Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Chicago Bears' started by The Benjamin, Oct 28, 2013.
Please Register or Log in to Remove this Advertisement!
10000 internet points to you sir.
Henry, I just don't see how you can pin this on the offense. It is in the top 5 in scoring points. I know there were people pointing to last years D also when it was top 5, but anything can be found to have holes in it. When you are top 5 out of 32 in any phase, that unit is doing it's job. Turnovers, sure. Bad plays... certainly... but with their current output, you take those away and you are no longer top 5. You are probably the best. Is that the only way to satisfy you on the offensive production? I am ok with an offense that is scoring in the top 5. I think most of the teams energies should be focused on what is near the bottom, not trying to get the top 5 to get even better.
That would be the D. I agree with you on Marinelli. I have always thought that Marinelli is good. I still do. I don't think he is one of the best though. As far as Urlacher, I can't argue the point, because I simply don't know. The point I was trying to make is that one of his main functions was to get people where they belong. That does not seem to be happening now. Would Urlacher be helping right now in terms of that issue? Hell, I don't know. I just know there are grumblings about not being in the right place and hitting their assignments. So for me, it was either Urlacher or the coach. I think probably both. Something has changed. That is for sure. And as far as Urlacher goes, he was going to have to be leaving soon anyway. At some point, someone in charge was going to have to be responsible to getting people in position. That is the same whether or not losing Urlacher is a big factor. That person is not getting it done.
And I'm not arguing with you. I understand your points. I think, that people will use the given data or arguments to support their beliefs. I am no different. I try to be as logical as I can, but eveyone is human. I just don't see a problem worth addressing with the O right now. If we were a playoff caliber team and we had a few things left to clean up, certainly. But right now to expend energy fixing the O is like trying to stop some wind noise in the windows when the foundation is possibly going to fail the building. I just think that we have bigger issues with the D, and there is only so much time and energy to be spent. The biggest diviends will be had with addressing the D. To score even more points when we can not stop the other team from scoring just seems like a race to infinity.
IDK, I certainly could be wrong, but I strongly feel the D has problems much deeper than is publicly known right now. I'd like to see Tucker held accountable, but with all of the injuries, I think it has gotten to be a grey area and much of the blame is going to injuries.
We put two guys on the OL. Next to each other no less. Then we lose the starting QB. We still managed to put up points. Lots of them. Wasn't pretty, but the points were there at the end of the day.
We lose some very valuable people on the D (Tillman, Briggs, Melton, etc), and the wheels fall off. I think the argument is that there were just too many injuries to make up for. Yes, there were a lot, but I don't see the fire and other teams have had killer injuries also. As a talking point, we had Cutler go down previously. It was a disaster. Even when McCown took over for him. This time, McCown came in and almost saved the day. Is it because the skins stink (probably was a factor), or because the coaches had a system that would allow success even with injuries (ala Patriots)? Probably also a factor. That element is missing on the D. Forget being able to cope with injuries. They could not even cope with a full complement of playes less only an aging Urlacher. That part keeps getting glossed over. The injuries a a factor. not a small factor, but they do not tell the entire story.
I am very curious as to how well McCown plays in GB. Will he be relegated to his old form, or will he play decent ball? How easy will it be for GB to score on us? Weill we make any defensive adjustments? Anyone see any real defensive adjustments to date? Me neither.
Would the D be helped by the O doing a better job on ball control and security? Of course. No kidding. That is kind of like saying my roof would stop leaking if only the sun would come out more.
But, at some points in the game (hopefully a bit fewer if the O can tighten up) the opposing team IS going to get the ball and the defense IS going to have to make some stops. Yes, even some some stops that require actual punts. I love takeaways believe me but you can't rely on "turnover or touchdown" as your only two options. At some points it IS going to rain and the roof needs to be able to repel water. So far this season, the defense hasn't stopped any team that didn't basically stop itself.
I guess my point is that I see the O's shortcomings as "kinks" in a new system (which should surprise no one) that will be worked out and improved. (And if Cutler continues to be a giveaway-machine I have no problem with moving on). The talent is there. I like what I am seeing in the coaching on that side, not everything for sure but improving and it sure beats Tice for instance. I do see the "arrow pointing upward" for the O. I do not see it that way for the D at all. I see a unit that has been mailing it in all year--Briggs and Tillman excepted--and looks passionless and lost. The arrow is in steady decline, with Romo, Stafford, Flacco, and Rodgers X 2 still to come. I see no "light at the end of the tunnel" or "we are getting there" sensation.
So, yes, I do blame the defense overwhelmingly for what looks like another lost, playoff-less season (even if the O could have helped out more).
This is the last time I am addressing this: Yes, it is overwhelmingly the defense's problem for losing us ball games. This offense, however, doesn't do much to win ballgames. 31st in offensive plays run, 5 most turnovers, 31st in 3 and outs. These are not "minor hiccups", and they are excuses for defending the offense's role in this team's demise. Is "well, it's a new system" relevant to the argument that the offense is wildly inconsistent? No, because that's deflecting a true criticism of why the offense does so little to help the defense out; it tries to change the subject to the offense's "potential", which has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on the CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS.
This whole season I've been criticizing Cutler, and been getting crap for it, because I've said:
He doesn't play well in the first half of the game, which I'm going to go well into detail here:
Against the Bengals: 1 TD, 5 punts, longest drive of the half 4 minutes
Against the Vikings: 2 TDs, FG, 2 turnovers and a punt. the longest drive of that whole game ended with Cutler fumbling
Against the Steelers: Probably their best offensive game, but the Steelers gave them GREAT field position to open the game. Still couldn't put them away, were it not for 2 defensive touchdowns.
