nfoligno

I caught the show channel surfing one night. Three hot chicks in nighties in a bed room. I paused, realized it wasn't cable, and thus what I saw was all I would see, and moved on.

Thought that was her. Just wasn't sure. Great to look at. Would not kick her out of my bed. But marry her?

For the record, at least for me, I have been talking about our "receivers" as a whole, and not specifically the WRs, nor these two. Bennett was bad in the 1st half, but looked very different in the 2nd. It was his firt time to start, and frankly, first time to really play as he barely saw the field at the end of last season. So some early jitters were not a shock. In the 1st half though, I don't think he looked good, but do believe he played well in the 2nd half. Knox was a player who did what I think you basically have to expect from a rookie from a DIIA school. He showed his speed and athleticism, which gave us all hope, but also showed inexperience in route running and overall knowledge of the offense. I said the day we drafted him that he was a great talent, but one that would take time and who would be inconsistent for the first few years of his career. Clark and Olsen I think get more of the knock in the "receiver" bashing. Clark is the most senior of all our receivers, and yet said himself he did a poor job. He said at times he did what instincts told him, rather than what he was tought to do. I can recall three plays that stand out to me, where he didn't finish his route, and the results were: Int, should-be-int, missed TD. Olsen too had a bad game. He dropped an easy one, and just didn't look sharp. I also ripped him for his blocking and overall lack of aggressive play.

Agreed on all. I especially loved the safety on Rodgers. That was one heck of an athletic play. BTW - I think the lights came on for DM the last QTR of last season. I think a big part is confidence, we many of us talked about last year. DM was moved around so much, and especially moved after a bad performance, that it wasn't likely he had much confidence. Due to his play as a return man, combined w/ more individual help from Lovie, his confidence really seemed up, as did his play. I am not ready to declare DM a great FS prospect, but I will say this: (a) I have more belief today that he can play FS than I did last year, ( I do not see another FS on the roster and © even if he does have some struggles, he is also the only S w/ the athleticism to make up for it. Wale and Anderson worry me about their individual work ethic. It's odd, they are both in a contract year. Why? I have never heard their work ethic questioned. Yes, they looked good, and yes, it is a contract year. But that isn't the only change/new thing. We also have a new DL coach. I have harped on this for some time. Besides Rivera, we also lost our DL coach after the SB season, when both Wale and anderson last played well. Our DL coach for the last two years is one I have been ripping early and often. Now he is gone, and replaced by someone believed to be among the best DL coaches in the game. So while the contract year may be a factor, I personally believe it is far more about the change in coaching. Let me add, that Chris Williams looks quick and aggressive. Please don't confuse this with saying he played well. It just looks like the lights are on for this kid. I don't know. I didn't think he was playing well, and thought much of the pressure was due to him. Frankly, if the play on the left side was not so bad, I think there would have been more discussion about Williams weak play, but due to how bad Omiyale and Pace were, Williams is flying under the radar.

Who is she?

