defiantgiant

Closest thing to football news during the lockout? Football video game news! So apparently Madden 12 is going to have a new feature called Dynamic Player Performance: it's basically confidence/streakiness built into the game. A QB's confidence goes down if he gets sacked or picked off enough times, and he performs worse on subsequent throws. It goes up when he completes a few passes or throws a TD, and then he starts performing better. Same goes for every other position: some WRs play better if they get a lot of passes early on, etc. Specifically, they mentioned that Jay Cutler's player rating can go as low as 75 or as high as 90, depending on whether he's hot or cold. I don't know how I feel about the feature, honestly. For one thing, Cutler's confidence has never been the issue. If anything, he's TOO confident when he's having a bad day. I'm sure DeAngelo Hall could have told EA Sports that much. More importantly, I always hate it when it feels like the game's changing the rules to make you lose because you're "supposed" to lose. For example, the Rivalry feature in Madden 11 feels incredibly intrusive: the instant you get anything going against a division rival, the rubber-band AI kicks in to the point where you can't complete a simple pass. I hope they do a better job with the feel of Dynamic Performance than they've done in the past, because it could be kind of cool if it were executed right. I like that rookies are generally less consistent than vets, even if they're really talented. And I like that the Player Roles thing means there's a real benefit to signing a backup like Mark Brunell to mentor a young QB like Mark Sanchez. I just hope that this isn't another in the long line of Madden "features" that just ended up messing with a good thing. Is anybody really happy about Fight for the Fumble, or can we all agree that the game would have been better without a button-mashing quicktime event? If the lockout is still going in August, I'm going to be playing a TON of the new Madden - I really hope they don't mess this one up.

Man, that sounds like it'd make you puke in a hurry. Ten 80-yard wind sprints uphill, then ten more 40-yard sprints up a steeper hill in a weight vest? Ugh. When I played lacrosse as a kid, I always hated running hills worse than just about anything, and that was just a handful of sprints, not 20 at a time. I don't envy Forte his workout routine, but it does seem to be helping. It looked to me like he had more long speed this year than any time since early in his rookie season. Just watching him play, he outran a lot of defenders in 2010 - he was a tough guy to catch from behind once he broke into the secondary. The stats bear it out, too: he had 16 gains of at least 20 yards last season, compared to just 9 in 2009 and 8 as a rookie. On top of that, he didn't lose his burst (even late in the year) and he didn't get dinged up either. If running hills is the thing he added to his workouts, I'd say it's working.

Yeah, after this I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Bears only kept 3 tailbacks: Forte, Taylor, and Unga. Wolfe was never that productive except on gadget plays and special teams...the last thing he needed to do was give the coaching staff an excuse to cut him.

Yeah, I think this is the right way to go about it. This time last year, Webb wasn't supposed to be the starting RT and Williams wasn't supposed to be playing guard. Both of them got thrown into the fire, but they both improved significantly by the end of the season. I think the coaching staff needs to leave them where they're at and let them develop. Unless Carimi flat-out can't handle left tackle (which would surprise me) they should just plug him in and stop shuffling the line. Williams might never be an ideal LG, but with some time to learn the position, I think he could develop into a poor man's Eric Steinbach: not a lot of sand in his pants, but good in pass protection and mobile on pulls/traps. I'm OK with a player like that at left guard. We just need to add a big mauler in free agency, to take over RG from Garza. Having a good to very-good RG would help Webb develop at RT and alleviate some of the pressure on Kreutz. A line of Carimi-Williams-Kreutz-Marshal Yanda-Webb could be pretty solid.

I agree with their assessment of Carimi. He might not be a Pro Bowl left tackle, and there's an outside chance that he might not even stay at left tackle, but the absolute worst-case scenario is that he's a 10-year starter at right tackle, and he'll be an above-average player from Day 1. He's probably got the lowest ceiling of any of the top 5 tackles this year (except arguably Castonzo,) but he's got the highest floor by far. Smith, Solder, Castonzo, and Sherrod all come with significantly more risk than Carimi does. I'm still hopeful that he can plug in on the left side and allow Webb to stay at RT, but I like the pick even if he can't. Also, I like the quote from Martz on Cutler: I know Martz talks up everybody on offense like they're going to the Hall of Fame, but I think this is for real. The two things that Martz prizes in a quarterback more than anything else are toughness and intelligence. Not arm strength, not mobility, not all the physical things that everybody knows Cutler has. He loved Jon Kitna in Detroit, because Kitna was a run-through-a-wall kind of player, even if he wasn't the world's most gifted quarterback. So it's heartening to me that, every time Martz praises Cutler in the media, he's talking about how tough the guy is and how smart he is, not necessarily about how much talent he has. We all know Jay's talented, but it's good to hear Martz say that he's got the mental makeup to be a great QB in this offense.

I don't know that Philly would have passed on Paea; I think the Bears were smart to get ahead of them. Here's Greg Cosell (who knows his stuff) breaking down Paea's tape and talking about what a good schematic fit he would be in Philly's defense. I'm glad to see that the Bears ditched Angelo's usual "hope our guy falls to us, trade down if he doesn't" strategy this year, and actually moved up to get some impact players. The Bears needed an impact player to replace Tommie, and to hear Cosell tell it, Paea's got a chance to be an even better player in the NFL than he was in college. He compared Paea to a less-gifted version of Ndamukong Suh: a power player, but with enough quickness/athleticism to be disruptive as a pass-rusher. Cosell watches more tape than just about anybody short of John Madden, so I really hope he's right. Cosell seemed higher on Paea's potential than Carimi's, but he didn't hate on Carimi either - he said Carimi is a "workmanlike OT w/no special athletic traits but consistent execution snap after snap. No glaring weaknesses that can't be coached." For what it's worth, that's exactly what I think the Bears needed on the o-line: they don't need an ultra-athletic project like Solder, they needed a guy who was polished and ready to go from Day 1. I'm glad to see the Bears pulling the trigger on some players who can step right in and contribute, after years of wasting early picks on projects.

Angelo's botched trade could have put some other GM one step closer to the unemployment line; it was a lucky thing that the team on the other end was the Ravens, and Ozzie Newsome isn't going anywhere any time soon. If it were a GM on less firm footing with his team, I could understand why he'd be pissed. Really, Angelo is a pretty good GM in a lot of respects. He does an excellent job re-signing the Bears' own players, he's got a better than average track record in player trades and free agency, and he's picked up some nice players via UDFA and off practice squads over the years. But that said, he hasn't done anything to change the perception that he's one of the least prepared, most disorganized GMs in football when draft day comes around. Look at 2009: the Bears thought Mike Mitchell would fall to them in the 2nd round, and when the Raiders grabbed him two picks before Chicago, Angelo apparently didn't have anybody else on his board. So he trades down 20 spots into the 3rd. That should have given him ample time to put together a big enough board to pick somebody in the 3rd, but apparently he was just waiting on Alex Magee out of Purdue. And when the Chiefs picked Magee one spot before the Bears, I guess he Angelo was working with a one-player draft board AGAIN, because he tried to trade down again, only this time he couldn't swing it and ended up picking a guy who can jump out of a pool. And then there was the time when Angelo changed his mind on James Starks after the Bears were already on the phone with him, telling the kid he got picked. He did the SAME thing this year with Carimi: they were telling the kid they'd picked him at #26 when they found out that they hadn't traded up at all and they never had that pick in the first place. That's an astonishing level of disorganization for a professional sports team. If the Chiefs or the Seahawks had taken Carimi, Angelo should have been run out of town on a rail.

