Look at this draft

[Lucky Luciano]

There was a time you had true shut down corners. I simply do not believe you have that anymore. Even Champ Bailey, considered the elite among corners, gets beat far more often than most realize, as the disadvantage put on corners makes it near impossible to shut down a WR like in days of old.

 

As to ours, again, we simply disagree. I would argue we play far more of a zone, or over the top scheme than man to man. Does that mean we never play man? No. For example, I would point to last year. In our playoff game against NO, it was widely reported how Rivera changed to a man coverage scheme, which totally threw NO off whack. Why did that throw them off? Because while we might have used man at times, it was not our base coverage. Zone is our base coverage.

 

i agree the limits put on the corners are way over the top and have hurt the game but... maybe not the true shutdown corner in the old sense but i believe bailey/woodson type players still can be considered shutdown players. they limit the amount of throws made into their coverage areas by draping the wideouts using positioning and speed. that is shutdown in the modern sense and has huge impact on the rest of your defense.

 

if we were playing stickly zone more than not our corners would be playing up on the LOS and moving them into the center of the field like it is scripted in the cover 2. rather than that we are playing off 5-10 yrds so they don't get beat deep. that is a basic man coverage scheme when they don't pass the wideout to a safety or backer by turning him in and dropping back into his zone on the field. man coverage.

 

You mention Hampton and Dent. If I could pull one player from that team, no question in my mind it would have been Singletary. Even Ryan used to talk about how the reason his 46 was so successful was Singletary. He was the one calling the offensive plays before the snap, and telling our guys where to line up. We had an all-pro DL, but IMHO, that defense was what it was because of our Mike, more than due to the DL.

 

In general though, we are not in disagreement. I have placed DE as the #1 position on the D, followed by DT. But I would also say there are special players at other positions who can easily compare in worth to even the best DEs. Ed Reed is one of those special players. Reed is elite among defensive players, not just safeties, and his defensive MVP award is evidence.

 

If Urlacher and Freeney were drafted in the same year, which would be considered the better pick? I would say Urlacher.

 

you are entitled to your opinion but i take dan hampton over anyone on that entire defense. to prove my point, if you look at the stats and more importantly the win/loss record with him in and out of the lineup it tells the story dramatically.

 

the freeny urlacher scenario i can't answer as i have not seen freeny play that much. if you asked me whether i take hampton or url i take hampton without even a second thought. it is true the MLB may be the generals on the field in most instances but the meat grinder is your DE's. if they don't get to the qb the game is over.

 

a perfect example of this was in 2001, a year you talk about a lot. they had very good players on that defense except for one aspect... they could NOT rush the passer off the ends. this was our worst aspect that season and the final game proved that in spades. mcnabb had all day to move around before releasing the ball.

[nfoligno]

First, let me just say thank you. W/ Crackdog pulling a hoodini, my drawn out debates have been limited. I've been in the need for a good fight:)

 

i agree the limits put on the corners are way over the top and have hurt the game but... maybe not the true shutdown corner in the old sense but i believe bailey/woodson type players still can be considered shutdown players. they limit the amount of throws made into their coverage areas by draping the wideouts using positioning and speed. that is shutdown in the modern sense and has huge impact on the rest of your defense.

 

Bailey/Woodson are great examples. They are among the best, if not the best, yet at the same time, QBs do not fear them the way QBs fears elite CBs of old, at least IMHO. The term "shut down corner" was given for a reason. You put him on a corner back, and he flat out shut down the WR he played. Today, you simply do not have that. Even the elite corner like Bailey gets both attacked and beat.

 

For example, Bailey was beating by a rookie, Bowe, for 105 yards on 9 catches. IMHO, in the old rules, that would not have happened. There were other games where Bailey was beat as well. This was just an example. I have heard many ex-NFL guys, including Deion Sanders, often talk about this. You simply do not have shut down corners anymore. You have great corners, but rules no longer allow for that shut down aspect.

 

if we were playing stickly zone more than not our corners would be playing up on the LOS and moving them into the center of the field like it is scripted in the cover 2. rather than that we are playing off 5-10 yrds so they don't get beat deep. that is a basic man coverage scheme when they don't pass the wideout to a safety or backer by turning him in and dropping back into his zone on the field. man coverage.

you are entitled to your opinion but i take dan hampton over anyone on that entire defense. to prove my point, if you look at the stats and more importantly the win/loss record with him in and out of the lineup it tells the story dramatically.

 

I might agree w/ you, but due to watching games, I can't. In theory, I agree that in a typical cover two or zone, your CBs presses at the LOS, works the WR for the first 20 or so yards, then releases to the Safety. You mention how often our CBs do not press. I agree, and would go one further. I swear our corners nearly NEVER press. Yet plenty often I watch our corner play off the LOS, and still release their man to the safety. It is one of the reason why our safeties are so often exposes. In theory, your CB presses, which gives the Safety the extra time to see the play, and decide where to run. But our corners do not press, and the safety often is exposed as the WR runs right past the CB and the safety doesn't have time to get over.

 

You mention the script in a cover 2 is zone? Well, after letting Rivera go, all sources (including Lovie) said we would play more cover 2. Yet, like you said, our corners simply do not press. While I agree w/ you in theory, I simply do not agree that we play as much man as you believe, and do not believe whether our corners press or not is indicative, as our corners never seem to press, yet we know we do in fact play a lot of cover two.

 

the freeny urlacher scenario i can't answer as i have not seen freeny play that much. if you asked me whether i take hampton or url i take hampton without even a second thought. it is true the MLB may be the generals on the field in most instances but the meat grinder is your DE's. if they don't get to the qb the game is over.

 

Hey, that is not fair. I was comparing a current player w/ a current player. In the Hampton scenario, I too would take him over Urlacher. I did however state I would take Singletary over Hampton. As awesome as Hampton was, I simply feel Singletary was not only awesome as well, but far and away the one who made the defense work as well as it did.

 

Again, this goes beyond the original point. The question was whether Freeney was w/o question the best defensive player to come out of that draft. I made the point Peppers and Ed Reed would both have very legit arguments for themselves, and still believe that to be true.

 

a perfect example of this was in 2001, a year you talk about a lot. they had very good players on that defense except for one aspect... they could NOT rush the passer off the ends. this was our worst aspect that season and the final game proved that in spades. mcnabb had all day to move around before releasing the ball.

 

I personally feel it was a tad more than that. As I recall, we actually did pressure McNabb, but he was sick in his ability to avoid the rush. I recall too well both our DL, and our LBs, putting McNabb on the move, but breaking their ankles trying to stick w/ him. We have a much, much better pass rushing DL today than in 2001. I think you would easily agree w/ that. IMHO, our DL today would not have been able to stop McNabb on that day.

 

And once again, w/ that said, I again have to point this out. I have said, repeatedly, that I value the DE and DT above the rest. My point is simply that some players come along who are as valuable to the D as a great pass rusher, and believe Ed Reed was every bit as valuable as Freeney.

[scs787]

if this is how the first 13 picks of the draft shakes down then theres no doubt i trade out and the cowboys are the first team i talk to. They've showed interest in Mendy and i think they would trade us one of there 1st rounders and a 2nd rounder to get there man at 14.

