rawaction

No, not really.

Yeah, he was excellent. Gonna need more of the same vs. Green Bay and Clay Matthews' boy.

It seems to me that he often has a major stinker of a game, and then will correct things and do better. Of course he's also older and has had some health issues, so maybe he can't any longer, but I'm going to assume he gets it straightened out soon. Maynard's only value for the last few years has only been in his ability to put the ball inside the 20. Been in the bottom 1/4 of the league in avg and net the last 4 years (including the 2 games this year), yet has finished top 10 in punts inside the 20 all 4 years. Because Lovie always punts inside enemy territory. True. But Maynard clearly has his niche. You probably have to find a punter before 2011, but it's on the bottom of the list of things to do.

It seems to me that he often has a major stinker of a game, and then will correct things and do better. Of course he's also older and has had some health issues, so maybe he can't any longer, but I'm going to assume he gets it straightened out soon. Maynard's only value for the last few years has only been in his ability to put the ball inside the 20. Been in the bottom 1/4 of the league in avg and net the last 4 years (including the 2 games this year), yet has finished top 10 in punts inside the 20 all 4 years.

We shoulda beaten Michigan last year. IU keeps talking about how they need to run the ball. I say, run be damned. Throw the ball every play if you need to. Got four freaking 6'3+ WRs. I know Willis had a down game on Saturday, but if you can create a balanced attack, that will just make them all the more dangerous. He's a scary back. And I know Chappell hasn't thrown a pick yet, but his INT totals have been pretty high before this season. I'm actually not worried about Chappell turning it over anymore. Last year was his 1st full season as the starting QB. And he was running Kellen Lewis' offense in 2008 when he got playing time. He brought his top 3 WRs back, so I think that full offseason will allow him to put up a 2:1 TD/INT ratio. I wish they would get more creative w/ the run game. When IU does run it, they just run right at the D. I would like to see more draws or delays, which I think would help out the inexperienced OL too.

Moore was really good Week 1 also. He blanketed Nate Burleson for most of the game.

We shoulda beaten Michigan last year. IU keeps talking about how they need to run the ball. I say, run be damned. Throw the ball every play if you need to. Got four freaking 6'3+ WRs.

Funny how a couple weeks can change your perspective on the schedule difficulty...I'm trying not to jump to conclusions here, but there are a lot of games that look a lot more winnable this morning. The Giants game was the only won that looked potentially intimidating, but there wasn't any reason to assume the Giants were world beaters even before this week. I picked the Giants last in the NFC East. It's crazy how fast their OL and defense went from top 5 in the league to the bottom 1/3.

Martz has been absolutely brillant this season, other than short yardage play calls. The Bears haven't had an OC in so long (forever is a really long time), and it is so refreshing to have one that can make in-game adjustments and put his team in the best position to win. He still has his flaws in philosophy, but he is getting everything anyone could possibly get out of this offense right now. Like I said in the other thread....get a win at home vs. Green Bay, and the Bears are going to be a playoff team barring disaster. But a loss isn't the end of the world. The next 5 are @ NYG, @ Carolina, v. Seattle, v. Washington, @ Canada/Buffalo. Four of those 5 teams looked like bottom 5-6 teams in the NFL this week.

Pittsburgh being 2-0 without Big Ben against the Falcons and Titans is pretty impressive. And the number they did on Johnson today was also impressive. Had Ben played, they would have beaten the Falcons by 2 TDs and the Titans by a good 40. No exaggeration.

I will gladly eat crow tonight. I figured the Bears would hang with the Cowboys (would not have taken Dallas at the 8.5 line), but I didn't think they would have enough to keep up and kept expecting a key turnover to do them in. Can this really be an elite offensive team? I know Martz has a track record, but these are the Bears we are talking about. The defense was opportunistic again like back in 2006. Bend don't break worked as they only gave up 13 points to the Dallas offense, which is one of the best in the league. Big win. Bigger game next week, as it looks like this will be a 2-team race in the NFC North (Vikings are in trouble). Win at home vs. Green Bay and it would take a disaster to NOT be a playoff team this year.

I think the point is that hurting the QB is somewhat of a fluke. It's not really something you can rely on being part of your defense every week. But you can get in the backfield and get enough pressure to also make a team dumb down the offense, especially when the team has a lead. Plus, it's not like the Lions went from the run-and-shoot to the wishbone. They only had 5.3 yards per pass attempt with Stafford.

They scored those points because of turnovers...not because of any offensive efficiency. They went 36 yards after an interception, and 45 yards after a fumble. Hill had two drives longer than either of those. It was pretty obvious the Lions toned down the offense when Hill was in there. You really have to take the second half defensive performance with a grain of salt unless Peppers plans on killing a QB every week. I don't understand this thinking. So, the Bears don't get full credit for stopping the Lions because they toned down the offense when the QB got hurt....but they don't get credit for hurting the QB either? Hurting the QB is seen as a fluke, not good game-changing defense.

Maybe and maybe not. They do have some talent. But a lot of that talent is either unproven (Knox, Williams, Aromashodu, Omiyale), inconsistent (T Harris, Bowman, Manning, Cutler, Forte), or coming off of a major injury (Urlacher, Tinoisamoa). That's why this team is so all over the place. And they have very limited talent on the 5 man position of offensive line, which can sink any team. Yep. My hope is that this OL is like Green Bay and struggles early and then puts it together by the end of the season to become a solid group. Even though Omiyale and Louis were not or barely drafted, those 2 along with Williams are still young enough to be 3/5 of a decent OL.

Maybe and maybe not. They do have some talent. But a lot of that talent is either unproven (Knox, Williams, Aromashodu, Omiyale), inconsistent (T Harris, Bowman, Manning, Cutler, Forte), or coming off of a major injury (Urlacher, Tinoisamoa). That's why this team is so all over the place.

I was all over Cutler for not throwing the ball on several plays. But then I replayed them and I believe every single one of them were 2 or 3 WR patterns when everyone else was left in to block. Sadly, a couple times 4 man pressure got past the 8 blockers. When you only have Hester and Knox in pattern against 6-7 DBs, they aren't going to get open. They just aren't good or big enough for that.

At this point, if Williams can't be a good-very good LT, he'll probably be a journeyman, backup OL. There's no going back to RT if he can't turn it around in the next 4 months, and the Bears would be wise to move on if he can't.

Ah hem http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/dal/1993.htm Wasn't saying it's law. But definitely a general rule.

That is your opinion, so by definition, it is questionable. Okay, without question from reasonable people. So, I'm unreasonable because I disagree with you? You kill me with your high and mighty BS.

That is your opinion, so by definition, it is questionable.

Why? We still wouldn't have taken more LBs on the 53 man if we had Williams. Because he's better than Roach, Iwuh, and Hillenmeyer. I suppose that doesn't really relate to the injuries, but still. Our starting three LBs aren't the most durable guys and it would be nice to have some good depth. He's not better than Roach. He's not better than Hillenmeyer. He's not as good on special teams as Iwuh, which is what you need to be as a 6th LB. Agree to disagree I guess. I don't think Roach or Hillenmeyer are very good. Hillenmeyer is solid in the middle. Had a couple of really good years at SLB, but really can't play outside anymore. Roach is better than you are giving him credit for.

Did he get it from Urlacher? it's possible. you know, with 53 beautiful packages in that locker room, you're bound to find one appealing. I was thinking more in a taking Urlacher's sloppy seconds kinda way. But whatever.

Did he get it from Urlacher?

I don't have a good feeling about this game. One of the favorites for the SuperBowl, Dallas is 0-1. They have the media against them after another poor offensive performance following a horrid preseason showing. Home opener for the Cowboys. SB contenders don't start 0-2. And if Dallas starts 0-2, heads will roll. And we know in the NFL, the more desperate team usually finds a way to win (if the teams are even close to evenly matched). I really don't have much hope for the Bears winning this game. The Cowboys were able to move the ball well, but couldn't score. They are pretty solid defensively, and I think matchup well against the Bears offensive line. Miles Austin will be a tough matchup vs. the Bears DBs. I'd like to see the Bears get Bowman on Austin as much as possible and hopefully Tillman can take out Dez Bryant, allowing the LBs and safeties to focus on Witten and helping on Austin. Where I think the Bears can possibly get some cheap points are special teams. I think Dallas' kick coverage is weak. And on a fast track indoors, I think Manning, Knox, and/or Hester can do some damage and get the Bears good field position. Turnovers obviously will also be huge. Can't give a struggling offense easy points. Can't lose points to a good team by turning it over in scoring range.

Why? We still wouldn't have taken more LBs on the 53 man if we had Williams. Because he's better than Roach, Iwuh, and Hillenmeyer. I suppose that doesn't really relate to the injuries, but still. Our starting three LBs aren't the most durable guys and it would be nice to have some good depth. He's not better than Roach. He's not better than Hillenmeyer. He's not as good on special teams as Iwuh, which is what you need to be as a 6th LB.