How Bout Dem Bears?

Browsing the game lines....we're bigger underdogs than the Jags in New England.

Yeah totally correct imho.

Bortles is a better QB than Clausen. He was shocking last year but is looking improved this year. Clausen is 1-10 as a starter, a 53PC completion ratio and 5TD's to 11 interceptions, says it all really.

They've more overall talent on their roster than us now - ours is concentrated in one or two quality players and then there is zip after them. They've a lot of up and coming players that are underrated. They've 4 players 30 or over on their roster (we've 12 - a lot of which are starters too). We keep bums on our roster like the 29yo Tracy Porter (despite the hamstring issues) and are still trying to develop Zach Miller at 30 years of age. They are trending upwards, we are trending massively downwards.

Their defense is far superior to ours. Ours has been leaking pass completions, penalties and points. We couldn't sack one of the most immobile QB's in the game last week. I heard them referred to as 'The Legion of Whom?' - thought that was funny.

Added to that the Seahawks need a bounce back statement game.

I'd much prefer to take the Jags line as they will fight, with Clausen under centre we could be praying for mercy at HT.

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

All of this seems basically to be right, but am I alone in thinking that we were looking half presentable before Cutler got injured, and that we shouldn't get too fatalistic about things just yet? Don't get me wrong, we suck, and we're going nowhere this year, but we do still have a great coaching staff and can certainly still have a respectable offense this year...I just think we're being underrated. Certainly none of the problems are new ones, nor are they fixable overnight. But even the crappy D is better in terms of scheming than last year, although the execution is still sh1t. I dunno, I'm just not ready to give up on them for the year just yet. If they struggle from next week up to the bye, then that's different.

As an aside, one thing that does worry me is special teams, especially after last week's start. All of the churn at the bottom of the roster might be affecting the one thing that was actually half decent about us last year.

To be honest I'm not really looking or talking about this year, or really the next.

Our goal has to be getting back to the playoffs and ultimately to win a superbowl. Neither of which we are coming close to this year.

The only thing to watch this year is young player development - always was and still is. I'm only interested in watching Goldman, Amos, Jones, Fuller, Wilson, Langford etc. I honestly couldn't care how Allen, Young, Ball, Rolle etc do. It's pointless. They won't be here by time we are anyway good.

Whether they finish 3-13 or 6-10, only really matters if it's the younger players developing that's contributing the difference. I'm okay with wins then but if they are due to Rolle & Allen all they do is hurt our draft prospects.

I'd much rather suck being young, than semi suck and be old.

Bottom line: Can we actually stop trying to be 'presentable' and scrape together 6/7/8 wins. The goal has to be to be better than GB and win the division (some day).

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Probably not. This year at least, I'm starting to think 6 is our ceiling. Certainly I agree that progress can only be measured in terms of how young drafted players are getting on. But of course the older players, if they have any leadership at all, have to play a role in the development of those guys. A whole team of very young, inexperienced players is not a good way to develop a team either. If Rolle calling out Fuller helps to turn Fuller into the player he's capable of being, then Rolle will have done an important job (much more important than making some tackles or shoring up the safety position for a year or whatever).

I agree with you - you need vets and there is a balance to be struck.

But to me it's more down to coaching than vets.

I would have originally been one of the people happy with some of vet we signed for that very reason. I thought Allen would have helped Bass or Washington, that Mundy would have helped Vereen, that Tillman would have helped Fuller, that Briggs would have helped Bostic & Greene. Doesn't seem the case based on the evidence.

But the more you think about it it's down to latent talent and good coaching. Fox & Fangio both seem to have called out fuller anyway.

You need some vets around sure to show work ethic, mentor a bit but keeping bums like Porter, Miller, Ball, Ducasse on the roster makes no sense when you are going to finish with a losing record regardless and you can could be playing Mitchell, Khari Lee, Grasu etc. And I'd much rather look at Acho or whoever than Allen.

It was plain as day this was never a better than 8-8 team, therefore no playoffs, so you may as well re-build and re-build properly, ground up thereby giving yourself the best chance of having a young, strong, together roster going forward.

Other franchises have done it and it's been done in other sports. There is no point hanging around 5-11 to 9-7 for years.

Well...what have we learned? Shut out for the first time in over a decade, an offense that was the definition of offensive...clausen is a great reminder of how badly we need Cutler. The D got some quarterback pressure but eventually wilted and the secondary was poor all day. Special teams have been the definition of special. Again. First half looked like there was some things to like but to not even get a lousy field goal...but at least mcphee showed what he was picked up for. I think we will get a few wins this year. But I dunno if that's necessarily such a great thing, in terms of draft picks, which is, at this stage, already the main issue. I think 2017 is the earliest we should be expecting to be any good.

