AZ54

I think the point is more of what is more important, the Pro Bowl QB or the Pro Bowl WR? The article didn't explicitly put it that way but in terms of building a team that's the way I'm taking it. The article made it clear Pro Bowl caliber talent at WR is not a requirement to win a Superbowl. Given what Brady, Peyton Manning, and Big Ben have done in recent years If given the choice I'm taking the QB. If I look back at history it seems you either need a Pro Bowl QB (or near that caliber) to win the Superbowl or you have a top 5 defense. There are always exceptions to any rule but in looking at recent history that seems to be true: 2009 Pittsburgh (top D, and top tier QB tough combo) 2008 Giants (top D, average QB) 2007 Colts (top QB) 2006 Pittsburgh (good D, good QB) 2005 Patriots (top QB) 2004 Patriots (top QB) 2003 Tampa Bay (top D) 2002 Patriots (top QB) 2001 Ravens (top D) 2000 St Louis (top QB) 1999 Denver (top QB) 1998 Denver (top QB) 1997 Green Bay (top QB) 1996 Dallas (top QB) 1995 San Fran (top QB) 1994 Dallas (top QB) 1993 Dallas (top QB) 1992 Washington (exception here with an average QB, average D) 1991 Giants (exception here with an average QB, good D) 1990 San Fran (top QB) For sure I can go back and add which of those teams also had a top WR such as the 49ers with Rice but you don't often see winners without the Pro Bowl QB. That trend also holds if you look at the Superbowl losers who often had one of the better QBs on their team (i.e. Jim Kelly, Kurt Warner, Favre, Elway). Bottom line get the QB and you have a pretty good chance at winning it all.

Great post! Stats that backup what we all saw last year: Orton was good at dumpoffs. For sure the Oline played a role here too. On the YPA stat vs. Air Yards it also seems to prove one other aspect that Orton wasn't that good at, hitting a WR in stride. Here's one stat that really is all I need to know: None of the Broncos' fans I know are happy and all the Bears fans are! Both teams have an excellent fan base who know the game and both fans know what their QB brought to the table.

It's not that we don't need a backup QB as much as there is less of a need to keep a developmental QB (i.e. 3rd QB) on the roster. That was the big argument for keeping Hanie around last year. He showed enough promise that it was worth it to keep him around and don't take the risk of losing him. Others have stated they prefer the shotgun approach toward finding a QB: put enough buckshot toward the target and one will hit therefore draft one every year.

There's one factor he's missing in this: our Oline pass protection was pretty bad last year. All the media focus is on Cutler and WRs but the other 1/3 of receivers getting open is that the QB has time to wait for them to get open. I believe pass protection will be better this year versus last year. In the Suntimes Brad Biggs mentioned how our WR were mugged last year at the LOS. It's a lot easier to play press coverage if you are confident you only have to hold it for a few seconds, certainly true if you aren't worrying about the deep ball. Orton, even if he had protection couldn't throw an accurate deep pass. As a defensive coach I'd have taken my chances that he'd hit on one during the game but go after shutting down all the shorter stuff, make his reads at the snap harder. With better pass protection and an accurate strong arm like Cutler's that gamble becomes a lot more risky. Not to mention that Cutler is a good runner and can throw on the run. While it's easy for Driver to say his DBs owned our WR last year, I'm not so sure it will translate directly to this season. It will be interesting to see how they line up in week 1.

On Rideau, he's tall but not big. At 6'3" and well under 200lbs. I hope he's bulked up some this offseason but getting off the LOS under press coverage is a problem for him. So is going up after the ball, he's soft. Here's another problem for him: when your position coach says you must make EVERY play that comes your way you are definitely on the bubble to make the roster. Aromashodu...don't know anything about him, don't expect much from him. I agree that if we keep 6 WR he's got a shot to be #6 but my money is on us keeping 4 TEs with Olsen being your tweener TE/WR (he already does this) and Gaines being your tweened TE/FB. If Kellen Davis does not step up from last year's performance he could be gone though and special teams is going to be a big factor in this decision, and that goes for Gaines too. Davis...going back to the slot is good for him and us as fans. Going to the bench would be even better for us fans as it would mean one of the rookies has stepped up to take his place. I agree he's a near lock to make the team just because of his experience. Rideau and Aromashodu ran with the first team in spots simply because they knew the offense and the rookies did not. There's no point in trying to teach your new QB the offense with WRs who don't know what route to run.

It's the middle of July and our RB coach comes out and states that our Oline is improved over last year? I have to wonder what he's already seeing (with no contact) or hearing from the Oline coach? It's early to read too much into this but I tend to give some credibility to tidbits of info like this. We know the new guys haven't had enough time to work well as a team but on the other hand the coaches likely already know that the new guys are stronger than those they replaced. Maybe we will be able to move some DTs around this year.

