nfoligno

Well if you are giving saying that Marinelli is at fault for 0-16, then you can't not give Lovie credit for 3 winning seasons in 5 years + a super bowl appearance and say it was all Rivera. For the record, I said Marinelli is at least partially at fault. In Detroit, I recognize poor ownership, GM and scouting. So I do not fully blame Marinelli. At the same time, I do not believe he can be taken out of the picture when discussing who is at fault. As for Lovie, I am not saying he has nothing to do w/ the teams success, but if I were asked who was due more credit, Rivera or Lovie, I would say Rivera. We turned around as a team, and went to the SB, more than anything, due to our defense. And I would argue it wasn't even close. Defense carries us. Rivera was in charge of that D. Now, if after Rivera left we continued to do well on D, I would then have had to admit it was likely more Lovie than Rivera, but our D has tanked since Rivera left, thus I believe there is a very legit argument it was Rivera's D and not Lovie's. I just do not think much of Lovie as a coach. It does not appear to me he does much to inspire players, and I am not just talking about demeanor. I do not think much of his system. I do not think much of our game plans going into games, and think less of our in-game adjustments. And if you say that is on the coordinators and not the HC, I would have to begin to ask what the HC does?

IMHO you would have to take a look at Vick. Now I don't stand beeehind the dog fighting thing but as a fan wanting the Bears to win games he could be dangerous if we had him . There is this formation called the wildcat I'm sure you have heard of it. Now lets just stop and imagine if we had, lets say Vick, Hester and Forte & Wolfe. This would be a nightmare f other teams to try to stop. For the record Vick can or could throw the deep pass, he made his TE Pro Bowl material for years, oh and when he was throwing to White and Jenkins get this THEY COULD NOT CATCH at the time so it made Vick look worst then he was. Hell Davis, Booker,Hester, lloyd all make Orton look bad when they drop good passes. I think if we had Vick at QB Olsen would make the Pro Bowl! We all want to win games, but I believe we can do so while maintaining a level of integrity, which we lose w/ Vick. I do not believe we need only look at angels. But there is a sizable gap, IMHO, between much of what we see players do, and what Vick did. Also have to disagree on the idea Vick was ever a good QB. Yes, he could throw the deep pass in the sense that he had a great arm, but it takes more than a strong arm in the NFL. His deep passes were never very accurate. He could sling it downfield, but he was most often off the mark. He didn't have great WRs, but at the same time, he did little to help them. And I am not sure I would agree "he made Crumpler a pro bowl TE". Crumpler was a hell of a talent, and it could just as easily be argued that Crumpler helped made Vick almost look like a QB. Finally, I am not sure how you think he would work in the wildcat formation. I am not sure how a QB that can runs helps this system. If anything, I would think it would hurt. Key in the wildcat is the unexpected direct snap to a quick RB (sometimes WR) who can run. But if you have a QB like Vick, you already have 9 guys in the box playing to stop the run. In fact, i would argue Vick would hurt the wildcat formation. Sorry, but Vick was never a very good QB. He was an exciting player to watch, and sold tickets. He was amazing running the ball, but simply never an accurate passer, and never a good decision maker. I doubt his two years in jail have improved either area. I would rather ask Ryan Leaf if he wants to be our QB coach than sign Vick to run our offense.

And how did Sims develop thus far? Tackle machine, but nothing close to the top 10 pick player drafted to be. As for the rest, come on. It is too easy to write off pretty much any player. I think you are making excuses here. Leyman, Dixon and Boss were all very well thought of LBs who simply didn't develop. I think you absolutely can look at the coaches for this. And you say average like Williams and Roach for us, but (a) Roach was not a 2nd round pick, nor expected to be more than a special teams guy and Williams is an unknown as he sits behind Briggs. Leyman, Dixon and Boss were all talented, but simply never developed. While I know full well this happens, and often, I still think it easy to question Detroits ability to develop LBs, one of the few non-WR position they invested in pretty heavy, and Marinelli and his son easy warrant some questions on this.

Ignore - Computer issues.

Ignore - Computer issues.

Ignore - Computer issues.

