jason

Are you serious, dude? First of all, credibility was not lost with the Williams vs. Webb discussion because Webb ended up being less than average (regardless of what ridiculous stats from PFF say). Williams did, in fact, play better overall than Webb in the preseason, and in my opinion should have started over Webb. Or at least have been given a shot once Webb played the way he did. You can't use the "but Webb started"-defense either, because it wasn't successful in any fashion (i.e. Lovie and Tice gone, Bears offense one of the worst in the NFL, Bears OL one of the worst units in the NFL). And we can never, NEVER know what Williams would have done had he been given the chances Webb had. It was plainly obvious that Tice gave Webb more looks and focus and support than he did Williams. Did Webb improve? Sure. But it's hard to go down from sucking as bad as he did the previous years. As for looking at three years of game film, I honestly don't know what it could be, but I believe it to be about something exterior to purely film. Because if they did look at three years of film they would have gotten rid of Webb before Carimi (2.x years of bad play is worse than 1 year of bad play). If Webb continues to improve, he won't remain the whipping boy. You can trust me on that. Especially if all the bodies coming into the Bears organization are meant to challenge at all positions. The article, however, makes it appear that Webb is getting little competition, regardless of the number of other OLinemen in camp. The problem is, and has been for multiple years with Bears fans, the memory of plays from a completed year always seem to improve over the actual production during the games. Webb was at best slightly below average last year, period. In comparison to the rest of the OL, he might have been the cleanest end of the turd, but he was still part of the turd.

You'd be surprised to know that I loathe coffee, and I wake up ready to piss vinegar. To quote Stripes, "Aaaaaaaarmy training, sir!" As for football, let's go at this a different way, since it's apparently not clear to you that the gap-style of defense up front directly relates to the scheme of the LBs and the secondary. 1. Do you think there can be varying levels of aggressiveness when it comes to defensive strategies and alignments? If yes... 2. Do you think Lovie coached a brand of 1-gap that was less aggressive because the players were coached to prioritize the gap over the pursuit?

So moving the goalposts huh? You admit that there doesn't appear to be much competition being thrown his way at RT?

I'm sorry if you can't comprehend multi-dimensional discussion that derails ever-so-slightly from the differences between 1 and 2 gap defenses, but there is a definite difference in aggressiveness that stretches beyond semantics. It's possible to be a 1-gap defense that concentrates more on gap responsibility than pressure (i.e. Lovie's M.O.). Sure, it works well in Lovie's grand scheme of things because it supports the concept of "make the other team eventually make a mistake," but it's not really the type of defense that attacks as much as it could. It's entirely the reason why we so often saw our DEs rush blindly on the outside, OT positioning be damned; the "gap" was more important than the pressure. The 2-gap, while more prone to gaping holes if players aren't on the same wavelength (the discipline part is where you are right in this discussion), is also a defense that provides better opportunities to confuse and dictate to an opposing offense.

Your interpretation is different than mine. The original snippet from a Pompeii Q&A: What are the chances somebody beats out J’Marcus Webb at RT? Is he locked in? -- @stcollins23, from Twitter The only way someone beats out Webb is if Webb falls on his face in camp. I’d be surprised if that happened. Webb probably has to show a little something just because he is dealing with an entirely new group of coaches. And he will have competition from Jonathan Scott, who is a consistent, veteran pro. Scott won’t fall on his face, and I would bet on that. But it’s Webb’s job to lose. Sounds like while there may be a lot of OLinemen in for competition, there isn't much competition being thrown Webb's way at RT. I don't see anything in there about him being solid, because he wasn't.

Exactly.

I'm not confusing it, I just disagree with your usage of aggressive. I view the 1-gap to be more passive and reactionary, saying to the opposing offense, "Here's what we have, beat it." Whereas the 2-gap dictates to the opponent's offense - through a moderate amount of unpredictability - what they are allowed to run. Lovie was all about "Here's what we have, beat it."

Define successful. Look at the stats from 2004 through last year. You'll find that the defense was, over the length of that period, average or slightly above average. Total yards - 4 and 5, 13.89 (years in the top 13, years in the bottom 13, average over career) Total points - 5 and 4, 10.11 Rushing yards - 6 and 3, 12.11 Rushing TDs - 5 and 4, 12.33 Rushing Y/A - 5 and 4, 12.33 Passing yards - 4 and 5, 17.44 Passing TDs - 6 and 3, 11.44 Passing Y/A - 6 and 3, 10.00 TOP - 2 and 7, 20.78 (I consider TOP to be just as much an indication of the defense's ability to get the opponent's offense off the field, as it is an indication of the offense's ability to keep the opponent's offense off the field.) The only metrics by which Lovie's defense over the course of his career in Chicago could unequivocally be considered successful would be takeaways - top half of the league every year except his first year here. Is that successful?

