defiantgiant

Well, the Achilles/calf injury that he has is a chronic one at this point. His other injuries I would chalk up to bad luck, but that one is going to recur for the rest of his career, and it limits his range even when he's healthy. He's basically better suited to play strong safety at this point: look at how much more successful he was when they moved him over last season. I agree about Manning, but he's the nickel corner now. It's a shame that he didn't pan out as a free safety, since I think Lovie's plan was to have him step in for Brown in '07 or '08. That said, I still think we needed to transition away from Brown. I would have loved to keep him for depth and leadership, but I really don't think you could expect him to play another 15-game season like he did last year. There are very, very few players at his position who are still starters despite ending every season on IR. Bob Sanders comes to mind, but not many other guys. EDIT: I should point out that I think the Chiefs got a great player. They have their two starters at FS and SS, but they're both really young guys and should benefit greatly just by being around a player like Mike Brown.

I don't think the issue was that Hester was outrunning Orton's passes - they were just off-target. We saw plays last season where he overthrew Hester and other plays where he underthrew him. Orton's got a lot more arm than people give him credit for, but even Grossman had better accuracy on deep passes. One estimate I remember reading was that Orton missed Hester deep a total of 12 times last season. It wasn't from a lack of arm strength, just an inability to place deep passes accurately. Cutler's one of the better QBs in the league at that - teams should actually have to defend against the deep ball this season, which will open up the underneath passing game and make Forte's life easier.

Omiyale's being paid like a starter - there was no doubt in my mind that they'd work him into the 1st team lineup pretty quick. After all, he needs to get acclimated to his new linemates and all that before the season starts.

Matt Forte was seen limping off the field during today's OTA - he didn't return. It all happened a few minutes before the practice ended, so the fact that he didn't come back from the locker room may not mean much. Turner on the injury: "I don't think there's any concern...I think he'll be fine.''

That's an interesting way to look at it, and I think I agree with you there. All of our receivers are going to be projects, except Davis who basically is what he is at this point. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but I think anybody looking at our WR corps right now would see the same things: a lot of youth, a lot of potential, and very little proven production. If we're going into this season knowing that we'll be developing basically our whole receiver corps, why not keep fewer receivers so they each get more reps? Slight derail, but when I look at the Giants this offseason I think they could be in a situation similar to Chicago's, albeit not quite as bad. They lost Plax and Toomer, so Steve Smith went from a slot receiver to a #1 and Hixon went from a kick returner to a #2. Behind them are four guys (Sinorice Moss, Mario Manningham, Hakeem Nicks and Ramses Barden) who've done nothing or practically nothing in the pros. All 6 guys are 25 or younger, and all of them are relatively unproven. As a point of reference - Devin Hester had more receiving yards and touchdowns last year than anybody on the Giants, and out of their group, only Steve Smith had more catches than Hester. To compare further, both offenses have excellent running games and young Pro Bowl QBs. Obviously, in the passing game the Bears can lean more heavily on Olsen and Clark than the Giants can on Kevin Boss, but Chicago probably can't match New York's pass protection from the offensive line. I'll be interested to see if Chicago and New York take similar approaches to developing a whole group of wide receivers at once.

Obviously there's a wide-open depth chart at receiver behind Hester and Bennett, but I think Brandon Rideau's only going to make the roster if the Bears keep six wideouts. Rashied Davis is going to stay on board as a #3 or #4 receiver, and both Iglesias and Knox are locks to make the roster. If I remember right, the Bears started 2008 with five wideouts on the roster - they only elevated Rideau from the practice squad in November. If they start the '09 season with five receivers, I don't see anyone who Rideau could beat. If they keep six, there'll be one spot for Rideau, Derek Kinder, Eric Peterman, John Broussard, and Devin Aromashodu to compete for. Unless Kinder really comes on strong, Rideau could probably win that sixth spot. If they only keep five, though, I don't think he beats Knox or Iglesias.

Yeah, the Tampa 2 really does make use of a lot of stunts and inside rushes, at least when it's being implemented correctly. The Bears used them in '05 and '06, and Rod Marinelli used them in Tampa. Line stunts, misdirection, and other ways of confusing blockers are important to the scheme, since you're almost always going to be rushing 4 against 5 blockers (6 if there's a TE or FB staying in to block.) Basically, the scheme is predicated on pass pressure, but doesn't give you the luxury of sending extra rushers. I really hope Marinelli can get our front 4 playing like they need to - I think this defense can be top 10 again if we just get some pressure up front.

