Mathematically it's possible
It's still numerically possible for the Bears to make the playoffs, they need at go at least 6 and 2 and probably 7 and 1 through the rest of the season.
For that to happen the defensive problems really do need to come down to injuries and injuries that will need to cease to be a problem with the bye week. But even if that were the case it doesn't help the offense, they aren't missing any key starters. They are what they are. Incapable of exploiting a week Detroit secondary. There is clearly talent on offense they're just not executing, I'm still not sure in real terms if Griese is any better than Grossman.
The Bears offensive strategy is too dependant of a successful running game, and they simply can't run against 8 man fronts this season. Ron Turner needs to solve this problem either with personnel changes or by changing the focus on offense, and by that I don't mean the 2:1 pass mix we've seen in the last few games. I mean doing something to get the 8th man out of the box, and getting back closer to a 1:1 pass/run split.
Some of the turnovers and missed tackles are players trying too hard, some of it is made worse, as loosing works against trust inside the team but fundamentally those just compound bad play.
What can the coaches do in this situation, they have to raise the energy level and get the players engaged in the games beyond where they have been. I think you can go two ways, yell and scream show them your disappointment tell them what fuckwits they're being and try and generate something from the ensuing guilt. Or go the other way make some changes (possibly radical) and convince the team to believe in the new structure. 2 weeks isn't a lot of time for the latter and I'm not sure the former is in Lovie Smith's personality. If they can string a couple of victories together they might be able to build on it.
But at this point it doesn't look very likely. I'd love to be a fly on the wall though in the meetings over the next couple of weeks.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
NFL Plays in London
Well they will on Sunday anyway.
I'm English, and a Bears fan, I've been watching football pretty much since it was first aired on British TV (channel 4) in the early 80's. I was at the Chicago, Dallas preseason game played in London, I was at World Bowl 1, I lined up at running back for one of the 100+ British teams that existed in the late 80's (didn't play much and we were crap) and I used to tune into American Armed Forces radio on Mondays to listen to the games, since at the time it was the only way to get them.
I've lived in the States now for 15+years, and I'm still a Bears fan.
There are a lot of people like me in the UK and I think the NFL can be successful there to a point. There are probably enough hardcore fans that a local team could fill Wembly for the regular season. However I think breaking out being a niche form of entertainment is going to be extremely difficult. Some of that is just anti American sentiment, clearly English sports are going to be percieved to be superior to "American Football" in England.
Local talent development is probably neessary, but it's going to be hard. As a child in England I played Soccer every break time at school as well as during gym class. And I always hated soccer, it was just what you did. English schools just don't have the focus on organised sports that US schools do, making school organised American football unlikely and American Football just isn't a game you can play without organisation.
I actually don't think the entirely foreign roster is much of an issue in initial adoption, especially if the NFL can start to get some talent development going, British Soccer is dominated by other Europeans at this point and it doesn't seem to have hurt it much. But longer term it's going to have to feel like something local people can own and that means local talent.
Anyway for the first time British people get to see a regular season game on British soil. Wembly stadium is a sell out, It's a good first step, but the real question for the NFL is can it be successful when it's not a novelty?
Well they will on Sunday anyway.
I'm English, and a Bears fan, I've been watching football pretty much since it was first aired on British TV (channel 4) in the early 80's. I was at the Chicago, Dallas preseason game played in London, I was at World Bowl 1, I lined up at running back for one of the 100+ British teams that existed in the late 80's (didn't play much and we were crap) and I used to tune into American Armed Forces radio on Mondays to listen to the games, since at the time it was the only way to get them.
I've lived in the States now for 15+years, and I'm still a Bears fan.
There are a lot of people like me in the UK and I think the NFL can be successful there to a point. There are probably enough hardcore fans that a local team could fill Wembly for the regular season. However I think breaking out being a niche form of entertainment is going to be extremely difficult. Some of that is just anti American sentiment, clearly English sports are going to be percieved to be superior to "American Football" in England.
