Another famous Chicago myth (excuse) exposed

[DaDitka]

We all heard it all year....Mel was forced to try to keep Lovie's scheme last year, even learning the terms and calls from the players instead of vice versa. We all know how that ended up. The results left wounds that still wake many a Bears fan up in a cold sweet. This year was going to be different. Mel was going to implement 'his' defense. He brought in free agents to fit what 'he wanted to do'. And the results......the second defense in the history of the NFL to surrender 50 points in back to back weeks. A defense that still struggles to get consistent presser of the QB. A defense that still struggles in coverage..a defense that has given up the second most points in the league....many, many of the same problems.

Why didn't the change from Lovie's scheme to Mel's field results?

Because there was no fucking change!

Zach Zaidman ‏@ZachZaidman 54m54 minutes ago
Josh McCown on the #Bears defense from last year to this year from a schematic standpoint: "Very similar."

Sure, there's a little difference in what the defensive lineman are asked to to...but from an educated opponents view, it's the same pathetic, passive, poorly coached unit we fielded last year.

Sorry Chicago.....Mel Tucker's shortcomings being the result of Lovies hold over defense is just another misguided excuse Bears fans are so willing to accept.

Sadly...it's not the last 'excuse' that will be exposed in the near future. It is often said that the first step to correcting a mistake is admitting the mistake.....admission is not a strong virtue at Halas Hall nor among the general populous of Bears fans.

We're learning how though....the 'truth' has been exposed on Mel, the 'truth' has been exposed on Shea and it seems many other excuses are in line to be 'truth-ed' soon enough as well.

[wab]

Yeah, the only difference I've really noticed is that the ends are playing the run first instead of the pass (with the exception of last week) and they blitz a little more. But the same defense is being run down to the corners and safeties not knowing what coverage the other one is in.

Conte will be forever remembered for blowing the coverage at the end ofthe packer game last year because he didn't get the signal from Briggs. But Mundy and McCray have been doing it EVERY. SINGLE. GAME.

[DaDitka]

Yeah, the only difference I've really noticed is that the ends are playing the run first instead of the pass (with the exception of last week) and they blitz a little more. But the same defense is being run down to the corners and safeties not knowing what coverage the other one is in.

Yeah....there is essentially little change on the field or apparently on film.

We wouldn't believe that Shea was a bad football player...instead we told ourselves "he was out of position"...nope, he's not a good football player

We wouldn't believe that Mel Tucker was a bad football coach....instead we told ourselves he suffered because he was 'forced to run Lovies defense'....nope, he's a bad DC

We blamed Jay's interceptions on Holmes and Morgan running the wrong routs...nope, he just has 'those' moments.

I just fear the curtains will soon be drawn on our belief that Marc Trestman just needs to weed out the 'Lovie Holdovers'.

Sure, there is a little 'truth' to each and everyone of these excuses...that's what makes them easy to 'buy into' and why many cling to them even when evidence to the contrary is in full view. We're fans.....we always want to believe things are not as bad as they seem. We're always looking to pass the blame. We're all just like RG3.

[Bad Flanders]

I used to work with a guy who always said that coaching pro ball was about motivation more than anything else. I kind of argued with him over it, I always assumed they had to be motivated to get there and so NFL had to be more about system. I think I was absolutely wrong, this team is proof, coaching is about motivating the players to buy in. Winning also takes scouting talent and all that but the coaching is motivation. You put in your system, you tweak and play with the players, and u hope to make the playoffs more often than not, that's how dynasties are made now. Tucker can't motivate, I think tresty can, don't know if he can with this team now, and I always knew that Lovie could. I still say they should let tresty try with a new dc, but if he struggles with dc's like lub did with ocs, even just after a single change, then he's out

[IE]

Well seriously... how nitpicky do we really want to get, comparing one turd to another?

[DaDitka]

Tucker can't motivate, I think tresty can, don't know if he can with this team now, and I always knew that Lovie could. I still say they should let tresty try with a new dc, but if he struggles with dc's like lub did with ocs, even just after a single change, then he's out

Yeah...I'm pretty much right here. I'd put odds at 10/90 that Trestman ever figures this out or sees a fourth year... but I kinda feel like I'd rather make sure he's NOT the answer then to 'never know'.

