Coaching vs Execution

[nfoligno]

So where does the problem lie? Is it w/ coaching or execution. And please, no middle of the road, "both" answers. Obviously, we have some issues w/ both, but which side of the fence does the greater level lie?

 

Offense

 

I think everyone here would disagree w/ quite a few playcalls, and I would agree. But I would also argue that we would disagree w/ some playcalls from every game, regardless who the coach is. While there are have some very questionabel playcalls, on offense, I think the issue is more execution.

 

One big plus I give to Turner was an adjustment I saw after the 1st half. In the first half, Orton was getting flat out killed. In that half, we were sending out most of our players into routes, and leaving the OL to block Orton. They couldn't get it done. In the 2nd half, I saw a lot more additional blockers, which bought Orton more time, which allowed WRs to run their routes. In the first half, Orton was running for his life, and our WRs didn't have time to run their routes. In that half, we had ONLY ONE reception by a WR (Davis). In the 2nd half, we kept more blockers back to protect Orton, and this allowed for routes to develop, allowing for 8 receptions by WRs.

 

I am not saying Turner is great, but I do think he made an adjustment that allowed our offense to do far better in the 2nd half. But in the end, weak OL play and some drops, hurt our offense more than simple coaching.

 

Defense

 

Honestly, I don't know what to say. I give Babich some credit for being aggressive, and staying that way. Late in the game, when I expected us to drop into a prevent defense, we didn't. We continued to blitz late in the game, and those blitzes gave us our only pressure. But that is also points to part of the problem. We were not getting any pressure w/o the blitz, and even w/ the blitz, pressure was hit and miss (more often miss).

 

So that comes to an old question. Is our inability to mount pressure a problem of coaching of execution? My belief is still coaching. I still rarely see stunts or inside moves. Our DEs continue to simply take outside rush lanes, and thus simply get pushed out of the play, while the offense stacks the middle to blockout our DTs and inside blitzes.

 

This problem is compounded w/ our DBs playing soft and way off the LOS.

 

Maybe the problem is execution, but I sort of look at it this way. Babich is unproven, while many of our players are proven. Thus, i think the burden is on Babich.

 

Lovie

 

Its one thing for the D to look tired when the offense goes 3 and out every series, but we were winning the TOP battle, and still our D looked tired. And this is only the 3rd game. And we are supposed to have this rotation that prevents such. Is this a problem of Camp Lovie?

 

I don't know. Our offense is not loaded w/ talent, and yet seems to be doing decent. Our defense though is sick w/ talent, and yet are simply not playing well. So while I am not sure coaching is as much a problem on offense, I do think coaching is the key issue on defense, and at the top as well.

[jason]

So where does the problem lie? Is it w/ coaching or execution. And please, no middle of the road, "both" answers. Obviously, we have some issues w/ both, but which side of the fence does the greater level lie?

 

Offense

 

I think everyone here would disagree w/ quite a few playcalls, and I would agree. But I would also argue that we would disagree w/ some playcalls from every game, regardless who the coach is. While there are have some very questionabel playcalls, on offense, I think the issue is more execution.

 

One big plus I give to Turner was an adjustment I saw after the 1st half. In the first half, Orton was getting flat out killed. In that half, we were sending out most of our players into routes, and leaving the OL to block Orton. They couldn't get it done. In the 2nd half, I saw a lot more additional blockers, which bought Orton more time, which allowed WRs to run their routes. In the first half, Orton was running for his life, and our WRs didn't have time to run their routes. In that half, we had ONLY ONE reception by a WR (Davis). In the 2nd half, we kept more blockers back to protect Orton, and this allowed for routes to develop, allowing for 8 receptions by WRs.

 

I am not saying Turner is great, but I do think he made an adjustment that allowed our offense to do far better in the 2nd half. But in the end, weak OL play and some drops, hurt our offense more than simple coaching.

 

Defense

 

Honestly, I don't know what to say. I give Babich some credit for being aggressive, and staying that way. Late in the game, when I expected us to drop into a prevent defense, we didn't. We continued to blitz late in the game, and those blitzes gave us our only pressure. But that is also points to part of the problem. We were not getting any pressure w/o the blitz, and even w/ the blitz, pressure was hit and miss (more often miss).

 

So that comes to an old question. Is our inability to mount pressure a problem of coaching of execution? My belief is still coaching. I still rarely see stunts or inside moves. Our DEs continue to simply take outside rush lanes, and thus simply get pushed out of the play, while the offense stacks the middle to blockout our DTs and inside blitzes.

 

This problem is compounded w/ our DBs playing soft and way off the LOS.

 

Maybe the problem is execution, but I sort of look at it this way. Babich is unproven, while many of our players are proven. Thus, i think the burden is on Babich.

 

Lovie

 

Its one thing for the D to look tired when the offense goes 3 and out every series, but we were winning the TOP battle, and still our D looked tired. And this is only the 3rd game. And we are supposed to have this rotation that prevents such. Is this a problem of Camp Lovie?

 

I don't know. Our offense is not loaded w/ talent, and yet seems to be doing decent. Our defense though is sick w/ talent, and yet are simply not playing well. So while I am not sure coaching is as much a problem on offense, I do think coaching is the key issue on defense, and at the top as well.

 

Frankly, I think we just disagree on these things to a degree.

 

On offense, I think Turner did make adjustments, and the O did better in the first half. However, it's more than just the whole "he didn't make three or four right calls" argument. He constantly calls plays that make no sense in a football sense. He has since he's been here. Who the hell calls a shotgun pass on 3rd and short? Who does it with the QB, OL, and WRs we have? That's just moronic, and you'd think someone with years of experience as an offensive coordinator would know that.

 

On defense, Babich didn't blitz that much in the second half in the important spots. I was calling for it on nearly every play during the last two or three drives, and it didn't happen often. People misperceive this because the Bears have a lot of players on the line, but they still end up sending the front 4. If the Bears were actually blitzing effectively, there is no way in hell that Griese throws 60+ times. Turner needs to watch the last 5 years of game tape from the Eagles to figure out how to A] plan, and B] execute, a successful blitz that pounds the opposing QB. Hell, he could start with this week's beatdown the Eagles applied to Ben Rothlisberger. Not to mention the fact that I COMPLETELY agree with your assessment of the DLine. More stunts are needed, and the DE's running around end is laughably predictable. The biggest travesty, however, is the fact that every one of the Bears' opponents knows that the slant route is good for about 15 free receptions a game against the soft corners created by the cover-2 and the 10-yard cushion given by the Bears' DBs.

 

As my thread says, unless this improves drastically, the coaching staff needs to be fired. The only one doing well is Toub on ST.

 

With all that said, the players aren't playing well either...so they deserve a lesser portion of the blame.

[Pixote]

Personally, I feel it is more execution on offense than game plan.

 

Personally, I think our defense is playing fine until they run out of gas late in the 3rd quarter do to time of possession always seeming to be heavily in favor of the opponent do to poor execution of our offense.

 

I just do not believe we have the talent on offense for ANY OC to look successful as they are not skilled enough to execute any scheme we could devise. Sad, but IMHO, true.

[GrizzlyBear]

Frankly, I think we just disagree on these things to a degree.

 

On offense, I think Turner did make adjustments, and the O did better in the first half. However, it's more than just the whole "he didn't make three or four right calls" argument. He constantly calls plays that make no sense in a football sense. He has since he's been here. Who the hell calls a shotgun pass on 3rd and short? Who does it with the QB, OL, and WRs we have? That's just moronic, and you'd think someone with years of experience as an offensive coordinator would know that.

