No Love from the "Experts"

[adam]

Damn the Bears are getting hammered in the preseason rankings, not that they mean much, but what are these "experts" seeing that we are not? All indications point to at least some improvement from last year. I was figuring 9-7 or 10-6 was completely reasonable.

 

Don Banks from SI.com has us at #26, behind the likes of Washington, Seattle, and Oakland. He is basically saying we are a 5-6 win team.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...mp.3/index.html

 

ESPN has us at #21 which is a little better, but that is basically saying we are the same team as last year. Don't they realize we essentially upgraded 3 spots on the Defense with potential Pro Bowlers (Urlacher, Peppers, and Harris)? The offense, even though in a new scheme has had a year to gel (mainly Cutler and WR's). The media has really turned on Cutler since the trade. They loved him in Denver, and now hate him in Chicago.

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings?year=2010&week=0

[madlithuanian]

We won't get any love until we show that we deserve it. We look good on paper from our eyes, but most of the nation just sees us as a joke. We need to prove them wrong. Or change direction with a new coaching staff immediately after.

 

And we need to show consitency. We seem to look good for a year, then falter for a few. Not that that's the case, but that's how we are perceived. And perception is everything.

[nfoligno]

I am actually a bit optimistic for this season, yet at the same time, I can see why many would be skeptical.

 

To start with, division and schedule. We are in a division with two teams (GB/Minny) who have done well and most experts are going to expect much of this year too. That doesn't mean they sweep us, but the more solid teams inside a division, the lower the projected wins will be for us. If we were in a division like the NFC West, predictions may be different.

 

Also, strength of schedule I believe is harder this year than last. Take a look at our schedule this year. Looking at it in quarters, as Lovie loves to do...

 

1st Quarter (Det, @Dallas, GB, @NYG) - That's 3 out of 4 games against very solid teams.

2nd Quarter (@Car, Sea, Wash, @Buf) - Not sure how good any of these teams will be, but this is the quarter we really need a run.

3rd Quarter (Minny, @Mia, Phi, @Det) - Again, 3 our of 4 against solid or better teams.

4th Quarter (NE, @Minny, NYJ, @GB) - This is a tough final stretch with two division games away and two more against very good teams.

 

I am not saying we can't beat the good teams, but we simply don't have a lot of cake walk games, and our 2nd half is damn tough.

 

Cutler/Martz combo. Many like Cutler, despite the picks. Many like Martz. Few know how the two will gell though. Add in the WR and OL being unknown, and it is easy to see why "experts" question our offense.

 

On defense, we may have added Peppers and be getting back Urlacher, but....

 

I think many still question Lovie Smith and Marinelli has never run a defense himself. Further, while we added Peppers, the rest of our DL is filled with question marks. In the secondary, we are simply loaded down with questions and a lack of depth.

 

There are plenty of reasons I have hope and optimism for this season. At the same time, I can absolutely see why many would not, especially considering how this team has played the last few seasons.

 

 

Damn the Bears are getting hammered in the preseason rankings, not that they mean much, but what are these "experts" seeing that we are not? All indications point to at least some improvement from last year. I was figuring 9-7 or 10-6 was completely reasonable.

 

Don Banks from SI.com has us at #26, behind the likes of Washington, Seattle, and Oakland. He is basically saying we are a 5-6 win team.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...mp.3/index.html

 

ESPN has us at #21 which is a little better, but that is basically saying we are the same team as last year. Don't they realize we essentially upgraded 3 spots on the Defense with potential Pro Bowlers (Urlacher, Peppers, and Harris)? The offense, even though in a new scheme has had a year to gel (mainly Cutler and WR's). The media has really turned on Cutler since the trade. They loved him in Denver, and now hate him in Chicago.

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings?year=2010&week=0

 

[bradjock]

Damn the Bears are getting hammered in the preseason rankings, not that they mean much, but what are these "experts" seeing that we are not? All indications point to at least some improvement from last year. I was figuring 9-7 or 10-6 was completely reasonable.

