jason

Louisville ran a 4-3.

Pretty much. That's one of the issues with the 3-4 transition: it kind of dumps Greene into the trash. Bostic and Briggs are obviously the ILB's, and SMC is obviously the Jack. I like the idea of taking a risk on him as the other OLB, but I don't think it would pay off because he's far too small and unrefined as a pass rusher to make a real impact on the edge. Other teams would have a better percentage of understanding where the rushers were coming from, thus somewhat negating the point of the 3-4.

I don't view that as necessarily a good thing. Just because those dudes knew each other and coached together doesn't mean it brings results. Hell, the 2010 Cowboys had an atrocious defense despite a pretty decent lineup.

If Ha-Ha Clinton Dix is available, I'd want the Bears to draft him. Otherwise, I think the idea of dropping back a bit and getting Donald is a great idea. Especially if the Bears can pick up an extra second or third. There seems to be some serious depth in this draft. Imagine a trade back about ten spots (worth approx. 360 points) to the 24th pick. That would basically equate to the other team's #2 pick. And even if the Bears didn't want to go this way, maybe moving to a 3-4, it still works out pretty well because Nix projects somewhere in the early 20s by many.

As an official I usually say most complaints are baseless because the average fan has no clue. But it was definitely shocking to see that nobody saw Bowman with the ball on the ground. That should have been SF's ball for sure. I also agree that it should have been roughing instead of running into the punter. But to say it was a ten point swing on those two plays is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure Seattle fumbled on the very next play after that the Bowman play. Net loss was about ten yards. And the difference in a 15 yard penalty and a 5 yard penalty for roughing did not make that big of a difference. The Niners were on their own 20, so the possibility of them scoring was still very much in question. Additionally, the Seahawks started the next drive on their 38. The 62 yards and TD the Niners gave up are much more responsible than a single, ten-yard penalty.

If the Bears ended up with Fiedorowicz in the third and Boyd in the fifth, I'd sure hope the first two picks were on defense, preferably FS and one DT/DE. Not to mention some help in FA. It sure would be interesting though.

What I meant by glorified lineman was in the literal sense. Glorified means elevated, and he'd basically be in there to block 99% of the time. I wasn't trying to insinuate that he had the size or skill of an OL, just that he'd be used as a lineman who has the title of tight end.

Yeah, I don't prescribe to the "we need another TE"-theory. Why? To block? Martellus should be in there on 99% of the plays. And when he's not, we need a glorified OLineman who can catch the ball in a pinch, like Rosario. Unless you're running the New England offense, backup TEs are an extreme luxury in my opinion.

If I had to use Draft Tek's ordering, I'd be upset with the way things play out. So many players I want going just before the pick. However, if I'm stuck with their projections, I'd go with this... #1 Hageman/DT (BPA) #2 S Truitt/DE/ND (BPA + need) (All I really need to know is that I saw the Auburn hit live. That's enough. A steal in the third, and with his coverage, angles, anticipation, hands, I think he could play FS.) #4 Brian Stork/C/Fl. St. (Need + potential BPA. This sets up a young OL for quite some time) #5 Martavis Bryant/WR/Clemson (Catches a little bit too much with his body for my liking, but his size/speed combo should brown shorts.) (I don't like him a ton, and I think he takes some bad angles at times, but he hustles and is a decent tackler. And at this point it's about trying to find value. In the 6th he's value.) #6B Ross Cockrell/CB/Duke (This guy seems like the kind of player I like in the secondary. He's smart, team leader, understands the Defensive alignments, has matched against #1s, and is a stand out on ST. Great value here.)

I like yours MUCH better than I like their draft. A TE in the third would be completely idiotic.

No. Rogers is the key there. Shoop could be OC and Rogers would still shine. Let's hope Wootton improves. Surgery is always an unknown, however. Baltimore was 29th in offense, 18th in passing, and 30th in rushing. And he's on the Lions. No worries. Zimmer has been a defensive guy his whole career. The Vikings gave up more yards than Chicago, if you can believe that. The hiring should help, but he isn't an offensive guy and their main issue might be QB.

