Official 2011-2012 NFL Thread

[StrangeSox]

If Angelo could have provided at least a competent offense to go with the stellar defense, the Bears would have won at least two SB's in the last decade if not more. He should have been fired about 3 years ago for failing to address the o-line and receiver situations (along with Lovie, who is absolutely worthless and one of the worst game managers in the league).

 

I've come around on Lovie lately. He still makes some dumb moves with TO's and reviews, but his defensive scheme is solid more often than not.

[Steve9347]

True. Once again, a star QB links the two eras though. That's the biggest problem with the Bears, their well-documented lack of a signal caller. A good QB would have helped cover the other offensive problems.

 

Look at the Colts. Manning willed average teams to the playoffs every year.

 

The Ravens are similar to the Bears, that they have had outstanding defenses but the offense has slowed them down. They did win the one Super Bowl but that's it.

The Bears addressed the QB situation, yet hte same problems have persisted because the team still lacks competent receivers as targets. Angelo even one-upped himself, bc he gave away Cutler's best weapon in Greg Olsen because mad man Mike Martz doesn't like throwing to TE's. It's working out exceedingly well, this whole plan of making it 2 on 11 with Cutler and Forte, isn't it?

[Steve9347]

I've come around on Lovie lately. He still makes some dumb moves with TO's and reviews, but his defensive scheme is solid more often than not.

I have zero complaints about Lovie, other than falling in love with former players like Pace and Archuletta... and of course being linked to this Martz fiasco.

[StrangeSox]

Cutler's pretty clearly not at the Manning/Farve/Brady/Rogers level though. Maybe he could be, but he's not there yet.

[Jenksismyhero]

I've come around on Lovie lately. He still makes some dumb moves with TO's and reviews, but his defensive scheme is solid more often than not.

 

Again, this just fits into what the Bears want to sell you. Yes, this scheme works against the s***ty to average teams out there. Not the perennial powers like GB, NE, NO, IND, etc. Teams with actual offensive lines and good QB's. They get destroyed unless they get lucky with some fluke turnovers/special teams play.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[GoSox05]

The past 20 seasons the Bears have had 12 seasons under .500 and the Packers have had 3.

[StrangeSox]

Again, this just fits into what the Bears want to sell you. Yes, this scheme works against the s***ty to average teams out there. Not the perennial powers like GB, NE, NO, IND, etc. Teams with actual offensive lines and good QB's. They get destroyed unless they get lucky with some fluke turnovers/special teams play.

 

They've shut down elite QB's and offenses plenty of times with this defense. It's predicated on TO's so I wouldn't call them flukes.

[Steve9347]

Cutler's pretty clearly not at the Manning/Farve/Brady/Rogers level though. Maybe he could be, but he's not there yet.

*Favre

*Rodgers

[Steve9347]

Again, this just fits into what the Bears want to sell you. Yes, this scheme works against the s***ty to average teams out there. Not the perennial powers like GB, NE, NO, IND, etc. Teams with actual offensive lines and good QB's. They get destroyed unless they get lucky with some fluke turnovers/special teams play.

There is nothing wrong with the defensive scheme. The sample-size for games against the Pats and Colts is WAY too small to think about, while the Bears have handled Rodgers better than any other team.

 

Also, the Bears' history against the Saints has been pretty stellar. Hell, they beat their asses down a couple times, including in the NFC Championship Game leading to the Super Bowl against the Colts.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Steve9347

[Steve9347]

The entire f***ing problem is the complete lack of consideration toward the offensive side of the ball. The same thing gets repackaged time and time again and we're supposed to get excited about s***bomb wide receivers and either an extremely aged yet semi-effective offensive line, or what we've had the past two years which is a hodge podge of offensive line talent, including a 7th rounder starting that same year.

 

It's a f***ing joke of epic proportions. Anyone who is satisfied is insane.

[StrangeSox]

There is nothing wrong with the defensive scheme. The sample-size for games against the Pats and Colts is WAY too small to think about, while the Bears have handled Rodgers better than any other team.

