Well, scratch the Mike Martz idea

[jason]

Unfortunately, we can shelve that pipe-dream; Mike Martz just went to the Niners.

 

Why is it that the Bears can never get an offensive coordinator who is capable of turning the offense into a weapon feared throughout the league? Oh, wait, we had that guy, and he just got done engineering a great game to win the BCS Championship last night. (Hate how un-Bearlike it may have been, and how it put the defense in bad shape at times, he made our offense a threat that it hasn't been since, and hadn't been for some time before.)

 

Look forward to seeing Turner next year.

[azbearsfan]

Unfortunately, we can shelve that pipe-dream; Mike Martz just went to the Niners.

 

Why is it that the Bears can never get an offensive coordinator who is capable of turning the offense into a weapon feared throughout the league? Oh, wait, we had that guy, and he just got done engineering a great game to win the BCS Championship last night. (Hate how un-Bearlike it may have been, and how it put the defense in bad shape at times, he made our offense a threat that it hasn't been since, and hadn't been for some time before.)

 

Look forward to seeing Turner next year.

 

 

lol Its funny how now Crowton is this guru, yet everybody on these boards have been ripping him for years.

[Connorbear]

Unfortunately, we can shelve that pipe-dream; Mike Martz just went to the Niners.

 

Why is it that the Bears can never get an offensive coordinator who is capable of turning the offense into a weapon feared throughout the league? Oh, wait, we had that guy, and he just got done engineering a great game to win the BCS Championship last night. (Hate how un-Bearlike it may have been, and how it put the defense in bad shape at times, he made our offense a threat that it hasn't been since, and hadn't been for some time before.)

 

Look forward to seeing Turner next year.

Martz is a wack job. I was never interested.

 

Peace

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

Good luck to him in SF. With that horrid pass game he's going to have a tough time...

[jason]

lol Its funny how now Crowton is this guru, yet everybody on these boards have been ripping him for years.

 

You can go back to the old boards. I was always on the side of Crowton.

 

I said that he hurt the team at times by wearing out the defense, but he was also the only offensively minded coach we have had in the past 20 years. To be honest, I never really had a problem, even back then, with a majority passing offense, a "non-Bears" offense. Also, the only difference between the pathetic offenses that we've seen fairly recently and Crowton's offenses is that while both wore out the Bears' defense by putting them back on the field more frequently, at least Crowton's did it with scoring.

[balta1701-A]

So, the pass-happy attack of Mike Martz might on some level be good for Alex Smith, because right now he needs someone who can organize a passing attack, if he can ever stay healthy that is.

 

But the question I have is...the 49ers best weapon offensively has been Frank Gore. I don't care how good Smith becomes at Martz's passing attack, you can't forget Frank Gore.

[DABEARSDABOMB]

Unfortunately, we can shelve that pipe-dream; Mike Martz just went to the Niners.

 

Why is it that the Bears can never get an offensive coordinator who is capable of turning the offense into a weapon feared throughout the league? Oh, wait, we had that guy, and he just got done engineering a great game to win the BCS Championship last night. (Hate how un-Bearlike it may have been, and how it put the defense in bad shape at times, he made our offense a threat that it hasn't been since, and hadn't been for some time before.)

 

Look forward to seeing Turner next year.

While I know deep down there would have been some issues with Martz in Chicago I must admit I'd have been excited to hire him. I still think Mularckey & Sporano would be better choices as OC's but it isn't going to matter as Turner is going to get another season to work with things. I'm guessing it is largely because Turner's success will be tied to Orton/Grossman who are going to get another season. If things work out, both will be back and the Bears will be in the playoffs and heading in the right direction and if things don't work out, well the Bears might find themselves in a slight rebuilding mode.

 

I'm an optimist because I believe strongly in Angelo and to a lesser extent Lovie (although I think Lovie made some awful decisions as a coach this past year) & Grossman (hell of a talent, but there is no denying the step backwards he took for most of the year) and I expect the Bears to be successful again next year.

[DABEARSDABOMB]

lol Its funny how now Crowton is this guru, yet everybody on these boards have been ripping him for years.

