Coaches or Offensive Line - Which is more important to replace?
by Jacob Hayes on Dec 17, 2009 8:54 PM CST
in Poll
Email
Print
With this season swiftly coming to an end we've got some changes to make on our team and some of them are going to occur faster than others. Now, we are mostly in agreement that both the Offensive Line and the Coaches need to be replaced and rebuilt, but if history is any indicator there is a fair chance that all of our issues won't get addressed. So I ask you the Bears fans out there in internet land, if you could only pick one which would you replace?
Just as a quick exercise I'll add my two cents about each position.
Coaches
- We've had a complete lack of a cohesive game plan this year in any single game.
- When the offensive line was struggling there were zero changes attempted to help until things were way too late.
- Multiple occasions when coming off of a long rest we came out extremely flat which falls directly on the coaches.
- Complete lack of proper talent evaluation and building from Aromashodu, to leaving Omiyale at LG, to the multiple attempts to find a FS on staff only to never let any of them see the field.
- The coaches in place are going to be the ones with the most input on how to rebuild the Offensive Line.
Offensive Line
- Almost all of our offensive woes can be attributed in one way or another to the fairly terrible offensive line play.
- Due to Cutler never having the time to throw more than a three step, or a shotgun drop we've found our ability to use some of our deep threat receivers taken away.
- Our lack of a deep game has caused a crowding of the front half making the use of the TE and Slot WR extremely difficult.
- An inability to consistently open holes while already having a shut down passing game has rendered both play action and the screen pass fairly ineffective.
- That same inability to consistently open holes has led to a lot of stuttering behind the line of scrimmage and even more tackles for loss.
73 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Can I choose both?
Both are of equal importance. Well, if I had to choose I’d want a dominate O-line.
"But it doesn't matter what I do, what I choose. I'm what's wrong. This is fate" - final words of Dexter season 4
Nope!
I kinda of what to see where everyone stands, because I was thinking about what a tough damn call it really is.
No coach is going to be able to implement a game plan when his QB only has 2-3 seconds on every drop, but our current coaching staff being in charge of building an offensive line is really hard to imagine as well.
Associate Writer - WindyCityGridiron.com
I voted for O-line
Even a middle of the road coach can still do well with a great line. Even Lovie Smith!
"But it doesn't matter what I do, what I choose. I'm what's wrong. This is fate" - final words of Dexter season 4
Pretty tough question.
I’d say the O-line would need to be improved first, solely for the fact that neglecting it would result in the poor health of your quarterback and running backs. But the coaching needs a overhaul as well. You can cut the Defensive Coordinator some slack due to the rash of injuries, but this has also become a regular thing over the past few years too. Should you be looking at the people responsible for the health of the players as well?
When you go to somebody's house, you don't crap on their floor. Being a fan of one team does NOT give you license to be a dick to fans of another.
Corollary: When people are visiting your house and behaving themselves, them being a fan of a different team is NOT a reason for you to piss in their beer.
Brought to you by Carl's Jr.
by Robert Rence on Dec 18, 2009 10:47 AM CST up reply actions
tough choice
An offensive linemen need a coach who is a leader and can teach and inspire, yet a coach needs quality players to compete. I think a great coach can make a difference, a bit more than great players with a bad coach.
"I am not an animal!" - Merrick
even though they are one of the hottest teams right?
by Bear Lovin 21 on Dec 17, 2009 9:21 PM CST up reply actions
yeah but they always are
thats what i mean by great players, bad coach. Either all the players burn out, or they have a mediocre coach. Kinda like how the Colts hardly ever lost a regular season game under Dungy, but they only won 1 super bowl. They might finally win the big one this year, but this is the same thing that has been said for several years with them.
"Only won 1 super bowl"
And you just made only 1 moronic comment.
by Poloplaya14 on Dec 17, 2009 10:14 PM CST up reply actions
seriously?
