defiantgiant

Nfo, I agree with you on Cassel. I think if KC plays to his strengths (meaning they use a 3-receiver set as their base and spend a fair amount of time in the shotgun, like the Pats did toward the end of 2008) they'll have at LEAST a competent starter on their hands. In fact, I think that Cassel could potentially be better for the Chiefs than he was for the Pats. For one thing, the Pats' offensive line is not actually all that good. Brady takes very few sacks (thanks to great pocket awareness and timing) but in the 2006-2007 seasons, he got hit a whopping 82 times, more often than any other QB in the NFL. The Bengals' and Cardinals' offensive lines (neither of which is very good) both kept their QBs cleaner than the Pats' line did for Brady. Basically, the Pats' line looks better than it is because Brady gets hit a lot but always manages to get the ball out just in time, so those hits don't turn into sacks. Cassel isn't as good at that as Brady is: consequently, he took an enormous number of sacks (47 in 15 games) as a starter for the Pats. The Chiefs' pass protection should be at least above-average with Branden Albert and Brian Waters on the blind side, and even an above-average line would be a HUGE upgrade for Cassel. Also, like Nfoligno said, the Chiefs have the pieces in place for a better running game than the Patriots had last season. In fact, on a per-attempt basis, the Chiefs were the better rushing team last season. They ran the ball 379 times for 1810 yards, or 4.8 yards per attempt. The Pats got 2278 yards, but that was on a staggering 513 attempts (fourth-most in the league behind the Ravens, Falcons, and Vikings,) which gives them a YPA of just 4.4. A lot's been made of the Pats' receiver corps making Cassel look better, but I don't think the dropoff will be that steep, necessarily. Obviously Moss and Welker are both phenomenal, but Gaffney was barely OK. His stat line was virtually identical to Rashied Davis' in 2008: Gaffney: 65 targets, 38 catches, 468 yards, 2 TDs Davis: 67 targets, 35 catches, 445 yards, 2 TDs Mark Bradley should have no problem beating that mark: if he'd played 16 games for Kansas City in 2008, he would have had 40 catches for 507 yards and 4 TDs. That said, Bobby Engram is no Wes Welker by a long shot, but he should be serviceable in the slot, and I think Dwayne Bowe can pick up some of the load there, especially with a better QB than he's had before and some more consistent threats around him. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Bowe put up 1200 yards receiving in 2009. All in all, I think Cassel will be just fine with the Chief's receivers, and he'll benefit from better protection and a stronger run game.

I think this is right on the money. You don't need a Pro Bowler, you just need a receiver who dictates (at least to some extent) what a defense can and can't do. The Pro Bowl is kind of a stupid metric to use, anyway, since it relies heavily on subjective things like fan voting and name recognition. Example A: Anquan Boldin was a starter in the last Pro Bowl, whereas Calvin Johnson was only a second alternate and didn't get to go. Yes, the Cards went to the Super Bowl and the Lions went 0-16, but Johnson is a vastly better receiver than Boldin. So when the Sun-Times says that teams can succeed without a Pro Bowl receiver, remember that those teams aren't necessarily devoid of talent at the position: they could still have a guy who put up 1300 yards and a dozen touchdowns. Anyway, I think Balta's right about what you need from a receiver (provided that the running game, defense, and QB are all there) and I think Devin Hester could be that guy, if only because he's very difficult to cover. By the end of last season, teams were devoting double-coverage to him, and he was still giving DBs fits. The various pass-interference calls weren't random mistakes from what I saw, they were cases where Hester had his guy beaten and the DB tried to grab him to avoid giving up a huge completion. I don't know what Hester's actual production will be like in terms of yards and TDs, but I know that defenses are going to have to devote extra attention to him unless they have a legitimately elite corner. Even if you do, he can be a problem: Asante Samuel had some trouble covering him in the Eagles game last season.

