Coach of the year

Collin-

My side-job (more like a hobby) is covering local events for a newspaper. No one (certainly not yours truly) ever accused me of Grantland Rice/Jim Murray status. I am a local-schmocal freelancer. Why that was even brought up in this thread is puzzling to me.

I know that to be true. The rest of TBR knows it to be true, as I have never presented myself in any other light. You already got burned on this issue once, as you accused me straight-up of lying about the fact that I make/and have made a living covering sports. It might be wise that you just get with the rest of the world and not attack me personally in regards to something that I have never openly advertised, unless challenged or asked about it.

And, BTW....it is hideouds for one to base any NFL team's success on "luck". Luck is bullshit, in regards to assessing a team's full body of work over a season. Every championship team catches breaks along the way. But in the end, you either win, or lose.

Quit overthinking football. It's not that complicated.

 

The Bears offensive line is damn strong. You may disagree (though you would be wrong), but to call someone a moron for pointing that out it just absurd.

They're sure as hell better than Carolina across the board.

 

Chicago's line? I like them. I don't want to rate them against others, I wouldn't put them in the top 4, but I'd put them higher than Football Outsiders does (11th run, 20th pass) having seen them in 5 games. I'd have figured them specifically to be rated higher with the run. Maybe if they stopped breaking each other's jaws, they'd rate higher.

They have names. Names I like. Tait, Ruben Brown, Kreutz, Metcalf, Fred Miller. Tait's probably going to the Pro Bowl, Kreutz definitely going. Miller and Brown look to be declining a bit, and Metcalf was hurt a little, but they're a big reason the Bears have any offense at all. They've made Jones and Peterson look really decent out there, and Benson should've killed people back there.
St. Clair and Roberto Garza aren't bad interior line backups. I don't think St. Clair should've ever been put at tackle, though. If he'd stayed at C, I figure he'd have rooted the start of a long career with a team a few years ago.

 

Ok. Here's the simple answer that you don't want:

It's 2005. Not 2001.

Other differences. This year, the Bears are 10-4 behind a rookie quarterback. In 2001, they were division champs behind two journeyman vets.

In 2001, the Bears were 27th in the NFL in rushing yards per attempt. This year, they are 8th, averaging 4.3 yards per carry. Better than that 3.5 from 2001, agree? The running game is more explosive with Thomas Jones. More rushes of over 20 yards.

Defensively, there are a couple of key differences. In 2001, the Bears ranked 2nd in the NFL against the run. Problem was their pass defense, which ranked 27th in yards allowed, and gave up 6.3 yards per completion.

In 2005, the Bears pass defense is ranked 2nd in the NFL. They rank 1st in the league in yards per attempt allowed at 5.18. They have picked off 18 balls (good for 3rd in the NFL), while allowing a league-low 8 td passes.

Sorry Collin, but that's not luck. That's a fucking defense.

To me, there are some similarites. Quarterbacks, both years, were subpar. Miller's numbers were decent, but he was still a sub-.600 passer.

Both teams had strong run defenses.

It could be said that they were fortunate to win the Cleveland game in 2001. Hail mary caught by a tailback (Allen) at the end of reg. Then Mike Brown picks off a pass for a td.

In 2001, they allowed 201 points in 16 games. Were they lucky to do that? No.

Luck exists in isolated circumstances. But it does not carry a football team to the playoffs. The Bears had an exceptional 2001 regular season. 13 wins, and an average margin of victory of 10 points per game.

Philadelphia was a better team all along in 2001. They proved it in the divisional round. Had Philly played in the NFC Central, or Chicago in the NFC East, the Eagles would have won the division in each of those cases.

Final record is not always indicitive of one team matching up well with another team of an equal/lesser record. That was proven to be true in the case of the 2001 Bears.

How about the 1999 Colts? Were they lucky to steamroll through the AFC, just to lose to the Titans in the playoffs? How about the Jags in that same season? Were they a fluke? Or just a damn fine team who matched up poorly with the Titans?

To place such high value on an arbitrary concept (like luck) really sucks the life out of any substantive argument. It is a cop-out to say that the Bears are "lucky". In fact, it's downright amateurish to work that angle.

 

I have always liked Kruetz. He is an exceptional run blocker, and is tough as nails. Tait has always been a beast.

Garza was a nice insurance policy for them. Impressed me in Atlanta.

They would rank top-5 for me.

Kansas City
Seattle
Indy
Pittsburgh
Chicago

KC and Seattle are heads and shoulders above the rest, IMO. I would give my left nut for Willie Roaf

 

Pressure forced it all, Collin. You can certainly argue that they are "lucky" on the basis of Orton not completely imploding. You should not call that defense lucky. The reason we lost to Chicago is we could not establish a running game. Oh, and those 25 sacks.

 

Yeah, I noted that the '05 version is much stronger in the secondary (especially at CB, since Tony Parrish was a pretty good player), but I think you're incorrect about the pressure. It's true that Roosevelt Colvin was a huge factor as a blitzing linebacker (although some of his sacks were as a situational DE - I don't know how many), but Phillip Daniels' 9 sacks and Bryan Robinson's 4.5 are more or less equivalent to Adewale Ogunleye's 10 and Alex Brown's 5.

Because you have previously claimed to work "in the industry" when talking about sports journalism, and have attempted to portray yourself as knowledgeable about football. Both claims were obviously disingenuous.

I got burned? Huh? You eventually admitted that you had lied, because you absolutely don't make a living covering sports. We haven't established whether or not you're paid at all for the few articles about sports you write on occasionally write for a very small regional newspaper (you wouldn't say how much you get paid per article, nor allow me to ask your employer), but obviously that's very far from "making a living."

Like I've said before, the more you talk, the more obvious it is that you don't know what you're talking about. It's fine to argue that the '05 Bears are not benefitting from an inordinate amount of good luck (although I obviously disagree), but suggesting that it can't play a major factor during the course of the season is just ignorant. Because of the small sample size of games, a football team can have a much better season because of luck than they arguably should have. The '02 Ohio State Buckeyes are an excellent example from the college ranks (came up because their luck was just profiled this morning on ESPN).

Everyone likes Kreutz because he's that obviously good, but Tait has significant deficiencies in pass protection. His lateral movement is suspect, and he is susceptible to inside moves. He obviously never should have been moved to LT, as he is strictly limited to a RT's skills. That said, he's definitely a plus run blocker with excellent technique and drive in that side of the game.

And that's why I said you showed you don't know what you're talking about. You might be able to argue that they're a top 5 run blocking line, although even that claim is suspect. But their deficiencies in pass protection mean that they're very far from a top 5 unit overall. That said, you're correct that they're definitely better than our guys, but you showed your level of ignorance by claiming they're a top 5 offensive line.

No one has questioned the fact that Chicago has an awesome defense, but that's only one facet of the game, and the Bears are just as obviously deficient in the other aspects of football performance.

I think this is a fair enough statement, but Pittsburgh showed that the '05 Bears don't have as good a run defense as many have assumed, while the '01 version was pretty much impossible to run against.

Make up your mind, champ. You just got finished telling me that Jake Delhomme's half against the Bears was his worst performance of the season, and at the time of the game TBR did discuss the fact that neither interception was actually caused by pressure, or at least not impending hits. Jake threw both balls up for grabs and wasn't hit on either interception.

 

How does Denver NOT make this cut?

 

Because Hammer doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. He only put Chicago in the top 5 because he was looking to argue about something because I pissed him off in the past (and honestly I can't really blame him for that).

 

I don't like what Denver does. It's effecive, but highly unethical. Thus, I don't include them in my top-5.