jason

Wesson Just like it was easy to game plan against the Packers because they had a week running game Me ...don't kid yourself, it was FAR from easy to gameplan against the Packers. They've been tearing the entire league a new ass for more than a few years. AZ54 Maybe scoring 10pts is getting torn up in your opinion but it seems to me one team has been right there holding their offense in check. (provides list of games in which Bears give up 22 PPG) Me I point out the 22PPG figure, and the oddity of that one game in which the Bears' D played well while the Packers' O played poorly. Then I ask you, "Do you consider giving up three TDs per game a defensive success for the Bears?" The reason for the question is obvious: The Bears gave up 22PPG, and the 10pt. game was an anomaly. My advice would be to read the ENTIRE thread. I simply replied to Wesson's original "the Packers are easy to gameplan against" statement by categorically and simply disproving it. Also, I never stated whether 22 PPG was successful; I merely asked a question. But you are right, the Bears have shown better success against the Packers' offense than average. One must also consider, if bringing up the Bears 22PPG, that they had more combined TDs via KR, PR, and Fumble/INT return than any other team in the league. Over a quarter of their TDs were non-offensive. The Packers, meanwhile, nearly doubled the Bears' total TDs and only had 10% of their TDs come from non-offensive sources, further proving the difficulty in gameplanning for their offense.

So the Bears have done better than average against the Packers...but still given up over 3 TDs per game. Interesting.

I admit the situations are different (especially the position switching), but I expect your full support in the next TO, Randy Moss, or OchoCinco thread.

Height does not necessarily equate to increased production, better hands, the ability to catch, the ability to run routes, shielding off defenders, making the catch at the maximum height possible, or a variety of other concepts that seem to elude you. If all of it did, then every team in the NFL would have something like a 95% success rate in the red zone with the fade route and/or jump ball.

1. Thank you. It's a sacrifice that gives less reps at DT (his actual position), provides minimal snaps at FB (his potential new position), and the combination - specifically because of how the two positions are played (e.g. hand positioning, body lean, receiving vs. delivering hits) - along with simply absorbing more hits, is what makes him more injury prone. The number of plays is nearly inconsequential because absorbing massive hits, especially if you are unaccustomed to the impact, weighs heavily on a body. Ask a non-boxer about getting punched in the stomach and you begin to understand this phenomenon. 2. Thank you. The potential benefit of his minimal offensive contributions are offset by the probable degradation of his defensive contributions. There is a reason why players don't play both ways any more. 3. Thank you. No further explanation needed.

HAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! Great post.

Great post. I didn't even consider the added aspect of more potential fumbles or injuries. You're dead-on with the first three bullet points.

I was referring to the Packers' elevated offensive statistics, not necessarily their games against the Bears. By and large, the Packers are not an easy team to gameplan for, regardless of whether or not they are overly pass-heavy. They've been a top-ten offense in the league for the majority of the past decade. In the games you've listed, the Packers averaged 22 PPG. As for the 10 point game, that was an abnormal game because A-The Bears had nearly nothing to play for, B-The Packers dropped more than one huge reception, C-Tillman made an incredible diving INT when the Packers were driving That was a very bad game for the Packers, and they still won 10-3. If things don't go sour for them, they probably put up something really close to their 22 PPG average. Do you consider giving up three TDs per game a defensive success for the Bears?

Again, the "what can it hurt" mentality. For one, it could hurt cohesion, since Cutler is very familiar with Bennett, Marshall, and Hester. It doesn't take a lot of extra thought to see why putting in a rookie WR for tons of snaps has other potential problems.

Bigger & faster is far too simplistic for determining who the better blocker is. It's the "why not" mentality that bothers me because then we get back into talking about Urlacher returning a punt or Briggs trying a FG.

I prefer a balanced attack, but don't kid yourself, it was FAR from easy to gameplan against the Packers. They've been tearing the entire league a new ass for more than a few years.

