jersey cubs fan

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.

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

I believe both of those things can be significantly improved in one offseason. Mark Anderson types come out of every draft. Pass rushers and running backs are probably the easiest guys to plug into any team and rely on ability over practice and familiarity with a system. Likewise, upgrades at guard can be found fairly quickly, often on the free agent market and also through the draft. The Bears got a fairly large upgrade at RT the year they signed John Tait as a free agent. They can do something like that again. They aren't paying a lot to their QB or RB right now, there's no reason they can't find cap room for line help on both sides.

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.

Should've been at least 10 with that Atlanta game. The GB win serves as a counter-balance to the Atlanta loss. Back to 9. I see your GB, and raise you the week 2 Carolina game. What, no Tampa game with the single most ridiculous penalty of the year in OT? Don't forget, the Bears emphasis on athleticism and turnovers, and emotion in general, often come with ridiculous unsportsmanline play penalties. We've seen it for years from Kreutz and others because that is the way they play.

Should've been at least 10 with that Atlanta game. The GB win serves as a counter-balance to the Atlanta loss. Back to 9. I see your GB, and raise you the week 2 Carolina game. And I'll raise you a Smith suspension. That Carolina game defined this season. They were lucky to play them without Smith, just as they were lucky to play a gimpy Manning and the Colts in week 1, instead of week 10, and they were lucky to get the Saints to come to Chicago in December again instead of having to go to the dome. They gave it their all from an effort standpoint, but the defense fell apart because the athletes back there can't do what they used to do. And the offense, while effective at times, shot themselves in the foot.

Don't you think that Olsen has the potential to be an elite TE? He had 2 or 3 TD passes there near the end that only got away because of some fantastic plays by the Texan's D. I dunno...I really like the guy. I might not be impartial there. Yes, I do think he can. Unfortunately they only seemed to emphasize his role in a few isolated drives. Hester, Forte, Olsen are a fairly decent core group of playmakers. They need better backup RB and a much better receiver to get the most out of them though. In the meantime, I think upgrades to the offensive line would be the best way to improve this offense. You'll never know if you have the right QB until you give him a better line.

Manning as safety may happen more than you'd like depending on Mike Brown's situation. Frankly, I'd like to see Manning get consistent time at FS and see if he can actually develop there. I know he's had some big blown assignments, and apparently Urlacher got on him after he got burned yesterday (although I think Urlacher better worry about his own stuff)...but I think Manning still could develop if the Bears would put him somewhere and leave him there. Which is a coaching problem, as they have seen no reason to put him in a position and stick with him there. Manning was the Bears first pick a few years ago because the coaches wanted his athleticism and return ability. He's finally been utlized effectively as a returner, but the coaches have gotten crap out of him on defense in part because he's been moved all over and in part because they haven't coached his athleticism. It also doesn't help that Manning isn't the sharpest pencil in the box. Let's be fair here. When he can do simple tasks on the field, i.e run a kickoff back..blitz the QB, he looks good. But everytime he screws up it is on a blown coverage where he makes a huge error. From Day One Lovie has demanded athleticism over everything else. He wants fast tackles, fast linebackers and fast dbacks. Athleticism is the first, and in many regards, only requirement for playing on this team. Lovie doesn't care if you are smart or make perfect fundamental tackles. He wants you to be fast. That's okay, if you stick those athletes in one spot and give them simple assignments. And it also helps when you inherit a very smart captain in the secondary to keep people in line. But when you take those fast athletes and change their position from week to week and year to year, you are going to have problems. And when that captain starts losing his athleticism due to repeated injuries and those injuries force him to miss a ton of games, it's only going to be worse.

