nfoligno

I hadn't realized just the extent of their injuries. Mora talked about how 13 of his starters are hurt. That is really bad. Also, they talked about how the injuries have not been season ending, which is good, but the problem is they have been strapped in terms of bringing in players to replace injured players, who are still counting against their 53 man roster. So not only are they missing starters, but their depth is thins right now as well. Also, frankly I don't follow Seattle as much, and didn't realize the value of some of the names. Hasselbeck is well discussed. I talked the other day about their LT situation, and even though Walter Jones is practicing, this is still going to be a weak area for them. Tatupu also has been well discussed. Others though who have not been as well talked about. Mebane is a starting DT who had 5.5 sacks last year, and who was expected to be a key piece to their DL this season. I read some Seattle fans who were saying he was 2nd in importance to Hasselbeck in terms of injuries. Josh Wilson is a starting CB, and he is out. Wilson I think was already replacing Trufant, who is on the PUP list. That means they are startig to get fairly deep into the CB depth chart. Thus their starting CB is weaker, but so is their nickel, who will fact Knox. And while he is likely to play, their other CB (Ken Lucas) is limited w/ a groin injury. So they are seriously hurting in their secondary, liking missing their key LB and also likely missing the interior pass rusher. Cutler should have 300 and Forte 150 facing a defense this beat up. On the other side, they will have their backup QB. If Hassel plays, I think they are even worse off as he would struggle to play w/ such an injury. Blind side protection is going to struggle as they will have to start either a still hurting Jones or their #4 OT. We may be missing Urlacher and Pisa, but our defense should not have trouble handling this offense. This week should not only be a win, but a blowout win at that.

Yea, that is something I think fans just do not factor. Our scheme was so different from today. We had a DL of Daniels, Traylor, Washington and B.Robinson. This was not a DL created to attack the passer. It was built to copy Baltimore and what they built on the way to the SB. Use the DL to stuff the run and keep your LBs free to mak plays. We were tops in the league (or maybe #2) in shutting down the run, and while we gave up passing yards, I believe we were also #1 or #2 in terms of scoring. DL is evaluated based on sacks, but that simply was not the key role of our DL then.

No massive argument. I think there is reason for concern, but not yet to the extent that I have written Forte off. Not even close. I also think a huge issue here is the 3-4, which frankly has to go back to the coaching staff. I just do not feel our players are prepared for 3-4 schemes, and have felt that way for years. 3-4 schemes always seem to give us fits, and that has to go back to coaching. No question this is a big game for our run game. Especially w/ some of the injuries Seattle is suffereing, and what Gore did to them, if we can't run on Seattle, I think our problems are greater than we now suspect.

From what I saw from the game, Ogunleye received a few double teams and Alex Brown made them pay for those double teams by getting to the QB and having a pretty disrupting game. I figure WR (one more couldn't hurt), safety, Oline, and DT will be the primary needs this off-season. The other players that is fairly disappointing right now is Harrison. While not on the same level as Harris due to expectations, I think all the same things can be said for Harrison. With all the attention going to the DEs, our DTs should be doing far more. The only DT I think has played well is Adams. Adams has had 2 tackles in each game, and generally has clogged up the middle. Heck, he even had a QB hurry this past game. Harris had one tackle this past game. Granted, it was a great play behind the LOS, but that was the only time he was visable. In game one, he had one assisted tackle. That's it. Harrison didn't even register a tackle this past game. In game one, he only registered one assisted tackle. That is it for our DT production. Especially as Lovie has so many times said this scheme really starts w/ the DT, that is freaking pathetic. As for the draft next year, I think our draft should be all about the trenches. I really don't think I would even look anywhere else. We have quite a bit of talent IMHO at WR. The issue is not so much talent, but simply experience, and adding another rookie WR is not going to change that. Safety is w/o question a need, but I think one which would be better served with the addition of a veteran. Our OL has been a need for years, and little seems to have changed. Best case is Williams develops and gives us at least one solid OT for the future, but I have not yet been impressed. Pace was hoped to be a couple year bandaid, but thus far, he looks like he should have retired after last season. We spent money to get Omiyale, who has been flat out awful. We also spent money to get Shaffer, who was just awful in camp. On the DL, Wale and Anderson will be FAs. Brown is a nice DE, but little more. At I do not see a DT in the mix who has shown an ability to get to the QB. In my eyes, our next draft should be all about the trenches.

