jason

Once again, spare me. Your subtle "chief" at the end is clearly your substitution to get me riled up. Won't work. The "blitz percentage" is a horseshit stat. They must be counting presnap alignment, because there is no way the Bears are one of the most blitzing teams in the league. And like I said, if they are (which they aren't), then it's an indication that the coaching is even more horrible than ever discussed because of the lack of success. As for the last sentence, the players are far from perfect. I know this. Yes, really. Urlacher and Briggs are constantly at the line, then constantly backing out on the snap. Url may be perfect for the deep middle in the cover-2 (i.e. speed), but the scheme - as Lucky eluded to - underutilizes him with a bogus blitz threat and then a back-peddle and leads to more sacrifices in the short passing game. It's just the fact that he's so fast that allows him to have the impact that he does in the defense. Either try to quote in context, or stop being ignorant. One of the two. Scroll up with your little mouse finger and realize I was speaking specifically about the safeties. I prefer the cover corner too, but those guys don't grow on trees. Just because a DB gives outside position doesn't mean the WR is going to run down the sideline unimpeded and free. Please rewatch the last Jets play from Sunday to realize how it can work if the WR is sent up the sideline (despite the fact that the CB got burned off the line on that play). You should know by now that I don't say this stuff after just one game. Honestly, I had a higher opinion of you than that. We've had discussions/debates like this many times before. It's not just this game; it's been quite some time. For the record, it was DBDB who said it. The last part I'll have to break it down for you in baby steps. All defenses want to create turnovers. Got that? Too deep for you? If not, we'll continue. To create these turnovers, defenses often try step in front of passes or get there when the other team gets the ball. The Bears sometimes do this. More often than not, however, the Bears approach is to allow the opponent to get minimal gains and then attempt the strip. You must have noticed this, or at least heard about it, because the announcers mention it every game. The problem is, they often concede the minimal gain in hopes of getting the strip (i.e. passive vs. aggressive). Or maybe you haven't noticed scrubs have continually put up career passing days against the Bears during Lovie's tenure. Just in case you want to check, this is reflected in the fact that the great Bears defense is in the bottom half of the league when it comes to TOP (i.e. passive vs. aggressive). The only other good teams in the bottom half? The Patriots and the Colts. And we both know they're in there for a completely different reason. Furthermore, if you look at the passing defense stats, you'd realize the Bears are in the bottom half of the league in that as well. But the telling stat is that they only give up 6.5 yards per completion, less than all but one other team in the bottom half. Stick with me now, because this math gets hard. That means the Bears give up a bunch of short passes, over and over and over, what I've been calling a slow bleed. And who'da thunk it?! They've given up the 5th most completions in the NFL (i.e. passive vs. aggressive). -Agreed. Better than most expected. -Agreed. It's just like a political debate. Not much will change. -Disagree. If you don't want to read it, don't. This is a message board for differing opinions. Mine differs from yours. BTW, I love how you call my posts "drama and chest puffing." I assume it's not when you post rebuttal after rebuttal? Pot, meet kettle. -Bear Down.

First of all, what a dumbass article. They think they're defending the cover-2, but they're actually speaking out against it. It's true the Bears gave up some yardage playing Cover-2, including Mark Sanchez's 23-yard touchdown pass to Santonio Holmes. But the Bears played more safety up and Cover-1 than they have most of the season. A review of the tape shows the Bears were playing something other than a true two-deep alignment on 54 percent of the Jets' snaps. They played a lot of single safety high, and the Jets completed many passes on slant routes against that alignment. So, one could infer from the article that the Bears played the cover-2 on 46% of the plays. That's still quite a bit. But this is where it gets ignorant: In the fourth quarter, the Bears used even less Cover-2 than the rest of the game, appearing to call for it on only six plays. One of the plays was Chris Harris' victory-sealing interception. Oh, you mean the quarter in which the Bears allowed the Jets to only a single FG? A FG that was the direct result of the defense played in the third quarter (because it came immediately after the quarter change)? The quarter in which they only gave up 47 yards total in 18 plays (not counting kicks)? So, out of those 18 plays there "appeared" to be the cover-2 only 6 times. Take away the interception play, which was a given, and you have 5 cover-2 plays in 17 plays. Keep in mind, 47 yards given up that quarter. I believe there were 52 non-kicking plays in the other three quarters for a total of 70 plays. If the cover-2 was run 6 times in the fourth quarter (35%), the percentage of times it was run in the rest of the game would be nearly 62%. By the numbers: QTRs 1-3: 52 plays, 32 Cover-2 alignments, 61.5% QTR 4: 17 plays, 6 Cover-2 alignments, 35% Game: 70 plays, 38 Cover-2 alignments, 54% I don't have the game film, but I'm willing to bet the drive that ended the first quarter and the majority of the second quarter were heavy in the cover-2.

Reread your own damn posts. the more I realize that they should use their 1st or 2nd pick on a DT. That big letter "I" is kind of important in the context of your entire post. I understood that you were speaking in terms of the coaches and the organization for how they think, but then you said "I realize that they should," which indicates that YOU think they SHOULD do something.

Vick went over 300 yards in that game. In case you've never watched football before, that's pretty much the good game benchmark for a QB. The Bears allowed him to do so. Also, you're blind if you think the other teams are copying the Bears in their defense of the Eagles. Either that or you didn't watch a single down of the Minnesota vs. Philly game when Minnesota did nearly nothing the same as the Bears and yielded much better results. I agree that nothing is perfect, and this defense has done well. I just don't favor the slow bleed is all. I think an attacking defense - like the Eagles and Steelers for so many years - can be just as successful. My expectations are not delusional; they're just different that what this team does. Like you, however, if the results are wins, I am willing to accept it and cheer on the Bears towards the Super Bowl. The major problem is, we all see that this team is good, but isn't quite there yet. You admit as much by saying they probably won't go the SB. If they make it to the SB it will be a huge surprise. I believe that's what this team has become: a consistent B to B+ student. It's great; you pass, and you're ahead of the curve. Some may be content with the B to B+, but that's not in my DNA. Some rest when they get to that level, but I think it's still the time for change. I'd like an A or to be the valedictorian. Here's to hoping the slow changes keep improving the Bears and they eventually reach the top.

I think you're both right. The team has changed and improved, but the OL is still unequivocally the weakest in the NFL and hinders offensive production to a certain extent. When the OL plays at or above their potential though, the Bears offense has a real chance to shine. The fact remains that Cutler has been sacked and hit more than any QB in the NFL, there continues to be a handful of bonehead penalties on the OL every game, and there is on average about 4 or 5 legitimate holes per game through which a RB can try to get good yardage.

Agreed with the first part. I'd love to see Martz and Tice stick around. I believe they have done better than any coach on the staff, excluding the always excellent special teams. The second part, however, is a reflection of the players not the coaches. The Ditka/Singletary mold should still work, but the players are more pampered, richer, more selfish, less devoted, and more willing to throw a guy under the bus if he makes them work hard in practice. The like Lovie because he's a friend. Like most things in life, the best option is probably somewhere in the middle.

The comparison is merely because of the timeline. Both did well but still heard grumblings. Both did poorly and got people fired up, calling for their firing. Both pulled it together in the year they were expected to be fired, were consequently rumored for the COY, and then lined up a sweet contract extension because of it.

Spare me. The "average opponents" comment was in regard to the turnovers. But since you bring up those teams... Bears vs Eagles Vick raped the defense for over 300 yards of offense, and his INT was on a tipped ball that landed right in Chris Harris's gut. No other turnovers. Gave up 26 points. Bears vs Jets -Sanchez had his fourth best yardage and second best passing percentage this year while nearly getting 300 yards. Pretty good for a team that runs first. Oh, and his only INT? Late game, forced throw, desperation pass which played perfectly into the strength of the defense (which I have already acknowledged). The only other turnover was an early fumble caused by Tim Jennings. Gave up 34 points. I'm not so sure you want to use those two games as your shining examples in defense of the Cover/Tampa/Lovie-2.

BTW - THIS is what I'm talking about: Urlacher being not so aggressive Happens far too often for my liking when you got a MLB with his talent/skill.

How in the world does your list not include Brett Farv or the Packers!?