Local talent development is probably neessary, but it's going to be hard. As a child in England I played Soccer every break time at school as well as during gym class. And I always hated soccer, it was just what you did. English schools just don't have the focus on organised sports that US schools do, making school organised American football unlikely and American Football just isn't a game you can play without organisation.
I actually don't think the entirely foreign roster is much of an issue in initial adoption, especially if the NFL can start to get some talent development going, British Soccer is dominated by other Europeans at this point and it doesn't seem to have hurt it much. But longer term it's going to have to feel like something local people can own and that means local talent.
Anyway for the first time British people get to see a regular season game on British soil. Wembly stadium is a sell out, It's a good first step, but the real question for the NFL is can it be successful when it's not a novelty?
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
The 2 Minute Drill
I have to say I'd pretty much given up on the game, and was ready to write about a team lost for this season. Then in the final 1:57 with no time outs the offense turns up and the Bears march 97 yards to with the game.
Outside of the final two minutes Griese played adequately, it was good to see both Olsen and Hester on the field more, but it was clear that Hester is not familiar with the entire offensive package, Moose showing him where to line up on a lot of downs.
The running game was again none existent and I'm not sure how you fix it at this point in the season. I've seen people pointing to Adrian Petersons yards per carry number and suggesting he start, but he's primarilly playing on passing downs, so his runs aren't indicative of where they would be in the starting role. I'm still not seeing the O-Line creating a lot of holes for anyone to run through.
The defense turned up but didn't really stop the Eagles outside of the redzone, and that's fine if your offense is scoring touchdowns, but the Bears currently aren't.
Offensive play calling still seems excessively cautious, with the defense not where they have been the Bears need to score points to win, and it still seems that caution is the word of the day on offense.
Having said that if they can get a W against Detriot, and use the bye week to get healthy, they are still very much in contention.
I have to say I'd pretty much given up on the game, and was ready to write about a team lost for this season. Then in the final 1:57 with no time outs the offense turns up and the Bears march 97 yards to with the game.
Outside of the final two minutes Griese played adequately, it was good to see both Olsen and Hester on the field more, but it was clear that Hester is not familiar with the entire offensive package, Moose showing him where to line up on a lot of downs.
The running game was again none existent and I'm not sure how you fix it at this point in the season. I've seen people pointing to Adrian Petersons yards per carry number and suggesting he start, but he's primarilly playing on passing downs, so his runs aren't indicative of where they would be in the starting role. I'm still not seeing the O-Line creating a lot of holes for anyone to run through.
The defense turned up but didn't really stop the Eagles outside of the redzone, and that's fine if your offense is scoring touchdowns, but the Bears currently aren't.
Offensive play calling still seems excessively cautious, with the defense not where they have been the Bears need to score points to win, and it still seems that caution is the word of the day on offense.
Having said that if they can get a W against Detriot, and use the bye week to get healthy, they are still very much in contention.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
What's wrong with the Bears?
I've been reading a lot of online rants about the Bears this season especially since since Sunday. Frankly I'm stunned at the amount of vitriol in some of these posts, Lovie Smith, Jerry Angelo, Bob Babich, Ron Turner, Cedrick Benson and the Bears O-Line seem to take the brunt of most of it.
The mind boggles really, the Bears were in the Super Bowl last year and 5 games into this season fans and writers are already calling to replace the head coach, the GM, the defensive and offensive coordinators. It's not like the Bears are the first Super Bowl looser to suffer from a post Super Bowl hang over, god knows it's frustrating as a fan, but it is what it is. Lovie Smith is the same head coach that got us to the Super Bowl.
Back to the original question.
The offense is clearly out of sync, ad I'm not sure there is a quick solution to that, they're not going to suddenly click and start scoring 40 points a game, but they can be good enough to score points and win games. The Minnesota game showed that.
The defense is harder to explain, but I think it's a function of the defensive scheme coupled with the rash of injuries. The Tampa two is heavily dependant on the personnel, and their trust in each other. You start pulling bits of it out and you have problems, witness last years Indy D without Bob Sanders, or the change in the Bears D after Mike Brown was injured in 06 (he didn't play long enough this year to really see a trend). Perhaps in the end this is the real weakness of the Tampa two, in an NFL where all teams have to battle injuries, it may be simply too fragile.
