defiantgiant

I think sometimes teams can get away with being slow in the secondary, but you can't get away with being slow if you take bad angles or read the play wrong. It's like what you said about Harris - he should have been cheating the other way to begin with. Maybe if you have an absurdly quick safety like Earl Thomas you can live with those bad reads, but Harris doesn't have the speed to cover for his mistake. If he takes himself out of position, he's not going to get to his spot in time, like we saw on that TD from Harvin. I think Major Wright might be able to help in that respect, if he can break into the starting lineup. He's definitely got more speed and range than Harris does. Wright at FS and Manning at SS would give us a decent amount of recovery speed on the back end, even if we'd still be slow at corner. It's a shame that the Bears have so many bigger needs in this draft, because it looks like it's going to be a great year to get a corner. Patrick Peterson, Amukamara, that kid Harris out of Miami, Texas' two starting corners, Dowling from Virginia...there could be a lot of really talented CBs in the draft this year. But unless one of the blue-chip guys falls really, really far, I just can't see them drafting a CB in April.

Ha ha ha, Occam's Razor in action. I love it.

I'd be very surprised if there's a lockout, given the decertification threat from the Player's Union. Unless I'm wrong, every single team that's voted thus far has approved decertification; if the players decertify the union, then a lockout would lead to a slam-dunk antitrust lawsuit against the owners. That's not to say that decertifying isn't a nuclear option for the players, but I think it pretty much guarantees that there'll be a 2011 season. It's worth noting that that a lockout is REALLY bad for the owners - according to a couple of NFL officials, if the owners reached a new CBA right before the 2011 season, they'd still lose about $1 billion. Even spread across 32 teams, that's a lot of money. If the owners cancelled the 2011 season, those losses would be a lot higher. They'd lose ticket sales, for one. Also, the league's own lawyers have said that, under the NFL TV deal, they'd have to reimburse the networks for the 2011 season if there were a lockout; looking at the average annual value of the deal, cancelling the 2011 season would force them to repay $1.1 billion to ESPN, $712 million to Fox, $622 million to CBS, and $600 million to NBC. I would be shocked if the owners decided to eat a year's worth of ticket sales, repay over 3 billion dollars of their TV revenues, lose who knows how much in merchandising/advertising revenues, AND expose themselves to liability in a potentially lucrative antitrust suit. There's just no way they could save enough on player salaries in the new CBA enough to make that worthwhile. They may be greedy, but they're not stupid.

Jake Long has a labrum tear, but he's going to play. He'll wear a brace, and he's going to need surgery at some point. We'll see how effective he is, but I wouldn't count him out entirely. Also, Vernon Carey's a pretty capable LT in a pinch, if Long really can't go. Wake is apparently going to be OK - he practiced in full the next day after hurting his hip. Not good news for Frank Omiyale. The Bears definitely shouldn't sleep on Thigpen. He's a gambler and that could lead to some turnovers, but he's a very mobile QB and there are a couple of teams in the league (Arizona, Carolina, Cleveland before Colt McCoy stepped up) where he'd probably start. He looked decent in that goofy pistol offense that Chan Gailey was running in Kansas City...he's definitely not your average third-string or even second-string QB. I'm expecting a win for Chicago, but probably not a big game offensively. Miami has a tough defense, especially against the pass. They could have some success if Martz keeps mixing in the run and the screen and he lets Cutler throw on the move, but this is going to be a week to limit those high-risk downfield shots. If they can get down into the red zone, they need to come away with at least 3, not a turnover. A kick return score from Hester would be HUGE, as I don't see either team putting up a ton of points on offense. I trust the Bears to snuff out the Wildcat, but if Thigpen can work the ball to Brandon Marshall, there could be problems. The defense's Achilles heel all year has been covering big WRs: Calvin Johnson, Miles Austin, Mike Williams...even Steve Johnson gave them trouble. If history is any indicator, Brandon Marshall's going to have a big day. That said, I think this is a 21-17 kind of game, and the Bears come away with the win.

I think the Harvin TD was at least as much on Harris. He bit on a fake from Favre and broke inside to where Shiancoe was. That took him out of position to get over the top of Harvin. I couldn't really tell if Jennings screwed up too, or if he just thought he had safety help when it wasn't there. As Jennings was trailing, you could see him shouting at Harris and pointing to the spot Harvin was headed. Could have been both their fault, I don't know.

According to Rotoworld, Favre's now saying the injury is no big deal going forward. He was talking about getting an MRI and seeing Dr. James Andrews, but now he agrees with Childress that the shoulder's no big deal? Two explanations: 1.) Favre was bullshitting to cover up for a bad game. Childress didn't go along with it, and now Favre's backpedaling while still trying to claim that the underthrown ball to Harvin was because of his shoulder. Sure it was, Brett. 2.) Favre was actually hurt, they didn't put it on the injury report, and now Childress is getting Favre to lie for him so they don't get in trouble. This seems a little less plausible, just because Childress has been on the brink of benching Favre for a while now. He's losing them games and the injury thing would give him a REALLY convenient excuse, so he doesn't have to admit that it's for performance reasons. I think if Favre really told the staff he hurt his shoulder on Saturday, he'd have been on the bench Sunday.

Seriously, who saw that coming? He was playing lights-out. If he can take the next step, he might turn into a viable replacement for Tommie.

Yeah, my feelings exactly. It's really surprising, but the Bears have gotten decent play out of the safety spot. Manning appears to know what he's doing, which is a shock. Harris doesn't have the range he used to, but he's far from a disaster while Wright works on taking his starting spot. Tillman is most of the reason why I think we could use a CB. Tillman is one of my favorite players, but he's on the decline and we don't have a good candidate to replace him as the #1 corner. On his best day, Jennings is serviceable as a #2, but that's about it. Bowman's injuries are a huge concern. Moore is a great nickel and should stay there. I've always liked Graham, but the coaching staff clearly thinks he belongs in a special teams/backup role. It's not nearly as big a need as OT or WR in my mind, but at some point in the next year or two we're going to need to find a replacement for Peanut.

Yeah, the announcers during the game were doing the same thing. The Bears win a squeaker over Buffalo and that shows how "vulnerable" they are, but Minnesota needs a fourth-quarter rally to sneak past a flat-out-awful Cardinals team, and they've got "momentum"? Come on. They showed this big graphic of Favre's career W-L record against Chicago, which makes it look like he's their worst nightmare, and then in a little footnote they mention that he's lost 3 of his last 4. Hey guys, that might have something to do with the fact that most of his record against the Bears is from the '90s. Maybe the more relevant record is that Favre's gone 3-7 (now 3-8) against Chicago since Lovie took over. Or do you think that his wins from 10-15 years ago against Wannstedt and Jauron have some bearing on Sunday's game? It was honestly ridiculous. Bennett drops a sure TD and the Bears commit an unforced penalty? It's a "great defensive stand by the Vikings." Harvin scores on an obviously blown coverage? It's the "explosive potential of Minnesota's offense" or something like that. They were doing it all game - every Bears screwup was a great play by Minnesota, then on every great play by Chicago it was "what's wrong with Minnesota this season?" Give me a break. It's like none of these guys remember that the Bears BEAT the Vikings the last time they played. And that was with Rice, Berrian, Harvin and Favre all healthy and Jared Allen on a hot streak. Why is it a surprise when the Bears beat them again? It's not like last year's Bears team was playing BETTER than this year's. It's not like the Vikings have the better record. It's not like Brett Favre losing to a Lovie Smith defense is unprecedented. I mean, take the names away. You've got two teams: Team A: Banged up, 3-5 record, lost to Team B the last time they played and have regressed since then, quarterback has a career losing record against Team B. Team B: Mostly healthy, 5-3 record, beat Team A the last time around and have improved in all 3 phases since then, head coach historically has Team A's QB's number. ...if you're not a member of the sports media, and you don't have a man-crush on Favre, which of these teams do you bet on? Seriously.

Yeah, that was a vintage Cutler screwup. I couldn't believe he thought he could get the ball in there. That said, I also couldn't believe that he was able to squeeze the ball into coverage on Olsen's TD. I guess you take the bad with the good. That second pick was his only throw on the day that was a really bad decision, though. He really does seem to be improving in that regard: last season he was throwing into coverage like that all day. This year, even in the Redskins game, I haven't seen as many poor decisions from Cutler. One of Hall's picks was squarely on Cutler, but two were probably on his receivers and the other one was just a great play by Hall. Likewise, his second pick on Sunday was his fault, but the first one was all on Knox. I think Cutler's probably always going to be good for one bonehead decision a game, but I don't care as long as the touchdowns outweigh the mistakes.

Yeah, this is right on the money. Sacks are overrated. Granted, I would love to see Peppers rack up double-digit sacks, and I'm sure he will once the Bears find a way to get some more consistent pressure on the interior line. But at least once or twice every game I've seen Peppers get a pressure that might as well have been a sack. Look at the play where Favre got called for intentional grounding: Peppers beats his blockers and the next second he's right in Favre's face. That's a sack if Favre holds the ball, but it doesn't really matter that he got it out before the hit, since Peppers didn't even give him time to find a receiver's feet for a dirtball. Peppers forced the grounding penalty, which lead to lost yards and a 4th down, same as a sack. I'll take that any day.