Plax's charge carries mandatory time if he's convicted, and it's not like he can claim he didn't have the gun. A bar full of people saw what happened, and the hole in his leg is pretty incontrovertible evidence. On top of that, he's refused to take a plea deal. That dude is going to jail, no two way about it. If he finally wises up and takes a plea (the last one offered to him was three months' time and 1500 hours of community service) then maybe he'll be out sometime during the 2009 season. If he keeps on the way he has been, though, he'll be looking at several years. Either way, he's going to be in jail behind this charge. I don't think he's an option for the Bears.

That sounds totally reasonable. We know that Jay likes to lock in on his #1 receiver: he went to Brandon Marshall 182 times last season. If he targets Hester three-quarters that often, he should catch 72 no problem.

I can't agree enough. He's a hammer on coverage teams: nobody who weighs 270 pounds should be able to get down the field that fast. Probably my favorite Idonije moment was when he just DEMOLISHED Darren Sproles on a return in the San Diego game. I can't imagine being a little 5'7" guy and having Izzy come hurtling down the field to level you.

To be honest, I'm happy with this offseason even without Boldin. Remember that Boldin's turning 29 this season - he might only have a couple of good years left. With the exception of Orlando Pace, basically all the signings this offseason have not only made the team better, they've made the team younger. Kevin Shaffer is 29, replacing St. Clair who was 31. Tinoisamoa is a year younger than Hillenmeyer, Omiyale is five years younger than Terrence Metcalf, Josh Bullocks is five years younger than Mike Brown. Chris Williams is a whopping 11 years younger than John Tait. Bennett and Iglesias are a decade younger than Marty Booker. Hell, Cutler is even younger than Orton, if only by six months. All of a sudden the Bears aren't an aging team with the window closing any more. We've got some very young, very promising players to develop. Boldin would be nice, but how many great seasons does he have left? Sure, he'd be good for maybe 2 or 3 years, but he'd slow down the development of our young receivers. If it were up to me, I'd rather go through a season of growing pains at wideout in 2009, then have a solid receiving corps from 2010 onward.

Yeah, after the holding pattern our coaching staff and front office have been in for the past several years, it's really refreshing to see them acknowledge the problem areas on the roster, then do whatever is necessary to get them fixed. Really, I couldn't be happier with how Angelo's conducted this offseason.

The Sun-Times reports that the Bears have agreed to terms with former St. Louis linebacker Pisa Tinoisamoa. Looks like Jerry got it done again: this offseason has been pretty great.

Oh, I'm not trying to say Hester is the same caliber of receiver that any of those guys are. I think the statistics bear that out: if Hester had gotten as many targets as Calvin Johnson, he'd still be nearly 250 yards short of Johnson's production. I was just trying to say that, had he been targeted as often as they were, he would have had legitimate (if probably unspectacular) #1 receiver numbers. My main point is that Hester was underused last season. I think a lot of that had to do, as you say, with Orton not being able to get him the ball on deep routes. Whatever the reason was, I hope that Hester improves his catching in 2009, but I also hope Cutler goes to him much more often than Orton did. If Cutler throws to him 120 or 130 times, Hester could do some real damage, even if he only improves his catch rate by 5-10%.

Per PFW, the Bears are experimenting with the two safety spots in OTAs: "Corey Graham thrown into Bears’ crowded mix at free safety By Dan Arkush May 29, 2009 The Bears’ move of Corey Graham from cornerback to free safety appears to be a permanent one. But we hear it remains to be seen if Graham, who started nine games last season at right cornerback in place of the injured Nate Vasher, is on a fast track toward becoming the starter at the FS position. 'Right now, they’re just throwing a bunch of bodies out there (at both free and strong safety),' one daily team observer said. 'They’ve admitted there were problems in coverage at the position last year, and Graham’s range should help in that regard. He also won’t back down physically, although he doesn’t have prototypical size (6-0, 193).' The move of Graham to safety also might be an indication the team is growing more comfortable with the status of Vasher, who has told team insiders he is feeling much better after being limited by groin and hand injuries last season. 'He’s been lining up with the (first team),' the team observer said of Vasher, 'but he still has a lot to prove.'" This all makes a fair amount of sense: I'd be surprised if they were actually moving Steltz to FS and Bullocks to SS, but it sounds like they're just trying to get a look at the pieces they have to work with.

