jason

I don't like Hub either, but I respect and like him more than Mayer. I hate brown-nosers. If his job is to report on the Bears, he should do so as impartially as possible, regardless of whether or not the team is signing his paycheck. Tice could start Cutler at LT and Mayer would back it up while touting Tice's abilities as an OL "guru."

Every time I read one of Larry Mayer's pieces on the officials site I get irritated. If there were ever a bigger brown nose I've yet to see it. This guy thinks everything is great all the time, thinks there are no holes on the team, and whenever possible chooses his words in such a way as to give the staff and management a way to weasel out. So, it got me to thinking about other Chicago journalists, and I know a lot of people don't like Mariotti, but which one do you hate reading?

I'm staying out of the "include TE or not"-pissing match, but I would definitely like to address your rookie WR comments. Regardless of how PFW graded these guys, and/or Jeffery, the simple fact is both of the aforementioned WRs fell into a position perfect for rookie success. The Bengals had a garbage WR corp, and it was guaranteed that Green was going to be #1. Add in a rookie gun-slinger who they wanted to get lots of experience, and it's a recipe for rookie WR success. As for Jones, he was virtually guaranteed success for a different reason. With a strong running game, a consistent QB, an all-pro in Roddy White, and one of the best TEs in NFL history, it wasn't like a defense could cover everyone on their team. He was single-covered almost the entire year and their offense is much better than the Bears' offense. Expecting 50,650,8TDs from Jeffery could be possible, but I don't think it's anywhere as likely as the two used for comparison.

It's slightly immature, but I'm sure he's irritated by the paparazzi. Of course, I agree with a poster above: when you are a QB for the Chicago Bears and hook up with the star of the Hills, you can expect paparazzi. You may not like they being outside your house all day, but too bad, it's part of getting paid millions and millions of dollars. Deal with it. Apparently he deals with it with a single finger. It should come as no surprise this doesn't bother me; I'm the one who has been asking for TO and Moss for half a decade. I want players. Period.

I seriously laughed that you, of all people, are sticking up for a short player. Do you know realize your logic in this post is directly contradictory to the "tall WR" tangent you were on for the past month?

Wow. I can't believe I'm reading this. The whole notion of not being a good short yardage back is flawed when we know, for a fact, that the OL is not good. That the OL is in the bottom handful for negative rushes, QB hits, QB sacks, and just about every other OL measurable there is out there. Your scenario of 9 in the box and "get 2 yards" is valid, but that's still something a RB needs help on. If there is a DT or DE in the backfield on a consistent basis, you can't expect the RB to do everything. Even the "short yardage specialists" who are considered elite in that niche role typically get some push from their OL. I put this almost exclusively on the OL.

I bet Jamarcus Webb was behind the camera.

Ignore all the mocks from guys who don't have inside knowledge. We now know how the GMs ranked the NFL prospects this year. Now that they're positioning is known, who would you have drafted? 1. Reilly Reiff - OT - Iowa: I'm still amazed the Bears took, at best, the 4th rated DE, one who comes with question marks addressed by numerous publications, over the 2nd rated OT with minimal downside. 2. Alshon Jeffery - WR - SC: Nothing changed about the trade up or the selection. Easily the best pick of the draft. 3. Brandon Thompson - DT - Clemson: This guy is a beast, quick first move, solid production, killed it at the combine. He is good enough that he would have pushed for a starting job. 4. Bobbie Massie - OT - Miss: Pure BPA. The value at this point would have just been far too high. 6. Markelle Martin - FS - OKSt: Probably the best coverage S in the draft, and he hits hard. 7. Cam Johnson - DE - UVA: Great DE this late. Fast feet, explosive.

ParkerBear for GM! If that had happened I would have not posted for weeks afterwards because I would have been in the ICU because of a heart attack. And Cutler would have been in a room down the hall because of priaprism.

All nice pickups. A good way to fill out the roster, get some fodder, and potentially find a gem. But let's not kid ourselves, the chances of any of these guys sticking, much less doing well, are slim. There is a reason they were not drafted. This ain't the 50s and the 60s where scouting was so unadvanced that guys like Dent slipped to the 8th round. The success percentage of undrafted players is lesser and lesser as we compare to lower and lower rounds. I hope a few of them turn out great, but I'm not holding my breath.

I highlighted the most important word. It's like taking a dump; everything is fine as long as it's regular. The Bears were one of the worst teams in negative rushes last year, and if there were a "RB met in the backfield but managed to get 1 yard after absorbing/avoiding the hit and falling forward"-statistic, I'm quite sure they'd be in the bottom of that one.

As long as Lovie is around, that philosophy will not change. The Bears get a 14 point lead at any point in the game? Expect them to change game-play.