 

Don Banks from SI.com has us at #26, behind the likes of Washington, Seattle, and Oakland. He is basically saying we are a 5-6 win team.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...mp.3/index.html

 

ESPN has us at #21 which is a little better, but that is basically saying we are the same team as last year. Don't they realize we essentially upgraded 3 spots on the Defense with potential Pro Bowlers (Urlacher, Peppers, and Harris)? The offense, even though in a new scheme has had a year to gel (mainly Cutler and WR's). The media has really turned on Cutler since the trade. They loved him in Denver, and now hate him in Chicago.

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings?year=2010&week=0

 

Green Bay had the #1 or #2 defense last year. Aaron Rogers looks like the next Favre and they've only gotten better.

 

I've heard several critics say that Minny might have the best roster in the NFL.

 

I think everyone believes that Detroit is way over-due for a break-out year.

 

Meanwhile, the Bears had few drafts picks, and major acquisitions included a blocking TE, an old back-up RB and a safety who was about to be cut. Yes we got Peppers, but we lost Wale, Brown, and the guy who died . . .

 

As I say every year, 90% of the time they base pre-season rankings on what you did last year. If we'd won the division, chances are we'd be picked to win the division. Talk is cheap.

 

I do look forward to attending TC on Friday.

[jason]

I understand and agree with the skepticism, but 26th is just F'ing retarded.

 

No way in hell the Bears are the 26th best team.

 

With an offense that is GUARANTEED to score more points this year (Martz always improves points), and a defense that gets Pepp, Url, and Pisa added on, not to mention the fact that Hester will be returning focus to ST, there is just no way they are the 26th best team. Top 15 would have been more realistic.

 

I am actually a bit optimistic for this season, yet at the same time, I can see why many would be skeptical.

 

To start with, division and schedule. We are in a division with two teams (GB/Minny) who have done well and most experts are going to expect much of this year too. That doesn't mean they sweep us, but the more solid teams inside a division, the lower the projected wins will be for us. If we were in a division like the NFC West, predictions may be different.

 

Also, strength of schedule I believe is harder this year than last. Take a look at our schedule this year. Looking at it in quarters, as Lovie loves to do...

 

1st Quarter (Det, @Dallas, GB, @NYG) - That's 3 out of 4 games against very solid teams.

2nd Quarter (@Car, Sea, Wash, @Buf) - Not sure how good any of these teams will be, but this is the quarter we really need a run.

3rd Quarter (Minny, @Mia, Phi, @Det) - Again, 3 our of 4 against solid or better teams.

4th Quarter (NE, @Minny, NYJ, @GB) - This is a tough final stretch with two division games away and two more against very good teams.

 

I am not saying we can't beat the good teams, but we simply don't have a lot of cake walk games, and our 2nd half is damn tough.

 

Cutler/Martz combo. Many like Cutler, despite the picks. Many like Martz. Few know how the two will gell though. Add in the WR and OL being unknown, and it is easy to see why "experts" question our offense.

 

On defense, we may have added Peppers and be getting back Urlacher, but....

 

I think many still question Lovie Smith and Marinelli has never run a defense himself. Further, while we added Peppers, the rest of our DL is filled with question marks. In the secondary, we are simply loaded down with questions and a lack of depth.

 

There are plenty of reasons I have hope and optimism for this season. At the same time, I can absolutely see why many would not, especially considering how this team has played the last few seasons.

 

[bradjock]

I understand and agree with the skepticism, but 26th is just F'ing retarded.

 

No way in hell the Bears are the 26th best team.

 

With an offense that is GUARANTEED to score more points this year (Martz always improves points), and a defense that gets Pepp, Url, and Pisa added on, not to mention the fact that Hester will be returning focus to ST, there is just no way they are the 26th best team. Top 15 would have been more realistic.

 

Are we better then Green Bay or Minny? I could see Minny falling flat this year . . . but I said that last year. Green Bay is good.

 

All these predictions assume we're at least the 3rd best team. If we're the 3rd best team in our division, can we really be a top 15 team? Just asking.

 

While Bear Nation believes in Martz, everybody else is writing off our offense. Either they're right or we're wrong.

 

I've given up hope that our defense will ever be top notch under Lovie. I hope I'm wrong.

[adam]

Are we better then Green Bay or Minny? I could see Minny falling flat this year . . . but I said that last year. Green Bay is good.

 

All these predictions assume we're at least the 3rd best team. If we're the 3rd best team in our division, can we really be a top 15 team? Just asking.