So I just saw this: Smart Football (which is probably my favorite football blog) did a piece on Joyner's comments, and they pretty well shred Joyner. Here's the article. Smart Football thinks, as I do, that Cutler's a clear upgrade over Grossman or Kyle Orton. And unlike Joyner, they have real non-made-up statistics to back up that opinion, rather than Joyner's "near-INT" and "bad decision rate" that we've all been trashing. Check it out: "My favorite passing stat is yards per attempt, because it sweeps in both completion percentage and the yards gained on the completion; I think it reflects the trade-off between pushing the ball downfield and taking the easier completion for less yardage. I like to adjust it, however, to account for interceptions: I subtract 45 yards for every interception thrown, as that is the basic estimate of how much field position/value you lose. No stat is perfect, but I like this one a lot. * In 2008, Jay Cutler threw for 4,526 yards on 616 attempts. He also threw 18 interceptions. Together, that gives him an Adjusted Yards Per Attempt of 6.03. * In 2008, Kyle Orton threw for 2,972 yards on 465 attempts, along with 12 interceptions. Together, his Adj. YPA was 5.23. * In 2006, the year the Bears went to the Super Bowl, Rex Grossman threw for 3,193 yards on 480 pass attempts. He also threw 20 interceptions. Together, his Adj. YPA was 4.78. Again, this is just one stat, but I think it's a pretty good indicator, and Cutler far and away scores the best. And, ironically, he does so despite so many more pass attempts: YPA tends to trend back down once a passer goes beyond being mostly a play-action type guy as a play off the ground game, like Ben Roethlisberger has been for much of his career. Relatedly, let's take Advanced NFL Stats's "Air yards" stat, which calculates yards per attempt without reference to yards after the catch -- yards gained by receivers after they catch the ball. (This stat tends to both measure a QB's ability to complete downfield passes, as well as their propensity to check the ball down to a runningback. Young quarterbacks tend to score most poorly on the list because they struggle downfield and dump the ball off quite a bit.) Cutler comes in at 7th in the league at 4.3 yards per attempt (again, just "Air yards"), while Orton is 29th with 3.3. In 2006, Grossman's was 3.9, and, in 2007 on much less work, it was 3.5. For comparison, Brady and Manning have spent most of the last few years hovering between 4.9-5.2 (though Peyton dipped to 4.3 this past season). Having looked at these stats, I think the question is why does KC Joyner think Cutler will be no better than Grossman or Orton?"

I think you're totally right: last season was a confluence of factors, not just poor WR performance. The awful pass protection (particularly from the blind side,) Orton's lack of escape ability, and his so-so ball placement on deep passes all led to a fairly ineffective passing game. When Orton was really clicking in the first part of the season, he still had to get rid of the ball VERY quickly and dump off to the TEs or Forte in the flat like every other pass. You're right that our receivers got jammed mercilessly at the line last year. They did notably poorly against the Packers, who use a ton of press coverage and bump-and-run. Like you said, it was an effective strategy because opposing teams' pass rush would get to Orton after just a few seconds. If Pace and Williams can sustain their blocks a little longer than St. Clair and Tait did last season, I think Cutler will make our WRs look a lot better.

Yeah, I guess that's true. We could hope that a quality vet like Edgerrin James or Shaun Alexander is still unemployed. I'd say Deuce McAllister, but I'm pretty sure his knees are shot. Or we could do like the Packers did and trade for one of the Giants' neverending stream of running backs, maybe Danny Ware. So I suppose if we did go with Wolfe, there'd be other options. I'm just wondering what Wolfe's upside really is. I mean, obviously he's a scatback rather than a power back, but he hasn't looked particularly elusive thus far in his career. He's fast, but even when he's breaking a run to the outside, it always seems like the first defender who gets near him gets him on the ground. To be a good running back in the NFL, you've got to either run through tackles or make guys miss, if not both. Wolfe, thus far, hasn't done either. Given that running backs usually have the easiest transition into the pros, it's a red flag for me when a guy who was that successful in college can't seem to make anything happen in the NFL. Maybe Wolfe will break out this season and prove me wrong. I certainly hope he will. But I haven't seen anything thus far that makes me think he's going to make it.

From playing the Bears twice a season, I'd assume. I should have quoted this with my first post - Driver alluded to the Bears receivers' potential when he was clarifying his earlier comments on Waddle & Silvy. From ESPN Chicago: "They don't have a receiver," Driver told ESPN 1000's Waddle and Silvy show on Friday. "They don't have any true receivers that step up and play and take their team to where they want to go. I love Devin [Hester], but I don't think he's just a solid receiver right now. He may become one as years go on, but it doesn't happen overnight." Doesn't that make him MORE qualified to say that the Bears' receivers aren't there yet? Driver would know from personal experience that it takes time to emerge as a go-to wide receiver.

