nfoligno

Yes, Mike Brown was before Angelo/Lovie. Mark Hatley was the guy in charge when Brown was added.

It isn't that I put much faith in this staff at all, but if a player does show up on the field.... IMHO, this staff has for years tried to find the next Mike Brown. A player who didn't "look" like a typical FS, yet still played the position very well. If we drafted Mike Brown today, most (including myself) would say he doesn't have the speed to play FS and should be a SS. Yet he proved you can lack speed, but make up for it with intelligence. Hey, we have drafted/added so many players who are so similar, one was bound to be able to play, right? All I know for sure is, I just don't understand how we have handled the Safety position. I do not bash the staff for Afalava, as he is one of the few examples I might agree with the staff.

In general, this was an unusal offseason. Most teams seemed to hold back on spending a lot of money (thus all the talk of collusion), which made it that much more suprising that we spent so big. With that said, I think there were quite a few veteran FAs out there who were holding off and waiting for camp to start. Once you had the initial FA additions, followed by the draft, the offers seemed to dry up. Wale may have seen interest from some teams, but maybe for the minimum, and held off under the belief that once camp began, teams would get more worried about holes (or would suffer injuries) and there would be more opportunities.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to bash or anything. We had a vote on some of the issues last year, like some of the keeper rules and payouts. It has been a while since those votes, so there has been some discussion as to how the voting results went, but also, there have been several new issues which have been raised going forward adding to the discussion. Based on my memory, which isn't all that, we choose to keep two players, giving up a round earlier then when drafted originally, which would also by rule excluse 1st round picks. If you wish to re-visit the issue though, I am not saying that isn't possible. As I have said before, this is a new league, and with any new league, you have "issues" to resolve. In another keeper league I was in, I swear we voted on new rules every year for over 10 years, and the early years had many new votes/discussions. Nothing wrong with bringing such discussions to the table. In the end, if owners are not happy with the setup, they will not stick with the league, and in a keeper league (IMHO) having owners return is a key.

Just saw on PFT that NE is looking at Wale. Mentioning this because just last week, several spoke about how surprised they were Wale had not been signed yet.

Who were these other options you mention? DM sucks at S. We have all seen it and know it. Steltz looked awful last year during camp. Graham was experimented with at FS, but that experiment didn't last long. Payne I think was injured. When you say we had other options, who were you thinking about. Afalava was the best of these options, but that doesn't mean he was a steller performer. He played better than the rest in camp, and was promoted. Give the staff credit for doing that in the first place. But Afalava never develop from that point. Further, while we looked ugly in terms of options last year, it isn't quite so bad this year. We have added Harris and Wright. Steltz has been the bright some through OTAs. And DM has been moved to SS. So this year we actually do have options where we simply didn't last year.

I was never high on Afalava, did not think he should be considered a starting caliber player, just a backup at best. That's basically what I have been saying too. Last year, Afalava was the best we had, but that may have been more relative to what we had then to his actual play/ability. This year we have added some players, while others have developed. Now, maybe Afalava is where he should be. Depth chart. It seems everything that happens is twisted so as more insults can be given the coaching staff. I hear you. I rip our staff as much as any, but try (not always with success) to be fair and give credit where it is due. So often I read how Lovie doen't give young players a chance, but Afalava was a rookie (late pick) who looked good in camp and was promoted to the starter level. I will say there is also a big of "he made his bed...." I mean, he has made some very debatable decisions, and he doesn't put much into PR, which means he doesn't get much leeway. Further, here we are talking about one of the most mis-managed positions on the team (Safety). So I agree we as fans are often too quick to blame everything on Lovie, but also would counter by saying Lovie has only himself to blame for fans so often ripping him. The difference between me and many on the forum, I am willing to give the coaches another chance this year to prove themselves. I wouldn't go that far. I am willing to give Martz/Tice a chance. I am interested to see if Marinelli can call the defense, something he hasn't done. As a HC, I think Lovie sucks. He ran out of chances some time back for me. Even if we win, I doubt it will be due to Lovie. JA certainly has stepped up in player acquisition. In two years to get Cutler & Peppers as well as some other very respected players is fantastic. Torn here. For some time I questioned whether the issue was more what JA brought to the table, or what our staff did with it. I firmly believe this staff (or recent staff I should say) has done a dreadful job of developing players. Sure, some developed, but did they really develop due to staff or simply because they were so good. Briggs, for example, likely would develop for any team that drafted him. What you really like to see is the lesser talent develop, and I just question how much of that we have seen. So part of me has begun putting more blame on coaches rather than JA. At the same time, I have a hard time giving him too much credit either. Early on, he took a back seat and ignored FA. After Jauron was gone, he suddenly began to spend, and many began to give him credit. I questioned why it took him so long to spend. Then, IMHO, he got complacement again, taking different approaches in the draft, and making some pretty questionable FA moves. Now he again is managing like his life depends on it, and I just wonder...how much credit should we give him for doing today what he should have been doing for some time?

