nfoligno

So you would have been okay w/ the idea of a price hike last year, w/ the argument that we now have Cutler to sell? I get that it is bad timing, but I also get the reasons for it. It would have been bad timing last year too, regardless of Cutler, due to the economy. Even though the teams costs rose due to some new tax increase, they held ticket prices the same due to the economy. Sure, you have to pay the piper this year, but I still think the team deserves a bit of credit for holding last year.

Oh, I understand tackle stats can be over-rated. It always cracks me up when someone makes a big deal about a CB having big tackle numbers. To me, that just points out the CBs inability to prevent the catch and should not be applauded. Not as bad w/ a FS, but yea, big tackle numbers doesn't mean great play. My point was more about how he took a bigger pounding this past year (reflected in the tackles) and yet was more healthy than with us. Field conditions may well be an issue. I know some talk about Club Lovie, and while it could be argued a lighter camp keeps players fresh, others argue our camp doesn't prepare the body enough for the season. Honestly, I also wonder a bit about the trainers. Seems like every year you hear about players deciding on their own to seek a 2nd opinion, and that 2nd opinion provides a worse conclusion than what the team doctors gave. Or maybe a player returns too soon from injury, and then ends up worse. I really don't know. Maybe its just plain bad luck, but it just seems like we do suffer more than our fair share of injuries, and wonder why. You may well be onto something w/ regard to the turf.

In doing a bit of research on other safeties, I came across Mike Brown's name. Honestly, as KC was so irrelevant this past year, I had not really taken notice to what Brown did. I didn't even know whether he was a starter all year or not. When I checked his stats, I couldn't believe it. Brown plays in, and started, all 16 games. He has not played the full 16 games since 2003. Brown had 103 total tackles, more than he ever had w/ the Bears, including 79 solo, which matches his high as a rookie. Yea, I realize tackles don't necessarily reflect overall play, but consider the injury relationship. A guy who could not stay healthy played all 16 games, and did so racking up the most tackles in his career. 2 sacks. Most since 2001. 4 Fumble recoveries, most ever. 3 picks, which is his most since 2005. I just can't believe how well he played this year. Good for him. Maybe nothing should be read into this, but you have to wonder why a guy who could not stay healthy in Chicago found the fountain of youth as soon as he left. If Brown was a lone example, fine, but we seem to have more than our fair share of injuries each year. How much of our injury woes are due to factors other than simply the players? Doctors, trainers, practice/camp habbits? I don't know. Just throwing it out there.

Az, From what I read, he has a $4m roster bonus coming up, so cutting him would have more financial impact than just on the cap, which is a non-factor this year. Honestly, I really do not know a ton about Rolle. There is no question as to our need, but at the same time, I don't want to give top tier money (which he seems to be seeking) for a guy if he isn't all that.

It looks bad, but I can't say it is really that bad. As I understand it, the team was set to raise prices last year, but along w/ a group of other owners, choose to freeze prices last season due to the economy. The key is, as I understand it, something about an increase in the entertainment tax or something that has cut into the team's profits. So the team lost money (not overall, but in this specific area) by simply not raising prices. Understand, I think the seat prices are too high, but I also think the whole system is simply out of whack.

Ours safeties aren't "that" small, at least not the SS'. Steltz, Afalava and Payne are all around 210-215lbs. Afalava is the shortest at 5'11,then Payne a 6' and Steltz at 6'1. That is smaller than Rolle, yes, but not 5'10 200lbs. For me our problem at finding a FS is this assanine belief that our safeties are interchanbable, thus leading us to continually add players everyone else out there views as in-the-box safeties, and yet we ask them to drop back 20+ yards and play deep zones. If we want a safety that can cover, then we need to freaking add a coverage safety, and not these box-safeties. As for Rolle, here is my key isssue. He may be good, hell, maybe great, I don't know, but while he may well provide a very significant upgrade to what we have at SS, how great of an impact would an upgrade at SS truly have on our team? I am not saying we have a great run D, far from it, but to me, the key issue lies in our inability to cover. We can't rush the passer and we don't have the secondary to compensate. QBs seem to pass at will on us. Rolle may well be an upgrade, but IMHO, an upgrade at SS would not have the overall impact needed. I guess it goes back to your strategy or school of thought. Some simply believe you draft the best player available, regardless of need. I believe you have to factor need, and then try and find the BPA w/in your set of needs. That doesn't mean you reach for a player at a single need position, but if we go into the draft w/ a list of needs like OT, OG, DT, DE, CB and FS, then I think it likely you can draft a BPA within that set of needs. Drafting BPA regardless of need, IMHO, is a luxury solid teams may be able to afford, but a team that hasn't reached the playoffs in 3 years needs to better address needs.

