Problems begin in the trenches

[nfoligno]

I have seen many areas called out, but to me, more than any other key, we are simply losing the battle of the trenches.

 

Offense

 

Atlanta is not a great run defense, but we made them look pretty dang good. Prior to playing us, Grant (GB) hit them for 83 yards, and Grant has sucked this year. Carolina tag teamed them w/ Williams and Stewart for about 110. Larry Johnson, who has looked old and tired, racked up 121, and even Jamal Charles got into the action for another 40. TB ran all over them too w/ Graham (116) and Dunn (50). Then we face them, and we watch Forte getting hit early and often in the backfield. He ended up getting 76 yards on 20 carries, but those numbers are not representative IMHO. Forte had one really good run (20 yards), but otherwise was again averaging below 3 ypc. I am not ripping Forte, so Forte fans can simmer down. He was running into a freaking brick wall.

 

I have seen some fans talk about how our pass blocking is looking better than our run blocking, but I question that somewhat. Personally, I think Orton is getting rid of the ball quickly, and doing a good job of throwing it away, and thus making the OL look better. How often have we really seen Orton able to sit in the pocket and allow plays to develop. He seems to always be having to move around and avoid a rush. Our OL is getting pushed back, and simply doing little at this point. Also notice the passes batted down. Man, Anderson was blowing up Tait. Garza was worse.

 

Going into the season, the OL was expected to be a problem. Early on, there was hope they would be better than expected, but that is becoming more and more questionable IMHO.

 

Defense

 

The DL is doing a solid job stopping the run. They are holding their lanes, and not allowing cut backs. They are moving their blocks, and in position to make stops.

 

BUT there is just so little in terms of pass rush. I swear, its almost like we have Blache as the DC again. This DL is supposed to be build on the idea of speed and penetration, and yet they are simply getting little to none.

 

We talk about QBs, WRs, secondary, etc, but IMHO, the real problem lies in the trenches. On offense, that was at least expected, but on defense? We have spent way too much money to see the level of productivity we have seen to date.

[madlithuanian]

I agree 100%.

 

Is it me, or does Olin look like he's constantly getting blown up? Is he trying to do too much and help the G's out, or is he a shadow of his old self?

 

 

 

I have seen many areas called out, but to me, more than any other key, we are simply losing the battle of the trenches.

 

Offense

 

Atlanta is not a great run defense, but we made them look pretty dang good. Prior to playing us, Grant (GB) hit them for 83 yards, and Grant has sucked this year. Carolina tag teamed them w/ Williams and Stewart for about 110. Larry Johnson, who has looked old and tired, racked up 121, and even Jamal Charles got into the action for another 40. TB ran all over them too w/ Graham (116) and Dunn (50). Then we face them, and we watch Forte getting hit early and often in the backfield. He ended up getting 76 yards on 20 carries, but those numbers are not representative IMHO. Forte had one really good run (20 yards), but otherwise was again averaging below 3 ypc. I am not ripping Forte, so Forte fans can simmer down. He was running into a freaking brick wall.

 

I have seen some fans talk about how our pass blocking is looking better than our run blocking, but I question that somewhat. Personally, I think Orton is getting rid of the ball quickly, and doing a good job of throwing it away, and thus making the OL look better. How often have we really seen Orton able to sit in the pocket and allow plays to develop. He seems to always be having to move around and avoid a rush. Our OL is getting pushed back, and simply doing little at this point. Also notice the passes batted down. Man, Anderson was blowing up Tait. Garza was worse.

 

Going into the season, the OL was expected to be a problem. Early on, there was hope they would be better than expected, but that is becoming more and more questionable IMHO.

 

Defense

 

The DL is doing a solid job stopping the run. They are holding their lanes, and not allowing cut backs. They are moving their blocks, and in position to make stops.

 

BUT there is just so little in terms of pass rush. I swear, its almost like we have Blache as the DC again. This DL is supposed to be build on the idea of speed and penetration, and yet they are simply getting little to none.

 

We talk about QBs, WRs, secondary, etc, but IMHO, the real problem lies in the trenches. On offense, that was at least expected, but on defense? We have spent way too much money to see the level of productivity we have seen to date.

[azbearsfan]

I agree 100%.

 

Is it me, or does Olin look like he's constantly getting blown up? Is he trying to do too much and help the G's out, or is he a shadow of his old self?

 

 

I have been saying this for a couple of years. He looks like he is declining rapidly.

[nfoligno]

I have been saying this for a couple of years. He looks like he is declining rapidly.

