nfoligno

That would actually be a good way to limit, not eliminate, those seeking signitures for profit. Signed items are far less valuable when both names are attacked. To my best friend, Nick. Mike Singletary. That sort of thing. If players are instructed to always attached a name to it, i think we would see fewer profit seekers.

When you began by saying we have a wide open depth chart at WR, I was ready to argue, but then I saw what you meant. We are not wide open in the sense of roster spots available. As you said, Hester, Bennett, Iglesias are locks, with Knox and Davis virutal locks. That leaves one likely spot. I realize now you simply meant wide open in the sense of 1-2-3-4-5-6 ordering. I think it is a lock we keep 6. We may have kept 5 in the past at times, but I think we likely had more proven veterans on the roster, as opposed to this year when we will be counting on a lot of developing taking place. As for his shot to make the team, I think he has a good enough chance. As the article points out, he has several things going for him that give him a boost. (a) Knowledge of the system/playbook/terminology. We saw w/ Bennett, considered a smart player, how it can take time to learn the system. That would seem to put several players at risk. ( Size. Looking at our top 5 WRs, we have some w/ speed, some w/ great hands and route running, and a couple w/ decent size, but none considered "big" WRs. Even among those he would be competing against for the 6th spot, Rideau is the tallest. Simply put, Rideau brings something no other WR we have on the roster right now does. © As the article points out, Rideau is not only a strong candidate for special teams, an absolute must for backup WRs, but is a 4 phase teams player. That is very significant. I think Rideau has a solid chance to make the roster, but it is on him. He needs to have a great camp to prove he should stay.

Damn that is harsh. I'm not a big collector, but I do have a few autographs. IMHO, the problem (and many players talk about this) is not those who seek autographs for personal reasons, but those who seek autographs for profit. Those who want an autographed football to put on Ebay, or they run a sports collectors store. Further, the problem is these individuals too often send kids to the players to get signitures. I don't want to just do away w/ autographs. I have a few signitures which I am pretty thrilled to have, and can't wait until my son is old enough to pass it along. I get that there is a problem, but I don't think you need to fix the problem by eliminating autographs all together.

You are really preaching to the choir here. This has been a pet peeve of mine for years. I have always felt (under Lovie) that our DL was limited, but never more so than after Brick Haley and Babich took over the DL and DC duties. I understand the idea. The defense, more than any one position, centers around the DT position. The DEs rush to the outside (a) preventing the QB from stepping back in the pocket and ( trying to push him forward to create space. Meanwhile, you have DT(s) that penetrate from the inside, and thus that QB who can not step back gets leveled. This is also why we mostly blitz from the inside. Further, your DEs can rack up sacks because when the DTs penetrate, and the QB does move back, he moved right into the DEs line and goes down. That is the theory, but I think we have seen that it just doesn't workout so perfectly. I agree that we do "sometimes" allow our DEs to go inside or stunt. But what I would like to add is, when it happens, it often seems to have good results. I go back to, and use as an example, Anderson. I remember Anderson's rookie year. Richard Dent, who I believe was still the assistant DL coach, or maybe simply commenting on the team, talked about Anderson. Dent said Anderson was using a host of moves you rarely see from a rookie. He talked about how rookies usually come in relying on athleticism or power, but rarely have more than a move or two. He said Anderson came in w/ a host of moves that made him look like a veteran. He was very Freeney like, at least in regard to the moves. Like Freeney, he had the speed/burst to beat an OT to the outside, but was so much more than just an edge rusher. Due to his speed, OTs would often cheat to the outside. Anderson would use this threat to get an OT off-balance, then use a swim or even power move to spin inside. OTs might have 100 lbs on him, but because he had them off-balance, weight wasn't a factor. But after the SB season, we made coaching changes. Anderson was made a starter, and that sophmore year, all he did was edge rush. He no longer attacked the inside, and no longer showed that host of moves seen his rookie season. As OTs knew what he was doing every snap, he was simply much easier to block. OTs would simply push him further outside, and out of the play. This is where I hope Marinelli comes in and make an impact. TB does a lot w/ their DL. TB DL used a host of moves to get to the passer, and that is what I hope we see this year. Everyone has always talked about personnel on the DL, but I have for a long time believe a huge problem was our scheme holding our players back. I have heard both Dent and Warren Sapp (two DL that had a tad bit of success) talk about how easy it is for OL to block DL when they know what the DL is going to do. My hope is Marinelli opens things up on the DL, and allows more freedom, which I believe will in turn create a greater pass rush.

