50 Bears rookies arrived at Halas Hall today!

Discussion in 'Chicago Bears' started by JustAnotherBearsFan99, May 15, 2014.

  1. Bearsinhouston

    Bearsinhouston Hall of Famer

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,654
    Likes Received:
    1,050
    Ratings:
    +1,349 / 3 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    454ß
    OK. So then we disagree. Get in line, lol
    Edit : not stretching anything to prove my point because honestly I could not care less if you agree or not. There were various measurements and stats on the defense at least one was dead last. I think at least one more was second to last. I'm also sure some were better. The point being it dropped too far.
    Last edited: May 16, 2014
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. Chicago_66

    Chicago_66 Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    325
    Ratings:
    +352 / 0 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    36ß
    Well next time you pull out some smart ass line about life and then go on to attack Tucker have something more to back you up than "explain to me banking!" and "okay we disagree". There's nothing wrong with a discussion, it's a good way to expand on topics.. but if you don't have anything to contribute other than "I am right don't yell at me" then don't start it to begin with. Simple as that.
  3. Chicago_66

    Chicago_66 Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    325
    Ratings:
    +352 / 0 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    36ß
    I'm not saying you have to agree, but I'd like to hear more from your side. Explain what I asked, expand on what you've said.. stuff like that. You say we shouldn't have dipped. I explain why I think the dip was reasonable. Now you explain why it wasn't with something other than Tucker sucks. I'm open to being wrong, or at the very least I'm open to people having different opinions. But I'd also like it for them to back it up with some evidence. Hope that's not too much to ask. I'm in no way attacking you, but I disagree so I'm going to tell you why. Not to prove it to you because you need to believe me and no one else, but so you understand why I disagree and you can then explain to me what you disagree with within my explanation if you still are against it. That's how discussions work.
  4. Bearsinhouston

    Bearsinhouston Hall of Famer

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,654
    Likes Received:
    1,050
    Ratings:
    +1,349 / 3 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    454ß
    Hey bud first off, I don't appreciate the smart ass comment. Second, are you Tuckers mother or just go around wiping his ass for him. The defense stunk. He was responsible. Deal with it.
    And as far as anything to contribute, when did you become the hall monitor. If you don't want to read my posts or think they don't contribute... Believe me when I tell you that few things in life matter to me less. Use the ignore feature.
    As of right now, I'm more than OK with your thinking I don't contribute. I must be doing something right if you don't like them
  5. Chicago_66

    Chicago_66 Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    325
    Ratings:
    +352 / 0 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    36ß
    I'm not saying your posts don't contribute on the board, way to.. how did you phrase it.. put words in someone elses mouth. I'm saying if you're going to make accusations then don't be surprised when you get called out and someone wants to hear more than "He was responsible, deal with it." It's laughable if that's really your defense for your argument. I'm not saying you have to agree, all I was expecting was a little more substance in your reasons for not liking Tucker. Way to get ridiculously defensive though, chill out "bud".
  6. The Benjamin

    The Benjamin George Halas Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    46,027
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Ratings:
    +1,729 / 6 / -8
    ßearz ßuckz:
    564ß
    I am with BiH on this one. Don't give me a list of injuries and point to that as the why.

    Look at the packers a few years ago. They lost half their team and still won the Super Bowl (yes they did not lose their QB but McCown stepped in and the Bears offense did not lose a step)
    • Like Like x 1
  7. BSBEARS

    BSBEARS Pro-Bowler

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    484
    Ratings:
    +634 / 4 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    534ß
    But the Packers had depth which Emery has not had a chance to do yet. I still think it is apples and oranges. Some of it can go on the coaches not developing the players and we replaced 2 of the coaches who did not meet these expectations. I think we are still feeling the JA effects of poor drafting.
  8. BSBEARS

    BSBEARS Pro-Bowler

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    484
    Ratings:
    +634 / 4 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    534ß
    Hopefully the 50 rookies in camp now can get us some of the depth we need over and above a couple of starters.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Bearsinhouston