The Bears coaches seem to me to be shifting personnel around in a desperate attempt to find something that works. They've never really demonstrated a great ability to make gameplan adjustments, right now they have no real choice.
I've been reading a lot of online rants about the Bears this season especially since since Sunday. Frankly I'm stunned at the amount of vitriol in some of these posts, Lovie Smith, Jerry Angelo, Bob Babich, Ron Turner, Cedrick Benson and the Bears O-Line seem to take the brunt of most of it.
The mind boggles really, the Bears were in the Super Bowl last year and 5 games into this season fans and writers are already calling to replace the head coach, the GM, the defensive and offensive coordinators. It's not like the Bears are the first Super Bowl looser to suffer from a post Super Bowl hang over, god knows it's frustrating as a fan, but it is what it is. Lovie Smith is the same head coach that got us to the Super Bowl.
Back to the original question.
The offense is clearly out of sync, ad I'm not sure there is a quick solution to that, they're not going to suddenly click and start scoring 40 points a game, but they can be good enough to score points and win games. The Minnesota game showed that.
The defense is harder to explain, but I think it's a function of the defensive scheme coupled with the rash of injuries. The Tampa two is heavily dependant on the personnel, and their trust in each other. You start pulling bits of it out and you have problems, witness last years Indy D without Bob Sanders, or the change in the Bears D after Mike Brown was injured in 06 (he didn't play long enough this year to really see a trend). Perhaps in the end this is the real weakness of the Tampa two, in an NFL where all teams have to battle injuries, it may be simply too fragile.
The Bears coaches seem to me to be shifting personnel around in a desperate attempt to find something that works. They've never really demonstrated a great ability to make gameplan adjustments, right now they have no real choice.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Adrian Peterson runs all over the Bears.
Headline really says it all.
Hopefully there won't be many games where the Bears score 31 points and loose.
In some ways the game reminded me of the 05 play off loss to the Panthers, in that game Steve Smith pretty much single handily won the game for Carolina and it always felt to me that the Bears loss through arrogance, not wanting to change there defense to account for a single player. This time it didn't look like arrogance, it was just an average effort by a banged up defense exploited by a future great running back. To be fair the Vikings line did a stellar job getting Peterson into the open field and the Bears bad tackling did the rest.
The Bears offense showed flashes, and there were a couple of brilliant plays, but really it was the same old same old, too many 3rd and longs, and until the Bears were two scores down the offense was extremely conservative.
Watching the game I was noting the fact that the Bears receivers just haven't been getting good separation, I think this is a function of the reluctance to go long until it's the only option. It's like they are always playing on a short field.
The Bears need to get healthy on D and get something going on offence, I figure they need 10 wins to make the play offs, so there are still a couple of games before we have to start talking about next season, but it's coming fast.
Headline really says it all.
Hopefully there won't be many games where the Bears score 31 points and loose.
In some ways the game reminded me of the 05 play off loss to the Panthers, in that game Steve Smith pretty much single handily won the game for Carolina and it always felt to me that the Bears loss through arrogance, not wanting to change there defense to account for a single player. This time it didn't look like arrogance, it was just an average effort by a banged up defense exploited by a future great running back. To be fair the Vikings line did a stellar job getting Peterson into the open field and the Bears bad tackling did the rest.
The Bears offense showed flashes, and there were a couple of brilliant plays, but really it was the same old same old, too many 3rd and longs, and until the Bears were two scores down the offense was extremely conservative.
Watching the game I was noting the fact that the Bears receivers just haven't been getting good separation, I think this is a function of the reluctance to go long until it's the only option. It's like they are always playing on a short field.
The Bears need to get healthy on D and get something going on offence, I figure they need 10 wins to make the play offs, so there are still a couple of games before we have to start talking about next season, but it's coming fast.
Monday, October 08, 2007
The Bears finally win one.