I'm with Mad on this. We can talk day and night about what the coaches should do, but we have to really consider what they are likely to do. That is a key reason I have said I am against Holt. If we brought Holt in, I have a hard time of seeing Martz simply letting Holt sit on the bench, even if our young WRs prove equal or better. Its one thing to talk about liking this veteran or that veteran, but you have to ask whether (a) that veteran will accept a backup role and ( whether the coach is likely to allow that. If we signed Bulger, there is simply no doubt in my mind that he would become the #2 w/ Martz as the OC. I don't care at what point in the season Cutler goes down, I would rather Hanie enter the game than Bulger. I simply see no reason to add Bulger. In no situation would I want him on the field. If we view our #3 QB (even if he were accepting of this role) as a player you view as a coach you never want to play, then why have the depth position at all. Just go w/ 2 QBs and have a 3rd on the practice squad just in case. Honestly, I would take a practice squad guy over Bulger.

Would the same hold true if Cutler had been injured at the beginning of the season, unable to play for the remainder of the year? Difference is Cutler was not on a one year deal. In order to bomb I would think that he would have had to had the chance, as did Pace, to play the full year and not really show any contribution. The fact that he fell injured twice, I might add, doesn't really constitute utter failure as you suggest. Instead, if he were to return to the field this year and not do anything or fall injured again, then maybe I would cast the light of failure upon him. Or that he has considerably bad luck. However, based upon not only his past but his desire to do well for the Bears, I feel he has not yet "bombed". Here is the key. He signed a one year deal. What did he do for us under the terms of that one year deal? Absolutely nothing. Yes, he was injured, but that doesn't really change the bottom line. He provides reason and explanation, but doesn't change the outcome. He was signed to a one year deal, and yes, I would absolutely say he bombed under that deal. He may prove a huge value under a new contract, but I see no argument to say he didn't bomb his original contract. He signed a one year deal and provided next to nothing. If his original deal was a 3, 4 or 5 year deal, I would not say he bombed. Slow start? But his first contact and begun and ended, and he provided nothing under that.

I know little about Rolle, but if he isn't a center field safety, I want no part of him. IMHO, that has been a big problem of ours. We continue to draft prototypical SS', and try to play them at FS. It worked w/ Mike Brown, who was once considered a solid SS prospect as he didn't have the speed to play free, but made up for that w/ intelligence, anticipation and angles, but he was the exception, not the rule. We have continually tried to add in-the-box safeties and ask them to play FS, and their coverage skills were very lacking. I am not saying we have a stud SS on the roster, but between Afalava, Steltz and Payne, I am far more comfortable w/ our SS prospects than FS. My concern is having one from this group play FS, or add another similar player to play that coverage role. We don't need to add yet another in-the-box safety. We need a damn centerfielder.

You forgot about Tinoisomoa. Hasn't bombed but still undetermined.... Um, how has Pisa not bombed? He was signed to a one year deal, and played how much? We signed him to a new deal, right? But that has no bearing on last years deal. I would absolutely say he bombed. Holt would still be able to contribute in other ways, not necessarily as just a receiver. Think on the field coach. Then hire him as a WR coach. Frankly, I would prefer him to Drake. By the by, no thanks on Bulger. Good kid but the Bears don't need him. I think Hanie is suitable. He reminds me a lot of Orton. Bulger could be the worst hire of any of the group of former Rams.

I had just added this to my last post as I thought it something worth pointing out when I read your post. I remember all the hell Angelo took for not checking the box, but that was a mistake, while what Ruskell did was intentional. Nice move.

Yea, the audio really rips him. Says he and Holmgren just about hated each other. Says Ruskell was a total ego maniac. Says he was told he would not be back w/ the team at the end of the season, and rather than just ride out the end of the year, quit on the team w/ 5 games remaining. Mentioned that his first year as GM was very solid, but over the last 3 years, his drafts and FA moves have been just aweful. Among the moves Ruskell is blamed for was the Hutchinson issue. Said Ruskell choose to transition tag Hutch, rather than franchise tag him, in order to save a small amount of money, and that gave Minny the window needed to steal Hutch. Thinking back to the hell Angelo got for the non-checked box issue some years ago, thought Bear fans could appreciate this move. The Chicago local guys mention Gabrial could be next out the door, and said the rumors talk about Ruskell basically being a VP over both college and pro, though that is just speculation.

