Why Do I Agree With This So Much?

[Mongo3451]

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/be...ssey08.article#

 

It took balls to write this after the weekend we all enjoyed. But how true it is. Nasty!

[LT2_3]

I think it's a load of crap.

 

Sure, there are a few things they could have done differently, but most of that is attributable to hindsight.

 

Have the Bears spent lots of money? Yes. After the SB, the re-signed their own guys. (That's a move a coach would want to do because a front office would want to do their jobs and make the evaluation of outside talent relevant by - you know - getting a few of the guys they found as upgrades)

 

Neither the Taylor deal nor the Manu deal are huge. If Peppers hadn't been signed, this idiot would be railing on the fact that the Bears should be doing more.

 

As for Cutler's interceptions, I contend that he would have thrown fewer if Turner hadn't been such an idiot and had gotten Aromashadu on the field earlier in the year like Cutler had been asking.

 

Any time someone comes out with a suggestion like this, I ask what should have been done differently specifically?

 

Which players should have been signed in FA, and which different players should have been drafted?

 

Without including this stuff, it's just a piece that throws out accusations and never suggests solutions. The fans can identify with the perspective from their frustration, and it sells papers, but is it helpful in any way, shape, or form? No.

 

I still contend that the biggest issue for the Bears since the SB was Lovie getting his new contract, more power, and Peter Principalling the entire organization.

 

Since he started hiring his buddies and using the Bears coaching staff as his own personal affirmative action program, they haven't been able to develop a Polaroid. His increased input into the draft process has resulted in questionable (at best) picks. It prevented the drafting of guys that might be an upgrade to "his guys" that he really likes, but might be declining.

 

What has the "urgency" this year done? It made Lovie start listening to the other people around him that know more about the NFL than he does. It's ridiculous to load all of this on Phillips and Angelo too.

 

Morrissey is an idiot and always will be.

[Mongo3451]

I think it's a load of crap.

 

Sure, there are a few things they could have done differently, but most of that is attributable to hindsight.

 

Have the Bears spent lots of money? Yes. After the SB, the re-signed their own guys. (That's a move a coach would want to do because a front office would want to do their jobs and make the evaluation of outside talent relevant by - you know - getting a few of the guys they found as upgrades)

 

Neither the Taylor deal nor the Manu deal are huge. If Peppers hadn't been signed, this idiot would be railing on the fact that the Bears should be doing more.

 

As for Cutler's interceptions, I contend that he would have thrown fewer if Turner hadn't been such an idiot and had gotten Aromashadu on the field earlier in the year like Cutler had been asking.

 

Any time someone comes out with a suggestion like this, I ask what should have been done differently specifically?

 

Which players should have been signed in FA, and which different players should have been drafted?

 

Without including this stuff, it's just a piece that throws out accusations and never suggests solutions. The fans can identify with the perspective from their frustration, and it sells papers, but is it helpful in any way, shape, or form? No.

 

I still contend that the biggest issue for the Bears since the SB was Lovie getting his new contract, more power, and Peter Principalling the entire organization.

 

Since he started hiring his buddies and using the Bears coaching staff as his own personal affirmative action program, they haven't been able to develop a Polaroid. His increased input into the draft process has resulted in questionable (at best) picks. It prevented the drafting of guys that might be an upgrade to "his guys" that he really likes, but might be declining.

 

What has the "urgency" this year done? It made Lovie start listening to the other people around him that know more about the NFL than he does. It's ridiculous to load all of this on Phillips and Angelo too.

 

Morrissey is an idiot and always will be.

You have your biased opinion, as I have mine.

 

I do believe the staff got complacent / arrogant. I also believe it directly translated into a huge lack of hunger from the players. That's what I took from the article. Angelo is nearly as guilty as Lovie on this. He has openly admitted gambling with the draft because he thought we were solid enough to handle it. This article rings true depending on how you view the staff. The article is in retrospect, but I do not believe for one second it is hindsight. It's been covered by our board, media and former players enough to throw that out. Phillips and the family get a pass in my book, because he pretty much left the football decisions to JA and Lovie. If I had to place blame on the fall of the team, it would be 60% Lovie, 30% Angelo and 10% players.

 

[madlithuanian]

I could not agree more Mongo....

 

I do believe the staff got complacent / arrogant. I also believe it directly translated into a huge lack of hunger from the players.

 

[azbearsfan]

You have your biased opinion, as I have mine.

 

I do believe the staff got complacent / arrogant. I also believe it directly translated into a huge lack of hunger from the players. That's what I took from the article. Angelo is nearly as guilty as Lovie on this. He has openly admitted gambling with the draft because he thought we were solid enough to handle it. This article rings true depending on how you view the staff. The article is in retrospect, but I do not believe for one second it is hindsight. It's been covered by our board, media and former players enough to throw that out. Phillips and the family get a pass in my book, because he pretty much left the football decisions to JA and Lovie. If I had to place blame on the fall of the team, it would be 60% Lovie, 30% Angelo and 10% players.