 

Agreed. At first, the belief was Kreutz was trying to do to much to off-set the weaker talent level of the OGs he was playing next to. Or because he was continually snapping to different QBs, and never formed chemistry with them. Or he was playing through minor injuries. Or pick your excuse.

 

But it has been several years now, and I think the excuses are running out. The OG talent on either side is still weak, but at this point, I think it is time to accept that so has been Kreutz play. He may be a leader, but his play is simply not what it once was.

 

With that said, I am not sure I would single him out too much, as I have not been too impressed by any on the OL. I can understand St.Clair and Beekman, but Garza and Tait have looked terrible IMHO as well.

[AZ54]

I agree completely, we aren't getting it done in the trenches on either side. Ryan had all day to throw. Forte is doing what he can behind this line IMO. As far as Kreutz declining, I think Tait declined faster.

[madlithuanian]

Time to target a center in the draft...

 

Agreed. At first, the belief was Kreutz was trying to do to much to off-set the weaker talent level of the OGs he was playing next to. Or because he was continually snapping to different QBs, and never formed chemistry with them. Or he was playing through minor injuries. Or pick your excuse.

 

But it has been several years now, and I think the excuses are running out. The OG talent on either side is still weak, but at this point, I think it is time to accept that so has been Kreutz play. He may be a leader, but his play is simply not what it once was.

 

With that said, I am not sure I would single him out too much, as I have not been too impressed by any on the OL. I can understand St.Clair and Beekman, but Garza and Tait have looked terrible IMHO as well.

[azbearsfan]

Agreed. At first, the belief was Kreutz was trying to do to much to off-set the weaker talent level of the OGs he was playing next to. Or because he was continually snapping to different QBs, and never formed chemistry with them. Or he was playing through minor injuries. Or pick your excuse.

 

But it has been several years now, and I think the excuses are running out. The OG talent on either side is still weak, but at this point, I think it is time to accept that so has been Kreutz play. He may be a leader, but his play is simply not what it once was.

 

With that said, I am not sure I would single him out too much, as I have not been too impressed by any on the OL. I can understand St.Clair and Beekman, but Garza and Tait have looked terrible IMHO as well.

 

 

And I think up until the past couple of years, you could make a case for him helping the rest of the Oline. However, he has looked absolutely terrible on anything where he pulled. Alot of times he completely whiffs when he is moving. Plus his weird "double snap" penalties are crazy. I rarely see that from other centers.

 

I think he has been living off of his past accomplishments and it is time to look for a replacement.

 

 

Oh my gosh, Tait. The thinking was that him moving to the right side would help him out. To me he hasn't been very much better than Miller last year.

 

 

 

On the DLine we dont really have that top player. We pay Tommie like one but he hasn't played like it in awhile. It really hurts our defense when we can't generate pass rush with our front four.

[nfoligno]

Time to target a center in the draft...

 

Isn't that Beekman? He was supposedly being groomed to be our future center, but was moved to OG this year due to our injuries and lack of depth. As I recall, the coaches felt he is too short to be an OG, but like him at center. Point is, we may have Kreutz future replacement on the line now.

 

I have no problem drafting more, but while I am not happy w/ Kreutz' play, I think we have numerous needs on the OL. Even if Williams works out, that's one down, four to go.

[nfoligno]

Re: Kreutz - Yea, that is about as sad as anything. He is supposed to have such athleticism, but I have not seen it in a while. Add to that how badly he gets dominated by the bigger, strong NTs, and I think it is time to start thinking about his replacement. I still wonder if Beekman is in the plans.

 

Re: Tait - No question. He has been getting owned. I expected some issues agaisnt speed rushers, but what worries me is how he has been getting owned by strong RTs too. Basically, Tait is this year's version of Miller.

 

Re: defense

 

You and I still disagree here. I still question if the issue is talent vs scheme/coaching. Wale is a former double digit sack DE. Brown is a pro bowl alternate. Anderson had a boat load of sacks as a rookie. Harris is considered an elite DT. We have two of the best LBs in the game, and two near pro bowl tier CBs. Individually the talent seems to be there, but we are simply not seeing the results. So either our players are VERY over-rated, or our coaches are not doing enough to put them into the best situations in order to help them succeed.

[madlithuanian]

I'm honestly not sure...

 

Let's hope Beekman can get one spot at G, or C if you're thoughts are correct. I'd say 3 to go.

 

Isn't that Beekman? He was supposedly being groomed to be our future center, but was moved to OG this year due to our injuries and lack of depth. As I recall, the coaches felt he is too short to be an OG, but like him at center. Point is, we may have Kreutz future replacement on the line now.

 

I have no problem drafting more, but while I am not happy w/ Kreutz' play, I think we have numerous needs on the OL. Even if Williams works out, that's one down, four to go.

