A Step Back on Defense

[BearFan PHX]

Hey Guys,

 

I'm very optimistic about our new staff and roster. I've been hoping for something like this, and it seems to me that they are doing all the right things.

 

That said, I do expect the defense to take a step backward this year.

 

Our "Cover 2" defense should probably be called a "One Gap" defense, since it's more about the front than the coverage behind it. Our aggressive scheme asks defensive linemen to get into their gaps and get upfield. This leaves 4 other gaps for LBs and a Safety to be responsible for.

 

Unlike a 2 gap front, where players hold position, and linebackers roam behind like little safeties, our system thrives on upfield pressure, but gap responsibility it KEY. When even one man in out of position, a runner can rip through to the secondary easily. You will recall Lovie's first year where opposing running back routinely ripped off 5 to 8 yard runs against us. I expect we will see some of that as the front learns their assignments.

 

I do like the one gap scheme. It just requires discipline and experience to run it right. It may take a moment to get it together, but all in all I do prefer it, and hope to see them settle into familiar patterns of success after a while. How long that will be remains to be seen.

 

Also, Love preached turnovers. In training camp incomplete passes were live balls. I hope that continues.

 

Don't get me wrong I was thrilled to see Lovie go. Still I know there will be things we lose with him, and gap responsibility will be one of the big ones to watch.

 

Even if it isn't so good at first, over time it can get better, just as it did under Lovie.

 

Anyway, that's something to watch with our new LBs.

 

GO Bears!

[scs787]

I don't expect a huge step back but I can maybe see a small step back. This is pretty much the same defense as last year sans Urlacher and Roach, and we've gotten faster at those 2 positions. Schematically it's also supposed to be pretty much the same. I think I remember hearing that Mel was learning our lingo and such from last years team so that they can keep it as close to the same as possible.

 

 

[Stinger226]

I don't expect a huge step back but I can maybe see a small step back. This is pretty much the same defense as last year sans Urlacher and Roach, and we've gotten faster at those 2 positions. Schematically it's also supposed to be pretty much the same. I think I remember hearing that Mel was learning our lingo and such from last years team so that they can keep it as close to the same as possible.

Even if the defense doesnt have similar numbers as last year, I think it will be better because of the injection of youth going forward. It will be more aggressive and problems have more points scored against it but with an offense that will but putting up more points, I think it will not have much change in record.

[BearFan PHX]

Yes, overall the new talent will be a good thing, but it will take a while to instill gap discipline.

[scs787]

Are we moving from a 1 gap to 2 gap or something? If the defense stays the same then they should be fine.

[BearFan PHX]

Are we moving from a 1 gap to 2 gap or something? If the defense stays the same then they should be fine.

 

Dude. You have 4 new LBs and a DT learning it for the first time.

 

Urlacher, Mike Brown etc struggled the first year because unlike 2 gap systems, there is no room for mental errors. In a 2 gap system, athleticism can make up for a missed first step, or a misread hole. In this scheme, when everyone's doing it right, it can be incredibly effective, but if even 1 of the front 8 get in the wrong hole, youve got an 8 yard run.

 

So given that we saw a lot of those in Lovie's first year, it is a legitimate concern.

['TD']

The Bears will stepback even if it has improved. They played out of their mind over half the season.

[Wesson44]

Dude. You have 4 new LBs and a DT learning it for the first time.

 

Urlacher, Mike Brown etc struggled the first year because unlike 2 gap systems, there is no room for mental errors. In a 2 gap system, athleticism can make up for a missed first step, or a misread hole. In this scheme, when everyone's doing it right, it can be incredibly effective, but if even 1 of the front 8 get in the wrong hole, youve got an 8 yard run.

 

So given that we saw a lot of those in Lovie's first year, it is a legitimate concern.

o play

Really???? So you think the limping Urlacher last year and the scared to play Roach didn't create some of these 8 yard runs you speak of? Yes we do indeed have 4 new lb but only two of them are rookies and these two rookies seem to be better than the back ups we had last year. New DT (Ellis) has said that the Bears allow him to do what he does best...rush the passer and play run on the way. So I really don't see this as a step backwards on defense. We lost a total of three players that had contributions last year and we filled those spots with players with more athleticism. We lost 2 lb we got 4 we lost 1 DE and got 2, we lost 1 DT and got 3 so these players will more than be enough to keep the D where is was last year. Its not like we are the Ravens who lost like 9 starters off their team defense.....they will take a major step-------->backwards.

