Bears 2006 Season Thread

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
The rating doesn't include stats like fumbles (7 in the regular season, which I'd guess is high among QBs) and huge errors like pick sixes (no idea but he'd have to be high in the running).

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of this ties into the chuck-and-duck playcalling. QBs are much more susceptible in deep drops.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All,

How do you guys feel about Rex as this team heads into the off season? We all know that I personally stand by him and trust that he will improve and become a better QB next year. I understand that he has played poorly at times during the season, but am I insane for believing that he is the type of QB who can play at a high level constantly? I argue with a lot of Rex haters and I trust the opinions of a lot of people on this forum. I just too see what everyone else thinks this guy is capable of.

[/ QUOTE ]

comments from just a casual Bears observer:

Rex (and I guess the Bears) seemed to go with a 'chuck and duck' strategy. IE throw deep and hope good things happen. this doesn't seem like a recipe for long term success, more like one that can run real hot or real cold, which is just what we saw this season.

do you have evidence or reason to believe in the contrary?

[/ QUOTE ]

meet Ron Turner's play calling

It worked great for one year at Illinois when they had Brandon Lloyd, Walter Young, Aaron Morehead, and Greg Lewis as receivers.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, I could see it working in college, where it's possible to win on pure athleticm and the ability to run faster and jump higher than the other guys. but in the NFL, everyone is a superior athlete, and it's very rare for guys to get by on mostly athletisicm (Randy Moss from a few years ago, not Randy Moss now)

crockpot, the Raiders basically employed a lot of this strategy (the vertical passing game) in the 70's, and were very successful. but the NFL has changed a lot since then.

[Case Closed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All,

How do you guys feel about Rex as this team heads into the off season? We all know that I personally stand by him and trust that he will improve and become a better QB next year. I understand that he has played poorly at times during the season, but am I insane for believing that he is the type of QB who can play at a high level constantly? I argue with a lot of Rex haters and I trust the opinions of a lot of people on this forum. I just too see what everyone else thinks this guy is capable of.

[/ QUOTE ]

comments from just a casual Bears observer:

Rex (and I guess the Bears) seemed to go with a 'chuck and duck' strategy. IE throw deep and hope good things happen. this doesn't seem like a recipe for long term success, more like one that can run real hot or real cold, which is just what we saw this season.

do you have evidence or reason to believe in the contrary?

[/ QUOTE ]

is this really a bad thing given the offensive talent? The bears wr's are not good at precision route running, nor is rex very good at precision passing. Seems to fit what strengths the passing offense has.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear you, but what was the last team that won with this strategy?

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that this is a poor style of offesne to rely on. Although near the end the Bears were very close to winning it all with this style. A couple of plays that go their way on offense and people are saying how much of a genius Ron Turner is. I don't think this strategy is sustainable, but I don't think your comment is the proper way to come to such a conclusion.

[capone0]

How do you think the Bears would have done in the SB vs any of the top AFC teams?

I think they lose to all 4 of the top seeds personally. I think the NFC was as weak as it has possibly ever been. The Saints and Bears were good but I don't think either was anything special in the long run of things. Yes the SB was "close" in score for most of the game but the Colts pretty much dominated after the first 10 minutes of the first quarter. They outgained the Bears by a ton, they got in to the red a lot more. Honestly, after the injury to Tommie Harris, I haven't been too impressed with the Bears. Against the Saints they were good, but not that great. Like always, they benefited from stupid TOs by their opposition. Next year it can be more of the same, the Bears are still the team to beat in the NFC, I just think the AFC is a much superior conference right now. The SB track record proves that as well with only TB and St. Louis winning SBs since the 1997 season.

[Case Closed]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you think the Bears would have done in the SB vs any of the top AFC teams?

[/ QUOTE ]

They would lose most of the time to all those teams. But, with the chuck and pray strategy and devin hester they would have a shot to upset some teams. But they did not have better talent than any of the top four teams of the AFC.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
Although near the end the Bears were very close to winning it all with this style.

[/ QUOTE ]

because of, or despite, the offensive strategy?


[ QUOTE ]
but I don't think your comment is the proper way to come to such a conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

sure, I'm far from an expert on X's and 0's. but intuitively, I think that going back to a very basic gameplan can only succeed if you have superior athletes/football players to continually make plays against the other team.

it's also a high variance style, which means that any results are often going to look out of whack (Rex for MVP!! Bears 16-0!!! vs Rex is the worst QB in SB history!!)

[Case Closed]

kneel,

They won some games because of it, the lost some games because of it. I am saying it is a flawed strategy. Although, if they got lucky and won the superbowl, it would not make that strategy a longterm means of success. I am mearly stating that I agree with your conclusion. But, just because a team happens to make it through a weak conference does not confirm nor deny the validity of a certain strategy.

[Sluss]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Although near the end the Bears were very close to winning it all with this style.

[/ QUOTE ]

because of, or despite, the offensive strategy?