 

While Bear Nation believes in Martz, everybody else is writing off our offense. Either they're right or we're wrong.

 

I've given up hope that our defense will ever be top notch under Lovie. I hope I'm wrong.

 

Minny still doesn't know who their QB is, and it is either going to be a 50 year old Favre or Jackson? That is a significant difference.

 

There are a bunch of 3rd place teams in the top 20 (Bengals, Dolphins, Texans, Giants, Panthers).

 

 

Also, most people forget the fact that we could've easily been 9-7 with some luck last year. I believe we lost 4 games when we had the lead or were tied entering the 4th quarter. If we won half of those, we would've been 9-7. That was without Urlacher, Pisa, Peppers, Harris, Taylor, etc. Also, we actually have a premier OC compared to what we had last year. Either we are going to improve and win 10 games or this whole thing will implode and we will win 4-5.

 

 

[flea]

Minnie knows who their QB will be. it'll be Favre why doubt it? Never mind all the bullshit, thats just media whoring

[nfoligno]

Also, most people forget the fact that we could've easily been 9-7 with some luck last year. I believe we lost 4 games when we had the lead or were tied entering the 4th quarter. If we won half of those, we would've been 9-7. That was without Urlacher, Pisa, Peppers, Harris, Taylor, etc. Also, we actually have a premier OC compared to what we had last year. Either we are going to improve and win 10 games or this whole thing will implode and we will win 4-5.

 

Many teams can say the same thing. Many teams suffered injury, like us, and can also say they would have won an extra couple games with a bit of luck. The simple reality is, we have not been a good team since the SB, and coaching/personnel moves are not going to change the experts opinions, only play on the field will.

[nfoligno]

Either they're right or we're wrong.

 

Um, would that not be the same thing? If they are right, we are wrong.

 

I know what you mean though, just having fun. I agree. A big part of our low rating comes from the belief that we are the 3rd best team in a very good division, which means we are not as likely to rack up wins against weak division teams, as many others can.

[nfoligno]

Hey, I agree 26 is low, but at the same time, I simply see the reasons to doubt.

 

You say the offense is guaranteed to score more. I disagree. I think they will, but guaranteed? Many question whether Cutler can learn and run this system. If he can, not only should we score more, but we should score a lot more. But if he can't, it could turn very ugly.

 

We got Peppers, but also let go our two veteran DEs. Peppers is the only known asset on our DL, and thus many question whether we will truly see an improved pass rush. Pisa returns, but may not even be a starter. Urlacher returns, but he has not been a stud since Rivera left and Lovie took over. Even if he is a stud, if we lack a pass rush, and with our secondary a big ?, there are plenty of reasons to question the D.

 

In the end, even if there is a belief that our team is better, with the division we play in and the schedule we have, there are plenty of reasons to question what our win/loss record will be.

 

I understand and agree with the skepticism, but 26th is just F'ing retarded.

 

No way in hell the Bears are the 26th best team.

 

With an offense that is GUARANTEED to score more points this year (Martz always improves points), and a defense that gets Pepp, Url, and Pisa added on, not to mention the fact that Hester will be returning focus to ST, there is just no way they are the 26th best team. Top 15 would have been more realistic.

 

[nfoligno]

Even the media seems to know he will return. Everyone is saying he is holding off "the decision" simply to skip out on a chunk of training camp.

 

Minnie knows who their QB will be. it'll be Favre why doubt it? Never mind all the bullshit, thats just media whoring

 

[Guest TerraTor]

Havent earned any respect. Lead the league in picks, didnt upgrade the Oline or Secondary at first glance, and dont have a hint of a #1 WR.

 

Team mortaged the farm for Cutler, now put him in an offense that hasnt worked since 2001. Now has spent over $100 in the Offseason.

 

Best thing is, At least Lovie and Friends will be gone after this year. Having Mike Martz on this team as well as Marinelli as DC, is a disgrace and a mockery of Bears Football. Our drone of a head coach (not to mention GM) loaded up all their old friends for a nice going away party in Chicago.

[bradjock]

Best thing is, At least Lovie and Friends will be gone after this year. Having Mike Martz on this team as well as Marinelli as DC, is a disgrace and a mockery of Bears Football. Our drone of a head coach (not to mention GM) loaded up all their old friends for a nice going away party in Chicago.

