nfoligno

First, Jax. I agree Jax would point to a success story situation. At the same time, and while not taking away from what he did as a coach, they also had some considerable talent in place to work with, two players in which really developed in the 3-4 system (Brackens and Hardy). Besides the development of these two stars, they added some players in that offseason which had huge impacts on their team. Gary Walker was brought in to be the NT, and was tremendous, posting 10 sacks. A veteran leader Carnell Lake was added to the secondary, and was considered key in turning it around. And they struck paydirt w/ the drafting of CB Fernando Bryant. What has GB added? A couple rookies? Those rookies may be good, but that is asking a lot. Jax was a great storybook year for him, but I am not sure the situation then is equal to now. Several players then were average joes in a 4-3 that become pro bowl in a 3-4. GB is in a situation where they are having to tray and make pro bowl 4-3 players into 3-4 guys, and those players are not thrilled about it. Further, Jax went out and spent money to fix various areas, while GB is expecting their rookie class to fill similar holes. Even if I gave Jax, I just think that is about it for Capers. You point to Miami, but if your stat comparison shows anything, it shows the defense he took over was already a good one, as the numbers didn't change much, if at all, in most areas. In contrast, he is taking over a GB defense which was average v the pass and near the bottom against the run. I also think you have to consider Houston. I used to live in Houston, and my parents still do, thus I still follow them quite a bit. While he was the HC, and not the DC, there was no question in Houston the defense was his, and their scheme was once he built. Simply put, it bombed. At several points, like Lovie is planning, Capers took over the defensive playcalling, but there was no change. I am not saying he has never done well, but the best example of where he took over a defense and really improved it was more than a decade ago, and even then, I would say a big chunk of that also had to do w/ offseason acquisitions which I do not believe GB has made. I simply do not see GB having a good defense. Several leaders on their defense have been noticably upset about the switch, including their top pass rusher. He is taking over an awful run defense, and I see little reason to expect some huge turnaround. I have no doubt they will have a solid, or even better, offense. While I am not 100% confident in their OL, they are solid at the skill positions, and while the OL may hold them back from being elite, they have enough at the skill positions to compensate. On defense though, I just don't see it happening.

I agree w/ the move WR, and agree w/ the impact/upside at WR being greater. What that said, I disagree when you seem to question his value as a returner once teams began to avoid him. "starting on the 40 isn't that big of an advantage" I realize you say this w/ comparison to scores, but I would still disagree. Starting at the 40 is HUGE, especially when you consider you are doing this several or more times a game. Starting from the 40, you need only pickup a pair of 1st downs to be in FG range. You are already in position for one big play to end in the endzone. I don't have the stats, but I bet your odds of scoring go WAY up starting at the 40, rather than the 20. Further, consider also his impact as a punt returner then, besides just the scores. How many punters shanked the ball totally trying so hard to directional kick. Punters were more concerned w/ kicking high (so the coverage unit could get downfield) than deep. How 20 yard punts did we see as punters tried to avoid hester. As I said in another post, if you have a great offense, field position and returners are simply not nearly as important. They matter, but their importance is lessened by an offense that can drive the field. But for an average offense, that extra 10,20,30 yards could easily mean the difference between scoring and punting, and thus winning or losing.

