jason

What's being ignored here is the difference in BPA. IF the top DT, DE, and FS are all rated equally, then you have to consider what's left. If the top guy at each position is a 90/100, and the next DE is 75, next DT is 85, and next FS is 60, it doesn't matter how deep the class is. There could be 20 FS's at 60, making the class deep, but there is no doubt the better value is the 90 FS because the next best DT and DE are better values than 60. Put another way, 90+85 and 90+75 each equal more than 90+60. In fantasy it's called value based drafting. I believe that's the case this year with HaHa Clinton Dix, because the next best FS is not early as good as the next best DT or DE. The DT/DE class is crazy deep for the first few rounds. Skip FS in the first round at your peril.

Oh....I would have cancelled my flight or changed it to his location just for the chance to bend his ear. I would have asked him at least 10 times, "Yeah, I like the D and all, but why do you keep sacrificing the OL and making the Bears a one-sided team?"

The point was that Lovie's presence would have lessened both the Bears' score and the opponent's score, but the former would be lessened much more, the his presence on D would have only accounted for a few points since the team would still have been ravaged by injuries, using rookies, and missing the previous season's leader. It's difficult to quantify how drastically better the offense was with Trestman, but the defense with Lovie would have been pretty much the same we're used to, only worse because of the aforementioned issues.

I'd say nearly a decade in Chicago told us what we needed to know about Lovie. The only reason he reached out to Tedford is because he was likely given a reality check when he got his pink slip after a 10-6 season. Speculation, yes, but it's hard to fathom him making a significant switch since he simply didn't do it while he felt safe in Chicago. He's a smart guy. He realized some of his mistakes once he got sent packing. In regards to the draft talk of what Lovie would/wouldn't have done, of course it's always speculative because he's no longer with the team. But his draft history and lack of attention to the OL the entire time in Chicago has been chronicled numerous times on this board. It's been broken down by round, by draft trade chart value, by comparison with the offense in general, and by comparison to the DL specifically. That's enough statistical, historical, and anecdotal backing for me to feel safe saying that he would not have changed, and the offense (mostly because of the OL) would have been the same old Lovie Smith offense if he weren't fired before the season. At a certain point, enough data makes something statistically significant, and not just baseless speculation.

That's true. But the inverse is also true. With a good back 4, the front 7 doesn't have to be as good.

That is a near perfect start in my opinion. A dominant FS, a dominant CB, a dominant DT. I don't like the RB pick at all, and would rather see Stork in the fourth. I'd be ecstatic if that's what happened in the draft.

Just an honest mistake. I put it all in excel and copied rows. I must have copy/pasted wrong. The point remains the same.

See, that's a ridiculous take in my opinion. You're comparing apples and oranges. We know Lovie's history. We have stats to support these assertions. It's not speculation when there is supporting data. I agree that Lovie had a better handle on the D last year than the Bears did this past season, but with the loss of Urlacher, and injuries, and rookies, he wouldn't have been able to make that large of an impact. Let him run the 2013 defense, and he maybe saves a few points per game. Maybe. It's something we don't know because he never had to deal with a season with that many key injuries, losses, and rookies. It was the perfect storm. And to say that "in theory" the defense should have improved under Trestman is just dumb. Absolutely everyone knew the Bears would take a step back on Defense. They were hiring an offensive coach, and had turnover in the defensive coaching/players. It's just that the injuries exacerbated things. On offense, however, it's absolutely not speculation that Lovie would have done a MUCH worse job than Trestman. Lovie had zero clue on offense, and it's the primary reason the Bears languished during his tenure. I'll give you one thing though...if Lovie were still here, he probably wouldn't have had the problems on defense the Bears had this year. At least not to that extent. And it's just not about coaching. He would have ensured the Bears drafted more defense, and perhaps spent more in free agency on a defensive player, because that's what he always did. Of course, that leads to the same problem he had the entire time he was in Chicago, and the problem that got worse with Cutler: a bad OL. If Lovie were still in Chicago we'd be talking about the offensive line in the draft again this year, because Webb would probably still be acting as a swinging gate and Lovie would have brought in some nobody to compete at the other tackle position while Garza acted as probably the best guy on the OL (hint: based on the informal Bearstalk poll, he's fourth).