 

Also, the Bears' history against the Saints has been pretty stellar. Hell, they beat their asses down a couple times, including in the NFC Championship Game leading to the Super Bowl against the Colts.

 

Last year they held GB to 17, 10 and 21 points. They gave up 34 to the Jets, 26 to the Eagles and held every other team to 20 or less.

[Steve9347]

The worst part is thinking about the wall this team is going to hit when Urlacher finally falls off and when Peppers loses that step he's ever-so-close to losing. The team has drafted incredibly poorly, I don't see youth anywhere that we can consider ready to step up at linebacker or in the secondary, and we've already covered the offense.

 

Dark days are a-comin'...

Edited September 29, 2011 by Steve9347

[RockRaines]

No, because they certainly haven't, that's my entire point.

Well, you said the Packers were continually competing for the Super Bowl. During his tenure they have one more win than the Packers and one more divisional title. If they actually won that Super Bowl they would pretty much be dead even as far as accomplishments go since he started coaching the Bears. I would think that would make them also a "consistent super bowl threat"

[LittleHurt05]

The past 20 seasons the Bears have had 12 seasons under .500 and the Packers have had 3.

 

Packers: Favre, Rodgers

 

Bears: Harbaugh, Willis, Furrer, Walsh, Kramer, Kreig, Mirer, Stenstrom, Moreno, Matthews, McNown, Miller, Chandler, Burris, Stewart, Grossman, Krenzel, Hutchinson, Quinn, Orton, Greise, Cutler

[Steve9347]

Well, you said the Packers were continually competing for the Super Bowl. During his tenure they have one more win than the Packers and one more divisional title. If they actually won that Super Bowl they would pretty much be dead even as far as accomplishments go since he started coaching the Bears. I would think that would make them also a "consistent super bowl threat"

You're not supporting your point at all. I've said 15 times in this f***ing conversation that the Bears defense has been great. I don't really understand why it's so hard for you to comprehend my statement that the complete ignorance of improving the offense (especially in an era defined by offense), is reprehensible and pisses me the f*** off.

 

I'm not trying to start a Bears vs. Packers discussion, nor did single them out. I brought the Packers (along with others) up as an example of a BALANCED team that consistently competes. Hell, I greatly prefer how the Eagles have run their franchise the last 12 years than the Bears, simply because they can beat you two ways.

 

Sure, it might not work out, but continually watching the Bears' defense play great while the offense is a clusterf*** is beyond f***ing annoying, and that's been my entire point with every post.

 

Read. Please.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Steve9347

[StrangeSox]

Packers: Favre, Rodgers

 

Bears: Harbaugh, Willis, Furrer, Walsh, Kramer, Kreig, Mirer, Stenstrom, Moreno, Matthews, McNown, Miller, Chandler, Burris, Stewart, Grossman, Krenzel, Hutchinson, Quinn, Orton, Greise, Cutler

 

That the Bears have had a s*** offense for two decades is the point.

[GoSox05]

Packers: Favre, Rodgers

 

Bears: Harbaugh, Willis, Furrer, Walsh, Kramer, Kreig, Mirer, Stenstrom, Moreno, Matthews, McNown, Miller, Chandler, Burris, Stewart, Grossman, Krenzel, Hutchinson, Quinn, Orton, Greise, Cutler

 

 

Also the number of 1000 yard WR in the last 20 years.

 

Packers - 21

Bears - 6

 

The last one for the Bears came in 2002.

Edited September 29, 2011 by GoSox05

[Steve9347]

That the Bears have had a s*** offense for two decades is the point.

No one seems to understand this, I guess. You can make mediocre QBs good with a good O-Line and great receivers. You can make a good QB a Pro-Bowler with a good O-Line and great receivers (that's where Cutler would be categorized as proven in Denver).

 

You can make a good QB look like s*** and get hurt a lot with a porous O-Line and arena league wide receivers (that's where Cutler is categorized).

[StrangeSox]

Sure, it might not work out, but continually watching the Bears' defense play great while the offense is a clusterf*** is beyond f***ing annoying, and that's been my entire point with every post.

 

Read. Please.

