LT2_3

I think it's a matter of what they were allowed to do, and what they chose to do. I think they were told before the offseason that they had the draft and free agency with a large budget in an uncapped year. However, they were NOT allowed to trade future draft picks. I think Angelo, Ruskell, Lovie Martz, Marinelli, and Tice all sat down to discuss what areas needed to be addressed and which of those areas could be most effectively be addressed in free agency and our current draft picks. I think they set their sights on Peppers for the defense, and picked up 2 solid blockers in a RB and a TE - considered a 6th lineman. I think they made those decisions because there weren't really any Olinemen available in pure free agency, and they had the safety position ear-marked for the 3rd round pick. Were there OL available that you could say "this guy is a starter on any Oline?" I can't think of any that were available. There was Faneca, but he's old and there were reports that he'd already lost a step. Also, Faneca was released after the draft so our wad had been blown. I thought that we all wanted to get away from the aging FA OLinemen quick fix anyway. Had they been allowed to trade future picks, they probably could have traded next year's first rounder for a 2nd this year and picked up G Zane Beadles or G Vladimir Ducasse - who happens to be the guy that was chosen by the Jets that made them comfortable releasing Faneca. By not being able to trade future picks, they weren't able to move up in the draft to get a quality prospect. On a little side note, Tice said in an interview that he figured it would take 6 games for the Oline to really gel as a unit. Injuries have set that timetable back a bit, but the group of guys that we currently have CAN get a lot better - and we're 4-1 and leading the division right now.

I get what you're trying to say, but your analogy implies that there is a quick and easy solution. So, what is the quick and easy solution that will change the manner in which the Bears win games? What is the quick and easy solution to getting the o-line to block better as a unit? I don't think you have one. Here's how to fix your analogy: a guy has a chance of a new job back in January. He decides to stick with the job he has. Now, 10 months later, the job he kept isn't feeding himself as well as he would like. The problem is though, that at this time of year, there aren't any other jobs available. So, what do you do? Do you quit your job and THEN eat out of dumpsters for the rest of the year, or do you work with what you have, put in some overtime, and do the best you can with what you've got?

Avellini was there for Ditka's inaugural strike shortened season of 1982 only. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/chi/1982.htm

Wow. You guys are really good at spending other peoples money. If the renovation had cost any more than it did, then it probably wouldn't have gotten done without more money from the state. As it is, the current deal stretches the city's ability to pay for both US Comiscular field AND the Soldier field renovation with the hotel restaurant tax before both stadiums have to be replaced again. I'm not opposed to any of the ideas that you guys have come up with, but the bottom line is that this was a huge compromise between the City, State, and Bears just to get a deal done. If it were to cost any more, I think we'd be rooting for the Schaumburg Bears.

Really? You don't know the history of Soldier Field? Here you go..... http://www.bearshistory.com/lore/soldierfieldhistory.aspx

Add to all that, I don't think he's be that helpful this year. Figure it's a month before he can start learning Martz' offense. Then how long does it take for him to be up to speed and could run more than a couple routes? In a timing based offense, knowing the whole offense is important and there isn't much time for learning during the season. If the Bears were to do it, then it could be next year before he's actually productive. At that point, it doesn't really make sense because he would take time from guys that already know the system.

Wow. There must be a story behind that. I think I block it out because on some sitcom they have a gag where every time someone uses General or Major with their other meanings, they salute whatever was said. So they could end up in conversation saluting: Major Problem Major Catastrophe General Orders General Anesthesia etc. So, whenever I hear or read the name Major Wright, my mind immediately goes to that bit, but because it's so stupid, and I don't want to associate something so stupid with the beloved, my brain goes into a kind of Error 404: Permissions denied. Which then in turn gives me a massive mental block about the guy's name. Probably WTMI, but it's sort of a preemptive strike to explain why I'm likely to mess up his name again and again in the future.

That one's it. Who names a kid Major? Why not go full bore and name them General or Admiral if you're going with a military rank?

I think it's too early to tell. At the time, I didn't want to gut our what was left 2010 draft for an injury prone Boldin, and I've never wanted anything to do with Houshmenzadah. In future hindsight, if Major Harris and Corey Wooten don't pan out and Boldin manages to stay uncharacteristically healthy, then maybe we should have made that move. I still say no to Housh no matter what. He's the next version of Alvin Harper or Peerless Price that had exaggerated stats by having a true #1 playing across from them getting all the attention. They then end up being a shadow of their former selves performance wise, but with all the ego of a true #1 because that's the role they try to fill.

Do we need Oline help? They blocked for 463 yards of offense. Is that not good enough?

I record them on my computer and can easily setup a FTP server for you to get 4 files total by quarter if you're interested. The files aren't small (750mb+ish each) and it may take awhile since I only have 1 Mbit per sec upload from my ISP, but let me know if you're interested. Seriously, I'd suggest ordering one of these: http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=RD...B-R&cat=CON It's a few bucks, but it will change the channel on your cable box to record and you can just set the timer and see it when you get home. If you're worried about the company, I've been ordering from them for years. One time, I ordered 50 DVD+r and 50 DVD-r and they sent me (2) 50 DVD+r. I called them to tell them of their mistake, they said keep the extras, and they sent me 100 DVD -r overnight for no charge.

Geez Nfo, how's about not cherry picking the data? If the team with most picks of the bottom 10 has 4 and the team with the least picks of the top 10 has 5, doesn't that mean that the middle 12 have either 4 or 5? Wouldn't the middle 12 then actually prove or refute you premise? And how did you select StL as the representative for the bottom 10 with 4 picks and how did you select NE and Cinci as the representatives for the top 10 with 5 picks? I bet you could pick another team with 4 picks that actually has a good line and 2 other teams with 5 picks that have bad Olines and your data would be completely screwed. I'm with Balta. Give me something conclusive without cherry picking the data.

