Sundays continue to be a depressing day for Chicago Bears fans even when they’re sitting at home nursing their arthritic backs ailing groins. At 1:00 ET, the Packers, Vikings and Lions each won ballgames – pushing the Bears deep into the whine cellar of the NFC North. Not to get too literary on everybody, but if this were a Poe story, somebody would be bricking the team in as we speak.
But it wasn’t the wins that made this day depressing; or rather it wasn’t only the wins. Today the myth of an era of dominance was proven untrue. The Chicago Bears have had their two years at the top of the division and if they’re interested in returning, none of the other three teams in the division look too interested in regression. Today we learned.
Today we learned that there’s no way Brett Favre is retiring at the end of this season. Why? (1) He’s still playing in the upper tier of quarterbacks in this league. (2) The receiving corps of Driver, Jones, Jennings and Lee is starting to gel and the addition of Koren Robinson is only making them better in the air. (3) The defense isn’t great but it can hold its own with any in the conference. This team is running back away from a trip back to the Super Bowl.
Today we learned that Barry Sanders has officially returned to the NFC North. Adrian Peterson is the best running back in the NFL today. He’s better than Tomlinson. He’s better than Johnson. He’s better than all of them. If the Minnesota Vikings find a quarterback (and we all know they will before we do), we’re all in a lot of trouble.
Today we learned the Detroit Lions – barring a huge second half meltdown – are going to the postseason, holding true on the promise of Jesus Kitna. The Lions have become a very good football team with two brilliant young receivers. The upside? When Kitna can’t play anymore, they’ll need a quarterback. The downside? If you’re keeping score at home, the Bears are now three full games (plus a tiebreaker) down to the Lions with 8 to play. That leaves them chasing the New York Giants for the final spot in the playoffs – who they already trail by three full games but play the first weekend in December. If you’re rooting for the postseason, then its simple: the Bears must win and the Giants must lose. Just about every single week.
But a quick writer's note: This is not a column stating the Bears will finish last for the next decade. This is a column stating the Bears squandered their opportunity to establish dominance over a flailing division by putting faith in a novice quarterback, gutless running back and aging offensive line. The Bears don’t need to rebuild or lose out for a good draft pick. They need to win each and every week and give these teams hell down the stretch. Now, when they’re basically out of the reach of the postseason, is when I’ll judge this football team.
#2 Shady McBears Fan said . . .I enjoy your optimism. I can't say that I share it, my faith in the Bears greatly diminished the day Griese was named starting QB.
Not that Grossman was playing exceptionally well, but he was playing about as good as Griese has done so far. I'd rather fire Turner, and start running the frickin' football. The day we put Griese in as starting QB was the day we caved into media/fan pressure and ignored sound football theory. Now, we find ourselves beginning to look for ANOTHER QB to train and build up, after having squandered Grossman's chances of becoming the franchise QB a year ago EVERYBODY thought he could be. Berrian caught a few long passes last year and now everyone thinks that the Chicago Bears have the right to be a gun-slingin' football team while IGNORING the football style that got them there.
I'm sure you've read over comments like these a hundred fold, but it bears more observance, RUN the ball, and let Benson get into a game. RUN it off the frickin' bus and stop playing games. Let Benson have a 2.5 yds/attempt average while letting him grow some cajones. Start building this team again NOW while we still have quality, moldable players.
I don't know why I am still complaining about this, when our playoff chances are all but dead. Its old news. Its going to be a long November for us, we might as well accept it and move onto next year. Its not as if injuries didn't play a role in where we are today, lets look towards the future and not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Put Grossman back in, keep Benson in and let our team establish some identity.
November 5, 2007
#3 Lovie Smith said . . .Nobody helping out the Bears this week... including San Diego's Antonio Cromartie who broke hester and vash's NFL record 108 yd. returns.
How good does this peterson kid look? Fuck. Me. Twice a year, every year.
I'm still in shock about what Jerry Angelo said about Benson's 1st half performance:
"Cedric is performing to the best of his abilities," Angelo said in a raised tone. "He's giving us top effort. That's all I could ask of any player." Despite Benson's 3.1 yards-per-carry average.
Does that mean Angelo thinks the blame lies elsewhere?
OR
Is that a back-handed shot at Cedric Benson?Put yourself in the shoes of Bears GM. Are you going to come out and say one of YOUR GUYS isn't giving his 100% , much less the reason why the Bears are 3-5?
You have to choose your words very carefully when you're a GM and I think there may be a bit of hidden meaning here. Sounds like Cedric picked up on it too.
"That's good stuff," Benson said. "He's right on. He's good."
What do you guys think?
November 5, 2007
#4 texas bears fan said . . .WE'RE GOING STREAKING!!!
November 5, 2007
#5 Nicole is CELEBRATING in this blue city said . . .what is it with the coddling of Grossman? In the '70's Tom Landry had Craig Morton and Roger Staubach alternate plays and they still won and both qb's had many fine games after that. Turner might be terrible, but maybe we can trade Grossman for Thomas Jones, throw in Benson too.
November 5, 2007
#6 Phil from SATX said . . .Five reasons I'm happy this weekend:
1. COLTS LOST!
2. Extra hour of sleep
3. Someone in my fantasy league was foolish enough to DROP Hester because he was on a buy week. (Of course I picked him up. )
4. I kicked butt in my fantasy league this week and forsee doing well in upcoming weeks, too.
5. Only 6 days until the Bears win.
November 5, 2007
#7 Midway Monster said . . .Jeff, nail on the head, baby, nail on the head. It's a very depressing day to be a Chicago Bear today and we didn't even lose! My love for the team is hardwired, and therefore fully intact. My hope for this year is now completely gone. There are 3 teams in our division that are better than us! WOW! How the f did that happen?
I was thinking the same thing as you as I was driving in this morning listening to all the heroics happening in our division - our time was the last 3 years, and QB and offensive coordinator issues derailed us (what else is new?).
I'm not going to spend the rest of this with the long list of woes a la Mike. I'm not going to work very hard on refuting Patty-O, what I do think is if Griese had started last year for us we MIGHT have won a SB (I said MIGHT). As bad as that last game was for BG, it's just silly to say his performance has been "about as good as Grossman." Go back and watch the first 3 games.
No, there's not much optimism left on the offensive side of the ball. New QB, new O coordinator, new line needed. Seeking veteran stud receiver. Can we go back to Texas and ask for a trade, Cedric Benson for Jamaal Charles? (he's pretty good, don't know if you've seen him).
I will say one thing for CB. I saw him on TV today. Or at least I saw his doppelganger. Lendale White is CB, just in a little bigger package. They run the same way. LW is starting to have success this year as the go-to RB for the Titans, and it's because of their improving good line. As much as we hate CB right now, he could do the same thing behind a good line. Since we don't have one, it likely means the guy would at least be very good trade bait, because other GMs can see this as well. Just a thought.
Bernard Berrian reminds me of David Terrell. Had a great rookie year (second year for BB), made everyone think he was going to be great, downhill from there. Fools gold. I only want to see receivers who can keep the ball after being hit, and he's not that guy.
