nfoligno

I absolutely blame Drake. No, he doesn't have great talent to work with, but what really bothers me is we see WR fail in the same areas they seemingly have always struggled with. Our WRs don't get separation. They body catch rather than with their hands. They suck getting off press coverage. They rarely use their body well to shield the defender, often allowing the defender to have as good of position as the WR. I have said for years our coaching at WR sucks. So many things like those listed above are considered coachable, but for us, they are areas we struggle year after year.

This last game, he did have time to throw, but while there were exceptions, they would show the replay and the receivers were covered or dropped the ball. Sure, some passes were off the mark. Sure, you can question too the routes, scheme, playcalling. At the same time, our WRs still struggle to get separation. They catch with their body rather than their hands. They were alligator arming several passes. I personally believe a chunk of the blame goes to Drake, the WR coach, but at the same time, I also think there is ample reason to point to the lack of any playmaking/go to WRs as hurting this offense. As for Moss, last I heard he was retired and said no to a couple teams who made unofficial phone calls.

Lovie's scheme, but don't forget, Marinelli comes from the same scheme. I think Marinelli can take plenty of the fall here.

LOL. My list? Every coach on our team except Toub. I'd also clean house with our college scouts. Our NFL scouts seem to do okay, but just take a look at our drafts. Angelo takes the fall, but I think our scouts have to be factored. I don't have the issue with Phillips as some do. His job is the business side, and I don't think it can be argued he has done well in that regard. We have more money, and spend more, than ever before, and that is largely thanks to him. What we need is a total house cleaning on the football side, GM and all below. Again, I like toub and would keep him, but that's about it.

One. I'd argue Forte would want to stick because (a) as bad as the system is, most would agree he is a good fit. Sorry, but there are many systems he simply is a poor fit. As much love as he gets, he isn't a power runner. In a system that utilizes him as a receiver, he excels, but many systems want their RBs to run the ball, and in this regard, I think he is closer than not to average. Sorry, but there are RBs out there that make their OLs look good. Forte is a RB that needs a good OL to look good. ( Money. Sorry again, but I think his market value is simply not going to be as great as he, and some here, believe. How many thought teams would throw the farm at Briggs, only to see Briggs tuck tail and return to the team he said he would never again play for. That's because as good as he is, he over-estimated his market value. Two. Sure, every team out there has hits and misses, but our hits have simply been too few. Further, too few of our hits have been pro bowl caliber players. We talk about this okay player or that okay player, but how many studs has Angelo drafted? You get away with misses with hits, but when you have a lot of misses, you better have bigger hits, and Angelo's studs are in the minority. DL - For all the DL he drafted, who would you call a stud? Harris was the closest, and that was short lived. LB - Briggs, then...... DB - Tillman, who is very good but not a stud. After him, anyone? And there have been many many DBs drafted. OL - Not one stud. Heck, not even one I would say is a solid starter. RB - Several - one area I have given him credit for evaluation. QB - Um.... WR - A few nice players, but would you go further. TE - Um, nope again. Where are the studs? In so many years of drafting, should we expect a few more pro bowl quality players?

You've got to be kidding. I was bashing Angelo when most everyone else was still just happy to have a GM. Even then I argued Hatley was better, and did more without the newly opened purse strings Angelo has had access too. Angelo is a total freaking joke. I can't stand him. I will give him credit that he has had hits at RB. To argue otherwise, IMHO, would make me look too biased and filled with hate to even admit when something works. Can't do it. So I'll give him credit on the one or two areas he has done well, but that doesn't mean I like him. He is crab and A#1 in my "get rid of" wish list which runs deep.

