nfoligno Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 IMHO, the koolaid is drunk by those who think we have the talent and personnel to be a good or better defense. I think I need a glass of your Kool-Aid... I drank all mine up last weekend! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Then no wonder I'm on the good stuff... IMHO, the koolaid is drunk by those who think we have the talent and personnel to be a good or better defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 I love scotch, but man do I hate Lagavulin. Stuff tastes like robotussein to me. I just don't like that peaty taste. I love Glenlivet, Glenfiddich, McCallen and Highland Park. Then no wonder I'm on the good stuff... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Not an Islay fan I see! I love the Islays! If you think Lagavulin is harsh, give Laphroig a whirl! I'm a huge Scotch drinker. I'm not a big fan of Livet and Fiddich...but I do like MacCallan's and Highland Park's a lot. Older Livets and Fiddich's are really good, but too pricey. If you're looking for a mellower Scotch at a decent price point, I really recommend a couple... 1. Auchentoshan 10 yr (about $30) - from the lowlands...very tasty! 2. Dalmore 12 yr (about $30) - nice highland...great w/ cigars I've got more recommendations if you'd like. PM me, and I'd be happy to send you a spreadsheet I have. I belong to a whisky club, and we meet about 6-7 times a year and try about 6-8 bottles per tasting. I love scotch, but man do I hate Lagavulin. Stuff tastes like robotussein to me. I just don't like that peaty taste. I love Glenlivet, Glenfiddich, McCallen and Highland Park. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadianbear Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Not an Islay fan I see! I love the Islays! If you think Lagavulin is harsh, give Laphroig a whirl! I'm a huge Scotch drinker. I'm not a big fan of Livet and Fiddich...but I do like MacCallan's and Highland Park's a lot. Older Livets and Fiddich's are really good, but too pricey. If you're looking for a mellower Scotch at a decent price point, I really recommend a couple... 1. Auchentoshan 10 yr (about $30) - from the lowlands...very tasty! 2. Dalmore 12 yr (about $30) - nice highland...great w/ cigars I've got more recommendations if you'd like. PM me, and I'd be happy to send you a spreadsheet I have. I belong to a whisky club, and we meet about 6-7 times a year and try about 6-8 bottles per tasting. WOW. Now we are talking. Bears and scotch, cant beat it... Lagavulin is in my top 3. Been drinking scotch for 3 years and finally developed the pallet to appreciate its taste. Also love Craggenmore 12 and Talisker 10. Those two are gems (60$ a bottle in Canada), Lagavulin is 100. Coal Ila is also a great find. Not a fan of Bowmore. On the more mellow tasting scotches, go with any young Macallan or Glenmorangie Quinta Ruban (Port Cask). oh ya...go Bears and I love the Cutler extension... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 I'm also a big fan of Talisker and Caol Ila! Bowmore is disappointing. I prefer Bruchladdich to Bowmore. I'm also a huge fan of Oban. It was my first real scotch that got me into it... I love the various Glenmorangie bottlings! The Nectar D'or is amazing! It's about $70 in the US, and has a nice preppery kick to it. If you'd like my spreadsheet, don't hesitate to PM me your e-mail and I'll send it to you. WOW. Now we are talking. Bears and scotch, cant beat it... Lagavulin is in my top 3. Been drinking scotch for 3 years and finally developed the pallet to appreciate its taste. Also love Craggenmore 12 and Talisker 10. Those two are gems (60$ a bottle in Canada), Lagavulin is 100. Coal Ila is also a great find. Not a fan of Bowmore. On the more mellow tasting scotches, go with any young Macallan or Glenmorangie Quinta Ruban (Port Cask). oh ya...go Bears and I love the Cutler extension... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 I'll shoot you a PM next week. I leave first thing in the morning for Napa. 4 days of Wine. My dad is in the wine business. I had to pay for my plane ticket, and the rest is taken care of. Definitely not a Islay Fan. Definitely a Speyside guy. I do a couple scotch tasting w/ friends each year. Each is assigned a region, and brings a bottle from that region, a cigar, and something to throw on the grill. Favorite part of the night is after the tasting, pouring the leftover from each scoth into one glass, and having the best blended scotch money can buy I am more of a wine drinker, but when I go to the hard stuff, pretty much stick w/ scotch. Not an Islay fan I see! I love the Islays! If you think Lagavulin is harsh, give Laphroig a whirl! I'm a huge Scotch drinker. I'm not a big fan of Livet and Fiddich...but I do like MacCallan's and Highland Park's a lot. Older Livets and Fiddich's are really good, but too pricey. If you're looking for a mellower Scotch at a decent price point, I really recommend a couple... 1. Auchentoshan 10 yr (about $30) - from the lowlands...very tasty! 