Forgive me for saying so but when did Chicago Bears fans get like this? Complaining, crying through the comments section with a WOE IS ME attitude that frankly makes me want to put a brick of cheese of my head.
This is football, everybody, so toughen up. Mike Brown is hurt. Dusty D is hurt. You know what? It happens. It's football. Some of you sound like you want the Bears to pack it up now or mail in the season or make vacation plans for early January. St. Louis lost their starting left tackle. The Giants lost the quarterback. The Cowboys lost their nose tackle. This game hurts and it hurt the Bears Sunday.
I have been a Mike Brown fan for as long as he's been a player. I feel terrible for a gifted athlete and a superior leader. But Mike Brown's injury won't end this team's season. Someone actually wrote that you should pencil us in for a 9-7 season. I assume he's very young. There was an entire decade where we would have sacrificed our young for 9-7 seasons.
The Bears are going to win a lot of football games this seasons, starting Sunday at Soldier Field. Stop crying about things the team has no control over. Injuries happen and they happened to us this weekend. Now they'll respond. and we'll see what they really are.
#2 jeff said . . .Okay....
Anyways. Are you guy really comfortable with Manning?
I think Walker for Dusty will be fine, and isn't that big of a swap. We have Harris this season, and Walker played well Sunday.
September 11, 2007
#3 FlamingHotNacho958 said . . .manning's an interesting talent but they played a lot of mcgowan on sunday. it'll be similar i assume.
September 11, 2007
#4 HesterFan23 said . . .I think too many of us listen to the Eastern Sports Propaganda Network a wee too much. Commentary from that channel is tightly scripted and usually plays to the lowest common denominator; meaning enough info to generate water cooler fodder. Suffice to say, when reading/listening/watching the Eastern Sports hooplah, you are getting no more than useless info tasty enough for a quick call to your neighborhood bookie. There are few, very few on that network I would deem even remotly articulate when breaking down tape and making informed, intellegent opinions. ESPN has cornered the market on the "LCD" which generally tends to effect the ebb and flow of all things sports, especially come draft season.
I say if you want solid, up-to-date info on the Beloved... Check out Mully and Hanley, Zaidman, Holmes and Arkush over on the AM dial at 670. They tend to handle information at a more in-depth, intellengent scale. Nothing scripted, and shot from the hip. Not a plug, just a fan!
Bear Down!
FHN958September 11, 2007
#5 GP said . . .The only concern I have without Brown, is our run defense.
I feel he is a huge part to our run D sucess.
September 11, 2007
#6 Phillip said . . .Do we still have a good defense? Yes, though our ability to stop the run has taken a big hit. Remember, we had issues against the run last year after Brown went out. For all the dismissiveness about him, he was on the field when the D was playing its best ball last season. And Dusty certainly looked good in preseason...good enough to start ahead of the $25 million man Walker. What's the most worrisome thing to me is that we've lost depth and it's only week 1. Who plugs in next on the D-line if Tommie Harris gets hurt? Or Archuleta, who was IMO one of the weaker links already?
All I know is that the AFC looks tougher this year than last, and this team needs to be much better than last year's if we want to win a Super Bowl. Having Brown and Dusty made us a better defense than last year. Now, that improvement will have to come from the offense...
September 11, 2007
#7 Rancid said . . .Thank GOD Jeff! I've been out of New York and in Chicago all week, and this afternoon as I was lunching at the Hogie Hut on some tasty dogs I was leafing through the Sun-Times, and EVERY SINGLE FREAKIN' STORY was about how we're done for and everything's awful and God Save Us All. That really pissed me off. I dunno where these dudes get off writing tripe like that, but these are the Chicago Freaking Bears, not Green Bay. We don't say Bear Down for nothing.
September 11, 2007
#8 Justin said . . .Jeff - your blog is too good. When it's this popular by sheer numbers you get moron fans who react ignorantly to anything bad. We'll be fine and the defense is fine, in my opinion still an upgrade. With the number of posts you're getting each day, this is the new norm.
September 11, 2007
#9 Midway Monster said . . .HesterFan23- Our D should be fine but getting through a brutal 16 game season is about depth and we are now severely depleted after taking two major casualties. If Harris or God forbid Urlacher go down early on in the season, it could be real tough getting up that hill ya know what I'm saying. With the offense we have, it is imperative that our defense give us short fields- this weakness was magnified on Sunday...our offense just can't seem to make it 80 yards down field- Field goals aren't gonna cut it no more. I am sick and tired of these drives sputtering out mid field or worse not even making it to mid-field
September 11, 2007
#10 Al in WI said . . .Time for everyone to man up and get ready for the Chief game.
--Midway--
September 11, 2007
#11 Fresh Cup of Hot BS said . . .Overall when we got the schedule I predicted a 12-4 run counting this game as a loss. Nothing has changed for me there. But I am very disappointed about Mike Brown, he is/was one of the great all-time Bears. God speed #30.
