BearFan PHX

Emery is a smart man who is astute about politics and understands that Webb has been given extra chances. He will allow his new coaches to do their evaluations, but i don't think he will give Webb any benefit of the doubt, in fact, all things being equal the history says he will not be the starter. Now yes, if the new coaches say they can transform him into a beast fine, but your assumption that average is good enough does not sound like the beginning of a new regime. They are aiming higher than that. I understand how you have combined the two facts to get your conclusion. It's shaky at best. There are so many more considerations that go into it than the one score which says he is dead average. There will be a new starting LT for the Chicago Bears on opening day. McLellin is not a 3-4 backer either. You're way off base.

Sure a FA LT, but if they come to the conclusion that Webb is good enough they need to be fired on the spot.

I love me some Alex Ogletree, but unless they find a quality OT through free agency, they simply cannot pass up taking an OL in the first round. You know how Angelo always said (rightly) that you cant go into the draft with glaring needs? That you need to be able to take the Best Player Available? He's right. I really truly hope we have our OT situation addressed, even if temporarily, in Free Agency. Then if a good young OT is there at 20, you can take him too. But if Ogletree is sitting there, and you have an OT already, I'd really love to see him as a Bear. I'm not a fan of the 3-4 tho.

His arms are longer than your waist is around! Not my waist by the way LOL Also, and I'm not taking anything away from Fluker, I know practically nothing about him, but I recall similar statistics, including a VERY impressive wingspan for Alonzo Spellman. For me it's about the tape and how they play football, despite the freakish numbers that always roll around this time of year.

Reading further I see that Sinclair is assistant defensive line coach, and we kept Mike Phair from last year. Even better. I'd say the DL coaching will be fine. Mel Tucker was a former DB and coached DBs early in his career and we also kept Jon Hoke at DB coach. So while I am a little concerned about Tucker, given mediocre results in Jacksonville, he seems to have good people around him. I wonder what Tucker's scheme will be like.

Interesting. Michael Sinclair will be the asst DL coach, and comes over from Trestman's staff in Montreal. Remember him? Seahawks and Eagles? All Pro '96 '97 '98? Led the NFL in sacks in 1998 Was DL coach for World Bowl winning Hamburg in 2007 Joined Trestman in Montreal in 2008 and won 2 of 5 Grey Cups with a 3rd losing appearance in the same stretch. Not bad.

It's Trestman http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-bea...0,7826477.story

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-bea...0,7826477.story

I think Emery is doing scouting too. When these candidates come to interview, they talk about offensive philosophy. They say what they would do with the Bears. This way Emery gets lots of really well qualified consultants, for free. He also learns how these people think, and makes relationships. It's a pretty smart thing to do. I don't think he is seriously interested in actually hiring all of these people, but what he's doing is pretty smart if you ask me. And yeah, we can't discount the possibility that someone unexpected blows him away. It's unlikely tho, and even so there's lots of avlue in doing it this way beyond just finding a head coach. Let him gather information. It's good for us!

I dunno who all the qualified coaches out there are, and I'm inclined to get behind whoever Emery hires, but I'll say this. I'd sure like to have Chuckie. I've been saying for a couple years now that Lovie's team reminds me of Dungy's Tampa Bay Teams of the 90s. It'd be interesting to see what Gruden could do with our offensive pieces. We do have some pretty damned good skill position players on Offense. We need someone to put them in the right places. I want Chuckie!

I don't believe Phil Emery would have taken the job unless he had the ability to hire a new coach. Until I see otherwise, I'm assuming Emery has the decision, and to me that means Lovie is gone.

OK Guys, let's give Emery the benefit of the doubt until he proves us wrong. Last year he was basically given the keys to the Bears with one caveat, "you gotta keep Lovie for the 2012 Season" Ok he did that. And in good faith, he gave Lovie the tools he'd need. I think the judgement on Lovie is obvious, we ALL see it. He's not an awful coach, he's probably a top 15 coach, but he's not the man to take us to winning a Super Bowl. Emery HAS to see that. You gotta figure the Emery has a plan for what he wants to do. I think he has a coach in mind, or a kind of coach, and I think that he gave Lovie a real chance to show him what he's got. Let's give Emery a chance to show us what he's got. I think Lovie is gone.

That's right! We "control our own destiny." GO BEARS!

You can only trade him now. Next year he will be a free agent. If we got a 2 for him I'd be THRILLED.

LOL that he wrote this. If so, he has an even more lucrative career heading up a PR firm waiting for him after he's done with football. Hahaha

This is the closest I've EVER seen to optimism from you TT hahaha

When they say we play a Tampa 2 or a Cover 2 they really arent talking about our coverages. THey really mean we are a ONE GAP defense, in other words, get into your gap and upfield. This means all three LBs and a safety have run gaps they are responsible for. In a system where you have big DTs eating space and LBs flowing, thats a TWO GAP defense, meaning the DL holds his position and plays the run on both sides of him (2 gaps). Warren Sapp was a one gapper, undersized and active. That's what they mean when they call us that, not the coverages we use.

Excellent post, I agree with everything you've said. One other point, after watching our QBs take so much abuse, we tend to focus on pass protection. I haven't seen any running lanes either.

We keep hearing how penetration from the DT position is the engine that makes Lovie's One Gap system work. Don't we need a Warren Sapp?

I think the biggest question, and no one is talking about it, is whether we have anything at the DT position.

Forte's deal is significantly below Adrian Foster and Sean McCoy's deal, and pretty much in line with Marshawn Lynch's deal. The Bears ended up with only a 7% increase on salary from their original offer, and a 20% increase on guaranteed money, keeping the 4 year deal they wanted. The deal represents less than he would have gotten had they franchised him all four years. To contrast, Forte was asking for a 33% increase in salary from the Bears' original offer, and a 33% increase in guaranteed money too. Mostly this was due to a 5 year deal instead of a 4 year deal. It seems like they really weren't that far apart, except for the length of the deal. Emery did well. Forte was treated fairly, and we don't need to be on the line for his contract after 4 years. Now to the real issue with this team that no one is talking about - do we have ANYTHING at DT?

True but I think the argument is that they don't have the need at DT that we do, and TH is a 4th DT at this point. Also, he has experience in our system and connections to the locker room. Maybe he's just not good enough, but there are reasons his value to us might be a little higher than to another team, so to simply say other teams passed isn't enough. If you think he just doesn't have it to beat out our other options at #4 DT, meager as they are, then that's a different story.

AH I get it TD. you calculate the odds green bay wins em all (.8 x .8 x .8 x .8) as 41% which leaves 59% that the Bears win at least one. Thanks for that!

Even in games that the Packers were heavy favorites, they did not receive an 80% chance of winning. So, the answers to the entirely hypothetical questions are: 1) The odds of winning each game are 20% or 1 in 5. To calculate the probability of the Bears winning all 4 hypothetical 20% upsets would be .2 x .2 x .2 x .2 = .0016 or 16 hundreths of one percent, also know as 1 in 625. 2) the odds that the bears win one of 4 of those hypothetical 20% upsets is 4 x .2 = .8 or 80%, also known as 4 in 5. Back in the real world, we had better odds than 20% each time, and we did indeed beat the Packers in Chicago on 9/27/10 by a score of 20-17. We lost the other three, and the NFC Championship game to them tho. Damn.

Best post ever.