Yeah, after reading a lot about this pick, I kind of understand it. This guy isn't another Craig Steltz, just the opposite: he's an unpolished guy with limited starting experience but a lot of upside due to his athletic ability. Steltz was considered a pro-ready guy, long-term starter at a high level of competition, but who had probably hit his ceiling and didn't really have elite range or athletic ability. If Conte can get back up to 210-215 without losing speed, he'll have a pretty great combination of range and size. Also, I trust Clancy Pendergast when he says the guy is a prototype NFL safety. He's worked with some good ones, so he would know. Who knows why the previous regime at Cal didn't see it. The one thing I like about the pick: between Conte and Wright, we now have two young safeties with the range and speed to play FS and the tackling ability to play SS. Since Lovie likes to say that the Bears' safeties all have to play both spots, that makes a lot of sense. Plus, it could give the defense some more options in disguising coverages. I have some questions about both of them in terms of ball skills, though. Neither of them really picked off a lot of passes in college. Wright, in particular, seems to be from that Ronnie Lott/John Lynch school of pass defense: he doesn't play the ball, he'd rather level the guy right as the ball arrives. If neither of them develops in coverage, we may see a lot of tackles and passes broken up but very few turnovers. What I really don't like about the pick, though, is that we spent a Day 2 pick on the safety position at all, when it could have been used elsewhere. Nothing against Conte, but why not just re-sign Manning? So what if the guy wants a paycheck? He's earned it with the way he played this year. It was a long wait for him to put it all together, but he's finally an effective starting-caliber safety. Plus, he's extremely durable, which is a gigantic plus for a team that can't seem to keep safeties healthy. Meanwhile, that 3rd-rounder could have been a guard or a wide receiver to help Cutler out. After all we've invested in the guy, it doesn't make sense to keep scrimping on the rest of the offense. I'm OK with Conte as a prospect, and I hope he turns into a great player, but the offense still needs help.

Yeah, Knox certainly has the potential to develop into a #1. I just don't see that he's done it yet, and I think there's a significant chance that he won't. He's got a lot to work on: he needs to learn to fight for the ball in traffic, run better routes inside the hashes, and beat the jam consistently. It's definitely possible that he fixes all that, but it's not a sure thing. As it stands right now, he reminds me a LOT of Bernard Berrian, and Berrian was just a deep threat, not a #1 guy. Knox is better, for sure, but he's weak in all the same areas: not very physical in jump-ball situations, too easy to bump off his route, mostly effective on go/post routes, etc. Also, if the Bears brought in a #1 guy, it's not like Knox wouldn't benefit from that. His workload probably wouldn't decrease from this year: he only got thrown to 99 times, and Martz's offenses almost always give the top two receivers at least 100 targets each. Plus, Knox would get to see more #2 corners and less safety help over the top, which might make corners more reluctant to jam him, in case they get burned. I think Knox could really shine in a complementary role to a #1 guy, and there's no reason that he couldn't continue to develop, too. Come on, man. Just looking at last season's yards doesn't remotely tell the whole story. Holmes had a four-game suspension last season. He only played 12 games, with only 10 starts. There's no question in my mind that he'd have had over 1000 yards if he'd started all 16 games: his average yards/game once he was starting tells you that much. And that's despite the fact that he was moving to a new team, learning a new offense, and working with a sub-par QB in Mark Sanchez. The last time he started 16 games, in 2009, he had 79 catches for 1,248 yards. Pittsburgh actually threw to Holmes more often than they did to Hines Ward - to me, that's the best indicator of who the #1 guy is. But it's not about numbers, ultimately. Just watching the guy play, he plays like he could be Chicago's #1 receiver. He can get off the line and get open against a team's top corner, he can break off big plays when his team needs it, and (most of all) he makes some incredibly difficult catches to help his QB out. He's got to be in the top 5 boundary receivers in the league - he brings in passes on the sideline and in the back of the end zone that almost nobody else could. In an offense like Martz's, one that features a lot of corner routes and out routes, Holmes would be very valuable. The whole idea behind the corner and the out is that, while they're difficult catches for the receiver to make in-bounds, they protect the QB by placing the ball out of the DB's reach. When you're throwing those routes, the receiver's always going to be positioned between the DB and the ball, so it's a play that's hard to take away. As long as you have a WR like Holmes who can haul them in, it's a big play that only risks an incompletion, not a turnover. Every offense needs something to hang their hat on, a play or a concept that they can run when they need a 1st down and can't afford to have a turnover. Cutler-to-Holmes on a corner route could be that play for the Bears. If you look at Martz's playbook from St. Louis, a lot of his favorite passing concepts feature the corner route (7 route) prominently. The "middle read" is (unless I'm wrong) a 3-receiver set where the X and Z both run 7 routes and the slot receiver runs a post/cross option route. The corner route crops up everywhere: smash-7, flat-7, 7-8 combo. According to Bowen, that flat-7 combo is Martz's #1 call for 3rd and 7-10 yards. That's exactly the kind of situation I'm talking about: when the running game stalls on 1st and 2nd, and you need an intermediate-depth play. Right now the Bears really don't have a bread-and-butter play like that. Even when the line bought Cutler some time, there was just no intermediate passing game: sometimes Knox could get over the top, but their only reliable passing plays were short throws to Bennett or Forte, and those won't always go for 1st-down yardage on 3rd and long. Improving the pass protection is a big first step, but I think they'll still need a target who can reliably make plays at that intermediate level to put together a balanced passing attack. I think Holmes would be a really nice fit as a #1. The only question is whether they'd be able to get him, and that's a big question. If the Bears could find a way to sign him, I think you'd see a big improvement from Cutler and our passing game.