I say why not. It took me less than two minutes of the following video to see that the kid has good speed, instincts, can shed blockers, is really strong, and takes good angles. I think the Bears have a spot on the roster for someone like that.

That's what I believe. With Lovie, it would have been worse. He might have been able to help some on defense, but I don't believe his coaching abilities would have been able to make that big of an impact for a variety of reasons. On offense, however, I believe Lovie is leaps and bounds behind Trestman and Kromer, and that difference would have been the big key. Maybe the Bears don't give up 29.9 per game with Lovie. But there is no way in hell they score at the clip they did this year. The former is a possibility. The latter is a guarantee.

Trestman's team scored 27.8 points per game and gave up 29.9 per game. Lovie Smith's teams averaged 20.93 points per game and gave up 19.2 points per game. I'll only highlight the games that I believe would change. WK 2 - 31-30 win over the Vikings. That's likely a loss. Lovie's teams rarely scored 31 points. 24-27 is likely, which gets the L. WK 3 - 40-23 win over the Steelers. This is potentially a loss. 31 would be a great game. 40 was outrageous under Lovie. Maybe the Bears get 30 in this one and squeak out a win. WK 6 - 27-21 win over the Giants. If Trestman's offense could only get 27, it's likely Lovie's would have been closer to the Giants score. WK 9 - 27-20 win over the Packers. Same as above. Also, this is almost certainly a loss. The Packers owned Lovie over the last few years. WK 14 - 45-28 win over the Vikings. Sorry, but 45 points is just not going to happen. It's probable still a win, but it would have been closer. Possible. WK 15 - 38-31 win over the Browns. This would have been a loss. The Bears scored 21 in the 4th quarter. Not gonna happen under Lovie. So that's 6 games. Even if you're fair about things, that's at best a 50/50 split. The Bears are likely 5-11. Maybe Lovie squeaks out one of the games I didn't mention. 6-10. At best.

Why? So the Bears could have done worse last year? He may have made the defense slightly better, even with all the injuries, but the offense would still have been severely stunted. Without a doubt, Lovie's Bears finish below .500 last year, and it would have been a much more boring ride.

I didn't see the duck. He got hit when he threw it. The difference, of course, is that Grossman didn't get hit on his throw. He just threw a lob and MuhMuh over-ran it.

It would be very interesting if the Bears decided that since they had such success in such a short amount of time with the OL, to go ahead and keep rolling the dice by moving Long to RT right away. That would open up the possibility of someone like Gabe Jackson from Mississippi State (projects as RG) in the 2nd round. Gabe Jackson next to Kyle Long would be REEdiculous. Mills is a great backup at that point.

That's fair. I didn't know you disagreed, or potentially disagreed, with this stuff. You present it and defend it as if you feel it's without doubt. As the other thread shows, nobody thus far puts Garza ahead of Bushrod, and the stats obviously don't tell the entire story.

Such a tough question...I think I also have to go with the Mike Brown back-to-back games. It was surreal. I can't remember ever feeling that excited about the Bears. As a lifelong fan, there is always a sense of dread. A foreboding that something is about to happen. When Mike Brown did it the first time, it was disbelief. The second time made me think the Bears were destined to win it all that season. Of course, they didn't, but that's how I felt during the rest of the season. It's the hopeful wishing after buying a lottery ticket.

