did you all see this?

[cubzzzfanincali]

Agreed, the 2009 team without urlacher was marginal. But if you are a gm...and can see the future...and you could pick any defense to field for the next 4 years...how are the bears not one of the five teams you consider going with? I don't know...the giants, San Fran (although not all their years were pretty either), Baltimore, maybe Pittsburgh (another team with greats and mediocres in those four years). Who am I forgetting? Along with the bears, those are the great 2009-2012 defenses.

 

[blh7068]

Agreed, the 2009 team without urlacher was marginal. But if you are a gm...and can see the future...and you could pick any defense to field for the next 4 years...how are the bears not one of the five teams you consider going with? I don't know...the giants, San Fran (although not all their years were pretty either), Baltimore, maybe Pittsburgh (another team with greats and mediocres in those four years). Who am I forgetting? Along with the bears, those are the great 2009-2012 defenses.

I dont disagree...thats why always point to what I believe are 3 quality defensive stats when the yards argument pops up.

 

[cubzzzfanincali]

Yeah I hear you. I mean...yardage does tell you something. Just not everything. If I really had to have only one defensive stat, and only one, it would probably be the plus/minus on defensive points allowed less defensive points scored. That of course isn't perfect either, but at the end of the day, that's what matters.

 

[blh7068]

Yeah I hear you. I mean...yardage does tell you something. Just not everything. If I really had to have only one defensive stat, and only one, it would probably be the plus/minus on defensive points allowed less defensive points scored. That of course isn't perfect either, but at the end of the day, that's what matters.

Points trumps all in the end, so true. I like the 3rd down defense pct...if you cant get them off the field, the opposition at a minimum will have a FP advantage...and that usually is costly in a game thats low scoring.

 

[richig07]

Really? They were?
Over the four seasons before Trestman this is what they were:
Averages: 320 points given up (or 20 points a game) 5273 yards given up (or 329 yards per game)
And averaged the 12th best defense.
While these are all better then 2013, and would have taken that last year. I don't see that as "among the leagues best" as you say.

I will say "rankings" are kinda misleading. What they did really well under Lovie was Take Aways. Averaging 34.5 a season. They also had some very clutch interceptions/punch fumbles. Lovie and company was known for the bend don't break defense. Give up 70 yards and then punch out a ball. Not saying that's good or bad...but it didn't get them in the playoffs much either.
Go Bears!

In 07, 08, and 09 the defense wasn't great. No doubt. However, that's pretty much the only three years they weren't.

05, 06, 10, 11, and 12. That's five years of fantastic defensive play where they were widely regarded as being one of the best, if not the best. What am I missing here? You don't like that? That's not good enough for you? You don't want a defense like that?

Yardage is also very misleading when it comes to Lovie's scheme. It's designed to allow yardage, but keep teams out of the end zone. Which they did.

 

[richig07]

Averaged the 12th best defense? Just so I clearly understand how to attack this sheer stupidity, according to what?

2012 3rd in point allowed and 5th in yards per game
2011 12th in points and 17th in yards
2010 4th in points and 23rd in yards
2009 21st in points and 16th in yards

All this while leading in turnovers and defensive points scored while carrying mostly severely anemic offenses that piled up three-and-outs and left the D in terrible field position.

I am guessing you are basing 12th best off yards. If so this proves the fallacy of just looking at yardage. Tell me...which 11 teams do you think fielded better defenses than the bears over those four years?

Bingo.

 

[JoeyTourettes]

All this while leading in turnovers and defensive points scored while carrying mostly severely anemic offenses that piled up three-and-outs and left the D in terrible field position.

Oh... are you one of those people? Yikes. Those guys for years who Blamed the OFFENSE when the Defense couldn't get off the field?
It's Grossman and Cutlers fault that the defense is tired!!! They are tired... look how tired they are? They just had a 10 play drive on them and now they are tired. Jay/Rex just threw a pick and that's not fair the defense is tired!!
(just so you and everyone else knows- The defense dictates when they COME OFF THE FIELD!! Stop them for 3 freaking PLAYS and you can "rest"... Your qb or offense throws a pick or fumbles the ball- GO back and STOP Them for 3 FREAKIN PLAYS.... look at that more rest!!)
I've hear that excuse for this "great defense" for years. I'm so sick of that BS.

 

[cubzzzfanincali]

Yep. I am one of those people.

