nfoligno

To be fair, it isn't like he quickly won a starting job, but I just never understood the reason for his free fall in the draft. Oh yea, and whether anyone wants to call it hindsight or not, the nearest pick in which we passed on him was used on a player who did not make it out of camp (Marcus Freeman).

Honestly, trading down wasn't the end of the world for me. There were some good looking OL available in the 2nd. As you mention, Unger, as well as Loadhold and Levitre. I get trading down though. What I just do not get is having two 3rds, two 4ths and two 5ths, and drafting ZERO OL.

I give the players more credit though than our coaching staff. Too often in the past I have heard players own up to their bad play, while Lovie would say the problem was execution. He might make a general statement that he needs to do better, but to me at least, he always seemed to say the problem was in execution and not the system.

Disagree w/ the idea we don't know if Pace can play or not. Yes, having Omiyale next to him isn't helping his cause, but (a) Pace has look freaking awful all by himself and ( Pace is supposed to be the sort of player that benefits the OG, not the other way around. Pace has been getting killed on the edges. If it was just his getting beat inside, we MIGHT say Omiyale is supposed to help there, but Pace is getting his doors blown off on edge rush moves. He has also racking up quite a few penalties, which is a sure sign a player doesn't have it, as they are essentially having to cheat to compensate for inferior play. With the understanding this is not going to happen, this is what I would do. (1) Fire Harry. I think most agree with this. He has not developing anyone. Even Beekman I would question, as Beekman was viewed solely as a C backup and only got a look at OG due to injuries. Even then, it was obvious the staff didn't want to play Beekman at OG. Thus I just can't even credit them with the development he showed last year. While I understand we have not given Harry a lot to work with, that just is not enough of an excuse for just how bad the play of the OL over the years has been. He may be Turner's friend, but Babich was Lovie's BFF and he still was demoted. (2) Insert Beekman for Omiyale. This is a no brainer everyone seems to agree on. Heck, I would even argue Beekman won the job in camp, but the staff handed Omiyale the start due solely to his contract. (3) I would flip flop Pace and Williams. While I have no clue whether this would be good or not, I would do it for the following reasons. (a) The only other team out there interested in Pace in the offseason was Baltimore, who felt he could play RT. Well, I trust their staff more than ours. Further, watching Pace, to me it seems like edge rushers are killing him, but he is looking better against power/bull rushers. While LDEs these days do have speed, they are not usually the fastest DEs on the team, and thus a move to RT may actually help him. ( IMHO, it is the opposite for Williams. I think Williams is getting blown up by power rush moves. Even when he is getting beaten on the edge, I think it is often because he is off-balance after the DEs first set him up w/ power rush moves. Williams, expecting a bull rush, starts to compensate, and then when the LDE takes an edge rush path, Williams is already committed to the power rush and gets beaten outside. Putting him on the left side, against faster but weaker DEs may benefit him. Also, I think the long term plan for Williams is at LT. That plan was put on hold after the team "thought" they added a pro bowl quality LT. That wasn't the case. So if we do not have a good LT, there is no reason to delay the development of our 1st round pick at the position the staff felt he was best suited for.

yup. Lovie never liked how much credit Rivera got for that defense, but it sure looks like Rivera deserved it. Another thing rarely considered is, besides Rivera, I believe we also allowed our DL coach to walk that year, and his replacement (Brick haley) was a bust. It was after that SB when Lovie said Trust Me, as he let Rivera walk and promoted his BFF who had no experience running a defense.

Responded in another thread before I saw you created this one. 1st pick for me would have been a no brainer. I would have taken Michael Oher, who I was very high on. He has looked awesome thus far, and, has played both RT and LT. At RT, he was in the top tier for ROY honors, but even w/ the injury related move to LT, has still done very well. 2nd pick - I would have been torn between Levitre and Loadholt. While Loadholt has been playing well at OT, I think he could have moved inside to OG and done well too. I likely would have gone w/ Loadholt over Levitre, but one of these two would have been my pick. 3rd pick - If we are talking about who I would have picked, it would have been Iglesias, who I was very high on, and who I still believe could develop into a very good WR. 4th pick - Sidbury. I loved his explosion off the edge, and thought he would be a dang good pass rushing DE for us. 5th pick - Duke Robinson. Frankly, I forgot he fell this far, and may have taken him sooner, but if not, no way I pass on him here.

