nfoligno

I'll be honest. While I am in general a ND fan, I am not a big enough fan to really follow the team. I realize that many coaches simply get in over the heads after success at one level, only to see failure at a higher level. My question with regard to Charlie though is this. Is he really that great of an OC, or was he simply part of a great system?

While I do not want to even appear I am giving Cutler a pass, because I am not, I do agree the majority of our problem is coaching. For a while now I have heard media guys point out how much this team lacks an identity, especially on offense. Are we Lovie's team, which wants to win with defense and the run game, or Cutler's team which airs it out? And before any comment about the "media", the media I am referring to is made up of former players, coaches and GMs. It is painful put Cutler in an offense that doesn't spread it out. I realize the need to keep extra blockers back, but lets be honest, that extra protection really isn't doing that much, and I would argue extra weapons would be a far greater asset. We have no go-to player on offense. We have talent, but just no single stud to rely on. That means we can not just send 2 or maybe 3 options into the field and expect them all to get open. We need to spread it out more and give Cutler greater opportunities. Again, I am not saying Cutler isn't having issues. But I am saying that I believe our coaching staff has pushed Cutler toward many of those issues, and done little to help.

As already said, I also recall him out there on a few running plays, but overall don't recall seeing him that much. In fact, it was an in-game gripe of mine, not necessarily that he specifically was not playing, but how often we were using only two WRs. Which reminds me. I keep reading that our OL played better in this game. Hogwash. We were in max protect a ton. Doing such does give Cutler a tad bit more time, maybe, but at the same time, it also takes away from his potential targets. I want to see us doing the opposite. Spread it out and give him more weapons to work with. Back to Aromashadu, the other thing to consider is, he is likely not high in terms of reads. If DA is the 4th or 5th read when he does get in there for a passing play, and Cutler is pressured by the 2nd read, there are not going to be many opportunities for DA. Not unless plays are called with him more in mind, rather than as an afterthought.

Honestly, I am not even high on Lovie as simply a HC. Even if we look past the playcalling, do you think our team looks prepared in games? I don't. As for the idea of a new DC, w/ new schemes, that is my hope too. My fear though is whether or not Lovie will allow that. Not the new coach. He was essentially forced to take on Rivera when he didn't want him. No, my concern is that, like w/ Rivera, Lovie will force any new DC to run the same scheme. My hope is Angelo will step in, but my concern is Lovie just will not be willing.

The ideal would be to fire Angelo and everyone down. That ideal is very unlikely though. So, if Lovie and Angelo are safe, can anything be improved? We just fired/changed basically every coaching level on defense. I think the same could happen next year on offense. Turner is gone, and with him, so are the position coaches. Okay, that is something discussed, but what if this happened, while at the same time, Angelo forces Lovie to (a) hire a new DC and ( not simply another cover 2 yes man. I am not saying Rivera, but I am saying something like that. It doesn't mean we could never play cover 2, but at least have a DC that better understands other schemes and could mix things up better. Further, a DC who can better adapt the scheme to the players, rather than forcing players to the scheme. Sure, we all want Angelo and Love gone. That could come at some point, but if we are stuck w/ those two for at least another year, the hope is we could see enough other changes to have an affect. My concerns though is this. What sort of coach are we going to get to run the offense or defense when most around the league are going to view Lovie as being on the hot seat. The upper tier are not coming here. Not even the top thought of assistants. My fear is, if we try to fire everyone under Lovie, we will struggle to find quality coaches willing to take a job under a lame duck coach.

