defiantgiant

Yeah, I could see Knox eventually being a DeSean Jackson type of player down the line: he makes great use of his vertical speed, and he has shown some nice instincts for a rookie receiver. Like Jackson, he's pretty undersized, but it doesn't seem to matter, because defensive backs have to play so far off of him. In a year or so, I think our receiver corps could compare pretty well to a group like Philly's: no real #1 and no particularly big receivers, but a bunch of smaller, faster guys who are tough to cover one-on-one and a QB who can buy time with his feet and spread the ball around. I think you can be successful with that kind of group: look at the pair of wideouts Dan Marino had - Mark Duper and Mark Clayton were both like 5'9", but they were fast as hell and very productive for the Dolphins. EDIT: Also, I agree that Hester may never be a great route-runner like Torry Holt or Jimmy Smith, but I'm still hopeful that he can be at least adequate. Not all good WRs run great routes - Joey Galloway ran pretty average routes all through his career, but he really made the most out of his speed and his ability after the catch. If Hester weren't double-covered or bracketed all the time, I think he could get open one-on-one without running totally precise routes, as long as he improves to the point where they're at least OK.

Also, one thing that's been lost in all the talk about interceptions and the running game is that the Bears' offense doesn't go three-and-out HALF as often as they did last season. For all Cutler's faults, he's been picking up a lot more first downs through the air than Orton ever did: Cutler's thrown 127 through 12 games, whereas Orton only threw 141 all season in 2008. If they can fix the run-blocking, so Forte can punch it in when they get in the red zone (instead of Cutler having to throw the ball on 1st and goal,) this could be an effective offense next year.

Yeah, Hester's still a project, but he's developed about as well as I think we could hope for. He's gotten much tougher to cover since he got that double move down (I first started to notice it toward the end of last season,) his hands are light-years ahead of last year, and his quickness still makes it pretty easy for him to get separation. That said, his route-running is subpar, but I remember a lot of people saying that was going to be the biggest hurdle in his development. That'll probably be the last thing to click, as it depends on a lot of experience. He's got the physical skills to be a great route-runner, since he's already so quick out of his breaks and doesn't have to throttle down much to change direction, but he just isn't there yet in terms of knowing what to do. I think Hester (and probably Knox, too) would benefit immensely if the Bears brought in a retired Jimmy Smith-type WR to coach route-running in the offseason. Get a guy who made his career on running great routes and have him do a cliinic. I remember the Eagles or somebody doing that with their young receivers last offseason: it couldn't hurt with our young WRs. Nfo, I have to agree, I don't think Hester is going to turn into a dominant receiver. I think he could probably break 1000 every season in a functional offense, but he's not going to be a Larry Fitz or an Andre Johnson. I could see him having a Wes Welker-type impact, though: in an offense with one or two other elite players, he could be a really dangerous complementary piece. But before that can happen, we need a line to buy Cutler some time, a running game to keep defenses honest, and another legitimate receiving threat so Hester isn't getting doubled all the time. EDIT: We already do this, except it's Bennett in the slot. When Knox comes on the field at split end, Hester stays at flanker and Bennett moves into the slot. With a functional OL and some improved receiver play (fewer drops from Olsen, better routes from Hester) that could be a very, very tough personnel group to deal with. I like the idea of putting Hester in the slot, though. Corners already play 10 or 12 yards off of Knox, and that would open things up underneath. With defenses trying to roll coverage to Hester on top of that, there'd be all kinds of room for Bennett and Olsen to work down the other sideline. Even in a nickel package, you'd have to leave either Hester or Olsen one-on-one with a linebacker or a safety. If the line could give Cutler more than a second to throw, that could be a very effective look on offense.