So, because of the other thread, here's the official/unofficial offensive line rankings. Simple stuff. Rank the five Bears offensive linemen 1-5 throughout the year. Consider effectiveness, consistency, penalties, sacks, huge plays, leadership, dominance, responsibility, etc. For my money it's probably: 1) Bushrod - Huge problems before this year. Nearly no problems this year. Called on to man the most difficult position, and for the most part dominated. 2) Slauson - Rarely heard anything about him. That's good. An anchor for the OL. 3) Long - Had some rookie blunders, but more than made up for it with crushing blocks and attacks of the second level. 4) Garza - Average veteran who neither dominated nor screwed up a lot. He's the Center version of a game managing QB. 5) Mills - Very good rookie, but had plenty of problems. Shows promise, but he needs to take a good step forward next year for me to feel good.

That's like saying the moon caused less heat stroke than the sun. OF COURSE Garza would be less responsible for sacks! Bushrod had to deal with edge rushers. Defensive Ends whose primary job is to kill the QB. Meanwhile, Garza deals with mostly fat boys, guys designed to stop the run. And when he doesn't deal with those guys, he's dealing with guys who attack the gap, making it difficult to ascertain whose offensive line responsibility they become. And even then, I'm willing to bet there are significantly more double-teams on the inside moves than their are outside. Make no mistake, Bushrod is on an island much more than Garza is. That stat is nearly meaningless. Just because they both played on the offensive line doesn't mean that their responsibilities are the same, or that their stats should even correlate.

I know it's sarcasm coming from you, but any stats that put him as number two on the OL should seriously be questioned. No way he had a better year than Bushrod, Slausson. Maybe Long. The only one in question there is Long, but he had a ton of completely dominant plays that increase his average on the plays he didn't dominate.

Because the Bears coaches could tell him they will use him differently, and allow him to rush more. The sacks are what he has basically wanted, was denied because of scheme, and why he turned down the packers offer. Earlier in his career he was allowed to rush the passer more, and he did much better, but then they decided they wanted a traditional 3-4 NT.

So I'm thinking, "What does this team need?" A defensive player who can shore up the line of scrimmage, stop the run, let our athletic LBs make plays, and generally be a nuisance to the other team. The best fit, in my opinion, is BJ Raji. He fits the bill for every criteria above. On top of that, there are other perks: 1) He's disillusioned with Green Bay. They stuck him at NT and didn't let him rush the QB at all. He turned down a big, multi-year contract already. 2) He'd obviously give the Bears insight into the bitter rival's schemes. 3) He fits the bill whether the Bears go 3-4, 4-3, or 3-3-5. In the 3-4, he's a classic NT. He might not be happy about it, but he's very good at it. In the 4-3, he's still a NT but he has some rushing privileges. If, however, the Bears run the 3-3-5, which has been suggested, then it appears to have the benefits of being a hybrid system of sorts. 4) Numbers 1-3 could be used as a sales pitch when courting him. "We believe you have more to offer BJ! We think you can get after the QB as well as stop the run! You're not a 2-down guy; you're an all-pro DT!" Stealing a rival's defensive stud, fixing our run defense, and allowing the players we have to better exploit their abilities...seems like a great fit. Thoughts?

That would be a great start to free agency.

It's an interesting thought because it solves one issue and creates others. It allows Briggs to stay outside, where he apparently prefers. Problem is, he isn't really a 3-4 OLB because he lacks the skills to rush the edge. The best he'll do is charge in and occupy a blocker. On top of that, it throws Greene in the trash. The lineup would be McClellin, Bostic, Mosley, Briggs. No way Greene cracks that roster. Because of all that, I don't really like it that much. I'd much rather see an impact player up front or one in the secondary.

And typically larger wallets. Which, coming full circle, is kind of how Brian got them as well.

I took issue with the combination of on-field and off-field stuff. Sure, off the field Peanut is a guy I'd rather have my kids look up to. He appears to be just a great overall guy. But you included leadership, implying what they did on the field was part of the discussion. Divide the two and I agree with you for the most part. It just bugs me when Bears fans try to bag on Urlacher, like he didn't put in a decade worth of kicking ass.