jason

Completely disagree. Even with Tait doing worse, and Williams being injured, this OL needed more help. Kreutz is on the backend of his career, and the two guards are average at the very best. I seem to recall that everyone knew he was a possible problem child before he was even drafted. What wasn't, and still isn't known, is what he can do on the field. And that's because the OL sucked. Also, doesn't your "good source", who you seem to insinuate had more inside knowledge than our front office, contradict your entire premise in this discussion? If your "good source" knew this, and the Bears didn't know it to the exact same extent or better, then your whole "they work in this industry so they know more" argument is automatically invalid to a certain extent. Your point of view reminds me of how the news industry felt before the onslaught of independent bloggers began to uncover stories and scoop the mainstream on very important issues not too long ago. They may still look down upon the bloggers and such - mostly because of a superiority complex of sorts - but now they know there are non-professionals who can do just as good of a job as the "insiders". The point is, if anyone worth a shit was being released, 95% of the time it would already be known. Furthermore, the point about knowing it "right now" is inconsequential. If I did this stuff for a job, and that's all I did, then it would simply be a matter of memory. And, don't act like JA or any other GM knows everything. Nobody knows who is on the Pats injury list for sure. Nobody knows what's going through the mind of other GMs and teams. We'll just disagree here. You say anyone who isn't already a GM couldn't do worth a damn, and I say otherwise. But, I will address one of your comments. If the roster is made up of players deep in the draft, is that necessarily a good thing? I don't think so. I think it shows a certain amount of incompetence, specifically with drafting in the early rounds, but also in player development. Not to mention the fact that the Bears haven't exactly been a powerhouse for an extended period of time. Is it a source of pride or superiority to have a bunch of low-round guys on the team? Maybe THAT'S the problem - too many guys are on the team simply because they got drafted by the Bears, and would have been cut by many other teams. How many other teams would Rex or Kyle start for? Not many. Are those teams the model after which the Bears' front office should model their franchise? Probably not. Fun is not the same as consistent winning. I'm sure Cubs fans - and I am one - would have a lot more fun if they were winning as often as Boston and NY recently. I chose not to address it. I haven't really been a JA basher like others, and for the most part I'm happy with how well the team has done the last FEW years, but they need to do it several years in a row, and develop some sort of a pro offense before I am satisifed. It's the same old stuff: Defense, Defense, Defense. It'd be nice to have a complete team once or twice a decade.

1. I've never claimed anything about the injury. I never bashed the pick. Please pay attention before throwing ignorant claims around. I liked the pick. I would have liked Otah maybe a thismuchmore, but I was happy with Williams. 2. None of us are involved in the inside stuff, but what we see on the field is supposed to be the best the Bears have. And as far as the OL goes, that was total shit last year. If you couldn't see this, then you dont' know football. 3. The Forte pick happened to just work out perfectly for the Bears. At the time, I felt it was too high of a pick for a RB, but since Benson screwed up again and then got cut, the Forte pick was seemingly prophetic. At the time, however, the Bears didn't really know what they had in Benson or Wolfe, and to a lesser extent AP, and it was because the OL sucked last year. A RB who isn't superhuman (see Payton, Sanders) can't properly be evaluated with a garbage OL. Highly rated or not, need has to be factored in significantly when considering major holes on a team. That's just common sense. 4. The FA stuff is a wash and you know it. VERY RARELY is there a surprise FA. We know nearly the same time as the teams do because of the proliferation of inside sources and breaking updates on the ESPN ticker. Furthermore, the salary cap is easily known, and often times (see LT2 on this board), it's more comprehensive than the news outlets. Say what you want dude, but it's not bullshit. And it's anything from clear as to whether or not I've been right or wrong more often than those running the franchise. With access to the former boards, it's really easy to see that I - and many other members - have been right on just as consistent a basis as JA and the Bears, if not moreso. Neither you nor I can prove it one way or the other, so we don't know for sure, but I'm absolutely positive that over the years I would have put together a more consistent, more solid team than those in charge of the Bears. Sure, we wouldn't have had some of the guys we now love, but I think overall we would have had a better team consistently. That has nothing to do with being smarter than another person. It has something to do with the saying, "Too far into the forest to see the trees." A lot of times, these guys overthink things instead of just making smart decisions. Anyone with half a brain knew that Shaq going to the Suns was a bad idea, but the people running the franchise did it anyway. Horrible decisions like this take place every year, in every sport. I don't see why it's so hard to believe. I think that a team is mismanaged if they aren't pretty consistently good, but maybe you, along with most Bears fans, have become apathetic towards expectations. The collective of Bears' fans is slowly turning towards the same mindset that has created the loveable losers that are Cubs' fans.

