Soul

I interpret this as meaning that Lovie will actually be the DC, and Babich the LB coach -- only Babich keeps his DC title in order to save face. Creating a 2 headed monster at DC isn't something I find terribly inspiring. If we're lucky, maybe it opens the door to the Babich firing later on and slide Marinelli in as the DC. Isn't head coach a busy enough job? Why the heck does Lovie want to add more to his plate? You can't do everything -- first rule of leadership, delegate effectively.

Another coach with actual NFL experience that is not Bears related. Which is encouraging. Less encouraging is Houston's pass defense rankings over the past few seasons, although that's obviously not a DB-specific stat.

So, the year the Bears actually went to the Super Bowl they finished: 5th in total D 15th in total O That, to me, is the definition of a team that emphasizes one side of the ball, while treading water on the other side (i.e. can still make some plays even though they aren't the best). The past 2 years we haven't even finished top 20 on D, to say nothing of the O.

They got to the superbowl because their offense was good enough to get them to that game. They won the actual Superbowl game because of their defense. Their defense was better than their offense but I do not believe that they could have made it out of the AFC on defense alone. It really comes down to this. Is it an accident that the Bears have not been able to develop a QB the last 20 years or is it because they focus the bulk of their resources on defense? Have the Bears had little offensive success because of bad coordinators or because of a lack of offensive talent? Perhaps the answer is both. So why can't the Bears get a good offensive coordinator? Why do they keep hiring Defensive guys as head coach? The Bears team philosophy hasn't changed since the days of Ditka and they have 1 superbowl victory to show for it versus many one and done playoff appearances. So if you want to say that defense wins championships thats fine by me. It just hasn't won the Bears many championships. That fact is undeniable Well, in fairness though, having a defensive emphasis doesn't mean you *must* ignore offense and finish at or near the bottom of the rankings every year, like the Bears. Just as having an offensive emphasis doesn't mean you must finish at the bottom in defense every year. If you're a good organization, well-coached -- you should still be able to get that other side of the ball to an average level. If you can't, then you'll probably wind up like the many teams that have only one side of the ball with absolutely nothing on the other side. You know, like the Bears.

Well, at least you saved yourself with that disclaimer. I think it absolutely does have a lot to do with their emphasis on defense, as well as the running game. They've invested heavily in the post Walter RB position, with all sorts of top picks. They've invested in 5 first round RB since 1986, including two top 5. They've had 3 first round QB's, none in the top 10. Plus 2 2nd round RB and 0 2nd round QB. The "brightest" offensive mind this organization has employed in the past 30 years is probably Ditka, seeing as how he's the only guy to have developed 2 legit NFL QB's, in McMahon and Harbaugh. I think the lack of emphasis on the offense, and the QB position in general, has been a major contributor to their problems. there has always been PLENTY of emphasis on the QB, every friggen year we hear the name "Sid Luckman". The reality is that the type of emphasis they provide is knee-jerk (Kordell Stewart), ill-advised (Rick Mirer), a bust (McNown, **Grossman**), or just poorly coached (**Grossman**-not sure where he fits anymore). The Bears seem to be paralyzed by their own failures. Its just time for them to wake up, and understand that developing the posistion takes longer then 9 games Lack of ability to scout, develop, and deploy QBs. The Bears need to wake up and realize they need to bring in people who understand how to spawn successful QBs, from selecting them up on through.

How low is low?

While Warner may not have had a decorated college career at all; Romo did have an outstanding career at Eastern Illinois University. He was a 3 time I-AA All-American, 3 time OVC player of the year, and in his senior year he won the Walter Payton award as I-AA player of the year. Yeah, it was I-AA; but he's certainly not the first, and won't be the last, player from that level to succeed in the NFL He went undrafted. You could say that about a thousand players. The fact is, he was developed very well once he got to the NFL. He didn't come in NFL-ready. The Bears couldn't have done that, and that's the point.

