Is Angelo sabotaging Lovie?

[Connorbear]

I do a gree that sabotage, etc is on the extreme. And it's a sign that us fans are frustrated.

 

However, we are for good reason. Consensus building? You mean our shoddy picks are a consensus of all involved? Isn't that an indictment on the lack of skill we have judging talent accross the board? Connor, do you honestly believe Booker and Lloyd were big names last off-season? Seriously. They are names we've actually heard, but not big. In fact, many posters here voiced extreme concern especially over Booker. I was one of the optimistic ones! We only know of Booker because he was once good with us back in the day and that Lloyd played in college for our OC and failed everywhere else.

 

Moose wasn't a complete failure...he wasn't great, but he was a legit starter for a few years. To vow out of FA because of Moose, Booker and Lloyd is silliness. That is straight giving up and folding in the face of adversity. And w/ Moose, it's not like we didn't have the loot! We paid a lot, but we had money to burn!

 

I do agree that purposefully sabotaging Smith would be beyond silly. But I think it's a grasp at a straw to instill some brain-power in Angelo thinking he's more diabolical than plain stupid. It's looking more like plain stupid...

1 - If you ever listened to Mully talk about the Bears, he discusses how Angelo manages (consensus building). You may be right that this is an indictment of a lack of skill in judging talent across the board. Or, possibly, Jason is right in that we do have the talent but that there has been coaching deficiencies (i.e. we are not developing our talent or putting them in a place to win).

 

2 - On Booker and Lloyd, I meant that they were the names that we had heard off and that they were our big signings for last yr. I was not comparing them to high end FA signings.

 

2 - Sorry, Moose was a complete failure for the money we paid him IMHO. Not only did he drop too many passes, he also threw 2 QBs under the bus.

 

3 - I didn't say he was vowing out of FA because of Moose, Booker, and Lloyd. I was saying he was not going after high priced FA (i.e. Whosyourmamma) and most likely following the pattern he had last yr (bargain basement FA).

 

Again, we are 5 days into FA. Last yr by this time we had resigned Briggs and signed Booker. Booker did not come until we lost out on Berrian. If you eliminate internal signings, you could argue Angelo has done more than last yr. He was proactive on Omiyale and reactive on Booker.

 

Peace

[madlithuanian]

1. I admit I don't listen to Mully, but I do read what is in print when he writes. i think the truth is in the middle...lack of finding talent, and coaching deficiencies...

 

2. Gotcha...

 

3. I do understand your point. But I also think, without him, we don't make it to the SB. He garnished some respect around the league...thus opening up things for Berrian. I agree we overpaid. But I think in this instance, and looking back, it was OK to do so. If you were to tell me we could have had something much better instead of Mosse, I'd be disappointed. But I must give credit that we got the best guy that was available at the time.

 

3. - I still think that philosophy is one of failure and quitting. It is essentially giving up because you didn't like the wasy it turned out a couple times.

 

I do agree that it's early...but most the big moves occur early. Omaliye is nice. But, it's not all that proactive. Tiat bowed out, Williams is still questionable, and St. Clair is testing the waters. To me, that again is reactive.

 

1 - If you ever listened to Mully talk about the Bears, he discusses how Angelo manages (consensus building). You may be right that this is an indictment of a lack of skill in judging talent across the board. Or, possibly, Jason is right in that we do have the talent but that there has been coaching deficiencies (i.e. we are not developing our talent or putting them in a place to win).

 

2 - On Booker and Lloyd, I meant that they were the names that we had heard off and that they were our big signings for last yr. I was not comparing them to high end FA signings.

 

2 - Sorry, Moose was a complete failure for the money we paid him IMHO. Not only did he drop too many passes, he also threw 2 QBs under the bus.

 

3 - I didn't say he was vowing out of FA because of Moose, Booker, and Lloyd. I was saying he was not going after high priced FA (i.e. Whosyourmamma) and most likely following the pattern he had last yr (bargain basement FA).

 

Again, we are 5 days into FA. Last yr by this time we had resigned Briggs and signed Booker. Booker did not come until we lost out on Berrian. If you eliminate internal signings, you could argue Angelo has done more than last yr. He was proactive on Omiyale and reactive on Booker.

 

Peace

[madlithuanian]

A good poker plays wins the hand... So far, we keep bluffing with a jack high and only scare away Detroit from the table.

 

Culture only changes when it has too. I don't even think it's so much about money...I think it's just plain inneptness at the top.

 

 

 

 

 

Guys, we do this every year.

 

We get impatient, while Angelo waits for value. He is a good poker player. He takes risks when he feels it's a good idea, and certainly, he has lost his share of those gambles too. But when it comes to value - be it trading down, or later round picks, Angelo has shown to be a shrewd character.

 

Wait until camp starts, then look at the roster he built. There's no need to go out and make a big money splash if you don't believe fully in the talent that's there, and can wait for something similar at a lesser price.

 

From the cheap lurking seats...

[azbearsfan]

Oh agreed. it's like the news. You don't see stories about the guy who donated hours to help the elderly, you see murder and mayhem... And people tend to get more riled up in dislike than like.

 

I just don't see that "closeness" you and Jason speak of. Yep, we were close last year to sniffing a playoff seed. Last year. Not the year before...or this year for that matter. To me, that's not a sign of consistency.

 

Come on now. You say you dont see the closeness then say we were close to the playoffs. What? Last year: down to the last week, not the year before, two years ago :Super Bowl, three years ago: playoffs.

 

And this year....hasn't happened yet.

 

Again, listening to you, someone would think we are the Lions.

[Connorbear]

1. I admit I don't listen to Mully, but I do read what is in print when he writes. i think the truth is in the middle...lack of finding talent, and coaching deficiencies...

 

2. Gotcha...

 

3. I do understand your point. But I also think, without him, we don't make it to the SB. He garnished some respect around the league...thus opening up things for Berrian. I agree we overpaid. But I think in this instance, and looking back, it was OK to do so. If you were to tell me we could have had something much better instead of Mosse, I'd be disappointed. But I must give credit that we got the best guy that was available at the time.

 

3. - I still think that philosophy is one of failure and quitting. It is essentially giving up because you didn't like the wasy it turned out a couple times.

 

I do agree that it's early...but most the big moves occur early. Omaliye is nice. But, it's not all that proactive. Tiat bowed out, Williams is still questionable, and St. Clair is testing the waters. To me, that again is reactive.

The Omiyale move was proactive from the point they went after right away in FA. Of course it was reactive from a sense they were filling a need.

 

Agree to disagree on Moose.

 

Peace

[madlithuanian]

Sorry if I wasn't clear...

 

i think you guys are saying we're close to being a constant playoff team. I don't see it. I saw us coming close to the playoffs LAST season. This year, like last (check the posts...I didn't have us making the playoffs), I don't see us in the playoffs. And I want more than just playoffs.

 

It's what have you done for me lately. And lately, we haven't done nearly enough. Getting a sniff of the playoffs choking to a poorer Texas team doesn't fill my heart with warm fuzzies. That after a year of complete disaster after being in the SB.

 

Thankfully we aren't the Lions. We have won a Super Bowl in our past and never went winless. But, the Lions could very well get better (Millen is gone...). And we seem to be satisfied with the status quo. Sorry, maybe it's just me, but I am not satisifed being a pretty good team that comes close to the playoffs. I want what the Steelers are. A proud franchise that does what it takes to have a perrenially good team, run by good management and good coaches. Damn right I'm jealous...

 

 

Come on now. You say you dont see the closeness then say we were close to the playoffs. What? Last year: down to the last week, not the year before, two years ago :Super Bowl, three years ago: playoffs.

 

And this year....hasn't happened yet.

 

Again, listening to you, someone would think we are the Lions.

[madlithuanian]

Fair enough!

 

 

The Omiyale move was proactive from the point they went after right away in FA. Of course it was reactive from a sense they were filling a need.

 

Agree to disagree on Moose.

 

Peace

[chitownman]

Look at the track record overall for Jerry Angelo while he has been the one in control of player personnel being the GM. For as many so called positive moves, there are far many more that are complete failures. I do not think that Angelo is the brain that we need to evaluate players currently on this team or players to possibly obtain via free agency or the draft. I personally feel that we have not had a decent talent evaluator since Jerry Vainisi was let go and how the hell we got lucky to get to SB XLI is still surprising to a degree. I know our defense was pretty awesome however, there were times that the defense let down a little that season as well. You say we had a winning record which at 9-7 is a winning record however, quite a few of those games should have gone a different way and lady luck shined nicely on us during those wins. The problem is that the team is only there when it wants to be there versus having the heart and soul of being part of the longest traditional franchise in pro football history. If you do not have an understand of the Chicago Bears and George Stanley Halas, then you should be kicked to the curb and find people that want to be part of the tradition and history of the most storied franchise in the NFL. Enough of this, "It's All About Me & What I Am Able To Get Attitude" that a lot of today's players have. I think an important reading for every player and they should be tested on what they read is the Hall Of Fame Induction speech by Ryne Sandberg. Ryne talks about respect of the game and the people who provided the path for the players that play today to play. Plus the fact we need to get rid of the agents like Drew Rosenhaus who is more of a detriment to professional sports versus a benefit. Unfortunately culture will not be changed overnight nor any time in the near future.

 

So yes I agree we may be rehashing things we talked about after 2007 however, being frustrated by the leadership of our teams and having a place to vent about it is the only way some of us are able to vent and have others that are able to appreciate what we are saying.

[azbearsfan]

Look at the track record overall for Jerry Angelo while he has been the one in control of player personnel being the GM. For as many so called positive moves, there are far many more that are complete failures. I do not think that Angelo is the brain that we need to evaluate players currently on this team or players to possibly obtain via free agency or the draft. I personally feel that we have not had a decent talent evaluator since Jerry Vainisi was let go and how the hell we got lucky to get to SB XLI is still surprising to a degree. I know our defense was pretty awesome however, there were times that the defense let down a little that season as well. You say we had a winning record which at 9-7 is a winning record however, quite a few of those games should have gone a different way and lady luck shined nicely on us during those wins. The problem is that the team is only there when it wants to be there versus having the heart and soul of being part of the longest traditional franchise in pro football history. If you do not have an understand of the Chicago Bears and George Stanley Halas, then you should be kicked to the curb and find people that want to be part of the tradition and history of the most storied franchise in the NFL. Enough of this, "It's All About Me & What I Am Able To Get Attitude" that a lot of today's players have. I think an important reading for every player and they should be tested on what they read is the Hall Of Fame Induction speech by Ryne Sandberg. Ryne talks about respect of the game and the people who provided the path for the players that play today to play. Plus the fact we need to get rid of the agents like Drew Rosenhaus who is more of a detriment to professional sports versus a benefit. Unfortunately culture will not be changed overnight nor any time in the near future.

 

So yes I agree we may be rehashing things we talked about after 2007 however, being frustrated by the leadership of our teams and having a place to vent about it is the only way some of us are able to vent and have others that are able to appreciate what we are saying.

 

 

Well if you want to get to a place where we get rid of all the "Me First" players, Url is the first to go. Are you ready to do that?

[chitownman]

Yes!!!!!!!!!

 

Well if you want to get to a place where we get rid of all the "Me First" players, Url is the first to go. Are you ready to do that?

[azbearsfan]

Sorry if I wasn't clear...

 

i think you guys are saying we're close to being a constant playoff team. I don't see it. I saw us coming close to the playoffs LAST season. This year, like last (check the posts...I didn't have us making the playoffs), I don't see us in the playoffs. And I want more than just playoffs.

 

It's what have you done for me lately. And lately, we haven't done nearly enough. Getting a sniff of the playoffs choking to a poorer Texas team doesn't fill my heart with warm fuzzies. That after a year of complete disaster after being in the SB.