From ESPN Chicago: Lynch: 'Buyer Beware' with Marshall Former All-Pro safety John Lynch has some advice for the Chicago Bears if they plan on pursuing Denver Broncos wide receiver Brandon Marshall. "Buyer beware," Lynch said on the "Waddle & Silvy" show on ESPN 1000. Lynch, who retired last year and will be a FOX television analyst this season, was Marshall's teammate in Denver during the 2006 and '07 seasons. Marshall had made some noise about wanting to be traded, but he recently said he will report to training camp on time. "I don't like saying [buyer beware], but you've got to call a spade a spade, and I think it's a dangerous proposition," Lynch said. "I don't think you'll see the Broncos sign him to a long-term deal, because right now the behavior he's demonstrated off the field, I don't think you'd feel comfortable doing anything long term. "As I said, on the field, he's very comparable to a guy like Terrell Owens. He's that good of a player. But being a professional in my mind ... takes doing it on the field and off the field. You can't have all choir boys. I believe in first and second chances, but when you're talking about 13 or 14 ... I think at a certain point you've got to say this guy's got some issues that he's got to work out before you can trust him." Marshall has one more season on his Denver contract. He's been arrested four times -- including once for domestic abuse -- since March 2006, and he has been penalized with one suspension. Lynch was more complimentary of his former teammate Jay Cutler, whom the Bears acquired in an offseason trade with the Broncos. "I like Jay, he's a friend of mine," Lynch said. "He had some growing up to do, probably still has some growing up to do. But in saying that, I think the Broncos erred in letting him go. "This is a guy, in my mind, that's a once-in-every-15-year-type talent. He's got that kind of skill. I think he'll grow into the other things. I sometimes think during this whole ordeal, they tried to paint him as a bad guy, but he's not a bad guy at all. He's got some growing up to do, but hopefully he learned something from this whole ordeal and offseason." Lynch said part of that maturation process for the 26-year-old Cutler is opening up. "I think he's very reserved and to himself, and that's fine," Lynch said. "I think sometimes it's just the way -- I hate to put it on this -- but sometimes the new generation. They just don't understand things that you think everyone should understand. I think he wants to learn. I think he's reached out to people trying to learn, and I think he will because as I said, once you get to know him on a one-on-one basis, he's by no means a bad person or a bad teammate. He's just, as I mentioned, got some things to grow up in." Lynch, who was born in Hinsdale, Ill., predicted the Bears would win the NFC North. "You guys are in Chicago right? I was born in Hinsdale, so I better say Chicago," Lynch said. "Lovie [smith is] a good friend. I think what bodes well for the Bears is Lovie getting back involved in that defense. "I think at times you feel like, 'I just need to be a head coach,' but when you don't see the type of play that you're accustomed to seeing as a coach, I think he's as good as it gets as a defensive coach in this league, and he's going to get back involved. He's got a guy, Rod Marinelli, don't underestimate him. In our years in Tampa, we put more pressure on quarterbacks than anybody, and he was a big reason. You've got to have the players, but he gets the best out of each and every player. So the Bears, there's my pick."

I agree, he performed well on special teams, and if we're keeping 4 backs, I'd be happy to keep him for his ST value. But if we're keeping 3 backs, as many people have suggested we might, then here's my angle: if Matt Forte gets hurt, our depth chart would be Jones-Wolfe. Jones himself is a big injury risk, and Wolfe isn't going to be able to carry the load if Jones goes down. I'm not saying AP is a great back, but I was really glad we had him when Benson got injured in 2007, because Wolfe just isn't anything close to a well-rounded running back. I'd feel infinitely safer with Forte-Jones-AP than with Forte-Jones-Wolfe. I like the idea of having a guy with a different skillset on the roster, but that guy shouldn't be your last line of defense. Maybe if Jones had proven he could stay healthy, I'd feel differently. As it is, though, I want AP around for insurance. I wouldn't mind the Bears using a draft pick on a running back next year, either.

Emphasis mine: this is actually a great reason to develop young QBs rather than bringing in veteran backups. Look at what Green Bay did when they had Favre: they kept developing young guys behind him. In 1993, they took Mark Brunell in the 5th round, then moved him for a 3rd and a 5th in 1995. In 1998, they spent a 6th-round pick on Matt Hasselbeck, developed him for three seasons, then traded him for significant value (Hasselbeck, the #17 overall pick, and a 7th in exchange for the #10 overall pick and a 3rd-rounder.) If you believe the draft-pick value chart, that means they traded Hasselbeck for the equivalent of the #33 overall pick. That's awesome value for a 6th-rounder and three years' work. They kept drafting and developing guys, and by the time they needed a successor to Favre, they had Aaron Rodgers ready to go. In the meantime, they'd gained a ton of value in the draft for moving Brunell and Hasselbeck. If the Bears can turn Hanie into a Matt Cassell or a Matt Hasselbeck, that'll be awesome. We got the guy for nothing and we don't need him to start for us in the foreseeable future, so any value he might bring in a trade is pure profit for Chicago.

Yeah, I think Driver's comments were pretty reasonable, all told. I'll disagree with anybody who says we don't have POTENTIAL at receiver, but it's hard to argue with someone like Driver who says that we don't have proven receivers as of right now. I definitely think our guys will step up, it's just a question of when. I was following Hester through last season's games, and he looked like he had genuinely turned a corner by the last part of the season. Bennett, I think, will be good - he's back with his old college QB, and he's locked in at one spot, unlike last year. I mean, the guy has the all-time SEC record for receptions. Will they live up to their full potential starting from game 1? Probably not, and I think that's what Driver's getting at: here in the offseason, we don't know what we're going to be getting in that first game. I feel good about what our corps can do eventually, but Driver's right that the position is a question mark right now.

