nfoligno

Oh so you liked the super bowl when the Colts had 2 RB's rush for more 100 yds each ? and just days before Rivera is interviewing for the rams job. To this day, I will say our D was not to blame. When your offense allows what, 5 turnovers, few defenses can compensate. When your offense can't get a 1st down, and the D is on the field all day, you rarely will see a great performance. The D didn't play great that year, but IMHO, it could have been FAR worse thanks to the offense and their turnover happy play. If your wife or girlfriend screws your neighbor. Do you just say ok and then welcome her back home a few days later ? Dude. Give it up. Take a look around the league. Any time you have a team that does well enough to get a bye week, you are also going to find coaches who are interviewing. That is how a coach moves up in the NFL. I can not believe you would compare seeking a promotion to a cheating wife. Sorry, but that is a joke. It's hardly a mistake to get rid of someone who doesn't want to be there in the first place. Guess you can't grasp that conceipt. And you can't grasp the concept of promotions. If Babich were offered a HC job, wanna bet how fast he would be gone? There is not a coach on this team (other than Lovie) who wouldn't leave for a HC position. I think you are a tad delusional if you think otherwise. Rivera didn't want to be the BEARS DC he wanted to be a head coach else where. He should thank Lovie for setting him free ! He wanted to be a HC, which is what most every coach in this league wants. I truly do not understand the world you live where a man is supposed to show loyalty to a team to the point of ignoring his career.

No kidding. I don't know what world Damimal is living, but the natural order of things is to always strive to move forward. If you are a position coach, you want to become a coordinator. If you are a coordinator, you want to become a HC. If your a HC, often you want the GM title added. I can't see knocking a guy for taking interviews for a promotion. And as for doing it in the playoff bye weeks, well, that is the way it is set up. Pretty much every team that gets a bye week is going to have coaches taking a day or two to interview for a new job. That's the way it works. And like you, I have to question the SD defensive talent comment. They had the same talent prior to Rivera taking over, and yet it is day and night in difference in how they play. And as for talent overall, it really isn't that great. W/o their steroid boy, their overall talent level takes a huge dip.

Few comments on your post. One. I think everyone knows this is Lovie's defense, but (a) there was little to no hope for firing Lovie this year, but there was hope to getting rid of Babich and ( while the scheme is Lovie's, the in-game playcalling is Babich. Rivera ran Lovie's scheme, but w/ plenty of tweaks. The overall scheme itself, while not my preferred, is only part of the problem. In game playcalling on defense was another part of the problem, and a big part, and that is Babich, not Lovie. Two. I think most everyone here does in fact hold the players accountable. It is a matter of offseason periods. Right now, we are in a period teams make changes to their coaching staffs. In another month, there will be much more talk about the players who need to be replaced. Three. With that said, while there are players that need to be replaced, I still believe the key is coaching. If it was one or two players who seemed to weaken, that would be one thing, but when it is nearly the entire defense? When you have a top 5 defense, and then turn around and become a lower tier defense, and the only real change is in coaching, then I think you have to consider coaching a major issue. That doesn't mean players are not part of the problem, but only that coaching is a factor, potentially the greatest factor, and again, we are in that time of the offseason where coaching is addressed.

Agreed. While I don't have his cap numbers in front of me, most deals get easier to "eat" as time passes, so I would think we give it another year to see, and at that point we can make a decision. Vasher didn't play well, but could the same not be said of most? Maybe his play stood out, but I still don't see the reason to cut him, especially if we up in the air on Tilliman (FS or CB). While we have Graham, it isn't like we are loaded w/ talent at CB.

