jason

From PFW's "Audibles" section, where they supposedly are getting inside, anonymous information from NFL Scouts, coaches, and front-office personnel, they pose the following thought: "I'm surprised the Bears have not tried Carimi at left tackle. That's what he played at Wisconsin. Chris Williams looked better than Carimi at right tackle, and Williams had to bailed out from playing on the outside. He couldn't get it done at tackle or guard." You mean draft players and play them in the position they know?

Great point. I'm convinced the current system has minimized Urlacher's potential impact drastically. He spends far too much time back-pedaling and running deep middle coverage. He'd fit just fine in a 3-4 scheme where his job was to run into his gap, blitz on occasion, and generally create havoc.

But don't the Bears supposedly already have the potential 3-4 OLB pass rushing demon already on the roster? I would LOVE a switch to the 3-4.

Apparently the Bears believe Rodriguez is a backfield player, so why not line him up in front of Bush? Or, hell, switch'em! Gotta be better than using Armando Allen.

I like the idea of grabbing Mathieu, but I think he'll have to be grabbed in the third, maybe fourth. I just wish we would have taken the chance on another troubled player last year, then we wouldn't be having these "who replaces Urlacher" discussions as much. Also, for the record, my dream draft would look very close to this: 1. Barrett Jones, OL, Bama 2. DJ Fluker, OL, Bama 4. Shane Skov, ILB, Stanford 5. Alec Lemon, WR, Syracuse 6. Michael Buchanan, DE, Illinois 7. Ryan Nassib, QB, Syracuse

With follow-up articles about how Tice is an offensive line guru, and Lovie Smith really knows what he's doing.

I cut out the parts that are unimportant to me. You absolutely hit this one out of the ballpark. Dead-on.

Good thing the Bears got a speedy, pass-catching TE in the draft and decided to use him at FB.

I like the idea, but while Lovie doesn't run the strict cover-2 any more, he still has his LBs drop back into coverage far too often for my liking. I think the end result would be SMC rushing less often than we would like, getting toasted in coverage by a slot WR, and us talking about a wasted draft pick.

Yep. Really. Yesterday didn't convince me otherwise.

There is no doubt Rodgers trumps Cutler, but to even insinuate they are on equal footing elsewhere is disingenuous. From an institutional standpoint, the Packers front office, management, coaches, and offensive gurus have had consistency, and a vastly better understanding of how to run an offensive team. That is not even up for debate. Further, while Marshall is a beast, that's about it unless Alshon continues on without injury. The Packers have WRs for days. They lose a guy like Greg Jennings for damn near the entire season, and don't miss a beat. And you know I'd argue the Bears OL is significantly worse. I understand what you're saying, but comparing the two is not even remotely fair to Cutler.

First, I've read some of the advanced stats on this subject. It's interesting. Unfortunately, however, the stats can't be applied necessarily on a team-by-team basis. With the Bears having such a bad OL, such a bad scoring offense, with injuries mounting on defense (which signaled the likelihood of the opponent scoring more), you go to the old adage of taking points when you can. There is a big difference between a well-run organization like Oregon and NE doing something, and what the Bears should do on offense. The former has the coaching and players to execute with great success. The latter does not. As for going for the kill, you're right. That's what I almost always want. But I don't think you understand what I mean when I say that. I mean, "don't change an aggressive strategy that is working just because you have a lead." That's what Lovie does. I do not mean, "take extra chances." Otherwise I'd advocate for a bomb on every pass play, which we can all agree would make little sense.

I wish I could be that optimistic, but I've been a Bears fan far too long to believe it. The most likely scenario is: win just enough to get a wild card, get a worse draft pick for it, get hammered in the playoffs, the players rally around Lovie because he's a softer/kinder coach, the media blames all Chicago woes on injuries, Lovie keeps his job, no major progress is made.

