nfoligno

Do you know what the deadline is to re-sign/extend a non-franchised player, and still allocate a portion of their salary against this years cap? I was thinking late September, but I'm just not sure. To me, that is a key date. We still have quite a bit of cap space, and w/ a player like Cutler due a huge pay increase, I think it would be a huge waste of space not to extend him sooner, rather than later. Some want to wait and make him prove himself for a season. For me, if we have $15-20m in current cap space (depending on who you ask) it would seem far more logical to extend him now and allocate as much as possible against this years cap. If we have to give him $35m in bonus money, or however much, making a 1/3 of that a 2009 roster bonus would really held limit the impact of his contract on a move forward basis.

Man do I have an issue w/ this stuff Joyner is throwing out there. How does he evalaute? I know he says "Point of attack", but how does he measure whether or not the OL won the battle? I believe this is referring to run plays only (run metrics), so does he credit the OL with "win" if his man doesn't make the tackle? So when our guy gets pushed back a couple yards, and the RB has to change direction, only to be tackles by someone else, does that OL still get credited w/ winning at the POA because his guy didn't make the tackle. Sorry, but these stats simply do not seem to support what I saw, what most other fans saw, what scouts saw, and evidently by our staff's addressing OL so hard, what our staff saw. I didn't see our OL creating holes for Forte. Just because they might standup their designated DL doesn't mean they won the battle. If they don't create space, they are not winning the battle. I have said before that I felt Garza was a better run blocker than pass protector. Further, I said Tait was as well, and our run game stats to the right side of the bear that out. At the same time, stating that Garza was among the league best OGs just seems like a bit of a stretch, to say the least.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/bears/2009/07/10...loser_look.html 10 days to Camp: A closer look at run metrics for Bears' linemen By Brad Biggs We reached out to KC Joyner to go over some of the run blocking metrics he completed after film review of the Bears. The numbers showed that right guard Roberto Garza was not only the Bears' most efficient run blocker last season, he was one of the best guards in the game, ranking ahead of the three Pro Bowlers Joyner has final numbers for--Chris Snee, Leonard Davis and Alan Faneca. "If you ask me about the 22 teams I've run the numbers on so far, he is probably the second most surprising,'' said Joyner, who will publish the results and more in Scientific Football 2009. "[New York Jets center] Nick Mangold is probably the most surprising. I knew Mangold was good but he is head and shoulders above any other center and will probably be the highest ranked POA lineman [94.3 percent] when I am done in another two weeks. "The last time I did this, in 2005, Garza was in the low 80's and for him to be [at 88.3] is a little surprising in that he's ahead of these Pro Bowl guards. I love doing the numbers, watching the tape and then running the numbers. In most cases the numbers agree with what you say in scouting, `This player is this and that.' Usually, the metrics follow what you're seeing in scouting. Whenever the two disagree, I lean on the metrics more than scouting. You can see a player have one bad play and in the back of your mind, `He stinks.' The metrics don't care. The one bad play will be registered and then `Let's see the other 150 he had.''' POA refers to Point of Attack. Joyner breaks down every play over the course of the entire season and evaluates each lineman when they were involved at the POA on a running play. Garza's net success percentage of 88.3 means he lost at the point of attack on less than 12 blocks out of every 100. The Bears were one of only six teams in the league last season to have all five linemen start all 16 games. Here are the breakdowns for their starters (we also covered it here on Monday): LT John St. Clair 79.5 LG Josh Beekman 85.7 C Olin Kreutz 81.5 RG Roberto Garza 88.3 RT John Tait 84.6 "Beekman did well, especially considering he was a first-year starter,'' Joyner said. The numbers for centers are typically lower than the other linemen and Joyner said there are a number of factors that go into that. "Defenses often line up where that is the position they want to attack,'' he said. "They want to attack with the nose right over the center. Centers tend to be the smallest of the offensive linemen. That's why Mangold's numbers are even more impressive. Usually you see a tackle or guard with the best percentages. "The scouts still talk about Kreutz as an elite guy. I didn't see it on tape. He's not a bad center by any stretch of the imagination, he just got beat more last season than you're used to seeing.'' Joyner pointed out that centers are involved in many combination blocks and that can also lead to them having a lower percentage because if the other half of the combo block fails, the center's half fails too. New left tackle Orlando Pace recorded a run metric of 83.5 with St. Louis in 2008. "He's a better pass blocker, and he's not an elite pass blocker,'' Joyner said. ``What I think is he is going to be an improvement over St. Clair. That's a relative term. He's an incremental improvement. The Bears aren't getting the Orlando Pace of a few years back. It's obviously a stop-gap measure. I'll take it over St. Clair and what I saw last year. They're going to need to solve the problem one of these days.'' Projected backup Kevin Shaffer fared very well in Cleveland last season according to the run metrics. Shaffer has played left tackle before, too, so the Bears have solid depth on their line.