 

Disagree. The way things are going in the NFL, come "firing time" the question will be: "Will there be football in 2011?"

 

Do you think we'll:

1) Pay Lovie 5.5 million to go away.

2) Hire a better coach, for instance Bill Cowher, who'd probably cost 10 million, when

3) There's no guarantee there will be a season.

 

IMO, if Lovie can scrape by with one more year of mediocrity, he'll be back in 2011.

[jason]

Hey, I agree 26 is low, but at the same time, I simply see the reasons to doubt.

 

You say the offense is guaranteed to score more. I disagree. I think they will, but guaranteed? Many question whether Cutler can learn and run this system. If he can, not only should we score more, but we should score a lot more. But if he can't, it could turn very ugly.

 

We got Peppers, but also let go our two veteran DEs. Peppers is the only known asset on our DL, and thus many question whether we will truly see an improved pass rush. Pisa returns, but may not even be a starter. Urlacher returns, but he has not been a stud since Rivera left and Lovie took over. Even if he is a stud, if we lack a pass rush, and with our secondary a big ?, there are plenty of reasons to question the D.

 

In the end, even if there is a belief that our team is better, with the division we play in and the schedule we have, there are plenty of reasons to question what our win/loss record will be.

 

Disagree all you want, but Martz ALWAYS brings more points.

 

1-Completely rewrote the passing game in St. Louis, adding almost 15PPG his first year. Then he added another point the next year.

2-Added 3+ points his first year in St. Louis, and then 2+ more the next year.

3-Added 7+ points his first year in San Francisco

 

If he has QB stability, the Bears are GUARANTEED to score more points.

 

The defensive points are valid, but I don't think there is any doubt that the offense will score more this year.

[nfoligno]

Okay, even if I give the offense/points, still think about this. How much did that translate to wins for Detroit?

 

They scored more, but that also led to more turnovers, putting further pressure on the D.

 

Our offense could score more, but if our D sucks, the end result can still be a loss, even with an improved O. Further, with our schedule and division, there are not too many easy weeks, so you are not going to get many free wins.

 

The points isn't just about the offense, but about all the factors that come into play where we have questions. Maybe the questions are answered to the positive on offense, but (a) I still say it is not the guarantee you try to make it and ( even if it does happen, that is only one answer among many questions.

 

Disagree all you want, but Martz ALWAYS brings more points.

 

1-Completely rewrote the passing game in St. Louis, adding almost 15PPG his first year. Then he added another point the next year.

2-Added 3+ points his first year in St. Louis, and then 2+ more the next year.

3-Added 7+ points his first year in San Francisco

 

If he has QB stability, the Bears are GUARANTEED to score more points.

 

The defensive points are valid, but I don't think there is any doubt that the offense will score more this year.

 

[nfoligno]

If there is a lockout in 2011, are the coaches salaries still guaranteed? I know the players salaries are not, but what about the coaches?

 

I agree that CBA negotiations will go a long way toward coaching decisions, not just for us, but likely all teams. The most recent thing I read said there is a belief there will be a lockout and it will last a couple games, but not even half the season, much less the entire season. Still, that would likely mean Lovie for another year.

 

I think it would take a huge tanking for this team to fire Lovie this season.

 

 

Disagree. The way things are going in the NFL, come "firing time" the question will be: "Will there be football in 2011?"

 

Do you think we'll:

1) Pay Lovie 5.5 million to go away.

2) Hire a better coach, for instance Bill Cowher, who'd probably cost 10 million, when

3) There's no guarantee there will be a season.

 

IMO, if Lovie can scrape by with one more year of mediocrity, he'll be back in 2011.

 

[madlithuanian]

Lord, I hope not...

 

 

 

IMO, if Lovie can scrape by with one more year of mediocrity, he'll be back in 2011.

 

[madlithuanian]

I believe they are...but I am not certain.

 

My worst fears imagined...Wayne Fontes, here we are.

 

If there is a lockout in 2011, are the coaches salaries still guaranteed? I know the players salaries are not, but what about the coaches?

 

I agree that CBA negotiations will go a long way toward coaching decisions, not just for us, but likely all teams. The most recent thing I read said there is a belief there will be a lockout and it will last a couple games, but not even half the season, much less the entire season. Still, that would likely mean Lovie for another year.