Come on man...we've hardly asked for championship football consistently over the last 20 years. Sure, we've been upset quite a bit, but at this point I feel that we do deserve a much better product consistently. We should expect up and down years, but there have been far too many down years over the last two decades. The one thing I do agree with is optimism. Nobody thought the Giants would do it last year, why not the Bears this year? The D/ST is enough to carry the team through, and Eli's numbers last year looked VERY similar to Grossman's the year before last when the Bears were in the SB.

One of my good friends, a Seahawks fan, was at the game this weekend. Immediately after completion he texted me four messages. 1) Seahawks D > Bears O 2) Bears D > Seahawks O 3) Seahawks scrubs > Bears scrubs 4) Please tell me that isn't your starting OL I could care less about the first two messages, because they're the equivalent of saying "the sun is hot", and the third may or may not be true. The fourth statement, however, really troubles me. I called him later and he said that there were no holes to run through, and no pass blocking for the QBs to use. He said he didn't even see a Bears RB appear to have any impact. While we sit around and talk about what a steal Harrison and Davis are, I sit back and think, "Man, it sure would be nice to have a solid OL instead of a third TE and a non-starting rotational DT." Considering the fact that Idonije seems to have taken a step and Dusty has "recovered", the DT situation seems to already have a nice rotation. Considering the fact that the Bears gave Clark a contract extension, and Olsen is obviously the TE of the future, the TE situation seems to be set as well. ...sure would be nice to have another OLineman.

Bingo. That's it. And for me, to be quite honest, it has a little bit of "I told you so" in it. Sue me. It's just irritating to be right more often than the actual people running the team is all.

1) QBs:I'm not necessarily saying Rex or Kyle are better than Pennington, but with the pressure they face, they have even less time, and even less field to distribute the ball. Pennington's arm absolutely sucks, and I'm convinced he would be a disaster for this year. The Bears can still sign Culpepper...and probably should have done it a while ago. Now, however, it is too late for him to truly come in and be the starter. Nice insurance policy though. 2) WRs:"Bryant Johnson, Bernard Berian, Hester, Davis, Booker and Hass" - I don't see how that's all that different than what the Bears have now. Either way, there is a lot of unproven talent that will have to split time, thus minimizing their impact. And on top of that there is a garbage OL and an inconsistent (at best) QB throwing the ball. What this means is, the Bears don't know what their WRs can do...or would do with your group. 3) Briggs: I don't see a problem with releasing Briggs if you spend elsewhere on offense. 4) Dez Clark's extension: I agree with this one. The double-TE set sure as hell better show up this year or it's a complete waste. 5) Hester: I think your decision, while normally something I agree with, would have ultimately lost Hester for the team. And that would be horrible.

Don't you DARE steal Dez White's hard earned nickname and try to give it to Bennett. Come up with something new if you want, but nobody will ever be Stonehands except for Dez White. Next thing you know you'll be calling someone Sweetness.

Gotta start somewhere!! It's not a new philosophy for me, and if it's not addressed in next year's draft, we'll be having this same discussion.

So, you would be part of the "not many". Your post proves you are included in the "stockpile OL" camp. Many other places in the message boards' archives, however, had adamant opposition to the thought of drafting OL with multiple high draft picks.

