How Bout Dem Bears?

kennyb3

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

I know we've disagreed on this already but I think if the idea is to blow it up and start next year (notwithstanding the damage Tucker could do to Fuller etc) a change right now could be bad. What if it worked out and we got to 7-9 or something? The time we drafted McClellin we won a game (was it the Vikings?) that brought us to 8-8 and dropped our draft pick from 11 to 19 or thereabouts. I'm sure my numbers are wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not someone who will cheer on our opposition for the sake of a draft pick. I do want us to win Sunday. I'm just saying if I'm Emery, and I know MY job is safe, and I want my future coordinators and HC to get a fair crack of the whip, I could see an advantage in letting the lads flush themselves down the jacks. I doubt that's what his rationale actually is, of course, but there again I don't really know at this point what anyone's rationale is in HH.

Ah yeah that's fair enough. I can see it from both sides really.

I still think if I was going your way i'd be ordering the older LBers benched so you at least get a better idea of what you're going to be left with, even if it is Tucker coaching and playing vanilla. If the likes of Greene aren't going to pan out you've more holes to fill - you need to know soon, not next year.

And I should of added above I'd keep drafting defence - a proper MLB, some safties, a DE. I'd let the offence muddle along with cutler there. Then if he still produces nothing over next 2 years you go new direction and focus on offence then.

If i could trade him I would, but that won't happen. We got ourselves into one ****ty situation with him.

Realt Dearg Sec

kennyb3 wrote: »

Ah yeah that's fair enough. I can see it from both sides really.

I still think if I was going your way i'd be ordering the older LBers benched so you at least get a better idea of what you're going to be left with, even if it is Tucker coaching and playing vanilla. If the likes of Greene aren't going to pan out you've more holes to fill - you need to know soon, not next year.

And I should of added above I'd keep drafting defence - a proper MLB, some safties, a DE. I'd let the offence muddle along with cutler there. Then if he still produces nothing over next 2 years you go new direction and focus on offence then.

If i could trade him I would, but that won't happen. We got ourselves into one ****ty situation with him.

Well certainly with the players there needs to be a policy of playing the younger players. Especially at linebacker where we already know they have some potential there's no excuse. The weird thing, regarding the offense, is we already know they are capable if being fantastic, so yeah, no reason, even now, to dismiss the idea that they can ever be great again.

Question for anyone who knows: Arians was supposedly told that he would have to accept Marinelli as a condition of the job (which is idiotic but whatever). Did Marinelli walk afterwards or do we know why he wasn't kept on or what? Tucker can only be explained as a panic hire, although that doesn't explain him still being there.

Anyway as someone on wcg said we need a coach who'll have them playing with fire in the belly not fire in the dumpster. And that comes back to drafting also. 35 free agents means very few people likely to be really playing for the team or feeling like being a bear is meant to mean something, which it always should for the core of the team at the very least.

kennyb3

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Well certainly with the players there needs to be a policy of playing the younger players. Especially at linebacker where we already know they have some potential there's no excuse. The weird thing, regarding the offense, is we already know they are capable if being fantastic, so yeah, no reason, even now, to dismiss the idea that they can ever be great again.

Question for anyone who knows: Arians was supposedly told that he would have to accept Marinelli as a condition of the job (which is idiotic but whatever). Did Marinelli walk afterwards or do we know why he wasn't kept on or what? Tucker can only be explained as a panic hire, although that doesn't explain him still being there.

Anyway as someone on wcg said we need a coach who'll have them playing with fire in the belly not fire in the dumpster. And that comes back to drafting also. 35 free agents means very few people likely to be really playing for the team or feeling like being a bear is meant to mean something, which it always should for the core of the team at the very least.

Marinelli walked because lovie was fired, they were pretty close. I'm not sure what gave emery the impression marnelli would stay, I doubt it was marnelli anyway.

He took a lesser job - dline coach just to get away. It's not like he got an amazing offer or anything.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-01-17/sports/ct-spt-0118-bears-trestman-chicago--20130118_1_phil-emery-bears-marc-trestman
Bit there about it, confirming he wanted trestman to go his own way - I.e. Never intended to stay under trestman.