Umm, Olsen was a consensus first-rounder during the 2007 draft (a lot of people were shocked that he lasted until #31,) he's still only 24, and this year's TE crop is not very good once you get past Gresham. He's got more ability as a receiver than most TEs in the league, and while his blocking is still mediocre, it's better than it was when he went #31 overall in the draft. Is there any particular reason you think that nobody in the NFL would be willing to spend more than a 4th on him? There's no way the Bears wouldn't get at least a second and an early Day 2 pick for Olsen. When Jeremy Shockey got traded to the Saints, he went for a 2nd and a 5th. Shockey's a somewhat better blocker than Olsen (he's still not great, and he whined a lot about how he hated to block) but he was also 3 or 4 years older, a major character concern, had significant nagging injuries (he hadn't played a 16-game season in his entire career) and a broken leg, and was coming off a season arguably less productive than Olsen's 2008: Shockey 2007: 14 games, 14 starts, 57 receptions for 619 yards (10.9 YPA) and 3 TDs Olsen 2008: 16 games, 7 starts, 54 receptions for 574 yards (10.6 YPA) and 5 TDs Again, Shockey went for a 2nd and a 5th after that season, with all his baggage and injuries and everything. Olsen's on pace this season to have 65 catches for 601 yards and 8 TDs, all on a MUCH worse offense than Shockey's Giants. If we were to put him on the trade block, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see him bring back a late 1st. At a minimum, I'd expect someone to offer a mid-to-high 2nd and a 3rd.

Yeah, but we can't afford to be any thinner on the offensive line or at corner or DT. We don't have replacements for any of those guys - whatever we got for them, we'd have to spend at least as much just to stay adequate at their positions. I mean, I really don't want to see a starting CB tandem of Bowman/Graham out there. They'd get burned all day. And if Kreutz were gone, we'd need to put Beekman at center and that would probably mean a lot more of the Omiyale Show at LG. Nfo, I agree about Briggs - it'd be a steep dropoff from him to Williams, but I could see somebody giving up a late 1st or early 2nd for him: he's exceedingly durable (missed like 3 or 4 games in his whole career) has made the past 4 Pro Bowls, and is young enough to still have pretty major value. It would suck to lose Briggs, but if somebody offered a 1st, I can't imagine we could afford to say no. I'll throw one more name out there: Greg Olsen. He's young, has a ton of ability, and could attract some serious interest. And for all the reported "chemistry" between Cutler and Olsen, they haven't been a very effective duo on the field. We could bring in a blocking TE (like Gilmore was) for next to nothing, and have Des Clark and Kellen Davis as our main TEs. Olsen's almost in the same category as Briggs: he'd be a big loss, but I think a team like New England (who have a bunch of Day 1 picks and some lousy TEs) could offer enough value for Olsen to make it worth it. And Connor, I agree that Olsen and Davis should be great red-zone targets on paper. Davis, for what it's worth, has looked like he could develop into a major jump-ball threat - I think he could end up being a go-to guy down by the goal line. Olsen, though, is different: it's true that he's a great matchup against LBs or safeties, but he isn't seeing a lot of that. Without a real threat at WR, defenses can put their best corner on Olsen and shut him down. We just don't have the receivers to tax a secondary: most teams can shadow Olsen with their #1 and roll a safety to help the corner covering Hester, and that's all she wrote. That's even more true when we get in the red zone and the field gets shorter.

Yeah, pretty much. Hester's 27, still learning his position, and isn't an all-world returner any more. Not to mention the fact that he's our best receiver, and the dropoff is pretty steep after him. I still think he can be good for Chicago, but he's got more value to us right now than he would to any other team. Really, we need a big jump-ball possession receiver to take some attention away from Hester and make life easier for Cutler. Maybe Olsen can still be that, maybe we go get Kevin Walter from the Texans in FA, or maybe we need to go back to the draft for somebody like Danario Alexander (or Julio Jones/AJ Green, if we wait until next year.) Either way, Hester's a guy we need to keep developing and build around, not trade away.