 

On defense, Babich didn't blitz that much in the second half in the important spots. I was calling for it on nearly every play during the last two or three drives, and it didn't happen often. People misperceive this because the Bears have a lot of players on the line, but they still end up sending the front 4. If the Bears were actually blitzing effectively, there is no way in hell that Griese throws 60+ times. Turner needs to watch the last 5 years of game tape from the Eagles to figure out how to A] plan, and B] execute, a successful blitz that pounds the opposing QB. Hell, he could start with this week's beatdown the Eagles applied to Ben Rothlisberger. Not to mention the fact that I COMPLETELY agree with your assessment of the DLine. More stunts are needed, and the DE's running around end is laughably predictable. The biggest travesty, however, is the fact that every one of the Bears' opponents knows that the slant route is good for about 15 free receptions a game against the soft corners created by the cover-2 and the 10-yard cushion given by the Bears' DBs.

 

As my thread says, unless this improves drastically, the coaching staff needs to be fired. The only one doing well is Toub on ST.

 

With all that said, the players aren't playing well either...so they deserve a lesser portion of the blame.

 

First off Turner has nothing to do with defense. Secondly, Url and Harris ( our 2 top defenders) Have disappeared. Harris has yet to get a pressure let alone a sack. And where is our Golden boy Url been? He has played awful. At least to me he has. He has taken over games before. Ie cardinals.... This defense has more to do with the Play of our stars then of Babich.

[nfoligno]

On offense, I think Turner did make adjustments, and the O did better in the first half. However, it's more than just the whole "he didn't make three or four right calls" argument. He constantly calls plays that make no sense in a football sense. He has since he's been here. Who the hell calls a shotgun pass on 3rd and short? Who does it with the QB, OL, and WRs we have? That's just moronic, and you'd think someone with years of experience as an offensive coordinator would know that.

 

I am not arguing that Turner makes some really bone-headed calls. IMHO, he out-thinks himself. He believes teams expect one thing, so he is going to do something different. I get the logic, but at the same time, there is a reason teams expect something. On 3rd and 1, teams expect you are going to handoff to your RB. They expect this because most offenses expect to convert a 3rd and 1 w/ their RB. Too often, coaches out-think themselves, and Turner absolutely does this.

 

Another non-recent example. I recall there being a game where we were facing an elite pass defense and weak run defense. Our strength was in the run game, so it would seem to matchup to our favor. Instead, we got pass happy. The reason? Our staff said they expected the defense to be geared up to stop the run, so we tried to do something different. But doing something different meant utilizing our weakness against their strength. We played into their hands, and it was ugly.

 

But I am still going to give Turner some credit here. How often do we scream for our coaches to adjust? Finally, I saw an effective adjustment.

 

Also, while some bear fans I think want to look at our offensive personnel and think more, we simply lack talent. Our OL is flat out awful. Our QB is simply a lesser of evils currently on the roster. Our best WR is a multiple team castoff. RB has looked great, but is a rookie, and has also made some rookie mistakes (blocking in particular).

 

Can Turner do better. Abso-freaking-lutely. But lets not pretend this is a greatly talented offense that should be blowing opponents out of the water.

 

On defense, Babich didn't blitz that much in the second half in the important spots. I was calling for it on nearly every play during the last two or three drives, and it didn't happen often. People misperceive this because the Bears have a lot of players on the line, but they still end up sending the front 4. If the Bears were actually blitzing effectively, there is no way in hell that Griese throws 60+ times. Turner needs to watch the last 5 years of game tape from the Eagles to figure out how to A] plan, and B] execute, a successful blitz that pounds the opposing QB. Hell, he could start with this week's beatdown the Eagles applied to Ben Rothlisberger. Not to mention the fact that I COMPLETELY agree with your assessment of the DLine. More stunts are needed, and the DE's running around end is laughably predictable. The biggest travesty, however, is the fact that every one of the Bears' opponents knows that the slant route is good for about 15 free receptions a game against the soft corners created by the cover-2 and the 10-yard cushion given by the Bears' DBs.

 

Sure, we "show" a potential to blitz many, and many do drop back into coverage, but I disagree we don't blitz that much. We may stack the LOS, only to see 3 drop back, but on most downs, I saw at least one blitz. I am among the largest "babich-haters", and while I still am, the one thing I have given him is being more aggressive than in the past. We have blitzed, but (a) it is too obvious and ( just isn't effective.

 

I assume you meant Babich needs to watch Eagles tape, and I couldn't agree more. I said in another thread how I salivate at the thought of our personnel under Eagles coaching. If only we could get a coach from the Eagles organization. Oh wait. We did, but let him go because he didn't want to run Lovie's scheme.

 

Regarding the DL, I have said this before, but will continue to tell it. Idonije was on the Score last year being interviewed by former bears, when he was asked if we stunted. He paused. Said no. Then tried to explain how we have so much talent we don't need to. He was obviously uncomfortable w/ the question. After he was off the line, the former bears went off talking about how an average OT can easily block a pro bowl DE is he knows which way that DE is going to rush every snap. That really went off on our staff.

 

As for our DBs, I really don't even understand the idea. While I disagree, I understand the thinking on our DL at least. DEs rush outside and prevent the QB from dropping deep, while the DTs penetrate inside. But I don't understand the idea behind our DBs playing so soft. IMHO, all this does is negate any potential pass rush. No matter how good your pass rush is, if the WR is immediately open, no DE/DT can get to the QB. Even if our DL was getting it done, our DBs are giving the QB an easy out.

 

As my thread says, unless this improves drastically, the coaching staff needs to be fired. The only one doing well is Toub on ST.

 

Yea, I give Toub a lot of credit. While our STs has not played as well this year, he has done the best job of coaching, IMHO. Every year he seems to lose some of his best STs players in the offseason, has tremendous amounts of turnover, and often gets a ton of players who barely make the team. And yet he always seems to produce solid special teams play.

 

With all that said, the players aren't playing well either...so they deserve a lesser portion of the blame.

 

Plenty of blame to go around, and I think there is plenty of blame for the players. We bash the DBs for soft coverage, but should that not also prevent the big plays we have given up? Coaches can't be blamed for drops or fumbles on the other side of the ball. And while we may lack talent, that doesn't excuse the horrible play of the OL. If it were just St Clair and Beekman struggling, fine, but I watched Garza, Tait and Kreutz getting abused as well.

[nfoligno]

First off Turner has nothing to do with defense. Secondly, Url and Harris ( our 2 top defenders) Have disappeared. Harris has yet to get a pressure let alone a sack. And where is our Golden boy Url been? He has played awful. At least to me he has. He has taken over games before. Ie cardinals.... This defense has more to do with the Play of our stars then of Babich.

 

But the coaches put the players into position.

 

For example, Harris (and the whole DL) if they are not allowed to rush the passer in more non-expected ways, it makes their job a lot harder.

 

I agree the players have not done enough, but also simply question the coaching/scheme which puts them in position.

 

I just can't help but watch other teams (likely Phily) and wonder what out players would be capable of in their systems, under their coaching.

[nfoligno]

I agree in general on offense. While there are many things I would like to see different, I simply think too many fans expect too much from our offense, considering the flat lack of talent on that side of the ball.

 

I disagree on defense though. We won the TOP battle in the 1st half nearly 2-1. It was a little better than 19-11 TOP edge for the bears. And it isn't like we simply began going 3 and out after that.

 

Orton threw a TD to make it 24-14. It was a 6 play, 3:30 minute drive that went 50+ yards. On the next series, our defense started at the 20, and in great field position, but then allowed a 12 play 63 yard drive to put TB w/in one score. We went 3 and out, as we tried (and failed) to run out the clock, but the D still had plenty of rest, especially w/ the TOs TB took and the 2 minute warning. Regardless, they allowed an 11 play, 80 yard TD drive.

 

Sorry, but no way the D can blame the O. O provided the D w/ great rest in the midst of a major TOP edge. A two score lead, w/ not a ton of time on the clock. And the D was never in bad field position to start a drive. Add in our D facing a very mediocre offense, and there are simply no excuses left.

 

Personally, I feel it is more execution on offense than game plan.

