5 Things "I Think I know" About the Bears

I agree with 5

The Bears need to get on top of those wide recivers when they’re blitzing. The slant route kills them all the time.

FIRE VDN

by gocubs526 on Sep 22, 2009 12:36 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

make sure you send a check to king

by mike b on Sep 22, 2009 2:05 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Agree with everything except #5 ..

The defense have acquitted themselves well thus far. Very well, in fact, considering we beat the Steelers without two of our starting linebackers. Frank Gore averaged less than a yard per carry against the Cards on (25 carries for 21yds). Then ran at will against the Hawks. Problem arises though – our run blocking is terrible … then again so was the Niners against the Hawks. Omiyale stunk the whole game against the Packers and the clock is ticking for him. And surely Cutler was a better signing than Marinelli ? although very glad Marinelli is on board …

by Irish Bears Fan on Sep 22, 2009 4:32 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Sure we beat the Steelers...

But any team that is smart enough to run those quick slants or send their slot receiver on a 10-15 yard route over the middle while the two outside receivers run longer routes at the outside can have a field day against our secondary because the middle of the field seems to almost always be open. That’s where Roethlisberger was killing us until he started to lose his accuracy thanks to some DL pressure.

And I think he referred to Marinelli as the best free agent signing because Cutler wasn’t a free agent, we had to trade for him. So while Cutler may be the best off season acquisition, Marinelli was the best “free agent” signing.

"One time I went to a social gathering, I brought a bottle of Tanqueray and a shotgun and showed those motherf&#@ers the best time they ever had!"- Kenny Powers (Eastbound and Down)

"Why give 100% when 35 can still get you paid and laid."- Kenny Powers

by gridiron_assassin on Sep 22, 2009 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

cutler wasnt a siging

he was traded for
so i think whats he said that about rod

by Bear Lovin 21 on Sep 22, 2009 1:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Omiyale is not a guard...

He is simply a tackle playing guard. I would like to see the Bears sit him down for a game, say Detroit or Seattle, and let Beekman play. Omiyale seems to block well in space and down field, which also projects him as a tackle. IMO, Omiyale needs to backup the tackle spot until Pace gets hurt or retires. Then, the Bears need to get Chris Willimas to play the position they drafted him for, LT. This puts Omiyale at RT, which is more about blocking in space and down field. Draft the best guard you can find to work in over the next 2 seasons and the O-line could be both young and good.

There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.

by LostInSTL on Sep 22, 2009 6:56 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I like your analysis...

and I agree

Bear Down, Chicago Bears!

by topdoggkyle on Sep 22, 2009 10:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I too

like your analysis and think that Omiyale is a better tackle.

I am a little, and I stress just a little, concerned about what I’ve seen out of Chris Williams thus far. I think he will do better as the season goes along, but he didn’t look great against the Steelers top notch D-fense.

by Fridge72 on Sep 22, 2009 11:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You know what else would be nice

a center prospect. I was hoping for one in this past draft. Maybe Jerry can work on the interior of the line and defensive back 7 in the next draft in T minus 7 months

by wennington4 on Sep 22, 2009 8:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

We have one.

His name is Josh Beekman.

If you can't laugh at yourself you must not be very funny.

by Just Dave on Sep 22, 2009 9:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's been my thought on it as well.

"The time has come to get deeply into Football. It is the only thing we have left that ain't fixed." - HST

by JerBear50 on Sep 23, 2009 2:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hope you're right about #1

but it seems like during the Lovie Smith era, they almost always never live up to what looks like an easy time. I always worry when the Bears are heavy favorites in a game because they always seem to let up and play down to their competition. Maybe this will be the year that they don’t believe the hype and actually assume that they can get their asses kicked by every opponent.

by BearFan611 on Sep 22, 2009 7:40 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm sure the Seahawks will be keying into this weakness as well

Funny thing is people act like the Seahawks don’t know they have a glaring defensive weakness and won’t make adjustments. Granted, there’s only so much they can do, but they’ll now be in week 3. I have not lowered my expectations of the Bears’ running game yet, but I’m not expecting Forte to run all over the field either. If anything, the ’Hawks will try to adjust to stop the run, and thus open up the passing game for Cutler.

by Loathie Smith on Sep 22, 2009 9:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

agreed

by BearFan611 on Sep 22, 2009 10:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I follow the seahawks quite a bit and they are devasted by injuries right now

2 LB’s are out, starting corner is out, W.Jones has not been playing at tackle but may play. They get Spencer back for the Oline (but he is a bum anyway), and we all know about Hasselbeck. They are not good at running the ball and decent at pass protection. They are also not good at stopping the run and their safeties are suspect (sound familiar?). There is no reason we shouldn’t win this game as long as we do not turn the ball over. It will be loud and a tough place to play though..

by tfrabotta on Sep 22, 2009 10:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

this scream trap game

they need to come out at a high level off the bat.

by mike b on Sep 22, 2009 10:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree except that we don't have a huge game following

we have the lions which will help with the focus for this game. It is a tough place to play with loud fans. But they are battered with injuries and we should be able to control the line of scrimmage (first time this year) on both sides..

by tfrabotta on Sep 22, 2009 11:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're right

also, look at the schedule after Detroit. For having the league’s “easiest schedule” we have 3 tough stretches based on this year’s performances so far. We are at Atlanta & at Cincinnatti, then a break with the Browns, but then there is a 4 game stretch with Cardinals, at 49’ers, Eagles, & at Vikings. We get a break with the Rams, but then another killer 3 game stretch with the Packers, at Baltimore, then the Vikings, finishing off with a game that probably won’t mean anything against the Lions. Those are some pretty tough groupings, let’s hope our injuries are minimal and we maintain our edge.

I hope the Lions game at the end of the season is important, since it should be a relatively easy win, although we all know “on any given Sunday…….”

by BearFan611 on Sep 22, 2009 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

letdown game

is probably better terminology, after such a big win against the steelers then can’t come into this one thinking its a cake walk.

by mike b on Sep 22, 2009 12:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly, I wouldn't have worried about that if it weren't for all the injuries on Seattle's team

so let’s hope they hear you.

by BearFan611 on Sep 22, 2009 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I don't think "trap game" really applies

when you’re 1-1.

"The time has come to get deeply into Football. It is the only thing we have left that ain't fixed." - HST

by JerBear50 on Sep 23, 2009 2:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Knox is a work in progress

Terrible route in game 1 leads to a pick. A very good game in game 2. He’s a rookie with skills, so he is going to be up and down for a while. If he is the real deal, the good plays will increase as the bad plays diminish. I do worry about his size though. He is listed at 6’ 180 which is laughable. He is no closer to 6’ than is Tom Cruise. He will need to learn how to protect himself out there otherwise whatever career he might have will be a brief one.

I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren

by lookingdeadred on Sep 22, 2009 7:58 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Knox is showing that there's a lot more to being a receiver than just being "big"

He’s probably one of the best athletes on the team. He’s shown that he’s not only a burner, but he can jump and he’s got great hands and the concentration to hang onto the ball…

I think he’ll get a little bigger and stronger next year, but he’s got the pure skills to be a star in this league.

by JimmyMack on Sep 22, 2009 8:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Knox reminds me of a much faster dennis mckinnon....

small guy with good hands and willing make the grab in heavy traffic.

by Hatchetm on Sep 22, 2009 8:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

much smaller too

I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren

by lookingdeadred on Sep 22, 2009 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've heard of this Smith fellow in Carolina

Some people tell me he is above average, but I guess not because he isn’t 6’5".
Or maybe height isn’t the end-all be-all

by wennington4 on Sep 22, 2009 8:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Smith is short

but I would not call him small. Knox is small, so to worry about him getting hurt is valid.

