jason

Exactly! They won't draft for this offense, but they sure as hell draft for the Lovie-2 every year. The Bears could have Lawrence Taylor on the other side of Julius Peppers, with John Randle and Mean Joe Greene in the middle, and they'd draft a DT or DE every year with this staff.

If Martz stays and there is no significant offensive talent improvement, then it's horrible management. You don't hire someone because they're good at something specific and then fail to give them the tools and environment to do what made them famous. Either get rid of Martz or give him the tools.

Actually, I don't mind that one so much. I'm not really a fan of getting a SS in the first round, since it's clear we've been searching for a FS, and not a SS for quite some time. Hitting OL hard and heavy in the 2nd and 3rd is precisely what I've wanted for several years. It's two consequential picks spent on the team need. I can't ask for much more. I just get sick of the obligatory 7th round turd OLineman being used as evidence that OL has "been drafted."

And that draft, while entirely possible with these clowns, would make me puke. When OL and WR are so obviously the two top team needs, and both the OL and WR positions are non-singular, it's baffling that they would be ignored on the first day of the draft. I could see it happening, but it would be poor player management.

Yes, sacks are a great barometer, but they are without question an incomplete barometer. It's a ridiculously incomplete picture. Admitting that there is a lot more to it (i.e. hits) is a good step towards the middle. For the record, I think to accurately measure the OL in terms of pass-blocking, you'd have to compile the at least the following six stats with respect to how they rank against the other teams in the league: sacks, hits, hurries, forced rollouts, QB time in pocket before pressure, percentage of OL holding a block on each play. The last two are particularly important, because the former sets a baseline for what constitutes the ambiguous "QB pressure," and the latter constitutes OL success. Afterall, who gives a shit if 4 different guys on the OL play well as long as 1 guy is getting blown up every play? Having said all that, I don't have the time or game film to undergo such a monumental effort, so it ultimately comes down to the eye test. BTW - The Bears OL is 7th worst in sacks and QB hits (but I'm curious to see what exactly is counted as a QB hit) and not that low in terms of team receiving. http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?arc...;qualified=true Also, if you haven't seen the countless links and stats I've provided over the course of the past few years in regards to the OL, you just haven't been paying attention. But just for fun, I think I might start doing this for future Bears' game until the OL finally gets shored up. Care to engage in the undertaking with me? We can create the measurements and the compare notes at the end of each game. Start easy: QB sacks QB hits QB hurries QB forced rollouts Understood. I don't disagree, but I see two approaches. You either completely revamp the offense to suit the lack of talent or you buy/draft the parts necessary for the offense to succeed. The former neuters the offensive potential; the latter is potentially time-consuming. You'd rather see the former; I'd rather see an attempt at the latter. You're currently seeing your choice (while Martz is here), but I'll never get to see my choice because the Bears' front office (including Lovie) has an aversion to drafting more than one serviceable OL addition, and when they do they can't evaluate the guy to ensure he's not some broke-dick who is better suited for a different position. My point was, you can't say "the OL is doing significantly better!" and try to pretend it's all the OL improvement, and at the same time say that the offense has had a near 180 by the addition of rollouts, screens, cihps, etc. The additions to, and modification of, are potentially the true reason the OL has "improved" statistically, through no real improvement of their own. Although I will concede there has been very minor improvement, I still contend they are easily the worst part of the team, and certainly haven't had some sort of life-changing metamorphosis like some would pretend they've had. They are very slightly better, which could be entirely related to Omiyale not playing. The fact that they gave up 6 sacks to the worst pass rush in the NFL is a supporting statistic in this regard (i.e. still sucking this late in the season, despite the "improvement," against the worst pass rush in the NFL). Similarly, you can't judge the WRs. Right? Afterall, they can't expect the passes at the same time, don't have as long to run the routes, etc. Understood. And I was simply trying to bring in some sort of statistic in regards to comparing the OL to the WR positions. This statistic doesn't exist, so using Noot's Notes is as close as statistics as they come in this regard. By bringing in an outside opinion, it was a way of not using my logic but another's. In absence of hard, quantitative data, one must use a lot of qualitative data as a scoring system. I'd argue his ratings are somewhere in the middle of quantitative and qualitative, and until we accomplish what I said in the first paragraph (i.e. the 6 stats).

