defiantgiant

Where did you see that he was moved to the weak side? The Rams only switched him to SLB for minicamp last month, and it was reported that he had never played that position before in the NFL. Did he play Sam in college or something? As far as I know, he spent his whole Rams career through the end of last season, as a weak-side backer. If he can get up to a legitimate 240-245 pounds, he could definitely be an upgrade over Roach/Hillenmeyer, but if the reports about his playing weight last season are accurate, that could take a while. A 220-pound guy adding 20-25 pounds of good weight is a major undertaking.

I'd be happy with an upgrade at Sam linebacker, for sure, but I'm not sure he's it. The major knock on Tinoisamoa is his size. He's listed at 6'1" 240, but apparently he played closer to 220 last season. Even for the Tampa-2, that's much too small for a strong-side linebacker, and he didn't perform as well when St. Louis moved him from Will to Sam. He's a better fit on the weak side, since he's got great mobility and is good in coverage. He reminds me a little of Cato June - great Tampa-2 Will backer, but was kind of exposed when he tried to move to the strong side.

Yeah, it'd be an incredibly bad deal for both parties. The Cards' system hardly ever uses the TE as a receiver - they're almost exclusively blockers, and Olsen is a terrible blocker. The Cards would be getting a very poor fit for their offense, and we'd be exchanging this receiver: 6'5" 255 lbs., 25 years old, 4.45 in the 40 ...for this receiver: 6'1" 217 lbs., 29 years old, 4.71 in the 40 and losing a second-round pick, to boot. I was all for getting Boldin and I was happy that Jerry tried to move a second for him on draft day. He's a slow, reliable split end with a few good years left: a second-rounder seems like appropriate value. If we had picked up Boldin for our 2009 second, that would have been great. Giving up Olsen and a second would be insane.

Yeah, I'm with you. Kyle was a leader and was popular with the team. The Bears had three big fourth-quarter losses thanks to the defense. If the Bears had pulled off a win against Atlanta, Tampa Bay, or Carolina, we could have made the postseason; if we'd made the postseason, I think we'd still be starting Kyle. The Cutler trade seems it was spurred by missing the playoffs twice in a row. It seems like Angelo was trying to take the onus off himself and put it on the coaching staff. With Cutler on board, Angelo can credibly say that he fielded the best talent he could, and that he did everything in his power to win, now the coaches need to do the rest. I really hope Cutler's good, because I liked Orton a lot, and but for a couple of key defensive collapses, I think he would still be Chicago's starter.

I don't think you can downgrade a team based on the possibility that their QB might get hurt. If you can do that, then let's take the Pats out of the #1 spot: Tom Brady missed 15 more games last season than either McNabb or Warner.

I was actually thinking that those stats were kind of misleading. Our yards-per-pass-play was low, but we allowed an average of over 241 passing yards a game, 30th in the league. The average play was short because we were consistently allowing short completions all game, every game. Since Babich was stacking all three linebackers in the box (which is why our yards-per-rush was low) and playing the corners 10 yards deep, we left short passing zones completely undefended. The fact that the individual gains were so small and the total yards were so high is a testament to how often the Bears allowed completions and how completely Babich failed to adjust. Opposing teams in 2008 attempted 622 passes against Chicago, that's a league-high figure. Only one other team, the Chargers, got thrown on more than 600 times. The 2008 Bears were stacking the box nearly every down and blitzing more than any other team in the league while still ranking close to the bottom in sacks and QB pressures. Opposing teams could attempt short-to-intermediate passes at will, because we never adjusted to defend against them.