2) What more was he supposed to do with SF? Their lineup sucks on offense, and he still did more with it than the Bears coaches did with the Bears superior talent (which is scary). Superior talent? While I am not going to say SF has great talent, to say our talent is superior is laughable. QB - Hill is no stud (understatement alert) but if you are going to say Orton is "superior" that is the biggest (and maybe only) compliment you have ever given Orton. RB - I love Forte, but Gore is superior, hands down. Maybe Forte develops to be as good, but right now, I don't think you can truly say Forte over Gore. WR - Sorry, but SF has better WRs than we do. That is NOT to say they are loaded at WR, but I see no way you can argue we have better WR talent than they. Bruce may have been the lesser WR in StL, but he is better than any WR on our roster. The WR they picked up in FA (Bryant Johnson) didn't live up to expectations, but he may be as good as any of ours as well. No argument their WRs are less than special, but you have to be kidding me to state ours are better. TE - Vernon Davis is a freak, but has never lived up to the hype. I would agree we are better at TE, especially when you factor both Olsen and Clark. OL - Their OL was actually better than expected, as several young players began to develop. Staley took big strides at LT this year, his 2nd, while rookie Rachel (who I really wanted to draft) was an instant starter, and due to play, not just draft position. They still need to develop and add to their OL, but I would argue they have a better OL than we, and further, would argue they are in a better position moving forward as they are young. I believe their oldest OL is 28. A far cry from our OL which started 3 over 30, and a 4th (Garza) who will turn 30 before the next draft. I am not using this to knock Martz, but only to question your statment that our offensive talent is superior to theirs. I would argue that, while still lacking in talent, their offense had more than ours. As for Martz, I would be fine w/ it. The question(s) for me, if we added him, would be: - Can Orton run his system, which requires quick reads and leading WRs to allow YAC - Can we build the OL, as that is a big key in his system - Can he held teach our WRs how to run routes, as that is among the biggest keys for his receivers. I will say this. If we added him, two players I would salivate at the potential for would be Forte (who I think could look very Faulk-esq) and Hester, who I think could really excel in his system. The top concern for me would be our TEs. Right now, TE is 2nd only to Forte in terms of having actual talent on offense. TE is one position Martz has never utilized. Would he be able to incorporate the TE, or would one of our only assets on offense go to waste?

We have all, often, talked about how we lined Urlacher up on the LOS. One thing I never understood was, doing this seemed to contradict what we always talked about needing from the LB position, as well as most position. I recall a couple years ago Lovie making a big point to talk about how he wanted to have Urlacher always moving downhill. The meaning of this was to have Urlacher running toward the LOS and attacking. He made a point to say that is when Urlacher is at his best. But instead, this year we always had Urlacher running backward. Not only did this not make sense to me, and this board, but it seemed to contradicat what Lovie previously said was how we wanted to utilize Urlacher. We took away his downhill role. We took away his ability to read and react, as he often had to put his back to the QB to run into deep coverage. We took away his ability to attack, and made him more of a chase/reactive player. I just never understood this.

Who mention Ray Lewis, but even Lewis saw a drop in his play when the team changed schemes and Lewis didn't have the bit/talented DTs in front of him. When they changed back (scheme) and he again had the big boys in front of him, his play shot back up.

I don't recall who the injured player he was signed to replace was, but he was signed specifically for special teams duty. Nothing long term. It was just a quick signing of a player that knows our system and who could contribute on special teams immediately.

I would say your are right on the 2nd. If we get an extra 3rd (as some believe) for Berrian, then I can see a Wr that high. The 4th may be more realistic though I agree. I am not going to say jack against Bennett. Frankly, there is simply nothing to go on, and due to inept coaching, we have no idea even why he hasn't gotten more PT. W/ that said, I do not think we are a player away on offense, or even specifically at WR. We don't have a group of talented WRs, but simply lack one playmaker. We have very little currently at WR. Bennett may be something, but we have no idea, and I just do not think we can count on him to the point he really factors into our draft plans. I think we need to add two starter caliber WRs, not just one.

Thanks for observations Nfol. Mark me down for ROT and WR in Rd 1/2, just take best available with our first pick and then the other in Rd 2. Right now, I think I am more for getting a RT in FA and drafting an OG. The reason is, when I look at the list of FA OGs, it is really thin w/ solid talent, much less upper tier talent. But there seems to be a solid amount of FA OTs, which makes me think we can add a solid veteran RT. Then we use a top pick in the draft on an OG. Now, I am not a fan of pairing a rookie w/ a red shirt rookie (Williams) but that may need to be the case, and (glass half full) would allow them to develop together. You were right about the Bears fans showing up, even the TV crew made mention of how many there were and the cheering was evident when we scored. Glad to hear the TV crew made the comment too, as I now know it wasn't just my faulty vision. Seriously though, it was unbelievable. Likely also partially a factor in my "near" fight. I had a group of 4 or 5 kids (late teens) behind me. All were Texan fans, and one was wearing a Vikes jersey too. All were as obnoxious as could be. I sat there and allowed it, to a point. One of them, when doing the 1st down signal, threw his hand past my face for the sign, I turned around and simply told him that if his hand came near me again, I would lay him out. He may be young, but absolutely had size, but quickly backed down. I would like to think it was my "stare" but I have a feeling it had to do w/ the number of bear fans who had equal expressions on their faces. Later in the game, they tried to start a "bears suck" chant. Another bear fan beat me to the punch, literally. The bear fan, sitting behind them, smacked one upside the head and told the kids to grow up. They not only shut up, but decided it was best to just leave all together.