I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren

by lookingdeadred on Sep 23, 2009 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was incredibly surprised to see how high he can jump. There were a couple of times he had to go up and get the ball and that leaping catch by the sideline would’ve been amazing had he held on to it. Even the air he got on his TD catch was pretty awesome to see. This kid is a special player in the making, can’t wait to see how he performs the rest of the year!

"One time I went to a social gathering, I brought a bottle of Tanqueray and a shotgun and showed those motherf&#@ers the best time they ever had!"- Kenny Powers (Eastbound and Down)

"Why give 100% when 35 can still get you paid and laid."- Kenny Powers

by gridiron_assassin on Sep 22, 2009 10:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

We'll see

as I said, he is a work in progress, and so far he is progressing.

I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren

by lookingdeadred on Sep 22, 2009 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not worried if we run a lot in Seattle - like Frank Gore did against them...

I think we’re going to be a “pass first” team this year. Which means Forte’s numbers are gonna be down, a bit, by the end of the year.

That’s another reason why “the quarterback makes the receivers.” Pass-first teams are going to give their receivers more opportunities to put up the big numbers. Historically, we’ve “gotten off the bus running” because we never really had a pro-bowl level QB. But if you’ve got:

1) Time to through the ball.
2) Guys who can get open.
3) A guy who can get the ball to the open man.
4) A guy who can extend plays when the protection breaks down.

Then why not take advantage of your personal strengths, and be a “pass first” team?

by JimmyMack on Sep 22, 2009 8:25 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

1) Time to throw the ball

by JimmyMack on Sep 22, 2009 8:27 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

re: the DLine play

I’m of a few minds about the DLine right now.

Optimistic says Marinelli’s really lit a fire and their increased stat line is a reflection of that.

Pessimist says that the O-Lines we’ve been up against aren’t all that good. This week Rodgers got ravaged by the Bengals too, 5 sacks from one guy. O_o The Titans sacked Ben 4 times Week 1. Neither team has much of a running game so far.

Realist evens it out and says that even if Pitt and GB have some mediocre to bad O-Lines, we didn’t get this many sacks/QB Hits/pressures when we played comparable lines last season. So overall improvement but we need to play a real O line to find out how improved.

And agree about the soft coverage of our CBs. Hit em at the line and interrupt their route timing, at least occasionally. Don’t really see Lovie making the change though, Lovie’s not about change. :)

by SaintCee on Sep 22, 2009 8:47 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Marinelli

Doesn’t have any sacks this year. So he came in and yelled and screamed. So what. Our guys are healthy, they have played bad offensive lines, and they are trying to pick up the slack of Urlacher’s unfortunate injury.

This is how our guys on the front line played long before 0-16 Marinelli got here.

PS – I think it’s hilarious that people actually think that Johnny Knox is better than Eddie Royal right now. This isn’t fantasy football people.

by BF_Phantom on Sep 22, 2009 9:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

EEEEERRRRRRR!!!! Wrong!

The Bears D-line last year, without Marinelli, finished at the bottom of the league in sacks. And on top of that, the Bears blitzed more than any team in the NFL last year… That means Chicago should’ve been near tops in the league (in sacks), but weren’t.

Wale Ogun started every game last year and so did Alex Brown. Mark Anderson did not miss a game, Dusty D. played in 12 more games last year than he will this year. Tommie Harris missed only three games in 2008. Izzy played in every game.

Common dominator is not injuries, it’s Marinelli.

by rdent4hof on Sep 22, 2009 9:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Have you

not realized who wrote that?
i’ve been staring at that for about 20 minutes, holding back my response… it’s just not worth it.

"I'm sorry Josh, I'm with Chicago now, you need to stop calling me" -JerBear50 as Jay Cutler

by BearNecessities on Sep 22, 2009 9:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m stupid. You’re smart. I was wrong. You were right. You’re the best. I’m the worst. You’re very good looking. I’m not very attractive… ;-)

by rdent4hof on Sep 22, 2009 9:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Happy..

by tfrabotta on Sep 22, 2009 10:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

at least you're willing to admit that.

You can't believe everything you read on the internet, that's how World War One got started.

by Ditkavsworld on Sep 22, 2009 5:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

To be fair...

I wouldn’t say Johnny Knox is automatically better than Royal based on stats alone. But let’s not make Eddie Royal out to be Larry Fitzgerald either. The guy only has 1 year under his belt and was a late round nobody when he was drafted last year. He had a good season but the thing that Knox has on him is who’s throwing him the ball. Knox may very well be a better player than Royal and up to this point he’s having the better season.

by Dils on Sep 22, 2009 9:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If anything Knox is the late round nobody...

Royal was drafted in the 2nd round last year (one of the top 5 receivers picked) and I actually remember hearing a decent amount about him before the draft last year.

I agree with your sentiment that Knox could very well turn out to be the better player, just had to point that out though :)

"One time I went to a social gathering, I brought a bottle of Tanqueray and a shotgun and showed those motherf&#@ers the best time they ever had!"- Kenny Powers (Eastbound and Down)

"Why give 100% when 35 can still get you paid and laid."- Kenny Powers

by gridiron_assassin on Sep 22, 2009 10:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So what you're saying is....

Knox could end up being the better draft pick? I can go with that

Bear Down, Chicago Bears!

by topdoggkyle on Sep 22, 2009 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He most definitely could be...

Especially if Denver doesn’t find a QB who can utilize Royal’s strengths. If Knox had Orton and Royal had Cutler like last year it wouldn’t even be a competition, Knox wouldn’t even be playing in that scenario. And that just goes to show you that the QB really does make the receivers.

"One time I went to a social gathering, I brought a bottle of Tanqueray and a shotgun and showed those motherf&#@ers the best time they ever had!"- Kenny Powers (Eastbound and Down)

"Why give 100% when 35 can still get you paid and laid."- Kenny Powers

by gridiron_assassin on Sep 22, 2009 10:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cool thanks!

I actually confused his draft position with Brandon marshall’s

by Dils on Sep 22, 2009 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

so the NFL consensus

that he is one of the best line coaches, is incorrect?
Urlacher has been subpar due to injuries for 2 seasons now, where was the effort then? factual data please.

we played like crap, generating the least amount of sacks last season, and the most blitz packages.

actually, stat wise, Johnny Knox IS better than Eddie Royal…right now

"I'm sorry Josh, I'm with Chicago now, you need to stop calling me" -JerBear50 as Jay Cutler

by BearNecessities on Sep 22, 2009 10:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey,

wasn’t it you, that told me not to respond? Why did you cave?

by rdent4hof on Sep 22, 2009 11:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

because i suck at life

"I'm sorry Josh, I'm with Chicago now, you need to stop calling me" -JerBear50 as Jay Cutler

by BearNecessities on Sep 22, 2009 11:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

lol

by rdent4hof on Sep 22, 2009 11:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

right now

actually, stat-wise Correll Buckhalter IS better than Matt Forte…right now.

