BearFan PHX

I hate the Packers, or more specifically, I LOVE to hate the Packers. That said, I think those Packer throwbacks uniforms look awesome. I wanna beat the stuffing out of them, but they look really cool to me.

I agree that it is possible for a mediocre Quarterback to be part of a winning team. Football is the ultimate team sport, every system interlocks. You cannot use Wins and Losses blindly to rate any player. Walter Payton, for example, was a winner, despite a lot of losses - and I agree that Trent Dilfer is not the walking definition of Quarterback dominance. BUT Winners ARE what make the difference between winning and losing on a team - I suspect you still agree with me so far. Baltimore had a LOT of leadership from other positions that year. They had Winners, just not necessarily one at QB. So if your only point is that a Winner at QB isn't completely 100% necessary, then I agree. There was that specific exception, and there have been a few others, maybe not as glaring as Baltimore 2000, but there have been others. But given that you DO need leadership and Winners on a team, can't you see why QB is a natural position in which to have one? There's no other position that naturally affects the game as much as QB play. He touches the ball on every (non-wildcat) offensive play. If you look at winning teams, they almost always have a Winner at QB. OK, so what makes a Winner? For me it's a few things. For one, it's desire. In the NFL, the talent level is all really good. I think that a few super-dominant players aside, desire is one of the areas where there exists the largest gap between those with and those without. In the NFL, speed kills, but the margins between the fastest and the veteran are closer than the difference in desire. Any given Sunday and all that? A Winner wants it more than you do. We see desire play out on a football field all the time, it's the compelling story of competition. You might say that your Baltimore example is one of Ray Lewis having SO much desire that he overcame his role & position to disproportionately affect the game. Ray Lewis is definitely a Winner. Secondly, a Winner can focus. A Winner's stats in key situations are higher than his average stats. He's the kind of guy who can focus when it's really needed and push himself to another level. Think of Michael Jordan, who could will a victory. Again, someone's gotta CATCH the ball, and give the QB protection, but the QB has to do it right when it counts too. This is probably 1b, since it's so related to desire so closely. Thirdly, I'd look to leadership. This is a quality of being able to inspire the people around you to play better, to believe that they can accomplish what they need to. This is in turn related to the second quality, because it's a kind of ability to inspire others to be focus and perform better when it counts too. A leader makes the people around him into Winners. This goes back to your team point earlier too. It's a team game, but a leader's effects resonate throughout the team. Desire, Focus and Leadership pay dividends on practice days too, individually and for the team. So yeah, there are exceptions, and any football stat needs to be understood in context, but there ARE such things as Winners, and QB is a really good place to have one. You could say that: 1) In general, a Winner at QB is an important ingredient on a Super Bowl winning team. 2) While no stat is 100% predictive, and all stats need to be understood in context, that Wins and Losses are usually a damned good predictor of a Quarterback's abilities.

No way. If the Bears wanted and had an agreement with Cowher, they'd be foolish to take a chance that someone else could come along and steal him, or drive his price up by letting it stay unsigned. Angelo would love it too, because he'd be the guy that landed another big fish. I understand that the Bears don't want to pay two coaches, that makes sense, but if that is the deal, then at best, Cowher would be on the radar, and he'd be a fool to commit without a salary agreed on, and without knowing his other options. And without all that in place, at best, they are preliminary discussions. So yeah, I highly doubt this one.

Matt Millen for Packers or Vikings GM!

Lets keep in mind that we were in the Super Bowl well into the 3rd quarter.

I saw Afalava cheating down radically before the snap. He may not have been all the way into the box, but he was damned close. He was certainly no where where he could play the receiver anymore. The other safety rotated over to the middle too - not far enough, but evidence that the Afalava in run support was in the call, and not something the player did. And to the main point, yes Lovie lost a round of Rock / Paper / Scissors, but that's human. Had we executed better all game, the single call wouldn't have been determinative. overall we lost this game as a team, but there were some bright spots to build on, and the offense was better in the second half. They'll need to establish rhythm, but they are a young group, and they'll get better, The defense wasn't bad, and like it or not, both squads mads good halftime adjustments, which is something we've been screaming for a long time around here. One of the great things about football is that way that EVERYTHING has to be working for the whole thing to move. It's a true team sport. The weakest link in the chain ruins everything. So yes, we didn't perform overall very well, but I did see improvements in areas that have been weak in the past. I still think this team is about to be pretty good. I hope the injury to Urlacher doesn't open up a new wound as we close up some of the others.

