BearFan PHX

That prevent at the end was fantastic too. I mean, I get that Lovie isn't a defensive minded coach... I am usually one to argue the benefit of the doubt. i assume in drafting etc that there are things we don't know etc. Going for it on 4th down down one late int eh 4th is just wrong. And its amateur, for someone who is supposed to be NFL caliber, that crap would't fly for HS. Why Lovie, you thought they were moving the ball well and you'd need more points? They weren't, and you had a 2nd string QB in there. They didn't move it much at all until you -- yeah your big zone. I want Lovie gone. At BEST hes an administrator now, keeping a team of super assistants coordinated. And its not even that is it? Lovie sucks.

Um? The PASSING game on offense?

I realize that it won't mean much if we can't run the ball or pass protect, but still I'm surprised there hasn't been much discussion here about Martz's passing scheme. I watched the preseason game, and I replayed every passing down the Bears had. The scheme is GREAT. EVERY down had multiple receivers open, sometimes WIDE open. You know how when we play certain teams, you feel so frustrated at our coverage, like "how are THEY always open, and we NEVER are??" I think we're about to be one of those other teams. I'm used to seeing receivers used to clear space and then hitting the guy underneath. I saw similar shapes, but it seemed that in a lot of the plays, the underneath guy was getting open first, and pulling the defense to him, and then the intermediary guy flashed open second, and made the play. This is really interesting. The underneath guy was open in a lot of cases which is what pulled the defense to him, and yet the QB didn't throw and threw on the second beat to the downfield receiver. I wonder if this is what they mean when they say the QB doesn't read in the traditional sense in the Martz offense. Maybe he read the safety or some spacing in the defense at and just after the snap, and so he didn't dump off to the first guy, but KNEW the play would develop into a good matchup for the intermediary guy. Urlacher said in an interview recently of facing the Martz scheme in practice ""It's frustrating going against them because you think you've got a guy covered and there's a guy behind you every time." http://www.chicagobears.com/news/NewsStory.asp?STORY_ID=6961 I'm starting to see what he meant. There were also plays where receivers went long and then running backs looped underneath. On one, the Bears had trips left, and sent them all into long patters, then Chester Taylor looped underneath for a big gain to pick up the first down. Int hat play, rather than Taylor looping into the left flat, as you would normally see, he had run thru the hole behind the RIGHT SIDE guard, and given a shoulder to the linebacker on THAT side of the field. It was a very clever way to get him into the void and not draw attention, since he came fro "the other side" even though it was only about a foot across the line of symmetry. It was enough to void the space by the defense's rules tho. Martz is clearly excellent exploiting defensive holes in coverage. I love that an simple I formation or double tight end set becomes the run and shoot after a beat. When they add in motion, it's gonna be pretty amazing. I only saw one play where four receivers (3 and a TE) went deep on all fly patterns, it turned out to be a delayed middle running back screen to Wolfe - GOOD IDEA! I also noticed some plays where familiar route combinations that complement each other (like a go and an out) happened in non traditional areas of the field. We're all used to see the smash route, where the outside receiver goes deep and the slot or TE runs a 7 yard out. It's obvious why that works, it can beat man or zone, but it's vanilla, and well understood by NFL defenses. Martz had a play where guys were running from strange angles and then arrived at that shape 15 yards downfield. THIS is creative application of basic ideas. I can see why the QB needs to hold the ball longer with Martz. I can see hpw if you give this guy a smart QB, speedy receivers and an extra second of pass protection, you're going to score a LOT of points. I still want to see us run the damned ball and pass protect, but as an OC, I think we're going to be pretty happy with Martz. I was very impressed at my first look at his passing system.

Maybe he doesn't mean they are elite in the league, but elite on HIS SQUAD, in other words, they are the only two who are assured positions? I mean, Tice is trying to coach them up, he wants to give Kreutz the buy-in on his leadership, and Williams confidence, and he wants to motivate the others with competition. It's been awhile, but this is what good coaching looks like. These guys don't give straight answers to the media, they use them as a tool to get what they want.

