rawaction

Indy, San Diego, Houston and Arizona didn't keep teams honest with the running game and they were 4 of the top 11 scoring teams in the league. New England and Minnesota averaged just 4.1 ypc. This is a pass first league. You have to pass. The Bears have to pass. They need an OC who can help develop Cutler and take advantage of their one strength. I really don't see any strong justification for eliminating Martz based on your perception that he can't do anything with the running game. The running game just isn't that important, and with a Forte led attack, it's not going to be good regardless. Martz has shown he can exploit a good pass catching RB, and that's Forte's only strength. The focus should be on who can do the most with the QB and passing game, not who can get the biggest YPC out of Forte. The passing game will determine this team's future. I agree with everything you are saying. I'm not one of those people that still think you win with running the ball and defense. Me pointing out 10 QBs throwing for 4000 is pointing out that I don't think Martz is anything special in the passing game anymore. My point was, if everyone is doing it, you might as well find somebody who has a history of (whether thru experience or who the OC has learned under) at least trying to run the ball, protect the QB, and minimize mistakes. Sure the Bears can be an elite offense w/o a running game. But it is not as likely. Especially since Arizona has the best WR combo in the league, Indy has the best WR/TE combo, Houston has the best WR in the game, and San Diego has probably the 2nd or 3rd best WR/TE combo. The Bears don't have the type of WR talent to just disregard the run like those teams did.

I don't see them having him coach out his contract. They will either can him or extend him, but they won't lame duck him. I'd love to get the next Payton, but there's no way to guarantee we don't go through a situation where the next OC is only here for a year or two. And it's not like Martz has never used the RB. He sure figured out how to make it work in STL, at least until Faulk started to age. And was he that run averse in SF? I'm not sure I'm buying your complains about how we know Cutler can make big plays and rack up yards. Sure, we know that, why not have a coach that can figure out how to turn that into points and success? If there is a better candidate than Martz I'd take him in a heartbeat, I just don't see how Martz is a bad option, or who that better guy obviously is. It's not even about the number of rushing plays called. It's the quality and creativity of those plays. Gore averaged just 4.3 per carry w/ Martz there last year. He's a career 4.8 back and got back to that this year w/o Martz. Kevin Jones only averaged 3.8 w/ Martz as the OC. Granted a lot of that had to do w/ his injury, but he got 4.7 ypc before Martz. So, basically the only thing Martz has to show for himself run-game wise is the 2 years he had one of the top 5 RBs of all time in his prime. I don't think his passing game expertise is that great that you overlook his shortcomings in designing and calling running plays. Heck, 10 QBs threw for over 4000 yards this year. That old Rams passing game is a dime a dozen now. And I know this is a passing league now, but you at least have to keep teams honest w/ the run. And I don't see any proof that Martz can design plays to make Forte a 4+ ypc guy. I don't know that anyone really can, but Martz has proven he can't.

I really don't want Mike Martz. The Bears have a young offense and need a young, fresh mind to lead them. We already know what Martz gives you. And I don't think he helps Cutler takes the step forward he needs to take. We know Cutler can throw for 3500-4000 yards. We know he can rack up the TD passes and big plays. However, his turnovers are keeping him from being elite right now. Martz hasn't shown that he is creative enough in the run game to take pressure off the QB. He hasn't shown he is smart enough to scheme so his QB doesn't take hits. And he hasn't shown that he values his QBs not turning over the ball enough. Martz's age and connection to Lovie means that 2 years for now (if Lovie is allowed to coach out his contract), Cutler will go into 2012 with his 3rd completely new offensive system as a Bear.

You will tomorrow, with Knox and Manning both out. Hester is only 2 years removed from the most return TDs in an NFL season. He hasn't lost it. Teams have really done a good job at pinning him on the sideline or staying in their lanes against him. And again, you aren't just talking about a record breaking return man. No matter how far removed. Hester is a record breaking return man that also has back-to-back 50 catch seasons in one of the shakiest offenses in the league. A team like Buffalo or Oakland and maybe even Arizona, if they lose Breaston this offseason; who are among the worst return teams in the league for a couple years running; would give up a 2nd for a potential elite return man who in 2 of the cases would be the team's best WR (assuming Buffalo doesn't re-sign T.O.).

The Pirates and Reds are still in the division. Plus, Houston and Milwaukee, at best, should be very similar teams to the Cubs record-wise.

Exactly. He's still a record breaking return man. Teams are starting to value the return game more an more. And he has shown he can be a serviceable WR with upside to be a strong #2 in a good offense. I think you could get a 2nd rounder for Hester.

