This Article Clarifies Things a Little...

[Mongo3451]

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/be...neil09.article#

 

The above article talks about the importance of keeping our D off the field. I have preached this for years and have been met with strong debate. This article doesn't vindicate me by any stretch, but does convey my exact thoughts on the situation and will use that as a sounding board, because there is no way I could have said it better.

 

I posted in another thread that Martz would not provide an advantage needed in Time of Possession (TOP). I'll admit being half wrong about his offense's ability to hold a TOP advantage. With the other half yet to play out, as we will need to see it with Bears players.

[bowlingtwig]

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/be...neil09.article#

 

The above article talks about the importance of keeping our D off the field. I have preached this for years and have been met with strong debate. This article doesn't vindicate me by any stretch, but does convey my exact thoughts on the situation and will use that as a sounding board, because there is no way I could have said it better.

 

I posted in another thread that Martz would not provide an advantage needed in Time of Possession (TOP). I'll admit being half wrong about his offense's ability to hold a TOP advantage. With the other half yet to play out, as we will need to see it with Bears players.

Yeah your right. I saw the article when I was delivering it this morning. In the '08 season our offense couldn't stay on the field long enough to even provide a breather for the defense, between all the quick 3 and outs and very bad field positioning for us. I remember lots of time the defense would get less than a minute of a breather before being right back out there again and the opponents were starting near midfield. You just can't ask your defense to bend like that all the time without it finally breaking.

[balta1701-A]

Yeah your right. I saw the article when I was delivering it this morning. In the '08 season our offense couldn't stay on the field long enough to even provide a breather for the defense, between all the quick 3 and outs and very bad field positioning for us. I remember lots of time the defense would get less than a minute of a breather before being right back out there again and the opponents were starting near midfield. You just can't ask your defense to bend like that all the time without it finally breaking.

A question in reply (I already know the answer, and I think you'll get the point quite quickly). When were the Bears better in average time of possession, in 2008 or in 2009?

[nfoligno]

They were near identical. 28:37 in 2009 and 28:36 in 2008.

 

Not sure I see the point. In 2008, our pass attack did little to help TOP, but we were better able to run the ball to offset. Near opposite in 2009, as our passing attack was better, but an inability to run the ball made it impossible to hold a TOP edge.

 

That is the (a) fear w/ Martz. Even if our passing attack is good, not running the ball hurts TOP, and thus puts more pressure on the defense.

 

Everyone makes a big deal about how he improved the offense in Det (2006/2007) but in both seasons, Det was the 2nd worst team in the NFL in TOP. Det had a really bad defense, and even though their offense had more overall yards, they still were awful in TOP and placed a far greater burden on the defense.

 

A question in reply (I already know the answer, and I think you'll get the point quite quickly). When were the Bears better in average time of possession, in 2008 or in 2009?

 

[balta1701-A]

They were near identical. 28:37 in 2009 and 28:36 in 2008.

Where are you getting your numbers from? The place I looked had the Bears showing better TOP numbers by a full minute in 2008 over 2009.

[nfoligno]

I used NFL.com as a source,

 

2008 TOP/G for the Bears was 28:36

 

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?sea...mp;d-447263-n=1

 

and in 2007, it was 28:29

 

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?off...mp;d-447263-p=1

 

The site you provided give TOP (net of OT)

 

I am not sure what "net of OT" is, but that may be the discrepency.

 

Where are you getting your numbers from? The place I looked had the Bears showing better TOP numbers by a full minute in 2008 over 2009.

[madlithuanian]

But the D was collapsing in the first Q of most games! That doesn't fit the theory.

 

Yeah your right. I saw the article when I was delivering it this morning. In the '08 season our offense couldn't stay on the field long enough to even provide a breather for the defense, between all the quick 3 and outs and very bad field positioning for us. I remember lots of time the defense would get less than a minute of a breather before being right back out there again and the opponents were starting near midfield. You just can't ask your defense to bend like that all the time without it finally breaking.

 

[bowlingtwig]

But the D was collapsing in the first Q of most games! That doesn't fit the theory.

Your right about that especially this past season. I think alot of our problems on Defense this year was injuries. That D was decimated by injuries. Who knows what the D would have looked like if either Urlacher or Pisa were actually able to play.

[nfoligno]

I believe our D would have been better, but w/ the way our DL played, I just question how much. Our D played great when we had Harris playing at the top of his game, Anderson racking up double digit sacks as a rookie situational pass rusher, Wale bring solid edge pressure and Brown simply playing solid all around, not to mention Tank providing additional support in the middle.

 

Urlacher would have helped the D, no question in my mind, but I don't think his being on the field would have been near enough. This defense relies on the front four to generate pressure, and Urlacher can not play DL. Until we fix the DL, or change schemes to better compensate, we are not going to have a decent, much less good, much less great, defense.

 

Your right about that especially this past season. I think alot of our problems on Defense this year was injuries. That D was decimated by injuries. Who knows what the D would have looked like if either Urlacher or Pisa were actually able to play.

