jason

Interesting. I'd have to think about it for a while. I can't think of any other CBs that had his impact. Red Grange?

Yet more reason why the team's #1 priority is OL.

Props to Moore. It was the appropriate reaction. Major F U to the refs. The right ruling should have been PF against Stafford, PF against Moore (ejection for flagrant action), and PF against the Lions player for the late hit.

Tell me...please. He did what you want: run, run, run. 35 runs, 20 passes. And the Bears offense looked like garbage for most of the game and got completely bailed out by the D/ST combo. The OL opened up very few holes. Cutler dropped back 19 times, got sacked twice, and had pressure several times. What is Martz supposed to do? Please enlighten me. Also, please be remotely consistent. You can't call for a 60/40 run to pass ratio, get it, and then act like Martz called some sort of horrible game. The Lions loaded up to stop the run. Period. You can only call so many screens and draw plays (pssst...those plays didn't work today). This is a gameplan other teams will use going forward. They will load up to stop the run. They will dare the Bears to pass. And we have to hope the Bears' weakest point, the OL, can hold up long enough for Cutler to throw the ball. So what is Martz supposed to do?

I liked the aggressive approach to the end of the half, despite Gould's miss. Historically the Bears shut it down in that situation and just run the clock out. I think that's chickenshit football. Playing not to lose. It's good to see the Bears exploit the prevent defense like we've seen opponent offenses do to the Bears' prevent defensive techniques over the years. Let's hope they can continue to move the ball in the second half.

When the previous play was a power dive that barely gained a single yard, it's not all that bad. As for the ignorant high school jab, the talent gap between RB and DE transcends all levels. Pee wee to pro, a RB should be able to gain the edge on a DE. This is just one of those rare times that the DE in a 9-technique didn't dive in quite as hard as normal. That play is successful on a consistent basis in the NFL and other levels.

I assume you're talking about the counter-toss against the wide-9 technique. And if you are, it is a good call. The wide-9 is predicated on the DEs crashing around the OTs. Those DEs are diving inside play after play. A counter-toss is great because it gives the impression of an inside run and then tosses outside with the expectation that the RB can beat the DE to the edge. I know you hate Martz, and you know I'm a much bigger fan of him than you are, but that play was a very good call agains that defensive technique.

Is it possible to "step on a throat" with the type of offense that everyone around here wants? Especially when that type of D is run-run-run-run-run-pass-run. And ESPECIALLY when the opponent decides they're going to load up the box with 8-9 guys every time. Sooner or later you have to start mixing things up.

Looks like the Lions are daring the Bears and Cutler to beat them throwing. Getting a ton of pressure at the LOS and putting extra guys in the box.

If you had Sunday Ticket it would have been OK, because they reversed the black-out while the other game was on.

Thanks! I got changed over just in time to watch the game. DirecTV got it right and reversed the black-out until that stupid NO vs. ATL game was over.

freakin DirecTV black out.

Or maybe we need different guys looking at different kinds of OLinemen. Maybe they are looking at the same traits, and those traits possibly relate to a more injury prone OLinemen? What we certainly don't need to do is stop drafting OL. That's a horrible idea that almost led to Cutler getting crippled last year.

This is WAAAAAAY too early to do a mock draft. Having said that, if any mock draft at this point doesn't have at least one addition to the OL in the first two rounds, then I hate it. Therefore, I hate this draft...despite the fact that I could see it as incredibly believable from the Lovie/JA mindset.

Now that wording I can agree with. I just get tired of hearing "big WR" as if someone simply being bigger is automatically the answer because of his size. After all, Roy Williams is bigger. What the Bears need is a guy with reliable hands who can beat press coverage (i.e. bump and run) and get enough separation for a passing angle/lane. I just don't happen to think that beating the bump and run is something only big WRs can do. Little, shifty guys can do it as well. What this team needs in the WR position is consistency and reliability, which is why Bennett looked so awesome last game. The ball went his way, he caught it. It's that simple.

