BearFan PHX

Theoretically, if Williams does come back later in the season to help us, at which position would you play him? I know the guy is a LT, and if you have him in camp, that's the only place you put him - you let him learn, make his mistakes etc. and become a LT. But if you get him late in the season, making a playoff run, I wonder if that's a good idea. Byt hen, you don't want to have problems protecting the QBs blind side. You don't have reps and games to spend. But Williams is a talent. I wonder if putting him in at one of the guard positions gives a boost to the running game as we round the bend? Having an OT outside of him might be like giving him training wheels. it would lessen the impact of a breakdown, or rather a schooling in NFL pass rush. You know every new OL has to learn those things under fire, and i would have started Williams at OLT at the beginning of the season if it had been my call, and he was healthy. But given the situation and timing, would you put him in at OG if we're making a serious run at the playoffs? That do you think? OLT or bust, or some kind of rookie half year OG experiment?

Don't forget to consider the scheme. I think Buddy Ryan's play design and play calling were simply on another level from what we have now. Part of it was that he was just a great DC, but part of it was that the NFL had never seen some of the pressure tactics that Ryan employed before. In 1984, many pass plays had no hot read or protection scheme for handling the blitz. They weren't able to adjust on first downs to multiple blitzers, and we did it all the time. That put the offenses into a hole, and into a passing situation, where again pressure was appropriate. Only Dan Marino's super fast release was able to balance the 1985 Bears' pressure package. Today, every pass play has both route and protection options for the QB to call at the line. That is because of the 1985 Bears' scheme.

I read this the other way - I think starting Orton and then Rex the first week and then switching it up the second is giving an advantage to Orton. Assuming they are equal in talent, then Orton looks like he developed, and Rex looks like he regressed given the change in quality of opposition. I think the staff is giving Orton the edge, but Grossman has a chance to win out IF he performs. He sure didn't last week against the 2nd string.

We have a paid scouting staff on salary. What else DO they do but scout possible talent? Just because they're looking at someone doesn't mean they want him - maybe they want to be doubly sure that they DON'T want him - you know "due diligence" and all that? Angelo has been well known for, and pretty successful at filling out the depth of the roster. Maybe this is all about looking at Simms, Ragone and Hanie for 3rd string, and next years possible QB situation? So let's not jump to conclusions just because we have guys there scouting. Until we have answers at the QB position, I think they should LOOK at everything.

I don't think that's how it works Pix - the team that claims him must add him to THEIR active roster. There is no right of first refusal for the team that had him on their practice squad.

Sorry, but it is ridiculous to think that if we simply knew the terminology that we would be better at this than the pros. It always looks like that from the outside. Those without technique assume that the technique is the hardest part. Those that actually acquire the technique are in a place to understand the deeper art to it. Everyhting looks easy from the outside. So, yeah - I understand a fan's ego - but that's all it is.

Actually 3rd and long is an excellent time to play zone. there is a lot of ground underneath that you can give up, and then multiple tacklers converge before the first down. If guys didn't execute, then fine (I didn't see the game) but three deep zone is exactly the right call for 3rd and 15. Also, you have to understand that whatever coverage we're running, our defense is predicated on the D line getting penetration. This is training camp - guys have no legs and so the 1 gap defense we play will look bad while the guys are tired. That's why depth on our DL is so important to us in the season too, btw, and why guys like Bauzin or whomever are more valuable on our team than they would be on a 2 gap team. Hence, JA's attention to the DL on draft day. This is the same stuff we read about the Bears (since Lovie brought the 1 gap) in the early preseason every year. Relax, or if you need to worry - do it about the OL - THAT is a problem!

I think the idea is to give Forte the start, and have KJ ready in the wings for when he hits the rookie wall around week 10. I predict we'll see KJ getting snaps in games at or around week 6. If Forte struggles, or KJ shines, all bets are off of course. But the acquisition of KJ, given that he's injured, and needs time to learn blitz pickup responsibilities, is about the second half of the season. Forte will get his shot early and often.

Very interesting idea. And while I don't have anywhere near enough information to offer an actual answer... Everything I've read says he's a quick athletic finesse pass protecting type who doesn't run block that well. I think that doesn't sound much like a running team's LG, but again, what do I know about it? Nothing.

This is almost right. I'll bet that after 2006, if Jerry Angelo had a straight up decicion he would have kept Jones and dumped Benson too. But he was way past that decision point. Angelo made the decision the year he drafted Benson. Once he had done that, and committed those cap dollars, he couldn't cut Benson and afford to keep Jones. At that point, Jones hadn't shown what he could do yet. So yes, Angelo's crystal ball didn't work way back when, but let's not confuse that with making a bonehead decision in 2006, when resigning Jones and keeping or cutting Benson was impossible cap-wise. Let's instead give Angelo credit for quietly negotiating a way for Jones to stay and not hold out for the previous season which brought us to the Super Bowl.

I think they're already using him for the cover of Grand Theft Auto V?

To an earlier discussion about athletes "whining" about getting more money, it was asserted that athletes demand renegotiation when they are doing well, but that teams never ask for any back (or can't) when they aren't. here is an example where they did. Also in Urlacher's statement during his holdout he said: “’But this is the NFL, and if I’d signed it and I’d played like (expletive), they’d have cut me or tried to get me to take less. In my mind, there’s no difference. If they can ‘break’ a contract, I have a right to ask for more if I play well enough.’” Only the signing bonus is guaranteed, so yes, in the NFL, both sides have leverage beyond the signing of a contract, and both do ask for more or less depending on performance.

So, Koren Robinson was cut by the Packers today. Is anyone interested in having him on our squad?

Exactly. You and I seem to see the all Bears' moves the same way.

