nfoligno

Okay, been talking about the WRs, but wanted to put a similar discussion out there for the secondary. How do you see it playing out (staff's view). How would you like to see it play out? Okay, the starters at corner are pretty well locked. They are switching sides, but I doubt there will really even be competition here. Depth? Well, that is one big cluster @#$#. If a starter goes down, I just do not see Jennings and his 5'8 (probably with shoes) frame stepping up. I have read Graham is again working at CB, and has been looking good through OTAs, not that that means too much. I have not heard much about the rookie Moore, and as for the other Moore, he could be looking for a new team by the end of camp. I never understand our drafting him, and to date, still have yet to read much of anything good. This is an area I still wish we could add a veteran. Even a lower tier veteran would likely bring more than what we currently have in reserve. Back to the starters, I like the switching of sides. Tillman is a leader, and has all the qualities a fan could want, but his play has been going downhill. Many talk about injuries, but they seem to be happening more and more often. Maybe switching sides, and allowing him to play slightly lesser WRs will benefit him. As for Bowman, he is going to have to step up. I know he played well this year, but he will have to do even better playing opponents #1 WRs. A concern for me is, playing his side I think puts him more in line for run support, and he has a history of injuries himself, so that could be a concern. I think most agree we have decent starters at corner but lack depth, and thus must pray to stay healthy. Nickel could be interesting as we have several potential candidates. Who I would like to see is Manning. Jennings can play nickel, but due to our lack of depth, he is going to have to spend most of his practice time on the outside. Manning's only other duty is kickoff returns. I wish we would quit moving him around and just play him at nickel, where he has proven capable. Safety. What I would like to do is play Harris at SS, and allow Steltz and Major to compete for the FS. Basically, to me, the job is Major's to lose. We drafted him to be our FS, and more than any other safety, his skills line up to play the role. The rest (i don't count DM as a S) are SS's. If Major really struggles though, and Steltz looks good, he can win the job, but it is Major's to lose. So I would have Bowman-Tillman starting w/ DM as the nickel, and at safety, Major and Harris are the starters. What I think we will see: Bowman/Tillman (lock) w/ Jennings at nickel. Harris at FS and DM at strong. I see huge issues with this S combo, as well as having our key nickel also being our first backup at CB.

Sorry, but I think it matters a lot. Sure, I get it. Martz will likely use a 4th WR more often than Turner did a 3rd. I don't want to get too bogged down with the "starter" label, but how we sort out our WRs does make a pretty big difference. If Hester starts, he is playing an outside WR position, rather than from the slot. Further, if you are on the outside, you are facing starter quality CBs, where as the slot guy faces nickel DBs, and few nickel DBs are as good as the starters. It isn't just about how gets to be called a "starter," nor is it just about who plays slightly more snaps. Its about placing these players where they are best suited, something our staff has not always done so well.