Shades of Jauron...that's all I can think of. A coach who most dislike comes back in his contract year and the team pulls it together when things matter most, resulting in a dubious COY honor. Yes, I'm a Lovie hater. But I don't mind him as much when he surrounds himself with coaching talent (i.e. Martz, Tice, Marinelli). What I wish for, however, is a defensive mind that is outside of Lovie's wheel-house, one who comes from a different coaching family tree. As for the "not big on talent" talk, I don't agree. There is a ton of talent on this team. Contract? I predict an extension, which will be unfortunate because it will be an affirmation for Lovie telling him that nothing really needs to be changed. When, in fact, that isn't the truth.

Since it's packer week, I got to thinking about the things in football I hate the most. Mine, in order, are the following: 1) The packers 2) Brett Farv 3) Ridiculous seat prices and PSLs that continue to rise 4) Locked Thanksgiving home games for Dallas and Detroit 5) John Madden What are yours?

It's great to see those two signed. Both are underappreciated. It sickens me to read that because the OL has improved from an F- to a D+ you guys are ready to abandon the OL in favor of a position that doesn't need nearly as much help. Have they done better in the last two weeks? Yes. Are they still the worst OL in the NFL? Yes.

Of that there is no debate. I cannot argue with the turnover aspect of the cover-2/Tampa-2/Lovie-2. Sure, it's infuriating to watch as a Bears fan. And there is no doubt that there are tons of holes in it. But make no mistake, it frustrates the average opponent into making bad decisions...which lead to at least some of the turnovers.

I think you and I don't disagree on the definition of the word aggressive, but we do disagree on what constitutes it within a play. The pursuit aspect of it is hustle, but I'm not talking about that. If you want to call that aggressiveness, then fine, we'll call it that. But in my opinion, that is post-play aggressiveness, really hustle (which is why they get judged by Marinelli on their "loaf" plays)...which is clearly not pre-play aggressiveness by design. I'm talking about initial charge, intial action, not reaction. Again, what do they do BEFORE the play to force the opponents' hand? Not much, really. And, as I mentioned, having a MLB back-peddle on the snap is not aggressive. As for the Harris INT, that was more than system design. That was also Jet desperation, where they were forced to throw into the very strength of the defense (i.e. a safety sitting there and watching the QB's eyes, but ensuring nothing gets behind him). What we will agree on is that all systems and schemes have weaknesses. But the 3-4 is and 4-6 are typically MUCH more aggressive than the cover-2 the Bears run.

Incorrect. I like the scheme, and have called for it in the past, but the Bears no longer have the talent for it. Aside from that, the top of the league blitzing stat is garbage and you know it. I'd like to see the methodology in that "study" before quoting it. But what's funny is, if, in fact, the Bears were near the top of the league in blitz percentage, then that should be a black mark so dark that everyone associated with coaching the defense should be fired. It would mean the Bears are the least successful blitzing team in history, because they almost never get to the QB when they blitz. The flaw in this point is the word "should." When the dont' do this, and they haven't for the majority of the time Lovie has been in Chicago, then something should change. More aggressive in theory, but that's about it. So aggressive is watching Urlacher and Briggs fake towards the line every other snap and then immediately begin back-peddaling? Because they do that quite often in this defense. And, BTW, the MLB is responsible for deep middle in the cover-2, which is hardly an aggressive approach towards using one of the fastest MLBs in NFL history. This, we can agree on. They are aggressive. It's just unfortunate that they seem to get burned relatively frequently because of their aggressiveness (see: Holmes last game, Wayne Super Bowl, etc.). Well, at least you understand that part of it. That's a positive. CB cushions are too easy for the WR to bust through. The problem here is with your logic. When something is wrong you don't always have to can it and immediately play to a player's weakness (i.e. Jennings). A good coach puts that player in a better position - for instance, in front of and INSIDE of the WR. You have the CB jump the middle, messing up the timing of the WR, and forcing him to go up the sideline. At that point you hope to have a safety there (if they're doing their jobs). I'm glad it irritates you, because your approach irritates me. How anyone could think this is an attacking style of defense is beyond me. It just tells me you truly don't understand the purpose of the defense the Bears run the majority of the time. They run variations of the Tampa-2 and the Cover-2, which are not exactly the same thing. But like it or not, that's what they run the majority of the time. There is no doubt they are trying to create turnovers; it's ridiculous to argue otherwise. The gap in your thinking is the sequence. Most of the time it's: 1] Stop opponent from long gains 2] Stop opponent from short gains, if possible 3] If opponent gets short gain, attempt to force turnover 4] If turnover is unsuccessful, make tackle It's great in theory, but it so often just skips straight to #3 that it's often infuriating to watch. Having a defense that can't be broken down like that, one that forces the opponent to guess on offense, is a much preferred approach in my opinion. Simply conceding the short gains is something of which I'm not a fan.

