jason

The winner is who screws up the least. It's crazy, but that defensive TD could be the difference.

You've pretty much nailed the difference that we haven't been able to accurately state in all the back-and-forth. Planning versus execution. Some hate one; some hate the other; some hate both. My major contention is that proper planning can negate the poor execution. I once heard a saying in the Army: "Prior planning prevents piss poor performance." That's accurate in this case. Agreed...until the next time it rears its ugly head.

DEFENSE!! DEFENSE!! DEFENSE!!

Love the defensive tenacity. Absolutely stuffed the Seahawks on that short drive.

I'll be the pessimist. The defense can't overcome the offense. Seahawks win by two TDs. BTW, I'm tracking the OL performance, play by play to see what their performance is objectively. Thus far there have been 6 plays, 3 runs & 3 passes, and there has only been one play the OL has played well enough as a unit to grade out well. Naturally, it was the one play Knox fumbled.

I guess this comes down to two things: 1) You think some of the guys have promise where most others don't think those same players show promise, and I certainly don't think they show much promise. And when I say promise, I mean "should start in the NFL." And by that I mean, not just because the team hasn't gotten someone better. I'm not happy with the C- student just because the teacher passed him on to the next grade to get him out of the classroom. 2) What you and I quantify as success, on the Bears OL. Other UDFA players have done well all over the NFL, but I don't see any on the Bears OL. They may be UDFA, but we will just disagree on whether they've done well. I'm still shocked that you're actually saying the Bears have given their QBs enough time to throw. We are clearly not watching the same games. You must consider anything more than 2 seconds a luxury in the pocket and a coverage sack. I'd love to watch a game with you, seriously, and discuss whether player A got beat or not, whether he held his block long enough or not, and whether his performance had a negative impact on the play. I think you, and some others, see the Bears' OL improvements via diminished sack statistics as solely their own. I just don't see it that way. The changes made on offense have been to mask the OL's impotence. That, and a minor improvement, have led to the current status. But they are far from good, and their flaws hamstring the offensive potential because the OC, regardless of who he is, must castrate the playbook in order to overcome the OL's inadequacies. Also, it's intellectually dishonest to pretend a higher draft pick doesn't, in general, have a higher probability of success in the NFL. The UDFAs are usually UD for a reason.

Yes. If that is the major source of our disagreement on this portion of the debate, then I'm fine with it. I think running 9 straight times, particularly when on 3rd and long situations, is stupid. But if you like that strategy because you think it's better than Hanie even taking a chance, then so be it. And, I also agree the Bears have to be run-heavy without the two stars (obvious), but I don't think that means sacrificing the probability of getting first downs. It's interesting, however, that you support such a preventative coaching move as deciding not to throw, thereby reducing/eliminating the possibility of a passing mistake, but you continue to ignore the other preventative measures the coaches should have taken (i.e. not running the prevent defense, and trying to consume more time on offense by realistically going for a first down). I'm not talking strictly about cause and effect, either, because there is clearly a factor of sequence involved. Obviously the coaching and playing is somewhat symbiotic, but there is always something that comes beforehand and something that comes afterwards. For instance, if Hanie were allowed to throw on any of those 3rd and long situations, we could be talking about a myriad of possibilities. Maybe he would have thrown a pick. I admit the possibility. The coaches avoided that, however. But maybe he would have performed like the rest of the game and the Bears would have consumed enough time to make the comeback impossible. That's a very real possibility as well. In fact, I'd say it's more likely than the INT because they would have had him throw safer passes. Certainly it's an unknown either way, but my problem with the coaching is they changed from what was working on defense and they got ultra-conservative on offense. The combination resulted in easier passes for Tebow, and more time to complete those passes. Had the Bears coaches not screwed up either situation, the Barber fumble more than likely wouldn't have mattered because either A] The Bears would have stopped one of the Broncos drives, or B] The Bears would have consumed enough time to make one of the Broncos drives impossible. Either way, A or B, and the Barber fumble doesn't matter...but that's only if they employed the same "preventative coaching" thought process as they used (successfully because no passes were thrown, but ultimately unsuccessfully because the game was lost) with the passing game.

