nfoligno

I agree it may be hard to judge, and may be unfair to criticize. At the same time, I am not just considering stats (for example). Not saying you are, but for me, it often comes down more to "development" and "progress", which I just didn't see a lot of. You would not get any argument as to our QBs doing little to help the WRs, yet there are still too many aspects, or areas of the WRs game, which I just do not believe showed much development. Route running. Ability to beat the press. Ability to separate. Knoweldge of when they needed to come back (rather than still be running when the QB is on the ground). Not to mention hands. There are many things we can point to the QB, and yet many others I think QB play is an excuse. You say Berrian developed his game, but how much. To me, he was not much more than the one trick pony in Chicago than he said he was entering the league. Bradley didn't exactly have stellar QB play in KC, so I am not sure why you say a QB made the difference there. Again, I just go back to how the WRs played for us. Often, you can point to the QB and say that is the key reason for a WR not producing. However, lets not pretend our WRs were running crisp routes, but the QB failed to get them the ball. Or that our WRs were doing a good job beating the press.

One interesting thing, if we were to add Pax. If you go back to the 2000 draft, I think there were 3 players most often talked about or tied to discussions of who we were expected to draft. Thomas Jones, Plax and then Urlacher. TJ and Plax were gone, so we drafted Urlacher, but then we later signed TJ. If we now got Plax, we would have essentially gotten all 3 players we wanted from that 2000 draft. Just an interesting thought.

One key thing you said, which I would disagree w/, is when you said the NFL doesn't care about player's character defects. I think Goddell (who represents the NFL) cares, and has shown as much through tough fines and suspensions.

I am not sure my expectations for Bullocks is very high, yet w/ what we have, I just hope he can be decent. I think, at FS, there are a few keys going into the season, outside of simply the man starting. One. Pass rush. That is first and foremost. If we get a solid pass rush, even lesser players in the secondary can look good. Two. CBs. If our CB play can return to form, it would make the job of the FS much easier. Three. Development of Graham, who is reported to be looking at a move to FS. Sorry, but I have minimal faith in Steltz ability to play FS, or Afalava. To me, both are simply SS'. I do not expect Graham to instantly become a starting grade FS, but if he can show enough development, we might be able to avoid FS being a need heading into next year.

I think the key is your first sentence. We have enough projects on the team. We have 3 rookie WRs, and one more from last year who has yet to catch his first NFL pass. That is a lot of raw talent on the roster, and lets be honest, the track record of our WR coach is questionable at best. Do we really want to add more work to his plate?

I make kickers look athletic.

Lets see. He is drafted as high as 4th round, but released after one season. Detroit picks him up, and a month later, dump him. Doesn't sound like a great prospect to me. I actually liked him in college, but something seems to be wrong here.

Hey, from the day of the draft, I said Knox could be something, but he is going to take time. Hence the low catch totals as a rookie. At the same time, I simply see him value as a deep threat. I do not think he will provide consistency in the near future, but what he can do is take off on go routes, which will lead to a very high YPC avg. Take a look at Devery Henderson. It took him a few years to reach any semblance of NFL tier, but starting in his rookie year, he showed he could use his speed to get open deep. Maybe he doesn't have 500 yards, but I do think he will have 15-25 catches, but w/ a high ypc avg making his receiving yards higher than most would expect.

One, while we always say we are a running team, I am not sure the stats necessarily support that. Last year, we passed nearly 100 more times than we ran it. The year before? Nearly 150 more times. Year before that? Closer, but edge still goes to the QB. Two, even if you say we are still a running team, does that mean we can't have the receptions? Last year, we passed it 527 times. If you put a good completion % w/ that, and a decent ypp average, I think you will find 340 or so completions is still very realistic. Further, I think most here believe our offense will be better. If that is the case, that means more 1st downs, and thus more total downs. Sure, that means more runs, but it also means more passes. Three, the point was not necessarily to predict who will have what, but to point out the potential. Even looking at it from a conservative angle, I think the potential is considerable. I said myself there is no way all those WRs get the catch totals I threw out there. That would likely mean Cutler would have 400+ completions and be the top QB in the league. The point is more about how drastically better our situation "looks" right now.

