Vasher done with Bears

[Lucky Luciano]

I'm jumping back into this argument late, so let me just say this about Vasher & Tillman:

1. There's been times when they've been called on to press the WR's, and as far as I can tell, they've never been burned. Hell, with Graham's size & speed, he should be ideal at bumping WR's at the line.

2. When has JA ever over-paid or under-paid a player? He keeps his finger on the pulse of what the market is. He gave Vasher a 5 year 28 million $$$ deal and Tillman a 6 year 41 million $$$ extension. I mention that because if we paid that, chances are other teams would pay the same. You don't pay that kind of coin for players who only have the ability to back-peddle.

 

Peanut is a top corner, and Vasher was a good corner. Either way, there's no chance that our coaching staff hasn't had confidence in them. Chico was smart enough to mix things up at times. Babbich wasn't. Let's hope Lovie gets things back on track.

 

Either way, we already have 67 million invested in two cornerbacks. If you count the 21 million deal we gave RMJ, it's 88 million. Yet our secondary sucked. Asa from Oakland will probably cost 88 million by himself. That ain't going to fix the problem.

 

1. vasher, tillman, mcbride have all three been beaten badly multiple times at the LOS. whether graham is ideal or not and has or has not i can't say for positive but unless he is playing "Lovie's Cover 2" that requires him to always play a deep cushion every play i certainly don't remember seeing him play bump and run on the LOS.

 

2. huh? you mean like bryan robinson? or r.w. mcquarters? or p. daniels? or r.manning jr.? or d. wesley? or t. metcalf? or w. holdman? or hester? or your very own vasher? or urlacher? or moose? or h. burris? or k. stewart? or c. hutchinson? or j. quinn? or b. johnson? or k. jones? or b. lloyd? or dick jauron? or john shoop?

 

peanut is a top corner? then you believe we could get a first or second round pick for peanut this offseason? vasher? the guy we have been discussing may get cut if not for the overpayment cap hit by angelo? are you saying then it's babich's fault our corners got eaten alive last season? or for that matter over the last 5 years? you also mention, after commenting on how good our corners are, that our secondary "sucked"?

 

look, your entitled to your opinion on what will fix this mess we call our DB's. you think we are fine with what we have on our roster and i say a top cover corner FA makes not only our secondary better by light years, but our entire defense.

[madlithuanian]

The waiting is the hardest part...

 

if what you say is really true and it's "Lovie's Cover 2" that requires our corners to play that soft and our corners are good enough to play tight on the LOS then get ready for the same ole, same ole until lovie smith is fired.

[Lucky Luciano]

The waiting is the hardest part...

 

i just find it mindboggling that people would believe that any nfl head coach with a defensive background would purposely play his corners 5-10 yards off the line of scrimmage every game and give up 5-10 yards to a receiver untouched continually and call it his "scheme".

 

honestly, do you really believe that?

[madlithuanian]

Honestly, I think there's a reason Smith is taking over Babich's duties. Smith seems to be a strong delegator and seems to stay out of the way. So, maybe it was Babich.

 

i just find it mindboggling that people would believe that any nfl head coach with a defensive background would purposely play his corners 5-10 yards off the line of scrimmage every game and give up 5-10 yards to a receiver untouched continually and call it his "scheme".

 

honestly, do you really believe that?

[nfoligno]

1. vasher, tillman, mcbride have all three been beaten badly multiple times at the LOS. whether graham is ideal or not and has or has not i can't say for positive but unless he is playing "Lovie's Cover 2" that requires him to always play a deep cushion every play i certainly don't remember seeing him play bump and run on the LOS.

 

One, multiple times? So what. Every DB in the league, including the elite, have been beaten multiple times. I am sure you mean, more, but I think many of us would argue we just have not seen them in press coverage enough to really say.

 

Two, I have also always wondered how much of the problem is due to how much time we practice press coverage. If I am right, and press coverage is not an integral part of our defense, than I have to wonder how much we practice it. If we do not practice it much, should we expect great results the few times we do see our DBs try it?

 

I really think this is a chicken and egg argument. I believe you argue that we do not press at the LOS often because we do not have the talent. Some of us argue that we do not press because we do not have coaches who like to press. Who is right? We may never know.

 

2. huh? you mean like bryan robinson? or r.w. mcquarters? or p. daniels? or r.manning jr.? or d. wesley? or t. metcalf? or w. holdman? or hester? or your very own vasher? or urlacher? or moose? or h. burris? or k. stewart? or c. hutchinson? or j. quinn? or b. johnson? or k. jones? or b. lloyd? or dick jauron? or john shoop?

 

Okay, I agree the idea Angelo never over-paid for a player is questionable, I also think you were trying to just throw out every name you could think of. The point was not really whether a player turned out or not, but whether Angelo paid market value at the time he paid them. Put aside what you think of Tillman and Vasher today. If they were FAs when we paid them, do you really not think they would have gotten offers equal to what we paid them. That was Brad's point. Most on your list I think would fit into that category as well. Heck, some on your list didn't receive much more than the minimum, so how can you really talk about their being over-paid. Argue whether we should have brought them in at all, fine, but over-paid?

 

peanut is a top corner? then you believe we could get a first or second round pick for peanut this offseason? vasher? the guy we have been discussing may get cut if not for the overpayment cap hit by angelo? are you saying then it's babich's fault our corners got eaten alive last season? or for that matter over the last 5 years? you also mention, after commenting on how good our corners are, that our secondary "sucked"?

 

I wondered about the "top corner" comment too. If Brad meant top corner on our team, I guess I would have to agree. If he meant top corner in the league, I would say not even close.

 

W/ that said, our corners have not been eaten alive for the last 5 years. I am not sure where you are even coming from on that one. We were actually a very solid pass defense under Chico. I think that is his point. W/ these same players (mostly) we were a top 5 defense, but under Babich, closer to bottom 5. You ask if it is Babich's fault got eaten alive last year. I would say partially. I would point out that both Vasher and Tillman suffered injuries, and Tillman played most of the year w/ a bum shoulder which hindered his ability to tackle or break up passes, but w/ that said, I think Babich was a factor as well. Vasher talked about it at one point, but was so villified at the time his comments were not well received by fans. He talked about how he isn't the one telling CBs where to lineup. The implication there is, coaches tell the CBs to line up 10 yards off the LOS, so don't blame the corners when there are so many easy completions underneath. He also talked about how, under our staff's system, the CB is expected to take away the outside, and give up the inside, w/ the idea the LBs will take that area. So a CB is expected to prevent the WR from catches near the sideline, and are expected to funnel the WR into the middle of the field. Vasher said that flat out, and makes perfect sense for our system. Problem is, our S and LB pass defense this year was bad, and thus those slants were easy completions. Vasher's point in that rant was, the CBs are getting blasted for doing what they are told to do. So yes, I do think Babich deserves a large part of the blame for the play of our CBs this year.

 

look, your entitled to your opinion on what will fix this mess we call our DB's. you think we are fine with what we have on our roster and i say a top cover corner FA makes not only our secondary better by light years, but our entire defense.

 

Hey, a top player at any unit on either side of the ball makes the team better. A top WR makes the offense better. A top OL.... A top DE.... A top DT..... The greater question is, what player brings the greatest level of improvement. IMHO, of the positions I just ticked off, CB would rank at the bottom. I believe an elite WR, OL, DL would have a much greater impact on the team than CB. I would also add FS. I believe an elite FS would have a far greater impact on the secondary specific, and defense as a whole, than CB.

[nfoligno]

do you really think lovie smith is so stupid that if our corners could play bump and run, forget about man coverage but like the cover 2 actually dicatates in the first place, he just doesn't want to do it?

 

i just find it mindboggling that people would believe that any nfl head coach with a defensive background would purposely play his corners 5-10 yards off the line of scrimmage every game and give up 5-10 yards to a receiver untouched continually and call it his "scheme".

 

For the record, the 2nd quote was from another post of yours which I incorporated.

 

Allow me to answer your question w/ a question. You give the idea that our CBs suck, and are incapable of playing in such a way as to work in a cover two scheme. Well, if that is true, why did we spend money to retain them. Do you believe Angelo did this behind Lovie's back, w/o his signing off on the move? I doubt that seriously. I think our keeping our CBs very much had the stamp of approval from Lovie. If that is the case, then I have to believe also that he believed Vasher and Tillman did in fact fit in our scheme, which sorry, would seem to blow your argument out of the water that (a) our CBs can not play press coverage AND ( Lovie would never run a system that doesn't use CBs near the LOS.

 

just to be sure i am getting you... you say the cb's are not good enough to play up man coverage yet it appears your pet peeve is why our coaches don't scheme to play them up man in coverage OR on the LOS in zone coverage more often?

 

No, I am saying I have no idea whether our CBs can play press coverage or not. IMHO, it is not part of our system, and not something we spend much time practicing, and thus, not something I would expect our corners to do well. Also, there is a difference between lining your CBs on top of the WR and 10 yards deep. IMHO, even if your CBs are not great in press coverage, they do not need to be lined up 10 yards deep.

 

Understand something. Lovie has MANY times talked about how his system relies on players keeping everything in front of them. The deeper our corners play, the more they keep WRs in front of them. Thus, I would argue how we line up our CBs very much fits into what Lovie has always talked about w/ our system. I simply don't care for the system.

 

just for the record, even when our D was top 5 our pass defense was POOR!! we overcompensated for poor corner play with good + pressure from the defensive line. we also at that time had a good safety in mike brown who also helped to smooth the edges of our corners playing so soft. in the mean time other offenses figured out how to beat us which we don't have the tools to counter.

 

Explain how you judge our pass defense to be poor. Our team seemed to be among the league leaders in preventing big plays. Our team always seemed to rank among the top in terms of take aways. This is something I just do not think you get about Lovie's system. Go back to his days running St.L's defense. It was NEVER about shutting down opposing WRs and offenses. Lovie's system has always allowed WRs yardage, but the idea was to prevent big plays and force teams to use many downs to move down the field. In this ideal, it gives a defense more opportunities to make "plays" on the ball, and thus create turnovers. I think you judge a pass defense on whether or not we simply shut down an opposing WR or offense, but that has simply NEVER been Lovie's MO. Preventing the big play and creating many turnovers is what Lovie's defenses were always known for, and that is what we had, at least until Babich took over. So you argue our pass defense was poor, and I argue it performed just as Lovie wanted.

 

what matters is that there is not enough quality/talent in our entire defensive backfield to even trade one for a 3rd round pick!!! you don't think another team would give us a 3rd round pick for briggs? or urlacher? or tommy harris? would you give one for polamalu (sp)? one for the kid in oakland? champ bailey? dawkins? mcalister?

 

Now we are talking about a 3rd? I thought we were talking about 1st and 2nd round picks. Regardless, after the last two years, I doubt many would give us jack for any of our players. However, coming off the SB, when our defense was playing well, I do think we could have gotten a 3rd for Tillman. Not sure about Vasher.

 

BUT, I would argue the CBs in a cover two are not usually the high value players. Look around the league at other teams who run the cover two. How many of them have top tier CBs? Personally, I can not think of any. When you look at cover two defenses, you usually find top tier DL and upper tier LBs. CBs are simply not considered the value position in a cover two.

 

no i am not missing that point. it doesn't have to do with scheme unless you think our cover 2 is something different under lovie smith than any other coach using the cover 2. it has to do with confidence in his players abilities which seems nonexistant. either that or he really is stupid.

 

First, as said above, tell me what elite corners are playing in a cover two. I honestly can't think of any.

 

Second, I do agree with what has already been said. It is not just the cover two, but Lovie's cover two. Urlacher once said the players called it the Lovie Two, implying the system we run is similar to the known cover two, but also specific to Lovie.

 

first, i wasn't at the game and it is truely vauge in my memory without revisiting it so i can only talk in generalities in this instance.

 

onward: when blitzing 'can' a defense play a larger zone? sure. does that mean your corners are or aren't playing man? no.

 

again... there are a multitude of zone type defenses some mixed with man. do you consider it a zone just because they are giving this big of a cushion? if that is the case we never play man coverage. watch where the corner is lined up. see where the safeties are lined up. is the corner trailing the wideout with a deep safety for over the top help? are there 2 safties playing deep? is he passing him accross the field to the safety, linebacker or the other corner?

 

No, I am not saying we are in a zone just because our CBs are playing off the LOS. I just whether we are in a zone by how the CBs play the WR after the snap. When our CBs put their stress on preventing the sideline, and try to funnel the WRs into the middle of the field, where the LB or S take over primary responsibility, then we are in a zone. Do you recall, in the Houston game, where Daniel Manning was burned deep. It was nearly identical to the SB loss. The CB kept the WR in front of him to a point, and then released the WR to the S who was taking the deep coverage. Unfortunately, our FS failed in both occasions. Also, in each occasion, the CB saw the S wasn't in position, and tried to get back to the WR, but it was too late both times. So the CB too often is seen as the bad guy, but in reality, it was the responsibility of the S, and the coaches have even said as much.

 

Often, it is hard to tell if the CB is playing zone because we allow so many quick passes, but I look at how the CB plays. If the CB is playing to a specific area (sideline) and looks like he is allowing the WR an opening in another area, it usually means he is releasing the WR to another zone. Problem is, we too often leave that next zone open, and the WR makes the play. It looks like the CB blew it, but in reality, the CB did as he was supposed to do, but the LB or S was not in position to handle his zone.

 

i have to add to this also, the cover 2 is DEPENDANT upon the corners not letting the receivers get off the line untouched, period. otherwise you will get exactly what we have seen in chicago playing zone OR man.

 

Sorry, but I simply disagree w/ this, and further, go back to our re-signing Vasher and Tillman. If both are so incapable of press coverage, and if press coverage is an element the cover two relies upon, why were they re-signed? The fact that both were re-signed seems to be evidence that press coverage is not the all important element of the cover two, or at least the Lovie two, you think it is.

 

explain to me your description of that game's corners and safeties playing man coverage and compare it to what you see in other games. what are the specific differences to you?

 

I talk above about what our CBs do playing a zone. They keep the WR in front of them up to a certain point in the field, where they "release" to the S. They take away the outside (sideline) and funnel the WR into the middle, where the LB or S is expected to take over. Contrast that to man coverage, where the CB will not look to take away one area, but play tight (not necessarily at the LOS) w/ the WR throughout his route. He is not looking to funnel the WR into another area to another player/position/zone.

 

the biggest PROBLEM is wracking up 3-5 hundred yards passing a game. how can you expect any defensive line, including the 85 bears, to stop a continuous 2-3 step drop and release? if your corners are covering the receivers tight can that happen as often as it does in chicago? nobody seems to realize that that extra second waiting for a receiver to clear can make the difference between a completion and a sack.

 

I think many fans realize this, and is also why many fans have not been huge fans of Lovie and his scheme. It is why I have said how our DBs play has been a constant pet peeve of mine. I agree that, if our CBs were to press more, it would give the DL a greater chance to get to the QB. Even if they could potentially get beaten, it would require the QB to hold the ball longer, and thus allow the DL more time to get to the passer. But that just has never seemed to be part of our system. Our system allows the short stuff. Sorry, but go back to when Lovie was in St.L. Same thing. He allowed the short stuff, w/ the belief that offenses struggle to move the ball 80 yards for a score on 10+ play drives. In Lovie's eyes, if our defense forces an offense to run so many plays, it allows us more opportunities to force a turnover, and thus make a stop.

 

i agree you need to generate a pass rush to be successful. but to do that you need to be able to hold the receivers from being open for at LEAST the minimum amount of time it takes your linemen to get there. we can't/don't do that.

 

Hey, we agree, but where we disagree is whether or not Lovie see's things that way. Even when we were a top 5 defense, I felt Lovie held us back from being truly dominant. Then, we forced more turnovers, which led to a greater overall ranking, but I always felt that if we played more aggressively, we could actually put fear into opposing offenses, rather than just trying to frustrate them.

 

yea i do remember 2001 and what we needed then was a pass rushing defensive end to be successful. our corners weren't great but they did play a lot tighter/better coverage than anything we see today not to mention we had two pro-bowl caliber safeties. i just don't see how this is a waste of money improving your entire defense with one key player.

 

One, our CBs played tighter coverage, but that was a totally different scheme, under very different coaches. My point was, do you really think Blache wanted a Freeney like DE for his system that was based on stuffing the run? Then, we wanted 300lb DE who could stuff the run first, and get to the QB 2nd (or 3rd). IMHO, if we had a DE like Freeney, he would have gone to waste as he would have been too restricted.

 

FA's factor cash first and foremost. add to that do you think a db from oakland, for gods sake, wouldn't see an improvement in chicago? if not then we truely are a sad franchise at this point in history.

 

You act like we would be the only team going after him. My point is, often FAs get similar top offers from more than one team, and choose the team they feel is the best fit. A few years ago, we made a strong run at Kearse. Phily made his a very similar offer to ours. As I recall, Philly offered more total guarantee money, by a million or so, but in more installments than ours, thus it could be argued both offeres were VERY similar. He choose to go w/ the team he felt would better utilize him, and that was not us.