Definitely agree on San Francisco, Seattle, and Buffalo. Buffalo, especially, is interesting. Trent Edwards is like Matt Schaub in that you'd want to have a good backup for him, since he's been banged up a fair amount. I could see Griese doing well in relief of Edwards, certainly better than Ryan Fitzpatrick or Gibran Hamdan. Seattle would be a good fit, too - I think Seneca Wallace is more of an emergency QB, and Griese's skill set would fit well with the WCO the Seahawks run. I think San Francisco is the one team on the list that Griese could step in and start for: I wouldn't be surprised at all to see him beat out Shaun Hill and Alex Smith, were the Niners to sign him. In any case, I'll be interested to see where he winds up.

I'll go position-by-position here: RB I'm thinking we keep 3, and I would rather see Wolfe get cut than Peterson. I'm a much bigger Wolfe detractor than most, but I really do think he's been remarkably ineffective. If you take away the fake punt in the Tampa Bay game, he got 31 yards on 14 carries (2.2 YPC) last season. The season prior, he had 85 yards on 31 carries (2.7 YPC.) I'll admit that he's a decent receiver out of the backfield, but that's all he can do. You can't be a running back in the NFL if your only skill is catching the ball. I'm not saying Wolfe has to be able to pound it between the tackles or anything, but the guy gets brought down by first contact EVERY time he has the ball. I've literally never seen him break a tackle, and the juke move that worked for him at NIU doesn't seem to shake anybody at the NFL level. Again, the fake punt vs. Tampa Bay illustrates what I'm talking about: the play design and the blocks downfield set Wolfe up with one guy to beat. If he beats the safety, that play is a touchdown. He throws his juke move, the safety doesn't bite, and Wolfe gets tackled (as always) by the first defender who has a shot at him. I agree with everyone here that roster spots are going to be at a premium, and I don't think we can afford to use one on a guy who's only shown flashes on gadget plays and swing passes. Everything that Wolfe can do, one of our WRs (Johnny Knox?) could do just as well. AP is a very unspectacular player, but he can do everything in the playbook and can carry the load if need be. Plus, he's a much more effective runner than Wolfe is: Peterson had 100 yards rushing on 20 carries last season. Kevin Jones has a nice skillset, but he's always going to be an injury risk: that being the case, I'd want the Bears to keep a #3 RB who can actually carry it up the middle, be an effective blocker, etc. TE I'm with most of the people on this forum: I really like Kellen Davis, especially after that ridiculous one-handed TD last preseason. I'd love for the Bears to keep him as an eventual successor to Des Clark. Greg Olsen is awesome, but I don't think he's ever going to have Clark's all-around skills. Olsen's going to be our receiving TE and cause huge matchup problems, Gaines can be our blocking TE like John Gilmore was, so we need somebody to groom as Clark's replacement. I don't think Kellen would make it through waivers to the practice squad, so we need to keep him on the roster while he learns. If that means keeping 4 TEs, so be it. I'd really hate to see Davis get cut, leaving nobody to take over Clark's role in 2010 or 2011. WR I think we've got to keep 6 guys this season, if only because we don't know who among our VERY untested group is going to pan out. I'd like to see the depth chart start out Hester-Bennett-Davis-Iglesias-Knox-Rideau, with the expectation that either Knox or Iglesias will move up to supplant Davis at some point during the season. I think Kinder is probably the only guy who could challenge Rideau for a spot on the roster, but if he were to win the 6th spot, we'd have a whole lot of guys with roughly the same skill set.

I like the idea of keeping Hanie as the #2. I remember an interview with Orton where he talked about how hard it is to prepare and learn as the #3 quarterback, since you're hardly getting any reps, even with the second-string receivers. The #3 guy's main job is to run the scout team, which doesn't teach you much about the offense your own team runs. We've finally got an undisputed starting QB, and Cutler hasn't had any significant injury concerns, so I don't have a problem keeping Hanie as the #2, in order to give him a better chance to learn and develop. J.P. Losman is kind of an interesting guy. He put up good numbers on an awful Bills team back in 2006, but he's always thrown too many picks and been kind of an erratic player. I read somewhere that he's slated to play in the UFL this year. As far as Griese goes, I really did like him on the Bears, but I agree with nfo that he wants a chance to start. I don't know who's going to give him one, though. He just left one of the few teams with a QB situation unsettled enough to offer him a shot at the starting job, and I don't see any other situations like the '08 Bucs or the '07 Bears around the league. Maybe the Rams or the Niners, but that's about it. It's too bad, because I liked Griese.