No way. Indy should have won more than one super bowl with that team. That offense was always spectacular with Manning and Moore. Dungy was a defensive coach, founder of that Cover two that was so formidable this decade. and how good was their defense in indy? pretty crappy. except for one year, and they won. If Dungy was a great coach, being a Defensive innovator, his D would have been better and we wouldnt be NE wouldnt be the ones with 4 SB appearances.
So yeah, with Manning and Moore on offense, only 1 SB with a D minded HC is not all that good.
85 wins over 7 seasons = damn good
And yes, a big part of it was that he happened to have the greatest passer of all time (IMO) on the roster, but if you’re gonna blame the coach when a team loses (which we all do), you gotta give him credit when they win. And the Colts won.
And why did they only win one super bowl? The answer is something called variance. An overall 7-6 playoff record is not shabby at all.
they have been a winning team because of offense
now they are complete, defense is no longer tampa-2 and their d is much better. just goes to show how tampa-2 is over.
If you live in Chicago you are a bears fan, if you move from chicago you stay a bears fan, if you move to chicago you will be a bears fan.
exactly
And it speaks volume about Dungy as a coach. Dungy didnt coach the offense, that was Moore and Manning that made it successful. Polian brought in the talent. All Dungy was asked to do was to bring in his defensive philosophy and coach the defense. And Indy’s defense was never good.
When you have a historically excellent offense,you need more than 1 superbowl appearance. I mean are we looking at the Steelers and saying anything is historical about them? Not at all, but they have 2.
the only variance was
that eventually the colts would be lucky and beat the pats. Because they were out coached every other time they played each other when it mattered.
Pats
If it was for the Patriots during the Manning era, the Colts would have had several…no question about it…very bad example
by Sonicbob on Dec 18, 2009 8:08 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
thats my point tho
Indy, pats, and SD are all close in their talent. And yet it has been the Pats that have dominated the decade. The difference is coaching, Bilichek is a great coach, Dungy and Norv are mediocre coaches.
I totally concur
The 2000’s era Colts are the biggest underachiever in my sporting lifetime, though I’m not old enough to remember the 1986 Bears.
Is Jerry Angelo fired yet?
Kind of like Ditka?
Ditka only won one Superbowl. Was he a bad coach, or did he have bad players? Ditka was a total flop with the Saints.
Dungy has a great record. His Tampa Bay teams were great, his Colts teams were great, and he was an excellent defensive coordinator for the Vikings before that. When guys go from one success to the next, that says something. Where did Dungy coach in the NFL that he didn’t produce consistent winners? He did it before he had Peyton Manning and after.
Didn’t you ever think there might be an element of chance involved too? Would Bellicheck have his level of success without Tom Brady? He’s a great coach. But how lucky is it to get a quarterback in the 6th round, who goes from fourth string to MVP of the superbowl in just 2 years?
What if Ricky Williams hadn’t turned out to be a total head-case and pot-head, but instead the next Walter Payton? Maybe Ditka wins a superbowl with the Saints?
You can best tell “bad” coaches from “good” ones based on a continued record of success or failure. But no one coach can have enough impact to ensure multiple superbowls, or even make the playoffs every single year.
Dungy has great regular season success
In tampa apparently all it took to get the team to a super bowl was a cocky head coach to challenge them to win the superbowl. Tampa was a good example (like Pittsburgh) of a great defensive coordinator taking care of one side of the ball.
Like you said about Dungy in Minn, he was a good coordinator. But did you ever see that in Indy? not at all. His coordinator ability did not transfer to the HC position. He had Kiffin in Tampa that was a good coord. and continued after Dungy left.
Bellichek prolly wouldnt have won without Brady, but the Colts would have been an abysmal team without Manning. You can kiss almost everyone of those regular season wiins away, cause Dungy’s Defense wasnt gonna get them for you.
I am not saying Dungy was a bad coach, im saying he was mediocre. Billichek tho is a good head coach. Both played head to head in the playoffs often, and both had to deal with chance, and NE was the one who came out on top.
So by your definition...
