Random Thoughts on Coaching

The Bears coaching staff have taken a lot of flak this year, many fans calling for their heads. After one of the more disapointing seasons I can remember this is hardly surprising. Although certainly not the worst Bears team I've watched, the Bears were expected to contend for the superbowl.

I remember reading in the preseason that scouts considered the Bears "bullet proof" at every position except quarterback. Not really how it panned out.

But how much of it is the coaching? How much the injuries? and how much the players?

A lot of fans poit to Lovies demeanor with the press and note how emotionless he is and play up some of the more inane statements he makes, obviously drawing comparisons to Ditka. I think this is just a different coaching style,and I don't think it's relevant except where it backfires which I'll get to in a minute.

If you look at the Bears talking to the press as a whole I think you'll find they all have much the same ring, nothing much said few fingers pointed. This is likely policy, because they want to address problems internally without the additional friction of outside scrutiny, and in a lot of ways that's fine. Where this policy backfires is that the local media has to write something, and if Lovie isn't providing the headlines, it'll be the team, or the quarterback, or the running back or the linebackers bad back.

I actually believe this policy increased the external pressure on Grossman and Benson, which is contrary to it's intent. Having said that I also suspect that the continual criticism of Grossman in particular probably fostered a solid sense of team around him. I just think it would have been more productive if it had been around Lovie, and some of the pressure could have been lifted from Grossman sooner.

None of this explains why the Bears have so significantly underperformed this year, I think the fundamental problem with passive management/coaching is that you hand ownership over to the players. This can be a great asset especially when you're playing the underdog, players have chips on there shoulders and something to prove, but it leaves you wide open to overconfidence on the players part. As a coach you have to step in before this starts, but it's difficult to recognise and respond to.

So it's all coaching then?

Well no, it's pretty clear how much our defense suffered last year down the stretch with far fewer injuries than we have now, the system is clearly very dependant on personnel in key positions. Indy seems to manage to plug people in to a similar system (with the exception of Bob Sanders) with more success, so maybe it's not a fundamental flaw in the system.

The offensive problems have stemmed from an in-ability to run the ball, and coaches seemingly unable or unwilling to adjust for this. And this is my primary issue with the coaching this year, games seem to be called as if we can protect the passer, effectively run the ball and as if we have a great defense to get the ball back. This has led to endless 3rd and longs and 3 and outs.

So Ron Turner gets the bulk of my criticism, should we replace him? I don't know, if Ron goes we'll be looking at a new offensive system next year and that probably means poor offensive production while the transition occurs. On the other hand if we can resolve the O-Line issues, get a working running game, and our D steps up he's probably capable of calling a good game plan.