The good news is we have 3 reeling teams in front of us in Raiders, Broncos and Seahawks. The bad news is it won't matter for this season. Amazingly enough, I am ready to see Grossman back in there, because definitionally he has more upside than BG - maybe we can rehabilitate him, sign him to a relatively inexpensive deal and then go draft the next guy. Because like it or not, because of the multitude of needs on offense and vast improvements in our division, we have entered rebuilding era. That era need not be long, but we are squarely in it. If I'm rebuilding, I don't mind putzing around with Grossman - my take on him has always been we need someone NOW before the window has closed.
The window has closed. Rex, do you remember where your helmet is? Strap it on, boy!
If you hate GB, root for them to get to the SB. (Intoning announcer's voice: Today playing the role of the 1985 Patriots is Brett Favre and the 2007 Green Bay Packers.")
Go Pack! Beat those Patriots! (hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha)
November 5, 2007
#8 Bill said . . .I guess the adage "there are two types of Bears fans; those who are humbled - and those who are about to be humbled" applies. I for one am of the former. I still say we take it week to week, game to game, play to play. I am in it & optimistic until the math says otherwise. And when that happens... there is still the thrill of beating the Pack twice, beating the Gothams again, and perhaps being that pain in the a$$ team that spoils everyones holidays.
That said, the next stop of this team is "Beat Oakland" town and I have a ticket to ride.
-- Midway --
November 5, 2007
#9 Da Coach said . . .texas bear fan: actually, the Cowboys alternated Morton and Staubach just for one game. The Bears won that game, and Landry realized it was a dumb idea and stuck with Staubach the rest of Roger's career.
In a way, it's almost good that the North all won; I hate to use the d-word (delusional) but I fear the Bears BT woudl get that way if the other teams stumble. The competition has taken a HUGHE step forward (all three of them) while we have taken a HUGE step back. That's the reality we have to deal with.
Note how they all do it with offense?
I won't say you can't win a SB with a strong defense and OK offense - but it's certainly not the typical way.
Favre himself (with some excellent receivers) beat KC. I knew Huard would throw an INT to kill their last hope. Huard is Grossman is Griese is any number of functional but ultimately inadequate QBs.
It's going to take a few years to get it back - assuming we can with Angelo's suspect drafting.
I read that Sterling Sharpe thinks Berrian can be a premier receiver if he played for a team with a good passing game. Reading between the lines, he implied that the Bears are hopeless in that area. He also said the drops are due to lack of interest, given their lack of committment to a strong passing game. If true, that's BS and I'll be glad ot see him go. Yet look at how Moss and Owens play when they have a passing attack that works.
I'm beginning to feel bad about the future. "We'll never forget the way you thrilled the nation - with your T-formation." Well, the nation has long forgotten, and maybe we should too.
November 5, 2007
#10 Patty-O in WI said . . .Good news is if things keep going bad for our bears they could find themselves in position come draft day for the "next other barry sanders" to enter the league. Darren McFadden he had a measely 300+ yds rushing this past weekend. Boy he would look good lining up behind McNabb starting the '08 season.
November 5, 2007
#11 Phil from SATX said . . .Da Coach: McNabb and McFadden? Great alliteration, but you put those guys into a bad system and they will fail just as bad as Benson and Grossman have thus far. We need to change our system, not our players.
Does anyone else just get the feeling that "we're not who we thought we were" anymore? Every time I hear Lovie Smith speak, I get chills. I feel like I'm watching Bush fumble over himself and say the same useless facts without actually saying anything at all. That's not to dis our pres' but he's not an eloquant speaker.
I'm just saying that the vision for this team is extremely misguided. We are not a passing team. We are not the class of the NFC anymore. Lovie Smith said after the Chargers loss that "now I just know we won't go undefeated."
Our coach is seriously unable to diagnose the problems with his team.
November 5, 2007
#12 Da Coach said . . .You know what? Head coaching is not for everyone. I'm not saying it's over for Lovie, far from it, but he's a defensive guy who has shown no penchant for understanding either the offensive side of the ball or picking coaches who excel on that side. We need an "offensive guru"-type guy to bring in - a la Mike Martz or a Jason Garrett - the offensive side has to be turned inside out and started anew. Either Lovie gets that done or Lovie is done.
The Ron Turner death march is starting - grab your torches and bring your drums.
November 5, 2007
#13 CAK said . . .I agree Patty-O but you need playmakers to make plays and right now we have none of that in the backfield with Benson & whoever is currently at qb.
The system does need to change but not by much, it worked pretty good last year at times. The biggest difference is our O-line compared to prior years, its downright brutal right now!
A new o-coordinator would be nice, teams that can score in this league and have a decent defense are whats working right now. Look at the Browns for crying out loud they are 5-3 who predicted that?
November 5, 2007
#14 CAK said . . .I still want to take this week by week like Midway said. However, if everyone here wants to talk about rebuilding already (we need a new O-Line), then why is Orton NOT a good QB for us? Why draft a new QB again? I feel that getting a new O-Line is the pirority right now. The QB may be a leader on the field but what good are QB's like Manning or Brady without protection? We still have the talent on the team to win this year. Week by Week. Win by Win. Bear Down.
November 5, 2007
#15 Mike said . . .Oh, yeah, we need to get rid of Turner too... Bear Down.
November 5, 2007
#16 Phil from SATX said . . .The 2007 season is officially over. Focus should be on seeing what the Bears may have in Kyle Orton, Mark Bradley, John St. Clair, Jamar Williams, Michael Okwo, etc. Of course that won't happen because the Bears will sacrifice the long-term for the short-term, just like they always do when in these perilous situations.
2008 will be the final season for Lovie Smith. The Bears shape up to be absolutely brutal next season. In fact, they may struggle to get to 5 wins next season.
November 5, 2007
#17 Northside Superfan said . . .Now there's no point in predicting that, Mike (the 5 wins is what I'm talking about). And it's not a good prediction, either. This team is not falling off the cliff, although it may be destined for some middle-of-the-pack type seasons in the next few. There will be offensive improvement next year because the line will be addressed. They may not be able to turn into a good line overnight but they will be better than this horrible year.
But as to your prediction of 2008 being Lovie's last year, that's entirely possible to me. It depends on how he responds for the rest of this year, and more importantly, the changes he makes in the off season. If the Bears have a .500 year next year and finish 3rd or 4th in the division, and it's not due to half the team being injured in a bus crash, than I believe your prediction can and should come true.
November 5, 2007
#18 Nicole is miserable in this blue city said . . .Look, I've said it before, and I'll say it again--we aren't that far from being right back in contention next year. Many many pieces of an excellent team are still there.
The biggest problem is the O-line. Brian Griese can be a decent (not great) QB for a year or two while we sort out the QB situation (again). By my count, all 4 of his picks against Detroit occurred when blocking fell apart. Our running game sucks because the blocking sucks. I'm dissapointed with Benson, but he would be a so-so back with decent blocking as opposed to the shitty back he is now.