A coach that 1) regularly makes the playoffs 2) essentially always coaches to a winning record, but 3) only wins 1 superbowl is mediocre?
Mediocre is occasionally making the playoffs and coaching .500 average and never reaching/winning the superbowl.
I see little evidence Dungy is a “mediocre” head coach. Consistent winning teams suggests he’s better than “mediocre”.
Let’s explore Ditka vs. Dungy:
DItka:
121–95 (0.560) and a postseason record of 6–6, 1 SB win
Dungy:
139-69 (0.668) and a postseason record of 9-10, 1 SB win
So Dungy has a better win percentage, more postseason games, and equal superbowls. Is Dungy a better coach than Ditka? I didn’t say that. The point is that counting like that is a dangerous thing. Both were proven winners, which to me is what really counts.
By the way...
Dungy lost to New England twice in the playoffs, and beat them 1 time. That ’s hardly dominance by the NE Patriots over the Colts.
Your post is unfounded
They’re one of the hottest teams right now, and Norv has won two playoff games with SD. That’s much better than his predecessors.
"But it doesn't matter what I do, what I choose. I'm what's wrong. This is fate" - final words of Dexter season 4
maybe its better than his predecessors
but Shottenheimer was onlly a decent hc anyway, so just bc norv has won 2 playoff games more than shotty doesnt mean all that much..
Except for the fact
that Norv was very close to going to the SB with them, while Schotty wasn’t. If it not for injuries to three of their best players on offense, the Bolts probably beat the Pats.
"But it doesn't matter what I do, what I choose. I'm what's wrong. This is fate" - final words of Dexter season 4
i guess this is what i mean
there are, in the afc, three teams that have amazing talent. SD, Indy, and NE. All three have immense talent. The 3 coaches (you know but ya know, cause i wanna write it…) SD-Norv, Indy-Dungy, NE-Bilichek, And in the playoff meetings between them, NE has dominated, cept 1 year against Indy where Brady is closer to losing it than Indy winning it, and, i think, this shows you where the good coach is.
If the talent is so great
isn’t that an indictment on the aforementioned coaching?
"But it doesn't matter what I do, what I choose. I'm what's wrong. This is fate" - final words of Dexter season 4
No one specific
I understand your statement better the second time reading it, but if a team like SD has so much talent, why have they failed to reach the SB? It’s because the AFC has been the dominant conference for awhile (not this year). This goes back to my point that Turner has done much better with the same talent.
IMO- the Pats had the superior defense over the Colts earlier in the decade. It’s the main reason why P. Manning finally got his ring (and the fact Lovie refused to pull Rexy).
"But it doesn't matter what I do, what I choose. I'm what's wrong. This is fate" - final words of Dexter season 4
Absolutely
Yeah i agree with you that Norv is better than Shotty, but shotty was always a good “regular season” coach, and i think that Norv is better but not by alot. I just don’ t think Norv breaks into good coaching territory, He stays at the top of mediocre coaches, with Dungy.
I see the Chargers, Pats, and Colts as having close to the same talent, and so it is gonna come down to coaching that will make the difference. So that is how i come to the conclusion that they (Indy, SD) have failed to make it to the SB. NE just has better coaching.
And you are totally right about our super bowl..
Norv having success...
is a reason to keep the coaches in place… he struggled and had everyone calling for his head, but now that team is playing real good football. Also see Lewis in Cincinnati… I’m sure a tweak or 2 will be made to the Bears staff, but if they start winning again next year no one will be looking to can Lovie
by Lester A. Wiltfong Jr. on Dec 18, 2009 8:54 AM CST up reply actions
Coach would matter more next year if we had a 1st or 2nd rounder to develop
If we had quality picks in this years draft and actually expected/wanted them to help get Wins in their rookie season I may have voted for coaching. According to the Earl Bennett Development Protocol, this coaching staff should have all of this years rookies (knox, Gilbert, Iglesias) ready to go sometime next year, making OL a more pressing need….
by No It All on Dec 17, 2009 9:42 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
rec
Earl Bennett Development Protocol
That would be a cool band name with some omissions.
