jason

I haven't been to a game this year, and that makes it nearly impossible to see multiple receivers, but is Cutler simply targeting Marshall and nobody else? Or are the other receivers just never open?

It's not an insult if it's true. If you honestly thought Cutler held the ball too long on that play - which is exactly what your post said and implied - then it's either an ignorant or uninformed post. Nobody watching that objectively can think Cutler held the ball too long. He dropped back and the defender was already through the hole because of the missed assignment. If you meant it as a general statement, then maybe it's just convenient that you worded it poorly and just so happened to post it immediately after Cutler got sacked.

Oh good Lord, you have to be shitting me. That was an immediate slip through the OL by the defender. Cutler did not hold on to that too long. You're being absolutely ridiculous, or have your game on slow-motion. Also, for the record, that sack looks more on Rachal than Webb. Webb was supposed to go outside, but Rachal looks like he made the wrong read.

Webb. Good thing the Bears don't need offense right now.

HAHAHAHAHA! WHO NEEDS OFFENSE!!!???

My best friend is a Niners fan. He's STILL bitter about it. Just because I sympathize doesn't mean I want to empathize.

This game is better than some sex I've had. LOL

WHOOOOOOO NEEEEEEDS ANNNN OOOOOOFFFFEEEENSE?!!!!!

I knew I should have coughed up a couple hundred dollars and went to this game.

Tillman? That was UBERLACHER!

WHO NEEDS FREAKING OFFENSE!!!!!!

EXACTLY what I was thinking. It's 14-2, time for Lovie to start calling the deep cover-2 and the prevent. Lo and behold, easy pass over the middle.

That was a great pull by Rachal, and it was nice to see Webb at the second level. I'm not really impressed by the rugby scrum push; at that point the surge was inevitable because the D was standing and the O was pushing forward.

WHO NEEDS OFFENSE!? hahahaha

Webb.

WHO NEEDS OFFENSE!?

HAHAHA! Tillman. Love that dude.

I don't associate Rice with the Raiders or Montana with the Chiefs, but I get a sick feeling in my stomach when thinking about both situations. And they didn't even play for the Bears. It would be soul-crushing for me to see Urlacher in another jersey.

HAHA! Nice.

So you're telling me there is no difference in terms of play-calling as to what type of assistance a LT gets in the NFL based upon how good that LT is? That's ridiculous. The frequency matters. And the frequency is entirely dependent upon how good the LT is. The better the LT, the less frequently he needs help. That help can be used elsewhere, or sent out on a supplementary route.

Despite Marshall being on the team, and having great stats, the Bears offense is still not good. The passing offense is worse than last year. The debate was "add WRs and the OL looks better" vs. "add OL and the WRs look better." I think it's pretty clear that adding WRs hasn't made the OL look better. I believe, however, that adding OL would have made the WRs look better. As far as what I wanted to be done, I wanted it addressed in the draft or FA. Since major FA targets were unlikely - just as you said - the draft was a more intelligent approach. I don't know where the hell you get that Reiff and Martin both suck. The Dolphins have had Martin starting since day one, and are impressed with his performance. I am too. He has allowed one sack and two QB hits. AS A ROOKIE. Also, this just in, but the Dolphins are probably the surprise of the league, and it has a decent amount to do with the fact that Martin is not playing like a rookie. As for Reiff, what did you expect him to do on the Lions? Start over Jeff Backus? Dude has started for a decade straight, there is no way Reiff was taking the job from him.

Wow. Now that's crazy talk. But since you're into the hypothetical... They would have probably made the playoffs last year with Campbell as a backup, but who's to say the OL wouldn't have gotten him injured? And even more hypothetical, what if the OL was stellar last year? Maybe Cutler feels more comfortable and confident, doesn't have pressure in his face, doesn't feel the blitz around the end, and he never throws the INT?

No. There were many on this board who said the OL problems would be severely minimized if the WR position was vastly improved. Their reasoning was that Cutler could throw it quicker, and have more confidence in his receivers, which would make the time in pocket minimized. Trust me, the discussion was had on more than one occasion. As far as improvement goes, the team has improved. The record has improved. The offense has not.

I'm hoping they both accept less money to remain with the Bears. Further, I'm hoping Hester realizes his limited abilities at WR, and accepts a "demotion" to a special teams player who rarely gets in on offensive plays. Maybe then he can focus and return to the ways of previous years when he was the most feared returner in NFL history.

You're setting up the strawman. I wouldn't require 1st rounders across the board on the OL. I'd simply require a blend of talents, a yearly attention to a position group that sorely needs it. Arguing the way I am is actually in favor of the Lovie Smith draft philosophy (i.e. more picks at a specific position make a position better), because Lovie spent a lot of picks on the DL and it's doing well. It stands to reason that if he did the same thing for the OL, or any position, they would be a lot better. This is plain and simple logic. But when building a football team you can't put all (or a great majority) of your eggs in one basket. All I'm saying is that the OL should have been thrown a bone of the last several years. This is what Lovie and his front office has done: OL: 11,4,6,77777 DL: 11,222,33,44,55,7 To be honest, I think a more sound draft philosophy would be to flip-flop the OL/DL drafting strategy since the OL typically protects the most important player on the team. Look how bad the Bears looked when Cutler went down. Look how the NFL is steering towards an offense-dominated league. Look at how well the Bears do when Cutler gets time. Look at how poorly they do when he is running for his life. You're telling me the DL couldn't have spared one of those 2nd rounders? Maybe a 3rd? A 4th?! Tank Johnson in 2004? Coulda been Max Starks. Dusty Dvoracek in 2006? Coulda been Jahri Evans. Dan Bazuin in 2007? Coulda been Marshall Yanda. Marcus Harrison in 2008? Coulda been Carl Nicks. I'm not saying the OL replacements above would have been selected in the same slot as their DL counterparts. I'm just saying that none of those DL guys are consequential, and the pick could have helped the team elsewhere. And maybe, just maybe, if the HC/FO wasn't so focused on DL, a gem could have been discovered on the OL and we wouldn't be having this conversation for the 5th/6th/7th? year in a row.