 

 

I expressed this same sentiment after the Week 2 game in this thread. I've seen the same s*** from them my entire life. Just once, it'd be nice to root for a professional, modern NFL offense.

[RockRaines]

You're not supporting your point at all. I've said 15 times in this f***ing conversation that the Bears defense has been great. I don't really understand why it's so hard for you to comprehend my statement that the complete ignorance of improving the offense (especially in an era defined by offense), is reprehensible and pisses me the f*** off.

 

I'm not trying to start a Bears vs. Packers discussion, nor did single them out. I brought the Packers (along with others) up as an example of a BALANCED team that consistently competes. Hell, I greatly prefer how the Eagles have run their franchise the last 12 years than the Bears, simply because they can beat you two ways.

 

Sure, it might not work out, but continually watching the Bears' defense play great while the offense is a clusterf*** is beyond f***ing annoying, and that's been my entire point with every post.

 

Read. Please.

Relax Steve, I can read and I think you know that. I'm just wondering why if you say the Packers consistently compete yet you refuse to say the Bears do. Since Lovie started the teams have been about dead even. That would mean the Bears also consistently compete. I would think its black and white.

 

If you are saying ignore all of the wins and losses, titles etc and only compare their offense then yes, the Packers have probably been better. But you cannot ignore that football is a team game, and since Lovie has been the coach the Bears have been just as competitive as the Pack have been regardless of how "balanced" you seem to think the Packers are.

[StrangeSox]

Steve hasn't been talking about the Lovie Smith era, though.

[cabiness42]

Aside from the aforementioned excellence on defense, the Bears have had, without question, the league's best special-teams unit nearly every year of Lovie's tenure.

 

That punt return last week was beyond sick. I just wish there had been a mic on the punter right after he booted it left and watched the other 10 guys on his team all running downt he right sideline.

 

 

[Steve9347]

Relax Steve, I can read and I think you know that. I'm just wondering why if you say the Packers consistently compete yet you refuse to say the Bears do. Since Lovie started the teams have been about dead even. That would mean the Bears also consistently compete. I would think its black and white.

 

If you are saying ignore all of the wins and losses, titles etc and only compare their offense then yes, the Packers have probably been better. But you cannot ignore that football is a team game, and since Lovie has been the coach the Bears have been just as competitive as the Pack have been regardless of how "balanced" you seem to think the Packers are.

You continue to prove lack of reading comprehension. I'm saying we have this f***ing valuable thing here, this defense, and the Bears have had chance after chance after chance to improve their offense and become a powerhouse. They have ignored that opportunity time after time, and it's the same old story. Defense, defense, defense, pathetic offense.

 

You are so obsessed with the fact I said the word "Packers". I apologize for igniting your meathead fandom. Replace that with Eagles (very similar to the Bears in terms of results, but 100x more watchable). The Eagles at least feign attempting to improve in all facets, while the Bears continue to repackage the same trash and act like it's going to magically work.

 

We got Ron Turner! We fired Ron Turner he sux! We got some guy who worked with the Cheifs! Gary Crowton! Priest Holmes! He sucks! We got JOHN SHOOP! PARTY! OH GOD HE SUCKS. 3 years. We got Terry Shea! Yeah. Sux! We got Ron Turner again! Woohoo! Sux! We got Mike Martz! Greatest Show on Sod! Sux!

 

It's endless. The anger is boiling. However, one thing has been painfully consistent the last 10 years. Bad o-line, bad receivers. It's all on Angelo. I can't wait til his next extension.

[RockRaines]

Steve hasn't been talking about the Lovie Smith era, though.

So only before then we didnt compete? I dont get it.

[Steve9347]

Aside from the aforementioned excellence on defense, the Bears have had, without question, the league's best special-teams unit nearly every year of Lovie's tenure.

 

That punt return last week was beyond sick. I just wish there had been a mic on the punter right after he booted it left and watched the other 10 guys on his team all running downt he right sideline.

Yes, this team has been ready-made for an offensive line upgrade and an elite WR to catapult them to dominance. Yet it continually gets ignored. Roy Williams.