This year, our passing game outlook is simply so different, it is hard to grasp. We have a franchise, top 5 potential QB. We have an upgraded OL which may not be great, but looks pretty good. While we do not have "elite" WR talent (proven) we have considerable potential and quantity, more than I believe I can recall in some time. I have been playing w/ the numbers, and just have a hard time rationing out the stats. IMHO, looking at Cutler, I think 4,000 yards on 340 completions is not out of the question. I know the yardage total is lower than last year, but we are not going to be as pass happy as Denver. The 340 catches is actually more than he had last year, but I think he could see more short/intermediate passes in our system. Both stats would put him in or near the top 5, but not w/ ridiculous expectations. Frankly, the numbers could actually be lower, but the point is, how are those numbers spread out? Hester had 51-665 last year in a crap offense. I think he could easily see 60 catches this year, and w/ the improved deep ball, his ypc could jump too. Say 65-1000 (just over 15 ypc avg) Those are conservative numbers IMHO. Olsen 54-574 (10.6 ypc avg) last year. Many think this could be his year to emerge. But again, staying conservative, say 65 catches, but w/ a higher ypc avg as he can work downfield more, his numbers could improve to about 65-850 (just over 13 ypc) Forte had 63 catches last year. While I think his catches drop due to more receiving options, it is hard to see them falling off all-together. Say he has 55 catches, and around 8 ypc, for 450 yards. Clark had 41-367 (9 ypc) last year. While he may not be as involved, he will still get opportunities, and makes the most of his opportunities. And as well as we did w/ the 2 TE sets, I just have a hard time seeing Clark dropping from the plans, especially as he is our most experienced receiver. Say 40-400. Now it gets interesting, as I think we have several young receiving options w/ considerable potential. Bennett is Cutler's boy, and visa versa. More than any on the roster, Bennett will enter camp w/ some chemistry w/ Cutler. He was held back last year by our staff's insistence he learn every WR position and route, but expectations are considerable for him this year. I think he very much has 50 catch potential. Lets give him moderate ypc totals, and put him at 50-550. Iglesias is one of my favorites, and simply a player I can not see failing to make an impact as a rookie. His ability to get get off the LOS, seperate from the DB and catch the ball are just too great. Again, I see a 50 catch potential WR, though his ypc will not be great. Lets give him 50-550. Knox is a player who I do not think makes a consistent impact, but I think does get some deep balls. Think Devery Henderson. Total catches isn't high, but w/ sick ypc averages, his yardage totals surprise. 25 catches for 500 yards. But here is the problem. Add those up and you get 350-4300. Um, that is assuming we don't ever throw to McKie (and you know Turner will), Davis, Kevin Jones or our new 3rd TE/FB. And, as I said, IMHO, I am using some conservative numbers as i think many here, when looking at players individually, are thinking several of these guys (Hester, Olsen, Bennett) end up w/ stats greater than what I listed. I just do not recall a time when I struggled to figure out how we are going to spread the ball around. Damn its nice to have a legit QB.

Hey, I agree that solid or great QBs make average WRs a lot better. I am counting on that fact. But I have to ask: (a) When you say "emerge" what do you mean. Are you saying one of our WRs enters pro bowl territory? Are we talking about 90-100 catches or 1,400 yards? What do you mean by "emerge" ( Who do you expect to "emerge"? I have a hard time seeing Hester becoming a 100 catch receiver. While I think he has playmaking ability, I think he lacks the consistency to knotch such high catch numbers. While I would like to see a rookie (and Bennett may as well be a rookie) do it, I am not sure I can see it. I realize Royal had 90 catches, but he was also playing opposite Marshall, and I do not see Cutler throwing the ball 600+ times for us. IMHO, when I say I can see 4 or 5 WRs w/ 50+ catches, I am in fact saying several WRs will emerge. Since Hester is the only WR w/ an NFL catch (I am not counting Davis as I think he will be relegated to special teams mostly), my statement thus implies not one, but at least two players who have never caught an NFL pass will go from zero catches to 50+. I would call that "emerging". I think Hester could emerge as a playmaker, and end up w/ impressive yardage and ypc numbers, but I just do not see him as a 90-100 catch WR. The only player who I could see "emerge" in the sense of high catch numbers is Olsen, as he may well have that potential, and has 54 catch season to build from. At the same time, I think we will continue to rotate w/ Clark, and w/ more talent at WR, see the ball spread around more. Thus, while I think Olsen may well emerge as a threat, I do not see him entering Gate/Gonzalez/Winslow statistical territory. Hey, I would love it if one of our receivers (WR or TE) stepped up to enter the elite territory. I just feel it is more likely we see multiple receivers step up this year, but no one player stepping up to the elite range.