I forgot all about Gaines. I'll be very interested to see how they are lining him up in training camp.

Thanks for the props. I can agree that Mike Brown would have been gone regardless of this one play because quite honestly there were other plays he didn't make that also stood out during the season. If I see that highlight of Adrian Peterson spinning him around as Brown runs away from him on that long TD run one more time I'm gonna throw something at my TV. That is the downside of NFL Network. We put Brown back at FS to help his durability yet he just didn't have the speed, he was flat out slow on the field and sometimes even appeared tentative in his play. We put him back in the box and he makes some good plays then gets hurt again. He's a good guy, maybe one day I'll get to meet him in sports bar around town (he comes back to Scottsdale often) and I'll be more than happy to shake his hand and thank him for a lot of great memories.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter?game_id=2960...=tab_gamecenter If you can handle the emotions again watch the video at that link. They say football is a game of inches but for a couple months now I've been thinking about what a difference 11 seconds can make for a team. If we won that game against Atlanta we would not have seen anywhere near as many changes as what we had this offseason. I believe that's for the best. If we win this game against Atlanta it's likely we: 1) Made the made the playoffs but lost in Rd 1. That would have been enough for JA and Lovie to sit tight and just tweak things a bit instead of the wholesale changes we had. 2) Don't make major changes in the coaching ranks. Maybe we make a change or two but Babich might have gotten another shot. There were multiple issues throughout the season that proved our D was struggling due to coaching limitations but nothing stands out like this failure. Giving up the only viable passing play leads to wholesale changes in the D coaching ranks and Lovie, for the first time in his tenure, takes over the reigns as D coordinator. I believe all of this was needed as the team appeared to be complacent too often, there was no passion on D, players weren't performing to their ability, and the scheme often left us out of position to make plays. 3) Don't make the push for Marinelli as we did; let me explain. I think in one way Lovie and JA would have made sure Marinelli had a job no matter what in case nothing else worked out for him. Had we made the playoffs past loyalties to coaches indicate to me that we would not have fired our Dline coach and brought in Marinelli to replace him, or perhaps we would have tried to bring in Marinelli as an asst. DC? I know the official line was that Brick Haley decided on his own to go back to LSU but I have to believe he had some incentive for finding another job. I don't think Marinelli would have accepted the asst. DC job as he was intent on getting back to his roots. JA made it clear the Dline was all his and perhaps with Lovie taking over we agreed to give him significant input on the defensive game plans at least for the front seven. 4) Still have Kyle Orton as our QB. That come back victory would have been cited quite often during the offseason as reason for optimism, along with the fact he played through pain with a bad ankle. While I like Kyle and his work ethic last year, he was limited in the throws he can make. Without this 11 second failure we would not have made the huge push for Cutler because the thinking would have been that all we need to do is upgrade the D, upgrade the Oline a bit, and upgrade some WRs. After some introspection JA came out with his now-famous "it's the QB who makes the WR" change in philosophy after years of going with mediocre QBs and strong D as the formula. I believe he is right in this assessment and most importantly, he lived up to those words when he went after Cutler with a "we're in it to win it philosophy". 5) still have Mike Brown. I still say this one play ended his tenure with the Bears. People say he was great at lining up his teammates and making sure everyone knew what to do on plays, yet on this ONE play he failed to help a benchwarmer get into position. Worse, he was so slow in recognizing the deep out route (the only route that could stop the clock for ATL) and he was so slow in getting to the outside to prevent the reception. I'll always respect Mike Brown for the player he was in his prime but in one play we saw a guy who was but a shell of his former self. He later got put back in the box as SS. Safety continues to be a concern for the team but we finally moved on from Mike Brown and I think in some ways this is good because the competition in camp is clear that they all have an opportunity to earn the job. The downside is we don't have any obvious starters. 6) Continue with the same Oline philosophy. Instead we get a significant change, where we now look for OT who can play guard (Omiyale). I know we'd have had new Oline players but would we have gone out and changed our philosophy? Would we have pursued three OT FAs like we did or would there have been an OG in there? The benefits of this change remain to be seen but I'm not against it as I think it should help in pass protection. 7) Continue with vet FA WRs augmenting our young WRs. I think the failure of the vet FA WR last year and the lack of playing time for Bennett led to a change in philosophy here. This remains a bit of speculation based on tidbits of reporting and also based on the fact that we have a very inexperienced WR corps yet we've been a bit coy in signing a vet FA to join the group. We danced a bit with Tory Holt but we wouldn't give up the farm for him either. Lately, despite Marvin Harrison being available and a couple others, we still are sticking with what we have. I believe some of that has to do with the surprising performance of Johnny Knox in OTAs but nonetheless we didn't make a huge push for the FA WRs before the draft, and that surprised everyone myself included. 8) Continue with the same draft philosophy. Instead we alter it significantly. JA said that we'd re-evaluate medical flags and give them greater weight before the draft. We've had issues with several players who had a poor medical history in college the biggest of which was Chris Williams back injury. Again, JA stuck to his word and drafted early round players without medical issues. Chances will still be taken in the later rounds (ala Kinder Rd 7) but that's a more acceptable risk reward ratio. 9) We can't underestimate the effects of the single move in trading for Jay Cutler. Despite all the other changes already made in the organization prior to this I believe this message was loud and clear...we will not stop working to make this organization better. I think it was well received throughout the team, front office included. You won't meet many people in high level management positions who are willing to completely change their philosophy towards their business as JA has done this offseason. After all, doing what they do is how they got to the top, why change now? Changing the approach, methods, philosophy or whatever you want to call it, is in some way an admission that you were wrong. Yet JA rose above that and admitted his mistakes, if not in print, he did so by the changes he made within the organization. He said the QB makes the WR and then went out and got a Pro Bowl QB to back up his words and gave up a popular player in exchange. JA even managed to give Orton credit for being a good QB who the Broncos wanted. Even if this deal fell through he'd have been able to say "the Broncos wanted Orton and we had some interest in Cutler but in the end it wasn't worth it for us". Since this deal you've seen virtually no conflicts within the Bears organization. Think about that. None. Everyone is at the OTAs. Coaches are all working hard, Marinelli is running the Dline through more work than they've ever done yet no complaints. Of course all the contract extensions from last year played a role here but still don't you think a guy like Corey Graham who played well at CB last year wouldn't be upset with his position change? Jamar Williams fights for playing time? Beekman losing his role with the starters before training camp or preseason games? Vasher not bitching about being called out? Credit goes to these players for their professionalism but I think the majority of credit goes to JA and to a lesser extent Lovie for saying you need to get it done on the field. I'm not big on making predictions as far as W-L but I think this all culminates in a team that fights much harder for each yard, fights harder to get to the QB, fights harder to get off the block and make the tackle. In other words, we're going to see some passion for the game, a passion that's been lacking for a couple seasons. I'm ready for it, are you?