2. Dalmore 12 yr (about $30) - nice highland...great w/ cigars I've got more recommendations if you'd like. PM me, and I'd be happy to send you a spreadsheet I have. I belong to a whisky club, and we meet about 6-7 times a year and try about 6-8 bottles per tasting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Sounds good! Lucky man! I love wine country! The wife and I love Peju up there in Napa! Good stuff accross the board. I also loved the barbera from Turnbull close by there... If you have any good places/stories, please share! We really love Sonoma and the Russian River Valley as Napa gets pretty crowded, but it's all so good! I like the Speys too! We pretty much do the same. usually it's just bring a bottle of single malt of your choice, a cigar and whatever you want to grill. Sometime we do an odd tasting like we did Irish whiskie one year for St. Pats and are working a Bourbon tasting for Thanksgiving... Never thought of the home-made blend! I'll have to add that in! I basically will drink anything! But prefer (red) wine with dinner, scotch before and after, and beer when watching football... I'll shoot you a PM next week. I leave first thing in the morning for Napa. 4 days of Wine. My dad is in the wine business. I had to pay for my plane ticket, and the rest is taken care of. Definitely not a Islay Fan. Definitely a Speyside guy. I do a couple scotch tasting w/ friends each year. Each is assigned a region, and brings a bottle from that region, a cigar, and something to throw on the grill. Favorite part of the night is after the tasting, pouring the leftover from each scoth into one glass, and having the best blended scotch money can buy I am more of a wine drinker, but when I go to the hard stuff, pretty much stick w/ scotch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 I have never been to the wine country, so this is new for me. While I drink plenty of wine (usually around 4 bottles a week) I am out of my league w/ my dad and need to buy a wine for dummies book for the trip. He has the entire trip mapped out, including meals and vinyards we will stay at. He has the good life, as he just got back from another wine boondoggle in Spain and Portugal. I drink wine pretty much daily. Scotch is reserved for the right evenings. When watching football, or appropriate events, I drink Dos Equis. I don't always drink beer, but when I do, I drink Dos Equis Sounds good! Lucky man! I love wine country! The wife and I love Peju up there in Napa! Good stuff accross the board. I also loved the barbera from Turnbull close by there... If you have any good places/stories, please share! We really love Sonoma and the Russian River Valley as Napa gets pretty crowded, but it's all so good! I like the Speys too! We pretty much do the same. usually it's just bring a bottle of single malt of your choice, a cigar and whatever you want to grill. Sometime we do an odd tasting like we did Irish whiskie one year for St. Pats and are working a Bourbon tasting for Thanksgiving... Never thought of the home-made blend! I'll have to add that in! I basically will drink anything! But prefer (red) wine with dinner, scotch before and after, and beer when watching football... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 You'll love it! I'd recommend going to Sterling. The wine isn't super, but the tram ride and view is! A really good wine book is "Oldman's Guide to Outsmarting Wine". It helped me when I was feeling like a buffoon! (still, can't help being a buffoon though...) http://www.amazon.com/Oldmans-Guide-Outsma...6081&sr=8-1 I'm completely jealous of your dad's career! Ha! If it's cold beer, I'll drink it! Some I just like much better than others, like Racer 5, Guinness, and Acnhor Steam... I have never been to the wine country, so this is new for me. While I drink plenty of wine (usually around 4 bottles a week) I am out of my league w/ my dad and need to buy a wine for dummies book for the trip. He has the entire trip mapped out, including meals and vinyards we will stay at. He has the good life, as he just got back from another wine boondoggle in Spain and Portugal. I drink wine pretty much daily. Scotch is reserved for the right evenings. When watching football, or appropriate events, I drink Dos Equis. I don't always drink beer, but when I do, I drink Dos Equis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daventry Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 I think you are not only drinking kool-aid, but think it must be spikes w/ some really good stuff. Brown and Wale are simply average. Sorry, but that is the truth. Brown's best season saw what, 6 1/2 or 7 sacks, and he is more often a 5 sack guy, and most of those come in 2 or 3 games, while he disappears in the rest. Both are good vs the run, but simply average pass rushers. Harris is a name, but that is about all, and you can't blame the scheme, as it was in this scheme he once dominated, but injuries have made him very average, and likely below average. Adams is a run stuffer, and nothing more, and Harrison has simply been nothing. Solid if not great at LB? Are you kidding? After Briggs, we are starting a bunch of backups, none of which have proven to be much. And you can talk crap about Urlacher, but even after losing a step, he was considerably better than what we have now. Secondary is not even decent. Tillman has been fine, but Bowman has been getting targetted