I expect the Bears to get back on track and everything but there were some things to be concerned about the rest of year.
1. Benson; it wasn't just his lack of yards, that could be excused by the opposition. It was his missed blocks, and lack of intensity that really bothered me. He needs to play angry.
2. Game Plan; On Friday I warned that I was worried about the game plan for this game. In the Super Bowl I felt the on both sides of ball we played not to lose instead of playing to win. On Sunday the D attacked the chargers and played to win. The offense on the other hand was the same old bs. Too predictable, and lacking aggression. That can't happen again the next time we're in a big game.
Those are the two things I'm watching for as we move forward.
September 11, 2007
#12 Decatur Staleys #7 said . . .Sitting here watching the offense of the Cards and Niners is a lot like watching the Bears O. Adding to the comedy, I just saw Ditka scratch his nut sack on on National TV!
Bear Down Grabowskis, the seasons not over despite the size 12 boot in the junk.
1) Brown out - God Damn it! Here I thought that Mike back at FS would free him from the injury bug AND allow him to ball hawk. Early on I was feeling like Nastrodamus. We'll miss Mike and I fear we may never see him take another snap; but we won without him last year - remember that.
2) Dusty - I LIKE him. I don't LOVE him. I mean, Christ, we haven't even been an entire date yet! We can't call the season on a guy who we 'hoped' would actually put out; that's reserved for the guys who've been giving us pleasure for seasons...
3) If you want to judge the running game based on Sunday and prognosticate the season - you be my guest. I'll reserve the use of the word dumbass just for you. The bolts got mad D folks; let's see how we do againts lesser teams before we piss ourselves over letting TJ go. I will say that Benson better get his assignments down or AP will get more and more nods.
4) Turnovers? WTF - when did we get the turnover bug? I am going to attribute that to the Bolts D again; big poppin' out there yesterday. If that doesn't get address then the season is over.
5) Play calling yesterday is still irritating me. I suppose they didn't want to 'open the playbook' on day one and/or against an AFC opponent? I dunno Ronnie. WTF?
September 11, 2007
#13 Phil from SATX said . . .Let's look at the facts Dusty an Brownie are gone for the season.that's it,let's not add players who aren't there.Rusty Jones did a outstanding job keeping our guy upright last season.
Benson missed some assignments but he did block well last year to help make TJ expendable.
I'm putting this game on Ron Turner play calling,He just didn't attack the Bolts'He went with the grind it out gameplan.Lovie been witness to better OC coaches(Martz)to know when he doesn't have the right guy,that's why Rivera isn't here.
JA given him the players to win with he needs to use a better game plan better suited to who we got,But nothing he called was attacking down the field an testing there DB's.I know "we run the football off the plane"but you might want to spead them out an run a couple draws or something.Alot of poster on this blog have noted that there calling what we going to do next.If Rex has improved as they say, then you have to let him play an quit playing him as if he the rookie QB.Getting the ball back by the Defense that many times an not trying to attack down field baffles me.Ron game plans most weekend are average at best an trying "to keep fitting a round peg in a square hole"Is really getting tired.September 11, 2007
#14 jdawg said . . .Hey Fresh Cup - didn't Like your post, Loved it! You're dead on man! Especially points 3-5 - does everyone forget how Benson was running in the second half of last year? Is it his fault he was injured in the SB? Comparing him to Curtis Enis? My God! Also, you are right to point out the unusualness of the turnovers - last year Rex was the typical reason for turnovers, but otherwise the Bears played clean, mostly mistake-free games. In this strange game, 2 RB fumbles and a special teams fluke on a flubbed punt? There's no reason to think that's a repeatable scenario.
And again I'm with the crowd calling out Ron Turner - get with it man - it really sucked. If you're that worried about a fearsome rush call for faster throws, timing routes, screens - not an offensive coordinator but I know there was nothing creative or 3 dimensional about that game plan. And for God's sake coach Rex about what to do when you see a guy lined up across from your tight end and you know said tight end is not going to try to block him.
Good opener Jeff - come on people, it's only Game 1. What is depth for if not to be able to avoid panic mode when you lose players - especially one that most of us fully expected to lose given recent history? Are the Bears worse without MB and DD? Of course! Are they still a great D? Obviously! The Cowboys are in a way worse situation than us. And be prepared, we will lose more people, for parts or all of the season. Like Jeff said, it's part of the game.
Bear down! Chef's in the kitchen already!
September 11, 2007
#15 mikebdot said . . .Ditto to Jeff
As far as the Score (AM670) is concerned, Hub and the others mentioned are pretty good, but be warned that the actual on-air personalities are useless assholes.
Hub was on yesterday (and you can listen to his segment on a pod-cast on the site) and was telling everyone to calm the fuck down (minus the fuck).
