jason

Yeah, I'm not buying it. Big shocker. Just doesn't pass the eye test. I'm guessing whoever does their stats and watches the Bears games is a Packer fan.

:cheers :cheers

LOL. Because of this post, Conte's new nickname is "Benjamin Button".

I think you give him vet min plus a little "thanks for being a Bear legend"-money, like they should have done with Urlacher. If money needs to be saved, then save it by cutting Weems like you said.

That was Lovie Smith's philosophy regarding OL, and we saw how that worked out.

Sorry to tell you, but it's not a bad call. On regular kicks, the philosophy is: A foot down past the free kick line. On onside kicks, the philosophy is: ANY part of the body past the free kick line. There is no debating the fact that Weems had the entire top half of his body beyond the free kick line before the ball was kicked. Blame Weems, not the officials.

Can't play the fade, can't tackle, can't lay a hit in the goal line, and can't play centerfield.

It's the football Gods rewarding us for the lack of QBs.

I remember that vividly, and the reactions were priceless. Before the game Vick was, by many's opinions, too fast to be caught. After Urlacher ran him down a few times, big eyes and dropped jaws everywhere.

Preaching to the choir. But nooooo, Lovie needed Dan Bazuin and that dude who could totally jump out of a pool.

Agreed. I don't buy the "it was a good deal" thing. It was a low-ball offer that he refused. And once the rest of the league saw what was being offered by the home-town team, and the fact that the offer was refused, they didn't want to spend a whole lot more on a veteran with lots of miles on the odometer. Simply put, the Bears could have offered him a little more, fit it easily in the cap, and had the heart of their defense, their team, for one year (maybe two), which would have obviously helped. And then an easy transition to Bostic.

Just got the ESPN ticker...he's gone. Torn pectoral.

This I don't agree with. Franchise player Melton = out New starter DT Collins = out Run stuffing DT Paea = out Losing your top 3 DTs is always going to gut a defense. The fact that Peppers seems to have aged in dog years over the offseason and McClellin is exactly who many thought he was doesn't help. Thank God for Wooten at this point, because he's the only one who appears to have any game-breaking ability. Losing Tillman for a stretch hurts. And regardless of the flack, the Bears miss Urlacher. As for Trestman and the offense, what more do you want? Top ten rushing, passing, and total offense. Cutler has protection. Both WRs are being used. The TE is being used. The balance on offense is keeping opponents off balance. I agree with inconsistency, but to say they're only marginally better is ridiculous. The Bears were bottom five in total and passing offense last year. This turnaround is incredible.

The Giants are 7th in passing offense. The Bears are 27th in passing defense and 30th in sacks. This is a VERY dangerous game. I'm expecting Eli Manning to put up significant numbers. I'm just hoping that Jay can lead the offense to bigger numbers.

No surprise I have a problem with BS stats. How the F can they determine if a QBs footwork changed as a result of the D pressure?! The big things? Sure. But there percentage is way off, and borderline ridiculous. No way it's 40%. And unless the same person reviews ALL the games, human error and bias make this stat virtually meaningless.

68 hurries in four games (or less if I'm reading your replies correctly)? I call BS. There is no freaking way. Cutler has attempted 148 passes. He's rushed 11 times. He's been sacked a total of 6 times. That's 165. Let's just say there are 10 more plays in there for the anomalies. Even at 68 out of 175, that is nearly 40%. Sorry, but I've watched the games, and there is no way in hell he's been hurried or pressured in 40% of his drop-backs. What's their criteria for hurries? Someone within ten feet? I suspect the person doing the analysis for Bears games is a little more loose with his interpretation of "hurry" than the folks doing the analysis on other games.

We all knew Toub was a genius. Seeing him go to KC - not a surprise that they seem to be a team doing all the little things right - was a big loss for the Bears.

Why not? Unless, of course, they feel he's still good enough at CB. I think he is, but there has to be a time when he loses the step. Maybe then?

Next year the Bears should transition to the 3-4. With the potential loss of DJ and Anderson, it makes more sense now than ever. Not only does it get the two young LBs into the game, but it revitalizes McClellin. If they're not sold on Paea at NT, then draft one. Rotate Peppers, Wooten, and Melton DE. The LB corp of Briggs, Greene, Bostic, and McClellin would be nice. That looks like a downright scary defense.

Could this also have something to do with Urlacher missing? I know it's now the popular thing to rag on Urlacher, call him greedy and washed up, say he was horrible last year if not multiple years before, but the simple fact is, the dude was the MLB for a long time. The captain of the team. And was getting better as the season progressed last year. Peppers and Melton being injured affects performance. Same for the coaching changes. But Urlacher's absence hurts. Say what you want, but over the course of four games - an admittedly small sample size - his value appears to be worth a difference of about 60 yards. That's multiple stops per game. Multiple good reads per game. Multiple correct defensive audibles per game.

That is virtually never called. Perrera has been hyper-critical since taking on the job, for what reason I know not.

I'm still as sure, but the likelihood of it is still not overwhelming. But it is certainly not 100% risk free.

Not only that, but Olsen was considered an average to above average TE with a fairly established track record, minimal upside, and sometimes questionable toughness. Richardson, on the other hand, is a 2nd year player with significant upside coming off of a very impressive rookie season on a horrible team.

There is still the very real possibility of Weems picking up the ball, having his momentum carry him into the end zone, and then a foul by the Bears in the end zone. In that case, there is a distinct possibility of a negative for the Bears, because that would be an accepted penalty by A, and it would result in a safety. As for your final scenario, it would depend on whether Weems was judged to have possession at any time. There is a saying in officiating, "A kick is a kick is a kick." The point is to say that it's still a kick if nobody has gained possession. Granted, there is the issue of impetus and momentum, but in general if there has been no obvious batting, the ball is still considered to be moving as a result of a scrimmage kick. I can't recall the play exactly, but I'm seeing a situation where Weems never really had it. In that case, I believe the Bears would have the option of a touchback or the spot of illegal touching, if it just happened to oddly be before the 20.