How Bout Dem Bears?

aaronm13

Very encouraging but some terrible decisions within the 10 yard zone cost a win. Season might not be a bust if they can push on from this.

Innish_Rebel

aaronm13 wrote: »

Very encouraging but some terrible decisions within the 10 yard zone cost a win. Season might not be a bust if they can push on from this.

agreed very promising - but the next few games are a rough spell, Cardinals, Seahawks & at Chiefs 3 of next 4 games...

So very high possibility we start 1:4. But a lot of positives, as they said in commentary prior to the INT, if you offered Fox a 1 score game deep into the 4th Q he'd have taken it. That Packers teams is a good side and hell we ran the rock well - refreshing... I would question 1st & goal @ the 2-3y line and didn't just pound it in there each time...

kennyb3

Really enjoyed the game last night. Even when it was close I knew we'd lose so never got my hopes up - mainly cause Rodgers was still putting up points anytime he had the ball.

Still it was great to be competitive, see that level of effort and not be a joke. amazing what a competent coaching staff can do!

The commitment to the run was great to see especially as it didn't actually go that brilliant for first few plays and it was only in 2nd quarter they started running over GB.

It was also a decent if unspectacular defence performance. It's tough against the best QB in the league first game up though. The effort was there

3 things temper my enthusiasm slightly (only slightly):

- The lack of pass rush. We'll find out over next few games if that was because of a strong packers oline and rodgers elusiveness. They were only rushing 3 a lot of the time too but we barely laid a finger on rodgers.

- Fuller being abused a couple of the times. The catch by Jones on the sideline when he wasn't even facing the right way is not a good sign.

- This game was totally gameplanned for in terms of it being all about the clock and keeping rodgers off the field. It will be interesting to see what happens if we get behind or are facing an inferior QB


All the same it's great to see us not being a joke and being competitive again. Our schedule is awful but we will fight. There is still a massive talent deficiency in key areas (defence - no playmakers) but that can't be fixed right away.

I enjoyed that game even if we didn't win.

Spongey1975

I went into yesterdays game not expecting much and was really hoping not to be embarassed. In the end we had a chance to win that game. Some bad decisions down by the goal line. Cutler looked decent, took care of the ball very well, even the INT couldnt be fully attributable to him. Bad throw on the 4th and goal never gave Royal a chance to get it. As for the defence, it did not look horrible. The pass rush, whilst it didnt get to Rodgers, it did force a few holding calls and forced Rodgers to scramble a few times so it did get some pressure. I was impressed with Amos, for a fifth rounder he looks a good pick. Overall i have better hopes for the season if we can get out of this horrible initiall schedule intact

Innish_Rebel

Spongey1975 wrote: »

Cutler looked decent, took care of the ball very well, even the INT couldnt be fully attributable to him.

Agreed - sometimes you have to hold your hand up when a defender makes a great read - he travelled a long way to make the pick.

I remember in one shot on TV - 3rd/4th quarter I think Cutler made a good connection with Bennett but the replay view you could clearly see his eyes making progressions through 2 other receivers before hitting Bennett - big change from staring down Marshall... (on the sad side Marshall had some game for the Jets!!!).

SameOleJay

Happy with Sunday. Just a very well coached side with limited players functioning well and our few quality ones excelling.

The sequence on the goal-line was shocking and a black mark against Gase. The lack of pass-rush Fangio's big problem. I'm seeing the corners catch a lot of flak but I'm taking the tight coverage and excellent catches over the red sea parting we had in years past against 12 with Jennings and co. Let's wait and assess them in future weeks.

Credit to Green Bay, they'll walk the division. Matthews is exceptional.

kennyb3

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/09/14/gb-chi-grades-aaron-rodgers-continues-to-impress/


Seem we gave up a lot of pressure - 18.

Their grading of Ducasse definitely matches the eye test - he was on the ground a lot, and I mean a lot.

We need a guard and fast.

Innish_Rebel

kennyb3 wrote: »

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/09/14/gb-chi-grades-aaron-rodgers-continues-to-impress/


Seem we gave up a lot of pressure - 18.

Their grading of Ducasse definitely matches the eye test - he was on the ground a lot, and I mean a lot.

We need a guard and fast.

I would have won big money if I had suggested Shea McClellin would have been the Bears highest ranked player in 1st game of season at the end of last year!!!