Hester's been a full time WR for 3 seasons. Disagree. He has been a full time WR for only two years. He has been in the league 4 years. Year one, he was a return specialist who got some plays on defense as a DB later in the year. Year two, he was a return specialist and the coaches tried to team have a very limited number of WR plays to get him on the field with the offense. He was more a gimmick player, and played only a little on offense that year. He has been a WR for two seasons. Thats it. I can't think of a single play as a WR where he made a guy miss. You can say this is due to good CB's and double coverage, but shouldn't it have happened once? He no longer makes guys miss on punt returns. He hasn't returned a kick or a punt for a TD in two full seasons. We've heard that teams do a better job of scheming for him. Yet, Knox and D Manning give teams more fits then Hester. Heck, Bennett even ran one back. Like teams weren't doing everything they could to stop him his first 2 years in the league? There was the game in '07 against the Vikings. He caught the punt and the Vikings covered it perfectly. Four players circled him. Somehow he took a step back and went past all of them. Took it the the house. Unbelieveable. No amount of scheming could stop him. That's not true anymore. Now he'd take a step back & fall down. Come on. You don't think he has had a single play of making a guy miss, and then picking up YAC? Can I give you an example? No. But frankly, I can't give many specific examples for any of our players. I would agree he has not shown the elusive ability, either as a WR or returner, for the last two years. But I don't think the ability simply went away. I attribute that more to a mental thing, which can be corrected. Hester has lost that extra something that made him the most exciting player in the league his first 2 seasons. I'm scared it's gone for good. That may be. To me, it seems like after he got his contract, and the increased role as a WR, he became more hesitant as a returner. It was like he was saving himself for his time as a WR. I don't know. Maybe it is just gone. Either way, I think his best role is still in the slot. If that ability is gone, then I really don't want him on the outside. That's a damn good point you make, but at least once, maybe against a bad team or poorly coached team, shouldn't he have been able to overcome that? Where's the Devin Hester WR highlight real? There's not much there. One, you don't think he has had any good plays/games? Before getting hurt, he had a pretty solid string of games last year: 6-83, 8-101, 7-81, 6-94 and 7-48. Two, you also have to consider beyond just him. Consider not just him, or the CB he was lined up against, but the offense, QB and OL. How often has it been talked about how poor our OL was, thus making it difficult to attack downfield. Further, as I have talked about, Hester does not do a good job tracking the ball downfield, yet that is just how we used him. Look, I am not just trying to make excuses for Hester. There was a time I was a huge critic of making him a WR, but I have changed my stance. IMHO, he has done a very credible job developing as a WR (remember, he was a VERY raw WR to start with) and done so under pretty poor conditions. I do not think he can ever become a stud WR, yet at the same time, I think he can be a good WR, and even a dangerous one if better used, which to me, would be a move to the slot. How long does this give him an excuse for being mediocre? He's been a WR for 3 full seasons now. Again, only two seasons, not three. I just think fans have to step back and consider everything. He was not a full time WR in college. Far from it. After drafting him, we spent year one looking at him as a DB, and then year two, only taught him a few plays as a WR. It wasn't until year three we truly tried to develop him as a WR. WR is a position that often takes time to develop, longer if the player comes out of college raw. If we drafted a WR, and he put up stats similar to Hester his first two years, I doubt you would be blasting him as you are with Hester. Hester has developed as a WR, and done so in poor conditions. He is never going to be Steve Smith, as some fans labeled him, but I did like the Az-Hakim comparison Martz made. You mentioned JA telling Martz Hester had to start, and I thought the same thing. Martz back-tracked on his comments since that's what his boss told him to do. Yet, based on Martz's reputation, I hope Martz will do what he thinks is best, not what is politically correct. For instance, last year it would have been a bad PR move to bench Pace. Yet everyone could see he was terrible. Turner waits until week 13 and the season is over to sit him. Thanks Ron. Agreed. My hope is that, if other WRs step up enough, the pressure to keep Hester as a starter will be less. I wouldn't be surprised if Hester is listed as the starter, but on the opening snap, you have DA and Knox out there with #23 on the sidelines. It'll be interesting. Honestly, I am excited this year to see the development of our WRs. I love the youth/talent combo I see on our team. I love the size/speed combo DA brings to the table, and love also how much Cutler likes him. I love the way Knox his the scene. I said when we drafted Knox he could be damn good, but felt it would take him more time to develop. Showing as much as he did as early as he did gives him hope to a very good career. I still think Hester can be a dangerous weapon, if used better. And I also still think Iglesias could be a real player when all is said and done. In fact, I believe Iglesias pushes Bennett back on the depth chart, and Bennett played well. That we actually have a QB to work with the WRs, and an OC who can use WR, combined with the talent I think we have at the position, it is pretty exciting. Still comes back to the OL, as they have to sustain blocks to make it all work, but even there, I have a bit more hope than in the past.

Brad, I said that we have seen him use skills and attibutues as a return man that often translate to YAC. Usually you see a WR get YAC one of two ways. One, they use pure speed to get downfield, beat everyone, make the catch and take it to the house. The other way is to catch the ball shorter, but to then be elusive and show quickness to add YAC. That is where I believe Hester can excel. Have we seen this from Hester in the past so much? No. But I would also point out that we have seen Hester play outside, and I am talking about him inside. There is a pretty big difference. Hester has been our #1 WR on the outside, and thus matched up against opponents top CBs. Think about that for a moment. Hester was still not developed as a WR, and yet put into a position where he had to face opponents best CB. Further, due to not really having any other weapons to speak of, Opponents often could slide a S over the top. It was that Hester faced double teams all the way downfield, but would have a safety over the top, and thus if he did make the catch downfield, had another man there to make the stop. If we move Hester to the slot, right off the bat you will have him matched against far different coverages. He will likely be facing nickel DBs, and at times even safeties. Far different than facing opponents #1 CB. Further, teams do not often double team an opponents slot WR. In the past, even if Hester did get sep from his CB, he often then had a S to deal w/. Not the case if he is working out of the slot. Finally, I would argue that Hester has improved his route running and overall knowledge as a WR each year. It was only a couple years ago he was a freaking DB himself, and fewer still he was so clueless where to lineup that MM was pushing him around before the snap telling him what to do. He has developed as a WR, and done so in very difficult circumstances. But now I believe we have better WRs fit to play the outside, and feel he could really thrive inside. Frankly, I think Martz see's the same thing. Shortly after Martz was hired, he talked about Hester out of the slot, but very soon after that seemed to alter his comments, which always made me wonder if Lovie or Angelo didn't tell him Hester was a starter and had to be used as such. Thus why, while I think Hester would be best in the slot, I think our staff will more likely line him up outside. When has he ever demonstrated skills for yards after catch? When he catches the ball, seemingly one of 3 things happens: 1. The CB is draped all over him and he's dropped immediately. To me this indicates he's not able to get seperation. 2. He catches the ball in space & turns to face the defense. Then he's dropped immediately. I can't remember him making a guy miss after a catch. 3. He beats the defense downfield but typically juggles the ball. I can't remember this happening last year. I'm curious to know if the defense pays special attention to him. As a receiver there doesn't appear to be anything special about him.