Huh? From a statistical perspective, it made MUCH more sense to go for the FG for the following reasons: 1-The Bears are 20th in the league in offensive scoring 2-The Bears D is not on a scoring tear any more 3-The Seahawks O is 16th in the league in offensive scoring 4-Robbie Gould is 21-25 for the year and fairly automatic from 32 yards 5-The FG would have made it 10-0, and given the Bears momentum 6-The ensuing kickoff would likely have given the Seahawks a touchback without momentum You take the points when you can get them.

It's almost blasphemous to think about, but I wonder if this team would be better off just losing out, getting a new coach at the end of the year, getting new coordinators who know what they are doing (except Toub, keep him), and getting a better draft pick. But I suspect it will be a wild card, no real progress, and Lovie keeps his job. With all the injuries I don't see how this team can sustain against the remaining schedule. AP will probably go for 200 yards, then Rodgers will likely torch the secondary, who knows what we'll get from Arizona (likely to be a breakout game for whoever plays QB for them, but the announcers will talk about him and not the Bears D), and then Detroit will likely put up close to 400yds passing. I see 1-3 to close out the season. Without injuries it's probably 3-1.

It could also be that one of the Bears' primary actions for a LB is to immediately drop back into coverage, and since the other players are usually playing their area of responsibility instead of man-to-man, there is a lot more room for a QB to roam. Before this flaw was covered by the ridiculous abilities of a healthy Brian Urlacher, but now they are being exposed. It's no big surprise since many have mentioned that this type of defense is incredibly flawed unless you have three key pieces: 1-A DT that can collapse the pocket, 2-A MLB with ridiculous range and speed, 3-A FS with great instincts and sure tackling. Granted, those three guys fit well in any defensive scheme, but they are absolutely critical to the Lovie-2.

I think this year allows a team to put a guy on IR, but if that guy gets healthy during the season, they can release him from the team without penalty and to open up another IR spot. It happened with Nate Kaeding this year as well. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/oct/30...ical-be-waived/

http://espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/story/_/id/...t-chicago-bears I think it's a wise move for him to think of a hometown discount if he wants to resign with the Bears. If the OL is to be fixed, weapons to be added, defense to be rebuilt, it sure won't help the franchise if he tries to break the bank.

Who do they cut? Easy. Sanz. Weems has much more upside, a bigger contract, and can produce considerably more on ST. Why hasn't he been signed by any other team? Probably because he officially on IR until yesterday.

Why not buy insurance? He may not beat them out at the end of this year, but he'd almost certainly beat out Hester in training camp next year.

100% agree. Great post.

It was partially sarcastic. I know neither of those guys was fond of running the ball, but whenever someone comes into Chicago with an outside-the-box mentality on offense, the majority of the fan base hates the guy. Hence, Crowton and Martz were not liked by most. But both of those guys have forgotten more offensive football knowledge than Tice will ever have. But as long as Tice is relatively "three yards and a cloud of dust" you won't hear much about getting rid of him. Small rumblings is all.

So, Hester and Bennett are out with concussions. Alshon has a knee problem, which followed a hand problem. That leaves the Bears with Marshall, Dane, Weems...which really means, Marshall. So, what are his thoughts? Brandon Marshall's thoughts I would not mind seeing Mike Sims-Walker on this team one bit. He comes in, proves himself, and next year he probably beats out one of the other WRs for a #3 or #4 role. Win-win

No, because then Toub would get run out of town shortly thereafter. The last two guys who were creative on offense were Crowton and Martz. They weren't favored in Chicago very much.

I can reply to my quote easily by saying I agree with what you've said. But you and I both know the Bears aren't the Giants, and we possess neither the offensive firepower (i.e. Manning and those WRs) nor the defensive firepower (i.e. their DL) that can get hot and absolutely destroy teams, regardless of matchup, for a stretch of playoff games. As for the "shut anyone down" stuff, I still think you're missing the point. The Bears don't stomp on people. When they have the lead they may hold on - and even a Lovie-hater like myself has to admit that he holds on more than most - the simple fact is that his scheme allows opponents to stick around and make a game of it. We very rarely see a game like the Titans game this year when they step on the gas pedal and never let up. Normally Lovie sees anything equal to or greater than a touchdown lead and drastically alters gameplan.