Playoff Chances

[adam]

So you're saying there's a chance.

 

NFC

New Orleans Saints 100.0%

Minnesota Vikings 99.9%

Arizona Cardinals 99.5%

Green Bay Packers 86.4%

Philadelphia Eagles 79.4%

Dallas Cowboys 74.5%

 

New York Giants 51.4%

 

Atlanta Falcons 3.8%

San Francisco 49ers 3.2%

Chicago Bears 0.9%

Seattle Seahawks 0.8%

Carolina Panthers 0.2%

 

Detroit Lions 0.0%

St. Louis Rams 0.0%

Tampa Bay Buccaneers 0.0%

Washington Redskins 0.0%

 

AFC

Indianapolis Colts 100.0%

Cincinnati Bengals 98.2%

San Diego Chargers 98.1%

New England Patriots 91.4%

Denver Broncos 76.0%

Pittsburgh Steelers 39.2%

 

Jacksonville Jaguars 30.4%

Baltimore Ravens 26.6%

Miami Dolphins 21.1%

Tennessee Titans 9.0%

New York Jets 7.7%

Houston Texans 2.0%

 

Buffalo Bills 0.1%

Oakland Raiders 0.1%

Cleveland Browns 0.0%

Kansas City Chiefs 0.0%

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Ajr4...o&type=lgns

 

 

[ChileBear]

So you're saying there's a chance.

 

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Ajr4...o&type=lgns

Hey, nearly a 10% chance! I expect Lovie to make an anouncement anytime now that we're still in the hunt! ROTFLMAO! <_>

[nfoligno]

Um, I believe that would be nearly a 1% chance, which frankly, I think may be optimistic.

 

But yes, I do expect Lovie to point out that we are not mathmatically eliminated.

 

Hey, nearly a 10% chance! I expect Lovie to make an anouncement anytime now that we're still in the hunt! ROTFLMAO! <_>

 

[madlithuanian]

You can set your watch to it.

 

But yes, I do expect Lovie to point out that we are not mathmatically eliminated.

 

[Connorbear]

You can set your watch to it.

We will be eliminated when we lose this weekend.

 

Peace

[adam]

We will be eliminated when we lose this weekend.

 

Peace

Watch, we actually show up, win, and extend the agony.

[NAMEDSONPAYTON2]

Watch, we actually show up, win, and extend the agony.

 

Let's see, we won 5 games and none of them have a winning record =(15-45), we lost 2 games to teams with no winning record=(11-13) and we lost all of our games against teams with a winning record=(43-17). Just think, if we did not play the 3 sorriest teams in the NFL, Clev.1-11, Stl. 1-11, and Det.2-10, we would probably be the sorriest team in the NFL.

[madlithuanian]

At least we can see a move toward the future I hope instead of Smith trying to hold onto his job... I think...

 

We will be eliminated when we lose this weekend.

 

Peace

 

[Connorbear]

At least we can see a move toward the future I hope instead of Smith trying to hold onto his job... I think...

One interesting premise I heard was that Angelo would basically let Lovie do what he wants for the rest of the yr and then use it against him to cut him loose. I wouldn't be suprised if Angelo is thinking heavily about major changes to save his own arse. A few weeks back, he questioned why the coaching staff hasn't done a better job of developing the younger players.

 

Peace

[nfoligno]

And Denver would have the top pick in the draft!

 

Let's see, we won 5 games and none of them have a winning record =(15-45), we lost 2 games to teams with no winning record=(11-13) and we lost all of our games against teams with a winning record=(43-17). Just think, if we did not play the 3 sorriest teams in the NFL, Clev.1-11, Stl. 1-11, and Det.2-10, we would probably be the sorriest team in the NFL.

 

[nfoligno]

In the end, didn't he do that with Jauron. I a pretty tired right now, but I seem to recall a lot of chatter about Angelo giving Jauron rope to hang himself w/ toward the end.

