nfoligno

Two things to point out. One, while it is a far cry from jail, I believe there was also a 2 year house arrest aspect of the deal. Again, the guys mansion is a far cry from the pen, but the point is, there is more than simply 30 days in jail for punishment. Two, While he was drunk and driving, and an individual did get killed, I think there was another part of this that few have talked about. From what I read, the person who was killed was (I believe) trying to catch a bus and ran out into the street, not at the cross walk, when Stallworth hit him. I think the argument was, even if Stallworth was stone cold sober, he still likely would have hit the pedestrian. His running into the street w/o regard to oncoming traffic was as much, or more so, the cause of the incident than Stallworth having been drivinking. That is NOT to excuse stallworth, but partially why I think the sentencing was lighter than expected. I think Stallworth was punished more for the DWI, rather than the manslaughter, because there was likely a belief that the DWI may not have been the cause of the fatality.

Don't get me wrong. I am not a Lovie fan. I simply don't think you can totally take away credit for some of what has happened. Honestly though, I wonder how much better he is than, say, Jauron. I see many simalarities. Both were the sort to stand back and let their coordinators do their job. Both were loyal to a fault (Jauron/Shoop - Lovie/Babich). Both had that "stoic" demeanor. Many will say we have seen more success under Lovie, but I still believe much of that has to do w/ the changes in organizational structure. Jauron had a GM in place, but one who never wanted him in the first place, and who did VERY little to support the coach, while Lovie has a GM doing anything possible to support the coach. Also, while we began to spend more pre-Lovie, it wasn't until after the new stadium deal that the purse opened wide. So I do give Lovie a share of credit, but also believe much of the teams success has been due to other factors.

There is a fine line here to be considered. When you have a DC and an OC, how much do you want the HC to meddle. As you said, Lovie is part of the pre-game planning, but once the game begins, how much do you want the HC usurping the authority of the coordinators? Many of the things you are giving Lovie credit for are exactly what a HC is measured by. Pre-game planning/prep. Morale and conditioning of the players. Overall organizational aspects. While some disagree, I also give Lovie credit for allowing young players an opportunity to play/start (w/ some very obvious exceptions) while also giving veterans the opportunity to keep their job, even when their apparant replacement is on the roster. Much of what Lovie does I believe does fall w/in the expectations of a HC. I too agree that a couple years ago, some of our wins were in spite of Lovie, or that our team (even in wins) could have simply been better. Much of that is based on the simple lack of confidence in his system, and the believe a different system could have simply been better. I will say this though. I do believe Lovie has to get a significant amount of credit for last year. That was simply not a 9 win team, and I think you have to look at the coaching staff for credit. I give Turner a ton of credit for getting as much as he did, w/ as little as he had. I still do not have jack for respect for Babich, but also think it has to be pointed out that in the one or two areas on defense Lovie did take over, improvement was seen. Like the nickel back play. I am still not a big Lovie fan, but also want to see what happens this year. At the end of the day, I think he really made his own bed w/ the Babich situation, and he needs to prove capable this year.

Lemon, (a) Not sure it is fair to criticize Rivera for SD's defense. Rivera was the inside LB coach under Ted Cottrell after leaving Chicago. Last year, SD fired Cottrell, and Rivera was promoted, I believe around the bye week, which for them was midseason. The perception is that their defense was improved under Rivera. It wasn't great, but improved. So I am not sure it is fair to criticize Rivera for SD's defensive struggles when he was not in charge of the defense, and it did imporve once he took over. ( I don't recall Rivera ever being Lovie's choice. As I recall, after not being allowed to interview Marinelli, Lovie wanted Babich, but Lovie was not allowed him either. Can't recall whether it was Angelo, Phillips, or both, but Babich was considered too green, and the team wanted more of a name, which Rivera obviously was in Chicago. Rivera was never a Lovie choice, but at the time, Lovie didn't have the power to really fight for who/what he wanted.