That is one long ass running list. Cutler not signing an autograph might be #1,129.

Anyone ever watched Punk'd? I hate to admit it, but while I have only seen a handful of episodes, it usually cracks me up. Anyone, this topic reminded me of one of the shows. Dirk Nowiski (Dallas Mavs) was having Dinner in San Antonio after a game. They have a kid ask him for an autograph, and Dirk doesn't even hesitate. Then, a short bit later, they have the kid show back up w/ 2 large, bulging out shopping bags of basketball merchandise. The kid (w/ his mom) says he ran to the nearest sporting goods store and bought everything they could. Dirk looks dumb-founded, but actually begins to sign. He signs pretty much everything in the bags, including other team and other player (like a Kobe jersey) merchandise, and then sends the kid on his merry way. A short bit later, while eating a steak, the kid returns w/ more stuff. Finally, Dirk says now, but even then, is nice as can be. Kid upset, tells mom, and the manager comes out and ends up asking Dirk to leave because he won't give a little kid some autographs. Dirk can't believe he is being made out to be the bad guy. Finally, Ashton walks up and big laughs. Gotta laugh at this thought. How much shorter would that "joke" have been if the kid asked Cutler for an autograph

Just saw this on PFT. I never saw this on the Trib, and even when I looked at Haugh's articles, didn't see it. Either it was taken down, is a piece of another article and I missed it, or I am just blind. Last option the most likely. Honestly, just not a big deal for me. I always thought it was crap that a star can't go into public w/o people getting in their face for autographs. Anyway, here is the piece, Cutler Alienating Bears Fans? Posted by Aaron Wilson on May 31, 2009, 4:44 p.m. Chicago Bears quarterback Jay Cutler, the rocket-armed Pro Bowl passer acquired this offseason in a blockbuster trade from the Denver Broncos, apparently isn’t making himself very popular with the local fan base. According to David Haugh of the Chicago Tribune, Cutler is turning off some fans by refusing to sign autographs while attending Chicago Cubs baseball games. “I know Cutler already has alienated enough small pockets of fans at various appearances in Chicago to produce a flurry of furious e-mails, such as the one from a guy at Wrigley Field last week who criticized the quarterback for waving off autograph seekers,” Haugh writes. “Generally speaking, the same folks complaining about Cutler’s insouciant behavior will be cheering him on his first 350-yard Sunday. Sure, Cutler could do himself some favors by exuding more charm or suffering the occasional fool with a little less outward disdain. “But those who have been Bears fans for two decades or two generations, need to remember Cutler has been here for two months. There will be and has been a degree of culture shock. Denver isn’t Chicago. Eventually, Cutler will adjust because he will learn life is easier that way in this tradition-rich football city. If he doesn’t, then he will get what he deserves. But it’s too early in his tenure to predict that.” As Haugh correctly pointed out, Cutler just got to town. Plus, football isn’t a popularity contest. It’s a game of skill and will. Nonetheless, this piece of information does tend to reinforce the bad reputation that Cutler gained during his messy divorce from the Denver Broncos. Besides working on throwing touchdown passes, Cutler might want to sign a few autographs.

I don't know about that. Welker uses quickness, which I agree is a trademark of Hester, but at the same time, Welker is also know for (a) quick sep off the LOS, running precise routes and great hands. None of these are considered attributes for Hester. They may one day, but they were not strengths last year, and trying to play him like Welker would not seem to best utilize his strengths. I still feel the player to use him similar to is Steve Smith. No, I am not saying he can be as good as Smith, but I do think that is how we should try to use him. One thing I love about how Carolina uses Smith is how much they move him around. Smith was beginning to have trouble w/ teams jamming him at the LOS, then putting a 2nd man over the top. So Carolina countered by moving him around more, thus making it more difficult to jam him. W/ a free/open release, he is that much harder to contain. Also, while Smith is so well known for his speed and downfield ability, Carolian also uses him in short passes w/ the expectation of solid YAC. IMHO, last year, Hester was limited because he was still learning to play WR. But he did seem to develop considerably. I think this year we should be looking to expand how we use him.