Also that article reminded me of trestman having everyday planned out up to Super Bowl for phil in interview - so funny now.

Realt Dearg Sec

kennyb3 wrote: »

Marinelli walked because lovie was fired, they were pretty close. I'm not sure what gave emery the impression marnelli would stay, I doubt it was marnelli anyway.

He took a lesser job - dline coach just to get away. It's not like he got an amazing offer or anything.

I knew he was a Lovie guy but I always assumed that if his being there was a condition of the job that at some point he and Emery had agreed on this being the case. Maybe not, of course, but presumably he only left one trest was hired? Otherwise it wouldn't have come up with Arians, and they wouldn't have gone to the special offers bin to pick up Tucker. Dunno how good Marinelli would have been under a new HC, but it's hard to believe the wheels would have come off the wagon. But it's surprising because clearly Emery had faith in him.

kennyb3

http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/bears/post/_/id/4682485/tucker-wont-change-much-on-defense#more

Confirms trestman knew feck all about the tucker hire - met him at the interview - bit weird no. That's what happens when your up in cfl - no contacts.

Arians for example knew exactly who all his staff would be.

Realt Dearg Sec

kennyb3 wrote: »

http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/bears/post/_/id/4682485/tucker-wont-change-much-on-defense#more

Confirms trestman knew feck all about the tucker hire - met him at the interview - bit weird no. That's what happens when your up in cfl - no contacts.

Arians for example knew exactly who all his staff would be.

So much of that article/interview seems to telegraph (as compliments) all of the things that have failed in Tucker's D. The need for communication on plays and with veterans is hilarious in light of the first Nelson TD Sunday, where first Briggs tried to check out of a play only for it to all break down (Rodgers said he saw three different defensive plays before the snap, must have been what he was laughing about), and then later after Briggs explained this tucker in his presser said it wasn't a communication issue (as an aside, he also said he didn't know what went wrong, he'd have to look at the tape. Trestman says that a lot too. I really wish they wouldn't keep admitting they can't read the game as it's happening).

Ugh, I dunno...if the sight of our biggest rivals throwing a party, whooping it up and laughing their arses off at our ineptitude on prime time tv doesn't elicit a reaction Sunday, they should all admit football isn't for them. Short of cracking out beers for the lads they couldn't have shown any less respect, and who on earth would blame them? Rodgers earned like a million in bonuses in one half of football. I'd be laughing too.

kennyb3

http://chicagosuntimes.com/sports/jay-cutler-is-regressing-and-the-numbers-confirm-it/

Good read.

kennyb3

Rarely get on at the weekend with family time etc but will catch the game.

Want to say in advance I hope we lose, sorry if anyone doesn't like that but it's ultimately for the best. I ve watched us finish mid rank, many a season with mid rank draft picks and nothing change.

It's because I love this team I wAnt this loss, ultimately we all want to see this team challenge and see a Super Bowl win (was 1 for our only ever one). Wanting us to lose doesn't make anyone any less of a fan so never be afraid to say it - in this case it's a means to an end.

Insanity : doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Tuckers quotes are hilarious about no chsnge, just getting better. This coaching staff is insulting the publics intelligence.

Talk to you all Monday, have a good one.

Badabing

Bears win, didn't see game but by reports vikings were /are a poor team

SameOleJay

We're still terrible. Vikings might have the worst offence in the league and that's what did for us.

kennyb3

Disappointed tbh, if we were going to win I'd hoped for a nice performance. A scrappy, turnover laden performance that does nothing to help long term. Really hoping lovie can beat us next week.

Only thing I'm glad of is that anyone with a season ticket or over for the game got to see a home win.

If I was a vikes fan, I'd be consoling myself with the fact their s'hitty qb is costing a small amount compared to our ****ty one who's on a kings ransom in comparison. We somehow lost the tun over battle.

