Coaching changes

[Lucky Luciano]

As far as the above quotes and rebuttal. My overall response would be best served in saying that regardless of what you think the Bears need to do, they can't and shouldn't . They are not a high tech long ball team. Think back in '85 when the Bears won the SB. McMahon was able to occasionally throw the long ball (see Gault and McKinnon) but the majority of the Bears offense was grind it out on the ground (Payton, Suhey and Fridge...tounge in cheek). Obviously the Defense dominated and most of the stars that year were there.

 

The Bears are the oldest franchise in the NFL. Call me a softie for history but over the decades that the Bears have been in existence that is their niche in the NFL. Their storied history; longest rivalry with GB and their slew of dominant defenses and RB's, is what has made them who they are. Opposing teams may not so much be intimidated by the team that is on the field when they go to Chicago as they are the lore and history involved. Reinventing the wheel in Chicago and trying to become a pass happy offense oriented team just won't work. Chicago's elements alone won't allow that. I ask since someone cited Crowton as an OC in the past that did good for Chicago, where is he now? I don't think he ever became an HC that I am aware of.

 

1. it took a good+ qb in mcmahon to even get us to the superbowl. defense does not win championships in todays nfl, good+ qb's do.

 

2. the nfl is NOT the same game as it was 20 years ago. the new rules are hard facts that the nfl is geared to score a lot of points on offense. the OL lines up off the LOS in passing situations, the corners are unable to even TOUCH receivers past 5 yds, the qb's are treated like flag football recipients, and most of all look at the offensive line play. 20 years ago every lineman on every play would have been called for holding. now they grab the defensive player and hold him by his jersey when in the past they were unable to even put their hands on them without a flag.

 

3. if you will notice, nearly every running back that puts up consistent big numbers in the nfl does so with a good+ passing attack to compliment him and get the safeties and corners out of the box. just running the ball into the line does not work like it did in payton's day. even then how many superbowls were we in with a hall of fame rb and one of the best defenses in the entire nfl?

 

4. finally, the giants have a good qb, the ravens have a good qb, colts, steelers, eagles, cards etc. also, look at every team that has won multiple superbowls over the las 30 years. this should say it all.

[nfoligno]

2) What more was he supposed to do with SF? Their lineup sucks on offense, and he still did more with it than the Bears coaches did with the Bears superior talent (which is scary).

 

Superior talent? While I am not going to say SF has great talent, to say our talent is superior is laughable.

 

QB - Hill is no stud (understatement alert) but if you are going to say Orton is "superior" that is the biggest (and maybe only) compliment you have ever given Orton.

 

RB - I love Forte, but Gore is superior, hands down. Maybe Forte develops to be as good, but right now, I don't think you can truly say Forte over Gore.

 

WR - Sorry, but SF has better WRs than we do. That is NOT to say they are loaded at WR, but I see no way you can argue we have better WR talent than they. Bruce may have been the lesser WR in StL, but he is better than any WR on our roster. The WR they picked up in FA (Bryant Johnson) didn't live up to expectations, but he may be as good as any of ours as well. No argument their WRs are less than special, but you have to be kidding me to state ours are better.

 

TE - Vernon Davis is a freak, but has never lived up to the hype. I would agree we are better at TE, especially when you factor both Olsen and Clark.

 

OL - Their OL was actually better than expected, as several young players began to develop. Staley took big strides at LT this year, his 2nd, while rookie Rachel (who I really wanted to draft) was an instant starter, and due to play, not just draft position. They still need to develop and add to their OL, but I would argue they have a better OL than we, and further, would argue they are in a better position moving forward as they are young. I believe their oldest OL is 28. A far cry from our OL which started 3 over 30, and a 4th (Garza) who will turn 30 before the next draft.

 

I am not using this to knock Martz, but only to question your statment that our offensive talent is superior to theirs. I would argue that, while still lacking in talent, their offense had more than ours.

 

As for Martz, I would be fine w/ it. The question(s) for me, if we added him, would be:

 

- Can Orton run his system, which requires quick reads and leading WRs to allow YAC

- Can we build the OL, as that is a big key in his system

- Can he held teach our WRs how to run routes, as that is among the biggest keys for his receivers.

 

I will say this. If we added him, two players I would salivate at the potential for would be Forte (who I think could look very Faulk-esq) and Hester, who I think could really excel in his system.

 

The top concern for me would be our TEs. Right now, TE is 2nd only to Forte in terms of having actual talent on offense. TE is one position Martz has never utilized. Would he be able to incorporate the TE, or would one of our only assets on offense go to waste?

[Mongo3451]

name='nfoligno' date='Jan 2 2009, 02:24 P

 

 

I will say this. If we added him, two players I would salivate at the potential for would be Forte (who I think could look very Faulk-esq) and Hester, who I think could really excel in his system.

Jason and I had a small debate over Forte's ability to be Faulk-esq. Now that you have thrown that out there, can you eleborate? Of course my rebuttal will destroy you.

[jason]

2) What more was he supposed to do with SF? Their lineup sucks on offense, and he still did more with it than the Bears coaches did with the Bears superior talent (which is scary).