Over the years, I've heard Angelo talk about the $ he spends at a certain position. This makes sense to me. No one can afford to pay Pro Bowlers at every spot. And each team has a philosophy, about where they need to emphasize their strengths, and where they are willing to go with lesser talent. The team philosophy and the scheme they run determine which positions are more valuable for which teams. So I think in a way, Angelo has a hypothetical perfect possible team in mind. You know, the studs would be at DT, DE, WLB, QB, RB etc - whatever it is that he thinks the Bears scheme emphasizes. Some positions will be ones he prefers to fill by the draft. DL is a perfect example. Clearly, Angelo likes to draft the DL. I think you could also say that he prefers to look to Free Agents for the OL? Angelo has paid big for free agent OL in the past, so you gotta figure, in his hypothetical cap allotment, he's got room for a stud OL and the commensurate cost that comes with it. Now maybe the Bears front office has only given him so much cash this year, so even if his master cap plan can take it, maybe he can't afford short term to pull the trigger on Mankins? Maybe the reason we didn't want Atogwe is that Angelo doesn't like to spend big on Safeties, and thinks they aren't so cap-important to the scheme? I think there is a good good chance Angelo WANTS Mankins, and would be willing to pay him. Maybe he doesn't have the 2010 CASH to do it, but I'll bet he has the cap room. Some random thoughts: Given my point about the master plan, and positions being different, you can't really use Atogwe as a factor in predicting Angelo's response to Mankins. Cutler might be a better predictor. We were in pretty much the same position, and a lot of people doubted Angelo's desire to get him. Cutler is tied to Angelo's future, and an OL helps buy insurance and act as a force multiplier on his effectiveness. Mankins could well be seen as the missing piece (and maybe a WR?) between us and a serious SB run. All of this aside, Mankins could just be looking for too much money, and all this talk of Angelo having room for a stud OL is moot because it presupposes a certain cap hit and maybe Mankins is just out of that range. All in all, you can BET that Angelo is working on this a LOT, even if he comes to the conclusion that he can't make it happen, or can't overcome the price.

One point. If DL is the key to victory, then it stand to reason that OL is pretty important, since they are charged with dealing with the other team's DL?

Well Daventry, right or wrong on this one subject, at least know that I agree wholeheartedly with you when it comes tot he 99.99999% of the time that we're dealing in real life. If football players are an exception, we can argue that, but it sounds like youre a cool dude living your life the right way anyway

No, no. No insult at all, you're cool. In fact, I'm gonna go further and say you're really cool, and that's kinda my point. The position you're taking is really good. It's mentally healthy, social, all in all one of a decent person, who doesn't look to pick fights, and is self aware etc. We should all want to live that way. I'm just saying that in the NFL desire plays a huge role. It's not really mentally healthy to care so much if you win a game, ya know? It's not really cool and self actualized to try to hit someone as hard as you can just because they are holding a football. I think that these guys can be really arrogant egotistical jerks, and that sometimes, that means playing with a chip on your shoulder. We (I?) tend to think of Dick Butkis as classic. He has some kind of historical aura now, like knowing about him and his accomplishments is kinda sophisticated? And that's true from a fan's point of view. But he was a killer in his time, and a total jerk too! I've met him, and even now he is a totally arrogant Type A ass. AWESOME! That was the raw aggression that made me love him in the first place. So I'm just saying - Urlacher is trying to restore the pride to this team. His comments weren't for anyone but his teammates. Please try to remember back before Xanax and Lovie and Jauron - back in those sharp edgy days of Ditka and Buddy Ryan... they weren't too self actualized in their press conferences were they? So seriously, you can have role models, or you can have warriors. Me? I try to live like you're saying, but when I watch my Bears, I want warriors.

Yeah I didn't say the FANS were cavemen. I think we're all good people who have healthy outlooks. I'm saying being a middle linebacker in the NFL means being overcompetitive, and that's what I like in MY MLB. And I DO think that being overcompetitive makes a difference in winning.