Well, when I say a #1 receiver, I'm talking about either a guy who can consistently get open on any kind of route or a guy who consistently fights for the ball in coverage (ideally both, but I think you can get by with one or the other.) And either way, he's got be able to beat the jam and should catch at least 55-65% of the passes that come his way. Basically, I want a guy who a defense can't easily take out of the game and who's reliable enough to be Cutler's go-to target. I don't think the Bears have that guy right now, and I just don't know if they can get by without one. Knox and Hester can get open down the field, but neither of them are reliable enough catching the ball to be the go-to guy. Green Bay proved in Week 17 that one good press-man CB can take Knox out of the game entirely, without any help. Tramon Williams just negated him, and Sam Shields gave him some problems, too (mostly because Shields is fast enough that Knox's speed doesn't give him an advantage.) I don't think Hester is as easy to take away, but in 2009 teams had a lot of success using bracket coverage against him. Neither of them is particularly good at winning contested catches - it's especially glaring in Knox's case - and neither of them is great at getting off a jam. Both of them are really useful weapons, but you'd want to build your offense so you could live with it if a team took them out of the equation, because it's not that hard to do. Bennett is definitely reliable enough, but he doesn't demand any special attention from a defense. Unfortunately, he just doesn't have the speed or burst to win against a starting corner: it seems like he's got a guy in his hip pocket all the time. I really like him as a dependable slot receiver, where he can get matched up on a linebacker or a safety, but he's not an impact player. None of our WRs is really a matchup problem, except maybe for a team that has really slow corners and doesn't jam them at the line. Both Knox and Bennett can be covered by one guy man-to-man, and Hester can be pretty well contained with safety help. Green Bay can do it without even using Charles Woodson, which frees them up to have Woodson shadow Greg Olsen all game, like he's been doing lately. I agree with DBDB that Santonio Holmes would be a nice fit: he's got a little bit of Torry Holt to him, although he's not quite the catching machine that Holt was. Still, he's got similar speed and athleticism to Hester/Knox, but he's a more complete receiver than either of them. If the RFA tender sticks, though, it'd take a 1st and a 3rd to sign him away from the Jets. I think that's more than the Bears can afford to part with. If he somehow hits the open market, on the other hand, Angelo better be the first guy on the phone.

