Are the OL issues talent or coaching?

[nfoligno]

For some time, I have wonder if many of the problems we have on the team center around a simple lack of talent, or inability of the coaching staff. More than in recent past, I seem to be reading articles talking about how we run camp, which just really puts a focus on our coaches. For example, for years I have seen our players exhibit some very questionable tackling. Then I read about how we do not really allow our players to tackle, or to finish tackles, in camp. Its more like we practice flag football in camp. The point was made, how can you work on tackling technique when you are not allowed to tackle?

 

But for this, what I am curious about is the OL. Against Seattle, we faced a ton of blitzes. From what I have read, we were taken by surprise by this. For some reason, we didn't expect our opponent to blitz. Okay, fine, it is pre-season, but still. For some time, we have looked pretty damn awful against the blitz, and it is an area I would expect our staff to really work on in practice. But then I also read that we don't blitz a whole lot in practice, which begs the question, how can we work on blitz pickup if we don't practice blitzing?

 

Think about our OL play. How often have you all seen individual OL players just get blown off the line. Take Metcalf out of the equation for this. Sure, it happens, but it seems like the vast majority of the pressure our QBs face is due to opponents blitzing, rather than simply from getting blown of the line, whether through speed of power.

 

Also, we often seem to get killed by stunts. Again, we do not stunt on defense, and thus I think it fair to assume we don't practice it much. If we don't stunt in practice, how can our offense really work on blocking against stunts?

 

I am not trying to pretend we have a very talented OL, but I do wonder if the problem is more coaching than talent. It would be one thing if I watched our individual players just getting blown up, but rarely does that seem to be the case. Most often, it is an issue of a missed assignment. This OL didn't slide over his protection. This OL/RB/TE didn't shift over for the blitz pickup. These are coaching issues more than talent, and unless we alter how we practice, will it ever end?

[madlithuanian]

It's probably both...but dang if I don't get more and more upset with this regime's coaching as time goes on.

 

For some time, I have wonder if many of the problems we have on the team center around a simple lack of talent, or inability of the coaching staff. More than in recent past, I seem to be reading articles talking about how we run camp, which just really puts a focus on our coaches. For example, for years I have seen our players exhibit some very questionable tackling. Then I read about how we do not really allow our players to tackle, or to finish tackles, in camp. Its more like we practice flag football in camp. The point was made, how can you work on tackling technique when you are not allowed to tackle?

 

But for this, what I am curious about is the OL. Against Seattle, we faced a ton of blitzes. From what I have read, we were taken by surprise by this. For some reason, we didn't expect our opponent to blitz. Okay, fine, it is pre-season, but still. For some time, we have looked pretty damn awful against the blitz, and it is an area I would expect our staff to really work on in practice. But then I also read that we don't blitz a whole lot in practice, which begs the question, how can we work on blitz pickup if we don't practice blitzing?

 

Think about our OL play. How often have you all seen individual OL players just get blown off the line. Take Metcalf out of the equation for this. Sure, it happens, but it seems like the vast majority of the pressure our QBs face is due to opponents blitzing, rather than simply from getting blown of the line, whether through speed of power.

 

Also, we often seem to get killed by stunts. Again, we do not stunt on defense, and thus I think it fair to assume we don't practice it much. If we don't stunt in practice, how can our offense really work on blocking against stunts?

 

I am not trying to pretend we have a very talented OL, but I do wonder if the problem is more coaching than talent. It would be one thing if I watched our individual players just getting blown up, but rarely does that seem to be the case. Most often, it is an issue of a missed assignment. This OL didn't slide over his protection. This OL/RB/TE didn't shift over for the blitz pickup. These are coaching issues more than talent, and unless we alter how we practice, will it ever end?

[CrackerDog]

For some time, I have wonder if many of the problems we have on the team center around a simple lack of talent, or inability of the coaching staff. More than in recent past, I seem to be reading articles talking about how we run camp, which just really puts a focus on our coaches. For example, for years I have seen our players exhibit some very questionable tackling. Then I read about how we do not really allow our players to tackle, or to finish tackles, in camp. Its more like we practice flag football in camp. The point was made, how can you work on tackling technique when you are not allowed to tackle?

 

They tackle plenty during the pre-season games. And this isn't exclusive to the Bears, by any stretch.

 

But for this, what I am curious about is the OL. Against Seattle, we faced a ton of blitzes. From what I have read, we were taken by surprise by this. For some reason, we didn't expect our opponent to blitz. Okay, fine, it is pre-season, but still. For some time, we have looked pretty damn awful against the blitz, and it is an area I would expect our staff to really work on in practice. But then I also read that we don't blitz a whole lot in practice, which begs the question, how can we work on blitz pickup if we don't practice blitzing?

 

You don't game plan for the pre-season. Maybe a little for this third game coming up. It's always been a bit of a gentleman's agreement that teams remain vanilla in these two first games. Look at what Packers fans are saying about their game last week. Rodgers was terrorized and they weren't ready either. Somewhere along the way, someone forgot to tell a few coaches that this was the agreement. It doesn't mean our guys are being poorly coached.

