nfoligno

Oh, fear not. The list will be long and distinguished.

I'm not sure where you would get that I think every coach is a good coach. Far from it. Every scheme can be good, if the coaches can get their players playing right. I believe I have said that our coaches are not doing this. Who creates schemes? Coaches. If not every coach is a good coach, then how can you believe every scheme can be a good scheme. This may against be an issue of verbage. When I say scheme, I am talking about whatever it is Lovie has written down. That doesn't mean cover two in general, but Lovies scheme, whatever you want to call it. Did you think Shoop was a good coach? If he devised a scheme, would it then be a good scheme regardless? Loading up the gut in what way? Like sending all of their blockers at our DT's. Come on, nfo. Now you are just making stuff up. Watch the games. Noone is doing anything special to block our DT's. Most of the time it is a one on one block. Occasionally a double team. "Occasionally a double team"? Come on Az. I see our DTs doubled on pretty much every down. Further, what I see is the RB/FB moving into position for an up the gut blitz. If there isn't one, he often goes into a route, but it simply appears to me offenses are focusing their protection on the interior. And offense and defense are different. I would still run the back at a 9 man box to set up play actions. Again putting 9 in the box is cheating your defense. The point is, if you continually run your RB up the gut against a 9 man box, and he hits a wall every time, do you fault execution? Yes, offense and defense are different, but not the point. But we just didn't play zone all year. We also played man to man. If NO didn't prepare for it, thats on them. I have not seen where you have given Babich credit. From what I read, you have been ripping the scheme calling it predictable due to us playing passive and not blitzing and stunting and the DE's not working inside moves. Again what I see is not bad scheme, but bad technique. Poor angles, not getting off blocks, poor tackling, not being in good position in coverage, poor discipline, not being in shape, etc.

Everyone can be good. Depends on if the coach can get the players to do what they need to. Why is our defense not playing well this year? Its not the scheme, or cause we dont blitz a ton, or stunt, or whatever. The problem is our interior linemen are not creating pass rush. Because of this we are forced to cheat our linebackers into pass rush. When it gets picked up there is less help in pass coverage. The quarterback sees where the blitz is coming from and throws the slants or to one on one coverage. There is nothing wrong with the scheme. The coaches are failing to get the players the handle their responsibilities. And we simply disagree. (1) I do not believe every scheme is a good scheme, and only execution is at issue. (2) Even if you say the scheme would work if executed perfectly, well, if we want to play that fantasy, if the offense has a perfect counter for the scheme, would it still work? You say the problem is our DTs are not penetrating, but could that not be because opponents are loading up the gut to stop us? Do you fault a RB for not beating a 9 man box by saying he just didn't execute? I think you believe every coach is a good coach, and every scheme a good scheme, and so long as the players execute, everything will work well. I disagree. And thats on NO not being prepared. We run multiple coverages all the time. In fact, I recall reading somewhere that we are in an actual "cover 2" less than 40% of the time. And Babs has been receiving tons of credit for the "mug up look" where the backers all crowd the line and then either blitz or back off. You make it seem like there are no adjustments ever when that is just not the case. One. If we were going to face Pitt, would you expect our staff to practice/plan/prepare for a 4-3 defense, just in case they switch? Yea, that is an extreme, but we played zone all year. There was simply no reason to expect us to play man coverage like we did. Two, again, this is more an issue of verbage. I say cover two because that is the scheme Angelo says he runs. That does not mean I believe we are in the cover 2 every down. We are in Lovie's scheme, which he calls the cover two, but that does not mean I believe we are actually playing a 2 deep zone every down. Heck, on one of Griese's picks, the announcers pointed out how we were in a 4 deep zone, rather than a cover two. I have been among Babich's biggest critics, but I have actually given him some credit for this year. While I think he has failed in terms of pass rush, at the same time, I do believe he has "mixed it up" more than in the past, and have given him credit for such. At the same time, I think a lot of it is smoke and mirrors. We show a lot, but in the end, most all of our pressure is still up the gut, and thus easier to defend. Well see right there you are contradicting yourself. If everyone did their responsibility, then there would be pressure on the QB. If the front four was doing their job then the QB would be pressured. Every scheme can be good depending on coaching and players. I don't see the contradiction. Just disagreement. I do not believe every scheme can be good, nor do I believe every coach can be good. Just as I do not believe every player can be good.

It's not that I care we waived Bradley, but is the statement we need to make this? We have starters who are laying down on the job, yet it is a backup WR we waive?

Nope. Not even close. 4th Quarter. Bears - 8:52. TB - 6:08. OT was the only period we did not win the TOP battle.

As far as stunting goes, this season I have seen us use a Tex stunt (DT works outside and the DE goes underneath to the inside). But probably not as much as you would like. Stunting is like blitzing where it is a gamble because you will have people out of position. "not as much as I would like" There's an understatement. The best defenses are the ones were you can just line up and play ball. By blitzing and stunting you are trying to basically "cheat" to help a deficient area (in this case the D Line which is part of the problem ), and by doing so you are making another area of you defense weak. Personally, I am not a fan of alot of blitzing or blitzing just to change it up. You may disagree with that, but it doesn't make it a bad scheme. Just different philosiphies. Every coach has a certain scheme or style. Its how they get their players to play in that scheme that makes it work. Yea, we disagree. I don't view blitzing as "cheating". Yes, I know what you mean by cheating. To me, blitzing is no more like cheating than press coverage as opposed to soft. Let me ask you this. I know that every coach has a certain scheme or style. Is everyone good? If one fails, is that just because the players have not made it work, whether due to coaching or not. IMHO, there are bad coaches and bad coaching. There are bad schemes and styles too. Just because the scheme is at the NFL level doesn't mean it is good. I think that while the cover two "may" be a good scheme in general, the way Lovie runs it, it is simply not good. Maybe, his scheme is good on paper. Maybe in a perfect world he would have an elite player that fits perfect for every position. But in the real world, it just doesn't work. It is predictable and weak. Frankly, I never felt his scheme was all that in Stl either. And in the NFL, everyone pretty much knows what everyone else is going to run (besides the occasional gimmick ala Dolphins this week). Shoot in high school we watch a ton of film on our opponents. Like this week, our opponent runs what called the Markum Wing. That school has been running it since it started. What we have to do this week is get our kids ready for a good running quarterback and running back. We will have to make sure our kids maintain their responsibilities so the integrity of our defense remains sound. Sounds easy, but extremely hard to accomplish. Man do I disagree here. Watch any Phily games lately. It is obvious the offense rarely knows where Phily's blitz is going to come from. Other teams have plenty of aspects to their units that prevent predictability. Frankly, I question why you would even say this. You can watch film, and gain an aspect of probabilities, but that doesn't mean you know what they will run. Case in point. Two years ago we are playing NO in the playoffs. We are a zone coverage defense, but played a man coverage D that day. Brees talked at length about how shocked they were when we came out playing man, and how they struggled to adjust. That was all Rivera. That was a coach tweaking the defense, not totally changing it, to prevent the D from being too preditable. Same with the Bears. It doesn't matter what defense they come out in, it matters if they maintain their individual responsibilities for the integrity of the defense. Everyone can hold their responsibilities, but that doesn't mean we pressure the QB. Sorry, but not every scheme is good. Even if every player does it right, if the other team knows what to expect, it can be countered.

I think his meaning is: (a) short sprint track athletes, as opposed to marathon. Good at the start, but if the race is more than a sprint, they get winded. ( as a coach, I think you would agree there is a difference between being well conditioned, and being game conditioned. Our players may be good running a bunch of wind sprints, but when you factor the hitting of the game, they are getting winded too easily. It is one thing to gain conditioning on a track, but another to gain conditioning from lot of pre-season reps in a game.