Not sure I want Crennel either. He looked great in NE, bombed since. Okay, he bombed for a crap organization as the HC, but... Like w/ Marinelli, I have to question why his defense stunk. That is his specialty, and yet that side of the field stunk. Also, the animals were running the show in the zoo of Cle, and most pointed to Crennel as the main reason. Like Weis, Crennel looked great under Billichek, but like Weis, he failed after leaving.

Housh in FA and there's an explosive WR named Maclin that we need to take a serious look at in the draft. Maclin would cost us our 1st, if he is there, and I see no way we add a 1st round WR AND sign TJ Housh. I think it is one or the other, and I would rather get Housh, then draft a WR in rounds 2 or 3.

I just don't understand why anyone wants Lloyd back. I guess because he is as close as anything we have seen to a legit WR, but I just don't see it. I don't think the staff likes him, and I think the feeling is mutual. And the way I have seen him play, I think that feeling has carried over to the field.

I would absolutely take him in that role, and might even throw in one of those meaningless "assistant head coach" titles for him to save some face. Our DL coach is another I think has to go. He joined the team after Rivera left, and in his two years, our pass rush has gone to shit.

One more point from the game. I don't know if this is true everywhere, but WOW was the stadium packed w/ Bear fans. The parking lots outside were filled w/ Bear fans tail-gating, and the stadium was slammed w/ blue and orange. Crapping weather mixed w/ a Houston team playing for nothing I am sure kept Texan fans away, but dang did the bear fans step up. There were times I honestly began to feel Bear fans had near equal numbers to Texan fans. Now, I am sure that is not close to true, but it sure looked that way.

Hey, I did my part. The team just forgot to show up.

Agree on Davis and Booker. Disagree on Lloyd. I like what I saw early in the year, but watching the game, more than any other WR, I felt he played like he didn't care. When I look at Booker, he just doesn't have it anymore, but he tries. When I look at Davis, he tries, but just isn't "that" talented. In Lloyd, I saw a guy rounded out his routes and going through the motions. He was playing like he was on the team w/o anything to play for, and even then, it is still inexcusable. The staff don't like him, and I think the feeling is mutual. I see little to no chance we would look to re-sign him, and frankly, that doesn't bother me one bit. I love the idea of Boldin on the team, but do NOT want to go after him. I think Az will start w/ an asking price of two 1st round picks. Not saying they will get it, but (a) Wash offered two #1s for Chad Johnson last year and ( Dallas gave up a 1st, 3rd, 5th and 6th (I think) for Roy Williams, who is not as good as Boldin. I think Boldin will net Az a 1st and 2nd, and maybe even two 1sts. We just have too many needs to give up a 1st, much less more. TJ is a no brainer in my book as a player we should be going after. But I don't think we can stop there. I think we should also be looking to add another WR in the draft (first 3 rounds). We are not just one WR short. We are an entire WR unit short. #1 TJ #2 Hester #3 rookie/Bennett #4 rookie/Bennett #5 Davis

Hey, I respect him too. He seems like a good guy. That doesn't mean I want him. You say you wanted to get him after his scheme against us. Well, all I have to say is, we make a lot of coaches look good. I don't watch a lot of Det games. What I know is, they suck on defense, and have for some time. Marinelli is supposed to be a defensive coach, so to me, this is inexcusable. If Det's offense stunk, but defense was good, I could see adding Marinelli, but I simply have seen nothing to make me think he would do anything for us. He's a good guy. Great. That doesn't mean he should be our coach or DC through.

Some believe it is better to throw them into the fire. Some believe it is better to let them watch and learn for a year first. I am a believer in the watching first, so I agree.