Realt Dearg Sec

kennyb3 wrote: »

Disappointed tbh, if we were going to win I'd hoped for a nice performance. A scrappy, turnover laden performance that does nothing to help long term. Really hoping lovie can beat us next week.

Only thing I'm glad of is that anyone with a season ticket or over for the game got to see a home win.

If I was a vikes fan, I'd be consoling myself with the fact their s'hitty qb is costing a small amount compared to our ****ty one who's on a kings ransom in comparison. We somehow lost the tun over battle.

In fairness their QB is a rookie who has a huge amount to learn. He shows flashes of ability, he has a future. I didn't get to watch enough of the game to have an opinion on it yet.

kennyb3

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

In fairness their QB is a rookie who has a huge amount to learn. He shows flashes of ability, he has a future. I didn't get to watch enough of the game to have an opinion on it yet.

Totally - i like bridgewater, it was more a jibe at cutler. We've an $18m a season uncoachable QB. At least bridgewater is on a rokkie deal and has time (and the will im sure) to learn.

aaronm13

Nice to get a win but the defence was brutal again and Cutler was Jekyll and Hyde with more interceptions. A better team than the Vikings would have destroyed them. Thought Trestman played a fairly aggressive game too with lots of plays on fourth downs.

ChicagoJoe

aaronm13 wrote: »

Nice to get a win but the defence was brutal again and Cutler was Jekyll and Hyde with more interceptions. A better team than the Vikings would have destroyed them. Thought Trestman played a fairly aggressive game too with lots of plays on fourth downs.

At least we got something over the Vikings after the disasters against the Patriots and Packers. God it's not easy been a Bears fan some days Briggs is a concern, too many half hearted efforts in the last two years and still seems in bad form about contract negotiation.

Guffy

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

At least we got something over the Vikings after the disasters against the Patriots and Packers. God it's not easy been a Bears fan some days Briggs is a concern, too many half hearted efforts in the last two years and still seems in bad form about contract negotiation.

That's the weird thing about AF. Its a very fine line between wanting your team to win when they won't make the playoffs and not being bothered when they lose resulting in a higher draft pick. I saw the win v vikings as about 5 draft positions

kennyb3

http://www.chicitysports.com/forum/showthread.php/56285-More-Phil-Emery-incompetence

The OP is spot on imho. The roster construction has been horrid - same as last year. Special teams basically ignored with all our best players - steltz, costanzo, weems, bowman and Hester gone.

Look I've no problem moving on from Hester with that contract - but they started the season not having a clue what they were doing return wise or in any way on special teams.

I'm beginning to think emery has as little clue as trestman.

We seem like a rudderless ship.

Oat23

Good stuff.

https://twitter.com/ChicagoBears/status/536589123809603584
https://twitter.com/LPetruny/status/536590340703404033

Oat23

Well on our way to 7-9 or 8-8 to pick up a crap pick in the middle of the first. Yay.

Offense was embarrassing in the first half. Defense played well but the Bucs o-line if one of the worst in the league. McCown lucky he's not heading back to Tampa with 5-6 INTs on the stat sheet. He got away with a lot of poor throws, same as when he was starting in Chicago. He's quite lucky.

aaronm13

Horrible first half but turned it around the second. Bucs are such a poor team and were really there for the taking.

kennyb3

Well disappointed with that. Another crap performance against a crap team. We scrapped past a 2-8 (now 2-9 team). Yet me might end up with a somewhat respectable win column come the end and as Oat23 says a mid range draft pick as there are plenty of horrible teams in the league.

I'm worried we won't see enough change.

I can't face a full offseason and another year of knowing we are going nowhere but middle of the pack. I'd rather be awful for a while under a rebuild. Or at least have hope via a new coach & co-ordinators. If it's just Tucker that goes it will just be another wasted year next year, getting hammered by good teams and struggling past bad ones.