I would have no problem dealing Hester. I feel like the people in charge now kind of hang their hat on him a bit though. I'm pretty sure they do. They think they snagged him early w/ a 2nd round pick...and he has been worth it...but was still a reach. They probably also think they were geniuses to move him to offense when it was inevitable from the start. Even w/ Aromashodu's emergence and Iglesias' potential, I'm still not OK w/ the receiving corps. And if you cut Davis and bring in a WR, you have 6 capable WRs and can't get them all on the field anyway.

That's why I say trade Hester. Aromashodu already has Cutler's trust. He has proven on the field he can play in the last 3 games. Iglesias was a relatively high draft pick w/ some upside, so he has to play next year. He also has some size. Also, Bennett has the familiarity w/ Cutler so he isn't going anywhere. That leaves Knox and Hester. Knox is younger, cheaper, and can do everything Hester can do. You can get rid of Hester and Davis and bring in another WR with some size, and get another draft pick in the process.

Aromashodu, I believe sprained his ankle in practice AFTER the preseason games. He was originally the #3, but couldn't play the first 2 weeks and Knox became the 3. Knox did so well that Aromashodu was kept inactive for a few more weeks and then never saw the field when he was active after the bye week. Cutler campaigned for him to get on the field because he is the team's biggest WR. I'm sure Iglesias can play too. The Bears look like idiots for having Earl Bennett on the bench last year so Marty Booker could play. So, I'm guessing this is a similar case of the Bears not putting their best players on the field due to a veteran presence.

That word is on my street. I started an internet rumor! YAY!

I'm speechless that anyone would defend letting the clock run down like that. You have so little faith in Cutler to play a series of downs without throwing an INT? Really? Honestly? This same guy you just extended halfway through the next decade? He can't be trusted now to play one series of downs without turning the ball over? I'm not even close to being at that point yet. 45 seconds and 2 timeouts is plenty of time to get the ball to Robbie for a game winning field goal. If you stop Minnesota, it's game over anyway. But, you absolutely MUST protect the clock in the event they do score. Guaranteed possession with 45 seconds and 2 timeouts is way better than a 50/50 shot of losing the coin toss in OT. Especially with even more defenders out for the remainder of the game (Peanut/Idonije). I didn't say he couldn't be trusted. I just said it made it possible. And Cutler doesn't have the best track record with INTs in the final seconds vs. GB, ATL, and SF. I personally think the Bears had a better shot going thru their playbook and not hurrying, like they did to put up the first 30 points in the game.

Right now, this looks like it could be one of the most boring offseasons in Bears history. If the Bears hang onto Lovie and bring in another no-name OC and DC, then have a weak FA showing again, and have no early draft picks...2010 will be met with little fanfare. However, fire Lovie, bring in a fresh new coaching staff, and make a splash in an uncapped FA market...then 2010 can be as exciting as this year was supposed to be.

Yeah, Tyrus and Scola/Landry makes no sense. Rockets won't get Tyrus for a disgruntled, lame duck player. Bulls won't get one of the top 3 scorers and rebounders from a team that is 1 game away from having the 3rd best record in the West. McGrady is $23 Mil off the books this offseason. James and Miller make sense because they would combine to give Houston $18Mil off the books in return. Salmons is there to balance the salaries and to provide Houston (along with Miller) some needed depth. Miller would help a roster of centers (one of whom is 6'6" Chuck Hayes) that combine for just 11 points between them. He would also become their best passing and outside shooting big man. Salmons can combine w/ Shane Battier to be the offensive half of an offensive/defensive combo at the 2-3 opposite Ariza. If Houston truly wants to dump the disgruntled McGrady, I can't see them getting a much better combination of role players and 2010 payroll flexibility.

Again, I think the key point is the Bears were winning by 7 points. They had no chance of losing the game in regulation with NOT calling timeouts. Best case scenario, stop the Vikings or get a turnover and take a couple knees. Worst case scenario, go to OT. It would have been a completely different story if they were up 1-6 there, because they would have needed time to score still to win. If they do call a timeout after the Harvin end around, sure they have 45 seconds and 2 TOs. But you run the risk of Cutler adding to his league leading INT total. You run the risk of a 3 and out with a couple incomplete passes, which would give Minnesota time on the clock to block a punt, run back a punt (with the league's best punt returner by the way), or take a shot at getting another Favre miracle to get into FG range.

This might be breaking news to you raw but Lovie Smith has been the head coach for 6 seasons now. And you are dead wrong. Lovie Smith is an idiot when it comes to clock management, and he makes horrible challenge decisions. Well, I just went thru 1 season because I didn't feel like going thru 6. If you seriously think you can find justification that Lovie has sat on the ball several times then be my guest. My guess is you can't and were talking out of your anus.

