nfoligno

For me, the key in your comment is when you say "offense." I can see Cutler having more passing yards. That is a near given w/ Martz. But just because you have more passing yards doesn't mean your "offense" is really improved. If your run game is less, that takes away from the passing yards. If you continue to throw picks and/or struggle to score points, that too takes away. I think we will have more passing yards, but fear most other areas actually get worse, and thus the offense as a whole declines.

and probably study the playbook a bit more. And here is a key area of concern for me. Hester has struggled to learn the playbook, considered a fairly common and simple one, in a couple years time. I don't question him overall as a WR, nor do I question his playmaking ability, but if he struggled to find a comfort level in the past playbook, what can we really expect now that he not only has to learn a new playbook, but a scheme so different that instead of words, you have numbers. Bennett struggled to learn the playbook his first year, though he seemed to develop his 2nd. Top pick Iglesias (pre reports) struggled also w/ the playbook. Knox did well, but was also only asked to learn a part of the playbook. No clue w/ DA, but he has zero experience in the sort of system he will now have to play. And how about Olsen, who is yet another player not exactly known for his football/playbook smarts. We have talent at WR, but I have not heard many compliment our receivers "smarts". They will now have to learn a VERY different scheme, and don't have a lot of time to do it. I think some may adapt, but I can easily see Hester taking a step back this year. I am not bashing him like Terra. I think Hester can be a good WR. Not a stud #1, but a good WR who offers big play potential. At the same time, I struggle to see him quickly adjusting to a vastly new scheme.

Passing: 4,150 About 500 more yards than this past year. Martz aggressive scheme and playcalling wil lift the yardage numbers, as will the emergence (IMHO) of DA. Below what he had in Denver, but as much as I might like our receivers, we do not have Marchall/Royal. Passing TDs: 20. Few than he had this year, but I think, especially in the red zone, we will struggle. Both he and the receivers have to learn a drastically new system where even the terminology is totally different (from words to numbers). Then factor in our playing what looks like one hell of a tough schedule, and I see fewer scores. Ints: 27 This is a big concern of mine. More than in the past, passes will be thrown based on where a WR "should" be. When the QB and WR are not on the same page, such passes often lead to increased turnorvers. Further, I think our D will suck, which will once again put Cutler in a situation where he likely feels the need to be more aggressive and force throws. Finally, I think he will throw the ball more than 600 times, which will lead to more picks. Completion % - 58% As I said, I just fear Cutler and the WRs will struggle to get on the same page and show chemistry in such a drastically new system. Few called our WRs the smartest group to begin with, and to ask so many young WRs who were just developed in one system to learn a totally new system may be asking a bit too much. QB and WR not being on the same page leads to passes that are off the mark. Long - 95 There will be a lot of lows, but also some really big highs, and I think we will see Cutler connect a couple times on DEEP balls. Sacks - 50 Here is the other area I am really worried. I do not trust Angelo to truly upgrade our OL. Even though I think our OL finished stronger, and I like Tice, I still see a lot of problems. Though Tice is in charge of the OL, Martz likes to call protection schemes, and I read he often loves to leave his OTs on islands and avoids chip blocks. Then throw in the liklihood of our using far more 5 and 7 step drops, and I see Cutler potentially getting killed. Martz has not had much by way of mobile QBs, and while that is true, he also has not shown that he will move the pocket. Until he does so, I have to believe he will have Cutler sitting in the pocket, but unlike this year, he will also be asking Cutler to hold the ball longer, which is going to lead to more sacks. Martz likes counts on the TE to block, which ours can not. Martz requires the OL to hold their blocks longer, which our can not. Finally, throw in our being a pass happy scheme, and I see defenses simply teeing off and attacking the hell out of Cutler. There are going to be some highlight reel plays to get fans excited, and I think we will see more pass yards. Unfortunately, I don't think that will often enough translate to scores, and fear it will more often lead to picks and sacks, not to mention losses.

No question it is all about Ws, but I think most would agree that interceptions often make it difficult to rack up those Ws. Sure, being more familiar w/ his WRs is going to help. At the same time though, both he and the WRs will be working in a very different scheme, thus much of that familiarity could go out the window. One of the big reported positives about the QB coach from GB (though I never wanted him) was how he managed to keep Farve aggressive, while reducing the turnovers. Martz however gets QBs to play aggressive, but they also appear to throw more picks than TDs.