I noticed something different at the next level too. There was a sweep play to the left. He had already picked up a few yards, and had some OL in front of him. He was dang near walking behind the OL, and was then brought down from behind. Couple different ways of looking at this. - Is he trying to more often let his blockers set up for him? You always hear coaches talk about runners needing to be patient and let their blockers open things up. Problem is, that sort of hesitation can also lead to getting dropped from behind, and frankly, the less momentum you have running, the easier you are to bring down. If it is the above, is this something the coaches have been trying to get him to do, or is it something he is doing on his own. - The other side of this is, or could be, having to do w/ our new faces on the OL. Maybe he used OL to set up his blocks last year, but St.Clair and Beekman were quicker to get out and block, and thus we didn't "see" Forte play hesitant. Maybe it isn't nearly as much Forte running different as having two new OL on the left. Honestly, I don't know what the story or reasons are. All I know is Forte seems to be running very different this year.

It doesn't matter who you play. Who has Minny played this year? Nobody. Nothing. And yet all you read about his how great of a team they are and what they have shown. Last week, SF destroyed Seattle, who was w/o Hassel, Tatoo and whoever else, yet all I read about is the new found greatness of SF. Sorry, but it doesn't matter who you beat, or what condition that team is in. All that matters is you win. If it matters to you, then don't just beat them, destroy them.

I never agreed w/ the belief Phillip Daniels was such a huge bust. No. He never lived up to the great expectations. He was added after a 9 sack season w/ Seattle, and the belief was, the sack total would go up from there, but he never got over that 9 sack total. With that said, while he did not live up to the hype, I simply would not agree he was such a bust either. He wasn't the pass rushing force we hoped, but he was actually a pretty damn good DE for us. Everyone always talks about Alex Brown as being such a solid DE. Well, I would argue Daniels was just as good as Brown, and frankly, I might argue better. Daniels had 20.5 sacks in his first 3 seasons. If I put Brown's best three year run together, he totals 19. Both are comparable in tackle numbers as well. As much praise as Brown often gets in regard to run defense, I would argue Daniels was considerably better. I think it can also be pointed out that while brown plays in a defensive scheme that is all about pass rush, Daniels played in the opposite. Stop the run, maintain your lane, then rush the QB if you can. Remember Blache's famous quote? "Sacks are over-rated" In many ways, I would say Daniels was like Wale. Like Wale, Daniels never emerged as the pass rush force expected when brought to Chicago, but also like Wale, he proved to be a very solid DE for us while he was here. Contrast that w/ FA additions like Thomas Smith and RMJ, who we spent considerable cash on, and yet they could not even hold down a job. MM fits in the middle IMHO. He was paid big bucks, and while he did start, his performance was not starter tier. I think fans so soon forget. I remember well how so many fans on this board were screaming for him to be benched. As bad as the WR talent as we had behind him was, his play was so poor that most here felt he shouldn't even be on the field.

Madman, When did I EVER say MM was the worst FA signing ever? In fact, I believe I started this by saying he wasn't. My argument was never that he was the worst FA signing ever. I posted parts of an article saying only the uninformed believe MM was a bad signing. This discussion stems from that article. I do not believe MM was a good signing. In fact, I believe he was a bad signing. Was he the worst ever? No. And I have never argued that. Where does he fit on the list. I have no idea. As many bad FA signings as we have had over the years, that would be one hell of a research project. The one thing I would argue is, I think Daniels was a better (relative) signing than MM. Frankly, I don't think it is even close.

