Am I drinking koolaid?

[jason]

I keep saying that this team has a very good shot of repeating what they did during the Superbowl year. I tell everyone that the injuries killed the Bears last year, and that the TV sportscasters don't know what the hell they're talking about.

 

Then I see a thread with a theme questioning if the Bears have the best DL in the league. It wasn't totally blown out of the water, so I have to imagine that everyone takes the question seriously and places the Bears DL in the top 5 - rightfully so in my opinion.

 

It's pretty clear the Bears have one of the best, if not the best, LB corp in the NFL.

It's also evident that the Bears have one of the best DB combos in the league with PNut and The Interceptor.

 

The safeties are the only real question mark, and I believe that if Mike Brown can be back, the Bears have one of the best Safety combos in the NFL.

 

So, I ask, why not? Why is it so unrealistic to believe the Bears will be back? We've seen it at least two times in recent past, especially the year the Bears had an offense full of bums, a retarded OC, and a defense that simply wouldn't give in. Not to mention the fact that the Bears have undeniably the best ST in the league.

 

Is it koolaid to think that the offense will be average enough to not completely sabotage what is an otherwise great team?

[azbearsfan]

I keep saying that this team has a very good shot of repeating what they did during the Superbowl year. I tell everyone that the injuries killed the Bears last year, and that the TV sportscasters don't know what the hell they're talking about.

 

Then I see a thread with a theme questioning if the Bears have the best DL in the league. It wasn't totally blown out of the water, so I have to imagine that everyone takes the question seriously and places the Bears DL in the top 5 - rightfully so in my opinion.

 

It's pretty clear the Bears have one of the best, if not the best, LB corp in the NFL.

It's also evident that the Bears have one of the best DB combos in the league with PNut and The Interceptor.

 

The safeties are the only real question mark, and I believe that if Mike Brown can be back, the Bears have one of the best Safety combos in the NFL.

 

So, I ask, why not? Why is it so unrealistic to believe the Bears will be back? We've seen it at least two times in recent past, especially the year the Bears had an offense full of bums, a retarded OC, and a defense that simply wouldn't give in. Not to mention the fact that the Bears have undeniably the best ST in the league.

 

Is it koolaid to think that the offense will be average enough to not completely sabotage what is an otherwise great team?

 

 

Who cares if it is? The best thing about the NFL offseason is there are always a ton of reasons for hope for your team. With parity the way it is and injuries, anything is possible. I say, feel free to feel good.

[nfoligno]

On paper, we have an incredible defense, from the DL, through the LBs and to the secondary. But my issue w/ the defense is (a) injuries and ( coaching. I still believe coaching holds this defense back, and while injuries were big last year, I also still contend coaching hurt the defense, and we have the same system and coaching in place this year. As for injuries, while it is nice to think about what our defense can do when healthy, I think we also have to be realistic and look at player's history. Some players, like Vasher or Tillman, I think we can write off their recent injuries, as they do not have a history of such, but harris, Urlacher and Brown has greater history of injuries, and Urlacher's is considered "chronic", which I think puts into question his ability to be strong for 16+ games.

 

On offense, the question is can the unit even be average, allowing the defense to get it done. I think that is very debatable. Did we upgrade at QB? Not that I recall. We have a totally new group of WRs, and I think it questionable whether we upgraded, and would further wonder how quickly they "mesh" w/ the QBs. Forte "could" be an upgrade, but is a rookie and our depth isn't great. Then there is the OL. I think we upgraded at RT, but I am not sure how much (if at all) we upgraded elsewhere, and our OL was more than one upgrade from being good. On offense, it isn't just one question, but several questions at nearly every position. There may be a lot of hope, but that is a lot of questions which need a positive answer in order to see us simply as solid.

 

I would love to drink the kool-aid w/ you, but simply find it difficult to do so at this point. More than players, coaching prevents me from getting too excited, especially on defense.

[KiLoc69]

It all depends on the OL imo. I think Rex behind a good line can be a Pro Bowl QB. his struggles have always been under a crapload of pressure. Including our tightends, our receiving corp is average at worst. As far as RBs are concerned, I think their Oline dictate most of their success now a days. Teams with good lines seem to be plugging no names into their lineup after their starter goes down with injury and they don't miss a beat. Broncos and Indy have been doin it for years. Greenbay has been doin it the past couple of years to a lesser extent. If our Oline steps up, Forte will be fine.

