nfoligno

Just checking, but if Forte is hit with the Franchise tag, and does not sign it, would he technically be "holding out"? By tagging him, the bears retain the rights to Forte, but he is not under contract. Just like when you have a rookie who has not signed a contract. Everyone uses the term holdout, but that isn't correct. He isn't under contract, thus he is not officially a holdout. Thus a team can not slap him with fines. I thought it the same for franchise tagged players. If they refuse to show up for camp or whatever, they can't be slapped with fines as they are not under contract.

IMHO, all the more reason for him to just shut up and play. If everyone is saying Angelo needs to pay up, then Forte has no reason to make it an issue himself. Just continue to play as he has, and let everyone else do the talking. In doing this, he wins all around. But when he continually talks as he has, IMHO, it only serves to create tension and problems.

Your left? J/K. Welcome back. And your "break" was no where near as long as mine

While you know I'm on board with firing Martz/Angelo, on a sep point, I wish Forte would STFU In the offseason, the bears made him an offer. He felt he was worth more and turned it down. That's the business side of football. Either side could make their case. Forte had the opportunity to put up a good year and cash in. Just shut up and go about your business. IMHO, the reason this is still the story it is, is in large part due to Forte continuing to talk like this. Look. Don't misunderstand me. Forte is playing incredible, and earning money with each game. But I just wish he would shut up. Seriously. This is why GMs don't like to work on deals during the season. It becomes a distraction.

Well yea. If the WR is even with the defender, the only way a defender can impeed the progress of the WR is by holding him. that's illegal. The same rule applies on special teams with the gunner in that if the gunner is even with the defenders, the defender can no longer block the gunner without holding. In order for the block to be legal, you must be in front of him. But that is also my point. If you line up two DBs opposite the WR, you are not only created a jam, but in a way you are creating a wall. It is harder for the WR to get past the two defenders, and thus get even with them. With two defenders, it is easier to keep the WR in front of you and not get slipped. Could the two defenders block the WR all day. By rule, yes. But in reality, maybe the refs would eventually throw a flag, even if the blocks were legal. However, I would argue you are near a lock to significantly slow the WR up. If you limit Johnson this way, you give your DL a much better chance of getting to Stafford.

Agreed. I would have liked to see discussion about the coaching staff and management as well, but can't argue with much. I will say this one thing. IMHO, our DL has not been as bad as they have been made out to be. They set the bar very high week one, and have not matched that, however, I think they have been pretty decent to good. I've seen opposing QBs getting rid of the ball much quicker. Part of the issue is our DBs continue to play so far off the LOS, they give QBs easy quick release outs. It's really difficult for a DL, any DL, to pressure the passer when WRs are open immediately. WRs seems to also be open for quick slants, again, making the job of the DL tougher. I'm not saying they have been great, but I don't think QBs are often just sitting back in the pocket on 5 and 7 step drops. The two work together. A DB can't cover a WR all day, so without any pass rush, even the best DBs will get burned. Vice versa, if the DBs are giving WRs loads of space, then the best DL isn't going to generate consistent pressure. I'm not saying our DL is great, but I do think they have done better than some have credited them for. If our DBs could press, or the staff would allow them too, I think our DL may be getting to the QB more often, but as it is, every time the QB feels pressure, he has an easy, wide open target.

I don't know. I have seen games where the DB flat knocks the WR on his ass right out of the gate. It's totally legal to do this. I remember when you had Martz in Stl, several teams defended by drilling the WRs at the LOS. Stl adapted by using Holt in motion a lot. Putting a WR in motion is the best way to avoid this as it is so difficult to jam a WR in motion. I agree there is a risk to getting a call, but disagree it's against the rules. The DB has to be careful about how he jams. He can not hold the WR, obviously. But I don't see how it's against the rules. IMHO, the bigger reason why you don't see this is, if the WR breaks the jam, it is a near lock for a score. If you pulled a 2nd DB, likely a safety, to double at the LOS, then you likely have little or no help over the top. If the WR beats the jam, likely nothing between him and the endzone. Thus its a super risky defense, and flies in the face of everything Lovie teaches (keeping everything in front of the DB). However, I still think it's feasable, and yes, even within the rules.