One. You ask what the role of the President is. I would answer by saying it is different for each team. Some teams, the President is also the owner. Some teams the president is also the GM. Some teams, the pres is like Ted Phillips, more hands off, allowing the GM to run the operations. And some teams have a structurel more like the one you describe. But the point is, there are different models, and no one model is right, nor wrong. How about the New England Patriots. Who is their Team President? Johathan Kraft, who is also the president of the larger Kraft Group. He is what I believe you would call a bean counter. In fact, if you read his bio, one of the top things he is credited for is negotiating the new Patriots stadium. How about another successful NFL team. The Steelers are owned by Dan Rooney, and the president is Arthur Rooney. Oh yea, and the VP is Arthur Rooney, Jr. I am sure you would be happy if our team followed this successful model and kept all upper management in the family. Again, the point is, there are more than one model. IMHO, the problem is not the structure, but those in the structure. You can point to Ted, but I would argue other NFL teams (successful ones) also have a "bean counter" in the role of president. The greater issue, IMHO, is who is under him. I have no issue w/ a non-football guy being the president, so long as he doesn't try to meddle in the football affairs, which brings me to the 2nd point. Two. How much do you want the prez to be involved over the GM? If you had a prez very involved in the football operations, does that not limit the role of the GM? Would we be able to get an upper tier GM if he felt he would not have full authority, and would have a meddling boss? Finally, you said, "as far as wishing for good management, is mikey the sword of damacles to keep us in mediocrity because if we want what is good for the franchise we are threatened with this troglodyte?" Nice quote, but we live in reality. In reality, yes, it is likely that Mikey, or maybe another family member, would be the prez if Ted were fired. You want to argue, but that is simply reality. No, I am not saying it as fact, but I think it very likely, and logical. The family likes and trusts Ted. In fact, I have read many articles talking about how a key reason the family has allowed as much spending as they have is their trust in Ted. This is an ownership that is simply not likely to fire Ted, and hire a stranger, and give him full authority. In saying I would like to keep Ted and fire everyone below, I (IMHO) am keeping the argument is some level of reality. Sure, I would love for new ownership, and many more changes, but why waste my breath if those options are simply not on the table.

I can read lips. "Tough Loss Jay. You know. For a while, I really wanted to play for the Bears too. Thank God Phily didn't cave to my demands the way Denver caved to yours, otherwise I might be the one in Chicago running for my life and throwing dozens of picks."

I guess I just think that is nice in theory, but who is going to hire this great football mind. Oh yea. A non-football mind. For most any team, at some point, it is a non-football mind that hires a top football mind. An owner (non-football mind) hires a new team president who is. Or maybe the owner is also the prez, and hires a GM. Point is, at some point, you are going to have a non-football mind doing the hiring. Does everyone not realize that if we can Ted, Mikey is then doing the hiring? In what world is that what we want? Keep Ted, but fire everyone else.

For the record, the offense was terrible. I realize that. But I am getting tired of this D getting a pass, or some saying they played well. Maybe if we compare this game to the cincy or Az games, then sure, they played well. But only if we set the bar that low. On the ground, this unit should be embarrassed. Yet another week where a RB puts up season best numbers. Hell, KC did a better job holding McCoy than we. I am sure Lovie will crow about holding McCoy under 100 yards since he only had 99. Oh yea. And a 5 ypc avg. And we gave up a total of 157 rushing yards on the day. D.Jackson has not gone for 100 yards since week 3, but found little trouble against us. Collinsworth talked about something last night that we have all talked about for years now. Seemingly, everytime we got them in 3rd and long, we would blitz, but also drop our DBs way back. Collins talked about how, when you are sending a blitz, you need to pump the WR and hinder his route. You can not simply give the WR a wide open space, thus giving the QB an easy bailout and negativing the blitz. I can't recall if it was Jackson or Maclin, but it was 3rd and long, and we blitzed, and Bowman was deeper than I had ever seen us use a DB, and that's pretty deep. Not only was the 3rd and long completed, but it was sad how wide open the WR was and how easy it looked. We are one of the worst 3rd down defense units in the league, and last night was no exception as we allowed 7 of 15 3rd downs converted, many of which were 3rd and long. Phily had 2 TDs, and 17 total points, going into the final quarter. There alone, i would not say our D played that great. But then our D allowed a 5:30 minutes, 65 yard, TD drive. That is the sort of series a good D makes a stop. An average D holds them to a FG. A bad D gives up the TD. Next time D was on the field, they allowed a crucial 3rd down conversion, leaving minimal time and no timeouts for the offense. Look. I am not excusing the O. They played like shit and everyone knows it. I also credit the D for some nice plays and some nice turnovers. But no way do they not share in the blame for this loss. You do not give up 24 points and say the D played well. This unit may be good enough to make some good plays here and there, but are not consistent enough to be considered good, or even average. When a performance like this leads to many saying the D played well, or even pretty well, that tells me just how far our D has fallen.