 

Thankfully we aren't the Lions. We have won a Super Bowl in our past and never went winless. But, the Lions could very well get better (Millen is gone...). And we seem to be satisfied with the status quo. Sorry, maybe it's just me, but I am not satisifed being a pretty good team that comes close to the playoffs. I want what the Steelers are. A proud franchise that does what it takes to have a perrenially good team, run by good management and good coaches. Damn right I'm jealous...

 

lol Of course you dont see it. If you didn't have something to be negative about, I think you would waste away to nothing.

 

Everyone wants to be the Steelers, but the Steelers were never consistent doormats of the league like we were.

 

 

And until we change owners, we have to play with what we are dealt.

[Connorbear]

And until we change owners, we have to play with what we are dealt.

Agreed and this won't happen until Virginia passes.

 

Peace

[ASHKUM BEAR]

Going back to saying JA sabotaged Jauron is dilusional, Jauron had GM powers even though JA had the title. It was put in Jauron's contract. Once Angelo got control of full GM, he canned Jauron. This took place after Ed McCaskey died in 2003 and his power in shares was divided out and the majority was taken away from Virginia and Mikey.

 

I know were trying to figure out why we've only signed one player in 5 days there must be a conspiracy, but that's just not the case. JA will make a move when he finds a player he likes on/off the field and a Bear friendly contract can be made.

[nfoligno]

One. Since when does a coach (not counting coaches w/ dual GM titles) care so much about contracts? Most coaches come closer to having the "I want this player at any cost" or just do not factor as much the contract and cost aspects. It isn't there job, and simply not what they normally factor as much. Coaches, more often, will provide the GM with input as to what positions are in need of upgrade, and ranking the needs, etc. I don't think coaches usually say, "Hey, we were burned by a FA or two in the past, so lets not spend money this year to upgrade the team I have to work w/". I think you are kidding yourself if that is what you believe.

 

Two. Yea, we didn't spend big bucks last year on FAs, but we were also spending a ton of extending our own players, which may not count in terms of upgrading through FA, it does count in terms of money and cap space spent. This year, we have more cap space than in recent memory, really no one left to expend, and yet are still sitting on our hands.

 

Three, you say we are not yet done w/ the 1st week of FA, but as many articles point out, the top tier of FAs usually go off the boards in the first weekend. While FA technically doesn't start until a particular day, you know full well it begins behind doors long before that. Anyway, at this point, most all top and even upper tier FAs are gone, and before long, we will truly be picking through the scraps. FA is often similar to the draft. Talent at the front, but the longer FA/draft goes, the weaker the talent gets. You might finds diamonds in the rough, but upper tier is usually off the boards early on.

 

Four. You say they decided not to spend gobs of money based on past failures. That is ignorant (the staff not you). Do you stop drafting in the 1st because the previous year was a bust. Should we not have drafted Williams last year because Angelo's previous attempt to draft an OT in the 1st didn't work out? I will never understand that logic. Something didn't work in the past, so we can't try again.

 

Also, I am not saying we should have signed Haynewsorth. In fact, most of the FAs I liked were inked to deals FAR less than what I would consider "gobs of money".

 

We are less than a week into FA and, because we have signed 1 FA, Angelo is sabotaging Lovie???? Give me a break.

 

Here's my thoughts. JA believes in concensus building - everyone discussing and then making a decision. They decided at the end of the yr that the defensive coaching staff was a major problem. What did they do? They made big, big changes to the defensive coaching staff. They also decided they are not going to throw huge gobs of money at FA based on past failures most specifically Moose. Look at what they did last yr other than extending current players. Booker and Lloyd were the 2 big name signings I can think of and they were both signed for peanuts.

 

You may agree or disagree with the strategy they currently have implemented. However, it would be career suicide for Angelo to sabotage his head coach. If he did and it was found out, he would be done in the business.

 

Peace

[nfoligno]

One. If you read my posts, I said that I don't really think it is some big conscience decision to screw Lovie over. More likely, in my mind, it is a situation where Angelo goes out of his way for a coach he has faith in, yet is far more passive when he has a coach he doesn't have faith in. He didn't have faith in Jauron, and thus was not willing to go too far out of his way to stack the team for him. He had faith in Lovie when he first came to the team, and spent a crap load of money on FAs and in-house extensions. But now I think that faith has wavered, and he is less inclined to continue to spend big for Lovie.

 

Two. You think a near playoff season is enough to offset decades are garbage? You don't think we have a right to be a tad negative? We, as bear fans, would never care to admit it, but the reality is this organization over the last two decades has been far closer to Cincy or Az (jokes of the league) than to the good or great teams. We get a couple good years here and there, but over the last two decades, this has not been a well run team/organization. I think we have more than enough right to be a tad negative, and it blows my mind that our standards have sunk to low as to expect happiness over almost making the playoffs.

 

Three. We were "close" to sneaking into the backdoor of the playoffs last year, but I can not believe you think we are close to being a "consistent" playoff team. We lack in FAR too many areas to be considered such. Also, I have to ask you this. In the past, you have argued that our issues were neither coaching, nor scheme, but personnel. You argued that players like Urlacher have simply lost it, rather than his slip in play being due to coaching. You argued that our inability to rush the passer wasn't about scheme or coaching, but lack of talent. Ditto our pass coverage. So how exactly is our defense close if we are not upgrading our talent levels, but simply changing coaching. Further, on offense, you truly think we are close?

 

I also think that the "boards" tend to be a bit dramatic towards the negative.

I mean, if you didn't know any better, you would think that we were the Lions.

 

However, we had a winning record and ended up barely missing the playoffs. So I tend to agree with jason when he says we are "close". Close to what? Being a playoff team every year.

[nfoligno]

Jauron had SOME GM powers, but not full.

 

Jauron did not have ANY power what-so-ever when it came to adding FAs. That was 100% Angelo. And that is the crux of my point about that time period. Jauron had other powers, like: he could cut players, he had total authority of his assistant coaches, he had total control over his 53 man roster. Some powers actually over-lapped, like the ability to cut/release a player. Other powers were solely in Angelo's world, and Free Agency was among them. Anything that had to do w/ contract negotiations left Jaurons control and went into Angelos.

