Say what you will about Jim Johnson relegating his normally blitz-happy unit to prevent status for the still goosebump-inducing final drive in Philadelphia. There are clear lessons to be learned from the formally inept Chicago Bears offense’s ability to move the ball ninety-seven yards in less than two minutes without the benefit of a time out only a week after throwing the ball at will against the Minnesota Vikings, eradicating a fourteen point deficit in 2:56. Not tiny little lessons about scheme either. Sunday’s drive and its predecessors should have taught the Bears that the entirety of their offensive ideology is significantly flawed.
Lovie Smith is as stubborn as a bitchy bartender after last call but one thing is certain: the Bears are no longer a running football team. They don’t run “getting off the bus� – though unless the opponent’s bus pulled up next to them, that might be their only chance to be successful in the ground game. So how would a change in ideology reflect on the field?
BENCH CEDRIC BENSON
If the Bears commit to passing on early downs, having the best blocker/ball catcher in the backfield will be essential. Neither of those is Benson – who would become a very expensive version of Michael Turner in San Diego, wearing down defensive fronts late in games. When you’re averaging what Benson is on the ground, having AP in the game on early downs won’t mean any kind of drop in yards per carry either.
UNDERSTAND / UTILIZE YOUR WEAPONS
If you were to rank the five best offensive weapons on the Bears, how would they fall? (5) Bernard Berrian. (4) Muhsin Muhammad. (3) Greg Olsen. (2) Desmond Clark. (1) The Skunk. Even if you disagree with the order, I don’t think you can argue against the players. The five best playmakers on the Chicago Bears are receivers and its time Turner & Company understand that putting the ball in their hands as often as possible is the only way to sustain drives. Throw early. Throw often. The run will come. The success of the passing will put defenses on their heels and breathe new life into an offensive line whose run-blocking seems locked in neutral.
NO HUDDLE
Name a single NFL franchise with the defensive speed to contain Olsen, Hester and Berrian. Olsen will wear out safeties and linebackers while Skunk is soon-to-be demanding double teams on every go route he runs. The no-huddle hasn’t been an option in Chicago of late because it requires a poised, veteran quarterback with a feel and intelligence for the game. Brian Griese isn’t Bob Griese but he isn’t Bobby Hebert either. Griese’s on-field intelligence might be his finest asset and the no-huddle might be the perfect method to take advantage of it. At the end of these last two games, Griese has looked like a Pro Bowl player.
#2 topherized said . . .Am I really first? GREAT post Jeff!
October 23, 2007
#3 Start Olsen said . . .Good post.
This team has a pulse, it has a leader, and it has nothing to lose. I think this week is when we see Benson open up the running game a little. My expecations are low, maybe 90 yrds and 1TD. Detroit is going to have to respect our passing game.
I think our recievers are starting to step up. I'd even say Moose and B-twice have looked solid (not great but not nearly as aweful as games 1-4). Throw in Hester, Olsen, and Bradley... we might have the most depth at the position in the NFC north. When was the last time a bears QB passed for 300+ yards in 2 stright games?? That stat has to prove my point.
I'm starting to get excited about this season again. I just hope the D can step up. The Lions have no offensive line... we should get 10 sacks on sunday.
October 23, 2007
#4 Shady McBears Fan said . . .good solid post.
I cant handle another string of retards arguing about grossman/griese, so please, spare us.
I want to instead discusss your point about the RBS
I have stubbornly supported Benson... and tonight, my dish is out. so, my son, being the great 11 year old Bears fan he is, put on the recording of the Packer game.
So I watched with him.
I watched AP make opportune catches, good blocks, smart plays. I realized, he cant possible average LESS ypc than Ced given 18 carries a game. No way. I realize, Ced thrived late in games, as you said Jeff.
I thought back on all the AP plays I could remember this year. Ive always been an AP fan- as most of us are. Hard worker, special teams maven, team guy, and good solid back.
So, I came to the conclusion-
fuck it. You're right Jeff. Start AP and give him a shot. Get the better reciever (by far), blocker (by far) and surprisingly so far the better runner, in the game early and often. Im for it.(reality check- no fucking way this happens. brass tells lovie run him non stop to see what we got with him this year. bank it- he gets 300 plus carries)
October 23, 2007
#5 Max said . . .You're right Jeff. The 2007 Chicago Bears have shown, so far, that they are not a running team (well, at least not a SUCCESSFUL running team). A change of pace could benefit the offense, however, I wonder if such a shift in offensive scheme is entirely possible.
Griese made going 97 yds. in less than 2 minutes with no timeouts seem like a piece of cake last Sunday. Can we really extrapolate that ONE series (Two if you count the comeback against the Vikings) into a reason for dramatically changing the offensive scheme the Bears have been learning since preseason? Maybe, but probably not. The circumstances the series was under was unique and certainly not how defenses usually play the Bears.
Unless a team has a quarterback such as Tom Brady or Payton Manning, establishing a running attack is critical for success, especially during the bitterly cold days towards the end of the season. Throwing the ball 35+ times with Brian Griese is a recipe for turnovers. As much as I respect AP for his hard work, he just doesn't have the physical abilities to be a #1 running back on any NFL team. Recognizing this fact, I seriously doubt Angelo and Lovie would agree to bench Cedric in favor of AP, and I have to say I agree with them.
I just don't see the benefit of benching Benson in favor of Peterson. Yards per carry may not drop, but they certainly won't increase. I say Ron Turner should keep running Benson, but perhaps not so damn predictably as he has been. Give Cedric (as well as Peterson and Wolfe) an opportunity to make a play in space. One of the best plays the Bears executed last night was the screen to Benson. I know it took 7 weeks to get right, but weren't you excited as hell to see it work right? Perhaps we shouldn't be looking for a change in personnel, but a change in play calling to give Benson & Co. a better opportunity to make some plays.
October 23, 2007
#6 RandomName said . . .I told yall, I am driving the A.P. bandwagon. Jump on in, there is plenty of room.
October 23, 2007
#7 RandomName said . . .I'm really glad you posted this article. You think the Chicago bears frequent this site at all? I hope they do.
Cedric Benson I really was pulling for the guy, obviously he's good enough to be in the NFL which says a lot, and I think a lot of people were and still wishing him to have a break-out game. but we're losing it man.
Great Article Jeff, I hope the Bears get the memo.
October 23, 2007
#8 RandomName said . . .After posting my comment i read topherized.
hmm yeah a good passing team most get respected for the pass too. Maybe other teams just wasn't respecting our pass play. So maybe we can let this passing resurgence open up our running.
Cedric Benson : 5'10" 230lb
Our Adrian Peterson: 5'10" 210lbwe give up 20 pounds but from looks alone Peterson looks more solid, which would negate a bit.
I have a fear of fumble plays with Peterson because it's happen like 3 times this year.
note: Much respect to any player I ever mentioned, and for making it to the NFL. I couldn't do it so don't take it personal.
GO BEARS
October 23, 2007
#9 Phil from SATX said . . .What?? nfl.com doesn't record returns for touchdowns? http://www.nfl.com/players/devinhester/careerstats?id=HES267217
the skunk as he now known, is shown to have only one touchdown.
