jason

That was a great pull by Rachal, and it was nice to see Webb at the second level. I'm not really impressed by the rugby scrum push; at that point the surge was inevitable because the D was standing and the O was pushing forward.

WHO NEEDS OFFENSE!? hahahaha

Webb.

WHO NEEDS OFFENSE!?

HAHAHA! Tillman. Love that dude.

I don't associate Rice with the Raiders or Montana with the Chiefs, but I get a sick feeling in my stomach when thinking about both situations. And they didn't even play for the Bears. It would be soul-crushing for me to see Urlacher in another jersey.

HAHA! Nice.

So you're telling me there is no difference in terms of play-calling as to what type of assistance a LT gets in the NFL based upon how good that LT is? That's ridiculous. The frequency matters. And the frequency is entirely dependent upon how good the LT is. The better the LT, the less frequently he needs help. That help can be used elsewhere, or sent out on a supplementary route.

Despite Marshall being on the team, and having great stats, the Bears offense is still not good. The passing offense is worse than last year. The debate was "add WRs and the OL looks better" vs. "add OL and the WRs look better." I think it's pretty clear that adding WRs hasn't made the OL look better. I believe, however, that adding OL would have made the WRs look better. As far as what I wanted to be done, I wanted it addressed in the draft or FA. Since major FA targets were unlikely - just as you said - the draft was a more intelligent approach. I don't know where the hell you get that Reiff and Martin both suck. The Dolphins have had Martin starting since day one, and are impressed with his performance. I am too. He has allowed one sack and two QB hits. AS A ROOKIE. Also, this just in, but the Dolphins are probably the surprise of the league, and it has a decent amount to do with the fact that Martin is not playing like a rookie. As for Reiff, what did you expect him to do on the Lions? Start over Jeff Backus? Dude has started for a decade straight, there is no way Reiff was taking the job from him.

Wow. Now that's crazy talk. But since you're into the hypothetical... They would have probably made the playoffs last year with Campbell as a backup, but who's to say the OL wouldn't have gotten him injured? And even more hypothetical, what if the OL was stellar last year? Maybe Cutler feels more comfortable and confident, doesn't have pressure in his face, doesn't feel the blitz around the end, and he never throws the INT?

No. There were many on this board who said the OL problems would be severely minimized if the WR position was vastly improved. Their reasoning was that Cutler could throw it quicker, and have more confidence in his receivers, which would make the time in pocket minimized. Trust me, the discussion was had on more than one occasion. As far as improvement goes, the team has improved. The record has improved. The offense has not.

I'm hoping they both accept less money to remain with the Bears. Further, I'm hoping Hester realizes his limited abilities at WR, and accepts a "demotion" to a special teams player who rarely gets in on offensive plays. Maybe then he can focus and return to the ways of previous years when he was the most feared returner in NFL history.

You're setting up the strawman. I wouldn't require 1st rounders across the board on the OL. I'd simply require a blend of talents, a yearly attention to a position group that sorely needs it. Arguing the way I am is actually in favor of the Lovie Smith draft philosophy (i.e. more picks at a specific position make a position better), because Lovie spent a lot of picks on the DL and it's doing well. It stands to reason that if he did the same thing for the OL, or any position, they would be a lot better. This is plain and simple logic. But when building a football team you can't put all (or a great majority) of your eggs in one basket. All I'm saying is that the OL should have been thrown a bone of the last several years. This is what Lovie and his front office has done: OL: 11,4,6,77777 DL: 11,222,33,44,55,7 To be honest, I think a more sound draft philosophy would be to flip-flop the OL/DL drafting strategy since the OL typically protects the most important player on the team. Look how bad the Bears looked when Cutler went down. Look how the NFL is steering towards an offense-dominated league. Look at how well the Bears do when Cutler gets time. Look at how poorly they do when he is running for his life. You're telling me the DL couldn't have spared one of those 2nd rounders? Maybe a 3rd? A 4th?! Tank Johnson in 2004? Coulda been Max Starks. Dusty Dvoracek in 2006? Coulda been Jahri Evans. Dan Bazuin in 2007? Coulda been Marshall Yanda. Marcus Harrison in 2008? Coulda been Carl Nicks. I'm not saying the OL replacements above would have been selected in the same slot as their DL counterparts. I'm just saying that none of those DL guys are consequential, and the pick could have helped the team elsewhere. And maybe, just maybe, if the HC/FO wasn't so focused on DL, a gem could have been discovered on the OL and we wouldn't be having this conversation for the 5th/6th/7th? year in a row.

I'm not debating the strategy of it, I'm debating the frequency or necessity of it. Find that "Good LT" and I guarantee the frequency and/or necessity is lessened as compared to Webb.

