jason

Now that ERod is gone, he just might be one of the missing puzzle pieces...assuming everything ended up rose-colored for him.

Sigh...try looking back in this thread a bit. Show me where the inconsistency is. I can't help it if you still have reading comprehension issues. Sounds like while there may be a lot of OLinemen in for competition, there isn't much competition being thrown Webb's way at RT. I don't see anything in there about him being solid, because he wasn't. That's implication that the competition isn't really any competition. ...then all the bodies mean nothing because there is no competition. - Consistency. It's not what we think. It's what we're replying to in regards to what an insider thinks. What you believe doesn't mean a lot right now because you haven't seen the team. Neither have we. But Pompeii has, and he seems to believe that Webb is basically being handed the job without competition. - When Pompeii says, "falls on his face," that's what those words mean in every English language definition of the idiom. Consistent. Those two things put together are probably the basis for his comments about Webb basically being handed the job. Consistent. The implication of "falls on his face" is that Webb would have to screw up royally to even have a shot of losing his job. That, plus the fact that it's difficult to screw up royally in practice against your own team, one that is obviously not going to play 100% as if it were a real opponent, pretty much means he's being handed the job without legitimate competition. Consistent. And regardless of what you say Cracker, that's basically what Pompeii is saying when he states that Webb would have to fall on his face to lose the job. There is literally no other way to interpret the Pompeii statement. Fall flat on your face means embarrassing failure. So, if Pompeii is right, Webb could screw up considerably, as long as it's not egregious, and the job is still his. If that's competition, then we must use a different dictionary. Consistent. For the final time, the entire thread seems to have spiraled because of the Pompeii article, and if you can't see that his words are synonymous with "no real competition," then I question your grasp on the English language. Consistent. I'm obviously suggesting the former, which is why I started the line of thought with, "Webb basically being handed the job." Surely other people are getting snaps, but it's just that the other people getting snaps aren't worth a damn. It's like lining up the worst basketball player in the NBA next to a midget and saying they have an equal shot at the starting position. That's simple half-truth. Consistent. It's certainly a GM and HC level issue if the only challenger to Webb, a guy who has been one of the worst OLinemen in the NFL over the course of the last few years, is a journeyman scrub. That says, despite the fact that they use the word, there is no real competition. It's an illusion of competition.

The quote(again): What are the chances somebody beats out J’Marcus Webb at RT? Is he locked in? -- @stcollins23, from Twitter The only way someone beats out Webb is if Webb falls on his face in camp. I’d be surprised if that happened. Webb probably has to show a little something just because he is dealing with an entirely new group of coaches. And he will have competition from Jonathan Scott, who is a consistent, veteran pro. Scott won’t fall on his face, and I would bet on that. But it’s Webb’s job to lose. Apparently you don't see the part that says, "falls on his face in camp." All you see is the word competition, when, in fact, it's not really competition. It's Jonathan Freaking Scott. Scott is a body. That's it. He's been on four teams in six years, and has never been confused for good. He's a dude who doesn't rattle cages, shows up early at OTAs, shakes hands, learns the playbook, and then performs poorly, but not poorly enough that people notice him. That is not competition.

Serious question: Suppose the evidence shows it was a big misunderstanding, and he was as involved in this as Ray Lewis was in his event. Would you be for/against the Bears pursuing Hernandez?

For the last time, it's not necessarily what I believe. This all goes back to what Pompeii said. None of us has seen practices. Pompeii has. The difference between that and something like "Onobun will play a significant role," - if he even said that - is that the former is a matter of simply counting reps and looking at competition, the latter is an unknown projection. Unless Pompeii is just speaking out of his ass - something I've granted as a possibility - then we have to assume he's speaking about what he's seen in terms of snaps and competition. Why else would he put something about Webb being a virtual lock for the position?

I'm guessing this is a pretty accurate representation of last year with Tice. "Left Tackle. Hmmm, Left Tackle. Easy. J'amarcus knocked me off the blocking sled and chipped my toof." "Left Guard, ya know, uh, Spencer was a pretty decent center with Seattle, and he didn't look very good at right guard last year...I know! Starting Left Guard! And if that doesn't work, I'll just plug in Chilo Rachal. That dude is a reliable veteran." "Center. This one is easy. Damn good guard for ten straight years, I'm gonna use him at Center again. Garza is my man." "I don't really know what to do here. I'll flip a coin: Heads for Lance Louis, tails for Edwin Williams. Anybody got a quarter I can borrow?" "Stupid Angelo and Lovie are gonna make me start Gabe Carimi just cuz he's a first round draft pick. (kicks ground) If I had my way it'd be James Brown - his music rocks. Or maybe even Jonathan Scott; I like dudes with two first names."

