GakMan23 Posted May 23, 2016 Report Share Posted May 23, 2016 http://www.chicagobears.com/news/article-1...541ab3398#start DeAndre Houston-Carson is the sleeper that is going to surprise a lot of people in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted May 24, 2016 Report Share Posted May 24, 2016 http://www.chicagobears.com/news/article-1...541ab3398#start DeAndre Houston-Carson is the sleeper that is going to surprise a lot of people in my opinion. What is crazy is that we had 6 players in the top 100 and those did not include Bush, Hall, or Braverman who figure to be in the mix as well. If White ends up near his potential, our last two drafts could potentially include 11 new starters: White, Goldman, Grasu, Langford, Amos, Floyd, Whitehair, Bullard, Hall/Bush, Houston-Carson, and Braverman. I didn't include Howard or Kwiatkoski but they should figure into the rotation or Kwiat on ST. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'TD' Posted May 24, 2016 Report Share Posted May 24, 2016 The starters will be because of past regime failures and players lost to this current regime changes that has been massive. It's not a vindication of the players until it is shown what they can do on the field. Amos is a perfect example of someone that is not good by NFL standards, but started by need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted May 24, 2016 Report Share Posted May 24, 2016 The starters will be because of past regime failures and players lost to this current regime changes that has been massive. It's not a vindication of the players until it is shown what they can do on the field. Amos is a perfect example of someone that is not good by NFL standards, but started by need. That's actually a valid and good point. If something mediocre replaces something horrible, it doesn't mean the mediocre item is suddenly a success. It's just an improvement over something that should have never been accepted in the first place. Add that to the fact that new management often wants to change schemes, which basically requires a change, and many just want to bring in "their guys". If these guys do well on the field and turn the team around? Yeah, great job. If they continue to tread water around the .500 level, then there is no significant meaning to "X new starters". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted May 24, 2016 Report Share Posted May 24, 2016 The starters will be because of past regime failures and players lost to this current regime changes that has been massive. It's not a vindication of the players until it is shown what they can do on the field. Amos is a perfect example of someone that is not good by NFL standards, but started by need. Are you saying Amos is not a starting Safety in the NFL and wouldn't start for another team? He may not be a Pro-Bowl Safety but he definitely is an NFL Starter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearFan2000 Posted May 24, 2016 Report Share Posted May 24, 2016 Most new staffs and regimes make changes to schemes, systems, and roster because they bring with them their own schemes and systems. It would be abnormal otherwise and the reason Pace, Fox, and Fangio are here changing things is because the mess the previous regime left them with. Emery, Trestman, Tucker turned the Bears into an embarrassment. Change was needed and change has been happening. The Bears needed to get younger, the moves made have been geared towards doing that. A culture change was desired and I think needed and that has been addressed. Time will tell how the drafts shake out on the field but when was the last time the Bears were lauded by a large number of sources for their draft classes. We have been more often than not in recent years one of the teams that made people scratch their heads and laugh at us on draft day. Personally I've been pleased in general with the first two drafts and the moves we've made in FA. Have I agreed with every pick or move? No, but I have a lot more optimism in this FO and staff than I have had in years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted May 24, 2016 Report Share Posted May 24, 2016 Most new staffs and regimes make changes to schemes, systems, and roster because they bring with them their own schemes and systems. It would be abnormal otherwise and the reason Pace, Fox, and Fangio are here changing things is because the mess the previous regime left them with. Emery, Trestman, Tucker turned the Bears into an embarrassment. Change was needed and change has been happening. The Bears needed to get younger, the moves made have been geared towards doing that. A culture change was desired and I think needed and that has been addressed. Time will tell how the drafts shake out on the field but when was the last time the Bears were lauded by a large number of sources for their draft classes. We have been more often than not in recent years one of the teams that made people scratch their heads and laugh at us on draft day. Personally I've been pleased in general with the first two drafts and the moves we've made in FA. Have I agreed with every pick or move? No, but I have a lot more optimism in this FO and staff than I have had in years. Shea McClellin would like to have a word with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted May 24, 2016 Report Share Posted May 24, 2016 Maybe you can find him in the unemployment line after training camp in NE ends... Shea McClellin would like to have a word with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'TD' Posted May 24, 2016 Report Share Posted May 24, 2016 Are you saying Amos is not a starting Safety in the NFL and wouldn't start for another team? He may not be a Pro-Bowl Safety but he definitely is an NFL Starter. I think allowing a 117 quarterback rating against you isn't good. Maybe he would start on some teams, but that speaks more about the other teams then the quality of his play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted May 24, 2016 Report Share Posted May 24, 2016 I think allowing a 117 quarterback rating against you isn't good. Maybe he would start on some teams, but that speaks more about the other teams then the quality of his play. You are using QB Rating against to evaluate a Safety? Is that the Passer rating when he is on the field, when balls are thrown to his side of the field, to receivers he is defending? That is a pretty subjective stat. I could see if that was a CB, but even then, without a pass rush, DB's can't cover a receiver for more than a few seconds. He made the All-Rookie Team and was mentioned in numerous media season reviews as a top 10 rookie. I would say his relative play would make him a starter on at least half the teams in the league, and as a 2nd year player, and 5th rounder, that is pretty solid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'TD' Posted May 24, 2016 Report Share Posted May 24, 2016 You are using QB Rating against to evaluate a Safety? Is that the Passer rating when he is on the field, when balls are thrown to his side of the field, to receivers he is defending? That is a pretty subjective stat. I could see if that was a CB, but even then, without a pass rush, DB's can't cover a receiver for more than a few seconds. He made the All-Rookie Team and was mentioned in numerous media season reviews as a top 10 rookie. I would say his relative play would make him a starter on at least half the teams in the league, and as a 2nd year player, and 5th rounder, that is pretty solid. When thrown at him, they also completed 80% of the passes against him. Edit: We can agree do disagree on his talent if you want, but I felt the whole secondary needed replaced from last year. Hopefully, the Bears D can step up next year. The defense was in the top 10 of hurries(so pressure wasn't the biggest problem imho), but 26th in QB rating against. He is alright as a filler player, but an upgrade is needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted May 25, 2016 Report Share Posted May 25, 2016 Fwiw, Kam Chancellor had a worse completion % against. I think Amos will be fine and his cover skills will come around. He was targeted 25 times in over 1000 snaps so it's not like he was being picked on or anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'TD' Posted May 25, 2016 Report Share Posted May 25, 2016 Fwiw, Kam Chancellor had a worse completion % against. I think Amos will be fine and his cover skills will come around. He was targeted 25 times in over 1000 snaps so it's not like he was being picked on or anything. They completed 20 of those targets, and only chancellor was the only worse of the "top 38" safeties they picked in that category. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted May 25, 2016 Report Share Posted May 25, 2016 They completed 20 of those targets, and only chancellor was the only worse of the "top 38" safeties they picked in that category. So less than 2 receptions a game? That doesn't sound all that bad considering he played the most snaps of anyone on defense. It looks like an ugly number on paper but I don't think it really tells the whole story....If he was so bad, why weren't teams targeting him more? How was he in the other 900+ snaps where he wasn't targeted? Were the lack of targets due to the fact that he was playing solid coverage the vast majority of the time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted May 25, 2016 Report Share Posted May 25, 2016 My perspective is a bit different. While we never really saw Amos make great plays that changed a game, we also never saw him play behind good ILBs. Amos was out there learning on the fly and routinely watched SMC, Jones, and Anderson constantly over-run their gaps, or fail to run and cover their assignments. For him to contain all that and keep big plays from happening over and over was pretty good IMO. Add in that he had another rookie in HJQ, or Prosinski, learning on-the-job beside him for several games. Let's see what he does with some guys in front of him that can actually make the plays they are supposed to make and allow him to just focus on his assignment. The fact we finished 14th in the entire league for yards given up was in large part due to his play at Safety where he kept it all in front of him. That's just 1 spot behind the "vaunted" Vikings defense (if you listen to the pundits) and ahead of the "good" Packers defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'TD' Posted May 25, 2016 Report Share Posted May 25, 2016 My perspective is a bit different. While we never really saw Amos make great plays that changed a game, we also never saw him play behind good ILBs. Amos was out there learning on the fly and routinely watched SMC, Jones, and Anderson constantly over-run their gaps, or fail to run and cover their assignments. For him to contain all that and keep big plays from happening over and over was pretty good IMO. Add in that he had another rookie in HJQ, or Prosinski, learning on-the-job beside him for several games. Let's see what he does with some guys in front of him that can actually make the plays they are supposed to make and allow him to just focus on his assignment. The fact we finished 14th in the entire league for yards given up was in large part due to his play at Safety where he kept it all in front of him. That's just 1 spot behind the "vaunted" Vikings defense (if you listen to the pundits) and ahead of the "good" Packers defense. I blame offense for 14th in the league in yards given up on D. The Bears were 22 in yards against and 22nd against the run(4th against the pass). It's indicative of the offense being 23rd in points scored, while the deffense allowing the 13th most points. When a team gets up on you, they run more and the Bears were actively trying to keep the games close by dominating the time of possession which they did (over 31 minutes) by running (11th in attempts) and not passing (23rd in attempts). That's why I think the Bears were 14th in yards given up. Edit: I incorrectly said they gave up 20th most points, they gave up the 13th most, or were 20th worst in giving up points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted May 25, 2016 Report Share Posted May 25, 2016 What an intriguing and convincing thread. At this point I'm not sure how I feel about Amos. PRO -He played behind turd ILBs, which made him do a lot. -He was second on the team in tackles. By two. -He wasn't targeted that much, which is often thought of as a big positive for DBs. -He played the most snaps on defense. CON -Nearly every time he was targeted, they completed it. -He may not have been targeted much because teams ran the hell out of the ball on the Bears D. Personally, I think he'll have a monster year because he won't be playing behind a broken front 7. The DEs weren't great last year, which meant LBs had to step forward. Then the ILBs were bad, which meant the safeties had to step up. Adding Hicks up front is big. Adding Trevathan and Freeman means Amos can basically ignore rush defense (not really, but you get it). I don't know how this year will play out, but I can't imagine a scenario where the secondary has a harder job than last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted May 25, 2016 Report Share Posted May 25, 2016 I think the easy takeaway is simply that the jury isn't out... Let's see how he plays with another year under Fangio and Donnatel's teaching. Let's see how the improved DL positively impacts the DB's. Let's see how the improved LB corps positively impacts the DB's. And hopefully, let's see if an improved offense also helps... What an intriguing and convincing thread. At this point I'm not sure how I feel about Amos. PRO -He played behind turd ILBs, which made him do a lot. -He was second on the team in tackles. By two. -He wasn't targeted that much, which is often thought of as a big positive for DBs. -He played the most snaps on defense. CON -Nearly every time he was targeted, they completed it. -He may not have been targeted much because teams ran the hell out of the ball on the Bears D. Personally, I think he'll have a monster year because he won't be playing behind a broken front 7. The DEs weren't great last year, which meant LBs had to step forward. Then the ILBs were bad, which meant the safeties had to step up. Adding Hicks up front is big. Adding Trevathan and Freeman means Amos can basically ignore rush defense (not really, but you get it). I don't know how this year will play out, but I can't imagine a scenario where the secondary has a harder job than last year. 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.