This article pretty much sums up the Giants game

Discussion in 'Chicago Bears' started by BradMustersGhost, Oct 11, 2013.

  1. BradMustersGhost

    BradMustersGhost

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2013
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    195
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ratings:
    +211 / 1 / -0
    • Winner Winner x 2
  2. JustAnotherBearsFan99

    JustAnotherBearsFan99 SuperFan

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    1,462
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +1,507 / 0 / -0
    Brad, thanks for posting this. It's probably the best article I've read this season on the Bears. It is "real" in that it doesn't sugarcoat our weaknesses, yet it doesn't go overboard the other way either. Many of us fans (and I am guilty here too) are a bit delusional, in thinking you can throw together a new team like this with so many new players and coaches - and have instant chemistry and success. Brandon Marshall & Jay Cutler, were excellent after the game, giving a "real" description of where this team is at, and about how long it takes to have a team like, say, the Saints. It takes years.

    It's real. Love the article. It's VERY encouraging. Loved this part in particular:

  3. milehibearsfan

    milehibearsfan

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0
    I see the article as spot on. A win is not always a great feeling when it leaves you sort of empty. Da Bearss are looking much better than last season, Cutler is upright for the most part, but the D is :-P. The future is promising, and maybe not years either. I'm really concerned about the two Mon. night games away, though. BEAR DOWN BEARSS!!!
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. JustAnotherBearsFan99

    JustAnotherBearsFan99 SuperFan

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    1,462
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +1,507 / 0 / -0
    We have one game before the bye week. Then we go to Lambeau to face the Packers. It will be VERY interesting to see how much progress the team has made at that particular point. Green Bay has owned us in recent years. And Jay seems to have his epic failure games against them. It will be really interesting to see how the team performs in that game. It's not just a win/loss test, although it would be mighty nice to get the win. But, it's more of a test to see if we've, at least, made some strides with the new team in general - and Jay Cutler in particular.

    Of course we need to build on last night's win, by winning against Washington. Could be another good learning experience game too.
  5. Bearsinhouston

    Bearsinhouston

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    4,498
    Likes Received:
    635
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +728 / 2 / -0
    "They're not particularly good yet, not after losing two straight and having to cling to victory at home over the historically awful New York Giants."

    I'm not sure this particular line is on the mark on several levels. Not particularly good because we have lost two straight, with one being to the Saints is not in my mind an incrimination of a bad team. Lots of teams lose to the Saints. I don't think we are particularly good either (but certainly far from bad), but more because of how we are playing on D. No D will cause you to lose games.

    Plus the comment about the historically awful Giants doesn't ring true either. There is no doubt that they are awful this year? Historically awful? I would say exactly the opposite.
  6. BradMustersGhost

    BradMustersGhost

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2013
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    195
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ratings:
    +211 / 1 / -0
    BearsinHouston, would you agree with my comments in this thread?
  7. Ski-Whiz

    Ski-Whiz What? Me Worry? Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 1996
    Messages:
    35,598
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +359 / 1 / -0

    That comment kind of killed their credibility for me. I even read that comment a couple times.

    We all know the Giants are a dangerous team at any time. They are almost like the Yankees. They are good enough to hang around, then turn it on in December/January.
    • Like Like x 1
  8. JustAnotherBearsFan99

    JustAnotherBearsFan99 SuperFan

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    1,462
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +1,507 / 0 / -0
    The fact is that the Giants ARE historically awful. They are 0-6. Their worst record since 1976. It's been 37 years since they've been that bad after 6 games.

    I believe that old saying "You are what your records SAYS you are."
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Bearsinhouston

    Bearsinhouston

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    4,498
    Likes Received:
    635
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +728 / 2 / -0
    But JABF, that is not historically awful. That is awful just this year. At least that is my interpretation of what historically awful means -- that historically they have been awful, and that's simply not true.
  10. Bearsinhouston

    Bearsinhouston

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    4,498
    Likes Received:
    635
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +728 / 2 / -0
    About Cutler and Marshall? Yes, of course. However, I would go out on a limb and say that they have known this from the beginning. This is what they do for a living and they have probably been told the same by their coaches that do this for a living. I think the realization is in the aspect of the sportswriters and fans coming to grips with it. I think the general perception is change to good coaches, bring in some good players, play a few games and you are there.

    Now, there have been some very quick turnarounds, and I think Cutler and Marshall are also talking about clicking on all cylinders and really KNOWING a system. You don't have to be there to win games. You can still be learning a system, still not be up to potential and be a good team that wins games. I think we are trying to get to this second place. And I do think we could have been there if it were not for the injuries (and possibly coaching ) on the D.

    I don't know what the difference is for sure, but injuries or no injuries, they just don't seem the same. That's my take. Add $1 and it still won't buy you a cup of coffee :)
  11. JustAnotherBearsFan99

    JustAnotherBearsFan99 SuperFan

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    1,462
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +1,507 / 0 / -0
    Okay, I was interpreting it the other way. I do see your point if you interpret it the other way. The general point I think, is that the Giants are a really bad team.
  12. Ski-Whiz

    Ski-Whiz What? Me Worry? Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 1996
    Messages:
    35,598
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +359 / 1 / -0
    This season yes. But Historically to me means "years past".. Like the past ten years etc... Not this year.

    "Historically bad over the last six games" just doesn't sound right.

    I liked the article, I just thought he mis-spoke on some key notes.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. JustAnotherBearsFan99

    JustAnotherBearsFan99 SuperFan

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    1,462
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +1,507 / 0 / -0
    I think a lot of us fans (me included) underestimated the level of gutting the team underwent, going from Angelo (this really began with JA's ouster)/Lovie/relatively stable roster, playbooks, schemes, coaches -- to Emery/Trestman/new playbooks, schemes, players, coaching staff.

