Kyyle23 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Roach was straight up out of position everytime I saw a replay. Benson was faking him out of his shoes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 08:00 AM) Roach was straight up out of position everytime I saw a replay. Benson was faking him out of his shoes Roach played one of the worse games I've seen out of a starting LB ever. I counted over 10 passes which were wide open because he was out of his zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 I see DeWayne Wise syndrome has taken over Bears fans... Blame the 4th stringer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjshoe04 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 The NFL thread amuses me. I know nothing about football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 09:10 AM) I see DeWayne Wise syndrome has taken over Bears fans... Blame the 4th stringer. Exept, he's the starting MLB on your team so he isn't the 4th stringer anymore. He's got a job to do and if he can't do it, the Bears need to find someone else who can. Especially when the MLB is so important in the cover 2 as he's responsible for the middle of the field zone which is often times one of the biggest openings in the cover-2. The most important part is the pass-rush, which was non-existent, but the pass-rush is the most important part of any d. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 12:28 PM) Exept, he's the starting MLB on your team so he isn't the 4th stringer anymore. He's got a job to do and if he can't do it, the Bears need to find someone else who can. Especially when the MLB is so important in the cover 2 as he's responsible for the middle of the field zone which is often times one of the biggest openings in the cover-2. The most important part is the pass-rush, which was non-existent, but the pass-rush is the most important part of any d. Well like he was saying, it's not Roach's fault he sucks and is not Brian Urlacher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 09:32 AM) Well like he was saying, it's not Roach's fault he sucks and is not Brian Urlacher. But when you start, your going to take the heat. Your a professional getting paid to do a job. I wish he could make the plays, but if I don't have the skill-set and forced into something at my job that I'm not prepared for and fail, I'm going to take heat, just like he's going to take heat. Plus when I've heard all about how good Roach and Williams are, yet they have never emerged as a starter it makes me wonder why. Maybe we now know why? Maybe its a bunch of BS and they really are just special teamers. In which case, Lovie/Jerry, how about we start developing guys or drafting better players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 I really can't believe how much s*** Lovie is taking in this thread. Funny how everyone wants Lovie gone but the same people don't seem to be calling for Ozzie's head. Seems like they are awfully comparable to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 11:10 AM) I see DeWayne Wise syndrome has taken over Bears fans... Blame the 4th stringer. Roach is MLB now, he is calling the plays, making the changes, He is basically the quarterback of the defense. When the defense performs that bad, and the guy supposed to be in charge is way out of position consistently, and the defense is not making plays, he is going to catch blame. This isnt really a Wise situation. He was supposed to start because Ozzie wanted him to after ST(because he didnt feel anyone was better suited for the job), not because BA was hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 11:35 AM) But when you start, your going to take the heat. Your a professional getting paid to do a job. I wish he could make the plays, but if I don't have the skill-set and forced into something at my job that I'm not prepared for and fail, I'm going to take heat, just like he's going to take heat. Plus when I've heard all about how good Roach and Williams are, yet they have never emerged as a starter it makes me wonder why. Maybe we now know why? Maybe its a bunch of BS and they really are just special teamers. In which case, Lovie/Jerry, how about we start developing guys or drafting better players. I can agree with some of what you are saying here...but I think maybe there is some over reacting going on in response to just a horrendous game...I'd like to see how we look about 4 games from now before I make some of the definitive statements that are being made the last few days in here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 12:36 PM) I really can't believe how much s*** Lovie is taking in this thread. Funny how everyone wants Lovie gone but the same people don't seem to be calling for Ozzie's head. Seems like they are awfully comparable to me... IMO the manager in baseball has the least amount of impact on any of the major team sports so the comparison here doesn't really work. In football he evaluates dozens of personnel and installs complex schemes with complex gameplans, in basketball he break down matchups and has his players going with a certain style, in baseball he makes a lineup, tells players to steal bases, and decides when the pitchers come and go during a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 12:40 PM) I can agree with some of what you are saying here...but I think maybe there is some over reacting going on in response to just a horrendous game...I'd like to see how we look about 4 games from now before I make some of the definitive statements that are being made the last few days in here... I personally started getting sour on Lovie about a month ago. Up until then I'd been a