-
Posts
8,704 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by jason
-
I say why not. It took me less than two minutes of the following video to see that the kid has good speed, instincts, can shed blockers, is really strong, and takes good angles. I think the Bears have a spot on the roster for someone like that.
-
That's what I believe. With Lovie, it would have been worse. He might have been able to help some on defense, but I don't believe his coaching abilities would have been able to make that big of an impact for a variety of reasons. On offense, however, I believe Lovie is leaps and bounds behind Trestman and Kromer, and that difference would have been the big key. Maybe the Bears don't give up 29.9 per game with Lovie. But there is no way in hell they score at the clip they did this year. The former is a possibility. The latter is a guarantee.
-
Trestman's team scored 27.8 points per game and gave up 29.9 per game. Lovie Smith's teams averaged 20.93 points per game and gave up 19.2 points per game. I'll only highlight the games that I believe would change. WK 2 - 31-30 win over the Vikings. That's likely a loss. Lovie's teams rarely scored 31 points. 24-27 is likely, which gets the L. WK 3 - 40-23 win over the Steelers. This is potentially a loss. 31 would be a great game. 40 was outrageous under Lovie. Maybe the Bears get 30 in this one and squeak out a win. WK 6 - 27-21 win over the Giants. If Trestman's offense could only get 27, it's likely Lovie's would have been closer to the Giants score. WK 9 - 27-20 win over the Packers. Same as above. Also, this is almost certainly a loss. The Packers owned Lovie over the last few years. WK 14 - 45-28 win over the Vikings. Sorry, but 45 points is just not going to happen. It's probable still a win, but it would have been closer. Possible. WK 15 - 38-31 win over the Browns. This would have been a loss. The Bears scored 21 in the 4th quarter. Not gonna happen under Lovie. So that's 6 games. Even if you're fair about things, that's at best a 50/50 split. The Bears are likely 5-11. Maybe Lovie squeaks out one of the games I didn't mention. 6-10. At best.
-
Why? So the Bears could have done worse last year? He may have made the defense slightly better, even with all the injuries, but the offense would still have been severely stunted. Without a doubt, Lovie's Bears finish below .500 last year, and it would have been a much more boring ride.
-
I didn't see the duck. He got hit when he threw it. The difference, of course, is that Grossman didn't get hit on his throw. He just threw a lob and MuhMuh over-ran it.
-
It would be very interesting if the Bears decided that since they had such success in such a short amount of time with the OL, to go ahead and keep rolling the dice by moving Long to RT right away. That would open up the possibility of someone like Gabe Jackson from Mississippi State (projects as RG) in the 2nd round. Gabe Jackson next to Kyle Long would be REEdiculous. Mills is a great backup at that point.
-
That's fair. I didn't know you disagreed, or potentially disagreed, with this stuff. You present it and defend it as if you feel it's without doubt. As the other thread shows, nobody thus far puts Garza ahead of Bushrod, and the stats obviously don't tell the entire story.
-
Such a tough question...I think I also have to go with the Mike Brown back-to-back games. It was surreal. I can't remember ever feeling that excited about the Bears. As a lifelong fan, there is always a sense of dread. A foreboding that something is about to happen. When Mike Brown did it the first time, it was disbelief. The second time made me think the Bears were destined to win it all that season. Of course, they didn't, but that's how I felt during the rest of the season. It's the hopeful wishing after buying a lottery ticket.
-
So, because of the other thread, here's the official/unofficial offensive line rankings. Simple stuff. Rank the five Bears offensive linemen 1-5 throughout the year. Consider effectiveness, consistency, penalties, sacks, huge plays, leadership, dominance, responsibility, etc. For my money it's probably: 1) Bushrod - Huge problems before this year. Nearly no problems this year. Called on to man the most difficult position, and for the most part dominated. 2) Slauson - Rarely heard anything about him. That's good. An anchor for the OL. 3) Long - Had some rookie blunders, but more than made up for it with crushing blocks and attacks of the second level. 4) Garza - Average veteran who neither dominated nor screwed up a lot. He's the Center version of a game managing QB. 5) Mills - Very good rookie, but had plenty of problems. Shows promise, but he needs to take a good step forward next year for me to feel good.
-
That's like saying the moon caused less heat stroke than the sun. OF COURSE Garza would be less responsible for sacks! Bushrod had to deal with edge rushers. Defensive Ends whose primary job is to kill the QB. Meanwhile, Garza deals with mostly fat boys, guys designed to stop the run. And when he doesn't deal with those guys, he's dealing with guys who attack the gap, making it difficult to ascertain whose offensive line responsibility they become. And even then, I'm willing to bet there are significantly more double-teams on the inside moves than their are outside. Make no mistake, Bushrod is on an island much more than Garza is. That stat is nearly meaningless. Just because they both played on the offensive line doesn't mean that their responsibilities are the same, or that their stats should even correlate.
-
I know it's sarcasm coming from you, but any stats that put him as number two on the OL should seriously be questioned. No way he had a better year than Bushrod, Slausson. Maybe Long. The only one in question there is Long, but he had a ton of completely dominant plays that increase his average on the plays he didn't dominate.
-
Because the Bears coaches could tell him they will use him differently, and allow him to rush more. The sacks are what he has basically wanted, was denied because of scheme, and why he turned down the packers offer. Earlier in his career he was allowed to rush the passer more, and he did much better, but then they decided they wanted a traditional 3-4 NT.