and torched. In fact, part of me wonders if Tillman's play has not been more a matter of Bowman playing so poorly in coverage that QBs are simply targetting his side more often. We still do not have a FS on the team, and as much as we may like afalava, he is still young and inconstent. This is simply a below average defense in terms of talent, and to think we could be a top 5 defense is, IMHO, really drinking some major koolaid. IMO, Brown and Wale are players that just need a bit more to move up to All-Pro level play, definitely above average. Harris is not the same this year so far but could rebound, and Anderson has big-time potential even now. Adams is a solid run-stuffer, which is always needed, adn Harrison has shown promise. All things considered, a D Line most teams would be happy to have. What are we missing at LB that we had when URL was in the last 2 years? I see the same basic results this year than the last two. IMO Tillman is definitely in the upper echelon of DB's, Bowman is a solid up and comer, and the safeties are young with promise. Not great but at least average. I wonder how you would grade out other teams defensive personnel? Do you really think there are many teams with that much more talent than the Bears? However, you are right....I do drink a bit of the kool aid with some extra spiking, lol. I enjoy the Isle of Jura whiskey a bit, as well as some of the more average whiskeys like Bells. The UK has plenty of good whiskeys... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted October 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 I think you are misunderstanding some of my points. 1. You compare us to a good defense, and talk about how we can't do this or that, which a good defense does. I never said we were a good defense. I simply said that, when I look at our talent, I see a bottom tier defense. Maybe not Cle or Det bad, but a defense that would likely hover around the 25 ranking, give or take a couple spots. We currently rank 15th in scoring defense (all that really matters) and my point is, when I look at our talent base, that is a better ranking than I would expect. That isn't to say I think we are a good defense, and definitely not one to be compared to a "really good" defense, which you did in your argument. Far from that. My point is we are an average defense, but even that may have to credit the coaching to some extent as I think we are below average in terms of talent. I'd say other things matter, like, oh I don't know, field position. A defense that bends but doesn't break has a bad habit of allowing another team to eat up long-ish drives, gaining field position, and setting themselves up for future weakness when we all know the offense is susceptible to quick 3-and-Out possessions. 2. You agree we are not "bristling w/ talent in '09" but talk about 3-4 years ago. If you go back through my comments, I believe I said that even in our SB season, when most talked highly of our defense, I felt coaching held it back. Then, we had talent, and I felt we had the potential to be a punch you in the mouth, shut down defense. Not just one that on the stat sheet looks good, but one that makes opponents take a lot of rolaids the week leading up to our game. That was then, this is now. What I wonder is whether Lovie scheme is one that benefits defenses that lack talent, while holding back a defense that has talent. Does that makes sense. In StL, when he was the DC, he had a couple good players, but overall, he did not have an over abundance of talent, and his scheme actually may have been okay for the talent he had. Earlier on in Chicago, we had talent, and then I argued he held our talent back, but now, when I look at the players we have, I just can't help but to wonder if we would not be worse if we tried to be more aggressive, as we as fans want to see. ======================= But what I question is whether we have the talent to be such a defense. Sorry, but those great and aggressive defenses you talk about simply have more talent than we. Look at our defense, and tell me what players are just above average. Our DL is very average. Our DEs are good against the run, but average in terms of pass rush. Right now, I would say our DTs are below average. At LB, Briggs is a stud, but our other two LB positions are between average and below average w/ the loss of both Urlacher and Pisa. Tillman may be somewhere between average and above average, but Bowman has been between average and below, and our safeties are average on their better days. Understand, I think this scheme held us back when we were loaded w/ talent on defense. There was a time when Tillman and Vasher were both very good, and Mike Brown was just below stud status. Urlacher and Briggs formed such a duo that it didn't matter who the 3rd LB was. Harris was a stud, Tank was very good and at the time, our DEs were at minimum, above average (not to mention Anderson being explosive that first year). Then, I believe this scheme held our talent back. But now? We are a defense considerably lacking in talent, and I just wonder how bad we might look if we tried to be as aggressive as we all long to see. The bolded question? The answer is, yes. The problem is, however, that it