[madlithuanian]

Evidence seems to point to scheme...

 

.

 

Re: defense

 

You and I still disagree here. I still question if the issue is talent vs scheme/coaching. Wale is a former double digit sack DE. Brown is a pro bowl alternate. Anderson had a boat load of sacks as a rookie. Harris is considered an elite DT. We have two of the best LBs in the game, and two near pro bowl tier CBs. Individually the talent seems to be there, but we are simply not seeing the results. So either our players are VERY over-rated, or our coaches are not doing enough to put them into the best situations in order to help them succeed.

[nfoligno]

Evidence seems to point to scheme...

 

Oh man, don't get Az going on scheme:)

 

Honestly, I think Az and I struggle to communicate on this. I think we generally agree, but word choice makes it appear otherwise.

 

I am not a huge fan of the cover two in general, but at the same time, I am not saying the scheme itself is bad. But when I criticize our scheme, I am looking at it more specific to "our" scheme, rather than the cover two in general. For example, both we and Indy run a verson of the cover two, but I would not say we run the same scheme.

 

Whatever you want to call it, the scheme Babich/Lovie have designed for our team is not good, IMHO. I don't think it best utilizes talent, nor does it minimize weaknesses.

 

Where he and I would agree though (I think) is that, however the scheme is designed, there is a failure to execute which makes the scheme look worse than it may be. My problem is, I don't think you can simply say, "our player need to better execute" and leave it at that. For example, if the scheme calls for the front four to pressure the QB, but our front four can't get the job done, then I argue the scheme needs to be changed because it doesn't work.

 

Frankly, it just blows my mind how obvious some things appear, and yet go unchanged. Teams have figured out that we can be beaten w/ shorter, 3 step drops, hitting WRs on quick slants for easy gains, and yet how much have we seen a change? Our DBs are still lining up WAY off the LOS, allowing for the quick passes, which also has the effect of negating any potential pass rush. I just can not understand why we can't get our DBs to try and jam WRs, thus making the QB hold the ball longer, and thus giving our pass rusher more time to pressure the passer.

[Lucky Luciano]

Whatever you want to call it, the scheme Babich/Lovie have designed for our team is not good, IMHO. I don't think it best utilizes talent, nor does it minimize weaknesses.

 

Frankly, it just blows my mind how obvious some things appear, and yet go unchanged. Teams have figured out that we can be beaten w/ shorter, 3 step drops, hitting WRs on quick slants for easy gains, and yet how much have we seen a change? Our DBs are still lining up WAY off the LOS, allowing for the quick passes, which also has the effect of negating any potential pass rush. I just can not understand why we can't get our DBs to try and jam WRs, thus making the QB hold the ball longer, and thus giving our pass rusher more time to pressure the passer.

 

here is the problem with your analysis.... we don't have the personnel to run the cover 2 to utilize it to it's full advantage (if there is one anymore. i am not a fan of this either).

 

you ask why we don't put our corners closer to the LOS. this is extremely important in this type of defense.

 

the answer is they are not bump and run man corners. we have seen this in the past where peanut did play up and got his hat handed to him by quick/fast wideouts. the same thing WITH vasher. whether either has improved any since lovie has been here is unclear but clearly in the past they got toasted playing bump and run.

 

can they be coached to compensate? i don't know. i would think it could be possible to adjust their technique but if it is, our coaching staff hasn't found the answer to it.

 

second... we don't have safeties to play this type of defense. yet we continue to pound square pegs into round holes to run it.

 

so that leaves our entire db's at a disadvantage running it.

[nfoligno]

here is the problem with your analysis.... we don't have the personnel to run the cover 2 to utilize it to it's full advantage (if there is one anymore. i am not a fan of this either).

 

Don't we? All I can say is, the players we have were drafted to play just this sort of scheme. Further, when looking at individual talent, I think it would appear we do have the sort of players for a cover two scheme. We have (supposedly) lighter and quicker DL, supposedly capable of penetrating and pressuring. We have corners who were considered solid zone coverage, cover two style, corners. We also have fast LBs, which is necessary in the cover two. I agree we lack at the safety position, but I am not sure our safeties would look great in any scheme.

 

Understand, I agree it doesn't show on the field, but at the same time, when looking at individual skill sets, our players do appear to fit the cover two scheme, at least on paper.

 

you ask why we don't put our corners closer to the LOS. this is extremely important in this type of defense.