And we'll just agree to disagree. Just because the sack numbers are down doesn't mean Cutler has been getting a great pocket to sit in, or that Forte has been getting massive holes to run through the entire season. The OL has no doubt gotten better since the beginning of the season, but they still aren't great. And it's going to take more than one game for this to change. They are still top ten in sacks given up, and still in the lower part of the league in QB hits and hurries. As for WR, I've agreed throughout the season that a WR with reliable hands is a mandatory part of this offense, and sorely needed. Especially missing during Bennet's absence. But funny you should mention the OL's improvement over the last few weeks. Consider the following as further proof that as the OL goes the Offense goes: WEEKS 1-4 5-8 AVG SCORE 23.5 26.5 AVG TOTAL YDS 307.75 375.75 AVG PASS YDS 211.5 230.25 AVG RUSH YDS 96.25 145.5 And yet the team is still below league average in nearly every single offensive category and advanced metric. If the OL keeps their improvement going and steadily gets better throughout the season, then a WR in the first round makes complete sense. If, however, they don't continue their improvement, and the Bears are faced with a first round decision between premiere OL talent and premiere WR talent, then they should still lean towards the former.

Good. I complain hard when I see something broken for years that is barely addressed. It gets me irate when other problems are addressed in waves. But when the guys do well, I'm more than willing to say so. The OL did well. I'd just like to see it for several weeks in a row, and consequently see a less rattled Jay Cutler finally step into a comfort zone, before proclaiming the need for OL to be a secondary issue. Just like the last few years, the OL is the primary team need. WR is secondary.

C'mon man, get real. The miss by Roy Williams has absolutely NOTHING to do with being a big WR who can go up and get it. That ball went through his hands and hit him in the nutsack. That's a ball ANY professional WR should catch. It's not like he even had to battle for it. Fitzgerald wouldn't have had to reach up for it either. But at least Fitz would have caught it. We need WRs who can reliably catch the ball more than we need this mythical guy who can soar like Michael Jordan and catch the ball above DBs. And, BTW, Roy Williams easily beats press coverage off the line...he just doesn't have reliable hands.

Your original statement sure made it sound like you believed that. Considering this is the first game the Bears' OL put it all together and actually gave Cutler consistent time to throw, I wouldn't say it's time to put the OL on the back burner in favor of a WR just because the Bears' WRs have had some dropsies. No doubt the OL and WR are the tops needs, but I'd like to see the OL have more than one game in a row in which they are consistently good. Until then, the OL, by nearly all accounts, is a greater need. After all, look at how good the team's offense is when the OL actually plays well...like last night. Even with the WR inconsistencies, the offense looked good. The reason why? Consistent OL. One game. We've got a ton of games to use as imperical data on poor offensive performances with a bad OL. Let's have a few games in a row where the OL actually grades out better than Forrest Gump in AP Calculus before we start declaring WR the #1 position of need.

Whoever thinks one game is a thorough reflection of accomplishment and ability over the course of the season is clueless. They played great this game...but that's the only game they've played great all season. BTW - Notice how good the offense looked when the OL finally dominated a game. This is not a new concept.

The receivers do not deserve a B. Too many big drops (e.g. Hester, Roy Williams, Sanzenbacher) that would have all gone for either a first down or big yards. As for the OL and me being upset about their grade, I can't say that I am. They played their most complete game all year, and perhaps the most complete game for a Bears' OL in the past couple years. They were physically dominant up front, consistently sealed the edges, allowed very minimal pressure on Jay Cutler, and when they did allow pressure they usually kept their spacing enough so that Jay could find a seam in which he could reset. If the OL repeats last night consistently, the Bears are one of the top 3 teams in the NFC. I said it numerous times before; this team's success is completely dependent upon the OL.

From my perspective as an official, I will say that I thought it was VERRRRRY close. I could see it going either way. I thought he maybe had it for half a second in full possession as he was turning, but he certainly didn't have it and THEN take two steps like that dipshit Tirico kept insinuating.

Come on now. We've been talking about the Bears' shitpile OL for several years now. The best I can compromise is that the Cardinals' OL is tied for worst with the Bears', and that's being incredibly lenient on my part.

That's the reason I started this thread as a question rather than a statement.

I don't think it's as ridiculous as you seem to think. If they could replace Fitzgerald with an extra 1st round draft pick, or more, they could easily sell their fanbase on a new beginning. A new direction. Suppose they picked up a stud OC or DC and picked two or three players specifically for that coach's scheme? The Cardinals are multiple pieces away from being a consistently competitive team. Pulling a rabbit out of a hatt a few times a year doesn't make a team good. The are widely thought of as one of the worst 5 teams in the NFL this year. The primary drawback to this sort of deal is monetary, not otherwise.