IF COACHING ISNT THE BIGGEST ISSUE PLEASE EXPLAIN THE BEARS

[Rymanofthenorth]

Henry is right we didnt stop johnson, the titans did.

My biggest issue is the complete lack of adjustment and the way we misuse the talent we have in order to "do what works" ie the coaches schemes, I have always believed that you scheme around the players you have on the roster and that you play to their strengths not simply run your scheme to the exclusion of common sense. we have seen other coaches do that (spurrier, Norval, Zorn) and it simply is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

I agree with the consensus - its not coaching, its talent. Talent is why Andy Reid is thought of as some great coach; the talent on their D carried him for years, not to mention he had Donovan and Westbrook in their primes.

Oh, and restocking the lines every draft helps also.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

if it wasnt for Reid Mcnabb would have had a barely average career, he covered a lot of his flaws by schemeing around him, I think we have seen that clearly.

and if it was strictly on talent then why are the bears doing well now with less talent on offence (except perhaps at RB)

 

[Henry]

and if it was strictly on talent then why are the bears doing well now with less talent on offence (except perhaps at RB)

A couple things.

If McNabb is secretly barely average, then the Bears have a huge advantage at QB.

They have a huge advantage at RB. No ifs of any kind there.

At best WR is a push. We don't have more talent at the WR position than anyone. We have the worst WR corps in the league.

Lines are also a push. Yeah theirs is terrible. So is ours. Again, I'd put ours up against the worst lines in the league.

The only clear advantage we have over the Bears on offense is at TE. And their TE doesn't suck. He's just not as good as Cooley.

Also, the Bears have a much much better defense. Not only is it stingier, but it produces more turnovers. This, of course, helps offenses. The Bears have been mediocre on offense for years, but this year their defense is actually pretty good. 16 points against Miami looks great when they only score, well, 0. 31 points against the Eagles is pretty cool when they don't break 50.

Lastly, and not likely least, the Bears have been with the same coach since 2004. Whatever talent they do have is following the same schematic template for the past seven years. So while individual players may be adjusting to things in Chicago, the entire team isn't, which is the case here.

And lastly lastly (I mean it this time) the Bears offense isn't really all that much better than ours. We average about 30 yards per game more than they do and they average about one more point per game than we do. They had a nice game against Philly, but I'm not really sure where you are getting this idea that they have turned into some sort of offensive powerhouse.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

I also disagree with the notion that McNabb was the wizard, and Reid was the guy pulling the strings behind the curtain. Its ludicrous to think that throwing the ball 70% of the time and never establishing the run is somehow masking your QB's deficiencies.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[Lanky Livingston]

The Bears are more talented than us on defense, and get by with a mediocre offense b/c of it.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[Elephant]

The Bears are more talented than us on defense, and get by with a mediocre offense b/c of it.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

I am not sure I completely agree with you on this one. We are talented on D, we just aren't playing to our players strengths.

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

A couple things.

If McNabb is secretly barely average, then the Bears have a huge advantage at QB.

They have a huge advantage at RB. No ifs of any kind there.

At best WR is a push. We don't have more talent at the WR position than anyone. We have the worst WR corps in the league.

Lines are also a push. Yeah theirs is terrible. So is ours. Again, I'd put ours up against the worst lines in the league.

The only clear advantage we have over the Bears on offense is at TE. And their TE doesn't suck. He's just not as good as Cooley.

Also, the Bears have a much much better defense. Not only is it stingier, but it produces more turnovers. This, of course, helps offenses. The Bears have been mediocre on offense for years, but this year their defense is actually pretty good. 16 points against Miami looks great when they only score, well, 0. 31 points against the Eagles is pretty cool when they don't break 50.

Lastly, and not likely least, the Bears have been with the same coach since 2004. Whatever talent they do have is following the same schematic template for the past seven years. So while individual players may be adjusting to things in Chicago, the entire team isn't, which is the case here.

And lastly lastly (I mean it this time) the Bears offense isn't really all that much better than ours. We average about 30 yards per game more than they do and they average about one more point per game than we do. They had a nice game against Philly, but I'm not really sure where you are getting this idea that they have turned into some sort of offensive powerhouse.