 

 

I think you need to up that percentage on the players.

['TD']

I think you need to up that percentage on the players.

 

I dunno, I think 10% if fair and no more than 15% imo. They just aren't that great, and that lays on Angelo for bringing them in or the coaches schemes they have played in.

 

I'd go 55% Angelo, 40% Lovie, 5% players personally. This line is atrocious and that in large part is due to how Angelo has approached it. Lovie gets a lot of credit, well blame, for his input on players and personnel after the Super Bowl. The offensive line, however, was never approached appropriately in JA's tenure here. I also think Lovie's input on players would more than likely on defense.

 

I don't blame Frank Omiyale for sucking. I'm sure he is trying hard. I blame Angelo for bringing him to be a starting guard, and the coaches for starting him there and playing him out of position. He's a back up tackle.

[Mongo3451]

I don't blame Frank Omiyale for sucking. I'm sure he is trying hard. I blame Angelo for bringing him to be a starting guard, and the coaches for starting him there and playing him out of position. He's a back up tackle.

F'n classic! Mad love on that one...

 

[LT2_3]

I don't blame Frank Omiyale for sucking. I'm sure he is trying hard. I blame Angelo for bringing him to be a starting guard, and the coaches for starting him there and playing him out of position. He's a back up tackle.

 

I don't see how you can blame Angelo for bringing in Omiyale to play guard when he was slated to be RT when he was signed. It was later after Angelo signed Lovie's buddy Pace that the COACHES moved him to guard.

 

This is a perfect example of what was wrong last year. Angelo brings the guys in and the coaches play the wrong guys at the wrong positions.

['TD']

I don't see how you can blame Angelo for bringing in Omiyale to play guard when he was slated to be RT when he was signed. It was later after Angelo signed Lovie's buddy Pace that the COACHES moved him to guard.

 

This is a perfect example of what was wrong last year. Angelo brings the guys in and the coaches play the wrong guys at the wrong positions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.chicagobears.com/news/NewsStory.asp?story_id=5623

“We told him that we wanted to look at him at guard first, but we’re not going to limit him in terms of his reps only at guard,” Angelo said. “We felt like we’ll expose him to tackle, which is where he’s been predominantly trained, but we want to expose him at guard as well. How it ultimately comes to fruition, I can’t really sit here and say.

 

When they brought him in, Angelo said he wanted to look at him as a guard first.

[LT2_3]

http://www.chicagobears.com/news/NewsStory.asp?story_id=5623

 

When they brought him in, Angelo said he wanted to look at him as a guard first.

 

Well that's a far cry from bringing him in to be a starting guard. The coaches mis-evaluated him and I don't think they gave him reps at tackle like Angelo said they would at the time of that article.

 

That article shows that Angelo brought him in as a prospect at a couple positions. It was up to the coaches to determine where he should play and they picked the wrong one after he'd shown promise at tackle in Carolina.

['TD']

Well that's a far cry from bringing him in to be a starting guard. The coaches mis-evaluated him and I don't think they gave him reps at tackle like Angelo said they would at the time of that article.

 

That article shows that Angelo brought him in as a prospect at a couple positions. It was up to the coaches to determine where he should play and they picked the wrong one after he'd shown promise at tackle in Carolina.

 

 

They paid him as you would a starter, they first wanted to look at him as guard. The fact that Angelo brought in 2 Tackles after him in Schaffer and Pace only point to them wanting him as a guard.

 

If the coaches thought he was a Tackle instead of guard, then they would be left with 4 tackles and 2 guards.

[LT2_3]

They paid him as you would a starter, they first wanted to look at him as guard. The fact that Angelo brought in 2 Tackles after him in Schaffer and Pace only point to them wanting him as a guard.

 

If the coaches thought he was a Tackle instead of guard, then they would be left with 4 tackles and 2 guards.

 

They had Shaffer/Williams at tackle and Garza/Beekman at guard with Omiyale going either way. Then Lovie had to have his buddy Pace much later which forced their decision on where to put Omiyale.

 

The bottom line on this is that Lovie and the coaching staff screwed up the whole Oline evaluation just like they were idiots for waiting until the final 4 games of the season before getting Aromashadu on the field much.

[nfoligno]

Few here will argue the staff has screwed up the evaluation of OL, as well as many other players and positions. At the same time, I think it questionable to think Angelo is not part of this.

 

You really think Angelo and our scouts are on such a different page as our coaches? I question how long Lovie would have continued to be employed if he was this "off" with his GM and scouts.

