nfoligno

Sorry, but this is nuts. Sure, we all want a high flying attack, but it isn't simply a question of trust in Cutler, but in a very young and unproven receiving corp, not to mention a defense that was w/o two starters and has a questionable secondary in general. The manner in which we played at the end was smart football. Smart football is not always exciting, but if it gets you the win, so what. At the end, scoring was primary, but also a big issue was clock management. I swear that if we had passed the ball, and not worked the clock as we did, the media would have been all over Lovie for not managing the game clock and giving Pitt an opportunity to win the game at the end. Further, while I do not have the stats in front of my, I remember during the game the announcers talking about how many deep play attempts Cutler had in the 1st game, and we had a several more in the 2nd. We are attacking downfield far more than in the past, and doing so w/ an offense still getting used to each other. As the season goes on, we will likely see more and more big plays, but lets not pretend we are only dinking and dunking right now. I might also add in there our horrible OL, which makes it more difficult to attack downfield. Look, as fans, we always want exciting, and w/ Cutler, I think we are getting more of that. At the same time, that doesn't mean you don't play smart. At the end of the game, scoring is obviously huge, but so is clock management.

Everyone complains about Cutler but no one talks about who Stafford is the worst rated QB in the league or how Rodgers has been sacked the most times in the league so far(10) and Favre is right behind him in that same category(7) That is because: Stafford is a rookie QB w/ virtually no expectations starting for a team that didn't win a game last year. If he were not the lowest rated QB in the league, it would be news. Rodgers has gotten more play in the media (outside of Chicago) than you may realize. I have read plenty of positive, but also plenty of negative about him of late. Farve. Well, his team has not played anyone, but regardless is 2-0 and Farve was near perfect in his last game (though not for big yards or anything). I am not sure many are complaining about Cutler now. In fact, his last game generated a ton of positive press for him.

Sorry, but kind of sounds on the excuses side of things. GB may be our most hated rival, but so what. As much as that may mean they are geared up to beat us, it also means we are geared up to beat them. At the end of the day, an average run game (cincy) tore them up while we were totally shut down. Understand, I am not saying Forte is the sole problem. FAR from that. At the same time, he simply does not seem to be running w/ the same authority as last year.

I think the point is, we do not currently have a #1 WR. Even if you see Knox as a future #1, it is likely not anytime soon. At no point in time this year would I want to put that on the kid. A fear of mine is that he plays solid from the slot, and we try to move him into the starting lineup. IMHO, a key reason he is playing so well is because we have not over-loaded him the way we did w/ Bennett last year. He was giving one WR position to study and learn (the slot). He has been able to get to a point where he has studied the routes and assignments to the point he can just play. As well as he may look working out of the slot, if we (this season) try to move him into the starting lineup, I fear we would only force him to take a step back. Maybe one day he will be a #1. He has all the attributes for it. But we need to not rush the development. Regarding Angelo and the faith in WRs, I think it goes back to his statement before ever even getting Cutler. Angelo said its all about the QB. He said then the QB makes the WRs. It was this statement that had everyone wondering if he just didn't like Orton and was looking to pull off something big. Ya gotta say. He stuck to his words.

