nfoligno

Who is pessimistic? Listening to the radio and such, while flaws are pointed out, there is no question to me most of the talk is positive? I personally am very down on our OL. Yes, I realize the OL has several new starters and it takes time to gel, but I personally just question if they are that good. Pace flat out looks old. Williams flat out looks flat. And Omiyale is freaking awful. It kills me to say this, but next to these guys, Garza is actually looking pretty good. The good news is we have a QB that can compensate for a weak OL, but w/ that said, I do think there is reason to worry about this unit.

I have no argument w/ any of that, but.... While Rex and Orton may not be franchise QB (understatement) at the same time, I do not believe MM did much to help them play at a higher level. And as I have argued before, I believe MM was brought in to help the QBs, rather than being a player needing great surrounding talent to play well. I agree we had a lot of young WRs, but (a) I do not believe MM filled that leadership role and ( I do not believe MM had much to do w/ the development of those young WRs.

First, in reply to another post of yours, I hate to be in a position to be defending Lovie. I am NOT a Lovie supporter. I think our team could be better w/o him, and often feel we win inspite of him. I hate his scheme, and as you said, his press conferences drive me nuts. Second, w/ that said, and specifically looking at how we treat rookies, I simply believe we give rookies a greater opportunity than many other teams. You mention Conway and MRob, but I really don't understand your point. Are you arguing they were held back due to being rookies or youth, or are you simply saying they were limited by an offense or OC (Turner). On MRob, I don't see either. He wasn't much when he came here as a rookie, and was immediately sent to NFL Europe. He showed something there, and was brought in, and did quite well (w/ Cade McNown no less). But IMHO, his demise had little to do w/ the OC. MRob had two things that prevented him from taking another step. One, injuries. He just could not stay healthy. Two, fear. He was a hell of a downfield threat, but was flat out afraid to go over the middle or run pretty much any route other than a go route. Honestly, not even sure what the argument is w/ Conway. He played as a rookie, but needed to develop. If you remember, back then, it was really rare for a young WR to do much of anything. It was then that most WR took 3 years to develop, and Conway did just that. 230 yards as a rookie. About 550 the next year, and over 1,000 by year three. Conway's path was very much like most young WRs. Back to the original point. I hear it all the time and just do not get it. I don't see how it can be argued Lovie, or the bears staff, doesn't like rookies or holds them back. IMHO, when a rookie doesn't get to play, it most often is because he has not earned the playing time.

