Re: Bears Offseason Thread

[jersey cubs fan]

The problem is that all our guys are far from elite. We have a couple Ricky Proehls and Az Hakims, at best, and no Isaac Bruces or Torry Holts. Martz always had great receivers in St. Louis.

 

I still maintain a great line and great QB will make receivers much more than receivers will make an offense.

[SpongeWorthy]

Yeah, but we don't have those either.

 

That St. Louis team had Hall of Famers on every unit now that I think about it. Warner, Faulk, Pace, Bruce, and Holt is absolutely insane.

[Banedon]

Yeah, but we don't have those either.

 

That St. Louis team had Hall of Famers on every unit now that I think about it. Warner, Faulk, Pace, Bruce, and Holt is absolutely insane.

 

Ok, but you're criticizing the WR's, not the line. Would Faulk have been as good with the line the Bears had last season? How about Bruce or Holt? Would Warner have been rushing passes? If not...he'd have been taking sacks.

 

None of us are saying that the Bears are going to have the Rams offense from the "best show on turf" days. We're saying that if we don't have that, it's not necessarily due to bad receivers. It's much more likely to be because of a bad line.

[jersey cubs fan]

Yeah, but we don't have those either.

 

That St. Louis team had Hall of Famers on every unit now that I think about it. Warner, Faulk, Pace, Bruce, and Holt is absolutely insane.

 

Yeah, and the Bears won't be winning 13 or 14 games this year. Okay. But Holt did almost all his damage in a brief window when STL was elite, and Isaac Bruce wasn't all that great until the Martz/Warner years. The vast majority of WR are a product of their surroundings. There's no point in lamenting the lack of a proven superstar WR, as WR come and go every year. Any of these guys could have an outstanding season.

[SpongeWorthy]

Yeah, but we don't have those either.

 

That St. Louis team had Hall of Famers on every unit now that I think about it. Warner, Faulk, Pace, Bruce, and Holt is absolutely insane.

 

Ok, but you're criticizing the WR's, not the line. Would Faulk have been as good with the line the Bears had last season? How about Bruce or Holt? Would Warner have been rushing passes? If not...he'd have been taking sacks.

 

None of us are saying that the Bears are going to have the Rams offense from the "best show on turf" days. We're saying that if we don't have that, it's not necessarily due to bad receivers. It's much more likely to be because of a bad line.

 

Not as good, but better. I'm hoping a healthy Forte would've been better than Forte was last year. He was pretty slow and tentative. I dismiss the notion that you can just plug and play if you've got the QB and line. You need play makers.

 

And jersey, Holt is basically the less hyped version of Marvin Harrison. He put numbers well into the Bulger years. He was also a top 10 draft pick. He's not Pierre Garcon or anything. Bruce put up numbers in St. Louis that have never been done by a Chicago Bear before (excepting that one weird Marcus Robinson year maybe) Warner and Vermiel ever got there.

[jersey cubs fan]

Yeah, but we don't have those either.

 

That St. Louis team had Hall of Famers on every unit now that I think about it. Warner, Faulk, Pace, Bruce, and Holt is absolutely insane.

 

Ok, but you're criticizing the WR's, not the line. Would Faulk have been as good with the line the Bears had last season? How about Bruce or Holt? Would Warner have been rushing passes? If not...he'd have been taking sacks.

 

None of us are saying that the Bears are going to have the Rams offense from the "best show on turf" days. We're saying that if we don't have that, it's not necessarily due to bad receivers. It's much more likely to be because of a bad line.

 

Not as good, but better. I'm hoping a healthy Forte would've been better than Forte was last year. He was pretty slow and tentative. I dismiss the notion that you can just plug and play if you've got the QB and line. You need play makers.

 

And jersey, Holt is basically the less hyped version of Marvin Harrison. He put numbers well into the Bulger years. He was also a top 10 draft pick. He's not Pierre Garcon or anything. Bruce put up numbers in St. Louis that have never been done by a Chicago Bear before (excepting that one weird Marcus Robinson year maybe) Warner and Vermiel ever got there.

 

That has a lot to do with playing in a dome during the peak of the greatest show on turf. I don't really get your point in whining about the Bears WR not being what STL had. Nobody thinks they are the greatest show on turf, but they don't have to be. They have multiple guys who can make big plays, who have made big plays. But what matters is whether the line and QB will allow anything to happen. Again, WR don't make or break teams.