The last 2 weeks have been exactly what I hoped wouldn't happen - wins, very unconvincing ones.

padraig_f

Yeah crappy win. Probably should look at the offense for the rest of the season because we know Tucker's gone and there will be draft investment on the defensive side. And the offense really ****ing stunk (Forte probably excepted). 204 total yards, 3.6 yards-per-play, this loses you just about every game except the Bucs at home.

Between Trestman and Cutler, I think Cutler's probably the bigger problem. If he gets it off quick to his 1st or 2nd read, you're happy. If the first or 2nd read isn't there, you get a bad feeling, more often than not something bad is going to happen. Just not a smart guy at reading the field, locks onto players, which makes it easy for DBs to read and intercept.

Listening to the Chalk Talk podcast last week, great podcast actually. They have a discussion at the start about risk-averse QBs, and co-ordinators telling you what they think about their players by how they play them.

Although they're talking about Alex Smith and Russell Wilson, the discussion reminded me of Cutler. They talk about shot-plays being necessary to beat modern NFL defenses, you have to make plays out of structure, WCO alone doesn't cut it any more. What they discuss about the Seahawks minimising risk with Russell Wilson, I think the Bears are also trying to do with Cutler.

Seems to me now a major problem with the Bears offense is they just don't trust Cutler to make plays out of structure. So we see a lot of him throwing it away, or some easily-defendable check-down play when the initial reads aren't there. We're paying a guy $18m/year that the coaches don't trust to do more than the basics. And that's why the drives continually stall, it's just all this short stuff.

Dunno what the answer is, we're handcuffed to Cutler now for the next couple of years. Maybe another offensive co-ordinator (WCO and Cutler seems to be a bad fit), but we've being saying that for a while now.

kennyb3

padraig_f wrote: »

Seems to me now a major problem with the Bears offense is they just don't trust Cutler to make plays out of structure. So we see a lot of him throwing it away, or some easily-defendable check-down play when the initial reads aren't there. We're paying a guy $18m/year that the coaches don't trust to do more than the basics. And that's why the drives continually stall, it's just all this short stuff.

Dunno what the answer is, we're handcuffed to Cutler now for the next couple of years. Maybe another offensive co-ordinator (WCO and Cutler seems to be a bad fit), but we've being saying that for a while now.

Completely agree. They've even openly stated they've taken away some option plays as he was passing way too often on these rather than handing off. I'm so sick of these check downs & screens - feels like it's every second play. If I see us on,say, 3rd and 14 throw a 4 yard screen pass I might punch the tv.

They may as well let him play vertical as he's going to throw interceptions/fumble regardless it seems;

- he's committed 18 of the 21 turnovers this season - 12 interceptions and a shocking 6 fumbles. 82 points coming off those turnovers. We may as well start the other team on 7 points at that rate.

I just don't understand how Trestman and Emery assessed him and decided $54m guaranteed over 3 years was his worth - that's a terrible indictment of them imho. Jay's always been the same player season in season out - consistently inconsistent.

What's not consistent is that valuation.

We had short field plenty last night and put a whopping 21 on the Bucs - a 2-9 team. We haven't topped 30 all season. The amount of duck eggs in a half is getting ridiculous and this team totally fails the eye test regardless of it's record.

Realt Dearg Sec

I guess there's nothing shocking about the game today, if we're honest. We are who we thought we are...

But what annoyed me was how well we played at the outset. The D were fantastic in the first quarter, and obviously the O looked like last year, which is as high a compliment as you can get. But it all comes down to defensive play calling after that.

It seemed to me (and I guess for confirmation you'd need to watch again, which I have no intention of doing) that the whole thing just confirmed what we already knew: Tucker and Trestman don't know how to call a game. Trest is clearly able to gameplan, and actually so is Tucker. They can come up with some great ideas for how to work around a team's weaknesses. But against a good team, capable of seeing what your approach is and making necessary adjustments, we have no answer. So we stuff them on a few drives, and then blast them on a few of our own, then they figure us out, and we have no other surprises in store, and just have to keep plugging away with Plan A.

