This year we will get off the bus running!!

[Wesson44]

I really like what the Bears did in the draft. We got some players that we needed and we won't have to break the bank for them. We got competion for so postions and starters for others. I really think that on opening day we will start on offense

LT will be Williams

LG will be ST.Clair

C will be Kreutz

RG will be either Garza or Adams

RT will be Tait.

 

TE will be Clark/Olsen/Davis

 

WR will be Booker/Bradley/Bennet/Davis/Monk/Hester(Hass and Lloyd will get cut)

QB will be Grossman with Orton/Hill as back ups

FB McKie

RB will be Benson if healthy starting he knows the system already, but Forte will be in the wings. They will be splitting carries like Benson/Jones did a Year ago

 

On defense we have all the Starters back from last year and we also get Brown, Dusty, Adams, Payne back from IR. With new players such as Harrison at DT, Bowman at CB, Steitz at SS, 3 DE's 1 LB, 2 CB 2 DT in the draft and UDFA we are going to have a monster time trying to fit all these guys on the team. But that will just make this team better.11-5 here we come!!

[SoxFan1]

Williams 22, St. Clair 30, Kreutz 30, Garza 29, Tait 33. Average age: 28.8

 

Tait 33, Brown 36, Kreutz 30, Garza 29, Miller 35. Average age: 32.6

 

Thats what really matters right now. If the Offensive Line is more like 2006 than 2007, the Bears will be just fine.

[Mongo3451]

I really like what the Bears did in the draft. We got some players that we needed and we won't have to break the bank for them. We got competion for so postions and starters for others. I really think that on opening day we will start on offense

LT will be Williams

LG will be ST.Clair

C will be Kreutz

RG will be either Garza or Adams

RT will be Tait.

 

TE will be Clark/Olsen/Davis

 

WR will be Booker/Bradley/Bennet/Davis/Monk/Hester(Hass and Lloyd will get cut)

QB will be Grossman with Orton/Hill as back ups

FB McKie

RB will be Benson if healthy starting he knows the system already, but Forte will be in the wings. They will be splitting carries like Benson/Jones did a Year ago

 

On defense we have all the Starters back from last year and we also get Brown, Dusty, Adams, Payne back from IR. With new players such as Harrison at DT, Bowman at CB, Steitz at SS, 3 DE's 1 LB, 2 CB 2 DT in the draft and UDFA we are going to have a monster time trying to fit all these guys on the team. But that will just make this team better.11-5 here we come!!

Pass the kool-aid Wesson!!

 

Seriously, sometimes OL's take years to gell. With 40% changeover and Tait moving back to right may be a stumbling block. My hope is that Miller was so bad and Brown was so hurt it won't matter. The key is Williams. If he is a player, it works. If not, we'll be drafting early next year. I'm on the half full side. Totally agreed on the D, especially if M. Brown can contribute.

[HoofHearted]

RG will be either Garza or Adams

 

It will be Garza, without anything close to what I would call competition too. Of course you want to bring in guys to challenge our older roster guys, but like I said in the other thread, even though I'm no Garza fan, the guy has been solid. He is one of those league average vets every team needs on their line, and he was probably the most solid guy on our crap line all last season (kind of sad, but there are a lot of factors that made it so; crap to the left of Olin forcing him to play two positions at once, and the same for Tait at LT watching his right side). He comes cheap, plays a sound game positionally, won't be a weak link, and has the chemistry with Olin and Tait.

 

The only competition for a starters role along the line will be at LG. I would love to see us give Beekman first crack at it, and every opportunity to prove himself, but my gut tells me Lovie plays it "safe" and hands the role to St.Clair in a ruse of a competition. John was actually pretty darn solid those last three games for us though, and it showed as the line as a whole coincidentally also played a lot better (only three sacks given up in that stretch including a shutout of GB's rushers, compared to 11 given up in the three games prior). It would be rather worrisome having to virtual rookies starting on the left side for us if Josh does win the job. However, Garza did play LG his entire career before coming to Chicago, so I wonder if they would consider shifting him back so Beekman could relax in the more familiar RG role with the added comfort of playing between two very good vets.

[nfoligno]

Agreed that OLs take time to develop.

 

Should our OL be improved? Yes. But we were one of, if not the, worst OL last year. To be simply better does not mean good.

 

More than most positions, I think an OL takes time to develop as the OL needs to form a report w/ each other. You do not gain that sort of chemisty day one. We will start three players this year who did not start the year last year.

 

LT - I think fans may be expecting a bit much from Williams. How many rookies come in and play great at LT? Not many. I like the pick, and think Williams can become a damn good LT, but to expect that immediately may be a bit much. Further, we are not going to have a real strong LG for him to play next to, which is not going to help his development. Drafting Williams is EXACTLY why I wanted to sign Faneca, and yes, I know how much he cost. If we had Faneca at LG, I believe the development of Williams would have been MUCH greater.

 

One more point on LT/Williams. While I think Williams may well be an instant upgrade to Tait (last years version) against the pass, I question how much of an upgrade he will be in the run game. He is not considered "that" strong. He does not have the demenor you like in an OL. His run blocking was considered a knock, not a plus. Thus, I believe his run game will need time to develop. So while he may do better than Tait against the pass, I am not sure how much he will add (at least immediately) in the run game.