    I think fans (me included) thought this was the equivalent of painting a few rooms over a weekend in our house and it's just a matter of doing a bit of cleanup and enjoy the nice new looking walls by Monday morning. But in reality we ripped out the walls, floors, roof, appliances, carpet and other than some key pieces on on offense and defense we gutted the house. It's gonna be awhile before we can settle in to a basically new/rebuilt home. The end result will be real nice. But it's not a quick weekend project.
  14. Bearsinhouston

    Bearsinhouston

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    4,498
    Likes Received:
    635
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +728 / 2 / -0
    I agree. I also thought it was going to be a pretty serious redo of the O, but that the D was going to stay. Now I can see that Emery had planned a total gut job from the beginning. When you look back, the writing was on the wall. All those one year contracts were for a reason. We were all just adding 2 + 2 and getting 6. Emery was the only one that knew that the problem involved a hidden 2 in there somewhere.

    I really didn't think we needed a total gut job, but hey.... what do I know. They didn't ask me and it doesn't matter. It's already happening.
  15. MrDynamite32

    MrDynamite32

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2013
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +31 / 0 / -0
    I, too, didn't see this as a full-scale rebuild seeing as though most of the main pieces were still in place on both sides of the ball. Instead of ripping it up all at once, I see now that Emery was taking this one step at a time.
  16. a_miljan

    a_miljan

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2013
    Messages:
    506
    Likes Received:
    215
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ratings:
    +233 / 0 / -0
    everybody are saying that we look much better than last year, and i would have to disagree, our offense is better and our defense is worse, in pretty much same amount. maybe we do have a brighter future than a year ago but were def. not better at this moment.
    beware, if we 'lose' cutler next year this is all in vein, marsh would get angry, e bennet maybe gone... again, new offense, and our D is a total riddle, we dont have ANY good D players on contract next year, yet, none!
    so, i am a little bit worried, but like always hoping for the best
    (not to mention gould was also pissed at new staff)
  17. Ski-Whiz

    Ski-Whiz What? Me Worry? Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 1996
    Messages:
    35,598
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +359 / 1 / -0
    I think we all saw this when Emery got hired.

    We all saw the huge changed. I think we underestimated the impact.

    Lets face it our defense is aged! It's going to look more like strainer than a bowl. Trestman is moving toward an offensive minded team. I'm ok with that. Our problem is scoring points. It's been a problem since I've been a fan of the Bears.

    We are a pass team. Our defense has had a solid core since Urlacher got here. That is changing.

    I like the changes because I HATE 3 and outs!

    I like what Emery is thinking/doing. He's turning us into an NFL team that can compete. I think the Trestman/Emery combo is awesome for Chicago.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. jbunch14

    jbunch14

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2013
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +94 / 0 / -0
    I think the really great thing is we seem to have completely re-built the offense in a matter of two years. We now have so many good, young players both in the trenches as well at all of the skill positions, it is smile-inducing! The other great part of this is they will be able to expend maximum effort on the D overhaul this offseason. It will be sad to see some of our D stalwarts leave the team, but it is absolutely necessary in order to build a strong team for now and the future. My prediction is we see Pep, Melton, DJ Williams, and maybe even Jennings gone from this D next year. We re-sign Wootton, Wright, Bowman, Peanut, and Hayden and begin the rebuilding from there. I imagine a draft that lands us at least 5 D players in the first 6 rounds, as well as possibly a DT from FA, if they are young enough. We know Emery wants to build through the draft, and I suspect this year the D will see a total gut job, like JAFB alluded to. I hope the D keeps it together for a playoff run this year, as that will likely cement Jay as our long-term answer at QB, as well as the coaches and the schemes they employ. The team next year is going to look very different again from this team. Exciting stuff!!
  19. Bearsinhouston

    Bearsinhouston

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    4,498
    Likes Received:
    635
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +728 / 2 / -0
    I agree. What is bothering me about all of this, however is do we have the expertise to get the good D players? I think the answer is a qualified yes. For the O, I think Emery and Trestman have worked together to pick the targeted players. A few of our Canadian members have given me the feeling that Trestman may not be as adept at picking D talent (please correct me if I am off track on that). So that may fall more to a group decision with Emery, Trestman and Tucker. I may be way off base on him, but as of right now, I don't have a warm fuzzy on Tucker. (if I wet myself in the middle of the night, that may change).

    So, on D, I think most of the choice might be made by Emery (I hope). If that is the case, I like what I have seen him do with the LBs, so we may be good. I really wish we have a real stud DC though.
  20. BradMustersGhost

    BradMustersGhost

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2013
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    195
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ratings:
    +211 / 1 / -0
    I concur BIH. I understand that: 1-it is still early and 2-the DL is decimated. With those observations in mind, I don't think any of us were "enthralled" with the hiring of Tucker. Emery? Yes. Trestman? Yes. Kromer as OC/OL coach? Tucker....not so much. I really, really hope he establishes himself as a top-flight DC in this league, but right now I have my doubts. Personally, I don't think he is being NEARLY AGGRESSIVE enough right now, considering the fact that our pass rush is so pathetic. We are routinely giving up 80+ yard TD drives, so what would be the harm in blitzing a heck of a lot more? Send them as often as possible from every direction. IT's not like dropping 7 into coverage is doing us a damn bit of good as it is. If you can't generate a pass rush, you can drop 100 guys into coverage, and it won't make a damn bit a difference. Given enough time, even an average QB will be able to spot an open receiver and complete a pass down field, regardless of how many guys a defense has in coverage.

Share This Page