Official 2010-11 NFL Thread

[lostfan]

If the Bears go into the Patriots game with the same game-plan, letting the opponent hit those 5-10 yard passes and stopping them there, they're going to get eaten alive. The Patriots have come out and said that's their game now without randy Moss; they hit those shorter passes and have become a run after the catch team. If they try to re-do the Packers game earlier this year, they'll get eaten for lunch.

They always get eaten alive doing that, but they'll probably be in a nickel formation most of this game because they'll be expecting the Pats to stick with that short passing game.

[iamshack]

If the Bears go into the Patriots game with the same game-plan, letting the opponent hit those 5-10 yard passes and stopping them there, they're going to get eaten alive. The Patriots have come out and said that's their game now without randy Moss; they hit those shorter passes and have become a run after the catch team. If they try to re-do the Packers game earlier this year, they'll get eaten for lunch.

I disagree. I think the only chance they have is to do exactly that. Tackle and be patient. Hope you can generate some pressure with 4. Hope to hold them to some field goals rather than touchdowns. Hope Briggs can shut down their run game. Keep Brady off the field with long drives of your own. Score touchdowns against a relatively weak Pats d.

[nitetrain8601]

Love Smith is certainly a better coach than Mike Ditka? I agree that Ditka's career has been inflated by his personality and Chicago's love for the meatball. But how is Lovie Smith CERTAINLY a better head coach than Mike Ditka? In reality, I think they two coaches are somewhat similar outside of their personalities. Both are stubborn and are at their best when surrounded by good assistant coaches (see Buddy Ryan). I'd say he's CERTAINLY better than Jauron but I don't know if I'd go so far with Ditka. This highlights the disturbing trend of sub-standard Bears head coaches hires. Wannestedt, Jauron, Lovie. All first time head coaches, all poor developers of talent.

 

I agree that Lovie's stamp on this team is takeaways. That's acceptable. Under Lovie the Bears have been an opportunistic team. I just don't know how much weight that carries.

 

Also, when you say he creates good schemes or game plans . . . I disagree with that. The Cover-2 is a fine scheme when you have appropriate personnel, but they didn't last year and he continued to run the same base C-2. Lovie was the signal caller last year and in back-to-back games the Bears were humiliated by teams who consistently torched them on quick slants over the middle. Additionally, when was the last time you watched a Bears game and said "Wow, the Bears really out game planned the other team?" The Bears probably have the worst blitz schemes in the league.

 

If you have a system that you believe in, you stick to it. You want Lovie out of nowhere to start calling for a 3-4 defense midseason when he knew he had a personnel problem and he didn't know how to coach a 3-4 defense? You stick with what gets you to where you are. Lovie's MO is the Cover-2 scheme and it's predicated on takeaways which are two things the Bears are great at and have been since he's been here. His offensive coaches haven't worked up until this year minus one Terry O'Shea who only had two games with Rex Grossman(great games too).

 

Last, but not least, I don't think the Bears are a great team. I don't really think they have been great any of Lovie's years. At the same time, Lovie has gotten them to do something and that's play and buy into his schemes. And they're darn good ones and proven effective. He also is mild mannered, doesn't get too high or low, and coaches.

[lostfan]

BTW, Murcie, what scheme can you run if you don't have the players for it? That's a weak argument IMO. Would the Bears not need to get a NT and new OLBs if they switched to a 3-4?

Edited December 7, 2010 by lostfan

[Balta1701]

BTW, Murcie, what scheme can you run if you don't have the players for it? That's a weak argument IMO. Would the Bears not need to get a NT and new OLBs if they switched to a 3-4?

And considering that they have perhaps the best 4-3 middle linebacker of the last 15+ years, that might not be the wisest move (seriously, I'm trying to think of who else has played that position recently and even been close to 54's level, can anyone give me a name or two?)

[MurcieOne]

I can counter with plenty of games if I actually look, but I don't feel that is necessary. His win-loss record seenms to me as a pretty good indicator. The level of defenses he has built in his tenure here seem to contradict your point as well.

 

If you're going to argue that he's not a great coach, fine, but don't use Mike Ditka as your counterpoint. Give me a break.

 

Where did I argue that Mike Ditka was a good coach? I never did. Not once. I specifically agreed with you that he is probably overrated. I was simply contradicting the point you made that Ditka was CERTAINLY worse than Lovie (which you stated but didn't explain in any detail). In terms of win-loss records, you cited Wade Phillips as a failure earlier. Wade Phillips' career win percentage (.581) is higher than Lovie's (.563). Is Wade a good head coach? I guess his win-loss record indicates that he is CERTAINLY a better head coach than Lovie.