 

One interesting premise I heard was that Angelo would basically let Lovie do what he wants for the rest of the yr and then use it against him to cut him loose. I wouldn't be suprised if Angelo is thinking heavily about major changes to save his own arse. A few weeks back, he questioned why the coaching staff hasn't done a better job of developing the younger players.

 

Peace

 

[Connorbear]

In the end, didn't he do that with Jauron. I a pretty tired right now, but I seem to recall a lot of chatter about Angelo giving Jauron rope to hang himself w/ toward the end.

The big difference being he didn't choose Jauron.

 

Peace

[madlithuanian]

Interesting... But I htink unfortunately JA is one of the problems as well. But, one out of 2 ain't bad...

 

One interesting premise I heard was that Angelo would basically let Lovie do what he wants for the rest of the yr and then use it against him to cut him loose. I wouldn't be suprised if Angelo is thinking heavily about major changes to save his own arse. A few weeks back, he questioned why the coaching staff hasn't done a better job of developing the younger players.

 

Peace

 

[nfoligno]

The more I think about it, the more I believe JA and Lovie are tied together.

 

Lets say JA gives Lovie enough rope, Lovie continues to lose the team, and our ownership eats his contract and fires him at the end of the season. Lets say we keep JA and hire a new coach. Well, if JA continues to fail in adding talent, he isn't going to see the end of his contract, but what then. Usually when a new GM is hired, he is allowed to hire his own HC. Remember the problem when JA was stuck w/ Jauron?

 

What is the point of hiring a new coach and keeping your GM if you are even questioning the GM now. If you think you even might be looking to replace JA in the next year or two, it doesn't make sense to fire Lovie and add a new HC now.

 

The problem is, I fear this line of logic could keep both JA and Lovie around for another year.

 

Interesting... But I htink unfortunately JA is one of the problems as well. But, one out of 2 ain't bad...

 

[madlithuanian]

I agree.

 

...and think both will be around at least one more year.

 

I have a gut feeling they may wait out the CBA... If it's in the air, I think we stay the course. if something's figured out, we may see some kind of big move. With such uncertainty, I figure the McCaskey's play it status quo and financially safe.

 

People will still go to games regardless...

 

 

 

The more I think about it, the more I believe JA and Lovie are tied together.

 

Lets say JA gives Lovie enough rope, Lovie continues to lose the team, and our ownership eats his contract and fires him at the end of the season. Lets say we keep JA and hire a new coach. Well, if JA continues to fail in adding talent, he isn't going to see the end of his contract, but what then. Usually when a new GM is hired, he is allowed to hire his own HC. Remember the problem when JA was stuck w/ Jauron?

 

What is the point of hiring a new coach and keeping your GM if you are even questioning the GM now. If you think you even might be looking to replace JA in the next year or two, it doesn't make sense to fire Lovie and add a new HC now.

 

The problem is, I fear this line of logic could keep both JA and Lovie around for another year.

 

[adam]

I fear that they are going to give everyone a pass on this season. What a nightmare.

[nfoligno]

Assuming JA and Lovie are kept, what hope is there?

 

First, we replace Turner. I think that is the one which most expect to happen, and one I think few bear fans would disagree with. Despite hope and prayer, Shanny is not going to take an OC job, even one w/ a good chance to become HC in a year. Frankly, I am not sure we are likely to get much by way of proven coaching w/ a HC so on the hot seat.

 

If Houston continues to struggle, Kubiak could be let go, and he would be a very interesting candidate. Weis as often been talked about, as well as the OC from USC who formerly worked w/ Cutler in Denver. Point is, there are potential solid alternatives out there, and while a change at OC may not be enough, it would help.

 

Second, I think if both JA and Lovie are kept, JA will push hard to add a DC. Now, while I think this aspect likely, what I am "hoping" for is JA pushes Lovie to get away from the cover two yes men. I am not saying we need to go to a 3-4. Nor am I saying we need to add a DC Lovie neither likes (Washington situation) or have a situation where Lovie has not say. If Lovie is still the HC, he still has a say. But like when we added Rivera, get a DC that is outside Lovie's box. Get a DC who has a base of knowledge greater than with just the cover two. Lovie can still have a say on the defense, but make sure the DC has some say as well and is allowed to change things up more.

 

Third, we replaced the bulk of our defensive staff last year. Do similar this year. Harry needs to go. I believe Harry was a Turner boy, so if Turner is gone, this one could fall into the likely category. A dream here would be, if Kubiak is canned along w/ his staff, to get Alex Gibbs. When it comes to the OL, few match Gibbs. He was the Ol coach for Denver ('95-'03). He worked for a couple years helping Atlanta build up what has become a very good OL, and signed on w/ Kubiak in Houston last year. On the hype meter, think when we signed Marinelli to coach the DL, but Gibbs actually got results as Houston's OL was no longer the weak spot on their team. Gibbs would be the dream, but the point is to get an OL coach that can help this unit.

 

I would love to see Drake go as well, but frankly, I think Drake is more a Lovie guy than Turner guy, and thus not as likely to go, especially w/ the development of a rookie (Knox) and 2nd year WR (Bennett).

 

So on the assumption we have to keep JA and Lovie,

 

(1) Replace Turner

(2) Add DC not of Cover Two mold

(3) Replace OL coach

 

I am not saying these moves would make us great, and they are a far cry from what I want, but if my hands are tied behind my back (keeping JA and Lovie) I think these moves would help move us in the right direction.

 

I agree.

 

...and think both will be around at least one more year.

 

I have a gut feeling they may wait out the CBA... If it's in the air, I think we stay the course. if something's figured out, we may see some kind of big move. With such uncertainty, I figure the McCaskey's play it status quo and financially safe.

 

People will still go to games regardless...

 

[adam]

So on the assumption we have to keep JA and Lovie,

 

(1) Replace Turner

(2) Add DC not of Cover Two mold

(3) Replace OL coach

That would be a pretty significant change, and something I would applaud. Just replacing Turner will go a long way towards turning this thing around. If we can do that AND get a new DC who is not a Cover-2 only guy, that is icing on the cake. Essentially that takes the major components of the game plan out of Lovie's hands and puts him back in the standard HC role.

[nfoligno]

I believe Turner and Harry leaving are not only possible, but likely. There has to be a scapegoat after a season like this. If it isn't going to be JA or Lovie, then it has to be Turner, and I think Harry goes w/ Turner.

 

I also think making Lovie hire a DC is not only possible, but likely. What I think far more questionable is who that DC is. It would not shock me if we simply promoted Marinelli to the DC spot. So filling the empty DC spot w/ someone I think likely, but what I would call "hopeful" is that we fill that spot w/ a non-cover two DC.

 

That would be a pretty significant change, and something I would applaud. Just replacing Turner will go a long way towards turning this thing around. If we can do that AND get a new DC who is not a Cover-2 only guy, that is icing on the cake. Essentially that takes the major components of the game plan out of Lovie's hands and puts him back in the standard HC role.

 

[lemonej]

I believe Turner and Harry leaving are not only possible, but likely. There has to be a scapegoat after a season like this. If it isn't going to be JA or Lovie, then it has to be Turner, and I think Harry goes w/ Turner.

 

I also think making Lovie hire a DC is not only possible, but likely. What I think far more questionable is who that DC is. It would not shock me if we simply promoted Marinelli to the DC spot. So filling the empty DC spot w/ someone I think likely, but what I would call "hopeful" is that we fill that spot w/ a non-cover two DC.

Nfo am I imagining this? It seems to me that the games the Bears play the most Cover 2 they get destroyed and in the games in which they have dropped an 8th man in the box with press coverage they have played a better run defense and pass defense.STL and the SF games come to mind. I have also seen a little more zone blitzing with the DEs dropping into coverage.

[madlithuanian]

 

Really, no hope. Just cosmetics...

 

Some house cleaning would feel good at first, but it will only mask the true villains in this tragic comedy...

 

 

 

Assuming JA and Lovie are kept, what hope is there?

