jason

I guess this still a philosophical issue. WTF is Cutler supposed to do when he drops back, plants his back foot, and the first read is covered? Just throwing it away is intentional grounding. And he sure as hell doesn't have time to get to the second read. The OL has to provide more time than simply "first read." Contrast Cutler's time in the pocket with Newton's. There have been several plays where Newton is just hanging out, waiting for the 3rd or 4th read. Cutler never has that opportunity. The only sack I give completely to Cutler right now is the one on the screen. In that situation the QB can get away with a brutally underthrown ball as long as it's near the receiver's feet. He should have just gunned that into the ground a few yards forward.

I understood the first time, and still disagree. They might not even be one of the best tandems in the NFC. Below is the list of starging OGs in the NFC. The bolded tandems are almost certainly better than the combo of Rachal and Louis. LG RG DAL Livings Bernadeau NYG Boothe Snee PHI Mathis Watkins WAS Lichtensteiger Chester ARI Colledge Snyder SF Iupati Boone SEA Carpenter McQuistan STL Smith Dahl DET Sims Peterman GB Lang Sitton MIN Johnson Fusco ATL Blalock Reynolds CAR Silatolu Williams NO Grubbs Evans TB Nicks Larsen I think Rachal and Louis have been playing way better than expected. I'm happy about that. But they are not a top ten tandem, no way. There are easily a conservative 5 other tandems in the AFC that are better.

Ditto There is a reason hockey has goons.

In general, more people leave the Bears and improve then come to the Bears and improve I read "two of the best" as "two of the best." They are not two of the best ten guards in football. Louis might be in the top 20. Maybe. The "at least in my book"-part is your saving grace. Virtually nobody in the world will agree with the comment, but it is your book.

HAHAHAHA. C'mon man. Two of the best guards in football? That's nonsense. Rachal was dropped like a bad habit by the Niners before this year. That is not a trait of one of the best OGs in the league. Nicks, Snee, Dahl, Scott, Mankins, Grubbs, Mathis, Iupati, Waters, Evans, Yanda...c'mon man.

Yeah, but how does he hit a blocking sled!?!? That seems to be an important consideration.

Yes, but it should have been by a lot more. Maybe you're impressed or satisfied by underperformance, but I am not. That same game against the Packers, Broncos, Patriots, Giants, or just about any other team with a more explosive offense, and the Bears probably lose.

I was talking to a friend today who thinks the Bears barely break the top 5, or fall just outside, in power rankings. He pointed to the schedule said every team the Bears have played, other than the Packers, is bad, and the Bears lost that game. Are they ahead of the following teams? Texans Niners Giants Patriots Falcons

Yep. Stafford got nearly 150 yars on the last two drives when he barely got 100 on all previous drives.

Average the game out and he had several good plays, several average plays, several subpar plays, and a few horrible plays. People remember just the horrible. On one play it looked like he was standing on a frozen lake. Overall game was probably a C+ or close to it, but I didn't break down plays one-by-one. He doesn't suck, but he's not an all-star. He's decent right now. It's not like Wisconsin is known for producing pass-blocking geniuses. They produce road-graders.

What? It's the truth. Take away the contract, money, Tice's love-affair with Webb, the unfair way Williams has been bounced around positions, the whole floor-ceiling concept that has been discussed over and over again, and the result is Williams being a better player, but Webb having more extras.

Just about everything you said is true, but in terms of like/love, or whatever scale you want to use, I'm not as enthused. I love the wins, and I love the end result, but there is still a lot to be desired. Fortune is shining on the Bears right now, but a game where the Bears don't get those turnovers is very different. It's the entire problem with Lovie's "bend but don't break"-defense. When it works, it produces - for the most part - wins that should be a lot more lopsided than they are. This year has been the anomaly, with multiple blowouts. But when it doesn't work, we get to watch the opposing QB dink-and-dunk his way down the field with impunity. Last night's game felt more like a 30-7 game than what it was, and that's the major problem. Particularly when they go into prevent the majority of the fourth quarter and just let Stafford freely toss the ball down the field. He had somewhere around 150 yards on the final two drives, all because the Lovie Smith defensive philosophy at that point is to give up the field and hope for a turnover. It makes little sense since the previous three quarters yielded nearly nothing for the Lions. Three red-zone turnovers is VERY uncommon. And one of them was an inch or so from being a touchdown. If the history of the NFL is any indication, the Bears will not continue to get crazy turnover numbers like they have been getting. What then? Do they win with their stellar 296 yards of total offense? Or what if they put up those same numbers against a team that actually has a solid, balanced offense? I get uneasy because this is almost exactly how everyone was feeling during the Super Bowl year, despite many of the pessimists continually pointing to the flaws in the Bears' philosophy. And Peyton Manning picked the defense apart for the win. I sure hope it doesn't happen again. But, back to the point of your original post...I was much more pleased with the previous win, a complete dismantling of the Jaguars.