One cool thing is that we can agree to disagree. I thought Moose at least fulfilled his role as being the Bears #1 receiver for the first couple of years. In fact, he was our leading receiver his first 2 years. I don't think it should be his fault that our QBs sucked. I actually would be curious how he would do with Cutler as QB. I think he would have done much better at that point. David Terrell was our leading receiver once. That doesn't mean he was a good player, much less starter, for us. Sure, w/ a good QB (much less Cutler) his numbers would have gone up. But that is part of my whole problem. He was brought in w/ the belief he could improve the QBs. I am not saying anyone expected numbers like he posted his last year in Carolina, but I do believe the staff felt like he was the sort of WR that could elevate the QBs we had, rather than the sort of WR who can look good w/ a good QB. Sorry, but most NFL WRs can look good w/ a good QB. So how do you compare Moose to the journeymen Booker and Lloyd we signed last year? (see below but we're talking about the difference between red chip and white chip players here) Just curious, why am I limited to the two players we brought in last year, like those are the only journeymen guys out there? I'm sorry, but I just do not see what MM did that is so special, or so different from what many WRs in the league could do. His stats were not great, but I would even argue the stats were better than the actual. He would have a couple good games, w/ many no-shows. Further, as I have argued before, most starting WRs are bound to has some stats w/ their name. Just like if you give a RB enough carries, even w/ a 3.1 ypc avg, he can still end up w/ some decent yardage totals. To me, MM simply did little to help the offense. We can talk day and night about how he was hurt by the offense and QB, but part of why he was added was to aid that same group. IMHO, he did more to hurt than help. He didn't draw the double teams, as expected. His route running was never consistent, and the only thing less consistent was his hands. Yeah. I know you've argued more than just stats. He was a bit prima donnaish throwing the QBs under the bus occasionally, but I expect that from the position. It's part of the personality most of the time. I hate to bring FF into this, but I tend to shy away from individual players and draft from systems. For instance, the Colts #3 guy last year was worth as much or more than the Bears #1 receiver. If a WR changes teams, I usually stay away from them because you never know what you're gonna get. Housh in Seattle and Coles in Cinci this year are examples. I guess I'm not surprised by Moose's performance and behavior so I see it all as what I expected and therefore a "not bad" signing. But that doesn't mean "good." One, I would agree that of all the positions, WRs often are the biggest talkers and showboats. At the same time, I do not agree that you expect a WR to throw his QB under the bus. Frankly, that is something often reserved for Terrell Owens. usually, the WR says or does dumb things, but not often does a WR show so little care for his QB. It happens, yes. But I don't think near often enough that you should expect or accept it. Two, when talking about the "beyond the stats" stuff, I mean more than just the times he threw his QB under the bus. How about the drops? So often Orton or Rex were bashed, but damn, they would put the ball in his hands, or hit him in the numbers, and he still dropped the ball. As often as I read about it happening w/ others, I do not recall a single article talking about MM putting him the extra hours w/ either the QBs or the young WRs. When Cutler signed on w/ the Bears, you read tons of stories of his working w/ Olsen and other receivers, outside of team activities. There were numerous stories of Pace working well after practice w/ Williams and others. Louis, a 7th round rookie, talked about how impressed he was a future HOF player like Pace would spend so much time w/ a guy questionable to even make the team. You read stories like this all the time, but I don't recall ever hearing from Berrian or others that MM was helping them. No, whether looking at the stats, or those things that don't show up on a stat sheet, I just do not believe MM did much to help the team. I believe middle of the road FAs could likely have done just as much. There you go again with the "not good" = "bad" thing again. I look at it like the Blue chip, Red chip, White chip method of player evaluation. Blue chip = Total stud in his prime with no health issues Red chip = either a steady solid starter, a fallen blue chip player due to injury, or a player that has shown talent, but isn't proven as a starter over a 16 game season White chip = Fungible commodity that could probably be replaced easily without much drop off in performance The Blue chip guys never make it to the free market. Turner was an unknown with no more than 502 yards in a season before signing with Atlanta. Brees had an injury to his throwing shoulder that no one knew for sure how it would heal. Both were red chip guys. Daniels was a solid red chip guy, and Moose was a red chip guy due to his age (32) and the fact that his previous seasons were up and down and not consistent. My point is that occasionally you can get a red chip prospect that ends up performing at a blue chip level, but that's the exception to the rule. In free agency, you end up paying blue chip prices for red chip players. Most of the time, they play like red chip players - which are overpaid by the nature of the system. Okay, so you are saying the games elite players don't hit FA. Okay, I can go along w/ that. But I do not believe that is what you said before. You said, "but a guy off the street that you don't have to give anything up but money for? No. They aren't that good or they wouldn't be available". There is a huge gap between saying "aren't that good" blue chip players. You define red chip players, and said this group of players are available, but in your definition, red chip players can be good players. No, you don't get an Orlando Pace in his prime. You more often get him after. A QB like Brees? Frankly, I think he is an exception. W/ or w/o the arm injury, he was going to be on the free market as the team had drafted Rivers prior to Brees becoming a pro bowl player. But I would agree that is an unusual situation. If we paid blue chip price for a red chip player, and got red chip production. Fine. That isn't unusual, and sort of expected when dealing w/ FAs. But IMHO, we paid blue chip market for white chip production and play.