Agreed. IMHO, the team basically went "all in" when they gave up all the picks for Cutler. At that point, we declared him to be a franchise QB, if that was ever in question. To be honest, I am a surprised we haven't already heard about contract negotiations. I have no idea what his contract will ultimately look like. Frankly, contracts have gotten so out of control (IMHO) that it is damn near as if precident no longer matters. It seems like just yesterday that Manning getting over $30m SB was considered unbelievable, and now how many have signed deals for more. For that matter, it seems like just yesterday that a $20m SB was considered incredible.

You can say agree and disagree. I do think Lt2 made a great point, and frankly, I had forgotten that he was still under the franchise tag contract. As he said, while the contract numbers are big, they are not "that" big when you factor how much they were going to have to pay him this season alone. Still, I too would have held off for a while. I do get your argument, and others, who point to the surrounding talent he had to work w/, but I think some also don't realize that he had some negative surrounding talent as well. While he had great weapons at his disposal, at the same time, he had neither a great OL, nor a great run game, to rely on. Just think about that for a moment. Most any time I can think of a young QB w/o prior experience coming in and looking good, they did it while protected by a damn good OL and had a solid run game to take the pressure off. Having weapons to throw to is great, but w/o the protection, you are still asking a lot of the young QB. Further, while I didn't watch close to all his games, when I did watch, he looked damn good. It is one thing to simply chuck it up there for Moss to go up and catch it, but that isn't what I saw. I saw him solid under pressure, and placing the ball well. More than players, for me, the question is system. While Billichek is a hated man, the guy is also a damn coaching genius. I think he has solid coaching in KC, but regardless, will they be able to replicate? For me, it comes down to KC's OL. I think their OL could/should be solid or better this year. If that is the case, I think Cassel will prove he wasn't a one year wonder, and further, believe Bowe could climb into the elite WR category. If their OL sucks, then Cassel very well could struggle, but I am not sure I would hang it all on him.

Disagree. Personally, i would have made him prove himself one more season before giving him a contract such as KC did. I have said this before, but when you give a player a new contract early, I think the deal should basically be a "deal" for the franchise. While this contract may not be equal to Brady or Manning, I think it is way too close. Even if he were to look very good this year, I do not believe the different would be "that" substantial. Thus, I would have made him prove himself for another season before giving him a huge contract. With that said, I actually think he will prove to be a good QB, and further, believe KC has an offense that is on the up, though it may take another year or so to fully realize that. KC has been working hard to build their OL, and I love what they have done. They have a nice mix of age and youth, w/ some depth in development. The OL was a weak spot last year, but I think it is an area that we will see evolve sooner, rather than later. Larry Johnson may not be what he once was, but is still solid, and Jamal Charles proved a capable young RB last year as well. Further, both RBs are solid pass catchers. Bowe is an upper tier WR, who could push into the elite category. Bradley could be interesting, if he could stay healthy. I love that they signed Engram, who gives them a damn good 3rd down slot receiver. Huge hole w/ Tony G departed, and I am surprised they didn't do more to address TE. At the end of the day though, I think they will have a solid OL and solid run game, which will make the QBs job easier. And while I am not sure how many weapons they have, they do have an upper tier WR in Bowe who could push into the elite category this year. The question, at least for me, w/ Kc is more about their D than their offense. They have drafted a lot of defense over the last two years, but can they develop? I do believe Cassel was in an ideal situation last year, but also believe he made the most of it. While he has a lot of thanks to throw Moss and Welkers way, I just do not think you can totally take away the credit, as he played like a veteran well beyond his experience. He may not have the weapons now that he did, but he may have a better OL and run game, and has experience now which he didn't a year ago. I also like their coaching and how Cassel would seem to fit within such.