One, Forte was great, but at the same time, in the prior three games he was getting drilled in the backfield. Two, As good as Forte has been, his rushing hasn't been huge. Last year was his first over 4.0 ypc average. He's great because of everything he does, but as a pure rusher, he hasn't been the most consistent, and a big part of that is the OL. Three, Even if the OL is run blocking well, that doesn't mean they pass block well. Four, I think Cutler has gotten plenty of blame, regardless of the OL. Cutler isn't given a free pass. With that said, our OL does suck. They had ONE game where they run blocked well, opening holes, but prior to this game, they were getting blown up. Forte was getting hit in the backfield and Cutler was under constant pressure

But why do you believe that. Better coaches in NE could not change the way he plays, and ultimately cut him in large part because they couldn't change him. Why do you believe Lovie, the players best friend, will get him to change when Bilichek couldn't?

What I think fans have to realize is, we are seeing a big reason why NE let him go. He didn't get bounced do to off-field crap. NE has plenty on the team who are not the best characters. It's the inconsistent play on the field that got him bounced. He is a big hitter, no question, but as often as he makes the highlight reel with big hits, he also gives up big plays, often for scores. IMHO, he should be a SS and not relied on for deep coverage. He is a LB with good range more than a FS you want as your last line of defense.

Since your going to double team him anyway, why not defend him as you would the gunner on special teams. Put two defenders on the Line of scrimmage to jam him and keep him from even starting his route. Jam him like you would the gunner. Utilize the 5 yard chuck rule and knock him on his arse.

I'm sure there have been some, but who have we lost because we couldn't afford to re-sign them, or wouldn't shell out to do so? Everyone was up in arms about Briggs a few years ago. The Bears tried to sign him early, but he wouldn't do it. They tried again just before FA. Made a sound offer, but he turned it down. He felt he was worth so much more. Seems his market was not as high as he thought, and finally he returned to the team he said he would never play for again to take whatever they offered. Kreutz was set to hit FA a few years back, when he was still playing at a high level and considered one of the top centers in the league. Everyone moaned about how he would be gone if he hit FA because we would never spend the money to match. Well, Miami made a very nice offer, and we matched it. This past year, he wanted X, we offered Y, and let him walk. I don't hear many crying over that. How about Bernard Berrian. He wanted more than we were willing to give him. He went to Minny. I remember some saying the Bears were cheap, but most felt Minny offered too much. Does anyone feel he earned his new contract? Heck, has he earned the deal we would have given him? It's not a new thing where a team sets a players value at X, while the player believes his value is Y. But I'm not sure how many examples can be pointed to where we lost a player, and regretted it, because we weren't willing to pay him what he felt he was worth. Seems like either the player over-estimated his value and returned, or left and never lived up the money he got. Am I missing any examples? I knock this managment plenty, but one thing they have always done well is in the area of contracts. We sign our rookies early, and for fair deals with minimal controversy. We re-up many of our talented players early on, avoiding FA, and reaping down the road salary cap benefits. So for all those who are screaming we have to pay Forte whatever he wants now, I think we need to take a step back. I'm still not sure he will find the market as great as he thinks, but even if he does, I'm not sure we lose him. I think maybe the biggest hangup I have is, Forte is demanding a contract at FA market value. The whole reason to lock up a player early is to sort of get a break on that value. He is signing early, thus should take a little off what he would get if he were a FA. If his demand is FA market value, why sign him early? What is the benefit to the team?

Not how I read it. Roy Williams was taking the blame. He was 0-4 on passes thrown his way.

You can find the same on every team. Look. No question we have had our misses, but IMHO, more than the misses what stands out are the mediocre hits. Take our 1997 draft as an example. We took Curtis Enis with the 5th pick. Ouch. Worse in hindsight when thinking about how we passed on a deal that could have had us move down and take Fred Taylor plus get an extra pick or two. BUT, as bad as that pick was, we also drafted Kreutz and Parrish. Parrish was a solid DB, but in the Kreutz pick, we got a decade pro bowl center. Missing on a top pick is something every team does, and hurts, but not only hitting but getting a stud compensates. Angelo misses a lot, just as every GM does. But Angelo's hits are more of the average or okay variety.

