defiantgiant

Totally under-appreciated. I don't remember if I posted it on this board or another one, but the only other QBs I can think of who've had that kind of year in terms of YPA/QB rating while taking 50+ sacks are Aaron Rodgers and Ben Roethlisberger. With better protection and some improvements to the receiving corps, Cutler's going to be on a whole other level this year. Yeah, I'd agree with "pretty good but not great." Pep did enough for the pass rush to make the defense work, but there was nobody else to draw attention away from him. Idonije was solid at getting those clean-up sacks off Peppers' pressure (although I read somewhere that Idonije only had like 8 or 9 pressures of his own on the season.) Anthony Adams is solid against the run in that one-technique spot, but he's nothing spectacular as an interior rusher. Toeaina and Melton did what I'd call a just-average job at 3-tech, put together. They weren't a glaring liability, and Melton occasionally flashed, but that's it. So yeah, Lovie proved this year that his scheme can work OK without a good 3-tech, as long as you have a genuinely elite edge rusher like Peppers. But I don't think we put Pep in the best position to be successful; it was all on him to provide all the pressure up front, which he did well, but he was getting double-teamed all day. Adding Peppers allowed the D to get the job done, but to get the full return on their investment in him in this scheme, they need a replacement for Tommie. I don't even think they need a player on the level of a young Tommie Harris, necessarily. I mean, that'd be nice, but those guys don't come around that often. He was the next best thing to Warren Sapp when he was healthy. But when we had Tommie at his peak, we didn't have a DE anywhere CLOSE to Peppers. Given what Pep did last year with no help, I think we could probably get away with an above-average pass-rushing DT at Tommie's old spot. The new guy doesn't have to be the next Sapp, he just has to be good enough to draw some attention. Guys like Nevis and Austin could do that, as could a free-agent DT like Cullen Jenkins or Barry Cofield (even Brandon Mebane might get the job done.) If Melton can grow into that role, so much the better.

You know, I gotta say, I like those two-gap 4-3 defenses like the Bears used to run with Washington/Traylor and Urlacher. Philly two-gaps their interior linemen a lot, and it frees their linebackers/DBs up for all those awesome exotic blitzes. But they've also got Bunkley and Patterson, who can be one-gap penetrators too, so they really just have the personnel to do either. If the Bears draft Marvin Austin, he might give them that same kind of personnel flexibility. The guy is just freakishly strong for only being 309 pounds, and I think he could hold up well enough as a two-gapper if he only had to do it a few snaps a game. Even if Chicago sticks to having their tackles play one gap, I'd love to see them mix in some exotic blitzes like this one from Dick LeBeau's playbook. If you don't want to check out the diagram, here's how it goes: - 4-1-6 dime package - Tackles hit the B-gaps - DEs fake the rush to draw a blocker, then drop into coverage - Urlacher and a dime back cross each other and blitz the A gaps. - Danieal Manning comes through the A gap on a delayed blitz behind the dime back. It's Cover 3 on the back end, with three guys in underneath coverage, so it's not like it's a totally unsound blitz. There are actually only 5 rushers, it's just that when it works, the center's responsible for 3 of them by himself.

Yeah, that was a little bit hopeful on my part. It could possibly happen, given that he's pretty scheme-limited to a 3-tech in a Tampa 2 defense. Other 4-3 schemes, like Philly or New Orleans, might think he's too small to be a full-time player for them. Of the Tampa 2 teams, the Giants, Colts and Bucs seem pretty happy with their 3-techniques, but that still leaves Minnesota. Carolina could be in that mix, too, depending on whether Rivera wants to use a Tampa base or something else. But you're right: if he were two inches taller and 20 pounds heavier he'd be in the late 1st-round conversation, and even as-is, he could definitely still go in the 2nd. If the Bears don't make any trades, I'd be happy with them using their 2nd on Nevis.