Hey Biff, go wash my car, and put an extra coat of wax on it this time. Exactly what assets do you believe we have which would equate to a 1st round draft pick. I am sure I can come up w/ a couple which would net us the equivalent to a 3rd, but a 1st?

Said in another thread, but will say here as well. I do not think we finish the year w/ a single receiver w/ as many as 80 catches, but at the same time, I do think we could see 4 or 5 recievers w/ 50+. While we do not have that single, elite playmaker like Marshall, I think we may well have quantity on the roster this year. I see a season where Cutler really spreads the ball around. We may not have that one receiver that creates huge matchup problems for defenses, but may have a situation where we have enough solid targets that a defense could struggle to defend just the same. Also, I think the combo of (a) better OL pass protection ( solid rushing threat and © QB known for his ability to move around and buy time and (d) a QB with a dangerous arm, will open things up down field. Olsen no longer will be limited to short, quicker throws, and can finally use the downfield ability he was drafted for. Hester can not only be sent deep, but have a QB w/ the ability to put it in his hands. And then there is Knox, who also provides that deep play threat. And, different from in the past, we can add solid short passing to partner w/ the downfield ability. In Iglesias, Bennett and Clark, we have solid short to mid range potential, which could be truly opened up w/ the deep threats. I just see great potential to spread the ball around. We may not have that one truly elite WR, but have so many potential threats that we create defensive mismatches just the same.

IMHO, he had more proven, goto potential in Denver (Marshall alone would equate to this) but in Chicago, he may have a greater number of options. In Chicago, he may not have that one elite WR he can look to on any given play, but he will have more options overall, and for a QB like Cutler, he can buy time and work through progressions, that is a great asset. That is why I think, at the end of the year when we look at the receivers stats, no one WR will truly stand out as looking "great" but numerous could look very good. I think we could have an offense where we see the ball really spread around, and see 4 or 5 receivers w/ 50+ catches.

Sorry, but while I have no idea what Wolfe's blocking ability is, I have to really question when you say AP can handle the blitz. That isn't what I have seen. I remember when Benson was on the team talking about this. Benson struggled in blitz protection due to a lack of knowledge. Too often, he would get caught out of position. When he was in position though, he was actually a damn good blocker. He literally stood up the blitzers when I watched. AP was the opposite. AP seemed to better have the knowledge, and knew where his responsibility was. The problem was, he did little to even slow the progress of the blitzer. I remember watching his getting flat out blown backward. Once, he was literally thrown into the QB. Other times he was dismissed like a rag doll. Then AP began to dive at the blitzers knees, which was even more ugly. I remember several times the blitzer just leaping over AP and proceed to the QB w/ little to no break in stride. AP is a "decent" runner. No more. He is a pretty good receiver. He was an awful blocker. He used to excel on special teams, but last year was flat out bad, and even beyond sheer ability, was making boneheaded, rookie-esq brainfart mistakes. Wolfe is a solid outside runner, and very unproven/questionable inside runner. While unproven on the NFL level, is considered an excellent pass catcher, and that was a key reason he was drafted. Likely a poor blocker, and IMHO, the A#1 reason he hasn't seen the field more. He proved an excellent special teams player last year. To me, AP not only peaked, but has started to regress, and I just do not see much upside there. In Wolfe, we can question numerous areas of his game, but at the end of the day, I see Wolfe simply having far greater potential, both on offense and special teams.