To be honest, I don't see how the team can be faulted for Benson being a moron. As one of this board's biggest Benson haters, I still think the Bears front office had the following to look at: 1) A top-five draft pick, with crazy high school and college credentials on the field, and sparks of greatness in the NFL 2) An absolute garbage OL, that allowed more penetration than a 3 dollar hooker With that in mind, you have to concentrate on the OL first, and presume that the improvement of the OL will lead to production from the RB. That only made sense. And when you look at some of Benson's highlight runs from the past two years, he looked pretty good when he was given any semblance of a hole to run through. He had burst, power, and enough wiggle to keep the defense off balance. Aside from Benson's off-field retardedness, the front office made the right decision by going OL over RB. Hell, I think they should have gone OL again instead of picking up Forte. Of course, neither I, nor the front office could have predicted Benson's actions...so the Forte pick ends up being somewhat of a blessing in disguise.

Things with which I disagree Michael Turner: Would have been overpriced for a relative unknown Bryant Johnson: Pointless considering the fact there is a logjam at WR right now, and the OL stinks so bad that there could never be a valid evaluation. Bernard Berrian: Best WR last year, but not a #1, and not worthy of the tag. Watch him suck this year for the Vikes. Derek Anderson: See Michael Turner. Overpriced to get him. Sell high, buy low...not the other way around. Chad Pennington: Abso-friggin-lutely not. He would be worse than Rex or Orton with this OL. His noodle arm would have done nearly nothing except throw INTs under pressure. At least with the two we have there is a chance of a ball squeezing through a window. Things with which I agree Faneca: This I completely agree with. The Bears should have realized the weakest point last year. Hell, anyone with eyes, a brain, and elementary knowledge of football should have seen this. Drafting QB: Agreed. There should always be a QB blossoming on the horizon. By the way, Colt Brennan looks to be adjusting to the NFL quite well.

Regarding this OL topic, read my signature line. Aside from me and nfo, not many were on board with an OL heavy draft. While I think Forte and Bennett have a chance to be very good, I would much rather have seen at least two more OL prospects drafted. The Bears were in a position to pick up some highly regarded talent, but didn't do it. And now there's a situation where the QB, RB, WR, and TE position can't be properly evaluated because the OL is so bad. There is simply no way to know how well a QB will make a read when he's being hit and pressured every play. There are no reads other than the "hot read". There's no way to know how well a RB will see a cutback lane when he's being cross body blocked by a DT behind the line of scrimmage. There is no way of knowing if a WR or a TE will get separation and catch the ball, because the play never gets time to develop, and the QB never gets a chance to throw the ball where is should be. This is a bad situation all around, but it could have been lessened if the Bears went heavy on the OL.

I agree with the entire post, but wanted to clarify something. The situation you describe, illegal blocking down field (i.e. ineligible man down field), is a result of the OL being significantly beyond the "free blocking zone", and the pass being beyond the line of scrimmage. If a screen pass is set up, and the OL is 6 yards down field, and the pass is caught by the RB BEHIND the line of scrimmage, then there is no penalty. But when the RB leaks out too far, and catches the pass BEYOND the line of scrimmage, the result is a penalty. As far as the blocking while the ball is in the air issue, that is also a foul, but it's offensive pass interference. This, however, is almost NEVER called against the OL when they are setting up the screen. In fact, I'd go so far to say that I've never seen a pass interference on an OLineman. Most of the time the offensive pass interference in this situation is a result of a WR bubble screen or something similar, where the WR is blocking while the ball is in the air.

Disagree in part with Mongo. I think the WR position is just as good if not better. First, Booker is better than MuhMuh. Hell, I'd take Lloyd over him too. Add that to the fact that Bradley is healthy-ish, Hester is more involved, Davis has one more year under his belt, and the Bears drafted Bennett (not to mention the promise of Monk and Haas). OL...yeah, not that impressed right now. And that's all there is to it. OL will either surprise and help, or absolutely destroy this team. If bad, it'll make the skill positions on offense impossible to grade, and it will eventually wear down the defense and special teams. If good, the offense will do more than expected, and the D/ST will carry the team like they did two years ago...possibly just as far.