 

It is? When i watch Indy, Carolina, TB and other teams, their CBs often play off the LOS too. Maybe not as much as ours, but they do play off. The idea of the scheme is to keep everything in front. CBs keep the WRs in front until they release, at which point the S is expected to keep the WR in front of them. IMHO, a key isue is how much room we allow though. The CB is supposed to keep the WR in front, but not w/ so much room as to prevent their ability from making a jump on the ball. Further, I think that we are forced to use our LBs near the LOS is hurting too, as the LB in the cover two is expected to be key in making stops and hits on quick slants.

 

the answer is they are not bump and run man corners. we have seen this in the past where peanut did play up and got his hat handed to him by quick/fast wideouts. the same thing WITH vasher. whether either has improved any since lovie has been here is unclear but clearly in the past they got toasted playing bump and run.

 

I question this. I understand that our CBs would struggle trying to play bump and run w/ the likes of Steve Smith. Elite speed can school our CBs in this regard. However, our CBs give space to all WRs, as if all WRs have Steve Smith speed. Did you see how deep we played off Moose? If our CBs can bump and run w/ Moose, then they don't belong on the field.

 

I would point to our game against NO in the playoffs. It is one of the few times we played man coverage. Drew Brees talked after the game about how unexpected that was. It was unexpected because it was a scheme we rarely, if ever, employed. But I think our CBs showed they can (a) play man and ( play closer to the LOS w/ solid effects.

 

Also, I am not saying they should play so close to the LOS that they can tell what the WR eat for breakfast based on his breath. But while that is one extreme, so is how deep our CBs play. So while I am not saying they should play w/ their toes on the LOS, I also think it is mistake to play 7 or 8 yards deep, then immediately backpeddle on the snap. I would like to see them in the 3-5 yard range, which (a) still puts them in a position to turn and run w/o getting burned ( allows for a quicker break on the ball and © puts them in the area that does allow them to bump the WR w/o a flag. That doesn't mean they have to bump every time, but at least allow the WR the thought they may. As deep as they play, the WR doesn't have to use a move at all as he knows any contact would draw a flag.

 

can they be coached to compensate? i don't know. i would think it could be possible to adjust their technique but if it is, our coaching staff hasn't found the answer to it.

 

But has the staff even tried? As it doesn't appear to be part of the scheme, how much do our WRs practice bumping the WRs at the LOS? If you don't practice it, how effective will you be when you try on Sundays?

 

second... we don't have safeties to play this type of defense. yet we continue to pound square pegs into round holes to run it.

 

Actually, I would argue this could benefit our safeties. (a) Because our CBs do not bump the WR at all, and allow clean releases, it leaves the safeties less time to react and get into position to cover. A WR runs a go route against a CB that doesn't even pretend to hinder his route, and the safety simply doesn't have time to get into position, which is made worse by our slower safeties. If you bump the WR, the safety has more time to read, react, and get into position. ( If you bump and delay the WR, you prevent the 3 step drops from being so easy and effective. If you do this, you allow your DL time to rush the passer, which is near impossible on the short 3 step drops. If you provide the DL legit opportunities to rush the passer, the safeties can benefit from the QB pressure. Right now, our CBs do little to nothing, which allows the WR clean releases and allows the QB to make quick throws.

 

so that leaves our entire db's at a disadvantage running it.

 

As said above, I simply disagree. Because of the way our CBs play, it puts our entire defense at a disadvantage. We give the WRs so much space, that we allow easy 5-8 yard completions. This negates any pass rush we might create if the QB is forced to hold the ball an extra second or two, which simply puts more stress on the entire defense.

 

Now if the CBs try to press, and (a) are so bad they do nothing to hinder the WR and/or ( the extra time bought for the DL is to no avail as we still can't pressure the QB, then I would agree we need to re-think the idea, but until we try, how can we know?

[madlithuanian]

I tend to fall into the same... I call it cover 2, but it's our cover 2 version. But, whatever we choose to call it, it doesn't seem to be working as you mention.

 

After watching all the game this and last year, sure sometimes the players don't execute, but I really don't think they are wisely put in position to do well.

 

It is truly mind boggling that we get burned on the same things over and over.

 

I swear I'm getting vision of Wayne Fontes... This team just does well enough to let the coaches keep their jobs. One game, we look like world beaters, then the next, we couldn't stop a pee wee team. I just think, again as you've pointed out, that it's won/lost at the line. We do tend to just bull rush and hope for the best. Sometimes our great athleticism,etc is all that's needed and we make plays. But if that can be curbed by an O Line, we struggle to garnish any pressure at all. To me, that's just not smart scheming.

 

 

Oh man, don't get Az going on scheme:)

 

Honestly, I think Az and I struggle to communicate on this. I think we generally agree, but word choice makes it appear otherwise.

