nfoligno

Discussed on Mike and Mike this morning. I am not sure who they were talking too, but they were talking to an NFL guy. He said it would make sense for Buffalo to trade TO as they are heading no where and he is a FA after the season. At the same time, he also said he doesn't see a trade happening. He pointed out how TO got so little attention in the offseason that he questioned why a team that wasn't willing to sign him then would now give up picks for him. I have made my point on this in the past. I want no part of TO. We have a pretty good thing going right now. No, we do not have a stud WR, but (a) I question to what extent TO is a stud anymore and ( I like the development we are seeing in our current young WRs, which would take a backseat if we added a WR like TO who is going to demand the ball. And this does not even touch on the chemistry issue.

I've been calling for a real FB for a while now. Our staff likes versatile FBs, but in trying to find one that can do everything, they have ended up w/ on that can do nothing well. In no phase do I think McKie looks good. Even as a receiver, which the staff says he is good at, he seems minimal. He has numerous drops, but even when he catches the ball, he goes down in a hurry as he has so little running ability. I would so love to just see a smash mouth blocking FB. I don't care if he can catch or not. Just give me a guy who is essentially a 6th OL that can pave the way for Forte.

A bit? I swear I cringe everytime I see him even make a tackle. Bowman had numerous injuries in college, which prompted him to drop in the draft. We got him on a flyer basically, taking a later round chance he could avoid the injuries. First season, basically his first game, he goes down for the year. Following season he goes down in camp. I thought he was done when he went down in the other game, but he returned. I agree though. He is a player we took an injury chance on, but has not come close to showing he can avoid the injury. He too could find his way to the Lovie dog house. I have to say, it seems a bit of a conflict to me. Angelo seems to be okay taking draft day risk on injury risk players, but we have a coach who seems to really dislike players w/ such injury risks. Personally, I can't fault Lovie too much on this one. A coach needs to have confidence in a player, and some of the players talked about have not even given coaches a reason to be confident they can stay healthy, much less play well. I really question the number of injury related risks we take on draft day. Some players go down w/ injury after no history, but many of the players we have had injury problems w/ had injury related red flags on draft day.

retarded? No. I agree and would not put Cade on this list, but many fans are going to factor expectations in the question, and I think it would be fair to put Cade up there if you factor expectations.

I feel old in my bones, but must not be that old, because I have never heard of half the players on that list. I still think Quinn has to be in the top 10, and still just question putting Burris on the list at all, much less #2. The guy was a #3 QB who frankly, should have never even played. He was added because he was an athletic QB who the staff hoped they could develop, but due to injuries, was forced onto the field WAY SOONER than planned. He bombed, big time, but I just can't put him on this list.

Benson is looking good w/ Cincy, but at the same time, I still think it is very questionable whether he would have ever developed for us as he has for Cincy. You have often talked about how a player can do well w/ one team, but how that does not mean he would do well anywhere. You have talked about how a player drafted by one team can be a bust, but if he were drafted by another team, he could be a boom. I would also point to Kyle Orton, a more recent Bear example. He is having a hell of a season so far w/ Denver. Do you believe his numbers would be close if he were our QB? IMHO, there are several reasons why Benson is playing far better for Cincy than he ever did for us. You mentioned one. - Cincy's offense is built better for him. Cincy, as you mention, has a road grading OL. Even if our OL was better than it was, I would argue Benson was never an ideal fit. We play (or try to) a more athletic, finesse style blocking scheme. We use a drop step blocking scheme rather than a power, bull rush blocking scheme. We try to use leverage and create holes. Cincy just tries to maul the men in front, and that simply sets up better for a power runner like Benson. So, beside the fact that their OL is simply better, I would say their style better fits him also. Thus, while he is looking good for them, it does not mean he would have ever looked good for us. - As others have mentioned, Benson never seemed fully committed. He was, IMHO, that typical player who dominated in college, but just never realized or understood how much more it takes to do the same in the NFL. Some players simply have the pure talent and ability to dominate in college w/o ever putting in the extra time. In the NFL though, everyone has talent, and if you want to dominate, you have to put in the extra. Benson just never seemed to get that, and it was not until his release that he understood. He thought the team was just holding him back, but not only the release, but going so long w/o a team showing any interest was the ego check I think he needed. - Benson is mentally soft. I have said this before, but IMHO, most players who come out of that Texas program are. I have no idea what the problem w/ that program is, but the examples are simply too many to ignore. High talent, but soft mental makeup lead to many players who simply fail to live up to expectations. Anyway, regardless who is to blame, Benson felt he was the enemy in his own locker room. He felt the players were agaisnt him, and rather than step up and change their minds, he went into a shell. In Cincy, Benson said it himself. Things were instantly different. Players accepted him from day one and he just had a new home. In his mind, he went from playing w/ a bunch of guys who disliked him, to playing w/ a family. Simply put, you play harder for family than you do for players who don't like you. You can look at Benson playing well today and say we should have never cut him, and yes, I realize you said it was a mistake then. But I would simply argue his current solid play is something we likely would have never seen if he were still on the team.

