop, bad cop. Bad cop Lovie benches Harris (2nd year in a row) to make a point. Good cop Lovie comes in after that and tells Harris how great he is, regardless if it is true.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/footb...0,4948801.story Coaches credited Harris w/ 4 tackles and 2 pressures after film review. Love how those stats always rise so much. Lovie said he was pleased w/ the play of the entire DL, and said Harris was disruptive. Was that everyone else's take? It sure wasn't mine. I thought were were going up against one of the weakest OLs in the game, and did very little to pressure the QB. Wale sure didn't seem to be capable of beating St. Clair. I didn't see a ton of pressure on the other side from Brown, though he got in there occasionally. But from the middle, I really just do not recall seeing Harris getting much penetration. That was a weak OL, and at the end of the day, we had one sack. If that is what it takes to please Lovie, no wonder why we suck.

I think a key problem here is playcalling, and have seen this discussed elsewhere. We have a big arm QB, and our game plan is created in such a way to try and utilize that. Sounds great, but w/ our OL, it is near impossible. We continue to have our WRs running routes that take time to develop, yet Cutler does not have the luxury of time. Announcers talked about how Cutler is holding the ball trying, and trying to buy a little time, as the WRs need time to develop their routes. But the end result is Cutler is getting pressured before the WRs can develop their routes. While not exciting, we need to start devising routes for our WRs more similar to last year. We need to start planning more 3 step, quite release routes. More quick slants and quick outs to get the ball out of Cutlers hands in a hurry. It seems like a waste of Cutler's talent, and it is, but his talent is being wasted right now due to the OL anyway.

Hasn't the trade deadline passed. I don't think this is even possible. The only way to get LJ at this point would be if KC cut him, we put in a waiver clam, and no team below us claimed him. And if that happened, we would then be on the hook for his salary, which I do not think is cheap.