I saw King's rankings this morning, and I think 4th is a little nuts. In his take on the Giants, he points out that "no team ever rides the backs of one or two rookie receivers to the Super Bowl" - yet the Bears are going to be doing exactly that with Iglesias, Knox, and Bennett (who's functionally a rookie after his zero catches in '08.) If his rankings are supposed to correspond to eventual standings, he's putting the Bears and the Giants in the NFC championship game: both teams will be leaning heavily on rookie receivers and one of those two has to make it to the Super Bowl. If that's true, he's contradicting himself. Also, he says the Titans are good enough to win the AFC South, but he's got the Colts ranked above them. Either he's counting on a bunch of upsets or somebody isn't proofreading very well. Seriously, I love the Bears, but he's got us ranked above Arizona, Philly, and Atlanta? Those are all dangerous teams, and every one of them has an elite passing attack; I'm very hesitant to rank us above three teams that can throw the ball like the Cards, Eagles, and Falcons can. I'm not saying we won't finish better than one of them, but I'd be surprised if we did better than all three. If it were me, I'd probably put us ahead of Atlanta (given their problems on defense,) but behind Arizona and Philly. I think the Walter Football rankings are a little more realistic - I could see the Bears at #7, although I would probably switch the Eagles and the Ravens. Philly had a fantastic offseason: they got another bona fide receiver in Maclin, a short-yardage back in Leonard Weaver, a receiving tight end in Ingram, and a capable backup for Westbrook in McCoy. On top of that, they rebuilt their o-line, getting younger and more talented at the same time. On paper, the line they've got now has the potential to be one of the top 3 in the league. McNabb has to be happy: every weak spot in their offense from last year has been shored up admirably. Baltimore, meanwhile, lost Rex Ryan and some key defenders, not to mention that they failed to upgrade at receiver opposite Derrick Mason. They're still good, but I don't think they're better than Philly or Chicago. Anyway, even if #4 is a stretch, I can see us at #7. Either way, I think we're winning the NFC North and making it to the playoffs this year.

There are FBs in the league close to Gaines' size: he might be less of an H-back and more of a jumbo fullback. I've mentioned Madison Hedgecock (6'3" 266 lbs.) already, but check out Sean McHugh: he's a 6'5" 265-pound former Lions tight end (sound familiar?) who the Steelers picked up and moved to fullback. He was their starting fullback from week 7 of last season onward, and it seems like that turned out pretty well for Pittsburgh. He definitely opened some running lanes for Willie Parker. If Gaines can be another McHugh at the fullback position, I'm all for getting the guy. He wasn't a great receiver as a tight end, but I feel like even a mediocre receiving TE will be more than adequate to catch little dump-off passes as a fullback. The Bears need to get better blocking up front for Forte; if this guy's an upgrade over Jason McKie, I say they go for it.

I think this list might be outdated - I know that Jerry Porter, Will Franklin, Keary Colbert, Ruvell Martin, and Sam Hurd have all been signed to long-term contracts or have signed their one-year tender agreements. I'm not sure the Bears would give up draft picks for any of them. Anyway, here's my two cents: Matt Jones and Reggie Williams are young, they're both big receivers and each might have some potential, but both of them are facing suspension for multiple drug charges. Jones might be worth a look if he can clean up and his suspension's short; Williams is physical, but he's slow and inconsistent catching the ball. DJ Hackett has some talent, but he's always hurt, and he was a healthy scratch in Carolina even when he wasn't. He's about as inconsistent as Brandon Lloyd. Ike Hilliard and Drew Bennett don't seem like they have much of anything left. We know Marty Booker doesn't. Malcom Floyd might not be a bad pickup, since he's a good red-zone receiver and he can contribute on special teams, too. Since he hasn't signed his tender yet and he was undrafted, the Bears wouldn't have to give up draft picks to get him. It'd be nice to have a big receiver for Jay Cutler. Floyd's not as physical as Brandon Marshall, but he's comparable in size: Marshall's 6'4" 230, Floyd's 6'5" 226. The collapsed lung that he had is worrisome, so Chicago's doctors would have to clear him. One guy who's not on the list is Reggie Brown from the Eagles. He's a relatively young guy with some talent who's fallen out of favor in Philly for some reason. He was a starter in 2006 and 2007, though, and he produced pretty well: between those two seasons, he put up nearly 1600 yards and 12 touchdowns. Not spectacular numbers, but pretty serviceable. Philly's already tried to trade him at least once this offseason (they were reportedly offering Brown and a 3rd to Tennessee for Bo Scaife) - if he's still on the trading block and can be gotten cheaply, he'd be a decent insurance policy in case Bennett and Iglesias can't step up. Brown doesn't play special teams, though, so I think Chicago should only look at him if they're convinced that they don't have a #2 wideout on the roster. If either Bennett or Iglesias can be that, then I'm OK with Chicago standing pat.

If they want to play him at fullback, I'm all for it. We could use more of an in-line blocker to pave the way for Forte. If they're looking at him as a tight end, I guess that means they're really giving up on Kellen Davis.