I don't agree with this. The Bears led by 7. If it was a 1-6 point lead, then you take timeouts to avoid losing the game without getting the ball. Worst case scenario with a 7 point lead is OT. And the Bears were at home, so I have no problem with the way it was played.

It doesn't make a bit of difference, but I wouldn't assume 7-9 just yet. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me at all for the Bears to fall flat on their face after a huge win on MNF, even though it is the Lions with Stanton/Culpepper. True. 6-10 would help my point though.

I don't see how you can possibly justify this statement. Lovie makes horrible decisions in the challenge game. He wastes timeouts on plays that everybody knows will not be overturned. I'm not even sure what you are trying to say at the end there. The Bears have had numerous opportunities to try and drive late in a half, with 45 seconds or more to go, and they just sit on the ball. Their best offense has been the no huddle pass happy attack that would work in those situations, but the Bears routinely sit on it, or they run a screen, and if that doens't work, let the clock run out. When the opposition has the ball with 45 seconds to go, you just know they are going to move it to at least give them a chance at a FG, but the Bears don't even try. And you responded just how I figured a person would that overblows the challenge thing. Lovie's career win % in challenges is 32.7%. It is below league average which is 36% over that span, but not that far off to make a difference. He was 7 for 16 in the 2 years prior to this one. Bill Belicheck is consistently in the bottom of the league in challenge win percentage....yet his teams have won double digit games in every season in recent history. The fact is, the challenges, no matter how frustrating they may be, have little effect on the outcome or flow of the game. As for the "numerous" opportunities to drive late in a half.... Week 1- Got the ball w/ 47 seconds left in the 1st half.....Plays called: Pass, Spike, Pass, Run, Hail Mary. Week 2- Scored TD with 23 seconds left in half. Week 3- Got the ball w/ 9 seconds left Week 4- Got the ball w/ 26 seconds left......threw the ball 5 times to try to score. Week 6- Atlanta scored w/ 4 seconds left in the half. Halftime after kickoff. Week 7- Got the ball w/ 1:11, scored a FG (down 31-0 at the time) Week 8- did not have the ball at end of half. Week 9- Got the ball w/ 2:08 left, blocked FG ended drive. Week 10- Got the ball w/ 1:55 left, made a FG Week 11- FG w/ 17 seconds left, got the ball w/ 6:18 left Week 12- Got the ball w/ 1:47 left, Cutler threw INT...got it back w/ 6 seconds, ran the ball Week 13- Got the ball w/ 1:06 left. Cutler got sacked, fumbled....then the Bears ran the clock out. Week 14- Got the ball w/ 8 seconds in the half. Week 15- Got the ball w/ 1:49 left. Incomplete pass, run, Cutler scrambles for 1 yard = 3 and out Week 16- Last night they obviously didn't sit on the ball w/ a 13-point lead. Only reason they didn't go for a TD last night was Cutler hurt his hand on the play before the FG. So, I count 1 time the Bears have just "sat" on the ball, and even that time they started off going for it before a sack and fumble. Again, that comment is off base and completely false. Not trying to justify anything Lovie has done....just re-iterating my point that those shortcomings are overblown. You are making statement based on what you think your eyes have shown you when there is no factual evidence backing it up.

Wow. That really sucks. At one point, he was the leading freshman scorer in the nation. Easily the team's best player so far. Worst part is it takes away a year of development of all the young guys playing a full conference season together.

Personally I don't see a point. I want him gone. But if you consider how well the defense worked when Rivera was the defensive coordinator, and the fact that Lovie wanted him replaced supposedly because he was less in love with the Tampa 2 than Lovie would prefer, I think you could make a case that a legit coordinator could make the Tampa 2 work with the Bears again by playing it much differently. There's 2 things I hate most about this defense. The Bears play the same exact thing regardless of their own personel shortcomings. Hunter Hillenmeyer is not Brian Urlacher but when he replaced him he was expected to play the exact same way. And their blitzing is pathetic. They just shove guys up the middle to run right into blockers, not getting pressure and leaving guys wide open in the secondary. A coordinator who actually coordinates, that means adapting to the players' strength, mixing up calls and adjusting during the game, could still work with Lovie as head coach. But in addition to a new defensive coordinator, they need somebody to tell Lovie when to challenge and more importantly, not challenge calls, when to use timeouts, and when to try and step on the throat of the opponent late in the 1st half instead of playing not to lose. I don't think the challenges and timeouts are that big of a deal, and Lovie's shortcomings in these areas are way overblown. I don't even think a conservative approach is a problem, if you have the ability to back it up. You can't throw the ball well to get up 2 scores and then conservatively try to run the clock out if you can't run the ball. You can't play bend and don't break defense when your defense constantly breaks down.