Can I ask you guys a question? Do you want the Dr. Phil show or a winning football team? I LIKE Urlacher's fire. I LIKE Sayer's fire. I like that Sayer's hates that we're losing. And I like that Urlacher has a chip on his shoulder about his team. Do we want Urlacher to be intimidated by ANYTHING? Including Sayer's considerable legacy? No - we want him to be invincible. You know, we all hate the way Lovie is a zombie, but then we come out and criticize Urlacher for being an aggressive meathead? I LIKE him that way. Don't forget how Buddy Ryan tried to get the defense to feel isolated from everyone, including the offense. I'm glad the team has pride, and I'm glad that they don't let ANYTHING get in the way of that. Did Urlacher have his feelings hurt? Do you think that he should be stronger and let it roll of his back? That's good advice for us and the way we live our lives. But for the middle linebacker of the Chicago Bears, I want an overcompetitive egotistical jerk who thinks every yard gained is an affront to his manhood. Urlacher can get therapy when he's retired, right now I want a baby - a selfish baby who won't share and can't stand to lose, and if he weighs 255 pounds and runs a 40 in 4.6 then he doesn't need to be the UN ambassador as well.

I gotta say he looks GREAT on film.

Hahahah MadLith, I'm not saying I like the Packers, just the unis. I LOVE really old throwback uniforms, and these look really cool to me. They will look even better with Julius peppers driving them into the ground.

I hate the Packers, or more specifically, I LOVE to hate the Packers. That said, I think those Packer throwbacks uniforms look awesome. I wanna beat the stuffing out of them, but they look really cool to me.

I agree that it is possible for a mediocre Quarterback to be part of a winning team. Football is the ultimate team sport, every system interlocks. You cannot use Wins and Losses blindly to rate any player. Walter Payton, for example, was a winner, despite a lot of losses - and I agree that Trent Dilfer is not the walking definition of Quarterback dominance. BUT Winners ARE what make the difference between winning and losing on a team - I suspect you still agree with me so far. Baltimore had a LOT of leadership from other positions that year. They had Winners, just not necessarily one at QB. So if your only point is that a Winner at QB isn't completely 100% necessary, then I agree. There was that specific exception, and there have been a few others, maybe not as glaring as Baltimore 2000, but there have been others. But given that you DO need leadership and Winners on a team, can't you see why QB is a natural position in which to have one? There's no other position that naturally affects the game as much as QB play. He touches the ball on every (non-wildcat) offensive play. If you look at winning teams, they almost always have a Winner at QB. OK, so what makes a Winner? For me it's a few things. For one, it's desire. In the NFL, the talent level is all really good. I think that a few super-dominant players aside, desire is one of the areas where there exists the largest gap between those with and those without. In the NFL, speed kills, but the margins between the fastest and the veteran are closer than the difference in desire. Any given Sunday and all that? A Winner wants it more than you do. We see desire play out on a football field all the time, it's the compelling story of competition. You might say that your Baltimore example is one of Ray Lewis having SO much desire that he overcame his role & position to disproportionately affect the game. Ray Lewis is definitely a Winner. Secondly, a Winner can focus. A Winner's stats in key situations are higher than his average stats. He's the kind of guy who can focus when it's really needed and push himself to another level. Think of Michael Jordan, who could will a victory. Again, someone's gotta CATCH the ball, and give the QB protection, but the QB has to do it right when it counts too. This is probably 1b, since it's so related to desire so closely. Thirdly, I'd look to leadership. This is a quality of being able to inspire the people around you to play better, to believe that they can accomplish what they need to. This is in turn related to the second quality, because it's a kind of ability to inspire others to be focus and perform better when it counts too. A leader makes the people around him into Winners. This goes back to your team point earlier too. It's a team game, but a leader's effects resonate throughout the team. Desire, Focus and Leadership pay dividends on practice days too, individually and for the team. So yeah, there are exceptions, and any football stat needs to be understood in context, but there ARE such things as Winners, and QB is a really good place to have one. You could say that: 1) In general, a Winner at QB is an important ingredient on a Super Bowl winning team. 2) While no stat is 100% predictive, and all stats need to be understood in context, that Wins and Losses are usually a damned good predictor of a Quarterback's abilities.

No way. If the Bears wanted and had an agreement with Cowher, they'd be foolish to take a chance that someone else could come along and steal him, or drive his price up by letting it stay unsigned. Angelo would love it too, because he'd be the guy that landed another big fish. I understand that the Bears don't want to pay two coaches, that makes sense, but if that is the deal, then at best, Cowher would be on the radar, and he'd be a fool to commit without a salary agreed on, and without knowing his other options. And without all that in place, at best, they are preliminary discussions. So yeah, I highly doubt this one.