Um, the interception that Cutler threw to the DT was a middle screen to Forte. I think Turner called a fine game. The problems on offense are attributable to the players making errors. The WRs and Cutler all contributed with blown routes, lack of rhythm and dropped balls. The OL helped too by not opening holes in the running game.

I really have to differ. I know you'll agree that calling a game is like playing rock / paper / scissors. Pulling a safety for run support on a critical 3rd and 1 is a very normal thing to do. But, 10% of the time, the offense can play action and find single coverage deep. As to when to do that, thats a matter of rhythm and timing, and Lovie got beaten on that one, and we lost because of it. But you can't say that calling rock when a pro switches from scissors to paper is bush league. The fake punt was worse. It was idioitic. And if Manelly was freewheeling making it up off the top of his head, he should be cut immediately. And he won't be, because he wasn't making it up. There must be some idiotic strategy that says that if you can catch 'em with 12 in, then go for it. I won't detail all the things that are obviously wrong with that gambit (and there are TONS) bu it's completely nuts, and it's on the coaching staff. And that IS on Lovie. And we lost as a team too. All the WRs and TE contributed to Cutler's awful first half. The OL looked awful. And Cutler went there too. I think a million things were more determinative and telling than getting burned on a gutsy 3rd and 1.

I'm sure someone else must have noted it earlier, but I was just making a roster spreadsheet for the game tonight, and I saw that 6 drafted rookies made the squad, which is pretty good. Good for Angelo! WR Juaquin Iglesias, WR Johnny Knox, OG Lance Lewis, DT Jarron Gilbert, S Al Afalava, CB DJ Moore Go Bears tonight.

Does anyone give our Adrian Peterson any thought for #2? I've always liked the guy - he is a journeyman and he never stops working. he always looks good in preseason, but he never seems to be able to get it done when it counts. I think before the injury to KJ, the writing was on the wall that he wasn't gonna make the cut this year. Now, who knows? Positives include keeping him on Special Teams, which will make us over the top strong since they'd likely already found a replacement for his loss, and as a RB, having a guy who really knows the system and does a great job pass blocking for protection. He is the opposite of Garrett Wolfe too, if you're looking for certain matchups in any given week. Still, I admit his days could be numbered. I like the guy a lot - great motor and heart, but if there was something flashier available, I'd probably go for that. SO, do we look outside for RB, or go with Peterson?

nfo, Great analysis. It's posts like that that keep me coming back here. Playing Clue with the roster - great.

Orton was more than a throw in. If one assumes that this real life, NFL experienced Jay Cutler, if hypothetically thrown into the draft (don't ask how) would be the consensus #1 pick (and he clearly would be) then you can assign a trade value chart number to him. If you then subtract out the value of this year's 1st rounder, and also next year's which we traded to Denver, you are left with enough "points' to trade even-up for a low first round pick. That means that Orton got valued as a first rounder in this deal. So he was clearly more than a throw in. He isn't a top tier guy, but he's in the best 32. A starting NFL QB is worth something, even if he isn't that great.

Thanks! Nice job with the internet sleuthing!

I don't think that's true. I think they play man, and blitz too. But for the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter - here's why: If you're right, we still aren't playing 40%+ "cover 2," and my point was just that when they call us a "cover 2" defense, they don't really mean the coverage at all, the label really means one gappers on the DL. Now I THINK I remember Lovie saying 30 to 40 % ZONE, but if you are right, then I would love to see the link, and would be very grateful to learn something! I'll try to look for it too.

Thanks for that article. It was nice to hear some details i didn't previously know. I'd like to point out that while that is an excellent description of the Cover 2 (and cover 3) zone defense, that we only play zone 30% to 40% of the time. The label "Tampa Cover 2" has been loosely applied now to the entire one gap system. We run a "tampa 2" but that doesnt mean we're always in zone, it really just means that we run a one gap system, whatever the coverage behind it.