 

Personally, I think our defense is playing fine until they run out of gas late in the 3rd quarter do to time of possession always seeming to be heavily in favor of the opponent do to poor execution of our offense.

 

I just do not believe we have the talent on offense for ANY OC to look successful as they are not skilled enough to execute any scheme we could devise. Sad, but IMHO, true.

[madlithuanian]

nfo,

 

It's good to read your take. I've been eagerly awaiting!

 

O: Your first line is completely true. No matter the coordinator, no matter the plays,etc...we'll always find something to be upset about. I think that hold true for all positions and not just O.

 

However, I think overall, while I have seen improvment in Turner, it's not enough. I'm basing this on his tenure here (recent, not the Wanny years). TOo often, it's vanilla calls when it shouldn't be, and crazy plays when it shouldn't be. I do think execution is at issue because I feel we are of weak talent on O...but I think most the failure resides with how Turner is utilizing the weak talent. You know your guy can make that throw. Don't make him throw it.

 

D: You are right, the durden is on Babich and he is failing miserably. The talent is there...it is not being used properly.

 

Lovie: I think you know where I stand...and that's in the line to have him fired. I think he is yet another good coordinator that is not HC material. Given the right parameters, Lovie can succed. As a HC, I think he is just not good enough. Too many ppor choices in judgment for his staff, too many penalties, too many players failing in fundamentals (conditioning, tackling), an attitude more infuriating than Belicheck (you get more honesty from a politician than you do Lovie), and the lack of emotion (can he one time get a LITTLE angry at our poor performances?).

 

I just fear this club will go nowhere substantial under this coaching regime. We may make a playoff appearance in the next couple years. But I do not see anything beyind a round 1 or wild card loss. This team is just not good enough, nor do I see the pieces in place for it to improve greatly next year. We still need to have a QB waiting in the wings, and as much as I like Hanie...I'm not seeing it.

 

So where does the problem lie? Is it w/ coaching or execution. And please, no middle of the road, "both" answers. Obviously, we have some issues w/ both, but which side of the fence does the greater level lie?

 

Offense

 

I think everyone here would disagree w/ quite a few playcalls, and I would agree. But I would also argue that we would disagree w/ some playcalls from every game, regardless who the coach is. While there are have some very questionabel playcalls, on offense, I think the issue is more execution.

 

One big plus I give to Turner was an adjustment I saw after the 1st half. In the first half, Orton was getting flat out killed. In that half, we were sending out most of our players into routes, and leaving the OL to block Orton. They couldn't get it done. In the 2nd half, I saw a lot more additional blockers, which bought Orton more time, which allowed WRs to run their routes. In the first half, Orton was running for his life, and our WRs didn't have time to run their routes. In that half, we had ONLY ONE reception by a WR (Davis). In the 2nd half, we kept more blockers back to protect Orton, and this allowed for routes to develop, allowing for 8 receptions by WRs.

 

I am not saying Turner is great, but I do think he made an adjustment that allowed our offense to do far better in the 2nd half. But in the end, weak OL play and some drops, hurt our offense more than simple coaching.

 

Defense

 

Honestly, I don't know what to say. I give Babich some credit for being aggressive, and staying that way. Late in the game, when I expected us to drop into a prevent defense, we didn't. We continued to blitz late in the game, and those blitzes gave us our only pressure. But that is also points to part of the problem. We were not getting any pressure w/o the blitz, and even w/ the blitz, pressure was hit and miss (more often miss).

 

So that comes to an old question. Is our inability to mount pressure a problem of coaching of execution? My belief is still coaching. I still rarely see stunts or inside moves. Our DEs continue to simply take outside rush lanes, and thus simply get pushed out of the play, while the offense stacks the middle to blockout our DTs and inside blitzes.

 

This problem is compounded w/ our DBs playing soft and way off the LOS.

 

Maybe the problem is execution, but I sort of look at it this way. Babich is unproven, while many of our players are proven. Thus, i think the burden is on Babich.

 

Lovie

 

Its one thing for the D to look tired when the offense goes 3 and out every series, but we were winning the TOP battle, and still our D looked tired. And this is only the 3rd game. And we are supposed to have this rotation that prevents such. Is this a problem of Camp Lovie?

 

I don't know. Our offense is not loaded w/ talent, and yet seems to be doing decent. Our defense though is sick w/ talent, and yet are simply not playing well. So while I am not sure coaching is as much a problem on offense, I do think coaching is the key issue on defense, and at the top as well.

[nfoligno]

O: Your first line is completely true. No matter the coordinator, no matter the plays,etc...we'll always find something to be upset about. I think that hold true for all positions and not just O.

 

However, I think overall, while I have seen improvment in Turner, it's not enough. I'm basing this on his tenure here (recent, not the Wanny years). TOo often, it's vanilla calls when it shouldn't be, and crazy plays when it shouldn't be. I do think execution is at issue because I feel we are of weak talent on O...but I think most the failure resides with how Turner is utilizing the weak talent. You know your guy can make that throw. Don't make him throw it.

 

I understand what you are saying, and largely agree. I told Jason that I think Turner FAR too often out-thinks himself. Its 3rd and 1. Your RB has been doing well, and that should simply not be a difficult playcall, but Turner starts thinking. He starts thinking about how they are going to load the box, and maybe we should do something different, so he starts thinking alternatives. Why? Your RB has run well, and needs only 1 yard. There just shouldn't be so much to think about. Hand him the ball. But he out-thinks himself. The reasons why I am not "as" on Turner's case:

 

(1) We have screamed for adjustments, and finally I saw it. I saw an adjustment in scheme that led to a great 2nd half from Orton and our offense. Maybe that doesn't negate the rest, but we have been so starving for adjustments, I give him a little extra credit for finally seeing it.

 

(2) I just don't think we have much talent on offense, and yet: we have scored 20, 10 and 23 on offense, we have a ROY candidate in Forte even though our OL stinks, we have a mediocre QB who has not looked awful, and just had a 100 yard WR, which is rare in Chicago. Could we be better? Sure? But I think the talent is lacking on offense, so I tend to give Turner more of a pass than Babich or Lovie, especially as I don't think our O is truly losing games. I think you would agree we should have a top 5 defense. If our D was living up to its hype, would we be 3-0?

 

D: You are right, the durden is on Babich and he is failing miserably. The talent is there...it is not being used properly.

 

Yup, this is where I really bash scheme/coaching. On offense, there is little talent, so I just question how much we should expect. On D though, we are loaded w/ pro bowl players and near pro bowl players. We supposedly have starting grade backups at DE, DT, LB and CB. We also have continuity, as many of our D players are returning veterans. And yet we have allowed a lot of points and yards to very mediocre offenses. Both Carolina and TB were w/o their top playmakers, and yet we still could not capotize.

 

Lovie: I think you know where I stand...and that's in the line to have him fired. I think he is yet another good coordinator that is not HC material. Given the right parameters, Lovie can succed. As a HC, I think he is just not good enough. Too many ppor choices in judgment for his staff, too many penalties, too many players failing in fundamentals (conditioning, tackling), an attitude more infuriating than Belicheck (you get more honesty from a politician than you do Lovie), and the lack of emotion (can he one time get a LITTLE angry at our poor performances?).

 

I don't even believe he was a very good coordinator. When exactly did StL have a great defense? As I recall, they had an elite offense that quickly took a lead, forcing opponents to become one dimensional. Lovie's D were big on turnovers, but gave up a ton of points and yards in the process. StL won a lot of games, but how often did their D shut down opponents.

 

I see Lovie as a network/good 'ol boy hire. Angelo's roots were w/ TB, and he knew Lovie from TB. He hired a guy he knew, and then Lovie brought in his guy (Babich) as well. I just never thought Lovie was a great hire, and still don't see him as a great (or even good) HC.