Would you actually believe that?

Oops. Did it again. Sorry.

Knox is actually a hybrid of Terrell Owens and Jerry Rice. Only faster.

by BF_Phantom on Sep 22, 2009 11:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good for Buckhalter

he’s been playing better, Forte hasnt performed yet. so yes, he’s better right now.
the difference is, Royal won’t get Cutler back at any point this season, whereas at some point, Forte’s numbers will go back to normal

"I'm sorry Josh, I'm with Chicago now, you need to stop calling me" -JerBear50 as Jay Cutler

by BearNecessities on Sep 22, 2009 11:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm saying

That you’ve made a ridiculous argument about Knox vs. Royal right now. Of course Buckhalter isn’t better than Forte! That’s ridiculous to even suggest that. But “by the numbers…right now” he’s “better”.

Also, in your incredibly nearsighted and simplistic view of players and their inherent value, (“So-and-So had better stats this week, or for two weeks so therefore they are better”) does that mean that Byron Leftwich is better than Jay Cutler?

(And – don’t look now – but Orton actually has better numbers than Cutler. Does that mean Orton is better? Just using your own argument here.)

by BF_Phantom on Sep 22, 2009 11:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Of course not

however, current trends would lead a rational person to believe, that Royals numbers will show a marked decline this year with orton, and a greater upside to a 6th round unheard of pick, which would point to Cutler producing the recevier, and not Royal being a wonderful receiver, so much as a product of his environment.

"I'm sorry Josh, I'm with Chicago now, you need to stop calling me" -JerBear50 as Jay Cutler

by BearNecessities on Sep 22, 2009 11:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

fair enough

And I don’t disagree that Knox could turn out to be another late-round coup by us (it’s what we do).

But don’t you think it’s a little premature to simply dismiss Royal and Marshall through two games with A) a new QB and B) a new QB who had a bone sticking through his flesh on his throwing hand about three weeks ago?

by BF_Phantom on Sep 22, 2009 11:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I altogether

dispise the ever present Denver – Chicago connection at all.

I just dont think Orton brings the skillset necessary to make Royal look as good, as Cutler does for Knox.

"I'm sorry Josh, I'm with Chicago now, you need to stop calling me" -JerBear50 as Jay Cutler

by BearNecessities on Sep 22, 2009 11:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

again, that's fair

And I respectfully disagree. I think Orton just gets undersold and I think he’s going to be fine in Denver once he gets more of a grasp on the offense. And I actually think that his receivers there will make him look even better, as opposed to him having to make them look better.

Perfect example – in my mind – of how the QB doesn’t make the WR (in some instances that can be accurate – look at Brady and McNabb all these years; but its far from “gospel”) was Matt Cassel last year. You think that guy does anything without Moss, Welker, Watson, etc.? I do not.

I don’t think Royal and Marshall are Welker and Moss. But I do think that Orton is a good QB that might even put up numbers beyond what his true worth is because he’s got some significant weapons to work with.

by BF_Phantom on Sep 22, 2009 12:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

cassell, just like brady

is a product of exceptional offensive line play. i was just talking about brady on sunday being way overrated. see this year, he gets a little pressure and he can’t even put a TD on the board. yes, orton could be brady with the best O line in the league but the fact is he will never have it so he will always suck. cutler can win games even with shitty O line play.

by genetic on Sep 22, 2009 12:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And the fact

that Brady is coming off serious knee injury/surgery and hasn’t stepped into his throws this year. He’ll regain his accuracy and confidence.

"Repetition is only good when you've been winning." - Valet

by propheteer on Sep 22, 2009 1:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I actually used to agree with you

Several years ago – maybe five or six – I was wholeheartedly on the “Brady is overrated” train. People were crowning him after two or three years on the job and I always felt that with a great coach, amazing defense, solid running game (this was when Dillon was wrecking people) an incredibly clutch kicker, and several other mitigating factors (Kasay’s kick in the SB, Martz abandoning Faulk, etc.) Brady was simply good because he didn’t screw up.

But as the last few years have gone by I have definitely ate my words on that. Brady is amazing. He would be with you, me and three other guys as his line and Jabar Gaffney as his No. 1 wideout. To say that he is overrated at this point is, to me, kind of shocking.

by BF_Phantom on Sep 22, 2009 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

QB makes the WR

McNabb has had sub-par talent at WR all but two years (TO), as well as Brady up until getting Moss and Welker. How many SBs has Brady won with them? 0. How many with Troy Brown, Jabar Jaffney, and Deion Branch? 3.

"Repetition is only good when you've been winning." - Valet

by propheteer on Sep 22, 2009 1:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gaffney

"Repetition is only good when you've been winning." - Valet

by propheteer on Sep 22, 2009 1:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Brady

Won Super Bowls when New England’s defense was dominant. He came within two minutes of winning – in spite of an aging, and less effective defense – with Moss and Welker.

by BF_Phantom on Sep 22, 2009 1:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's just wrong

They were never ranked in the top-7 defenses in total def. during their SB titles.

2001- 24th overall (astounding)
2003- 7th overall
2004- 9th overall

I wouldn’t exactly call them dominate or even close to being elite.

"Repetition is only good when you've been winning." - Valet

by propheteer on Sep 22, 2009 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The 2001 thing

Is pretty astounding.

But to say that those weren’t great defenses is ridiculous. Just ridiculous. Look what they did to the Rams and Colts offenses back when they were among the best of all-time. C’mon now.

by BF_Phantom on Sep 22, 2009 2:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Every SB champion

has had a defense that has played very well at some critical point(s) during the season and/or playoffs. There’s no denying it from me, but the stats say they weren’t dominate for most of the season.

"Repetition is only good when you've been winning." - Valet

by propheteer on Sep 22, 2009 4:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think we can agree

That the Bears defense in 2006 was dominant. We can agree on that.

The 2003 Patriots defense may have finished 7th but it allowed 0.5 more yards per game than the 2006 Bears.

That Bears defense in 2006 finished “just” No. 5 and was 0.3 yards per game away from being No. 6.

And let’s not forget – in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005; pretty much the first half of the decade or so – that the AFC was by far the dominant conference in the NFL. So they (New England) were playing much better teams while finishing in the Top 10.

Also, go over to the Patriots blog and suggest to them that the New England defenses of the early part of this decade weren’t dominating.

by BF_Phantom on Sep 22, 2009 11:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That would end up

about the same as…. oh say, someone coming in here, saying Jay Cutler isn’t better than Orton.

and our D in 05 wasn’t too shabby either, no one can logically say Orton “carried” us to 11-5

"I'm sorry Josh, I'm with Chicago now, you need to stop calling me" -JerBear50 as Jay Cutler

by BearNecessities on Sep 23, 2009 4:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

who

ever even suggested that Orton carried us? what are you talking about? But, again, if you are trying to equate Kyle Orton in 2005 to Tom Brady in 2003 or 2004 – I’m sorry, but that is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.

by BF_Phantom on Sep 23, 2009 12:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're right

What was I thinking? No Pats fan would disagree with me after seeing some stats from their SB wins.

Eagles- 21 points, 369 yards, 24 1st downs, 9-16 3rd down conversions.

Panthers- 29 points and 387 yards.

Rams- 427 yards (whoa!), 6.2 average gain per play, and 26 1st downs.

Totally dominate!