My only reservation is if Phil gives Marc a third year...he's putting his ass on the line and odds are (IMO) they are both gone after 2015 which means you're bringing in a new HC and a new GM that are burning their first year on the job with one and done Jay Cutler and Brandon Marshall....wouldn't that basically mean their second year is really their first and thus their third their second?

So...IMO...you're looking at 4 years until your next 'accountable' year...

I don't know.....just really scares me.

However, I'd love nothing more then arguing who's the third best coach in Bears history... Lovie or Trestman after the 2017 season.

[Boris13c]

Well seriously... how nitpicky do we really want to get, comparing one turd to another?

one requires more polish than the other?

[Bears Whiskey Nut]

I used to work with a guy who always said that coaching pro ball was about motivation more than anything else. I kind of argued with him over it, I always assumed they had to be motivated to get there and so NFL had to be more about system. I think I was absolutely wrong, this team is proof, coaching is about motivating the players to buy in. Winning also takes scouting talent and all that but the coaching is motivation. You put in your system, you tweak and play with the players, and u hope to make the playoffs more often than not, that's how dynasties are made now. Tucker can't motivate, I think tresty can, don't know if he can with this team now, and I always knew that Lovie could. I still say they should let tresty try with a new dc, but if he struggles with dc's like lub did with ocs, even just after a single change, then he's out

I don't think Trestman can get players to buy in to his system. We also need to differentiate between motivating a player and getting him to buy in. You can motivate a player, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he's buying what you're selling. I think if you can get players to buy-in to your system/philosophy/scheme you will have a MUCH better chance of motivating them. Trestman may be able to motivate his players, but I don't think they are buying in to his overall approach. Most of all, I think that starts with Jay. I'm not sure he's buying what Marc is selling anymore, which is why we are seeing a regression on the interceptions. I think Jay sees the adjustments on the defense by opponents, and the lack of adjustment by Trestman. He sees the botched halftime drives. He's a smart QB. Brandon is venturing a little far off the ranch with his comments, and Bennett doesn't seem to really care. Sorry, I think the offense is no longer buying this coaching staff.

[IE]

It doesn't matter if they are professionals or not - it is still a game, where heart and drive and motivation oftentimes are the only edge you have (or need) over the other guy. Just LISTEN to what the Packers said about the Bears.

If it wasn't for the "Kyles" - Long firing up the D and a couple of very fortunate plays by Fuller ... there would have been no comeback at the Niner. That might work for a game or two - but a few guys can't overcome a debacle of coaching and atmosphere across all facets of the team.

Absolutely nobody is going to run through a wall for Trestman. It isn't because he isn't firey - Tom Landry was staid and wasn't exciting. It is because Trestman is smart but isn't smart ENOUGH to overcome his extreme weirdness. He's simply bizarre. And he isn't really even that clever offensively... he's been figured out. We all WISHED he was - but in reality the guy only one a single Grey Cup. One. He's no genius. He's Gary Crowton, folks. And he is the Chicago Bears Head Coach.

[wab]

I guess we'll see. Offenses had Lovie's cover 2 figured out for years...but we kept giving him shot after shot after shot to get the offense right.

Trestman deserves similar leeway to fix the defense.

We said for years that the defense was teetering on decline. It happened. And just because the Bears fixed an offensive line in one offseason, doesn't mean they can fix 3 levels of a defense in one offseason.

[IE]

One recently divorced guy to another ... wifey #2 doesn't get the same length of rope as wifey #1. Of course everyone has great expectations and hope that the next lady works out ... but if another bad decision is made, it doesn't take nearly as long to recognize it and react.

I don't think Trestman is owed a thing. I'm thinking his entire offensive genius has been taking advantage of a special running back (Forte) using a straight-forward, well-known offensive style. That, and jump balls to disguised basketball players against teams with bad short guys.

[DaDitka]

Offenses had Lovie's cover 2 figured out for years...but we kept giving him shot after shot after shot to get the offense right.

So figured out that we gave up the 5th fewest yards and the third fewest points in the league in his final year.

Even the two years preceding that we were average or above in each of those stats which is pretty impressive with that pathetic offense.

I'm not arguing that Trestman shouldn't get a third year...unless the team keeps openly questioning this staff, he absolutely should. That doesn't mean I'm going to bet money on him seeing a 4th year.

[wab]

Offenses had Lovie's cover 2 figured out for years...but we kept giving him shot after shot after shot to get the offense right.