 

Also, Angelo had the power to fire Jauron at any time. He didn't actually gain all the GM power you talk about until after he fired Jauron. He always had the power to fire Jauron, but (a) he was pressured from upstairs to re-sign Jauron after the 2001 season and ( he couldn't fire Jauron too soon after re-signing him. After a couple years of failure, the higher powers didn't block the move. It was then Angelo gained total control, and also why (per many sources) we didn't sign Nick Saban. Angelo just got the power, and Saban wanted a Jauron-esq deal. Not going to happen.

 

Going back to saying JA sabotaged Jauron is dilusional, Jauron had GM powers even though JA had the title. It was put in Jauron's contract. Once Angelo got control of full GM, he canned Jauron. This took place after Ed McCaskey died in 2003 and his power in shares was divided out and the majority was taken away from Virginia and Mikey.

 

I know were trying to figure out why we've only signed one player in 5 days there must be a conspiracy, but that's just not the case. JA will make a move when he finds a player he likes on/off the field and a Bear friendly contract can be made.

[nfoligno]

I am not totally sure I would say Urlacher is a "me first" player, but I will say he is among the most frustrating players I have seen in my time.

 

I was watching an old Chicago Bears History DVD the other day. It talks about all the great players through the years. Then it gets to Urlacher, and Singletary's interview stands out. He talks about how Urlacher may be the most physically gifts MLB the bears have ever had, but continued on to say that he was be as good as he wants to be. That was always the thing w/ Urlacher. He was so physically gifted, he could dominate, but he never seemed to put in the film time, which Singletary nearly begged of him, nor did he ever display the intensity on the field of Butkis.

 

Yes, I realize I am using two of the best ever as a bar, but the point is, if Urlacher wanted, he may have been so much more, which has always been my frustration, and seemingly, Singletary's too.

 

Well if you want to get to a place where we get rid of all the "Me First" players, Url is the first to go. Are you ready to do that?

[madlithuanian]

I got lasek not too long ago, so I think I can see pretty clearly now! I don't need to look hard to find reason to be upset with how this franchise is run. It's like the big "E" on the eye chart, even Stevie Wonder can see it...

 

I hated, and hate being a doormat.

 

And yes, I think you're right that the culture will not change without a change at the top. I'll support the team, and root them on, but I reserve the right to complain about how the team is run when no rings have been placed on fingers in over 23 years...

 

 

lol Of course you dont see it. If you didn't have something to be negative about, I think you would waste away to nothing.

 

Everyone wants to be the Steelers, but the Steelers were never consistent doormats of the league like we were.

 

 

And until we change owners, we have to play with what we are dealt.

[madlithuanian]

Vent away! I completely understand!

 

Look at the track record overall for Jerry Angelo while he has been the one in control of player personnel being the GM. For as many so called positive moves, there are far many more that are complete failures. I do not think that Angelo is the brain that we need to evaluate players currently on this team or players to possibly obtain via free agency or the draft. I personally feel that we have not had a decent talent evaluator since Jerry Vainisi was let go and how the hell we got lucky to get to SB XLI is still surprising to a degree. I know our defense was pretty awesome however, there were times that the defense let down a little that season as well. You say we had a winning record which at 9-7 is a winning record however, quite a few of those games should have gone a different way and lady luck shined nicely on us during those wins. The problem is that the team is only there when it wants to be there versus having the heart and soul of being part of the longest traditional franchise in pro football history. If you do not have an understand of the Chicago Bears and George Stanley Halas, then you should be kicked to the curb and find people that want to be part of the tradition and history of the most storied franchise in the NFL. Enough of this, "It's All About Me & What I Am Able To Get Attitude" that a lot of today's players have. I think an important reading for every player and they should be tested on what they read is the Hall Of Fame Induction speech by Ryne Sandberg. Ryne talks about respect of the game and the people who provided the path for the players that play today to play. Plus the fact we need to get rid of the agents like Drew Rosenhaus who is more of a detriment to professional sports versus a benefit. Unfortunately culture will not be changed overnight nor any time in the near future.

 

So yes I agree we may be rehashing things we talked about after 2007 however, being frustrated by the leadership of our teams and having a place to vent about it is the only way some of us are able to vent and have others that are able to appreciate what we are saying.

[Connorbear]

One. Since when does a coach (not counting coaches w/ dual GM titles) care so much about contracts? Most coaches come closer to having the "I want this player at any cost" or just do not factor as much the contract and cost aspects. It isn't there job, and simply not what they normally factor as much. Coaches, more often, will provide the GM with input as to what positions are in need of upgrade, and ranking the needs, etc. I don't think coaches usually say, "Hey, we were burned by a FA or two in the past, so lets not spend money this year to upgrade the team I have to work w/". I think you are kidding yourself if that is what you believe.

 

Two. Yea, we didn't spend big bucks last year on FAs, but we were also spending a ton of extending our own players, which may not count in terms of upgrading through FA, it does count in terms of money and cap space spent. This year, we have more cap space than in recent memory, really no one left to expend, and yet are still sitting on our hands.

 

Three, you say we are not yet done w/ the 1st week of FA, but as many articles point out, the top tier of FAs usually go off the boards in the first weekend. While FA technically doesn't start until a particular day, you know full well it begins behind doors long before that. Anyway, at this point, most all top and even upper tier FAs are gone, and before long, we will truly be picking through the scraps. FA is often similar to the draft. Talent at the front, but the longer FA/draft goes, the weaker the talent gets. You might finds diamonds in the rough, but upper tier is usually off the boards early on.

 

Four. You say they decided not to spend gobs of money based on past failures. That is ignorant (the staff not you). Do you stop drafting in the 1st because the previous year was a bust. Should we not have drafted Williams last year because Angelo's previous attempt to draft an OT in the 1st didn't work out? I will never understand that logic. Something didn't work in the past, so we can't try again.