No matter how stupid what Anderson did it was not worth 10k. This reigning commissioner is getting way out of hand with his punishments;especially the ones that were not penalized during games. I believe the game officials have an idea whether a guy was trying to intentially hurt a player or not and if they are going to go back and freeze frame these type of plays then they should do it on all game plays. Disagree. Often officials simply do not see something happen. Just because they missed the call on the field doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that it should not be dealt with.

I'll be honest. While I agree we have played the red shirt game, which I frankly love, I don't really get the belief we hold back rookies. In fact, I would argue quite the opposite. 2009 Afalava - He was a 6th round pick that didn't even start on time due to graduation, but was given an opportunity and ran with it, earning a starting job on the defense. Knox - He was always in the plans for special teams, but was also given an opportunity to play on offense, and made the most of it. W/ Aromashadu hurt in game one, the staff could have simply inserted Davis into the slot, but gave the rookie an opportunity. Thats it for this year, but I not due to a lack of opportunity. Per all reports, Iglesias, Gilbert and DJ Moore simply didn't stand out in camp. 2008 Chris Williams was essentially handed the starting LT job, but was lost due to injury. Forte was a big part of the plans from day one, and his not being handed the starting job was more of a technicality than reality. Bennett was simply handled poorly, and yes, an argument could be made here. The staff has said they made a mistake giving him to much, and talked about it in how they would work w/ Knox differently. Harrison was immediately considered part of the rotation at DT. Steltz and Bowman each saw the field as rookies, and Kellen Davis was part of the mix, but simply didn't do well as a blocker, which is what they were looking for out of him at the time. 2007 Olsen didn't do as much as a rookie as many expected, wanted, but also had a very solid veteran in place. This is not like holding back a rookie because he is a rookie. Simply put, Olsen was not yet able to beat out the veteran. Payne and McBride each played and even started as rookies. Graham was expected to play, but went down w/ injury. Others simply weren't good enough. Wolfe is another here some argue didn't get an opportunity. I personally have always argued he was drafted more for special teams than as a RB though. 2006 DM, Hester and Mark Anderson all played significant roles their rookie seasons. Dusty was part of the mix, but began a string of season ending injuries. 2005 Benson wasn't handed the job, and some may try to make a case for the coaches holding him back, but it isn't like he was stuck behind James Allen or Adrian Peterson. Thomas Jones was damn good that year. Orton and Harris each started as rookies. Bradley went down w/ injury, but was on the field as a rookie. 2004 Harris, Tank, Berrian and Vasher all either started or played significant time as rookies. Even Krenzel started, though due to injury. Prior to 2004 was pre-Lovie, and not really part of this discussion IMHO, though there are still plenty of examples of rookies playing significant roles. IMHO, two things have created this misconception that Lovie doesn't give rookies a chance. One. Lovie makes rookies earn their spot. But is this so unusual? I would much rather a coach practice this than simply hand a rookie a job w/o first earning it. IMHO, rookies are given an opportunity. From there, it is up to the rookie to make the most of it. I think Lovie's history has shown that if a rookie does show enough, he will play, and even start. Two. There have been a couple isolated situations where fans have latched onto. Bradley is a prime example of a player who many fans felt was held back, but IMHO, that had nothing to do w/ rookie status. Wolfe is another some fans felt was held back, but I think again, it was for different reasons. There may be a player here or there and argument can be made for, but when you look at the big picture, I just don't see a valid argument to say our staff doesn't give rookies an opportunity, or that they are held back. The number of rookies, and in particular the number of 2nd day pick rookies, who not only play but also start, would seem to blow out of the water the incorrect belief that Lovie doesn't like or holds back rookies.

Yea. I remember the draft rumors also. I liked him in the draft, but he went to SF, and after one year, they changed defensive schemes and he became an awful fit. I thought he would fit well for us. I drove the nuts watching lesser DTs play over Adams, just because Adams isn't a pass rusher. Sorry, but I'll take Adams anyday. He may not rush the passer, but he is great against the run, eats up space and can push the pocket. IMHO, you need one DT like him.

