2009 Chicago Bears offseason

[GoCubsGo1679625768]

I wonder what it would take to get Derek Anderson now from Cleveland? Probably not much. I wouldn't mind brining him in and then having another QB competition between him and Orton. Keep whoever wins after the 2009 season. I guess alot would depend on the cap hit from cutting Anderson should you decide to go with Orton long term. I still thing Orton can be a solid QB in this league, but you have to give him some weapons to work with.

[Magnetic Curses]

Every time the Bears win because they get a bunch of turnovers or a big special teams play, Lovie has outcoached somebody.

 

No, not true. Relying on turnovers in this scheme is simply relying on athletes making things happen. It is essentially playing for luck. It is not outscheming or outcoaching the opposition.

 

that's not luck, that's a personnel-contingent defense. the bears are good at what they do, and that's getting turnovers by stripping the ball, i just wish they were better at rushing the passer.

 

however, with aging personnel, lovie's going to see diminished returns in the turnover department.

[jersey cubs fan]

Two things I want to never see the Bears do again:

- Put Danieal Manning in at safety

- Put Rashied Davis in at WR

 

Manning as safety may happen more than you'd like depending on Mike Brown's situation. Frankly, I'd like to see Manning get consistent time at FS and see if he can actually develop there. I know he's had some big blown assignments, and apparently Urlacher got on him after he got burned yesterday (although I think Urlacher better worry about his own stuff)...but I think Manning still could develop if the Bears would put him somewhere and leave him there.

 

Which is a coaching problem, as they have seen no reason to put him in a position and stick with him there. Manning was the Bears first pick a few years ago because the coaches wanted his athleticism and return ability. He's finally been utlized effectively as a returner, but the coaches have gotten crap out of him on defense in part because he's been moved all over and in part because they haven't coached his athleticism.

[Banedon]

I wonder what it would take to get Derek Anderson now from Cleveland? Probably not much. I wouldn't mind brining him in and then having another QB competition between him and Orton. Keep whoever wins after the 2009 season. I guess alot would depend on the cap hit from cutting Anderson should you decide to go with Orton long term. I still thing Orton can be a solid QB in this league, but you have to give him some weapons to work with.

 

I don't see the point in an incremental (if any) upgrade from Orton. Draft someone, trade for someone, or get a big name FA (not sure there are any) if you wanna replace him. I think there's a lot of other places to address outside of QB, but I don't think Anderson is the answer.

[Keener98]

Every time the Bears win because they get a bunch of turnovers or a big special teams play, Lovie has outcoached somebody.

 

No, not true. Relying on turnovers in this scheme is simply relying on athletes making things happen. It is essentially playing for luck. It is not outscheming or outcoaching the opposition.

 

Hmm, funny how that luck keeps happening for the Bears more than any other team. Almost as if they were coached to go for the ball...

 

You dont think every teamn in the NFL is coached to go for the ball? The fact that the Bears have been getting turnovers is more on the players than being coached to go for the ball. Every damn teamn in the NFL wants turnovers and is told to go for the ball.

 

Id like to see your defense of Lovie on his personnel decisions that I laid out on page 1. Those are all very big reasons why Lovie should be fired, and is not a very good head coach.

[GoCubsGo1679625768]

Two things I want to never see the Bears do again:

- Put Danieal Manning in at safety

- Put Rashied Davis in at WR

 

Manning as safety may happen more than you'd like depending on Mike Brown's situation. Frankly, I'd like to see Manning get consistent time at FS and see if he can actually develop there. I know he's had some big blown assignments, and apparently Urlacher got on him after he got burned yesterday (although I think Urlacher better worry about his own stuff)...but I think Manning still could develop if the Bears would put him somewhere and leave him there.

 

Which is a coaching problem, as they have seen no reason to put him in a position and stick with him there. Manning was the Bears first pick a few years ago because the coaches wanted his athleticism and return ability. He's finally been utlized effectively as a returner, but the coaches have gotten crap out of him on defense in part because he's been moved all over and in part because they haven't coached his athleticism.

 

It also doesn't help that Manning isn't the sharpest pencil in the box. Let's be fair here. When he can do simple tasks on the field, i.e run a kickoff back..blitz the QB, he looks good. But everytime he screws up it is on a blown coverage where he makes a huge error.