 

Also, I am not saying we should have signed Haynewsorth. In fact, most of the FAs I liked were inked to deals FAR less than what I would consider "gobs of money".

 

Point 1 - I don't think that is the coaching staff. They are most likely giving input on what skill sets they need to fill and how certain players fit the skill sets. They are not involved in the money side.

 

Point 2 - As I noted in another thread, there are several players who are FA after next yr that may be extended (Manning Jr, Idonje, Ogy, Orton, and Anderson). See the other thread for my thoughts.

 

Point 3 - I agree that most of the big names FA are gone in the 1st week. This yr, however, I think they had a record # of FAs that were tagged (15 I think) and a bunch more that were signed. Maybe Angelo and staff decided the remaining pool of FA did not merit the money at the higher end. The Bears have had some success getting players later in FA most notably Reuben Brown and Roberto Garza.

 

Point 4 - I think that Moose and Whosyourmamma's situation were very comparible. Maybe Angelo and his staff felt the same way. Maybe Angelo is PO'd at Turner and Drake for not using Bennett last yr and is forcing him on them. Most likely we will see a vet WR brought in here at some point (I am thinking Holt).

 

Peace

[nfoligno]

Point 1 - I don't think that is the coaching staff. They are most likely giving input on what skill sets they need to fill and how certain players fit the skill sets. They are not involved in the money side.

 

That was my point. Correct me if I am wrong. You argued we are slow playing FA because Angelo and Lovie move through concensus, and that due to past times we were burned (big contract deals) they want to avoid similar this year. My point is, such arguments (though I would still disagree) are usually seen in a GM, but not so much a coach. Coaches do not usually seem to think as much about the deals, only the talent. Our talent base at numerous positions is crap. Not many coaches I know of would say, "We suck at OL, but that FA we added a couple years ago didn't workout, so lets not make a big move to fix that area now".

 

Point 2 - As I noted in another thread, there are several players who are FA after next yr that may be extended (Manning Jr, Idonje, Ogy, Orton, and Anderson). See the other thread for my thoughts.

 

One, regarding future players who may or may not need to be extended. How many in that group are on such a level to really be that great of a factor? Its not like when you know Harris, Briggs or the like are nearing the end of their deals, and you know you need to reserve large chunks of cap space for. The group you list is on a level such that it is not even known if we would want to keep them. I assume you meant DM, not Manning Jr., but even in that, you are talking about a nickel. Idonije a depth chart guy. Ditto Anderson. Ogy is a starter, but sure seems like one the staff want to replace more than re-sign. Orton is an exception here, but that is one player. We have $34m in cap space. The group of players you are listing are no where close to such a level that we hold back this year because they are FAs next.

 

Two. We have freaking $34m in cap space. You act like we are tight against the cap and need to really think about saving space for the future, but the reality is we have so damn much space that we could go on a spending spree and still have room to spare for future signings.

 

Point 3 - I agree that most of the big names FA are gone in the 1st week. This yr, however, I think they had a record # of FAs that were tagged (15 I think) and a bunch more that were signed. Maybe Angelo and staff decided the remaining pool of FA did not merit the money at the higher end. The Bears have had some success getting players later in FA most notably Reuben Brown and Roberto Garza.

 

One, I would argue that, w/ all the tags and pre-FA signings, it only increased the need to make quick strikes. The more shallow the pool gets, the weaker the "bargains" you are going to find later and later in the process. Think of FA like the draft. Prior to the draft, and bunch of players who were considered lock 1st rounders choose to stay in school, and thus remove themselves from the draft. A draft that was already considered a tad weak just got weaker. In this draft, do you think you have a greater chance of "hitting" on a player in the early part of the draft, or deeper? The weaker the talent pool, the fewer the late round finds. In a draft that has questionable levels of talent and depth, you don't trade down or wait to make you pick until later. You strike early on, when the talent is still there.

 

Two. You say Angelo has done well getting FAs later in the process, and mention Brown and Garza. Frankly, I would point to each as examples of what we are doing wrong. Garza is a very mediocre players, and most reports say we are hoping Omiyale will replace him. Brown was very good for a year or two, but that was a very short term success story there. The way we do it, we might find mediocre players who can start for a short term, or even good players who are old, and, again, will give us good play for a short period, but what we are less likely to find is a player who is more than a bandaid.

 

Take one of Angelo's best FA additions. Thomas Jones. He was not a top tier, high priced FA, but he was a player who we went after eary and signed him, I think, within the first few hours of FA. On the other hand, we wait and pick up the scraps and get a Kevin Jones.

 

Three. For the record, and I have said this many times before, it isn't like I am saying we should have been players in the Haynesworth sweeps. I am not saying we should be targetting the $100m players. But there have been many FAs signed to much more reasonable deals who I would argue would be not only immediate upgrades, but long term solutions rather than bandaids.

 

Point 4 - I think that Moose and Whosyourmamma's situation were very comparible. Maybe Angelo

 

For the record, I NEVER liked the Moose signing, and said as much back then. I know full well why some see a similarity, but I also see FAR too many differences. Key for me is consistency. In Moose, you had a VERY inconsistent player throughout his NFL career, who we signed after his best ever season, and paid a max premium. In TJ, you have a player who has been quite consistent since development, and who did not find the elite market he wanted, and thus some might even argue was a bit of a bargain. He signed for similar to what Berrian got. TJ is a pro bowl WR, and signed a deal for about equal to one who had yet to see 1,000 yards.

 

Like I said, I know the reasons for comparison. Both are/were on the wrong side of 30. Both are more possession plus WR, rather than elite #1 game breakers. Both often saw their production when playing opposite an elite WR (Chad Johnson/ Steve Smith). Yet, as I said, TJ was a consistent WR for Cincy, where as Moose was all over the map. Further, this past season CJ was a near non-existent player, and it was TJ who drew the attention and focus of defenses, not CJ, and yet still had solid numbers. Moose never showed he could be counted on as a #1, nor consistent. Finally, TJ proved he could do well on an awful offense, as he did this past year. Moose was more reliant on the offense around him.

