nfoligno

Sorry, but I think you are allowing your hatred of Turner to play hindsight games here. You say we should have run up the gut on 1st and then gone w/ playaction on 2nd. IMHO, that would have been as predictable, and likely more so, than what we did. IMHO, playaction on 1st was less predictable than a run up the gut (which you are saying we should have done) would have been. Also, while you said a run up the middle on the 2nd try was predictable, so what. Sorry, but there is a reason it is predicable. Because it is also something you have got to do in that area. They were just as stacked in the middle on 1st down, yet you feel we should have run up the middle there. If we ran up the middle on 1st and went playaction on 2nd, neither working, you would have blasted Turner just as much for that as you are for his doing the same in reverse. The fact is really this simple. When it doesn't work, it will be second guessed. I bet if playaction worked on 1st down, you would not be questioning the call. If Forte scored on 2nd down, you would not question the call. As much as you want to blast turner, that series goes 100% on the players. Turner tried something a bit different twice (playaction and sweep) while doing what EVERY team does and should be able to do once (run up the middle). None worked, and it goes on the players, especially Omiyale. As a writer pointed out, Omiyale was blown up on both Forte's runs. Omiyale lost the battle, and Forte was forced to jump sooner than he should have. On the sweep, Omiyale simply whiffed his block, and Forte was nailed in the backfield. So often it seems like I am taking Turner's side. I am not. There was so much in terms of playcalling and game planning I questioned throughout the game. At the same time, I think that goal line series really makes a statement. It just doesn't matter what the coach calls. The players have to execute. Whether it is a run up the middle, playaction or a sweep, nothing is going to work if your players don't execute.

It's only two years, but its an extension on what he already had, thus its for 4 seasons. As the article said, it sounds like he and his agent were going for the sure thing (deal now) rather than risk what may or may not happen w/ the CBA issues. What I would really like to know is, are we still within the time frame to allocate some of that money toward the current season's cap space?

I'll shoot you a PM next week. I leave first thing in the morning for Napa. 4 days of Wine. My dad is in the wine business. I had to pay for my plane ticket, and the rest is taken care of. Definitely not a Islay Fan. Definitely a Speyside guy. I do a couple scotch tasting w/ friends each year. Each is assigned a region, and brings a bottle from that region, a cigar, and something to throw on the grill. Favorite part of the night is after the tasting, pouring the leftover from each scoth into one glass, and having the best blended scotch money can buy I am more of a wine drinker, but when I go to the hard stuff, pretty much stick w/ scotch.

I love scotch, but man do I hate Lagavulin. Stuff tastes like robotussein to me. I just don't like that peaty taste. I love Glenlivet, Glenfiddich, McCallen and Highland Park.

IMHO, the koolaid is drunk by those who think we have the talent and personnel to be a good or better defense.

I think you are not only drinking kool-aid, but think it must be spikes w/ some really good stuff. Brown and Wale are simply average. Sorry, but that is the truth. Brown's best season saw what, 6 1/2 or 7 sacks, and he is more often a 5 sack guy, and most of those come in 2 or 3 games, while he disappears in the rest. Both are good vs the run, but simply average pass rushers. Harris is a name, but that is about all, and you can't blame the scheme, as it was in this scheme he once dominated, but injuries have made him very average, and likely below average. Adams is a run stuffer, and nothing more, and Harrison has simply been nothing. Solid if not great at LB? Are you kidding? After Briggs, we are starting a bunch of backups, none of which have proven to be much. And you can talk crap about Urlacher, but even after losing a step, he was considerably better than what we have now. Secondary is not even decent. Tillman has been fine, but Bowman has been getting targetted and torched. In fact, part of me wonders if Tillman's play has not been more a matter of Bowman playing so poorly in coverage that QBs are simply targetting his side more often. We still do not have a FS on the team, and as much as we may like afalava, he is still young and inconstent. This is simply a below average defense in terms of talent, and to think we could be a top 5 defense is, IMHO, really drinking some major koolaid.

As for all the stat talk above, I, too, think it's misleading; and to be quite honest, even if it is accurate, I don't want my team playing like to "keep it close." I want a team that goes for the throat...something a Lovie Smith team almost never does unless the opponent just flat falls apart. But what I question is whether we have the talent to be such a defense. Sorry, but those great and aggressive defenses you talk about simply have more talent than we. Look at our defense, and tell me what players are just above average. Our DL is very average. Our DEs are good against the run, but average in terms of pass rush. Right now, I would say our DTs are below average. At LB, Briggs is a stud, but our other two LB positions are between average and below average w/ the loss of both Urlacher and Pisa. Tillman may be somewhere between average and above average, but Bowman has been between average and below, and our safeties are average on their better days. Understand, I think this scheme held us back when we were loaded w/ talent on defense. There was a time when Tillman and Vasher were both very good, and Mike Brown was just below stud status. Urlacher and Briggs formed such a duo that it didn't matter who the 3rd LB was. Harris was a stud, Tank was very good and at the time, our DEs were at minimum, above average (not to mention Anderson being explosive that first year). Then, I believe this scheme held our talent back. But now? We are a defense considerably lacking in talent, and I just wonder how bad we might look if we tried to be as aggressive as we all long to see.

I think you are misunderstanding some of my points. 1. You compare us to a good defense, and talk about how we can't do this or that, which a good defense does. I never said we were a good defense. I simply said that, when I look at our talent, I see a bottom tier defense. Maybe not Cle or Det bad, but a defense that would likely hover around the 25 ranking, give or take a couple spots. We currently rank 15th in scoring defense (all that really matters) and my point is, when I look at our talent base, that is a better ranking than I would expect. That isn't to say I think we are a good defense, and definitely not one to be compared to a "really good" defense, which you did in your argument. Far from that. My point is we are an average defense, but even that may have to credit the coaching to some extent as I think we are below average in terms of talent. 2. You agree we are not "bristling w/ talent in '09" but talk about 3-4 years ago. If you go back through my comments, I believe I said that even in our SB season, when most talked highly of our defense, I felt coaching held it back. Then, we had talent, and I felt we had the potential to be a punch you in the mouth, shut down defense. Not just one that on the stat sheet looks good, but one that makes opponents take a lot of rolaids the week leading up to our game. That was then, this is now. What I wonder is whether Lovie scheme is one that benefits defenses that lack talent, while holding back a defense that has talent. Does that makes sense. In StL, when he was the DC, he had a couple good players, but overall, he did not have an over abundance of talent, and his scheme actually may have been okay for the talent he had. Earlier on in Chicago, we had talent, and then I argued he held our talent back, but now, when I look at the players we have, I just can't help but to wonder if we would not be worse if we tried to be more aggressive, as we as fans want to see.

Despite what I so often seen to read, I don't think teams are stacking the box nearly so much. Often when an 8th defender enters the box, they either run back (faking the stacked box look) or they blitz. Right now, teams seem to feel they can use their 7 to stop our run, and it is working. Teams have been giving more attention (warranted or not) to Olsen, as well as keeping safeties back in zones due to Knox and Hester.

Understand madman, I have been a vocal and harsh critic of our system, even when it appeared to work and we went to the SB. I felt then, as good as our defense might have played, the scheme still held us back. I felt we had the talent that year to be a punch you in the mouth, dominating defense, rather than a bend, don't break, rely on turnovers unit. With that said, i would make a couple points. One. While I do not love, or even like, our system, at the end of the day, our defense is not really the problem. With the exception of 1/2 of a game against Detroit, our defense simply has not given up a ton of points. We gave up 21 to GB, but that is the lowest point total they have been held to this season. We held Pitt to 14, and they have not been held to less than 20 since. Atlanta scored 21, but had just put up 45 on a good SF defense, and I think was a top 10 (maybe top 5) scoring offense entering their game against us. We are ranked 15th in defense (scoring) and that is after losing our defensive captain, and pretty much losing a LB each game. I don't like watching our defense, but at the end of the day, they are pretty much doing their job, and putting our offense is a good position to win the game. Two. Lets be honest for just a moment. Our defense is simply not that talented. Our DL is average at best, and I would even question that. W/ Harris a shell of his former self, we have no one on the DL that worries offenses. Briggs is great, but w/ the injuries at LB, that unit is average at best, and the only reason it is average is Briggs slides the curve. Our secondary is below average, w/ very questionable S play and while Tillman is solid, he is little more, and we have essentially a rookie on the other side. As much as fans like to think more of our players, our defense simply does not have that much talent. Frankly, if you just go off our talent, I think we should be ranked much lower than we are. So while I truly dislike our scheme, at the same time, I wonder if it isn't masking some of our defeciencies. If we tried to be more aggressive w/ this group of talent, maybe we are more exciting, but at the same time, maybe we start giving up 30+ points per game.

I agree Turner didn't call a great game, but I also still think execution is a huge part of this. On that goal line stand for Atlanta, look at what Turner called. On first down, he calls play action to (I think) the TE, which is what you wanted, but it didn't work. On the next play, he calls for Forte to run up the middle, which many here would have liked to see. Nope. So then he tries something else different, a sweep, and that gets killed. Point is, on that goal line series, he calls three different plays, all plays many here have said should have been called, but the players simply failed to execute. I am not saying Turner has done well, but I also think he is coaching a unit w/ one arm tied behind his back, and the 2nd arms is being held. Our OL is just so bad, it is hard to call much of anything w/ consistent success. And w/ absolutely no run game, stuff like playaction is a joke because no one fears our run game. When you get squat from the run game, and your OL sucks, it is hard to look good on offense.

He really didn't have a good game overall either. I believe I recall one shank, and while the stats may credit him w/ several kicks inside the 20, they were just barely inside the 20 and came on kicks you are really trying to pin the opponent inside the 10. He has been great most of the year, but that was not one of his better games, I guess including even halftime.

Tillman didn't shut down White ALL game, but did a pretty dang good job on him. White was coming off a 200+ yard game, and was really limited by Tillman. That I recall, he only had one big play (the TD) which I think goes on the coaches as much as anything. Atlanta lined up 3 WRs on one side, and we only had two DBs out there in coverage. Tillman, I think, was sort of picked, and White broke free. But other than that play, Tillman did a very solid job on White. Understand something. I can't stand out scheme and defense in general. They seem passive and give up too many easy completions. At the same time, we stuffed their run game and held their passing game to under 200 yards. White alone had more yards than that the previous game. So why our defense was ugly in so many ways, I think they overall did fairly well, particularly as poor of a position as the offense and special teams often put them in. Again, I am not defending the scheme, but after that game, I am less likely to call out tillman or the defense as a whole when the offense and special teams were just so bad.

I would still put DL right behind OL, even w/ the addition of Gaines. Fact is, we don't know what Gaines can bring, and either way, I am not sure we have a single starting caliber DT on the roster.

Um, yea. Harry needs to go, but why stop there.

1. What gives with the false starts? Especially Old Man Pace? 4*-1 with the game on the line? Just beyond inexcusable. This team did not look ready to play. With a bye week to go country clubbing and passing around the nude pictures that Frank O has of the coaching staff, you'd think they'd come out with more fire and less stupidity. I know Jason mentioned the noise of the stadium, but I think it simply comes down to how weak our OL players individually are. When you suck, you tend to cheat. When you suck, you have to hold more to keep the Qb from getting killed, and just hope you don't get caught. When you suck, you try to jump out of your stance a split second sooner on the snap count, only to get burned by your QB going w/ a hard count. Pace and Omiyale flat out suck, and thus why they have to cheat, and why they get so many flags. 2. Oh yeah, and tack on the 12 men on field for the punt which truend into another ATL first down. The Bears' shoddy preparedness even eeked into the ST where Toub's group is usually spot on...except oin Sunday nights like when Mannelly bothched it in game one. Special teams has not been very good this year. We get our returns, but give up too many to other teams. Player turnover on teams is likely a factor, but this has to get fixed quick. Even Maynard had a fair to spare game. 3. I'm so glad Smithis handling the D, because it looked like keystone cops out there when ATL ran the ever-so-elusive "hurry up!" (You know, that ultra-modern new fangled scheme that's fresher than the Wilcat or Run N Shoot!). Do they not practice during the week? What just kills me is, watching the game, you would think we were blown out. But we actually gave up less than 200 passing to Ryan. Roddy White had more than that many yards alone last week against SF. No WR w/ as much as 60 yards, and a run game stuck in the mud. As much time as Ryan seemed to have, you would think we gave up 400 yards passing and another 200 on the ground, but our D (statistically) didn't play poorly. 4. Forte is the biggest disappointment of the year by miles. Too many people saw Tommie Harris still sucking, but most thought Forte would at least be servicable. This guy run with more timidity than when Kane walked on rice papaer in the opening montage ot "Kung Fu". I know a ton of blame needs to be place on our horrifficy O-Line, but even when given the chance of one-on-one, Forte can't make anything happen. Are we seeing the second coming of Salaam? Of A. Thomas? One and done? I sure hope not...but it ain't looking good. Kid, after you fumble once, YOU DO EVERYTHING IN YOUR POWER NOT TO DO IT AGAIN!!!! Agreed. I know many who felt Forte was the #1 FF back, even ahead of AP due to his receiving. When AP and Wolfe have been in there, I believe we have been a better team. Each seems to hit the hole quicker, and frankly, I have not been impressed w/ Forte's blocking this year either. I know the OL is a huge problem, but Forte has been just plain bad regardless. If it were not for his magical rookie year, I think he would be out of a job by now. 5. Cutler made another bonehead pick in the red zone. On Sunday night again. After a number of weeks of preparation (or lack thereof) again... However, Cutler did redeem himself. He did what he could to get us back into it. The one thing I just don't get...the time out's. Both stalled drives had us pretty damn close to 2nd or first and goal, and them Cutler calls time out. Totally kills momentum, and the resulting plays were either turnovers or penalties. Just go out and play Cutler. I trust you more than Turner or Smith even after a game like this. No excuse, but I think a big problem in the red zone is how one dimensional we are. In the red zone, you simply have to be able to run the ball. It's a short field, and thus you can spread it out only so much. But as teams do not fear our run game, they can really defend the pass, and since we can't run the ball, Cutler is in a position where he feels like he has to make plays. 6. Can an OL be more crappy than ours? is St Louis's this bad? The Titans'? Frank O needs to be benched. If Beekman isn't starting, it's a complete indictment on the coaching staff's complete bozocity... I would flip flop Pace and Williams. Pace can still block the bull rush, but is getting destroyed by speed. I believe Williams does better against speed, but gets beat by the bull rush. As the norm is to have speed rushers on the right and power rushers on the left, it would seem these two are out of position. And yes, Omiyale should be benched. Frankly, he should be cut, but due to contract, that won't happen. 7. Where was the brilliant Marinelli pass rush? No sacks. Minimal pressure. Anyone catch Collinsworth saying Harris was back? On that play, he got penetration as the play went around him for a big gain. Maybe Gaines Adams will help. They stopped the run, but couldn't generate enough pressure consistently. Agreed. 8. Is it we can't win Sunday nights? Or is it we can't win when the coaching staff prepares (and I use the term loosely) the team with more than a week? Or do we just play crummy at night? Based on this trend, can we expect to lose agasint the Eagles, Vikings and maybe the Niners? Would 11-5 then get us into the playoffs? Game is televised Nationally, so you have to wonder how much is the players trying to do too much, and thus doing too little. LB/S going for the big hit, then missing the tackle all-together. Cutler trying to make a play out of nothing, and throwing a pick. That sort of thing. Bottom line, this team just doesn't seem to have "it". I see a lot of going through the motions...w/o much emotion. Frank O was yucking it up after the game instead of being upset about being the worst player on the field. Where is the accountability? Well, since we do not hold our coaches accountable, why should we expect to hold the players accountable by those same coaches. Maybe we'll see something happen this week. Maybe we won't. Oh, I think we will see something this week. We are not an awful team, just not a good one. While this sucked, we're still not out of the playoff race. But, if we keep playing like we did, keep struggling on the OL, and having problems running...we aren't going anywhere. Right now, I think there is one wild card spot open, as I think NO wins the division and Atlanta rolls to the 1st WC spot, leaving a lot of 3-2 teams fighting for the final opening. If we play like last night, we are going to be talking draft sooner rather than later. And before I forget, props to Olsen, he came to play. Hester, as well...although I think he caould have ran a few more rather than fair catch so many last night. No guts, no glory. Olsen? Yea, he had 5 catches, but out of 10 passes. Sorry, but I don't think he came to play at all. He should have made the play on the fade route in the end zone. DB knocked it out, but if you saw the replay, he was bobbling the ball already, making it easier to knock away. He had another drop, as I recall, and just overall doesn't look as physical as you would expect of someone his size. I thought he was very average in the passing game, but just weak as a blocker. I think props go out to all our WRs (all 3 of them) for solid play.