Well it looks like we are talking about the same thing but with different terms. Yea, I think we are both ripping the staff, but using different words to explain why. To me the scheme we are playing is the Lovie's cover 2. Like you say, its less aggressive than other styles which is not good or bad just different. The problem is when the players are not doing what they are supposed to do in the scheme to be successful. Two things about that point to coaches. First, they are not getting taught the proper techniques to be successful in that scheme. Second, they are getting taught and just not being held accountable when they dont do it right. Lets take your DE pressure example. So they are taught to take an outside path for contain purposes. Thats fine because we have seen A Brown come straight down the line a couple times and lose contain this year. The problem becomes then the pass rush needs to come from the middle of the field to force the QB's into our DE paths. (We have seen this happen this year too.) So it becomes the DT responsibility to get upfield push and blitzing LB's. When they get no pressure from the middle then we are in trouble. So its the coaches job to make sure we get that push through technique. Some observations I have seen is that our guys are pretty bad at shedding blocks. If they get locked up they are pretty much done. Thats technique. While I agree there is a problem in that, if players are not getting it done, the staff should be stepping in. But where I disagree is this. IMHO, the scheme is simply not good. When I say scheme, I mean Angelo's defense, whatever we want to call it. You argue it is okay for us to employ a scheme where the DEs rush outside, while we penetrate inside. You further argue that if the inside penetration is not there, the staff can be blamed in so much as they need to better instruct our players how to penetrate inside. But I disagree w/ the scheme itself. I disagree w/ the idea of not allowing our DEs to do more. You say you have seen Brown take a straight line approach, but I have yet to see it. I have seen two times where he was knocked into a straight line approach by a TE who doubled him, and our outside was exposed, but I have not seen him rush the passer expect from the outside. Back to my disagreement, which some players (not ours) have seemed to support. By only having our DEs rush outside, we make the job of the OT that much easier. Further, we are then somewhat negating two potential pass rushers, and limiting our pass rush to the interior. I look at our DL and see a lot of potential pass rushers, but the way we have them attack the QB, I just believe we cripple our DEs. What if we used our DL more like Blache did. We asked our DL to take up blockers to free up the LBs to wreak havoc. Would you be in favor of that? I guess my point is, we have 4 pass rushing DL, so why not use them all. Instead of using your DEs to set up the DTs, use all 4 to attack the QB. If we did that, I doubt Brian Griese could throw 60+ times w/o being sacked. Part of my issue is, our "scheme" is simply to narrow. The more narrow a scheme, the easier it is to defend. An offense knows what it has to do to beat us. (a) Have the OTs simply push the DEs wide and outside the pocket. As they only edge rush, that job is easier done. ( Max protect the interior. If you know the pass rush, whether from the DTs or blitz, will come from inside, then you can more easily defend it. I don't care how good the personnel is, if you are predictable, then you are more easily defended. That is a huge part of my issue w/ our scheme. Dungy runs a similar scheme, but it has more variences. DEs utilize inside moves as well as outside. The blitz can come from anywhere. This combination makes it much more difficult to defend/block than when you know the route the pass rush will come from. The whole being tired crap is ridiculous. Thats the other part of coaching that I see lacking. Making these guys responsible. Its poor dicipline to blatently coast through TC and then not be physically ready to play at the end of games. For this I blame the players, because they are supposed to be professionals, and the coaches for not making them get ready. I guess we can blame the players some, but the players don't decide how many reps they get in camp. They play (in games and practices) when told. I can workout on my own for a marathon all I want, but unless I have a trainer providing a competent workout, I will never make it to the finish line. One last point. I have mentioned it before, but will ask again. Do you not think it a mistake that we do not stunt? You can talk about how the coaches need to improve player technique in getting off blocks, for example, but if we are failing to pressure the QB in the scheme we have, would that not infer we should make adjustments beyond simple technique? Think on offense, as I think that is more often easier to make an example. If you continually run your RB up the gut, and it doesn't work, do you simply say you need to work more on breaking tackles and working w/ the OGs, w/o trying something different? If all we ever did was run Forte up the middle, I bet you would be screaming we should see some off-tackle runs or sweeps. If the defense knows how and where the RB will go after getting the ball, it simply makes their job easier. I disagree w/ the idea you simply work on technique to make him better capable of running inside. IMHO, the problem would be how predictable we are, and I would say we need to vary our runs more. Mix it up. That is what I feel for our defense and pass rush. So long as we continue to be so predictable in how we rush the passer, we will never realize our players potential.

