jason

It's not hindsight if others said the same thing. Give yourself some credit. I absolutely was in favor of bringing in McNabb when Cutler went down. And I mentioned bringing in Garcia before the season even started. Both scenarios were entirely possible, but they wanted to stick with Hanie and Enderle.

No doubt the Bears win the last two, and I am pretty sure they also would have won the Raider game. Hanie sucks.

Could not agree with you any more. This is not on one player or one play. This is team philosophy.

I highlighted the main reasons for the loss. Also, it's interesting that in the stadium you thought Hester shouldn't have called FC on a few of the kicks. In my experience, it always seems faster live and there seems to be less room for error. However, I agree with you; I thought he called FC a little early a few times.

Simiarly, Barber didn't tell the offense to shut it down the last three drives, nor did he tell the defense to play prevent and allow 10 points to a team that had been shut out the previous 58 minutes. That's football 101. But ignore that and concentrate on math 101. If the Bears have simply 3 more points, or don't allow the 7 from the TD, Barber could have run out of bounds every single run of the last drive and it wouldn't have mattered. The game is not won or lost in one play. That's also football 101.

I'm sorry if I just don't see things in simple terms. Thinking that way is obtuse at best. This is simple. I agree with you. Barber doesn't run OOB, the Bears probably win. But a good coach wouldn't have had Barber in that situation because they wouldn't have called 9 gutless runs on offense and went into prevent on defense. Again, cause and effect.

Dude. Don't you realize the first three quarters have an impact on the fourth? Don't you realize the mistakes made leading up to the fourth quarter have an impact on how the rest of the game goes? Yes, they could have run out the clock if Barber stays in bounds. It was a stupid play. I understand it. But poor coaching led to that even mattering. They shut down the Broncos for the entire game and all of the sudden they drive for ten points in two possessions...that is a coaching change. And that's not even considering the three straight offensive possessions in which nothing but runs were called. Change either of those gutless styles of coaching, and Barber's play doesn't matter. Cause and effect.

I completely understand the thought; it's not difficult to comprehend. But that's very simple-minded and absolves the coaching staff of their much greater mistakes and gutless play-calling that led up to Barber's boneheaded play. This has been Lovie's MO since he's been here. We've talked on this board numerous times about this. The Bears almost never step on the other team's neck. It's just not how they roll. And it's gutless. This situation, this game, this loss, and Barber's play, were entirely avoidable with better coaching.

Agreed. The only positive to all of this is the fact that we now know Hanie is not a suitable backup QB. That's about all that has been learned the last three games.

And you're a complete, singular-thinking idiot. Do you not realize the ONE play by Barber means nothing if the coaches actually try to score on the last three drives? Can you freaking count? Three drives of more than one play is naturally greater than one. Do you not realize that plays during the earlier portions of the game affect the later portions of the game? Are you so obtuse that you don't understand this simple concept? If they even remotely take chances, it's entirely possible they get a FG on offense or a stop on the last two possessions on defense, and Barber's play is meaningless.

Yes. I did. That's one play. Since then he's fumbled. That's two plays. But if the coaches don't coach like bitches the last 8 minutes or so, the game doesn't even go into OT.

Barber blew one play. One. How many did the coaches blow in the last three offensive series and the last two defensive series?

You just know that the gutless offensive play-calling (9 straight runs) the last three series is not Martz. It screams "classical Lovie, hold on to the lead and hope for a win," instead of actually trying to score. Bullet dodged on the onside kick. Bullet dodged on the horrible prevent defense. Bullet NOT dodged on the game tying FG.

Great seal block by Davis on that last Barber long run.

The complexity part I agree with (from what everyone says, it is very complex), but I seriously doubt a well-traveled vet like Garcia couldn't come in and pick it up. It's not like the Bears are using the entire playbook anyway. With the poor OL play they can't possible implement all of it. Therefore, it's a truncated playbook to begin with.

A simple look at the last five drafts shows a philosophical trend of placing emphasis on D the first few rounds and using late round picks to guess on offensive throwaway players. 1-4 rounds Year Offense Defense 2011 1 2 2010 0 2 2009 1 3 2008 3 2 2007 3 2 Totals 8 11 7th round Year Offense Defense 2011 0 0 2010 1 0 2009 2 0 2008 3 2 2007 1 1 Totals 7 3 Aside from that, just look at last year's second rounder: Paea. What else could have been used this year? A few players others on this board wanted. 1) Rodney Hudson - C - Florida St. 2) Torrey Smith - WR - Maryland 3) John Moffitt - OG - Wisconsin Ignoring what the players have done this year - because it's impossible to know what they would have done on the Bears - all three players could have helped the Bears this year. Paea has barely made an impact. It's philosophical, and the Bears over the past few years have decided to focus more on defense than offense.