I'm not the biggest Olsen fan, either: he drops too many passes to be a safety-valve TE, and for a 6'5" guy with a 36" vertical, he doesn't win as many jump balls as he should. That said, there aren't many TEs with his speed and athleticism, and he's never been used to his full potential in his pro career, which makes me think he could still have that breakout year we've been waiting on. If that's going to happen, though, he needs to do one of two things: 1) Catch the damn ball. True, Olsen saw fewer passes go his way in 2010, but he only caught 59% of the ones he did get (41 out of 69.) He's sitting at 59.7% for his career, and if he wants to be in that Dallas Clark/Jason Witten/Antonio Gates echelon, he needs to start catching 70-75% of his passes like those guys do. He could still be very productive, even in a TE-unfriendly offense, if he were a more reliable target. Sure, there are plenty of TEs who put up gaudy numbers despite a catch rate around 60%, but most of those guys are getting 100 passes or more per season. Which brings me to the next option... 2) Buy Mike Martz a Rolls-Royce or something. Martz needs route-runners, and one of Olsen's best attributes is his ability to run routes like a big WR. His hands might be unreliable for a TE, but by WR standards they're fine: plenty of good receivers catch around 60% of their passes. And everybody's been saying for years that the best place for Olsen is lined up in the slot. Well, it just so happens that Martz's offenses LOVE throwing to the slot receiver. Mike Furrey was his slot WR in 2006, and he got 146 passes thrown his way. Olsen's faster than Furrey, and he'd be a tougher matchup for nickel corners or linebackers. If Olsen played that role in our offense, he'd have caught 87 passes this year, or even more if he could fix the drops a little. He'd have a legit shot at a 1000-yard season with that kind of workload. So if Olsen (or somebody) could just convince Martz that what he is is a slot receiver in a TE's body, Olsen could be highly productive in this offense, even if he's still just a 60% catcher. He'd be the go-to receiver on the inside, with Knox/Hester/Bennett on the perimeter. It could work, if Martz were willing to try it.

Yeah, I've been saying for a while that I'd rather have a guard than a tackle in Round 1, assuming that both players are equally good. Chris Williams can be an adequate LT - he proved that at the end of 2009 when Pace got benched - but he's not a very good guard. It wasn't just him, the Bears' whole interior line gave Cutler no time at all. How many times did he just backpedal away from the line instead of taking a real drop? He knew he was never going to be able to step up, he just had to bail and try to avoid the rushers busting through the middle of the line. Also, I think that article really validates the way Lovie runs his defense, but it underscores how badly the Bears need a new Tommie Harris. Warren Sapp always talks about how the under tackle "sets the table" for the DEs in a Tampa-2. The way Peppers was beating tackles every week, he would have had 15 sacks if we'd had any interior pass rush at all. But even with an edge rusher like Peppers, you can just scheme around him if the QB can consistently step into a clean pocket. Back in 2005-2006, Wale and Alex Brown were nowhere near as good as Pep, but Tommie made them look great...if we had a three-technique as good as Tommie was back in those days, our d-line would be a nightmare for QBs.

Yeah, I loved the throwbacks this year. I think my next jersey's going to be a throwback Peppers #90. I've never liked the orange jerseys.

I think the Bears could have a pretty straightforward road back to the playoffs, if they can shore up the o-line and find someone to replace Tommie. Here's how I see it breaking down: HOME Atlanta Falcons - W This team just isn't built to come from behind, and they consistently lose their tough road games. They're not coming into Soldier Field and beating the Bears. Carolina Panthers - W The Panthers are a mess. Seattle Seahawks - W Cutler tore them apart in the divisional round, he can do it again. Kansas City Chiefs - L Going out on a limb here, but the Chiefs have a lot of young talent, and very few holes in the roster. I could see them making a big jump from last year to this year. If they draft a pass-rushing OLB across from Hali and another impact receiver to go with Dwayne Bowe, they could be a very, very difficult team to beat in 2011. San Diego Chargers - L That defense will take a step back without Rivera around, but Philip Rivers is just too good for me to ever count on beating the Chargers. This one'll be a shootout. Detroit Lions - W The Lions are improving a TON; this should be a close one. Green Bay Packers - W Lovie always finds a way to beat the Packers at least once. Minnesota Vikings - W The Vikings have nothing at QB; they're going to be in the basement until they get that position filled. AWAY New Orleans Saints - W I don't know why, but I'm just not buying the Saints. I mean, they gave up 41 points to the Seahawks, who got just smashed by Chicago the next week. This one's a shootout, but ultimately I don't think their defense can hang with Cutler. Tampa Bay Buccaneers - L Like the Chiefs, the Bucs have been on a huge upswing lately. Josh Freeman is extremely legit, and all the young players around him are excellent. Draft one of this year's great pass-rushing DEs, and they could win the NFC South. Detroit Lions - L The Lions were an early TD celebration away from beating the Bears at home in 2010...unless Suh and Calvin Johnson retire to start a tomato farm or something, I don't see the Bears sweeping them in 2011. Minnesota Vikings - W I do, however, see the Bears sweeping the Vikings. Hard. Green Bay Packers - L Packers at Lambeau is always a tough game. Unless Rodgers gets hurt, the Packers are going to be a dangerous team. Oakland Raiders - W The Raiders surprised me a lot this year. Second-best pass defense in the league, Darren McFadden finally played to his potential, and Jason Campbell is a solid game manager at QB. But their wide receivers are even rawer than Chicago's, and they're not going to have much of a passing game unless one of those guys learns how to run a route and catch. Denver Broncos - W John Fox has his work cut out for him rebuilding the Broncos' defense. Orton and Brandon Lloyd are playing great (why couldn't you get that out of them in 2008, Ron Turner?) but fixing Denver's defense in one offseason would take a miracle. Philadelphia Eagles - W Cutler torched them this year, he can do it again. As good as Michael Vick is, the Bears forced 5 turnovers from him. ...that's an 11-5 season, and a likely playoff berth. I don't know if it'll be a division title or a wild-card spot, though - the Packers have at least as good a shot to go 11-5 (or better) as the Bears do.