Are you serious? The NFC South was a war zone in 2008. They were miles better than the North. The worst team in the division, the Saints, went 8-8. Two teams from that division went to the playoffs, and the team that knocked them both out (the Cards) went to the Super Bowl. Check out the 2008 NFC South season: 1st Place: Carolina Panthers, 12-4 (8-2 out-of-division), playoff appearance, eliminated by Arizona 2nd Place: Atlanta Falcons, 11-5, (8-2 OOD), playoff appearance, eliminated by Arizona 3rd Place: Tampa Bay Bucs, 9-7 (6-4 OOD), missed playoffs 4th Place: New Orleans Saints, 8-8 (6-4 OOD), missed playoffs Put together, the NFC South went 28-12 against the rest of the NFL. That's ridiculous. Compare that to our NFC North: 1st Place: Minnesota Vikings, 10-6 (6-4 OOD), playoff appearance, eliminated by Philadelphia 2nd Place: Chicago Bears, 9-7 (5-5 OOD), missed playoffs 3rd Place: Green Bay Packers, 6-10 (2-8 OOD), missed playoffs 4th Place: Detroit Lions, 0-16 (0-10 OOD), missed playoffs Our division went 13-27 against the rest of the NFL. Even if you don't take Detroit into account, we weren't even close to the NFC South. Now compare the NFC South to the NFC East, which we all know is a powerhouse division: 1st Place: New York Giants, 12-4 (8-2 OOD), playoff appearance, eliminated by Philadelphia 2nd Place: Philadelphia Eagles, 9-6-1 (7-2-1 OOD), two playoff wins, eliminated by Arizona 3rd Place: Dallas Cowboys, 9-7 (6-4 OOD), missed playoffs 4th Place: Washington Redskins, 8-8 (5-5 OOD), missed playoffs The East's record and the South's are EXTREMELY close. The NFC East actually had a worse record (26-13-1) against out-of-division opponents, and their teams had marginally worse regular season records overall. The two divisions each sent two teams to the playoffs, but the Eagles got a couple of wins before they lost to the Cards, who also took out both NFC South teams. You could argue that the NFC South did better than the NFC East in 2008; even if you don't think that's totally true, there's no way you can say they're a lousy division. They were the second-best division in football, if not the best, this year. As much as I love the NFC North, there's no way we were a stronger division than the South in 2008. Not even close.

Yeah, that's along the lines of what I was thinking: If the Lions win six or seven games, that's a significant improvement. The Falcons went from 4-12 to 11-5 between 2007 and 2008; I'd call that 'significant' as well. The Lions are starting lower, so 6-10 or 7-9 is a comparable jump. Really, I would be VERY impressed with Jim Schwartz if they made it to .500 in 2009. I agree, for the most part. I think their receiving corps took a step backward with the Roy Williams trade (although they robbed the Cowboys for him) and Stafford probably won't be a threat until 2010. Pettigrew gives a giant boost to their running game, though, and should help Cherilus perform much better, too. Kevin Smith was already doing well, he could really break out running behind Cherilus and Pettigrew. I know that there are a lot of bad teams that continue to perform badly, but most bad teams don't undergo the sort of wholesale regime and roster changes that the Falcons, Dolphins, and Lions did. All three of them got new head coaches, new coordinators, new general managers, and had a large amount of roster turnover. There aren't a lot of perennial losers doing that every single offseason. Difference of opinion, I suppose. Obviously I don't want the Bears to lose any games, but I'd WAY rather come up with a win against a great team than stomp on a crappy one. Seems more significant. I can understand the opposing view, though.