It was, at least, a little nicer to start well rather than having to give up on the game before half time, but Jesus Christ, what an indictment of our coaching staff. How can you be on third and 18 and have a dump off to Forte, not as your last resort, but as the play call? The objective seemed to be to get an extra five yards for the punt. I know Cutler's contract sucks, and we are lumbered with it, but late in the game, before it was beyond us, he was clearly looking to make plays to get us out of the hole that the D had gotten us into. Correction: not the D, who were playing OK, but the D coordinator, who had hobbled us so catastrophically. Hence the first INT.

That nice start really made me think we were serious for a little while but it actually just sums up the problem: we don't have a game time coordinator of any kind. We are a great confidence builder for serious teams, we make the Staffords of this world look like the Rodgers of this world, and the Rodgers of this world look like the Dan Marinos on fire of this world. We are star makers.

Anybody have the courage to listen to the press conference? I actually went to meet friends for beer just to get away from the temptation to watch, but I am willing to bet that we are sticking with Tucker. But Jesus, might as well, tonight was at least important for the vague possibility that we might get a wild card if we won out from here in. All we got was confirmation that winning out from NOW would be a disaster (not that it's a risk) because we haven't a hope on that front. Ideal scenario now is that the Lions and Packers contest the NFC championship and the winner loses the Superbowl. That way we don't have to watch either do it but they get bad draft picks.

I still won't be hoping for us to lose because it's honestly not in my DNA to cheer against us, and because the wait for the chance to get into football is so long, but I am looking forward to the draft and the firings. If the firings don't happen though...

padraig_f

49ers have a decision to make about Harbaugh

Bears should go after him hard if he becomes available, inc. trading draft picks.

Was happy to wait-and-see with Trestman at the mid-point of the season, but increasingly convinced either him or Cutler has to go at the end of the season (and he's more easily movable). I don't think you can put that same offense out there again next year, it's just not working. 17 points again yesterday.

Cutler can take some blame, but thought he was generally ok yesterday (wasn't getting much help with receiver drops and a collapsing o-line), but the offensive design just isn't getting guys open. We were giving out last week about the short plays, but any time he went long yesterday, guys were covered. Defenses seem to know what we're doing all the time, we never catch them off guard.

Probably makes sense as well if you're getting rid of the DC (and presumably special-teams co-ordinator), to get a clean slate. If Tucker was their best option 2 years ago, and last year, they probably haven't got much other good alternatives. Get a new head-coach in and let him bring his own DC.

kennyb3

https://twitter.com/JedYork/status/538188354609610752

Compare that to our clown of a GM and the rhetoric we are being fed by our coaches.

Realt Dearg Sec

kennyb3 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/JedYork/status/538188354609610752

Compare that to our clown of a GM and the rhetoric we are being fed by our coaches.

Meh, Marshall was trotting out that unacceptable stuff a week's ago, it doesn't change things. If agree with your other post about Harbaugh except that I don't see the bears paying what he'd cost, and also you mentioned trading draft picks. I dunno how you square that with wanting to build the team from the ground up through the draft as you'd said earlier. It would force us even deeper into free agency surely?

kennyb3

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Meh, Marshall was trotting out that unacceptable stuff a week's ago, it doesn't change things. If agree with your other post about Harbaugh except that I don't see the bears paying what he'd cost, and also you mentioned trading draft picks. I dunno how you square that with wanting to build the team from the ground up through the draft as you'd said earlier. It would force us even deeper into free agency surely?

Think you've confused padraig f's and my posts.

I wouldn't trade draft picks. I'd wait till he is gone then throw a fortune at him and give him control.

Emery will never do that, so it won't happen if Emery is still gone. I'd be happy with Emery gone.

Anyway as for Marshall saying it - he's a player. York is the CEO - he can instigate change - big difference.

Realt Dearg Sec

kennyb3 wrote: »

Think you've confused padraig f's and my posts.

I wouldn't trade draft picks. I'd wait till he is gone then throw a fortune at him and give him control.

Emery will never do that, so it won't happen if Emery is still gone. I'd be happy with Emery gone.