 

Think about our OL play. How often have you all seen individual OL players just get blown off the line. Take Metcalf out of the equation for this. Sure, it happens, but it seems like the vast majority of the pressure our QBs face is due to opponents blitzing, rather than simply from getting blown of the line, whether through speed of power.

 

Duh. Ever notice our QB Rex had a reputation for getting rattled when you blitz him?

 

Also, we often seem to get killed by stunts. Again, we do not stunt on defense, and thus I think it fair to assume we don't practice it much. If we don't stunt in practice, how can our offense really work on blocking against stunts?

 

Dumbest thing you've ever said. Of course (notice the spelling) we practice stunts and protections against stunts. Get off your rump and out to camp once and see.

 

I am not trying to pretend we have a very talented OL, but I do wonder if the problem is more coaching than talent. It would be one thing if I watched our individual players just getting blown up, but rarely does that seem to be the case. Most often, it is an issue of a missed assignment. This OL didn't slide over his protection. This OL/RB/TE didn't shift over for the blitz pickup. These are coaching issues more than talent, and unless we alter how we practice, will it ever end?

 

Our O Line ain't good. Our TE's and RB's are rookies or second year guys. Do the math.

[azbearsfan]

It's probably both...but dang if I don't get more and more upset with this regime's coaching as time goes on.

 

 

I agree it seems like both. I also question if Kruetz is good at making protection calls at the line. They always seem to be in the wrong protection and that falls on him.

[nfoligno]

They tackle plenty during the pre-season games. And this isn't exclusive to the Bears, by any stretch.

 

Wow. So they have a month and a half (or whatever) of camp and practice, and you think the key is they tackle in the few series our starters play in pre-season games. Damn man, you got it. Who cares what they do for 90% of the time. So long as they practice that 10% or whatever.

 

This may not be exclusive to the bears, but do you not agree tackling has been a problem for this team? I am not talking about this non-season, but in recent years. No, I'm not saying the problem is exclusive to the bears, but what the hell does that matter. What matters is, we have been a shoddy tackling team for several years now. When you have a problem, and it isn't a short term problem, I think you have to begin (a) finding the cause and ( finding the solution. The bears flat out said they were a poor tackling team last year, and were going to work on it this year, but if they don't even allow tackling in practice, how can you really work on it?

 

You don't game plan for the pre-season. Maybe a little for this third game coming up. It's always been a bit of a gentleman's agreement that teams remain vanilla in these two first games. Look at what Packers fans are saying about their game last week. Rodgers was terrorized and they weren't ready either. Somewhere along the way, someone forgot to tell a few coaches that this was the agreement. It doesn't mean our guys are being poorly coached.

 

Welcome to 2008. I do recall the gentlemen's agreement stuff you are talking about, but whoever or whenever, that idea has seemed to fall by wayside. This is not the first year (or even the 2nd) I have heard this team complain about another team playing too hard or whatever during a preseason game.

 

Oh, and pointing out how the Pakers are crying too, well that just makes it all better. So we aren't alone crying about how hard another team plays in preseason games. We can join a whiners club, and the Packers can be the first to sign up w/ us. Great.

 

Just curious. Did you see the play Jamar Williams had the pick? We blitzed RMJ on that play. I guess we threw a sprinkle into our own vanilla, huh?

 

Duh. Ever notice our QB Rex had a reputation for getting rattled when you blitz him?

 

Um, yea. And wouldn't that be all the more reason to work harder on blitz pickups?

 

Dumbest thing you've ever said. Of course (notice the spelling) we practice stunts and protections against stunts. Get off your rump and out to camp once and see.

 

One, I would LOVE to get out to camp, and maybe one day will. You can buy me an ice cream. You don't have to convince me. My wife is the one who would need to be convinced.

 

Two, I am not saying we NEVER practice picking up stunts and blitzes. What I am saying though is, how much do you think we do it? You say we stunt? Well, I guess you would know better than Idonije, right? He was asked last year, point blank, if the team stunts. He said no, and tried to then backpeddle a bit by talking about how our DL is so good it doesn't need to. Now that is the dumbest thing ever said. If we don't stunt, why would we practice it a lot? No. Sorry. Despite your going to camp, I think you may read into things at times how you want. A Chicago Bear Player said point blank we do not stunt. I personally can not recall seeing us stunt in a game. And then there is Cdog saying we stunt and practice stunts. Sorry, but wanna take a poll here and see how much other fans have seen us stunt?

 

Again, this point is this. We have seen for years an inability to block against stunts and blitz pickups. Further, despite your belief, few others (I believe) think we do in fact stunt, and most believe our blitzes are pretty lacking. Not many, and when we do, they are usually not very imaginative. So while our offense may work on these aspects some in position drills or whatever, I doubt they spend a whole lot of time working on it as a team, as these are things our defense doesn't do, and thus things our offense isn't as prepared for.