"Repetition is only good when you've been winning." - Valet

by propheteer on Sep 23, 2009 9:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Do me a favor

Ignore some stats that don’t fit your argument, and then go find others that do.

The Steelers defense got absolutely lit up last year by the Cardinals in the Super Bowl. Does that mean that their offense didn’t dominate?

Maybe those numbers are a bit misleading in those SB games because they were facing one of the best offenses in the league. You know, because the opponents actually made the Super Bowl because they were pretty good to?

Are we really having a discussion about Brady’s worth and the talent of the defense for the 3-time Super Bowl champions? Really? And I’m the instigator? I’m the one with the “far left” and “far right” ideas? Seriously?

by BF_Phantom on Sep 23, 2009 12:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's what arguments are about

You debate your point with facts and data, and I do the same. You said the Pats D was dominate, when obviously they weren’t. Did they have Ints and TOs that helped to contribute to them winning? Sure, but a “dominate” performance should be similar to the ’85 Bears, ’00 Ravens, ’02 Bucs, etc.

"Repetition is only good when you've been winning." - Valet

by propheteer on Sep 23, 2009 12:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fine

Those New England defenses were “Great”.

Happy? Semantics? “Dominant” vs. “Great”.

And what I’m saying is that you could at least concede the point that, “yeah, the 2006 Bears defense was awesome and the 2003 Pats put up virtually the same numbers, so they must’ve been awesome to.”

I still think it’s laughable that anyone would argue against those defenses though. It’s almost like arguing just to argue.

by BF_Phantom on Sep 23, 2009 1:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

IMO

Dominate/great defense- is a certainty that the opposing offense won’t move the ball or score with any regularity.

Good defense- a unit that shows flashes of greatness, but isn’t consistent enough to call them dominate…see the Patriot SB defenses.

Look, I’m not saying they were average, but they don’t belong in the same conversation as the Steel Curtain, Monsters, Ravens, or Bucs. IMO- only a select few can be classified as truly dominate defenses.

dominate- To have or exert strong authority or mastery.

"Repetition is only good when you've been winning." - Valet

by propheteer on Sep 23, 2009 1:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Anything to say about

The Steelers comparison and their Super Bowl performance?

by BF_Phantom on Sep 23, 2009 1:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sure

I’ll defintely concede on the Steelers being dominate.

"Repetition is only good when you've been winning." - Valet

by propheteer on Sep 23, 2009 1:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Again

You think the QB makes the wideout. I disagree. I think that there are plenty of examples where exceptional wide receivers and a good system can make a quarterback look better than he is.

by BF_Phantom on Sep 22, 2009 1:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

name some examples then. I provided two, and you’re just throwing out nothing substantial.

"Repetition is only good when you've been winning." - Valet

by propheteer on Sep 22, 2009 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well,

Matt Cassel was one.

Marc Bulger is another.

Daunte Culpepper is another.

I could go on, but those were just three of the top of my head.

by BF_Phantom on Sep 22, 2009 2:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK

The judge is still out on Cassel on whether he’s a good/great QB. It could also be argued by many that Culpepper was great before his devastation knee injury. I won’t argue with you on Bulger; he’ll never be considered a good/great QB in everyone’s book.

"Repetition is only good when you've been winning." - Valet

by propheteer on Sep 22, 2009 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Culpepper had

Randy Moss, Cris Carter, Jake Reed, Robert Smith and an exceptional offensive line. He had four Pro Bowlers at the skill position, played in a weak division, and was in a dome. I think I could have thrown for 4,000.

And don’t forget that they pulled Randall Cunningham – literally – off a construction job and he threw for about 35 TD’s and over 4,000 with those weapons.

by BF_Phantom on Sep 22, 2009 11:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Did

Jake Delhomme make Steve Smith be Steve Smith?

Tony Romo make T.O. be T.O.?

How about Rich Gannon throwing to Jerry Rice and Tim Brown, with a young, uncorrupted-by-Randy Moss Jerry Porter in the slot?

Good and great receivers can make a quarterback look a lot better than he is. I don’t think that this is a mind-bending thought. Clearly, a great QB (Elway, Marino, McNabb, Brady, etc.) can have the same impact on his receivers. I don’t dispute that. But the idea that guys are going to all of a sudden become great just because of who is throwing to them is a little silly. Just as is the thought that having great receivers wouldn’t impact how a quarterback plays.

by BF_Phantom on Sep 22, 2009 2:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agree with your staement completely.

I’ve said all along it’s a two-way street. You can have the best hands in the world, run the best routes, and have great speed, but if the QB can’t hit you, what’s the difference. On the other side of the coin, as a QB, you can have the strongest arm, be the most accurate, and have great touch but if all your receivers are relatives of Rashied Davis or the villain from the Fugitive (who I would still take over Rashied), you’ll still be in the bottom of the stat charts and win columns.

by BearFan611 on Sep 22, 2009 3:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good points

Although, statistically Romo is/was a highly rated QB the past few seasons.

Gannon was the most accurate single-season QB in NFL history, correct? Probably a little bit of both attributed to his success.

"Repetition is only good when you've been winning." - Valet

by propheteer on Sep 22, 2009 4:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tom Brady has a collection of SB rings, passing the ball to a bunch of no-names before Moss and Welker arrived.

Dan Marino sent a pair of 5’9" WRs in Mark Duper and Mark Clayton to numerous Pro-bowls.

John Elway had the Three Amigos… and if they didn’t have a nickname, nobody would even remember them. 95% of the people on this blog couldn’t name them without looking it up.

Warren Moon sent Drew Hill and Haywood Jeffries to multiple Pro Bowls.

Favre made stars out of Robert Ferguson, Robert Brooks, Antonio Freeman, and seventh-round pick Donald Driver.

Donovan McNabb and Drew Brees throw TDs to whomever lines up for them,
and they haven’t had much to work with over the years.

And last year, Jay Cutler got a rookie WR to catch 91 passes for him. Eddie Royal isn’t gonna ctch 91 passes this year, when Kyle Orton is checking down to his TEs and RBs.

"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that." -- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)

Jerry Angelo trades for Jay Cutler! (4.2.2009)
.

by SackMan on Sep 22, 2009 6:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I never

Said that a great QB can’t make his wideouts better. In fact, I conceded that point.

However, I don’t understand why it isn’t obvious that the converse of that is true. And that if you have great receivers you can be a great quarterback.

Hell, Trend Edwards was considered a clown last year. Because he had no one to throw the ball to. Now through two games he is one of the top passers in the league. What changed? He has weapons now.

I just don’t see how it’s not obvious that great receivers can elevate the play of a quarterback in the same way that a great QB can raise up a receiver. I think it’s pretty straightforward.

What is less than straightforward is which situation Cutler falls into. I don’t want to argue about it because the only thing that is going to determine it is the next 15 weeks of actual play.

One more thing – first, Orton is hurt so far. Don’t forget that his bone was sticking through his finger about three weeks ago and he didn’t throw for two weeks. Also, I have watched every snap of his two games. That offense is CLEARLY still adjusting to the new scheme. He is missing some throws by 20 yards. That’s not an exaggeration. WR’s going one way, he throwing another. Finally, he didn’t have Brandon Marshall in camp. They are both playing catch-up and trying to develop some rhythm.