Ridiculous. Both halfs were Rivera's defense. So it is safe to say that either Rivera allowed his defense to enter that game complacent or he himself was complacent in his preparation against a rookie quarterback. Please dont make it seems line Arizona was this awesome offensive team that we shut down in the second half against all odds like some movie. They were garbage and any half way decent defense should have killed them. Of course they looked pissed, they were being embarrassed on national TV by a crappy team. We simply disagree. One, make no mistake. I never said Az was some elite offense (at the time). Not only that, but I also would add that their offense began to play more conservative in the 2nd half w/ a nice lead, thus better enabling us to turn the tide. So I am not pretending our defense suddenly shut down a great offense playing at their best. The point of the pointing to the movie was a change in attitude and the way they played. Two, Rivera is the DC, and thus responsible for both halves. No argument. But it is my opinion that in the 1st half, he was running the defense Lovie Smith pushed. In the 2nd half, that is far from what I saw. 1st half of that game was frankly what I have seen the last two years. Secondary that plays bend/don't break. DL rushes the passer, and if the DL can't get it done, then oh well. It was pathetic. In the 2nd half, what I saw was closer to 1985. Suddenly, our CBs were playing bump and run. Suddenly, the team that seemed to play bend/break in the 1st half appeared to all hover over the LOS. I watched all three LBs, as well as Mike Brown, standing on top of the LOS. On the snap, one, two or even three would blitz. It was the closest thing to the mid 80s I have seen. What was amazing to me was, how defensive Lovie Smith was after the game. Seriuosly, I will never forget it. Lovie was asked about the changes made at half time, and the difference in scheme/play calling. Lovie Smith, very annoyed, said we didn't change anything. He said the players simply began to execute. As shocked as I was, the reporters in the room seemed even more so. I remember the camera showing the expression of the media. If he wanted to say we were in the same scheme, but calling different plays, it would be one thing, but trying to say we did nothing different was an insult to anyone watching. Frankly, many times I have heard Lovie Smith defend "his scheme" to the point of throwing coaches and players under the bus. This was the first of many times I recall him doing just that. He did not want to give credit to Rivera for making changes that altered the game. He did not want to admit the cover two may not have worked best that day, and a change was needed. He simply would not allow for any criticism of the cover two. I am sure you will disagree all over the place, but I remember it all to well, and that is simply how I feel. lol He went 7-9 with a crappy RB, a worse line (by your own admission), a revolving door at QB, and a defense decimated by injuries. Then this year he went 9-7, one game out of the playoffs, with a rookie RB, no WR, a crap DL and secondary. You don't think every non-playoff coach in the league can point to a dozen "reasons" the team missed the playoffs? I agree there are many reasons for our not making the playoffs the last two years. I would also point out Lovie absolutely factors in as well, but is not individual in that regard. But I just think you are missing the point. Every teams that misses the playoffs can point to a dozen (or more) reasons and excuses, but that only works for so long. How about "hindsight is 20-20"? He hired Babich who was up for other D-Coord jobs in the league. So it wasn't just Lovie who thought Babich was coord material. Obviously, a bad move looking back. And it is also obvious that Rivera wasn't long for Chicago anyway. He was interviewing all over the league. Could he have overcome the injuries the defense had the following year? We really dont know, but I'm sure you think he could have sprinkled some magic 1985 fairy dust on Tommie's knee, the oline, Bensen, etc since he is from the "glory days". Dude, let's get one thing straight. It is not that I believe Rivera was/is some mad genius that can turn iron into gold. I think he is a good coach, but it is FAR MORE about how bad Marinelli was, rather than how God-like Rivera was. Also, I disagree 100% it is a matter of hindsight 20/20. Not when many questioned the move in the first place. - You have said several times that Babich was up for DC jobs in the league. With who? Not saying he wasn't at all, but I just do not recall our LB coach being the huge attraction you make out. I remember well Rivera name out there for promotion, but not nearly so much Babich. - Also, I hate this idea that "Rivera wasn't long for Chicago", and thus it was the right move to let him go. So you have a rising star who is drawing interest from other teams, so rather than ride that star as long as possible, you let him go? Sorry, but that just doesn't make sense to me. That is the epitomy of defeatist thinking. - Finally, what could he have done for the team the following season? Do I he would have sprinkles magic dust and make them great? No. Do I believe we would have been better w/ him, yes? Seriously, it is this simple. Babich was an awful DC. Rivera was a good DC. You don't have to believe in magic to believe our defense would have been better w/ a better coach. Rivera may not have been able to do anything about the OL, Benson or the offense in geneneral, but I do not believe our defense would have been one of the bottom 3 ranked teams in the entire league. Well that was really the point of the thread. As often happens, the original point heads off into tangents. I avoided the original, as it just wasn't worth it. Tangent discussions can be more fun though:) Fan or not, its hard to argue what Lovie has done to bring us back to relevance in the NFL. This can be a whole other thread, but I think it has more to do w/ organizational structure than coach. Look, I am not trying to totally take away all credit from Lovie. But I think it has to be pointed out that hiring Lovie was not the only change the team made which may have had an effect on the team overall. Since the 80s, our team has lacked an organizational structure most winning teams saw. We had a meddling owner that would not open the wallet for the team. We didn't have a GM, and didn't have people in place to make personnel decision who were competent to do so. Even when we had Hatley, who I felt was a very good personnel guy, he didn't have the power, and thus could only offer opinions. Even after we did hire a GM, he was forced to retain a coaching staff he did not want, and who did not run schemes he agreed with. Finally, the day came when: (a) We had an ownership that sat back and stayed out of daily operations. ( We had a President who also stayed out of day-to-day operations, and opened up the purse, allowing the GM to make moves never before possible. © We had a GM who had a few years experience, and a game plan. (d) We had a head coach the GM wanted, and who had a solid relationship together. So while I am not trying to say Lovie has nothing to do with our recent success, I do believe it has more to do w/ the organizational power structure changes. IMHO, Wanny and Jauron may have looked like solid coaches if they were part of a similar structure, rather than the slap happy structure we had back then.

