defiantgiant

Really, I think they've been trying to replace Chris Harris and Mike Brown for the last 3 years. Most of the guys on that list are safeties, and most were brought in after Brown's recurring injuries started and Harris was traded away. They drafted Danieal Manning to be Brown's replacement, but he didn't pan out at free safety, and now he seems pretty entrenched at nickel back. Archuleta was supposed to step in for Harris, and we all saw how that went. Manning, Payne, Earl, Bullocks, Steltz, Afalava - it seems like the Bears have been scrambling to replace the awesome safety tandem they had in 2005-2006. I hope that they can finally get it right this year: watching Payne slide off tackles and Manning take awful angles was painful.

Yeah, exactly. We'd still have pretty good depth at corner sans Graham, with Tillman playing opposite Vasher/Moore, Danieal Manning as the nickel back, Trumaine McBride as the dime back, and either McBride or Bowman as Tillman's backup. I think there's a lot of justification for how high the Bears are on Moore. A lot of draft publications had Moore as the 4th or 5th best corner in the draft, and Angelo has had an exceptional track record picking defensive backs in later rounds. I think we're going to find out that they got a steal there.

If he can be effective covering TEs and getting off blocks (a lot of which may come down to his playing weight) I'd love for the Bears to get him. We could use an upgrade at Sam linebacker, particularly when it comes to pass coverage, which is not exactly Hillenmeyer's strong suit. Judging from the clips I've seen and what Lovie has to say, Tinoisamoa could be a serious upgrade over either of our current candidates on the strong side. Provided that he plays somewhere north of 230 pounds, that is.

It's not that Orton doesn't have enough arm to throw deep passes: far from it, he's got above-league-average arm strength. He just has never developed any touch or accuracy on his deep passes. That was one of the knocks on him coming out of Purdue, and for as much as he's improved in every other area, he hasn't shown a lot of progress in his ability to place a deep pass. You said it yourself: Orton's deep passes don't hit his receivers in stride. He's got plenty of zip on those throws, but he puts them behind his receivers or out in front of them or generally off-target, forcing receivers to adjust. Look at Devin Hester last season: he had very little trouble getting open deep, but he was lousy at adjusting to Orton's underthrown or badly-placed passes, which meant he missed a lot of catches. When Orton did put one right on the money, Hester usually came up with the catch. I think the Orton-to-Hester connection would have worked MUCH better had Orton been better at ball placement or Hester better at adjustments. I'm with you in thinking that Cutler is a vastly superior deep passer, mainly because he can put those throws where they need to go. We should be able to take a lot more shots down the field with Cutler throwing the ball.

This seems pretty brutal, even for a QB with his track record. Rex isn't consistent enough to be a reliable backup, however, and teams don't tend to keep unreliable backups around, even if they're talented (see Sage Rosenfels on the Texans or JP Losman on the Bills.) If your starter gets hurt, you don't want an erratic guy with upside, you want a steady, dependable player. That said, I'm surprised somebody doesn't see him as a reclamation project. I'd think he'd be in that Joey Harrington category at this point: relatively young, still has plenty of potential, tons of mental mistakes. He basically needs to be rebuilt from the ground up, but it's not like he'd cost much to take on: he's only looking for the vet minimum. What do you guys think would be the best landing spot for Grossman? If it were up to me, I'd say Carolina would be a good place for him. Jake Delhomme has a few years left, and if they could fix Rex, he'd be in an identical situation to 2006 Chicago: great o-line, two-headed power running game, stout defense. Plus, they have a receiver he's already worked with in Muhsin Muhammad, and the guy across from him isn't Bernard Berrian, it's Steve Smith. I think that the Panthers could have a shot at turning Grossman into a decent QB if they signed him.

