URLACHER

[Daventry]

Url isn't the spokesperson for the city, that's unfortunately the mayor!

 

And the spokesperson from the team is unfortunatley Smith! Now, he may be the "face" of the franchise, but really, what has he done? He's had a few chippy statements to the press. He's had child support issues with an ex. He's got bad taste in girlfreinds. Did he get a DUI? Did he punch a fan in a stadium? Did he skip camp? Did he crash his car and run away? Seriously, while he might have a personality of a haystack, I could care less. Because when he's on the filed, he is a beast among men!

 

Ray Lewis is Ali compared to Url being Shemp in the media. But, most other LB's have personalities of haystacks as well.

 

 

I would argue that a Bears football player could garner more media attention than a mayor.... He has a consistently poor attitude with the press and is surly in general, and all of the above. Everyone has a right to their opinion, to me, the fact that he is so talented and could have done so much more to represent the Bears makes his lackluster overall character more of a disappointment.

 

Before a good last three games, what has he done for the last couple of years? What would his trade value be? I bet no one would want to pay him what he makes, much less give up a draft pick and have to pay him.

 

That is enough for me on the topic, I know what other's opinions are, mine will stay the same regardless.

[madlithuanian]

There's a difference between a spokeman and media attention... Having a surly guy that plays defense isn't a hinderence in my book. I really don't care that he doesn't answer a lame question presented by the media. No player says anything of interest these days.

 

Well, last year he was injured. The year before he was battling injuries and helped us almost make the playoffs... The Redskins would. And I'm sure a few more might. Depends what goes on with the cap... We could easily get a draft pick, in fact probably a higher pick. We got suckered into Gaines Adams (RIP) for a second. You think someone isn't open for a serious HoF contender for at least the same?

 

Your loss...

 

 

 

I would argue that a Bears football player could garner more media attention than a mayor.... He has a consistently poor attitude with the press and is surly in general, and all of the above. Everyone has a right to their opinion, to me, the fact that he is so talented and could have done so much more to represent the Bears makes his lackluster overall character more of a disappointment.

 

Before a good last three games, what has he done for the last couple of years? What would his trade value be? I bet no one would want to pay him what he makes, much less give up a draft pick and have to pay him.

 

That is enough for me on the topic, I know what other's opinions are, mine will stay the same regardless.

 

[jason]

It may not be the prettiest scheme ever...but 17 points against a top rated offense that averages 30 points is nothing to sneeze at. Even if you count the field goal block...20 points against that offense is really, really good.

 

An aggressive, attacking defense can work in some games...but you put a QB who knows what he's doing against that D...and he's liable to rip it to shreds. The top QB's want you to blitz them because it opens up single coverage on the mid range routes.

 

Yes, 17-20 against GB is good. But how many times will that happen? Play that game ten times in a row, and the Packers break 30 on 8 or 9 of those games. I despise the scheme, the passive nature, and Lovie.

[azbearsfan]

Yes, 17-20 against GB is good. But how many times will that happen? Play that game ten times in a row, and the Packers break 30 on 8 or 9 of those games. I despise the scheme, the passive nature, and Lovie.

 

 

And where exactly are you getting those stats.

 

 

 

Have to agree with lemonj. The best defenses never have to blitz. Not saying we are a great defense, but in this game, letting the packers hit underneath and taking away the big plays was a good strategy.

[Lucky Luciano]

And where exactly are you getting those stats.

 

 

 

Have to agree with lemonj. The best defenses never have to blitz. Not saying we are a great defense, but in this game, letting the packers hit underneath and taking away the big plays was a good strategy.

 

got to really disagree with this statement "The best defenses never have to blitz".

 

i consider the 85 bears and the steelers of the 70's the top defenses in modern era football and both used blitzes extensively. in my opinion it takes good/great coordinators to blend a standard rush with creative blitzing for a total package.

 

lovie/marinelli/babich's idea of a blitz is so bad it's laughable to opposing offenses. we lock up our linebackers (like the last game, like the last FOUR years worth of games) into showing blitz at the LOS and then drop them back into some screwball coverage that when the snap of the ball takes place our LB's are out of position and moving in the wrong direction OR if they do blitz, they are caught up in the wash of the linemen blocking our tackles (who NEVER get penetration) and never progress past the pileup in the middle.

[madlithuanian]

Agreed as well.

 

Bottom line, the best defenses stop offenses regardless of how...

 

got to really disagree with this statement "The best defenses never have to blitz".

 

i consider the 85 bears and the steelers of the 70's the top defenses in modern era football and both used blitzes extensively. in my opinion it takes good/great coordinators to blend a standard rush with creative blitzing for a total package.