 

No argument that money is #1, but unless you plan to make him an offer that blows the doors off all other offers, I bet you he will consider other factors, and how he is used and in what sort of scheme will be one of them.

 

you keep saying the same thing over and over. our staff wouldn't deploy our corners up because of scheme. how do you know that? you yourself say they are not good playing up!!! so why should they? so they can get beat every other down?

 

I don't think our CBs are good playing up, but also state part of that is likely due to practice, or lack there of. Since Lovie came to the team, we have had more than just Vasher and Tillman, and yet regardless who is playing CB and what WR we are facing, we continue to line up our corners the same way. So to me, it simply has nothing to do w/ the CB or WR, and everything to do w/ the system.

 

Sorry, but regardless how bad you may think our CBs are in press coverage, there is no reason to play them 10 yards deep against the likes of Bobby Wade, which we did. I just throw Wade out there as an example of a WR who doesn't have speed, yet we played identical to how we played a WR like Steve Smith. Even if young CB is not great in press coverage, there is no reason to show such respect to a WR who lacks speed. That our CBs play every WR the same tells me it is system, as opposed to the skills of the CB.

 

would angelo be dumb enough to draft a cover 2 type of corner in round 1? i certainly hope not. any corner i drafted on the first day would be one i projected to be a cover/lockdown corner.

 

Is this not further evidence? Since Agnelo came to the bears, how many CBs have we drafted in the first? Heck, how many CBs were even rumored to be our pick? Angelo has never seemed to consider the top tier, shut down corners. Does that not speak to how we view the position as it relates to our system?

 

finally... when have they ever had a true cover corner to put on the field??? do you truely believe that bringing woodson in 3 years ago would have made NO difference for this defense? are you serious??

 

But again, that is the point. Our system is not one in which the CB position is as highly graded, thus why we have never tried to get the elite cover corners in either the draft or FA. I know you wanted woodson, but the fact that we never even made a run at him, well, does that not say something.

 

I think the problem is, you want players based on how you would run a defense. Hell, you have my vote, as I think you and I are more on the same page when it comes to how we would run a defense. Problem is, I just do not think our staff agrees. Lovie is a cover two corner, and like it or not, elite shut down corners are not seen in cover two defenses.

 

Think about pre-draft talk every year. Every year, you read scouting reports on CBs, and often you read scouts talk about whether a CB would be viewed as a better man coverage or zone coverage DB. Often, those reports often go on to say something like, "Player X lacks a, b, c abilities, and is more likely suited to go to a defense that plays zone, like w/ the teams that run cover two systems. So players in the draft who are considered to lack man coverage skills are often discussed as potential picks for teams that run the cover two. Sorry, but I think your argument is FAR MORE about our system and staff than about our personnel. I would love to add an elite CB, but then again, I would love a system that would better utilize such a talent.

[Mongo3451]

Hey, a top player at any unit on either side of the ball makes the team better. A top WR makes the offense better. A top OL.... A top DE.... A top DT..... The greater question is, what player brings the greatest level of improvement. IMHO, of the positions I just ticked off, CB would rank at the bottom. I believe an elite WR, OL, DL would have a much greater impact on the team than CB. I would also add FS. I believe an elite FS would have a far greater impact on the secondary specific, and defense as a whole, than CB.

Sorry to pick out a small peice of the conversation, but it being your conclusion makes it stand out to me. I don't it's so cut and dry as saying, "we need this position more, therefore the impact will be greater with player X". It all depends on what you strike gold with. The argument to add a top corner is a valid one, as it helps the whole secondary get better. I may be in the minority, but still feel if we signed Osamuhga and moved Pnut to FS, our secondary would improve exponentially.(Osamuhga is elite and P'nut IMO would be an elite FS) It would definately help the LB's play more naturally flowing to the LOS vs backpedalling to compensate for an inferior backfield. Would that be more beneficial than a good pass rushing DE? At this point, hope is alive that Marinelli(with some help from Sapp) will boost the pass rush. This also includes better play from our DT's. Our scheme starts up front, but how much was coaching vs talent? Ogun is in a contract year, Brown will be Brown, Anderson is the wildcard, Harrison will be in his 2nd season and Harris should improve(if he doesn't the whole staff should be fired). With this much improvement expected, how great is the DL need vs talent elsewhere?

 

On the offensive side of the ball, agreed, and I still say "Fix the OL 1st". It all falls into place after that. I also don't think any reciever we can draft at our slot will have an immediate impact. A veteren FA would have greater benefit to Orton, Hester and the TE's, at this point. Again, it all starts up front.

[bowlingtwig]

Honestly, I think there's a reason Smith is taking over Babich's duties. Smith seems to be a strong delegator and seems to stay out of the way. So, maybe it was Babich.

 

 

You might be right, as Rivera I saw us up on the line more than I do now.

[nfoligno]

Few points.

 

- On Osa, it is not a question of whether or not I think he would improve our secondary. He is an elite talent, and would obviously improve our secondary. But for the, it is a matter of (a) how much and ( at what cost. The franchise tag prices just came out, and according to those numbers, CB is the 3rd highest paid position behind QB, and just behind WR. Elite CBs make sick contracts, and Osa is due to hit paydirt (if he even makes it to FA, which I personally doubt).

 

An issue for me is, I just do not believe our system puts enough value on the CB position to justify the cost. I talked about this ad nauseum in another post. During draft time, when scouts are evaluating players, have you not read them talk about this player being a more man coverage guy vs another who is more likely a better zone coverage fit? Those zone coverage CBs are always discussed for teams who run cover two defenses. That is because our scheme simply does not require elite CBs. Look around the league at other cover two defenses, and tell me what elite corners play for those schemes? I honestly can not think of one. So if the scheme does not require, and would not truly utilize the talents of a shut down corner, how can you justify the cost?

 

- On moving Tillman to FS. Personally, I am not a huge fan of the idea. I understand the reason for the talk. It goes back to when he was drafted, and the DC then said he could be a pro bowl S if he didn't workout at CB. Add in his hands, and I see the reasoning. My issue is, I am tired of the experiments. Instead of moving our best CB to FS, why not instead go out and get a true FS? I said the same for our LT position for years. For so long, we moved players who were previous starters at OG or RT, and tried them LT. Tait was the best success, but was short term and never great, IMHO. Finally, we had to draft a legit LT, which is what I felt we should have done a decade ago. Ditto at FS. Instead of experiments, I just want to go out and get (draft or FA) a legit, experienced FS.

 

- On how I rank our needs. I should point out that I do not rank DE as high as I might imply. Rather, I believe our staff ranks DE as a top priority need. I personally believe we have talent which has been held back by Babich, and feel (hope) Marinelli can get more out of what we have. In fact, the only position on defense I view as a priority is FS. I believe we are better fixed for talent at CB than some believe. I think Tillman is a solid CB for our system. I look at Vasher, and point out his decline coincided w/ Babich taking over, and believe the changes in coaching will elevate his play. Further, I believe Graham looked very good last year, and could be a solid starter as well. So I personally do not view CB as a high need, and like DE, feel coaching will offer better results. FS is the one position (SS would be next) where I simply feel we lack talent, and do not feel coaching changes are enough to compensate.

 

Where I believe we have our greatest needs is on offense. On defense, other than FS, I simply believe the talent is there, but Babich's run defense made it look like we were devoid of talent all over. I believe, hope, that our coaching changes proves we are more solid than most believe at DL and CB. On offense however, I believe we simply lack talent. On the OL, I do not see a position I am happy w/. Williams will take over at LT, and we have to simply hope that works out. But other than LT, I do not like our current, or future, options. Beekman played decent, but far from great, and I think will be moving to center before long. Kreutz has seemed to decline each year, and is closer to a liability than an asset. Garza sucks in my mind, and Tait is just a hair better than Fred Miller, which says a lot about how I feel. So I believe we need major changes/additions on the OL.

 

After the OL, WR is a close 2nd for me. Even if we significantly upgraded our OL, I do not think we have the talent at WR to take advantage. Hester may or may not evolve, but other than him, I have seen little reason for hope, and question how much development we should expect from Hester when no other WR can provide a solid 2nd option. So here, like OL, is an area I feel the issue is about talent, rather than coaching.

 

Let me put it this way. I believe our defense, w/ the personnel we have in place now, and the coaching changes made, can once again be a top 10 defense. Maybe not dominant, but top 10. On offense, I think we could go backward as much as forward if changes are not made.

 

Sorry to pick out a small peice of the conversation, but it being your conclusion makes it stand out to me. I don't it's so cut and dry as saying, "we need this position more, therefore the impact will be greater with player X". It all depends on what you strike gold with. The argument to add a top corner is a valid one, as it helps the whole secondary get better. I may be in the minority, but still feel if we signed Osamuhga and moved Pnut to FS, our secondary would improve exponentially.(Osamuhga is elite and P'nut IMO would be an elite FS) It would definately help the LB's play more naturally flowing to the LOS vs backpedalling to compensate for an inferior backfield. Would that be more beneficial than a good pass rushing DE? At this point, hope is alive that Marinelli(with some help from Sapp) will boost the pass rush. This also includes better play from our DT's. Our scheme starts up front, but how much was coaching vs talent? Ogun is in a contract year, Brown will be Brown, Anderson is the wildcard, Harrison will be in his 2nd season and Harris should improve(if he doesn't the whole staff should be fired). With this much improvement expected, how great is the DL need vs talent elsewhere?

 

On the offensive side of the ball, agreed, and I still say "Fix the OL 1st". It all falls into place after that. I also don't think any reciever we can draft at our slot will have an immediate impact. A veteren FA would have greater benefit to Orton, Hester and the TE's, at this point. Again, it all starts up front.

[Mongo3451]

Few points.

 

- On Osa, it is not a question of whether or not I think he would improve our secondary. He is an elite talent, and would obviously improve our secondary. But for the, it is a matter of (a) how much and ( at what cost. The franchise tag prices just came out, and according to those numbers, CB is the 3rd highest paid position behind QB, and just behind WR. Elite CBs make sick contracts, and Osa is due to hit paydirt (if he even makes it to FA, which I personally doubt).

 

Hey, one can only hope Big Al goes fruitloops and lets him walk!

 

An issue for me is, I just do not believe our system puts enough value on the CB position to justify the cost. I talked about this ad nauseum in another post. During draft time, when scouts are evaluating players, have you not read them talk about this player being a more man coverage guy vs another who is more likely a better zone coverage fit? Those zone coverage CBs are always discussed for teams who run cover two defenses. That is because our scheme simply does not require elite CBs. Look around the league at other cover two defenses, and tell me what elite corners play for those schemes? I honestly can not think of one. So if the scheme does not require, and would not truly utilize the talents of a shut down corner, how can you justify the cost?

 

I really don't think system comes into play here. Osa would simply enhance any system. Also, and I know you agree with this, it would allow us to shift or morph the cover two system into something a little more effective, as a lot of folks think the cover two, as a whole, has been figured out.( quite the same as the 46) Imagine not having to worry about one side of the field. You can now roll your safety or use him as a freelancer in the fassion of Ed Reed or Taz.

 

- On moving Tillman to FS. Personally, I am not a huge fan of the idea. I understand the reason for the talk. It goes back to when he was drafted, and the DC then said he could be a pro bowl S if he didn't workout at CB. Add in his hands, and I see the reasoning. My issue is, I am tired of the experiments. Instead of moving our best CB to FS, why not instead go out and get a true FS? I said the same for our LT position for years. For so long, we moved players who were previous starters at OG or RT, and tried them LT. Tait was the best success, but was short term and never great, IMHO. Finally, we had to draft a legit LT, which is what I felt we should have done a decade ago. Ditto at FS. Instead of experiments, I just want to go out and get (draft or FA) a legit, experienced FS.

 

You want a legit FS, I say Tillman has better odds of being that than anyone we could draft. It's not like his measurables are not prototypical for the position. Now, if we can find one via FA, I'm for it. As far as the reasoning of moving our best CB to FS is moot with the signing of Osa. Anyway, I don't think much of Tillman as a CB. I just don't think he is sudden enough. His movement is best in a straightline, which also leads to free.

 

- On how I rank our needs. I should point out that I do not rank DE as high as I might imply. Rather, I believe our staff ranks DE as a top priority need. I personally believe we have talent which has been held back by Babich, and feel (hope) Marinelli can get more out of what we have. In fact, the only position on defense I view as a priority is FS. I believe we are better fixed for talent at CB than some believe. I think Tillman is a solid CB for our system. I look at Vasher, and point out his decline coincided w/ Babich taking over, and believe the changes in coaching will elevate his play. Further, I believe Graham looked very good last year, and could be a solid starter as well. So I personally do not view CB as a high need, and like DE, feel coaching will offer better results. FS is the one position (SS would be next) where I simply feel we lack talent, and do not feel coaching changes are enough to compensate.

 

I would rank our defensive needs as FS or CB upgrade 1a and 1b. Still with the addition of Osa, you tremendously upgrade two positions with one signing. Sorry for the deadhorse argument.

 

Where I believe we have our greatest needs is on offense. On defense, other than FS, I simply believe the talent is there, but Babich's run defense made it look like we were devoid of talent all over. I believe, hope, that our coaching changes proves we are more solid than most believe at DL and CB. On offense however, I believe we simply lack talent. On the OL, I do not see a position I am happy w/. Williams will take over at LT, and we have to simply hope that works out. But other than LT, I do not like our current, or future, options. Beekman played decent, but far from great, and I think will be moving to center before long. Kreutz has seemed to decline each year, and is closer to a liability than an asset. Garza sucks in my mind, and Tait is just a hair better than Fred Miller, which says a lot about how I feel. So I believe we need major changes/additions on the OL.

 

After the OL, WR is a close 2nd for me. Even if we significantly upgraded our OL, I do not think we have the talent at WR to take advantage. Hester may or may not evolve, but other than him, I have seen little reason for hope, and question how much development we should expect from Hester when no other WR can provide a solid 2nd option. So here, like OL, is an area I feel the issue is about talent, rather than coaching.

 

Agreed on offense. Let me add that I would like for us to draft the best FB availible, even if we draft him a round higher than needed.

 

Let me put it this way. I believe our defense, w/ the personnel we have in place now, and the coaching changes made, can once again be a top 10 defense. Maybe not dominant, but top 10. On offense, I think we could go backward as much as forward if changes are not made.

 

Agreed again. Teams will be onto our strengths if we can't make them pay for trying to stop them. I may not have explained that too well, but I think everyone gets that.

[nfoligno]

Hey, one can only hope Big Al goes fruitloops and lets him walk!

 

If you are going to follow that dream, I would just as well dream St.L allows their FS to walk while Carolina allows Peppers to walk. Stranger things have happened, but I simply see no chance Oakland allows him to walk. I think they will at least tag him w/ plans to trade him, and the price of that could be steep.

 

I really don't think system comes into play here. Osa would simply enhance any system. Also, and I know you agree with this, it would allow us to shift or morph the cover two system into something a little more effective, as a lot of folks think the cover two, as a whole, has been figured out.( quite the same as the 46) Imagine not having to worry about one side of the field. You can now roll your safety or use him as a freelancer in the fassion of Ed Reed or Taz.

 

First you say system doesn't matter, but then you say we could change our system w/ him.

 

I agree he is a talent such that he would be good in any system. That isn't the point though. In talking about him, you are talking about spending huge bucks. My point is, while he would be good in any system, his value in some systems is greater than in others. In our system, he obviously would have value, but I simply believe the value of a shut down corner in a cover two system that uses FAR more zone coverage than man is not nearly as great. Thus, if the value is not as great, would he be worth the contract.

 

Examples:

 

If you have a defense run by Blache that stresses stopping the run and staying in your lanes, would it make sense to spend massive money on a DE like Freeney? Elite pass rusher, but if in a run first defense, would you really get value?

 

If have a smash mouth offense that tries to run the ball 55-45 ratio, and sticks w/ shorter passes when it does go to the air, would it make sense to spend huge on an elite, downfield WR?

 

You can talk about changing systems, but that is another issue. My point is, if you look at our system, there are certain positions that are simply not as highly valued as others, and CB is simply not as highly valued of a position in the cover two.

 

Now, as for changing systems, what about Lovie makes you think that will happen? He has already flat out said we will not be changing our systems. We are talking about the same guy who let Rivera go due (per rumors) to not being cover 2 enough. Sorry, but I see no system change until Lovie is gone, and thus, I just question the value of elite CBs in our system.

 

You want a legit FS, I say Tillman has better odds of being that than anyone we could draft. It's not like his measurables are not prototypical for the position. Now, if we can find one via FA, I'm for it. As far as the reasoning of moving our best CB to FS is moot with the signing of Osa. Anyway, I don't think much of Tillman as a CB. I just don't think he is sudden enough. His movement is best in a straightline, which also leads to free.

 

One, I just do not see us getting Osa, and thus we would be moving our top CB to FS. Two, I am not sure I agree Tillman has better odds of playing FS than a FS we draft. Sorry, but I'll take the kid who played FS throughout college over the guy who, that i know of, has never played the position. Three, does anyone know how Tillman would feel about this move? Moving from CB to FS is something some CBs due immediatly out of college, or later, soon before retirement. CBs soon after a big contract, while still young, do not often seem to make such a transition. I am not sure Tillman would be too keen on this idea.