This is essentially what I have been saying the entire time. When you add up all the external factors, it's probably a smarter move to go with Webb. On-field, Williams is better - even if it is a slight difference - but the extras made the decision.

I don't know where you were reading, but the majority of the input on this board as well as the official board said Williams beat out Webb. I'm not saying it was something like 80-20 in favor of Williams, but it was majority. I think it comes down to something DBDB said earlier this year.

This was discussed ad nauseum, but based on strictly their preseason performance, it was either a Williams win or, like you said, a wash. That's near consensus over multiple boards. And honestly, I doubt there was more than a handful of people who actually broke down each play to accurately judge their performances. I think you might be right in the second part of your train of thought though; it's my belief this decision was made some time ago in the preseason. As for who cares...we all should since their A. Getting rid of a 1st round pick which shows bad drafting, B. Getting rid of a starter last year who at worst could be used as solid bench material, C. Getting rid of a guy who probably won the most important position on an OL that has, for multiple years, sucked. If Webb continues to improve, then the move doesn't bother me much. If he doesn't, it should bother us all, because a better choice was on the bench the entire time, but for some unknown reason they didn't want to give the guy a chance.

Chicken-egg-chicken-egg... One leads to the other. It's more likely he was not permitted to grab the LG or LT spot, than him being unable to do so. Especially since he played better than Webb overall in the preseason, and his previous play at LG was easily better than Spencer (who inexplicably got the start).

This. You don't cut a guy who was competing for the LT spot, and started at the LG spot the previous year, when he is only making $1M per year. This move doesn't make sense, and reeks of off-field issues.

Interesting http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/850698...est-week-6-news

Very good breakdown. I'd even say you can rule out Briggs for a secondary reason, because in this scheme a guy who has speed and instincts will succeed at his position. It's not like Briggs is the best tackler out there; people have been talking about his tackling problems for multiple years (no hitting problems though). You're right; this all hinges on Webb. The thing that sucks though is Webb will likely pull a Jauron/Lovie, doing just enough to keep his job when it matters, but not enough to really dominate. I think the first three rounds should be OT, CB, OG/C.

But in the grand scheme of things, it makes WAY more sense to draft OL early than it does for LB, particularly with the Lovie-2. It's a lot easier to find a great athlete and plug him into a LB position than it is to find a guy who can protect the QB. I'd love a probowler across the OL, but I know that's not going to happen. What I do what, however, is competence at every position, and I don't believe the Bears have that. Maybe the guys will improve the rest of the year and in week 17 I'll change my tune, but right now I'll trust history.

I would have loved it if the packers lost, but yesterday was a great day considering the Bears were on bye. Awesome.

I don't think you can just discount this year's draft because of a new GM. The same HC is still here, and the philosophy prevails.

The interior is not fine. You, and the parents of either Rachal or Spencer, are the only ones who think it is.

It's not a trick, nor is it arbitrary. It's a round, ten years. It's about the time when they officially started to ignore the OL. The year before that they got OL in the 1st and the 3rd, and the year before that they got help in the 3rd and the 5th. If you were talking about draft value charts, it wasn't clear. Nonetheless, if you were, then you basically agree that it's a completely moronic way of drafting. Anyone with a brain has to know this. And it's specifically the reason why the DL - the much favored of the two lines under the Bears current staff - under Lovie Smith has been much better than the OL. He favors the DL because he's thought of as a defensive coach, and the offense suffers as a direct result. Make no mistake, part of my point is that this strategy is tied to Lovie Smith and the type of team he'd like to have. Regarding your numbers, you are off. Since 2005: OL - Roughly* 1822 DL - Roughly 2134 *Some draft picks no longer exist as slated originally Since 2003: OL - 1821 DL - 4890 Even with the two first rounders, and even excluding 2003 & 2004, the Bears STILL have more DL draft chart value! Considering how ugly the rest of the data looks, this is damning.

Please stop. This has been done time and time and time again. Just grabbing two first rounders is not enough. Especially if one of them was injury prone and questioned out of college. It's the equivalent of betting half of your life savings on one bet, and the other half on a similar bet. Do we have to rehash the "sacks don't equal all pressure problems"-line of reasoning again? Go back and look at the last ten drafts. The OL has been drastically ignored when compared to the DL. And people wonder why the Bears have had good defenses and shit offenses. Since 2003 OT: 5 OG:5 DT:7 DE:9 Since 2003, by round OT: 1,1,7,7,7 OG: 6,7,7,7 DT: 1,2,2,3,3,4,5 DE: 1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,7 Since 2003, visually OT: XX-,---,---,---,---,---,XXX OG: ---,---,---,---,---,X--,XXX DT: X--,XX-,XX-X--,X--,---,--- DE: XX-,X--,X--,XX-,XX-,---,X-- See the difference? It is not, nor has it been for a decade, a "fair amount of attention."