jason

I think maybe you're talking about MY method! hahaha...but I wouldn't be all that unhappy with an entire draft of OL. Giving it a 50% success rate would replenish at least 2 or 3 of the positions on the OL.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Ugh. No, no, and no. Bush is pointless, and will cost more than he's worth. What would he then be? Third string? Please, that's where you put in rookies with promise, not mid-level vets who are guaranteed to get 2yds per rush regardless of the situation. Matt Light is interesting, but I've read he's going to retire. As said already, if the Bears are targeting an OL prospect from the Pats, I hope it's Logan Mankins. Braylon Edwards is unnecessary. I honestly think the WRs will blossom incredibly when the OL is shored up, and if the Bears wanted a WR with potential, some drops here and there, and some headache in the locker-room, then I'd rather see Moss or Owens in Chicago.

Ugh. Jemele Hill. Worst freaking person on ESPN. Period. She's a moron. If she's picking Seattle, then suddenly I feel confident about a Bears win.

In the last game against the Bears, Seattle had six sacks. After a quick analysis, it's pretty clear what needs to be fixed. Here is a list of the sacks (may not be in order)... 1 - Lewis - CB/S blitz - Outside - Omiyale bad read 2 - Curry - LB blitz - Outside - Webb bad read 3 - Milloy - CB/S blitz - Outside - Webb bad read 4 - Babineaux - CB/S blitz - Outside - Forte bad read 5 - Milloy - CB/S blitz - Outside - Webb bad read 6 - Babineaux/Clemmons - CB/S blitz - Outside - Webb bad read Aside from the misread by Forte, that's 5 sacks that have the following in common: 1 - From the outside of the tackle 2 - The OT made a bad read and dove inside Note: The final sack of the game just as easily could have been on Omiyale, because he got blown by as well. It just so happens that Cutler stepped forward into the sack from the other side. Key to the game: Better blitz recognition and pickup from the OL.

I applaud Angelo on this move. How often do we all want the Bears to develop QBs and have backups that are competent? We've been saying it here forever, and it's almost always been unanimous. The Bears didn't need another RB. Finding a good one that late is a lot easier than finding a good QB, in any round. If you feel high on a QB, you take the chance over a late round RB.

Great job Lucky. Pretty damning numbers.

An added reason why it's better for the Bears to face the Seahawks next week: That means the Packers are playing in Atlanta. Who has a better chance of upsetting Atlanta at home? Green Bay or Seattle? Granted, that would mean a Chicago vs. Green Bay Championship game, but it's better in my mind than winning a game in Chicago versus the Eagles and then being forced to play in Atlanta. I was there the last time they played Chicago, and my ears still hurt. That is the very definition of home field advantage.

I'm definitely not rooting for Green Bay, but I'd rather the Bears face the Seahawks than anyone else in the playoffs. I think the Seahawks are weak and lucky, and caught the Bears at just the right time of the season when nearly everything was being done incorrectly. This is a different Bears team.

I want Seattle. Period. They are not that good. They played out of their minds today. They will NOT play that way again, without their home crowd, without their good weather, without the lucky horseshoe. No way. Plus, there is the revenge factor.

AWESOME!

Wow. Imagine what could have been done if 13Million wasn't wasted on Manu and Taylor.

Watching the highlight video of all his returns, and listening to Joniak make the Gale Sayers comparison, got me to thinking... Is Devin Hester already a HOF Candidate? He has literally changed the game. To me, his impact is similar to Lawrence Taylor's. Because of LT, teams now teach the tomahawk chop for the ball, and teams put a premium on LTs. The game changed as a result of his play. Can't the same be said of Hester? Has the game not changed when the Bears play? I have never seen teams purposely kick out of bounds to avoid a punt returner. I have never seen teams essentially give their opponents a 60 yard field on every kick off because the pooch is preferable to taking chances with the kick returner. Devin Hester is worth, potentially, hundreds of yards per game. I am biased of course, but I think he is not only a HOF Candidate, but a near lock.

I love hightlight videos, and those involving Hester's returns are particularly enjoyable, but the person who put this together couldn't have chosen a less exciting game feed for the Super Bowl return. The announcer sounded like someone was drowning his puppy, not returning the opening kickoff in the Super Bowl for a TD.

It's easy to forget how strong and fast he was. There were cuts in that video that would work in ANY era. The man was the best ever.

Everyone seems to be in agreement. Your post, however, is the one that hits home for me. "Our team scares me." True. Very true. If the offensive line doesn't implode, this team, despite its flaws, can beat any of the potential opponents in the NFC.

Genius. Because there isn't already a tall, fast, underutilized WR on the roster.

I don't think we can fairly group Manu with Taylor as busts. The former has just sucked in everything he has done. The latter has sucked because on 95% of his carries there has been a DT tea-bagging him as soon as he gets the handoff. Pretty tough to run when there is a jailbreak on nearly every carry.

What a shock, you complete misinterpret or misunderstand the purpose of the post because you think you're being snarky and clever. Missing Urlacher would hurt ANY defense, but missing Urlacher in THIS defense is a much bigger obstacle to overcome.

Oooh...Icing kickers. Good one. I hate that last second time out garbage. But why are you against cold weather Super Bowls? Wouldn't a Super Bowl in Soldier Field be awesome?