 

Id then make my draft look like this (once again im going by this mock draft)

 

22. Branden Albert OT

 

or

 

28. Gosder Cherilus OT

 

44. Duane Brown OT

 

61. Jordy Nelson WR

 

75. (I may get bashed on this but i think hes gonna be a good NFL QB) Chad Henne QB

 

90. Heath Benedict OT

 

106. Steve Slaton RB

 

134. Athyba Rubin DT

 

166. Quintin Demps S

 

204. Jacob Hester FB

[Mongo3451]

The original point was simply that, as great as Freeney is, I am not sure he is the unquestioned best defensive player from that draft, as I think Reed and Pepper could both provide an argument.

 

Looking at the first 5 years for Peppers and Freeney....

 

Peppers 255 tackles and 53.5 sacks.

Freeney 178 tackles and 56.5 sacks.

 

So Freeney had 3 more sacks but 77 fewer tackles.

 

Yea, I would say you can make a case for Peppers.

 

Keep in mind a few factors:

 

1) Freeney missed several games with a broken foot, thus deflating his stats.

2) Freeney IS good against the run. As you know, he plays in our scheme and is asked to disrupt and penetrate. He's made it possible for the Colts to lose LB after LB and still make the shitty one thay have look good.

3) Find a stat on who draws the most double teams. I think you'll find it's Freeney.

 

I'm not arguing against Peppers as much I am the fact that Freeney was NOT a reach.

[nfoligno]

I think you are confusing issues, and sort of thus proving my point. You are talking about Freeney's accomplishements post-draft. That has nothing to do w/ his draft day value. There is no argument against his greatness. If you went off what he has done in the NFL, he would have been a top 5 value, if not #1 overall.

 

But it doesn't work that way. For example, and this is a more extreme example to prove a point, there has been some recent talk about Matt Forte, RB out of Tulane. If we took him at 14, would you call that a good value, or a reach? Obviously you would call that a reach. If Forte went on though to be the best RB in this draft, would that change whether he was a reach or not? I would argue he surpassed the value placed on him on draft day, but that would not change whether or not he was a draft day reach.

 

Any GM will talk about value. In the draft, it isn't solely about drafting players you want, but drafting them where you feel they are a solid value, and before another team takes him. It's a bit of a chess game. We may like Forte, but does that mean we take him #1? No. The game is trying to figure out his value, not only in our eyes, but in the other 31 teams.

 

Back to Freeney. That year, Dungy basically admitted in a post draft press conference he reached for Freeney. I remember it so well because I never heard a coach or GM talk so open about a topic like this. He said (a) there was no way Freeney would be available to them in when their 2nd pick came around ( they felt Freeney, especially for their system, would be a pure stud, and that while his draft day value may be lower, Dungy was not willing to risk trading down as another team could unexpectedly take him or trade up in front of Indy. So while he may be considered a reach by some, Dungy felt Freeney's play would make fans quickly forget such things.

 

That is my argument. Sometimes a player may be a reach, but at the same time, sometimes you can justify the reach. I argue similar in the case of OL this year. Some feel Otah or Albert would constitute a reach for us, but my point is that, like w/ Freeney, there is a very reach chance that if we trade down, we will not have a shot at either, and if we grade one or both high enough, the slight reach can be justified.

[Mongo3451]

I think you are confusing issues, and sort of thus proving my point. You are talking about Freeney's accomplishements post-draft. That has nothing to do w/ his draft day value. There is no argument against his greatness. If you went off what he has done in the NFL, he would have been a top 5 value, if not #1 overall.

I am in agreement that you are the one confused. Pre-draft Freeney was a beast and highly rated a great fit for a cover two. Of course you are going say Polian said what we all expected him to say; stating that he was the player we had targeted all along. Tell me how the Bears could say that about anything less than Clady or Williams? Otah and below, just don't cut it at #14. Unless JA and Co use a different rating system for left tackles than the rest of the NFL. Show me where any coach or GM says they drafted an LT prospect that fit their system. It's completely different when you draft a player for scheme. Anyway, If Otah or Albert were graded as a true LT we wouldn't be having this debate.

 

But it doesn't work that way. For example, and this is a more extreme example to prove a point, there has been some recent talk about Matt Forte, RB out of Tulane. If we took him at 14, would you call that a good value, or a reach? Obviously you would call that a reach. If Forte went on though to be the best RB in this draft, would that change whether he was a reach or not? I would argue he surpassed the value placed on him on draft day, but that would not change whether or not he was a draft day reach.

You are right, that is extreme. If Forte rates that HIGHLY for the Bears and they want him, he's not a reach. Fact is: we simply don't know what is going through the minds of scouts and GM regarding players. My argument all along is picking a player you don't have graded that highly simply out of need or fear.

 

Any GM will talk about value. In the draft, it isn't solely about drafting players you want, but drafting them where you feel they are a solid value, and before another team takes him. It's a bit of a chess game. We may like Forte, but does that mean we take him #1? No. The game is trying to figure out his value, not only in our eyes, but in the other 31 teams.

I argued this point to you a couple of years ago. You are not allowed to use that against me. As much as I want OL, I am against drafting a player you don't have graded as highly because of need. It could send the bell curve toward mediocrity. If the player rates high for you, he is not a reach.

 

Back to Freeney. That year, Dungy basically admitted in a post draft press conference he reached for Freeney. I remember it so well because I never heard a coach or GM talk so open about a topic like this. He said (a) there was no way Freeney would be available to them in when their 2nd pick came around ( they felt Freeney, especially for their system, would be a pure stud, and that while his draft day value may be lower, Dungy was not willing to risk trading down as another team could unexpectedly take him or trade up in front of Indy. So while he may be considered a reach by some, Dungy felt Freeney's play would make fans quickly forget such things.

And I have Polian comments that say other, his resume as a college player and a stated fact that Freeney was highly coveted by more than one team in the 1st round. Angelo and Lovie in particular coveted him. Back to perfect fit for scheme. Thus, NOT a reach.

 

That is my argument. Sometimes a player may be a reach, but at the same time, sometimes you can justify the reach. I argue similar in the case of OL this year. Some feel Otah or Albert would constitute a reach for us, but my point is that, like w/ Freeney, there is a very reach chance that if we trade down, we will not have a shot at either, and if we grade one or both high enough, the slight reach can be justified.

And my point is, you don't take them highly unless you have them graded highly. Otherwise, you take best player available. Reaching on the eyes of the media and value placed on a players talent by the indidvidual staff are two separate things. I'll never have a problem with a coach or GM standing in front of the room and stating they got the man they wanted. I'll always have a problem, same scenario, of them saying we had to pick him here out of fear of not filling a need.

[nfoligno]

I am in agreement that you are the one confused. Pre-draft Freeney was a beast and highly rated a great fit for a cover two.

 

Just did a quick check to verify my memory. I searched 2002 mock drafts. You can argue mock drafts are not true or precise as to a players value, but it is as close as we as fans can get, and what we often use. Freeney went in the following places in these mocks.

 

NFL Draft Countdown - #23 to Oakland

Joltcounty - #29 to Chicago (I like that one )

Footballs future - #30 to Pitt

CNNSI - #24 to Baltimore

All-Pro Scouting - #30 to Pitt

Buchsbaum - #29 to Chicago - Man do I miss his work

 

So you see, while Freeney has become elite, he was not considered nearly so in the draft. I remember very much thinking we could trade up a few spots and secure him, but when Indy took him at 11, it shocked everyone.

 

Of course you are going say Polian said what we all expected him to say; stating that he was the player we had targeted all along.

 

The point was, it wasn't the typical press conference. Dungy literally admitted most would view the pick as a reach, and he then went on to justify it. Not often a GM or coach admits to such.