Regarding Martz this year, one huge stat that concerns me is Cutler's picks. If Cutler continues to toss picks, I really fear it affecting him mentally. While QBs under Martz in Det and SF put up more passing yards, at the same time, they also threw a bunch of picks. Cutler took a lot of crap this past year for the number of picks he threw. Some were no his fault, but some were, and regardless, he took massive crap for the large number of picks tossed. What happens under Martz. If Cutler throws for a ton of yards under Martz, great, but if he at the same time throws a ton of picks, could that not be more of a negative than the big yardage be a positive?

One aspect I am not sure I agree w/ is that Harry and Turner were so tied at the hip. I know Turner brought Harry into the fold, but I honestly have not read that many stories talking about their being BFFs. On the other hand, you have Lovie and his BFF Babich, and after two failed seasons, Babich found himself demoted. Sure, we can talk about his maintaining the DC title for a year, but everyone knows he was demoted, and this year he loses the title along w/ duties. If Lovie could do this to his BFF, I really do not think there would be so great of an issue w/ Turner/Harry. Also, Turner really has no say. Its one thing when you are talking about back in the day when Jauron stood up to Angelo for his buddy Shoop, or even recent with Lovie standing up for Babich, but in those situations, you are talking about the HC taking a stand. The OC has no power or control over his assistants.

It's called the "ole" system. I read we were looking at bringing Pace back in as an assistant OL coach to help teach this technique and then realized our OL are already well experienced in such a system.

This is going to get rip. I say this knowing such full well. But I honestly wonder if we would not have been just as well off keeping Turner for this coming season. You hear it over and over again. Hell, Turner has preached it of late. It takes time for an offense to gell. We entered the season w/ very high expectations due to a QB unlike most of us living Bear fans can recall. It was soon obvious though how lacking our offense was. We had a pro bowl QB who struggled w/ the playcalling, decision making and showed little chemistry w/ his players. We had an OL that saw 3 out of 5 new faces, 2 of which were very green still in terms of starting. We had a WR corp which may have talent, but little in the way of polish. And a RB which looked great as a rookie, but had to run behind "that" OL and did so (recently reported) while struggling w/ injury. Yet as the season came to an end, it could be argued that positive signs were seen. Cutler finished the year on a very high, positive note. I think Vegas would have put strong odd against Cutler finishing the year w/ more TDs than picks, but that is what he did w/ a 7-1 ration to end the year. It was an up and down season, but one that also finished pretty strong. The OL would never be mistaken for having played well. However, the change of the OTs was pretty big. Pace was just God-awful, while Williams finally looked to settle in at LT. On the other side, Shaffer was no pro bowler, but an upgrade over Williams RT play. Omiyale started out as one of the worse OL I have personally ever seen, but finished the year on a fairly positive note. Few are going to argue even the final product was anything special, but they did show improved play, development and chemistry. At WR, wow was that a young and untested group. However, Bennett had a nice enough season, and the emergence of DA gave fans something to really be hopeful about. I can't help but wonder if simply allowing Turner, along w/ the player, more time may have seen some of the improved play we all want. On the other hand, we now have a new OC, who will bring a very different scheme. Cutler will now play for yet another OC, and yet another scheme. While most would say it takes time to learn and develop into a new scheme, time is not on Cutler or Martz' side. Similar, we have a young group of WR who will also have to learn a new, and often considered complet scheme, and lets not pretend our WRs are known for their smarts. No question in my mind the OL and QB coaching changes were necessary. I was all for the Turner firing, but in hindsight, I honestly can't help but wonder if we would not have been better of simply sticking w/ Turner. New systems rarely hit the track running, and most often need time to develop. We just don't have that time. If things were different, some might argue we take a step back in order to take 3 forward, but w/ likely only one year to prove themselves, that step back wil be the final step. Few here liked Turner, and I was (especially at the end) outspoken against him. At the same time, I can't help but wonder if we would not have been better off simply sticking w/ him. If this is likely the final year for our staff, chemistry and continuity may have been better than throwing out the entire offensive scheme and trying to start from scratch.