I think by the second half of the year you’re going to be surprised about what Orton is doing. Also, through two games, Orton’s numbers are better than Cutler’s. Not sure what that means (if anything) but thought I’d throw it out there.

by BF_Phantom on Sep 22, 2009 11:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

pretty sure

it means they played the bengals and browns

"I'm sorry Josh, I'm with Chicago now, you need to stop calling me" -JerBear50 as Jay Cutler

by BearNecessities on Sep 23, 2009 4:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

um

Didn’t the Bengals beat the Packers? You know, the team that beat us?

by BF_Phantom on Sep 23, 2009 12:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, and?

We also should have beat the Packers, just like the Packers SHOULD have beaten the Bengles, just because a team wins on a technicality, doesnt make them good yet.

Also says the Bears didnt necessarily beat the Steelers, so much as they lost

"I'm sorry Josh, I'm with Chicago now, you need to stop calling me" -JerBear50 as Jay Cutler

by BearNecessities on Sep 23, 2009 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

the point

You were trying to make was to dismiss Orton’s performance because he “only” played the Browns and Bengals. I was merely pointing out that the Bengals aren’t as bad as they have been.

by BF_Phantom on Sep 23, 2009 2:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Trent Edwards was a clown last year?

The guy completed 65% of his passes… boy, he must’ve sucked.

And by the end of the year, nobody will be surprised that Kyle Orton is still only completing a mere 55% of his passes.

"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that." -- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)

Jerry Angelo trades for Jay Cutler! (4.2.2009)
.

by SackMan on Sep 23, 2009 7:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I just dont understand

this, nobody is saying Orton is bad, he would have had over 3,000 yds passing if not for that injury last year, and could very well this year.
at the end of the year though, i think Chicago’s receivers are going to be happier than Denver’s receivers. and by receivers, i don’t mean TEs and RBs

"I'm sorry Josh, I'm with Chicago now, you need to stop calling me" -JerBear50 as Jay Cutler

by BearNecessities on Sep 23, 2009 7:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Completely valid opinion

And by “nobody” in that statement I am among the “nobody”.

I’m simply pointing out to the people that want to say “Johnny Knox has better numbers than Royal and Marshall combined, so he must be better than them” that they just need to slow their roll.

by BF_Phantom on Sep 23, 2009 12:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

also

I’m not trying to judge “happy”. I am trying to judge talent and effectiveness.

How about this:

Cutler will make Chicago’s wideouts better.

Orton will benefit from having very good wideouts and weapons.

I mean, this is really what you’re arguing with me about. And I don’t see how it’s not just that simple.

by BF_Phantom on Sep 23, 2009 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

We really need to get over this Cutler vs. Orton debate

what the f**k is the difference? The trade was made, it’s over, and unless we play them in the playoffs, what one QB does vs. the other doesn’t mean squat to either team. Situations are different, players are different on both sides so comparisons between them or the WR’s is absolutely pointless and a waste of time.

I don’t understand why you guys can’t let this go. How does Orton having a bad season benefit the Bears or Cutler having a bad season benefit the Broncos? The answer…..IT DOESN’T!!!!!!!

Wish them both well and move on with your lives.

by BearFan611 on Sep 23, 2009 9:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've been

trying to establish this for weeks now

"I'm sorry Josh, I'm with Chicago now, you need to stop calling me" -JerBear50 as Jay Cutler

by BearNecessities on Sep 23, 2009 9:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

it does not even qualify as a debate

Orton is clearly inferior

I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren

by lookingdeadred on Sep 23, 2009 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for the help...

I’ll give you a call for some gas next time I’m on fire.

by BearFan611 on Sep 23, 2009 2:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

I’m sure you were in here extolling the virtues of Trent Edwards last December. I’m sure he was high on your fantasy football draft board this year.

Jesus – one guy is telling me how overrated Tom Brady is and now another is telling me how good Trent Edwards is. Again, I could say “the sky is blue” and I would get some argument.

by BF_Phantom on Sep 23, 2009 12:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I believe

you were insinuating that Brady was overrated. I mean you’re the person who says WRs make the QB, remember?

"Repetition is only good when you've been winning." - Valet

by propheteer on Sep 23, 2009 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

that's actually

The exact opposite of what I said.

by BF_Phantom on Sep 23, 2009 1:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Huh?

Perfect example – in my mind – of how the QB doesn’t make the WR (in some instances that can be accurate – look at Brady and McNabb all these years; but its far from "gospel") was Matt Cassel last year. You think that guy does anything without Moss, Welker, Watson, etc.? I do not.

This is what you wrote. In so many words, you’re saying he’s at least slightly overrated even though he won 3 SBs without their services.

"Repetition is only good when you've been winning." - Valet

by propheteer on Sep 23, 2009 1:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That was ust poorly worded

Should have said:

“Perfect example of how a QB doesn’t make the WR’s better is Matt Cassel last year. (Though in some instances the QB clearly elevates his WRs; look at Brady and McNabb.)

I apologize if I was unclear, but that’s what I meant. Just “crossed the streams” with two thoughts.

by BF_Phantom on Sep 23, 2009 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Alrighty then

It just “seems” like you’re still on the fence in regards to Brady based on your conflicting words.

"Repetition is only good when you've been winning." - Valet

by propheteer on Sep 23, 2009 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

see:

the response directly below this, which was posted prior.

by BF_Phantom on Sep 23, 2009 1:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I said that

Great receivers can make a quarterback look better than he is. And I provided clear examples off the top of my head.

in fact, I listed Brady as one of the guys where it was the other way around. And I was pretty clear about that.

I also said that about six years ago I thought Brady was overrated but that I have “ate my words”. The guy is one of the best of our generation and a Top 15 or 20 guy of All Time.

I never said anything to the contrary and, per usual, don’t know where you are getting that or what you are talking about.

The conversation morphed into something about the merits of the New England D. Which I find equally laughable compared to the “Brady is overrated” argument.

Did I ever say ALL receivers make their quarterbacks? Did I say that? Or were my exact words “great receivers can make a quarterback look better than he is”? I believe it is you and a couple others who have taken the hardline that the QB makes the wideouts better.

by BF_Phantom on Sep 23, 2009 1:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

again, that is fair

And I simply, respectfully disagree. I think Orton just gets undersold and I think he’s going to be fine in Denver once he gets more of a grasp on the offense. And I actually think that his receivers there will make him look even better, as opposed to him having to make them look better.

Perfect example – in my mind – of how the QB doesn’t make the WR (in some instances that can be accurate – look at Brady and McNabb all these years; but its far from “gospel”) was Matt Cassel last year. You think that guy does anything without Moss, Welker, Watson, etc.? I do not.

I don’t think Royal and Marshall are Welker and Moss. But I do think that Orton is a good QB that might even put up numbers beyond what his true worth is because he’s got some significant weapons to work with.

by BF_Phantom on Sep 22, 2009 12:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

and Marinelli

Might not be a bad position coach. But I just think we have exceptional talent up front that has been going against overmatched offensive lines.

I mean, Allen Barbre’s getting humiliated last week had nothing to do with Marinelli.

Damn it! I’m sorry. Did it again. Marinelli is THE MAN! His defenses in Detroit ROCKED and I’m so happy to have his expertise.

We were also only three sacks away from No. 12 last year. That’s still not up to the level that we are used to (28 for the season was pretty weak) but I do think that some of that had to do with who we played last year as well. Played some really good offensive lines last year (Indy, Philly, Carolina, Atlanta, New Orleans).