Protocol development
"But it doesn't matter what I do, what I choose. I'm what's wrong. This is fate" - final words of Dexter season 4
Coaches
New coaches will bring in new lineman!
by Ryan21 on Dec 17, 2009 9:53 PM CST via mobile reply actions
Seriously? It's definitely coaches!
Our offensive line has seen 4 new starters this season, some of which are switching positions and nothing has been stable. That right there is a problem with coaching just like players have been swapped all over the defensive side of the ball. We are one solid guard away from having a serviceable O-line that could make a world of difference in comparison to this year’s line. The players on offense clearly do not respect the play calling and with the way Cutler’s personality is we need to hire and OC and QB coach that he is comfortable with and will listen to, like it or not we traded for him now we have to cater to him. Lovie’s pigheadedness has brought a proud defense to it’s knees with his removal of Rivera to place Babich in the driver’s seat then now as he has taken control we have seen no improvement and a collapse at stopping the run. Without coaches players believe in, how will they believe in themselves and a scheme that is suppose to get you to compete for a Super Bowl? Free agents will stay away from Chicago as well if they feel the place is in shambles and right now we are. New coaches for sure.
by PolishSausage.Ditka.Bears. on Dec 17, 2009 10:19 PM CST reply actions
I agree 100%
Due to the fact that the Lovie Administration has illustrated an inability to judge/develop/nurture offensive talent, coupled with the fact that we have no 1st day draft picks to infuse youth on the line, it is vital the Bears chance the coaching staff to A) Coach up whatever talent we do have at the moment & B) change the culture of our entire offense. This current staff is primitive in terms innovation/imagination in comparison to the rest of the league. Dismantling this coaching staff is of the utmost importance. . .
Ummm, this is all you need to know
The 49ers won 5 Super Bowls.
In all that time they only drafted ONE O-Lineman in the 1st round (Harris Barton).
One!
They did however have one of the greatest head coaches in NFL history (Bill Walsh) and a man considered by many to be one of the greatest O-Line coaches in NFL history (Bobb McKittrick).
In the NFL, it’s all about the coaching.
Great coaches make average players good.
They make good players great.
They make great players HOF’er’s
Another example (This one concerning the Arizona Cardinals and Russ Grimm, who came over to Arizona along with Ken Whisenhunt):
(From the Arizona Republic):
Grimm is both gruff and modest, but his imprint is all over this team. He inherited a mess left by former coach Dennis Green, who cut Pete Kendall on his way to training camp; drafted Alex Stepanovich and Nick Leckey; hired a former player as offensive-line coach (Everett Lindsay), even though he had no coaching experience; and insisted on playing Leonard Davis out of position.
Grimm immediately simplified the scheme and instilled a sense of loyalty and toughness. Prior to the win against the Vikings, the starting unit had played in 27 consecutive regular-season games, and that doesn’t happen by accident. After rushing for 100 or more yards just once in the first seven games, the Cardinals have surpassed that benchmark four times – all of them victories – in the past five games.
Grimm is old school and demanding but has created a close-knit group that has adopted the coach’s philosophy. They have been schooled to understand their position is not for those seeking fame and glory, but for stoic men content with anonymity and a job well done.
In the NFL, it’s ALL about the coaching!
Bears have interviewed him before
He might be a “sleeper” candidate if and when the head coaching position is available.
"But it doesn't matter what I do, what I choose. I'm what's wrong. This is fate" - final words of Dexter season 4
The point I was trying to make is this:
A) Dennis Green hires an unqualified O-Line coach.
B) They insisted on playing their best lineman (for #3 overall pick) Leonard Davis out-of-position (at Tackle instead of at Guard).
C) Davis goes to Dallas (and makes the Pro-Bowl)
D) And Grimm comes in and takes over an underachieving unit and makes them respectable (and beyond) in short order (despite losing their best lineman, Davis).
