G Chris Williams

[Guest TerraTor]

Per the Tribune and Twitter feed... After he underwent surgery on wrist similar to urlacher's dislocation

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Per the Tribune and Twitter feed... After he underwent surgery on wrist similar to urlacher's dislocation

 

This is troubling. With the recent news of Carimi and his messy knee and thinking Omiyale is the first alternate...uhm. Guess we'll see what transpires.

 

- Edit: Saw the other string on this and see (and forgot) that E. Williams is the first alternate. Still curious to see how it shakes out.

[Guest TerraTor]

Ya I would say so... I believe we need to bring in a Guard or Two.... I dont think Carimi will be playing before Week 13 or so

[jason]

Again: Until it gets fixed, the Bears' #1 priority was, is, and will continue to be OL.

[Bears4Ever_34]

Again: Until it gets fixed, the Bears' #1 priority was, is, and will continue to be OL.

Yep, right after a WR.

[lemonej]

If I had to guess they may promote one of the kids either Henry or Horn from the PS if Williams goes on IR.

[lemonej]

Chris Williams will be placed on IR per Lovie just from his press conference.

[jason]

Yep, right after a WR.

 

hahaha.

 

Gotta love your dedication.

 

But at least we have WRs playing as WRs.

 

Right now for the OL we have:

 

LT: A mediocre late round draft pick

LG: a LT, who is now on IR

C: a RG who is playing C just because of the deficiency

RG: A guy who played one year on the OL in college

RT: An injured first rounder being backed up by potentially the worst player in the NFL

[Bears4Ever_34]

hahaha.

 

Gotta love your dedication.

 

But at least we have WRs playing as WRs.

 

Right now for the OL we have:

 

LT: A mediocre late round draft pick

LG: a LT, who is now on IR

C: a RG who is playing C just because of the deficiency

RG: A guy who played one year on the OL in college

RT: An injured first rounder being backed up by potentially the worst player in the NFL

Well I could sit here and explain myself yet again as to why you are wrong for thinking what you think, but that's no longer an option with someone that's so close minded, such as yourself.

[selection7]

Per the Tribune and Twitter feed... After he underwent surgery on wrist similar to urlacher's dislocation

Had anyone here heard of that injury before Urlacher? And now we've got two in almost back-to-back years? At least Chris should be fresh next season, but we really needed this season to evaluate him, to know what we've got.

[jason]

Well I could sit here and explain myself yet again as to why you are wrong for thinking what you think, but that's no longer an option with someone that's so close minded, such as yourself.

 

Try again. I don't believe you've clearly said, nor has anyone else for that matter, why the OL is set up for success. Ignore the WR position for the moment. I'm seriously willing to listen to a counter-argument, but aside from "I think a WR will help the offense more," I haven't really heard/read a very good argument for the status of this Bears' OL being something other than the continual worst part of the team. I've stated I am on board with the concept that the Bears' WRs aren't very great, and would benefit greatly from getting someone with hands in Roy Williams wasted spot, but I've yet to see a compelling argument why OL isn't priority #1. Seriously, I'm all ears.

[jason]

Had anyone here heard of that injury before Urlacher? And now we've got two in almost back-to-back years? At least Chris should be fresh next season, but we really needed this season to evaluate him, to know what we've got.

 

I had never heard of it before Urlacher. Remember how incredulous everyone was about him being on IR with such a "minimal injury"?

[balta1701-A]

But at least we have WRs playing as WRs.

Except for the kickoff/punt returner who plays there.

[jason]

Except for the kickoff/punt returner who plays there.

 

Touche. I acknowledge a gray area with Hester in regards to this topic of discussion because of his uniqueness. Coming into the pros was like a lot of guys coming into college; he was labeled "athlete" and didn't really have a position.

[Bears4Ever_34]

Try again. I don't believe you've clearly said, nor has anyone else for that matter, why the OL is set up for success.

