GrizzlyBear Posted September 4, 2009 Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 From the Trib Chicago Bears to keep 11 defensive backs By Vaughn McClure Players such as Craig Steltz and Trumaine McBride can take a breath now. They made it. The Bears have decided to keep 11 defensive backs, according to a league source, as they continue to shave the roster to 53 by Saturday's deadline. After giving veteran Rod Hood the boot after just a few days, the Bears will move forward with Charles Tillman, Nathan Vasher, Zack Bowman, Corey Graham, D.J. Moore and McBride as the cornerbacks. Tillman is expected to be lifted off the physically-unable-to-perform list following his recovery from back surgery. That move could happen soon. Bowman returned from a hamstring injury Thursday night and had an interception. The safeties are Danieal Manning, Kevin Payne, Al Afalava, Craig Steltz and Josh Bullocks. Manning is likely to be the starting free safety with Afalava possibly getting the nod over Payne as the starter at strong. But the Bears will probably play a lot of nickel this season, meaning Manning will move down into the nickel role and allow Payne to come in at free safety. Sticking with 11 defensive backs means the Bears also will cut Rudy Burgess, Marcus Hamilton, Woodny Turenne and Dahna Deleston. One of them is sure to land on the practice squad, likely Turenne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesson44 Posted September 5, 2009 Report Share Posted September 5, 2009 From the Trib Chicago Bears to keep 11 defensive backs By Vaughn McClure IMHO I would have kept Hood over McBride, that would have given us more experience in the backfield. You can't do much with a team if you just practice for 3 days and then play in a game well for me anyway. I knoe others done think so as they thinked he sucked. But he started for the Cards and played in the superbowl with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted September 5, 2009 Report Share Posted September 5, 2009 I honestly don't really get it. Hood was a player we liked a while back, but didn't get him. He become available, and we didn't hesitate. While I am not saying he played well in the game, did he play so bad so as to dismiss all prior ideas which caused us to go after him? And what about McBride. He played well enough two years ago when given the chance as a rookie, but has pretty much gone straight downhill, and what I saw recently, he was freaking bad. It truly isn't that I think Hood is so good. It just seems like McBride has been that bad. IMHO I would have kept Hood over McBride, that would have given us more experience in the backfield. You can't do much with a team if you just practice for 3 days and then play in a game well for me anyway. I knoe others done think so as they thinked he sucked. But he started for the Cards and played in the superbowl with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted September 5, 2009 Report Share Posted September 5, 2009 As far as Hood goes I look at it this way, Hood is a veteran who's been in the league long enough to understand different coverage techniques. I didn't see the game but I assume we were pretty basic against Cleveland. Despite that, and despite the fact that Hood has practiced against all those Cleveland guys for several weeks, he still didn't play well last night. That isn't a good sign. I too felt he was better than McBride but Lovie doesn't agree with me but he has more info than I have so we go with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.