defender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 10:47 AM) IMO the manager in baseball has the least amount of impact on any of the major team sports so the comparison here doesn't really work. In football he evaluates dozens of personnel and installs complex schemes with complex gameplans, in basketball he break down matchups and has his players going with a certain style, in baseball he makes a lineup, tells players to steal bases, and decides when the pitchers come and go during a game. I was anticipating this argument and I almost didn't bother to make the comment above in order to avoid this, but I guess I will bite... I think you're right in terms of strategy - baseball managers don't have nearly the impact that other head coaches do - but I do think they have other duties that are largely psychological in nature over the course of a 162 game schedule that they do not really receive credit/blame for. I think there is probably something to the fact that Bobby Cox, Tony La Russa, Joe Torre and a few others seem to lead their teams to solid season after solid season (I know they have talent, but we have had plenty of talent here throughout the years as well). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 12:55 PM) I was anticipating this argument and I almost didn't bother to make the comment above in order to avoid this, but I guess I will bite... I think you're right in terms of strategy - baseball managers don't have nearly the impact that other head coaches do - but I do think they have other duties that are largely psychological in nature over the course of a 162 game schedule that they do not really receive credit/blame for. I think there is probably something to the fact that Bobby Cox, Tony La Russa, Joe Torre and a few others seem to lead their teams to solid season after solid season (I know they have talent, but we have had plenty of talent here throughout the years as well). I agree with your point but I still think that's apples to oranges. I just don't see how dumping Ozzie and hiring another manager is going to suddenly turn the franchise around the way that, say, hiring Shanahan would do for the Bears (although that'd mean that Cutler would become a 4000+ passer again but the defense would be s*** but that's beside the point). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 12:00 PM) I agree with your point but I still think that's apples to oranges. I just don't see how dumping Ozzie and hiring another manager is going to suddenly turn the franchise around the way that, say, hiring Shanahan would do for the Bears (although that'd mean that Cutler would become a 4000+ passer again but the defense would be s*** but that's beside the point). I think you're comparing apples to oranges though as well. You're talking about bringing in an elite football coach but not the possibility of bringing in an elite baseball manager... If we hired Shanahan, would be suddenly become a powerhouse in the NFC? If we hired LaRussa, would we suddenly become a powerhouse in the AL? I tend to think you could make an argument for both... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 10:15 AM) I tend to think you could make an argument for both... And I tend to think the exact opposite. There really is no such thing as a super-coach who you can hire and suddenly make every come up wins. You can have the right coach for the right mix of players, you can have some coaches/players who don't work together and some who do, but unless a manager is totally clueless, switching coaches really doesn't do what some people would like to think it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 01:15 PM) I think you're comparing apples to oranges though as well. You're talking about bringing in an elite football coach but not the possibility of bringing in an elite baseball manager... If we hired Shanahan, would be suddenly become a powerhouse in the NFC? If we hired LaRussa, would we suddenly become a powerhouse in the AL? I tend to think you could make an argument for both... Honestly I don't think LaRussa could suddenly make this team into something it isn't. Could he bring Pujols with him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 12:18 PM) And I tend to think the exact opposite. There really is no such thing as a super-coach who you can hire and suddenly make every come up wins. You can have the right coach for the right mix of players, you can have some coaches/players who don't work together and some who do, but unless a manager is totally clueless, switching coaches really doesn't do what some people would like to think it does. You're telling me a good argument couldn't be made, or you are just saying you disagree? Because personally, I pretty much agree with you, but I think you could certainly argue that what Tony LaRussa has done (as opposed maybe to Torre or Cox) is pretty damn remarkable considering some of the rosters he's had over the years. And looking at what Bill Parcels has done in the NFL Is pretty amazing as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 10:21 AM) You're telling me a good argument couldn't be made, or you are just saying you disagree? Because personally, I pretty much agree with you, but I think you could certainly argue that what Tony LaRussa has done (as opposed maybe to Torre or Cox) is pretty damn remarkable considering some of the rosters he's had over the years. And looking at what Bill Parcels has done in the NFL Is pretty amazing as well. I think there are some situations where the matchup between the coach and the team is perfect and it really does help (i.e. 2005 white sox) but otherwise, take your examples. LaRussa has won when he's had really good teams. Even in 2006 when his