This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Don't get your hopes up. They have nothing left to go after Boldin with. I also think the Boldin trade talk has just been a charade to appease him and he's going nowhere unless Arizona gets a Roy Williams like deal out of someone.
I disagree. The Vikings are a Super Bowl ready team with one huge missing hole in it- Farve could fill that hole. Is it at the expense of the development of a long term answer? Who is that? Jackson? John David Booty? Certainly not Rosenfels who is a much less talented short term band aid versus Favre. Favre can give them a very good shot at winning the Super Bowl now. It certainly makes them a better team than Cutler to the Bears does because the Bears still do not have a WR for him to throw to. It makes much more sense for the Vikings to Favre than it did the Bears getting Cutler. Until the Bears put Hester back where he belongs (a reserve CB and the best return man in the game) and stops with the joke of an experiment of him being an NFL #1 WR and go out and get a proven veteran WR with talent and something left in the tank then getting Cutler is next to being a waste.Thank God the Vikings are getting Favre and not the Bears. Personally, I think the Vikings are making a huge mistake, which I'm very happy about. They have a good young team and are bringing in an older qb that will likely only be there for 1-2 seasons. If they don't make it to or win the SB while he's there, then I think they have set back the team for a couple of years by not trying to establish a future qb. With the great core of players they have right now, I'm not sure how long they can hold on to all of them.
I believe the Bears would "like" to give KJ more touches. The Bears could be a playmaker on offense. The issue is whether Jones can stay healthy.
You couldn't be more wrong here, imo. Finally, the Bears go out and get something that haven't had in decades, a steady and reliable qb, and a few people still think it was a mistake. Impossible to please some people. Cutler to the Bears may be the best trade in Bears history and as far from a mistake as it can be. I'm baffled at this line of thinking, however, I've had this conversation on here already, so I'll leave it at that.I disagree. The Vikings are a Super Bowl ready team with one huge missing hole in it- Farve could fill that hole. Is it at the expense of the development of a long term answer? Who is that? Jackson? John David Booty? Certainly not Rosenfels who is a much less talented short term band aid versus Favre.Thank God the Vikings are getting Favre and not the Bears. Personally, I think the Vikings are making a huge mistake, which I'm very happy about. They have a good young team and are bringing in an older qb that will likely only be there for 1-2 seasons. If they don't make it to or win the SB while he's there, then I think they have set back the team for a couple of years by not trying to establish a future qb. With the great core of players they have right now, I'm not sure how long they can hold on to all of them.
Favre can give them a very good shot at winning the Super Bowl now. It certainly makes them a better team than Cutler to the Bears does because the Bears still do not have a WR for him to throw to. It makes much more sense for the Vikings to Favre than it did the Bears getting Cutler. Until the Bears put Hester back where he belongs (a reserve CB and the best return man in the game) and stops with the joke of an experiment of him being an NFL #1 WR and go out and get a proven veteran WR with talent and something left in the tank then getting Cutler is next to being a waste.
I don't even know this guy.
I guess Kellen Davis must suck pretty bad
You couldn't be more wrong here, imo. Finally, the Bears go out and get something that haven't had in decades, a steady and reliable qb, and a few people still think it was a mistake. Impossible to please some people. Cutler to the Bears may be the best trade in Bears history and as far from a mistake as it can be. I'm baffled at this line of thinking, however, I've had this conversation on here already, so I'll leave it at that.I disagree. The Vikings are a Super Bowl ready team with one huge missing hole in it- Farve could fill that hole. Is it at the expense of the development of a long term answer? Who is that? Jackson? John David Booty? Certainly not Rosenfels who is a much less talented short term band aid versus Favre.Thank God the Vikings are getting Favre and not the Bears. Personally, I think the Vikings are making a huge mistake, which I'm very happy about. They have a good young team and are bringing in an older qb that will likely only be there for 1-2 seasons. If they don't make it to or win the SB while he's there, then I think they have set back the team for a couple of years by not trying to establish a future qb. With the great core of players they have right now, I'm not sure how long they can hold on to all of them.
Favre can give them a very good shot at winning the Super Bowl now. It certainly makes them a better team than Cutler to the Bears does because the Bears still do not have a WR for him to throw to. It makes much more sense for the Vikings to Favre than it did the Bears getting Cutler. Until the Bears put Hester back where he belongs (a reserve CB and the best return man in the game) and stops with the joke of an experiment of him being an NFL #1 WR and go out and get a proven veteran WR with talent and something left in the tank then getting Cutler is next to being a waste.