 

 

 

 

[iamshack]

And considering that they have perhaps the best 4-3 middle linebacker of the last 15+ years, that might not be the wisest move (seriously, I'm trying to think of who else has played that position recently and even been close to 54's level, can anyone give me a name or two?)

Brooks in Tampa?

[lostfan]

Does Ray Lewis count?

[Balta1701]

Does Ray Lewis count?

Yeah, that's a good one. Thanks, I knew I had to be missing someone.

[MurcieOne]

If you have a system that you believe in, you stick to it. You want Lovie out of nowhere to start calling for a 3-4 defense midseason when he knew he had a personnel problem and he didn't know how to coach a 3-4 defense? You stick with what gets you to where you are.

 

Would you tell that to Mike Martz this season? If Mike Martz didn't tailor his offense to his personnel this season, the Bears season and Jay Cutler's short term memory would have destroyed by now.

 

[iamshack]

Where did I argue that Mike Ditka was a good coach? I never did. Not once. I specifically agreed with you that he is probably overrated. I was simply contradicting the point you made that Ditka was CERTAINLY worse than Lovie (which you stated but didn't explain in any detail). In terms of win-loss records, you cited Wade Phillips as a failure earlier. Wade Phillips' career win percentage (.581) is higher than Lovie's (.563). Is Wade a good head coach? I guess his win-loss record indicates that he is CERTAINLY a better head coach than Lovie.

I never said a word about Wade Phillips. Wrong guy. Sorry.

 

As for Ditka, he had talent coming out the ears and couldn't capitalize on it except for the one year when there really were not many strong rivals to get in his way.

 

Even the players will agree that they underachieved terribly. I don't really understand what more you need.

 

Sports Illustrated

[MurcieOne]

Brooks in Tampa?

 

Derrick Brooks was an OLB. Not a MLB.

[iamshack]

Derrick Brooks was an OLB. Not a MLB.

Ahh, you're right. My bad.

[MurcieOne]

BTW, Murcie, what scheme can you run if you don't have the players for it? That's a weak argument IMO. Would the Bears not need to get a NT and new OLBs if they switched to a 3-4?

 

I didn't mean to imply that he Bears should change from a 4-3 to a 3-4. What I was trying to say is that the Bears should not have played so much of their base cover-2 when they didn't have a pass rush, didn't have Urlacher to swallow up tackles and cover the deep middle, Briggs missed time, and had shoddy secondary play.

 

There are teams that experience injuries and do a better job of adapting to them. Lovie was the play caller last year and the defense was a stanch 17th in total defense (an imperfect stat).

[iamshack]

I didn't mean to imply that he Bears should change from a 4-3 to a 3-4. What I was trying to say is that the Bears should not have played so much of their base cover-2 when they didn't have a pass rush, didn't have Urlacher to swallow up tackles and cover the deep middle, Briggs missed time, and had shoddy secondary play.

 

There are teams that experience injuries and do a better job of adapting to them. Lovie was the play caller last year and the defense was a stanch 17th in total defense (an imperfect stat).

Our entire linebacking core was out at one time or another, and all at the same time as well, and our offense was poor and turned the ball over far too much.

 

Yes, it was a lost year, but hard for me to place the blame all on Lovie. Could he have done better, absolutely.

[Chisoxfn]

Brooks in Tampa?

Wasn't Nickerson the MLB their for a long time with Brooks an OLB? I at least thought Brooks played Briggs position for most of his career.

[Balta1701]

I didn't mean to imply that he Bears should change from a 4-3 to a 3-4. What I was trying to say is that the Bears should not have played so much of their base cover-2 when they didn't have a pass rush, didn't have Urlacher to swallow up tackles and cover the deep middle, Briggs missed time, and had shoddy secondary play.

 

There are teams that experience injuries and do a better job of adapting to them. Lovie was the play caller last year and the defense was a stanch 17th in total defense (an imperfect stat).

What you probably missed last year though was that the Bears did try to work around this. In fact, the Bears for the last couple years have had one of the highest rates in the NFL of sending extra guys; LB's and DB's, on the blitz to try to get to the QB. That was the only way that they could get pressure on the QB, because their front 4 wasn't doing it. But, because they were blitzing so often, to the point the defense knew it was coming, the secondary was regularly getting exposed. Because their D-Line horses stopped doing the job, they couldn't get pressure without the blitz, but if they blitzed their secondary gave up the first-down pass.

 

They didn't play the base cover 2 when they didn't have those guys...you just didn't notice, because all you saw was the Bears' defense getting picked apart.

[nitetrain8601]

Would you tell that to Mike Martz this season? If Mike Martz didn't tailor his offense to his personnel this season, the Bears season and Jay Cutler's short term memory would have destroyed by now.