Yes but if you lead the league in scoring defense and are at the top of the heap in turnovers created, you are probably not giving up 35 points a game. If you look at the comments of many, they are mad because the defense is something it is not meant to be. As long as people know that, its cool if you disagree on what type of defense to run. Just dont get mad when we are not stonewalling team yard-wise. Can't totally agree. I do agree that, even when working well, a Lovie defense is not likely to be tops in the leauge in terms of yardage. At the same time, I do think it fair to question whether we are fully utilizing talent. I remember that Az game a few years ago when a rookie Leinart was tearing us up in the 1st half. 2nd half, our defense did a lot of things different, agressive. It was like the "Remember the Titans" quote about not giving up an extra yard. The defense looked pisses when they would gain a yard. IMHO, the 1st half and 2nd half defenses were examples of a Lovie defense and a Rivera defense. In many games, that Lovie defense may be enough to win, but I would also salivate at the thought of what the defense could be. And I've said as much, the original point of this thread was the 20th ranking of Lovie which I find ridiculous. That's what is out there. And by reading some of comments it looks like people want to give Rivera credit for all Lovie's wins and bash Lovie for the losses. Which is certainly their right on a message board, its just irritating. Never said Lovie is the best coach in the world, but he absolutely does not get the respect he deserves, especially here. Two old sayings come to mind: "What have you done for me lately". You may not like that statement, but it is hard to argue. We went to the SB. Great. That was 3 years ago. What happened since. Coaches with more skins on the wall than Lovie find their respect drop. "You made your own bed...." I am not saying the SB was all Rivera, and Lovie was just along for the ride. But, as I believe Mongo pointed out, Lovie famously said, "trust me" when he allowed Rivera to walk. We are talking about a Chicago Bear from the glory days, and the man many felt was integral to the defense that helped carry us to the SB. But Lovie wanted his BFF and said, "trust me". Since then, our defense has been a joke, and we have missed the playoffs the two years since that SB loss. You can point to 20 or more excuses/reasons, but at the end of the day, Lovie made a very controversial decision, told fans to trust him for the move, and it blew up in his face. I never really commented on the 20th ranking. Frankly, I never thought it that big of a deal. It was someones opinion. Most here are quick to dismiss the opinions of the hacks that work at the big networks. It was about as valuable as power rankings. I have never been a big Lovie fan. I don't take away credit for the SB, but at the same time, I do feel he was the main reason Rivera is gone, and further, I do feel Rivera's loss was a huge factor in why our defense has tanked.