 

I think it would take a huge tanking for this team to fire Lovie this season.

 

[NAMEDSONPAYTON2]

Disagree all you want, but Martz ALWAYS brings more points.

 

1-Completely rewrote the passing game in St. Louis, adding almost 15PPG his first year. Then he added another point the next year.

2-Added 3+ points his first year in St. Louis, and then 2+ more the next year.

3-Added 7+ points his first year in San Francisco

 

If he has QB stability, the Bears are GUARANTEED to score more points.

 

The defensive points are valid, but I don't think there is any doubt that the offense will score more this year.

St louis is made for scoring, San Francisco was always known for their offense. BEARS TRADITION IS DEFENSE DEFENSE DEFENSE and being able to run the ball. Lovie's D. will never win in Chicago. We need singltary or cower or someone similar to be our coach. I loved Bears football more when we were winning 6-8 games a year in the 70's, 80's, and some of the 90's when we were hurting people on offense, more than winning 8-10 games and giving up 24- 40 points a game. "I want my Bears back"

[nfoligno]

Personally, I just want to win. If we win the SB 42-34, I'll take that.

 

The game has changed. The defenses we once had would be awful today because they would draw a flag on every freaking down. Sure, you can stil have a D that smack the other team in the mouth, and I miss that, but I can't say I would rather a great defense on a 6 win team over an average D on a 10 win team.

 

As for the offense, times have changed. Not many teams win anymore if they can't score, and score a lot.

 

St louis is made for scoring, San Francisco was always known for their offense. BEARS TRADITION IS DEFENSE DEFENSE DEFENSE and being able to run the ball. Lovie's D. will never win in Chicago. We need singltary or cower or someone similar to be our coach. I loved Bears football more when we were winning 6-8 games a year in the 70's, 80's, and some of the 90's when we were hurting people on offense, more than winning 8-10 games and giving up 24- 40 points a game. "I want my Bears back"

 

[madlithuanian]

Cop out answer!

 

We all want to just win! I'd have Brett Favre coach us if it meant winning a Super Bowl and being great for years... (But I reserve the right to reverse that just becasue I hate him so much....) But you get the point.

 

The key is trying to play the game of fantasy ower with some realism. We fans will never run the circus, but the key is to try to find a realistic option that gets us to the desired goal. I think Cowher is one of a few that could. I'd have loved Singletary. Especially over the current regime. And as you mentioned before, we're probably stuck with this (lack of) brain trust through next year unless something miraculous happens with the CBA before season's end...or we Marinelli it to a winless season.

 

I would honestly love an oeeensive minded HC. A line guy. I'd really like Russ Grimm. I likve his playing and coaching experience. But, if we had to go D, I like the other Ryan brother, or Rivera if that bridge hasn't been burned. Heck, I'd even consider McGinnis if that were a possibility. But the McCaskey circle seems to have burned those bridges w/o knowing more.

 

...and I still think we need a real GM.

 

Now I'm just rambling! Sorry!

 

Personally, I just want to win. If we win the SB 42-34, I'll take that.

 

The game has changed. The defenses we once had would be awful today because they would draw a flag on every freaking down. Sure, you can stil have a D that smack the other team in the mouth, and I miss that, but I can't say I would rather a great defense on a 6 win team over an average D on a 10 win team.

 

As for the offense, times have changed. Not many teams win anymore if they can't score, and score a lot.

 

[nfoligno]

Not a copout at all. I was replying to the following statement,

 

I loved Bears football more when we were winning 6-8 games a year in the 70's, 80's, and some of the 90's when we were hurting people on offense, more than winning 8-10 games and giving up 24- 40 points a game.

 

He flat said he liked it better when we were losing due to the teams identity at that time rather than when we were winning with a different identity. My point is, regardless of identity, winning is what matters the most to me.

 

I do agree with you about the OL coach to HC. I too always liked Grimm, and frankly, he was one I wanted over Lovie back in the day.

 

Back to identity, sure, I would love to bring back some of the old school mentality, but to an extent, there are aspects of it I do not necessarily want back. Many talk about the good old days of running the football, but lets be honest for a moment. Go back to even the 80s teams and look at the offense. Payton was awesome to watch, but that offense was far from great. If we didn't have the defense we did, how great would that team have been.