    Bearsinhouston Hall of Famer

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,654
    Likes Received:
    1,050
    Ratings:
    +1,349 / 3 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    454ß
    It was not being defensive
    I didn't like your tone and frankly decided I don't like you. I'm a guy that says what's on his mind.
    I don't know Tucker so I have no idea if I like him or not. I just know that the defense was his responsibility and it played poorly under him.
    People did not seem to know what coverage they were in. Sometimes different players were in different coverages
    That happened more than once so I consider it a coaching issue. Players were thrown in but were not getting better. More than one player. And it was systemic. No pass rush, secondary not making their stops. Not able to stop the run. Lb not doing well.
    And they seemed to trend down even as the season went on. We were not on the same page coverage wise on the GB game. That was our last game and it cost us. It had happened before and was still happening even in our last game.
    The amount of drop off was across the board and not getting better. Peppers was not putting forth any effort. Might have been on him or might be the locker room tone. The onlybpeople I saw busting their butts were Tillman and Briggs before he got injured. I saw no fire out there.
    Those all make me look at coaches. Coaches were in fact a part because some were replaced. So then the question becomes did they get them all? It tool them 2 weeks to decide they did so it is not cut and dry
    Plus Tucker was a first year coach with us that had many key players with injuries. It's hard to let a guy go under those circumstances. So it makes you wonder if it's truly fixed or not. But hopefully it is and the d will play well. In my mind they did not play like a team with injuries that was trying to hold it together. They played more like they were in dissaray with the communications issues. There bottom or close to bottom rankings support that they did not play well. I don't think anyone including yourself is saying otherwise. It's a matter accountability and wondering if it is fixed. We all have different feelings on it and I certainly may be wrong. Just how I feel about it.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Bearsinhouston

    Bearsinhouston Hall of Famer

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,654
    Likes Received:
    1,050
    Ratings:
    +1,349 / 3 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    454ß
    Yeah. It's very rarely just one cause when things don't work out. Usually you have to peel the onion.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Bearsinhouston

    Bearsinhouston Hall of Famer

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,654
    Likes Received:
    1,050
    Ratings:
    +1,349 / 3 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    454ß
    S is my biggest concern right now. I really like the DL depth.
  12. Chicago_66

    Chicago_66 Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    325
    Ratings:
    +352 / 0 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    36ß
    I'd say that the Packers had more depth behind the injured players to mitigate the impact of the injuries. I'd also argue that the injuries they suffered, while incredible, weren't to the same amount of key players as the Bears injuries. The DL remained intact for all intents and purposes and that's where it all starts. You lose your DL and the OL gets push in the run game and you see what happened to us last year, it allows OL to get to the LB's and all of a sudden the RB's are 4-6 yards down the field without being touched.

    They also retained Clay Matthews, AJ Hawk, and Bishop the whole season, two of their best missing minimal games and the replacement being much better than our rookie replacements. Barnett was a big loss but not only was Lach-Williams a downgrade in at least leadership.. we then lost DJ. If you call Barnett/DJ a wash then Briggs and Anderson missing substantial time was much worse for our team than theirs. They kept their best LB and Zombo/Bishop were admirable in replacing Barnett. Their top three corners, Woodson, Tramon Williams, and Sam Shields were there all season with only Shields missing two games. We lost Tillman all year but they had Woodson all year, completely different. Plus our best NB (their Shields we'll say) was gone when we lost Hayden all year. That makes it harder to withstand the loss of our #1 corner. They did lose their starting SS but I think corners and DL are more important and the person who replaced him performed much better than our replacements did.

    As BS said, they had the depth. I'm not taking anything away from them, what they did was awesome. But I don't think they were as bad off as we were after our injuries. They had enough players under their starters to help keep the ship afloat and allow the arguably best QB in the NFL to lead their offense.. two things we were not afforded last year. I don't think you can compare the two. The Packers kept their top 3-4 or more defenders. We lost ours.
    Last edited: May 16, 2014
  13. Chicago_66

    Chicago_66 Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    325
    Ratings:
    +352 / 0 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    36ß
    How can you get someones tone from a written post? I never once wrote something with sting on it, maybe I should add lol to all my posts so people know I'm not mad. Obviously your claim about not caring less isn't true, I couldn't care less and nothing you could say on here could ever rile me enough to not like you. It's the internet, bud.

    I think the play calling getting mixed up you can attribute to two things. We lost Urlacher. We've been very spoiled in seeing what a defense looks like when it's been together for years and you have a guy leading that defense who knows the system in and out and gets everyone in place all the time. That was our first season without him and people who didn't have playcalling experience were thrown in and of course there's going to be a dip in the communication. There was an article were Briggs was saying that he never knew how difficult it was and it was hard as hell to be "that guy" with Lach gone. Then Briggs and DJ go down so this job that an old vet like Briggs is struggling with is handed off to a rookie who wasn't even due to see game time.

    I think Peppers was being a whiny ass baby because he missed Lovie dovie time and this was not that. He wasn't happy with the regime change and decided to take plays off. Once the injuries started it's kind of hard to know who's slacking but Peppers was gaffin from Week 1. I don't rightly know if there's anything Tucker could have done to get Peppers going. I really just think he was mad Lovie was gone and wasn't going to put this team on his back like you'd hope.

    No pass rush? I think people forget that before Peppers was in his dominating form we had zero pass rush. This team had no consistent pass rush after Tommie Harris until Peppers came and with Peppers gaffing the pass rush is going to suffer. Then you add the mounting injuries and there's no way we can muster a pass rush. I could very well be wrong but I think our Run D was okay pre-injury. Not great, but definitely not what it turned into. But you've got the top three depth chart DT's injured, your apparent 3rd DT retired.. so you slide over a DE to play DT and you've got someone who can't aid the rush-D playing the other DE spot across from Peppers who obviously is taking the year off. I think that shows why the pass rush was awful, and with those injuries to the DL it's not wonder our rush-D was awful as well. If the DL isn't doing their job the LB's job because extremely difficult, which explains why LB play suffered so much. I don't think Urlacher in his prime could have shined behind that awful DL we were sporting past week 4/5.

    I thought Jennings was playing his ass off this past year.. and yeah.. there was a lack of fire.. but noticed what happened? We've got new faces at every level of the defense. Shea is being put into a position to succeed and our rookie LB's now have some experience under their belt. It sucks that the game time came at the expense of the defense but they've definitely learned a thing or two from that and if our LB coach is worth his salt then I think at least Bostic can turn into something worthwhile.. hopefully Greene as well.

    Emery has created competition at every level to ensure that everyone will be playing their asses off. We have an entirely different DL from week 1 last year. Ratliff got so little playing time that you could almost consider him a new addition and Stephen Paea was doing great before injury, if he can stay healthy he's like an entirely new piece as well.. same with Collins. Other than them, it's all new faces. The LB's are healthy and we're putting a lot in hoping Shea can be starter quality, but the talents there and I think DJ, Briggs, and Shea could be good enough behind this re-tooled DL to give us solid play from our LB's. Wright is gone and Conte is not guaranteed a job.

    Tucker is not guaranteed a job the year after this, but I will not hold last year against him. I don't think any DC in the NFL could have worked with what we had and I think Emery understands that. Just like Jay struggling mightily before we added WR's who could catch and an OL could block.. Emery knows that one guy cannot do it alone. Jay couldn't and Tucker can't. Tucker now has the tools and I realize he may not be the DC we want, but I also realize last year is no indication of what he brings to the table. If the offense suffered the same injuries (3 interior OL, top WR, and maybe RB/TE) then I think our offense would fall off as well. Can you imagine the pressure defense would get if Slausen, Long, and Garza all got hurt? Cutler would be getting murdered again, just like our LB's were getting mauled by OL. Teams need talent in the depth behind them to withstand injury storms like that, and we didn't have it.
  14. The Benjamin