Cutler to the Bears worries me more than Favre to the Vikings does as a Packer fan.Hester with Cutler will be at least as productive as Berrian and Olson is the better TE. Only the hopeful emergence of a player of Harvin's talent could give the Vikings receiving core an edge.You couldn't be more wrong here, imo. Finally, the Bears go out and get something that haven't had in decades, a steady and reliable qb, and a few people still think it was a mistake. Impossible to please some people. Cutler to the Bears may be the best trade in Bears history and as far from a mistake as it can be. I'm baffled at this line of thinking, however, I've had this conversation on here already, so I'll leave it at that.I disagree. The Vikings are a Super Bowl ready team with one huge missing hole in it- Farve could fill that hole. Is it at the expense of the development of a long term answer? Who is that? Jackson? John David Booty? Certainly not Rosenfels who is a much less talented short term band aid versus Favre.Thank God the Vikings are getting Favre and not the Bears. Personally, I think the Vikings are making a huge mistake, which I'm very happy about. They have a good young team and are bringing in an older qb that will likely only be there for 1-2 seasons. If they don't make it to or win the SB while he's there, then I think they have set back the team for a couple of years by not trying to establish a future qb. With the great core of players they have right now, I'm not sure how long they can hold on to all of them.
Favre can give them a very good shot at winning the Super Bowl now. It certainly makes them a better team than Cutler to the Bears does because the Bears still do not have a WR for him to throw to. It makes much more sense for the Vikings to Favre than it did the Bears getting Cutler. Until the Bears put Hester back where he belongs (a reserve CB and the best return man in the game) and stops with the joke of an experiment of him being an NFL #1 WR and go out and get a proven veteran WR with talent and something left in the tank then getting Cutler is next to being a waste.Cutler to the Bears worries me more than Favre to the Vikings does as a Packer fan.
And its not as if Minny is just full of great WRs either.
#4 to min is an odd topic, because I do think that he is an upgrade at the QB position while he ends up hurting what this team is doing as a whole. they have the best RB and a great defense to go with that, they built this team around ball control, huge lines and a real good defense. Favre will lead the league in INTs, and that min defense will be on the field more then they want. they will be more tiered with #4 there and be a less effective defense. Farve's style of play does not fit well with what the vikings are trying to do.Hester with Cutler will be at least as productive as Berrian and Olson is the better TE. Only the hopeful emergence of a player of Harvin's talent could give the Vikings receiving core an edge.You couldn't be more wrong here, imo. Finally, the Bears go out and get something that haven't had in decades, a steady and reliable qb, and a few people still think it was a mistake. Impossible to please some people. Cutler to the Bears may be the best trade in Bears history and as far from a mistake as it can be. I'm baffled at this line of thinking, however, I've had this conversation on here already, so I'll leave it at that.I disagree. The Vikings are a Super Bowl ready team with one huge missing hole in it- Farve could fill that hole. Is it at the expense of the development of a long term answer? Who is that? Jackson? John David Booty? Certainly not Rosenfels who is a much less talented short term band aid versus Favre.Thank God the Vikings are getting Favre and not the Bears. Personally, I think the Vikings are making a huge mistake, which I'm very happy about. They have a good young team and are bringing in an older qb that will likely only be there for 1-2 seasons. If they don't make it to or win the SB while he's there, then I think they have set back the team for a couple of years by not trying to establish a future qb. With the great core of players they have right now, I'm not sure how long they can hold on to all of them.
Favre can give them a very good shot at winning the Super Bowl now. It certainly makes them a better team than Cutler to the Bears does because the Bears still do not have a WR for him to throw to. It makes much more sense for the Vikings to Favre than it did the Bears getting Cutler. Until the Bears put Hester back where he belongs (a reserve CB and the best return man in the game) and stops with the joke of an experiment of him being an NFL #1 WR and go out and get a proven veteran WR with talent and something left in the tank then getting Cutler is next to being a waste.
And its not as if Minny is just full of great WRs either.
Ok, take a deep breath because I did not say that the Bears getting Cutler was a mistake. You are over reacting and being defensive for no reason. What I said was that it makes more sense for the Vikings to get Favre than it did for the Bears to get Cutler. Why? It is simple. First, The Vikings pretty much have everything else in place for a Super Bowl ready team except a QB. Does anyone believe that getting Cutler makes the Bears a Super Bowl ready team? Also, the Vikings would have to give up nothing other than money to get Favre while the Bears had to give up the draft picks and a servicable QB. Is it worth it for the Bears? Sure, but the point is that getting Cutler while you think Hester is a NFL #1 WR is laughable. Hey, maybe he makes great strides or one of the other youngsters like Davis, Bennett or the group of rookies step up... but that is one heck of a gamble to take because that would basically it is the NFL equivalent to buying a brand new Austin Martin DB9 but then not having any gas to drive it.You couldn't be more wrong here, imo. Finally, the Bears go out and get something that haven't had in decades, a steady and reliable qb, and a few people still think it was a mistake. Impossible to please some people. Cutler to the Bears may be the best trade in Bears history and as far from a mistake as it can be. I'm baffled at this line of thinking, however, I've had this conversation on here already, so I'll leave it at that.I disagree. The Vikings are a Super Bowl ready team with one huge missing hole in it- Farve could fill that hole. Is it at the expense of the development of a long term answer? Who is that? Jackson? John David Booty? Certainly not Rosenfels who is a much less talented short term band aid versus Favre.Thank God the Vikings are getting Favre and not the Bears. Personally, I think the Vikings are making a huge mistake, which I'm very happy about. They have a good young team and are bringing in an older qb that will likely only be there for 1-2 seasons. If they don't make it to or win the SB while he's there, then I think they have set back the team for a couple of years by not trying to establish a future qb. With the great core of players they have right now, I'm not sure how long they can hold on to all of them.
Favre can give them a very good shot at winning the Super Bowl now. It certainly makes them a better team than Cutler to the Bears does because the Bears still do not have a WR for him to throw to. It makes much more sense for the Vikings to Favre than it did the Bears getting Cutler. Until the Bears put Hester back where he belongs (a reserve CB and the best return man in the game) and stops with the joke of an experiment of him being an NFL #1 WR and go out and get a proven veteran WR with talent and something left in the tank then getting Cutler is next to being a waste.
You think the gap between the Vikes and Bears is much bigger than it is. Bears won 9 games last year. The division went down to the last minute of the last week of the season with the Vikes beating the Giants backups on a field goal.Cutler is better than Favre. Both teams had pretty poor QB play last year.Chadstroma said:Ok, take a deep breath because I did not say that the Bears getting Cutler was a mistake. You are over reacting and being defensive for no reason. What I said was that it makes more sense for the Vikings to get Favre than it did for the Bears to get Cutler. Why? It is simple. First, The Vikings pretty much have everything else in place for a Super Bowl ready team except a QB. Does anyone believe that getting Cutler makes the Bears a Super Bowl ready team? Also, the Vikings would have to give up nothing other than money to get Favre while the Bears had to give up the draft picks and a servicable QB. Is it worth it for the Bears? Sure, but the point is that getting Cutler while you think Hester is a NFL #1 WR is laughable. Hey, maybe he makes great strides or one of the other youngsters like Davis, Bennett or the group of rookies step up... but that is one heck of a gamble to take because that would basically it is the NFL equivalent to buying a brand new Austin Martin DB9 but then not having any gas to drive it.You couldn't be more wrong here, imo. Finally, the Bears go out and get something that haven't had in decades, a steady and reliable qb, and a few people still think it was a mistake. Impossible to please some people. Cutler to the Bears may be the best trade in Bears history and as far from a mistake as it can be. I'm baffled at this line of thinking, however, I've had this conversation on here already, so I'll leave it at that.I disagree. The Vikings are a Super Bowl ready team with one huge missing hole in it- Farve could fill that hole. Is it at the expense of the development of a long term answer? Who is that? Jackson? John David Booty? Certainly not Rosenfels who is a much less talented short term band aid versus Favre.Thank God the Vikings are getting Favre and not the Bears. Personally, I think the Vikings are making a huge mistake, which I'm very happy about. They have a good young team and are bringing in an older qb that will likely only be there for 1-2 seasons. If they don't make it to or win the SB while he's there, then I think they have set back the team for a couple of years by not trying to establish a future qb. With the great core of players they have right now, I'm not sure how long they can hold on to all of them.
Favre can give them a very good shot at winning the Super Bowl now. It certainly makes them a better team than Cutler to the Bears does because the Bears still do not have a WR for him to throw to. It makes much more sense for the Vikings to Favre than it did the Bears getting Cutler. Until the Bears put Hester back where he belongs (a reserve CB and the best return man in the game) and stops with the joke of an experiment of him being an NFL #1 WR and go out and get a proven veteran WR with talent and something left in the tank then getting Cutler is next to being a waste.
Is it a bad trade? No, I do not think so because the Bears now have a young Pro Bowl QB. But at least this upcoming season, it may not mean much because a QB has to have someone to throw to and I am not sure Cutler does.
And finally, lets remember that my comments were in reflection to the insane position that the Vikings would be making a mistake in getting Favre because it will set back their team. That is just silly. As a Bears fan, you should hope and pray that Favre decides to stay retired because if he does come back then your Bears will not even when their division let alone go deep in the playoffs. Meanwhile, the window closes on the Bears because of key D players and the O-line getting etremely old- even with a Pro Bowl QB. The Bears with Cutler can not compete with the Vikings with Favre and that is what I meant by it makes more sense for the Vikings to get Favre than the Bears getting Cutler.
I dont think the Bears are better than the Vikings without Favre. By position:You think the gap between the Vikes and Bears is much bigger than it is. Bears won 9 games last year. The division went down to the last minute of the last week of the season with the Vikes beating the Giants backups on a field goal.Cutler is better than Favre. Both teams had pretty poor QB play last year.Chadstroma said:Ok, take a deep breath because I did not say that the Bears getting Cutler was a mistake. You are over reacting and being defensive for no reason. What I said was that it makes more sense for the Vikings to get Favre than it did for the Bears to get Cutler. Why? It is simple. First, The Vikings pretty much have everything else in place for a Super Bowl ready team except a QB. Does anyone believe that getting Cutler makes the Bears a Super Bowl ready team? Also, the Vikings would have to give up nothing other than money to get Favre while the Bears had to give up the draft picks and a servicable QB. Is it worth it for the Bears? Sure, but the point is that getting Cutler while you think Hester is a NFL #1 WR is laughable. Hey, maybe he makes great strides or one of the other youngsters like Davis, Bennett or the group of rookies step up... but that is one heck of a gamble to take because that would basically it is the NFL equivalent to buying a brand new Austin Martin DB9 but then not having any gas to drive it.You couldn't be more wrong here, imo. Finally, the Bears go out and get something that haven't had in decades, a steady and reliable qb, and a few people still think it was a mistake. Impossible to please some people. Cutler to the Bears may be the best trade in Bears history and as far from a mistake as it can be. I'm baffled at this line of thinking, however, I've had this conversation on here already, so I'll leave it at that.I disagree. The Vikings are a Super Bowl ready team with one huge missing hole in it- Farve could fill that hole. Is it at the expense of the development of a long term answer? Who is that? Jackson? John David Booty? Certainly not Rosenfels who is a much less talented short term band aid versus Favre.Thank God the Vikings are getting Favre and not the Bears. Personally, I think the Vikings are making a huge mistake, which I'm very happy about. They have a good young team and are bringing in an older qb that will likely only be there for 1-2 seasons. If they don't make it to or win the SB while he's there, then I think they have set back the team for a couple of years by not trying to establish a future qb. With the great core of players they have right now, I'm not sure how long they can hold on to all of them.
Favre can give them a very good shot at winning the Super Bowl now. It certainly makes them a better team than Cutler to the Bears does because the Bears still do not have a WR for him to throw to. It makes much more sense for the Vikings to Favre than it did the Bears getting Cutler. Until the Bears put Hester back where he belongs (a reserve CB and the best return man in the game) and stops with the joke of an experiment of him being an NFL #1 WR and go out and get a proven veteran WR with talent and something left in the tank then getting Cutler is next to being a waste.
Is it a bad trade? No, I do not think so because the Bears now have a young Pro Bowl QB. But at least this upcoming season, it may not mean much because a QB has to have someone to throw to and I am not sure Cutler does.
And finally, lets remember that my comments were in reflection to the insane position that the Vikings would be making a mistake in getting Favre because it will set back their team. That is just silly. As a Bears fan, you should hope and pray that Favre decides to stay retired because if he does come back then your Bears will not even when their division let alone go deep in the playoffs. Meanwhile, the window closes on the Bears because of key D players and the O-line getting etremely old- even with a Pro Bowl QB. The Bears with Cutler can not compete with the Vikings with Favre and that is what I meant by it makes more sense for the Vikings to get Favre than the Bears getting Cutler.
All adds up to the Bears being better than the Vikes going into this season.
Forget position by position. Just take the teams last year. They split the season series and basically had the same record all year. Did the Vikes get so much better this offseason and I missed it?The Bears did
Why forget it? Because you can not refute it and it does not align with you love and passion? The Bears ended two games better than they really should have. They got lucky in the wins towards the end of the season with NO and GB. Further, the Vikings are a younger team that should only get better as the players get more experience and head towards their prime while the Bears are getting old on D and at the offensive line. I am not a Bears hater and I am not a Vikings homer, I am simply calling it as I see it. Could I be wrong and Cutler will make all the diference by himself? Sure, I guess that is possible but I think it is pretty improbable, even more so when you consider a QB needs targets to throw to and Cutler is going from plenty in Denver in a passing friendly system to almost none in Chicago in a running oriented system. The absolute best thing that bringing Cutler in is that it will loosen opposing D's in that they will have to respect the go routes of the otherwise uselss Hester and the strong arm of Cutler. Maybe that will make all the difference in the world... I just do not think it will.
