nfoligno

By position LDE - This is an area I think is too quickly dismissed, as so many are so sour on Wale, but where I think we may see a big increase in pressure. Wale only had 6.5 sacks in '06, but many forget he actually had 9 the following season, before dropping to 5 this past season. I think few expect much from him this year, but I personally disagree. Frankly, I see Wale as being very capable still. Also, you talk about the Brown/Anderson combo, but his rookie year, he actually played more LDE I believe than RDE. On passing downs, he replaced Wale as often, and maybe more, than he replaced Brown. That was partially why Wale didn't have as many sacks that season. I think we will move around Anderson, like his rookie year, and we can see in the 15 sack range from LDE. I think Wale gets 8-10 sacks, and Anderson gets another 5-6 from the left side. LDT - Tank actually only had 3.5 sacks that season. He was just not the pass rusher so many seem to think, but he was solid, and his play helped others rush the passer. Personally, I think we may have more potential this year from the LDT position than when Tank was here. I think Marinelli can really work w/ Harrison, and even think we will see Gilbert lining up here on passing downs. I think 7 sacks from this spot is very possible this year, split between Harrison and Gilbert. RDT - Harris is the key. There are so many questions surrounding this player w/ so much upside. Potentially more than w/ any other, you just have to love the potential Marinelli brings teaching Harris. Marinelli just gushes about him. When you look at how Marinelli helped develop Sapp, you just have to love the potential. Harris could really take off this year, and I think 8-10 sacks for him is VERY doable. RDE - Split between Brown and Anderson. I have never been the biggest Brown fan. To me, he is simply inconsistent. He is consistent in that he gets about 6 sacks every year, but its how he gets those sacks. It just seems like he always has a couple great games, but disappears (pass rush) in the rest. This year though, w/ Marinelli's help and better support from the rest of the DL, I think he could become a more consistent player. I still don't think he will have many more sacks than normal, but I do think he will be better applying pressure. Further, he will split time w/ Anderson, who I just see as having a big come back season. I think Brown will have 6 or 7 sacks, w/ Anderson adding another 4 or 5 from the right side. If the above plays out, we will have around 40 sacks, give or take a couple. Further, beyond the numbers, I think we will simply be better applying pressure on QBs, which should in turn lead to more hurried throws, and thus turnovers.

He was actually better on the road than at home, statistically. 2189 v 2337 yards at home v away. 61.3 v 63.5 completion % at home v away. 6.78 v 7.98 ypa at home v away. 13-9 v 12-9 td ratio at home v away, near identical. 83.2 v 89.1 QB rating at home v away. record both at home and away was 4-4 this past season.

Kind of funny for me. Living in Dallas, I hear all about an ownership situation which is basically an exact opposite. Jones has plenty of money to spend, and isn't shy about spending it, yet at the same time, is among the most involved owners. He doesn't even make any secret about it as he is the teams GM. Regardless which side of the fence you are on, there are always going to be complaints. I like the situation we have today. We have an ownership which takes a back seat, and appointed a non-family member to run the team. The President is willing to spend, but leaves the "football" to others. We have a GM (my BFF) who is in control. And while I am not the biggest Lovie fan, I like that we have a coach who gets along w/ the GM while not getting into a power struggle. It took too long to get to this point, but I think we have a pretty solid power structure.

Mikey and family is/was cheap, but frankly, there was a reason for it. We were the ONLY team in the NFL whose ownership's sole source of revenue was the team itself. Every other owner had other sources of revenue to rely upon. Thus, if their team simply broke even, it would not be a burden on their bankrolls. For us though, the team was their only source of income, thus why ownership was cheap. Not excusing the action, but simply providing a reason for it. Phillips came in and, I agree, began to run it mroe like a football operation/business. Key too was the new stadium deal. As I understand it, we did not own Soldier Field. The Parks District did. Thus we didn't receive any of the stadium income common for other teams. After the new stadium deal, we still didn't own, but Phillips was able to negotiate our getting much more, like concession and parking money. That really boosts our ability to spend. Honestly, Phillips is one I don't think gets enough credit. Maybe the results are not always what we want, but consider the changes made since he took over. It was Phillips who made the move to hire a GM, something Mikey refused to do. It was Phillips who began spending money like most NFL teams, and thus was able to attrack upper tier FAs. Phillips is the one who negotiated the new stadium deal, and got us a better deal than most fans could have hoped for. Also have to say, I love that while Phillips "takes care of business" on the business side of things, he doesn't meddle with the day-to-day football side.