I sort of question this. From all previous reports, we were in "serious" talk w/ Az. If the price was a 1st, 3rd and 5th, why would Az even answer the phone when we called, much less have serious conversation w/ us when we did not have a 1st round pick. Heck, we didn't even have a 3rd round pick, at least not for trade purposes, as we could not trade our Supp pick. You can say they may have wanted our 1st next year, but that is not equal to a 1st this year. Just seems the reports conflict a bit. If the price was a 1st, 3rd and 5th, then there was no reason for them to even speak w/ us. So either that price is off, or reports we were in serious discussion was off.

Um, no and no. Wale? An extension? IMHO, the staff was far closer to cutting him (if we could have added a replacement) than extending him. Now, I think Wale could look pretty good again this year, w/ upgraded coaching and talent on D, but I would not be looking to extend him. Give us a contract season effort, then we can talk, but likely not even then. Idonije. No thanks. Honestly, I have never understood the fuss about Idonije. Nice player for depth, sure. But I would also say he is fairly dime/dozen material. For our depth chart, I would much rather have players w/ a higher level of potential than Idonije.

One, everything I have read says (I believe) 3 of the players tied to this mess called the hotline, and were flat out told Starcaps does not contain any banned substances. Obviously, all the hotline did was look at the listed ingredients. But the point is, the hotline is tied to the league. The players called the hotline to find out if the pills were okay or contained something wrong, and were told there contained nothing wrong. Further, several comments have been made about two memos sent out by the league, but neither really seem to work, at least not for me. One memo, sent after learning of the Starcaps ingredients, simply told players to be careful of dieretic substances, w/o ever mentioning Starcaps specifically. I believe there was a 2nd memo at some point advising players not to be spokemen, or something like that, for Starcaps, but never mentioning why. Due to the league's overall stance on dietary supps, I am not sure much was thought from this. Final point. I read the banned substance is a perscription only substance. Thus players would believe such a substance can only be perscribed by a doctor. Yet Starcaps was on over the counter supplement. At the end of the day, Starcaps illegally added an ingredient to their product, and lied by not listing it. Players, prior to taking the product, called the league set up hotline for advise, and were told (even though the man in charge for the league knew Starcaps contained the banned substance) that no banned substances were in the pills. IMHO, the league should have essentially swept this under the rug and gave the players a pass.