Shit. There I go again. NO DISSENT! BearNecessities is a GOD!

by BF_Phantom on Sep 22, 2009 11:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

or

you could attribute that to some weak O-lines, this year so far, if we’re going to take the Marinelli has nothing to do with our line.

"I'm sorry Josh, I'm with Chicago now, you need to stop calling me" -JerBear50 as Jay Cutler

by BearNecessities on Sep 22, 2009 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why be so pompous?

People disagree on a lot of things, and some folks are grounded in their logic while others aren’t.

I’ve been combing through a lot of threads from this past week while I was away, and it seems that you don’t really respond well when people disagree with you.

Unless I am missing something, you seem to take things very personally, and can be quite arrogant about it.

Be nice. Flag comments that you think are offensive. Use the "reply" button. Drink plenty of water. Compliment others. Rec (wreck) comments and posts you like. Don't call people names. If you don't like someone's comment, attack the comment and not the commentor. Learn the difference in your/you're, then/than, to/too. Exercise. Relax. Stretch often. Find good in the world.

by Dane Noble on Sep 22, 2009 11:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

because

I make one fairly mundane point (Marinelli’s impact might be overrated) and all of a sudden the vultures come out. I don’t care that they disagree. That’s the point. But I’ve run into one too many dicks when I’ve disagreed with them. As if I’m somehow invading their turf because I have a different opinion.

Just disappointed. I’m not a big “forum guy”. Never have been. But not a ton of Bears fans around me in ATL and was looking forward to “talking shop” about my team with some fellow fans, hoping to bring a different perspective. Instead, I’ve run into an awful lot of assholes (and yeah, I know the feeling is mutual). So yeah, maybe I don’t respond the best ways. I’ll take that. But gimme a break.

by BF_Phantom on Sep 22, 2009 12:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Your ideas

are either far left or far right; that’s why people have a problem with you, not because you may be right or wrong. Inherently, most individuals fall in the middle and are open to other peoples’ opinions. I’m sorry, are we talking about sports, politics, or religion?

"Repetition is only good when you've been winning." - Valet

by propheteer on Sep 22, 2009 1:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

But what was my "far left or far right" idea that sent people into a tizzy today?

That Rod Marinelli might actually not be the reason that our defensive line has been great through two games? That it might actually just be that we have exceptional talent that has gone up against piss-poor lines? What the hell is so radical about that? What is so shocking and taboo about that pretty simple statement?

And I think that Royal is better than Knox. Not exactly revolutionary ideas there.

My other “far left or far right” ideas? That Jay Cutler might not be as good as you think he is? Again, I’m SO far out there? Believe me, I don’t want to have this conversation for the 1,000th time. I’m just saying. It’s not as if I"m in here saying that Alex Brown should play running back and then trying to back it up. Jeez.

by BF_Phantom on Sep 22, 2009 2:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't disagree with this

I was trying to rationalize with what I think people think about your claims. Sure, Rod may not have as much of an effect as people think, but certainly you can’t deny he hasn’t helped. They were pretty much dog %# last year.

"Repetition is only good when you've been winning." - Valet

by propheteer on Sep 22, 2009 3:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Because his other name is Angry Andy...

this guy, as I have stated before, is here to stir the pot..

by tfrabotta on Sep 22, 2009 3:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Except...

It wasn’t Allen Barbre who got embarrassed by Cincinnati, it was giving up 5 sacks on the OTHER SIDE of the line, 2 by Clifton before he got injured, and 3 more after he did. To one player. Barbre had nothing to do with it.

by eldilar on Sep 22, 2009 2:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry

By “last week” I meant Week 1 in our game against them.

And, actually, your statement really just backs up what I was saying (not sure if that was your intent). Green Bay’s offensive line is just pathetic. Pittsburgh’s has been pretty terrible so far this year (and, for the most part, the end of last year as well). This week we’re going up against another hodgepodge, undermanned, overmatched, beat-up offensive line. So, again, if we dominate up front and get to Seneca Wallace again this week I’m not going to sit here and say it was Marinelli. But hey, that’s just me. If others think that he’s The Man and that he’s been the difference. Awesome. Your opinion. But it isn’t mine.

by BF_Phantom on Sep 22, 2009 2:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

just go away

please.

by Hatchetm on Sep 22, 2009 10:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Never mind.

You guys are right. About everything. I will no cease to have any opinion of my own and I will fall in line with the super-cool Bears fans that frequent this space. Just bought my Cutler jersey, just picked up my Knox bobblehead, and will clearly be naming my son “Rod”.

I have no idea what I was thinking. Sorry guys.

by BF_Phantom on Sep 22, 2009 11:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That would be sweet

because then you’d be
1. a real fan
2. easy to make fun of for having a child named “rod”

"I'm sorry Josh, I'm with Chicago now, you need to stop calling me" -JerBear50 as Jay Cutler

by BearNecessities on Sep 22, 2009 11:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

lol

at having a son named rod. guaranteed to get picked on in grade school now

you don’t come off as arrogant at all to me. at least when you write things that i may not agree with (especially qb’s making the wr part) you provide ideas as to why you think that way. so much better than say the mhr downs syndrome kids still coming over here to say jay sucks and their mommy still wipes their flabby backsides for them. some people are just very thin skinned i guess or just don’t want to agree to disagree, don’t get discouraged about it.

how did your betting go this past weekend dude? guess i’m glad i didn’t go with the over on da team after all. actually none of my parlays came through this past weekend anyway but i feel good about the bears putting up a double digit victory over the hawks this weekend.

by reefermadness3 on Sep 23, 2009 8:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thank you

For the kind post. I know I respond poorly when I feel attacked. But I’m glad someone at least is enjoying some of my random posts.

I got creamed in NFL last week after a 6-1 Week 1. Looking back I am KILLING myself for some of the idiotic moves I made. My weekend would have been a lot different if not for the Washington game though. I had two decent plays with them as a leg of a teaser at….wait for it…..-2.5. Needless to say, I almost ripped the flat screen off the wall when their moron coach went for it on fourth-and-1 from the six with under a minute left. Still can’t believe it.

Fortunately a big college football weekend bailed me out (it’s usually always the other way around) and two of my biggest plays of the year were on Clemson and Washington (def. didn’t think the Huskies would win, but knew that number was a joke.)

I am likely on the Bears this week again. And I am going right back to the ‘over’. I think Seneca Wallace will be surprisingly effective. Still crunching numbers, but I think I’m going to go ahead and ride the NFC North teams against the NFC West. I think Minnesota will absolutely tear San Fran to shreds and Green Bay should light up St. Louis. That number should be 7.5, at least, and if Green Bay’s WR’s actually start catching the ball they could hit 35, 38, 41 points. St. Louis can’t play in that range.

Like I said. Still very unsure. My picks don’t have to be final until Thursday evening so if I remember I’ll let you know.

Good luck.

by BF_Phantom on Sep 23, 2009 12:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that GB will tear up ST Louis

it’s like Varsity high school, versus toddlers, but i think SF gives MN a run for their money.

"I'm sorry Josh, I'm with Chicago now, you need to stop calling me" -JerBear50 as Jay Cutler

by BearNecessities on Sep 23, 2009 2:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't go that far

cause GBs O-line is in disarray. Certainly, they should win by double-digits though.