Your preaching to the choir. I have never been a fan of the cover two. Even when our defense was playing well, I felt the scheme actually held us back from playing on another level. But that is me. Lovie is another story. IMHO, Lovie has been just as stubborn as Jauron, but he has more wins, and has not been ripped nearly so much. That isn't meant to be a positive comment on Jauron, but a point on Lovie. Jauron was trashed for his support of Shoop, but how is that different from Lovie's BFF Babich. Anyway, point is, I do not have the confidence you do that Lovie would change his scheme.

lol. The ifs and buts game, huh. Well, its a message board, and hypotheticals are pretty common. It's not like I am throwing out an unrealistic "what if". Our defense pretty much sucked last year. I know few who would disagree. While we have shuffled some, we have not really seen the major upgrades in personnel. We are simply banking on players playing better, whether due to coaching changes or whatever. On offense though, we have made very real, legit and big changes. Thus, I think it a realistic "what if" question, asking what if the offense is good but our defense is bad. What happens if the defense is top 5 in scoring, the offense is top ten, and we lose in the super bowl? After the initial disappointment of losing the SB, most would call it a pretty damn good year. Lovie, Turner and Marninelli would be getting huge props. Now remember kids, our defense is not meant to be a stonewalling type, it is meant to create turnovers and score. No, our defense is not meant to be an "in your face" stuff you at the LOS type, but they are meant to do a little more than simply create turnovers and score. If our defense creates 3 turnovers and even scores a TD, that would be great, but if they give up 35 points also, I think most would consider them to have played poorly. I agree we are not likely go be a defense that stuffs the opponent and leads the league in yards given up. At the same time, besides what you mention, I think we are also expected to (a) limit an opposing teams scoring and ( create significant pass rush. If you don't like the question, fine. Take a pass. But I am not sure why it is so out there. Lovie made the call to go w/ Babich, and it failed. Now, Lovie is taking over the defense. If the defense fails, I think it appropriate to ask what happens to Lovie.

One little problem. Will Lovie sign off on hiring a DC that does not run "his" scheme. If we only hire another cover two DC, will that even change things? I would agree our best scenerio is similar to when Rivera was here. Instead of being too focused on one thing, you have a greater range of experience to run multiple styles. But there in lies the problem. Lovie is a cover two guy. In fact, many times he has defended his scheme to the point of throwing players under the bus. I am not sure he is going to sign off on hiring a DC that would not run his scheme.

I don't mean to trivialize what Burress did, but when you are talking about something that would not even be a crime in many states, or a slap on the wrist in most, then I do question how GREAT of a crime it is. For example, Marshall beating on women would be considered serious in any state, while carrying a firearm would not even be against the law here in Texas. That is not to excuse him, but only to point out his legal trangression is simply not nearly as great as what so many other NFL players seem to go through. While adding a veteran stud seems great, and would be, at the same time, I simply wonder if we are not best off simply allowing Cutler an opportunity to potentially make a stud from what we have. We may well have a stud to be in Hester, Knox or the others. For a change, we have a QB who can elevate the play of the WRs on the roster, rather than needing to add WRs capable of elevating the play of the QB. We have a slew of young WRs w/ talent, and a stud QB. Lets see what we have.

