selection7

How many first rounders don't work out? A lot. And we've started rookies in the secondary and then cut them within a few years. IMO, while starting the first year is nice, the goal of any first round pick should only be acquiring a top tier player, no matter the position, no matter if they need 2 or in some cases even 3 years to oust the current starter full-time. The only thing that gives me pause is that we're in the free agency era. So longterm considerations are less meaningful since they can just bolt after the first 4 or 5 (if a first rounder) years. You do need to get some production from those rookie contract guys while they're still cheap...but you know, most first rounders aren't all that cheap. Anyway, players on average don't want to uproot their families and leave behind their friends if they can help it, so the home team has an advantage in free agency. Because of contract extensions, the home team always gets to be the first at the bargaining table too.

I don't know alot about other kickers but Gould is 20/22, has reputation from previous seasons, and is kicking the ball about as long as he ever has in his career (that Lions game miss pretty much eliminates his chances this season of overtaking the "most accurate kicker in history" record). He also does it all outdoors. Dallas' Dan Bailey is also up there...23/24 and 8/8 from 40-49yds and 1/1 from 50+ (he's a rook from my alma mater OKstate).

Had anyone here heard of that injury before Urlacher? And now we've got two in almost back-to-back years? At least Chris should be fresh next season, but we really needed this season to evaluate him, to know what we've got.

Obviously, bye teams play non-bye teams all the time, but a bye team playing a short week team is less common. I forget where I heard it, but i believe before this game I heard (or read) a stat that said even though you'd think the team coming off a bye would have the advantage against a team coming off a short week, the last five short week teams have beat bye teams...so now make that 6!

Did Carimi finish his college career healthy? (not sitting out due to injury anyway)

So how do Sayer's stats compare with Jim Brown, an even older fella? I must say I too found it shocking that Sayers only had 2 1000 yard seasons. But that's partly because it's not true. He had over 1000 in '65,'66, & '69...so three times. Though I still think how does someone who can score six TDs in one game nevertheless not have better stats? I think Bears4Ever's point is that his stats don't even come close to HoF-worthy. Of course the late 60's and early 70's were apples to today's oranges, but shouldn't the stats at least be somewhere in the ballpark of HoF-worthy? So I did a little reading up. Some interesting entries from wikipedia: 1965: (lights out awesome rookie year) 1966: He led the Bears in receiving with 34 catches, 447 yards (so the stats say an unimpressive 34 catches, but what they don't say is that he led the team! His rushing stats were awesome. He was the offense, basically.) 1967: Sharing more of the rushing duties with other backs, such as Brian Piccolo, Sayers gained 880 yards with a 4.7 average per carry. (so not a 1000 yard season, but it's hard to slight a 4.7 ypc, plus it goes on to say he had 4 kick/punt return TDs that year...and he wasn't even the full time punt returner) 1968: After the first nine games of 1968, Sayers was again leading the NFL in rushing--he finished with 856 yards and a 6.2 average per carry. However, his season ended prematurely... (6.2ypc pre-injury? Holy cow!) 1969: In the 1969 season Sayers led the league in rushing once again with 1,032 yards, but he lacked the lightning speed he once had, and averaged only 4.4 yards per carry. (so he led the league in rushing and only had a 4.4 ypc) 1970-1972: (Due to injuries, he mostly didn't play) So up until his first serious injury, he had stats that easily projected to a HoF career. Obviously he never had a chance to prove himself over the long haul but the HoF voters gave him the benefit of the doubt...because the trajectory he was on was so obviously HoF. It's a fair question to ask if half a decade of elite play is enough for HoF.

The less value Forte has on the market, the less he will ask for. This is because if Forte asks for more than what the market will bear on a longterm deal, the Bears know they can get away with not caving because no other team will pay him that either. In other words, though it does matter that he's sure to be tagged if an agreement can't be reached, that doesn't mean it completely negates the whole supply and demand thing. I don't think that qualifies as "silly", though point taken that Forte really only has the Bears to negotiate with, and Forte and the Bears both know well about him being deprived of goal line opportunities.

No doubt Forte is too. Last year in Denver, Orton would get the offense down the field, then McDaniels would put in Tebow at the goal line. So it can even happen to QBs, lol, though I'd never actually seen it before that.

Barry Sanders would get taken out at the goal line and he was 5'8" and probably the best pure runner in the history of the NFL. I think most of the problem is just that we have a talented, prototypical short yardage power back available. If he's not capable of being as good as Forte in at least that one area, we need a better backup. Using Barber keeps Forte fresh, so there's some strategy involved. But there may be something dirty too. It occurs to me that the Bears may see it as making Forte less valuable on the FA market by limiting his TDs.

Just goes to show, even with a name as awesome as that, you still gotta ball.

That sounds cheap in 2012 for an O lineman who's started for years and can play multiple positions, having even more experience at guard than the position the Bears apparently think he's being successful at now (center). I guess I need to keep in mind how much difference there is in salaries between a mediocre starter and a top tier starter lineman.