Everyone has fixated on the status of Hasselbeck, and for good reason, but there are a couple other injuries that could prove just as big. Most know that Walter Jones has been out, but does everyone realize his backup (Sean Locklear) also went down w/ a high ankle sprain? Per More, he isn't going to rush Jones back as he doesn't want to kill his season. But that could mean Seattle is down not only their stud LT, but also his backup. I don't even know who would start if these two can not go. Brandon Frye is listed as the backup RT, and they only picked him up a couple weeks ago off waivers. Coming off a two sack game, Alex Brown could be in for a big day. Tatupu is not only Seattle's best LB, but could be their best defensive player. From what I read, he has a hammy injury. He tried to play against SF, but was pulled shortly after as he simply couldn't play at game speed. Mora doesn't know if he will be able to play or not. IMHO, either he is out, which is pretty huge, or he is slowed, which also would be huge. I don't know if Tatupu's loss was the key to Gore running all over them, but no question in my mind it was a significant factor. So on offense, we have all talked about our struggles to run the ball. If we can't run against this Seattle defense, then we truly know we have major problems. On defense, we should be licking our chops. I doubt Hasselbeck can play. If he does, you have to believe he will not be as effective, and put a few hits on him, and things could go from bad to worse. Wallace may not be the worst QB in the league, but after facing Rodgers and Rothlisberger, it should feel like it. Further, their OL has struggled thus far, but if Locklear is in fact out, Alex Brown should be set loose.

I believe he only played one season for us, so I doubt he was great, but I too don't recall well. We are talking about a FB from 15 years ago though, right? I doubt he received a big contract, so even if he was a FA bust, I don't think he belongs on the list. We bring in numerous FAs every year, but only so many for big bucks w/ big expectations.

Actually, Harris usually breaks out early and then fades as the season goes on. In his first two seasons, his sacks came in the first half of the season. In 2006, he had 5 sacks in the first 4 games, then nothing after. In 2007, he had 7 sacks in the first half, then not another until he got one in the final game. Harris usually starts out strong, but then fades, thus all the questions of whether or not he can handle a full time job in the NFL and why we try to rotate him so much.

Sorry, but I disagree w/ the responses thus far. Moose was brought in to help the QB. IMHO, he did little to help the QB, and more to hurt him. It seems like the belief today is MM waited to throw QBs under the bus, but as I recall, he did it pretty quickly. Orton was a rookie, and most often, you see players rally around the rookie QB, but MM seemed to do the opposite. The whole "throw the QB under the bus" thing began Orton's rookie season. I remember there was a game Moose was blamed for numerous drops, which made Orton look bad too. After the game, MM didn't even try to be politically correct, but instead flat out put the blame on Orton saying the passes were bad or off-target. Later, he did similar w/ Rex. I think fans are quick to forget how many threads were started after each game about his number of drops. He was brought in to help "stabalize" as you all like to say, the passing game, but his drops and weak route running did little to aid our passing game. Further, I disagree w/ any who say today that MM was drawing double coverage. Our RBs were facing stacked boxes, and a key reason for that was our WRs were now drawing double coverages. As for your list, few on that list were FAs of real significance. IMHO, to be on the list for top tier bad FA signings, they had to get a sizable contract. Players like Kordell Stewart, Hoge and others did not get a ton of money, and I don't think expectations were nearly so high. Some on that list you provided were not even FA signings. I guess I just disagree, but not only do I argue MM was a bad signing, I argue he was among our worst when you factor money and expectations, which I think you have to factor when talking about FA additions.

THANK YOU! We need to put out an APB on Harris. I tried to really watch him, and I didn't even see him getting double teamed. He is simply not getting penetration, and frankly, now showing much power either. What is more baffling, IMHO, is w/ the play of our DEs on the outside, you would really expect to see elevated play from our interior. In the first two games, OLs really began to stack their extra protection on the outside as Wale, Brown and even Anderson were all proving capable of turning the corner and pressing the QB. Due to our DEs, I would have expected to see two things. (a) DTs to get into the picture more often as they begin to see more and more single blocks. To add to the DEs on the outside, we have also sent quite a few inside blitzes, thus preventing double teams on our DTs. ( As we pressure from the outside, QBs are more often forced to step up in the pocket. That "should" push the QB into the arms of the DTs. But w/ the exception of a play here or there, I have not really seen any of our DTs making plays. That is really disappointing, and especially w/ Harris. I might give Harris the nod in the most disappointing category. Forte's struggles are partially on him, but also the OL and 3-4 defenses have to factor. Harris and our DTs have no such excuse IMHO, especially w/ how well other areas of the D have been executing.

