jason

Please, please, please...

Dude...you gotta be kidding me. I understand glass half full, but you're borderline drunk on the koolaide. All the talk out of camp about the DL looking awesome was probably a lot more of the OL looking horrible than action by the DL. The first three snaps against the Raiders - an average DL - showed us that. Snap #1: Caved in to and a run gets stuffed Snap #2: Crushed up the middle for the sack Snap #3: Dismissed on the edge for a sack There is no doubt that Martz' offense puts the QB in more jeopardy, but the Bears' OL is one of the 5 worst in the NFL, and it showed. If Cutler gets hurt this year, the fact that it wasn't addressed in the draft is borderline criminal, and the Bears' front office could all be accomplices to assault charges.

Things I liked: -Tons of formations -Multiple WR sets -Various formation shifts that had obvious intention -WIDE open WRs -A WIDE open TE on an out route (that reeks of play design) -Decent pass blocking -Aromashodu looks great, shields with his body well, and has rock solid hands. He MUST start. Things I didn't like: -QBs took hits, hard ones -Hanie looks completely lost, and "nobody is open" when he's in the game...if you know what I'm saying -Hanie has bad vision. On the DA touchdown, he completely overlooked Ta'ufo'uo standing by himself at the goalline Unrelated: -Did not like the running calls -Did not like the run blocking

Love this thread so much.

I've been saying it for years. I think the Bears have got very little out of WRs who could have been much better.

I'm with MadLith. This worries me, A LOT. You are changing where the focus should be. This is not about how good the DL is doing, this is about how poorly the OL is doing. It's hard to judge how well you are playing when your opponent is unquestionably inferior. Mark my words. This is one of those "playing against lesser competition" things, and it's going to hurt the Bears in the season if it continues.

Thank you for saving me the time. Spot on.

Not nearly as annoying as watching the Bears get constantly outcoached and watching the Bears' players so frequently go underdeveloped...and consequently underperform. Lovie isn't to blame for everything. Like most things in life, there is a medium that probably holds the truth. It comes down to percentages. What do you think Lovie's percentage is for the various failures (e.g. coaching, timing situations, hiring, player development, player usage) during his tenure? I'd say it's closer to the 100% ceiling than the 0% floor.

Truest post in this thread. Worth multiple rereads.

The rest after the bold is really unnecessary.

Disagree all you want, but Martz ALWAYS brings more points. 1-Completely rewrote the passing game in St. Louis, adding almost 15PPG his first year. Then he added another point the next year. 2-Added 3+ points his first year in St. Louis, and then 2+ more the next year. 3-Added 7+ points his first year in San Francisco If he has QB stability, the Bears are GUARANTEED to score more points. The defensive points are valid, but I don't think there is any doubt that the offense will score more this year.

I understand and agree with the skepticism, but 26th is just F'ing retarded. No way in hell the Bears are the 26th best team. With an offense that is GUARANTEED to score more points this year (Martz always improves points), and a defense that gets Pepp, Url, and Pisa added on, not to mention the fact that Hester will be returning focus to ST, there is just no way they are the 26th best team. Top 15 would have been more realistic.

AWESOME!!

That's one of the most unfair comparisons I've ever seen. Darren Sproles is on SD, who have a great OL. Leon Washington is on NYJ, who have a great OL. Garrett Wolfe on CHI, how have a horrible OL. One of the worst in the league. A better comparison is between him and Forte, a guy who had the rock ALL year. Runs of over 20 yards Forte ALSO only runs of over 20 yards TWICE, but the difference is he did it in 258 carries. That's 1 big carry for every 129, or thought of another way, it's 2 per season. Wow. Wolfe by comparison has 1 big carry every 34 carries. Runs of over 10 yards Forte had 11 or 12 runs of over 10 yards last year. Once again, in 258 carries. That's one 10+ carry for every 21-23 carries. By comparison, Wolfe had 6 for 68, which is a run of 10+ yards every 11 carries. I can understand if he doesn't get the carries this year because the Bears just got Taylor, and Forte is supposed to be somewhere near his rookie year. And before you bring it up, in Forte's rookie year... Five runs of over 20 yards...in 316 carries...that's 1 big carry every 63 carries. Fourteen or Fifteen runs of 10 or more yards...which is about 1:20 carries, when he was at his best.

If you believe what you have put, you're high. When Wolfe has been given a chance, he's produced fairly well. The problem is, he has only been given a handful of opportunities. I don't know where you are getting your stats, but here's his profootballreference page: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WolfGa00.htm Odd, but the juke move seemed to work here: And here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBfCZf8375o And here he is breaking tackles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrAxuCxIgk8 Look at his VERY limited opportunities. Then look at the number of big plays he's made. There are several, and that is fairly uncommon for a guy who almost never gets carries. Hell, he probably should have received a portion of Forte's carries last year since Forte stunk up the joint (which led to the acquisition of Taylor).

What I don't get is why you think Unga has some sort of unique skill set that doesn't overlap with Forte or Taylor, when the dude didn't even get drafted. Hell, if his skill set was that good, that unique, he more than likely would have been drafted...LIKE WOLFE. Also, it's not all about the OL...I don't believe that. But it sure as hell has a lot to do with it. And as long as the Bears' OL sucks, the RBs will not produce to their capacity.

Jolly is a dirtbag. I was at the Bears v. Packers game in Chicago, Week 16 in 2008. We heckled and yelled the entire game - which I believe had a direct effect on Mason Crosby missing a kick later - and Jolly was a complete unprofessional, challenging me and my friends to come onto the field and fight him. The guy is complete trash.

Hell, I didn't even know they were on sale. There goes my chances of getting tickets without getting robbed. Well...robbed more than through ticketmaster anyway.

I hope you're right. But what I see is a bigger, slower RB behind an OL that is not good at blocking, and worse at drive blocking. All the Unga pick does in a play like that is make the collision sound better as he's continually stuffed for no gain.

I view this as a Lovie decision, not a Martz decision. The addition of a RB is not necessary in a Martz offense because we have two RBs that can get short yardage, and we will have a ton of quick pass plays to get short yardage. If Martz is running the offense, the FB will not see much playing time. That is a FACT. The thing I've mentioned NUMEROUS times on this board is that WE JUST DON'T KNOW. I'd say if he made it this far, dominated in high school despite being told he was too small, dominated in college despite being told he was too small, then MAYBE, he might be another exception. They are rare, but he's in the NFL. Period. But until he's given the chance, we'll never know. When does Wolfe run? In the very rare downs that Unga would spell Forte and Taylor. To be quite honest, I don't see the reason for a third back with such a great 1-2 punch. But if there is a third, Wolfe adds more than Unga, IMHO. And this garbage about an all-purpose back...can it stop please. Aside from the run up the gut against the #1 rushing defense in the NFL, a play that didn't work with any RB behind the Bears OL against ANY defense the last couple years, he's done well when given the shot. I can't recall the game, but I remember Wolfe picking up the blitz fairly well a few times. The one that gets blown out of proportion, however, was when someone hurdled him in a freakish display of athleticism. He's less a liability than common misconception would have us believe. With Unga in, the Bears would be just as predictable as if Wolfe were in there. Guess what the play is! FB DIVE. Oh no, not this shit again. If you think Unga adds a more unique aspect to the offense then Wolfe, then I don't think you remember Wolfe in the open field. Whenever uniqueness Unga adds, Wolfe adds just as much. In my opinion, more. ESPECIALLY in a Martz offense where the field is spread so much.

Sadly, this can never be proven either way. But I don't see why you automatically assume Wolfe can't handle the workload. It's not like little RBs before haven't been able to do it. He's every bit the size of Darren Sproles, and 20 pounds stockier than Warrick Dunn. It's a BS presumption on something we've never seen. And, you called it right, I'm irritated if the pick up of a FB who didn't get drafted, and most likely won't see much playing time in the Mike Martz system, ends up costing the Bears a unique talent that has been incredibly underused and does nothing but bust his ass on special teams.