Honestly, I think he's trying to come up with an excuse for his awful play. If he had really had an injury to his throwing shoulder and he told the coaching staff about it, which he says he did, then not disclosing it on the injury report is against league policy. Now, I wouldn't put it beyond Childress to play some stupid games with the injury list: he already did that this week when he listed Harvin as "doubtful" and then played him with no restrictions. But if he were going to try to hide Favre's injury, you'd think he'd at least tell the guy not to blab to the media about hurting his shoulder on Saturday. I think Favre's just trying to cover up the fact that Lovie's had his number since 2004.

Yeah, coming into this season, I wasn't hopeful about the coaching staff on the defensive side of the ball. Marinelli had never been a coordinator before, I really wanted Fewell to be the DC, and the last time Lovie tapped a career position coach as his DC, it was a disaster. I wasn't expecting big things. But Lovie and Marinelli deserve credit for what they've done so far - the defense is playing great ball, and the mix of blitzes and Tampa-2 looks has been right on the money. If they keep it up, there's no reason why this team can't get to 10 or 11 wins and make the playoffs.

I just want the Bears to get the best player they can at one of the three or four positions where they need to improve: in my mind that's OL, WR, DT, CB. I'd be mad if they picked a tight end or a linebacker or something, but if Patrick Peterson fell to the Bears' spot, I'd be OK with picking him even though corner isn't the biggest need on the list. Like BrianBear said, I don't want to reach for some mediocre tackle over a great WR. If both positions are needs, I'd always rather have a great prospect over a so-so player. On the other hand, if the best left tackle on the board when the Bears pick is at least as good as the best receiver, then I say get the tackle. But this year, I'm not sure that's likely to happen. The way the draft is shaping up, there are going to be a handful of great receiver prospects and a bunch of mediocre tackles.

So I'm ready to eat crow on this one. I was in the "keep Hester at receiver" camp all last season, but he's proved me wrong. He looked pretty good as a receiver last year, but he's been AWESOME on returns this year. I still think a good receiver is more valuable than a good return man, but it'd be easier to find a go-to wideout than to replace the best returner in history. After teams stopped kicking to him, I really never thought he'd start blowing up returns again like he has. On top of that, I think he's actually better at WR when he's only on the field for a few well-designed plays. Teams did a good job taking him away with the double team when he was an every-down guy, but they can't do that when he's only in for a package of plays. Slot, split wide, in the backfield - I don't care where he lines up, as long as he's a surprise when he takes the field. If Hester can keep tearing up kick returns, and Martz creates a package for him that keeps defenses off-balance, I say take him off every-down receiver duty and let him concentrate on getting that kick return record.

Between the 20s, I think you're right. Knox and Hester have had some mental miscues, but they can catch the ball. Bennett's been very reliable as a #3. I like those guys for the most part, but I think the red-zone passing game is just as much a problem as goal-line running for this team. There's no Larry Fitz or Calvin Johnson on this team, no big WR who can go up over a defender for a jump ball or a back-corner fade route. I thought Olsen could be that guy based on size and athleticism, but he's proven that it's just not his game. He doesn't box defenders out like a guy his size should. If Moss or TO were 10 years younger, I'd be all for it. But as it is, I think they need to look for help in the draft. The Bears definitely need to get Cutler better pass protection, but I think they also need to get a big jump-ball receiver, a guard who can open some holes in the run game, and a true short-yardage running back. I'm sick of watching this offense move the ball effortlessly down to the 15 and then stall out every time.

Yeah, I totally agree. Also, I especially wouldn't want Castonzo in Round 1. BC's got a great track record for o-linemen, but the knocks on Castonzo remind me too much of Chris Williams - finesse left tackle, not enough power for drive-blocking, vulnerable to the bull rush, etc. If we're looking for a guy like that, I'd rather give Williams another shot at LT and spend the pick getting help on the interior o-line, since it's pretty obvious that Williams isn't cut out to play guard. Granted, Castonzo's fairly tall and he's lean for his frame, which makes it look like he could add some weight and strength in the pros, but I'd rather not gamble on that in the 1st round. If Castonzo fell into the 2nd and the coaching staff has totally lost faith in Williams, then I guess I wouldn't hate the pick. But I'd rather get a blue-chip guard like Mike Pouncey at that spot than take a tackle with some question marks like Castonzo.

If we're talking about next season, I think you're totally right. But I'd like to see them get both a stud WR and a stud LT, even if it takes two drafts. Hopefully, somebody competent will replace Angelo and make that happen.

That's a really interesting question. He's never even been a position coach on O or D in the NFL...he went straight from college D-line coach to the Eagle's special teams/QC coach to Chicago's special teams coordinator. I'd be really interested to know what schemes he'd want to install and what coordinators he'd want to bring in. I'd guess that he'd at least look at some other Philly guys for OC or DC, but I really don't know. Can anybody shine some light on that?