Anyway as for Marshall saying it - he's a player. York is the CEO - he can instigate change - big difference.

Damn sorry, mixed ye up. I doubt we'll get Harbaugh anyway, not persuaded he wants to leave, loves Kap, and if you were him, with all the places likely to be looking to get him, would you come to Chicago? That's before we even consider that Emery would never do anything so downright obvious as that. Who'd congratulate him on being cleverer than everyone else if he got the guy everyone thought was best?

SameOleJay

What’s interesting is that there are Saints fans pining for Kromer back. I mean, there is a sure fire playcaller in place if Trest gets the boot.

Go all out for Harbaugh and if that fails give Bowles a go. Bowles on D, Kromer on offense. Anyone, and I mean anyone, can replace Joe D and be an improvement.

padraig_f

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Damn sorry, mixed ye up. I doubt we'll get Harbaugh anyway, not persuaded he wants to leave, loves Kap, and if you were him, with all the places likely to be looking to get him, would you come to Chicago?

Yeah I'm a big Harbaugh fan, love the intensity he gets players to play with and his attention to detail. Agree it's an outside chance though, I'd heard his wife wanted to stay in California and the Raiders would be a more likely destination for him.

Why come to Chicago...played for the team for years and should appreciate the coach that wins the 2nd SB with the Bears will be a lifetime legend.

That's before we even consider that Emery would never do anything so downright obvious as that. Who'd congratulate him on being cleverer than everyone else if he got the guy everyone thought was best?

He'll have to go safe with the next pick, another left-field choice that doesn't work out and he'll be gone. May be gone anyway, but someone once said when a coach fails, teams always go for the opposite. It's true (e.g. Lovie -> Trestman). Trestman was seen as soft, they'll go for a tough guy. Trestman was an outsider to the NFL (at least for the last few years), they'll go for someone with NFL coaching (probably head-coaching) experience.

I think Emery's self-preservation instincts will outweigh his desire to seem clever in this case.

kennyb3

padraig_f wrote: »

Agree it's an outside chance though, I'd heard his wife wanted to stay in California and the Raiders would be a more likely destination for him.

Why come to Chicago...played for the team for years and should appreciate the coach that wins the 2nd SB with the Bears will be a lifetime legend.

Agree it's highly unlikely (remote even if Emery remains) but there are definitely reasons to come:

- Those you've outlined above
- Big city & 3rd biggest franchise media market wise
- Historic franchise that mesh's well with his tough style
- Would be hard not to improve on what's being achieved (good chance of success)
- Some talent in place (no depth admittedly but talent compared to say the Raiders)

Oat23

https://twitter.com/ChicagoBears/status/538459143573864448

Goodbye, Lance. Disappointing to see him go out the way he has, and I'm not referring to his injury. He has been doing nothing but pick up a paycheck since Lovie left. He was never interested in playing under anyone else except him. That has shown in his attitude since 2012.

Badabing

Probably a stupid post but if we get harbaugh as coach does that effect new players coming and going?

Guffy

only if deals haven't been signed... so not at this stage of season generally

kennyb3

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-matt-forte-bears-offense-20141201-story.html

Pretty obvious the players ain't behind Trestman - forte sounds downright annoyed

Realt Dearg Sec

kennyb3 wrote: »

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-matt-forte-bears-offense-20141201-story.html

Pretty obvious the players ain't behind Trestman - forte sounds downright annoyed

I don't understand it though, Trestman has said this week, and in numerous other weeks, that he really wants to run the ball more and they should run it more and that he intends moving towards running the ball more and he was disappointed that they didn't run it more.

YOU'RE THE FCUKING PLAYCALLER MARC, CALL MORE FCUKING RUNS IF IT'S BOTHERING YOU!