 

For the record, yes, I wanted TJ, but that is not close to my key argument. Heck, I am more disappointed we didn't sign Brandon Moore, who is a young, experienced starter and signed a deal for $10m guaranteed, compared to our signing a guy who had one start in 4 years, and who we gave $5.5m guaranteed. I think $4.5m difference is EASILY worth the difference between a solid (considered their best run blocker) starter over a guy who had one start in 4 years w/ two different teams.

[azbearsfan]

One. If you read my posts, I said that I don't really think it is some big conscience decision to screw Lovie over. More likely, in my mind, it is a situation where Angelo goes out of his way for a coach he has faith in, yet is far more passive when he has a coach he doesn't have faith in. He didn't have faith in Jauron, and thus was not willing to go too far out of his way to stack the team for him. He had faith in Lovie when he first came to the team, and spent a crap load of money on FAs and in-house extensions. But now I think that faith has wavered, and he is less inclined to continue to spend big for Lovie.

 

ok......I think you read way more into these things then there actually is. I think if JA read that, he would laugh.

 

 

Two. You think a near playoff season is enough to offset decades are garbage? You don't think we have a right to be a tad negative? We, as bear fans, would never care to admit it, but the reality is this organization over the last two decades has been far closer to Cincy or Az (jokes of the league) than to the good or great teams. We get a couple good years here and there, but over the last two decades, this has not been a well run team/organization. I think we have more than enough right to be a tad negative, and it blows my mind that our standards have sunk to low as to expect happiness over almost making the playoffs.

 

lol. Never said you don't have the "right" to be negative. It just gets old doesn't it? And because we have been so crappy for decades, I would think that you would be happy with the recent string of better days. Winning record in 3 out of the last four years, SB appearance, being in play for the division championship... Clearly this is better than having the number 5 pick every year, and therefore we should be happier about this, right? Is it perfect? No. But to have the same amount of negativity when things are getting better says something about those people.

 

Three. We were "close" to sneaking into the backdoor of the playoffs last year, but I can not believe you think we are close to being a "consistent" playoff team. We lack in FAR too many areas to be considered such. Also, I have to ask you this. In the past, you have argued that our issues were neither coaching, nor scheme, but personnel. You argued that players like Urlacher have simply lost it, rather than his slip in play being due to coaching. You argued that our inability to rush the passer wasn't about scheme or coaching, but lack of talent. Ditto our pass coverage. So how exactly is our defense close if we are not upgrading our talent levels, but simply changing coaching. Further, on offense, you truly think we are close?

 

Say we win the Atlanta game and make the playoffs. Would three years out of four in the playoffs be consistent? I would say yes. Obviously you you say no. Go figure. So we were close to the playoffs and therefore close to a consistent playoff team. And isn't it weird that we lack in so many areas, yet a game out of the playoffs. What do you attribute that to?

 

As far as the scheme, coaching, personnel thing, I will try to nutshell it for you in fear of your usual novel.

 

First, the only part of that you have 100% correct is the scheme thing. There is nothing wrong with our defensive and offensive schemes. Just the execution of them.

 

Second, I actually took our coaching staff to task at the beginning of the year in a post with Mad in two areas: Player development and player accountability. I actually was happy with development part. Orton developed. Hester developed at the end of the year. Payne, Roach, Graham, Beekman, Olsen, all developed nicely. Player accountability....I was not happy with this at all. I think this is why the Rod M hire is so key. Hopefully, when A Brown just simply stops rushing the passer for no reason this year, he will be punished. We shall see.

 

And I argued that the personnel thing was more due to lack of motivation, accountability , and leadership, than a lack of talent. The only places I find we need an infuse of pure "talent" are OL, WR, and FS.

 

I have also gone on record saying that if we get the DL pass rush fixed, the rest of the defense will be fixed as a result.

 

I do remember us arguing about blitzing. I said it was a gamble and the best defenses dont need to blitz. You argued for more blitzing and stunts. How did that work out last year?

[nfoligno]

lol. Never said you don't have the "right" to be negative. It just gets old doesn't it? And because we have been so crappy for decades, I would think that you would be happy with the recent string of better days. Winning record in 3 out of the last four years, SB appearance, being in play for the division championship... Clearly this is better than having the number 5 pick every year, and therefore we should be happier about this, right? Is it perfect? No. But to have the same amount of negativity when things are getting better says something about those people.

 

If if and buts were candy and nuts, it would be christmas all year long. Always laughed at that saying. You say, "if" we won this game or that game, we would be in the playoffs. Great. But many teams could say the same thing. The reality is, we have missed the last two playoffs. Further, while we did better than expected last year, would you truly argue we were a good team? Our defense stunk. Our offense was mediocre at best. Somehow, we won 9 games, but I just do not see us as a consistently good team.

 

Further, I have argued that sneaking in the backdoor of the playoffs is not something we should strive for. In this day and age of mediocrity, the vast majority of the league is in the playoff hunt every year. To me, that is just not a good enough way to consider yourself as being close. Being close, to me, is being of such a level that each year, you are considered in the hunt to go deep in the playoffs or to go to the SB. That doesn't mean you go to the SB every year, much less win it, but simply that you are on such a level as to compete on that level. I don't see us as being close to that.

 

Regarding scheme, I'll try to avoid a novel in my response

 

I do recall you calling at the staff some for holding players accountable, etc. I would argue this though. That is usually the job of the HC. Well, that has not changed, so I wonder how much we will really see a change in that area. My issue w/ coaching was far more about playcalling, which we are more likely to see a change, but that is not an area I recall you questioning the staff as much.

 

For the record, I do believe coaching changes made will be a big factor. I have actually argued we do not need to see a major overhaul on defense, as I believe coaching more than talent held up back. The only area on defense I think we flat out lack talent, and thus coaching is not going to help, is at FS, which I think you actually agree with.