Do you mean they're a "solid, young" OL because they are in the bottom portion of the league in every single measurable offensive line statistic, or because they consistently don't play well together, or because they inconsistently run block, or because they are even more inconsistent pass blocking, or because the Bears' QBs get are guaranteed to get absolutely drilled on at least 2 plays per game, or because the pocket rarely exists for more than 2 seconds, or because they are guaranteed for 3 or 4 dumb false starts per game? Solid? Seriously?

Wow. It doesn't take much to make you content.

Will this game end 0-0?

Exactly! They won't draft for this offense, but they sure as hell draft for the Lovie-2 every year. The Bears could have Lawrence Taylor on the other side of Julius Peppers, with John Randle and Mean Joe Greene in the middle, and they'd draft a DT or DE every year with this staff.

If Martz stays and there is no significant offensive talent improvement, then it's horrible management. You don't hire someone because they're good at something specific and then fail to give them the tools and environment to do what made them famous. Either get rid of Martz or give him the tools.

Actually, I don't mind that one so much. I'm not really a fan of getting a SS in the first round, since it's clear we've been searching for a FS, and not a SS for quite some time. Hitting OL hard and heavy in the 2nd and 3rd is precisely what I've wanted for several years. It's two consequential picks spent on the team need. I can't ask for much more. I just get sick of the obligatory 7th round turd OLineman being used as evidence that OL has "been drafted."

And that draft, while entirely possible with these clowns, would make me puke. When OL and WR are so obviously the two top team needs, and both the OL and WR positions are non-singular, it's baffling that they would be ignored on the first day of the draft. I could see it happening, but it would be poor player management.

Yes, sacks are a great barometer, but they are without question an incomplete barometer. It's a ridiculously incomplete picture. Admitting that there is a lot more to it (i.e. hits) is a good step towards the middle. For the record, I think to accurately measure the OL in terms of pass-blocking, you'd have to compile the at least the following six stats with respect to how they rank against the other teams in the league: sacks, hits, hurries, forced rollouts, QB time in pocket before pressure, percentage of OL holding a block on each play. The last two are particularly important, because the former sets a baseline for what constitutes the ambiguous "QB pressure," and the latter constitutes OL success. Afterall, who gives a shit if 4 different guys on the OL play well as long as 1 guy is getting blown up every play? Having said all that, I don't have the time or game film to undergo such a monumental effort, so it ultimately comes down to the eye test. BTW - The Bears OL is 7th worst in sacks and QB hits (but I'm curious to see what exactly is counted as a QB hit) and not that low in terms of team receiving. http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?arc...;qualified=true Also, if you haven't seen the countless links and stats I've provided over the course of the past few years in regards to the OL, you just haven't been paying attention. But just for fun, I think I might start doing this for future Bears' game until the OL finally gets shored up. Care to engage in the undertaking with me? We can create the measurements and the compare notes at the end of each game. Start easy: QB sacks QB hits QB hurries QB forced rollouts Understood. I don't disagree, but I see two approaches. You either completely revamp the offense to suit the lack of talent or you buy/draft the parts necessary for the offense to succeed. The former neuters the offensive potential; the latter is potentially time-consuming. You'd rather see the former; I'd rather see an attempt at the latter. You're currently seeing your choice (while Martz is here), but I'll never get to see my choice because the Bears' front office (including Lovie) has an aversion to drafting more than one serviceable OL addition, and when they do they can't evaluate the guy to ensure he's not some broke-dick who is better suited for a different position. My point was, you can't say "the OL is doing significantly better!" and try to pretend it's all the OL improvement, and at the same time say that the offense has had a near 180 by the addition of rollouts, screens, cihps, etc. The additions to, and modification of, are potentially the true reason the OL has "improved" statistically, through no real improvement of their own. Although I will concede there has been very minor improvement, I still contend they are easily the worst part of the team, and certainly haven't had some sort of life-changing metamorphosis like some would pretend they've had. They are very slightly better, which could be entirely related to Omiyale not playing. The fact that they gave up 6 sacks to the worst pass rush in the NFL is a supporting statistic in this regard (i.e. still sucking this late in the season, despite the "improvement," against the worst pass rush in the NFL). Similarly, you can't judge the WRs. Right? Afterall, they can't expect the passes at the same time, don't have as long to run the routes, etc. Understood. And I was simply trying to bring in some sort of statistic in regards to comparing the OL to the WR positions. This statistic doesn't exist, so using Noot's Notes is as close as statistics as they come in this regard. By bringing in an outside opinion, it was a way of not using my logic but another's. In absence of hard, quantitative data, one must use a lot of qualitative data as a scoring system. I'd argue his ratings are somewhere in the middle of quantitative and qualitative, and until we accomplish what I said in the first paragraph (i.e. the 6 stats).

I know it would never happen (for various reasons), but would anyone on this board be entirely upset with the concept of drafting just three areas of need this upcoming offseason? 1. OL 2. WR 3. OL 4. FS 5. WR 6. OL 7. FS That would be a wonky looking draft, but if you told me that's how it played out I wouldn't be unhappy. I could also see a nothing but OL, WR, and QB draft.