David

If we can go 1-2 through that stretch, I'll be content. I'd be glad to be in a position to get to 2-2 for the first quarter of the season with a win against Detroit and go from there (there's that Lovie-speak again).

This is the same garbage that prompted my semi-rant last night, right down to the comparison to the Broncos defense. Better or worse than the Rick Morrissey "lots of optimism without any realism" column this morning? I just saw the headline on my blackberry and assumed who wrote it and how crappy it was. That Morrissey article is the actual piece that caused me to go off. This snippet just happens to go along those lines as well.

This is the same type of garbage that prompted my semi-rant last night, right down to the comparison to the Broncos defense.

Because the logo they have now is exactly the same as the one they had 100 years ago... or even 30 years ago

Exactly. Football is the one sport I have a lot of interest in what the players have to say because they really have to have a great understanding of what's going on on the field (especially certain positions, like QB, safety, etc.) in order to play the sport well. In that sense, they can have a lot of insight into what is actually going on, which I think is a lot different from baseball. I think lots of baseball players really don't have much of a clue of what is going on and what makes for successful baseball (in lots of cases, what they think and what is true is in direct opposition) and they don't really have to. There isn't a ton of strategy that goes into it, especially compared to football, but I digress.

He gets to be the cool young guy coach

Definitely, and as a result of that I guess you have to put a certain level of trust in the hope that they're doing a decent job in weighing it. They've been working on it for a few years. It's similar to what we deal with with some of the baseball metrics, too, especially defensive. Even things like LD%age have a human element in them. The way I figure it, at least they're trying. I don't know DVOA well enough myself to attempt to explain it, but there's a pretty in depth description of it here... http://footballoutsiders.com/info/methods The FO stuff may not be perfect, but I think it's still far superior to any numbers you're going to come up with at NFL.com, FWIW, and I think that just based on the results and the numbers and rankings they come up with, it tends to produce results that, at the very least, logically seem to make sense. Unless you really have a good grasp of the numbers and how they're calculating them (and I can't say that I do), though, I think there's definitely a lot of blind faith that goes into it.

I probably should've kept reading before posting. no worries. but it appears that the bears defense WAS pretty bad in the 4th quarter last year. i can't find 4th quarter 3rd down conversion %, but in terms of time of possession and scoring, they either tired at the end or their play-calling was totally chicken [expletive]. but probably both. i though lovie and turner made some really gutless decisions last year late in games. Yea, I was noticing on that link you posted that they were significantly worse in "Last 3." I'm assuming that's the last 3 games, which might (but doesn't necessarily have to - could just have been better opposing offenses... I'm too lazy to look that closely at it but we DID face Houston in that stretch) also suggest that they tired and were worse as a result of it at the end of the year.

What was their rate on 3rd downs? You're right though, this is one of the problems I have with some of the Football Outsiders stuff. It's harder to do "rate" stats in football than baseball because of situations. I understand yards per play is trying to evaluate a defense independent of that team's own offense that forces them to be on the field too much. But you can have a relatively low ypp but not get off the field because you can't get a stop on 3rd down or force turnovers. Not saying either of those were the case with the Bears though, haven't looked at the numbers and compared. Actually, I think that's the beauty of the Football Outsiders stuff. As I just mentioned, DVOA takes situations into account. It incorporates things like time left in the game, down, distance, field position, etc. and attempts to put a value on those things. That's the type of thing you don't get with your standard run of the mill metrics.

I probably should've kept reading before posting.

I'm pretty sure DVOA takes situational things like down, distance, etc. into account, and they were 7th.

People are really underrating our defense. First, lots of people are talking like it's terrible and you can't even come close to winning with it despite the fact that we went 9-7 with a below average offense last year, which is sort of mind boggling in itself. I've seen some chicken littles saying "8-8 at best with this defense." Second, it wasn't even bad. The yardage totals have it ranked low as hell, but that's a dumb measure to begin with. They keep talking about "21st ranked defense" or wherever the hell we were like we are the Broncos. We were top 5 in yards/play last year. 7th in DVOA. The problem was the defense was on the field way too freaking long due to an offense that was 29th in time of possession. This does a couple of things. First, more plays = more yards. The defense is out on the field for more plays and simply has to give up more yards by definition. Second, (and this one admittedly is a little less of a direct correlation and more difficult to prove) fatigue. The more the defense has to stay on the field, the more their performance is bound to suffer, be it within a given game or cumulatively over the course of the season. This seems to be especially pertinent with a defense that has some main cogs that are either aging or struggling with health. Keeping guys off the field would seem to especially help players like that (namely Urlacher and Harris). Basically, what I'm saying is, even if they performed on the same level as last year, they'd still be significantly improved just by virtue of having an offense that stays on the field more and converts more first downs. There's obviously a big difference between top 5 in yards/play and 21st in yards (which is a stupid metric to begin with). If this offense performs as well as we expect (and I think we're being reasonable in doing so), the same defensive performance from last year would result in a pretty good defense overall. If they actually improve their play in addition to this, be it due to new players like Tinoisamoa and Bowman, or Urlacher's health, or Marinelli's effects on the line, or Lovie calling the plays, or anything else, they could easily be very good, if not dominant, again. Wasn't expecting to write that much but it's annoying hearing people talk about our de last year like it was the 08 Broncos, and on top of it, acting like we need an 05 or 06 like defense to be a great team despite the fact that we should have a much better offense.

Standardish scoring, four defensive players (DL, DB, D, D), 3 WR, 2 RB, ten team league http://www.aww-kittah-aww.com/up/public/93784/fantasyteam.JPG Still need to tweak a lot of stuff, took me a while to realize I had to draft defense... 5 RB LOL Go easy on me, only my second draft ever

The defense last year was (IIRC) top 5 in yards per play, but our offense was somewhere near the bottom (if not dead last) in TOP so they were out there way too much. The offense is going to be a lot better in that regard with Cutler. So they should be better just from being on the field for fewer plays and for being more fresh at the end of the game as a result of that. Add in whatever help Marinelli might be to the d-line, what looks like a substantial upgrade from Hillenmeyer (and everyone else) to Tinoisamoa, Urlacher's improved health, and what could be a pretty big upgrade at one of the CB spots with Bowman taking Vasher's spot (if he can stay healthy), and we should be better. How much better? I'm not really sure, but it should be a significant improvement. At the very least, the defense should be top 15, and could easily be top 10, IMO.

Gaines might as well be a TE/FB

And while I've downplayed the importance of worrying about the backup QB, I'm obviously not against an upgrade. Jeff Garcia is going to be available...

Quarterbacks (2): Jay Cutler, Caleb Hanie. Running backs (3): Matt Forte, Adrian Peterson, Garrett Wolfe. Fullbacks (1): Jason McKie: Wide receivers (6): Devin Aromashodu, Earl Bennett, Rashied Davis, Devin Hester, Juaquin Iglesias, Johnny Knox. Tight ends (4): Desmond Clark, Kellen Davis, Michael Gaines, Greg Olsen. Offensive linemen (8): Josh Beekman, Roberto Garza, Olin Kreutz, Lance Louis, Frank Omiyale, Orlando Pace, Kevin Shaffer, Chris Williams. Defensive linemen (9): Anthony Adams, Mark Anderson, Alex Brown, Jarron Gilbert, Tommie Harris, Marcus Harrison, Israel Idonije, Adewale Ogunleye, Matt Toeaina. Linebackers (6): Lance Briggs, Hunter Hillenmeyer, Nick Roach, Pisa Tinoisamoa, Brian Urlacher, Jamar Williams. Cornerbacks (6): Zackary Bowman, Corey Graham, Trumaine McBride, D.J. Moore, Charles Tillman, Nate Vasher. Safeties (5): Al Afalava, Josh Bullocks, Danieal Manning, Kevin Payne, Craig Steltz. Specialists (3): Robbie Gould, Patrick Mannelly, Brad Maynard. The final 53

Ian Johnson from the Vikings maybe (undrafted rookie)?

Dominic Rhodes cut. Will the Bears be interested?

Rexy was acting sexy tonight http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d81264567/Pre-WK-4-Rex-Grossman-highlights

The irony is that the only one that had posted in this thread at that point was a Brewer fan.

why can't bowman just stay healthy? He is right now and hopefully he stays that way, but there's still Peanut's situation to worry about.

I love Sunday Night games. NBC's presentation and their HD >* Although it does suck not being able to wake up with a slight hangover, roll over, and turn the pre-game on.

Let's hope GB's preseason = Bradley's spring training :beg:

LOL it was merged before I even got my reply typed.