Just a thought, but what happens if our offense is actually solid this year, but our defense (w/o significant injuries) sucks. Lovie has stuck his neck out on the line, especially for the defense which he is taking over. What if our defense sucks?

For the record, and I did not make this clear, but the intent was more a theoretical question than practical. At this point, I too would just as soon prefer to simply go w/ what we have. If Boston were to be available for less than reported, or something else solid came along, fine, but I like the young WRs we have. Further, while we usually need stud WRs to support our QB, we now have a stud WR who can support our WRs. No, the point of the question was more theoretical. It struck me that, in this offseason, we have discussed 3 very controversial stud WRs. Further, in thinking about the 3, each are controversial for different reasons. TO is a cancer w/ players, but stays w/in the law. Burress is a cancer w/ coaches, but not so much w/ players, and has only a small level legal issues. Marshall doesn't seem to have the bad history w/ coaches or players, but can't seem to stay on the right side of the law. So, as all three WRs are studs, and yet controversial for different reasons, I just thought it curious to know what the "lesser of evil" order most would have.

Your right, that he doesn't practice a ton. At the same time, it doesn't seem like that matters as much to teamates as it does us. His own teamates still really like him and wanted him back. Also, you have to believe our players know the shit he pulls, and yet they seem to want him. I am still not sure I would want him. I just think his transgressions seem less than either TO or Marshall. His only legit legal issues is a joke in most areas other than NY. Not excusing what he did, but just saying it isn't that bad compared to many others, and not even close when compared to Marshall. And as for locker room, it seems w/o question he is not the problem child (w/ other players) that TO is.

I didn't mention Jones because he isn't remotely an elite WR, which is more what I was trying to touch on. Elite WRs w/ issues. Jones is FAR from elite. Hell, even w/o the character flaws, many question if he is any good.

We, as fans, are always looking for that one player who will put us over the top. Among the many positions we have discussed, WRs often come up. Three WRs who have generated a lot of discussion are TO, Burress and Marshall. TO is out of the picture, but I am still keeping him in this question for the hell of it. Considering each, who is the WR you would most want. TO - Pure locker room cancer. Some have golf or hunting as a hobby, but TO's hobby is throwing his QB (and often coach) under the bus. He simply has a way on ruining chemistry in the locker room. On the other hand, he also has a way of simply dominating on the field. While many will point to his number of drops, all you have to do is look at how defenses roll coverage to his side to note how his game is respected. Further, while he may have few peers when it comes to killing locker rooms, he doesn't appear to run afoul w/ the law. He has serious character flaws, but does seem to stay on the right side of the law. Burress - He is a talent, no question, though I personally think he would be 3rd behind TO and Marshall in terms of pure talent. Regardless, he is still awesome on the field. He too has serious character flaws, and seems to get under the skin of coaches, but at the same time, players often seem to stick up for him. He hacks off the bosses, but the co-workers still like him. He is in a current legal battle, but all other legal issues (that I know of) are of the minor/traffic sort. Marshall - W/o question, he youngest, and IMHO, most talented (current) of the group. Size/ speed/ total package. I really have not heard a ton of talk of his being a locker room cancer. But while TO and Burress have minor, if any, legal issues, Marshall seems like a jail house dog. He has been involved in numerous allegations of domestic violence and battery against two different girl friends. He has a fairly recent DWI. In college, he was arrested for assauling an officer and resisting arrest. He was part of the group which instigated a fight at a nightclub, the result of which saw the death of a Denver Bronco player. Also read where the police were called to his house like 11 times for domestic issues. He seems like the opposite of TO. While TO is a pure locker room cancer, but actually stays within the law, Marshall doesn't seem to create ripples in the locker room, but also doesn't seem capable of avoid actual legal troubles. I think it relevant, as we have talked about TO quite a bit, and are currently talking about the other two. There is recent talk of Marshall wanting out of Denver, and w/ his history w/ Cutler, the trade rumors are inevitable. Personally, I want no part of Marshall. I can deal w/ a player like Burress, who comes w/ baggage, no question, but the legal aspect of the baggage is minor, and it means something to me that players still stick up for him. But Marshall seems as likely as not to be the next NFL player to do jail time. He doesn't just have one or two pasts issues, nor were his issues minor. He likes to beat on women, and doesn't seem to have the ability to think before he acts. I realize how talented he is, but when you also factor (a) we would have to give up picks/players to trade for him and ( he would be due a large, multi-year contract, I just can't see his being a solid choice. TO is gone, and not a player I ever wanted. Burress is not a player I love the idea of getting, but have warmed to it. He still seems stupid as hell to me, but is talented, would likely only get a 1 year deal, and is still liked by his teamates. But when looking at the 3, the one I would least want is Marshall. It's one thing to say we don't want all choir boys, and another to say we want habitual criminals.

As he is only 33 year old, and younger than many players on the team, I think that is a fair thing to throw out there. I too question all the comments on Cutler. I just don't recall reading many (if any) questions about his leadership or maturity while QB'ing the Broncos. Not until McDaniels took over and things happened did he start to display emotions that were questioned. Do I think he could have handled the situation better? Yes. At the same time, I also simply think it was very understandable for him to be upset w/ the teamm, and feel most "franchise QB" would also be very suspicious of a coach who comes in and immediately looks into making a trade such as Daniels did. Immagine who Payton Manning (a QB you NEVER hear leadership questioned) would have reacted if a new coach came in and immediately tried to trade for a QB to replace him.

No question. It is sort of like having a Benson at RB, just off cuff example. Due to his inability to block, catch or really run outside, it was pretty easy to predict what would happen w/ him in the game, particularly when we were rotating between he and TJ. Point is, when a player is predictable, then so is the offense. Cutler, as you said, has no glaring holes in his game. That doesn't mean he is perfect. It simply means there is not one area considered such a hole that it creates a level of predictability. Frankly, this is going to be a very interesting year for Turner. Turner's offenses have pretty between "pretty" and "very" predictable. Some would argue players who were limited created a limited, and thus predictable offense. Others would argue Turner was simply incompetent, and thus we were predictable. Now we should be able to find out. Changes in our offense (personnel) in the last year or two which "should" make us less predictable. A. QB - Discussed above. B. RB - We had Forte last year, but I am looking bigger picture. Point is, we now have in place a RB who excels in basically every area. He can run inside, or turn the corner outside. He is a great pass catches, and was solid (as a rookie) pass blocking. In otherwords, he is an everydown RB, and thus doesn't tip our hand one way or another. C. TE - Maybe we are a touch more predictable if Olsen in the single TE, but (1) Olsen often is in motion, thus we are allowing that look anyway and (2) we often have two TEs, and thus avoid the predictability factor. D. WR - I am going some off potential here, but I honestly think we have a WR corp which should better then ever (recent history) avoid predictability. We have the ability to run any route, and to any point on the field. We have versatile WRs who can work well underneath or deep. E. OL - Again, going some on expectation rather than evidence, but all signs point to a dramatically upgraded OL. The better the OL, the more your options expand. Turner flat out said that last year, Orton's arm was not limiting as some said, but that he (Turner) had to "shorten the field" to compensate for the OL. He said the OL simply could not sustain blocks, and thus we had to get rid of the ball quicker so as to avoid the pressure. Thus, we became more predictable as we could only utilize a portion of the field. This year, Turner is loaded w/ potential weapons, an OL that should much better sustain blocks and a QB who can make all the throws at any level of the field. This year, if the offense is predictable, we will know who the true problem is.

I always liked Orton, and may of the things I considered Rex' greatest weaknesses appeared strengths for Orton. At the end of the day, I think Orton can be a "good" QB, while Cutler can be a "great" QB. Nothing wrong w/ having a good QB, but it sure is damn nice to have a "great" QB.