Yeah I know. If he was still signing stuff "Go Cubs" now it might mean more to me. Maybe today he'd sign your hat with "Go Padres." It just seems like old news to be bringing up now. Who knows what Peavy is thinking today, and what it might or might not mean. Maybe none of it means anything.

Personally I don't think it likely that many QBs would succeed in our offense, and I strongly suspect that somewhere in the past several decades years of QB failures, we probably destroyed a QB or two that would have been decent with proper coaching/development and a supporting cast. It's really, really hard to miss on a position for so many decades. You'd get lucky at least once, if you had the other pieces in place. You'd have to. Look at guys like Romo, or Warner. They're just guys off the street who developed into solid QBs. The Bears need to fix the infrastructure that perpetuates QB badness. Until then, we'll be bringing in guys, declaring them "bad", and recycling, forever. Some of those guys could probably have been good, or at least serviceable. The real thing that is bad is the Bears inability to support and develop QBs.

And your point would be? It's from over a month ago, before he or anyone else had any idea that the negotiations would break down. For all we know, he was signing "Go Cubs" because he was convinced it was a done deal. Didn't turn out that way.

Would Pitt let him go that easy?...I feel like Big Ben gets hurt a lot so Leftwich gets more time than you think I don't know. I was speculating that IF he didn't cost us picks it might make sense to me. If they're asking for anything of value in terms of the draft -- in particular, this year's draft -- then forget it.

Philly/Zona in the NFC Championship game didn't convince you to stop betting on football?

If Leftwich wouldn't cost us draft picks, then he wouldn't hurt our ability to fix other areas. I'd bring him in as depth, but not as the declared starter.

The BCS has ruined college football for me. New Years Day used to be a day to set aside and watch football all day long, but now the games are stretched out over weeks and it's just too much. If the BCS ruined college football for you, you obviously weren't that big of a fan to begin with. And the BCS didn't cause the games to be spread out over weeks, television did. I don't see why anyone would care. What is the attraction of having 3 games on at the same time anyway? Wouldn't a real fan want them spread out so they could actually watch them all? What's your definition of a "real fan?" I've heard plenty of people complain that the New Year's day slate was really weak this year. I spent more time & energy watching Blackhawks hockey on that day than football. I don't think the complaint is out of line.

That blog was from December 9th.

IIRC, it was the Panthers who wiped the Bears out after a bye week in '05. Now it happens to them. Sometimes getting a bye isn't the best thing.

Russell, McFadden, Crabtree is a nice start towards building an offense. Does Oakland have an Oline right now? Not exactly. They have something. They call it an Oline. Its exact classification is open for debate. Kinda like the Bears.

OU certainly had their chances, especially in the first half, but blew them and got a bit unlucky. They had 3rd and goal at the 1 and couldn't cash it in. Then they had the fluke interception at the end of the first half that bounced off about 5 players before being picked off. Even Bradford's pick in the second half was unlucky, even though the throw was a bit high, since the receiver should have caught the ball. If a couple things go the other way, OU could have won that game. Their defense actually held up better than I thought it would, especially earlier in the game. Florida didn't pull away until late. Part of that might have been the fact that Florida's players kept going down, though.

People have been factoring in the great DeRosa dropoff for 3 years now. It hasn't happened yet. I think he's earned a little deference at this point. He's 33, not 38. Earned a little deference? He had a career year at 33 and will be 34 this season. You don't just assume he's going to maintain those 2008 numbers that were out of line with his norm. I never said he's going to maintain his 2008 numbers. I'm talking about the 3 year trend since his last year in Texas. People said he had a career year then, and they were wrong. He can still be a very good player without matching 2008.

Yeah, that sounds pretty good actually.

People have been factoring in the great DeRosa dropoff for 3 years now. It hasn't happened yet. I think he's earned a little deference at this point. He's 33, not 38.

I'd vote USC.

It's a good ballgame, I'm thankful for that. Didn't need to see another pasting in one of these all-powerful BCS games.

hows he gonna do that when he's also winning american idol. I can't wait until he's on 24 He's got an economy to rescue, and Bin Laden's still out there.

Shoeless TD.