Ducasse a huge worry, I think Long will improve at tackle, but it doesn't help if the guard next to you is getting creamed... It really highlights how vital the two tackle positions are...

kennyb3

Innish_Rebel wrote: »

I would have won big money if I had suggested Shea McClellin would have been the Bears highest ranked player in 1st game of season at the end of last year!!!

Ducasse a huge worry, I think Long will improve at tackle, but it doesn't help if the guard next to you is getting creamed... It really highlights how vital the two tackle positions are...

You certainly would have! I think PFF is limited though. McClellin made a lot of tackles (think he is credited with 9/10) but too many of them seem to be after 4/5 yard gains rather than for a loss or at the line. He still can't get off blockers and get there early. Still it's a lot better than the past 3 years and is somewhat promising.

This is always going to be his big problem
https://twitter.com/PFF/status/643912627639451649?s=09

He's never had and never will have a football brain.

Ask him to stand still and block the run - fine
Ask him to try shoot a gap and make a tackle - fine
Ask him to blitz - fine

Ask him to read a trick play or maintain cover for a period of time - no hope!

Innish_Rebel

kennyb3 wrote: »

You certainly would have! I think PFF is limited though. McClellin made a lot of tackles (think he is credited with 9/10) but too many of them seem to be after 4/5 yard gains rather than for a loss or at the line. He still can't get off blockers and get there early. Still it's a lot better than the past 3 years and is somewhat promising.

This is always going to be his big problem


He's never had and never will have a football brain.

Ask him to stand still and block the run - fine
Ask him to try shoot a gap and make a tackle - fine
Ask him to blitz - fine

Ask him to read a trick play or maintain cover for a period of time - no hope!

Agreed - but 1st game at ILB against the best QB in the league, with a new defence - not bad.

That clip is brilliant though, can you ever imagine Urlacher or Briggs looking like that!!! Didn't catch the whole game - did Bostic see any game time? Any justification of roster spot???

kennyb3

I didn't see him anyway. Might have appeared on special teams but i didn't notice him.

SameOleJay

+
Bushrod- did not expect a good game out of him. Very encouraging
Slauson- He’s been such a good signing
Marty B- One of our best players, I don’t think that’s any doubt anymore
Shea- If he turns out mediocre it’s exponentially more than I expected
Forte-The indispensable part of the offense for near a decade now. Looks in great shape.
Wilson- Getting anything from him would be a nice bonus

-
Allen- As good as done. Sub-packages only please
Ducasse- What did we expect really.
McPhee- He wasn’t bad but clearly not a primary pass-rusher. We really need Young and Houston to step up
Long- Not concerned… he’ll get it together

Realt Dearg Sec

No alshon today. I'm pessimistic.

Oat23

We are who we thought we were I guess. All hope was lost when Cutler went to the locker room.

Don't even want to talk about Kyle Fuller. I really thought he was a gem early last season but he deserved to be benched today.

padraig_f

Strange what's happened to Fuller alright, looked so good the first half of his rookie season. It wasn't just Bears fans either, I'm sure he won some award around that time, defensive player-of-the-month or defensive rookie-of-the-month.

New Bears podcast I came across with Adam Hoge and Adam Jahns:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/intentional-grounding-from/id1027584309?mt=2

Very good reviews of the games. The fact that the week 2 review was very listenable says something.

It's balanced and they're not foaming at the mouth or whatever, and giving some credit where it's due, as with Kyle Long who has really performed admirably since been thrown in at the deep-end at RT and then picking up an injury in week 1.


Da Bears Blog wants Fales to start:
Starting Jimmy Clausen a Mistake for Chicago Bears

I'm a fan of his blog, but disagree here. As bad as Clausen was, he still gives you a better chance to win over someone who's never played an NFL snap. And I just don't agree with giving up on the season after week 2. We may be going nowhere, but I still think you play to win. After you're mathematically eliminated, then you can try Fales. Besides I'm not sure it would do him any favours throwing him in against the Seahawks' defense.

Realt Dearg Sec

padraig_f wrote: »

Strange what's happened to Fuller alright, looked so good the first half of his rookie season. It wasn't just Bears fans either, I'm sure he won some award around that time, defensive player-of-the-month or defensive rookie-of-the-month.

New Bears podcast I came across with Adam Hoge and Adam Jahns:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/intentional-grounding-from/id1027584309?mt=2

Very good reviews of the games. The fact that the week 2 review was very listenable says something.

It's balanced and they're not foaming at the mouth or whatever, and giving some credit where it's due, as with Kyle Long who has really performed admirably since been thrown in at the deep-end at RT and then picking up an injury in week 1.


Da Bears Blog wants Fales to start:
Starting Jimmy Clausen a Mistake for Chicago Bears

I'm a fan of his blog, but disagree here. As bad as Clausen was, he still gives you a better chance to win over someone who's never played an NFL snap. And I just don't agree with giving up on the season after week 2. We may be going nowhere, but I still think you play to win. After you're mathematically eliminated, then you can try Fales. Besides I'm not sure it would do him any favours throwing him in against the Seahawks' defense.

Your last point there is the main one for me. Fales was on the practice squad for a reason, and however bad Clausen is, he still beat out Fales. As well as that he deserves a chance to start, if the coahces are serious about him as a backup. But most of all, throwing Fales to the wolves on Sunday would be an enormous setback, if the intention is that he will ultimately develop as a player.

Anyway we haven't a snowball's of winning this game. A lot of expectation that we run the ball a lot, obviously, but ultimately unless Clausen can get something going in the passing game, the lanes will never open up. It could be an extremely long day.

But personally, I think a lot of Bears reaction to the bad start to the year has been utterly overblown (and a lot of the "start Fales" stuff is from people who were anti-Cutler zealots that until Sunday were calling to "start Clausen" until they saw what that actually entails. In other words, it comes from people myopically incapable of recognising that Cutler for now gives us by far and away our best chance of winning). I think most of us pretty much expected an 0-3 start, the only question was going to be how badly that start would go. With Cutler starting, we have looked the best we have been on offense in two years. There will be wins when he comes back, and I think the alarm bells about power rankings and other such nonsense can be ignored, at least for the moment. We have one of the most badly banged up offenses in the league right now, missing its QB and the receiving corps.

The D is still a wreck at the moment though. I'm just not sure why fans expected anything else. That is a three year fix up, and until we've had a couple of drafts, I'm not going to make any judgments.

On the other hand, number one draft pick could be cool...

kennyb3

padraig_f wrote: »

Strange what's happened to Fuller alright, looked so good the first half of his rookie season. It wasn't just Bears fans either, I'm sure he won some award around that time, defensive player-of-the-month or defensive rookie-of-the-month.

Not sure if you've seen this. Would certainly explain it. Has the traits and talent so it's usually the between the ears part that's the issue in those cases.
http://www.chicitysports.com/forum/showthread.php/71009-Antrelle-Rolle-subtly-calls-out-Kyle-Fuller

kennyb3

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

I think most of us pretty much expected an 0-3 start, the only question was going to be how badly that start would go. With Cutler starting, we have looked the best we have been on offense in two years. There will be wins when he comes back, and I think the alarm bells about power rankings and other such nonsense can be ignored, at least for the moment. We have one of the most badly banged up offenses in the league right now, missing its QB and the receiving corps.

I agree I expected us to be 0-3. We overplayed week 1 and under played week 2. We are probably somewhere in between. They are 2 very good teams.

The area that concerns me though is the D - it flat out sucked in both games - no sacks, minimal hurries or QB hits (McPhee had a few week 2), QB's putting up huge ratings, load's of TD's (4 at half time last week).

We just genuinely lack talent and playmakers.

The other thing that concerns me is the lack of a plan re RT & RG and how that's played out. Ducasse is plain awful. That shouldn't have happened.

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

The D is still a wreck at the moment though. I'm just not sure why fans expected anything else. That is a three year fix up, and until we've had a couple of drafts, I'm not going to make any judgments.

On the other hand, number one draft pick could be cool...

I expected better because we a) spent money on defence in FA (McPhee & Rolle) and b) hired a defensive HC and a top DC.

If it's truly a 3 year fix can they stop patching over it with short term fixes and just pick rookies who can develop. Again they spent a 7th pick and 71st pick on offensive players (and Grasu is about to red shirt the year by looks of it). Just spend all the picks on defence if it's that bad. The offence is moving the ball anyway but the defence needs to get off the field and stop handing out TD's.

I like Pace - I liked his draft (a lot in spite of what i say above), I like that he didn't go nuts in FA but I wish one god damn Bears Gm would take a long term perspective and actually let us suck if we suck rather than patching it up each offseason with a few vets so we can continue on the path to middle of the road (or below) mediocrity. Save the cap space for when we actually find some talent so there is zero contract problems when it comes to re-signing them.