Well, I'll agree that the transformation wasn't as dramatic, but the first three statistics are the most important: points allowed, yards per carry, and yards per pass. Miami improved in every one of those areas. Miami went from a mid-pack scoring and passing defense to a top-10 unit in both categories. They were already a top-10 run defense, but moving up to 3rd in the league is significant. I disagree: you don't have to consider Houston. It's one thing to say that "the defense was his" but Capers is just not as good a head coach as he is a coordinator. It's a common phenomenon: look at what happened with Cam Cameron. The Dolphins' offense was "his" when he was their head coach, and not only did the team suck, but the offense sucked. The very next season, he went back to a coordinator job in Baltimore and his offense was very successful. Some guys just can't make the leap from assistant coach/coordinator to head coach, even when it comes to their area of expertise. Closer to home, look at Rod Marinelli. I think we can all agree that his previous success as a defensive line coach didn't translate to success for Detroit's defensive line when he was head coach. The reason I'm not considering Houston is that Capers isn't going to be Green Bay's head coach. If they had hired him as HC, I'd be a lot less worried than I am. The argument about personnel is interesting. I definitely agree that it seems weird to take a guy like Kampman and switch his position. He's been exceedingly successful for a long time in his role as a 4-3 end, and to make the switch when he's nearing the end of his career is a little strange. If it were me, I'd probably try to trade him for a player experienced in the 3-4, rather than convert him to a linebacker. I think a lot will hinge on whether Johnny Jolly gets suspended and whether Justin Harrell is still hurt. If those two are out, they're going to have real problems on the d-line. If they have Jolly and Harrell, though, they've got: DE: Justin Harrell, Cullen Jenkins, Johnny Jolly, Michael Montgomery, NT: Ryan Pickett, BJ Raji OLB: Aaron Kampman, Brady Poppinga, Clay Matthews, Jeremy Thompson ILB: Nick Barnett, Brandon Chillar, AJ Hawk At each position, they've got room for one guy (or even two, at DE and OLB) to struggle with the switch. Kampman and the two rookies could all take time to adjust to a 3-4 scheme, and the Packers would still have a good starting group. Depth is a concern, especially if Jolly/Harrell can't go, but I think the Packers are in WAY better shape than any of the other teams switching to a 3-4. I'm not saying it'll be a seamless transition, but I think we can definitely expect their defense to be improved significantly over last year's squad. Combine that with (as you said) a very talented offense at the skill positions, and the Packers could be tough this year.

Nfo, here's where I'm getting my figures from. It's a discussion of a number of teams that have switched from a 4-3 or 4-3 hybrid base to a 3-4 base under a number of different coaches: Mike Nolan, Bill Parcells, Bill Belichick, and Dom Capers, among others. Specifically, I'm looking at the two teams (Jacksonville in 1999 and Miami in 2006) where Capers was brought on as a defensive coordinator and charged with switching to a 3-4, since that's his role in Green Bay. I'm excluding the Panthers and the Texans, since those situations were very dissimilar to what he's doing with the Packers: in both cases, Capers was a head coach, not a DC, and both teams were in their first year as an expansion team when he came on. So when I say "all his conversion projects have done extremely well," I'm referring to established, non-expansion 4-3 teams that brought Capers in to install a 3-4 defense. Let me give you some numbers*: Miami 2005 Performance (9-7): 19.8 PPG (15th), 3.7 YPC (7th), 6.7 YPP (13th), 82.4 PRA (22nd), 40% 3D (23rd), 49 sk (2nd), 14 int (23rd), 105 pen (7th) Miami 2006 Performance (6-10): 17.7 PPG (5th), 3.5 YPC (3rd), 6.6 YPP (9th), 84.4 PRA (21st), 38% 3D (17th), 47 sk (3rd), 8 int (31st), 91 pen (13th) So while the Dolphins didn't have a great season, their defense was exceedingly good. They allowed the 5th-fewest points in the league, had the 3rd-ranked rushing defense, and stayed at a very high level pressuring opposing QBs. If you're wondering why they went 6-10, remember that they were starting Daunte Culpepper and Joey Harrington at QB that year. Jacksonville 1998 Performance (11-5): 21.1 PPG (17th), 4.4 YPC (26th), 6.5 YPP (8th), 80.1 PRA (19th), 36% 3D (11th), 30 sk (27th), 13 int (21st), 109 pen (13th) Jacksonville 1999 Performance (14-2): 13.6 PPG (1st), 3.9 YPC (13th), 6.3 YPP (4th), 71.0 PRA (11th), 34% 3D (9th), 57 sk (1st), 19 int (12th), 93 pen (8th) Contrary to what you said, the Jaguars were a fairly dominant team in the first year that Capers was their DC. They allowed the fewest points in the league, sacked opposing QBs 57 times (most in the league,) and, most importantly, they went 14-2 and made it to the AFC Championship. Those are the two times when Capers has been in the position he's in with Green Bay and has been asked to do what the Packers are asking him to do. In both cases, he was very successful. Furthermore, I think you could argue that the '99 Jaguars are a closer parallel to the '09 Packers in terms of the situation, since in Miami he was taking over a D that had already started to incorporate some 3-4 looks. If the Packers' improvement is anything close to the Jaguars', we'll be facing a very, very tough defense. *Abbreviations used: PPG = Points per game (scoring defense), YPC = Yards per carry (run defense), YPP = Yards per pass (pass defense), PRA = Passer rating against (Pass defense), 3D = 3rd down % (sub package defense), Sk = Sacks, Int = Interceptions, Pen = Penalties