-
So I'm thinking, "What does this team need?" A defensive player who can shore up the line of scrimmage, stop the run, let our athletic LBs make plays, and generally be a nuisance to the other team. The best fit, in my opinion, is BJ Raji. He fits the bill for every criteria above. On top of that, there are other perks: 1) He's disillusioned with Green Bay. They stuck him at NT and didn't let him rush the QB at all. He turned down a big, multi-year contract already. 2) He'd obviously give the Bears insight into the bitter rival's schemes. 3) He fits the bill whether the Bears go 3-4, 4-3, or 3-3-5. In the 3-4, he's a classic NT. He might not be happy about it, but he's very good at it. In the 4-3, he's still a NT but he has some rushing privileges. If, however, the Bears run the 3-3-5, which has been suggested, then it appears to have the benefits of being a hybrid system of sorts. 4) Numbers 1-3 could be used as a sales pitch when courting him. "We believe you have more to offer BJ! We think you can get after the QB as well as stop the run! You're not a 2-down guy; you're an all-pro DT!" Stealing a rival's defensive stud, fixing our run defense, and allowing the players we have to better exploit their abilities...seems like a great fit. Thoughts?
-
That would be a great start to free agency.
-
It's an interesting thought because it solves one issue and creates others. It allows Briggs to stay outside, where he apparently prefers. Problem is, he isn't really a 3-4 OLB because he lacks the skills to rush the edge. The best he'll do is charge in and occupy a blocker. On top of that, it throws Greene in the trash. The lineup would be McClellin, Bostic, Mosley, Briggs. No way Greene cracks that roster. Because of all that, I don't really like it that much. I'd much rather see an impact player up front or one in the secondary.
-
And typically larger wallets. Which, coming full circle, is kind of how Brian got them as well.
-
I took issue with the combination of on-field and off-field stuff. Sure, off the field Peanut is a guy I'd rather have my kids look up to. He appears to be just a great overall guy. But you included leadership, implying what they did on the field was part of the discussion. Divide the two and I agree with you for the most part. It just bugs me when Bears fans try to bag on Urlacher, like he didn't put in a decade worth of kicking ass.
-
Seriously? I know it's popular to rag on Urlacher because he didn't take the low-ball offer from the Bears, but "Tillman is 100 times the man that Urlacher is/was"? That's just stupid. Without Urlacher by his side all those years, Charles Tillman is in a drastically different situation. He unequivocally would have been on worse defenses (we learned that each time Urlacher went down, and once more this past season he was sorely missed), would not have had as many opportunities to do what he does best (because he would have had to help make up for the inability of the MLB to do what Urlacher was able to do, what virtually no MLB his size was/is able to do), and probably never becomes the player he is today. If he was such a leader his presence would have been felt more when Urlacher went down with injury or when he left. I'm ecstatic if Peanut resigns, but to trash Urlacher is inappropriate.
-
This thread cracks me up. Jamarcus Webb = Cinnabon = Carlin Isles SCS, we all get that you fall in love with guys who COULD be good if they got their acts together, but I think the difference lies in the percentages. You see COULD much higher than we do, and you ride the horse straight into the glue factory. The fact of the matter is, all three guys, and a ton of other guys who never amount to much, have incredibly high ceilings, it's just that their feet are cemented to the floor.
-
Maaaaaaaaaaybe. The difference between his transition and the basketball-to-TE transition is that their skills translate almost exactly. As a post-up basketball player it's: run to position, establish base, box out, receive pass while blocking defender from pass. Almost exactly what a TE does. As far as sprinter transitioning to football, it's way different. And rugby 7's doesn't even come close to a substitute because of not only the rules, but also the ridiculous spacing advantages.
-
Walks like a duck. Quacks like a duck. I hope it's not a duck.
-
I have a passing interest in rugby, and have followed it somewhat since I went to New Zealand. Having said that, I don't give a damn how fast he is on the track. He is not a football player. There is a major difference. And Rugby 7's is of course the perfect place to display his speed. Huge field. If he played normal he probably wouldn't have gotten the recognition. And, unfortunately for him, the offsides rules are the same in the NFL, and he'll have a guy like Richard Sherman raping him up and down the field before a ball is even thrown his way. Zero F's were given.
-
Not real familiar with the 3-3-5. Sure as hell looked like a 4-3 to me. Apparently the Fox DE looks a lot like a 4-3 DE to me. PoTAYto, PoTAHto.
-
Agreed. That's how disconnections occur, different coaching concepts/philosophies get taught, and players get out of position.
-
He's too small to be a good 3-4 OLB. He'd have to put on about 20 lbs. If he could keep his speed at that weight, it might be worth the effort. A few teams I can think of that run a 3-4... Arizona Abraham - 6'4" - 260 Shaughnessy - 6'5" - 280 Baltimore Suggs - 6'3" - 260 Dumervil - 5'11" - 260 Cleveland Kruger - 6'4" - 270 Sheard - 6'2" - 255 Green Bay Perry - 6'3" - 265 Mulumba - 6'3" - 260 Houston Reed - 6'3" - 254 Mercilus - 6'4" - 258 San Francisco Brooks - 6'3" - 259 Smith - 6'4" - 265