September 11, 2007
#16 Phil from SATX said . . .And for all those who think that TJ is just wonderful, to start the season last year (against GB, Detroit, and MN) he had 63 yards (21 carries), 64 yards (21 carries), and 54 yards (18 carries), respectively, in each game. For a frame of reference, GB and MN had decent run defenses last season (MN actually led the league in yards and yards/attempt given up), but Detroit was terrible.
And yes, I realize he had 0 fumbles against those teams. If it becomes a trend, I'll become concerned at that point.
If anyone is wondering, SD was 20th best in yards/attempt last season (3rd in attempts, 7th in yards). Kansas City was 21st. They gave up 73 yards (16 carries) to Ahman Green last week and only 33 (13 carries) to Dahne. I think Benson is probably more like the former. Hopefully our line actually makes some holes.
September 11, 2007
#17 Pissed Off said . . .Bearimist Club Note of the Day:
Just like to point out as well that if you're going to lose someone important, better to lose them in the first game rather than the middle or end of the season - let's see what we have with the other guys, and give them maximum time to gel together - who knows if the next Mike Brown is already on the roster and just needs more playing time and experience?
September 11, 2007
#18 mikebdot said . . .Very comfortable with D. Manning and McGowan filling in for fragile MB, didnt plan on him being here all year anyway, McGowan was out all last year and now he's healthy so thats a plus from last year right there. Agree that Walker for Dusty is fine, maybe an upgrade anyway. We didnt see enough of Dusty (only part of one reg season game) to say he's better than Walker, plus on that one play walker busted it thru the middle for that sack, it was a thing of beauty. It just kills the depth a bit with the injuries, where the hell is Anthony Adams, Idonije?
Dont worry about the run defense Hester23, it was fine last year, it may take a small step back but I think everyone is going to be surprised to see that Brandon McGowan is Mike Brown Jr. He is my pick for Bears comeback player of the year and he WILL make us forget about MB.
Justin I think your forgetting we played a top 5 SD defense on Sunday. Yeah the offense sputtered but so did theirs. They had a couple of short fields on turnovers is how they scored. We would have too. Your not going to win on the road against an elite NFL team when you have 4 turnovers, period! Our offense is fine, we were moving the ball very well with Rex before both turnovers (RB fumbles). VERY WELL. I think had the Tovers not been committed we score a TD on at least one of the drives and probably a FG as well. I thought we played to win on Sunday.
September 11, 2007
#19 Pissed Off said . . .PO'd: Initially I was concerned we didn't "play to win", but those TOs were really deadly. The three drives we had going were killed by the INT, the fumbles, and then when we had a chance to start pushing around their D when they might have been getting tired we had the ST fiasco. I read somewhere that the punt actually hit one of the damn camera wires.
Anyhow, I know we played fairly well. The only issue I really have with Ron Turner's play calling was the three straight runs (on 2nd and 1 it's a PERFECT time for a play action pass, if you don't make the pass, at least you can run the ball on third/fourth down) and the fact that I only saw Devin Hester one time (was he ever out there after the misdirection screen pass?) and I NEVER saw Mark Bradley take the field (because he didn't). That is just plain unacceptable. How can you expect Grossman to excel if you don't put the talent on the field? Is anyone as upset as I am about that? It's like they broke a promise to me, a promise to try new things this year. I didn't see any besides a screen pass to McKie. That is so damn frustrating. A fullback like McKie should NEVER catch a screenpass. He has to be slower than our O-line...
September 11, 2007
#20 Mike said . . .The screen pass didnt bother me that much, if we did it several times then yeah. Now that you mention it I didnt see Bradley, I say Davis a couple times I think though. I only noticed Hester in on one offensive play as a decoy. If he's only getting in on one offensive play, please have him return kicks AND punts. Hell have him return kicks and punts anyway. That pissed me off. And the camera wire thing, someone put that on the last thread too, I could see that happening, I think it was confirmed. Maybe its a conspiracy?
September 11, 2007
#21 Nicole is miserable in this blue city said . . .Losing Dusty Dvoracek concerns me. I know he has played in precisely one professional football game in two years. But he really looked stout against the run, something the defense struggled with last season. Darwin Walker is a quality football player. It will be interesting to see how much success rushing locomotive Larry Johnson has against the newly constituted front four of the Bears.
The loss of Mike Brown is a critical blow. All you need to do is see the reaction of Lovie, Tillman, Urlacher, et al. I"m not at all convinced Adam Archueleta can be tolerable replacement in tandem with the Mannings, Daniel and Ricky. Maybe Kenny Payne is a player?!?
September 11, 2007
#22 JB said . . .Thought I'd add a spoonful of sugar to this chat.
Remember the quote "The Bears are who we thought they were". Yeah me too. Still makes me smile.September 11, 2007
#23 Mike said . . .PO'd, maybe I'm wrong but I think DH was out there on kick returns, but they had a two-deep set w/manning and kaeding kicked it at manning all game. What's maybe more interesting was all the fair catches...he could have taken off on a few of those. For the record, I want to say I'm still bearimistic for the season, but at least give me until Sunday to mourn the loss of one of my favorite players...
