defiantgiant

Yeah, the scheme puts a ton of pressure on a number of positions. The middle linebacker and strong safety have to have a great deal more coverage ability than normal, the under tackle needs to provide much more pass pressure than a typical defensive tackle, and the corners in particular need to be extremely good in run support, as ballcarriers are funneled out to them frequently. I'm not down on the Tampa 2 as much as some people: I think it's a great scheme, when it works. Any base defense that can get pass pressure rushing 4 guys is pretty potent. The Bears just need Harris, Urlacher, and the defensive backs to play up to their potential.

Yeah, I'm not saying he left on good terms - I wasn't really taking that into account. I was just thinking that if we had our pick of Grossman or Griese to back up Cutler, I'd take Griese. Also, I'm not sure he's on Garcia's level at all. Everything I heard when he was here seemed to indicate that he was a great teammate. I can understand why he was mad after he left Chicago, though: he arguably did better than either Grossman or Orton in his last year, so I'm sure he felt like he didn't get a fair chance to win the starting job.

Lloyd's too inconsistent, but he did briefly look like the only real wide receiver on the field last year. Just for fun, I worked out what his stat line would have been had he been able to produce for a whole season like he did in games 1-4 of 2008 (before he got injured.) If he had kept that pace up for 16 games, he'd have had 60 catches for 996 yards (16.6 YPC) and 4 touchdowns. That's decent production, and it would have made him the Bears' leading receiver by a long shot. He's definitely got some ability, it's a shame that he's shown he can't sustain it for a whole season.

Umm, before I get out my pen and paper, what are you basing that assertion on? The Bears have literally never fired a coach in-season. Jim Dooley was the first Bears coach to be fired: he was let go after the season was over, as was every coach Chicago has fired since. Remember when Wannstedt got fired? By the end of 1998, he was 40-56 in 6 years, had only gotten us to one playoff game, and had just put up two 4-12 seasons back to back. He still got to finish out the season before he was canned. Lovie Smith is 45-35 in 5 years, has made four postseason appearances including a Super Bowl, and is coming off a winning season. Lovie could go 0-16 next year and still have a better record than Wannstedt. Why on earth do you think he'd be on a half-season leash when Wannstedt, Jauron, and every other Bears coach have all been allowed the full year? I agree that expectations for Lovie are going to be high, especially given the new pieces that Angelo has given him. But let's have some perspective here. Let's compare Lovie's record to some coaches who actually WERE fired in-season. When the Niners fired Mike Nolan after Game 7 of the 2008 season, he was 18-37 and hadn't had a single winning season in his four years as head coach. When the Rams fired Scott Linehan, he was 11-25 and coming off an 0-4 start after a 3-13 season. When the Raiders fired Lane Kiffin, he was 5-15, had a 1-3 start, and had gone 4-12 the season prior. When coaches get fired midseason, it's because they're colossal failures, losing vastly more than they win. There are certainly some winning coaches who get fired for missing the playoffs with talented teams, but they almost invariably get to finish out the year. Compare these guys to Lovie: Jon Gruden: 57-55 with the Bucs, had just had two 9-7 seasons, hadn't gotten a playoff win in six years. Fired after the season. Mike Shanahan: was 24-24 his last three years with the Broncos, no playoff appearances in three years. Fired after the season. Marty Schottenheimer: 47-33 with the Chargers, had never won in the playoffs. Fired after the season. These are overall winning coaches who had records roughly comparable to Smith's. They had talented teams and failed to win in the playoffs, but none of them got canned in the middle of a season. You could easily argue that Smith has done better in his five years than Gruden, Schottenheimer or Shanahan did in the five before they were fired, yet he's going to be fired mid-year when they all finished out the season? Smith might certainly be on the hot seat to get back to the playoffs, but it's ridiculous to baldly assert that the Bears will fire him in-season under any circumstances.