I'll ignore cracker since he's not reading paragraphs when replying. Respect is mutual, but there is obvious disagreement with this mini-subject. I'm obviously suggesting the former, which is why I started the line of thought with, "Webb basically being handed the job." Surely other people are getting snaps, but it's just that the other people getting snaps aren't worth a damn. It's like lining up the worst basketball player in the NBA next to a midget and saying they have an equal shot at the starting position. That's simple half-truth. The coaches aren't actively lying to the media; they're simply using half-truth and coach-speak. Of course they're going to tell the media there is competition at every position. Ask them about QB and RB and they'll say the same thing, even though we know it's not true, and nobody is supplanting Cutler or Forte. It's just an easier thing to say for them when referring to players who are not absolutely locked into a position as a starter. In terms of Webb, they can say it because they know the fans expect it; but, at the same time, they know the "competition" they are providing to Webb is the midget basketball player. Hence Pompeii's article and the meaning of the words "fall flat on your face," as if there is another acceptable English-language interpretation at all.

I actually had more respect for you before this ignorant post. Please go back to the board history, look for all the correlation between Tice and Webb, then do the same on the internet. Actually research it. Afterwards, look at Webb's stats and performance over the same period. Then, look at the screw-job Chris Williams received when he was moved from position to position for the benefit of the team, which just so happened to benefit Webb. The whole thing together is not irrelevant. It's entirely within reason that he would give the job to a guy he stakes his reputation on, a guy he truly believes in, even if the guy performs slightly worse than a competitor. This is especially true when the highs and lows are so drastic, as they are with Webb. It's easier to say something like, "Yeah, he only had those five bad plays," when talking about Webb because he absolutely shits the bed several times a game. Otherwise he performs anywhere between slightly below average to very well. Meanwhile, someone like Williams would never give you the highs, but also rarely gives you the massive lows. It's just that he never really moves far, in either direction, from average to below average. For the final time, the entire thread seems to have spiraled because of the Pompeii article, and if you can't see that his words are synonymous with "no real competition," then I question your grasp on the English language. I freely admit Pompeii could be wrong, and speaking out of his ass - I've noted that I have read plenty of his stuff that has been complete BS - and that it contradicts the concept of competition spoken of by the coaches, but this would not be the first time the coaching staff of the Bears, or any other NFL franchise for that matter, blew smoke to the press while doing something completely different in reality. Suddenly, after years of Lovie Smith, you guys believe in the coaches 100% without reservation? That's lunacy. As for whether Tice is smarter than me, I'll rest easy at night knowing that I'm much smarter than him. In terms of football, he's smarter, but he sure didn't apply the football knowledge to his job or his players. At the very least, I definitely would have argued harder for better players on the OL - I believe my track record here speaks for that. And I'm not quite so sure anyone on the board could have done much worse than he did as an OL coach; there really wasn't much room to go down. Just because someone is smart or knows a lot about something doesn't mean they make the right choices in their field of expertise. Often times it's the person who is considered the expert that makes the mistake, because they are so sure of their knowledge that they ignore the obvious the less immersed would otherwise focus on. Last but not least, there is no grand conspiracy. That's the nonsense you and some other Webb fellatists have come up with. All I've said from the beginning is that everyone keeps giving Webb, and other scrubs, an illogical number of opportunities despite consistently poor results. With Lovie and Tice it was easy to explain because Lovie hated using draft picks for OL. This is unequivocal fact that can be proven via his drafts. As for Emery last year, he most likely let Lovie have too much say in the draft room. (You might want to try reading entire paragraphs instead of cherry-picking single sentences...again with the reading comprehension problems.) With Trestman it appears to have stopped, because he drafted and signed in one year with a definite urgency. I suspect this will be a pattern going forward until the problem is fixed and the offense is legitimate.

It's as if you don't even read what other people post. Were you even on the board at that time? I think you were, which is why it's frustrating to explain it to you. There was a pretty big discussion about the fact that Tice was smitten with Webb because of the blocking sled incident. That single quote is not reaching, nor is the truth behind it. As for subsequent years, it's what I said earlier in this thread. They are not infallible, regardless of what some of you guys think. I believe Tice saw something in Webb, got happy about it, and kept wanting to prove he was right, come hell or high water. Given that there were no pro-bowlers there to replace Webb (see Lovie drafting propensity below), it was an easier sell to give him the chance based on potential and how good Tice felt about him. Well, where is Tice now? How well did the OL do under his watch? Regarding Emery, I have no clue why he blew off the OL last year, except that Lovie must have had a significant impact on the selection process and Emery was giving him just enough rope for the hanging. The offense was leaps and bounds worse than the defense, yet the Bears selected DE, WR, S, TE, DB, DB. Gee, 4 defensive guys and 2 offensive guys and no attention to the OL. That doesn't look like previous drafts in which Lovie had a say at all. Look at this year. Even though Emery's hands were tied at LB, and the team has aging stars at multiple positions on defense, there was still an even split between the drafting of offense and defense. Seriously, do you forget everything about previous years when it's convenient to your argument? The Tice & Webb thing is documented in many ways. Here's another where Michael Wright confirms that Tice is very high on Webb. And the shit about Lovie has been discussed ad nauseum, and is not even up for debate.

This isn't even a debate so much as a serious question... Have there been any reports where Trestman and/or Emery has specifically said there would be competition at the RT spot?

Like I already said, it's a relative unknown why Webb would be just handed the job (And regardless of what you say Cracker, that's basically what Pompeii is saying when he states that Webb would have to fall on his face to lose the job. There is literally no other way to interpret the Pompeii statement. Fall flat on your face means embarrassing failure. So, if Pompeii is right, Webb could screw up considerably, as long as it's not egregious, and the job is still his. If that's competition, then we must use a different dictionary.). The only thoughts regarding the new staff are: 1. They saw something on film that they think Kromer could turn into gold. Maybe it's the same thing Lovie and Tice saw, but they were just inadequate as coaches? 2. They didn't want to revamp the entire OL in one offseason, and there really wasn't a position in which they could have grabbed a RT in the draft (you pointed to this) or FA (mostly financial). 3. They graded him out as the best of the worst. The clean end of the turd. They are giving him an audition and they're replacing him next year unless he improves drastically.

Wrong again. I just think that many of you guys act as if because someone is a GM or personnel guy in the NFL that their position dictates their opinions/decisions are untouchable. This couldn't be further from the truth. And the Bears personnel decisions, both drafts and who to start, show that. The fact of the matter is, no matter how much you guys want to fellate NFL GMs, they have no science to selection, and could be wrong just as much as someone on this board. In terms of JA and the former regime who undoubtedly advised him of their opinions and who they'd like to select, that's even more evident since the number of draftees on the team is so ridiculously low. You could probably drafted via dart board and had the same success rate. For the record, I never said I could measure up to a coach in the NFL. I think Lovie had a very difficult time with the gametime decisions, and his judgement on when to toss the red flag is hilariously poor, but his X's and O's knowledge is vastly superior to the average Joe. The reason why, of course, is that there is a helluva lot more skill and knowledge required to be a successful NFL coach than there is to being a personnel guy.

WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. You have a very short, or selective, memory. http://www.dailyherald.com/article/2010092...09299883/print/ Tice, it is thought, is the reason the Bears even looked at Webb late in the draft this year. During a private workout, Webb hit the blocking sled so hard that Webb chipped the coach's tooth.

Full of shit? I prefer interpretation. The implication of "falls on his face" is that Webb would have to screw up royally to even have a shot of losing his job. That, plus the fact that it's difficult to screw up royally in practice against your own team, one that is obviously not going to play 100% as if it were a real opponent, pretty much means he's being handed the job without legitimate competition. He'd either have to pee on Trestman's shoes or one of the other players would have to turn into Forrest Gregg or Willie Roaf for Webb not to be the starter. As for the Lovie & Tice comments, the key word you used was "thought." They "thought" they didn't have anyone better. And those "thoughts" are shaped by perceptions, allegiances, friendships, appreciation, etc. There is no doubt that they, especially Tice, had a connection of some sort to Webb, and it probably had a little bit to do with shaping their opinions on the matter. Before you question whether or not their opinions on the matter are above reproach, check the Bears website to confirm their employment status with the team, and then go check out offensive statistics for the team, specifically plays that involved Webb. Even by the most complimentary of statistics at PFF, which have numerous flaws, Webb is just below average. They "thought" they were starting the best guy for the job, but given that their offense stunk, Webb's best advocate can only really call him average, and both the coaches were fired, and the fact that they trotted out garbage OLines for multiple years, I'd say their "thoughts" on player evaluation are very easy to question.

Look, I'm not a Pompeii fan by any means. I've read a lot of his stuff that I think is complete garbage. Having said that, I'm pretty sure the dude has been to practices we haven't. And I'm also pretty sure he can count. Those two things put together are probably the basis for his comments about Webb basically being handed the job. It's not like a coach told him that Webb was virtually a lock at RT.

Did you even bother to read the article, the link, or the quote I posted? It's not what we think. It's what we're replying to in regards to what an insider thinks. What you believe doesn't mean a lot right now because you haven't seen the team. Neither have we. But Pompeii has, and he seems to believe that Webb is basically being handed the job without competition.

I think this is the crux of the debate. If what the writer said is true, then all the bodies mean nothing because there is no competition. I'm trusting that the writer, Pompeii, has seen some of the practices that we have not, and at least can speak to the number of reps being divvied out. Or maybe he's dead wrong and there will be a free-for-all at RT? Since I haven't seen anything this year other than a few beat-writers' reports, the best we have to go on is what they've seen/counted.