[BearFan PHX]

o play

Really???? So you think the limping Urlacher last year and the scared to play Roach didn't create some of these 8 yard runs you speak of? Yes we do indeed have 4 new lb but only two of them are rookies and these two rookies seem to be better than the back ups we had last year. New DT (Ellis) has said that the Bears allow him to do what he does best...rush the passer and play run on the way. So I really don't see this as a step backwards on defense. We lost a total of three players that had contributions last year and we filled those spots with players with more athleticism. We lost 2 lb we got 4 we lost 1 DE and got 2, we lost 1 DT and got 3 so these players will more than be enough to keep the D where is was last year. Its not like we are the Ravens who lost like 9 starters off their team defense.....they will take a major step-------->backwards.

 

Even the new veterans didn't play one gap fronts before. I am optimistic about the defense over time, but in the beginning, gap responsibility will probably not be as good as it will once they get going. This is the downside of a one gap front, and it's fine. I LIKE the one gap front, but yes, there will be growing pains. Something to watch in preseason, and the first half of the regular season.

 

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm ALL for the new changes. I'm just saying, based on history, this is what's going to happen.

[balta1701-A]

The Bears will stepback even if it has improved. They played out of their mind over half the season.

I've been one of the ones positive on this defense, but I think I'll say it this way here:

 

The Bears have the horses right now to be better on defense next year than last year.

 

It will be tough to do, as this poster notes, because they had some guys make some huge plays last year. But they still dealt with injuries and had several notable holes to deal with.

 

It's hard to be better than a very good defense, but they have the ability to do that. In the end, whether or not they are will come down to coaching and health. They have more talent on defense right now than they had going in to camp last year.

[BearFan PHX]

I've been one of the ones positive on this defense, but I think I'll say it this way here:

 

The Bears have the horses right now to be better on defense next year than last year.

 

It will be tough to do, as this poster notes, because they had some guys make some huge plays last year. But they still dealt with injuries and had several notable holes to deal with.

 

It's hard to be better than a very good defense, but they have the ability to do that. In the end, whether or not they are will come down to coaching and health. They have more talent on defense right now than they had going in to camp last year.

 

I agree, I like the defensive roster much better this year than last year. My only point is that it takes a while to learn the one gap system, and until it's firmly in place, we will see a bunch of 8 yard runs. That's OK - it's worth it. It's just what's going to happen, and something to watch for.

[selection7]

I've been one of the ones positive on this defense, but I think I'll say it this way here:

 

The Bears have the horses right now to be better on defense next year than last year.

 

It will be tough to do, as this poster notes, because they had some guys make some huge plays last year. But they still dealt with injuries and had several notable holes to deal with.

 

It's hard to be better than a very good defense, but they have the ability to do that. In the end, whether or not they are will come down to coaching and health. They have more talent on defense right now than they had going in to camp last year.

And on top of that, "very good" is probably underselling our D last year. Lovie wasn't let go because of D.

[balta1701-A]

And on top of that, "very good" is probably underselling our D last year. Lovie wasn't let go because of D.

5th in the league in yards given up, 3rd in the league in points/game. I think "Very good" sums that up. I'm not going to call a defense "great" if it's only top 5, but that's my prejudice.

[selection7]

5th in the league in yards given up, 3rd in the league in points/game. I think "Very good" sums that up. I'm not going to call a defense "great" if it's only top 5, but that's my prejudice.

Are you kidding me? I didn't want to beat a dead horse because this would be maybe the third time I've mentioned it, but that metric that compares apples to apples ranked the Bears as the #1 D in the league last year. Throw in that 3rd and 5th in yards and (the even more important) points somehow doesn't even qualify as great to you and

 

I know you said oh "that's my prejudice", and there's the question of semantics, but what I can't help but thinking is that, as a fan, you don't take a D like that for granted, and I'm going to go ahead and assume that's exactly what you're doing. Come back in 5 to 10 years and tell me what you think.

[selection7]

If you go over to the Broncos boards, you'll find fans who are pretty much ingrates when it comes to the successes they've had on O and specifically at the QB position over the years, because they've come to expect it. From time to time I notice Bears fans have some of the same thing going on with respect to D, though not as bad, IMO.

[jason]

Hey Guys,

 

I'm very optimistic about our new staff and roster. I've been hoping for something like this, and it seems to me that they are doing all the right things.

