SB Nation - Tommie Harris

Friday Injury Report: Packers at Bears

Brandon — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 04:37:23 -0000

It's a fairly short injury report for the Green Bay Packers, only 9 players listed, but it includes the top 4 defensive lineman. The Bears report is even shorter, but it might expose their lack of depth at wide receiver.

For the Packers: the big story has been that their top 4 defensive lineman are listed on listed on the injury report. While technically true, the only player likely to miss the game is NT Ryan Pickett, who hasn't practiced all week as he tries to recover from a hamstring injury he suffered during the win on Monday night. NT B.J. Raji will slide into replace him, and he's already making friends with Bear C Olin Kreutz. Raji is listed too, but he was a full participant in Friday's practice. DE Cullen Jenkins and DE Johnny Jolly were both limited in Friday's practice, but I expect they'll go. Late in the Monday night game, DE Jarius Wynn was in on several plays, and I don't expect the coaching staff has any concerns going with the 277 lb. rookie, if necessary.

Everyone else was a full participant in practice, except backup LB Jeremy Thompson, as he tries to recover from a career threatening neck injury. One name not listed is rookie OL T.J. Lang, who missed last Monday's game with a concussion, which is good news since LT Chad Clifton did miss some practice this week, and Lang will also be available to spell RT Mark Tauscher, if he needs a break.

For the Bears: it looks like WR Devin Hester is unlikely to play. While he isn't the greatest receiver and he's no longer the best kick returner on the Bears either, but he's still their leading receiver. Their great kick returner, WR Johnny Knox, would be counted on more in the offense, alongside WR Earl Bennett. Their bigger problem is that they don't have any depth at receiver behind their top 3 (none of their other receivers have more than 2 receptions on the season). The Bears might rely on their 2 TE packages even more than usual. LT Orlando Pace could return this week, but it's not clear whether he would start even if healthy. LB Lance Briggs should return this week, but his replacement, LB Jamar Williams, did very well in his place with 18 tackles against the Rams last week.

The complete injury report is after the jump.

Player	Pos.	Injury	Friday Participation	Friday Status
Nick Barnett	LB	Knee	Full Participation	Probable
Chad Clifton	T	Hamstring	Full Participation	Probable
Jermichael Finley	TE	Knee	Full Participation	Probable
Cullen Jenkins	DE	Hamstring	Limited Participation	Probable
Johnny Jolly	DE	Knee	Limited Participation	Questionable
Ryan Pickett	NT	Hamstring	Did Not Participate	Doubtful
B.J. Raji	NT	Ankle	Full Participation	Probable
Jeremy Thompson	LB	Neck	Out	Out
Charles Woodson	CB	Shoulder	Full Participation	Probable


Player	Pos.	Injury	Friday Participation	Friday Status
Lance Briggs	LB	Knee	Full Participation	Probable
Tommie Harris	DT	Knee	Full Participation	Probable
Devin Hester	WR	Calf	Did Not Participate	Probable
Hunter Hillenmeyer	LB	Groin	Full Participation	Probable
Israel Idonije	DT	Knee	Full Participation	Questionable
Orlando Pace	T	Groin	Limited Participation	Probable

The Bears 3 Biggest Ripoffs (and what should happen)--2009 Edition

Kev H — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:00:18 -0000

Inspired by this article earlier tonight (The NFL's Biggest Rip-Offs), I started to think about what the Bears biggest ripoffs were, when comparing salary to effectiveness.

To be fair, I'm not going to include players like Urlacher, or Tinoisamoa, because they're injured, and I don't think they can be truly judged as ripoffs. But there are a few players who just aren't living up to what we're paying them, and they should be called out.

Then to stimulate some discussion, what I think should happen. Let's delve in below...

The Problem Children

1. Orlando Pace--What more can really be said? After the retirement of John Tait, Jerry Angelo rolled the expensive dice on aging offensive lineman who had missed more games over the last three years than he'd played.

Orlando Pace counts for over 5.3 million in cap space this year. (He's actually slated to earn a little more, with the roster bonus and all added in) To put that into perspective, Brian Urlacher counts for about 10.1 million in cap space. Pace has the sixth-highest cap hit on the team. Put simply, he's underperforming, but that causes so many more problems. With the recent switch of C. Williams to Left Tackle, This could potentially mean that for the last 4 games of the season, the Bears could end up giving Pace over 1.3 million dollars to ride the bench.

If Chris Williams looks the real deal this weekend against a Packers defense that is vastly superior to the Rams, it will be even more egg on the front office face. While many of us (myself included) were intrigued by the idea of Pace, I think we all realize it was not a good idea. (Especially in retrospect.) The Bears tried to fix a problem quickly with some proven talent, but the scouting left something to be desired. Shocking, I know.

2. Frank Omiyale--Omiyale makes this list because his bonus money is so crazy ridiculous. in 2009 he's going to make a 620k salary and over 3.8 million dollars in bonuses. As Dane pointed out the other day, Omiyale is great as a pulling guard, but his abilities in that area are not justifying such a hefty price tag. His pass blocking is poor, and part of the reason we got him was to be a big physical run-blocker, but beekman has, at times, outflashed him greatly (and much more cheaply.)

3. Tommie Harris--No surprise here, but Tommie is on this list again, in all our minds, if not our hearts. Since he's going to make over 9 million dollars this year, I think it's fair from us to all expect a little more from him. Gone is the Harris who commands the double team. Gone is the Harris who bum rushes the QB straight up the middle. Gone is the Harris who grabs running backs at the handoff.

Now, to be fair, Tommie has looked a little better as of late. He may still have some nagging injury issues. He may have gotten his money and decided to pack it in. That being said, his is one of the most important positions in the Bears current defense. Our past success on defense came because we had pro-bowl level talent at every level of the defense, but without him playing like he used to, we have nothing, and he can't free up any of our approximately 100 other defensive lineman to get in the backfield and make game changing plays.

That's all well and good, Kev, but what do you think should happen?

Well, it's pretty safe to say--not all three of these guys can possibly stay on the roster. I think it's pretty obvious that Orlando Pace will likely be the man to leave, hopefully through retirement (the classy way), and not through the Bears cutting him. I respect Pace a lot, as he was a stellar player at his position for a long time. However, both he and his salary are a complete liability to the Bears.

Omiyale is still, relatively speaking, a young dude. He could continue to develop his skill set a bit, and eventually could develop into a really solid, if unspectacular lineman. His contract was insanely front-loaded, so the rest of his deal shouldn't hurt the Bears going forward.

Tommie is...well...Tommie. His contract is big enough to make it hard to find anyone really willing to trade him, and if someone values him that much, we probably should as well. We've seen what he can do, and hopefully he really is returning to form. I largely think that regaining the head of the Defense, our trash-talking middle linebacker, will help Tommie's game. While he isn't getting the explosive burst at the line, I think given the extra second that a good coverage set will provide can help Tommie regain some glory.

So what do you think? Check out the poll--which of these three do you think is the biggest ripoff, or if there's another you think is greater, you let us know why. Otherwise...get ready to knock a couple back. It could be a long Sunday afternoon...

Poll

Which of these is the biggest rip-off of 2009?

Tommie Harris' Future With the Bears

wiltfongjr — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:00:26 -0000

More photos » by Nam Y Huh - AP

Browse more photos »

Tommie Harris... What to do with Tommie Harris? His salary, though not as out of line as many think, is still a large chunk of change. But if he's wreaking havoc like the Pro Bowl Tommie, does anyone really care how much his deal is worth? Many people have floated the idea of trading him, myself included, but is there a market for him and would any potential deal bring anything worth the salary relief? The Cover 2 defense looks to be in place again next year, so that 3 technique tackle is a necessity. If it isn't Harris, is there someone on the current roster that can be that guy? Questions, questions, questions...

For the record here's the info on his contract; Last summer he signed a four year $40 million extension that takes him through 2012. $18 million of the deal is guaranteed and next year he's set to make $1.235 million (and a $2.5 million roster bonus in June if he makes the roster), in 2011 he'll make $2.3125 million, and in 2012 he'll make $2.5 million. A lot, yes, but not untradeable.

I think the best case scenario for all involved, would be if Harris were 100% healthy for 2010 and was able to play at that Pro Bowl form. But how realistic is that? The last two seasons he's started slow, not to mention the "benchings" he received in each of the last two years, and hasn't really showed any consistency in being the player he was. He's showed flashes, but he hasn't been able to maintain it. Against the Rams he didn't play as much as in weeks past because his knee was acting up. Asides from the best case scenario, here are a few other possibilities for Tommie as they finish out the season.