I have no problem with Ted Phillips. Phillips is not a football guy, but so what. He knows he is not a football guy, and doesn't try to meddle in the football affairs. He hired a "football guy" and signs the checks. Everyone knows the new stadium was basically Phillips, but personally, I don't think he gets enough credit even for that. Not only did he get the new stadium, but he was able to negotiate better terms than previous as well. As I understand it, the Bears now get the profits from concessions, which was not previously the case. I think maybe parking too. Those used to go to the City, but now go to us. Further, since Phillips took over, the spending went way up. Even before the new stadium, and even before Angelo, Phillips forced open the McCackey pocket books. Phillips has to get a ton of credit for that. Look, I am not saying he isn't replacable. He is a bean-counter and not a football guy. But (a) I just don't think he has screwed up and ( the reality is, the family loves him, and they are not likely to fire him and replace him w/ a stranger. Be careful. Be very careful what you wish for. If Phillips is fired, I think the chances are better than not his replacement would have McCaskey in their name, whether it be Mikey or another in the family. Frankly, I am thankful to have Ted in there as he creates a sort of buffer between the family.

I don't have a huge problem w/ Gilbert, but was not high on either Melton or Moore. While I realize DL is a position that takes time to develop, you only make the situation more extreme when you draft a VERY raw rookie. Melton started out as a RB, and then switched to DL. It is hard enough to develop kids who has played 4 years of college at one position, much less one who has less than two full seasons after a position switch. As for Moore, I would point out two things. One, CBs often develop quicker as rookies than DL, as you see rookies starting all over the place. Two, size is something we lack in the secondary, thus I was never on board w/ drafting a CB who is considered small, even in comparison to our current group.

Our coaching is so bad that, at one point, Collinsworth made a comment basically saying we were better off w/ Cutler calling the plays. This is not to excuse Cutler from missing the WRs, but Collinsworth pointed out that on several of those plays where the WRs were wide open, they came on plays where Cutler made the playcall from the huddle, rather than from the sideline.

You've got to be kidding me. Hell yes.

First, let me just point out that I have said this piece is a joke, and the writer offers little of value, though the snow storm/Mikey story was interesting. With that said.... He thinks that giving out team information to the media puts him at a competitive disadvantage. I don't know if he's right or wrong, but I'm glad he's making that decision based on what he thinks is best for his football team, not on what the writers at the Trib and the Sun-Times would prefer. His job (and Angelo's, and all the players') is to win, not to make nice to guys like Palmer. but you are taking Lovie at his word here. You honestly believe that Lovie believes he needs to skip an interview, and that is the difference between his being able to prepare his team and not? Further, I would ask how our up coming game affects Angelo, who also declined the interview. If the Lovie said no player would be made available, as he wanted them to keep their focus on the game, I could better understand. Hell, while I think it a bit more of a stretch, if Lovie felt he was in the same position as the players, and couldn't afford to lose focus, fine. But I just do not understand how this argument flys when the team's GM declines the interview. The same thing goes for this blackout. The explanation they gave was that everybody in the organization, players and coaches alike, needs to focus on winning against Philly, rather than explaining themselves to the media. THAT'S TRUE. The Bears' playoff chances are infinitesimal at this point, but I'm pretty sure a loss on Sunday would mathematically eliminate them. If ignoring the media means that the Bears win some games, then I hope the Bears black out the media every week of the season, and guys like Palmer, Telander, and Rosenbloom can write all the stupid diatribes they want. Again, how does the team needing to focus on Phily matter one bit when it comes to Angelo? What exactly is Angelo doing that is so crucial to our game this weekend?