[hawkeyecub]

Look at the talent on your squad. How did you expect more than 9 wins with the offensive talent you have and an aging defense that is good but not great anymore?

 

I really don't get it.

 

Lovie is a big part of the problem when it comes to personel. He started getting more control over those decisions after the Super Bowl appearance, plus his coaches routinely put guys who can help in the doghouse and then out the door. He contributed directly to the huge drop in talent in the defensive backfield, it would be like not giving Dusty Baker any blame for deciding to go with some past his prime "proven veteran" over a decent kid.

 

Okay then I retract that a bit, I was not aware he had much of a say in personnel.

 

I just think the problem is personnel much more than scheme or coaching decisions. That total offensive talent would have to rank about 25th or worse in the league.

[Banedon]

It also doesn't help that Manning isn't the sharpest pencil in the box. Let's be fair here. When he can do simple tasks on the field, i.e run a kickoff back..blitz the QB, he looks good. But everytime he screws up it is on a blown coverage where he makes a huge error.

 

Well...yeah. Everybody looks good when the do good things and bad when they do bad things. But I get your point...when he messes up, he messes up big. But so did Grossman, and he got a few years at QB to try to iron it out. I don't think Manning has played a full season at the same position.

[jersey cubs fan]

Lovie has "gotten the most" out of the players from an effort standpoint. What he hasn't done is outcoach anybody on Sunday. This is a plain vanilla team that can be exploited by any decent team with a reasonable amount of talent and discipline. They don't fool anybody with anything they do.

 

it's a plain vanilla team because the players are plain vanilla. i guess every now and then a team comes along like the dolphins and throws in a bunch of trick plays that work for a while, but most teams win on talent, not gimmicks. the skill position players on the bears' offense are kyle orton, matt forte, rashied davis, brandon lloyd and devin hester. that's a lousy quarterback, a rb who is solid but not a game-breaker, two receivers who might not even be acceptable options as a #2 wr, and a converted cornerback who is a deep threat but is still very raw. there's not a lot there that scares anybody, and to keep other teams off balance it really helps to have at least one player who is a huge threat that you can use as a decoy.

 

Your Eagles don't have a plain vanilla defense.

 

Hester's "raw" ability was perfectly fine this year. He was a good receiver. Lloyd was fine when on the field, but he was only on the field because the coaches insisted on pushing Bradley out the door, apparantly for being injured too much, just like Lloyd. Davis got open but dropped balls, however, the coaches are the ones who insisted on promoting him up the ranks and then relying on him so heavily this year. But Olsen and Clark are part of that passing game, and Turner continued to do a poor job utilizing the advantage the Bears have at this position. The only time they made it work was when they got into 2 minute type offenses. Neither of those guys is an elite TE, but both of them are good and they are among the better duos in the league, on a talent basis.

[jersey cubs fan]

Every time the Bears win because they get a bunch of turnovers or a big special teams play, Lovie has outcoached somebody.

 

No, not true. Relying on turnovers in this scheme is simply relying on athletes making things happen. It is essentially playing for luck. It is not outscheming or outcoaching the opposition.

 

True, but the Bears do that better than anyone else. They coach to create turnovers...swarm to the ball etc. Granted, there's a whole lotta luck involved too. There's a coaching aspect there though.

 

I just wish it wasn't the entire coaching plan.

 

Emphasizing turnovers and swarming to the ball does not equal coaching, but as you point out, that's the whole plan. They will give up 5-15 yard plays all day long, and now a couple 50-90 yard plays just for fun, in hopes of eventually getting a turnover. That isn't coaching, that is waiting.

[Banedon]

Neither of those guys is an elite TE, but both of them are good and they are among the better duos in the league, on a talent basis.

 

Don't you think that Olsen has the potential to be an elite TE? He had 2 or 3 TD passes there near the end that only got away because of some fantastic plays by the Texan's D. I dunno...I really like the guy. I might not be impartial there.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Hmm, so anything good that happens as a result of things Smith emphasizes is just luck, but the bad stuff is all on him.

 

I get it. The coach comes in, says we'll have a team built around special teams and turnovers. We consistently have the best special teams in the league and are near the top in creating turnovers, but it isn't coaching that made that happen... :roll:

[Banedon]

Every time the Bears win because they get a bunch of turnovers or a big special teams play, Lovie has outcoached somebody.