 

[richig07]

Oh... are you one of those people? Yikes. Those guys for years who Blamed the OFFENSE when the Defense couldn't get off the field?
It's Grossman and Cutlers fault that the defense is tired!!! They are tired... look how tired they are? They just had a 10 play drive on them and now they are tired. Jay/Rex just threw a pick and that's not fair the defense is tired!!
(just so you and everyone else knows- The defense dictates when they COME OFF THE FIELD!! Stop them for 3 freaking PLAYS and you can "rest"... Your qb or offense throws a pick or fumbles the ball- GO back and STOP Them for 3 FREAKIN PLAYS.... look at that more rest!!)
I've hear that excuse for this "great defense" for years. I'm so sick of that BS.

I don't even know what to say to this…

So, defenses aren't affected by piss poor play on the other side of the football, and visa versa? It doesn't affect a defense when an offense turns around after you make stops and consistently gives the ball right back?

Anemic offensive play and turnovers doesn't make life harder on your defense? Okay…

Also, where did anyone make excuses for that defense? People never had to. They were really good, and were often praised. No one ever had to bail them out of criticism, because they weren't criticized very often, hardly ever.

 

[cubzzzfanincali]

Thank you richig. That's exactly right. I didn't go off on the "excuses" thing because I was so annoyed with yet another instance of Tourettes not being able to either read or comprehend, but who makes "excuses" for being great? I'm not the one who thinks they were 12th best. They were that good in spite of the offense, but there's nothing to apologize for, they were some damn good defenses.

 

[nebearsfan70]

Yep. I am one of those people.

I am one of those people too. It was pretty damn obvious during those years.

 

[JoeyTourettes]

Just some more of that "Chicago tough" BS:
This is the scene that played out through much of Lovie Smith's tenure....
Defense get's dink and dunked- all the way down the field... Tightens up in the red zone- forces a FG. or gets a fumble.

And then all fans remember is the Pick 6 before half time and the Interception that Rex/Jay threw.
Hence- Offense Sucks, Defense is GREAT! GO BEARS!

I'm not saying they were garbage. I'm just saying that many fans have this revisionist history of defending the defense that was very opportunistic and while giving up major yards and not being very good in big games ummm the superbowl? anyone remember that?

I'm also not defending the offense- They sucked at times (blame Lovie for his lack of offensive and his terrible choice in his 5 different OC's in his 9 years)

It's a new era... I'm sooo ready to move on from talking about Lovie Smith and those old teams. GO BEARS!

 

[JoeyTourettes]

Thank you richig. That's exactly right. I didn't go off on the "excuses" thing because I was so annoyed with yet another instance of Tourettes not being able to either read or comprehend, but who makes "excuses" for being great? I'm not the one who thinks they were 12th best. They were that good in spite of the offense, but there's nothing to apologize for, they were some damn good defenses.

What are you talking about? What "excuses" did I make? Just because I disagree with your meatball mentality of Chicago Bears football...that all fans need to think the Defense was AMAZING!! and could do no wrong...and the offense SUCKS!! Would it make you feel better if I thought just like you? Would you feel comfortable talking about the Bears on an internet message board if I just agreed with every BOLD PRINT idiot- who "watches the ball" And believes what they want to believe, because it's in the "way you are supposed to"?

Isn't it more interesting to question some things?

Like asking WHY was Cutler just intercepted?
Cali: Cause he SUCKS!!!
Joey: Because the WR ran the wrong route or stopped on his route (Hester) Jay read that the defense was playing man on playside, but rotated into a zone on back side, yet the WR was an idiot and stopped 4 yards shorter then he was supposed to. Ball goes to where he was supposed to be)

(I'm pretty sure Cali will call this an "excuse" and just comment back that I can't read or comprehend something...but to each is own. Keep those blinders on, this is fun to watch this play out)

And if you haven't figured it out yet- it's fun for me to watch you melt down in a huff when you don't agree. Keep it coming!
Go Bears!

 

[JoeyTourettes]

Rich, Cali...and anyone else... PLEASE answer these questions for me...

1.When the defense is on the field. HOW do they get off the field and "rest"?
2.What would be the least amount of plays they could face- without forcing a turnover?

And I want to bold this for you- so I don't get one thing quoted and misrepresented: I do think they were a good defense- 2005-2007 were very good defensive teams. They got sacks and turnovers and scored defensive touchdowns! GREAT!

Take this logic to Pitching in baseball.
Pitcher ONE: Strikes out 3 batters in a row- throws 101 MPH. And looks very "impressive" throws 18 pitches. (Bears defense giving up a 10 play drive then getting an impressive turnover= Tired)
or
Pitcher TWO: Goes 1-2-3... by only throwing 3 pitches and gets 3 ground balls to the second baseman.
Not sexy and "impressive" but saves his arm and doesn't make mistakes. (Bears defense going 3 and out= not tired)

 

[nebearsfan70]

Rich, Cali...and anyone else... PLEASE answer these questions for me...