Turner certainly didn't open up the playbook, and kept it very preseasonesque vanilla. I would hope that will change against the chiefs and we can get in these offensive weapons we kept reading about. If I didn't know better, I would say we only have 1 receiver that can catch the ball.
September 11, 2007
#24 Phil from SATX said . . .You guys are too hard on Ron Turner. It's hard to get the offense going when the offensive line and Cedric Benson can't generate a legitimate running attack. This Bear offense remains incapable of scoring against quality opponents. It will be very interesting to see how Rex Grossman and company do against Dallas. If they struggle against the Cowboys, then my optimism for this season will officially be flushed down the toilet.
Instead of harping on Ron Turner, ire should be pointed at Grossman, Benson and the o-Line. Making statements like the offensive coordinator should open up the offense are brilliant in their over-simplification and stupidity.
And I'm curious, has Mark Bradley entered the witness relocation program?
September 11, 2007
#25 startOlsen said . . .RT sure got schooled by his brother, didn't he? When they were getting shut down, he pulls out an RB option pass. Didn't see anything quite so nifty on our side, did we?
Run right
Run right
Run rightHey Ron, the CD's skipping, wake TF up!
Yeah, we only have Bernard Berrian. Moose is apparently way too old, Bradley must be injured again, Devin Hester is not NEAR good enough, Wolfe is too small! Des Clark gets tired if he catches more than 3 balls and never gets open in the middle anyway. Rashied who?
It's tough being Ron Turner with no weapons!
September 11, 2007
#26 Midway Monster said . . .im going on record to say D. Manning become a total stud safety, takes this job over and never looks back.
he was a rookie last year, but good enough to start on the best D in the league and start in the superbowl.
He will only get better, which is scarey since he is already really good.
September 11, 2007
#27 Midway Monster said . . .I say it's time to get a bit cocky. I say from here on out we show a bit of that blue/orange bl0od. I say we get a bit positive. I say we back Lovie. I say the O makes a big turn wound.
... I say we kick the Chiefs ass!
Who's with me?
--Midway--
September 11, 2007
#28 Mike said . . .That's "around" not "wound" - typo on my Black berry!
--Midway--
September 11, 2007
#29 beardown1982 said . . .Well, if Daniel Manning is so good in the eyes of Lovie and Babich, then why was he displaced by an aging and suspect Adam Archueleta. Manning was on the football field when the defense fell apart after the loss of Tommie Harris last season. I seem to recall plenty of opposing running backs and tight ends having a field day in the safety zone of the football field. Which prompted Lovie and Ron Rivera to have Charles Tillman, Nathan Vasher and Ricky Manning overcompensate in their play, which led to other problems.
The combination of Manning and Archueleta concerns me. And I think it concerns Lovie and Babich.
September 11, 2007
#30 mikebdot said . . .It is true...I think a lot of us (including me) may be overreacting a bit to the first loss. Honestly, I would have been completely fine with the loss, but losing two players on defense left a sour taste in my mouth. Especially the loss of Brownie. He has long been my favorite Bear and it is easy to see that the guy is special. I've always thought that our defense is that much better when he is on the field...and he proved that again against the Chargers. It's unfortunate that his body couldn't hold up for him. (unlike some people, I don't see why you can blame a guy for injuries when they are almost always out of the player's control, especially in football) That said, I think DManning has a great shot of being special too,and can fill in nicely along with McGowan.
I hated losing Dusty only because I think quality depth at D-Line would have made this Defense special. Keeping Tommie and Darwin fresh to rush the passer while Dusty ate up the run would have make our D-Line that much better. I still feel like they will be good, but this is a big hit in my opinion. Dusty was looking very good from what I saw. (shame to lose him while he was blocking on a kick return...huh?) Still, we have so much talent up front, we should still expect to be dominant.
This is football...and almost every team will lose some starters this year. If the Bears want to get back to the Super Bowl, they will make the adjustments that the great teams do. I'm confident they can and confident they will make those adjustments on the defensive side of the ball. Let's just hope our offense starts to gel against the Chiefs this week...time for them to start playing with a chip on their shoulders.
So, I'll be up there in the nose bleeds on Sunday wearing my #30 jersey proudly and expecting excellence from the defense, just as Mike Brown would want it. Bear Down...I'm still a believer.
September 11, 2007
#31 Phil from SATX said . . .Mike: Grossman only had 23 pass attempts and his receivers were just plain not getting open. If they were getting open, I'm sure they would have shown the replay, because that's what their producer is told to do, yes, I'm sure this happens. Last year, you remember the game where Moose was stomping around like a little boy because he didn't get the ball thrown to him, don't you? That's because they showed the play at least 5 times during the broadcast, then over and over the following week. I'm telling you, have two receivers, a slow TE, a FB and HB pretty much every play is poor coaching by Turner. We actually have options this year and we're not fucking using them. Yes, Olsen was hurt, but we had 9 days to prepare for the game without him. Turner SHOULD have used Hester and Bradley on O, not just 1/0 of 59 plays (counting punts). Having depth at receiver can definitely change things because receivers run routes differently and the corner can't just get used to one guy doing the same thing off the line every time, especially when you know the receivers aren't getting open.