I'd be happy with that, but going by the standard draft pick value chart, it'd be really bad value for Denver. Chicago's #29 pick is worth 640 points and Chicago's #93 pick is worth 128. Denver's #36 pick is worth 540 points and their #46 pick is worth 440. So Denver would be losing 212 points of value in that trade - equivalent to a mid-3rd-round pick. The only way I could see that trade being acceptable to Denver is if Chicago threw in next year's 3rd-rounder and a 4th or 5th this year. Which I'd be fine with doing: having 3 picks in the 2nd round would be phenomenal draft position. Here's another trade-down scenario, which (I think) works OK by the chart. Arizona desperately needs a QB, but I don't think they'll want to take Newton or Gabbert at #5 overall, especially if Von Miller's still there. I could see them going for Miller with at #5, and then trading back into the end of the 1st to get Ryan Mallett or Christian Ponder. So here's my Bears-Cards trade-down scenario: Chicago gives up: their 1st (#29 overall - 640 points), their 3rd (#93 overall - 128 points), and their 6th (#195 overall - 14.4 points.) Arizona gives up: their 2nd (#38 overall - 520 points), their 3rd (#69 overall - 245 points) and their highest 6th (#171 overall - 24 points.) Chicago's total value is 782.4 points, Arizona's is 780. The Bears don't add any extra picks, but moving down 9 spots from their 1st allows them to move up 24 spots from their 3rd. Now they have 3 picks in the top 70, and they can take: 2.38 - Danny Watkins, OG, Baylor 2.62 - Rodney Hudson, G/C, FSU 3.69 - Drake Nevis, DT, LSU

Did he have another DUI? That would be a bad sign. I thought he just had the two underage drinking tickets (with no driving involved) and the recent DUI. If I were a GM, I'd want to know a LOT about the DUI ticket, but I don't think I'd knock a prospect down for drinking underage in college. To say that's common would be kind of an understatement.