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. True, but the Bears do that better than anyone else. They coach to create turnovers...swarm to the ball etc. Granted, there's a whole lotta luck involved too. There's a coaching aspect there though. I just wish it wasn't the entire coaching plan. Emphasizing turnovers and swarming to the ball does not equal coaching, but as you point out, that's the whole plan. They will give up 5-15 yard plays all day long, and now a couple 50-90 yard plays just for fun, in hopes of eventually getting a turnover. That isn't coaching, that is waiting.

it's a plain vanilla team because the players are plain vanilla. i guess every now and then a team comes along like the dolphins and throws in a bunch of trick plays that work for a while, but most teams win on talent, not gimmicks. the skill position players on the bears' offense are kyle orton, matt forte, rashied davis, brandon lloyd and devin hester. that's a lousy quarterback, a rb who is solid but not a game-breaker, two receivers who might not even be acceptable options as a #2 wr, and a converted cornerback who is a deep threat but is still very raw. there's not a lot there that scares anybody, and to keep other teams off balance it really helps to have at least one player who is a huge threat that you can use as a decoy. Your Eagles don't have a plain vanilla defense. Hester's "raw" ability was perfectly fine this year. He was a good receiver. Lloyd was fine when on the field, but he was only on the field because the coaches insisted on pushing Bradley out the door, apparantly for being injured too much, just like Lloyd. Davis got open but dropped balls, however, the coaches are the ones who insisted on promoting him up the ranks and then relying on him so heavily this year. But Olsen and Clark are part of that passing game, and Turner continued to do a poor job utilizing the advantage the Bears have at this position. The only time they made it work was when they got into 2 minute type offenses. Neither of those guys is an elite TE, but both of them are good and they are among the better duos in the league, on a talent basis.

Manning as safety may happen more than you'd like depending on Mike Brown's situation. Frankly, I'd like to see Manning get consistent time at FS and see if he can actually develop there. I know he's had some big blown assignments, and apparently Urlacher got on him after he got burned yesterday (although I think Urlacher better worry about his own stuff)...but I think Manning still could develop if the Bears would put him somewhere and leave him there. Which is a coaching problem, as they have seen no reason to put him in a position and stick with him there. Manning was the Bears first pick a few years ago because the coaches wanted his athleticism and return ability. He's finally been utlized effectively as a returner, but the coaches have gotten crap out of him on defense in part because he's been moved all over and in part because they haven't coached his athleticism.

Lovie is a big part of the problem when it comes to personel. He started getting more control over those decisions after the Super Bowl appearance, plus his coaches routinely put guys who can help in the doghouse and then out the door. He contributed directly to the huge drop in talent in the defensive backfield, it would be like not giving Dusty Baker any blame for deciding to go with some past his prime "proven veteran" over a decent kid.

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.

We can? I didn't see any respectful disagreement in your words.

From a defensive standpoint, it's a scheme that requires elite athletes making plays. It doesn't rely at all on thinking, it's simply a matter of our speed attacking the ball. It's a scheme that will fail when athletes age and team speed slips. And we've seen back to back seasons where the athleticism didn't come close to being good enough.

The personel started going downhill when Lovie started getting more say in personel decisions, after the super bowl. I'm skeptical about Angelo, but I do have some faith in him improving things if things go back to his office making those calls and he presses Lovie for new coaches. Lovie has "gotten the most" out of the players from an effort standpoint. What he hasn't done is outcoach anybody on Sunday. This is a plain vanilla team that can be exploited by any decent team with a reasonable amount of talent and discipline. They don't fool anybody with anything they do.

You have no idea what you are talking about, as usual. I've given Lovie plenty of rope. I haven't been calling for his head since the Super Bowl loss like some people have done. The fact is he's been here long enough and shown me, and anybody with any realistic sense, what he's made of as a coach. He doesn't offer anything from a schematic perspective. He's a horrible judge of talent. And he's far too loyal to his guys than he should be. Back to back no playoff seasons is disappointment enough. This team doesn't need to suffer through a 10 loss season next year just to be certain that Smith and his coaches aren't the right people for the job. If Lovie acts on this disappointment and actually replaces his incompetent staff, he will have bought himself a chance. I don't see that happening.

I don't see it either. This organization stuck with Wanny, Jauron and all those incompetent coordinators those guys used. They don't demand results and are far more likely to try and stick with the status quo than actually go out and look for a great coach. 9-7 probably bought Lovie another season, if not two. It's probably going to take a 10-12 loss season before they decide to make changes.

Not since 2006. Stop living in the past. That plan worked when the defense was elite, but it's nowhere close to elite this year, and only Lovie apparantly couldn't see that truth. I get it, you hate Smith and you hate the defense. I disagree. We saw defense and special teams win several games this season. We saw it two weeks ago. This defense wasn't elite, but defenses tend to rise and fall quickly year-to-year. A good draft and it'll be elite again. A bad draft and your hatred of Smith will be a little more justified because we won't be coming off a winning season. I don't hate Smith. I hate the complacency. And I laugh at that idiotic last line. 9-7, oh boy, winning season don't make changes you can't expect anything better. This defense was crap this year. They were crap last year as well and Lovie played games down the stretch as if they were something more than they were. If it wasn't for very cold conditions making it tough for those pass happy teams in the 2 previous games, the results would have looked a lot more like yesterday, when a bad defense was exposed for the umpteenth time. It's either replace all the coaches and keep Smith, or replace him so you can get a total overhaul. This team needs to be good enough to win despite Lovie's poor game day coaching. Because they will never win based on his "savvy" moves on Sundays.

People pretending there's nobody out there who can replace Lovie, or be as good as Lovie, aren't paying attention to the league. The Bears are routinely outcoached on Sundays. And the well run teams find quality coaches to replace the old regime fairly constantly. Look at Harbaugh in Baltimore, Sparano in Miami and Smith in Atlanta. You're telling me you can't find a quality coach on the Giants, Panthers, Titans, Colts or Steelers staff? Look at Tomlin in Pittsburgh. Why can't the Bears find a coach who gets the most out of his team and actually gets them to the playoffs constantly. The Steelers don't have a single elite talent on their offense and they only have a couple of truly great defensive players, but year-in and year-out that team plays great football and wins. The Bears are .500 the last two years. You're telling me they can't find a coach that can make them better than that? This isn't baseball, where it's pitcher vs hitter with quantifiable results. Coaching matters in football and the Bears aren't getting any coaching. They are filled with Lovie and a bunch of college coaches and nobody but Toub has come close to looking like potentially one of the best at their job in the NFL. If Lovie wants to replace all his coaches, fine, keep him. But if he insists on sticking with the teachers he brought in, and refuses to make the necessary changes, then he needs to be replaced because he brings absolutely nothing to the table on Sundays.

Not since 2006. Stop living in the past. That plan worked when the defense was elite, but it's nowhere close to elite this year, and only Lovie apparantly couldn't see that truth.

I dunno...it gave them some excitement to start the year...maybe the low at the end is even lower...but at least they had some kind of high to start the year off with. I remember Mike Greenberg hardly being able to contain his excitement. That fall was so predictable it was almost less fun to watch, but not quite. Favre isn't a good QB. He gives games away repeatedly. I missed him in GB this year because even if the Packers outplayed Chicago in recent years, you could count on Brett throwing the ball to Urlacher or Briggs and giving the Bears hope. He did that crap all year, and because Mangini didn't accept it, Brett cried.

Lovie got all kinds of perks out of the 2006 season, including far too much decision making power for both coaches and personel. Angelo needs to completely take away that control, but the problem is once that happens in the NFL, the coach rarely stays on much longer. Odds are, if Angelo tries to force chances, it's going to cause friction with the very stubborn Smith, and next year could easily be a disastrous end of each of their tenures in Chicago.

Firing Lovie, I think, is similar to SD firing Marty Schottenheimer. Sure, there are coaches out there who might be better, but the chances of landing one are so low that you're likely going to end up downgrading. You could well end up with Norv Turner part 2. Like you said, the only coach who is a sure thing improvement over Lovie is Marty, but will he come out of retirement and is he a very big upgrade? Ummmm, no. SD was a very good team that supposedly couldn't get over the hump. The Bears aren't even near the hump. It's much more like the Jets firing Mangini. The team outperformed in his first year, raising expectations, but they have disappointed of late.

If he was willing and/or able to hire quality offensive and defensive coordinators, he'd be fine. But he's a gameday idiot and he has bad coordinators. Lovie can't make a decision to save his life. This team routinely wastes precious seconds trying to figure out what they are going to do, call all sorts of unnecessary timeouts and punts in enemy territory every game. This team was playing from behind for a playoff berth and Lovie played these games like a 12 win team just trying to coast into the playoffs. He does "get the most" out of the players, but then he sabotages those efforts with stupid decisions, including letting Babich and Turner repeatedly muck up winnable games.