 

For the record, I don't have much confidence in the line being very good this year as they currently stand. Reuben Brown would make me feel more comfortable even though he's lost weight.

[madlithuanian]

I think I need to spike my kool-aid at the moment....

 

I keep saying that this team has a very good shot of repeating what they did during the Superbowl year. I tell everyone that the injuries killed the Bears last year, and that the TV sportscasters don't know what the hell they're talking about.

 

Then I see a thread with a theme questioning if the Bears have the best DL in the league. It wasn't totally blown out of the water, so I have to imagine that everyone takes the question seriously and places the Bears DL in the top 5 - rightfully so in my opinion.

 

It's pretty clear the Bears have one of the best, if not the best, LB corp in the NFL.

It's also evident that the Bears have one of the best DB combos in the league with PNut and The Interceptor.

 

The safeties are the only real question mark, and I believe that if Mike Brown can be back, the Bears have one of the best Safety combos in the NFL.

 

So, I ask, why not? Why is it so unrealistic to believe the Bears will be back? We've seen it at least two times in recent past, especially the year the Bears had an offense full of bums, a retarded OC, and a defense that simply wouldn't give in. Not to mention the fact that the Bears have undeniably the best ST in the league.

 

Is it koolaid to think that the offense will be average enough to not completely sabotage what is an otherwise great team?

[nfoligno]

In a very large way, I agree.

 

If the OL can play as solid as they did, for example, two years ago, we could see a big improvement on offense. I do not think believe solid play by the OL equals a pro bowl Rex. You allude to this, but the OL is not "solely" responsible for QB protection. IMHO, more than simply DLs attacking Rex, the blitzes have pressured him, and while the OL is partially responsible, they are not solely responsible. IMHO, opponents will continue to send the house, and you can not block the house. When this happens, the QB must find the hot receiver and make quick decisions to take advantage. I have yet to see Rex capable of this.

 

But, I do still agree that if our OL can play significantly better, than the offense as a whole will be better. While I would not expect pro bowl from Rex, I would expect more. I think Rex will always be an inconsistent QB, but if we have a solid OL, we might see more good than bad. Combine that with a solid run game, which a solid OL should provide, and you have the makings of, at least, an average offense, w/ the potential for more.

 

With all that said, I simply do not have great expectations for our OL this year. Many seem to automatically expect upgraded play at LT, but I question that. So few rookies come in and play LT at even an average level. As weak as Tait was last year, I think Williams could be worse. I think Williams can develop into a damn good LT, but question such lofty expectations his rookie year. Then, combine that would our situation at LG. Whether it is Metcalf, St. Clair, or whoever, I do not think our LG situation looks good. That is bad for the LG position specific, and our entire left side as a whole. I think you then can once again see Kreutz trying to do too much, which simply negates his effectiveness usually.

 

I think we should be pretty strong on the right/strong side, but feel our left side could give Forte and our QB problems all year.

 

Finally, I would throw out there the chemistry factor. I am a believer that OL, possibly more than any other unit on the field, needs time together to gell and for chemsitry, and w/o such, usually does not look very good. LT is new. Tait has played RT before, but it has been a while and he has never lined up next to Garza. Likely a new LG as well. So you have 3 likely changes on the OL, and that can have ripple effects on the other two.

 

I would love for the OL to quickly click, but feel that is not very likely, and w/o the OL, the domino effect begins.

[Dabears33]

In the San Diego game, our defense looked top notch. With everyone healthy we looked better than the previous year. But as we all know Mike Brown and Dusty went down. Those were the 2 postions we were with the least amount of depth and it showed. Health is the #1 issue with the defense and our team. I remember the year we went to the Super Bowl everyone believed we had the best depth in the NFL. We have some players, but we need everyone to step it up and stay healthy and we will be contenders THIS year.

[Mongo3451]

I think the kool-aid is strong. There is nothing wrong with optimism. I'm just not there yet. The main question with me this season is this...