They're not great comparisons, true. They were just the first two who jumped to mind, though. We can look at some other deep-threat receivers' catch rates from 2008, and they're pretty similar to Hester's. I've got a list here of guys who were #1 receivers on teams with less-than-ideal quarterbacking, so their situations will be as comparable to Hester's as possible: Calvin Johnson caught 78 of 151 targets (51.7%) Randy Moss caught 69 of 126 (54.8%) Dwayne Bowe caught 86 of 157 (54.8%) There are plenty of #1 receivers in the league with catch rates comparable to Hester's. Hester's 55.4% catch rate is actually better than Johnson, Moss, or Bowe - he just wasn't thrown to nearly as often as they were. If you're a deep-threat receiver, you don't have to be quite as reliable as a possession guy. Statistically, if Hester had been thrown to as much as Randy Moss was, he would have caught 70 passes for 913 yards. If he'd been thrown to as much as Johnson or Bowe, you're talking about 1100 yards receiving. In terms of Hester's catch rate and production per catch, he's already a very comparable target to Berrian when he was a Bear. In 2007, Berrian caught 70 of 128 passes (54.7% catch rate) for 948 yards. If Hester had been targeted 128 times in 2008, he'd have caught 71 of 128 for 926 yards. Hester's a pretty good deep threat, he just wasn't targeted nearly as often as he should have been last season.

I think Idonije might get some more snaps at end this year, in more of a rotation with Ogunleye. Apparently Marinelli really likes his speed and has asked him to get down to around 265 pounds to make the most of his quickness. Even before his move to tackle, he was playing at 270-275: if he can get an extra half-step playing a little lighter, he could be a legitimate force off the edge. Also, it'll help his ability on special teams, which was sorely missed when he moved to DT last season.

I have to say, even if Hester doesn't turn into a game-breaker at wideout, he'll be a good deep threat. I doubt very much that Hester-the-receiver in 2009 will be as dangerous as Hester-the-returner in 2006-2007, but here's the thing: he wasn't going to continue to be that kind of threat at returner, had he stayed there. By the end of 2007, teams were kicking away from him whenever he was on the field. Anybody who thought they didn't have to could just take a look at what happened to the Broncos, Rams, Cardinals, etc. The problem with having a generational talent at returner, which I think spurred Hester's move to offense, is that you're not in control of whether he gets the ball. The other team has to choose to give him an opportunity, and with more and more teams choosing not to, the Bears had to find another way to get the ball in his hands, even if he wasn't going to be quite as special a player in that new role. As much as I understand the move to receiver, I do hope that Hester can put up at least three more return TDs in his career: he really does deserve to have the all-time record. Maybe he only gets one a year from here on out, but he should still be able to hit 14 for his career, no problem.

Well, I hope you're right. The last thing we need is another high-talent DT with poor conditioning and a dicey knee.

I've mentioned this before, but 51 receptions out of 92 targets is actually not that bad. Hester had a better catch percentage (55%) than T.O. or Braylon Edwards last season. Obviously he needs to improve somewhat, but if he can get up to 65-66% or so, that'll be a very good mark. Also, it's MUCH easier to understand why Bennett finished the season without a catch...he was only on the field for 16 plays! Considering that Hester was on the field for 631 plays but only got the ball thrown to him 92 times, how many looks could Bennett possibly have gotten in 16 snaps? After reading that, I'm a little more hopeful that Bennett will show something this year. He's still an unknown, but the coaching staff clearly didn't give him anything close to a real shot in 2008.

Yeah, I guess the distinction I'm trying to draw is this: a prediction about what will happen can be evaluated factually. You can have a conversation about whether it's likely or unlikely based on the available evidence. An opinion about what ought to happen can't be evaluated along the same lines: it's just as valid whether there's evidence or not. Anyway, I'll leave the whole logic derail alone, I've done too much of it already. Back to OTA news: Jeff Dickerson had some observations on OTAs, not all of them good. The one that worries me the most is this: "Marcus Harrison's recent inactivity was noticeable to those in attendance at the OTA. The defensive tackle looked much heavier than his listed weight of 310 pounds." Hopefully that's nothing to be too concerned about, and he certainly has time to take the weight back off before the season, but I think the Bears need a significant contribution out of Harrison this season. It seems pretty obvious that Tommie needs to be in a rotation to be effective these days: his knee is going to keep him out of a lot of practices going forward, which means both his knee and his conditioning will keep him from being an every-down player in games. Harrison, I think, is being groomed to be our next Tank Johnson: a nose guard who can also play three-technique when needed. Given that Adams and Dvoracek are pure nose guys, our depth chart behind Tommie (if Harrison can't go) probably goes Gilbert, Idonije, Toeania. Both Gilbert and Idonije are likely to have other duties at end and on special teams, so that's a lot less depth than it looks like on paper - we need Harrison to be ready to go when Harris needs a break.