That's what I thought too. In the end, what do you want to bet that if Cutler didn't want to join the bears, all he had to do was tell the bears he had no intention of re-signing with them, and that he planned to test FA. Bears would not then trade for him. But he (a) wanted out of Denver and ( IMHO, knew/had a deal with the bears to re-do his contract.

re - Beson - Who was respnsible for putting a coaching staff in order? JA! Beside the point when the discussion was simply about evaluating RBs. re- Jones - Knowing when to retain a guy is almost as important as bringing him in. Hindsight makes it near impossible to argue, and more than a few even then didn't like the move, but I always understood it. TJ didn't excel prior to our drafting Benson. We had a shot at a player who was considered an elite RB prospect, and took him. There were many issues in the locker room, and it was obvious we could not keep both backs. Benson was the player we invested in. Not often in this situation would you see a team trade a top 5 pick after a year or two in favor of a journeymen RB. So while I realize how it looks in hindsight, I think there was understandable logic then. Whatever handful of positives the guy has cannot be outweighed by the freighter-load of negatives. Come on Mad. You know I am on the leadership board of the Fire Angelo club, and have been since, well, forever. But if you have to give credit where it's due, and Angelo has done pretty well in terms of evaluating/ acquiring RB talent.

Fine, but I'd rather focus my anger/energy on that which we have a chance to do something about.

Didn't we have a new contract agreed to before trading for him?

Not so sure. Players go where the money is. Period. How often have we seen a player go to a team that simply made no sense simply because they offered the most money. The always talk about wanted a good fit, or talk about their families and homes, or whatever. In the end, players choose the money. They often later regret their decision, but it doesn't stop the next FA from making the same stupid choices.

Here's the problem I have with that piece. Aikman played on an offense with a top tier OL, a top tier run game, and top tier weapons. Elsewhere it was noted a reason we don't allow audibles is because we have numerous routes/options build into each playcall. I'd argue the problem is/can be that with limited protection, you only really have one or two options on most downs. If you are needing to wait on/look to your 3rd or 4th options, you are likely getting pressured already. Further, how many of those "options" are downfield. Plays that take time to develop, and thus not likely to work when you have protection break downs. It isn't that the system is bad. I argue the system is bad for this personnel. When your OL struggles, you need plays to compensate.

Not sure what quote you read, but there is actually quite a bit out there that says Martz doesn't allow audibles, and further, they manner in which I have read Cutler's comments sure sound like a player frustrated at the lack of ability to call audibles.

Agreed Alaska, I better understood the hate against ownership when the team was in fact super cheap. We could get away with being cheap back in the day before FA. Halas was well known as being among the cheapest in football. But then came FA, and teams who spent simply did better. Players went for the big signing bonuses and upfront money, which we would not fork over, and thus we didn't get the top tier FA. But those days have changed. For the last decade, this ownership has shelled out money in line with the big boys. I think it started with Brockemeyer, and has continued down the line with the likes of Peppers. They don't all pan out, but the team can't be called cheap today as we once did. Further, I remember a time when we went a long stretch w/o a GM. Fans screamed to get a GM in here. No more "VP of player personnel" like Hatley. They wanted a man in charge, and got one. Sure, you can blame ownership because Angelo/Lovie et al still have jobs, but I don't buy the ownership hate. Look around the league. There are some really really bad owners out there. You should hear the Jerry Jones hate here in Dallas. Snyder in Wash. Should I even mention Oakland? Even the Rooneys in Pitt, while mostley loved, often get hate because they are simply so cheap. Like no team I know of, they lose quality players in FA because they are too cheap to pay them. So I don't hate on our ownership like some. Maybe because I don't live in Chicago, I've seen how bad owners are around the league. To me, a big problem is, too many times we are at a deciding point in terms of coach/gm, only to see them have a good season. Thus we continue with the status quo. How often have we seen the team do well in the coaches final season, or a year when they are on the chopping block, only to be re-signed, whether it be Jaroun or Lovie. Ditto Angelo. I want to clean house. I have NEVER liked Angelo, and think he, not ownership, is out #1 problem. Get a new GM, and let that GM hire a new coaching staff. For those who say ownership will never pull the trigger, let me ask this. Were you also in the group that said we would never eat part of Jauron's contract? We were part of the group that said this ownership wouldn't hire a GM? Were you in the group that said we would never get the big name FAs because we were too cheap? It may not always be on our time line, but that doesn't mean our ownership won't make the changes we want/hope to see.

I won't blame ownership. Sorry, but if you look around the league, many teams have total shit ownership. And the funny thing is (in a sad way) so many of their fan bases make the same comments about not winning with their ownership. Sure, you can blame ownership because they haven't fired everyone. But I prefer to focus on the "everyone". The one good thing about how bad we look "might" be we could finally get changed so many of us have hoped for.