 

I just fear this club will go nowhere substantial under this coaching regime. We may make a playoff appearance in the next couple years. But I do not see anything beyind a round 1 or wild card loss. This team is just not good enough, nor do I see the pieces in place for it to improve greatly next year. We still need to have a QB waiting in the wings, and as much as I like Hanie...I'm not seeing it.

 

Agreed. We have a GM that can't put together a talented offense, and an OC that doesn't make average players play at a higher level. On the other side of the ball, we are loaded w/ talent, but don't have the coaches or scheme to utilize that talent.

[BigDaddy]

So where does the problem lie? Is it w/ coaching or execution. And please, no middle of the road, "both" answers. Obviously, we have some issues w/ both, but which side of the fence does the greater level lie?

 

Offense

 

I think everyone here would disagree w/ quite a few playcalls, and I would agree. But I would also argue that we would disagree w/ some playcalls from every game, regardless who the coach is. While there are have some very questionabel playcalls, on offense, I think the issue is more execution.

 

One big plus I give to Turner was an adjustment I saw after the 1st half. In the first half, Orton was getting flat out killed. In that half, we were sending out most of our players into routes, and leaving the OL to block Orton. They couldn't get it done. In the 2nd half, I saw a lot more additional blockers, which bought Orton more time, which allowed WRs to run their routes. In the first half, Orton was running for his life, and our WRs didn't have time to run their routes. In that half, we had ONLY ONE reception by a WR (Davis). In the 2nd half, we kept more blockers back to protect Orton, and this allowed for routes to develop, allowing for 8 receptions by WRs.

 

I am not saying Turner is great, but I do think he made an adjustment that allowed our offense to do far better in the 2nd half. But in the end, weak OL play and some drops, hurt our offense more than simple coaching.

 

Defense

 

Honestly, I don't know what to say. I give Babich some credit for being aggressive, and staying that way. Late in the game, when I expected us to drop into a prevent defense, we didn't. We continued to blitz late in the game, and those blitzes gave us our only pressure. But that is also points to part of the problem. We were not getting any pressure w/o the blitz, and even w/ the blitz, pressure was hit and miss (more often miss).

 

So that comes to an old question. Is our inability to mount pressure a problem of coaching of execution? My belief is still coaching. I still rarely see stunts or inside moves. Our DEs continue to simply take outside rush lanes, and thus simply get pushed out of the play, while the offense stacks the middle to blockout our DTs and inside blitzes.

 

This problem is compounded w/ our DBs playing soft and way off the LOS.

 

Maybe the problem is execution, but I sort of look at it this way. Babich is unproven, while many of our players are proven. Thus, i think the burden is on Babich.

 

Lovie

 

Its one thing for the D to look tired when the offense goes 3 and out every series, but we were winning the TOP battle, and still our D looked tired. And this is only the 3rd game. And we are supposed to have this rotation that prevents such. Is this a problem of Camp Lovie?

 

I don't know. Our offense is not loaded w/ talent, and yet seems to be doing decent. Our defense though is sick w/ talent, and yet are simply not playing well. So while I am not sure coaching is as much a problem on offense, I do think coaching is the key issue on defense, and at the top as well.

 

I blame the coaches. We may not have the most talented offense but I too saw the major change between the 1st and 2nd half from Orton. Turner FINALLY adjusted but why did he wait until the second half to do it? It's not that big a deal to put in the TEs. As far as the defense, how can you NOT blame both? I mean, we looked like worldbeaters the 1st 2 series and then we had our moments but the entire game, just like the past 2 games, we were getting murdered by that slant route. Now, if the CBs are playing as far off the line on as they are on their own accord, they need a swift kick in the nuts, if the coaches are forcing them to play that far off, they need a kick in the nuts. But the d line didn't even sniff Griese yesterday and he threw 67 times. Holy shit who do you blame that on? You gotta blame it on both. Surely our d line talent isn't that weak. I'm sure alot of it had to do with TB running max protect but you still have to cover the WR.

[azbearsfan]

So where does the problem lie? Is it w/ coaching or execution. And please, no middle of the road, "both" answers. Obviously, we have some issues w/ both, but which side of the fence does the greater level lie?

 

Offense

 

I think everyone here would disagree w/ quite a few playcalls, and I would agree. But I would also argue that we would disagree w/ some playcalls from every game, regardless who the coach is. While there are have some very questionabel playcalls, on offense, I think the issue is more execution.

 

One big plus I give to Turner was an adjustment I saw after the 1st half. In the first half, Orton was getting flat out killed. In that half, we were sending out most of our players into routes, and leaving the OL to block Orton. They couldn't get it done. In the 2nd half, I saw a lot more additional blockers, which bought Orton more time, which allowed WRs to run their routes. In the first half, Orton was running for his life, and our WRs didn't have time to run their routes. In that half, we had ONLY ONE reception by a WR (Davis). In the 2nd half, we kept more blockers back to protect Orton, and this allowed for routes to develop, allowing for 8 receptions by WRs.

 

I am not saying Turner is great, but I do think he made an adjustment that allowed our offense to do far better in the 2nd half. But in the end, weak OL play and some drops, hurt our offense more than simple coaching.

 

Defense

 

Honestly, I don't know what to say. I give Babich some credit for being aggressive, and staying that way. Late in the game, when I expected us to drop into a prevent defense, we didn't. We continued to blitz late in the game, and those blitzes gave us our only pressure. But that is also points to part of the problem. We were not getting any pressure w/o the blitz, and even w/ the blitz, pressure was hit and miss (more often miss).

 

So that comes to an old question. Is our inability to mount pressure a problem of coaching of execution? My belief is still coaching. I still rarely see stunts or inside moves. Our DEs continue to simply take outside rush lanes, and thus simply get pushed out of the play, while the offense stacks the middle to blockout our DTs and inside blitzes.

 

This problem is compounded w/ our DBs playing soft and way off the LOS.

 

Maybe the problem is execution, but I sort of look at it this way. Babich is unproven, while many of our players are proven. Thus, i think the burden is on Babich.

 

Lovie

 

Its one thing for the D to look tired when the offense goes 3 and out every series, but we were winning the TOP battle, and still our D looked tired. And this is only the 3rd game. And we are supposed to have this rotation that prevents such. Is this a problem of Camp Lovie?

 

I don't know. Our offense is not loaded w/ talent, and yet seems to be doing decent. Our defense though is sick w/ talent, and yet are simply not playing well. So while I am not sure coaching is as much a problem on offense, I do think coaching is the key issue on defense, and at the top as well.

 

 

Great Topic BTW.

 

For me neither the offensive or defensive scheme is bad. So on just calling plays I dont see a problem. Like you said, maybe a couple of times a game you would disagree with the playcalling, but that is every game and every team.

 

I think where the coaches need to be called out is the accountability of the players to do their jobs. When I look at this team, I dont see 11 players going full speed and taking care of their resposibilities. There is always 1, 2, 3, etc breakdowns where people are not using good technique or being in the right area.

 

You usually dont hire a coach with the same demeanor as the last one. Jauron was a players coach who trusted them to do their job. The problem becomes the players get complacent. So when they hired Lovie, I was under the impression that he was going to hold these guys accountable, get in their face, etc. And he tried to at first. Remember the first training camps and how hard they were? We had people getting pulls because they were not used to an intense regime like that. I think Lovie has since lost that edge a little each year. Now his players basically say that training camp is a joke. I think Lovie has not called out players when they need it. He has been inconsistant with pulling people out of the lineup. And if you played or coached before, you know that if you dont follow through with what you say you are going to do, then the players lose respect for you. I'm not saying Url blatently disrespects Lovie, but he knows that just because he says something doesn't mean its going to happen.

 

The real disappoinment for me is the defense. They pretty much blew off training camp, said they were going to "flip the switch" and it hasn't happened. When you are at the end of the game, two weeks in a row, and you let the opposing team win the game in the fourth quarter, thats desire. Thats pride. Thats saying who wants it more.