I'd say you hit the nail on the head. With the defense you know what you're getting. It's essentially the coaching strategy of saying, "Here's what we got. We dare you to beat it." The offense, on the other hand, is still relatively unpredictable at times, and capable of more home runs than we've seen this year. Three different Bears' WRs run sub-4.4 forty times (i.e. Hester, Knox, Aromashodu). All that said, I think opposing teams are worried about the Bears' ST first, O second, D third.

Convenient that you neglect to mention that it got completely destroyed in the Super Bowl by the same flaws mentioned.

This is not an overreaction. I've been shitting on the cover-2 for much longer than this season. I just think it's a passive, weak way to play that hopes for the opponents to screw up rather than forcing the opponents to screw up.

Regardless of how often the Bears run the cover-2, we can all agree that the cover-2 serves as their primary defense and the rest of the time it's just a variation or modification from the base. Having said that, it seems that every team in the NFL realizes the Bears are going to do the following most of the game: 1] Keep LBs near the LOS at the snap 2] Keep DBs 5yds off the WRs at the snap 3] Keep Safeties deep That is a recipe for easy slants, curls, and square-ins. Those have burned the Bears for years. So, where is the change? What about the following wouldn't work from time to time? 1] Move the outside LBs laterally to step into the passing lane for the 3-step drop patterns (they're often back-peddling anyway) 2] Have the DBs actually press the WRs, jam them, and take away the inside route a few times It is readily apparent that the offense has made some changes over the course of the year, but not so much for the defense. Why don't people expect more from the defense than simply playing better?

That's the key. Give Cutler time, give Forte and Taylor even a glimpse of a hole, and the offense has a great chance to succeed. It's all about the OL with this team. Only as strong as your weakest link.

I believe things are starting to really come around in the Mike Martz offense. The last two weeks have looked awesome for Cutler, and his numbers since the break are eye-opening. Averages: 16/26 (61%), 203yds at 7.8ypa, for 2 TDs and less than 1 INT. Totals: 129/212, 1623yds, for 16 TDs and 7 INTs. Oh, and by the way, he quietly went over 3000 yards this past weekend. One other note... Before the bye he was getting sacked at an alarming rate of 4.5 sacks per game. After the bye, it's only 2.4 sacks per game. Call it what you want, but it looks like the guys on the offensive side of the ball are doing some coaching.

I don't understand the title of the article at all. Why do the Bears need charitable foes? Didn't the Bears also have a turnover? Wasn't the Bears' turnover more costly than any by the Jets? Gimme a break. And, the announcers for the video...WTF? They say that the Bears didn't throw at Cromartie or Revis, but then neglect to mention that they DID throw right at Cromartie for the third TD. Burned his ass. Besides that, isn't the old saying "you're only as strong as your weakest link?" The Bears third WR is easily better than any third DB on any team in the league. I stand by that. DB #1 = Knox DB #2 = Bennett or Hester DB #3 = Gets torched by Bennet or Hester DB #4 = Forget about it. Aromashodu kills this guy

Don't pretend like the cover-2 defense isn't a defense designed to sit back, allow plays up front, and then make tackles. I admit it's a slow bleed kind of defense, and works some times (like the last play for the Harris INT) but when the team continually allows 5-7 yard routes down the field to multiple teams, if it's not explicitly the cover-2, then it's the variation of it that Lovie and company run - and it sucks. Either way, those plays are open all day every day, and they've turned average QBs into studs against the Bears' D time and time again. It's passive; there's no argument. Waiting for the opponent to make mistakes is different than attacking and forcing mistakes. It seems that the Bears' defensive scheme is designed to do more of the former, and less of the latter. For the most part, however, the Bears have just been very fortunate to get all the necessary turnovers this year.

Actually, that's the MLB's responsibility for the cover-2. I must admit that I agree with the OL thoughts. This was the first game, in my opinion, that they have had a very good game. They had a couple false starts, but for the most part they gave cutback lanes, led well on sweeps and tosses, and protected Cutler very well.