USC's offense hasn't looked good this year, but this is the first time Bates has ever been a coach at the college level (he went right from college QB to NFL assistant) and he's working with a true freshman QB. I can imagine there'd be a learning curve. Also, their star running back had that godawful injury when he was bench-pressing and dropped the bar on his neck. It hasn't been a good year for USC's offense, all around. As for whether Cutler's opinion counts, I absolutely think it does. I don't care who he'd be happier working with, but Bates is a guy who Cutler has proven he can be successful working with. Look at Favre on the Jets versus Favre on the Vikings: he was crap in New York, then he goes to Minnesota and plays his best football in years. Want to know what the difference is? The Vikings have Darrell Bevell as their offensive coordinator, and he was Favre's QB coach in Green Bay from 2000-2005. It's not just that Favre liked the guy and wanted to work with him - Bevell uses an offensive system that Favre already knew, was comfortable with, and could execute at a high level. In NY, Kyle Shanahan's offensive terminology was totally different, his passing system was very different from what Favre had played in before, and Favre struggled to adjust. I'm not saying Jay should get to pick the OC. We should still be looking for the best guy for the job. But in evaluating whether Bates is that guy, it has to weigh in his favor that he runs a system that Cutler already knows and has proved can be great in. Remember that we're probably going to be installing a whole new offense when Turner goes; it'd make the transition a lot easier if it were a system that the guy directing the offense is already familiar with and good at.

Yeah, I guess I wouldn't want us dealing a 3rd for somebody like Roach. I do think we could get some value for one of the OLBs, though and we've got to deal from any position that we can afford to. Those seasons were a long time ago. Burgess did nothing in 2001-2004, had two good years in 2005-2006, then one OK season in 2007, then has done nothing since. I'll give you that Burgess might be overvalued had he been coming off those seasons, but several years later he was still worth a 3rd and a 5th. I think we could definitely get a deal like that done for Brown. I totally agree, it would be taking a step back at that position. But we can afford to take a step back at DE, and we desperately need the help elsewhere. If this were an ordinary year, I'd be singing a different tune, but this is shaping up to be one of the worst free-agency years in memory, unless a new CBA miraculously gets done. We can't count on filling those holes in free agency; we need draft picks.

I'll admit that a 3rd for one of our OLBs is a little optimistic, but I don't think it's crazy: I could see a team like the Rams giving up a 3rd in exchange for Roach plus a 5th - I mean, they're starting Paris Lenon right now. Roach is a solid-but-unspectacular kind of player, but he's young and he's a proven commodity: if you draft an OLB in the 3rd round, you're not guaranteed to get a guy who can step right in and help your team. As for the DEs, I really do think we could get a 3rd and a 5th for Alex Brown; Derrick Burgess went to the Patriots for a 3rd and a 5th. Burgess is about as undersized as Brown, worse against the run, has been less productive the past few seasons, and he's a year older and dinged up. As far as Brown's replacement, there are a couple of options: they could move Gilbert to DE, or they could play Adams at RDE and then either resign Wale on the cheap or play Idonije at end full-time. I mean, Angelo shouldn't have done the Adams trade, but we're stuck with it now, and the team has got to get some draft picks somehow if they want to be any good before 2011. DE and OLB are the only positions where we're deep enough to deal somebody without having to turn around and draft his replacement. Dealing Brown would mean we'd get worse at DE, for sure, but DE is one of two spots where we can afford to have a little dropoff in exchange for an upgrade somewhere else.

Yup, that's exactly it. The only thing Angelo's been able to do consistently in the draft is find decent defensive players on Day 2. If he were an area scout, instead of the GM, that'd be fine. But he's garbage at early picks and hardly ever makes a good pick on offense. That's part of why I like the Cutler trade - we got a young player, and somebody else has already done the talent evaluation. It's also a big reason not to like the Gaines Adams trade: Angelo got Alex Brown in the 4th round and Mark Anderson in the 5th - why did he need to trade a 2nd for a project DE? Couldn't he have just picked one up late in the draft like he always does? I'm sure there will be plenty of raw, athletic d-linemen who need tons of development available on Day 2 - Gilbert and Melton certainly were last year. Angelo can spend a 4th on a DE every year for all I care, but for christ's sake, use that 2nd to get the offensive line some help.