With the exception of Charles Tillman and his two forced fumbles, it wasn't looking good through the first half. But the Bears made good adjustments at half time and came out like a different team, in the first half they missed tackles and Favre completed passes at will, in the second half it was a different story.
The offense still had problems, far too many 3rd and long's but Green Bay helped out keeping drives going with penalties. Griese was efficient, making plays when they were needed, and limiting the mistakes.
I thought the play calling was better, going to the end zone on the first play after the interception was a great call and Ron Turner stayed with the run enough to set up a great play action play resulting in another touchdown. There were also a couple of attempts to stretch the field, but still a lot of run on first, run on second and long and then deal with the resulting 3rd and long. The Bears either need to run the ball better or throw more on first down.
2 and 3 leaves the Bears in contention but there is still a lot of questions to be answered. Hopefully the win at Green Bay and the way they finished the game can provide a spark and get them on a roll. Minnesota at Soldier Field should be an easier game that the Pack at Lambeau.
With the exception of Charles Tillman and his two forced fumbles, it wasn't looking good through the first half. But the Bears made good adjustments at half time and came out like a different team, in the first half they missed tackles and Favre completed passes at will, in the second half it was a different story.
The offense still had problems, far too many 3rd and long's but Green Bay helped out keeping drives going with penalties. Griese was efficient, making plays when they were needed, and limiting the mistakes.
I thought the play calling was better, going to the end zone on the first play after the interception was a great call and Ron Turner stayed with the run enough to set up a great play action play resulting in another touchdown. There were also a couple of attempts to stretch the field, but still a lot of run on first, run on second and long and then deal with the resulting 3rd and long. The Bears either need to run the ball better or throw more on first down.
2 and 3 leaves the Bears in contention but there is still a lot of questions to be answered. Hopefully the win at Green Bay and the way they finished the game can provide a spark and get them on a roll. Minnesota at Soldier Field should be an easier game that the Pack at Lambeau.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Quaterbacks and the Chicago Bears
Why do the Bears have such a hard time bringing in a good Quarterback?
I was watching an interview with Brian Griese before he started against Detroit. One of the things he said was that the offense had been a second class citizen in Chicago, and he hoped to change that. I think it's the primary problem, in Chicago the focus is too heavily on the defense, there is nothing inherently wrong with that.
But lets face facts although great defenses have won superbowls, those teams that go back over and over have great offenses, IMO asking your offense to play conservatively and just protect the ball is a recipe for 3rd and long, 3 and out and a tired defense loosing in the 4th quarter.
Ideally we want a great defense and a great offense, but I believe even if the Bears had all the talent in the world on offense, they would still play excessively conservatively and they would still loose games because of it.
Lets get a great offensive coordinator in Chicago, and let him run the offense, lets make offense a priority, I want to see the Bears protecting leads by scoring more points, not by "protecting the football" on a one score lead.
I don't mean Chicago needs to do this and ignore defense, just that both sides of the ball need to be equally important and that might mean compromises in defensive personnel.
Why do the Bears have such a hard time bringing in a good Quarterback?
I was watching an interview with Brian Griese before he started against Detroit. One of the things he said was that the offense had been a second class citizen in Chicago, and he hoped to change that. I think it's the primary problem, in Chicago the focus is too heavily on the defense, there is nothing inherently wrong with that.
But lets face facts although great defenses have won superbowls, those teams that go back over and over have great offenses, IMO asking your offense to play conservatively and just protect the ball is a recipe for 3rd and long, 3 and out and a tired defense loosing in the 4th quarter.
Ideally we want a great defense and a great offense, but I believe even if the Bears had all the talent in the world on offense, they would still play excessively conservatively and they would still loose games because of it.
Lets get a great offensive coordinator in Chicago, and let him run the offense, lets make offense a priority, I want to see the Bears protecting leads by scoring more points, not by "protecting the football" on a one score lead.
I don't mean Chicago needs to do this and ignore defense, just that both sides of the ball need to be equally important and that might mean compromises in defensive personnel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)