October 23, 2007
#10 said . . .I am in 100% agreement with this post, one of the best strategic posts I've ever seen from you, Jeff, kudos. I've been on record as saying the Bears need to use the pass to set up the run, and not vice versa, because we don't have the line nor the runners to do the opposite. All we do is waste downs, and possessions, and especially when teams know what we want to do and hence are in an advantageous position to try to stop it.
The argument to go to Peterson early is persuasive - better hands, better blocking, and no evidence to show YPC will be less. The SOLE reason to start Benson at this point is money. Any finance or accounting people around here know about the concept of sunk costs, and the ultimate irrelevance of sunk costs with respect to sound decision making. Football teams, or at least our football team, don't appear to. Going to AP as starter doesn't mean don't use Benson - it means deploy him differently, and later.
As far as risk of more passes go, there's no doubt there's higher risk on any pass than any handoff, but the Bears have the tools to employ the best of a West Coast style offensive passing attack coupled with a long attack. They can use short passes that are effective as runs, and still relatively low risk. Do that for a few first downs, and then see how effective a draw is after that.
Some would say you give up the use of play action in this scenario - I disagree. I think play action works far earlier than RT thinks - he thinks you need to pound the ball for no gain 10 times in a row, and THEN play action will work. Unless a team is a certifiable no-running team, defenses always have to respect the fake to the RB. This team needs to increase its play action/actual run ratio by a lot.
I too will be surprised if Lovie opts to do this. Again, sunk costs are everything to these guys. It seems like ego plays a big part - like if you sit your $16MM man, you're admitting you made a mistake, can't have that! However, he did make the QB change, they sat AA for a half, they have been going away from Benson for long chunks, so who knows?
Also, to those who say "AP is not an NFL starter" I say bullshit. There is no such predetermined thing. A starter is who they choose to start - you don't have to have a Starter License or anything. He has always been effective, and smart teams utilize all players on their roster in the best possible way. There's no shame in starting AP, the Bears have started far worse at RB.
BTW, Ronnie Brown out for the season, Cadillac Anderson out for the season. Of the 3 RBs taken near each other in the 2005 draft, CB is left standing. For what that's worth (not much, apparently).
October 23, 2007
#11 OK then said . . .StartO = D Bag
October 23, 2007
#12 Phil from SATX said . . .Why is everyone on this blog getting delu....I mean how can we think this team can be a pass first offense. If Griese can play like he did the final two mins of the Philly game then yeah we can do some no huddle and be a pass first offense. but if we have griese as he's been throughout his entire career we cant possibly become an offense that relies only on the pass. i understand jeff that you think the run will come with passing but i dont think teams will have a tough time shutting our pass game down if they know its coming. Before Sunday we all though BB was a bum, cant catch, Moose was old and entirely ineffective, Hester cant get the ball, etc. Now after two mins we are annointing ourselves the Colts offense?? WTF
October 23, 2007
#13 Pissed Off said . . .PO'd, what's been working are short passes that work like runs - i.e. West Coast offense. Griese may not be great on long balls but he looks very competent at getting the balls where they need to go in the first fifteen yards from scrimmage (or behind LOS for that matter).
Not that different from what Favre is doing, he's become much less risky because he's relying on shorter passes. And it isn't a passing only suggestion, it's pass to set up running later. (I assume that was you PO'd)
October 23, 2007
#14 Pissed Off said . . .First of all, I dont give a shit if you all rip me, startO, you can suck it, you are the master of personal attacks and its getting old, come up with some new material, calling me a retard is pathetic. I go against the grain sometimes but thats what I think. I think you do the name calling cuz your not bright enough to respond with sense. I bet your next post will just call me a name or tell me to go blank myself, clever. I remember you having a post a few weeks ago basically just cursing and telling us you wanted to fight everyone on the blog. Nice.
Basically I agree with everything OK then said, BTW welcome, but I would add that we need to continue to run. Maybe AP is that answer, I think the O-line costs us rushing yards no matter if its Ced or AP. I have no doubt that we will still be trying to be a running team, Lovie is stubborn, but I cant argue. Its always been that way. It got us to the SB last year.
October 23, 2007
#15 jeff said . . .It does sound like something I would say.....
BTW #10 was not me either but.....
Phil I would say that Favre has no running game which is why they have to pass. I think in thier case its cuz they dont have any good backs. Their O-line has been real good in protecting Favre all year and probably good at opening holes but the back are bad. In our case we have some talent at RB but the O-line cant open holes or maybe its a combination. I gotta think we have a better rushing attack at this point than GB but I could be wrong, maybe I'll check some stats.
October 23, 2007
#16 Mike said . . .OK, i completely disagree. the spread passing game is nearly impossible to just shut down if you're mixing the short with the deep routes. it won't be fool proof but it gives your best players chances to make plays. PO'd, i agree with it getting us to the super bowl last year but it certainly isn't going to get us there this year. i've never advocated abandoning the run. what the colts have done is used the run off the pass - albeit with a much better passing game. when everyone is waiting for the ball to go downfield, the run game will be there.
October 23, 2007
#17 Pissed Off said . . .I like it, but I am concerned about what will happen when the weather turns nasty.
October 23, 2007
#18 Rancid said . . .Ok I'll be debbie downer now and play devils advocate....so can this spread offense get us to the SB this year anyway with the personel we have now? I am not going to say no for sure but I will need to see a lot more in the coming weeks to say, hey this might work and get us into the playoffs and who knows from there. But I suppose your just trying to win us some games. I cant help but look at the big picture, I hate it but I cant stop. I think it stems from last years appearance. As the season winds down I wont expect this team to be the Bears of 06, I hope.
October 23, 2007
#19 Pissed Off said . . .PO'd - you're too touchy about this. I read StartO's post. It didn't mention you. It didn't even attack Rex guys alone. It expressed annoyance at that topics continued dominance on this blog. I expressed the same thing on a different thread yesterday.
I am willing to risk the RB switch despite the fact that I have been a CB guy and think that with our Oline it will take an incredible talent to top 4 y/c. That is our main weakness and it has affected nearly every facet of our game. Going to a pass first offense should take a few guys out of the box and take some pressure off our guys in the whelchairs. I also don't think that this opens us up to the blitz as it would a normal team because of the quality of our TEs, as well as a good receiving RB in AP. The short pass should always be there.It's a risky move, one that probably won't get made, but I like it. It's actually a bit like what Green Bay is playing this year except with better TEs and a more conservative QB. I say go for it! Good post jeff.
October 23, 2007
#20 mikebdot said . . .Hello, I have shit for brains and get a hard-on everytime I see photograph of Rex Grossman. I know zilch about football, but by writing in demonstrative angry style I fool a lot of my audience. Aren't I slick.
October 23, 2007
#21 Megan said . . .My concern with the spread is this means Hester will be on the field more, which is great and all, but if we have to burn anymore timeouts because he doesn't know what the hell he's doing, we're going to have problems.
Anyone remember back in the day when Jim Miller would burn a timeout with 5 minutes left in the first quarter pretty much every game?
I HATE burned timeouts. Poor clock management really bothers me.
October 23, 2007
#22 jeff said . . .Jeff,
After watching the last couple of mins of the "chickens" game, I aggree completely with this post. (Now that we are seeing more effort from both sides of the ball)
Topic Change
Shady was saying in the last blog that he had a secret man-crush on D. Clark,
(here's a copy of my last post from the previous thread...)This brings up a fun topic for all of you..