Here is what I think Angelo would have done. 1st - Jerry Peria, DT - We know how Angelo loves DL, and the pick of Gilbert shows he was high on DT. Ayers, who Denver took w/ our pick is another option. 2nd - Mossaqui WR - I think the key reason we traded down was not having a 1st round pick, thus w/ taking DL in the 1st, I think he would have taken this WR in the 2nd. 3rd - Gilbert - I don't know if he would have been there or not, but if he fell to us, I think we would have taken him. What I would have done. 1st - Michael Oher - I was very high on Oher, and from what I have seen, he has looked very good this year and would have been a huge upgrade to our OL, whether at RT or LT. 2nd - Loadholt - He is a RT that could have played inside as well. I would have loved to add this wide body. Levitre would have also been under consideration. 3rd - Iglesias - I was always very high on him, and though he has not developed as quick as I would have expected, this would have been my pick.

Problem is, I don't see this as changing. If my theory/comments are correct, then the problem is worse than simply Angelo and Co not recognizing OL as our top need. If I am right, then it means OL will simply never be considered best available. That means pretty much the only time we will draft OL is when it is a need pick, like Columbo and Williams. Just look at the history. 1st round - 2 - Would anyone argue Columbo and Williams were need picks. 2nd round - 0 - Never taken any OL in the 2nd round. 3rd round - 1 - Drafted Metcalf back in 2002, and I would argue Mecalf was viewed as a need pick. 4th round - 1 - Beekman. Frankly, I don't even understand this one. Beekman was taken w/ the 2nd to last pick of the 4th round, yet was still one of the higher OL picks in Angelo's tenure, and yet just seems to get zero respect from the staff. 5th round - 0 - Never taken OL in the 5th round. 6th round - 1 7th round - 5 Since his first draft in 2002, Angelo has only once (Williams) taken an OL day one (I still consider round 3 a first day pick). He has taken more 7th round OL than 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th combined. Anyone who wants to know why our OL always sucks, just look at this. Even if our OL does look good for a year, it is short lived because we are building our OL through FA w/ older veterans, while doing little to nothing to add youth to develop.

While i would give Emmitt Smith more credit than that, even most Dallas fans here would agree Smith was not the best RB ever, despite holding the record. Smith was a very, very good RB though. I won't take away from him. OL or no, he was very good. He was very durable, and over a long period of time. He was also a tremendous blocker and all around player, not to mention being a key leader for that team. Top 5. Hell no. Top 10? I think some arguments can begin to be made. Anyway, we agree on OL and agree Smith benefitted from a great OL, but I just would not agree he was only "slightly more than average".

We looked fine every other game? Really? On offense, our OL has been dreadful all season. On defense, they have not been that good this year. other teams may not have taken advantage of our zone as much as Cincy did, but I would not say our defense has looked good. This was a bad loss, but it is just one loss. Yes. At the same time, it sure didn't seem like a fluke. Many of the issues from yesterday were ones that we have been seeing, though maybe in smaller doses, in most games. God awful OL play. Questionable decision making by Cutler. Absolutely no run game. No pass rush. Soft coverage. huge holes in the zone. If the problems of the last game we new or isolated, it would be one thing, but they were not.

Sorry, but we could have the best two CBs in the NFL, and they would look pretty weak. Our coaches would force them to play off the LOS, and then play zone, negating the effectiveness of a stud CB. Then factor our lack of pass rush, and few CBs are going to look good. That isn't to say I think our CBs are good, but only that I question how much better we would be if we upgraded at CB in the offseason. If we added two stud CBs, and a stud WR, but Orton was still our CBs, I think we would still suck. Sorry, but w/ this OL, Orton would get destroyed. And w/ this pass rush, or lack thereof, any CBs would get beat, especially w/ our swiss cheese zone.

