Alaskan Grizzly

That was all Cutler. Line blocked...pretty good I might add... And Hester was working to the open hole.

Although my optimism is waning ever so slight, Minnesota had to feel the same way you describe about a week ago. But as I always believe in what Coach Edwards would say; "you play to win the game".

...and Louis.

I know that "Jay knows what Jay is capable of" but in my opinion he should sit this weekend. I admire his moxie but to what cost?

Hes still being mobile and on the run in the picture in Denver. So why, if he "had" to run at Vandy and "has" to run at Chicago would you agree that his running, as part of the plays, in Denver was by design? There seems to be missing an element of logic to the timeline. Whether he has to or had to, he has a history of doing it and I still think prefers to be an out of pocket passer. And for the record, I don't think he should be playing this weekend.

I do too. And as others here have noticed (and to a degree what Balta said previously) Cutler has been handed the "keys" and not produced. Could you blame it on the oline and other factors not in Cutler's control? Possibly. But as I've said before, Cutler is an "out of pocket" passer. He has taken some hits over the years because of his affinity to scrambling. That may very well be wearing on him in a few regards both in judgement and urge to run. As I pointed out in the last game, Campbell was effectively able to put together a scoring drive by using various receivers. Did he audible? Don't know, he used Forte in the passing game. Something I haven't seen a lot of this year. Made a completion to a crossing Adams not a fumbling Davis. And sealed it with a TD pass to Marshall. Probably the only pass he made to him on that drive. The point being is I like the idea of Cutler being able to take charge when needed. He has the best perspective of what is offered as he is getting ready to set up that play. And when/if he thinks it necessary, audibilize. Worked great for Payton Manning all his years. I'm just not sure that he (Cutler) believes anyone else but Marshall can help him.

I like a "challenge": On "O" = Donald Brown, Reggie Wayne and Austin Collie. On "D" = Mathis, Freeney and Angerer. Say what you will, not "giving a crap" and all but if Jay saw this.... ...I'm fairly certain he would still scramble. He's been doing it for years and that is in his DNA.

Odds are the team will be worse than it currently is. With the defensive players currently on the roster, many are reaching the tail end of their careers (Urlacher, Tillman, Peppers) and have been in the same system. Most likely the new HC will want to implement something different in a defensive scheme. Probably not going to work as well with some of these named players. The defense will be in rebuild mode from day 1. And in all reality that is and has been the team's cornerstone for years now. And to be frank, I am of the opinion that the Offense won't be that much better even if you change out the o-line for all 1st round talent (drafted or through FA). Watch the game this last week between NE and Houston and you'll see what I'm talking about. Brady was dumping the ball in two step (or shorter) drops and didn't give the defense time to put on a rush. And the pocket formed around him was a true pocket. And if Brady needed it, he stood there...still with quick reads and passes. Sure occasionally he would be able to stand back and look over the choices but so has Cutler. I really don't think Cutler knows the defintion of pocket passing. He is accustomed to scrambling and prefers it that way. As I've said before when he was in Denver, Shannahan designed the offense to reflect that. Cutler did the same thing in Vandy. That is simply who he is.

That is the different element. As I illustrated in another thread Campbell was able to put together a decent scoring drive late in last week's game by utilizing other players other than Marshall...until the actual TD. By then the ball had been spread to a few other receivers enough so the Defense had to adjust. Now is that Tice's reading the defense and suggesting the plays with Campbell's ability to audibilize or ??? I don't think Tice is a horrible coordinator, just very vanilla.

Yes but when he does audibilize it seems to always be to the same person....Brandon. Now I understand the whole "chemistry" and "magical" (Mad Lith's word) but really, opponents aren't that stupid. They double and triple cover, Cutller throws it and sometimes...not always...makes it work. And why is it that when he doesn't have Marshall available he seems to almost always do the same seam route to Davis? Which 9 times of 10 doesn't work. Heck, Campbell threw a right "out" pattern with Adams during the last game and it worked just fine. And I believe during that drive Campbell had at least two or three other completions to two or three other receivers succesfully. One of those times was to Forte. How many times have we seen Cutler throw to Forte out in the flat this year? Hmmm.. Why would you do a play like that with your back up and not your #1 QB? Or the play to Adams when Davis would be the "normal" TE for that type of play?

I dare say that maybe allowing Cutler the ability to audibilize could be part of the issue? Especially given how often he goes to Marshall?

Gotta say I agree with Balta and TD here. Just look at the last game. When Campbell came in, did anyone notice how diverse and multi-dimensional the team suddenly became? With Cutler, most teams realize he's going to throw to BM and if not Fortes going to run. That seems to be Jays repertoire this year.

In watching the game, he looked as if he was hurting right after the run. Immediately aftewards he went to the sideline and was wincing quite a bit. Must've been enough for him not to return.

I'm down with that. In just the brief appearance Kyle Adams had it was apparent that he is heads above Davis, despite his out of bounds penalty.