cardinals sucked in the regualr season, they were a lot healthier down the stretch and in the playoffs. Bill Parcells did some amazing things but he also built some amazing rosters. Belichek, ditto. Guy was run out of Cleveland and literally destroyed the franchise before he got his hands on Tom Brady, those linebackers, and some digital recording equipment. I really just don't feel like a great coach is a fix for a beat up roster or a roster with a lot of holes, unless that coach tries to run a scheme that perfectly fits his roster while another coach was refusing to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Coaching in the NFL wins games period. Coaching at the head level down through the coordinators who run a scheme and can game play and assistants that can develop talent. Before all of this though there needs to be a GM that can evaluate what is needed to fill these schemes. Angelo has made some bad moves but I think overall he has gotten Lovie what he wanted for defense. Imagine if Ced played like this for the Bears? Look at what an elite defensive coordinator in Denver and New Orleans can do. I think coordinators are as important as the head coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 12:29 PM) I think there are some situations where the matchup between the coach and the team is perfect and it really does help (i.e. 2005 white sox) but otherwise, take your examples. LaRussa has won when he's had really good teams. Even in 2006 when his cardinals sucked in the regualr season, they were a lot healthier down the stretch and in the playoffs. Bill Parcells did some amazing things but he also built some amazing rosters. Belichek, ditto. Guy was run out of Cleveland and literally destroyed the franchise before he got his hands on Tom Brady, those linebackers, and some digital recording equipment. I really just don't feel like a great coach is a fix for a beat up roster or a roster with a lot of holes, unless that coach tries to run a scheme that perfectly fits his roster while another coach was refusing to. I'm not really sure what you're saying here. I am not trying to argue that a coach can turn a terrible team into a good one. We were just comparing the affects coaches have in different sports. Personally, I don't think firing Lovie is a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 09:36 AM) I really can't believe how much s*** Lovie is taking in this thread. Funny how everyone wants Lovie gone but the same people don't seem to be calling for Ozzie's head. Seems like they are awfully comparable to me... I think an NFL head coach is far more involved and responsible for his teams successes and failures than an MLB head coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 09:40 AM) I can agree with some of what you are saying here...but I think maybe there is some over reacting going on in response to just a horrendous game...I'd like to see how we look about 4 games from now before I make some of the definitive statements that are being made the last few days in here... All I'm saying is the team came out ill-prepared and the veterans have played flat. Lovie needs to make a statement and start sitting the vets that don't play, etc and being agressive to let people know that enough is enough. He finally did that with Tommie Harris and I comment him. And I still think the Bears are a playoff team, I just think there has been an overall lack of accountability going on in Chicago for a couple years under Lovie and it is getting old. Ron Turner was okay last year, but he's had some abysmal years calling shots, specifically the year after the superbowl where Turner was awful. Bob Babich got a year too long and Lovie ultimately needs a lot of heat for what went down on the defensive side of the football. Rivera is a scapegoat and gets far too much credit, but at the same time, when you get rid of a guy that was donig a good job and being very creative on his blitz schemes (it was a hybrid cover 2) and than switch him for a buddy and that guy fails your going to take heat. San Diego was raving about Rivera last season, this year they've been decimated with injuries (and someone will for sure point out how the Bears were this year...although I think Urlacher is the only key injury and Pisa was a luxury). And no I don't think Rivera is all that great either. Bottom line though, the tone of this team has been poor and it has gotten worse. We haven't seen much development out of any of our young players (sans our Wr's) over the past 3 years and our vets have gotten nothing but worse but seem to continuously get a free pass as they continue to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 01:18 PM) I think an NFL head coach is far more involved and responsible for his teams successes and failures than an MLB head coach. Yeah, probably, although we've been discussing this over the past hour or so...definitely some interesting points to be made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 09:50 AM) I personally started getting sour on Lovie about a month ago. Up until then I'd been a defender. I haven't loved Lovie, but I certainly haven't hated on him and I gave him the benefit of the doubt for a while. But recently its become blatantly obvious that something isn't going right in Chicago and its time for a change. I still think they compete for the playoffs, but ultimately I have higher expectations and I don't necessary think Lovie is the man for the job. I wish him success though and hope I'm wrong cause we are probably stuck with him for at least another year. And in his defense I don't think we even have the personsell of a top 20 defensive unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts