jason

Defense: 21st in yards Offense: 26th in yards What don't you understand about that FACT? The Bears lost more games because the offense was worse. The defense may have been a bigger disappointment, but the offense was worse. There were more times that the offense let the team down with the perpetual "3 and out" offensive strategy than the defense buckled. Even if you try to go by scoring, then you have to factor in the 6 TDs the Bears' D/ST scored and it makes the Bears' offensive scoring worse than the defensive scoring anyway. I think you should look at the undeniable stats and quit worrying about the misinterpretation of my verbage (I happen to think the fail photos are funny) and quotes I could care less about.

Um, no, fail. You're saying that the Bears' offense didn't get a chance to make as much yardage because they were in such great situations all the time? If that were the case, then you're essentially saying that their lack of scoring indicates an even larger failing than previously indicated. Afterall, if they had so little field to cover - which is why they "couldn't" get the yardage - then they should surely have scored more points.

Good point. I actually viewed Denver and Chicago as similar situations. I obviously don't like his 20 TOs, but I think that Chicago's defense has a much greater potential to avoid the situations that typically cause a desperate QB to "go for it". IF the Bears' D steps up, and if the Bears' defensive coaches make better decisions than they have, Cutler will be sitting in front more often than not, and won't have to pull out the cannon to save the team. He'll be able to take calculated risks that have a higher percentage of success.

1. Scoring? Are you serious? That's such a weak way to talk about "offensive" production when we all know that a lot of the scores are products of great defense and great special teams (especially in 2006). Yardage is a much truer measure of offensive success because it's based on what ONLY the offense does. 2. The Wolfe play was just the first thing that popped into my mind. Although, like someone else said, I think it was run twice. On the whole, however, it just typifies the "run this play regardless of situation"-mindset that Turner often employs. There were tons more plays that were discussed during the week-by-week discussion, but not only do I not have the games recorded, I don't have the time to prove what was obvious on a weekly basis. 3. The FB dive was not successful half of the time. You'll have to prove that to me. No way. Aside from that, it's not just the play, it's how it's used. It's always used in a horribly predictable manner, and the ball is handed to a FB that has no business running the ball. It's unimaginative, and mostly unsuccessful.

The "dominating defense" was mentioned in connection with the Super Bowl year...not last year. Last year I think the team was overall better than what their record would have people believe, but the combination of injuries, poor coaching, and under performing made them look worse than they were. Although, if I had to divide blame and place it on sections of the team, you better believe that the bad offense would get more than the bad defense.

Same argument I've made elsewhere... That's taking the #7 or #8 WR instead of the #1 OG, or the #2 or #3 Safety.

Same excuse people made for Shoop's dumb ass. When "Shoop and Jauron" brought the Bears' success, it was because of D, then ST, then O. When "Turner and Lovie" brought the Bears' success, it was because of D, then ST, then O. Both years the offense was carried by the dominating defense.

26th total 21st passing 24th rushing Solid?

More of the former, less of the latter. A few notes: -No situational awareness -No clue how to coach a RB screen -Completely ignores the benefits of a rollout -Thinks Garrett Wolfe is an inside, goal-line RB -Keeps fast WRs running short and players like MuhMuh/Booker running deep -Rarely makes noticeable adjustments after half -Calls plays based upon script without consideration to circumstance (i.e. Wolfe play) -Doesn't integrate players that could help offense and spell starters (i.e. Kevin Jones) -Do the Bears even have trick plays? -No capability to keep up with obviously beneficial trends in the NFL -Consistent bottom-of-the-league ranking

FTFY

Agreed on FS. This is almost exactly what I'm saying. Although, I don't really think a pass-rush DE is needed. I think a new scheme that doesn't have them running the exact same semi-circle around the QB every play is needed. It seems that any time the DL actually stunts the opposing offense is caught off guard. There is a reason why scrub QBs are able to step up into the pocket and throw 60 passes of 10-yards or less while destroying the secondary, and it's not all because of the players being unable to get pressure.