 

Will the defense carry the offense or will the offense destroy the defense?

[jason]

In the San Diego game, our defense looked top notch. With everyone healthy we looked better than the previous year. But as we all know Mike Brown and Dusty went down. Those were the 2 postions we were with the least amount of depth and it showed. Health is the #1 issue with the defense and our team. I remember the year we went to the Super Bowl everyone believed we had the best depth in the NFL. We have some players, but we need everyone to step it up and stay healthy and we will be contenders THIS year.

 

That's sort of what I'm getting at. When the Bears were healthy last year, they looked good. They looked like their defense could carry the team, like many other years. And as long as the offense can produce a little bit, between 14-21, I think the D/ST can carry the team through towards wins.

 

Essentially the Bears have added several players on defense:

Dusty, Okwo, Williams, Bazuin, the rookies, and the key...Mike Brown.

 

Without injuries, I don't see why the Bears can't win at least 10 games because of defensive dominance.

[nfoligno]

I have always questioned the line of thinking about how great our defense was before the injuries. What is this based off? 2 1/2 games? We started the season against SD, but take a look at SD's first month. They were not a very good team early in the season, and in fact, were pretty bad. Then we played KC, one of the worst teams in all of football. We held Dallas for the first half. I remember that game well. Defense did well, but I also remember Dallas playing pretty conservative in the first half, and then playing very aggressive in the 2nd half. Especially here in Dallas, all the talk was about how they opened it up in the 2nd half. So injuries were part of it, but only a part.

 

I am not arguing that our defense was hurt by injuries. That is a losing argument. At the same time, I do question whether injuries should have prompted a fall from top 5 to bottom 5. Yea, we lost a lot of good/great players, but also still had quite a lot of good/great players on the field. Even w/ the injuries, we still had a lot of talent, and more talent (I would argue) than many other teams that did better than we did.

 

Cincy, NO, SF, Houston, Stl (to name a few). Even w/ our injuries, did we really have less talent on the field than these teams?

 

Injuries were a part, but to me, coaching was also a big part of it, and that coaching has not changed. Should our defense be good this year? Sure. But will it be so dominating that it can over-come the offense. Of that, I am not so sure.

 

Further, we keep saying that (if healthy) the defense will be great. That nice, but it is realistic? Every team is hit w/ injuries. We may have been hit w/ more than our fair share last year, but we have several players we rely on big time who have a history of injuries (Brown, Harris & Urlacher) and when talking about expectations, shouldn't we factor that?

[madlithuanian]

I too was at that game in San Diego...and while the D looked good until Mike Broand and Dusty got carted off...the O seemed to do everything in their power to give the game away.

 

I just think the O's ineptness is too big to over-come...

 

If anything, the D will keep things close and then start giving in due to mental and physical drain. Much like they did in our Super Bowl run...

 

That's sort of what I'm getting at. When the Bears were healthy last year, they looked good. They looked like their defense could carry the team, like many other years. And as long as the offense can produce a little bit, between 14-21, I think the D/ST can carry the team through towards wins.

 

Essentially the Bears have added several players on defense:

Dusty, Okwo, Williams, Bazuin, the rookies, and the key...Mike Brown.

 

Without injuries, I don't see why the Bears can't win at least 10 games because of defensive dominance.

[Da Bears 88]

I too was at that game in San Diego...and while the D looked good until Mike Broand got carted off.

Wish i knew who this Mike Broand was?

[CrackerDog]

I have always questioned the line of thinking about

 

Who cares what you think!?!?!?!? BEARS ALL THE WAY BABY!!!!!!!!!!!

[madlithuanian]

Apparenlty my kool-aid is spiked...

 

I meant to say "Mike Brown and Dusty..."

 

Wish i knew who this Mike Broand was?

[AZ54]

For the offense to be average we need a surprise (a good one) good play from one guy. I'd like to say it will be Williams but I think he'll be satisfactory. I do not see him being worse than St. Clair at LT. As much as I like our TEs they aren't scoring threats on every play, just first down threats. Forte? I think he'll be good and more versatile than Ced in the receiving game but I don't see him carrying the offense. QBs...nah, they are good with the right ingredients around them but not good enough to make others around them better.

