jason

1) I don't think Adrian Peterson had too much problem accellerating on the slow surface in Chicago. I've also noticed that Devin Hester seems to be pretty fast in Chicago. In other words, that logic is faulty. Sure, it's great to have that bruiser in the one or two games a year when Soldier field gets messy, if it even happens, but it's probably better to have a guy like Devin Hester who has the potential to change a game on every play. Aside from Jamal Lewis, Lendale White, and maybe one other, the top 15 RBs in the league, statistically by yardage, are all faster, quick-hitter-types. 2) In all honesty, I wouldn't mind a plodding, blasting, Earl Campbell franchise back. If the guy can keep the chains moving with constant four and five yarders, causing the safeties to creep up and allow the passing game holes, I'm all for it. But usually the guy who does that in college doesn't do that in the pros. That's why the quick-hitters are typically better pro RBs. 3) Like I said before, I agree with you. If a team thinks they have a franchise guy on the board, and he is a can't miss, sometimes you gotta go BPA. If you know Peyton Manning is going to turn into Peyton Manning, and you happen to have a Carson Palmer, you might just have to draft Manning and find a trade-partner for Palmer, despite the fact that he is great in his own right. I just didn't think Benson was that guy. And from what I remember about all the debates back then, most thought he was good, but not as special as the Bears' staff apparently thought. As you said, it appears that those of us who thought Benson was a wasted pick are right. With that said, I hope he proves me wrong next year.

You know, LT2, I remember you saying that. However, aside from you and about two or three guys who thought it would be a good idea to get Benson, nearly everyone else was saying that the Bears needed something else. The overwhelming majority wanted Mike Williams during all the debates. Williams was one of the most dominating players in college, and nearly all thought he would end up doing so in the pros. While he may not have been the burner that would have been preferred at the time, he was nonetheless an incredibly talented WR, a position in which the Bears were not that good. There is no revisionist history there. You and I may disagree on the concept of "what if player A had played on Team B", but that will be the agree to disagree moment. I truly believe that many of these pros are so fragile mentally, with inflated egos and self-worth, not to mention just plain being stupid a lot of the time, that if there is any failure whatsoever, they buckle, the crumble under the weight of their disappointments. They simply aren't accustomed to being anything other than the Big Man on Campus. I believe Mike Williams to be a perfect example of this mindset. His talent and teams' needs allowed him to get to the NFL, and he probably didn't have to work hard until the NFL; he has probably been getting his ass kissed since he was 10. Not so much in the NFL, and it has destroyed him.

Wrong. Unequivocally wrong. The Bears had TJ at RB, and they had nearly no talent at all at WR. The most "logical" pick was clearly Mike Williams. And while he hasn't panned out, he was easily the most logical pick. As a side note, I would like to point outthat no player can be gauged in conjuction with a team he has never played for. Additionally, we can't go back in time and change the picks. So, to say that Mike Williams or Cedric Benson would have stunk if put on different teams is just conjecture. A ton of stuff can change with a change of scenery, change of supporting cast, and change of coaching. Who's to say that Mike Williams wouldn't have meshed perfectly in Chicago, the coaching perfect for him, and the limelight more suited for his style? We don't know. I still think the kid has a world of talent and some of the best hands in the NFL. Like Bradley, Berrian, Hester, Wolfe, and Olsen...Mike Williams has been misused.

I think this is a clear indication of how badly the Bears' coaches have done. Actually, nevermind, it's only the tip of the iceberg. Bears coaches near bottom of league

Isn't that what he was talking about? Hell, to say that Wolfe and/or Peterson look bad, thereby making Benson look good, is just plain delusional. I'll accept the following: A- They all look bad B- Benson looks bad, and isn't close to being a #4, but what do you expect from the other guys? C- Benson looks bad, but the other guys aren't bad for their draft position D- Benson looks bad, and AP gives it his all, and Wolfe is horribly misused

The Play DESIGN worked fine. The Play EXECUTION failed. And don't pretend that the "double coverage" was anything close. We all saw the game, and anyone who has played backyard football has completed that pass at one time or another. Orton overthrew it, period.