still think that top QB's need good reliable wideouts, in order to be top QB's. We'll be hard pressed to find a top QB on this list that didn't have one or two. I agree QB and D are the two main ingredients of a SB victory. Like you said, there are exceptions, but I think this is the rule. I disagree on the WR. Sure, you can't have trash at WR, as you likely would not have a great QB if that were the case. But IMHO, we need look no further than the last SB. Pitt simply did not have any special WRs. Ward "may" have once been, but wasn't last year, and Holmes last year wasn't much more than what Hester has already proven. Yet w/ a great D and very good to great QB, they won the SB. Its great to have great RB or WRs, but IMHO, QB and D are the keys. If I were to go further, to the #3 piece, it would be OL. 2009 Pittsburgh Ward had 1,000 yards last year, but was far from great, and Holmes had only 55 catches for 800 yards. Neither were great. 2008 Giants (top D, average QB) NY had Burress, who did nothing in the SB. Toomer was a solid WR, but nothing special. 2007 Colts (top QB) Elite tier WRs. 2006 Pittsburgh (good D, good QB) Ward was a very good WR, but that is about all they had. 2005 Patriots (top QB) 2004 Patriots (top QB) I don't think the Pats had a 1,000 yard WR in either SB season.

The way I see it, you don't need a pro bowl WR (and I agree using the pro bowl is weak, compared to just saying upper tier), but I am not sure I would even agree when you said you need a WR that dictates what defenses do. It just so depends on your scheme and the rest of your offense. If you have an offense w/ a very good OL and run game, then what I think you need from your WRs is simply the ability to take advantage of opportunities. Lets pretend for a moment we go to the SB, and do largely behind a great run game. A defense is going to game plan to stop the run. In this situation, you don't have to have a pro bowl or elite WR, nor even a WR that a defense has to game plan around. But you do need a WR(s) that can take advantage of opportunities. For exmaple, if a defense is playing to stop the run, Hester is going to have opportunities downfield, and must take advantage. Your slot receiver(s) are going to likely have more open space, and need to not just catch the ball, but do something after the catch. I would give a reverse example of when we played in the SB against Indy. In that game, I think it is w/o question the game plan was to take away the passing game, particularly the big play. Indy didn't have a great run game that year. Addai was a rookie, and a nice runner, but far from a game breaker, while Rhodes was a nice secondary runner, but nothing special. But in the SB against us, they took advantage as Rhodes carried 21 for over 100 and Addai had 19 for 77 (4.1 avg). Neither were players a defense game planned for, but they took advantage of their opportunities. Look at this past SB. I would argue that Az game planned very much to stop Pitt on the ground, and did the job as they pretty much killed Parker. But S.Holmes was able to take make the most of his opportunities. Holmes was neither an upper tier WR, nor a player that a defense would game plan against going into the game. On the year, he only had 55 catches for 800+ yards. But in the SB, he had 9-131-1, and broke Az's back.

Griese needs to decide if he wants to be a #2 or if he wants to retire. If he couldn't cut it with Miami, Tampa Bay, Chicago, and Tampa Bay, he ain't going to cut it anywhere. In Tampa Bay & Chicago he had a great opportunity to become the man and he failed. Hopefully he's smart enough to figure out his time has passed. You can say he needs to do this or that, but as we have seen too often w/ veterans, sometimes it takes them longer to accept reality. That may be especially the case for Griese, who likely believes he showed last year he can still play, and further, looks around the league and see many QBs he likely feels he is better than. I do feel he will accept a job as a #2, but just feel he will try to get on w/ a team where the #1 is not quite so "set" as Cutler is. Losman's young enough where he's a guy I could see signing as a #2 hoping to become a #1. For that reason, he'd be nuts to sign with Chicago. There has to be better opportunities for him. Um, right now he is set to play in the new UFL league. Doesn't sound like his opportunities are that great. It's the known versus the unknown. With our defense getting older, I view us as having a 2-3 year window to win the Super Bowl. Why the hell would we risk having an inexperienced back-up. I comment about this in another post, but at the same time, i am not sure I agree we have a 2-3 year window. We have some players getting older, but at the same time, also seem to have infused w/ a lot of youth too.