 

I would rank our defensive needs as FS or CB upgrade 1a and 1b. Still with the addition of Osa, you tremendously upgrade two positions with one signing. Sorry for the deadhorse argument.

 

I don't see CB as close to a 1b need. I feel stronger about the starting tandem of Graham/Tillman, w/ Vasher #3 than I do many other units. While you say the addition of Osa would upgrade two positions, I personally feel a FS like from St.l would do the same.

 

Agreed on offense. Let me add that I would like for us to draft the best FB availible, even if we draft him a round higher than needed.

 

Preaching to the choir. I have wanted a legit FB for years. I could care less if he can catch or run. I want a FB that can plow holes and lead our RB.

 

Agreed again. Teams will be onto our strengths if we can't make them pay for trying to stop them. I may not have explained that too well, but I think everyone gets that.

 

That is my biggest fear heading into the season, that our staff buys the mirage of this past season. I fear Angelo believing our defense is awful, and needs major changes. And I further fear Angelo believes our OL played well last year, and will only improve w/ Williams. Hester developed, and we have Bennett w/ some other young WRs, and WR just isn't as huge of a need for a run first team, particularly one w/ two solid TEs. So my fear is we focus too much on defense, rather than offense.

[Lucky Luciano]

One, multiple times? So what. Every DB in the league, including the elite, have been beaten multiple times. I am sure you mean, more, but I think many of us would argue we just have not seen them in press coverage enough to really say.

 

Two, I have also always wondered how much of the problem is due to how much time we practice press coverage. If I am right, and press coverage is not an integral part of our defense, than I have to wonder how much we practice it. If we do not practice it much, should we expect great results the few times we do see our DBs try it?

 

I really think this is a chicken and egg argument. I believe you argue that we do not press at the LOS often because we do not have the talent. Some of us argue that we do not press because we do not have coaches who like to press. Who is right? We may never know.

 

1. so what? compare the number of times you remember seeing our corners play up on the LOS vs. the number of plays they were beaten for big/critical yardage or TD’s. don’t ask for specific games as i don’t have them, only a recollection of peanut getting eaten up by fast receivers and vasher getting beaten/out juked and trailing a receiver for large yardage or TD’s.

 

my opinion of what we currently have:

 

vasher - although not a speedster, does he have the speed to play corner in the nfl with the right technique? possibly. does he also lack nfl quality burst speed? i don’t know but if he does he is in the wrong position. watching him play may seem to indicate that. i do know what he doesn’t have is the speed to recover if he makes a mistake like missing the jam and/or getting blown-bye off the LOS by fast receivers. am i for cutting him loose at this point like some suggest? no.

 

with better talent opposite him he could make a suitable #2 especially with good safety play. here is another scenario... vasher played not only CB at texas but *safety as well. this would be a serious option for us moving him to the FS position if we picked up a cover corner to utilize his ball-hawk capabilities (which he does have). he certainly has enough speed to play that position and his size is adequate.

 

*you being a texas fan i’m sure could give some real input into this.

 

tillman – has good size and average speed. plus pretty much the same description of him as vasher with the exception that peanut is a ‘very’ good tackler in open space where vasher seems to struggle some (at least recently). the same could be said for tillman’s ability to play the #2 role with a better #1 corner and even switch roles if larger receivers if a gameplan dictated. he also needs good safety help. the same could be said for moving peanut to FS. he played safety in college so it’s not like this is some drastic change from linebacker to tight end as we have done in the past. he has the perfect capabilities to play this position.

 

so basically we have two good/decent #2 corners. with the addition of a #1 cover corner either player could project to be a very good + FS with a MINIMUM learning curve increasing our quality at three starting DB positions.

 

2. this, to me, may be one of the most damning things since smith came to chicago.

 

forget good coach bad coach scenarios. we are talking about football rudimentary basics that transcend down to pop warner. to think that any coach, let alone an nfl coach, would devise a defense (or scheme if you like) that purposely leaves a zone open for a 5-10 yard gain continually without adjustments is beyond belief.

 

Okay, I agree the idea Angelo never over-paid for a player is questionable, I also think you were trying to just throw out every name you could think of. The point was not really whether a player turned out or not, but whether Angelo paid market value at the time he paid them. Put aside what you think of Tillman and Vasher today. If they were FAs when we paid them, do you really not think they would have gotten offers equal to what we paid them. That was Brad's point. Most on your list I think would fit into that category as well. Heck, some on your list didn't receive much more than the minimum, so how can you really talk about their being over-paid. Argue whether we should have brought them in at all, fine, but over-paid?

 

ok. we paid robinson good+ money for 5 years as a DE in 2002 then move him to tackle the same year and then cut him in 2003. mcquarters has one above average season in 3 of his career with another year left on his contract. angelo signs him to a big 6 year contract extension in 2002 when he didn’t need to and then cuts him after the 2004 season when his production has fallen over the previous 2. i don’t think even you would disagree that resigning metcalf for ANY price isn’t ridiculous. we actually let a producing linebacker go in colvin to pay w. holdmans lucrative contract extension. does anyone on earth think he was worth much more than base salary from his body of work?

 

this kind of GMing is what angelo is known for. he admits he wants to reward players who have good seasons. that’s all fine and good but give them a freakin bonus that year instead of multi year high impact contracts prior to their original contracts expiring. you could ask if he really is rewarding them for having a good season or just being cheap trying to beat other teams bidding on them when their final year comes up. it’s a risky business to try this and it seems angelo has lost more often than not playing this game.

 

I wondered about the "top corner" comment too. If Brad meant top corner on our team, I guess I would have to agree. If he meant top corner in the league, I would say not even close.

 

W/ that said, our corners have not been eaten alive for the last 5 years. I am not sure where you are even coming from on that one. We were actually a very solid pass defense under Chico. I think that is his point. W/ these same players (mostly) we were a top 5 defense, but under Babich, closer to bottom 5.

 

rivera WAS better than this idiot babich but you need to look up some stats of your own. only ONE season out of five did we have a top 10 defense in regards to passing yards against us. here are the stats:

 

2004 - 6 gms over 200 yards per game; 3 gms over 300 yds with a game high of 350 against the vikings; ranked 15th for total yards passing with lovie; 3 games where opponents combined for over 400 yards of offense

 

 

2005 - 5 gms over 200 yards per game; 1 gm 300 yds ranked 5th total yards passing (here is your only top 10 season); 0 games where opponents combined for over 400 yards of offense

 

 

2006 - 4 gms over 200 yards per game; 2 gms 300 +; ranked 11th total yards passing; 1 game where opponents combined for over 400 yards of offense

 

 

2007 - 5 gms over 200 yards per game; 5 gms over 300; ranked 27th total yards passing; 6 games where opponents combined for over 400 yards of offense

 

2008 - 9 gmes over 200 yards per game; 2 gms over 300 yds; 1 game 407 yards; ranked 30th total yards passing; 4 games where opponents combined for over 400 yards of offense

 

if you notice the trend, it peaks the second year of smith and continues downward to date. why? i say one reason is because the nfl has figured out exactly what we were doing and countered. i would also like to add that in my opinion any time your defense gives up 3-4 hundred yards total offense to opponents that is NOT to solid or good.

 

You ask if it is Babich's fault got eaten alive last year. I would say partially. I would point out that both Vasher and Tillman suffered injuries, and Tillman played most of the year w/ a bum shoulder which hindered his ability to tackle or break up passes, but w/ that said, I think Babich was a factor as well. Vasher talked about it at one point, but was so villified at the time his comments were not well received by fans. He talked about how he isn't the one telling CBs where to lineup. The implication there is, coaches tell the CBs to line up 10 yards off the LOS, so don't blame the corners when there are so many easy completions underneath. He also talked about how, under our staff's system, the CB is expected to take away the outside, and give up the inside, w/ the idea the LBs will take that area. So a CB is expected to prevent the WR from catches near the sideline, and are expected to funnel the WR into the middle of the field. Vasher said that flat out, and makes perfect sense for our system. Problem is, our S and LB pass defense this year was bad, and thus those slants were easy completions. Vasher's point in that rant was, the CBs are getting blasted for doing what they are told to do. So yes, I do think Babich deserves a large part of the blame for the play of our CBs this year.

 

i couldn’t and won’t deny babs is “partially” to blame. believe me i am not giving any coaches on this staff, besides our special teams coach, much credit for anything. i too understand how injuries effect these results. i too blame our coaches for playing our corners so far off even on wr’s they SHOULD be able to cover.

 

but again... if we run anything like the definition of the cover 2 that has been implemented in the nfl for years and NOT that this is some screwball scheme by lovie, i question the statements he made or you inferred that he made. yes in this type of defense he is supposed to move the receiver inside but how in the hell can he do that from 5-10 yards downfield?

 

no matter what you or anyone else tells me, to make this work (unless they are playing a deep prevent) a corner has to be able to lay hands on or force the receiver inside with position and move him into these zones to be covered by safeties or linebackers and if nothing else disrupt the qb’s timing. when playing so soft or moving backwards like all our corners do it is illegal for them to do so after 5 yards giving every receiver an untouched route!! that means there will ALWAYS be an open zone to make these slant/curls 5-10 yards downfield. our backers are completely out the picture when the receiver makes his break and unless the safeties are playing it tighter than this type of defense calls for they are too far back to disrupt the play all the while our corners are leading the receiver and out of position.

 

Hey, a top player at any unit on either side of the ball makes the team better. A top WR makes the offense better. A top OL.... A top DE.... A top DT..... The greater question is, what player brings the greatest level of improvement. IMHO, of the positions I just ticked off, CB would rank at the bottom. I believe an elite WR, OL, DL would have a much greater impact on the team than CB. I would also add FS. I believe an elite FS would have a far greater impact on the secondary specific, and defense as a whole, than CB.

 

i do not totally disagree that an offensive FA player may be more important to the overall improvement on our team. but unless we completely blow up our offense i just don’t see us being able to compete with high octane offenses putting up 30 and more points. i don’t see us being able, even with a top FA wr or offensive lineman, putting up that many points against high scoring playoff quality teams that have good defenses.

 

i truly believe we can afford BOTH with our salary cap position this season. if we got our high priced cover corner our defense again turns into a top ten contender. with then picking up a good/very good FA lineman or receiver we improve our offense to the point we can complete with the high scoring teams by limiting them to less than the norm amount of points that we can score. the money is there and it’s time angelo used it.

 

as far as the corner vs FS? i say we GET a quality FS just using the personnel we currently have on this roster. try both of our present corners out at FS to determine which is better. whoever that is still improves our #2 corner position by not only giving great safety support but he already is familiar with this system AND is signed long term with major portions of the contract bonus money already paid out.

[Lucky Luciano]

For the record, the 2nd quote was from another post of yours which I incorporated.

 

Allow me to answer your question w/ a question. You give the idea that our CBs suck, and are incapable of playing in such a way as to work in a cover two scheme. Well, if that is true, why did we spend money to retain them. Do you believe Angelo did this behind Lovie's back, w/o his signing off on the move? I doubt that seriously. I think our keeping our CBs very much had the stamp of approval from Lovie. If that is the case, then I have to believe also that he believed Vasher and Tillman did in fact fit in our scheme, which sorry, would seem to blow your argument out of the water that (a) our CBs can not play press coverage AND (cool.gif Lovie would never run a system that doesn't use CBs near the LOS.

 

hmmmm, why would angelo spend money on players that couldn't do the job at the highest level?

1. because he is saving face with players he drafted similar to our great offensive lineman terrence, the roid, metcalf? no, probably not.

2. because he is dumb enough to believe this system you think lovie runs is a great system that can be run with average/below average players? mmmm no, nobody is that stupid.

3. they are cheaper than top notch talent on the market? nawww, we know he will spend any amount of money to aquire top quality FA players.

4. he doesn't have to make more than one first day cb pick in his entire career in chicago? could be. that way he can keep drafting defensive linemen year after year after year.

 

i'd like to add... if lovie is this stupid and incompetent that he devised a scheme/defense this childishly poor and doesn't even notice how bad it is why wouldn't he put his "stamp of approval" on anything at all?

 

No, I am saying I have no idea whether our CBs can play press coverage or not. IMHO, it is not part of our system, and not something we spend much time practicing, and thus, not something I would expect our corners to do well. Also, there is a difference between lining your CBs on top of the WR and 10 yards deep. IMHO, even if your CBs are not great in press coverage, they do not need to be lined up 10 yards deep.

 

Understand something. Lovie has MANY times talked about how his system relies on players keeping everything in front of them. The deeper our corners play, the more they keep WRs in front of them. Thus, I would argue how we line up our CBs very much fits into what Lovie has always talked about w/ our system. I simply don't care for the system.

 

i agree if we don't practice it how could we hope to play it reasonably well. also if what you say is really true and lovie has deviated from the general parameters of what makes a cover 2 work and revised it to play corners this soft then the problems we see now aren’t going away. we could mask them if our d-line plays out of their minds good but can never recover just how really good we could be playing in a sane system.

 

Explain how you judge our pass defense to be poor. Our team seemed to be among the league leaders in preventing big plays. Our team always seemed to rank among the top in terms of take aways. This is something I just do not think you get about Lovie's system. Go back to his days running St.L's defense. It was NEVER about shutting down opposing WRs and offenses. Lovie's system has always allowed WRs yardage, but the idea was to prevent big plays and force teams to use many downs to move down the field. In this ideal, it gives a defense more opportunities to make "plays" on the ball, and thus create turnovers. I think you judge a pass defense on whether or not we simply shut down an opposing WR or offense, but that has simply NEVER been Lovie's MO. Preventing the big play and creating many turnovers is what Lovie's defenses were always known for, and that is what we had, at least until Babich took over. So you argue our pass defense was poor, and I argue it performed just as Lovie wanted.

 

see my other post. as far as preventing big plays? show me that stat. takeaways? yes when our defensive line was playing superb and when we had a pro-bowl quality safety AND offenses hadn't figured out the complete weakness of this system yet.

 

bend don’t break defenses will not work consistently unless you have at LEAST an average offense to keep your defense off the field and give them rest. otherwise the TOP will kill them as we have seen in chicago over these years.

 

Now we are talking about a 3rd? I thought we were talking about 1st and 2nd round picks. Regardless, after the last two years, I doubt many would give us jack for any of our players. However, coming off the SB, when our defense was playing well, I do think we could have gotten a 3rd for Tillman. Not sure about Vasher.

 

BUT, I would argue the CBs in a cover two are not usually the high value players. Look around the league at other teams who run the cover two. How many of them have top tier CBs? Personally, I can not think of any. When you look at cover two defenses, you usually find top tier DL and upper tier LBs. CBs are simply not considered the value position in a cover two.

 

i guess i don’t understand your meaning of high value players? you mean like tampa’s 5 time pro-bowl cornerback ronde barber and pro-bowler donny abraham? or the lovies own rams 8 time pro-bowl and 3 time all-pro cb aeneas williams? or KC’s 5 time pro-bowler 2 time all-pro ty law and 3 time pro-bowler and 1 time all-pro patrick surtain? hmmmm...

 

First, as said above, tell me what elite corners are playing in a cover two. I honestly can't think of any.

 

Second, I do agree with what has already been said. It is not just the cover two, but Lovie's cover two. Urlacher once said the players called it the Lovie Two, implying the system we run is similar to the known cover two, but also specific to Lovie.

 

1. see above

 

2. maybe you are right. but if you are and lovie put this stamp on his version of the cover 2 then we are in serious trouble until he either drastically changes the “Lovie Two” or leaves town.

 

Do you recall, in the Houston game, where Daniel Manning was burned deep. It was nearly identical to the SB loss. The CB kept the WR in front of him to a point, and then released the WR to the S who was taking the deep coverage. Unfortunately, our FS failed in both occasions. Also, in each occasion, the CB saw the S wasn't in position, and tried to get back to the WR, but it was too late both times. So the CB too often is seen as the bad guy, but in reality, it was the responsibility of the S, and the coaches have even said as much.

 

Often, it is hard to tell if the CB is playing zone because we allow so many quick passes, but I look at how the CB plays. If the CB is playing to a specific area (sideline) and looks like he is allowing the WR an opening in another area, it usually means he is releasing the WR to another zone. Problem is, we too often leave that next zone open, and the WR makes the play. It looks like the CB blew it, but in reality, the CB did as he was supposed to do, but the LB or S was not in position to handle his zone.

 

1. i do remember the game when manning missed his assignment and agree it was more than likely zone coverage on that play.

 

2. it is my contention that if the corners are playing this soft that they are literally backpeddling into coverage 8-10 yards before they can engage and that this is beyond where the linebackers zone would end. this is especially true along the sidelines before the wr makes his break which is the case in most instances. just for curiosities sake where is the corner going to go when he is playing this supposed soft zone even if he moves the receiver over 8-10+ yards downfield for the safety to pick up? they have already gone beyond the point of no return for our corners to do anything but cover a deep route.

 

Sorry, but I simply disagree w/ this, and further, go back to our re-signing Vasher and Tillman. If both are so incapable of press coverage, and if press coverage is an element the cover two relies upon, why were they re-signed? The fact that both were re-signed seems to be evidence that press coverage is not the all important element of the cover two, or at least the Lovie two, you think it is.

