jason

Big surprise. The team stinks and the coaching staff by comparison makes the team smell like roses...but the Bears get one great turnover to steal a win away from a team that was arguably better, arguably more disciplined, and undeniably better coached.

Pop quiz: Name five players on the Buffalo Bills. 99% of fans can't. I can't. And it's completely sad that the Bears are losing to them.

Hard to argue otherwise. Almost every flaw today has been a direct result of poor coaching and ignorant coaching philosophy.

HAHA! Were you really in doubt at any time during the past 2+ seasons? Seriously? I mean, maybe my continuous message HASN'T reached everyone. It is as undebateable as water being wet and the sun being hot.

It's sad that we have to rely upon the defense to have a nearly perfect game because the OL can't block a varsity football team from a bad high school. Cutler, yet again, running for his life. He tucked the ball and avoided one guy, but you can only dodge so many bullets. This ain't Matrix, and he sure isn't Keanu.

First half offense only has 7, which is F'ing pathetic against the Bills. The OL, despite what the ignorant announcer has said, has been atrocious. They gave Cutler a pocket only a handful of times. Others he has either run for his life or been pressured very quickly. A few times Cutler has been lucky enough to scramble around and find a spot to stop and throw. Of course, he missed the one huge play opportunity he had. The run game...what run game? The OL hasn't opened a hole yet.

That play pissed me off. Should have been 6.

Once again, Cutler is running for his life on nearly every play. Pass plays are guaranteed for him to be under pressure.

I have a problem with Jim Brown > Walter Payton. Jim Brown benefitted from the fact that he was simply a different kind (read: size and speed) of player for that generation. He was a big RB for TODAY'S game, much less in the 50s. Payton would have absolutely obliterated the league in which Brown played.

Very good reply. Your position is better understood, regardless of whether or not I agree with it. The reason being is what we think the Bears (i.e. Angelo) should do, and what they actually do, are far too often not the same thing. Of course, there is another miscommunication with the should aspect of all of this. I don't "ignore" what should have been done if the Bears had those picks from the Cutler trade - I simply am going off of past drafting history to state that it would be an anomoly if the Bears picked OL. Your post does bring up an interesting concept, however: -If Angelo and the Bears so very infrequently do what we expect they should, and I don't expect this time that they would have picked OL with those selections from the Cutler trade, then perhaps they would have done other than what I was expecting (like normal).

The Bears will win. Just like in past seasons, they'll get a few decent wins and win most of the "should win" games, thereby producing a mediocre season that A]saves the coaching staff, and B] yields an average draft pick. Bears 24 - Bills 14

That's possible...or it could be that the defensive coaching and scheme provide the complacency. How many sacks does Peppers have again?

The funny thing is, I actually think there may be a few who think that OL is NOT the biggest priority. Aside from that, I have been calling for Randy Moss and Terrell Owens for years. Each time it was met with "no way!" and "too much baggage!" Well, we could have had BOTH of them at the same time. But nooooo, this team wants boy scouts. Now, however, I just think it's too late. I think that all four of the Bears' young WRs (i.e. Bennet, Hester, Knox, Aromashodu) have a ton of potential - potential that is simply unmet because of the offensive line woes. Shore up the OL and I think that the Bears' WRs start to look a lot better.

1. I hope your capitalization was not meant to imply that the Bears NEED a WR more than they need OL help. Because that would be retarded. 2. "I say it can't hurt..." - I disagree. It could potentially hurt the growth of the Bears' young WRs by keeping them on the bench and/or learning from a guy who has a bad attitude.

Anyone who has said, "OMG! We need a #1 WR!" - Here is your chance to speak up. The Bears probably won't get him, but you can't be against the Bears signing him and NOT be a hypocrite. Moss is a #1, perhaps one of the best WRs of all time. Of course, the realistic side to this is that the Bears really don't need a WR. They need an OL. If the OL gets better, then Cutler and the WRs suddenly start looking like superstars.

I think Peppers is talented enough to play not only in the 3-4, but also the 2-5. As for Urlacher and Briggs, they would absolutely flourish in a 3-4.

Math and statistics clearly aren't your strong suit. While the unknown is impossible to prove either way, we CAN base an educated guess on the years Angelo has been in charge. Extrapolation. How many years has Angelo been in charge of the Bears' draft? How many OLinemen has he drafted in the first two rounds? How many of those high picks used on OL have been busts or completely underwhelming? Answer those three questions and it's very likely the pick wouldn't have been OL.