September 11, 2007
#32 Mike said . . .Mike, the BT went after AA precisely for this reason, not because they didn't like Danieal Manning. They had to have a game plan in place for the likelihood of MB going down again, and Chris Harris wasn't it. Let's give them kudos for prescience (although since many of our fellow bloggers called it in the offseason, this planning didn't necessarily take that much skill).
Same thing goes for the signing of Darwin Walker, Anthony Adams, the drafting of Dan Bazuin. This is their job, preparing for guys who may go down, especially those with a history of it or who are coming off of injury. Neither of these injuries could be described as not expected by the Bears.
September 11, 2007
#33 Coxy said . . .I'm not going to get down on Ron Turner. You can't simply assume that Devin Hester and Mark Bradley are quality weapons to get involved against a quality defense. It might be the case that Hester isn't good enough to involve in the offense. Don't be seduced by him supposedly having a great offseason and training camp. A lot of what we hear during the offseason is public relations hype. Players need to prove it on Sunday. Hester (and Bradley) weren't involved because, in all likelihood, Lovie and Turner didn't have faith in their ability against an outstanding San Diego team.
Same goes with Greg Olsen. I'll hop on his bandwagon when I see him produce on Sundays rather than what he did in traninig camp and during the preseason.
September 11, 2007
#34 mikebdot said . . .Tommie Harris sure looked like an animal on that one drive no? Did he have the Chargers playcalling in his helmet. Seemed like he knew the count on those two plays.
Even though he was slightly offsides on the fumble one, his swan dive was pretty awesome.
September 11, 2007
#35 Phil from SATX said . . .Mike: And yes, I do realize the SD defense is awesome. I mean, look at the NE game last year:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=270114024
Tom Brady's rating that game was 57.6.
I just wish I would have seen some amount of creativity. A screen pass to a fullback with Hester in there is not what I'm thinking either.
It took trick plays and TOs to score on our D, and then a dirty play to take out Mike Brown to score again (on the very next play). Why didn't we try something crazy like this first? I don't care if we would have lost 10 yards on a double reverse, at least it would have been exciting. Running the ball up the middle and towards the right side of the line just makes no sense against SD.
September 11, 2007
#36 Mike said . . .Mike, I really don't mean this as a personal attack, but you are certainly the opposite of a Bearimist, aren't you? What would that be - Pessibear? Pissabear? Talk about looking at the glass all the way empty. I could buy your comment about Hester not being that skilled a receiver yet, but Bradley? His only problem has been with health, not skill. And I haven't heard that he's not healthy. And good to know you're not going to make the mistake of getting excited about the possibility of Greg Olsen, until he proves it - being a Bears fan isn't supposed to be fun, is it? It's work, dammit - grim, disgusting, depressing work - but somebody's got to do it.
September 11, 2007
#37 Mike said . . .A final point and then I'll shut up for awhile. A statement of the brilliantly obvious -- this offense needs for Cedric Benson to be effective carrying the football 25 x/game. The o-line and Benson need to get their shit together in the running game or all these supposedly marvelous weapons (Berrian, Olsen, Hester) will be severely under-optimized. And Rex Grossman will be eating a lot of dirt sandwiches as he feebly tries to get a passing attack going against a defense that doesn't respect the run.
September 11, 2007
#38 Phil from SATX said . . .So if I'm to understand Phil correctly, Ron Turner is principally to blame for Mark Bradley being a spectator last Sunday. Not Mark Bradley himself. Not a player long on hype but severely lacking in production the past two years. Hmm. Interesting.
Now I shall shut up. For real.
September 11, 2007
#39 mikebdot said . . .And I'll try for more civility as well. This year will be no different than last year - the Bears must pass to set up the run, not the reverse. Every team facing the Bears is going to stack the box to make sure we can't run - same as Chargers did, same as we did against them, same as 49'ers did against the Cardinals last night. If you start a game with Ced going into the line a bunch of times, it ain't gonna work. Even a lower level defense can stop the run if they devote enough guys to it.
Pass first, run later.
September 11, 2007
#40 Phil from SATX said . . .Mike: Who controls the personnel on the offensive side of the football? That is the offensive coordinator. His name is Ron Turner. What do you not understand about this? Yes, HE is to blame for not putting Mark Bradley on the field, not Mark Bradley.
September 11, 2007
#41 Mike said . . .And BTW Ron Turner accepted blame for play calling in that game, saying the guys never got in sync, and HE never got in sync with his play calling.
