jason

I can almost guarantee it's not that complex. Which is one of the reasons why there was so much discussion and disagreement on the Bears OL after various games this year. I actually broke down each lineman's play on each play and put it into a spreadsheet so that they could be properly evaluated. Quantitatively evaluated. It's much better than the typical, "But I thought he played well, because I saw the game." Yeah, that doesn't tell nearly the entire picture. For instance, if Webb gets blown up, and it just happens to be a play where Cutler rolls the other way, and there isn't a hit/sack, most people will forget the play. There are countless examples like this, and your thoughts about additional help fall right into the analysis.

I forgot to reply to this. It would kill me to pass on Teo', but depending on how the draft played out, I could pass on him for stud OL talent. I just don't honestly believe LB talent is very difficult to find or cultivate. Find ball, hit ball carrier, tackle. I know that's incredibly simplistic, but that's what LBs do from pee-wee to the pros. To go further, I'd pass if Warmack, Cooper, or Jones is there.

I'm sorry, but any statistic that says only five names on that list graded out better than Webb is flawed. As already mentioned, Loadholt is easily better than Webb. He may not be an all-star, but he's an easy upgrade to Webb. The fact that there are OGs and Cs on the list just backs up my point about it being a crap list. Not blaming you, attacking the data.

QFT. Tice and the coaching staff completely screwed Williams, and thus far Carimi has been tossed around like a $2 hooker. If a player was a stud in college at position X, draft him to play position X. It's not that difficult. As I've said before, going into training camp next year, the LT job should be Carimi's by default, and to lose the job he'd have to be atrocious. If he's just plain bad or subpar, no problem because that's about the same as Webb. May as well try to invest time and reps into your LT of the future instead of trying the Webb experiment for the fourth(?) straight year. While we're at it, let's move Garza back to his actual position of OG, and sign/draft a Center. Enough of this flip-flop garbage.

I hate the idea of releasing Carimi. That's crazy. And a draft that starts out MLB, then TE, would make me puke. But I do like the rest of your draft, particularly the chances taken on talented but troubled players (4th, 6th, 7th). If the Bears had done that last year, like I wanted, they'd already have a starting LB in Burfict, and maybe the successor to Urlacher.

I went high with a 1 and a 2. But I think a 3 is too low. Somewhere in the middle?

Because some have mentioned releasing him, I had the thought, "What would the Bears get for him in trade?" I'm not sure I would do it, but if a team were willing to give a 1st and a 2nd, or something like that, I might do it as the Bears GM.

Hate

Hell, I'm the biggest advocate of OL, OL, OL and even I thought Jeffery was a steal at that moment. When BPA outweighs positional need, you have to go BPA. But I still don't believe there wasn't a single OL player drafted after Jeffery who didn't grade out better than Webb. That's just BS. And if it is even remotely true, it's probably because most of the others didn't get to play. Had that hypothetical 2nd or 3rd round player come to the Bears, he likely beats out Webb in training camp (if given a fair chance), and there is no comparison in grade because no grade on Webb would have been available.

Hopefully those are not the only numbers he is using to evaluate (I doubt he is), because I suspect some seriously flawed data. It's the old "stats lie" thing. Of course, it could be in the words... Did he say no player from OUR second round pick down graded better than Jamarcus? If so, then that's easy. SMC, Rodriguez, Alshon, Hardin, Frey, McCoy...all had disappointing years. But if he's talking about ANY player from ANY team from the second round down, those stats are full of shit.

The Walter speculation may be true, but I'm not a fan of mock drafts that factor in unknowns like trades and potential FA moves.

There are just as many success stories for first round OTs. In fact, this has been done on the board before, and there is a higher percentage of stud OT talent drafted in the first round than any other position (maybe QB was above it, can't recall). If you want a stud OT, you draft early. This has been proven statistically. Unless, of course, some team ignorantly gets rid of a player like that...which doesn't happen often. Tait-Brown-Kruetz-Garza-Miller was a great OL, but, look at their draft status. They may not have all been drafted by the Bears, but they aren't 7th rounders by any means. 1,1,3,4,5. On top of that, Tait was a poison pill contract to KC, and Brown/Miller were lightning in a bottle. All of this has also been displayed on the board numerous times. Kreutz was just a good pick, and Garza was just a good FA pickup. The whole thing together is unlikely to happen like that again.

{{giggling like a little kid}}

If he honestly thought nobody graded out or would do better than Webb, then I seriously question not only his evaluation ability, but also his eyesight. It's gotta be all smoke and mirrors. Webb has graded out as one of the worst starting OL of the last few years.

I would not like that at all. MLB in the first is not necessary, and trying to find another Urlacher is not priority number one. This is the best OL year in recent memory. Pick it early, pick it often. MLB can be had in 3-5 rounds.