 

If the offense is going to take off it will be at the hands of Devon Hester. We have nobody else who could steal the focus of a defense like he can but he must learn his routes to be effective. After what I saw last year from him it was clear his limited use early on was more his lack of understanding of the offense. I blamed Turner and still think he shares some of that blame but Hester clearly hadn't prepared himself as well as he should have. The other pieces of the puzzle must play decently for him to be succesful but I think they can. I'm just not sure what to expect from Hester at the WR spot.

[nfoligno]

Now here is a dog who's bowl was spiked.

[madlithuanian]

I follow your thought...however I think we need one surprise on offense besides having decent line play. A skill position needs to step up... a WR, QB or RB...

 

For the offense to be average we need a surprise (a good one) good play from one guy. I'd like to say it will be Williams but I think he'll be satisfactory. I do not see him being worse than St. Clair at LT. As much as I like our TEs they aren't scoring threats on every play, just first down threats. Forte? I think he'll be good and more versatile than Ced in the receiving game but I don't see him carrying the offense. QBs...nah, they are good with the right ingredients around them but not good enough to make others around them better.

 

If the offense is going to take off it will be at the hands of Devon Hester. We have nobody else who could steal the focus of a defense like he can but he must learn his routes to be effective. After what I saw last year from him it was clear his limited use early on was more his lack of understanding of the offense. I blamed Turner and still think he shares some of that blame but Hester clearly hadn't prepared himself as well as he should have. The other pieces of the puzzle must play decently for him to be succesful but I think they can. I'm just not sure what to expect from Hester at the WR spot.

[nfoligno]

I believe he was calling for Hester to be the "step up" player to surprise. He also said the OL and other parts would have to play at least decent, but that we need a big time boost from a surprise like Hester.

 

I guess I don't see it that way. To me, it is all about the OL. If the OL is as bad as last year, it will domino and no other unit will be capable of stepping up. QB won't have time, and thus WRs are less likely to do much. No holes means little comes from the RBs too.

 

However, if the OL can play well, I don't think we need any huge playmakers to step forward. Solid OL can allow for a solid, but not spectacular, run game. Solid run game benefits the QB, as defenses can not just tee off him. Also, solid OL means better blockings, which buys the QB time. This also buys the WRs time to run their routes.

 

IMHO, we could have a solid offense w/o a single individual putting up a pro bowl performance, so long as the OL steps up. If the OL looks like it did this year though....well, lets just say Hester could have more return TDs than anyone else on offense.

[AZ54]

Yes that's what I was saying. I didn't imply we'd have a great offense, just that if we're going to be average middle of the pack type of offense we need a skill position player to step up in a big way. Where are we most likely to get points which is what offense is all about. I don't see our Oline becoming very good much less one of the better units in the league. I admit I would love to see that I just don't see it happening with all the changes. So at best IMO they'll be average. QB play at best will be average. RB with the trio we have is again likely to be average at best especially given the Oline they have to work behind. TE will be good to very good but they can't really create much on their own. The only one I see doing this is Hester because he can create so much on his own. If Hester can attract a lot of attention then many other aspects of the offense will look better than they are on their own.

 

IMO Hester is the only player or position we have on offense that could make a D adjust what they do. Will he do that? I'm not very confident but I just don't see any other player or position group that has that potential right now. Consequently I don't expect much from our offense this year but I still think we'll be better than last year.

[Mongo3451]

name='AZ54' date='Jun 25 2008, 10:08 PM' post='41045']

Yes that's what I was saying. I didn't imply we'd have a great offense, just that if we're going to be average middle of the pack type of offense we need a skill position player to step up in a big way. Where are we most likely to get points which is what offense is all about. I don't see our Oline becoming very good much less one of the better units in the league. I admit I would love to see that I just don't see it happening with all the changes. So at best IMO they'll be average. QB play at best will be average. RB with the trio we have is again likely to be average at best especially given the Oline they have to work behind. TE will be good to very good but they can't really create much on their own. The only one I see doing this is Hester because he can create so much on his own. If Hester can attract a lot of attention then many other aspects of the offense will look better than they are on their own.

 

IMO Hester is the only player or position we have on offense that could make a D adjust what they do. Will he do that? I'm not very confident but I just don't see any other player or position group that has that potential right now. Consequently I don't expect much from our offense this year but I still think we'll be better than last year.

Agreed and well said. Every team that has a great offense has an X factor that you have to game plan for. The X factor usually does not have to have a great game for the unit to be successful. IE: Hester on special teams. The main goal with special teams is field position. Bears are #1 in field position, even with teams kicking away from Hester. They game plan against our X factor and he still makes them pay somehow. If Hester can somehow pull attention from the line of scrimmage as a WR, the OL and running game has the potential to have greater success. If he can't, they have to achieve success on their own merit. The key to all of this is if Hester can burn a defense early in the season., either by drawing attention for another payer to get a matchup or making the play himself. My guess is that week one against the Colts, he will have many opportunities deep. The Colts will put Sanders in the box and dare our QB and recievers to get it done. If Turner is smart, play one will be a play-action bomb. Even if unsuccessful, it sends a clear message if he gets separation.

[madlithuanian]

Got it.

 

Even with a good OL, and let's be honest, it won't be great...you still need a star. Dallas didn't get there solely on the O line back in the JImmy Johnson days. It sure helped to have an Aikman, Irvin, Smith, Novacek, and Moose... Every now and then a team comes along that defies generalities (ie. Ravens), but you need offensive stars to win it all. Even NY had Plax and Manning this past season.

 

I think we could be good enough to sneak into the playoffs given a number of factors, but I see us getting bounced out harder than a superball dropped off the Sears tower... Unless Orton somehow turns the corner something vicious. Which I think I have a better chance winning the Lotto...

 

I believe he was calling for Hester to be the "step up" player to surprise. He also said the OL and other parts would have to play at least decent, but that we need a big time boost from a surprise like Hester.

 

I guess I don't see it that way. To me, it is all about the OL. If the OL is as bad as last year, it will domino and no other unit will be capable of stepping up. QB won't have time, and thus WRs are less likely to do much. No holes means little comes from the RBs too.

 

However, if the OL can play well, I don't think we need any huge playmakers to step forward. Solid OL can allow for a solid, but not spectacular, run game. Solid run game benefits the QB, as defenses can not just tee off him. Also, solid OL means better blockings, which buys the QB time. This also buys the WRs time to run their routes.

 

IMHO, we could have a solid offense w/o a single individual putting up a pro bowl performance, so long as the OL steps up. If the OL looks like it did this year though....well, lets just say Hester could have more return TDs than anyone else on offense.

[nfoligno]

I guess I am not talking about SB. But if the question is, what do we need to see to have an average offense, I would argue the answer is first and foremost, the OL. If we have that, I think we can have a "nice" level of production from multiple players, w/o a star emerging, and yet still be pretty solid. Then, combine that w/ a dominant defense and special teams, and I think we can see good things happen. That doesn't mean SB, but simply a good overall team.

 

Wash made the SB this past year. Who was a star. Portis had less than 1,300 yards, and just below a 4 ypc average. Top WR had 800 yards.

 

TB had a journeyman QB. Top rusher had right at 4 ypc, and top WR had 1,014 yards. No stars here, but a decent enough offense to win w/ a great defense.

 

Similar w/ Seattle. Engram was their top weapon, and that says a lot. I am one of his biggest supporters, but if your best weapon is a possession WR, then I think it fair to say you are not winning w/ offensive stars.

 

Pitt - Who here would you call a star? Rothlisberger? Good QB, but a star? Parker was a very good RB, but not what I would call a star. He had solid production, but a 4.1 ypc avg is far from stellar, and Pitt taking a RB in round one tells me they do not believe he is a star either. Top WR was Holmes, who had less than 1,000 yards. Ward may have once been a star, but was not last year. Again, decent enough offense w/ a great defense.

 

Jax - No great QB, and receivers were barely good. Sound ground game, and Fred Taylor was quite good, but is he a star? Did he even go to the pro bowl?