Of course that could be standard faux- modest "the buck stops with me" talk, but I prefer to think he did realize that he screwed the pooch in that game, and will hopefully rectify it on Sunday. Not giving up on RT yet, but he's got to do way better.
September 11, 2007
#42 I want to take this one step further said . . .Unbelievable. Ron Turner is to blame for the enigmatic Mark Bradley not getting the football. The same Bradley who has accomplished jack scratch his first two years in the league. I suppose Turner is also to blame for Justin Gage turning out to be a pile of steaming dung. And that it is Turner's fault that Rex Grossman is incapable of performing satisfactory against good competition.
Bradley, Hester, Grossman, et al are unaccountable in your little pea brain. It's the big bad imcompetent offensive coordinator that is the villian. I suppose your the same type of moron who blames the school system or the teacher when your child gets straight D's.
September 11, 2007
#43 Pissed Off said . . .If some of you insist that Ron Turner is primarily to blame for the pathetic offensive showing versus San Diego (and Indianapolis in the Super Bowl), then kindly explain what he should be doing differently. Not some uninformed brilliant statement of the obvious like, "he should line up Devin Hester and throw him the football." Because surely even you would agree that Turner (and Lovie) don't cook up an offensive game plan during the week that purposefully tries to sabotage offensive production on Sunday and ignore wondrous skill position players on the roster.
Seriously. I'd like to hear what some of you brilliant offensive coordinators in training would do differently. Because it's readily apparent to me that you KNOW the talent n hand better than Ron Turner, and that you KNOW right strategy for scoring points against the Colts, Chargers, etc.
September 11, 2007
#44 Pissed Off said . . .JB, I guess I wasnt sure if Hester was out there on two deep sets for kicks but thats no excuse, Hester could have returned every one if coaches wanted him to. And I agree there were a few punts he did a fair catch on that should have been returned.
Midway I like your positivity, however I cant jump on that right now. We are 0-1 at the bottom of the division. We lost to a superior opponent when I thought we were the best team and I cant get excited about beating the cheifs. I dont know if I can even get excited about beating Dallas the next week. I would say the next tough opponent would be Philly in Philly but they looked horrid on Sunday. The next tough game might be @ Seattle? Of course when we rattle of these games and are suddenly 5-1 or 6-1 or 7-1 I will be pumped and talking once again about how we are the best team in football. I just cant get excited right now. BTW I think San Diego travels to New England and gets done this weekend.
As I mentioned at the begining of the last thread, mike is unreadable, I skipped over all his comments, there were many on this thread, but I did notice Phil call him a Pissabear or something like that for his negativity. That was my main point before about his posting, maybe in the future I will read some of his posts but not yet. I already know I dont want to read them from the responses of others.
I just cant let the loss go, but I feel better already and knowing how we played Sunday I cant honestly right now PREDICT another loss on our schedule. I dont care about the injuries, MB was never going to play anyway, DD was going to be a bonus guy, thats it, thats why we have Walker. The offense sputtered but damn, our D was good enough to win itself...almost. And again without those fumbles from Ced and AP, I think we win....against a great SD defense. I know I'm a little "pie in the sky" but seriously we should destroy our next few opponents.
September 11, 2007
#45 Gin said . . .Hey #42, I havent been on Turners ass like some others but for starters I will say simply call a pass play, on 2nd, 3rd or hell even 4th down after the first two fail instead of trying to pound for 2 yards again, and again, and yet again.
September 11, 2007
#46 mikebdot said . . .Jeff, couldn't agree more with your post. I'm not worried at all. Our defense was great that game. And SD is one of the top 3 teams in the league. We'll still coast to a division title. People now-a-days are so quick to turn on a team. Whatever to those fans. To the real fans, I was in SD for the game and gotta say the Bears fans were representing during the tailgating and during the game. It was a great showing by us. It's gonna be one hell of a season and I don't see any reasons why we won't be playing in Glendale AZ in 2008. And to Phillip in post 6, LOVE the Hoagie Hut but who gets the hot dogs there???
September 11, 2007
#47 JB said . . .Mike: What are you talking about? Bradley never even entered the game. He literally didn't even get a chance to show anything, not even to prove you right. That's all I'm asking. You have to be the most dense person on here. Also, Hester was on the field for 1 play of 59 and the ball was thrown to the fullback.
So, take your lame "pea brain" insult, think for a second, then respond to this question:
Does the offensive coordinator (Ron Turner) have responsibility for placing talent on the field? If so, why are you questioning my intelligence? If you don't think so, is Bradley/Hester just supposed to say "Oh, I feel like playing, PUT ME IN COACH" like in really bad movies? Or what?
September 11, 2007
#48 mikebdot said . . .and mike...AA is in his 7th year..."aging" doesn't fly here...by that logic, Urlacher & Kreutz should just retire now. Honestly Mike...if you're going to be negative, at least use facts.
September 11, 2007
#49 StartOlsen said . . .Mike: And a big "FUCK YOU" about blaming teachers for anything, my wife is a school teacher, so go to hell.