1) He keeps this upward swing in play going for the rest of '09 and gives some hope to the Bears that 2010 will be a big year for him. If Harris were to finish strong the Bears would have some options.

a) Ride it out and see if he can regain his old form. Let's face it, if he's right, he's one of the best DT's in the league, and why move away from a potentially dominating force inside.

b) If he can finish strong, it'll be the highest his trade value will be since 2006. I don't think they'll get too much for him (a late second or third round draft pick at most). In trading him the Bears will have to find another team that is lacking at DT, a team that is willing to take on the salary, and a team that really believes in Tommie.

c) Keep him and reevaluate him before the 2010 trade deadline. This could backfire if he regresses next season, but if he looks good a trade could present itself. Then again if he's looking good why trade him?

2) He continues to show flashes of his brilliance, but no consistency.

a) Trade him, but what would he bring as a shell of his old self? A sixth or a fifth round pick at best? Finding a willing trade partner with him not going good will prove to be tough.

b) Cut him this off season. They'll be no stud DT coming in the draft, so is Marcus Harrison gonna be that guy? Israel Idonije? Jarron Gilbert?

c) Keep him because even at less that 100% he's still the best you have. I really think this may be the way the Bears go.

I guess one other scenario could play itself out. He could keep struggling with injuries the rest of this season and show no signs of improvement this off season. Then the writing would be on the wall in regards to his future. Honestly I hope he can bounce back from his recent struggles, everything I've read and heard about him off the field paints him in a good light.

Poll

What do you believe the future holds for Tommie Harris?

What could an uncapped 2010 season mean for the Bears?

Kev H — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:00:16 -0000

I thought we'd take this afternoon to get a little bit of a break from hating most of the coaching staff and all of the front office to talk about a big-picture item that everyone's heard something about, but not everyone really understands the impact of.

There's a lot of talk lately about what happens if 2010 is truly a cap-free year, and what happens if there's a lockout in '11. While the lockout is a beast altogether, there are several ways the lack of a cap could really affect the league. While this is not the most in-depth review of the subject you'll see, I've tried to cover a lot of bases. (Side Note: Have you ever tried reading the collective bargaining agreement? It is simultaneously the most boring, yet somehow interesting, yet frustrating document I've ever attempted to read.)

Let's take a look at how it affects some groups in the NFL, and our beloved Bears, after the jump...

Rookies

Generally speaking, Rookies can stand to lose pretty big. In an uncapped year, owners will be particularly hesitant to shell out big-time cash to college studs who are unproven in the NFL. Given the lack of overall first round reliability (see: Ki-Jana Carter, Ryan Leaf, Cedric Benson, many, many others) owners would much rather pay the extra money for proven talent. That being said, it can affect rookies multiple ways. The obvious, it takes away their potential to earn the big bucks, reducing the salaries they may have gotten in recent years past. They can't demand the big bucks the way Michael Crabtree did, because the first few signs of refusal will cause teams to look elsewhere. Those who think they might not get picked in the first place may continue their education and not declare altogether.

The item that's often not mentioned is that, while the money's out there and getting good, elite juniors may skip their senior year, and try to grab while the grabbing's good. This could work out for them, especially as the new Collective Bargaining Agreement is likely to include a rookie salary cap. In an uncapped year, the "slotting" system of the draft, where the biggest money goes to the earliest picks, could go out the window. You could get a guy at pick #4 getting paid more than the guy at #1. While I'm sure this would blow everyone's mind, it's definitely possible.

Free Agents

Free agents get bit in numerous ways. On one hand, those who are truly unrestricted free agents stand to possibly make a huge payday. The problem with that is the uncapped year rules states that free agents have to have six years in, instead of four. That is to say, truly unrestricted free agents have to have accrued six years in the league before they can go anywhere they want. Otherwise, free agents will be restricted, allowing teams right of first refusal for many players. This still causes the lingering problem--teams can offer the restricted free agent whatever they want, and if a team wants to retain it's top talent, it may have to pay to match, which isn't something a lot of teams will want to do. (There's a team in Chicago that doesn't like to spend money that springs to mind.) This could hurt some teams.

Realistically, what is much more likely, though, and something people don't realize--a lot of owners will like the idea of cutting payroll. During the uncapped year there's not a minimum or maximum. Most people realize there's no maximum, but few realize that there is no minimum. It's highly possible that the windfall of ridiculous payments to players doesn't happen.

In addition, teams would get to use an additional two "tags" during the uncapped year. This will reduce the free agent pool as teams can lock down an extra player at average salaries for their position. This will lead to young guys who signed four or five year deals not making it to unrestricted, and older veterans getting "tagged."

In other words, the free agent pool should be much smaller in an uncapped year.

Owners

Owners can actually stand to benefit some, but not much. It's not a secret that many rosters are full of average-quality players who make too much money. These are the biggest hindrances of the salary cap--be they veterans whose skills have diminished(Olin Kreutz?), or guys who had a few good years, got the big deal(*cough* Tommie Harris *cough*), and then went downhill. (Or got the big deal and busted right away....Cedric)

Owners will likely look to be reducing roster pay, and implementing their own personal "caps". These limits they impose could be much lower than the limits now. Older, injury prone veterans stand to lose a lot, and be nearly unsignable, as teams won't want to pay the big contracts, and can't handle the liability that big up-front contracts cover.

The other benefit to the uncapped year is the ability to dump salary counting against the cap. If they have a player who's scheduled to hit large against the cap, but only have a small guaranteed amount, this is the time they'd be able to dump them without having to take the big hit. This could be the key for some teams to get rid of their albatross. (Also known as "Jamarcus Russell")

This isn't to say that there will be no team that goes spending crazy--someone likely will.(I'm looking at you, NFC East). Just that there's a chance that shelling out tons of cash isn't going to get them anywhere.

Fans

Finally, fans don't get a fair shake, either. The chances are good that small market, cost-conscious teams could easily field some inferior teams to cut payroll. That's just not fun. In addition the general loss of talent and personnel shift could keep teams from being able to improve themselves even if they want to.

The Bears

This part is completely open to debate. In a time like this, it could be the time the Bears step to the forefront and try to fix some problems. It could be the time they try to improve the bottom line. I'd put more hypotheses here, but honestly, every time I think I know what this franchise does, it does something that either confuses me to the point of anger, or puts some kind of false hope in me.

----

I haven't covered all of the ramifications here, as the "final 8" plan could take a whole post by itself(It's the way that they keep the playoff teams from making themselves even better), but this can help you guide yourself, as you're going to start to hear about this more and more when the season ends. It could very well become a moot point, but it's worth discussing, and a nice distraction from the inept, lackluster, heartless play on the field lately.

How the Bears can move up in the 2010 NFL Draft

wiltfongjr — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:00:16 -0000

by Jason DeCrow - AP

View full size photo »

With no first or second round picks thanks to the Jay Cutler and Gaines Adams deals, getting an impact rookie will be challenging, but not impossible. The Bears need to find a way to get into the first or second round, and then of course, not whiff on the picks. The Bears currently have one pick in the third through seventh rounds for a total of five picks. As far as I can tell the most picks you can start draft day with is ten, but you can wheel and deal once the draft starts to get as many as you want. The Bears need to do what ever they can to get ten draft choices before draft day in order to maximize their dealing capabilities.

Looking over the Bears roster you'll see plenty of players under contract that shouldn't be a part of their future. Some players will have to be cut, but some have enough value to pick up a late round pick. Jerry Angelo (if he's still the GM this off season) has to deal away some dead weight. Just remember, making trades in the NFL isn't like other sports, player movement through trades just doesn't happen that often, but Angelo will have to thoroughly explore all possibilities. And the biggest thing he must consider is he may be drafting for the last time in Chicago, so if the opportunity arises use some of the 2011 draft choices to help get some picks in 2010.

One thing to keep in mind when dealing away some of your depth is the special teams will suffer. But with Dave Toub coordinating that phase of the team it's a chance you have to take. I'll speculate on some possible moves the Bears could make.

