-
Offensive line shouldn't get all the blame
But GM admits it must get much better for Bears to be consistent contender
By Brad Biggs, Chicago Tribune reporter
8:43 p.m. CST, January 1, 2013
Phil Emery did his homework on the offensive line and came prepared to talk about it Tuesday.
Boy, did he talk.
Asked to evaluate the maligned offensive line, Emery spent 10 minutes and 1,408 words dissecting the unit in an answer to one question. He went into great detail to explain how the team had to make a choice on an offensive tackle in Round 2 of the draft or a playmaking wide receiver. He opted for Alshon Jeffery, who was explosive in moments during an injury-marred rookie season.
Emery said the Bears focused on tackles but there were no elite ones available in free agency. He went into detail explaining how the Bears subscribe to data from STATS and Pro Football Focus to aid in their evaluation process. Ultimately, he admitted the group needs to improve after Emery said STATS ranked the Bears 26th in pass protection.
"We have to get better," Emery said. "How does that impact winning? Our disruption pressures were like 33 percent range. The six teams below, three of them were in the playoffs. The team at 25th, that was within .1 difference was the 49ers, one of the best teams in the league. So, I cannot absolutely say that it's on the offensive line to determine our success or not.
"I looked in different areas. I looked at percentage of dropped passes. We were 22nd. We have to get better. The O-line has to get better. We have to push that level up. We can't be in the back end of the 20s or in the 20s to be a championship contending team on a consistent basis.
"Are sacks and drops a factor? Yes, but it doesn't look like they are the ultimate determining factor. It still comes down to how many playmakers you have as opposed to the team you're playing. And are they making plays that are game-changing in the moment of truth?"
They are points that make sense when you evaluate how the Packers have excelled on offense in recent seasons with Aaron Rodgers, a cast of offensive weapons and an often-suspect line.
Emery listed Jonathan Scott, who started five games at right tackle, as one of the top tackles available in free agency after reviewing data from the services, putting him just behind the Giants' Sean Locklear. Scott wasn't signed until after Week 1 after he had healed up from a minor knee injury in training camp with the Lions, and he didn't play until former first-round draft pick Gabe Carimi was benched.
"I made the decision to go with the playmaker (Jeffery)," Emery said. "I don't regret that decision. I know it's going to be criticized. I feel good about it because we have another draft, another free agent market."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports...,4716007.story
Arguing on the internet is like winning the special olympics, even if you win your still messed up.
Restore the roar!
-
-
I agree with this. The OL is bad, but I've seen all too many people glame the OL for all our problems. I've said before that even when Jay had protection, the O looked sluggish. People were dropping balls, no production even when he was protected.
The issues run much deeper than the OL
-
High Fives / Like - 1 BEAR DOWN!, 0 Dislikes
-
Junior Member
well one thing that would help the offense beside the OL being upgraded is knox coming back... idk what those chances are though
-
Ultimately, he admitted the group needs to improve after
Emery said STATS ranked the Bears 26th in pass protection.
"We have to get better," Emery said. "How does that impact winning? Our disruption pressures were like 33 percent range. The six teams below, three of them were in the playoffs.
The team at 25th, that was within .1 difference was the 49ers, one of the best teams in the league. So, I cannot absolutely say that it's on the offensive line to determine our success or not.
He missed one critically important point.
Those stats report pressures. It put us at 26th in the NFL - EVEN THOUGH WE MAX PROTECTED MOST OF THE SEASON WE STILL WERE 26TH IN THE NFL.
In every game we devoted skill players resources to give the oline blocking help - and we STILL WERE 26TH IN THE NFL. There is a huge cost to having to provide continual blocking help, at the expense of our offenses production.
It is crippling over time to have to provide this extra help. It certainly was to our team this year.
This is EXACTLY what happened to the Chicago Bears offense. This fact needs to be recognized. It helps explain why our offense was far worse than that .1 percent difference with the 49ers.
Last edited by JustAnotherBearsFan99; 01-02-2013 at 09:30 AM.
-
High Fives / Like - 4 BEAR DOWN!, 0 Dislikes
-
Arsecicle
I don't disagree with drafting Jeffery. The lad just has to learn how to cause the pass interference calls to work FOR him, not against him.
That, and he has to figure out how he could separate from the DB's more...anyone else notice, the guy is draped even when he'd make a catch?
I'm BACK, Jack... or something..