never allows the latter of the two to have big games. Sure, with the abundance of talent, the big games will come as a result of great turnover numbers, and the bad games will simply be good performances. With lesser talent, however, there is never the potential to have a great game. Most of the games will be unimpressive and resulting in giving up something like 21-30 points. I'd rather have a defense that has the potential AT ALL TIMES of destroying the opposing QB...even if it means we get beaten badly from time to time. While the current cover-2 teaches a defense to be passive, and causes them to be increasingly passive, the opposite scenario allows a defense to bristle with pent up anger or emotion, a desire to go Ray Lewis on an opponent. And with that, the bad performances against opposing offenses become less and less. Whether or not this team has the talent is undetermined to be quite honest. How will we ever know if the chance is never taken? You fail to hit a home run EVERY time you don't swing. And whether or not we have talent makes me wonder...did the Philly or Pittsburgh defenses that caused havoc for a decade straight just have that much talent? I don't know if they did, because many of those guys went elsewhere and didn't play as well. I don't think the Bears have the best talent on D, but I think they have enough to do more than they are currently doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Sorry, but that is a crock. You would rather we get blown out, w/ our defense getting trounced, so long as we were aggressive. You would rather an aggressive defense that gives up 35-40 points over a passive defense that gives up 20 points. Come on man. That is a crock and you know it. You said, "Most of the games will be unimpressive and resulting in giving up something like 21-30 points". Well, we are running just the sort of defense you do not want, and yet we are giving up less than that per game. I get it. Trust me. I have said as much for years. Our defense simply is not exciting. Flip it to offense. We are running a John Shoop system, and even if we are winning, you want a Crowton system. You want the flash. You want the bling. You don't want a layup. You want the windmill, from the free throw line, slam dunk. With power. I get it. And a couple years ago, I was with you 100%. My point is, if you want a great defense like that, you need the talent to do it. If you try to play like that w/o the talent, I would argue that is the definition of bad coaching. If Shane Mathews is your QB, do you run an offense that is based on downfield attacks? Hell no. Look, I hate our system. I have been very vocal about that point for years now. Even when our defense was playing well, I still felt our scheme held us back from so much more potential. But this year, I just wonder if our scheme, as much as I hate it, isn't doing a better job of masking our defeciencies. I look at our defensive personnel, and I see a bunch of average to below average players, w/ the lone exception being Briggs. Theoretically, we have an offense that can score points. If we ran a defensive scheme like you want though, I think our offense would have to put 40 on the board nearly every game for us to get a win. I guess that would be more exciting, but I think it would lead to far fewer wins, and at the end of the day, that is what it is about. I'd say other things matter, like, oh I don't know, field position. A defense that bends but doesn't break has a bad habit of allowing another team to eat up long-ish drives, gaining field position, and setting themselves up for future weakness when we all know the offense is susceptible to quick 3-and-Out possessions. Yes. The problem is, however, that it never allows the latter of the two to have big games. Sure, with the abundance of talent, the big games will come as a result of great turnover numbers, and the bad games will simply be good performances. With lesser talent, however, there is never the potential to have a great game. Most of the games will be unimpressive and resulting in giving up something like 21-30 points. I'd rather have a defense that has the potential AT ALL TIMES of destroying the opposing QB...even if it means we get beaten badly from time to time. While the current cover-2 teaches a defense to be passive, and causes them to be increasingly passive, the opposite scenario allows a defense to bristle with pent up anger or emotion, a desire to go Ray Lewis on an opponent. And with that, the bad performances against opposing offenses become less and less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 IMO, Brown and Wale are players that just need a bit more to move up to All-Pro level play, definitely above average. Harris is not the same this year so far but could rebound, and Anderson has big-time potential even now. Adams is a solid run-stuffer, which is always needed, adn Harrison has shown promise. All things considered, a D Line most teams would be happy to have. Sorry, but I think few outside the Chicago fan base would agree w/ this, and even within that fan base, I am not sure how many would agree. Wale has never lived up to expectations. He is a good player, but needs a Jason Taylor on the opposite side