Counter Thread... SO Tired of THIS:

[JoeyTourettes]

10-6 team fires coach... and goes 8-8, then 6-10 (or 5-11).
THAT 10-6 TEAM WASN'T GOOD!!!!! This has infuriated me over the course of this Shit Storm of the current version of the Chicago Bears.

*** Before I continue: Trestman/Tucker/Emery haven't been good enough. I get that- and if they are gone, that's fine with me...
I'm commenting on this REPEATED and REPEATED diatribe of revisionist history.

The Headline and talking point EVERYWHERE is that Trestman/Emery Inherited a Winning/Good Team and they just needed to add to it. THAT'S NOT TRUE!

Looking back this was our Starting Offense: Still here/Productive: Jay, Forte, Marshall, (rookie Alshon)
Kellen Davis
J'Marcus Webb
Chilo Rachal/James Brown/Chris Spencer
Garza
Lance Lewis
Gabe Carimi
Earl Bennett
Devin Hester
Backups: M. Bush, J. Campbell, A. Allen, D. Sanzenbacher

Looking at that- IS there anyone from that list that is better then the current player on the 2014 roster? Would you want any of them back as starters? Is this Good?
How about Tice vs Kromer/Trestman? Who do you want?

Now for the Defense:
Idonije- he was decent, was also 32 y.o. in 2012...near end of career in '12 and out of contract
Melton- IR and expensive. Was franchised and lost- it wouldn't have been smart for the $
Paea
Peppers- Disappeared in 2013- Contract/production NEEDED to let go of him.
Roach- signed as FA for good $ elsewhere. (nothing we could do- would you have over paid to keep him?)
Urlacher- declined contract offer, NOBODY else wanted him- retired
Briggs- has only played 17 of possible 32 games since (On IR now- so will miss the next 3) not the same.
Jennings
Tillman- has only played 10 of possible 32 games since. Loved him, but can't count on him anymore.
Wright- gone.
Conte- we have seen this "thing" for the past two years.
Key Backups: McClellin, Wooton, Toeaina, Collins, Bowman, Hayden, Steltz.

For the players that are no longer here...What have they done elsewhere?

This roster won 10 games? How? 1. They played crappy teams 2.They were healthier 3.Key players were younger and 2012 was their last decent season.

There was NOTHING behind the long term starters. When stars like Urlacher, Briggs, Tillman went down or production declined there was NOTHING in the pipeline to help. 2013 injuries completely decimated the team. Blame Angelo for that. I truly believe that if Lovie/Tice/Marinelli were still coaching after that 10-6 team they would have NOT had the 2nd ranked Offense and would have gone 5-11 or worse. Urlacher would have been paid what he wanted and hurt the bottom line and displayed how much he had declined. (probably would have been injured too)
I know there is no way of knowing this, and I'm speculating...does anyone think a Lovie Smith lead 2013 team would have made the playoffs? After the 10-6 2012 finish?

 

[JoeyTourettes]

The question of if we hired the right guy in Trestman to take over for this 2012 roster. That's a valid question and we are now living it.

It's debatable and no way of knowing if: Mike McCoy (who I wanted) or Bruce Arians would have faired much better when looking who they would have inherited from this 2012: 10-6 season.

I still LIKE what Emery has done when you compare the rosters of 2012 and 2014. As shitty has it has become, I think he's build a better team.

I don't know, but can speculate that Arians or McCoy could have better discipline and would have less penalties... and more "buy in" from guys like Briggs. Would they have drafted better with their input? Who knows. Better teaching/game plans/play calls...probably.

But if you remember- the Bears Brass completely fumbled the process when Emery hired Mel Tucker (and I believe DeCom too) before Trestman- AND told him he had to run Lovie's scheme. I was so pissed about that.

 

[cubzzzfanincali]

It's interesting to speculate about what could have been. Obviously, we don't really know. If we still had Lovie, maybe we would've had different offseason priorities, or maybe Emery would have done a similar job, I don't know. What did in last year's team was defensive depth, particularly in the interior. Would the same injuries have occurred? Maybe, hard to say.

As to the "Tucker playing Lovie's scheme" thing, that is somewhat of an often-repeated thing, but it's a bit of a canard. The Bears played virtually ZERO Tampa 2 last year, and not even all that much Cover-2 (more or less about league average). What was meant by that was for Tucker to keep a lot of the terminology, due to the veterans. The actual defenses were definitely not the same.

I wanted Arians at the time, and I was a little upset when we hired Trestman, but he seemed to do a good job with the offense. The problem is that this year, the offense simply hasn't lived up to expectations, and that's the whole point of having him here. We can do whatever we want on the defensive side, but what does that require Trestman being here for? And the "quit" we think we are seeing the players...if that is real, then it is a huge problem that goes right to the head coach. I don't know if we as fans watching on TV really know whether they've quit or not, but that's obviously a huge factor to take into account.

 

[richig07]

I don't know… I really don't.

But I do know that Trestman, in all likelihood, stinks.