"Repetition is only good when you've been winning." - Valet

by propheteer on Sep 23, 2009 5:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think

the only way SF hangs with Minnesota is if the Vikings are just completely looking past them and looking ahead to that MNF game with Green Bay. But San Fran being 2-0 and the Vikes playing in their home opener should, hopefully, prevent that.

SF really has not looked good in their two wins. Arizona just completely threw up all over themselves with penalties and turnovers in Week 1 in a game that was just laid out with the red carpet for the Niners. Then in Week 2 the Niners benefitted from playing a crappy road team, that’s beat up, and terrible on grass, in the home opener. And to be honest, if not for Justin Babineaux – I can’t tell you how just terrible his two missed angles (not even missed tackles, because the angle was so bad, even though Gore was just running straight, that Babs didn’t even get a finger on him) were on the two long Gore TD runs. He made Kevin Payne look like Ronnie Lott. If not for those two big plays it’s 10-9, Seattle. AND Seattle lost its QB in the second quarter and never really had a shot for a comeback.

SF only ran for 3.4 yards per carry outside of those two long runs. Before that, at Arizona, the Niners ran for 30 yards on 22 carries. What are they going to do against the Vikings front seven? Less than nothing. San Fran is “off surface” and in a perfect letdown spot. If Minnesota is all amped up and comes charging out of the gates they could get up big (say, 20-3) and then both teams could roll over. I can see around 23-10 or 27-13. Somewhere in there. But, who knows. It is the NFL.

by BF_Phantom on Sep 23, 2009 8:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

whats eddie royal done w/o Cutler?

Nada.

by Ryan21 on Sep 22, 2009 1:52 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs

Not that it means anything...

But Knox has better stats than Marshal and Royal combined. We have three receivers with better stats than either of them.

Orton isn’t a good QB, sorry. I like him. He is a great character guy, a good locker room influence, and has the support and respect of his team mates…

But is also a sub-60% passer, which is terrible since coaches call game management offense for him because he can’t throw a deep pass well (He can throw one, he isn’t too weak, but he is highly inaccurate down field).

If you are throwing 15 or less yards per pass play, you had better be high %. He was neither. His “only” 12 interceptions were touted, ignoring his 6 fumbles and “only” 18 TDs.

Want to blame his receivers? Go ahead, but everyone looked bad with him throwing to them, and 2nd and 5th round rookies look good with Jay throwing to them.

Orton has perpetual back up written all over him, which is a shame because he is a “good guy” and easy to cheer for.

by eldilar on Sep 22, 2009 2:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That is cool.

I just wholeheartedly disagree.

by BF_Phantom on Sep 22, 2009 2:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The QB makes the WR's

No one expected Marshall or Royal to do what they did in Denver, I’d say they far outweighed their expectations…

With that being said, Cutler will help give the Bears WR’s some good numbers

by wiltfongjr on Sep 22, 2009 9:07 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I'd rather have

a cracked rib Hassebeck start

"I'm sorry Josh, I'm with Chicago now, you need to stop calling me" -JerBear50 as Jay Cutler

by BearNecessities on Sep 22, 2009 9:49 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I think the run game's problem is

The loss of Kevin Jones. Now we don’t have a very strong number 2 guy and Forte is going to have to carry the load. I hope the holes open up soon because we know what he can do, it’s just there isn’t any thing there. They run to Omiyale’s side too much.

by GallopingGhost on Sep 22, 2009 10:09 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Last year Kevin Jones hardly saw the field

and when he was there he didn’t wow anybody. Granted he wasn’t 100% yet. This year in OTA’s and training camp all we hear about is Kevin Jones is back to form. He didn’t do anything in the pre-season games but get hurt.

I’m sure that not everyone will agree with me on this, but I think that our Adrian Peterson is a better #2 RB than a healthy Kevin Jones. His stats are good, 4.1 ypc career average, always runs hard and gives 110%, catches out of the backfield, and great special teamer. He certainly looked fairly decent against the Steelers. Just sayin

by Fridge72 on Sep 22, 2009 11:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i

by genetic on Sep 22, 2009 12:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

d'oh!

i’m with ya. i was impressed with AP on sunday, i’m fine with him being the #2 this year.

and just in case someone here hasn’t heard it you know that he owns the Division I record for rushing yards with 6,559. just because it was a 1-AA school doesn’t mean that’s not impressive. it’s a better school than abilene.

by genetic on Sep 22, 2009 12:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He also

won the Walter Payton award in college his sophomore year.

He was a beast in college and though he is starting to get a little older for a RB, 8 years in the league, He still has low miles on his body and is in great game shape.

Clips from college:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hp_ABmN-sMU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftVLoFWZA7s&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhIO8sSeVoM

by Fridge72 on Sep 22, 2009 2:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Omiyale better step up

If he’s only good at downfield blocking, what the hell did they see in him in the first place? I agree, put in Beekman now before Cutler gets killed back there.

by Waylon on Sep 22, 2009 10:14 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

We signed him

originally to be a Tackle, but Orlando Pace was too good to pass, so we switched him to guard. Much like Vasher, we put too much money in him to just sit him right away.

We’ll wait until he blows coverage massively and costs us the game. pretty sure that when Pace retires, Omiyale is the starting T on the right, and Williams goes back to anchor the left

"I'm sorry Josh, I'm with Chicago now, you need to stop calling me" -JerBear50 as Jay Cutler

by BearNecessities on Sep 22, 2009 10:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry to be off subject

I was wrong about the Bears. Great, great upset. You guys KO’d the top-ranked team in the NFL. Congrats and good luck.

You play to win the game!

by Simms-McConkey on Sep 22, 2009 10:16 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The Bears don't even run the Cover 2 very often anymore

Last year they were among the league leaders in percentage of plays in which 5 or more pass rushers were sent. They load the line before the snap and usually have an LB blitzing. The problem with the “soft zone” is that too many times the rush leaves the QB too much time. I can’t tell if the Bears are playing man or zone most of the time behind those blitzes, but with 5 pass rushers, they’re not playing Cover 2.

We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look.
Ronald Reagan

by snley on Sep 22, 2009 10:48 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Pretty sure that

they are playing zone most of the time. Also, I agree they don’t run the cover-2 very much. I think that the times I have noticed it the most have been on third and mid-yardage situations.

by Fridge72 on Sep 22, 2009 11:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pass defense

Let them play more physical in some tighter coverages.

If you’re fine with getting beat more often, cause that’s exactly what will happen. The defense is designed to get pressure and force the QB to make errant throws (please see Peanut’s INT of Big Ben). If Lovie starts to be more aggressive with his corners in jam coverage, the defense will invariably give up more points. It starts and ends with getting pressure on the QB. Every defense that’s unable to get pressure consistently will get burned and seem like everyone is open. Did you happen to see the Dophins defense get absolutely torched last night? Case in point.

"Repetition is only good when you've been winning." - Valet

by propheteer on Sep 22, 2009 10:50 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

If you're fine with getting beat DEEP more often

"Repetition is only good when you've been winning." - Valet

by propheteer on Sep 22, 2009 10:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

i said last week i wished the CBs pressed, but in retrospect, it is better in the long run, to give up the soft short zone, than to have the QB go over the heads of our secondary, and down the field… if we let up the soft zone all the while hammering the O line and generating pressure on the QB, the coverage will work itself out to get turnovers, or break up plays.

and the mug look helps with confusion at the line. it’s our version of the 3-4

and i think you have a better chance of a receiver getting blasted over the middle and not hanging on, than down the sideline.

"I'm sorry Josh, I'm with Chicago now, you need to stop calling me" -JerBear50 as Jay Cutler

by BearNecessities on Sep 22, 2009 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

and i think you have a better chance of a receiver getting blasted over the middle and not hanging on, than down the sideline.

I don’t know about that, ask Olsen how he felt after that hit down the sideline vs. the one he caught (and got hammered on) over the middle :)

"One time I went to a social gathering, I brought a bottle of Tanqueray and a shotgun and showed those motherf&#@ers the best time they ever had!"- Kenny Powers (Eastbound and Down)

"Why give 100% when 35 can still get you paid and laid."- Kenny Powers

by gridiron_assassin on Sep 22, 2009 10:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exception, not the rule though

"I'm sorry Josh, I'm with Chicago now, you need to stop calling me" -JerBear50 as Jay Cutler

by BearNecessities on Sep 22, 2009 11:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know, just a little joke

Hence the :)

"One time I went to a social gathering, I brought a bottle of Tanqueray and a shotgun and showed those motherf&#@ers the best time they ever had!"- Kenny Powers (Eastbound and Down)

"Why give 100% when 35 can still get you paid and laid."- Kenny Powers

by gridiron_assassin on Sep 22, 2009 11:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

all good

"I'm sorry Josh, I'm with Chicago now, you need to stop calling me" -JerBear50 as Jay Cutler

by BearNecessities on Sep 22, 2009 12:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Great add-on

The fact remains that the defense, with all its flaws, only has given up 21 points (not counting the three gimmes scores the Packers got from INTs).

"Repetition is only good when you've been winning." - Valet

by propheteer on Sep 22, 2009 11:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

But

you are giving up a much easier throw when you concede the slant. I am not for press coverage in this defense, I am for taking away the inside. Just position the cb on the inside of the wideout and make him go out where you at least have the sideline to help and make the throw more difficult. Plus you don’t have as much risk with the YAC.

by tfrabotta on Sep 22, 2009 11:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually

I disagree that there’s less of a risk for YAC on the sidelines. A softer spot in the cover-2 is beyond the flat-zone, which the CBs cover, or the corner/flag route. There’s only one safety over there to cover that most often than not, instead of having both safeties and at least the MIKE LB to make a tackle on the slant pass. IMO- it’s less risky because of this.

"Repetition is only good when you've been winning." - Valet

by propheteer on Sep 22, 2009 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Concur with the Actually...

Because you cannot “line up more inside” to take away a quick slant without playing at press range. If you line up more inside, but still stand 5 yards deep, you will still get beat underneath, and have more chance to fall victim to the “Sluggo” outside because you relented the sideline off the bat. Its hard to do it all. The way to take away the middle AND not play press is to leave all your LBs in coverage, but that makes the 4-3 weak against the run again. There is always a trade off, there is no perfect answer. You have to relent something in a defense. We relent the short slant pattern and settle for taking away the run and the big play. I’ll take it most of the time, especially now that we have more pressure.

by eldilar on Sep 22, 2009 2:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You can play at 5 yards instead of 10

this will give you the angle.

by tfrabotta on Sep 22, 2009 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not to argue but..

the weak spot already is the deep out over the cb but in front of the safety in the cover 2. Which would leave the short out in the flat in the 8-10 yard range. Also the Mike lb could actually play a little deeper to protect the deep in (10-15 yards) if we take away the slant or he grabs the rb in the flat. This could be dictated based on the down and distance but the slant is automatic on third and less than 8. I would gladly keep it the way it is on third and 10 or greater.

by tfrabotta on Sep 22, 2009 3:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The point

There’s always going to be openings wherever or however the defense lines up.

"Repetition is only good when you've been winning." - Valet

by propheteer on Sep 22, 2009 3:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

don't disagree

just tired of giving up the slant for first downs over and over and over…

by tfrabotta on Sep 22, 2009 5:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Me too

I guess it’s a necessary evil we’ll have to get used to.

"Repetition is only good when you've been winning." - Valet

by propheteer on Sep 22, 2009 5:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would like to see more press coverage in 3rd and short situations

I’m tired of seeing our corners laying off 5-7 yards when it’s 3rd and 3 with no inside position. We might as well just give guys like Rogers and Big Ben the first down (and later this year Palmer, Flacco, Rogers again, Favre, etc.).

by BearFan611 on Sep 22, 2009 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or...

I’d like to see us sprint our OLB’s towards coverage in the flat at snap, which would blind the slant temporarily on those 3rd and 3’s. You could still blitz the Mike and creep up with the SS in case its a run, and the FS can stay over the top. Kind of like a Cover 1 look with LBs hitting the flats. Not all the time, but just enough to take the Slant lower in people’s playbooks.

by eldilar on Sep 22, 2009 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or our DE's/DT's could actually put there hands up once in awhile..

by tfrabotta on Sep 22, 2009 3:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That would be nice,

I’ve seen it consistently from Brown, but not as much from Ogun or the tackles.

by Fridge72 on Sep 22, 2009 3:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like it

It wouldn’t work if we did it all the time, but I like it as a new look.

I think we did something like this in 2006. Led to Briggs and Hillenmeyer getting interceptions. Pisa will be better in coverage than Roache and Briggs is always solid, IMO, which means we will have to see how Hillenmeyer does blitzing.

I like Hillenmeyer better in the Mike position than I do in the Sam position.

by Fridge72 on Sep 22, 2009 3:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Cover 2 is actually designed to JAM and RE-DIRECT WRs at the beginning of their route

You want physical CBs to play this defense, because they need to re-direct the WR toward the middle zones occupied by the MLB and the 2 deep safeties, and they also need to be strong in run support.

However, when you start blitzing on a greater % of snaps than any other team in the NFL, you’re diminishing the skillset you have at CB, because they have to cover larger zones, making up for the member(s) of the back 7 who is (are) blitzing. That’s why it’s so vital to get all the pressure you need from your front 4 to run this defense.

We’re blitzing so much… or showing blitz so much, that our CBs can’t be physical near the LOS.

"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that." -- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)

Jerry Angelo trades for Jay Cutler! (4.2.2009)
.

by SackMan on Sep 22, 2009 6:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

By the way

Did anyone see the Bronco / Browns game?? St.Clair was a turnstile for the DE (dumervil). Thank god we didn’t resign that guy…

by tfrabotta on Sep 22, 2009 5:15 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Pace wasn't exactly a champion against Dumervil in the preseason.

But, like a lot of folks have pointed out, Dumervil’s height is going to give a lot of OLinemen trouble. Plus, the dude has been a pass rushing machine since high school. It’s what he does, and does it very well.

That said, I’m with you on JSC… I was not at all sad to see him go.

Be nice. Flag comments that you think are offensive. Use the "reply" button. Drink plenty of water. Compliment others. Rec (wreck) comments and posts you like. Don't call people names. If you don't like someone's comment, attack the comment and not the commentor. Learn the difference in your/you're, then/than, to/too. Exercise. Relax. Stretch often. Find good in the world.

by Dane Noble on Sep 22, 2009 6:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs