Are the OL issues talent or coaching?

[nfoligno]

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.

 

I think you would agree I have rip Angelo for the OL we have brought in, and (as you say) that we haven't. Still, I just wonder.... When you look around the league, you find a plethera of teams who have starting OL that were drafted on day two. Not every team drafts OL w/ their top picks, but other teams seem more capable of developing these players.

 

Is the problem Angelo drafted Metcalf, or is the problem Metcalf simply was never developed under this staff. Or Beekman. Here we have an OG that was drafted in the 4th, and who was considered a pretty solid (possible day one) draft pick. The only reason he is getting a look now is due to injuries.

 

To me, there is no question Angelo hasn't done enough. At the same time, I have started to wonder if Angelo's one-sided ability isn't more our offensive staff's inability to develop the talent Angelo brings in, and thus he looks incapable of drafting offensive talent. Take for example Justin Gage, who never developed here, but is looking quite solid w/ Tenn. Wade goes to Minny, and his first year there, w/ an awful QB, he has a career year. If those players developed in Chicago, would Angelo look "as" bad?

 

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.

 

You and me both. Since I heard the Idonije interview last year, followed by a group of ex-bears blasting the team for this, I have been talking about it. Those ex-players talked about how an average OT can best a pro bowl DE when that DE does the same thing every time. If that is his only move, you just push him wide, outside of the play. But a pro bowl DE would never use just one move. They may have a key move, but they would also use that to get the OT off balance, then use a different move.

 

Cracker may say we stunt, but when our own player on the DL says we don't, I tend to believe the player first.

 

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

 

Anyone who believes different is fooling himself, or trying too.

[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.

[CrackerDog]

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'm saying that a team that gives up twice as many sacks tends to give up more hurries, tipped balls, interceptions because of pressure, fewer completions. It's an indicator. Follow? Of course the QB involved plays into it, hence why I support the decision to go with Orton. But in this dicussion you have to take the QB as a constant or you can't analyze the line as the variable. Rex 2006, about 1 sack per game. Rex 2007, about a million sacks per game. Coaching was the same. Rex was the same. Talent? Ah, now MAYBE you get it.

 

Your premise is our coaching is failing all this wonderful O Line talent we have. Read the post that started this thread. Well, I've proven that our line was regarded in 2006 and the staff hasn't changed. The talent has OBVIOUSLY degraded. You COME ON. You certainly can do better than this weak shit. Are you seriously suggesting our line talent today is as good as it was a few years ago? Grow a brain.

 

But that doesn't mean the current crop we have can't be coached up and improve from what we saw the other night. Lord, I sure hope they can. I hope we get some better talent too via picking up a few scraps from elsewhere. The line is the key. I've been crying about our aging line since before last season started. I had a bunch of people here telling me the line was "veteran but not old." LOL! Now all of a sudden I see a few others have come to the same conclusions I reached then. Folks who believe they'd be better at GM than JA is. It's a ferkin' joke!

 

End of rant.

[nfoligno]

Your premise is our coaching is failing all this wonderful O Line talent we have. Read the post that started this thread. Well, I've proven that our line was regarded in 2006 and the staff hasn't changed. The talent has OBVIOUSLY degraded. You COME ON. You certainly can do better than this weak shit. Are you seriously suggesting our line talent today is as good as it was a few years ago? Grow a brain.

 

One, I think the talk of sacks frankly got us off point.

 

Two, I still disagree about how good our OL was in 2006. Was it better than last year? Sure. Same talent? Basically. Injuries and age took their toll. But in 2006, I see sort of two seasons. At the start, our offense was incredible, and our OL was part of that. Then opponents began blitzing and stunting, and after that, sack totals went up. Did the OL change from the first half of the year to the 2nd? No. What changed is how defenses attacked us, and our OL/offense was not able to compensate.

 

But that doesn't mean the current crop we have can't be coached up and improve from what we saw the other night. Lord, I sure hope they can. I hope we get some better talent too via picking up a few scraps from elsewhere. The line is the key. I've been crying about our aging line since before last season started. I had a bunch of people here telling me the line was "veteran but not old." LOL! Now all of a sudden I see a few others have come to the same conclusions I reached then. Folks who believe they'd be better at GM than JA is. It's a ferkin' joke!