I don't care what Lovie did do when he was here, or what he would have done if he still was here. All I know, is that RIGHT NOW. In the world that is taking place, instead of the one we could all try and imagine, that Marc Trestman is doing a pretty shitty job as head coach of the Chicago Bears.

I really wish they would just cancel the last three games. Honestly, I've never EVER in all of my years felt like that. But I would far rather just watch the rest of the league play, than have to watch three more games from this team.

Just, END THIS.

 

[noonthirtyjoe]

If Jay did not have 20 something turnovers this whole season would be different. I'm not sure what this whole post is even about? Lovie was far and away the better coach. He left us nothing to work with but that is not really on him. This new GM is far and away better then Angie ever was. Again I'm lost to what this post is about?

 

[JoeyTourettes]

If Jay did not have 20 something turnovers this whole season would be different. I'm not sure what this whole post is even about? Lovie was far and away the better coach. He left us nothing to work with but that is not really on him. This new GM is far and away better then Angie ever was. Again I'm lost to what this post is about?

It was in italics: Trestman/Emery Inherited a Winning/Good Team and they just needed to add to it
When listening to the the talking heads and radio and anything related to the Bears collapse this season they always go back to the "10-6" team he took over. I looked at that team... I commented on that team. I speculated what that team would have done going forward... I even said it was on Angelo... I also suggested they hired the wrong guy....Sometimes I don't think you actually read anything with comprehension.

"If Jay did not have 20 something turnovers this whole season would be different"
I also wrote in a different post that with our defense it wouldn't have mattered. If the Bears scored 6 more points a game or 27 a game instead of 21 and were ranked 7th in scoring- they still would have lost 7 games to this point. (the point being the big stat of "points off turnovers") Just point at Jay- it's that simple, right?

 

[anotheridiot]

Bears have given up 387 points, have scored 281 points. I think the stat from last week is the bears only basically gave up a field goal for each turnover, I think it was 70 some points. That puts us at 317 points given up and 281 scored if there were no turnovers by jay, but then again, if we averaged what we gave up with each turnover, we would have scored 351 points and given up 317. I think the records would have been different.

Makes no sense, pulling numbers out of my ass again? well its better than watching Joey start another trainwreck of a thread.

 

[JoeyTourettes]

anything is better then reading your bullshit- at least I'm trying to explain and understand things instead of just using the same emotional meatball bullshit of:
"Jay Sucks, Emery Sucks, Trestman sucks...blow it all up!"

1. That doesn't happen.
2. It doesn't work.

 

[JoeyTourettes]

351 would be 6 more a game...
Defense have given up: 378 (14 on fumble and int returns) 364...

351 is less then 364. Just so we understand it.
I'm giving you all of Jay's awful/worst QB ever/jerkface/should be fired/dumped/traded...turnovers. So you can't say things like: Jay always has TO's. He's the problem- I'm saying it's the defense.

If we got an additional 6 points a game (to get to our 351) it would have looked like this:
Bills: 27-23 W
49ers: 34-20 W
Jets: 33-19 W
GB: 23- 38 L
Car: 30-31 L
ATL: 33-13 W
Mia: 20-27 L
NE: 29-51 L
GB: 20-55 L
Min: 27-13 W
TB: 27-13 W
Det: 23-34 L
Dal: 34- 41 L

Record: 6-7... same damn boat we are in now. The Defense sucks.

 

[noonthirtyjoe]

anything is better then reading your bullshit- at least I'm trying to explain and understand things instead of just using the same emotional meatball bullshit of:
"Jay Sucks, Emery Sucks, Trestman sucks...blow it all up!"


You may be over complicating things. Jay does suck, Emory I'm still on the fence with and Testicle er Trestman also sucks. You can try and go deeper but why bother. Our problems run deep. But the head of this snake must go first. Jay can't play decent until garbage time, Testy can't coach anytime. Emory looked at Tuckers track record and thought I want this guy here with me in Chi town. It's time to face the truth Joey. I know it's hard bro, it's hard for me too.

 

[noonthirtyjoe]

351 would be 6 more a game...
Defense have given up: 378 (14 on fumble and int returns) 364...
. The Defense sucks.

The def is on the field to much because of the offense. Look at GB, their def sucks but gets plenty of rest and leads to play with. Our def gets none of that.

 

[JoeyTourettes]

The def is on the field to much because of the offense. Look at GB, their def sucks but gets plenty of rest and leads to play with. Our def gets none of that.

The single worst argument ever made about football. People tried that back when they had Grossman... didn't work then either- as a Defense your only job is to GET OFF THE FIELD- if you want "rest"... force the bastards to punt in 3 freakin plays... YOU control how much you're on the field.
The Defense is on the field too much because- THEY can't force a turnover, a Punt, and give up GIANT monster gaping holes in coverage.... the only time they came off the field is because GB ran out of space...scoring a TD.