Burris was awful, but I just can't consider him. When I am asked the question, "worst bears QB," I am thinking about starting QBs. A 3rd string QB who played a handful of games due to injury just doesn't qualify IMHO.

Right now, I think a better comparison for Orton might be Cassel. If in the right situation, right system and w/ solid surrounding talent, he can look good. But he moves on and doesn't look like the same great QB. In Denver, he has a very good OL and exceptional WR talent, and a scheme that matches his talent perfectly. Thus, in Denver, he can be a very good and effective QB. I am NOT taking away from him. But IMHO, if you take him out of such an ideal situation, I just do not believe he would look so good. Cutler is the sort of QB that you can put him on nearly any team, and he can play at a high level.

I think Lovie's love for Davis comes from a couple things. One, heading into the season, we had VERY little experience at the WR position, so I think he viewed Davis as a sefety net. Two, Davis is a special teams ace, and Lovie has been very consistent in demanding depth chart players be capable of playing special teams at a high level, and it isn't just w/ veterans. You look at a safety like Steltz, who has been awful on defense, but is solid on special teams. McBride got the nod after a pretty weak camp because of his play on special teams. Fans love the potential DA or even Rideau bring to a suspect WR corp., but for Lovie, these guys have to make their bones on special teams first, and just haven't been able to do so. Understand, I disagree w/ this. While I realize the need to have a solid special teams, I hate the idea of not giving the nod to players who simply can offer more on offense or defense. As for AP, I think that is a unique situation. He just loves AP, and at times can have blinders on. At the end of the day, I think Lovie simply puts more value in special teams than most fans, thus when Wade not only struggled on special teams, but proved a total liability, he was cut. He may have offered more at WR than some others, but in Lovie's book, a player like Wade must prove himself on special teams, and he did the opposite. Additionally, I think Lovie does have an issue w/ players he can't count on, and injury is a big part of that. Rex is the exception to the rule, but the QB position often is. Players like Bradley and Gage simply couldn't be relied on due to injuries. If you went a bit more back, I think Columbo would be in this category. Lovie seems ready to give the nod to lesser players who he feels he can count on to play an entire season over those who he isn't sure if he can count on for more than a couple plays.

