Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Chicago Bears' started by riczaj01, Oct 10, 2013.
Please Register or Log in to Remove this Advertisement!
LOL, ^^^^^ ^THIS.
That's why I said you cannot put all this on Tucker; the cover 2 is not his scheme, he set it up for the comfort of the vet D players on this team and didn't see a reason to fix what wasn't broken. Fans need to give him 1-2 yrs to see if he can impliment HIS def w/his players(I see a mass exodus of lovie guys, saw it coming in the offseason), but b/c of key inj's it's been exasporated. Not sure, even if he does run his own scheme that it's going to make a difference w/no horses in the front 4.
I think a lot of us fans (me included) thought this would be more of a seamless transition, but now in hindsight, it's a much bigger deal. Two new starting LB's, and scraping the bottom of the barrel for DL guys (basically playing any "warm body" with a pulse). Urlacher's play may not be missed, but his quarterbacking the defense may be a bigger deal than we originally thought. At times the "D" isn't set for the plays that are being executed and they get exposed out-of-position. I wonder if this is a problem with Briggs being new to the setting of the defense for these plays. And finally, I think losing Rod Marinelli was a greater loss than we originally believed. He had that patched up, injury riddled Dallas "D" playing solid ball last night. He was coaching his butt off, and the players were ballin for him.
You add all of this together and you realize it isn't going to be a seamless transition with this "D" and far from it.
ya but his play on the field would have been a bigger hendorance then anyone is imagining; he struggled, even in his prime, w/OL getting to the 2nd level, imagine a gimpy old BU w/this DL in front of him. He might have gotten others into the right position, but he would not have been able to cover his own area.
The SAM LB wasn't a big issue, the MLB was b/c no one else was capable of calling the correct plays, but the actual play was better. The front 4, regardless was what has sunk the D ship, Peppers is actually 1 yr to old now, Melton was showing why the Bears FT'd him, and Shea isn't what he needs to be. Wootton isn't enough on his own, and Paea was there to stop the run(which he was doing before getting hurt). The inj's were the death knell though, there is no recovering from 2 the starting/backup DT going down and the starting MLB to boot.
Ric, I wasn't suggesting we should have kept Brian. On the contrary. But I do think there may be a drop in setting the defense, with Briggs stepping in now. And I'm also not slamming Briggs. I'm just feeling that the quarterbacking of the defense may have had an additional bump in the road with this transition.
oh no doubt, the D isn't getting set up correctly, it's just not the primary issue, nor is the DC(necessarily). I think the D's problems come form the front 4, lack of ability and inj's. Then from the other inj's, both mild and serious(tillmans hammy, Andersons back, DJ and Peppers pre season inj's, DJ's new chest inj, losing Melton and Collins, and Paea(stephan only for awhile).
Next season when guys from Lovie's world are gone, and the team starts to rebuild I think we'll get a better picture of if Mel's good enough or not b/c then he'll be able to run his scheme and not Lovie's or Rod's or whoevers.
The question I have to ask is why is it we can't win by bigger numbers.
Ric, Dallas had 3 of their 4 starting DLs out yesterday. And SD has 2 starting DLs and 2 starting LBs out tonight. Playing backups, rookies, and udfas both. But both BALLED on defense and got it done.
We haven't stopped anyone. Even over the hill RBs like Dwyer and Jacobs and shitty QBs like Ponder. Couldn't sack an immobile QB like Eli even behind a terrible OL. Yeah, I know injuries play a big role, I get that, but Tucker is not doing a good job, end of story. True Dat.
Did something happen to the Cowboys during the game? Their wk six inj report only shows D Ware as out of the game on the DL, and the only DT, Jason Hatcher was probable...how did they get to the 3rd and 4th deep guys if only 2 were possibly out and were not at the same position? Did they take on inj's in the game?
Same w/SD, they didn't have one guy on the inj report for week 6 that played on the DL, what happened to them to where they went to the bench? LB's could hurt, if they are playing a 3-4 still, but in a 4-3 w/the Bears scheme the front 4 have to be the ones pressuring the qb.
I need more information about what happened to those teams before I comment on the rest.
On Sunday, New England was facing and contained one of the NFL's best QBs and best offenses. Wilfork and Mayo were both out. In fact, NE started two rookie DTs--one is a udfa and the other is a late rounder they signed off waivers after the season started.