Agreed 100% on Harris. Last year, I would have agreed 100% on Steltz, but he did fairly well at FS late in the year, and per reports (from writers observing OTAs and not just staff) Steltz was one of the bright spots at FS in camp. I agree Steltz seems a more natural fit for SS, but at the same time, if he shows he can be a solid FS, why not look at him there.

One, I am not sure it was the "rookie wall." I think Afalava began regressing long before the point in the season most would usually talk about the rookie wall. Two, honestly, I am not sure how great Afalava was in the first place. He looked great for a rookie in camp, and beat won the job, but how much was him looking great and how much was him simply looking better then the rest. You know, tallest midget. I'm not trying to bash him, but I will say this. Afalava finished the year on a low note, and I have yet to hear much positive about him coming out of OTAs. Steltz finished on a pretty high note, and was reportedly a standout in OTAs. We also traded for a veteran in Harris, and used a 3rd round pick for another safety. And that doesn't even factor how much the staff just can't stop themselves from trying DM at yet another postion. Last year, Afalava won the job, but the level of competition has gone up. Afalava is still on the team, and if he steps up, maybe he gets back into the picture, but I think there is reason for him starting from a depth position.

Brad, I have not run a league, but I do not think it is difficult. Maybe it once was, but keepers is a pretty common thing these days, and I think most leagues are set up to manage them within the draft. As for the 2nd question, I have always played where you redo the draft order. In reality, you base draft order on last years results, but the reason for doing that is to benefit the team that sucks. That isn't the reality of FF though as each owner has a new team each year, and thus the rationale for basing your order on last years standings sort of goes out the window.

Sulster, We voted at the end of the year, and I am pretty sure part of that vote was to excluse 1st round keepers. If we want to re-vote, that is fine, but that is still how I would vote. The key issue I have with keeping 1st round players is this. A person who gets a high pick in the draft, and thus takes one of the elite players, should not be rewarded, IMHO, a 2nd year for that one piece of luck.

Regarding Afalava, I'll say this. He earned the job with solid play in camp, and played well early on, but he really regressed through the season. Further, since then, we added players and Steltz seemed to progress. So I am not sure Afalava is an example of "coach's dog house" so much as he simply regressed while other, better options emerged or were added.

I've had some time to think on it, and I too agree (and vote) that a new teams gets to inherit a previous owners roster. If Pix is indeed out, and Mad is taking his slot, Pix's roster (and keeper options) are his. If other owners drop out and we add to replace, as you said, first come rule. Agreed also that an owner doesn't have to keep anyone.

Trust me, you have plenty of company. If it were not for some picks I made in the mid teens, I am not sure I would even be keeping a player. The only reason I think I was decent last year was due to a couple waiver wire additions, and a couple later round picks that did well.

One more thing I think should be established. How long can you keep a player. I'll use my example. I am likely going to keep Mendenhall this year. Do I get to keep him next year, or does he go back into the pool? Some leagues allow a player to be kept essentially forever. Some restrict the keeper to one year. Others set a 2 or 3 year keeper allowance. My vote would be one year. That rewards the owner who made the good pick without giving him a long term advantage.

Flea, Regarding the idea of losing a pick higher than when you took him, I think there are a couple reasons for this. One, It automatically prevents an owner from keeping a 1st rounder. Two, it factors in the natural progression of players. It matters a bit less on players taken later in the draft, but players taken early who take that proverbial next step simply cost a bit more. Often, this rule prevents most 1st round picks from being "kept" as they were either 1st rounders the year before, or 2nd rounders, and thus the price doesn't make it worth keeping them this year. So, most of the top tier studs are still available in the draft, and you are not faced with taken 2nd/3rd tier players with your first pick. Three, puts a higher value on taking some risks later in the draft. Frankly, this is one of my favorite parts of the keeper league. Its just not as fun when you are keeping the every year studs. Its more fun, IMHO, when you take risks on rookies and 2nd year unproven players later in the draft that end up hitting big.

No argument. I have always said, go back and look at Lovie when he was the DC in Stl. He earned a reputation for having Ds that could create a ton of turnovers, but at the same time, they also gave up a lot of points and were really not that good. Much of his success was due to having an offense that forced teams to be one dimensional. In Chicago, I thought we were better with Rivera, but even then, felt Lovie held the team back. I will always go back to the Az game some years ago as my example. In the first half, a rookie QB was tearing us apart as we ran a very Lovie style scheme. We were not aggressive, played off WRs and pretty much gave until we broke. In the 2nd half, from everything I read, Rivera simply took over, and the difference in the team was very obvious. Our CBs were playing on top of the LOS. We were blitzing from just about every angle. We had that "Remember the Titans" mentality of "if they gain a yard, everyone will be benched" and the result was Az being totally stopped. Unfortunately, that was only a 1/2 of one game where I saw the potential of our defense. After that, it was back to bend - pray you don't break.