The D is still capable of playing at a very high level. For whatever reason that hasn't happened this year, but provided we can keep our two big free agents and dump Archuletta, I bet they can be a top D next season if the coaching is decent.
This is not a tragic situation. Teams rebuild and fill in the gaps very quickly in today's NFL.
November 5, 2007
#19 Phil from SATX said . . .Phil: First you root for the Bolts and NOW you're cheering for Farrrrve to beat the Pats?
I might have to eternally shun you.
November 5, 2007
#20 Al in WI said . . .Nicole, you need to read my post a little more closely. Believe me, I am NOT rooting for GB to beat the Patriots.
November 5, 2007
#21 Al in WI said . . .I want nothing to do with McNabb. Did you not see him play versus the Bears a few weeks back or last night for that matter. He is done. He can no longer move, and like most running quarterbacks he never developed the touch or accuracy to be a legit passer. So his lack of passing ability is now exposed. If you want to know what the Bears would look like with McNabb go back and watch some tapes of the Bears with Kordel Stewart.
I was actually disinterested in the Colts-Pats game, and watched some of the Seatle-Cleveland game. Derek Anderson is worth the asking price. While not a runner he moves well in the pocket, has a very good arm, and best of all is very accurate. Whatever it takes for the Bears to land him would be worth it.November 5, 2007
#22 Pissed Off said . . .By the way, the Packers are a fraud. They remind me of the 2001 Bears in that they're getting every break possible in these games. They should have lost at least 2 or 3 of these games. They will either start to slump in the second half of the season or get destroyed in the playoffs. It's too late for the Bears, but it will still be fun to watch the meltdown.
November 5, 2007
#23 Da Coach said . . .Al, I got this from da site:
Larry: What do you think of the Bears trying to obtain Browns quarterback Derek Anderson next season? He is due to become a restricted free agent, so the Bears would have to give up a draft pick or trade for him. I think he would be a perfect fit.
Jackson
Toledo, OhioLarry: Given the situation in Cleveland, the Bears might have a better chance of acquiring Hans Christian Andersen. (Don't laugh. The Bears have already had a "Hans" on their team. Hans Nielsen was a kicker who hooked a potential game-tying field goal attempt against the Vikings so badly in 1981 that the ball completely left Minnesota's old Metropolitan Stadium.) The Browns haven’t had a decent quarterback since Bernie Kosar and they have to first commit to Brady Quinn before Derek Anderson becomes available. If Anderson continues to thrive, the Browns will probably re-sign him or auction him off to the highest bidder. Whether it's a trade or he's a restricted free agent, the price may be too high for the Bears to pay.
I agree though, Anderson looks like the real deal but we need to look at other options, and whats out there isnt going to be good. We cant reach for a Culpepper or Lohsman. We either need to do patchwork until we draft the guy and he's ready or sign a premier free agent like the Saints did with Brees a couple years ago.
But for God's sake Lovie please put Rex back in for this week and for the coming weeks so we can see if sitting him made him clear his head, excersice his demons, learn something like the fact you need to perform to keep your job...anything. He's never been put in this situation before and I want to see how he does coming out of it. He has always been coddled and Lovies guy but lets see how he plays now with his career on the line and a potential big pay day upcoming with either this team (fat chance) or another team. Lets see if he can pull a "Drew Brees" of a few years ago wehn he was put in that situation.
November 5, 2007
#24 B.A. Baracus said . . .Anderson looks real good right now because he has an excellent o-line that allows him time to find open receivers and make plays. They showed a couple of key plays yesterday during that game where Anderson actually had time to look @ his 3rd & 4th options. Behind our crappy o-line he would probably look avg at best & just more ammo for the fans to boo at next year.
Say what you want about McNabb but he has done more in this league with less playmakers then most qb. One year he had an all pro wr in TO & they made the superbowl. You put him on this team with the weapons they have in place and watch out, I would argue the Bears have a better O right now then any good eagles team had from '01-05.
November 5, 2007
#25 Bill said . . .Given the track record of Bears' Management, I highly doubt that Lovie will be gone before the end of his contract. Also, expect Benson to be here next season in the last year of his contract (regardless of his performance) so the Bears can suck the last bit of life out of him - vampire like - in exchange for the $16 mil fat they gave him as a rookie.
I also do not expect Lovie Smith to consistently play any young players until the Bears are mathematically out of this thing. However, when that does happen, I would start Orton a couple times, as well as Grossman. Before Angelo even considers getting a free agent - like McFlabb - he needs to know what he has on his roster now.
The O Line obviously needs to be addressed in the offseason and for shits and giggles, the Bears should consider picking up a wide receiver in the first 2 rounds of the draft or signing a free agent.
Oh, and CAK, if you want to discuss the remaining games on the schedule this season, no problem. I have one simple question, what will the Bears record be against the following opponents this season? - Redskins, Giants, Seahawks, Saints, Broncos and Packers. 2 and 4? maybe 3 and 3? This season is shaping up to be a lousy rub and tug.
November 5, 2007
#26 Phil from SATX said . . .The QB problem is the biggest we face, only because history has shown it's tough to fix. We'll get the O-line OK in a year or two; defense will be OK though not overpowering; we can get an OK RB somehow if we dump Benson. We need a receiver or two but maybe with Hester in for a whole year he'll give us what Berrian should have. I can see us fixing all the holes but QB in a couple of years (not to say we WILL, but we can...)
So in that mode, I reluctantly agree we may as well give Rex a few more games later in the year; once the illusion (not delusional) of a playoff spot is finally over.)
With no SB pressure, and with a contract riding, he shoudl perform better.
Of course, my fear is he will, Angelo signs him to a big deal, and then he goes back to normal for the next several years. And Angelo is scared to draft a QB becuase it will hurt poor Rex's feelings, and we go down the tubes.
Nah - on second thought - just let him go. What's the point?
November 5, 2007
#27 tommy said . . .It looks like there's no one. I agree with all points Al. Unfortunately it looks like there's no one really out there. Use the rest of the season to see what we really have at QB. Then draft someone good. Factor in maturity and ability to start soon while drafting that QB. If current coaches stay over the offseason, determine who they want and identify who would represent the exact opposite - then pick them (after firing management).
I say start Orton now - see if he's learned more about QBing than he has about personal grooming over the last 18 months on the bench. Make him understand he's got to bring it now - show us what you got. Whether he looks good or not, bench after your determination is made and go back to Rex. See if HE'S learned anything, maybe make him into trade bait (a difficult task given an expiring contract) or see whether you want to offer a modest sum to stay with the team, given the lack of viable alternatives.
I once championed Damon Huard - can I say that I'm an idiot? He is slow and immobile as Rex, with a worse arm. I agree with Bill - there's a bunch of bad QBs out there. I don't want to pay a bunch of money for a bad veteran QB. We already have our own bad veteran QB and at least he's cheap. We also know what he can and can't do, and so we don't need to play him anymore this year. (I know the coaches won't agree, he does still give us the best chance to win right now so they'll continue with him through the next 2 losses).