I agree on all points. HOWEVER, Babich's failures are minor compared to those of Turner. If Babich is Lake Michigan, Turner is the Pacific Ocean. Babich may be a failure, but Turner is a failure on monumental levels. Whereas Babich has had to deal with a ton of players being out, Turner has not had it as bad. Wheras Babich has played the right guys when the time came, and by contrast benched those deserving, Turner continues to this day to misuse talent, and to simply ignore the strengths of his players. If Turner were running the defense, he'd put Archuleta at DE because he's fast, Tommie Harris at LB because of his "blitzing" abilities, and both Mannings would be starting at safety...for no reason whatsoever.

nfoligno Disagree. One. While TJ did not have a bad year, it wasn't believed he was a special back either. A servicable, or even good back, maybe, but not a special back. Two. To that point, TJ had not shown an ability to stay healthy, nor had he proven capable of being a workhorse. The 240 carries he had that year were nearly double his career high. Three. It is very easy to say it was a mistake today as we have seen Benson play, and at this point, it is hard to even think much less recall what was said about his them. Benson was a very highly rated RB. He was considered a special RB. In fact, as I recall, several publications had him being one of the best RBs to hit the draft in years. At the time, there is no way anyone can convince me that the Bears should have drafted a RB at 4. I had more than one friend - fans of other teams - call to laugh about it. It was a horrible decision, and I was on record numerous times stating it. It's akin to changing the oil on a burning car. Sure, the oil might need to be replaced, and that new 10W30 looks like it might make the car run great, but there are other things that need more attention. RB was not our #1 need, but at the same time, you hate to pass on a player you feel is a franchise player that can carry the franchise because he have a decent player at that position. This is the only valid and acceptable answer to the scenario. I hate it, but it's true. One can't fault an organization for attempting to draft that special player. It just sucks that the Saints hit on Bush, the Vikings got a jackpot in AP, and the Bears crapped-out with Benson. And, despite the fact that I agree in majority with your parallels, notice the one major difference in the "special player" category: game breaking ability. Benson was a stud coming out of college, but there is no way in hell I thought he was one of those "special" talents that the Bears simply had to have. In fact, I have a hard time believing anyone thought that at the time. I watched his highlight reel stuff, and saw a ton of his games on TV, but never did I think he was something other than a great college player who would probably turn into a good-to-very good pro RB.

Agreed on all. Why is it that the Bears get at least three false starts every game? Why is it that Tommie Harris gets one offsides every game? Why is it that a safety misses a huge tackle at least once every game?

Look, I know I'm a homer - like all of us - but it seems that the Bears constantly get screwed by the refs. Case in point, the personal foul called at the end of the half that allowed the Vikings to get a field goal, and ultimately momentum. Also, let's not forget the horrible reversal of the MuhMuh TD, where it looked pretty clear in super slow mo that the tip of the ball was touching the goal line - and that's all that is required. Oh, let's not forget the "intentional grounding" call that went against Kyle Orton, and the fact that all three announcers basically said that it was horrible call. And I won't even talk about the constant holds on the Bears' DEs that never get called (like the one tonight when Adrian Peterson got a nice run while one of the Bears' DEs [Wale?] was being mugged). There have been several plays this year that just don't make sense, and they always seem to go against the Bears. What's more, they are always huge plays, plays that change the game. Bears v. Giants Even the most obvious replay challenge, like the "TD catch" from Manning to Toomer that was SOMEHOW overturned without the indisputable evidence (nose of the ball anyone?) we so often hear about, the Bears end up on the short end of the stick. Bears v. Redskins Grossman's injury comes on a play that probably would have been called a personal foul against the Bears. And, anyone who wants to watch the film of the game on NFL.com can plainly see the huge play by the Redskins (dump off pass to Portis in the 3rd QTR - 1:23 of the video) was aided by not one (looks like Brandon McGowan getting blocked int the back at the 42yd line - 1:25 of the video), but TWO (Daniel Manning gets it at the Bears 37 - 1:29) blatant blocks in the back uncalled. I could go on and on, and each game I'm amazed at the crucial, momentum-swinging plays that always seem to go against the Bears. I know it's conspiracy theory of me, but sooner or later the Bears have to catch a break, right?