Perception. Totally understand how you are looking at this. However, you can look at it from another angle. I'm an Angelo hater, but.... A-Train - He wasn't special. He was a good RB, in the right system, with a pretty good OL. As the OL slipped, so did he. What happened to him after Chicago? Benson - Benson is a head case. Not sure anyone could even argue this point. However, from a talent evaluation point of view, he's been a pretty solid NFL RB. Just not with us. First year after leaving Chicago he has 750 yards in 12 games, followed by 1,250 and 1,100. And lets not pretend Cincy has either a good OL or offense in general. Angelo gave the team a RB who has proven he can play in the NFL, but our coaching staff was incapable of getting as much out of him as another team. Thomas Jones - Who brought Jones to the team? Yes, knock for sending him away, but again, in terms of bringing in talent, he did he part. Forte - we have not been able to re-sign him, but (a) you have to give credit to Angelo for drafting Forte, ( I still question whether Forte is worth the coin he wants and © we have done pretty well in the past re-signing players. Some like Briggs, place an inflated value on their worth, but later find few other takers. IMHO, RB is actually one of the few areas Angelo has a pretty good record. Even players like Bell and some others who were pure depth chart proved productive. I think the fault lies more in our coaching staff. Angelo's and the OL is an entirely different story.

LOL Ya'll missing the point. I'm not defending Angelo. I'm saying in his mind, he likely thinks he did a lot, just like Martz likely thinks he ran the ball enough.

I'd say it's relative. Would you not agree that Angelo did as much in this offseason as he has in probably any other. I mean, drafting an OT in the 1st AND signing a FA. Sure, that FA wasn't a stud, but was a potential starter. You know full well I would have done so much more, but in Angelo's mind, I'm sure he does think he has done soooo much. I mean, our norm would be to draft a guy in the 6th or 7th round. So a 1st round pick and a FA? Yea, in Angelo world that is massive

I have a friend who is both a bears fan and in the sports media. He is definitely an insider, at least in so far as media guys go. He sent us some comments about Martz. For the record, he has in the past been a Martz advocate, so he is not biased on this. - Martz was told during the game to run the ball more but he refused. Lovie has since "read Martz the riot act, both about the play calling and ignoring Lovie's instructions in game. Some around Halas are saying that if things don't change, Martz could actually be fired in the bye week. Wow. If true, that is really shocking. While I still have a hard time believing we would fire Martz mid-season (a) if it is true Martz is blowing off Lovie during the game, it is far more possible and ( despite the negatives mentioned, that we have other assistants with experience may give the team confidence to pull the trigger. Personally, I think Martz will in fact again change and run the ball. We saw him do it last year. We will see it again this year. - Another problem he pointed out was the blocking, but a bit different from the normal talk. He said there has been an issue of the OL blocking for a 5 step drop and Cutler dropping 7 (this is just an example). I was not clear from the way he talked about it (in email) whether the issue is Cutler simply dropping outside the blocking scheme, the OL calling for blocking scheme that differs from the offensive playcall, or what. I'll follow up with him. Anyway, I am not saying all of the above is fact. So take it for what you will, but as said, he is in sports media, and while now in Dallas, used to be located in Chicago and still has many ties there.

Too bad opposing DL's don't listen to Angelo when he says, "lets not beat up on the OL"

