Thread: An article on why Lovie will still be our coach next year

Originally Posted by MPBears68

We don't have $15 million in cap space this year like we did last. I'm all for "depth and competition" in FA but was just figuring realistically that a LT would take up the vast majority of available discretionary salary cap and that's the bigger need to fill if possible.

Agreed totally however we could use some more depth on the Defense even if it's late round picks e.g. 4-7. IMO for the draft the priorities need to be OL & TE. I'd rather have a good pass catching TE over another WR since we'll have Jeffery's back and hopefully could use Dane S as our #4.

Originally Posted by The Benjamin

Yes, they are still playing at a high level (those over 30) but that can change quickly. You can not wait to find replacements until they are at the end. Look at what the packers do. They have a very deep bench, and have guys who are good enough to slide in at almost every position when one goes down to injury. Can the Bears say the same? I am afraid not. While the OL is the bigger concern, you can not wait until it is obvious that you need a replacement. We have done that with Urlacher for years, and you see where we are with that? Up shits creek.

Get OL guys, but you can not ignore the aging defense, no matter what level they are playing at which is nowhere near as well as it was at the start of the year. They are older, and as the season goes on, they are slowing down. They need a lot more depth than they currently have.

I would argue that the D has a lot more depth than it did even a year ago (a much improved DL rotation, Hayden at backup CB, Hayes at backup LB, etc). But Ill entertain your point for discussion.

Hey, I'd love to "have my cake and eat it too" so tell me what specifically you want to do this offseason on D besides drafting a LB in ~ the 2nd round? What???

Keeping in mind of course that:

A) the OL is an unmitigated disaster desperately in need of a major talent infusion after years of neglect

B) we have only 2 picks in the first 3 rounds [please don't tell me we are going to magically find starters or key contributors off the bat in rounds 4-7, thats utterly unrealistic] and...

C) we have far less cap space this year compared to last for FA acquisitions

Tell me what you have in mind specifically...I'm "all ears".

Originally Posted by MPBears68

I would argue that the D has a lot more depth than it did even a year ago (a much improved DL rotation, Hayden at backup CB, Hayes at backup LB, etc). But Ill entertain your point for discussion.

Hey, I'd love to "have my cake and eat it too" so tell me what specifically you want to do this offseason on D besides drafting a LB in ~ the 2nd round? What???

Keeping in mind of course that:

A) the OL is an unmitigated disaster desperately in need of a major talent infusion after years of neglect

B) we have only 2 picks in the first 3 rounds [please don't tell me we are going to magically find starters or key contributors off the bat in rounds 4-7, thats utterly unrealistic] and...

C) we have far less cap space this year compared to last for FA acquisitions

Tell me what you have in mind specifically...I'm "all ears".

1st and 2nd round screw BPA get BPA according to need. MLB and OL, one in the first, one in the second. Look to FA to find another OL or two. Find more defensive depth. If you think our D is fine, you obviously have not watched the last four games.

Originally Posted by JPosh2012

Agreed totally however we could use some more depth on the Defense even if it's late round picks e.g. 4-7. IMO for the draft the priorities need to be OL & TE. I'd rather have a good pass catching TE over another WR since we'll have Jeffery's back and hopefully could use Dane S as our #4.

A) We don't have a 7th round pick either (used it to acquire Collins which was a major depth upgrade to the DL)

B) I wasn't even talking about rounds 4-6 of the draft. First of all you may need to trade one or more of those away to move up in the higher rounds to get whatever player Emery wants. Even if that doesn't become necessary, it's utterly unrealistic to expect players drafted there to have any discernible impact right away, assuming they even make the team (which they often dont). Usually the best you can do in the latter draft is get some ST help and maybe just maybe one of them pans out 2-3 years down the road as a "hidden gem" and cracks the starting lineup as a solid contributor. I'm all for that (love to see it) but its gravy when it happens and it doesn't add anything significant right away. I really don't care what/where Emery drafts in the latter half as long as its bpa, hopefully he "hits" on something eventually but it's not going to be for 2013.

C) I agree that we could use another receiving option. If its a pass-catching TE that can help, that's good by me. I merely suggested "speedster WR" because Knox is unlikely to be back and Hester isn't exactly a TY Hilton type as a dynamic true receiver. We could use a young guy with the kind of speed to stretch defenses 5 plays a game because right now we don't have a true deep threat to do so.

Not trying to rain on anyone's parade here, but just discussing what is reasonable and realistic to expect to accomplish given the needs and priorities we have and the cap/draft limitations we are facing.

I'd love to fix the OL, add a 4th receiving option, augment defensive depth, and find young (eventual) replacements for Briggs, Peppers, Urlacher, and Tillman too but that isn't going to be possible in one offseason.

Originally Posted by The Benjamin

1st and 2nd round screw BPA get BPA according to need. MLB and OL, one in the first, one in the second. Look to FA to find another OL or two. Find more defensive depth. If you think our D is fine, you obviously have not watched the last four games.

You just repeated almost exactly the plan I talked about to start this whole discussion!

If we could get 2 new OL starters and one solid LB prospect out of FA and the first 2 rounds of the draft, I'll be very happy with that. That's exactly what I diagramed out.