[Banedon]

I'm hoping a healthy Forte would've been better than Forte was last year. He was pretty slow and tentative. I dismiss the notion that you can just plug and play if you've got the QB and line. You need play makers.

 

Oh...well if you dismiss it....

 

Forte will benefit hugely from Taylor's presence. Forte isn't going to get nearly the number of carries this year as he has the last two years.

[SpongeWorthy]

Yeah, but we don't have those either.

 

That St. Louis team had Hall of Famers on every unit now that I think about it. Warner, Faulk, Pace, Bruce, and Holt is absolutely insane.

 

Ok, but you're criticizing the WR's, not the line. Would Faulk have been as good with the line the Bears had last season? How about Bruce or Holt? Would Warner have been rushing passes? If not...he'd have been taking sacks.

 

None of us are saying that the Bears are going to have the Rams offense from the "best show on turf" days. We're saying that if we don't have that, it's not necessarily due to bad receivers. It's much more likely to be because of a bad line.

 

Not as good, but better. I'm hoping a healthy Forte would've been better than Forte was last year. He was pretty slow and tentative. I dismiss the notion that you can just plug and play if you've got the QB and line. You need play makers.

 

And jersey, Holt is basically the less hyped version of Marvin Harrison. He put numbers well into the Bulger years. He was also a top 10 draft pick. He's not Pierre Garcon or anything. Bruce put up numbers in St. Louis that have never been done by a Chicago Bear before (excepting that one weird Marcus Robinson year maybe) Warner and Vermiel ever got there.

 

That has a lot to do with playing in a dome during the peak of the greatest show on turf. I don't really get your point in whining about the Bears WR not being what STL had. Nobody thinks they are the greatest show on turf, but they don't have to be. They have multiple guys who can make big plays, who have made big plays. But what matters is whether the line and QB will allow anything to happen. Again, WR don't make or break teams.

 

Isn't the point to compete for a Super Bowl? You don't do that by having a bunch of units that are just good enough. Somebody, somewhere, needs to be elite.

 

And I totally disagree that we have a bunch of guys who can and will make big plays. Knox makes big plays to the extent that the only plays he makes ARE big ones. Hester's good for a big play every now and then. Olsen might but you have to target him an outrageous amount of times. Forte is no home run hitter. So where does that leave you? And there still isn't a reliable red zone target. Maybe that'll be Devin A. We can only hope.

 

The most immediate thing the Bears can do next season to improve is not be an abject failure in the red zone.

[rawaction]

The problem is that all our guys are far from elite. We have a couple Ricky Proehls and Az Hakims, at best, and no Isaac Bruces or Torry Holts. Martz always had great receivers in St. Louis.

 

And we have at least a couple guys as talented as Roy Williams, and several more talented than Mike Furrey....the same WRs who Martz led to back-to-back 4000 yard seasons.

 

Nobody is expecting the greatest show on turf/grass. But Martz has shown he can put up numbers without great WRs or QBs (Kitna) for that matter.

[jersey cubs fan]

Isn't the point to compete for a Super Bowl? You don't do that by having a bunch of units that are just good enough. Somebody, somewhere, needs to be elite.

 

And I totally disagree that we have a bunch of guys who can and will make big plays. Knox makes big plays to the extent that the only plays he makes ARE big ones. Hester's good for a big play every now and then. Olsen might but you have to target him an outrageous amount of times. Forte is no home run hitter. So where does that leave you? And there still isn't a reliable red zone target. Maybe that'll be Devin A. We can only hope.

 

The most immediate thing the Bears can do next season to improve is not be an abject failure in the red zone.

 

Yeah, that is the point. But you inaccurately said Bennett isn't any good so I pointed out you were wrong. Everybody has conceded they are far from ideal.

 

The first thing they can consider doing in the red zone is not be like Turner and routinely take Greg Olsen out of the game in RZ passing situations, if he's still on the team. I'm not sure how you disagree with my statement and then go out and pretty much prove my statement correct.

[SpongeWorthy]

In the context of the league, Earl Bennett really isn't any good. He's below average. You can get away with below average if the rest of your team is above average. Well we know that isn't the case either.

 

Quickly scan the depth charts of good NFL offenses and tell me how many skill players we have that would start on those teams. It literally might be 0.