You'll get no argument from me on that one. Hester's a historic returner, and he's not going to have the same kind of status as a receiver. I'll be sad not to see him doing returns, just because he was so special at it. But the argument that I was trying to make is this: even a historically special return guy is not as valuable to this team as a good-to-very-good wide receiver is. The most interesting thing about Hester's impact on the return game, to me, is that he pretty much showed us the ceiling for how much a return man can do for your team. The sad thing is this: that ceiling is much lower than I thought it would be. When teams started kicking out of bounds, Hester really didn't have much impact. Starting on the 40 isn't that big an advantage, compared to getting a TD on returns every other game. Even if he returned to form and went back to being a full-time KR/PR, what team in their right mind is going to let him touch the ball? We'd be relying on other teams to be stupid and kick to him: while that does happen sometimes, most teams are wise to it by now and kick out of bounds. We've already seen Hester's upside as a returner - he's the best there's ever been. But in terms of his value to the team, I think he'll do more good as a receiver, if only so we can be sure that the ball gets in his hands and into the end zone.

I'll agree with this. Rodgers has to prove that he can close out games and that he can stay healthy, but he was extremely impressive last year. Opposing defenses are going to have to respect Green Bay's passing game this year. This is the only point where I disagree with you. The ZBS is a very effective blocking system, and the Packers' rookie o-linemen are well-suited for it, but they're still rookies. The Packers' o-line was not effective last season, and you could argue that it took a step backward this offseason with the loss of Tauscher. They're relying heavily on one or more of their young guys stepping up, which could easily cause a problem. The Packers have talented backs, but again, if their o-line looks like it did last season, their running game isn't going to be stellar. I couldn't agree more. I'm worried about Capers, just because he has SUCH a solid track record when it comes to turning 4-3 teams into 3-4s. All of his conversion projects have done extremely well in their first year, and the Packers have all the right pieces to run a very good 3-4 defense. The Chiefs and the Broncos are probably going to struggle badly with the 3-4 switch, but the Packers have the talent, the depth, and the right guy to run the show. The one thing that reassures me somewhat is that Cutler has faced a lot of 3-4 defenses in his former division, which isn't really the case for the other QBs in the NFC North. Hopefully we'll be a little better equipped to face Green Bay than the Vikings or Lions will be.

Huh, you're right. I had always thought that players with a back number (20-49) couldn't line up on the LOS...looks like that's not correct. That said, I still don't know what the advantage is of converting Gaines to FB, except that we could potentially cut McKie and save a roster spot to use for either Wolfe/Peterson or Kellen Davis. I don't necessarily think that's a great idea, though. For one, we'd lose some blocking ability; I'd rather see a jumbo set with Gaines at TE and McKie at FB than one with Davis at TE and Gaines at FB. Furthermore, as underwhelming as McKie might be, I think he's still more of a contributor on offense than Davis, Wolfe, or AP at this point. If it does come down to the number of roster spots available, and we are still going to use Gaines on the line like a TE, then we're effectively cutting McKie to keep Davis or to keep four RBs. It seems dumb to cut your starting fullback in favor of your fourth TE (Davis) or your fourth RB (Wolfe/AP.)

In the long run, Hester will be of greater use to the Bears as a receiver, even if he's only a #2 guy. Here's why: 1.) Kick returns are dangerous. There's a reason that returners tend to have short careers: they're little fast guys who get exposed to a large amount of contact. A wide receiver doesn't face nearly the number of high-speed collisions that a full-time returner does. Moving Hester to receiver will greatly extend his career for the Bears. 2.) As I've said before, even a decent receiver will score at least as often as a spectacular return man. That's why a return TD is so much more unusual than a receiving TD. Hester could easily put up 5 or 6 receiving TDs per season. You could make the argument that he won't have the same yardage totals - he'd have to be a pretty good receiver to put up 1128 yards like he did in 2006, and he'd have to be an AWESOME receiver to put up 1585 yards like he did in 2007. That said, however, I think you can make the argument that return yardage is not necessarily as valuable as yardage on offense. How many times in 2006-2007 did we watch Hester set the offense up with excellent field position, only to have them go 3-and-out or settle for a field goal? 3.) As a receiver, Hester can make our other offensive weapons better. He can draw attention away from Bennett and Olsen, and keep defenses from stacking the box against Forte. He's obviously still a threat as a returner, but that just means teams kick out of bounds, which is arguably less useful. If opposing teams gameplan for Hester-the-receiver half as much as they did for Hester-the-returner, it'll pay big dividends for the rest of the offense.

