jason

Interesting http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/850698...est-week-6-news

Very good breakdown. I'd even say you can rule out Briggs for a secondary reason, because in this scheme a guy who has speed and instincts will succeed at his position. It's not like Briggs is the best tackler out there; people have been talking about his tackling problems for multiple years (no hitting problems though). You're right; this all hinges on Webb. The thing that sucks though is Webb will likely pull a Jauron/Lovie, doing just enough to keep his job when it matters, but not enough to really dominate. I think the first three rounds should be OT, CB, OG/C.

But in the grand scheme of things, it makes WAY more sense to draft OL early than it does for LB, particularly with the Lovie-2. It's a lot easier to find a great athlete and plug him into a LB position than it is to find a guy who can protect the QB. I'd love a probowler across the OL, but I know that's not going to happen. What I do what, however, is competence at every position, and I don't believe the Bears have that. Maybe the guys will improve the rest of the year and in week 17 I'll change my tune, but right now I'll trust history.

I would have loved it if the packers lost, but yesterday was a great day considering the Bears were on bye. Awesome.

I don't think you can just discount this year's draft because of a new GM. The same HC is still here, and the philosophy prevails.

The interior is not fine. You, and the parents of either Rachal or Spencer, are the only ones who think it is.

It's not a trick, nor is it arbitrary. It's a round, ten years. It's about the time when they officially started to ignore the OL. The year before that they got OL in the 1st and the 3rd, and the year before that they got help in the 3rd and the 5th. If you were talking about draft value charts, it wasn't clear. Nonetheless, if you were, then you basically agree that it's a completely moronic way of drafting. Anyone with a brain has to know this. And it's specifically the reason why the DL - the much favored of the two lines under the Bears current staff - under Lovie Smith has been much better than the OL. He favors the DL because he's thought of as a defensive coach, and the offense suffers as a direct result. Make no mistake, part of my point is that this strategy is tied to Lovie Smith and the type of team he'd like to have. Regarding your numbers, you are off. Since 2005: OL - Roughly* 1822 DL - Roughly 2134 *Some draft picks no longer exist as slated originally Since 2003: OL - 1821 DL - 4890 Even with the two first rounders, and even excluding 2003 & 2004, the Bears STILL have more DL draft chart value! Considering how ugly the rest of the data looks, this is damning.

Please stop. This has been done time and time and time again. Just grabbing two first rounders is not enough. Especially if one of them was injury prone and questioned out of college. It's the equivalent of betting half of your life savings on one bet, and the other half on a similar bet. Do we have to rehash the "sacks don't equal all pressure problems"-line of reasoning again? Go back and look at the last ten drafts. The OL has been drastically ignored when compared to the DL. And people wonder why the Bears have had good defenses and shit offenses. Since 2003 OT: 5 OG:5 DT:7 DE:9 Since 2003, by round OT: 1,1,7,7,7 OG: 6,7,7,7 DT: 1,2,2,3,3,4,5 DE: 1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,7 Since 2003, visually OT: XX-,---,---,---,---,---,XXX OG: ---,---,---,---,---,X--,XXX DT: X--,XX-,XX-X--,X--,---,--- DE: XX-,X--,X--,XX-,XX-,---,X-- See the difference? It is not, nor has it been for a decade, a "fair amount of attention."

That philosophy is what got us in this poor situation to begin with. Getting by with marginally serviceable offensive lineman has almost turned Jay Cutler into David Carr. It's time to retire that line of thought. The OL needs just as much attention as any other aspect of the team.

That's what I've been thinking. The no-huddle sounds good in theory, but in practice it could get Cutler killed. Unless of course it's a no-huddle that runs 90% of the time.

very-near-future Center problem That means it's not an immediate problem. But it's certainly going to become a problem; Garza can't play forever. And you may be able to find cheap Centers in FA or late in the draft, but you get what you pay for. If you look at the previous post I think thet left side of the line needs priority over Center....as well as a few other positions. Center is not a need right now, but give it two years.

This is bad for the Bears because the replacement, Green, is apparently a player most GB fans love. He's almost certainly faster and more explosive than Benson. Probably catches out of the backfield better too.

Wouldn't you also say they have a LG problem? And a very-near-future Center problem?

Yes, I HAVE. Which is why it makes sense to continually draft a position for success. Which is why the DL is doing well. The comment I made is not a disagreement with the notion that continuously drafting players for a specific group is likely to create success. That's just common sense. The problem is when other positions are neglected at the expense of the the "favored" position. Which is also why the inverse of the drafting strategy is true (i.e. don't draft it that much and it likely will not succeed), and why the OL has sucked for five years.