Who is YOUR secret man crush??
I suppose it should be a Bear...
Enquiring minds...October 23, 2007
#23 mikebdot said . . .Mike, i agree with the weather concerns but apparently there are no more winters. which works out for the spread offense. the bears play five games in december. three in chicago, one in dc and a dome game. gonna be cold. BDOT...thank you for bringing up the timeouts...if the bears lost sunday, i was going to write monday about the timeouts. they burned the devin hester timeout and the silly burn when des clark decided not to come out for a fieldgoal.
October 23, 2007
#24 beardown1982 said . . .Jeff,
Had we not scored on that last drive it would have been very easy to point at the timeouts as a main reason. But we just happened to have the perfect drive.
BTW, did everyone not absolutely love the last play of the game? How satisfying not to even have that feeling in your stomach when the hail mary pass is in the air. I know McNabb can throw the ball a mile, so what the heck was he doing throwing a six yard pass to the middle of the field? Then I thought to myself "good riddance".
Megan: My secret man-crush is slowly becoming McBride. He's going to turn into the next Peanut. Which means we actually might have some depth at corner. I'm also liking Garay at the moment. My god, he was just moving the line of scrimmage around like mad whenever he entered the game. I'm not sure why the coaching staff didn't notice and keep him out there longer...maybe he was winded...not sure. I'll have you know though, those two were stretches. Clark is probably my favorite Bear right now, but I didn't want to repeat. I still can't believe they were asking Olsen and Moose to block DEs without help. I guess Clark spoils the coaches because he does a decent job doing just that.
October 23, 2007
#25 Phil from SATX said . . .I say start AP...if anything, to light a fire under Ced since he can't seem to start it himself.
As pressing as it is to get more points (especially TDs) from the offense...I'm still more concerned about the defense. Seems to be that our D-ends need to be way more consistent with getting pressure...they disappear for long stretches. Blitzing...it seemed like everytime we sent a linebacker against Philly, they got picked up with ease...we need to be more creative with our blitzes and stunts. And turnovers...we have to find a way to get back to our ball hawking ways.
October 23, 2007
#26 Bill said . . .I thought those timeouts had to be on RT, they did not look prepared as an offense at times. Of course special teams had its problems as well.
I'm reading about Griese's unusual Monday press conference to clarify what occurred in The Drive. I was very pleased by what I read - I was worried that either Griese was selfishly grabbing credit for himself (which would not have been a good thing) or more likely ordered by management to do spin control to protect RT (also not a good thing) and instead he clarified how a 2 minute drill works, and clarified exactly which plays he called and which ones came from Turner through Pep. It all made sense and made things seem more functional (as in not dysfunctional).
I have to say, speaking of man crushes, that I am honestly falling in love with this QB. He's smart, he's experienced, and he's obviously very much of a team player given that he sat on the bench for this season and last, knowing what he could bring to the table, but not opening his mouth. We all suspected he loved his highly paid bench job, but I think we were wrong. He wants to play and is highly confident, and his skills seem to validate that confidence.
His undoing, if there is one, will be accuracy, and lack thereof. But I think it's less about accuracy and more about adjusting a weaker arm to our receivers. Our offense has to continue to adjust to him, remember the false start penalty on (Brown?) when Grease was audibling and he lifted his hand. They have to learn to hear and adjust to the audibles, and when they do, this will become a highly effective offense.
Others who compete with BG for my affection:
Des Clark (my first love)
Greg Olsen (second go-round, trophy wife)
AP (like my personal secretary, hot for being so damned professional, competent and overachieving)
BU (no words need to be said, please have my baby - oh wait, you already did)
MB (former crush who I still love even though he's sick and a shadow of his former beauty)
DH (who doesn't, the supermodel)
Pnut T and NV (the identical twins who I can't pick between, I'll go home with either or both)
LB (who tried to break up with me, but let's face it, he's hot - if he wants to get back together, fine by me)That's about it. But BG's the new #1 on my Fave 5.
October 23, 2007
#27 Rancid said . . .Man-crush - current Bear: no one jumps out at me. I kind of like Peanut's personality so I'll go with him.
85 Bears: Singletary; it's got to be the eyes.
Older Bears - O'B was my dad's favorite player from the '63 Bears, so I've liked him a lot.
But overall, and not to be a downer - but I met Brian Piccolo once and I'll never forget it. I can't even hear the opening music to Brian's Song without tearing up. The ultimate "guy-cry" movie.
October 23, 2007
#28 Rancid said . . .Gotta be Tommy Harris for me
October 23, 2007
#29 Mike said . . .I'm reading now that Benson injured his knee in the second quarter and played through it. This is why he sucked and why AP saw a little more time than usual. There's 2 possible ways to go with this.
1. CB really is good, he had a solid game against Minny and would have had another here if he hadn't gotten hurt.
2. Bull. But let's use the injury as an excuse to sit him for a game and try jeff's AP more passing scheme.
I'll hope that it was #1 but I would go with #2 if I have to pick one.
October 23, 2007
#30 B.A. Baracus said . . .The play of the season (if the Bears do well from here on out): 1st and 10 at the 3 yd line. Clark catches a pass for a couple of yards, looks upfield and sees Lito Sheppard. He does a little stutter-step and you can actually see him considering the sideline. Bears fans around the world are groaning. Somehow he hears their groans, sees the first-down sticks, lowers his shoulders and puts Sheppard right on his ass. First down! Result of the drive is a winning TD, sparked by a play in which a Bear decided not to take the coward's way out, but hit someone and make them remember who The Bears really are.
October 23, 2007
#31 Nicole is miserable in this blue city said . . .Angelo and Smith have not been straight with any of us for the last 2 or 3 seasons. Their insistence on playing certain players -Grossman and Benson - has been hogwash and disingenuous. The use of Grossman and Benson is purely political to save face as evidenced by the fact that there has not been a QB competition in training camp for two years. Suddenly, now, Griese seems pretty good after Shitman got benched. Ha! Expect CB to be the starter to the bitter end.
That being said, there aint no way in hell the Bears are going to go to a pass first, run second scheme. The defensive play calling by the Eagles during "The Drive" was suspect. Once the ball got near and over the 50, the Eagles were in a prevent defense and they got burned. The Bears are not going to face a prevent defense during the majority of games.
The Bears' WRs are suspect, but their TEs are pretty good. The Bears will stay true to the run in order to take advantage of play action as the game progresses. Only when the Bears are down by two scores or more late in a game will they use a spread and/or hurry up offense.
October 23, 2007
#32 Pissed Off said . . .I think we should discuss man crushes more often if it will keep the mood all Lovie (ha, couldn't resist).
I've already thrown out there that I'm going to marry Hester, Gould and possibly Griese if he takes us all the way and wins the big game for my birthday.
October 23, 2007
#33 mikebdot said . . .Nice post #19, I'm sure its Start O - I rest my case with the immaturity issue.
October 23, 2007
#34 Pissed Off said . . .Phil: The "false start" penalty when Griese was audibling was on Garza. He lifted his hand off the ground after being set. It wouldn't surprise me if Brown had a false start at some point though...our whole line is pretty bad about that. I think they all had at least 5 false starts last season, if I remember right. Which isn't terrible, but for all of them to have that many it adds up real quick. It almost always seems to happen on 3rd down. There were at least two drives that were stopped in part because of that. There was a 3rd and 10 where we had some sort of penalty and a 3rd and 1.