I know it would never happen (for various reasons), but would anyone on this board be entirely upset with the concept of drafting just three areas of need this upcoming offseason? 1. OL 2. WR 3. OL 4. FS 5. WR 6. OL 7. FS That would be a wonky looking draft, but if you told me that's how it played out I wouldn't be unhappy. I could also see a nothing but OL, WR, and QB draft.

At least on this we can all agree. Just say no to Fartve.

LOL. And I find it contradictory and slightly ignorant that you call me half-witted while: -Saying you've provided statistics while judging the OL's performance entirely based on one statistic (i.e. sacks) -Constantly harping on Martz about the offense while admitting to the fact that he has made significant changes -Ignoring the changes by Martz as largely contributing factors to the better performance by the OL -Constantly saying Martz has done poorly while claiming the WRs and OL are bad, and obviously realizing Hanie sucks -Completely dismissing supporting evidence, others' opinions, countless links, and numerous stats I've compiled over months/years proving the OL is the weakest link of the team, and when they do well even the poor WRs perform significantly better The simple facts of this are, you can't say Martz sucks and the OL has done a lot better while simultaneously admitting to the fact that Martz has changed the offense to support a weak OL and minimize their mistakes, especially after he called a nearly flawless game against KC and the OL allowed 6 sacks to the worst pass rush in the NFL. As for Noot's Notes, he's been a contributing, and respected member on this website before it was even talkbears, and I was trying to persuade the other side of the disagreement - because that's what you do in a disagreement - towards my opinion by using his respected, unbiased (meaning he hasn't taken a side in the debate) opinion. With his grading scale I provided data, actual hard data without my input, that displays a measurement showing the OL performing worse than the WRs. It's not my fault you don't recognize someone else's efforts as having merit. To be quite honest, the way you dismiss his efforts is kind of rude, and definitely insulting.

Try not to think so simply. Sacks are not the only way to measure an OL. Watch the games and you'll also see a lot of pressure and inconsistent running lanes. The logic of "good OL play = good offensive performance" still applies, but it's possible for the talent positions to still make great plays. Also, if you'd bother to read the thread, I said they played "above average" in the game against SD.

Please tell me you're not serious.

lemon, I respect your opinion, but did you honestly think Hanie was holding the ball all that much? I surely don't. On most of the hurries/sacks, I thought he held it a very minimal time. Maybe just enough to peek at a first read and then turn his head for the second read before realizing he was in the middle of a stampede. Maybe two plays I said to myself, "Gotta get rid of it, Hanie." Otherwise he dropped back to his predesigned 5 or 7 step drop, and had either no time (i.e. the pressure was there already), or minimal time (i.e. if he doesn't plant his back foot and throw the pressure is forthcoming - which means there is no time for a second read). The last part we definitely agree. JA invests in defense, which makes his coaches happy. This is not a surprise since the Bears seemingly always have defensive coaches. Just once I'd like to see an offensive minded GM and HC come into Chicago. We know it can be done in cold weather, because the Packers are raping the league right now, and have been on offense for quite some time.

That makes no sense. Why not just keep Forte if you'r going to draft a RB?! You don't trade in a sure thing and bet on an unknown. I live in Alabama. I hear nothing but Trent Richardson 24/7. I believe the hype. Yet I would be aggravated beyond belief with that pick. The Bears would be much better, in the hypothetical trade, signing a lightning fast RB with character issues in the 3rd or 4th, and using those top picks on OL, OL, WR in some sort of order.

I think everyone realizes this, even Martz. The problem is, when he doesn't do these things (i.e. max protect, two TEs) the OL performs almost universally bad. Sure, there is a random game against Philly when everyone is playing well together and the schemes gel, but for the most part there isn't a game that goes by where the pressure on the Bears' QB is anything other than constant, the running holes inconsistent, and the penalties plentiful. It would be different if he could rely on these bums to do something well even at a 25% clip, but he can't. And the result is Cutler throwing off his back foot while under pressure, or Hanie running for his life when everyone on D is loaded up near the LOS. So what is he left with? Running an inept, watered down offense that has minimal chance at success. He's left with an offense that is happy to get 21 on its own, maybe a bit more with a short field from the stellar D/ST. In this situation he's like a boxer who will be lucky to out-point his opponent; a good option is to throw the occasional hay-maker.