Usually when you draft a RB in the 3rd round, he spends a huge part of camp working on offense, but Wolfe's key role in that first camp was on special teams. I remember prior to the draft the staff talking about a upfield return man being a need. I remember after the draft their talking about Wolfe having this ability, and frankly, his scouting reports indicates as much too. And like you said, it wasn't until this year we seemed to really consider him in the plans. When he would play offense, he would simply run the same plays other RBs would have. That's a joke. He is nothing like the other backs on our roster. I just do not believe we ever considered him really as a RB, but more as a specialist. Think about it. We were coming off the SB, and the belief back then (at least at Halas) was most pieces were in place. I think we were looking at what happened in the SB, and what changes we needed to make to put us over the top. Drafting a very narrow scope specialist as high as the 3rd seems nuts, but (a) so did drafting a return specialist in the 2nd and that was key to our SB run and ( if you think you have few needs, then you have more freedom to draft niche players.

While I am under no illusion that Mikey is completely out of the picture, at the same time, I just question how involved he is. Mikey was most involved, and hated, at a time when we lacked a more legit NFL organizational structure. We did not have a GM, and frankly, even the authority given to Hatley was a bit unusual. Mikey was very involved in each and every decision. I just question how involved he is today. Many who just can not let go of the past insist he is the voice behind every negative move. I'm just not buying it. Even reading the piece below seems to move show a lack of involvement. It talks about Phillips going w/ a hiring firm, which found Angelo, rather than Mikey being more directly involved. It talks about how Saban wanted personnel power, which Angelo was not willing to give. It talks about Angelo choosing then Lovie, and we all know Lovie wanted "his guys" Again, no Mikey. While not saying he is totally out of the picture, I just question the way some still have to point back to him for the woes of today. Finally, he says no other high profile GM would want to work for Mikey, but does he really make a case for why? Angelo has not seemed to lack financial resources to compete w/ other teams. I have never heard even rumors that Mikey forces Angelo to draft a player, or sign a player. I question this statement. Further, I would point out there are plenty of other teams that are well known to have far worse situations. In Dallas, Jerry Jones meddling is well known, yet that didn't stop Bill Parcells from taking the job. How about in Wash, where they have been able to get numerous guys in there few would have thought possible. Al Davis gets numerous guys, whether Green or Gruden. Pretty solid guys in Tenn, w/ a flat out nuts owner. Point here is, there are plenty of owners who are very well known to be far more meddling then ours, and yet they are able to hire big names. If you want to say we would not eat Lovie's deal while also handing out massive dollars for a Shanny or whoever. Fine. If you want to say Angelo is not going to hire a coach that wants personnel power. Fine. But to simply say no big name would work for Mikey. I think that is a joke.

Still to this day believe we never viewed Wolfe as an offensive player, but as a special teams guy. At the time of the draft, Hester was all-time as a return specialist, but teams began to squib kick to avoid Hester. We then drafted Wolfe. I read numerous comments about our looking to use Wolfe up front on kickoffs. I think the thinking was, Hester is one of our top weapons, if not our top. By adding Wolfe, the thinking was (IMHO) that you have a player in position to truly hurt teams if they short kick, and force them to choose between kicking off deep to Hester, or short to Wolfe, with either likely to end is a big gain and potential score for us. But, as much as we worked Wolfe during his rookie camp as a return man, he just never looked good. He bobbled the ball and just never showed the ability as a returner many scouts had envisioned. Thus, we were stuck w/ a draft pick who was not viewed as being capable of doing the one, specialized thing we drafted him for. Since then, I think we have tried to work on him as a RB, but that was never the plan, and we have not really seemed to create a plan to either develop or really utilize him.