    The Benjamin George Halas Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    46,027
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Ratings:
    +1,729 / 6 / -8
    ßearz ßuckz:
    564ß
    They lost half their starters
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Chicago_66

    Chicago_66 Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    325
    Ratings:
    +352 / 0 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    36ß
    The starters they lost weren't as good as the starters we lost.
  16. The Benjamin

    The Benjamin George Halas Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    46,027
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Ratings:
    +1,729 / 6 / -8
    ßearz ßuckz:
    564ß
    Says a biased fan.

    Losing a starter is damning no matter who it is because they have a less qualified player coming on to replace them.

    Think of it. If that player was not a good as the one the Bears lost, then that back up must really suck
  17. Chicago_66

    Chicago_66 Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    325
    Ratings:
    +352 / 0 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    36ß
    Or the fall-off from starter to back-up isn't as massive as it was on the Bears team. We had special team players under our starters for the majority of the Angelo years. It's well documented that the Packers draft pretty well and Thompson does a good job at having depth.

    They kept Matthews and AJ Hawk, their best and second or third best LB. We lost DJ (best/second best) all year. Briggs and Anderson lost substantial gametime. They kept all three starting corners.. we lost two of our top three. The lost their starting RDE. We lost 3 DT's. Peppers quit. Wootton had to play out of a place. And a guy who's now playing LB was playing the other DE spot.

    I think even an unbiased fan could look at that and say that their injuries weren't to the same key players as ours were. Our entire defense is built around pass rush with the front 4, that's where our injuries happened. What the Packers did was impressive. Our injuries were worse.

    Losing a starter is damning, but you can't call all starters equal. Losing Wright the same as losing Tillman? Losing McClellin (who was hurt for a stretch) hurts more than losing Melton or Collins? No. There's a reason some players have bigger contracts and that's because some positions are more important and some players are better than others. Injuries are damning, and Tucker was condemned to a horrible season on defense once the injuries started happening and there's nothing he or any other DC could have done to turn the tide. Scheme changes only go so far, and he was restricted to someone elses.

    Once again, not saying he's not at fault.. but I'm saying I won't judge him based on last year. Last year is no indication of what this defense can do or was capable of. It's a wash.
  18. The Benjamin

    The Benjamin George Halas Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    46,027
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Ratings:
    +1,729 / 6 / -8
    ßearz ßuckz:
    564ß
    Ok. Lets look at this way. A defense loses is three best players.... The other loses 6-8 starters.

    Which defense is in worse trouble?
  19. Chicago_66

    Chicago_66 Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    325
    Ratings:
    +352 / 0 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    36ß
    Would be a viable comparison if we only lost three of our best players. It was out of position players, aging players, sticking to a scheme we didn't have personnel for, and injuries to every level of the defense. It was a culmination of different things. A series of unfortunate events, starring the Bears defense.

    It's not as simple as we had this many they had that many. Tucker had to keep Lovie's scheme. We lost people all year. We lost people for long stretches. We lost so many players that other players play suffered due to playing out of position. We lost some players due to them not trying. We didn't just lose our top 3 guys, we lost so much more than that.

    I would say the team that lost 6-8 starters but Green Bay didn't lose 6-8 starters just as we didn't lost only three players. They lost 3-4 starters and then started losing the guys that replaced those starters. Same top 3 CB's. Three quarters of their defensive line was in tact and 2 of their top 3 LB's were there. We didn't have that luxury.
  20. The Benjamin

    The Benjamin George Halas Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    46,027
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Ratings:
    +1,729 / 6 / -8
    ßearz ßuckz:
    564ß
    Yeah, was a trick question of sorts cause both fit the Bears. Bottom line though both teams had big losses on defense.

    I will never accept anyone using injuries or refs as an excuse because good teams overcome such things
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page