Vasher done with Bears

[Lucky Luciano]

Good for Hall, he gets big contract but there is no way in Hell that he is worth that kind of contract.

 

huh???

 

are you saying hall isn't worth it or asomugha?

 

if you mean asomugha i disagree. we fill 2 positions on defense with one high end contract and an excellent cover corner helps our defense more than any other type of player against the pass happy nfl.

[balta1701-A]

the raiders need some serious upgrades to personnel and tying that much money up for a pair of all-pro corners would not help them.

 

they just aquired d. hall last season for a huge *contract and couldn't cut him if they wanted to.

What? Did you just say that the Raiders couldn't cut DeAngelo Hall if they wanted to? The Cornerback they cut 8 games in to last season who is already playing with the Redskins?

[bowlingtwig]

huh???

 

are you saying hall isn't worth it or asomugha?

 

if you mean asomugha i disagree. we fill 2 positions on defense with one high end contract and an excellent cover corner helps our defense more than any other type of player against the pass happy nfl.

 

 

No Hall is not worth that kind of money. Asomugha is worth that.

[Lucky Luciano]

What? Did you just say that the Raiders couldn't cut DeAngelo Hall if they wanted to? The Cornerback they cut 8 games in to last season who is already playing with the Redskins?

 

WOW, my mistake. i don't follow the raiders at all and i was obviously reading dated material. al davis really IS nuts.

 

well i guess that opens up a whole new train of thought on whether the raiders can afford to give him a big contract.

[bowlingtwig]

WOW, my mistake. i don't follow the raiders at all and i was obviously reading dated material. al davis really IS nuts.

 

well i guess that opens up a whole new train of thought on whether the raiders can afford to give him a big contract.

 

 

My best friend is a Raiders fan and he believes that they won't be good until Davis either dies or sells the team. He says that the game has passed him by. I am just wondering how much Asomgha(sp?) is going to cost since he is "light years" better than Hall and he got 7 yrs for $70 mill.

[Bears4Ever_34]

We don't need a corner in round 1, we need a WR!

[bowlingtwig]

We don't need a corner in round 1, we need a WR!

 

 

I agree that in the 1st round we need either WR or OLine.

[bradjock]

this is the #1 free agent i go for this offseason. since ASHKUM BEAR brought this guys attention to the board i have argued that this is the premier free agent that will help our entire team for the same reasons i argued for charles woodson 3-4 years ago. so angie gets a redo if he is even reasonably smart.

 

Based on what happened last season, we could put 20 men on the field, play most of them in the secondary, and the other team would just throw underneath to the TE for 8 yard gains again and again.

 

Signing Asoguman or whatever the hell his name is would be like living in a shack and spending 10 grand on a TV. Or driving a Dodge Neon and spending 10 grand on a stereo. No matter how you decorate it, a turd is still a turd. We have a lot of problems we need to fix, and having the talent we already have in the secondary, making the highest paid player on the team a cornerback is definitely not one of them.

 

It'd be like giving my 600 pound wife a face lift . . .

 

Either way, it's a waste of damn money and it doesn't fix the real problem.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

I see where you're coming from Brad, but then what's the solution? Getting to the QB?

 

Ogunleye is old but could have a break-out year being in his contract year, Alex will be Alex, and Anderson sucks. Signing Peppers will be nearly impossible as he'll go to a team with a 3-4, and Suggs will either stay in Baltimore or go play for the Jets with Rex Ryan. This year, there is no solution. There isn't a DE that you look at and say- "Man, if we get him in the draft, we'll be in good shape". Michael Johnson reminds me of Mark Anderson, and Brown and Orakpo will go at either 15 or earlier.

[bradjock]

I see where you're coming from Brad, but then what's the solution? Getting to the QB?

 

Ogunleye is old but could have a break-out year being in his contract year, Alex will be Alex, and Anderson sucks. Signing Peppers will be nearly impossible as he'll go to a team with a 3-4, and Suggs will either stay in Baltimore or go play for the Jets with Rex Ryan. This year, there is no solution. There isn't a DE that you look at and say- "Man, if we get him in the draft, we'll be in good shape". Michael Johnson reminds me of Mark Anderson, and Brown and Orakpo will go at either 15 or earlier.

 

"What is the solution" is the question. For me it comes down to one simple thing: Defensively, can we get back to being close to what we were in 2005 & 2006? Because for me it's not as much about players, but more about bad coaching and bad schemes. Lovie's a proven DC, Babbich is a proven lb'ers coach, and Marinelli is a great d-line coach. In other words, we need to get out shit together, or it doesn't matter who we bring in.

 

And if we can't get back to wear we were 2 years ago with this defense, we need to blow the damn thing up. That means rebuilding, losing, and lottery. So I'm keeping my fingers crossed that we can get it back together. Losing sucks.

 

I agree completely when you say there's no guy in the draft we can get. But I honestly believe, as piss-poor as our secondary was last season, we could sign Suggs, Peppers, AND the DT from Tenn (whose damn name escapes me . . . the guy who stomped on somebody two years ago, defensive MVP . . . )

but we could sign all three, have a healthy Tommie, and our pass rush would still suck cause QB's would drop to steps back and throw an 8 yard pass to a wide open TE underneath.

