Keep the Defense Intact..........Some Real Wisdom Here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JustAnotherBearsFan99

We have one of the best defenses in the NFL year after year. We have one of the best special teams in the NFL year after year. We already have the correct personnel to sustain these for next year (we wouldn't have to do a significant change in personnel, like if we went to a 3-4 defense).

But we do have an offense that is going to need a serious upgrade in personnel this off-season.

So, why wouldn't you keep what's working (D & ST's), and invest in the offense? Otherwise, we are in a crippling rebuild mode team-wide, because we don't have the resources to change everything in one off-season (only so many draft picks, and so much money for FA's in a single off season). Keep Marinelli, Toub and focus on getting a great OC.

---

I completely agree with this strategy. As in focus on what's broken (O) and don't "fix" what isn't (D & ST). My best guess from his presser is that Emery is thinking that way too and wants to leave the non-O elements of the team, both players and coaches, intact as much as possible.

But that may realistically limit the HC options. In order to do that, a HC candidate would have to be on board with that plan and not want to bring in "his guys" or "his philosophy" to other phases of the staff/roster belong offense. I don't know how many new HCs would want to have his hands tied so to speak that way as a precondition of accepting the job. I would hope that good candidates would see the wisdom in that and not let ego get in the way by insisting on "total control" from the get-go. This discussion is probably a major element in the preliminary interviews and may eliminate some from consideration who want to change too much outside of O.

My fingers are crossed on Emery finding a solid offense-oriented HC candidate who is content with not throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JJ-30

Emery is putting the new HC in best possible position, A lot of times GMs will let most of the coaches go when they fire the HC or its made clear to the new HC to clean house and bring in his guys or the new HC wants to clean house and bring in his guys. I don't see either of the last two happening, I think Emery has made it clear that he wants some of our coaches, if they will stay to remain here. I am also sure he has talked with some of our coaches like Toubs and Marinelli about staying. Not saying they will but I think the chance is there for them. Emery may have learned a thing or two from last year, in that the new guy doesn't always get what he wants and has to be willing to work with the personal he is given. Thats why no big names are on our list.

We have a Defense and ST that is working, sure both need a little help. But the new HC biggest job coming into Chicago is to fix the Offense, that has key players in place.

How lucky can a new HC be if Toubs and Marinelli remain, you get to start with a very good Defense and ST in play already and you have your key players in place on the Offense. All you need to do is concentrate on make the moves needed to make the Offense the best it can be and add support to the Defense and ST.

---

I agree completely and hope that a rising star new HC prospect would see it that way too and not let his ego get in the way.

Perhaps one might even go a step further and say "is there any way to augment the existing system further". I'd think I'd want to maximize Briggs, Pep, and Peanut as much as I could.

I personally want changes on defense, so I'll go ahead and be the "troll" if that's what you want to call me. While the defense has been great under Lovie Smith, the Cover 2 defense that we've played for the past nine years is old, passe, and is only successful because we have the athletes in place to run that style of defense. More players operate better in a man 4-3 defense than in a zone, so why not run a defense like the New York Giants operate? They get more sacks anyway that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dagan81

I personally want changes on defense, so I'll go ahead and be the "troll" if that's what you want to call me. While the defense has been great under Lovie Smith, the Cover 2 defense that we've played for the past nine years is old, passe, and is only successful because we have the athletes in place to run that style of defense. More players operate better in a man 4-3 defense than in a zone, so why not run a defense like the New York Giants operate? They get more sacks anyway that way.

---

You do know that the Bears do not run the Cover 2 that often right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Benjamin

You do know that the Bears do not run the Cover 2 that often right?

---

Oh really? Please inform me, oh knowledgeable one, how the Bears run their defense.

I can't see why now that Lovie is gone that the "cover 2" philosophy couldn't evolve into a more hybrid type form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by short faced bear

I can't see why now that Lovie is gone that the "cover 2" philosophy couldn't evolve into a more hybrid type form.

---

I can't understand for the life of me why we can't run a defense that's similar to the New York Giants. To me, they are the ideal defense the Bears need to pattern themselves after because they always stomp the dog shit out of the Packers. And after all, beating the Packers and gaining superiority in the NFC North is what we want, isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dagan81

I can't understand for the life of me why we can't run a defense that's similar to the New York Giants. To me, they are the ideal defense the Bears need to pattern themselves after because they always stomp the dog shit out of the Packers. And after all, beating the Packers and gaining superiority in the NFC North is what we want, isn't it?

---

If there's a youth movement at LB I'd like to see that area more aggressive in terms of blitzing. Changing some of the tendencies but not tenants of the D. Other things like disguising blitzes and stunts (ala Houston) would also be nice. I don't wish to see us follow trends like the 3-4 but make our own. By the time we implemented a 3-4 it might be passe' anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by short faced bear

If there's a youth movement at LB I'd like to see that area more aggressive in terms of blitzing. Changing some of the tendencies but not tenants of the D. Other things like disguising blitzes and stunts (ala Houston) would also be nice. I don't wish to see us follow trends like the 3-4 but make our own. By the time we implemented a 3-4 it might be passe' anyway.

---

I want to change to more of a man defense, not zone, not Cover 2 or whatever it is Benji seems to think we run. The Packers are closing in on taking over the series lead in wins and losses, and we can't let that happen. On top of that, they have been at the top of the NFL in winning for too long, while the Bears have consistently flirted with mediocrity for damn near twenty years. We have to do something to buck this trend.

When Halas was running the Bears, it was a first-class show, and they won more often than any other franchise in the league and it wasn't even close. Since the days of his idiot grandson Mikey, this franchise has floundered, knowing years where four wins was all we could ask for. Ditka was the last great coach we had. Lovie was decent, but ultimately kept us mired in a state of mediocrity with only a few years of intermittent success in between. Phil Emery may be the most proactive GM the Bears have had since Jim Finks; let's hope he finds the old magic so that the Bears may dominate the NFL again.