 

On offense though, we do not have the coaching changes to rely on, like on defense, and that is also where I simply feel we truly lack the talent. I think we are still in dire need of OT, OG (not to mention depth) and WR. That also does not even factor depth at QB and RB.

 

I am not upset, like some others, that we did not go after CB, DE, DT or SLB in FA thus far. These are positions I feel we have talent, and changed in coaching, as well as health, can provide significant improved results. FS, OL and WR are another story, and these are positions I am most upset we have seen so little action, and no, I do not consider adding a guy who started one game in 4 years, w/ two teams, as the solution.

 

I do remember us arguing about blitzing. I said it was a gamble and the best defenses dont need to blitz. You argued for more blitzing and stunts. How did that work out last year?

 

One, while I did want to blitz more, I screamed all year long at how we blitzed. When you blitz, if your DB is playing deep off the LOS, you too often negate the blitz as you provide the QB an easy out. Further, I didn't like how we seemed to nearly always blitz from the same angle, which made us too predictable. Further still, I screamed at the combo of blitzing when (a) the DB was playing so off and ( Urlacher was playing so close to the LOS. What this did was allow easy slants, as the DB was too off to get into the play and the LB was out of position to cut off the slant. It is one thing to blitz a ton. It is another to blitz effectively, which I do not feel we did.

 

Two, as for the stunts, I still did not often see them. When I did, most later in the season, they showed more effectiveness than when we simply rushed straight up. Personally, i think we will see a ton more stunt, as that was a key aspect of the scheme when Marinelli was in charge of the DL in TB. Sapp stunted about as much as any DT I have seen. I can only hope we see more of that next year.

[azbearsfan]

If if and buts were candy and nuts, it would be christmas all year long. Always laughed at that saying. You say, "if" we won this game or that game, we would be in the playoffs. Great. But many teams could say the same thing. The reality is, we have missed the last two playoffs. Further, while we did better than expected last year, would you truly argue we were a good team? Our defense stunk. Our offense was mediocre at best. Somehow, we won 9 games, but I just do not see us as a consistently good team.

 

The "if one more game" is the difference between being "close to" a consistent playoff team and actually being a consistent playoff team. Thats why we are close.

 

Further, I have argued that sneaking in the backdoor of the playoffs is not something we should strive for. In this day and age of mediocrity, the vast majority of the league is in the playoff hunt every year. To me, that is just not a good enough way to consider yourself as being close. Being close, to me, is being of such a level that each year, you are considered in the hunt to go deep in the playoffs or to go to the SB. That doesn't mean you go to the SB every year, much less win it, but simply that you are on such a level as to compete on that level. I don't see us as being close to that.

 

The goal should be to get to the playoffs. Once you are there anything can happen. Its easy to get hot. Turnovers. Breaks. So many things can happen that if you can just get to the playoffs you are in a good place. Its nice to be the juggernaught every year, but normally that doesn't happen. There are exceptions (Patriots), but even that does not guarantee a ring, because some team that barely got into the playoffs and got hot in the playoffs might beat you.

 

Regarding scheme, I'll try to avoid a novel in my response Thanks

 

 

I do recall you calling at the staff some for holding players accountable, etc. I would argue this though. That is usually the job of the HC. Well, that has not changed, so I wonder how much we will really see a change in that area. My issue w/ coaching was far more about playcalling, which we are more likely to see a change, but that is not an area I recall you questioning the staff as much.

 

The players watch film and get called out at position meetings, so mostly its the position coaches and perhaps the coordinators that do the butt chewing. If the HC has to do it, then those guys are not getting the job done. I hold the whole defensive staff accountable for this, including HC, the players, and the defensive captains. Again, I watched our defenders go half a** and take lazy routes too many times. It killed the defense. Shoot those last two games, it wouldn't have mattered if Bobo the clown called plays the way our defense lacked fire.

 

 

For the record, I do believe coaching changes made will be a big factor. I have actually argued we do not need to see a major overhaul on defense, as I believe coaching more than talent held up back. The only area on defense I think we flat out lack talent, and thus coaching is not going to help, is at FS, which I think you actually agree with.

 

Again I think if Roddy Roddy M. can get the dline fixed, then we will be fine. It will allow us not to try and blitz so much (which I dont think our players are good at anyway) which should fix our coverage. Dare I say the defense is "close".

 

On offense though, we do not have the coaching changes to rely on, like on defense, and that is also where I simply feel we truly lack the talent. I think we are still in dire need of OT, OG (not to mention depth) and WR. That also does not even factor depth at QB and RB.

 

I dont think we need coaching changes. I think Turner is doing fine. I thought the offense was much better last year. I think if Lloyd and Orton dont get hurt, then our passing game would have been that much better(I thought the Orton to Lloyd connection was just starting to blossom and then after his injury Lloyd was terrible. Plus Orton was just not the same after his injury. I think it bothered him alot more than he let on.) I thought Hester improved as the year went on (at WR not KR). Forte and Olsen were good. Again I think if we can improve the line and get 1 more good receiver so I never have to watch R Davis, our offense will be good.

 

I am not upset, like some others, that we did not go after CB, DE, DT or SLB in FA thus far. These are positions I feel we have talent, and changed in coaching, as well as health, can provide significant improved results. FS, OL and WR are another story, and these are positions I am most upset we have seen so little action, and no, I do not consider adding a guy who started one game in 4 years, w/ two teams, as the solution.

 

I agree. We need OL, FS, and WR in that order.

 

One, while I did want to blitz more, I screamed all year long at how we blitzed. When you blitz, if your DB is playing deep off the LOS, you too often negate the blitz as you provide the QB an easy out. Further, I didn't like how we seemed to nearly always blitz from the same angle, which made us too predictable. Further still, I screamed at the combo of blitzing when (a) the DB was playing so off and ( Urlacher was playing so close to the LOS. What this did was allow easy slants, as the DB was too off to get into the play and the LB was out of position to cut off the slant. It is one thing to blitz a ton. It is another to blitz effectively, which I do not feel we did.