He's busted his ass to get better? Really? I see the same guy, making the same mistakes, dropping the same snaps, throwing off his back foot under pressure.

Wow. If this dude is injured, and LOOKED LIKE THAT, then when he gets healthy he should clearly get more carries. Because he was absolutely dazzling on at least two plays, and he's supposed to be injured. Crazy.

1) I think drafting anyone other than LT with the 1st overall is a bad move 2) I think you went way to early on Derek Anderson unless there was a ridiculous run on QBs 3) You got Chicago's D/ST, so you'll enjoy the season regardless of results Overall, I think you're fairly stacked. Thomas Jones will have a much better year with help from an improved Jets' OL, and, oh yeah, Farv. Fred Taylor and Ricky Williams are enigmas, but your WR corp will make up for it. The key is whether or not you have a flex player. If so, your team will dominate (there will be an almost guarantee of one TD per week from the three WRs). If not, you'll probably get beat early in the playoffs.

Bingo. This has been one of my biggest irritations for the last couple years. It makes NO sense whatsoever. Pisses me off. It is a lot easier to use cutback lanes when you know both the opponent's DEs are 10 yards wide. Sure, it's harder for a QB to scramble, but this isn't flag football. If this DL ever used stunts and varying moves on a consistent basis, it'd look like the gang-busting unit like the Giants last year.

Bad example or not, you miss the point. When someone states something, their statement can't necessarily be disregarded for their own personal issues. Use any example you want. Pick a guy who is widely disregarded or considered a bad character guy, and if he states fact (or damn near fact), then it shouldn't be disregarded because the guy is a bad character. If Tank said water was wet I'd have to agree with him. And Rex, no matter how much we want him to turn into the best QB in the NFL, is timid at best, and weak at worst. Let's take off the rose-colored glasses, stop drinking the koolaid, and just say it: Tank is right - Rex is weak. Does that mean he doesn't have big time talent? No Does that mean he can't lead a team? No Does that mean he can't win with good talent around him? No But, once again, let's be honest, the dude's weak. He pitter-pats his feet more than most NFL-calibre QBs. He throws off his back foot more than most NFL QBs. He makes atrocious decisions when in the face of danger far too often to be considered a tough guy. The pressure, the hits, the physicality of it all intimidates him. There is no denying this fact. All that considered, Tank's words ring true.

I've been saying for years that the Bears should stockpile players with cool nicknames. We could have 3 Tanks on the roster, a Booger, a PNut, Tron, and several other colorful characters like Craphonso.

If Stalin called Hitler evil, would it be any less true because of Stalin's own legacy? I think not. Until Rex steps up in the pocket, there's a good chance that most people on other NFL teams probably agree with Tank.

I've said it for years, and I'll say it again. Just because someone is in the NFL doesn't mean they know what they are doing. They may know the lingo and have the connections, but that's not necessarily an indication of actual football knowledge. Some of the smartest football people I've ever talked to in my life have been on the sidelines of high school football games. Guys that have seen more football, and understand it at a basic level, than most coaches today. And I still contend that if given a year to learn the lingo and what-not, that I'd do better (as would many on this board) than the Bears' OC has for the last decade or so (give or take odd spurts of success).

I thought the popcorn post was meant to be saying, "I'm just going to grab some popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the show." In other words, taking the role of Sweden in the Wolfe debate, not getting involved but nonetheless enjoying the results of the fight.

Please refer to my tagline for confirmation of this belief. We will never know what we have on offense as long as the OL is questionable to bad. There is relatively unknown talent at RB, WR, and TE with question marks still remaining at QB as well. Of course, you and I were two of the few who thought it would be a smart move to go OL, OL, OL with the first three picks.

I know it's only the preseason's first game, but if Miller makes his way back to the Bears (shudder), he may not even start. The guys on the OL looked pretty good tonight.