I have always liked him. I wanted him when I saw he was available, and was thrilled to get him. I honestly never felt he got a fair shake, as I thought he earned his playing time, but was held back as he wasn't the ideal fit for Lovie's scheme. But due to injuries, he got his playing time and kept it. IMHO, he has been our most consistent DT, and maybe most consistent DL overall. He doesn't make the big plays others do, but seems to get solid push everydown, and is maybe the biggest reason our defense began to improve against the run after Dusty went down and Adams stepped in. Anyway, there is a pretty good piece on him, from him, in the Trib, http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune....assing-gas.html Couple pieces that really stuck to for me. I'm real hard on myself, so I never think that I do too great. I just have to stay consistent. Can someone explain to Tommie Harris why this is a good thing, as opposed to Tommie telling us how well he played last year. We don't have to come in on Mondays after a win, but I do. I come in at 8, 8:30 a.m. to run, get that soreness out of me. You have to. If I played 40 plays, I just got into 40 car accidents. In the film room, we make up lists for fines. Like (passing gas) is a $20 fine. If you fall asleep, that's like $20. If you jump offside in practice and we see it on the practice film, that's $20 and $100 for in the game. Mark Anderson might be the worst (gas-passer) ever. He takes these protein shakes, so he smells like little babies do. Freaking classic. I absolutely love the "behind the closed door" stories from players. I try to come home and play with little Anthony to give my wife time to rest and not have to do all that baby talk. When I get home, my son won't let me do anything until I give him at least five good minutes of throwing the football. You can't take the football away from him any. He's only 19 months old. As a father, reading something like this has just that much more meaning. Such a contrast to all the players who go out and party after a game, only to get busted for a DWI on the way home.

Oh, I would agree Hunter has leadership qualities. The problem w/ Hunter is (a) he isn't a good enough player to back it up, and thus I am not sure how long term he would be effective and ( while nice for now, he isn't even a starter for us. Starting now due to injury, but otherwise is not considered a starter. Heck, I think there may even be question if he starts at MLB all year, or if the staff at some point goes w/ Williams or Roach (after Pisa returns) for the speed and athleticism. So I agree Hunter is a leader, but I don't think that helps us down the road.

Something great about this also. We started out against a pair of 3-4 defenses, one of which is w/o question elite. Especially for an OL w/ 3 new starters, that is a tough beginning. But now we get a game like this, and then Detroit. Follow that up w/ a bye week, and our OL has two easy games and an off week to get their crap together, as does the rest of our team. I love the way that sets up. We should be heading into the bye week 3-1 and while it will then be a long season after, the hope is our team forms more chemistry and such in this first month, and it really carries over through the rest of the season.

Yup. Trufant, easily their best CB, was already out. Now another starter has gone donw, and yet another (Lusas) is slowed w/ a groin injury. So their starting CBs (whoever they are) are weakened considerably, but then I think about what sort of DB would line up against a slot guy like Knox, and I salivate. Then add the likely loss of their top LB, and another starting LB was already out. This is going to open things up for our TEs and run game. Finally, as you said, their key DT is likely out. I don't know how aggressive we plant o be, but against a defense so killed by injuries, we should be able to put 50 on the board. We won't, but that is how bad their situation is.