Well, for what it's worth, I think it's probable that the Lions will make a significant turnaround. If you look at the Falcons' and Dolphins' 2007 rosters, they had more talent than the 2008 Lions, but not by a whole lot. Starting the next offseason, both teams added some solid contributors in the draft and free agency (Matt Ryan and Michael Turner on the Falcons, Chad Pennington and Jake Long on the Dolphins.) Basically, they were adding guys who would be good, dependable starters, if unspectacular. Pennington's not going to light up defenses, but he makes very few mistakes. Turner's not a real home-run threat, but he's a reliable power runner who can get you first downs. You need reliable, consistent, predictable starters for a winning team, and that's what Parcells and Dimitroff targeted. That's exactly what turned them into decent teams, and (on defense, at least,) Jim Schwartz is doing the same thing for the Lions. He's put together a veteran defense that will get it done; even if it's not spectacular, he's brought in guys who proved with their previous teams that they can be depended on. The offense, though, makes me think the Lions are further away than either the Dolphins or the Falcons. Both the Falcons and the Dolphins ran conservative, run-heavy offenses. That's a great way to win some games without high-priced offensive talent: get a pretty good running back like Turner or Ronnie Brown, build the o-line up, and just ask your QB not to make mistakes. Rely on your defense to get it done, like the Bears did when Orton was starting in 2005. They stripped the playbook down, ran the ball a huge amount, played tight defense, and they got 10 wins out of a rookie QB. But the Bears, Dolphins, and Falcons had productive, consistent offensive lines to make that possible. I'm not convinced that the Lions have a solid o-line yet. They're at LEAST a left tackle away. And they don't have a caretaker at QB, since Stafford's unproven and Culpepper is hardly mistake-free. Until they get their offensive line together and have a dependable passer, I'm not going to be that worried about them as a threat. I think, however, that based on what Schwartz has done for the defense, it's very probable that they'll be a decent, six- to eight-win team this year; for that to happen, they'll only need one or two positions solidified on offense. Even if the line doesn't gel and nobody steps up at QB, I think it's almost certain that they win 3 or 4 games. Right now they look good enough to beat the Rams, Browns, Niners, and maybe the Bengals. None of those teams have a corner good enough to contain Calvin Johnson, and none of them except the Bengals have a settled QB-receiver connection. The Niners and Rams do have good running backs, but the Lions' linebackers should be able to stack the box, since neither team looks like a major threat in the passing game. The Rams have a good QB, but no real proven wideouts. The Niners have a couple of very good receivers, but a major question mark under center. The Browns, meanwhile, have a dropsy Braylon Edwards, a question mark at QB, and an aging Jamal Lewis running the ball. The Bengals have Carson Palmer-to-Ocho Cinco, but they've got Cedric Benson as their starting RB. I'd bet on the Lions defense to contain all those offenses pretty well. Now, if Detroit can get their offense together, I can see them going anywhere from 6-10 to 8-8. If they can get the ball to Calvin Johnson consistently, they could steal one from the Skins or the Packers, maybe from a couple of the other teams on their schedule. I mean, Johnson put up 1300 yards and 12 touchdowns last season while the Lions went through like four QBs and traded Roy Williams midseason. If they can solidify things to the point where they can execute consistently, Johnson alone makes that a pretty good offense. Anyway, I'm just glad they're improving for the sake of the NFC North. It's no fun having a three-team division, and I always like to watch teams turn it around. I was hardly watching the Bears-Lions games last year, because they were such a foregone conclusion. If the Lions are decent, we get two exciting games instead of two boring ones.

I should amend that, I guess. I really never root for the Vikings, but I don't mind if the Packers win, so long as it doesn't impact the Bears' chances at the postseason. Definitely if it's Packers-Vikings, I'm rooting for the Packers - I don't think I hate any other team as much as Minnesota.

I don't know if we need ANOTHER tackle with back injuries. Jones has had major problems with his back, knee, and hamstring, and he had so much scar tissue in one leg that it started going numb during games. That's bad news.

Yeah, I agree, the NFC North keeps getting called a weak division...I'm all for it being more competitive. Honestly, it's more fun to watch your team make it out of a real meat grinder than it is to watch them get a couple of gimme wins against weak division rivals. Look at the NFC East last year. Every team in that division was nasty, and it made for some great football. My brother's a big Packers fan, and I'll (grudgingly) root for other NFC North teams when they play out of division opponents, so long as the Bears are on top at the end of the season.

I'll agree with you there. Outside of Stafford, I don't think they acquired any game-changing players this offseason, and Stafford himself probably won't be that for at least a season. I think he'll be great eventually, but he doesn't have the poise and consistency yet to step in as a rookie the way Matt Ryan did. So I'll agree: they didn't get any guys who are going to have a major immediate impact individually. What they have gotten, though, are a half-dozen guys (Foote, Peterson, Buchanon, Delmas, Henry and Pettigrew) who would be solid starters for nearly any team in the NFL. The fact that Foote kept his starting job on a Super Bowl team with a highly-drafted, very talented rookie breathing down his neck means he's no slouch. Henry is probably the worst of the six, and he was starting for the Cowboys for all of last season. Peterson's the best, and he's been to five Pro Bowls, including the last three seasons straight.