 

So often people talk about what a great test our offense gets every day in practice because of how good our defense is, but if our defense doesn't stunt, blitz or tackle, how good of a practice is our offense really getting?

 

Our O Line ain't good. Our TE's and RB's are rookies or second year guys. Do the math.

 

Really? Kreutz has been killed by stunts and blitzes. He's not good? Tait and St Clair, two veterans, were embarassed on one blitz against Seattle that saw neither block a man, as both stood around while the LBs they should have picked up had free paths to the QB. You talk about TEs and RBs being rookies or 2nd year guys. Last year, AP looked freaking horrible in blitz pickup. Desmond Clark, while otherwise considered a good blocker, seemed so often out of position when he should have been picking up a blitzing LB.

 

It isn't just this year and it isn't just the rookies or 2nd year guys. This is a problem we have seen for several years, and one that spreads from young to older veterans. As the problem has a window greater than this year, and spreads throughout so many players, I think you then need to look at what the constants are. Well, that would be coaching.

[nfoligno]

I agree it seems like both. I also question if Kruetz is good at making protection calls at the line. They always seem to be in the wrong protection and that falls on him.

 

here is a problem I have w/ this. Kreutz used to be considered very good in calling protections. I always thought he was like a catcher who was known for calling a good game, as much as for his ability to hit or throw out runners. Now Kreutz has played quite a few years, has some mileage, and may be wearing a bit. I can understand that. But did he suddenly get stupid?

 

Seriously, think about this. Didn't his downturn, not just in physical play, but mental, seem to occur shortly after Lovie took over? It seems like, despite the pro bowls, numerous fans have been calling out Kreutz for several years now.

 

I understand players losing some physical ability, but how often do they suddenly forget the mental part. Heck, usually they continue to gain in that department, and try to use that aspect to compensate for a loss of physical tools.

 

I am not saying it is purely coaching, or that we have pro bowl talent wasted. But if our defense doesn't stunt or blitz a whole lot, and our offense is freaking awful blocking these, might there not be a correlation? Phily is considered very good in blitz and stunt pickup. They also have a defense that stunts and blitzes a ton. Again, correlation?

 

So often, I have seen fans talk about how much our offense benefits from practicing against our defense, but I am starting to wonder about that. We may have talent, but we run a pretty vanilla defense. Maybe that is why so many other, less talented, defenses that are a bit more coplex seem to give us fits.

[azbearsfan]

here is a problem I have w/ this. Kreutz used to be considered very good in calling protections. I always thought he was like a catcher who was known for calling a good game, as much as for his ability to hit or throw out runners. Now Kreutz has played quite a few years, has some mileage, and may be wearing a bit. I can understand that. But did he suddenly get stupid?

 

Seriously, think about this. Didn't his downturn, not just in physical play, but mental, seem to occur shortly after Lovie took over? It seems like, despite the pro bowls, numerous fans have been calling out Kreutz for several years now.

 

I understand players losing some physical ability, but how often do they suddenly forget the mental part. Heck, usually they continue to gain in that department, and try to use that aspect to compensate for a loss of physical tools.

 

I am not saying it is purely coaching, or that we have pro bowl talent wasted. But if our defense doesn't stunt or blitz a whole lot, and our offense is freaking awful blocking these, might there not be a correlation? Phily is considered very good in blitz and stunt pickup. They also have a defense that stunts and blitzes a ton. Again, correlation?

 

So often, I have seen fans talk about how much our offense benefits from practicing against our defense, but I am starting to wonder about that. We may have talent, but we run a pretty vanilla defense. Maybe that is why so many other, less talented, defenses that are a bit more coplex seem to give us fits.

 

 

I agree with you to a point, but lately he seems to have become....I dont want to say lazy...but maybe relying on his rep too much.

 

And I dont think just because we dont stunt doesn't mean we dont do it in practice. They have scout teams running what the other team runs.

[madlithuanian]

Maybe my timing is off, but wasn't this downslide right around when he rec'd a new contract?

 

here is a problem I have w/ this. Kreutz used to be considered very good in calling protections. I always thought he was like a catcher who was known for calling a good game, as much as for his ability to hit or throw out runners. Now Kreutz has played quite a few years, has some mileage, and may be wearing a bit. I can understand that. But did he suddenly get stupid?

 

Seriously, think about this. Didn't his downturn, not just in physical play, but mental, seem to occur shortly after Lovie took over? It seems like, despite the pro bowls, numerous fans have been calling out Kreutz for several years now.

 

I understand players losing some physical ability, but how often do they suddenly forget the mental part. Heck, usually they continue to gain in that department, and try to use that aspect to compensate for a loss of physical tools.

 

I am not saying it is purely coaching, or that we have pro bowl talent wasted. But if our defense doesn't stunt or blitz a whole lot, and our offense is freaking awful blocking these, might there not be a correlation? Phily is considered very good in blitz and stunt pickup. They also have a defense that stunts and blitzes a ton. Again, correlation?