 

Two, as for the stunts, I still did not often see them. When I did, most later in the season, they showed more effectiveness than when we simply rushed straight up. Personally, i think we will see a ton more stunt, as that was a key aspect of the scheme when Marinelli was in charge of the DL in TB. Sapp stunted about as much as any DT I have seen. I can only hope we see more of that next year.

 

I think we will sit in the cover 2, be aggressive on the Dline to get pressure, get back to a defense that might give up yardage, but will force turnovers and score points.

[nfoligno]

The "if one more game" is the difference between being "close to" a consistent playoff team and actually being a consistent playoff team. Thats why we are close.

 

To me, I think the key is, close to what? For me, being close should be about being a legit SB contender. Being close to being a playoff team? Sorry, but big deal. I think probably all but a very small handful of teams can say they are close to being a playoff team. This past year, take out Det, StL, Seattle, Cincy, Cle, Jax, Oakland and KC, and I think all the rest would say they were close. Of those who were not close last year, Seattle and Cincy each could say they were out due to losing their QB. Point is, if all "close" means is close to the playoffs, I would argue that is a VERY low bar, as most of the teams in the NFL are close by that definition.

 

To me, close means, or at least should mean, close to being a legit SB contender. I do not think we are close to that.

 

The goal should be to get to the playoffs. Once you are there anything can happen. Its easy to get hot. Turnovers. Breaks. So many things can happen that if you can just get to the playoffs you are in a good place. Its nice to be the juggernaught every year, but normally that doesn't happen. There are exceptions (Patriots), but even that does not guarantee a ring, because some team that barely got into the playoffs and got hot in the playoffs might beat you.

 

We simply disagree. You should not be thinking about just getting to the playoffs, and hoping breaks go your way. You should be building a SB contender, rather than a mediocre team hoping for luck.

 

The players watch film and get called out at position meetings, so mostly its the position coaches and perhaps the coordinators that do the butt chewing. If the HC has to do it, then those guys are not getting the job done. I hold the whole defensive staff accountable for this, including HC, the players, and the defensive captains. Again, I watched our defenders go half a** and take lazy routes too many times. It killed the defense. Shoot those last two games, it wouldn't have mattered if Bobo the clown called plays the way our defense lacked fire.

 

Two things. One, I think the assistants take their cues from the HC. If you have a HC who does not stress accountability, then I think that carries over to the staff and players. Two. Other than Marinelli, where do you see the change in this regard? Lovie didn't seem to stress accountability as a HC. Why should we expect different as a DC. Babich didn't press accountability when he was the DC. Why should we expect different as the LB coach. As for the new DB coach, lets not pretend he is coming from a team where his secondary did much of anything. I agree this has been a weakness of the team, but I also question how much Marinelli alone helps change this and whether the rest of the coaching changes will create a different culture. I agree assistant coaches are like the drill sargent, but at the same time, i think those assistants take their cues from their HC, and I just question how much our HC will/can change the culture we have seen on this team.

 

Again I think if Roddy Roddy M. can get the dline fixed, then we will be fine. It will allow us not to try and blitz so much (which I dont think our players are good at anyway) which should fix our coverage. Dare I say the defense is "close".

 

I think if Marinelli can right the ship on the DL, it will have a major domino effect on the defense as a whole. That is why I have argued against major changes in our defensive personnel. My only exception is the FS position. a great pass rush (marinelli) may lessen the blow of weak FS play, but at the same time, that is the one area that I think coaching can help very little and the area i think we will see a major weakness if not address.

 

I dont think we need coaching changes. I think Turner is doing fine. I thought the offense was much better last year. I think if Lloyd and Orton dont get hurt, then our passing game would have been that much better(I thought the Orton to Lloyd connection was just starting to blossom and then after his injury Lloyd was terrible. Plus Orton was just not the same after his injury. I think it bothered him alot more than he let on.) I thought Hester improved as the year went on (at WR not KR). Forte and Olsen were good. Again I think if we can improve the line and get 1 more good receiver so I never have to watch R Davis, our offense will be good.

 

I go back and forth on Turner. I think he did well early on, but not so much later. While I agree 100% that Orton's injury was worse than he led on, and that he came back too soon, I also feel much of Turner's playcalling was very predictable. It worked early on, but didn't change as the season went on, and thus was predictable and too easy to defend. What I fear is, Turner is a coach he can do well enough if everything is going right, but not a coach who can adjust when changes are necessary (like injuries).

 

Really though, on offense, I agree the issue is less about coaching. I simply feel we lack talent. The WR you said you felt did well w/ Orton (lloyd) is gone, and we have seen nothing in terms of replacement. Our talent at WR is simply bad, and the only area that is worse is OL. These are two areas I feel we need serious upgrades, and where I do not feel "coaching" is going to make enough of a difference as the talent is simply not there.

 

I agree. We need OL, FS, and WR in that order.

 

Personally, I would rank our needs: OL, OL, OL, WR/FS. We have our LT (we pray) and while his play has not been up to par, we have our Center. I believe though we lack two OGs and a RT. As for FS and WR, I think it is a toss up.

 

I think we will sit in the cover 2, be aggressive on the Dline to get pressure, get back to a defense that might give up yardage, but will force turnovers and score points.

 

My key hopes on defense:

 

- Marinelli can get a solid pass rush out of this DL, whether it is through stunts, having them mix up how they attack, or simply getting them to play better.

- No more playing the LOS on top of the LOS. I think it destroys Urlacher. He may not be the player he was, but how we used him (IMHO) only made the situation worse. Further, we left wide open the middle, allowing easy slants.

- While I have no hope we begin to press our CBs, I hope to see them playing close to the LOS. There is simply no need to play as deep as they were, but per Vasher, that is what they were told to do.

- When we do blitz, mix it up. You can do more than simply sending urlacher or Briggs up the middle.

 

I do think our D can be better. I doubt they will be great, as they once were, but can be solid. My greater concern is our offense takes a major step back, and w/o upgrades at OL and WR, I see that as a very real possibility.