That's a different argument. If we're assuming (against all the evidence) that somebody out there is going to offer way more value than Hester is worth, then yeah, we'd need to take it. The same way that if somebody pulled a Ricky Williams and offered their whole draft for Forte, or gave us Larry Fitz for Lance Briggs straight up, we'd need to take that. I'd trade just about anyone if somebody offers way, way too much for them. But there's no reason to think someone's going to do that for Hester, unless they haven't watched football since the opening kickoff of Super Bowl XLI. If we're talking about trading guys for their fair value, and only from positions where we can replace them, I'd be looking to deal Alex Brown and either Nick Roach or Jamar Williams (if we can showcase him some for the rest of the season.) They won't bring huge compensation, but we could probably get a late 3rd for one of the OLBs. Then we could probably get a 3rd and a 5th for Brown. It'd take some nice drafting (good luck getting that from Angelo) but we could fill a fair number of holes with three 3rds. In this year's draft, that could be: 3rd (Brown): Jon Asamoah, LG, Illinois or Mike Johnson, LG, Alabama 3rd (original): Micah Johnson, MLB, Kentucky 3rd (Roach/Williams): Danario Alexander, WR, Missouri or Kyle Calloway, RT, Iowa ...that'd shore up a lot of our problems on offense, give us a big hard-hitting Mike 'backer to develop behind Urlacher (or step in if he gets hurt again,) and we'd have 5 picks on Day 2.

I'd rather have him as a QB coach, just because he's proven he can do that at an NFL level. If he's gotta be OC, though, I'm OK with that. Cutler definitely thinks the world of the guy:

To be fair, it's one thing to be a bust on a team that spent a top-5 pick on you, it's very different to be a bust for a team that got you for a 2nd-rounder. He could never live up to the expectations they had for him in Tampa and still be a worthwhile pickup for the Bears, as long as he ends up a decent starter. As for the gaining weight stuff, I remember reading it around the time of the trade...I'll see if I can dig up the article. It sounded like the coaching staff basically wanted Adams to have a full offseason of lifting and getting stronger before they started working him in. Adams himself put "getting stronger" as one of the big goals he's been working on in Chicago. The guy's built like a basketball player right now..he's got the skinniest legs I've ever seen for a DE. Even if Lovie likes his DEs to be light and quick, Adams needs to muscle up a lot, and from what I've read it sounds like that's what they're doing with him. As for Gilbert to DE, that's basically my own wishful thinking, coupled with the fact that Gilbert said he was dropping weight last offseason. He's another guy who's reworking his body right now, from what I've read. He had some baby fat at 285, but he also looks like he has room to add muscle, so I guess he could go either way. Whether he ends up slimming down or bulking up probably determines whether he ends up at DE or DT. I'd be OK with either, as long as they don't try to play him as a 280-pound DT.

Well, we are really deep at DE, and Lovie definitely tailored the defense to stop the run: makes sense, when the Rams have a top-5 tailback and Kyle Boller throwing it. I mean, they had Afalava at FS and Payne at SS - if that's not a one-dimensional secondary, I don't know what is. That said, I think Adams is more of a long-term project that people are letting on. Right now, he's basically got a killer first step and nothing else - very few pass-rushing moves, very little lower-body strength to bull rush. He's more Mark Anderson than Mark Anderson: all straight-line speed. One thing, though: I remember reading that past offseason was the first time Adams ever did squats. Think about that for a minute. If the coaching staff thinks that Adams can pack on another 15-20 pounds of bulk with a real training program, he could have a lot of potential, but we probably won't see it until next season. He needs to add a bunch of weight and spend every waking hour with Marinelli learning his swim move, rip move, hump move, etc. Then we'll see if he was worth the 2nd-rounder. Also, this occurred to me the other day: if Adams can add 20 pounds and Gilbert ends up at LE, our starting DEs will be MUCH bigger (6'5" 280-285 pounds) than the usual Tampa-2 undersized guys. If we rotate Harris and Harrison at under tackle, we'd basically be a big nose tackle away from having a normal 4-3 front - that could make the transition a lot easier if we eventually ditch the scheme entirely.