Yes, NFO, my words were not clear enough. I meant rushing only. Should have been clearer. Got it. On that note, I can see it. In terms of pure ability, yes, I think Benson could be as good of a runner as Forte (as controversal of an opinion around here as that may be). But one area I think Forte has over Benson, by leaps and bounds, is the mental makeup. Things are going okay for Benson right now, but what happens when there is some adversity. Does he mentally shut down or go into a corner again? Probably true, but if the management and coaching stood up for him, there would be no choice for the players but to fall in line. Agreed that Forte is a much better all around back. However, I don't agree with the notion that Benson would never have succeeded. What that would have taken was a front office and coaching staff that really wanted him in Chicago, and had the resolve to enforce their wishes. Unfortunately, neither was true. Not sure I agree w/ this. Just as a parent can not force one kid to like another, neither can the coaches/staff force one player to like another. To further complicate the matter, consider some of the players who were thought to be part of that Benson hate club. Briggs, Urlacher, Brown. There were plenty of others, but those were three key leaders on the team who were supposedly part of the mix. If it was just Thomas Jones for example, the problem would have been solved by trading him. But Jones had his little following, and thus getting rid of him not only didn't solve the problem, but in some ways, made it worse as some players saw Benson as the reason TJ (who they liked) wasn't there. Many will argue Benson made his own bed. To an extent, I agree with that. I don't attack him for his rookie contract deal, but too often after that, what came out of his mouth was just stupid. Remember the practice in camp when he flat out ran over (can't recall the name) one of our safeties at the goal line. It was made into a big deal. Anyway, when a bunch of our defensive players were "giving it to him", if Benson would have responded by pounding them in return, rather than crying about it to the media and saying how players were out to get him, well then he may well have earned a different level of respect. At the end of the day, Benson probably had ill feelings toward him when he arrived, not due to the contract issue (thats a fan issue more than players) but due to the fact that he was a rookie brought in to replace a popular veteran. So it didn't start well, but from there, the manner in which Benson dealt w/ the players and locker room only made the situation go from iffy to horrible. By the time he was releasd, I would argue Benson had no chance of becoming a good, much less great, RB in chicago. He was not going to have the support of the locker room, and w/o that support, was not going to have the mental makeup and frame of mind to committ himself the way he has in Cincy.

I personally never wanted to cut him, or try and stash him on the practice squad, but I am surprised. I knew a bit about him prior to the draft, as the local media (especially leading up to the draft) spent a considerable amount of time talking about local/regional prospects, Knox being among them. I thought Knox was a great talent, but really thought he would need more time to develop. I believe I said he might be for us similar to what Devery Henderson was early on for NO. Low number of catches but for big YPC avg and yards. I saw him getting something like 20-25 catches for 400-450 yards. Something like that. That is a big part of what has impressed me. While his downfield catch against GB was great, that was not (at least for me) so surprising. What is more surprising for me is some of the routes he has been running underneath. I have seen more separation from him running the slant than many any other WRs on our roster. He is making nice cuts and breaks. The staff has said they limited him thus far to learning the slot, but frankly, I have been a bit surprised by how well and quickly he has learned even that.

We always hear, and even talk about arm strength, but I am not sure I realized before yesterday just what a difference it makes. For years we talked about Rex and what happened when he threw off his backfoot. Well, Cutler throws off his backfoot plenty, and did so on that K.Davis TD pass you mentioned. But Cutler has an arm such that he can throw off his backfoot and still zip the ball into a tight opening. If Rex wasn't able to step into his throws, he just couldn't put enough zip on the ball. W/ Cutler, it is simply so different. This is not a Rex-bashing post, but simply pointing out the difference pure arm strength makes.

So often we ask whether the QB makes the WR or the other way around. W/o saying this is evidence for the question as a whole, how about this for our specific element of the question. Johnny Knox, a 5th round pick rookie from a small school has 8 catches for 152 yards and 1 TD. Brandon Marshall has 7 catches for 61 yards and no scores. Eddie Royal has 5 catches for 38 yards and no scores. In Denver, w/ Cutler, Marshall and Royal were an elite WR combination. Royal was a rookie, but played beyond his years and experience while Marshall was seen as one of the top 5 WRs in the game. W/ Cutler, these two WRs are not even worth a flex start on a FF roster. In Chicago, Knox was a WR considered to have raw talent and speed, but needing time to develop coming from a small school. Yet he showed flashes throughout camp, and through two games, started to develop as Bear fans are not used to seeing from rookie WRs. At least not Chicago Bear rookie WRs. Bennett, who had zero catches his rookie year, currently leads the team w/ 9. Kellen Davis, who also had zero catches last year, has 5 catches and a score. This is after two games. I can't wait to see the development of our receivers throughout the season. When you consider how many young receivers we have, and what a franchise QB can do to help the development of such raw talent, it really has to bring some optimism, both for today and tomorrow.