 

again, if you are correct and this is truly a devised scheme then we are in trouble. because unless you can counter that slant or curl by playing ‘reasonably’ tight coverage off of the snap for that first 5-10 yards they will continue to beat your brains out all day long.

 

if the corners we now have are good enough to play bump and run or even play up NEAR the line of scrimmage and cover these wr’s then the issue wasn’t resigning them but one of firing lovie smith.

 

explain to me your description of that game's corners and safeties playing man coverage and compare it to what you see in other games. what are the specific differences to you?

 

I talk above about what our CBs do playing a zone. They keep the WR in front of them up to a certain point in the field, where they "release" to the S. They take away the outside (sideline) and funnel the WR into the middle, where the LB or S is expected to take over. Contrast that to man coverage, where the CB will not look to take away one area, but play tight (not necessarily at the LOS) w/ the WR throughout his route. He is not looking to funnel the WR into another area to another player/position/zone.

 

well that sure didn’t explain anything specific about comparing the new orleans game where you said we played man coverage to this lovie 2 zone crap.

 

One, our CBs played tighter coverage, but that was a totally different scheme, under very different coaches. My point was, do you really think Blache wanted a Freeney like DE for his system that was based on stuffing the run? Then, we wanted 300lb DE who could stuff the run first, and get to the QB 2nd (or 3rd). IMHO, if we had a DE like Freeney, he would have gone to waste as he would have been too restricted.

 

yes i think blache would have wanted a freeney type pass rushing de. the problem was he didn’t have one that was much more than average at best. so what is he supposed to say? is blache a stop the run first type of coach? absolutely. but to say it would be unimportant to have pass rushing de’s is a ridiculous statement. here are some quotes from the redskins site:

 

“Throughout the season, Blache emphasized pressure on the quarterback and his defensive line improved from 13 sacks in 2005 to 25 last year. (Overall, the Redskins' defense improved from 19 sacks in 2006 to 33 last year.)” http://www.redskins.com/gen/coaches/Greg_Blache.jsp

 

You act like we would be the only team going after him. My point is, often FAs get similar top offers from more than one team, and choose the team they feel is the best fit. A few years ago, we made a strong run at Kearse. Phily made his a very similar offer to ours. As I recall, Philly offered more total guarantee money, by a million or so, but in more installments than ours, thus it could be argued both offeres were VERY similar. He choose to go w/ the team he felt would better utilize him, and that was not us.

 

No argument that money is #1, but unless you plan to make him an offer that blows the doors off all other offers, I bet you he will consider other factors, and how he is used and in what sort of scheme will be one of them.

 

huh? when did i act like we would be the only team throwing out an offer?

 

your counter posts keep expanding upon the original intent...

 

“And frankly, I think we would cause problems because I doubt seriously that player would be happy w/ his role. Hell, along those lines, I am not sure he would ever sign w/ us.”

 

of course a player receiving similar offers takes MANY things into consideration. i don’t think i ever stated anything to the contrary.

 

would angelo be dumb enough to draft a cover 2 type of corner in round 1? i certainly hope not. any corner i drafted on the first day would be one i projected to be a cover/lockdown corner.

 

Is this not further evidence? Since Agnelo came to the bears, how many CBs have we drafted in the first? Heck, how many CBs were even rumored to be our pick? Angelo has never seemed to consider the top tier, shut down corners. Does that not speak to how we view the position as it relates to our system?

 

how about linebacker in the cover 2? how many of those in the first round?

 

forget for a moment about corners. if you play the cover 2, even if you consider it the “Lovie 2”, you need good safeties and especially free safeties. could angelo or even lovie really not consider defensive backs a concern at all using your standard of 1st round picks?? if so we continually try to field a defense that has absolutely no semblance to the norm of what has worked in the past and doesn’t stand a chance to succeed by design.

[nfoligno]

1. so what? compare the number of times you remember seeing our corners play up on the LOS vs. the number of plays they were beaten for big/critical yardage or TD’s. don’t ask for specific games as i don’t have them, only a recollection of peanut getting eaten up by fast receivers and vasher getting beaten/out juked and trailing a receiver for large yardage or TD’s.

 

Hey, I remember them getting beat also. I just don't recall it starting w/ the DB on the LOS. Vasher is a sucker for the pump fake. Tillman is a bit of a sucker for that as well, but also simply gets beat w/ speed WRs.

 

my opinion of what we currently have:

 

vasher - although not a speedster, does he have the speed to play corner in the nfl with the right technique? possibly. does he also lack nfl quality burst speed? i don’t know but if he does he is in the wrong position. watching him play may seem to indicate that. i do know what he doesn’t have is the speed to recover if he makes a mistake like missing the jam and/or getting blown-bye off the LOS by fast receivers. am i for cutting him loose at this point like some suggest? no.

 

with better talent opposite him he could make a suitable #2 especially with good safety play. here is another scenario... vasher played not only CB at texas but *safety as well. this would be a serious option for us moving him to the FS position if we picked up a cover corner to utilize his ball-hawk capabilities (which he does have). he certainly has enough speed to play that position and his size is adequate.

 

*you being a texas fan i’m sure could give some real input into this.

 

tillman – has good size and average speed. plus pretty much the same description of him as vasher with the exception that peanut is a ‘very’ good tackler in open space where vasher seems to struggle some (at least recently). the same could be said for tillman’s ability to play the #2 role with a better #1 corner and even switch roles if larger receivers if a gameplan dictated. he also needs good safety help. the same could be said for moving peanut to FS. he played safety in college so it’s not like this is some drastic change from linebacker to tight end as we have done in the past. he has the perfect capabilities to play this position.

 

so basically we have two good/decent #2 corners. with the addition of a #1 cover corner either player could project to be a very good + FS with a MINIMUM learning curve increasing our quality at three starting DB positions.

 

I would agree w/ the statement that we have two good/decent #2 corners. Frankly, there isn't a big argument there. Our argument is far more about the importance of having a #1 CB in our system. Over and over again, we discuss this, but I have yet to see you answer my question. Take a look around the league at other teams that run the cover two, and tell me how many pro bowl CBs you find. Cover two corners on other teams may be better playing bump and run than ours (not saying much there) but one thing to me that stands out. Those CBs are most often considered great zone coverage corners, rather than great man coverage or shut down corners.

 

2. this, to me, may be one of the most damning things since smith came to chicago.

 

forget good coach bad coach scenarios. we are talking about football rudimentary basics that transcend down to pop warner. to think that any coach, let alone an nfl coach, would devise a defense (or scheme if you like) that purposely leaves a zone open for a 5-10 yard gain continually without adjustments is beyond belief.

 

Hey, by and large, I agree. At the same time, reality is just that. I think you would agree our CBs due in fact play that far off the LOS, and we see little adjustment.

 

Also, I have another question for you, which I have asked before, but you have not answered. To cut off a followup point of yours, I do not believe our CBs simply play off the LOS due to their inability, but due to Lovie and Co. To further this point, I previously asked the question. If the cover two requires a CB to be able to play bump and run, and yet both Tillman and Vasher are totally incapable of such, why did we re-sign them?

 

ok. we paid robinson good+ money for 5 years as a DE in 2002 then move him to tackle the same year and then cut him in 2003. mcquarters has one above average season in 3 of his career with another year left on his contract. angelo signs him to a big 6 year contract extension in 2002 when he didn’t need to and then cuts him after the 2004 season when his production has fallen over the previous 2. i don’t think even you would disagree that resigning metcalf for ANY price isn’t ridiculous. we actually let a producing linebacker go in colvin to pay w. holdmans lucrative contract extension. does anyone on earth think he was worth much more than base salary from his body of work?

 

this kind of GMing is what angelo is known for. he admits he wants to reward players who have good seasons. that’s all fine and good but give them a freakin bonus that year instead of multi year high impact contracts prior to their original contracts expiring. you could ask if he really is rewarding them for having a good season or just being cheap trying to beat other teams bidding on them when their final year comes up. it’s a risky business to try this and it seems angelo has lost more often than not playing this game.

 

Frankly, I am not sure of your point anymore. The issue was how much we over-pay for players. Though, in hindsight, numerous deals look outrageous, I would argue many/most were at the time w/ in market. Take McQ. McQ was signed toward the end of one season, w/ his due to be a FA the following, so I am not sure what you mean when you say we didn't need to sign him. He was having a great year, and looked on the way up. Most fans were in favor of that signing, and the money was very much w/in market. I remember well, as I ripped Angelo, not for signing McQ, but because we signed him about a week or so AFTER the deadline to allocate money toward that years cap.

 

Sometimes, especially looking back, deals look awful, but look around the league and every year players sign for stupid money. The market you may like or want is not necessarily the actual market players find.

 

You talk about letting Colvin go, and signing Holdman, but Angelo very much tried to re-sign Colvin, but Colvin wanted the big bucks in FA. Frankly, I had no problem w/ our passing on the money NE offered. And come on. Holdman's deal was not huge, and frankly, he was a very good looking LB at the time, prior to the injuries.

 

You say this is the sort of GM'ing Angelo is known for, but it is what many GMs are now known for. Tampa Bay, the system in which Angelo learned, was really a bit ahead of their time. Now, today, it is very typical for teams to aggressively re-negotiate w/ their players in order to lock them up and keep them off the market. By doing this, you (a) reward good play and keep morale high, ( keep your better players off the market and © maintain a better cap situation. Many/most teams now do this, and it is a huge reason why FA classes have not been great in a while and why teams don't have to cut so many players around June 1st. Teams are not as often over the cap, and re-signing your own is a big reason. I hate that I am in a position of defending Angelo, but you make out like the philosophy he has is so wrong, cheap and out there, but in reality, it has become far more the norm. W/ salary cap in place, this is exactly how teams manage the cap.

 

rivera WAS better than this idiot babich but you need to look up some stats of your own. only ONE season out of five did we have a top 10 defense in regards to passing yards against us. here are the stats:

 

First, before going year by year, I have said MANY times that this is all Lovie, and have often pointed to Lovie's time running St.L's defense. Lovie may not like to use the term bend/don't break, but that has always been his mentality. A Lovie defense will give up yards. The goal of this defense is not to prevent yards, but to prevent TDs and force turnovers. The team plays softer between the 20s, hoping to make the opposition use more snaps to move downfield, and in turn, give the D more opportunities to force a turnover. As such, a Lovie defense will rarely rank high in terms of passing yards, but "should" rank decent/good in terms of scoring and should rank near the top in terms of turnovers. So w/ this in mind, lets take a further look at your years.

 

2004 - 6 gms over 200 yards per game; 3 gms over 300 yds with a game high of 350 against the vikings; ranked 15th for total yards passing with lovie; 3 games where opponents combined for over 400 yards of offense

 

One, should it not be pointed out we had the 32nd ranked offense? Does that not affect our defense? W/ that said, while we gave up plenty of yards, we ranked 17th and 15th in TDs/Ints, which is middle of the road. Not bad for a team w/ the worst offense in the league.

 

2005 - 5 gms over 200 yards per game; 1 gm 300 yds ranked 5th total yards passing (here is your only top 10 season); 0 games where opponents combined for over 400 yards of offense

 

Not just top 10, but 5th in passing yards, 1st in TDs allowed and 2nd in Ints.

 

2006 - 4 gms over 200 yards per game; 2 gms 300 +; ranked 11th total yards passing; 1 game where opponents combined for over 400 yards of offense

 

See, here is a prime example. Ranked 11th (just outside the top 10) in passing yards, but ranked 9th in passing TDs, and 2nd in ints. You said 2005 was our only top 10 year, but I would argue 2006 was also. We may give up some yards, but scoring is what matters. Hey, Warner threw for nearly 400 yards, but Big Ben is walking home w/ a ring.

 

2007 - 5 gms over 200 yards per game; 5 gms over 300; ranked 27th total yards passing; 6 games where opponents combined for over 400 yards of offense

 

2008 - 9 gmes over 200 yards per game; 2 gms over 300 yds; 1 game 407 yards; ranked 30th total yards passing; 4 games where opponents combined for over 400 yards of offense

 

I combined these two years, as both were under Babich, and it has been my argument for some time that Babich was the single greatest reason for our defenses downfall.

 

if you notice the trend, it peaks the second year of smith and continues downward to date. why? i say one reason is because the nfl has figured out exactly what we were doing and countered. i would also like to add that in my opinion any time your defense gives up 3-4 hundred yards total offense to opponents that is NOT to solid or good.

 

I don't see how you can talk about 2006 as a downward year. We ranked top 10 in passing TDs, and when combined w/ our 2nd ranking in ints, that spells success in Lovie's world. I guarantee you Lovie could care less about yardage ranking if he can have an 18-24 TD/Int ratio. Also, our run defense was top 10 that year. Overall, our defense in 2006 was top 5 (5th in yards and 3rd in points). You give the impression that we had one good year and went downhill after, but that just isn't the case. First year was not good, but also better than the previous and was just our staff's first season. We were a top 10/5 defense the following two years, but then let Rivera walk and promoted Babich. Our defense tanked since.

 

As for the last comment, are you saying Pitt doesn't have a solid or good defense? Warner alone had around 380 passing yards.

 

My point is, I just do not think you understand Lovie's system. Lovie's system will allow more yards. Hey, I too would love to see a shut down defense that punches an offense in the mouth, but that is not, and has never been Lovie's style. Lovie allows yards between the 20s, but stresses avoiding the big play and creating turnovers.

 

i couldn’t and won’t deny babs is “partially” to blame. believe me i am not giving any coaches on this staff, besides our special teams coach, much credit for anything. i too understand how injuries effect these results. i too blame our coaches for playing our corners so far off even on wr’s they SHOULD be able to cover.

 

but again... if we run anything like the definition of the cover 2 that has been implemented in the nfl for years and NOT that this is some screwball scheme by lovie, i question the statements he made or you inferred that he made. yes in this type of defense he is supposed to move the receiver inside but how in the hell can he do that from 5-10 yards downfield?

 

One. As said before, if Vasher and Tillman are so incapable of playing in a cover two (because they can't bump, as you say) why did we re-sign them. You can't believe Angelo just did this against Lovie's wishes.

 

Two. Are you going to say we played pump and run coverage in 2005 and 2006? I am not talking about here and there, but often? I sure missed that. Same CBs but very different results.

 

no matter what you or anyone else tells me, to make this work (unless they are playing a deep prevent) a corner has to be able to lay hands on or force the receiver inside with position and move him into these zones to be covered by safeties or linebackers and if nothing else disrupt the qb’s timing. when playing so soft or moving backwards like all our corners do it is illegal for them to do so after 5 yards giving every receiver an untouched route!! that means there will ALWAYS be an open zone to make these slant/curls 5-10 yards downfield. our backers are completely out the picture when the receiver makes his break and unless the safeties are playing it tighter than this type of defense calls for they are too far back to disrupt the play all the while our corners are leading the receiver and out of position.

 

Well, we simply disagree. You do not need to put your hands on a WR to alter his direction. A WR is going to attack open areas. Our CBs play off the LOS and toward the inside. That means the CB is exposed to short, quick passes, which I think Lovie is fine w/, and slant routes, which ideally lead into the S/LB. It isn't just an ability to put your hands on the WR, but being in an area and thus the WR being covered. A WR is not going to (unless he is wearing a bear uniform) just run into coverage. He is going to run toward the holes and openings. That is how our CBs direct WRs routes.

 

Now, w/ that said, please understand. You and I agree in so far as my personnal opinion. I would MUCH rather the WR hit at the LOS. I HATE the way our CBs play. My arguments have NOTHING to do w/ personal opinion, but how I explain and interpret Lovie.

 

Lovie has been the HC for 5 seasons now. At no point since he has joined the team has our CBs pressed at the LOS. Again, I am not talking about the occasional snaps, but to an extent it appears to be a legit part of our base defense. I has not mattered who was playing CB (McQ, Azumah, Vasher, Tillman, McBride, Graham) and it has not mattered what WR they were matched up against. We played the Bobby Wade's of the NFL the same as the Steve Smith's. Through all the CB/WR matchups in Lovie's 5 seasons, the only consistent trend has been our CB playing well off the LOS. Frankly, that is how I recall Lovie's defenses in St.L as well, and one of the reasons I was NEVER on board w/ his hiring.

 

i do not totally disagree that an offensive FA player may be more important to the overall improvement on our team. but unless we completely blow up our offense i just don’t see us being able to compete with high octane offenses putting up 30 and more points. i don’t see us being able, even with a top FA wr or offensive lineman, putting up that many points against high scoring playoff quality teams that have good defenses.

 

Okay, wait a minute. Our defense was terrible this year. W/ that, I think you would agree. As you appoint at least partial blame to Babich, I can only believe you expect "some" level of improvement this year. You talk about how we can't match the teams putting up 30, but in an AWFUL defensive year, we only allowed 3 teams to break 30 points on us, and we won one of those games. Point is, I am not sure about the idea that teams light it up on us, or that our offense would be incapable of matching that scoring output.

