jason

Agreed completely. It was implied, but not clear. It's one of the main reasons why I have advocated for that type of blocking scheme for some time; it permits lesser OL talent. Something the Bears have had for quite some time.

DELETED Echo AZ54 & BowlingTwig

Odd, because I see where a defensive change would help them tremendously. A DC who does the following could easily improve the defense: Make it unpredictable. Year in and year out we have heard about the Lovie-2's strengths and weaknesses, and one of the latter is the fact that absolutely everyone knows what's coming from the Bears' D. Whether they stay in the cover-2 shell X% of the time is nearly inconsequential because opponents' players and coaches have said the Bears just line up in what you know they will do and dare you to beat them (i.e. "They are who we thought they were!"). A new DC could implement a few things (e.g. DL stunts, DE flexibility for inside rushes, LB blitzes, DB blitzes, lessened frequency of the MLB being 20 yards deep) that could maximize the aging talent on the defense. If Marinelli is up to the task, then it's not big deal. But my impressions of him adjusting (during the game, after the game, during his tenure with the Bears) aren't great.

I think your post is intended to advocate for the cover-2, but the key to what you said is, "The current teams remaining in the playoffs".

Excellent post. Out of that group, the only OL that's not primarily built through the draft is Houston. They have a 7th rounder, a FA 6th rounder, a 4th rounder, and a FA 3rd rounder. That's not drafting or signing well, that's hitting the lottery. Why is it that this OL history lesson has to be done every year? When is everyone finally going to realize the OL has been sorely neglected for multiple years? This has been broken down by draft round as well as draft pick value, and it's plain to see for anyone not getting a Jerry Angelo Christmas Card that this dude simply didn't draft OLinemen with anywhere near the urgency as he drafted DLinemen. Whether or not this is a Lovie Smith influence is inconsequential, because, ultimately, the GM is the HC's boss.

"I'm with Skip Bayless" is not usually a comment that makes a lot of sense. It may in this specific instance, but generally agreeing with Skip is a losing proposition.

Agreed. But considering the title of this thread, and the QB behind the shredding, the reference is to the former type of QB, not the latter.

True on both accounts. But I think there is a degree of difference when comparing the Cutler and the Bears' OL over the past three or so years, and the other QBs people would attempt to throw into this conversation/comparision. Cutler has taken way more heat, way more pressure, way more hits, face way more scrutiny, and I imagine it's exhausting. Especially since it hasn't been fixed the entire time he's been in Chicago.

I hope you're right. Just like I hoped the drafting of Rodriguez would usher in the first part of the new Chicago Bears, the passing Chicago Bears. But we see how that played out.

Agreed. More often than not, athletic QBs get punished by defenders for being athletic. A QB with accuracy, timing, and arm strength is what the Bears need. I think Cutler could be that guy if he could ever get consistent protection.

I picked Armstrong. I've been a Bears fan too long to be optimistic about this year. I figure they'll pick the only guy I don't really want.

Why? Seriously, why do the Bears need another TE? I mean, if Spaeth and Davis are cut, I get it, one can be signed or drafted very late (i.e. 7th), but if Spaeth is still around the Bears will then have a blocking TE (i.e. Spaeth), and a pass-catching TE (i.e. Rodriguez). I'm all for this offense of the future concept, where the Bears utilize two receiving TEs like the Patriots, but I just don't see it happening.

You already knew I wouldn't like it before posting it. I don't like the idea of drafting a TE at all, and I don't like drafting a first round MLB who will sit the bench. I watched some video of Jenkins, and he'd be a good pick for a 6th rounder, but I can't say I was all blown away. And to be quite honest, if there is one high-round LT I am not really impressed by, it's Lane Johnson. Watched him in the Cotton Bowl and he was slow against speed rushers, didn't finish all his blocks, had horrible cut block technique, lost awareness a few times, and didn't look like an early rounder. Some of this is expected for a guy who has barely played the position. I guess it makes sense that if you hate my mock I'd feel similarly about yours. Different strokes, different folks.