 

I am not a huge fan of the cover two in general, but at the same time, I am not saying the scheme itself is bad. But when I criticize our scheme, I am looking at it more specific to "our" scheme, rather than the cover two in general. For example, both we and Indy run a verson of the cover two, but I would not say we run the same scheme.

 

Whatever you want to call it, the scheme Babich/Lovie have designed for our team is not good, IMHO. I don't think it best utilizes talent, nor does it minimize weaknesses.

 

Where he and I would agree though (I think) is that, however the scheme is designed, there is a failure to execute which makes the scheme look worse than it may be. My problem is, I don't think you can simply say, "our player need to better execute" and leave it at that. For example, if the scheme calls for the front four to pressure the QB, but our front four can't get the job done, then I argue the scheme needs to be changed because it doesn't work.

 

Frankly, it just blows my mind how obvious some things appear, and yet go unchanged. Teams have figured out that we can be beaten w/ shorter, 3 step drops, hitting WRs on quick slants for easy gains, and yet how much have we seen a change? Our DBs are still lining up WAY off the LOS, allowing for the quick passes, which also has the effect of negating any potential pass rush. I just can not understand why we can't get our DBs to try and jam WRs, thus making the QB hold the ball longer, and thus giving our pass rusher more time to pressure the passer.

[Lucky Luciano]

here is the problem with your analysis.... we don't have the personnel to run the cover 2 to utilize it to it's full advantage (if there is one anymore. i am not a fan of this either).

 

Don't we? All I can say is, the players we have were drafted to play just this sort of scheme. Further, when looking at individual talent, I think it would appear we do have the sort of players for a cover two scheme. We have (supposedly) lighter and quicker DL, supposedly capable of penetrating and pressuring. We have corners who were considered solid zone coverage, cover two style, corners. We also have fast LBs, which is necessary in the cover two. I agree we lack at the safety position, but I am not sure our safeties would look great in any scheme.

 

sorry, but NO we don't. let me clarify this... i am specifically talking about our defensive backs as should have been clear in my post. our d-line and backers are a different story. you certainly can't believe that half a defense (and even that half has some serious problems) that fits this scheme is considered adequate to play a cover 2.

 

i don't care what angie drafted for since lovie arrived. the point is the corners and safeties are not adequate to run it effectively.

 

corners:

 

1) peanut was NOT drafted to play in lovies cover 2 scheme. peanut was drafted to cover the big receivers in our division like moss and (names escape me at the moment) the big receivers in green bay. he did that job well. he was complimented then (supposedly) with quick fast corners like mcquarters who could play with and cover the smaller faster wideouts. then came the cover 2...

 

the pluses with peanut is he is great against the run which IS a requirement for the cover 2, he is a very good tackler in open space also a plus in any scheme.

 

the biggest problem with peanut is as our #1 cb he CAN'T play up on the LOS and jam the quick recievers. unless he has greatly improved and our coaching staff is hiding his talent, he doesn't get his hands on the receiver at the snap to slow up or change his route or for that matter turn and run with them. he has numerous times gotten toasted trying to do this as the receiver just jukes him and blows on by untouched into his route with peanut 2-5+ yards behind.

 

2) vasher can't play bump and run at the LOS either. he is an average tackler with average speed and again, unless he has improved greatly and our coaches just hide his talents, he gets ripped playing up against any fast receivers.

 

safeties:

 

1) m. brown was also not drafted to play cover 2. a cover 2 defense is paramount in having fast, smart safeties that can cover large chunks of ground in coverage. in the past brown compensated for his lack of speed with football smarts.

 

2) fill in a name here... d. manning was drafted for his speed but certainly doesn't have the football smarts to play in this type of defense. payne? how good is he in coverage, how fast? an unknown at this point as he has some issues. steltz? so, which safeties in chicago, in your estimation, are adequate to play this type of defense if all the cover 2 pieces are in place?

 

Understand, I agree it doesn't show on the field, but at the same time, when looking at individual skill sets, our players do appear to fit the cover two scheme, at least on paper.

 

huh??? you say we have the players to play this type of defense but it doesn't show on the field? that doesn't make any sense. if it doesn't "show on the field" isn't it a logical conclusion we don't have the players to play this scheme as it was intended? or maybe you think our entire coaching staff is insane?

 

you ask why we don't put our corners closer to the LOS. this is extremely important in this type of defense.