And thats where the coaches are failing us. By not holding these guys accountable.

[nfoligno]

Okay, you are a coach, right? Maybe not NFL, or even NCAA, but a coach none-the-less. So I throw this yout to you.

 

You say the scheme is not a problem, but how about how we play out DEs. I go back to this, and have mentioned it many times. But Idonije said himself we don't stunt. Former bears talked about this. We simply rush our DEs to the outside, w/o ever doing anything different. They talked about how much easier it is for an OT to block a DE when they know exactly what the DE is going to do.

 

Watch Freeney. He has incredible speed, but will also use that speed to get the OT off-balance, and then use an inside swim or power move to beat the OT. Thus, the OT can not over-commit to simply beat Freeney off the edge, as Freeney can use that to beat him inside.

 

In our scheme, we send out DEs wide everytime. If we stunted some, or simply allowed our DEs to use inside moves, they could be far more effective.

 

Every game, I watch our DEs go outside, only to see the OTs push them further outside, and well out of the reach of the QB. Average OTs are able to use the momentum of the DE to take them out of the play.

 

I also question how we blitz. How often do you see Urlacher or Briggs, or anyone, blitz from the outside. It seems like we always send them from the inside. When we do see an outside blitz, it is usually effective, IMHO because it is not the norm, and then not expected, and thus effective. But we rarely see it. So much more often, we blitz inside where offenses keep their extra blockers. Thus our LBs are picked up, and the blitz is negated. Why can't we mix up our blitzes more?

 

So you say our scheme is fine, but I simply disagree. I have no problem w/ your comments that our staff doesn't hold players accountable. But I still think scheme and coaching are a bigger issue.

[Mongo3451]

Its one thing for the D to look tired when the offense goes 3 and out every series, but we were winning the TOP battle, and still our D looked tired. And this is only the 3rd game. And we are supposed to have this rotation that prevents such. Is this a problem of Camp Lovie?

 

I don't know. Our offense is not loaded w/ talent, and yet seems to be doing decent. Our defense though is sick w/ talent, and yet are simply not playing well. So while I am not sure coaching is as much a problem on offense, I do think coaching is the key issue on defense, and at the top as well.

 

I don't think it's as much camp Lovie as it is a combo of two things. 1) We don't rotate our subs well. 2) Why the F%&k are we wearing midnight blue when it's 90 on the field. Didn't Carolina make us wear dark last week when it was hot at their place?

 

To me, it's that our staff is oblivious to forward thinking...

[nfoligno]

So are you saying that our starters are not capable of playing 60 minutes? Not all teams use deep rotations. In fact, many have a group of starters which play the majority of every game. I just don't see that as an excuse. I can understand the D getting tired if the O is going 3 and out every series, and the D is on the field 40 or 60 minutes, but it was quite the opposite. The D was getting plenty of rest on the sidelines as the O was winning (by a large margin) the TOP battle.

 

I know we talk about rotation, but are our players not well enough conditioned that they can play w/o it?

 

I don't think it's as much camp Lovie as it is a combo of two things. 1) We don't rotate our subs well. 2) Why the F%&k are we wearing midnight blue when it's 90 on the field. Didn't Carolina make us wear dark last week when it was hot at their place?

 

To me, it's that our staff is oblivious to forward thinking...

[azbearsfan]

Okay, you are a coach, right? Maybe not NFL, or even NCAA, but a coach none-the-less. So I throw this yout to you.

 

You say the scheme is not a problem, but how about how we play out DEs. I go back to this, and have mentioned it many times. But Idonije said himself we don't stunt. Former bears talked about this. We simply rush our DEs to the outside, w/o ever doing anything different. They talked about how much easier it is for an OT to block a DE when they know exactly what the DE is going to do.

 

Watch Freeney. He has incredible speed, but will also use that speed to get the OT off-balance, and then use an inside swim or power move to beat the OT. Thus, the OT can not over-commit to simply beat Freeney off the edge, as Freeney can use that to beat him inside.

 

In our scheme, we send out DEs wide everytime. If we stunted some, or simply allowed our DEs to use inside moves, they could be far more effective.

 

Every game, I watch our DEs go outside, only to see the OTs push them further outside, and well out of the reach of the QB. Average OTs are able to use the momentum of the DE to take them out of the play.

 

I also question how we blitz. How often do you see Urlacher or Briggs, or anyone, blitz from the outside. It seems like we always send them from the inside. When we do see an outside blitz, it is usually effective, IMHO because it is not the norm, and then not expected, and thus effective. But we rarely see it. So much more often, we blitz inside where offenses keep their extra blockers. Thus our LBs are picked up, and the blitz is negated. Why can't we mix up our blitzes more?

 

So you say our scheme is fine, but I simply disagree. I have no problem w/ your comments that our staff doesn't hold players accountable. But I still think scheme and coaching are a bigger issue.

 

There is no right or wrong scheme, per se. Each coach runs a scheme that they are familiar with. And any scheme can be successful or not depending on if you can get the players to do what they need to. Like at my school, we run a certain offense and defense. But there are alot of offenses and defenses that are different, but that doesn't mean we are right and other schools are wrong.

 

What you are talking about with the DE's is less scheme and more individual technique. The scheme part is the players responsibility gap wise. Like our DE's have the outside contain so the have to start their rush outside. From then, when they recognise pass its up to them to use their technique to get off the block and rush the passer. So to me, what you are describing is the coaches not getting the guys to use their different moves and skills to get off of blocks. And I have said before how I question the coaches in technique and player development.

 

As far as the blitz goes, that is scheme, but it is gambling. On that last drive, I saw plays where we didn't blitz and people were not where they were supposed to be in coverage. I also saw us blitz and it got picked up, and now there are open people cause we gambled and lost. So pick your poison.

[azbearsfan]

So are you saying that our starters are not capable of playing 60 minutes? Not all teams use deep rotations. In fact, many have a group of starters which play the majority of every game. I just don't see that as an excuse. I can understand the D getting tired if the O is going 3 and out every series, and the D is on the field 40 or 60 minutes, but it was quite the opposite. The D was getting plenty of rest on the sidelines as the O was winning (by a large margin) the TOP battle.

 

I know we talk about rotation, but are our players not well enough conditioned that they can play w/o it?

 

 

Agree with your on this, nfo. They need to be conditioned to play a whole game.

 

Plus we have a very deep defense line rotation. You have Harris, Dusty, Harrison, Idoneje, Brown , Anderson, and Wale all rotating in.

 

We really have no LB rotation.

 

And we have a smaller DB rotation.

[nfoligno]

What really bothers me is comments out of TB. Now, maybe it is all BS, but as it correlates w/ what we saw....

 

TBs players are saying our guys looked tired. They said that, late in the game, when they went into their hurry up offense, our guys appeared winded, and when that happens, you are going to see mistakes.

 

When an opponent runs a hurry up, it is far harder to sub our players and use a rotation, but (as you agreed) our starters should have been able to play w/o being winded. There is simply no excuse for the conditioning.

 

Agree with your on this, nfo. They need to be conditioned to play a whole game.

 

Plus we have a very deep defense line rotation. You have Harris, Dusty, Harrison, Idoneje, Brown , Anderson, and Wale all rotating in.

 

We really have no LB rotation.

 

And we have a smaller DB rotation.

[nfoligno]

There is no right or wrong scheme, per se. Each coach runs a scheme that they are familiar with. And any scheme can be successful or not depending on if you can get the players to do what they need to. Like at my school, we run a certain offense and defense. But there are alot of offenses and defenses that are different, but that doesn't mean we are right and other schools are wrong.

 

I follow what you are saying, but (a) I would sub the words right/wrong w/ good/bad. Now, I know you will likely argue schemes are not good/bad, but I simply am not sure I agree, at least in general. This is the NFL, and there are schemes that may be good in HS or college, but bad in the NFL. Even if you have the right personnel, I think there are schemes that simply are bad.