I had to leave work early today, so you beat me to the punch. Frankly, there are many reasons to develop young talent behind a set/established veteran QB. One. As you said, QBs are very valuable commodities, and you can have too many. Two. One of my main reasons though is this. As bradjock said, the idea is for Cutler to start the next decade. When you sign a backup like Griese, it is usually one or two year deals. That means, every year or other year, you are bringing in a new veteran, and having to start fresh teaching the system, chemistry w/ players, etc. On the other hand, if you have a young player you drafted, you have him 4 years, maybe more. There are going to be question marks with that player, but at the same time, there are also numerous other benefits which may in fact offset the lack of experience. Three. Cutler starting the next 10 years is the plan. But have we not learned a thing. When it comes to the QB, we need a plan B. What if Cutler goes down w/ an injury, and I am not saying a minor one. If we are just adding our old vets every year or other year, we will have someone who can come in short term, but would also be starting from scratch long term. By having a young QB developing (whether than is Hanie or not) you are preparing for a worst case scenario.

I'm just wondering what Wolfe's upside really is. That is sort of the point. I don't know what his upside is. It may be no more than a good (or better) special teams player. I really do not know. But I think we do know what AP's upside is, and that is not much more than special teams either. You can argue he can be more of a RB, but as discussed in this thread, if we get to the point where we have to start our #3 RB, we will be bringing others in because whether we are talking Wolfe or AP, neither are who we want to be starting. I understand you point, but would simply prefer the different skill set. Its one thing to consider your starter may go down, but you are assuming both starter and backup go down. If you do that all over the team, you are not going to find a lot of versatility. Many teams have a 3rd DE who is a pass rush specialist. What if the teams didn't allow for that saying what if both DEs go down w/ injury. We need everydown DEs who could fill in. It is a fine line between preparing for the potential of injuries, and going so far that you actually limit your team. Think of it as insurance. You need insurance, but if you spend all your money on insurance, you have no money for, you know. Food and such. Point is, while you can and should by insurance, you don't want to get to the point where you limit yourself.

Wolfe v AP I am not a huge Wolfe fan, and actually ripped Angelo when we drafted Wolfe, especially where we drafted him. At the same time, I would point a couple things out. One. While he has not been successful on the ground, I think most question how he is used. It just boggles the mind that we have a player who most would view as a scat back, and yet we run him up the gut in short yardage situations. That just doesn't make sense. We have used him as if he were 30lbs heavier than he is. I just have to wonder if he would not look better if used more appropriate to his skill set. Two. He brings something different to the table. This is why I like Rideau at WR. When I look at AP, I see a watered down version of what we already have. W/ AP, the only reason to have him on the field at all (offense) is if we have major injuries. W/ Wolfe, I think he could have a part in our offense, even w/ Forte and KJ healthy. Three. AP was once our special teams stud, but last year, looked flat out bad in that role. Whoever our 3rd RB is going to be, he will have to earn his play on the team through special teams. Wolfe was in the upper tier category among our special teams players last year. It seems Wolfe last year not only caught up to AP, but suprassed him, and by a considerable level. If that proves true still, I think Wolfe simply offers more to the team than AP. Davis I have said it many times before, but I just do not believe the staff views him the same way as do fans. I think the fans love his potential in the passing game, and as you did, point to that great one handed catch, and/or the potential his size brings in the red zone. While I agree w/ this, I just do not believe the staff views him this way. I believe he was added w/ the belief he could be that Gilmore like blocking TE, but he didn't measure up as such. Thus, we signed Gaines. Despite what fans want, I just do not believe the staff views Davis as Clark's eventual replacement. If he is not going to be groomed that way, I question his value on the roster. WR I think we fully agree. We will keep 6, and should as we don't have a lot proven here. Go w/ quantity and hope quality rises to the top. Like you, I think Davis will start our high on the depth chart than he will finish by seasons end.