I talk about this briefly in another post, but after going to the game, I saw things I never saw (at least not to this extent). This is NOT a post to excuse Orton, or Turner, or anyone else. I am just talking about the WRs. First, everyone talks so much about Hesters speed, but what I saw yesterday, that speed is not realized. Does everyone realize just how much he gets jammed at the LOS? Worse, does everyone realize how difficult of a time he has beating the jam? I was a bit surprised by this, as receivers w/ upper tier speed are usually given more cushion, but Hester is shown little respect. Once he does get get off the LOS, he doesn't get separation. On the short passes, if you notice, he usually has a DB on him, but makes a good move after the catch to get free. He also may look open downfield, but it takes forever for him to break free of the DB on those routes. Many talk about Orton's inaccurate passes downfield. I have always thought it was more about timing. After watching the Houston game, I believe this even more. As fans, talking about our CBs, what do we always say. We want our CBs to jam the receivers at the LOS, as it (among other things) breaks up the timing w/ the QB. Well, it appears that is what defenses are doing to us. If Hester struggles to get off teh LOS, then the timing of the pattern is also going to be off. Now, I focus first on Hester because, frankly, he is the only one of the group that seems to have a future. I am not talking about Bennett, as there is little to nothing to evaluate. Booker is done. He was one of my favorites, and I was thrilled to get him, but he is done. He too struggles to beat the press, is slower in his route running, doesn't get separation from the DB, and then drops the ball. Lloyd - Lloyd does a bit better beating the press than the others, but what I notices was Lloyd runs very rounded routes, which may be a big reason why he is so often covered. It is when the WR makes sharp breaks they gain separation, but when a WR rounds out the routes, they allow the DB to change direction w/ them more easily. That is what I saw Lloyd doing. Davis- Ironically, he seemed the best of all our WRs at (a) beating the press ( making sharp breaks and © getting separation from the DB. Unfortunately, he has shown the worst hands of the group. Go figure. I fully agree w/ Jason that OL is our top need (wow was that unit awful) but after watching them live, I believe more than ever that WR ranks a VERY close second. Lloyd is gone (FA) regardless. Booker is done. Davis may stick, but as a teamer. Bennett? I liked him in the draft too, but how much development should we honestly expect, based on past coaching and develop we have seen at the position. Hester is the only one who I think has shown promise, but until we get a MUCH better WR to play opposite him, I question how far we will ever see him go.

Why do you want Marinelli? One. He is a Lovie guy. Thus, we are likely only going to get more of the same. Two. He has never been a defensive coordinator. He went from position coach to head coach. Many here question Babich's ability to call games. Well, why do you believe Marinelli is any more capable of calling a game. Three. While I understand some guys can fail as a HC, but be solid or even great DC/OCs. Yet, I would expect at least the area of expertise of that HC to look good. Detroits defense flat out stunk. If their offense stunk, but defense was solid, I could understand better wanting him as our DC, but their D stunk. You can talk talent all you want, but my point is still, what has he done to make you think he is any good as a DC? Marinelli is likely who Lovie would love to get, but I think it would be a huge mistake if that is who we got. We looked best on defense when we have Rivera. While I have no expectations of him coming back, I do feel we need to get a DC who is not going to simply run Lovie's scheme. We need someone w/ knowledge that goes beyond just the cover two.

They didn't really have any "inside" info, if that is what you are asking. Couple things of "some" note. His step father-in-law told me that Hanie played against Hill (he said the other QB he competed against in camp) in HS. I believe there is some sort of Texas v the nation sort of HS game. In that game, Hanie started for the Texas all stars, and Hill for the nation. He mentioned that Hanie was far superior in that game. Also mentioned that Hanie is far from certain about his future w/ the bears. Hanie and his wife have a place in Chicago for the season, but I think it is a rental. He said they actually plan to live w/ him (in houston) in the offseason, and do not want to set down roots until his future is more certain. I made a comment, as a joke, that it was ironic in a sad way (for them) that this is probably the first time in a LONG time we have not used 3 or even 4 QBs. He sort of rolled his eyes, as if to say he was well aware of that little tid bit. I do give the family credit though. None grew up Bear fans, and most were Oiler/Texan fans. Yet all were wearing bears colors, and all cheering hard for the bears. The only knock came when a couple tried to sing our fight song, and knew only the first line, "Bear down, Chicago Bears". I gave them grief, and had to teach them the rest