If he's even an above-average #1 receiver, I think it's a good move. We know Hester-the-returner is capable of getting a half-dozen scores in a season, and that's phenomenal for a KR, but Hester-the-receiver should EASILY be able to get six TDs. In fact, doing so wouldn't even make him a stud receiver per se: 22 wide receivers had at least six scores last season, among them some steady-but-unspectacular guys like Isaac Bruce, Laveranues Coles, and Kevin Walter. Hell, Justin Gage had six TDs last season, and Bernard Berrian had seven. That's a mark that Hester should be able to hit, no problem. If he does, the Bears will have gotten better value from him than if they kept him as a KR. As great as Hester was on returns, you can't keep a guy with that kind of talent as a fulltime KR/PR and get full value out of him. For one thing, you'd be relying on teams to kick to him, which the Bears' 2007 opponents were increasingly reluctant to do. I definitely want to see Hester get 3 or 4 more return touchdowns before he gives it up, since I think he deserves that record, but I'm definitely OK with him concentrating on being a fulltime wide receiver.

There's really no reason to move him to fullback. For the last couple of years we've been using a TE as a lead blocker more and more often. We can use Gaines to lead block for Forte without a position change, and if we changed his number we couldn't put him on the line in goal-line or 3TE sets.

From the Tribune: Chicago Bears Devin Hester willing to give up punt returns, just not immediately By Vaughn McClure It was interesting to see Jamie Dukes of the NFL Network rank Devin Hester the fifth-best return man in the league. Dukes said Hester would be No. 1 without the title of receiver behind his name. Wonder what Dukes and other NFL observers would say if Hester gave up returns, period? It could happen. The Bears star, who surrendered his kickoff return duties to Danieal Manning last season, said he would be willing to give up punt returns, too ... just not immediately. ``I think a return man simply has to be a return man,’’ Hester said. ``There’s really no other position he should go out and play. A return man is a totally different ball game from trying to be a return man and starting receiver, or the starting cornerback, or a starting safety. I don’t think it’s going to work. That’s why you never really see it last that long in the NFL. You can’t do it. ``But with me right now, I feel like at punt returns there are going to be opportunities where we’re going to need big returns,’’ he continued. ``With all the success we’ve had at the return game, it would be real crazy to just give it up now. Plus I’m looking to break this record. In the back of my mind, I’ve got to get this record before I give (punt returns) up.’’ Hester displayed a confident smile as he completed his thought. He enters the 2009 season with 11 career kick returns for touchdowns (not counting the opening kickoff in the Super Bowl or the return of a missed field goal), two shy of the record held by Brian Mitchell. Although shattering the mark would be a great personal achievement, Hester understands that his team often feeds off his electric returns. The Bears went 9-2 in games Hester returned a kick for a score. But Hester was unable to break one for a touchdown last season as his continued to evolve as a receiver. ``Me being partially the guy last year and doing returns, it was real tough on me,’’ he said. ``It’s a tiring thing. You’re running eight, nine plays in a row and you’re going deep. Then you come back on punt returns, kickoff returns, and you don’t have any juice back there. ``It’s a beast. You see guys show glimpses of it, but they never had a full return game. Look at Deion Sanders, a great returner, but you never saw him take over the full job as punt returner and kickoff returner. You can’t do it. Steve Smith (Carolina) came in as a great kickoff/punt returner. Now that he's got that role at receiver, he didn’t have any juice (to return). It’s tough.’’ With Hester touted as the team’s No. 1 receiver, one would think relieving him of punt returns would be the next step. Time will tell as the Bears get deep into the season. Rookie D.J. Moore could be a capable replacement in the future. Nathan Vasher had six punt returns last season, second behind Hester’s 32. What might make matters more intriguing is the development of the defense. If Lovie Smith’s crew regains its swagger, then there could be a lot of three-and-out situations, meaning more punt returns for Hester. That might not be an ideal situation if Hester is quarterback Jay Cutler’s go-to guy. ``Everybody’s saying receiver this, receiver that,’’ Hester said. ``I think it really starts with the quarterback and the offensive line, and we have both. I feel like we’re going to be a better team than we were last year. I look for big things. Hopefully, we will win the Super Bowl.’’

I don't know...we beat Philly last year, but they've improved a HUGE amount this offseason. They should have one of the best offensive lines in the league with the additions of Jason Peters and Stacy Andrews, plus Shawn Andrews sliding out to his college position at RT. They added another extremely talented receiver, Jeremy Maclin, to go with Jackson/Curtis/Avant, who were all very effective last season. They fixed their running game, too: they added LeSean McCoy to back up Westbrook, and Weaver can handle short-yardage carries. Our big problem last season was defending the pass, and every single Eagles wideout would be the #1 receiver on the Bears right now. I look at how much better that team has gotten and I just don't see how we'd beat them again in 2009, absent an injury to McNabb. Also, with the Panthers: stopping Steve Smith and their running game is easier said than done. Smith is one of the best receivers playing and DeAngelo Williams/Jonathan Stewart might be THE best 2-back tandem in the league. I'm not saying we can't beat them, but I wouldn't count on it by any means. As for the Giants, they've actually improved the d-line from last season, which is scary to think about. I mean, I like our d-line talent a lot, but they've got Umeniyora and Justin Tuck on the outside with Kiwanuka as a nickel rusher, plus Chris Canty/Fred Robbins/Rocky Bernard/Barry Cofield all rotating inside. That's insane - literally every one of those seven guys is starting-caliber on most 4-3 teams in the league. I agree with you about the Giants' receivers, but their pass rush is going to be a big, big problem for every team they play this season.

I might have characterized the Giants as a dominant team before the thing with Plaxico went down. Even with Plax gone, I can't think of a team that's better on both lines than the Giants; if your o-line and d-line are as good as the Giants', you're pretty close to dominant in my book. If Nicks and Manningham can step up at WR, I think the Giants will be a very, very hard team to beat. Personally, I think the Bears have a very good chance to make the playoffs, either as NFC North champs or as a wildcard, but I'd be surprised to see us win the NFC title this year. The Giants, Eagles, and Panthers are looking VERY tough this year: if the Bears make it to the conference championship and get knocked out by one of those three, I'll still be very happy with the improvements we've made. We're just not as complete a team as New York, Philly, or Carolina yet. One more offseason like the one Jerry put together this year, though, and I think the Bears will be the team to beat in the NFC.

So I just saw this quote from Joyner in the Sun-Times: "I'm basing my Cutler comments on three seasons of Denver tape breakdowns. He's a huge risk-taker and that equates to about 1 in 20 of his passes being an [interception] or near [interception] because of a mistake on his part." In the three seasons to which Joyner's referring, Cutler has thrown 1220 passes. By Joyner's count, that gives him 61 "interceptions or near interceptions." Since he's actually only thrown 37 picks in those 3 years, that means Joyner's attributing 24 of those mysterious near-interceptions to Cutler. But we have no basis for comparison, since Joyner doesn't offer any information on what constitutes a league-average number of near-interceptions for that number of passing attempts. In fact, we don't have any frame of reference for near-interceptions at all. There's no way to know how often they normally occur on a per-attempt basis, or even how they're correlated with actual interceptions. It sounds like Joyner is trying to assert that near-interceptions and interceptions are equally bad in terms of evaluating a quarterback. After all, he's saying that both come from plays in which the QB makes a poor decision with the ball. Ignoring for the moment the fact that Joyner appears to assume that every interception is the result of a poor decision (rather than a batted pass at the line, a QB hit from the blindside during the pass, a bobbled catch by the receiver allowing the DB to get a hand on the ball, etc.) there are still problems with his rationale. Joyner doesn't give us anything to account for the fact that some of these poor decisions result in near-INTs while others result in actual interceptions: are the near-INTs slightly better decisions than interceptions, or are they equally bad, but fail to become interceptions due to some other factor (poor play by the defender, exceptional adjustment by the WR, etc.)? If you assume that Joyner's 1-in-20 rate is normally distributed, then he thinks Cutler had 31 INTs/near-INTs in 2008. Cutler threw 18 picks, so that means Joyner thinks a further 13 throws were near-INTs. What exactly is supposed to account for these 13 throws not getting picked off? It's not like he was playing in a division with poor DBs...he was up against the Chargers and the Raiders twice a year. Is Joyner trying to say that Cutler should have been picked off 31 times last season, but he just got lucky? Nobody throws 31 interceptions in a season. Joey Harrington, in his worst season, only threw 22. But if Joyner's NOT trying to say that Cutler should have thrown 31 picks, then he's got to offer some kind of information about how INTs and near-INTs are related statistically, what factors contribute to a given pass being one or the other, and whether those factors can be reasonably construed to be under the QB's control.