nfoligno

First, who the F'ing hell was that. "my boy?" I have never seen or heard that guy before. He was so freaking bad I could not even finish the video. Love how he spends so much time throwing out disclaimers, while spashing images like the one in the top left corner which resembles the Chicago Tribune. He is a fan that picks out a couple plays. Guess what. If allowed, I could use one or two plays probably from every game to make a scrub look good and a pro bowler look bad. I am sorry, but I honestly can not take that guy serious. If I am just ignorant, and he is some guru I don't know about, please let me know, but the guy was just plain bad. As for the earlier stuff, I am sure Martz does have pull, but having enough pull to trade away one of Angelo's 1st round picks is another story. Something I don't think has been talked about, but if Angelo has any hope of surviving, he needs his former picks to step up. Even if Lovie gets the axe, if a bunch of Angelo draft picks do well, he could stick. Trading away one of his 1st round picks, and I would add one of his better 1st round picks, does little to help his case. I can see Martz having pull in personnel decisions, but that could mean as little as who starts, rather than the opposite extreme of trading away a 1st rounder. When Martz came on board, he talked often about how Olsen would be in his plans. He did so as though he had been through it, likely in the interview w/ Angelo. Point is, I think it was something already discussed, and why discuss it if you are just going to so quickly go away from it. Sorry, but I think you are reaching here. While I get the arguments, and enjoy enough the discussion in the "what if" world, you seem to now be suggesting this as possible. Do you honestly see this as possible, because I sure don't.

Did we? It is honestly so hard to keep up with the suffle its hard to know. I do remember in the offseason last year talk of his playing SS. I remember because I recall thinking, "huh". No really. DM at FS, CB or nickel I can understand. SS though? That sounds about as right as Afalava Payne or Steltz as a FS. Honestly, I feel bad for the kid. I really do. I am not saying he would have ever developing into anything more than he has, but it just has to suck being told you are going to learn a new position every freaking year. What I really don't understand is, Steltz shows a little hope toward the end of the year, and while he faded, Afalava started strong. Hell, we still have Payne too. Not saying any are pro bowl, but all would seem to be better SS' than DM. When talking about him at CB or FS, at least I understood the need angle, but I am not sure I understand the angle at SS.

We simply disagree as to the value of Olsen, and/or the time Martz will be around. As much as I like our young WRs, I still believe Olsen is our greatest asset of the bunch, and I do not want to trade him due to a coach/scheme which may be here no more than one year. I would point out you (to a degree) must also consider Olsen our top value as no one is going to give us a 2nd for any of our WRs. I don't think any of our receivers would net a 3rd. I honestly do not know what Olsen's role will be in Martz system. He has never utilized the TE, but has thus far gone out of his way to "say" he would use Olsen. I think Tice may also be a factor, as he was formerly a TE coach, as well as OL, and may be able to better develop Olsen's blocking ability.

Plus, although I wasn't really on board with the Martz move, I would actually like to see the Bears do well, so he needs to get people in here that fit his offense. With his comments, it looks like big blocking TE's. We shall see. You don't need a 2nd round pick for a big blocking TE. Hell, you don't need a pick in the top half of the draft. You can get one late in the draft, or cheap in FA. Blocking TEs are simply not a high commodity, and can be had pretty inexpensive. Its the ones who can be receiving weapons which are of higher value. If Martz wants a blocking Te, there is no need to trade Olsen to get one. Also, you ask about K.Davis. Everyone talks about him. If he is so good, why would we be looking at add a blocking TE? Frankly, we have Clark for another year, and he is a solid blocker and at least an average receiver. I just don't see the need to add a blocking TE when I think we already have one (maybe two) on the roster.

I disagree in that I think he does a good job in coverage as a nickel DB. IMHO, a key reason is the nickel DB has a more simplified role. He has a WR who he is responsible for, and you just don't have the same level of read/react recognition which doomed him as a FS. He is played against lesser WRs as a nickel than he did as a starting CB, and has simply shown better ability overall as a nickel DB, and not just as a blitzer. I think the key is limiting how much he has to read. Read/recognition was his greatest weakness, IMHO, as a FS. He was simply too slow to read what was developing, and while he has athleticism, it wasn't enough to make up for the late breaks. A nickel DB has a more limited requirement for reading the play though. He has a more simple assignment, and IMHO, did a better job executing that assignment. A SS has a lesser reading requirement than a FS, but there is still a greater level of read/react, and that is why I think he would struggle as a SS, much the way he did as a FS. Put him at nickel, the more simplified role, and let him cover opponents #3 WRs, and otherwise keep him on special teams.

