jason

If by that you mean the Bears defense playing against an opponent's backup QB, yet the Bears NEVER blow out an opponent...then, yes. I thought the same thing...kinda. The difference of course is that the GB backup simply played well, and the Bears' defense is simply designed to allow for a brazillion short routes, which is incredibly helpful for a noob QB.

The funny part to me is that ANYONE who claims to be a Bears fan is actually taking sides with the punter on this, when the Chicago Bears own field is an ACL tear waiting to happen. Unless you have a track record of complaining about the garbage sod allowed at Soldier Field, then you're nothing better than the pot calling the kettle black.

Hilarious.

In the six games since the bye week Olsen has the following stats: 23 targets 13 catches 120 yards 3 TDs And it appears to be getting worse. In the last three games? 3 targets 3 catches Martz is severely underutilizing a dangerous pass-catching TE. And we all called it at the beginning of the year. I was hoping it wouldn't happen, but it appears that the trend continues.

This is a very good article...it reflects what I've been saying for several weeks now. The Bears could easily have lost to Detroit, Green Bay, Buffalo, Philly, and Detroit again. Maybe the football gods are finally shining on the Bears? After all, Farv is having his worst year - professional and public - in a very long time.

Whoever said recently that we have had all sorts of luck with opponents' injuries has nailed it yet again. Really, I can't remember the last time a team faced so many opponents that had significant injuries just before the game.

Finally, something we all mostly agree on. My thoughts: 1) He is, was, and always has been overrated. If he hadn't built up the media fellatio over the years, they'd be ripping him like they do Cutler for every single forced throw. Instead, "Oh, he's such a gun slinger!" I'd go so far as to say that he's not even one of the top 5 QBs of all time; it's not even worth debating. 2) His flip-flopping with the Packers and the Vikings has created a culture where nobody, except the media, likes him. 3) His consecutive game streak is trumped up like Ripken's was. There were several times he played when he shouldn't have, and his team suffered as a result. Besides, Jim Marshall's streak is MUCH more impressive. 4) Chris Berman and John Madden are both in dark closets crying inconsolably into their autographed Farv jerseys. 5) I've always hated him, and it's amazing how easily everyone overlooks the various negative things that he has done (i.e. vicodin, sending photos of his junk to Jenn Sterger not long after his wife battled cancer, lying down on purpose to give Strahan the sack record...) Good riddance.

Very clever reply. Is it impossible for you to see how a team with guys like Cutler, Hester, Knox, Urlacher, Briggs, and Peppers could make one or two big plays that could turn the tide of a game? They often win in spite of the coaching, in spite of the scheme, and are vastly underutilized.

Very good post. A bit optimistic, but nonetheless very good. I just wish that JA, Lovie, and crew would put a couple more life preservers on deck just in case it is the Titanic. Lord knows the Bears needed something else to avoid the iceberg that hit against New England.

Nope. You're putting words in my mouth. They can win on talent without being overly talented. All it takes is one or two of the studs that the Bears do have to perform well enough to overcome inept coaching. BTW - I'm neither a JA lover or hater. I think he's average because he does some things well and some very poorly.

Likewise, bub. Try taking off your rose-colored glasses before telling people to piss off. When there is a fire, you take care of it while it's manageable. You don't wait until there are 50ft flames bursting through the roof. It's not JUST that the Bears got their asses handed to them by the best team in the league. It's that the Patriots did EXACTLY what everyone expected them to do, and the coaches changed nothing. Meanwhile, the opportunities the players did have they screwed up...not that there were many real opportunities to excel. Maybe you're just content with mediocrity and slipping into the playoffs only to get trounced. I'm not. It irritates me beyond belief to see a team make the same mistakes over and over again. Einstein said it best: Instanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

But wasn't Brady getting "solid, easy completions" when the Bears DIDN'T blitz as well? The Jim Johnson, send the house, old Philadelphia Eagles defensive strategy may not have worked, but at least it's trying something instead of watching the defense get continually gutted with a butter knife.