It depends on how you measure. I think Knox will have more catches and yards, and DA will have more TDs.

Something Kramer mentioned during one of the preseason games was that the new offense uses a different type of snap count that he appeared to be struggling with - as in he wasn't getting off the ball on the snap and was constantly being pushed back. I'm not too worried about it. We picked up that guy from Washington and Garza can play center too.

1. How good the Oline is remains to be seen. The preseason is for testing players as individuals. That mean putting them on an island occasionally and not necessarily calling plays for them to succeed as a group. Sure, they have a few problems with blitz pickups and stunts occasionally, but all Olines do and they will get better as the season progresses. 2. It does take time for coaches and players to operate a new scheme at peak efficiency. However, when a unit was playing so far below their talent level as our offense was last year, a quick turnaround is completely reasonable - and they will continue to improve. 3. What's the big deal about the East divisions? The Bills, Dolphins, Giants, and Redskins all missed the playoffs last year, and the Patriots have huge Oline and Dline issues, and the Eagles have new and untested starters at QB and RB. The only 2 teams to REALLY worry about in the group are the Jets and the Cowboys - and those teams could have issues too. 4. Sure, our key LBs may not have played in a preseason game due to injury, but none of them are injured badly enough to keep them out of a regular season game. Neither Briggs or Urlacher walked with a limp despite having "leg" injuries. The preseason is really a bad way to try to evaluate a team. They try really hard not to tip their hand. Don't jump off a cliff because of anything in the preseason.

That article is interesting certainly, but it doesn't deal with any of the real world political issues that existed with getting the stadium deal done. I think it's also important to point out that the author's definition of success is making more money - and not more wins. ALL of the new revenue streams that it talks about revolve around a stadium that the team controls exclusively. Those streams simply don't exist when a team leases a stadium Another aspect that is important in this issue is also one that the author fails to address: the political aspect. Daley wanted the Bears playing downtown and had the issue of what to do with a deteriorating Soldier Field. The renovation only cost $600 million-ish and about a 1/3 of that was to reconfigure the lakefront in the area and building the underground parking garage to replace all those crappy looking blacktop parking lots by the marina. The other teams had many more options on where they could build a stadium. There were other options explored for the Bears, but I really don't think they could have gotten any state funding done in Illinois outside Chicago because it was hard enough to get THIS deal through the state legislature. If Daley had been against it, there would have been opposition from the state reps from Chicago - which would be key in getting anything through. Then add to it the political grenade that Daley threw out there that they would have to change their name to the "Arlington Heights Bears" if that's where they played. I know the Giants/Jets get away with calling themselves NY teams even though they play in NJ, but that's because NY likes the name recognition without actually having to fund anything or have a place to build a stadium anyway. Then, on to the financial situation. Jerry Jones can take more financial risks because he has other businesses that generate revenue. Let's say that a proper state of the art stadium would cost about $1 billion. Let's figure that the state could be counted on for $200 million of it - the road work and landscaping. Because the McCaskeys have no outside income, they would have to borrow $800 million that would cost $51 million per year at 5% over 30 years. I'm sure a new stadium like that would generate more income, but would it generate MORE than $51 million per year to make it more profitable? The deal the Bears got with their stadium is still pretty sweet. They don't gross as much from those additional revenue streams that the other clubs have, but they also have far less in terms of expenses with a lease that is only $5.7 million per year with virtually no debt. That in turn gives them a very competitive NET income compared to other teams. I DO wish we had owners that had deep pockets so that money would be less of a concern when it comes to football issues, but that's just not the reality right now. And on the bright side, once we do get a new owner with deep pockets, a new stadium with more revenue streams is completely possible even if they just pay off the lease on the current Soldier Field at $5.7 million per year.

Teah Yahoo. What's your email address? I'll send you an invite

How's it look now?

Ok - I moved it back an hour. We're at 8 already. Let's try to get some more.

Get em signed up! - also I changed it to max 12

Hey folks! I set this league up awhile ago and were still a few players short. We currently have 7 and need either 1 or 3 or 5 more players to make it a viable league. The live draft is set for this Sunday (8/28) at 2pm CST. I can still change that if anyone has a problem with the time although finding another time could be a challenge. It's free (no money) with pretty std scoring. 1QB 3WR 2 RB 1 W/R 1 TE 1 K 1 DEF Email at lloydt56@yahoo.com or PM me and I'll send you an invite. Thanks

Sorry - My bad.

All I said was that there has to be an actual injury - and there was. I think it's a good move. I think that for him to make the roster, he was going to have to learn to play H-back and I'm not sure he could do that by the 53 man roster cut down with the injury slowing him up. Also, btw, it's only an 80 man roster for TC. There are no more WFL exemptions.

I think it's a weird premise because it can only be viewed in hindsight. So to me, preferences are irrelevant because you can't change the past anyway. In foresight, I want us to win as many games in the playoffs as possible. Hoping to lose is a losers mentality so I won't be doing any of that ever.

I read somewhere that Olsen gets split out wide more often than not when he's on the field. That leads me to believe that he's going to be a TE/WR hybrid. I'm guessing at this, but I think that when Olsen is on the field, it will start as a 2 TE set, and then Olsen will split out to get coverage from a DB - turning it into a 3 WR set of sorts with Olsen as the 3rd.