 

So often, I have seen fans talk about how much our offense benefits from practicing against our defense, but I am starting to wonder about that. We may have talent, but we run a pretty vanilla defense. Maybe that is why so many other, less talented, defenses that are a bit more coplex seem to give us fits.

[nfoligno]

I agree with you to a point, but lately he seems to have become....I dont want to say lazy...but maybe relying on his rep too much.

 

And I dont think just because we dont stunt doesn't mean we dont do it in practice. They have scout teams running what the other team runs.

 

- Personally, regarding Kreutz, I think it is a lot of different things, some of which may be simply on him. I think playing next to different players nearly ever year. Playing w/ a revolving door at QB. Playing w/ mostly garbage guys next to him. Being asked to do too much. Trying to do too much on his own. Several different OL coaches, not to mention OCs. I think there are many things that can be looked at w/ him, some of which might just be basic things like resting on his rep. At the same time, when talking simply about line calls, that is just something I would not expect to suddenly go from a positive to negative.

 

- I have not said, nor am I saying, that we never practice picking up stunts or blitzes. But I do question how much we stress this.

 

You say we have a scout team that runs the opponents defense. Your right, but (a) don't we do this for just a couple days a week? I thought we practices the first part of the week w/ our starters v our starters, and later in the week we incorporated the scout team and opponents game plan. ( isn't our scout team composed of our lesser players? Would our offense benefit best practicing picking up the blitz when Urlacher, Briggs, Brown, etc blitz or when our special teams players blitz. Ditto w/ the stunting.

 

Again, I am not saying we don't ever practice it, but I am saying that if we don't stunt or blitz that much, then our offense likely is not getting work in these areas as much as needed.

 

I go back to this. Even in 2006 when our OL looked good overall, they seemed most beatable by blitzes and stunts (and the 3-4, but that is another discussion). So even our good OL seem to struggle in this regard. At some point, do we not have to begin looking harder at the staff? Its one thing if just our young stuggle, or bad players, but when our better players look dumbfounded against these rushes, might the problem not also be practice and coaching?

[CrackerDog]

They tackle plenty during the pre-season games. And this isn't exclusive to the Bears, by any stretch.

 

Wow. So they have a month and a half (or whatever) of camp and practice, and you think the key is they tackle in the few series our starters play in pre-season games. Damn man, you got it. Who cares what they do for 90% of the time. So long as they practice that 10% or whatever.

 

This may not be exclusive to the bears, but do you not agree tackling has been a problem for this team? I am not talking about this non-season, but in recent years. No, I'm not saying the problem is exclusive to the bears, but what the hell does that matter. What matters is, we have been a shoddy tackling team for several years now. When you have a problem, and it isn't a short term problem, I think you have to begin (a) finding the cause and ( finding the solution. The bears flat out said they were a poor tackling team last year, and were going to work on it this year, but if they don't even allow tackling in practice, how can you really work on it?

 

I see this as an issue someone brings up every preseason and then our guys do a fine job tackling during the regular season. Briggs had a bit of trouble for a game or two last year but they got it corrected. You aren't going to use your high priced offensive talent as tackling dummies for your neanderthal D guys. This isn't 1967.

 

You don't game plan for the pre-season. Maybe a little for this third game coming up. It's always been a bit of a gentleman's agreement that teams remain vanilla in these two first games. Look at what Packers fans are saying about their game last week. Rodgers was terrorized and they weren't ready either. Somewhere along the way, someone forgot to tell a few coaches that this was the agreement. It doesn't mean our guys are being poorly coached.

 

Welcome to 2008. I do recall the gentlemen's agreement stuff you are talking about, but whoever or whenever, that idea has seemed to fall by wayside. This is not the first year (or even the 2nd) I have heard this team complain about another team playing too hard or whatever during a preseason game.

 

Oh, and pointing out how the Pakers are crying too, well that just makes it all better. So we aren't alone crying about how hard another team plays in preseason games. We can join a whiners club, and the Packers can be the first to sign up w/ us. Great.

 

Just curious. Did you see the play Jamar Williams had the pick? We blitzed RMJ on that play. I guess we threw a sprinkle into our own vanilla, huh?

 

When Rex was in there, they blitzed almost every down. Lighten up, DQ boy.

 

Duh. Ever notice our QB Rex had a reputation for getting rattled when you blitz him?

 

Um, yea. And wouldn't that be all the more reason to work harder on blitz pickups?

 

They do. I stated that earlier.

 

Dumbest thing you've ever said. Of course (notice the spelling) we practice stunts and protections against stunts. Get off your rump and out to camp once and see.

 

One, I would LOVE to get out to camp, and maybe one day will. You can buy me an ice cream. You don't have to convince me. My wife is the one who would need to be convinced.

 

You should've just said you didn't know what we practiced and left it at that. Now I know your wife wears the pants.

