You know what bothers me most about Lovie Smith? His arrogance. For a man of supposed humility, sprung from God-fearing Big Sandy Texas roots, Lovie displays an alarming absence of self-realization. For Lovie the glass is not only always half-full, it's overflowing with an abundance of delicious miracle elixir. If we can simply collect a bit before it hits the ground, these five wins will become twelve before our very eyes.
Mike Mulligan's all-too-revelatory column in the Sun-Times today acknowledges the symptoms of pre-diagnosed ailment. Listen to some of these quotes:
''It's disappointing we are 5-9, but it is not like we are that far away. When we were getting ready to go to the Super Bowl last year, we were close. We had a lot of close games that went with us."
Actually Lovie, that's nowhere near correct. Last year the team was only in five games that were decided by single digits. In the current NFL, that was almost unheard of until this year's Patriots. The Bears were 4-1 but outside of the early game at Minnesota, each of the games was only close due to an abundance of Rex Grossman turnovers - not defensive liabilities and a lack of running game.
''This year, we played close games, but we haven't been able to finish the job. With a new year, we will be able to correct some of those things and get back. So we're closer than our record says right now."
I'm not of the mindset that the Bears need to rebuild but CLOSER TO WHAT? For every blown ten point lead, there was miracle comeback. Blew 10 in Detroit - went 97 in Philadelphia. Blew 11 to the Giants - made up 14 with the Broncos. Doesn't Lovie acknowledge that this team could just as easily have only three wins? This wreaks of self-delusion.
''But this year is a down year for us, so all the ones who have never really been behind what we're doing, they can take their shots right now. But we'll fix it and come back stronger than ever.''
Everyone who loves this team - and I say this with the possible exception of white supremacist Bears fans - are behind winning with you as our coach. To pin the credible criticism on some sort of alterior-attack on your program feels like the last gasps of a dying coach. 5 wins is not close. Last place is not close. Bears fans watched this organization trade away their most viable offensive commodity in the offseason and saw their vaunted running game plummet as a result. They saw the Bears once again mistakenly rely on the health of the NFL's most fragile safety with only a way-past-his-born-on-date Adam Archuelta in the wings. They saw a defense fall from one of the league's best to one of its worst, as your hand-picked buddy seized control. They've seen young players regress and veterans hit their wall as your undeniably talented team continues to lose to less-talented opponents. They've watch good coaches go into the locker room at halftime down double-digit points only to dominate the team we love for the next thirty minutes.
Yes. We blame you. Forgive us Lovie, we know not what we do.
#2 Pissed Off said . . .I am struggling with the anti-Lovie thing as a fan. Maybe that's part of why I hate RT so much. Maybe I want the blame to fall elsewhere. In some small way I feel like coming down hard on Lovie takes away from the euphoria that was the 06 Bears, and also darkens the future (since he's not going anywhere). But while I am torn and hesitant, I acknowledge that a huge portion of the blame is in fact his.
December 20, 2007
#3 JB said . . .Jeff I gotta take you to task a bit, in the last thread you said Kyle needs to play the next three games and that he deserves a chance? Didnt you say he pretty much blows on a thread earlier in the week and that he is who we thought he was? I could be wrong but I'll go back and look.
December 20, 2007
#4 jeff said . . .To quote Paul Fussell, "I find nothing more depressing than optimism".
I feel this way in my life, where I claim to be a realist if only blindly bearimistic when it comes to this team. However, I can only have blind faith in the future, and cannot wipe away the past season by saying we were close...close to what? The 49ers? This team was not very good for all the reasons outlined by Jeff today. I don't buy into the Kornheiser theory that they thought the wins would just come...I can't except hubris as the answer for this team that has had some tough years before the previous two. The truth is that the wheels came off this year. Ron Turner will be fired at the end of the year, which will make everyone happy...but that's Lovie's get out of jail free card. The next thing that happens is he'll get Jauroned out of here if he follows this campaign up with a similar '08.
So here's to a bearimistic offseason... full of hope, resignings, FA signings, and of course, the Draft.
December 20, 2007
#5 Mike said . . .PO'd, i absolutely believe kyle orton stinks. but i'm not a professional evaluator of talent, nor do i want to be. i believe the kids deserves to play because i like how he's handled the last two seasons and i've seen enough of brian griese in 2007. if rex were healthy, this wouldn't be an issue.
December 20, 2007
#6 jeff said . . .Seeking to place the majority of blame on Lovie, Turner is Babich is misguided and naive. Yes the coaching staff hasn't done the job, but the biggest issue at hand is the fundamental lack of talent at key positions.