Well, obviously. Just saying that if you put three of the best WRs EVER on the field, even behind this OL, the offense would be pretty damn good. We'd see crazy arse stuff like a nose tackle, and 10 dropping back into coverage. Even our 5 OL could block a single nose tacke. Um. Maybe

Jason. You know I agree with you, but when you list three of the games current or past best WRs, I would argue that would in fact make a dramatic change. If you had 3 of the best ever WRs, Cutler could get rid of the ball lighting fast, and to targets that could pick up first downs potentially every snap. But this isn't a realistic thought. I'm just saying using such an extreme example sort of undercuts the overall arguement. In the end, I don't think we should be talking about Cavlin Johnson, or Orlando Pace. Those are special players who are not easy to find, to say the least. Even if you spend a top 3 pick, those players are still rare finds. The argument is still simple. Upgrade the OL, even the WRs we have today look far better and produce far more. Upgrade the WRs (I'm not saying Rice, etc) the OL still sucks, thus the run game still sucks. The Greenbay game should be all the proof needed. Our OL is so bad that a team can spend all game in nickel and still blow up our run game. Prior to GB, some might have argued that a better WR corp would force defenses into nickel, thus allowing us to run, but the GB game showed that wouldn't even help. On offense, while I want to upgrade our WRs, OL is far and away the top priority (though I would say coaching is neck and neck).

One. I don't have the article in front of me, but I do recall the hit/miss % highly favoring OL over WR. So a WR you are looking at in the first, who grades out higher, often is still the riskier pick than the OL. If we had a top 5 pick, and there was a Cavlin Johnson type talent, compared to a group of OL graded out no better than 15 range, that's one thing, but how often do you really see that? Two. Frankly, I don't think Garza is all that. I think Garza looks good because of the total crap he is surrounded by, but on a good OL, he would be considered the weak link. For several years he was the favored whipping boy on the OL for many here, including myself. I still don't think he is that good. He just looks good compared to the rest. If we are talking about looking long term, and who on the OL should be part of the picture, I would not consider him. He may stick for now, but only until we can replace him. Carimi obviously looks like a player we consider part of our future. I am up/down when it comes to Chris Williams, who is coming off his worst game, but previously had seemed solid. And I say that as a person he hated the idea of him at OG. But even in the last game, is it really wise to have your LG pull and hit one of the fastest blitzing OLBs on the other side? Mathews beats better OL who line up directly in front of him, yet we were asking Williams to run to the other side of the pocket and block him? But the point is, I'd pencil in Williams and Carimin as part of my long term OL plan, and even those two are in pencil, not pen. That means we need a LT, C and RG, not to mention depth. We need a massive influx of talent across the OL. But as long as Angelo is in charge, I expect little. He simply does not value the position. In the draft, he only takes one high when forced. Otherwise it's a position he takes chances on late, 6th or 7th rd. In FA, he simply doesn't value the position enough to be a player for the better FAs, so he looks for bargains. Even when the pan out, most are band-aid level, not long term fixtures.

While Cuban was just an example, I think it needs to be pointed out he would not run the bears like he does the Dallas Mavericks. Cuban is a die hard Mavs fan. When he took over the team, he openly said it wasn't as an investment, and in fact, has often said he is willing to lose money running the team in order to win a championship. That is a rare thing. But that's the Mavs. When he was looking to buy a baseball team, he flat said he was only interested in a new team if it made dollar sense. He wants to make money with any new team he buys. So don't assume he would run the Bears (or another team) the same as he does Dallas. With that said, Cuban is a glaring exception to the rule. How many owners (or potential owners) out there don't care about making any money off the business, and stay out of business operations? Would you want Snyder? He spends money. How about Jerry Jones? He spends money. We need to improve our hirings, but aside from that, I don't see the issue with ownership. We spend on par with any other team in the league. How many thought Peppers was out of reach, yet he wears a bears uniform. We spend money. And we have an ownership that stays out of the way as well. The issue is we need a new GM. IMHO, our current ownership can get that done. We don't need to destroy the history we have in our current ownership. We simply need to change the GM.