On your main point: The reason for the Vikes getting Favre makes better sense than the Bears getting Cutler. Your reasoning: The Vikings are a SB ready team with everything already in place, whatever that means. Then, you seem to insinuate the Bears receiving core is far inferior to that of the Vikings, even though the Bears finished last season with more passing yards than the Vikings. You seem to think the Bears need a so called legitimate #1 receiver to have a comparable receiving core to the Vikings. With the receiving ability they have at TE and RB, why do they need a legitimate #1 to compete with the Vikings? Where are all of the Vikings great receivers at? Berrian? Wade? Shiancoe? Peterson doesn't catch many.Additionally, I don't get how bringing in a 40 year old former Pro Bowl qb with a bad throwing arm with his 3rd team in 3 years will make the Vikings a SB team, while the Bears bringing in a young Pro Bowl qb will help little. Even further, according to you, the Bears won't even be able to compete with the Vikings, much less win their division, if this move is made. Really?
You won't find many who will buy into that argument, regardless of their position in the discussion
Do you have to ask why to forget position by position comparisons? Because comparing teams position by position means little when discussing wins and loses, outside of the best and worst teams in the league.
You dont go position by position when comparing two football teams. Its stupid and immature. Makes no sense.Completely changing defensive schemes, trying to find personel to fit those schemes, and expecting rookies to step in and make a difference is outragous.Switching schemes takes time to adjust, much less find the personel to fit them. Will Kampman be ok in space and standing up? Will he get the same amount of sacks?Can Jenkins, Jolly, and Harrell play a 3-4 end and be effective?Can Pickett and rookie Raji hold down the Nose and be effective?Can Clay Mathews(who started one year of college football) step in year one and beat out Poppinga for weakside OLB?Is Barnett big enough for ILB?Will Hawk ever develop into the player they thought when they drafted him?Are the CB's Woodson/Harris going to hold it together for another season?Who is the SS Bigby or Rouse?They were a bad defense last year and now everything is shuffled. Nobody can assume that a new scheme and two rookies to fix all that in one offseason.
I agree with that. I like the Pack organization, and liked the Matthews and Raji picks, but are they going to come in and be good 3-4 players this year? Asking Raji to be a 3-4 stud NT in year one is a lot, IMO.benson_will_lead_the_way said:
I also think this type of analysis between teams is ridiculous because it doesn't take coaching/special teams into consideration. I personally think Childress is a below average coach and therefore the Vikings will underachieve. I do think the Vikings will make the playoffs and be contenders for the division championship based on talent alone. If they replaced Childress in the offseason with someone who I feel is more competent I would make them the favorites to win the division and possibly make a big run in the playoffs. There QB situation is still up in the air but with there D and running game they could make it to the super bowl with proper coaching. I don't think the Vikings D is close to being as good as the Ravens was when they won the super bowl but they did it with Trent Dilfer at the helm.RBM said:
Seriously? Dont take yourself too seriously there buddy.RBM said:
First point - the Bears were actaully a Super Bowl team with virtually the same defensive team a few years ago and on offense if you swap Forte for TJ, throw out Grossman and Berrian and add in Olsen... - so yes, I'd say the Bears are just as Super Bowl ready as the Vikings (who haven't made it that far in a while)Second point - you do realize that the Lovie Smith-lead Bears are 6-2 against Favre, right? And that was when he had Donald Driver and Greg Jennings to throw to as opposed to Bernard Berrian and Rice/Wade.Chadstroma said:
This has not been the same defense. Personnel may be close, but they didn't play nearly as well last year and the statistics bear that out.Bears Defense, 2008: Points: 16thTotal yards: 21stPassing yards: 30thRush yards: 5thSacks: 28Turnovers: 32Bears Defense 2007
oints:16thTotal yards: 28thPassing yards:27thRush Yards:24thSacks:41Turnovers: 33Bears Defense: 2006oints: 3rdtotal yards: 5thPassing yards: 11thRushing yards: 6thSack: 40Turnovers: 44Whether the squad is just getting older or something else is in play, this defense has been positively average the last couple of seasons. Its hard to justify pushing them into the top 5 again imo, although i do think they should improve if the offense can keep them off the field some. But even in 2006 the time of possession wasn't hugely different than the last two years.Time of possession per game:2008: 28:362007: 28:292006: 30:56Not sure if an extra 2.5 minutes of possession is going to swing this defense back into the elite. Tommy Harris playing like the player he was drafted to be is more likely to be the difference.