3rd WR may play a ton, and the term starter may not be as important, but I think also key is where they play. Your two starters are on the outside, with the 3rd in the slot. So even if you have start w/ a 3 WR set, and have 3 starters, it is also an important distiction in where they line up. I personally believe Hester is best inside, while Knox and DA would be best outside.

The key reason I would rather Knox start over Hester is, I believe Knox is a better outside WR, with better downfield ability. That Hester has speed is w/o question, but I have never felt he excelled downfield. He has the speed to get downfield, but does not track the ball as well, nor does he do as good of a job going after the ball. Remember what Cutler said? W/ Hester, you have to really "hit him" rather than allowing him to adjust and make a play on the ball. So basically, with Hester, Cutler feels he has to make a perfect throw, while many other downfield WRs have the ability to adjust and better make a play on the ball. On the other hand, if you have Hester in the slot, you get the ball in his hands and allow him to use the skills we have seen as a returner picking up YAC.

Just a couple points. 1. You talk about salaries we dumped and salaries we added, but that is the same every year. When it comes to salaries, we are pretty close every year. The key this year is bonuses paid out. Say what you will, but the team shelled out a lot of cash this offseason. Yea, I get your argument that it all works out in the end, but sorry, it comes back to yearly budget. A company has X amount they can spend any given year. Just because they may not have to spend as much in a future year doesn't mean they can go way over budget today. 2. You said, next season there should be a large drop in cap hit for this years new free agents so i really don't see why they can't pick up another quality free agent if they so desired and put his guaranteed money on next year or the year afters salary cap commitment. First, I believe there is an actual league rule that prevents this, though I can't recall what it was. It was discussed by Lt2 and others previously. Second, how many players do you think are going to be willing to sign a deal which pushes the majority of money to a year which, at the moment, may not even happen. If a player does that, it would allow a team to simply cut him. 3. Finally, and this was one of my bigger points, don't just look at what we have done this offseason on an island, but compare it to what other teams have done. This is an uncapped season, and I think it fair to say many (especially players) thought owners (especially those like Jones/Snyder/etc) would go hog wild. If these owners found ways to shell out huge contracts when contrained by a cap, what might they do when the restraints came off. Well, they went against expectations and have avoided the big deals. Teams simply have not been signing players to big deals this year, as they all seem to be holding back and saving up for a potential lockout. We on the other hand have not dealt with this offseason in such a manner. You want to argue that we have not spent a huge amount over what we normally might. Fine. But the real comparison is against what other teams have spent this offseason IMHO, and that shows us in a much better light. At some point you just have to admit it. You expected this team to go the cheap route and save the pennies, like most other owners. If the bears did what most other owners have done this off season, you would have screamed how cheap we were. Instead, we went out and got probably the top FA on the market, and then added a few more FAs as well. Rather than give the team credit for spending when no other team was, you still try to create an argument to cast the team in a cheap light. Come on man. Its one thing to call the team out when they are being cheap, but to try and continue the argument when they are one of the only teams actually spending money really is a weak argument.

To subtle. Lovie would assume you just want him to support breast cancer awareness.