I want to quickly remind people that while Crowton was innovtative (he brought the bubble screen to the NFL) he was far from a good offensive coordinator. His show proved to be a gimmick in the NFL. The same would be proven if some guy came to the NFL and decided to run a collegiate like spread offense or the option offense.

 

I am thrilled to death the Bears will never have to deal with Crowton again. I'm not going to deny he isn't a good offensive mind, because I think his system works pretty good in college but it doesn't mean it will work in the pro's where the players are smarter, faster, bigger and well BETTER.

[kyyle23]

You can go back to the old boards. I was always on the side of Crowton.

 

I said that he hurt the team at times by wearing out the defense, but he was also the only offensively minded coach we have had in the past 20 years.

 

What defense did Gary Crowton wear down before he left the team before the season was over? I forget, because I really remember the Gary Crowton era offense sucking.

 

Only offensive minded coach in the last 20 years? Is that discounting Ron turners first run when Erik Kramer and Curtis Conway broke records? From what I remember, that offense was pretty damn good

 

To be honest, I never really had a problem, even back then, with a majority passing offense, a "non-Bears" offense. Also, the only difference between the pathetic offenses that we've seen fairly recently and Crowton's offenses is that while both wore out the Bears' defense by putting them back on the field more frequently, at least Crowton's did it with scoring.

 

And remind me when Gary Crowtons offense was scoring.

 

Was it in 1999, when Shane Mathews was the QB and Curtis Enis was the RB and the team went 6-10?(ranked 25th in points per game)

 

Or was it in 2000 when McNown was the QB and James Allen was the RB and the team went 5-11?

(ranked 28th in points per game)

 

Reference

[azbearsfan]

What defense did Gary Crowton wear down before he left the team before the season was over? I forget, because I really remember the Gary Crowton era offense sucking.

 

Only offensive minded coach in the last 20 years? Is that discounting Ron turners first run when Erik Kramer and Curtis Conway broke records? From what I remember, that offense was pretty damn good

And remind me when Gary Crowtons offense was scoring.

 

Was it in 1999, when Shane Mathews was the QB and Curtis Enis was the RB and the team went 6-10?(ranked 25th in points per game)

 

Or was it in 2000 when McNown was the QB and James Allen was the RB and the team went 5-11?

(ranked 28th in points per game)

 

Reference

 

Exactly,

Kramer to Conway was legit. Too bad their best defensive player was crappy Dante Jones.

 

 

I have never heard anyone say good things about Crowton's time here and thought to myself when the announcers were singing his praises that I wished he would have done that here. I find it interesting that people wish for him in hindsight. He is just one of those guys who is good in college and can't hack it in the pros.

[kyyle23]

Exactly,

Kramer to Conway was legit. Too bad their best defensive player was crappy Dante Jones.

I have never heard anyone say good things about Crowton's time here and thought to myself when the announcers were singing his praises that I wished he would have done that here. I find it interesting that people wish for him in hindsight. He is just one of those guys who is good in college and can't hack it in the pros.

 

 

Right, the Spread offense does not work in the NFL because the NFL defenses are too fast. These college OCs look brilliant when they are tacking on points at the expense of horrible defenses and all the sudden Bears fans start pining for the good old days of Gary Crowton because he used to score alot. Except that he didnt score alot, and the bubble screen was worthless, and he quit on the team midseason because he couldnt hack it.

[Iguana]

Good. I didnt want him calling plays for the Bears anyways.

[Iguana]

You can go back to the old boards. I was always on the side of Crowton.

 

I said that he hurt the team at times by wearing out the defense, but he was also the only offensively minded coach we have had in the past 20 years. To be honest, I never really had a problem, even back then, with a majority passing offense, a "non-Bears" offense. Also, the only difference between the pathetic offenses that we've seen fairly recently and Crowton's offenses is that while both wore out the Bears' defense by putting them back on the field more frequently, at least Crowton's did it with scoring.

 

what? He was the OC. not the coach.

[adam]

SF fits his style better than the Bears. I could even see him taking over as HC if SF struggles.

[jason]

What defense did Gary Crowton wear down before he left the team before the season was over? I forget, because I really remember the Gary Crowton era offense sucking.