NFO the one thing the Eagles have in their favor to offset their lack of secondary help is that they get after the QB. They are tied for second in sacks and that poses a terrible match up with our OL Which is why I want to spread it out more and provide Cutler more weapons to work with. I know Phily can get after the QB, and with our pathetic OL, that poses a problem. In my mind, we have little chance of simply protecting Cutler, thus we need to do something else to compensate. As w/ the SF game, running RB screens could work well against their aggressive, blitzing pass rush. Also, as said, rather than try to max protect, which doesn't work since our players can't block, spread it out and give Cutler more weapons and make Phily spread their defense out more, thinning it out, and make them pay for an over-aggressive scheme. As for Philly's O LeSean MCCoy will poses a problem for the Bears as will their underated TE Celek. It isn't that I take away from what McCoy can do. It is simply that when looking at their weapons, he is the lesser of evils, and I make them beat us w/ him, rather than w/ McNabb and Co. The past few games have shown. The best way to stop Phily is to prevent the big plays, which they live off of. This frustrates their offense, as they are not built to sustain long drives. The kill teams w/ one strike plays, rather than grinding it out. If you make them grind it out, they simply have not proven capable of sustaining such drives. And for the record, Calek is not underated by me at least. He was my top FF TE pick, and one I thought would have a very good year. Still, I would rather force Phily to go to Celek and McCoy, who are both solid, but not nearly the killers Maclin and Jackson are. I noticed the Bears played very little Cover 2 last week and wonder if that trend continues against Andy Reid's pass happy offense. How ironic would it be that we finally move away from the scheme we all hate in a time when such a scheme would actually seem a good match against this offense.

Understand. I am not saying I would not love to have a great CB. I am absolutely not saying that I would not love to have a great DL AND at least one great CB. My point is an issue of priority. I think we absolutely have to fix the DL first and foremost. Until that happens, I simply believe a great CB would be essentially wasted. In a perfect would, I would say we upgrade both DL and CB, but in reality (a) we have few draft picks to use and ( we have limited money that will be spent in FA. So, when I look at the more limited resources available, while also factoring the massive needs on the OL, I see less ability to fix both DL and CB. Thus, if I have to choose between upgrading the DL and CB positions, I would first choose to upgrade the DL, then focus after that on the secondary.

What is frustrating is that is seems like every year we hear about how we are having to "dumb down" our playbook. Now, many would point to a player like Hester and say our players are just not smart enough. To an extent, for some players, maybe that is true. But as we have had many players roll in and out of here, and the problems remain the same, I tend to think it falls on those constants rather than the intangibles. For years, our WRs seem to struggle in the following: - solid grasp of playbook, as we so often have heard about the need to "dumb down the playbook" - Ability to beat the press - Ability to gain quicker seperation - Ability/knowledge to breakoff a route and come back to help a QB under pressure - Ability to read defenses and be on the same page w/ the QB, which is greatest seen in hot routes Since Turner and Drake have been here, these are problems which seem to be constants, regardless of the WR. Whether we are talking about a relatively higher round draft pick from a major program or a later pick from a smaller program. Whether we are talking about a 4 year college player or one considered more raw. Basically, across the board, our WRs seem to struggle in these areas which I think has to point to coaching. Look at two of our recent draft picks. Bennett was drafted in the 3rd, and considered a very smart WR. He may not have had elite raw talent, but he was considered a smart player who was likely to quickly pickup the offense, yet we had to burn an entire year developing him before he was considered good enough to get on the field. Iglesias was considered in a similar regard. Iglesias was considered one of the more NFL ready WRs in the draft. He didn't have the ceiling of some others, but was considered a player who could come in an provide an immediate contribution, yet according to our staff, struggled to pickup the offense. I don't know if this falls more on Turner, Drake or both, but when it seems like most every WR we have brought in over the years has struggled in the same areas, while the coaching has remained the constant, I simply think you have to look at the coaching, and their inability to "teach" the young players we add.