I remember everything about Kyle Orton playing behind our line. I also remember Rex's talent but lack of self-control and how clearly superior Kyle looked on the field compared to him (like his ability to make slight pocket movements to avoid the rush and his play during crucial stretches, unlike Rex. Your "not good under pressure" is about as convincing as all that talk about him being "weak armed"). And I remember Chad Hutchinson and Henry Burris and their absolutely cluesless play. I've seen it all, that's why it was so easy to recognize the difference just by watching it on the field...stats aside. Why couldn't you? Or maybe why wouldn't you is the better question. I think it is all relative. I screamed for Orton to start over Rex. Rex simply lacked pocket presence. Orton had it. Compared to Rex, Orton looked like Marino moving around in the pocket. But, again, relative. Compared to Orton, Cutler looks like Steve Young moving around. When posters say, and I agree, that Cutler would not do well w/ this OL, it isn't nearly the knock on Orton you think so much as to point out how Cutler is among the small number of QBs in the game who can. Last year I refused to jump on the "Kyle is the future" bandwagon until he proved himself to be talented and in control for more than just a few games, but after the seventh game I relented and accepted it, posting something like "Hallelujah, finally we've got ourselves a QB!". The only reason I was dissapointed at first when we got Cutler is because we gave up so much, I'd never seen him play (it's all Bears with me) and statistically the evidence wasn't there to support giving up so much. But both he and Orton are playing better for their new teams than they did previously, just as you should expect since they were both young, developing players, though I didn't figure we'd see it so soon. I had seen Cutler, and considered him, pure and simple, a franchise QB. When we traded for him, I was beyond thrilled. Orton is a nice QB, but he simply is not one that really elevates the play of those around him. He is a nice QB who, when surrounded w/ talent, can look good. That isn't an awful thing to say as there are plenty of QBs in the NFL surrounded w/ talent that look like crap. But the bears are not loaded down w/ talent, and we needed a QB like Cutler that could elevate what we had. Let me say now we're seeing media/posters bashing Lovie/Angelo for not developing Orton or Cedric, which is stupid to me because Cedric needed a wake up call that only canning him would provide and Orton was developed. Kyle's numbers were great before the injury, in his first season as the anointed starer, and after some healing he finished the season with nearly a 100 QB rating game at Houston. If anything, Lovie should be given credit for developing Kyle but yet still realizing that Cutler was ahead in development (waaay more starts in recent years) and that our window on the defensive talent we've put in place is running out of time. Benson - I agree he would have never made it w/ us the way he did w/ Cincy. I don't blame Lovie, and place the majority of fault on Benson who I feel is mentally soft, but at the same time, I think players were also a factor. While I think Benson didn't handle it well, and that made things worse, I do tend to believe that our team had a bit of a split w/ numerous players favoring TJ. It was really messed up. Again, Benson didn't deal w/ it well, and made a bad situation worse, but at the same time, I do fault numerous players in our locker room. No, Talkbears posters are absolutely not the media following sheep you see elsewhere; I asked my question just in general because it's been all over. As soon as we traded for Jay it was like a lot of people wanted to rewrite history and I'm going "Where is this coming from? They weren't talking like this last year." It's still way too early to start calling Orton a "franchise" QB or to say he's as good as Cutler, yet I also think it should be clear now that having lumped him in with our past failures at QB or saying he's just a placeholder was something that should make the naysayers stop an question themsleves. Are you watching the games or just listening to the radio call in shows? And again, I just question who lumped Orton w/ our past failures. Not just on this board, but outside. Orton was viewed as a servicable QB at worst. Few ever put him in the same category as Quinn, Burris, Cade, etc. It wasn't so much that Orton was viewed as awful, but more (a) he wasn't considered great and ( Cutler was simply viewed as a significant improvement.

I guess I would question who thought Orton was as bad as you are talking about. Sure, there might be a poster here or there, but at least on this board, I just don't recall so many who felt Orton was "that" bad. I think most here felt Orton was more like a Trent Dilfer. Nice QB who, if in the right system and surrounded by talent, can do well. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. That's my issue I guess w/ the "I told you so". Who did you tell?

I was replying in the string, and yes, we basically agree, but I was also commenting on the previous (not yours) "I told you so" comment.

Bradley had an instant impact, and then guess what, he went down with injury. New team, same story. This year, he has been pretty mediocre, and that is with a true stud WR (Bowe) opposite him. Wade is a player I think so many forget what happened. The dude fumbled a ton on returns, and IMHO, was cut for that reason. I would argue Wade was a player that staff cut to make a point as much as anything. As a WR, I would argue he was really no different for us than he has been for other teams. Gage was a decent looking WR for us, but couldn't stay healthy, and was let go. He caught on w/ a good team in Tenn, and when healthy, did look good, but even in Tenn, had health issues. Since his first game, he has sucked this year. I know because the joker is on my FF team. For years, I wanted to rip Turner and Drake as well, but now that we have a legit QB, suddenly our WRs seem to be developing. Maybe the coaches are not great, but at the same time, maybe they are not as bad as perceived.

That is what I said, or at least after I fixed my post:) Man, if only life were so simple as to go back and press an edit button. I would likely be in the doghouse w/ the wife only half as often.

Man, it would not surpise me if a player said he actually wet himself in the huddle.

I always liked Orton. I was high on him when we drafted him, and felt he got a bad rap after his rookie season by fans who I suppose felt he should have been able to do everything from day one. W/ that said, lets not get carries away here on the "I told you so" talk. Orton is doing well in Denver, but who is to say he would look close to as good in Chicago. When I have had a chance to watch the Denver games, opponents rarely get close to Orton, much less what he would have dealt w/ in Chicago. While we have some receivers stepping up this year, few would say we have close to the talent Denver has. Further, while this would be more debatable, I question how much we would have seen players like Knox and Bennett stepping up if we had Orton rather than Cutler. At the end of the day, Orton is looking pretty damn solid for Denver, but lets just not get carries away and pretend the situations are that similar. And how about that Denver defense that is looking pretty outstanding. Too bad Shanny had never thought to hire Nolan. At the end of the day, this is a win win trade. Denver got rid of a QB the new HC didn't feel fit his system, and while most view their getting a lesser QB in return, he is a better fit for the system, and thus for the team. They also got a couple draft picks to help a team build that seemed to need a big infusion of young talent. We got a franchise QB that has fans talking about Sid Luckman. Oh yea, and a pretty damn good looking rookie WR w/ that 5th Denver sent too.