 

It is? When i watch Indy, Carolina, TB and other teams, their CBs often play off the LOS too. Maybe not as much as ours, but they do play off. The idea of the scheme is to keep everything in front. CBs keep the WRs in front until they release, at which point the S is expected to keep the WR in front of them. IMHO, a key isue is how much room we allow though. The CB is supposed to keep the WR in front, but not w/ so much room as to prevent their ability from making a jump on the ball. Further, I think that we are forced to use our LBs near the LOS is hurting too, as the LB in the cover two is expected to be key in making stops and hits on quick slants.

 

if you don't believe this is a requirement in 'most' instances of a corner in the cover 2 to jam the receiver at the LOS and/or move him off his route and/or cover him until he either moves into another zone towards the center of the field or gets safety help on a deep route you are mistaken.

 

i don't know of any defensive scheme that is construed to give up 5-10 passing yards in the flats or on slants uncontested every play except in deep prevent. common sense should tell anyone that when you give that kind of cushion you have literally let all receivers go completely unmolested in their routes because of the 5 yard rule!! the ONLY reason we can get away with it is if the d-line is getting serious pressure on the qb. in other words we are compensating for the failure of one point of our defense with above average play from another.

 

the answer is they are not bump and run man corners. we have seen this in the past where peanut did play up and got his hat handed to him by quick/fast wideouts. the same thing WITH vasher. whether either has improved any since lovie has been here is unclear but clearly in the past they got toasted playing bump and run.

 

I question this. I understand that our CBs would struggle trying to play bump and run w/ the likes of Steve Smith. Elite speed can school our CBs in this regard. However, our CBs give space to all WRs, as if all WRs have Steve Smith speed. Did you see how deep we played off Moose? If our CBs can bump and run w/ Moose, then they don't belong on the field.

 

I would point to our game against NO in the playoffs. It is one of the few times we played man coverage. Drew Brees talked after the game about how unexpected that was. It was unexpected because it was a scheme we rarely, if ever, employed. But I think our CBs showed they can (a) play man and (cool.gif play closer to the LOS w/ solid effects.

 

you "question" that our corners are NOT bump and run corners??? i guess i don't understand. in one sentence you are talking about how big of a cushion they give and the next you say they are bump and run corners. are you saying lovie/babich specifically want to give that big of a cushion to wide receivers when their players CAN play bump and run defense? if that is the case lovie and babich need to be fired immediately for gross stupidity.

 

about the NO playoff game. did you look at the tape of that game to see where our corners WERE playing in regards to the LOS? they could have played off and still been man coverage. we could have just plain played less cover 2 than normal. even if peanut did play up, which is in contention, does colston relate to the type of receiver that peanut CAN cover well up and what he was drafted to do?

 

so look it up and tell me specifically how and where we played and not just that brees "said" we played man coverage.

 

Also, I am not saying they should play so close to the LOS that they can tell what the WR eat for breakfast based on his breath. But while that is one extreme, so is how deep our CBs play. So while I am not saying they should play w/ their toes on the LOS, I also think it is mistake to play 7 or 8 yards deep, then immediately backpeddle on the snap. I would like to see them in the 3-5 yard range, which (a) still puts them in a position to turn and run w/o getting burned (cool.gif allows for a quicker break on the ball and © puts them in the area that does allow them to bump the WR w/o a flag. That doesn't mean they have to bump every time, but at least allow the WR the thought they may. As deep as they play, the WR doesn't have to use a move at all as he knows any contact would draw a flag.

 

i don't know about you, but if our corners were good enough to put their toes on the LOS and jam the receivers at the line and follow them into coverage i would be extatic. the point is, unless you have some information otherwise, our corners aren't good enough to do it. as far as your statement of 3-5 yrds off. would it be better than what we are doing? yes if they didn't get burned consistantly. but... they would have to be moving toward the LOS to do it legally or standing still. that would be disaster as the quick wideouts would blow by them without slowing down.

 

can they be coached to compensate? i don't know. i would think it could be possible to adjust their technique but if it is, our coaching staff hasn't found the answer to it.

 

But has the staff even tried? As it doesn't appear to be part of the scheme, how much do our WRs practice bumping the WRs at the LOS? If you don't practice it, how effective will you be when you try on Sundays?

 

again i will state... if this coaching staff intentionally has our corners playing that soft IF they could play bump and run tight coverage they should be fired. PERIOD!!!

 

second... we don't have safeties to play this type of defense. yet we continue to pound square pegs into round holes to run it.

