jason

Basically, yeah...agreed. Adding a stud LG is like adding three players, because it'll make the transition to Williams easier, and make him better, as well as symbiotic relationship which would be built between the rookie and Olin (rook learns, Olin gets reinvigorated). With that said (and it's completely dependent upon where the Bears draft): Duke Robinson sounds like a great Bear name.

Of course, I'd amend that to read: 1) Lovie - for requesting/keeping Babich 2) Babich - for having no clue 3) DEs - bad, but coached to "circle the wagons" 4) CBs - bad, but coached to give the cushion and the slant 5) DTs - bad, but having a difficult time when the rest of the D is not doing their job

That's pretty much my philosophy as well. Position > BPA > Position 1. Address the position if all things are equal. You need a OL more than LB, and both are available, and both are ranked the same = draft OL 2. You need an OL more than a LB, but the seven teams in front of you drafted OL and left you with a non-viable OLineman who is really ranked as a late 2nd rounder = draft LB 3. You need an OL more than a LB, and both are drafted relatively heavily, but a player like a TE drops to you, as long as there is not a disparity of 3 or 4 rounds in talent evaluation = draft OL (if there is that disparity = look for the next need to see if the disparity is palatable) What I know is this: Football is won in the trenches. The Bears' OL is not good. The Bears' offense is not good. I believe the offensive failures to be primarily a result of a poor OL, and not the other way around. My signature is my philosophy, and I believe that Emmitt Smith was barely above average, but had a knack for staying healthy. But when he was paired with the best OL in football history, he turned into a stud. The same could hold true for the Bears players...if the OL wasn't garbage.

To me that wouldn't be sufficient. Essentially you are improving one position on the line, when, realistically, maybe 4 of the positions need to be addressed. The only one I'm ignoring for now is Williams (and I am crossing my fingers on that one). As for a weak class, I don't know for sure. However, I do know that there are four or five bonafide studs coming out, which is why I would love to see a trade up to get another of the guys - perhaps one that slips into the late first/early second.

Just for clarification... We don't disagree, and I think the D has the talent to still do very well, but I am including Zombie Smith into the picture. In THIS scheme, the window has closed on this set of players. New scheme? Jim Johnson? I think the Bears are back in as one of the top 5 Defenses in the NFL.

Well, it makes sense when you really think about it. Warner is immobile and needs protection. This OL now would put him in the infirmary. This OL now is not good. This passing game now is not good. This running game now is not good. The OL is where all of the problems reside, or at least where attention needs to be focused on offense. Until the Bears can protect the QB, the WRs and TEs cannot be properly evaluated because the pass plays don't get time to develop, and the offensive playbook doesn't get expanded. Also, the run blocking has been atrocious. I know it's not realistic, I'm just sick of never having an offense that scares the other team. I'd love to have an offense that could bust for 30-35 at any time. With that line, Orton and the skill players the Bears currently have would be studly. Hell, I'd say that with that OL, Warner would easily go for 4000 yards and 30 TDs, easily. And Forte would approach 1500 yards, if not surpass it. The window on this defense appears to have closed; it's time for another approach. And since Lovie isn't going anywhere, the Bears need to be able to score a lot of points to make up for his garbage ass offense.

For what it's worth...my dream Before Draft 1) Sign two Offensive Linemen in FA 1a) Sign Warner to a two or three year deal 1b) Move Orton to the bench 2) Fire Babich Draft 3) Draft an OT in the first (Michael Oher, Andre Smith, Eugene Monroe, - in that order) 4) If Duke Robinson is there near the end of the first, trade back into the first and get him. 5) Fill other positions as needed (in the following order) 5a) DB 5b) DE 5c) QB (One every single year for development purposes) 5d) S 5e) WR

Your last statement is insane. The offense has not been bailing the defense out all year. The offense is average at best, and it definitely doesn't scare any opposing defenses. The passing game is only remotely threatening, and the running game seems to be average as well. And we won't even get into the run blocking or the inconsistent play from the WR/TE corp. The D may have been playing poorly, especially bad last game, but this is far from an offensive juggernaut. Go back and look at the game logs, and the drive charts. While you're doing so, count the 3-and-outs and the drives of less than 20 yards. I think you'll change your mind about the offense "bailing out" the defense.

It's a discussion point because Jauron the Moron was a bad coach with the Bears who elicited nearly no supporting emotion from his players. He also just happened to be bad at game changes and adjustments. Not only that, but he basically lost his job because he stubbornly held onto an assistant coach who was borderline retarded. All of those points sound quite a bit like Zombie Smith, and it's just a reminder that while Zombie Smith may have delivered the team an NFC Championship, he has been considerably worse since that season. It's also a reminder that the Bears are, IMHO, still probably searching for the right guy for the job.

It should be a signal that a lot of changes are needed. The offense needs changes. The defense needs changes. The special teams need(s) changes. Most of all, however... The coaching staff needs changes. This should be the sign to all that Lovie, Babich, and Turner need to get the axe. Babich ESPECIALLY needs to be fired. The game was a travesty, and there is no way a team that played this poorly can be the result of good coaching.

Guess?

Ho-hum...nothing new. The Bears' scheme continues to make average QBs look awesome.

I have to COMPLETELY disagree. In fact, I'd say it's borderline insane. Until the Bears have a competent, dangerous, consistent offense - especially a running game - the Bears need to draft offense. The Defense hasn't been doing great recently, but it has a lot to do with the discontent caused by a horrible scheme, not to mention the scheme itself. Aside from that, if the offense didn't continually hang the defense out to dry, there's a good chance the defense wouldn't look as bad. SIDE NOTE: I'd be fairly happy with the all Oklahoma draft. Starting with... 1. Duke Robinson G OK 2. Austin English DE OK 3. Nic Harris SS OK 3b (comp) Phil Loadholdt OT OK ...would be an absolutely great start.