I would be surprised if Cutler made it over 4,000 yards this season, given the state of his receivers. However, I think it is reasonable to expect that he'll reduce his interception totals. He was playing in a totally one-dimensional offense last year: the Broncos' injuries at running back, combined with the fact that their defense left them playing from behind all the time, made it so that opposing teams knew Cutler had to throw. Sure enough, he threw it more than any other quarterback except Drew Brees, and did so against teams that knew what was coming. That leads to a lot of picks. If there's one thing you can say about Cutler's situation with the Bears, it's that he won't be in that position again. Our running game is good enough to keep defenses honest, and our defense (question marks and all) isn't going to give up points at the rate that Denver's did last season. That means Cutler should have fewer attempts, yards, and maybe even touchdowns, but he should have a much better completion rate and fewer picks. If he can put up 3700 yards or more, 22-23 touchdowns, and 12-15 picks, I'll be very happy. In 2010, once his receivers are up to speed, I think we can start expecting really big things. I think Philip Rivers' stat line from 2008 is a reasonable target for Cutler in 2010: 312/478 (65.3%) for 4,009 yards, 8.4 YPA, 34 TD, 11 Int I fully expect 2009 to be a year where the passing game has to get up to speed. By 2010, I think Cutler has the potential to hit Rivers' mark.

Yeah, I guess I should amend my last post: I had forgotten that we had Hillenmeyer backing up Urlacher previously. That probably gives him the edge over Rivera if we keep seven LBs. I'd be OK with Urlacher-Hillenmeyer at MLB and Tinoisamoa-Roach at SLB. I hope we don't keep just six guys, but if we do, it'll be interesting to watch. Roach looked better as a starter, plays better on special teams, and is less of an injury risk; Hillenmeyer, on the other hand, has more experience and could step in for Urlacher if needed. Ideally, I guess, I hope that we keep seven so we don't have to make that decision.

Yeah, I think you're right. And given that Tillman, Vasher, and McBride have all had injury problems, I think that means we keep another CB. Payne, Steltz, Graham, and Bullocks have all been pretty healthy so far in their respective careers. Unfortunately, the choices for that CB come down to Bowman and Hamilton, from the look of things. Bowman has awesome ability, but they'd be taking a huge gamble on his ability to stay healthy. Hamilton hasn't had any injuries as far as I know, but he's a huge downgrade from Bowman in terms of ability. So do we keep an injury risk with talent, or a healthy CB who got exposed badly when he had to play? Neither's an ideal option, but I'm in favor of keeping Bowman, out of the two. If Bowman had to start due to other players being injured, we'd at least get some quality play out of him before his inevitable ligament tear/sprain/explosion. If Hamilton's starting, well, we get the Atlanta game all over again.

I'm wondering this myself. The Bears are unlikely to carry more than 7 linebackers, and they may only carry 6. Who do you guys see staying on the depth chart if we sign Pisa? Here's my take: Sam: Pisa Tinoisamoa, Nick Roach Mike: Brian Urlacher, Mike Rivera Will: Lance Briggs, Jamar Williams, Marcus Freeman The only possible place I see for Hillenmeyer is at backup MLB, pushing Mike Rivera (who's currently the only MLB on the roster after Urlacher.) Both of them are big enough to man the middle, but Hillenmeyer is VERY slow compared to Rivera. Rivera's a full two-tenths faster in the 40 than Hillenmeyer; considering how often a Tampa-2 MLB drops into coverage, Hunter's lack of range could hurt more than Rivera's lack of experience. Obviously neither has Urlacher's range, but Rivera would be the less severe dropoff in that regard.

Rotoworld reports that Hood signed with Cleveland. He would have been strictly a backup in Chicago, since we're not looking for a new nickel back. With the Browns, he'll either start or play the nickel - I can see why he'd choose that over being a fourth corner for the Bears. I do hope that, having passed on Hood, the Bears will be more likely to offer Tinoisamoa a contract. Our only competition is the Bills, and I think we've got a better chance to sign him than they do. I don't know what happened to Hillenmeyer last season, but he looked severely stretched in coverage; it'd be nice to get a Sam 'backer who has more range and coverage ability.

Yeah, that double move looks pretty sharp. I remember Hester getting pretty wide open with that a couple of times toward the end of last season.

I'd guess that we definitely keep five corners: Tillman Vasher Manning Moore McBride ...and four safeties: Bullocks Graham Payne Steltz If we keep ten defensive backs, then I think the last spot is a tossup between Bowman, Afalava, and Earl. All three could be safe bets to make it through waivers, so we might keep one of them and stash the other two on the practice squad. As for Marcus Hamilton, I think he's the odd man out: he was crap when he played last season, and we really only picked him up because of injuries at the position. With DJ Moore in the picture, I think Hamilton's gone.

That's the right attitude to have, considering that Omiyale's likely to win the starting LG job. Still, I can't imagine that Beekman's that worried about his roster spot: it's been clear for a while that they drafted him to take over for Kreutz eventually.

Yeah, you nailed it: Manning's our nickel back. He did very well there last season, and the coaching staff learned the hard way that he needs to be locked in at one position. One guy I think we've been neglecting is Glenn Earl. He could end up in the mix with Payne and Steltz at strong safety, potentially much sooner than Afalava will. Earl's not anything to write home about, I don't think, but he's got 31 NFL starts, which is more than Payne, Steltz, and Afalava put together.

The coaching staff seems pretty dead-set on going into the season with Hanie and Basanez as the backups. If they are looking for a FA backup, though, it shouldn't be Grossman. Judging from last season, Rex is even worse coming off the bench than he is as a starter. The main argument I've heard against signing an FA quarterback is that anybody we sign will have to learn the system, and Hanie has a year of experience that those guys won't. The only exceptions are the two available QBs who have played here before: Grossman and Brian Griese (who's going to be released by the Bucs, from the look of things.) If we're going to get a veteran backup who knows the system, I'd WAY rather have Griese than Grossman. Just for fun, I thought I'd stack Griese and Grossman's stats as starters against Orton's and Cutler's. The main metrics you look for in a starting quarterback are a positive TD-INT ratio (ideally at least 2:1,) a completion percentage north of 60%, and a YPA somewhere around 7. I think a good backup QB's not going to get all three of those, but he shouldn't be too far off. Look at Cutler's 2008 stats: Cutler (2008): 62.3% completion percentage, 7.3 YPA, 25 TD, 18 INT (almost 3:2 ratio.) ...compared to Chicago's three most recent starting QBs: Orton (2008): 58.5% completion percentage, 6.4 YPA, 18 TD, 12 INT (3:2 ratio.) Griese (2007): 61.5% completion percentage, 6.9 YPA, 10 TD, 12 INT (5:6 ratio.) Grossman (2007): 54.2% completion percentage, 6.3 YPA, 4 TD, 7 INT (4:7 ratio.) Obviously stats don't tell you everything, but here's what I take from those numbers: - Orton's stat line looks like that of a game manager-type QB. His completion percentage is somewhat low, but not egregiously so. His YPA, however, is very low, reflecting the fact that he was constantly checking down to Olsen or Forte. His TDs total is low, but his TD-INT ratio is good enough. Judging by the numbers, he's not a big producer on offense, but he's a safe starter. - Cutler produces just like you'd expect a good starting QB to. His YPA is very solid for a starter, his completion percentage is good, and despite his 18 picks, his ratio of touchdowns to interceptions is almost as good as Orton's. If he cut down to 12 interceptions or so, he'd have an ideal stat line. - Between Griese and Grossman, Griese's stat line looks far more like that of a starting QB. He completed better than 60% of his passes in 2007, had a YPA close to 7, and was closer than Grossman to a 1:1 ratio of TDs to INTs. Comparing Griese to Grossman, I really don't think there's any question who would make the better backup. Also, Griese could be a good mentor to help Hanie develop: Orton said in an interview that a lot of his development was due to Griese helping him with film study and learning to read defenses. I don't think Grossman could teach anybody those things, even if he wanted to.