I don't get the Dom Caper's respect here. Why is everyone under the impression Capers has such a great track record? "All his conversion projects have done extremely well" Huh? Lets see, he coaches the expansion Panthers more than a decade ago. As I recall, he had one great year w/ them, followed by a couple dreadful years, and was canned. He was w/ Jax for a couple years, but I don't think he was even a coordinator, was he. Either way, Jax wasn't exactly a dominant team those seasons. He was the HC for Houston for 3 or 4 years, and it was from that period I heard/learned the most about him. Man, this guy did jack. Houston's defense was dreadful, and that was w/ a loaded group of draft picks going to defense. Few players ever seemed to develop under Capers, and he just never got that defense to an average point, much less being good. That is a team that began to look MUCH better after letting Capers go. Then he was the DC for Miami for a couple years, and because the team sucked, he was fired (along w/ the rest of the staff). While Miami had some good aspects to their defense (they should w/ numerous pro bowl caliber players) what exactly did Capers do? Miami already had a pretty decent/solid defense prior to Capers taking over in 2006. In 2006, their defense did not improve, and then was just flat out awful in 2007, leading to Capers (and everyones) release. The first season after Capers is gone, that defense is once again very solid. DB coach for a year in NE, and now w/ GB. So I just do not get the reasons for the respect Capers is getting around here. When did he do jack? His most recent, significant experience, was Houston and Miami. In Houston, his defenses were simply never good. In Miami, he took over a good defense, it tanked, he was fired, and the first year after he was gone the defense was once again solid. IMHO, Capers being in charge of GB's defense is actually a reason I don't pay GB a ton of respect. I think their defense is going to really struggle this year. They have a sack machine in Kampman who is going to have to basically learn a new position, and reports are, he isn't to thrilled about it, and from what I read, he isn't the only one not thrilled w/ the switch, which begs the question. How much are players buying into the new scheme, and if the answer isn't 100%, then you have to wonder how that will affect the performance. Besides Kampman, I have read many questioning how well Jenkings, Barnett and Hawk will transition. And they also are going to rely pretty heavily on a pair of rookie, each of which also are new to the 3-4 (Raji/Mathews). So at the end of the day, I question (a) the track record of Capers and ( how well their players will transition to the 3-4. IMHO, their defense is going to be a very weak area for them this year. I think their run defense will be as bad, if not worse, than last year, which will force them to stack the box, thus putting more pressure on their secondary. Offense will likely be very solid, but can it be good enough to compensate? I couldn't agree more. I'm worried about Capers, just because he has SUCH a solid track record when it comes to turning 4-3 teams into 3-4s. All of his conversion projects have done extremely well in their first year, and the Packers have all the right pieces to run a very good 3-4 defense. The Chiefs and the Broncos are probably going to struggle badly with the 3-4 switch, but the Packers have the talent, the depth, and the right guy to run the show. The one thing that reassures me somewhat is that Cutler has faced a lot of 3-4 defenses in his former division, which isn't really the case for the other QBs in the NFC North. Hopefully we'll be a little better equipped to face Green Bay than the Vikings or Lions will be.

seems dumb to cut your starting fullback in favor of your fourth TE (Davis) or your fourth RB (Wolfe/AP.) One, I would argue it is dumb to have a FB as bad as McKie. Just because he is our starter doesn't mean he is worth a shit. Let's see. Weak run blocker. Spare pass blocker. Quarter yard and trip over shoe lace runner. Catch a 2 yard pass and immediatly tackles receiver. The staff I believe likes the idea of a well rounded FB, which Mckie is. He can do everything equal. Problem is, he isn't good at anything. I would absolutely take a 4th TE or 4th RB over McKie. Hell, IMHO, AP might be able to lead block as well as McKie.

One thing to consider too. While I am not trying to eliminate the importance of a return man, I would argue the importance of a great return man for us has been huge, but largely due to our having an offense incapable of moving the ball down the field. Look at a team like Indy. Having a good/great return man is nice, but not necessarily necessary as they have an offense very much capable of (a) moving the ball and ( scoring. When we had an offense that could only move the ball a little, having a great return man that could shorten the field was a really big deal. If Cutler can move our offense on a far greater level, I think the need for a great return man goes down.

Iglesias too. He "broke the school’s all-time record for career kickoff return yards, returning 63 kickoffs for 1,664 yards (26.4 avg) and 1 TD..." I don't have the numbers, but as I recall, Wolfe too was a big ticket return man in college, and as I recall, that was a big reason we drafted him.

I understand. It is a bit of a gamble, but likely one worth it. You talk about "what if he becomes a decent #2". On the other hand, what if he is a future #1? There is no question how good he was as a returner. As I have argued before, even when teams kicked away from him and he didn't get the ball, he had an impact on our field position. On the other hand, if he can develop into a #1 WR, he should far surpass that level of impact. And before the questions start, when I say a #1 WR, I don't mean he must become Steve Smith. If he has 75-1,100-8 this year, I would say he has moved into the #1 WR category, and further, argue he brings more value as a WR than as a returner. I loved the TDs too, but you just can't rely on that for long. We began to see teams kicking away from him. While he still has an impact on field position, his opportunities to score are thus limited. I'll take a WR that gets over 1,000 yards over a returner who gives the offense field position. Sure, it could blow up in our faces, but I think it worth the risk. Further, I believe he showed a large level of development last year which gives me hope his ceiling as a WR is high.