AGREED! I have seen some mention Burris, but Burris was never expected to be a starter as best as I recall. He was a backup QB, and a 3rd at that. Quinn was thought far more of though. He was a former backup, but one behind a solid starter in KC, and one thought to know the system well we were installing after signing Shea to be our OC. I have simply never seen a worse "deer in the headlights" facial expression after the snap than w/ Quinn. I guess if he has a red jersey on in practice and knows he can't get hit, he can actually look good, but as soon as it is for real, ouch. It was almost like seeing some kid who was great at Madden try to play for real.

Dallas fans are easy right now. First, you just say, "hey, what's your playoff record over the last decade." Oh yea, 0-4. Second, if they talk about their history, you say, "First, its time to stop living in the past, but hey, if you want to live in History, try 9 league championships and the most players in the HOF."

Um, I recall Steve Smith well, but I also recall our trying to play him every which way, and none worked. We didn't play bump and run all game. We played him w/ safety help over the top also, and still got burned. Sorry, but that doesn't prove jack as even using the Lovie method did nothing to stop him. Two main points here. One. If you play cover two, and have safety over the top to help, I just don't see why there is as great of a fear of getting burned deep. In fact, I would argue that if you play the WR a little tighter, you may buy the safety time to get into position, and thus improve your chances to avoid a deep play. Two. Due to how we play our safeties and LBs, I think we too often even allow too many yards on what is supposed to only allow 3 - 6 yard gains. My biggest issue though is, why does it have to be one extreme or the other? I am not saying our CBs should play on top of the LOS. But at the same time, do they have to line up 10 yards off the LOS? Our CBs line up so far off the LOS, that too often, even those quick catches we allow go for too many yards as there is simply too much space between the CB and WR after the catch.

I realize that, but it doesn't change what I said. IMHO, many fans gave Rivera more credit for the defense that led us to that SB. Thus when Lovie let Rivera walk in order to promote his BFF, while saying "trust me," he lost credit w/ a lot of fans. Love went out on a limb when he let Rivera (a fan favorite for numerous reasons) walk in order to promote his BFF, and further went out on a limb w/ the trust me statement. Well, that limb was saw off and Lovie fell due to that. Now he is working on climbing back up the respect tree.

To this day I never hesitate to bring this up when a Cowboy fan gets a little too presumptuous about their franchise's history. Sixburgh fans will pipe down when you remind them the Bears have 9 titles and none of them required bringing their own referees. But you know the response. Only post SB matters. Not a good response, but you know that is the response I hear all the time. My reply is usually to ask, so I guess Jim Brown wasn't a good RB and his records don't mean anything. And to then begin to provide a list of pre-SB players who are minimized by the above, ignorant statement. Besides the 9 championships, I also like to bring up the HOF, and how the Bears have more players in the HOF than any other team in the NFL.

The problem, as I see it, is not simply that our staff feels our special teams has to have Davis out there, but more a matter of the belief that our 4th WR active on game days has to be able to play special teams. So to me, I don't think it matters of Shaw or some other play can do a good job on special teams. For DA to be active, one of the following has to take place: (a) DA looks very solid to good as a special teams player. He doesn't have to be as good as Davis, but simply good enough to play solid on special teams. ( Injury to one of the top 3 WRs. © Change in offensive philosophy where we start dressing a 5th WR on game days. Right now, I think his best shot at getting active on game days is B, injury to one of the top 3. He just doens't seem to play well on special teams, which is a requirement of this staff for depth chart WRs, and as much as I would like to allow an extra WR to be active on game day, I just don't think the staff agrees.