 

Tell me how the Bears could say that about anything less than Clady or Williams? Otah and below, just don't cut it at #14. Unless JA and Co use a different rating system for left tackles than the rest of the NFL. Show me where any coach or GM says they drafted an LT prospect that fit their system. It's completely different when you draft a player for scheme. Anyway, If Otah or Albert were graded as a true LT we wouldn't be having this debate.

 

I am not arguing OT is more of a system position than DE. My point is there are other justifications for reaching for a player. Need and team needs of teams immediately behind you would be two.

 

You are right, that is extreme. If Forte rates that HIGHLY for the Bears and they want him, he's not a reach. Fact is: we simply don't know what is going through the minds of scouts and GM regarding players. My argument all along is picking a player you don't have graded that highly simply out of need or fear.

 

Not a reach? I guess that in itself is a primary disagreement between us. If most everyone else view a guy as a 3rd or 4th, and we take him in the first, regardless how we grade the player, I would call that a major reach. Like I said, it isn't just about how we grade a player, but we have to try and guage how the league views him as well.

 

I argued this point to you a couple of years ago. You are not allowed to use that against me. As much as I want OL, I am against drafting a player you don't have graded as highly because of need. It could send the bell curve toward mediocrity. If the player rates high for you, he is not a reach.

 

Like I said, we disagree. My point is the player is still a reach, but may be a justifiable one.

 

And I have Polian comments that say other, his resume as a college player and a stated fact that Freeney was highly coveted by more than one team in the 1st round. Angelo and Lovie in particular coveted him. Back to perfect fit for scheme. Thus, NOT a reach.

 

Yea, we coveted him, but we picked 18 spots after Dungy. From searching mocks from 2002, I find not one that had Freeney predicted to go in the top 20. I simply do not understand how you can argue that he was a reach. Dungy admitted as much, but simply justified it.

 

And my point is, you don't take them highly unless you have them graded highly. Otherwise, you take best player available. Reaching on the eyes of the media and value placed on a players talent by the indidvidual staff are two separate things. I'll never have a problem with a coach or GM standing in front of the room and stating they got the man they wanted. I'll always have a problem, same scenario, of them saying we had to pick him here out of fear of not filling a need.

 

I am not arguing we should take Otah or Albert, or whoever, simply because they are the next best OT on our board. My point is, if we have Otah, for example, graded out as a value at 14, but that most others grade him out around 20, he may be a reach, but would be a justifiable one. We grade him high, and even if we felt we "might" be able to get him a bit lower, the risk of losing him is not worth it.

 

I am NOT advocating reaching for an OT just to simply fill a need. But this year, there is a group of OTs that would fill a need, while at the same time, either being solid value, or a minor reach. To me, that is different from simply reaching for a need, regardless of the strength of the position in the draft. I would argue that is closer to what we did in 2002, when we took Columbo. IMHO, we simply too whoever was the next best OT on the board out of need, regardless how we actually graded him. But that is just my opinion. I do not feel it is the same this year, due to the solid crop of OTs in the draft.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

If we make that trade with Dallas, we should go:

 

1. Otah

1. Hardy

2. Flacco

3. Simpson

3. Rachal

and so on...

[Lucky Luciano]

Bailey/Woodson are great examples. They are among the best, if not the best, yet at the same time, QBs do not fear them the way QBs fears elite CBs of old, at least IMHO. The term "shut down corner" was given for a reason. You put him on a corner back, and he flat out shut down the WR he played. Today, you simply do not have that. Even the elite corner like Bailey gets both attacked and beat.

 

ALL cornerbacks get beat on certain days in their careers. i think you also should take a look at the specific games and determine for one thing what was his physical condition? who was he playing with and against, what were the circumstances on that particular day weather wise? what kind of defense complimented him?

 

For example, Bailey was beating by a rookie, Bowe, for 105 yards on 9 catches. IMHO, in the old rules, that would not have happened. There were other games where Bailey was beat as well. This was just an example. I have heard many ex-NFL guys, including Deion Sanders, often talk about this. You simply do not have shut down corners anymore. You have great corners, but rules no longer allow for that shut down aspect.

 

 

you mention dion sanders. is he considered a shutdown corner to you or by himself? if so i am confused.

 

the “chuck” rule i believe we have been discussing in which a corner cannot molest a WR after five yards was implemented in 1994. if this is the case do you not consider sanders a shutdown corner from that point on? in fact one of his best seasons as a cb (statistics wise) was IN 1994 when he played for the 49ers.

 

i also have to quote from some dion stats:

 

in ’89 he had 8 passes defended

in ’90 he had 18 PD

in ’91 he had 14 PD

in ’92 he had 4 PD

in ’93 he had 8 PD

in ’94 he had 14 PD

in ’95 he had 8 PD

in ’96 he had 9 PD

in ’97 he had 7 PD

in 98 he had 8 PD

in ’99 he had 6 PD

in 2000 he had 9 PD

 

in no way does this correlate with your theory of “flat out shut down the WR he played” . of course other teams went to the weaker defender, of course other teams schemed against him, but this certainly does not relate to a flat out complete shutdown where they never throw into his area and if they do he automatically intercepts it.

 

the physical corners you seem to be talking about are guys like mel blount, mike haynes, etc. that did rock their world physically and the rules certainly did change because of guys like this.

 

You mention the script in a cover 2 is zone? Well, after letting Rivera go, all sources (including Lovie) said we would play more cover 2. Yet, like you said, our corners simply do not press. While I agree w/ you in theory, I simply do not agree that we play as much man as you believe, and do not believe whether our corners press or not is indicative, as our corners never seem to press, yet we know we do in fact play a lot of cover two.

 

well if you’re playing a lot more cover 2 scheme and you say we will “play more” it either means we are going to play cover 2 ‘nearly’ exclusively or that you weren’t playing it a majority of the time in the past and are going to implement it more.

 

also you must take into consideration that we were going to play more cover 2 last season because our corners were both injured along with our safeties. we didn’t have the personnel to use man coverage. you could also argue that our defense was a lot worse which included our ability to stop the run.

 

Again, this goes beyond the original point. The question was whether Freeney was w/o question the best defensive player to come out of that draft. I made the point Peppers and Ed Reed would both have very legit arguments for themselves, and still believe that to be true.

 

i can’t argue a case i know almost nothing about. i have, as stated, not watched these players much and can’t comment on their value or lack thereof.

 

I personally feel it was a tad more than that. As I recall, we actually did pressure McNabb, but he was sick in his ability to avoid the rush. I recall too well both our DL, and our LBs, putting McNabb on the move, but breaking their ankles trying to stick w/ him. We have a much, much better pass rushing DL today than in 2001. I think you would easily agree w/ that. IMHO, our DL today would not have been able to stop McNabb on that day.

 

here is what our defensive ends did in 17 games...

13.5 sacks by our de’s – 4.5 for bryan robinson, 9 for daniels

5.5 sacks by our dt’s

29 sacks by our lb’s and db’s

 

for overall sacks compared to the rest of the league, i believe we were ranked 19th.

 

in total defense we were ranked 29th in yards gained by passing.

 

on the eagle playoff game, here is a quote from pro football weekly:

 

“Early on, the Eagles’ offensive line is getting the better of the Bears’ defensive line as it is giving McNabb all day to throw and is blocking well on running plays.

 

Early in the final period, McNabb is putting up fantastic numbers — 20-for-32 passing for 212 yards and 5-for-44 rushing.”

 

the bears ended up with 2 sacks, NONE by de’s or tackles.

 

you can say what you want but 2 things came out of that game for me and the following season needs.

 

1. a new quarterback

2. a pass rushing defensive end

 

we never got either.

 

as a final note i want to say that if you have a top ranked pass rushing defensive end on the draft board he will hold more value than any other defensive position.

[nfoligno]

Frankly, I do not even recall now what the original argument about corners and shut down corners was about.

 

W/ regard to us, our corners, and the cover two, we simply disagree. I aruge we play far more cover two, and more scheme, and our corners simply do not play man nearly as much as you want to believe.

 

Regarding 2001.

 

You breakdown our sack totals. You say we only had 13.5 sacks by our DEs, but I would point out that Colvin may have been a LB, but the vast majority of his 10.5 sacks came from playing as a downlinemen on 3rd downs. Also, our 48 total sacks did not rank anything close to 19th. As I recall, that total was good enough for top 5 in sacks. To put that 48 sack total in perspective, our SB defense two years ago only had 40 sacks.

 

in total defense we were ranked 29th in yards gained by passing.

 

Sorry, but that stat is so over-rated, it is a joke. We were so good against the run, it forced teams to try and attack us more through the air. Only one team had more pass attempts on their D. While we gave up passing yards, at the same time, we were also 1st in passing TDs allowed (12 total).

 

you can say what you want but 2 things came out of that game for me and the following season needs.

 

1.a new quarterback

2.a pass rushing defensive end

 

we never got either.

 

No argument there. Angelo tired when he drafted Haynes, and then when he traded for Wale. Didn't happen. As for the QB, he tried w/ Rex, and that too didn't work.

 

as a final note i want to say that if you have a top ranked pass rushing defensive end on the draft board he will hold more value than any other defensive position.

 

I am not sure how many times I have to say this, but I agree. Always have. I have said over and over again, that to me as well, DE would be the most important position, followed by DT, and then probably CB. I believe this aspect of the discussion came about because I said Ed Reed could be considered as good of a player to come out of that draft, while you think no Safety can tough a DE like freeney. I agree pass rushing DEs are the most important, but at the same time, simply believe Ed Reed constitutes one of those speical players that can reflect a higher value.

[Lucky Luciano]

You breakdown our sack totals. You say we only had 13.5 sacks by our DEs, but I would point out that Colvin may have been a LB, but the vast majority of his 10.5 sacks came from playing as a downlinemen on 3rd downs. Also, our 48 total sacks did not rank anything close to 19th. As I recall, that total was good enough for top 5 in sacks. To put that 48 sack total in perspective, our SB defense two years ago only had 40 sacks.

 

come on... where any player lines up during a given play in a 4-3 defense is totally inconsequential. if you used that standard you could say the same for all the LBer blitzes not to mention safety and corner blitzes, which were coming off the LOS at various times.

 

you are right i am sure about my statement that the ranking was 19th. as i stated i wasn’t sure where they were ranked and the piece of info i gleaned that from was sketchy at best.

 

QUOTE by me...

in total defense we were ranked 29th in yards gained by passing. END QUOTE

 

"Sorry, but that stat is so over-rated, it is a joke. We were so good against the run, it forced teams to try and attack us more through the air. Only one team had more pass attempts on their D. While we gave up passing yards, at the same time, we were also 1st in passing TDs allowed (12 total)."

 

YES you are correct that our run d was so good it FORCED other teams to try and move the ball through the air. but here you are wrong about the 29th ranking against passing yards given up is a joke. that stat IS important. that means that even when our defense KNEW that the other teams near only option was to pass against us they still put up a massive amount of yards and we didn’t stop them. YET... knowing that and the number of passing attempts, or chances our de’s had to harass and sack the qb, they ranked at best just below *500 (and in my opinion even lower) in defensive end sacks compared to the rest of the nfl!!

 

THAT is why our lb’s and db’s have such a high sack total. because we had to BLITZ to pressure the qb so much.

 

also it stands to reason that with a great run defense that teams in the red zone DID struggle to score td’s. they couldn’t run it in and playing in the red zone condensed our pass defense to legitimately stop them. that is normal and understandable.

 

my QUOTE

you can say what you want but 2 things came out of that game for me and the following season needs.

 

1.a new quarterback

2.a pass rushing defensive end

 

we never got either. END QUOTE

 

 

”No argument there. Angelo tired when he drafted Haynes, and then when he traded for Wale. Didn't happen. As for the QB, he tried w/ Rex, and that too didn't work”.

 

you are quoting out of timeframe. these were the players we needed in 2001/2002 when it really did look promising to go all the way, NOT 2-3 years later when angie decided to address these problems. in fact if the bear organization had half a brain they would have solved that de problem for years by getting simeon rice IN 2001. this isn’t any hindsight or even considered a reach at the time. it was a very good pass rushing ball player who wanted to play in chicago for very reasonable money.

 

i would also like to point out that bledsoe was a free agent IN 2002 but again we ignored the best prospect in free agency since rice the previous year and maybe the best qb prospect qb to reach free agency since steve young.

 

how good would we have been if we had used free agency to our advantage?

 

-------------------

*below are the stats for defensive end sacks in 2001. this also MAY not take into account any teams that ran a 3-4 defense where actual linebackers were possibly listed into their sack totals and are not listed here.

 

leonard little - 14.5 stl

grant wistrom - 9 stl

tyoka jackson - 3 stl

chidi ahanotu - 2 stl

sean moran - 2 stl

STL 30.5 SACKS

 

kgb - 13.5 gb

vonnie holliday - 7 gb

john thierry - 3.5 pack

billy lyon - 2 gb

jamal reynolds - 2 gb

GB 28 SACKS

 

michael strahan - 22.5 nyg

kenny holmes - 3.5 nyg

frank ferrara - 1 nyg

NYG 27 SACKS

 

marcellus wiley - 13 sd

raylee johnson - 9.5 sd

adrian dingle - 1 sd

albert fontenot - 1 sd

maa tanuvasa - 1 sd

SD 25.5 SACKS

 

john abraham - 13 nyj

shaun ellis - 5 nyj

rick lyle - 3.5 nyj

NYJ 21.5 SACKS

 

hugh douglas - 9.5 phil

derrick burgess - 6 phil

n. d. kalu - 3 phil

brandon whiting - 2.5 phi

EAGLES 21 SACKS

 

patrick kerney - 12 atl

brady smith - 8 atl

chuck wiley - 1 atl

ATL 21 SACKS

 

simeon rice - 11 tb

steve white - 5 tb

marcus jones - 3 tb

TB 19 SACKS

 

reinard wilson - 9 cin

justin smith - 8.5 cin

vaughn booker - 1.5 cin

BENGLES 19 SACKS

 

jason taylor - 8.5 mia

lorenzo bromell - 6.5 mia

kenny mixon - 2 mia

david bowens - 1 mia

adewale ogunleye - .5 mia

MIA 18.5 SACKS

 

tony brackens - 11 jac

renaldo wynn - 5 jags

paul spicer - 2 jac

JAGS 18 SACKS

 

robert porcher - 11 det

james hall - 4 det

tracy scroggins - 2 det

alonzo spellman - 1 det

DET 18 SACKS

 

joe johnson - 9 no

darren howard - 6 no

willie whitehead - 2 no

NO 18 SACKS

 

aaron schobel - 6.5 buf

byron frisch - 3 buf

phil hansen - 3 buf

kendrick office - 3 buf

erik flowers - 2 buf

BUF 17.5

 

tyrone rogers- 6 clev

courtney brown - 4.5 clev

greg spires - 4 clev

keith mckenzie - 3 clev

CLEV 17.5

 

 

13. PHILLIP DANIELS - 9 chi

47. BRYAN ROBINSON - 4.5 chic

78. ALFONSO BOONE - 2 chic

15 teams are ahead of chicago for defensive end tallied sacks. if you don’t want to consider boone as a de (which he is not) it puts the bears defensive end totals 17 behind other teams in the nfl and tied with 3 other teams at 13.5 in the bottom half of the standings.

 

=========================================================================

 

jevon kearse - 10 ten

kevin carter - 2 ten

robair smith - 2 ten

henry ford - 1 ten

TENN 15 SACKS

 

aaron smith - 8 pitt

kimo von oelhoffen - 4 pitt

rodney bailey - 2 pit

PIT 14 SACKS

 

andre carter - 6.5 sf

john engelberger - 4 sf

chike okeafor 2.5 sf

bobby setzer - 1 sf

SF 14 SACKS

 

duane clemons - 7 kc

eric hicks - 3.5 kc

rich owens - 3 kc

KC 13.5 SACKS

 

regan upshaw - 7 oak

tony bryant - 5 oak

josh taves - 1 oak

trace armstrong - .5 oak

OAK 13.5 SACKS

 

bruce smith - 5 wash

marco coleman - 4.5 wash

kenard lang - 4 wash

WASH 13.5 SACKS

 

mike rucker - 9 carolina

chris slade - 2.5 car

jay williams - 1 carolina

gillis wilson - .5 carolina

CAROLINA 13 SACKS

 

chad bratzke - 8.5 colts

cchukie nwokorie - 5 colts

brad scioli - 4 colts

COLTS 13 SACKS

 

bobby hamilton - 7 ne

anthony pleasant - 6 ne

NE 13 SACKS

 

michael mccrary - 7.5 bal

adalius thomas - 3.5 balt

marques douglas - 1 bal

BALT 12 SACKS

 

lance johnson - 5.5 min

talance sawyer - 5 vikes

stalin colinet - 1 min

VIKES 11.5 SACKS

 

keith washington - 4 den

reggie hayward - 3 den

bertrand berry - 2 den

kavika pittman - 1 den

kavika pittman - 1 den

DEN 11 SACKS

 

greg ellis - 6 dal

peppi zellner - 3 dal

demetric evans - 1 dal

DALLAS 10 SACKS

 

antionio cochran - 4.5 sea

michael sinclair - 3.5 sea

SEATTLE 8 SACKS

 

fred wakefield - 2.5 ariz

tom burke - 2 ariz

mao tosi - 1 ariz

kyle vanden bosch - .5 ariz

CARDS 6 SACKS

[nfoligno]

come on... where any player lines up during a given play in a 4-3 defense is totally inconsequential. if you used that standard you could say the same for all the LBer blitzes not to mention safety and corner blitzes, which were coming off the LOS at various times.

 

Disagree 100%. It's one thing to not count Urlacher in DE/DL sacks, but in Colvin, I believe you have a different situation. Colvin wasn't simply a pass rushing LB. He played LB on 1st and 2nd down, and then played DE on 3rd downs. Two years ago, Anderson was a rookie that played basically as a situational pass rusher. Do you count his sacks as DE sacks? If so, there is no difference. Colvin didn't simply blitz on 3rd downs. He lined up at DE. He didn't simply standup as a LB on the LOS. He had his hand down on the ground, and was in fact our DE. I believe BRob moved inside, and Colvin lined up at DE in 3rd down situations. So sorry, Colvin's numbers would count. To dismiss his sack totals would be no different from dismissing the sack totals of any pass rushing specialist, like Anderson as a rookie.

 

YES you are correct that our run d was so good it FORCED other teams to try and move the ball through the air. but here you are wrong about the 29th ranking against passing yards given up is a joke. that stat IS important. that means that even when our defense KNEW that the other teams near only option was to pass against us they still put up a massive amount of yards and we didn’t stop them. YET... knowing that and the number of passing attempts, or chances our de’s had to harass and sack the qb, they ranked at best just below *500 (and in my opinion even lower) in defensive end sacks compared to the rest of the nfl!!

 

Sorry, it just isn't that simple. On offense that year, we had around 1,800 yards on the ground. Not bad at all. But a closer look shows that we ranked very high in rushing attempts, and our 3.7 ypc average shows that despite the solid total yardage numbers, our rushing really wasn't that good.

 

When a team passes the rock all day, they are going to connect. Also, this was our scheme. We played more of a bend, don't break scheme. We allowes yards, particularly in front of us, but nothing that would hurt us. Sorry, but when our defense was #1 in the league against the pass (scoring) what else matters? If another teams dinks and dunks on us, but doesn't score, so what? It kills me when someone gets so caught up in the yards stat. Does another team get extra credit for yards? Last I checked, all that mattered was scoring, and in that regard, we were #1.

 

THAT is why our lb’s and db’s have such a high sack total. because we had to BLITZ to pressure the qb so much.

 

One, as I said before, you have to credit Colvin in DL totals as you would any situational pass rusher.

 

Two, you argue we "had" to blitz. I argue that was simply our scheme. We build a defense based around a DL that, #1, stopped the run, and #2, attacked the QB. And we supplemented the DL w/ an aggressive group of LBs and safeties.

 

you are quoting out of timeframe. these were the players we needed in 2001/2002 when it really did look promising to go all the way, NOT 2-3 years later when angie decided to address these problems. in fact if the bear organization had half a brain they would have solved that de problem for years by getting simeon rice IN 2001. this isn’t any hindsight or even considered a reach at the time. it was a very good pass rushing ball player who wanted to play in chicago for very reasonable money.

 

When were we supposed to go all the way? Heading into 2001, Angelo took over after the draft, and few thought much of our team. In fact, Angelo cut Engram in order to give our young players more PT since he felt it was a developmental year, not a 13 win season. If you mean 2002, you are not going to get any argument out of me. I have, since he joined in 2001, ripped Angelo. It made me sick that we had a good team, and he did NOTHING to improve it.

 

how good would we have been if we had used free agency to our advantage?

 

Preaching to the choir here. For the first couple years under Angelo, I think the only FA he added close to significant was Desmond Clark. Granted, we had a lot of FAs of our owns, but Angelo made the choice to give the likes of BRob and McQ big paydays, while allowing Colvin and Parrish to walk, and/or to ignore other FAs available.

 

below are the stats for defensive end sacks in 2001. this also MAY not take into account any teams that ran a 3-4 defense where actual linebackers were possibly listed into their sack totals and are not listed here.

 

15 teams are ahead of chicago for defensive end tallied sacks. if you don’t want to consider boone as a de (which he is not) it puts the bears defensive end totals 17 behind other teams in the nfl and tied with 3 other teams at 13.5 in the bottom half of the standings.

 

I deleted the list, due to space, but read it. As I said, I think it is simply wrong to not count Colvin, and I am not even sure about the argument against him. Not all 10.5 sacks were as a downlinemen, but the majority were. I am going off memory, but I thought I remember an articled detailing his sacks, and something like 8 of the 10.5 came while playing DE. I would not count Boone, but I would credit 8 sacks from Colvin, which puts their total over 20.

 

Further, I am not totally sure I understand the point. Not every scheme relies on the DL to get to the QB. Ours was a scheme where getting to the QB was probably the 3rd priority. 1st was stopping the run. 2nd was mantaining gaps. 3rd was pushing toward the QB. But our scheme also relies on pressure from other areas. While it was not close to the same, I would argue it was similar to a 3-4 in the sense that we relies on QB pressure from other areas. Our 48 total sacks would indicate that scheme worked fairly well.

 

Tell me something. We have been arguing for a while, and I am not even sure anymore what we were/are arguing about specifically. I agree Angelo should have done more to improve the team. I agree we should have added a DE like Rice, and screamed for such, back then. I was sick the day Angelo gave Bryan Robinson $25m. I agree the best defense is one where the DL can get to the QB, which is also why I have never cared for the 3-4. So what exactly are we arguing about?

[Lucky Luciano]

QUOTE BY ME

a perfect example of this was in 2001, a year you talk about a lot. they had very good players on that defense except for one aspect... they could NOT rush the passer off the ends. this was our worst aspect that season and the final game proved that in spades. mcnabb had all day to move around before releasing the ball. END QUOTE

 

"I personally feel it was a tad more than that. As I recall, we actually did pressure McNabb, but he was sick in his ability to avoid the rush. I recall too well both our DL, and our LBs, putting McNabb on the move, but breaking their ankles trying to stick w/ him. We have a much, much better pass rushing DL today than in 2001. I think you would easily agree w/ that. IMHO, our DL today would not have been able to stop McNabb on that day."

 

it was the quality and effectiveness of our defensive ends in this portion of our discussion.

 

in my estimation i believe/believed that our de's were the weak link in our entire 2001 defense including the eagle game, while you infer that this was not the case and cite the eagle P.O. game as an example of their prowess. by the way the stats i posted are not what i am relying upon for my opinion, they just enforce my conclusions on the subject.

 

my analysis was based upon what i saw during the 2001 season and before. even if our de's were good at run stopping they were poor pass rushing de's as a whole.

 

Disagree 100%. It's one thing to not count Urlacher in DE/DL sacks, but in Colvin, I believe you have a different situation. Colvin wasn't simply a pass rushing LB. He played LB on 1st and 2nd down, and then played DE on 3rd downs. Two years ago, Anderson was a rookie that played basically as a situational pass rusher. Do you count his sacks as DE sacks? If so, there is no difference. Colvin didn't simply blitz on 3rd downs. He lined up at DE. He didn't simply standup as a LB on the LOS. He had his hand down on the ground, and was in fact our DE. I believe BRob moved inside, and Colvin lined up at DE in 3rd down situations. So sorry, Colvin's numbers would count. To dismiss his sack totals would be no different from dismissing the sack totals of any pass rushing specialist, like Anderson as a rookie.

 

you couldn't be any more wrong if you believe ANY linebacker should be considered a de in a 4-3 defense and his stats count as such. the scheme is absolutely meaningless and the stats as to who those sacks belong to are clearly stated in any statistic. otherwise you could have colvin go to the pro bowl as a de when he played in a 4-3 type defense!! it will NEVER happen!!

 

they call it a BLITZ. because if the linebacker, or any db for that matter, rushes the passer his duties are either picked up by another player to compensate, or not, and it leaves a vacant spot on the field someplace that can be exploited by an offense.

 

not to mention, what would you consider linemen that stunt a lot? in a system you are talking about there would be no way that you could keep track of anything because each position would change per down. one down tackles would be de's and de's would be dt's. if you had linemen dropping into coverage would they be safeties or linebackers? how would that look on the draft boards? he's a tackle, de, linebacker, safety?

 

you say there is no difference between colvin and anderson? are you serious? have you ever seen anderson lineup in the linebacker position? how many times has he dropped into coverage or covered a tight end? how often does he play behind the LOS? he is what you said he is, a situational pass rushing de.

 

i have to ask... do you also consider wilbur marshall as a defensive end? do you know how many times he lined up on or near the LOS in the 46 defense? quite a few. how bout otis wilson? same thing. you also stated that b. robinson moved inside while colvin was outside of him. does that mean robinson was a tackle and his stats should be considered as a tackle those years? does that make dent a dt? or hampton a dt when wilson lined up outside?

 

you'd have statisticians blowing their brains out if your system was considered viable.

 

When a team passes the rock all day, they are going to connect. Also, this was our scheme. We played more of a bend, don't break scheme. We allowes yards, particularly in front of us, but nothing that would hurt us. Sorry, but when our defense was #1 in the league against the pass (scoring) what else matters? If another teams dinks and dunks on us, but doesn't score, so what? It kills me when someone gets so caught up in the yards stat. Does another team get extra credit for yards? Last I checked, all that mattered was scoring, and in that regard, we were #1.

 

and this means what? that it is our scheme to have to blitz our linebackers and db's to sack the qb? is that what you are saying? sorry, but it is critical for your de's to pressure and sack the qb. without it you have to gamble and blitz which can kill you.

 

caught up in the yards stat? if you don't see that this is pertinent as to how many sacks, hurries and knock downs your de's have during a season then there is nothing i can say to help you out. you will just have to believe me or not that it IS important in understanding how many attempts your de's had to sack a qb, how many they attained and how they ranked against the passing yards these qb's gave up compared to the rest of the nfl.

 

Two, you argue we "had" to blitz. I argue that was simply our scheme. We build a defense based around a DL that, #1, stopped the run, and #2, attacked the QB. And we supplemented the DL w/ an aggressive group of LBs and safeties

 

i can argue the results too. if your defensive ends can't get to the quarterback and you need to blitz, or "scheme" as you call it, 80% of the time you harass a qb, you will be in and out of the playoffs in a blink of an eye. you just can't sustain a continuous blitz package against good passing qb's without getting toasted more often than not.

 

When were we supposed to go all the way? Heading into 2001, Angelo took over after the draft, and few thought much of our team. In fact, Angelo cut Engram in order to give our young players more PT since he felt it was a developmental year, not a 13 win season.

 

what they thought prior to the season starting is a moot point. as i have stated and i believe yourself also, if we had gotten a true pass rushing de in rice our team would have been miles better. by mid season we did look like we had a chance and COULD possibly go all the way. a true pass rushing de could very well have changed that entire season and the results even with miller at qb.

 

i also have to ask where you found the information on why we cut engram because we were rebuilding and wanting to give our young wr's more playing time? engram was only 27 years old and only a 5 year vet in 2000. does that make some sense to you?

 

But our scheme also relies on pressure from other areas. While it was not close to the same, I would argue it was similar to a 3-4 in the sense that we relies on QB pressure from other areas. Our 48 total sacks would indicate that scheme worked fairly well.

 

it was not similar at all. a 3-4 is relying on basically 4 linebackers in leu of the de position. they are not leaving gaps in their defense by blitzing.

 

if this works so well by blitzing a downed linebacker continuously why doesn't every team in the nfl use this system? why don't WE still use this system? is it because if you blitz you leave holes in your defense that GOOD teams can beat you with? that's why it's critical that your dl can get to the qb and NOT have to do this.

[nfoligno]

1. Colvin as a DE.

 

Did you watch the team in 2001? You continue to throw out examples that simply show you do not understand the situation. You ask if Wilber Marshall or Otis Wilson would have been considered DEs. Your question only proves you don't get it. Both rushed the passer, but did so as LBs. They did not move to DE. That is simply a different situation entirely.

 

If Colvin blitzed from the LB position, I would agree you do not count that as a sack. If Colvin stood next to the DE and attacked the QB, that too would be as a LB, not as a DE. But what Colvin did was different. Period. On 3rd downs, we would play nickel D. In that situation, you usually see the SLB sit on the bench, while an extra DB would play. Well, we did drop the LB and add a DB, but instead of sitting, Colvin would play DE instead of Brob. He flat out became our DE. Not some 5th Defensive linemen, nor a LB standing on the outside. He became our DE.

 

That is not similar at all to Marshall, Otis, or other LBs who were good at rushing the passer. Colvin was different in that he would actually line up as our DE. A key difference is where you see a person's hands. His were on the ground, hence, a downlinemen.

 

Sure, technically speaking, his stats are going to go to the LB position, but I simply argue that stats are not always reflective. I still argue that the pressure he provided while playing DE on 3rd downs is NO different from pressure a situational pass rusher would have provided on 3rd downs. If Colvin sat on the bench on 3rd downs, and we inserted a speedy DE to attack the QB, you would obviously credit that sack to the DL. Well, I simply do not see the difference in what Colvin did. He was our situational pass rusher. Whether it was Colvin playing DE, or some #3 or #4 DE off the bench, the point is, pressure was created from the DL on that down.

 

2. Beyond the play of Colvin, we do not agree as much as one may think if looking at the number of posts. My point is our DL did what it was supposed to do, as did our defense. What I am not sure you understand is, I agree the set up of our defense was not what it should be. I agree you try to build a defense around a pass rushing DL. That was simply not Blache's defense. Do you not recall his famous quote, "Sacks are over-rated". He built a defense based on stopping the run and getting pressure w/ bull rushes and blitzes. By and large, it worked. Then it failed miserably in the playoffs, but my point is, you can not rip the players too much. They did as the defense was designed for.

 

3. We agree adding a DE like Rice would have been great for that team. At the same time, I would add that Rice would have been wasted in our scheme, as he would have been told to hold his gap and not all out pass rush, which would have taken him out of his game. Rice would have been great, but probably not as much w/ Blache as our DC.

 

4. Regarding Engram, I am going off memory, which I think is pretty good as it was an issue I was all over. I blasted Angelo the day he made the move. It was prior to the season, and Angelo at the time said he wanted to give more reps to our other, younger WRs. You can throw in the "more talented" idea as well. Engram was not the sort of WR most GMs seek, and yet is the sort that changes the game as much as most any. If you think back, we had Booker, Bates, White and Terrell, each of which younger and considered a higher pure talent than Engram. Terrell was a top 10 pick rookie. White was a high pick 3rd rounder entering his 2nd season. Booker and Bates were 3rd year, 3rd rounders. We also had Marcus Robinson coming off injury, and I think two years removed from his 1,400 yard season. Then there was Engram. Engram was entering his 6th season (drafted in '96). While not some old man, his ceiling was not considered as high as the others, and it was believed him being on the roster would hold back other, younger WRs, who were thought to have higher ceilings. I recall all too well ripping Angelo for the move, as most everyone saw it as a developmental move, as opposed to keeping your most proven WR.

 

The one thing I would throw out there is, if Engram were not cut, Booker likely would never have developed the way he did, as he and Engram played the same role. At the same time, I still hated the move, and feel we still have yet to truly replace him on the roster.

 

5. Was our defesne one that I agree w/ in principle? No. We were copying Baltimore who won a SB w/ a very similar defense. Baltimore did not have a stud DL that rushed the passer either, but was an all around aggressive defense that did apply pressure. Our defense was very similar. But in that game, we faced a QB that made our DL and LBs look silly. I remember all too well collapsing the pocket, or putting McNabb on the move, only to see him make moves that made our bigger, slower DL look silly, escape pressure, and find wide open receivers.

 

IMHO, while our defense did not help us, I would argue our offense killed us. Our OL got man-handled. A-Train had around a 2 ypc average, not even getting 50 yards. We had less than 100 yards passing, w/ 3 picks to boot. Several of Phily's scores were on short fields due to our weak offense, also reflected in a 36-24 TOP. Through the season, our offense was able to run the ball, win the battle of TOP and field position. In this game, our offense stunk. 10 total 1st downs and 3 picks kept our defense on the field too much, which was too much for an aggressive defense to hold temp.

 

It isn't that I loved that defensive style. I would far prefer a defense like NYG's this year, where the DL wreaks havoc, and everything else feeds off the DL. That was not our defense in 2001, nor was it intended to be. We were set up to be like Baltimore. While everyone rips the defense for its play against McNabb, at the same time, I think fans forget just how bad the offense was. While never expected to be great, they were HORRIBLE, and not many defenses can over-come such a horrible performance.

[Lucky Luciano]

1. Colvin as a DE.

 

Did you watch the team in 2001? You continue to throw out examples that simply show you do not understand the situation. You ask if Wilber Marshall or Otis Wilson would have been considered DEs. Your question only proves you don't get it. Both rushed the passer, but did so as LBs. They did not move to DE. That is simply a different situation entirely.

 

If Colvin blitzed from the LB position, I would agree you do not count that as a sack. If Colvin stood next to the DE and attacked the QB, that too would be as a LB, not as a DE. But what Colvin did was different. Period. On 3rd downs, we would play nickel D. In that situation, you usually see the SLB sit on the bench, while an extra DB would play. Well, we did drop the LB and add a DB, but instead of sitting, Colvin would play DE instead of Brob. He flat out became our DE. Not some 5th Defensive linemen, nor a LB standing on the outside. He became our DE.

 

did i watch the team in 2001? uhhhh... yea.

 

sure we mixed it up, sure colvin in a very narrow sense COULD be considered playing a DE position in a particular play in this type of 3-4 PREVENT DEFENSE. but to say that colvin's stats or sacks should be considered as a DE is about as realistic as saying we ran a 3-4 defense instead of a 4-3.

 

first of all what you are talking about is a bastardization of a 3-4 type of defense in which colvin is in a 3 point stance on the LOS and robinson playing NT. at times it appeared as a 3-4 but this is basically a 3rd down 3-4 zone type pass defense with options to blitz. colvin was spread out a bit wider of the RT than is normal even in the 3-4 to get an edge on rushing the passer. also in this type of defense we moved our safeties/corners up to the LOS in a 2 point stance similar to linebackers in the traditional 3-4 where they played a step outside of colvin. would our safeties now be considered linebackers and any corners filling in their positions now safeties? how would you now rank green's or parish's sacks that season? as linebackers?

 

just for curiosities sake, you mention if colvin stood next to a de and attacked the qb you WOULD consider it as a linebacker sack. well i have to ask, how many times did colvin sack a qb from this prevent defense and how many from our traditional 4-3? do you know?

 

Sure, technically speaking, his stats are going to go to the LB position, but I simply argue that stats are not always reflective. I still argue that the pressure he provided while playing DE on 3rd downs is NO different from pressure a situational pass rusher would have provided on 3rd downs. If Colvin sat on the bench on 3rd downs, and we inserted a speedy DE to attack the QB, you would obviously credit that sack to the DL. Well, I simply do not see the difference in what Colvin did. He was our situational pass rusher. Whether it was Colvin playing DE, or some #3 or #4 DE off the bench, the point is, pressure was created from the DL on that down.

 

again i want to point out that this is NOT in a 4-3 scheme. these times you are talking about consisted of daniels, robinson/boone, colvin. it's not like we had daniels, traylor/washington, robinson, and colvin with him in the traditional 4 down linemen at the DE position.

 

2. Beyond the play of Colvin, we do not agree as much as one may think if looking at the number of posts.

 

not sure i get that.

 

My point is our DL did what it was supposed to do, as did our defense. What I am not sure you understand is, I agree the set up of our defense was not what it should be. I agree you try to build a defense around a pass rushing DL. That was simply not Blache's defense. Do you not recall his famous quote, "Sacks are over-rated". He built a defense based on stopping the run and getting pressure w/ bull rushes and blitzes. By and large, it worked. Then it failed miserably in the playoffs, but my point is, you can not rip the players too much. They did as the defense was designed for.

 

the traditional 4-3 DOES require the DE's to attack the passer no matter what blache says. i just don't agree that our DL did all of what it was supposed to do. if it did you would NOT need to blitz as often as we had to. blitzing is dangerous and if that is the only way you can get to the passer with consistancy you are going to get beat by the teams with good qb's more than not.

 

3. We agree adding a DE like Rice would have been great for that team. At the same time, I would add that Rice would have been wasted in our scheme, as he would have been told to hold his gap and not all out pass rush, which would have taken him out of his game. Rice would have been great, but probably not as much w/ Blache as our DC.

 

again i disagree. rice would have been PERFECT in our scheme. if we had daniels playing LDE and rice playing RDE with the buda's in the middle we would have been plain out awsome. we could have had veribly the best defense in the nfl!!

 

so... when blache says sacks are over-rated don't you think it's because he doesn't have the personel to DO it? what else can he say to keep face and keep his defense on a positive note not only to the media but to his players?

 

4. Regarding Engram, I am going off memory, which I think is pretty good as it was an issue I was all over. I blasted Angelo the day he made the move. It was prior to the season, and Angelo at the time said he wanted to give more reps to our other, younger WRs. You can throw in the "more talented" idea as well. Engram was not the sort of WR most GMs seek, and yet is the sort that changes the game as much as most any. If you think back, we had Booker, Bates, White and Terrell, each of which younger and considered a higher pure talent than Engram. Terrell was a top 10 pick rookie. White was a high pick 3rd rounder entering his 2nd season. Booker and Bates were 3rd year, 3rd rounders. We also had Marcus Robinson coming off injury, and I think two years removed from his 1,400 yard season. Then there was Engram. Engram was entering his 6th season (drafted in '96). While not some old man, his ceiling was not considered as high as the others, and it was believed him being on the roster would hold back other, younger WRs, who were thought to have higher ceilings. I recall all too well ripping Angelo for the move, as most everyone saw it as a developmental move, as opposed to keeping your most proven WR.

 

The one thing I would throw out there is, if Engram were not cut, Booker likely would never have developed the way he did, as he and Engram played the same role. At the same time, I still hated the move, and feel we still have yet to truly replace him on the roster.

 

here is my opinion, yet another stupid move made by angelo because he is POOR at evaluating offensive talent. engram prior to his 2000 injury had 2 seasons in a row with nearly a thousand yards each. in fact here is part of his bio:

 

"Climbed into seventh on Chicago’s all-time receptions list with 246 catches. Shattered career-high with team-leading 88 receptions in 1999, the second-highest single-season total in Bears history. Led Bears with 64 receptions in 1998. Moved into starting role in second year with Chicago. Best rookie season for a Bears’ wide receiver in catches, yards, and touchdowns since Willie Gault (1983). "

 

yet he would let a known productive commodity in a #2 receiver go and keep dez white who burned up the stat sheets with 87 yds his rookie season. but then lets look at the amazing dwayne bates who we also kept. 1999 - 2 for 19yds; 2000 - 4 for 42 yds; 2001 9 for 160. yup, great decision there angie you freakin moron.

 

as far as hindering booker? i believe it would have enhanced bookers career by having a legitimate #2 receiver. booker was a j. rice type receiver. not fast but quick with great routes and good YAC's. this combo would ALSO have supported that idiot terrell and given him a good platform to learn under (not that it would have done any good).

 

5. Was our defesne one that I agree w/ in principle? No. We were copying Baltimore who won a SB w/ a very similar defense. Baltimore did not have a stud DL that rushed the passer either, but was an all around aggressive defense that did apply pressure. Our defense was very similar. But in that game, we faced a QB that made our DL and LBs look silly. I remember all too well collapsing the pocket, or putting McNabb on the move, only to see him make moves that made our bigger, slower DL look silly, escape pressure, and find wide open receivers.

 

i agree it was similar but comparing DE's: these guys were all-pro/pro-bowl ends. LDE - burnett - 10.5 sacks; RDE - mccrary - 6.5 sacks, compared to daniels and robinson? HUGE talent drop off.

 

IMHO, while our defense did not help us, I would argue our offense killed us. Our OL got man-handled. A-Train had around a 2 ypc average, not even getting 50 yards. We had less than 100 yards passing, w/ 3 picks to boot. Several of Phily's scores were on short fields due to our weak offense, also reflected in a 36-24 TOP. Through the season, our offense was able to run the ball, win the battle of TOP and field position. In this game, our offense stunk. 10 total 1st downs and 3 picks kept our defense on the field too much, which was too much for an aggressive defense to hold temp.

 

well, i don't think i can disagree too much that our offense was horrendous in that game. not surprising though, eagles 18th ranked d against the run and 2nd against the pass.

[nfoligno]

1. W/ regard to Colvin DE/LB discussion, I think it may be time to move on. We disagree, and I see no reason to believe either will convince the other. If you wish to continue, no problem. Otherwise, agree to disagree?

 

2. Role of the DE. Understand something. I agree w/ you, but I question how much Blache did. You say he said, "sacks are over-rated" because we didn't have DEs that could generate sacks. I would argue that, except Daniels, we sought just the sort of DEs (and DTs) we played w/. We passed on pass rushers, and instead signed run stuffers. To me, that implies the philosophy came first.

 

To me, the #1 job of the DE is to attack the QB. #2 is to try to maintain gaps in doing so, which will lead to #3, stopping the run. Blache simply seemed to look at it in reverse order. He was all about stopping the run first and foremost. He didn't want edge rushers who took wide angles, and exposed the outside for the RB. We rushed the passer in a gap controlled scheme, which works okay if the corners can hold, but is not one that often creates on its own. Like I said, I disagreed w/ the philosophy, but that is what we ran.

 

3. Again, to remind you, I REALLY wanted Rice. At the same time, the point of saying he would have been wasted w/ us is this. Rice was an edge rusher, who often took wide angles and exposed his side of the line to runs, or exposed the LBs more. While I agree in general that Rice on the right, Daniels on the left, and TW/Traylor inside, would have been a sollid DL, I simply do not feel Blache would have allowed Rice to play his game. I think the first time a big run happened because Rice took a wide angle, or left his gap, Blache would have been all over him. W/ most any other DC, I couldn't agree w/ you more. But w/ Blache, I simply think Rice would never have been the dominant player he was, because Blache would have messed w/ his game too much. It would be like forcing a mobile QB to stay in the pocket. It would be like having Bettis run to the outside, or Wolfe inside. Even great players can look like crap in the wrong system, and that is what I think would have happened w/ Rice in our 2001 system.

 

4. We agree on our WRs from then, and agree on Engram. The point I made though about Booker not developing if Engram was on the team is this. While you say Engram and Booker would have made for a solid starting pair, and FAR better than Booker White, I agree but do not feel that is what we would have seen. Booker was viewed as a similar player as Engram. If Engram were on the team, it would more likely have been Dez and Engram as the starters, not Book and Engram. I simply question how much PT Booker would have received w/ Engram on the team.