The number of carries he got isn't indicative of his role in the offense; Choice was starting for Dallas the last four games of 2008, when both Barber and Jones were hurt. They used the run sparingly in those four games, because they were literally down to their last back, but he was starting. He was listed as the starter for three games, against Pittsburgh, Philly, and Baltimore. He was effectively a starter for the Giants game as well, since both other backs were injured and Barber was largely ineffective even when he wasn't held out. The four teams Choice faced have four of the NFL's best defenses. As a starter in those four games, this was Choice's stat line: 62 carries for 325 yards (5.2 YPC) and two touchdowns, plus 17 receptions for 163 yards, totalling 488 yards on 79 touches. One, I would point out, as you said yourself, when Dallas had to start Choice, they effectively became a passing team and ran the ball less. Would that not put into question Choice being a RB capable of carrying the load? To put the example on Chicago, if we kept AP and Forte/KJ went down, could you not see AP getting 20 carries? But when Dallas was forced to use Choice as a starter, they had to alter their offense because he isn't that sort of back. Choice was very much considered a change of pace back. They simply were forced to start him. I am not sure I see how that is so different than if we had Wolfe as our #3. Two, I live here in Dallas, and have to say, I think you have to look past the simple stat lines here. W/ Choice starting, Dallas went 1-3, and choice was part of the reason for that. Sure, his stats look impressive on paper, but on the field, he was simply not as productive. In each of those games, he showed off his speed (which is why the team liked him in the first place) and broke off a long run or two, which enhances the stats, but at the same time, his overall runs were less than great. Take the last game, for example. stat sheet shows 13 carries for 56 yards and a 4.3 ypc avg. That looks solid enough. However, he had one long run which sent his ypc avg from around 3.1 to 4.3. Not trying to take away the credit for the long run, but I think it worth pointing out he was not effective on the majority of his runs. In short, he put up over 120 yards of offense a game on about 20 touches per game. Granted, they weren't a run-heavy offense when he was starting, but those are pretty good numbers for a starting RB. Honestly, I am not sure Wolfe couldn't be that different. Wolfe, like Choice, would be very capable of breaking off a long run, which would enhance his stats. But more, I think Wolfe could be very effective, like Choice, as a receiver. As far as the Raiders: if there's one area where I wouldn't mind the Bears emulating Oakland, it's RB depth. I'm not saying the Raiders are a good team by any stretch of the imagination, but you have to concede that they have three very talented running backs. A competently coached team would be able to get a lot of production out of that platoon. Honestly, is their depth that much better than ours? Though Fargas got the bulk of carries last year, I would argue McFadden is their #1 RB. Would you not take Forte over McFadden? Fargas is their #2, and is he really that different from KJ? Fargas has been injury prone, and only moderatly effective, with one 1,000 yard season in his 7 seasons. Sounds a lot like KJ to me. Fargas may get a slight nod, but I honestly do not believe it is a big nod. The only awful year for KJ was last year, but that was also one he wasn't healthy and saw minimal action. Now that he is healthy, I wonder if Fargas is even better. Then there is Michael Bush, but he is a fairly different example too. Bush is sort of a change of pace back in a sense, though opposite of traditional thinking. He is nearly FB in size, and is seen as a power runner who compliments their speed rushers. So he is opposite from Wolfe, but similar in that neither are really viewed as everydown backs, but more change of pace (just different paces) I disagree with this line of reasoning, but I can see where you're coming from. Wolfe's skillset is certainly different from Forte's or Jones' - my question is first whether it's both different and useful, then whether that utility outweighs his lack of utility as an emergency starter. And I would ask this. What is more important. Having a 3rd RB who may only see the field if two other RBs go down w/ injury, or having a 3rd RB who may have a role, regardless of the health of the other RBs. Heck, i would argue that if Wolfe gets more touches, it could improve the chance for the #1 and #2 RBs to stay healthy. Having insurance is nice, but so is having something that works for you regardless of the situation. As I've said before, I think Wolfe's role is extremely limited by his lack of size and strength, such that we basically have to design plays around the one or two things that he can do well. It's true that Wolfe offers the screen/toss/trick play value when the other backs are healthy, but if Forte is healthy, he's a better receiver on screen passes. As for the tosses and fake punts and whatever, I'm not a fan of those to begin with. Compare Wolfe's value on the occasional trick play to his dramatic lack of value as an emergency back, and I question whether it's worth keeping him over a guy who can be an insurance policy, even if that guy would be on the bench under ideal circumstances. Not to knock Forte, but is Forte really better as a receiver? I know he has the stats, but I would argue that is more because of his ability to block, thus our staff keeping him on the field in such situations. Wolfe was always known as a great receiver, with great hands, and due to his pure athleticism and quickness, may actually offer after the catch ability than Forte. Regardless, I question the idea Wolfe is so limited. I do not believe he is limited to screens and trick plays. One, I would argue RBs can be used as receivers for far more than screens. Two, I would argue that if we have an OL which can create a hole, and our new OL may well be capable of such, Wolfe may be effective as a runner, even inside. No, I would not use him on 3rd and short, and run him inside, but I do believe he can bring something as a RB in general. I think it's unwise to downplay the importance of a third receiver who can start if needed: Peterson may not sniff the field unless Forte and Jones get hurt, but running backs get injured all the time. As we saw with the Cowboys last season, it's definitely possible for your first two running backs to go down. How many RBs did Denver lose in 2008? I understand this. But while I am not discounting the importance of such insurance, at the same time, I also feel there is significant value in a player who can play in any game. In Wolfe, you have a player who could have a role in every game, regardless of the health of your starters. In AP, you have a player who really is only useful as insurance. Ultimately, I think it's a question of which is more valuable: the niche value that Wolfe has, or an insurance policy against injuries at a position where they're commonplace. In an ideal world, I'd like to have complementary skill sets between the first two backs on the depth chart, and I think if Jones is healthy, he can be a slashing, Derrick Ward-type back. Even if your first two backs are similar skill-wise, however, I think you still need an all-around back as your third guy. Injuries are just too common to move forward without a real emergency back. One. I think an initial disagreement is in the belief Wolfe is no more than a niche player. While I agree he is not one I want on 3rd and short, at the same time, I believe he can be used for more than screens and trick plays. Two. I agree that a large part of the question is value of an insurance player vs a player who may be useful in every game, though on a more limited basis. We simply disagree on the answer of his question. Three. In a perfect world, I would say this. Neither Wolfe, nor AP, would be my ideal #3 RB. In a perfect world, I would want a #3 which (a) offers attributes than your starter and #2 and ( would be capable of starting if the need arrises. To me, a more ideal #3 RB would be a "bigger" RB. While Forte proved solid as a 3rd down RB, I think there would be value in having a big RB who could take some of the punishment away from him. That could also lengthen his career. Ultimately, I likely am biased here. I have never been a huge Wolfe fan, going back even to the draft, but I have just so soured on AP. I never thought he was that good in terms of RB play. I always felt he was a great special teams player, and good enough in a pinch. But in the last couple years, I have seen his RB play slip, as well as his special teams play. At RB, I felt he was an awful blocker the last two years, and even talked about how I felt Benson was a better blocker than AP. As a runner, I just do not believe he gives us that much. And as a special teams player, last year, he was more of a liability than an asset, and that really hurts his value. I have felt for a while it was time to move on from AP, and while I like him as a person, I just believe he holds us back from upgrading our depth chart.