They unilaterally exercised the option. Both sides had the option to terminate, but the players didn't use theirs. One side, the owners' side, decided to terminate the old CBA. That's pretty much the definition of "unilateral." Also, both sides had the option to terminate, but both sides also had the option to negotiate a new deal when the old one expired, without exercising the termination option. The owners didn't go that route - they decided to terminate the CBA and force a lockout instead. One other mechanism the owners had was to negotiate with the players' union in good faith for a new CBA that they felt was more favorable to them, without illicitly trying to gain leverage in the negotiations. Instead, they bargained for guaranteed money from the TV networks to fund the owners during a lockout (which violated their contractual obligations to the union) and then exercised their option to terminate the CBA. They (and I'm carefully trying to avoid hyperbole here) made sure that they would get paid even if a lockout occurred and then made a lockout happen. The owners lock the players out, the owners get paid while the lockout goes on, the players don't. It doesn't take much to see that that's an unfair bargaining position. To borrow your parallel to a strike, this would be like if the players decided to strike, intentionally bargained in bad faith to make a strike happen, found a way to get paid the same wages for not working while they were on strike, and had the ability to keep the owners from conducting their businesses while the strike went on. If any of that were true, it'd look like a pretty unfair thing for the union to do. The players refused to sign another extension without getting financial disclosure, and I don't wholeheartedly agree with them on that, especially after the two sides had gotten to within $300 million a year on the increase in off-the-top money. But they're saying that they honestly felt that litigating was the surest way to get back on the football field without cutting into the season, and I haven't seen any evidence that they're being dishonest about that. Given the timetable of this litigation, they would get to court and win their injunction well before the 2011 season starts. The injunction would force the owners to open the doors under the 2010 CBA rules, which would at least ensure that there's football this year. It's not an ideal solution, I don't really like it, and I wish they'd kept negotiating, but I believe their argument for now, until I have a reason not to. That opening offer was, for all intents and purposes, an absolute demand, until the owners found out that their lockout money from the TV networks wasn't coming through. I haven't seen anything that suggests that they budged an inch while they still thought they could weather a lost season. They only started making any kind of concessions after Judge Doty's decision, once they didn't have their lockout insurance. I'm not objecting to the fact that they wanted a better deal for themselves; that's how negotiations go - each party is trying to get the best deal for itself. What I object to is that they planned to use an extended lockout to put pressure on the players' union to take an owner-friendly deal. They worked out the TV deals so that they would get paid either way, giving them the financial ability to weather a season-long lockout. The players don't have that ability, and eventually the union's support would have fragmented and they would have capitulated. I don't have a problem with the owners trying to get themselves a better deal, but if their plan to get that was by negotiating in bad faith, intentionally causing a lockout, and planning to have that lockout cut into the 2011 season, THAT I have a problem with. As a fan, I'm not OK with that. A revenue-sharing model doesn't need a constant revenue:expense ratio to work, it just needs adjustments to the sharing agreement as that ratio changes. That's why in principle, I have no problem with the owners asking for more money to cover their expenses, provided that those expenses are actually getting higher. The owners have access to the information that would tell everyone whether that's true or not, and they won't turn it over. Given that their incentive is to get the best deal possible for themselves, there's a tremendous reason to be skeptical of whether they're telling the truth, absent that evidence. On top of that, the NFL as a whole is highly profitable, and the only team whose books are open (the Packers) made a profit despite the economic downturn. If the owners are right that the revenue:expense ratio has changed or will change during the term of the next CBA, then they should have no problem proving it. And if they prove it, the players have repeatedly said that they'll go along with it. So what's their incentive not to prove it, if it's true and proving it will get them the money they need? That's all well and good, but it comes down to this: the owners wanted more money each year before revenue-sharing (or however the players will be paid) occurs. The players don't see a dime of that money. Regardless of whether they were negotiating a different revenue model or how they were splitting the pie after the expense money comes out, the owners are asking to set aside more money just for them. That's a worse deal for the players unless they get an equal-sized increase in their take of what's left over, which the owners never offered. And since that money goes directly to the owners, and is earmarked for the expenses that they refuse to demonstrate, they could very well be trying to get the union to sign a deal that keeps the owners' revenues constant while shifting a significant chunk of their expenses onto the players. The cap ceiling is not the same as the players' union's cut of revenues. And whether people's current contracts are adjusted isn't the point - the point is what happens to future contracts during the term of the next CBA. Whether or not you want to call it a pay cut, they were asking the players to sign on to a deal that would reduce their future contracts (in the aggregate) from what they would have been under the old rules. Whether you call that a pay cut or a smaller contract, it's still less money than they would have made under the status quo. I don't have a problem with adjusting the way the cap works or reducing some players' salaries - nobody thinks JaMarcus Russell was a good deal for the Raiders. The players were proposing a system that would have substantially reduced the top-15 rookie salaries and redistributed that money to the lower-paid veterans, so that the players' overall pay didn't go down. That would be fine. But if the owners are asking to reduce player salaries overall and use the extra money to benefit the owners themselves, then why shouldn't they have to prove that they need that benefit?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The piece of the pie that the players get was negotiated under the last CBA, the one that the owners unilaterally decided to cancel. The players' union was clear that they would be happy to play for that same piece of the pie. But the owners came into the negotiations saying the players had to let them take an extra BILLION dollars off the top, before the players ever get their piece, and they don't want to prove that they need the money. Instead, they basically said "let us take it or we'll lock you out until you do." The owners are the ones who scrapped the old CBA, because they thought they could play hardball and get the players' union to take a bad deal. The players have been clear from the beginning that they would continue playing under the status quo, for the piece of the pie that - as you say - they previously negotiated. If it were that simple, there'd be football now. But the owners want a much bigger piece of the pie, and they started this lockout in order to get it. OK, good call. There's a big difference between profit sharing and revenue sharing, but there's an even bigger difference between either one and a standard wage. If I'm getting paid by revenue-sharing, I should have a right to know about whether the company is maximizing revenue. For example, the owners actually had a duty to the players under the old CBA to make as much money from the TV deals as possible. That's the duty that a federal judge found that they violated, when they gave the TV stations a cheaper price in exchange for guaranteed money during the lockout they were planning. Profit after the CBA is the owners' business, but the owners and the players are fighting about revenue, not profit. The players know what chunk of that revenue they got under the old CBA, and they know that the owners are asking them to play for less than what they used to get. The owners have never, to date, put forward a proposal that didn't represent a smaller piece of the pie for the players and a bigger piece for the owners. Whether I get paid by profit-sharing, revenue-sharing, or just an hourly wage, if my boss tells me he wants me to sign a contract saying I'll take a pay cut, I'm going to ask for a reason why I should.

