nfoligno

But is one really that much better than the other? If they did know, why would they not have done the surgury earlier. As said w/ Idonije, we are talking about his being out of commission for a few weeks. Or how about just giving him added breathers in practice, or lessening the load during games.

The Cover 2 still works, you just have to be creative with it and have good personnel. Can that not be said of any scheme? But there in lies the problem. We did not have the right personnel (as you said) and yet didn't alter what we did. We continued to get killed on 3rd and long, and yet continued to do the same thing. You say the cover 2 still works but you have to be (a) creative and ( have the right personnel. Going w/ "b" first. Even if Urlacher did not go down w/ injury, do we have the right personnel? Don't most cover two schemes have great pass rushing DLs? Indy has Freeney, not to mention Mathis. Minny has Allen. What do we have. But beyond the DL, do we have the secondary? In particular, don't most cover two D's have a very good FS? I don't think, even if healthy, we have the personnel to play the cover two, and to me, that means we should be adapting our scheme more to fit the personnel. As for point "a" this is a huge issue of mine, and a key reason why I feel our D has tanked since Rivera. Say what you will about him, but he simply did more in terms of creativity. He would mix it up more between man coverage and zone. He was more creative in blitzes, rather than simply always seeming to send Urlacher up the gut. I think overall, our D was simply less predictable. Compare that to last year when we always seemed to do the same damn thing based on situations, which just made the job of the offense easier. I agree a change in coaching can help point A, but I am not sure we are close to having the right personnel to satisify point B. We do not have an elite pass rusher. Even if Harris returns to his old form, which I think is highly doubtful, has Brown ever proven capable of taking advantage? We don't even know who our LDE will be, but I am not sure how optimistic we should be that we will have a great pass rusher from that side. And next to Harris, what great pass rusher do you see. We simply don't have a great pass rushing DL, and that is the first problem, and a big one. In the secondary, we lack a FS. It is a nice thought to believe we will find one in the offseason, but w/o a high draft pick and a very limited FA, not to mention in Angelo's 8 years, he has never found one, how optimistic should we be? Overall, I do believe talk of cover two is widely over-rated, as we just don't play it that much. At least, not nearly as much as so many talk about. But to me, it is more about the general scheme rather than specifically saying cover two. We play mostly zone defense, but most reports I recall on Bowman considered him best as a man coverage guy. I think the same could be true of tillman. Further, while there is more risk involved, playing zone (especially starting way off the LOS) only exasperates an ineffective pass rush as QBs find quick, easy targets. If you play more man and press coverage, you take away the quick stuff and force the QB to hold the ball longer, which could lead to more pressures.

Does anyone else have a slight problem with this? For most of the season, as Forte was struggling, all I heard from Forte and the staff was how he was healthy, even saying 100% at one point. No injuries. No problems. After a few games, many on this board began to first ask, and later to flat out declare, that he could not be healthy, but our staff continued to say he was 100%. Hell, at one point I even said we would hear about something exactly like this after the season was over. And sure enough... There are some injuries to players that if you report them, you could pin a target on that player. Is Forte's injury really one though? Either way, are we not required by the league to report injuries? Really though, legal technicalities aside, here is my question. Did the staff know? If so, why was Forte's injury not dealt w/ sooner. I read Idonije had the same thing, had surgery and was back after two games. Would it not be better to miss Forte for 2 games and then get him healthy, rather than continue to watch his 3.5 slow plodding games? Heck, even if we didn't choose surgury, why not limit him more? Limit him in practice, as well as games some. And before anyone says maybe we did, I would point out that such a move does in fact trigger the injury report. If a player is limited in practice and not on the injury report at all, that teams could suffer penalties and fines. If the staff did not know, is that not an even more alarming issue? It just seems like we go through this every year. Last year I believe it was Tait. He freaking sucked, but after the season, we read about how he played all year injured. Year before, Muhamad had to have surgury or something, and it was talked about how he played injured all year. Or how about Reuben Brown, who essentially played w/ one arm. I don't know what is going on, but does something not seem off? If our players are so hurt as to so drastically alter performance, why continue to practice/play them as if they were 100%. And if the staff doesn't know about these injuries, is not that an even more alarming issue?