 

W/ that said, maybe the cover two is not a bad scheme, in and of itself. I do not like it, but I realize the scheme has worked elsewhere. At the same time, I think how we run the scheme hurts. Indy runs the cover two, but I see more press coverage from their DBs, DEs that rush inside and out, LBs that blitz from all over, etc. So while both Lovie and Dungy run the cover two, there are big differences in how they are run. So when I say our scheme is not good, that doesn't necessarily mean the cover two in general, but how we run it.

 

I know you say that is technique, but I think it is also scheme. I'll get into that below.

 

What you are talking about with the DE's is less scheme and more individual technique. The scheme part is the players responsibility gap wise. Like our DE's have the outside contain so the have to start their rush outside. From then, when they recognise pass its up to them to use their technique to get off the block and rush the passer. So to me, what you are describing is the coaches not getting the guys to use their different moves and skills to get off of blocks. And I have said before how I question the coaches in technique and player development.

 

But here is the big question. Is the problem the staff not getting the players to use more moves, or is the problem the staff not allowing them to use more moves? Again, I go back to this. (a) I saw Wale use plenty of moves when w/ Miami, but since joining the Bears, he seems like a one trick pony. Did he forget all those other moves, or has he been coached not to use them. ( Lovie described how we rush the passer, and in doing so, he said our DEs attack the outside, while the DTs the inside. That seems to correlate w/ what we see each week on the field, and thus lends support to the belief it is the coaches more than the player © finally, if the players are not doing what the staff wants, would there not be something done about it? Since our DEs have rushed the way they have for years, I have to believe they are doing what the staff wants them to do.

 

For the final point, I would also point to our DBs. If the staff wanted our DBs to play press coverage, but they dropped back 7-10 yards every snap, would the staff not do something about it? As they continue to play that way, I have to assume the staff is fine w/ how they are playing.

 

One more thing. What about stunts. It is not up to our players whether or not they stunt. That is a decision the staff makes. Our players simply do not stunt. Idonije said as much himself, and it was ripped by former bears. That is not technique, but scheme.

 

So at the end of the day, I see a very predictable pass rush. Due to the level of talent, our DL can still apply pressure at times, but as it is so predictable, they are not nearly as good as they could be. You say the problem is technique, but I think it is scheme. That doesn't mean cover 2 in general, but "our" scheme. The way our coaches design our plays and coach our players. That is where I see a very real problem.

 

As far as the blitz goes, that is scheme, but it is gambling. On that last drive, I saw plays where we didn't blitz and people were not where they were supposed to be in coverage. I also saw us blitz and it got picked up, and now there are open people cause we gambled and lost. So pick your poison.

 

Agreed that any blitz is a gamble. I would point to the other side of the ball as an example. W/ Rex in the game, I see teams send the house. This will leave a defense exposed, but teams don't believe Rex can take advantage, and thus they blitz the house. W/ Orton, while he gets blitzed, I see far less. I think teams believe Orton is better finding the hot route and recognizing the blitz, and thus the risk is greater.

 

Back to our defense. The problem for me, again, is our blitzes seem to predictable. We have been doing a good job of showing a lot of potential blitzers, hiding who will actually blitz, but still, it seems like it is always an inside blitz. An offense may not know whether it will be Urlacher or Briggs blitzing, but they know it will be inside, and thus they can more easily pick it up. When I have seen us blitz from the outside, it seems like there is a FAR greater level of success. IMHO, it is because it is not expected. If we mixed up our blitzes more, the inside may also be effective, as an offense would not know whether to defend the inside or outside, much less which side. Does that make sense?

 

So I realize any blitz is a risk, but I think we are too preditable in where we blitz from, which is a big factor in why our blitz is so often ineffective. Here is what I see. Despite how good our DEs are, most teams leave their OTs on an island to block our DEs. Our DEs are one trick ponies, and thus easier to defend, which is why an offense can get away w/ solo blocks on the outside. That leaves 3 OL to defend two DTs. Then you add an inside blitz. Because the blitz most always comes from the inside, the RB/FB who is held back for blitz pickup has an easier time, as he knows where he needs to be to block. Contrast this with what our RBs often deal w/. They don't know whether to look outside left, outside right, or up the gut. Any hessitation puts them out of position, and thus pressure on the QB. When a team faces us, the RB can get in front of the QB and doesn't have that level of uncertainty.

 

At the end of the day, whether you want to call it technique or scheme, I think we have a failure on the part of our staff. I think we have talent enough on defense to be a top 5 D, if not better, but our staff holds us back.

[madlithuanian]

I can't really argue any of your takes...

 

No matter how you slice it, it's sad! And it's probably going to be this way for a few more years before we hit the re-boot button...

[azbearsfan]

There is no right or wrong scheme, per se. Each coach runs a scheme that they are familiar with. And any scheme can be successful or not depending on if you can get the players to do what they need to. Like at my school, we run a certain offense and defense. But there are alot of offenses and defenses that are different, but that doesn't mean we are right and other schools are wrong.

 

I follow what you are saying, but (a) I would sub the words right/wrong w/ good/bad. Now, I know you will likely argue schemes are not good/bad, but I simply am not sure I agree, at least in general. This is the NFL, and there are schemes that may be good in HS or college, but bad in the NFL. Even if you have the right personnel, I think there are schemes that simply are bad.

 

W/ that said, maybe the cover two is not a bad scheme, in and of itself. I do not like it, but I realize the scheme has worked elsewhere. At the same time, I think how we run the scheme hurts. Indy runs the cover two, but I see more press coverage from their DBs, DEs that rush inside and out, LBs that blitz from all over, etc. So while both Lovie and Dungy run the cover two, there are big differences in how they are run. So when I say our scheme is not good, that doesn't necessarily mean the cover two in general, but how we run it.

 

I know you say that is technique, but I think it is also scheme. I'll get into that below.

 

What you are talking about with the DE's is less scheme and more individual technique. The scheme part is the players responsibility gap wise. Like our DE's have the outside contain so the have to start their rush outside. From then, when they recognise pass its up to them to use their technique to get off the block and rush the passer. So to me, what you are describing is the coaches not getting the guys to use their different moves and skills to get off of blocks. And I have said before how I question the coaches in technique and player development.

 

But here is the big question. Is the problem the staff not getting the players to use more moves, or is the problem the staff not allowing them to use more moves? Again, I go back to this. (a) I saw Wale use plenty of moves when w/ Miami, but since joining the Bears, he seems like a one trick pony. Did he forget all those other moves, or has he been coached not to use them. ( Lovie described how we rush the passer, and in doing so, he said our DEs attack the outside, while the DTs the inside. That seems to correlate w/ what we see each week on the field, and thus lends support to the belief it is the coaches more than the player © finally, if the players are not doing what the staff wants, would there not be something done about it? Since our DEs have rushed the way they have for years, I have to believe they are doing what the staff wants them to do.

 

For the final point, I would also point to our DBs. If the staff wanted our DBs to play press coverage, but they dropped back 7-10 yards every snap, would the staff not do something about it? As they continue to play that way, I have to assume the staff is fine w/ how they are playing.

 

One more thing. What about stunts. It is not up to our players whether or not they stunt. That is a decision the staff makes. Our players simply do not stunt. Idonije said as much himself, and it was ripped by former bears. That is not technique, but scheme.

 

So at the end of the day, I see a very predictable pass rush. Due to the level of talent, our DL can still apply pressure at times, but as it is so predictable, they are not nearly as good as they could be. You say the problem is technique, but I think it is scheme. That doesn't mean cover 2 in general, but "our" scheme. The way our coaches design our plays and coach our players. That is where I see a very real problem.

 

As far as the blitz goes, that is scheme, but it is gambling. On that last drive, I saw plays where we didn't blitz and people were not where they were supposed to be in coverage. I also saw us blitz and it got picked up, and now there are open people cause we gambled and lost. So pick your poison.