All I can think of is Dez White. Webb must be the same - great practice player, bad game player. That's the only excuse I can think of right now. Well, that and the fact that the Bears couldn't reinvent the ENTIRE OL in one offseason, and maybe Webb was just the lucky roll of the 5-sided die?

This part I agree with. If there are no changes in scheme, this defense could struggle somewhat. I think Urlacher will be missed (which was statistically proven last year).

There is where we always disagreed. The scheme was never really aggressive under Lovie. While the 1-gap/2-gap differences you mentioned are legit, there is simply not a single defense in the NFL - or the entire football world for that matter - that doesn't try to sack the quarterback. But that, in and of itself, doesn't mean the D is aggressive. The D under Lovie was not really aggressive; they were reactionary. They were fine with letting an opponent get small plays over and over because they figured percentage-wise it was likely there would be a stop or turnover before the entire field was traversed. Having said all that, it's no big surprise you prefer the one-gap scheme, and I prefer the alternative. I'd much rather see a coach who says, "No matter what the opposing offense runs, my scheme will cause chaos and they won't know what to do," than a coach who says, "We won't try to trick them, and they'll know what we're running...but we'll out-execute them."

Some of this may be an attempt to find the clean end of a turd, but at least he's trying. I have to commend him for that.

Nail on the head. How much change does a 10-6 team need? I hope he proves to be right, but it reeks of "new manager attempting to change things for the sake of change."

1. That's why I said "essentially," nobody else even thought about him. He was a Bear or nothing. 2. Bad footwork or not, he was a first founder with great potential and minimal chance to show his value on the field while healthy. 3. Bad character...meh. The Bears do not have the luxury to cut every guy who makes mistakes. The Bears need players. This is nothing new; you're right. I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now. If the Bears pass on all question marks they are severely limiting their potential talent pool. Not smart.

Idiots?! This is the Patriots. Not the Bears. I'd say their moves are above question until proven otherwise. Their track record speaks for itself.

This offseason: -Essentially cut a HOF MLB who was statistically proven to have a very positive effect on the defense -Traded a first round OT two years after he was drafted and before anyone really got to see him work a game while healthy, while simultaneously having one of the worst OLs in the NFL for 5+ consecutive years and having very little known quantities for depth -Cut a hybrid TE who was drafted with the premise of getting more targets for Jay and turning around the Bears horrible offense The first is still a question mark until we see the defense and the new pieces in action. The other two are premature and have other issues that have already been noted.

You're all about woulda coulda shoulda. Aromashodu looks good, but he has never been able to put it all together. There has to be a reason why. If I'm wrong with him or Cinnabon, they'd have most likely done something by now.

In terms of keeping our guys it's been disappointing.

Completely agree. Both moves, especially the ERod one, were rushed.

Not like he was going to be used as a hybrid anyway. The Fiametti signing says the staff wants a FB, not the guy we all hoped ERod would be.

I am, but this has been an offseason of disappointment in terms of FA. This move also feels like a "get rid of the old regime"-move just a little bit. The financial aspect obviously consequential here as well. And I've been on record as saying a team that puts money as their primary consideration is going to have issues. This also signals your boy Webb will probably start, which is bad news in my opinion (how many damn chances does this guy get?!). Perhaps most frustrating is the fact that Webb got multiple chances while the Bears two first round OTs of the future got dicked by Tice and moved inside to OG while a player (not just Webb) performing very poorly remained outside. Some will vomit, "Trust the staff," and all I can think of is the long debates on this board about how the GMs and coaches know soooo much and we know so little, and that's why we aren't qualified to question their decisions...decisions that have resulted in some dreadful drafts, pathetic coaching, questionable personnel decisions, and mediocre teams. Well, I seriously question this move. It feels less about player impact to the team and more about everything else.

Ahhh. Devin Aromashadu, perfect relation to this thread. Yet another guy with the measurables who has never been able fully to bring them bear...which is exactly the pipe dream, what if stuff that Cinnabon will result in.

I only said that because you said STFU. Don't like it, don't read it and don't reply.

I'd say its depressing because the OL sucked, isn't deep, and they're so quickly dumping a former first rounder a short time after he was drafted. I'd have liked the move more if he got into training camp and they could tell if he was fully healed from his injuries.

Eat shit. There isn't much to talk about on the board, and if you don't want to read it you don't have to. If Wesson insists that someone plays a position because of a label, and not because of the actual playing time, then it's pertinent when discussing the type of roster moves the Bears should make. In other words, it's pertinent to the board. Banal? Sure. Tedious? Sure. But what else is going on that hasn't been hammered into the ground? Nothing. And to be quite honest, this is a multi-leveled discussion because it goes back to Wesson harping on and on about how the Bears needed to sign like 12 WRs who were all 6'45" and over (lot of good that did the offense, since Cutler still had to run for his life like I said he would). Because of his playing time and his height, Weems is neither a WR nor a tall WR. He's a short ST player.