First, I would argue the courts even taking up the case is a slap against the league, as they tried to argue the courts have no jurisdiction due to the CBA, arguing this should be decided by an arbitrator. That the courts even took the case was a bit of a hit against the league. Second, it can always be asked, where do you draw the line. It is the slippery slope argument always used. But sometimes you simply have a case that is well outside the norm, and a decision in such a case does not necessarily mean re-create the line. At the end of the day, I do understand the league's position, and the reasoning behind it. They do not want to be the FDA, and put themselves in a position of having to study each and every drug out there, and want to instead put the burden on the players. At the same time, I think they hurt their position when they set up a hotline for the players to use as a tool, and further, tell the players to use such. If you are putting all responsibility on the players, setting up a league run hotline for the players to call to find out whether a drug is legal or not seems counter to their position.

I think Harris can again be the dominating DT we have seen in the past. To me, a huge key is the DT that lines up next to him. Injuries were a big factor, but IMHO, so was the DT he lined up next to. Dusty was flat out awful. Warren Sapp pointed out, using film, just how bad Dusty was. When the guy next to you is so bad that he is getting blocking into you, your job is simply that much more difficult. IMHO, Harris began to look better when we started Adams in place of Dusty, and I think most all would agree Adams is not much more than average. I think the key is, even more than just saying health, the play of our 2nd DT, which most likely will be a rotation. But if we can get solid play out of that 2nd DT, I think we can again see great play from Harris. To me, an even greater key is the play of the DEs. Wale and Anderson are two players I am really hoping Marinelli can do something with. I truly believe the recent coaching killed Anderson, and very much limited Wale. I think both can be very solid pass rushers, but Marinelli will have to work some magic. I talked about it for some time, but I really felt that Haley/Babich were key to the weak play of our DL. Now that Haley is gone, and Babich is essentially demoted, my hope is our DL can again play very aggressive.

I've stated my opinion on this before, but putting that aside, a settlement doesn't shock me that much. We can all talk day and night about whether the NFL shares responsibility or whether the responsibility is 100% at the feet of the players, but one thing I do think is hard to argue. This situation is a tad bit unique. Further, from a PR perspective, this is simply not a great situation for the league. A settlement could be considered for the following reasons. One. The league may want to put this behind them. Usually, there is not much reason for a big thing to be made. A player takes an illegal substance, and gets suspended. Due to (a) the league knowing and not sharing info, ( players calling the league set up hotline and not being provided correct info and © the man in charge not even sharing the knowledge w/ the people who answer the hotline, due to all this, there is a greater level of controversey here than in the past. It simply is not as black and white as with other times, and the league may be trying to avoid a bad PR situation. Two. The league and the Players association are trying to workout a new CBA. There is a trust factor at stake here. The longer this drags on, IMHO, the greater the potential for a distrust between the players and league. Simply put, this situation may hurt in the negotiating table. Three. Fear of the precident. If the league was to lose in court, it could spell further legal fights down the road. The league is already not happy in that the players have been able to use the courts rathe than an arbitrator. If this plays out, that could go from being a unique situation to a precident, which is somethig the league would very much like to avoid. As a Bear fan, obviously, I would love to see a pair of Viqueens tossed for 4 games. Putting aside my fanhood, I simply understand why the league may take this action.