Grimm is an excellent O-Line coach. Excellent coaches get more out of their players than do average (or crappy) coaches.
Do the Bears need better players? Sure they do.
But first . . . they need better coaches. Period.
I get it
Talent matters, but coaches develop that talent to reach its potential.
"But it doesn't matter what I do, what I choose. I'm what's wrong. This is fate" - final words of Dexter season 4
Those comments about Green sound familiar
Drafting no-names and getting nothing out of them, promoting unqualified coaches, and insisting on playing people out of position. I know this song. Sad part is Lovie won’t give any legendary YouTube press conference before he’s gone, he’ll just be gone without a whimper.
Green's drafted studs
like Larry Fitzgerald, Karlos Dansby and Darnell Dockett.
Draft wise, he helped set the foundation for today’s Cardinal team.
Moreover....
He drafted great with the Vikings. More so on offense than defense, but Green was always good overall at drafting and developing players. Not everything was a hit, but more hits than misses.
I’m not sure Green was that great of a coach on the field. But Green was at least a decent coach.
Harris Barton?
Who’s he? I don’t care who the Bears put on the o-line, without clock management, a game plan and a vision for the future as well as a realistic evaluation of the team’s play they are doomed. A couple new face on the line are going to solve these problems? Please!
You make no sense
My point (if you were paying attention) was that the GREAT coaching of O-Line coach Bobb McKittrick (and not having a bunch of first rounders) is the reason that the 49ers had one of the best offensive lines in the NFL at that time.
Unless, of course, you think they won all those Super Bowls (and guys like Montana and Rice set all those records) behind a crappy offensive line.
Try to follow the conversation here.
What if we hired a new O-line coach and New Head Coach
That will play the players in the positions that they are supposed to play. For example playing Omiyale at RT instead of LG
The Bears need to CLEAN HOUSE
when it comes to the coaching staff.
It happens all the time.
Josh McDaniels and an entirely new staff went into Denver last season. Already, they have the same number of wins as had the Broncos all last season.
Nothing less than a complete housecleaning of this coaching staff is acceptable.
Who's the hottest coaching candidate out there?
Mike Shanahan.
And yet, he wasn’t ‘too good’ that he couldn’t get fired and be replaced by a 32 year old kid (Josh McDaniels).
If Mike Shanahan can get fired (with something like 20 million left on his contract) then why can’t Lovie Smith get fired (with 11 million left on his contract).
Shanahan has two Super Bowl victories. Lovie has none.
If Shanny can get the axe, why not Lovie?
Not all situations are created equal
Shanny was there for quite awhile, and most likely would still have a job if he handed over the defense to someone else. Lovie is going to be fired cause he can’t develop talent.
"But it doesn't matter what I do, what I choose. I'm what's wrong. This is fate" - final words of Dexter season 4
Exactly
Lovie can’t seem to develop or motivate his players. I’m not asking for yelling and screaming and all that crap, I’m simply looking for this guy to get his team behind him and since 2006, it looks like this team has given up on him.
as far as developing talent: Jamar Williams is a good example of a guy they drafted who has yet to do anything though it looks like there might be some potential there. DJ Moore? Iglesias? Aroma? why bother drafting these guys if they’ll never see the field?
Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.
Aroma wasn't drafted by us.
I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule. -Randal Graves
I want and/or need followers. http://www.twitter.com/kdoggers
as unpleasant as the o line has been to watch for the most part
this year, it’s been even worse watching the repeated and numerous stupid penalties, poor play-calling on both sides of the ball and well really i guess 5-8 sums it up nicely. the red-flag issues really is like icing on the cake. better coaching may not be the best option for cutler’s short term health prospects but let’s be honest here. just the thought of even one more year of watching this team run in circles while getting their asses handed to them more often than not is something none of us can be excited about.