If you ain't going to be around in 2/3 years get off the field. I don't even want to see Jared Allen on the roster let alone the field. It's the same with Alan Ball etc. What's the point? Oh yeah lets finish 5-11 rather than 4-12, meanwhile a youngster rides the bench for another year and we continue to miss out on Aaron Donald's and Leonard William's because we win those pointless games. It's frustrating as hell!

That's not defeatist - it's just intelligent, if you don't want to continue being a middle of the road team. We've been doing this for 3/4yrs now all the while our talent pool is getting weaker and our results worse. You put guys out there, see what you have and try find players for the future rather than having to spend another picks next year to do the same.

padraig_f

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Anyway we haven't a snowball's of winning this game.

Oh yeah I agree with that. But I still think you play to win, and you play to give yourself the best chance of winning. You start Fales, and it's a message to the rest of the team that you're giving up on the season, and then how do you evaluate anyone?

kennyb3 wrote: »

Not sure if you've seen this. Would certainly explain it. Has the traits and talent so it's usually the between the ears part that's the issue in those cases.
http://www.chicitysports.com/forum/showthread.php/71009-Antrelle-Rolle-subtly-calls-out-Kyle-Fuller

I notice Dan Durkin has an article today which seems to back this up:
Durkin’s Playbook: Spotlight’s On Kyle Fuller

I suppose the plus side is it looks fixable, but you'd want to see some progress fairly quickly.

kennyb3

padraig_f wrote: »

I notice Dan Durkin has an article today which seems to back this up:
Durkin’s Playbook: Spotlight’s On Kyle Fuller

I suppose the plus side is it looks fixable, but you'd want to see some progress fairly quickly.

Good read that and nice breakdown thanks. Always good to read in depth analysis rather than the usual mainstream stuff in espn and nfl.com.

padraig_f

Browsing the game lines....we're bigger underdogs than the Jags in New England.

Realt Dearg Sec

padraig_f wrote: »

Browsing the game lines....we're bigger underdogs than the Jags in New England.

And why not, the jags are top of their division after all, and we're certainly not!

kennyb3

Yeah totally correct imho.

Bortles is a better QB than Clausen. He was shocking last year but is looking improved this year. Clausen is 1-10 as a starter, a 53PC completion ratio and 5TD's to 11 interceptions, says it all really.

They've more overall talent on their roster than us now - ours is concentrated in one or two quality players and then there is zip after them. They've a lot of up and coming players that are underrated. They've 4 players 30 or over on their roster (we've 12 - a lot of which are starters too). We keep bums on our roster like the 29yo Tracy Porter (despite the hamstring issues) and are still trying to develop Zach Miller at 30 years of age. They are trending upwards, we are trending massively downwards.

Their defense is far superior to ours. Ours has been leaking pass completions, penalties and points. We couldn't sack one of the most immobile QB's in the game last week. I heard them referred to as 'The Legion of Whom?' - thought that was funny.

Added to that the Seahawks need a bounce back statement game.

I'd much prefer to take the Jags line as they will fight, with Clausen under centre we could be praying for mercy at HT.

Realt Dearg Sec

kennyb3 wrote: »

Yeah totally correct imho.

Bortles is a better QB than Clausen. He was shocking last year but is looking improved this year. Clausen is 1-10 as a starter, a 53PC completion ratio and 5TD's to 11 interceptions, says it all really.

They've more overall talent on their roster than us now - ours is concentrated in one or two quality players and then there is zip after them. They've a lot of up and coming players that are underrated. They've 4 players 30 or over on their roster (we've 12 - a lot of which are starters too). We keep bums on our roster like the 29yo Tracy Porter (despite the hamstring issues) and are still trying to develop Zach Miller at 30 years of age. They are trending upwards, we are trending massively downwards.

Their defense is far superior to ours. Ours has been leaking pass completions, penalties and points. We couldn't sack one of the most immobile QB's in the game last week. I heard them referred to as 'The Legion of Whom?' - thought that was funny.

Added to that the Seahawks need a bounce back statement game.

I'd much prefer to take the Jags line as they will fight, with Clausen under centre we could be praying for mercy at HT.