Are you serious, dude? First of all, credibility was not lost with the Williams vs. Webb discussion because Webb ended up being less than average (regardless of what ridiculous stats from PFF say). Williams did, in fact, play better overall than Webb in the preseason, and in my opinion should have started over Webb. Or at least have been given a shot once Webb played the way he did. You can't use the "but Webb started"-defense either, because it wasn't successful in any fashion (i.e. Lovie and Tice gone, Bears offense one of the worst in the NFL, Bears OL one of the worst units in the NFL). And we can never, NEVER know what Williams would have done had he been given the chances Webb had. It was plainly obvious that Tice gave Webb more looks and focus and support than he did Williams. Did Webb improve? Sure. But it's hard to go down from sucking as bad as he did the previous years. As for looking at three years of game film, I honestly don't know what it could be, but I believe it to be about something exterior to purely film. Because if they did look at three years of film they would have gotten rid of Webb before Carimi (2.x years of bad play is worse than 1 year of bad play). If Webb continues to improve, he won't remain the whipping boy. You can trust me on that. Especially if all the bodies coming into the Bears organization are meant to challenge at all positions. The article, however, makes it appear that Webb is getting little competition, regardless of the number of other OLinemen in camp. The problem is, and has been for multiple years with Bears fans, the memory of plays from a completed year always seem to improve over the actual production during the games. Webb was at best slightly below average last year, period. In comparison to the rest of the OL, he might have been the cleanest end of the turd, but he was still part of the turd.

You'd be surprised to know that I loathe coffee, and I wake up ready to piss vinegar. To quote Stripes, "Aaaaaaaarmy training, sir!" As for football, let's go at this a different way, since it's apparently not clear to you that the gap-style of defense up front directly relates to the scheme of the LBs and the secondary. 1. Do you think there can be varying levels of aggressiveness when it comes to defensive strategies and alignments? If yes... 2. Do you think Lovie coached a brand of 1-gap that was less aggressive because the players were coached to prioritize the gap over the pursuit?

So moving the goalposts huh? You admit that there doesn't appear to be much competition being thrown his way at RT?

I'm sorry if you can't comprehend multi-dimensional discussion that derails ever-so-slightly from the differences between 1 and 2 gap defenses, but there is a definite difference in aggressiveness that stretches beyond semantics. It's possible to be a 1-gap defense that concentrates more on gap responsibility than pressure (i.e. Lovie's M.O.). Sure, it works well in Lovie's grand scheme of things because it supports the concept of "make the other team eventually make a mistake," but it's not really the type of defense that attacks as much as it could. It's entirely the reason why we so often saw our DEs rush blindly on the outside, OT positioning be damned; the "gap" was more important than the pressure. The 2-gap, while more prone to gaping holes if players aren't on the same wavelength (the discipline part is where you are right in this discussion), is also a defense that provides better opportunities to confuse and dictate to an opposing offense.

Your interpretation is different than mine. The original snippet from a Pompeii Q&A: What are the chances somebody beats out J’Marcus Webb at RT? Is he locked in? -- @stcollins23, from Twitter The only way someone beats out Webb is if Webb falls on his face in camp. I’d be surprised if that happened. Webb probably has to show a little something just because he is dealing with an entirely new group of coaches. And he will have competition from Jonathan Scott, who is a consistent, veteran pro. Scott won’t fall on his face, and I would bet on that. But it’s Webb’s job to lose. Sounds like while there may be a lot of OLinemen in for competition, there isn't much competition being thrown Webb's way at RT. I don't see anything in there about him being solid, because he wasn't.

Exactly.

I'm not confusing it, I just disagree with your usage of aggressive. I view the 1-gap to be more passive and reactionary, saying to the opposing offense, "Here's what we have, beat it." Whereas the 2-gap dictates to the opponent's offense - through a moderate amount of unpredictability - what they are allowed to run. Lovie was all about "Here's what we have, beat it."

Define successful. Look at the stats from 2004 through last year. You'll find that the defense was, over the length of that period, average or slightly above average. Total yards - 4 and 5, 13.89 (years in the top 13, years in the bottom 13, average over career) Total points - 5 and 4, 10.11 Rushing yards - 6 and 3, 12.11 Rushing TDs - 5 and 4, 12.33 Rushing Y/A - 5 and 4, 12.33 Passing yards - 4 and 5, 17.44 Passing TDs - 6 and 3, 11.44 Passing Y/A - 6 and 3, 10.00 TOP - 2 and 7, 20.78 (I consider TOP to be just as much an indication of the defense's ability to get the opponent's offense off the field, as it is an indication of the offense's ability to keep the opponent's offense off the field.) The only metrics by which Lovie's defense over the course of his career in Chicago could unequivocally be considered successful would be takeaways - top half of the league every year except his first year here. Is that successful?