 

[balta1701-A]

Urlacher would have helped the D, no question in my mind, but I don't think his being on the field would have been near enough. This defense relies on the front four to generate pressure, and Urlacher can not play DL. Until we fix the DL, or change schemes to better compensate, we are not going to have a decent, much less good, much less great, defense.

Harris, I don't think anyone really knows what they can get out of him right now. He had a really good game or two late in the year, but has been mediocre for so long since his injury, and he was really the key to making all the other guys better in 2006.

 

The Bears really need an upgraded outside pass rush, even more so with Ogun as a FA. They were reportedly really happy with the progress they saw from Adams late in the season, but they're starting over there again.

 

In terms of pressuring the QB, it's also worth noting that in 2007-2008, the Bears ran as many or more blitzes than any other team in the league, and still were ineffective in getting to the QB.

[nfoligno]

Man, don't even get me started on the way we blitz. It makes me sick. It seems like most all our blitzes come from the same place (inside). So rarely do we seem to blitz from the outside. When we do, it often seems to be effective, in part because it comes as such as surprise.

 

But out blitz also goes back to the DL. We may blitz a lot, but we are not effective doing so. I big reason for that, besides predictability, is that our DL is not good. If none on your DL warrant a double team, that leaves extra blockers free to pickup the blitz. Contrast that w/ our team. Our OL sucks, and we usually needed the TE and RB to help double team DL as our OL was not capable. That meant blitzers were often free to attack the QB.

 

So for me, it still gets back to the DL.

 

Harris, I don't think anyone really knows what they can get out of him right now. He had a really good game or two late in the year, but has been mediocre for so long since his injury, and he was really the key to making all the other guys better in 2006.

 

The Bears really need an upgraded outside pass rush, even more so with Ogun as a FA. They were reportedly really happy with the progress they saw from Adams late in the season, but they're starting over there again.

 

In terms of pressuring the QB, it's also worth noting that in 2007-2008, the Bears ran as many or more blitzes than any other team in the league, and still were ineffective in getting to the QB.

 

[madlithuanian]

It seems as though before we blitz, we give a courtesy call into the other team's huddle to let 'em know what we're doing. You know, so it doesn't catch them off-guard or anything.

 

You'd think the law of averages would be that one blitz would get through...

 

Man, don't even get me started on the way we blitz. It makes me sick. It seems like most all our blitzes come from the same place (inside). So rarely do we seem to blitz from the outside. When we do, it often seems to be effective, in part because it comes as such as surprise.

 

But out blitz also goes back to the DL. We may blitz a lot, but we are not effective doing so. I big reason for that, besides predictability, is that our DL is not good. If none on your DL warrant a double team, that leaves extra blockers free to pickup the blitz. Contrast that w/ our team. Our OL sucks, and we usually needed the TE and RB to help double team DL as our OL was not capable. That meant blitzers were often free to attack the QB.

 

So for me, it still gets back to the DL.

 

[AZ54]

What is most bothersome about our blitzes is that we don't attempt to exploit the opponent's weakness. We do the same stuff week and week. It's easy to game plan for and as stated above, we often tip our hand early before the snap. I think our best blitzes are the nickel blitz where he (usually DManning) lines up over the receiver and then just blitzes from the edge. Even if we don't get to the QB we often force him to move around the pocket enough to upset the play.

 

I'm not buying this whole TOP issue. In my mind the offensive goal is to score points. The defenses goal is to not give them up. IMO the problem arises when your D can't get off the field on 3rd down and that's their responsibility. If they don't do that they can't turn around and complain about the offense going 3 and out. Certainly the offense can't go multiple 3 and out but if you are scoring in 2 or 3 min drives that's fine by me.

 

Consider Indy. Most teams dread giving Manning another possession after a 3 and out because they know he can score on them so quickly. In fact, when you play Indy there's a feeling that you better score a lot of points if you want a shot at winning the game. It doesn't always play out that way for them as in the Superbowl but what caused Indy's short TOP in the second quarter? It was New Orleans defense forcing them to a 3 and out. New Orleans wasn't countering that by running the ball, they kept throwing and by doing that they ended up forcing Indy to play catch-up, something Manning didn't do very well.

[Mongo3451]

What is most bothersome about our blitzes is that we don't attempt to exploit the opponent's weakness. We do the same stuff week and week. It's easy to game plan for and as stated above, we often tip our hand early before the snap. I think our best blitzes are the nickel blitz where he (usually DManning) lines up over the receiver and then just blitzes from the edge. Even if we don't get to the QB we often force him to move around the pocket enough to upset the play.

 

I'm not buying this whole TOP issue. In my mind the offensive goal is to score points. The defenses goal is to not give them up. IMO the problem arises when your D can't get off the field on 3rd down and that's their responsibility. If they don't do that they can't turn around and complain about the offense going 3 and out. Certainly the offense can't go multiple 3 and out but if you are scoring in 2 or 3 min drives that's fine by me.

 

Consider Indy. Most teams dread giving Manning another possession after a 3 and out because they know he can score on them so quickly. In fact, when you play Indy there's a feeling that you better score a lot of points if you want a shot at winning the game. It doesn't always play out that way for them as in the Superbowl but what caused Indy's short TOP in the second quarter? It was New Orleans defense forcing them to a 3 and out. New Orleans wasn't countering that by running the ball, they kept throwing and by doing that they ended up forcing Indy to play catch-up, something Manning didn't do very well.

