406 replies to this topic

[Independent George]

Do the Skins have a 1st-round pick this year, or did they give it up as part of the RG3 trade? I'm just trying to do the math on whether they're better off missing the playoffs.

[Maithanet]

Jaime L, on 10 December 2012 - 02:32 PM, said:

Yeah, the tiebreakers are the one thing that give me a little bit of confidence. They just have to find a way to end up with the same record as any of those teams (and then not get passed by the Cowboys or Vikings which is also possible)

I do think the magic number remains 10 wins in the NFC. Bears and Seahawks each have 2 easy games and one tough one left. Giants have tougher games remaining but they also look like they're rounding into Giants in December form which means I don't know if we can count on 'em to slip up even once.

I agree that I suspect that any team will need 10 wins to make the playoffs in the NFC.  But it's nice that if any 9-7 squad is going to make it, we are going to be first in line (the only team that could out-tiebreak us is Seattle, and I don't think they end up 9-7 anyway).

[Maithanet]

Independent George, on 10 December 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

Do the Skins have a 1st-round pick this year, or did they give it up as part of the RG3 trade? I'm just trying to do the math on whether they're better off missing the playoffs.

The Redskins do not have a 1st round pick this year or next (both belong to the Rams).  But regardless, why would it be better to miss the playoffs?  What math are you talking about?

[Fez]

As a Jets fan, if they do manage to sneak into that 6th seed, I'd say I wouldn't want to face anyone.  And I have no doubt that the Jets would be one and done.  But they did somehow give Indy their second worst loss of the year, 35-9 and they had a close game against the Texans but couldn't pull out the win, 23-17.  So I dunno.  Definitely wouldn't want to face New England or Denver, but I think the defense could at least keep them in any other game (if the offense can at least limit the turnovers).

[Independent George]

Maithanet, on 10 December 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

The Redskins do not have a 1st round pick this year or next (both belong to the Rams).  But regardless, why would it be better to miss the playoffs?  What math are you talking about?

With the BS cap penalties, the Skins are more dependent on the draft to improve in the offseason than most teams. With the new CBA, a 1st-round pick is much more economical than it has been in the past; they might have been better off in the long-term missing the playoffs and having, say, the 16th pick than making a playoff run and ending up with the 24th. Without the 1st round pick, it's largely a moot point.

[Maithanet]

Independent George, on 10 December 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

With the BS cap penalties, the Skins are more dependent on the draft to improve in the offseason than most teams. With the new CBA, a 1st-round pick is much more economical than it has been in the past; they might have been better off in the long-term missing the playoffs and having, say, the 16th pick than making a playoff run and ending up with the 24th. Without the 1st round pick, it's largely a moot point.

Yeah, I think that with Griffin (so long as he is staying mostly healthy) our days of watching mock drafts and our projected picks while the season is still going on (which has been a fixture for me the past few years) are over.  If we had a first round pick, sure it would be nice to pick 16th instead of 24th, but it is also really nice to get playoff experience for this young team we have.  I don't know how realistic it is to get a potentially starting safety in the second or third round (the secondary is an unforgiving place for rookies) but I have to hope we'll find something.

[Mexal]

Maithanet, on 10 December 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

Yeah, I think that with Griffin (so long as he is staying mostly healthy) our days of watching mock drafts and our projected picks while the season is still going on (which has been a fixture for me the past few years) are over.  If we had a first round pick, sure it would be nice to pick 16th instead of 24th, but it is also really nice to get playoff experience for this young team we have.  I don't know how realistic it is to get a potentially starting safety in the second or third round (the secondary is an unforgiving place for rookies) but I have to hope we'll find something.

Safety in the 2nd round is very possible. At the moment, there are two or three that are good and projected to go in the 2nd. We need one too. The last few safeties who have made an impact were second rounders (Byrd, Ward, Weddle, Moore).

Edited by Mexal, 10 December 2012 - 03:00 PM.

[kalbear]

According to FO, the 58-0 beatdown was only the 3rd biggest beatdown since 1991 of any team.

My favorite comment there is that Arizona has 3 spots on the 'beaten down the worst' category and this game didn't even make the cut due to opponent adjustments. That's right - this is only the 4th worst beatdown of Arizona since 1991.

On missing vs. making the playoffs: if you make the playoffs you automatically get bumped up a rank regardless of your pedigree, and there are some arcane rules about personnel that you can't interact with. If you win, you get bumped into the top 8 regardless of your record. Thus Seattle in 2010 getting a 25th overall pick instead of a 13th overall pick because they beat the Saints. They also can't get as much free agency, IIRC.

[Jaxom 1974]

Independent George, on 10 December 2012 - 09:49 AM, said:

The Bears are in rebuilding mode after this season. The question is whether Lovie is the right person to rebuild with, or if they should start from scratch.

The problem with the 'Fire Lovie' contingent is that the Bears are very likely to get someone far, far worse. Look at the record for head coaches since he came into the league; Lovie is easily in the top 10%. It would be one thing if they did it last season, when Jeff Fischer (a damned fine coach who used to play for the Bears) was available. Now, they've got an 80% chance of finding someone worse than him.  