I agree that Graham's development is key. It makes a lot of sense to move him to FS - his speed and ball skills are a little below average for a corner, but they'd be more than adequate for a safety. Plus, he's got the frame to play safety if he adds a little weight, he's very physical in run support, and he has good form/takes good angles as a tackler. He stepped in reasonably well at corner when Vasher started to slump, and I think there's reason to believe he'd do even better as a safety. The thing that gives the Bears some really nice flexibility is Danieal Manning's performance as a nickel back. The fact that he emerged as a nickel means that our backups to Vasher/Tillman are just that: backups. If you consider the nickel corner a starter, which I do, then they're not starters. Graham was basically a backup who ended up pushing Vasher due to the latter's poor performance: I'm fine with DJ Moore doing the same thing in 2009. That would free Graham up to push Bullocks for the starting job at FS.

Don't know if this has been posted yet, but the Raiders claimed him off waivers. Chalk up another sub-4.4 project at receiver for Oakland. EDIT: nfoligno, I don't know if it's fair to say that Darryl Drake's track record has been "questionable at best." He's been given some extremely suspect talent to work with, and has turned out receivers who performed as soon as they had a real QB throwing them the ball. Justin Gage and Bobby Wade aren't stellar by any stretch of the imagination, but as soon as they landed in places with even semi-competent QBs, they started performing decently. Mark Bradley even showed flashes in Kansas City, although he's hurt too much to be a consistent player. Bernard Berrian has performed well in Minnesota, and if they get a semi-decent QB, I'd expect Berrian to break out in a big way. It's worth noting that Berrian himself said that he was a one-trick pony coming into the league, and credited Drake with turning him into a complete receiver. I'm not saying Drake's a genius coach, but it's very hard to evaluate his receivers' performance in Chicago, given how poor their QB play was. If you evaluate them for what they did after they left, they don't look too bad. Hell, look at the way Devin Hester started progressing last season. With all his physical tools, Miami U couldn't turn him into a receiver, and they've had a good track record when it comes to turning out NFL receivers (Reggie Wayne, Andre Johnson, Santana Moss, Sinorice Moss, and Roscoe Parrish since 2001) If Hester continues to make progress like last season, he'll be a dangerous receiver, in no small part because we finally have a QB who can hit him on deep routes. If that happens, I think Drake will deserve some credit as a pretty good receivers coach. Basically, I think you have to withhold judgment on Drake the same way you have to on his receivers: see what they do with a real quarterback, then we can make a determination about whether he's done good work.

Well, but they won't be out rehabbing injuries or anything. There's no practical reason why they couldn't stay in shape during their suspensions. Also, Game 5 is against the Rams. They'll have a month off, true, but then they'll have the Rams game to get back up to speed before the really hard matchups come around. Unfortunately, I don't think this suspension will affect the Vikings' season in the least. I think 2009 is likely to be the same story as last year - if anything can tank their season, it'll be poor coaching and quarterbacking. It won't be the defense.

Yeah, that would offer some explanation for why Adams has had such a hard time getting snaps. It's a shame, because he's a very good run-stopping DT. You're right about Booger having far more pass-rush ability than Adams - if I remember right, he actually took over the under tackle spot when Sapp left Tampa Bay. However, if Lovie wants some more pass-rush ability at the other DT spot, we can go into 2009 with Harrison starting and Adams as relief. That would be fine by me: even at this early juncture, Harrison is a huge upgrade over Dvoracek, and he should offer more ability to penetrate and get to the QB than Adams.