Offense and defense have to do their part to win the TOP battle. Our problem has been two fold with it, with the O and D failing at differing points of the game. One more stop per game on D and one more 1st down on O and we are on the plus side. In considering Indy: that's why Manning won MVP again, because rarely teams can pull off what they do.

[nfoligno]

Gotta look at coaches here IMHO.

 

Look at what we do on defense. I don't care what they want to call it. It is a bend-don't-break scheme (thought it often breaks). The idea is to (a) prevent the big play, ( make an offense drive an entire field little by little © keep everything in front of you and (d) try to force a turnover. In Lovie's mind, if he forces an offense into a 10, 12, 15 play drive, that is just that many more opportunities to force a turnover.

 

Problem is, when you don't force a turnover, you just allowed the opponent to drive the field and score (TD or FG) and your D is tired as hell after the drive.

 

Now consider our new coach on offense. Minimal run game and heavy passing attack. You are going to have 3 and outs and when considered w/ the Bend-don't-break defense, you have to wonder how the hell our defensive players will stay healthy for 16 games.

 

Offense and defense have to do their part to win the TOP battle. Our problem has been two fold with it, with the O and D failing at differing points of the game. One more stop per game on D and one more 1st down on O and we are on the plus side. In considering Indy: that's why Manning won MVP again, because rarely teams can pull off what they do.

 

[madlithuanian]

Same thing as this year...

 

The only difference would be hopefully the O actually gets scores vs punts.

 

But, our D will be tired, out of place and giving up 1st down completions on 3rd and long all season long. Nothing tells me otherwise...

 

Gotta look at coaches here IMHO.

 

Look at what we do on defense. I don't care what they want to call it. It is a bend-don't-break scheme (thought it often breaks). The idea is to (a) prevent the big play, ( make an offense drive an entire field little by little © keep everything in front of you and (d) try to force a turnover. In Lovie's mind, if he forces an offense into a 10, 12, 15 play drive, that is just that many more opportunities to force a turnover.

 

Problem is, when you don't force a turnover, you just allowed the opponent to drive the field and score (TD or FG) and your D is tired as hell after the drive.

 

Now consider our new coach on offense. Minimal run game and heavy passing attack. You are going to have 3 and outs and when considered w/ the Bend-don't-break defense, you have to wonder how the hell our defensive players will stay healthy for 16 games.

 

[AZ54]

Gotta look at coaches here IMHO.

 

Look at what we do on defense. I don't care what they want to call it. It is a bend-don't-break scheme (thought it often breaks). The idea is to (a) prevent the big play, ( make an offense drive an entire field little by little © keep everything in front of you and (d) try to force a turnover. In Lovie's mind, if he forces an offense into a 10, 12, 15 play drive, that is just that many more opportunities to force a turnover.

 

Problem is, when you don't force a turnover, you just allowed the opponent to drive the field and score (TD or FG) and your D is tired as hell after the drive.

 

Now consider our new coach on offense. Minimal run game and heavy passing attack. You are going to have 3 and outs and when considered w/ the Bend-don't-break defense, you have to wonder how the hell our defensive players will stay healthy for 16 games.

 

 

You have something of a false premise (if i'm using that term correctly) in that you assume if we are pass heavy we will have more 3-and-outs. I've seen plenty of running teams call 2 running plays and then a 3rd down pass and still go 3-and-out. I think the Bears under Jauron proved that quite well.

 

Again, to me it's not about how you get the first downs rather it's just about getting the first downs. I really don't care how you do it as long as you do it. You just have to be successful. I'm not necessarily defending Martz' system just that I think it's wrong to assume pass oriented offenses can't be very successful. I gave what I felt were two solid examples in New Orleans and Indy and you can even go back to teams like the 49ers with Montana. OTOH the Vikings put up lots of points with a run-first mentality this past season.

 

While I disagree with the premise that too much passing means too many 3-and-outs I definitely agree with the questions about whether Martz knows the right time to run the ball. An offense doesn't have to be perfectly balanced to be effective, one side can be stronger than the other (pass vs. run) but you must be able to do both if they take away one aspect from you. No offense will be successful in the NFL if it's effective in just one-dimension.

 

 

 

As far as our defense I don't feel it's designed to be a true bend-but-don't-break scheme because our players are too small for that. I think that was clear in Herm Edwards comments the other day when he said in Tampa they never wanted the D on the field for more than 800 plays in a season. That article stated that we've averaged over 1000 in each of the last 3 seasons. I think our D is much more predicated on generating turnovers and big plays for losses (i.e. sacks, TFL). Those plays give you enough breathing room so the "break" part of the D doesn't give up a first down. We're just not very good at all in sacks and TFL unless we overcommit players to it. Naturally that leaves too many openings in the "bend" part of the D. Without the TFL the soft nature of the D makes it too susceptible to 3rd and short. What's so bad for us is that we even gave up 3rd and 10-15 all year long.