As for the OGs vs. WRs, let me put it this way... Would you rather have a huge, delicious apple, or a grape, a raisin, and a couple cherries? Basically, that's how I think of the possibility of a new, great OG like Duke Robinson, and the hodge-podge of guys the Bears currently have at OG (which doesn't mean that none of them can't get better and turn into all-pros). It's essentially the same as the classic fantasy football trade where one person offers a bunch of average stuff for one great players. Everyone knows the one great player is better than the grab-bag. As for the Safeties vs. WRs, I truly believe that the problem with the Bears offensive woes and lack of production has a lot to do with the poor OL play, inconsistent QB play, and borderline incompetent play-calling from the OC. I believe that the WRs the Bears have now will be able to produce good things on the field next year, with Hester and Bennett making great strides. Add that to the great depth at TE the Bears have, all-star pass catching out of the backfield, the belief that they'll still get a FA WR (I think they're playing hardball and being shrewd), and the poor performance in the defensive secondary last year from the FS position, and that makes me think that a stud FS (who would probably start day one) would help the team much more than the 8th best WR who probably won't even beat out the incumbent starters anyway. Regarding the 1yr/2yr plan, perhaps you're right. But I see no reason why the 1yr plan can't work, and I predict that the Bears will make it to the NFC Championship this year.

Seems like this is something that needs to be halted to one round.

I haven't committed myself to drafting a safety. From what I've seen, I'm not terribly impressed by the reach that will be required to grab a WR at our spot. The only committing I've seen is one of success, one of winning. I believe JA and the coaching staff is stocking up for a Super Bowl run this year. I think that if the choice is between 8th best WR and 3rd best Safety at the Bears' selection in the 2nd round, then you choose the best value...which is the Safety. On top of that, I still think that OG and S are stronger needs than WR...so I don't think has to be a WR drafted there.

Completely agreed. And I think the Bears will go 7-4 or 8-3 against the teams you listed. With any luck whatsoever, that puts the Bears at 12-4 or 13-3 in my book.

I'm not a big fan of this draft for the Bears. If, indeed, the secondary is the primary concern, and Massoquai is left at WR, then I think the Bears should go safety in round 2. If the WRs chips fall like that, then it's not great to reach like that. Hell, if the Bears had to grab someone from the SEC, I'd rather have Rashad Johnson from Bama.

So this is wrong? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_NFL_Draft I thought we had two 5's, one 6, and two 7's.

I'd say the Vikings' D is just about set. Great DL, good LBs, pretty good DBs. Their offense is set everywhere except QB, WR, and RT. They recently got Rosenfels for some reason. Their WRs are former Bears, and that says a lot. Top needs: RT, WR. Getting William Beatty would probably be a better pick for the team needs, but I think it'd be a bit high for him. So they'll get a guy to learn the possession tricks from Wade - because that's the only way he's stayed in the league this long - and attempt to find a #2 to link with Berrian. With the 22nd pick of the 2009 NFL Draft, the Minnesota Vikings select Kenny Britt, WR, Rutgers. The New England Patriots and MadLithuanian are on the clock. Expect Laurinaitis.

Horrible.

To be quite honest, I don't even think there is a comparison between Harvin and Robiskie. If Harvin is there, and the Bears want a WR, then they have to take Harvin. The guy is absolute lightning in a bottle. He has the potential to be to WRs what Adrian Peterson (Vikings) is to RBs. Every single play is a potential TD. His hands are pretty good, and I wouldn't have a problem with playing along with Hester and Bennett. That would be insane speed.

If the Bears trade up into the top of the second round for what would amount to about the fourth or fifth best WR, it will be a stupid and wasteful move.

Agreed. But then again, I was in favor of bringing in TO and Moss. At a certain point, I think the quest for a boy scout becomes a bit much.

So you'd rather take a lesser WR with more off-field problems? Because, to be quite honest, I don't remember the last time that TO faced major legal trouble, shot himself, and had the potential of going to jail.

That logic is faulty. The contracts pretty much have a value that is set in place based upon previous years' picks, and other picks adjecent in the current year. So, unless the #1 pick signs before anyone else, it's no savings really. Either way it's a QB at #1, which means HUGE money. I don't really see it as a reasonable move (unless absolutely everyone is lying about which QB they rate higher). If the Lions aren't 105% on Stafford, and they were not able to trade, the choice is not to reach on the next best QB.

But by interjecting your own opinion, which doesn't seem to match with nearly any of the experts (whose consensus is typically a pretty good indication of how it will break down), you've thrown off the entire draft somewhat. Now teams that have QB as a 2nd or 3rd concern have to consider a QB much more than they would have before because the #1 overall prospect is still on the board. You may believe that it's a better pick, but that would be like a GM in the league doing the opposite of what everyone else thinks. Very rarely does that pay off.