One of the top deal breakers for me is some players actually called the league's substance hotline, and asked about Starcaps. Their answer, from the league, was that Starcaps did not contain any banned substances, even though the league knew it did.

I don't like that analogy. What they did is use unregulated diet supplements not something regulated by the FDA like Advil. I remember when those hydroxy-cut ads started on TV. I thought they sounded like somethng cool to try and drop a few pounds. Then my better sense kicked in and I thought "That sounds too easy." Now it's been recalled because it causes kidney damage. Okay, not apples to apples, but I still believe the point is valid. I absolutely understand personal responsibility, and frankly do not believe there is enough of it today. At the same time, when certain parties involved in a situation lie or mislead, I think that puts a different spin on the matter. The bottom line on this is that it's risky to take ANYTHING to lose weight. If you can't do it by eating less and getting exercise, then there is a price to pay for whatever you take. That seems a bit generalized. I believe many, if not most, players take something. Let me ask you this. How about vitamins. Wanna bet many, if not most, players take some sort of vitamin? Are those regulared any different than diet supplements? What happens in the manufactuer lies about what is in the vitamin. Or would you say a player should simply eat more healthy and not need vitamins? That's totally not what happened. The league sent out a notice saying that Starcaps specifically was not approved by the league. If I tell you not to drive fast on wet roads with cliffs on one side, do I need to tell you why too? Also, bumentanide isn't neccesarily harmful either. It's a banned substance because it can be used as a masking agent. First, I am not sure that is accurate, or at least the way you are proposing it. At least not the way I understand the events. The league, at some point, did send out a notice that starcaps was not approved, but that doesn't necessarily mean jack. It wasn't said it was against the rules, but meerly that it was not on the approved list, which may mean nothing more than it hasn't been tested an approved. That is a far cry from saying it wasn't approved in the sense of saying he can't be taken. If the league said Starcaps were against the rules, I would agree w/ you, but I have yet to read that is what happened. Second, reports show some players actually called the NFL hotline to inquire about starcaps, and the answer recieved was that starcaps did not contain any banned substances. So the man in charge for the NFL when it comes to supplements and such knew starcaps had a banned substance, and knew it was not labeled, but not only held the info back from the players, but didn't even have that info available for the league hotline which players are supposed to call. Sorry, but IMHO, this just makes the NFL look very bad. They knew starcaps had the banned substance, and per the League doctor's own testimony, he held back the info because he feared anyone testing positive would claim to have taken starcaps. While the players hold a high level of personal responsibility, I also believe the league owns a level of responsibility in such matters, and holding the info back gives them a huge black eye.

