Alaskan Grizzly

The first part of this really is odd. In fact if you look at the game last week between Dallas and Denver where over 900 yards were passed between the two, Romo completed for more yards than did Manning (500 to 400 ish) and he still lost. It was that last interception that killed them. Just baffles the mind. But when you have a QB that is able to throw for more than 300 yards and still lose consistently, something is wrong. In our case it is the turnovers. Cutler committed 4 in a narrow win to Minn and four more in a loss to Detroit. Although he did better in this last weekend's game, the fumble was still a killer, espcially since it related directly to points. There is something to him not seeing the blitzes. There is a disconnect there. And as far as the no-huddle, couldn't agree more. There are so many positives to be gained than not when you do it and you do it right. Ask P. Manning and Brady.

Again...no comment. (lol)

No comment.

Before Mad or "the plumber" call me negative again I'd like to remind those who are reading that I predicted the team would go 3-1 in the next four games (before yesterday's game). So the way I see it they are now 0-1 and will win the next 3. I believe they can and will win. However, my biggest concern is the DT position. What kind of bad luck is the team having there? I think the time is right to see what some of the recent draft picks can offer. Especially those along the Dline. And while we're at it, what is Richard Seymour up to these days?

What's easier Mad is to look with blinders on. The team is not that great, plain and simple. That is not "easy" to say. I want nothing more than the team to win. You want to paint a picture of roses and daffodils. That's your nature and that's cool. I don't see it, not right now. If you'd rather I keep my comments to myself I can do that. But it wouldn't be right, you know it.

"... you meet people that you enjoy working with, or you meet people that bitch and complain all the time. I am pretty sure I know what category you fall in." Ok, I'll give you that you didn't call me a "whiner"...per se.. Tomayto..Tomahto. What I grow fatigued from is blind arrogance. That is why I posted my "jest". You guaranteed a win, I saw the forest for the trees and called it the way I saw it. Was it arrogance? Perhaps. Was it right? In the end, yes. Was it negative? Yes. Because it was the truth. Would you rather me lie to myself and say the team will win when I know they won't? Sorry, can't oblige. Just because I don't agree with your version of the story doesn't mean I'm wrong. You did the same with others here, classifying them as negative mostly due to the fact they disagree with you. That's fine. It is what it is. For the record, I'm fairly confident the Bears will win this week against a much maligned Giants team. The Bears aren much better right now, but better enough.

Stick to plumbing and not to psychoanalyzing. One thing I know about you is that you are not very perceptive. The "jab" I made was in jest, which is a form of humor. It hurt your feelings so you'd rather call me a complainer. That's fine. I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase "the truth hurts"? As it turns out, I was right...you not so. I would be glad to have been wrong. In fact I would have posted that I was. NO is a better team and they proved it yesterday. I am not happy with what the team has done and is doing and am writing in kind. Several of you did it during Lovie's tenure (Mad) so its my turn...I guess. If I'm a "whiner" because of it, so be it.

For the little that he played I thought Bass didn't do all that bad. He was quick off the ball and did good at getting inside the pocket a few times. Compared to Peppers declining play he looks a lot 'fresher'. ...and raw. FWIW I thought SMC didn't play horribly either. I watched him and he too caused a few rushes on Brees and was very near a couple sacks. I tried to see if it made a difference with his 'hand in the dirt' vs a more stand up OLB style and neither appeared overly better than the other. Now before someone over reacts I'm not saying he was worthy of a 1st round pick (not yet anyhow) but I wouldn't go as far as saying he's a wasted pick either.

I'm glad you're not my portfolio manager. *smirk*

GO BEARFAN 2000 and HIS DAD!!!!

Thats funny. I don't care who you are!

Yes.

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/a...e/p2p-77654374/ Not to read into it too much but knowing how Marshall does have a tendancy to be "mercurial" and appears to be unsatisfied with his recent production... Might be worth taking note. Take into account that just a few weeks ago he was interviewed and said that he didn't want for Jay to throw to him if he were double or triple covered and that there were other options available on the team if need. And....we know his back (?) has been bothering him for some time now.

So bottom line, who cares? What does it really matter? Izzy is a good player, most of us here wish now (especially in hindsight) he would've stayed in Chicago. Cutler played like crap as did most of the rest of the team and Detroit won. The D-line has not been much a factor for the last four games so whatever Izzy did or didn't know should not have made a difference, if they were playing all out great. Conversely, the theory that Kromer gives our team an advantage with NO because he worked there for so long is equally ludicrous. Does Bushrod know all the weaknesses and tendancies of their Oline? Enough to give our D-line the "upper hand"? So what if he does? NO is a better team, I would say 'better coached' team with a higer caliber QB running the show. What we may or may not have in "insider knowledge" will mean little....if nothing.

Without itemizing the details there is a possibility if you took the raw percentages of hurries from each game you might be able to swing in the 40% neighborhood. There is no question that Cutler was "hurried" (if not harried) during the game last week. He turned the ball over four times so something was going on. A lot of that was due to his reverting to his old mechanics and holding the ball longer than he should have. Although that necessarily can't be counted against the O-line. And in the Minnesota game, another clunker for Cutler where he turned the ball over 3 (?) times, again he was rushed a much higher percentage of the time. All things being simple, I would say that "40%" probably isn't that far off.

You can disagree but it boils down to what happens the day of the game. Kromer could hypothesize what he thinks Peyton will do but does it matter? I mean even if Peyton were to send Kromer his whole game plan for the day would it matter to how well the Bears perform? I will say this before going further, there are a few teams the Bears cannot beat right now. The Saints are one of them. You yourself brought up many vailid points as to why that is. Drew Brees, Graham, Sproles and Peyton are all reasons why not. I don't feel our team can match up to them. Our LB's cannot cover a TE like Graham. Our 'front four' cannot get pressure on Brees. Peppers might but he's only one man...who is rapidly declining. Sporles is too quick for the defense to cover....Reggie Bush proved that. If you give a team like NO and a QB like Brees a large field to play in, then it's going to be a very long day. When I say that I mean that so far almost every team the Bears have played, save maybe Pittsburgh, they have allowed the opponent to have long sustained drives. That is, as they say, in Brees' wheelhouse and he will exploit the Bears because of it. Someone has pointed out that the Saints have had issues playing in Chicago, but before last week Detroit was 1-10 against Chicago at Ford Field in the previous 11 games. Pessimistically speaking.

Thank you for the contextual reference. I was quite sure that what I meant was indeed ironic. When the phrase was used it was 'tongue in cheek' which I can't actually do because I'm typing.

How tall is he?

http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=975...amp;src=desktop He outta know.

I love the comment left: "Maybe Kluwe can tip off the Bears on some of the Vikings play calls?"

But credit earned where credit is due. There is no question the Bears defense is the same without Urlacher. A few years back when Urlacher was out due to injury, the team assigned Briggs the defensive play-calling duties. The team was noticably different and not nearly efficient on that side of the ball. Briggs does not recognize the needed adjustments as quck did Urlacher. And with the way teams are doing more audibles on the offensive side than in the past, that's a big factor. That all being said, the offense did the defense no favors in last Sunday's games. Cutler's three interceptions not only shortened the field but put the defense on the field for longer durations. And with Peppers, Tillman, Williams and Anderson all getting older it was evident that it hurt all concerned.

It will all hinge on whether the 'good' Cutler or 'bad' Cutler decides to play. That and after seeing yesterday's performance, NO is starting to get its stride. I don't see the Bears defense being able to match the skill players of NO, especially the Brees factor. Kromer's knowledge is not a factor. The optimist side of me predicts the Bears will go 3-1 in the next four games.

Man Jason you're 'en fuego' today. Excellent note.

Hmm that actually sounds like a halfway decent idea. Doesn't tie a lot of draft into defense. I still say they should rotate Peanut to Safety. Maybe a 3-4 would be the time for him to do it?

How do you explain the three interceptions and fumble for a TD committed by Cutler? Izzy have something to do with that? The D hasn't been as dominant so far. Cinncinnati and Minny were both able to have long and sustained drives with relative ease. It might have helped a little of what Idonije knew, but not enough to decide the game. Bush is a good player plain and simple. As are Johnson and Stafford.