by reefermadness3 on Dec 17, 2009 11:47 PM CST reply actions
Scenario (no discussion of all the things Lovie does that make me angry)
Would you rather have:
HC: New Coach
OC: New Coach
OLC: New Coach
LT: Williams/Pace
LG: Beekman/Omiyale
C Kreutz/Beekman
RG: Garza/someone else
RT: Schaffer/Omiyale
or
HC: Lovie Smith
OC: Ron Turner
OLC: Harry Heistand
OL: + 2 FAs, Williams, Kruetz, Garza
Technically option2 is what we had this year with Pace & Omiyale. Not saying that JA couldn’t do better with another shot at it, but I think that a new HC who brought in a new OC and OLC could make our offense more productive and would be a better long term option and would probably benefit the whole team more.
I know it isn’t fair to make the comparison because Turner & Heistand would likely be gone and FA pickups couldn’t get any worse than this year. However, the guy choosing the OC would be the same guy that has let Ron Turner run things since ’05 and had Terry Shea before that (that year the bears ranked #32 in total offense, I believe.)
Moreover, since Lovie will likely be gone after that, we’re talking about a new QB and WRs working with new coaches pretty much every year for 3 years! Personnel might be more important in general, but coaching is the most pressing need right now.
If we had coaches who knew how to build a successful O-line
Then our line would never have degenerated to the point that it’s at right now. Our coaches are the ones who evaluated and assembled the current group of players.
Heading into training camp, they had to have known they were sitting on a potential time bomb:
Either
1) They were totally out of touch with the ability level of this current group.
2) They knew the line sucked and were just gambling that:
a) Despite his age and health issues, Pace would rebound and have a career year.
b) Omiyale would quickly adapt to a totally new position and become our answer at LG.
c) Like Pace, Kruetz would magically reverse the aging process and have a career year.
Also, Chris Williams was still an unknown heading into this year – since he missed virtually all of last season. So, you could say that they gambled on Williams’ ability to contribute, also (most people haven’t been too excited about his play this year). I blame the current state of the O-line on the coaching staff – Lovie Smith, Ron Turner and Harry Heinstedt. Without a competent and productive O-line, no offense will be able to succeed.
"Yes, risk taking is inherently failure-prone. Otherwise, it would be called sure-thing-taking." - Jim McMahon
Coaches or O-line
This is a no brainer. Since the present cadre of coaches, for the most part, have proven that they are incapable of motivating these players and leading them by example ( obvious stupid decisions regarding plays and players). If the team can’t respect their leaders decisions, this includes all of the supervisory personel from the top to bottom, then replacing the whole offensive line using the same leaders we have now is stupid and will give the Chicago Bears fans more repetition of results that we have had for the last few years. Start at the top of the food chain and work down. If the McCaskeys can’t handle the heat, get out of the kitchen and put someone in control that can.
Once you get the controlling pieces in order and on the same page then you put your coaches and players into the game doing what “you” want them to do, not how they want it to be done. The bottom line is that troubles all start at the top and seeps its way down and has a direct effect on all of the personel in the organization. E.T.
O-Line
It starts in the trenches. This team leads the league in INTs, has the 32nd ranked running game, and a not so good defense. They’ve still got five wins. Put an actual offensive line in there (even though it will take two seasons) and this team will contend.
They might contend in the same way the 80s Dolphins and Broncos contended, but they’ll contend.
Ron Turner will have to go at some point though.
Is Jerry Angelo fired yet?
Coaching needed to get and develop talent
there is no question this team needs help at OL, but Lovie and his staff have yet to develop anyone into anything. If Angelo is going to take shots in the draft in hopes of landing the next Tom Brady-like player then he’s going to need coaching to help develop that player. Lovie and his staff don’t do that.
Outside of Marinelli and Toub, I don’t know any coaches that have that ability. Pep Hamilton has been useless. Turner can’t seem to take advantage of the skills players have and the secondary play is terrible. Is it likely if we had a better OL coach that this unit would be better, that’s doubtful, but perhaps they wouldn’t be so undisciplined and be able to make the right reads on the line.
Obviously, it all starts with player evaluation and I’m not sure we have the right coaches and front office personnel to make good decisions on player potential and how to use a player to their strengths rather than weaknesses.
Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.
Gotta' Go
with replacement of the coaching staff first with Angelo included in that since he’s had a pretty good hand in why we’re at where we’re at, and may as well include Phillips for allowing him to basically handcuff any new OC or HC for next season with his ridiculous 1st day draft giveaways. Not that he or Smith know what to do with them. I do like the Russ Grimm theory that E.T. put out there, thinkin’ he could actually “coach-up” what we have(what a novel idea!) and probably show decent improvement on the way to gettin’ the line right and hopefully some secondary help on the other side. There just has to be changes, suck it up and make them, most all organizations make mistakes…but the GOOD ones FIX those mistakes sooner rather than later. Pull the trigger!!!!
"most football players are temperamental, thats 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental" Doug Plank
Lovie Smith was Angelo's pick...
I don’t think he was Angelo’s first pick, but Lovie Smith was hand-picked by Angelo.
Either way, if it is players or coaches most responsible for a bad team, Angelo’s hands are on everything. He picked the players and the head coach.
It would make more sense to bring a new GM and let the GM either get a new coach or keep Lovie. If you pick a coach before a new GM, then if you need a new GM down the line it’ll undercut the new coach considerably.
Sadly
our GM is under contract for even longer than Lovie. No idea what his buyout number would be but I have a hard time seeing the McCaskeys paying off 4 years of salary.
I didn't know that...
Kind of a lose/lose then. If you can’t get rid of the GM, I don’t really know if getting a new head coach will matter that much. Angelo might want to ditch Lovie, but who is going to be willing to come to that situation? Not a top-tier coach, I think.
At any rate, if you want a good GM, you have got to give him the power to pick his HC. So if you get a new HC now, unless you give him GM power, then in 3-4 years time if you get a new GM he’ll likely flip coaches anyhow.
I don’t see the Bears turning this around significantly without fresh high-round drafts, willingness to get high-price free agents, but starting with a new GM. You’ve got a better chance with a total house cleaning, let a new GM build from scratch.
O-Line
Lifelong Arizona Cardinals/Chicago Bears fan.
No band-wagoner fans allowed, pick a team and stick with em, throughout the good and the bad.
Line
I get that some people think that a new coach would make the line better, but I don’t think the option was “new coach that also makes our line better”. The question was, better coaching or better line. And quite frankly, the line has been the reason this team has failed. Why is there no running game? The O-Line. Why has Cutler put up so many interceptions? The O-Line*. Why do we have trouble putting up points? THE O-LINE.
It simply must be better. Erasing all the coaching mistakes this season would not have the same impact.
- Yes, many interceptions were Cutler and Cutler alone’s fault, but many were just him not having time.
There are three phases in the game
Offense, Defense and Special Teams.
The O-Line has nothing to do with two of those.
When two teams (Bengals & Cardinals) score at will on Lovie’s defense, that has nothing to do with the O-Line (except for burying the offense before they even get started).
When GB scores a 60+ yard TD on their first play, that has nothing to do with the Bears O-Line.
Not saying that the O-Line isn’t a big problem, but this team, this season, was a train wreck.
And Lovie was the conductor.
WOW... It's almost 50/50 at this point...
I wanna see TURNER gone reguardless cause he’s like a monkey just picking plays… but I believe if you give Jay a lil bit more time back there and he will pick apart ANY defense…. Hell, I’ll even venture to say, using ANY receiving corps in the league! And that’s why I voted “O-Line” cuz then it wouldn’t matter that we have a monkey for an OC cuz we could score at will!
GO BEARS!!!!
I would rather have the monkey
We can just have the monkey pick out plays by flipping through the playbook and having someone else call them in. Then no one would b!tch about the Bears offensive predictability again.
"Why does Jay Cutler look so bad running these awful plays behind an incompetent offensive line?" - VeryFakeAlDavis
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