 

Only offensive minded coach in the last 20 years? Is that discounting Ron turners first run when Erik Kramer and Curtis Conway broke records? From what I remember, that offense was pretty damn good

And remind me when Gary Crowtons offense was scoring.

 

Was it in 1999, when Shane Mathews was the QB and Curtis Enis was the RB and the team went 6-10?(ranked 25th in points per game)

 

Or was it in 2000 when McNown was the QB and James Allen was the RB and the team went 5-11?

(ranked 28th in points per game)

 

Reference

 

1. The defense he wore down was the Bears' defense. And, his offenses didn't suck, but they weren't the best in the league either. If I recall correctly, the Bears had a top-5 passing offense while he was in Chicago. Also, the team was top 10 in yardage. I remember that time vaguely, but what I do remember was the Bears getting a lot of yards, and not getting the points to go along with the yards. Mostly I remember that being the result of turnovers, as our quarterbacks just handed the ball over to the other team via interceptions and fumbles. Given another few years, I think the TDs would have caught up to the yardage.

 

2. Ron Turner's former status as an offensive mind was revoked after the pathetic year of work he put in this year.

[kyyle23]

1. The defense he wore down was the Bears' defense. And, his offenses didn't suck, but they weren't the best in the league either. If I recall correctly, the Bears had a top-5 passing offense while he was in Chicago. Also, the team was top 10 in yardage. I remember that time vaguely, but what I do remember was the Bears getting a lot of yards, and not getting the points to go along with the yards. Mostly I remember that being the result of turnovers, as our quarterbacks just handed the ball over to the other team via interceptions and fumbles. Given another few years, I think the TDs would have caught up to the yardage.

 

Oh yes, now that you say that it makes perfect sense. If it hadnt been for the turnovers, fumbles, and lack of scoring, Gary Crowtons offense would have been great because they got a lot of yardage.

[jason]

Oh yes, now that you say that it makes perfect sense. If it hadnt been for the turnovers, fumbles, and lack of scoring, Gary Crowtons offense would have been great because they got a lot of yardage.

 

Yeah, because it's Crowton's fault that the offensive players couldn't hold onto the ball, and the QBs couldnt' stop throwing it to the other team.

 

Cut the number of turnovers and there is almost a guarantee that there would have been substantially more scoring with all that yardage. Afterall, the field length never increases.

 

Let's just say that we cut 20 turnovers from the numbers...less than half that year (32 fumbles & 22 INTs). And let's just say that only 15 of those drives were in scoring position...which is also modest considering the yardage totals (all the "good" drives weren't 99 yarders). Then let's say that one 3 of those 15 were TDs, a VERY low extraploation. Last but not least, let's say that of the remaining 12, only 8 were converted as FGs. That's 45 more points. That moves the Bears into the middle of the NFL as far as scoring.

 

I realize it's extrapolation, but it's not all that unreasonable.

[nfoligno]

Agreed. I think people forget that Crowton came to us after running a good offense in college. It's not like he suddenly found success at LSU. But his offense simply did not translate to the NFL. He runs that spread system that simply gets eaten up in the NFL. Spurrier is another example of a college coach that tried to run his college offense in the pros, and failed.

 

That is why when teams look at college coaches, the first thing I ask is, what sort of system do they run. Many colleges today run NFL offenses. Those coaches, and players, more often transition to the NFL, while Texas Tech, Florida (QBs) and many others who run college or gimick offenses do not.

[kyyle23]

Yeah, because it's Crowton's fault that the offensive players couldn't hold onto the ball, and the QBs couldnt' stop throwing it to the other team.

 

Cut the number of turnovers and there is almost a guarantee that there would have been substantially more scoring with all that yardage. Afterall, the field length never increases.

 

Let's just say that we cut 20 turnovers from the numbers...less than half that year (32 fumbles & 22 INTs). And let's just say that only 15 of those drives were in scoring position...which is also modest considering the yardage totals (all the "good" drives weren't 99 yarders). Then let's say that one 3 of those 15 were TDs, a VERY low extraploation. Last but not least, let's say that of the remaining 12, only 8 were converted as FGs. That's 45 more points. That moves the Bears into the middle of the NFL as far as scoring.