 

That said, I do expect the defense to take a step backward this year.

 

Our "Cover 2" defense should probably be called a "One Gap" defense, since it's more about the front than the coverage behind it. Our aggressive scheme asks defensive linemen to get into their gaps and get upfield. This leaves 4 other gaps for LBs and a Safety to be responsible for.

 

Unlike a 2 gap front, where players hold position, and linebackers roam behind like little safeties, our system thrives on upfield pressure, but gap responsibility it KEY. When even one man in out of position, a runner can rip through to the secondary easily. You will recall Lovie's first year where opposing running back routinely ripped off 5 to 8 yard runs against us. I expect we will see some of that as the front learns their assignments.

 

I do like the one gap scheme. It just requires discipline and experience to run it right. It may take a moment to get it together, but all in all I do prefer it, and hope to see them settle into familiar patterns of success after a while. How long that will be remains to be seen.

 

Also, Love preached turnovers. In training camp incomplete passes were live balls. I hope that continues.

 

Don't get me wrong I was thrilled to see Lovie go. Still I know there will be things we lose with him, and gap responsibility will be one of the big ones to watch.

 

Even if it isn't so good at first, over time it can get better, just as it did under Lovie.

 

Anyway, that's something to watch with our new LBs.

 

GO Bears!

 

There is where we always disagreed. The scheme was never really aggressive under Lovie. While the 1-gap/2-gap differences you mentioned are legit, there is simply not a single defense in the NFL - or the entire football world for that matter - that doesn't try to sack the quarterback. But that, in and of itself, doesn't mean the D is aggressive. The D under Lovie was not really aggressive; they were reactionary. They were fine with letting an opponent get small plays over and over because they figured percentage-wise it was likely there would be a stop or turnover before the entire field was traversed.

 

Having said all that, it's no big surprise you prefer the one-gap scheme, and I prefer the alternative. I'd much rather see a coach who says, "No matter what the opposing offense runs, my scheme will cause chaos and they won't know what to do," than a coach who says, "We won't try to trick them, and they'll know what we're running...but we'll out-execute them."

[jason]

Dude. You have 4 new LBs and a DT learning it for the first time.

 

Urlacher, Mike Brown etc struggled the first year because unlike 2 gap systems, there is no room for mental errors. In a 2 gap system, athleticism can make up for a missed first step, or a misread hole. In this scheme, when everyone's doing it right, it can be incredibly effective, but if even 1 of the front 8 get in the wrong hole, youve got an 8 yard run.

 

So given that we saw a lot of those in Lovie's first year, it is a legitimate concern.

 

This part I agree with. If there are no changes in scheme, this defense could struggle somewhat. I think Urlacher will be missed (which was statistically proven last year).

[balta1701-A]

This part I agree with. If there are no changes in scheme, this defense could struggle somewhat. I think Urlacher will be missed (which was statistically proven last year).

Well of course the roster was better with Urlacher on it last year, the Bears weren't exactly overflowing with LB depth. Who even started when Urlacher went down for the last 4 games, was it Geno Hayes?

[CrackerDog]

The D under Lovie was not really aggressive; they were reactionary.

 

You forgot "successful".

[BearFan PHX]

There is where we always disagreed. The scheme was never really aggressive under Lovie. While the 1-gap/2-gap differences you mentioned are legit, there is simply not a single defense in the NFL - or the entire football world for that matter - that doesn't try to sack the quarterback. But that, in and of itself, doesn't mean the D is aggressive.

 

 

In a 2 gap scheme the DTs try to hold their position and play the gaps on either side of them. In a 1 gap scheme they get upfield immediately.

 

I think you are confusing the concept of zone coverage behind the front with the gap scheme.

 

In a 2 gap scheme, like the ravens ran in 2000, the big guys take up the blockers and the LBs roam. That means three levels of defense. In our scheme, 8 men have gap responsibilities, and the first layer after that is the safeties. It puts more pressure on the front to maintain gap discipline.

 

Either scheme can be "aggressive" in nature, but a 2 gap DT does not get upfield into the backfield - it's not his job.

[madlithuanian]

Not against top tier QB's...

 

Brady and Rodgers pretty much passed at will...

 

You forgot "successful".

 

[CrackerDog]

Not against top tier QB's...

 

Brady and Rodgers pretty much passed at will...

 

LOL! Yeah, they did... Against the entire league!