1. The offensive line needs near total reconstruction.
2. We have no running back.
3. Just look at the mess at quarterback.
4. The wide receiver corp is among the worst in football
5. We have no strong safetySo when you examine these five truisms why is it so stunningly surprising that we are 5-9 on the season?
December 20, 2007
#7 Pissed Off said . . .i put 2,3,4,5 on the organization mike. lovie and jerry are the organization. i dont think anyone saw 1 coming.
December 20, 2007
#8 Mike said . . .Mike, Heres your simple solutions to the problems that seemingly keep you up at night.
1)Sign a guy and draft one or two, do some shifting....DONE.
2)Once the O-line comes together the RB problem will be solved, Ced has enough talent to be the #1. Maybe we sign or draft a guy too just for hell of it to see what he's got.
3)Rex, Rex and Rex.
4)Fix the O-line and get a healthy Rex in there, the WRs we have will look fine.
5)Pretty sure we do. And when we are healthy next year...no prob.
December 20, 2007
#9 Da Coach said . . .I don't disagree Jeff. But the bottom line is that prediction for a rapid turnaround is silly. It's going to take time to fix the offensive line and the wide receiver position while also acquiring solution at running back, quarterback and safety.
People presume that Rex Grossman will return for a 6th season. I think he will make decision to bolt Chicago where he has been a major disappointment, injury plagued and thrown under the bus by the media and fans. But if he does come back then we still are left with the great uncertainty on how he will perform. How his return could possibly generate excitement among some fans is beyond me. This is Rex Grossman we are talking about, not Brett Favre.
And another thing, how can some of you have great confidence for a rapid turnaround when out of the other side of your mouth you rightfully lambast the guys running the show in Angelo and Lovie? It's not like Bill Parcells or Bill Polian/Tony Dungy are running the show.
Two more years of pain are in the offering. This much I am convinced.
December 20, 2007
#10 Phil from SATX said . . .Mike I disagree with the Bears having the worst WR corps that title belongs to teams such as Eagles, 49ers, Fins.
The bears need better o-line play with that will come a running game which will translate into a better passing game. QB also has to know what the hell he is doing back there as well but if Rex wants to come back bring him in. He is the best we got.
I am still a McNabb fan and think if we could get him for a 3rd round pick then so be it, him going to another team will revive his career and the guy is a proven winner with half the talent on offense that the bears have here with guys. Look back at some of the WRs he has played with its sickening.
December 20, 2007
#11 Eternal Optimist said . . .Not to mention, Jeff, but we have seen game after game of very poor intra-game management, from the offensive coordinator, to the defensive coordinator, to the head coach. The levels to which these guys have failed this year are absolute and astronomical. Think about it -
first job - assemble the team for the 2007 campaign - blew this big time by letting go Jones, failing to recognize that Ced's running style did not fit this aging, non-physical line, letting go the wrong safeties, hiring the wrong free agent safety (who by the way was another Lovie buddy), not bringing in a solid RB veteran to run along with Ced, not preparing Griese in case Rex dumped.
next job - handle intra-year personnel issues when injuries occurred and making sure the right people are on the field - attempts to replace Vasher by trying to convert D. Manning to corner, then switch to Trumaine McBride, then Ricky Manning Jr., back to McBride. RT underusing Hester, underusing Wolfe, underusing both tight ends, underusing Bradley, leaving Ruben Brown out there when he was seriously injured, no tweaking of the O-line to see if the other guys on the roster were any better
and the worst - intragame playcalling - we've talked about it enough, there are weapons aplenty on this team even with a bad line, HE NEVER ADJUSTED TO THE LINE ISSUES, Babich looked like he was calling the wrong D call much of the time this year. Losing the second halves after being ahead at half time is ON THE COACHES - who is adjusting and who isn't?
And you're right Jeff, if is wasn't for some miraculous last minute drives WHICH LIKELY MEANT TURNER WASN'T CALLING THE PLAYS means this could have, maybe should have easily been a 3 win season.
Add to that ridiculous comments in the press, the complete inability to get a team motivated to win a game, lack of control over what players are saying - the list seems endless.
And now he's suggesting that they are very close to what they were last year, and suggesting that the criticisms are "just part of the territory" - read NOT VALID, just MEDIA TOMFOOLERY.
I guess he's trying to shoot the moon, eh? Take all the tricks? Because I am having trouble finding one thing this coaching staff did right this year. EXCEPT DAVE TOUB, who now looks like he could get plucked away, for being too good.
My confidence in him as head coach is at a historic low, and just dropped further today. Sheeeesh.
December 20, 2007
#12 Phil from SATX said . . .Tinfoil hat time:
After the injuries at the beginning of the season, the Chicago Bears management decided to tank the entire season. They took Grossman out in favor of Griese, so we would still rally around Grossman next season. They gave us false hope bringing Grossman back, only to see him get "injured" again. Now they're playing Kyle Orton just to make the fans ambivalent towards the impending off-season.
This off-season, we replace Miller, Garza, and move Tait over to RT. We also draft a QB for shits and giggles. We keep Mike Brown. We bring in Bob Sanders as well. One will become injured but that's ok, because AA was tanking this season as well.
We don't re-sign Briggs. Urlacher's "back injury" mysteriously gets better. Devin Hester becomes the #2 receiver. Moose plays the slot. Hester is in nearly every play creating actual confusion. This all happens because the new OC (whoever this may be) is actually not mildly retarded.
The 4 1st or 2nd year players on IR come back with a vengeance. Bazuin plays like Dan Hampton. Dusty plays like the Fridge. Tommie plays like Tommie. Mark Anderson gains some weight and becomes a run stopper too. Alex Brown leaves and provides us cap room to sign Sanders. Kevin Payne also becomes a servicable back-up to AA when he gets injured after he replaces either Brown or Sanders. Mike Okwo starts in Briggs absence. He looks just like Briggs. Everyone finally understands this is due to Urlacher.
All of this leads to us dominating the NFC next year (unless we become injured again very quickly, but that isn't optimistic talk, so rubbish to that). Hooray!
We all rejoice. But not Mike of course. He will still say we suck.
December 20, 2007
#13 Duff Diggler said . . .I'll have what he's having.
Great job Eternal!
December 20, 2007
#14 jeff said . . .*sigh*.......
I say hire Jeff as the GM
Phil from SATX as HC
I'll go for OC
Pissed Off DC
...that being said...as the new OC of the Bears, I vow to utilize Hester and Olsen! In addition, I will discredit the term "featured back." News flash: Teams with good 2 backs, of different strengths, are better than one great back. That will win games!
anyone second?
December 20, 2007
#15 Bill said . . .as GM, i'd like to fire the three of you immediately and bring in professional football people. sorry guys, its best for the team.
December 20, 2007
#16 Pissed Off said . . .Haugh has a confusing article today. He says Turnr shoudln't be fired, and in his "defense" he lists a several signs of an incompentent coordinator. His whole article basically says Turner did a bad job this year, but Lovie might hire someone worse, so we shoudl keep him.
Maybe it was a veiled reference that Lovie himself is the problem - but I doubt it.
Another article I saw recently surmised that Lovie's bizarre statements (like "we stopped running Benson because the other team would have eventually") were him trying to clumisly cover for his assistant coach - and he is upset at having to do that.
I just can't see Turner being back next year. But I do worry that Lovie is very capable of hiring someone worse.
December 20, 2007
#17 Phil from SATX said . . .Then I hire a hitman to kill Jeff, and the new guy hires me back as DC. Then I convince him to resign Briggs, dump Arch Deluxe and Manning Jr and sign a real CB who can play. I call a wizard who invents a flexible mobile full body cast for Mike Brown to wear so he can never get hurt again. I blitz more than any team in the league and as a result teams are forced to go to 4 or 5 WR sets too frequently and it screws up their game plans so they are faced with 3rd and long too often to be effective.
December 20, 2007
#18 jeff said . . .I really don't think "worse" exists. And after initially turning purple and having my pulse jump to 180 by reading that RT could stay, I calmed down after realizing that in Lovie-speak, there was no endorsement there. In fact my reading between the lines says that Lovie will in fact fire RT.
Disclaimer - I wear glasses that have the words Fire RT Fire RT Fire RT Fire RT permanently etched on the inside of the lenses, which may affect my reading between the lines.
Haugh is very strange this year, and one of his strangest pet projects is the continuing endorsement of RT. He believes that RT was great with Kramer and great last year. RT may have been great with Kramer but I don't believe he was anything near great last year, but defense, Hester, the TJ/Benson combo and Rex to Berrian combined to score many points, thus confusing the issue.
The strangest column of his (and I haven't read today's) was after the shutting down of the hurry up. He went to great, arrogant lengths to state we were all foolish and know-nothings for thinking that you could use a hurry-up longer than for one scoring series. My only response to that article was how much is RT paying you, David.
If Jeff rescinds his firing, as HC I vow to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for the team's crappiness, FIRE ANY COORDINATORS IMMEDIATELY who are not performing, HAVE A NO-NEPOTISM POLICY with assistant coaches AND players, and PROMPTLY BENCH PLAYERS WHO ARE NOT PERFORMING so that I can PROPERLY EVALUATE THE BENCH PERFORMERS. Also, NO ONE WILL BE GUARANTEED A JOB. Finally, I'LL BE AS HUMBLE AS DAVE WANNSTEDT but NOT NEARLY AS STUPID.
December 20, 2007
#19 Packers Fans Smell like Limburger said . . .very good point on haugh's turner column. he's a much better beat writer than an opinion writer. listen, ron turner is as much responsible for this collapse of a season as anyone else and i don't know if firing him will make a speck of difference...but it'd sure make me feel good for a few hours.
December 20, 2007
#20 Pissed Off said . . .I believe in Lovie, the Coach Almighty. I believe it is his coaching that guided a mediocre team to the Super Bowl. Ron Turner must be an ulcer for him. I think Lovie will be able to drop his Pepto Bismol addiction as soon as he sees Turner's office empty.
December 20, 2007
#21 Phil from SATX said . . .Phil if you are going to fire or bench anyone who doesnt perform who is going to play?
December 20, 2007
#22 PolygonHell said . . .We'll raid other team's practice squads like we did to get The Big Toe -
Then we'll hold open tryouts at Soldier Field Vince Papale-style.
It'll work, trust me!
December 20, 2007
#23 Mike said . . .I honestly don't believe Lovie is arrogant, I think he's just doing what his press people tell him to do. Spin the positive don't give the press ammunition, but as I've said before it's a bad press playbook for the internet age. And he comes accross as an arrogant idiot because of it, even though I strongly believe he isn't.
The internet is very black and white, and fans want to blame someone. I think that's only natural, but the truth is the problems don't all fall on Lovie or even Turner, Rex, Benson and the O-Line. This season was a team effort in the worst possible way.
The players couldn't execute there way out of a paper bag this year, some of that falls on coaching, but some has to fall on the players.
I think it's understandable to see fans calling for heads, and I've done it with Turner this year on occasion. But as an organisation firing and replacing coaches will often have dire short term consequences.
Getting rid of Turner for example would probably result in putting in an entirely new offensive system, and despite internet rumours to the contrary, the Bears do have a big playbook. For most of 06 there wasn't much wrong with Turners offense.
I do agree he didn't adjust to not being able to run the ball or protect the quarterback. But what are you supposed to do as a coordinator int those circumstances?
Lovie and the organisation made some decisions in the off season that with hindsight are questionable. But all these what if scenarios are rediculous, Rivera would have made the defense better, Thomas Jones would have run better, if we hadn't traded Chris Harris or some of our depth at DT. Maybe, but there is no way to know.
I think the real arrogance this season was the way the team came in expecting to be given another shot at the SuperBowl. Perhaps this is the real cause of the SuperBowl hangover. In 06 they were hungry and I hope it returns for 08.
December 20, 2007
#24 Phil from SATX said . . .To repeat, firing Ron Turner is not a silver bullet solution to what ails the Bears on offense. And not surprising, Lovie doesn't sound like a head coach who plans on replacing his offensive coordinator.
The more productive exercise is to think about how to reconstruct the offensive line and bring in a capable QB, RB and set of wide receivers.
December 20, 2007
#25 Mike said . . .It was extremely evident this year that other teams could guess correctly what RT was going to call too many times to allow for sustained drives.
Yes, you need all the things you call for, but tied for first with new oline is a coordinator who knows how to outwit the opposing defenses.
To outwit you need to have a wit yourself.
RT nit wit. (that's Slovenian for RT's a moron).
December 20, 2007
#26 Phil from SATX said . . .Phil, lets be perfectly clear on one thing. I am no fan of Ron Turner either. That being said, two things.
1. I doubt strongly that the Bears and Lovie get rid of Ron Turner.
2. Turner has had garbage to work with. It is patently unfair to critique this man too harshly when you look at the QB, RB, wide receivers and offensive line he has had to work with. I doubt the late Bill Walsh could have accomplished anything with these offensive parts.
December 20, 2007
#27 Bill said . . .I think Jeff said it before, these were HIS GUYS. And yes, there were weapons on this team that someone better than he could have exploited. You've got a tight end tandem that is very much above average, you've got a weapon in Devin Hester that he never figured out how to use (remember a few games ago when he had had something like 12 touches ALL SEASON), he would have gotten more out of his RBs if his playcalling hadn't been so predictable, and although BB has had a down year, he's clearly a weapon.
Yes I blame Turner. Never seen someone so quick to turn away from something that was working.
Nit. Wit.
December 20, 2007
#28 Shady McBears Fan said . . .OK Mike - I have to strongly disagree. While I have nothing real solid to go on, I really do believe Bill Walsh woudl have done better with this offense ESPECIALLY with the near league leading field position we had. I also suspect he woudl adjust asq the game developed rather than stubbornly stick to a script. You may well be right that he won't be fired, and you certainly are correct that the players on offense let the team down (and I won't even exempt Olsen from that - I suspect his blocking technique is way below NFL level and I hope he works on that in the off-season.)
But Bill Walsh would have done a much better job with this offense than RT.
December 20, 2007
#29 Mike said . . .This year reeks of arrogance and assumptions.
Halas Hall is filled with super-sized egos. The coaches allowed the players to become more consumed with distractions outside of football because it was already a given that the Bears would be back in the Superbowl. Even the coaches bought into it.
Well we all know what happens when you assume Lovie...
December 20, 2007
#30 jeff said . . .So the argument is that another offensive coordinator could have gotten a great deal more out of THIS offensive line, THIS set of wide receiver, Cedric Benson and Rex Grossman. I'm sorry, but I can't buy into that. I don't like Ron Turner either, but Ron Turner had jack squat to work with.
I'm not going to be seduced into thinking that add a new offensive coordinator plus two new offensive line pieces (one drafted, one signed) will magically transform this offense. What has ANYBODY seen of Cedric Benson that inspires confidence at ANY level? What about are mess at wide receiver? And lest we forget the enigmatic, deeply disappointing and injury plagued Rex Grossman has been the QB.
The O-Line should be completely blown up. Even Olin Kreutz has seen his best days. How many botched snaps have there been this year? How many defensive tackles have run over Kreutz this season? John Tait is also getting old. And I doubt you draft a left tackle in the first round and he instantly becomes successful his first season at the toughest position on the line. Fred Miller and Ruben Brown are old and finished.
December 20, 2007
#31 Papa Bear said . . .test.
December 20, 2007
#32 Bill said . . .Bill, you do have something to go on, don't shortchange yourself.
Prior to Bill Walsh coaching the 49'ers he was OC back in 1978 (I was 1) for the Cincinatti Bungles. In an eerily similar situation, he had shithole O-line and a QB (Kenny Anderson) that couldn't throw the ball in the ocean if he was standing on the beach. In Cincy, is where he really designed the famed "West Coast offense". Quick drop, short routes, get the ball out. Sounds like something we could have used this year...IF we had an OC who would dare to think a little bit...
December 20, 2007
#33 Papa Bear said . . .Papa Bear - my point exactly. You have to design around the team you actually have, not the one you want or used to have.
The only scenario where I see Turner getting a pass is if he successfully tells Lovie "look - it wasn't ME who handed Benson the job; it wasn't ME who failed to address the o-line age problems." But it WAS his job to work with what he had.
If Turner stays, then Lovie is really the problem. And since Lovie won't be fired until MAYBE after the 2009 season, we will be in the 5-11 to 7-9 category for a while.
Here - we have two good tight ends. A coupel of receivers who are OK; an RB (Peterson) who can catch. They shoudl have gone to a short passing game once Benson proved himself to be a bust.
Instead, we get this dumb "we get off the bus running" crap from the HC.
December 20, 2007
#34 Papa Bear said . . .My bad, the year was 1973 (I was -4).
December 20, 2007
#35 Why said . . .It's his job to work with what he has...bad O-line necessitate quick drops and quick routes, not 5-7 step drops only to get pounded by the opposing DE. We all know what Rex has, a strong and most times accurate arm. Design a gameplan to use it and his above average TEs. Look what they did 100 miles north using the same game plan.
If we have a bum for a RB, 4 yd pass = 4 yd run = 4 yd. There's more than 1 way to get 4 yds a play. As the saying goes, "you just have to be smarter than the average Bear"...
December 20, 2007
#36 Pissed Off said . . .umm test
December 20, 2007
#37 Pissed off said . . .This is messed up
December 20, 2007
#38 Max said . . .Hey Mike, RT did it with THIS same set of guys last year that you jsut mentioned minus TJ so your argument of he had nothing to work with doesnt hold up. Fire Turner period.
Bring on the offseason already. God this season is in the shitter and its getting so stale and old.......someone flush the damn toilet already! I want to see how the offseason signings, hirings, firings and the drafting goes. I gotta think were gonna have a pretty nice draft pick. If it is like around the #10 area, who do you think we'll pick? What position?I know Mike has repeatedly mentioned Jake Long, which is fine but will he be there at #10ish, is he worthy of a 10ish pick, if he's gone by then is there another O-lineman that would be worthy of a 10ish pick or could he wait till the 2nd round. Or do we trade for more picks later or is there another position we would draft high besides O-line. I highly doubt this team will draft a QB in the 1st round, TE...no. Maybe WR? Probably a defensive player?
December 20, 2007
#39 Da Coach said . . .Man this is going to be a long off season. . . yall are already argueing like it is. I dont care. Every person has to take responsibility for the outcome of this season. From Jerry on down to the towel boy. Our G.M. made bad personel decisions. Our coaches made bad coaching decisions. And our players just played bad. Maybe even the towel boy didnt fold the towels right. My point is, I dont care anymore.
Beat the Packers. I dont care if the game is meaningless. . . I dont care if the Packers rest their starters the second half. BEAT THE PACKERS. jesus
December 20, 2007
#40 Da Coach said . . .Biggest issue I have with Turner is all he was faced with was devising a scheme to go 40yds or more and we at least had a chance for a fg. He could not even do that. How many o-coordinators in the league would kill for that type of field position?
Bottom line someone has to take the fall and its usually coaches not players. Bye bye Ron you NIT WIT!
December 20, 2007
#41 Phil from SATX said . . .Po'd I can only hope the Bears have the opportunity to take Jake Long from Michigan I am not sure he will fall far from the top 5 let alone top 10. He would be a great fit and excellent pickup.
Read up about him and his leadership is really what sets him apart more then anything else. I will try finding the article and post a link.
I do not want the braintrust taking a qb with the first pick, wait until later on in the draft there are plenty late flyers available this year.
December 20, 2007
#42 Mike said . . .Hey da c, virtually every mock draft has Jake Long going in the top 4, many at #2. So he's a pipe dream (unless we can trade our pick plus Adam Archuleta, Terry Metcalf and the rights to taser Ron Turner to move up - why isn't Isaiah Thomas an NFL executive instead of NBA) -
Every mock draft I see has us selecting a quarterback. Is this just the lowest common denominator deal, given our known problems at QB? One of them's saying if any one of the big 3 drop to us, we'd have to take them.
But here's the rub - read what one of them says about picking Andre Woodson:
He isn't quite as polished as either Ryan or Brohm but Woodson has a higher upside and WITH SOME GOOD COACHING he just might end up being the best pro of the bunch.
And to think you almost had me.
Hope it's a lineman who already knows what he's doing.
December 20, 2007
#43 Phil from SATX said . . .The only thing that I want to hear out of Roger Goodell's mouth on a Saturday next April in New York is this...
"With the blank pick in the 2008 NFL draft, the Chicago Bears select Offensive Tackle Jake Long, Michigan."
The second and third round picks can be devoted to finding help at running back, wide receiver and safety.
December 20, 2007
#44 Willie from Chicago said . . .Again, Jake Long ain't happening. He's going way too high for us. We're talking Jeff Otah or Ryan Clady. On the other hand we look to be in a perfect spot to pick the best safety in the draft, Kenny Phillips from Miami.
December 20, 2007
#45 Mo said . . .Phil is right, Jake Long is out of the picture for us. As far as Kenny Phillips, I think with him and a healthy Mike Brown, a Healthy Vasher and Tillman, we will have one of the best secondaries in the league (Bob Sanders will help too) after that we have to trade for another first round pick and get an OL.
Next season we have to let Babich loose. We have to blitz on almost every play and force the opposing QB to make a rushed pass that can be intersepted. Kind of like the Defense we had in 05, 06.
If are Defense gets a hell of a lot better, than are offense will only have to put up about 20 points to win (Kind of like 2005). But with an improved line, We can reach in the 30's which brings me to my next point.
Ive heard that Chad Johnson might be a FA next year. If this is true then we have to pick him up. With Ocho Cinco, Berrian, Hester, Moose, and Bradley we will have the best recieving corp in the league. With that being said I think those WRs will help to open up the running game (with a better OL too) all of the CBs will be playing back so they wont get beat deep and then Benson will run right up the middle for 6 or 7 yards every time.
And if the opposing D is playing the run then i say you let Rex change the play so the WRs will go deep for a touchdown. Our Offense will put up 35 points every game.
Of course we will have to get CJ, but getting rid of some linemen will get cap room for CJ and Bob Sanders.
I hope we can win these next two games to get momentum for next year and hopefuly make the playoffs against an easy schedule
http://www.chicagobears.com/news/FutureOpponents.html
(look at the 2008 column)So what do you guys think?
December 21, 2007
#46 Windy City Packer Fan said . . .Willie, you might want to put down the crack pipe before you post thoughts on the Bears. The best wide receiver corp in the NFL? Chad Johnson? Bob Sanders? Two first round draft picks? 30 points a game? Dogs sleeping with cats? The madness. Oh the madness.
December 21, 2007
#47 BearDown1982 said . . .Did anybody else hear on ESPN 1000 (or was it the score) Wednesday AM around 11:00. They were talking about the fact that Lovie, Turner and Babich all share the same agent, and that RT and Babich are signed through 2009. I think that the likelihood of RT getting the axe is slim, considering some of those factors.