And there's no way Cleveland is letting go of Derek Anderson, don't see that happening with an unproven Brees. And I don't want David Carr, or Byron Leftwich, and any other bad QBs. What's with all these bad QBs? Where are they all coming from? What gives?
Looking forward to the day when Manning and Brady and Favre are no longer part of our league. Then everybody's QB will look better by comparison. (That's sad, isn't it? )
November 5, 2007
#28 Phil from SATX said . . .PO'd. ...Not a plug for BG but Rex is what he is. You wouldn't learn anything. You would see the same old and more same old Rex. Yes, some of it was good but teams know that he can't handle a strong rush and doesn't have help. And again I say that idiot Turner is a HUGE part of the problem. Did you see how quickly some of the pass plays were run in the Dolts/Patsy's game? Fierce rush sometimes but the ball had already been thrown...quick slant or dump over the line. RT doesn't have a clue. Oh, and I sure wish we still had Roosevelt Colvin.
November 5, 2007
#29 tommy said . . .It's the most underrated underused throw in our arsenal. The only flaw with it is it has a tendency to get batted down if the defensive line is prepared for it - that's their only defense for it. I think that happened to Rex a lot when they tried to go quick, no drop throws.
BG was very successful with it again Minny. It then evaporated in the two games following. Quick passes have to be mixed in with the other stuff. A good O coordinator has to be a great chess player. I'm guessing Turner is very bad at chess, and probably not very good at checkers either. Where do you think he maxes out? Chutes and Ladders? Candyland? 52 Pickup?
November 5, 2007
#30 Al in WI said . . .I don't think RT can fit two Lego's together
November 5, 2007
#31 Phil from SATX said . . .Cleveland gave up a lot of draft picks for Brady Quinn. At least a #2 and next year's #1, if not more. There is no way they can afford to do a Aaron Rodgers and let him sit the bench with all they gave up for him. Nor can they afford to pay two qb's huge money.
On the flipside Anderson himself is a restricted free agent and will want to test the market. If Jerry has some balls he could make a big move. It would likely cost a #1 pick at least or a 2nd rounder with a player. To me that makes a lot more sense then going with a washed up guy again, or rolling the dice on another 1st rounder.....November 5, 2007
#32 Bill said . . .Sorry, got D. Brees and Brady Q. mixed up AGAIN. If Anderson's as good as people think, then it's worth virtually anything. If there's a franchise quarterback out there that can be purchased vs. the crap shoot of drafting, it must be done. I much rather give up our choice of a #1 for a proven commodity.
(Let's see, I would trade Cedric Benson, Rex Grossman, Michael Haynes, Cade McNown, Curtis Enis, Rashaan Salaam, what other 1st round Bear busts can I think of?)
The question is, how proven is he?
November 5, 2007
#33 Midway Monster said . . .It seems like Cleveland is in a Brees/Rivers situation. They really can't afford to pay Anderson what he could command and then sit him to play they guy they dealt for.
How many good QBs are there in the league? Far less than 32; certainly nowhere near 64 (1st and 2nd for every team.)
Even stretching it real thin I bet we couldn't come up with 15.
I wonder if /when the league will figure this out? That the chnace of getting a good QB is very low and the chance of winning a SB without one (as things are now) are too slim.
The game may have evolved again; overpowering defenses like the Bears and Ravens that can carry a team dont' exist. So it becomes a crap shoot based on whether you can get one of the few good QBs.
Or maybe I have casue and effect mixed up. Maybe Brady and even Manning would not be anywhere near as good on the Bears with our coaching staff.
November 5, 2007
#34 Bill said . . .Nicole, you're right -- Anyone rooting for the Packers will be taken out back and shot.
-- Midway --
November 5, 2007
#35 Nicole is miserable in this blue city said . . .Here's the quandry the league could find itself in not too long from now:
It becomes evident that the current way the game has evolved, the only real chance of winning a SB comes to the few teams with great QBs. And even those teams have issues if their QB gets hurt. So the popularity of the sport suffers because the championships go to the "chosen few" and the rest of the league is trying to sell interest and seats at inflated prices.
I know how to solve the issue (if in fact there really is one.) Not to protect the QB, but make the position LESS important. Put the game back where it belongs (in my opinion) - with the O-line and D-lines dictating the game. Eliminate the "throwaway" rule that penalizes a good pass rush if the QB can just get out of the mythical tackle box (which to some officials extends only to the gurds, if that far.) Allow him to throw the ball away, but make it a 5 yard penalty with loss of down.
Make the pass interference rul 15 yards, like college. With a "flagrent foul" clause built in to elminate the possibility of someone creaming a receiver becuase it's only 15 yards. And maybe revert to the exisiting rule in the last 5 minutes or two minutes.
Offensive pass interference shoudl have a penalty equivalent to defensive pass interference. Since they will never make it an automatic interception, I say make it 10 yards AND loss of down. After all, the smart play is to tackle a guy about to intercept. Just a 10 yard penalty AND you get the down over.
What I'm getting at is it's obvious the offense has the advantage in rules, but only the top QBs can tak advantage of them. If we make passing riskier, teams will run more (or be punished if they can't) and things will be more even.
November 5, 2007
#36 B.A. Baracus said . . .I would argue that Ron Turner could eff-up trying to coordinate a one car funeral procession.
November 5, 2007
#37 Midway Monster said . . .Bill - Having a great QB at the helm of a winning SB team is not a recent evolution in the game.
I know the game has evolved, but how many championships have been won without a great QB? - and before you list a examples like the Ravens of 2000 or Tampa of 2002, be mindful of the fact that that 15 of the 41 SB championships have been won by 3 teams - Comboys, Steelers and Forty Niners - and also that another 17 have been won combined between the Packers, Patriots, Broncos, Dolphins, Redskins, Raiders and Giants. So, approximately 78% of the SBs have been won by 13 teams (Approx 40% of the league).
Most of the aforementioned teams have had great QBs, most of whom are in the Hall of Fame or will be. Having an excellent QB has always been a plus and is often a crap shoot in the draft or fee agency. However, "having" a great QB is only half the battle - with the salary cap, a mediocre team can keep a marquee QB (unlike baseball).
The difference between the SB winning teams, and the perennial losers, in my opinion, is what ownership is willing to spend on its management, coaches and scouting to evaulate, pick and subsequently develop the premier talent.
Those franchises that have historically been cheap on the executive top end of their payrolls, which is not controlled by the cap, are the teams that have historically fared poorly in the SuperBowl department, e.g. Browns, Bengals, Eagles, and Lions, to name a few.
The essence of creating dynastic teams, or even winning one superbowl - is having the elite management, coaches and scouts to correctly evaluate, pick up and develop young talent regardless of the draft round or position.
So, if it is the case that owners like Jerry Jones, etc. continue to drop fat cash on elite coaches and support personnel, then yes, the game could remain particulary lame for numerouse franchises that can't run with the big boys. However, the NFL is more popular now than it ever has been. I doubt that even the crappy franchises have or will have problems attracting or keeping their fan base.
November 5, 2007
#38 Justin said . . .BUMPED -- under the NFL's flexible schedule we've been deemed "rather unattractive" and have been bumped by the Pats-Bills so the Bears-Seahawks game out of prime time on Nov 18th.