Leadership has been a bit of a pet thing of mine for years. I basically grew up on the Bears of the 80s and Singletary. I have heard many times Buddy Ryan and others say that if it were not for Mike, that defense would have never worked the way it did. For me, having a field general, coach on the field, whatever you want to call it, is huge. When Mike Brown was healthy, he was such a leader. You would see him back there calling out plays, but just as important, yelling to other players where they should be lining up, or to watch for something specific, or whatever. Other than Brown though, I have never felt we had a leader in the sense I would look for. Urlacher has been our defensive captain, but again, he was always referred to as a lead by example guy. That is great, but just not the same as a guy who would make sure a young player near him would be in the right position, or let him know not only that he messed up, but how to correct it. Brown, Wale and others have been similar. They have solid character. They show solid work ethic and they lead by example, but little more. Briggs has always been a locker room guy, and the hope is w/ Urlacher out, he takes it to another level on the field, but I am not too optimistic. IMHO, either you have it or you don't. I do not believe you can make yourself that sort of leader. That is why I am so hoping Afalava may be that player. If he feels confident enough as a rookie to step into that role, what happens as he gains experience? That is an exciting question for me.

I think Briggs has always been more vocal. W/ Urlacher, you always hear about how he leads by example, but he was never one to "rally the troops." I always hated listening to Urlacher talk about a Packers game being just another game. Frankly, that always ticked me off. W/ Briggs, I always read stories about how he was more vocal. He is the sort to play practical jokes and do more in the locker room. The question to be answered, IMHO, is the level at which he can display leadership on the field. IMHO, we have not had a field general since Mike Brown began to go down with injuries. Few would question he was our field general, but Brown said himself that once the injuries began, he didn't feel comfortable being vocal. Other than Brown, we may have some "lead by example" sorts, but we really have not had any field generals. Ironically, the player who I have read about stepping up is our rookie DB. I have read about Afalava yelling to teamates to line up here or there, and calling out plays and such. Especially considering his rookie status, that is pretty surprising.

I see Moose and Daniels as "Average signings" because while they didn't put up spectacular numbers, they did fill a role competently, and they didn't cost more than the going rate for free agents at the time they were signed. Did they get paid alot of money? Yes, but not more than they were going to make elsewhere anyway. Regarding MM - I do not think he filled a role competently. I also think there is more reason to question whether another team would have given him so much. As we signed him so quickly out of the gates, we have no real idea what his market value was. W/ that said, if we paid him half as much, I would not feel he was even an average signing. I think he was a bust for us, plain and simple, and that is even factoring what you said about keeping lower FA expectations. I think in both cases, the team was better off for having each guy on the team rather than depending on a rookie draft pick or some less expensive journeyman. Disagree again. When I look at MM's contribution, I think most journeymen FAs could have done just as well. I think people generally expect too much from free agents in general. It's not like baseball where you can just interchange players at will and a player has the same stats pretty much no matter where they play. Football is a team sport and judging a player based on individual stats is naive at best. Ogun was better playing opposite Taylor, Moose was better playing with Delhomme (why I can't fathom, but it doesn't matter), and Daniels was, well, very steady and solid as a DE. Agree and disagree. Agree that we as fans often expect too much from a FA. Disagree that it is naive to judge a player based on individual stats. That may not be the only factor to judge a player, but it is a big one. Further, if you have read my arguments, I have gone way beyond individual stats in arguing against MM. Actually, I 'm going to defend Daniels a bit and say that people had ridiculous expectations for him. Sure, he wasn't spectacular and didn't take over games, but guess what? GUYS LIKE THAT DON'T HIT FREE AGENCY!!! Why would you expect a free agent to perform like that? Just because he took advantage of the system to make as much money as possible? What? Really? Should he have said "No No No! You can't pay me that much because I'm going to be a disappointment to the fans!"? I too have defended Daniels. Here's the bottom line: If you sign a player in free agency to a going-rate deal, expect to be underwhelmed because true playmakers never make to free agency. Now if Cutler underperforms, then it's something to be disappointed in because we gave up so much to get him, but a guy off the street that you don't have to give anything up but money for? No. They aren't that good or they wouldn't be available. I would agree expectations are usually too high for FAs, but disagree w/ your comment that only bad players hit FA. Circumstances, other than they simply aren't that good, exist for FAs to hit FA. While less often, you do still see teams that just flat out can not afford a player, and yet the tag may not be an option. You also see a situation where a team is already loaded at a position. Wasn't Michael Turner a FA? How about Drew Brees? Both situations came about due to the team already having their starter in place, and thus allowed a good FA to hit the market. I agree that today, as teams better manage the cap, the FA pool is not close to what it once was, but disagree that only trash hits FA.