I think it was several years of "difference of opinion". I think they simply didn't see eye-to-eye in terms of defensive scheme, and likely the two clashed (if only on a minor level) in each weeks game planning. But I think it starts w/ how the two got together. Lovie NEVER wanted Rivera. He wanted to hire Babich from the beginning, but was told he couldn't. I think that was a Phillips decision, but maybe Angelo too. Anyway, Rivera was forced on him. Then, he was getting his 1st HC job, and frankly, it isn't like there were a dozen teams looking at him. Point is, didn't have the power or sway to really fight for his guy. Fast forward to a couple years ago. Lovie is coming off a SB appearance, and has tons of sway. Now Lovie can do what he wants, and what he wants is to promote his BFF. I don't think Lovie and Rivera ever "really" got along, but honestly, I don't think it was ever about Rivera. Lovie always wanted Babich, but until the SB season, never had the pull to get what he wanted. When he had the pull, he used it.

While not wanting to get into a huge Jauron argument, I am not sure he would be a good example to make your point. In fact, I would argue Jauron would be an example of how it might be difficult to measure a coach simply by W/L record. At the time Jauron was the coach, take a look at what he had to work with. Now, if you want to argue he was an awful personnel man, I would agree. I am not even necessarily arguing his evaluation as a coach, but pointing out that sometimes a W/L record may not be a great measuring stick, as a coach may not have the players needed to win with. An opposite situation might be Barry Switzer. He joined the Cowboys and immediately won a SB. He must be a great coach, right? How could anything but a great coach win the SB. But then you factor how he took over a SB team, and had so much talent already in place, all he had to do was stay out of the players way. No question W/L record is a big part of the evaluation, but at the same time, I do not think it is the only way of measuring a coach. I think there are other factors that can be used.

while agreeing that our offense was pathetic with the turnovers (especially grossman) i also have to state that our *defense did little themselves. in my opinion it certainly wasn't a one sided affair when laying blame but seeing as how our defense was SUPPOSED to be the crown jewel in our franchise and we expected little from our offense to begin with, it had to be more on their shoulders than any other squad. I agree it is reasonable to expect a lot from our defense. But what exactly was your expectation? Indy was a truly elite offense, w/ a passing game on tier w/ all-time greats. Not sure it would be realistic to expect to shut them out. In fact, I think giving up only 2 TDs to Manning would have been considered doing pretty well by most going in. On the other hand, while our offense may not have been great, it was going up against a pretty mediocre defense, and thus I think it was fair to expect more. i also believe it was more on BOTH teams defenses to dictate the game due to weather conditions. monsoon rains definately help a running game more than the passing attack we feared from manning yet we gave away our weather advantage and let them run us down like roadkill racoons. to give up 191 yards rushing in a game where running is expected due to conditions is flat out horrible. this should have been on not only rivera but lovie for coming out the second half as flat and unimaginative as they appeared. turner also needed to be SLAPPED for only rushing 19 times in a game like this whether benson was hurt or not. I understand, however, I personally think the Colts were waiting for us to start shifting to play the run. That would have played right into their hands. *the colts put up SIX long drives that buried the bears. one in the first quarter, a 4 1/2 min 80 yard drive for a TD, 2 second quarter drives that ate up 7 minutes for 105 yards and 10 points, 2 third quarter drives that consumed nearly 10 minutes for 128 yards and 6 points, and one fourth quarter drive with 5 min left in the game that ate up 3 1/2 minutes and 37 yrds to put the final nail in the coffin. Yes, they did have several long drives on us, but.... (a) That was the plan going in, IMHO. Force them to drive the field, thus creating more turnover opportunities. In a way, that worked as we forced 3 turnovers against a team who was known for not turning the ball over. ( I think that was also by design to limit an offense known for quick/long strikes. You talk about the long drives, but I would counter the alternative could have been much worse, w/ more 80 yard, one hit strikes. © I also think it has to be noted that, while they have many long drives, the D was able to most often, keep them out of the endzone. Sorry, but against that offense, that is not something to dismiss. I know many had dreams of shutting out the Colts, or killing Manning, but I just wonder how realistic those dreams ever were. This was a great offense we were facing, and I think they did a better job limiting Manning then they get credit for, especially when you factor how they had to deal w/ an offense that turned the ball over 5 freaking times. Heck, I remember one point where we picked off Manning, and the Defense was as high as a kite after that. W/ in like a play or two, our offense turned it over, and the wind seemed to be sucked from the D's sails. In history, how often do you think a defense can compensate for their offense turning it over 5 times?