Yeah, exactly. When they tell Cutler not to take chances (like they clearly did in the last three games) he's pretty unspectacular. The whole reason to get him was that, if you give him enough help and let him take those chances, he'll complete those low-percentage throws often enough for it to make a big difference. If we weren't going to make an investment on offense and we didn't want our quarterback to take a risk when he thought he could make it, why did we trade for Cutler in the first place? Why not just keep Orton and let him check down to Forte twenty times a game? I think Cutler will be worth it next year and from then on, but not until they get him the pieces he needs to take those risks successfully.

No he isn't, and no he won't. He was an all-world return man two years ago, but that is a low, low value position. Teams can pick up UDFAs and turn them into excellent return men. Look at Clifton Smith (UDFA, Pro Bowl returner last year) and Stefan Logan (CFL player, excellent returner this year.) Of returners with at least 10 returns, the guys leading the league right now are Bernard Scott, Sammie Stroughter, and Johnny Knox. That's a 6th, a 7th, and a 5th-round pick, and they're all rookies. You don't need to spend a high draft pick on a returner, and Hester's taken a huge step back in that regard. And he's still a project as a receiver. Why would he command top compensation? Because of some things he did two years ago that he's demonstrated he can't do any more? Because people know his name? Sorry dude, this just isn't true. Knox is definitely improving, but he's not even close to being Hester's replacement. First, they don't play the same position. Hester plays flanker, and Knox only plays split end (Bennett's position.) The coaching staff specifically limited him to about half the playbook at that one position because they didn't think he could make the adjustment from Abilene Christian to the NFL otherwise. There's no telling how long it would take him to scrap all that and learn to play flanker. Second, Knox's catch percentage and YPC are much, much worse than Hester's, and those stats typically go down when a guy gets a starting job and becomes a bigger part of the defense's game plan. I'm not saying Knox isn't a good prospect for down the line, but the guy's broken 50 yards receiving twice in 12 games, and you think he's ready to step in as the #1 now? Knox isn't bigger, he's skinnier than Hester or Bennett by a good bit. Bennett: 6'0" 205 pounds Hester: 5'11" 195 pounds Knox: 6'0" 185 pounds. You've got to be kidding. Why would anybody in their right mind give up a first and a third for Hester? If you wanted a receiver, you could spend that first on Dez Bryant, Brandon LaFell, or Arrelious Benn if he declares. Or you could trade it for a non-project receiver: I have no doubt whatsoever that Marshall or Boldin would be available for less than that, and Dwayne Bowe might be available for a 1st as well. If you want a return man, you could pick up Trindon Holliday from LSU in like the 5th round: he's arguably the fastest guy playing football at any level, and he's certainly a better kick returner than 2009 Hester is. Why would anybody spend a 1st and a 3rd on Hester when you could have a better receiver AND a better returner for less?

I'll bite. I was a big defender of Turner's until this season...mainly on the grounds that "the problem's not him, it's the defense." I still think that's true, but the guy's not doing himself any favors. Turner's a meat-and-potatoes playcaller at best: he's not terrible, just very predictable and uncreative. Run up the gut, run off-tackle, play-action pass, rinse, repeat. If he had an absolutely dominant line up front, that could be effective. He doesn't, though, and when he tries to get creative, the results are just awful. The only effective thing in his playbook right now is the screen to Forte, and he doesn't use that nearly enough. Everything else is even worse than the Madden-on-easy-mode plays that he called prior to this year. And anything that might help, he doesn't call. I mean, if you can't protect Cutler in the pocket, why no designed rollouts and bootlegs? If you can't get any push in the run game, why no unbalanced-line sets or zone blocking? If your receivers are struggling with routes and drops, why not THROW THE BALL TO FORTE WHO WAS OUR LEADING RECEIVER LAST YEAR? I defended Turner a lot in the past, just because I thought there were bigger problems, but the guy can't coach his way out of a wet paper bag. That offense has been a nightmare this season.