October 23, 2007
#35 mikebdot said . . .Bored with all this shit.
October 23, 2007
#36 Phil from SATX said . . .Wow, a positive post by Mike! And a good one at that. Sweet deal. We MUST be on the right track!
October 23, 2007
#37 Al in WI said . . .I was going to say, MikeB, you beat me to it. Good post Mike! You're coming around!
The O line has not had to deal with any substantive audibling for the past 2 1/2 seasons. Neither Grossman nor Orton used the audible much. I do think it's going to take a little for the line to adjust to a routinely audibling QB, and false starts may unfortunately be a part of that. But what a more flexible offense it gives us!
BA, I don't think Lovie and Angelo "haven't been straight with us" about sticking with players. There's lots of things they haven't been straight with us about, but they were pretty obvious about their commitment to Rex. Lots of mistakes are obvious in hindsight, but the one mistake we all knew about was the refusal to work in Grease as backup, keep him ready. We know they didn't do this, both by their lack of subbing during games and by Griese's statement when he was installed as starter that he had no experience with the starters, or with RT.
That one's on them. However, they get credit for making a huge U-turn, and one that was very painful to them. The CB deal is different - they believed in him enough to let TJ go, and I'm quite sure they are as disappointed in him this year as we are. But they have been sitting Benson, sometimes to a fault (at least earlier). I disagree with your ultimate assessment, I think the Rexperiment will cause them to pull the trigger MUCH earlier on Benson than they would otherwise. Kind of like when a NYSE-listed company has a big f-up and has to post a big loss, they'll go ahead and throw all their losing projects into the pot as well, since a loss is a loss (that's my second financial reference of the day, go figure). They don't want to have another controversy drag on right after the oh-so-painful Rex deal. It hasn't been fun for them. Plus a change at RB is a lot less all-encompassing for a team than a change at QB. From what we are seeing from CB, there will not be a drop-off starting AP.
October 23, 2007
#38 StartOlsen said . . .McBride versus Calvin Johnson on Sunday, with help from AA. That is a matchup I'm worried about.
So I think Jeff's idea of a no huddle makes perfect sense. I think the Bears should start the game with it to try and catch Detroit off-gaurd and get the offense going. Let's face it, we haven't done shit in the first quarter in weeks on offense and we need to get off to a fast start.
I think this is going to be a high scoring game, so the offense is going to have to carry us.October 23, 2007
#39 Phil from SATX said . . .Phil, #9, best post so far.
1. good points all around
"The SOLE reason to start Benson at this point is money."
2. made me laugh, huge bonus
"you don't have to have a Starter License or anything"PO'd, I am deeply sorry to have offended your tender sensibilities. I promise not to call names for at least a day. I can't promise not to go on incoherant angry rants when the Bears lose, though.
#19 The copy cat post wasn't me attacking you either- I dont do that crap.
Hey, we won, right???October 23, 2007
#40 jeff said . . .Uh oh, forgot that Calvin is back for this game. As to AA "helping" on him, he might be able to help like one of those marathon station guys where he holds out a water cup as Johnson flies by him. Course he has the broken hand and all, so holding the cup won't be that easy.
October 23, 2007
#41 Pissed Off said . . .by the way, i've never understood the "money" argument from organizations. you're paying the guy whether he's out there stinking or on the bench stinking. why not put the best player out there? why would you risk success because of a blown economic investment? you made a mistake, move on.
October 23, 2007
#42 Mike said . . .Well it's 12:28 and I still have shit for brains. But so long as I continue to babble in contrarian terms and use a lot of demonstrative nouns and verbs it will come across as if I am an NFL insider. Oh well, better sign off for a little while because Mr. Slate is walking down the hall to kick my ass.
P.S. I know zilch about the Bears or operation of an effective NFL offense.
October 23, 2007
#43 Mike said . . .I don't get the Cedric Benson apologists. Crikey, how much more of Benson do we need to see to understand that he isn't very motivated or any good? Adrian Peterson (Bears' version) is not the answer. Peterson is labeled a backup running back and special teamer for a reason.
October 23, 2007
#44 DTB said . . .Somebody has stolen my name "Mike" on this board. The last post was mine, but the rest of today's under that moniker are not. My positions are well known. The offensive line is ancient and crumbling, Cedric Benson isn't good enough, Brian Griese is a quality veteran QB capable of doing a serviceable job for awhile, Adam Archueleta isn't good enough to cover my 89 year old neighbor who just underwent hip replacement, Adewale Ogunleye is the most overrated defensive lineman in football, Rex Grossman is terrible, etc.
October 23, 2007
#45 tommy said . . .One re-occurring thing that I've had a problem with for years now is that every single time a team moves the ball towards the end of the game, some genious claims that the opposition was automatically in prevent D. I hear it all the time; and today, it ends. Obviously the circumstances of the game are going to dictate what the D is going to do but its not as simple as the "prevent".
What you saw was Chicago spreading the field, thus spacing the Eagles out. What you saw from Philly was a mix of coverage schemes (short zone, man under, 3 deep, we saw all of that), which can be equally as effecive as the blitz schemes ran all day (of which only produced one sack) dependant upon down and distance. What we saw was a QB get into rythem at the right time and take what the D gave in each situation. A mix of short and deep routes, a beautiful blend that had thier D-backs on their heels. What we saw was a beautiful call to get a ONE on ONE for Moose against a smaller, less athletic safety. What we saw was an offense imposing thier will on the opposition and executing a 2 minute drill. Thats it! Not prevent D! A solid 2 minute drill!!!!October 23, 2007
#46 Rancid said . . .po'd, I may not agree with everything you post but I love your stuff. Go for it, "shit for brains". Are you really Bill Parcells?
October 23, 2007
#47 B.A. Baracus said . . .Mike - this is why you should avoid commen names as your moniker, or maybe add a clarifying adjective.
Some suggestions:
NegativeMike
BearsSuckMike
OnlyShowsUpWhenThe BearsLoseMike
TheresNotOneBearsPlayerWhoIsGoodMikeI like the last one but it's kind of long.
October 23, 2007
#48 DoseOfRealityMike said . . .Phil - I still don't believe that JA's and LS's statements about Grossman giving them the best option to win were all that sincere in light of the fact that there was no true QB competition in the last 2 training camps. It does not speak well of a franchise when its coaches and GM do not start the best players - regardless of the motive.
If it is their pride that prevents them from putting the best player on the field then they are arrogant pricks and should be tied up in a burlap bag with a hungry cougar. If they truly believe that some guy is the best option, and they leave him in after it is clear he is not the best, then their football acumen sucks and they deserve to be tarred and feathered.
I guess the only thing with the way the brass is handling CB now is that they appear to have benched him at certain points. However, we would not know that he was truly "benched" based on their evasive and often mind numbingly dumb answers to questions about it.
October 23, 2007
#49 jeff said . . .Thanks for the suggestion. Couple things. Brian Griese performed beautifully on that last drive in Philly. The Eagles had their butts pucker up at the worst possible time. Normally Griese wouldn't have been able to do what he did against a very good secondary of the Eagles.