But they're NFL coaches and they know everything, right? Right? How many former players, former coaches, former scouts, former front office guys, and announcers have to rip this team before changes are made? I can see how people would ignore a "simple fan posting on a message board"...but to deny those who have "been there" is just ignorant. On a side note, I obviously don't disregard the fans on message boards because I think they understand football on a basic level that coaches often ignore in favor of complicated verbage and buzzwords. I was watching the Titans game and kept saying, "Good job stuffing the run, but they'll soon begin to pass and look like the Colts in the SB." Then the Titans turned into the Colts in the SB. I then said, "We need to change something up or the Titans will just continue to do this (as several other teams have this year), and march down the field for a score." The Titans then proceeded to march down the field for a score. It's not rocket science folks. When something works, you stay with it. When it doesn't, you change things up. I think our coaches have the former perfected. The latter? Not so much.

Puke all you want about Crowton, but he WAS a creative offensive mind. He forced the defense to adjust. He wasn't the typical coach who was predictable. That's the kind of offensive mind the Bears need. Remember, his offense made Jim Miller look like a friggin superstar one year, and made Cade McNown look decent. I said "successful, balanced offense". It's not very successful, and it's too pass-heavy for my tastes. The Bears need to lean on the running game more (but I don't think the OL is that good at run blocking). Yes, you're right: there is a reason why Bradley didn't see the field. But I doubt it was good enough, and I think it's symptomatic of this coaching staff's problems with decision making processes when selecting their starters. Some OL decisions were horrible last year, the Orton change should probably have come earlier, and the D starters have been questioned by many. I think the rest comes down to the fact that you seem more pleased with Turner and the offense than I am. I actually have said many times that I think the Bears' WRs are pretty good, and the RB is obviously good, and Orton has tools. I expect more.

I said it over and over and over again. Here are the problems: 1) The Bears haven't had a good offensive talent evaluator in eons 2) The Bears haven't had a good offensive mind since Crowton 3) The Bears haven't run a successful, balanced offensive scheme since maybe Turner's first go-around 4) Those making the decisions about who should start on offense and who should sit have been consistently stubborn, ignorant, and proven wrong. Gage, Wade, Berrian...and now Bradley - Making an immediate impact with the Chiefs, a team with an absolutely wretched QB, and giving a big F'You to his former Bears' coaches (who kept him in the doghouse for no reason). Gotta love these coaches.

I fear he'll end up like Bradley. He'll be a guy who appears to have more talent than the other WRs, but can't get on the field. With Bradley is was mostly injuries, but when healthy he was in Lovie's doghouse. Bennett may be fourth or fifth on the depth chart, and could end up being a wasted pick.

Typically, however, the later round picks that step up only look great because they were later round picks. It's nice to find the sleeper in the 6th that ends up playing like a 3rd, because it does wonders for the salary cap management, but I'd rather find some first day guys that look like All-Pros.

Just one point: I gave the offense credit for the goal-line drop, and then fumble recovery. What I didn't give them credit for was the 6 yard drive. I'm not trying to take anything away from the offense - they put up points. The passing game looked downright dangerous. I said at the beginning of the season that I thought the Bears had the talent at WR and TE to do big things. And I'm extremely happy that the offense is finally taking advantage of the tons of opportunities the D/ST provides. It's just too bad that it has finally happened when the window on a dominant D has begun to close.

I'm clearly giving the last TD to the D/ST. The offense had to go six yards. Seriously. Six yards.

I'm speaking in the realities of what actually happened. You are right, however, Orton should have had a monster game if not for the drops by Booker (who is on the offense).

Drive 1: Plain old marched down the field on the Queens. TD Drive 2: Blocked punt. TD Drive 3: Started the drive at the Bears' 48, got 34 yards (10 more via penalty). FG. Drive 4: 24 total yards. Punt. ST TD after muff. Drive 5: Started on the Queens' 26, and got 2 yards. Blocked FG. Drive 6: Started on the Bears' 41, got 23 yards (5 more via penalty). FG. Drive 7: Awesome drive by the offense. TD Drive 8: Total yards 12 - Punt Drive 9: Total yards 8 - Punt Drive 10: Started at the Bears' 37, got 51 yards on one play (BOOKER IS FAST!). TD Drive 11: Started at the Queens' 6. TD Drive 12: Total yards 9 - Punt Drive 13: Total yards 15 - Punt Drive 14: Doesn't count...clock killer So, by my count, that's 21 points for which the offense can take credit, and then 21 points for which the ST can take credit, and then 6 more points that is shared equally. Although, the fifth drive should have been at least 3 points, making it 9 shared points. The offense did very well today, and there can't be a person who is upset with all the points shoved down the Queens' throats, but let's not get too excited about the "offensive onslaught". The offense didn't get the Bears 48 points. The team got the Bears 48 points.

Bump for the prediction.

It seems that everyone knows how to exploit it. Everyone understands the gaps and holes. And, most importantly, when the Bears go to it exclusively, they get raped. Is it because it's a passive approach? OR Is it because the Bears don't have the personnel to run it any more? Either way, the Bears almost let a win go yet again. This "playing not to lose" crap has killed the Bears this year, and it appears that Lovie and crew haven't learned their lessons. Thank goodness the offense and ST put up so many points today, because those last ten points to the Vikings were way too easy.