to give one short example of this: our left guard is being handed his hat. how many max protects or even rollouts to the right did we implement? One, I did see us use Cutler on bootlegs. Two. from what you witnessed, was asking Cutler to throw on the run MORE a good idea? how many draw plays did we use to slow down the pass rush? how many screens, other than that wasted WR screen did we run in the first half? Okay, first, I saw several WRs screens, and they just never worked (until the Hester screen later). Two, I saw us try a RB screen as well, but that didn't work either. See, part of the problem is, many of the things you feel should have been used as an adjustment were tried, but those didn't work either. how long would it take YOU to figure out that it was a problem on that side of the line? would you maybe have changed the type of blocking schemes? would you have given him help on his side? would you have replaced him if he couldn't get the job done? Sorry, but I do not think there is a coach in the league that would simply change blocking schemes mid-game. Changing blocking schemes is a big thing, and I just don't see a coach trying something like that. As for help inside, we did. We kept Forte back a ton, and he was most often lined up inside. The problem was, the defense was also sending a blitz, which Forte had to pickup. At the end of the day, you can only do so much to adapt. Sorry, but if your player is playing as bad as Omiyale was, that isn't much you can do but replace him, which is about the only thing I would agree w/ you on in questioning the staff. here is a question for all... when our D was on the field how often were our offensive linemen and qb sitting on the sidelines looking at printouts or having discussions on how to compensate for the disaster that unfolded with coaches? anybody? Um, what makes you think they weren't? Usually, when one unit goes off the field, they are together w/ assistant coaches right there going over plays. The OL coach is with the OL whenever they are off the field, and discussing w/ them what happened and what to do different. Honestly, I have no clue why you think that is different for us. The TV camera rarely pans the bench while the game is going on. isn't it the OC job up in the booth to understand better what is shaping up on the field because of the overall view and compensate for it? isn't that his purpose of being UP there?? Again, I just have to question why you think we didn't do anything different. For example, in the 2nd quarter, we went deep to Knox a couple times. One worked. One did not. But that was a play different from anything in the 1st quarter, and one which you might hope opens up running lanes. Also in the 2nd quarter, there were more quick outside options. What I think you are not realizing is, changes were made, but even those changes were not effective. Like the deep play to Knox. Once it worked great, and another time it was picked off. There were changes, but too often those changes too were met w/ bad results.

We have pretty much always agreed on this overall idea. I agree that we have not been totally lacking any talent at WR. At the same time, I do think our talent base at Wr has been below average in total. Yes, a legit QB would have helped a lot, but if we had Payton Manning, I do not think we would have found a Marvin Harrison or Reggie Wayne in the group. If we had Carson Palmer, I am not sure we would have found a TJ Housyourmama. We might have found a few better than average guys in the group, but even w/ a franchise QB, I think we would have still said our WR position was below par.