The number of carries he got isn't indicative of his role in the offense; Choice was starting for Dallas the last four games of 2008, when both Barber and Jones were hurt. They used the run sparingly in those four games, because they were literally down to their last back, but he was starting. He was listed as the starter for three games, against Pittsburgh, Philly, and Baltimore. He was effectively a starter for the Giants game as well, since both other backs were injured and Barber was largely ineffective even when he wasn't held out. The four teams Choice faced have four of the NFL's best defenses. As a starter in those four games, this was Choice's stat line: 62 carries for 325 yards (5.2 YPC) and two touchdowns, plus 17 receptions for 163 yards, totalling 488 yards on 79 touches. In short, he put up over 120 yards of offense a game on about 20 touches per game. Granted, they weren't a run-heavy offense when he was starting, but those are pretty good numbers for a starting RB. As far as the Raiders: if there's one area where I wouldn't mind the Bears emulating Oakland, it's RB depth. I'm not saying the Raiders are a good team by any stretch of the imagination, but you have to concede that they have three very talented running backs. A competently coached team would be able to get a lot of production out of that platoon. I disagree with this line of reasoning, but I can see where you're coming from. Wolfe's skillset is certainly different from Forte's or Jones' - my question is first whether it's both different and useful, then whether that utility outweighs his lack of utility as an emergency starter. As I've said before, I think Wolfe's role is extremely limited by his lack of size and strength, such that we basically have to design plays around the one or two things that he can do well. It's true that Wolfe offers the screen/toss/trick play value when the other backs are healthy, but if Forte is healthy, he's a better receiver on screen passes. As for the tosses and fake punts and whatever, I'm not a fan of those to begin with. Compare Wolfe's value on the occasional trick play to his dramatic lack of value as an emergency back, and I question whether it's worth keeping him over a guy who can be an insurance policy, even if that guy would be on the bench under ideal circumstances. I think it's unwise to downplay the importance of a third receiver who can start if needed: Peterson may not sniff the field unless Forte and Jones get hurt, but running backs get injured all the time. As we saw with the Cowboys last season, it's definitely possible for your first two running backs to go down. How many RBs did Denver lose in 2008? Ultimately, I think it's a question of which is more valuable: the niche value that Wolfe has, or an insurance policy against injuries at a position where they're commonplace. In an ideal world, I'd like to have complementary skill sets between the first two backs on the depth chart, and I think if Jones is healthy, he can be a slashing, Derrick Ward-type back. Even if your first two backs are similar skill-wise, however, I think you still need an all-around back as your third guy. Injuries are just too common to move forward without a real emergency back.

Unfortunately, this delay could work out great for the Vikings. They have a very easy first four games (Browns, Lions, Niners, Packers) against teams without dominant rushing attacks. They'll probably be fine without the Williamses for those four, and they'll get them back in time for the Ravens, Steelers and both Chicago games. Frank Gore is pretty good, but the Niners were close to the bottom of the league in rushing yards per game and YPC last year. The Browns were arguably worse than the Niners at running the ball, and the Lions were even worse than that (although they did much better after they replaced Rudi Johnson with Kevin Smith.) Smith is kind of a wildcard: he broke one for 50 yards against the Vikings last year, but outside of that carry, he only averaged 3.0 YPC against them last year. I'd bet that the Vikings can contain him handily without the Williamses. The Packers are the only team in their first 4 games with even a passable ground game, but Ryan Grant is wildly inconsistent. He got totally shut down against some very poor run defenses in 2008 (like the first game against Detroit, where he went 15 rushes for 20 yards, with a long of 5) but also did well against some good ones. Depending on which Ryan Grant shows up, the Packers could have a great day running the ball against the Vikings, or they could get stuffed. In any case, it looks like the appeal worked out well for Minnesota. Instead of losing their dominant DT tandem down the stretch last year, they lose them for four extremely winnable games in 2009 then get them back right when they'll need them.

I remember PFT or somebody posted an anonymous quote from a Bears staff member, basically saying that he'd never seen a nose tackle get blown off the ball as much as Dvoracek. He just doesn't have the anchor to play the nose, and it cripples our run defense. Not only did Adams outplay him (and I really hope we go into this season with Adams as the starter) but I think you could argue, considering the limited playing time he got, that Toeaina did too. In the video I linked in the Cutler thread, Pat Kirwan also comments on the loss of Tank Johnson and what it did to our defense. Our scheme doesn't just rely on the front 4 to rush the passer, it relies on them to close running lanes and keep blockers off the middle linebacker. A lot of that responsibility falls on the nose guard. If you look at Tampa Bay in the Warren Sapp-Simeon Rice era, who'd they have at nose guard? Booger McFarland. You need an excellent run-stopper lined up next to the under tackle in order to run our defense, and Dusty isn't it. Incidentally, McFarland had a similar physical skillset to Anthony Adams. They're both squatty and sort of undersized, but get good leverage and are capable run-stuffing tackles. So as far as Anthony Adams not fitting our "DT mold," I hope that's not true, since the model for our scheme came from a team that used another 6'0" 300-pound guy at the nose. Basically, I'm hoping that we go into this season rotating Adams and Harrison at that spot: between the two of them, we ought to finally be able to make up for the loss of Tank.

