jason

I have always liked Booker. And, to be quite honest, he's shown some of the talent for which he was known in his previous campaign with the Bears. However, like most decisions by this coaching staff, he's misused. Booker is an inside guy, a guy who makes the hard catches with his freakish hands, but this staff likes to send him on deep routes and double move seam routes. Brilliant. That being said, he's probably past his prime. There is now no reason, no excuse, no fathomable concept by which the Bears coaching staff doesn't get Lloyd or Bennett into the game this weekend. To be quite honest, it'd be nice to see Davis take a seat and get both Lloyd and Bennett in there.

How can anyone really get down on Wolfe?! Seriously. Everyone's disdain for him is baffling. The dude has gotten absolutely zero chance to get on the field and carry the ball, and when he has gotten the ball he's been severely misused. Give the guy a chance! Instead, however, we get to watch Forte absolutely run into the ground, with AP - known to bust his butt yet remain consistently average - getting the "breather carries". Meanwhile, Kevin Jones (a talent known to be clearly better than AP), and Wolfe (a nearly completely unknown when it comes to actually playing at the position for which he was drafted) have to sit and wonder if they'll ever get a chance. Meanwhile, Wolfe's fought hard as hell to get a shot to do something, and despite the size that gets used against him during arguments and debates, he's turned into a complete stud on special teams. Nobody saw him coming, but because of his skill-set and his desire, he's gone above and beyond expectations of his nay-sayers. But, yeah, this coaching staff has a legacy and history of intelligent personnel decisions. They have shown time and again that they start the right players, and bench the guys who are worse. The continually show the forward thinking to take chances with new guys and young guys when they simply out-perform incumbent veterans. All hatred or negativity directed towards Wolfe is completely unwarranted and without merit. I'd say it borders on ignorant since he's so rarely seen the backfield. Granted, he was probably a reach pick. However, if he's never used, or given a chance, then, yeah, it's a wasted pick. But the waste doesn't necessarily mean that he was a failure; it just means that the guy never got a shot.

Besides, if anyone, the extra carries should go to Wolfe.

Agreed for the most part. The reason it's frustrating is that the Bears' front office and coaches are sooo super smart, and they'll just scoff at the ideas because they don't come from a "football insider".

Nice trade for the Pistons?! Are you serious. Do you even watch basketball? Iverson is the antithesis of what they need on the Pistons. Iverson is a ball hog, me first, discipline lacking street ball player. Sure, he's a great scorer. Of course, he's much better since the NBA became a joke and allowed the players to completely flout the rules (i.e. carrying, travelling, etc.). Before Iverson the Pistons were rolling. With Iverson, they are pretty much a .500 team. First of all, he's horrible for Rip Hamilton's game. Rip needs to come off screens and get the pass. Since passing in a structured offense isn't Iverson's strong suit (his assists are mostly a result of the fact that he always has the ball), there goes that aspect of the offense as being incredibly effective as it once was. Oh, and he doesn't play a lick of defense other than the passing lane gambler route, completely screwing his teammates as he goes for the risky steals, thereby making the team defense weaker. This just in: The Pistons are good because they are a defensive team. This trade was horrible for the Pistons. Meanwhile, the Nuggets are 12-3 with an actual traditional, pass-first point guard. And the funny thing is, Billups has a higher scoring average than Iverson this season (at this point), while working within the offense and not jacking up unnecessary shots left and right.

Great, now you're trying to give encouragement for the garbage FB dive play!

nfo...consolidating a bit... 1) You say Bennett shouldn't automatically get on the field because the guys in front of him are playing poorly, but why shouldn't he? It's the same garbage thought process that kept Dez "Stone Hands" White in the game, because he's good in practice. Sooner or later a guy has to produce on Sunday; and if he doesn't, you bring in someone who hasn't had the chance. It's a better option than bringing out the same guy who doesn't produce week to week. You say the coaches can "only do so much", and it's up to the player to produce. I agree. And that's why Bennett should be in there. Even if the others do better in practice, your theory holds that the other guy has to get a shot when the ones who start aren't producing. 2) Yes, our WRs have had drops. That's on them. As a high schooler I played center-field in baseball. I know that when we had one of those games where the ball never came to me, and when the ball never made it to me in the air in a catchable position, those games were hard to keep concentration. I'd say the WRs are the same way. I don't blame as many on the WRs as some - Connor mentioned one during the chat session that I didn't think was catchable - but I think a lot of it is concentration, and the fact that they are unaccustomed to getting the ball repetitively and consistently. 3) We disagree on Rashied Davis. He doesn't have stats, but you can't use the # of catches against him considering the facts that A) The Bears aren't known as a passing team, B] The Bears have had bad OCs for a while, C) The Bears have had either a bad OL or QB for a while, and D) The Bears have had several players on the same level, thereby keeping the totals low for just about every player. Not to mention the fact that at best he's been the slot-WR, a #3 guy on the Bears offense...which doesn't amount to catches. In my viewpoint, when he has been in the game, and when he's had the ball thrown to him, he's made more plays than not. 4) Hester has the talent to be a #1, but maybe not the head. He's almost the opposite of Marvin Harrison. I'd say he'll never be more than a good #2 (with improvement), and end up resembling Bernard Berrian. 5) Regarding the WR or OL idea, I think both would help, and I want both. But I think OL would help more. I also think that a stud WR drafted by the Bears would be wasted behind this coaching staff. First and Second rounders do better in the NFL? Where was Bennett drafted again? But, yes, a stud WR would help some.

