Thread: What should Lovie do to "right the ship" before it sinks?

Originally Posted by JustAnotherBearsFan99

I would have aggressively gone after a top-tier FA olineman AND drafted another in one of the top 4 rounds of the draft. This wouldn't fix the problem, but it would have been a first step in the right direction.

But I want to be clear about one thing here. Very clear. That I'm not saying Emery was wrong (or right) but stating a fact. We don't know what went on behind closed doors with Emery and the coaches prior to the draft. That has a direct bearing on whether or not Tice is the guy to get full blame here. Personnel moves are not a function of a coordinator, or for that matter, even the head coach. The GM is the personnel guy.

My points (I hope) are still valid. I'm not being a politician. Just stating facts, at least as I see them. I'm not dissing you here at all. Just saying that there may be a situation where Emery could also be part of the blame.

Yes, I would have addressed the oline better, but that's "me" and I'm not the GM.

Gotcha. Note how you A) didn't mention any specific names and B) neglected the trade-offs involved.

I assume by "top tier FA OLman" you mean Nicks or Grubbs (there were no FA OTs to speak of). Well they play OG not LT and would have cost multi-millions in cap space. That means no Marshall or no Bush + Campbell. Just sayin'...the cap limit doesn't go away cuz you choose not to look at it.

You didn't mention a single OL name you would have drafted "in the first 4 rounds". Nor where you expected to draft them. Very unlikely that anyone taken past the 2nd would be starting anyway, so who would you have taken in the first 2? That means no DE help for Peppers (already paying dividends wouldn't you say?) and/or no Alshon Jeffery. If you want that trade-off that's fine but I still haven't heard any specifics.

I'm having an intellectual discussion with you here and it's pretty obvious (no offense whatsoever, friend) that you are backed into a corner without specific ideas and just venting at the moon.

I know your frustartion and I empathize, believe me. I was hot for Reiff or Adams to be our OT "rescue" but realized that neither of them was anything but a backup quality "project" for OT when their combine/scouting reports became clear. Neither of them are starting at EITHER OT position for their teams. DeCastro might have been a helluva LG talent for us but our need there seemed less with CW in the mix (thanks, Tice, for jacking that up) but the tradeoff was no Shea and DD ended up pretty much out for the year in PS. Can you imagine the howls if Emery had drafted "another 1st round OLman who misses his entire rookie year"!!! I really can't fault Emery for doing all that he did, under the restrictions he was under.

Somehow, unintentionally, I have struck a nerve with you today MP. Sorry if I have. I'm just pointing out that Tice may not be the entire villian here. And I am not saying Emery is bad either (so far I like Emery). I don't think any of my posts have tried to make Emery a bad guy.

And I definitely understand the mess Emery was left with. I'm not saying (this is the 3rd time I've tried to make this point) Emery should be crucified for not fixing the oline in his first year. I am saying Tice may not be fully to blame. We don't know what went on behind closed doors prior to the draft.

Well, one thing we CAN agree on is JA really sucks. Imagine if we got Clady instead of Cwill, would we even be having half of these discussions? Or what if we drafted or signed just ONE high rated o-lineman in the past 3 years? Well, then we'd be stuck with JA, kind of a lose-semi-lose.

Originally Posted by Henry Burris

Well, one thing we CAN agree on is JA really sucks. Imagine if we got Clady instead of Cwill, would we even be having half of these discussions? Or what if we drafted or signed just ONE high rated o-lineman in the past 3 years? Well, then we'd be stuck with JA, kind of a lose-semi-lose.

Best post of the day.

There is one thing they could do right now . Back in the day Halas and Lombardi had the philosophy that the playbook didn't need to be that big. They trained their guys to run a certain smallish number of plays to perfection . Jerry Kramer talked about this as did others. As a result the running game was more refined than it is nowadays and the players had more confidence in running these plays . And it showed . Those guys pulled and picked off ends and linebackers better than we see now.

I realize that there have been 'innovations' on offense since then and playbooks are more sophisticated nowadays - but what good is a big playbook if the guys aren't that comfortable running plays that haven't been practiced enough ? I been there . Some play that hasn't been practiced much gets called and everyone is thinking the same thing ..... sheez I hope I do my job right / hope this play develops right ..... and there's a tentative mind-set that everyone has and guys don't fire off the ball with the same speed ( but the defense does ) and that extra step or two ( that WILL determine the outcome of the play ) isn't there and it turns into a clusterfk .

These OC's are trying to ' keep up with the Jones's ' and they're sort of wasting time practicing BS when they should be perfecting a smaller # of plays.

Anyways that's what I'd do . They still gotta stop it ..... but if we're running it better , it'll still work .

Originally Posted by Blue Horse-shoe

There is one thing they could do right now . Back in the day Halas and Lombardi had the philosophy that the playbook didn't need to be that big. They trained their guys to run a certain smallish number of plays to perfection . Jerry Kraemer talked about this as did others. As a result the running game was more refined than it is nowadays and the players had more confidence in running these plays . And it showed . Those guys pulled and picked off ends and linebackers better than we see now.

I realize that there have been 'innovations' on offense since then and playbooks are more sophisticated nowadays - but what good is a big playbook if the guys aren't that comfortable running plays that haven't been practiced enough ? I been there . Some play that hasn't been practiced much gets called and everyone is thinking the same thing ..... sheez I hope I do my job right / hope this play develops right ..... and there's a tentative mind-set that everyone has and guys don't fire off the ball with the same speed ( but the defense does ) and that extra step or two ( that WILL determine the outcome of the play ) isn't there and it turns into a clusterfk .

These OC's are trying to ' keep up with the Jones's ' and they're sort of wasting time practicing BS when they should be perfecting a smaller # of plays.

Anyways that's what I'd do . They still gotta stop it ..... but if we're running it better , it'll still work .

Yep, yep. There's a big difference between knowing something is coming and knowing it's coming and being able to stop it. There's plenty of room in "simpler" plays for adjustments in strategy and tactics. And like "innovations" everything old is new again. Just ask the Niners who are running the ball and using a FB.

Originally Posted by MPBears68

Well said. JA bears more blame for the OL situation we are in than all others put together.

People defended JA a long time, insisting he was a good GM. I've often wondered what would have happened if he HAD been a good GM and had a decent oline in place, and at least average WR's - when Cutler arrived in Chicago. Can you imagine where we could be right now?

Instead we finally (with Emery's help) have solid WR's. Next year he'll fix the oline.

But he drafted 2 first round O linemen. Just because one of them was broken before he even drafted him and the rest of the NFL knew it and he never address the rest of our piss poor O line. Ok yes he is to blame. I tried to help JA but just couldn't do it.

Originally Posted by MPBears68

Well said. JA bears more blame for the OL situation we are in than all others put together.