2009 Chicago Bears offseason

[Banedon]

There's really no point in axing coordinators. Either the coaching staff needs to go or it doesn't, but half-measures seem silly to me.

 

Axing coordinators does not equal a half-measure. But what are you for? You don't want Lovie fired, you don't want coordinators fired. Are you for anybody getting fired? Is your preference to keep Lovie and fire literally everybody else?

 

The coordinators are very important position. Combined, they are probably equal to, if not greater than the head coach in terms of importance to the team. Firing the coordinators is going to result in other changes in staff, as new guys are going to insist on bringing in some of their own. A coordinator purge would be a hell of a lot more than a half-measure. And it is far better than sticking with the status quo.

 

My preference is to keep the management team intact. I like it, I believe it is capable of winning championships, and I believe any replacements are likely to be worse.

 

If you don't agree with the direction or philosophy of the team, then Smith should be fired. If you do, leave them be, because this wasn't a bad season.

 

The defense has sucked for 2 years in a row now. Since Bob Babich took over the DC role. Is that a coincidence? Do you think that will magically change?

I think if they can get a good pass-rusher DE and above average DT for the rotation, and are in some way able to get pressure with just the front 4, I do think the defense will improve drastically in passing situations. They're already a dominant run-stopping D when they don't have to focus so much on creatively applying pressure to stop the pass.

 

But it's still possible for the DC to affect the pass rush. Be more creative and varied in your blitzing schemes. Run some stunts with the linemen. I won't pretend to be an expert on defensive schemes...I'm not. But I find it very difficult to believe that the entire defense stopped playing well at the same time, just because they all stopped performing well. Maybe there's some of that, but I really think a new DC could make a difference. I'll freely admit, if they change and there's no improvement, that I was wrong on that.

[jersey cubs fan]

There's really no point in axing coordinators. Either the coaching staff needs to go or it doesn't, but half-measures seem silly to me.

 

Axing coordinators does not equal a half-measure. But what are you for? You don't want Lovie fired, you don't want coordinators fired. Are you for anybody getting fired? Is your preference to keep Lovie and fire literally everybody else?

 

The coordinators are very important position. Combined, they are probably equal to, if not greater than the head coach in terms of importance to the team. Firing the coordinators is going to result in other changes in staff, as new guys are going to insist on bringing in some of their own. A coordinator purge would be a hell of a lot more than a half-measure. And it is far better than sticking with the status quo.

 

My preference is to keep the management team intact. I like it, I believe it is capable of winning championships, and I believe any replacements are likely to be worse.

 

If you don't agree with the direction or philosophy of the team, then Smith should be fired. If you do, leave them be, because this wasn't a bad season.

 

That's a fairly cowardly way to look at things. I heard the same nonsense when I called for Dusty Baker to be fired. Similarly, all the "back to back .500 seasons" talk echoes the sentimes and 7-9 and 9-7 isn't bad. The defense is not close to what it was before, and the offense has never been good. I see no point in being satisfied with having a not bad team. My goal is not to see a 10 win team. I want the Bears to be elite. I want them to be regular postseason participants and be a team that considers 10 wins the low end of expectations. There's no reason this team should be happy with simply adding a couple pieces to what they have, because what they have is mediocre. The NFC South exposed the Bears for what they were this year, which wasn't good. Next year they play at San Fran and Seattle, two teams likely to be improved from this year, plus at Baltimore, Cincy and Tampa. They host Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Arizona and STL, plus, I believe Philly. Minnesota is probably going to be as good or better than they are now, GB will be better. Detroit, which swept the Bears last year, is not going to be nearly as bad as they were this year. They will have a hard time finding 6 out of division wins and 4 division wins, and that won't even guarantee playoffs.

 

FYI

http://www.johnnyroadtrip.com/schedules/nfl_future_nfcn.htm

[Soul]

There's really no point in axing coordinators. Either the coaching staff needs to go or it doesn't, but half-measures seem silly to me.

 

Axing coordinators does not equal a half-measure. But what are you for? You don't want Lovie fired, you don't want coordinators fired. Are you for anybody getting fired? Is your preference to keep Lovie and fire literally everybody else?