I thought of Graham immediately when I saw this thread, surely Bullocks is well more expendable than Afalava? I wish we knew the story behind these kinds of stories...maybe the staff thinks he has a character issue? Drugs, alcohol, women, guns, who knows? No doubt. That is why it is sometimes interesting when, years and years later, some coaches or players come out with books. Sometimes teams/staff are able to keep a lid on things, like maybe a player had bad work habbits or was banging the coach's daughter, that we simply never hear. Regardless, I truly believe that if we had kept D Manning at one position he would likely be a solid player at the very least, he is too talented not to be IMO. I don't know about that. I agree it didn't help him continually moving him around. At the same time, while loaded with physical talent, he simply lacked the instincts needed. Remember, he came from a small school and faced far lesser competition, thus physical skills can often overcome weaker instincts, but at the NFL level, pure physical skills are simply not enough. What kills me is that, once the team seemed to find the players niche, they still continued to move him around. There is simply nothing wrong with being a very good nickel DB (especially in today's pass happy league) and upper tier/elite returner. Once he established himself so well in this regard, the team should have stopped experimenting with him, but no, here we go again, and this time at SS? And I shudder to think of Wright as a starter....you can wruin a good player placing him in that much pressure, not to mention he was only a 3rd round pick....let's be careful we don't end up having another year of moaning when another new safety tandem sucks... Disagree. While I agree you always want to be careful when dealing with a rookie, I do not see it as being wrong to simply throw him out there. You can take some of the pressure off by letting him know he will make mistakes, but that is part of development, rather than make a big deal when he blows an assignment. But by being out there, he will have a greater chance of developing than just sitting on the bench.

On Afalava, I would also point out that one of the biggest "plusses" from him last year was his leadership. I recall how, even back in camp, veterans talked about how he would be back there in the secondary barking orders and plays at far more experienced players. He was providing the sort of leadership our secondary has lacked since the loss of Mike Brown. I know his play regressed as the season went along. At the same time, as you, it is shocking to believe how a rookie can come out of nowhere to earn a starting spot, not not only losing that job the following year but no longer being part of the mix. Part of me wants to think he simply missed (forgot) one player. Hey, it happens. But (a) he specifically said "five talented safeties." You don't come up with a number w/o either thinking about it or already knowing it. Neither case is good for Afalava. And (, seriously, he remembers Bullocks and not Afalava? Does this not sort of remind you of Graham? Graham becomes a starter his 2nd year (missed rookie year w/ injury) due to starting going down with injury, and plays pretty well. Following year, he is not even allowed to be part of the mix, and even moved to a different position. Last year was a joke of Graham as he was shuffled between FS and nickel, only to know be again looked at as a CB. But w/ Afalava, if he is not part of the mix at S, does he even have a role on the team? As for Harris, I would feel great about him if we were planning on playing him at SS. That is what I simply do not understand. He did not play well at FS for us, so we traded him. Carolina plays him as a SS, where he does so well Bears fans scream over his loss. We bring him back, and rather than play him where he did well (SS), we move him back to FS where he once already failed and where we just spent our top pick to fill. This simply does not make sense to me. Just start Harris at SS. Let Steltz and Wright battle for FS. I say Steltz because I have read about him having a great camp, otherwise I would simply give the job to Wright and let him learn on the job. I really have to pin this on Lovie as these sort of issue pre-date any one (current) position coach. Over the years, we have continually shuffled players along the DL and in the secondary, rarely allowing them an opportunity to truly develop.

Angelo had a little Q&A on the Chicago Bears web site. http://www.chicagobears.com/news/NewsStory.asp?story_id=6833 Most of it is nothing new, and not really worth discussion IMHO. One thing I did belief worth mentioning was his answer to the Atogwe question. LM: Now that safety O.J. Atogwe is a free agent, will the Bears try to sign him? JA: He’s a good football player. We’ve evaluated him and we like him. But at this point, we’re set. We drafted Major Wright and traded for Chris Harris. We also have Danieal Manning, Craig Steltz and Josh Bullocks, all of whom have started in this league. We have five pretty good safeties, four of whom have a goodly amount of experience within our scheme. We feel good about that position. Okay, no surprise he said he is happy with who we have, and further than we have no intention of signing him. I think we have all known that for a while. What I did find a bit surprising was, when listing our safeties, he did not even mention Afalava. Hell, he even mentions Bullocks, but no Afalava. He then goes on to specificially say we have FIVE pretty good safeties. Maybe it was just a momentary failure of memory, but it seems like recent reports have Afalava slipping out of favor, and a response like this seems to further that belief. Kid started most of the year as a rookie, and at this point, I think it fair to wonder if he even makes the team.

So Cutler is on the radio and asked about the WRs, and who he expects to breakout, and he once again, immediately goes to DA, then mentioning Iglesias. I bring this up because we keep hearing (I think from the staff) that Hester and Knox appear to be the starters. Last year, Cutler seemed to beg for DA to play. This year, Cutler again really seems to be pushing for DA to have a key role. Will he? So, how do you all see the WRs shaking out and/or how (if different) would you like to see it shake out. What I would like. DA and Knox as the starters. Both have speed and DA has size. Great talent duo here. Hester in the slot. I know the staff really wants him to start, but I still think he could be the most dangerous from inside, and in this offense, the slot is dang near a starter. Iglesias seems to be really making a push, and would be my 4th WR ahead of Bennett. What I think will happen. Hester and Knox start, with DA in the slot (though it would not shock me if Bennett or Iglesias get a lot of work inside as well). The staff always seem to most often talk about Knox and Hester, but Cutler seems to most often talk about DA, and now recently, Iglesias.