Jason. While I would agree we have not been the best when it comes to developing or utilizing WRs, I do have a couple comments on your examples, as I don't think the entire story is being told. Kennison - Horribly underutilized on the Bears, did better before AND after. 2000 was a bad year all around, and Kennison basically played the same position as M.Robinson. I am not sure what your expectations were for him, but he was brought in for just that one season, and it was a season where player after player went down w/ injury, and no chemistry was ever seen. While I am not arguing he was better before and after, I am not sure he is really a great example as this was not a season, nor was he a player, that "fits" the argument. He was w/ the team for only one year, and we had numerous players in front of him (M.Robinson, Engram, Booker. We dealt w/ many injuries that year. We had a new OC and "issues" at Qb. This is not an example like most others where we had a guy for a while, and did little w/ him, but who did better elsewhere. Wade - Did better when not on the Bears. I always see Wade as an example, and to me, it is a very weak one. Do you remember why he was cut? It actually wasn't due to his play as a WR. WR play didn't help, but he was cut due to his constant fumbles in return duty. You can argue that should not have happened, but (a) I think the staff was making a statement and ( I sure don't recall you or anyone else defending him at the time. Wade today is not really much more than he was for us then. He caught 42 for nearly 500 for us. He has added to that slightly, but are you really arguing he is more for Minny than he was for us? If he played as many snaps for us, he would likely have had similar stats. So what. He is a starting WR that puts up #3 or #4 numbers. At the end of the day, that is what he was for us too. Gage - Hell, he didn't even get PT when he was on the Bears, and now he's the Titans' #1 WR. One. Their "#1 WR" had 34 catches last year. Two, he was cut due to injuries as much as anything else. He was a nice looking WR who we drafted and tried to develop, but who could simply not stay healthy. At some point, if a player can't stay healthy, you cut him. Since then, he picked up w/ Tenn and stayed healthy one year, thus missed 4 last. If he misses a chunk of this year, I can see him on the outside looking in too. The point is, Gage was cut due to injury. Prior to that, he was showing some nice things, but at the end of the day, the staff didn't feel they could rely on him to stay healthy. Terrell - I don't know where you are getting this "plenty of places" crap, but it just didn't happen. And I still hold to the belief that he was underutilized, and stuck behind Dez "Stone Hands" White for no reason other than the apparent fact that the coaches at the time loved Dez White during practice, despite the absolute fact he sucked when in the game. It is not in your link, but he also was picked up by NE for a period of time, and didn't do anything there either. You can believe what you want, but David Terrell was a great college WR who was able to dominate based on athleticism, but it takes more in the NFL, and Terrell was never willing to do more. He thought he could just show up on Sundays and dominate, but he couldn't. Guys like Terrell and Mike Williams have to learn the hard way that while talent may allow you to dominate in college, it takes talent and effort in the NFL. If you are not going to put in the effort, your talent simply isn't enough. Aside from all this conjecture, Terrell really does not make your point. you want to make the point that WRs were not developed/utilized w/ the bears, and you want to use their success w/ later teams to make your point. Terrell does nothing to prove your point. Engram - Agreed, he was rock solid, and remains so. He's put up comparable numbers in Seattle, and had a huge year just two years ago. I was one of his biggest fans, and an outspoken critic of Angelo for letting Engram go. But something no one ever thinks about is, if we had not let Engram go, it is very likely Booker would have never develed for us like he did. Booker became a very good WR for us, but it was only after Engram was let go Booker had a place in the offense. Booker - He remains the single WR of the group that goes against the grain. He was one of my favorites when on the Bears, but somehow he has aged in dog years since leaving Chicago. Sorry, but the "dog years" doesn't work. I believe he was 28 when he went to Miami. While age is likely why he stunk for us last year, I don't think you can simply use age as an excuse for why he didn't play well for Miami after leaving the bears. Look, I agree we have not always done a great job developing our WR talent or utilizing them. Frankly, that is sort of what happens when you lack a QB. Teams w/ great QBs seem to find 1st round talent out of undrafted rookie FAs while teams that lack a QB seem to find future CFL players out of top 10 picks. But when I look at the list of WRs as a whole over the last 10 years, I frankly don't see many that would really make your case. If a WR leaves a team lacking any semblence of a QB (such as Chicago) and goes on to have a couple more catches, I don't think that makes your case. W/ few exceptions, WRs who have left Chicago don't seem to do much of anything, and those that do, only improve by a small margin, which just does not make your case, IMHO. While you can give an example here or there of a WR that did "slightly" better after leaving Chicago, I can likely give you 3 that did worse or never made it at all w/ another team.

There has been a ton of critical talk from this past game, understandably, but there were a couple players who I think could warrant some positive comments. Daniel Manning - I have ripped him up and down for some time, but he has really showed development. We saw his contributions last year as a returner and nickel. In camp, we hear he will be our starting FS, and there was a collective moan. Now I wonder though. There was a particular play that really stood out to me. I don't want to make too much from one play, but at the same time, it was the sort that gives me hope. I believe DM was playing FS, but he may have been the nickel. As much as we mix it up, its hard to tell for sure. Anyway, it is a pass play, and (I believe) Driver is lined up on the right, and runs accross and downfield. DM recognizes the route, and starts yelling to (again, I think) Payne who didn't seem to be ready for a deep route. Payne, I think due to DM, picks up Driver, but is a step behind. DM breaks, and right at the end, gets his hand up and knocks the ball down. DM showed great recognition here, solid leadership, and athleticism. Frankly, no other S on our roster could have made that play. This would have been a big completion for GB, but due to DM, nada. Again, I don't want to make too much out of that one play, but it was a great play and after watching Payne in coverage, I really wonder if DM to FS isn't a bad idea. Maynard - He was awesome. He saved us several times from bad field position, and was doing a good job dropping it inside the 20. Also, while our coverage unit struggled on kickoffs, Maynards kicks were not simply long, but had solid hangtime limiting GBs return potential. Gould - Frankly, I just love having a kicker we can rely on. His kickoffs seemed deeper too, and I didn't think they looked like line drives either. Bennett/Hester - Particularly for Bennett early, there were some struggled, but in the 2nd half, I think both of these WRs showed solid play, and give hope that we could have a better duo than many expected. Wale - Some will say it was the weak RT, but regardless, I think Wale showed more burst and power than I have seen in some time. I also liked the way he was mixing it up. He used a lot of outside/edge rush moves, but also used swim moves to beat his man inside. I have not seen much mixing it up like that from our DEs in the last few years. Anderson - The stat sheet doesn't show him as a standout, but I thought he was all over the place. He needs to "finish" more, but I felt he was active and made an impact. One play really stood out. He was lined up at RDE, and it was a run off the opposite edge. Grant had gotten through the DL, and frankly, had blockers and looked to be set up for more, but Anderson had run from the opposite side to level Grant from behind. Considering where Anderson began, for him to make that play showed a lot of athleticism, as well as good instincts and reaction. Afalava - The more I see, the more I like.