Edit: On another note, it was quite depressing watching the Pats-Packers game Sunday. The sheer level of innovation in the offensive playcalling by the Packers, the way they keep innovating every week and coming up with novel ways of getting the match ups they want coming out of the back field, they are just light years ahead of our check-down passing and our end-around fakes and whatever other few plays we always seem to think will work this week, despite not working last week. It's a level I really don't think we are going to get to with the coaching staff currently in place, and if the coaches will never match the Packers, they really don't need to be in jobs in Chicago.

kennyb3

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

I don't understand it though, Trestman has said this week, and in numerous other weeks, that he really wants to run the ball more and they should run it more and that he intends moving towards running the ball more and he was disappointed that they didn't run it more.

YOU'RE THE FCUKING PLAYCALLER MARC, CALL MORE FCUKING RUNS IF IT'S BOTHERING YOU!

Edit: On another note, it was quite depressing watching the Pats-Packers game Sunday. The sheer level of innovation in the offensive playcalling by the Packers, the way they keep innovating every week and coming up with novel ways of getting the match ups they want coming out of the back field, they are just light years ahead of our check-down passing and our end-around fakes and whatever other few plays we always seem to think will work this week, despite not working last week. It's a level I really don't think we are going to get to with the coaching staff currently in place, and if the coaches will never match the Packers, they really don't need to be in jobs in Chicago.

Totally agree - watching all the really good games of football at the weekend makes you realise just how far off the Bears are in terms of quality. Way off even in terms of making a plyoff let alone making a run at the SB. Both sides of the ball to. This team really is well well below average.

padraig_f

kennyb3 wrote: »

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-matt-forte-bears-offense-20141201-story.html

Pretty obvious the players ain't behind Trestman - forte sounds downright annoyed

It's odd, I watched that press-conference during the bye week, and one of the main things they were talking about was improving the run-pass balance. But maybe that was coming more from Emery.

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Edit: On another note, it was quite depressing watching the Pats-Packers game Sunday. The sheer level of innovation in the offensive playcalling by the Packers, the way they keep innovating every week and coming up with novel ways of getting the match ups they want coming out of the back field, they are just light years ahead of our check-down passing and our end-around fakes and whatever other few plays we always seem to think will work this week, despite not working last week. It's a level I really don't think we are going to get to with the coaching staff currently in place, and if the coaches will never match the Packers, they really don't need to be in jobs in Chicago.

Thought the same thing. I was even toying with the idea of rooting for the Packers to finish the season strongly, so it emphasises how much the Bears are behind and provokes some real change.

Sad to say I enjoyed the previous Sunday more than most this season because the Bears weren't playing. Except for one point when an ad came on for this week's Thursday Night Football, which caused me to shudder. Not another prime-time game! You'd prefer they were just buried among the 6pm games on Sunday, and you could half-watch Red Zone.

padraig_f

Bookies have the Bears 3.5 point underdogs for Thursday's game. Who'd have thought at the start of the season we'd be over a field-goal underdog at home to the Cowboys?

Realt Dearg Sec

padraig_f wrote: »

Bookies have the Bears 3.5 point underdogs for Thursday's game. Who'd have thought at the start of the season we'd be over a field-goal underdog at home to the Cowboys?

That's quite stingy. I wouldn't put us within 7 of them.

I would like to see a lot more from the younger players on the roster at this point to be honest. Not just throwing them all in and seeing how they get on (too many rookies at once and they all wind up in trouble) but much more rotation, especially the likes of Washington, Vereen (has seen a fair bit of action in fairness) and, Kadeem Carey, Marquess Wilson. If we're building through the draft, and moving towards a team with a future and not one full of aging Free Agents, then there is not much to be gained from just using the experienced guys to keep us possibly maybe a little competitive in a season that's over. I don't think we have anything to lose by seeing how the young players get on, get them some experience.

ChicagoJoe

padraig_f wrote: »

Bookies have the Bears 3.5 point underdogs for Thursday's game. Who'd have thought at the start of the season we'd be over a field-goal underdog at home to the Cowboys?

The Cowboys have looked a little shakey lately. I think we can have them as long as Trestman doesn't call 10 passes for every one run. Despite their lackluster performance on thanksgiving, the Cowboys still have a top 10 offense and desperately needs to win this one to stay alive in the NFC East so expect them to be very motivated.