Well for the record, I've never said one time that the offensive line doesn't need an upgrade. I believe we need to add quality depth to insure ourselves Frank Omiyale never steps on the field ever again. We need to draft and develop a young center to take the place of Garza, who's surprisingly played at a Pro Bowl level for much of the year despite never playing the position before. It also would be a good idea to have another guard and tackle to, like I said, improve our depth and maybe at some point step in as future starters. Right now, taking away from Chris Williams injury, this line has played decent to above average football over the course of the last 4-5 weeks. There was a bit of a slip up against Detroit but it wasn't anywhere close to being a disaster like it was from the Week 5 matchup and weeks prior. As long as this line can play average football, we should be able to be a respectable offense, but until we get Cutler some quality WR's, we'll never be an explosive, multi dimensional offense.

 

I haven't really heard/read a very good argument for the status of this Bears' OL being something other than the continual worst part of the team.

10 weeks into the season, I think its fairly obvious to me that the offensive line is not the worst part of this team. Early in the season it was a disaster, but that had more to do with Mike Martz being an ass clown, and it took Jay Cutler and others to finally get it back into his head that we aren't capable of running the greatest show on turf. As the season has unfolded, Martz has tightened things up a bit, (I still would like to see more). There are a number of things you could point to for the turnaround. Just off the top of my head, there are a few that comes to mind..

 

- More chip blocking coming from the TE's to help the tackles

- Designing plays that allow Cutler to get rid of the ball quicker

- The occasional rollouts

- The removal of Frank OMG

- Running the ball more

 

Each of these changes have, in some way, helped improve the offense. But there comes a point in games where you need your play makers to make a big play. Matt Forte and Earl Bennett are our two best play makers on the team (Excluding Jay) but Earl isn't a dude that is going to take the top off the defense, and he does most of his damage as the slot guy. Teams are now going to start learning how to take away some of Bennett's effectiveness, and when that happens, what receiver can you trust to get open and catch a pass? All you really need to know is this group is among the league leaders in dropped passes as a team, and our two starters each have 5 a piece. Throw in Sanzenbacher's 6 and Knox's 2 and you have a big problem.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

Well for the record, I've never said one time that the offensive line doesn't need an upgrade. I believe we need to add quality depth to insure ourselves Frank Omiyale never steps on the field ever again. We need to draft and develop a young center to take the place of Garza, who's surprisingly played at a Pro Bowl level for much of the year despite never playing the position before. It also would be a good idea to have another guard and tackle to, like I said, improve our depth and maybe at some point step in as future starters. Right now, taking away from Chris Williams injury, this line has played decent to above average football over the course of the last 4-5 weeks. There was a bit of a slip up against Detroit but it wasn't anywhere close to being a disaster like it was from the Week 5 matchup and weeks prior. As long as this line can play average football, we should be able to be a respectable offense, but until we get Cutler some quality WR's, we'll never be an explosive, multi dimensional offense.

 

 

10 weeks into the season, I think its fairly obvious to me that the offensive line is not the worst part of this team. Early in the season it was a disaster, but that had more to do with Mike Martz being an ass clown, and it took Jay Cutler and others to finally get it back into his head that we aren't capable of running the greatest show on turf. As the season has unfolded, Martz has tightened things up a bit, (I still would like to see more). There are a number of things you could point to for the turnaround. Just off the top of my head, there are a few that comes to mind..

 

- More chip blocking coming from the TE's to help the tackles

- Designing plays that allow Cutler to get rid of the ball quicker

- The occasional rollouts

- The removal of Frank OMG

- Running the ball more

 

Each of these changes have, in some way, helped improve the offense. But there comes a point in games where you need your play makers to make a big play. Matt Forte and Earl Bennett are our two best play makers on the team (Excluding Jay) but Earl isn't a dude that is going to take the top off the defense, and he does most of his damage as the slot guy. Teams are now going to start learning how to take away some of Bennett's effectiveness, and when that happens, what receiver can you trust to get open and catch a pass? All you really need to know about this group of WR's is that they are among the league leaders in drops, and our two starters each have 5 a piece. Throw in Sanzenbacher's 6 and Knox's 2 and you have a big problem.

Drops are a huge issue. I think I read a tweet that the Bears, prior to the 2nd Lions game, had 19 drops among WR's. If they would've limited that to 10, Cutler's completion percentage would've been 62 rather than 57.