to look great. Brown is a solid player, but simply not special. Both have been in the league for some time, and I think it is time to accept them for who they are. They are not likely to suddenly elevate their play at this stage of their career. Few players suddenly break out after hitting 30 years of age. Harris has not been the same player since he started to suffer injuries, and I think you are kidding yourself if you expect him to rebound. He isn't even showing flashes this year. Yes, Adams is a solid run stuffer, but lets be honest for a moment. DTs that can play one dimensional are a dime a dozen. Harrison has shown promise? When? Not this year. He may have flashed something on a play or two over the span of a season, but that was a season ago. This year, he has shown very little. Anderson has big time potential? Yes, he looked that way his rookie year, but that was what, 3 years ago? Sorry, but I think you are truly fooling yourself if you think most teams would be happy to have this DL. What are we missing at LB that we had when URL was in the last 2 years? I see the same basic results this year than the last two. I disagree. We are getting attacked in the middle worse than before. Roach is getting burned more than Urlacher did. And w/ Urlacher and Pisa out, not to mention Hunter, we are forced to play a pair of players who started the year on special teams. IMO Tillman is definitely in the upper echelon of DB's You are entitled to your opinion, but I would not agree. He is good, but far from upper echelon. Bowman is a solid up and comer Bowman has potential, but right now, he is getting torched. and the safeties are young with promise I would agree Afalava has promise, but he is still young and making mistakes. What young FS are you talking about? I wonder how you would grade out other teams defensive personnel? Do you really think there are many teams with that much more talent than the Bears? Um, yes. We can go team by team if you like. Most all will have holes, or units that are not great, or close, but I think more would be seen that have more upper tier players. I think you are in love w/ the names and past reputations more than current level of play. Harris was once considered among the top 3 pass rushing DTs in the game, but today, I question whether he should even be starting. Brown and Wale are both solid DEs, but neither are special, and most great defenses simply have more special players. It isn't that I think we suck across the board, but more a matter of our simply lacking upper tier players. If Harris, for example, was the stud he once was, the play of others like Brown and Wale would be better, but having such a large group of average players simply does little to elevate the play of others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daventry Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 IMO, Brown and Wale are players that just need a bit more to move up to All-Pro level play, definitely above average. Harris is not the same this year so far but could rebound, and Anderson has big-time potential even now. Adams is a solid run-stuffer, which is always needed, adn Harrison has shown promise. All things considered, a D Line most teams would be happy to have. Sorry, but I think few outside the Chicago fan base would agree w/ this, and even within that fan base, I am not sure how many would agree. Wale has never lived up to expectations. He is a good player, but needs a Jason Taylor on the opposite side to look great. Brown is a solid player, but simply not special. Both have been in the league for some time, and I think it is time to accept them for who they are. They are not likely to suddenly elevate their play at this stage of their career. Few players suddenly break out after hitting 30 years of age. Harris has not been the same player since he started to suffer injuries, and I think you are kidding yourself if you expect him to rebound. He isn't even showing flashes this year. Yes, Adams is a solid run stuffer, but lets be honest for a moment. DTs that can play one dimensional are a dime a dozen. Harrison has shown promise? When? Not this year. He may have flashed something on a play or two over the span of a season, but that was a season ago. This year, he has shown very little. Anderson has big time potential? Yes, he looked that way his rookie year, but that was what, 3 years ago? Sorry, but I think you are truly fooling yourself if you think most teams would be happy to have this DL. What are we missing at LB that we had when URL was in the last 2 years? I see the same basic results this year than the last two. I disagree. We are getting attacked in the middle worse than before. Roach is getting burned more than Urlacher did. And w/ Urlacher and Pisa out, not to mention Hunter, we are forced to play a pair of players who started the year on special teams. IMO Tillman is definitely in the upper echelon of DB's You are entitled to your opinion, but I would not agree. He is good, but far from upper echelon. Bowman is a solid up and comer Bowman has potential, but right now, he is getting torched. and the safeties are young with promise I would agree Afalava has promise, but he is still young and making mistakes. What