1.When the defense is on the field. HOW do they get off the field and "rest"?
2.What would be the least amount of plays they could face- without forcing a turnover?

And I want to bold this for you- so I don't get one thing quoted and misrepresented: I do think they were a good defense- 2005-2007 were very good defensive teams. They got sacks and turnovers and scored defensive touchdowns! GREAT!

Take this logic to Pitching in baseball.
Pitcher ONE: Strikes out 3 batters in a row- throws 101 MPH. And looks very "impressive" throws 18 pitches. (Bears defense giving up a 10 play drive then getting an impressive turnover= Tired)
or
Pitcher TWO: Goes 1-2-3... by only throwing 3 pitches and gets 3 ground balls to the second baseman.
Not sexy and "impressive" but saves his arm and doesn't make mistakes. (Bears defense going 3 and out= not tired)

 

[richig07]

Just some more of that "Chicago tough" BS:
This is the scene that played out through much of Lovie Smith's tenure....
Defense get's dink and dunked- all the way down the field... Tightens up in the red zone- forces a FG. or gets a fumble.

And then all fans remember is the Pick 6 before half time and the Interception that Rex/Jay threw.
Hence- Offense Sucks, Defense is GREAT! GO BEARS!

I'm not saying they were garbage. I'm just saying that many fans have this revisionist history of defending the defense that was very opportunistic and while giving up major yards and not being very good in big games ummm the superbowl? anyone remember that?

I'm also not defending the offense- They sucked at times (blame Lovie for his lack of offensive and his terrible choice in his 5 different OC's in his 9 years)

It's a new era... I'm sooo ready to move on from talking about Lovie Smith and those old teams. GO BEARS!

Alright, I'm done taking you seriously. lol. This absurd.

Because I hate Bears fans for their bull shit too, but you're like… worse. While you think you're somehow being better and "such a contrarian".

Only thing worse than an arrogant prick, is an arrogant dumbass. Jesus.

 

[cubzzzfanincali]

What are you talking about? What "excuses" did I make? Just because I disagree with your meatball mentality of Chicago Bears football...that all fans need to think the Defense was AMAZING!! and could do no wrong...and the offense SUCKS!! Would it make you feel better if I thought just like you? Would you feel comfortable talking about the Bears on an internet message board if I just agreed with every BOLD PRINT idiot- who "watches the ball" And believes what they want to believe, because it's in the "way you are supposed to"?

Isn't it more interesting to question some things?

Like asking WHY was Cutler just intercepted?
Cali: Cause he SUCKS!!!
Joey: Because the WR ran the wrong route or stopped on his route (Hester) Jay read that the defense was playing man on playside, but rotated into a zone on back side, yet the WR was an idiot and stopped 4 yards shorter then he was supposed to. Ball goes to where he was supposed to be)

(I'm pretty sure Cali will call this an "excuse" and just comment back that I can't read or comprehend something...but to each is own. Keep those blinders on, this is fun to watch this play out)

And if you haven't figured it out yet- it's fun for me to watch you melt down in a huff when you don't agree. Keep it coming!
Go Bears!

My God, you are one fucked up cookie.

You accused me of making excuses. That was your word, not mine. I'm not asking you or anyone else to agree with me..I have disagreed with everyone on here at some point, but I like a lot of the posters on here. Not all, but most. It isn't about agreement. When you totally misrepresent what someone says....let me give you a hint....it annoys them. Not just me, or you....you will notice a pattern of that on here.

I have never...ever.....said Cutler sucks. I don't think he is elite, and I don't think he sucks. I will cut you slack on the former because you obviously are new and missed the thousands of posts we had to bat away the Packer fan fleas trying to say we all thought he was elite, but on the flip side, I had never said he sucks. Ever Joey. This tendency of yours to put words in my mouth I never say...it is extremely annoying. Stop it.

 

[cubzzzfanincali]

Rich, Cali...and anyone else... PLEASE answer these questions for me...

1.When the defense is on the field. HOW do they get off the field and "rest"?
2.What would be the least amount of plays they could face- without forcing a turnover?

And I want to bold this for you- so I don't get one thing quoted and misrepresented: I do think they were a good defense- 2005-2007 were very good defensive teams. They got sacks and turnovers and scored defensive touchdowns! GREAT!