I would love to say Tait's poor play was simply due to Garza, but if anything, I would be far more ready to say Garza was hurt by Tait, though I think Garza sucks on his own well enough regardless. One big reason Tait was moved to RT (it was planned prior to our adding Williams) was he had shown such a decrease in quickness and speed. The belief was that on the right side, where you have fewer speedy edge rushers, he would be better suited. IMHO, even DEs w/ lesser speed made Tait look slow. He was getting killed off the edges, and that had nothing to do w/ Garza. But it got even worse. Okay, like Fred Miller the first year he showed signs of degraded play, the hope was Tait may need help on the outside w/ speedy rushers, but would be solid against the power rush. Not even close. I watched Tait getting pushed straight back all year. Last year, we started a journeymen, jack of all OL positions guy at LT. We had a red shirt freshmen none of our staff felt could play OG start at OG. We had a degrading former pro bowler at center. We had an average on his best days OG in Garza. Tait was expected to be our one true anchor. IMHO, he was the worst player on the entire OL. Seriously. I felt his play was worse than every one of the rest. Tait was worthless, both in pass protection and run blocking. He was a very solid OT for us for quite a few years, but I think is now on par w/ Fred Miller. There was a time when I felt we could add a young RT to develop until Tait was done, but I now believe Tait is done, and we need an immediate replacement.

Marinelli is widely regarded as one of the better defensive minds in football and he is a very respected coach in general. The Lions stunk but that wasn't his fault. He was handed a poor roster and very little to work with yet found a way to take an 0-16 team and have it play hard all season long, a team that was in quite a few football games. The Bears are lucky to get a coach of his class signed and as far as his son goes he's supposed to be a pretty solid young mind from everything I heard. Big whoop, he stunk as a DC that might just mean he's not ready to take on that much plus I think some of you guys don't quite grasp how things go in the NFL but coaches have to trust the staffs they have hired which means Lovie puts everything on Babich who puts a lot of stuff on his assistants. Thats how shit works in the NFL unless you are talking about those rare geniuses such as a Holmgren or Andy Reid that could totally call an offense while being the head coach (Shanny could be counted in here as well) and even those guys needed OC's most of the time. It wasn't his fault? Okay, I understand he had hurdles, but wasn't his fault. IMHO, that is a huge problem w/ our team as a whole. Accountability. It is as if the word is foreign or something. He was the Head Coach. I am fine w/ the idea, "it wasn't ALL his fault" but he was the HC or a team that was unable to win a single game. In the league today, that is incredible. Sorry, but it is his fault. I have no problem w/ the idea his team lacks talent, but many teams in the NFL lack talent, and still manage win win a couple games. As for trusting your staff and all, that is well and good when things are rolling, but you see throughout the league the higher-ups stepping in more when their area of expertise is failing. Often, when you have a HC w/ an offensive background running a team where the OC is failing, you see the HC step in. Why is it different in Chicago? The defense has stunk for two years. Should we not expect Lovie to be more involved as it is his scheme and his area of expertise? Why should the same expectations be different in Detroit. Detroits defense has been flat out awful, yet you don't think Marinelli (as the HC) should have been, or was, involved in that? The team has been investing quite a bit on the LB position, and yet you don't think their DC had anything to do w/ their lack of development? Honestly, I do not HATE the Marinelli signing, so long as it is DL and not DC. At the same time, it just doesn't sit well w/ me that we are continuing w/ the same failed scheme and way of doing things. His son is another matter. That move would make me sick. And I wouldn't call Lovie a failed coach. I wasn't happy with how things went for the Bears but entering the season no one but a coolaid sipper had this team winning 9 games and somehow they did (and they should have won more). So they did a lot more than I thoguht they would with limited talent. The defense played like shit, no denying that, but those who watched the 2007 Bears shouldn't have really been surprised at that as the defense blew that year too (injuries or no injuries). I'll completely agree that Babich should have gotten ousted or at least moved down to DL duties but I think Marinelli will be much more involved. I will confess, I have never liked Lovie. I thought he was a hack as a DC, and never understood why we liked him in the first place. As the HC, I am among those who believe our players won in spite of Lovie far more than due to him. Further, in hindsight, it appears to me we won due to Rivera more than due to Lovie. We won w/ defense, and since Rivera has left, that defense has tanked. Maybe failed coach is excessive, but I would not say successful.

