nfoligno

Not to compare Olsen to a HOF player, but the player I would like to see us use Olsen like is Shannon Sharpe. Sharp was used as an H back also. He would often line up in the backfield, and from there, there were many options available. And for the record, Sharpe was never a good blocker. I do agree with something Lovie said though. We have to improve Olsen's blocking. He will never be a great blocker, but take a look. Most of the top receiving TEs are fairly weak in this department. He does need to become more physical and effective though. The hope is the addition of Tice, a coach with a history of coaching OL and TE, will help improve Olsen's blocking. I have never heard questions as to his willingness to block, simply his effectiveness. To me, that means he is teachable. But, Lovie seems to indicate that defenses simply kept nickel defenses in due to Olsen. I would argue defenses kept in the nickel due to an overall lack of respect for our run game. That is on our OL and RB too.

Or last year when Lovie said Beekman was still the starter and Omiyale would have to win the competition, only to be given the job when everyone at camp said he looked like crap. Still though, I am not sure we signed him with the intent of making him our starter. When we signed TJ, A-Train looked more like a backup and I think everyone knew TJ was signed to be the starter. Here, I think it is much more up in the air. I think the staff would love for Forte to step up in camp and be the starter this year, with Taylor still playing a major role.

Players Union will always try to make an argument, but I don't see it. I did see (PFT or someone talked about this) where they might have had an argument if the college rules were applied. It seems the Players Union has rights when it comes to increases in player time. If you had the college rules carry over, then you would, due to the extra possession by rule, be creating extra playing time for players. Thus the union might have had an argument. But the rules, as they were written, don't seem that way.

It destroys the strategy pof the game completely. This is chess, not checkers. (Although to Smith it is, so it'd probably do us good.) All elements to the game need to be set in play for it to not be a lame soccer shoot out. How is the current/past overtime rules anything like chess. You win the coin flip, you take the ball. Period. Not much strategy there.

One of the primary areas is at offensive line, where Smith would name only three starters: Left tackle Chris Williams, center Olin Kreutz and right guard Roberto Garza. I left Wednesday's breakfast feeling strongly that Frank Omiyale will be moved to right tackle, while a number of young players will battle for the left guard position. One player I don't hear us talk too much about, but I hear the staff talk about a lot is Louis. The staff often talks about how well he has developed. When Lovie mentions "a number of young players" battling for OG, I think Louis is a big part of that. So I guess his thinking is moving Omiyale to RT, and then allow Beekman, Louis and a rookie to compete inside. The way they talk about Loius, they likely see the competition as a situation where they have a lower ceiling but fair to solid guy in Beekman at worst, or a potential big upgrade in Loius if he continues to develop and wins the starting job. "We could just lock him in to the left and let him go against the right tackle," Smith said. "And he's had some success there, and that's good. But to answer your question, we're going to let him play both. He's done both, and we'll try to find ways to get him 1-on-1, which is important for us. ... He doesn't really have a preference. I've seen him be dominant from both sides. It's a lot of options that he's given us right now." I really like what I have read about our thoughts on Peppers. Too often our staff lacks imagination, but they have openly, and often talked about moving Peppers around. We can start Peppers at LDE and Brown at RDE, while moving Peppers to RDE at times due to matchups, while allowing Anderson to slide into the LDE spot. "I'd like to see [idonije] lock in and be more of a defensive end and see exactly how good he can become," Smith said. Um, Mr. Smith? Maybe Idonije could lock into a position if you didn't ask him to add or drop 30+ lbs every offseason while you change his position every year. As for the reserves among their defensive linemen, Smith said he projects Henry Melton as a defensive end and Jarron Gilbert as a defensive tackle. Glad to hear we are looking at Melton as a DE. I simply did not understand the thought process of trying to make him into a DT. Seemed too much like forcing a player to change to fit into a hole rather than develop them to be what they are best at. Even still, I see Melton as a long term project due to how raw he came to us, and then losing a year of development. As for Gilbert, I just want to see us commit to a position for this kid and develop him there.

I have no issue with making a change. I have never cared for the sudden death aspect in pro football. In particular, I never liked it when another team would win on a 50 yard FG they barely had to move the ball to get into position for. If a team scores a TD in overtime, that is more often deserved. But a team gets a good return, followed by one 1st down, and suddenly they are in FG range. That should not be enough to earn the win.

Agreed that if you feel like this is a good/right thing, then you make the change, not just for the playoffs, but for all games. The issue was important enough for the owners to want a change. The solution was good enough to install it in the most important games. Sorry, but the reasoning not to have it throughout the regular seasons seems a bit weak. I don't know that it is absolutely necessary to make both teams get a possession. What this does is eliminate from a team winning in OT (first possession) on a FG. To me, that has always been the biggest issue. It just doesn't take "that" much to get your team into FG range, especially if you have a good kicker. Heck, one good return can just about set you up. On the other hand, if a team wins in OT by a TD, I would more often believe they earned it.

Despite what Lovie says, all we ask of our FS is don't get beat deep. The most important pre-requisite for this is intelligence. I'm thinking Craig Steltz might actually be able to fill this need. As for RT, we're not going to be able to find a starting caliber RT in the 3rd round. At least not immediately. I'm curious to see what Omiyale can do if he's moved over there. Disagree two-ford. One, I think we very much would like to see far more from our FS, but we have fielded such weak FS', our expectations have been lowered. Look at how Lovie used Mike Brown. We asked far more of our FS then. Two, we can always hope Steltz could play FS, but I am not sure we have seen enough to give much of an expectation. steltz frankly displayed much of what was expected pre-draft. He can play in and near the box, but really struggles downfield. Typical of our SS', but not what you want. After finding a steal like Johnny Knox in the 5th round last year, why wouldn't you want to take a WR? We're going to need more in the Martz system. While we have a lot of SS's, none are very good. I think we should draft a TE, but only one that specializes in blocking. One who's build like Manumaleuna. Not 6-6 250 lbs. I understand your point about WR, but on the other hand, we are loaded at WR w/ more talent and options than at most other positions. W/ few picks and many holes, I don't think we are in a position to draft positions that are more stable, and need to focus on our holes. You argue for drafting a SS saying none are very good, but our prospects at SS are far better than FS, which you seem to argue against above. I don't care if we draft a blocking TE in the 7th, but this is simply not much of a need. Even looking at positions where we have starters and need to draft for depth, there are far bigger depth holes than at TE. Huh? Where did this come from? Corey Graham and Zach Bowman both slipped to the 5th round due to injury concerns. Both were nice picks. If you can get a guy with 1st round talent in the 5th, why wouldn't you? Chris Williams might have slipped, but he made up for it by starting every game is sophomore year. Who else are you talking about? The majority of picks we have made on players who fell in the draft due to injury concern have not panned out. You mention Graham, but he went down w/ injury his first year, played okay his 2nd, and has since been in the coach's doghouse and doesn't seem to be a factor. Bowman had one good year, and another he went down his first game. I agree with the idea of avoiding players who have injury red flags. As for Williams, I don't think he would be a good example, as he didn't fall in the draft due to injury concerns. If we passes on him, and others did as well, he could be an example, but we took him where he was expected to go, so he wasn't an example of a player that fell in the draft and was available for great value. If you look at the history of Martz offenses, they take off their first year. Not to mention, as for our o-line, we finished the season with Williams, Omiyale, Kreutz, Garza, and Shaffer. There's a damn good chance that's what opening day will look like. Actually, Martz' passing games take off the first year, but I am not sure the offense as a whole does. His offenses put up big passing stats, but weak rushing, and high turnover rates, w/ mediocre scoring. I think the passing yards a QB like Kitna got under Martz makes people blind to the rest.

Is anyone else worried about Cutlers ability to anticipate, as is necessary with the Martz scheme? I think he's always relied on his quick release and cannon instead of seeing a play unfold. I really think we need to use him more like Big Ben. I am not so worried about this as I am simply Cutler and the WRs getting on the same page. It is not the anticipation aspect that worries me so much, but the manner in which Cutler will be required to throw to spots the WR is expected to be. That means if our WRs do not run the right route, and do so w/ the same timing at in practice, the pass will be incomplete, or worse. That is my greater concern.

1. I can't imagine we can spend much more money. In this market where everyone is counting their pennies, I'm still flabbergasted that the Bears emerged as the big spenders. I could be wrong, but I don't see us making any more significant financial offers to players. If it's low, Seattle would just match it. Likely agree, but as you said, we were all shocked at the money spent on Peppers, so at this point, who knows. 2. We can't afford to give up any more draft picks. With a few bright spots, our last 5 drafts have been pretty awful overall. It's amazing how quickly we went from being the youngest defenses in the league to becoming a bunch of guys in their 30's. We need to add young players. Sims is 26, and won't even turn 27 until the end of the season. That is still young, but with some experience. IMHO, you almost make an argument here for going after Sims. As you say, our recent drafts have not been very good, and thus it could be argued the value of a 4th round pick is not as great, and especially when compared against a known solid, starting player. 3. There's other veteran guards we could sign without having to give up a pick. Who? This was a bad overall crop of FAs to begin with, at worse at the OG position. There may be other OGs out there, but not many who would be considered upgrades, and that is saying a lot considering our talent level.

I love competition too, but I simply think that even there, the idea that Lovie hates rookies is over-rated. Everyone talks about competition, at many times I think it is great, but the reality is, when you have established veterans, rookies are not really going to compete with that veteran, especially late round picks. Okay, just looking at post SB. 2007 Olsen - I guess some might argue he should have started, but as weak as his blocking was, I question that. He was played quite a bit, but Clark held the job, and I would argue rightfully so. Bazuin - Didn't he get injured in camp. Hard to compete when injured, but as I recall, he was often talked about prior to the injury. Maybe not to start, but to take that 3rd DE role. Wolfe - We had Benson, and Wolfe was simply going to get the start. Some say he should have had a greater role, but I have always argued he was drafted more for special teams than not. Okwo - He was drafted for depth, and as insurance for Briggs. Your right that Beekman was only allowed to compete after injuries, but I would argue that was more an issue of what position the team felt he should play (center). Payne, as I recall, was very much in the competition from day one in camp. Graham was actually talked about a lot, but then went down w/ injury. 2008 Williams was set to start before injury. Forte was absolutely part of the competition from day one. Harrison was in the mix from day one as well. Steltz was in the competition, but looked lost. Point here is, these players were allowed to compete for a starting job, but only Forte was able to make the most of that opportunity. The lack of playing time or starts for the rest were on the players, not the coach, IMHO. Bennett is the best example here. I don't think it was an issue of the staff not allowing him to compete, but (by Turner's own admission) trying to put too much on him too early, asking him to learn all WR roles. 2009 Knox seemed in the mix right away. Iglesias, per reports, struggled to adapt. But I would argue both were given opportunities. Gilbert was raw, and I don't think much was expected early on, but I would also argue that if he played well in camp, he could have pushed for more PT or even a start. Again, more an issue of the player simply not doing more with opportunity than simply not having the opportunity. Melton was injured in camp. Afalava, a later round pick rookie, was allowed to compete early on, and made the most of that opportunity securing the starting role from day one. There have been players here and there which an argument can be made the coaches didn't give them an opportunity, but on the whole, I would argue rookies have been allowed to compete for PT and even starts, but the lack of starts was more on the players than the staff. I just disagree that Lovie hates rookies or doesn't allow them an opportunity. He has given rookies their shot, but from there, it is up to the rookie to take advantage. Some rookies, like Forte, Afalava and others, take advantage. Others did not.

Part of me wants to agree with you. I mean, every teams adds a ton of players at the bottom end of the roster, and frankly, they just do not warrant much discussion. They are commonly referred to as camp fodder. But i just have to wonder if that is in fact what this kid is. We kept Vasher on the roster. I have said all along he would be cut as soon as we were able to add/upgrade the position, but until we did, it didn't make sense to let him go. But I do not think we cut Vasher simply due to adding camp fodder. By letting him go after this signing, I would argue it likely indicates this player is one who they expect to stick with the team. I know you were not arguing, but I simply do not understand. We already have a shorty CB drafted last year, yet at the same time read our coach does not like short DBs. We have this DB coach in Indy who is very highly respected by Lovie, and yet one of this coache's players was just allowed to walk when he could have been kept for near nothing. If this other coach Lovie respects so much thought so little of him, how do we think Lovie is going to think about the kid. I don't know. I don't mean to make too much of a little signing, but I just can't understand what is going on with it.

For the life of me, I will never understand the perception that Lovie hates rookies or does not play them. 2009 Knox got the nod for game one. Sure, you can argue that was in part due to DA's injury, but at the same time, if Lovie hated rookies, Davis more likely would have gotten the nod for playing time. Afalava beat out Payne and whoever else and started from game one. 2008 Chris Williams was set to start if not for injury. Forte started as a rookie. Harrison did not start, but played a fairly significant role in our DT rotation as a rookie. Bowman played, but went down w/ injury his first game. 2007 Olsen didn't start over Clark, but did play a significant amount as a rookie. Beekman, Payne and McBride all had starts as rookies. 2006 DM was thrust into a starting role, which simply didn't workout. Hester was immediately made our main return man as a rookie. Dusty was played as a rookie, but injuries killed him. Mark Anderson was a big part of the DE rotation, and played significant snaps as a rookie. 2005 Probably the key year fans gained the perception Lovie doesn't like rookies due to Benson and Bradley, injuries and other issues held them back more than Lovie. Orton and Chris Harris both started as rookies. 2004 Tommie Harris, Tank Johnson, Berrian, Vasher and even Krenzel at one point, all started as rookies. 2003 Michael Haynes, Rex Grossman, Charles Tillman, Lance Briggs, Todd Johnson, Ian Scott, Bobby Wade and Justin Gage all either started or played key roles their rookie year. 2002 Columbo, Alex Brown, Bobby Gray and Bryan Knight all started or played significantly as rookies. There may be a player here or there who didn't start or play as much their rookie year as some expected, but w/ the large number or rookies who did play large roles, I think there is a better argument those fewer rookies limited role was due to ability rather than a staff that doesn't like rookies.

So why was he not even tendered an offer. In Indy, you have a DB coach who was so respected and thought of, he was discussed for our DC position. He runs the cover 2, or at least a variation of it, and yet this kid was simply allowed to walk. It would not have cost the team much to keep him, and yet they opted to let him go for nothing, which really just begs the question how much we should expect from him.

Devil's advocate point of view. DM was a high 2nd round draft pick, which comes with expectations. We complain he didn't develop at any position due to moving around, yet how about the thought that he was moved around because he just never looked very good at any one position. He was a disaster at both CB and FS. Many 2nd round picks that bust in such a manner are cut, but our staff kept trying him in new and different ways. I too dislike the way he has been moved around. What I hate more is that, it seems like his best position/role was found (nickel DB and return man) and yet the staff continues to play with his role, now talking about playing him at SS. At the same time, many teams would not have given him so many chances at so many positions/roles, written him off as a bust, and released him before he ever showed he could contribute. Thus, it is a bit hard for me to feel bad for the guy. Finally, IMHO, he was tendered at the level he was in hopes that another team might make him an offer. I think we would actually like to sign him to a long term deal, but have no clue what his contract should be. After signing Hester, and then you have Cribbs in Cle, it is difficult to really set the value on a player like DM. So I think Angelo, as he has done in the past, is trying to allow the market to set DM's value.

Lt2, Come on. I understand everything you are saying, but you have to admit there is a bit more too it. Players and agents pretty much came out and said they were not going to sign their tender deals, and talked about skipping OTAs as a whole to make a point. I am not talking about a couple RFAs who think they have a legit shot at improving their situation, but all 200 or whatever RFAs holding off on signing their tenders to make a point. As with most everything going on these days, this too goes back to the CBA.

Personally, I find some humor in this. For a while, as talk about the CBA was beginning to heat up, you read player and player talk about the un-capped year. You heard agents talk about it. Then we started to read reports about the various rules also in place, such as players not actually being fully free agents until after 6 credited seasons. I find the humor here because players seemed to be so uninformed, and are now crying their current situation. Instead of ripping the teams, and the level they were restricted, maybe they should look at their own leadership and question them a bit more.

What about Rob Sims. RFA OG from Seattle. From what I read, he was not tendered very high (don't know why) and would cost a 4th round pick to sign. A friends who is a bears fan in Seattle mentioned him. Said many felt he was their best OL last year. Young OG with starting experience, and has drawn interest from several other teams, indicacting others realize he has value too. While we don't exactly have the draft picks to spare, a 4th round pick for a starting level OG seems like a pretty good deal to me.

One. If the season started today, I think Omiyale would be our starting LG. After being benched, he was again started at LG and finished pretty solid. If we add an OG, I agree Omiyale could move to RT, but w/o that addition, Omiyale is still likely our LG. Two. The staff just does not look at Beekman and see an LG. Frankly, they said as much his rookie year. I recall when he was moved to LG in camp due to various injuries. The coaches even then said he had too small of a build to play OG, and yet he started there all year and did pretty well. Regardless, the staff just never felt he was big enough and continued to try and replace him. Similar to other positions on this team, it seems like our coaches make fairly quick judgments on players and there is virtually nothing a player can do to change those opinions. We have a new set of coaches now, so it could be interesting to see how things change, but I still think that lacking the addition of an OG, Omiyale is still looked at there. Three. You continue to beat the drum of Louis being used as a blocking TE, but let me ask, have you ever read or heard that? I know there was talk about his position the day he was drafted, but since then, he was set up as an OL, and the staff have been pretty out-spoken as to his development along the OL. I have never actually read about our staff looking at Louis as a blocking TE, even on occasion. Have you? Everyone assumes Omiyale will be moved to RT, but I am not so sure. This is simply not a great year for OGs, either in FA or the draft. On the other hand, this is said to be a great draft, both in terms of talent level and depth, for OTs in the draft. So I can see us getting an OT in the draft, but keeping Omiyale at OG.

I know this was the perfect year to cut him for cap purposes. What surprised me about the timing was why we didn't release him the first day possible. I figured we were waiting to make sure we could do better in FA and/or the draft. I know we just signed a guy, but is he seriously good enough to make a move? Don't get me wrong. I am glad we made the move. I just wonder why we didn't do it a month ago.

Only surprise is this didn't happen sooner.

Thanks for that. I had not heard that before. Actually, to me there were to issues in that article that stood out to me. One was the attitude issue you address. But the other is the comment that Lovie likes bigger CBs. Okay, so we have a coach who likes bigger CBs, won't give the time of day to a little guy, and yet our GM drafts a little guy? Look, I know you see this sort of thing w/ every team, but it seems like there is a greater disconnect between Angelo and Lovie of late. I mean, if Angelo knows what sort of CB Lovie covets, and drafts one very different, that shows a disconnect. But further, if Angelo does draft that guys and does so because he was just "too good of a talent to pass up", shouldn't the coach have enough trust in the GM to give the little guy a chance? If not, that would seem to reflect some pretty sizable trust issues too.

Yes and no. There are plenty of RFA's out there who know there is not a team in the league that will offer whatever compensation would be necessary to steal that player and/or the player flat out intends to sign the deal, but in either situation, is holding off on signing the deal specifically to avoid workouts and practices. Yea, some are holding off (Atogwe for example) hoping another team will present them with and offer sheet, but I there there are many many out there who are simply doing it to avoid workouts.

I am not sure how hard it is to judge our CBs from last season. Bowman looks like a solid player. Tillman may be solid, but w/ his recent injury history, his health very much comes into question. After that, we have nothing. Many here, including myself, like Graham, but the staff sure doesn't seem to, and I read Hoke was not a fan, which was a key reason for Graham basically getting pushed out of the mix at CB. What else do we have. A 5'7 (with shoes on) CB who didn't even show the staff enough to be active on game day when we had serious needs in the secondary? DM can play nickel, but should not be considered a backup at CB. We have two potentially solid starting CBs, but each have a injury history that has to be considered, and we have no depth behind them. With that said, while I agree CB could be the way to go in the 3rd, I would say OT could be a great pick here too. From what I read, OT is among the best, and deepest positions in the draft, but OTs goes fast. You are likely to seen a ton go off the boards in the 1st, which often means fewer are taken in the 2nd, but quality finds can then be found in the 3rd. OG is considered a really weak position in this draft, so I am not sure how great the value will be as you likely have some 3rd round value taken in the 2nd round due to need, but that means in the 3rd you could be looking at weaker value. OT, CB and FS should be the three positions were are looking at in the 3rd.

Dead on, and I love the RB/ypc analogy. Too often the total yardage is looked at in a tunnel. A RB that gets 1,000 yards looks good until you see a 3.2 average and realize he only had the yards due to getting the ball so many times. Same thing with TO. He can still rack up the yards when the QB forces the ball his way, but the difference between TO of yesterday and TO of today is TO simply (as you said) does get seperation. He never had great hands, but now he has a DB in his face making the catch even more difficult. TO comes w/ loads of baggage, and there was a time when it could be argued (by others, not myself) that his talent make such baggage an acceptible risk, but no longer. Again, I point to Dallas. If Dallas didn't let TO walk, Miles Austin would have never emerged. I think I would rather have Austin. By that same line of thought, I would rather see if one (or more) of our young WRs can develop into something special, rather than watch TO yell at the QB to throw him the ball, even if he is blanket covered.