Should we do a clean slate evaluation of everything?

Probably a little late for this question, but it bothers me when the answer is "because that's the way we do it" or "because that's the people we have". IMO you do what works best and if that means getting different people, then so be it.

During the coaching search, some criteria have been set down such as they need to be able to or have worked with Cutler. First point here is that I am a big Cutler fan, but even so - do you make long terms plans around a single player or do you worry about the very best possible person and let the cards fall where they may? If the QB is incompatible, then you change.

Same with the D. We run a 4-3 and that is where our expertise is at, but is that what works best? I usually look to Billicheck first to see what he does because he makes no change without research. He moved to a 3-4 as you know. So looking deeper, what do all the teams run?

Team	Base Defense	Blocking Scheme
Arizona	3 - 4	MBS w/some ZBS plays
Atlanta	4 - 3	Flex (Depends on play))
Baltimore	3 - 4	MBS
Buffalo	4 - 3	Hybrid ZBS/MBS
Carolina	4 - 3	ZBS
Chicago	4 - 3	Blocking
Cincinnati	4 - 3 w/some 3-4 packages	MBS (w/some ZBS)
Cleveland	4 - 3	ZBS
Dallas	3 - 4	MBS
Denver	4 - 3	Blocking
Detroit	4 - 3	MBS
Green Bay	3 - 4	ZBS
Houston	3 - 4	ZBS
Indianapolis	Base 3 - 4	ZBS
Jacksonville	4 - 3	MBS
Kansas City	3 - 4	ZBS
Miami	4 - 3 with some 3-4 packages	ZBS
Minnesota	4 - 3	ZBS
New England	3 - 4	MBS
New Orleans	4 - 3	FLEX
NY Giants	4 - 3	ZBS/Flex
NY Jets	3 - 4	ZBS
Oakland	4 - 3	MBS
Philadelphia	4 - 3	Blocking
Pittsburgh	3 - 4	MBS (ZBS for passing)
San Diego	3 - 4	FLEX
San Francisco	3 - 4	FLEX
Seattle	4 - 3	ZBS
St Louis	4 - 3	MBS
Tampa Bay	4 - 3	MBS
Tennessee	4 - 3	ZBS
Washington	3 - 4	ZBS

Most of todays teams run a 4-3. That is 19 teams or 59.4%. So if they are about equal in effectiveness, you would expect about 60% of the teams in the playoffs to be running a 4-3.

It turns out quite the opposite is true. Out of the 8 teams to have made the semi-finals, 5 of them or 62.5% run a 3-4. So not only did they overcome the statistical reality of being in the minority, they more than overcame it to become the majority.

Going to the last 4 teams, three of them or 75% use the 3-4.

It seems to me that staying with something that might be second best might not be the best long term strategy. If 3-4 is providing an advantage, we should at least consider it.

I think there is something behind this logic. On the other side, last years SB winner has a 4-3.

Don't overlook the other aspects of what gets a team deep into the playoffs. They also have great offenses and great coaching. I don't think the base scheme really matters that much, as long as the team is well coached and well-rounded and has at least a few "play-makers".

I've always believed that the type of defensive scheme is not as important, as how well you run the scheme on a given team - and the quality of the personnel that you have. I will always remember John Madden commenting on the Bears-46 defense during a game in 1985. He said it wasn't the scheme that made Chicago's defense great, but the quality of the players running the scheme.

He was 100% right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shark86x

Don't overlook the other aspects of what gets a team deep into the playoffs. They also have great offenses and great coaching. I don't think the base scheme really matters that much, as long as the team is well coached and well-rounded and has at least a few "play-makers".

---

And I agree. This completely disregards the O and of course as Bears fans we all know what happens when you do that. I just thought that it would be an interesting exercise. I didn't expect what I found, so thought I would share.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bearsinhouston

And I agree. This completely disregards the O and of course as Bears fans we all know what happens when you do that. I just thought that it would be an interesting exercise. I didn't expect what I found, so thought I would share.

---

No worries, it is a good topic. As JABF said, I also believe it's more how the scheme is run (coaching) and how the players play. Yes, it appears the 3-4 has a better statistical advantage, but it's not a huge advantage. If it was 75-25 I'd say BINGO! But 64-59 or whatever doesn't mean a whole lot to me. I'm not Mr. Mathematics, but I can see one guy like Peppers making all the difference in either scheme. Stick a couple playmakers in the lesser scheme and it will be better than a better scheme with lesser players - and coaching.

It is a good topic, and I found the data interesting BIH.

One other point. An NFL team has a huge investment in personnel resources. It's not just a "money investment" but rather, some of these players are not easy to replace at any cost. For every Andrew Luck or even a Russell Wilson, you see so many failures - even 1st round picks fail often.

We have some great assets on the Bears. These assets can be replaced but not easily, and certainly not in a wholesale gut job move. Wise GM's and coaches understand that you do have to work with existing resources to a certain extent. Sure, you can gut a team and do a major rebuilt, over a 3 or 4 year period of drafts and expensive FA moves, but that's not the best way IMHO.