You're confusing "what a player did in college" with "what a player was scouted to do in the pros." Urlacher was scouted to be a NFL LB. It's possible for someone to play, get scouted, and get drafted for the same position, but that's not the case with Urlacher. Nor is it the same for Clutts. Which is why neither comparison works. Melton played, was scouted, and was drafted to play DT. As for "teams do what they feel will make their teams better," the key word is "feel." It's far from a certainty that their decisions will lead to successes. And in terms of the Bears and their last decade of data, it's hard to be very confident with what they "feel."

I don't think you recognized my sarcasm. I think the player switches are bad ideas. Players who make the NFL should play at the position in which they made or were scouted favorably for the NFL. Clutts wasn't good enough at his college position to make the NFL. His subsequent efforts at FB were good enough to get him into the NFL. That's where he should play, and Melton should play DT. The Bears didn't draft Melton because he used to play RB. IF that were the reason, this board would have collectively seizured.

Now this I agree with...which is why I, once again, am one of the few people who was in favor of Martz (because he's much more about passing than running). Hell, I was in favor of Crowton. I still don't know if the Rodriguez pick was a good one. I hope I'm wrong and he's Hernandez 2.0, but right now I don't see the Bears making a one-year change into a pass-heavy team that employs a double-TE set very frequently...particularly with one of the worst OLs in the NFL. Maybe it'll be a two-year work in progress, and that would be fine. I'm just pessimistic is all.

Agreed. But those teams are not the Bears, and haven't been the Bears as long as I've been alive. The second part of the equation "grind down the clock" is definitely something Lovie Smith is a fan of, but the "build a lead using the passing game" part is very abnormal for the Bears. I'd love for them to turn into the Patriots 2.0, but until that happens the Rodriguez draft pick is curious.

Way to completely ignore the post I made that has some very valid points. It's not so much "can this hurt" as it is "do the Bears have a better option." Since the Chicago Bears don't play college football, and Melton didn't make it into the NFL as a FB, and Clutts actually did make it into the NFL as a FB, I'm believe the Bears have a better option at FB. As for the videos, the first one is a gaping hole that you or I could have gone through with ease. The second one, who the hell is ULL? Louisiana Lafayette? Yeah, because that's totally the same as the NFL. The one thing I will say is, he appears to have some skill running the ball. But it just makes much more sense to have an NFL FB playing FB for a team in the NFL. Otherwise we need to go to the well and see what hidden talents the current roster has so we can maximize their production. I know Briggs played some RB/K and Urlacher played some RB/WR in HS, and Urlacher got some reps as WR in college, maybe we should let them each carry the rock a couple times, Briggs can attempt a chippy FG, and Urlacher can go out for a bubble screen or two. How can it hurt? Right?! Isn't that the logic being used? College NFL College

Isn't the point to have one TE who excels at blocking and one who excels at receiving? For a collective group that so desperately wants a balanced offense, you sure sound like a group who wants a 70/30 pass-run ratio. Davis, Rodriguez, Spaeth, if in that order on the depth chart, and the first two are used together, make this more of a passing team than a running team.