The Detroit game looms huge for both teams. The Lions are desperate to remove the shitty taste of the Matt Millen years. Another victory against the Bears will go a long way toward validating their revival. The Lions will be sky high for this game. The secondary of the Bears is an obvious concern this Sunday. Bob Babich will need to employ some gimmicks and the like to neutralize the Mike Martz offense. This will be a very tight game that probably comes down to the wire.
October 23, 2007
#50 Rancid said . . .DTB, i've watched it 8 times. they only blitzed twice on that entire drive. for the eagles, that's downright fort knox prevent.
October 23, 2007
#51 Bill said . . .Mike - great name by the way - brings up an interesting point with the the "Mike Martz" offense. Judging by the last two games they have gotten away from passing as much and gone to a more balanced offense. It totally backfired in the Skins game but worked against Tampa. I am curious about how they will play us and wonder if this makes them harder to prepare for.
October 23, 2007
#52 Iowa State Cyclones said . . .The Sun-Times has a play by play recap of "Da Drive" and also has Griese's comments. Not sure, but it sounds like most of the time they were in some type of semi-prevent - at least 2 deep zones with man underneath and likely 5 or 6 DBs.
October 23, 2007
#53 Pissed Off said . . .This is my first post here, and I'm sorry if it sucks but whatever... I'll admit, I was a fan of Grossman's (or at least the POTENTIAL Grossman, I know all this has been talked and talked about, so again, sorry). The last two games Griese has played have been more than impressive. He is putting up numbers that I had Grossman putting up in my dreams. That's not all though. As I watch his post game interview's etc. I find one thing... This Man Is A Leader. He is a man I would follow, he is wise, and he knows his football. I truly feel he can lead this team for a couple years until a younger QB can be brought into the system. Find the right man Bears... But what do i know, I'm just an Iowa boy.
October 23, 2007
#54 mikebdot said . . .Sorry fellas, my butt has puckered up and I ain't got no more to offer today.
October 23, 2007
#55 mikebdot said . . .DORMike: We don't need gimmicks to stop Detroit. We need to play clean football. We have Briggs and Tillman back this time. They'll have Johnson, which might be a big deal. However, if we get pressure on them and force Kitna to do stupid crap, as he occasionally does, I think our matchups are good, especially with McBride actually stepping it up a bit.
It's pretty much like every other game. If we win the turnover battle, we'll probably win, if we don't, we'll probably lose. I don't think we'll have problems moving the ball. And I fully expect Griese to throw a few passes that could be picked off. It happens to every QB. If teams capitalize good for them, if not, sucks to be them. When was the last time we had an INT? Against the freaking Packers. There have been plenty of passes that could have been picked off, but we're just not capitalizing on them. We aren't getting pressure up front. We're third in sacks this season, but that doesn't translate very well. We either get there, or get stood up. We are stood up a LOT on blitzes from the linebackers. I know everyone loved Babich's philosophy at first, but Urlacher and Briggs are both terrible at blitzing. They're routinely stood up by the running back. This prevents a check down to the running back, but leaves the middle of the field wide open for crossing patterns or allows more time to find a deep threat. It doesn't matter if Archuleta blows his coverage if the QB is throwing off his back foot, or better yet, on the ground.
I should have known that post wasn't yours. Are there any current Bears players you don't like?
October 23, 2007
#56 JL said . . .Pardon me, any current Bears players you do like? Actually I wanted to go double negative, but whatever. You get the point.
October 23, 2007
#57 mikebdot said . . .First of all, thank you Jeff and co. for putting this blog together. Despite the occasional, careening personal attacks I enjoy the armchair coaching we engage in.
First off, there are very few QBs and offenses that can pull off a 2 min drill, period. Griese was superb. However, people always beg the question after such success, "Why can't we do that all the time?"...because most of the time it doesn't work. How many 2 min drills have you seen end in a sack, interception, or turnover on downs in your lifetime? It happens ALL THE TIME. Why? Because it's high risk, high reward, balls-to-the-wall approach that you take with nothing to lose.
My point is that on Sunday we came out with the high reward but give Griese and the Bears offense 10 tries to run that 2 min drill against any NFL defense again and I bet we succeed once, maybe twice.
Which means that we can only take so much from that drive and from the desperation drives against Minnesota. What we SHOULD take is that we should be more creative and use Hester more, throw more slants, outs, underneath routes and screens, and move the chains in 5-7 yard chunks.
What that does NOT mean is that we replace CB with AP and become a pass-first team. Yes, Benson does remind me of the pile-diving Neal Anderson post-knee injury, but at times he looks like the punishing RB we thought he would be. I take his ability to get chunks of yards against the #1 Vikings D as evidence that he's getting better. I love AP and think if anything that the Bears need to commit to a 2-headed attack again.
We're not a West Coast offense team and this team is not going to throw out its playbook based on 5 mins of success. So yeah, I agree that we should be more creative in the passing game but I still think we succeed the better our running game gets....(and yeah, I know it doesn't seem to be getting any better but I maintain that stance for now)
October 23, 2007
#58 Pissed Off said . . .http://www.chicagobears.com/news/ChalkTalkStory.asp?story_id=3997
I wanted to comment on that play to Hester. Griese placed the ball perfectly. As a receiver you can't just try to basket catch every ball. If a defender gets near you, you go GET the ball. Randy Moss catches that pass. Chad Johnson catches that pass (who, incidentally, might become available at some point, anyone interested in that head case? Heck of a football player, but man is he a douche). Devin Hester is still learning to play receiver. Also, on that same play, there was illegal contact, the releasing corner definitely pushed on him as he was making his last cut towards the end zone. The route was perfect, and the defender made a good play, but Hester needed to go get the ball, not basket catch it.
October 23, 2007
#59 Pissed Off said . . .Very glad to have pissed someone off so much they continually post under my moniker. If there was a record for that I'd own it, hands down. I still think its StartO though. I'm not gonna lie it makes my day to know that someone is thinking about the stuff I said so much throughout the day that they are posting several times. Its a blog dude, it shouldn't hurt your feelings this bad, but I'm not sorry. When's your next post? I'm anxious to know what happens next. I hope you dont cry yourself to sleep.
Jeff can we delete these or are you cool just leaving them up all day? If thats how its going to be maybe I'll just post under everyone else's name too. Then this blog will be nothing but chaos. Nobodys opinions are any more valid than mine. I'm not going to apologize for thinking Rex is a far better QB than journeyman Griese and that this offense would be better with him in there. I'm not going to apologize for thinking that Lovie fucked up big when we saw how the team performed VS Detroit after he benched Rex. It should have been obvious that it wasnt all on the QB. And now that things are clicking (for 2 minutes of last game) Griese is our savior, I dont buy it. I think Rex could be doing better than 1 TD VS the Eagles, certainly better against the Lions, since he has owned them every time they play. BG hasnt been any more than adequate except for Sundays final two mins, the end of the MN game (even though the INT helped fuck us) and the second half VS GB. In those situations he was real good. Otherwise so-so. Not saying Rex would be any better but its clear he's more talented (evidenced by last years overall performance, arguably the 3rd best by a Bears QB ever) and he wasnt given a fair chance in my mind. I'm not sorry. Its way to early to think that Griese can be our QB for the next 2 or 3 years. Whats happened with our QB situation for the past 13 years before last year? Theres no reason to think Griese is the answer. I dont hate the guy, I hope he keeps it up and wins but I'm not going to crown his ass yet. Other QBs have had good games or drives, its not the first time. So boo -hoo to all of you in bed with BG.