Age old arguement, but I still side on the OL. Would a stud WR help. Of course. If you had a stud who could get open fast, theoretically the OL doesn't have to hold their blocks as long and Cutler has a quicker option. At the same time, I would argue upgrading the OL would do more to help the offense than a stud WR 1. We saw this past week. GB dropped most into coverage, and didn't even blitz much. Doing this, you would think we could run the ball. Not only could we not run, we were getting hit in the backfield on most downs. If you had a stud WR, this would not change as the defense already had most men in coverage. The only way to improve the run game is to improve the OL. 2. Continued off point 1. If you improve the run game, you improve the passing game. No, we don't have great WRs. At the same time, our run blocking is so bad that a defense can play nickel all day w/o fear of the run. If you improve the OL, and thus your run game, you force defenses to take men out of coverage, thus giving Cutler and the WRs more room to work. 3. Improve the OL, and you improve the time Cutler has to work. Do our WRs get quick separation? Nope. But given time, they get open and Cutler can hit his targets. Currently, Cutler either has no time, or he has time but so many in coverage they strangle the WRs. Improve the OL, thus balance, and Cutler should have more time while also having fewer DBs to deal with. I realize a stud WR would help, but IMHO, upgrading the OL does more for the offense than adding a stud WR.

Don't tease me like that!

Also article in the Trib. Top 10 thoughts I think. One point made was looking at the offense over the course of Angelo's time here. Basically it scored each year, giving 32 points to the worse offense (yardage) and 1 point to the best. So like golf, lower the score the better. During Angelo's time, we were tied for dead last in offense. Talk about sad. Blame coaching and whatever else (I know I will) but to be that bad that long, with multiple coaches (4 OCs) it has to point to the talent.

You said, And for the record, for every Michael Haynes, there's a Lance Briggs. The Bears seemingly draft like s***, but all you have to do is go back and look at past Patriots and Steelers draft and realize that they miss on 1st, 2nd, and 3rd rounders as well. My point was teams like NE, Pitts, etc miss on top 3 rd picks, just like all do, but better offset those misses not simply with average hits, but with stud level hits. So if you want to point to teams like NE and Pitt, and say they miss on picks to as a way of defending Angelo's draft record, then I'd argue you have to look at the hits, and deeper, the level of those hits. Everyone misses. If you had a team that never missed, they would likely win every SB. But every team misses. Unfortunately, we miss too often, and don't hit enough to compensate. Worse, we have drafted next to none in terms of studs, which makes the misses even more glaring.

Jo-L jokes aside, I think you all are missing his point a bit. He isn't ripping Bear fans for criticizing, or even flat out attacking Bears players, management, etc. He is commenting on fans who not only blame ownership, but say they want new ownership. Who say they want Virginia to sell and go away. Stuff like that. His point is he takes pride, and so should we, in that we have the same ownership (family) who was in charge at the start of football. Just just the start of the team, but the start of football. That history warrants a lot of respect, and I agree, that respect is too often lost today. Will I trash Mikey and family at times. Absoletely. But am I calling for Mark Cuban to buy the team. Fuk no!

Maybe I wasn't clear. I was saying our NFL scouts seemed to have done okay. We have brought in quite a few FAs, both high dollar and on the cheap, and done relatively well. I was trying to say I would can all the college scouts. Point I was trying to make was Angelo always takes the fall, justly, but the college scouts too should be considered when talking about our crap drafts. So some NFL scouts may stick. Basically, I would fire pretty much everyone and make them re-apply for the job.

I still think a huge part of this is coaching. I agree 100% we do not have a #1 WR. Frankly, any who thought Roy was a #1 was freaking nuts. Look at his history. He is an over-rated WR. Yes, he had skills, but even in his prime, he wasn't a consistent player. Frankly, he is more of a #3 than a #1. I disagree we don't have a slot WR, or at least I disagree we don't have the potential of a slot WR. IMHO, either Hester or Knox could be, but for that to happen we need (a) better coaching at the WR position and ( a #1 WR. If you don't have a #1 defenses worry about, they can better focus on the more dangerous #2 in the slot. We need a #1 and a better WR coach. No, the group of WRs we have brought in over the years isn't great. At the same time, it simply seems to me they have all shared the same negatives, or struggled in some of the same areas. Which of our WRs are good beating the press? How about getting separation from the DB. Sorry, but that isn't just about talent and skills. It's also coaching. Catching the ball with your hands, away from your body, as opposed to catching with your body. How about shielding the defender. Again, these are coachable WR traits that ours have seemed to lack for years. OT, OG and WR? Sure. But you know we will draft DT, DE and DB.