 

In the NFL it's all about consistency and building through the draft. Pittsburgh lost Faneca this offseason . . . who did they add? What players did Arizona sign? Did either team have a rookie that made a major impact?

 

You may not "trust Lovie" as he asks you to do, but we'd better be keeping our damn fingers crossed that he's correct when he says, "We're not that far off."

[Connorbear]

this is the #1 free agent i go for this offseason. since ASHKUM BEAR brought this guys attention to the board i have argued that this is the premier free agent that will help our entire team for the same reasons i argued for charles woodson 3-4 years ago. so angie gets a redo if he is even reasonably smart.

 

Based on what happened last season, we could put 20 men on the field, play most of them in the secondary, and the other team would just throw underneath to the TE for 8 yard gains again and again.

 

Signing Asoguman or whatever the hell his name is would be like living in a shack and spending 10 grand on a TV. Or driving a Dodge Neon and spending 10 grand on a stereo. No matter how you decorate it, a turd is still a turd. We have a lot of problems we need to fix, and having the talent we already have in the secondary, making the highest paid player on the team a cornerback is definitely not one of them.

 

It'd be like giving my 600 pound wife a face lift . . .

 

Either way, it's a waste of damn money and it doesn't fix the real problem.

Agredd 100% - this is not even close to our top priority. I say give Vasher another yr to fix himself. If Marinelli can get more out of the defensive line (as I believe he will) the rest of the defense will look much, much better.

 

Peace

[bowlingtwig]

Agredd 100% - this is not even close to our top priority. I say give Vasher another yr to fix himself. If Marinelli can get more out of the defensive line (as I believe he will) the rest of the defense will look much, much better.

 

Peace

 

 

Your right, especially with us using the cover 2 almost exclusively. This scheme demands pressure from the Dline. If they can't get pressure it won't even matter if we get Asomugha from Oakland.

[Lucky Luciano]

"What is the solution" is the question. For me it comes down to one simple thing: Defensively, can we get back to being close to what we were in 2005 & 2006? Because for me it's not as much about players, but more about bad coaching and bad schemes. Lovie's a proven DC, Babbich is a proven lb'ers coach, and Marinelli is a great d-line coach. In other words, we need to get out shit together, or it doesn't matter who we bring in.

 

And if we can't get back to wear we were 2 years ago with this defense, we need to blow the damn thing up. That means rebuilding, losing, and lottery. So I'm keeping my fingers crossed that we can get it back together. Losing sucks.

 

I agree completely when you say there's no guy in the draft we can get. But I honestly believe, as piss-poor as our secondary was last season, we could sign Suggs, Peppers, AND the DT from Tenn (whose damn name escapes me . . . the guy who stomped on somebody two years ago, defensive MVP . . . )

but we could sign all three, have a healthy Tommie, and our pass rush would still suck cause QB's would drop to steps back and throw an 8 yard pass to a wide open TE underneath.

 

In the NFL it's all about consistency and building through the draft. Pittsburgh lost Faneca this offseason . . . who did they add? What players did Arizona sign? Did either team have a rookie that made a major impact?

 

You may not "trust Lovie" as he asks you to do, but we'd better be keeping our damn fingers crossed that he's correct when he says, "We're not that far off."

 

i'm not sure i understand your reasoning. you concede that if we had an all-pro defensive line we couldn't stop these quick 8 yard passes to TE's. with that i agree (although most of these passes are to the wr's rather than TE's). there is a reason why we are so open on these plays and why they consistantly work. it's because our corners are playing so soft that these zones are always open. we are basically playing in a deep prevent with our DB's. so no matter how good your DL is they just don't have a chance to get to the qb before he releases the ball into these cleared out zones for uncontested receptions. how do you counter this? by having corners GOOD enough to play up and tight taking away these empty zones for 5-10 yard receptions!!

 

so i disagree that it's not the players. we have no talent at safety, especially at free safety, and average/poor talent at corner. not a single cb on this team is good enough to play man up on the LOS without getting beat by more than 3/4's of the receivers in the entire nfl and there is no safety help to compensate for their lack of talent. "getting back to where we were" as you say is not a solution because we were bad defending the pass then also!!

 

picking up this free agent cb from oakland brings respectability to our defensive backfield. we now can, if they are smart enough, move tillman or even try out vasher at free safety, a position we need desperately. this gives us good to great players at 2 positions that are the weakest links on our defense. this takes away that short passing give-a-way, not to mention deep passing attacks, and gives our DL time to reach the qb in passing situations. it free's up our free safety to give help and support to our #2 CB, free's up linebackers if the front four are putting pressure on qb's by not blitzing (thus helping our run defense), and also opens up our strong safety to move in the zones either in run support or defending the short zone passes with our LB's. ADD to this the real depth we now have in nickle and dime packages and gives teeth to any blitz packages we run.

 

how can we afford this high priced player and still get a FA offensive guy? last season alone we tied up $7-8? million dollars on a practice squad quality cornerback which now rolls over into this season. so that takes a lot of heat off the intitial bonus money giving us still enough to bring in a top offensive free agent whether it's a wide receiver or offensive lineman. it also opens up our draft to get whatever first day players we want. if we want another wideout we can go for him. if we want to draft offensive linemen no problem there. we could even look at a safety, strongside linebacker or a replacement for url. this would be critical for the health of our franchises future which you agree needs to be built around the draft.