What if: if and buts were candy and nuts, it would be Christmas all year long. Sorry to pee in your flavored kool-aid. Everyone seems to be getting on board w/ Martz, though there did not seem to be nearly so much positive feedback on the idea of his hire before it actually happened. Regardless, I just can't get too excited.

But you know we are not going to be looking outside the box. My only positive is that he has been with Indy, which may run the cover two, has done more to tweak it. I think that is what most hope for. No one expects us to dump the cover two, but the hope is we do a better job of tweaking it as a team like Indy has done.

IMHO, those stats are a tad deceptive. Faulk was awesome, and due to his incredible 5.5 ypc avg, their rushing totals were not bad at all, but that doesn't necessarily indicate how much they actually ran the ball. 1999 Faulk had 253 carries, and the Rams backs had a total of 400 carries, which ranked them 17th in the leauge in rushing attempts, compared to their 530 pass attempts. 2000 Faulk again had 253 carries, while the Rams had 340, ranking 26th in the league, vs 587 attempts. 2001 Faulk had 260 carries w/ a team total of 390, ranking 22nd v 551 pass attempts. Now, this may not surprise many as this was a passing offense, but at the same time, consider how often they had a big league, and how early they had such a league, and yet they continued to pass the ball. Due to Faulk, and his great ypc avg, their overall rushing totals were solid, but when you look at their attempts, they were between middle of the pack and low in terms of attempts.

Got it. I guess my bigger concern also is w/ the OL over the QB or WR fits. When we want to go w/ quick strike, I question whether our WRs have developed the release or route running. But the problem is, on the 5 and 7 dorps, I see Cutler getting killed. I am very concerned about the role of the TE. Is it only coincidence that once Martz left, Vernon Davis became an absolute stud? The TE just does not seem to be part of his scheme. Maybe he will try and force it to be a part, but I fear Olsen simply will not develop w/ Martz, which is truly unfortunate as he may be our most skilled ball catcher. I know you have said, and I have read others who said, maybe Martz will learn from past mistakes, but Martz just doesn't strike me as the type. Many will be on board w/ this hiring simply because fans are so tired of the same ol same ol. To me, this is like when we hired Crowton. Everyone was so excited about an attack style offense, but that sure didn't work out. Sure, we can say we have a much better QB, but the OL sucks, and I just fear such a system could damage as much or more than it could help. I also fear such a system will make our OL look even worse. When you have a pass happy offense, defenses can tee off on the QB w/ little fear from a run game that is rarely called upon. That just puts more pressure on an OL that isn't very good to begin with.

Why do you think Cutler would be a great fit. Just asking. In Stl, they seemed to work more w/ shorter routes where the WR would be hit in stride and then gain a ton of yardage. It seemed more often like a quick strike offense. Is that getting the most out of his arm strength. Also, Martz has never utilized a mobile QB. Some will argue he never had one, but my question is, would he try to move the pocket? This has never been part of his offense, and yet is considered one of Cutler's strengths also. Can Cutler run Martz offense. I am sure he could. But I am not so sure he is a perfect fit, nor am I sure Martz' offense would best utilize his strengths. I also question whether that offense is a great fit for our WRs. Two things our WRs have never proven great at are (a) getting quick separation and ( running precise routes. These are two essential aspects in Martz system. OL - As you said, his system really relies on a solid OL. In Det, he did not have a good OL, and he nearly got the QB killed. Kitna, I think, led the league in sacks, and also had a ton of interceptions, much of which you have to believe was due to the pressure he faced. RB - The other concern is the run game. In Det, while Kitza was putting up big numbers, Det never even tried to run the ball. They had a very lopsided pass to run ratio, and I think passes for every two times. That puts even more pressure on the OL, and further, becomes very difficult to rely on later in the season as the weather gets bad, which Martz has not really had to deal w/ as he had two indoor teams and another warm weather team.