Holy crap. If you all have not listened to this audio, you should. Not saying you take the Seattle radio guy at his word, but it is pretty shocking to hear his opinion, http://www.670thescore.com/topic/play_wind...audioId=4394427

I believe that could be why he was escorted out. That research (or what was written) stays with the team. All of those reports are with the team. Now he might have some info on what the Bears plans or, but I can't think of anyone all that concerned with what a middle of the pack team is going to do in the off-season. And ultimately only one team would benefit. One, documents may have stayed behind, but the knowledge walked with him. Two, you don't think anyone would care how we evaluate the FAs? I mentioned in another post, but remember when we called Thomas Jones at midnight? If another team liked TJ, and knew we were hard after him, you don't think that team could have altered our ability to make the quick strike? Just to throw this out there, but I wonder if agents wouldn't call him. Say the agent for Kampman is curious to know just how the Bears view their client. Oh, the Bears have a top grade on my boy? Okay, price just went up. Three. You say only one team would benefit. Well, I would argue that is one team to many. Make the move two months ago, when you made the other moves, and no team benefits. Make the move a month from now, and no team benefits. The Bears have a shot at getting twice the information and lets be honest, anyone with half a brain could look on the Bears roster and determine our needs. One. You have said that before. We get twice the info. If we fired him, how much do we really value his info? If we do value his info, why did we fire him? Two. Sure, you and I can look at the team and state they need a DE. But can you tell my how they grade Kampman? Where on their board or how in their evaluations does Peppers rank? We may know they have needs at this position or that position, but we don't know how they evaluate the various players at these positions. It has been reported that the Bears brass has not yet identified the players they are going to target anyway and my guess is that is why they made the move when they did (they get his research, yet let him go before he knew too much about the off-season plans). One, I question that our directing of pro scouting would not know who we were looking at two weeks before FA begins. Two, even if we have not make any ultimate decisions, he would know how we have graded out players, and thus have a pretty solid idea who we like and don't like.

As for the timing, I agree that it makes sense. I believe that most of the scouting was already done, and now Angelo will get two opinions on the FAs. JMO I'm sorry, but that still doesn't make sense to me. We wait until he has finished doing to the work, and then fire him? If we want to fire him, doesn't that mean we have less than total confidence in his work? So why keep him through the process? To me, you either fire him two months ago, or you fire him in another month or so after we were into FA. Remember our midnight call to Thomas Jones? If another team wanted him, and then found out he topped our list of FAs, you don't think they would use that to their advantage by making a quick call also w/ a very good offer?

I knew someone would throw this out there. Why is it that every has-been from the old great StL teams must be mentioned for us? Archuleta comes in and bombs. We bring in Pace, and he flops. Now this year many want Holt, and now even mention of Bulger. Any of these players in their prime would have been great, but now? Bulger has flat sucked for 3 years. Yea, he isn't surrounded by great talent anymore, but still, he has been awful. He has no ability to avoid pressure, and behind our OL, that would mean disaster. Accuracy has gone down the last three years: 58%, 57% and 56% this past year. QB rating has been below 72 the last three years. Each of the last three years, he has thrown more picks than scores. This guy just flat out sucks. I would rather insert Hanie if need be than go w/ Bulger.

BUT now any of the other 31 teams can also have access to our research. Again, if you want to add someone new, fine. Hire the other guy for whatever position you want, and retain Bobby until after we have made our FA moves.

Two additional thoughts/angles. One. While many, including myself, has looked at the power angle of this between Lovie and Angelo, I have to wonder how true this may be if we do hire Ruskell, as some have reported. He is tight w/ Angelo. Thus, if our new hire is an Angelo BFF rather than a Lovie BFF, that would put into question this being a Lovie power play. Two. One more point regarding timing, which PFT does point out. W/ FA just about 2 weeks away, most of the work has likely already been done. Decisions may not have yet been made, but the scouting reports on most players/positions likely has already taken place. The person in charge of those scouting reports was just fired. That means he takes w/ him all the knowledge too. Not that we will miss that knowledge, but now someone who knows what positions we are targeting, what players we have rated highest, and such is available to any. Seriously. If you are going to make this move, I just would think you make it either two months ago, or a month or two down the road. Even if we wanted to bring in Ruskell, or someone else, you can do so w/o letting Bobby walk. Firing him now just doesn't make sense. Crap, even if he was surfing porn or something, you send him home and retain his rights, and thus also keep his mouth shut.