If Lovie's fired in the offseason, Jerry Angelo and everyone else in the front office will probably get to keep their jobs for another two years since the team will want to give the new coaching staff as much leeway as possible. However, if Lovie gets another season and the Bears lay another egg, I think there will be a bloodbath in Halas Hall from top to bottom. I'd be okay with that scenario, especially since a lot of the problems with this team seem to stem from poor decision making on the part of the front office. I think the silver lining is that Ron Turner's fate seems sealed no matter what. I can potentially live with one more year of Lovie so long as they hire a capable OC. I can only live with 1 more year of Lovie because I assume I have to live with one more year of Lovie. Turner and the offensive staff (stable for several years) needs to be replaced, but the sad thing is this horrible defense needs to be overhauled as well. That has been my point as well. Lovie's defensive schemes have proved to not be good enough the last 3 years. And what's the point of keeping Lovie around as a head coach if you aren't running his defense anymore? He's not that good of a motivator or strategist to be a great "in-game" head coach without his hands in one side of the ball or the other, like guys like Ditka and Cowher are/were.

I think you are far too generous about the defense. I realize you try and explain what you mean, but good halfs of football are meaningless. The defense stinks. It has stunk for three years. They have talented players who occasionally shut a team down for a few drives, but they an incapable of any sort of prolonged success (half to half or week to week). They've been blown out several times this year. There's just no getting around the fact that this defense is bad. I generally agree with you. But good halves of defense mean the Bears still may have the personnel to get it done defensively....which it better be because the Bears don't have the ability to do much about the personnel in this offseason. A new scheme and ability to make adjustments are completely necessary, though.

I don't think the line will necessarily take 2-3 years to fix. Atlanta rebuilt their line almost overnight, after the Vick/Petrino fiasco. As did Carolina. Miami and Cleveland saw their line play dramatically improve, though that was based on high picks used on Jake Long and Joe Thomas respectively. Williams already looks like an improvement over Pace at LT. Shaffer has actually played better than Williams did at RT the last few games. Get a Logan Mankins at G and improve over the disaster that is Olin Kreutz and the Bears go from the worst line in the NFL to probably middle of the pack at worst.

There are a lot of things I will take from this game. Despite giving up 30 2nd half points, there was a lot of positives. - Devon Aromashodu can be a legit NFL WR. Cutler likes him a lot. Loves his size. - The defense has played well in spurts. First half vs. GB, 2nd half vs. Pitt, 2nd half vs. Seattle, 2nd half vs. Detroit, 1st half vs. Atlanta, entire Cleveland, St Louis, and SF games, 2nd half vs. GB, 1st half vs. Philly, and the 1st half last night. The notable blowouts are the only times the Bears haven't put together at least a 1/2 of championship caliber defense. Of course, they haven't put up more than 1/2 a game against a respectable offensive team either. - Chris Williams and Kevin Shaffer have shown they can be a decent LT/RT combination next year allowing the Bears to focus on the interior line this offseason. If the defense can be more consistent with a healthy Urlacher and improvement from the young DBs (Bowman, Afalava) and DL (Adams, Gilbert, Anderson) then they can compete defensively in the near future. If this combo of OTs proves to be better than Pace/Williams and the Bears greatly improve at LG and C, then the offense can be good enough to compete. A star player on both lines would do wonders for this team though.

Two ways to look at this game. 1. Lovie got the team to rally around him, respond to adversity, and beat one of the best teams in the NFC. Or 2. Lovie's defense (who he calls the plays for) gave up 30 2nd half points and blew a 17-point lead in the last 16 minutes of the game. I enjoyed that win as much as anyone. But that game doesn't change anything for me. Honestly, I really like Lovie. But the bottom line is you are still going to have a team that is 7-9, 9-7, 7-9 since the Superbowl. You have a team whose defense looks stale and can't make key stops on 3rd down. You still have Tommie Harris who can only be motivated in spurts. The defense still relies on getting turnovers, but only could get the ball when Favre dropped it w/o contact and the league's leading fumbler coughs it up at the end. The only way this team can salvage anything with Lovie as the head coach is to go out and get a big name OC and DC. And the only way that happens is if those decisions are made without Lovie, because he has no ties to any worthy OCs and his defensive ties are only to those who run a similarly tired scheme. So, Lovie would basically be a figurehead, lame duck coach. It's best to part ways and go in another direction.