 

The coordinators are very important position. Combined, they are probably equal to, if not greater than the head coach in terms of importance to the team. Firing the coordinators is going to result in other changes in staff, as new guys are going to insist on bringing in some of their own. A coordinator purge would be a hell of a lot more than a half-measure. And it is far better than sticking with the status quo.

 

My preference is to keep the management team intact. I like it, I believe it is capable of winning championships, and I believe any replacements are likely to be worse.

 

If you don't agree with the direction or philosophy of the team, then Smith should be fired. If you do, leave them be, because this wasn't a bad season.

 

The defense has sucked for 2 years in a row now. Since Bob Babich took over the DC role. Is that a coincidence? Do you think that will magically change?

I think if they can get a good pass-rusher DE and above average DT for the rotation, and are in some way able to get pressure with just the front 4, I do think the defense will improve drastically in passing situations. They're already a dominant run-stopping D when they don't have to focus so much on creatively applying pressure to stop the pass.

 

But it's still possible for the DC to affect the pass rush. Be more creative and varied in your blitzing schemes. Run some stunts with the linemen. I won't pretend to be an expert on defensive schemes...I'm not. But I find it very difficult to believe that the entire defense stopped playing well at the same time, just because they all stopped performing well. Maybe there's some of that, but I really think a new DC could make a difference. I'll freely admit, if they change and there's no improvement, that I was wrong on that.

 

It kind of makes sense though when you consider that the Bears scheme is predicated on getting pressure with the down linemen. Tommie Harris had trouble getting going this year, and never really returned to his previous level of play. Ogun has been sliding down the cliff for a couple years, and that continued. Dusty was alright -- he helped with the run D, but not much pressure. Alex Brown was OK. So you had 2 of 4 DLine reduced in performance, which is why the Bears became one of the most blitz-oriented defenses in the NFL. That translates into less coverage in the defensive backfield.

 

You could probably see a large improvement if you could plug the right 2 DLine guys into the starting lineup for next year, just because of the cascading effect it would have on everything else. I'm not confident it will happen though, given that pretty much every NFL team is looking for those few DLinemen that can consistently provide pressure.

[BigbadB]

I wanted to touch on the Bears takeaway discussion a few pages back. I'm sort of under the impression that the Bears are constantly in the top percent of teams in takeaways because the offense sucks. When the offense is only on the field for 3 plays at a time, that puts the defense on the field much more than they should be.

 

When your defense is on the field as much as the Bears defense is, isn't it somewhat of a given that the defense will eventually get more opportunities for takeaways than other teams?

 

Where did the Bears fall in actual interceptions? Where do the Bears fall on takeaways if you exclude special teams?

[dew1679666265]

There's really no point in axing coordinators. Either the coaching staff needs to go or it doesn't, but half-measures seem silly to me.

 

Axing coordinators does not equal a half-measure. But what are you for? You don't want Lovie fired, you don't want coordinators fired. Are you for anybody getting fired? Is your preference to keep Lovie and fire literally everybody else?

 

The coordinators are very important position. Combined, they are probably equal to, if not greater than the head coach in terms of importance to the team. Firing the coordinators is going to result in other changes in staff, as new guys are going to insist on bringing in some of their own. A coordinator purge would be a hell of a lot more than a half-measure. And it is far better than sticking with the status quo.

 

My preference is to keep the management team intact. I like it, I believe it is capable of winning championships, and I believe any replacements are likely to be worse.

 

If you don't agree with the direction or philosophy of the team, then Smith should be fired. If you do, leave them be, because this wasn't a bad season.

 

The defense has sucked for 2 years in a row now. Since Bob Babich took over the DC role. Is that a coincidence? Do you think that will magically change?

I think if they can get a good pass-rusher DE and above average DT for the rotation, and are in some way able to get pressure with just the front 4, I do think the defense will improve drastically in passing situations. They're already a dominant run-stopping D when they don't have to focus so much on creatively applying pressure to stop the pass.

 

But it's still possible for the DC to affect the pass rush. Be more creative and varied in your blitzing schemes. Run some stunts with the linemen. I won't pretend to be an expert on defensive schemes...I'm not. But I find it very difficult to believe that the entire defense stopped playing well at the same time, just because they all stopped performing well. Maybe there's some of that, but I really think a new DC could make a difference. I'll freely admit, if they change and there's no improvement, that I was wrong on that.

