jason

HAHAHAHA....nice. Funny because it's probably in the back of JA's mind.

If Toub leaves, it will be yet another reason JA needs to be sent packing.

The funny thing is, I don't know if you're BS'ing or if that's an actual quote that came out recently. Lovie is so bland that it's impossible to decipher the made up quotes from his actual quotes.

Dude, I'm not splitting hairs. The original post said he was stubborn and he couldn't adjust. The first part I agreed with, and the second part I called out for being blatantly wrong. That's not splitting hairs; that's pointing out inaccuracy. Martz adjusted. Period. If he got canned for how slowly he changed, or how stubborn he may have been to change, then I'd completely understand. But the fact remains that he did alter his game plan drastically.

That's the stubborn part. That's the part where I agreed. But he doesn't have an inability to adjust. He did adjust.

Every good team has a pass catching TE? What's your definition of "pass catching TE"? There are several good teams that don't have a bonafide TE receiving threat, and a few average/bad teams that have one. Besides, Fred Davis is now a problem child with his suspension. Those kinda guys don't get picked up in Chicago very often.

2. "Martz' stubbornness and inability to adjust kills us." What? I mean, I know I'm about the only one on the board who likes him and his brand of offense, but saying he has an inability to adjust is like saying the sun has an inability to get warm. If anything, he's proven this year he can, and will adjust, if necessary. Stubborn? Sure. But can't adjust? That's crazy talk. There were obvious adjustments during the win streak, obvious adjustments when Cutler and Forte went down, and even more obvious adjustments the last game against the Packers. 1, 3-10. Agreed. The Briggs move could be bad PR, but LBs are just as easy to find as RBs. Probably the easiest position on defense to replace. And the "inability to adjust" is clearly in #4 & #10.

The Fred Davis addition would cost to much for minimal production. That move doesn't make sense, especially since we don't know what we have in Kellen Davis/Spaeth in this type of offense. If Martz goes, then we have to see if Kellen Davis can be a starting TE in a different offense. If Martz stays, the TEs haven't been the problem in this offense; they've blocked quite well and have been sure-handed when called upon. As for something I could actually see happening, the "Brady Quinn, Antonio Garay, Brendon Ayanbadejo, Robert Mathis, and Vincent Jackson" sounds about up the current FO's alley. But without Vincent Jackson. Two defensive guys and a special teamer headline it. I'm going with: Brady Quinn, Antonio Garay, Brendon Ayanbadejo, Robert Mathis because it wouldn't address the top needs on the team, but would make Lovie and crew happy to restock the shelves yet again.

Injuries, underwhelming performance, locker room issues, AND legal problems? No thanks. If most on this board will reject sure fire hall of famers like Randy Moss and Terrell Owens for just locker room issues, then there is no way in hell this idea gets support.

When I watched the game against the Raiders I noted that Roy Williams looked faster than just about every other WR out of breaks in the pregame. And during the game he was open several times and just didn't see the ball. Why that happened is anyone's guess, but I'm 99% sure it's because he wasn't the first read and there wasn't enough time to get to the second read consistently. With Knox out, it appears that Williams is the #1 read and target...and was open. 6 catches for 81 yards could have easily been 7 for close to 100 if one other pass wasn't chucked at his feet. So it brings me to the question in the header, for those who have seen more games in person this year (particularly if you're a season-ticket holder), has Roy Williams been open?

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Rodgers go down with a non-career threatening, but otherwise massive injury. Put him on another team and I don't think that way. But I'm sick of seeing the packers have all the QB luck and the Bears having nearly none. There is no denying, however, that the dude is one of the top 2 QBs in the NFL.

Now, on all of this I agree. They won't quit on the OL. They should. The DL doesn't suck, it's just undercoached. I've been saying this ever since Lovie got into town. The way the defense is coached is not an attacking style beneficial to DLinemen. Unless there is a Tommie Harris type, the DL ends up being block-occupiers for LBs. This is not a problem when the DTs are Ted Washington and Keith Traylor. It is a problem otherwise. And, yes, I agree that if the Bears had a collection of good WRs the flaws on offense would be minimized somewhat. But I still think we'd have a glaring problem on OL that would minimally protect the QB and open occasional holes. We certainly wouldn't see the Bears' QB sitting in the pocket all day like Rodgers did last night. We'd still see a ton of pressure, but at least Cutler would be able to chuck some bail-out throws while under pressure.

I'm sickened by the clear officiating philosophy change in the NFL that basically allows defensive linemen to get molested by offensive linemen. And then that philosophy gets even worse when the NFL pushes down marching orders to protect one of their golden boys. I'm far from the typical person who blames officiating. But It's extremely frustrating to watch Peppers get put in a headlock on every other play and our DTs get hugged without seeing the flag come out. 29 passes and no penalties the entire game?! Give me a freaking break.

Yes, I did. But I'm not going to watch Lions games to do a play-by-play. A team that has thrown that many more times and has less sacks, regardless of how incomplete a stat that is, is not as bad as the Bears. No freaking way. If the Bears had that number of throws, they'd have to set up an ER room on the sideline for the ten QBs a year they'd eventually use.

Almost exactly my thoughts. Coaching, drafting, owning. And when talent does get selected, I don't have confidence in the coaches to turn that talent into on-field production.

Agreed.