Some counter points. One. While most of our runs were bad, at the same time, there were some good ones as well. How big of a run was Forte's 40+ yarder? Sure, we saw a number of zero or even negative yard runs, but we did in fact also have the big run. If you totally abandon the run, there is no chance for that big pop. Two. While I won't pretend Cutler wasn't pressured or hit when we were running the ball, I will say he wasn't getting sacked, and the pressure was not as great as later in the game. Even if the runs are not working well, the simple fact that we are running the ball prevents defenses from simply teeing off on Cutler. Three. Besides simply saying "we need to run more" I think it should also be pointed out how we run. As was already mentioned, we were seeing more success running to the outside. In part, due to their DL playing so aggressive, they tend to more often take themselves out of position for outside runs. Further, the more you run to the outside, the more you make the DEs hesitate or alter their attack. Doing this benefits Cutler when he does throw the ball. Four. We have talked for years about this, but there are other things you can do to help the QB when he is getting beat up due to poor blocking. Many of us, especially after the first game, thought we would see some of these changes, but this last game seemed to throw away everything we knew. 4a - What was with the empty backfields? I mean, your 5 OL are struggling. The defense is adding rushers via blitz. Do we counter by adding extra OL? Hell no. How about using those big TEs more to block, or keep the RB in the backfield to help protect. We signed that big FB. Use him to block more. Sure, it's such a nice thought to have loads of weapons running routes, but if the QB is on his arse, how beneficial are those extra targets. 4b - In game one, we saw loads of short, quick step drops. Lots of quick slants and short hooks. In this last game, while Forte was used as a hot read, our WRs were working further downfield. Once again we saw a situation unfold where receivers are still running downfield with their backs to the QB when the QB is on the ground. What happened to the quick routes? 4c - In Denver, Cutler excelled in roll outs. In rolling out (planned roll outs, not just a scramble) you are moving the pocket and making it more difficult for the defense. By holding Cutler in the pocket, the defense knows exactly where their target will be. If you roll him out, the defense has to respect this and can't take the same line of attack every down. But no. We keep Cutler restrained to an area and let defenses tee off on him. 4d - How about some delayed handoffs. The defense was totally thinking pass all the way. Taking the snap and acting like pass only furthers the belief. How about some delayed handoffs? 4e - Why do we continue to put out TE on an island against DEs? Sure, we got a big TE that can block, but the best blocking TEs are still usually a mismatch for average pass rushing DEs. Rather than putting the TE on an island, why not have him help out the struggling OT? Our RT was awful. Can't the TE line up there and help? Why do we continue to put players in position to fail? So I argue that yes, we should have run the ball more, even if it wasn't always working. I argue that we needed to call smarter runs, rather than simply more. Further, I argue that when we did pass, we were setting players up to fail. Blame the players for poor blocking or missing assignments. Fine. Yet what is the point of a coach if you aren't going to try and adapt. We saw NO defense destroying Cutler, but rather than do anything about it, once again the staff simply tells the players to do better. I think the most shocking aspect of all this is that all our offseason moves seemed to imply we would run the ball more. We added a big blocking TE. We added a big blocking FB. Why are these guys running pass routes rather than blocking?

Frankly, this staff has never been much for in game adjustments. I remember Lovie was quetioned once and talked about how difficult it is to make in game adjustments after spending a week working on plays/scheme. That was also when he would basically say the fault was on the players. The scheme is fine. The system is fine. Players simply need to do a better job with in. I guess in a way that is true. If the OL does their job, the rest should work. BUT the job of the coach is to make changes and adjustments when certain areas falter, rather than simply say, "come on guys, do a better job, please"

Agreed. It would be one thing if we had an OC waiting in the wings, but we don't. Even then, if that new OC had a very different playbook, it would still likely be counter productive. At the same time, I think Lovie needs to immediately have another sit down with Martz, if he hasn't already, like he did last year. I think Lovie waited too long last year to do this, and feel he needs to get it done sooner.

OL sucked, but I think we were too quick to give up on the run. You have to at least try, and we didn't. 10 total carries for Forte. I think one for Bell. Shit. Did we even have a carry in the 2nd half. Rip the OL. You know I will. But are you helping the OL when you pass every down. Also, how many empty backfields did we see. If your OL are struggling to block, wouldn't it make sense to put in an extra blocker rather? I am fine ripping the OL, but to me, the coaches are just as much to blame. They didn't put the players in a great situation today

Agreed. Just too many unknowns. A player goes down with injury can be attributed to too many different things. Player rolled over him, hard tackle. Whatever. Unless it's a situation where there was a pre-existing injury that came back up (which I think you could argue would happen otherwise), I just don't think you can make the argument. You can even make the similar case for production. A player may leave us and look great elsewhere. That doesn't mean he would have been great if he stayed. Or vice/versa.