Offensivly, sure. Fix the OL and the offense could be pretty great. On defense, I love the glass half full, but you are really (a) assuming some best case scenarios w/o any evidence to date and ( you make no mention of the scheme. (a) You throw out there a ton of young players we have drafted in recent years on defense, and while that is true, before you start to count on them for the future, I think we need to see something from them now. I can go along w/ Afalava, as he has shown some nice things and quick development in a short amount of time. The rest though? Staff likes Bowman, but so what. They love McKie too. DE - We got Gaines, but what has he shown thus far (I mean career) to make you think he is a player we can count on. And don't even get me started on Melton. DT - Harrison has only shown he knows how to find a buffet table. Gilbert can't even get active on game days. LB - Roach and Williams have been getting their share of opportunities to step in and step up this year w/ the injuries to Urlacher, Pisa and Hunter, but thus far, I think our depth has not lived up to some hopes. S - I'll give Afalava, but DM has not seemed to develop at FS any more than previously seen. Payne just isn't very good, and I am not sure Steltz even makes the team. Dude sucks. CB - Yea, we got Bowman. Yea. He has been able to stay healthy so far, and has been burned pretty good. Moore? I read so much about this guy who should have been taken in the 1st round, and he can't even get active on game day. Graham is a player I really like, but the staff sure doesn't seem to share my opinion. Yea, I get that we have more youth on the defensive side, but w/o more evidence of that youth developing, I question how much we can expect, much less count on. ( Frankly, it is my opinion that w/o serious changes at the coaching level, and scheme, there is little reason to hope for the defense moving forward.

I agree. But compared to Briggs, Urlacher is George S. Patton. We do need better. We need another Mike Brown. But I'll settle for Url until we can get the whole thing going in the right direction again. I love you analogy! We are up s%$# creek w/o a paddle. Its all relative. I actually think Briggs is a decent leader, but again, not the sort we need. He is good, and from what I read, a pretty good natured joker and good for chemistry. He is also a hell of a player, but I just question how much his play or leadership affects those around him. Urlachers play affects others. What I want though is a guy who's play and leadership affect others. Sure, I would happily take Urlacher right now, but we are talking about the future, and for me, that is a future need. I think we're on the same page regarding needs. I think we still need it before we become a great team, but it's low priority since we have to build the foundation first. Let's get the milk now...we can get the chocolate bar in a few years. Well, I would make two points. One, by the time the foundation is set, those young WRs we currently have could develop into something far better. Two, it could take time to build the foundation, so we may have a couple years before looking for flavored milk. I'm dumbfounded by what to make of Forte. I think you were far more critical of him last season. And it appears you were on to something. We all know the putrid OL is not helping the issue. But something indeed seems off about the young man's game right now. Maybe injury is lingering, maybe it's the old sophomore slump, maybe he's lost confidence...I don't know. But I'm not ready to cut bait unless we get a great offer. He's one of the expendables in my opinion. I am not sure how critical I was of him last year. I was less high on him in the draft, but more due to liking other players more, rather than disliking Forte. Forte impressed me last year w/ his pass protection and receiving as much, or more, than his running. The one thing that concerned me last year was his upright running, which I have heard others question. This year though, I have no clue what the issue is, but I have come to think it is more than just the OL. When AP and Wolfe have gotten carries, they simply look better. And while some thing he could be hurt, i question if that explains the poor vision he seems to have this year. There is something just wrong this year w/ him. I have no idea what it is. I just hope the staff can figure it out.

On the other hand, you know Harris is sitting back thinking/saying, "while I may not be playing great, look what happens w/o me." That may be simplifying the whole thing, but you know he is thinking it. It is only the end of Harris if someone else steps up, and I have yet to see anyone play well. That doesn't mean Harris has played well, but if you want to talk about getting rid of Harris, you better find someone who can play, and I haven't seen our DTs ready to step in.