All of this seems basically to be right, but am I alone in thinking that we were looking half presentable before Cutler got injured, and that we shouldn't get too fatalistic about things just yet? Don't get me wrong, we suck, and we're going nowhere this year, but we do still have a great coaching staff and can certainly still have a respectable offense this year...I just think we're being underrated. Certainly none of the problems are new ones, nor are they fixable overnight. But even the crappy D is better in terms of scheming than last year, although the execution is still sh1t. I dunno, I'm just not ready to give up on them for the year just yet. If they struggle from next week up to the bye, then that's different.

As an aside, one thing that does worry me is special teams, especially after last week's start. All of the churn at the bottom of the roster might be affecting the one thing that was actually half decent about us last year.

kennyb3

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

All of this seems basically to be right, but am I alone in thinking that we were looking half presentable before Cutler got injured, and that we shouldn't get too fatalistic about things just yet? Don't get me wrong, we suck, and we're going nowhere this year, but we do still have a great coaching staff and can certainly still have a respectable offense this year...I just think we're being underrated. Certainly none of the problems are new ones, nor are they fixable overnight. But even the crappy D is better in terms of scheming than last year, although the execution is still sh1t. I dunno, I'm just not ready to give up on them for the year just yet. If they struggle from next week up to the bye, then that's different.

As an aside, one thing that does worry me is special teams, especially after last week's start. All of the churn at the bottom of the roster might be affecting the one thing that was actually half decent about us last year.

To be honest I'm not really looking or talking about this year, or really the next.

Our goal has to be getting back to the playoffs and ultimately to win a superbowl. Neither of which we are coming close to this year.

The only thing to watch this year is young player development - always was and still is. I'm only interested in watching Goldman, Amos, Jones, Fuller, Wilson, Langford etc. I honestly couldn't care how Allen, Young, Ball, Rolle etc do. It's pointless. They won't be here by time we are anyway good.

Whether they finish 3-13 or 6-10, only really matters if it's the younger players developing that's contributing the difference. I'm okay with wins then but if they are due to Rolle & Allen all they do is hurt our draft prospects.

I'd much rather suck being young, than semi suck and be old.

Bottom line: Can we actually stop trying to be 'presentable' and scrape together 6/7/8 wins. The goal has to be to be better than GB and win the division (some day).

Realt Dearg Sec

kennyb3 wrote: »

Bottom line: Can we actually stop trying to be 'presentable' and scrape together 6/7/8 wins.

Probably not. This year at least, I'm starting to think 6 is our ceiling. Certainly I agree that progress can only be measured in terms of how young drafted players are getting on. But of course the older players, if they have any leadership at all, have to play a role in the development of those guys. A whole team of very young, inexperienced players is not a good way to develop a team either. If Rolle calling out Fuller helps to turn Fuller into the player he's capable of being, then Rolle will have done an important job (much more important than making some tackles or shoring up the safety position for a year or whatever).

kennyb3

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Probably not. This year at least, I'm starting to think 6 is our ceiling. Certainly I agree that progress can only be measured in terms of how young drafted players are getting on. But of course the older players, if they have any leadership at all, have to play a role in the development of those guys. A whole team of very young, inexperienced players is not a good way to develop a team either. If Rolle calling out Fuller helps to turn Fuller into the player he's capable of being, then Rolle will have done an important job (much more important than making some tackles or shoring up the safety position for a year or whatever).

I agree with you - you need vets and there is a balance to be struck.

But to me it's more down to coaching than vets.

I would have originally been one of the people happy with some of vet we signed for that very reason. I thought Allen would have helped Bass or Washington, that Mundy would have helped Vereen, that Tillman would have helped Fuller, that Briggs would have helped Bostic & Greene. Doesn't seem the case based on the evidence.

But the more you think about it it's down to latent talent and good coaching. Fox & Fangio both seem to have called out fuller anyway.

You need some vets around sure to show work ethic, mentor a bit but keeping bums like Porter, Miller, Ball, Ducasse on the roster makes no sense when you are going to finish with a losing record regardless and you can could be playing Mitchell, Khari Lee, Grasu etc. And I'd much rather look at Acho or whoever than Allen.

It was plain as day this was never a better than 8-8 team, therefore no playoffs, so you may as well re-build and re-build properly, ground up thereby giving yourself the best chance of having a young, strong, together roster going forward.

Other franchises have done it and it's been done in other sports. There is no point hanging around 5-11 to 9-7 for years.

Realt Dearg Sec

kennyb3 wrote: »

Porter,

I actually forgot he was still on the roster. Fcuking hell. Presumed he'd been cut.