Hard to be seen when you are not even active on game day. Gilbert, along w/ Iglesias, have been on the inactive list on game day. A bit surprising that our top two picks have been inactive while some mid 2nd day picks (Afalava/Knox) have been looking so great. I think Gilbert has a ton of raw talent, but may simply be behind in terms of learning and development. Further, I question where we envision him for the future. I honestly think we are working to develop him this year to take over for Wale next. While I think he could be great inside, I think we may be looking at him outside, and I also read him say that is where he feels the most comfortable and prefers as well. I think Gilbert may be a player we see later in the year, but may not see much until next.

Can we simply delete this thread and move on. I do not think Terra ever considered race in his post or joke, but regardless, this entire thread has really no where but down to go.

Agreed. I think this is the "test" year. Next year, we streamline... But, one can still hope the test results in a fine tuning in the playoffs! No question. The hope is we can see Knox develop for us the way Royal did for Denver. That doesn't mean he has to be as good, but simply see him take a fast track development like Royal. I think this year, we will continue to see (a) the ball spread around and ( different players stepping up each week. In week one, we saw Hester and Bennett provide some consistent play, while Knox added a big catch. In week two, K.Davis and Knox stepped up big, and Olsen/Hester stepped up at the end w/ some big catches. This week, I can see Forte having a breakout game, as well as whoever else. Knox is really in position for a big game as Seattle has issues w/ their starting CBs, meaning whoever their nickel is will be a deep depth chart DB, and Knox has big potential to exploit. W/ their LB issues, Olsen and Davis could have big games as well. Point is, I think we will see development spread out this year. The hope is, a player or two really emerge by the end of the year who look not only promising, but appear to be studs. Olsen was the favorite pick in preseason for this. Knox is the favorite pick today. By season's end, who knows.

I choose to believe it was simply a bad joke also, playing on the name, sport and team, rather than ever thinking about the racial element.

Some might try to say Beekman, but I wouldn't. If our staff had their way, Beekman would have never even been given an opportunity at OG last year. the only reason he was looked at was due to numerous OL injuries which forced the issue. So yea. What OL can we point to and say Harry has developed? Granted, it isn't like we have spent many picks in the draft on OL, but none? You look around the league and see so many teams w/ late 2nd day picks (OL) that develop into starters, and yet we struggle w/ our 1st rounders. At WR, I can at least, maybe, a tiny bit, see the argument that it is hard to develop WRs when you don't have a QB. I mean, look how quickly the development takes place now that we have Cutler. Does anyone honestly believe Knox would have anyone excited if Orton were starting? With that said, I still have to agree on Drake. While we may blame stats and production on the QB, our WRs even today still make too many of the same mistakes we have complained about w/ every WR for years.

If you want to talk about bad signings ther have been a laundry list of them including Ironhead, Chris Hudson,Carter, Lewis Tillman,Eddie Kennison,Josh Bullocks,Phillip Daniels,Blake Brokermeyer, Henry Tillman, Kordell Stewart,etc. Musin Mohammed was not a bad signing, he just didn't fit the same way in this offense but if we want to get technical about his contribution to the team look at all the guys who were here with him and notice that all most of all them are still in the league on other teams, that where I see his impact. You think he had some influence on Bobby Wade,Justin Gage,Mark Bradley and Bernard Berrian? I have already argued in favor of Daniels. I also would disagree on Brockermeyer. Hell, I may even argue we have not had a better LT since. He was never a great run blocking LT, which is what many were upset w/ him about, but he was considered among the best in the league in pass protection. Most of the others you mention were not good, but at the same time, most were of minimal cost. I am not sure I understand the idea that many of those WRs are in the league today due to the influence of MM. Frankly, I don't even really recall stories about how MM was working late into practices to work w/ the other young WRs. I read about that sort of thing this past camp w/ Pace and Kreutz helping other OL. I read that about Clark working w/ our TEs and even WRs. I read that about Tillman working w/ Bowman and Graham. I do not recall the stories of MM working w/ our young WRs. Just because a veteran WR was on the team does not mean he helped the others.