I hear you, but wonder how much we are "developing" which is a key in any building/re-building process. On defense, we are playing mostly veterans, so I don't think we are building there. On offense is where we should be expecting the development and building, but are we even in position for such? QB and RB are two positions I think we are (a) in position to develop and ( showing signs of development, though far more so at the RB position w/ Forte. But.... At WR, are we developing? We are playing a trio of vets in Davis, Lloyd and Booker while Bennett and Bradley sit. I am far from a Bradley fan, but if we are in a developmental mode, should we not be playing our young receivers more? Heck, I don't think Bennett was even active for the last game. At TE, Olsen is playing more, but is he developing? And where is Kellen Davis? I know some believe he is over-hyped, but the point is, if we are trying to build and develop, should we not be taking more looks at him. At OL, we lost out on a big opportunity for development when Williams went down. We are playing Beekman, but I wonder for how long. It would not shock me if we saw Metcalf inserted before long. I just don't see a ton of development on offense, and I am not sure how much of the offense we see today will be part of our offense tomorrow.

I might have called it a building season, but things haven't gone exactly has planned. I believed the staff felt we had a D and STs that could dominate, allowing for the O to work through issues, develop and build. Well, I would argue the offense is doing just that. Forte is in the lead for ROY. Orton, while far from great, is developing IMHO. The OL has been inconsistent, which is to be expected. The problem is, the D has not lived up to its billing, and instead of the O being in a position to work through a developmental process, they are being asked to win games. That was not part of the plan, and is a big reason why we are 1-2. While we all want more from the O, I think we are getting as much as could have been expected, if not more. But the D is falling far short of expectation, and thus a losing record.

I've said this before, but IMHO, you can have a mild mannered coach, but you need an assist w/ fire, just as a hot head coach needs a calmer assistant. I think you need such a contrast. When we had Rivera, we had that contrast. Lovie was the mild leader, but he has an assistant that could do the dirty work. I have not seen similar from Babich. I have used the analogy of the army. You can have a captain who is calm in the presence of danger, but at the same time, you need a sargent who can light a fire under the soldiers arces. We have a calm captain, but also a mild mannered sargent, which I just don't think makes for a good mix. Ironically, or maybe not, one of the coaches who I have seen coach w/ fire is Toub. I have seen film of his running practices, and he seems to be in players faces when they mess up. Coincidently or not, that is also one of the few areas we are consistently good at.

My opinion of why Orton's throw, in particular downfield, are off is due to practice. I think that we may have Orton throwing the vast majority of his throws in practice in the short to mid range, and thus he and receivers are not in cink downfield. Deep throws are not just on the QB. Both the QB and WR have to be in cink. Hitting Booker downfield is simply going to be very different from hitting Hester deep. I just don't think Orton has a lot of time working w/ the receivers, and is not in cink w/ them. That is NOT an excuse. Simply put, he has to improve in this area if he wants to continue. It is simply why I think the QB who was a gunslinger in college has seemed like such a weak armed QB for us. I don't think his passing has been as bad as you make out though. While his deep game leaves a lot to be desired, I think he has been making solid through (on the whole) otherwise. But as has been or problem for some years, drops are not helping.