A) Nathan Vasher has a big money deal, but could be moved because he has had some past success. All you need is one GM to think a change of scenery could revive his career. Someone will want a former Pro Bowl corner, and a change just may do him good. Depending on the timing of the deal you could possibly get a fifth or sixth round pick for him. If the Bears could squeak out a few reps at free safety for the "Interceptor" it could help his trade value or if he fills in adequately at corner for a game or two they'll see his value go up, maybe as high as a fourth round pick.

B) I know the Bears were burned by trading away a safety a few years ago in Chris Harris, but it's clear the Bears are moving forward with Al Afalava as the strong safety. He outplayed Kevin Payne to win the job, but Payne has starting experience on his resume. He has some value around the league. The Bears seem comfortable with Craig Steltz backing up SS, so moving Payne makes sense right now. Depending on team needs this off season the Bears might end up with as high as a fifth round pick for him.

C) With Greg Olsen winning the starting tight end job from Desmond Clark, and with the emergence of Kellen Davis as a serviceable back up, Des Clark is expendable. Neither Olsen or Davis can block as well as Clark, but blocking is something they can improve on. Remember Clark was a wide receiver at Wake Forest and worked to become a better than average blocker. You need your reserve tight ends to be core special teamers and Clark doesn't fit that. If he fully recovers from this years injuries and finishes strong he might bring you a fourth round pick. Besides this season, he's been a reliable starting tight end for the Bears, and even though Clark is an 11 year vet he could be a starter for another team.

D) Garrett Wolfe, currently on IR because of a lacerated kidney, is expected to be ready for full participation come this off season. It should be with another team. For what ever reason the Bears have never been able to find a way to fit him into the game plan. He's excelled on special teams the last couple years and in his limited time with the ball in his hands this year he's been ok. With Jones expected back next year in some role and Khalil Bell able to fill the special teams spot of Wolfe, the Bears need to float Wolfe's name out there to gauge his value. At most I think they could get a fifth round pick for him, but their probably more likely to get a sixth.

The next two players I'll throw out there I really can't see traded, but you never know. Trading away players of their stature is difficult because one side will never feel truly compensated in any deals that may get to the table.

E) A popular name that is mentioned in trade speculation by many fans is Tommie Harris. With his production coming no where near his contract, moving him could be next to impossible. He has however, started playing better of late. Here's the question to ponder; If Harris is 100% and playing like the Tommie of old do you still want to trade him? If he has a strong finish to the year and they decide he isn't worth the risk, they could get a third (maybe a second) round pick for him if the right situation arises.

F) Before the recent drama surrounding Brian Urlacher I never would have even considered trading him away. But with him dropping those quotes for the Yahoo Sports piece, I could see him moved. Now finding someone that would want to take on that contract is another thing entirely. With his recent injury history teams may shy away from him, but there will be a few organizations that'll show interest. If his wrist heals properly, and all indications are that it will, he could fetch as high as a second round pick.

* Of course any of these players and any future draft choices could be used to pick up a legit number one wide receiver. In that case, picking up a guy like Brandon Marshall or Anquan Boldin would trump any plans I touched on above.

But if the Bears do stockpile lower round picks they'll then need to be used to move up in the draft, something Jerry Angelo hasn't done much of in the past. Using an NFL Draft Pick Value Chart, one of which every GM in the league uses, you can see the points needed to move up in the draft. If you've never seen the chart go take a look so what I say next makes sense (well... I'll try and make sense).

There are always teams looking to trade down, whether to save on the first round draft pick contract or because of how the draft is falling they realize "their guy" will be available later. The Bears would need between 600-900 points to get into the bottom half of round one. Many times the team trading up will have to overpay to make the move. I won't take into consideration any picks potentially obtained by moving Harris or Urlacher (like I said, it's unlikely they'll be moved).

OK, so in the scenarios outlined above the Bears would have their own 3rd-7th round picks plus two 4's a 5 and a 6. I'll look at some draft day deals that could move them into day 1 (1st round) or day 2 (2nd and 3rd round) of the 2010 NFL Draft.

1) The three 4th round picks (approximately worth 200 points) could get them into the 3rd round.

2) They Bears could package their third and fourth round picks (about 300 pts.) and move into the lower end of round two.

3) To get into the latter part of the 2010 1st round they could always move their '11 #1 pick and a handful of late '10 picks. There seems to always be a team picking in the late 1st round that is looking to get out of that pick.

4) If the Bears finish 10th worst this year their 3rd round pick (220 pts.), their 4th round pick (82 pts.), and their 5th round pick (37 pts.) could move them up to the bottom third of the 2nd round. That 2nd plus their 2011 2nd could get them into the 2010 1st round.

5) We'll call this the "Ditka Deal"; If the Bears trade every single one of their 2010 picks, their 3rd-7th (375 pts.), plus their 4 picks acquired in my moves above (approximately 200 points), they could jump up near the top of the 2nd round.

You can see how a creative GM could work the phones to move up. All you need is a willing partner and the guts to pull the trigger on numerous deals. With day 1 of the draft limited to the 1st round this year there will be more time to work the phones before day 2 and the 2nd and 3rd rounds.

Shallow Thoughts & Nearsighted Observations

Ted Bartlett — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:30:18 -0000

More photos » by Nick Wass - AP

29 days ago: Denver Broncos wide receiver Brandon Marshall is stopped by Washington Redskins cornerback DeAngelo Hall during the third quarter of the NFL football game, Nov. 15, 2009 in Landover, Md. (AP Photo/Nick Wass)

Browse more photos »

Happy Tuesday, friends, and welcome to another edition of Shallow Thoughts & Nearsighted Observations. Here we are again, with another loss to contend with. This one is worse than the last two, because this one looked like a sure victory when we were marking off W's and L's on the schedule. Of course, if Kyle Orton didn't get hurt, it probably is a W, and the Broncos are still sitting on a 1-game lead over the Chargers. Since that's not the way it played out, we have to do the other thing.

We'll get into the details, from soup to chocolate cake, and make some sense of all this, because that's what we do here. We'll explore what happened, we'll find some things to feel positive about, and we'll have some fun. Out of the echo chamber, and into the fire, y'all. Ready..... BEGIN!!!!

1. There's a certain interconnectedness to a football game, and its outcome, among all phases of the game, and all 45 active players. I've talked about this many times before, and John Bena called the loss a team effort in his postgame writeup. I would call this a team effort whose final score is mostly attributable to the poor second half play of the offense, and mostly, of Chris Simms.

What I mean by that is this. Over the first 6 games of the season, the Broncos led the league in scoring defense. They were especially strong defensively in the second half of games. That trend has been turned on its head the last 3 weeks. The last two weeks, especially, I believe that the main reason why the defense struggled in the second half was that they were on the field for too many plays, due to the struggles of the offense. Each side of the ball needs to help the other. The Broncos have been getting shut down on offense, and worn down on defense, and it's been difficult to watch.

Al Michaels and Cris Collinsworth were going on and on Sunday night about how the Colts led the NFL in scoring defense heading into this week. If you've watched the Colts, they don't even have a particularly good defense, if there is any chance you can run the ball against them. They have allowed so few points because they deliberately shorten the game when they're on offense, and because once they get a lead, the strength of their defense comes to the fore. They rush the passer well with four men, and drop 7 men into cover-2. If you stay out of situations that are favorable to Indianapolis, you can gash their defense.

This is what has been happening to the Broncos as well. Remember - in the first 6 games, the offense did its best work in the second half of games. They possessed the ball, they took their time, and they methodically controlled the games. When the defense was on the field, they were fresh, they substituted frequently, and they made plays to get off the field quickly.

Kyle Orton played great in the first half Sunday, just as he'd played very well in the first half of the Pittsburgh game, (outside the one interception). For all the hollering that went on about his lack of deep throwing, he threw a couple very nice deep balls for TDs to Brandon Marshall, and he just barely missed another to Eddie Royal. That opened the field vertically. He also did a very nice job on a few bootleg throws to Tony Scheffler, and a crossing pattern to Marshall. Those plays stretched the field horizontally.

The Broncos had Washington where they wanted them. Remember, they moved the ball on the possession where Correll Buckhalter fumbled, and they had the 17-play drive at the end of the first half, to take the 3-point lead. The Orton injury changed the entire complexion of the game. Simms simply couldn't complete a pass, and didn't seem to know where to go with the ball, and a lot of good work by Knowshon Moreno was wasted.

Most teams will struggle when they lose their starting QB. That's a function of the fact that there aren't 32 good QBs in the NFL, let alone 64 of them. I came into this game thinking that the Broncos are in good shape with Simms, if they needed to use him. I hope that he shows better if he has to play against San Diego, after a week of first-team reps. I still do tend to think that Simms can play.