 

I realize it's extrapolation, but it's not all that unreasonable.

 

Its called dreaming about something that didnt happen, not extrapolation.

 

The offense sucked. The record reflected that, so did the rankings compiled. Crowton sucked as an OC, and he sucked as a HC in college when he left.

[nfoligno]

Oh, where to begin,

 

You say the offense would have been better if not for the turnovers, but how do you think you would have avoided the turnovers? We had average talent (at best) and tried to be explosive. I am sorry, but you are not going to avoid turnovers when you have QBs like ours in '99 (Miller, Mathews, McNown) chucking it downfield. It was Cade's first taste as a starter, and he had 10 of the interceptions. Should that not be expected?

 

In '99, we were able to chuck the ball downfield, and Marcus Robinson did a great job coming down w/ it, but our offense had not consistency. That far more than turnovers was key to our sucking in scoring. We would get a huge pass completion, and follow it up w/ 3 and out. Just because we racked up passing yards does not mean it was a good offense. They were among the worst rushing offenses in the NFL, which is not shock when you have a run pass ration as we did. We threw the ball a LEAGUE LEADING 684 times, compared to being bottom five in rushing attempts, with 396. That is nearly 300 more passing plays than running plays. Sure, game scores were part of that, as was weaker rushing talent, but the reality is, few teams (NE is an exception) can do well w/o even trying to run the ball, and in '99, we didn't.

 

Our high passing totals had far more to do w/ leading the league in attempts. We had 80 more attempts than the next highest, which was GB, and 140 more attempts than the league avereage. Let me put it this way. If Benson finished the year w/ say 1,200 yards, many would probably say that was a good year. But what if you then realized he had 340 carries and average 3.5 ypc? Would you still say it was a good year, or would you simply argue anyone who runs the ball that much will put up yardage, but that it doesn't signify success?

 

I know you fairly well when it comes to what you like and want on offense. Believe it or not, we do not disagree as much as you might think in theory. You want explosive RBs. Even if Benson was what he was considered in the draft, you likely would never love him because he was NEVER going to be an explosive home run hitter. Many would have been happy w/ a RB like Rudi Johnson, and talked about how that would be bear football. You would not complain much if Benson put up Rudi Johnson like numbers, but would not be content either. Similar in the passing game. You do not want a conservative offense based on the run and TOP. You want explosive and big plays. That is fine. I personally think we can strive for both. But the point is, even though Crowton sucked, I think you liked him simply because he "tried" to bring an aggressive offense into a city not know for such.

 

There was much about Crowton I didn't like, but the biggest thing I hated was how he used Cade. I am NOT saying anything to defend Cade. But we had a rookie QB (basically a rookie in his 2nd year too) and put him in a very complex offense. We often had Cade in empty backfield sets. Crowton's offense was based on very quick reads, and the QB/WR being on the same page through adjustments. It was an offense that would be trying for a veteran QB, but for a rookie? I remember the whole time Crowton was here, I watched Minny run an offense opposite from us. In Minny, they too had a young QB (Culpepper) but instead of asking him to do too much, they made a committment to running the ball, and max protecting Culpepper. It was a biatch to get to Pepper those years because they would often send out only two receivers, while everyone blocked. Yea, they had Moss and Carter, but Robinson and Engram were not slouches either. I never understood why we could not do similar. We could still be aggressive, but give the QB time in the pocket. Becasue teams know how pass happy we were, and because we didn't use extra blockers, we really hung our QBs (especially a rookie QB) out to dry. That was my biggest gripe w/ Crowton. His offense "might" have worked w/ a QB like Manning or Brady, and w/ an excellent OL, but w/ the QBs we had, I thought it was a joke. I have little tolerance for coaches who can not adapt a system to the talent at hand, and instead try to force square pegs into round holes.

[jason]

Oh, where to begin,

 

You say the offense would have been better if not for the turnovers, but how do you think you would have avoided the turnovers? We had average talent (at best) and tried to be explosive. I am sorry, but you are not going to avoid turnovers when you have QBs like ours in '99 (Miller, Mathews, McNown) chucking it downfield. It was Cade's first taste as a starter, and he had 10 of the interceptions. Should that not be expected?

 

In '99, we were able to chuck the ball downfield, and Marcus Robinson did a great job coming down w/ it, but our offense had not consistency. That far more than turnovers was key to our sucking in scoring. We would get a huge pass completion, and follow it up w/ 3 and out. Just because we racked up passing yards does not mean it was a good offense. They were among the worst rushing offenses in the NFL, which is not shock when you have a run pass ration as we did. We threw the ball a LEAGUE LEADING 684 times, compared to being bottom five in rushing attempts, with 396. That is nearly 300 more passing plays than running plays. Sure, game scores were part of that, as was weaker rushing talent, but the reality is, few teams (NE is an exception) can do well w/o even trying to run the ball, and in '99, we didn't.

 

Our high passing totals had far more to do w/ leading the league in attempts. We had 80 more attempts than the next highest, which was GB, and 140 more attempts than the league avereage. Let me put it this way. If Benson finished the year w/ say 1,200 yards, many would probably say that was a good year. But what if you then realized he had 340 carries and average 3.5 ypc? Would you still say it was a good year, or would you simply argue anyone who runs the ball that much will put up yardage, but that it doesn't signify success?

 

I know you fairly well when it comes to what you like and want on offense. Believe it or not, we do not disagree as much as you might think in theory. You want explosive RBs. Even if Benson was what he was considered in the draft, you likely would never love him because he was NEVER going to be an explosive home run hitter. Many would have been happy w/ a RB like Rudi Johnson, and talked about how that would be bear football. You would not complain much if Benson put up Rudi Johnson like numbers, but would not be content either. Similar in the passing game. You do not want a conservative offense based on the run and TOP. You want explosive and big plays. That is fine. I personally think we can strive for both. But the point is, even though Crowton sucked, I think you liked him simply because he "tried" to bring an aggressive offense into a city not know for such.

 

There was much about Crowton I didn't like, but the biggest thing I hated was how he used Cade. I am NOT saying anything to defend Cade. But we had a rookie QB (basically a rookie in his 2nd year too) and put him in a very complex offense. We often had Cade in empty backfield sets. Crowton's offense was based on very quick reads, and the QB/WR being on the same page through adjustments. It was an offense that would be trying for a veteran QB, but for a rookie? I remember the whole time Crowton was here, I watched Minny run an offense opposite from us. In Minny, they too had a young QB (Culpepper) but instead of asking him to do too much, they made a committment to running the ball, and max protecting Culpepper. It was a biatch to get to Pepper those years because they would often send out only two receivers, while everyone blocked. Yea, they had Moss and Carter, but Robinson and Engram were not slouches either. I never understood why we could not do similar. We could still be aggressive, but give the QB time in the pocket. Becasue teams know how pass happy we were, and because we didn't use extra blockers, we really hung our QBs (especially a rookie QB) out to dry. That was my biggest gripe w/ Crowton. His offense "might" have worked w/ a QB like Manning or Brady, and w/ an excellent OL, but w/ the QBs we had, I thought it was a joke. I have little tolerance for coaches who can not adapt a system to the talent at hand, and instead try to force square pegs into round holes.

 

First and foremost, I never said that Crowton didn't make mistakes. With an inexperienced QB, and a good D, he should have run much more than he did. However, the fact that he was able to get such stats from the team he had, proves his quality as an OC.

 

I think you misinterpret what I want and like. I like the explosive style homerun hitters; you have that right. But I like a team that produces. What we have had for far too long in Chicago is a team that doesn't produce on offense. As a result, I want and like any coach willing to come in, give it a chance, take some risks, and try to win. I don't want a coach like John Shoop who called games like an absolute pussy. I despise the playing not to lose mentality, the game-manager mentality, the passive "if we score 20 we should win" mentality. The offense is named such because of what it is supposed to do; it is supposed to go on the offensive. At least you had that part right - the reason I liked Crowton was that at least he tried. He may not have done everything the smartest way, but at least he took shots. In other words...

 

Crowton is to Jalen Rose as Shoop is to Trenton Hassell. Crowton/Rose score because they take lots of shots, some not so well thought out. Shoop/Hassell don't score because they don't take shots. To be honest, it makes me think of Brett Farv. He continues to sling it all over the field, and despite the fact that he's more likely to throw into triple coverage than any QB in history, he puts up stats because he keeps winging it in there.

 

As for styles, I could care less as long as the team produces. If Benson produced at the rate of a good back (4+ypr), and the Bears continued to win as they ran out the clock, I'd be elated. I would know the Bears still had a chance to score, but were also grinding the clock. In fact, I'm snickering right now just thinking how nice it would be to have our version of Mariano Rivera, knowing that if we get up by two scores, we can run with success and win the game. For the past 20 years or so that strategy would not have worked. Unfortunately, the Shoop types still try that strategy even though the attempts are unsuccessful, and the 3 and outs pile up. Crowton types get up by 20 and think about the next way to step on the opponent's neck, going for the kill, trying to demoralize the opponent in case there is a rematch.

 

Last but not least, how could the Bears have avoided the turnovers? Well, it's exactly as you said, max protect the young QB (something I couldn't figure out either), and throw to MRob & Engram. Find the TE a bit more. Run a bit more. It was obvious even to the biggest Crowton fan that the Bears' offense was unbalanced.

[nfoligno]

Couple things.

 

One. I think you have to go back and remember the situation when Shoop came in. Crowton was the OC prior to him, and as you said, took a lot of chances. We turned it over a lot, and weren't a successful offense. We put a ton of pressure on our own defense. Crowton became vilified. Exit Crowton and enter Shoop. Shoop was w/o quesiton the anti-crowton. I just remember that back then, many liked Shoop simply because he did run the ball, something Crowton didn't know how to do. Also, while he was FAR from explosive, I think you forget how successful Booker was in his scheme.

 

Two. I recall all too well prior to 2001, Jauron behind the mic talking about how conservative our offense would be. Not his words, but his meaning. IMHO, it was our defensive minded HC who wanted the conservative offense. That is part of the reason I don't blame Shoop as much as you.

 

Three. I have said this before, but while I am NOT a fan of Shoop, despite what you likely think, I at the same time wonder if he would have been a tad more aggressive if he were given more pieces to work w/. He didn't have a homerun hitting RB. Far from it. He didn't have a QB w/ a great arm. Miller was never a great QB, and was often injured. How aggressive could you be w/ QBs like Mathews, Stewart, Burris and the like? Go back and look at how much Angelo ignored the offense when Shoop was in charge. Our best WR was a possession WR, and our 2nd best was a downfield threat that couldn't catch. No RB w/ speed and no QB with a great arm. I am sorry, but while I totally understand what you are saying, if you tried to make the players Shoop had to work w/ a high powered one, it would have been even uglier than it was.

 

Back to Crowton, I simply feel he sucked worse. It is beyond me how any NFL coach can believe we can run the ball so little and be effective, unless you have a QB like Brady, which we didn't. I will simply never forget/forgive for trying to use a rookie Qb the way he did.

 

One final point. I too want an offense that tries to score, as opposed to trying not to lose games. That is why I was disappointed when we hired Lovie. Great offensive minds are not in abundance, and usually to get one, you have to be willing to make the guy a HC. Our continually hiring HCs who were formed DCs is a great part of the problem. As a management, we have put the focus on the defense over the offense. I would further point to the players were brought in. We have not exactly filled our offense w/ big time weapons. So to me, while our offense is a problem, I think Phillips and Angelo are key in blame for this. Until our managment makes a real committment to the offense, I find it more difficult to lay all blame at the feet of the OC. The only exception is Shea, who I felt was simply is so over his head it was embarrasing.

[jason]

Couple things.

 

One. I think you have to go back and remember the situation when Shoop came in. Crowton was the OC prior to him, and as you said, took a lot of chances. We turned it over a lot, and weren't a successful offense. We put a ton of pressure on our own defense. Crowton became vilified. Exit Crowton and enter Shoop. Shoop was w/o quesiton the anti-crowton. I just remember that back then, many liked Shoop simply because he did run the ball, something Crowton didn't know how to do. Also, while he was FAR from explosive, I think you forget how successful Booker was in his scheme.