 

No, not true. Relying on turnovers in this scheme is simply relying on athletes making things happen. It is essentially playing for luck. It is not outscheming or outcoaching the opposition.

 

True, but the Bears do that better than anyone else. They coach to create turnovers...swarm to the ball etc. Granted, there's a whole lotta luck involved too. There's a coaching aspect there though.

 

I just wish it wasn't the entire coaching plan.

 

Emphasizing turnovers and swarming to the ball does not equal coaching, but as you point out, that's the whole plan. They will give up 5-15 yard plays all day long, and now a couple 50-90 yard plays just for fun, in hopes of eventually getting a turnover. That isn't coaching, that is waiting.

 

Yeah, I think we can debate whether it's coaching or not, but that's missing the point. Even if it IS coaching, it's crummy coaching.

[Banedon]

Hmm, so anything good that happens as a result of things Smith emphasizes is just luck, but the bad stuff is all on him.

 

I get it. The coach comes in, says we'll have a team built around special teams and turnovers. We consistently have the best special teams in the league and are near the top in creating turnovers, but it isn't coaching that made that happen... :roll:

 

I don't think that he's ever said that. I think he's said that they want to be good at that, but he's said they want to be good at defense and offense too, and they aren't. When you wanna be good at everything, and you're good at one piece...I don't think worth high praise.

[dew1679666265]

Every time the Bears win because they get a bunch of turnovers or a big special teams play, Lovie has outcoached somebody.

 

No, not true. Relying on turnovers in this scheme is simply relying on athletes making things happen. It is essentially playing for luck. It is not outscheming or outcoaching the opposition.

 

True, but the Bears do that better than anyone else. They coach to create turnovers...swarm to the ball etc. Granted, there's a whole lotta luck involved too. There's a coaching aspect there though.

 

I just wish it wasn't the entire coaching plan.

 

The Titans are at their best when they're creating turnovers. Turnovers are not just complete luck, they're about getting the players in position to make plays. From that point on it's always up to the athlete to make the play.

 

If turnovers aren't being created, it's either because the coach is failing to scheme them there, or the players themselves are not making the plays that are there.

 

Tennessee and Chicago lead the league in takeaways (31 each) and the Bears had 33 last year. With 43 in 06, I'm not seeing a whole lot of luck involved. That 43 in 2006 led the league and the closest team to the Bears was Baltimore with 37.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Emphasizing turnovers and swarming to the ball does not equal coaching, but as you point out, that's the whole plan. They will give up 5-15 yard plays all day long, and now a couple 50-90 yard plays just for fun, in hopes of eventually getting a turnover. That isn't coaching, that is waiting.

 

Yeah, I think we can debate whether it's coaching or not, but that's missing the point. Even if it IS coaching, it's crummy coaching.

 

And that's where we disagree. It got us to a Super Bowl we had a chance of winning, it got us nine wins this season in a down year, and if we have a good draft it'll win us another division title next season.

[Banedon]

Emphasizing turnovers and swarming to the ball does not equal coaching, but as you point out, that's the whole plan. They will give up 5-15 yard plays all day long, and now a couple 50-90 yard plays just for fun, in hopes of eventually getting a turnover. That isn't coaching, that is waiting.

 

Yeah, I think we can debate whether it's coaching or not, but that's missing the point. Even if it IS coaching, it's crummy coaching.

 

And that's where we disagree. It got us to a Super Bowl we had a chance of winning, it got us nine wins this season in a down year, and if we have a good draft it'll win us another division title next season.

 

Good defense was slightly involved in the SB run. That was missing this year, and here we are.

[Soul]

Look at the talent on your squad. How did you expect more than 9 wins with the offensive talent you have and an aging defense that is good but not great anymore?

 

I really don't get it.

 

Should've been at least 10 with that Atlanta game.

 

The GB win serves as a counter-balance to the Atlanta loss. Back to 9.

[jersey cubs fan]

Two things I want to never see the Bears do again:

- Put Danieal Manning in at safety

- Put Rashied Davis in at WR

 

Manning as safety may happen more than you'd like depending on Mike Brown's situation. Frankly, I'd like to see Manning get consistent time at FS and see if he can actually develop there. I know he's had some big blown assignments, and apparently Urlacher got on him after he got burned yesterday (although I think Urlacher better worry about his own stuff)...but I think Manning still could develop if the Bears would put him somewhere and leave him there.

 

Which is a coaching problem, as they have seen no reason to put him in a position and stick with him there. Manning was the Bears first pick a few years ago because the coaches wanted his athleticism and return ability. He's finally been utlized effectively as a returner, but the coaches have gotten crap out of him on defense in part because he's been moved all over and in part because they haven't coached his athleticism.

 

It also doesn't help that Manning isn't the sharpest pencil in the box. Let's be fair here. When he can do simple tasks on the field, i.e run a kickoff back..blitz the QB, he looks good. But everytime he screws up it is on a blown coverage where he makes a huge error.

 

From Day One Lovie has demanded athleticism over everything else. He wants fast tackles, fast linebackers and fast dbacks. Athleticism is the first, and in many regards, only requirement for playing on this team. Lovie doesn't care if you are smart or make perfect fundamental tackles. He wants you to be fast. That's okay, if you stick those athletes in one spot and give them simple assignments. And it also helps when you inherit a very smart captain in the secondary to keep people in line. But when you take those fast athletes and change their position from week to week and year to year, you are going to have problems. And when that captain starts losing his athleticism due to repeated injuries and those injuries force him to miss a ton of games, it's only going to be worse.

[Banedon]

Look at the talent on your squad. How did you expect more than 9 wins with the offensive talent you have and an aging defense that is good but not great anymore?

 

I really don't get it.

 

Should've been at least 10 with that Atlanta game.

 

The GB win serves as a counter-balance to the Atlanta loss. Back to 9.

 

I see your GB, and raise you the week 2 Carolina game.

[Soul]

Look at the talent on your squad. How did you expect more than 9 wins with the offensive talent you have and an aging defense that is good but not great anymore?

 

I really don't get it.

 

Should've been at least 10 with that Atlanta game.

 

The GB win serves as a counter-balance to the Atlanta loss. Back to 9.

 

I see your GB, and raise you the week 2 Carolina game.

 

LOL, touche'

[GoCubsGo1679625768]

I wonder what it would take to get Derek Anderson now from Cleveland? Probably not much. I wouldn't mind brining him in and then having another QB competition between him and Orton. Keep whoever wins after the 2009 season. I guess alot would depend on the cap hit from cutting Anderson should you decide to go with Orton long term. I still thing Orton can be a solid QB in this league, but you have to give him some weapons to work with.

 

I don't see the point in an incremental (if any) upgrade from Orton. Draft someone, trade for someone, or get a big name FA (not sure there are any) if you wanna replace him. I think there's a lot of other places to address outside of QB, but I don't think Anderson is the answer.

 

Well, at this time last year Anderson was considered one of the bright young QB's in the NFL. It is my opinion that he probably isn't as good as his 2007 season, but not as bad as his 2008 season either. I think he just fell into the albatross that is the Cleveland Browns.

 

The Bears could draft another QB high, but he will probably just be another bust considering Angelo is pulling the trigger. They could make a run at Matt Casell, who has Scott Mitchell part II written all over him. I think with Anderson you have a chance to aquire a talented young QB at a low cost. He is definelty better than Orton, IMO.

[jersey cubs fan]

Neither of those guys is an elite TE, but both of them are good and they are among the better duos in the league, on a talent basis.

 

Don't you think that Olsen has the potential to be an elite TE? He had 2 or 3 TD passes there near the end that only got away because of some fantastic plays by the Texan's D. I dunno...I really like the guy. I might not be impartial there.

 

Yes, I do think he can. Unfortunately they only seemed to emphasize his role in a few isolated drives. Hester, Forte, Olsen are a fairly decent core group of playmakers. They need better backup RB and a much better receiver to get the most out of them though. In the meantime, I think upgrades to the offensive line would be the best way to improve this offense. You'll never know if you have the right QB until you give him a better line.

[bukie]

Look at the talent on your squad. How did you expect more than 9 wins with the offensive talent you have and an aging defense that is good but not great anymore?

 

I really don't get it.

 

Should've been at least 10 with that Atlanta game.

 

The GB win serves as a counter-balance to the Atlanta loss. Back to 9.

 

I see your GB, and raise you the week 2 Carolina game.

What, no Tampa game with the single most ridiculous penalty of the year in OT?

[Keener98]

Lets not forget either that the year the Bears made the Super Bowl was one of the weakest years ever in the NFL.