Here's an interesting note, via CBS Sports: Pat Kirwan thinks that Juaquin Iglesias can have an Eddie Royal-type rookie season thanks to Jay Cutler. If you don't want to watch the video, Kirwan basically says that Eddie Royal attributed a lot of his excellent rookie season (91 catches, 980 yards, 5 touchdowns) to Cutler helping him develop and getting him the ball. Obviously Royal and Iglesias are pretty different in terms of their skillsets, but the common thread I see between them is this: both of them know how to get open. They go about it differently, Royal with his quickness and Iglesias with his slick route-running, but they can both separate from a DB. If you can separate and your QB can deliver the ball like Cutler can, the only thing remaining is to make the catch, which Iglesias can do. If Kirwan's right, and Iglesias (or, for that matter, Earl Bennett) can step up the way Royal did, we might have a pretty decent passing game in 2009.

The reason I like AP better than Wolfe as a 3rd RB is basically this. If we keep Forte, Jones, and Wolfe then, for depth purposes, we're effectively just keeping Forte and Jones. Wolfe can't remotely be expected to carry the load if something happens to the other two - in that situation, he's a wasted roster spot. Peterson can be a starting running back in an emergency: like we saw in 2007, it's not pretty, but he can do it passably. When you're evaluating whether you want Wolfe or AP as the 3rd halfback, look at it this way: if Forte and Jones go down, do we want to be starting Peterson or some guy off the practice squad? When you look at the 2008 teams that had really good RB depth, the 3rd back was usually a guy who could start if he had to. Tashard Choice on the Cowboys, Ahmad Bradshaw on the Giants, Michael Bush on the Raiders - these guys are basically poor-man's feature backs. All those teams have two guys with different skillsets at #1 and #2 (Barber and Jones, Jacobs and Ward, Fargas and McFadden) and then they have kind of a jack-of-all-trades at #3. Forte-Jones-Peterson fits that formula. Forte-Jones-Wolfe doesn't.

Yeah, 9 games seems more than they could manage, but I wouldn't be THAT surprised to see them go 7-9 or even 8-8. On paper, they've got more than enough defense to be competitive, and Calvin Johnson put up 1300 yards and a dozen touchdowns on LAST year's Lions - who knows what he'll do with even a modicum of improvement on offense? Really, if they can cobble together a decent offensive line, they'll have a workable offense, and their defense looks a little better than league-average. I think they should be right there in the middle. They still might finish last in the NFC North, just because of how much the rest of the division has improved, but it could be a 7-9 last instead of an 0-16 last.

Couple of points. This rule doesn't remotely hold true. If it were really "more likely than not" that you need two first-round picks and three 2nd-3rds to build an o-line, teams wouldn't have enough picks to go around. Can you name 17 teams in this league that have spent picks like that on their current starting o-line? If you can't, then it's not "more likely than not." Look at the Giants' line and the Patriots' line: a lot of the best lines in football are made up of mid-to-late-round guys and maybe one high pick. Emphasis mine. So you're saying that we have three holes on the o-line, not counting Kreutz or Williams? That means that we need an LT, LG, and RG. We have Pace and three other players on the roster with experience at LT, plus Omiyale/Beekman at LG and Garza/Buenning at RG. Also, are you saying that Orlando Pace has "rarely" played left tackle in his career? If that's true, I'd like to see a guy who's played it often. It looks like Shaffer (who played both RT and LT in Cleveland) is going to be the swing backup...are you saying he's "rarely" played either tackle spot? He's played both extensively. The only guys who are moving are Omiyale and Williams, and both of them are moving from left tackle to positions generally considered less demanding. Last point. It sounds like you're assuming that bump and run is an inherently superior scheme for corners, and that teams only play zone or off-man because they don't have the personnel to play strict man bump-and-run. That's not even close to true: the way you play your corners depends very much on the rest of your defensive scheme, some schemes depend on zone coverage from corners, and some depend on man coverage. If it were really the case that not playing bump-and-run "kills [teams] in numerous critical ways" then wouldn't Philly's secondary be getting "killed"? And wouldn't the Raiders actually have good coverage, instead of everybody not named Asomugha getting picked apart? The Raiders use bump-and-run religiously, and they're a case study in its failings.