September 11, 2007
#50 Al in WI said . . .David Haugh says it best today:
Danieal Manning will step in for Brown as he did last season and actually provide more speed and athleticism that will help compensate for Brown's savvy. He isn't the blitzer or run supporter Brown is, but at this point of their respective careers, he covers more ground and breaks on the ball quicker. The addition of Adam Archuleta should help plug the holes against the run that showed up during Brown's absence in 2006.September 11, 2007
#51 Pissed Off said . . .Agree with Po'd about not wanting to get excited about beating down the Chiefs just yet.
I'd like to respond to a point made in the last thread about those of us dumping on Benson after one game, but still defending Rex. It's pretty simple, qb and rb are completly different positions. Running back is the easiest transition form college to pros because the only thing that changes are pass protection and the speed of the game. Quarterback's take time to delevope, it's extremely rare that a rookie quarterback comes in and has a lot of success. So much so that the only time it's happened was in 1983 with Dan Marino.
Running backs on the other hand do it all the time. So it comes down to can you play or can't you? And at this point Benson could still be a solid or good player but he isn't special. And that is unacceptable for the 4th overall pick of the draft.September 11, 2007
#52 mikebdot said . . .Great point AL, however I would like the definition of special. If that definition includes current players like LT, then I agree, he wont be that special. On the flip side, who is? LT may go down as the best back to ever play. Yeah.
I think Benson can still be good, even get to an occassional pro bowl maybe, but hall of fame back....I dont think so. We havent really seen flashes of greatness and its been 2+ years already. With all the great backs they emerge by 2 years. Benson can run guys over. I like that about him so far. But we dont need a hall of fame back, or even a pro bowl back. Look at what we accomplished with TJ. If Ced can be that guy or even a bit better we'll be fine.
September 11, 2007
#53 Max said . . .Maybe somebody can help me here...
Does anyone remember having 4 WRs lined up in the game at a given time? It says here
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/splits?playerId=4480
that we had three passes when we had 4 WRs in the game. Does anyone remember those three plays? If so, who were the WRs? Berrian, Moose, Davis, and....who? Was Clark split out as a WR? Just wondering since I don't remember those plays...
September 11, 2007
#54 Phil from SATX said . . .whatever i could say, has already been said.
I just want the chiefs game to get here already
September 11, 2007
#55 Mike said . . .I agree PO'd, and you know I'm a Benson guy from watching him at UT, but I really think Benson NEEDS to be in a 1-2 back combination, with a quicker shiftier back and him as the power guy. He and TJ made a good tandem last year but I think that this year, it's Wolfe rather than AP who is really the better match with him because of how different they are. And given that statement, I do believe Benson was a reach as a #4 in the draft guy, but that's water under the bridge.
Still don't know what Wolfe can bring from the line of scrimmage, didn't see that much when he was the featured back in the preseason, but again I'm DYING to see him catch a dumpoff or screen pass, because he blew me away with his abilities there.
September 11, 2007
#56 Phil from SATX said . . .Wow. You guys have jumped ahead and already given the Bears a "W" against Kansas City. No need to play the game apparently. But I guess this is what to be expected from people who are mad at Ron Turner because Mark Bradley didn't get on the football field against San Diego. After all, it's not poor little Mark's fault that he didn't play ONE FUCKING DOWN. Does this mean that every bottom dweller on the roster has similar beef?!? Because rest assured if former 2nd round pick Mark Bradley can't get on the football field in this his third year of professional ball, that he is a bottom dweller. Some might even go so far as to say certified bust.
September 11, 2007
#57 Pissed Off said . . .Mike, you make me think of a song that may have been written for you.
It's called Lump
"Lump lingered last in line for brains, and the one he got was sorta rotten and insane"
Actually the gender is wrong but still think it was about you. From everything I've heard, the coaching staff is ecstatic about Bradley and can't wait to get him on the field. That fits what I've seen in preseason. The guy has been injured for most of his career. He's not now. So why didn't Turner play him? I don't know. Maybe Turner doesn't like him. But by the same analysis, I guess he doesn't like any receiver not named Berrian or Clark.
What's your beef with Bradley?
September 11, 2007
#58 Mike said . . .Phil, I agree I liked the little bit I saw of Wolfe in the preseason, my concern with him is if he can take a hit, he seems so little and fragile. LT is small but he's beefed up a lot more than Wolfe is. Time will tell. I would say too that AP and Ced are far too alike backs meaning there is little change of pace there compared to the change that would occur with Wolfe and Ced. That said I think Wolfe will get some looks this Sunday for one of two reasons: 1) We will be blowing out the chiefs and resting Ced and AP by 3rd or 4th quarter or 2) Wolfe deserves a look since he couldnt really do any worse than AP and Ced did last week with the fumbles and all.