Wrong. I watched all the games last year, and most of the games more than one time. Webb sucked. He had a decent stretch here and there, but he was nowhere near consistent or as good as you try to pretend he was. It's revisionist history. We do this crap every year. We talk about how bad players are on a game-by-game basis, then when the next season starts there are people who forget, and act as if what happened didn't. The reason the Chicago vs. GB example is apples and oranges are various. First and foremost, they have Aaron Rogers, a better QB. Second, they have a better offensive system that better utilizes quick routes (been that way for years and years). Third, they have more capable WRs. The combination of the above makes their situation completely different. The way the sacks stat was used was an example of why the sacks weren't that bad because after all, look how good the Packers offense was! That's obviously a stupid argument, therefore, applese/oranges. AZ54 hit on something though...which is what I've alluded to above...a stud OL isn't necessary for offensive success. We have seen it happen before. But you have to have a bunch of other pieces perfectly in place to overcome the OL's shortcomings. Before the Bears didn't have that. This year they do. But keep in mind, the QB is still the key. If he goes down, the offense fails. And we've yet to really see the OL protect Cutler consistently. There are countless times from last year where he ran for his life and got rid of the ball because of pressure, but I have yet to see a comprehensive stat for that. Plain and simple: if the offense fails, it's the OL's fault.

The Bears can now trot out the following: QB: Cutler RBs: Forte, Bush WRs: Marshall, Bennett, Jeffery, Hester, Knox(?) TEs: Davis, Rodriguez There appear to be no excuses left over this year. What are your expectations for the offense? Top half of the league? Top ten of the league? What I do know is this: 2012 is the year we finally get to settle the age-old debate on TalkBears about whether amassing enough skill-position players can overcome a weak OL. Unless Webb has an epiphany, Louis turns better than average, Garza finds the fountain of youth, and the two high draft picks stay healthy, I think this will be yet another year where the Bears have a below-average offense, but hang around near the middle of the pack because an opportunistic defense and an stellar special teams.

Fine with me, because no matter how many Tice nut-huggers there are in the media, he didn't do very much with the OL last year, and it pretty much sucked except one small stretch of games. It comes as no surprise the OL sucked for multiple years before that as well. I'd have more faith in the professional staff if the Bears had the Patriots track record of success. But they don't. And Cutler has been killed the entire time he's been in Chicago.

10 games is better, but now you're mixing apples and oranges by comparing the Bears' offense to the Packers' offense. You try the comparison to say, "Hey, if the Packers can be so good, then it can't be the OL!" The problem is, the Packers had a better QB and better WR corp last year...not to mention the fact that you're only considering the passing aspect of OL play. You're not even factoring in the running game, where the Bears gained decent yards despite having the 3rd most negative rushes. 5th worst in sacks 5th worst in hits 3rd worst in negative rushes Only two other teams had such a horrible combination of the three factors: St. Louis and Seattle. I'm not saying the injuries didn't play a part. They certainly did. What I'm saying is, comparing them to the Packers doesn't work, and trying to make heads or tails out of last year is difficult if you don't look at the whole picture. They were bad just about the entire year. When the Bears were on a winning streak they were certainly playing better, but they weren't playing good. OL remains the major question mark going into this season.

CNNSI gives the Bears a C. Fox Sports says C-. And Fox News (how is it different?) gives a C+ TBO Sports calls stays in the same shot group with a C. Bleacher Report gave an uncharacteristic A. CBS Sports is the only one that seems to dislike the Jeffery pick, and gives a C. Miami Herald has questions about all the picks, C+ AOL gives an A-, and thinks the additions push the vets. FF Toolbox gave the Bears a D, and have some sort of scoring system I didn't even try to understand Rotoworld gives the Bears a B+, and calls McClellin a "Joker" Looks like the draft, if multiple opinions are to be considered, is pretty much a C.

I'm thinking Bengals and Steelers. The Bengals grabbed multiple guys that have been talked about on this board. They could have 5 or 6 first day starters. DB Dre Kirkpatrick DT Devon Still OG Kevin Zeitler TE Orson Charles WRs Mohamed Sanu and Marvin Jones Pittsburgh built up both OL and DL, because they know the war is won in the trenches. OG David DeCastro OT Mike Adams DT Alameda Ta'amu LB Sean Spence

It's hard to belive because you're only choosing the best games from a good run. That's a small sample size, and neither people nor data work like that. If you only care about last year, and you're only considering last year, then you're still missing the fact they were one of the worst OLs in the NFL last year according to every impartial metric.

Yes, because a GM (JA) with a career win percentage of roughly .500 is a guy who is above criticism.

Great post! Almost exactly how I feel about the draft.

I don't think that sounds all that crazy. Whatever all the players means, hopefully it means Webb, E. Williams, and Chris Spencer don't see the field. And if one does, I hope it's because the Bears move Garza back to OG and put Spencer in at Center where he was originally picked up to play. Carimi - Garza - Spencer - Louis - Williams That's my hope. My realistic look at it: Webb - Williams - Garza - Louis - Carimi (because apparently the coaches like this group)

That's far too simplistic to address how bad the OL was last year. Please go back several pages in the forum history and look at some of the extensive data, research, and links provided that shows the Bears OL was unequivocally one of the worst couple in the NFL last year.

For the record, bear trap is not my alternate login (not that I have one). He just happens to be a very informed Bears fan who realizes the OL sucks and got ignored. Again.

My bro-in-law loves the Gamecocks like we love the Bears, and he thinks it's a great pick. He said sometimes Jeffrey tries to show off with one-handed picks, or maybe doesn't run full routes, but he thinks the Bears will be very happy with the pick.