One. Why is his son as our LB coach fine w/ you? Detroit has drafted numerous LBs in the 1st and 2nd round over the last few years, and yet how many have developed? I mentioned this in another post, but they have drafted 4 LBs in the last 5 years between the first round (9th pick overall) and high 2nd round. Where is the development? Maybe it is all a scouting issue, but we are not talking about guys taken from small schools a team gambled on, but LBs who were very highly regarded pre-draft. I realize his son was not the LB coach there, but the DC. At the same time, I just believe that, if LB is his speciality, we should have seen better development from the LBs. Two. I guess I don't have a major issue w/ Marinelli as our DL coach, but this still just does not sit well w/ me. I get it. He was the HC for a horrible organization, and maybe he was just in over his head. Still. Defense is his thing, so should we not at least expect his team to play decent on defense? Det has been one of, if not the, worst defense in the league, and we just hired their HC, and may hire their DC. Hey, I have an idea. Detroit had the 3rd from worst offense in the league. Maybe we should hire their OC to be our WR coach. Sorry, but there is something about the idea of surrounding our coaching staff w/ failed coaches that just doesn't sit well. Then again, w/ Babich and Lovie, I guess they will be in good company.

Hey, I have him in the mix, but until he shows he can play again, I am not going to pencil him in. Frankly, I am very low on Garza, and was prior to this season. That is a key reason I still feel OG should be a top 2-3 pick, if not #1, in the draft. I know you are high on Beunning, but until he shows he can play, I just can not count on him. Beekman is not a guy I think the staff even wants at OG, but were w/o options. Garza I think stinks. I like the idea of retaining St. Clair, but lets be honest there. When was he ever a pro bowl (or close) OG. If we add an upper tier rookie OG (Duke?) as well as signing a solid veteran RT, I think that would go a LONG way. Throw in last years #1 pick Williams. Throw in Beunning's potential and Beekman's development and future potential at C, and I think we could build a very solid OL, not just short term (the normal Angelo way) but long term.

But how much is due to their inability to develop talent? LB is not a position that was ignored in Detroit. Consider some of the players they have recently drafted: Jordan Dixon - 2008 2nd round. Ernie Sims - 2006 1st round (9th pick overall) Teddy Lehman - 2004 2nd round Boss Bailey - 2003 2nd round I am not even counting numerous 2nd day picks taken as high as the 4th round. Detroit has invested more at the LB position in the draft than we. They have taken players who were very highly touted pre-draft. And yet, how well have they developed?

Sure, money talks, but I think we would have to make him an offer that blows him away, as well as all other offers, to get him to sign. Usually, w/ Washington deals aside, FAs are made similar top offers by a couple teams, but choose the offer that is from a team that best fits him. Every year, FAs sign w/ a team for a tad less (not a lot) because it is a better situation. I doubt we would make him an offer that blows everyone else out of the water, and thus, he is simply more likely to choose the offer from a team w/ a better offense.

No question they have the investment in Leinart, but how many times have we seen this situation. In the past, I have seen it go both ways. SD, for example, hung on to Brees for a year, but then let him go to make room for their high draft pick young QB. But you also have a situation like in Cle, where they kept Anderson, in spite of their young QB. It has gone both ways in the past, but Az is in the playoffs for the first time in how long? Not only that, but they did it by winning the division, and have won their first playoff game. Simply put, Warner has done more for that franchise than it has seen in a LONG time. They may have a lot invested in Leinart, but I am not sure that will prevent them from retaining Warner. The key, as always, is money. But unlike w/ Brees, who was still young, I do not see any team out there offering Warner a mega deal. I doubt he gets more than a 2 or 3 year deal due to his age. Those 2 or 3 years may not be cheap, but he isn't going to get the long term deal that would eliminate Az, IMHO.

He did use the cover two quite a bit, but also did a better job (IMHO) of mixing it up. Two games that stand out to me. The Az game few here can forget. A rookie QB (Leinart) is tearing us up in the 1st half. We are playing a soft cover two scheme, and he is eating us alive. In the 2nd half, I saw drastic changes. Lovie came out and said players just started to execute, but I call BS. I saw a drastic change to how we scheme. In the 2nd half of that game, I watched our CBs press on nearly ever dang snap. I watched our LBs attacking the LOS (though not starting out ON the LOS), as opposed to the first half when Urlacher spent most of his time running backward into the secondary. I saw our DL mixing it up more and stunting. I saw blitzing, particularly by Brown our DBs, which I did not see in the 1st half. To me, that game was a prime example of the difference between Lovie and Rivera. First half was all Lovie's scheme. Soft zone and a lack of aggressive play. 2nd half was all Rivera. The difference? After getting abused in the 1st half, Az struggling to gain a yard in the 2nd. The 2nd game is the playoff game in '05 against NO. We ran mostly zone coverages all year. Whether we were in cover 2, cover 3 or cover 1, we played zone coverages. In that NO game, we played the entire game in man coverage. I remember well Bress talking after the game about how much that affected them. Brees talked about how they prepared all week long to attack our zones, and never seems able to adjust to our playing man coverage. Brees was crediting the bears change of scheme, while also somewhat calling out his own coaches for not being better able to adjust to our changes. Point is, Rivera did run Lovie's scheme, but also was simply better mixing it up and adjusting. But Lovie didn't like that. He didn't like Rivera moving away from his system, and didn't like the credit Rivera was getting for the success.