-- Midway --
November 5, 2007
#39 Justin said . . .Patty-O, your assertion that the bears should start running the football is much too simplistic...This is a new NFL. Defenses are way too fast for "run-first offenses" to succeed. Those days are over. Did you see the patriots play on Sunday...they used the pass to set up the run. Tom Brady did not ONCE line up under center. He operated out of the shotgun the entire game They also did not once have more than one back in the backfield, had no split backs, no power I, no power right, etc. They just spread the entire field out 4 wide and dared the colts to either commit to the pass or get pounded with draw runs up the wide open middle all day. That's how you're going to have success running the football. With Grossman and Griese lining up under center, no defense in the world will respect our passing game and thus, our running game is operationally pointless. Sure, maybe once in a while Benson will pop for 6, 8, 10 yards but without a pass first attack (see lions, packers, pats, dallas, saints) your success will be compromised in the long run. Look at teams built around "strong running games" such as chargers, chiefs, even minnesota (even AP will be stopped eventually, he's new so give him a bit of time- teams will force minny's shitty QB to beat them sooner than later) are not doing great.
November 5, 2007
#40 Jimbo said . . .I don't want people to misunderstand me. Running can be successful, but from a defensive standpoint, it is much easier to stop because it is so PREDICTABLE. Good passing teams are unpredictable, can score in bunches, and get huge chunks of field in mere seconds while keeping the defense reeling and off-balance. Patty-O's comments of "RUN the Ball, and let Benson get into the game" and "Run it off the frickin bus and stop playing games" are simply asinine and show a gross misunderstanding of this complex sport we call football. You simply can't hand it off to a guy (especially Benson) and tell him to run pass 7,8,9 guys in the box or let him "Get in the game" because by the time he "gets in the game" our opponent is up two touchdowns.
November 6, 2007
#41 Shady McBears Fan said . . .Here's my two cents...
We need to beat Oakland. After that, we need to beat Seattle. I know, you say that's obvious. Here's my point. For the better part of the last 15 years, the Bears have been losers. We were a losing organization. That was our culture... losing.
That trend has recently changed, but we can't slip back. Screw the playoffs. Let's win where we can and stay used to winning. Winning begets winning.
Funny we are playing Oakland this week.
Just win baby. Go Bears.
November 6, 2007
#42 Windy City Packer Fan said . . .McBears Fan Poll Question - How would you complete this sentence?
I am ________ the 2nd half of the Bears season.
A. Excited aboutB. Discouraged about
C. Optimistic about (My choice - hey, couldn't get much worse right?)
D. Could care less about
E. Not looking forward to
F. Other (Fill in the blank yourself)
November 6, 2007
#43 Free Cedric (via starto) said . . .BA, you hit it right on the head. It starts with the ownership building a quality organization from top to bottom. GM, scouting, coaches, etc. For the most part, it is not difficult to identify the talent, as much as it is getting good coaches to bring out the best in players. That has been the same at any level. After 10+ years coaching in high school and college, I have seen the difference between great and mediocre coaching. Take the local high school programs for example, the ones that are consistently playing deep into the playoffs are ones that have established a great program, not because they have a magical pipeline of players, but because the coaches are able to get everything from their players. A great high school coach once told me something that has stuck with me when I look at football programs at every level; players will come and go, it is the coaches that are there for the long haul.
The dream scenario for you guys (and ladies, Nicole) is for there to be an ownership change in Lake Forest. With as many Bear fans as there are in this area, how about a group consisting of hundreds of thousands of fans getting together, buying stock in the team and electing a board of directors to run the team? Yeah, I know, it sounds impossible. But Bears fans are every bit as loyal and supportive to their team as the fans north of the cheddar curtain are to theirs. Why not have 2 NFC North teams owned by the fans?
What's everybody got on ice for the weekend?
November 6, 2007
#44 CAK said . . .Shady, its A.
Im a fan. I love the Bears, and no matter how much I bitch, Im always excited come kickoff. Always.
Fuck the Cubbies and "wait till next year."November 6, 2007
#45 Bill said . . .I am blindly optimistic. I want to sing this song again this year:
"We are the Bears Shufflin' Crew
Shufflin' on down, doin' it for you.
We're so bad we know we're good.
Blowin' your mind like we knew we would.
You know we're just struttin' for fun
Struttin' our stuff for everyone.
We're not here to start no trouble.
We're just here to do the Super Bowl Shuffle. "Against all odds, Bear Down.
November 6, 2007
#46 Max said . . .Shady - my answer is
I am curious about the 2nd half of the season.
I agree in retrospect that the best SB chance goes to the team with a quality (near HOF) QB. My point is, the league is now up to 32 teams. We had a short discussion several threads ago about the small chance of all teams winning a Super Bowl over even a hundred year period. If it takes a great QB (and it does) we'd have to adjust that number even higher.
I get very discouraged when I relaize that to have a real chance we have to get something we have shown no ability to get. WORSE - there aren't that many of 'em to begin with.
OR - is it more that there'd be more great QBs IF there were more great coaches to develop them?
November 6, 2007
#47 Scott said . . .Start Orton or Rex this week. . . We are all but mathmatically eliminated from the playoffs and Griese isnt the future. . . See if Rex bounces back or see what Orton brings to the table.
Start A.P. that way we can clear up what the problem is for sure. If Adrian does terrible, then its probably the O-line, but if he busts out a couple nice runs and does decent, consistently, then its clear Benson isnt the man, plus it might fire Benson up a bit.
And Phil, B-Squared reminds you of David Terrell???? Terrell never had the season that Berrian had last year. (Although BB isnt a conceited asshole, as Terrell was, so maybe I am biased).
Come on Bears, I requested Sunday off so I can see a beating of the Raiders. . . big money big money big money. Bear down.
November 6, 2007
#48 RandomName said . . .The trend on the site right now is to say that we're screwed unless we have a dominant QB. I completely disagree. Transcendent QB's change the game, no doubt about it. Having a Brady or a Manning or a Montana completely and totally changes the outlook for a franchise. But SB's have been won by Plunkett, Roethlisberger, Dilfer, Rypien, and Hostetler, to name a few. In each game, they were opposed by arguably better QB's but the better QB's lost. To argue about the difference maker for a SB winner is difficult to the point of being virtually impossible. Better players win SB's but there's so much parity that it probably comes down to something much more than that. Chemistry can't be underplayed. There is no reason this Bear team with their level of talent shouldn't be playing well but they're not. Sure, injuries have played a role but the Bills are 4-4 and they've been decimated by injuries. The Bills! Underperformance has been contagious this year and I don't know why. That's what makes this year so frustrating. I still think we have enough talent to win the NFC but I don't think we'll do it.
I agree with all who say we should run Rex or Orton out there. It's a lost season so let's see what we've got. I'm optimistic but I'm a fan so that makes me stupidly optimistic. Go Bears.
November 6, 2007
#49 Viva said . . .hey Jeff, thanks for the reality check.
well there's always the draft, and free agents.