I'll put it this simply. As ugly as it is today, and w/ fans talking about blowing it up and rebuilding, most would also say we need to build around Cutler. If Orton were on the team, how many would be saying we should build around Orton?

Yeah, the team has lacked a real leader since Mike Brown's departure. But, I think Urlacher oozes confidence that no one else on the team has. It's still by example as you mention, but it's a little more. An x factor. Briggs doesn't have it. It's been his to take, and he's not taken it. He's not a leader. Urlacher isn't a great one, especially compared to some other greats, but he's quite excellent considering certain alternatives. I love Urlacher, and defended him when others attacked, but I just do not believe he is a leader. He was a very good player, and that alone elevated the play of others. Urlacher was able to cover so much space and do so much, others were better in position to do more. I am not taking away from him, but he simply isn't the sort of leader I feel our defense needs. Partially I feel we need a field general because I also feel we lack a general/leader on the sideline. If you go into battle and the general back and headquarters sucks, you better hope you have a smart as hell captain on the field w/ you. If you have a smart as hell general, that over the top leader on the field is not as key, as the plan of attack is likely better devised. But if the guy writing up the plan of attack sucks, you need a field general to compensate. I feel we lack both. I follow what you're saying about Cutler and the O-line. And I feel that that is the #1 priority. But I do think a legit WR is somewhere on the list. Probably after D line and secondary... Understand, it isn't that I feel we are so loaded that we couldn't use a stud, but you have to prioritize, and when I make my list, WR is simply way down there. I would likely have OT, OG, DT, DE, FS, CB, SS and LB ahead of WR. Adding a WR is a luxury. It is buying a bar of chocolate when you don't have money to for milk for the baby. Hester has developed as a WR more than I expected. Bennett has developed and played well. Knox has developed far more and far faster than most any expected. Beyond those three WRs, we also have potential in Aromashadu and Iglesias. Now, I am not saying any are going to be Fitzgerald, but I do think we have solid weapons, and if we gave our franchise QB time, he could do quite a lot w/ those weapons. The key is the OL, not the weapons. Hell, right now, I think RB may be a far greater need than WR.

Omiyale sucks, but that is only a small piece of the problem. Omiyale was given a sizable deal, so it isn't that shocking Lovie is playing him. The bigger problem is the belief the OL is something that can be thrown together w/ spare part FAs and late round draft picks. This isn't a recent problem. It is one we have had for years, and no wonder. While many teams really focus on the OL in the draft, we often don't look at OL until late, if at all. While many go after upper tier veterans in FA, we wait and see what is left over. Even when we do find a servicable player, he is little more than a bandaid, and we only give ourselves a year or two of breather room before the problem comes up again. I gave Angelo loads of credit for the Cutler deal, but his handling of the OL is an area I have bashed him for some time. He always says we take the best player available. The problem is, IMHO, we have the likes of Angelo grading players, and they simply do not value OL as highly, and thus a middle of the road DL is going to have a superior grade compared to a good or better OL.