 

All these teams had upper tier defenses, solid special teams, and an offense that may not have been great, but was good enough to take advantage of what their defenses provided. If we have a sound OL, I think we can see similar, even w/o a star emerging. But the question remains, can our OL be solid?

[nfoligno]

More than Hester, I think Olsen could be a key. Do I think we will use him in such a way to make it happen, well that is another story. But if we could use Olsen in a way similar to Gates or Gonzo, he could be that special player. I would love to say Hester, but while the talent is there, I think it will take more than just the potential a player brings. I think a player must get it done w/ consistency.

 

There were games where Rex hooked up w/ Berrian for a deep pass, resulting in a TD. Those plays did nothing to force defenses out of the box though. So long as those plays were the exception and not the rule, defenses continued to attack Rex, knowing it more likely they would win the battle.

 

Hester can be more electric than Berrian, but can he even be as consistent as Berrian was, which wasn't that much. In terms of who can provide that big play, and do it on a more consistent basis, the only player I see fitting the bill is Olsen. He has the size/speed to create mismatches every time on the field, and is simply more experienced and knowledgable at this position. If we can start using him to attack the deep middle, defenses wil be forced to adjust, which will open up the box.

[madlithuanian]

In those terms of having an average offense, I think you are correct. I think you meant playoffs and not SB for Wash... But they do have an up-and coming QB, a very solid RB in Portis, and some decent WR's... I'd also say that Tampa did have stars...albeit aging ones. Garica is a forwer pro-bowler and so is Galloway. They also found odd spark in the running game over the course of the season when Williams went down. Compare those to our roster, and there's no comparison. We are simply green...with a bit of an exception from the Wash QB. But Portis does play an important factor there. With Seattle, they have Hasselback! That's huge! Pit's loaded! Big Ben is a star. He's a tough gritty winner. Fast Willie is very good, but not a star as you mention. But their TE is really good and so is Ward. He had an off year, but still, his presence and leadership means a ton. Granted Jax is a good case of not having a true star...although Jones-Drew and Taylor are close.

 

But overall, I still hold true that you need a star. Exceptions make the rule. I'm not talking Hall of Fame star, I'm talking pro bowl type. Granted, the planets can align with defensive and return silliness, good match-ups, and luck, and virtually any team can make a playoff spot...but will soon get bounced becasue they don't really belong.

 

I guess I'm not really concerned about going to the playoffs. I want to go to a Super Bowl. I want our plan of attack to be just that... In return, odds are playoff spots will occur if your goal is set at the higher level.

 

I guess I am not talking about SB. But if the question is, what do we need to see to have an average offense, I would argue the answer is first and foremost, the OL. If we have that, I think we can have a "nice" level of production from multiple players, w/o a star emerging, and yet still be pretty solid. Then, combine that w/ a dominant defense and special teams, and I think we can see good things happen. That doesn't mean SB, but simply a good overall team.

 

Wash made the SB this past year. Who was a star. Portis had less than 1,300 yards, and just below a 4 ypc average. Top WR had 800 yards.

 

TB had a journeyman QB. Top rusher had right at 4 ypc, and top WR had 1,014 yards. No stars here, but a decent enough offense to win w/ a great defense.

 

Similar w/ Seattle. Engram was their top weapon, and that says a lot. I am one of his biggest supporters, but if your best weapon is a possession WR, then I think it fair to say you are not winning w/ offensive stars.

 

Pitt - Who here would you call a star? Rothlisberger? Good QB, but a star? Parker was a very good RB, but not what I would call a star. He had solid production, but a 4.1 ypc avg is far from stellar, and Pitt taking a RB in round one tells me they do not believe he is a star either. Top WR was Holmes, who had less than 1,000 yards. Ward may have once been a star, but was not last year. Again, decent enough offense w/ a great defense.

 

Jax - No great QB, and receivers were barely good. Sound ground game, and Fred Taylor was quite good, but is he a star? Did he even go to the pro bowl?

 

All these teams had upper tier defenses, solid special teams, and an offense that may not have been great, but was good enough to take advantage of what their defenses provided. If we have a sound OL, I think we can see similar, even w/o a star emerging. But the question remains, can our OL be solid?

[CrackerDog]

Now here is a dog who's bowl was spiked.

 

LOL