Also known as the Bend AND Break defense.

Regarding your first point, I would say this. I agree there if it appears there will be a lockout, Lovie will not be fired. At the same time, I think fans are not really making that an issue is because it really won't matter. If there is a lockout, it doesn't matter who our coach will be. Also, I while I think most fully expect a non-capped season due to the lack of a CBA extension, I think most fans also struggle to believe either side, much less both, will truly kill the golden eggs producing goose. There will be plenty of fighting and puffing up of the chests, but when it comes down to it, I think most simply believe a deal will ultimately get done, and therefor most fans offer opinions under the expectation there will be football in 2011. And like I said, if there isn't, it really doesn't matter who our coach is. As for the 2nd part, I am sure teams are taking a bit of a wait and see approach to how much money they will have to spend, but at the same time, I think that will have a greater affect on FA signings, both in money and lenth. You can hire an entire coaching staff for the cost of one big FA signing bonus. With that said, it was a consideration of mine, and thus why I said I think our ownership is not likely to sign a coordinator to a 4 or 5 year deal right now. That is why I think any assistants we hire now to fill our holes will likely be signed to one or two year deals.

Yes, I get that. Whoever we hire will not be pressed to be such a pure cover 2 guy, like Babich after Rivera. Whoever comes in will likely have room to tweak this and that. At the same time, I still have questions in terms of game planning and such. When Rivera was here (going off reports and not facts) Lovie and Rivera would talk game plan, and that is where much of their disagreements would take place. Rivera would look at an offense and believe "x" scheme would work best, while Lovie would disagree. From what I read, an example (detail) would be man coverage. There were times Rivera wanted to play more man, but Lovie felt zone was best. That is the sort of thing I wonder about. How much will Lovie be involved. Involved is actually the wrong term. How much freedom will Lovie allow? I talked in another post about how there are some teams out there that use the cover two, but have simply done far more to adapt it. I have also said much of our problem is not necessarily that we run a cover two (which is only maybe 35%) of the time, but more when we choose to run it, and how predictable we were in that regard. When we got another team into 3rd and long, they flat out knew we would drop into a cover two and that simply made it much easier for offenses to attack us in that situation. Honestly though, my greater reason for pessimism on defense is about talent. I just don't see it anymore. With Urlacher back, I really like our LBs, but thats about it. We are between average and below average along the DL. CB situation is both questionable among starters and thin in terms of depth. FS situation is a hole we have tried for a long time to fill, but have failed. Even w/ the right coaching, honestly, I question how far this defense can go. I do have a great deal of optimism for our offense, especially if we can upgrade the OL, but simply not so much on the defensive side.

Brad, You can send me a check directly. I didn't actually win anything, but I will accept your check all the same