 

Angelo signed two OTs (Pace/Schaffer) and Omiyale, who he mentioned at either OT or OG, but seemed to more stress OG. If Angelo truly simply felt he was an OT, you would not have heard Angelo early on talking about Omiyale as an OG. Further, if Angelo felt Omiyale was set to be an OT, then I doubt he signs Pace.

 

You can say Lovie wanted Pace, and I don't doubt he did, but that doesn't mean Angelo does whatever Lovie wants.

 

IMHO, you have to look at both Angelo and our staff as an indictment of how our OL was handled last year.

 

They had Shaffer/Williams at tackle and Garza/Beekman at guard with Omiyale going either way. Then Lovie had to have his buddy Pace much later which forced their decision on where to put Omiyale.

 

The bottom line on this is that Lovie and the coaching staff screwed up the whole Oline evaluation just like they were idiots for waiting until the final 4 games of the season before getting Aromashadu on the field much.

 

['TD']

It's speculation either way if Jerry or Lovie wanted Pace. I remember lots of talk about Omiyale as LG even before the signing of Pace. It really doesn't matter.

 

Scenario: We'll take Pace out of the equation. It's April 1st 2009, a month after Fa started. The lineman are Williams, Schaffer, Omiyale, Beekman, Garza, and Kruetz. Pace is available if you want him tho.

 

What would do you think Angelo would have done to solidify the offensive line if not hampered by Lovie wanting Pace?

[nfoligno]

What would do you think Angelo would have done to solidify the offensive line if not hampered by Lovie wanting Pace?

 

If we had not signed Pace, I think our OL would have looked like it did at the end of the season.

 

Williams - Angelo drafted him to play LT.

Omiyale - I think Angelo signed him w/ the intention of playing inside. Remember, when we signed him, all the talk was about how we were trying to get bigger and strong inside, and the believe was Omiyale would give us that bigger OG.

Kreutz

Garza

Shaffer - I think we may have also seen a rookie drafted sooner, and that rookie would have competed with Shaffer.

 

I hated the Pace signing the day we made it. I didn't like that we were going to play Pace at LT, a position no other team felt he could any longer handle. I didn't like the idea of moving Williams to RT, where I didn't think he was a good fit, and taking time away from his development at LT, the position we drafted him for. Finally, I didn't like the signing because I knew the day he was signed, our odds of drafting an OT high just about dropped to nill.

[jason]

For what it's worth, I think blame goes as follows:

 

Lovie and Staff: 60%

JA: 20%

Players: 20%

[LT2_3]

For what it's worth, I think blame goes as follows:

 

Lovie and Staff: 60%

JA: 20%

Players: 20%

 

THAT I can agree with.

[nfoligno]

I go chicken-@#$# route and just say 1/3 for each.

 

Angelo vs coaches - Is the problem the players Angelo brings in, or how the staff develops uses those players. Likely it is a combo of each, but there are too many examples for either side to believe it is simply a matter of one and not the other.

 

Lovie and Co v Players - Few on this board believe Lovie and his staff do a good job of putting players in the best position to make plays, whether through playcalling or scheme. That is a key duty of the staff, and on the coaches. At the same time, there are just too many examples of a total lack of execution to absolve players. Players have to make the tackle when the ball carrier is in front of them. Players have to make their block to keep the QB healthy or open a hole for the RB. Players have to catch the ball when it hits them in the hands. I am happy to lead the charge in the fight against Lovie and the playcalling of our staff. At the same time, there are times when I question if it even matters due to the lack of execution by players.

 

It is too easy to blame one area over another, but at the same time, I think I could make just such an argument for each and every part of the team. I could argue Angelo's personnel decisions have killed this team just as easily as the coaches' scheme and playcalling and just as easily as the player's execution.

 

To me, the more important question is, have we done enough to right the ship, if only for the immediate future? Did Angelo do enough, and will he do enough in the draft, to improve the talent level of this team. Will the additions/changes to the coaching staff be enough to better put players in a position to win. And will the players show a sense of committment and execution to pull it off?

 

THAT I can agree with.

 

[Connorbear]

I go chicken-@#$# route and just say 1/3 for each.

I agree with the chicken-@#$# route.

 

Peace

 

 

[madlithuanian]

Wuss!

 

Smith is at least 50%. Horrid decisions top to bottom killed numerous chances from TC to in-game poor decision making.

 

I'd settle for 25/25 from there.

 

It's the coaches job to put the players in position to make plays. They were not put in position to do so. Did they miss plays? Yep. But the glaring mistakes were decisions, not performance I felt. If I listed them all, it would take far too long and probably result in my having a heart episode. So I'll refrain.

 

 

 

I go chicken-@#$# route and just say 1/3 for each.

 

Angelo vs coaches - Is the problem the players Angelo brings in, or how the staff develops uses those players. Likely it is a combo of each, but there are too many examples for either side to believe it is simply a matter of one and not the other.