Clouding the QB-WR issue is the fact that Orton and the entire Denver offense are learning a new system. Here in Chicago Cutler is learning a new system but the majority of his teammates are not. I think both offenses are designed to spread the ball around but where Orton will hurt Denver WR numbers is his lack of mobility and that will force him into more dump-off passes than Cutler. That takes away some of the big-gain opportunities you get on broken plays. The fact Marshall is not in Denver working out with Orton is not going to help matters either. It seems clear his discontentment with the organization is going to carry all the way into their training camp. I saw the Eddie Royal interview as he headed into the rookie symposium. He was asked about Orton and stated the typical company line about how it's all going well as everyone learns a new offense but his facial expression showed that he isn't totally thrilled with the change.

I believe the 4% all work for Josh McDaniels who feels he has the steal of the offseason in Kyle Orton. I just watched NFL Replay of the Dec Bears Packers game in which Orton underthrew a pass toward the endzone by about 5 yards, it turned into an INT. We saw that all season long on deep routes. Cutler won't be underthrowing anyone.

I agree, when a guys been hanging around this long it means nobody has much interest beyond what perhaps is a minimal contract. There are enough teams in the league with WR issues that if they felt he was the answer they'd have gone his direction. There is no way that any FA wants to be a FA at this point in the off-season. All teams have budgeted their money on the FAs they signed and are now worried about signing their rookies. On top of that, if you wanted Harrison at all you'd have wanted him in your OTA's. Now he'll be hoping someone decides they don't like their rookies or someone gets hurt early in camp. That the Vikings might be interested tells me there are some concerns about their WR corps. Even if it's just fan rumors off a message board like ours I still find it telling. From my perspective the Booker experience last year just further solidified JA against bringing in a vet FA WR at the end of his career. That stopgap approach didn't help Bennett at all. If guys like Knox and Iglesias have any potential we need them to get reps with Cutler now so they can improve by the end of the season and definitely be solid in year two with him. No need to delay things IMO so if we're to add a FA WR it's going to be someone we know can contribute for years, or in Burress' case is an unquestioned starter on a one year deal.

It was bad coaching (or rather a bad coaches decision) to keep Booker on the field. He did nothing in training camp or preseason to deserve the playing time he got. While Bennett might not have been ready in game one, after seeing Booker struggle early on you would think they'd have changed course with Bennett. But hey, the captain of the Titanic didn't change course either and he made history.

Seems like Turner has learned from last years mistake when he forced Bennett to learn everything before he got on the field. We need this in a big way if these rookies are going to contribute for us. I have always felt you learn best by getting on the field. Of course guys have to show something in practice but it's the coaches job to recognize talent and potential and accelerate that learning process and that means finding ways to get players involved.