 

Two, I am not saying we NEVER practice picking up stunts and blitzes. What I am saying though is, how much do you think we do it? You say we stunt? Well, I guess you would know better than Idonije, right? He was asked last year, point blank, if the team stunts. He said no, and tried to then backpeddle a bit by talking about how our DL is so good it doesn't need to. Now that is the dumbest thing ever said. If we don't stunt, why would we practice it a lot? No. Sorry. Despite your going to camp, I think you may read into things at times how you want. A Chicago Bear Player said point blank we do not stunt. I personally can not recall seeing us stunt in a game. And then there is Cdog saying we stunt and practice stunts. Sorry, but wanna take a poll here and see how much other fans have seen us stunt?

 

We don't stunt as much as other teams because of Lovie's scheme. We do, however, stunt. And we certainly practice against stunts when the game film suggests a team does a lot of it. Again, not something you can do too much in camp when you expect vanilla.

 

Again, this point is this. We have seen for years an inability to block against stunts and blitz pickups. Further, despite your belief, few others (I believe) think we do in fact stunt, and most believe our blitzes are pretty lacking. Not many, and when we do, they are usually not very imaginative. So while our offense may work on these aspects some in position drills or whatever, I doubt they spend a whole lot of time working on it as a team, as these are things our defense doesn't do, and thus things our offense isn't as prepared for.

 

Film and the line coach ought to cover these things during the regular season. I don't think we have difficulty against stunts any more than anyone else. Our blitz pickups have been lacking this year and during a few games last season. Sometimes it's talent, sometimes it's bad luck, sometimes it execution, and sometimes the coaches blew it or the QB didn't recognize something. It isn't as black and white as you suggest with this "is it talent or coaching" question.

 

So often people talk about what a great test our offense gets every day in practice because of how good our defense is, but if our defense doesn't stunt, blitz or tackle, how good of a practice is our offense really getting?

 

I get it already... Geez man, it's like you try to wear your opponent down by asking the same question 30 different ways. Are you Chet Coppock?

 

Our O Line ain't good. Our TE's and RB's are rookies or second year guys. Do the math.

 

Really? Kreutz has been killed by stunts and blitzes. He's not good? Tait and St Clair, two veterans, were embarassed on one blitz against Seattle that saw neither block a man, as both stood around while the LBs they should have picked up had free paths to the QB. You talk about TEs and RBs being rookies or 2nd year guys. Last year, AP looked freaking horrible in blitz pickup. Desmond Clark, while otherwise considered a good blocker, seemed so often out of position when he should have been picking up a blitzing LB.

 

1. I already said they were unprepared given this was the 2nd preseason game.

2. It's early and our line hasn't had a chance to gel. New guys in new positions. Some are slipping in regards to ability.

3. Des Clark was hurt on our second series and was splitting time before that. How many plays was our veteran TE in for and were they plays Rex was pressured?

4. Our starting RB is a rookie and he was in there for most of the time the bad shit happened.

5. I'd need to watch the game again, which I won't do, to say whether you're correct or not about Kruetz being killed by stunts. I will, however, watch for it Thursday night. That said, however, how much coaching does a guy like him need to recognize and react to a blitz or stunt? You seem to be spitting these things out of both sides of your ass.

 

It isn't just this year and it isn't just the rookies or 2nd year guys. This is a problem we have seen for several years, and one that spreads from young to older veterans. As the problem has a window greater than this year, and spreads throughout so many players, I think you then need to look at what the constants are. Well, that would be coaching.

 

We have the same coaches we had in 2006. Grossman played every game and was sacked a total of 21 times. A little over 1 per game. We've already agreed he isn't the best at recognition and he tends to hold the ball too long. We also know that a good chunk of those sacks came in 2 or 3 games. Most of the time he was sacked once or wasn't sacked at all. The line coached by the same dudes we have now was getting it done then. In other words, your entire argument just took a huge torpedo. I'd say this is a question of age and time to gel. Go back to ripping on Jerry for not being as good a GM as you. You have a better argument there.

[nfoligno]

Maybe my timing is off, but wasn't this downslide right around when he rec'd a new contract?

 

I believe the team signed Kreutz in 2002, and I don't believe his falloff began for a few years after that.

 

In fact, wasn't Kreutz one of Angelo earliest moves?

[nfoligno]

I see this as an issue someone brings up every preseason and then our guys do a fine job tackling during the regular season. Briggs had a bit of trouble for a game or two last year but they got it corrected. You aren't going to use your high priced offensive talent as tackling dummies for your neanderthal D guys. This isn't 1967.

 

Sorry, but I have seen more tackle issues than just a few here and there, and even the players said they have not been a good tackling team.

 

You should've just said you didn't know what we practiced and left it at that. Now I know your wife wears the pants.

 

First, despite all you want to believe, you don't really know what we do in practice either.

 

Second, while I am only using logic, it is valid, despite how you want to twist it.

 

Third, I never said I wear the pants in the family. Are you married? I assume you are not if you believe otherwise.

 

We don't stunt as much as other teams because of Lovie's scheme. We do, however, stunt. And we certainly practice against stunts when the game film suggests a team does a lot of it. Again, not something you can do too much in camp when you expect vanilla.

 

Again, you say we do stunt, but I have not seen it in games, and prefer to trust Idonije when he says we do not, over your beliefs.

