jason

It's difficult to say exactly what he should have done, but he certainly shouldn't have switched to the 3-4 mid-season. That would have been chaotic. What I've always seen, from pee-wee to the pros, is that pressure creates problems. With that in mind, if I were Tucker I would have done the following: 1) More stunts. Causing OL confusion may have maximized pressure. 2) More blitzes. It leaves the DBs on an island at times, but the rushing D was the historically bad side that needed help. More people coming forward means less holes to hit. 3) More unbalanced zone blitzes. Since SMC is a glorified LB anyway, this would have worked well. The Seahawks did this a time or two against Kapernick this weekend with great results. 4) More focus on attacking gaps. Too often I saw the Bears defenders stacked up one-on-one because they were trying to go through someone. By attacking gaps you dictate to the offense where you're going. Sometimes that opens the exact running hole where they want to run, but sometimes it doesn't. And when it does, I'd have a LB filling that hole aggressively. The point to the above is, when you're down nine rounds to none, there's no sense in going with the same strategy in the tenth round. You have to go for the knock-out. In doing so, you take some chances, but you also have a better chance of winning via KO.

LOL!!!! JMarcus Tucker. Classic.

I'm amazed sometimes at how easily you miss the point. The references aren't irrelevant. They are specific players with specific skills who were or would be used incorrectly. That's about coaching. As for the Lovie point, there's no doubt that Lovie was better at running that defense than Tucker was, but let's not pretend that absolves him of all faults. One of his major faults was that his system didn't work when he didn't have the key studs at key positions, and when those guys were gone, he reverted to "We need to execute." Which of course was a cop out. Saying the same thing as an excuse for the abysmal 2013 defense is also a cop out. Good coaching could have at least made the defense subpar, maybe even average. Bad coaching resulted in a historically bad defense.

Exactly. The article nails it with the first sentence: When Rob Ryan took over what was statistically among the worst defenses in NFL history, the Saints' first-year coordinator promised a flexible scheme which he could adjust to suit the strengths of whichever players he had.

That's not a good point. It's an incredibly stupid point. If you have Garrett Wolfe, I don't give a damn how many times you run him dead center into the line, he's not going to get you results. This example works with just about any other player whose skill-set translates specifically to a style of play. Randy Moss in his prime doesn't work on a power-run or option offense if they never pass to him and he's used to block. You don't install the Wildcat when Marino is your QB. Maybe the Bears can use Forte as a FB next year clearing holes for Bush? See how that works out and then we can say, "Well, they didn't execute." I could go on and on. Simply saying "the players need to execute" reeks of Lovie, and a lack of responsibility. Good coaching is taking your players' talents and molding your system to best exploit their abilities.

Good point.

It's funny how contradictory you have been in this thread. Still waiting for the pop, eh?

This post is hilarious. U Mad? You were wrong then. I posted links that showed people reporting 18M per year, and still you acted like a dumbass and tried to rip me. You have been wrong so many times it's not even funny. And guess what? You're wrong again! Nothing new, just wrong again. Thanks for confirming it. Like I said, you should spend less time trying to rip me and more time waiting for the sound of the pop.

I still want HaHa Clinton-Dix. FS is a huge need. He's going to be a monster. BPA.

I like the idea of trying to find the next Urlacher, but McClellin would be horrible there. The dude has virtually zero awareness at DE, bombing inside on every play and leaving the outside responsibility wide open. At MLB it would be ugly.

For all the talk of continuity I've seen on this board, I'm surprised everyone isn't all in favor of remaining status quo. As conventional wisdom goes, shouldn't they be better the next year if Garza, Long, and Mills play together?

LOL. How's that crow taste?

The timing of it is great. You're right on that aspect.

I said "damn near" the same. The math is not off at all. Numerous media reports are saying he got an average of $18M per year. According to spotrac - a site many here have mentioned in the past - that's basically Peyton Manning money. Where did I say it would kill the Bears financially? Try reading my post. I'm talking about the value of one player vs. his production. I knew the Bears had tons of cap space and could make this deal, but that doesn't automatically make it a good deal. Just because a millionaire can pay $1000 for a candy bar doesn't make it a smart financial decision. If you spent half as much time getting your head out of your ass as you do trying to take digs at me, maybe you'd realize what I posted was accurate.

Happy to get the contract crap out of the way really quick, to cement the starter, and move on, but am I the only one who feels like the price was too steep? It's almost exactly what we've been talking about for months. It's damn near Peyton Manning money. I sure hope Cutler stays on the upswing and tears the league a new A-hole, but his history suggests he won't change too much, and the money spent might be a bit much.

I'd LOVE to see that. And it'd be OUTSTANDING to see Urlacher do well.

As long as the current Bears offense is on the field, I'm not worried. Lovie Smith coached teams stop trying to score on offense after getting about 21.

Where have I ever come out against Cutler? I've stated the following: -Cutler Production + Cutler money I like Cutler. I love having a franchise QB after all these years. What I don't like is overpaying for a QB who has not proven himself elite. Also, please stop with the tired insults and insinuation that executives can do no wrong. It's been disproven time and time again. This board would do just as good of a job drafting players and paying them within the confines of the salary cap. Probably a better job than what we've seen the last decade or so.

Kind of a rehash of some of what has been on this board. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1904984...ator-mel-tucker

Agreed! At first I was meh about the signing, but knowing it's Butthead's kid?! I love the move!!

I could get behind Nix or HHCD at that spot. I've read many places where Denard falls into the second. And, to be quite honest, I think CB is a luxury this year when there is a good chance one, if not both, of the Bears' CBs will return. If one doesn't, however, then Gilbert is a worthy first rounder, but I'd rather see Nix or HHCD if they're there.

All of the above in a quick summary: The elite guys you mentioned - glad you excluded Cutler - were/are elite because they do make those throws regularly, at least more regularly than Cutler, and don't force their receivers to make significant adjustments where the defender can make a play on the ball, regardless of field conditions or single game anomalies (comparing Rogers to Cutler for one game? After Rogers has been out half the season? Really?). What I think is odd is that you find my disagreement petty, even though it's pretty clear you didn't remember the play well. Because it hit Alshon's hands people will remember it as a great throw. It wasn't really a good throw either; I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I watched it with two Packer fans and they both said Cutler should have led Alshon more. I've admittedly been a fence-rider in terms of Jay Cutler, and could live with or without, but it's pretty clear which side of the fence someone is on if that's considered a great or good pass. The only way this is wrong is if we find out, as DBDB has suggested, that it was a purposeful underthrow. And I apologize if I view this board more fluidly than you do. I barely pay attention to which person is posting, and go instead with the flow of conversation over a period of time. It's the reason for the "revisionist history"-comment; it's happened before. BTW - After watching the play for about the 20th time, I noticed something subtle. Alshon pulls the DB's arm forward. Very small, difficult to detect, and a clear indication that he has learned from the push-off stuff he did last year. Much better coaching this year, that's for damn sure.

For the record, this is the kind of throw I would have liked to see on that play. If Cutler is an elite QB, he should make elite throws (play starts at 0:27).

Precisely. Although, I do think a certain amount of injuries is a valid excuse up to a point. Not an excuse for the abysmal performance the Bears had, but if they had been let's say, 24th in rush defense, then maybe.

You're the one with the magic screen. - Jeffery with the step - Jeffery slows just before the 15 - I'm pretty sure that he's touching it just past the 15 (i.e. the 14 like I said) Agreed. That's why I said it wasn't a great throw like others have contended. It was an underthrow when the WR had a step on the defender. A world-class, franchise QB throw would have led him enough so that the defender couldn't defend the play in any way whatsoever. Speaking of that... You didn't say it. I did. And, yes, I've seen the intentional underthrow. In this case Cutler should have recognized the fact that Alshon had the step, the advantage, and led him. It's the kind of pinpoint throw elite QBs make (i.e. Rogers dropping footballs in nets from 50 yards) That wasn't meant specifically for you. It was meant as an indication of how this board tends to twist things when memory isn't fresh. Too many times we've had to rehash old issues because someone's memory is poor and they start to rewrite history. One I can remember vividly was the "Chris Williams couldn't cut it at LT and had to be moved inside"-discussion. Regardless of how he eventually turned out, that's been disproven time and time again, but it was still brought up numerous times. My only issue is the word "good." Everything else is correct. But saying it was a good throw makes it seem like he absolutely nailed the spot where he wanted to put it, and the incompletion was all on Alshon. I don't view that to be true because, as I said above, if Alshon is led it's a much more indefensible pass, regardless of the jump-ball success he's had this year.