I was trying to find a middle ground with those that think the OL is suddenly good. Louis is perhaps the best on the OL behind Garza. And that should be all we have to say about it. But there are still some that think this OL, because they've upgraded from "potentially worst in NFL history" to "one of the worst three in the NFL this year," is making significant enough improvement for it not to be the #1 need on the team.

The mere thought of this makes me want to puke. 100% against it. I would literally cancel the rest of Sunday Ticket this season because I couldn't handle seeing the player I hate the most on my beloved Bears.

I highlighted the part that is the most important in your first paragraph. Rodgers would turn Knox into an all-star. Also, I dont' think the 6-7 sacks necessarily means the OL is doing a pretty good job. It means the first part of your paragraph is correct; the Bears (read: Martz) changed the style of play and allowed less opportunities for sacks. That doesn't mean there wasn't significant pressure. It just means that Cutler threw it faster, there were more max protect type situations, and the offense was run-heavy.

haha. Your hate for Martz is off the charts. At least be rational about it. With one of the worst OLs in the NFL, probably the worst starting QB in the NFL, one of the worst WR corps in the NFL, and the two most talented players on offense injured, the Bears were in a position for two TDs that would have won the game. The 1st: Barber screwed the pooch and showed why he's not starting The 2nd: Williams showed why he's overrated and ready to be cut

-On the play we simply disagree. If it goes for a TD, everyone is on their hands and knees fellating Martz. -Unfortunately, LTs don't last until the mid-teens in the draft. As for the other opening day starters, I don't like them as much. Both Williams and Spencer are average OGs at best, and Garza is out of position. That's why someone like Peter Konz from Wisconsin makes so much sense. He upgrades the Center position, Garza moves and upgrades an OG position, and Carimi comes back to upgrade the LT position. An OL of Carimi - Garza - Konz - Spencer/Williams - Louis has serious potential. -You're right about the Turner/Martz differences. I guess it comes down to personal belief and desire. I happen to want an OC who is capable of creating an offense that can explode, but may take some chances. I hate the "hold on to the lead" kind of guys (e.g. Turner, Shoop). That's why I place the majority of the blame on JA and the OL, because if those two pieces of the puzzle weren't missing, I believe people in Chicago would be singing praises about Martz-ball.

I would be perfectly fine with getting 2 first round picks for Forte. I like him a lot, but I'd love to see the Bears with a shit-ton of draft picks this year, especially in the first round. That way we could package picks for any possible situation. I'd hate to see Forte go, but I'm not of the mindset that RBs are so indispensable.

This very same thing happened to me recently. With proper rehab and effort, the pain subsides in about a week. I could see him coming back after missing only next week.

Siding with the majority here. I don't really like Hanie, never have. His arm is kind of weak, he has poor reads, and he's easily rattled (although I can't entirely blame him with the protection provided). Let's see what Enderle can do.

Actually, it's what I said is not up for debate. The Bears went against the worst pass rush in the NFL and gave up 6 sacks. That's pathetic. That, in and of itself, is not up for debate. As for the rest of the games, you're not watching the same game as I am apparently. OAK: Average at best. I was there and saw the QB pressured on nearly every pass play. The running holes weren't tremendous by any means either. SD: Better than average. DET: The OL sucked. If not for the tremendous performance by the D/ST, the Bears lose, and a great majority of the blame is in the OL's lap. PHI: Tremendous performance. TB: Above average. Although, there were several big screw ups. MIN: Good. DET: Sucked. So, if you figure in the KC game, that's 3 horrible performances, 1 average performance, 3 above average, and 1 great. Sounds to me like a very inconsistent group. They're improving, but it's easy to be happy with a C+ when you're used to getting F's on everything. I'd like to see a consistent B average before I start saying they have been doing "pretty good."

hahaha.

Tremendous? Really? I can only think of one tremendous game. As for the draft, it depends on BPA. If the top two WRs (Blackmon & Jeffery) are gone - they will be - then I see no problem picking a Center like Konz from Wisconsin, or an OG like DeCastro from Stanford or Glenn from Georgia.

No doubt. A huge mistake. I cursed him for it. But we would not have been in that position if the OL had done a half-way professional job the rest of the game. But Roy Williams is a better WR than the guys on the OL are at their jobs. The Chiefs had the worst pass rush in the NFL before this game. Barely 1 sack per game. 6 versus the Bears. OL problems > WR problems