 

I think you misunderstand. You make out like I am saying Fred Miller would have been a stud this past year if it were not for coaching. No. What I am saying is:

 

(a) I think coaching as been PART of the problem. Even when our OL was better, they appeared suceptibe to stunts and blitzes. It isn't just once in a while either. Man, so often when we see the opponents attack us this way, our guys flat out look lost. And again, I am not just talking about the Metcalf's of the OL/offense. Veterans, who are considered solid or better, simply look lost and confused when a defense stunts and blitzes. The other night, when Seattle dropped their two DEs into coverage, and blitzed their two OLBs, our two OTs stood there w/o a clue what to do. you can say St.Clair and Tait suck, but I offer the idea that they are simply not prepared, and that is coaching. And before you say, "it was the 2nd preseason game" it is just one recent example. Clark is another who is a solid veteran, but can also kill us on blitzes when he doesn't pick up a guy who the staff even say was his responsibility.

 

( Talent is a problem, and a big one. How can you think I feel different when you criticized me for the "I told ya so" posts. I have been screaming for OL for years. Talent is w/o question a problem on this team. At the same time, I don't think it is the only problem.

 

© While we haven't drafted many, we have drafted some OL through Angelo's time. None have done jack. Is Angelo just that bad of an evaluator? Maybe. Or another posibility is that some of these players might have been better than what we have seen, but were not coached/developed well. Frankly, w/ our history on offense, I think the problem is more than just one thing. I think it is more than just not being able to draft talent, but a combo of that AND not being able to develop players we draft, w/ Berrian being maybe the lone exception.

[GreatScott82]

I would have to say talent... And i blaim that on Angelo. He clearly has a very poor track record of evaluating young offensive talent. He is 0-2 in drafting OL talent so far in the 1st round (Columno/Williams). Is it his fault they both went down to injuries? Probably not, but damn!! Did you see how quickly Seattle cut right through that line on saturday? In 2005 and 2006 the Bears had a solid O-line because of the veterans Kruetz, Tait, Miller, and Brown. Buts once they started declining due to wear and tear and old age everyghing else went down with it.. St. Claire seems to take one step back just when you think he moves forward, and Metcalf never really impressed me. I also expect to see a big decline in Taits production this season as we will likely need to fill 2 more holes in the next draft.... Im serious the Bears will likely fall this season, going 6-10 or 7-9 and it all starts with the o-line. Angelo focused hard on the defense and locking up his own guys this offseason. Its obvious he doesnt plan on winning it this year. His plan is for 2009. How can you expect to win when your #1 reciever is Brandon Lloyd and your QB (no disrespect) is Orton behind a very thin O-line? He wants the team to falter, so he can get 2 high picks, so he can eventually fill those other 2 holes in the O-line, go and FINALLY make a trade for a real QB and bring in some real WRs... I heard Boldin wants out of AZ after this season...that would be a good start....

[CrackerDog]

I think coaching as been PART of the problem.

 

Then you shouldn't have said "I am not trying to pretend we have a very talented OL, but I do wonder if the problem is more coaching than talent."

 

I wouldn't have had to spend all this time schooling you again. Glad you finally admitted you were totally wrong.

[nfoligno]

Then you shouldn't have said "I am not trying to pretend we have a very talented OL, but I do wonder if the problem is more coaching than talent."

 

I wouldn't have had to spend all this time schooling you again. Glad you finally admitted you were totally wrong.

 

What is amazing is, we can talk so long and still not communicate.

 

A. I think the problem is more than any one thing, and have said as much. I don't think the problem is JUST coaching, nor do I think it is JUST any one thing. I think the problem is a combination of multiple variables.

 

B. While it has been assumed, and I admit may in fact be, that talent is the A#1 problem, I have come to wonder more and more how much our coaching is at play. And yes, to the point where I wonder if coaching is not as much, or even more, a problem than simply saying talent.