There's some young kids out there practicing with a tire on a swing and has Brady locked in his sights,
there's some young(ER) kid looking at the way Adrian Peterson is overtaking the league and knows he has to be That much better; he must practice with his resistance cords attached to a friend who's pulling on him,
There's a young receiver with a hatred for dropped balls and is bugging his cousin to throw all kids or weird passes out there so he can practice catching the "uncatchable" live-ball.
Will the Chicago Bears get these kids on their roster? Let's just hope we do.
Until then GO BEARS, it ain't over till it's a mathematically impossibility.
November 6, 2007
#50 Phil from SATX said . . .Lovie peaked as an Defensive Coordinator in St Louis.
The Offensive Line is slow, stiff, and sloppy.
Ced is an expensive bust.
Rex was an injury bust (missing those years of development hurt)
The coaching staff can not identify their opponentss weaknesses so they will never exploit them. They suck.
November 6, 2007
#51 Pissed Off said . . .Hey, great series of posts here. Like PO'd, I do not go on other teams blogs but the little I've seen, including other Bears blogs, I don't see anywhere close to the insightful commentary here.
Start-O, my choice is intensely interested in the second half. I can't call myself optimistic because I don't believe we can dig ourselves out of our hole. So to me, playoffs are not in our future for this year. However, there has never been a non-interesting Bear game for me, and like Bill, I am extremely curious to see what the second half will bring.
I don't think that it's the cheapness of the Bears that has caused this. That was yesterday's anwer, I don't think it's today's. They opened up the checkbook for Lovie Smith. They have made changes at the management level, first with Ted Phillips, later with Jerry Angelo. The guys who leave us get picked up by other teams. Every team makes mistakes in hiring, every team takes shots on coaches and hopes for the best, only two teams compete for a Super Bowl every year and only one team wins.
We were in the Super Bowl last year. Had things turned out a little differently about Rex, we could be defending SB champions. I am swayed by both QB arguments - you don't have to have Manning or Brady to win, but when Manning and Brady are around, and helming good teams, you're going to have a tough time beating them with your Hasselbecks and Bulgers and Kitnas (much less your Grieses and Grossmans and Ortons).
We are probably overreacting to a bad luck year. When you don't have a great quarterback controlling your offense and creating points, you need lots of other things to go right - it's a lot harder to win consistently. We had a lot of things go right last year - no it wasn't 2001's fluky wins, but lots of things went right.
Regarding management, the one thing I think we've learned this year is that Lovie is not a great adjuster, nor a great motivator. He may be good at putting a program together. Short of QB, we had the pieces to win this year. (Mind you, that's a pretty big "short of"). Injuries hurt the D bad.
But is he good at righting a ship when things are going sour? He's had his chance to show us that - and instead what we've gotten is inconsistency. With the talent still lining up on our team, we had no business losing to the Lions, at home, on a critical win. Worse, the offense didn't even look prepared. To me, he has failed the test of dealing with adversity this year. Despite its adversity, the team has seriously underachieved this year. I believe underachieving is the fault of the coach.
So I don't think it's spending money, and I don't think it's that we don't have Manning or Brady - but I do think that our head coach may not be good enough. And I'm not ready to call for Angelo's head, but he better fix the QB and offense situation (with new QB and new coordinator).
Bill Cowher and Chicago fit together like Ditka and Chicago. He's the guy I want, and he's out there. And since I probably can't dial up a Brady or Manning, for my next quarterback I want the next Ben Roethlisburger. A big, tough guy like that would look great in blue and orange.
November 6, 2007
#52 Rancid said . . .Do the Bears run closed practices? When would we find out if Griese is starting? How do we find out? Or is it already determined that he'll be starting and we're just speculating that we'd rather see Orton or Rex? I WANT TO KNOW!
November 6, 2007
#53 Phil from SATX said . . .What a crap year. My number one priority is to get rid of RT and pick a good O coordinator. I think Lovie will be fine if that can happen. Theres a lot more to do as well but I don't care what improvements we make with him in charge of the offense, I won't trust it.
And in my opinion the time has come to start Orton. Not because he is good and can save the season, but because we need to know what he's worth. If he can't play by now then we can ditch him too.
November 6, 2007
#54 Bill said . . .PO'd, seriously, don't hold your breath for a QB change right now. In our wildest dreams they're not doing that, not until a few more losses occur. The only changes I think that will be up for discussion are starting receivers, O-line, whether Brown starts in place of Anderson and whether AA will line up at safety next to D. Manning.
I personally think that on offense, the most likely change will occur on the Oline (maybe with St. Clair getting a start). and Alex Brown starting, and that's it. AA will continue to go, starting receivers stay Berrian and Moose, Ced's still the running back, BG still QB.
Yeah, and we'll probably lose to Raiders due to continued offensive woes. (not being a pessimist, just realistic).
'
How would I do it? Orton at QB, massive changes on the Oline (replacing at least two players with St. Clair and Beekman and moving Tait to the right side), starting Bradley at WR, use Haas as 4th receiver, starting AP, starting Alex Brown at end, keeping AA and hoping the return to normalcy at corner will make him better. But that's just me.November 6, 2007
#55 Phil from SATX said . . .We can assume Griese is starting; there is no reaqson to think otherwise; there are good reasons to go back to Rex or try Orton, but only if it's a given the season is over. While from a practical sense it is, it's not really and so the coaches owe it to the players and fans to treat this like it's doable. No White Flags; no walking to the corner saying No Mas.
Cower won't happen here becasue they extended Lovie and for good reason. We took the team to a Super Bowl in his third year. You don't fire a coach becuase he didn't make the playoffs the next year. You allow him to fix it. If - after two more years he shows he can't, then you let him go.
I agree that we may be over-reacting to a string of bad luck; it's painful, but stuff happens.
I talked to a Packer fan yesterday (from Wisconsin, so he's a true Packer fan and not one of those anti-Bear Packer fans). He's amazed at the season; scared of AP now; worried about the Lions; would love to see Brett get another ring but realizes it's a long shot unless Brady and Manning both get hurt.
In other words, he sounds like a Bear fan would in the same circumstances.
November 6, 2007
#56 Walter Sayers said . . .Still Bill, wouldn't you love to have Cowher? Great commentary about the Packer fan. I agree, and I think all of us here do, with Rancid. There are three critical changes to fix this team going into next year, in order of importance:
1) New offensive coordinator (this one makes the next two pale in importance).
2) Address the future of the QB position.
3) Revamp the offensive line.
Again, of these 3, by far the most important is a new coordinator. 2 and 3 are linked. Both are really equally important.
But we need new brains behind the offense. A good coordinator would have us in a different position right now in this season, despite our injuries.