Its not secret
Mcnabb hasnt shown that he can be effective in any offence other than the Philly one where they let him get in a rythym and dont give him limited passing opportunities. people always wondered why despite solid YPC the eagles didnt run more, now they know.

Bears have the advantage at RB with Forte. no argument.
WR I agree is a push
TE I think with Olson being a great receiver and manumelauna (sp?) a great blocker makes Davis and Cooley a slightly better duo based on receiving.
Oline the bears have a guy who was on our PR starting at G for them, they have a poor LT and a rookie RT who has been decent. we have a better Oline than they do on paper.

so they have a first year OC who has gotten more from his guys than our first year OC has from his. Clearly thats coaching. they also have a brand new qb but hes younger than ours and has more upside.

as for the defence, our defence is actually pretty close to theirs, our Dline may actually be as good or better if we ran a 4 front, their only guy who would clearly be better in the front 4 is peppers. but that point is moot as we run a 3 man front that is pathetic. Our linebackers are not as good, Fletch is good but not as good as a healthy Urlacher, briggs is a better OLB than Rak but Rocky is a bit better than pisa.

now point one- we are running a 3-4 when we clearly shoudl run a 4-3 thats coaching, the point about turnovers is funny considering thats the excuse not to run a 4-3 like the bears do.

point 2- the bears have a crap oline, everyone wants to give the crappy O a a pass because we lack talent on the Oline, clearly we are not the only team lacking in talent, other teams actually adjust and compensate, while we have not

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

The Bears are more talented than us on defense, and get by with a mediocre offense b/c of it.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

No the bears are better schemed on defence, not more talented and are a better defence because of it. we actually have a better Dline than they do if we run a 4 man front, even after they added peppers. they have better overall linebackers and the secondaries are very close.

 

[Henry]

The Bears also have a lot more continuity on defense. Again, same coach for the past seven years.

I don't think our problem is coaching. Our problem is, as it has been for the past decade, coaching turnover and the resulting player turnover. If we could settle on offensive and defensive schemes ... or even basic philosophies, and keep guys that knew those schemes and each other well enough to run them, we'd see some improvement regardless of talent level.

And again, I don't see the Bears offense as being all that much better than ours. One nice game against the Eagles is not a trend.

 

[Henry]

Its not secret
Mcnabb hasnt shown that he can be effective in any offence other than the Philly one where they let him get in a rythym and dont give him limited passing opportunities. people always wondered why despite solid YPC the eagles didnt run more, now they know.

And I don't think anyone would accuse me of being an unbridled Redskin optimist but I also disagree with this. They didn't run more because Westbrook was not durable enough. And it's not like they call more run plays now. The only reason they rank so high in rushing yards this year is because Michael Vick has rushed 64 times for 420 yards. I'm pretty sure a majority of those were not called run plays. I think Reid just likes to pass the ball.

Weird thing about McNabb and the Redskins. We are terrible at running the ball. We are terrible defending the run. We are terrible at defending the pass.

The one area of this team where we rank above 25th is in pass offense. We are 10th. That's the highest ranking we've had in passing since 1999. I don't think that's a coincidence.

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

Westbrook wasnt the only eagles back, buckhalter was decent as well and they always had good YPC. they usually had commitees didnt they have duce staley too?
this year they have Mccoy. but they always like the committee approach.

Mcnabbs only saving grace right now is he has made some big plays. he is solid at buying time with his feet and throwing deep, but honestly its almost always on broken plays or his first read.

 

[fansince62]

Westbrook wasnt the only eagles back, buckhalter was decent as well and they always had good YPC. they usually had commitees didnt they have duce staley too?
this year they have Mccoy. but they always like the committee approach.

Mcnabbs only saving grace right now is he has made some big plays. he is solid at buying time with his feet and throwing deep, but honestly its almost always on broken plays or his first read.

1) 11 yr vet or not....it takes time to pick up a new system. McNabb is still learning.

2) Hard to judge his performance since the O-line stinks so bad. 4 sacks last game alone. We all know the middle of the line is a turn-stile.

