nfoligno

But I am not sure that showing one example should be considered a legit reason. Is it your belief that in all the time Lovie has been here, and looking at all the CBs we have used, none have been even capable of playing tight to the LOS? None? If it were just this CB or that, it would be one thing, but Harris, Azumah, Tillman, Vasher, Bowman, Graham, McBride... Any CB we have lined up has played deep off the LOS. I just question the idea that no CB we have had on the roster is able to play bump and run. I would argue that if we used bump and run coverage more, we would practice it more, and our CBs may become better at it.

Good discussion points and comments. Yea, we see eye to eye on this pretty much all around. I am not a huge fan of the cover two to begin w/, but the way we have been playing it (especially under Babich) seems to only expose already known weaknesses of the scheme. You mention things Lovie has done different this year. Frankly, I still see a lot of what you and I have already listed as problems of the past, but to me, the 2 key things Lovie has done different is (a) mixing it up far more and ( adjusting on the fly. (a) mixing it up - Under Babich, what blitz did we most often see? Urlacher up the gut. When it wasn't Urlacher blitzing, what did we see? Another player blitzing up the gut. In an ideal world, your DTs are creating a lot of penetration, and thus the middle is more exposed for an inside blitz, but due to weak DT play, all the inside blizers found was a sealed off wall. Thus we took a defensive player out of coverage and saw zero added pass rush. The few, and I mean very few, times I saw us blitz outside under Babich, it often resulted in a pressure or sack. IMHO, that is because it was simply so unexpected. Under Lovie, we have blitzed from all over, and I love it. An offense simply does not know where the blitz is coming from this year. Last year, you may not know whether Urlacher, Briggs or a safety was going to blitz, but you knew that it was most likely going to be up the gut, thus you could more easily block/defend it. This year, It could come from anywhere. I think this has been huge. Not only in how and where we blitz, but we have also mixed it up overall more too. I have seen us drop DEs into coverage while blitzing 2. We mix up man coverage and zone more as well. Under Babich, I thought it was rare we played man coverage, but thus far under Lovie, I have seen us do it more often. So I think our mixing it up more has created more confusion for offenses, and make us more difficult to defend. Simply put, Lovie has not been as predictable as Babich was. ( Adjustments - Pre-game planning and prep can be questioned, but that aside, i think we have done a much better job making adjustments. In the Detroit game, for whatever reason, we started out matching Bowman on Calvin Johnson, and even playing him often on an island. We can question that move, but the point here is, we did make an adjustment. We moved Tillman over CJ and also played more cover 2, giving Tillman over the top support. That saw a dramatic difference in production for CJ in the 2nd half. That is just one example, but overall, it seems like we have made more adjustments, and often done so w/o waiting until half time. Lovie simply has a far better grasp of defense in general, and thus is more able to adjust on the fly. Babich simply didn't have the depth of knowledge to adjust on the fly. The one other aspect of our scheme I want to throw out there, which execution is hurting, is tackling. You hear it a thousand times, but a huge key in the cover 2 is tackling. You allow that 3-6 yard pass often enough, but the idea is you don't allow any yards after the catch. You allow that short completion, but nothing more. We are allowing that short completion, but we are also allowing far too many yards after the catch, and weak tackling (which includes the angles a player takes and not just blowing the tackle itself) is really hurting us. Take the Seattle game where Julius Jones had the big play for a score. If Tillman makes the tackle, Jones has a nice gain, but he does not score, but because of a blown tackle, its 6 points.