 

It kind of makes sense though when you consider that the Bears scheme is predicated on getting pressure with the down linemen. Tommie Harris had trouble getting going this year, and never really returned to his previous level of play. Ogun has been sliding down the cliff for a couple years, and that continued. Dusty was alright -- he helped with the run D, but not much pressure. Alex Brown was OK. So you had 2 of 4 DLine reduced in performance, which is why the Bears became one of the most blitz-oriented defenses in the NFL. That translates into less coverage in the defensive backfield.

 

You could probably see a large improvement if you could plug the right 2 DLine guys into the starting lineup for next year, just because of the cascading effect it would have on everything else. I'm not confident it will happen though, given that pretty much every NFL team is looking for those few DLinemen that can consistently provide pressure.

 

Alex Brown led the team with 6 sacks. For a cover 2 defense that relies on getting pressure from the down linemen, that's terrible.

 

For reference, the Colts had 11.5 from Mathis and 10.5 from Freeney. Both were in the top 11 in the league.

[jersey cubs fan]

They're already a dominant run-stopping D when they don't have to focus so much on creatively applying pressure to stop the pass.

 

They aren't that great of a run-stopping D. They had a nice streak midseason of shutting down runners, but that was when they were playing 8-9 in the box every play and daring teams to throw. Any team with a QB threat was also able to run once the Bears backed out. Of the top ten defenses agains the run (Bears were 5th) they gave up the most passing yards. Pittsburgh and Baltimore are dominant run stoppers, and they don't have to cheat to do it. Minnesota is a dominant run stopping defense, but their pass defense is a weak spot, although not as weak as Chicago.

[jersey cubs fan]

I really think a new DC could make a difference. I'll freely admit, if they change and there's no improvement, that I was wrong on that.

 

You wouldn't be wrong. They could change DC and have no improvement, but that doesn't mean a new DC couldn't make a difference. If Lovie hires another college teacher or simply installs a new BFF, we're still looking at the same scheme. That doesn't mean change was wrong, it means the type of change they made was wrong.

[dew1679666265]

I wanted to touch on the Bears takeaway discussion a few pages back. I'm sort of under the impression that the Bears are constantly in the top percent of teams in takeaways because the offense sucks. When the offense is only on the field for 3 plays at a time, that puts the defense on the field much more than they should be.

 

When your defense is on the field as much as the Bears defense is, isn't it somewhat of a given that the defense will eventually get more opportunities for takeaways than other teams?

 

Where did the Bears fall in actual interceptions? Where do the Bears fall on takeaways if you exclude special teams?

 

The Bears got 22 interceptions this year - leading the NFC and behind only Baltimore in the AFC (the Ravens had 24 and the Browns 22).

 

Last year the Bears were middle of the road with 16 and in 2006 their 23 INTs led the NFC and trailed only Baltimore's 26.

 

I don't know how to get the stats excluding special teams.

 

If the defense is on the field more than they should be, it usually means they'll tire out and play worse - not better.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Comparing it to Dusty Baker (whom I can proudly say I was one of the Cubs fans who knew he was bad back in 2003) makes no sense. This isn't baseball.

 

This coaching staff has already proven it can produce an elite team, I see no reason to change it.

 

And predicting how hard next season's schedule might be is a hopeless game.

[jersey cubs fan]

If the defense is on the field more than they should be, it usually means they'll tire out and play worse - not better.

 

Getting a few more INT doesn't necessarily mean the defense is playing better with that increased playing time. A good defense can shut down a passing game with or without getting picks.

The Bears gave up the third most passing yards per game this year, and that was with the benefit of playing in Soldier Field, which hurt the Saints passing game, and probably a couple others. The fact that they got a lot of INT doesn't negate that they gave up a ton of yards, and were bottom half in passing TDs allowed.

 

They were also bottom half in rushing TD allowed. The defense was mediocre. They got turnovers, but that isn't the goal. The goal is preventing scoring. It's like the Cubs leading the league in strikeouts. It's nice, but when you also give up the most walks and HR, odds are you're going to surrender far too many runs.

Edited December 29, 2008 by jersey cubs fan

[dew1679666265]

If the defense is on the field more than they should be, it usually means they'll tire out and play worse - not better.

 

Getting a few more INT doesn't necessarily mean the defense is playing better with that increased playing time. A good defense can shut down a passing game with or without getting picks.