Seething hate. No LT despite it being a banner year. Although, I do likc Warmack. Your draft, despite frustrating me, looks like a Lovie Smith draft. I know this is very unlikely, but I'd love to see the Bears go OL in rounds one and two. Even more unlikely, I'd love to see the picks come from the same team. 1. Travis Frederick, OG, Wisconsin 2. Ricky Wagner, OT, Wisconsin Wisconsin is known as an offensive line factory, the Bears already have Carimi (who looks promising despite his two False Starts this past week), both of the positions on the left side need to be fixed, the cohesion between the two Wisconsin guys (really three) would go a long way towards assuaging the difficulties often associated with rookies, and it gets the Bears set for several years. But you're probably right, no way Lovie passes on DL help in the first three rounds. God forbid the offensive line get the same attention.

Word is that he's practicing catching some machine-launched footballs while wearing the cast. Despite the difficulties, they have analyzed film to see his technique and success-rate, and the surprising thing is that when lined up against game film of Dez White, the winner is Alshon every time.

That was the most fun I've had watching a single half of football in maybe the entire time I've ever watched the Bears. Maybe the Cardinals debacle beats it, but this game was a complete beat-down in the second half, and I loved it.

And yet again...

We've heard this song on more than one occasion. Webb is probably a practice or weight-room warrior, and that's what continues to wet the coaching staff's panties. Which is why your second sentence ("It's hard to fathom how this is even possible, given how bad our current starting LT is.") is probably the one that rings the most true to me. Just because person A gets a start over person B, doesn't make it the right decision. It wouldn't be the first time this staff, or many other staffs, made the wrong decision in terms of personnel. They are certainly not above criticism in this regard. I, like you, find it hard to fathom that Williams is worse than Webb and Scott. It's something else.

Direct result of the cover-2. It may produce results in the red-zone, and has its moments in the turnover battle, but 3rd and long is not its friend. If the front-4 doesn't get pressure, the QB just waits it out and finds a soft spot in the zone. What's not surprising is that the 3rd and long that got stopped short of the first down was the one that wasn't a zone scheme, and, instead, a blitz. The result? Gabbert has to throw quickly, to a read that's short of the first down. Bend but don't break...what's new?

You can't possibly know how well Williams would do, or can do, at LT, because he has never been given a stretch of time significant enough to evaluate. OL talents translate different to different positions, and from the small sample size at LT we've got, Williams is not all that bad. Besides, if he is, in fact, bad, he's still better than Webb.

Good post, good thoughts. I also have to wonder why Williams has never been given a fair shot at LT. Maybe you're right? Maybe it is something personal? Maybe he's just in the doghouse forever. What I know is he has never been given a fair shake at the position. Let's recap (as we have before): 2008 - Started out injured, never started as a result 2009 - Moved to RT to accomodate Pace, when Pace sucked Williams got moved into LT, where he did OK 2010 - Started at LT, then got injured, then Tice inexplicably moved him to LG after injury. This just doesn't happen. And that's despite the fact that Williams did adequately at LT previously and Omifail was the LT option he chose instead. Williams was at the very least average as LG, some would even say he did well. 2011 - Starts at LG while Webb gets gifted the LT spot, which is crazy because Carimi was drafted as a RT because Webb sucked so bad at RT. Yeah, because LT is so much easier. Good thinking Tice. My take on this is that Tice thought he was using his players as best as possible, and the leftside combo of Webb-Williams was better than Williams-XYZ. Still a bad choice. 2012 - Webb, despite sucking something serious at LT in 2011, and facing "competition" from Williams for the LT position, "wins" the LT position battle again. Oh, big surprise, he's still not good this year. And if there ever was a year for a LT, this is the year. Luke Joeckel - Stud Jake Matthews - Pedigree Barrett Jones - Versatile

Very true. If someone had told me in the preseason that the Bears would be 3-1 and asked, "Do you care how it happened?" I would have answered, "No, as long as there are no major injuries."

Wow. That picture is a pretty incredible indication of Jennings' ability to jump. Considering Avery is 5'11", a couple inches off the ground, and not quite erect, that has to be about a 40 inch vertical.

It's still funny that, because of how bad it's been, something Cutler considers a slow start is actually considered a good start by most of this board.