I just think he is overrated in general. How many times has he won a jump ball over a corner? Oh, no argument on this one. You often hear about players playing bigger than they are. Olsen in many ways is the opposite. He plays shorter than he is. And I think you are really exaggerating the amount of times the #1 corner was covering Olsen. The only time Olsen was covered by the #1 corner was if he was the widest guy. This did not happen a majority of the time. I think it happened more than you realize. GB played Woodson on Olsen in the first game, and in our copy cat league, numerous other teams joined in. It wasn't just a matter of teams playing their top corner back on him though. Teams would cheat a safety to his side, or jam him at the LOS w/ "over" help. Teams often played nickel against us so as to put an extra CB on Olsen, or in such a situation, would use their #1 CB on Olsen and 2nd/3rd on the WRs. Check out this Pompeii article written back in October. More teams used similar schemes against Olsen after that too. http://mobile.chicagotribune.com/inf/infom...&nopaging=1 I dont think he is good enough to be mentioned with the likes of Gates. Olsen is an above average receiving TE against a LB who he can run away from. His blocking sucks. Dez Clark is a better receiver in traffic. And a better blocker. I am not comparing him to Gates in the sense of how good he is. I am comparing him to Gates in the sense of how we should be using him. Gates is not a good blocker. Frankly, I am not sure he is even much better than Olsen. But Gates is used so well as a receiver that few care. But watch Gates play. He isn't just used on 5-10 yard passes. He runs downfield. I am not trying to say that, even if used similar, Olsen would put up similar numbers. What I am saying though is we are not utilizing him. Part of that is on Turner, but a greater issue was an OL that could not protect the QB long enough for downfield routes to often be called. If you put Olsen out wide as a WR, he doesn't play to his size advantage. So it is a waste. I think Martz was quoted as saying that if the TE can't block then he is just a WR and he would rather have an actual WR there. I remember that quote, and it was a key issue why I was not in support of adding him. Look, Olsen didn't have a great year. No argument. But more than any receiver on our roster, it was Olsen who teams game planned to take out of the game. When Martz was first hired, everyone thought he was going to be this changed guy who was going to use Olsen and run more, but I have seen evidence of him being the same as he ever was. He will fit the players to his system not the system to the players, IMO. No argument, and I said the same over and over again when others wanted to hire Martz, which I did not. If Martz were hired and expected to be here long term, I may be more on board w/ trading Olsen, but I think Martz is a short term hire, and I do not want to trade away long term assets based on a short term piece of the puzzle.

Yea, but most reports right now have us looking at Rolle. How do you feel about that?

The funny, to me, is how we have always brought in SS' hoping they could play FS. The one and only player who fits the mold of a FS we plan to move to SS. DM has been in the league for long enough, and I think we have seen what he has to offer. DM is a very good nickel DB, and a GREAT return man. Here's an idea. Why not play him as a nickel DB and in the return game. I know this is a novel idea, playing players where they have shown the most promise, but hey, why not give it a try.

Be careful about reading too much into anything. Here is exactly what the article, which PFT quotes, said, "and the Redskins are expected to pursue defensive end Julius Peppers" That's it. It was on line from an entire story. The writer was not offering any insight on the Peppers situation. Hell, he was not even offering a true opinion of his own. All he did was say Wash was expected to pursue Peppers. Is that even newworthy. Every year, Wash "is expected to" pursue every FA on the market. Just ask the agents. Every agent out there right now is starting a rumor that Washington is interested in their clients, hoping to up the initial offer of other teams. Wash very well may want Peppers. My point here is only not to read too much into that one quote, as it really did say anything.