Jason, I am about as big of a Benson defender as you. Like yourself, I often felt he got a bum wrap and had to run behind dreadful OLs. But I have to disagree on a couple points. One. You said Benson would could have had a similar year to Forte. If you simply mean rushing yards and maybe even ypc avg., fine. But Forte also led the team in receptions. Benson was never, not in HS, college or w/ us, a good receiver. Two. sometimes players simply need a change of scenery. IMHO, Benson would have never been a success had he stayed w/ the team. Many will differ as to who is to blame, but at the end of the day, Benson felt like an outsider w/ this team, and that was not going to change. Benson needed and got a clean start. Soon after joining Cincy, he talked about how welcome and part of the team he felt, and players did in fact support him. That simply was not going to happen in Chicago, and I do not believe he would have ever done as well for us w/o that mental side of it. Benson may well be a good RB for Cincy, but I question comparing him to Forte. The two are very different. Benson will never be a great receiver. He is a pure runner, and in the right situation, may continue to be a good one. In Forte, we have an everydown, all around, RB. I regret much about what happened w/ Benson, but I do not regret our cutting him. I simply do not believe he would have ever felt part of the team, and thus do not feel he would have ever thrived here in Chicago.

Part of me wants to simply blame the OL, which has been dreadful. But... - The OL run blocking was pretty sorry last year, and yet Forte still had a big season. - I agree that Forte simply does not look at fast this year. - I too have noticed Forte not seeming to be as decisive. I don't know if he is waiting for blockers or what, but he is not hitting the hole the way he did last year. - Finally, while it isn't like the OL has been doing a great job, more than a few times I thought I saw him hit a wall at the LOS, but w/ a hole opened up near him. Last year I think he would have seent that hole and hit it, or he would have more quickly cut over to it. This year he simply doesn't seem to see the holes when they do open. I am not trashing Forte, but I agree he does not seem to be playing like the did last year. Hell, I thought AP showed more burst yesterday than Forte.

Hey, if Cracker were ever right, I might agree with him. And by the way, its blue.

I heard on the radio today, and may have also read, that our staff discussed the communication breakdown between Cutler and the receivers. What the staff the problem was, was when Cutler would scramble, there was a breakdown in what receivers were expected to do. Lovie didn't call the receivers out, but his comments definitely pointed at the WRs, and implied they did not act appropriately when Cutler was on the run, which was nearly every down. Lovie said they would be drilling a lot regarding what "rules" are in place when the QB is on the run. While many will say this should have already been prepared for, and I agree, at the same time I don't think anyone expected Cutler to be scrambling nearly every down. Anyway, as I expet Cutler to be on the run early and often, again, it will be interesting to see if he and the WRs are on the same page or not.

Never said otherwise. The staff seems to have pigeon-holed Beekman based on his size, but (a) I thought I read he added strength in the offseason and ( size aside, he played far better last year than what we saw from the bigger, stronger Omiyale this year. Read in another thread that while Omiyale will get the start, Beekman will be in the wings. Maybe the staff will not wait as long as I feared to make a move.

I heard that D Manning will start at FS D Manning will move to Nickle in that situation with KP relieving him in the nickle package This was actually the discussed plan in preseason until DM went down w/ an injury. While I didn't care for the idea then, I liked a good bit of what I saw from DM in game one, and like the idea of giving him an opportunity. The only aspect I do not care for his his moving to nickel and Payne playing FS. Sorry, but if ever there is a time I do not want Payne playing FS, it is in passing situation like when we will move to nickel. Payne is okay playing in or near the box, but simply is weak downfield. I would much rather leave DM at FS and insert Graham at nickel. Omiyale will start at LOG but Beekman will be in the wings if he has trouble Good to hear it is even being considered. Clark is definately out (I want to see K Davis get a shot!) Agreed. I would really like to see Davis get some opportunities, especially in the red zone. D Manning may not return KOs do to the added duty at FS Good chance we will see Johnny Knox return KOs. This kind of hurts. He is so damn good in the return game, you hate to see him not play in that role. At the same time, you simply do not often see full time players also playing in the return game anymore. I think how long this lasts depends on Knox, and whoever else is tried. Knox definitely has to potential to be very good. If he can play well, then I doubt DM returns. If Knox, and whoever else may be looked at, struggle, then DM will likely return again. Before everyone goes nuts w/ this one, I would like to remind everyone that only a year ago, everyone went nuts w/ the idea of DM taking over return duties for Hester, but few question that move now. If Knox steps up the way DM did, I doubt many fans second guess this move. If he does not, I bet DM returns.

