Lack of a leader

[JoeyTourettes]

I think leadership is a High School/fan thing... while it's good to have guys that can pull others together, rah rah the team... that's great.
But the thing that fans rarely see or understand- it's the freakin NFL you get paid. If you want to be paid MORE... YOU have to play better. That's your motivation. That's it. If you need Ray Lewis to dance, or your coach to scream and "motivate". If you need someone else to "will" you to be better then I don't want you.
Have you ever heard a guy say:
"I got cut, because nobody LEAD me."
"I didn't get a contract extension, because there aren't any leaders!"
"I only played 2 seasons in the NFL, only because I sucked as a leader"

The Bears didn't make the playoffs when they had Krutz and Urlacher- they were leaders.

I'm not saying that you don't need that... it does help- but it's not really all that important.

To win in the NFL. regardless of scheme/coaching.

1. Everyone does their job: Block the right guy, make the right read, stay in the correct gap, catch the pass...etc. (don't make mental mistakes on the field: throw into double coverage, play cover 2 when it's cover 3)

2. Be smart- No penalties, Call plays that beat mismatches. (both O and D)

3. Have more: bigger/stronger/faster players then your opponent. (any position, any week)

I will contend that if you do 2 of the 3 on that list- you will most likely win the game. Period.

 

[JoeyTourettes]

The 2014 Bears:

Does everyone do their job on a regular basis? NOPE.
Are they smart? NOPE. Bad Play calls, penalties.
Have More? NOPE.

 

[anotheridiot]

I think leadership is a High School/fan thing... while it's good to have guys that can pull others together, rah rah the team... that's great.
But the thing that fans rarely see or understand- it's the freakin NFL you get paid. If you want to be paid MORE... YOU have to play better. That's your motivation. That's it. If you need Ray Lewis to dance, or your coach to scream and "motivate". If you need someone else to "will" you to be better then I don't want you.
Have you ever heard a guy say:
"I got cut, because nobody LEAD me."
"I didn't get a contract extension, because there aren't any leaders!"
"I only played 2 seasons in the NFL, only because I sucked as a leader"

The Bears didn't make the playoffs when they had Krutz and Urlacher- they were leaders.

I'm not saying that you don't need that... it does help- but it's not really all that important.

To win in the NFL. regardless of scheme/coaching.

1. Everyone does their job: Block the right guy, make the right read, stay in the correct gap, catch the pass...etc. (don't make mental mistakes on the field: throw into double coverage, play cover 2 when it's cover 3)

2. Be smart- No penalties, Call plays that beat mismatches. (both O and D)

3. Have more: bigger/stronger/faster players then your opponent. (any position, any week)

I will contend that if you do 2 of the 3 on that list- you will most likely win the game. Period.

It seems like you have never played any organized sports.

1. Who in this world thinks they are not doing their job. Its always, I am doing what he is doing, if its good enough for him, its good enough for me.

You need a leader on the field in the huddle telling guys they are not doing their job.

2. Who is on the field making sure players are executing their play? Leaders

3. Bigger stronger faster? the whole team? You want a team of elite players? Thats a pipe dream. You find and exploit the oppositions weakness. This is not ping pong where you can match up one on one, it is a team game and a team needs leaders.

This is a team sport and every successful team has a leader on the field, not a puppetmaster coach on the sidelines who also have never experienced playing the game on the field.

 

[nomoreshoop]

you draft a player and he starts, it is a hit, cause that's one less free agent to sign.
I don't know of any team that gets 7 probowlers every year from drafting, but a team like Green Bay gets most of them to start or backup on the roster, w/o shelling big bucks for free agents, half of which, for us, are injured and useless.

 

[cubzzzfanincali]

No, really, it isn't a hit just because a guy starts. If you draft a guy, and he sucks, he could be replaced (in the case of high picks) cheaper or for for the same cost as some vet minimum guy. There are literally thousands of examples of "starters" who shouldn't have started in the league. Just because Jordan Mills has started games for us does not make him a hit, any more than starting games made Gabe Carimi or J'Marcus Webb hits before him.

For a guy to be a hit, he needs to be a decent or better starter. The Jacksonville Jaguars have started 22 players every game for years, most of whom were draft picks, but because they started didn't make them hits.

You don't need 7 probowlers every year for a draft to be good. You don't even need 7 starters. In between "7" and "1" is a continuum the size of the Gulf of Mexico. I hate this kind of binary argument, it is just as lame as the Packer trolls who used to come in here trying to say you either thought Cutler was completely awful or elite, with no ground in between.

Green Bay is successful because they draft betters players than we do, on balance. But even some of their starters have not been hits. Derrick Sherrod, a first rounder no less, is not a "hit." Was Jerel Worthy, who started a bunch of games, considered a "hit"? I'd bet 95% of Packer fans wouldn't agree with you. They could have signed some vet minimum slag heap player and gotten better production.

I could go on, but I don't want to tax your already-challenged attention span.

 

[JoeyTourettes]

anotheridiot:
1. Who in this world thinks they are not doing their job. Its always, I am doing what he is doing, if its good enough for him, its good enough for me.
Um... there is this invention called a video camera. When the camera shows you: blocking the wrong guy, or shooting the wrong gap, or not maintaining contain, or not seeing/picking up a blitz, or throwing into double coverage...They have a list of the plays called- Each player has an assignment on that particular play... They should KNOW what their job is on that particular play. I they do not do that on that particular play= "not doing their job" If everyone did their job more often then not...you would succeed much more often. It doesn't matter if you are running a 4-3 or a 3-4 or a west coast offense or spread...or whatever. Know your job- do it. Simple. (if you don't know your job, you shouldn't be on the field)


You need a leader on the field in the huddle telling guys they are not doing their job.
I said in that thread- that yes, a leader on the field is nice, a guy helping you out or reminding you to "watch that gap" or whatever- sure. But I contend that it's not nessiary in pro sports.

2. Who is on the field making sure players are executing their play? Leaders
Again... I don't know what your def. of PROFESSIONAL is...but mine is they know their job.

3. Bigger stronger faster? the whole team? You want a team of elite players? Thats a pipe dream. You find and exploit the oppositions weakness. This is not ping pong where you can match up one on one, it is a team game and a team needs leaders.
It seems you didn't understand what I meant my Bigger OR Stronger OR Faster (or a combination of) ... I meant you need players that are B/S/F then your opponent. Not everyone. Not all position. But some. Some weeks your OLINE might be bigger and stronger= Mismatch= you can run and pass block... the next week you might find that you have B/S/F Wide Receivers= Mismatch= you can throw the ball...the next week you might find that you have Stronger DL you can pass rush... YOU use those mismatches to gameplan and take advantage. If you find that most weeks you can't find any mismatches you aren't going to win much and you will need- BIGGER, FASTER, STRONGER players.

Be Smart: Goes with the penalties- Don't do stupid things. And Mental mistakes in coverage... AND in coaching- Don't give up on the run game after 2 plays. Use plays that set up others. Have good time management...etc.

This is a team sport and every successful team has a leader on the field, not a puppetmaster coach on the sidelines who also have never experienced playing the game on the field.
Again... if you read what I wrote- I'm not apposed to "leaders" I just don't think it's something you need as much as the HS wanna be wants to think.

Thanks though. GO BEARS!

 

[anotheridiot]

All the things you mention are brought to the attention of the players too late.

You cannot just go and sign everybody, you need to have a coach that gets thru to the players and leaders that do things the right way. A common term is "lead by example".

Your arguments are everything that is wrong with the bears this year. How is this "team of leaders" working out for us? You get a player on the field that is grabbing a facemask asking what the fuck do you think you are doing and fix that problem right then and there. Not in your flip flops on Monday film day.

If you watched Brady and Rodgers just fire up their offenses, defenses, special teams, you see the results of having a leader. You just cant pay more than anyone at their position and get a player that works harder than anybody, thats what happened with cutler. You get that player that isnt being paid more than anyone at his position that wants to be paid more than anyone at his position

To me, this team has no identity of its leader, its not their turn to be a captain.

 

[JoeyTourettes]

Um... I'm talking in generalities about winning. I pointed out exactly why the Bears haven't won. I'm also pointing out that leadership is different for a lot of people. The "Fan" see's Tom Brady Yelling- and thinks- LOOK AT THAT LEADERSHIP!!
Same fan see's Philip Rivers yelling....and they think- What a DBag!

Do they as each individual man consistently: "Do their Job?"- NO.
Are they "smart" consistently? No... penalties, bad play design, bad play calls.
Are they B/S/F then other teams? Sometimes. But not in enough positions.

 

[anotheridiot]

Um... I'm talking in generalities about winning. I pointed out exactly why the Bears haven't won. I'm also pointing out that leadership is different for a lot of people. The "Fan" see's Tom Brady Yelling- and thinks- LOOK AT THAT LEADERSHIP!!
Same fan see's Philip Rivers yelling....and they think- What a DBag!

Do they as each individual man consistently: "Do their Job?"- NO.
Are they "smart" consistently? No... penalties, bad play design, bad play calls.
Are they B/S/F then other teams? Sometimes. But not in enough positions.

you are pointing out your opinion of why the bears have not won, I have my opinion. You know what they say, opinions are like assholes, we all have one, in your case, its just a bit more noticable.

 

[JoeyTourettes]

you are pointing out your opinion of why the bears have not won, I have my opinion. You know what they say, opinions are like assholes, we all have one, in your case, its just a bit more noticable.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make- other then to stick to your avatar name. Honestly... what does it do for you to insinuate that I'm an asshole on a Chicago Bears message board?

And please answer this: Am I wrong? Do they have at least two of the three things on that list for each game?

Would your precious unquantifiable "leadership" have won more games this year?

 

[anotheridiot]

Would your precious unquantifiable "leadership" have won more games this year?

We would need the team to have a leader to answer that question. It clearly is not getting done so far this season. Your assumption is no, my assumption is yes. There is no way to prove the dead horse of a point you are trying to make.

 

[nebearsfan70]

We would need the team to have a leader to answer that question. It clearly is not getting done so far this season. Your assumption is no, my assumption is yes. There is no way to prove the dead horse of a point you are trying to make.

Joey is pointing to the glaring problem on this team... Lack of adequate coaching. The Bears do have leaders, but with mediocre coaching you can expect players to underperform. His points are valid.

 

[noonthirtyjoe]

you draft a player and he starts, it is a hit, cause that's one less free agent to sign.
I don't know of any team that gets 7 probowlers every year from drafting, but a team like Green Bay gets most of them to start or backup on the roster, w/o shelling big bucks for free agents, half of which, for us, are injured and useless.

Ya but so what that GB drafts it's own players. They got a elite QB and a shit team.

 

[richig07]

Ya but so what that GB drafts it's own players. They got a elite QB and a shit team.

Give me a break. They have some players on defense, without a doubt. And don't give me that crap about how Nelson/Cobb wouldn't be anything without Rodgers. I know those type of receivers when I see them… Nelson sure as hell ain't one of them. He'd thrive anywhere. As I think Cobb would too.

 

[Wounded Bear]

Ya but so what that GB drafts it's own players. They got a elite QB and a shit team.

I keep hearing about how Green Bay is a shit team with an elite QB frequently on this board. I personally don't buy it.

After last Sunday, I don't think the New England Patriots buy it either.

 

[anotheridiot]

Joey is pointing to the glaring problem on this team... Lack of adequate coaching. The Bears do have leaders, but with mediocre coaching you can expect players to underperform. His points are valid.

Who are the leaders? Trestman gives different players the C every week. The leaders deserve to wear that the entire season to get the respect of the rest of the team. Dont you see the possibility of these young players saying, you are not the captain this week, you cant tell me what to do?

 

[thunderspirit]

I keep hearing about how Green Bay is a shit team with an elite QB frequently on this board. I personally don't buy it.

After last Sunday, I don't think the New England Patriots buy it either.

You only don't buy it cos it's not accurate.

 

[cubzzzfanincali]

I keep hearing about how Green Bay is a shit team with an elite QB frequently on this board. I personally don't buy it.

After last Sunday, I don't think the New England Patriots buy it either.

it is interesting to speculate about this. I agree that they have some other good players, of course, but GB's players have generally been pretty damn mediocre after leaving GB. Greg Jennings? Scott Wells? Matt Flynn? Cullen Jenkins? These guys were all once-touted members of the Pack who went on to...umm...lesser things.

 

[noonthirtyjoe]

Give me a break. They have some players on defense, without a doubt. And don't give me that crap about how Nelson/Cobb wouldn't be anything without Rodgers. I know those type of receivers when I see them… Nelson sure as hell ain't one of them. He'd thrive anywhere. As I think Cobb would too.

either way outside of the QB position they are not too strong of a team. They have as many holes as we do. They lead the league in turnover differential. Just like us they win or lose on turnovers. Do you consider them above average out side of the QB position?

 

[richig07]

either way outside of the QB position they are not too strong of a team. They have as many holes as we do. They lead the league in turnover differential. Just like us they win or lose on turnovers. Do you consider them above average out side of the QB position?

Nah.

About averarge, but certainly not bad. If Rodgers/Cutler switched places, they'd be about where we are, depending on how the breaks fell… maybe they're one or two games better than us.