young FS are you talking about? I wonder how you would grade out other teams defensive personnel? Do you really think there are many teams with that much more talent than the Bears? Um, yes. We can go team by team if you like. Most all will have holes, or units that are not great, or close, but I think more would be seen that have more upper tier players. I think you are in love w/ the names and past reputations more than current level of play. Harris was once considered among the top 3 pass rushing DTs in the game, but today, I question whether he should even be starting. Brown and Wale are both solid DEs, but neither are special, and most great defenses simply have more special players. It isn't that I think we suck across the board, but more a matter of our simply lacking upper tier players. If Harris, for example, was the stud he once was, the play of others like Brown and Wale would be better, but having such a large group of average players simply does little to elevate the play of others. I would love to go team by team....but I just don't have the energy, lol. Guess we will have to disagree..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAMEDSONPAYTON2 Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 I would love to go team by team....but I just don't have the energy, lol. Guess we will have to disagree..... I believe in being more aggressive. We defintaly don't blitz enough. I've been a blitz fan since the 70's. I never play video games, but my son does, he plays madden.I told him to blitz every defense of play. He tried it and with different teams and was yelling with joy on how much success he was having in killing the oposition. I understand it could be apples and oranges but boy do I believe in giving the opposing qb as little time as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Understand madman, I have been a vocal and harsh critic of our system, even when it appeared to work and we went to the SB. I felt then, as good as our defense might have played, the scheme still held us back. I felt we had the talent that year to be a punch you in the mouth, dominating defense, rather than a bend, don't break, rely on turnovers unit. With that said, i would make a couple points. One. While I do not love, or even like, our system, at the end of the day, our defense is not really the problem. With the exception of 1/2 of a game against Detroit, our defense simply has not given up a ton of points. We gave up 21 to GB, but that is the lowest point total they have been held to this season. We held Pitt to 14, and they have not been held to less than 20 since. Atlanta scored 21, but had just put up 45 on a good SF defense, and I think was a top 10 (maybe top 5) scoring offense entering their game against us. We are ranked 15th in defense (scoring) and that is after losing our defensive captain, and pretty much losing a LB each game. I don't like watching our defense, but at the end of the day, they are pretty much doing their job, and putting our offense is a good position to win the game. Two. Lets be honest for just a moment. Our defense is simply not that talented. Our DL is average at best, and I would even question that. W/ Harris a shell of his former self, we have no one on the DL that worries offenses. Briggs is great, but w/ the injuries at LB, that unit is average at best, and the only reason it is average is Briggs slides the curve. Our secondary is below average, w/ very questionable S play and while Tillman is solid, he is little more, and we have essentially a rookie on the other side. As much as fans like to think more of our players, our defense simply does not have that much talent. Frankly, if you just go off our talent, I think we should be ranked much lower than we are. So while I truly dislike our scheme, at the same time, I wonder if it isn't masking some of our defeciencies. If we tried to be more aggressive w/ this group of talent, maybe we are more exciting, but at the same time, maybe we start giving up 30+ points per game. NFo, you summed things up excellently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted October 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 nfo, you completely misunderstood me. Sorry, but that is a crock. You would rather we get blown out, w/ our defense getting trounced, so long as we were aggressive. You would rather an aggressive defense that gives up 35-40 points over a passive defense that gives up 20 points. Come on man. That is a crock and you know it. You have to read the post in its entirety. I think an aggressive defense with this group would give up big points at times, and have awesome games at times. Eventually they'd get better and have less of the former. You said, "Most of the games will be unimpressive and resulting in giving up something like 21-30 points". Well, we are running just the sort of defense you do not want, and yet we are giving up less than that per game. If you read the next sentence, it says "I'd rather have," implying that the 21-30 is almost a guarantee with the passive defense the Bears play right now. That's where those arbitrary numbers come from. I get it. Trust me. I have said as much for years. Our defense simply is not exciting. Flip it