jason

But wasn't Brady getting "solid, easy completions" when the Bears DIDN'T blitz as well? The Jim Johnson, send the house, old Philadelphia Eagles defensive strategy may not have worked, but at least it's trying something instead of watching the defense get continually gutted with a butter knife.

I know hindsight is 20/20, and nobody predicted how bad it would be, but your post made me laugh for the following reasons: 1) You said, "We don't blitz like that at all so we'll have LBs in better position to stop short inside routes." - Uhhh...so much for that. 2) You said, "I'm guessing we'll be able to get some pressure on him." - Couldn't be further from the truth. 3) You said, "You need this to avoid the big plays." - Correct, too bad it didn't happen. 4) You said, "We're not going to shut these guys out but at least make them work for it and the tackling better be outstanding because these quick guys on the underneath routes can go upfield in a hurry." - Correct/Incorrect/Correct. The Bears surely didn't shut the Pats out, but they didn't exactly have to work for it either. As for the latter part, it sure did seem like every time Welker caught the ball he turned it up for 6-10 more. 5) You said, "I saw lots of big running gains so there's a reason the Patriots are ranked 19th in run defense." - Funny, but it's yet another game - what is that 13 now? - that the Bears' didn't have more than a handfull of decent running holes. Not surprising. 6) You said, "That ranking might be worse if teams weren't playing catch up in the 4th quarter." - DING DING DING!! 7) You said, "We need to stick with our offensive formula and run first on these guys. Keep putting together long drives while Brady sits on the bench." - That's easier said than done, especially when the OL never really lets the offense run consistently. And that whole "Brady on the bench" thing surely didn't happen. 8) You said, "Patriots are 31st in pass defense. Is it because teams are passing to keep up?" - DING DING DING!! 9) You said, "I expect lots of blitzes early on to test our Oline." - I didn't really see a ton of blitzes, but it was probably because the Pats got into the backfield at will. 10) You said, "Overall we'll need our best offensive effort of the season to win this one. We're going to get opportunities to do that can we take advantage of them?" - In the end it didn't really matter what offensive effort was given by the Bears. Sure, a better performance would have made the game look better, but it was the defense that was necessary. They were the ones that needed to step up to allow for a chance at success. Unfortunately, a Lovie Smith team will never abandon the cover-2, and it got exploited by a stud QB...just like I've been saying for numerous weeks. The cover-2 is horrible against teams who have all-star QBs (i.e. most of the teams that get into the playoffs). No offense intended, but I just found your post to be incredibly wrong and incredibly insightful at the same time.

I COMPLETELY disagree with the notion the Bears were still contending in the 3rd quarter. That's ridiculous. The score was not indicative of how much ass whoopin' was being dished out, and at no time after half were the Bears contending. It matters little whether or not Cutler threw those picks; the game was over already. Now, were they bad picks that if not thrown could have allowed for points? Absolutely. But let's not make the mistake of thinking that if they had scored there was a significant chance of winning. Throwing punches while you're on lying prostrate and getting kicked by multiple people may be fighting back, but it's nonetheless pointless.

I didn't record the game, and I surely wasn't there, but I was wondering why the Bears couldn't throw the same way as the Patriots yesterday. What I mean is, I know Cutler is not Brady, but why wouldn't the 7-15 yard pass patterns be just as effective for the Bears as they were for the Patriots? Would not the Pats' defensive players slip just as the Bears' did? Don't they have to react just as much as the Bears' defense did? Leading up to the game I heard two coaching strategies: 1) Bill Cowher said teams should blitz. 2) Multiple people said the short passing game had an advantage in the snow because reacting to a route is harder than executing a route. It seems the Bears did neither. Hence, the ass-whipping occurred. So, I already know why the Bears didn't blitz: a stubborn embrace of an antiquated, passive cover-2. What I'm not totally sure about is why the Bears didn't have more short to intermediate crossing routes just like the Pats.

No, in that I mean to say that Lovie Smith and Marinelli are not good coaches. They win STRICTLY because of talent, and rarely have players overachieve. What's more, they simply keep running the same scheme, same plan, no matter how bad the team is getting bent over. As far as I'm concerned, it's better to try something new to stop damages and subsequently fail, than it is to watch the leak in the dam slowly drown the entire team.