November 6, 2007
#57 B.A. Baracus said . . .Actually the quarterback alternating in Dallas was for 4 games at least. The player s and fans of that generation didn't like that it was done that way. It wasn't alright with the fans and players, but it was ok with Landry. After Landry finally made the choice of Staubach they won the Superbowl. The Bears don't have 2 quarterbacks that play well like Dallas had in the 70's. We have 2 quarterback's that can't get the job done. I was a huge Grossman Supporter because I seen the way he lit up the SEC when he played at Florida. He cannot see over the line and lacks the pocket movement he had in college. Griese is serviceable at best but he has the same problems Grossman had, going deep too often when recievers aren't open. The reciever don't go up for the ball to make matters worse. They are weak comparatively speaking of the rest of the league average or elite recievers. Benson is not good. Runs with his head down and has poor vision as a result. A nice move would be to alternate Peterson and Wolf. The is a question of economics though not ability. Search deep in your soul and you'll know this is true. Defense is having a bad year and will rebound but draft choices for youth and speed have not paid off. Young defensive backs = poor judgement. Lovie tends to leave the trash out to long and is beginning to stink around here. This all make sense?
November 6, 2007
#58 Bill said . . .Phil - I agree that every owner takes a chance on hiring their GMs and coaches and the picking and signing of players is often a crap shoot. Although the Bears signed Lovie to big money, I think the issue goes beyond our knowledge of the amount of money paid for the salary of the head coach.
The information we don't know, for example, is the total amount of money allotted directly or indirectly to Lovie to run the team, e.g. advance scouting salaries, travel expenses, specialized trainers fees, facility services, etc. This money does not go towards the cap, but can be influential in the development of a winning program.
A prime example of a faulty ownership philosophy (a/k/a cheapness) is seen in the Cincinnati Bengals franchise. The Brown family, who owns the team, is notoriously cheap and does not fully fund or staff the Bengals scouting department compared to most franchises. It is not surprising that their GM, coaches and scouts drafted and/or signed a bunch of convicts over the last few years, and it should be equally noticeable that the Bengals have essentially been perennial non-contenders through their history in the SB era (and they suck this year).
Of course, there is one other thing that can't be overlooked, which relates to taking chances on hiring GMs - if the owner is a moron or a poor judge of talent and hires a crappy GM, then everything flows down from there regardless of the amount of money thrown at the issue. I guess there are certain franchises over the last few decades that simply make poor organizational choices when hiring their GMs and these teams just keep on suckin'.
November 6, 2007
#59 Midway Monster said . . .My memory of the Staubach/Morton rotation apparently is faulty. I do beleive that the last time they did it was in a loss to the Bears; I now think I was wrong in thinking it was just that one game.
Good article today in the Trib about how/why the Patriots are able to keep succedding. One key element is the players willing to take less than market value. But it's a chicken/egg problem. The team has to show the potential for continued success first.
They also mention there are only two voices at the top - Belli-cheat and his GM. No president or salary cap finance guy. The two of them do it all, and no meddling from owners.
Lastly, he's hired well regarding coordinators. And replaced them well. I think a lot of coaches are afraid they coudl be hiring their eventual replacements if the guy is too good. MAybe why Chico was let go? If RT stays, we can't discount that as a reason.
November 6, 2007
#60 Phil from SATX said . . .PO (Post #51) Speculation, speculation, and more speculation... we all know that Griese will start until they are mathematically out of it (and played GB). Only then would anyone make a QB change.
Right now our boys are in skull sessions & on the gridiron getting ready to play Oakland. Now there is a team who is in shables. Most of them Black/Silver heads are mailing it in (with postage due). I am confident we'll beat em with Griese.
-- Midway --
(Overthrow Raider Nation!)
November 6, 2007
#61 Nicole is miserable in this blue city said . . .Bill, I don't think that can be considered as a serious option. If you're smart enough to be hired as a head coach, you're smart enough to understand the very simple fact that the only way you can succeed and stay as head coach is to win, and preferably to always win more than you did the last year (trend). No coach in his right mind would hire anyone less than the best he could find for a coordinator. Otherwise he doesn't put himself in the best position to win. If he doesn't win, he gets fired anyway. So that doesn't make any sense.
The one caveat to that has to do with hiring people you trust - you may not take the best and brightest if you don't trust him personally. Also, Lovie may think he can get a lesser guy for defense because he's basically running the show. For offense, though, I think we can assume that Lovie thought RT was the best person he could find for the position. If he doesn't change his mind after this year then I'm sure we can't trust his judgment. But I can't imagine a scenario where he keeps RT because someone better might take his job.
November 6, 2007
#62 Midway Monster said . . .Hester sure knows how to blend in with the Lake Forest locals...
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/Nicole2179/Bears/Hester.jpgNovember 6, 2007
#63 Phil from SATX said . . .
Tank Johnson was activated by the Dallas Cowboys on Monday, after completing an eight-game suspension.I miss this crazy-a$$ nut job.
-- Midway --
November 6, 2007
#64 Bill said . . .Nicole, I gotta get me one of those! If it's good enough for Devin, it's good enough for me!
Haugh reports that STATS confirms what we have been saying here throughout the season. CB runs much better to the right than to the left, a 4.0 vs. 2.3 ypc. He wonders if it's more Benson or more Tait/Brown vs. Miller/Garza. Considering the number of times I've seen defenders 3 yards up in the backfield on the left side, I'm going with Tait/Brown as the culprit.
November 6, 2007
#65 Max said . . .All I know is we haven't had a real good O or D coordinator since Buddy Ryan and Vince Tobin; and all our head coaches have been first year head coaches since Halas. I'm not in favor aof a retread, but we always have guys learning on the job (or not - see Shoop, John.)
November 6, 2007
#66 Bill said . . .If we dont beat the Raiders, I might strangle someone. Out here its all 49er and Raider fans cause those are the games they play. Requested Sunday off, game on.
Bear down already . . .
November 6, 2007
#67 Mike said . . .Peter King says it's surprising that the Bears are in the basement of the NFC North without a significant number of injuries.
I don't know what significant means to him, but losing Mike Brown, Dusty, Vasher, Briggs for a time, and with Harris and Urlacher not 100% all year, there is obviously an impact.
Of course, no one notices that becasue our offense is so bad without significant injuries.
November 6, 2007
#68 Bill Cowher said . . .The Bears will be all over P.J. Losman like shit on a pig next offseason. You watch. Jerry Angelo will engineer a trade with 107 year old Marv Levy that makes Losman the starting QB next year.
November 6, 2007
#69 Phil from SATX said . . .Fire Lovie and Angelo and hire me in the offseason. I whip that sorry franchise around like nobody's business. Scrap that horseshit cover 2 defense, draft some real offensive lineman, find a long-term QB that doesn't suck shit. And a way we shall go. Give me three years and I'll fix this clusterfuck of a situation.
November 6, 2007
#70 Free Cedric (via starto) said . . .That's an asinine thing for Peter King to say, and just about on schedule for him. And you can say we don't have injuries on offense, I say it's because people they only factor in true football injuries, and not age-related disabilities like osteoporosis and Alzheimer's (Oline).
I know it's too early for a Kill Lovie storyline, but if we do get there at some point, I agree with Bill's point about always having a first-time-as-head-coach - Wanny, Jauron, Lovie.