Btw, not only did I watch the last 4 games, I was there for 3 of them. We got scorched in SF and totally out-coached. The D just had a rough night, it happens. Against Houston the D was phenomenal. The O (or pathetic lack thereof) lost that game. Anytime you hold an opponent to one TD and 13 points (despite giving up 3 TOs) and still can't win at home, your D isn't the problem. YOUR O SUCKS. We beat Minny and held AP reasonably in check. Against Seattle, the story wasn't much different than the Houston game. It's true the D uncharacteristically gave up several long drives and was totally gassed by the late-4th/OT, but the O had many opportunities to salt that game away long before then and failed to do so (can't make 4th & inches, dropped TD pass, no one to throw to besides Marshall). Again, if your D holds the opponent to only 10 points all game till the late 4th and you cant score more than 2 TDs AT HOME, your O is the bigger problem.

I'm tired of the defense being expected to hold every team to under 17 and the offense rarely being able to put up more than that on their own against "good teams".

Originally Posted by The Benjamin

1st and 2nd round screw BPA get BPA according to need. MLB and OL, one in the first, one in the second. Look to FA to find another OL or two. Find more defensive depth. If you think our D is fine, you obviously have not watched the last four games.

What do you say now?

The D (despite 3 starters being out) gave up only 7 points on the road. They got gashed badly on the opening drive, but that was it. The other 14 Minny scored were on pick-6s (for all practical purposes) by the O. AP did nothing spectacular beyond the 1st Q and Ponder threw for less than 100 yards all day. Minny's O only crossed the 50 twice after the opening drive. Despite the D making stop after stop after stop, the Bears offense was able to only score 7 points all game long until garbage time. And this was not against an "elite defense" like Houston's or even a very good one like Seattle's.

Another horrific offensive performance by the O and another "should have won" game that was lost. Freaking pathetic how inept our receivers are (Davis and Hester particularly once again). I was struck by how clueless and in denial Lovie was in his post game presser when he cited the defense for "getting us in a hole early" (or some shit like that). You give up an opening drive TD on the road (it happens rarely to us) and that's your reason for losing??? Like you shouldn't expect your offense to be able to come back from 7-0 with 56 minutes of football left to be played???

Such a "hole" would be nothing to worry about for GB, NE, and plenty of other less talented offenses. It speaks volumes about how bad our O is and how low expectations are for it, that the HC (and many fans too) probably think falling behind 7, or even 14, early in the 1st Q is an insurmountable obstacle. RIDICULOUS.

Originally Posted by MPBears68

I was struck by how clueless and in denial Lovie was in his post game presser when he cited the defense for "getting us in a hole early" (or some shit like that). You give up an opening drive TD on the road (it happens rarely to us) and that's your reason for losing??? Like you shouldn't expect your offense to be able to come back from 7-0 with 56 minutes of football left to be played???

I don't think anything new with Lovie there. Same as always it seems.

Originally Posted by MPBears68

What do you say now?

The D (despite 3 starters being out) gave up only 7 points on the road. They got gashed badly on the opening drive, but that was it. The other 14 Minny scored were on pick-6s (for all practical purposes) by the O. AP did nothing spectacular beyond the 1st Q and Ponder threw for less than 100 yards all day. Minny's O only crossed the 50 twice after the opening drive. Despite the D making stop after stop after stop, the Bears offense was able to only score 7 points all game long until garbage time. And this was not against an "elite defense" like Houston's or even a very good one like Seattle's.

Another horrific offensive performance by the O and another "should have won" game that was lost. Freaking pathetic how inept our receivers are (Davis and Hester particularly once again). I was struck by how clueless and in denial Lovie was in his post game presser when he cited the defense for "getting us in a hole early" (or some shit like that). You give up an opening drive TD on the road (it happens rarely to us) and that's your reason for losing??? Like you shouldn't expect your offense to be able to come back from 7-0 with 56 minutes of football left to be played???

Such a "hole" would be nothing to worry about for GB, NE, and plenty of other less talented offenses. It speaks volumes about how bad our O is and how low expectations are for it, that the HC (and many fans too) probably think falling behind 7, or even 14, early in the 1st Q is an insurmountable obstacle. RIDICULOUS.

You are judging out D off of a game against a one demential team? Please. The packers are going to tear us apart. I stand firm that our D is getting old and broken. They need to start drafting replacements for them too.

Originally Posted by The Benjamin

You are judging out D off of a game against a one demential team? Please. The packers are going to tear us apart. I stand firm that our D is getting old and broken. They need to start drafting replacements for them too.

Besides the blowout "burn the tape" game in SF, here's a breakdown of the points allowed in regulation by the DEFENSE in our other 4 losses:

Green Bay -- 16 (on the road against one of the best passing offenses in the NFL)
Houston -- 13 (despite multiple TOs by our O like above)
Seattle -- 17 (only 10 until the late 4th)
Minny -- 7 (14 pts scored by them on pick 6s)

Now let's see what the OFFENSE scored:

Green Bay -- 13 (multiple TOs, sacks allowed, dropped passes)
Houston -- 6 (yes, that's right, not even a single TD at home)
Seattle -- 17 (3 of which occurred in the last 30 seconds thanks a miracle bomb)
Minny -- 14 (7 of which occurred in garbage time after the game was over, ton of drops again)

...and in the SF game, it wasn't a purely defensive loss like 34-31 or something. We scored 7 total points and that TD occurred completely in garbage too after the game was long out of reach.

Its really tough to beat good teams, and some mediocre ones too, when 2 touchdowns is your maximal offensive output. Offense, and the utter lack thereof, is by far the bigger problem here. To deny that and not upgrade it as the higher priority (and that is the Bears usual course) this spring pretty much ensures another 8-8 at best season next year.