-
Posts
8,725 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by jason
-
Bears sign Mannelly, Toeaina to contract extensions
jason replied to balta1701-A's topic in Bearstalk
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.
-
Bears sign Mannelly, Toeaina to contract extensions
jason replied to balta1701-A's topic in Bearstalk
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?
-
Bears sign Mannelly, Toeaina to contract extensions
jason replied to balta1701-A's topic in Bearstalk
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.
-
I can't believe the Bears won that game. The offense REALLY stepped up. The final interception by Harris was pretty much the only time I like the cover-2 (which they were definitely running on that play). It's when the opponents need a lot of yards in little time, and the safety just gets to sit back, read the eyes, and break on the ball. Either way, it was awesome to see the Bears pour on some points. Great to see a complete offensive performance. Martz, Cutler, Forte, Hester, and Knox had superb games.
-
Nope. I have said TONS of times on here that I'm not a big fan of three up the gut runs. In almost no situation whatsoever. I hate it unless the other team doesn't have time outs and it's to run out the clock.