 

And again, this isn't a recent issue. This isn't my seeing something in our 2 preseason games, but something seen for several years.

 

Film and the line coach ought to cover these things during the regular season. I don't think we have difficulty against stunts any more than anyone else. Our blitz pickups have been lacking this year and during a few games last season. Sometimes it's talent, sometimes it's bad luck, sometimes it execution, and sometimes the coaches blew it or the QB didn't recognize something. It isn't as black and white as you suggest with this "is it talent or coaching" question.

 

I never said it was black and white. My point is, we have always been content to simply pin the blame on players, but at the same time, the problem seems wide spread enough to question if the problem ends there. I never said it is all or nothing. I never said Metcalf's (for example) failures were simply due to bad coaching. Sometimes a player just sucks. But at the same time, I believe there is ample enough evidence to suggest the coaching may too be a problem.

 

I get it already... Geez man, it's like you try to wear your opponent down by asking the same question 30 different ways. Are you Chet Coppock?

 

Anyway that works

 

1. I already said they were unprepared given this was the 2nd preseason game.

 

But you continue to pretend I am just talking about one or two preseason games, or pretend I am talking about a new problem. I am not.

 

2. It's early and our line hasn't had a chance to gel. New guys in new positions. Some are slipping in regards to ability.

 

See above. This is a problem I have seen going back a few years.

 

3. Des Clark was hurt on our second series and was splitting time before that. How many plays was our veteran TE in for and were they plays Rex was pressured?

 

More of the same. There were plenty of games last year where I saw Clark blow an assignment. This is NOT a new revalation.

 

4. Our starting RB is a rookie and he was in there for most of the time the bad shit happened.

 

Again, you just can't seem to get past the idea this is not a recent problem.

 

5. I'd need to watch the game again, which I won't do, to say whether you're correct or not about Kruetz being killed by stunts. I will, however, watch for it Thursday night. That said, however, how much coaching does a guy like him need to recognize and react to a blitz or stunt? You seem to be spitting these things out of both sides of your ass.

 

Well, practice makes perfect, and lack of practice... well.... I'll let that famous imagination of yours finish the statment.

 

We have the same coaches we had in 2006. Grossman played every game and was sacked a total of 21 times. A little over 1 per game. We've already agreed he isn't the best at recognition and he tends to hold the ball too long. We also know that a good chunk of those sacks came in 2 or 3 games. Most of the time he was sacked once or wasn't sacked at all. The line coached by the same dudes we have now was getting it done now. In other words, your entire argument just took a huge torpedo. I'd say this is a question of age and time to gel. Go back to ripping on Jerry for not being as good a GM as you. You have a better argument there.

 

I guess this is the crux of our dispute. You think our inability (if at all) to block/protect stunts and blitzes is a recent thing. I disagree. Even in 2006, I think you saw the problem. After the first grouping of games, teams seemed to "figure out" Rex and our offense. They began to attack more. Teams began stunting and blitzing more, and often to effective results. Rex didn't always have high sack totals, but in several games where he had only one sack, he at the same time would throw 2, 3 or 4 picks. So it isn't just about sack stats.

[madlithuanian]

I just don't remember...

 

I believe the team signed Kreutz in 2002, and I don't believe his falloff began for a few years after that.

 

In fact, wasn't Kreutz one of Angelo earliest moves?

[CrackerDog]

I guess this is the crux of our dispute. You think our inability (if at all) to block/protect stunts and blitzes is a recent thing. I disagree. Even in 2006, I think you saw the problem. After the first grouping of games, teams seemed to "figure out" Rex and our offense. They began to attack more. Teams began stunting and blitzing more, and often to effective results. Rex didn't always have high sack totals, but in several games where he had only one sack, he at the same time would throw 2, 3 or 4 picks. So it isn't just about sack stats.

 

No, the simple fact is Rex wasn't sacked in 2006 an inordinate number of times and we already know he's suseptible to it. The coaching then is the coaching now. So, unless they got dumber, it's a matter of the guys on the field and not the dudes on the sidelines.

 

And I don't excuse Rex's picks based on the line play. He always needed to learn to step up in the pocket and/or throw the ball away. That's a basic element of the game he's refused to learn. His bad. The simple fact is the line did a fine job protecting him and they were coached by the same guy you're questioning now.

[nfoligno]

No, the simple fact is Rex wasn't sacked in 2006 an inordinate number of times and we already know he's suseptible to it. The coaching then is the coaching now. So, unless they got dumber, it's a matter of the guys on the field and not the dudes on the sidelines.

 

And I don't excuse Rex's picks based on the line play. He always needed to learn to step up in the pocket and/or throw the ball away. That's a basic element of the game he's refused to learn. His bad. The simple fact is the line did a fine job protecting him and they were coached by the same guy you're questioning now.

 

One, just because he isn't sacked doesn't mean there wasn't pressure. Many of Rex' picks over the years were a direct result of his throwing the ball under pressure (often off his backfoot).