 

Edit: I'll say a healthy Matt Forte MIGHT start over someone like Ryan Grant and Olsen, as overrated as he is, would get a starting job for New England or something.

[rawaction]

In the context of the league, Earl Bennett really isn't any good. He's below average. You can get away with below average if the rest of your team is above average. Well we know that isn't the case either.

 

Quickly scan the depth charts of good NFL offenses and tell me how many skill players we have that would start on those teams. It literally might be 0.

 

Edit: I'll say a healthy Matt Forte MIGHT start over someone like Ryan Grant and Olsen, as overrated as he is, would get a starting job for New England or something.

 

I don't get why that matters in the least?

[SpongeWorthy]

It doesn't matter what a team's talent level is relative to the talent level of its competitors?

[rawaction]

It doesn't matter what a team's talent level is relative to the talent level of its competitors?

 

Not when you pick and choose to compare just the "good" offenses, and forget about the other phases of the game. Not when you consider that even if we are just talking offense that the best offenses don't always have great years. Not when you consider that the most talented team doesn't always win.

[SpongeWorthy]

It doesn't matter what a team's talent level is relative to the talent level of its competitors?

 

Not when you pick and choose to compare just the "good" offenses, and forget about the other phases of the game. Not when you consider that even if we are just talking offense that the best offenses don't always have great years. Not when you consider that the most talented team doesn't always win.

 

If you want to be good in any phase of the game it makes sense to compare yourself to the best teams in those phases. I'm fairly confident that we can have a good offense relative to the Lions, Rams, and Raiders but that gets you where exactly?

 

For what it's worth I do think the front 7 on D has a chance to be one of the best in the game.

[Guest]

It doesn't matter what a team's talent level is relative to the talent level of its competitors?

 

Not when you pick and choose to compare just the "good" offenses, and forget about the other phases of the game. Not when you consider that even if we are just talking offense that the best offenses don't always have great years. Not when you consider that the most talented team doesn't always win.

 

If you want to be good in any phase of the game it makes sense to compare yourself to the best teams in those phases. I'm fairly confident that we can have a good offense relative to the Lions, Rams, and Raiders but that gets you where exactly?

 

For what it's worth I do think the front 7 on D has a chance to be one of the best in the game.

If the offense can come together as a unit and finish in the top 8-12 in the league, I think the Bears will be very tough next year. That would be a great stepping stone to better things beyond that as the WR corps matures and the line turns over into a younger group.

[rawaction]

It doesn't matter what a team's talent level is relative to the talent level of its competitors?

 

Not when you pick and choose to compare just the "good" offenses, and forget about the other phases of the game. Not when you consider that even if we are just talking offense that the best offenses don't always have great years. Not when you consider that the most talented team doesn't always win.

 

If you want to be good in any phase of the game it makes sense to compare yourself to the best teams in those phases. I'm fairly confident that we can have a good offense relative to the Lions, Rams, and Raiders but that gets you where exactly?

 

For what it's worth I do think the front 7 on D has a chance to be one of the best in the game.

 

But what does each individual player have to do with the unit as a whole? I know in most cases, more talent = better offense. But the Texans were the 4th best offensive team in the league. Yet they only have Andre Johnson who would be a shoe-in to start for the other top 10 offenses in the league. I mentioned Martz's Lions before. They had a bunch of nobodies and were one of the best offensive teams for 2 years.

 

And you even said the front 7 on D could be among the best in the league. Doesn't that mean it could be good enough that the offense matters less? We know the ST will be top 10 in the league. That makes the offense matter even less.

[hawkeyecub]

Isaac Bruce wasn't all that great until the Martz/Warner years. The vast majority of WR are a product of their surroundings.

 

Isaac Bruce had career highs in catches (119), yards (1,781) and TD's (13) his second year in the league. He followed that up with 1,338 yards in his third year and averaged 16 yards per reception. He was then banged up for the next two years and only played 17 total games before the Martz/Warner years.

[Banedon]

It doesn't matter what a team's talent level is relative to the talent level of its competitors?

 

Not when you pick and choose to compare just the "good" offenses, and forget about the other phases of the game. Not when you consider that even if we are just talking offense that the best offenses don't always have great years. Not when you consider that the most talented team doesn't always win.

 

If you want to be good in any phase of the game it makes sense to compare yourself to the best teams in those phases. I'm fairly confident that we can have a good offense relative to the Lions, Rams, and Raiders but that gets you where exactly?

 

For what it's worth I do think the front 7 on D has a chance to be one of the best in the game.

 

But what does each individual player have to do with the unit as a whole? I know in most cases, more talent = better offense. But the Texans were the 4th best offensive team in the league. Yet they only have Andre Johnson who would be a shoe-in to start for the other top 10 offenses in the league. I mentioned Martz's Lions before. They had a bunch of nobodies and were one of the best offensive teams for 2 years.

 

And you even said the front 7 on D could be among the best in the league. Doesn't that mean it could be good enough that the offense matters less? We know the ST will be top 10 in the league. That makes the offense matter even less.

 

It's also worth mentioning that the "names" that Martz had in STL were "names" only after the fact. I mean come on...Kurt Warner was freaking nobody until he was in Martz's offense. Marshall Faulk was a good back in Indy, but was nowhere near what he became in STL.

[tfarks]

If the Bears can only muster an average offensive attack the Bears D will have to enter top 5 status in defense to make some noise. Not gonna happen.

 

 

If the Bears have any success it will be the emergence of the offense from the doldrums. The OL will make or break the team. If we have to consistently keep our TE's and RB's in to block we're gonna have to rely on some of our potential at receiver to make a large jump and Cutler to not force the issue. Risky business.

[jersey cubs fan]

If the Bears can only muster an average offensive attack the Bears D will have to enter top 5 status in defense to make some noise. Not gonna happen.

 

No way. An average offensive attack will allow much more leeway than a top 5 defense.

[Soul]

Isaac Bruce wasn't all that great until the Martz/Warner years. The vast majority of WR are a product of their surroundings.

 

Isaac Bruce had career highs in catches (119), yards (1,781) and TD's (13) his second year in the league. He followed that up with 1,338 yards in his third year and averaged 16 yards per reception. He was then banged up for the next two years and only played 17 total games before the Martz/Warner years.

 

His point still holds in some cases though. There are guys who just work within a certain system. You could see a decent-but-not-great guy on the Bears put up big numbers for a year or two if everything clicks. Sustaining it for many years is likely more the realm of the truly great.

[tfarks]

If the Bears can only muster an average offensive attack the Bears D will have to enter top 5 status in defense to make some noise. Not gonna happen.

 

No way. An average offensive attack will allow much more leeway than a top 5 defense.

 

Look at the playoff teams from year to year. I've seen this data compiled. If your offense is ~15 and that team was successful most of the time the D was in the top 5 or close. Maybe top 10 but then you're starting to push it and the chances of playoffs drops significantly.

[jersey cubs fan]

If the Bears can only muster an average offensive attack the Bears D will have to enter top 5 status in defense to make some noise. Not gonna happen.

 

No way. An average offensive attack will allow much more leeway than a top 5 defense.

 

Look at the playoff teams from year to year. I've seen this data compiled. If your offense is ~15 and that team was successful most of the time the D was in the top 5 or close. Maybe top 10 but then you're starting to push it and the chances of playoffs drops significantly.

 

If the Bears are 15th in offense and 8th in defense, I have a hard time thinking they won't be able to "make some noise". They were 15th in offense and 5th in defense in 2006 and were the best team in the NFC. Arizona had an average offense and average defense and won 10 games + their division.

 

They can't get away with below average on either side, since they aren't likely to be good enough on the other to make up for it. But an average offense and an above average defense will give them a shot and doing good things, especially with top special teams.

[rawaction]

If the Bears can only muster an average offensive attack the Bears D will have to enter top 5 status in defense to make some noise. Not gonna happen.

 

 

If the Bears have any success it will be the emergence of the offense from the doldrums. The OL will make or break the team. If we have to consistently keep our TE's and RB's in to block we're gonna have to rely on some of our potential at receiver to make a large jump and Cutler to not force the issue. Risky business.

 

I agree in the sense that this has to be done to "make some noise" aka championship contention. I think one team in the last 15 or so years has won the Superbowl without either an offense or defense in the top 10 in the league (Patriots 1st ring, I believe). That being said, I think both Bears units have a shot for top 10. The defense wasn't that bad last year. 17th in total yards. And that was without Urlacher and Tinoisamoa and conceivably lesser talent at DE and DB than they will have this year. The offense has a chance based on Martz.