All the back-and-forth for this is valid. I see the point being made, but I also see the flaws in the data. What I wish is there was a website that did this. I wish someone out there compared the GMs, the coaches, the teams, on their draft records. Conclusive, hard, all items included data. That'd be nice.

I hate to see the Bears lose as much as the next guy, but I also had the midlevel record that always gets the Bears a midlevel draft pick. If Cutler doesn't come back this year, and they have a good idea he won't, do you even want the Bears to make the playoffs? I don't. They'll get embarrassed, and likely a worse draft pick.

Agreed. I wouldn't give a shit who they drafted in the 1st if the Bears targeted Nicks and got him.

Virtually everyone, everywhere agrees they played the prevent defense. In my experience the prevent defense doesn't necessarily have a limited scope of alignment. It usually has more DBs, but the philosophy is what we're all getting at. It's semantics to argues X's and O's on the field of what a prevent is, because definitions vary. However, you at least agree they underwent a significant philosophical change on defense. Wrong, wrong, wrong. You're being ridiculous here. At no other time during the game did the Bears run on 1st, 2nd, AND 3rd down, and they only ran 3 consecutive runs a few times during the entire game. Furthermore, you can't argue that what they did wasn't a change, here's why: 2nd to last drive 1/10 - 1 yard run 2/9 - 2 yard run 3/7 - run that didn't get the first down 1st to last drive 1/10 - negative 1 yard run 2/11 - 1 yard run 3/10 - run that didn't get the first down Last drive 1/10 - 0 yard run 2/10 - 5 yard run 3/5 - run that didn't get the first down I'm sorry if you don't want to take your head out of the sand, but 3/7, 3/10, and 3/5 are not normally running downs. 3/5 is the only one that's even remotely up for debate. The Bears absolutely shut down the offense and played not to lose. In a very limited view of football maybe that's what TOP is, but in the real world TOP can signify, among other things, if a team is primarily run-oriented or pass-oriented, if a team scores quickly or drags out drives, and if a team gets a short-field advantage very often. In this case, the TOP clearly signifies what the drive break down above displays: The Bears shut their offense down. The combination of play choice, down and distance, and TOP is irrefutable. That's what they did. In a linear world, where nothing affects anything else, yes, Barber's play cost the Bears the win. But that's not how the real world works, much less football. As I've proven above, the offensive changes at the very least affected the Bears negatively, and those extra 48 seconds per drive (on average) shaved off the game clock would have nullified Barber's actions. A good coach coaches his team in such a way that the negative what-ifs of late game scenarios get eliminated before they become possibilities. The Bears coaches didn't do that, and the result is Barber's mistake. Not the other way around.

I think you completely misunderstood my post. And you certainly failed to comprehend the cause-effect nature of things. The prevent defense came before Barber ran out of bounds. It's not the other way around. If the Bears hadn't played prevent defense, would the fumble by Barber have mattered? The first 56 minutes or so of the game say that the fumble wouldn't have mattered.

I could not agree any more. I think it's crazy that anyone is talking about this OL as being average or good. Talking about the promise of the OL is all well and good, but most people who make it into the NFL have promise. What they do to capitalize on the promise is where things change. Thus far, the promise is all the Bears really have. The bolded part is what I find the most ridiculous.

This story is tragically hliarious.

True. Nobody can explain Barber's mistake. All I've been saying all along is that the coaches should never have put him in that scenario. Good coaches would never have allowed that scenario to be possible. Why even take a chance? For instance, if the Bears are in a similar situation, what are the odds they call Barber's number for anything other than a straight up the middle dive play? I'm guessing about 0%. Hell, they might not even give him the ball. That's how you avoid a mistake. They could have applied this same line of reasoning during the game and we would never have even been talking about the Barber play.