Also, how much juice did he expend averaging 6 yds a punt return? Don't forget. He ran about 30 yards (sideways and backward) to get that 6 yard average. Sorry, but I think it is pretty accepted that returning does take something out of you, which is why most players, when they develop as starters, are removed from their returner role. Injury potential is there as well, but I think so is the stamina factor. Personally, I think (a) the drop in his ability as a returner after becoming a WR and ( other options we have make the decision a bit easier.

As great as Hester was on returns, you can't keep a guy with that kind of talent as a fulltime KR/PR and get full value out of him. For one thing, you'd be relying on teams to kick to him, which the Bears' 2007 opponents were increasingly reluctant to do. I definitely want to see Hester get 3 or 4 more return touchdowns before he gives it up, since I think he deserves that record, but I'm definitely OK with him concentrating on being a fulltime wide receiver. If Hester did not show a whole hell of a lot as a WR, I would say he could be a returner, and nothing else. Don't be too quick to dismiss the impact he had as a returner. You say we can force teams to kick to him, but even by kicking away from him, we end up for the better. Remember all those kicks that basically were sent out of bounds (on purpose) to avoid Hester, thereby giving us the ball at the 40. Or when his is back there for punts, and the punter angles it and/or just tries to kick straight up in the air, rather than bomb one down field. Point is, when he was purely a returner, he likely impacted by as much as 20 or more yards per kick, whether they kicked to him or not. But I would give all that up if he were to develop into a WR. If he develops into a WR, he can have an even greater impact on the team. We agree (I think) there. My only point is, if he couldn't/can't develop into that WR, I would rather have an elite returner than an average WR.

Yes i feel what you are saying about Philly but I don't think their line is as good as you might think. Peters I think gave up the league best at sacks last year and one of the Andrews brother is living with a knee injury and their WR'S Jackson/Curtis/Avant don't really scare anyone. With our cover two we can control that. McCoy is no Westbrook so i say its even with them. I agreed. I know they have added a lot, but at the same time, something just doesn't scream out for me. While they added Peters and Andrews, look at who those two are replacing. It isn't like they were replacing a couple garbage OTs. They were replacing a pair of OTs who have been formed the bookends for years, and provided a massive level of leadership on that OL. Not only did they lose that leadership, but one of the replacements (Andrews) is considered so mentally soft they had to surround him w/ familiar faces in hopes he doesn't break down, that is if he is even healthy. They have a nice crop of WRs, but (as has been the argument for us for some time) no #1. I don't know. They should be good, but I just don't see them as being the elite team some are saying. As for the panthers we can do both stop the run and Smith since they don't have a Top fight WR on the other side of Smith he can be doubled teamed and with our Dline better we can shut down the run. As said before, it is much easier to say you only have to shut down the run and Smith, and another to do it. The combo of their OL and RBs forces teams to stack the box to stop the run, which takes away from your ability to double Smith, and lets face it, Smith has the ability to even beat double teams. I personally am not a big fan of Delhomme, but this is a dang good team due to their lines. I also think, until proven otherwise, this is not a great matchup for us. We were able to stop the run, but only by selling out the pass. You can't do that w/ Steve Smith running go routes. Further, neither of our CBs possess elite speed, and FS is one of our biggest concerns heading into the season. Frankly, this is an offense I just don't think we matchup very well with, unless our front group proves capable of shutting down the run this year w/o the need to stack the box. Now the G-men are a good D-line team but you can only play a few at a time not all of them then there is a drop off in the back seven which Cutler can carver up with a little time and yhe way he can move in the pocket. I don't think Rocky Bernard/Barry Cofield are that good anyway one on one This is a great DL, and make no mistake, they would give the best OLs problems. While I believe our OL is very much upgraded, Williams will have a tough matchup against this group.

That was his bread and butter, but that isn't to say receiving can't be. Gotta learn to do both? I am sure he can do both, but if you want him to be a stud at either, he may have to give up one. Very few have been great at two positions.