[nfoligno]

Just to jump in, where I think the disconnect between you and Brad is, you believe our corners play so far off the LOS because they suck so bad, there is no other choice, while Brad believes we play our corners well off the LOS because of coaching and scheme. You want a stud CB who can stand on the LOS and play man coverage against opposing teams top WR. In that regard, you would argue we prevent the quick dropoff passes and such. I believe Brad would argue that, if we signed a stud CB, we would still use him in zone coverages and line him up well off the LOS, thus wasting his elite talent.

 

I tend to agree w/ Brad. I think our corners line up where they do, not due to talent, but due to scheme. I factor this. It is one thing if our DBs line up well off the LOS against the likes of Steve Smith, but our DBs play way off the LOS against ALL WRs. We could be facing the slowest WRs in history, and we would still give them the same cushion we give Steve Smith.

 

Maybe we don't have great talent at DB, but I think the question is, would we actually utilize elite talent if we had it? You are a die hard bear fan who has followed Lovie since he joined the team. What from his history leads you to believe he would adjust his scheme to accomodate the talent of a particular player. To me, Lovie is far more in the line of a coach who tries to fit all players to his scheme, regardless whether they are good fits or not.

 

So for me, I think an elite CB would be a waste of money, as we would never get value out of him. And frankly, I think we would cause problems because I doubt seriously that player would be happy w/ his role. Hell, along those lines, I am not sure he would ever sign w/ us. Players sign for money, but you can bet they factor scheme. A pass rushing DE is not going to join a defense run by Blache, while a 300lb DE is not going to want to sign for a team that runs a cover two. The raiders corner is not likely going to want to sign w/ a cover two defense, which uses far more zone coverage than man.

 

i'm not sure i understand your reasoning. you concede that if we had an all-pro defensive line we couldn't stop these quick 8 yard passes to TE's. with that i agree (although most of these passes are to the wr's rather than TE's). there is a reason why we are so open on these plays and why they consistantly work. it's because our corners are playing so soft that these zones are always open. we are basically playing in a deep prevent with our DB's. so no matter how good your DL is they just don't have a chance to get to the qb before he releases the ball into these cleared out zones for uncontested receptions. how do you counter this? by having corners GOOD enough to play up and tight taking away these empty zones for 5-10 yard receptions!!

 

so i disagree that it's not the players. we have no talent at safety, especially at free safety, and average/poor talent at corner. not a single cb on this team is good enough to play man up on the LOS without getting beat by more than 3/4's of the receivers in the entire nfl and there is no safety help to compensate for their lack of talent. "getting back to where we were" as you say is not a solution because we were bad defending the pass then also!!

 

picking up this free agent cb from oakland brings respectability to our defensive backfield. we now can, if they are smart enough, move tillman or even try out vasher at free safety, a position we need desperately. this gives us good to great players at 2 positions that are the weakest links on our defense. this takes away that short passing give-a-way, not to mention deep passing attacks, and gives our DL time to reach the qb in passing situations. it free's up our free safety to give help and support to our #2 CB, free's up linebackers if the front four are putting pressure on qb's by not blitzing (thus helping our run defense), and also opens up our strong safety to move in the zones either in run support or defending the short zone passes with our LB's. ADD to this the real depth we now have in nickle and dime packages and gives teeth to any blitz packages we run.

 

how can we afford this high priced player and still get a FA offensive guy? last season alone we tied up $7-8? million dollars on a practice squad quality cornerback which now rolls over into this season. so that takes a lot of heat off the intitial bonus money giving us still enough to bring in a top offensive free agent whether it's a wide receiver or offensive lineman. it also opens up our draft to get whatever first day players we want. if we want another wideout we can go for him. if we want to draft offensive linemen no problem there. we could even look at a safety, strongside linebacker or a replacement for url. this would be critical for the health of our franchises future which you agree needs to be built around the draft.

[Lucky Luciano]

I tend to agree w/ Brad. I think our corners line up where they do, not due to talent, but due to scheme. I factor this. It is one thing if our DBs line up well off the LOS against the likes of Steve Smith, but our DBs play way off the LOS against ALL WRs. We could be facing the slowest WRs in history, and we would still give them the same cushion we give Steve Smith.

 

Maybe we don't have great talent at DB, but I think the question is, would we actually utilize elite talent if we had it? You are a die hard bear fan who has followed Lovie since he joined the team. What from his history leads you to believe he would adjust his scheme to accomodate the talent of a particular player. To me, Lovie is far more in the line of a coach who tries to fit all players to his scheme, regardless whether they are good fits or not.

 

So for me, I think an elite CB would be a waste of money, as we would never get value out of him. And frankly, I think we would cause problems because I doubt seriously that player would be happy w/ his role. Hell, along those lines, I am not sure he would ever sign w/ us. Players sign for money, but you can bet they factor scheme. A pass rushing DE is not going to join a defense run by Blache, while a 300lb DE is not going to want to sign for a team that runs a cover two. The raiders corner is not likely going to want to sign w/ a cover two defense, which uses far more zone coverage than man.

 

i just don't believe that our corners are good enough to play man coverage with any consistancy no matter what scheme they are in. i don't know how anyone can say that after seeing them actually play up and get beat time and again. it has been tried and failed. if the talent really is there, can you name a single DB on our defense that another team would give us a first round pick for? or even a 2nd round pick? a 3rd?