 

Also, who knows, maybe that leads to more sustained drives, more scores, and another win.

[Bears4Ever_34]

Drops are a huge issue. I think I read a tweet that the Bears, prior to the 2nd Lions game, had 19 drops among WR's. If they would've limited that to 10, Cutler's completion percentage would've been 62 rather than 57.

 

Also, who knows, maybe that leads to more sustained drives, more scores, and another win.

Yep, according to this we are 4th worst with 20. http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/tmleade...FL&rank=232

[azbearsfan]

Yep, according to this we are 4th worst with 20. http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/tmleade...FL&rank=232

 

 

I think its pretty clear that, if its not a huge reach, we need to go WR with the first rounder. We need some playmakers.

[jason]

Well for the record, I've never said one time that the offensive line doesn't need an upgrade. I believe we need to add quality depth to insure ourselves Frank Omiyale never steps on the field ever again. We need to draft and develop a young center to take the place of Garza, who's surprisingly played at a Pro Bowl level for much of the year despite never playing the position before. It also would be a good idea to have another guard and tackle to, like I said, improve our depth and maybe at some point step in as future starters. Right now, taking away from Chris Williams injury, this line has played decent to above average football over the course of the last 4-5 weeks. There was a bit of a slip up against Detroit but it wasn't anywhere close to being a disaster like it was from the Week 5 matchup and weeks prior. As long as this line can play average football, we should be able to be a respectable offense, but until we get Cutler some quality WR's, we'll never be an explosive, multi dimensional offense.

 

10 weeks into the season, I think its fairly obvious to me that the offensive line is not the worst part of this team. Early in the season it was a disaster, but that had more to do with Mike Martz being an ass clown, and it took Jay Cutler and others to finally get it back into his head that we aren't capable of running the greatest show on turf. As the season has unfolded, Martz has tightened things up a bit, (I still would like to see more). There are a number of things you could point to for the turnaround. Just off the top of my head, there are a few that comes to mind..

 

- More chip blocking coming from the TE's to help the tackles

- Designing plays that allow Cutler to get rid of the ball quicker

- The occasional rollouts

- The removal of Frank OMG

- Running the ball more

 

Each of these changes have, in some way, helped improve the offense. But there comes a point in games where you need your play makers to make a big play. Matt Forte and Earl Bennett are our two best play makers on the team (Excluding Jay) but Earl isn't a dude that is going to take the top off the defense, and he does most of his damage as the slot guy. Teams are now going to start learning how to take away some of Bennett's effectiveness, and when that happens, what receiver can you trust to get open and catch a pass? All you really need to know is this group is among the league leaders in dropped passes as a team, and our two starters each have 5 a piece. Throw in Sanzenbacher's 6 and Knox's 2 and you have a big problem.

 

Fair enough. I think the OL played below average to average (if you were to average out all the games into one score). If they continue to improve, the overall impression will also improve. And I think the WRs have played similarly, but slightly better. Look at Noot's opinion for OL/WR in all the games:

 

GM1: C-/A-

GM2: F+/D-

GM3: D/D

GM4: B+/C

GM5: D/D

GM6: A-/B+

GM7: B+/B

GM8: A+/B

GM9: D+/C-

 

If we average it out (standard 4.0 Grade Scale) it would appear they are pretty close from his impartial opinion.

 

OL: 2.1 (C-)

WR: 2.2 (C-)

 

Going from Noots' grades above, I think it backs up my thoughts that the OL has played less consistent and slightly worse than the WRs, and that the OL isn't "obviously" better than the WRs, even though neither is going to be bringing home the report card to parents for increased allowance.

 

We can agree that both areas need to be addressed, and we can also agree that offensive philosophy change (i.e. chipping, full house backfields, rollouts, misdirection, etc.) has helped, but then it comes full-circle to whether or not making the OL good would make the WRs better, or vice versa. I happen to think the former would more than the latter. You mentioned taking the top off the defense, and I contend the Bears already have two guys who can do that: Knox & Hester. What they don't have, however, is the time it takes to make those plays and 7-step drops consistently work. If Martz calls one of those plays and it happens to be on the wrong side of the 50/50 OL performance, then the play is wasted. And who knows if the DB bites on the next play like that when the OL does what it's supposed to?