No matter what ANY of us say, the Bears will do what they want. But, then, what the hell is the point of this message board?! It's to put out our individual opinions. Period. Also, it's a complete fallacy to say a 295lb guy is better than a 260lb guy blocking. That's just ridiculous on numerous levels, the first of which is physics (i.e. Newton's second law). I think you're only looking at the "mass" part of the formula. Regarding position changes, they happen every day, but this one is not common. Among the OL or DL, this is common and the players are widely regarded as somewhat interchangeable. Even WR/DB is fairly similar, requiring the same movements, bursts, athletic ability, knowledge of the game. But changing from DT to FB is completely different. Not only that, but the primary job of a FB is to block. The primary job of a DT is to tackle. Unless you're stating that the coaching Clutts has received in his efforts to be a FB are almost completely moot, then it stands to reason he'd be a better blocker. This is a guy who has made it into the NFL by saying, "I will hurl my body at another player so that someone else can get the glory." He was not highly thought of, had to battle his way into the NFL with that sacrificial attitude, and it is not something to take lightly. That's why he's a better blocker. Well, that, speed (see above physics thought), and human kinetics (i.e. lower to the ground causes greater stability). You're saying I'm not looking at the big picture, but that is really where I think you're failing. All you're seeing is "bigger person = better blocker," which isn't terribly surprising considering your infatuation with tall WRs. My debate is not about doing anything to make the Bears better. Utilizing unorthodox ideas is obviously not something I'm against, otherwise I wouldn't have been one of the few people in favor of Martz. If this were all about lining up a bigger guy in the backfield and saying "run to the left and flatten any guy you see is the wrong color" every team in the NFL would have wanted to draft Javorskie Lane out of Texas A&M, or grabbed some other near-300-pounder in the 7th round as a potential FB. Unfortunately for that flawed line of reasoning, this is not something NFL teams do. My point is about the Bears running the team in the mold of how Vince Lombardi coached, running a play so perfectly that it doesn't matter what the opponent does. And at this current point, Melton is nowhere near that execution. Aside from that, if the Bears plan to use Melton as one of their primary rotational DTs - which is obvious - then utilizing him elsewhere only increases fatigue and decreases potential defensive impact. It's the same argument that has been made against Hester since he started playing WR. Bad idea unless this is just OTA goofing off or fill-in duty.

To me there are only two options: Khalil and AP. Allen only has a few more productive years left. Since AP is injured, and has taken some pounding, I think Khalil has the most upside for years to come. Plus, franchise LTs don't come very often; franchise RBs come quite a bit more often.

Forte, Bush, Clutts. If Forte isn't big or strong enough, or doesn't run hard enough, or doesn't run with enough forward push, then the Bears have Bush. If Bush can't fit the bill with his extra 20 or so pounds, then Klutz is a battering ram with 20 or so more pounds than Bush. Melton has no business in the backfield. I don't care where he played part-time in high school or college. Most of the guys in the NFL were superstars at multiple positions at the lower levels of football. As far as Brown and Edelman at DB, that's apples and oranges, or a bad idea, for multiple reasons. First of all, the Bears are not the Patriots. Second, Lovie is not Belichick. Third, Edelman got beat like a rented mule on more than one occasion. Hell, Edelman was a QB in high school AND college. If scouted today he would be labelled "athlete," which is why his position change makes slightly more sense than Melton's. And, last but not least, the most important difference: both Brown and Edelman were used as emergency options, which is not what's being discussed with Melton. Clutts is 6'2", 260lbs FB. Melton is 6'3", 295lbs DT. Give me the shorter guy, with the lower center of gravity, the faster guy with a history of dishing out snot-bubbles, the bull in a China shop with a penchant for head-on collisions, over the guy who is still trying to figure out how to excel at his chosen position.

So, if Davis is so highly sought after, and the Bears believe in him so much, and he is such a great fit for the Bates/Tice attack, and Briggs thinks he's the best thing since sliced bread, why was Rodriguez drafted? http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/footb...0,7334055.story

This has to be a clear cut sign that Williams is playing at LT, right? I mean, there's no way he could be worse than Webb; so if there is competition, true competition, Williams has it. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/footb...0,3935877.story Williams - Spencer - Garza - Louis - Carimi That is better than last season, but it sure as heck would have been nice to have more done.

Hate the idea. First of all, he needs to focus on playing his assigned role on defense better before being used elsewhere. Until he shows major improvement he should not be focusing energy or effort elsewhere. Secondly, if the Bears want/need a FB, they damn-well should have drafted/signed one they like enough to play ahead of a DT.

Agreed. Give me ten Zach Thomas-type players over ten Lavar Arrington-type players any day of the week.

When you pick out two bits of data that flow contradictory to the sea of data proving the opposite, yes, you will be wrong. But if compromise is what you're after, then I concede that the two Bears' OTs have not aligned with the aforementioned sea of data if you are admitting above - I think you are - that the two Bears' OTs just happen to be the outliers, the anomalies from the norm.