So figured out that we gave up the 5th fewest yards and the third fewest points in the league in his final year.

Even the two years preceding that we were average or above in each of those stats which is pretty impressive with that pathetic offense.

I'm not arguing that Trestman shouldn't get a third year...unless the team keeps openly questioning this staff, he absolutely should. That doesn't mean I'm going to bet money on him seeing a 4th year.

I was being sarcastic. How many years did we have to read that the cover 2 was dead and teams had figured it out? And why did we have to read that...not because the defense was bad, but because the offense was.

Trestman had the #2 ranked offense in the NFL last year and it's still in the top 10 in most offensive categories this year. But while the defense is hemorrhaging points, teams have figured out the offense.

[DaDitka]

So figured out that we gave up the 5th fewest yards and the third fewest points in the league in his final year.

Even the two years preceding that we were average or above in each of those stats which is pretty impressive with that pathetic offense.

I'm not arguing that Trestman shouldn't get a third year...unless the team keeps openly questioning this staff, he absolutely should. That doesn't mean I'm going to bet money on him seeing a 4th year.

I was being sarcastic. How many years did we have to read that the cover 2 was dead and teams had figured it out? And why did we have to read that...not because the defense was bad, but because the offense was.

Trestman had the #2 ranked offense in the NFL last year and it's still in the top 10 in most offensive categories this year. But while the defense is hemorrhaging points, teams have figured out the offense.

Fair enough....I didn't catch the sarcastic brackets #bluefont

[IE]

The only offensive categories I really care about are wins and points. This team was supposed to win more, and score more (at the top of the league). "Jay for MVP"-level performance.

I really believe there is a bit of revisionist history going on these days. We all knew the defense could still be bad this year. The DLine was bolstered and expected to be better, but the overwhelmingly prevailing opinion/discussion prior to the season was "the D only has to be below average, because the offense is so stacked".

So to turn around now and suggest that the problem is the defense and the lower winning and inept/low-scoring offense shouldn't be criticized because they have some top 1/3 stats? I don't see how I could rationalize that. I admire the patient approach and mentality - that's my default setting. So when the switch flips for me and I see people still on the Pollyanna Train that I'm usually conducting... it is unnerving. Get off the train! The conductor jumped! LOL

[G08]

I remember those discussions, but we aren't even close to below average on defense. Below average would be a blessing. Dead last in points allowed.

[Boris13c]

The only offensive categories I really care about are wins and points. This team was supposed to win more, and score more (at the top of the league). "Jay for MVP"-level performance.

yes

we expected, especially based on what they did last year, the offense to step up even further and carry the load ... seems to be the way they are built ... but the offense is not even carrying their own weight

We all knew the defense could still be bad this year.

well, I am the minority idiot then I guess, as I am on record as saying the D would be improved, and fully expected that to be the case

shame on me

The DLine was bolstered and expected to be better, but the overwhelmingly prevailing opinion/discussion prior to the season was "the D only has to be below average, because the offense is so stacked".

my caveat was the defense just had to be average ... what I thought was a realistic expectation

right now, I don't think they, as a unit, can even spell it much less achieve it

So to turn around now and suggest that the problem is the defense and the lower winning and inept/low-scoring offense shouldn't be criticized because they have some top 1/3 stats? I don't see how I could rationalize that. I admire the patient approach and mentality - that's my default setting. So when the switch flips for me and I see people still on the Pollyanna Train that I'm usually conducting... it is unnerving. Get off the train! The conductor jumped! LOL

[wab]

The only offensive categories I really care about are wins and points. This team was supposed to win more, and score more (at the top of the league). "Jay for MVP"-level performance.

Dude. The defense gave up like 180 points in like 9 quarters of football. Jay would have to perform beyond MVP level. Like...historic level performance.

[IE]

The only offensive categories I really care about are wins and points. This team was supposed to win more, and score more (at the top of the league). "Jay for MVP"-level performance.

Dude. The defense gave up like 180 points in like 9 quarters of football. Jay would have to perform beyond MVP level. Like...historic level performance.

... so the team would be 7-2 other than the two blowout games. And those two blowout games should have at least been shootouts.

I actually don't care now who people want to blame. Blame targets on this team are fish in a barrel.

Blow it up, with very few exceptions.