jason

Um, except that is something completely different. You just basically supported my statement. Has he held on to wins while having the lead? It appears so. Does he step on their necks and put games away? Absolutely not. You didn't come close to even hitting this one in the same ball park. Very true, both are considered good at their positions. Both are well liked. But I haven't seen that much out of the DL under Marinelli's tenure. If anything, Peppers seems a bit less impactful overall than when he was in Carolina. And Tice, regardless of how much people think of him, has improved the OL very little while in Chicago. Regardless of all the fluff media pieces, the OL still sucks, and there has been nearly no noticable improvement from anyone other than probably Louis. Agreed. They don't win games. But the difference is, Bellichek doesn't straight up lie to us. He just deadpans. Oh, and he's a significantly better coach than Lovie. And by significantly better, I mean it's so uneven it's comical. So he's got that, and his three Super Bowl wins, going for him. The Lovie-2 scheme, by design, tries to significantly slow down the game, hope for turnovers, but rarely does it actually attack. It dares the opponent to go slowly down the field, piece by piece. He'd prefer his offenses to play the same way. It's not "believing" not to lose; it's "playing" not to lose. Of course he wants to win. But to do so, he plays not to lose. This is kind of the same thing as #1. When Lovie's teams get the lead, they don't continue to crush the opponent. Sometimes the accumulation of effort leads to a lopsided score, but it's not common. A ten point lead and Lovie is looking at the clock. This is not speculation; it's exactly what has happened the entire time he has been in Chicago. Being content with holding on to the lead is what Lovie is all about. It's been moderately successful while he's been here, but it's not the same as being aggressive and trying to put the game out of reach (i.e. "playing to win").

It's definitely an odd situation. Lovie's positives: -Gets players to play hard -Players love him -Players are willing to stand by him and persuade others to come to the team Lovie's negatives: -Defensive system is outdated and flawed -Won't step on an opponent's throat when leading a game -Believes in "playing not to lose" more than "playing to win" -Almost exclusively hires his cronies and friends -Nearly a complete failure at player development -Has horrible game management -Has even worse time management -Has even worse instant replay intuition -Has even worse press conferences -And if he was involved in the draft, he's much more interested in his defense than offense\ All that said, if he can continue to bring in big name free agents, it's easier to overlook his flaws.

He was indeed a pass catching TE. But he was also a pass dropping TE, a ball fumbling TE, and one of the weakest "big" TEs in the NFL. I see no reason the Bears can't get the same type of production out of Kellen Davis. He may be slower than Olsen, but his hands are just as good, and he shields defenders better than Olsen ever did. And, although we haven't seen it, I'm willing to bet he fights for contested balls better than Olsen does. I liked the guy, but I wasn't terribly upset to see him go, regardless of the reasons for his departure.

Yeah, because an employee who has never done something before is exactly the kind of guy you want running your multi-million dollar operation. Unless that guy, whoever it is, has been elbow-deep in the business of draft picks, scouting, and salary cap, then it's not a wise move. The more experienced guy, in terms of GMs, is probably a better answer. And particularly so for an organization that has clear management problems.

AMEN. One of the best posts ever put on this board.

If he's been pulling the strings since he's been in GB, then he's a quality GM with a history of successful drafts, an offensive-lean to his picks, and with more hits than misses on the big picks. I also like the consistent effort to find and cultivate QB talent. And taking him away from the Packers is a win-win for the Bears...assuming he was the one behind the picks.

Same damn thing happened with Jauron the moron.

But since JA has done nearly nothing successful to address the two major areas of need for the Bears (i.e. OL & WR), and those deficiencies directly affect any OC's ability to implement their complete system (regardless of what it is), it's an even more positive sign that JA is gone. Seriously, imagine being told you are the OC of an NFL team, but then being forced to use only half of your playbook because when you try the other half the team shits the bed? Many like Martz leaving, but the fact that JA got fired should have a more positive impact.

And as long as the Bears have a HC like Lovie Smith (unless the new GM ignores his HC), there will be significantly more focus on defense than offense, a desire to shorten the game as it compliments Lovie's defense, and a problem with any OC that attempts other than a vanilla offense intended to burn time more than score points.

Phillips - Hell yes. GM - I'd still prefer a proven guy. Offensive minded coach - HAHAHAHAHA...C'mon...the Bears don't do that. The last two guys, who weren't even the HC, that tried anything other than "3 yards and a cloud of dust" were almost universally hated by Bears fans.

I'm happy with the JA firing, and lukewarm on Martz resigning (mostly because I believe JA's failures have made it nearly impossible for Martz to truly succeed or implement a complete offense). However, there is still quite a bit of cause for concern. 1. Ted Phillips is apparently in charge. He is not a football guy. 2. Any new GM will be forced to take Lovie. Most superiors don't like subordinates forced upon them. This is especially true in the world of GMs. 3. Any new OC will almost certainly be weak. They won't want to be under a HC on thin ice with a new GM who will probably want to hire his own guy quite soon. 4. Number 3 makes "Mike Tice named the new Chicago Bears' OC" a likely scenario in a future press conference. This is problematic for two reasons: 5. He has never called offensive plays. 6. If he actually believes the OL is good, then he's either blind, an idiot, or a bad talent evaluator. Hopefully he was just saying what needed to be said in press conferences, but it's nonetheless disconcerting. 7. Cutler has to learn yet another offense. 8. The offensive scheme will change, and may not suit what little talent is on the offensive side of the ball. 9. Forte has to begin contract negotiations anew. 10. While many had issues with the offensive scheme, the defensive scheme has just as many problems, if not more. It has been exploited numerous times. It has been figured out. And it will remain the same next year.