I think it is worth noting that Ron Rivera was the DC in 2006. It was when Babich took over in '07 and '08 (along with some untimely injuries) that the defense took a major turn for the worse. Lovie has since removed Babich and taken over DC responsibilities himself - as well as hired a very good D-line coach. I think you will see a defense that is statistically more similar to '06 than '07 or '08 this coming season. That, coupled with the aquisition of Cutler and some nice draft picks that should shore up some defensive depth, is why see the Bears going 10-6 and winning the division. Will they challenge the elite teams in the NFC for another shot at the Super Bowl? That I don't know - but I do think they are more likely to do so than any other team in the NFC North.
I think it is a bunch of things. The coaching is not the same and I would say inferior to what it was when they were playing well. They have got older at key positions but I think the most important differences are at DT and S. These positions made the D go. The Bears have lacked someone to play next to Tommie Harris and that is a problem because you need to protect Urlacher in order for him to be a playmaker. Also, Mike Brown was a huge playmaker at S and the Bears have not been able to find someone to replace him... even Mike Brown is not a replacement for Mike Brown because he just can not stay healthy (and I think is still not when 'healthy' now).DoubleG's second point is meaningless. You are talking about two complete different teams. I do not care what the Bears have done against Favre on another team over the last few years. It has no reflection on whether adding Favre to a team will be beneficial to that team or not. My entire point was simply that it is silly to make these blind uber-homer comments of "I hope they get Favre". It makes sense for the Vikings to go after Favre and if they get him, the Vikings are my favorite to represent the NFC in the Super Bowl. If not, they will still contend and the Bears will fight with them to get the division title. I would still give the edge to the Vikings without Favre but too many of you are getting your panties in a bunch taking offense where there is none meant.This has not been the same defense. Personnel may be close, but they didn't play nearly as well last year and the statistics bear that out.Bears Defense, 2008: Points: 16thTotal yards: 21stPassing yards: 30thRush yards: 5thSacks: 28Turnovers: 32Bears Defense 2007
I absolutely agree with everything here. There is no perfect NFL team but there are real reasons for the decline of the Bear D that was once elite and now much less than that. My point about this was in response to the over reactive responses of fans defending their team with reaching comments like they were just at a Super Bowl with the same team. I do believe the coaching, age and loss of talent at key positions have made a huge difference. You made an absolutely great point with Hester. It is absolutely the worse coaching decision in taking the absolute best return man in the game... perhaps ever... and then turning him into an average WR (at best). It is my biggest frustration with the Bears and I have lost tons of respect for Lovie because of this moronic decision. The one thing I did not think about was the impact of this on the D. It certainly could have a huge impact in asking much more of the D than you did before when Hester would nearly single handedly win the field position part of every game for the D as well as helping the D have that buffer through the scoring that he brought to the game. You can see the failure of Hester as a WR more when you are actually at a game even more so than on tv. It is just sad that Lovie continues with this failed experiment that never should have been tried in the first place beyond perhaps a few gadget plays or cameo appearances as a WR.
Joe Montana, in his prime, couldn't make Rashied better
The Bears defense were 9th in net passing yards per play, 3rd in rushing yards per play, 5th in the league in yards per play, and 2nd in turnovers caused. The defense faced the most opposing offensive plays in the league due to an offense 25th in the league in third down percentage, 26th in yards per play, 24th in net yards per pass, 27th in yards per rush, and 22nd in turnovers. The defense did not play as well as during the Super Bowl year but was a top 5 defense in the end without Harris or Urlacher any where near the top of their game and with the starting secondary missing tons of time. In reality, the main difference between 2006 and 2008 was a drop in quarterback pressure. If the d-line can pressure the quarterback, this defense will probably be one of the few elites once again.By the way, the Steelers defense last year was insane as they were tops in yards per play, net passing yards per play, and rushing yards per play.
You made an absolutely great point with Hester. It is absolutely the worse coaching decision in taking the absolute best return man in the game... perhaps ever... and then turning him into an average WR (at best). It is my biggest frustration with the Bears and I have lost tons of respect for Lovie because of this moronic decision. The one thing I did not think about was the impact of this on the D. It certainly could have a huge impact in asking much more of the D than you did before when Hester would nearly single handedly win the field position part of every game for the D as well as helping the D have that buffer through the scoring that he brought to the game.
You can see the failure of Hester as a WR more when you are actually at a game even more so than on tv. It is just sad that Lovie continues with this failed experiment that never should have been tried in the first place beyond perhaps a few gadget plays or cameo appearances as a WR.