It is Thomas Smith. He was a CB for Buffalo prior to our signing him to a large contract. Never a big interception guy, but was considered a near shut down corner. I think he lasted one year w/ us, and was gone. The guy that everyone is calling "Thomas Smith" I think is named Thomas Carter and he was supposed to be a good cover corner when he was with the Redskins.

I was actually very much in favor of adding Hous, but that was when Orton was our QB. I felt that if we were going to head into the season w/ a QB like Orton, who I liked, but we all know is not special, then we needed to do whatever possible to upgrade around him. Since we added Cutler, I have been against the idea of adding whatever FA is the flavor of the day. We just are not used to it in Chicago, but when you have a QB like Cutler, you find talent emerge from unexpected places. I guarantee you Denver did not expect Royal to breakout as he did last year. W/ Cutler in charge, I am likely in the minority, but I love our prospects for the future at WR. Knox is well ahead of schedule in terms of development. Bennett has not exploded, but does actually lead the team in receptions, and considered he had zero last year, is a credit to Cutler. Then you look at a WR like Aromashodu, who can't get on the field now due to Knox, but is a player who showed a lot of chemistry w/ Cutler in camp. And I still really like Iglesias, who seems to need time for development, but who I think can be a player for us down the road. This does not even factor Hester and our TEs. I think we will see a lot of development from our WRs this year, but next year is when I think our offense will really begin to take off.

I think the only reason the OL has not been part of this discussion is, while many hoped they would be improved from last season, I don't think many expected them to be great, especially early on. Forte last year was great, even w/ a poor OL. And expectations, especially after Marinelli was added, were very high too for Harris. On the OL, we are talking about (a) Pace, who many felt was about done, but we hoped he had a bit left. As I recall, his only other offer was Baltimore, who thought he could only play RT at this point in his career. ( Omiyale, here is a guy who had limited playing time at OT, and we were playing him inside where his experience was less. © Williams, who missed his rookie season w/ injury, and had a so-so camp. I agree this unit has been weak. Heck, I have said a lot worse than that. But the only reason I think others were placed ahead is due to expectations. I just don't think this group should have been expected to be great, or even that good, particularly early on. One person I really hope begins to be looked at more critically is Harry Hiestand, our OL coach. I got my wish when Babich was demoted and our DL coach fired, but Harry was another I wanted gone. IMHO, our play in the first two games only continues to reinforce my campaign against this guy. We will see this week against a 4-3 defense, but I really think a huge aspect has been playing against a 3-4 scheme. Far too often, our OL simply didn't look prepared. Its one thing if you are facing a 3-4 scheme midseason , w/ little time to prepare, but we played a couple 3-4s in preseason, and started the regular season with two in a row. We should have been very prepared for this scheme, but I just do not feel we were. That has to reflect on coaching.