 

how can i explain us playing off slower receivers? that i can't and it does fall on our coaches whether they don't have the confidence to play anyone up or just plain never practice doing so. believe me i am not defending our coaching staff but still have to call it like i see it and that is lack of real talent at these positions.

 

next... i certainly don't understand your thinking that a corner wouldn't be happy in a cover 2 like we run. just for curiosities sake, don't you think we play man coverage of some sort nearly every time we blitz? last season we were one of the top blitzing teams in the nfl. plus, even you conceded that we only play the cover 2 in the 'area' of 40% of the time. what are we playing the other 60+%?

 

how could drastically improving our pass defense be a waste of money? it is the weakest link in a defense that has gotten shelled by even BAD quarterbacks!!! it is the main 'DEFENSIVE' reason we will not sniff a superbowl win in the near future in my opinion.

 

as far as free agents unwilling to come here... remember p. daniels? moose - this is the place where "wide receivers go to die"? remember tait? wale? t. washington? k. traylor? r. brown?

 

finally, you ask if our coaches would utilize great talent if they had it? i believe they would. they would have to be completely stupid to stand on that tight rope without a net. if not then they are just taking up space in chicago until they are eventually fired and we have no hope until they are distant memories. in that case our new coaches next season will have a real threat in house for our pass defense.

[bowlingtwig]

i just don't believe that our corners are good enough to play man coverage with any consistancy no matter what scheme they are in. i don't know how anyone can say that after seeing them actually play up and get beat time and again. it has been tried and failed. if the talent really is there, can you name a single DB on our defense that another team would give us a first round pick for? or even a 2nd round pick? a 3rd?

 

how can i explain us playing off slower receivers? that i can't and it does fall on our coaches whether they don't have the confidence to play anyone up or just plain never practice doing so. believe me i am not defending our coaching staff but still have to call it like i see it and that is lack of real talent at these positions.

 

next... i certainly don't understand your thinking that a corner wouldn't be happy in a cover 2 like we run. just for curiosities sake, don't you think we play man coverage of some sort nearly every time we blitz? last season we were one of the top blitzing teams in the nfl. plus, even you conceded that we only play the cover 2 in the 'area' of 40% of the time. what are we playing the other 60+%?

 

how could drastically improving our pass defense be a waste of money? it is the weakest link in a defense that has gotten shelled by even BAD quarterbacks!!! it is the main 'DEFENSIVE' reason we will not sniff a superbowl win in the near future in my opinion.

 

as far as free agents unwilling to come here... remember p. daniels? moose - this is the place where "wide receivers go to die"? remember tait? wale? t. washington? k. traylor? r. brown?

 

finally, you ask if our coaches would utilize great talent if they had it? i believe they would. they would have to be completely stupid to stand on that tight rope without a net. if not then they are just taking up space in chicago until they are eventually fired and we have no hope until they are distant memories. in that case our new coaches next season will have a real threat in house for our pass defense.

 

 

I am thinking that we run the cover 2 more than 40% of the time. Did you watch the Houston game. I screaming because it seemed like we never came out of zone. We may blitz an awful lot but just because we blitz does not mean that we are running man. We hardly use Man to Man.

[nfoligno]

i just don't believe that our corners are good enough to play man coverage with any consistancy no matter what scheme they are in. i don't know how anyone can say that after seeing them actually play up and get beat time and again. it has been tried and failed. if the talent really is there, can you name a single DB on our defense that another team would give us a first round pick for? or even a 2nd round pick? a 3rd?

 

I am not saying our corners are good enough to play man. I am saying we do not often play man coverage. You say, they play up and get beat time and time again. I say, "huh". While I am not going to argue their getting beat time and time again, I do question the idea of their playing up time and time again. Understand something. How we line up our corners has been a particular pet peeve of mine for years. Even when our D was top 5 and things were going great, this was an area of criticism of mine. As being a pet peeve, it is also an area I have focused on more often watching games. W/ that said, I just do not see our CBs play near the LOS. Prior to the snap, they nearly always run up to the LOS as if they are going to press, but still prior to the snap, the back peddle 8 or so yards. So we agree w/ the idea that our corners are not capable man coverage DBs. Where we disagree is (a) whether or not our scheme calls for that and ( how often we see our corners in such a situation.

 

As for how many of our DBs would bring a 1st or 2nd round pick in value, sorry, but what does it matter. What players on our entire defense would net such? I question whether even Briggs would net a pick. I mean, any team in the league could have had him w/o compensation, but he returned to chicago as the offers were simply not there.

 

how can i explain us playing off slower receivers? that i can't and it does fall on our coaches whether they don't have the confidence to play anyone up or just plain never practice doing so. believe me i am not defending our coaching staff but still have to call it like i see it and that is lack of real talent at these positions.

 

But I think you are missing the point. That our corners play off even slower WRs implies that how we line up our corners has more to do w/ scheme than anything. I don't care if you think our corners are not very good. That we played 8-10 yards off Bobby Wade says to me it isn't about talent, but simply due to scheme.

 

next... i certainly don't understand your thinking that a corner wouldn't be happy in a cover 2 like we run. just for curiosities sake, don't you think we play man coverage of some sort nearly every time we blitz? last season we were one of the top blitzing teams in the nfl. plus, even you conceded that we only play the cover 2 in the 'area' of 40% of the time. what are we playing the other 60+%?