There is no right or wrong scheme, per se. Each coach runs a scheme that they are familiar with. And any scheme can be successful or not depending on if you can get the players to do what they need to. Like at my school, we run a certain offense and defense. But there are alot of offenses and defenses that are different, but that doesn't mean we are right and other schools are wrong. I follow what you are saying, but (a) I would sub the words right/wrong w/ good/bad. Now, I know you will likely argue schemes are not good/bad, but I simply am not sure I agree, at least in general. This is the NFL, and there are schemes that may be good in HS or college, but bad in the NFL. Even if you have the right personnel, I think there are schemes that simply are bad. W/ that said, maybe the cover two is not a bad scheme, in and of itself. I do not like it, but I realize the scheme has worked elsewhere. At the same time, I think how we run the scheme hurts. Indy runs the cover two, but I see more press coverage from their DBs, DEs that rush inside and out, LBs that blitz from all over, etc. So while both Lovie and Dungy run the cover two, there are big differences in how they are run. So when I say our scheme is not good, that doesn't necessarily mean the cover two in general, but how we run it. I know you say that is technique, but I think it is also scheme. I'll get into that below. What you are talking about with the DE's is less scheme and more individual technique. The scheme part is the players responsibility gap wise. Like our DE's have the outside contain so the have to start their rush outside. From then, when they recognise pass its up to them to use their technique to get off the block and rush the passer. So to me, what you are describing is the coaches not getting the guys to use their different moves and skills to get off of blocks. And I have said before how I question the coaches in technique and player development. But here is the big question. Is the problem the staff not getting the players to use more moves, or is the problem the staff not allowing them to use more moves? Again, I go back to this. (a) I saw Wale use plenty of moves when w/ Miami, but since joining the Bears, he seems like a one trick pony. Did he forget all those other moves, or has he been coached not to use them. ( Lovie described how we rush the passer, and in doing so, he said our DEs attack the outside, while the DTs the inside. That seems to correlate w/ what we see each week on the field, and thus lends support to the belief it is the coaches more than the player © finally, if the players are not doing what the staff wants, would there not be something done about it? Since our DEs have rushed the way they have for years, I have to believe they are doing what the staff wants them to do. For the final point, I would also point to our DBs. If the staff wanted our DBs to play press coverage, but they dropped back 7-10 yards every snap, would the staff not do something about it? As they continue to play that way, I have to assume the staff is fine w/ how they are playing. One more thing. What about stunts. It is not up to our players whether or not they stunt. That is a decision the staff makes. Our players simply do not stunt. Idonije said as much himself, and it was ripped by former bears. That is not technique, but scheme. So at the end of the day, I see a very predictable pass rush. Due to the level of talent, our DL can still apply pressure at times, but as it is so predictable, they are not nearly as good as they could be. You say the problem is technique, but I think it is scheme. That doesn't mean cover 2 in general, but "our" scheme. The way our coaches design our plays and coach our players. That is where I see a very real problem. As far as the blitz goes, that is scheme, but it is gambling. On that last drive, I saw plays where we didn't blitz and people were not where they were supposed to be in coverage. I also saw us blitz and it got picked up, and now there are open people cause we gambled and lost. So pick your poison. Agreed that any blitz is a gamble. I would point to the other side of the ball as an example. W/ Rex in the game, I see teams send the house. This will leave a defense exposed, but teams don't believe Rex can take advantage, and thus they blitz the house. W/ Orton, while he gets blitzed, I see far less. I think teams believe Orton is better finding the hot route and recognizing the blitz, and thus the risk is greater. Back to our defense. The problem for me, again, is our blitzes seem to predictable. We have been doing a good job of showing a lot of potential blitzers, hiding who will actually blitz, but still, it seems like it is always an inside blitz. An offense may not know whether it will be Urlacher or Briggs blitzing, but they know it will be inside, and thus they can more easily pick it up. When I have seen us blitz from the outside, it seems like there is a FAR greater level of success. IMHO, it is because it is not expected. If we mixed up our blitzes more, the inside may also be effective, as an offense would not know whether to defend the inside or outside, much less which side. Does that make sense? So I realize any blitz is a risk, but I think we are too preditable in where we blitz from, which is a big factor in why our blitz is so often ineffective. Here is what I see. Despite how good our DEs are, most teams leave their OTs on an island to block our DEs. Our DEs are one trick ponies, and thus easier to defend, which is why an offense can get away w/ solo blocks on the outside. That leaves 3 OL to defend two DTs. Then you add an inside blitz. Because the blitz most always comes from the inside, the RB/FB who is held back for blitz pickup has an easier time, as he knows where he needs to be to block. Contrast this with what our RBs often deal w/. They don't know whether to look outside left, outside right, or up the gut. Any hessitation puts them out of position, and thus pressure on the QB. When a team faces us, the RB can get in front of the QB and doesn't have that level of uncertainty. At the end of the day, whether you want to call it technique or scheme, I think we have a failure on the part of our staff. I think we have talent enough on defense to be a top 5 D, if not better, but our staff holds us back.

What really bothers me is comments out of TB. Now, maybe it is all BS, but as it correlates w/ what we saw.... TBs players are saying our guys looked tired. They said that, late in the game, when they went into their hurry up offense, our guys appeared winded, and when that happens, you are going to see mistakes. When an opponent runs a hurry up, it is far harder to sub our players and use a rotation, but (as you agreed) our starters should have been able to play w/o being winded. There is simply no excuse for the conditioning.

Also, Im not disagreeing about our scheme, I hate it just as much as anyone. I just know we need a pass rush from the front four and were not getting it. Scheme or not. I know you relatively addressed it, but ya, Colvin wasnt even really an example. He was more of a timeframe of the last time we had a consistent pass rusher. Im not saying we need a guy like Colvin specifically. We need a defensive end not an OLB. I combined your two posts here. I fully understand what you are saying, but my point is, I do not believe personnel is the issue, at least not on defense. IMHO, if we drafted Dwight Freeney, he would be an inconsistent pass rusher for us. I watch Freeney (and other great DEs) play, and they simply play different as much as better. If Freeney were in our system, and told to simply attack the edge every time, his speed would allow him to get pressure here and there, but he would be no where near the force he is for Indy. Watch Freeney sometime. Yes, he has incredible burst and quickness, and will use to that beat the OT on the outside, but that is not the only thing he does. He will also use that quickness to get his OT off-balance, and then use a power move to knock the OT backward. He might face an OT 100 lbs heavier, but can over-power him due to getting him off-balance. Also, because the OT will often cheat to the outside against Freeney, Freeney will then use a spin or swim move to get inside position. Now watch our DEs. All they do is attack the outside. You just do not see our DEs work the inside. Now the question may be, is that our DEs or coaching? None of us know the answer to that for a fact, but I simply believe that is coaching. I base this off a couple things. (a) Wale, when in Miami, did use multiple moves. He would work the inside as well as the outside. But since joining the bears, he is an outside rusher. ( The staff has often talked about our scheme, and how we use our DEs to pressure the outside, w/ the idea that our DTs will penetrate and attack the inside. Nice in theory, but I think we have seen the results are very inconsistent. That is why I think it would be a waste to draft another DL player. I think we have the talent to dominate in the trenches, but coaches and scheme hold them back.

So are you saying that our starters are not capable of playing 60 minutes? Not all teams use deep rotations. In fact, many have a group of starters which play the majority of every game. I just don't see that as an excuse. I can understand the D getting tired if the O is going 3 and out every series, and the D is on the field 40 or 60 minutes, but it was quite the opposite. The D was getting plenty of rest on the sidelines as the O was winning (by a large margin) the TOP battle. I know we talk about rotation, but are our players not well enough conditioned that they can play w/o it?

Okay, you are a coach, right? Maybe not NFL, or even NCAA, but a coach none-the-less. So I throw this yout to you. You say the scheme is not a problem, but how about how we play out DEs. I go back to this, and have mentioned it many times. But Idonije said himself we don't stunt. Former bears talked about this. We simply rush our DEs to the outside, w/o ever doing anything different. They talked about how much easier it is for an OT to block a DE when they know exactly what the DE is going to do. Watch Freeney. He has incredible speed, but will also use that speed to get the OT off-balance, and then use an inside swim or power move to beat the OT. Thus, the OT can not over-commit to simply beat Freeney off the edge, as Freeney can use that to beat him inside. In our scheme, we send out DEs wide everytime. If we stunted some, or simply allowed our DEs to use inside moves, they could be far more effective. Every game, I watch our DEs go outside, only to see the OTs push them further outside, and well out of the reach of the QB. Average OTs are able to use the momentum of the DE to take them out of the play. I also question how we blitz. How often do you see Urlacher or Briggs, or anyone, blitz from the outside. It seems like we always send them from the inside. When we do see an outside blitz, it is usually effective, IMHO because it is not the norm, and then not expected, and thus effective. But we rarely see it. So much more often, we blitz inside where offenses keep their extra blockers. Thus our LBs are picked up, and the blitz is negated. Why can't we mix up our blitzes more? So you say our scheme is fine, but I simply disagree. I have no problem w/ your comments that our staff doesn't hold players accountable. But I still think scheme and coaching are a bigger issue.