Take this logic to Pitching in baseball.
Pitcher ONE: Strikes out 3 batters in a row- throws 101 MPH. And looks very "impressive" throws 18 pitches. (Bears defense giving up a 10 play drive then getting an impressive turnover= Tired)
or
Pitcher TWO: Goes 1-2-3... by only throwing 3 pitches and gets 3 ground balls to the second baseman.
Not sexy and "impressive" but saves his arm and doesn't make mistakes. (Bears defense going 3 and out= not tired)

OK, I am going to try to answer this in a straightforward way and not give into my first instinct to just brush this off as you being an idiot. Because I think you asked an honest question, so I will take it that way. After this answer, I am going to the bar, and then fishing tomorrow, so don't take my silence to your response as being some kind of "OK dude, I am so sorry."

1.When the defense is on the field. HOW do they get off the field and "rest"?

They make stops. How teams do that varies widely. 1) Some teams gamble, get beat more often and get scored on fast. 2) Some teams gamble, but they are good enough and get away with it. 3) Some teams don't gamble, but they get ground down and TDs scored anyway. 4) Lastly, some teams don't gamble, but they manage to prevent touchdowns and maybe get a few turnovers on the way. I think that basically captures all 4 categories of NFL defenses that have ever existed.

I'd say the Lovie Bears were a category 4 defense, and in some bad years a category 3 defense. They played fast to the ball, but they usually didn't overcommit on blitzes or on press coverage. Sometimes it worked, but not always. It worked a lot more than it didn't.

2.What would be the least amount of plays they could face- without forcing a turnover?

By definition, 1 play. They could give up a touchdown on the first play. Disagree?

 

[richig07]

Rich, Cali...and anyone else... PLEASE answer these questions for me...

1.When the defense is on the field. HOW do they get off the field and "rest"?
2.What would be the least amount of plays they could face- without forcing a turnover?

And I want to bold this for you- so I don't get one thing quoted and misrepresented: I do think they were a good defense- 2005-2007 were very good defensive teams. They got sacks and turnovers and scored defensive touchdowns! GREAT!

Take this logic to Pitching in baseball.
Pitcher ONE: Strikes out 3 batters in a row- throws 101 MPH. And looks very "impressive" throws 18 pitches. (Bears defense giving up a 10 play drive then getting an impressive turnover= Tired)
or
Pitcher TWO: Goes 1-2-3... by only throwing 3 pitches and gets 3 ground balls to the second baseman.
Not sexy and "impressive" but saves his arm and doesn't make mistakes. (Bears defense going 3 and out= not tired)

Hey… dickhead… entering the final week in 2005 the defense was the greatest IN NFL HISTORY from both a yardage and points standpoint. They were statistically better than the 85 Chicago Bears, and then instead of playing for the record… being locked into the #2 seed, they rested all of their starters in a meaningless game in Minnesota. Played Kyle Orton and Jeff Blake at QB, while getting their asses kicked 34-10. While the backups gave up 400 yards of offense. Rendering them to 2nd in the league in yardage. Still 1st in points.

That team gave up 12.6 points per game. Carrying a team to an 11-5 record, a first-round bye, all with an offense that could barely function.

So, 2005… 1st in points and 2nd in yardage.

2006, 3rd in points and 5th in yardage.

2010, 4th in points and 9th in yardage.

2011, 9th in points and 17th in yardage.

2012, 3rd in points and 5th in yardage


Where are all of these yards being given up? Where is this defense hurting the team? Hmm… That on top of their opportunistic nature, as you said… those are some great god damned defenses.

So a defense has 4 seasons in the top 5 of the league in points allowed, and 5 in the top 10. They have 3 seasons being top 5 in yardage, and 4 in the top ten.

Yet… in said seasons, it was their own damn fault that they couldn't get off of the field. Right… I'm sure that was the problem. The bottom dwelling and turnover happy offenses had NOOOOTHING to do with it.

In 2005, 2010, and 2011 the Bears were in the bottom five in the league in three-and-outs. In 2012, they were 19th. In 2006, the offense collected over 200 total drives, the most in football. Why do you think that was? Here's a hint… it has to do with the defense getting off of the field… A LOT.

Nah… couldn't have even affected the game. How could one even draw that conclusion? HA!

 

[richig07]

LOL… Three-and-outs forced in 2010.

Look where the Bears D ranked. Hmm…

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | FO Mailbag: Three-and-Outs Forced

But they just couldn't get off of the field…

Looking forward to seeing if football outsiders has these stats from other seasons.