This thread made me laugh a lot. Rodgers is one of the top two QBs in the NFL. Period. His WRs are significantly better than the Bears', but he has a VERY large part in that. Seriously. Who the F is Jordy Nelson without Rodgers? Same for Jones. Rodgers is ridiculously accurate, has a cannon, great footwork and mechanics, and has been in the same offense since he got in town.

Can we please quit with this ridiculous comparison? The Lions have given up less sacks and are only two QB hits different than the Bears and they've thrown 200 more passes. Add to that the fact that they have way more experience, no lineman drafted after the fourth round (2 first-rounders), and the comparison is even more offbase. The Lions OL is unequivocally better than the Bears OL. Just stop it.

Which I believe was happening when Cutler was playing really well and Martz adjusted the play-calling. It made the below average line look average at times, and gave everyone a false sense of hope.

I can understand that you were caught off guard with the Garza analysis. I think that it's just a matter of someone looking competent around incompetency. But we Bears fans have gotten so used to shit on the OL that we see average as much more than what it is. As for the sack thing, we'll just agree to disagree. It's only part of the picture. And the entire reason I decided to evaluate the OL in the Seahawks game was to avoid the whole "eye test" and try to quantify what they were actually doing. Analyzing those plays, all plays, actually is a good way to debate. It's much more complete than simply using sacks. It's not my problem the statistics for OL aren't as wide-spread and posted everywhere. If someone gives up 0 sacks but opens zero running lanes, then I don't see that as a good game. But the sack stat sure would paint that picture. Also what I did post earlier is on NFL.com (i.e. sacks, QB hits, negative rushing plays) and clearly display they have been bad this year. Maybe you're right about the effort of tracking plays and analyzing the OL. Maybe it is pointless in the grand scheme of things. But since there is nothing else out there that I've seen that gives a more complete idea of what the OL has done as a whole, then I thought it was worth it. Regardless of what QB is in there, if the QB gets rocked on a 3-step drop, you can quantify that. And it has nearly nothing to do with the QB. The same goes for running holes and defensive players in the backfield. Having bad offensive players in the game may affect how the D plays, but it shouldn't have too much affect on whether or not the OL can hold a block for 2 seconds. No matter which QB is in there, if a block isn't held for 2 seconds on a passing play, then you can count that as an OL failure.

Regarding the OL, the sack statistic is completely unreliable as a single measure of success. So much more goes into it, and you know it. For instance, suppose an LG doesn't give up a sack but every pass play is a three-step drop and a quick pass to the right? Does that say whether or not the OG got blown up but the DT just didn't have time to get to the QB? Of course it doesn't. There are countless scenarios that make OL success a difficult measurement. Four sacks in 60+ offensive possessions versus the Seahawks. That's not terrible. But the OL definitely sucked last game, and that underscores the problem with using simply sacks as a measurement of the OL. That's why I attempted play-by-play analysis last game. It's also why I challenge anyone else to do so on a play-by-play basis. There appears to be a lot of revisionist history in regards to their performance at the end of the game. Also, you're ignoring where I said I could completely understand, while disagreeing, that the WR position is as big a need as OL. Both are big needs, but I just happen to believe a superior OL would maximize WR potential because it would give the QB tons of time to throw (see: Hanie to Bell last week). The initial response was entirely because DBDB pretended the OL was "not that bad," which is utterly ridiculous. Just straight up wrong. I don't mind the OL/WR disagreement. Actually, I kind of enjoy it. But anyone acting like the Bears OL isn't bad is either lying to themself or not watching the games.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to the Bears nation!

That's absurd. I don't see how you guys can continue to peddle this nonsense with a straight face. Webb is bad. Edwin Williams is bad. Garza is average. Spencer is bad. Louis is below average. When and if Carimi and Chris Williams come back, the OL goes from bad to below average. 8th most negative rushing plays to the left side. 1st most negative rushing plays to the right side. 3rd most negative rushing plays overall. 5th most sacks. 8th most QB hits. Countless hurries Pressure in the backfield every other play. Tons of ridiculous, undisciplined penalties. Virtually zero depth. If that's "not bad" then I don't know what the hell bad is. I can buy someone thinking the WR position is a bigger priority than the OL, even though I disagree, but quit with this nonsense about the OL being anything other than bad. Because that's what they are. They are bad.

It's only because I'm sick of watching the Bears fail because of the same reason year after year after year, only to see little done to address it. Meanwhile, the D gets focus every single year. As for what everyone wants, you're probably right. But I think there are many who think WR is a need far above OL, rather than the other way around. Further, I still contend upgrading the OL could do more for the overall offense, particularly the WRs, than the other way around. FWIW - I recall the Carimi as a RT talk, but don't remember a thing about knee problems.

You're right about him being projected by most to be a RT (I was trying to make the best scenario possible), but what's confusing to me is: 1. Carimi is the best OL talent the Bears have 2. The Bears OL is not good 3. Webb is probably the worst starter on the OL 4. Webb is playing at LT 5. A weak LT is one of the most terrifying ideas for an already shaken, and apparently injury-prone QB 6. Virtually nobody wants to move Carimi to LT 7. The top level LTs in the NFL right now are almost exclusively drafted in the first round, and the ones who aren't are almost all from the second round (Jason Peters excluded) 8. The WR talent pool this year is deep (5-6 1st round talents), and the LT talent pool (3 LTs by my count are 1st rounders) this year is shallow Yet so many want to draft a WR in the first round. It just doesn't add up.