I honestly hope Dusty's the odd man out. He can't stay healthy, and he's not stout enough to play the nose guard in a 4-3. Replacing Tank Johnson with Dusty practically crippled our run defense, ultimately necessitating that mug-up, eight-in-the-box look that caused so many coverage problems last year. Anthony Adams severely outperformed Dvoracek in 2008, and it sounds like we're moving Marcus Harrison to the nose, which makes Dusty pretty expendable. I'd be more than happy with Adams/Harrison at nose guard, Harris/Gilbert at under tackle, and Toeaina as a third-string at both spots.

Yeah, definitely. The Bears have a glut of young receivers trying to step up, and I think if Rideau can't prove himself in 2009 or transform into a special teams ace, he's going to be out. I definitely think he's worth a look, though. Last preseason he looked like a legitimate red-zone target - he showed that he can win a jump ball with a DB draped all over him.

I couldn't agree more; Hass looked good in camp and preseason, but there's a big jump from there to being a contributor on game day. Hass was extremely productive at lower levels of competition, but it might be that he was just at his ceiling already and couldn't take the next step. The thing with the Seahawks would seem to bear that out. With Rideau, I think the situation is a little different. He's got more raw talent than Hass, but hasn't put it together yet. He was on the active roster in 2008, but he doesn't have any special teams experience, which Hass does. The Bears are very serious about having guys prove themselves on special teams, and that probably worked against Rideau. Hass doesn't have the same excuse - he was an excellent special teamer in college. It's too bad that Hass didn't work out, but I think Rideau is still worth another look this offseason, especially as a red-zone target.

I thought Angelo pretty much shot this idea down. Per Rotoworld: "He was a great player and I really respect what he did for Tampa," Angelo said, "(but) I doubt we'd be pursuing Simeon." Rice is a one-dimensional pass-rusher, and he's way, way over the hill: the last time he had more than 2 sacks in a season was in 2005 with the Buccaneers. If he's a super hero, he sure didn't save the Broncos or the Colts in 2007, or anybody at all in 2008. He could barely get on the field for the Broncos, who don't exactly have a stellar d-line, and he did even less for the Colts. Both teams signed him because a starter went down (Ekuban on the Broncos and Dwight Freeney on the Colts) and in both cases, Rice was on the bench on game days while the teams went with guys they already had on the roster. That, coupled with the fact that not a single team wanted him in 2008, says a lot. I've heard a lot of talk about the Rice-Marinelli connection, since Marinelli was his coach in Tampa Bay. Marinelli was coaching the Lions last year, though, and they had a godawful defensive line. I think if Rice had anything left, Marinelli would have brought him to Detroit. Instead, he sat on his couch for 2008. The guy's done.

Only to the extent that he could consistently get Wolfe into open space completely untouched, which is a lot to ask from any blocker. Wolfe is extremely quick and agile, but he's not as big or as strong as the successful NFL scatbacks (guys like Chris Johnson, Darren Sproles, or Leon Washington.) Wolfe really doesn't have even adequate strength to break tackles, and that severely limits his utility as a runner. In college, he could use his quickness to step away from tackles, but he hasn't been able to do that successfully in the NFL, and the first guy to get a hand on him almost always brings him down. The plays where he's been successful are gadget plays designed to get him into space (like that fake punt where we direct-snapped to him) or little screen passes that accomplish the same thing - getting him the ball without him having to actually run it through the line, since any defender who can get a hand on him in the hole can put him on the ground. There aren't many successful NFL running backs who can only be used on screens, special teams, and trick plays; I really don't see Wolfe as good for more than that at this point.