 

No, I do not think we play man coverage whenever we blitz. FAR from that. When I went to the Houston game, I was able to really focus on this more than I normally can on TV. It just didn't matter whether we blitzed or not. We still played zone coverages. It is something I have screamed about for years. Logic says when you blitz, you need to cover the WRs early so as to not provide the QB a quick option, but we do not. IMHO, that is a big part of why our blitzes are so ineffective. We may blitz, but because we allow such a cushion, the blitz is offset by a quick pass. And no, I am not just confusing our DBs giving a cushion while playing man w/ a cushion while playing zone. When our blitz is picked up, and the QB still has time, I still continue to see our corners release to the safety or LB, or whoever's zone the WR enters.

 

IMHO, it is not simply a matter of whether we are in cover two or not. I have said this many times. Whether we are in a cover 2, cover 3, or whatever, the vast majority of the time I see our corners playing zone coverage. Sure, they do play some man covergae, but IMHO, it is far more rare than what you may believe.

 

I have mentioned this before, but will continue to go back to it as an example/evidence. The year we went to the SB, do you recall how we killed NO? After that game, Drew Brees has some of the most telling comments. He talked about how we were a zone coverage defense, but in that game, we played mostly man. He talked about how all week they prepared to play our zone, and our playing man had them baffled. Many took his comments as a swipe at the coaching staff's inability to adjust, but key for me was the difference in scheme. We were viewed as a team that played zone to the point that teams didn't even practice beating man coverage preparing for a game w/ us. When we actually did play man, it was such a shock, it was difficult to adjust to.

 

how could drastically improving our pass defense be a waste of money? it is the weakest link in a defense that has gotten shelled by even BAD quarterbacks!!! it is the main 'DEFENSIVE' reason we will not sniff a superbowl win in the near future in my opinion.

 

Sorry, but I (and most) would argue the biggest problem is pass rush, or lack thereof. You can have the best secondary in the NFL, but if the QB has all day to throw, eventually WRs will get open. How often have we heard our staff talk about how our defense revolves around the DL getting a pass rush. If we can't pressure the QB, the defense as a whole fails.

 

As to how I can say drastically improving our pass defense would be a waste of money, my point is, if the player (regardless how good) isn't a good fit for the system, you have paid top dollar for a player who will never be fully utilized. Consider this. Most consider Dwight Freeney one of the best pass rushing DEs in the game. Remember our defense in 2001? Big DL who emphasized stopping the run. That was when Blache said sacks were over-rated. What if the bears had Freeney then, but asked him to stop the run first, hold his lane, and get to the QB if you can, but not make it a priority. I think you would agree that would be a waste of talent. You can argue that if you get an elite player like Freeney, you adapt to utilize his strengths. I would agree, but question whether our staff would do such. How disgusted would you be if we added your CB of choice, only to see him play mostly zone defense and play off the LOS. You disagree that is how we would use him, but that is why I think adding him would be a waste.

 

as far as free agents unwilling to come here... remember p. daniels? moose - this is the place where "wide receivers go to die"? remember tait? wale? t. washington? k. traylor? r. brown?

 

Sorry, but what does that have to do w/ anything. I didn't say no FA would come to Chicago. I said FAs factor scheme, and are not as likely to head to a team that uses a scheme that doesn't fit them. Which of the above examples fit such a category. A current example. If Peppers is serious about only wanting to go to a team that will run a 3-4 scheme, do you think he would choose Chicago?

 

finally, you ask if our coaches would utilize great talent if they had it? i believe they would. they would have to be completely stupid to stand on that tight rope without a net. if not then they are just taking up space in chicago until they are eventually fired and we have no hope until they are distant memories. in that case our new coaches next season will have a real threat in house for our pass defense.

 

We just disagree on our staff. I do not believe our staff is the sort to mold a scheme around players, but the opposite. I think they are the sort who have a scheme, and force players into that system. Brian Urlacher was considered elite among MLBs, but has never been a fan of our scheme, and has not been shy to say as much. Most would point out that Urlacher is at his best when behind bigger DTs that can eat up blocks, while he can more freely flow to the plays. Did that ever matter for our coaches? Nope. We simply forced Urlacher to fit into our scheme, ignoring his potential if used differently.

 

Sorry, but I simply believe going after a CB like who you want is a pipe dream. He is not a fit for our scheme, and not a player I think we will show any interest in. Even if we were to go CB in round one, I think you would find us going after a player who scouts praise for his zone coverage.

[Lucky Luciano]

I am thinking that we run the cover 2 more than 40% of the time. Did you watch the Houston game. I screaming because it seemed like we never came out of zone.

 

well, i could be wrong but if i am everything i have seen and read is too. again, one of the reasons why it 'may' look like that, is our corners are giving such a soft cushion it appears to be zone coverage even when they play man coverage. they are playing 5 yds off the LOS and backpeddling up to 10 yards at the snap. maybe against certain teams we might play it more when down and yardage dictates but generally 60% or more of the time we are not in the cover 2.

 

We may blitz an awful lot but just because we blitz does not mean that we are running man. We hardly use Man to Man.

 

again i have to disagree with you. we do play a lot of man coverage. also, when a cover 2 defense blitzes it usually has to play man up because there just isn't enough personnel to cover the zones. this also rings true on non-passing downs and 2nd or 3rd short yardage situations.