I agree for the most part, but I doubt Wolfe gets a real shot to unseat Jones, and I definitely don't think Manning's in the conversation at free safety. Lovie's coaching him personally at the nickel spot (where he's done very well,) and he's definitively shown that he can't handle free safety. I'd be shocked if the team did anything other than give him reps as a nickel back and let him develop in one position for a change. Also, I guess I could see the Bears keeping Graham in the mix at corner, but I really hope that they commit to moving him to safety. D.J. Moore should be more than adequate to push/back up Vasher at RCB, and Graham will need the reps to learn the free safety position, which he played for all of 2 games in college. I hope this move to FS is permanent, and I hope they stick with it, as I think Graham could eventually turn out to be even better as a safety than he was at corner in '08.

Well, I assume they weren't running a third team, so if they wanted to get a look at both Steltz and Graham, the only way to get Bullocks on the field is to put him at SS. Again, they're probably doing it just to get a look at what other options they have, since they assume that Bullocks will be one of the guys in the mix at FS. I wouldn't read TOO much into an OTA depth chart: remember that Brandon Rideau is getting snaps with the first team, Idonije is back at DT because Harris and Harrison are out, and Zack Bowman is at first-team corner since Tillman is out. None of those guys are going to be in their current spot on the depth chart come September. By the same token, I'd be VERY surprised if we went into the season with two free safeties who just changed positions and our only veteran free safety playing at second-string SS.

I assume the 250-lb. MLB you're talking about is Urlacher. The problem with using him as an example is that he's an athletic freak. You can't even call him a prototypical Tampa-2 MLB, because he's much bigger than the prototype and has at least as much range and coverage ability. He's practically the size of a defensive end, but he covers like a safety: guys with that physical skillset don't come around often. Obviously every Tampa-2 team would love to have an Urlacher clone, just like they'd like to have a freak at free safety. I'm sure Lovie and company would jump at the chance to get a 220 or 230 pound free safety with the requisite range and coverage skills, but in a big guy those are pretty rare. Taylor Mays from USC is a good example: he goes 6'3" 230, but has the speed and coverage ability of a much smaller, lighter player. He's the best of both worlds, for sure. But Mays is going to be a high first-round pick, and there's a reason for that: guys like him don't come around very often. Most guys as fast as he is are around 200-210 pounds, and most guys as big as he is don't have the speed or range for the Tampa-2.

Oh, I wasn't trying to say the situations at LG and RG are exactly the same. You're right: I think it's almost a certainty that Omiyale beats Beekman, and that Beekman moves to backup C behind Kreutz. The Garza/Buenning thing should be on more equal footing.

The Sun-Times just posted some other notes from Bears OTAs. In the secondary, Woodny Turenne apparently looked good (you can see him doing drills in the rookie minicamp video, he's wearing #47) and Zack Bowman is back at corner. Apparently the move to FS was just a depth thing, like Idonije playing tackle since Harris and Harrison are out. The thing I found most interesting is this note about the offensive line: "Here is how the second team offensive line stacked up--LT Cody Balogh, LG Frank Omiyale, C Tyler Reed, RG Dan Buenning, RT Kevin Shaffer. Buenning worked in practice as a backup center for most of the second half of last season. Offensive coordinator Ron Turner has suggested he'll be in position to compete with Roberto Garza at right guard. The Bears have expressed their confidence in Garza however." It's been made pretty clear that there's a position battle at LG between Josh Beekman (who's running with the first team) and Frank Omiyale. It makes sense to have Beekman on the first team, since he's the incumbent and the job is his to lose. The interesting thing (insofar as OTA depth charts are interesting) is that Buenning's been moved from second-string C to second-string RG. If the author's right in his assertion that Buenning's move there is part of a competition with Garza, then I'm all for it. Again, Garza's the incumbent, so he runs with the first string, but I would love for Buenning to push him for the starting job. If Buenning's over his injuries, I think he's got far more upside than Garza as a run blocker. Whenever he was healthy and starting in Tampa, he did a great job run-blocking. In his 25 starts, the Bucs had a 100-yard rusher 11 times. In 9 of those 11 games the team was over 125 yards rushing, and 3 were over 180 yards. And that's when he was blocking for Cadillac Williams and Michael Pittman, neither of whom are on Matt Forte's level, in my opinion. I'm OK with us going into the season with Pace-Beekman-Kreutz-Garza-Williams, but I think there's reason to believe that Pace-Omiyale-Kreutz-Buenning-Williams could be a lot better.