Not to nit-pic, but I still have a problem w/ comparisons. I full well understand what you are saying, and understand why you are using the examples you are using. But one problem I have is, we talk about Hester being our #1 WR, which he was, and a deep threat, which he could be, but I just have a hard time putting him against the receivers you are throwing out there. CJ, Moss and Bowe are all elite WRs who demand double coverage on an every down basis. I know you are just trying to find some players to compare to, but that is the problem. These three players are going to have double coverage far more often, and thus are less likely to have a super high completion percentage. Honestly, I think we are arguing the examples here more than the actual point. Yes, I do think that % is low. I believe because: One. Eye ball test. I saw w/ my own eyes so many passes that could have been completions that were not. In other words, I saw so many times Hester was open, but a completion was not in the cards. Often not his fault, but the point is the same. Two. We call Hester a deep threat, but I do not believe he has been a legit deep threat for us thus far. That is due more to our QB and system than him. His YPC is not bad at all, but that is due more, IMHO, to his ability to get the YAC, rather than simply making the catch on a go route. The three WRs listed, and many others who could be, were more legit downfield threats. Again, I am not putting this nearly so much on Hester as I am Orton. At the end of the day, my point is really just that I do not think his % is good, and further, believe it should go up considerably this year w/ Cutler at QB. Cutler is going to help Hester in the following ways: One. Cutler is simply going to throw to Hester more often, IMHO, which will lead to more opportunities. IMHO, w/ more opportunities, his % will improve. Two. Cutler has a better arm, obvious statement alert! This past year, deep balls, when they were thrown, were rarely accurate. Cutler has the ability to put it in the receivers breadbasket. Three. And this is among my favorite aspects about Cutler. Many talk about his ability to hit a WR, but it is also his ability to hit a WR in stride which is huge. Often, we have seen WRs fail to make a catch, but at the same time, they would have had to stop their route, twist their body, or catch a ball thrown behind him. Cutler is known for his ability to lead a WR, and basically throw very catchable balls. I think this will also help improve his numbers.

As a fan, many things are beyond me, but offseason conditioning is one of those things I just don't get. I do not get the players who feel they can blow off conditioning in the offseason, show up at camp and quickly get into shape and be ready. Most every good/great player has a strong offseason conditioning program. If not, you spend the entire camp huffing and puffing your way into shape, and even if you are in shape by the time of game one, you are not in "playing shape". Essentially, you start out behind everyone, and don't catch up until well after the season begins. Worse, those players who don't maintain condition in the offseason are often the ones who suffer injuries in camp. I too hope this is not the case w/ Harrison.

I've mentioned this before, but 51 receptions out of 92 targets is actually not that bad. Hester had a better catch percentage (55%) than T.O. or Braylon Edwards last season. Obviously he needs to improve somewhat, but if he can get up to 65-66% or so, that'll be a very good mark. Not sure these two are good comparison, as each are coming off seasons in which they were ripped for their inability to catch the ball. IMHO, 51 out of 92 is pretty bad, but at the same time, w/o question not all Hester's fault. Not even close. Also, it's MUCH easier to understand why Bennett finished the season without a catch...he was only on the field for 16 plays! Considering that Hester was on the field for 631 plays but only got the ball thrown to him 92 times, how many looks could Bennett possibly have gotten in 16 snaps? After reading that, I'm a little more hopeful that Bennett will show something this year. He's still an unknown, but the coaching staff clearly didn't give him anything close to a real shot in 2008. I do not simply believe everything Lovie says, but I do buy into what he said about Bennett last year. Per Lovie, what held Bennett back as much as anything was lack of knowing the playbook. The reason it took so long to learn the playbook was he was given the entire playbook and asked to learn all WR positions. That would be pretty dang tough for a rookie to take on. I think this was done w/ the belief he would not be needed in 2008 w/ veterans Booker and Lloyd in place. But, per Lovie and Rivera, Bennett did began to "get it" later in the season, and thus should be primed to hit the field running. I just hope we do not take a similar approach w/ our 3 rookie WRs.

Couple thoughts on this. One, while Hester was incredible as a return man, history shows few have such success long term. Some might try to argue that Hester would prove the exception to the rule, but history was simply not on his side. At some point, return specialists simply lose that difference making ability. So I am not sure it is best to assume Hester would give elite results long term. Two, while it may be true that we have spend a couple years looking to develop Hester as a WR, it isn't like we have spent "that" long. Further, I would argue he has shown development at the WR position, which IMHO offers reason to hope. IMHO, Hester developed as a WR far more this past season than I would have expected, and he did that w/ an average QB and a way below average OL. W/ both QB and OL upgraded, I think it fair to expect another leap in development, especially if we can find a complimentary WR, where as we had the likes of Davis/Booker as his compliment last year. Yuck! I have had this discussion w/ others before, but while I do not believe Hester is "likely" to become a stud #1 WR, I do at the same time believe he has the potential to put up #1 WR numbers. To me, a stud #1 WR is one who excels regardless of what surrounds him. Look at a WR like Andre Johnson, who has not played for good offenses, but has dominated regardless. Look what Calvin Johnson did last year. The true studs dominate, regardless who is throwing, regardless who is protecting, and regardless who is covering. I do not expect this of Hester. At the same time, if the OL is capable of blocking, we have a pro bowl QB and a solid #2 WR, could I see Hester putting up #1 WR numbers? Yes. In such a situation, I do not think it out of the question Hester "could" have a season w/ 80+ catches and 1,300+ yards with double digit TDs. That would put him in the elite category in terms of numbers. So I think Hester can put up #1 WR numbers, even if he is not a true stud #1.

