nfoligno

Take one day off to go golfing, and miss out on some really great news. Awesome.

Without intending to defend Turner, I wonder how much was Turner and how much was Lovie. Lovie seems to fall in love with certain players, and regardless whether they seem to fit or not, we just continue to keep them. I recall him once saying, "as long as I am the head coach, AP will have a job." McKie is another how was a favorite of Lovie. Look, there are a thousand reasons to rip Turner, and frankly, this may well be one. I just wonder how much was Turner and how much was Lovie in this regard.

I can't say I recall specifically when, but yes, I thought that game we actually did manage some pressure. Harris for a change seemed to be playing at a higher level. I think this was also one of those games Brown stepped it up. Maybe I am mixing this up with another game, but I actually thought our DL did a fair job of getting to Farve. As I recall, not only did we have some sacks, as well as pressures, but I also seem to recall several hits on Farve after he got rid of the ball, which I loved. Farve was able to put up big numbers in the 2nd half, but just look at the receivers. Two receivers (Harvin/Rice) with 8 catches each, but combined for less than 100 yards. But Farve was able to really attack us w/ a ton of short routes, slands, and utilizing non-WRs. More than 15 catches by RBs and TEs. Not saying the DL was great, but I thought the secondary was far more at fault than the DL. Even when the DL would get immediate pressure on Farve, WRs seemed to have no problem getting open.

I am not so sure. That game was a tale of two halves. In the first half, Minny tried to just ran the ball down our throats, and we seemed prepared to stop the run. In the first half, they ran the ball 14 times, compared to only 9 passes (5 complete) for 36 yards and we kept them off the score board. In the first half, you saw Farve really getting into the coaches face, seemingly about the game plan. In the 2nd half, they came out firing. In the 2nd half, Farve completed 21 of 31 for 285 yards and 2 scores. We got the win, but hard to look at those 2nd half stats and feel confident in our secondary play. To me, it was more a matter of Minny making a poor coaching decision early on, and we were able to hang on for the win.

I read that too. New coach, new system, very different way of using Royal. What was really surprising to me was, as much of a non-factor as Royal was through the year, I was shocked they didn't try to alter how they used him. He was so good as a rookie, then they change how he is used, and he is a waste of space.

Bear down bear, and get ready to growl because this is getting to be fun 1. Angelo: He seemed to draft decently at CB w/ some of the newer guys. Vasher and Tillman were the men, then injuries hit. He drafted some youth that were inexperienced. So instead of working schemes that would help the youngsters, Smith made them act like vets and set them up for failure. Ah yea, you mean like Angelo's great Roe Williams? Oh wait. You mean the great Daniel Manning. No? How about our 5'2 CB Moore who Angelo just picked up. No, you must be talking about our great Ricky Manning Jr signing. Yea, Angelo did well with Tillman and Vasher, but lets not pretend he has brought in a bevy of CB talent. Player: When you're already giving up the first, and will be all drive long down the field, does it really matter if you give up 50 every now and then? And again, if Smith woudl practice tackling, missed tackles would probably be fewer. I'm sorry, but give me a break. FAR too often I watch WR make a wide open catch on 1st or 2nd down, way short of the 1st down market, only to see them put a move on our DBs for big gains rather than small ones. As for tackling, I would love to see us practice it more too, but lets be honest. These guys have practiced tackling all their lives. If they blowing it, it is more likely due to wanting to make ESPN highlight reels as opposed to what they were taught to do. 2. Angelo: If Smith would stop asking Jerry to draft fast cover 2 guys, maybe they'd be better off. So your way of defending Angelo is to essentially call him a gutless tool? Who again is the GM? I know Lovie has a solid amount of power, but he does not choose what players are added to the team. If he just tells Angelo who to draft/sign and Angelo does it, then you can't give Angelo credit for his hits, and you have to basically consider us w/o a GM either way. Player: If you were a OG in college, odds are you'll be a OG in the pros. Exceptions happen, but are rare. For every Urlacher, there's tons more experiments that have failed under the banner "coaching up" done by Smith. Oh yeah, Urlacher was under Dicky Animatron's watch... I think I mentioned athletes, and you bring up OGs? How many of college OGs have we tried to play elsewhere? No, the problem is when Angelo drafts players like DM, Leon Joe, Okwo and others who he loves the athleticism of, but who may not really have a true NFL position, and if they do, it isn't so easily know. This has been a pet peeve of mine for years. I wants football players drafted, not just athletes who look good in shorts on a track. 3. Angelo: Yep, he's picked some injury prone guys. Deserve's the blame for that. There goes the 25%. But the entire roster of over 50+ guys are all injury prone and mental midgets? I think not. The TC's are a joke no matter what kind of straw-man BS you throw up there. No straw here. We have a DT who was a rotational player in college, was questioned whether he could handle the NFL, and we wonder why the guy has to take Wednesdays off due to injury issues? Or how about how Angelo loves to sign OL who passed their prime when you could still smoke on airplanes. Look, I agree our camps are soft, but I also think Angelo has added a lot of soft players to the team. Who is considered one of our toughest players on the team? You usually here Kreutz name, and guess what, he was here before Angelo. Players: Professionals get paid to do a job. How well they do is usally a direct result of the direction they get from their leader. You can have a ton of great employees, but without good direction from the CEO, problems arise. You act as though coaching isn't even needed. Why bother having coaches at all if it's all up to the players? I'm not asking a coach to hold hands, I'm asking him to treat his crew like men and ask them to hit and play hard and smart. Not sit around and run drills that don't amount to jack in a real game while you stare like a deer in headlights wondering why your vaunted perfect scheme is getting picked apart like a pack of vultures on carrion. I have no clue what our CEO does, and how he handles the business has nothing to do with how I do my job. This goes back to drafting. When you consider character and draft football players, you often find men who take pride in their work. Just look at our DTs picks over the years. Harrison, Dusty, Tank and Harris all had character related red flags, and yet Angelo fell in love w/ the players and took them anyway. 4. Angelo: Sure, he could hand Smith a better hand of cards. But Smith has his hand. Instead of doing the most with it. He keeps thinking a pair of 6's is the same as a full house. Play the 6's correctly. Funny, but it is a little harder to bluff when playing football. I agree Lovie and his staff do not do enough with what he is given, yet at the same time, is what he is given enough to win with? To go back to your analogy, you might bluff your way to a win w/ a pair of 6s (analogy would be trick plays) but how long does that last. You don't win tournaments by playing pair of 6s too often. Players: What does a fat player have to do with a bad scheme? A bad scheme is a bad scheme. Guess what?! Smith doesn't have the '85 Bears to play his vaunted scheme. He has what he freaking has. Use what you have to it's fullest potential instead of hoping that a run of the mill player will perform like a HoF'er. And um, poor execution usually starts in the country club camp And what if the fullest potential of the players given is a .500 team? What does a fat man have to do with it? Well, we had a player who was slated to start, but cared so little he showed up to camp out of shape and unable to even go through the practice reps, and you ask what does this matter? 5. Angelo: Yep, if you draft guys and Smith is using them poorly, etc.. you need to man up and tell Smith to do it right. Henceforth, why Angelo gets 25% of the blame. So he gets 25% for not being a man and telling Lovie he is doing poorly, but doesn't he also get 25% for his failures in draft picks and FA moves? Um, I was never great at math, but that would up his level to 50%, which is more than I even said. I guess I have turned your opinion? Players: nfo, you have no idea what goes on at practice and who takes what off. All I know is in basketball, Rodman barely practiced, but rocked game time. Phil Jackson was smart enough to know his audience, and put his team in a position to win by letting it be. Maybe Smith's practices are just plain crappy and don't mimic the real game well enough to make a good determination on a player's potential in game time. Wait, we have no idea what goes on in practice, yet you "know" our practices are soft? Hmmm. And it says a lot that you have to reach into history, in another sport for that matter, to give an example of a player that doesn't practice but can do well in games. I think most NFL coaches believe a player needs to show he can play in practice before given a big role on the team. Seems that your point WAS to defend Smith. Every single one of your posts was doing just that. Please don't play devil's advocate just to do so. I don't need to see "alternate' thoughts on Smith. I've seen enough evidence over the years that he is ill prepared to be a HC. And blame is going around. I didn't say Smith is 100%. I basically agreed with jason...and even went down from 60% to 50%. Angelo and the players are getting blame too. I am not defending Smith, nor am I just playing Devils advocate. I have been on the bandwagon to get rid of Smith for years. During our SB run, I said his coaching held us back from being great, and I have bashed him non-stop since. I am not defending him. My real point is to not get so focused on one area when I think what is broken goes beyond just Smith. Let me put it this way, if we had a better HC, but Angelo making the moves he did, I think we would have still been a team that was seen as lacking. I think Angelo is a HUGE part of our problems, and in that, also point to the players. I have no love for Smith, but (a) feel Angelo deserves a bigger share of the blame and ( following that line of thought, feel our players are lacking also.

All I can say is this. If Martz can't find a way to utilize a very good receiving TE like Olsen, maybe he isn't the offensive genius some make him out to be.

this is why other teams are hesitating? LT2 usually undestands this stuff better. Not sure what you are alluding to? Article talks about how he Stl would have had to guarantee him 110% of his salary to tender him at any level higher than they did, and as he was their franchise player last year, that would not be cheap. But when you imply there is something here that would explain why teams are hesitating, I am not sure what you mean. Article says he is a solid talent, but that his team is being cheap. I saw nothing that would explain why a team would not go after him.

Regarding Stl's low tender on him. Last year, he was their franchise player, and as such, his one year salary was over $7m. If they tendered him this year at any level which would offer compensation, they would have to give him a 10% raise over last year, so that means he would be looking at about an $8m tender. So that is a big part of it. They didn't want to pay him $8m for the one year. I would say there is also a change they simply want another team to make him an offer, setting the market, and then Stl comes in and just matches the deal as they have the right to do so. They would be far from the first team to allow the market to set a price rather than try to negotiate w/ the player. In fact, Angelo used to do that a fair amount. So I would not read too much into Stl's low tender on Atogwe.

Regarding Davis, my reason for the "hate" is this, One. I frankly don't think he is anymore a good special teams player, but is rather living on past play. And when I say past, I mean a few years ago. I have talked for two years now about the dip in his special teams play. Likely not true, but two years ago, it seemed like he had more penalties on special teams than tackles. But I just feel his value on special teams really went downhill, and at the same time, other players seemed to step up their play. Two. I don't see the value at WR. There was a time he had value, but i think that too has come and gone. I would take our 5th best WR over him, but if we keep him active on game day for his special teams play, that means a better WR option is left at home. To me, Davis is very similar to AP, but even lesser. AP was once a special teams ace, but over the last couple years, his play in that regard went downhill, yet he continued to live of the reputation gained off previous seasons. Further, he would be part of the depth chart at RB, yet I just didn't want to see him out there as I would rather others get the carries. I just don't see the value in Davis anymore. I don't think he is the special teams player he once was, at as a WR, he offers little. There was a time when he was a special teams ace, and further, our WR corp was so bad he would have been considered top 3, but now, I think he has fallen far in both categories. I would much rather have a WR who can actually benefit the team as a WR.

Glad to hear we are at least looking at CB. At the same time, I just wonder why the lack of action at FS. CB is considered a very good position in the draft, and while it may not yield an immediate starter, our need is more depth than an immediate starter. That is why I assumed we would pass on CB in FA but pursue a veteran FS. I have no issue w/ adding Lito. I have argued our need for a CB is greater than most have felt, but at the same time, we simply have to get a FS. I really want Atogwe.

If you make a pro play 10 yards off the LOS, he cannot prevent a first. Angelo: If Angele would add better talent, coaches may feel more confident in the CB playing near the LOS. Player: Regardless where you line up, you make the play in front of you. Might fault Lovie for the DB giving up short stuff, but when the DB misses the tackle allowing a potential 5 yarder go for 50, thats on the player. If you play a pro at one position he is weaker at than another, he will not preform well. Angelo: If Angelo would draft players rather than athletes, the staff may better know where to line up a player. Player: Sometimes that position you dreamed about playing isn't the one you are cut out for in the NFL. Instead of think about what "might have been" commit yourself and excel at a new position. If you hold a country club camp, that attitude will refelct in the seasonal preformances of your team. Angelo: If Angelo added players who were less injury prone and more mentally tough, we may be able to work them a bit harder. Players: The coaches are just that, coaches. They are not mommy or daddy. The days of someone telling you "its time to wake up" are over. Time to grow up and learn responsibility. This is a game, but you get paid and it is your job. Your a professional. Act like it. If you play an outdated scheme everyone has figured out, a pro player can't counter-balance that. Angelo: Scheme aint great, but when we had better talent, it worked well enough. scheme requires a pass rush, and our players moves over the last few years to improve our pass rush leaves much to be desired. Players: Here's an idea. Don't show up to camp fat and out of shape. Here is another idea. When the guy w/ a ball is in front of you, make the tackle. Scheme is FAR from perfect, but poor execution makes it look worse. If you don't get your best pro player out on the field, he will not contribute, while a the lesser player doesn't perform. Angelo: Grow a pair and don't allow your coach to bury guys you added on the roster. Plenty of GMs out there do the same. Players: You may be a game day stud, but you need to understand most coaches in the league want to see that all week during practice. You can't take plays off and give a half arce performance in practice and expect to see significant action on game day. The point here is not to defend Lovie and the coaches. You know my feelings there. But the point is to give alternative ways of looking at each example you give. Plenty of times I would agree it is the coaches, but I also think there is simply more than enough blame to go around.

I threw the question out there w/o really an idea of what the answer is. I know Peppers has said he feels comfortable at either side, which is why most will assume him to play LDE. At the same time, the key for me is simply where he can dominate the best. So maybe the answer is to simply rotate the hell out of him. I have heard the staff talk about such, which is surprising as we rarely seem to move players around, but I would like to see us do this. Move Peppers around the way many teams do w/ their top pass rushers. If we do this though, Brown is going to need to either learn to play LDE, or he is going to lose even more snaps to Anderson, who does have experience playing on the left side.

I go chicken-@#$# route and just say 1/3 for each. Angelo vs coaches - Is the problem the players Angelo brings in, or how the staff develops uses those players. Likely it is a combo of each, but there are too many examples for either side to believe it is simply a matter of one and not the other. Lovie and Co v Players - Few on this board believe Lovie and his staff do a good job of putting players in the best position to make plays, whether through playcalling or scheme. That is a key duty of the staff, and on the coaches. At the same time, there are just too many examples of a total lack of execution to absolve players. Players have to make the tackle when the ball carrier is in front of them. Players have to make their block to keep the QB healthy or open a hole for the RB. Players have to catch the ball when it hits them in the hands. I am happy to lead the charge in the fight against Lovie and the playcalling of our staff. At the same time, there are times when I question if it even matters due to the lack of execution by players. It is too easy to blame one area over another, but at the same time, I think I could make just such an argument for each and every part of the team. I could argue Angelo's personnel decisions have killed this team just as easily as the coaches' scheme and playcalling and just as easily as the player's execution. To me, the more important question is, have we done enough to right the ship, if only for the immediate future? Did Angelo do enough, and will he do enough in the draft, to improve the talent level of this team. Will the additions/changes to the coaching staff be enough to better put players in a position to win. And will the players show a sense of committment and execution to pull it off?

What would do you think Angelo would have done to solidify the offensive line if not hampered by Lovie wanting Pace? If we had not signed Pace, I think our OL would have looked like it did at the end of the season. Williams - Angelo drafted him to play LT. Omiyale - I think Angelo signed him w/ the intention of playing inside. Remember, when we signed him, all the talk was about how we were trying to get bigger and strong inside, and the believe was Omiyale would give us that bigger OG. Kreutz Garza Shaffer - I think we may have also seen a rookie drafted sooner, and that rookie would have competed with Shaffer. I hated the Pace signing the day we made it. I didn't like that we were going to play Pace at LT, a position no other team felt he could any longer handle. I didn't like the idea of moving Williams to RT, where I didn't think he was a good fit, and taking time away from his development at LT, the position we drafted him for. Finally, I didn't like the signing because I knew the day he was signed, our odds of drafting an OT high just about dropped to nill.

Few here will argue the staff has screwed up the evaluation of OL, as well as many other players and positions. At the same time, I think it questionable to think Angelo is not part of this. You really think Angelo and our scouts are on such a different page as our coaches? I question how long Lovie would have continued to be employed if he was this "off" with his GM and scouts. Angelo signed two OTs (Pace/Schaffer) and Omiyale, who he mentioned at either OT or OG, but seemed to more stress OG. If Angelo truly simply felt he was an OT, you would not have heard Angelo early on talking about Omiyale as an OG. Further, if Angelo felt Omiyale was set to be an OT, then I doubt he signs Pace. You can say Lovie wanted Pace, and I don't doubt he did, but that doesn't mean Angelo does whatever Lovie wants. IMHO, you have to look at both Angelo and our staff as an indictment of how our OL was handled last year.

Just going to make one point here. You said Jerry did it with Jimmy, Barry and Tuna. Well, Jerry said bye bye to Landy, and replaced him with a college coach. Jimmy did well in college, but this was not a Steve Spurrier signing, and was not a big contract. In fact, it was deemed a risky signing at the time, but history forgets that and makes it seem similar to if we signed Cowher. But that wasn't the case. Then he also hired Barry, and again, he avoided proven NFL talent and went "cheap" w/ a college guy. Then yes, he hired Parcells, but (a) how did that workout for him and ( you could just as easily make the argument he only did that when a gun was pointed to his head. The simple reality is, when it comes to the discussion of perception, it isn't about the hiring of coaching staffs. Jerry went a route that would be considered cheap by many here in Chicago. He avoided successful NFL guys, and further, didn't pay to keep those coaches once they found success. But Jerry always spent big on players. That is why I argue that it is all about spending on player that counts. Not in terms of reality, but in terms of perception. If a team spends big on big name coaches, but goes cheap on players, he will be considered cheap. If a team spends big on players but not coaches, he will still be considered a big spender. When it comes to perception, I simply argue it is all about the players.

I'm not sure either. There are some new coaches out there like Shanahan that could be amking more. I don't have the info. Smith was also paid after a SB appearance and media pressure. Part of the reason for the extremely high salary is speculated that Sweatty Teddy botched the negotiations and also waited too long to make the offer, thus driving the price up. My basic response is "they had too". They didn't want to. Also, for the first few years, he was paid bottom of the barrel, s, when you average it out, I'm not sure how pricey it really was. Actually, I recall a while back doing the math, even if if you average out his two deals, he still comes out well up there. Also have to make one more point in the "damned if you do, damned if you don't." We as fans always want players/coaches to prove themselves before paying them top dollar. But if you wait and make that player/coach prove themself first, you are then going to pay a premium. Use a player analogy. If Knox blows up for huge stats this coming year, and the staff pays him a big deal, wanna bet there will be fans asking why we didn't ink him on the cheap sooner? We could have extended Lovie sooner, but is that really what you would have wanted? I also get where you're going, and by no means do I not think they are not spending money on players. However, for AZ to say no one should ever think the Bears are cheap is a pipe dream. There's too much history of it, and there's a question mark on how they pay staff. But, it is more than true that they are currently (and for a while now) not been cheap paying players. We can debate whether they've made good decisions, but for players, they've not been cheap. Oh, I hope you know where on stand as to how we have spent the money. But the argument I continue to stand by is that our team has not been cheap for some time. I go back to the point Mikey was kicked upstairs, and we spend big bucks (for the time) on Daniels and Smith. As you say above, argue day and night about the merits of the two, but the point remains we spent the money. That was over a decade ago. For the last decade, this team has done what fans screamed for. Remember when we were too cheap to hire a GM? Remember when a player asking for a big bonus was simply out of our reach? Remember when we simply would not consider top tier FAs, and instead would only look at bargain basement guys? This team has spent money of the last decade. I realize that a decade of spending does not so easily offset a lifetime of being cheap, though I find it funny the main person in the stories who was cheap (Papabear) is also the same individual who is worshipped by most all Bear fans. It's also perception. You bring up Jerrah and Danny... We can argue the specifics, but the perception is that they thow nickels around like confetti. Our team has a different perception... Right or wrong. But usually perception, while not the entire story, is based in reality. And it takes a lot to completely change that. You avoid the point. Why are Jones and Danny "perceived" to be big spenders? This is the point I try to make. Danny and Jerry are NOT considered big spenders due to how they deal with coaches, scouts, staff or what sort of meals they provide players in the locker rooms. They are considered the big spenders plain and simply due to money spent on players. That is the point I try to make. Its about the players. All the rest can be talked about, but at the end of the day, its about the players. I love the signings and agree that the idea of cheapness should be curbed. but until I see them actually pay for a legitimate coaching and support staff, I'm weary still. Again, I go back to the prior point. Jerry Jones came in and replaced Landry w/ Jimmy Johnson, a long time college football coach. Jimmy was not paid anything resembling top dollar. Jerry dumped Jimmy, to be replaced by Switzer, then Gailey, then Campo. Through all these years, Jones was public is denouncing the idea coaching had so much to do w/ the success of the team, and said it was all about the players. But all this time, as Jerry was going to very cheap route w/ his coaches, he was also spending big on players. That Jones today is considered one of the big spenders in the NFL I would show as proof it is about the players, not the coaches. If you want to say something like, "until this team does a better job finding quality coaching, they will not have my full respect," I would agree fully. But to me, how they deal w/ coaches simply is not a matter of being cheap. They may suck at it, but that doesn't mean they are cheap. As for what Az said, I totally agree. This years offseason should put an end to the team being called cheap, especially by bear fans. Say they are clueless, and make awful decisions, etc., but the idea they are cheap is simply a weak argument these days.

Okay, now that Peppers is our man, I think it worth talking about what side of the DL he should play. Peppers has played both sides. As I understand it, he used to play RDE when Rucker was on the left, and then moved when Rucker left, but moved back to RDE this past year. Not sure, but something like that. I have read before that Peppers is best at RDE. That isn't to say he can't play LDE. Not saying that at all. But everything I have ever read was that his best position was RDE, and even when playing LDE, the team worked to move him back, which they eventually did. Brown has always played RDE. I believe that is what he played in college, and through his NFL career as well. DEs can move from one side to the other, but it is not always seemless. With that said, I would be of the opinion that you play Peppers where ever he is best. We need to see the stud Peppers. If that doesn't happen, we are hosed. If Peppers plays at LDE, but doesn't give the stud performance, while Brown gives his usual solid play, will our defense be good? On the other hand, if Peppers is a stud at RDE, even if Brown struggles at LDE, I would argue our defense regardless has chance of being very good. In other words, its all about Peppers, not Brown. Where Brown is best should not be a key factor in this IMHO. Where Peppers is most likely to dominate, that should be all this is about. Is it possible Peppers could be great at LDE? Sure. Heck, maybe that is his best position. I don't know. All I am saying is we should factor Peppers, and Peppers alone, when choosing who plays where. Brown is a secondary consideration.

Well, I believe we have the highest paid HC in the NFL, though I don't kow about the recent signings. While I have clue about money, we also are loaded w/ experienced coaches on the staff. I get the point, but would also make this one. If you added up all our staff, would they equal the cost of Peppers contract? That has always been one of my issues. Here is an ownership that just doles out tens of millions, yet there is always someone who will point to the cheap staplers the team uses to make the point the team is cheap. If how we pay our coaches is your baramoter, it Jerry Jones then a cheap owners. Jones has always held the philosophy that it is about the players, not the coach. That's why he was fine letting Jimmy walk and replacing him w/ a guy lacking NFL experience, only to replace him w/ another lacking. Jones also doesn't hire a GM, and assumes the role himself. Wanna bet if he was the Chicago owner he would be called to cheap to hire a true GM? Lets see. His son is the next man of power after Jerry. Sound familiar? If you look around the league, many teams deal w/ their coaches and staff in a manner not that different than we. But when has Jones ever been called cheap. Okay, let me ask this then. Why is Jones always considered a free spender. If not for the staff, which he just doesn't pay for, why then? I'll tell you. Its because of the big arce bonuses and contracts he doles out to the players. That is why he is always considered a big spender. Not because he hired an experienced trainer, but because he spends crap loads on players. I know well Lucky's argument that player money has no bearing on whether an owner is cheap or not. I disagree, but w/o getting into the nitty gritty of that argument, I simply go back to this. If you look around and the owners who are considered free spenders, why are they considered so. Is Snyder considered a free spender due to coaching hires, or for making moves like Haynseworth last year, which according to Lucky, doesn't matter. If Jones considered a free spender due to hiring Chan Gailey, or maybe it was for his hiring of Switzer. No? Then maybe Jimmy Johnson? Oh yea, he was also a college guy before Jerry hired him. Nope. Jones is not considered a free spender due to his coaching hires, and absolutely not due to his GM hiring, as he is the GM. Jerry is considered a free spender due to how much he spends on players. Period. End of story.

A look at the workhorses over the years. In 2000, the top two rushing attempt backs were Eddie George (403) and Edgerrin James (387). The following year, George didn't even get to 1,000 yards and his ypc was down to 3 ypc. James was injured most of the following year. In 2001, Stephen Davis led the league and had a career high of 356 carries. The following year he was hit with injuries and managed only 200 carries in a weak season. In 2002, Ricky Williams led the league with 383 carries, and proved an exception to the rule carry for 392 the following year w/ another great season. LT was 2nd w/ 372 carries, and while he had a great year in 2003, his carries went down all the way to 313 as the team tried to better limit him. In 2003, Ricky Williams led the league with 392, but was out of football in 2004. Jamal Lewis had 383 carries and went over 2000 yards, but dealt w/ injuries the following year as his yardage was cut in half. Lewis was never the same RB again. In 2004, Curtis Martin led the league with 371 carries, but this pretty much ended his career as he was injured part of the following year, managed only 220 carries with a 3.3 average and called it quits. In 2005, Shaun Alexander led the league with 370 carries, but this was the final year he would break 1,000 as he was never the same back again w/ numerous injuries. Edge James had 360 carries w/ a nice 4.2 avg, followed the next year w/ a 3.4 avg. In 2006, Larry Johnson had a whopping 416 carries, but would suffer through injuries after this season and never again saw as much as 200 carries, and was never the same back. In 2007, the top back only had a more managable 325 carries. No huge workhorses this yera. In 2008, Turner had 378 carries, but would then suffer injuries and failed to hit 200 carries or 1,000 yards the following year. AP had 363 carries, and while he did well in 2009, he worked through injuries and saw his carries drop to 313. Over and over again, the stats show that RBs who have a high number of carries one season usually end up injured, or simply less effective the following year. 370 carries looks to be about the cutoff point. There are examples of backs who get 350 carries and do not see the immediate dropoff, but even then, their continued success seems short lived as they usually deal w/ injuries or a suffer in play w/ in a couple years after that point. There are exceptions to the rule, but not many, and not for long. IMHO, having a back who can rack up around 300 carries in a season (18.75 per game) looks pretty solid. That still allows a RB to see plenty of carries, but also leaves enough carries for a 2nd back to rack up plenty. It just seems like the days of the work horse back have come and gone. If you push your RB to rack up the big carry seasons, you do so at the expense of the following year.

I think he is more than just a 6th OL. We talk about him that way, but that is not solely how he will be used. Frankly, if all he was was a 6th OL, it would make backing him up easy as any OL could, but would also make life easier for the defense, as defenses are capable of defending a 6 man front. I will be you he still runs routes. He will be on the move far more than the rest of our OL. He will block downfield, as well as stay back. If all we do is keep him on the LOS to block, his value is nearly negated. I think it more a matter of changing the role if he goes down. He is a nitch player, and you just can't have a backup for every nitch player. If he goes down, then you alter your plans some to adapt to the new guy.

I don't know about that. I have a feeling the owners have probably already talked about this, and those who want to write the big deals do so knowing they could be forced to deal w/ the effects of those deals once the cap is back. In the end though. as most of the money is pushed to year one on these deals, they really aren't cap busters when the cap returns, that is.

I still have big time reservations about Clark. One poster said he is a SS in any system but Pitt, which has a SS (Polamalu) who is really a FS. It is Polamalu who is really the roamer. He more often roams closer to the box, but roams just the same, and has to speed to cover downfield too. Clark is more like a SS playing deep. He can lay wood, but I would rather have a FS that can prevent the catch, rather than one who just makes a great tackle. Look at Pitt this past year. With Polamalu healthy, their defense was damn good. When he went out, frankly, their D wasn't that good, and I am not sure Clark did much to step up and take up the slack. I am not totally against Clark, but simply have not heard enough to convince me he is much different than what we have had for a while. He may be better than Payne, Steltz, etc., but if he is in the same mold, I question the move just the same. I am just tired of adding players who everyone else seems to think of as a SS, but who we considered a FS.

One thing I can't help but think about. Martz' track record w/ TEs is pretty well known, and he was asked about Olsen numerous times early on. His answers were always talking about how great of a TE Olsen is, how he has never really had a lot to work with at TE, and that is why he has not had more production from the position, and then goes back to Olsen talking about how athletic yada yada yada. Point is, he was asked early on if Olsen would be a fit, and went out of his way to talk about how great Olsen is. Maybe this is all crap, but you have to wonder how bad Martz looks if he does a 180. I mean, if Olsen is that good, Martz must not be that good of a coach if he can't find a way to utilize him in his scheme. Hell, I think Martz may have said that too. I just wonder if getting rid of Olsen would make Martz look like crap, and therefor if it is a move he would even push for. Honestly, I am not sure there is really a need to dump any of the TEs. I would take the 4th TE over McKie any day of the week.