I wouldn't say "odd," just wrong. Omiyale was a starting OL contract, and most expected him to start. Further, the staff never liked Beekman at OG. The only reason he was ever given a chance was the number of injuries we suffered in camp last year. The staff believes Beekman is too small to play OG, and they like him as a center. Problem is for the staff, he did play fairly well at OG and their bigger OG in Omiyale looked awful.

I thought the whole Beekman thing in camp was odd. I remember reading about how Beekman was not only still in the mix, but getting most all the reps. I remember reading this on ESPN Chicago, the Trib and the Sun Times. All had stories talking about how Beekman was getting most of the reps w/ the 1st string and looking good. Further, all were also of the opinion that Omiyale was in fact looking bad and really struggling. Then suddely, it is announced Omiyale is the starter and will start in the preseason game. What struck me as odd was, this change literally happened w/ in a couple days of all the media writing about how Beekman is getting most of the 1st string reps and looking good while Omiyale is looking like shit. I think few question that Omiyale got the job due to his contract. I think most assumed/hoped that he at least looked good enough to the staff that the decision was not 100% based on the contract. I don't want to make too much out of one game, but that performace was unbelievably bad, and you have to wonder how good of play we should really be expecting. I just wonder if the staff will make a change, and how long it will take.

Good. As already said, hope he can stay healthy. I think the next order SHOULD be to bench Omiyale, though I have far less belief that will happen nearly as quick. But while Beekman was never great, (a) I think beekman was better in camp and Omiyale got the job due to contract and not performance and ( Omiyale wasn't just sub-par. He produced about as bad of a performance as I can recall watching from an OL.

Congrats. Make sure they do as I, and sing the fight song every night. That is a great brainwashing tecnhique.

That is probably about right. He had 4, but several more bounced off the hands of the other team. At times, their defense seemed to have Dez White hands.

Yes, there was a time I was not Briggs biggest supporter, but I have since eaten my crow. He is a great LB. Period. I am not arguing that. But there are different sorts of LBs. You have some that are pure tackle machines. You have some that can't hardly tackle, but can rush the passer. Some are awesome in coverage, but weak vs the run. Few dominate in all areas. I believe Briggs is a tackle machine. I think he may well also be solid in coverage, though I honestly do not know how great he is as I have not really seen him play a lot of coverage. Not knocking him, just saying I don't know. But in terms of playmaking stats, he has never really been huge in that regard. 2 sacks is the most he has had in a season, and he has a total of 6 in his 7 seasons. Last year, he had 3 picks, which was his record high, but only a total of 9 through 7 seasons. You mentioned FFs, and yes, I would agree that is a playmaking stat. He once had as many as 4, and another season had 3, but in the last two years, only 2 and 1, w/ a total of 10 through 7 years. For the record, I will also say part of this may be the position. Often, your WLB is in position to make the big plays, while your MLB is a tackle machine, but due to our having a LB like Urlacher, I think our system, while keeping the players at their respective positions, sort of reversed the roles. In our system, we had the MLB covering RBs, even though that is often the duty of the WLB. In our system, we most often blitzed our MLB, even though again that is usually the WLB. So this may be part of it too. In the end though, we have a system that really revolves around the MLB. How much can we change that now? Hunter, while a good LB, is a huge drop from Urlacher and is not going to play MLB as he did. So, unless we are going to change our system, I think we may be best served moving Briggs inside. That allows us to move Williams, likely our best backup LB, into the position the staff all felt he was best suited for. Roach/Hunter can play SLB until Pisa returns. At the end of the day, I simply think a trio of Williams - Briggs - Pisa is better than Briggs - Hunter - Pisa.