No it doesn't. And you are trolling. Look up the definition: "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers". If you don't see the similarities in the previous discussion and this one, the difference between a first/second rounder pick and a fourth round pick, the fact that your original post indicated Klein as a first/second rounder, and the fact that once you conceded a late rounder then I was fine with the resolution (i.e. why I finished the thread), then it's not my arrogance hindering this debate, it's your blind ignorance and trolling. As far as Terra's point of view, I don't think there is a "right" solution. FA or draft is fine, but they are philosophically different. Drafting probably has more risk, but there is almost infinitely more upside. The problem with FA is the guys available are almost never studs; they're second-tier at best.

I think you mean "potentially fix for a short term period." The draft is more of a crapshoot, but its not like great OL with lots of years left are released very often. If the Bears go FA, it will be a need again in three or four years at the max.

Blah blah blah. The problem with your entire post is you're talking about a post you made when he was hottest. And regardless of your Clintonian twisting of words, it was pretty apparent he was going to be a first/second at that point, and that's where your words (already quoted) said you preferred him (or you did a piss poor job of making your point). Quit trolling. QB is a need every year until the Bears figure it out. But it's not a need requiring a draft pick in the first three rounds (unless Cutler is gone and no draft picks pan out).

For the record, I'm not sure I understand the RB pick either. And I'm already on record as saying the Bears don't need to draft a TE since they have yet to give Rodriguez a chance to play there and catch passes.

I would draft him earlier than that. I don't think there is any chance in hell he lasts until the 6th. I've seen some mocks where he is going in the 2nd. If the situation presented itself, and no other players the Bears liked were there, I could see a 4th for him.

Where is everyone getting this statistical breakdown of how often the Bears run the cover-2? I can honestly say I don't know how often it's run, but it sure seems to be run more often than 25-30%. That could probably be because when it's completely burned, they're usually in cover-2. Or that when Lovie would go into shut-down mode, and the field was there for the opponent to take, it was most likely the Bears were in cover-2, allowing passes all over the place.

That too. But I believe the QB position needs constant attention, year after year.

IDK. Will Marinelli change from last year?

Way to misconstrue things. From the thread: You: And for the record, I never said I "don't want to improve the O-line" just that it's a wasted pick at 1 or 2. See, that right there implies exactly what I thought you meant, an early pick, 1st or 2nd. And the time you posted this was when his draft stock was incredibly high, demanding a pick like that. If we disagree on what constitutes a late round pick, so be it. You could go back on this board from its inception and see I have always been a proponent of drafting QB consistently. Always have been. Just like I said in that thread. And if you go back to that thread, you'll notice I didn't post again once you conceded the late round draft pick aspect. Try again.

Kelly strikes me as a Coach K type of guy. He works in college because he can rant and rave, turn his face bright red, punish his players with extra laps around the track, hold their scholarships in doubt, but that crap doesn't fly in the pros. And it most certainly doesn't fly with the pampered bunch in Chicago right now. They've been living Club Med for several years now. They will not want a switch to Basic Training.

It's only awful because you hate the idea of OL early. It's philosophical. I can appreciate it. But I think you're dead wrong. You, and the other anti-OL guys, pretend like other teams just cut their studs in the offseason on a regular basis. "Yeah, I know you're a completely healthy third year player and went to the probowl as a LT the last two years, but we're gonna let you go." - Said no GM, ever. Your solution requires the same solution every two or three years, because that FA vet you hope to squeeze a few years out of, is much closer to retirement (see: John Tait, Rueben Brown) and/or uselessness (see: Fred Miller, Orlando Pace). There is no possibility of sustained success. There is literally no upside. It's time to stop playing checkers with the OL; it's time to play chess.

If contract status was included in the idea that there is "only one starting LB on the roster", then it's technically correct. But I don't buy it because there is no way in hell the Bears have a near overhaul with the LBs, keeping only Briggs because he's under contract. I fully expect Urlacher to be back, and probably Roach. It's funny that this is not even considered for those who want to draft LB early, but in nearly every discussion about the OL everyone says something about the need for continuity. As a former defensive guy, I'd say continuity is just as important, if not more important, for LBs than it is for OL. The reasoning is simple: LBs have to react more than the OL, the OL dictates action by their first movement.