3) Every commentator on the planet acknowledges that...relative to the better teams in the league....we have a weak receiving corps. speking of which...still seems like he has not had enough time to get in synch with his receivers...look at how many long balls have been missed or have not turned into TDs cause of timing issues. Not sure if this traces back...again...to our wonderful O-line or QB/receiver time together.

4) Philly's run options were always limitted - they never really had the big sort of back who could move a pile. Their O-line was generally better suited to the quick blocking the WC offense/short passing for running game that Reid prefers.

I agree McNabb has frustrating accuracy issues. But I will withhold judgment until I see him in a true Shanahan offense (i.e., a running game worth a crap), a receiving corps with at least one receiver that scares a defense and an O-line that functions above Pop Warner skill levels.

 

[Henry]

Westbrook wasnt the only eagles back, buckhalter was decent as well and they always had good YPC. they usually had commitees didnt they have duce staley too?
this year they have Mccoy. but they always like the committee approach.

The Eagles' problem was that they never could find any durable backs. Buckhalter would break his ankle looking at game tapes. He was hardly a factor in the Eagle offense, ever. Westbrook was flashy, but he was always in danger of falling apart at any given time. Staley was a workhorse for a few years and then broke down right around the time McNabb was hitting his stride.

The one year the Eagles had a healthy, effective stable of RBs was in 2002 when they had Staley and Levens on the team at the same time. That year they were 5th in rushing attempts and 18th in pass attempts, the Eagles went 12-4 and McNabb went to the pro-bowl.

In any case, I have to agree with Lanky. You don't cover for a sub-par QB by making him throw more than practically anyone else in the league. That doesn't make any sense. I remember for years watching them when they would try an run out the clock. With a minute to go and sitting on a lead they would still pass it on first down. That's not something a team does because the QB stinks.

Mcnabbs only saving grace right now is he has made some big plays. he is solid at buying time with his feet and throwing deep, but honestly its almost always on broken plays or his first read.

That's the only saving grace of this entire offense. It's the only thing that we can count on every week: McNabb's ability to sense and avoid the rush. Without it, we have Jason Campbell back there getting crunched or throwing wildly ever other pass play. I was not in favor of bringing McNabb here, but considering the absolute talent vacuum he's got to work with here AND the fact that this is the first time in 11 years he's working with a new system, I think he's doing as well as can be expected. Those big plays are all we've got. If McNabb weren't generating them we'd be at 2-3 wins instead of 5 right now.

And that's what a franchise QB can do for you. He can take a 4-12 team and make it 8-8. Put some talent around him and you have a contender. My concern is not McNabb's abilities, but the front office's ability to get that talent before McNabb turns 50.

 

[Bulldog]

There is perhaps no single unit rebuild more difficult right now than the Redskins offense.

The line is atrocious. The backs are below average vs. the rest of the NFC East. The receivers are as well. Tight end? Cooley is productive but where is Davis? Shanahan indicated that he liked using the two tight end set to control the middle of the field but where has it been?

When I read that the Shanahans were working with McNabb on trying to help him with his 'fundamentals' I almost fell over. You don't start re-teaching a guy how to play his position in his 12th year in the NFL.

If you aren't going to install an offense compatible with his skills, then keep the picks and find a quarterback later in the draft or next season.

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

your points point my op.

why dont we use the 2 TE set more when our 3 WR is brutal and the 2 TE has been effective for us and other teams who dont even have two starting calibre tes?- coaching.

why dont we adjust better?- coaching

why do we think we can change the way veteran players play football?- coaching

whats the common denominator here?- coaching.

 

[Henry]

Ryman, I just want to be sure I understand what you are saying here.

Do you want to replace our coach?

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

Ryman, I just want to be sure I understand what you are saying here.

Do you want to replace our coach?

Not yet, but I want him to start adjusting more to the players he HAS not the ones he wants.

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

bump. because it doesnt seem to be changing

 

[Fear The Spear]

No need to yell.

Why bash a guy who was simply trying to reach out to the hearing impaired on BGO ?

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVjSkIOOd6Q[/media]