BTW go back and read some stuff from November and December last year that I wrote, you'll see easily that I have bashed Rex aplenty and questioned his play and ability. Most of you are too new to know that and thats why your on my case.
October 23, 2007
#60 Decatur Staleys # 7 said . . .Thats the reason your all on my case right, because of the QB thing?
October 23, 2007
#61 B.A. Baracus said . . .Brian Griese = Steve Walsh
not a strong arm but played well in Turner system.
Ced Benson = "Russian Salami"
had no interest to play football a whole game.
I hope McBride plays well against the DET WR's this week.
Kudos to Tommy Harris for 6 sacks,all the while playing on a bum leg an fighting double teams.Tonight on the NFL Network 8:00 EST re live "The Drive"
October 23, 2007
#62 mikebdot said . . .PO'd - I was going to go into a long diatribe about the Grossman and Griese deal, but I am going to spare everyone, including myself. Neither QB - Grossman or Griese - is awesome and neither of them are franchise QBs. Griese is a safer option given the Bears current situation. Grossman is finished in this town and possibly as a starter in the NFL.
We should be worrying about whether our secondary can slow down the Lions on Sunday.
October 23, 2007
#63 mikebdot said . . .PO'd: If Grossman is so great, why didn't he put up points on San Diego, KC, and Dallas? None of them are top 10 pass defenses. He had 1 TD pass against KC. Our problem with your recent posts is that even when Griese plays well you say "oh, well, Grossman would have done better, as evidenced by shit he did last year early in the season and a few times at the end of it". Not to mention the fact that Grossman has played against the Lions twice, but he's "owned" them, you say? Griese came in to win the game for us last season in game 2. Remember that? Do you remember the INT that was returned for a TD in the first game but was nullified by a penalty? Guess not. We still probably would have won, but whatever.
You wanted Lovie to be more patient with Grossman. Well, now that he's made the decision you want him to jerk Griese after ONE game? That's not very consistent.
How many more starts are you willing to give Griese? Is he always one bad game away from the "START GROSSMAN!" call? His game against the Eagles was very good. We had TWO punts and very few (if any) 3 and outs. We couldn't punch it home when in the red zone. We still won. We didn't turn it over. We played decent football. All of that without a decent running game.
Also, Griese has completed 62% of his passes, which is nice.
And for those of you who don't care about this discussion, I don't care that you don't care. So, how's that? I happen to be genuinely intrigued by most topics and if PO'd wants to keep talking about Grossman, I'm down.
By the way, PO'd, if Griese keeps up this pace, he'll break Bears passing records set by Erik Kramer. He's got 300 yards per game on average. Obviously, he's throwing too many INTs (3 in his first game), but hopefully this no turnover thing will become a trend. He's also only been sacked 4 times the past three games, as opposed to the 6 Detroit had. He's getting a better feel for sliding around in the pocket.
October 23, 2007
#64 mikebdot said . . .My mistake, we were down 21-20 to the Lions, then scored to FGs to beat them.
October 23, 2007
#65 Pissed Off said . . .tWo, wow. 10 minutes 'til I leave. Thank goodness.
October 23, 2007
#66 Max said . . .B.A. fair enough.
Mikeb, I dont have the energy to argue with you, your missing the whole point, thats all I can say. You dont get it. I wish you did but the blinders are on or you just dont pay attention. Please dont respond to my blogs anymore. Virtually nothing of what you said is remotely close to being relevant to responding to my previous post. Anyone else however is welcome to rip/debate me.
October 23, 2007
#67 tommy said . . .Wow. . . having a job sucks. Everytime i check the blog, yall have commented another 80+ times. Almost not even worth commenting about. . . almost.
1) Griese led us on one hell of a drive. No question, it was a thing of beauty. But our lack of production in the red zone makes me worried.
And I admit that I dont think we can win the SB this year, which makes Griese's play depressing because I know that next year or the year after that, we are going to have quarterback questions again, no matter how Griese is playing because he is not the franchise QB.2) Speaking of franchise players, Benson isnt one. A.P. isnt either, but at least when hes in, I feel like he is giving 100%. When Benson runs, I dont get the same feeling. I realize the slightly idiotic reasoning there, I am watching their performances through a small TV, but Benson seems to have the problem that A-Train would get, he gets to the line, and then he dances and gets tackled. CED, LOWER YOUR HEAD AND RUN FORWARD! You are not gonna juke anybody out. We pay you to run north, south, and over people.
3) Receivers are looking better, but i would still like to see more Bradley. One thing I have noticed is the lack of Rashied Davis. It seems Hester has taken his spot over and it is hard to argue against. But come on, Moose, BSquare, the Human Highlight Reel, and Bradley is $ if we cotinue to get them chances. Specially with Des and G-Reg.
4) The D needs to hang on for this next week. Win this game and get the bye week to heal, rest, and recoup. Babich has stopped blitzing because the D is hurt and he doesn't want to get burned deep and that is giving the QB more time. We had 3 sacks last game, but that was it. McNabb had alot of time to throw on all the rest of the plays.
5) Robbie went 4-5. . . he missed????? but the good thing was, he didnt let it bother him. Good to know that one miss doesnt rattle him.
Beat the Lions baby. . . thats all I want. We barely beat a crappy team in Philly. We now need to put the Lions in their place. Get after Kitna early and often. He was the most sacked QB last year with 61! We need to add to the current numbers on Sunday. Bear down.
October 23, 2007
#68 AfroCelt said . . .Po'd...I'm where B.A. is. I would add Rex can make throws that BG could never have at any time in his career. I think BG is definitely more inteligent. We need that right now. I think the coaches hurt Rex in their play calling; primarily by not using enough quick hit plays to slow the rush. When they switched to BG Rex had that deer in the headlights look and I believe he was losing confidence. Again if the coaches had subbed BG for a series or two and worked with Rex on the sidelines then patted him on the ass with the Go Kid Go bit things might have turned out different. My bias? I'm not sure. Bob Griese was my Senior class President at Purdue but Brian went to that fucking Michigan. Oh yes, and it's good to have you back today shithead.
October 23, 2007
#69 kwinten said . . .cmon guys. can't we all just "get along"? :P
Grossman is history. wipe your hands and move on. we all know this to be true. The key is to strap ourselves in and prep for a conference showdown (LOL) against Detroit this weekend.
Side note: I have two availible tickets for the game from a kind sister, but can't use them...the inlaws are coming up to visit here in Green Bay. F'ing luck, no?
October 23, 2007
#70 kwinten said . . .this is an ok post but they need to run the ball more then suprise there oponent with a play action play every once in a while and give clark some more short routes. and devin hester need to be given deep routes because half of the cb in the nfl cant catch up to him. mushin thiugh he needs to be given the ball at least 3 times because hes gettig older every day and if you want him to last he needs some breathers. bernard is a little bit younger than mushin so they should give him the ball more then mushin. basic ally they should be a more consistent team. ANd the beaars are the best team ever.