I'm telling you guys, there are enough Bear fans to start a grass roots effort, raise money, buy the damn team from the McCaskeys. Make Ditka the lead figure. Generate the cash. Take back your team. Don't let these people put you through this agony year in and year out. Hell, I saw a guy dressed in his full Bear regalia at the 2004 Packer shareholder meeting. I got to give it to him for not only attending, but wearing his Bear stuff in a sea of green and gold.
Yeah, I'm drinking tonight. Have a couple, this idea sounds GREAT.
December 21, 2007
#48 JB said . . .As great as Long sounds at tackle...does anyone really think he will be around for us to pick him in the first place? I doubt he is still around for us to take him if he is as good as everyone is saying he is...good thing though is that this draft is supposidely full of promising offensive line tackle. For our sake, let's hope that is true!
And great post Jeff. I certainly appreciate Lovie for what he has done since becoming head coach...weak NFC or not, he helped us win two North titles and an NFC Championship. Still, this year has been a real head scratcher and Lovie has done absolutely nothing to stop the leaking of this sinking ship. Say what you want about the Bears not having enough talent on offense...what's new? But defensively, we have more than enough talent to be at least in the top half of the league defensively. As far as I am concerned, that's on Lovie.
As far as I'm concerned, next year will be a big year for Lovie. The overall fan base hasn't turned on him yet, and he deserves that after his initial success, but if the same kind of football is played next year...he will start to lose that support.
December 21, 2007
#49 Papa Bear said . . .Willie, you're crazy man. This isn't baseball where we can sign anyone because we're a big market team. Chad Johnson? In an ideal world, I'd love to have my fellow osu beaver on my beloved bears, but seriously? The Chicago Bears would be about 25th of Chad Johnson's FA list. Bob Sanders? I doubt Indy is letting him go, and seriously, I doubt we'd be able to get him. It's a better possibility than ocho cinco, but not likely.
Dreaming is one thing, delusions are quite another. For the record, I also doubt very much the Bears will have a chance at Faneca. These big name FA are great, but I think our priorities will be internal first, and building from the draft. The possibility of trading for McNabb is higher than these FA pipedreams.
I'd like to see Bradley - Berrian on the field together a lot this week and into next year. They'll never be Wayne/Harrison, but i think they'll be really solid if we can get a QB that can get it to them.
December 21, 2007
#50 JB said . . .Further evidence that the best RBs are found behind the best O-lines, last night's Steelers-Rams game. Willie Parker, the league's leading RB, breaks his leg. The Steelers then plug in journeyman RB Najeh Davenport, who chugs his way to 100+ yds and 2 TDs. Granted against the hapless Rams D, but I doubt it's something our Bears O-line would be able to accomplish.
Take away the teams with the league's best QBs, and you have teams like Jax , NO, and Cincy wh still have among the best ranked offenses with a mediocre running game.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamoff.php
The emphasis needs to be building a competent O-line. The RB is highly over-valued.
December 21, 2007
#51 Papa Bear said . . .Papa Bear, please clarify. "Take away the teams with the league's best QBs, and you have teams like Jax , NO, and Cincy wh still have among the best ranked offenses with a mediocre running game. "
I would say that cinci and NO have two very good quarterbacks (even if palmer has been down this year), and jacksonville is the best running team around...i love jacksonville, they're my team for this years playoffs.
December 21, 2007
#52 Phil from SATX said . . .The best QBs in the league (Brady and Manning) can overcome many of the perceived deficiencies of their respective offenses (new LT for Manning and a middling running game for Brady). That's partly what makes them so good.
One would perceive Jax to have a killer running game, they do in fact. But is it because of the O-line of the RBs? Taylor and MJD get all the pub. NO's running game has been non-existent. But when you adjust stats for a myriad of other factors, they in the middle of the pack. Jax is in part so good b/c they do have a O-line.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb.php
You're right JB, I should have said "...with mediocre RBs..."
December 21, 2007
#53 Pissed Off said . . .Papa Bear is absolutely right. There's a reason the football adage exists that it all starts with the lines. The failures this year, despite all our very valid criticisms of the coaching, are directly attributed to 1) offensive line failure, and 2) injuries to the D. That's why Babich gets a pass this year.
The dropoff of the offensive line is everyone's fault, from RT to Lovie to Angelo to Phillips. They all played a part in not recognizing the decline that has been occurring almost since this current group was put together, and which certainly was occurring last year.
Those "good" QBs you mention can only be good when their line is good. True for every single QB in the league - sure, there are a few who could do better than others with a sub-par line but ultimately they can't go anywhere without one. And look at David Garrard, who came out of nowhere.