 

Agreed that any blitz is a gamble. I would point to the other side of the ball as an example. W/ Rex in the game, I see teams send the house. This will leave a defense exposed, but teams don't believe Rex can take advantage, and thus they blitz the house. W/ Orton, while he gets blitzed, I see far less. I think teams believe Orton is better finding the hot route and recognizing the blitz, and thus the risk is greater.

 

Back to our defense. The problem for me, again, is our blitzes seem to predictable. We have been doing a good job of showing a lot of potential blitzers, hiding who will actually blitz, but still, it seems like it is always an inside blitz. An offense may not know whether it will be Urlacher or Briggs blitzing, but they know it will be inside, and thus they can more easily pick it up. When I have seen us blitz from the outside, it seems like there is a FAR greater level of success. IMHO, it is because it is not expected. If we mixed up our blitzes more, the inside may also be effective, as an offense would not know whether to defend the inside or outside, much less which side. Does that make sense?

 

So I realize any blitz is a risk, but I think we are too preditable in where we blitz from, which is a big factor in why our blitz is so often ineffective. Here is what I see. Despite how good our DEs are, most teams leave their OTs on an island to block our DEs. Our DEs are one trick ponies, and thus easier to defend, which is why an offense can get away w/ solo blocks on the outside. That leaves 3 OL to defend two DTs. Then you add an inside blitz. Because the blitz most always comes from the inside, the RB/FB who is held back for blitz pickup has an easier time, as he knows where he needs to be to block. Contrast this with what our RBs often deal w/. They don't know whether to look outside left, outside right, or up the gut. Any hessitation puts them out of position, and thus pressure on the QB. When a team faces us, the RB can get in front of the QB and doesn't have that level of uncertainty.

 

At the end of the day, whether you want to call it technique or scheme, I think we have a failure on the part of our staff. I think we have talent enough on defense to be a top 5 D, if not better, but our staff holds us back.

 

 

Well it looks like we are talking about the same thing but with different terms.

 

To me the scheme we are playing is the Lovie's cover 2. Like you say, its less aggressive than other styles which is not good or bad just different. The problem is when the players are not doing what they are supposed to do in the scheme to be successful. Two things about that point to coaches. First, they are not getting taught the proper techniques to be successful in that scheme. Second, they are getting taught and just not being held accountable when they dont do it right.

 

Lets take your DE pressure example. So they are taught to take an outside path for contain purposes. Thats fine because we have seen A Brown come straight down the line a couple times and lose contain this year. The problem becomes then the pass rush needs to come from the middle of the field to force the QB's into our DE paths. (We have seen this happen this year too.) So it becomes the DT responsibility to get upfield push and blitzing LB's. When they get no pressure from the middle then we are in trouble. So its the coaches job to make sure we get that push through technique. Some observations I have seen is that our guys are pretty bad at shedding blocks. If they get locked up they are pretty much done. Thats technique.

 

The whole being tired crap is ridiculous. Thats the other part of coaching that I see lacking. Making these guys responsible. Its poor dicipline to blatently coast through TC and then not be physically ready to play at the end of games. For this I blame the players, because they are supposed to be professionals, and the coaches for not making them get ready.

[Mongo3451]

name='nfoligno' date='Sep 23 2008, 09:32 AM' post='48071']

So are you saying that our starters are not capable of playing 60 minutes? Not all teams use deep rotations. In fact, many have a group of starters which play the majority of every game. I just don't see that as an excuse. I can understand the D getting tired if the O is going 3 and out every series, and the D is on the field 40 or 60 minutes, but it was quite the opposite. The D was getting plenty of rest on the sidelines as the O was winning (by a large margin) the TOP battle.

 

I know we talk about rotation, but are our players not well enough conditioned that they can play w/o it

 

It's the cover two principle. The DL is conditioned like a bunch of track athletes and are undersized. Look at the Colts and even Tampa. All played worse in the 2nd half. Fact is: Tampa lost it 1st, but we completely gave the game away with three horrible plays. 1) AP's block in the back(and it was a good call) 2) Davis wide open drop (almost like alligator arms) 3) P'nuts gaffe. (no f'n excuse) Game over. Our D gave it up, but theirs did too. (that's even)

[azbearsfan]

It's the cover two principle. The DL is conditioned like a bunch of track athletes and are undersized. Look at the Colts and even Tampa. All played worse in the 2nd half. Fact is: Tampa lost it 1st, but we completely gave the game away with three horrible plays. 1) AP's block in the back(and it was a good call) 2) Davis wide open drop (almost like alligator arms) 3) P'nuts gaffe. (no f'n excuse) Game over. Our D gave it up, but theirs did too. (that's even)

 

 

lol Which of our DL are conditioned like track athletes?

[nfoligno]

Well it looks like we are talking about the same thing but with different terms.

 

Yea, I think we are both ripping the staff, but using different words to explain why.

 

To me the scheme we are playing is the Lovie's cover 2. Like you say, its less aggressive than other styles which is not good or bad just different. The problem is when the players are not doing what they are supposed to do in the scheme to be successful. Two things about that point to coaches. First, they are not getting taught the proper techniques to be successful in that scheme. Second, they are getting taught and just not being held accountable when they dont do it right.

 

Lets take your DE pressure example. So they are taught to take an outside path for contain purposes. Thats fine because we have seen A Brown come straight down the line a couple times and lose contain this year. The problem becomes then the pass rush needs to come from the middle of the field to force the QB's into our DE paths. (We have seen this happen this year too.) So it becomes the DT responsibility to get upfield push and blitzing LB's. When they get no pressure from the middle then we are in trouble. So its the coaches job to make sure we get that push through technique. Some observations I have seen is that our guys are pretty bad at shedding blocks. If they get locked up they are pretty much done. Thats technique.

 

While I agree there is a problem in that, if players are not getting it done, the staff should be stepping in. But where I disagree is this. IMHO, the scheme is simply not good. When I say scheme, I mean Angelo's defense, whatever we want to call it. You argue it is okay for us to employ a scheme where the DEs rush outside, while we penetrate inside. You further argue that if the inside penetration is not there, the staff can be blamed in so much as they need to better instruct our players how to penetrate inside. But I disagree w/ the scheme itself.

 

I disagree w/ the idea of not allowing our DEs to do more. You say you have seen Brown take a straight line approach, but I have yet to see it. I have seen two times where he was knocked into a straight line approach by a TE who doubled him, and our outside was exposed, but I have not seen him rush the passer expect from the outside.

 

Back to my disagreement, which some players (not ours) have seemed to support. By only having our DEs rush outside, we make the job of the OT that much easier. Further, we are then somewhat negating two potential pass rushers, and limiting our pass rush to the interior. I look at our DL and see a lot of potential pass rushers, but the way we have them attack the QB, I just believe we cripple our DEs.

 

What if we used our DL more like Blache did. We asked our DL to take up blockers to free up the LBs to wreak havoc. Would you be in favor of that? I guess my point is, we have 4 pass rushing DL, so why not use them all. Instead of using your DEs to set up the DTs, use all 4 to attack the QB. If we did that, I doubt Brian Griese could throw 60+ times w/o being sacked.

 

Part of my issue is, our "scheme" is simply to narrow. The more narrow a scheme, the easier it is to defend. An offense knows what it has to do to beat us. (a) Have the OTs simply push the DEs wide and outside the pocket. As they only edge rush, that job is easier done. ( Max protect the interior. If you know the pass rush, whether from the DTs or blitz, will come from inside, then you can more easily defend it. I don't care how good the personnel is, if you are predictable, then you are more easily defended. That is a huge part of my issue w/ our scheme. Dungy runs a similar scheme, but it has more variences. DEs utilize inside moves as well as outside. The blitz can come from anywhere. This combination makes it much more difficult to defend/block than when you know the route the pass rush will come from.