Always thought about the similarity between Ryan and Ditka, but a couple thoughts I had about that. One, While it is similar in that Ditka was the HC and Ryan the DC, at the same time, Ditka was an offensive guy, while Lovie is defense. Thus, in the 80s, we had a situation where the two may not have liked each other, but were in a better position/situation to give each other space. That was closer to a situation of having two head coaches, one for offense and one for defense. More recent, you just didn't have that. Further, in the recent situation, you had Rivera actually trying to run Lovie's scheme. That is simply very different from the Ryan/Ditka situation where Ditka didn't care how Buddy got it done, so long as he got it done. Rivera didn't have that leeway. Two, while the Ryan/Ditka situation did workout, it was also very short lived. A situation like that might work for a short period of time, but I would say it is doomed to blow up down the road.

Skipping past the prediction stuff, and going w/ the Harrison piece, First thought that comes to mind is, could we have asked Harrison to gain some weight. As you said, we may be looking at him to be our future NT. We read all the time about the staff asking a player to gain or drop weight, Idonije is a great recent example. Maybe the team asked him to gain some weight. The Dickerson piece doesn't necessarily say he looked "fat" but that he looked heavier. Maybe that is by design. Then again, maybe he has made one too many trips to the buffett.

I guess my point is, when is a coach not looking for "their next gig". If a coach is successful, they are going to get interest from other teams, and basically all coaches are looking to move up the ladder. IMHO, there are a couple reasons Lovie choose not to retain Rivera, and causing a distraction is not among them. A. The reality is, he wanted Babich to be his DC to begin w/, but (I believe) Phillips said no, and thus Rivera was hired. Then, Lovie (as an unproven commodity himself) didn't have the sway to argue, but coming off a SB appearance, Lovie's pull was at a high, and thus no one within the organization was going to prevent him from promoting his buddy. B. Reports were pretty wide spread. While things on the surface seemed okay between Rivera and Lovie, and each usually said the right things, most felt the two were never fully on the same page. Lovie is a cover 2 guy, and Rivera was not. Rivera was trying to run Lovie's scheme, yet at the same time, many talked about Rivera always trying to tweak it, and Lovie not liking that. C. Many will disagree w/ this, but many also felt that Rivera was taking the limelight away from Lovie. Rivera was getting more credit for the Defense, which Lovie felt was his. Though this would not seem to lineup w/ what we know of Lovie's character, it is not that atypical of NFL coaches either. In the end, I think it was more about A and B than C or distractions. Rivera was never Lovie's first choice, and Rivera was never fully on the same page w/ Lovie in terms of scheme. In letting Rivera walk, Lovie was able to promote the guy who was his first choice all along, and who he knew was on the same page as him in terms of scheme.

One minor issue. While there is no argument Rivera was not fired, or that he interviewed w/ other teams, I do question when you said, "caused a distraction during playoff runs". The reality is, most every team that makes the playoffs has coaches who are getting notice/interviews for promotions and such. I am not sure it is the distraction you make it out to be. Further, and correct me if I am wrong, but Rivera was not able to interview prior to the SB. It was in our "off week" during the playoffs he was allowed to interview, and we seemed to do well in that following game, thus I think it questionable to talk about him having caused a distraction.

Just to stick my nose.... Whether it is a prediction or an opinion, neither are fact. That any "prediction" is on a message board, it only further illustrates that it is little more than an opinion. Based on recent problems, high expectations, and factoring that he said Lovie would be fired "if" the team bombs out of the gate (all of which he has pointed to) is the basis for his "prediction", which again, is no more than an opinion. In my opinion, Cutler will be great for the Bears. That is also my prediction. Do I have factual evidence to show my prediction to be fact? No. Obviously not. It's just a prediction.