Devils advocate You said he was in a great situation (coaches) in Denver, and we didn't really hear much about his being a baby or whatever, but when would you? When does a baby cry? When they don't get their way. If he was in a good situation, liked and agreed w/ what was happening, then it was likely to happily go along with it. On the other hand, if he is not happy, maybe thus begins the baby discussions. IMHO it has FAR more to do w/ the way he acts than any actual attitude. I have heard Aikman and many others talk about it. Frankly, it is stupid to believe he simply doesn't care. If he didn't care, I think we would have seen him throwing the ball out of bounds rather than sitting in the pocket and taking so many hits. He cares, but when he is in front on the camera, he doesn't relfect that very well, and thus the media gets on him. As for the rest, I really think it gets pretty over-blown. How does what he did compare to a rookie telling a team not to take him. Didn't a couple QBs do that, including Elway and Manning. He didn't seem to care for the playcalling, but did he air the dirty laundry, so to speak? Often you hear QBs flat out call out the coaches. He may not have had a great relationship w/ the coaches, but I don't recall him calling them out. IMHO, the combination of bad body language w/ gets interpreted as not caring, combined w/ the manner in which he departed Denver has created a bad image. Frankly, the best way to change that image is to win. Once that happens, I don't think we will hear many talk about him being a baby or whatever.

Sorry, but I don't want to spend big on anyone based on the assumption that Marinelli can movtive them. Isn't that what everyone said would happen w/ Marinelli and Tommie Harris? Or Marinelli and Marcus Harrison? I don't think either appeared very motivated.

Just to throw it out there. The last time, at least reported, that Angelo and Lovie disagreed on who to hire was when Lovie first got the job and wanted Babich to come over as his DC, but Angelo refused and essentially hired Rivera, despite Lovie's feelings. I think Angelo's choice was slightly better.

You nailed it: his system has never worked without once-in-a-lifetime talent. Actually then, he is a perfect fit as we have a HC who has tried to re-create a defense that only truly worked when it had the one-in-a-lifetime assortment of talent in TB.

If Martz is hired, and I think he'll be strongly encouraged to listen to Mike Tice and the running game. If Martz didn't care to listen to his last two head coaches (Singletary and Marinelli) regarding the run game, what makes you think he will listen to his OL coach?

Why do you like R.Davis? I understand why you, and I even, liked him some years ago. Then, we were weak at the top of the WR depth, much less lower. Then, he was actually one of our better WRs. Also, "then" he was probably our top special teams player. But how much of that is true today? IMHO, Davis was not even a very good special teams player last year. How often did you hear about him making plays? In fact, I said the same the previous year too. His special teams play seemed to drop in 2008. Many felt that was due to his playing a larger role on the offense, but in 2009, he didn't have a role on offense, and his special teams play was still weak. IMHO, both he and Adrain Peterson developed great reps on special teams, but I would argue they have been living off those reps for a couple years now as each has been average at best. As for his receiving, frankly, we had enough trouble spreading around enough reps for our current group of WRs. I would much rather give that spot to a player who may actually help our offense, rather than simply another special teams body. It would be one thing if his special teams play were still at a high level, but I just do not believe it is anymore. Players like AP and Davis really have to play special teams at a high level to warrant their value on the roster. As said as it may be, but when their special teams play begins to slip, their value slips 10 fold.

Simply speaking as to last year, he was slapped with the franchise tag, so I am not sure it correct to simply say we had no interest. Besides a massive contract, last year he would have also cost two #1s.

Honestly though, how many teams do you think could make the exact same argument? Four other NFC teams had a record better than ours, but didn't make the playoffs. You don't think those teams had a few close games too. And for them, they would only need one or maybe two additional wins to have been a playoff team. In the AFC, a total of 6 teams had a record as good or better than ours and didn't make the playoffs. Again, I am sure they had a couple games that were close. This past year was not even as bad as the prior. In 2008, we could have been a playoff team if we won our last game, against a beatable Houston Texans team. But we lost and were out of the playoffs. Good teams win those games. Bad teams say, "shoulda, coulda woulda"

Jason, You love to throw out the big passing yardage totals, but seriously, so what. Unless we are talking FF, and looking at picking up some Bears, so what. Is Cutler putting up 4,000 yards really that important? Those teams also saw more interceptions than passing tds. They ignored the run game. And in the end, though the passing yards were high, the rushing yards were low, and that means the overall offense was not special. His offenses look good only if you look at them in a very narrow way (passing yardage). When you look at the whole, those offenses really prove to be lacking.

First we are complaining we are scrapping the bottom of the barrel interviewing OCs that have limited experience or credentials then we are complaining about interviewing an OC that certainly has a good resume just because, I assume, he has ties to Lovie. Does having an association with Lovie automatically disqualify you for a position with the Bears? I don't think that is remotely the case here. Fewell had the Lovie tie, and yet most seemed to be on board w/ him. I have read many negative posts on Martz, and made a few myself, and his ties to Lovie are rarely mentioned. The concern is how his system fits w/ our personnel, and whether he could actually do more damage (long term) to our players than if we just played it safe. If he tries to run the greatest show on earth here he will fail. We all know that. However, I would like to think he is smart enough to adapt his offense to what talent he has around him. I would like to think that if the Bears brought in Tice for the OL it means we still want to play smash mouth football on offense. You say you would like to think he is smart enough.... but I think history may show otherwise. Since leaving Stl, he has continued to try to run the same offense. In Det, for example, he did help Kitna throw for a lot of yards, but also a ton of picks and ignored the run game in the process. In SF, probably their most talent weapon was the TE, and he was an afterthought in Martz system. Martz has a system, and in two offenses since leaving Stl, he has seemed to continue trying to force that system into place, regardless of the talent he had. As for the Tice aspect, that is a concern too. In both Det and SF, he fought w/ the HC who wanted to run the ball more, and he all but told Marinelli and Singletary to kiss his arce. I do not know if we will hire this guy or not. I would like to wait until after the SB and try and interview some candidates from those two teams. However, if we wait, then the Bears (according to many) are inept because they have taken too long. One. Who in the SB do you like. I have heard about the TE coach for NO and the WR coach for Indy, and neither impress me much. Two. Blame our own people, who had a press conference talking about how coaches would line up for a job w/ the Bears, only to see candidate after candidate turn us down. Guess there is not a damn thing the Bears management can do at this point to satisfy anyone, short of a total house cleaning, which will not happen, so we might as well stop thinking about that until we see what happens in the 2010 season. Really? Go back and read the thread about Chud. Seems like if we had been able to hire him, many fans would have been pretty happy, yet we were not impressed with him. I remember some liking Zampese too, but we were too slow and the window closed. Point here is, there have been names who would have made fans happy, so I disagree w/ your statement. But the team dragged their feet, and now look at the recent talks. Martz is a guy who said he wanted the job all along. If we wanted him, it would have been day quickly, but I think it very reasonable to argue he was down on our list, and yet we are now interviewing him. And after little talk about DC, where are we? Trying to coax Marinelli to accept the position he previously said he didn't want. Why exactly should we be satisified by this?

The team could actually be improved and still end up 6-10, so I get the point, but no, I would not be satisified.

Personally, I would like to look at it optimistically. Its hard, but I'll try. Offense W/ the right coach, I think this could be a very good offense. OL was improved simply w/ the changes to the OTs late in the season. Add Tice and a new OL, and we could actually have a decent OL, which I still believe was the cause of many problems. I believe we saw considerable development from our receivers, and further believe that will only continue. If we can bring in a better coach than Turner, this could be a damn good offense. Defense Totally understand your skepticism here, but... If Urlacher and Pisa can return and stay healthy, that alone makes a big difference IMHO for the defense. Bowman was a 1st time starter, and will enter the season w/ more experience. At the end of the day, I do not expect this D to be great, or even good, but the return of Urlacher alone could make them better. As for the coach, while Lovie is still the HC, I still argue Rivera proved you can coach under Lovie, and in his system, and see results. We need a coach who is a better play caller and does a better job making adjustments. So w/ the right coaching in place, do I believe this team could be improved? Yes. Do I believe we will find that better coaching? Um, no. The other aspect, back to skepticism, is our schedule. It is hard to know this early, but we have one hell of a tough schedule for next year. One article even pointed to the schedule as a deterent for getting coaches to come here as there is the expectation we have to have a very good year for coaches to keep their job, and that is made only more difficult due to our schedule. Frankly, right now, I think our situation next year could be such that Det passes us in the standings. If there is football in 2011, the good news is we SHOULD have a new coaching staff and a high draft pick. But it is hard to get excited even about that thought as it is so far away.