I am not a coach, and can only go off what I have heard coaches say, and I am not just talking about Chicago coaches. You can make tweaks throughout a game, but drastic changes usually take place during halftime. IMHO, we did try to do different things. For example, I think you saw more WR screens, for example, which is one way of trying to beat the rush. At the end of the day though, you can honestly only do so much. If your OL is simply not blocking, there are few changes that can make everything better. If your receivers are not running their routes, or dropping the ball, again, there is only so much you can do.

I like a point made in an article I read. Cutler is working hard right now to build chemistry w/ his current group of WRs. Adding a new WR who he has no PT w/ is only going to hinder that process. We have a young and inexperienced, but talented, group of receivers. While it is nice to believe this group of WRs and Cutler will play on a high level from day one, that is also unrealistic. We are going to see some inconsistency early on, but the hope/belief is, as the season goes on, we will see more chemistry, development and improved play. By seasons end, I think we will find that we have some pretty solid WRs on the roster.

While I would agree w/ the statement that we have not been able to maximize the potential of our WRs, at the same time, I would also question just how great that potential was. For some time, we have lacked consistency on the OL, and our QB situation is well known. When you can not put together a solid OL and your QB is average at best, you are simply not going to get full utilization out of your WR. With that said, lets not pretend we have had pro bowl WRs who simply were not used in Chicago.

I am not sure Baskett is that good, but I will say this. I think we have come to realize that you really must question the sources of info. How do they know what teams are supposedly interested. Could it be that Baskett's agent is simply throwing out the names of any team he believes has a need at WR in order to drum up some interest?

How about putting a statue inside the stadium then?

Congrats.

A key reason I would like to see us add Brooks now is, I think he is going to need time w/ any team before he is ready to play. Yes, he knows the system, and would be about as natural of a fit as any, but look at Tillman. Tillman missed most of camp, and while he practiced leading up to the game, the staff had to rotate him as he was not in game condition. I would sign Brooks now, and at least get him into practice and working out. We don't have to start him immediately. If the staff wants to see if our depth is capable of stepping up, fine. But if that doesn't work, Brooks will have already been added, have practiced w/ the team and be in game shape.

While at the bar, I too wondered why he wouldn't just tape it up and get back out there. When I heard he was done for the year, wondered, but I never once read anyone (aside from fans) question it. Reality is, we don't know crap when it comes to medical, and the fact that not one media guy seemed to be questioning the decision, I just assumed the injury was more serious than I realized. Honestly, I wonder about Briggs to MLB. He is an exceptional WLB, but to be honest, I always wondered about something. When you look at someone like Brooks, who I believed play WLB in a system like ours, he seemed to rack up a ton more playmaking stats. Briggs is a hell of a tackler, but he has never been a big sack or interception guy. I think he could thrive in the MLB role. Further, we have Williams backing up at WLB, and that is the position the staff seems to feel he is best at. I think Williams is the most starter grade of our depth, so moving Briggs gets all our best LBs on the field. Further, if Urlacher is not capable of returning (worst case scenario) we will have begun the transition.