I missed the first half because it wasn't on where I live and I made my way over to a sports restaurant...but I'm a little surprised by your evaluation of our offense. We scored 24 points right? If the other team had scored 24 points and won we wouldn't say "yeah, but it wasn't pretty". 24 points is 24 points, not great all things considered, but your evaluation seems harsh. That's twice as much as this Bears offense used to get before Ron Turner. Also, to continue my defense of Ron Turner (I know you technically didn't mention his name), how do we know he's not strongly responsible for Orton's success? When was the last time we had a good QB? Oh yeah, when Ron Turner was the coach. I guess maybe it's just coincidence. Several points. I have been back and forth on Turner. On one hand, I see an offense nearly devoid of talent, and give him credit for getting as much out of it as he has. On the other hand, I see bad game plans and predictability, which makes me really ticked off. I do give Turner credit. More than you realize. I think he has done a decent job getting this team ready for games. I am not a fan of his in-game calling though. I can't tell you how many times Houston seemed to be in the ideal defense to defend our playcall. That screams predictability. We were playing a mediocre to bad defense, and had 2 good drives in the game. One was our first drive, after which Houston seemed to adjust. The 2nd good drive didn't come until midway through the 3rd. And as much as I would like to credit them for the late score, that was as much as anything due to Houston playing soft. Houston knew we needed 2 scores, and played soft. We moved the ball down the field and scored, but Houston just was not challenging us like before. My comments of our offense may have been harsh, but that is just what I saw. Our OL was abused all day. Our WRs simply did not look like NFL caliber players. I do not give Orton a pass, but do feel Manning would struggle w/ the above. While I think our defensive issues are more due to coaching than talent, I think it is purely about talent on offense.

Well, this was my chance to get to see the bears live. I should have stayed home and read a book. Anyway, some comments, Offense - Honestly, I am surprised we were able to score at all. If you all think they look bad on TV, you really do not want to see them live. Houston does not exactly have an all-pro defense. Heck, they don't have a good one. They have a couple good players, but overall, are not a good D. Yet we made them look great. OL - Holy crap were they bad. Tait and St.Clair were getting blown up. Whether w/ speed of pure bull rush, Houston's DEs were getting penetration all day. Also noticed how much Houston moved Mario Williams around. Never knew that. But they moved him around, and I swear, it was almost like we had no idea. To be honest, St.Clair actually did better against him than Tait. After watching this game, I really think Tait is done. The inside was not much better, but the OTs weak play just stood out. On run downs, the holes were just not there. This unit just sucks. RB - I have to think Forte is still hurting. I know the overall stats for him were not that bad, but he just looked tentative. The burst and power just didn't seem there either. WR/TE - This was a unit I really wanted to focus on. We always talk about how difficult it is to evaluate WRs on TV, as they often are not even in the picture. Well, I was there, and wow are they bad. They just do not separate from their coverage. Houston does not have a great secondary, but they showed no fear of our WRs. They pressed our WRs much of the game, and I saw why. Our WRs struggle to beat the press, and then struggle to gain separation. This is a sad statement, but our best WR getting separation seemed to be Davis. To bad he can't catch the ball. Olsen is our best receiver, and was used all over. I was surprised to see how many places we lined him up. I saw him lined up at FB, slot and outside. He is our best receiver on the team, but needs to do a better job of catching the ball w/ his hands and not his body, which is why I think the DB twice was able to knock the ball out of his hands. QB - He missed on a couple passes, and I know will get knocked, but sorry, I just have a difficult time blasting him. Watching the game, I question how many QBs could have done well. He was under constant pressure, and simply put, has no weapons. Defense - Frankly, I am surprised this was not a massive blowout. This group was just awful. DL - They did well against the run, but that was as often as not, due to a loaded box. But against the pass, they were useless. Our DL just gets zero pass rush, which is not a surprise. Houston doesn't have a bad OL this year, but we made them look great. It was unbelievable how easy Houston made it look. I still think coaching is an issue. Where is the creativity in our pass rush. I am watching Houston moving Mario all over. I am watching them stunt, inside out, and visa versa. They are employing all sorts of pass rush techniques, while we are doing the same thing over and over, yet expecting different results. LB - Most often, they just seem to be in no-mans land. DBs - WOW are they bad. Tillman was getting abused all day. AJ had like 10-150-2, but could have had much more. Houston fans were screaming for him to go for the single game records. What was unbelievable is our lack of adjustment to him. We did the same ol same ol. We gave him huge cushions and played a ton of zone. Our S was slow to get over, and our CB was slow to react. It was just sad. Misc One sort of cool thing. I sat w/ Caleb Hanie's family. He grew up in Texas, and had about a dozen family members there I got to sit w/. No insight, but cool talking w/ them throughout the game. Also, it was no where close to as cold as the GB/Chi game, but dang it was cold. Biggest problem was, it was not expected. I don't think it got out of the 40s, but no one was prepared. It was windy and had on/off rain. As cold as I was, I can't imagine how it felt at the Monday night game.