I don't know if that's the entire picture. His son didn't become GM until 2009. Also, you left out the following Polian picks: 98 - Peyton Manning 99 - Edgerrin James 00 - Rob Morris 01 - Reggie Wayne 02 - Dwight Freeney 03 - Dallas Clark 04 - Bob Sanders Aside from 2000, that's a first round stud in every draft. Manning, Wayne, Freeney, and Clark probably go to the Hall of Fame. James might have if not for injuries and a horrible decision to go to Arizona. Bob Sanders has the talent but not the health. That's 7 good ones out of 8 picks. Factor in 2 out of 6 from the above selections (the two, right now, are Brown and Castonzo), and you have 9 out of 14. Pretty good in my book, even if he is in a slump.

Please let it be Polian...Please let it be Polian...Please let it be Polian...Please let it be Polian...Please let it be Polian...Please let it be Polian...Please let it be Polian...Please let it be Polian...Please let it be Polian...Please let it be Polian...Please let it be Polian...Please let it be Polian...Please let it be Polian...Please let it be Polian...Please let it be Polian...Please let it be Polian...Please let it be Polian...Please let it be Polian...Please let it be Polian...Please let it be Polian...Please let it be Polian...Please let it be Polian...Please let it be Polian...Please let it be Polian...Please let it be Polian...

YES!!!!! Late Christmas present!!!

I never said it wasn't a risk. I just said that if we wanted a stud WR, we could have had two future hall of famers multiple times. And at one point in time, we could have had both of them on the same team.

That was easy enough... http://walterfootball.com/draft2012.php (old order) http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2012...-first-20-picks (current) One of the bottom two will probably be there at 16. At 19 there's less chance since the Jets might be having problems with Santonio Holmes and the Chargers might have to part ways with Vincent Jackson via FA. Either could get a WR to fill the potential void.

Do I believe we would have been 12 and 4 with Cutler? Yes. The Bears hung tough with some bad teams, and having Cutler would have been the difference. Were the Bears close to a Super Bowl winning team? It would have been very unlikely, but it was possible. The problem is, Lovie Smith teams just don't stomp a mudhole in opponents. They let bad teams hang around, and they turn games with great teams into ugly games. It's the Love-2 philosophy. Bend but don't break, make the opponent fight for big gains, hope for a mistake/turnover. I actually think losing out the way they did was much better for the team because they are better than 8-8, and getting better draft picks will help the team overall. It's just too bad the coaches were too stupid/stubborn to realize the last game didn't matter, and winning it would hurt the team more than losing it.

Maybe if they were smart they would. Knowing you can't make the playoffs this year should make you think about how you can make the playoffs, or have a better chance of going deep in the playoffs, next year. Nobody likes to lose, but sometimes it pays to think forward and plan ahead for the long haul. It's about the war, not the battle.

Just for the record, if someone has a torn MCL or torn ACL, they can walk right afterwards if able to withstand the pain. Mobility won't be the same, but it's possible. I should know, because I tore mine snowboarding and not only got down the rest of the slope, but also walked quite a bit afterwards. Whether or not he walked after the injury is virtually meaningless. The MRI is the real indicator.

And I still disagree. Webb was atrocious today and the others weren't that great...which is a lot like all but 4 or 5 games this year. Maybe it'll be way different when Carimi and Chris Williams get back, but unless C.Williams gets one last try at LT, there is still a massive problem on the left side, and uncertainty pretty much everywhere else.

Yes. Incredibly maddening. F' this talk about 8-8 is better for a team's psychology and mindset. That's just stupid. The players all know the last game was meaningless and ended up screwing them out of draft position.

That would be a stupid move for two reasons. Now that the Bears draft position is lower, the cost to move up just went up. It would require at least the first-rounder and the 1st third-rounder to move up. Second, it's a bad move because one of the WRs you so highly covet will almost certainly be there when the Bears select in the first round. No way Floyd and Jeffery go before the Bears pick. Trading up for a WR would be a waste unless some team was stupid enough to give the Bears a great deal on a move up for Blackmon...which isn't happening.

Unfortunately higher. Way to go Bears, you always know how to win that meaningless game towards the end of the season that gets you just outside of a superstar first rounder.

It depends on which first round picks and how far up you want to go. For instance, the Bears current pick and the last pick in the first round would get you as far as the top 6 or so. To get that additional first rounder, the Bears would probably have to give up their second rounder as well as the later third round pick. To recap: #2 & #3.2 for a late #1 Both #1s for a top 5 #1 Too rich. Especially for a team with multiple glaring needs.

Obviously, I like this idea.