You hate to have a game get away from you because your backup QB couldn't cut it. The only thing worse would be if two games got away for that reason. I expect that Josh McDaniels will have Simms ready to go next week, and that the gameplan will play to his strengths, if they need to use him.

You have to be careful not to let one game unduly affect an evaluation of a team. All the time, teams lay eggs in games, and lose (or nearly lose) to teams they should blow out. Look no further than New Orleans on Sunday, who seemingly tried to lose to St. Louis. Not to say that Dallas should have blown out Green Bay, but they shouldn't have gotten dominated like they did, either.

There's a lot of Chicken Little stuff going on here, and the one thing that will stop it is a victory against San Diego next week. Yes, I know that the Chargers are on a winning streak and the Broncos are on a losing streak. Remember when the Broncos had won 6 in a row, and the Ravens had lost 3 in a row? The Broncos can beat San Diego, which we know, because they already have this season. If they win that game, they'll re-take command of the division, with a one-game lead, and a sweeping of the head-to-head matchup.

2. In the big-time matchup of the week, the Colts got a win against the Patriots, and on Monday, Bill Belichick is being blamed by everybody who doesn't like him personally (AKA just about everyone). The fact is, Belichick has never curried favor with the media, and reporters tend to be critical of you every chance they get, if you don't pay them their due deference.

Joe Biden could tell you all about how that works. He never trusted the media after their treatment of the death of his first wife and daughter in 1972, and it always hurt him later, particularly in his two Presidential bids. John McCain and Barack Obama both have very deft touches with the media, and longstanding strategies of providing them a lot of access, and it was no accident that both were the nominees of their parties in 2008. If you're going to be a public figure, there's a clear benefit to cultivating relationships with reporters. The thing is, not everybody has the stomach for it, and Belichick is one of those guys who doesn't. Brett Favre benefits immensely from his relationship-building efforts, to the point of it being sickening most of the time. I heard somewhere recently that Favre spends hours with the TV guys on Saturday afternoons, as long as they want to hang out, and they really can't help but love on him.

Back to the lecture at hand, I would have done exactly the same thing as Belichick in that game situation, in going for it on 4th and 2 from his own 28. Why did he do it? Because he was pretty close to certain that he would lose the game if he punted, that's why.

Let's say you go by the book, and punt. Over all 2,293 punts in the NFL in 2008, the average net change in field position was 39.53 yards. The right call, if you ask Peter King, or others, was to punt, and give Manning the ball at his own 32, with about 2 minutes, and all 3 timeouts left. I say that that is choosing to lose the game in a way that will leave the coach blameless, as far as the idiot media is concerned. Well, he trusted his defense, and he played the percentages; it's not the coach's fault. Except he didn't play the percentages.

First of all, let's get this nonsense about trusting your defense dispensed with. You should always trust your defense. Former defensive players like Tedy Bruschi, Matt Bowen, and old friend Tom Jackson love this line of thinking, but it's utter horse (manure). You should only trust your defense if you think they are likely to make the stop, and win you the game. If you think they aren't, then it's a fool's errand to trust them. You say to them, hey, realistically, you guys probably weren't going to stop Peyton Manning, which really doesn't make you much different from any other team's defense. There is no room for blind machismo, or making a statement, or worrying about hurt feelings; this is about winning football games, nothing more.

I didn't spend a great deal of time on it, but I took a look at every game recap for the Colts since 2005. (I think 4 ½ seasons is a reasonable sample size.) Since then, including the postseason, Manning has had the ball late in the game, trailing, on 19 occasions which I counted. He came through to either tie or take the lead 15 times, which is a 79% success rate. (In 2007, he was 1-for-4, which was pretty aberrant for this sample. Two of those misses were against the strong 2007 Chargers, whom the Colts struggled to pass-protect against.)

Here's the deal. Statistically, you have a 60% chance of picking up 4th and 2, but that probability is almost certainly greater, due to the fact that you have an outstanding offense, and the Colts have an average-at-best defense. If I were Belichick, I would have put my conversion probability at 70% for that play. That same source says that an average team returning a punt, given those field position- and time parameters, scores 53% of the time. We already know Manning succeeds 79% of the time, because he's one of the greatest QBs ever.

You can choose to probably win, or you can choose to probably lose, in one moment. What do you choose?

Belichick chose to probably win, and came up on the side where the probable outcome wasn't the actual outcome. Serious poker players know exactly what I am talking about here. Sometimes, you play the hand correctly, and you go all-in with the best cards, but you lose anyway. It's a fact of life. You accept it, and you don't complain about it, because you know you made the right call, regardless of the outcome. The next time you're faced with the same situation, you do the same thing, again, because it was the right call.

When I got home Monday night, all I saw and heard was TV talking heads second-guessing the decision. Stuart Scott pretty much butchered the stats, but he actually cited our friends at AdvancedNFLStats.com. The shockingly anti-intellectual Steve Young promptly claimed that the stats aren't legitimate (except they are). We got to hear from Tedy Bruschi how he'd feel as a defensive player on the Patriots, as if that's germane to anything at all. Trent Dilfer's blood boils when he hears the "other side" of the argument, AKA the correct side. Blah, blah, blah. (Sorry, brief possession by an ex-wife-like-entity again.)

Just imagine the reaction if Kevin Faulk had made the 2 yards. The stories today would have been about the stones on Belichick, and how he is such a great coach to make a risky call. It would be like Mike Shanahan going for 2 in the Hochuli Game last season. (Shanahan correctly thought that was his best chance to win. He felt he had a better-than-50 percent chance of scoring the conversion, and he knew that he had a 50% chance of winning a coin toss, and about a 98% chance that the Chargers would score in overtime, if he lost the toss.)

I'm no great defender of Belichick, the man, but when he's right, he's right. If it's an average QB, and an average offense, you might punt in that situation, but against Manning, that's always going to be the wrong call on 4th and 2. Once again, Belichick is smarter than the average bear, and smarter than every member of the football MSM.

3. Information From My Eyes - Broncos at Redskins

a. All four deep throws Orton made were good throws. Eddie Royal misjudged the one incompletion, and Brandon Marshall got out-fought by DeAngelo Hall on the second, but both were definitely well-thrown balls.

b. That fake field goal was a debacle, but I don't personally blame Mike Priefer. My goat on that play is Darrell Reid, who was telling Marcus Thomas to cover Mike Sellers, while he decided to contain the left edge of the offense, as the play flowed right. Alphonso Smith caught some initial blame, but I disagree there. He was in deep center field, and flowed with the play, like anybody would coach him to. Who knew Hunter Smith could throw back across the field?

c. Ryan Clady got beat badly once on Sunday. That doesn't happen often at all, obviously. That's the first sack he allowed that I would say was fully on him.

d. From the department of good news, Matt Prater doesn't seem to be having a second-half slump this season.

e. I was very impressed with Knowshon Moreno's vision and quickness on Sunday.

f. I've already made my evaluation of Mitch Berger, so everybody knows where I am at on that one. I saw somewhere where Frank Schwab, some beat reporter, speculated that Mitch Berger's 65-yard punt might save his job. If a kick that went about 42 yards in the air, and rolled 23 on the ground can do that, something absurd is going on.

g. I had a busy workday Monday, which set my schedule back, and is unfortunately going to preclude me from taking the time to do Between The Lines this week.

On watching the game a second time, though, it occurred to me that the bulk of Washington's success in running the ball was on zone-blocked plays. As I think about it, the Broncos haven't faced much of that this season at all; really just Oakland, who does it crappily. That's really something to work on, because the lateral movement seemed to unsettle the Broncos defensive line.

h. D.J. Williams got blocked a lot, and took a lot of bad angles. Again. This is getting to be an annoying habit.

i. Andra Davis continued to be a bright spot. He is a terrific blitzer and has a great sense of timing for delaying his rush. His missed tackle on that Devin Thomas catch and run in the 4th quarter was bad, but he otherwise graded out very well.

j. On a painful second pass watching the game, Chris Simms lacked timing with the receivers, as much as anything. Every throw was a little late. It seems like Orton may be able to play next Sunday, but if it's Simms, I hope a week's worth of reps will help him build some timing.