 

Two, didn't we change OL coaches between then and now. I know we have changed numerous other position coaches, but not sure about the OL.

 

Regardless, I still believe we struggled, even that year, when facing teams that blitzed and stunted. Early on, our OL looked great, but then (I think) Minny sort of exposed both the OL and Rex, and after that, teams began to attack more and more. In the first 8 weeks, Rex was sacked only 6 times. After that? 15.

 

I would also point to the SB. I think most recall Rex coming under a ton of pressure, but he was only technically sacked once. Just because the stat line only shows one sack doesn't mean he wasn't pressured, or that our OL did a good job.

[AZ54]

This thread is too long for such a simple question but I'm jumping in. I do feel our Oline struggles against stunts and it's been this way for at least a couple years. However, they really struggle against 3-4 defenses. Kyle Orton said it best though that the whole pass protection thing against blitzes (stunts whatever) is a unit evaluation not just Oline. Over last year at the top of the list Fred Miller, Metcalf, Ced, AP, and Rex all had breakdowns resulting in a sack or bad play. Not everyone made the boneheaded play everytime but as fans the cumulative effect shows clearly. Defenses know this and they don't bank on any single guy making the mistake but rather that one will be made and our QB and WR weren't good enough to overcome it.

 

I am not a fan of Hiestand and made that clear last year. I've never figured out his love affair with Metcalf who IMO has never looked good in a game. Nobody seems to develop with this guy. He hated Beekman all preseason and yet he hasn't been anwhere near as bad as Metcalf was last year. He said Beekman was too small to play the position yet Garza is the exact same size? And worst of all, Hiestand said the Oline was playing well last year and fans didn't know what they were talking about.

 

The right QB would help overcome some of this. Some hot reads for WRs would help too. Do we ever do that? So would having a WR who can beat a tackle and take it the distance.

[nfoligno]

This thread is too long for such a simple question but I'm jumping in. I do feel our Oline struggles against stunts and it's been this way for at least a couple years. However, they really struggle against 3-4 defenses. Kyle Orton said it best though that the whole pass protection thing against blitzes (stunts whatever) is a unit evaluation not just Oline. Over last year at the top of the list Fred Miller, Metcalf, Ced, AP, and Rex all had breakdowns resulting in a sack or bad play. Not everyone made the boneheaded play everytime but as fans the cumulative effect shows clearly. Defenses know this and they don't bank on any single guy making the mistake but rather that one will be made and our QB and WR weren't good enough to overcome it.

 

- Agreed on the 3-4. I mentioned this before too. To me, many teams struggle against the 3-4, and a key reason is due to a lack of practicing against it. Who are usually the best defenses against the 3-4? IMHO, usually its the team who's defense runs the 3-4. Pitt, for example, always has been solid blocking the 3-4. A key reason IMHO is because they see the 3-4 so much from their own defense.

 

- That follows through to the stunt/blitz argument. If we don't stunt or blitz on defense, then our offense simply isn't as exposed to it. Sure, they practice a few times a week against a scout team that will stunt or blitz, as the opponentes wil, but that is a small level compared to if our defense actually did this itself, and our offense's exposure to this was more common place.

 

- Finally, as you said, the problem seems beyond one or two players, but is simply wide-spread. That is why I question coaching over talent, though both are factors. If it was just a few individuals, then I would be more prone to say it was personnel, but as it is wide-spread, I look at the staff more. Clark, for example, is a veteran who is considered a good blocker, but way too often I have seen him flat out miss assignments. I have seen plays where he is expected to recognize and block a LB blitzing his side, but he doesn't even attempt a chip block before going into his route, and thus the LB has a free path to the QB. Clark is not some low-talent youngster. Tait, Kreutz and others often appear baffled on blitzes and stunts as well. Again, not low talent youngsters.

 

I am not a fan of Hiestand and made that clear last year. I've never figured out his love affair with Metcalf who IMO has never looked good in a game. Nobody seems to develop with this guy. He hated Beekman all preseason and yet he hasn't been anwhere near as bad as Metcalf was last year. He said Beekman was too small to play the position yet Garza is the exact same size? And worst of all, Hiestand said the Oline was playing well last year and fans didn't know what they were talking about.

 

Agreed. Frankly, I see the same issue beyond just Hiestand. Too many of our positions seem to lack development. Often I believe that our players develop inspite of coaching. Players who develop for us would have developed regardless. Too few players we draft who are considered high in raw talent, but needing development, never seem to make it.

 

I was always an Angelo basher, and still am, but more and more I have wondered if the problem is Angelo's inability to find talent (particularly on offense) or our staff's inability to develop that talent.

[CrackerDog]

One, just because he isn't sacked doesn't mean there wasn't pressure. Many of Rex' picks over the years were a direct result of his throwing the ball under pressure (often off his backfoot).

 

Two, didn't we change OL coaches between then and now. I know we have changed numerous other position coaches, but not sure about the OL.