Man are you preaching to the choir. How we "show" our LBs worked week one against Manning, and it was great to see, but it seemed like teams adjusted to it immediately, and it stopped working. And yet, we continue to do it. What kills me is, it seems like we stopped doing it a couple weeks ago, or at least only did it some, rather than a lot, but we seemed to get back into doing it constant once again. 1. we aren't fooling ANYONE with this crap afer 15 games. in fact we weren't fooling anyone after TWO!! How we "show" our LBs worked week one against Manning, and it was great to see, but it seemed like teams adjusted to it immediately, and it stopped working. And yet, we continue to do it. What kills me is, it seems like we stopped doing it a couple weeks ago, or at least only did it some, rather than a lot, but we seemed to get back into doing it constant once again. 2. we have just neutralized our LB's from moving up and down the line to keep the OL guessing if, and more importantly, WHERE they may blitz from. I get the idea that if you have all three LBs standing on top of the LOS, you are making them guess which LB, and thus which area, we are going to blitz from. A key reason I think this fails is, all three LBs are stacking inside. Thus, regardless who blitzes, if you simply have an extra blocker, like the RB, focuses on the interior, he can likely pickup which ever of the three LBs are sent. 3. we have moved our LB's out of position to do what they are designed to do in a 4-3 defense. now our backers are moving backward at the snap of the ball rather than reacting FORWARD to gain momentum AND the correct angle to make tackles not only on running plays but short passing zones. EXACTLY. I have said as much for weeks, and have heard Hampton and Warren Sapp make the same comments as well. Apparantly, only our staff are ignorant of this. What kills me is, I remember a couple years ago, Lovie was talking about how the key to the LB position in our scheme is having the LBs moving forward. I believe he referred to it as always having the LBs running downhill. But positioning our LBs the way we do, we are making them run backward, or uphill. What really bothers me too is, we are forcing our LBs to put all their focus and energy toward running back into their zones. It is nearly impossible for the LBs to continue to read the QB, watch what the WRs are doing, AND run backwards. How many times have we seen a QB throw the ball near our LBs, but with our LBs out of position to make a play. IMHO, this is because they are still trying to run back into their zone, rather than watching/reading the QB, and jumping on routes. 4. the blitzes up the middle DO NOT WORK 95% of the time we use it!!! I agree, though I have to point out that Urlacher had a great play up the middle (among that 5%) against GB. He blitzed up the middle, and I guess GB expected him to drop back. He engaged the OG when he was on his heels, and literally drove the OG straight back, nearly into Rodgers. It was a power move I have rarely seen. But that play was the exception and not the rule. now our coaches many ask... where does it work more effectively? FROM THE OUTSIDE YOU FREAKIN IDIOTS!!! why do you think manning has had success from out there!! yet we continue to pound square pegs into round holes because they are too stupid to adjust or figure it out. we just continue to blitz up the middle with our backers already on the LOS and our opponents already having made adjustments to freakin BLOCK them!! This is what kills me. Lovie/Babich believe the pressure should come from the middle. I would prefer to see the pressure come from all angles. I just do not understand why we don't position our LBs off-tackle, and then blitz them off the edge. As our DEs take their wide angles, it would seem to open a hole for the LB to rush inside the OT. Or, we have our DE rush inside, and let the LB rush from the outside. Point is, it seems like when we do blitz outside, it is effective, but we do it so rare, it doesn't mean as much. This is a prime reason why I believe we do have the talent on defense, but the problem lies in how our staff utilizes our talent.