YOU brought up GB- shit- they were only on the field for: 12, 4, 3, 5, 6, 4, 6 plays all resulting in scores...
They went 71 yards in 12 plays, 72 yards in 3 plays and 95 yards in 3 FREAKIN plays!! for three of those TD's.
The D was "tired" of watching the Packers run past them. 14 plays of 10 yards or more...

But sure, the Bears lost because of the offense in that game. smh.

 

[noonthirtyjoe]

We know the def is bad. The offense not being on the field long exposes the bad def even more. It's a team sport. All ALL the best defenses have slow plodding offenses. All ALL the worst defenses have bad offenses or quick strike offenses. Not that complicated for most..

 

[noonthirtyjoe]

So resting a defense nor playing with a lead is beneficial to a def???

 

[cubzzzfanincali]

The single worst argument ever made about football. People tried that back when they had Grossman... didn't work then either- as a Defense your only job is to GET OFF THE FIELD- if you want "rest"... force the bastards to punt in 3 freakin plays... YOU control how much you're on the field.
The Defense is on the field too much because- THEY can't force a turnover, a Punt, and give up GIANT monster gaping holes in coverage.... the only time they came off the field is because GB ran out of space...scoring a TD.

YOU brought up GB- shit- they were only on the field for: 12, 4, 3, 5, 6, 4, 6 plays all resulting in scores...
They went 71 yards in 12 plays, 72 yards in 3 plays and 95 yards in 3 FREAKIN plays!! for three of those TD's.
The D was "tired" of watching the Packers run past them. 14 plays of 10 yards or more...

But sure, the Bears lost because of the offense in that game. smh.

Yeah, um, not really Joey. A defense is playing very different offenses depending on if those offenses are:
a) blowing you out with a big lead
b) in a close game
c) playing from behind

It is definitely way, way, way, way easier to defend against offense c) than a) or b), because c) has a pretty predictable and low-probability approach. It is also easier to defend against a) than b) because at least you know what they are going to do, although it is harder on a defense - physically - to defend against the run than against the pass.

So...yes...if a defense is constantly playing down in games, it definitely does affect them. I don't know why you think the "when Grossman was around that argument was discredited" holds...practically everyone I know felt that what made that Bear defense so unusually good was how well they played given how crappy Rex was.

Sure...a defense should hold no matter what, and if it does, bully for them! But it is impossible to just write off the circumstances they are dealt as completely within their control.

 

[JoeyTourettes]

Nope. Disagree.
If I'm not mistaken- a first down is 10 yards. Right? I don't care if the offense is down by 50 and throwing every play... up by 7 and trying to run the clock out... or the score is tied in the 2nd qrt and they are simply trying to move down the field. A defense's sole purpose is to stop them. Right?
If they stop them in 3 plays or less- they can "rest"

I've had this argument before... I don't understand why it's that difficult.

Get off the field or create a turnover (stop them from scoring)= Good D.

Give up 50+ point's in 2 games... 11 TD passes in back to back games= Offenses fault? Because they were "tired" whaaat?
As frustrated as some of you guys are by Cutler- That's how I feel about this issue.
6 times this year- the other team scored on it's opening drive. Were they tired then?

 

[cubzzzfanincali]

The argument is difficult because the reasoning is flimsy and not compelling. For example here, you have totally failed to change my mind at all toward the incorrect view that all offenses are created equal. They aren't. Offenses and defenses are products of where and what is happening within a football game.

 

[JoeyTourettes]

eh... agree to disagree. No worries.
How did you get that I think all offenses are created equal?

Offenses can dictate, or should I say, have more control what is going on in a game. Slow down (run the ball) speed up (no-huddle) depending on situation and score.
Defense don't do that- not intentionally at least... I still say the overall and most simplistic thing is stop them- That's it. And there is no reason a defense would intentionally Slow down, allow yards, allow points ....etc.

I understand that good Defenses can dictate what is happening in a particular game. If they have a good pass rush/force turnovers...etc. But it still comes back to their overall goal- Stop them. Force punts or FG's instead of TD's. Simply stop them.
I get that when the O turns it over in their own end of the field- that makes it more difficult. But it's still only 10 yards, right? Stop them from gaining 10 yards... and force a FG or punt. 3 plays.

The original argument was that they are "tired" because the offense sucks, and therefore should be given a pass/excuse... 3 plays- rest. Simple. I think everyone on here could agree that even fresh from a relaxing spa day- this Defense still couldn't stop many offenses.

 

[cubzzzfanincali]

And there is no reason a defense would intentionally Slow down, allow yards, allow points ....etc.

Yes, of course there is. I presume you have heard of "prevent" defense? Prevent defenses actually don't mind giving up lots of yards, and they don't even really mind giving up points - to a degree - as long as those points aren't scored quickly. Prevent defenses have one goal...force the opponent to use timeouts and burn the clock. Fans hate prevent defenses, must be something in our DNA, but coaches use them for good reason and statistics are pretty clear that it is the best way to close out wins. Not always, but usually.

 

[beardown07]