Actually, I am not even sure which defenses in the playoffs run the cover two. Colts - The most obvious cover two defense, but this is not your daddy's (or Lovie's) cover two. http://www.suntimes.com/sports/mulligan/19...mully23.article Dungy and Meeks had begun tweaking elements of the defense last season, when the Bears were faking the inside blitz with Brian Urlacher and Lance Briggs and getting beaten in the middle of the field.....Coyer, who was a coach at Iowa when Colts coach Jim Caldwell was a defensive-backs assistant there, has done more than simply tweak the cover-2; he has turned it into an aggressive, attacking scheme and abandoned it completely at times. The Colts are as likely to bring a safety into the box and play more man coverage on the outside or use more selective blitzing to keep opponents off-balance. There are still struggles on third down, but at least the Colts are in attack mode instead of sitting back in cover-2 and hoping to prevent big plays. Minny - Will use the cover two, but also do more, much much more. The defensive scheme the Vikings try to deploy consists of a hybrid of the base 4-3/cover-2 defense. You will occasionally see a nickel package on third downs if it is 3rd and short. Ted Cotrell, the defensive coordinator, has a much more agressive style than the DCs of the past. That's why you see more sacks this year than last, and I will only assume they get better as they mature and work together. Similar comments have been made about Minny as with Indy. While the background of their D is the cover two, they have simply done so much more to adapt this scheme, and like w/ Indy, they have created a hybrid using a very aggressive back 7 w/ LBs attacking and CBs stacking. NO - Greg Williams took over the D, and once again, you find an aggressive, attack minded scheme. Not sure this is even considered a cover two. NYJ - Far from the cover two under Mr. Ryan. When you read about the current defenses that are linked to the cover two, the key word I always read is "aggressive". That doesn't just mean you expect the DL to penetrate and drop everyone else back, but you blitz, and mix up your blitzes. You press your coverage. These defenses may at times be called a cover two, but they are far removed from the version we run. They are runnings Windows 7 while Lovie is still stuck on Windows 3. What is the feeling most get w/ our scheme. Bend and Break. We actually mix it up some, but seemingly w/o fail, when we get a team into 3rd and long situations, we drop everyone back into that traditional cover two, and are torn apart, thus why we were among the league leaders in giving up 3rd and long downs. Hell, it may not even be so bad if we "sometimes" played like that on 3rd and long, but because we always do, offenses knew what to expect and knew how to attack.

A pair of young receivers did step up (Collie/Garcon) but make no mistake, that offense was all about Wayne and Clark, each of whom had 100 catches. Again, its easy to look good when you have Payton Manning throwing you the ball. I believe your right about Christensen having been a playcaller. His bio says he was the OC in TB for one year (2001) before joining Indy as their WR coach. Still, that doesn't do it for me. IMHO, the key reason we would be looking at him is more about Dungy than his actual ability.

I think we will enter the draft/ FA looking for either a RT or OG. If we add a RT, we will have Beekman and Omiyale compete at OG, which many comments from the staff about how Omiyale looked better at the end of the year and claim he needed time to develop. If we add an OG, we will shift Omiyale to RT and have him compete with Shaffer, talking about that being Omiyale's natural position. A blocking FB is a great thought, but for whatever reason, our staff seems to love McKie.

Fine with me. I have about zero interest in him. W/ a QB like Manning, it is no shock Wrs develop or look good. That is what a franchise QB can do for a team, and even more so when talking about a QB like Manning. Look at Minny. Should their WR coach get the credit for Rice suddenly looking like an NFL player, or was it more about the QB? And seriously, how many WRs have developed in Indy. Harrison was their for so long. Wayne developed into a stud, but has any other WR really developed so well as to make the WR coach stand up and take a bow. Add in the lack of playcallig experience, and I just never was thrilled w/ the idea of our looking at him.

Indy isn't really a cover two anymore. I have read numerous articles talking about the changes they have made. They may be somewhat of a cover two, but the articles I have read went into lengthy discussion how much they have altered their defense. Similar can be said of most cover two defenses out there. Few today run a scheme that closely resembles what TB did back in the day. That scheme has been figured out for the most part, and teams have adapted. Lovie hasn't. I don't know what the teams in the playoffs call their schemes, but when I watch them, I don't see them run anything close to what I see in Chicago. Further, and I have said this before, it is a bit of a falsehood to simply say we run the cover two. Most all reports state we are in the cover two only, maybe, 35% of the time. The key is more when we shift into the cover two (3rd and long) and the overall playcalling. That, IMHO, is where both Babich and Lovie failed so miserably.