I would have agreed with you a couple of years ago, but the Falcons and the Dolphins both went from last-place in their divisions to the playoffs in one season. The Lions obviously have a lot further to go, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if they were a .500 team in 2009 and a legitimately dangerous team in 2010. Schwartz has done a great job turning what was the worst defense in the NFL (and statistically the second-worst of all time) when he arrived into what looks like a very respectable unit, on paper. If they can shore up the left side of the o-line, they've got all the pieces for a pretty decent offense, too. They've got Stafford waiting in the wings (although I'm not sure he should play in his rookie season) and arguably the most talented wideout in the NFL for him to throw to. Bryant Johnson and Ronald Curry aren't anything to write home about, but they should be able to perform decently with Calvin Johnson pulling constant double coverage. Detroit's got a young running back who performed very well (over 4.1 YPC, nearly 1000 rushing yards in 12 starts) behind an offensive line that was mostly awful, and they've just gotten him a pretty good backup/change of pace in Mo Morris. Plus both backs will have two first-round picks, Pettigrew and Cherilus, on the right side to block for them. Plus they just added that guy Fonoti from the Panthers, who should be an upgrade at RG over what they had last year. On paper, Fonoti-Cherilus-Pettigrew is a pretty good run-blocking right side. They still need a left tackle, and they need to move Backus inside to left guard, since he's a liability in pass-protection. Aside from that, though, they're looking a lot better on offense and a TON better on defense. I'm not saying they'll beat the Bears in 2009, but I expect them to play us pretty close. In 2010, I'll start worrying for real.

So Detroit just signed Larry Foote, formerly of the Steelers. He's still pretty young (29) and a great player; the Steelers just didn't have the cap room to keep him, and his backup (Lawrence Timmons) played well and is cheaper. Barring something incredibly unforeseen, Foote will be the Lions' starting Mike linebacker this season. I'm starting to get a little worried about Detroit. Here are their additions this offseason, with my notes: Larry Foote, MLB - Very hard-hitting downhill linebacker. Great against the run, adequate in pass coverage. Might be replaced by Jordon Dizon in the nickel package. Vocal and local - should be the face of the defense. Julian Peterson, SLB - Another defensive star who his old team couldn't afford, Peterson should still have a few years left in the tank at 30 years old, and he was part of an excellent LB corps last year in Seattle. Replaced on the Seahawks by Aaron Curry, the player that a lot of Detroit fans wanted at #1 overall. Between Ernie Sims, Foote, and Peterson, the Lions now have a very, very good group of linebackers. Phillip Buchanon, CB - Physical corner, capable in both zone and man-to-man schemes. The Bucs tried to re-sign him, but Detroit came calling. Had a couple of bad years before straightening his career out in Tampa, but has a ton of natural ability and has produced lately. Another guy with several good years in front of him - he's only 28. Anthony Henry, DB - Aging corner from Dallas, acquired in exchange for Jon Kitna. Has lost a step, but is physical in run support. The Cowboys got better production from him when they shifted him over to free safety, but I would bet that Detroit keeps him at corner unless Louis Delmas really struggles. Might get burned by faster receivers once in a while, but should be a decent stopgap, and is a better option opposite Buchanon than any other CBs on Detroit's roster. Eric King, CB - Younger guy at 26, and familiar with Jim Schwartz' system. Schwartz used him as a dime back in Tennessee, but will probably move him to the nickel in Detroit. Should be a capable nickel, although injuries are a problem: he went on IR in 2007 with a broken forearm, then re-broke it in 2008. Grady Jackson, DT - Doesn't offer much at this stage in his career, either as a run-stopper or a penetrating tackle. Not a three-down player by any stretch of the imagination. Detroit needed depth at DT, but Jackson definitely isn't much more than that. Eric Hicks, DL - Depth player at best. Probably just a body for camp, even on the Lions. Curtis Gatewood, DE/OLB - Has played under Gunther Cunningham before, but is probably just depth or a developmental project. Could be a long-term project for Schwartz, since he's only 23, and might offer some value on special teams in the meantime. All in all, their DT rotation is still weak, but the defensive ends should be adequate, the secondary should be pretty decent, and their linebackers look very, very good. In 2010, I think the Lions are going to be a team to worry about.

True, but I won't be worried until he does it 4 or 5 years in a row. Favre's been consistently bad at the end of the season, it's not a fluke.