I have to agree that this isn't so much about knowing that Steltz is going to be a starter, as it is about other concerns. First and foremost, its about roster slots. They KNOW Arch isn't going to be the guy. That much is certain. They do the math, and they realize that they would have to cut someone they want to keep in order to have Arch around as some kind of insurance policy. The thing is, Arch isn't worth much if you do need him, so they pretty much know he isn't going to be on the squad. Therefore, they know they will release him, even if Steltz proves not ready to step up this year, they aren't going to cut any of these guys to keep Arch. The second thing then, is when to cut him. His contract isn't very rich, there's no real cap concern about keeping him until June, and as it has been said before, Angelo has a history of being fair with players, which is decent, and helps us in the free agency market. Lastly, Arch may not find another team. If he doesn't catch on somewhere, or if he is out of the league next year or something, I wouldn't be surprised to see Lovie want him as a position coach. He's a smart player, who understands the scheme. His body just won't get there.

I'd love to hear him say that for himself, especially in time for the chat room this weekend. I have no desire to be dealing with this crap all during the draft too. It would be nice to shake hands and end this.

The question here isn't simply whether Alexander in his current state is better than Benson. He might be. The real question is whether you are SURE that Alexander can be the answer long term. I think we all think that we can't be sure of that. The reason I say this is because keeping Benson, Alexander and Wolfe means that there is no room on the roster for a young developmental RB to replace Alexander / Benson next year. If your idea is to simply replace Benson with Alexander, that IS possible, but it will cost you a cap hit to cut Benson, and I doubt that the upgrade to Alexander is worth that much. The main idea here is that Benson has a year left on his deal, so whoever takes that third slot is his eventual replacement. You can't make that Alexander unless you know that he's the man for you for the next three or four seasons, and I don't think even the most optimistic of us can say that. So, while Alexander might be a better choice right now than Benson, if you were picking teams, and had to fill the slot of 'short term vet while the young guys learns', that isn't really the option. We already have Benson signed, so you'd have to really believe in Alexander. No, the more likely scenario is a young RB behind Benson. Try to get the rookie(s) comfortable on the OL, and play to build a winner for the 2009 season and beyond. Keep in mind that the reason we are here is that last year, having just lost the superbowl, we risked taking the same team, as it aged, back for one more shot. This was a sound strategy, but it just didn't work out. Grossman regressed, and the OL didn't make it through the year without getting too old. Had we only gone to the playoffs in 2006, we might have spent picks on OL and WR, and not picked role players to help out immediately as Partiot-esque 'role players'. Then again, we did take Beekman and Olsen, and they should be a help this year.

OK, good. And if we see each other in the chat room, will we be friendly, or does this argument spill over into every other topic as well? Personally, I'd prefer to compartmentalize it. I would like to think that the Jason in this thread is a different guy than the Jason in any other. If you're up for that, I would be too.

I guess not...

So ARE you interested in proceeding with a handshake and some kind of mutual respect or not?

That would be great. Do you really think its possible? I would like to, so I promise to try. Hopefully Jason will get on board too?

I'm guessing that he's jealous because he keeps comparing the situation to his own, and because in the Hester thread he said: "I don't hate them for their contracts. Like you, I'm just jealous." I'm just quoting him to be clear to what I'm responding to. No sarcasm in it. Regarding your post, you said that I wasn't reading it, so you would put it in bold and underline so I could see it. I thought that was sarcastic and obnoxious. I don't think I'm being hypocritical, but I do appreciate your writing that both sides may have some validity. That's the beginning of a negotiated solution - something with mutual respect. I'm always open to something like that.

Fair enough. I guess I wear mine on my sleeve too, but I really root for the players. I suppose I get upset reading this stuff (and I shouldn't either) because I see Urlacher as a human being, and I root for him. I think of how hard he works for us, and to see him trashed makes me mad - and I know that it shouldn't. I mean, I GET being a Bears fan, but I think that means I love the players, at least as long as they are Bears, more than I love McCaskey.

It is not irrational to understand supply and demand and how markets work. I’m sorry that this upsets you. That it does is irrational. Do others at your company routinely renegotiate their deals? Did your company earnings dramatically increase in the last three years? Are you one of the main reasons your company is making so much more money? Would you make a dramatically larger sum if your deal was up, and it was time for a new one? Are you one of the top 5 people in the world at your job? If the answer to any of these questions is no, then your situation doesn’t have anything to do with it. And that is the problem here. You keep thinking that Urlacher should behave like you do. His situation is nothing like yours. You are jealous, judgmental and superior. And I don’t like paying for groceries either. I’d rather they were free. But they aren’t. The market sets the price. If another store has food of the same quality at dramatically lower prices, then I will shop there, and the overpriced store will go out of business. You need to read Adam Smith, or some simple economic textbooks. Either you don’t get it, or you get it but you hate it anyway. Either way, you’re responding with a lot of emotion about something that is simple - cut and dried. Its weird that you’re so angry about the way the world works. Have you considered therapy? I’m not smarter than everyone else, but I am smarter than someone who can’t understand basic things like a free market etc. I don’t know everything, but I do know something. In fact, it’s a pretty simple something that I know in this case. Its really weird that it offends you so much. And that isn’t an ad hominem attack? By the way, the definition of an ad hominem attack is one where you attack the person rather than the argument they are making. In my case, the argument I’m making IS that you are jealous and judgmental, so it isn’t an ad hominem attack, it is the thesis I am promoting. Seriously, why are you so upset that Urlacher is renegotiating his deal in mid April? If you’re pissed about your lot in life change it. It’s not too late. And it certainly isn’t Brian Urlacher’s fault.

Thanks you Bomber. Somehow you managed to make the same point in only 20% as many words, and without sounding arrogant. I suppose that you would get the contract, and I'd be demoted to second string. Right on.