1. I am not sold on Drake. I used to call him out as one of the worst, but then began to question how much of the problem was Drake and our WRs, and how much was simply not having a QB. We now have a franchise QB, and suddenly Drake and our young WRs look good? I am not sold on Drake as being a good coach, but no longer view him as a bad coach. Essentially, now w/ a QB on the team, I have given him a blank slate. 2. I just do not understand this belief that we "seemed way too reluctant to play young WRs." Bennett was held back. No question. And the staff even admitted that was a mistake. Prior to that, the only WR I think anyone could try to make an argument for would be Bradley, but I would not even agree there either. Bradley got on the field as a rookie, but injuries continued to limit him. By the time fans said he was in Lovie's dog house for unknown reasons, he was well past his rookie games and his being held back was for reasons other than just youth. I would argue we play our young guys, including WRs, at a very high rate. Not only do young players have a chance to get on the field their rookie years, but they have a legit opportunity to start. There are a couple players who fans get caught in their heads (Bradley, Wolfe, Bennett) and generalize to think we don't like to play young guys, but that just isn't the truth. 3. With all that said, the fact is, Knox got a chance to play largely due to injury. Aromashodu won the #3 job in camp, and would have been active game one had he not been injured. If that was the case, Knox may not have even been active, much less seen the field as we have thus far only dressed 4 WRs on game day, and one has been Davis who just plays special teams. If Knox did dress, he likely would have been primarily a returner and special teams player rather than seen the field as a WR. Even if that happened, I would argue he wasn't help back due to being a rookie, but simply another young player in DA won the job in camp.

I remember last year, Alex Brown was asked about our DLs inability to rush the passer. He said some stuff, but was bleeding in the mouth from biting his tongue so hard. Anyway, he was basically trying to say you can't rush the passer when the QB is taking 3 step drops. I think this was talked about after the TB game when (Garcia?) threw like 50 times and we never got a sack on him. Brown was basically trying to make the point that, when we allow those quick routes, you just can't get to the passer before he can get rid of the ball. I agree so much w/ this. If your CBs play tighter, yes, you risk getting burned. At the same time, playing tighter far better allows your DL an opportunity to rush the passer and the QB is forced to hold the ball a little longer. W/ our CBs playing so far off the LOS, it amazes me we are ever able to rush the passer. As for your last point, that kills me too. While our safety play has not killed us as it has in previous years, at the same time, you can see the lack of execution by how huge the holes in our zones are. When I see other teams play a zone, often the CB bumps the WR at the LOS, which buys the Safety time to get into position. But we don't bump the WR and allow clean releases, which makes our safeties job very difficult. He simply can't get into position quick enough. I really just do not understand our scheme. In so many areas, I see how we are trying to do one thing, but something else we do seems to make that impossible. - We want to generate a pass rush, but we give WRs such a cushion as to allow 3 step drop routes uncontested, making QB pressure near impossible. - We play a zone, which requires the safety to read the play, react to what receiver is running which route, and to then get into that area, but we do not contest the WR at the LOS, and thus WRs are able to get into the zone holes before the S has time to get there. - We play a zone, which should mean the CB has over the top help. That usually means the CB has more lattitude to press the WR, but instead, we play as if we still fear being beaten deep. In the end, I would argue we only make life easier for the WR because they are able to simply run their route w/o having to work against the CB. - Finally, in the cover two, the CB is expected to take away the sideline or outside, and to try and funnel the WR into the middle where the LB or safety helps. BUT because of how we use our LBs and safeties to blitz or fake blitz, they are out of position. Thus WRs are able to run cross patterns and slants and our LB/S is not in position to help the CB. Our CB may actually do as expected, but still looks like they are getting killed because the help they are supposed to receive is not there, and thus all we see is our CB chasing the WR from behind.

I live in Dallas, and the whole "America's team" makes me sick. It was a phrase coined I think in the 70's by a writer, and the name just stuck. At the time, I believe Dallas, under Landry, was a great team. Since then, the nickname stuck, and when someone asks who is known as America's team, the Cowgirls are the team that comes to mind. Not because it is true, but because the phrase is simply so well known. If you had a poll throughout America of, "who is your favorite team" I bet the #1 team would not be Dallas, despite their being known as America's team. What funny to me is, I think that nick name has actually made them a more hated team by many. I resent hearing how I should love Dallas because they are America's team. I know many who root against Dallas just for that reason.