[bowlingtwig]

well, i could be wrong but if i am everything i have seen and read is too. again, one of the reasons why it 'may' look like that, is our corners are giving such a soft cushion it appears to be zone coverage even when they play man coverage. they are playing 5 yds off the LOS and backpeddling up to 10 yards at the snap. maybe against certain teams we might play it more when down and yardage dictates but generally 60% or more of the time we are not in the cover 2.

 

 

 

again i have to disagree with you. we do play a lot of man coverage. also, when a cover 2 defense blitzes it usually has to play man up because there just isn't enough personnel to cover the zones. this also rings true on non-passing downs and 2nd or 3rd short yardage situations.

 

 

NFO even said that he was at the Houston and game and he saw that even when we blitzed he saw the CB give way for the Safety to take the man. I saw this all time while watching the game and I thought I was going to hurt someone. Ask Pix. We watched the game together and we saw that we played Cover 2 almost exclusively in that game thinking that it would keep Andre Johnson in check. Which that failed as we gave him 10 rec. for 148 yds and 2 scores. More importantly I thought was Owen Daniels was always open in the middle of the field(weakness when playing cover 2) Daniels may have only had 3 catches but his 33 yrd reception broke our back as we had just scored, hoping to force a 3 and out. That 33 yard catch was only 3rd and long in the middle of field against the cover 2.

[nfoligno]

I personally do not know how much we play cover 2, but where I think a misconception lies is the idea that when we are not in cover two, we play man coverage, as if cover two is the only scheme we play that uses zone coverage.

 

Sure, there are times I see us w/ only one safety (other safety is in the box) and our CBs do not release, but that is simply not the norm. I don't know percentages. Most talk about 40% use of cover two because I think Lovie alluded to something like that. My point is that, even when we do not use the cover two, we are most often still in a scheme that uses zone coverage.

 

I would also make this point. Regardless how much we are in the cover two or not, that is the identity of our head coach. We are not going to look for players that do not fit our head coaches scheme. Maybe he would be a good fit for the 10-20% of the time you run man coverage (just throwing stats out as I don't know) but are you really going to spend the sort of coin it will take to get an elite CB if he isn't going to be an ideal fit 100% of the time?

 

I go back to the example of 2001 when we had a DL that was expect to (a) stop the run ( maintain their lanes/gaps and finally © get to the QB if you can, w/o sacrificing the above two. Remember, "sacks are over-rated". So back then, w/ such a scheme, would it have made sense to add a DE like Dwight Freeney. He may have been an all world pass rusher, but if we just blew off that talent and asked him to play the run, would the price to add him have been worth it?

 

Now I am sure Lucky would argue you adapt your scheme for the player, but there lies the key. I just do not think our staff does such. We adapt players to the scheme, not the other way around.

 

NFO even said that he was at the Houston and game and he saw that even when we blitzed he saw the CB give way for the Safety to take the man. I saw this all time while watching the game and I thought I was going to hurt someone. Ask Pix. We watched the game together and we saw that we played Cover 2 almost exclusively in that game thinking that it would keep Andre Johnson in check. Which that failed as we gave him 10 rec. for 148 yds and 2 scores. More importantly I thought was Owen Daniels was always open in the middle of the field(weakness when playing cover 2) Daniels may have only had 3 catches but his 33 yrd reception broke our back as we had just scored, hoping to force a 3 and out. That 33 yard catch was only 3rd and long in the middle of field against the cover 2.

[Lucky Luciano]

I am not saying our corners are good enough to play man. I am saying we do not often play man coverage. You say, they play up and get beat time and time again. I say, "huh". While I am not going to argue their getting beat time and time again, I do question the idea of their playing up time and time again. Understand something. How we line up our corners has been a particular pet peeve of mine for years. Even when our D was top 5 and things were going great, this was an area of criticism of mine. As being a pet peeve, it is also an area I have focused on more often watching games. W/ that said, I just do not see our CBs play near the LOS. Prior to the snap, they nearly always run up to the LOS as if they are going to press, but still prior to the snap, the back peddle 8 or so yards. So we agree w/ the idea that our corners are not capable man coverage DBs. Where we disagree is (a) whether or not our scheme calls for that and (how often we see our corners in such a situation.

 

do you really think lovie smith is so stupid that if our corners could play bump and run, forget about man coverage but like the cover 2 actually dicatates in the first place, he just doesn't want to do it?

 

just to be sure i am getting you... you say the cb's are not good enough to play up man coverage yet it appears your pet peeve is why our coaches don't scheme to play them up man in coverage OR on the LOS in zone coverage more often?

 

just for the record, even when our D was top 5 our pass defense was POOR!! we overcompensated for poor corner play with good + pressure from the defensive line. we also at that time had a good safety in mike brown who also helped to smooth the edges of our corners playing so soft. in the mean time other offenses figured out how to beat us which we don't have the tools to counter.

 

As for how many of our DBs would bring a 1st or 2nd round pick in value, sorry, but what does it matter. What players on our entire defense would net such? I question whether even Briggs would net a pick. I mean, any team in the league could have had him w/o compensation, but he returned to chicago as the offers were simply not there.