 

Yes. And I attribute the success moreso to Garza coming back, not Martz changing his schemes. The Bears were unable to do certain things in the beginning and nothing at all against the Giants. But they tried. Mike Tice had the toughest job of all. And trust me, I love me some Martz. He didn't change his runblocking or his passblocking schemes. He didn't change routes. He didn't change the gaps.

[Balta1701]

Yes. And I attribute the success moreso to Garza coming back, not Martz changing his schemes. The Bears were unable to do certain things in the beginning and nothing at all against the Giants. But they tried. Mike Tice had the toughest job of all. And trust me, I love me some Martz. He didn't change his runblocking or his passblocking schemes. He didn't change routes. He didn't change the gaps.

However, hasn't he changed the rate at which he was calling the run, the types of runs he was calling, and the types of passes/drops that he was calling?

[nitetrain8601]

However, hasn't he changed the rate at which he was calling the run, the types of runs he was calling, and the types of passes/drops that he was calling?

 

I guess you can say yes.

[lostfan]

Yes. And I attribute the success moreso to Garza coming back, not Martz changing his schemes. The Bears were unable to do certain things in the beginning and nothing at all against the Giants. But they tried. Mike Tice had the toughest job of all. And trust me, I love me some Martz. He didn't change his runblocking or his passblocking schemes. He didn't change routes. He didn't change the gaps.

Martz didn't change his schemes, he just calls his plays different. Cutler still gets hammered on 7 step drops, he's basically handcuffed from throwing bombs and when he does they're inaccurate because he didn't have time to throw it.

[MurcieOne]

What you probably missed last year though was that the Bears did try to work around this. In fact, the Bears for the last couple years have had one of the highest rates in the NFL of sending extra guys; LB's and DB's, on the blitz to try to get to the QB. That was the only way that they could get pressure on the QB, because their front 4 wasn't doing it. But, because they were blitzing so often, to the point the defense knew it was coming, the secondary was regularly getting exposed. Because their D-Line horses stopped doing the job, they couldn't get pressure without the blitz, but if they blitzed their secondary gave up the first-down pass.

 

They didn't play the base cover 2 when they didn't have those guys...you just didn't notice, because all you saw was the Bears' defense getting picked apart.

 

That's a convincing stat that helps disprove Lovie's rigidity. I did notice that increase in blitzing last year, and I read this article in the offseason (I really like the work Seifert does on his blog btw). I overlooked it for the purposes of my argument (law school training). Still I don't think this proves that Lovie is a good head coach. In fact you could argue that this indicts Lovie for being an ineffective designer/play caller. Given the amount of blitzing the Bears did last season they still didn't rank in the top 10 in sacks. I am willing to attribute a good portion of that to poor execution by the players. But I think that a better coach would have been able to hide/scheme the blitzes better and achieve better results.

 

FWIW, I am enjoying this debate and I think its perfectly reasonable to support Lovie.

[iamshack]

That's a convincing stat that helps disprove Lovie's rigidity. I did notice that increase in blitzing last year, and I read this article in the offseason (I really like the work Seifert does on his blog btw). I overlooked it for the purposes of my argument (law school training). Still I don't think this proves that Lovie is a good head coach. In fact you could argue that this indicts Lovie for being an ineffective designer/play caller. Given the amount of blitzing the Bears did last season they still didn't rank in the top 10 in sacks. I am willing to attribute a good portion of that to poor execution by the players. But I think that a better coach would have been able to hide/scheme the blitzes better and achieve better results.

 

FWIW, I am enjoying this debate and I think its perfectly reasonable to support Lovie.

Just curious, Murcie, how old are you? Do you remember Ditka's tenure here, honestly?

[MurcieOne]

Just curious, Murcie, how old are you? Do you remember Ditka's tenure here, honestly?

 

24 and No. I grew up with Wanne and Dick.

[nitetrain8601]

That's a convincing stat that helps disprove Lovie's rigidity. I did notice that increase in blitzing last year, and I read this article in the offseason (I really like the work Seifert does on his blog btw). I overlooked it for the purposes of my argument (law school training). Still I don't think this proves that Lovie is a good head coach. In fact you could argue that this indicts Lovie for being an ineffective designer/play caller. Given the amount of blitzing the Bears did last season they still didn't rank in the top 10 in sacks. I am willing to attribute a good portion of that to poor execution by the players. But I think that a better coach would have been able to hide/scheme the blitzes better and achieve better results.

 

FWIW, I am enjoying this debate and I think its perfectly reasonable to support Lovie.

 

Maybe you're right, but I think of Shannahan who is a heck of a coach and Washington hasn't been able to cover up a lot of their flaws on the defensive end.