 

As mediocre as our offense was this year, do you realize we finished the year ranked 14th in scoring. Look at our offense. 14th? You add a good/great WR and solid/great OL and IMHO, we could rank top 10.

 

i truly believe we can afford BOTH with our salary cap position this season. if we got our high priced cover corner our defense again turns into a top ten contender. with then picking up a good/very good FA lineman or receiver we improve our offense to the point we can complete with the high scoring teams by limiting them to less than the norm amount of points that we can score. the money is there and it’s time angelo used it.

 

I simply believe we have the talent to get back up there on defense w/o all the changes. As said, it is my believe our defensive downfall was more coaching than talent, and thus the coaching changes were the biggest offseason upgrades I felt our defense could get. On offense, I just think we lack talent. If there are no changes, right now, I think our defense see's a big leap up the boards due to coaching. However, if no upgrades were in the cards, I see our offense taking a considerable step backward.

 

as far as the corner vs FS? i say we GET a quality FS just using the personnel we currently have on this roster. try both of our present corners out at FS to determine which is better. whoever that is still improves our #2 corner position by not only giving great safety support but he already is familiar with this system AND is signed long term with major portions of the contract bonus money already paid out.

 

Sorry, but I am well on record w/ this one. Sometimes I can deal w/ experiments, but at some point, after enough failed experiments, enough is enough. I am tired of getting strong safeties and trying them out at FS. To me, that is similar to how we tried out RT, RG and/or LG's at LT for years, and finally had to draft a legit LT. It's time to end the experiments and just go out and get a FS.

 

IMHO, the FS out of StL would benefit the team FAR more than adding Osa.

[Lucky Luciano]

I would agree w/ the statement that we have two good/decent #2 corners. Frankly, there isn't a big argument there. Our argument is far more about the importance of having a #1 CB in our system. Over and over again, we discuss this, but I have yet to see you answer my question. Take a look around the league at other teams that run the cover two, and tell me how many pro bowl CBs you find. Cover two corners on other teams may be better playing bump and run than ours (not saying much there) but one thing to me that stands out. Those CBs are most often considered great zone coverage corners, rather than great man coverage or shut down corners.

 

1. in a previous post i listed FIVE good pro-bowl corners that play in the cover 2. you don’t consider r. barber, d. abraham, a. williams or ty law good corners? does that answer your question? incidentally, the bucs brian kelly was considered a good cover corner playing opposite barber.

 

you then state that other corners playing the cover 2 are better playing bump and run than ours. isn’t this the point of our entire discussion? that our #2 quality corners are poor at it and CAN’T with any consistency??

 

sure these corners are/were great playing in zone, cover 2, type defenses but they were more than just that. each of these players ‘could’ play up tight to get their hands on receivers and cover them to the point where they left their zones. most also could play man coverage when asked to at a high level.

 

2. our argument has revolved around the importance of having a corner, even in lovies system, that can play bump and run up on the LOS and cover receivers. not only when asked to play man coverage at times but even playing within the definition of the cover 2 type of defense.

 

you argue that in lovies system he would never play corners up even if he had a pro-bowl quality cover corner on the roster and that by design he would play this type of player 5-10 yards deep anyway. my contention has been that although we have decent/good #2 corners they can’t play up tight because they would get beaten playing that type of defense on an island and this is a reason lovie does not put these players in that position even when the situation dictates he do so.

 

again, i will state: if lovie has 2 corners who have the ability to play bump and run and he chooses not to when we are giving up this much yardage in slants etc. in critical game situations then he needs to be fired. this is not only bad coaching but even below amateur football intelligence.

 

Also, I have another question for you, which I have asked before, but you have not answered. To cut off a followup point of yours, I do not believe our CBs simply play off the LOS due to their inability, but due to Lovie and Co. To further this point, I previously asked the question. If the cover two requires a CB to be able to play bump and run, and yet both Tillman and Vasher are totally incapable of such, why did we re-sign them?

 

i did answer this question for you in a previous post but i will elaborate if you like... because angelo is a *poor general manager.

 

i want to ask YOU a question now. if you had corners that could play up tight on the LOS and play bump and run would you play them 5+ off the LOS (negating any chance to put your hands on a receiver without getting a penalty) and have them backpeddle another 5 to keep the receivers in front of them EVEN when the other teams in the league consistently gain 5-10 yards every play? would you??

 

would any member on this board do this (feel free to jump right in)?

 

would any member on this boards children, that are old enough to string a sentence together, do this?

 

it is a fact that the cover 2 defense requires bump and run corners, or “press” if you like, in it’s description. what you are saying is lovie has abandoned this aspect of the cover 2 and just purposely plays all of our corners 5-10 yards off the LOS in a continual soft, soft, cover scheme. if jerry angelo agrees that this is a viable type of defense and supports lovie in this type of a system then he is not only a bad gm but he is a fool.

 

*both vasher and tillman are/were good/decent #2 corners that could become much better players with someone who could take up the #1 position at cb and give them safety help at the very least. i also project one of them could play at a high quality in another position if anyone had the brains to try and position them there.

 

Frankly, I am not sure of your point anymore. The issue was how much we over-pay for players. Though, in hindsight, numerous deals look outrageous, I would argue many/most were at the time w/ in market. Take McQ. McQ was signed toward the end of one season, w/ his due to be a FA the following, so I am not sure what you mean when you say we didn't need to sign him. He was having a great year, and looked on the way up. Most fans were in favor of that signing, and the money was very much w/in market. I remember well, as I ripped Angelo, not for signing McQ, but because we signed him about a week or so AFTER the deadline to allocate money toward that years cap.

 

Sometimes, especially looking back, deals look awful, but look around the league and every year players sign for stupid money. The market you may like or want is not necessarily the actual market players find.

 

You talk about letting Colvin go, and signing Holdman, but Angelo very much tried to re-sign Colvin, but Colvin wanted the big bucks in FA. Frankly, I had no problem w/ our passing on the money NE offered. And come on. Holdman's deal was not huge, and frankly, he was a very good looking LB at the time, prior to the injuries.

 

You say this is the sort of GM'ing Angelo is known for, but it is what many GMs are now known for. Tampa Bay, the system in which Angelo learned, was really a bit ahead of their time. Now, today, it is very typical for teams to aggressively re-negotiate w/ their players in order to lock them up and keep them off the market. By doing this, you (a) reward good play and keep morale high, keep your better players off the market and © maintain a better cap situation. Many/most teams now do this, and it is a huge reason why FA classes have not been great in a while and why teams don't have to cut so many players around June 1st. Teams are not as often over the cap, and re-signing your own is a big reason. I hate that I am in a position of defending Angelo, but you make out like the philosophy he has is so wrong, cheap and out there, but in reality, it has become far more the norm. W/ salary cap in place, this is exactly how teams manage the cap.

 

1. when do you sign players a year before they are free agents? if they are franchise quality players and are in good health. if they are very good players that have a body of work to refer to in past years and in good health (NOT one year wonders). if they are good players that have only had a single good year and/or with possible injuries that will effect play and you can do so cheaply.

 

2. angie tried to sign colvin? of course colvin wanted good money. he was one of the top sack leaders in the nfl. why didn’t we have the money to sign him? hmmmmm.... maybe because angie forgot to check freakin restricted free agent boxes on w. holdman and dwayne bates and had to sign BOTH for a good chunk of change (and later released bates anyway the SAME season) letting our only player with double digit sacks leave in free agency because he didn’t have the money? that angelo? yup he sure was ahead of his time.

 

and holdman looked good to you? the guy who couldn’t cover his own ass with both hands and put up the amazing sack total of FIVE over his illustrious 8 year career? the guy we CUT the following season? THAT warrick holdman??

 

First, before going year by year, I have said MANY times that this is all Lovie, and have often pointed to Lovie's time running St.L's defense. Lovie may not like to use the term bend/don't break, but that has always been his mentality. A Lovie defense will give up yards. The goal of this defense is not to prevent yards, but to prevent TDs and force turnovers. The team plays softer between the 20s, hoping to make the opposition use more snaps to move downfield, and in turn, give the D more opportunities to force a turnover. As such, a Lovie defense will rarely rank high in terms of passing yards, but "should" rank decent/good in terms of scoring and should rank near the top in terms of turnovers. So w/ this in mind, lets take a further look at your years.

 

rarely ranked high in passing yards? in st. louis his passing yard rankings were 11th, 12th and 12th. in chicago his team ranked 15th, 5th, 11th, 27th and 30th. isn’t this his ‘system’ as you say no matter who runs it?

 

i have to ask, in chicago wasn’t our pass rush from the d-line superb the first 3 years? when that fell off what were the results in total passing yards? our corners were exposed as being unable to cover receivers longer, or even at all, to make up the time needed to get to the qb thus giving up more yardage. is this due to lovie’s scheme as you believe and completely our pass rushers fault or is it because both of our corners are no better than average #2’s (which you admit they are)?

 

My point is, I just do not think you understand Lovie's system. Lovie's system will allow more yards. Hey, I too would love to see a shut down defense that punches an offense in the mouth, but that is not, and has never been Lovie's style. Lovie allows yards between the 20s, but stresses avoiding the big play and creating turnovers.

 

yes!! i understand the cover 2 system (although if you are right i don’t understand this lovie 2 system). example: i said this before, look at jauron’s defense. that too was a bend don’t break defense. the difference was our corners, zoom (pre-injury) and mcquarters (pre-sucking) being our #1’s and peanut our #2, could actually cover receivers (along with 2 very good safeties) without a best in the league pass rush. the problem was that there was no relief from our d-line leaving them on an island forever. now we have just the opposite.

 

One. As said before, if Vasher and Tillman are so incapable of playing in a cover two (because they can't bump, as you say) why did we re-sign them. You can't believe Angelo just did this against Lovie's wishes.

 

Two. Are you going to say we played pump and run coverage in 2005 and 2006? I am not talking about here and there, but often? I sure missed that. Same CBs but very different results.

 

1. if the gm and lovie are on the same page in this insane type of defensive scheme you describe then anything that they do or don’t do surprises me not at all.

 

also please explain why angelo drafts players rounds ahead of where they would normally go? or wears 2 left shoes? or parts his hair on the back of his head? or rolls ball-bearings around in his hand when they aren’t rolling around in his head?

 

2. and you don’t think our d-line pressure on the qb was better in 2004-06?? or we had a pro-bowl quality safety on the field??? i know they probably have NOTHING to do with it but it might be something to think about.

 

Well, we simply disagree. You do not need to put your hands on a WR to alter his direction. A WR is going to attack open areas. Our CBs play off the LOS and toward the inside. That means the CB is exposed to short, quick passes, which I think Lovie is fine w/, and slant routes, which ideally lead into the S/LB.

 

did i ever say that? or did i say “force the receiver inside with position”? lovie is fine with short, quick, uncontested 5-10 yard passes every down? if so he is nuts.

 

It isn't just an ability to put your hands on the WR, but being in an area and thus the WR being covered. A WR is not going to (unless he is wearing a bear uniform) just run into coverage. He is going to run toward the holes and openings. That is how our CBs direct WRs routes.

 

what are you talking about? being in what area? you mean an area 5 yards ahead of him before he makes his break for an 8-10 yard reception? that area?

 

run into coverage? dude, all he has to do is run right at any cornerback on this team at the snap. he automatically has a 5+ yard cushion and AT the snap our corner continues to backpeddle even MORE!!! that’s not a “hole” it’s a freakin galaxy. he has done absolutely NOTHING to impede any route any receiver makes and by the time he engages it is not legal to touch him. this is like practice for any qb. their timing has been already nearly perfected without a pass rush.

 

Okay, wait a minute. Our defense was terrible this year. W/ that, I think you would agree. As you appoint at least partial blame to Babich, I can only believe you expect "some" level of improvement this year. You talk about how we can't match the teams putting up 30, but in an AWFUL defensive year, we only allowed 3 teams to break 30 points on us, and we won one of those games. Point is, I am not sure about the idea that teams light it up on us, or that our offense would be incapable of matching that scoring output.

 

As mediocre as our offense was this year, do you realize we finished the year ranked 14th in scoring. Look at our offense. 14th? You add a good/great WR and solid/great OL and IMHO, we could rank top 10.

 

what i am saying is we scored over 30 points in two games this season and won both. if you want to compete today you need to put up points just to make it to the playoffs.

 

look below at the top competition. these teams averaged 36%, MORE than 1/3, of their games scoring over 30 points.

 

cards – 10 games over 30 points – won 9

falcons – 5 for 5

panthers – 7 for 7

ravens – 5 for 5

colts – 6 for 6

phins – 2 for 2

vikes – 4 for 5

giants – 7 for 7

eagles – 5 for 7

bolts – 5 for 7

titans – 6 for 6

 

I simply believe we have the talent to get back up there on defense w/o all the changes. As said, it is my believe our defensive downfall was more coaching than talent, and thus the coaching changes were the biggest offseason upgrades I felt our defense could get. On offense, I just think we lack talent. If there are no changes, right now, I think our defense see's a big leap up the boards due to coaching. However, if no upgrades were in the cards, I see our offense taking a considerable step backward.

 

don’t you agree that pass defense is our weakest link on defense? even with improvement from our d-line can we outscore these types of teams? even when we were hitting on all cylinders going into the superbowl, what was the main concern? can we stop manning.

 

if we had made it to a superbowl this last year and say against the cards, i know it’s impossible, but say we did. how many points would warner and boldin/fitz have put up on us? how much of that do you believe would have been with their running game? even with orton playing as good as he did in the first half of the season, could we have stayed up with them in a scoring fest?

 

yet with one player like the kid from oakland we could compete with anyone defensively. we have the money to get 2 big players this offseason. one the cb and the other an offensive player of our choice.

 

Sorry, but I am well on record w/ this one. Sometimes I can deal w/ experiments, but at some point, after enough failed experiments, enough is enough. I am tired of getting strong safeties and trying them out at FS. To me, that is similar to how we tried out RT, RG and/or LG's at LT for years, and finally had to draft a legit LT. It's time to end the experiments and just go out and get a FS.

 

IMHO, the FS out of StL would benefit the team FAR more than adding Osa.

 

what experiment? every single season teams draft tackles from college to play guard. every season teams draft corners to play safety or defensive ends to play linebacker and so on. sure there are exceptions and your left tackle or qb are just some of them.

 

but how could you compare moving a strong safety to free safety? or a corner to safety? it’s been done numerous times in the nfl. if the guy has the wheels and coverage skills what is the big deal? with us we do this with guys that have none of the requirements to play either position.

[brletich]

My lord, I get carpel tunnel just reading you two arguing with these novels

[nfoligno]

Hey, it is offseason, and right now, most arguments are about the same old same old stuff. I love the long debates. For others who do not want to get involved, I would suggest simply skipping when you see Lucky and myself going at it

 

My lord, I get carpel tunnel just reading you two arguing with these novels

[nfoligno]

1. in a previous post i listed FIVE good pro-bowl corners that play in the cover 2. you don’t consider r. barber, d. abraham, a. williams or ty law good corners? does that answer your question? incidentally, the bucs brian kelly was considered a good cover corner playing opposite barber.

 

Kelly and Abraham are two perfect examples IMHO. Both were CBs who looked great in TB, but once they left, both were exposed as being far from stellar. Kelly was nothing in Det, and sure not the savior they signed him to be. Abraham went to NYJ, and was never the CB they thought they were getting. In TB, they were in a system that was ideal for their talents, but once they left, they looked average at best. That is essentially my point. CBs in the cover two are often system talents. I do not think either Abraham or Kelly would be considered shut down corners. Barber? He has never left TB so he is harder to judge, but I also thought he too was refered to as a zone or cover two corner, rather than ever being in the category of shut down corner. Law is the closest example of a shut down corner, but I would call him an exception to the rule, and not the rule. Also, notice how your examples are all from TB?

 

you then state that other corners playing the cover 2 are better playing bump and run than ours. isn’t this the point of our entire discussion? that our #2 quality corners are poor at it and CAN’T with any consistency??

 

One, I said others "may" be better playing bump and run. This is a big point for me. You believe, I think, that we do not play bump and run because we do not have the talent. I believe we shy away from bump and run due to Lovie's system. I do not think it is an area our players work on, and thus, our players are not likely to look good at it in the rare occasions we try it. If it was a focus of our system, and thus something we worked on often, I think our corners may in fact look better at it than you might believe. I simply do not believe it is part of Lovie's system, and thus not something we work on, and thus our CBs never look good if they do try.

 

sure these corners are/were great playing in zone, cover 2, type defenses but they were more than just that. each of these players ‘could’ play up tight to get their hands on receivers and cover them to the point where they left their zones. most also could play man coverage when asked to at a high level.

 

I simply question this. The key for me is, I question how much of the system used man coverage, and question how great of man coverage skills these CBs had. When you read lists analyists put together of the top shut down corners in the league, I would argue you rarely find a cover two corner on the list. Law may be the exception, but he is not the rule.

 

2. our argument has revolved around the importance of having a corner, even in lovies system, that can play bump and run up on the LOS and cover receivers. not only when asked to play man coverage at times but even playing within the definition of the cover 2 type of defense.