First, I would say that several of the WRs we have taken were considered raw talents who would need more time to develop. Knox too would fit this category, but simply developed quicker than expected. But a WR like Bradley is a perfect example. He was not even a starter in college, and was considered a very raw talent, but one w/ a high skill set. So I am not sure it is always so much an issue of not liking rookie WRs so much as some of the rookies we have drafted were raw coming out of college and even more in need of time to develop. Second, I would say that it is harder to develop a young WR when you lack a good QB. With QBs like Rex, Orton and all the rest of the scrubs we have thrown out there, you need WRs to help prop up the QB, rather than being able to have young WRs who the QB can help develop, as we are now seeing w/ Cutler. Third, I think injuries have really been a factor. 2005 Bradley - He was a very raw talent who simply could not stay healthy, and while he is on the KC roster, he has continued to deal w/ injuries for them, and its not like he is playing great for them either. Currie - As I recall, he was just a speedster who we hoped could develop into a WR. Didn't happen. 2006 and 2007 saw no WR drafted. 2008 Bennett - Turner flat out admitted we made a mistake on how we developed him. I think the key was believing the veterans we added would play well enough early on to allow Bennett time to develop w/o being thrown to the wolves and by the time we realized those veterans sucked, we had already screwed up how we handled Bennett and just couldn't get him on the field soon enough. 2009 Learned from the Bennett mistake, and lessened the load for Knox, and it looks to have paid off. Iglesias is not like Bennett IMHO. I do not believe he was given the entire playbook and told to learn every position like Bennett, but simply struggled through camp and did nothing in preseason, and thus isn't getting on the field quickly. Of the young WRs Turner inherited. Berrian - He actually developed well, especially when you consider the QB issues, but the decision was simply made that he was not worth the money Minny was prepared to offer. We were willing to re-sign him, and as I recall, for a nice deal, but he was able to get more elsewhere. Gage - As I recall, he couldn't stay healthy, and while he has looked good at times for Tenn, he is a very inconsistent WR who has continued to deal w/ injury issues that knock him out of several games a year. He has been a starter for Tenn, but IMHO, that has as much to do w/ a lack of WR talent in Tenn as anything. A rookie this year has outplayed him, and before long, Gage could very well find himself in a depth role as Tenn improves their WR corp. Wade was a decent WR, but (a) i think fans forget he was cut more due to his fumbles and issues on special teams. I think the staff tried to make a statement by cutting him and ( I have made this argument before, but the truth is, he has never really developed into a better WR since leaving the bears. He has seen increased snaps, which led to slightly better stats, but he has never really developed into much more than a depth chart WR. IMHO, when I look at our inability to find WR talent, I think it comes down to two things. (a) It is very hard to develop WR talent when you lack a QB. I think it far more than coincidence that as soon as we get a franchise QB, suddenly we find a rookie and 2nd year WR that look pretty solid. ( We have never really made WR a priority.

While we passed on MM in the 2nd, opting to trade down, (a) I think we likely did like him, but had hoped he would fall to the 3rd round ( he was actually drafted one spot after our 2nd round pick and © he looked pretty good this past week w/ 8 catches for 148 yards.

That just because of your love for Cedric Benson

NFC East - NYG North - Minny South - NO West - SF WC - Chi & Atlanta (I think Phily may be a better team than Atlanta, but the easy division will push Atlanta's record higher) AFC East - NE North - Balt South - Indy West - SD WC - Pitt and NYJ

Um, so you use for example one play, w/ a CB who has played his way out of the starting line up? Sure, if we play bump and run, we are going to see players beaten. Guess what. I have seen our DBs get beaten when the play soft too. For the record, I am not saying our CBs should be playing bump and run coverage. I would love to see it, but I have no clue if they are capable of doing that. At the same time, does it have to be one extreme or the other? Does it have to be the CB playing on the LOS or 10 yards back? Why can't a CB play about 4 yards off the LOS, keeping him in position to still have some cushion while also being in legal range to pump the WR if he trys to break into a slant and knock him off his route.

While Lt2 would disagree, I go off the assumption that we will have a deal in place. If there is no deal in place, then we (a) have no salary cap and ( players have to have like 5 years under their belt before being UFAs, or something like that. Anyway, if there is no deal in place, not many of us can really even speculate as owners have threatened lockout, which means signing Anderson would be the least of our concerns. So I just assume we have a deal in place, and if that is the case, than it is my understanding that Anderson would be a FA.

Pretty much with you, but I will say, I began to grow a hatred for Minny due to that Rudd taunting game.

I understand the history, but its one thing to read or hear about a rivalry, and another to experience it. If you grew up watching football in the 70s, you may have known about the GB rivarly, but Minny was the team you most hated. There is no question that for me, GB is the team I most hate. In fact, my #2 team would likely be a tie between Minny and Dallas. With that said, one of my most disgusted memories was from a Minny game, when that LB Rudd was running it back for a score, but before he scored he turned around and started to taunt the chasing Bear players. I was disguested by his actions, but honestly, I was even more upset by our not retaliating. The lack of heart I saw stemming from that makes me sick to this day to think about.

Jack Concannon in 1970, which I think was the first year, or within the first year or two after the merger. No idea about 4 straight 100+ rating games. When did that stat begin?

Funny. You say GB is our arch rival, and while that is true, I know so many more who hate Minny more than GB. It just depends on how old you are I guess. Most who grew up w/ the old GB/Chi rivarly are frankly dead. My fathers generation grew up watching the Purple People Eaters kill the bears, and grew an intense hatred that has not gone way. My generation watched GB (Favre) destroy the bears throughout the 90s and into the 2000s, and have a intense hatred from that.

Thank you. Watching the game, I just could not understand why we were having our more green CB covering one of the games most elite WRs. Even Tillman is going to need help over the top on a WR like CJ. In the first half, not only were we putting Bowman on CJ, but we often had him on an island. In the 2nd half, not only did we shift Tillman over to CJ's side, but per all reports, we also began to play a more pure cover two where a safety was helping Tillman over the top. I just could not understand, and still can't now, why we (a) had Bowman covering CJ and/or why ( we left him on an island.

A friend of mine (bears fan) said that a good OC would simply call slants all day. If we are not going to contend this route, why not just keep attacking us w/ slants and quick outs.

DE - It may not be as easy as you think to simply re-sign our two FA DEs. Wale is 2nd in the NFC in sacks w/ 4.5. While I am not going to assume he will maintain this pace (that would give him 18 sacks) I can see him reaching double digits and even getting as many as maybe 12. 12 Sack DEs tend to be paid a lot of money. He is 32 years old, and I am not sure we will want to give him so much. Many teams may balk due to the age, but there are always desperate teams willing to over-look age and see nothing beyond the most recent stats. Anderson is another story. I definitely can see us getting him back, but just don't assume it happens. Even if we do keep him though, is Brown/Anderson going to make you feel confident? DT - IMHO, this is just ugly. Per Lovie, the DT is position the entire cover two plays off. You need that disruptive under center DT. Harris just looks weak IMHO, and I question how much we should really ever again expect from him. I really like Adams, but (a) just don't feel the staff shares my feelings and ( even if the staff wants to keep Adams around, he does nothing to pressure the passer. Harrison just hasn't shown much other than the ability to get out of shape. The simple of it is, our current DT crop is a weakness, and it is not likely to get much better. OL - GB's OL looked bad, no doubt, but that doesn't make me feel any better about ours.

Man do I disagree w/ that. While I am not saying our secondary is good, I think our trenches is far worse. On the OL, we flat out suck. Further, I would argue that we need to do more to protect our franchise investment. Cutler is getting hit way to often, and we need to change that. We have 3 OL who are not young. Pace needs to be replaced now. Kreutz has been going downhill for some time. Garza is actually playing better than I expected, but he is no spring chicken either. Williams has been awful IMHO, and while he is young and could still develop, OL seem to develop more quickly and he simply doesn't appear destined for great things. Omiyale has switched positions, so who knows, but he has looked like trash thus far. I love what our offense has done, but we have a franchise QB and need to protect him. As for the defense, secondary is not good, but the better the pass rush, the better the secondary looks. Right now, we are getting good play from the DEs, but 2 of our 3 DEs are due to hit FA. Inside though just flat out sucks. Again, it isn't that I love our secondary. Far from it. But in terms of priority, secondary would be well behind OL and DL for me.

Um, welcome to the party. I have screamed about this for years. Its nothing new. Our DBs give between 8-10 yards cusion to WRs. Even on 3rd and 5, they are beyond the 1st down marker. I believe this is the coverage theory in Lovie's two. CBs are to keep WRs in front of them. This is why they line up well off the LOS. The idea here is the CB is less likely to get beat deep when playing off. Further, if the pass is short, the CB is expected to make a quick break and sure tackle. If done right, WRs should be limited to relatively short gains. Also, CBs are expected to primarily take away the outside. The idea is for the CB to shut down the sideline, and if the WR goes over the middle, there is Safety and or LB help. Vasher said as much last year, but when I was watching the Carolina game last week (Dallas), and Carolina was playing a cover two, the announced (I think Gruden) said this as well. CBs are expected to take away the sideline and expect help on inside routes. Here are the problems that I see though, not w/ the system itself, but with what actually happens when we play. One. CBs turn their hips too quickly. I don't know if our CBs simply lack confidence to stick w/ a WR deep, but they turn their hips dang near as soon as the WR begins to run his route. As they already started out so deep, that means WRs can make very easy 5+ yard catches, but further, they have space after the catch. If the CB didn't so quickly turn his hips, he would be hitting the WR as he made the catch, but because he turns his hips, the WR makes the catch and has space to create after. Two. As said before, so much of this system predicates on sure tackles, which we just do not often enough make. Whether it is because a player goes for the strip rather than the tackle, takes a bad angle or whatever, what should be a relatively short gain becomes a solid gain. Three. We do not have good coverage safeties. Further, as we so often have to blitz both LBs and S', they are not in position to help WRs over the middle. Even when a WR does his job, and forces the WR inside, the help is not there. This is really made worse when we fake blitz our LBs and expect them to get back into position after starting out basically on top of the LOS. Whether this is a good scheme or not is very questionable IMHO, but I would also argue that we simply do not run it well. Our DBs do not tackle as well as needed, and frankly, we don't have the safeties.

I think Hunter has lost his job, injury or no. Frankly, I think the staff has always preferred Roach anyway. Remember, last year Roach beat Hunter midseason for the job. Staff just likes his speed and athleticism more, and inside at MLB, that is even more an issue than at SLB. Personally, I still just do not see the great play from Roach others do. To me, he struggles getting off blocks. He doesn't plug the hole (you know what I mean). Angles are questionable. Maybe the standard is simply too high (Urlacher). While I am not saying Hunter is better, I just don't see the reason for all the huge hype he has been getting. Frankly, I still wonder if we are not better off w/ Pisa inside and Roach back outside.

I just have a hard time believing GB is going to be a factor at the end of the season. They are 2-2 now. In their next 4, they have 3 easy games plus Minny at home. They at too inconsistent to win all 4 games, so lets say they go 3-1 and push their overall to 5-3. Looking good right? Not so much. They schedule is really tough in the backhalf w/: dallas, SF, @ baltimore, @ chicago, Pitt, Sea, Az. Only Detroit would be considered an easy win from this group. GB is not a bad team, but they are not that good either, and are just not consistent enough. Factor also their schedule, and at best, I see this as a .500 team. Minny is another story. They are 4-0 and should easily be 5-0 (StL). Then they have a tough stretch w/ Balt, @Pitt and @GB. Those will be 3 tough, physical games. But they get a bye after that stretch, and w/ Det after the bye, it is more like a 2 week bye for them. Players can really rest up for the back half. 5 of their final 8 are at home, and one of those away games is Carolina, which will be as warm and easy as Paris Hilton. Only late game in Chicago poses a away/weather combo challenge for them. Minny is a very good team. And the schedule really favors them right now. Schedule is not that bad for us, but if I had to guess right now, I think Minny would win the division and we get in w/ a wild card.

People around here ask me, when GB and Minny play, who do you root for? Frankly, they ask because they are trying to set me up and be funny. Well, when I am asked who I cheer for when those teams play each other, my response? "Al Qaeda" Yea, not exactly politically correct, but you should see their faces. Classic.

The first game it was that we weren't prepared on offense at all and Cutler looked lost. So I blame that on coaching. So, did we "not adjust" in game one until halftime... Not sure. We dragged our feet in game four to be certain. I don't know. Honestly, I am not often shy to criticize our staff, but I think this was far more about players. Heading into game one, I do not think we expected out OL to be as bad as they were, nor for us to not have any run game at all. Further, while it was not all Cutler, at the same time, he was not throwing the ball well either. You can say we should have been better prepared, but IMHO, this game may have simply been more about execution than prep. Frankly, our execution was so poor that it is hard to even know what the game plan was. Against Seattle they had a second string QB in there and while they couldn't close the deal on lots of drives, they had an easy time of it against our ill-prepared D for the most part. But you have to realize, that is also part of the system. Hey, I am no fan of this system, but regardless whether Lovie wants to call it one, we play a sort of bend-don't-break system. Love doesn't want to use that term, but he himself has said we want to (a) prevent the big play and ( force teams to drive the field w/ many snaps, as he believes at some point, we will make a stand. Again, I don't like the system, but you can't really say we were not prepared because we let them move the ball and gain yards, but prevented them from "closing the deal" as that is simply ous system. Now, if you want to bash the system itself, you will find a partner in me. I also have to point to execution here again. Everyone talks about pass rush being a key to our scheme, but another HUGE key is tackling, and we were simply weak in this regard. You can say we should practice tackling, particularly in camp, more than we do (and I would agree) but as I understand it, few teams do anymore as they want to limit the injury potential. At the end of the day though, these are NFL players and they should be capable of making tackles. In the Seattle game, we were simply missing tackles, and that is plain and simple execution. They earned my respect a touch for the Pitt game because we were much better prepared entering the game but we'd just come off playing a 3-4 so we damn well should've been. Big Ben has looked pretty good in the passing game this year, and I think we did a very good job against them. Hey, 3-1 is as good as we could've hoped for before the season began. But I don't think Green Bay is even the best team we've played and we found a way to lose to them. I want these guys better prepared and then I want to see coaches reacting more quickly. But I admit it's tough to do when you're working with a bunch of second teamers, particularly on D. I agree 100% that we have not done a very good job preparing for each game, and that is too often reflected in how teams play so well against us early. At the same time, my only argument is in whether we wait until half time to adjust, as I think we have adjusted much sooner and more on the fly this year than I have seen in the past.

While I agree we can not come out flat, or wait until halftime to make adjustments, I am not sure I agree we have waited. Game one was just messed up w/ all the turnovers. Even still, I don't think this game would reflect one where we waited until halftime for adjustments. GB got nada in the 1st quarter. FG in the 2nd, followed by a TD they only had to go ONE YARD due to a turnover. Nada in the 3rd quarter, and late TD. But the point is, this game does not reflect our waiting to make adjustments. Game two saw Pitt drive it down our throats on the first drive, but we shut them down for the rest of the half. One more scoring drive in the 3rd, and then nothing. IMHO, we made some adjustments pretty quickly after the opening drive. Game three, Seattle drove us on the 1st drive, but were kept out of the endzone after that only getting some FGs. Game four I agree we waited too long to adjust. Frankly, I do not understand why Bowman was on an island for the 1st half against one of the league's best WRs, but regardless, we waited too long to adjust. Overall point is though, while I agree w/ the general idea you can't just wait until halftime to adjust, I am not sure I agree that we have, expect the last game. We have been starting flat, and allowing opening drives to get into the end zone, but seem to be changing pretty quick and not allowing much there after.