 

Today, how many teams win with that smash mouth running game? Indy, NE, NO and most other winning programs I can think of in recent seasons have been able to attack through the air and score. That doesn't mean you don't run the ball, but I just question if that old bear offense is really what we should be wanting.

 

Cop out answer!

 

We all want to just win! I'd have Brett Favre coach us if it meant winning a Super Bowl and being great for years... (But I reserve the right to reverse that just becasue I hate him so much....) But you get the point.

 

The key is trying to play the game of fantasy ower with some realism. We fans will never run the circus, but the key is to try to find a realistic option that gets us to the desired goal. I think Cowher is one of a few that could. I'd have loved Singletary. Especially over the current regime. And as you mentioned before, we're probably stuck with this (lack of) brain trust through next year unless something miraculous happens with the CBA before season's end...or we Marinelli it to a winless season.

 

I would honestly love an oeeensive minded HC. A line guy. I'd really like Russ Grimm. I likve his playing and coaching experience. But, if we had to go D, I like the other Ryan brother, or Rivera if that bridge hasn't been burned. Heck, I'd even consider McGinnis if that were a possibility. But the McCaskey circle seems to have burned those bridges w/o knowing more.

 

...and I still think we need a real GM.

 

Now I'm just rambling! Sorry!

 

[madlithuanian]

I follow....

 

I'm no so worried about the running game. Honestly, until a Payton or Sayers drops on our laps, we do what we can with what we've got. I'm really speaking in sense that Bears football is defense. We own the hall of fame with defenders. We have our fare share of O guys, but the Bears are about D. And when we play as poorly as we have the past 3 years, it just breaks my heart. You pretty much mention the same if I read your post correctly...

 

 

 

Not a copout at all. I was replying to the following statement,

 

I loved Bears football more when we were winning 6-8 games a year in the 70's, 80's, and some of the 90's when we were hurting people on offense, more than winning 8-10 games and giving up 24- 40 points a game.

 

He flat said he liked it better when we were losing due to the teams identity at that time rather than when we were winning with a different identity. My point is, regardless of identity, winning is what matters the most to me.

 

I do agree with you about the OL coach to HC. I too always liked Grimm, and frankly, he was one I wanted over Lovie back in the day.

 

Back to identity, sure, I would love to bring back some of the old school mentality, but to an extent, there are aspects of it I do not necessarily want back. Many talk about the good old days of running the football, but lets be honest for a moment. Go back to even the 80s teams and look at the offense. Payton was awesome to watch, but that offense was far from great. If we didn't have the defense we did, how great would that team have been.

 

Today, how many teams win with that smash mouth running game? Indy, NE, NO and most other winning programs I can think of in recent seasons have been able to attack through the air and score. That doesn't mean you don't run the ball, but I just question if that old bear offense is really what we should be wanting.

 

[nfoligno]

No argument.

 

I have always said, go back and look at Lovie when he was the DC in Stl. He earned a reputation for having Ds that could create a ton of turnovers, but at the same time, they also gave up a lot of points and were really not that good. Much of his success was due to having an offense that forced teams to be one dimensional. In Chicago, I thought we were better with Rivera, but even then, felt Lovie held the team back.

 

I will always go back to the Az game some years ago as my example. In the first half, a rookie QB was tearing us apart as we ran a very Lovie style scheme. We were not aggressive, played off WRs and pretty much gave until we broke. In the 2nd half, from everything I read, Rivera simply took over, and the difference in the team was very obvious. Our CBs were playing on top of the LOS. We were blitzing from just about every angle. We had that "Remember the Titans" mentality of "if they gain a yard, everyone will be benched" and the result was Az being totally stopped.

 

Unfortunately, that was only a 1/2 of one game where I saw the potential of our defense. After that, it was back to bend - pray you don't break.

 

I follow....

 

I'm no so worried about the running game. Honestly, until a Payton or Sayers drops on our laps, we do what we can with what we've got. I'm really speaking in sense that Bears football is defense. We own the hall of fame with defenders. We have our fare share of O guys, but the Bears are about D. And when we play as poorly as we have the past 3 years, it just breaks my heart. You pretty much mention the same if I read your post correctly...