LeFevour looks like he has the tools to be a back-up NFL quarterback. Apparantly Hanie has those same tools. Last year we didn't have 3 QB's who could say that. Upgrade. If you want to call it an upgrade, fine, but it is such a slight upgrade I question whether it is even worth calling it that. At the end of the day, if Cutler goes down, I think most would expect us to be screwed. You're right. My only argument was that this is about sheer depth. This is in regard to RB, and I am really just talking about depth also. Quanlity over quantity. I think Taylor as the #2 is an upgrade over both KJ and AP. With Shaffer moving back to tackle, I'll say that positions the same. But who the hell's the starting LG? If Beekman's the starter, who's the back-up? Until Louis or the other guy proves they're not practice squad material, this position is weakened. Well, last year Omiyale was the starter w/ Beekman the backup. If we are talking depth, and I think all signs point to Beekman again being a backup, I would still argue the position has not really altered. Personally, I think our OL overall, both in terms of starter and depth, is better than it was last year. Shaw is strictly a special teams guy. Jamar Williams is penciled in to start in Carolina. Iwuh's a special teams guy also. You could argue we upgraded our special teams, but our linebacker depth is not as good. Speaking of special teams, that is lessened with Idonije going back into the DE rotation. I guess I understand what you are saying, but I would simply say this. We were deep at LB last year, and I think we still are this year. Yes, Williams was a solid backup LB. At the same time, we still have very solid depth at LB. Shaw was a special teams guy, but could be more. Iwuh was more than just a special teams guy, and was seen as a legit backup LB. Still have Roach and Hunter also, assuming Pisa starts. So even though you are right that Williams was better depth than who we added, I would still argue we are strong enough at LB that the difference doesn't matter much. We're talk about DEPTH. It's a small upgrade . . . small. The biggest improvement might be making Corey Graham the nickel back. Last year at this time he was a FS. Sorry, but I do not see how making Graham a nickel would improve depth at CB when (a) we already seem strong at nickel and ( we are weak in terms of CB depth. Further, I have read that we are actually again looking at Graham at CB rather than nickel. At the end of the day, I see this as the opposite of LB. I just don't think it worth calling this an upgrade. I mean, if you go from an F- to a F, you can argue it is an upgrade, but it is still a failing grade, so what does it matter? Put a guy in the same locker room week in and week out and your vision is likely to be skewed. Not to mention, since Pompei writes strictly for Chicago, he probably can't be as critical as he should be. You can't piss off the guys you need quotes from . . . I get that, but at the same time, his pieces have become so fluff that it is just sad.

QB's--DEEPER: Hanie has more experience and LeFevour is a better prospect then what we've had Disagree. I would say this is a wash. LeFevour has proven nothing, and should not be considered an upgrade. Hanie has more experience reading playbooks and in practice, but I am not sure I would say the difference is enough to warrant an upgrade grade. To me, this is a wash. RB's--SAME: I'll say the same because we have more questions about Forte's ability then we had last year. Chester Tayor's a definite upgrade over Kevin Jones, but we let AP go and Wolfe is coming off an injury. Bell does not impress me either way. Disagree. There are questions about Forte, but as he played through injury last year, it seems there is not great reason to knock him too much. And frankly, as he is the starter, does it matter if we are having a discussion about depth. Taylor is a large upgrade over KJ. IMHO, even if KJ were healthy, Taylor would be an upgrade. And don't get me started on the very average AP. Taylor alone gives the bears better depth than what we had last year. O-line--NOT AS DEEP: Last year at this time most of us thought Pace would be average at worst. We've done nothing to upgrade the position One, I thought Pace would be a bust. That aside, Pace was a starter and not depth. To me, depth is little different as Shaffer was our top backup OT last year and this year. Beekman was our top OG backup last year, and likely again this year. I see little difference here. DT's--SAME: Not much has changed here. Another year of, "If Tommie's healthy . . . " Agreed. DE's--NOT AS DEEP: We gave up 2 starters and replaced them with one. It's an upgrade, but it doesn't help depth. Agreed. May be a better unit due to Peppers, but our top backup last year (Anderson) is a starter this year. We added one starter, but lost two. LB's--NOT AS DEEP: We have the same guys as last year except we traded Jamar Williams Disagree. We lost Williams, but also added Shaw (late in season) and added Iwuh, a veteran who was rated ahead of Shaw on previous team. I am not sure either are really lesser depth than Williams. Not saying we upgraded, but simply not sure I would say we really downgraded either. CB's--DEEPER: Slightly. Bowman's improved and we did sign Jennings (although he might not make the team IMO). Calling this improved is a stretch. Big stretch IMHO. Jennings was added, but he is really a nickel. Last year we drafted Moore, and believed he would be a backup, but thus far looks like a bust. I would say we had little to no depth last year, and ditto again. Discussing the changes is minor IMHO. Weak before and weak now, with any differences (either way) to minimal to really bother with. Safeties--DEEPER: Chris Harris is an upgrade. Agreed. Also have to mention Major here. Afalava was a starter last year, but will likely be depth this year. Steltz was depth last year, and could be again, but by all reports, seems improved. I am still not sure about our starting duo if Harris is at FS, but depth is improved. Either way, I thought this was a fluff piece. Pompei is the beat writer for the Bears and there's not a helluva a lot going on. Years agao, when Pompei was a draft guy with Sportingnews (back when their stuff was free and good) I really liked him and thought he did a very good job. Since joining the Trib as a Bears beat reporter, I have felt his stuff barely worth reading.