That's true as a general principle, I just think it's more true of Cutler than of most quarterbacks. My point was this: Orton proved last season that he can play capably on a bad offense, but this season, he's only playing somewhat-more-than-capably on a very, very talented offense. He's in the middle of the league in passing yards, 14 TDs to 7 picks, all very respectable, but nothing great. Cutler, I think, can play lights-out on a talented offense or badly on a bad one: there doesn't seem to be any middle ground. Orton is all middle ground. If Orton were on our offense this year, I think he could well be playing better than Cutler. If Cutler were in Denver this year, I have no doubt he'd be playing better than Orton. That said, I think the Cutler trade was good. It's just that now we need to set Jay up to be successful; we can't expect him to be Orton and do about the same serviceable job regardless. It's not just that he's struggling on our crappy offense - we got this guy because of what he can do on a good offense. Unless we put that offense together, we're wasting him.

I really liked Orton and I thought the Cutler trade was a bad idea right after it happened, but I can't say that he was a bad pickup, even considering how much he's struggled this year. Orton and Cutler are just very different players. Orton reminds me of Chad Pennington, in that he plays within his limits and he can make a limited offense at least functional. He's never going to make really spectacular plays, but he can reliably make routine throws even with a lousy surrounding cast. Cutler's the opposite: he can make plays that most other QBs can't (even Urlacher was going nuts about that one Cutler-to-Knox play,) but he'll also screw up routine throws when his offensive line or receivers aren't great. I think Cosell hit it right on the money: Cutler's one of the best pure throwers in the NFL, but he's not going to succeed until the team makes an investment in the rest of the offense. I still think, in the long term, Cutler's going to be a great pickup...it's just that Angelo has to build an offensive line and get a big jump-ball receiver, and now he has to do it without all those picks he traded to Denver.

The Bengals' o-line is good, but I think the takeaway here is that Scott and LJ been feasting on some very bad run defenses. Both guys' YPCs look good on paper, but their yardage came almost entirely from three games against Oakland, Cleveland and Cleveland again. Both of those teams have bottom-5 defenses against the run: Cleveland's 29th and Oakland's 31st. And the last game, where both LJ and Scott really ran wild, was when the Browns were playing without Shaun Rogers. Already a lousy run defense, now minus their only good player up front? That's a recipe for a big day for any running back. Benson, meanwhile, has been running like a man on fire against some very, very good rushing defenses. Baltimore's not quite on Pittsburgh's level, but they're the #6 run defense in the NFL, and going into their first game against Cincy, they hadn't allowed a 100-yard rusher in their last 40 games. Benson hung 120 on them, then came back and hit them for 117 in the next game. It's hard enough to break 100 against the Ravens once: the last guy to pull it off twice in a row was Ricky Williams in 2002-2003, when he was arguably the best running back in the NFL. True, Benson's got somewhat better blocking in Cincy than he had in Chicago, and I'd take Palmer and Ocho over Rex and Moose any day, but I think a lot of it is just Benson playing better. It sucks that he didn't turn himself around until after he got cut, but you can't discount the way he's played since he came back. The only thing I really wonder about is why we didn't try to trade the guy instead of letting him go for nothing. I know Cincinnati brought him in on a second-chance, no-risk kind of deal, but they basically had him penciled in as the starter as soon as he showed up, and they gave him a long-term deal after only having him on the roster for like 7 games. They clearly believed he had a lot of potential...it makes me wonder why Angelo didn't call and offer to trade him in the first place.

Seriously, nobody is going to give up a high pick for Urlacher. He's going to be 31, he'll be coming off a whole year out of football, he has a chronic back condition that's never going to go away...meanwhile, if a team needs a middle linebacker, that 1st or 2nd could be Brandon Spikes or Rolando McClain, who are a decade younger, NOT chronically injured, etc etc.

Yeah, with guys like Louis and Marten (off the PS) I think we could just give them some garbage-time reps, maybe even with Hanie in for Cutler. Omiyale and Shaffer should be legitimately in the mix at RT, although I agree that we'd have to yank Omiyale quickly if he plays anything close to a badly as he has at LG. Omiyale, I think, falls into the "try to develop" category with Williams, whereas Louis and Marten would be more "get a look to see if they're worth trying to develop."