LOL

I like the idea of keeping Hanie as the #2. I remember an interview with Orton where he talked about how hard it is to prepare and learn as the #3 quarterback, since you're hardly getting any reps, even with the second-string receivers. The #3 guy's main job is to run the scout team, which doesn't teach you much about the offense your own team runs. We've finally got an undisputed starting QB, and Cutler hasn't had any significant injury concerns, so I don't have a problem keeping Hanie as the #2, in order to give him a better chance to learn and develop. Yea, I like Hanie, and while I am not in the group who thinks he is the 2nd coming, I do like the potential he brings and I like his longterm development possibilities. Think about this. When have we had an opportunity to stash a young QB for long term development. Our issues at QB have forced us to even throw rookie onto the field. Orton was a rookie w/ potential, but was foreced to start most of his rookie season due to injuries, and frankly, fans never really forgave him for his rookie season play. He was limited that year (since he was a rookie and we had a good defense) to a conservative style, and that tag stuck w/ him. Krentzel was a rookie thrown to the wolves, and never recovered. When have we ever had an opportunity to simply develop for a couple years a young QB. J.P. Losman is kind of an interesting guy. He put up good numbers on an awful Bills team back in 2006, but he's always thrown too many picks and been kind of an erratic player. I read somewhere that he's slated to play in the UFL this year. No question he has lacked consistency and been erratic. At the same time, I just shocks me he is thought so little of to actually be out of the league. The only thing I can think of is he actually prefers or choose to take a starting gig w/ the UFL or 3rd string jobs in the NFL. As far as Griese goes, I really did like him on the Bears, but I agree with nfo that he wants a chance to start. I don't know who's going to give him one, though. He just left one of the few teams with a QB situation unsettled enough to offer him a shot at the starting job, and I don't see any other situations like the '08 Bucs or the '07 Bears around the league. Maybe the Rams or the Niners, but that's about it. It's too bad, because I liked Griese. It isn't that I think he will hold out for a job where he can compete to start, but will look to get on w/ a team where the starter is not a long term lock. Maybe the starter has a history of injuries. Maybe he isn't proven. Just a situation that at least offers potential for the future for him. Some possibilities I could see: Denver - How about his old team. He would seem to fit the system McD wants to install, and I don't think they are "set" at QB. Carolina - Delhomme has dealt w/ injuries and inconsistency over the last three seasons, and the depth behind him is not proven. SF - Hill is far from a lock, and Smith thus far looks like a bust. Some thing they are looking at the 2010 rookie QB class, which would give Griese potential this year and beyond. Seattle - Hassel is coming off injury, no spring chicken, and seattle has garbage behind him. Buffalo - Edwards is the starter, but has yet to really prove himself, and the depth is weak behind him. After adding TO, they may like more insurance. Cincy - Palmer is back, but coming off injury. Cincy's season was lost when he want down, and they could want a better backup than O'Sully I don't know if any of these teams are wanting to improve their current situation, but I simply think it would make sense for both sides.

Part of me has always wanted to say the players should have enough of a chip w/o such clippings, and if they need such, then they are not the players we need. However, more than a few coaches I respect use clippinps as a key form of motivation, and thus I have to agree it is effective, at least on some level. That also has me wondering. How much does Lovie use clipping? Coaches have their own way of doing things. I have heard some who think clippings are next to worthless and simply do not use them at all. I have seen others who literally create a bulletin board, blowup the clippings and pin them. I wonder what Lovie's position is.

I just can't get too up in arms about this. We have a lot of potential among our WRs, and reason for hope, but they are unproven and have not come close to earning a place where they are not questioned. Driver wants to call them out, fine. Studid junk, but fine. I am not big on the bulletin board stuff, especially here. If he were to call out our DBs, I could better see the issue. But he is calling out a unit he will never have to face, and thus I just don't know how much it matters. If one of GBs DBs comes out and rips our WRs, then I think that is different. But when a player bashes another player/unit he will not have to face, I just question how much of an issue it will be.

I think it is simply more a matter of maturity. While each of the three you mention didn't have the same success as a HC as they did in coordinator positions, I am not sure I would say they showed a lack of maturity.

Yea, I read that yesterday too and agree. While many questioned how Cutler handled the situation, at the same time, not nearly so many felt he had reason to be upset. The reality is, a franchise player, much less a franchise QB, is held in a different standard as the rest of the team. According to Cutler, he was told the OC would be kept, then he was canned. I get that changes can be made at anytime, but if there is a chance of letting the coach go, why lie to your franchise QB? As for the trade talk, I just don't really see the upside in lying to Cutler. I think McDaniels will prove a short term HC. I think he has really screwed up that team, and feel it will only get worse.

I think AP gets cut. You really believe that? I agree it is the logical move, but remember Lovie's comment, "As long as I have a job here, AP will have a place"? AP was a nice player for us as he was decent enough depth, and a special teams ace for us. But last year he was not very good on special teams. As a runner, I just don't see that he offers much, especially w/ an everydown back in KJ ahead of him. More and more, I just feel his time has come and gone, but the question is, will the staff really make this move. Personally, I have a hard time seeing it. I think we keep 4 TEs. I agree w/ the move, but just feel the staff will cut Davis. As said before, I just believe Davis was brought in for a very different reason than what fans would believe, and he has not stepped up in that area (blocking). To me, the signing of Gaines spelled the eventual end for Davis. I think we keep 6. Look for a possible veteren FA. I also think Davis is a lock, unless the FA is what he is. I agree we keep 6. I view Davis as a virtual lock, as I think he would have to really bomb in camp to be on the bubble. I do not really see us adding a veteran at this point.

Wondered the same myself. I really don't know if we have anyone on the roster now that once played QB, like Booker for example.

Regarding Hanie, I personally don't feel he is the next Romo or Brady. I have a "tiny" bias for him, only because I watched our last game (against the Texans) with his family, and they were really cool. The team line has been that what is available is no better than what we have in Hanie. Honestly, I am not totally sure they are wrong. Further, I like the situation we have now, which is one I have never seen. We have a legit franchise QB, and behind him, we have a young QB w/ talent who can develop over a period of time. That is the situation teams love to have, but one our franchise has always lacked. Of the two you mention. Griese - The problem w/ Griese is, he wants to play, and has said as much. I am not sure how ready he is to sign for the minimum, or for a team where he has no legit shot to play. I think he is more likely to look at teams w/ a less stable QB situation, you know, like the bears for decades leading up to this season. Not saying he will demand an opportunity to start right off, but look for a team where the starter is less established, and where he may have a shot at some point during the season. Losman - Honestly, I don't even know what is up here. Loseman was a QB I wanted to target heading into the offseason. While he didn't develop as expected, he has only failed w/ one team, which means something to me. He would seem ideal, but I also have to wonder why he has drawn zero interest around the league. Even freaking Cade McNown drew interest after failing in Chicago. 1st round picks who fail w/ one team always seem to find other teams interested, but nothing for Losman. I just don't know what is up, but wonder if there is something we don't know about. No question a more experienced QB would make everyone feel a bit more comfortable, especially if we we only go w/ 2 QB. At the same time, while I do not think Hanie is the next Romo, I do wonder if he wouldn't be just as good as most any other options available.

I have seen some ask this, though I am not sure if it has been talked about on this board. One reason I think it may be worth consideration is, if we put Basanez on the PS, which I am pretty sure he is still eligible for, would any other team really steal him? To steal him, another team would have to give him a spot on their 53 man roster, and I am just not sure anyone would be willing to do that. On the practice squad, he is still ours and would still be in a position to learn and develop, but at the same time, it would free up a roster spot. W/ questions of whether we keep 5 or 6 WRs, 3 or 4 TEs as well as 3 or 4 RBs, we could be in a situation where that extra roster spot becomes a big deal. Thoughts?

Hey, I agree. At the same time, the staff just seems to see more in McKie than I do. I think the guy sucks, but the staff sure seems to like him. I have no doubt in my mind he makes the roster. Personally, I would rather have that 4th RB or TE. There will be some interesting battles depending on how many we keep. RB - Do we keep 3 or 4? We kept 4 last year, but we also had a rookie RB and didn't know how he would do. Now that he is proven, do we go w/ a more traditional 3? If so, AP or McKie. Both are solid on special teams, though I think Wolfe may have moved ahead of AP this past year. Beyond that, it is a choice between the guy who can carry the load for a short period if injuries require, or a guy who may see some plays all year, but isn't likely to handle the load if need be. Me? W/ a proven starter and #2 who is viewed as an every down runner, I think we can easily afford a 3rd back who is more of a specialist. I take Wolfe over AP who I think has simply outlived his use on this team, as cold as that may sound. TE - Again, do we keep 3 or 4? Kept 3 last year, and I think 3 is far more the norm. IMHO, Kellen Davis was quick to emerge as a fan favorite, particularly due to his size and red zone potential. But the staff never saw him that way. The staff drafted him to be a blocking TE, not a red zone weapon, and he didn't develop as a blocker last year. That disappointment led to out signing Michael Gaines, who is viewed as a solid blocking TE. At 6'2, he isn't going to be the big red zone target many fans want, but does appear to be the blocking TE the staff desired. IMHO, it is very unlikely we keep Davis this year. He will have to have a HUGE camp. Me? I might keep all four, assuming Davis looks good in camp, but I just feel Gaines was signed to replace Davis. WR - Man could this be interesting. Do we keep 5 or 6. Even if we keep 6, it could be interesting, but if we go w/ only 5? Hester, Bennett, Iglesias and Knox are the locks. I think everyone agrees here. Davis is a near lock. Some feel he is a pure lock, while others think he isn't such a sure thing. I personally think it isn't set in ink, but the idea is pretty well entrenched. It will take Davis looking awful, someone else looking awesome, or a combo. If there is a 6th, or if Davis is to be unseated, Rideau is likely the favorite, but Kinder and Brousard should be in the mix as well. One thing that is a sure thing, IMHO, is that whoever our 5th WR will be, as well as the 6th if we have one, will have to prove themselves on special teams. In this area, Davis w/o question has a leg up. Me? I would likely keep Davis and, if he continues to look good in camp, Rideau.

