clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

What the Hell were the Chicago Bears thinking?

The Green bay Packers have better personnel that the Chicago Bears, not only between the lines, but also among the coaches. On Sunday there were a few shining examples of the Bears coaching staff not having the wits to compete.

Jonathan Daniel

When is the last time the Chicago Bears out coached a team?

There have been a few instances this season where I've thought to myself, 'that was a good move', but nothing really too schematic. What I'm talking about is a really "Wow!" moment where the Bears do something that screams innovation. I want to see something like I see every week from other teams. A wrinkle added just for a particular opponent's scheme, or something added to take advantage of a mismatch discovered through film work.

I think the fake extra point a few weeks back was a good idea, and one that was no doubt discovered by a lot of film study. I thought moving Charles Tillman over to the bigger Calvin Johnson was a smart thing to do, although the Bears have done that before with bigger wide outs. Having Shea McClellin spy a quarterback was something I found interesting, but again, it's not really a "Wow!" moment.

During the game Sunday the Packers were running stunts with their defensive end and outside linebacker Clay Matthews. They were stunting Matthews right at Bears rookie left guard James Brown. It was a simple twist, but it was beautifully effective. Brown, making his first NFL start, didn't stand a chance on the stunt. He stayed with the DE in front of him far too long as the DE slanted outside, and this opened a hole for Matthews to exploit.

As soon as I saw the play, I wondered to myself why the Bears don't attack weak links like this more often?

Green Bay also showed an aggressive double team against Chicago wide out Brandon Marshall on the goal line. They brought two players over to cover Marshall, thus weakening their numbers in the box. Why didn't Bears come out on the next play in a 3x1 set. Three WRs to one side, with Marshall to the single WR side. If Green Bay insisted to double Marshall, that would leave a minimum of 3 defenders on the trips side, and with the various route combinations the trips look provides they would need to have safety help peeking over there.

Spreading out a defense is sometimes necessary when you don't have the ability to power your way through, and with the Bears offensive line playing like it does, you need to find ways to get an advantage. It was clear the Bears couldn't pick up a yard on the goal line, not with Matt Forte at tailback, so they needed to get creative.

And speaking of Matt Forte at tailback... Can someone tell me why Michael Bush wasn't in the game to run a few inches?

"He was in uniform, we were only going to use him if we have to. Still wasn't quite ready to go." ~ Lovie Smith

Oh, his ribs were still hurting, thanks Lovie... Then why the Hell was he active? If he can't play, give a helmet to someone that can. I know the Bears' list of inactives were all legitimately hurt, but if a guy is too injured to see the field, don't dress him. But if he can play, and it seems he would have in case of emergency, then why not insert him in the game? Fake to him, and boot Cutler out. At least the Packers would have had to honor the threat of a 250 pound goal line back. Forte has never shown the ability to get the tough yards in his entire NFL career, so why expect him to get it then?

One more mini rant; If both Bush and Matt Toeaina were so hurt they had to go on injured reserve, then why not make a roster move before the game. That way they'd at least have a player in uniform that wan't a waste of space.

I understand the K.I.S.S. concept, Keep It Simple Stupid, but that only works when you can physically out man your opponents. The Bears can't. The Bears need some coaching innovation to put them in place to make plays. Something I haven't seen enough of through the Lovie Smith era.