Missing Williams was a big omission. I was not a big fan of his in the first place. Williams was a finesse LT with questions over his strength, especially lower body strength. I really wanted to get bigger on the OL, not just purely w/ size, but w/ power. The staff at the time though liked finesse and athletic OL. His pick, IMHO, is even worse now as the team (per the coaches) is trying to bulk up on the OL, which is why they have talked about liking Omiyale over Beekman, as it is believed he added a greater level of power.

WR is well known as one of the most prima dona positions, and it seems like there are very few good to upper tier WRs who do not come w/ some amount of baggage. Still, I think it is worth looking at what sort of baggage they have, as all these WRs seem get lumped into the same category. To me, there are three types (generally). A. Clowns. They do stuff that might get them in some trouble, particularly w/ the league, and may even get the team in trouble at times during a game w/ flags. They run at the mouth, both on and off the field, but really, they are just having fun. When Chad Johnson talked after the Baltimore game, and we saying he was going to have to find a way to get Ray Lewis, it was done in fun. When he finds new ways to celebrate a TD, it is in fun. When he changes his name, he is just trying to have fun w/ life. The league today doesn't really like such actions, but while a player like this may be somewhat of a distraction, I don't view them as totally negative. Joe Horn and his hidden cell phone also come to mind. B. Criminal. Think Chris Henry or Brandon Marshall. On the field, they are more business. Players usually don't have a big problem w/ them in the locker room. But they are just thugs who can't handle life off the field. Whether they are the instigator, or simply incapable of picking friends and always seeming to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, they guys just spent far too much time in front of a judge or in their attorneys office. C. Cancers. Yup. This would be TO. Many put TO in the same category as Marshall, but I don't think that is right. That I can recall, TO has never run up against the law. He doesn't get into legal trouble, but his trouble is another sort. At times, he is a clown, and if that was the worst of it, I wouldn't have an issue w/ him. But TO is plain and simple a locker room cancer. Every team he has been on (not counting Buffalo) he has divided the team. He sets the bar for throwing his QB under the bus. Just as bad though, he always seems to create a clic or group of players who support him, and do so against other players on the team. In Dallas, I recall several players being on his side against Romo/Witten and some others, which only made a bad situation worse. I recall the fight in Phily w/ (I believe) Trotter, and how divided the team seemed to be, w/ players seeming to take sides. Its bad enough when you have a situation like we had w/ Benson, where a player is not popular w/ most all of the team, but w/ TO, its worse IMHO as he divides the team and has a bunch of players on one side against a large group of other players. I wanted to chime in because this is something I have talked about for a while. Some make out as if fans like me only want to consider choir boys. That isn't the case. When I look at the prima dona WRs, it isn't that I would not consider any. But no, I would rather avoid the cancer players like TO, as well as the worst criminal players. I am not talking about a player who has one or maybe two infractions, but more against those like Marshall and Henry, who simply have such a track record that I think there is a high expectation they will get into trouble again. Clowns can create a headache at times, but if they produce, you can take two asprin and deal w/ it. I don't think production or asprin compensate for the harsher criminals or cancers.