 

First, we replace Turner. I think that is the one which most expect to happen, and one I think few bear fans would disagree with. Despite hope and prayer, Shanny is not going to take an OC job, even one w/ a good chance to become HC in a year. Frankly, I am not sure we are likely to get much by way of proven coaching w/ a HC so on the hot seat.

 

If Houston continues to struggle, Kubiak could be let go, and he would be a very interesting candidate. Weis as often been talked about, as well as the OC from USC who formerly worked w/ Cutler in Denver. Point is, there are potential solid alternatives out there, and while a change at OC may not be enough, it would help.

 

Second, I think if both JA and Lovie are kept, JA will push hard to add a DC. Now, while I think this aspect likely, what I am "hoping" for is JA pushes Lovie to get away from the cover two yes men. I am not saying we need to go to a 3-4. Nor am I saying we need to add a DC Lovie neither likes (Washington situation) or have a situation where Lovie has not say. If Lovie is still the HC, he still has a say. But like when we added Rivera, get a DC that is outside Lovie's box. Get a DC who has a base of knowledge greater than with just the cover two. Lovie can still have a say on the defense, but make sure the DC has some say as well and is allowed to change things up more.

 

Third, we replaced the bulk of our defensive staff last year. Do similar this year. Harry needs to go. I believe Harry was a Turner boy, so if Turner is gone, this one could fall into the likely category. A dream here would be, if Kubiak is canned along w/ his staff, to get Alex Gibbs. When it comes to the OL, few match Gibbs. He was the Ol coach for Denver ('95-'03). He worked for a couple years helping Atlanta build up what has become a very good OL, and signed on w/ Kubiak in Houston last year. On the hype meter, think when we signed Marinelli to coach the DL, but Gibbs actually got results as Houston's OL was no longer the weak spot on their team. Gibbs would be the dream, but the point is to get an OL coach that can help this unit.

 

I would love to see Drake go as well, but frankly, I think Drake is more a Lovie guy than Turner guy, and thus not as likely to go, especially w/ the development of a rookie (Knox) and 2nd year WR (Bennett).

 

So on the assumption we have to keep JA and Lovie,

 

(1) Replace Turner

(2) Add DC not of Cover Two mold

(3) Replace OL coach

 

I am not saying these moves would make us great, and they are a far cry from what I want, but if my hands are tied behind my back (keeping JA and Lovie) I think these moves would help move us in the right direction.

 

[adam]

Nfo am I imagining this? It seems to me that the games the Bears play the most Cover 2 they get destroyed and in the games in which they have dropped an 8th man in the box with press coverage they have played a better run defense and pass defense.STL and the SF games come to mind. I have also seen a little more zone blitzing with the DEs dropping into coverage.

The Cover-2 is player dependent more than any other scheme, and if you don't have the necessary pieces, it just doesn't work. With the right personnel it is really effective, but the drop-off is huge with the wrong personnel. Right now we don't have the assets to play the Cover-2.

 

I don't mind the Cover-2 when used in the right situations, but we go to it too often and get picked apart.

[nfoligno]

Frankly, even when we have not put the extra man in the box, we are not often in cover two. A Sun Times article pointed out how we really are not in the cover two more than maybe 35-40% of the time. What was truly damning though IMHO was that the majority of the time we have the opponent in 3rd and long, we move into the cover two. Our D may play well on 1st and 2nd down using one scheme, but always seems to shift into cover two on 3rd and long. When you then look at our being the worst 3rd down defense in the NFL, I think it really speaks ill of the scheme.

 

As for when we have used an 8 man box, honestly, I think that has more to do w/ our opponent. When you play Stl, you game plan S.jackson. When you play SF, you game plan Gore. Teams that are one dimension on the rushing side are about the only ones we are capable of stopping (not counting the likes of Cle, which can't do anything well). As bad as we are, when facing a team that can only run the ball, we can look good. If a team is one dimensional on the passing side, we still get killed. Example would be how Az came into their game against us so bad in terms of rushing that all-time futility records were discussed. But in that game, we devoted so much to defending the pass (which we still couldn't do) that we gave up a ton of rushing yards as well. Teams that can run AND pass? No chance.