I have no problem w/ the idea of Hester giving up return duties in the future IF he develops into a #1 WR. Steve Smith was one hell of a return man, but the team moved him out of that role once he broke out as a receiver, I think after his 3rd year or something like that. If Hester develops into a stud WR, fine. But he first has to makes some big strides as a receiver for that to be done.

No love for the defending NFC champion? Teams I see as being in/around the tops. NFC West Az - Good enough to get to the SB last year. Frankly, they have been one of those teams that was expected to make the jump for years, but never did. Until last year. I can't think of any big losses. On offense, they not only kept Warner/Boldin and Fitz, but added a solid RB in the draft. They have a pretty good defense, and IMHO, solid coaching now. I think they are going to be very tough again. SF could be improved, but while they "may" contend for a wildcard, I don't see them being much more. Seattle could be an interesting team w/ the return of their QB and the addition of Houshie, but I don't see them on the upper tier. NFC South This is a pretty dang good division. The good thing is, they will hopefully beat each other up:) Carolina is the team you mentioned, but honestly, I am just not a huge believer in Delhomme. On the other hand, as you said, they have great talent along both lines, thus they should be solid again. I simply question if they will dominate again this year as I see their division being so good. Atlanta is a team I think could move past Carolina to be honest. Their offense did so much last year, and both QB and RB were in their 1st years w/ the team. Throw in Tony G, and I think this could be a very good offense again, and their defense could be better. TB - They were good last year, but I just don't see them being much better as they still have too many issues on offense. Wildcard esq team. NO - They have the offense, which could be even better w/ a healthy Colston, but still not the D to be more than a likely wild card team. NFC East. No question in my mind NY is the team to beat. While they have questions at receiver, they have a QB to makeup for some of that, not to mention a great OL and run game to further help offset. And that defense was great, and will only be better w/ the return of Osi, who missed last year. Phily - Honestly, I see them being good, but not great. Dallas - Just too many questions w/ the loss of their top play maker on offense, still a questionable OL, and an inconsistent defense. NFC North GB - I think their defense will struggle some making the switch to a 3-4. They should have a sollid offense though, but will they be able to compensate for a shaky D? Minny - Still the team I worry about. QB issues aside, this team doesn't rely on the QB as much w/ elite OL and run game, as well as DL. Det - Year right. I think Minny, NYG, Atlanta and Az are the teams I would be looking at the most (and I think we will be in the tier) w/ Phily, Carolina and GB in the next tier.