 

Lovie and Co v Players - Few on this board believe Lovie and his staff do a good job of putting players in the best position to make plays, whether through playcalling or scheme. That is a key duty of the staff, and on the coaches. At the same time, there are just too many examples of a total lack of execution to absolve players. Players have to make the tackle when the ball carrier is in front of them. Players have to make their block to keep the QB healthy or open a hole for the RB. Players have to catch the ball when it hits them in the hands. I am happy to lead the charge in the fight against Lovie and the playcalling of our staff. At the same time, there are times when I question if it even matters due to the lack of execution by players.

 

It is too easy to blame one area over another, but at the same time, I think I could make just such an argument for each and every part of the team. I could argue Angelo's personnel decisions have killed this team just as easily as the coaches' scheme and playcalling and just as easily as the player's execution.

 

To me, the more important question is, have we done enough to right the ship, if only for the immediate future? Did Angelo do enough, and will he do enough in the draft, to improve the talent level of this team. Will the additions/changes to the coaching staff be enough to better put players in a position to win. And will the players show a sense of committment and execution to pull it off?

 

[madlithuanian]

You guys are falling right into the Smith pattern of non-tackling!

 

MAN-UP!

 

Kick ass! Change! Adapt! Don't sit back and wonder why your perfect plan isn't working out.

 

 

I agree with the chicken-@#$# route.

 

Peace

 

[azbearsfan]

You guys are falling right into the Smith pattern of non-tackling!

 

MAN-UP!

 

Kick ass! Change! Adapt! Don't sit back and wonder why your perfect plan isn't working out.

 

 

 

Yeah but these aren't little kids.

 

They are professionals, act and play like it.

 

I'll go with the 1/3 split.

 

 

[madlithuanian]

If you make a pro play 10 yards off the LOS, he cannot prevent a first.

 

If you play a pro at one position he is weaker at than a nother, he will not preform well.

 

If you hold a country club camp, that attitude will refelct in the seasonal preformances of your team.

 

If you throw the red flag on bad plays, the players cannot get that timeout back.

 

If you play an outdated scheme everyone has figured out, a pro player can't counter-balance that.

 

If you don't get your best pro player out on the field, he will not contribute, while a the lesser player doesn't perform.

 

I'll stop there. My blood pressure is starting to rise thinking about all the wrongs Smith has done recently...

 

 

Yeah but these aren't little kids.

 

They are professionals, act and play like it.

 

I'll go with the 1/3 split.

 

[nfoligno]

If you make a pro play 10 yards off the LOS, he cannot prevent a first.

 

Angelo: If Angele would add better talent, coaches may feel more confident in the CB playing near the LOS.

Player: Regardless where you line up, you make the play in front of you. Might fault Lovie for the DB giving up short stuff, but when the DB misses the tackle allowing a potential 5 yarder go for 50, thats on the player.

 

If you play a pro at one position he is weaker at than another, he will not preform well.

 

Angelo: If Angelo would draft players rather than athletes, the staff may better know where to line up a player.

Player: Sometimes that position you dreamed about playing isn't the one you are cut out for in the NFL. Instead of think about what "might have been" commit yourself and excel at a new position.

 

If you hold a country club camp, that attitude will refelct in the seasonal preformances of your team.

 

Angelo: If Angelo added players who were less injury prone and more mentally tough, we may be able to work them a bit harder.

Players: The coaches are just that, coaches. They are not mommy or daddy. The days of someone telling you "its time to wake up" are over. Time to grow up and learn responsibility. This is a game, but you get paid and it is your job. Your a professional. Act like it.

 

If you play an outdated scheme everyone has figured out, a pro player can't counter-balance that.

 

Angelo: Scheme aint great, but when we had better talent, it worked well enough. scheme requires a pass rush, and our players moves over the last few years to improve our pass rush leaves much to be desired.

Players: Here's an idea. Don't show up to camp fat and out of shape. Here is another idea. When the guy w/ a ball is in front of you, make the tackle. Scheme is FAR from perfect, but poor execution makes it look worse.

 

If you don't get your best pro player out on the field, he will not contribute, while a the lesser player doesn't perform.

 

Angelo: Grow a pair and don't allow your coach to bury guys you added on the roster. Plenty of GMs out there do the same.

Players: You may be a game day stud, but you need to understand most coaches in the league want to see that all week during practice. You can't take plays off and give a half arce performance in practice and expect to see significant action on game day.

 

The point here is not to defend Lovie and the coaches. You know my feelings there. But the point is to give alternative ways of looking at each example you give. Plenty of times I would agree it is the coaches, but I also think there is simply more than enough blame to go around.

[azbearsfan]

lol,

 

There is no point in arguing with Mad on Smith.

 

He will not change his mind.