Smart GM's and coaches maximize the quality of the product that they put on the field, by judiciously upgrading your roster continually. Annually. I like this thoughtful approach much better. You can still change schemes, but it's not surgery with a chainsaw. You make roster moves with fine surgical precision. That's what I see in the best franchises, like NE. They may change schemes over the years, (and have), but they're pretty thoughtful in how they put their team together every year.

Idiots do the Josh McDaniels approach, that he used in Denver. Big change. Then failure. Then the team has to fire you and start over...

I guess my point is that it's not unreasonable for the Bears to want a new coach to be a bit judicious with existing talent (like Cutler) in the beginning. Then if you find you need to change, fine. But we have so many holes to fill right now, why on earth would you go after a new franchise quarterback - certainly not right out of the chute in 2013. Focus on the oline, TE's who can catch a football and block, a WR upgrade for Hester, a guy to replace Urlacher (and Peppers and Tillman are no spring chickens......those replacements are coming up as problems sooner rather than later).

Yep, I agree with all of that. I wasn't advocating a gutting, but more of a rethink in terms of what is best long term and perhaps moving schemes and personnel towards that as a long term goal as people are replace. IF that's what we want to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JustAnotherBearsFan99

It is a good topic, and I found the data interesting BIH.

One other point. An NFL team has a huge investment in personnel resources. It's not just a "money investment" but rather, some of these players are not easy to replace at any cost. For every Andrew Luck or even a Russell Wilson, you see so many failures - even 1st round picks fail often.

We have some great assets on the Bears. These assets can be replaced but not easily, and certainly not in a wholesale gut job move. Wise GM's and coaches understand that you do have to work with existing resources to a certain extent. Sure, you can gut a team and do a major rebuilt, over a 3 or 4 year period of drafts and expensive FA moves, but that's not the best way IMHO.

Smart GM's and coaches maximize the quality of the product that they put on the field, by judiciously upgrading your roster continually. Annually. I like this thoughtful approach much better. You can still change schemes, but it's not surgery with a chainsaw. You make roster moves with fine surgical precision. That's what I see in the best franchises, like NE. They may change schemes over the years, (and have), but they're pretty thoughtful in how they put their team together every year.

Idiots do the Josh McDaniels approach, that he used in Denver. Big change. Then failure. Then the team has to fire you and start over...

I guess my point is that it's not unreasonable for the Bears to want a new coach to be a bit judicious with existing talent (like Cutler) in the beginning. Then if you find you need to change, fine. But we have so many holes to fill right now, why on earth would you go after a new franchise quarterback - certainly not right out of the chute in 2013. Focus on the oline, TE's who can catch a football and block, a WR upgrade for Hester, a guy to replace Urlacher (and Peppers and Tillman are no spring chickens......those replacements are coming up as problems sooner rather than later).

---

Well no matter what that research tells us the Bears don't have the excess cap space or draft picks to make any major changes defensively for 2013. Any move away from what we play now will need to be gradual and I'm sure that has played a major role in the coaching search.

The reality is we have players who play extremely well in the system we use now and until we can replace them with others we're pretty much stuck where we are defensively and where we are isn't a bad place to be stuck.

We have one All Pro CB another is a Pro Bowl CB (the only time two from one team have ever been elected Pro Bowl starters) we have a Pro Bowl DE, a WLB whose been to so may Pro Bowls they just decided not to elect him this year even though he had another Pro Bowl year, we have a future HOF MLB who should return, a Pro Bowl 3t DT who needs to be resigned, a LDE who had a break out year and has future Pro Bowler written into his script, and a pretty good looking all purpose playmaker who was our 1st round pick last year.

So why would anyone want to breakup that gang or force them to play differently than they have? I'm like Emery. Convince me that we could do any better playing a different style of defense with this bunch or that we could somehow afford the guys it would take to make a major change in that defense now.

Well no matter what that research tells us the Bears don't have the excess cap space or draft picks to make any major changes defensively for 2013. Any move away from what we play now will need to be gradual and I'm sure that has played a major role in the coaching search.

The reality is we have players who play extremely well in the system we use now and until we can replace them with others we're pretty much stuck where we are defensively and where we are isn't a bad place to be stuck.

We have one All Pro CB another is a Pro Bowl CB (the only time two from one team have ever been elected Pro Bowl starters) we have a Pro Bowl DE, a WLB whose been to so may Pro Bowls they just decided not to elect him this year even though he had another Pro Bowl year, we have a future HOF MLB who should return, a Pro Bowl 3t DT who needs to be resigned, a LDE who had a break out year and has future Pro Bowler written into his script, and a pretty good looking all purpose playmaker who was our 1st round pick last year.

So why would anyone want to breakup that gang or force them to play differently than they have? I'm like Emery. Convince me that we could do any better playing a different style of defense with this bunch or that we could somehow afford the guys it would take to make a major change in that defense now.