4. Information From My Eyes - Other Games:

a. I was really curious to see the Buffalo-Tennessee game, and I recorded the Short Cut overnight, and watched the game Monday evening. Why would I care about this game? Well, the two teams played in the Hall of Fame Game, way back when it was still warm in Cleveland, and my girlfriend at the time called at halftime to break up with me.

In that game, the Bills couldn't block Tennessee, and the Titans looked like a Super Bowl team. So, I wanted to watch Sunday's game, because I wanted a good sense of where these two teams are. Tennessee probably isn't going to make the playoffs, after starting 0-6, but they've righted their ship, and they'd be trouble if they did make it. Their defensive line is still nasty, and I continue to be impressed with the job William Hayes is doing in replacing Jevon Kearse.

b. On the other side, the Bills still are below average on their offensive line. Their two highly-drafted rookies, Eric Wood, and Andy Levitre, particularly struggled, as they both had in the preseason game. Levitre even ended up playing some LT, due to an injury, and he really struggled outside. Wood got pushed backwards consistently in the passing game, and he's been generally pretty good as a rookie. The Bills need to shore up their offensive line in the offseason, and I am sure their new head coach will make that a priority, if they hire a competent one.

c. I am ready to make a pronouncement. If Vince Young couldn't run, he'd be the second coming of Trent Dilfer. He really isn't much of a thrower of the ball, and he leaves too much air under his throws. You can get by with him in a run-heavy offense, which is what the Titans really are.

Because he can run, he adds a useful element, and the team is really dangerous on option plays, and QB runs. His running ability can dictate that teams play man-to-man defense, and keep a guy out of coverage to spy him. Really, the Titans are back to being the 10-6ish team they were in 2007. I think they'll ultimately decide to stick with Young for next season, and look to build up the interior of their offensive line, and their back 7 on defense.

d. It seems like forever ago, but I did watch the Chicago-San Francisco game intently last Thursday. I think my first thought that I'd like to share is that the Bears defense played like they had some pride. I think Tommie Harris playing well made a huge difference. He is really the key to their whole scheme. I ripped him, and them, last week, and I told the guy from WCG who took exception that I'd say when they played well on defense. They did.

e. I don't really feel like I should say anything about Jay Cutler, because this column aims to stay away from saying obvious things. I'll just say it must be nice to have so many apologists when you mess up. He's like the second coming of Ronald Reagan with how teflon he is.

(Tangential ST&NO story - Reagan is a member of my fraternity. When he died in June of 2004, I was a senior at CSU, and President of my chapter, and I was asked to go on local television, to talk about Reagan as a fraternity man. Our guys did a fundraiser, and jumped on a trampoline for 54 straight days in the 80s, to break a Guinness record, while Frater Ronnie was POTUS. He sent us a congratulatory letter, so I focused on that with the news chick, Angie Lau. I had nothing but nice things to say, as Ronnie was definitely a good fraternity man.)

f. Peter King is really proud of himself for naming San Francisco's Aubrayo Franklin a midseason All-Pro as a NT. When Franklin got that scoring-area INT early on last Thursday, I kind of groaned, because I knew there was going to be some crowing about it.

I never have felt like Franklin jumped out, so I watched him closely, and my review is mixed. He didn't play a lot of snaps, so I wonder about his conditioning. He did play pretty stout against the run at times, and I felt like he was a good player overall when he was on the field. I could easily name 10-12 interior defensive players who are better, though. I guess it's fun to have a guy who is your guy, though.

g. Is Marc Bulger a veteran QB? I have always thought he was, but his command of clock management seemed really bad on Sunday. The Rams had a pretty good shot to beat the Saints, and Bulger and his receivers blew it. Man, I can't tell you how much I would hate to be associated with that team, in any capacity. It's got to be so disheartening to have no talent, be almost completely uncompetitive, then have a chance to beat an undefeated team, and blow it. Can you imagine what it's like to be a fan of such a team?

h. Reggie Bush had a really big game for the Saints on Sunday, stepping up from his usual "highly-paid-decoy" role. It's interesting to speculate on how the Saints value him. Obviously, they don't think he's a full-time RB, but he's paid like he's Adrian Peterson. I'd be happy to have him as a swing player, between RB and WR, but he's a backup at both positions, and I'd only pay him backup money. We'll soon see what the Saints think, because if I recall correctly, his contract is pretty well back-loaded.

i. Josh Freeman continues to look like he's the real deal for the Buccaneers, and Raheem Morris continues to look like he's gotten his bearings as a Head Coach. Both did a nice job in Sunday's game, despite Miami's comeback victory.

j. Speaking of Miami, I want to address the "Wildcat." The Dolphins are the only team which has had a lot of success with it, and every time they have a game with limited success, somebody speculates that the "trend" has run its course.

The thing is, Miami doesn't treat it like a trend. They treat it as a key part of the way they play offense, which puts their best players on the field together. They are committed to it, and they will continue to run it. They trade the disadvantage of being formationally unlikely to throw for the advantage of having 2-3 players who are good ball-carriers, who might get the ball in the running game. Other teams are finding that the direct-snap game maybe doesn't work for them. For Miami, it will continue to be an important part of their gameplan.

k. Joey Porter has had a pretty sub-par year, and he was a healthy scratch on Sunday. That raised some eyebrows, and Tony Sparano wouldn't comment on it. It actually parallels Adalius Thomas basically being shut down by the Patriots. Both teams are showing that having a big name and a big salary doesn't guarantee playing time, if you aren't producing on the field. Expect both players to be released after the season.

l. Another game I decided to watch on Monday was Jacksonville at the Jets. The Jets miss Kris Jenkins terribly, and their defense is nowhere near as good as it was when he was healthy. They are having to scheme to stop the inside run, and to keep Bart Scott and David Harris clean, and these things used to just happen. I expect New England to blow them out this coming week.

m. I can see why people like Mark Sanchez, but I continue not to be a fan. He's well-coached, and he has excellent fundamentals. I just think he's very limited as a natural thrower of the ball. I consider him to be a poor man's Matt Ryan, which is another way of calling him a middle class man's Chad Pennington.

Sanchez plays in a windy place, which I have noted before, and that's going to always be an issue. Another issue is that the offensive scheme he is playing in is very vertical, and Sanchez is a poster boy for the West Coast Offense. Rex Ryan inherited Brian Schottenheimer as offensive coordinator, but I don't think Schottenheimer and Sanchez are a very good match. I have to wonder if the Jets don't make a change in the offseason, to bring in somebody to make the passing game's design more horizontal. Mike Shanahan could do wonders with Sanchez, although he won't be going to New York.

Really, as I think about it, if Sanchez and Jason Campbell could trade offensive coaching staffs, they'd probably both be much better off. Two owners traded teams once; why couldn't this happen?

n. There was a crazy sequence in the third quarter, where Sanchez threw an interception to Quentin Groves, then Maurice Jones-Drew fumbled at the goal line, and then Braylon Edwards fumbled at the end of a 41-yard catch. It was a whole lot of ugly going on at once, like the perennially sloppy tendencies of the Jaguars were rubbing off on the Jets.

o. Torry Holt was a great player for many years, despite playing for some obscure St. Louis teams. Really, you could make a case that he was a better player than a few Hall of Famers. (How about Art Monk, Steve Largent, and Lynn Swann to name a few?) I would go so far as to say that he was better than any WR the Broncos have had in my lifetime, a little ahead of Rod Smith.

My point in giving Holt credit, is that I have to say that I think he is getting pretty close to the end of the line. He has really struggled to get any separation, in the times I have watched him this season. He had two strong games, against St. Louis (bad defense) and Seattle (garbage time in a 41-0 game), but I haven't been impressed with his recent work.

p. I loved the call by the Jaguars to have Jones-Drew take a knee and run the clock out. His apology to his fantasy owners made me cringe, though. I may be 7-3 in the official MHR league, but fantasy football is at odds with my beliefs about football, and I have a hard time reconciling the two things.

q. I couldn't talk myself into watching the Cincinnati-Pittsburgh game. Sorry, I know it was a key game, but a game with zero offensive touchdowns offends my sensibilities. (Just in case you were wondering why I had nothing on this game.) I'm sure it was ugly, and I feel fine, personally, having seen the highlights. When I walk into a smelly restroom, I get out as quick as possible. No need to hang around for half an hour, to have a good idea what happened there.

r. Jake Delhomme had a dangerously solid game on Sunday. It was the type of fool's gold performance that makes the regime think they are okay with him as their QB, and really, Jake has been having those games his whole career. The Panthers are suddenly 4-5, and back in the picture for a Wild Card spot, but I really believe that they need a better QB if they ever want to really compete for a championship.

s. Matt Ryan struggled mightily again on Sunday, and his two interceptions were a lot of the reason the Falcons lost the game. His first INT, in the second quarter, led to a TD which set the Falcons behind 21-10. The one he threw in the 4th quarter was converted 3 plays later into the TD which put the game away for Carolina.