Az may have trouble getting back to the SB, or even the playoffs, but IMHO, it won't be due to their collapsing so much as simply finding an improved division. Last year, Seattle bombed, but so much of that was due to the loss of their QB, who is again healthy, and w/ more surrounding talent. Seattle is a team that could really jump back up the standings. SF finished a game under .500, but also went 5-2 under Samauri. They showed a lot of improvement, and added pieces in the offseason. Remember, Az only won 9 games last year, but made the playoffs due to a weak division. This year, I think the division could be considerably improved, and thus Az will have a more difficult time getting back to the playoffs, much less the SB. W/ that said, I would argue there is plenty of reason to expect Az to be damn good again. One thing that has hurt Az over the years has been their OL, but under the direction of Russ Grimm, that changed. You can question Warner, but I don't see why. He is behind a good OL, and has maybe the best WR group in the league. Fitz is considered by most the best WR in the league. It is simply scary how easy he often makes it. Boldin may or may not be elite if moved out of Az, but in Az, he is flat out awesome. And they you also have to deal w/ Breaston? This is an offense that doesn't seem to lose a stride when a WR goes down, any WR. You question Well. Okay, fine. But I think even you would have to admit he enters an ideal situation. He will be running behind a solid OL, and I may never see a stacked box. There may be questions, but I think few would argue that they upgraded. For me, the question for Az will again be their defense, which was simply inconsistent, as well as how much better the division may be, and how that affects Az. I don't expect Az to make it back to the SB, and they may not even make it back to the playoffs, but I don't expect a huge fall for them. Remember, they only won 9 games last year. I think 8-10 is likely this year, but will that be enough to make the post-season?