 

Actually, I would argue this could benefit our safeties. (a) Because our CBs do not bump the WR at all, and allow clean releases, it leaves the safeties less time to react and get into position to cover. A WR runs a go route against a CB that doesn't even pretend to hinder his route, and the safety simply doesn't have time to get into position, which is made worse by our slower safeties. If you bump the WR, the safety has more time to read, react, and get into position. (cool.gif If you bump and delay the WR, you prevent the 3 step drops from being so easy and effective. If you do this, you allow your DL time to rush the passer, which is near impossible on the short 3 step drops. If you provide the DL legit opportunities to rush the passer, the safeties can benefit from the QB pressure. Right now, our CBs do little to nothing, which allows the WR clean releases and allows the QB to make quick throws.

 

huh again!! what benefits our safeties? that our corners can't play tight coverage at the LOS? or if they did that the safeties would be trying to get into position to cover wide open receivers in full stride by themselves because our corners are trailing them by 5 yards???

 

so that leaves our entire db's at a disadvantage running it.

 

As said above, I simply disagree. Because of the way our CBs play, it puts our entire defense at a disadvantage. We give the WRs so much space, that we allow easy 5-8 yard completions. This negates any pass rush we might create if the QB is forced to hold the ball an extra second or two, which simply puts more stress on the entire defense.

 

Now if the CBs try to press, and (a) are so bad they do nothing to hinder the WR and/or (cool.gif the extra time bought for the DL is to no avail as we still can't pressure the QB, then I would agree we need to re-think the idea, but until we try, how can we know?

 

haven't you been watching the bears over the last 8 years? they HAVE tried bump and run. the reason we are running the soft corners is because they get BEAT like drums!!! if they could play tight they would be. even i don't think lovie is that stupid.

[BigDaddy]

Re: Kreutz - Yea, that is about as sad as anything. He is supposed to have such athleticism, but I have not seen it in a while. Add to that how badly he gets dominated by the bigger, strong NTs, and I think it is time to start thinking about his replacement. I still wonder if Beekman is in the plans.

 

Re: Tait - No question. He has been getting owned. I expected some issues agaisnt speed rushers, but what worries me is how he has been getting owned by strong RTs too. Basically, Tait is this year's version of Miller.

 

Re: defense

 

You and I still disagree here. I still question if the issue is talent vs scheme/coaching. Wale is a former double digit sack DE. Brown is a pro bowl alternate. Anderson had a boat load of sacks as a rookie. Harris is considered an elite DT. We have two of the best LBs in the game, and two near pro bowl tier CBs. Individually the talent seems to be there, but we are simply not seeing the results. So either our players are VERY over-rated, or our coaches are not doing enough to put them into the best situations in order to help them succeed.

 

This is probably the most frustrating aspect of this defense. If anything based on what we have in the front four, i thought we'd be a quantum leap better than last year. So far our DEs look like they can't get penetration, Harris is invisible, Dusty, Izzy and Marcus are doing well but for whatever reason, there is just NO pressure. Is it because the QB is taking a 3 step drop? No, they have all day back there so it is either scheme or players. i gotta believe it's players. Nobody on this defense aside from the 3 guys I named and Briggs is living up to their contract. At least brown has 3 sacks but Wale looks slow and old. Personally, if it were me, i'd trade urlacher and harris and get as many picks as I could and invest in a Killer DE with one of the #1s. Then I would target safety and O line, starting with a center.

[Mongo3451]

Personally, if it were me, i'd trade urlacher and harris and get as many picks as I could and invest in a Killer DE with one of the #1s. Then I would target safety and O line, starting with a center.

I'm not far from agreeing with this thought. Harris may be able to draw value if he can prove he is healthy. Url, I think a coach like Belichick would salivate to have a backer with his size and speed. A beast DE is key to a pass rush and we need at least 2 high picks at OT and OG next year. Add a top safety prospect and we are out of luck without extra picks. We'll have a lot to discuss again this off-season.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

The demise of one of the best centers ever, Olin Kreutz, really started last year. It's sad as he's been such a stable commodity for this franchise for so long, but like someone said, we need to draft a center for the future. I don't think Beekman is that guy as he is small and bigger DT's will dominate him like they're doing to Kreutz right now.

 

I've been pleasantly surprised by St. Clair. Every week, every opposing team we play has a real good DE, except Detroit (Freeney, Peppers, Adams, Allen, Abraham), and every time JSC has held them in check for the most part. When CW comes back, I sure hope he's taking away reps from Tait, not JSC.

[BigDaddy]

I'm not far from agreeing with this thought. Harris may be able to draw value if he can prove he is healthy. Url, I think a coach like Belichick would salivate to have a backer with his size and speed. A beast DE is key to a pass rush and we need at least 2 high picks at OT and OG next year. Add a top safety prospect and we are out of luck without extra picks. We'll have a lot to discuss again this off-season.