Regarding the Benson draft I dont know if he was a strecth given the talent pool that year and the fact that it was deep with RBs and so many team wanted to get their hands on one. I still believe he was the top back coming out of that draft with Cadillac Williams and Ronnie Brown. So far it hasnt panned out that way but by the end of the year I think Ced will be the better of the three. I HOPE!
September 11, 2007
#59 Al in WI said . . .I'm alumnus of NIU and season ticket holder for football. I say Garrett Wolfe play the past three seasons. He is electric on the field. But he is a very tiny guy. He's 5'7" with shoes and weighs 175 pounds soaking wet. Despite his wondrous accomplishments at NIU (also the school of Chargers back Michael Turner), I felt he was a big reach in the third round. To me, he is a guy who maybe lines up in the offensive backfield 5 to 7 times a game. And you probably put him in motion as opposed to fixed position behind Grossman. Can he be a tag team partner with Cedric Benson? In my opinion no. He's big or durable enough. He was a speed back in a mid-major football program. That speed is greatly neutralized in the NFL game.
September 11, 2007
#60 Phil from SATX said . . .I guess I see Wolfe as more of a situational player. Maybe he runs the ball on some draws or something, but I don't see him taking over as the feature back anytime in his career. He's just too small, especially if he had to block a LB or something.
Po'd you make a good point about 'what is special' it really is subjective. I think it's like obscenity, you know it when you see it. Payton, Sayers, and Neal Anderson come to mind as Bears backs that were special. And I think it's fair to ask that of a #4 overall pick.
September 11, 2007
#61 DTB said . . .I still think it's possible for Benson to be as highly regarded as a Neal Anderson, certainly not the other greats mentioned. We already watched Wolfe block in preseason, he actually seems pretty good at it despite his size. I agree he's not a feature back but there should be plenty of uses for him, and I watched him catch a ball and then do amazing things in space juking people, real NFL players. So I guess that is situational, but he's a talent and we need to use him. I wonder if there's any 2 back set possibilities with him - that would be ideal where the defense doesn't know where the ball's going, could work great on play action.
September 11, 2007
#62 DTB said . . .Re: #52 mikebdot
These splits are powered by Stats LLC. A small-time company out of Morton Grove, near Ohare. They under pay a group of 21 year old wannabe scouts to break down NFL games to compile numbers for purposes such as this. I know because I was one. The longer I stayed there, the more I realized that the company has no idea how to analyze football. We had a manual that looked like a 6th grade playbook, that had to be used to translate an NFL game. What a joke that job was.
September 11, 2007
#63 Mike said . . .Re: #52 mikebdot
These splits are powered by Stats LLC. A small-time company out of Morton Grove, near Ohare. They under pay a group of 21 year old wannabe scouts to break down NFL games to compile numbers for purposes such as this. I know because I was one. The longer I stayed there, the more I realized that the company has no idea how to analyze football. We had a manual that looked like a 6th grade playbook, that had to be used to translate an NFL game. What a joke that job was.
September 11, 2007
#64 Max said . . .Re: Cedric Benson
When it's year 3 and we still don't know what we have with the # 4 pick overall in the 2005 draft, then warning bells should be clanging. That Lovie Smith and the Bears were hesitant to replace Thomas Jones LAST YEAR, signals a lot. Ditto the pursuit of Chris Brown this past offseason. At this point the Bears are simply hoping he is "serviceable." The expectations of being a Pro-Bowl caliber back have long been thrown out the window.
September 11, 2007
#65 Midway Monster said . . .Im still on the AP bandwagon baby. i like Ced, but AP is the man
September 11, 2007
#66 Decatur Staleys #7 said . . .PO ( post #43) - awwwh come on. dig deep- I know there is an animal in there that just wants to bust out and shake off all they negativity and analysis and scream
"LETS KICK SOME CHIEF-A$$!".
Let it out man... let it out. (I learned this in rehab)
--Midway--
September 11, 2007
#63 Mike said . . .
Since you've already thrown Ced under the bus,Who would you liked to have picked in the 2005 draft class of RB's an why?
Pick Position Rd 1-3
#2 Ronnie Brown
#4 Cedric Benson
#5 Carnell Williams
#44 JJ Arrington
# 54 Eric Shelton
#65 Frank Gore
#73 Vernard Morency
#77 Ryan Moat
#101 Marice ClarettAnybody beyond the 3rd round I think might be a stretch as far as a top 5 pick at that time.
#63 Mike said . . ."When it's year 3 and we still don't know what we have with the # 4 pick overall in the 2005 draft,then warning bells should be clanging"
With a five-year contract worth thirty-five million dollars,I think that's what the Bears are trying to find out,An TJ good or bad has to go.
September 12, 2007
Here at DaBearsBlog, you are free to kill us or the Bears as you so wish. You are not free, however, to be an asshole. So if you spew racism or ill-meaning foul language (cursing about football is just fine) or anything of that ilk, your comments ain't gonna last long, jerk.