Are you even reading your own posts?! I am not the one trying to fortue tell. I know what happened; the Bears traded for Cutler. You guys are the ones swearing up and down that the Bears would have drafted OL, despite what history has shown us. Angelo has a track record of drafting positions other than OL. This is a fact. Delusional? I guess you guys are completely ignoring draft history and tendencies. Is it possible that Angelo would have pulled the trigger on OL? Maybe. But it sure as hell isn't likely considering his aversion to the practice, and his failure thus far when he DID stick his neck out.

You must not remember a ton of posts from the Crowton era. Nearly everyone complained about the aggressiveness, because it was overboard. I'm still a fan of that type of innovative thinker, someone who will at least try to confuse the opposing defense, over a guy like Turner who continually shoves the square peg into the round hole by believing his same plays will work regardless of what the other teams do. Points about QB being the toughest position and the requirements for being a leader are agreed upon. It's just really hard to be a leader when those you are supposed to lead can't help very much. The guy has played FAR from great, but it's a nearly no-win situation for him this year and last.

Considering Williams' health and play, it's a BIG stretch to think that JA would have taken an OL. How can you even think otherwise when JA's history is factored in. You guys are truly delusional with all this "Angelo would have drafted an OL with the first round pick traded away for Cutler" nonsense.

This post is so true. How anyone could think otherwise is baffling.

Why do you take this as fact? What in Angelo's track record suggests that he would have picked an OLineman? Nothing. As for logical fallacies, you're the one trying to prove something that is impossible to prove (i.e. what the Bears would have done). You are stating that the Bears DEFINITELY would have picked someone for the OL with a first round pick. The evidence and history suggests otherwise. Nobody is debating what happened IN the trade, but you're sure as hell trying to debate something that would have happened, despite your position's contradiction with history. Nevertheless, if we all think it was such a great need, and you're absolutely convinced that it was the Bears' #1 priority, and the Bears' front office also thought that, then why didn't they draft an OL with the first available pick last year? Shortly after the Bears picked Major Wright there were two quality OLinemen selected in the end of the third. Figure that one out.

First, the OL only did well in the third quarter. It wasn't the entire second half. And, to me, you can argue that three of the picks were not Cutler's total fault. Glad to know you at least admit that ONE can be given to a WR who quit on the route. The Slant - Hall jumped it, but it's a three step drop and Knox quit on the route. You don't need as much strength if you actually run your route at full speed and get where you're supposed to be. With Knox's speed, the ball would probably have been incomplete if he were where he was supposed to be. The potential is there for a catch or interference call as well. You act as if Knox is a 100lb 8th grader instead of the lightning fast NFL player that he is. The Deep Ball - Bad read? Perhaps. But the number of times an NFL announcer or player has said, "you gotta give your number 1 WR a chance," is astounding. That's what Jay did. Regardless of the previous INTs, and the fact that Knox quit on routes during the game, he STILL had faith in Knox and threw the ball for his WR to go get it. Unfortunately, Knox dropped down into third gear, and when the ball reached it's destination there was only the Redskins' DB there. Once again, Knox has sub 4.4 speed, and if he ran that route he would have been in the vicinity. If he ran his route the possibility of a catch or defensive pass interference become just as likely as the INT. Answer these questions for me, if you wouldn't mind... 1) Did Knox quit on the slant route INT? 2) Did Knox run slower on the deep ball INT?

Noted. Evident to whom? Not the Bears' front office or management, who STILL ignored OL even though they picked up Cutler. You're fooling yourself if you think they would have picked OL. That's BS. At best fans were mixed. At best local media was mixed. And http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor...d=4037560"" target="_blank">most pundits believed the Bears got the better of the deal considering the fact that franshice QBs never get traded. That's inconsequential, because Turner was gone whether or not the Bears traded for Cutler. With Orton it would have just been a QB most of us liked, but whose immobility would have probably led to more sacks. And in what way does that has to do with the Cutler trade? They would have still sucked with Orton in Chicago, and the stats would have been potentially worse because of Orton's lead feet. 3. Agreed, but their overall talent on offense is better. 4. True. 5. Attitude? Yes. But I honestly don't have a problem with his Hall comments. We can argue all we want, but many see that the WRs quit on three of the INTs. 6. True. But once again, how in the hell is that Cutler's fault? Sorry dude, but on most of this you're mixing apples (Cutler/Orton) with oranges (whether or not the Bears' front office is ever willing to protect their offensive talent).

Thank you for bringing some sanity to this thread.