Yeah, he's got the physical skills to run good routes (great balance, agility, and lower-body power,) but I agree that he'd take some developing. He might be great in year two or three, but he'd probably need to have a very cut-down playbook in his first season. On paper, I'm OK with that - just stick Little at one receiver spot and give him five or six routes, like the Niners did with Crabtree or Ron Turner did with Knox - but that's not really how Martz's offense works. In order for all his pre-snap motion trickery to work, every receiver has to be able to run every route from either the X, Y, or Z spot. It might be hard for Little to make an immediate impact, but I think he'd be very worthwhile in the long run. Really, that's part of why I think the Bears need to make a major bid for Michael Floyd if he hits the supplemental draft. He's a big physical receiver like Little, with good hands like Little has, but he has far more experience running routes in a pro-style offense. I wouldn't have any problem spending next year's 2nd to get Floyd. That would free the team up to draft o-line and d-line, and it would keep them from overpaying for a WR in free agency.

It's exactly the players' union's business what the owners make, because the owners are asking the players to let them take more money off the top for their expenses. The players' union would be irresponsible to just take their word for it that they need the money. This isn't analogous to a normal employer-employee relationship, because most employees aren't doing profit-sharing with their employers, they're just getting paid a regular wage. A single NFL player gets paid a salary, but the players' union as a whole is negotiating about profit-sharing between all the players and all the owners. To borrow your example, if you're just paying your employee a pre-arranged wage, then he's in a normal employee's position, and it's none of his business what you're making. But if you were paying him in shares of your company's stock, then he's in a position more like the player's union. As a stockholder, he'd have a right to know about how profitable your company is, even though he's also an employee.

Oh I totally agree that they like the guy and he's a fit for their scheme, I just don't see him going in the 2nd. I'd be really surprised if he wasn't available at their 3rd-round pick. I mean, guys who weren't invited to the Combine are VERY rarely 2nd-round picks. Mike Mitchell was the last one, I think, and that was kind of a shock at the time. As for where the scouts say he could go, I'm just going off what I read - obviously, I haven't talked to any scouts. NFLDraftScout has McClain as the 17th-best DT, and the #182 prospect overall, which is just a little lower than CBSSports has him. I'd be really surprised if he leapfrogged Nevis or Austin, and both those guys will probably slip to the late 2nd. If they've got their eye on McClain, I think they can wait until the 3rd to grab him. Yeah, I could see that. Pouncey's snapping issues mean he isn't really a great center prospect like his brother, whereas Hudson looks like he'd be an ideal center. I'd be really happy with picking Hudson. I saw Charley Casserly talking up Greg Little on NFL Network, and the more I see that guy play the more I think he'd be a great pick. Casserly thought Little's hands were as good as anybody in this WR class, and god knows Cutler could use a big receiver with good hands to go over the middle.

I like this overall, but McClain would be a big reach in the 2nd. He's more of a 4th-round type player...CBS Sports has him as the 15th-best defensive tackle, and 146th-best prospect overall. If he's your guy, you could definitely still get him in the 3rd, which would free up the 2nd for a better WR than Toliver. Also, I'm not as down on Hudson as some people: I wouldn't really have a problem with spending a 1st on him, especially if Pouncey's gone. To me, Hudson looks like an immediate starter at LG and then a Pro Bowl center a year or two down the line. If we could get Liuget, that would be sweet. Dude would make a great replacement for Tommie. Also, I really like Moffitt and think he'll turn into a real mauler at RG. Titus Young I'm not so sure about: it seems to me like he's got a lot of the same skillset that Johnny Knox already brings to the table. I'd rather spend the 2nd on a bigger possession guy like Jon Baldwin.

Ted Phillips told the Sun-Times that the Bears would be on board with opening their books to the players' union, if that's what it takes to get a CBA done. He basically said they have nothing to hide and would be happy to go along with turning over their financials. They're the second team, after the Broncos, to say they'd do this. I haven't always been Ted's biggest fan, but this is a great thing to put out there. If we're ever going to get a new CBA in place, the owners are going to HAVE to cave on this issue. Before the lockout/decertification, the two sides came incredibly close (within $300 million, by some accounts) in money terms, but the owners' refusal to prove that they need the money still killed the negotiations. Back then, the players' union was willing to continue negotiating in exchange for real disclosure, so I have to think they'd come back to the negotiating table if the owners offered it now. Good job, Ted.

A couple of late-round linebackers for the file... Sidney Tarver, LB, Tennessee State - The Bears were at his Pro Day. I know nothing about the guy as a player, but apparently he did very well in his positional drills. His measurables are all what you'd want for a 4-3 outside 'backer: 6'3", 236 pounds, and a 4.65 in the 40 (on a wet track.) He put up a 10'6" broad jump, a 32" vertical, and 23 reps on the bench. If anybody knows anything about whether this kid can play, I'd be interested to hear it. Lawrence Wilson, LB, UConn - Met individually with Bears personnel during his Pro Day. Wilson, I think, is the ideal kind of LB prospect to target. He's undersized (6'1" 229 pounds) for any scheme except a Tampa-2, which will push his draft value down significantly. For a Tampa team like the Bears, that could make him a great value in the 4th or 5th round. He reminds me a lot of Pisa as a player. For a linebacker, he's incredibly smooth and rangy in coverage, and he has legit 4.5-4.6 speed. He doesn't have a lot of power as a hitter (as you'd expect) but he's an insanely productive tackler (449 career tackles, 123 last season alone) because he wraps up and doesn't take bad angles. I like him a lot as a prospect, and I'd be happy if the Bears got him on Day 3 to develop as their Sam 'backer of the future. And then there's an interesting DB prospect: Curtis Brown, CB, Texas - Has a private workout with the Bears coming up. He's probably going to go in the late 2nd to early 3rd, but I wouldn't completely hate the pick if there's no good d-tackle available when the Bears pick in Round 2. Has exceptional speed and quickness, can cover in man at least as well as in zone, if not better. Used to play receiver and has great hands for the interception. Can go up vertically and take the pass away from the WR, at 6 feet tall with a 39" vertical. The one hole in his game (especially for a Tampa-2 team) is his tackling, which is going to need work. He can't keep shoulder-rocketing guys as a 185-pound DB, he's going to need to learn to break down and wrap up. Still, he could generate a lot of turnovers and wouldn't be a bad pick if we already have an o-lineman and there's no good 3-technique on the board. ...and one guy who I know some of you will be glad to see on the list: Vincent Brown, WR, San Diego State - Had a private workout with Mike Martz. A slow 40 at the Combine hurt his stock some, but he ran a 4.52 at his Pro Day, which is definitely adequate. Doesn't have great straight-line speed, but can change directions in an instant when he makes a cut. Showed great hands at the Senior Bowl, which had been a concern previously. Like Randall Cobb, Brown definitely looks like a Mike Martz wide receiver, but doesn't look like a #1 guy on the outside. If they drafted him, I'd wonder about where they'd play him: I think his best fit is in the slot, where Earl Bennett is already doing a great job. If they think Bennett can play more on the outside, though, I'd be happy to get Brown into the mix.

