JA discusses offense

Balance-a-Bull · Post #1 » by **Balance-a-Bull** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:35 am

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/fo ... 9643.story

Q & A WITH JERRY ANGELO
Bears GM Jerry Angelo discusses his vision for the offense
Bears GM still not sure about Orton's future, Hester's ultimate role

By Dan Pompei | Tribune reporter
January 18, 2009

Jerry Angelo has been the Bears' general manager for almost eight years. That's five years longer than Jerry Vainisi was GM, and about as long as Jim Finks was in charge.

During his tenure, Angelo has been frustrated in his attempts to bring stability to the quarterback position. He talked about that and other aspects of the Bears offense in a recent conversation with the Tribune.

Related links

*
2008 Chicago Bears results
*
Kyle Orton in action Kyle Orton in action Photos
*
Matt Forte in action Matt Forte in action Photos
*
Marinelli at home with Bears
*
Bob Verdi: No matter the matchup, NFL rules
*
Detroit Lions mulling options with top draft pick
*
Dan Pompei: Ex-Bears executive Rod Graves finds success with Arizona Cardinals

Do you envision adding someone who will compete with Kyle Orton for the starting job?

We need to make sure we continue to evaluate whatever options we have because of the value of that position—through the draft or free agency. If we feel bringing in competition is what serves us best, we'll do that. We're comfortable with Kyle. We believe in Kyle. But we need to go from belief to trust. There is that transition all players have to make. I certainly feel good about Kyle. He was voted a captain by the players. That spoke volumes. … but it is a position we have been unable to stabilize since I've been here. I would be remiss as a general manager not to look at other options. … Maybe it's creating competition. Maybe it's getting veteran depth.

What happened to Orton the second half of the season?

I don't really know. He hurt his ankle. That had some effect. But players play with injuries and deal with pain. He didn't perform the second half of the season for the most part like he did the first part. We didn't see the consistency.

Orton has one year left on his contract. Will you try to sign him to an extension before the start of next season?

No. … We have time, plenty of time. Listen, we want to reward Kyle—but at the right time. What will the right time be? You'll know it, I'll know it and we'll all know it.

Is using your first-round draft pick on a quarterback a possibility?

I'm not going to say no to anything.

Is there a possibility Devin Hester will have a reduced role on offense next year?

I don't anticipate that. I think the coaches really like the way Devin has come on. I want to make sure we are maximizing his playmaking ability. If that means more offense, so be it. If that means less offense and more concentrating on his return ability, maybe that's the best plan.

Do you think he helped the Bears more in 2007, when he was primarily a return specialist, or 2008, when he was a full-time wide receiver?

He helped us more in 2007. He did have some real good games as a receiver in 2008. If he would have had more big plays, touchdown catches downfield, I might have thought differently. There were opportunities for him to have those plays. But for whatever reason they didn't happen.

How do you explain his sudden drop-off as a return man?

Nobody in the history of the National Football League has ever been a prolific returner and a No. 1 receiver. And our opponents have spent an inordinate amount of time on him [as a returner] … and they got better.

Were you OK with Matt Forte getting such a large percentage of the team's runs and touches?

When you look around the league, everybody is implementing a dual running back system. Your number one usually touches the ball around 20 times. The other back gets 10 to 12 to 15 touches. That's a good balance. … I'm confident we'll get back to that.

Do you have that second back on the roster already?

Garrett Wolfe is one. There might be somebody we would look at on the outside. It doesn't necessarily have to be a bell cow, just somebody who could complement Matt.

Cedric Benson looked like a different player in Cincinnati. Why didn't he play like that in Chicago?

His mind-set when he was here was not the same as what it was in Cincinnati. Humility is a great teacher. We've been on the other end of it, too, when a player has come here after being humbled. We rewarded him based on his potential and the draft system and didn't see that hunger they saw in Cincinnati. He's a very good football player. We knew that. I don't think anybody believes the reason he is no longer on our football team is lack of talent.

NoSkyy · Post #2 » by **NoSkyy** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 6:16 am

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/ch ... 2150.story
Part two is about the defense.

Post #3 » by **emperorjones** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:02 pm

Question= Do you believe the players you have on your defensive front can provide what this team needs in terms of pressure?

Jerry Angelo wrote:Yes, I do. I don't see any reason why they can't. And they need to.

I hope THIS is a smoke screen. I like Lovie calling plays. I like RM coaching the defensive line. But I would be REALLY disappointed if we came into next season with the same defensive front.

Chewie · Post #4 » by **Chewie** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:05 pm

Can you envision a scenario in which Mike Brown would return?

I don't see that right now, given how it affects Danieal. Allocation of money comes into play, too, in what we want to do at other positions. There could be a case where we want Mike back, but we can't afford to do it given what we want to do in other areas.

ChronicKerr · Post #5 » by **ChronicKerr** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:19 pm

Given how it affects Daniel?? I hope that isn't a precursor that Manning is going back to a starting safety position. Nickel back/Special Teams is all he's good for

Chewie · Post #6 » by **Chewie** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:47 pm

I just don't see how we're so strong at safety that we can afford to give up Mike Brown....

The roster currently has Manning, Steltz, Payne, and McGowan.

WEAK.

Balance-a-Bull · Post #7 » by **Balance-a-Bull** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:10 pm

Chewie wrote:I just don't see how we're so strong at safety that we can afford to give up Mike Brown....

The roster currently has Manning, Steltz, Payne, and McGowan.

WEAK.

I agree.

Payne is good and also McGowan when he is healthy, but Steltz and Manning, not so good.

I would like to keep brown around at least one more year at least. JA said cap wise it is unlikely that we will keep him based on other needs.

Do you think he would accept or get offended if we offered him a minimum contract, if we can muster to at least have that available?

Chewie · Post #8 » by **Chewie** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:59 pm

Balance-a-Bull wrote:
Chewie wrote:I just don't see how we're so strong at safety that we can afford to give up Mike Brown....

The roster currently has Manning, Steltz, Payne, and McGowan.

WEAK.

I agree.

Payne is good and also McGowan when he is healthy, but Steltz and Manning, not so good.

I would like to keep brown around at least one more year at least. JA said cap wise it is unlikely that we will keep him based on other needs.

Do you think he would accept or get offended if we offered him a minimum contract, if we can muster to at least have that available?

My hope is that we tell Brown to look at his options and at least give the Bears the opportunity to match whatever offer he gets on the open market. I'm fairly certain it will be for more than the minimum amount allowable for a vet with his experience, injury troubles or not.