 

Right, and the Bears don't have a good defense. My point with the turnovers argument, though, is that even with (at best) decent talent, Lovie's scheme is placing them near the top in turnovers each year.

 

If the talent were better, the likelihood is this scheme would stop offenses more and not just create turnovers.

[bukie]

If the defense is on the field more than they should be, it usually means they'll tire out and play worse - not better.

 

Getting a few more INT doesn't necessarily mean the defense is playing better with that increased playing time. A good defense can shut down a passing game with or without getting picks.

 

Right, and the Bears don't have a good defense. My point with the turnovers argument, though, is that even with (at best) decent talent, Lovie's scheme is placing them near the top in turnovers each year.

 

If the talent were better, the likelihood is this scheme would stop offenses more and not just create turnovers.

Actually, the Bears do have a good defense, as efficiency goes. They're just on the field so much that they give up a ton of yards. The offense is the real problem, just as it was 2 years ago. Unfortunately, the Bears either have to significantly improve the offense, or they have to make the defense/special teams far and away the best in the league to overcome the offensive issues.

[YearofDaCubs]

I'm not a huge Lovie fan. He's a good player's coach but he looks clueless on game day and probably is. He probably relies on his coordinators a lot on game day. Lovie isn't going anywhere but Babich has to go. He's terrible. Let's face it this cover-2 scheme we are running is broken. Our blitzing packages were putrid. I'd like to see the bears run more of a cover scheme similar to the Panthers. We don't have the safeties to play a proper cover-2 scheme anyway. Why weren't the CB's hitting their man at the line? If you allow WR's to run free they will make plays, especially when you rely so heavily on safety help(ours suck) There's just so many things wrong with this team. For one, the drafting has been abysmal now for quite some time. We are of course still in need of a QB which I find pathetic. How come every other team can find an above average QB but we can't? We need more talent on offense. Getting rid of Bradley to sign Booker and Rashied Davis was freaking stupid. Earl Bennett? Who? Just another bust 3rd round pick. You can count on your fingers the players that were actually good this year which is scary on a 53 man team.

 

Olsen

Forte

Alex Brown

Lance Briggs

 

At one point I thought we found our guy in Orton. He looked to have improved but completely regressed towards the end of the season. I don't buy the ankle injury. He had plenty of time to heal up from that and he still sucked. Of course I don't think it's all his fault, the guy has the league worst receivers to throw to. We had the most dangerous weapon in Hester and we somehow managed to make him a terrible kick returner and a mediocre WR. Great plan. We need to focus on WR, QB, Safety, and OL in this year's draft.

[jersey cubs fan]

This coaching staff has already proven it can produce an elite team, I see no reason to change it.

 

The coaching staff helped produce the best team in the NFC that year. But they were probably 4th or 5th overall that year, and that was 3 years ago, not to mention not even the same staff. That ship has sailed. It was a fleating moment of glory that was unsustainable. How many seasons of mediocrity will it take for you to think the past continues to outweigh the present.

[jersey cubs fan]

If the defense is on the field more than they should be, it usually means they'll tire out and play worse - not better.

 

Getting a few more INT doesn't necessarily mean the defense is playing better with that increased playing time. A good defense can shut down a passing game with or without getting picks.

 

Right, and the Bears don't have a good defense. My point with the turnovers argument, though, is that even with (at best) decent talent, Lovie's scheme is placing them near the top in turnovers each year.

If the talent were better, the likelihood is this scheme would stop offenses more and not just create turnovers.

 

But turnovers isn't the goal of a football game. Scoring and preventing scores is the goal.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

This coaching staff has already proven it can produce an elite team, I see no reason to change it.

 

The coaching staff helped produce the best team in the NFC that year. But they were probably 4th or 5th overall that year, and that was 3 years ago, not to mention not even the same staff. That ship has sailed. It was a fleating moment of glory that was unsustainable. How many seasons of mediocrity will it take for you to think the past continues to outweigh the present.

 

More than two.

[YearofDaCubs]

This coaching staff has already proven it can produce an elite team, I see no reason to change it.

 

The coaching staff helped produce the best team in the NFC that year. But they were probably 4th or 5th overall that year, and that was 3 years ago, not to mention not even the same staff. That ship has sailed. It was a fleating moment of glory that was unsustainable. How many seasons of mediocrity will it take for you to think the past continues to outweigh the present.

 

More than two.

We also had a competent defensive coordinator back then, now we do not.

[Banedon]

This coaching staff has already proven it can produce an elite team, I see no reason to change it.

 

The coaching staff helped produce the best team in the NFC that year. But they were probably 4th or 5th overall that year, and that was 3 years ago, not to mention not even the same staff. That ship has sailed. It was a fleating moment of glory that was unsustainable. How many seasons of mediocrity will it take for you to think the past continues to outweigh the present.

 

More than two.

 

You should be in the Bears front office then, because apparently they agree with you.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

This coaching staff has already proven it can produce an elite team, I see no reason to change it.

 

The coaching staff helped produce the best team in the NFC that year. But they were probably 4th or 5th overall that year, and that was 3 years ago, not to mention not even the same staff. That ship has sailed. It was a fleating moment of glory that was unsustainable. How many seasons of mediocrity will it take for you to think the past continues to outweigh the present.

 

More than two.

 

You should be in the Bears front office then, because apparently they agree with you.

 

Win for me!

[dew1679666265]

If the defense is on the field more than they should be, it usually means they'll tire out and play worse - not better.

 

Getting a few more INT doesn't necessarily mean the defense is playing better with that increased playing time. A good defense can shut down a passing game with or without getting picks.

 

Right, and the Bears don't have a good defense. My point with the turnovers argument, though, is that even with (at best) decent talent, Lovie's scheme is placing them near the top in turnovers each year.

 

If the talent were better, the likelihood is this scheme would stop offenses more and not just create turnovers.

Actually, the Bears do have a good defense, as efficiency goes. They're just on the field so much that they give up a ton of yards. The offense is the real problem, just as it was 2 years ago. Unfortunately, the Bears either have to significantly improve the offense, or they have to make the defense/special teams far and away the best in the league to overcome the offensive issues.

 

I questioned myself on the right word to use to describe the Bear defense. You're probably right that they're good, but no more than that.

[dew1679666265]

If the defense is on the field more than they should be, it usually means they'll tire out and play worse - not better.

 

Getting a few more INT doesn't necessarily mean the defense is playing better with that increased playing time. A good defense can shut down a passing game with or without getting picks.

 

Right, and the Bears don't have a good defense. My point with the turnovers argument, though, is that even with (at best) decent talent, Lovie's scheme is placing them near the top in turnovers each year.

If the talent were better, the likelihood is this scheme would stop offenses more and not just create turnovers.

 

But turnovers isn't the goal of a football game. Scoring and preventing scores is the goal.

 

Turnovers lead you to that goal, though. And the goal won't be reached without talent and the Bears don't have enough of it - no matter if their coach is Lovie Smith, me or Vince Lombardi.

[Wilson A2000]

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.

 

When Lovie got here, he really made an effort to encourage guys to strip the ball out. Tillman does this as well as anyone. The flipside is that you forget to tackle.

[dew1679666265]

Here's a strike against Lovie. He's already anointed Orton as the starter for next year.

 

All players will have competition,'' Bears coach Lovie Smith said, according to Chicago media outlets. ''Everybody's in the same group. But Kyle is our quarterback. He has done a lot of good things for us this year, but we all start from scratch and go from there.

[Wilson A2000]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-29-haugh-bears-texans-chicagdec29,0,2577977.column

 

Lovie says the team was close and only a few changes need to be made. But they were close to the playoffs, and not close to doing anything in the playoffs. When you look at the stats, Lovie is just dead wrong. Lovie does absolutely nothing for me as a coach. Maybe he gets the most out of his players, but any good coach does this. That does not set him apart.

[Banedon]

Here's a strike against Lovie. He's already anointed Orton as the starter for next year.

 

All players will have competition,'' Bears coach Lovie Smith said, according to Chicago media outlets. ''Everybody's in the same group. But Kyle is our quarterback. He has done a lot of good things for us this year, but we all start from scratch and go from there.

 

This doesn't bother me. Some of the stuff Lovie has said indicating they were "close" this year does, but they have so many other areas that need fixing...draft a QB, let him sit behind Orton and learn. This team can be successful with Orton as QB.