It definitely lessens our advantage somewhat, but it could be a lot worse. Hester's MUCH more of a weapon on punts than he ever was on kick returns. Check this out: Hester on Kick Returns In 2010, Hester had the best average among returners with at least 10 returns, but he only returned 12 kicks on the season, which is a pretty small sample size. There's reason to believe that his average would have come down some if he'd been a full-time KR (meaning at least 30-40 kick returns on the season.) His best previous average as a KR was 26.4 yards (on just 20 returns) back in 2006...that would have ranked him 5th among KRs with at least 10 returns. If Hester were to go back to full-time kickoff returns for a whole season, I don't think he'd average better than 26-27 yards. That means that he'd net 3 to 5 yards more than a league-average returner (league-average kick return distance being somewhere between 22 and 23 yards.) Having fewer opportunities to get that 3 to 5 yards will hurt a little bit, but not that much. Hester on Punt Returns Meanwhile, Hester's punt return average this season was 17.1 yards. Looking at PRs with at least 10 returns, that's the best mark in the league by a MILE. The average for PRs across the league is between 9 and 10 yards per return. So Hester's getting us 7, maybe 8 extra yards of field position on punts. For comparison, the difference between the best and worst avg net yards per punt in 2010 was only 9.2 yards. That means that a top-5 punter/coverage team kicking to Hester is like the worst punter/coverage team in the NFL kicking to an average returner. Think about that - you could have an elite ST unit, and you still KNOW that Hester will eat them up. It doesn't matter who they are, he'll tee off on them like they were the worst unit in the NFL. Hester might be very good, even great, on kick returns. On punt returns, though, he actually changes the game. He takes a unit that was supposed to be your team's strength and turns it into a liability. That's crazy. Long story short: as long as the rules committee doesn't mess with punts, Hester's still going to be the most dangerous return man in history.

I could see that happening. Also, I've always maintained that Hester is a good-to-great KR, but a once-in-a-lifetime PR. I don't think the new rules will really hurt the part of his game that makes him a really special player. Plus, it's much harder to punt out of bounds while getting adequate distance than it is to just boot a kickoff into the end zone. Teams are still going to have to choose between punting to Hester and giving the Bears' offense 10-15 extra yards of field position. That's still a lose-lose for any team that has to face our ST unit.

Yeah, Rodgers and Roethlisberger are about the only ones I can think of, and like you said, it's because they have enough mobility to make it work even when there's somebody breaking through the line every other play. Very, very few QBs in the NFL could be as effective as Cutler behind a line as bad as ours was last season. Josh Freeman might be on the list if he has another season like he did in 2010. It's hard to tell, because his protection was so much better than Cutler's, but what he did with an extremely young offense was seriously impressive.

Yeah, I'm with you on this one. Wolfe is gone, Bell has shown flashes but who knows if he can sustain it, and Unga is a total unknown. Taylor is better than Kevin Jones or Adrian Peterson, but he's still not good. His only real value is that he lets Forte stay rested through the season. If they want to spend a Day 3 pick to try and upgrade over Taylor, I've got no problem with that. Shane Vereen in the 3rd would be a little too rich for my blood, but if we're talking about spending a 4th on Jamie Harper from Clemson or Delone Carter from Syracuse, I'd be OK with it. I'd rather get Harper, since he can catch and lead-block well enough to play a little FB on top of being a short-yardage/change of pace RB. That would give Martz some interesting options out of any two-back formation. Having two backs in the backfield who can each run, catch, and pass-protect could make for a pretty creative pro-set package. Between those two and Olsen at the TE, it'd be a total guessing game about who's staying in to block and who's running a route. It'd be especially dangerous with our personnel, since both Forte and Olsen can run vertical routes like another wide receiver.

Actually, they can't get different players. This isn't a strike, where they could just hire scabs. This is a lockout; the NFL can't lock their employees out and then say "you can either come back to work for less money or stay home." Here's why: A single team is free, obviously, to offer whatever wage it wants to a single player. If the player doesn't like it, he can try to find another team to pay him more, or he can sit at home. But that doesn't mean that ALL the NFL teams can get together, decide the wages they're going to offer, and tell all the players "take it or go sit at home." That's wage-fixing, which is a kind of collusion, one of the things that unfair competition law prohibits. The reason the NFL teams are (normally) allowed to get together to make decisions is because the CBA exists. The NFL owners negotiating with the players' union under the CBA is basically one entity negotiating with another entity. The Supreme Court has already held (in American Needle v. NFL) that the 32 teams are 32 separate businesses when they're negotiating with a single party (like a single non-union player would be.) If there's no player's union and no collective bargaining agreement, those 32 teams can't do things like agree on a veteran minimum salary without getting slapped with an antitrust suit. That's exactly why the NFLPA decertified, and why they're in court now. No, it wouldn't. First off, this case is in federal district court (either with Judge Doty or another district court judge) - the precedents set by a federal district court's decisions are only binding on that court. In any other federal court in the country, that precedent is persuasive at best, never binding. Second, we're talking about a highly specific factual scenario here: a union asking for financials from a professional sports league during the course of CBA negotiations. Decisions are only valuable as precedent when a later case turns on the same question, and "Do the NFL owners have to disclose their financial statements to the players' union?" is a much narrower question than "Do all employers everywhere have to disclose their financial statements to all employees everywhere?"