StringerBell wrote: »

Offensively, obviously ye were ****e, but it was the Seahawks at Century Link Field so it can be forgiven given the circumstance, but it was probably the best ye have played this season. Defensively it was pretty good for the most part. Plenty of positives to take

Wouldn't say it was our best offensive performance of the year at all, we were far better in week one against the packers, and until pickles cane in against Arizona. He didn't make any mistakes, and I'm sure some anti Cutler people who think ints are the worst thing that can happen, will say Cutler would have thrown some. But he'd have gotten a few touchdowns as well.

But yeah the defence was good, they conceded, what, nineteen?, which was mainly down to the fact that we have no depth whatsoever, and the offense couldn't stay on the field long enough to give them a break, tiredness was eventually going to happen. Didn't think the d would be the better element of our game at any stage this year.

StringerBell wrote: »

I meant best overall performance, not specifically offensively, sorry if there was some confusion.

Yeah I kind of figured that after I'd posted. Just depressing that our best performance is a shut out.

EDIT: should say the offense was set up incredibly conservatively in terms of damage control. Three TE sets all day, possibly no throws over ten yards, until the last few minutes, punting with only a yard to go when we're twenty down. The plan didn't allow clausen to make mistakes, and it didn't allow him to go out and make an impact. And he did neither.

Badabing wrote: »

Jared Allen traded to the Panthers!

Good news. Not bothered about what we got, because just getting rid and potentially giving a younger guy a chance is good enough. If we managed to get a conditional pick on top of that then good.

Compensatory pick apparently. Didn't know they were tradeable..

Badabing wrote: »

Yeah all reports said we get a conditional pick

Jay Glazer just says it's for a 6th rounder, not conditional. Whatever, he didn't fit the scheme and he was the same age as me. If the plan is to accumulate picks in exchange for these Emery FA signings, I'm all for it.

EDIT: He seems to be the only one saying that. We might be giving him up for nothing...is it based on his performance in their D? Either way, if it puts someone else in the rotation it's fine. Acho was better yesterday anyway.

JCTO wrote: »

Jon Bostic to the Patriots also. 6th round pick next year.

Another fine deal for us, I'd regard him as a bust. Ye hoors will probably make a ****ing pro bowler if him now!

$60m cap space....



Vereen waived now.

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Fantastic. He was atrocious. Another terrible draft pick.

Didn't Emery give up two picks to move up and draft him, or am I thinking of someone else?

Am i correct in saying no cap hit if we cut cutler at the end of the year?

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

No I think we would take a 13 million hit in dead money, but I stand to be corrected on that by someone who understands salary stuff better. My hope is that even if we get the qb of the future next year that they sit behind Cutler. Just my feeling is that a lot of great or even good qbs get ruined by being thrown straight in at the deep end. But of course that depends on the qb...

That would save 3 or 4 mill wouldn't it?

Obv would have to pay for another qb though

I think I liked the performance on Sunday more than most. Things unravelled after the kickoff return at the start of the 2nd half, but we got one good half, which was one more than I was expecting.

The defense played great, McPhee and Jenkins being the stars. In truth, the Seattle o-line has problems, but at least they're taking advantage of an o-line with problems, unlike last year.

This was a problem though:
The Bears got on a plane, punted 10 times and went home

The one that killed me was the one at the end of the 3rd quarter. 20-0 down...

4th and 1 at CHI 46

(2:35) P.O'Donnell punts 43 yards to SEA 11, Center-T.Gafford, fair catch by T.Lockett.

Come on, what are you doing punting there? It didn't matter in this game, but I don't like to see that conservatism (and frankly bad decision-making). This kind of conservatism was something I didn't like with Fox's teams in Denver (it may have cost them that year they lost at home to Baltimore in the playoffs).


Clausen was pretty crap, and the coaches obviously had no faith in him. I advocated starting him over Fales in that game, but if he's gonna play that badly and you have zero faith him, I think I'd rather start Fales on Sunday. It's hard to see him being any worse.

That said, I don't think they will. Conservatism again will probably win out.

Still though I liked the performance overall. I saw the press being critical, but I think you have to consider it in terms of the personnel available. We had Clausen and were down two starting WRs. With how well the defense played (one TD conceded), I could imagine if Cutler and Jeffery were in, we'd have had a chance at winning the game.