What school was that to even know who Mikey is?

Give Stein his credit, but if we are going to talk about when the change took place, I think we would have to go back to when Mikey was kicked out (technically promoted, but lost day-to-day control) and Ted Phillips took over. Phillips took over in 1999, and in 2000, we had one of our most aggressive FA periods. One of the biggest previous problems as the team being unwilling to shell out the SB dollars. They just would not open the wallet and give the big upfront dollars, and thus had no chance to get the best FAs. But in 2000, We signed Phillip Daniels, who was considered one of the top DEs on the market. In his first 4 seasons, his sack totals had steadily risen (2-4-6.5-9) and he was deemed one of the top young DEs. We gave him a 5yr/$25m deal w/ $8m SB. Funny how small that looks today, but at the time, that represented a top tier contract, and $8m was far and away the most bonus dollars the team had ever coughed up. The team then immediately signed Thomas Smith, who as I recall, was considered the top shut down corner on the market. He was given 5yr/$22.5 m w/ a $6.5 SB. The team that would never spend, and thus could never attract the top FAs, w/ in a couple days signed two of the top FAs on the market, and paid each more in SB than any former bear had ever seen. That year, they also re-signed Marcus Robinson to a 4yr/$15m deal w/ $5m SB, which made him the highest paid WR in bear history. So in one season, they have three players which represent "highest paid X in Bear history" While not big money, they also made aggressive moves trading for or signing: Eddie Kennison (trade), RW McQuarters (trade), Wooden and DT Brad Culpepper. That is in addition to re-signing many of their own, like Engram, Jeager, Ty Hallock, Jim Miller, Bryan Robinson, etc. Now we can all look bad and give a collective "yuck", but the results don't take away from the changes made that season. Stein does a great job negotiating deals and structuring them, but IMHO, it was when Ted Phillips took over that our teams began to move away from the cheap model it always had been under Papa Bear and then Mikey.

In many ways I agree, but there is another side too. While too often, celebrities or simply the rich avoid the law or get lighter sentences, I think it should also be pointed out that other times the DAs will go after them far more than they would the average joe. If the DA gets a report about a guy who had a gun possession charge, and then see's he has no priors, I bet the DA would often negotiate a reduced sentence, as he did here w/ Burress. I understand what you are saying, but at the same time, wonder if the DA doesn't do the same if Burress was some average joe. Plenty often, a DA will see a case involving a celebrity, and really go after them (more than normal) due to the publicity. That is no more fair than when a DA plays nice guy w/ the celeb. Back to Burress, I know what you are saying, but just am not sold that the DA is playing favorites. Thus far, the DA has held firm that Burress must serve jail time, and has rejected any talks of a no-time plea. Unless someone shows that this DA went after the max for most any other average joe for the same offense, I don't know that we can assume there is celebrity favoritism here.

Maybe I am reading only partial quotes. I don't know. But what I read seems to far more stress the maturity, and doesn't seem to stress the price paid to trade for him. "We'll see about his maturity level," Dungy said. "That's what I would question. And some of the things that happened leading to him leaving Denver ... that would concern me as a head coach. He can make all of the throws, but quarterbacking is much more than just making throws." I guess it is in how you read it. I read the "risk" talked about in the sense that it is a risk to rely on a QB w/ maturity issues, rather than the more obvious risk of simply giving up a ton to get this player. To me, the stress of the comments are about his maturity and character, and above, he even talks about how a QB has to be more than an arm. Thus, to me, the risk discussed is about relying on a QB w/ maturity issues, rather than about what it cost to get that QB. I agree he is likely looking at the two players in difference lights, but again, I just feel it is hypocritical.