 

Two. I recall all too well prior to 2001, Jauron behind the mic talking about how conservative our offense would be. Not his words, but his meaning. IMHO, it was our defensive minded HC who wanted the conservative offense. That is part of the reason I don't blame Shoop as much as you.

 

Three. I have said this before, but while I am NOT a fan of Shoop, despite what you likely think, I at the same time wonder if he would have been a tad more aggressive if he were given more pieces to work w/. He didn't have a homerun hitting RB. Far from it. He didn't have a QB w/ a great arm. Miller was never a great QB, and was often injured. How aggressive could you be w/ QBs like Mathews, Stewart, Burris and the like? Go back and look at how much Angelo ignored the offense when Shoop was in charge. Our best WR was a possession WR, and our 2nd best was a downfield threat that couldn't catch. No RB w/ speed and no QB with a great arm. I am sorry, but while I totally understand what you are saying, if you tried to make the players Shoop had to work w/ a high powered one, it would have been even uglier than it was.

 

Back to Crowton, I simply feel he sucked worse. It is beyond me how any NFL coach can believe we can run the ball so little and be effective, unless you have a QB like Brady, which we didn't. I will simply never forget/forgive for trying to use a rookie Qb the way he did.

 

One final point. I too want an offense that tries to score, as opposed to trying not to lose games. That is why I was disappointed when we hired Lovie. Great offensive minds are not in abundance, and usually to get one, you have to be willing to make the guy a HC. Our continually hiring HCs who were formed DCs is a great part of the problem. As a management, we have put the focus on the defense over the offense. I would further point to the players were brought in. We have not exactly filled our offense w/ big time weapons. So to me, while our offense is a problem, I think Phillips and Angelo are key in blame for this. Until our managment makes a real committment to the offense, I find it more difficult to lay all blame at the feet of the OC. The only exception is Shea, who I felt was simply is so over his head it was embarrasing.

 

 

One, I have forgotten nothing when it comes to the Shoop era. I have never hated someone associated with the Bears more. Booker did OK, but that was more a result of the fact that the Bears had to pass some time, and Booker was the primary target. It's the inverse of Crowton, except that the passing game produces large chunks ang deceives about how successful a team/player is.

 

Two, I didn't forget the Jauron nonsense. Remember, I hated them both (and Blache to a lesser extent). But I was willing to give Jauron and his bogus coach of the year award another chance if he dumped Shoop. He didn't , and he was rightfully sent packing.

 

Three, I think it is odd that Crowton was able to be aggressive (over aggressive) with nearly the exact same players that Shoop had. There is absolutely no excuse that is acceptable. I think you, and anyone else that sides with Shoop, forget how stupid conservative he was. It wasn't about taking more chances, it was about taking any chances. If Shoop played poker, he'd fold pocket aces before the flop, just to be on the safe side. When he came in people were happy that the Bears had a running game, and at first I liked the idea. I wanted more balance as well. But when I realized he was going to coach like a frightened 10-year old, I knew it was going to be a horrible tenure.

 

Plain and simple, Shoop and Crowton are polar opposites - Crowton took nothing but chances, and Shoop took none. I'd rather have a guy who takes chances as opposed to a timid bitch like Shoop. At least then there is the potential for big scoring and a dangerous offiense. Afterall, if the purpose of the Shoop "strategy" is to save the Bears' defense, which it surely didn't do with the perpetual 3 and outs, then you might as well throw caution to the wind and try to score a ton...either way you're leaving the defense out to dry.

[Connorbear]

Crowton sucked - period. Yeah, he wasn't as bad as Shoop but he sucked neverless.

 

Peace

[jason]

Crowton sucked - period. Yeah, he wasn't as bad as Shoop but he sucked neverless.

 

Peace

 

Well, that we can agree upon. However, he probably sucked much less than most of the OCs the Bears have had over the last two decades. if Crowton were given a few more years, and a little more talent, I feel he would have turned into the next Mike Martz, Bill Bellichek type. He would have been thought of as an offensive genius.

 

Give Shoop more time and more talent, and he'd still call for the bubble-screen on 3rd and 14.