[ QUOTE ]
but I don't think your comment is the proper way to come to such a conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

sure, I'm far from an expert on X's and 0's. but intuitively, I think that going back to a very basic gameplan can only succeed if you have superior athletes/football players to continually make plays against the other team.

it's also a high variance style, which means that any results are often going to look out of whack (Rex for MVP!! Bears 16-0!!! vs Rex is the worst QB in SB history!!)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are slightly overstating their offense. While they do go deep more often than most teams I see their offense as very close to the Steelers. There are alot of flair outs, skinny posts, slants and outs in the offense. I think if Rex learned to make his mistakes long instead of underthrows it would be less noticable. Also as MyTurn will attest Ron Turner is a mediocre play caller.

Capone,

I would say that the top four AFC teams were more talented than the Bears. But I don't think you would have seen much of a difference in the game. The games would have been close and would have come down to if the Bears made a play of two on offense.

You seem to miss the boat on the Bears defense. It is/was not a dominant hold you to 125 YPG defense. It is a fast hard hitting defense that if you stay patient and throw short underneath passes with some draws and quick hitting run plays you can move down the field. Your going to have some problems getting the ball into the end zone and your going to turn the ball over if you get impatient and try to force things or just the amount of times you will be hit underneath and people will be ripping at the ball.

They can look dominant with Harris when he is getting pressure and the whole front four is getting pressure. But once again that is more because you are forcing a QB to throw under diress into seven defenders and you get alot of turnovers.

With the way rules are set up against defense now there will never be a team again who has a defense so dominating they won't need to score 20-28 ppg on offense. A Brian Griesse lead offfense will/would not score 20-28 ppg.

[MikeyPatriot]

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to miss the boat on the Bears defense. It is/was not a dominant hold you to 125 YPG defense. It is a fast hard hitting defense that if you stay patient and throw short underneath passes with some draws and quick hitting run plays you can move down the field. Your going to have some problems getting the ball into the end zone and your going to turn the ball over if you get impatient and try to force things or just the amount of times you will be hit underneath and people will be ripping at the ball.

They can look dominant with Harris when he is getting pressure and the whole front four is getting pressure. But once again that is more because you are forcing a QB to throw under diress into seven defenders and you get alot of turnovers.

With the way rules are set up against defense now there will never be a team again who has a defense so dominating they won't need to score 20-28 ppg on offense. A Brian Griesse lead offfense will/would not score 20-28 ppg.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even without Harris/Brown, the Bears played a very good cover-2. You're going to give up a lot of yardage, but you won't give up too many big plays and the offense is going to have a tough time finding paydirt in the red zone. Plus they were very very good getting turnovers.

Losing Brown is a big loss for obvious reasons, but Harris hurts so much more. Since you aren't blitzing much in a cover-2 you really need pressure from the front four. Anderson/Brown/Ogunleye did a good job from the ends, but Harris is sick in the middle.

Bears 2007 offseason goals:

1) Fix Rex's mechanics. His mental game improved as the year went on, and if that can continue + throwing the ball better, we should have a capable passer.

2) Franchise or offer Briggs a fair market contract. As said, if he isn't going to accept don't F up the cap trying to keep him. Otherwise find a replacement in the draft.

3) Throw Mike Brown in a Bacta tank after each game.

4) Resign Lovie/Rivera/Toub. Find a better OC.

5) Resign Peterson. Re-evaluate the top two backs. Jones is getting older and is Benson durable?

6) Draft/sign a good possession receiver.

This team doesn't have any HUGE holes. I think the QB spot is the biggest X-factor going into next season. Hopefully the media lays off, realizes this guy essentially took a team to the SB in his "rookie" year, and he can improve upon what he did this year. The D needs to stay healthy and add some depth in the tackles and safeties.

[capone0]

Thing was with Harris / Brown they weren't giving up the points because your right with Harris in the middle your getting pressure on the QB without having to blitz. Since they didn't blitz and Johnson / Ian Scott combination was getting nowhere near as much pressure as Harris was getting, the D was nowhere near as effective late in the year. The other thing, which I think skews their defensive stats early on, is that they were playing weaker teams early on in the year, when they played better offenses, the D wasn't nearly as good. I think their D is still arguably the best overall D in the NFC but nowhere near as good as the Ravens with or without Harris / Brown.

In a weak NFC, they will again contend for the NFC crown next year. The Saints should be stronger next year. They are young, they have a lot of good pieces but have a lot of work to do with their defensive group which can be done quickly. The Eagles should be strong with Garcia + McNabb. There shouldn't be too much change and I bet they revert to using Westbrook more even with McNabb back seeing in how effective it was with Garcia in the backfield. The Seahawks are a mystery but they again should be favored to with the NFC West. If SA gets fully healthy, I think their D will improve since this year they were on the field way too much.

The question marks are Carolina-can they return to form with Morgan back? 9ers-Can they improve to move into the playoffs? Rams-Can they fix their D, they found a true back in SJ. Giants-Can Eli lead them and can they stay healthy defensively? Cowboys-Who will coach them, will Romo + Owens and Co continue to get better? Atl-Petrino + Vick and can they improve defensively.