From chicagobears.com: "Looking back at the 2008 season, it seems Matt Forte got a whole lot of first downs for the Bears. How many first downs did Matt Forte pick up and where did that rank in the NFL?" Robin San Juan, Puerto Rico "Matt Forte tied for the NFL lead with 86 first downs, matching Washington’s Clinton Portis and Atlanta’s Michael Turner. Forte had 63 rushing first downs, and his 23 receiving first downs were surpassed only by Jacksonville’s Maurice Jones-Drew among NFL running backs. On third downs, Forte led the NFL with 28 first downs overall and 19 first downs rushing." For my own part, it seemed like every time I saw Forte run the ball last season, he was getting us a first down. Even though the Bears' offense as a unit stalled a fair amount, it's nice to see Forte get some recognition. After all, this is a rookie who was tied for the most first downs in the league, second among running backs for most receiving first downs, and best in the league at getting it done on third down - I can't wait to see what he does in 2009.

I don't think you necessarily have to draft well early to build a team. Angelo absolutely needs to improve his early drafting, but he's much better than most other GMs at finding starting-caliber players in the 2nd-5th rounds. Matt Forte, Devin Hester and Peanut Tillman were drafted in the 2nd, Lance Briggs and Bernard Berrian in the 3rd, Alex Brown and Nate Vasher in the 4th, etc. We've gotten good players in the middle rounds very consistently during Angelo's tenure as GM, and he's built a team that way. If he could improve his first-round drafting, he'd be in elite company on draft day. Even as is, though, he's managed to put a talented team together despite some major misses in the first round. Also, I think the Cutler trade goes a long way toward ameliorating Angelo's problem with first-round picks, just because of how young Cutler is. It's one thing to trade draft picks for a 30-year-old vet, but it's another thing altogether to get a Pro Bowl-caliber player who's only been in the league three years. You absolutely can build a team by trading for young players. Cutler could easily play in Chicago for a decade, and that makes him a building block for a long time. Look at what Green Bay did when they acquired Favre from Atlanta. They traded for a young player and they ended up getting a 16-year starter. I'm not a big Favre fan, but you can't say he wasn't a long-term building block for the Packers. I agree that Angelo needs to improve his drafting in the first round, but he's put together a good team in spite of that problem. Yeah, Chicago's going to need replacements for Urlacher and Kreutz sooner rather than later, and they're going to need a replacement for Ogunleye before too long, but they're not an old team by any means. I think they've potentially got the replacements for Kreutz and Wale already on the roster, in Beekman and Melton. Both guys will need to step up in a big way, but they both have enough talent. Urlacher worries me more, since we don't have anybody on board who's being groomed as his replacement. I think we'll need to invest a high pick in 2010 or 2011 in a middle linebacker, and that player, whoever he is, will have to step up in a pretty short period of time. I'd really like Mark Herzlich from BC or Brandon Spikes from Florida, but we'd probably need to find a way to move back into the first round next year for either of them.

Huh, right you are. I wonder why Rotoworld was saying he'd never played there before. Well, provided that he can put on the necessary weight, I'd be all for replacing Roach/Hillenmeyer. Especially since Visanthe Shiancoe looked like a legit receiving threat at TE last season. Of all tight ends with at least 40 catches, the only one with a higher YPC than Shiancoe was Tony Scheffler in Denver. If Shiancoe keeps playing like he did in 2008 and Brandon Pettigrew is as good as advertised, I think Chicago's going to need a really good Sam 'backer. Not to mention we play Atlanta again this year: Matt Ryan to Tony Gonzalez could be lethal. If Lovie thinks Pisa can be an upgrade over our current strong side LBs, then I hope he's the next item on Angelo's shopping list.

I was just re-reading this part of the article. I love that he's already got some fullback experience. We need a real mauling in-line blocker at both TE and fullback (in my mind, McKie and Des Clark are both adequate at blocking, but nothing more) and it sounds like Gaines could be both. This addition should help us out immensely in those goal-line and short-yardage situations.