Good point on that second fumble. I actually think the ball was recovered before the whistle blew, which is why it didn't phase me much. The ball was recovered almost the instant it hit the ground (replay makes it look slower than it was I think)...but how would an instant replay official know when the whistle was blown for sure? Are they allowed to use the audio recording too? Don't know.

It's moot until Carimi gets healthy (considering last week's setback). It's a minor miracle if we don't have to rush him because guys on the OL are playing competently.

Just to clarify. I'm looking for discussion. Not just for a yay or nay from every member.

Also here's an interesting recent article on the subject. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/...n-johnson-rule/

The NFL has changed in recent years since the "gotta make a football move" rule after a catch. I'm not sure if that verbage of the rule still exists, but I nevertheless haven't been a fan of whatever form of this rule we've had in recent years. I've never liked the rule because I see it time and again taking away legit forced fumbles because the player only took a step and a half after the catch or some nonesense...whatever, apparently not enough to clearly show maintained possesion in today's NFL. I have, however, understood that the rule was at least intended to eliminate cheap fumbles that come only an instant after the receiver controls the ball, so implemented sparingly, it can be reasonable. At least there's that. Yet the one time it could help out my team, the refs inexplicably rule that Forte had clear, maintained, control of the ball. ?!? Forte didn't have control until that both-feet-down jump stop (to use a basketball term). The cameras clearly showed the ball still shifting around, so there's no excuse for replay officials. So then he doesn't even take one step...and only barely turns. And a mere instant then after gaining control, Forte has the ball stripped. Doesn't that make this play with Forte the classic example for why the rule was created? If you don't call that incomplete, then are we back to the 1999 NFL rulebook? . Thoughts?

Yeehaw that was a good one! I don't mind the nailbiters. Football is the best sport, IMO, for a good reason.

If we win tonight, we remain the second wildcard team (if the playoffs were decided by this week) due to our competition for that last spot being the 5-3 Falcons, whom we beat.

We're something like an 8 point underdog. Based almost completely off of the Eagle's trouncing of Dallas last week I'm sure. Mike Vick has not been that troublesome to the Bears over his career though.

It's always just people assuming he's a jerk because he has a way of projecting that he doesn't care about you and isn't impressed by you. It hurts people's egos. But those are just assumptions. The thing with Cutler is I never hear people saying hes a backstabber or selfish or talks trash behind people's backs or pretends to be a friend and then throws people under the bus or gets into fistfights or ridicules people, blah, blah blah. So did Cutler have some life-changing moment? Of course not. He's not a bad guy now and wasn't then. As my theory goes, he's just aloof because he doesn't trust people, and there's probably some immaturity and insecurity behind that, but everyone's got their issues. I'm not surprised that with time he's warming up to his teammates.

He wanted to go somewhere else. The Bears obliged. I have no idea whether releasing him was a good thing for the Bears, but how can you complain that the Bears giving him what he wanted was disrespectful? The only difference is that he now has to renegotiate a contract, which he might've had to do anyway. Depending on who the Bears add, I would've guessed the best thing to do was to keep him on the bench for insurance, but for a veteran that expects to start, that would have been closer to disrespectful than what the Bears actually did.

I remember that game where we did next to nothing the first half with a balanced offense, then the two minute drive before the half came and finally there was a spark due to aggressive passing. When this happened Martz thought 4 things: 1) aha, now I've got an excuse to pass aggressively...which is what I wanted to do anyway 2) I can keep running it, but they'll just keep stuffing it. The run just isn't there. 3) We're losing so we need the clock-stoppage of a passing game 4) Jay was brought to Chicago to make bigtime passes. Those are the plays I'm going to call. I agree with those that say when the run isn't working, perfect playcalling balance is too much, but the problem is, while there was truth to all 4 of those points I listed above, when you completely neglect the run, the defense isn't kept honest. They "pin their ears back" and attack the QB and ignore play actions. Every armchair coach knows that. So does Martz, in a sense I'm sure, but Martz is stubborn. In other words, he begrudgingly gets the concept, but he doesn't really buy into it. Sometimes you have to suck it up and take 2 yards per run...just so your passing game doesn't turn into pick and sack party for the opposing D. I think we have a sometimes capable OL when they aren't specifically put into a position to fail. Better than last year at least, though there's still alot to prove.

Yeah, no sound. Use this'n instead... http://www.chicagobears.com/multimedia/mul...amp;play_clip=Y

Looking at the standings, I do believe if the playoffs started next weekend, Detroit and the Bears would be the two wildcard teams. At this moment, our competition for the second wildcard slot is TB and Atlanta (who are also 4-3)...we beat them both heads up. Take that for what it's worth. http://www.nfl.com/standings As an aside, Green Bay is getting on my nerves...barely beating a team we just destroyed to nevertheless move on to a 7-0 record.

Agreed, they probably shouldn't put it all in a big arch over the front entrance with his name spelled wrong. I'll send in the work order revision and hope I'm not too late.