Some of the most damning stuff I ever heard about Dusty came from Sapp, who was doing an interview on the Score. For any who do not know, Sapp actually works as an anaylist w/, I think, NFL Network. So in Warren Sapp, you have an individual who: former player, played DT, played in the cover two scheme, played when Lovie was in TB and today watches film, as opposed to just spouting off. So for me, Sapps comments went a long way. Anyway, Sapp said Dusty was absolutely worthless. He pointed to several players where Dusty not only failed to beat his man, but actually allowed himself to be blocking into Harris, killing Harris chance of doing anything. Dusty at DT not only hurt the team by not having a player capable of making a play, but Sapp pointed to how his poor play directly affected the play of Urlacher and Harris, not to mention the DEs. I have to disagree w/ the Booger to Adams comparison though. While both are stout against the run, Booker actually had a decent about of quickness (for his size) and was better capable of attacking the QB. I believe he even notched like 6.5 sacks one year. Don't get me wrong. I am not calling him a pass rusher, but simply stating he had greater penetration capability than Adams. And that is the key difference. Lovie wants 4 DL who can rush the passer. I have never agreed w/ this, but that has always been what Lovie wants. Just look at the DTs we have been drafting since Lovie was the coach, and we moved to his system. Gone were the run stuffing DTs like Traylor and Washington, and in come DTs like Harris, Tank, Dusty and more recent, Gilbert. Lovie wants his NT/DT to be stout against the run, but also believes that player should be capable of rushing the passer. In Adams, I think Lovie see's a pure run stuffing DT, incapable of attacking the passer. I personally would argue Adams helps our pass rush by (a) helping collapse the pocket, which prevents the QB from stepping up to avoid the DEs and potentially even pushes the QB back into the DEs path ( creating space for Harris to use a greater number of moves and © creating space for Urlacher to blitz up the gut. But Lovie, IMHO, simply views things different, and thus why I think Lovie doesn't really like Adams. I do not see Adams starting this year. I think, more likely, Harrison could be tagged to start. Adams and Gilbert will be part of the rotation.

One point I would make though. How many times do you see players sit out early on, and then come back to play at a high level. Even when they do, it usually takes time for that to happen. A month off is quite a bit of time. I don't think they would enter game 5 in true "football shape".

As a bear fan, I have no problem if a couple Viqueens are suspended. But taking bias out, I still think this case really makes the league look bad, and shows how stupid the rules can be. If a player takes something which has a listed ingredient which is on the league's banned substance list, then yes. they should get nailed. But in this case, the drug manufactuer left off the banned substance when listing the ingredients. I just do not understand how a player can be held responsible in such a circumstance. Before taking some advil, are they supposed to send the pills to the lab for testing to make sure only listed ingredients are in the pills? Further, I think the league simply looks bad here in that their doctor in charge of this stuff actually knew the pills had a banned substance which was not listed, and took minimal to no action to inform the players. That is a massive red flag IMHO. On one hand, the league talks about all these rules put in place to protect the safety and health of players, but then they have a doctor who does nothing when he finds out a pill is not listing a substance which can be harmful to a player. Again, as a bear fan, I would not bat an eye if suspensions were handed down, but as a football fan, I just really think this is BS.

Not sure I agree w/ this. One, looking at your examples. Dallas - Choice only had 2 games w/ more than 15 carries. He was viewed as a change of pace back, rather than one which could carry the load. Oakland - Yes, they had 3 backs which could all start, yet at the same time, is Oakland really an example we want to follow? Two, while I understand the idea of wanting a depth chart player who could fill in if injuries arise, I also think it valuable to have depth players who can be used even if all are healthy. If Forte stays healthy, AP may never see the field. Heck, for AP to see significant carries, two players need to be out at the same time. On the other hand, if both KJ and Forte are healthy, Wolfe could well still have a role, as he brings a different set of skills than the two in front of him. As a person, I like AP. But I think it is past time to move on. He really just does not offer much by way of offense. His skills are to similar, albeit lesser, than the starters in front of him, which means he only will see the field if both Forte and KJ go down. In the past, he made a big contribution on special teams, but this past year, he was frakly bad. Not only was he no longer making the plays, but he was also making some really stupid mental errors and costing the team. Wolfe is of a style neither Forte, nor KJ possess. At this point, I would much rather keep Wolfe than AP.