 

The whole being tired crap is ridiculous. Thats the other part of coaching that I see lacking. Making these guys responsible. Its poor dicipline to blatently coast through TC and then not be physically ready to play at the end of games. For this I blame the players, because they are supposed to be professionals, and the coaches for not making them get ready.

 

I guess we can blame the players some, but the players don't decide how many reps they get in camp. They play (in games and practices) when told. I can workout on my own for a marathon all I want, but unless I have a trainer providing a competent workout, I will never make it to the finish line.

 

One last point. I have mentioned it before, but will ask again. Do you not think it a mistake that we do not stunt? You can talk about how the coaches need to improve player technique in getting off blocks, for example, but if we are failing to pressure the QB in the scheme we have, would that not infer we should make adjustments beyond simple technique?

 

Think on offense, as I think that is more often easier to make an example. If you continually run your RB up the gut, and it doesn't work, do you simply say you need to work more on breaking tackles and working w/ the OGs, w/o trying something different? If all we ever did was run Forte up the middle, I bet you would be screaming we should see some off-tackle runs or sweeps. If the defense knows how and where the RB will go after getting the ball, it simply makes their job easier. I disagree w/ the idea you simply work on technique to make him better capable of running inside. IMHO, the problem would be how predictable we are, and I would say we need to vary our runs more. Mix it up. That is what I feel for our defense and pass rush. So long as we continue to be so predictable in how we rush the passer, we will never realize our players potential.

[nfoligno]

I think his meaning is:

 

(a) short sprint track athletes, as opposed to marathon. Good at the start, but if the race is more than a sprint, they get winded.

 

( as a coach, I think you would agree there is a difference between being well conditioned, and being game conditioned. Our players may be good running a bunch of wind sprints, but when you factor the hitting of the game, they are getting winded too easily. It is one thing to gain conditioning on a track, but another to gain conditioning from lot of pre-season reps in a game.

 

lol Which of our DL are conditioned like track athletes?

[azbearsfan]

Well it looks like we are talking about the same thing but with different terms.

 

Yea, I think we are both ripping the staff, but using different words to explain why.

 

To me the scheme we are playing is the Lovie's cover 2. Like you say, its less aggressive than other styles which is not good or bad just different. The problem is when the players are not doing what they are supposed to do in the scheme to be successful. Two things about that point to coaches. First, they are not getting taught the proper techniques to be successful in that scheme. Second, they are getting taught and just not being held accountable when they dont do it right.

 

Lets take your DE pressure example. So they are taught to take an outside path for contain purposes. Thats fine because we have seen A Brown come straight down the line a couple times and lose contain this year. The problem becomes then the pass rush needs to come from the middle of the field to force the QB's into our DE paths. (We have seen this happen this year too.) So it becomes the DT responsibility to get upfield push and blitzing LB's. When they get no pressure from the middle then we are in trouble. So its the coaches job to make sure we get that push through technique. Some observations I have seen is that our guys are pretty bad at shedding blocks. If they get locked up they are pretty much done. Thats technique.

 

While I agree there is a problem in that, if players are not getting it done, the staff should be stepping in. But where I disagree is this. IMHO, the scheme is simply not good. When I say scheme, I mean Angelo's defense, whatever we want to call it. You argue it is okay for us to employ a scheme where the DEs rush outside, while we penetrate inside. You further argue that if the inside penetration is not there, the staff can be blamed in so much as they need to better instruct our players how to penetrate inside. But I disagree w/ the scheme itself.

 

I disagree w/ the idea of not allowing our DEs to do more. You say you have seen Brown take a straight line approach, but I have yet to see it. I have seen two times where he was knocked into a straight line approach by a TE who doubled him, and our outside was exposed, but I have not seen him rush the passer expect from the outside.

 

Back to my disagreement, which some players (not ours) have seemed to support. By only having our DEs rush outside, we make the job of the OT that much easier. Further, we are then somewhat negating two potential pass rushers, and limiting our pass rush to the interior. I look at our DL and see a lot of potential pass rushers, but the way we have them attack the QB, I just believe we cripple our DEs.

 

What if we used our DL more like Blache did. We asked our DL to take up blockers to free up the LBs to wreak havoc. Would you be in favor of that? I guess my point is, we have 4 pass rushing DL, so why not use them all. Instead of using your DEs to set up the DTs, use all 4 to attack the QB. If we did that, I doubt Brian Griese could throw 60+ times w/o being sacked.

 

Part of my issue is, our "scheme" is simply to narrow. The more narrow a scheme, the easier it is to defend. An offense knows what it has to do to beat us. (a) Have the OTs simply push the DEs wide and outside the pocket. As they only edge rush, that job is easier done. ( Max protect the interior. If you know the pass rush, whether from the DTs or blitz, will come from inside, then you can more easily defend it. I don't care how good the personnel is, if you are predictable, then you are more easily defended. That is a huge part of my issue w/ our scheme. Dungy runs a similar scheme, but it has more variences. DEs utilize inside moves as well as outside. The blitz can come from anywhere. This combination makes it much more difficult to defend/block than when you know the route the pass rush will come from.

 

The whole being tired crap is ridiculous. Thats the other part of coaching that I see lacking. Making these guys responsible. Its poor dicipline to blatently coast through TC and then not be physically ready to play at the end of games. For this I blame the players, because they are supposed to be professionals, and the coaches for not making them get ready.

 

I guess we can blame the players some, but the players don't decide how many reps they get in camp. They play (in games and practices) when told. I can workout on my own for a marathon all I want, but unless I have a trainer providing a competent workout, I will never make it to the finish line.

 

One last point. I have mentioned it before, but will ask again. Do you not think it a mistake that we do not stunt? You can talk about how the coaches need to improve player technique in getting off blocks, for example, but if we are failing to pressure the QB in the scheme we have, would that not infer we should make adjustments beyond simple technique?

 

Think on offense, as I think that is more often easier to make an example. If you continually run your RB up the gut, and it doesn't work, do you simply say you need to work more on breaking tackles and working w/ the OGs, w/o trying something different? If all we ever did was run Forte up the middle, I bet you would be screaming we should see some off-tackle runs or sweeps. If the defense knows how and where the RB will go after getting the ball, it simply makes their job easier. I disagree w/ the idea you simply work on technique to make him better capable of running inside. IMHO, the problem would be how predictable we are, and I would say we need to vary our runs more. Mix it up. That is what I feel for our defense and pass rush. So long as we continue to be so predictable in how we rush the passer, we will never realize our players potential.

 

 

As far as stunting goes, this season I have seen us use a Tex stunt (DT works outside and the DE goes underneath to the inside). But probably not as much as you would like. Stunting is like blitzing where it is a gamble because you will have people out of position.

 

The best defenses are the ones were you can just line up and play ball. By blitzing and stunting you are trying to basically "cheat" to help a deficient area (in this case the D Line which is part of the problem ), and by doing so you are making another area of you defense weak. Personally, I am not a fan of alot of blitzing or blitzing just to change it up. You may disagree with that, but it doesn't make it a bad scheme. Just different philosiphies.

Every coach has a certain scheme or style. Its how they get their players to play in that scheme that makes it work.

 

And in the NFL, everyone pretty much knows what everyone else is going to run (besides the occasional gimmick ala Dolphins this week). Shoot in high school we watch a ton of film on our opponents. Like this week, our opponent runs what called the Markum Wing. That school has been running it since it started. What we have to do this week is get our kids ready for a good running quarterback and running back. We will have to make sure our kids maintain their responsibilities so the integrity of our defense remains sound. Sounds easy, but extremely hard to accomplish.

 

Same with the Bears. It doesn't matter what defense they come out in, it matters if they maintain their individual responsibilities for the integrity of the defense.

 

And on offense its a little different as alot of times you are using certain plays to set up others later on.