First, regarding previous post, if all we are doing is prep work for the eventual OC, fine. But what if we hire a TE coach first? I bet that will not change your opinion. As for the Rivera comments below, I am sorry, but how in the world can you even make that argument. Harris was a hell of a player that year, but I think you are making him out to be a bit more than he was. Hell, I think Harris was actually better the following year, or at least, the early part of it. Harris was damn good in our SB season. But our defense went from top 5 to bottom 5. Harris was not that good. Understand, I don't personally think Rivera is some Defensive genius. We had a pretty damn good group of players on that D. But I absolutely do give Rivera a lot of credit. He did a better job managing games and playcalling. After he left, our defense didn't just begin to go downhill, it totally tanked. Suddenly, most all those pro bowl or upper tier players looked like duds. They often looked lost on defense and just seemed out of position. Part of that was Rivera, though I think a big part of that was also going from a good DC in Rivera to an awful DC in Babich. By the time Lovie took over, the talent was diminished, and frankly, his playcalling didn't help either. I would also point out after the SB season, we let our DL coach walk, and our DL has been between below average and just plain bad since. Rivera has done well since leaving the bears, which I think helps his case. SD has suffered their share of injuries, like we and everyone, but SD often points to adjustments Rivera has made to compensate as being a main factor why their defense has continued to do well. I can undestand if you want to argue Rivera is not some defensive genius, but I don't see an argument that he was not a huge reason why our D was so good then. Harris was great, but not nearly what I think you are making him out to be, and definitely not so great as to be the difference between a top 5 and bottom 5 defense.

While I believe ownership knows Lovie is out if they don't make the playoffs, they aren't going to go into this approach with the perception that Lovie is gone. If they thought they wouldn't be able to make the playoffs next year, than Lovie wouldn't be here (I realize Money is an issue and I believe it might have been what ultimately saved his job) but I also have to think the Bears also believe Lovie can win and that is why they brought him back and they fully expect him to do so. You (Ownership) can't plan based upon failure, yes they should have contingency plans, but they need to go out and do everything they can to ensure this team will win and I expect them to do that. I think you need to share the koolaid. It isn't that I believe ownership is going to intentionally cripple Lovie, but at the same time, nor do I see them sinking a ton of money into a team when there is already talk of blowing it up. Lets say you are talking about selling your house. It's old and you are feeling like you may have outgrown it. You still like it, and have not made a firm decision, but the thought is in your head. Are you likely to go out and sign a 2nd mortgage when thought of moving have already entered your head? IMHO, if there is a coach out there who demands a long term, or expensive deal, we are simply going to hire someone else. Hiring Tice was a good step and if Frazier wanted to come to the Bears you will need to offer him a longer deal. And if people say he's taking over for Lovie, I'd say, we needed to make a competitive offer and we did. Lovie is our head football coach and he has full faith in Frazier who will run the defense. I honestly do not understand why Frazier's name keeps coming up. Minny seems very happy with him. We would not be offering him a promotion of any kind, and I don't care what the contract he signs would be, our situation is flat out unstable, while his situation in Minny would be near rock solid, or as close as you can get in the NFL. Now add in scheme and all the rest of the mess. There is just no reason for him to come here. More general though, I almost had to laugh. Our staff can say what they want, but how much trust do you think is out there right now? When our guys said money played no factor in our keeping Lovie, you believed it? If they were to hire a "hot" candidate to a deal that had double the remaining years as Lovie, who's only connection to hot is the seat he is on, there isn't a media source out there which would not talk about how we just hired Lovie's replacement. You think angelo or Phillips telling the press different would make one bit of difference? They would be laughed at. And you might argue perception doesn't mean squat, I would strongly disagree. I have seen it here in Dallas. Washington had in this past year. In a situation like that, you find players begin to side w/ the heir apparant over the HC because, well, they aren't stupid. I'd have a bigger issue if you hired someone like Martz who was a former HC. Plus, lets be honest, if we fire Lovie, they won't just hand the job to Frazier, they will look at a lot of candidates. Frankly, I would argue if they hired Martz, there would not be much fear as they would not just hand the job to him. But if they did in fact go after, and did what it took to sign Frazier, then yes, I think the plan would be for him to simply replace Lovie. Frankly, such promises are all that "might" convince Frazier to come here.