Which is sad...because Wolfe has NEVER been used appropriately, and he'll do more on special teams than Unga.

To summarize my thoughts, the reason the prison time does not work as a deterrent is that it's not hard enough. The reason there are still capital offense crimes in states that have the death penalty is that the death penalty is not used frequently enough or early enough. Perhaps others who are more weak-minded just need more convincing, more fear, more penalties. As for your private vs. public thoughts on smoking, let me put it the way it's been said numerous times. I can swing my fists legally, but the minute I swing and hit someone else is when it becomes illegal. Therefore, the smoking in a public place should be banned. Whether I choose to walk into the "fist" is inconsequential because A] I was affected, and B] It has been deemed illegal. The privilege to make good and bad decisions ends as soon as someone else is illegally affected. As for Justin Bieber, I completely agree. In general I agree with the Twilight comment as well, unless the person watches the movie to make fun of it.

Agreed. That is a VERY big stretch in my opinion. I don't think the drug laws were set up with racial intentions. They were set up with drug intentions, but it just happens to have affected some communities more than others. How can this be remedied? DON'T DO DRUGS. It really is that simple. One can't blame a police officer for arresting all of one kind of person when nearly each arrest is on a person committing crime. The focus should be on stopping crime, not stopping specific people committing crime. Hence, crimes being committed are being stopped. Side note: The argument is especially ridiculous when considering that Jamarcus Russell is a millionaire. I think you've contradicted yourself a bit. You admit that the people are weak, and abuse drugs because they are weak, but then claim that all they need is help. What's to stop them from abusing again after their help? The question is rhetorical because the answer is nothing. What we need is MUCH harsher penalties for things that are illegal, not coddling. The reason people continue to commit crime at alarming rates is that the penalties are not convincing or persuasive enough (i.e. chain gangs, hard labor, executions). FEAR of going to prison should be instilled in the population, not general apathy. Perhaps if people were actually afraid of prison, afraid of their punishments, then less crime would be committed. Of course, I'm not a big believer in rehabilitation. I believe in the fear of possible punishment over rehabilitation. Side note: I was in the Netherlands last month, and felt more unsafe in several skinny alleys than I do/did in Detroit, Memphis, and/or Chicago. Having said that, the comparison is false because A] Netherlands is a country that doesn't face nearly the type of turmoil we face on any level, and B] The saturation of drug use does not spread country-wide, but instead focuses almost primarily in Amsterdam. In principle, yet again, I agree. However, the public to a certain extent needs to be protected from itself. If something is illegal, then NO, as a private property owner you should not have the PRIVILEGE to allow smoking (because smoking is not a "right"). If you were allowed, then a very slippery slope is created where you as a bar owner get to determine various other things contradictory to laws that are in place. If a law is put in place to protect many from the destructive habits of others, then I'll probably be for it. It's the same reason people can drink, they can drive, but they can't drink and drive. Their bad habits negatively affect others. Side Note: Family has been hit by the cancer bug twice, and smoking/smokers really piss me off. I think smoking itself should be illegal because it's causing more deaths per year than anything else (i.e. heart diseases, cancer, respiratory diseases), which is aside from the fact that smokers think the world is their ashtray. Agreed (except on whether or not marijuana should be legal for any reason).

I honestly think it's an ignorant question. The irrefutable answer in my mind is YES. Before last year, the question would not have been answered. It's just an ignorant writer going on the stats column and poking holes in Cutler's game because of the interceptions. The only thing is, the writer didn't do the homework, and didn't review the tape, because we have conclusively seen that about 10 of the interceptions weren't even on Cutler. Take those ten away, and this discussion doesn't get started because of the improvements nearly every receiver had last year.