Oof, you're totally right about that. I forgot that Rivera's contract was up at the end of that season. I really wish they had extended him, though, even considering the tension between him and Lovie. Whatever their dynamic was, it was clearly great for the defense. I don't want to draw TOO much of a parallel, but Ditka and Buddy Ryan weren't exactly best pals, either...

If it's your opinion that Lovie should be fired, that's fine. Your opinion differs from my opinion. But your post was a prediction that he will be fired, not a statement of opinion. If it's a prediction, then I want to know what evidence it's based on. If it's an opinion, then I guess we can just agree to disagree. For what it's worth, my own opinion is that Lovie should be on the hot seat to get back into the playoffs, but I don't believe his job should be in danger just yet. I think he's a good coach and a winning coach, but I'll be extremely disappointed if the Bears don't take the NFC North back this year. If we miss the playoffs again, I think the blame will probably rest on Lovie and the defense. The team was definitely better when Rivera was running the defense, even if he and Lovie butted heads. I'm willing to chalk up the last two seasons to Bob Babich being over his head as a DC, but, ultimately, Lovie fired Ron so that he could have more control over the defense, so he needs to prove that he can get results from them.

Glad to see Bobby Engram getting some love. Whenever I start a Bears franchise in Madden, I always bring him back to Chicago: Engram at split end, Berrian at flanker, and Hester in the slot.

OK, I've got a long response and a short response. Skip to the bottom if you want the short version. The Long Version First: I used the word "baldly," not "boldly." A bald assertion is one made without any accompanying evidence to support it. That's what your post was, a bald assertion without any evidence. Second: Where did I claim or imply that the Bears will never fire a coach in-season? I just pointed out that they never have before, so there's no historical evidence to support your claim that they'll fire Smith. You're acting like I was trying to prove a negative, when I was actually just noting the lack of evidence for your own statement. If you're trying to change your position and say that it's merely possible that they'll fire some coach in-season at some point in the future, go right ahead. But that's not what you said in the post to which I was responding. Let me unpack your two posts: Your first post: Provided that Chicago is out of the hunt by midseason 2009, they will definitely fire Lovie Smith in-season. Your second post: Just because Chicago has never fired a coach in-season doesn't mean they won't. Those are two different assertions, and they're not equivalent to one another. Logically, if you negate the statement "X is necessarily false," the result is the statement "X is possibly true," not the statement "X is actually true." By way of an example, let's assume for the sake of argument that I actually was trying to say that the Bears will never fire a coach in-season. Here's how that conversation would go: You: The Bears will fire Lovie Smith in-season in 2009, given preconditions X, Y, and Z. Me: It is impossible that the Bears will ever fire a coach in-season. You: That's untrue. Me: You're right, I take it back. It is possible that the Bears will fire a coach in-season at some point. In this scenario, you've refuted my first claim, and now we're back to square 1. To see why we're at square 1 and not a resolution, let's unpack that exchange a little further: You: Given preconditions X, Y, and Z, it is necessarily true that the Bears will fire Lovie Smith in-season in 2009. Me: It is impossible that the Bears will ever fire a coach in-season, therefore, given your preconditions, they will not fire Smith in-season. You: The statement "it is impossible that the Bears will ever fire a coach in-season" is false, therefore your conclusion doesn't follow. Me: I take it back. It is possible that the Bears will fire a coach in-season at some point, therefore, given your preconditions, it is possible that the Bears will fire Lovie Smith in-season in 2009. Look at the italicized parts of this exchange: we're committed to two different statements, since a thing being possible doesn't imply that it is true. Now let's look at the actual argument: You: Given preconditions X, Y, and Z, it is necessarily true that the Bears will fire Lovie Smith in-season in 2009. Me: The Bears have never fired a coach in-season, and many coaches meeting preconditions X, Y, and Z were only fired after the season had ended. Therefore, given those preconditions, there is no reason to think that the Bears will not wait until after the season to fire Smith, if indeed they fire him at all. You: The statement "it is impossible that the Bears will ever fire a coach in-season" is false. Me: The statement "X is possible" is not equivalent to the statement "X is true." Therefore, the statement "the statement 'X is impossible' is false" is not equivalent to the statement "X is true." We're both committed to the thing being possible, in the same way that it's possible that I'll get a million dollars in the mail or learn to ride a unicycle before I die, but you're trying to argue that it's TRUE, and you haven't given any reasons why anyone should think that. The Short Version I agree that it is possible that the Bears will fire some coach in-season at some time in the future. Do you have any specific evidence that the coach will be Lovie Smith and that the season will be 2009, or are you just saying that because you don't like the guy?