We keep hearing good things about Chris Harris and how he is quarterbacking the secondary. Major Wright has tons of potential. I actually believe the team when they say D Manning can be successful at SS (yes . . . I'm an idiot). Yes, Harris looks good as a leader in our secondary, but I still very much question him as a FS. He failed at FS for us, went to Carolina and excelled as a SS, and we bring him back as a FS? Sorry, but I think Harris at FS has far more to do with our other FS prospects than it does Harris. Yes, Wright as potential, but where have we heard that before? If we were talking about one of the top 5 safeties from the draft, fine, but what, the 8th or 9th? Not knocking the kid, but simply saying that I am not sure he is such a talent that you pass on a very good FA. Also, if he were such a stud, why not simply play him at FS now? You really, honestly believe the talk about DM at SS. Seriously? Did you also buy into the talk about him as a CB and FS? I'm just saying that even if we had the $$$, we likely wouldn't sign Atogwe. Maybe, maybe not, but I think that move would have made as much sense as any out there. Agreed. The good part is that we've made fairly significant changes on both offense and defense. For once we're not actually throwing the same group of players and coaches out there and hope to get better results. Agree and disagree. We made some changes in the secondary that give the staff more to work with. Along the DL, there are going to be new faces in new places, but at the same time, so much is going to rely on players who have been with the team (Anderson, Harrison, Harris). On the OL, we are simply hoping the staff gets more out of what we already have. Ditto at WR, while at RB and TE, we made additions. At the end of the day, there are positions/units we have added to, and which the staff will have more to work with, while other positions/units we will simply have to hope our staff can get more out of. I'm still confounded Dallas & Washington weren't major players. On a side note, they're saying that once a new CBA is reached, there will be tons of FA's. The great thing is the Bears heavily front loaded deals. Assuming there is a cap again, we should be in good shape. (if we'll keep spending the money). Agreed. I am still surprised as well teams like Wash and Dallas kept pretty quiet while Chicago was very loud in FA. Very unusual. Maybe now we'll quit hearing people complain about how cheap the McKaskey's are . . . Belief in this statement ranks up there with the belief in DM as a legit SS prospect.

Pompei has an acticle talking about how this may be one of the deepest (depth) bears teams in some time. Do you agree? Not sure I do. I like the makup of several units, and like the prospects as well, but deep? Offense. QB - I think few would say we are deep here. RB - Absolutely agreed, and I think most would too. Ditto for TE. WR - I agree we are deep here, though others may not. We may lack that proven star, but at the same time, I think we are deeper with talent than in recent memory. I especially love reading that Iglesias has been playing well this offseason and could be a player to watch. OL - Pompei mentions OG specific, and says that if neither Asaita, Louis or Beekman stand out, we could potentially rotate. Huh? If no one even steps up to play at a starter level, can you say you have depth? I am not sure how deep I would say we are along the OL. It likely depends much on Omiyale as a starter and those young OGs battling. If Omiyale proves solid, and Shaffer is a backup, that gives you good depth at OG. If those kids battling inside prove the stories we are reading today (before they even strap on pads) true, than again, I would agree, but I am not sure we can say we have depth along the OL today. On offense, I do see a fair amount of depth, but defense? DL - Sorry, but I do not see the depth here. Simply having young bodies on the depth chart means little. To say we have depth is a jump as you have to assume/ believe players like Gilbert, Melton, Harrison and others who have proven/shown very little thus far are more than what we have seen. LB - Yes, still one of our deepest positions, though I would argue there is a considerable dropoff from out starters to our depth. CB - We have no depth here. S - Sorry, but I disagree with Pompei, who believes we have depth at safety. The fact that Harris is working at FS speaks loudly to me about how lacking we are at that position. If no one else is capable of playing FS, how can we say we have depth. We may have depth at SS. There are units we have depth, no question, but are they really that different from past seasons?