I think he legitimately likes Cutler, but I think you're right about Hanie. It's pretty clear that both Cutler and Martz know that the way Cutler played before last season was not a fit at all for Martz's offense, but I believe Martz when he says that Cutler has the potential to be a great fit for his system. I mean, the one thing that Martz seems to prize above everything else is toughness. He loved Jon Kitna because Kitna was willing to take an unholy beating and keep standing up. I think Cutler proved last year that he's as tough as any QB Martz has had. I don't get why he doesn't like Hanie, though. I remember some sportswriter basically saying that Martz either likes a QB or he doesn't, and if he doesn't like the guy that's pretty much it. It'd be a shame if Martz got rid of Hanie, though. He's consistently looked good in preseason, and I think he has a chance to develop into kind of a poor man's Jeff Garcia. He's maybe not the best at executing everything smoothly, but he's mobile, he can improvise well, and he keeps the play alive. If Martz cuts him loose, I'm sure he'd have plenty of teams offering him another backup job. EDIT: My two cents on how I wish the draft went 1) Carimi 2) Paea 3) Tandon Doss, WR, Indiana 5) DeMarcus Love, LT, Arkansas 6) Greg Romeus, DE, Pittsburgh Doss would give Cutler a bigger target at WR, and is supposed to have phenomenal hands. I could see him working in sub-packages initially, and maybe challenging for a starting spot down the road. Love played RG for Arkansas back in 2009, and could move back there. He'd give us some pop in the run game, especially teamed up with Carimi or Webb at RT. Romeus is a pure upside pick: if his injuries don't recur or can be managed, the guy's a first-round pass-rusher. He might need to be on a snap count as a rookie, but that's OK: we don't really have a pure nickel rusher on the roster. A third-down line of Peppers-Paea-Melton-Romeus could be pretty nasty. Of course, going that direction in the draft would put a lot of pressure on the front office to re-sign Danieal Manning and Nick Roach, and probably another one of our FA linebackers, too. But Manning's worth bringing back, even if he wants a raise, and it shouldn't be hard to sign Roach and Pisa/Iwuh.

Yeah, the odds aren't great for any QB. Even first-round picks have like a 50/50 track record in the pros. That said, something just makes me want to root for Locker. He seems like he has the kind of work ethic that'll give him a shot to develop into a great QB, even if he's got some flaws right now. I know the odds are bad for any QB, but I just wouldn't want to bet against him. As much as I'm impressed by Christian Ponder, I'm really glad the Vikings got him and not Locker. I think Ponder is probably a solid bet to be a Matt Hasselbeck type of QB, but I think there's a chance that Locker turns out to be great.

Hey man, I owe you an apology. I went back and re-read that first post, and I can see how it wasn't super clear. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

You're putting words in my mouth, dude. I'm not suggesting that every time the Packers or Lions upgrade a position, the Bears need to keep up with the Joneses or else they'll lose the division. What I'm talking about is specific to the passing game. Yes, the Bears won the division last year, but our offense ranked 30th in the league, and most of the problem was that we couldn't win in the passing game. It's very hard to win games if you can't consistently get big gains through the air. The biggest part of that problem was pass-protection, but the next biggest part was the receivers. The Bears invested in better protection, now they need to invest in better receivers. Failing to invest means another year of a pared-down, conservative offense and relying on the defense to keep every game close. To me, that's a bad strategy, and the fact that they got away with it this year doesn't mean it will continue to work in the future. You're saying that we don't need good receivers to compete in the division next year, because we won the division this year without them. I'm saying that, as a general rule, building a team that way means that you're not built to come back when you're down a score or two, especially not when the teams you're playing against can pile up a lead in a hurry (which at least two teams in our division can.) Does that mean that you'll never win against a team that can throw the ball? Nope. Does it mean that it's impossible to win a division title? Nope. Does it mean you're at a competitive disadvantage against those teams? Absolutely. The Bears won the division last season despite being at a disadvantage in the passing game. That's awesome, but I would rather fix the disadvantage than hope that we win in spite of it for another season. Even teams with glaring flaws can find a way to win some games; it doesn't change the fact that those flaws make it harder to compete. I agree that pass protection was their biggest problem, and they're not done fixing it just because they picked Carimi. They could still use another starter at guard. But it's not like they have to choose between getting a guard or getting a receiver. In fact, in my original post, I was suggesting that they do both. Even in the games (mostly toward the end of the season) where the line bought Cutler some time, the passing game tended to misfire. Knox and Hester aren't reliable enough to be go-to targets, and Bennett is reliable as hell but he doesn't make big plays. They need to get a #1 guy, or else we'll be a team that's built to play conservative in a division full of teams that are built to score fast.

Can't blame them - they had the worst secondary in the league last season. They desperately needed to reload on the back end. If anything, I think it was a pretty restrained move to concentrate on their front 7 with the first two picks.