1. We have nothing on the lines. It's all won and lost in the trenches and we have nothing. The O Line is a joke, and for all the hoopla around Marinelli, hte D line is a joke. Jason, nfo and a ton of other posters have been clammoring for O Line in the draft to the point where suggestions were made that every single pick be the line. That idea is not silly, it's a virtual must now... For me, one of the saddest indictments of our OL this year is when I look at Garza. Frankly, Garza has been my whipping boy. I simply have never been impressed. This year, playing on this like, he looks like an all-pro (relative). From what I have seen, it isn't even just that we need a tweak here or a minor change there. I think most all agree Beekman should step in for Omiyale, but that isn't even going to scratch the surface. This OL needs a major over-haul, and it has to start w/ Harry, the matador trainer. Pace doesn't belong in the NFL. Omiyale will have to prove he should even be a backup. Williams needs to earn his starting job. This year we have 3 new starters on the OL. Next year, I hate to say it, but we could/should have another 3 new starters, and unfortunately, they could all be from the same positions. 2. We miss Urlacher. If not just for his speed and knowledge, his fire is sorely needed out on that field. Briggs is great, but definitley not a leader. We have a leaderless D right now and it's lackluster as all hell. I never understood the hate. No, Urlacher was not the same player he once was, but he was still damn good. He is between 20 and 30 pounds heavier than the rest of our LBs, and yet still faster than any. As you said, w/ Urlacher in the middle, there were still holes (thanks Lovie for your cover 2) but the holes were simply smaller than they are now. With regard to leadership, that is another area I have harped on for some time. I don't believe we have had a leader on defense since Mike Brown, and even w/ Brown, you would have to go back to pre-injury days, as he didn't have the confidence to step in as a leader after he started to deal w/ injuries. We have some who are considered "lead by example" but no true field generals. Not even Briggs. 3. Cutler can't do it w/ smoke and mirrors. It's nice what we've seen from Devin and the WR corps...but it's not good enough. We still need to get a top flight WR. A difference maker. Just look at what a good line and a playmaker have done for old Neckbeard? I disagree here. To me, beyond simply Cutler needing to play smarter, I think the whole thing comes down to OL. You mention Orton, but (a) Orton now plays behind an OL that gives him loads of time in the pocket and ( Orton looked good early on, when Marshall was not even starting. I like our WRs and do not believe we need to try and add a playmaker. I think we should simply build the OL, buying Cutler time in the pocket, and allow the talent we have to develop. 4. The coaching staff must ALL be relieved of duty at season's end assuming we continue on at .500 football. Dan Hampton said it best, these guys are playing checkers when everyone else is playing chess. That is classic. I've been a harsh critic of Smith and his regime for a while now, and I will be unrelenting in my desire to see him ousted. This team will not get over the next hurdle with him in the staff. Just like Benson needed a change of scenery, so does Smith. It's time to go. Jerry, go to Virginia and say we were duped. The SB run was a nice fluke, but if we want to win, we need to make a BIG change now, or we may never get Jay a good chance. We need to re-build. The only player that is safe should be Cutler. I have no problem trying to get some picks for Url, Briggs, Hester...anyone. We have too many gaps, and we need to get rid of something to get something. We aren't a player or 2 away, we're 10 linemen away... No argument here. I have to some extent defended Turner, but it would not hurt my feelings AT ALL if he got the pink slip. No coach should right now be safe, and that especially means Lovie. While Lovie is the least likely to go due to his contract, he is also the most deserving. It is the coaches job to set the tone and prepare the players, neither of which has looked good. And Lovie took over the defesive playcalling, which has been dreadful. We all love our Bears. But with this current staff, we will continue to be a national joke with our animatronic head coach telling us the running game is OK because we just saw it 4 weeks ago beat up a hapless Detroit team where the RB got caught from behind on a long run any other NFL RB would've taken to the bank... Smith told us to trust him, I didn't and I still don't. We have been duped by this fruad of an NFL coach. I like giving him crap due to his lack of any semblance of human emotion. But the fact is, whether it is Spock, Kirk or McCoy...all I know is that a HC must get results. And he ain't gettin' 'em. And it's been 3 years straight... This is simply unacceptable. This is not a good team. It's not playoff calibur. Not even close. Again, we aren't a player or 2 away...this isn't something a little fix here or a former #1 DE there can fix. This thing needs to be blown up. Yea, people always mention a coach like Landry to show a coach doesn't have to be emotional, but when the team shows zero emotion, whether the HC shows fire or ice, it still has to go on him. Results are all that matter, and this team has gone downhill since Lovie said, "trust me". There is an old joke about never trusting someone who says trust me, especially when its a lawyer. I think we can replace lawyer with coach.