Two things: One, as I understand it, if he took one of the earlier offered deals, he would actually already be out. I think one of the deals was for either 2 or 3 months, followed by a very large amount of community service. Per the report, he doesn't want either jail time or the community service, or at least not at a high level. Just pointing out that not only would he be back in time for camp, but I think he would actually already be out. Two, w/ that said, while I agree the case is "by law" open/shut, I would never say anything is absolute. While it is not how the system is supposed to work, more than once a judge has gone against the letter of the law when they feel it doesn't fit. Further, when you add the jury factor, then you really put a question mark into the situation. I agree w/ everything you said, but at the same time, have been involved in one too many cases where the jury flies in the face of reason. In fact, if the jury knows the minimum sentence is 3 1/2 years, and doesn't believe the punishment fits the crime, it is all together possible they do not follow their jury instructions and find him innocent, even if the evidence is overwhelming, but simply because they do not agree w/ the law. Frankly, I think this is what Burress is banking on. He likely feels the punishment doesn't fit the crime, and feels he can get a group of citizens to feel sorry enough for him that they hand down a not guilty verdict, despite the evidence. I really have no idea what is going to happen. As you said, by all reason, he should be found guilty, and while the punishment seems harsh, it is the law. At the same time, I myself have a hard time believing he will go to jail for 3 1/2 years. However it works out, I just have a hard time seeing that.

I don't know. Dungy seemed to be going around talking about how he believes Vick is a changed man and blah blah blah. I didn't hear him say something along the lines of, "I think Michael Vick has the 'right' to play in the NFL, but whether he is good enough, I don't know". I didn't hear him say anything like that. All I heard/read him talk about was how much he believes in Vick as a man. I'm sorry. But Dungy is going around talking up this guy who bashed in the heads of dogs, and then questions the maturity of someone who "forced his way from a team". Many have questioned Cutler's maturity. That was done before and after we traded for him. I have no problem w/ that. I just feel this is a bit hyprotical.

I think what riles up some fans, including myself, is a perceived double talk. Dungy is parading around talking about Michael Vick and how he should be given another chance to play in the NFL. Well, what position does Vick Play? QB. You don't hear Dungy questioning Vicks maturity, and perception (IMHO) is quite the opposite. On the other hand, he questions Cutler's maturity. Maybe it is just me, but if Dungy was not running around talking so positive about Michael Vick, it may not come off so questionable.

Now this I mostly agree w/. I had questions over the stated concern of his size being a factor when looking at OL and TEs that would try to block him. You talked about Loadholt, and 100+ difference in weight. My point was, his adding 10 lbs is not really going to make a difference. Similar w/ regard to TEs. I am not sure his weighing 235 v 225 is that huge when you have a 270lb TE bearing down on you. On the other hand, I do agree the weight becomes a bit of a factor when trying to bring down the ball carrier, whether that be a TE or a RB. While many blocking TEs are in the 270 range, most pass catching TEs are no where near that. At 235, he would be nearly as heavy as most pass catching TEs, and heavier than most RBs. At 225, not only is he giving up weight to TEs, but many RBs are also bigger than that. I know what he said, but I have a feeling he will not be starting at 225. I honestly think the staff will get him to elevate his weight some. Don't expect much, as both Roach and Hunter were in the mid 230s, but I do think Tino will be above 230 by the time the season begins.