Matt Millen for Packers or Vikings GM!

Lets keep in mind that we were in the Super Bowl well into the 3rd quarter.

I saw Afalava cheating down radically before the snap. He may not have been all the way into the box, but he was damned close. He was certainly no where where he could play the receiver anymore. The other safety rotated over to the middle too - not far enough, but evidence that the Afalava in run support was in the call, and not something the player did. And to the main point, yes Lovie lost a round of Rock / Paper / Scissors, but that's human. Had we executed better all game, the single call wouldn't have been determinative. overall we lost this game as a team, but there were some bright spots to build on, and the offense was better in the second half. They'll need to establish rhythm, but they are a young group, and they'll get better, The defense wasn't bad, and like it or not, both squads mads good halftime adjustments, which is something we've been screaming for a long time around here. One of the great things about football is that way that EVERYTHING has to be working for the whole thing to move. It's a true team sport. The weakest link in the chain ruins everything. So yes, we didn't perform overall very well, but I did see improvements in areas that have been weak in the past. I still think this team is about to be pretty good. I hope the injury to Urlacher doesn't open up a new wound as we close up some of the others.

Um, the interception that Cutler threw to the DT was a middle screen to Forte. I think Turner called a fine game. The problems on offense are attributable to the players making errors. The WRs and Cutler all contributed with blown routes, lack of rhythm and dropped balls. The OL helped too by not opening holes in the running game.

I really have to differ. I know you'll agree that calling a game is like playing rock / paper / scissors. Pulling a safety for run support on a critical 3rd and 1 is a very normal thing to do. But, 10% of the time, the offense can play action and find single coverage deep. As to when to do that, thats a matter of rhythm and timing, and Lovie got beaten on that one, and we lost because of it. But you can't say that calling rock when a pro switches from scissors to paper is bush league. The fake punt was worse. It was idioitic. And if Manelly was freewheeling making it up off the top of his head, he should be cut immediately. And he won't be, because he wasn't making it up. There must be some idiotic strategy that says that if you can catch 'em with 12 in, then go for it. I won't detail all the things that are obviously wrong with that gambit (and there are TONS) bu it's completely nuts, and it's on the coaching staff. And that IS on Lovie. And we lost as a team too. All the WRs and TE contributed to Cutler's awful first half. The OL looked awful. And Cutler went there too. I think a million things were more determinative and telling than getting burned on a gutsy 3rd and 1.

I'm sure someone else must have noted it earlier, but I was just making a roster spreadsheet for the game tonight, and I saw that 6 drafted rookies made the squad, which is pretty good. Good for Angelo! WR Juaquin Iglesias, WR Johnny Knox, OG Lance Lewis, DT Jarron Gilbert, S Al Afalava, CB DJ Moore Go Bears tonight.

Does anyone give our Adrian Peterson any thought for #2? I've always liked the guy - he is a journeyman and he never stops working. he always looks good in preseason, but he never seems to be able to get it done when it counts. I think before the injury to KJ, the writing was on the wall that he wasn't gonna make the cut this year. Now, who knows? Positives include keeping him on Special Teams, which will make us over the top strong since they'd likely already found a replacement for his loss, and as a RB, having a guy who really knows the system and does a great job pass blocking for protection. He is the opposite of Garrett Wolfe too, if you're looking for certain matchups in any given week. Still, I admit his days could be numbered. I like the guy a lot - great motor and heart, but if there was something flashier available, I'd probably go for that. SO, do we look outside for RB, or go with Peterson?

nfo, Great analysis. It's posts like that that keep me coming back here. Playing Clue with the roster - great.

Orton was more than a throw in. If one assumes that this real life, NFL experienced Jay Cutler, if hypothetically thrown into the draft (don't ask how) would be the consensus #1 pick (and he clearly would be) then you can assign a trade value chart number to him. If you then subtract out the value of this year's 1st rounder, and also next year's which we traded to Denver, you are left with enough "points' to trade even-up for a low first round pick. That means that Orton got valued as a first rounder in this deal. So he was clearly more than a throw in. He isn't a top tier guy, but he's in the best 32. A starting NFL QB is worth something, even if he isn't that great.

Thanks! Nice job with the internet sleuthing!