The reality is, while Briggs has made some great plays (not arguing that) he lacks in the playmaking stat department. You say its hard to get those stats when you are covering backs, but Urlacher often seems to be our LB covering backs as he is our LB w/ speed to do that. And even though Urlacher more often seems to be playing coverage, he also seems to be more capable of racking up the playmaking stats. I think Briggs is one hell of a tackle machine. At the same time, I would say that either (a) his role at WLB limits his playmaking potential or ( he is simply not a playmaking stat (int/sack) sort of player.

First, to start w/ where you ended. As for improvements, keep in mind this originally was a discussion of "decent" versus OMG! completely horrible!!! I claim they have been decent. Not great, just decent. The fact that nearly all improve outside of Chicago, even if by small margins, is just supporting evidence for my claim. One, I am not arguing we have not had "decent" WR talents in chicago, and agree w/ you that numerous WRs would have done far better if our QB and overall offensive situation was better. Two, at the same time, you also argue the WRs do better after leaving here, even saying "nearly all," and this I simply disagree w/. You mention Wade. Do you believe stats tell the whole story? I simply do not believe Wade is a better receiver today, or at any point after leaving Chicago, than he was in Chicago. As a WR, he actually did produce a decent season, especially considering his inexperience at the time. W/ that said, I do not believe he ever really developed into more than he was for us. He got more snaps w/ Minny, and thus his "stats" were a bit higher (not much) but that doesn't mean he improved. You mention Gage, and here I would agree he did improve after leaving Chicago, but at the same time, I would argue he doesn't really fit the argument as he was limited in Chicago due to injury. He has been more healthy since we cut him, but I just feel this is a different situation. The concept of the argument is, being in Chicago limited him, but it was not so much the QB and system but more his inability to stay healthy. Same for Bradley. When he was healthy, for us, he looked pretty decent, but just couldn't stay healthy. He left and went to KC, where he looked good for a short period of time, before getting hurt there too. At the end of the day, I would say it like this. Over the last decade or whatever, we have lacked great WRs, but at the same time, we have not been totally w/o talent. I would further say the talent we have had often seemed less than they were due to lacking at QB (and offense overall). But w/ that said, none of the WRs we have let go significantly did better than they did here. Some may have looked a little better, but not by much. You would agree, I believe, that in a better situation, a player will improve, but the amount of improvement IMHO reflects the minimal ability of most of these WRs. The reality is, we (a) have lacked a good, much less great, QB ( we have not really invested much at WR, often expecting late round picks to develop, © we have not run a WR friendly system. So I would agree that we have not been as totally lacking in WR talent as some often think, while at the same time, I don't think we had that much talent either.

From everything I have read, it sounded like he would be out for a few games, minimum. As you said, this isn't the end of the world, as we did keep 4 TEs and have a pretty solid receiving TE in Davis, who also has improved as a blocker. What I do wonder is, as much as we obviously are leaning on our TEs, how much we will play 2 TE formations, or if we will play deeper into our WR rotation. Will we simply insert Davis into Clark's role and continue as planned, or will we change our game plan w/ the change.

Davis is not expected to do jack as a WR. I think it was Angelo who said that, when deciding on the 5th/6th WR spot, you are looking heavily at special teams play. I don't think there is a lot expected of the 6th WR except to play special teams. What surprised me was, if I am not mistaken, Iglesias was not even active. That means we went into the game w/ 3 WRs (Hester, Bennett & Knox) and a 4th who was not expected to play WR. W/ Aromashodu out, I would have expected Iglesias to be active. IMHO, our only going into the game w/ 3 WRs expected to play WR really shows what our plans are on offense, and how heavily we intend to lean on our TEs.

I think it is a bit of a joke. If the area is for veterans, why was it okay to drop a huge football stadium on it?