 

Listen, Lovie had his faults, no question, but with shitty offenses and QB's, historically, his teams won a lot more often than they didn't. Hell, he even got us into a Superbowl with Rex Grossman running the offense! And he was running successful D's before he got to the Bears.

 

It may not have been as aggressive as many, including myself, would've liked. But blitzing guys like Rodgers and Brady ain't going to make matters better.

[madlithuanian]

Not so fast...

 

2012 - lost to the Packers twice

2011 - lost to the Packers twice, lost to Saints

2010 - beat Pack once & lost twice including playoffs, NE killed us, lost to NYG

2009 - lost twice to Packers, did beat the Steelers

2008 - did beat the Colts in opener, split with the Packers, did beat the Saints

2007 - lost to NYG, but swept the Packers

2006 - split with Packers, lost to Colts in SB, did beat NO in playoffs, did beat NYG, lost to NE

2005 - did beat Saints, split with Packers, lost to PIT

2004 - split w/ Packers, destroyed by Colts, did beat NYG

 

Don't get me wong, his defenses were really good. In fact, outstanding. However, as jason has pointed out (and you mention as well), they lacked aggressiveness. And, usually didn't perform as well when going up against QB's that make few mistakes since the D is predicated on the O making mistakes.

 

Smith did a good job for a long while. However, it was on;yon one side of the ball. His offenses were pretty much offensive.

 

I make no bones about it, I'm not a fan of Smith. I'm simply not happy that he got us to a SB and lost it. I'm not happy that we had good defenses. I want a damn championship. Andything else is simply what keeps us going until we win one.

 

BTW - Didn't blitzing Brady help the NYG win a SB or 2? Saints did it to Manning as well. It doesn't always work, and we all know that it's a "team" thing on all sides of the ball...but I simply think a "great" D is one that canpressure great QB's. Looks what LT and the Giants did to Joe Montana?

 

I fully concede Smith gave us some good to great D's...but I simply think thaose D's don't fare as well agasint calm and collected QB's. As most D's don't. But, I think a more aggressive approach would yield better results assuming the talent is there.

 

 

LOL! Yeah, they did... Against the entire league!

 

Listen, Lovie had his faults, no question, but with shitty offenses and QB's, historically, his teams won a lot more often than they didn't. Hell, he even got us into a Superbowl with Rex Grossman running the offense! And he was running successful D's before he got to the Bears.

 

It may not have been as aggressive as many, including myself, would've liked. But blitzing guys like Rodgers and Brady ain't going to make matters better.

 

[jason]

You forgot "successful".

 

Define successful.

 

Look at the stats from 2004 through last year. You'll find that the defense was, over the length of that period, average or slightly above average.

Total yards - 4 and 5, 13.89 (years in the top 13, years in the bottom 13, average over career)

Total points - 5 and 4, 10.11

Rushing yards - 6 and 3, 12.11

Rushing TDs - 5 and 4, 12.33

Rushing Y/A - 5 and 4, 12.33

Passing yards - 4 and 5, 17.44

Passing TDs - 6 and 3, 11.44

Passing Y/A - 6 and 3, 10.00

TOP - 2 and 7, 20.78

 

(I consider TOP to be just as much an indication of the defense's ability to get the opponent's offense off the field, as it is an indication of the offense's ability to keep the opponent's offense off the field.)

 

The only metrics by which Lovie's defense over the course of his career in Chicago could unequivocally be considered successful would be takeaways - top half of the league every year except his first year here.

 

Is that successful?

 

 

[jason]

In a 2 gap scheme the DTs try to hold their position and play the gaps on either side of them. In a 1 gap scheme they get upfield immediately.

 

I think you are confusing the concept of zone coverage behind the front with the gap scheme.

 

In a 2 gap scheme, like the ravens ran in 2000, the big guys take up the blockers and the LBs roam. That means three levels of defense. In our scheme, 8 men have gap responsibilities, and the first layer after that is the safeties. It puts more pressure on the front to maintain gap discipline.

 

Either scheme can be "aggressive" in nature, but a 2 gap DT does not get upfield into the backfield - it's not his job.

 

I'm not confusing it, I just disagree with your usage of aggressive. I view the 1-gap to be more passive and reactionary, saying to the opposing offense, "Here's what we have, beat it." Whereas the 2-gap dictates to the opponent's offense - through a moderate amount of unpredictability - what they are allowed to run. Lovie was all about "Here's what we have, beat it."