jason

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.

We have two 7th rounders who are starters. We don't have two starters who are 7th rounders. Big difference.

Throwing in my two cents... I completely understand what you're saying, and it is universally one of the very first things people see (maybe also height, sex, big tits on a chick), and it's an obvious first trait indicator. To ignore the obvious comparisons people make between one white player and another, or one black player and another, is quite ignorant. That may not be everyone, but a vast majority of sports-writers, at the very least- do it. One may not agree with it, and would compare Urlacher with Derrick Brooks first before others, but it's much more common for people to compare white-white, black-black, etc.-etc. Bill Simmons has written about this more than one time for ESPN. Saying someone won't be good, however, because they're a white X or a black Y is very misguided; measurables make much more sense.

What's the over-under on the number of games missed because of injury by McClellin and Hardin combined?

God, let's hope so, because they sure aren't going to get immediate help from a 4th round and beyond LT. Otherwise Webb is still LT, the OL is not improved, and all the tools in the world will not help Cutler when he's running for his life and getting grass stains on his ass.

HAHA. Dude, your wet dream of two tall WRs has finally been set up. Break out the Jergens. Having said that, how many times does everyone have to tell you, Weems and Thomas will virtually never see the field as WRs. They were picked up as ST. Period. They got two WRs, Marshall and Alshon.

Meh. WR in Round 2 made a lot of sense, especially where he could have gone. But this pick makes me shake my head, just like McClellin. With one legit OT talent - albeit not great - left on the board, how do they not draft him? I guess they really are content with their OL.

This year will probably prove or disprove my point. Cutler + Forte + Bush + Marshall + Jeffery + Bennett + Hester = No excuses. If it doesn't turn into a top-10 offense (or very damn close), that validates what I've been saying for years.

I've been prepping for a marathon all day. As for the pick, I think it's a great value. I would have rather seen Mike Adams there, but it's hard to argue with Alshon where he was selected. Problem now: There is still a LT hole, and the talent at OT is absolutely non-existent (edit: Massie). BPA makes the most sense now.

HA! I tried to present an analogy, and because I'm hungry the first thing I thought of was food.

Who is the 4th best DT? Jerel Worthy? Because that's who the DT selection would be if they went that way.