On the other hand, if some of our WRs (like Davis) can learn to catch the ball, or Orton can avoid fumbles.......

Couldn't disagree more. Sorry, but adding more defensive talent would be a waste. You talk Colvin, and I realize he is just an example, but what would we do w/ Colvin in our system? Doubt much. We have the talent on defense, but not the scheme. Adding more talent to this defense is a waste. We have a DT who is considered an elite pass rusher, but in our scheme? We have two of the best LBs in the game, but does anyone believe they dominate as much as they could? We have a two DEs who have posted double digit sack numbers, and a 3rd that was a pro bowl alternate. We have two near pro bowl CBs. Talent on the defense is not an issue. I swear that if we had Peppers or Jason Taylor or Strahan (in his prime), they would not be close to the level expected. As Jason said, and I have said before, in our scheme, DEs are simply too easy to block, and thus DTs are easier to block as DEs don't require extra protection.

O: Your first line is completely true. No matter the coordinator, no matter the plays,etc...we'll always find something to be upset about. I think that hold true for all positions and not just O. However, I think overall, while I have seen improvment in Turner, it's not enough. I'm basing this on his tenure here (recent, not the Wanny years). TOo often, it's vanilla calls when it shouldn't be, and crazy plays when it shouldn't be. I do think execution is at issue because I feel we are of weak talent on O...but I think most the failure resides with how Turner is utilizing the weak talent. You know your guy can make that throw. Don't make him throw it. I understand what you are saying, and largely agree. I told Jason that I think Turner FAR too often out-thinks himself. Its 3rd and 1. Your RB has been doing well, and that should simply not be a difficult playcall, but Turner starts thinking. He starts thinking about how they are going to load the box, and maybe we should do something different, so he starts thinking alternatives. Why? Your RB has run well, and needs only 1 yard. There just shouldn't be so much to think about. Hand him the ball. But he out-thinks himself. The reasons why I am not "as" on Turner's case: (1) We have screamed for adjustments, and finally I saw it. I saw an adjustment in scheme that led to a great 2nd half from Orton and our offense. Maybe that doesn't negate the rest, but we have been so starving for adjustments, I give him a little extra credit for finally seeing it. (2) I just don't think we have much talent on offense, and yet: we have scored 20, 10 and 23 on offense, we have a ROY candidate in Forte even though our OL stinks, we have a mediocre QB who has not looked awful, and just had a 100 yard WR, which is rare in Chicago. Could we be better? Sure? But I think the talent is lacking on offense, so I tend to give Turner more of a pass than Babich or Lovie, especially as I don't think our O is truly losing games. I think you would agree we should have a top 5 defense. If our D was living up to its hype, would we be 3-0? D: You are right, the durden is on Babich and he is failing miserably. The talent is there...it is not being used properly. Yup, this is where I really bash scheme/coaching. On offense, there is little talent, so I just question how much we should expect. On D though, we are loaded w/ pro bowl players and near pro bowl players. We supposedly have starting grade backups at DE, DT, LB and CB. We also have continuity, as many of our D players are returning veterans. And yet we have allowed a lot of points and yards to very mediocre offenses. Both Carolina and TB were w/o their top playmakers, and yet we still could not capotize. Lovie: I think you know where I stand...and that's in the line to have him fired. I think he is yet another good coordinator that is not HC material. Given the right parameters, Lovie can succed. As a HC, I think he is just not good enough. Too many ppor choices in judgment for his staff, too many penalties, too many players failing in fundamentals (conditioning, tackling), an attitude more infuriating than Belicheck (you get more honesty from a politician than you do Lovie), and the lack of emotion (can he one time get a LITTLE angry at our poor performances?). I don't even believe he was a very good coordinator. When exactly did StL have a great defense? As I recall, they had an elite offense that quickly took a lead, forcing opponents to become one dimensional. Lovie's D were big on turnovers, but gave up a ton of points and yards in the process. StL won a lot of games, but how often did their D shut down opponents. I see Lovie as a network/good 'ol boy hire. Angelo's roots were w/ TB, and he knew Lovie from TB. He hired a guy he knew, and then Lovie brought in his guy (Babich) as well. I just never thought Lovie was a great hire, and still don't see him as a great (or even good) HC. I just fear this club will go nowhere substantial under this coaching regime. We may make a playoff appearance in the next couple years. But I do not see anything beyind a round 1 or wild card loss. This team is just not good enough, nor do I see the pieces in place for it to improve greatly next year. We still need to have a QB waiting in the wings, and as much as I like Hanie...I'm not seeing it. Agreed. We have a GM that can't put together a talented offense, and an OC that doesn't make average players play at a higher level. On the other side of the ball, we are loaded w/ talent, but don't have the coaches or scheme to utilize that talent.

