Running game optimism
There is this article http://chi.scout.com/2/764573.html that gives reason to be optimistic about the Bears running game, mostly because Cedric Benson is gone. While chemistry is important on a team, its still difficult for me to envision a much improved run game by the Bears in 2008. The other players may not have liked Benson as much as they will like Matt Forte, the "heir apparent" main RB, the blocking effort should be the same regardless. The Offensive Line will have a slightly different look, with Ruben Brown replaced by either backup Terrance Metcalf or Josh Beekman. Fred Miller(whose strength was supposed to be run-blocking) will be replaced by rookie Chris Williams, moving last years LT, John Tait, to RT this year. The main blocking TE duties may also be relegated to rookie, Kellen Davis, and a new mix of WRs dont exactly stand out as great blockers either.
So while the attitude may be a little better in the locker room, it could be argued that the blocking talent has gotten even worse. The aging John Tait will be counted on to psuh the defense back and open more holes this season, and he's not exactly the strong, heavy, mauler that teams rely on for a good run-blocking RT. Ruben Brown was once a Pro-Bowl Guard who could pull and open holes in the second level, but career backups(who couldn't win the starting job even while Brown was injured) will be expected to step up improve on that. While rookie Chris Williams was touted as an excellent finesse-blocking LT, it likely will take a year or two to master the run-blocking aspect for him.
That leaves 2nd roundpick Matt Forte, replacing former #4 overall pick Benson, as the only significant improvement in personnel. Benson was no slouch athletically when healthy, so Forte wont be that much faster or stronger. We must hope he is shiftier and has more heart(which wont be hard to imagine). Does anybody buy that the Bears would always run with Benson in the backfield and pass when Peterson lined up because that was all they were good for? I believe any predictability came from Ron Turner's play-calling, not the RB lined up in the backfield. Was Wolfe really not used because Benson was too valuable to take off the field, or because he may not have what it takes? Are any of you optimistic about the situation?
0 recs |
9
comments
Comments
Not very optimistic
I’m optimistic about the Bears defense bouncing back in a big way. The run game? not so much. The entire offense is full of question marks. The 1st 4 opponents (Indy, Carolina, TB, and Philly) have good to great defenses (3rd, 16th, 2nd, 10th respectively last year). I foresee a painful 1st month for our entire offense. Although, if Chris Williams, Forte, Grossman/Orton, and the receivers show me something in the preseason, I reserve the right to change my mind.
by MuleTrain on Jun 25, 2008 2:11 PM CDT 0 recs
Optimistic ... ON ONE BIG CONDITION
I still feel they need to bring in a LEFT GUARD
Sign Bentley already. He’s the missing piece.
Let’s look at things from this perspective, what if some of the Bears’ problem last year was a “Superbowl Hangover” that historically has affected almost all of the Super Bowl losers from the past, what, maybe ten years.
Let’s look what happen if they add Bentley, their lineup looks like:
Chris Williams: the 14th pick of the draft better be decent, obviously not as good against the run, but with a strong blocking TE (Clark?) next to him on one side, and a pro bowl guard on the other side, hopefully we can compensate.
LeCharles Bentley: played guard before, played at a pro bowl level, has plenty to prove. Yes, it’s a big question of whether he can come back from a knee injury. But the definition of being optimisitc is looking on the bright side.
Kruetz, Garza and Tait: Three older guys who have proven to be solid in the past, who I think rebound this year because the “hangover” effect is no longer. Two of three can be pro bowl calibre and even Garza can be quite studly.
Optimistically speaking, I can see the line bouncing back this year.
And I love Forte. He’s everything you look for: a guy who has a passion for the game, speed, shiftyness, incredibly productive in college. There’s no reason why he can’t be pro bowl quality.
I would still love to see the Bears get a veteran running back … Ron Dayne? Kevin Jones?
by smithie love on Jun 25, 2008 3:32 PM CDT 0 recs
nah
roll with forte and peterson. as long as they aren’t slow they’ll be fine.
i think without an addition of a guy like bentley or some sort of miraculous improvement to some of the guys last year the running game is in dire straits. i really hope they at least take a long look at bently, they can’t think they are set the way they are.
by mike b on
Jun 25, 2008 6:15 PM CDT
up
0 recs
adrian peterson
deserves more time over a dayne or jones. Adrian is a good backup. 100 yds against pack late last season and 90 against new orleans. He will be a great compliment to forte.