The cop out thought is correct. I don't want to be in the same position next year, or one close to that, with Tucker using something else as an excuse. This year injuries, maybe next year the offense is so good that it scores incredibly quickly, time of possession is severely out of whack, and it keeps the D on the field for an extended period of time? That'd be something odd for Chicago Bear fans.

The less you participate the better the thread. That's a pretty good general rule.

Brilliant post. You have to try SOMETHING. I think the moves you made would accentuate the suggestions I made. Peppers would have been great with stunts from the inside as well as attacking gaps. Putting a rookie LB on the weakside would have been a prime way of utilizing speed and lack of discipline. Instead of controlling the middle he's told, "Kill the QB." Again, brilliant post. I have no doubt that those changes would have made the Bears defense better this year.

It's difficult to say exactly what he should have done, but he certainly shouldn't have switched to the 3-4 mid-season. That would have been chaotic. What I've always seen, from pee-wee to the pros, is that pressure creates problems. With that in mind, if I were Tucker I would have done the following: 1) More stunts. Causing OL confusion may have maximized pressure. 2) More blitzes. It leaves the DBs on an island at times, but the rushing D was the historically bad side that needed help. More people coming forward means less holes to hit. 3) More unbalanced zone blitzes. Since SMC is a glorified LB anyway, this would have worked well. The Seahawks did this a time or two against Kapernick this weekend with great results. 4) More focus on attacking gaps. Too often I saw the Bears defenders stacked up one-on-one because they were trying to go through someone. By attacking gaps you dictate to the offense where you're going. Sometimes that opens the exact running hole where they want to run, but sometimes it doesn't. And when it does, I'd have a LB filling that hole aggressively. The point to the above is, when you're down nine rounds to none, there's no sense in going with the same strategy in the tenth round. You have to go for the knock-out. In doing so, you take some chances, but you also have a better chance of winning via KO.

LOL!!!! JMarcus Tucker. Classic.

I'm amazed sometimes at how easily you miss the point. The references aren't irrelevant. They are specific players with specific skills who were or would be used incorrectly. That's about coaching. As for the Lovie point, there's no doubt that Lovie was better at running that defense than Tucker was, but let's not pretend that absolves him of all faults. One of his major faults was that his system didn't work when he didn't have the key studs at key positions, and when those guys were gone, he reverted to "We need to execute." Which of course was a cop out. Saying the same thing as an excuse for the abysmal 2013 defense is also a cop out. Good coaching could have at least made the defense subpar, maybe even average. Bad coaching resulted in a historically bad defense.

Exactly. The article nails it with the first sentence: When Rob Ryan took over what was statistically among the worst defenses in NFL history, the Saints' first-year coordinator promised a flexible scheme which he could adjust to suit the strengths of whichever players he had.

That's not a good point. It's an incredibly stupid point. If you have Garrett Wolfe, I don't give a damn how many times you run him dead center into the line, he's not going to get you results. This example works with just about any other player whose skill-set translates specifically to a style of play. Randy Moss in his prime doesn't work on a power-run or option offense if they never pass to him and he's used to block. You don't install the Wildcat when Marino is your QB. Maybe the Bears can use Forte as a FB next year clearing holes for Bush? See how that works out and then we can say, "Well, they didn't execute." I could go on and on. Simply saying "the players need to execute" reeks of Lovie, and a lack of responsibility. Good coaching is taking your players' talents and molding your system to best exploit their abilities.

Good point.

It's funny how contradictory you have been in this thread. Still waiting for the pop, eh?

This post is hilarious. U Mad? You were wrong then. I posted links that showed people reporting 18M per year, and still you acted like a dumbass and tried to rip me. You have been wrong so many times it's not even funny. And guess what? You're wrong again! Nothing new, just wrong again. Thanks for confirming it. Like I said, you should spend less time trying to rip me and more time waiting for the sound of the pop.

I still want HaHa Clinton-Dix. FS is a huge need. He's going to be a monster. BPA.

I like the idea of trying to find the next Urlacher, but McClellin would be horrible there. The dude has virtually zero awareness at DE, bombing inside on every play and leaving the outside responsibility wide open. At MLB it would be ugly.