October 24, 2007
#71 kwinten said . . .this is an ok post but they need to run the ball more then suprise there oponent with a play action play every once in a while and give clark some more short routes. and devin hester need to be given deep routes because half of the cb in the nfl cant catch up to him. mushin thiugh he needs to be given the ball at least 3 times because hes gettig older every day and if you want him to last he needs some breathers. bernard is a little bit younger than mushin so they should give him the ball more then mushin. basic ally they should be a more consistent team. ANd the beaars are the best team ever.
October 24, 2007
#72 kwinten said . . .this is an ok post but they need to run the ball more then suprise there oponent with a play action play every once in a while and give clark some more short routes. and devin hester need to be given deep routes because half of the cb in the nfl cant catch up to him. mushin thiugh he needs to be given the ball at least 3 times because hes gettig older every day and if you want him to last he needs some breathers. bernard is a little bit younger than mushin so they should give him the ball more then mushin. basic ally they should be a more consistent team. ANd the beaars are the best team ever.
October 24, 2007
#73 kwinten said . . .this is an ok post but they need to run the ball more then suprise there oponent with a play action play every once in a while and give clark some more short routes. and devin hester need to be given deep routes because half of the cb in the nfl cant catch up to him. mushin thiugh he needs to be given the ball at least 3 times because hes gettig older every day and if you want him to last he needs some breathers. bernard is a little bit younger than mushin so they should give him the ball more then mushin. basic ally they should be a more consistent team. ANd the beaars are the best team ever.
October 24, 2007
#74 Shady McBears Fan said . . .this is an ok post but they need to run the ball more then suprise there oponent with a play action play every once in a while and give clark some more short routes. and devin hester need to be given deep routes because half of the cb in the nfl cant catch up to him. mushin thiugh he needs to be given the ball at least 3 times because hes gettig older every day and if you want him to last he needs some breathers. bernard is a little bit younger than mushin so they should give him the ball more then mushin. basic ally they should be a more consistent team. ANd the beaars are the best team ever.
October 24, 2007
#75 Shady McBears Fan said . . .Is there an echo in here??
#56 - JL - I think we're on the same page. Good post.
As far as Sunday is concerned, QB pressure and forcing takeaways are a MUST for the defense. They cannot afford to let Kitna & Co. get comfortable and execute their game plan. As I've said before, this game will be a statement for the Chicago Bears. Good or bad, this game will set the tone for the rest of the season - leave nothing on Soldier Field Sunday boys, show 'em why you're defending NFC champions and blow these motherfuckers OUT!
October 24, 2007
#76 mikebdot said . . .Well, I guess the obligatory Bears-Lions shit talking has begun. Only this time, Roy Williams isn't involved...Yet:
According to the Chicago Tribune, Bears defensive tackle Tommie Harris did nothing short of guarantee a victory over the Lions next Sunday in Chicago.
"We’re ready,� defensive tackle Tommie Harris said, speaking of the Lions. “You don’t come into Philadelphia and win in that stadium against Donovan McNabb. So that boosted our confidence so much."
“Detroit don’t come into Chicago and win in our stadium. We have to be 4-4 going into our (week off). We have to be. ... I’m going to do whatever I have to do for us to be 4-4.�
I've never understood why players would give the opposing team any extra motivation or bulletin board material during a week that means so much as week 8 does. I would prefer it if Tommie would keep the trash-talking to a minimum until AFTER he breaks Jon Kitna's legs. What do you guys think? Big deal or not a big deal?
October 24, 2007
#77 Pissed Off said . . .Shady: That was the mildest trash talking I've ever seen. That was motivation for his team. Detroit can take it however they want, but Tommie is trying to fire himself and his team up. If Detroit needs him to do that, they're in trouble.
PO'd: I'll respond to you whenever I feel like it. If you don't want to read it because you know I have solid points, then whatever. I just don't understand the point of talking if you don't want people to respond, especially when you make outrageous claims that Rex Grossman OWNS Detroit when he has played in 3 games against them, one of which he lost in 2004 (a QB rating of 43.4 if you really care), one he won fairly convincingly, and one he was losing when he left the game and Griese ended up winning it for us.
Just thought I would fight outrageous claims with actual information.
October 24, 2007
#78 Phil from SATX said . . .I'm cool with that Tommy, as I was with B.A.s take. Its completely fair, that about where I'm at but I must come off different. Theres nothing we can do now, Rex is probably done unless BG gets hurt. Another thing that bothers me is that we went to the SB last year, and like Max, I dont think we can get there with BG along with some other issues we are having and so maybe I just wish things were back to how they were last year. I want last years players/formula in there to give me hope of us getting to the SB.
Shady, I'll bet by the end of the day Roy Williams will have said something. Dosent he make predictions that they will beat us every time we play? or just about?
Mikedbot I'm sorry you feel that way, All I'm saying is that the only solid point you brought up was the Lions take. Ok we can say he doesnt "own" them, he doesnt lose to them though and I actually was going off a Trib story from a few weeks ago where one of the columnists brought up that point, I'd past the article for you but I cant find it. The res of your response in no way reflects anything of what I was talking about.
October 24, 2007
#79 mikebdot said . . .Shady, I agree with MikeB, that was no big deal. I'm still glad he said it, because I was really afraid this Bears team had lost all of its confidence. After rewatching the chopped up game on NFL Network (that's such a great concept), I'm still struck by how well Grease played throughout. In command, in control, whether under pressure or not. He made guys play better.
Defense wasn't as bad as I had remembered, nor was AA as bad as I remembered. I'm still going to watch it again - attention was spotty due to kids' homework, etc. Even the split of AA and Tillman by Westbrook wasn't as bad as when I was watching - I think it was MikeB who pointed out that they wanted to ensure the tackle, problem was it was right at the sticks.
Had my non-Bears buddy over and showed him The Drive (most in the country didn't get to see it) - he was amazed - no huge plays, just methodical, and precision clock management throughout, no panicking. And a bunch of GREAT throws. This doesn't mean go to hurry up throughout a game, it just gives me confidence in BG.
Of course it all means nothing without a Lions win. Thanks to whoever pointed out that our D was really decimated in that game, we should be in much better shape even without Vasher. Get a win here, than the most hopeful bye week ever - get healthy D, go on a roll.
Surprised that nationals are still assuming that Green Bay is the real deal. They've got a tough road to hoe coming up. Everyone seems to be ignoring the Bears loss as a blip. Not sure that there are any "real deals" in the NFC, which is why I like our chances for the rest of the season, AS LONG AS WE WIN ON SUNDAY!
Go Bears!
October 24, 2007
#80 Bill said . . .PO'd: So, then, you didn't say "Not saying Rex would be any better but its clear he's more talented (evidenced by last years overall performance, arguably the 3rd best by a Bears QB ever) and he wasnt given a fair chance in my mind."
I suppose my response to those points aren't really responses. This doesn't address the "it's clear he's more talented" comment?: "Our problem with your recent posts is that even when Griese plays well you say "oh, well, Grossman would have done better, as evidenced by shit he did last year early in the season and a few times at the end of it".
Or my response to the "fair chance" comment: "You wanted Lovie to be more patient with Grossman. Well, now that he's made the decision you want him to jerk Griese after ONE game? That's not very consistent."