Well, I'll agree that the transformation wasn't as dramatic, but the first three statistics are the most important: points allowed, yards per carry, and yards per pass. Miami improved in every one of those areas. Miami went from a mid-pack scoring and passing defense to a top-10 unit in both categories. They were already a top-10 run defense, but moving up to 3rd in the league is significant. Sorry, still not biting. Consider 2 of the 3 stats you find the most important. ypc - Went from 3.7 to 3.5. I would argue (a) this is not a huge change and ( 3.7 is pretty solid to begin w/, thus again showing he had a solid defense to start from. Its one thing to take a good/solid defense and improve on it, but another to take an awful defense. ypp - Went from 6.7 to 6.6. Um. See above. Again, I am not saying they were not a good defense that first year under Capers. I am just saying they were already good. His 2006 defense gave up ONE less passing TD and THREE fewer rushing, though it may also be worth mentioning that defense also had 6 fewer picks (only 8). I just don't see Miami as a good comparison, as he took over a good defense, which is simply not the case in GB. I disagree: you don't have to consider Houston. It's one thing to say that "the defense was his" but Capers is just not as good a head coach as he is a coordinator. It's a common phenomenon: look at what happened with Cam Cameron. The Dolphins' offense was "his" when he was their head coach, and not only did the team suck, but the offense sucked. The very next season, he went back to a coordinator job in Baltimore and his offense was very successful. Some guys just can't make the leap from assistant coach/coordinator to head coach, even when it comes to their area of expertise. Closer to home, look at Rod Marinelli. I think we can all agree that his previous success as a defensive line coach didn't translate to success for Detroit's defensive line when he was head coach. We simply disagree here. I agree a coach may do well on one level, and not so well at a higher level, but I would argue that points to wins/losses more so than what that coach specialized in. If you have an offensive oriented coach who becomes head coach and installs his system, I think there is absolutely an expectation that unit does well. Caper immediatly altered Houston's defense into his scheme. Though he was the HC, he was very involved in the defense, and it simply never was any good. I do think he should be held accountable to that. The reason I'm not considering Houston is that Capers isn't going to be Green Bay's head coach. If they had hired him as HC, I'd be a lot less worried than I am. I get what you are saying, but I still think Houston is looked at when looking at the whole picture. The argument about personnel is interesting. I definitely agree that it seems weird to take a guy like Kampman and switch his position. He's been exceedingly successful for a long time in his role as a 4-3 end, and to make the switch when he's nearing the end of his career is a little strange. If it were me, I'd probably try to trade him for a player experienced in the 3-4, rather than convert him to a linebacker. I don't know if he is nearing the end of his career, but would agree it is questionable to take a player who was really emerging as one of the league's premier pass rushers, and to move him. Kampman has had 37 sacks in the last 3 years and has been the lone consistent pass rusher on the team. He has never played standing up, and I think it very questionable to expect great things from him. Thus far in camp, he has really struggled. I think a lot will hinge on whether Johnny Jolly gets suspended and whether Justin Harrell is still hurt. If those two are out, they're going to have real problems on the d-line. If they have Jolly and Harrell, though, they've got: How great do those two really factor though. Below, you list each as a DE, but even in a 3-4, are they really suited to play DE? Both are over 320lbs, and neither has ever shown much of any capability as a pass rusher. I realize the DE in a 3-4 doesn't attack the passer as much as in a 4-3, but that doesn't mean you want DEs who lack that potential. In Pitt, you have Aaron Smith on the outside. In NE, you have Seymour. While a 3-4 DE may not be a premier pass rusher, at the same time, I am not sure they are usually just wide bodies either. DE: Justin Harrell, Cullen Jenkins, Johnny Jolly, Michael Montgomery, This group just does not impress me. NT: Ryan Pickett, BJ Raji Everything I have read says they are really relying on Raji, a rookie, to win the job and really improve the play. While Raji was a high pick, that may regardless be asking a lot of a rookie. OLB: Aaron Kampman, Brady Poppinga, Clay Matthews, Jeremy Thompson There is a solid amount of talent here, but especially when the DL looks so weak in terms of pass rush, they are going to need huge pass pressure to come from their LB corp, and I just question if it is there. Kampman was a great pass rusher from a down position, but will now be standing up, and I think there is more than enough reason to question how this will workout. Mathews is a nice prospect, but was known more for his motor and character than pure athleticism. Is he going to bring that pass rush? Poppinga has shown minimal pass rush ability, and is not even expected to prevent Mathews from starting. I still simply don't see where the pass pressure is going to come from. In a 3-4, you usually have pass rush coming from (a) your OLBs, which I question if you have here ( at least one of the two DEs, neither of which seem like much more than wide bodies and © an athletic, big boy DT, which is a rookie. ILB: Nick Barnett, Brandon Chillar, AJ Hawk Barnett is a good, speedy LB, but does he have the size to play ILB in a 3-4? And again, where is the pass rush. Hawk is a solid all around LB, and frankly, one of the few thus far discusses who I think could excel in a 3-4. By putting two wide body DTs outside at DE, and moving Kampman to OLB, I see the potential for their run defense to improve, but at the same time, I think their pass rush could get even worse. I just don't feel they have the players (on the DL) to play a 3-4, and really question how Kampman will transition. If Orton were still our QB, I would give them more credit (in a matchup) but I think solid or better QBs are going to carve this defense up as I just don't see reason to believe they will have a pass rush. I think their run defense may improve some, but also think their pass defense will actually get worse. At each position, they've got room for one guy (or even two, at DE and OLB) to struggle with the switch. Kampman and the two rookies could all take time to adjust to a 3-4 scheme, and the Packers would still have a good starting group. Depth is a concern, especially if Jolly/Harrell can't go, but I think the Packers are in WAY better shape than any of the other teams switching to a 3-4. I'm not saying it'll be a seamless transition, but I think we can definitely expect their defense to be improved significantly over last year's squad. Combine that with (as you said) a very talented offense at the skill positions, and the Packers could be tough this year. As said, I just do not believe this will be a good defense. In both Jax and Miami, they either already had solid 3-4 potential talent, or they added it in the offseason. I have not seen such moves made by GB. IMHO, they are hurting their best pass rusher w/ the move, and don't have others who I think will play well in a 3-4. Mark my words. DE will be a top priority for them next year.