 

Regardless, I still believe we struggled, even that year, when facing teams that blitzed and stunted. Early on, our OL looked great, but then (I think) Minny sort of exposed both the OL and Rex, and after that, teams began to attack more and more. In the first 8 weeks, Rex was sacked only 6 times. After that? 15.

 

I would also point to the SB. I think most recall Rex coming under a ton of pressure, but he was only technically sacked once. Just because the stat line only shows one sack doesn't mean he wasn't pressured, or that our OL did a good job.

 

All QB's are pressured. This is the NFL, not fantasyland. The measure of a line is the productivity of the RB's and the sacks it gives up.

 

And no, we haven't changed the line coach.

[madlithuanian]

Playing slight devil's advocate...would a problematic or inept coaching staff also rest on Angelo's shoulders?

 

 

I was always an Angelo basher, and still am, but more and more I have wondered if the problem is Angelo's inability to find talent (particularly on offense) or our staff's inability to develop that talent.

[nfoligno]

All QB's are pressured. This is the NFL, not fantasyland. The measure of a line is the productivity of the RB's and the sacks it gives up.

 

Wow, do I disagree w/ this statement. No question "a" measure of the productivity of the OL surrounds the run game, but I think the pass protection is judged by more than just sacks.

 

You can have a QB that excels throwing the ball away to avoid a sack, but that doesn't mean the OL did their job. Just because there wasn't a sack, doesn't mean the OL got it done. Frankly, you usually don't have more than a handful of sacks a game, if even that, but you often have considerably more "QB pressures" or "QB hurries". Those can be as much of an evaluation of the OL as simply looking at the sack stat column.

 

Again Seattle, there was a play where Rex was hit as he was throwing the ball, and the result was a pick. A sack was not credited because the QB got rid of the ball, but I think you would be hard pressed to argue the OL got it done on that play.

 

Sacks are great, but not the end all, be all, evaluation of an OL.

[nfoligno]

Playing slight devil's advocate...would a problematic or inept coaching staff also rest on Angelo's shoulders?

 

I would absolutely say blame rolls up to Lovie. Angelo? That is a bit trickier. He is the GM, and all blame can roll up to him, but while that is technically true, I think the brunt of the blame is below him. Angelo can fire, or demand to be fired, any coach. But short of that, there isn't much he can do. The HC is supposed to manage the coaching staff. I would prefer to simply lay the blame at Lovie, as it is his job to manage the coaches. To me, the more the GM interferes w/ this, the worst the situation becomes.

[madlithuanian]

I agree. I think it's on Lovie. But I guess in a Truman-esque way...ultimately the buck stops at JA.

 

I would absolutely say blame rolls up to Lovie. Angelo? That is a bit trickier. He is the GM, and all blame can roll up to him, but while that is technically true, I think the brunt of the blame is below him. Angelo can fire, or demand to be fired, any coach. But short of that, there isn't much he can do. The HC is supposed to manage the coaching staff. I would prefer to simply lay the blame at Lovie, as it is his job to manage the coaches. To me, the more the GM interferes w/ this, the worst the situation becomes.

[jason]

Read the whole thread thus far...thoughts...

 

1) I say it's a combination of bad talent (i.e. drafting) and bad coaching. So, blame lands on JA for drafting (or not drafting) an adequate number of talented OLinemen, as well as Lovie and staff for not competently preparing the guys they have.

2) If the Bears do stunt in practice and preseason, I know that I can't recall seeing it more than a handful of times over the past several years. It's something I've screamed for, especially considering the fact that any of our DEs can just be pushed up the field on their outside rush move.

3) No man who is married truly wears the pants in the family.

[CrackerDog]

Sacks are great, but not the end all, be all, evaluation of an OL.

 

Find me the stats for "hurries" for 2006 and I'll agree. They may exist somewhere but aren't available to me. So, much like the Dow is an indicator of the direction of the stock market, so are sacks for the OL. I'm not saying you can judge an OL's success simply by sacks but the stat we have to track them, compared to other teams, is sacks.

[nfoligno]

Interesting.

 

So by your logic, in 2005 (year before the SB when few thought much of us) our OL was a top 10 pass protecting unit. We were tied for 10th in fewest sacks given up that year.

 

I don't even see what you are trying to prove here. In the SB, our OL gave up only 1 sack. Does that mean they did a good job protecting Rex? I think most who watched the SB would question that thought.

 

Sacks are a measure, but not the one and only, of pass protection. Frankly, I am not sure why you are even arguing this. Is it just because you love to argue?

 

There have been games where I have watched our defense rush the hell out of another QB, but rack up few actual sacks as the QB kept throwing the ball away. But so long as the sack numbers are not high, our defense didn't pressure the QB? Come on Cdog, you can do better than that.

 

Another problem w/ this concept is it doesn't factor the QB enough. You have two teams, both w/ crap OLs, but one has a good QB who can scramble and avoid trouble, while the other has an older veteran pocket passer that should have retired a few years prior. Wanna bet which team gives up more sacks? Doesn't mean that OL was so much worse than the other, but the QB simply couldn't handle the pressure.