Also i believe he won over his teammates and staff last year by running hard.
Dayne or jones is not upgrade over peterson and wolfe.
by rahulsriram on Jun 25, 2008 4:17 PM CDT 0 recs
optimistic
I saw Garret Wolfe as the number one back in last season’s pre season game against the Browns. Even with a bad quarterback, some 4th stringer, Wolfe looked awesome. Wolfe was the player that stood out the most, more than Greg Olson, who got hurt actually. He was good at slicing up the middle, getting open, catching a short pass, cutting, shifting, and gaining yards. I saw him do it over and over again. He was tough to catch, tough to stop. When he settled into the regular season more, because he got more snaps, especially in the Packers and Saints game this kid made some great strides up field with screen pass plays, and he did show us a flash of his talent. His size is definitely a limitation for him as defenses, once they grabbed him, took him down. But when they missed him, and his speed kicked in, zooom!!!! I am a believer in Garret Wolfe. Now some might say well his highlights was the Browns pre season game and that was against 3rd and 4th stringers. All I gotta say is that what the Bears played like in pre season was exactly what we saw in the regular season, especially in offense. Sluggish Benson, Grossman botching snaps in the Colts game, turnover timebomb, dropped passes, etc. And the Bears lost to the Browns, which I think would have happened in the regular season as well. Adrian Peterson is versatile and productive. He proved he was better than Benson last season, not many can dispute that. His work ethic, his teamwork work ethic, his leadership on special teams, his reliability in the running and passing game, especially screen pass. His blocking, and his intelligence. And then that one Sunday where really it was Adrian Peterson versus the Packers defense in the frozen hell tundra where he racked up 100 yds and played his heart out. He exhibited instincts and character, things Benson always lacked. For Matt Forte the rookie, all I gotta say is watch film of his running with Tulane. This kid is only going to be a plus for this team and he bounce back from injury to put up big numbers demonstrating his durability and resurgence. Something Benson was alien too.
by Chicagoso on Jun 26, 2008 10:42 AM CDT 0 recs
optimistic… we didn’t have that different an O-Line with Thomas Jones as RB and he managed to be productive. I echo what was written above and I wholeheartedly believe Forte will be a stud.
Bear Down, Chicago Bears!
by topdoggkyle on Jun 26, 2008 9:44 PM CDT 0 recs
With all that has been said up above
in the end, I just don’t think the Bears have enough brain power on the offensive side of the football to out-coach opponents on a regular basis, set the tempo of the game, and maximize their own strengths, while minimizing their own weaknesses.
In the NFL, you can score points on offense just by outcoaching your opponent. I’ve seen the Patriots win playoff games and SBs with a 2nd year QB (Brady) behind a fill in the blank offensive line… with Antwoin Smith running the football… with a no-name group of WRs. It’s all in the coaching, game planning, and play calling.
Last year, there were a couple of moments where Turner shined: he surprised the heck out of Denver or New York (can’t remember) by opening the game in a no-huddle… marching straight down the field in 8 or 9 snaps and scoring 6. That’s outcoaching the opponent. The only problem was… they STOPPED DOING IT! And whenever they had success with anything early on in a game, Lovie’s quote in the post-game conference would be something to the effect of, “Well, we knew they would eventually stop that.” Are you kidding me? MAKE THEM STOP IT, then switch it up to set teh temp in a different way.
I'm not going to even bother trying to update this sig everyday anymore... that's what the standings column on ESPN is for.
Updated on May 25, 2008
by SackMan on Jul 1, 2008 4:03 PM CDT 0 recs
lovie a dummy too
a couple of times last year they were asked why they stopped doing something that was working and the only response was that the opposing team would have stopped it eventually anyway.
make them stop you first fellas.
by mike b on
Jul 1, 2008 4:08 PM CDT
up
0 recs
the play calling has been bad
predictable and unimaginative for the most part. It could be even worse this year with inexperienced WRs and a rookie RB and LT. Less turnovers and penalties(unusual amounts last year) will help, along with a return of a dominant defense. but the NFC North competition seems to be improved this year and making the playoffs will be tough. With this offense, asking for anything more than that is pure fantasy.
by gillrowdy on
Jul 3, 2008 2:33 PM CDT
up
0 recs






