Thread: NFCN holes to fill: Chicago Bears

It's a fair take on it. We can be better in the secondary than it appears if the Safety play improves. CB's are OK but not oustanding.

Like the article said, the bed has been made. Now we lie in it. If it turns out good, Emery will be nearly worshiped. If it turns out bad, crucified. I am hoping good.

Through the first nine games last year, I believe the Bears had given up 21 sacks, and most of those came in the games against Detroit and New Orleans. Then when Cutler went down and we put Caleb Hanie in to replace him, Martz went back to his seven step drops and even did more exotic shit with the offense with Hanie than he did with Cutler, which was a bad move.

This offensive line will improve one way or another, especially with Carimi coming back. I wouldn't be shocked to see Chris Williams compete for the LT position.

Originally Posted by motownbear

everyone sees webb as a liability.

if we cut some fat from the backups we could actually have invested properly in the oline with a nicks or grubbs this past FA.

But since neither or them plays LT we'd STILL have a problem with Webb. Just sayin'.

If Tice says Webb is going to be an all-time great LT, he must be right. After all, he's the best OL coaching mind in the game...

Spoiler

...and I'm the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, and Santa Claus all rolled up into one.

Why I think Martz was the reason for the bad OLine more than anything else? Our OLine was shit until Cutty had enough and told Martz fuck you. After that, Cutty took over the regime and the Oline improved within 1 week... until Cutty was hurt.

We still don't have the best OL or close to it, but we will not be as bad as last year. I think this will be good enough to go deep

Originally Posted by GermansbombedPH

Why I think Martz was the reason for the bad OLine more than anything else? Our OLine was shit until Cutty had enough and told Martz fuck you. After that, Cutty took over the regime and the Oline improved within 1 week... until Cutty was hurt.

We still don't have the best OL or close to it, but we will not be as bad as last year. I think this will be good enough to go deep

Absolutely, Martz created a huge problem as far as passing blocking was concerned but that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone since it's been a problem everywhere he's coached. As soon Cutler elected to start doing things his own way the offense began to roll and the sacks went down to almost nothing. Even a line with 5 pro bowlers would have some trouble blocking in that system.

You're right, we don't have the best line in the NFL but despite all those fancy analyses which were done we don't have the worst either. There is no better way to measure any offensive line's effectiveness than the grading their own coaching staff does. I'll go along with how Tice grades his lineman long before I'll believe some hack on a website who thinks he has a foolproof system to do it.

The first thing he'd need to do in order to be accurate is to know what every lineman's blocking assignment is on every offensive play over 16 games. Who is gonna step up and tell me that they know exactly what those assignments were? The coaches grade them after each game just so they can chart it and I doubt there is a soul on this planet who does that.

So what they do is add up a bunch of stats that purport to represent how well they did but all it does is provide false conclusions. If it was that simple then we could easily say that every running back who averaged more yards carry and more yards per catch than Walter Payton was a better back. We know that's not true because we know how those yards were gained and against what odds because we WATCHED it being done. We also saw the blocks he threw and a dozen other ways he proved himself to be the best.

Any system that advertises a result without taking into consideration what should have been accomplished under that set of circumstances will eventually lead to false conclusions. I analyze investments for a living. If all I did was focus on absolute returns without handicapping those results I haven't done my job. If a given investment earns 25% more than another (8% vs 10%) but takes twice the risk in order to accomplish that then that isn't a very good deal for an investor. A proper analysis always considers what the risk adjusted return should have been in addition to what it was. Why? Because when the market turns south that front runner will lose twice as much as the investment that took less risk to achieve it's 8% ROR.

So how do you "risk adjust" the performance on an offensive line that has to block for a system that requires 7 step drops and an extra second or two of protection because the QB has to wait longer for his WR's to get open. How do you factor in the fact that the QB is throwing to second tier receiver who take longer than average to get open? You can't. That's why these analyses are garbage. Because they don't tell the whole story. Unless somebody besides their coaches have come up with a way to do it it's not a fair reflection of their performance.

Our own eyes can tell us more than anything else since we can see it better than the stats can interpret it.