In my defense, and not to be simply argumentative, I didn't start the comparison to Brady. It was presented as a comparison and I used it to illustrate why, in my opinion, it wasn't a fair comparison...not taken wholly. And rather I chose to compare specific aspects....or "elements".

Here it is, plain and simple. What was Michael Bush brought to Chicago for? And why? Then ask yourself, what has he done well at since coming to the team? That is the comparison I'm making. I realize that historically Brady has done it better for longer, and in no way am I comparing the two in overall skill set. Just that when it comes to making short yardage gains, Bush can hold his own. Don't read into it too much.

It wouldn't matter, I don't think, if Lovie got the team to the NFC championship game (like he did a few years ago) at this point. Hell I'm not even sure that it would matter if he got the team to the Super Bowl...like he did a few years ago. I'm not even convinced it would matter if the team won the Super Bowl. Most would want him gone. Reminds me a lot of folks in NY when they wanted Coughlin gone a few times, but fortunately for them he didn't. Frankly this talk of wishing for Lovie to go has gotten old. Almost each and every year of his tenure its been this way. I sense Wesson feels similar frustration and I am more of the opinion that the TEAM will do what it is capable of. They will realize that they have nowhere to go but down and will do what they can to win. At this point, I think if they display a lackluster performance....despite all the injuries...that would be more telling of who will be leading the team next year than anything. At this point all the TEAM needs is an invite to the playoffs to prove the detractors wrong.

And you can safely say that because the 4th and short attempt did not succeed. Had it succeeded, would we be having this discussion? And as I've asked, had Robbie kicked the FG and missed, would we be collectively asking why didn't we just run it? We have Michael Bush explicitly for times like that. The odds that Robbie missing a FG can simply be equated to Bush not making a short yard gain. The point you bring up about "scoring points after the conversion" after the fact is interesting because, if I understand correctly, the odds are even better. Should the team still not be able to convert another series of downs, they are that much closer to the end of the field and can try to do the FG. Let me ask this, what if during that original fourth and short play Toub went to Lovie (or however that works) and said "remember that trick play we did a few weeks ago with Podlesh? Maybe we should try that again." And the end goal was to just get the yardage, and it worked? Would people be ok with it? What if it didn't work? Something tells me we'd be having a similar discussion. With regards to having a player like Brady for the Patriots, with his history and success and converting 4th down plays. I can simply retort with (as I said before) we DO have a player like Brady in Bush....who usually succeeds in short yardage plays. And as I've said before, he didn't...this time.

"4-Robbie Gould is 21-25 for the year and fairly automatic from 32 yards" 4 misses are 4 misses. And "fairly automatic" is not completely automatic. (Gould did miss one in the 30-39 range just against Minn and made 5/7 this year in that category). And just for reference, there are places up here where the sun doesn't rise some days. Especially this time of year. Bush has not averaged less than 1.6 yds a carry this year. That was more than enough for him to convert the 4th. It just didnt happen...this time.

I have to say "X2" to this. The advocate in me says "what if" Gould had missed? People would have asked why didnt the team run it? It was that close to being a first down. In my mind, the statistics of not making it vs making it were equal when comparing Gould making it and Bush making the short yards. It just so happens that Bush didn't. so its easier to ask..."why didn't we kick the FG"? The momentum could have been monumentally stronger had Bush made that run. It would have reinforced the O-line confidence. Of which we know is under heavy scrutiny. And with that successful run, the team probably (not suredly) would have eventually gotten a TD.

With Manning, he pretty much does what he wants. Pretty sure that Fox lets him do as he sees needed. And I think you're right that Cutler could adapt. He is a smart kid. And really all that would happen is Toub could add more trickery to the playbook. Sort of like how Washington was doing with NYG last night.

Baltimore is feeling the same way we are. I think the team can still eek out more production of a few players; Tillman, Briggs and Peppers...but not much. Obviously Urlacher's loss is probably the most noticeable. Especially given the intangibles he provides when he is playing.

So maybe now is a good time to try SMC at LB?

I have to say that having someone like Toub doing that isnt a half bad idea. Toub has been with the staff for a number of years and knows the idiosyncrasies involved. And I believe at one time the upper management considered him as interim HC should Lovie have left a few years ago. The downside is I'm not all that keen on having another coordinator for Jay. That would be four in five (?) years. Jason: Ouch! 1999-2000 (Crowton's tenure as OC). That was definitely a forgettable time. Combined 11-21 record (?) and no higher score than 27 in a game both years? No wonder I don't remember him. And Martz' issue was more his ego. He would not change and when told to, he was slow about it. Maybe it would be beneficial if Tice at least took advice from Toub?

You know watching last nights game (Was vs NYG) reminded me a lot of the Bears / Sea game. The one exception in how NY has their DL set up. What they call the NASCAR package. And despite that, RGIII still had a field day.