Wesson44 Posted March 13, 2015 Report Share Posted March 13, 2015 Looking at our last three coaches what has been our real problem over these years. Given we have had 6 winning seasons, 2 seasons of being a 500 team and 8 loosing seasons in the last 16 years. So I ask you this who was the better coach? Also what plays the most important part of a winning season...a great defense or a great offence? In bold are our winning seasons with how many points we scored (PF) and what we gave up (PA) We in those 6 years averaged on offense 21.5 points per game while the defense gave up an average of 15.6 PF PA 2014 NFL Chicago Bears 5-11 319 442 -123 Trestman 2013 NFL Chicago Bears 8-8 445 478 -33 Trestman 2012 NFL Chicago Bears 10-6 375 277 98 Smith *Missed Playoffs 2011 NFL Chicago Bears 8-8 353 341 12 Smith 2010 NFL Chicago Bears 11-5 334 286 48 Smith *Lost Conf 2009 NFL Chicago Bears 7-9 327 375 -48 Smith 2008 NFL Chicago Bears 9-7 375 350 25 Smith 2007 NFL Chicago Bears 7-9 334 348 -14 Smith 2006 NFL Chicago Bears 13-3 427 255 172 Smith *Lost SB 2005 NFL Chicago Bears 11-5 260 202 58 Smith *Lost Div 2004 NFL Chicago Bears 5-11 231 331 -100 Smith 2003 NFL Chicago Bears 7-9 283 346 -63 Jauron 2002 NFL Chicago Bears 4-12 281 379 -98 Jauron 2001 NFL Chicago Bears 13-3 338 203 135 Jauron *Lost Div 2000 NFL Chicago Bears 5-11 216 355 -139 Jauron 1999 NFL Chicago Bears 6-10 272 341 -69 Jauron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASHKUM BEAR Posted March 13, 2015 Report Share Posted March 13, 2015 They have not draft well or developed players for the past 10 years. That will kill any coach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 13, 2015 Report Share Posted March 13, 2015 Bingo. Smith had the peak of all the defensive talent. Jauron was there just in the beginning of that. So it makes sense Smith has better numbers. However, all that...and none of the 3 are good enough. They have not draft well or developed players for the past 10 years. That will kill any coach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted March 13, 2015 Report Share Posted March 13, 2015 Awhile back Stan Van Gundy said in basketball he thinks it's optimal to have a good offensive coach coach a good defensive team and vise versa. The offensive head coach will optimize his defensive talent to play at a good enough level, and again vise versa. I think that same logic should stretch to the NFL as well. The Bears haven't had that dynamic in the past. We've had Lovie, who was a defensive guy with a lot invested into the defensive side of the ball. Then we had the opposite with Trestman. This year though, even with the trade of Marshall, we still have a lot invested in the offensive side of the ball(high draft picks and Jay/Forte/Bennett/Bushrod/Royal/Slaus) but have a defensive minded head coach. I think that dynamic is one set up for success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted March 13, 2015 Report Share Posted March 13, 2015 Wesson, I don't think it comes down to one unit over another. If you look at the one trend with all those numbers is we never had a losing record with a postive pts differential, and never had a winning record when we had a negative differential (regardless of how many pts we scored or allowed). Our best year was in 2006 when we had +172 and made it to the SB. Looking at the teams with consistent success, they also don't have huge drop-offs from starters to the guys at the bottom of their 53-man roster. New England is the master of the role player, and guys aren't really backups compared to situational players. Our roster has mainly been very vanilla with starters and subs, and there has always been a pretty steep drop-off. So sometimes improving the bottom of the roster is just as important as improving the top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesson44 Posted March 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2015 Wesson, I don't think it comes down to one unit over another. If you look at the one trend with all those numbers is we never had a losing record with a postive pts differential, and never had a winning record when we had a negative differential (regardless of how many pts we scored or allowed). Our best year was in 2006 when we had +172 and made it to the SB. Looking at the teams with consistent success, they also don't have huge drop-offs from starters to the guys at the bottom of their 53-man roster. New England is the master of the role player, and guys aren't really backups compared to situational players. Our roster has mainly been very vanilla with starters and subs, and there has always been a pretty steep drop-off. So sometimes improving the bottom of the roster is just as important as improving the top. True....but I think in Tresmans first year we had the high powered offense #2 in the NFL in scoring but we finished at 8-8 why,...,the defense sucked what was the year the Ravens had the best defense and a sorry offense and won the Super Bowl? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted March 13, 2015 Report Share Posted March 13, 2015 True....but I think in Tresmans first year we had the high powered offense #2 in the NFL in scoring but we finished at 8-8 why,...,the defense sucked what was the year the Ravens had the best defense and a sorry offense and won the Super Bowl? Baltimore won in Lovie's last year (Seattle won in Trestman's first). Also, you were way off on that Ravens team, they were actually 10th in scoring (398) and 12th in pts allowed (344). If you look back over the past decade, teams with better offenses (scoring) have won 6 out of the last 10. PIT x2, GB, and SEA all had stronger defenses than offenses when they won (and GB had a great offense too). Pittsburgh is the only team to win a SB with a team that ranked in the 20's in scoring over that period. This would lead me to believe that you want a top 10 offense and a top 20 defense at minimum, but a top 10 defense and top 20 offense may not give you enough pts to be competitive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesson44 Posted March 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2015 Baltimore won in Lovie's last year (Seattle won in Trestman's first). Also, you were way off on that Ravens team, they were actually 10th in scoring (398) and 12th in pts allowed (344). If you look back over the past decade, teams with better offenses (scoring) have won 6 out of the last 10. PIT x2, GB, and SEA all had stronger defenses than offenses when they won (and GB had a great offense too). Pittsburgh is the only team to win a SB with a team that ranked in the 20's in scoring over that period. This would lead me to believe that you want a top 10 offense and a top 20 defense at minimum, but a top 10 defense and top 20 offense may not give you enough pts to be competitive. No I was talking about when they won in 2000 with the 2nd ranked D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted March 13, 2015 Report Share Posted March 13, 2015 No I was talking about when they won in 2000 with the 2nd ranked D Believe it or not that Ravens offense actually ranked 14th in the league that year. 4th in rushing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted March 13, 2015 Report Share Posted March 13, 2015 No I was talking about when they won in 2000 with the 2nd ranked D Oh yeah 2000, I thought you meant their last one. I really don't know how relevant that is from 15 years ago though. The game has evolved. For the longest time it was defense and running the ball. Now I am not so sure. Just looking at last year, using PF/PA, of the top 10 PF teams, 8 made the playoffs, and two did not (PHI 10-6, NO 7-9). Compare that to PA, where only 5/10 teams made the playoffs. The same number of teams (5) were in the top 10 in rushing, and 5 others were in the top 10 in passing. So a balanced offense seems to be the best, and offense is more important than defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.