I don't have a problem with the 4-3. I prefer the 3-4, but traditional is fine. What I have a problem with is a passive, cover-2, 4-3 system. Something we've seen for years now. I want to see players like Urlacher and Briggs killing QBs as well as making tackles in open space. Any system that has Urlacher back pedaling more than charging the QB is just wrong in my opinion. I know he's fast, but it's defensive castration to take away the killer instinct of players like him. Four sacks in the last three years. That's pathetic. Sure, other MLBs don't have big sack stats either, but a guy with Urlacher's speed is being really underutilized if he doesn't have more sacks and QB hits. He's not the same type of MLB as Ray Lewis, a guy who can fend off a ton of blocks and still make the tackle. We've seen him get buried by blockers more than once. So that leaves a defensive coach with three real options to use the speed: back, forward, lateral. We saw lateral when the Bears had Ted Washington and Keith Traylor. It was magnificent to watch Urlacher run all over the place. We've seen backwards, running deep middle in pass protection (the ultimate reason he was injured). We haven't really seen forward. That, in a nutshell, is why I welcome the 3-4 change. The 3-4 mandates that all LBs are multi-dimensional and could potentially attack at any time. But if they can mix it up somewhat in a 4-3, fine with me as well.

My order of preference (assuming the Bears don't get one of the big names like Chucky): 1. Pete Carmichael, New Orleans OC - Their offense has been a juggernaut, and he knows how important it is to have protection for a QB. On top of that, he understands how to play to the strengths of the players, since he manages to make plays that take advantage of speed, size, etc. 2. Mike McCoy - Denver OC - Connections to Cutler are nice, and I'm a big fan of their blocking schemes. There is a big reason why Peyton Manning didn't get reinjured this year, and it has every bit to do with his protection. 3. Tom Clements, Green Bay OC - Their offense has been consistently nasty for quite some time, and it's shown an ability to adjust when given a RB worth a damn. On top of that, it's an inside peek at the arch-nemesis. Maybe he can give the Bears advantage because of insider knowledge. The only worry I have is seeing Cutler take hits with a new OC, just like he has with the previous OCs. 6. Mike Sullivan - Tampa OC - Tie. Not really that interested. I want to see a proven offensive leader. 6. Keith Armstrong - Atlanta ST - Tie. Not really that interested. I want to see a proven offensive leader. 6. Joe DeCamillis - Dallas ST - Tie. Not really that interested. I want to see a proven offensive leader.

Agreed. Which is why I was hesitant to put Paea in there. He's the only one that truly doesn't fit into any traditional 3-4 role.

OL - I obviously agree with any and all help given here. As someone else said, numbers need to be thrown at this situation. TE - I would like to see Rodriguez get a chance. His talent is SEVERELY wasted where he is now. He was drafted for a reason, but he wasn't used for that reason. MLB - I still think Urlacher has some skill, and is serviceable for one or two more years. Besides, I don't think MLBs are that hard to really find. Hall of Famers? Sure, they're hard to find. But good MLBs are a dime a dozen.

Dude, just because you say "move on" doesn't mean I have to. And it certainly doesn't mean you get to dictate the last word on a subject. Is Charles Tillman right? I have no doubt. I don't think anyone on this board every challenged anything in Tillman's quote. Lovie Smith, from all indications, is a very good, if not great man. But he's a average-to-good head football coach in the NFL who has severe limitations in many areas. But to the point, how exactly should a fan act in a situation such as ours? Should the fans constantly be happen with .500ish records, where the team treads water and never really threatens further? If Lovie could get the team beyond that point, then nobody would have been calling for his firing. And therefore the dilemma existed. Bears win, Lovie keeps his job, the team treads water. Bears lose, Lovie potentially loses his job (he obviously did), the team has a chance to do something other than tread water. I guess we all just view things differently. I view it as losing a few battles in order to win the war. Losses were necessary in order for Lovie to get fired, which can hopefully give the Bears the chance to advance beyond their currently stagnant point. It's not that fans wanted the Bears to actually lose - you have to understand that. It's that fans realized some losses were necessary in order for major gains to potentially be made.

I admit the Bears don't have the big NT, but you don't think the assortment of Izzy, Peppers, Melton, and Wooton could fulfill the role of 3-4 DE? This looks pretty awesome to me: NT: Player X DE: Peppers, Melton LB: Wooton, Briggs, Urlacher, SMC

LOVE this idea. And while we're talking about using players to best suit their talents, let's move Rodriguez out from FB, hand him the starting TE role right now, tell him it's his to lose in training camp, and go into the season with at least a threat at the TE position. FBs are not priorities for the most part. If we need one, I'm sure one could be found.

You make it sound as if the Bears have to start over at the beginning, yet you are ignoring the 10-6 record. The Bears don't have that many problems in comparison to most other teams. It's one of the main problems everyone had with Lovie: he didn't maximize talent. Given the fact that Emery went out and got Marshall - who is probably the best WR in Bears history - I'm feeling confident he'll identify the issues on the team and address them.

Remember where it started. Scroll up, go back to previous comments, and see where you began by basically challenging every Bears fan who didn't agree with you. Anyone who wanted Lovie gone was not a true fan. Your line of reason is weak, and just because your opinion is not majority doesn't make anyone else a lemming or in search of some sort of "echo chamber". It just means majority/minority...and generally speaking, when the difference between majority and minority is so vast, the minority is wrong.