Yea, my bad. Basically skipped a year. 2008 Williams - Many teams reportedly (before the draft) really began to balk at Williams w/ back concerns. I think Angelo even admitted we knew but felt he would fine. Well, he wasn't. Harrison- Here is another that was a character flag, and his being put in timeout to start camp didn't help aleviate such an allegation. 2009 Moore - Gilbert and Moore were not inury or character red flags. They were simply less proven, high ceiling/talent players. Think Mark Bradley. Iglesias seemed like a sure thing. Not as high of a ceiling, but the most NFL ready. Moore was the first injury related red flag to go off the board. Again, the key point is not to really attack Angelo. Every GM in the league takes chances on various red flags, from injury to character to small school/competition. My point is only to question the statement that Angelo did something different this year than in the past.

I have NO problem w/ a draft pick like, for example, Bowman, who comes w/ an injury red flag, but is a mid 2nd day pick, and thus the risk/reward is solid. I really question Angelo "changing" anything by taking some injury risks this year. IMHO, he has been taking just such risks, injury and other. 2004 Tommie Harris - Understand, I really liked the pick then, and even called for it, but Harris came w/ questions. He was a rotation player, and had some prior injuries. There were questions then whether or not he could be an everydown player, and that was a prime reason he slipped in the draft. Tank - Tank, as I recall, came w/ both injury and character red flags. 2005 Benson - Maybe there were no flags at the time, but IMHO, simply coming from the University of Texas should carry a flag all it owns, just like QBs from Florida and RBs from Penn State. Bradley - Injury and playing time red flags. Never started in college, and was a #3 WR w/ raw talent, but part of the reason he had been slow to develop was numerous minor injury set backs. 2006 Dusty - character red flags after several alcohol related incidents. 2007 Nothing I really recall 2008 DJ Moore - Injury related. If we wanted to add level of competition, we could add numerous other small school players, but my point here is, Angelo has not been scared to take risks, even w/ his earlier picks. W/ the exception of Moore, I only looked at first day picks. On the 2nd day, I think there is little argument against the risk/reward factor in looking at a high ceiling players who has red flags, but we have also done so in day one. I am not trying to blast my new BFF for taking risks, but just questioning the idea he has avoided such risks in the past. I don't think Angelo has ever been one to really go the safe route in the draft.

Again, going back to the Mike and Mike segment this morning, the NFL guy they were talking to mentioned how many teams have lost OL, specifically LTs, this year. Not all season ending, but the point made was how high the demand is right now for OL help. Thus, I am not sure we will see a "if the price if right" situation here.

Just to make my point clear, I would not want to add TO, even if we first upgraded the OL and secondary. I simply do not want him on our team as I believe he hurts teams more than helps.

Understand. I am not saying I have been alone calling for the release of McKie. The previous posts by others prove that. I am simply piling on. The problem, IMHO, is that we have added FBs who are pure blocking FBs, but that is not what Lovie wants. And thus why Lovie has continued to stick w/ McKie.

No, I don't think it is. I think it is simply a matter of a player that had an attitude change that affected everything. As others have said, he looks chisled now. He is in the best shape since entering the game, and a big part of that is his new attitude. He has comitted himself now as he never did before, and worked hard in the offseason, where as when he was a Bear, he was partying on boats in the offseason. Sometimes a player simply has to move on after his first team before he can realize what it takes to make it in the NFL, and IMHO, that is the case here.

You're probably right, but I would have much rather seen the Bears draft the OL to support him, than draft another high RB who, despite a great rookie season, is struggling behind an OL that is, once again, not that great. But of course, with you, I'm preaching to the choir on the OL thing. No question about that. You and I have screamed to build the OL for some time. I think I understand your position. Correct me if I am wrong, but it isn't so much that you think Benson would have ever exceled in Chicago, but more just talking in general about how it sucks that a player, who we drafted, we were not able to get the most out of. Yes, I agree it was a mistake to not build the OL that better suit him. Our OL was well suited for TJ, but not for Benson. W/ that said, even if we had tried to build the OL, I still do not think Benson would have done well due to the mental aspect. From all reports, his attitude has changed more than anything else, and that has carried over to his play on the field. As far as that aspect goes, I go back and forth on how much to blame the staff. On one hand, I want to say the coaches run the team, and could have/should have done more to step in and quash the crap inside the locker room. On the other hand, at the end of the day, we are talking about adult men and you just can only do so much to force players to like one another.