I like Alex Brown. His attitude and work ethic impress me. He seems the consumate team player. I also get a full sense that he;s giving it his all and he cares. Sometimes the results come, somethimes it's not as apparent. I've been dissatisfied w/ Wale for a while. But I honestly didn't expect the world. I thought he was a product of Jason Taylor...and it pretty much looks like that's the case. Is Wale a bust? I don't know. Depends what your real definition is. You take Reggie While, Deion Sanders, Drew Brees and a few others out of the mix, and for the most part, FA's are all busts. Close to opposite for me. I always thought Brown was over-rated. He is a nice player, but I don't think you want a nice DE in our scheme. We need a Leanord Little. A Simeon Rice. We need a big ticket, edge pass rusher. Alex Brown is a nice player, but even when Wale and Harris were playing on a higher level, Brown was simply not good enough to take advantage. Brown has a few big games every season (pass rush) and disappears in the rest. Nice guy. Nice player. But from from special. I bought into Wale when he came. I was about as thrilled as w/ adding Cutler. Yes, Wale had Taylor on the opposite side, but that does not take away (IMHO what he did). 9.5 sacks followed by 15. He never hit the level expected in Chicago, but at the same time, did become a solid starter. Wale (and Daniels) for me is like spending a mid 1st round pick on a player expected to be a stud. He becomes a solid starter, but not a stud. Some will always remember him for not living up to his draft status, but if you get past that, the players is a solid piece of your team. Maybe my irritation w/ Daniels stems more from the horrid overall team than his performance alone. I just don't recall him ever having an impact in any significant moment or game. That would make sense. Daniels first season w/ the bears, we won 5 games. That was our Cade McNown/Mathews rotation. The following year, we won 13 games and Daniels was a big part of that. But the year after that, we suffered many injuries, and the team tanked. Then another year of injuries, this time including Daniels, and bad year again. By now, Angelo is in the picture, and ravamping the DL, and Daniels simply no longer fits, and thus is gone. I can easily understand why Daniels would be lumped in w/ that group. On the other hand, I simply consider Daniels one of our solid players from that unit. I suppose maybe I'm being harsh on Daniels, but I think I bring it up becasue I think people are being too harsh on MM. For 2 years, I think he was a huge help for the club. After that, not so much...and that's when people were calling for his head. But w/o him, I'm not sure we make our run at the SB. We simply disagree on MM. I honestly believe he brought very little to the team. Do we go to the SB w/ him? I think we would. I truly believe he was that close to a waste of roster space, and feel even some of the hacks we had behind him could have done as well or better. MM just wasn't very good. He didn't run routes well, and dropped a ton of passes. I just don't get what he did that other "lesser" WRs couldn't. He finished w/ some stats, but anyone who starts will. Bobby Wade had 42 - 481 the year he started 14 games. David Terrell had 40 something for around 700 yards. If you start, and spend most of the year on the field, you are simply likely to have something in terms of stats. But that doesn't mean you were good. At the end of the day, MM seems to me like a player who, if all the surrounding parts are there, he can be a good WRs. Not great, but good. But he needs all the pieces in place. He needs a good QB (Delhomme), OL, opposite WR (Steve Smith) and solid run game. In this sort of a situation, he can be good enough. What he is not is a player who can elevate the play of those surrounding parts, which was the expectation.

Hey, I disagree too, but the point is, those DEs worked within the scheme. We all want sacks, but if the scheme doesn't make pass rush a priority (for the DL) then can we really blast them for not racking up the sack totals? Frankly, I use it myself as I find humor in it, but Blache's "sacks aren't important" comment I always thought was over-blown. I understand, and even agree, with his point. He was trying to make the point that consistent pressure is more important than the actual sack. Which would you rather have. A DE who shows up one or two plays a game getting in the sack stat column, or a player who doesn't get a sack, but does put consistent pressure on the QB. I think that was his point, but the statement itself was simply too inflamatory, espeically for a fan base so desperate for big sack numbers. Back to Daniels. Does Alex Brown or Wale impress you? They play in a system the emphasizes the pass rush, and yet neither rack up sack numbers much more than Daniels did. Daniels had 9 sacks one season for us, which is well better than any one season for Brown and equal to Wale's 2nd best season for us. In fact, if you look at Wale's stats over the years, he really only has one season over Daniels. If you take out Wale's 10 sack season, he has sack totals of 6.5, 9 and 5, which is actually less than Daniels three seasons. Is Wale as big, or bigger of a bust than Daniels?