This is something that has really bugged me for a while. Accountability. I read an article today where Lovie seems to be defending any player a reporter asks about. On one hand, some might argue a coach should hold back and keep the finger pointing for the film room. On the other hand, I think sometimes you do need to call players out. Sometimes, players simply need to feel the heat. Lovie seems to always defend the players, and I just question whether or not that does a good job of holding players accountable. You watch around the league, and other coaches will call out and bench of a player for multiple fumbles. Other coaches will have the head of the OL on a platter when they get so torched. Other coaches will simply hold players accountable. Lovie is more a coach who puts his arm around a player and says, "its okay. I am sure you tried your best". That may work for some players, but when it doesn't, you need to do more, and I just do not believe Lovie is doing enough to hold players accountable.

IMO, Brown and Wale are players that just need a bit more to move up to All-Pro level play, definitely above average. Harris is not the same this year so far but could rebound, and Anderson has big-time potential even now. Adams is a solid run-stuffer, which is always needed, adn Harrison has shown promise. All things considered, a D Line most teams would be happy to have. Sorry, but I think few outside the Chicago fan base would agree w/ this, and even within that fan base, I am not sure how many would agree. Wale has never lived up to expectations. He is a good player, but needs a Jason Taylor on the opposite side to look great. Brown is a solid player, but simply not special. Both have been in the league for some time, and I think it is time to accept them for who they are. They are not likely to suddenly elevate their play at this stage of their career. Few players suddenly break out after hitting 30 years of age. Harris has not been the same player since he started to suffer injuries, and I think you are kidding yourself if you expect him to rebound. He isn't even showing flashes this year. Yes, Adams is a solid run stuffer, but lets be honest for a moment. DTs that can play one dimensional are a dime a dozen. Harrison has shown promise? When? Not this year. He may have flashed something on a play or two over the span of a season, but that was a season ago. This year, he has shown very little. Anderson has big time potential? Yes, he looked that way his rookie year, but that was what, 3 years ago? Sorry, but I think you are truly fooling yourself if you think most teams would be happy to have this DL. What are we missing at LB that we had when URL was in the last 2 years? I see the same basic results this year than the last two. I disagree. We are getting attacked in the middle worse than before. Roach is getting burned more than Urlacher did. And w/ Urlacher and Pisa out, not to mention Hunter, we are forced to play a pair of players who started the year on special teams. IMO Tillman is definitely in the upper echelon of DB's You are entitled to your opinion, but I would not agree. He is good, but far from upper echelon. Bowman is a solid up and comer Bowman has potential, but right now, he is getting torched. and the safeties are young with promise I would agree Afalava has promise, but he is still young and making mistakes. What young FS are you talking about? I wonder how you would grade out other teams defensive personnel? Do you really think there are many teams with that much more talent than the Bears? Um, yes. We can go team by team if you like. Most all will have holes, or units that are not great, or close, but I think more would be seen that have more upper tier players. I think you are in love w/ the names and past reputations more than current level of play. Harris was once considered among the top 3 pass rushing DTs in the game, but today, I question whether he should even be starting. Brown and Wale are both solid DEs, but neither are special, and most great defenses simply have more special players. It isn't that I think we suck across the board, but more a matter of our simply lacking upper tier players. If Harris, for example, was the stud he once was, the play of others like Brown and Wale would be better, but having such a large group of average players simply does little to elevate the play of others.

