Week 11: Vikings (4-5) @ Bears (suck), Noon CBS/780

[WrigleyField 22]

Its a necessary, win or lose. Too often, because of the sports lexicon of dumb jocks, it's chalked up as meatheads bullying. Incognito was an ass, Kruetz was not

Kreutz was terrible and the team was a complete joke for half his time on the roster.

 

 

There's always a need for leadership and Briggs was also a horrible option for that role. Urlacher filled that role and was a star impact player who made a difference. Kreutz was a freaking center, one of the least important jobs on the starting offense. His leadership was based on being a dick and didn't make anybody any better. He was the face of the offense when the team couldn't play offense.

All this.

 

Mainly I guess I just want someone who makes sure we don't do 3 different coverage schemes on a given play. A S or MLB who sees the whole field.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sammy Sofa]

Its a necessary, win or lose. Too often, because of the sports lexicon of dumb jocks, it's chalked up as meatheads bullying. Incognito was an ass, Kruetz was not

Kreutz was terrible and the team was a complete joke for half his time on the roster.

 

 

There's always a need for leadership and Briggs was also a horrible option for that role. Urlacher filled that role and was a star impact player who made a difference. Kreutz was a freaking center, one of the least important jobs on the starting offense. His leadership was based on being a dick and didn't make anybody any better. He was the face of the offense when the team couldn't play offense.

All this.

 

Agreed.

 

Kreutz was a lunatic who did nothing except start [expletive] likely to get himself off. Urlacher I'll give some credit to, but I think a lot more goes to Lovie. I think coaches who can actually manage their players has the most impact as opposed to some monster player-leader creature.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Sammy Sofa

[jersey cubs fan]

the Bears need a key player with a strong personality on defense. they had that for so many years with Urlacher, and while many, including myself, dismissed the need for leadership on this team, i think it's pretty apparent that no one on this team at the player level has any leadership skill.

 

I'm not pining for the days of Urlacher or Kreutz, but one must admit that when they were here, you knew who ran the locker room. nothing was in disarray, feelings were hurt on occasion, faces were punched, but it seemed like the team was tougher mentally. maybe there is something to the "chip on the shoulder" or "us against the world"-clique-ish mentality. Those teams had an identity, and while that identity started on the field, it perpetuated itself off of it and kept those guys together and strong.

 

i really think that whomever the bears pick needs to have a very high football IQ, and can be respected and followed as well.

 

Yeah, I finally feel that there's something to this. After Urlacher left, the Bears veterans were Briggs who doesn't give a [expletive], Peppers, Tillman who leads by example, and Jennings. Plus, I think a lot of that came from Lovie, who the players respected. I don't think Trestman commands a lockeroom like a HC has to if he doesn't have the players to do so.

 

That being said, I don't think leadership is necessary to win. But I do think you need it when things don't go well.

 

What do you need it for then? To make sure you get to 7 or 8 wins?

 

I feel like this train of thought is shifting blame away from Trestman and the coaching staff on this issue. This team wouldn't be any better with Olin Freaking Kreutz at center. Hell, Roberto Garza is a protege of his and was said to have taken over that role when Olin left. All was fine with his leadership before this year.

 

The defense misses Urlachers' ability, but it also missed his ability when he was still on the team and available to lead. His ability included his "direction" while making calls on the field.

 

But this team sucks right now because their GM is a goober who hired a "unique" head coach who is not up to the job. And they have no great defensive players to make up for all the bad ones.

[Guest]

I'm not pining for the days of Urlacher or Kreutz, but one must admit that when they were here, you knew who ran the locker room. nothing was in disarray,

 

The Bears were a mess for much of Kreutz's tenure.

 

i don't remember that. how were they a mess? there was never any question of leadership. if anything i think the problem is Kreutz never let the QB take a leadership role because he was a bully-type. the talent may have been a mess, but there was a pecking order and that brought stability.

[WrigleyField 22]

Its a necessary, win or lose. Too often, because of the sports lexicon of dumb jocks, it's chalked up as meatheads bullying. Incognito was an ass, Kruetz was not

Kreutz was terrible and the team was a complete joke for half his time on the roster.