 

what matters is that there is not enough quality/talent in our entire defensive backfield to even trade one for a 3rd round pick!!! you don't think another team would give us a 3rd round pick for briggs? or urlacher? or tommy harris? would you give one for polamalu (sp)? one for the kid in oakland? champ bailey? dawkins? mcalister?

 

But I think you are missing the point. That our corners play off even slower WRs implies that how we line up our corners has more to do w/ scheme than anything. I don't care if you think our corners are not very good. That we played 8-10 yards off Bobby Wade says to me it isn't about talent, but simply due to scheme.

 

no i am not missing that point. it doesn't have to do with scheme unless you think our cover 2 is something different under lovie smith than any other coach using the cover 2. it has to do with confidence in his players abilities which seems nonexistant. either that or he really is stupid.

 

No, I do not think we play man coverage whenever we blitz. FAR from that. When I went to the Houston game, I was able to really focus on this more than I normally can on TV. It just didn't matter whether we blitzed or not. We still played zone coverages. It is something I have screamed about for years. Logic says when you blitz, you need to cover the WRs early so as to not provide the QB a quick option, but we do not. IMHO, that is a big part of why our blitzes are so ineffective. We may blitz, but because we allow such a cushion, the blitz is offset by a quick pass. And no, I am not just confusing our DBs giving a cushion while playing man w/ a cushion while playing zone. When our blitz is picked up, and the QB still has time, I still continue to see our corners release to the safety or LB, or whoever's zone the WR enters.

 

IMHO, it is not simply a matter of whether we are in cover two or not. I have said this many times. Whether we are in a cover 2, cover 3, or whatever, the vast majority of the time I see our corners playing zone coverage. Sure, they do play some man covergae, but IMHO, it is far more rare than what you may believe.

 

first, i wasn't at the game and it is truely vauge in my memory without revisiting it so i can only talk in generalities in this instance.

 

onward: when blitzing 'can' a defense play a larger zone? sure. does that mean your corners are or aren't playing man? no.

 

again... there are a multitude of zone type defenses some mixed with man. do you consider it a zone just because they are giving this big of a cushion? if that is the case we never play man coverage. watch where the corner is lined up. see where the safeties are lined up. is the corner trailing the wideout with a deep safety for over the top help? are there 2 safties playing deep? is he passing him accross the field to the safety, linebacker or the other corner?

 

i have to add to this also, the cover 2 is DEPENDANT upon the corners not letting the receivers get off the line untouched, period. otherwise you will get exactly what we have seen in chicago playing zone OR man.

 

I have mentioned this before, but will continue to go back to it as an example/evidence. The year we went to the SB, do you recall how we killed NO? After that game, Drew Brees has some of the most telling comments. He talked about how we were a zone coverage defense, but in that game, we played mostly man. He talked about how all week they prepared to play our zone, and our playing man had them baffled. Many took his comments as a swipe at the coaching staff's inability to adjust, but key for me was the difference in scheme. We were viewed as a team that played zone to the point that teams didn't even practice beating man coverage preparing for a game w/ us. When we actually did play man, it was such a shock, it was difficult to adjust to.

 

explain to me your description of that game's corners and safeties playing man coverage and compare it to what you see in other games. what are the specific differences to you?

 

Sorry, but I (and most) would argue the biggest problem is pass rush, or lack thereof. You can have the best secondary in the NFL, but if the QB has all day to throw, eventually WRs will get open. How often have we heard our staff talk about how our defense revolves around the DL getting a pass rush. If we can't pressure the QB, the defense as a whole fails.

 

the biggest PROBLEM is wracking up 3-5 hundred yards passing a game. how can you expect any defensive line, including the 85 bears, to stop a continuous 2-3 step drop and release? if your corners are covering the receivers tight can that happen as often as it does in chicago? nobody seems to realize that that extra second waiting for a receiver to clear can make the difference between a completion and a sack.

 

i agree you need to generate a pass rush to be successful. but to do that you need to be able to hold the receivers from being open for at LEAST the minimum amount of time it takes your linemen to get there. we can't/don't do that.

 

As to how I can say drastically improving our pass defense would be a waste of money, my point is, if the player (regardless how good) isn't a good fit for the system, you have paid top dollar for a player who will never be fully utilized. Consider this. Most consider Dwight Freeney one of the best pass rushing DEs in the game. Remember our defense in 2001? Big DL who emphasized stopping the run. That was when Blache said sacks were over-rated. What if the bears had Freeney then, but asked him to stop the run first, hold his lane, and get to the QB if you can, but not make it a priority. I think you would agree that would be a waste of talent. You can argue that if you get an elite player like Freeney, you adapt to utilize his strengths. I would agree, but question whether our staff would do such. How disgusted would you be if we added your CB of choice, only to see him play mostly zone defense and play off the LOS. You disagree that is how we would use him, but that is why I think adding him would be a waste.

 

yea i do remember 2001 and what we needed then was a pass rushing defensive end to be successful. our corners weren't great but they did play a lot tighter/better coverage than anything we see today not to mention we had two pro-bowl caliber safeties. i just don't see how this is a waste of money improving your entire defense with one key player.

 

Sorry, but what does that have to do w/ anything. I didn't say no FA would come to Chicago. I said FAs factor scheme, and are not as likely to head to a team that uses a scheme that doesn't fit them. Which of the above examples fit such a category. A current example. If Peppers is serious about only wanting to go to a team that will run a 3-4 scheme, do you think he would choose Chicago?