What I've been saying for several weeks now. Smoke and mirrors. This team should probably be 6-6 or worse.

Which is precisely why good coaches would have made pre-game adjustments all week to shock the Patriots as best as possible, rather than simply accepting that slow death was inevitable.

HORRIBLE throw. What's funny is that I was just telling a friend it's the BEARS that should be running. When you play a team that is vastly superior, you shorten the game as much as possible by running. Side note: WTF was Cutler looking at?

BINGO! Why change the offensive gameplan when the 6-10 yard pass is open all day? Same as a run as far as the NFL timing goes. The clock doesn't stop when they get first downs.

You clearly don't know what I mean. 1) If the front four is the only pressure being sent, it is NOT a change. 2) The Bears have dropped 1 easy INT (Url), and another that was just out of reach (Harris), but it's nonetheless part of the normal gameplan for the players to be in those positions. 3) The Bears special teams is the same as they always have been, no changes whatsoever (except in results). But why would they change that? It's the only reliable aspect of the team. As I said, no changes. (Note: I've seen one or two blitzes in the second half)

What's crazy is, WHO DIDN'T KNOW THIS!? Prior to the game it was common knowledge that the Pats excelled in short passing and the Bears defense was extremely vulnerable in short passing defense. What was changed coming into the game? Nothing.

NOTE: Prior to the game, Cowher mentioned that this game was not one for a typical 4-3 defense or one using a cover-2. He said it was a game to blitz. Granted, that's his M.O., but the Bears' defense is doing NOTHING right now because they can't generate pressure. It's something I've said all year, and I think the sack statistics aren't a reliable way to really judge pressure. Either the Bears get in or they get stuffed. And a lot of the sacks are because the opposing QB just sits in the pocket forever waiting for a WR to get into a hole in the cover-2. Against the Pats, the Bears are getting stuffed continuously. Maybe Lovie should change things up and take action like Cowher suggested. I doubt it.

Positive because it means the Bears probably still win the division. Negative because it will give the Packers a better draft pick than the Bears when it's PAINFULLY clear the Bears aren't as good as their record indicates.

Dilfer isn't salivating...he's masturbating to the game film replays already. This is porn to Dilfer.

How is this poor sportsmanship? I'm sick of this touchy-feely BS that everyone always brings up in today's sports world. If the Bears can't stop them - and they can't judging from the last second TD to Branch - then they deserve to take the ass-beating. Don't like it? Stop it. BTW - Where the hell was the safety on that play!?

Was it ever!? Anyone who thought so is smoking crack.

I've typed this five times and I don't know where to start and what to say. What is obvious is that the Bears' offense is not good, the offensive line is still horrendous, and the Bears' defensive scheme is good...as long as it's not against a stud QB like Brady, Manning, Brees, etc. They just sit in there and pick it apart. It still remains, however, that the OL is the weakness. So far Cutler has only had two drop backs where he wasn't IMMEDIATELY under pressure, with the last one being called a "jail break" by the announcers. The Bears have no chance if they can't do something on offense, and since it appears the OL won't be able to protect Cutler, this could be a 50 point game by the time the game is over.

Remember the last really bad weather game for the Bears? Wasn't it that slop-fest against the Steelers? The one where Bettis just ran wild? Yeah, it feels like I'm experiencing deja vu right now.

Don't blame him...blame the cover-2. He has to drop back into an area. He's not covering a single player. It's all based upon him reacting quickly enough to the offensive player being in his zone.

I do NOT like how this is looking. The cover-2 is built to be destroyed by an offense and QB like Brady. The Bears need to get more defensive pressure if they hope to keep this game close.

That sucked. The Pats sent too many and Olsen didn't see the DB blitzing until it was too late. The first two runs for the Bears were promising.

BIG TIME First series stop for the Defense!

HAHAHAHAHAAH!!!! LOVE IT!! Blizzard....helps the Bears!

So turning the Lions into a viable, dangerous, explosive offense is "pretty poor?" Making Jon Kitna a reliable fantasy football star with over 4000yds passing is "pretty poor?" Guiding a Chicago offense to mediocrity while having one of the worst OL's in NFL history is "pretty poor?" While I agree with the rest of your post, I don't know about your analysis of his post-Rams success.

I still contend that Omiyale is worse than Webb. For the sake of argument, however, we'll call it a tie.