-
High Fives / Like - 1 BEAR DOWN!, 0 Dislikes
-
Junior Member
Originally Posted by
bearsinhouston 
I agree with this. The OL is bad, but I've seen all too many people glame the OL for all our problems. I've said before that even when Jay had protection, the O looked sluggish. People were dropping balls, no production even when he was protected.
The issues run much deeper than the OL
I have to agree with JustAnotherBearsFan99. You point out that even when Jay had protection the O looked sluggish. When Jay got protection (due to max protect) there was only 1 or 2 receivers (at the very best 3) going out for a pass. When there are only 1 or 2 receivers, there are more defenders to keep those receivers covered. Thus, it takes more time for the receivers to get open and thus a coverage sack occurs.
-
I understand, but doesn't explain the missed connections with WRs when they were open. Many they dropped and many Cutler didn't get it to them. Even with that considered, there was more going on than the OL and the necessity of having to max protect and consequent lack of targets. He had time to get it to the targets he had and it didn't happen. It wasn't like there were only a few targets dut to max protect and they were all covered. It was a misfiring O.
At least that's what I saw.
Originally Posted by
inchibearfan I have to agree with JustAnotherBearsFan99. You point out that even when Jay had protection the O looked sluggish. When Jay got protection (due to max protect) there was only 1 or 2 receivers (at the very best 3) going out for a pass. When there are only 1 or 2 receivers, there are more defenders to keep those receivers covered. Thus, it takes more time for the receivers to get open and thus a coverage sack occurs.
Last edited by bearsinhouston; 01-02-2013 at 10:08 AM.
-
Originally Posted by
bearsinhouston I understand, but doesn't explain the missed connections with WRs when they were open. Many they dropped and many Cutler didn't get it to them. Even with that considered, there was more going on than the OL and the necessity of having to max protect and consequent lack of targets. He had time to get it to the targets he had and it didn't happen. It wasn't like there were only a few targets dut to max protect and they were all covered. It was a misfiring O.
At least that's what I saw.
Those are excellent points. I totally agree it's not just on the oline. But 99% of our woes were directly - or indirectly - related to the oline's poor performance. But there were other factors. Defenses had it easy defending us when we had to max protect so much. Often I counted 3 and 4 defenders on B.Marsh (one play I counted 5 on him......FIVE defenders on him). We passed to him anyway. Alshon was injured. Bennett too. Hester couldn't catch a football or run routes, and I think Jay just gave up on him by mid season. He was dead as far as Cutler was concerned. Our TE's had to max protect, but even when they tried to catch a football they couldn't.
Forte was basically turned into a blocker for much of the year. Man, the season was screwed from the git go.
-
yeah, I just think it's too easy to point to the OL for all our problems because they sucked. Yeah, they sucked, but I did not see goo things happen even when they did their job and WRs were getting the ball. Hell, even when they caught balls, we seemingly couldn't get points out of the drive.
The OL needs fixing. Bad. But you fix that and we play like we did last year, we still don't come close to a SB. I still think much of it was attitude, but that's just my speculation. I am just looking forward to turning the page. The catalyst for all of this is George. We had been so used to mediocrity. If he had not pressed the JA thing, we would probably still have both JA and Lovie.
George helped push the buttons to get Emery and Emery is fixing the HC issue. I like what is happening right now.
-
High Fives / Like - 1 BEAR DOWN!, 0 Dislikes
-
Junior Member
Originally Posted by
bearsinhouston yeah, I just think it's too easy to point to the OL for all our problems because they sucked. Yeah, they sucked, but I did not see goo things happen even when they did their job and WRs were getting the ball. Hell, even when they caught balls, we seemingly couldn't get points out of the drive.
The OL needs fixing. Bad. But you fix that and we play like we did last year, we still don't come close to a SB. I still think much of it was attitude, but that's just my speculation. I am just looking forward to turning the page. The catalyst for all of this is George. We had been so used to mediocrity. If he had not pressed the JA thing, we would probably still have both JA and Lovie.
George helped push the buttons to get Emery and Emery is fixing the HC issue. I like what is happening right now.
The O-line is the problem, Cutler cant play comfortably because the Oline did well for one or two plays. He cant just think "Oh today, they are having a good day, so I will have a couple extra seconds"
Cutler has to assume someone will be in his face or on his back, 1-2 seconds after the ball is snapped, because someone is usually there. IMO, thats the attitude that needs fixing. We need the QB to trust the O-line, and to get that, we need a trustworthy O-line.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