 

 

There's always a need for leadership and Briggs was also a horrible option for that role. Urlacher filled that role and was a star impact player who made a difference. Kreutz was a freaking center, one of the least important jobs on the starting offense. His leadership was based on being a dick and didn't make anybody any better. He was the face of the offense when the team couldn't play offense.

All this.

 

Agreed.

 

Kreutz was a lunatic who did nothing except start [expletive] likely to get himself off. Urlacher I'll give some credit to, but I think a lot more goes to Lovie. I think coaches who can actually manage their players has the most impact as opposed to some monster player-leader creature.

I think the coach creates the structure that allows his best/most respected players to take on some of the locker room leadership.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited November 11, 2014 by WrigleyField 22

[Guest]

The defense misses Urlachers' ability, but it also missed his ability when he was still on the team and available to lead. His ability included his "direction" while making calls on the field.

 

well of course if you aren't good and can't make plays or play calls, no is going to respect you as a leader, that's why you have to be good at football.

[jersey cubs fan]

Its a necessary, win or lose. Too often, because of the sports lexicon of dumb jocks, it's chalked up as meatheads bullying. Incognito was an ass, Kruetz was not

Kreutz was terrible and the team was a complete joke for half his time on the roster.

 

 

There's always a need for leadership and Briggs was also a horrible option for that role. Urlacher filled that role and was a star impact player who made a difference. Kreutz was a freaking center, one of the least important jobs on the starting offense. His leadership was based on being a dick and didn't make anybody any better. He was the face of the offense when the team couldn't play offense.

All this.

 

Agreed.

 

Kreutz was a lunatic. Urlacher I'll give some credit to, but I think a lot more goes to Lovie. I think coaches who can actually manage their players has the most impact as opposed to some monster player-leader creature.

 

Yeah, Lovie always had everybody ready and willing to play hard on gameday. He was a talk softly and carry a big stick kind of coach that players respected. Nobody was going to respect the goofy Trestman unless he came in and turned the offense into an elite squad. He made them better, but that ended quickly. In my opinion he "lost" the defense last year but it really became the issue it is today when the offense took a step back. Without a 28+ point offense, Trestman doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[Guest]

Its a necessary, win or lose. Too often, because of the sports lexicon of dumb jocks, it's chalked up as meatheads bullying. Incognito was an ass, Kruetz was not

Kreutz was terrible and the team was a complete joke for half his time on the roster.

 

 

There's always a need for leadership and Briggs was also a horrible option for that role. Urlacher filled that role and was a star impact player who made a difference. Kreutz was a freaking center, one of the least important jobs on the starting offense. His leadership was based on being a dick and didn't make anybody any better. He was the face of the offense when the team couldn't play offense.

All this.

 

Agreed.

 

Kreutz was a lunatic who did nothing except start [expletive] likely to get himself off. Urlacher I'll give some credit to, but I think a lot more goes to Lovie. I think coaches who can actually manage their players has the most impact as opposed to some monster player-leader creature.

I think the coach creates the structure that allows his best/most respected players to take in some of the locker room leadership.

 

this is it. he facilitates an environment in which leaders can evolve and take shape. but you have to identify these leaders and develop them.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm not pining for the days of Urlacher or Kreutz, but one must admit that when they were here, you knew who ran the locker room. nothing was in disarray,

 

The Bears were a mess for much of Kreutz's tenure.

 

i don't remember that. how were they a mess? there was never any question of leadership. if anything i think the problem is Kreutz never let the QB take a leadership role because he was a bully-type. the talent may have been a mess, but there was a pecking order and that brought stability.

 

Stability of what? The team sucked balls for many years. The offense was a joke. Young players were bullied and never groomed or developed. It was a disaster. What did they have, one good year in his first 8 seasons?

[Guest]

 

Yeah, Lovie always had everybody ready and willing to play hard on gameday. He was a talk softly and carry a big stick kind of coach that players respected. Nobody was going to respect the goofy Trestman unless he came in and turned the offense into an elite squad. He made them better, but that ended quickly. In my opinion he "lost" the defense last year but it really became the issue it is today when the offense took a step back. Without a 28+ point offense, Trestman doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

i think Lovie just delegated all the leadership to Urlacher and Kreutz and let them deliver the tough messages. Lovie himself was just nice to everyone.