Hopefully he'll surprise Rashied Davis by taking his job from him.

Interesting that Marshall is upset about either his contract, or his injury. If it's his contract, he might be pushing for a new deal now using last year's stats before he gets a season with Orton at the helm, and a new system he doesn't know so well. However, that would be an interesting position because regardless of what happens this season he'd be a FA and you have to think the open market would still treat him well. Or he's just upset about his injury and he is fully intent on rehabbing elsewhere. Stay tuned. There's no way Denver will send him to another team. To do so would be suicide for all future negotiations with players.

Thanks for posting that. It's nice to hear Thayer's thoughts on what he's seen in the OTAs so far, just more confirmation that his arm strength and acccuracy are the real deal. Also good to hear the rookie WR are picking up the plays quickly.

That's pretty impressive to play that well on the road.

You have to consider that half of his games were away from home so if your premise is right, then at home he averaged much higher than the rating shown and was lower on the road. Regardless, the road performance is in the final numbers.

We don't need Hester returning kicks because DManning does a great job of that. Keep Hester on punt returns.

The fact he can catch the football should be enough to get him on the field with our roster. We'll see how the Bears bring him along but I hope they scale it back from what they made Bennett learn last year. One thing that surprised me about Knox is that he's bigger than I thought he was. He's not a big WR by any means but when we first drafted him I had a feeling he was another one of those fast little guys like Berrian was when he first showed up. Instead he's a little taller than I anticipated and he has a bit more of an NFL ready body and that gives me some hope he'll be able to contribute this year...if he can handle the playbook.

After the Cutler deal the Bears front office is getting more publicity. Cliff has done a great job for the Bears and it's nice to see him get some national publicity recognizing that. When you step back and look around the league we standout for our ability to get draftees signed early and our own players signed to extensions early. As stated in that article the salaries we pays our players stand up over time. So why does the perception that the Bears are cheap continue to persist? Why don't we have the perception that our front office does a good job managing the cap and takes care of players who deserve it?

How many RBs did John Lynch light up in his career? He was a safety but was also famous for his hard hits, and he was considered slow. I know what the ideal measurables are for SLBs but there have been players who were successful in this league that never fit the "numbers". London Fletcher stuck around for a long time as a MLB and he was never that big IIRC. http://deadspin.com/5113135/ I really don't know a thing about Pisa's ability since I can't recall ever watching him but it seems he's played most of his career on the lighter side and been successful. I listened to his interview on the Bears' website and he seems to be comfortable with who and what he is as a player. He knows he doesn't fit the traditional mold but he said he knows how to get his job done despite that and he doesn't try to do the things he can't do. I interpret that to mean if you know you can't take on a pulling guard don't do it, just use your speed to get around him to make the play. While he might not have the ideal weight, keep in mind weight doesn't necessarily translate into strength. When considering tackling force, strength and leverage come into play but so does momentum and momentum is a factor of weight and speed. If Pisa plays faster at 225lbs maybe he can make up for the lack of weight. Maybe he will give up a bit in the running game due to this but maybe he gains that back and more in coverage. For me, it appears Pisa has been successful in the league at this weight. When drafted he was listed at 230 but this is one of the links I found that said he was 10lb lighter than that: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/...yers/16881.html Why does that matter? He had a pretty good year as a rookie in Lovie's scheme. Interestingly, the Bears' website lists him as being 240lbs.

Every reported is dying for the scoop that confirms the Bears were one of those 3 teams. It's kinda comical how often the reporters are throwing the "believed to be" line out there.

The more players in the pool the more likely one steps up....it's true to a point but if there are so many players in that pool sharing the reps then perhaps none get enough reps to really step up. At some point you have to commit to some guys and get them fully engaged to see what they've got. As far as the 4 TEs, I agree somewhat with your assessment however, Greg Olsen can and does fill in as our H-back type TE and thus be the 4th WR on the field. He can also be split out on some plays although the motion from the H-back set makes more sense to me. It seems Gaines also has the ability to play FB on short yardage play if we once again use our 3 OT front like we did with Williams at the end of the season. Point is these two players give us some roster flexibility. I'll agree that Olsen, Clark, Gaines are locks for the final roster. That puts Kellen Davis competing against the 6th WR for a roster spot. You typically make the team based on how well you play your primary position but clearly this battle has a strong element of special teams play. I'm not that enamored with Rideau nor Davis and I've already stated that I can see the team shopping him for a conditional late round pick during training camp. Yet, to compete against Rideau I have to say he has a reasonable shot at making the final roster because of the flexibility Olsen brings to the team. I'll toss in one more item: TE is one of the most injured positions in the league. Add a good vet WR to the mix and you might as well push the eject button on K. Davis.