dew1679666265

Interesting. Smith is one hell of a player and I thought he deserved some darkhorse Heisman consideration. Best player on the Tide by far. He's the only reason it's justified for teams to not take Bradford or Stafford #1 in the draft.

I love that we always talk in terms of hiding our QB's flaws, rather than just getting an actual good QB. True, though not that many teams have good QBs. Most have to build a team to minimize the QBs flaws. Like the Titans, though, the Bears' QB just has more flaw than many of the others. And there's not much QB depth in this draft. Stafford and Bradford will go early, but otherwise you might have Tebow and Mark Sanchez and then seniors include Rhett Bomar (very interesting), Josh Freeman, Graham Harrell and Nathan Brown. No sure fire good/great QBs after the top two.

Alabama's star left tackle Andre Smith has been suspended for the Sugar Bowl. That's a terrible blow for them, though they should still handle Utah fairly easily.

I guess I'll put this here. Wade Phillips is staying on in Dallas, but he and Jerry Jones had a "man to man talk" and Phillips is going to change some things.

This is good stuff. The Raiders have requested permission from the Giants to interview Kevin Gilbride for the head coach position. In the same story, Raider officials are saying there's a very good shot that Tom Cable will keep the job full-time. I don't think those are two very good options.

Like I mentioned earlier, watch out for Schwartz and, perhaps, Rex Ryan (Baltimore DC) for head coaching positions. I'd be surprised if both don't have head jobs next season. As for QBs, Bradford and Stafford (assuming they both leave early) will certainly be top picks and will likely be handed the reigns immediately.

This doesn't bother me. Some of the stuff Lovie has said indicating they were "close" this year does, but they have so many other areas that need fixing...draft a QB, let him sit behind Orton and learn. This team can be successful with Orton as QB. I really think they need some type of weapon on that offense other than Matt Forte and Greg Olsen. If they don't replace Orton with somebody better, they should find a receiver better than Hester. I wholeheartedly agree on WR. But if Orton really was playing on a gimpy ankle in the second half of the season, I think he deserves another shot at it while we upgrade both lines, and WR. Orton is serviceable, you're right. Upgrades to the o-line and receiver should be enough to hide his flaws.

Boldin. That'd be a great move.

This doesn't bother me. Some of the stuff Lovie has said indicating they were "close" this year does, but they have so many other areas that need fixing...draft a QB, let him sit behind Orton and learn. This team can be successful with Orton as QB. I really think they need some type of weapon on that offense other than Matt Forte and Greg Olsen. If they don't replace Orton with somebody better, they should find a receiver better than Hester.

Plus I've got 32 confidence points riding on Mizzou.

Here's a strike against Lovie. He's already anointed Orton as the starter for next year.

Slightly, maybe. I don't think Pennington is solely the reason the Dolphins are better. It's a mixture of numerous good moves (Fasano, Ayodele, Pennington, etc) and much better coaching.

Very true, very true. Actually, I saw on ESPN yesterday that Favre wasn't exactly thrilled with playing under Mangini. i wonder how thrilled mangini was to have a veteran quarterback putting up a qb rating in the bottom third of the nfl and throwing 4 more INTs than anyone in the league. But, that QB is Brett Favre and he made the Pro Bowl . . . With the Chargers making the playoffs, Rivers should have been a Prow-Bowler. Pro-Bowl balloting should wait until the regular season is over. Rivers definitely should have been a Pro Bowler and Favre shouldn't have been near the ballot.

Rejoice LSU fans, the Bayou Bengals will hire John Chavis as their new defensive coordinator. This is a great move for LSU as Chavis is one of the best out there.

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. Turnovers lead you to that goal, though. And the goal won't be reached without talent and the Bears don't have enough of it - no matter if their coach is Lovie Smith, me or Vince Lombardi.

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. Actually, the Bears do have a good defense, as efficiency goes. They're just on the field so much that they give up a ton of yards. The offense is the real problem, just as it was 2 years ago. Unfortunately, the Bears either have to significantly improve the offense, or they have to make the defense/special teams far and away the best in the league to overcome the offensive issues. I questioned myself on the right word to use to describe the Bear defense. You're probably right that they're good, but no more than that.

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.

The Bears got 22 interceptions this year - leading the NFC and behind only Baltimore in the AFC (the Ravens had 24 and the Browns 22). Last year the Bears were middle of the road with 16 and in 2006 their 23 INTs led the NFC and trailed only Baltimore's 26. I don't know how to get the stats excluding special teams. If the defense is on the field more than they should be, it usually means they'll tire out and play worse - not better.

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. The defense has sucked for 2 years in a row now. Since Bob Babich took over the DC role. Is that a coincidence? Do you think that will magically change? I think if they can get a good pass-rusher DE and above average DT for the rotation, and are in some way able to get pressure with just the front 4, I do think the defense will improve drastically in passing situations. They're already a dominant run-stopping D when they don't have to focus so much on creatively applying pressure to stop the pass. But it's still possible for the DC to affect the pass rush. Be more creative and varied in your blitzing schemes. Run some stunts with the linemen. I won't pretend to be an expert on defensive schemes...I'm not. But I find it very difficult to believe that the entire defense stopped playing well at the same time, just because they all stopped performing well. Maybe there's some of that, but I really think a new DC could make a difference. I'll freely admit, if they change and there's no improvement, that I was wrong on that. It kind of makes sense though when you consider that the Bears scheme is predicated on getting pressure with the down linemen. Tommie Harris had trouble getting going this year, and never really returned to his previous level of play. Ogun has been sliding down the cliff for a couple years, and that continued. Dusty was alright -- he helped with the run D, but not much pressure. Alex Brown was OK. So you had 2 of 4 DLine reduced in performance, which is why the Bears became one of the most blitz-oriented defenses in the NFL. That translates into less coverage in the defensive backfield. You could probably see a large improvement if you could plug the right 2 DLine guys into the starting lineup for next year, just because of the cascading effect it would have on everything else. I'm not confident it will happen though, given that pretty much every NFL team is looking for those few DLinemen that can consistently provide pressure. Alex Brown led the team with 6 sacks. For a cover 2 defense that relies on getting pressure from the down linemen, that's terrible. For reference, the Colts had 11.5 from Mathis and 10.5 from Freeney. Both were in the top 11 in the league.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=280113011 Happy now? :D I guess it could happen, but with the way the Colts have been playing I'll be shocked if the Chargers upset them. Nothing about that game makes me happy. That game isn't terribly indicative, I don't think (hope). The Chargers are worse and the Colts are better (at least from that point; they were without Freeney, and any semblance of a pass rush, in that game). I think the Colts win, but it's the worst possible matchup against an 8-8 team ever. No kidding. Especially since the Colts should have faced Denver - a much better matchup. I'll be pulling for ya'll to win the first two games, though. And then I'll hope you're too tired to show up for the AFC Championship game (assuming the Titans can win the divisional round). :D

I'm not blaming everything on Lovie though. I'm just saying this was a mediocre ballclub and that was bourne out in the final results. Arguing a lucky bounce here & there really isn't going to change my opinion that this wasn't a real good Bears football team. They had some good things going, certainly. But that doesn't make them a good team. Like I said, the final results bear it out. Yeah, I was more agreeing with you than anything. The scheme is not the problem in Chicago, it's the personnel running that scheme. And the bolded is terrible, you should be ashamed. :wink:

Using the same defensive scheme, the Colts have Dwight Freeney and Robert Mathis at DE and the Bucs have Gaines Adams. They're ability to rush the passer is a big reason they've got good defenses.

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. I'd argue that Mike Heimerdinger replacing Norm Chow as OC of the Titans was one of the biggest things this team did to improve from where they were last year to where they are this year. That and the defensive talent taking the next step from very good to awesome.

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. And that Tampa game had nothing to do with luck or bad penalties either. They were sitting with a huge lead and simply couldn't hold it against Tampa's offense and Brian Griese. That was a mediocre defense being mediocre, which was a big part of why we missed the playoffs. If a team is mediocre, there's very little a coach can do about it. Depending on the amount of say he has in personnel decisions, Lovie should take some heat for that. But his schemes have had players in position to make plays - that's all a coach can do.

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. The Titans are at their best when they're creating turnovers. Turnovers are not just complete luck, they're about getting the players in position to make plays. From that point on it's always up to the athlete to make the play. If turnovers aren't being created, it's either because the coach is failing to scheme them there, or the players themselves are not making the plays that are there. Tennessee and Chicago lead the league in takeaways (31 each) and the Bears had 33 last year. With 43 in 06, I'm not seeing a whole lot of luck involved. That 43 in 2006 led the league and the closest team to the Bears was Baltimore with 37.