Don't get me wrong; Ryan is mostly a good QB, but he has definite limitations, which I have highlighted in the past. He really struggles to beat tight coverage, and he's seen a lot of it lately.

t. Speaking of Hall of Fame-caliber guys who look washed up, old friend Jason Elam seems to have really lost his fastball. He's now 9 for 14, and he's only 3 for 6 between 30 and 39 yards. I would be surprised if he kicks after this season.

u. I always thought Beanie Wells was soft when he was at Ohio State, and he didn't do a lot early this season to change my mind. Lately, though, he's shown a lot better, and he's a big reason why the Cardinals are 6-3, and squarely in control of the NFC West. I've also been more impressed with the play of RT Levi Brown than ever before. He's been blowing some people off the ball in the running game.

v. The Chargers have been really tough in the scoring area lately. Of course, the Eagles helped them out by not even trying to run the ball down there. You have to make the defense think that they have to defend everything, or else they are at a distinct advantage. Only getting field goals of 18, 25, and 25 yards on visits deep into San Diego territory was the difference in that game. A defense can get shredded, as the Chargers did, and if they toughen up in the scoring area, they make up for it. A lot of Donovan McNabb's 450 yards were low-quality.

w. The Chargers sure are paying Darren Sproles a lot of money not to participate very much on offense. He's a lot like Reggie Bush, in being a highly-paid decoy who is never going to be much more than what he is.

x. Hey, Adam Schefter. From a money guy, "large" means thousand. When you say "two hundred fifty thousand large," that means $250 Million. He said that on Monday Night Countdown (Served by Applebee's... really). People misspeak all the time; I just wanted to make sure he knows what "large" means. This is coming from a helpful place.

y. I have to hand it to the Browns. They played really well on defense Monday night. Their offense is just so terrible, that it's no use. Those defensive players are playing for jobs next year, whether it be in Cleveland under a new regime, or elsewhere. Guys who show some pride and effort on bad teams will have some good film for their agents to shop them with. Guys who pack it in will be out of the league, like so many guys who played defense in Denver last season.

z. I actually like to listen to MNF nowadays, as I finish ST&NO every week. The main reason is that I actually think that both Ron Jaworski and Jon Gruden are value-adding to listen to. The guys at Mickey Mouse-land spent so many years looking for a good third man, with such horrible results, and they've finally found a good 3-man booth. I actually don't like Mike Tirico, who is good at basketball, but bad at football play-by-play (much like Joe Buck is great with baseball, and abysmal with football).

5. I know the Bengals have always been willing to take on troubled players, but it's hard to imagine what they are thinking in reportedly bringing in Larry Johnson. As LJ was to be the key RB on the Shallow Thoughts team in the official MHR Fantasy League, I can tell you that his performance has been garbage this season. Some of his bad performance can certainly be attributed to bad offensive line play in Kansas City, but Johnson is clearly lacking quickness to the hole, and the leg drive he had in his prime. I just don't see what value the Bengals are going to get out of him.

I've reached midnight, and unfortunately, I need to call it a night. My company is in the process of being acquired, which has caused me to be much busier than normal at this time of the month, and I have an early morning meeting Tuesday. I hope you enjoy this edition of ST&NO, and have a great week. I'll see you all again next Tuesday, hopefully with time to give you my normal output.

Cutler Fined $20k For Abusive Conduct

Dane Noble — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:10:06 -0000

Adding insult to injury, the NFL has levied a $20k fine against QB Jay Cutler for his decision to air out frustrations towards referee Ed Hochuli last week.

A day after throwing five interceptions in the Bears' 10-6 loss at San Francisco, Cutler was fined $20,000 by the NFL for abusive conduct toward a game official during last Sunday's 41-21 loss to the Cardinals.

Cutler was flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct in the third quarter following a pass attempt to Greg Olsen. He argued with Ed Hochuli because he thought Olsen was held on the play.

The article also mentions that Tommie Harris was fined $7,500 for the punch he threw last week.

$20k for yelling at a ref, but only $7,500 for punching a player. Alrighty then...

Notes, Scribbles, and Things Jotted Down: Niners Edition

Dane Noble — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:06:39 -0000

More photos » by Paul Sakuma - AP

You look good out there coach. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)

Browse more photos »

The Chicago Bears offensive line is terrible. I read an article around week 3 or 4 by one of the Bears beat writers that said our OL was pretty average compared to the rest of the league, that there are only a few really good OLs and only a few bad ones.

He had Chicago lumped in with all the rest and claimed us to be average.

You, sir (Pompei, Dickerson, Haugh... whoever it was) were wrong.

-For those of you clamoring for Kevin Shaffer to replace Orlando Pace, you got your wish. Pace either got the breath knocked out of him, as one report said, or he was feeling dizzy, as another said. Either way, Shaffer still sucks just like he did in the preseason.

- We got to see Frank Omiyale in the last drive at LG... Ron Turner said that he wanted a bigger body in there since we were going to passing every play.

- Chris Williams, who I have been supporting all season, looked awful at times. He made a few really good blocks, and showed very quick feet, but he also got blown backwards a number of times in pass protection.

- Luckily, Nick Roach's injury wasn't bad enough to keep him out of the game. After Vernon Davis trucked him, I was concerned that we would be down to our final 3 LBs.

- I support Lovie Smith and his defensive scheme. Jerry Angelo has not done a good job of acquiring talent in the secondary. That said, there is no excuse for week after week of penalties. penaltie that kill our drives, and penalties that keep alive our opponents' drives. That falls on Lovie. No excuses.

- Teams continue to miss FGs against the Bears. What's up with that?

- Hunter Hillenmeyer looked tiny last night. I don't know for sure, but he looks 10 pounds lighter than he did at the beginning of the year. Was it the injury? Either way, he did not look like a MLB last night. He looked like a unsersized CB trying to make one tackle on Frank Gore.

- Jay Cutler likes Greg Olsen as a receiver. Matt Forte does not like Greg Olsen as a run blocker.

- We saw our first glimpse of Shaffer on the Red Zone INT that Cutler threw. He was lined up left of Pace.

- Say what you will about Tommie Harris, but I'm not buying what he is selling. He looked good last night, but I want to see that happen again. Actually, I hope he plays at a high level for the rest of the year so we can try and get a 2nd round draft pick for him next year.

- Anthony Adams is fast. And round. He is round and fast.

- Alex Smith showed something on one play that made Hillenmeyer start pumping his hands up and down over his head as an audible to the defense. Then, Lance Briggs and Nick Roach started relaying the audible to the CBs, doing the same upward hand pumping. I thought "Wow, this looks like the Bears defense have sniffed something out... this looks really intense." Well, whatever it was, it looked cooler than it actually was. Niners converted a first down on the play.

- When our CBs are 10 yards off the WR, and the DL doesn't get pressure on the passer, the WRs can run 5 yard hitches all day long. Even on 3rd and 3.

- Oh yeah, one other thing that falls on Lovie Smith's shoulders: clock management. We were around our own 40 yard line at the end of the first half, with timeouts in our pocket, and saw the clock wind down from 1:07 to 0:37, with only 1 play being run. Apparently, the referees can't hear me calling timeout from the bar.

- Offsides, against the defense. 5 yard penalty, 1st down. Rinse, repeat.

- I have no idea how good of a head coach Mike Singletary is, but he damn sure looks the part. He is very involved in the game, and coaches up everyone on his sideline, from players to other coaches.

- WR screen, bubble screen, Matt Forte screen. Rinse, repeat. Our OL is embarrassing.

- Johnny Knox showed just the right amount of fight last night... hopefully Tommie was paying attention. Sure, stick up for yourself and push back. But let the other guy throw the punch, and walk away when he does. Then, we get the extra 15 yards... not the other way around. This after school special brought to you by Windy City Gridiron.

- The sheets of paper that have my notes written on them... smells like Bridgeport IPA. Not a good thing to smell with a hangover.

- Jay Cutler is the first Bears QB since 1962 to have two 4INT games in one season. Thanks for the stat NFLN.

- Shaffer didn't know his assignment on at least 2 plays last night. He kept trying to get them at the last second from Beekman. Oy vey, have I said our OL sucks? Because they do. Write that down.

- Matt Forte, bless his heart. That kid ran his butt off last night. And poor thing, couldn't actually get anywhere (except for receptions, but I'm talking about on rushes), but he sure did run hard. Love seeing the legs keep a'churnin'.

- As I've said before, it is pointless to try and find out whose fault something is... the fact is that our OL sucks, and a lot of our troubles would go away if it didn't. But, the officiating crew last night did not have a good game. I'm not blaming anything on them, because our OL sucks... but still. Won't be a pretty meeting Monday morning for those guys.

- Clock management at the end of the game... call a timeout Lovie. Clock ticked from 25 seconds to 17 seconds just so we could line up to spike the ball.

- Hey, Devin Aromashodu... nice footwork on the sidelines. Why were you dressed out again?

- Lance Briggs, thank you. You are a good football player on our team We need more of you.

- Stop trying to do the math and figure out how we can still make the playoffs. Our OL is terrible.

QuickHits: Bears Style

Dane Noble — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:53:52 -0000

As we get closer to kickoff, let's take a look at some stories from around the web.

Bob LeGere tells us that Tommie Harris ranks 533rd in league in tackles this season. What is his 2009 salary again?

Brad Biggs tells us that the Bears are only one of 10 teams who have not drafted a Pro Bowler since 2005.

And from the team's official site, we get some good quotes from some of our players.

Jay Cutler on TE Greg Olsen:

"He’s been keyed on all year," Cutler said. "That’s been a challenge for us to get him the ball because he’s been getting jammed at the line a lot. He’s been getting a lot of double teams in the red zone. Teams have known that we want to try to get him the ball. We just were able to find some ways to get him the ball last Sunday."

Broncos Thoughts and Musings - Redskins Week

Emmett Smith — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:21:10 -0000

More photos » by Jack Dempsey - AP

about 1 month ago: Denver Broncos' Andra Davis (54), D.J. Williams (55) and teammates look on from the bench in the final minute against the Pittsburgh Steelers in an NFL football game Monday, Nov. 9, 2009, in Denver. The Steelers won 28-10. (AP Photo/Jack Dempsey)

Browse more photos »

Another week in the NFL, and the Broncos didn't win this time, either. The earth remains in orbit, and the stock market didn't crash (again). Once again, some of the fan base is breaking its ankles in their haste to jump back off the bandwagon. Many of them will climb over people's heads to jump back on next week, too. It's the way this season is going.

One nice thing about getting older is getting a longer perspective on things. Patience, like age, can be a useful thing. You tend to lose the idea that the immediate is as daunting as emotions want to paint. You can, if you're lucky, learn that experiencing more wins than losses is actually enjoyable. You lose some of the urge to demand constant perfection of the world. You realize that your will never manifest that yourself, and you recognize that trying to require it of those around you makes you - and them - miserable. It's a rigged game.

The Broncos look good to me. I'm aware that they have weaknesses, but they also just played two excellent teams, one on the road. They didn't win, and they're probably not in that league yet. But they won against San Diego on the road, as well as beating three division leaders in Dallas, New England and Cincinnati. If you rate their overall performance, they're exceeding nearly everyone's estimations. Don't waste too much time worrying and insisting that things are in peril. We've won 3 of every 4 games. Enjoy it.

Let's talk Broncos!

Hamilton and Concussions

I'd like to talk for a few moments about Ben Hamilton's situation. When he spent some time out with a major concussion, I immediately became concerned. I used to see mild to moderate brain trauma cases in my clinical days and even designed a new treatment format that seemed to be very effective, so I knew how troubling that injury can be. What's just as troubling is that the medical field has been incredibly slow to admit that each concussion is a serious life event.

Some players are never the same afterward, just as many non-players will have problems with concentration, thought and emotions throughout the rest of their lives. Brain injuries are serious stuff.

In poking around, I was temporarily soothed by learning that offensive lineman relatively rarely suffer concussions. What I didn't realize at the time was that this information was put out by the tools of the NFL, which has a huge investment in keeping people believing something that we have long known is nonsense - that NFL players don't have a provably higher rate of concussive dementia than the population at large. I don't know a doc personally who believes that crap, but it's still out there.

What they didn't tell us was that offensive lineman do have a lower rate of concussions. However - they have a significantly higher rate of non-concussive head blows. If you've had a major concussion in the past, that can leave you with issues of concentration, slower reflexes and a whole slew of other issues. Since Hamilton didn't have a major history of inducing penalties and has since returning, it's impossible to rule out the concern that he may be suffering from a chronic level of post-concussive syndrome. Is that my clinical diagnosis? Of course not - I've never met the man, much less done an intake workup on him. But it concerns me as one potential explanation of the situation, and I'm pretty sure from my own history that many of his docs aren't taking this as seriously as they should. Sometimes, we can be incredibly slow to admit that things your great-grandmother knew were true - like head injuries can last for a lifetime, whether our current testing shows it clearly or not - are really true.

I wish the man well. It's time to accept that he will probably not be with the Broncos next year and to move forward in whatever way is best. The middle of the O-line will be a major priority in the draft and/or free agency this upcoming year. Count on it.

Football 101: Timing Patterns

I read a lot of comments after the Steelers game that showed me one thing - we can all learn more about the game. Several of them dealt with plays in which the receivers weren't there to absorb the pass on a timing route, and a couple dealt with Knowshon Moreno. I thought it might help to clear the air.

When a timing route is called, the QB and receiver are essentially entering into a pact. The QB agrees to throw the ball to a space that the receiver hasn't reached. The receiver agrees to get there on time to make the catch. The O-line agrees (and this might also involve a running back and a tight end or two) to protect the QB until the throw can be made accurately. All of them have to do their jobs well for the pattern to be successful.

On the first INT by Orton, Moreno was picked by the NT. As a result, he didn't get there and the pass was to open space. One of the defenders moved in and made the pick, but you really can't blame Orton. All he can do is make the throw. The running back (in this case) has to fight through and get to the ball. That didn't happen.

Oddly, the same thing happened on another play, but the outcome was pretty much the same. He wasn't where he had to be and the pass was incomplete. The fans who bemoan that the pass was 'out of his reach' don't really understand the nature of a timing route. You cannot, from our viewpoint, know if that's an accurate statement or not. Might be - it happens. But all we really can know is that the receiver didn't get to where the ball went on time. Nothing more.

Every Kiss begins with Who?

First off: The winter/Xmas commercials are back, and just as tiresome as last year's. Of a particularly high irritation factor is that one about the connection between kisses and jewelry. Not in my life, brother.

In much younger days, many kisses began with Miller Lites, Bud Heavies, bottles of good wine and the occasional glass of well-aged mead. One remarkably memorable occasion began with Cuervo Gold, but that was a long time ago. If I had to pony up jewelry just to get kissed, I knew that I was dating the wrong lady.

The two greatest inventions of the last 100 years were the fast forward and the mute button. Trust me on this one. Danged commercials...

Jack Williams

When people are talking about Jack Williams' release, this may put things more clearly: Williams was beaten out last year by Josh Bell. That's the same Josh Bell who auditioned for the Cleveland Browns last week and didn't get the job. When you can't land on the Browns' defense, you're not exactly pushing the top ten in the league, you know? If McD believes that Ty Law can be a part of this thing, well, he said the same thing about Andra Davis, Ronald Fields and a few other folks. I like his batting average so far.

Some have claimed that the Williams example is different because he might play better in the future. Sure, that might happen, but it might happen more quickly if he receives a professional kick in the pants and finds out that he's not cutting it on the field. If he's not showing signs of improving, and that seems obvious from the situation, I can't question why the Broncos cut him loose. Look to CBs in the upcoming draft and/or free agency.

Sporting News Magazine

As part of the price of getting the War Room info, I also receive the site's magazine. Like all of them, some issues resonate, others don't. This week's was interesting on several levels.

First, they noted that it's a copycat league, which is not exactly hot news, but they did a nice job of identifying some trends that go into that. The first one listed was a supposed move to younger head coaches, and Josh McD was, appropriately, the poster boy for that blurb. I'm honestly not sure that it's an advantage to be younger or older, but it's an advantage to be smart as heck and to have a lifelong background in football. Kudos to the coach on the job he's done. SNM claimed in talking about the 3-4 trend that Dom Capers and then Dick LeBeau had 'originated' the 3-4, but then backtracked and said that many teams used it in the 70s and 80s, with Denver being the admitted role model. That Capers/LeBeau was the origin modern version is a fair statement.

The mag also listed its midseason awards, and several current Broncos were front and center. Elvis Dumervil trailed DEFENSIVE MVP Darren Sharper by only 4 of the 99 votes (the votes were taken among current, active players). Dumervil also won the BIGGEST SURPRISE PLAYER (17 votes) with Kyle Orton tied with Brett Favre for second at 13 votes apiece. Josh McD walked away with COACH OF THE YEAR although he'll be fighting Sean Payton for the full-year award.

Orton and Dumervil traded positions for the MOST UNDERRATED PLAYER, with Orton winning with 7 votes and Doom in second taking 4, tied with Drew Brees and Darren Sproles. That one surprised me - in what universe is Brees or Sproles anything other than a great player and teammate? The folks who underrated them have been kidding themselves, but that's free of charge as well as common and sometimes amusing.

Two players that Broncos fans are familiar with got high ratings on MOST OVERRATED and BIGGEST DISAPPOINTMENT. Shawne Merriman tied with Terrell Owens as the MOST OVERRATED (I don't know why they needed a color-change on the letters, bigger font, bold and caps to make the categories obvious, but that's how they did it) and Jay Cutler was just behind them. Cutler and Merriman also garnered votes as BIGGEST DISAPPOINTMENT. Cutler, it should be noted, did a nice job on Sunday against Arizona, but once again finds himself without a defense and currently doesn't have the receivers or O-line that he needs either. He also did well in completions - 29 of 47, 3 TDs and only one INT with 369 yards (sacked 3 times) - but once again did better at creating yardage than points, especially in the first half, when he was 20-29, 195 and got only 7 points.

What I laughed about with regard to those two categories was not that those two players were in each, but the bizarre logic behind it. Merriman is coming off a surgery that tends to take two seasons to recover from and folks are dunning him for not being at next year's level. Like him or hate him, that's pointless. The same goes for Cutler - I spent the offseason pointing out that Chicago didn't have the O-line or receivers to win consistently and other members dissected their D in detail (I was mostly down on the secondary, and haven't changed my tune). Consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, but it's also kind of useful in logic and those two categories were sheer CYA.

The Sporting News also put up its recommendations for this year's All Pro - Ryan Clady and Elvis Dumervil were first team. Congratulations to both!

Wildcat/Wild Horses

The same issue talked about the Wildcat and its variants, which was interesting. They list the Broncos as being one of the teams that doesn't use it, which is both true and false, depending on your specific definition. More interesting was the followup article on Saints coordinator Gregg Williams, who held Miami to running the Wildcat 14 times for 27 yards. For those who didn't see the game, the WC seems to be mostly limited to a run-play formation, which is a huge weakness. Based on that, Williams blitzed both corners and one safety whenever the WC was set up and drove MIA insane by doing so. The Wild Horses has a big advantage there.

The Wild Horses not only gives us a chance to peek at the defense, it's also set up to become a passing attack. Since the rest of the league is running out of the WC at least 80% of the time, this makes our attack unique. That's something that the Steelers found out on the first drive Monday night. The Broncos didn't really stay with it, but it showed why the formation is unique among the versions of the WC that are out there.

The Price of Arrogance

I had some pretty irritated reactions to my recent comment that the players on the Chargers who were arguing on the sidelines, acting out and taking their arguments to the media are guilty of 'arrogance'. It seemed that the term 'arrogance' irritated folks as much as having their players called out and I was inundated with comments that I was 'arrogant' for saying that they were arrogant (Very subtle and witty, folks. There were at least a half dozen people making that incredibly insightful weak pun).

It shouldn't surprise anyone that I called the players out on this, though. I've said the same thing about Broncos players such as Brandon Marshall when he did the same, not to mention Nate Webster, Jay Cutler and a half dozen others. Players who aren't about the team first are about themselves first, which I consider to be the definition of ego and arrogance and an invitation to disaster as a team. I understand that folks believe that if you're not a fan of a certain team, you shouldn't use that term, but it is what it is.

To put this in perspective, I was interested to note that Bill Belichick referenced the same problem recently. Jimmy Johnson had once made a comment that only a limited number of teams will beat you - the others will self-destruct each year. In response to that quote, Belichick said,

Jimmy probably said the same thing to you that he once said to me: "You’re really only competing with about 10 teams a year. If you just say out of the way, the other 20 teams will screw it up themselves. Whether it’s ownership or personnel or coaching or some combination of factors." Ego, internal struggle, something will happen to two-thirds of the teams, that was Jimmy’s theory. That leaves you with about 10 teams that you’re going to have to really battle with. Those teams have it together. They’re going to make good decisions and if you play bad football, they’re going to take advantage of it. They’re going to find some undrafted guy or some middle-round pick or some veteran free agent who is going to spark their team. Pittsburgh is always going to be there. Indianapolis is always going to be there. They may not win it, but they’ll be there. You’re going to have to beat them. Philadelphia is going to be there. Yeah, [quarterback Donovan] McNabb might get hurt one year and they might go 7-9, but they’re going to be there. You’re still battling them on every front.

This is exactly what I'm referring to when I get on certain teams or payers about their ego or their arrogance. If your players are acting out on the sidelines, if they're talking about their unhappiness in the papers, they're contributing to the opposing team's success, and that's just pointless. No matter what team it shows up in, I'm going to point out that it's a bad idea. Seriously, what's the argument in favor of what a good idea it is? This is what the best teams don't do.

A perfect example of this kind of arrogance from this week's games? Tommie Harris, Chicago Bears DT. Harris is a very good player with a very bad attitude, which got him benched for the Cleveland game. The Bears aren't stopping the pass and their pass rush has been lacking, but their run defense remained stout and he's a key element there. So, during a game in which the Bears later lost two more members of the secondary (SS Al Afalava and CB Charles Tillman) Harris got so self-involved that he threw a blatant sucker punch at a defenseless opposing player (OT Deuce Lutui) who was already on the ground, 64 lousy seconds into the game. That might cost the Bears his services for that game was well as (potentially) this coming Thursday as he sits out a suspension. Since Chicago is on the line, with two more losses perhaps costing them the playoffs for a third consecutive year, that action stands out as the boneheaded play of the season so far. The Johnson Principle - handing over games by self-centered actions - is in full swing.

When a Bronco does it, I'll call that player on it as well. But, just because I'm not rooting for a certain team doesn't make it any less arrogant or any less foolish when it happens. I really don't care if it's your team or not - it isn't a very bright thing to do. One thing that I like about this year's Broncos - each person that I've listened to has taken the loss on himself and talked about the team in a positive and supportive way. That's just the way it ought to be.

Final Thoughts - What's On the Line

In regards to the running game, LG, C, and RT are exposed at the moment. One is due to injury while the others will have many wondering, "what the hell happened"!?

Say hello to my fast...

by dcrespo7 on Nov 10, 2009 3:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

It's a good, valid, and ultimately important point. I don't really wonder what happened - Hamilton hasn't been the same since the injury, whether they are linked or not. Casey Wiegmann is losing to the only player he ever will again - Father Time. Tyler Polumbus would/will need time to get his own timing and communication down right. We like to believe that everyone can learn instantly, but it usually doesn't work that way, sad to say. Ryan Harris will be back, perhaps, which would help, and Chris Kuper has been a rock. Ryan Clady has some sophomore stuff going on, but he's fine. Polumbus will show us how vulnerable we are by the time Harris makes it back.

Let's be fair. There's no way that one team could have solved anything else in this little time. The changes in this team are tremendous, quick, and have generally been effective. When you have a major weakness get exposed during a season, sometimes you need a little time to fix it. It's this team's first season together, so it's not like they've had a decade to work out the kinks.

Washington might be the tonic that we need. Traveling is never easy - statistically, I've seen that it affects winning substantially, so this will not be considered a cakewalk. We need a decisive win, whatever the score. Still - that's a doable goal. I don't see losing the last two games as that big a deal - we've won a lot more than we've lost and both teams had tremendous games, a fact that seems to have escaped many fans' attention. We need to make some adaptations, and I look forward to seeing what they are.

Go Broncos!