Sunday, January 6, 2008

State of the Franchise

While I've yet to see the video or hear the audio, I've had the chance to read & review the transcript of Jerry Angelo's speech to the media on Thursday. While alot of the speech seemed to be an imitation of Lovie Smith (using alot of words to basically say nothing), he did provide some insight into his off-season goals.

He seemed to indicate that, aside from the safety position, he wasn't going to put too much emphasis on the defense this off-season. His comments about Mike Brown were telling, and at this point I wouldn't be surprised at all to see him cut, but he did phrase it in a way that might leave the door open for him to come back, albeit with a couple more talented players there for insurance. He seemed to iindicate that he saw injuries as the primary cause for the defense's decline in 2007, an opinion I share.

His comments about the offense were the highlight of the speech. I was most looking forward to hearing his thoughts on the o-line, which to me is the area in need of the most attention heading into 2008, but he basically avoided the topic altogether. my guess is this is one of his smokescreens (i.e. talking up Dave Ragone & Chris Simms to the media before selecting Rex Grossman in 2003). he ahs stated publicly that he believes in building a team "from the inside out," and establsihing solid line play on both sides of the ball.

His comments on the Qb & Rb positions were naturally the parts on which the media fixated, somewhat rightfully so. Establishing stability at the QB position was mentioned as his "#1 priority," so I'm interested to see what he does there. He mentioned that he would like to have Rex back, but the conventional wisdom these days is that Rex & Griese won't both be back. I have to agree - Orton proved down the stretch that he deserves a legitimiate chance to compete in training camp for the starting job, and that at the very least he's a capable back-up. He's younger & cheaper than either Grossman or Griese, so I think there's something to that thought.

I really hope we don't go after Derek Anderson. He's got good tools and looked great in some games this year, but he hasn't proven enough to be with what Clevelend will want for him. If we went after McNabb I'd be more ok with it, seeing as he's been a top 10 Qb for 7 years, and he WILL be better in 2008 than he was in 2007 (when he was still pretty good, while being noticeably hampered by his still-recovering knee injury).

Finally, Angelo discussed the running back position. I am really interested to see what happens here...at this point I think it's the most compelling issue facing the Bears. He said that there will be competition, and that they will look to bring in someone new at the position. While I'm not opposed to that per se, it's a hard scenario to figure out because of our current roster make-up. Benson was a #1 pick, who showed some flashes & improvement prior to his injury. Peterson is a steady back-up & stand-out special teams player. And Garrett Wolfe is a recent 1st day drafy pick who showed some gilmpses towards the end of 2007. His speed, quickness, & elusiveness in the open field are hard to ignore, and while I still think he was something of a "luxury pick" who we couldn't afford given some other more pressing needs, he does have alot of talent, and could be a nice complementary running back, provided we have 2 other guys who could be counted on as 25 carry-a-game 'bell cows' if needed.

Barring something unconventional (i.e. keeping 4 RBs on the active roster), it's hard to say who the odd man out will be if Angelo brings in a Julius Jones/Michael Turner/high draft pick.

2 comments:

Michael Tams said...

Pat,

Good comments. If last year taught us anything, it's not to be afraid of challenging veterans or bringing in new talent. If the Bears had done that at a few key positions this year we might still be playing.

I think bad offense play had more to do with the defenses struggles than injuries did. Or, maybe, just as much.

Pat said...

Mike -

Thanks. I'm with you - competition is a MUST this off-season.

I disagree with your thought tnat bad offense play had more to do with the defense's struggles than defensive injuries did. Our entire secondary being unable to tackle Adrian Peterson, or cover Terrell Owens, had nothing to do with the offense. There were too many games where the offense put up 24+ points and the Bears still lost.

Not that offensive ineptitude didn't hurt at times (San Diego, Detroit game at Soldier Field), but I think if you take away defensive injuries we were 2-3 games better immediately.

Did bad offensive play have more to do with the overall team struggles than defensive injuries did...yes, but I wouldn't necessarily corelate that directly to the defense's play.