So, I call BULLSHIT on the excuses for Tucker. We aren't the only team to lose a pro bowler on D (Matthews, Wilfork, Ware). We aren't the only team to be "thin" on the DL. We aren't the only team to have find ways to "manufacture" an effective pass rush. The other clubs are getting it done and putting up stout defensive performances. We aren't.
The coaching staff can't escape blame for that and it falls ultimately on Tucker for D. It is NOT WORKING, Mel, so CHANGE SOMETHING.
what does NE have to do w/SD and Dallas?
As for NE, wk 6 inj report has 1 dt out, and 2 de's one probable and the other has no indication. You can look all this up on nfl.com. And how did NE, who allowed 27 points to NO's(Chicago only allowed 26) contain anyone? They allowed 131 rushing yards and 236 passing. The Bears held NO's to 60 rushing yards and 283 yards passing. I'll take 50 extra through the air for 70 less on the ground; I'd say they were pretty damn similar
MP, Washing ran for over 240 yards on Dallas this past week, and threw for another 240; that's the D you are saying is so much better then Chicago's? And again I don't see where they were on their 3rd and 4th string DLmen either.
SD did a good D job, but again I didn't see on their inj report this week that they were missing much, they also only got 1 sack. Dallas against Wash got no sacks, NE vs NO, no sacks. So lets just assume that, even if not at the start that these teams were missing a good chunk of their starting and backup DL's, the 3 combined for 1 sack this week. and only SD held their team to low yardage, and points, and Dallas let a 1 and 4 teams score 19 points on them, ya NY scored 21 on the bears, but that's a fg difference, wtg.
So the three examples you gave, none really did well, nor did any have the extent of inj's, at least according to their inj report; maybe because they are on IR? But Collins and Walters were on Chicago's report, only Melton was missing. Don't know but I'm not seeing great D play from the above(outside of SD) and none are getting great play from their front 4.
I'm calling BS on your BS.
Ric, I'm referring to original depth charts from the onset of the season and yes this info is from NFL radio and watching the actual games. Just because a player is listed "#1" right now doesn't mean he wasn't a reserve a month ago.
You know very well that we got schooled by Sproles and Graham in that NO game and they could have easily put up more points on us had they really needed to. In fact, we haven't contained ANY opposing offense this year and that includes the pathetically bad ones like Pitt and NYG. That last game in particular is what really changed my mind about Tucker and seeing other teams adapt far better to serious injuries doesn't exactly inspire hope for the future in him.
Are you still gonna defend Mel if Morris and RG3 run all over us and pass at will this Sunday?
I know the D got schooled, I know that most D's get schooled by NO's, it's not unique to the Bears that NO's moved the ball at will on them. Same happened to NE, but their O did a better job of not turning the ball over and actually scoring points.
Held a good Bengals team to 21 points, pretty good day and held their run game to under 70 yards, got blown up by AJ green, no suprise there, he tends to do that to most D's. that's a okay D performance.
Got beat up by Minny. Ponder had a ridiculous day and AP had 100. agreed that was bad
Pitt Big Ben blew them up, but we held their run game to nothing, still not a good D performance
Det, wasn't this the 4 to game by Cutty, for all the yards, the D should have held them to under 20 points if Cutler keeps the ball safe, to hold that O to under 20 points the D did an okay job.
NY, for me this is the first really, just completely failed game for the Bears, passing and running and scoring the D completely failed on all accounts. agreed.
I'm not saying the D has looked good, I'm saying that inj's have taken a toll on a D that already wasn't going to be great by any accounts. This is a D, that the last few years, has struggled to stop other teams if they didn't get a turn over, now that same D is even older, even more inj'd and now has gone completely flat. But I don't think you can say definatively that it's all on a DC that isn't even running his scheme.
Okay, back to inj's, week by week countdown for the Dal, NE, SD inj report for DL before I finish:
Anthony Spencer DE Knee Did Not Participate In Practice Doubtful
Ben Bass DE Shoulder Did Not Participate In Practice Out
Anthony Spencer DE Knee Limited Participation in Practice Questionable
DeMarcus Ware DE Neck Limited Participation in Practice Probable
Anthony Spencer DE Knee Did Not Participate In Practice Questionable
DeMarcus Ware DE Neck Limited Participation in Practice Probable
Edgar Jones DE Groin Did Not Participate In Practice Out
Jason Hatcher DT Neck Limited Participation in Practice Probable
Vince Wilfork DT Foot Full Participation in Practice Probable
Tommy Kelly DT Knee Did Not Participate In Practice Out
Rob Ninkovich DE Groin Full Participation in Practice Probable
Michael Buchanan DE -- Did Not Participate In Practice --
Corey Liuget DE Shoulder Full Participation in Practice Probable
Corey Liuget DE Shoulder Full Participation in Practice Probable
Corey Liuget DE Hamstring Full Participation in Practice Probable
So this past week, again remember only SD had a truly good D game, getting 1 sack and holding the colts to 9 points. And they haven't had a DL on the inj report since week 3, and I cannot find a report that shows a DL on IR or Pup for them..
NE got rocked up and down on D, by the same NO's saints the Bears played, pretty much had the same game, but won b/c the O was better. They were missing 2 DT's and 1 DE, the Bears were missing 2 DT's and a NT, forcing them to play a DE that has no business being on the field for 2 of the first 3 downs, so really the Bears were missing 2 DT's, a NT and a DE.
Dal was missing a DE and a DT and got run up and down the field on by Wash for almost 500 total yards.
Lets say they are missing more then that, even more then the Bears, the only real good one of the three examples you gave was SD, and no reports I show have a DE or DT or NT from the chargers on IR or the Pup.
So your only good example(SD) isn't missing any DL from what I can tell, your other 2 examples were as bad as Chicago, congradulations you just proved that if a team is missing key pieces on their DL are going to suck, even when they have a great cherrished DC like Hot Rod.
Let me also point out that in the D rankings:
Only NE is averaging less yards per game then Chicago, 30 yds on average per game, and NE and SD are averaging less scoring. Again it's not like these examples are somehow helping your point that the Bears D should be doing better. Sacks; all are better then, but again only SD got a sack last week. But guess who's #1 in fum rec's and 3rd in int's; chicago. So while they aren't getting the pressure needed, they are getting turn overs. Would I perfer more sacks and less TO's, ya but take what you can get when you have this many inj's.
Again I'm not defending the poor play of the Bears D, I'm just saying it's irrational to act like this D should be playing better when it's on it's 3rd DT, who isn't even a DT, w/out it's NT and is w/out one of it's starting DE(b/c he's playing DT) which makes them forced to play Shea, who's not a starting DE in the leauge on any team.
The team next year is going to have to completely reboot the DL, Peppers either restructures or gets cut, Wootton and Shea are not starters, need to draft a DE, and pick one up in FA, need to draft a DT also.
The D has consistently under-performed its player ability level (and that includes both before and after Melton got injured). Injuries have hurt yes but that's no excuse for the level of under-production we have seen. We aren't the only team in the NFL by a long shot who has lost defensive standouts. When it has come to "next man up", preparation, tackling, and scheming to compensate for deficiencies, Tucker must bear a lot of responsibility.
He now has a golden opportunity to press the "reset button" and make some adjustments. We (barely) got an ugly win against a horrible offensive squad last Thursday. There's 3 1/2 weeks of time there, with only 1 game in between against a struggling team, to right the ship defensively for a key game in Green Bay coming out of the bye. I don't expect this D to be at '06 level of course not, but its got to get a whole lot better in the 2nd half. That's Tucker's job.
In early November we will be playing a key divisional game against a BEATABLE Packers team. They will be without Matthews and Cobb. Jones and Finley have been banged up too. Their OL is suspect. Even Rodgers isn't playing up to his usual stellar level. I know that Cutler will have to play a clean game (1 turnover MAX) and that no level of D improvement will win if BAD JAY reappears. If that's avoided though, the D still has to show up for us to win.
If Tucker can't figure out how to pressure Rodgers, disrupt their receivers, and keep Lacy from running for triple digits, then we will lose a winnable key game. That's his job and he has the stars aligned in his favor to do it. If he can't, then that says a lot about how much less of a DC Tucker is compared to Marinelli.
Bottom line, every example you gave is the same, all the D's are not performing well.
I agree the D isn't performing up to snuff, but the cover 2 requires 1 thing to work, a front 4 that can get pressure, and b/c of Inj's, age and poor drafting(shea) they cannot.
It's not tuckers system so it's hard for me to blame him b/c his personnel is 1)hurt, 2) old, 3 not good(shea). At this point you have to take a wait and see approach and see how they reset the D regarding it's personel.
I understand why everyone is frusterated, I am too but you have to look at it logically, when teams go down 2-3-4 key guys and their backups, the team suffers. We all knew this Bears team was paper thin to begin w/b/c of years of bad drafting by JA, 2 years of Emery drafting and FA were not going to fix that. Next year probably won't either, but it will be better.