McKay? I thought McKay was pretty well credits w/ adding all that talent over the years. In fact, I think you could point to the departure of McKay as easily as Dungy as to why TB has slid. They got old, but more important, they have not been able to replace older talent w/ young talent due to a lack of drafting. To me, Dungy is a lot like Lovie (or the other way around). Dungy was too one sided. In TB, he always had great defenses, but lacked any semblance of an offense to win it all. After he left, there is no question "his" defense helped win the SB, but the reason they won w/o him rather than w/ was the addition of an offense to that defense, which Dungy was not capable of developing. In Indy, he helped improve the defense, but the key there was he had an offense in place already, and was frankly not allowed to mess w/ it. He was told the Indy OC would remain. Not only is a HC told who he has to keep or hire, but it happened here. Basically, Dungy ran the defense and the other guy (and Payton) ran the offense, and the result was a SB. But I would argue Dungy never proved to be a well rounded coach. He had a great D in TB, but that wasn't enough to win a SB. And while he won a SB in Indy, despite the props he always gets, he really was not too much more than a glorified DC.

Mulligan of the Sun Times said the following, "It's a reason why anyone who thinks Muhammad was a bad free-agent signing by the Bears is uninformed. " For the record, part of his reasoning was/is that MM was a great run blocking WR, a role that is under-appreciated w/ WRs. Further, after stating that only the uninformed would consider MM a bad FA signing, he then mentions Thomas Smith (CB) who was signed back in 2000. I would agree Smith was a worse signing. I would even agree he was a far worse signing. But that doesn't mean MM was a good signing. As I recall, MM signed w/ the bears in early '05 to a 6 year deal. I full value of the contract varied, as I think there may have been a lot of incentives or something in it, as I recall that it could have been as high as $30m. But it also had $12m in bonus and guarantees and a 3 year value of over $16m. He played 3 seasons of a 6 year contract before being released. That right there puts into question whether or not he was a good/bad FA signing. He was signed coming off a 93-1,400-16 season. It can be debated what exactly our expectations were. I don't think we expected similar numbers, but I do believe we expected big numbers. What did we get? 64, 60 and 40 catch seasons. 750, 860 and 570 yards. 4, 5 and 3 scores. His numbers were not even good for a #2 WR, much less a #1. Finally, I think another reason he was added was to help the QB. We had talent, but lacked consistency at the QB position. He was added w/ the belief he could bring that sort of consistency and elevate the play of the QB. What happened instead? He was quick to throw our QBs under the bus. He was in a battle w/ Terrell Owens, not for yards or scores, but for dropped passes and excuses. His route running was sloppy, and you could tell by how rarely he was open. MM may not have been the worst FA signing, but I would argue he was a bad one, and if giving time to think on it, may still put him in the top 10.

So now you are an older snot nosed kid JK. Congrats.

I think our lack of a run game is due to many different things thus far. One. IMHO, we have always seemed to struggle against the 3-4 scheme. Frankly, I would add in there stunts and misdirection always seem to give our OL fits. Our OL (and backs) seem to struggle to know who they should block. This is NOT an excuses, but I do think the 3-4 has been a big factor. This week will be a significant test as we finally get a 4-3 scheme. Two. I think there are two issues w/ our OL. (a) as you mention, they lack chemistry. OL is one of the most important areas to have chemistry, and we have 3 new starters on the OL. ( frankly, I they may simply not be very good. Pace has looked slow. Williams has struggled as well. Omiyale has been flat out awful. It is a sad statement IMHO when Garza isn't our weak link, as I don't think he is very good. Three. Forte just does not appear to be the same player as last year. It isn't like our OL was anything special last year, and I think he faced more stacked boxes last year, and yet he still ran w/ far more authority. This year, thus far, he seems more hesitant. He doesn't appear to have the pop he did last year, and frankly, his vision has been questionable as there have been plays where I did see a hole open up but Forte just didn't see it. I hope our run game comes together, and this week should tell us a lot as Gore destoryed Seattle, but right now, our run game really looks off, and I think there are numerous reasons.