That is my understanding as well. It is a way numerous teams have been using extra space from one season to build up space the following season. I think Minny got like $10m, in cap credit this last year due to the same finagling of the cap. We have a pretty solid cap guy, so it would surprise me if we didn't better utilize our space. I have a feeling we do get that credit.

It doesnt matter though, everyone will continue to bitch and moan about everything Lovie does, positive or negative. Is it not fair? Should we continue to "trust him" as he told us to? I think there is a huge problem when he talks about accountability, but doesn't apply that notion to his BFF Babich. How can you preach accountability and not apply it to the coach who has been in charge of the defense that went from top 5 to just plain bad? I didn't have a big issue w/ considering Marinelli for DL. I had a problem w/ him as our DC. But now adding his son-in-law to the list? It just gives the impression that friendship is what matters to Lovie more than going out and getting the best coaches available.

Honestly, I think it is far more about bad scouting/luck than simply about not caring about the QB position. IMHO, they have tried, and tried nearly every path. But regardless the path, it just has not worked. The ways they have tried: Use a 1st round pick - They drafted Cade McNown top 15, and Rex Grossman just outside that range. Neither worked out, but they have spent two 1st round picks on QBs in the last decade. Trade a 1st round pick for a veteran - Rick Mirer. Talk about a bad move. But again, they went in a direction that worked for other teams, but simply didn't work for us. Draft QBs w/ 2nd day picks hoping they would pan out like Brady or Romo did for NE and Dallas - Orton, Kretzel, Moreno. Add to the list numerous undrafted rookies brought in. Orton looks the best of the bunch, but w/o question, no Brady's here. Sign starting experience veterans - Griese, Jeff Blake, Stewart, Chandler, Miller, Mathews. Griese was likely the best of the bunch, but none ever really panned out. Sign a veteran who was a backup in a good system/ behind a good starter - Quinn was the backup in a good KC system, developed by a great OC, and who backed up a very solid veteran. Other teams have struck gold doing this, but Quinn didn't come close to panning out. Hutchinson might also be included in this category. So, while I would have liked to do more, I would make the argument the team has tried for a long time, and in many different ways, to add a QB, but regardless the path they take, no QB has ever worked out. IMHO, at some point, you have to look at more than just our making QB a priority. For example, would it not be more than fair to question our scouts ability to scout QBs? Also, while we have attempted to add a QB in many different ways, I would point out how bad the surrounding talent usually was the QB would play w/. When have we made OL a priority? How well can you expect to develop a QB if he doesn't have a solid or better OL protecting him. When have we had an upper tier WR for the QB to work w/? What sort of run game has our offense seen over the last decade? Adding a quality QB is part of it, but if you don't build the offense around him, I question how much we can expect from the QB position.

I would love to keep St. Clair, but in partially due to his ability to play just about anywhere. Signing St. Clair would allow us more flexibility in how we address the OL in the offseason. Ideally, I would like to sign St. Clair, as well as another solid OT, than draft an OG early in the draft. By doing this: LT - Williams. The job is his to lose. LG - St. Clair would have the inside track for the job. C - Kreutz for another year, and hopefully Beekman soon after. RG - Wide open competion between Garza, rookie, Beunning, etc. RT - Veteran addition. Having a veteran like St. Clair could benefit Williams, while having a solid veteran RT would benefit whoever wins the starting job at RG. Tait is cut in my plan. His downward spiral has been drastic. I think he is little better than Fred Miller at this point. I would cut him lose, which I believe would save money, though I am not 100% sure about that.