Oh, he is a stud, but that is also the problem. If we are not willing to shell out what is necessary for Atogwe, there is no freaking way we are going to shell out what it would take to sign Mankins. And make no mistake. Anyone who trades for him has to pay him. I know it kills everyone that there are players out there who could help, but the reality is, we have blown our wad. The spending is over. We are going to have to simply hope what we have is enough, and that coaching can elevate players as it rarely has in the past. With all this said, I would like to point one thing out. Article after article has been written talking about how upset players are with this years FA. Players feel there has been collusion as owners have simply not been spending the big dollars in an offseason w/ no salary cap. Owners like Snyder, Jones and many others who always seem to go after the most expensive player have been relatively quiet. Anyway, the shocking thing is, the Bears actually spent money, and big money at that. We may not have added everyone we wanted, or filled all the holes some of us would have liked, but we have to give ownership a bit of credit here. When most every other owner is counting their pennies in prep for future uncertain years, we have actually shelled out money caring more about today than tomorrow.

I thought about that, but one thing I noted was the absence of much talk about Shaffer really being part of the competition at RT. If he is out of the mix at OG, it is obvious he will be moved back to RT, but at the same time, I really didn't read much about his being a legit part of a competition for RT. The way it read to me was more than he is a backup OT, and simply no longer in the running for OG. Trust me when I say I am not sold. Our history of drafting OL talent is not so great. At the same time, I do believe coaching is a HUGE part of it. Teams all over seem capable of developing later round picks along the OL. We have not been able to, and most assumed it was due to Angelo not adding talent. That may be part of it, but I have always felt the lack of coaching was a huge key as well. Harry was simply bad. Tice, by reputation, is considered good. It may actually be that coaching was the key thing we lacked. Time will tell. There have been years when our OL looked pretty decent in practice, but later it was found to be more a matter of having a weak DL than the OL playing well.

Hard to read "too much" into anything at this time of year, but what I think: - Beekman is currently out of the picture as he has to play center w/ Kreutz still hurt. He will be again in the mix, but I think the team looks at him more as a backup plan. I don't think they like his size for an OG, and view him as the future center. He has played OG okay, but the only reason he was ever there in the first place was due to other options being so bad. - I am glad to hear Shaffer is out of the mix at OG. It could be he looked that bad, but I don't think that is the case. I think it is more a matter of the younger players looking good enough that the coaches felt we could keep the competition between the youth. To me, this is a good sign.

I would agree with the "sleeper" term, but I am not sure I would call a top 30 WR a sleeper necessarily. To me, a sleeper is more a player you are targetting later in the draft, and the 30 WR is usually long gone by the time you are talking about sleeper WRs. I tend to agree with Mad. Cutler may be a QB to consider, though a dangerous one. Olsen will likely be a top 10 TE, but after failing to live up to the hype last year, and with the uncertantity of system fit, he will not be drafted as high this year as last. After the year Forte had, and w/ the addition of Taylor, I don't see Forte going very high. So after Cutler and Olsen, I am not sure any Bears offensive players will go until later in the draft. Of course, in our leagues filled w/ Bear fans, they will go higher than in most

I don't think DA is ranked highest, and definitely not around 30. Maybe in the final rankings that come out after camp, if DA does in fact win the #1 job, then maybe, but early on? Honestly, think about this. 32 teams, many of which are going to have 2 WRs ranked ahead of the Bears. Hell, I would not be shocked if a couple teams have 3 WRs ranked ahead of the 1st bear. A couple teams may be worse off, but how many? Understand, I actually like our WR situation, but in terms of proven ability, we are not going to rank high. At this point, it is not eve known who our starting two will be, or how the rest will be worked in. Unless DA blows up in camp, I think Hester will be the top ranked WR, especially in leagues that credit special teams play.