[Sammy Sofa]

Its a necessary, win or lose. Too often, because of the sports lexicon of dumb jocks, it's chalked up as meatheads bullying. Incognito was an ass, Kruetz was not

Kreutz was terrible and the team was a complete joke for half his time on the roster.

 

 

There's always a need for leadership and Briggs was also a horrible option for that role. Urlacher filled that role and was a star impact player who made a difference. Kreutz was a freaking center, one of the least important jobs on the starting offense. His leadership was based on being a dick and didn't make anybody any better. He was the face of the offense when the team couldn't play offense.

All this.

 

Agreed.

 

Kreutz was a lunatic who did nothing except start [expletive] likely to get himself off. Urlacher I'll give some credit to, but I think a lot more goes to Lovie. I think coaches who can actually manage their players has the most impact as opposed to some monster player-leader creature.

I think the coach creates the structure that allows his best/most respected players to take on some of the locker room leadership.

 

Sure, but that still comes back to the coach being the more important component.

[Sammy Sofa]

 

Yeah, Lovie always had everybody ready and willing to play hard on gameday. He was a talk softly and carry a big stick kind of coach that players respected. Nobody was going to respect the goofy Trestman unless he came in and turned the offense into an elite squad. He made them better, but that ended quickly. In my opinion he "lost" the defense last year but it really became the issue it is today when the offense took a step back. Without a 28+ point offense, Trestman doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

i think Lovie just delegated all the leadership to Urlacher and Kreutz and let them deliver the tough messages. Lovie himself was just nice to everyone.

 

That's completely wrong. Please stop praising Kreutz.

[Guest]

I'm not pining for the days of Urlacher or Kreutz, but one must admit that when they were here, you knew who ran the locker room. nothing was in disarray,

 

The Bears were a mess for much of Kreutz's tenure.

 

i don't remember that. how were they a mess? there was never any question of leadership. if anything i think the problem is Kreutz never let the QB take a leadership role because he was a bully-type. the talent may have been a mess, but there was a pecking order and that brought stability.

 

Stability of what? The team sucked balls for many years. The offense was a joke. Young players were bullied and never groomed or developed. It was a disaster. What did they have, one good year in his first 8 seasons?

 

maybe you misunderstand me, but i'm not talking about on-field performance. the team was just bad, and the young players added were bad, too.

 

there were no divisions or meltdowns or breakdowns. if there were, we didn't hear about them because no one said anything.

[Guest]

 

Yeah, Lovie always had everybody ready and willing to play hard on gameday. He was a talk softly and carry a big stick kind of coach that players respected. Nobody was going to respect the goofy Trestman unless he came in and turned the offense into an elite squad. He made them better, but that ended quickly. In my opinion he "lost" the defense last year but it really became the issue it is today when the offense took a step back. Without a 28+ point offense, Trestman doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

i think Lovie just delegated all the leadership to Urlacher and Kreutz and let them deliver the tough messages. Lovie himself was just nice to everyone.

 

That's completely wrong. Please stop praising Kreutz.

 

why? i don't care if he was a meathead jerk in the mold of an alpha beta enforcer.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

They got in a fight at an FBI party.

[jersey cubs fan]

this is it. he facilitates an environment in which leaders can evolve and take shape. but you have to identify these leaders and develop them.

 

Charles Tillman is considered leadery.

 

The fact is it comes down to not enough good players (especially on defense) and a joke of a coaching staff. This is a staff that has had multiple CFL coaches, not just the head coach, but multiple assistants. And when it came time to bring in outside help they brought in a career college strength and conditioning coach with a couple seasons of NFL work under his belt. Kromer is probably the most accomplished assistant, and he's not that accomplished.

[WrigleyField 22]

Its a necessary, win or lose. Too often, because of the sports lexicon of dumb jocks, it's chalked up as meatheads bullying. Incognito was an ass, Kruetz was not

Kreutz was terrible and the team was a complete joke for half his time on the roster.

 

 

There's always a need for leadership and Briggs was also a horrible option for that role. Urlacher filled that role and was a star impact player who made a difference. Kreutz was a freaking center, one of the least important jobs on the starting offense. His leadership was based on being a dick and didn't make anybody any better. He was the face of the offense when the team couldn't play offense.