 

Superior talent? While I am not going to say SF has great talent, to say our talent is superior is laughable.

 

QB - Hill is no stud (understatement alert) but if you are going to say Orton is "superior" that is the biggest (and maybe only) compliment you have ever given Orton.

 

RB - I love Forte, but Gore is superior, hands down. Maybe Forte develops to be as good, but right now, I don't think you can truly say Forte over Gore.

 

WR - Sorry, but SF has better WRs than we do. That is NOT to say they are loaded at WR, but I see no way you can argue we have better WR talent than they. Bruce may have been the lesser WR in StL, but he is better than any WR on our roster. The WR they picked up in FA (Bryant Johnson) didn't live up to expectations, but he may be as good as any of ours as well. No argument their WRs are less than special, but you have to be kidding me to state ours are better.

 

TE - Vernon Davis is a freak, but has never lived up to the hype. I would agree we are better at TE, especially when you factor both Olsen and Clark.

 

OL - Their OL was actually better than expected, as several young players began to develop. Staley took big strides at LT this year, his 2nd, while rookie Rachel (who I really wanted to draft) was an instant starter, and due to play, not just draft position. They still need to develop and add to their OL, but I would argue they have a better OL than we, and further, would argue they are in a better position moving forward as they are young. I believe their oldest OL is 28. A far cry from our OL which started 3 over 30, and a 4th (Garza) who will turn 30 before the next draft.

 

QB - Bears win, there is no debating that Orton is better.

RB - 49ers win, there is no debating that Gore is better, right now.

TE - Bears win, hands down.

OL - Bears win IMHO, but barely. But you are right; they are definitely in a better position to move forward. (BTW - If you recall, I also wanted Rachal a lot)

WR - The only source of debate. We just disagree. From top to bottom, from #1 to #4, the Bears are better overall. Is Bruce better than any Bears' WR? Probably. But #2-#4, I'd say the Bears have the advantage.

[flea]

QB - Bears win, there is no debating that Orton is better.

RB - 49ers win, there is no debating that Gore is better, right now.

TE - Bears win, hands down.

OL - Bears win IMHO, but barely. But you are right; they are definitely in a better position to move forward. (BTW - If you recall, I also wanted Rachal a lot)

WR - The only source of debate. We just disagree. From top to bottom, from #1 to #4, the Bears are better overall. Is Bruce better than any Bears' WR? Probably. But #2-#4, I'd say the Bears have the advantage.

 

 

Sorry Jason but I have to ask what drugs your taking???

 

Bruce, Johnson, Battle, the rookie Morgan, Id take them over any of our receivers. & yes I know it's a matter of opinion but ????

 

Bruce, Johnson & Battle are their 1-3 we have Hester, Lloyd, Davies???

[flea]

Was looking for dropped passes stats & came across this. For all the talk that we can't develop receivers & they blossom when they leave here. Look how many ex Bears are in the list for most dropped passes

 

http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/leaders...k=232&year=

[Mongo3451]

Was looking for dropped passes stats & came across this. For all the talk that we can't develop receivers & they blossom when they leave here. Look how many ex Bears are in the list for most dropped passes

 

http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/leaders...k=232&year=

So we simply suck at picking guys with good hands. LOL!!

 

You know the shopping list of WR's we have all been dreaming of?? None of them are on the list! Housh, Boldin, Harrison, Holt and Johnson.

[Pixote]

If I were King, LOL

 

Our starting WRs, at this point, would be Haas, Rideau, & Hester. Bennet as our #4. Get rid of the rest and fill in with draft & FA.

 

I would be willing to bet this group would excel (if we have a QB who has the time and skill to get the ball to them.

[DABEARSDABOMB]

QB - Bears win, there is no debating that Orton is better.

RB - 49ers win, there is no debating that Gore is better, right now.

TE - Bears win, hands down.

OL - Bears win IMHO, but barely. But you are right; they are definitely in a better position to move forward. (BTW - If you recall, I also wanted Rachal a lot)

WR - The only source of debate. We just disagree. From top to bottom, from #1 to #4, the Bears are better overall. Is Bruce better than any Bears' WR? Probably. But #2-#4, I'd say the Bears have the advantage.

Jason...I can't disagree more. THe Bears have the worse WR corps in the NFL and one of the worse of all time. Davis is freakin awful...Hester has raw speed, poor hands, and is a poor route runner. Booker is past his prime and Lloyd can't stay on the field. I won't comment on Bennett since our coaching staff won't even let him smell the field (and our coaching staff isn't exactly bright when it comes to which WR's they play as evidence by some of the guys who didn't get playing time here and did decent elsewhere).

[DABEARSDABOMB]

If I were King, LOL

 

Our starting WRs, at this point, would be Haas, Rideau, & Hester. Bennet as our #4. Get rid of the rest and fill in with draft & FA.

 

I would be willing to bet this group would excel (if we have a QB who has the time and skill to get the ball to them.

I know if I were running the show Berrian would still be here. Angelos biggest mistake as GM (including the checkbox incident) was not franchising Berrian and at least giving the Bears an extra year to find a WR to replace him.