- I still simply disagree about Az. It was my understanding that their OL have in fact considerably improved in the time since Grimm was hired. Their OL was dreadful, and while it can be debated just how good they are today, I think few would argue they have improved, and some would argue they have improved a lot. Maybe one of our Bear fans in Az can offer some input. - You talk about how Tice dangled out there, but isn't that pretty much what usually happens when a coach bombs? When a coach bombs as a HC, you often see them taking a step back, nor just in position, but often overall. Some take a year off while they do some media work, or they hook up with a friend to coach at a lower level. I think it is pretty typical. Look, I am not saying Tice is a saviour. Not even close. Do I think we are going to suddenly find a bunch of players along our OL making the pro bowl this year? No. But again, I don't think we have to only look at extremes. Can Tice improve our OL? I would argue yes, and I think there are plenty of reasons to believe that will be so. (a) I think we will enter the season with a better group than we did last year. Williams is an upgrade over Pace. Omiyale is a question mark, but (1) if he doesn't look good in camp, we have Shaffer to fall back on and (2) Williams was so bad at RT, below average play would still be an upgrade. Kreutz played injured last year, and should be improved after the surgery. LG is up in the air, but whoever starts, can they actually be as bad as Omiyale was? So while I am not pretending we have a slew of pro bowlers, I do believe our starting 5 this year will be better than last year. ( I have screamed for years how poor our OL coaching has been. Tice may not be a saviour, but like with the player changes, it is hard to phathom he could be as inept as our last OL coach. © System. I just hated our previous system of blocking, and feel this one, particularly in terms of run blocking, is better. (d) Non-OL players should also contribute to the improved play. Forte was flat out awful last year in terms of blocking, but we added a very good blocking RB in Taylor. We added a TE who is essentially a 6th OL as blocking is his specialty. Further, as we talk about Tice along the OL, he is also working with Olsen's blocking, and as you said, he has loads of experience with TEs. So the addition of a blocking TE (Manu) and potential improved blocking from Olsen give the run and pass blocking a big boost. Sure, it's possible our OL sucks again, but I think there is ample reason to believe we will be improved this year. That doesn't mean we will be a top 10 OL, but simply improved.

First, I think you need to take a closer look at Az and Grimm. You say they were bottom 5 in rushing this year, but was that due to poor rushing or lack of attempts. Wells had nearly 800 yards and 4.5 ypc. Hightower 600 yards with a 4.2 avg. They were able to run the ball, but choose to throw it instead. Before this year, they had the washed up Edge James, so how much is the fault of the OL and how much is lacking a RB. Second, I get the "peaked 10 years ago", but something to consider. So often a coach does well at one level, is promoted, then fails. That doesn't mean he wasn't a good coach at the previous level. How often do fans talk about how great our ST coach is and how he should be promoted. What happens if that happens and he fails. Does that mean he would not again be a good STs coach? I was not for the idea of Tice as an OC, but as a OL coach, I liked the move. IMHO, the bigger concern to our having a run game is Martz. I wonder if we won't be similar to Az in that we could have an effective run game, but one that simply isn't given a ton of attempts due to Martz loving to pass so much. Remember, I am the one usually pissing on everyone's koolaid, and I have not gotten drunk on it this year. I still have HUGE concerns about this team, but the OL is an area I have some hope. Not confidence by any means, but hope, which is a HUGE change for me.

Even if there were a cap this year, I just do not think that would have anything to do with it. It still comes back to cash out of pocket, and giving Peppers what we did pretty much emptied the bank. Every year fans talk about cap, but teams like Wash, Dallas and others have shown you can work around the cap. The real key is cash. Frankly, it was shocking the ownership ponied up the cash to sign Peppers, and then even doled out a bit more on a RB and TE. Now though we have spent so much cash I just can't see ownership opening up the wallets any further.

I totally understand what you are saying, and I am not one to normally drink the koolaid, but this is how I look at it. IMHO, while personnel has w/o a question been an issue along the OL, I have screamed for years that coaching has been a huge part of the problem as well. Tice is very well thought of in terms of OL, and even if he is not some OL genius, he is a big upgrade over what we had. I understand the comparison with Marinelli, but here is the difference I would point out. While Marinelli took over the DL, he was still only part of a VERY flawed system in which Lovie was running as the DC. He was still confined to work the DL w/in the system Lovie forced on the team. I think the situation with Tice is different. Make no mistake, I am not fully sold on Martz' system, but at the same time, I think he will have more freedom to work with the OL. At the end of the day, I look at it like this. Tice is w/ little quesiton an upgrade over the past OL coaching. Further, we are going to move from a poor blocking technique to one I have wanted for some time. Finally, while our OL is not loaded with talent, I think we have talent to work with. On the DL, everyone hoped Marinelli could work a miracle w/ the likes of Anderson, Brown and Wale, and I always questioned how realistic that was. On the OL, Tice has a top 15 pick to work with and develop at LT. Omiyale was a bust as an OG, but should have never been moved there in the first place, and is now back outside where he should have been to start with. LG is still a big question, but we at least have young talent to work with. Finally, while you want talent along the OL, I think you can get by better with solid technique and chemistry, while the DL goes no where w/o elite talent. So I have sipped the koolaid with regard to the OL a tad, but I think there is reason to do so.