Realt Dearg Sec

Well...what have we learned? Shut out for the first time in over a decade, an offense that was the definition of offensive...clausen is a great reminder of how badly we need Cutler. The D got some quarterback pressure but eventually wilted and the secondary was poor all day. Special teams have been the definition of special. Again. First half looked like there was some things to like but to not even get a lousy field goal...but at least mcphee showed what he was picked up for. I think we will get a few wins this year. But I dunno if that's necessarily such a great thing, in terms of draft picks, which is, at this stage, already the main issue. I think 2017 is the earliest we should be expecting to be any good.

StringerBell

Offensively, obviously ye were ****e, but it was the Seahawks at Century Link Field so it can be forgiven given the circumstance, but it was probably the best ye have played this season. Defensively it was pretty good for the most part. Plenty of positives to take

Realt Dearg Sec

StringerBell wrote: »

Offensively, obviously ye were ****e, but it was the Seahawks at Century Link Field so it can be forgiven given the circumstance, but it was probably the best ye have played this season. Defensively it was pretty good for the most part. Plenty of positives to take

Wouldn't say it was our best offensive performance of the year at all, we were far better in week one against the packers, and until pickles cane in against Arizona. He didn't make any mistakes, and I'm sure some anti Cutler people who think ints are the worst thing that can happen, will say Cutler would have thrown some. But he'd have gotten a few touchdowns as well.

But yeah the defence was good, they conceded, what, nineteen?, which was mainly down to the fact that we have no depth whatsoever, and the offense couldn't stay on the field long enough to give them a break, tiredness was eventually going to happen. Didn't think the d would be the better element of our game at any stage this year.

StringerBell

I meant best overall performance, not specifically offensively, sorry if there was some confusion.

Realt Dearg Sec

StringerBell wrote: »

I meant best overall performance, not specifically offensively, sorry if there was some confusion.

Yeah I kind of figured that after I'd posted. Just depressing that our best performance is a shut out.

EDIT: should say the offense was set up incredibly conservatively in terms of damage control. Three TE sets all day, possibly no throws over ten yards, until the last few minutes, punting with only a yard to go when we're twenty down. The plan didn't allow clausen to make mistakes, and it didn't allow him to go out and make an impact. And he did neither.

Badabing

Jared Allen traded to the Panthers!

Oat23

Badabing wrote: »

Jared Allen traded to the Panthers!

Good news. Not bothered about what we got, because just getting rid and potentially giving a younger guy a chance is good enough. If we managed to get a conditional pick on top of that then good.

Compensatory pick apparently. Didn't know they were tradeable..

Badabing

Yeah all reports said we get a conditional pick

Realt Dearg Sec

Badabing wrote: »

Yeah all reports said we get a conditional pick

Jay Glazer just says it's for a 6th rounder, not conditional. Whatever, he didn't fit the scheme and he was the same age as me. If the plan is to accumulate picks in exchange for these Emery FA signings, I'm all for it.

EDIT: He seems to be the only one saying that. We might be giving him up for nothing...is it based on his performance in their D? Either way, if it puts someone else in the rotation it's fine. Acho was better yesterday anyway.

JCTO

Jon Bostic to the Patriots also. 6th round pick next year.

Realt Dearg Sec

JCTO wrote: »

Jon Bostic to the Patriots also. 6th round pick next year.

Another fine deal for us, I'd regard him as a bust. Ye hoors will probably make a ****ing pro bowler if him now!

kennyb3

I'm really happy about these trades - this is what I was banging the drum for last week.

I'd have happily seen Allen & Bostic cut just to give players who might develop reps. So to get some draft picks is a real bonus. They could be useful ammo in trading up for a player they like next year in 3rd/4th round. Plenty of teams have developed late round players too.

The thing I'm happiest about is not wasting a single more rep on these guys - we can now see how Young, Houston and Acho look with a view who is to kept for next year.

I'm impressed that they are being aggressive, getting rid of rubbish and seeing the situation for what it is, all the while accumulating more firepower for future draft. That, the fact that McPhee & Rolle have done well, and Goldman and Amos have looked okay is encouraging enough at this stage.

Thank god there is no more papering over the cracks.

Oat23

$60m cap space....



Vereen waived now.

Realt Dearg Sec

Fantastic. He was atrocious. Another terrible draft pick.

Oat23

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Fantastic. He was atrocious. Another terrible draft pick.