I guess it is less likely in our league. In the league I previously played, you had the option to keep a player, but you also had to pay extra. I think it cost another $25. Often it was worth it, but frankly, more often than you might think, an owners keeper options just weren't that great. One, players drafted in the earlier part of the draft don't too often rise more than a round worth. For example, last year I took Schaub in the 4th. If I am picking at the top of the 3rd round this year, is Schaub that great of a keeper value? Two, while you often see "hits" with later draft picks, they are not as common as you might think. You start taking a lot of chances that simply don't pay off. Three, often you draft a player that would be nice keeper value, only to realize you cut that player. There is often so much turnover between the draft and the end of the season that an owners keeper options are more limited than you might think. Take the above player as an example. Even if you felt Schaub was a 1st round value, and thus a solid keeper value for me, it wouldn't matter as I had traded him during the season. Right now, I am liking my keeper potential. I took Mendenhall with the 13 pick, and thus he would cost me only a 12 round pick. As many are going to consider him a top 10 RB, that is awesome value. Others I like that I will choose from: Hakeem Nicks taken in the 14th round, Brent Celek taken in the 17th round and....well....that's probably it, sad to say. Take a look at the post Flea provided. There are definitely some solid keeper values, but not as many as you might think, especially when you start to knock out the players who were injured (and thus cut) and players who were traded. Put this is perspective. Take a look at Pix's old team. Who would you be looking at keeping. I think he was Brass Cajones. If you want to keep Nate Keading for a 16th pick, tell you what, I will vote in your favor

As I said, I go back and forth on this. One piece that may held decide is how many teams even use the keeper option. From past experience, not all teams even keep a player. If every other team is set to keep a player, then it may be necessary to allow a new owner to do the same. As I said, I just don't know.

Not a copout at all. I was replying to the following statement, I loved Bears football more when we were winning 6-8 games a year in the 70's, 80's, and some of the 90's when we were hurting people on offense, more than winning 8-10 games and giving up 24- 40 points a game. He flat said he liked it better when we were losing due to the teams identity at that time rather than when we were winning with a different identity. My point is, regardless of identity, winning is what matters the most to me. I do agree with you about the OL coach to HC. I too always liked Grimm, and frankly, he was one I wanted over Lovie back in the day. Back to identity, sure, I would love to bring back some of the old school mentality, but to an extent, there are aspects of it I do not necessarily want back. Many talk about the good old days of running the football, but lets be honest for a moment. Go back to even the 80s teams and look at the offense. Payton was awesome to watch, but that offense was far from great. If we didn't have the defense we did, how great would that team have been. Today, how many teams win with that smash mouth running game? Indy, NE, NO and most other winning programs I can think of in recent seasons have been able to attack through the air and score. That doesn't mean you don't run the ball, but I just question if that old bear offense is really what we should be wanting.

Just to point out, if Lovie said today, "I resign," we would not be going out and hiring Cower or the like, but would most likely promote one of the former HCs on our team, none of which had success in that role. You know how I feel about Lovie, yet at the same time I am not sure if we would be better off with Martz, Tice or Marinelli taking over the team.

1. I am honestly good with any amount. I defer to what the majority want. I put aside funds every season for various gambling on the season, and anything from $20-$100 is in my budget. Understood. At the same time, I think a lot of owners own teams in multiple leagues, and if we up the buy-in too much, we may lose some guys. Especially today when most have less to spend. 5. Again, I'll defer to last years' owners on this, but in other leagues I've been involved in...the new owner simply "buys" the old owners' team. Similar to if Michael Jordan bought the Bears (we can all dream...). You get all the same players as the previous regime. Personally, I have not really formed an opinion on this yet. I have played in keeper leagues in the past, but we never dealt with the situation of a new owner. On one hand, to me, the key point of the keeper is a reward for solid drafting/risk taking from the previous year, and I question giving such a reward to someone who has not earned it. On the other hand, is it fair for a new owner to come into a situation where every other owner has a very nice opportunity, and yet the new guys doesn't? Honestly, I just don't know.

Do you think he was really serious? Sounded like sarcasm to me. The overall point though is, on the first day of camp you focus on the present and future more than the past. Lovie has not really forgotten what has happened in the past, but he doesn't want to talk about, or focus on the past. Madman, there is more than enough to rip on Lovie w/o trying to use this piece of crap article.

Not only that, but it is a bit different to be sitting down at a desk, no one looking over your shoulder, the ability to type, delete, type, delete, etc until you have it right, compared to having a mic shoved in your face. Sure, this guy can come up with the perfect thing Lovie should have said, but how perfect are his words when in Lovie's situation. Hate to defend Lovie, but this article was a piece of crap. The reality is, nothing Lovie can say right now would be good enough. Forget the words, and lets see the deeds.

Personally, I just want to win. If we win the SB 42-34, I'll take that. The game has changed. The defenses we once had would be awful today because they would draw a flag on every freaking down. Sure, you can stil have a D that smack the other team in the mouth, and I miss that, but I can't say I would rather a great defense on a 6 win team over an average D on a 10 win team. As for the offense, times have changed. Not many teams win anymore if they can't score, and score a lot.