Against the Lions: FG, Interception, FG, Interception, Touchdown, and then 6 straight punts, with TOP on the majority of those plays at 2 minutes or less. Also, the Lions got 2 TDs off of turnovers that gave them the ball at the Bears 2 yard line, and the Bears 20 yard line. You cannot abscond the offense from culpability here.
Against the Saints: Punt, Fumble, Punt, Punt, Punt, Touchdown. The longest they held onto the ball was for 3:16. The Saints had the ball for longer than that 5 times. (see how that just might contribute to a defense getting tired and giving up points?)
Against the Giants: The Bears performed the MOST CONSERVATIVE gameplan, and whaddya know, they only had ONE offensive series under 2 minutes, and that was to kill the clock
Against the Redskins: a touchdown on a drive starting on the Redskins 10 yard line, and a FG, starting on the Redskins 47 yard line
2. He plays too aggressively, and has lead to speculation here, and in the media, as to what his role is in changing offensive plays at the line of scrimmage, as well as avoiding the dumpoff pass. EVERY FREAKING GAME that Forte has had the ball in his hands 20 times or more, by a combination of pass and run, the Bears have won. Those are also the same games in which the offense has its fewest turnovers. Do I really need to spell it out any further that Jay doesn't need to be throwing the ball downfield as often as he has been? Because I KNOW someone is going to misunderstand this: this offense goes into "**** the run, let's pass", either from the gate, or as soon as they're down by a single touchdown.
Now, you may say "It doesn't matter WHEN they score, as long as they win in the end." That's also missing the point, because the overwhelming majority of points scored against this defense has been in...........The second quarter, which is such an odd coincidence that the offense seems to turn the ball over the most, and go 3 and out more, there, than any other time. Outside of the Redskins game, the Bears D has actually held opposing offenses to no more than 13 points in the second half. While that sounds good on paper, this is when the other team starts going for time killing drives, as they've already gotten the lead. One can logically deduce from this, that an opposing defense's job, with a lead, is to prevent the big plays, to force the opposing offense to spend valuable time accruing short amounts of yardage, so they don't have a good chance of "getting back in the game".
Again, our defense is trash, but if you notice, before Peppers, Briggs, Melton and everyone else were injured, THEY ACTUALLY PLAYED WELL. The Bengals game was a tossup, and turnovers kept the Vikings in their game (granted, the fumble recovery for a touchdown was 100% on a protection call, and not on Cutler), while turning the ball over INSIDE OUR OWN 20, TWICE, gave the Lions the advantage to win. The Lions game, offensive turnovers is what ultimately cost us, not a defense that is ***** and stuck trying to prevent a team from STARTING IN THE RED ZONE.
The defense, essentially, was serviceable until the injuries. Now it's likely to finish as one of the two worst in the league, and that will be a big part of why we lose games from here on out. HOWEVER, the offense and defense work hand in hand, to keep the ball in the offense's hands, keeping the defense fresh/off the field, and to score some points. Right now, both are dysfunctional as hell, and continuity is what they MUST find, to win another game, because with all the defensive injuries, we're not going to see many turnovers, in all likelihood, anymore. If Trestman (and I've slightly undercut his culpability in the offense being unreliable) can cut the **** with his lopsided playcalling, and find running plays that work, we might have a better offense overall. That is, if McCown doesn't go all "turnover machine" on us.
I get it if you don't want to keep going on this. There are times that I have felt the same. I'm going to respond to a few points, and if you don't want to respond, that's fine.
Absolutely. I don't think you will get any argument from anyone on this board on that. But I just don't see us winning too many more games because of the D, whereas, I think I am hearing you say that it is because of Trestman's lopsided play calling. I just think that would cause us to score even more. It's anyones guess at that point which team would score the most. Us because we had a better O or the opponents because they were scoring at will.
Well put ^^^^
If Cutler refuses to "buy in" (ie, changes plays at the line that shouldn't be changed as I suspect) then management seriously needs to consider moving on. Either he can become a TCO QB or say goodbye. That's what is supposedly being evaluated this season.
But the idea that the D was "ok" before injuries reached a critical mass is crap. IT SUCKED FROM GET-GO and it still sucks. One unit is pointing up (albeit with quite a way to go to be elite) and the other is imploding and pointing down. I understand the frustration with the O not meeting elevated expectations, but gimme a break, this D is the reason we are gonna be out of the playoff picture after Mondays game.
I blame Jerry Angelo.
I do too.
With a secondary blame on Emery for whiffing on Shea/Hardin and on Tucker for sucking as bad as Tice did as an OC.
This is a role reversal season we aren't used to seeing--the D let down the team and kept us out of a playoff berth.
Jesus christ, how many times do I have to say in the same thread, IT IS THE DEFENSE'S FAULT? Reading comprehension, learn it. Our offense "does no favors", because they directly (as well as the defense, I know some of you have already forgotten I mentioned that, in this post) affect the time our horrible defense is on the field, and turn the ball over, which, directly leads to losses.
You, I'm done with you. You seriously do not understand complex issues, and have this myopic view of the team.
Here, read this. You'll notice that, yes, the defense did give up a lot of yards in those games, but if you understand football to even a basic level, you should understand the value of a turnover.
Again, I think I've made my point. I understand what each of you are saying, and you are, without a doubt, completely incorrect.
BUT, ONE LAST TIME, because I fear you may not "get it" with the 5-6 other times I've mentioned it:
The Defense is the overwhelming reason we lose games, especially when they can't turn the ball over. The offense has turned the ball over IN THEIR OWN TERRITORY, ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS. Our defense was "good enough" in four of our first 6 games, to not LOSE outright. The offense helped them lose it, by turning it over IN THEIR OWN TERRITORY, ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS, against the Lions.
TL;DR Seriously, this offense has been wildly inconsistent, at best, and can be a little more than partially blamed for each loss.