Really? Your position is that the D was the same as it was in 2006 but the offense let them down? I think that is ignoring reality and is being extremely optimistic.The Bears defense were 9th in net passing yards per play, 3rd in rushing yards per play, 5th in the league in yards per play, and 2nd in turnovers caused. The defense faced the most opposing offensive plays in the league due to an offense 25th in the league in third down percentage, 26th in yards per play, 24th in net yards per pass, 27th in yards per rush, and 22nd in turnovers. The defense did not play as well as during the Super Bowl year but was a top 5 defense in the end without Harris or Urlacher any where near the top of their game and with the starting secondary missing tons of time. In reality, the main difference between 2006 and 2008 was a drop in quarterback pressure. If the d-line can pressure the quarterback, this defense will probably be one of the few elites once again.By the way, the Steelers defense last year was insane as they were tops in yards per play, net passing yards per play, and rushing yards per play.
You made an absolutely great point with Hester. It is absolutely the worse coaching decision in taking the absolute best return man in the game... perhaps ever... and then turning him into an average WR (at best). It is my biggest frustration with the Bears and I have lost tons of respect for Lovie because of this moronic decision. The one thing I did not think about was the impact of this on the D. It certainly could have a huge impact in asking much more of the D than you did before when Hester would nearly single handedly win the field position part of every game for the D as well as helping the D have that buffer through the scoring that he brought to the game.
You can see the failure of Hester as a WR more when you are actually at a game even more so than on tv. It is just sad that Lovie continues with this failed experiment that never should have been tried in the first place beyond perhaps a few gadget plays or cameo appearances as a WR.
Is your reading comprehension down? You stated that the Bears defense were much less than elite. I stated while not elite like in 2006, the Bears defense performed well enough to be considered a top 5 NFL defense last year. Or am I wrong in stating that a defense that is top 5 in rushing average, yards per play, and turnovers caused is probably a top 5 defense?Really? Your position is that the D was the same as it was in 2006 but the offense let them down? I think that is ignoring reality and is being extremely optimistic.The Bears defense were 9th in net passing yards per play, 3rd in rushing yards per play, 5th in the league in yards per play, and 2nd in turnovers caused. The defense faced the most opposing offensive plays in the league due to an offense 25th in the league in third down percentage, 26th in yards per play, 24th in net yards per pass, 27th in yards per rush, and 22nd in turnovers. The defense did not play as well as during the Super Bowl year but was a top 5 defense in the end without Harris or Urlacher any where near the top of their game and with the starting secondary missing tons of time. In reality, the main difference between 2006 and 2008 was a drop in quarterback pressure. If the d-line can pressure the quarterback, this defense will probably be one of the few elites once again.By the way, the Steelers defense last year was insane as they were tops in yards per play, net passing yards per play, and rushing yards per play.I absolutely agree with everything here. There is no perfect NFL team but there are real reasons for the decline of the Bear D that was once elite and now much less than that. My point about this was in response to the over reactive responses of fans defending their team with reaching comments like they were just at a Super Bowl with the same team. I do believe the coaching, age and loss of talent at key positions have made a huge difference.
You made an absolutely great point with Hester. It is absolutely the worse coaching decision in taking the absolute best return man in the game... perhaps ever... and then turning him into an average WR (at best). It is my biggest frustration with the Bears and I have lost tons of respect for Lovie because of this moronic decision. The one thing I did not think about was the impact of this on the D. It certainly could have a huge impact in asking much more of the D than you did before when Hester would nearly single handedly win the field position part of every game for the D as well as helping the D have that buffer through the scoring that he brought to the game.
You can see the failure of Hester as a WR more when you are actually at a game even more so than on tv. It is just sad that Lovie continues with this failed experiment that never should have been tried in the first place beyond perhaps a few gadget plays or cameo appearances as a WR.
2006, the Bears were a top 5 D which equals elite. They ranked 5th in YPG. 11th in passing YPG. 6th in rushing YPG. Tied for 8th in team sacks. 2nd in INT's. 1st in fumble recoveries. In 2008 they ranked26th in YPG.30th in passing YPG.5th in rushing YPG. 22nd in team sacks.3rd in INT's. 16th in fumble recoveries. That is not considered a top 5 D and much less than elite.boubucarow said:
In 2006, the Bears were not only a top 5 D. They were one of the couple of defenses every year that separate from the pack which is what makes a defense elite like the Steelers last year. And once again, I am not comparing 2006 to 2008, you are. What I am saying is that the Bears defense were one of the best 5 defenses in the NFL when it came to yards allowed per play and turnovers caused which are the two most important components of defense when trying to accurately access their impact. The offense regularly put the defense on the field for much of the game last year and accordingly their yards per game were near the bottom despite being one of the top 5 defenses per league is yards allowed per play. I would hope that you would understand the yards per game stats are often misleading.Football Outsiders have the Bears #7 in defensive efficiency last year.