Comments on the individual stat projections. Hester: 62 receptions, 858 yards (13.8 avg.) and 5 touchdowns. It adds up to a 2.7 percent DVOA The biggest issue I have here is the YPC avg. I think most would agree Hester's vertical potential was limited last year. Last year, we had a QB/OL and system which simply did not allow for great vertical opportunities, and even when they were there, Orton too often failed to connect. W/ all those limitations, he had a 13 ypc avg. This year, we have one of the strongest arms, and most aggressive mentality QBs in the game. Further, last year we had an OL so bad the OC himself said we limited the QB to 3 step drops to limit pass pressure. In such a system, you simply are not going to have many downfield opportunities. This year, we have made a lot of moves to upgrade the OL. Yet w/ these upgrades, they are only projecting a .8 increase in Hester's ypc avg. That is what I have an issue w/. I just feel, as much as w/ any single stat, his ypc avg will see a sizable increase. I think Hester very well could have a ypc avg closer than not to 15. Olsen: 61 receptions, 738 yards, 7 touchdowns, 17.0 percent DVOA These are not bad numbers, and represent an increase across the board. One issue I have w/ their report is they mention how Olsen can be a nice possession receiver/target. While I am not saying he can not be that, I think many would argue he can be so much more. Clark is a TE I would label as being more of a possession receiving target. Olsen has been used as a possession guy, but the OL has been the top reason for that, not Olsen himself, who has downfield skills. No major issue w/ the stats, but just w/ the idea that Olsen is a possession receiver/TE. Matt Forte: 322 rushes, 1,272 yards, 4.0 average, 68 receptions, 417 yards, 14 touchdowns, 2 touchdowns, 8.4 percent DVOA (as a rusher) If Forte is on my FF roster, I would love these stats, especially as I usually play in PPC leagues. On the other hand, I am not sure I would be thrilled, as a bear fan, if this is what Forte does this year. (a) 322 rushes? We have talked about this quite a bit of late. While I am not sure his number of carries goes down a ton, at the same time, 322 actually represents an increase. For Forte to get 322 carries, I think it would most likely point to K.Jones not producing much, thus needing to use Forte more, again. ( 4 ypc avg? 4 ypc isn't "bad", but I really think most here have greater expectations. He had a 3.8 ypc avg behins a dreadful OL, and w/ a QB that created a lot of stacked boxes due to his lack of ability to go downfield. The common belief is the addition of Cutler spreads out a defense more and the upgrade to the OL creates more holes. Thus, I think most expect a higher ypc avg for Forte. For him to have only a 4 ypc avg (.2 greater than last year), I think either (a) Cutler isn't effective enough to spread the field and/or ( the OL is not playing to the level of expectation after offseason upgrades. © 68 catches? Forte is a solid pass receiving RB, as shown last year w/ his 63 catches. However, did we pass to him so much last year because we wanted to, or because we had to. For him to catch 68 this year, IMHO, it would point to multiple issues like (a) OL not playing well and Cutler having to dump off more often, ( WRs not stepping up and Cutler having to use his checkdown more. If I have him on my FF roster, I would love 68 catches, but as a bear fan, I would seriously worry about him having so many catches. Further, per our coaches, one of the key areas we are hoping to improve w/ Forte is his yp catch. Last year his ypc was 7.6, which the staff felt was low and a key area in need of improvement. The projected numbers actually has his ypc dropping to 6.1. As w/ other comment, this to me would point to a poor OL and the majority of his catches being on jumpoffs. Cutler: 301 completions, 493 attempts, 61.2 percent, 3,409 yards, 20 touchdowns, 12 interceptions, 3.0 percent DVOA. I don't necessarily have an issue here. I believe his stats will be significantly better, but I also understand the reasons to project on the conservative side. The only issue I guess I have is, while projecting a more conservative offense and thus, stats, they also are projecting a decrease (slight) in his completion percentage. I would think if we threw less often and were more conservative, his completion percentage would go up. When you look at the catches/yardage stats by themselves, they don't appear too bad, but when you look a little deeper, I think these stats look pretty bad when you consider our expectations, not simply statistical, but quality. To me, much of these projected stats woudl indicate our OL not playing very well, and our offense not really being as overall solid as expected.

As Sun times pointed out, KC Joyner (ESPN) had a Q & A, and there were a lot of Bears questions he answered. - Cutler - This guy is not a fan, at all. Said Cutler throws a lot of picks, and actually compares him to Rex. While I think most agree he is aggressive, I think there are two key points missing. One. Due to Denver's issues last year, they were forced into being a very pass oriented team. While they may be a passing team anyway, I think they were forced to pass more than they would have liked due to (a) RB injuries and ( awful defense forcing the O to play from behind. When you are playing from behind, and having to pass a ton, you are forced to be more aggressive and take more risks, thus more picks. Two, the issue fans had w/ Rex was only partially his throwing picks. Rex' total lack of pocket presence was a huge aspect, and Cutler appears a drastic shift from that. Further, I would argue that many of Rex' picks came not simply from being aggressive, but lacking field vision and awareness. He simply didn't see the defender, as opposed to Cutler who may see the defender, but believes his arm can get it by that defender. I think Farve is a much better comparison than Rex. - Forte - While not a fan of Cutler, he sure is a fan of Forte. Said Forte will be the next generation of Westbrook. I really don't know about that. While I think he will get a lot of passes, I don't see him ever having 80 or 90 catches in a season. Also, Westbrook was known more for his receiving than rushing, and I don't think that will be the case w/ Forte. One thing he said which surprised me. He said he would take Forte #1 in a PPR league, over even AP. - Hester/Olsen - Said Hester developed and improved route running and as a WR overall, but believes it will be Olsen who becomes the key this year.

Who cares about the who, what, when or why. I just want to know where I can get one.

No argument here. I think the percentage of plays Forte is in for goes down as KJ gets a greater role, and to a lesser extent, maybe Wolfe. I still think he may finish the year w/ similar snap numbers, but it just won't feel the same. I see Forte getting more breathers and more rest, but as I think we will have more offensive plays, his number of carries still ends up high. I do think his catches goes down. I think a big reason he caught as many as he did was our weak ass OL. W/ a better OL, we will be able to have more passes going to WRs and TEs. Forte will still be a weapon, but I think he will have closer to 40 than 60 this season.

That really isn't different from what I said. The way Forte carried the load for us last year, I think some believe he had in the upper 300's in terms of carries. He had 318. We simply didn't have a great number of total snaps, and our overall run/pass ratio was more skewed to passing than usual. Thus, it seems like Forte had more carries than he did. My point is, I think some (when creating projections) are figuring Forte's carries drop closer to the 250 range. They look at his 318 carries, figure KJ eats into that, and drop his total carries. My argument is, while Forte's percentage of total snaps may well reduce, his total carries by the end of the year may not, or not nearly what many are thinking. Regarding the "wear down" issue, two things. One, he began to wear down last year, but that is very common for a rookie, who is not used to a 16 game season, not to mention the preseason. For the most part, the rookies I see who do not wear down toward the end of the year (particularly RBs) are the ones who didn't start the year. Two, I would argue a better OL lessens the wear and tear. Look at Emmit Smith as a prime example. Emmitt Smith was not a special RB, but behind those pro bowl OLs? The wear and tear factor really goes down w/ more and more of the tackles are made by LBs and DBs, rather than DL. W/ our OL last year, Forte was taking plenty of shots from the DL. The hope is, w/ a better OL, more holes are created and more tackles are made by the guys who weigh 200-250lbs, rather than those weighing over 300lbs.

Yea, I think many fans just think about those FB dives, and are too quick to discount the greater body. When you are talking about coaching, one of the most simplistic ways to look at the coach is to evaluate whether a team/unit under-performed or over-performed based on talent. When I look at our defense, I see a lot more talent than our play/stats reflected. On the other hand, on offense, I see a talent level that would expectations around bottom five territory. Our offense was not great, but did FAR better than I believe realistic expectations should have been placed. Thus I think you have to give credit to the coach. On defense, I think we did FAR WORSE than expected based on talent, and thus the coach has to take the fall. Honestly, I do not think an offseason took place that so aligned w/ my own impressions. I felt the D had talent, but coaching sucked and pulled them down. Angelo made a couple (minor mostly) additions/changes on defense, but the biggest changes were in the coaches, where all key position coaches were canned, and replacements were of a higher level, w/ highly respected veteran coaches taking over every area. On offense, it starts w/ the OL, and while I might have gone through the draft, Angelo likes to add OL in FA, and at the end of the day, we added 3 veterans (including a future HOF'er), not to mention getting our 1st round pick back. 3 new starters and improved depth. Everyone knew our passing game has issues. We went after and got (to my still today shock) a franchise QB, with the philosophy that a QB makes WRs more than the other way around. We didn't get that stud WR, but did continue to add young WRs. But unlike in the past, we have a QB (and OL) to help develop that young WR talent. Imagine if last year, Denver signed a veteran to pair w/ Marhsall. Would Royal have developed? Honestly, I am still just in shock. Over the years, Angelo has made a move here or a move there I wanted/agreed with, but never has the entire offseason strategy seemed to be so in line w/ my own. If we bomb this year, I am sure Angelo will get ripped, but I figure I likely will as well. One thing for sure. If we bomb this year, you won't hear me say a negative word about Angelo.

If this were a booster giving season tickets to a college player, I might better understand, but that just does not seem to be the case. I don't know. At some point, I just think there are enough big issues w/o having to go after a player who received a couple tickets (w/ some money seemingly to have gone to a charity) for a single game.

Everyone assumes Forte will have fewer carries, but I kind of wonder about that. Everyone assumes (as do I) K.Jones will get more carries, and thus Forte will get fewer. But at the same time, that seems to assume we will run the ball (in total) a similar number of times as in past seasons. I am not sure that will be the case. One. We were one of the worst teams in the league when looking at 3rd down conversions and 1st downs overall. Most expect our offense to be better and more effecient this year, which logically should result in more overall snaps. Not all those snaps will be passes, and thus I think we will have more total carries. Two. Last year, our defense sucked. I think most would agree with that. Due to our defense last year, we were often forced into passing situations. I think many/most expect our defense to be better this year, the result of which likely means a run/pass ratio that slides back toward the run. a Three. Continuing the assumptions, if our offense is better and our defense is better, not only will we be in fewer come from behind situations, but we should actually see more situations where we have a lead, and thus run the ball more to eat up clock. Take a look at our stats in 2005 and 2006. In 2005, TJ had 314 carries, only 2 fewer than Forte had as a rookie. But while TJ was the lead back, he also shared duties w/ AP getting 76 carries and Benson getting 67. In 2006, Benson's role expanded, and he received 157 carries, but TJ still had 296 carries, only 18 fewer than Forte. The key difference is, in 2005 and 2006, 488 carries (418 passes) and 503 carries (513 passes), compared to last year when we had 434 carries to 528 passes. So, in general, I think we will have more total snaps next year than last, when we had 962 total plays. Further, as we will have an improved defense, I think we will have a greater percentage of runs than last year. Thus, Forte may still have in the 310 carries range, while KJ has maybe 150, which would be similar to TJ and Benson our SB season. I agree Forte will have a better ypc average. I just question the automatic assumption that Forte will have significantly fewer carries, as most seem to assume we will have the same number of carries this year, but simply split between he and Jones.

From a personnel standpoint, I do not believe any position (unit) was as great of a problem as the OL. Not WR. Not D as a whole. Not QB. We had numerous issues heading into the offseason, but I would argue none were greater than the OL. Defense would be the argument of many. I said all along our top need on defense was coaching. I felt we had talent, but poor coaching was making it impossible for that talent to play at a high level. That isn't to say we were loaded w/ pro bowlers on defense. Only to say that with better coaching, the talent we had could be solid. You mention WR. No argument WR was a need. But when your OL is so weak that, per Turner, we could only use 3 step drop sets, your WRs are not likely to do much anyway. Back to the credit department. As you said, I give Turner a lot of credit. Frankly, based purely on personnel, I think we should have likely been a bottom 5 offense, and to have finished where we did, well, Turner gets credit. I give Orton a ton of credit. I like Orton, and have called for him for a while. While he may lack that special quality I think Cutler has, there was also a lot to like about Orton. IMHO, Rex was a QB that made OLs look worse than they were due to his total lack of pocket presence. Orton is the opposite. Orton had a solid pocket presence, IMHO, and was able to make the OL look better than it was at times. Ditto w/ Forte. The OL was just not doing Forte many favors. So I would give Turner, Orton and Forte a ton of credit. The OL? Not so much.

Why is this a problem. I get that college players can not receive money or gifts, but I thought that was supposed to be more limited to boosters and such. Can a college player receive nothing from, from no one, while playing? I swear the NCAA will on day tell a player the gift they received from their mother, on Christmas, is a violation.

Not saying it is going to happen, and I don't think it will, but I would not mind at all if we just did away w/ McKie. I think we could use Gaines as a FB, and even saw Olsen used as such. I just do not think McKie brings anything to table, and thus would just as soon go w/ 4 TEs and loose the FB.

First, I have actually defended Turner, particularly last year. For example, I gave Turner credit for moving around Olsen so much. I thought he was very creative in how used Olsen. Everyone ripped him for Bennett, but I think he gets serious credit for Olsen. Also, I think he did a good job overall w/ scheme, and give him a big credit for keeping Orton upright. Far from perfect, and I myself could come up w/ plenty of reasons to bash him, as any fan could for any coach. But I do think he deserves credit for how well our offense did overall last year considering our limitations. Second, as for our offense, while we did score, you really think our offense was good or effective? We ranked 25th in 3rd down conversion % We ranked 26th in 4th down conversion % I don't know where to find the stats, but it sure didn't seem like our red zone TD % was very good. All I know is, what I saw was a weak OL. They did not pass protect well, and that was a key reason Turner kept Orton throwing short passes on quick 3 step drops. Our run blocking was not good, and that can be seen as much as anything through Forte's ypc average. Beyond the stats, and just going off the eye ball test, Forte just didn't have the holes to run through. Finally, if our OL was better than I am making out, why all the changes? Why the big push to upgrade more than half of our OL?