Not to be argumentative, but not necessarily. If you have a solid, powerful OL and an inside runner, you can just plow your way upfield. Further, much depends on the QB. At times, we spread it out w/ Rex under center, but the number of weapons didn't always matter when the QB is quickly pressured and without the ability to escape. For some QBs, you should do everything you can to simply maxamize protection and buy as much time as possible, because those QBs may not read the field as well, go through progessions as quickly, or get rid of the ball fast enough. Cutler is one who I think can handle the situation of a spread offense. While he will still be pressured, as he is now, he would have more weapons in route, and thus a greater chance of players getting open.

Read an interesting question in a Q&A. Person said he was a HS football coach, and said he could call pretty much every play Turner called, and didn't even have tape to review prior to a game as the opposing DCs have. Response was interesting, if only in the way they talked about it. Said the best aspect of film review is not necessarily to show what a team will do in a particular down/distance situation, but more what they will not do. For example. If it is 3rd and 8, we may do a couple different things, but in reviewing film, what you can more accuratly do is scratch off the plays we never attempt. In doing this, you really narrow down what plays Turner leaves on the table to run in such a down/distance. You further narrow the scope when you attach plays to allignments. So, when the D see's what formation we come out in, they know the small selection of plays Turner usually runs, making it easier to defend. The person answering said this situation is made worse as Turner lacks a more extensive playbook, so when you narrow down what you can bet will not be run, you are left w/ a very small group of options. It was a long way of saying Turner is predictable, but I liked it in how it was discussed.

I actually agree about McCoy. Especially of late, teams have begun to realize the best way to stop Phily is to put a curtain over the top half of the field and prevent the big play. By doing this, defenses are sure not putting anything extra in the box, and often taking away from it. McCoy has done well w/ his limited number of reps, and if Phily was to try and use him more, good things could result. But until I see them commit to McCoy, I am not going to put too much concern in him. Now, he could torch us the way Az's RBs did, but so be it. The game plan should be to prevent the big plays and not allow McNabb and Co to beat us deep.

But it isn't like the team refusing an interview w/ some local media guy. Bob Costas is simply on another level. Costas is not someone who has been bashing the team, or would "sucker" them in an interview. Sorry, but other than Tom Brady, no one this year has refused an interview w/ Costas. Brady has done enough that you just sort of shrug. What the hell have the bears done? Everyone rips Cutler questioning his leadership. Many ask if he can "take the heat". After a stunt like this, I question if the entire organization can "take the heat". Like it or not, the media is part of the sport. This is entertainment, and the media is a big part of it. Who do you think the team calls when they want to get info out? Everyone loves to hate the media, but if not for the media, we would not know crap about the team. Making an enemy of the media simply serves no positive purpose.

Honestly, I think the whole night games issue is overblown. One. All our night games this year have been away games. The far greater issue for me is our teams weak play away from home. Two. Night games are usually against better opponents. Wanna bet Cutler would look good at night, if he were getting to play Cle or Det? We play better teams at night, and thus Cutler is usually facing a much better defense. I don't think it is about day or night time, but location and level of competition. As for McCoy, I am not saying he isn't good, but (a) I am not scared of him and ( I would make "him" beat us. McCoy is a nice looking back in general, but not all that. At least not at this point. Heck, I read he was pulled from a goal line series because he dances too much behind the LOS and the coach said as much. He is a nice runner, but even w/ Westbrook out, he has not exactly taken over as many expected. He gets solid ypc average, but has only one game w/ 15 or more carries this year, and that was back in week 3. Even w/ Westbrook essentially out the last 3 games, he has not carried the ball a ton. Phily is dangerous through the air, and more specifically, downfield. If McCoy beat us, so be it. But I would not focus ANY added attention to McCoy. All focus should be on the big play threat WRs, not to mention a damn good TE.