2009 Chicago Bears offseason

[GoCubsGo1679625768]

Leftwich would be a great fit here..another mediocre QB on the downsloap of his career. Get it done Jerry!

[Magnetic Curses]

Gross is going to get LT money. I dont think its worth the $ to pay him that and move him to LG or RT. Carolina is going to franchise either Gross or Peppers, id prefer they franchise Gross so the Bears can go after Peppers.

 

As a team with a cheap starting RB, inexpensive QB and no receiver making a huge amount, I think it could be smart for them to overspend a little on the line. That's essentially what they did with Tait when they first brought him over to be the RT. It was necessary at the time. They don't have a very high draft pick, and don't have any important free agents of their own to resign, meaning there will be money available to spend on the line.

 

i'd overspend for gross, he's a stud that gives instant credibility to our line. forte could make a career behind him.

[minnesotacubsfan]

signing Leftwich to anything but a back-up role would be foolish in Chicago. that guys delivery is horrible

[minnesotacubsfan]

Personally I don't think it likely that many QBs would succeed in our offense, and I strongly suspect that somewhere in the past several decades years of QB failures, we probably destroyed a QB or two that would have been decent with proper coaching/development and a supporting cast.

 

It's really, really hard to miss on a position for so many decades. You'd get lucky at least once, if you had the other pieces in place. You'd have to. Look at guys like Romo, or Warner. They're just guys off the street who developed into solid QBs.

 

The Bears need to fix the infrastructure that perpetuates QB badness. Until then, we'll be bringing in guys, declaring them "bad", and recycling, forever. Some of those guys could probably have been good, or at least serviceable. The real thing that is bad is the Bears inability to support and develop QBs.

 

your starting to think like me now.

[biittner77]

Personally I don't think it likely that many QBs would succeed in our offense, and I strongly suspect that somewhere in the past several decades years of QB failures, we probably destroyed a QB or two that would have been decent with proper coaching/development and a supporting cast.

 

It's really, really hard to miss on a position for so many decades. You'd get lucky at least once, if you had the other pieces in place. You'd have to. Look at guys like Romo, or Warner. They're just guys off the street who developed into solid QBs.

 

The Bears need to fix the infrastructure that perpetuates QB badness. Until then, we'll be bringing in guys, declaring them "bad", and recycling, forever. Some of those guys could probably have been good, or at least serviceable. The real thing that is bad is the Bears inability to support and develop QBs.

 

your starting to think like me now.

 

While the Bears have had some terrible coordinators, the real problem is the team philosophy of defense and ball control. This philosophy, when it works nets a great defense and a lousy offense. The defense gets old and ineffective and the team stinks. Then they get a good draft pick, get an impact player on defense and get back to being somewhat successful during the regular season.

 

This formula, however, almost never works in the post season. This year's Titans are a good example. This year's Ravens team is the other side. The team the Bears always hope to have and have had twice in the last 30+ years.

[burnt out cubbie fan]

This formula, however, almost never works in the post season.

wha? you serious? hahahaha

[Magnetic Curses]

Personally I don't think it likely that many QBs would succeed in our offense, and I strongly suspect that somewhere in the past several decades years of QB failures, we probably destroyed a QB or two that would have been decent with proper coaching/development and a supporting cast.

 

It's really, really hard to miss on a position for so many decades. You'd get lucky at least once, if you had the other pieces in place. You'd have to. Look at guys like Romo, or Warner. They're just guys off the street who developed into solid QBs.

 

The Bears need to fix the infrastructure that perpetuates QB badness. Until then, we'll be bringing in guys, declaring them "bad", and recycling, forever. Some of those guys could probably have been good, or at least serviceable. The real thing that is bad is the Bears inability to support and develop QBs.

 

your starting to think like me now.

 

While the Bears have had some terrible coordinators, the real problem is the team philosophy of defense and ball control. This philosophy, when it works nets a great defense and a lousy offense. The defense gets old and ineffective and the team stinks. Then they get a good draft pick, get an impact player on defense and get back to being somewhat successful during the regular season.

 

This formula, however, almost never works in the post season. This year's Titans are a good example. This year's Ravens team is the other side. The team the Bears always hope to have and have had twice in the last 30+ years.

 

hmmm.....your ideas are intriguing to me and i wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

[rawaction]

Gross is going to get LT money. I dont think its worth the $ to pay him that and move him to LG or RT. Carolina is going to franchise either Gross or Peppers, id prefer they franchise Gross so the Bears can go after Peppers.

 

As a team with a cheap starting RB, inexpensive QB and no receiver making a huge amount, I think it could be smart for them to overspend a little on the line. That's essentially what they did with Tait when they first brought him over to be the RT. It was necessary at the time. They don't have a very high draft pick, and don't have any important free agents of their own to resign, meaning there will be money available to spend on the line.