Not a horrible concept. I'd like to see Umenyiora on the opposite side of Peppers, but for some reason I don't see that as necessarily a great thing. Osi is not as good as Peppers, and certainly not the all-around player that Peppers is. That's a problem in a defense that appears to limit the sack potential of DEs. Getting rid of Knox and Williams, and moving Hester primarily to ST (I don't disagree), leaves only Bennett and Sanz at WR. And only Bennett matters in that equation. Meachem would be an intriguing sign, but I think he could have slightly inflated numbers because of Brees and that NO offense. So, you hesitate on the McNutt pick, but I think if everything played out as you mention, that wouldn't be a hard pick for the Bears' staff. That's too much change-over for them not to hedge their bets a little bit. I don't see how they could sign a WR AND draft two though.

But weren't the same things said before this year? And before last year?

Let me ask you this... If the Bears hadn't played prevent defense, was there a strong probability that Barber's boneheaded play wouldn't have mattered?

Wrong. They did play prevent. You can literally find this everywhere on the internet, at the Trib, Sun Times, Bleacher Report, ESPN, Pro Football Weekly, and several other people and places that cover the Bears. It was even mentioned on TV. The safeties were WAY back and the CBs were giving a 10-yd cushion. If the alignment was similar to cover-2, that's all it was. Stats of the Week No. 1: Against Chicago, Tim Tebow was 3-for-16 for 45 yards in the first three quarters, 18-for-24 for 191 yards after that. The 3% number is borderline ridiculous. It's impossible to quantify the possibility of a comeback no matter how hard they try. There's a reason they don't show the formula, and it has very little to do with proprietary knowledge. There are literally thousands of possible ways in which that statistic is ripped apart (e.g. player attributess, offensive/defensive schemes, cities, weather, fan noise). As for me nit-picking, there is no debating how much time each drive took, and I think you're conveniently ignoring some pretty hard stats that I've presented. Specifically regarding the time per drive and the average time the Bears would have used per drive if they continued as they had the previous 3 quarters. There is no doubt that the plays you mentioned have an impact on the game; I've said as much numerous times. It's actually comical that you'd use that as some of your counter-argument since you're so opposed to the idea that the previous plays affect later plays. Having said that, however, average drive length is not a biased statistic or nit-picking. In fact, it allows for the possible plays you mentioned on both sides of the topic. It's a fair way to assess offensive and defensive approach, or maybe even momentum. If you choose to ignore my posts or disregard them, then I guess there is no point. It's clear you aren't reading them because I've already said that if Barber stayed in bounds the Bears most likely win. It's almost certain. The problem is, as I have said before and you have agreed to in your post (i.e. "Things happen, and some things don't"), the game is not as simple as one play. And the stats show the Bears shut down their own offense in the 4th Qtr and played prevent defense; this ultimately led to situation in which Barber got painted as the scapegoat. But the 48 extra seconds per drive in the fourth quarter say that the Bears and Barber should have never been in that situation. I don't know about you, but to me it makes more sense to avoid the possibility of a mistake than to even get into the situation. Barber is nothing more than the final nails driven into the frame of a house.

They were trying to get the first down as a supplementary goal. Their first goal was obviously running out clock. It is obvious they chose to let their primary goal (clock) supersede the secondary goal (first down).

