jason

Read the article. That's the entire point.

I would think mass transit advantages would be one of the reasons the Bears WOULD host a Super Bowl. The L is awesome, the Metra has a wide reach from Wisconsin to Dekalb County to almost Gary, Indiana, and the bus schedules in Chicago are very convenient. Weather? Not so much.

Maybe a little bit premature, but the odds are out for week 1. The Bears are ten point favorites. Is that an indication of how good the Bears are going to be, how bad the Colts were, or both?

Anyone care to enlighten me with the inside knowledge of what happened involving the McDome and all other details? http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/footb...,2107439.column

Yes, true, I hope so. But I wonder what will happen if/when the TOP victory leads to less stats for Cutler, Marshall, et al. Will there be problems on defense? What I hope for is the end of predictability. The last four or five OCs have been utterly predictable, especially Turner. I look forward to the day of seeing a formation and being consistently surprised about the results of the play. Far too often in the past we can see the formation and know immediately what is going to happen. If we can guess the play, so can the opponents.

LOL! Awesome.

My god how many times does this have to be explained to you? They did not get 4 WRs. They got two WRs, and two dudes who will play almost exclusively on ST. And, as stated, just because the Bears make a move doesn't make it the right thing to do. You may side with them, but if you side with them on everything you have about a 50% chance of being wrong.

Yes, because every move the Bears have ever made has been the correct move.

You are oversimplifying the word "easy." Do the Bears and other teams know the Packers are probably passing? Yes. Can they stop the Packers from passing successfully? Not really. Therefore, it's not all that easy to gameplan against them, because their offense still scores. If they have superior talent or a seemingly unstoppable play, then it requires a defensive adjustment (i.e. game-planning), and if that adjustment doesn't produce results, they are still difficult to gameplan against.

And yet, despite all his measurables, Summers was not drafted. It's not impossible to be an UDFA and make the NFL, but the odds are slimmer and it's an indication that the people in the NFL do not believe the player's talents equate to the NFL field.

Wesson Just like it was easy to game plan against the Packers because they had a week running game Me ...don't kid yourself, it was FAR from easy to gameplan against the Packers. They've been tearing the entire league a new ass for more than a few years. AZ54 Maybe scoring 10pts is getting torn up in your opinion but it seems to me one team has been right there holding their offense in check. (provides list of games in which Bears give up 22 PPG) Me I point out the 22PPG figure, and the oddity of that one game in which the Bears' D played well while the Packers' O played poorly. Then I ask you, "Do you consider giving up three TDs per game a defensive success for the Bears?" The reason for the question is obvious: The Bears gave up 22PPG, and the 10pt. game was an anomaly. My advice would be to read the ENTIRE thread. I simply replied to Wesson's original "the Packers are easy to gameplan against" statement by categorically and simply disproving it. Also, I never stated whether 22 PPG was successful; I merely asked a question. But you are right, the Bears have shown better success against the Packers' offense than average. One must also consider, if bringing up the Bears 22PPG, that they had more combined TDs via KR, PR, and Fumble/INT return than any other team in the league. Over a quarter of their TDs were non-offensive. The Packers, meanwhile, nearly doubled the Bears' total TDs and only had 10% of their TDs come from non-offensive sources, further proving the difficulty in gameplanning for their offense.

So the Bears have done better than average against the Packers...but still given up over 3 TDs per game. Interesting.

I admit the situations are different (especially the position switching), but I expect your full support in the next TO, Randy Moss, or OchoCinco thread.

Height does not necessarily equate to increased production, better hands, the ability to catch, the ability to run routes, shielding off defenders, making the catch at the maximum height possible, or a variety of other concepts that seem to elude you. If all of it did, then every team in the NFL would have something like a 95% success rate in the red zone with the fade route and/or jump ball.

1. Thank you. It's a sacrifice that gives less reps at DT (his actual position), provides minimal snaps at FB (his potential new position), and the combination - specifically because of how the two positions are played (e.g. hand positioning, body lean, receiving vs. delivering hits) - along with simply absorbing more hits, is what makes him more injury prone. The number of plays is nearly inconsequential because absorbing massive hits, especially if you are unaccustomed to the impact, weighs heavily on a body. Ask a non-boxer about getting punched in the stomach and you begin to understand this phenomenon. 2. Thank you. The potential benefit of his minimal offensive contributions are offset by the probable degradation of his defensive contributions. There is a reason why players don't play both ways any more. 3. Thank you. No further explanation needed.

HAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! Great post.

Great post. I didn't even consider the added aspect of more potential fumbles or injuries. You're dead-on with the first three bullet points.

I was referring to the Packers' elevated offensive statistics, not necessarily their games against the Bears. By and large, the Packers are not an easy team to gameplan for, regardless of whether or not they are overly pass-heavy. They've been a top-ten offense in the league for the majority of the past decade. In the games you've listed, the Packers averaged 22 PPG. As for the 10 point game, that was an abnormal game because A-The Bears had nearly nothing to play for, B-The Packers dropped more than one huge reception, C-Tillman made an incredible diving INT when the Packers were driving That was a very bad game for the Packers, and they still won 10-3. If things don't go sour for them, they probably put up something really close to their 22 PPG average. Do you consider giving up three TDs per game a defensive success for the Bears?

Again, the "what can it hurt" mentality. For one, it could hurt cohesion, since Cutler is very familiar with Bennett, Marshall, and Hester. It doesn't take a lot of extra thought to see why putting in a rookie WR for tons of snaps has other potential problems.

Bigger & faster is far too simplistic for determining who the better blocker is. It's the "why not" mentality that bothers me because then we get back into talking about Urlacher returning a punt or Briggs trying a FG.

I prefer a balanced attack, but don't kid yourself, it was FAR from easy to gameplan against the Packers. They've been tearing the entire league a new ass for more than a few years.

You're confusing "what a player did in college" with "what a player was scouted to do in the pros." Urlacher was scouted to be a NFL LB. It's possible for someone to play, get scouted, and get drafted for the same position, but that's not the case with Urlacher. Nor is it the same for Clutts. Which is why neither comparison works. Melton played, was scouted, and was drafted to play DT. As for "teams do what they feel will make their teams better," the key word is "feel." It's far from a certainty that their decisions will lead to successes. And in terms of the Bears and their last decade of data, it's hard to be very confident with what they "feel."

I don't think you recognized my sarcasm. I think the player switches are bad ideas. Players who make the NFL should play at the position in which they made or were scouted favorably for the NFL. Clutts wasn't good enough at his college position to make the NFL. His subsequent efforts at FB were good enough to get him into the NFL. That's where he should play, and Melton should play DT. The Bears didn't draft Melton because he used to play RB. IF that were the reason, this board would have collectively seizured.

Now this I agree with...which is why I, once again, am one of the few people who was in favor of Martz (because he's much more about passing than running). Hell, I was in favor of Crowton. I still don't know if the Rodriguez pick was a good one. I hope I'm wrong and he's Hernandez 2.0, but right now I don't see the Bears making a one-year change into a pass-heavy team that employs a double-TE set very frequently...particularly with one of the worst OLs in the NFL. Maybe it'll be a two-year work in progress, and that would be fine. I'm just pessimistic is all.

Agreed. But those teams are not the Bears, and haven't been the Bears as long as I've been alive. The second part of the equation "grind down the clock" is definitely something Lovie Smith is a fan of, but the "build a lead using the passing game" part is very abnormal for the Bears. I'd love for them to turn into the Patriots 2.0, but until that happens the Rodriguez draft pick is curious.