Interesting, but misleading. 1. So if Spaeth and Webb tangle feet, it's on Spaeth and not Webb? This is odd since Spaeth is known for being a superb blocking TE - sure as hell isn't a superb receiving TE - and Webb is known as being one of the worst pass blocking OTs in the NFL. The mere fact that Spaeth needs to be over on Webb's side is actually an indictment on Webb. 2. I don't particularly recall this one, so I guess I'll agree that Cutler held it too long if he did, in fact, hold it 5 seconds. I doubt the 5 second claim, because I doesn't seem like he ever had 5 seconds to hold it, but we'll chalk this one up as Jay's fault. 3. Yes, this is ultimately on Jay. A screen pass can be thrown at the feet of the RB with virtually no risk or fear of foul. However, if you watch the play again, neither Webb nor Rachal sell the run play. And Rachal does a particularly horrible job at it. Horrible. No wonder the Bears can't pull off a RB screen. Wouldn't you know it?! Who breaks up the possibility for a RB screen? That's right, the guys that Rachal and Webb were supposed to block or sell. 4. This shows Pompei's bias. The mere fact that Cutler had to step forward to avoid the rush, and is consequently sacked, is clear that it's on the OL, but Pompei makes this unwinnable. Cutler kept his eyes downfield, and doesn't have time to look down at each of the oncoming DLinemen to choose where the best angle/opening is. If he had, Pompei would have ripped him for taking his eyes off the receivers or giving up on the pass too quickly. 5 & 6. He had no choice but to blame these on the OL. At most Cutler is responsible for two sacks (2 & 3). But in terms of an offensive play that didn't work, and results in the negative, Cutler is only responsible for #2. At most the OL is responsible for four sacks (1,4,5,6), and the OL failed on the screen play (3).

I loved both the Williams pick and the Carimi pick when they happened. I am virtually the only one that still thinks the LT job should have been Williams', and not that scrub Webb's. I think Williams' failure is just as much on the coaches (particularly Tice), as it is the player's. He dicked around with Williams' position, playing time, and screwed the guy coming off of injury. Then he found a favorite player and gave the guy, despite horrible performance, an advantage in a "competition" for the starting LT spot. I still think Carimi could be a stud. But pointing to two 1st rounders when it's been argued, documented, and repeatedly shown that the DL has received an ridiculously higher dosage of draft picks is neither funny nor ironic. The OL is comprised of five players, not two. Go back to when Lovie came on board (2004), and you have (I swear I've given these stats fifty freaking times): OL: two 1st rounders, one 4th rounder, one 6th rounder, five 7th rounders DL: two 1st rounders, three 2nd rounders, two 3rd rounders, two 4th rounders, two 5th rounders, one 7th rounder This is still a management problem, and until they get the OL fixed - by extension the offense gets fixed since other areas have been addressed - the collective of all OLinemen, not just the 1st rounders will face the disapproval of the fans.

I agree. The OC needs better tools to work with. And you're preaching to the leader of the choir in regards to the OL. So all that doesn't also apply to Martz?

The bolded part is what I've been saying for quite some time. The WRs got fixed. Same problems. Same results. Actually worse this year than last year. So where are all the "but if they get bigger, better WRs the offensive problems get fixed"-people? Simply put, that line of reasoning was wrong.

Emery did well, but I completely disagree with the DL comment. The depth would still be good, particularly at the DT position. Why is the DL the only group where the Bears expect to have exemplary starters and starter-quality backups? McClellin was the wrong pick at the time. I hope he turns into the next Clay Matthews - without the lame celebration - but the pick would have been better spent elsewhere.

I respect your opinion, but feel Jay has more in the engine. He's just not allowed to use it. Maybe it has a little bit to do with the tires as well as the road? If you plan to drive fast, you probably shouldn't drive on a winding road. That goes on planning/coaching.

The first sentence is a ridiculous stretch, and you know it. Ten plays don't make a quarter, much less a half, much less a game, much less a season. And even if they did, it's still up to the players to execute. You could call the "Annexation of Puerto Rico" and if the players don't block, it's going to fail. Ultimately the OC is not to blame when the players continue to shit the bed. That's why I thought Martz took too much heat. Tice as well. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. The coaches certainly have impact, but it's ultimately the players that determine success. There are good coaches the get undermined by bad players, and bad coaches that get continually saved by good players. In the end, the Bears offense was better at passing last year, and ranked the exact same as this year in the rushing department. So, why isn't Tice taking the heat that Martz took?

Looks like a 7th round pick would have paid off and we'd have the potential replacement for Briggs.

Um...he didn't check down because it was a one wideout play. That was the design. Should he have forced it? Probably not. But he actually underthrew the ball a bit, and if he had led it some more there was a decent chance that Marshall brings it down. I would have preferred he just took off with it. The Martz vs. Tice comments you don't like are, unfortunately, true. Martz could call ten plays in a row that torched a defense, but nobody would make a peep. The second he called a 7-step drop? All hell breaks loose. Tice needs to be held under a microscope with just as much, if not more, power, because he's supposedly this OL guru who hasn't coached up a good OL the entire time he's been here.

For the record, if you had predicted 3500, 21, 18, 7 I would have ripped you for having INTs too high, but that's about it. 3500 and 21 is a decent guess with this offensive line. Nearly all the problems Cutler has are solved by fixing the OL. There is a reason he torched the NFL when he played with the Broncos, and it has virtually nothing to do with the skill players. Their OL put defenders on the ground, and it gave Cutler a ton of time to throw. And when the didn't put people on the ground, Cutler often rolled out. You're right; he hasn't lived up to the cost of the trade. But if you buy a Porsche and put it on four donuts...

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the notion that Rodriguez is not an addition to the team. After all, if he were good at pass catching, you'd be right, and there is no way in hell Spaeth would be out on pass routes. I'm just pointing out that the Bears had a great chance to address another position. Several good players were still available, but the question mark was selected in an attempt to fill the pass catching TE role. BTW - Funny comment about Davis.