First of all, Dvoracek and Bazuin shouldn't be on the list - they have been injured. Talk to me when they actually get to play a few games. Also, why the hell is Wolfe on the list? Is it his fault that the OC for the Bears is too stupid to make cereal? Is it Wolfe's fault he gets blasted into the line where defensive players are literally twice his size? If he is put in space and used effectively, he could do something similar to what Westbrook does for Philly. Or, if you think that's a stretch, he could do what Darren Sproles did for the Chargers this weekend. Last but not least, I don't think Bradley should be on that list either. When he has been given a chance, he has done well and looked dangerous. It's just too bad the Bears have had a mental midget calling the plays and choosing the starters on offense since Bradley has been with the team. How can one judge a player's talent or worth if that player never sees the field, and the people who start in front of that player stink?

I honestly say that it's hard to determine how good the WRs are when there is inconsistent play at both OL and QB. The Bears actually have some talent at WR and TE, but refuse to use it for some reason, either by determining who starts, or by play design. Why doesn't Berrian go deep any more? OL Why doesn't Berrian run deep slants or crosses? OL Why doesn't Hester run either? OL Why doesn't Olsen see the field more? Turner Why doesn't Bradley see the field more? Turner Why does Moose run deep routes? Turner (why no OL?) Draft OL in the first three rounds. Fire Turner. Problems solved.

1 - Orton was marginal. I will give him a break since this was his first game back and he had to play in a hell hole. His accuracy, however, must improve the next two games. Orton will do better when Turner grows a pair and takes the perpetual handcuffs off of all his quarterbacks. 2 - Nice game from Url. Good to see him step up on national TV. Yeah, he was awesome. I'm still amazed at posters who say the Bears should sit or move Urlacher. It's blasphemy, and tinkering for the sake of tinkering. 3 - Get Hester off the field on offense. Orton has enough to worry about - he shouldn't have to line him up on every play. I want to see Bradley or Hass get those reps. Devin needs serious time in the offseason working at WR. It is odd that Hester still needs help with the plays. How many games is this going to happen? Although, the same could be said about the offensive line's false starts, Tommie Harris' one offsides "I know what the snap count is" penalty per game, and the one atrocious missed tackle by a safety per game. 4 - Win the turnover battle by 3 and lose the game - dammit. How the hell does that happen. See #1. 5 - We need to see Wolfe more out of the backfield. I like AP but he gets arm tackled way, way too much. Agreed. He may be small, but he has broken a tackle here and there, stepping out of shoestring tackles. Of course, it's a helluva lot harder to break tackles when your moron OC continues to run your 5'7" 175lb. butt into the center of the biggest, best run defense in the NFL. I believe a stretch play or a pitch would allow Wolfe to actually juke someone and get some yards, possibly even break a long one. Funny, I don't see the Eagles run Westbrook up the pipe over and over. I wonder why?

It doesn't matter who has been on offense this year. Turner has continually called the worst games I have ever seen. The four main reasons why Turner needs to be fired 1) Last week I called over five plays in a row before the Bears ran them. If I can do it when watching each game once, the other teams can easily do it with the advantage of game film. 2) He continually calls a gutless game. How many times per game do the Bears test the opponents' defense with something beyond ten yards? Once, twice on a good day? This is absolutely essential to getting a little breathing room for a running game and OL that hasn't done well on their own. 3) He has no clue how to use the talent he has. Berrian, Hester, and Bradley are all incredibly fast. Wolfe is incredibly shifty (think Westbrook). And Olsen is too much for any single defensive player to match up with. So, how come Turner can't call plays to maximize their talents? Wolfe up the middle? Hester on bubble-screens and end-arounds almost exclusively? Berrian gets rare chances? Bradley barely sees the field? Olsen sees the field little more than Bradley? WTF? 4) He has no clue about adjustments. All too often this year, and last, the Bears' opponents have done something to stop the Bears' offense. Adjustments need to be made for success, and Turner refuses to make them. Period. I could care less who the Bears get at OC. Just get someone who is held in somewhat high regard, is known as an offensive mind, and is widely held as someone who thinks outside the box a bit.

The call wasn't really that bad. Remember Holmgren running the same thing against the Bears and making the Bears look stupid. That play was designed and run well. It was set up for an easy first down. It's just too bad Kyle Orton can't make a 8-yd throw.

Cross EVERYTHING on defense off the list. I don't care what anyone says. The defense can't do it all. Sure, they haven't been perfect, but it's nearly impossible to do well when the defense screws the pooch every single game. There is no way the Bears defense deserved to lose this game; it's all on the offense.