Agree and disagree. I agree Olsen can be over-rated at times, but I also think part of his struggles have come from how we have used him. He was drafted in large part due to his ability to stretch the field, but how often have we used him in such a manner. Our OL is simply so bad that Olsen has been forced to run shorter routes, and that is simply a waste of his talent. If that is all we are going to do, we may as well simply use Clark. Also, and I have said this before, but Olsen was often matched up w/ opponents #1 CB. That says a lot of the respect he gets from other teams. Also, think about this. As well as our WRs did last year, consider the ripple effect of Olsen being covered by opponents #1. That means our WRs were facing opponents #2 and #3 rather than #1 and #2. I absolutely believe Olsen can have a big impact for the team. I agree he would not look so good if he were simply moved to WR. His role should be more similar to that of Gates in SD. The problem is, will Martz use him in such a manner? I have no idea, and frankly, I am skeptical. At the same time, I think Olsen will be around longer than Martz, and I don't want to throw away what I believe a very solid talent in favor of a short term coach.

Westbrook - I would not feel better. Forte struggles in power running, due in large part to his upright running style which just doesn't translate well on 3rd and 1, for example. I would not feel real confident in Westbrook in this regard either, especially w/ the concussions and overall weaker running game of late. TJ - I just don't see the point in talking about TJ. He is likely the top RB on the market due to still being relatively young and healthy. He is coming off a big year, and will be seeking a #1 role, not one he would have to share. He will be seeking big money, and simply does not seem a good fit for us, unless we were going to essentially give up on Forte and simply choose TJ as our stud, which I just can't see happening. LT - If he came cheap and accepting of a #2 role, he could be interesting, but I just don't see that happening. Honestly, I just don't feel there is a need here to go after one of the big names. One, if we improve our OL, I think that will have the biggest effect on our run game. Two, we need depth, not a starter, and we don't have to go after a big name to get depth.

But why do you think that. I realize they are of similar size, if you just look at a stat sheet, but everything I have ever heard about the comparison stops when you look away from the paper. The two are simply built very different. In college, Wolfe has great speed, and used it to great effect. But while he had great speed for college, it is a bit different in the NFL. Reggie Bush has better speed and quickness, but that hasn't been enough in the NFL either, and Wolfe has less. In college, I don't believe Wolfe was known for making tacklers miss w/ juke moves or breaking tackles. He was more of a north/south runner. He would take advantage of a whole, or catch a toss to the outside and turn the corner. But the NFL is simply faster than college, and players who simply win w/ speed and little more in college don't always translate to the NFL. I have no problem, and never did, w/ the concept of giving Wolfe more opportunities. I have no problem w/ the concept of better utilizing him. At times I think the staff thought to use him more like Warrick Dunn, another small back, but one who could actually run up the middle. Dunn would use his short height to advantage by essentially hiding behind the OL and then slipping through a hole, but I don't think Wolfe has that ability. Wolfe could be more effective if used on the outside, but the problem is, he is not a #2 RB. If Forte goes down, I just can't see Wolfe stepping up and taking over. I don't think many believe we need to get rid of Wolfe. That isn't the issue. Wolfe as our #3 is fine. He could be a good change of pace back, especially if you use him properly. He is also a tremendous special teams player. But he is not a #2 RB. He is not a RB many feel confident can carry the load if Forte goes down, or simply struggles for a 2nd year. It is the #2 role we need to fill.

Yea, I don't see the fluff, insult or incompetence. A group of WRs who were expected to be nothing put up better numbers than far more veteran groups did over the last 7 or 8 years. We have a group of young Wrs we are developing who showed tremendous potential, promise, and even production. That is the exact opposite of incompetence. I guess the overall image of our actually developing talent we drafted, and watching that talent produce is so out of the norm, we don't know what to think when we do see it.

I failt to see what is insulting or how this article is of incompetence. Simply states we have a group of young WRs who, though less experienced than many, still put up better numbers than any WR unit (Bears) has for years. It further states we are not interested in a washed up WR and would rather continue the development of our promising young group, you know, like how many other NFL teams do it. How exactly is this insulting?