 

you argue that in lovies system he would never play corners up even if he had a pro-bowl quality cover corner on the roster and that by design he would play this type of player 5-10 yards deep anyway. my contention has been that although we have decent/good #2 corners they can’t play up tight because they would get beaten playing that type of defense on an island and this is a reason lovie does not put these players in that position even when the situation dictates he do so.

 

again, i will state: if lovie has 2 corners who have the ability to play bump and run and he chooses not to when we are giving up this much yardage in slants etc. in critical game situations then he needs to be fired. this is not only bad coaching but even below amateur football intelligence.

 

Hey, this is part of why I have been in favor of firing Lovie for years, despite our win/loss record.

 

Beyond what is seen w/ cover two teams around the league, I go off what I hear Lovie talk about, as well as the players. How many times have you heard Lovie talk about how, in his system, he wants players to keep everything in front of them. CBs play off the LOS to keep WRs in front of them. If a CB plays on top of the LOS, the WR is even w/ them, not in front. That is simply not part of Lovie's system.

 

i did answer this question for you in a previous post but i will elaborate if you like... because angelo is a *poor general manager.

 

But do you believe Angelo and Lovie are so not on the same page? When it was Angelo and Jauron, many/most felt the two were rarely on the same page. Angelo had one type of team in mind, and Jauron another. But then Angelo was able to hire Lovie, and most believed the two were on the same page. Do you believe Angelo would simply make deals against the wishes of his coach? Do you believe that either (a) Lovie told Angelo that Tillman/Vasher were not capable of both starting in his system, but Angelo blew off his opinion or ( Lovie just didn't speak up? I think Lovie felt Tillman/Vasher were solid starters for his system, and conveyed such to Angelo, which prompted Angelo to extend both players. I do not believe Angelo extended both players w/o Lovie signing off. If I am right, and Lovie signed off on the deals, then it has to be believe Lovie felt the two CBs were good enough for his system. If, as you believe, neither can play bump and run, and yet Lovie still liked each, then it has to lead to the belief that the ability to play bump and run is simply not as key in Lovie's scheme as you think it should be.

 

i want to ask YOU a question now. if you had corners that could play up tight on the LOS and play bump and run would you play them 5+ off the LOS (negating any chance to put your hands on a receiver without getting a penalty) and have them backpeddle another 5 to keep the receivers in front of them EVEN when the other teams in the league consistently gain 5-10 yards every play? would you??

 

I have made my position clear MANY times. I would play them tighter to the LOS. Even if they are not capable of playing bump and run, I would line them up 4-5 yards deep, and not 8-10. Even if they were not great in bump and run, I would still put them closer to the LOS, and simply alter my positioning of the S. I would not give WRs a free pass. But I am not the coach. lovie is.

 

it is a fact that the cover 2 defense requires bump and run corners, or “press” if you like, in it’s description. what you are saying is lovie has abandoned this aspect of the cover 2 and just purposely plays all of our corners 5-10 yards off the LOS in a continual soft, soft, cover scheme. if jerry angelo agrees that this is a viable type of defense and supports lovie in this type of a system then he is not only a bad gm but he is a fool.

 

Look, I agree it is a bad system. The difference in you and I is, you believe it is a system based around the talent we have, while I believe it is simply the system. I again go back to this. If we played way off the LOS for speedy WRs, but moved up for slower guys, I would better agree w/ you our playing deep was simply due to a lack of confidence in our CBs. Yet when we play 8-10 yards off the LOS for WRs like Bobby Wade, I have a hard time believing it is about talent, but instead simply is what our system is. Our WRs are not great beating the press. When you watch our WRs play, they too often get held up at the LOS for too long. As bad as that is, our WRs are not the only WRs in the league to struggle beating the press. And yet, even when we face off against other WRs equally bad beating the press, we continue to play 8-10 yards off the LOS. I'm sorry, but I simply do not believe it is just about Vasher and Tillman's perceived limitations. It's one thing to not trust their ability to press Steve Smith. He beats the press, and he is gone. But when you face Bobby Wade, even if he beats the press, is he really going to hurt you? No! But it doesn't matter. We play every WR the same, and thus to me, it is hard to say how we play is based on talent (ours or theirs) but simply based on our system.

 

*both vasher and tillman are/were good/decent #2 corners that could become much better players with someone who could take up the #1 position at cb and give them safety help at the very least. i also project one of them could play at a high quality in another position if anyone had the brains to try and position them there.

 

Many things would make our CBs look better. I would start w/ coaching. A strong FS would be 2nd for me. A strong pass rush is right there w/ a strong FS. Adding a solid or great #1 CB is simply not as high on my list. If we had a stud CB, but everything else was equal, I think we would continue to see our other CB getting beat, and often. Further, I do not believe that strong #1 would be as much of a shut down corner as you think, as I think we would limit him too much w/ our system. Just for argument sake, lets say we were to add Osa, and were going to play him outside the system essentially. Basically, we would match him up w/ opponents #1 WR, and tell him to shadown and shut down. If that were the case, I would FAR more agree w/ all your comments. Problem for me is, I do not believe we would do that. I think we would add a player like that, and force him to play our system, which would limit his impact. What about Lovie's coaching leads you to believe we would mold our system around talent? Regardless the player, Lovie has always forced players into his system, rather than mold the system to the talent. The best example is Urlacher. Urlacher has OFTEN been on record as not being the biggest fan of the cover two. I think he would far better like a system like Baltimore, which allows far more roaming and reacting in the middle. But instead of molding a system around our franchise player, we force our franchise player to play our system.

 

1. when do you sign players a year before they are free agents? if they are franchise quality players and are in good health. if they are very good players that have a body of work to refer to in past years and in good health (NOT one year wonders). if they are good players that have only had a single good year and/or with possible injuries that will effect play and you can do so cheaply.

 

Sorry, but look around the league and I think you will find Angelo's strategy far more the norm than you might think or like.

 

2. angie tried to sign colvin? of course colvin wanted good money. he was one of the top sack leaders in the nfl. why didn’t we have the money to sign him? hmmmmm.... maybe because angie forgot to check freakin restricted free agent boxes on w. holdman and dwayne bates and had to sign BOTH for a good chunk of change (and later released bates anyway the SAME season) letting our only player with double digit sacks leave in free agency because he didn’t have the money? that angelo? yup he sure was ahead of his time.

 

One. As I recall, Bates did not cost us much, and definitely not a "good chunk of change" that prevented us from other signings.

 

Two. As I recall, we did have the money in FA to sign Colvin, but choose to go in another direction. It wasn't about Holdman, and definitely not Bates. Simply put, Colvin was a below average LB, but great pass rush specialist. Angelo felt that pass rush specialist role could be filled by another (Knight I believe) and he was simply wrong. Frankly, I too felt Colvin was over-priced in FA. My problem was never letting Colvin walk, but in how we used the money instead. Colvin was an ideal fit for a 3-4 team (which signed him). I was fine letting him walk, but felt the money should have been spent on upgrading our DL, which we did not do. Similar to when we let Parrish go, and expected a kid to step up (Green). Sometimes, I can understand letting a FA walk, but I disagree w/ how we deal w/ the replacement.

 

and holdman looked good to you? the guy who couldn’t cover his own ass with both hands and put up the amazing sack total of FIVE over his illustrious 8 year career? the guy we CUT the following season? THAT warrick holdman??

 

Sorry, but your nuts. Holdman did look good, very good. In fact, I think he was a pro bowl alternate for us. In his 3rd year for us, he had 107 tackles, 1.5 sacks, 3 FFs and 1 pick. Compare that to Briggs 3rd season. 107 tackles, 2 sacks, 3 FFs and 2 picks. Damn near identical stats. You try to knock Holdman by saying he had only 5 sacks for us, but hell, do you realize Briggs has only 6 sacks in his 6 seasons for us? Not sure that you can go off that stat.

 

Urlacher and Holdman formed a damn good combination. But in Holdman's next season, he went down w/ injury, playing in only 4 games. He was injured the following year, and that was a year of hell for our entire defense. He was gone after that season. At the time, Holdman was a VERY good looking LB, and appeared on the way up. He had a damn good 3rd season, was a pro bowl alternate, and it looked like we had a great LB duo. Injuries killed him for us, and he never was much for us again. So sorry, but you can try to re-write history all you want, but Holdman was a very good LB for us.

 

rarely ranked high in passing yards? in st. louis his passing yard rankings were 11th, 12th and 12th. in chicago his team ranked 15th, 5th, 11th, 27th and 30th. isn’t this his ‘system’ as you say no matter who runs it?

 

Hold on here. In Stl, he had one of the best offenses in the game helping his defense out. Do you not think that matters. Frankly, it has always been a key point of mine. Lovie system fails when he doesn't have that same elite offense. In Stl, he had the greatest show on turf which allowed his defense more rest and more opportunity to gamble.

 

In Chicago, when we did rank higher, it was also w/ Rivera running the defense. It may have been Lovie's defense, but Rivera also had his personal touch on the unit, which is also a part of why he was allowed to walk.

 

My point is this. When you look at some defenses like Phily, Baltimore or Pitt, they challenge everything and try to prevent the opponent from gaining a single yard. At no point in time has that appeared to be Lovie's mentality. He is far more of a bend but don't break coach, and that is my point.

 

i have to ask, in chicago wasn’t our pass rush from the d-line superb the first 3 years? when that fell off what were the results in total passing yards? our corners were exposed as being unable to cover receivers longer, or even at all, to make up the time needed to get to the qb thus giving up more yardage. is this due to lovie’s scheme as you believe and completely our pass rushers fault or is it because both of our corners are no better than average #2’s (which you admit they are)?

 

Yes, our pass rush fell off after the first 3 years. But I go back to Babich, which to me is the single greatest factor. I also think you over-simplify this. Our pass rush went from very good, to non-existent. Its one thing to see a drop off in coverage when your pass rush is not as great, but another thing when your pass rush is non-existent. IMHO, the best CB duo in the league would struggle to maintain coverage w/ a non-existent pass rush.

 

Also, I would point out how different the play of our LBs has been in the last two years. Coverage under Rivera was not just about the CBs, but also the LBs, who played a key role. Under Babich, our LBs were used very differently, and thus again, a factor in our weaker pass defense.

 

Further, and I believe you agree, the FS play in the first 3 years (Mike Brown) was significantly different than in the last two.

 

If you point is, our CBs are not great shut down corners, and were exposed when these other factors came into play, I would agree. Hell, I never thought our corners were great. I don't think anyone did. How often did you hear the comparisons to 1985. Our corners then were not considered great shut down corners, but w/ the front 7 we had, they sure looked great. Not comparing the overall teams, but the point is still there. I don't think anyone ever though Vasher and Tillman were elite corners who you build a defense around. They were solid system corners who worked well in a zone defense which had solid surrounding parts.

 

Frankly, I am not even sure where our argument is on this. You have said we have two decent #2 CBs. I agree w/ this. Our disagreement is more about how we would use a #1, if we were to add one, and less about the level of talent in our current corners.

 

yes!! i understand the cover 2 system (although if you are right i don’t understand this lovie 2 system). example: i said this before, look at jauron’s defense. that too was a bend don’t break defense. the difference was our corners, zoom (pre-injury) and mcquarters (pre-sucking) being our #1’s and peanut our #2, could actually cover receivers (along with 2 very good safeties) without a best in the league pass rush. the problem was that there was no relief from our d-line leaving them on an island forever. now we have just the opposite.

 

 

Apples and Oranges. Jauron may have been bend/don't break in the passing game, but is was about as drastically different of a schem as you can get w/ the cover two. Also, you point out that we then used Zoon and McQ in press coverage, but that is a key point, as when Lovie came in, we used those same players off the LOS.

 

I remember this point very well, because it was then I began screaming about how we used our CBs. Zoom was never a great corner, but IMHO, one thing he always did well was press. McQ was decent in the press too, and each were used (as you said) in Blache's system that way. Once Lovie took over though, I immediately saw both CBs begin playing further and further off the LOS. I remember then screaming about it. You comment about McQ, saying "pre-suck", but has anyone thought about how McQ began to really suck after Lovie came in? After leaving the bears, he went to NYG and was a pretty good CBs. Never great by any means, but when there was a pass rush, he was a pretty darn good one. He played physical at the LOS, but after Lovie....

 

So, even you mention our using Zoom and McQ in a more physical way, but when Lovie came, off the LOS they went. And that is how we have always played our other CBs. Sure, you can talk about a play here or there, but the main lining up of our CBs under Lovie seems to have always been well off the LOS.

 

1. if the gm and lovie are on the same page in this insane type of defensive scheme you describe then anything that they do or don’t do surprises me not at all.

 

also please explain why angelo drafts players rounds ahead of where they would normally go? or wears 2 left shoes? or parts his hair on the back of his head? or rolls ball-bearings around in his hand when they aren’t rolling around in his head?

 

You sort of lost me here. I have been an outspoken Angelo basher for many years. My point in prior posts was not to defend Angelo, but to point out how I believe he and Lovie have been on the same page, and thus, moves by Angelo should be viewed as approved by Lovie. In turn, if Angelo extends a pair of CBs long term, we should also assume Lovie felt confident in those two CBs. If, as you say, those two CBs are incapable of press coverage, and yet Lovie signed off on their extensions, then by logical deduction, Lovie does not place as high of a level of important on press coverage as you think he should.

 

2. and you don’t think our d-line pressure on the qb was better in 2004-06?? or we had a pro-bowl quality safety on the field??? i know they probably have NOTHING to do with it but it might be something to think about.

 

Sure, our DL put more pressure and our S play was better. Never argued this point. I have said all along Babich sucks, and killed our defense in a far greater way than the talent on the field.

 

did i ever say that? or did i say “force the receiver inside with position”? lovie is fine with short, quick, uncontested 5-10 yard passes every down? if so he is nuts.

 

I don't think he is fine with 10 yard uncontested passes. I think he is fine w/ 3-5 yard passes. One area I think our CBs fail, outside of the scheme, is how they respond after the snap. I think our CBs line up where they are told, but nearly immediately turn their hips or begin back-peddling. Contrast this w/ how I saw Graham play toward the end of the season. He was lined up well of the LOS, but as soon as the QB turned to throw a quick out to his man, Graham broke toward the WR. WR catches the ball in the flat, but Graham has already closed, and this is key, Graham makes a solid tackle. Thus the Wr gained MAYBE 3 yards on the play. Though Graham was lined up well off the LOS, he (a) didn't immediately backpeddle on the snap ( quickly broke toward the WR and © made a solid tackle, not allowing the WR extra yards. Particularly after the injuries, Vasher/Tillman struggled in these areas, and that too affected their play. Point though is, IMHO, that play by Graham I described perfectly exemplifies what I believe Lovie envisions. About the only "extra" aspect for Lovie would be stripping the ball, but for me, that is as bad as good as our players too often go for the strip and fail to make the tackle.

 

run into coverage? dude, all he has to do is run right at any cornerback on this team at the snap. he automatically has a 5+ yard cushion and AT the snap our corner continues to backpeddle even MORE!!! that’s not a “hole” it’s a freakin galaxy. he has done absolutely NOTHING to impede any route any receiver makes and by the time he engages it is not legal to touch him. this is like practice for any qb. their timing has been already nearly perfected without a pass rush.

 

Not much argument here. As said above, our CBs are in a bad situation/system, and then make it worse. The play I described w/ Graham is more how I think Lovie wants things. He still wants our CB well off the LOS, but I do not think he wants the CBs to immediately backpeddle. So, in my eyes, we have our CBs put into a bad situation, and then our CBs make it worse. If they were going to just backpeddle on the snap, I would much rather see them near the LOS. But again, the CBs quick move backward seems to have appeared in the last two years, which again, makes me wonder how much of the issue is coaching.

 

what i am saying is we scored over 30 points in two games this season and won both. if you want to compete today you need to put up points just to make it to the playoffs.

 

Hey, I am not arguing against the idea of scoring points. I am not looking to go back to the days of Shoop, trying to get to double digits and hold our opponent to single digits. My point is you don't need to score 30 to win. If you have a good defense, and score 21 points, I think you should win most of your games.

 

look below at the top competition. these teams averaged 36%, MORE than 1/3, of their games scoring over 30 points.

 

cards – 10 games over 30 points – won 9

falcons – 5 for 5

panthers – 7 for 7

ravens – 5 for 5

colts – 6 for 6

phins – 2 for 2

vikes – 4 for 5

giants – 7 for 7

eagles – 5 for 7

bolts – 5 for 7

titans – 6 for 6

 

Okay, wait a minute. How about not over-simplifying this too much. Are all these teams you list what most would consider offensive powerhouses? I don't think so. Some may have scored 30 or more better than a 1/3 of the time, but (a) how many of those points were defensive or special teams and ( how many of those teams have defenses that led to great field position, and thus more points. In 2006 (SB year) would you say we had a great offense? Well, that year we scored 30 or more points in 7 of our games (not counting playoffs). I just do not think many would consider us an offensive power house, yet by your reasoning, we were a 30+ scoring machine at 43.75%.

 

Now, look at your teams above. Cards, Colts, Giants (w/ Burress) and Eagles are teams I think most would consider big time offenses. Atlanta, Minny and Tenn are teams would great ground games, but not exactly electric offenses expected to drop 30. Ravens (rookie QB), Phins and Bolts are hardly considered electric either. I look at the above group, and more than electric offenses, what I see are some damn good defenses.