Yeah, it's hard to reconcile an 18 game season with their supposed emphasis on player safety unless they get rid of two preseason games, which the owners don't want to do, since they make people buy those tickets for full price with their season passes. The cynic in me says that the league is fine with making little changes to make it appear that they're doing something, but they won't ever take on the big, difficult problems. Fine players for big hits? No problem, that's an easy change to put in place. Mandate less contact or no contact in practices? They might do that. But when they're facing big, intractable problems, they stick their heads in the sand. Like how the three-point stance and shoulder tackling might contribute at least as much to players developing CTE later in life as actual concussions do. Or how much money it would cost to really take care of every former player's medical expenses, even just for injuries they got playing football. The league's going to have to address those issues sooner or later, and so far they seem to be picking later. To be fair, I don't know how they would really attack those problems. Changing kickoffs is a good first step, and I'd be all for reducing contact in practices. But if you put linemen in two-point stances and make everyone chest-tackle, that's making it a different game. Saying that would be an unpopular move is a massive understatement. At the very least, though, they can't make the players go through two more weeks of punishment. Knowing what they know now about CTE, it'd be completely irresponsible.

Hate to say it, but I'm kind of with the league on this one. If they're serious about improving player safety and reducing concussions, changing the kickoff rules would do way more good than that dumb, vague rule about "devastating hits" will. Kickoffs are probably the single most dangerous part of the sport, and even worse, those kick return/coverage teams are usually manned by guys making close to the league minimum. Without an effective retirement fund for former players, those gunners and wedge-breakers probably can't even pay their medical bills five or ten years down the line. I'd hate to see the Bears lose that magic that Hester (and Manning/Knox) can do on returns, but something's got to give in terms of player safety.

Figured this should go in here: the Bears' coaches were out in force at the Illinois Pro Day. Marinelli ran Corey Liuget through his positional drills, and Tim Spencer worked some with Mikel Leshoure. My two cents: Corey Liuget, DT, Illinois - apparently Marinelli was happy with Liuget's workout. The way his stock is climbing, Liuget may not even make it to the Bears' 1st-round pick. If he does fall that far, and there aren't any top-tier o-line prospects left (which is very possible - there are only like six 1st-round offensive linemen this year) I wouldn't mind spending a #1 on a three-technique DT, especially one as talented as Liuget. He doesn't have the insane first step that Tommie had coming out of college, but he's much stronger and can definitely rip off a block and shoot through his gap. He misses more tackles than you'd like once he's in the backfield, but I think that could just be a technique thing. He's inconsistent with his tackling: sometimes he'll get low and wrap up, but a lot of the time I see him grab a guy around the shoulderpads and try to throw him down. That works if you're freakishly strong like Ndamukong Suh, but Liuget isn't on that level. Still, that's a minor concern; Marinelli should be able to work on his technique and pad level. Mikel Leshoure, RB, Illinois - probably not in the cards for Chicago. I'd love to get him as a power-running complement to Forte (who still catches the ball well enough to play in Martz's offense) but he's going to go in the 2nd round somewhere, maybe even the late 1st. After Mark Ingram, Leshoure's clearly the second-best RB in this draft. It's a shame, because he'd make for a nasty 1-2 punch with Forte, but there's no way the Bears should even consider drafting a running back before the 3rd or 4th round. Martez Wilson, LB, Illinois - do not want. Great size/speed/athleticism prospect, but I'm wary of linebackers with subpar instincts. It seems like guys who really struggle to see a play develop (usually) don't get much better at it in the pros. Besides, Wilson's best fit is in a 3-4 defense, where he could use that straight-line speed as a pass-rusher and have less responsibility on the back end. He could be an asset as a 3-4 OLB, but I don't think he'd help the Bears.