I also have to say, I am talking in general as much as specific. I have not falling in love w/ either K.Davis or Rideau. So often I think fans fall for a player due to measurables, which each does possess, no question. But I have yet to see a lot to impress me that much. Heck, I can see a situation where neither makes the team. Re: Kellen Davis - I simply question his role on the team. Most here like him because they view him as being a potential threat on passing downs w/ his 6'7 260lb frame. Problem is, everything out of our staff's mouths indicates we were always looking at him as more of a blocking specialist. The further problem is, blocking is the area the staff seems to have felt he was most lacking in, and thus why we made the move to get Gaines. If, despite fans desires, the staff drafted him and pegged him to be a blocking TE, but he doesn't appear to be developing in that regard, I just question his overall value for the team. Re: Rideau - Again, we have a player who, as much as anything else, is liked by fans due to size. At 6'3, he is 2 inches taller than the biggest WR expected to make the roster (Iglesias). As most of our WRs lack size, keeing Rideau is an idea many like. I like the idea of size, but also believe that size can be over-rated. Just because a WR is tall doesn't mean he can play. But, (a) as stated before, Rideau is a 4 phase special teams player, which is huge in trying to lockup that final roster spot and ( per reports, which are very early, Rideau has been looking very good. Right now, I simply think Rideau has a far greater shot at making the team than K.Davis. He is a better special teams player. I think it can be argued he brings something to the table "different" from the other WRs, as opposed to Davis, who really doesn't bring anything to the table over the rest. Davis may have the size, but again, if he is not being viewed as a pass catching TE, then that is negated. I understand the argument that you can have too much at one position, as it could too much spread out, and thus limit, the number of snaps making it more difficult for a player to step up. I don't see that as an issue though. I seriously doubt Rideau, or the other WRs trying to win a 6th spot, are going to take any meaningful snaps away from those expected to make the team. Rideau will have to make his bones w/ the lesser QBs throwing to him, and while playing in the 2nd half of pre-season games. He isn't going to be taking away reps from the main WRs considered locks.

I would rather keep the extra WR than the extra TE. One, At TE, we have a pair of established TEs in Olsen and Clark. We also just added a solid blocking TE in Gaines. I honestly do not see us keeping Davis at this point. To me, it seems like the addition of Gaines was to replace him. Fans began to really fall in love w/ him, particularly due to his size, and red zone potential, but it seems like the staff were really just looking at him as a blocking TE. Further, it seems the staff didn't like his level of development in this regard, thus why we added Gaines. I honestly just do not see a role for Davis at this point. Two. At TE, you most often has one TE playing, maybe two in a bigger set. At WR, you most always have 2, often have 3, and probably have 4 WRs playing as often as you have 2 TEs. Seems like having depth at WR is more important than at TE. Three. As said above, we have a pretty established trio of TEs. At WR however, we have little in terms of "established". Heck, you can even argue we have nothing established as there are still questions whether or not Hester can be a #1 WR, which is the role we hope he can fill. I believe strongly in Iglesias, and feel some other can step up. Others feel strongly about this receiver or that one, but in the end, we are really just going off "potential". The more players you have in the pool, the more your odds of finding quality goes up. If Rideau, or the other WRs battling for the 6th spot fail to impress, that is one thing, but if one (or more) look good, I think it would be difficult to release them.

I mean Rashied. I think the staff likes him fine too, but I think the staff may well like other, younger players on the roster who have greater upside. I think the big key that keeps Rashied on the roster right now is experience, which we simply lack. If we add, just for argument sake, Burress, I think Davis' experience is a far lesser need/factor. At that point, if you simply compare Rashied against some of the other player in terms of WR talent, he may well be on the outside looking in.

Well, that sort of gets into our entire scheme, doesn't it. Our starting DTs are 260 lbs, and give up 50-75lbs against most OTs, and more against the big boys. In our scheme, it is about speed over power. Our DEs (in theory) beat a far bigger OTs w/ quickness and speed. Even on run downs, our DEs are expected to use quickness to get into gaps and use leverage before an OT can get into position. Not that different w/ our LBs. You have a 270 lb TE coming at you, you are not going to try to simply out-muscle him. You are going to try to use quickness to avoid him getting into position to get a clean block. Or you are going to use your size against him w/ leverage. Heck, it isn't like he is replacing big LBs. Roach lists at 234lbs and Hunter 238. That is a bit more than Tino, but not that much. As for Tino going against Loadholt, and giving up 120 (or more) pounds, would Tino weighing 10-15lbs more make a difference? Does it matter if you are giving up 100lbs or 120lbs? Personally, I would expect the staff to try and get his weight up about 10lbs into the mid 230s. That would put him in the same range as our prior SLBs. Adding 10lbs isn't that difficult, and should not affect his speed much.