I've been wondering about this as well. I assume the Bears are doing it so they can have a look at both Graham and Steltz at FS, since it'd be a position switch for both of them. They've got enough tape on Bullocks to know roughly what he brings to the table as a FS; this way, they can evaluate Steltz and Graham to see if either is a viable option to compete with him. Bullocks will probably start getting reps at his real position somewhere down the road. My feeling is that they determine Steltz is better at SS, then they go forward with Bullocks as the starting FS, Graham as his backup, and Steltz/Payne at SS. I'd be surprised if Corey Graham beat Bullocks out for the FS job this year, but if they give him a year to learn the position, he'll probably take over in 2010.

I hope this happens. Hester still doesn't seem like a guy who's going to master a complicated playbook. I think you just have to give him a relatively small route tree, let him beat his guy, then get him the ball and let him improvise. I think the Bears would be wise to check out how the Panthers use Steve Smith, who's got similar RAC ability. A lot of Smith's big plays are either from relatively short curl/comeback routes or from a simple go route where he can beat the corner. Hester obviously isn't as physical as Smith, but he's more explosive. I think Smith could be a good template for how the Bears try to use Hester.

Yeah, Brown's problems started right before Lovie showed up. Still, he was a difference-maker on the field, and that may have delayed Chicago in trying to replace him outright. Somebody earlier in this thread was asking why the Bears can't solidify the safety position, and I think it has less to do with colleges not playing zone and more to do with the kind of safeties you need to run the Tampa 2. Even more so than other schemes that play the safeties in zone, you need smaller, more mobile safeties in the Tampa 2, since they have very large zones to cover. In a Cover-1 or Cover-3 based scheme, you need one centerfielder-type safety, but the strong safety can be bigger and handle most of the big hits. Both Tampa-2 safeties have to have good range and coverage ability, which usually comes at the expense of a traditional safety build. Plus they've both still got to do a lot of hitting, which for a team that needs small, light safeties means you have a lot of injuries at the position. I'm glad we've got a bunch of young guys at safety going into 2009, because we always seem to send at least one safety to IR every season. Between Bullocks/Graham/maybe Bowman at FS and Steltz/Payne/Afalava at SS, we should have enough quality depth to get through a season OK.

Yeah, I'm sure the receivers have some adjusting to do. Ron Turner even said he's "never been around an arm like [Cutler's]." Considering that Grossman really did have a cannon, that's saying something. I'm guessing Cutler won't have any problem cutting through the wind at Soldier Field. I would also have expected Hester to struggle, but judging from the press about yesterday's OTAs, it sounds like he did better than most of the other receivers. From what I read, it sounded like Hester, Bennett and Olsen all had an easier time adjusting than Davis, Kinder, and Forte. Kinder, in particular, had at least three drops on the day, and it sounded like Davis dropped more than one. Knox apparently made some great catches, but I didn't hear any word on Iglesias. Does anybody know how he looked?

Personnel-wise, I think you're right. The Vikes have a killer O-line with the addition of Loadholt, they've got a great running game, and they now have three very talented receivers (I think Sidney Rice is in for a big breakout year,) one of whom Rex has worked with before. That could be an interesting place for Grossman, but I think there'd be too much of a chance that he'd be pressed into a starting role, given their situation at QB. If anybody signs Rex, it's going to have to be a team that has an established starter, so they can work on Rex for a year or two. Minnesota's got two inconsistent QBs on the roster already, Rosenfels and Jackson. They'd probably end up having to start Grossman before too long, and I'm not sure they could retrain him. Look at Tarvaris Jackson's development: he's a similar kind of project, and he hasn't really stepped up.

Yeah, although he may just be a due diligence kind of visit. A lot's been made of the need to have backup corners with experience, but the Bears are MUCH more willing to play rookie corners than other teams, and they've gotten good results doing so in the past. I'd rather have Moore (who looks to have a ton of potential) be second on the depth chart than pick up a so-so FA corner. It seems like Hood's real value is as a nickel, and Manning appears to have that job locked down since Lovie started coaching him on it personally.