If Lovie doesn't work out, I want a veteran coach, and I specifically want either Bill Cowher or Jeff Fisher - only those two guys. Unfortunately, they will both be on other teams by the time we get around to firing Lovie. (And no I'm not rooting for that - just saying if it comes to that - but if the collective brains down at Halas Hall don't fire RT after this season, we're burning down the house and everyone inside).
November 6, 2007
#71 Bill said . . .How in the holey hell could people call for the head of a coach who took us to the Super Bowl last year? Stupid stupid stupid. Cower had bad years too!!!
November 6, 2007
#72 Scott said . . .We're not calling for Lovie's head yet; but I think most of us if not all have seen this script play out before. First time head coach with decent to great talent turns a team around and makes the playoffs. Then gets extended, and the team mysteriously fades. Then a couple years later it goes down far enough to warrant starting the cycle over.
We're projecting out of a conditioned response. (Pavlov's Bears, so to speak.) I think a lot of us, as nuts as it is, are already fearing / projecting a disappointing 2008. With Detroit and Minnesota apparently having some weapons, and Favre in no need to retire just yet, thre is legitimate reason to say it will be difficult to win the division next year even if we DO fix several of the apparent problems.
And I think a lot of us figure that coaching is one of the problems. With a guy leading it all who said (paraphrasing): you need to trust me that the decisions I'm making are the best for the team.
They weren't.
November 6, 2007
#73 Mike said . . .I agree, Free Cedric. All Lovie and his staff did prior to this season was overachieve (save for the horrors of Jonathan Quinn and Craig Krenzel). One year of underachieving doesn't deserve a firing. This is his biggest test. Stabilize a team in the midst of a crisis of confidence. The second half will be telling. If he finishes at .500 or above then we should consider that a great achievement considering the current state of affairs.
November 6, 2007
#74 Scott said . . .I've seen this movie starring Lovie Smith before. The first time the lead role was played by Dave Wannstedt and things went to shit in the fourth year. The second time the movie starred Dick Jauron and again the plot involved things going to hell in a handbasket in year four. It's ridiculous to pin all this mess on Lovie because Jerry Angelo is served up a shit sandwich as well. But the point is I am sick of this bad rerun. Enough with the first time head coach who comes from the defensive side of the football and promises to work dirt cheap for Sweaty Teddy Phillips and the McCaskets. Let's hire a real fucking marquee name. Perhaps somebody who grasps understanding of QB play and moving the football via the forward pass. Like Bill Cowher. Or Jeff Tedford at Cal. Or Jon Gruden.
November 6, 2007
#75 Bill said . . .I think we've seen enough college coaches tank in the pros of late. No thanks on Tedford. Gruden ran his team into the ground after inheriting Dungy's fine work. No thanks on him, too. I don't recall ever making the Super Bowl with Wanny or Jauron or even having a team anywhere near as good as those of the previous two years. This isn't the same movie. Let's hope for some new endings, huh? We don't always have to presume that failures and patterns will be repeated.
November 6, 2007
#76 Mike said . . .Scott - as Bear fans, we are always open to "wait 'till next year". Seriously, it has to play out. You can't possibly fire a coach for one disappointing year (it may not even turn out bad, just likely disappointing.
Three in a row after making the SB - yes. So we will have Lovie for the next 2 years, I'm sure. Hopefully, we'll be glad.
November 6, 2007
#77 Edith Prixley said . . .Scott, allow me to let you in on a little secret. The 2006-07 football season concluded a number of months ago. This is the 2007-08 season. You know, the one where we are 3-5 and just as easily could be 1-7. The one where Angelo and Lovie stuck their collective heads in the sand and pretended Rex Grossman could be the answer despite the dire warnings flashed last year.
As Mike Ditka reminds us, cowards live in the past. The Bears of present are a clusterfuck of a mess. We aren't talking about the need for one or two fixes, rather we are talking the complete reconstruction of an offense (the line, QB, RB, wide receivers), the replacement of defensive stalwarts (Briggs leaving, Urlacher on the downside of his career suffering from arthritis) and upgrade of worthless overrated pieces (Adewale Ogunleye as Exhibit A). So don't sit there and infer that Lovie and Angelo earned a lifetime of goodwill because the Bears were able to back into the Super Bowl last season. Their stubborn denial concerning QB, RB and the O-Line situation led to this mess. The window of opportunity to win in the salary-capped NFL is brief unless you are the Patriots or the Colts. The Bears blew their brief window opportunity.
November 6, 2007
#78 Scott said . . .Mike, what IS your obsession with fecal matter? You're not a Bear fan. The Bears will go 7-1 at worse the 2nd half and dominate the NFC playoffs. There is no team in the NFC that matches up with us on defense or that has a weapon like Devin Hester.
Get your Super Bowl tickets, cause we will be playing the Patriots in January !!!
November 6, 2007
#79 Scott said . . .Edith, high hopes. I'm impressed but I don't think it's gonna happen.
Mike, the level of venom in your posts suggests that you're just unpleasant. I'm not living in the past. You're the one who brought up Wanny and Jauron, I only mentioned last year to demonstrate the differences between their regimes and Lovie's. This year has sucked. I have never said otherwise. If Lovie pulls it together and they play well over the final eight then he's done a quality job of righting the ship. Check my earlier posts for my feeling about the season. It's lost but one bad season doesn't make a bad coach. Now settle down.
November 6, 2007
#80 Free Cedric (via starto) said . . .And, Bill, I agree with you if my earlier post wasn't clear.
And, Mike, nowhere in my post did I suggest a "lifetime" of good will. Easy on the exaggerations.
November 6, 2007
#81 Free Cedric (via starto) said . . .Mike, before you call Wale a piece of shit, go back and watch the Saints game. You know, the one that got us in the fucking Super Bowl.
November 7, 2007
#82 Free Cedric (via starto) said . . .Mike,
Dave Wanny went to the Super Bowl? "Ive seen this script before..."
If so, the script goes, Wanny takes Bears to Super Bowl, loses to one of the greatest QBs of all time, then has a poor follow up season.
Hmmm. Im 30... and I don't remember that. Was that 1975?November 7, 2007
#83 Free Cedric (via starto) said . . .and for chrissakes Jeff, start a Raiders post already. That could be loads of fun.
November 7, 2007
#84 Walter Sayers said . . .hey...
hey its me, Ced.
Sorry I gotta whisper- Ricky is right up stairs. Ricky Williams, Ced-napper.
I can dig us outta this hole! Just rescue me and give me back my identity, and Ill run like the guy you saw last year!
Come on, get me ou... shit here he comes.November 7, 2007
Here's the thing. Maybe it is not the quarterbacks. Grossman and Griese may not be the answer. Everyone seems to know it is Turner. Do you think they would benefit from a new cordinator and give the old boys another shot, meaning Grossman or Griese? If not it is a whole new crop that is going to be needed to rebuild this. it is hard to find another Briggs or Urlacher. 1 running back can make a difference look at Minesota. We keep on this pace and we might be in the market for that Ark. RB. But knowing the bears they would trade the pick away. Money is something the Mcaskey's don't give away easily.
November 7, 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.