It's not that people forget how well he played early on, but how well we remember how poorly he played after defenses seemed to adjust. Prior to 2006, Rex as a part time played, and teams didn't have much film on him. Thus, he was able to look quite good early in the season. Heck, as I recall, our offense was considered top 10, and we were just lighting teams up. The problem is, teams began to figure out that Rex would crack under pressure. Luckily, that year, we still had a pretty solid OL, and not every team was capable of putting that pressure on Rex, but that was the new strategy against him. No question he had some damn good games that year. The problem was just how bad he was in others. 5 games w/ 3 or more interceptions. He only had 3 games w/ 3 or more TDs, yet 5 games w/ 3 or more picks. That is not a good ratio. But hey, this was his first full season starting. No shock there was going to be some bad, right? I just do not think was the problem though. The problem was his lack of progression, and many would say regression, after this season. His weak areas were pretty well known, both on this board and in public. It was expected he would work on those areas and show improvement after 2006. Instead, he seemed to go backward in terms of development.

Are you kidding. I have had this argument before, and just will not let it go. The defense gave up 22 points to one of the best offenses in the league. The great Payton Manning was held to one TD. and as I recall, one big play (a blown coverage). At the same time, the QB who doesn't turn it over threw one pick, as well as putting another on the ground. This was a team that didn't turn the ball over, and yet our D forced 3 turnovers. On the other side though, no matter what our D did, it just didn't seem to matter. The offense just couldn't do crap, and continued to turn it over, again and again. Rex tossed a pair of picks, and put another on the ground. Benson fumbled another away, and add yet one more from special teams. FIVE TURNOVERS! How many defenses over-come 5 freaking turnovers, particularly against an elite offense? Our defense was facing an elite offense. Our offense was not facing an elite defense, yet made them look all-world. I am not saying the D played great, but PLEASE don't try to say Rex didn't play horrible in the SB, or try to push it all on the D.

I would say 6.4 is more on the below average side. All of the top 12 QBs (going off QB rating) are above 7.0 ypa. Of the top 18, there are 3 below 7. Eli was just under, at 6.8. McNabb was at 6.9, which is also his lowest ypa in the last 5 years. The only other QB was Senaca Wallace. Orton also had a 6.4 last year, and he was the 26th rated QB in that regard. I am not saying this is the end all be all stat, but 6.4 is pretty low. You have exceptions, but give or take a couple, 7.0 is a pretty decent indicator, not of a great or elite QB, but of a good QB. I am not sure if there is a QB on that list, who threw 6.7 or below, who would be considered a good QB.

Hunter was already in a tough position. Coming off a bad season, the guy who replaced him has been seemingly replaced by a veteran (Pisa), likely pushing Hunter further down the depth chart. Hunter needs to make a strong case to stick, but w/ the injury, he can't even play right now. IMHO, the best argument for him to stay on the team was his ability to provide depth at both SLB and MLB. Just read today that, w/ Urlacher held out of practice (for a minor issue), it was Jamar Williams manning the middle. If Jamar, who all reports say has had among the best offseason showings thus far, can prove capable of handling the middle, the top reason to keep Hunter may be gone before he ever gets on the field to prove himself.