One, I wonder if the manner in which our receivers are catching the ball has anything to do w/ how hard Cutler throws the ball. W/ a QB like Orton throwing it, you could reach up w/ one hand and palm the ball in mid-air. W/ Cutler, some of those passes can take a hand off. I wonder if our receivers are attempting to put their bodies behind the catch as a sort of backstop. Think baseball. When you are fielding a grounder, you do whatever you can to get your body behind the ball. That doesn't mean you are trying to catch it w/ your body, but simply giving yourself a bit of insurance. If our receivers catch the ball away from their body, w/ the speed it is thrown, there is likely a better chance it gets threw their hands and is incomplete or picked off. However, if they get their body behind the ball, it may help. Two, the one receiver right now that has me a bit concerned is Olsen, who has not impressed me in his catching. I am not talking just about the two missed opportunities, but even some of his catches were bobbled before he hauled them in. He simply doesn't seem to be catching the ball well right now.

The only thing is, if you do throw a pass, and it falls incomplete, you leave time on the clock. It is sort of pick your poison. Either you risk leaving time on the clock, or kick a slightly longer field goal. In the end, I think the decision was made that we trust Gould more than the other parts, and I have no problem w/ that.

Regarding Indy, just to add to the pile, but when he was hired, he was forced to keep the same OC in place, thus he can't even take credit for the offense which led to the SB win. frankly, I can't stand Dungy. One. I think he is over-rated. Two. It is because of him that I suffer through my Bears playing this f'ing cover two. Three. I can't stand how he seems to always be up on a high horse and/or soap box.

Honestly, I think there is a lot to like about Romo. One thing he does that I always wished I saw in Chicago was the way he was able to move around in and out of the pocket, while always looking downfield. Rex would run around, but once pressured, he would basically stop looking downfield. Orton's vision seemed to be limited to the first 5 yards of the field once pressured. Romo is a QB that can continue to look downfield when on the run. We now have a QB who is great in this ability, but that was something I always liked about Romo. In the end, there are two huge questions on Romo, one of which you already mention. Is he a big game QB? Thus far, the answer has been no. As you said, he is flat out awful in the later part of the season. Last year, in the first 9 games (excluding a couple he missed) he threw 21 TDs to 8 ints. That is pretty awesome. But in the final 4 games, he threw 5 TDs to 6 Ints, losing 3 of those 4 games. The year before that, he looked great during the season (minus one Buffalo game where he had 5 picks) but then in the final 3 games, he had 1 TD to 5 picks, losing 2 of those final 3, and then had a 1 to 1 ratio in the playoff loss. The thinking is, when the pressure is highest, he fails. One guy here made point that many wrote off at the time, but he pressed it. He talked about how Romo is a big time golfer. Romo loves to golf, and loved to play in events, and is actually quite good. But the one part of the game Romo is not good at is putting. He made the point of showing several tournaments when he had big putts, some fairly easy, and Romo always seemed to choke. Now, golf is not football, the the point he made was both can reflect the mental part of the game, which Romo simply seems to lack. The other knock on him is that he hit it big a bit too quickly. He went from being a nobody to being handed the keys to one of the league's most recognizable franchises. Suddenly, he is in all the tabloids w/ this famous chick or that one. Basically, he went all Holleywood, and it all went to his head. Many here still make a big deal about that vacation he took before a playoff game, when he (and I think Witten) took some ladies to whatever Beach for the weekend prior to a playoff game. Some say it was the players time off, and he can do w/ it as he pleases, but many say it simply showed how he does not take it serious enough.