IMHO, the question is not whether or not you need a "winner" at QB, but whether or not it is right to claim Cutler isn't a "winner". The dude went to freaking Vandy. Vandy is in one of the toughest college conferences, and not a school that often ends up with a winning record. What did they have this past year, 2 wins? I love what John Lynch said, "If this guy can take a bunch of future doctors and lawyers and have them competing against the Florida Gators, this guy is a stud." You want a winner. In his last game at Vandy, he beat Tenn (at Tenn) which was the first time Vandy had one since 1982. As a pro, before writing him off, take a bit of a closer look. He only was in Denver for 3 seasons, the first of which he only started the final 5 games of the year. No, he didn't have a winning record in Denver, but how much was on him and how much was an an awful defense which was a total joke. He had solid numbers, always improving, in his 3 years in Denver, but that defense was simply so bad. His final season in Denver, they had the #2 offense, and the 29th ranked defense. Was he supposed to play defense too. So he had one season in Chicago. He had no OL, no run game, young and inexperienced WRs and an OC who did so poorly he was fired. I would say many "winners" would have struggled in such a situation. So the issue I have is the belief that (a) Cutler isn't a winner and ( you can look at any player, even a QB, in such a box as to not consider other areas. I think you would agree Payton Manning is a winner. Well, if he were the QB for Vandy, do you believe Vandy would have been a leader in the SEC? Would Manning in Denver have been so much better than Cutler that their defense would have suddenly played well? Even in Chicago this past year, I think Manning would have struggled. You can have a "winner" but if he is in a losing situation, I question how much you can put that on him.

Honestly, I am not going to put too much stock in the "escorted out" part, at least not until I hear more. He has been w/ the team a long time, and could have been walking out w/ a friend/co-worker, and that may well be enough for a reporter to claim he was "escorted out". Now if I read that security escorted him out, that is another thing. Honestly, the whole thing bothers the hell out of me the more I think about it. Why the hell fire him now? You don't suddenly look at the roster and realize something today you didn't know a month or two ago. If you didn't feel he had done his job, you fire him earlier. You don't wait until 2 weeks before FA to fire the guy who runs the veteran player scouts. How would it look if we fired our college director 2 weeks prior to the draft? Then throw in the part about him being tight w/ Angelo but not Smith. Take it another step. We hired the OC (Martz) who Angelo supposedly never was in favor of, but Smith wanted. We promoted Marinelli to DC, which again, was the top choice of Smith but Angelo was against. At this point, is it fair to ask who is running the team?

Okay, didn't get quite that much snow. Damn, those pictures were crazy.

I'll be honest. I have never been that thrilled with DePaul. Simply too many of our veteran additions failed to live up to expectations. Yes, we can list off some that went well above expectations (TJ and Brown come to mind) but too many failed. Regardless, what bothers me here is the timing. Why did we suddenly lose faith in Bobby. FA starts in what, 2 weeks, and we just now fire the man in charge of scouting for FA? This is the sort of decision I would have expected at the same time as letting go of our coaches. Yes, I know we have a GM who makes the decisions on FAs, but there is no way you can say our director of proffesional scouting didn't have a big role. Again, I have no issue w/ dumping Bobby, but just question the timing of it.

This is one thing that worries me. Olsen is just an example. Angelo and Lovie are in a must win now situation. If they don't win, they are gone. That is not really so new for Lovie, as coaches are always under such pressure, but the GM is supposed to be thinking about the future as much as the present. But we have a GM who is in the same situation as the coach. That is why, as posteres talk about trading this player or that player, I really am not sure it is a good idea. Take Olsen. Why does everyone want to trade him? If we brought in a coach like Chud, how many of those who now want to trade Olsen would instead be talking about how great Olsen could be under Chud? That is what I want to avoid. Making a ton of moves based solely on this coaching staff. Anything can happin, sure. But I think the safer bet is that our current group of coaches will be gone sooner rather than later. How sick would we be if we did trade Olsen, only to see Martz gone after the year, and then we bring in a coach who utilizes the TE. We have to be careful about making too many short-sighted moves. Trading Olsen would, IMHO, be a very short-sighted move.

Ouch. That is why I like it here. While not the norm, the 12 inches the other day was pretty awesome. Better still, this week is supposed to be in the mid 50s and sunny. Thursday is supposed to hit 60, and again, sunny. I think I might have to take Thursday off and make a tee time

No thanks. I am good where I am. Snow already nearly gone, and weather showing the temp going to get up to the 60s. I may even be able to swing some clubs this week.