All this.

 

Agreed.

 

Kreutz was a lunatic who did nothing except start [expletive] likely to get himself off. Urlacher I'll give some credit to, but I think a lot more goes to Lovie. I think coaches who can actually manage their players has the most impact as opposed to some monster player-leader creature.

I think the coach creates the structure that allows his best/most respected players to take on some of the locker room leadership.

 

Sure, but that still comes back to the coach being the more important component.

Precisely, it all comes back to the coach. He is the general and the Urlachers are the platoon leaders. They still gotta be good soldiers.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jersey cubs fan]

 

Yeah, Lovie always had everybody ready and willing to play hard on gameday. He was a talk softly and carry a big stick kind of coach that players respected. Nobody was going to respect the goofy Trestman unless he came in and turned the offense into an elite squad. He made them better, but that ended quickly. In my opinion he "lost" the defense last year but it really became the issue it is today when the offense took a step back. Without a 28+ point offense, Trestman doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

i think Lovie just delegated all the leadership to Urlacher and Kreutz and let them deliver the tough messages. Lovie himself was just nice to everyone.

 

That's completely wrong. Please stop praising Kreutz.

 

why? i don't care if he was a meathead jerk in the mold of an alpha beta enforcer.

 

In the grand scheme of things I wouldn't care either, if it accomplished anything. All of Kreutz's bullying did nothing good for the team. He probably contributed to the disappointing career of more than one skill position player and his side of the ball was awful the vast majority of the time.

[Sammy Sofa]

why? i don't care if he was a meathead jerk in the mold of an alpha beta enforcer.

 

So was Urlacher, but despite that he still knew how to manage the team, and especially when it came to managing the defense during the game. There's nothing to indicate Kreutz had anything along those lines. Both were sadistic dickheads, but one actually (accidentally?) also knew how to lead a team.

[jersey cubs fan]

Precisely, it all comes back to the coach. He is the general and the Urlachers are the platoon leaders. They still gotta be good soldiers.

 

Urlacher was a good soldier for a head coach that featured him. I think lots of supposedly good soldiers would be just as bad as seemingly bad soldiers if they had the wrong coach during their career.

 

There's nothing to be gained from a well behaved shitty team. Nobody should be proud of a well oiled turd machine.

 

 

 

 

 

This isn't a lack of good soldiers situation.

[WrigleyField 22]

Just to be clear here Soldier: Player::General:Coach, right?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jersey cubs fan]

Just to be clear here Soldier: Player::General:Coach, right?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Sir yes sir!

http://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/headshots/nfl/players/full/5531.png&w=350&h=254

[WrigleyField 22]

Because if you're saying that Urlacher wouldn't have been a good player without Lovie I find that ludicrous.

 

It's just a logistical thing. Coaches have better stuff to do than policing small locker room stuff so he empowers certain players to maintain leadership at that level so and steps in if they don't do it well. Thus the coach can focus on bigger things.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jersey cubs fan]

Because if you're saying that Urlacher wouldn't have been a good player without Lovie I find that ludicrous.

 

It's just a logistical thing. Coaches have better stuff to do than policing small locker room stuff so he empowers certain players to maintain leadership at that level so and steps in if they don't do it well. Thus the coach can focus on bigger things.

Coaches make their money by convincing the world they have so much to do.

 

 

But I wasn't saying Urlacher wouldn't have been good without Lovie. I was saying his leadership ability may not have been as effective in different circumstances.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Its a necessary, win or lose. Too often, because of the sports lexicon of dumb jocks, it's chalked up as meatheads bullying. Incognito was an ass, Kruetz was not

Kreutz was terrible and the team was a complete joke for half his time on the roster.

 

 

There's always a need for leadership and Briggs was also a horrible option for that role. Urlacher filled that role and was a star impact player who made a difference. Kreutz was a freaking center, one of the least important jobs on the starting offense. His leadership was based on being a dick and didn't make anybody any better. He was the face of the offense when the team couldn't play offense.

 

Kruetz was a 6 time pro bowler. He had his day as a leader, even if he was credited as being a leader past his best years