This was a very good idea for a thread. I was pretty close in the predictions, excluding the Falcons, but it's nice to know that the Bears have the playoffs wrapped up early and don't actually have to worry about the Packer game like I thought would happen. Thanks for keeping it updated!

Good thought. The two are tied together. When/If Urlacher retires/leaves, it will come as no surprise when the defense gets worse. [big shock ] His importance in this scheme was evident in last year's stats.

Once again, spare me. Your subtle "chief" at the end is clearly your substitution to get me riled up. Won't work. The "blitz percentage" is a horseshit stat. They must be counting presnap alignment, because there is no way the Bears are one of the most blitzing teams in the league. And like I said, if they are (which they aren't), then it's an indication that the coaching is even more horrible than ever discussed because of the lack of success. As for the last sentence, the players are far from perfect. I know this. Yes, really. Urlacher and Briggs are constantly at the line, then constantly backing out on the snap. Url may be perfect for the deep middle in the cover-2 (i.e. speed), but the scheme - as Lucky eluded to - underutilizes him with a bogus blitz threat and then a back-peddle and leads to more sacrifices in the short passing game. It's just the fact that he's so fast that allows him to have the impact that he does in the defense. Either try to quote in context, or stop being ignorant. One of the two. Scroll up with your little mouse finger and realize I was speaking specifically about the safeties. I prefer the cover corner too, but those guys don't grow on trees. Just because a DB gives outside position doesn't mean the WR is going to run down the sideline unimpeded and free. Please rewatch the last Jets play from Sunday to realize how it can work if the WR is sent up the sideline (despite the fact that the CB got burned off the line on that play). You should know by now that I don't say this stuff after just one game. Honestly, I had a higher opinion of you than that. We've had discussions/debates like this many times before. It's not just this game; it's been quite some time. For the record, it was DBDB who said it. The last part I'll have to break it down for you in baby steps. All defenses want to create turnovers. Got that? Too deep for you? If not, we'll continue. To create these turnovers, defenses often try step in front of passes or get there when the other team gets the ball. The Bears sometimes do this. More often than not, however, the Bears approach is to allow the opponent to get minimal gains and then attempt the strip. You must have noticed this, or at least heard about it, because the announcers mention it every game. The problem is, they often concede the minimal gain in hopes of getting the strip (i.e. passive vs. aggressive). Or maybe you haven't noticed scrubs have continually put up career passing days against the Bears during Lovie's tenure. Just in case you want to check, this is reflected in the fact that the great Bears defense is in the bottom half of the league when it comes to TOP (i.e. passive vs. aggressive). The only other good teams in the bottom half? The Patriots and the Colts. And we both know they're in there for a completely different reason. Furthermore, if you look at the passing defense stats, you'd realize the Bears are in the bottom half of the league in that as well. But the telling stat is that they only give up 6.5 yards per completion, less than all but one other team in the bottom half. Stick with me now, because this math gets hard. That means the Bears give up a bunch of short passes, over and over and over, what I've been calling a slow bleed. And who'da thunk it?! They've given up the 5th most completions in the NFL (i.e. passive vs. aggressive). -Agreed. Better than most expected. -Agreed. It's just like a political debate. Not much will change. -Disagree. If you don't want to read it, don't. This is a message board for differing opinions. Mine differs from yours. BTW, I love how you call my posts "drama and chest puffing." I assume it's not when you post rebuttal after rebuttal? Pot, meet kettle. -Bear Down.

First of all, what a dumbass article. They think they're defending the cover-2, but they're actually speaking out against it. It's true the Bears gave up some yardage playing Cover-2, including Mark Sanchez's 23-yard touchdown pass to Santonio Holmes. But the Bears played more safety up and Cover-1 than they have most of the season. A review of the tape shows the Bears were playing something other than a true two-deep alignment on 54 percent of the Jets' snaps. They played a lot of single safety high, and the Jets completed many passes on slant routes against that alignment. So, one could infer from the article that the Bears played the cover-2 on 46% of the plays. That's still quite a bit. But this is where it gets ignorant: In the fourth quarter, the Bears used even less Cover-2 than the rest of the game, appearing to call for it on only six plays. One of the plays was Chris Harris' victory-sealing interception. Oh, you mean the quarter in which the Bears allowed the Jets to only a single FG? A FG that was the direct result of the defense played in the third quarter (because it came immediately after the quarter change)? The quarter in which they only gave up 47 yards total in 18 plays (not counting kicks)? So, out of those 18 plays there "appeared" to be the cover-2 only 6 times. Take away the interception play, which was a given, and you have 5 cover-2 plays in 17 plays. Keep in mind, 47 yards given up that quarter. I believe there were 52 non-kicking plays in the other three quarters for a total of 70 plays. If the cover-2 was run 6 times in the fourth quarter (35%), the percentage of times it was run in the rest of the game would be nearly 62%. By the numbers: QTRs 1-3: 52 plays, 32 Cover-2 alignments, 61.5% QTR 4: 17 plays, 6 Cover-2 alignments, 35% Game: 70 plays, 38 Cover-2 alignments, 54% I don't have the game film, but I'm willing to bet the drive that ended the first quarter and the majority of the second quarter were heavy in the cover-2.