 

FA's factor cash first and foremost. add to that do you think a db from oakland, for gods sake, wouldn't see an improvement in chicago? if not then we truely are a sad franchise at this point in history.

 

We just disagree on our staff. I do not believe our staff is the sort to mold a scheme around players, but the opposite. I think they are the sort who have a scheme, and force players into that system. Brian Urlacher was considered elite among MLBs, but has never been a fan of our scheme, and has not been shy to say as much. Most would point out that Urlacher is at his best when behind bigger DTs that can eat up blocks, while he can more freely flow to the plays. Did that ever matter for our coaches? Nope. We simply forced Urlacher to fit into our scheme, ignoring his potential if used differently.

 

Sorry, but I simply believe going after a CB like who you want is a pipe dream. He is not a fit for our scheme, and not a player I think we will show any interest in. Even if we were to go CB in round one, I think you would find us going after a player who scouts praise for his zone coverage.

 

you keep saying the same thing over and over. our staff wouldn't deploy our corners up because of scheme. how do you know that? you yourself say they are not good playing up!!! so why should they? so they can get beat every other down?

 

would angelo be dumb enough to draft a cover 2 type of corner in round 1? i certainly hope not. any corner i drafted on the first day would be one i projected to be a cover/lockdown corner.

 

finally... when have they ever had a true cover corner to put on the field??? do you truely believe that bringing woodson in 3 years ago would have made NO difference for this defense? are you serious??

[Lucky Luciano]

NFO even said that he was at the Houston and game and he saw that even when we blitzed he saw the CB give way for the Safety to take the man. I saw this all time while watching the game and I thought I was going to hurt someone. Ask Pix. We watched the game together and we saw that we played Cover 2 almost exclusively in that game thinking that it would keep Andre Johnson in check. Which that failed as we gave him 10 rec. for 148 yds and 2 scores. More importantly I thought was Owen Daniels was always open in the middle of the field(weakness when playing cover 2) Daniels may have only had 3 catches but his 33 yrd reception broke our back as we had just scored, hoping to force a 3 and out. That 33 yard catch was only 3rd and long in the middle of field against the cover 2.

 

i won't dispute what you saw and am not saying anything is written in stone from my previous post.

 

what i would like to comment on is there are a number of factors involved for what you possibly see, game to game, which includes injuries and their replacements. this could be young or inexperienced players, poor quality players with severe limitations, or people playing out of position and our coaching staff going to as safe a defensive mode as possible due to these contingencies. what compounds this is the inexperience and/or ineptitude by our coaching staff which includes people like babich.

[selection7]

no i am not missing that point. it doesn't have to do with scheme unless you think our cover 2 is something different under lovie smith than any other coach using the cover 2. it has to do with confidence in his players abilities which seems nonexistant. either that or he really is stupid.

Haven't you heard the Bears refer to their D as the "Bears 2" or somesuch? Lovie's Cover 2 is absolutely different under him than most any other coach. Your assumption that we play our corners off just because they suck at man has not been well supported in my opinion. At this point, our guys are bound to be a little soft in their man-to-man skills because they don't get the practice, but that doesn't mean they don't have the tools to do more than they have been.

[bradjock]

I'm jumping back into this argument late, so let me just say this about Vasher & Tillman:

1. There's been times when they've been called on to press the WR's, and as far as I can tell, they've never been burned. Hell, with Graham's size & speed, he should be ideal at bumping WR's at the line.

2. When has JA ever over-paid or under-paid a player? He keeps his finger on the pulse of what the market is. He gave Vasher a 5 year 28 million $$$ deal and Tillman a 6 year 41 million $$$ extension. I mention that because if we paid that, chances are other teams would pay the same. You don't pay that kind of coin for players who only have the ability to back-peddle.

 

Peanut is a top corner, and Vasher was a good corner. Either way, there's no chance that our coaching staff hasn't had confidence in them. Chico was smart enough to mix things up at times. Babbich wasn't. Let's hope Lovie gets things back on track.

 

Either way, we already have 67 million invested in two cornerbacks. If you count the 21 million deal we gave RMJ, it's 88 million. Yet our secondary sucked. Asa from Oakland will probably cost 88 million by himself. That ain't going to fix the problem.

 

i won't dispute what you saw and am not saying anything is written in stone from my previous post.

 

what i would like to comment on is there are a number of factors involved for what you possibly see, game to game, which includes injuries and their replacements. this could be young or inexperienced players, poor quality players with severe limitations, or people playing out of position and our coaching staff going to as safe a defensive mode as possible due to these contingencies. what compounds this is the inexperience and/or ineptitude by our coaching staff which includes people like babich.

[Lucky Luciano]

Haven't you heard the Bears refer to their D as the "Bears 2" or somesuch? Lovie's Cover 2 is absolutely different under him than most any other coach. Your assumption that we play our corners off just because they suck at man has not been well supported in my opinion. At this point, our guys are bound to be a little soft in their man-to-man skills because they don't get the practice, but that doesn't mean they don't have the tools to do more than they have been.

 

if what you say is really true and it's "Lovie's Cover 2" that requires our corners to play that soft and our corners are good enough to play tight on the LOS then get ready for the same ole, same ole until lovie smith is fired.