 

lovie/marinelli/babich's idea of a blitz is so bad it's laughable to opposing offenses. we lock up our linebackers (like the last game, like the last FOUR years worth of games) into showing blitz at the LOS and then drop them back into some screwball coverage that when the snap of the ball takes place our LB's are out of position and moving in the wrong direction OR if they do blitz, they are caught up in the wash of the linemen blocking our tackles (who NEVER get penetration) and never progress past the pileup in the middle.

 

[flea]

Yes, 17-20 against GB is good. But how many times will that happen? Play that game ten times in a row, and the Packers break 30 on 8 or 9 of those games. I despise the scheme, the passive nature, and Lovie.

 

 

Ya should have a should in that statement. Yes they probably should because on paper they are the better team.

 

Good thing the games played on grass

[GrizzlyBear]

First lets talk abpout Url a min. He was very good with media till the whole Ex-girlfriend debacle. He was raped over the coals for that. Then the Berrian thing came out and his light was even more put out with Media. Then Sayers. The Media here defeniately will overstep thier bounds. I can understand why he is the way he is with media, But to paint him like that is not really the whole story.

 

As for the Game. I could careless about woulda, shoulda coulda. It was played Monday night. Green bay lost and Bears won. Simple as that. DO the Bears sound like they are cocky about it? NO. Do they feel they have played thier best Game? NO. So please stop the if and when stuff. Lets focus on imprvement and if the Bears can keep pulling em out. resilliance is the key here not none that of that other garbage.

[Connorbear]

First lets talk abpout Url a min. He was very good with media till the whole Ex-girlfriend debacle. He was raped over the coals for that. Then the Berrian thing came out and his light was even more put out with Media. Then Sayers. The Media here defeniately will overstep thier bounds. I can understand why he is the way he is with media, But to paint him like that is not really the whole story.

 

As for the Game. I could careless about woulda, shoulda coulda. It was played Monday night. Green bay lost and Bears won. Simple as that. DO the Bears sound like they are cocky about it? NO. Do they feel they have played thier best Game? NO. So please stop the if and when stuff. Lets focus on imprvement and if the Bears can keep pulling em out. resilliance is the key here not none that of that other garbage.

I hope you meant raked and not raped. I don't think the word should be taken lightly. The treatment Url received from the media shouldn't be compared to rape.

 

Peace

[NAMEDSONPAYTON2]

got to really disagree with this statement "The best defenses never have to blitz".

 

i consider the 85 bears and the steelers of the 70's the top defenses in modern era football and both used blitzes extensively. in my opinion it takes good/great coordinators to blend a standard rush with creative blitzing for a total package.

 

lovie/marinelli/babich's idea of a blitz is so bad it's laughable to opposing offenses. we lock up our linebackers (like the last game, like the last FOUR years worth of games) into showing blitz at the LOS and then drop them back into some screwball coverage that when the snap of the ball takes place our LB's are out of position and moving in the wrong direction OR if they do blitz, they are caught up in the wash of the linemen blocking our tackles (who NEVER get penetration) and never progress past the pileup in the middle.

I agree. the only time we blitz is when we let them know,or back up. I want hidden, surprise or disguised blitzes or coming off the edge.

[GrizzlyBear]

I hope you meant raked and not raped. I don't think the word should be taken lightly. The treatment Url received from the media shouldn't be compared to rape.

 

Peace

OF course I ment rake, LOL Geez type police. If you could assume it why ask?

[Connorbear]

OF course I ment rake, LOL Geez type police. If you could assume it why ask?

You're right. My apologies. Just sounded real bad.

 

Peace

[jason]

And where exactly are you getting those stats.

 

 

 

Have to agree with lemonj. The best defenses never have to blitz. Not saying we are a great defense, but in this game, letting the packers hit underneath and taking away the big plays was a good strategy.

 

You know as well as I do that kind of statement is not a "stat." Please quit with the ignorant baiting.

 

Simply put, if you have a game like that when the opponent dominates on offensive yardage and time of possession, they're likely to have great success. Couple that with the unlikely scenario of having a team commit that many penalties again, and my statement rings pretty true. And you know it. You're just trying to be confrontational.

[lemonej]

You know as well as I do that kind of statement is not a "stat." Please quit with the ignorant baiting.

 

Simply put, if you have a game like that when the opponent dominates on offensive yardage and time of possession, they're likely to have great success. Couple that with the unlikely scenario of having a team commit that many penalties again, and my statement rings pretty true. And you know it. You're just trying to be confrontational.

I agree with you Jason and I reread the thread and I'm still looking for a post from me that says the best defenses don't have to blitz. Since I too was very adult when Buddy Ryan's 46 was running rampant in the late 70's and early 80's there is not enough alcohol in Illinois to make me say that.