I agree the perception of the ownership being cheap is false, but I have found that perception is too ingrained to change minds. There are times we do make decisions based more on financial reasons than purely football, but what I think fans fail to realize is most every team does the same thing. But before Lucky jumps into this discussion, that isn't the point of my post. What will we spend this offseason. IMHO, it depends on what is out there. I imagine there are a couple players who we would be allowed to spend big on. Say Peppers or Kampman, to use a pair of examples. If we can not get one of those two though, I think we are more likely looking at a group of middle of the road FAs. Here is a concern of mine. What if we do make a run at Peppers? What if ownership realizes the PR potential of adding Peppers, while Angelo and Phillips realize the football value. So, against all expectations, we sign him. IMHO, that would use up whatever allowance JA has to spend this offseason. For some, the response would be so what. We got Peppers, and the ripple effect will make us great. I however see a team filled with holes, and no one player is going to come in and rescue us. Look at Cutler last year. Simply adding a pro bowl QB isn't enough when you have too many other holes. Same w/ Peppers. He may help, but our DL as a whole sucks and so does the secondary. We need multiple good players rather than one great player, especially when that great player comes w/ red flags. W/o a 1st or 2nd round pick, we honestly should not expect any rookie to start, much less be an imidiate upgrade to a current player. Thus, if we add Peppers and a bunch of veteran minimum players, I think we will see little improvement.

Add CB to that list, as I have read this is a good draft, both in top end and depth, for CB. Also, I have read this is a great draft for OT, but a very weak draft for OGs. Just to point out the distinction rather than simply saying OL. I had not really heard about RB. FS, CB and OT are three of our top needs, and each are considered excellent in this draft. DL is also a top need, but I have not read about this draft being as great in that area as the others mentioned. I still hope to see an OT drafted in the 3rd, but I like how our needs matchup well with the drafts talent.

Ditto all the positive sentiments. Glad you and your family are good. Hope others are well too.

If Adams was a free agent he find work but teams wouldn't be beating down his door. He's an average starting caliber NFL player. Considering the way we have used him, I agree no one would be knocking down his door, though he would find work. At the same time, that doesn't mean it would indicate his true worth. Again, it is more a difference of philosophy. Angelo wants athleticism and all pass rushers. Sounds nice until you see RBs killing you. I see no reason why we can't try to have 3 pass rushers on the DL, w/ one inside that can stuff the run. That reminds me of Terry Shea deciding Q Mitchell sucked at guard because LT was his natural position. That's not a fair comparison, because unlike Mitchell, Omiyale is a legit NFL player . . . just not a very good one. IMO, if he's mediocre at guard he'll be mediocre at tackle. Since we haven't purged Pace, doesn't that mean we're still looking to keep him at guard? Uh, yea, that is a very unfair comparison. Not just because Omiyale is a legit NFL player, as you say, but because he previously has shown he can play OT. That is where he was developed in Carolina, and played when a starter went down with injury. He played well enough at OT for us to throw a bunch of money his way. I think there is a belief that any OT can play OG, and if they can't play OG, then they can't play OT, but I disagree. There is simply a difference in the position. Some players play better in space, which caters to an OT. Also, OGs need much better knee bend for the quick leverage necessary, while OTs don't always play as low to the ground. Look, I am not saying he can play OT. I am saying his play at OT is what our scouts liked, and what drew out attention. It is where he was developed, and the position I have so often read is considered his natural position. I think Forte is more similar to a RB like TJ than Benson. In the former blocking scheme, Forte was able to find more holes to run in than he was this past year. OL was a problem, but frankly, even when there were holes, I felt Forte did a poor job of taking advantage. With Pace I think about the 49er game. Pace was great in pass protection. As soon as he suffered the head injury, we replaced him with Schaffer and the DE was all over Cutler. There was a noticeable drop-off. I concede the o-line looked one helluva a lot better overall without Pace. I'll be honest. I don't recall that game. But I recall many others where he was simply abused, both in the pass and run. In fact, I think he was worse vs the pass than the run, and he was bad in the run game, so that says a lot. I think Pace is simply done. As for him not wanting to move to the right side, there is no team in the league that will sign him to be their starting LT. It's either move to the right or hang it up. JA likes to give veteran players a chance to find a new home, so why have we kept him? I'm guessing it's because he might be a fit for what Martz wants to do. I don't know. I just don't get it. Would you agree it would make no sense to play him at LT? If so, then you are suggesting we are keeping him to play RT. But you always said he plays poorly on run downs, which implies a lack of power and knee bend/ leverage. Well, the RT is supposed to be your more powerful position, and if an OT struggled w/ power on the left, why would you play well on the right? As for Martz scheme, that is what is really scary. In Martz scheme, he often puts OTs on an island as he doesn't like to give help w/ chip blocks. That takes away a potential weapon. Leaving Pace on an island is a good way to get Cutler killed.

We're trying them both at DE AND DT . . . which indicates they're not good at either one. Not encouraging. I really would not expect much from Melton. I admit to being biased. I thought he was a bad pick, and just don't care for him. We are talking about a kid who was a RB at Texas, then moved to defense and played DE for (I think) about a season and a half. Coming to the Bears, he was really raw, and from what I read, prior to the injury, it showed in camp. Now, after he spent time trying to learn the DE position, and we have a dire need at DE, we are talking about him at DT. That really says a lot. Gilbert has more potential, IMHO, but I really think we are skrewing him up the way we did DM's development. He was drafted, and IMHO, most talked about him at DT, and that just seemed what his most natural fit would be in our system when looking at his body style and such. Then we talk about him at DE, as I think most felt he would replace Wale. Then we add Adams in trade, and again, Gilbert is talked about at DT. Adams dies and I have heard more of Gilbert at DE. Point is, what position he is best suited to play seems like an after-thought to our need. I get the idea of filling a need, but question the idea of moving players back and forth so much. That is fine for a backup role player like Idonije, but I had hoped we had higher expectations for our 3rd round pick.

For me, I can't help but think the idea of moving Tillman to FS is so "Bears". For years, we needed a LT. Do we go out and get a LT? Hell no. Lets see. We have an OG in Gandy, and move him outside. We had Bernard Robertson at one point line up at LT. Hell, I would even point out John Tait was a RT who we moved to LT out of need. Point is, we needed a LT and rather than go get a LT, we continually tried to play other position players there, and it most always failed. FS has been a problem position for some time. Hatley hit paydirt when he drafted Brown in the 2nd, but Angelo has simply never had success. IMHO, a key reason is because Angelo has never really just simply gone after a FS. He goes after a bunch of in-the-box strong safeties, and tries to play there at free. Or he gets some small school athletic DB who moved around in college (DM) and he fails. But who has Angelo really added that was truly a pure FS? To me, the idea of moving Tillman to FS stinks of the same ol mentality. Instead of trying to fill a hole by moving this player over here or that player or there, why not just add a player for that position of need. We need a FS. Lets go add a FS. I know it is a novel idea, but I have seen other NFL teams try it, and you know what, it works.

Jason, I am with you in that we don't need to spend the sort of money it would take to sign Sproles, but I really think it a reach to say we already have (basically) Sproles on the roster. One, I know size is a big part of why you say that. Other analyists have point out. Just because a RB has similar height and weight doesn't mean they are actually similar. Sproles, and MDJ I believe, are small RBs but have a tremendous amount of muscle/build, whatever, in their lower bodies. Wolfe doesn't. Honestly, I am not sure why you are such a Wolfe fan. Wolfe was an over-rated reach the day we drafted him. I have even argued that we never really viewed him so much as a NFL RB but a special teams player. Coming off the SB, management felt they could make picks like this, and I have argued the belief we drafted him w/ the intention of making him the "up" return man to prevent squib kicks avoiding Hester. But in his rookie camp, he was just terrible in the return game, and they gave up. Has the team best used him? No. I would agree with you there. However, w/ the RB issues we have, I see no reason to put so much faith in him. Forte struggled last year, and behind Forte we had nothing. Say whatever you want about Turner, but he is gone. Time to move on. We need better depth behind Forte. I have no problem with the idea of wanting to get better looks at Wolfe, but I don't want to rely or count on him. Many want to make a move at WR, and I argue against it. Not just because we have young WRs, but because I believe we have young WRs who have already proven worthy of our trust. You can argue it isn't Wolfe's fault, but that is really beside the point. We can not afford to enter another season w/ no RB depth. That doesn't mean Wolfe is gone, but it does mean we need to add another RB who we can count on. Hey, you know I want OL. But there is no reason we can't add OL and a RB. I am not saying Sproles. Too much money. But I do believe we need to look to add a RB.

Like Schaffer, Adams is very average. He doesn't make big plays and I'm guessing he'd be average on any team. The only reason I called him "good" is that he's the only DT that doesn't look awful at times . . . which isn't saying much for our DT's. Either way, Schaffer doesn't seem to be a bruiser or a finesse player. I personally have always had a higher opinion of Adams. No, he isn't a big pass rusher, but he does play solid or better vs the run, and is an all around solid DT. The staff doesn't value his play as they want pass rushers, but I have always been of the opinion that you need a run stuffer at one of the two DT positions. Either way, if Omiyale couldn't play better then Beekman at RG, how the hell's he going to beat out Schaffer at RT??? Many have said OT is Omiyale's more natural position. Further, that is the position he had developed at since entering the NFL. I think there is very much a legit rationale to believing he could play better at RT than what we saw at OG. I disagree. Forte is a nice powerful straight-line runner. How does a finesse system help him? It's not like he's a scat-back who will make a ton of guys miss. The main problem IMO was Pace who was just god-awful in run-blocking because he couldn't run or get up-field. I sure as hell don't blame JA for gambling on him though. I think Forte is more similar to a RB like TJ than Benson. In the former blocking scheme, Forte was able to find more holes to run in than he was this past year. OL was a problem, but frankly, even when there were holes, I felt Forte did a poor job of taking advantage. What I think will be interesting is what we'll do with Pace. We haven't cut him and he hasn't retired which leads me to believe we're thinking about keeping him around as a RT. I thought he was pretty good in pass-protection, just awful in run-blocking. Since Martz likes to fling it a ton, he might be okay on the right side. We seem to like the combination of Chris Williams and Omiyale on the left side. Man, we could not disagree more. I thought he was flat out awful in pass protection as well as run blocking. He lacked the bend in run blocking and the quickness in pass protection. DEs seemed to turn the corner on him nearly at will. As bad as Omiyale was at the start of the year, I often pointed out how poorly I felt Pace played as well. I think the only reason we have not cut him is the expectation he retires. If he doesn't retire, I would expect to cut him. Why keep him? Williams played well at LT, and there is zero reason to move him back to RT at this point. Pace has said he doesn't want to move to RT, and I can't see him being content to simply ride the pine to provide depth. Pace is done. His flat out awful play last year should have proven that to all.

He was answering a direct question, from a chicago based sports talk show if he would like to come to Chicago. He said, "I would love to play in Chicago; I would love to play anywhere," Lets not pretend he went out of his way to state his desire to play for Chicago. Sounds more like a guy who just wants a job. Look, Westbrook was a God in PPR Fantasy Leagues, but when a RB is done, they are usually done. He is 30 now, and will be 31 by the start of the season. 30 is usually a pretty sharp dropoff for RBs, and he already showed his drop. Not often RBs get better after 30. He has suffered concussions and from what I read, his legs are gone. I agree we need RB depth, but do not agree we need to go out after every known name out there. When players like Westbrook and LT hit the market, there is a reason for it. Besides that fact, I personally don't think he is even the type of back we need. Forte has struggled, due in part to his running style, to pickup short yardage 1st downs. We need a powerful back that can put his head down and pick up and automatic couple yards every time. Westbrooks game is too similar to Fortes. We need a compliment, not a mirror image.

Not me. As good as TJ is, I also consider him a cancer. I fully believe he was key in the Benson drama. Not only creating a locker room rift, but also seemingly to always be unhappy with his contract. Then he gets his wish, goes to NY, who pays him what he wanted, but within a year or two, he was crying how he was underpaid and wanted a new deal. The guy is simply never happy, and always outspoken about it. There are plenty of questions right now about Forte, but I have no doubt in my mind that adding TJ would kill any potential Forte has.

The difference w/ Adams, IMHO, is that Adams seems to be held back because he doesn't fit what the staff wants in a DT. Schaffer I think is simply an average player. I get the comparison, but just see a bit of difference. I get what, in theory, the staff likes about Omiyale. They wanted to get bigger and more powerful on the OL, and thus why they prefer him to Beekman, who wins battles with leverage and technique rather than raw power. Problem is, Omiyale may be more powerful, that just didn't equate to better play. What still drives me nuts is the inconsistency. We had a more drop step, finesse blocking scheme, but had a power back in Benson. In other words, we didn't have a blocking scheme that seemed to match the RBs strengths. Then we get rid of Benson and add Forte, who seemed initially to be a good fit for that blocking scheme, but after one season, we then tried to alter our blocking to a more power scheme. That would have been good for Benson, but not so much for Forte, who would have been better off if we simply kept that more finesse system. That is something I hope Tice can bring. We need a scheme that matches both OL strengths and RBs.