One, when talking about a team having a good, bad or average run game, you look at the team rushing and not the individual. That is my opinion anyway. Quite a few teams now use multiple backs and RBBC. Thus they may not have one individual RB in the top 5 or whatever, but may have a top tier run offense. For example, Dallas does not have an individual rusher above Cedric, but Dallas is the #1 ranked rushing offense in the league. So look at it this way, Cincy has the 12th ranked rushing offense in the league, which is a little above average. Two, we have played only two games. In game one, Benson had 76 yards rushing, and as a team, they did not crack 100. Ochostinko was the #2 rusher w/ one carry for 8 yards. So they had a good game against GB, but I would still say they are an average rushing offense. Three, if he has a 1,500 yard season, I will not believe we made a mistake, at least not in cutting him. As i said elsewhere, the Benson you see now is not the same as the Benson was had in blue and orange. Mentally, he is a different person, and I simply do not believe he could have ever changed w/ us. Whether it is reality or in his head, he felt hated in our locker room and isolated, and he doesn't have the mental makeup to deal w/ such a situation.

On a national level, I would agree Cutler got ripped more than Romo, but I would say a huge part of that is what happened in the offseason. Cutler is a lightning rod. I don't know if he has always been, or always will be, but he is one right now. Coming off a season in which he forced his way out of Denver, he was already high in the spot light. Then to stink up game one? He was not only going to get ripped, but the ripping would be to an extreme. Also, I think there was a 1st game effect here. If Cutler played great against GB, but then stunk it up against Pitt, I don't think the level he was ripped would be equal. But he stunk it up in game one. Romo stunk this week, but played very well in week one, thus giving him a bit of cushion. Now w/ that said, that is national. BigDaddy, you say Romo isn't getting ripped here in Dallas as much as Cutler was in Chicago? Man would I disagree w/ that. First off, while I do not live in Chicago (obviously) most of what I read in the Chicago media actually defended Cutler. Some pointed to the weak receivers or poor protection. Others said he simply had a bad game, but so what. He will still be great. Point is, not many (that I read) from the chicago media felt that game was an indication he was anything less than a great QB. Here is Dallas, feelings for Romo have done a 180. When fans are asked if Dallas can w/ a SB w/ Romo, the answer is a sound NO! Fans and the media here are blasting Romo, saying he simply isn't that smart. He is more worried about his next beach vacation w/ his next starlet rather than his next game. Hell, Randy Galloway, one of the biggest cowboy homers, was calling out Romo. In fact, another media guy (forget who it was now), but Randy said when he heard this guy now doubts if Romo will ever be a great QB, that was huge as this other guy was the biggest Romo supporter out there. Here in Dallas, many now question whether Romo is even the future, and there is now talk about Dallas looking at Colt McCoy or other young QB prospects in the next draft. As bad as Cutler's game was, I don't recall many (if any) who suddenly questioned whether he was the franchise QB for the bears. Nationally, I agree Cutler was bashed more, but that has a lot more to do w/ what happened in the offseason, and the fact that we gave up multiple 1st round picks for him. Locally, I think Romo has been questioned FAR MORE than Cutler.

At least this season, I think we will have zero 1,000 yard receivers. Cutler is really spreading it around, and I think will continue to do so. While Knox had a big game, I question anyone believing we should expect that every week. I think he will have 2 or 3 catches most games. That is something I like w/ Cutler. He doesn't appear to be forcing the ball to any one receiver. One game, he was really going w/ Bennett, as he was getting open. In the last, Knox was obviously the top WR, while he was also getting the ball to the TEs frequently. In the next, it could be Hester and Forte. Just don't know. I think we have 1,000 yard potential WRs, but I am simply not sure we will have a 1,000 yard receiver this season.

I too have seen Hester open, but I think a big problem is the side of the field he is on. Hester I think usually lines up on the left side. Due to our OL, Cutler is often on the run, and as a right handed QB, he is running to his right. While Hester may have space, w/ Cutler running to his right, (a) it is harder for him to spot Hester and ( throwing to Hester would mean Cutler throwing accross his body and accross the field, which is a very risky pass, even w/ his arm strength. To get Hester more involved, I think we need to (a) pass protect better, allowing Cutler to stay in the pocket more and ( have him run more cross patterns. Another key issue, still on Hester, is that while he gets open, he doesn't get open immediately. If you watch, he gets open, but by the time he does, Cutler is already running for his life.