 

Since you would agree that the 7-step drop plays don't work, it comes down to the short routes the offense is forced to run, the quick hitters because of OL deficiencies. Wouldn't you agree? If so, then I agree that the only WR who can be relied on to make a catch consistently is Bennett. But I sure would like to see an offense that lets Knox & Hester take the top off the defense wihle knowing that Cutler will be able to drop back and actually make the throw without being pummelled.

 

Will adding a premiere WR who can take the top off the defense change the fact that Cutler won't have time to consistently drop back far enough for the slow-developing plays and routes to work? Maybe on a few throws over the course of the season it will.

 

Let's just hope that both continue to improve, and then at the end of the season when the Bears are giving the press conference post Super Bowl win, we can talk about whether or not the OL improvement helped the WRs, or the WR improvement helped the OL.

[balta1701-A]

One other thing to consider when thinking about what spots to draft...at least last week, the Bears were already running into the problem of seemingly having more lineman than spots for them. If that was a problem it was rapidly solved by surgeries on 2 former first round picks...but really...

 

If you draft a first round O-lineman, and Williams and Carimi come back healthy, the Bears have way too many lineman.

 

C: Garza

LG: Williams

RG: Louis/Spencer

LT: Webb

RT: Carimi

 

Now, it's possible that you might have someone plummet and find a draftee around 25-30 who is better than Webb. But you're not benching Carimi next year for another 1st round pick, you're not benching Garza who you just extended, you're not spending a first round pick on a lineman with the intention of putting him at LG, Louis has played great, and Spencer has been solid.

 

Webb has at least been adequate at LT this year, if nothing else he's shown substantial improvement over last year, he's still young, and he'll be in year 3 in current system next year. He looks like he ought to be an NFL caliber lineman, even if he's not a pro-bowler. But on that list, he's the only one who looks like a candidate to replace if you invest another first round pick, and I don't think you're going to find a guy at the end of the first round who will make you want to replace him.

 

OTOH:

 

Bennett (Free Agent)

Hester (Best at returns)

Knox

Williams (Free Agent)

Sanzenbacher

Sam Hurd

 

Especially with the KR/PR there and 2 free agents in the list, even if the FA's return, there is room there for a 1st round pick.

[lemonej]

Fair enough. I think the OL played below average to average (if you were to average out all the games into one score). If they continue to improve, the overall impression will also improve. And I think the WRs have played similarly, but slightly better. Look at Noot's opinion for OL/WR in all the games:

 

GM1: C-/A-

GM2: F+/D-

GM3: D/D

GM4: B+/C

GM5: D/D

GM6: A-/B+

GM7: B+/B

GM8: A+/B

GM9: D+/C-

 

If we average it out (standard 4.0 Grade Scale) it would appear they are pretty close from his impartial opinion.

 

OL: 2.1 (C-)

WR: 2.2 (C-)

 

Going from Noots' grades above, I think it backs up my thoughts that the OL has played less consistent and slightly worse than the WRs, and that the OL isn't "obviously" better than the WRs, even though neither is going to be bringing home the report card to parents for increased allowance.

 

 

The OL has had the most lineup changes which is the biggest factor in that inconsistency and with another change on the horizon you can bet that the way they call plays will be altered again. E Williams I'm sure is viewed as a little less athleteic than C Williams who has looked decent when pulling on traps and misdirection plays.On some of Forte's runs he and Spencer had been doing a decent job getting blocks on the second level. I think this is either the 5th or 6th change so its awful difficult gage how well a unit is doing until all its pieces stay in the same place. The WRs OTOH regularly rotate and that doesn't change the play-calling philosophy.

 

[lemonej]

One other thing to consider when thinking about what spots to draft...at least last week, the Bears were already running into the problem of seemingly having more lineman than spots for them. If that was a problem it was rapidly solved by surgeries on 2 former first round picks...but really...