With that said, if we add a veteran, I think Davis is the most likely to get released. Right now, more than any other reason, I think he is on the roster due to the lack of experience among the rest.

I understand what you are saying. My point is that LG was never a position up for competition. It was Omiyale's job, plain and simple. Beekman getting the early look was little more than a show of respect to their returning players. Bullock isn't a great example, IMHO. He will be in a very legit battle for the job. It is very conceivable that he could be a backup this year and not a starter. Tino situation I think will be very similar. He may not be listed as the starter immediately, but by the next OTA, I bet he will be.

Lets see. He runs out a slew of mediocre QBs in TB, and wins how many SBs? He takes over a team in Indy which has a franchise QB, and gets a SB ring. Yea, it is a risk, but one most would agree necessary. I swear if Manning were not already in place, Dungy would still be trying to win w/ defense and mediocre QBs and be w/o a ring.

I think Beekman starting in the initial OTA was basically a show of respect for what he did last year.

I have a feeling Davis may be safe this year. While he was bad last year, he was a good enough looking WR in the past, and many are saying last year's poor play was more about his simply being played at a higher level than his talent dictates. In other words, he is a slot WR, plain and simple, but was made a starter due to our pitiful talent level. So the belief is he could still be a quality WR. Whether all that is true or not, I don't know. What I do know is that our WR corp has nice looking talent and potential, but very little by way of experience. If you get rid of Davis, the only WR on the entire roster who has any experience would be Hester, and even he is considered more on the raw/still developing side. I think for one more year, Davis is relatively safe, unless he just looks awful in camp.

Why do you expect only 5 WRs kept? W/ so little proven, I just think we will keep 6 hoping a few step up through the season. W/ so little proven commodities, I question keeping a smaller number. The only reason 5 is a possibility (IMHO) would be due to other positions. We are likely going to keep 4 RBs. Further, is it possible we could keep 4 TEs? Olsen and Clark are locks. I think Gaines is a near lock, and the staff view him as a combo player, capable of playing TE, FB, or whatever sort of big boy blocker needed. Then there is Kellen Davis, who, if he has a solid camp, could be difficult to cut. Anyway, if we keep extra RB and TE, it may be harder to keep a 6th WR. W/ that said, I just have a hard time seeing us going w/ only 5 WR. If Kinder, Rideau, Aromoshadu or Broussard look good in camp, I think it will be hard to not keep a 6th WR. If they all look like crap, then maybe, but considering how weak we have been, and unproven we are, it just seems more logical to view the position w/ quantity, hoping quality rises to the top.

I agree there are similarities. Both are looking like they will be relying on young WRs. The biggest difference I see between the two teams is the run game. Forte is great, but the truth is, our overall run game was not. Do you realize NY had two RBs over 1,000 yards? In all, they had just over 2,500 yards, compared to our rushing of around 1,600 yards. Point is, NY can rely more on their run game than we can, though I do think we can lean on ours too. But yes, I do agree that both teams are set up pretty similar. It will be interesting to see how each develops their youth.

Starting? I think that is a reach. He will be fighting to make the 53 man roster. He will have to show something just for that to happen. I am not even sure he has a shot to start. Think about pre-season games. He likely will not see action until the 2nd half of games, and w/ the 3rd string. Even if he looks great, he "might" move up to 2nd string, but is simply not likely to break the starting lineup. I think that not only would he have to have a lights out camp and pre-season, but Bennett, Iglesias and Davis would all have to bomb completely.

I had an aunt that passes away some time back, and I was given a box filled w/ signed photos that she had collected over the years. I couldn't believe some of what was in there. Elvis, Sinatra, Beatles, Lennon, etc. I couldn't believe it. Many duplicates were in there too. I kept a single copy of many, and gave up the rest to the family. They were sold, and the money was used for a big family reunion. It was pretty cool.