 

It isn't one or the other. I agree you have to score points. But I think we can have a defense that can hold opponents, while offensive upgrades would allow us to score.

 

don’t you agree that pass defense is our weakest link on defense? even with improvement from our d-line can we outscore these types of teams? even when we were hitting on all cylinders going into the superbowl, what was the main concern? can we stop manning.

 

One. No, I think pass rush far and away is our biggest issue on defense. Now, I would point out I think/hope coaching alone provides a partial answer, but I think the coverage is dependant on the pass rush far more than the other way around. I think elite pass rush can make average coverage look great. On the other hand, I do not believe elite coverage can make average pass rush look good. Here's why. If you have an elite pass rush, the QB will only have 3 seconds before he is pressured. Even an average CB can hold that long. However, if you have an elite CB duo, they still can only hold their man for so long before the WR finds an opening. Just because your DL has time, that does not mean they can get it done if they are only average. An OL can hold a DL indefinitely, but a CB can not hold a WR thus.

 

In our SB year, we were concerned about Manning because he was one of the greatest QBs of all time. No matter who was playing Indy, Manning would have been the concern. Not sure of your point there.

 

Yes, our is a weakness, but I would argue (a) the lack of a pass rush has made that group look worse than it is and ( FS more than CB is the weakness in the secondary. That and coaching.

 

if we had made it to a superbowl this last year and say against the cards, i know it’s impossible, but say we did. how many points would warner and boldin/fitz have put up on us? how much of that do you believe would have been with their running game? even with orton playing as good as he did in the first half of the season, could we have stayed up with them in a scoring fest?

 

Of coarse not? What is your point. That is why they were a SB team and we were not even a playoff team. I think a better point, for argument sake, would have been if you pitted our SB losing team against their SB losing team. Even then, I would say they win, but despite what you think, not just due to our CBs. They were just a better team.

 

Let me ask you this? You watched the SB, and thus know how Pitt defended Fitz and Co. They pointed it out enough during the game. They talked about how Pitt's DC used an inverted cover two (never heard of that before). Basically, they used Polamalu to press Fitz at the LOS, and as Fitz began to beat the press, Ike Taylor (their most physical CB) joined in over the top. Now, also consider the assortment of blitzes and pass rush angles sent at Warner. Take away the talent issue and just tell me this. If Lovie were running the Pitt defense, do you honestly believe he would have thought to do these things to stop Fitz. Pitt didn't beat Az because Ike Taylor is such a great CB that he shut down Fitz. Pitt used some very creative scheming to stop Fitz. Talent aside, do you honestly think Lovie is a coach capable of such? IMHO, regardless of talent, Lovie would have simply ran our normal defense, and we would have been eaten alive.

 

yet with one player like the kid from oakland we could compete with anyone defensively. we have the money to get 2 big players this offseason. one the cb and the other an offensive player of our choice.

 

First, when you say we have the money, you are talking about cap space, not reality.

 

Asante Samuel and Nate Clements I think have set the bar, and Osa will likely be looking for a deal that provides around $20m+ in upfront bonus, and an average salary of around $10m. That is a ton of coin. Regardless of our cap space, I can not see us spending that sort of money on one player, while also adding another top FA at OT or WR.

 

what experiment? every single season teams draft tackles from college to play guard. every season teams draft corners to play safety or defensive ends to play linebacker and so on. sure there are exceptions and your left tackle or qb are just some of them.

 

but how could you compare moving a strong safety to free safety? or a corner to safety? it’s been done numerous times in the nfl. if the guy has the wheels and coverage skills what is the big deal? with us we do this with guys that have none of the requirements to play either position.

 

My point is, while experiments are not unusual, when you constantly use experiments at a position, and it fails, at some point you need to consider getting a legit position player. You don't think trying a CB or SS at FS is an experiment. I disagree. I do agree is often happens, but my point is, if you have tried that over and over again, w/ nothing but failures, at some point you need to instead simply look at getting a player w/ experience at the position, rather than hoping a player w/o the experience can make the transition.

 

Back to my original point, I simply believe adding a legit FS like the one from Stl, would have a greater impact on our secondary than adding Osa. More than talent at CB, I think our secondary has been hurt by (a) coaching ( pass rush and © lack of a legit FS. As pointed out, both Tillman and Vasher were effective a few years ago when (a) we had different coaching in Rivera ( we had a strong pass rush and © we had a better FS in Brown. I believe we will see an improvement in coaching (addition by subtraction w/o Babich). I believe we will see a boost in our pass rush due to Marinelli and again, taking Babich out of the playcalling. The one area I do not see improvement is at FS, where I simply feel we lack talent.

 

Honestly, for all our pages of discussion, I honestly think it boils down to this. I believe that if we added an elite CB, we would regardless use him in a zone coverage system and play him off the LOS. Coverage would most likely be better, simply due to better talent, but the level of difference would not be what you would expect. Further, I believe if we used a CB in such a mannor, we would limit him and not get value. If, I believed, as I think you do, that we could add an elite CB and simply play him man against opponents best WR, that would be another story. That would more fall in line w/ the sort of defense I would like to run. BUT, that is not the defense I believe Lovie would run, and thus why I am against spending big on a CB like you want. If we are going to resign ourselves w/ Lovie's scheme, I believe adding a FS is going to provide far greater results than adding a CB.

[madlithuanian]

I got bored and tried to read some of your and Lucky's dead horse flogging...

 

You're one statement here really struck a chord...

 

I could not agree more and think this is an indictment on this staff and management in general.

 

The best example is Urlacher. Urlacher has OFTEN been on record as not being the biggest fan of the cover two. I think he would far better like a system like Baltimore, which allows far more roaming and reacting in the middle. But instead of molding a system around our franchise player, we force our franchise player to play our system.

[nfoligno]

Always been a gripe about mine. I would say, many coaches around the league force players to work w/in their system, rather than alter/mold the system around particular players. However, it just seems like the best coaches are the ones who do a better job of not simply forcing a square peg into a round hole, but finding better ways to utilize that peg.

 

For me, an even greater indictment is the analogy of this past SB. More than once (many times in fact) the announcers discusses how Pitt was shutting down Fitz (at least most of the game). They pointed out how Pitt was running an inverted cover two in essense. They used their physical safety (Polamalu) to press Fitz at the LOS, and then played Ike Taylor as the secondary, over the top cover guy. Further, while they used this scheme, they used many others, mixing it up constantly so Az could not easily adjust.

 

My question is this. If Lovie were the DC of that Pitt defense, does anyone truly believe he would have come up w/ such a scheme? Or would have have simply played "his" scheme, and expected the players (working in that scheme) to simply win the matchups.

 

I got bored and tried to read some of your and Lucky's dead horse flogging...

 

You're one statement here really struck a chord...

 

I could not agree more and think this is an indictment on this staff and management in general.

[madlithuanian]

Lack of adjustment has been and will be a Smith problem.

 

I htink if Smith were DC for Pitt...the Cards would be hoisting the trophy.

 

I don't know Dick LeBeau. But, I do know that Smith is no Dick.

 

Always been a gripe about mine. I would say, many coaches around the league force players to work w/in their system, rather than alter/mold the system around particular players. However, it just seems like the best coaches are the ones who do a better job of not simply forcing a square peg into a round hole, but finding better ways to utilize that peg.

 

For me, an even greater indictment is the analogy of this past SB. More than once (many times in fact) the announcers discusses how Pitt was shutting down Fitz (at least most of the game). They pointed out how Pitt was running an inverted cover two in essense. They used their physical safety (Polamalu) to press Fitz at the LOS, and then played Ike Taylor as the secondary, over the top cover guy. Further, while they used this scheme, they used many others, mixing it up constantly so Az could not easily adjust.

 

My question is this. If Lovie were the DC of that Pitt defense, does anyone truly believe he would have come up w/ such a scheme? Or would have have simply played "his" scheme, and expected the players (working in that scheme) to simply win the matchups.

[Lucky Luciano]

double post.

[Lucky Luciano]

Kelly and Abraham are two perfect examples IMHO. Both were CBs who looked great in TB, but once they left, both were exposed as being far from stellar. Kelly was nothing in Det, and sure not the savior they signed him to be. Abraham went to NYJ, and was never the CB they thought they were getting. In TB, they were in a system that was ideal for their talents, but once they left, they looked average at best. That is essentially my point. CBs in the cover two are often system talents. I do not think either Abraham or Kelly would be considered shut down corners. Barber? He has never left TB so he is harder to judge, but I also thought he too was refered to as a zone or cover two corner, rather than ever being in the category of shut down corner. Law is the closest example of a shut down corner, but I would call him an exception to the rule, and not the rule. Also, notice how your examples are all from TB?

 

perfect examples?

 

donnie abraham – 6 years with bucs. a 2002 cap casualty when bucs resigned kelly; a free agent who signed with jets herm edwards a cover 2 coach at the age of 29. broken shoulder beginning of season in 2003 at age >>30

 

brian kelly – savior in detroit? first of all, he wasn’t even the bucs #1 corner. second, he went to the lions after 10 years in tampa at the age of >>32

 

*YOU asked me to show you any corners that were top tier corners because you couldn’t think of any and i show you FIVE pro-bowl corners that played in the cover 2 system. now you change it to “shut down” corners? where do you keep coming up with this stuff? did i ever say they were?

 

*“Look around the league at other teams who run the cover two. How many of them have top tier CBs? Personally, I can not think of any.”

 

I simply question this. The key for me is, I question how much of the system used man coverage, and question how great of man coverage skills these CBs had. When you read lists analyists put together of the top shut down corners in the league, I would argue you rarely find a cover two corner on the list. Law may be the exception, but he is not the rule.

 

this isn’t even comparing apples to oranges anymore it’s comparing apples to yaks. you don’t find any of these pro-bowl corners on analysts list for shut-down-corners? who besides YOU ever said any of these corners should BE on a “shut down” corners list? do you only consider “shut down corners” top tier cornerbacks?

 

the fact is that all of these corners could play very well in the normal definition of the cover 2. they could play press coverage and most could cover man-on-man in specific situations when the need to do so was there.

 

Hey, this is part of why I have been in favor of firing Lovie for years, despite our win/loss record.

 

Beyond what is seen w/ cover two teams around the league, I go off what I hear Lovie talk about, as well as the players. How many times have you heard Lovie talk about how, in his system, he wants players to keep everything in front of them. CBs play off the LOS to keep WRs in front of them. If a CB plays on top of the LOS, the WR is even w/ them, not in front. That is simply not part of Lovie's system.

 

you have wanted to fire him for how many years? yikes, even i was willing to give him 2-3 years to put in a system.

 

so you go off of what lovie talks about to the press? the guy that bends the truth like a pretzel or doesn’t say anything worth writing about at all? whose statements i believe even you have commented on in the past as being evasive or misleading to say the least?

 

Many things would make our CBs look better. I would start w/ coaching. A strong FS would be 2nd for me. A strong pass rush is right there w/ a strong FS. Adding a solid or great #1 CB is simply not as high on my list. If we had a stud CB, but everything else was equal, I think we would continue to see our other CB getting beat, and often. Further, I do not believe that strong #1 would be as much of a shut down corner as you think, as I think we would limit him too much w/ our system. Just for argument sake, lets say we were to add Osa, and were going to play him outside the system essentially. Basically, we would match him up w/ opponents #1 WR, and tell him to shadown and shut down. If that were the case, I would FAR more agree w/ all your comments. Problem for me is, I do not believe we would do that. I think we would add a player like that, and force him to play our system, which would limit his impact. What about Lovie's coaching leads you to believe we would mold our system around talent? Regardless the player, Lovie has always forced players into his system, rather than mold the system to the talent. The best example is Urlacher. Urlacher has OFTEN been on record as not being the biggest fan of the cover two. I think he would far better like a system like Baltimore, which allows far more roaming and reacting in the middle. But instead of molding a system around our franchise player, we force our franchise player to play our system.

 

coaching/lovie 2 aside this is how a top flight #1 corner helps this team...

 

1. in the cover 2 he can play bump and run on the LOS. this means any receiver is taken out of these quick uncontested passes and is covered throughout his zone.

 

2. in the cover 2 this gives our #2 corner the ability to play tight on the LOS because even if he gets beat he has free safety help nearly on every play. in essence we can double cover receivers on this side of the field again shutting down uncontested passes in his zone.

 

3. our strong safety can effectively support the zones in the cover 2 where the TE’s, RB’s and WR’s are coming over the middle in the short slants and crossing patterns. he can also give run support.

 

4. our linebackers are now free to move around in their cover 2 passing zones against the TE’s and RB’s closing up the middle. this also helps our linebackers in run support.

 

5. this gives our defensive line, at the least, a second more to get to the qb. we are not forced into blitzing nearly as often.

 

6. we can mix up our coverages to confuse offenses. we now have the ability to change our defense as onfield situations dictate and if we need to go into man coverage with our #1 corner we can do it shutting down the deep threat or the elite receivers/qb’s in the league.

 

7. we have just made our blitz packages, when we do need them or just want to mix it up, light years better because we have a cover corner who can play man if/when needed.

 

8. as stated many times before, we get a good+ FS by moving one of our #2 corners into that position. we have made our #2 corner a much better player. we have drastically improved 3 positions with one player not to mention the great depth in nickel or dime packages.

 

9. finally... if lovie really is as bad a coach as you imply, he won’t be here much longer and that’s a fact. that means whoever comes in as our head coach has a top flight core of players against the pass no matter what type of scheme he implements (i find it highly unlikely we would end up with yet another cover 2 coach).

 

One. As I recall, Bates did not cost us much, and definitely not a "good chunk of change" that prevented us from other signings.

 

Two. As I recall, we did have the money in FA to sign Colvin, but choose to go in another direction. It wasn't about Holdman, and definitely not Bates. Simply put, Colvin was a below average LB, but great pass rush specialist. Angelo felt that pass rush specialist role could be filled by another (Knight I believe) and he was simply wrong. Frankly, I too felt Colvin was over-priced in FA. My problem was never letting Colvin walk, but in how we used the money instead. Colvin was an ideal fit for a 3-4 team (which signed him). I was fine letting him walk, but felt the money should have been spent on upgrading our DL, which we did not do. Similar to when we let Parrish go, and expected a kid to step up (Green). Sometimes, I can understand letting a FA walk, but I disagree w/ how we deal w/ the replacement.

 

April 10, 2002 “VIKINGS PICK UP BATES: The Minnesota Vikings claimed wide receiver D'Wayne Bates off waivers from the Chicago Bears yesterday.

Bates, who has a three-year, $2.85 million contract, was signed as the No. 3 wide receiver”

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...757C0A9649C8B63

warrick holdman:

 

Byline: John Mullin Chicago Tribune April 16, 2002

Bears linebacker Warrick Holdman, the team's second-leading tackler and one of the top young linebackers in the NFL, signed an offer sheet late Monday with the Kansas City Chiefs for $12 million over four years, including a $2 million signing bonus.

The offer sheet was signed only hours before the midnight deadline for restricted free agents to receive offers and after the two teams unsuccessfully discussed a trade for Holdman in which the Bears sought a third-round draft choice, a Bears source said.

...the offer may force the Bears to choose between keeping Holdman or Rosevelt Colvin

 

Chicago Sun-Times – Brad Biggs April 20, 2002

In a move that may have tipped the Bears' strategy for today's draft and personnel decisions that lie ahead, general manager Jerry Angelo matched a $12 million, four-year offer sheet for Warrick Holdman.

The weak-side linebacker was hours away from going to the Kansas City Chiefs when the Bears finalized their plan Friday afternoon, one that could seal the fate for strong-side linebacker Rosevelt Colvin, who signed a one-year tender offer for $1.227 million and will be an unrestricted free agent after 2002.

 

Up-front Holdman not down on Bears

From: Chicago Sun-Times | Date: February 27, 2004| Author: Brad Biggs | Copyright information

The checked-box fiasco of 2002 will be behind the Bears for good in a matter of days when linebacker Warrick Holdman is released.

The paperwork errors -- which forced the Bears to swallow a contract designed by the Kansas City Chiefs to retain Holdman and lose wide receiver D'Wayne Bates to the Minnesota Vikings before they were ready to cut ties -- taught both players a lot about the game.

By Jeff Reynolds and Nolan Nawrocki, Associate editors

With the possibility of losing LB Warrick Holdman still hovering, the Bears signed former Eagles LB Mike Caldwell to a four-year, $4.7 million contract that includes a $750,000 signing bonus. Caldwell will also receive a $250,000 workout bonus that he will be paid before training camp begins.

http://archive.profootballweekly.com/conte...news_031702.asp

 

Friday July 27, 2001 CNN Sports Illustrated

A knee injury to Holdman in Week 12 last season forced Harris back to the weak side, and he led the team in tackles three of the final six games.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/...day_roundup_ap/

 

Aug. 12, 2002

At the time, all the Bears were concerned about was keeping WLB Warrick Holdman from signing with the Chiefs when they matched the qualifying offer from Kansas City to keep the restricted free agent. Now, it looks like keeping Holdman could cost the Bears SLB Rosevelt Colvin in 2003. The Chiefs’ offer to Holdman was modest for ’02 (a $950,000 salary-cap hit), but it balloons to a $4 million cap charge in ’03. With MLB Brian Urlacher’s current contract set to expire after the ’04 season, general manager Jerry Angelo may decide to conserve cap room, allowing Colvin to walk in order to keep his Pro Bowl middle man. Given the recent seven-year, $50-million deal Ravens MLB Ray Lewis signed, keeping some cap space available would be wise. But the Bears will first attempt to restructure Holdman’s deal, and Holdman has said he will listen. If no agreement is reached, the team will not have room for Colvin, who led the team with 10½ sacks last season and is scheduled to become an unrestricted free agent next spring.

Dec. 30, 2002

Bears LB Rosevelt Colvin, the team sack leader each of the last two seasons, will test the free-agent market. Colvin knew prior to the 2002 season that financial commitments to LBs Warrick Holdman and Brian Urlacher could squeeze him out of Chicago. Desiring a contract that would pay him $4 million per season, and total $23 to $26 million over five seasons, sources close to the team initially believed Colvin’s return was possible for the Bears, because general manager Jerry Angelo has plans to restructure the contracts of several high-dollar defensive players, including Holdman. Now, Colvin calls his chances for a return "50-50" at best. Because of his ability to get to the quarterback, Colvin (21 sacks in his last two seasons) will be a valued commodity in free agency, likely pricing himself out of the Bears’ range in the long run. "He’s right there, if not on the top of our list," one general manager told PFW. "This is a good free-agent linebacker group, and (Colvin) is one of the best (in the class)."

http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/NFL/N...tm?channel=2002

 

Sorry, but your nuts. Holdman did look good, very good. In fact, I think he was a pro bowl alternate for us. In his 3rd year for us, he had 107 tackles, 1.5 sacks, 3 FFs and 1 pick. Compare that to Briggs 3rd season. 107 tackles, 2 sacks, 3 FFs and 2 picks. Damn near identical stats. You try to knock Holdman by saying he had only 5 sacks for us, but hell, do you realize Briggs has only 6 sacks in his 6 seasons for us? Not sure that you can go off that stat.

 

Urlacher and Holdman formed a damn good combination. But in Holdman's next season, he went down w/ injury, playing in only 4 games. He was injured the following year, and that was a year of hell for our entire defense. He was gone after that season. At the time, Holdman was a VERY good looking LB, and appeared on the way up. He had a damn good 3rd season, was a pro bowl alternate, and it looked like we had a great LB duo. Injuries killed him for us, and he never was much for us again. So sorry, but you can try to re-write history all you want, but Holdman was a very good LB for us.

 

nuts? i know holdman was from A&M but come on. he basically had one good season in his career. was poor in pass coverage and an average tackler.

 

look, holdman had speed and had ‘potential’ to be a good player but it never panned out. of all the linebackers since url’s arrival holdman benefited the most from urlacher (which you can’t say about briggs anymore) plus he was injury prone (wrists, ankle, knees) losing considerable time. after his final knee injury in chicago it was plain that his skills were not good enough to compensate and he was finally let go.

 

sacks... now are you going to say lovie blitzes his WLB’s? i truely don’t even remember the last time briggs came in on a blitz off the edge and yet he put up 6 over lovies tenure here. you might also want to look at INT numbers and compare them. for anyone to say that they would have taken the ‘potential’ of holdman against the proven sack capabilities and improving linebacking skills of colvin is simply amazing.

 

next... holdman was never a pro-bowl player or an alternate to my knowledge and i couldn’t find any information to support your claim. if you have this information.... post it. while we are comparing briggs vs holdman’s third seasons, briggs in his third year (2005) was nominated ALL-PRO and went to the PRO-BOWL!! he then proceeded to go to a pro-bowl every year since then. what about holdman? oh that’s right, he never went to a single one. so much for that comparison.

 

Hold on here. In Stl, he had one of the best offenses in the game helping his defense out. Do you not think that matters. Frankly, it has always been a key point of mine. Lovie system fails when he doesn't have that same elite offense. In Stl, he had the greatest show on turf which allowed his defense more rest and more opportunity to gamble.

 

In Chicago, when we did rank higher, it was also w/ Rivera running the defense. It may have been Lovie's defense, but Rivera also had his personal touch on the unit, which is also a part of why he was allowed to walk.

 

My point is this. When you look at some defenses like Phily, Baltimore or Pitt, they challenge everything and try to prevent the opponent from gaining a single yard. At no point in time has that appeared to be Lovie's mentality. He is far more of a bend but don't break coach, and that is my point.

 

i answer the question and you come up with some other added stipulation. you said about lovie defenses... “rarely rank high in terms of passing yards”. i refuted that. now it doesn’t count because the rams had a great offense?

 

Apples and Oranges. Jauron may have been bend/don't break in the passing game, but is was about as drastically different of a schem as you can get w/ the cover two. Also, you point out that we then used Zoon and McQ in press coverage, but that is a key point, as when Lovie came in, we used those same players off the LOS.

 

I remember this point very well, because it was then I began screaming about how we used our CBs. Zoom was never a great corner, but IMHO, one thing he always did well was press. McQ was decent in the press too, and each were used (as you said) in Blache's system that way. Once Lovie took over though, I immediately saw both CBs begin playing further and further off the LOS. I remember then screaming about it. You comment about McQ, saying "pre-suck", but has anyone thought about how McQ began to really suck after Lovie came in? After leaving the bears, he went to NYG and was a pretty good CBs. Never great by any means, but when there was a pass rush, he was a pretty darn good one. He played physical at the LOS, but after Lovie....

 

So, even you mention our using Zoom and McQ in a more physical way, but when Lovie came, off the LOS they went. And that is how we have always played our other CBs. Sure, you can talk about a play here or there, but the main lining up of our CBs under Lovie seems to have always been well off the LOS.

 

in all fairness, lovie had no good #1 corners here when he showed up. vasher was a rookie and tillman was, well tillman.

 

zoom, our LCB was injured the year lovie came here and only started half the games and retired after the following year because of injury.

 

dub was gone after the first season with lovie. he also was switched to the left side in 2002 and when he was injured continued to play there until he was moved to RCB because of injury to peanut, if i remember right, in ‘04. he himself had only one good year in chicago and that wasn’t the year before lovie came here.

 

I don't think he is fine with 10 yard uncontested passes. I think he is fine w/ 3-5 yard passes. One area I think our CBs fail, outside of the scheme, is how they respond after the snap. I think our CBs line up where they are told, but nearly immediately turn their hips or begin back-peddling. Contrast this w/ how I saw Graham play toward the end of the season. He was lined up well of the LOS, but as soon as the QB turned to throw a quick out to his man, Graham broke toward the WR. WR catches the ball in the flat, but Graham has already closed, and this is key, Graham makes a solid tackle. Thus the Wr gained MAYBE 3 yards on the play. Though Graham was lined up well off the LOS, he (a) didn't immediately backpeddle on the snap (cool.gif quickly broke toward the WR and © made a solid tackle, not allowing the WR extra yards. Particularly after the injuries, Vasher/Tillman struggled in these areas, and that too affected their play. Point though is, IMHO, that play by Graham I described perfectly exemplifies what I believe Lovie envisions. About the only "extra" aspect for Lovie would be stripping the ball, but for me, that is as bad as good as our players too often go for the strip and fail to make the tackle.

 

just so i got this straight, you think lovie is fine with 3-5 yard passes every down? in my book that averages to a first down every 3 plays. plus you don’t think lovie notices these slants etc. are consistently 5-10 yards? you believe he doesn’t notice our corners backpeddling 5 yards at the snap? or he doesn’t like it and it’s just that he is too nice a guy to mention it to them?

 

Hey, I am not arguing against the idea of scoring points. I am not looking to go back to the days of Shoop, trying to get to double digits and hold our opponent to single digits. My point is you don't need to score 30 to win. If you have a good defense, and score 21 points, I think you should win most of your games.

 

in 2008 the #1 defense in the entire nfl had 8 games where they scored 21 or less points and they lost half of those games. it also took 27 points to win the superbowl with the #1 defense.

 

Okay, wait a minute. How about not over-simplifying this too much. Are all these teams you list what most would consider offensive powerhouses? I don't think so. Some may have scored 30 or more better than a 1/3 of the time, but (a) how many of those points were defensive or special teams and (cool.gif how many of those teams have defenses that led to great field position, and thus more points. In 2006 (SB year) would you say we had a great offense? Well, that year we scored 30 or more points in 7 of our games (not counting playoffs). I just do not think many would consider us an offensive power house, yet by your reasoning, we were a 30+ scoring machine at 43.75%.

 

Now, look at your teams above. Cards, Colts, Giants (w/ Burress) and Eagles are teams I think most would consider big time offenses. Atlanta, Minny and Tenn are teams would great ground games, but not exactly electric offenses expected to drop 30. Ravens (rookie QB), Phins and Bolts are hardly considered electric either. I look at the above group, and more than electric offenses, what I see are some damn good defenses.

 

It isn't one or the other. I agree you have to score points. But I think we can have a defense that can hold opponents, while offensive upgrades would allow us to score.

 

i’m sorry but 21 points as your offensive target in today’s nfl is just not enough. if your offensive target is 21 are you going to build a team that the defense has to score points to achieve 30? or have one that hester is expected to score special team TD’s every game to reach that goal? look, 30 points isn’t some magic unnatainable number for offenses to score in today’s nfl. the rules have changed to make it so.

 

our superbowl season is a perfect example of what i am talking about. hester scored 5 TD’s that season on special teams. our defense scored 3 TD’s and had numerous turnovers. the problem is you can’t ‘expect’ to get these playing championship caliber teams in the playoffs or the superbowl if you want to win it. you need an offense that is a threat and can score points on its own. you also need a defense to slow down the high scoring teams, especially against the pass, to allow your offense to keep up with them.

 

One. No, I think pass rush far and away is our biggest issue on defense. Now, I would point out I think/hope coaching alone provides a partial answer, but I think the coverage is dependant on the pass rush far more than the other way around. I think elite pass rush can make average coverage look great. On the other hand, I do not believe elite coverage can make average pass rush look good. Here's why. If you have an elite pass rush, the QB will only have 3 seconds before he is pressured. Even an average CB can hold that long. However, if you have an elite CB duo, they still can only hold their man for so long before the WR finds an opening. Just because your DL has time, that does not mean they can get it done if they are only average. An OL can hold a DL indefinitely, but a CB can not hold a WR thus.

 

In our SB year, we were concerned about Manning because he was one of the greatest QBs of all time. No matter who was playing Indy, Manning would have been the concern. Not sure of your point there.

 

Yes, our is a weakness, but I would argue (a) the lack of a pass rush has made that group look worse than it is and (cool.gif FS more than CB is the weakness in the secondary. That and coaching.

 

huh? it’s not the biggest issue yet you think our biggest problem is a pass rush? isn’t that part of your pass defense? who is talking about an average defensive line? is that what you consider us having? are you then suggesting we need to blow up our d-line and start over because it’s not “elite” quality good without 4 all-pro quality players on it? seriously, i want to ask you how quick do you think defensive linemen can get to the qb? even in 85 with the best pass rush maybe ever, we couldn’t get to marino. why do you think that was? what did he do to beat us? what was the way to counter that?

 

your solution is to just rush the passer and HOPE they can beat a 2-3 step drop and fire. mine is to rush the passer AND have good enough coverage (which we DON’T have) to give your good+ linemen enough time to GET to the qb by disrupting his timing and having to check down his receivers instead of having untouched receivers 5-10 yards downfield every play.

 

Of coarse not? What is your point. That is why they were a SB team and we were not even a playoff team. I think a better point, for argument sake, would have been if you pitted our SB losing team against their SB losing team. Even then, I would say they win, but despite what you think, not just due to our CBs. They were just a better team.

 

well what then? in what way did they have “just a better team”? because they could have beaten us to a bloody stump passing to fitz, boldin, and breaston all day long? offensively? ok lets put orton as he was in the first half of this years season along with our ’06 D. do we realistically win scoring your 21 points is all we need scenario?

 

First, when you say we have the money, you are talking about cap space, not reality.

 

Asante Samuel and Nate Clements I think have set the bar, and Osa will likely be looking for a deal that provides around $20m+ in upfront bonus, and an average salary of around $10m. That is a ton of coin. Regardless of our cap space, I can not see us spending that sort of money on one player, while also adding another top FA at OT or WR.

 

what the hell does “talking about cap space, not reality” mean?

 

$20m? so what? this amount is becoming the norm. we could pay him half that upfront with what we rolled over last season. don’t you think our genius gm could structure some of that money creatively? that leaves us with whatever we normally would have in a season to sign one or two free agents like any other team normally does and get a very good offensive player.

 

My point is, while experiments are not unusual, when you constantly use experiments at a position, and it fails, at some point you need to consider getting a legit position player. You don't think trying a CB or SS at FS is an experiment. I disagree. I do agree is often happens, but my point is, if you have tried that over and over again, w/ nothing but failures, at some point you need to instead simply look at getting a player w/ experience at the position, rather than hoping a player w/o the experience can make the transition.

 

Back to my original point, I simply believe adding a legit FS like the one from Stl, would have a greater impact on our secondary than adding Osa. More than talent at CB, I think our secondary has been hurt by (a) coaching (cool.gif pass rush and © lack of a legit FS. As pointed out, both Tillman and Vasher were effective a few years ago when (a) we had different coaching in Rivera (cool.gif we had a strong pass rush and © we had a better FS in Brown. I believe we will see an improvement in coaching (addition by subtraction w/o Babich). I believe we will see a boost in our pass rush due to Marinelli and again, taking Babich out of the playcalling. The one area I do not see improvement is at FS, where I simply feel we lack talent.

 

1. what experiments are you talking about? which players have we done this with over and over with nothing but failure? you mean like urlacher? even peanut and vasher played safety in college.

 

2. i believe moving one of our corners who have experience as a safety in college would give us a legit high quality FS.

 

 

i think this whole discussion boils down, as you say, to whether you believe lovie and angelo are complete idiots.

 

their idea of defense is to play a soft corner coverage, no matter what the talent we have at that position, that has no chance to succeed.

 

i believe angelo is not a good gm. although i believe lovie is not a very good coach i don’t think he so bad that he would run something like this with good personnel. this leaves the quality of players being at least part of the problem.

 

could you be right and our corners are much better than they have shown due to scheme and lack of practice? yes it’s possible. could it be so that nothing would change if we got a quality player like aso? yes. but IF so then this franchise needs to be ripped apart from the president to the waterboy. adios bean counter phillips, adios gm angelo, adios lovie and staff and we stand on a bare field again because nobody with any authority in this franchise knows $#!& about football.

[bradjock]

I wondered about the "top corner" comment too. If Brad meant top corner on our team, I guess I would have to agree. If he meant top corner in the league, I would say not even close.

 

I missed this a year ago or whenever it was you posted it, so let me explain: By Tillman being a top corner, I simply mean one of the better ones in the league. Is there any team in the league he wouldn't start for? (maybe Philly who's loaded at cb) In terms of salaries, with his 43 million $$$ he's one of the higher paid corners in the league, and you never hear Bear fans bitching that he's overpaid. That's money well spent.

 

Not to mention, he's arguably the best corner in the league when it comes to punching the ball out.

 

He's not a pro-bowler, and he may not ever make it. But there's plenty of really good players in this league who've never made it.

 

But he is one of the better corner-backs in the league, not the top corner, but a top corner.

 

That being said, I've changed my mind and I'm convinced we should move him to safety. I've decided it's one helluva a lot easier for the Bears to find a cornerback then it is a safety. If he can solidify the position, we need to do it.

[bowlingtwig]

I wondered about the "top corner" comment too. If Brad meant top corner on our team, I guess I would have to agree. If he meant top corner in the league, I would say not even close.

 

I missed this a year ago or whenever it was you posted it, so let me explain: By Tillman being a top corner, I simply mean one of the better ones in the league. Is there any team in the league he wouldn't start for? (maybe Philly who's loaded at cb) In terms of salaries, with his 43 million $$$ he's one of the higher paid corners in the league, and you never hear Bear fans bitching that he's overpaid. That's money well spent.

 

Not to mention, he's arguably the best corner in the league when it comes to punching the ball out.

 

He's not a pro-bowler, and he may not ever make it. But there's plenty of really good players in this league who've never made it.

 

But he is one of the better corner-backs in the league, not the top corner, but a top corner.

 

That being said, I've changed my mind and I'm convinced we should move him to safety. I've decided it's one helluva a lot easier for the Bears to find a cornerback then it is a safety. If he can solidify the position, we need to do it.

 

 

I am not sure about moving our top CB to FS because then we become weaker at the position. If we can bring a guy in either in FA or through the draft that we trust to start all 16 games then I would at least consider as you are correct that its much easier getting a CB than a FS. On another note though I was looking through a bunch of mock drafts last night and one person has us taking the top FS at 18. His mock isn't complete BS either and he says that Lovie drafts him in a shock to everyone.