I was a huge MRob fan, but I am not sure how much he was "burried". As I recall, he was very raw to begin with, and was shipped out to NFL Europe, where he was impressive. His first season on the bears roster, we had Engram and Conway, and played a very run oriented system, often using two TE formations. It was in only his 2nd NFL season he put up 1,400 yards. But after that season, he began to suffer injuries. On top of that, we moved to QBs who didn't have the arm, and were looking to make shorter passes. Again, as I recall, while MRob was a terror on go routes, the knock on him was he was afraid to go over the middle, limiting what he could do in a less explosive system. I loved MRob, and would agree that he was among the best talented WRs for the bears. At the same time, he himself was a huge reason (injuries, beginning very raw and lack of developing a rounded game) for his lack of long term success.

I liked Proehl, but didn't he only play for the bears one season? In a career that spanned 17 seasons, I am not sure I would count one season w/ the bears as being a "Bears WR".

No argument we have gotten great value out of Hilly. My point about last year was, IMHO, in the past, more was done to minimize his weaknesses while maximizing his strengths. Last year, due to how we were using Urlacher in particular, Hilly was more often asked to cover, which is simply not something he is good at. Think about it. In the past, Urlacher was so often used in coverage, but last year, Babich had Ulracher playing over the top of the DTs, and often blitzing him. When Urlacher would do that, the coverage duty (deep middle) would fall to Hilly, which he was simply incapable of doing. Further, even when Urlacher would not blitz, he was unable to get back into his area, thus creating a greater hole, which also further exposed Hilly. But moving forward, I think the staff would like a more athletic SLB, yet at the same time, I simply believe that if they are looking for a pure backup, Hilly may have an edge as he can backup both MLB and SLB, where as Roach may be more pure SLB depth.

Oh, I agree this could be an interesting year in the NFC. For some time it seems like the talk/belief was the AFC was far and away the better when it came to QBs. Maybe that was true, but I honestly wonder if this year doesn't represent a change, though I would argue a change began last year. As you said, Warner and Brees will likely again have solid seasons, albeit less than last year's ridiculous stats. W/ the weapons at their disposal, I think that is realistic. McNabb should be back? Where did he go? 3,900 yards, 23 TDs to only 11 picks. Not bad. With Jackson a year developed and Maclin added, his stats could go up further. Rogers is going to have a better year? That is a scary thought. He was the #3 QB in the NFC (behind Brees and Warner) w/ 4,000 yards and 28 TDs. Beyond this group though... The AFC loses a pro bowl QB in Cutler to the NFC. Sweet. Matt Ryan had nice yardage stats, especially for a rookie (3,500) but the addition of Tony G could help boost his TD totals. Last year, Hassellback basically missed the season w/ injury, but is healthy again. 4,000 yards and 28 TDs in 2007. Two wild cards (IMHO) are Romo and Eli. Both of which you mention. Both are talented, IMHO, but how much are each hurt by the losses of TO and Burress. I can see Romo sliding, as they did not do as much to replace Burress. NY on the other hand I think was very pro-active. Their new WRs may not be as "known" but I think they have a stable of talented, young WRs. Nicks in the 1st round and big boy Barden later. I like the addition of Derek Hagan, who could really blossom in an improved system w/ a better QB. Also still have Hixon, Steve Smith and Moss, so I can see Eli again having solid numbers. With all that said, I still think Cutler could well be in play to be among the NFC leaders.

I don't know about that. Last year, Hunter lost the job midseason to Roach, due in large part to Hunter's inability to play coverage, but... (a) I personally feel how Babich called the game affected Hunter. Hunter was never a great coverage guy, hence why he sits on 3rd downs, but was always solid otherwise. Babich, IMHO, put Hunter in situations we previously avoided. Even taking out coaching though, ( The staff, from what I have read, was not impressed w/ Roach in the time he got. Hunter didn't look good, so Roach got the shot, but Roach simply did little w/ the opportunity. © I would further point out the proof is in the pudding. If the staff liked what they saw from Roach, would they be looking to upgrade the position now? Sure, that can be used for Hunter too, but I am not saying the staff loves Hunter at this point. I think the staff questions whether either are solid options as starters heading into the season. I just don't think the staff is as high on Roach. Further, while they may not be very high on Hunter either, I think Hunter may be viewed as the more versatile backup option, as he can backup both MLB and SLB, where as Roach may not be viewed as versatile.