jason

There is no doubt Rodgers trumps Cutler, but to even insinuate they are on equal footing elsewhere is disingenuous. From an institutional standpoint, the Packers front office, management, coaches, and offensive gurus have had consistency, and a vastly better understanding of how to run an offensive team. That is not even up for debate. Further, while Marshall is a beast, that's about it unless Alshon continues on without injury. The Packers have WRs for days. They lose a guy like Greg Jennings for damn near the entire season, and don't miss a beat. And you know I'd argue the Bears OL is significantly worse. I understand what you're saying, but comparing the two is not even remotely fair to Cutler.

First, I've read some of the advanced stats on this subject. It's interesting. Unfortunately, however, the stats can't be applied necessarily on a team-by-team basis. With the Bears having such a bad OL, such a bad scoring offense, with injuries mounting on defense (which signaled the likelihood of the opponent scoring more), you go to the old adage of taking points when you can. There is a big difference between a well-run organization like Oregon and NE doing something, and what the Bears should do on offense. The former has the coaching and players to execute with great success. The latter does not. As for going for the kill, you're right. That's what I almost always want. But I don't think you understand what I mean when I say that. I mean, "don't change an aggressive strategy that is working just because you have a lead." That's what Lovie does. I do not mean, "take extra chances." Otherwise I'd advocate for a bomb on every pass play, which we can all agree would make little sense.

I wish I could be that optimistic, but I've been a Bears fan far too long to believe it. The most likely scenario is: win just enough to get a wild card, get a worse draft pick for it, get hammered in the playoffs, the players rally around Lovie because he's a softer/kinder coach, the media blames all Chicago woes on injuries, Lovie keeps his job, no major progress is made.

Huh? From a statistical perspective, it made MUCH more sense to go for the FG for the following reasons: 1-The Bears are 20th in the league in offensive scoring 2-The Bears D is not on a scoring tear any more 3-The Seahawks O is 16th in the league in offensive scoring 4-Robbie Gould is 21-25 for the year and fairly automatic from 32 yards 5-The FG would have made it 10-0, and given the Bears momentum 6-The ensuing kickoff would likely have given the Seahawks a touchback without momentum You take the points when you can get them.

It's almost blasphemous to think about, but I wonder if this team would be better off just losing out, getting a new coach at the end of the year, getting new coordinators who know what they are doing (except Toub, keep him), and getting a better draft pick. But I suspect it will be a wild card, no real progress, and Lovie keeps his job. With all the injuries I don't see how this team can sustain against the remaining schedule. AP will probably go for 200 yards, then Rodgers will likely torch the secondary, who knows what we'll get from Arizona (likely to be a breakout game for whoever plays QB for them, but the announcers will talk about him and not the Bears D), and then Detroit will likely put up close to 400yds passing. I see 1-3 to close out the season. Without injuries it's probably 3-1.

It could also be that one of the Bears' primary actions for a LB is to immediately drop back into coverage, and since the other players are usually playing their area of responsibility instead of man-to-man, there is a lot more room for a QB to roam. Before this flaw was covered by the ridiculous abilities of a healthy Brian Urlacher, but now they are being exposed. It's no big surprise since many have mentioned that this type of defense is incredibly flawed unless you have three key pieces: 1-A DT that can collapse the pocket, 2-A MLB with ridiculous range and speed, 3-A FS with great instincts and sure tackling. Granted, those three guys fit well in any defensive scheme, but they are absolutely critical to the Lovie-2.

I think this year allows a team to put a guy on IR, but if that guy gets healthy during the season, they can release him from the team without penalty and to open up another IR spot. It happened with Nate Kaeding this year as well. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/oct/30...ical-be-waived/

http://espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/story/_/id/...t-chicago-bears I think it's a wise move for him to think of a hometown discount if he wants to resign with the Bears. If the OL is to be fixed, weapons to be added, defense to be rebuilt, it sure won't help the franchise if he tries to break the bank.

Who do they cut? Easy. Sanz. Weems has much more upside, a bigger contract, and can produce considerably more on ST. Why hasn't he been signed by any other team? Probably because he officially on IR until yesterday.

Why not buy insurance? He may not beat them out at the end of this year, but he'd almost certainly beat out Hester in training camp next year.

100% agree. Great post.

It was partially sarcastic. I know neither of those guys was fond of running the ball, but whenever someone comes into Chicago with an outside-the-box mentality on offense, the majority of the fan base hates the guy. Hence, Crowton and Martz were not liked by most. But both of those guys have forgotten more offensive football knowledge than Tice will ever have. But as long as Tice is relatively "three yards and a cloud of dust" you won't hear much about getting rid of him. Small rumblings is all.

