jason

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.

Up until recently (i.e. this past week), I think the Cardinals were under the mistaken impression they were on their way up. Now, however, they realize they need more than a few pieces.

1. The Cardinals suck. 2. The Cardinals know they suck. 3. The Cardinals have one chip to bargain with: Larry Fitzgerald 4. The Cardinals need to rebuild more than one position 5. The Bears need a WR 6. Fitzgerald is one of the best WRs in the NFL 7. Fitzgerald fits almost exactly what the Bears lack 8. Fitzgerald is unequivocally better than the chances and risks taken with a first round pick So why not offer the Cardinals next year's first round pick for Larry Fitzgerald? Why wouldn't that work? Why would they not take the offer, or at least make a cheap counter-offer? Maybe a 1st and a 5th gets the deal done. If so, I say this happens in the amount of time it takes JA to rub the haze out of his eyes and wipe the perpetual drool from his bottom lip.

I'm weighing the pros and cons of going to the game in Oakland while on vacation. PRO Get to see the Bears CON Cost Potential for losing to a good Raiders team Horrible Raider fans potentially throwing things at me or pouring beer on me Care to weigh in?

It's that time of year again, kids, where I say "let's get TO" and only a few agree with me. This time around Wilbon agrees with me and makes some very good points. http://espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/story/_/id/...e-terrell-owens BTW - 72 catches, 900+ yards, 9TDs last year in less than a full season for the miserable Bengals franchise. And he's not a better option than Sanzenbacher, Williams, Bennett, Knox, or Hester?! C'mon. At the very least Angelo should be making a pitch. And if TO causes problems, no harm done. Cut him. Doesn't fit the system? Who cares?! Most of you don't like it anyway, and it's plainly obvious that Martz is not even running the full Martz system he wants. Again, if he actually doesn't fit the system, cut him. I don't see how this is a bad idea.

Were you linking to this article? The one about Chris Williams?

The bolded part is my entire point. People have such a hard on for Martz that if he doesn't have 10 more runs than passes he's all the sudden "pass happy." Use what's working; that's obvious. But when all but four teams in the NFL have pass > run, then it's not just Martz and the Bears offense like some would have people believe. And, yes, I didn't like the runs up the middle. But keep in mind that multiple-stuff late in the game was off tackle 2 or 3 times in a row.

I'm happy the Bears were able to win since you're only able to get a game infrequently at best.

You know, the funny thing is: I don't care who the OC is as long as he produces points for the Bears in bunches. It's just my personal philosophy that guys who do that are typically more pass oriented and explosive, rather than the "hold on to the lead" types. And, as my next point will prove, the Mark Twain quote doesn't apply. 1. Martz has a HISTORY of being a passaholic, but the game in question can't be used as statistical evidence towards that history. His balance was PERFECT last game, 32 each (I'm discounting the one Cutler run because I can't remember if it was simply a sack on a busted OL assignment). Hard to argue with numbers of that game. Which is what we're talking about. But if you were to bring up the season's stats, the Bears have a 42%[R]/58%[P] balance, which is not too far away from 50% each. Furthermore, it's right in the middle of the pack (tied for 20th, 1% behind being tied for 15th, 7 play differential) in regards to the NFL run/pass distribution. Only 4 teams (Jags, Niners, Chiefs, Texans) have run more than they have passed. Hell, if only 20 of those plays were runs instead of passes, the Bears would be tied for 9th highest run-heavy offense in the NFL. So, this whole notion of a mad bomber as Bears' OC this season is absolutely, unequivocally false. 2. Having a problem with which plays are called is a completely different issue. I don't think anyone would say they liked the runs up the middle in the second half of the TB game. But even a football rookie has to acknowledge that play calling needs to be diverse enough so that the good plays are more effective (i.e. need a few inside runs). I would have prefered one or two inside, 5 or 6 outside.

My previous post shows there was a semblance of balance in the second half. Furthermore, the run wasn't nearly as effective in the second half as it was in the first. All this criticism of "passing while up 10 points" is insanity. As if the other teams aren't smart enough to know the Bears want to grind out the clock and purposely changed their defensive game plan to stop the freaking run. Look at the stats if you don't believe it. Oh, and by the way, if you hadn't noticed, the Bears' D isn't exactly guaranteed to hold that kind of lead and give up minimal points. I agree that the run calls themselves were semi-unoriginal, and there should have been more diversity (i.e. sweeps, counters, pitchouts), but to act as if any pass plays were bad calls is ridiculous. This notion that Martz has been out-thinking himself, trying to be too smart, or trying to live up to his genius reputation is equally ridiculous. You guys KNOW he wants to install a 80/20 pass blend, but he made fundamental changes against his own wishes which prove he's not trying to be/do any of the above. Whether the changes are dictated by Lovie is anyone's guess. If they are, then I fully believe Martz pouts in the mirror at night because he doesn't want to run more than he passes. It just seems that having a grudge against Martz is the flavor of the month, regardless of what he does. -Nothing but run plays? Too predictable! -Run majority/Pass minority? You have to pass the ball more for the run to be effective! -Pass majority/Run minority? You have to run the ball more for the pass to be effective! -Nothing but pass plays? That ain't Bear football! I know the perfect scenario for most Bear posters on this board is probably a 60/40 or 70/30 split that favors the run, but as shown by my previous post, the run game wasn't working the same as it was in the first half. This could be due to a number of reasons (e.g. worse OL blocking, predictable run calls, less advantageous run calls, Defense loading up to stop the run). So what do you do when you're the OC of a team that is having a hard time running the ball? You pass.