 

If you draft a first round O-lineman, and Williams and Carimi come back healthy, the Bears have way too many lineman.

 

C: Garza

LG: Williams

RG: Louis/Spencer

LT: Webb

RT: Carimi

 

Now, it's possible that you might have someone plummet and find a draftee around 25-30 who is better than Webb. But you're not benching Carimi next year for another 1st round pick, you're not benching Garza who you just extended, you're not spending a first round pick on a lineman with the intention of putting him at LG, Louis has played great, and Spencer has been solid.

 

Webb has at least been adequate at LT this year, if nothing else he's shown substantial improvement over last year, he's still young, and he'll be in year 3 in current system next year. He looks like he ought to be an NFL caliber lineman, even if he's not a pro-bowler. But on that list, he's the only one who looks like a candidate to replace if you invest another first round pick, and I don't think you're going to find a guy at the end of the first round who will make you want to replace him.

The injuries is the perfect arguement for drafting and trying to develop young linemen.You need depth at this position if Martz is your OC because he demands a lot from his linemen.

A perfect example is what (I hate to say it)Green Bay does. They have Clifton and Balaga(sp?) but were able to put Newhouse and 1st rder Sherrod in to replace them. They have arguably one of the best 4 man groups at WR with Jennings, Driver,Nelson and Jones but, still drafted Randall Cobb in the 3rd round this past draft as well. Nick Collins goes down and they insert Peprah another draft pick in his place. They have had this philosophy for years which is why they are able to let players like Farve and Barnett go and not look back. This how you develop players and keep your team competitive by bringing in younger players to push the veterans.

 

JA doesn't do this on offense but does to a certain degree on defense as the Bears draft D-linemen every year and Safeties.They have never really drafted a LB high enough to really be considered part of the future.

[balta1701-A]

I have no problem drafting a lineman in the middle rounds. No problem at all. But if I'm drafting someone at pick 25, at any position other than QB, I'm doing that pick with the expectation that player will be starting for me that season.

 

Think about it, you draft a RB at 25, you draft a D-Lineman at 25, you draft a LB at 25, you draft a CB at 25, you draft a safety at 25, you're doing that draft to find someone to start right away. The Bears have spent 2 first rounders on linemen in the last 4 years, and both of them came in with the expectation that they would start right away (prior to being knocked down by injury).

 

"More depth on the O-Line" is not strong enough of a need to spend a first round pick. You can sign someone for $2 million to fill that role, as was done with Spencer, or you can fill that role in round 3-4 and still get talent.

 

The Bears biggest 1st round level need right now is WR.

[azbearsfan]

I have no problem drafting a lineman in the middle rounds. No problem at all. But if I'm drafting someone at pick 25, at any position other than QB, I'm doing that pick with the expectation that player will be starting for me that season.

 

Think about it, you draft a RB at 25, you draft a D-Lineman at 25, you draft a LB at 25, you draft a CB at 25, you draft a safety at 25, you're doing that draft to find someone to start right away. The Bears have spent 2 first rounders on linemen in the last 4 years, and both of them came in with the expectation that they would start right away (prior to being knocked down by injury).

 

"More depth on the O-Line" is not strong enough of a need to spend a first round pick. You can sign someone for $2 million to fill that role, as was done with Spencer, or you can fill that role in round 3-4 and still get talent.

 

The Bears biggest 1st round level need right now is WR.

 

 

Agreed.

[selection7]

How many first rounders don't work out? A lot. And we've started rookies in the secondary and then cut them within a few years. IMO, while starting the first year is nice, the goal of any first round pick should only be acquiring a top tier player, no matter the position, no matter if they need 2 or in some cases even 3 years to oust the current starter full-time.

 

The only thing that gives me pause is that we're in the free agency era. So longterm considerations are less meaningful since they can just bolt after the first 4 or 5 (if a first rounder) years. You do need to get some production from those rookie contract guys while they're still cheap...but you know, most first rounders aren't all that cheap. Anyway, players on average don't want to uproot their families and leave behind their friends if they can help it, so the home team has an advantage in free agency. Because of contract extensions, the home team always gets to be the first at the bargaining table too.