Rotoworld reports that we're starting Chris Williams at LT, and that Jamar Williams is the guy if Briggs can't go. Cato June is just getting over a broken arm, and he's probably only insurance at this point. I really hope this is the start of a trend, and that it means we can get guys like Gilbert and Gaines Adams some reps in the next five games. In theory, they're supposed to be starters on the d-line before too long, let's get them acclimated before the beginning of next season. I'll go a step further: if Williams settles in well at LT, I think we ought to waive Pace, bring that BC tackle up from the practice squad, then give him and Omiyale a look on the right side. I'd even be OK with putting Lance Louis in at guard for a game or two. This season's in the tank; we need to see if any of these guys can help us next year.

It would be awesome if we could get him back, and I seem to remember reading somewhere that making him Assistant Head Coach would get around the no-lateral-hiring rule. Having watched the last three years, the guys on defense just plain played harder when he here than with Lovie running the show on D. Also, if we're retooling away from the Tampa-2, we're probably going to have to do it gradually, and Rivera has experience using (mostly) the same personnel in both the Tampa and blitzing looks. He'd be a good guy to man that transition. I'd be very, very down to hire Shanahan, too. The Cutler connection aside, a zone-blocking system like Denver's could give our running game a MAJOR shot in the arm. Forte's much better suited for a ZBS than a power-running system: he doesn't have a ton of lower-body power and he runs too high, but he has great vision for his blocks and makes some really nasty cuts. That's perfect for a ZBS, where your back's job is mainly to see the hole developing and make the right cut. A blocking scheme like Shanahan ran in Denver could cover up Forte's weaknesses while getting the most out of what he does well. The same goes for our offensive line. Linemen in a scheme like Shanahan's need to be quick laterally, very athletic, and good at setting up blocks downfield, but they can get away with not being that powerful, as they're not usually going to be asked to man up with a defender and drive him off the ball. Between Williams, Beekman, Lance Louis, and even Omiyale, all our young linemen are athletic to a fault, but pretty underpowered. Same as with Forte, a scheme that calls for lots of zone-blocking up front could cover up their lack of power and capitalize on their athleticism. EDIT: In response to nfo, I'd be more than happy to let Shanahan have GM powers. I think the majority of the problem we've got now is Angelo's making: between his poor drafting, the failure to retain a large number of quality veterans, the total lack of long-term planning for the offensive line, and his recent blockbuster trades (not that I don't think Cutler was a great get, but we weren't in a position to give up two firsts and a third) he's dug a really deep hole for this team, regardless of the coaching problems. Honestly, I'd rather they fire Angelo than Lovie, Turner, or any of the coaches. He took a Super Bowl roster and ran it into the ground, to the point where three years later we're probably two years away from being back in the playoffs.

I'm probably in the minority here, but I think that Tommie still has a fair amount of value. He's been playing very noticeably better since he started practicing midweek. I understand that the coaching staff held him out of all those Wednesday practices because they were trying to "manage" his knee, but the end result was that he was out of shape. You could see it on the field, he'd go hard for a play or two and then get totally gassed and ineffective. He's been way more consistent since Lovie's little come-to-Jesus meeting with him, which I'd chalk up to actually, you know, practicing. Is he 2006 Tommie? Not by a long shot. But if he finishes out the year playing the way he has been for the past few games, I think he'd be very worth keeping around. Maybe we restructure his deal so it's a little cheaper, and I wouldn't mind seeing him come off the field on early downs in favor of a bigger, run-stuffing DT, but I think we should keep him around. When he can actually provide that pressure up the middle, like he has the past few games, our d-line is noticeably more effective. If we were to switch to a defensive scheme that didn't depend on Tommie to be Warren Sapp, one that would just treat him like a situational pass-rusher, then I don't think anyone would be mad at his production. By the same token, if he were to get cut, I'm sure somebody else would pick him up in that capacity. I mean, if nothing else, Detroit would be on the phone before he cleaned out his locker. They're playing Grady Jackson and some D-III rookie up front.