You make a statement about my reading comprehension being down but you some how think I have been arguing that the Bears D was bad last year. I never made that statement. I simply said it was elite in 2006 and it is less than that now. I watched most of the games in 2006 and watched most of the games in 2008 and the difference was clear. Pass rush and health is part of D and sure, if they get a pass rush again that will make a huge impact on the D but last year they did not have it- and that has nothing to do with field position.
Sorry if you took any offense but my original post on the subject in no way stated that the 2008 defense was elite like the 2006 defense and yet you responded by comparing the two defenses. I was responding to your assertion that the current Bears defense is "now much less than" elite. Obviously, "much less than" elite can mean different things to different people. To me, it was as you stated that the Bears were no longer belonged in any discussion of the top handful (5 or so teams) of very good NFL defenses. No, they were not elite last year like the Steelers. But the numbers clearly indicate that last year the Bears defense was easily a top 10 defense and could be argued to be a top 5 defense.I know that the 2008-09 Bears defense is not on the same level of 2006. I have not stated otherwise. But your argument seems to be stated that the Bears defense was bad last year. Please address the thought that if the offense becomes an average offense and the defense maintains its top 10 2008 level of performance, the Bears should be in the playoffs.Chadstroma said:
You're overlooking the fact that Favre sucks and isn't half the QB Cutler is today.
While I, of course, take exception to the fact that you think my point is meaningless (which, might be taken as offense
, the fact is Lovie also had a good record against Favre when he was with St. Louis. My point was that Lovie, who is a defensive-minded coach, seems to know hoe to put defensive schemes in place to limit Favre's effectiveness against his team(s). While the Vikings are indeed a different team than the Packers - Favre is the same QB, with the same tendancies, limitations, strengths and weaknesses. Putting on purple instead of green does not change that.And generally speaking, most people in the thread are simply stating that Favre going to the Vikings does not exactly terify Bears fans. Would it make sense for the Vikings? Yes. Is Favre an upgarde over the less-than stellar QBs the Queens currently have? Yes (if he reverses the horrible down-spiral at the end of last year AND he's healthy) Does that make the Vikings better? Yes. Better than the Bears with Cutler? Arguably not.
Yes. They were not a top 5 D last year. Maybe if they had a pass rush they would have been but they did not and they were not a top 5 D. A top 10 D, I can see the case being made but it is one heck of a weak case to argue it being a top 5- and that would be my definition of 'elite' when talking football. Once more, I would not say that they had a bad D last year but the D was not nearly as good as it needs to be in order to cover up for the lackluster offense that they have. Cutler upgrades the offense, sure but he does not cure it. Their O-line is getting very old and lacks depth. They signed Pace but he himself is getting up there in age and it has been a while since he had a full season of being a top OT.
Well, your point about what Lovie has done against Favre is also meaningless, so I am sure you will love that too. I do not think the Bears are the better team as is. But I can see how someone might argue otherwise, even more so when that person is a Bears fan. I do think Favre helps the Vikings more. And I think it is plain dumb to say otherwise.While I, of course, take exception to the fact that you think my point is meaningless (which, might be taken as offense
Yeah. Now, I wish I would've kept my mouth shut.
We then see the numbers differently. The Bears were clearly a top 10 defense and no case would have to be made. A case would have to be made for them to be considered a top 5 defense when MIN, PIT, BAL, PHI, and TEN have much better cases. However, a defense that performed on an above average level last year should be healthier this year and if Tommy Harris is the player he should be or others step up as pass rushers, the defense will be in consideration for top 5 status. I do though more clearly see your points now and although I think you clearly underestimate the talent level of this defense along with its performance last year, we will have to wait and see what will transpire this year.
Dont put it all on T. Harris. If the Bears could put someone decent next to him so that offenses did not have the luxury of double teaming him all game long, I am sure he would be more effective.
Harris did not play up to his talent level last year and was not commanding double teams as much as a player of his caliber should. Granted, no other d lineman took advantage of one on one blocking. Hopefully, a healthy Dvorcek, an developing Harrison, and now Gilbert can solidify that DT rotation around Harris and provide some pass rush help. At DE, as long as Anderson isn't what he showed his rookie year, the rest will need to have the DT's creating havoc.