I basically agree: we need both. We might even need a tackle more than we need a receiver, but unfortunately, I think this is going to be a bad year for tackles and a great year for wideouts. If both positions are big needs, give me the better player any day.

Word was that Green Bay didn't want to stunt Tramon Williams and Sam Shields, who they think are developing really well. I think we'll have to wait and see if Harris can still play - it's possible that he's got something left, although after what he did to his knee, I'd be surprised.

Yeah, Phillips has to go. He's the one responsible for letting Angelo keep his job, even after it was clear that he was creating a huge vacuum of talent all over the roster. But he just let Jerry keep right on screwing up the draft every year, getting rid of good players, and pulling fat guys off the street to play o-line. I think the next team president has to have a football background. It can't be somebody like Phillips, who has to use a search firm to tell him which GM to hire. If you can't tell which guys are doing a good job at their current teams, how are you supposed to know when the guy you hired is doing a bad job for you?

Nobody's defense is meant to allow the opponent to score. The Tampa-2 is meant to allow the opponent to gain yards, absolutely. That's the whole "bend but don't break" thing - allow yards, but not points. Also, the Tampa-2 isn't the only defense that relies on forcing the other team to turn the ball over. Baltimore's D is predicated on Ed Reed generating turnovers, reliably, every game. The Eagles' D lets Asante Samuel gamble and jump routes to get a turnover. The Saints' D does the same thing with Darren Sharper. Same thing with the Steelers and Troy Polamalu. There's nothing wrong with building a defense around forcing turnovers. I'm not gonna lie, I'm not the biggest fan of the Tampa scheme. The off-coverage is incredibly frustrating to watch. The whole scheme doesn't work without a couple of elite defensive linemen. Players miss tackles when they're going for the strip. The defense breaks down in the 4th quarter if the offense can't get them some rest. But I have to admit that, this season, the defense has absolutely contributed to quantifiable wins. I mean, how many games has the offense won for us this year? If the defense were playing on the offense's level, we'd be 0-8. I think the d-line's been better than it looks on paper. Their sack numbers suck (12 sacks, #25 in the league) but sacks don't always equal a good pass defense. Detroit is #5 in the league for sacks, they have twice the sacks Chicago does, and their pass defense is WAY worse. Peppers has applied a lot of pressure, even if the other three have been just average. The Bears' d-line hasn't been stellar, but they've done enough to make the Tampa system work. I can get down with that. They're clearly both at fault to some degree, I just think it's more Angelo's fault than Lovie's. If I had to choose between firing both of them and firing no one, I'd give them both the axe. But ideally I'd rather keep Lovie around and just fire Angelo, if I had the option. Lovie's not the best coach in the world, but I'm not sure the best coach in the world could succeed with Angelo running the draft.

I wasn't trying to offer that as support for the argument that the Bears need a first-round receiver. I was trying to say that there are ways to help Cutler out without getting a new left tackle. I still want Omiyale replaced, I'm just arguing that there are ways to get better protection for Cutler even with Omiyale in the lineup. If they can fix the scheme so Cutler isn't getting massacred, then I want to wait on drafting a tackle until a great left tackle comes along. My argument for a first-round receiver is this: it's a position of need, along with tackle, and the top 5 receivers are WAY better than the top 5 tackles this year. There are a bunch of potential franchise receivers available this year, and I don't see a single franchise left tackle like Jake Long or Joe Thomas in this draft. Almost all the tackle prospects this year have knocks on them: they're either finesse guys like Chris Williams, raw athletes with bad technique, or too slow to stay at LT in the pros. My whole point is that I don't want to reach for one of those guys in the 1st. I'd rather take the blue-chip receiver, spend one season muddling along with Omiyale and making some schematic adjustments to help Cutler out, then draft a franchise left tackle next year. What are the odds that next year's draft has a receiver group this good, or a tackle group this bad?

I mean, Lovie's a defensive coach, and I think he's done a good job developing some defensive talent. I'd argue that Briggs, Alex Brown, Peanut, Tank Johnson, and Chris Harris all developed pretty well under Lovie. Tommie did too, before he wrecked his knee. Urlacher and Mike Brown were already good when Lovie showed up, and Wale was good in Miami, but a lot of that Super Bowl defense were guys that really came along under Lovie's tutelage. Obviously, there were a bunch of busts who failed to develop, from Michael Haynes to Mark Anderson to Jarron Gilbert, but I'd put that much more on Angelo than Lovie. How are you supposed to develop a guy whose only claim to fame is jumping out of a pool?