Just for the record, Turner didn't run four plays up the gut. That would have been an improvement over his choice. He ran a fade pass FROM THE ONE YARD LINE, and then three plunges up the gut...one being the dreaded FB dive.

If the draft went this way, I don't think anyone could complain. And if the first three rounds fall like that, it means the football gods like the Bears and feel the Bears' fans have suffered enough.

The majority of those yards were on three runs. I think it was a total of nearly 70 yards. For the most part the OL did jack-$*@% against the Vikings DL. Look at the average without those three carries and you'll see how consistently the OL did a good job. I think it's much more likely that those three runs are an abberation, and the Vikings made mistakes or lost gap-responsibility. For instance, on the first long run two Vikings' players (#42 & #52) took horrible angles. Normally, that play is stuffed for a minimal gain. It was more a Viking mistake than a Bears' OL success. Besides, if the OL REALLY did their job, they wouldn't have been stoned 3 of 4 downs on the 1 yard line.

Here are the problems I have with that: 1) What about Bennett? He never sees the field. He may already be the stud the Bears need. I know I saw more than a few of his games at Vandy, and the dude looked like a beast. (i.e. coaching) 2) MuhMuh, Berrian, Wade, Gage, Bradley - All seem to do fairly well elsewhere. Perhaps it's not a WR we need; perhaps it's what is around the WR that we need. (i.e. coaching, OL, QB) 3) Devin Hester appears to have the talent to get open; it's plainly obvious that no person in the NFL can really stay with him when he's cutting and juking in one-on-one coverage, but for some reason he's rarely on the field. And when he's on the field he's rarely open. (i.e. coaching, OL, QB) 4) Rashied Davis is a very competent possession WR. And that's all the Bears need from him. He just rarely seems to be getting the ball while finding the gaps in the zone that every other team seems to find against the Bears (i.e. coaching, OL, QB) 5) On a purely athletic-based concept, there is no reason Greg Olsen doesn't get five catches per game. (i.e. coaching) Why draft a WR when there are so many unknowns otherwise? Until the Bears get a new set of coaches - or at least a competent offensive mind - and a combination of OL/QB that can deliver the ball, getting a WR seems like a waste, IMHO. What's the point of getting the talent if it won't be used? Seems to me this offense is better suited with fixing the OL, which will allow #3-#5 a higher chance of success.

Right now there are eight teams that are guaranteed to be ahead of the Bears in the draft: Seattle, St. Louis, Detroit, KC, Oakland, Houston, Cincinnati, and Cleveland There are five other teams that could arguably be ahead or behind the Bears: SF, GB, SD, Jax, Buffalo So, that means the Bears will draft between 9 and 14. Players who are probably going to be off the board: Stafford - QB Brian Orakpo - DE Michael Oher - OT Andre Smith - OT Taylor Mays -S Eugene Monroe - OT Ray Maualuga - LB Michael Crabtree - WR (if he comes out) Terrence Cody - DT (if he comes out) Chris Wells - RB (someone is gonna do it) Scenario #1 (realistic) Unless Oher or Smith drop, I love the idea of a Oklahoma combo for the #1 and #2 picks. 1 - Duke Robinson - OG - I keep hearing Duke Robinson described as a road-grader, and that's exactly what the Bears need. Maybe then Turner's favorite FB Dive play would work. 2 - Phil Loadholt - OT - The Bears brought back Fred Miller for goodness sakes. He starts opposite of Williams, whichever way that works out. Scenario #2 (joking) The Bears go for the all-Islander draft...those guys always seem to play with fire. 1 - Rey Maualuga, ILB, USC 2 - Fili Moala, DE/DT, USC 3 - Fenuki Tupou, OT, Oregon Scenario #3 (interesting possibility) Matthew Stafford (GA), Colt McCoy (TEX) , Tim Tebow (FLA) , and Sam Bradford (OK) all enter the draft. Suppose Detroit does something smart for a change and grabs one (Stafford). Other teams who might grab one: KC, SF, PHI, MIA...what do the Bears do if one of those guys falls to them?