I'd be happy to see Brett Favre in purple. Lovie made his reputation in Chicago by beating up on Favre and the Packers: Favre's record against Lovie's Bears is 2-6, with 5 touchdowns to 15 interceptions (three of which were pick-sixes.) Sure, Minnesota has Adrian Peterson, but the Packers had a vastly better corps of receivers, and Favre still got victimized by the Bears' secondary. Plus, the last several years have shown that Favre wears down badly by week 11 or 12. If he were to sign with the Vikings, he'd play the Bears in Week 12 and again in Week 16. Check this out, from a poster on the Football's Future boards: 2005 First 11 weeks - 63,6%, 6.77 ypa, 19 TD, 19 INT (1.0:1) Final 5 weeks - 56.8%, 5.67 ypa, 1 TD, 10 INT (0.1:1) 2006 First 11 weeks - 57.1%, 6.54 ypa, 14 TD, 10 INT (1.4:1) Final 5 weeks - 53.8%, 5.96 ypa, 4 TD, 8 INT (0.5:1) 2007 First 11 weeks - 68.5%, 7.90 ypa, 22 TD, 8 INT (2.8:1) Final 5 weeks - 59.1%, 7.26 ypa, 6 TD, 7 INT (0.9:1) 2008 First 11 weeks - 70.6%, 7.09 ypa, 20 TD, 13 INT (1.5:1) Final 5 weeks - 56.0%, 5.78 ypa, 2 TD, 9 INT (0.2:1) Per game averages last 4 years: First 11 weeks - 64.8%, 7.08 ypa, 1.7 TD/gm, 1.14 INT/gm (1.5:1) Final 5 weeks - 56.1%, 6.03 ypa, 0.65 TD/gm, 1.7 INT/gm (0.4:1) I'd love to see the guy in-division again.

Oh, I'm not saying he couldn't. If he wanted to come in as an assistant d-line coach or something and work with Marinelli, that would be cool. If he's trying to play, though, I can't see the Bears being able to justify a roster spot for him. They carried 9-10 d-linemen last season, and they've already got 10 on the roster who I think they have to keep: Harris, Harrison, Gilbert, Adams, and Toeaina at tackle, plus Wale, Brown, Anderson, Idonije, and Melton at end. If we added an 11th d-lineman, Rice, we'd have to start carrying less depth at other positions. We're already likely to carry an extra offensive lineman this season - add a player on the d-line, too, and you could potentially create a serious depth problem somewhere else.

He'll definitely be a backup on the Pats behind Meriwether and Chung, but I'm glad he found a landing spot. Hopefully he does well there.

Rice was a beast on Tampa's line, but his last productive season was 2005. Even if he does have something left in the tank and his shoulder is finally better, there wouldn't be room to get him any playing time. We've got five ends on the roster (Wale, Brown, Anderson, Idonije, and Melton) and a tackle (Gilbert) who's probably going to rotate outside on some downs. That's twice as many guys fighting for playing time as we had last season, and at least three of them really need the snaps for their development. I don't see the Bears shorting any of the young players currently on the roster in favor of a 35-year-old pass-rusher.

I'm not sure that's true. Obviously one of our young receivers will need to step up for us to have a balanced passing game, but I think Cutler-to-Hester and Cutler-to-Olsen alone should be enough to stop defenses from stacking the box against Forte to the extent that they did last season. It's pretty common knowledge that Orton doesn't have much accuracy on his deep ball, and Devin was still learning how to adjust to a ball in flight last season. How many times last season did Hester break open down the field, only to have the pass off-target and fail to adjust sufficiently? If Cutler can put those deep passes where Hester can get them, teams will have to play honest coverage. The Cutler-to-Olsen connection should be even more of a threat from a defensive coordinator's standpoint: everybody knows how much Cutler liked to hit Tony Scheffler, and Olsen is a better receiver than Scheffler is. I'm not saying that the passing offense will be productive in 2009 with just Hester and Olsen as receiving targets. But defenses will have to play their linebackers/safeties against the pass, which they really didn't have to do last season. Marty Booker was slow enough that you could put a single guy on him in man coverage, and Orton couldn't reliably get the ball to Hester/Lloyd/Davis unless they were within 10-15 yards. Assume that a defense is player at least Cover-1 (since you don't see much Cover-0 in the NFL.) That gives them 10 players not dropping back into deep coverage. Even if teams in 2009 can single-cover Bennett/Iglesias on one side, they'll still have to account for Hester and Olsen on every play. Double-covering Hester and putting the SS or the Sam linebacker on Olsen leaves you with only 6 guys to stack the box. If you're playing Cover-2, you've only got 5 guys. That's a hell of a lot better than the 7-8 in the box looks that Forte was seeing last season. If we're going to have a legit passing offense, then yeah, at least one of those four WRs is going to have to contribute. But as far as just getting guys out of the box, Cutler, Olsen, and Hester should be able to do that just fine. I posted it somewhere else here, but PFW had an anonymous quote from another team's DC after the end of last season. The guy basically said the ONLY Bears player they game-planned around was Matt Forte. I'd be very surprised if anybody facing the Bears in 2009 thinks they can ignore Jay Cutler.