Playoff Chances

[madlithuanian]

Good analogy...

 

But I think a better one is to treat a gull bladder infection with Pepto. You might feel a little better for a while, but the underlying problem is still there and will not get better until the infection itself is treated. In fact, masking up the symptoms with Pepto could cause more harm in the lonrg term and the infection could worsen.

 

That's where I fear we are...

 

I do get that doing something in our case is better than nothing. But again, I will not financially support this club until I feel competent people are running the show. And the changes you mention won't make the regime competent.

 

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.

 

[adam]

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.

You are correct, and most good teams could play any scheme and be succesful. The Cover-2 is just one of those that requires certain players on the field to have unique abilities that are not required in other schemes. You can actually hide some weaknesses in other schemes, but in the Cover-2, those weaknesses get exploited.

 

One thing I've noticed about the Bears this year is that they are completely jacking up their pressures with their coverage. The blitz with a 10 yard cushion on the outside is the best example of that. I can't tell you how many times an opponent has thrown to the hot route on a 3rd and Long when we do that.

[nfoligno]

That is why I go back to coaching so often.

 

As you mention, it is a joke (and Aikman and others pointed this out over and over again) how we blitz and intent to pressure the QB, but also give the QB an easy out w/ very soft coverage.

 

Another aspect that drives me nuts and is scheme inconsistent is how we play the slant. The way our scheme is "supposed" to work is you have the CB play and take away the outside/sideline, and attempt to "push" the WR inside where the safety and LBs are expected to help. If the WR runs a short slant, the idea is your LB (usually MLB) is there to blow up the play. If the WR runs a deeper slant, the S is there to provide help. But we play our LB on top of the LOS, and thus they are out of position to help on the slant routes. So even when the WR does what he is supposed to do, the LB is out of position to help and thus the WR not ony makes an easy catch, but has space to pickup YAC.

 

I would use what happened to Williams playing LT when he gave up the sack as an example for the above as well. Per all sources, Williams was supposed to have inside chip block help, thus he focuses on taking away the outside. But on the play, the RB didn't come over in time to get a chip, and thus Williams appeared to simply get beat. He essentially did what he was supposed to do, but due to the failure of another assignment, he got beat. That is similar to the above. If the CB takes away the outside and pushes the WR inside, only to have the WR make a wide open slant reception and pickup yards after the catch, we blame the WR, but often the play happens due to the LB not being where he is supposed to be. And I would argue the LB is not there because of how our coaches force him to do that dumbarce fake blitz.

 

Our coach is riddles w/ inconsistent play calls, and why I have always felt coaching was our key problem.

 

You are correct, and most good teams could play any scheme and be succesful. The Cover-2 is just one of those that requires certain players on the field to have unique abilities that are not required in other schemes. You can actually hide some weaknesses in other schemes, but in the Cover-2, those weaknesses get exploited.

 

One thing I've noticed about the Bears this year is that they are completely jacking up their pressures with their coverage. The blitz with a 10 yard cushion on the outside is the best example of that. I can't tell you how many times an opponent has thrown to the hot route on a 3rd and Long when we do that.