Call me a hater. I just don't think much of Smith. Period. I guess he may offer the least damage as a "pure figure head" but at the same time, i question if that is what we truly will get. Even when Rivera was here, (a) I think Lovie was really pushing harder and harder for Rivera to do things his way, and that is before the power shift of the SB and ( simply put, we had a lot more talent then than we do today. Lovie is no longer going to be the DC, nor is he going to simply have his BFF running the D. At the same time, he has flat said we would run his scheme, defended his scheme, and I find it hard to believe he will simply assume the role of figure head and not meddle too much. Add this this a talent base on defense that seems to be going straight downhill, and i just have very low expectations for our defense. I do have higher expectations for our offense, especially if we can hire Chud. In my eyes, we have the QB, RB, WRs and TE(s). What we lack is OL, and Williams move to LT could go a long way toward the improvement there. The addition of Tice will also help, and will (hopefully) a new addition to the OL. Now throw in an improved scheme and playcalling, and I believe we could have a very solid or even good offense. I just don't have much faith in the D though.

Two things. One, I see a problem going down that route. You are flat out hiring an assistant coach to a deal running longer than a HC who is already on the hot seat. Regardless of intention, the perception will be that you have just hired Lovie's replacement, and then the media is going to go to town. A signing that was intended and expected to be a positive very quickly turns into a huge negative, at least in terms of PR. Two, Regardless, I don't see this happening. I think our ownership knows full well the chances of Lovie (and everyone) being cleaned out if we have another season. They are not going to want to (a) pay top dollar for a coach when they may have to eat the contract in a year and ( sign a coach to a long term deal for the same reason. The owners may be okay w/ eating one year. We are talking about assistant who just don't usually make nearly as much money. But I don't see them shelling out the big bucks, nor the long term deals, for an assistant right now.

That anything else is what you have in Dallas. Wade Phillips was a laughingstock of a coach one year ago. Heck, even through much of the season, few thought much of him. Fans around here were counting the days until the end of the season, upon which his contract would expire and the team could move on, whether with Jason (Red Jesus) Garrett or someone else. Then Dallas finishes the season strong and even wins a playoff game. Now, not only has Jerry Jones already said he would pick up the one year option for Wade, but is also talking about a multi-year contract extension. Huh? I know the team finsihed well and won a postseason game, but 6 weeks ago most wanted him on the firing line. Talk about love hate. Further, while the staf is not as shiny, most still love Garrett. Garrett actually turned down HC opportunities in recent years as he was expected to get the Dallas HC role. If Wade is extended for 3 years (or whatever) that would be an ultimate slap at Garrett, and he would likely bolt first chance he gets. Anyway, that is the current joke for Chicago, that we do just well enough to get in the playoffs and Lovie gets and extension, but a joke many are afraid could come true.

I would think these coaches would be offered 2 year deals, which would match theirs w/ Lovies.

Pix, I get all the humor and fun, but IMHO there is a bit more to this. No, none of this is unprecedented. At the same time, it is also far from the norm. We, as an organization, are not exactly known for our great decision making over the years. In fact, I think many would consider it closer to bumbling than not. Perception is a big deal as few want to join an organization w/ a bad reputation. I am saying doing something like hiring Tice before the OC is hires is or was wrong? Nope. In fact, I had wanted to hire Alex Gibbs prior to our hiring our OC (an idea I was actually criticized for as we didn't have an OC in place). But now we read we are interviewing a TE coach too. I could understand Tice. He was someone likely in demand. But I have not heard this TE coach's name a ton. While not wait and allow the new OC to at least sit in on the interviews and offer an opinion. Look, if either the bears or Lovie had a great track record, I don't think anyone would think twice about this. But Lovie has not exactly done a great job in hiring staff, and I think it very fair to not only question his decision making, but in particuarly his decision making for our offense.