 

Let me ask you this. In general, and not just w/ regard to the OL, do you believe Angelo is simply a defensive evaluating genius, and (in terms of the draft) an offensive idiot? Because if the problems on the OL, as well as the rest of the offense, are in fact about talent, then I think that is what you have to believe. On the other hand, as you have pointed out, Angelo has had some very solid veteran offensive finds/pickups. So that may actually put a dent into the idea he is an idiot evaluating talent.

 

So what is the difference between drafting offensive players and getting them through trade and FA. Well, one difference is that veterans are already developed players. Drafted players however, must be developed. Thus, again, I wonder how much of the issue is coaching and development.

 

Gage and Wade are two fairly recent examples of players who never developed w/ us, but have since developed into solid receivers w/ other teams. Not saying either are great, but they have shown a level of development unseen in Chicago. As much of a Rex basher as I am, at the same time, I wonder if one day he won't go to another team and develop to a level he never did in Chicago. I wonder if Berrian takes it to another level.

 

So, it comes back to Angelo v Lovie and Co. Again, remember, I am an Angelo basher, so it isn't like I have some bias here that favors my argument. I simply have come to wonder if Angelo is truly so inept evaluating offensive talent in the draft, of the a larger part of the problem isn't our staffs inability to develop the talent he brings in. Beekman might be a recent example for the OL. While I am not saying he has looked great or anything, I would say he has looked a lot better than the staff expected. I mean, this staff refused to even give him a look, much less an opportunity. They were not planning on considering him at OG this year either until injuries forced their hand. And yet, he hasn't looked that bad, which says a lot about a guy who has not even been practicing at OG.

 

Maybe its all Angelo. Fine. Then we just need a new GM, as I don't believe getting it done on one side of the ball is enough. Or maybe Angelo isn't as bad as I have felt, and the greater problem is the staffs inability to develop the talent he brings in.

[CrackerDog]

Maybe its all Angelo. Fine. Then we just need a new GM, as I don't believe getting it done on one side of the ball is enough. Or maybe Angelo isn't as bad as I have felt, and the greater problem is the staffs inability to develop the talent he brings in.

 

How about none of the above? I don't agree with your premise at all. I think Angelo was probably slow to address the line issue I saw coming at us before last year but there could be lots of reasons for that other than "Jerry's an idiot." I also don't agree with you that coaching is necessarily at fault. You claim we can't cover stunts because we don't practice/use those on defense but lots of teams play one gap, lots of teams play 3-4 and others play 4-3. Teams play bump and run while others play back or zone...

 

You practice for those elements and game plan for them within the context of the week's practice for those teams. You don't go out of your way to do so during training camp while players are trying to develop basic skills and learn the playbook, checkdowns, coverages, timing, etc. You're mixing apples and oranges.

 

Right now the Bears are trying to adjust the plan from having a rookie at LT, Tait at RT and a few new guys at guard to introducing yet another wildcard by having to cover for an injury at LT. The job was already difficult, forgive them if they can't whip this all together to your satisfaction in a few days.

 

I know, you claim we've sucked at all of this for years now and you're just now bringing it up. Fine. I'll take sucking all the way to the Superbowl all day, every day. Seems to me they were doing something right on offense despite Rex and his inconsistent nature. Seems to me this coaching staff has consistently brought in new bodies and plugged them in and gotten decent productivity out of them. Seems to me Jerry has done a fairly good job of providing them with talent, via the draft and free agency, while managing the cap and rewarding our current deserving players.

 

Seems to me we still have some time before the season starts for all of this to show, once again. I hope things aren't as bleak as many here seem to think they are. I'm sure certain low character guys here will be dancing on my grave for being hopeful on August 21 if things go south this season. Screw them.

[Lucky Luciano]

While we haven't drafted many, we have drafted some OL through Angelo's time. None have done jack. Is Angelo just that bad of an evaluator? Maybe. Or another posibility is that some of these players might have been better than what we have seen, but were not coached/developed well. Frankly, w/ our history on offense, I think the problem is more than just one thing. I think it is more than just not being able to draft talent, but a combo of that AND not being able to develop players we draft, w/ Berrian being maybe the lone exception.