He's been pretty much injury free this year. He was injury free when with the Bears this year, but didn't get to play. He's been injury free for the next nine weeks with KC. He's been injury free enough with the Chiefs to do more in six games of actually being used, than he did in just about his entire Chicago Bears career (despite the fact the dearth of Bears' WRs). Not to mention the fact that he's listed as questionable, but will more than likely play. The questionable tag on the injury report is ambiguous at best in the NFL. Brian Westbrook was questionable this week, and had 4 TDs. I know because he killed me in fantasy.

Jake Long - Starting Ryan Clady - Starting Chris Williams - Would clearly be starting if not for injury Gosder Cherilus - Starting Jeff Otah - Starting Sam Baker - Started every game until injury Duane Brown - Starting John Greco - Behind Barron (2005 1st rounder - who you think is a bust) Anthony Collins - Behind Levi Brown (2002 1st rounder) Tony Hills - Third stringer So, that's 7 of the first 7 as starters, the next two sitting behind other first rounders, and the last one (a fourth round draft pick) who isn't starting (on one of the most dominant offensive lines in the NFL). Also, this is a very interesting article on the subject from Len Pastabelly: Homegrown Offensive Linemen With last year's draft, aside from DeSean Jackson, and a few games from Donnie Avery, there really isn't any comparison.

Am I upset about WRs who leave the Bears and do well? Yes. Absolutely. I think the majority of the problems are because of coaching. It's hard to argue otherwise. Gage and Bradley showed real flashes of doing great things on the field, but never had a real opportunity for whatever reason. Wade showed he had great potential as a possession WR, and he's become a great one, but he couldn't overcome "Fumblegate". The one that hurts the most is Bradley, because he was finally healthy, showing spark every time he was in the game, and just never got the shot - even after being declared the #1 WR in preseason. But since this coaching staff is severely lacking he never got the shot. The worst part: We'll see it again and again because of this coaching staff and this organization and their insistance on ignoring the offense, and offensive line specifically.

Exactly. 1. Let's get Bennett in the game and see what he can do before we start throwing #1 picks at other WRs. Otherwise, we might lose another WR who seems to be productive the second he takes off the Bears' uniform. Besides, I think Maclin and Crabtree are better. 2. I still say the first round needs to be OL. The Bears need at least an OT and an OG. Until the line is shored up, nobody will really know how good the offensive weapons already drafted (Orton, Forte, Bennett, Olsen) really are.

This is what pisses me off. Every year the stupid Lions and the Cowboys get the Thanksgiving day game, like they are something special. It's time to break tradition and give another team the game. Bill Cowher has it right, and this game is total BS, a perfect exactly of what's wrong with this stupid tradition.

With the Wolfe comment, I disagree. How the heck do we know if he's capable of being a competent backup? We don't. Give him a chance, and see what he does. He sure has proven himself on special teams, a place where a "little guy" is not supposed to make such a massive contribution. The simple fact is, the guy has the "it factor"...why not let him get the carries when Forte is tired? It's not as if AP, who I think we all love as a hard-working contributor, is going to dazzle us with his play. Wolfe has that chance.

1. Why was Jones inactive? 2. Why did AP receive carries so early in the game (2nd & 3rd QTR)? 3. What were Wolfe's run-plays? The play-by-play never really tells the whole story of sweep versus off-tackle. Thanks

I'm far from a fan of this coaching staff, and I think Babich might be retarded, I have to agree with your initial comments. It comes down to bad coaching in my opinion; it's that stupid circle blitz. Outside, outside, outside. I noticed through the highlights on NFL.com that the Bears did a stunt of some kind, and Adawale Ogunleye came through COMPLETELY UNTOUCHED for a huge sack. Hmmm...maybe the coaching staff might see that and realize how ignorant and stubborn they've been with their system.

I didn't get to watch the game, but I did listen to ESPN radio. It seemed like every guy who had anything to say about the game had the same opinion. Later I listened to someone on 670 - for the 10 minutes or so I had reception - and it was the same. So my question is... Did the Bears look that good, or did the Rams look that bad? For instance, pretty much everyone was saying that Ogunleye's sacks were not because he had some sort of exemplary effort, but instead because he had a clean run at the QB. It also seems that most were saying that the Bears offense didn't really look that great; instead, it seems that they were indicating that the Rams' defense looked atrocious. So which is it?