So, Hester and Bennett are out with concussions. Alshon has a knee problem, which followed a hand problem. That leaves the Bears with Marshall, Dane, Weems...which really means, Marshall. So, what are his thoughts? Brandon Marshall's thoughts I would not mind seeing Mike Sims-Walker on this team one bit. He comes in, proves himself, and next year he probably beats out one of the other WRs for a #3 or #4 role. Win-win

No, because then Toub would get run out of town shortly thereafter. The last two guys who were creative on offense were Crowton and Martz. They weren't favored in Chicago very much.

I can reply to my quote easily by saying I agree with what you've said. But you and I both know the Bears aren't the Giants, and we possess neither the offensive firepower (i.e. Manning and those WRs) nor the defensive firepower (i.e. their DL) that can get hot and absolutely destroy teams, regardless of matchup, for a stretch of playoff games. As for the "shut anyone down" stuff, I still think you're missing the point. The Bears don't stomp on people. When they have the lead they may hold on - and even a Lovie-hater like myself has to admit that he holds on more than most - the simple fact is that his scheme allows opponents to stick around and make a game of it. We very rarely see a game like the Titans game this year when they step on the gas pedal and never let up. Normally Lovie sees anything equal to or greater than a touchdown lead and drastically alters gameplan.

And, despite making the playoffs, that will probably be a disappointment because it will save Lovie while simultaneously get the team most likely hammered in the first round.

I believe the reference was to Lovie Smith's patented "get a 10 point lead at any point in the game and immediately call off the dogs while playing a semi-prevent the rest of the game"-strategy.

Amen.

I was beside myself at the 4th down play. I definitely did not want them to go for it. At that distance, it's almost a guaranteed 3 points. You never give away points. Especially that early in the game. They should have kicked the FG. Also, is it Forte's inability to run between the tackles, the OL's inability to both pass and run block in a single game, or maybe some of both? I personally think it's both, with the lion's share falling on the OL as usual. There were very few holes for Forte to hit. You are dead on right about the D wearing down. I was mentioning this to friends at the end of the game. It's the same thing every year.

The thing is, that's only frowned upon. It's not illegal. I don't know why the hell the OL isn't doing it to begin with!! Inferior OL talent can be maximized when they dive at the knees of the DL. There is a reason the Denver Broncos had a string of nobodies run for 1000 yards, and it almost all stems from the fact that their OL cut blocked the DL on a consistent basis. That's what the Bears should do more of. Then add in the chip blocks, maybe some really low ones, and the DL starts to second-guess their all-out assault. That's what infuriates me about Tice and this OL. They don't even try to maximize their matchup by putting the DL on their heels. Instead, the DL knows there is no danger, and they pin their ears back to rush with impunity.

Trepidation is not necessary. Is Webb, Carimi, Garza, Louis, Scott the worst the Bears could do? Absolutely not. Does it "look like a pretty good line"? Hell no. But I guess if we're used to eating shit sandwiches, spoiled ham isn't too bad. BTW - We don't necessarily disagree on how to build an OL. I just don't think the FA pieces are usually there. Tait was an anomaly, and if I recall a poison pill contract that KC couldn't match. Normally that guy is not available. Not with that many years left anyway. Brown in 2006 was lightning in a bottle. And Miller was at the tail end of his career, and I still can't believe the Bears squeezed three years out of him. Finding available vets who were once studs, and who can still play at a high level, is not something that is bankable for very long. When it works it's great, but you're pretty much always reloading every year because one of the guys doesn't work or one of the guys needs to retire. I prefer the draft because when you hit, there is a player on your team for a decade.

The point about Carimi being on roller skates was that, even while injured, Scott didn't start over him. That generally means Scott is a worse player. My comments are not intended to be personal at all. It's just that this is years and years in the making, and yet there are still people, apparently you are included, that think an OL of Webb, Carimi, Garza, Louis, Scott "looks like a pretty good line." Broken down that just doesn't make sense. Webb is at best subpar. Carimi would be in a brand new position (disregarding the fact that it would be a completely misplaced and wasted draft pick). Garza would still be an average center at best. Louis would be an average guard coming off a massive injury. And Scott is a nobody who couldn't start over Carimi when he was playing like garbage. How does that look "like a pretty good line"?

That's clearly the intent, but I don't think it's very high probability considering the personnel. Glad it worked, but I doubt it would work very often given the exact same scenario. 9 out of 10 times Spaeth drops it.

I like the move as well, as a stop-gap. If he ends up going to C, and Garza moves to G, then I'd wonder WhyTF Lovie and crew didn't make the move when Spencer was signed. After all, Spencer was explicitly signed to be the replacement for Kreutz. Enough of this switcheroo BS. Put the players in the positions they have played and are familiar with.

Notice I didn't say anything about the rollout. I like it. Notice I also didn't say anything about the play design itself. I like it. The personnel grouping for that play, however, is downright problematic when the Bears have much better options to fill those roles. And going on your "confuse the defense" theory, that would be even more of a reason for Rodriguez to be in there on that play.