 

drafted some.... how many you ask?

 

1) in 7years angie drafted 2 projected LOT's in the 1st round 6 years apart. LOT was a critical need for this franchise the day he stepped off the plane at o'hare. anyone who thinks you can bring in a FA at that position that isn't at the very end of his career is dreaming.

 

2) in 7 years angie has NEVER drafted an offensive tackle of any sort in the 2nd round. our need for tackles on both ends has been in critical mode with the exception of tait in the fold who didn't even play at his probowl quality position (ROT). instead he let tait play an average game at LOT which negated the huge contract we offered him. yup real smart.

 

angie also has NEVER drafted a guard in this round when this has been a critical need since he let villareal (sp) go in free agency and tucker was injured year after year.

 

3) angie has drafted ONE guard in round 3 SIX years ago and '0' tackles in 7 years. after 2 seasons metcalf could't cut it as a tackle or guard as plainly seen by anyone yet he was our drafted future starter/depth for this entire time.

 

4) angie drafted ONE guard/center in round 4 in 7 years and '0' tackles!! this was beekman in 2007.

 

5) angie drafted '0' guards or tackles in round FIVE in 7 years!!!!

 

6) angie drafted ONE guard or tackle in round 6 in 7 years!!!!!! this is beyond pathetic when your OL is considered not worthy of picks before the 7th round.

 

to say angelo has drafted players at these positions and it could be a problem with our coaching staff is simply laughable. sure there are exceptions to the rule, but generally if you want quality tackles you draft them in the first three rounds. if you want average talented starting guards you draft them in rounds 4-5. if you want probowl quality guards you draft them on the first day. it's a total disgrace as a GM if you can't even draft guards!!!

 

any coaching staff needs quality drafted players to work with. if you give them camp fodder from the 7th round to develop players from you have just tied BOTH hands behind their backs to start out with even if they ARE good coaches.

 

what angie has done is bring in other teams proven players in FA to fill in the gaps because he DOESN'T draft them or know a good one from a bad one. this leaves us with either super high priced players like tait or cast offs because of age or injury like miller, brown, and garza. this gives us a 2-3 year window for our line to work together before the FA's are burned out. there is NO continuity of players playing together and it shows. ask kreutz.

 

B. While it has been assumed, and I admit may in fact be, that talent is the A#1 problem, I have come to wonder more and more how much our coaching is at play. And yes, to the point where I wonder if coaching is not as much, or even more, a problem than simply saying talent.

 

Let me ask you this. In general, and not just w/ regard to the OL, do you believe Angelo is simply a defensive evaluating genius, and (in terms of the draft) an offensive idiot? Because if the problems on the OL, as well as the rest of the offense, are in fact about talent, then I think that is what you have to believe. On the other hand, as you have pointed out, Angelo has had some very solid veteran offensive finds/pickups. So that may actually put a dent into the idea he is an idiot evaluating talent.

 

So what is the difference between drafting offensive players and getting them through trade and FA. Well, one difference is that veterans are already developed players. Drafted players however, must be developed. Thus, again, I wonder how much of the issue is coaching and development.

 

1) coaching on the offensive side of the ball has BEEN a problem in chicago for 50 years!! we lowball defensive minded head coaches and hire cheap offensive coordinators to compliment him. can anyone be surprised our offensive coaches are 2nd or 3rd rate?? we have never even had an OC go to another team in the nfl and even be good enough to coach at the same position he did in chicago let alone become a head coach. it's a joke.

 

2) angelo a defensive genius? for XXX's sake we only have 3-4 defensive players he has drafted in 7 years good enough to start!! that's genius? also if you keep drafting the same position players over and over again in the first 5 rounds you are bound to find a few don't you think?

 

3) the difference between drafting offensive players and getting them through FA is critical. although the players you bring in may be proven they eat up your cap space for good young ones and limit your choice on others to lesser talent or aging or injured vets because they are cheap enough to fit into your cap scenario. if you get them through the draft you have players playing together over a period of years which is a major plus and if they are good + you have averaged their rookie contracts out with their high resigning money instead of just paying the maximum amount like we did tait.