Article on Knox in the Trib, http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0...,6624745.column First half of article uses humor while making the point Knox is great, and then goes on to talk about the need to basically make him the fixture of the offense. W/o using the word starter, that is essentially what it says he should be, saying he should not just play 3 WR sets and should only leave the field when he needs to catch his breath. That means he would be a starter. I completely understand the logic and reasoning, but simply disagree. Before the season began, Knox was small school talent considered to have great speed and talent, but raw. He had faced talent that was never going to make it to pro football. As he faced weaker talent, he never had to refine his game. He could beat teams w/ his speed alone. Thus the staff made a big point of going the opposite route we went w/ Bennett, and developing him this offseason at the slot receiver position, and that was all. He didn't have to learn either outside WR routes/roles. All he had to learn was the smaller level of plays of the slot receiver. Better to learn 5 plays well than to learn 15 plays a little. In doing so, Knox has shown a tremendous amount of talent and developed quicker than any would have expected. I said before my fear was, due to early success, we would start to ask too much of him. I feared our trying to make him a starter and essentially throwing the playbook at him to memorize. I do not mind trying to teach him some more of the playbook, thus allowing us to get him on the field "some" more on 2 WR sets At the same time, I disagree w/ the idea of making him a starter and trying to have him on the field nearly every snap. I think Knox can continue to develop and be a very good WR for us today, and if we develop him well, could be special down the road. If we try to make him special right away, and throw too much at him, I fear we will only stunt that development and hurt him long term. Continue to develop him. Continue to add plays for him and provide him more opportunities. But resist the urge to make him your #1 WR today.

In my opinion, If you take a step back, and look at it from afar, you just see the win/loss record and Lovie looks pretty damn good. As fans, we see the details far more though. One. I think many, myself included, simply are not fans of the cover two which Lovie brought. While our defense by large part carried us to a SB, many would argue Rivera was in charge of the defense, and it was more his than Lovie's. Since Rivera left, our defense has been pretty bad. Not saying Lovie should not get credit, but saying more than Rivera likely got more credit. Two. I think Lovie really damaged his reputation when he allowed Rivera to walk and promoted his BFF Babich. He also said at the time "trust me" and that trust was paid w/ an awful defense. I think that move right there went a VERY long way toward Lovie losing respect w/ many fans. Three. Beyond just Babich, I think it is partially the BFF and loyalty hires that damaged Lovie. Fans had been down that road before w/ Jauron and Shoop. Then we get a DC that leads a great defense to the SB, but Lovie pushes him out the door in order to promote his BFF who has never run a defense before. Argue if you want the pushed out the door comment, but I think that is the perception most took away from it. But while Babich was so known, other coaches were viewed as similar. The DL coach that took us to the SB also left after the SB, and Babich hired someone he was connected too, and our DL had sucked since. He also had other coaches, including the DB coach he was close with. I realize coaches often want to hire and surround themselves w/ people they know and trust, but I think many felt Lovie did so to the point he was taking friends over better qualified talents. A coach comes in an has to build up his reputation. I would argue that Lovie did much to build up a reputation by taking us to the SB. His style never enamoured him to fans, but our team won under him and went to the SB. He went a LONG way in terms of respect working up to that SB game. But as much as he did to earn respect to that point, he did nearly as much to damange that same respect starting immediately after the SB. Now, I think he is in a position to again be building up his respect level. He put friendship to the side (for the most part) and removed coaches who were considered friends, and made moves fans knew were necessary. While he didn't fire Babich, he did remove him from the playcalling role and didn't allow friendship to blind him. While he did hire his old friend Marinelli, I think many fans feared that friendship would lead to giving Marinelli the DC job, a role he had never performed before. But instead, Lovie kept Marinelli as the DL coach and took a big risk by assuming defensive playcalling duties himself. Fans often respect boldness, and Lovie did just that w/ this move. He also hired a DB coach, and as best as I know, didn't hire a college roomate for the job. While I would not agree Lovie deserves the benefit of doubt, at the same time, I do agree he has done much to repair the damage of the last two seasons. While I do not give him the benefit of doubt, at the same time, I do not simply walk into each discussion w/ the pre-planned assumption Lovie screwed the pooch. Numerous games, I have actually defended Lovie and said execution was the issue, where as the last two years, I think I would normally just blame Lovie and Babich. Gotta remember something. Respect takes a long time and a huge effort to build, but can be destroyed in one moment. Lovie built up respect for several years leading up to the SB, but lost much of that respect the 2 years since. He now is in a position to again build up that respect, but it isn't going to happen over-night.

Yea, it seems like there was some shoddy journalism. I think someone wrote/said Cutler was the first QB to do it since the merger, which was 1970. Another then looked it up and saw our QB in 1970 was Concannon, and thus all the articles saying/implying that Cutler was the first since Concannon to accomplish the feat, when in fact, Concannon didn't have consecutative 100+ rating games, much less 3 in a row. But as often happens, after someone messed it up, others simply copied and ran w/ the article, and thus a false fact spread pretty quickly. Good fact checking. I hadn't taken the time myself to verfiy, and thus just took the news pieces at their word that Concannon was the last QB to hit 3 consecutative 100+ rating games, when in truth, he never even came close. Good job of busting this falsehood and further, following up on it.