to offense. We are running a John Shoop system, and even if we are winning, you want a Crowton system. You want the flash. You want the bling. You don't want a layup. You want the windmill, from the free throw line, slam dunk. With power. I don't mind the layup as long as it's consistently made. But if the layup is missed half the time, we may as well go for the three pointer. I get it. And a couple years ago, I was with you 100%. My point is, if you want a great defense like that, you need the talent to do it. If you try to play like that w/o the talent, I would argue that is the definition of bad coaching. If Shane Mathews is your QB, do you run an offense that is based on downfield attacks? Hell no. Look, I hate our system. I have been very vocal about that point for years now. Even when our defense was playing well, I still felt our scheme held us back from so much more potential. But this year, I just wonder if our scheme, as much as I hate it, isn't doing a better job of masking our defeciencies. I look at our defensive personnel, and I see a bunch of average to below average players, w/ the lone exception being Briggs. Theoretically, we have an offense that can score points. If we ran a defensive scheme like you want though, I think our offense would have to put 40 on the board nearly every game for us to get a win. I guess that would be more exciting, but I think it would lead to far fewer wins, and at the end of the day, that is what it is about. Overall I agree with this part. The one caveat, however, is that I believe an aggressive defense typically improves, and a passive defense gets complacent. Initially the 40 point games might be necessary, but in a short period of time they would be less necessary because the aggressive defense would get better and help the offense out. Winning is the name of the game, and I agree that this style could have growing pains. I am willing, however, to take a step back to take two forward. As it stands now, the Bears are on a treadmill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azbearsfan Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 I believe in being more aggressive. We defintaly don't blitz enough. I've been a blitz fan since the 70's. I never play video games, but my son does, he plays madden.I told him to blitz every defense of play. He tried it and with different teams and was yelling with joy on how much success he was having in killing the oposition. I understand it could be apples and oranges but boy do I believe in giving the opposing qb as little time as possible. The problem with blitzing is its a gamble. It creates holes in your defense. Good teams are always going to be able to take advantage of it unless you have an extremely talented defense. We dont have that talent. We blitz a ton already. Unfortunately, since teams know we have to blitz they are ready for it. Most of the time they can pick it up and/or hit the checkdowns. What really needs to happen is the DL needs to step it up and get pressure with a four man rush. Look at the reality here. We have a defense that encourages them to get upfield, be athletic, and rush the qb. We also have a guy who is recognized league wide for being one of the best DL coaches in the game, especially for this system. The DL is still not up to snuff so , in my mind, the blame goes squarely on them. Which I think is the reason we got Gaines Adams, to send notice to the individual players, especially the DE's. As far as the video game thing goes, there is no way you can relate Madden to the NFL as far as blitzing goes. The AI can't make the adustments that real people can. Heck, I can run the same blitz the whole game and get a LB 7 sacks. Do this. Have your son play a good real life player online. Have him blitz every play. He will get shredded. Especially if he picks a team with an average defense (which is comparable to what we have IMO). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAMEDSONPAYTON2 Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 The problem with blitzing is its a gamble. It creates holes in your defense. Good teams are always going to be able to take advantage of it unless you have an extremely talented defense. We dont have that talent. We blitz a ton already. Unfortunately, since teams know we have to blitz they are ready for it. Most of the time they can pick it up and/or hit the checkdowns. What really needs to happen is the DL needs to step it up and get pressure with a four man rush. Look at the reality here. We have a defense that encourages them to get upfield, be athletic, and rush the qb. We also have a guy who is recognized league wide for being one of the best DL coaches in the game, especially for this system. The DL is still not up to snuff so , in my mind, the blame goes squarely on them. Which I think is the reason we got Gaines Adams, to send notice to the individual players, especially the DE's. As far as the video game thing goes, there is no way you can relate Madden to the NFL as far as blitzing goes. The AI can't make the adustments that real people can. Heck, I can run the same blitz the whole game and get a LB 7 sacks. Do this. Have your son play a good real life player online. Have him blitz every play. He will get shredded. Especially if he picks a team with an average defense (which is comparable to what we have IMO). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAMEDSONPAYTON2 Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 The problem with blitzing is its a gamble. It creates holes in your defense. Good teams are always going to be able to take advantage of it unless you have an extremely talented defense. We dont have that talent. We blitz a ton already. Unfortunately, since teams know we have to blitz they are ready for it. Most of the time they can pick it up and/or hit the checkdowns. What really needs to happen is the DL needs to step it up and get pressure with a four man rush. Look at the reality here. We have a defense that encourages them to get upfield, be athletic, and rush the qb. We also have a guy who is recognized league wide for being one of the best DL coaches in the game, especially for this system. The DL is still not up to snuff so , in my mind, the blame goes squarely on them. Which I think is the reason we got Gaines Adams, to send notice to the individual players, especially the DE's. As far as the video game thing goes, there is no way you can relate Madden to the NFL as far as blitzing goes. The AI can't make the adustments that real people can. Heck, I can run the same blitz the whole game and get a LB 7 sacks. Do this. Have your son play a good real life player online. Have him blitz every play. He will get shredded. Especially if he picks a team with an average defense (which is comparable to what we have IMO). Like I said earlier in another post, our blitz's are boring, no creativeness, it's everybody in a straightline to the qb,things look like a traffic jam. I am always watching other games (on commercials or earlier/later games nflticket) and many blitz's look so much more different,creative and succesful then ours. Unless I am batting pretty good and see more successfull blitz's when I am changing the channels? If we blitz a ton, we sure are doing something wrong,cause we don't have that many sacks and hurrys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azbearsfan Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Like I said earlier in another post, our blitz's are boring, no creativeness, it's everybody in a straightline to the qb,things look like a traffic jam. I am always watching other games (on commercials or earlier/later games nflticket) and many blitz's look so much more different,creative and succesful then ours. Unless I am batting pretty good and see more successfull blitz's when I am changing the channels? If we blitz a ton, we sure are doing something wrong,cause we don't have that many sacks and hurrys. Actually, I looked up some stats and we are tied for 10th in the NFL for sacks with 14. Tied with teams like the Giants and Ravens. Interestingly, we are also 10th for opponents QB rating against us. So really we are not bad at all in that catagory. In response to what you see when you flip channels, it entirely depends on alot of things. What teams are you flipping to, what kind of defense do they run, what is the state of the opponents oline, what type of offense is being run, how good are the teams, etc. Again, with the defensive talent we have, I'm hoping we blitz less and get more pressure with the front four. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Actually, I looked up some stats and we are tied for 10th in the NFL for sacks with 14. Tied with teams like the Giants and Ravens. Interestingly, we are also 10th for opponents QB rating against us. So really we are not bad at all in that catagory. In response to what you see when you flip channels, it entirely depends on alot of things. What teams are you flipping to, what kind of defense do they run, what is the state of the opponents oline, what type of offense is being run, how good are the teams, etc. Again, with the defensive talent we have, I'm hoping we blitz less and get more pressure with the front four. Also, consider that 10th in Sacks is a raw stat. Only 1 team with 5 games played has more than us (PHI). All the other teams have already played 6 games. We are not going to catch DEN or MIN (21 sacks) in one week, but if we got 3 sacks this week we would be tied for 3rd in the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azbearsfan Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Also, consider that 10th in Sacks is a raw stat. Only 1 team with 5 games played has more than us (PHI). All the other teams have already played 6 games. We are not going to catch DEN or MIN (21 sacks) in one week, but if we got 3 sacks this week we would be tied for 3rd in the league. Great point. I was surprised that the defense was that high, but it supports some posters claims that the defense is not as bad as the board is making them out to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daventry Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 Great point. I was surprised that the defense was that high, but it supports some posters claims that the defense is not as bad as the board is making them out to be. Not bad for a team with such little talent..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.