Printable View
If thats the case its hard really to trade any of the guys. I would only trade them if they dont fit a system. Other wise we will be dealing with cap hits for nothing and still have a need to replace the player traded. If you are dealing with cap hit plus a void to fill and now you have less resources to fill the void it will make little sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by MPBears68
Like I say, I don't know if or what specific opportunities are even available or might become available...those kind of details are WAY outside my expertise....I am simply believe that any trade value this team may have rests primarily on the defensive side of the ball...furthermore, this team is grossly out of balance (offense vs. defense) in order to compete in today's NFL at a high level...if we have to sacrifice some of that defensive talent (either though trades or letting some FAs walk) to create a more competitively balanced team, then so be it..."keeping the defense intact" should not be a primary goal this off-season....Quote:
Originally Posted by MPBears68
I think I just showed how that isn't necessarily so even though 4 of the 5 pro-bowlers were on the D side. Assuming we stay with some variant of a 4-3 Lovie-esque defense (and that is what Emery indicated he was leaning towards), the D players we are talking about here pretty much all have more value in our system than they would in most others (and hence what they would bring in trade value). And as Mo pointed out, it makes little sense to incur dead cap hits and the need to replace unless you are trading away players who don't or no longer will fit your scheme. So, unless the D is going to be radically altered (something I think would be rash and foolish and biting off more than you could chew in one offseason), there's no reason to dismantle the D roster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfman
I'm all for better "balance" and we all agree on that. Let's get there by hiring a quality O coaching staff and focusing primarily on O in FA and the draft.
First, I am not talking about "dismantling" the Defense...I simple disagree that the Defense is or should be untouchable...once again, I have NO IDEA what trades or moves may or may not become available...maybe there isn't any as you claim (although I somewhat doubt it)...my stance is more philosophical than anything else...simply put, everything should be on the table to improve/fix our offence as quickly and as efficiently as possible, even if that means trading away some valuable defensive talent...if we don't start getting Jay more and better weapons and protection SOON, it will NEVER matter how good our Defense is, just as hasn't mattered how good our Defense has been for the last 20 years....we need a fundamental shift in philosophy in how this team is structured; we have too many eggs in the Defensive basket at the expense of the Offensive basket; that how this team has always been run; it's how most of us expect it be run...problem is, it doesn't work anymore...and hasn't worked for a long time ..."keeping the D intact" is just another way of saying "defense first" which is the mantra of maintaining the same old, outdated status quo imho...Quote:
Originally Posted by MPBears68
‘‘If it’s not broke, don’t fix it,’’ Melton said. ‘‘We’re definitely one of the top defenses in the league, especially the way we go after the ball.’’
Who gives a shit? You know what you get for having a top defense in this league? Nothing...
You only get something or get anywhere by having top team...and this ain't a top team...it's a broken team that needs fixin'...
Wrigley field is a great place to watch a game and the Bears have such a great Defense! Things losers says...
Wolf, if you had one of the best defenses, that will be retaining all major players, and could keep the coaching staff, why would you change that? The most takeaways and points scored, and we shoulld change that when Emery said the offense lead to Lovie's firing, why? Def. make changes as needed, but seeing how the offense can be realistically be blamed for EVERY defeat, there should be no real reason to not focus the most energy on thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Wolfman
First of all, Benji: I guess you told me how it is, didn't you?
Second of all, I'm more in agreement with Ric: let the incoming head coach determine what kind of defense we will have. If he feels like retaining Marinelli, then by all means do so. If he feels like switching to the 3-4 would benefit this team more, then he should do it. While my druthers would be to keep a base 4-3 defense and play more man coverage, bump and run, and engage in more blitzing activities, I wouldn't have a problem maintaining Marinelli as defensive coordinator either.
The problem is the cover 2 is known ... it works at the beginning of the season but then teams catch on to it ... and we get greased.
Briggs and Jennings make the cover 2 work ... but the second one of them is hurt and not in the game ... uh -oh.
How many years has this gone on now? I could see keeping it ... but tweeking it.
I didn't get that from Wolf's post, what I got was -as just about everyone is saying- the offense needs to improve and that's going to come at a price. You don't get something for nothing and if that means giving up something to get it, hopefully you give from a place where you have quality of depth, so you CAN give up WITHOUT hurting where you're taking it from. And in this case, that's the defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Burris
Damn you, Wolf!
Yes, let the new coach decide things. But if he wants to keep the defense what it is, then so be it. It works, these players fit the defense perfectly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagan81