jersey cubs fan

It's hard to hit the deep pass with a bum ankle that you can get a full push off of. I'll grant you that it's one of Orton's weaknesses, but if you get some other threats out there, then Hester going deep can open up some other WR's for passes. We knew from the start that Orton wasn't a big yardage, bomb it deep guy. That's why Rex got so many chances. But you can still win with that...fix what's around him first. I think Miami is a good way to see how to "fix" things. Fix the line first, and build from there. Pennington is no great QB...but he's able to get the job done because he has solid parts around him. This is the key for me. It doesn't matter who your QB is or what receivers you bring in until you have a good offensive line. An offense with mediocre skill players can still be effective with a great line. The Bears have shown next to no ability to find and develop those skills players so I'd much rather have the line making those guys look good than spend the time and money on finding those guys and not having the line to have them productive. The Bears went several years ignoring the line. Taking Williams last year was not the final solution. It's a 5 position group with needs for at least 2 guys as insurance ready to step in. What they have is not good enough and it's just going to keep getting worse as Kreutz and Tait age.

I think a stud olineman added to this team would make enough of a difference in the running (more and bigger holes) and passing game (more time) to be a huge net improvement to be worth the pick, but in general, I agree with your sentiment. They need to restock this defense with fresh meat.

If missing the playoffs was enough to convince the powers to be to make changes, I would agree. But I don't see it happening, and because of that I would much rather have another meaningful week or two of football to follow than hope the McCaskeys and Philips will make necessary upgrades.

Getting a few more INT doesn't necessarily mean the defense is playing better with that increased playing time. A good defense can shut down a passing game with or without getting picks. Right, and the Bears don't have a good defense. My point with the turnovers argument, though, is that even with (at best) decent talent, Lovie's scheme is placing them near the top in turnovers each year. If the talent were better, the likelihood is this scheme would stop offenses more and not just create turnovers. But turnovers isn't the goal of a football game. Scoring and preventing scores is the goal.

The coaching staff helped produce the best team in the NFC that year. But they were probably 4th or 5th overall that year, and that was 3 years ago, not to mention not even the same staff. That ship has sailed. It was a fleating moment of glory that was unsustainable. How many seasons of mediocrity will it take for you to think the past continues to outweigh the present.

Getting a few more INT doesn't necessarily mean the defense is playing better with that increased playing time. A good defense can shut down a passing game with or without getting picks. The Bears gave up the third most passing yards per game this year, and that was with the benefit of playing in Soldier Field, which hurt the Saints passing game, and probably a couple others. The fact that they got a lot of INT doesn't negate that they gave up a ton of yards, and were bottom half in passing TDs allowed. They were also bottom half in rushing TD allowed. The defense was mediocre. They got turnovers, but that isn't the goal. The goal is preventing scoring. It's like the Cubs leading the league in strikeouts. It's nice, but when you also give up the most walks and HR, odds are you're going to surrender far too many runs.

You wouldn't be wrong. They could change DC and have no improvement, but that doesn't mean a new DC couldn't make a difference. If Lovie hires another college teacher or simply installs a new BFF, we're still looking at the same scheme. That doesn't mean change was wrong, it means the type of change they made was wrong.

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.