Didn't Emery give up two picks to move up and draft him, or am I thinking of someone else?

Realt Dearg Sec

Oat23 wrote: »

Didn't Emery give up two picks to move up and draft him, or am I thinking of someone else?

Yeah we gave the Broncos that year's and the following year's fifth rounders in exchange for that and a seventh. It was actually a pretty decent deal I thought, but Vereen has been a bum.

Guffy

Am i correct in saying no cap hit if we cut cutler at the end of the year?

Realt Dearg Sec

gufc21 wrote: »

Am i correct in saying no cap hit if we cut cutler at the end of the year?

No I think we would take a 13 million hit in dead money, but I stand to be corrected on that by someone who understands salary stuff better. My hope is that even if we get the qb of the future next year that they sit behind Cutler. Just my feeling is that a lot of great or even good qbs get ruined by being thrown straight in at the deep end. But of course that depends on the qb...

Guffy

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

No I think we would take a 13 million hit in dead money, but I stand to be corrected on that by someone who understands salary stuff better. My hope is that even if we get the qb of the future next year that they sit behind Cutler. Just my feeling is that a lot of great or even good qbs get ruined by being thrown straight in at the deep end. But of course that depends on the qb...

That would save 3 or 4 mill wouldn't it?

Obv would have to pay for another qb though

kennyb3

My understanding is the they only save about $4m by cutting cutler. So as much as want rid of him it makes sense to keep him (a back up nearly costs that). You draft a QB (if you like a prospect) and start getting him ready for the latter part of the season.

If there isn't a prospect you like you, you restock the defence picking early and often and get the QB the following year (though you'd think they'd be drafting a bit later).

With the $60m cap space you use it to re-sign talent that will be here long term - try extend Jeffrey or at least tag him. Extend Long early so that's one less issue to worry about down the line and Kyle will stick to a contract. Hard to comment on Bennett from the outside as we don't really know his attitude.

I'd rather not see any big FA splashes, you roll over the cap for when you get close to good and then use it to tip you over the edge to help challenge. But mainly build through the draft aqnd re-sign those guys. Too many free agents and massive roster turnover has been a huge problem. There is no consistency it's just a bunch of mercenaries.

padraig_f

I think I liked the performance on Sunday more than most. Things unravelled after the kickoff return at the start of the 2nd half, but we got one good half, which was one more than I was expecting.

The defense played great, McPhee and Jenkins being the stars. In truth, the Seattle o-line has problems, but at least they're taking advantage of an o-line with problems, unlike last year.

This was a problem though:
The Bears got on a plane, punted 10 times and went home

The one that killed me was the one at the end of the 3rd quarter. 20-0 down...

4th and 1 at CHI 46

(2:35) P.O'Donnell punts 43 yards to SEA 11, Center-T.Gafford, fair catch by T.Lockett.

Come on, what are you doing punting there? It didn't matter in this game, but I don't like to see that conservatism (and frankly bad decision-making). This kind of conservatism was something I didn't like with Fox's teams in Denver (it may have cost them that year they lost at home to Baltimore in the playoffs).


Clausen was pretty crap, and the coaches obviously had no faith in him. I advocated starting him over Fales in that game, but if he's gonna play that badly and you have zero faith him, I think I'd rather start Fales on Sunday. It's hard to see him being any worse.

That said, I don't think they will. Conservatism again will probably win out.

Still though I liked the performance overall. I saw the press being critical, but I think you have to consider it in terms of the personnel available. We had Clausen and were down two starting WRs. With how well the defense played (one TD conceded), I could imagine if Cutler and Jeffery were in, we'd have had a chance at winning the game.

Guffy

padraig_f wrote: »

Clausen was pretty crap, and the coaches obviously had no faith in him. I advocated starting him over Fales in that game, but if he's gonna play that badly and you have zero faith him, I think I'd rather start Fales on Sunday. It's hard to see him being any worse.

That said, I don't think they will. Conservatism again will probably win out.

Still though I liked the performance overall. I saw the press being critical, but I think you have to consider it in terms of the personnel available. We had Clausen and were down two starting WRs. With how well the defense played (one TD conceded), I could imagine if Cutler and Jeffery were in, we'd have had a chance at winning the game.

Why though? Is Fales ready? This is his first year on the roster. If he is well and good but can we expect him to be much better than clausan? I mean when was the last time California produced a good quarterback?