 

LG - Brown was awful last year, but is St Clair that good. He looked good replacing Metcalf, but so would my grandmother who passed away a couple years ago. Further, pairing him w/ a rookie is not an ideal situation.

 

C - I still love Kreutz, but his play has declined.

 

RG - I have never liked Garza, but on the OL last year, he damn near looked like a stud.

 

RT - Tait will be an instant upgrade to Miller, no question, but while he has plenty of experience at RT, he has never played next to Garza, and the two I think may need time to form a report.

 

I think our OL should be better, but question whether that "better" will be enough to be considered good, or a strength. I do think our OL should improve as the season goes along, but wonder if they will be good enough this year for the rest of the offense to step it up.

[balta1701-A]

I think our OL should be better, but question whether that "better" will be enough to be considered good, or a strength. I do think our OL should improve as the season goes along, but wonder if they will be good enough this year for the rest of the offense to step it up.

The way my eyes have seen the NFL the last few years...if you want to win a super bowl, or even make a solid run, the best formula has been an above average to great defense combined with an average offense.

 

I'm not asking for greatness from the Bears offense. Sure it'd be nice if Hester could break Moss's record from last year, but somehow I doubt that's going to happen. But what the Bears need to be able to do is move the ball effectively enough to 1.) keep the defense off the field, 2.) sometimes make scores happen on their own, 3.) win the field position battle, and 4.) take advantage of opportunities created by the defense and special teams.

 

If the Bears defense stays healthy, it's loaded. It was loaded last year but half of the starters went down early and the team never recovered. That defense can be right back at the top of the league with a little more injury related luck. If you combine that with an offense that simply does average...that works behind an O-line that isn't the greatest but opens some holes for its RB's and gives the QB's a second or two more than they had last year...this is a setup that can work.

[madlithuanian]

I just don't agree. You do need the good d that you say, but you also need a good O. The Pat's had good O's...and more importantly...O's that did not turn the ball over.

 

The way my eyes have seen the NFL the last few years...if you want to win a super bowl, or even make a solid run, the best formula has been an above average to great defense combined with an average offense.

 

I'm not asking for greatness from the Bears offense. Sure it'd be nice if Hester could break Moss's record from last year, but somehow I doubt that's going to happen. But what the Bears need to be able to do is move the ball effectively enough to 1.) keep the defense off the field, 2.) sometimes make scores happen on their own, 3.) win the field position battle, and 4.) take advantage of opportunities created by the defense and special teams.

 

If the Bears defense stays healthy, it's loaded. It was loaded last year but half of the starters went down early and the team never recovered. That defense can be right back at the top of the league with a little more injury related luck. If you combine that with an offense that simply does average...that works behind an O-line that isn't the greatest but opens some holes for its RB's and gives the QB's a second or two more than they had last year...this is a setup that can work.

[balta1701-A]

I just don't agree. You do need the good d that you say, but you also need a good O. The Pat's had good O's...and more importantly...O's that did not turn the ball over.

I'll grant you the turnover part. Just looking through the stats, here's how some of the recent super bowl winners fared in offense during the season (looking only at total yards because I'm too lazy to compile it every possible way).

 

2002: Tampa Bay, 24th

2003: New England 17th

2004: New England 7th

2005: Pittsburgh 15th

2006 Indianapolis 3rd

2007 New York 16th

[madlithuanian]

02 - Tampa had the great D, ended up having an amazing game by Jurevicius and Johnson... Not a great O by any means. Also the planets aligned that they drew Oakland and could use their knowledge agasint them

 

03, 04 - NE, not flashy, but good

 

05 - Bettis and Roethlisberger have proven to be offensive weaopns. Had an off game in the SB, but still one. (although some SEA fans still disagree...)

 

06 - Indy...'nuff said

 

07 - NYG - ranked 16th...but finished with a bang. I would be curious to know thei ranking for the last 1/2 of the season

 

I'll grant you the turnover part. Just looking through the stats, here's how some of the recent super bowl winners fared in offense during the season (looking only at total yards because I'm too lazy to compile it every possible way).

 

2002: Tampa Bay, 24th

2003: New England 17th

2004: New England 7th

2005: Pittsburgh 15th

2006 Indianapolis 3rd

2007 New York 16th

[nfoligno]

Wow do I think this is a bad way to look at the stats. IMHO, you can not look at just the total yards on offense. If the defense is good/great, then the offense will have a shorter field, and thus the yards are going to be less. A team w/ a garbage defense (a) will often have a longer field to score and ( will often be playing from behind, and thus need to push the ball downfield more. If you have a defense that is shutting out the opponent, you are not going to continue to throw bombs for yardage in the 4th quarter when you have a solid lead.

 

If you want to consider the offense, while not perfect, I think the scoring stat is far better. Simply put, was the offense good enough to take advantage of their defesne and score.

 

'02 - TB - Lowest ranking offense on this list, coming in a 18th, but also a sick defense that year. Their defense was not just great, but outstanding. And still, 18th ranked scoring offense that didn't turn the ball over (+17 take away/give away ratio)

'03 - NE - 10th in scoring

'04 - NE - 12th in scoring

'05 - Pitt - 9th in scoring

'06 - Indy - 2nd in scoring.

'07 - NYG - 14th in scoring.

 

So, w/ the exception of TB, every team was in the top 1/2 in terms of scoring on offense, and that TB team's defense was close to #1 accross the defensive stat sheet.

 

So I would argue that you do need more than a mediocre offense to win.