 

My point here is, while our D has looked better when putting an 8th in the box, I would argue that was more due to who we played. If we play an 8th in the box against GB, Rodgers would have a field day.

 

Nfo am I imagining this? It seems to me that the games the Bears play the most Cover 2 they get destroyed and in the games in which they have dropped an 8th man in the box with press coverage they have played a better run defense and pass defense.STL and the SF games come to mind. I have also seen a little more zone blitzing with the DEs dropping into coverage.

 

[nfoligno]

Honestly, I am not sure how much the cover two is a good scheme even in general.

 

Back in the day, TB ran the cover two and since then, many have tried to copy it. Further, many of the assistant coaches from those TB teams have moved on to higher positions, thus bringing the scheme with them. But have any replicated the success of those TB teams?

 

I personally believe those TB teams were such that they would have thrived w/ or w/o the tampa 2. If the '85 bears had not used the 46, wouldn't they have still be great? TB dominated, IMHO, more due simply to the talent they had rather than the scheme that talent played in. Further, even if the scheme as part of it, I would argue it was a newer scheme, and thus it took teams longer to counter it. That is also harder to do w/ a little used scheme. Like the 3-4. It is hard to be good against it when so few teams run it, and thus you just don't practice playing it as much. But as more teams have moved to the 3-4, more offenses have gotten better at compensating.

 

For the recrod, I realize TB did not invent the cover two, but it was not used for some time, and when they used it, few others did.

 

Point is, I just don't think the cover two is an effective scheme. you can say it works if you have the right parts, but I would argue (a) the same can be said of any scheme, and good coaching adapts a scheme to talent, not the other way around and ( if you had the perfect players for the scheme, you would be effective running most any scheme, as you simply would have a defense loaded w/ talent, key in which would be pass rushers. Pretty much any scheme works if you have multiple good to great pass rushers.

 

Back to us, I agree that we get totally picked apart when we run the cover two. For me, this is a combo of:

 

(a) poor personnel to run the scheme - We don't have the DT, MLB or the FS to run this scheme, much less the rest.

 

( pass rush combined w/ soft coverage - When you don't have elite pass rushers, you only compound the problem by playing as soft of coverage as we do. Thus, WRs find huge openings to make plays. Further, against any zone coverage, if the QB has time in the pocket, holes can be found in the zones.

 

© adapting - I simply believe OCs have better learned how to not only beat, but to absolutely exploit, the cover two.

 

 

 

The Cover-2 is player dependent more than any other scheme, and if you don't have the necessary pieces, it just doesn't work. With the right personnel it is really effective, but the drop-off is huge with the wrong personnel. Right now we don't have the assets to play the Cover-2.

 

I don't mind the Cover-2 when used in the right situations, but we go to it too often and get picked apart.

 

[nfoligno]

Sure, it would only hide the problems. Its like cleaning a carpet that needs to be replaced. The stains will not be seen initially, but eventually will surface again.

 

But while this is not ideal, you are still better off cleaning your carpet rather than doing nothing.

 

Lets say we do as I discussed. Again, while not ideal, it could show:

 

- Adding a solid OC and OL coach could be huge for Cutler, our franchise QB, and the OL, which the entire offense is dependant on. Not to mention that we have several young OL that would benefit. The entire team problem may not be fixed, but these moves could go a long way toward fixing one side of the ball, and w/ Cutler and Williams, you have two potential franchise cornerstones that would benefit.

 

- Also, go back to the year we went to the SB. While Rivera was under Lovie, he did more to mix the D up, and players really surged. While I am not saying we would again have a dominant D, at the same time, it could be improved. An improved D paired w/ the improved O could lead to many good things.

 

Really, no hope. Just cosmetics...

 

Some house cleaning would feel good at first, but it will only mask the true villains in this tragic comedy...