You sure about that? GB gets the ball at the 30. I recall a Grant run, followed by a fairly short pass. GB burned 30 seconds for those 13 yards. Then Rodgers has an incomplete pass. On 2nd and 10, we had sound coverage and I think got an outside rush, but Rodger took off for the 9 yard gain before sliding like a putz. But I would argue that (a) our defense on that play was pretty sound and ( part of why Rodgers was able to run as he did was we were w/o a pair of starting LBs, and there just isn't much a coach can do to compensate for that. Then you get to the big play. From everything I have read, it is as simple as (a) payne messed up by not backing into coverage, as he was supposed to and ( Vasher slipped. Now frankly, if Vasher had not slipped, it likely would not have mattered, but he should have had help in Payne. Look, we can nit pick here and there, but I just don't get the jab against the coaches, especially my favorite whipping boy Lovie. If I told you: - We were going to play an offense expected to be elite - We were going to lose one starting LB, who stood out throughout preseason, in the 1st series. - We would lose another LB, our pro bowl captain, before halftime. - We would turn the ball over on offense 4 or 5 times. - Due to offense and special teams, our defense would take the field in bad field position. If I told you all this, how many points do you think you would have predicted GB would put up on us? 50? 60?

I don't wish "serious" injury on anyone. At least not life threatening or post-football lasting. At the same time, I can't say I don't want to see more than a few players go down w/ a busted leg. You can start w/ pretty much the entire GB and Minny rosters. Similar for Dallas, but frankly, just snap Romo's leg and I think the same effect (losing) would result. Favre is a no-brainer. I know it isn't right. I should not wish injury on a player. But I would be lying if, when I saw Wale rushing Rodgers, I didn't yell out, "Rip his head off!" and mean it.

Off topic: Why cant Urlacher put a cast on his wrist and play?? That was one of my thoughts too, and I have seen many who asked the same. I did read a pretty good article that talks about it. Per the article, Urlacher's injury is to the main wrist bone. It is the bone which all others spread out from. Per the article, most all the wrist injuries you read about are to the outer bones which connect to this one. Anyway, it is a pretty serious injury. Said if he comes back too soon, he could have permanent nerve damage. Sorry, but if I am Brian, I am not really wanting to risk the use of my hand for the rest of my life. I guess its all about the actual bone he damaged.

Hindsight 20/20, but if we were in a soft zone, we likely do not give up a 50 yard TD. we were in anything but a soft zone there at the end.

While you are correct, I still can't go there. Yes, even the D gets a piece of the blame pie, but their helping is very small. The simple of it is, they played a very good game, and did so minus several starters. Special teams allowed GB to start at the 30, and our D gave up another 20, before the bomb. But I just can't give the D too much blame. Yes, I want to see them finish better, but the reality is, we would not have even been in this game if not for the D.

A whole half? If we made adjustments in the 2nd quarter, would you then question why it took a whole quarter? The reality is, you may realize some things are not working, but a lot harder to impliment changes (at least bigger ones) before halftime. That is why you have the phrase "half time adjustments." This is when most coaches change it up. Considering how much better our offense looked in the 2nd half, I would say the coaches did a pretty good job.

Isn't it funny how that works. If Cutler and our WRs were working better together, not only would have have moved the ball better, but we likely would have scored several more times than we did. If our OL was capable of sustaining a block, or opening a hole, those Forte runs would have gained far more yardage. So basically, if the players didn't fail so bad, Turner would have looked great. But they failed, so Turner sucks.

I think the key issue for Hester is still route running. Yea, he can get open on a deep go route, but that takes time to develop, and how often did you see Cutler sitting there with time. The other route that actually looks good for Hester is the WR screen. It rarely works for us, but w/ Hester, it can. I have always said, I believe a key reason we suck at the WR screen is DBs have no respect for our WRs, and thus press cover. Its is damn hard to run a screen when the DB starts out on top of the WR. On the other hand, WR screens often work well against us because we line up our DBs 8-10 yards off the LOS, thus the WR can not only make the catch, but has space to make a play and run. Of all our receivers, Hester is the only one who sometimes isn't pressed on the LOS and thus has the potential to make something happen on such a play. Anyway, I think Hester struggles otherwise. His route running simply isn't crisp, thus he sort of negates his own speed.