Really, none of this matters as they will all be gone after 2010.

So no WCO? I am not saying Lovie is flat out ignorant of the offense. I am sure he does have an idea, very broad, what he wants, but at the same time, I would rather someone who knows offense more than passing provide input and advice as to who we hire for position coaches on offense. It seems obvious relationships, and feeling comfortable w/ those you work with, is a huge part of coaching. Thus why he tries to surround himself w/ those he knows and trusts. Should our OC not have the same opportunity? I am not saying we hire chud, or whoever, and just hire then whoever he wants. But I do think you allow him some say. We have hired our OL coach and are in the process of interviewing a TE coach. We have retained our RB coach and WR coach. Do we allow the OC input into the QB coach, or just stick w/ what we have been doing and leave him out of the process. Look, I don't want to make this a huge deal. I didn't have an issue w/ hiring Tice. But to me, that is an exception, and not the rule. While I would never say we have to strictly follow the norm, I do however question looking to hire an offensive staff before hiring an OC.

And regarding hiring OL coach before OC; it is the way the HC most loud Bears fans want did it. Mike Singletary hired the 49ers OL coach before he hired an OC. Who? Jimmy Raye was hired Jan '09. Their Ol coach is Foerster, who was on the offense under previous OC (Martz). Foerster was a co-OL coach in '08, and the bio states he became the solo OL coach 8 games into that season. Maybe his contract was extended, or maybe it was up and he was re-signed, but either way, he was on the team already and in the same role, so I would not say Singletary hired an OL coach before OC. This situation seems little different than how we are keeping Drake on w/o knowing who our OC will be.

In the case of the TE coach, Tice is probably going to have a better read on who is a good TE coach than our OC would. Sorry, but I think this is an awful reason. Tice is not the OC. If we wanted him making hires, then we should have hired him to be our OC. One. It is all-together possible whoever we end up hiring knows TEs as well. If we hire Chud, for example, I think he might offer even better TE insight then tice. Regardless, it is wrong to assume (though I realize you use the word propbably) Tice will know more about the TE position than our next OC. Two. With the above aside, I don't care. If the OC wants Tice's opinion, great. But I think it very questionable practice to hire a position coach, then start using his feedback to make the rest of your choices. This is a great reason why you hire starting at the top and moving your way down.

Unprecedented? No, not even close. Abnormal? Yes. Even the former NFL guys said hiring position coaches w/o the coordinator is definitely not the not. It isn't unheard of, and isn't necessarily the end of the world either. But the explanation given why it isn't that great of an issue, IMHO, caters more to if Lovie were hiring a defensive position coach w/o a DC in place. The explanation had been about how the HC has his system and plan, and thus hiring a position coach before the coordinator isn't a big deal as it all fits within the plan. IMHO, Lovie does not have a "plan" on offense. He will hire someone w/ a plan, but other than saying we get off the bus running (even when we pass far more) he has no plan. That is why I question making such moves.

But how enamored do you think Turner is w/ Cutler? Seems most reports questioned the relationship between these two. I am sure Turner knew there was a good chance he would be a scapegoat. But at the same time, don't you think Turner is likely to claim the failures of the offense were related to problems other than him? Maybe over the years he has complained to his brother about the lack of talent Angelo brought in, or the players he may have been pushed to play. Who knows. But it isn't just Turner. Ron Rivera is w/ SD, and has been working w/ Chud. Don't you think Chud might ask Rivera for his opinion of the team, staff, ownership? Do you think Rivera has glowing things to say about Lovie and Angelo? Don Johnson was our DL coach during our SB run, and he too was shown the door after. Wilks was our DB coach, right? These three were part of what made our D successful, and all were pushed out the door in favor of Lovie's friends. Hard to imagine their having great things to say about Lovie. Now, even with all this, that doesn't mean Chud would base his decision on this. Point is, it sure isn't going to help.