Right now, for the Bears, it's all about the O-line. And RB's ARE a dime a dozen when paired with a good line, so don't spend your money on them, spend it on the line that's blocking for them. Great research work done by Rancid on Wednesday's post about the highly picked linemen who proceed to play. To that I'll add that when I was doing research trying to support that other 4th round linemen play (trying to suppport getting Beekman some PT), I couldn't support my thesis - the later round linemen picks, by and large, WEREN'T playing, they were backups. So forget taking these guys in later rounds - that's where you can get value at WR, RB, even QB if you pick right but not apparently linemen.
Given that this is the Bears, I still think that their preferred #1 pick is going to be that one coveted safety. But the next two picks definitely go offensive line.
December 21, 2007
#54 where's Olsen? said . . .Hey Willie why dont we sign Tom Brady and Terrell Owens too, yeah lets do that.
Anywho.....I'm not as negative on Babich as some, yes I hate turner and say FIRE HIM but lets give Babich at least another year. This D was riddled with injuries and dont you remember how we played those first couple of weeks. How fired up he was on the sideline directing traffic and stuff. It was inspiring. I would like him back again.
December 21, 2007
#55 Phil from SATX said . . .I am with Lovie- this team is surprisingly not far from good.
Add a healthy Vasher and Dvorcheck, and a couple draft picks for depth, and our D is back to dominant. The O needs work. The O ALWAYS needs work, even when we are good.December 21, 2007
#56 Cheesehead 4 Life!! said . . .WhereO, I know what you mean, and there was a part of me that agreed with Lovie. However, I would have felt differently about that comment if it were to come out of Angelo's mouth. I was struck today by a comment in David Haugh's mailbag (which btw while we're discussing Haugh, to me his responses to the mailbag may be the best part of his writing) wherein Haugh says the following in response to a question about why Super Bowl losers fall so far the next season:
"But at least in the case of the Bears, an intangible missing element tied to motivation seemed to make losing a much more acceptable notion at Halas Hall."
I think Haugh has his finger on what bugs me so much about Lovie - this year it feels like losing is acceptable to him, and he spends more time defending himself and his coaches and trying to redirect criticism on the media, instead of taking responsibility for what's going on. We heard individual cases of Bears' players getting really pissed about losses, and saying it's unacceptable, but you always had the sense they were lone cowboys talking out of school and this wasn't the message coming down from Lovie.
I agree that the with some careful selections in the draft, FA signings and existing player signings, the Bears could be right there personnel-wise. I worry that they will not have the coaching to win with the improved parts - and that worry may not begin with Lovie, but it ends with him. (It begins with the O coordinator, needless to say).
December 21, 2007
#57 JimK said . . .The Bears are so toast come Sunday!!!!!!
December 21, 2007
#58 Shamen said . . .Lovie did hire worse. Remember his 1st choice of OC. TS, After 1 year, gone and now look what we've got.
December 22, 2007
There's no doubt it starts with the line. Berman called that on the pre-game show on Monday night.
Jake Long is a pipe dream. Top flight OTs coming out of college always go in the top 5. The position is too important, and has been previously noted, only the O linemen drafted in the first few rounds tend to end up starting. I suspect that is because the offensive line position at a top-tier BCS school is pretty similar to playing it in the NFL. There is a huge difference in the skill positions when you move up to the NFL level. I am a Badger fan (man, I wish Joe Thomas could have fallen to da Bears last year - there's a first round draft pick who made an immediate O-line impact) and when the Badger's NFL-level cornerback, Jack Ikegwuonu, played against Indiana's NFL-level receiver, James Hardy, he held him to 4 catches for 17 yards. Hardy had 9 catches for 151 yards receiving against Purdue. Why? Because Purdue doesn't have a corner who will be playing on Sundays. When Hardy is in the NFL he'll see somebody as good or better than Ikegwuonu every week. Certainly there are elite defensive linemen in the NFL, but if you played O-line at a BCS school you are already used to pushing around enormous, strong, agile men every week. The jump in competition isn't as great. That allows the scouts to better evaluate the O-linemen in college and make the right choices early in the draft. Of course there are busts with O-line picks just like there are with every pick, but it does seem to be a safer choice than a skill player who maybe didn't see the competition in college.
I absolutely agree with the running back being a lower priority. It starts with the line. Look at the Packers. They've got Ryan Grant, a practice squad throw-away, getting hundred yard games. They did it before with Samkon Gado, for pete's sake. It's more about the line and the play-calling. That said, if we could pick up Chester Taylor for cheap I wouldn't be opposed.
December 22, 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.