 

I'd keep Gross at LT and move Williams to RT. Gross has proven that he can play LT a lot more than Williams has.

[biittner77]

This formula, however, almost never works in the post season.

wha? you serious? hahahaha

 

Looking at the Superbowl winners from the last 10 years or so what I see are teams that were, for the most part, offense first. The Patriot teams that won did so because of Tom Brady and the offense. The Colts won because of Manning. The Rams, The Broncos and I'd say even the Steelers won because they had a good offense.

 

On the other side of the coin there's the Ravens and last year's Giants. The Ravens are an extreme example of absolute domination on one side of the ball, much like the Superbowl XX Bears. The Giants, though they did have a very good defense, don't win without strong play from Eli Manning.

[biittner77]

I forgot about Tampa Bay winning a Superbowl in there. They did it with defense but look what they've done since- nothing. If you go back into the 1990's there are teams like the Cowboys, Packers and 49ers that were also offense first teams.

 

So while it is possible to win the occasional superbowl with a great defense, it takes a more balanced team to be consistently good.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

This formula, however, almost never works in the post season.

wha? you serious? hahahaha

 

Looking at the Superbowl winners from the last 10 years or so what I see are teams that were, for the most part, offense first. The Patriot teams that won did so because of Tom Brady and the offense. The Colts won because of Manning. The Rams, The Broncos and I'd say even the Steelers won because they had a good offense.

 

On the other side of the coin there's the Ravens and last year's Giants. The Ravens are an extreme example of absolute domination on one side of the ball, much like the Superbowl XX Bears. The Giants, though they did have a very good defense, don't win without strong play from Eli Manning.

 

"Defense wins championships."

 

Cliche > Reality

[minnesotacubsfan]

This formula, however, almost never works in the post season.

wha? you serious? hahahaha

 

Looking at the Superbowl winners from the last 10 years or so what I see are teams that were, for the most part, offense first. The Patriot teams that won did so because of Tom Brady and the offense. The Colts won because of Manning. The Rams, The Broncos and I'd say even the Steelers won because they had a good offense.

 

On the other side of the coin there's the Ravens and last year's Giants. The Ravens are an extreme example of absolute domination on one side of the ball, much like the Superbowl XX Bears. The Giants, though they did have a very good defense, don't win without strong play from Eli Manning.

 

you must be absolutely drunk stupid to believe the Patriots, Packers, and Colts didnt play strong defense. While the Colts defense wanst anything to brag about early in 2006, it certainly came about in the palyoffs. The Packers in the 90's had a great defense, to go along with Favre, something people for get about. Teh Broncos in the 90's were primarily an offensive minded team, but they too played good defense.

 

you need balance to win the SB, and more importantly, intelligance to understand how to manage that balance. The Bears inability to develop a QB has nothing to do with their desire to run a team with a stong defense, at least it doesnt have to.

[minnesotacubsfan]

yea, the Packers defense had NOTHING to do with them winning the SB

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1996/opp.htm

[rchap24]

This formula, however, almost never works in the post season.

wha? you serious? hahahaha

 

Looking at the Superbowl winners from the last 10 years or so what I see are teams that were, for the most part, offense first. The Patriot teams that won did so because of Tom Brady and the offense. The Colts won because of Manning. The Rams, The Broncos and I'd say even the Steelers won because they had a good offense.

 

On the other side of the coin there's the Ravens and last year's Giants. The Ravens are an extreme example of absolute domination on one side of the ball, much like the Superbowl XX Bears. The Giants, though they did have a very good defense, don't win without strong play from Eli Manning.

 

you must be absolutely drunk stupid to believe the Patriots, Packers, and Colts didnt play strong defense. While the Colts defense wanst anything to brag about early in 2006, it certainly came about in the palyoffs. The Packers in the 90's had a great defense, to go along with Favre, something people for get about. Teh Broncos in the 90's were primarily an offensive minded team, but they too played good defense.

 

you need balance to win the SB, and more importantly, intelligance to understand how to manage that balance. The Bears inability to develop a QB has nothing to do with their desire to run a team with a stong defense, at least it doesnt have to.

 

Don't forget to mention the Rams defense which was top 3 in the NFL that year they won

 

two statistics about it * Led NFL and NFC in rushing defense (74.3 yards per game)

* Led NFL (tied with Jax) and NFC in sacks (57)

[jersey cubs fan]

Looking at the Superbowl winners from the last 10 years or so what I see are teams that were, for the most part, offense first. The Patriot teams that won did so because of Tom Brady and the offense. The Colts won because of Manning. The Rams, The Broncos and I'd say even the Steelers won because they had a good offense.

 

On the other side of the coin there's the Ravens and last year's Giants. The Ravens are an extreme example of absolute domination on one side of the ball, much like the Superbowl XX Bears. The Giants, though they did have a very good defense, don't win without strong play from Eli Manning.

 

BS, the Patriots team won with defense. They didn't have an all world offense until last year, when they didn't win.

 

The Steelers won with a much better defense than offense. (3 and 4 in points and yards allowed - 9 and 15 in points and yards gained).

The Ravens, Steelers, Patriots, Bucs and Giants won with d over o. The only team this decade to win with an emphasis on o was the Colts. You had STL and DEN in the late 90's, but there's hardly anything resembling a trend of offense over all else. And this year's final 4 has 3 defensive-oriented teams.

 

Basically you are just making stuff up to support your claim.

 

I do agree with you that the Bears style of defense, depending heavily on turnovers, does not make it easy to succeed consistently. Turnovers can be flukey, both in terms of causing the fumbles, and which team ends up with them. What the Bears also did was basically stick with the same bodies that got them to elite status, and since they are a defense predicated on speed and athleticism, they declined quickly when they no longer had a bunch of 25 year old super freaks.

[Magnetic Curses]

did he just say that the steelers won because of their offense?

[CubColtPacer]

This formula, however, almost never works in the post season.

wha? you serious? hahahaha

 

Looking at the Superbowl winners from the last 10 years or so what I see are teams that were, for the most part, offense first. The Patriot teams that won did so because of Tom Brady and the offense. The Colts won because of Manning. The Rams, The Broncos and I'd say even the Steelers won because they had a good offense.

 

On the other side of the coin there's the Ravens and last year's Giants. The Ravens are an extreme example of absolute domination on one side of the ball, much like the Superbowl XX Bears. The Giants, though they did have a very good defense, don't win without strong play from Eli Manning.

 

To be fair, the 01 Patriots won because of defense and special teams. In fact, they scored 6 TD's in those 3 playoff games-3 by the offense, and 3 by defense/special teams.

 

If I had to put the teams of the last 10 years into categories, I'd put them like this:

 

Defense Oriented with Terrible Offense

2000 Ravens

 

Defense Oriented with Subpar offense

2001 Patriots

 

Defense Oriented with Offense that makes enough plays to win

2002 Buccaneers

2003 Patriots (12th on offense, 1st on defense during the season)

2005 Steelers (getting close to balanced here)

2007 Giants (they honestly were mediocre on both sides of the ball during the season. I threw them in this category because of when they changed identities in the playoffs, it was more to a defense oriented team who didn't give up more than 20 points in any playoff game, and of course what they did in the Super Bowl).

 

 

Balanced Teams

 

2004 Patriots

 

Offense Oriented with Defense that makes enough plays to win

1997 Broncos

1998 Broncos

1999 Rams

 

Offense Oriented with defense that showed up out of nowhere in playoffs:

2006 Indianapolis Colts

 

I do agree though that it is very hard to build a ball control team and win the Super Bowl because it's so hard to win 3-4 close games in a row in the playoffs. The early Patriot teams and Steelers team calling card was defense, but their coaches trusted their offense to make plays when it needed to make them. Even with a ball control offense you need a passing game that if you get behind by 10 points can bring you back against a good team without the help of the running game. The 2000 Ravens were the only recent team who couldn't do that, but they were a huge aberration.

[minnesotacubsfan]

did he just say that the steelers won because of their offense?

 

I had to read it 3 times, but yes

[Magnetic Curses]

Offense Oriented with defense that showed up out of nowhere in playoffs:

2006 Indianapolis Colts

 

historically, the colts have been a very very good defense with bob sanders in the starting lineup and probably wouldn't have come close to winning the superbowl if he did not come back in the playoffs.

[jersey cubs fan]

you need balance to win the SB, and more importantly, intelligance to understand how to manage that balance. The Bears inability to develop a QB has nothing to do with their desire to run a team with a stong defense, at least it doesnt have to.

 

Well, at least you saved yourself with that disclaimer. I think it absolutely does have a lot to do with their emphasis on defense, as well as the running game. They've invested heavily in the post Walter RB position, with all sorts of top picks. They've invested in 5 first round RB since 1986, including two top 5. They've had 3 first round QB's, none in the top 10. Plus 2 2nd round RB and 0 2nd round QB. The "brightest" offensive mind this organization has employed in the past 30 years is probably Ditka, seeing as how he's the only guy to have developed 2 legit NFL QB's, in McMahon and Harbaugh.

 

I think the lack of emphasis on the offense, and the QB position in general, has been a major contributor to their problems.

[rchap24]

Offense Oriented with defense that showed up out of nowhere in playoffs:

2006 Indianapolis Colts

 

historically, the colts have been a very very good defense with bob sanders in the starting lineup and probably wouldn't have come close to winning the superbowl if he did not come back in the playoffs.

 

Yeah agreed the only real bad year they had was 2006 when they won. there Run-D was god awful until the playoffs

[minnesotacubsfan]

you need balance to win the SB, and more importantly, intelligance to understand how to manage that balance. The Bears inability to develop a QB has nothing to do with their desire to run a team with a stong defense, at least it doesnt have to.

 

Well, at least you saved yourself with that disclaimer. I think it absolutely does have a lot to do with their emphasis on defense, as well as the running game. They've invested heavily in the post Walter RB position, with all sorts of top picks. They've invested in 5 first round RB since 1986, including two top 5. They've had 3 first round QB's, none in the top 10. Plus 2 2nd round RB and 0 2nd round QB. The "brightest" offensive mind this organization has employed in the past 30 years is probably Ditka, seeing as how he's the only guy to have developed 2 legit NFL QB's, in McMahon and Harbaugh.

 

I think the lack of emphasis on the offense, and the QB position in general, has been a major contributor to their problems.

 

there has always been PLENTY of emphasis on the QB, every friggen year we hear the name "Sid Luckman". The reality is that the type of emphasis they provide is knee-jerk (Kordell Stewart), ill-advised (Rick Mirer), a bust (McNown, **Grossman**), or just poorly coached (**Grossman**-not sure where he fits anymore).

 

The Bears seem to be paralyzed by their own failures.

Its just time for them to wake up, and understand that developing the posistion takes longer then 9 games

[Soul]

you need balance to win the SB, and more importantly, intelligance to understand how to manage that balance. The Bears inability to develop a QB has nothing to do with their desire to run a team with a stong defense, at least it doesnt have to.

 

Well, at least you saved yourself with that disclaimer. I think it absolutely does have a lot to do with their emphasis on defense, as well as the running game. They've invested heavily in the post Walter RB position, with all sorts of top picks. They've invested in 5 first round RB since 1986, including two top 5. They've had 3 first round QB's, none in the top 10. Plus 2 2nd round RB and 0 2nd round QB. The "brightest" offensive mind this organization has employed in the past 30 years is probably Ditka, seeing as how he's the only guy to have developed 2 legit NFL QB's, in McMahon and Harbaugh.

 

I think the lack of emphasis on the offense, and the QB position in general, has been a major contributor to their problems.

 

there has always been PLENTY of emphasis on the QB, every friggen year we hear the name "Sid Luckman". The reality is that the type of emphasis they provide is knee-jerk (Kordell Stewart), ill-advised (Rick Mirer), a bust (McNown, **Grossman**), or just poorly coached (**Grossman**-not sure where he fits anymore).

 

The Bears seem to be paralyzed by their own failures.

Its just time for them to wake up, and understand that developing the posistion takes longer then 9 games

 

Lack of ability to scout, develop, and deploy QBs. The Bears need to wake up and realize they need to bring in people who understand how to spawn successful QBs, from selecting them up on through.

[jersey cubs fan]

you need balance to win the SB, and more importantly, intelligance to understand how to manage that balance. The Bears inability to develop a QB has nothing to do with their desire to run a team with a stong defense, at least it doesnt have to.

 

Well, at least you saved yourself with that disclaimer. I think it absolutely does have a lot to do with their emphasis on defense, as well as the running game. They've invested heavily in the post Walter RB position, with all sorts of top picks. They've invested in 5 first round RB since 1986, including two top 5. They've had 3 first round QB's, none in the top 10. Plus 2 2nd round RB and 0 2nd round QB. The "brightest" offensive mind this organization has employed in the past 30 years is probably Ditka, seeing as how he's the only guy to have developed 2 legit NFL QB's, in McMahon and Harbaugh.

 

I think the lack of emphasis on the offense, and the QB position in general, has been a major contributor to their problems.

 

there has always been PLENTY of emphasis on the QB, every friggen year we hear the name "Sid Luckman". The reality is that the type of emphasis they provide is knee-jerk (Kordell Stewart), ill-advised (Rick Mirer), a bust (McNown, **Grossman**), or just poorly coached (**Grossman**-not sure where he fits anymore).

 

The Bears seem to be paralyzed by their own failures.

Its just time for them to wake up, and understand that developing the posistion takes longer then 9 games

 

I think that goes back to my point about not having any serious offensive guru types who can and have developed QBs. The biggest offensive mind they've hired is a gimmicky college guy, Crowton.

[minnesotacubsfan]

I think that goes back to my point about not having any serious offensive guru types who can and have developed QBs. The biggest offensive mind they've hired is a gimmicky college guy, Crowton.

 

to throw the defensive philosophy under the bus and say we need a serious offesnive guru is abit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

you once suggested drafting a QB EVERY YEAR. I thought that was a good stradegy. not because I believe quantity is a quality (which I do), but it represents a PLAN to develop QB's,rather then reacting to a glaring need, and thats something the Bears dont seem to understand. dumping on a defensive minded philosophy wont get you anywhere, except the 1998 Atlanta Falcons.