I'm not doing anything more than what I thought was the start of a decent discussion. The rest of my post was just random stuff I thought was interesting. You know I like Rex and I would have been willing to let him start against the Lions, but to claim that he would have done well against them this year because of how he performed last year is just silly. The reason we lost against the Lions last time is because we didn't have Briggs, Tillman or a quasi-healthy Harris. Now we have all three (yes, a quasi-healthy Harris). The pick-six obviously hurt us, but it's nothing we haven't overcome before, like, say last season against the Vikings with Grossman at the helm. If the Vikings score 34 points that game we get wasted, fortunately the D was healthy and we still beat them. And what about that other Viking game where we had no offensive TDs and 3 INTs by Grossman and we still won 23-13 because of the skunk and a pick-six of our own? Or the Arizona game. Point is, you can cherry pick information all you want to tell a story.
I agree, Griese probably could have been put in a few games later, but they made the decision and all I can do is root for Griese. I don't have blinders on, I just like to be optimistic rather than second guess (which is why I don't really care which running back is in there). And if Griese eliminates the poor throws that could be INTs, watch out, because he WILL be the savior if that happens. We said the same shit about Grossman too. "If he eliminates the bad throws...". Well, shit, you could say that about anyone, even Tarvaris Jackson.
October 24, 2007
#81 mikebdot said . . .Not to change the ever entertaining Grossman vs Griese subject -
But did anyone read Haugh's article today? I felt like he was reprimanding the fans - "Griese isn't going to call the plays, Griese shouldn't call the plays, so STOP talking about it. NOW!"
. I coudl only think "what got into him today?" I really wonder if he has a pipeline to the coaches and they asked him to write that.
Seriously - writers always have a few people they can trust for info, and in exchange they will from time ot time write favorabel articles on them, or in this case possibly - make a point their source would like made.
October 24, 2007
#82 jeff said . . .Bill: All media driven articles are the result of some quid pro quo or general hatred for the city (see Jay Mariotti).
October 24, 2007
#83 Al in WI said . . .fans aren't the ones asking for griese to call plays. mariotti was. and other media members were. the problem with print sprts journalism is that they're wandering further and further and from relevance and now they're just debating with each other. they have to write argumentative columns too drum up interest because they don't have the luxury of the internet's ability to engage in a dialogue with readers. haugh's a good writer and great beat writer but this season he's ventured too far into columnist land. the beat writer should be a news man. the columnist should be a columnist.
October 24, 2007
#84 jeff said . . .There are several players hitting the street theses days that the Bears should take a look at. I'm not saying they should sign these guys but I think it's in their best interest to take a look.
Grady Jackson DT, Samkon Gado Rb, and Donovan Darius S are all on the market. Now of course if they are on the street you have to question their value, but maybe something else is at play here. Conflict with coaches ect, could be the reason, and if any of these guys could help out, why not?October 24, 2007
#85 Pissed Off said . . .grady is done. gado stinks. darius has been banged up but anybody's better than AA.
October 24, 2007
#86 Pissed Off said . . .My take on these guys is about the same as Jeffs. Jackson is probably so out of shape he cant play. Gado has had his chances, he showed some streaks with GB when Green was down, and Davenport and someone else probably (this was 2 or 3 years ago). He's just not very good. A little surprised Darius is available. I would take a look at him at least.
October 24, 2007
#87 Phil from SATX said . . .I was doing some browsing today as well and one fantasy source was saying that you should pickup AP (the Bears AP) as a replacement for Ronnie Brown whos now out for the year. It goes on to mention that AP may be taking over for Benson soon. I dont think the source is very reliable but is AP that much better than Ced? Would he provide the extra kick we need at RB? I'm not sure but I would have no problem seeing him start and get the bulk of the load.
October 24, 2007
#88 tommy said . . .Bill, I don't think that's it - I think that Haugh's just reacting to the typical overreaction of people to that drive - and let's face it, it is kind of stupid. Kind of like reaction of people -"let's just line up Hester and hike it to him every play." Or "Lance Briggs is obviously better than Brian Urlacher - just look at his play in the first x games." or "Babich is obviously way better than Rivera."
It's the head on the pillow analysis - whatever you saw last is defining, and by definition shallow in its conclusions. And we're all guilty of it to a certain degree - just watch posts during and right after a game, compared with posts a few days later. The difference between us and them is we get more balanced with time, while they stay with the silly and the kneejerk.
October 24, 2007
#89 Phil from SATX said . . .AP or CB? Tough call for me. I have never really gotten over CB's ridiculous holdout which would probably still be going on if someone hadn't called him aside and whispered in his ear. I keep wanting him to play well but except for a play here and there he looks like a below average RB to me. Kind of like he is going through the motions rather than 100% play. Also there doesn't seem to be any chemistry with his teamates. AP plays all out. I still would likely start Benson but they have to call plays that fit him and look for more commitment. If not. Go with AP and write off the #4 pick like a bad stock you once bought and held too long. Someone has to get inside CB/s head or I doubt he will be in the league in 2 yrs.
October 24, 2007
#90 Bill said . . .I'm worried that CB has Ricky Williams/Drew Bledsoe syndrome - doesn't really like to play the game, just likes the paycheck. That's never good. He still has an ego, so things like benching and/or demotions and/or competition seem to motivate him. But ego without love for the game doesn't add up to sustainable performance.
We always talk about "motors" with defensive line players - as in do they have it all the time or don't they - I remember them talking about that with Alonzo Spellman, questioning his motor. But I've never heard it referred to for running backs, probably because it's never an issue for them. In this case, I'm afraid CB just doesn't have much of a motor, something I would have never guessed from watching him in college.
AP's got a motor, at least. Still waiting to see what they can do with Wolfe in space as well.October 24, 2007
#91 mikebdot said . . .Phil - a lot of players lose their motor once they get the big payday. That may be the case with Cedric; his rookie contract is more money than 99% of the country makes in a lifetime. So it may be as far as he's concerned, it's enough.
Like Roberto Dran's "No Mas". Why get pounded when you get paid the same whether you take a pounding or not.
October 24, 2007
#92 Nicole is miserable in this blue city said . . .Phil: You can't do anything with Wolfe "in space" when there is NO space. Our line has been manhandled. Talk about having no "motor". My god. Watch Kreutz, Tait, and Garza at the end of a play. They're either on their backs clogging up holes or standing around wondering why there isn't anyone to block (clue: they're in the backfield tackling our RB).
October 24, 2007
#93 Phil from SATX said . . .On the Chicago radio show I listen to, Maynard said that he believed Griese's play was how the coaches would have called for on the next drive. Normally I believe BM is honest and unedited however this time it sounded like a PC answer. Gag me.
October 24, 2007
MikeB, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that a handoff to Wolfe, with this line, nets zero yards 95% of the time. But only once this season have we tried a screen pass to Wolfe, and it was the Rex INT in the KC game. That play worked like crazy in the preseason. A quick pass to him and he is zigzagging in between defenders. Now they have BG back there, and he'll complete that pass to Wolfe. It may be that it's too telegraphed when he's in there, but with all our weapons, I doubt that would play much of a factor in it. Either way, that's the ONLY use you'll get out of him this year, and I think they should try it.
October 24, 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.