Sorry, but that is a crock. You would rather we get blown out, w/ our defense getting trounced, so long as we were aggressive. You would rather an aggressive defense that gives up 35-40 points over a passive defense that gives up 20 points. Come on man. That is a crock and you know it. You said, "Most of the games will be unimpressive and resulting in giving up something like 21-30 points". Well, we are running just the sort of defense you do not want, and yet we are giving up less than that per game. I get it. Trust me. I have said as much for years. Our defense simply is not exciting. Flip it to offense. We are running a John Shoop system, and even if we are winning, you want a Crowton system. You want the flash. You want the bling. You don't want a layup. You want the windmill, from the free throw line, slam dunk. With power. I get it. And a couple years ago, I was with you 100%. My point is, if you want a great defense like that, you need the talent to do it. If you try to play like that w/o the talent, I would argue that is the definition of bad coaching. If Shane Mathews is your QB, do you run an offense that is based on downfield attacks? Hell no. Look, I hate our system. I have been very vocal about that point for years now. Even when our defense was playing well, I still felt our scheme held us back from so much more potential. But this year, I just wonder if our scheme, as much as I hate it, isn't doing a better job of masking our defeciencies. I look at our defensive personnel, and I see a bunch of average to below average players, w/ the lone exception being Briggs. Theoretically, we have an offense that can score points. If we ran a defensive scheme like you want though, I think our offense would have to put 40 on the board nearly every game for us to get a win. I guess that would be more exciting, but I think it would lead to far fewer wins, and at the end of the day, that is what it is about.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-2...,2887286.column First, I am not sure how many Bear fans "hate" Orton. Many bear fans are happy for him, and those who are not, I am not sure it is correct to say they "hate" him. No, they do not want to see him look great w/ another team as that would seem to call into question the bears. Second, how the hell can anyone question why a Bear fan would hate Favre. Seriously. This guy is a local beat writer, not only in Chicago, but for the Chicago Bears, and he can't understand why Bear fans would hate Brett Farve? Is he really that stupid. He writes about how waffling on retirement isn't a reason to hate him. I would argue bear fans hated Farve LONG before the retirement, unretirement crap. For me, all the retirement stuff was more funny than anything. I laughed as Favre messed w/ his legacy and played w/ not only his former team (who I hate) but messed w/ his potential future team (who I hate). I don't think there is a bear fan who suddely, due to the waffling, up and decided they hated Brett f'ing Favre. I think we all pretty much hated his guts long before that. It really blows my mind that a Chicago writer is so ignorant as to question why a Bear fan would hate Brett Favre. I know they have to write something, and I know at times they just spout controversial stuff to stir up conversation. But this is so beyond that. Next thing you know, he will write a piece asking why Bears fans would dislike Minny, just because they are winning.

I watched the Miami game the other week, and was really impressed w/ how they ran the wildcat, but like you said. It is one thing when you have the horses, and another when you do not. Not only do they have Ronnie and Ricky, but also FBs that can play well in the wildcat, not to mention a backup QB who can come in and run the wildcat. We have players that may allow us to run some trick plays here and there similar to the wildcat, but we simply do not have the players to run the wildcat more than a time or two.

I have never been to the wine country, so this is new for me. While I drink plenty of wine (usually around 4 bottles a week) I am out of my league w/ my dad and need to buy a wine for dummies book for the trip. He has the entire trip mapped out, including meals and vinyards we will stay at. He has the good life, as he just got back from another wine boondoggle in Spain and Portugal. I drink wine pretty much daily. Scotch is reserved for the right evenings. When watching football, or appropriate events, I drink Dos Equis. I don't always drink beer, but when I do, I drink Dos Equis

Nice in theory, but when your OL resembles a turnstyle or bull fighter saying "olay", it is hard to work downfield. Cutler has done an amazing job moving around to avoid the rush, but the simple reality is, our OL sucks, and when you have an OL that sucks, it limits your ability to go downfield. Unless you simply assume the WR will get open and throw it essentially up for grabs, you otherwise usually have to wait for the play to develop a bit. Does the WR get early sep? Does a safety shift to that side of the field to provide help over the top. Unless you are just chucking it up for grabs downfield, you usually have to wait and see if the WR is going to be open, and to do this, you need your QB to hold the ball longer. If we ask Cutler to hold the ball for long, we are going to get him killed. There is much I think Turner should be doing. For the life of me, I don't understand why we have not seen more roll outs and bootlegs. This is something Cutler excels at, not only being on the move but throwing on the run. It also buys him time and compensates for a weak OL. But simply saying we need to attack downfield I think doesn't take into consideration just how bad our OL is, and how much we would put our franchise QB at risk if we asked him to hold the ball longer.