It is a joke because: (a) while we are letting the position coaches go, the guy who was in charge (Babich) is still in charge. That makes all comments about accountability very questionable. ( You say he was one of the best DL coaches, but (1) he got that rep when loaded w/ DL talent, (2) got that rep when part of an overall great system and (3) has since shown nothing when separated from TB. While I understand that just because a guy fails as a HC, that doesn't mean he can't do well back as a position coach, but I do have to question why the DL in Det was always so bad, as well as the defense as a whole. If Marinelli is such a DL genius, should we not expect his team to at least look good in that area? © The friendship rules continues, as the talk is now that we could add Marinelli's son-in-law, or whatever, who was in charge of the worst defense in the league. It is a joke because while they talk about accountability, the guys who were truly in charge seem immune. Also, in looking at replacements, we seem to only be looking at guys who have strong ties to Lovie. As friendship being the key rule is already a sad statement, we only seem to be moving further in that direction.

This has been talked about in another thread, but two things. One, I am for adding Warner, only IF this signing is part of a larger over-haul of the offense, where we add a top tier WR and an upper tier OT, and then draft an OG early. The only chance Warner would have to remain upright, much less do well, would be to drastically increase the talent surrounding him. If he took over the offense as it is, he would only hasten his retirement. Two, as one of our AZ posters said, I can not phathom why Warner would want to come to Chicago. He knows the system in Az, and is surrounding by great talent. Even if Boldin leaves, which is assumed, he still has one of the games best WRs in Firtz, and there is also a 3rd WR (forgot his name) that looked great when Boldin was hurt earlier this year. Why would he leave that situation to come to Chicago?

This is really making me sick. Not that Lee was fired. Frankly, I had a thread calling for him to be released. What makes me sick is the follow-up I am reading. While it may not happen, there is speculation that Marinelli's son-in-law, I think that is the relation, wants the job and we may be looking at the two as a combo deal. I am 100% on board w/ letting Brick and Lee go. But we are talking about replaced the two w/ the coach of the first ever 0-16 team and the DC of that team which ran the worst defense in the league. Are you kidding me?

Couple things. One. You say, "the cheaper of the two". Is Lovie cheaper than Angelo? Lovie has 3 years and about $16m left on his deal. I really do not have a clue, but how much did we sign Angelo for? I guess I didn't realize Angelo was getting $5m per year. Two. While the two deals may have a year difference, as I recall, Angelo was extended to be about the same as Lovie. IMHO, the two were linked back then. Three. If Angelo had a better record in the draft and FA markets, I think he might stick after Lovie, but I just do not think his record, especially in the draft, is good enough to stay for a 3rd coaching staff.

i mean really good QB. Jimmy Mac??? was he good or was it our WRs? Could the same question not be asked about the great Cassel? At least Mac had more than one season of evidence to go off. Cassel didn't start a game in college. He is a near after thought entering the NFL, and due to injury, gets his chance. But as well as he has looked this year, might it not be fair to ask how much is him and how much is the following: - He has one of the best, if not the best, coaching staff in the NFL calling the shots. - You question Mac's WRs, but how about what he has to work w/ in NE? In Moss and Welker, Cassel has the benefit of two of the top WRs in the game. - OL may not be in the elite tier, but it is light years better than the bears. - No one great RB, but overall? NE had nearly 2,300 rushing yards on a 4.4 ypc average, and 21 TDs this year, compared to Chicago's 1,700, 3.9 ypc avg and 15 TDs. Cassel may be a good, or even great, QB, but (a) one good season in an ideal environment makes it hard to tell and ( those questions would become even greater going from a best case scenario to Chicago, a scenario I do not even want to define.

I have no issue w/ the discussion. Hell, any distraction from the playoffs which we are not part of is a good distraction. Regarding the Sun Times chick, I simply feel she is worthless. She is throwing something out there most every city w/o a QB is throwing out there. Fine. Not exactly what I call original, but whatever. I have no problem w/ a bit of controversial discussion, but that is all I really think she is doing. She could care less about the Bears. She could care less about what would actually be good for the Bears. All she cares about is increasing readership, and as she has no actual quality of substance to offer, she simply goes w/ controversey. IMHO, she makes Mariotti and Bayless look like genius experts.

Sorry, I should have clarified. While his crimes are a very large part of why I could never be on board w/ signing him, the reality is, my opinion is likely as strong as it is, at least in part, due to the fact that I never thought much of him as a QB. But to be honest, he would have to be Payton Manning ability for me to think about it.