 

If we got a #1 for Urlacher, a 1 and a 3 for Harris, we could possibly parlay those picks into a 1st, 2 2nds, 2 3rds. That gives us, 2 1sts, 3 2nds, 3 3rds, hell, stop right there, That's our DE OT OG C and Safety, WR and CB and we haven't even touched the 4th round yet. Couple that with the fact that we still have Dusty, Izzy, Adams and Marcus and we are in great shape.

[madlithuanian]

You guys are scaring me...

 

Let's hold off on trade talks for a little bit please. Urlacher and Harris are both coming off injuries. Let's let this season play out a bit more before trading potentially our best players for picks that Angelo might botch. A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush remember...

 

If we got a #1 for Urlacher, a 1 and a 3 for Harris, we could possibly parlay those picks into a 1st, 2 2nds, 2 3rds. That gives us, 2 1sts, 3 2nds, 3 3rds, hell, stop right there, That's our DE OT OG C and Safety, WR and CB and we haven't even touched the 4th round yet. Couple that with the fact that we still have Dusty, Izzy, Adams and Marcus and we are in great shape.

[BigDaddy]

You guys are scaring me...

 

Let's hold off on trade talks for a little bit please. Urlacher and Harris are both coming off injuries. Let's let this season play out a bit more before trading potentially our best players for picks that Angelo might botch. A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush remember...

 

I'll preface this by saying somebody is getting fired at the end of this season. If it isn't Lovie, it's Babich. Should Lovie decide to step up and refuse to fire babich, then he most likely will be gone as well. But make no mistake, this defense is moving backwards so somebody is gone. Now, given that scenario, this team might find itself changing schemes and if it does, we need to change personnel. Given that, we need to make trades. Harris and Urlacher make the most sense. You can say what you want regarding injuries but Tommie Harris is one of the biggest con men to arrive in Chicago since Curtis Enis. He plays only when he wants to play. As far as Urlacher is concerned, he's not outplaying his contract anymore. He's not having a bad year but frankly, this football team needs to move forward and Urlacher still has trade value and a fairly cap friendly contract. The time is right to make a trade. Our offense is finally starting to happen and Angelo can correct alot of mistakes with a couple more 1st rd picks. Come one, do you really think this team is going to the SB this year or next based on what we're seeing? Hell no. This defense needs a Premier Safety..BADLY. We need a Elite DE..BADLY. No matter what scheme we play, these are key. Those two positions would would fix this defense immediately. Nick Roach looks to be a guy who has great instincts, good speed and the ability to learn the MLB position and do well in this scheme or any other scheme. Even if we had to replace Hillenmeyer at some point, we have Jamal Williams so our LB group is fine. My concern right now is this defense is just not working. They can either sell their souls to stop the run or sell their souls to stop the pass. For whatever reason, they can't do both.

[madlithuanian]

I sure hope Babich gets the can...

 

Nick Roach is no Urlacher...

 

I'm concerned Tommie may be done due to injury...and therefore I'm more willing to think about trades... But right now, I'm more convinced Babich doesn't know how to use Brian more than Brian's faltering...

 

Tommie's replacement is Harrison, and he's doing a great job. But, I don't see a replacement for Urlacher in the least...

 

 

I'll preface this by saying somebody is getting fired at the end of this season. If it isn't Lovie, it's Babich. Should Lovie decide to step up and refuse to fire babich, then he most likely will be gone as well. But make no mistake, this defense is moving backwards so somebody is gone. Now, given that scenario, this team might find itself changing schemes and if it does, we need to change personnel. Given that, we need to make trades. Harris and Urlacher make the most sense. You can say what you want regarding injuries but Tommie Harris is one of the biggest con men to arrive in Chicago since Curtis Enis. He plays only when he wants to play. As far as Urlacher is concerned, he's not outplaying his contract anymore. He's not having a bad year but frankly, this football team needs to move forward and Urlacher still has trade value and a fairly cap friendly contract. The time is right to make a trade. Our offense is finally starting to happen and Angelo can correct alot of mistakes with a couple more 1st rd picks. Come one, do you really think this team is going to the SB this year or next based on what we're seeing? Hell no. This defense needs a Premier Safety..BADLY. We need a Elite DE..BADLY. No matter what scheme we play, these are key. Those two positions would would fix this defense immediately. Nick Roach looks to be a guy who has great instincts, good speed and the ability to learn the MLB position and do well in this scheme or any other scheme. Even if we had to replace Hillenmeyer at some point, we have Jamal Williams so our LB group is fine. My concern right now is this defense is just not working. They can either sell their souls to stop the run or sell their souls to stop the pass. For whatever reason, they can't do both.