Realt Dearg Sec

I see that because of Gould's injury we've waived Chris Williams and signed Jay Feely.

Super bowl?

kennyb3

Is the season over yet? Truly embarrassing what's gone on this season.

Realt Dearg Sec

kennyb3 wrote: »

Is the season over yet? Truly embarrassing what's gone on this season.

On the plus side, Feely did pretty well with that onside kick. I had a Feely, Thursday night's gonna be a good night...

Didn't work out though. Is Tucker still employed somehow?

What was really bothering me was that we actually made a comeback (too little too late and capped off with an INT but at least they were trying) which was mainly successful because with their backs against the wall the offense were forced to take chances, to throw deep and, most of all, to hurry the **** up about calling plays and getting the snap off. In other words, we were forced to play to Cutler's strengths and not to Trestman's terror of making mistakes (a screen on 3rd and 20???). And that was after losing Marshall, with Bennett hobbling along, and Cutler throwing mainly to Wilson and Morgan. It was an insight into the kind of team we could have been this season if the offensive playcaller wasn't such an offensive playcaller.

Of course the D was completely unable for Murray, it was as if they'd never heard of this guy before and had no real plan in the off chance that Romo gave him the ball. (we take it for granted, of course, that there is no plan for when Romo throws the ball)

padraig_f

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

What was really bothering me was that we actually made a comeback (too little too late and capped off with an INT but at least they were trying) which was mainly successful because with their backs against the wall the offense were forced to take chances, to throw deep and, most of all, to hurry the **** up about calling plays and getting the snap off. In other words, we were forced to play to Cutler's strengths and not to Trestman's terror of making mistakes (a screen on 3rd and 20???). And that was after losing Marshall, with Bennett hobbling along, and Cutler throwing mainly to Wilson and Morgan. It was an insight into the kind of team we could have been this season if the offensive playcaller wasn't such an offensive playcaller.

A lot of Jay-and-prays, which was admittedly better than what we had been doing to that point. Didn't put a whole lot of stock in it. After the Cowboys were up 38-7, they were trying to run the clock out.

kennyb3 wrote: »

Is the season over yet? Truly embarrassing what's gone on this season.

Didn't realise we are on prime time again next Monday, against the Saints (even though 'Bears' and 'prime time' seem like they shouldn't belong in the same sentence right now).

Realt Dearg Sec

padraig_f wrote: »

A lot of Jay-and-prays, which was admittedly better than what we had been doing to that point. Didn't put a whole lot of stock in it. After the Cowboys were up 38-7, they were trying to run the clock out.

I wouldn't dismiss it, the Cowboys suddenly realised they were back in a game in the 4th quarter. It just seems to me that there are two things preventing us playing like that: conservative playcalling, and a seeming lack of any interest from our players until it's too late, at which point they kick into gear because they are sick of being humiliated. Tip: you wouldn't have to worry about humiliation if ye were motivated to begin with.

Can't believe we're on prime time again, will this ever end? Just bury us in the early Sunday fixtures so nobody sees us again. Also, once again I'll probably tempt myself to stay up and watch it and spend the night complaining.

Oat23

I went to bed after they called a screen play to Martellus on 3rd and 16 at the 44 yard line. That was only at 6:30 in the 1st but it was enough.

kennyb3

kennyb3 wrote: »

^^ There's a good hint of optimism in that post.:)

I predict we go 6-10 and finishing bottom of the division from here (maybe 7-9). We'll be 3-6 after we play the packers again imo.

Yeah yeah we beat the 9ers and can beat anyone on our day but the above is just my own feelings on it. There's plenty wrong with this team in all areas from weak leadership, not putting the best players on the field, injuries, age etc.

6 weeks later and 5 games later and I was probably being too optimistic again with 6-10 :eek:

And some use to say i was a pessimist :pac:.

TaosHum

Surprisingly, Cutler is actually having his best season (statistically) since he came into the league!