Thanks VERY much for the stats! I am totally on board with Cutler (I was already) and this does help alleviate some of my concerns. it certainly does show that he can play well anywhere. I'm not sure whether it answers the question of his 4th quarter heroics tho. I'd love to see stats on that home vs. away for 4th quarter only, but I understand that those aren't easy to find. I'm not arguing with the premise, and you've certainly pushed the ball down the field in proving it, but I don't see 4th quarter proof yet, well only by implication let's say. Still, thanks - and GO BEARS! GO CUTLER!

I'm very happy to have Cutler aboard. I think he's a real QB, and can win games for us. I thionk we got him at a bargain too. BUT that said... I am skeptical about 4th quarter stats for Denver teams. Denver is at high elevation, and opposing teams' conditioning breaks down at the end of the game. Elway did it too. Show me stats of Cutler on the road vs. home, and if they are consistent, then I'll be very happy to accept the premise.

Yeah I didn't take offense to Dungy's comments at ALL, you've got to hear them first hand - they were not overly critical, they were fairhanded, like he was saying "on one hand there's this, but on the other theres that" As for Cutler being mature, was McMahon?

Actually, Dungy said it in a radio interview, and he chose his words carefully, also saying that the Bears have done their homework, and feel good about Cutler. FWIW, that's Herm Edwards and Chris Carter on NFL Live. Herm DOES remind me of Dungy a little, but it isn't Dungy. Herm and CC were discussing the radio quote of Dungy's from the prior day.

ASHKUM, I mostly lurk here, but sometimes I gotta come out of the woodwork and say something. Damn. That might be the best post ever.

I agree, but I was trying to make an apples to apples comparison. Since a lot fo the package was draft picks, I figured to convert all the "currency" into draft points. Me either, that's why Angelo got us a steal here. He didn't get a first rounder for Orton, he simply paid a LOT less than Cutler's worth. They had to sell him at a discount, given their screw up. At first blush, two first round picks seems a lot of compensation, but in doing the math, I think it's fair to say that we underpaid, and Denver really lost. Exactly. What actually happened is we simply didn't pay anywhere near what we got. I fully agree. There was an article that said Denver chose us for that exact reason. I dunno. Not this year anyway - he still has 3 years left on his deal. Thanks for the conversation nfo, whatever the value, Cutler is certainly big news for our offense.

nfo, I don't mean a rookie Cutler, I mean Cutler right now. If the league somehow said, OK Cutler isn't a Bear or a Bronco, and we'll just throw him in with the draft pool, he would automatically become the first pick. I mean, I realize it would never happen, but the point is he is worth at least 3,000 draft points. Once you give Cutler a value (and 3000 is WAY LOW) then you can figure the other draft choices from the chart, and see what's left. What's left is 640+ points. That's Orton's worth in this then. So I'm agreeing with you, Denver gave Orton value in this equal to at least the 29th pick overall. By my reckoning, I see them as having given a much higher first round pick, because I value Cutler higher than 3000 points, and i dont give as much value to our next year's first, but even with tremendously conservative numbers, it's clearly at LEAST the 29th in value for Orton. Does that make more sense? Sorry I was confusing - I wasn't talking about a rookie Cutler. The fact that we don't pay a signing bonus is just huge gravy after that.

Exactly. I the math shows anything, it's that Cutler was worth a LOT, and picks are not players. It could take many picks to find a player, when you're talking about finding franchise QBs. But I also think it shows that Denver lost something, and got what they could to get out of it: Picks to get a QB to develop, and someone to take the reigns while you find that guy - lemme ask you: wouldn't YOU just rather have Cutler? Especailly if his signing bonus is free? I think the Bears won big here.

I was just trying to say that I thought Cutler was worth a lot more than 3,000 points, but that even if he was worth only 3,000 that still made Orton worth a first rounder in this. That made me realize what a steal this was.

I responded in Pix's thread about Trade Value that we got a First Round Pick for Orton, and depending on how you value it, we may have even gotten value equivalent to better than the 2nd pick overall for him. Its amazing, but true. Angelo IS a great GM.