The fact that you said they had a "3% chance of losing that game" proves to me that you don't have a clue about how math, statistics, or just about anything else in the world works other than ignorant links to 50-Cent. You STILL can't explain the reason the Bears didn't even try to get a first down on three consecutive drives, and played prevent defense on the last two. Those are both valid points. OFFENSE Valid point and fact: The Bears ignorantly shut down the offense in the 4th quarter, in classic Lovie, play not to lose strategy. Avg Drive Length: 2:15 Avg Drive Length 1st: 2:35 Avg Drive Lengh 2nd: 2:32 Avg Drive Length 3rd: 2:39 Avg Drive Length 4th: 1:28 Avg Drive Length last 3 drives: 1:27 The statistics pretty much prove the Bears shut it down in the fourth quarter, and particularly the last three drives (3 second final drive not included in stats). If they had actually tried to run plays as they had before, they would have held the ball on average 48 more second per drive. IF they had done this, then the game is won. DEFENSE Valid point and fact: Until the last two Bronco drives in regulation, the Bears were not playing an exclusive prevent defense. Valid point and fact: Until the last two Bronco drives in regulation, the Bears had not given up any points. Avg Drive Length: 2:10 Avg Drive Length 1st: 2:25 Avg Drive Lengh 2nd: 3:18 Avg Drive Length 3rd: 1:26 Avg Drive Length 4th: 1:47 There was no reason to go into prevent because the Bears already had a shutout going, and were actually performing better in the second half. The move to prevent hurt the team and allowed the Broncos to score. Without the prevent, the Broncos likely don't score the entire game and the game is won. What about all of these facts don't you understand?

I like the first link. It's almost exactly what I've been saying. Barber was a bonehead, but the coaches screwed up much more, multiple times, and never should have even allowed that situation to happen. This is the entire point: Now here’s how the stupidity really factors in. The Bears weren’t even TRYING to get a first down!!!! If they were, they would’ve thrown the ball or done ANYTHING to beat the loaded box, but they didn’t. So, if you AREN’T gonna try and get a first down, why in the world would you take ANY risks at all. Ideally they WANTED the Broncos to have the ball at their own 29 with :20 seconds to go because that is what they were TRYING to do!

The fact that the league was not remotely interested initially in Kurt Warner should tell you all you need to know about the league's hit percentage regarding evaluations.

It still amazes me that anyone, particularly a Bears fan who has seen all the games this season, can say the Bears have 5-6 capable starters on the offensive line. I guess we just have differing opinions on what constitutes "capable." I only see 2 currently playing (Garza & Louis), and that's hesitant on Louis since he shit the bed the last two weeks. Maybe 1 or 2 more if/when Carimi and C.Williams come back from injury. IF. And filling the LT role with a late round pick or a Chris Spencer clone is only putting a bandaid on a head wound, and guaranteeing the exact same situation year after year after year...which is precisely what the Bears have done. Also, the philosophical differences in drafts is one of those things that everyone disagrees on. I say if you hold the OL to the "draft him in the 1st and he has to start immediately"-rule, then you do the same for every other position. Because when it comes down to it, that's about money. I guess we'll butt heads all offseason, because I can't reasonably fathom how anyone who has watched the Bears over the last few years, and presumably understands football, could disagree with the facts that the OL is still very weak, still a major detriment to any sort of consistent offense, still a reason the offense can't implement any sort of successful downfield game (which ties directly to the room WRs receive to get open), and still a major cause for the lack of WR development in Chicago. Do you honestly believe the Bears just have missed on WRs every single time, or do you think MuhMuh was right when he said it's where "WRs go to die"? I happen to think it's the latter, because the Bears haven't put focus on QB & OL. The QB situation is handled. The OL, which ties directly into protecting the #1 asset on the team, making him feel comfortable, and allowing him the time to throw darts all over the field, is not under control.

Right now it's Webb-E.Williams-Garza-Spencer-Louis. With the draft proposed above, this seems easy to me for next year. LT - Carimi. I don't care how much the staff likes him, or how good he looks getting off the bus, Webb will never be better than below average. Carimi was drafted to be a LT. Period. Let him develop as one and avoid the same mistakes made with Chris Williams. LG - Garza. He gets to go home to a more familiar position. And he helps Carimi transition. C - Konz. Good enough as a rookie to start. RG - Spencer and Zeitler battle for the starting job. Zeitler probably wins and has consistency with Konz in the middle. RT - Louis battles Chris Williams for the starting job. I'm still not giving up on Williams, who, when healthy, has done fairly well. Carimi/Webb - Garza/E.Williams - Konz/Garza - Zeitler/Spencer - Louis/C.Williams sounds pretty damn good to me.