I know hindsight is 20/20, and nobody predicted how bad it would be, but your post made me laugh for the following reasons: 1) You said, "We don't blitz like that at all so we'll have LBs in better position to stop short inside routes." - Uhhh...so much for that. 2) You said, "I'm guessing we'll be able to get some pressure on him." - Couldn't be further from the truth. 3) You said, "You need this to avoid the big plays." - Correct, too bad it didn't happen. 4) You said, "We're not going to shut these guys out but at least make them work for it and the tackling better be outstanding because these quick guys on the underneath routes can go upfield in a hurry." - Correct/Incorrect/Correct. The Bears surely didn't shut the Pats out, but they didn't exactly have to work for it either. As for the latter part, it sure did seem like every time Welker caught the ball he turned it up for 6-10 more. 5) You said, "I saw lots of big running gains so there's a reason the Patriots are ranked 19th in run defense." - Funny, but it's yet another game - what is that 13 now? - that the Bears' didn't have more than a handfull of decent running holes. Not surprising. 6) You said, "That ranking might be worse if teams weren't playing catch up in the 4th quarter." - DING DING DING!! 7) You said, "We need to stick with our offensive formula and run first on these guys. Keep putting together long drives while Brady sits on the bench." - That's easier said than done, especially when the OL never really lets the offense run consistently. And that whole "Brady on the bench" thing surely didn't happen. 8) You said, "Patriots are 31st in pass defense. Is it because teams are passing to keep up?" - DING DING DING!! 9) You said, "I expect lots of blitzes early on to test our Oline." - I didn't really see a ton of blitzes, but it was probably because the Pats got into the backfield at will. 10) You said, "Overall we'll need our best offensive effort of the season to win this one. We're going to get opportunities to do that can we take advantage of them?" - In the end it didn't really matter what offensive effort was given by the Bears. Sure, a better performance would have made the game look better, but it was the defense that was necessary. They were the ones that needed to step up to allow for a chance at success. Unfortunately, a Lovie Smith team will never abandon the cover-2, and it got exploited by a stud QB...just like I've been saying for numerous weeks. The cover-2 is horrible against teams who have all-star QBs (i.e. most of the teams that get into the playoffs). No offense intended, but I just found your post to be incredibly wrong and incredibly insightful at the same time.

I COMPLETELY disagree with the notion the Bears were still contending in the 3rd quarter. That's ridiculous. The score was not indicative of how much ass whoopin' was being dished out, and at no time after half were the Bears contending. It matters little whether or not Cutler threw those picks; the game was over already. Now, were they bad picks that if not thrown could have allowed for points? Absolutely. But let's not make the mistake of thinking that if they had scored there was a significant chance of winning. Throwing punches while you're on lying prostrate and getting kicked by multiple people may be fighting back, but it's nonetheless pointless.

I didn't record the game, and I surely wasn't there, but I was wondering why the Bears couldn't throw the same way as the Patriots yesterday. What I mean is, I know Cutler is not Brady, but why wouldn't the 7-15 yard pass patterns be just as effective for the Bears as they were for the Patriots? Would not the Pats' defensive players slip just as the Bears' did? Don't they have to react just as much as the Bears' defense did? Leading up to the game I heard two coaching strategies: 1) Bill Cowher said teams should blitz. 2) Multiple people said the short passing game had an advantage in the snow because reacting to a route is harder than executing a route. It seems the Bears did neither. Hence, the ass-whipping occurred. So, I already know why the Bears didn't blitz: a stubborn embrace of an antiquated, passive cover-2. What I'm not totally sure about is why the Bears didn't have more short to intermediate crossing routes just like the Pats.

No, in that I mean to say that Lovie Smith and Marinelli are not good coaches. They win STRICTLY because of talent, and rarely have players overachieve. What's more, they simply keep running the same scheme, same plan, no matter how bad the team is getting bent over. As far as I'm concerned, it's better to try something new to stop damages and subsequently fail, than it is to watch the leak in the dam slowly drown the entire team.

What I've been saying for several weeks now. Smoke and mirrors. This team should probably be 6-6 or worse.

Which is precisely why good coaches would have made pre-game adjustments all week to shock the Patriots as best as possible, rather than simply accepting that slow death was inevitable.

HORRIBLE throw. What's funny is that I was just telling a friend it's the BEARS that should be running. When you play a team that is vastly superior, you shorten the game as much as possible by running. Side note: WTF was Cutler looking at?

BINGO! Why change the offensive gameplan when the 6-10 yard pass is open all day? Same as a run as far as the NFL timing goes. The clock doesn't stop when they get first downs.

You clearly don't know what I mean. 1) If the front four is the only pressure being sent, it is NOT a change. 2) The Bears have dropped 1 easy INT (Url), and another that was just out of reach (Harris), but it's nonetheless part of the normal gameplan for the players to be in those positions. 3) The Bears special teams is the same as they always have been, no changes whatsoever (except in results). But why would they change that? It's the only reliable aspect of the team. As I said, no changes. (Note: I've seen one or two blitzes in the second half)

What's crazy is, WHO DIDN'T KNOW THIS!? Prior to the game it was common knowledge that the Pats excelled in short passing and the Bears defense was extremely vulnerable in short passing defense. What was changed coming into the game? Nothing.

NOTE: Prior to the game, Cowher mentioned that this game was not one for a typical 4-3 defense or one using a cover-2. He said it was a game to blitz. Granted, that's his M.O., but the Bears' defense is doing NOTHING right now because they can't generate pressure. It's something I've said all year, and I think the sack statistics aren't a reliable way to really judge pressure. Either the Bears get in or they get stuffed. And a lot of the sacks are because the opposing QB just sits in the pocket forever waiting for a WR to get into a hole in the cover-2. Against the Pats, the Bears are getting stuffed continuously. Maybe Lovie should change things up and take action like Cowher suggested. I doubt it.

Positive because it means the Bears probably still win the division. Negative because it will give the Packers a better draft pick than the Bears when it's PAINFULLY clear the Bears aren't as good as their record indicates.

Dilfer isn't salivating...he's masturbating to the game film replays already. This is porn to Dilfer.