Last year, I screamed for two TE formations. This year, what I really want to see is a 3 TE package. Kellen Davis and Clark play TE off the OTs, while Olsen splits out. Lloyd is our lone WR, w/ Forte in the backfield. Just think about the potential w/ the formation, as well as the matchup problems it would create. (1) Our OL sucks, but we would provide the OL (whether on passing or running downs) w/ two additional/good blockers. (2) W/ Clark and Davis as the inside TEs, that likely puts Olsen on a DB, where he has size and creates a very big matchup problem. (3) Clark and Davis are both solid blockers, but also solid potential receivers. (4) Forte is a solid runner, but also a solid receiving option. (5) Lloyd may be the lone WR, but hasn't he been our lone WR anyway? IMHO, this formation would offer the most potential, both in the run game and passing game. I just don't think we have WRs good enough to keep our TEs on the bench, and the way our OL has looked, we could really use the additional blockers.

Didn't we benefit from the same early in the game? First play of the game, TB is flagged when a TB player (Penn?) shoved Alex Brown when Brown shoved first. 2nd guy gets the flag. That's the way it has always been. Players simply need to show more discipline. We can gripe at the refs, but (a) the defense still allowed us to be in that position ( the D still has plenty of time and field position to make a stand and negate the importance of the call and © players bait each other this way all the time, and the expectation is to not fall for it.

Point is, I think it inconsistent to question the staff for not giving more reps to KJ, while questioning a fan for feeling the same about another player. Davis may be our best blocking TE. He is also our biggest (6'7) and had probably the best hands in camp. I don't think anyone is saying he should start, but only that he should be getting into the action. Do you not agree he would be a greater asset in the red zone than 5'9 Rashied Davis, or our other 6' and under WRs?

I agree in general on offense. While there are many things I would like to see different, I simply think too many fans expect too much from our offense, considering the flat lack of talent on that side of the ball. I disagree on defense though. We won the TOP battle in the 1st half nearly 2-1. It was a little better than 19-11 TOP edge for the bears. And it isn't like we simply began going 3 and out after that. Orton threw a TD to make it 24-14. It was a 6 play, 3:30 minute drive that went 50+ yards. On the next series, our defense started at the 20, and in great field position, but then allowed a 12 play 63 yard drive to put TB w/in one score. We went 3 and out, as we tried (and failed) to run out the clock, but the D still had plenty of rest, especially w/ the TOs TB took and the 2 minute warning. Regardless, they allowed an 11 play, 80 yard TD drive. Sorry, but no way the D can blame the O. O provided the D w/ great rest in the midst of a major TOP edge. A two score lead, w/ not a ton of time on the clock. And the D was never in bad field position to start a drive. Add in our D facing a very mediocre offense, and there are simply no excuses left.

But the coaches put the players into position. For example, Harris (and the whole DL) if they are not allowed to rush the passer in more non-expected ways, it makes their job a lot harder. I agree the players have not done enough, but also simply question the coaching/scheme which puts them in position. I just can't help but watch other teams (likely Phily) and wonder what out players would be capable of in their systems, under their coaching.