Lovie's strong points? Excellent, disciplined defense & special teams, motivated players. His weak points? Conservative playcalling, and a persistent inability to put together a professional-level offense.

I think you don't list enough pro or cons for Lovie.  There are plenty more of both.  But the most glaring Con is the one point out in the last thread: 15-18 in December and continuing a downward trend.  Getting fat off of the easier games in the first half of the season means squat if you can't finish the season in December.

The problem is what was mentioned, and its the one that scares me as an anti-Lovie guy: Who is out there to replace him?  Frankly, if you're re-building, I say take a flyer on a name other than Gruden or Cowher...

Maithanet, on 10 December 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

I should certainly hope not.  I doubt very much that the Bears are going to go into full rebuild mode.  They are still pretty close to being a legit contender, even if they do seem to have injury/depth problems.  Blowing up the defense isn't going to help.  If they have one solid draft where they use their first few picks on O line, and then get some valuable contributers/depth with later picks, then they could quite realistically be a super bowl team next year.  I'm not saying it's gonna happen, but they are way to close to just abandon hope and rebuild.

That's pie in the sky based on the idea that based on the team, particularly the defense, playing with their heads way above water for the first half of the season.  This team was supposed to be decent, compete for a wild card, but going 7-1 in the first half has too many people trying desperately to forget that they're really just a team that's among the best of the worst, rather than actually truly elite.

I'd really prefer to see a dedication to getting better.  Fundamentals, coaching, developing a pipeline of young talent to take over as other players age and breakdown.  You don't have to chuck the whole season for such a philosophy, but you have to play realistically.

Howdyphillip, on 10 December 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

I just wanted to highlight that you actually said that the Bears Oline had talent... We will revisit later...

This is a primary reason of why its so hard for Bears fans to accept hard truths...Jerry Angelo and Lovie Smith levels of (ametuer) talent evaluation...

Howdyphillip, on 10 December 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

So... It seems that most of us wanted snow games.... except for Charger fans and the grounds crew at Lambeau...

Is there a betting pool this week for which team has a player die?

Hey!  I'm neither of those thank you very much...

[Independent George]

Jaxom 1974, on 10 December 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

I think you don't list enough pro or cons for Lovie.  There are plenty more of both.  But the most glaring Con is the one point out in the last thread: 15-18 in December and continuing a downward trend.  Getting fat off of the easier games in the first half of the season means squat if you can't finish the season in December.

That December record is a result, not a cause, and it's as relevant as the Giants' November record under Coughlin. It's a statistical blip. His conservative playcalling and inability to draft/develop offensive players are legitimate concerns; a 'December curse' is not.

If you're hiring a new HC, the primary concern should be whether they can develop an offense around Cutler without screwing up the defense, and not whether he has some magic 'winner' mojo for December.

Quote

I'd really prefer to see a dedication to getting better.  Fundamentals, coaching, developing a pipeline of young talent to take over as other players age and breakdown.  You don't have to chuck the whole season for such a philosophy, but you have to play realistically.

And that's precisely why I'm a Lovie defender - for all his faults, he is very good at precisely these things (on defense, anyway). If you want to rebuild around the defense, then Lovie is your best bet; if you want to rebuild around Cutler and the offense, then hire someone else.

Personally, I hope he lasts long enough to be available once Coughlin retires. His strengths line up exactly with the Giants' weaknesses, and his weaknesses are mitigated by the organization's strengths. The Giants already have a great GM in charge of the personnel decisions; match him with a good OC, and I'd love to see what Lovie could do with this defense.

Edited by Independent George, 10 December 2012 - 03:26 PM.

[Bronn Stone]

Jaxom 1974, on 10 December 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

Hey!  I'm neither of those thank you very much...

Hard to take seriously when someone just doesn't get it.  Both Kal and Mexal pointed out that snow games are fine as a novelty but should never happen in games that really matter.

Besides, the guy violated a good handful of thread-starting rules.  You don't start the next one of a busy thread if you started the last one.  You don't beat a dead horse if the other side toned it down when the mods came in.

In life there are just some folks who respond to the ringing of the clue phone by answering the door.

[Maithanet]

Independent George, on 10 December 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

That December record is a result, not a cause, and it's as relevant as the Giants' November record under Coughlin. It's a statistical blip. His conservative playcalling and inability to draft/develop offensive players are legitimate concerns; a 'December curse' is not.

The December record is a lot less likely to be flukey than the Giants thing.  Under Lovie the Bears have been willing to rely on older players to be stars, and to lean on free agency to help fill holes.  Both of those strategies often result in less depth (because free agents are expensive) and wearing down late (because free agents are more likely to be old).  This isn't coincidence.  The Redskins have had the exact same problem throughout the Snyder era, with even worse results.

Jaxom 1974, on 10 December 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

That's pie in the sky based on the idea that based on the team, particularly the defense, playing with their heads way above water for the first half of the season.  This team was supposed to be decent, compete for a wild card, but going 7-1 in the first half has too many people trying desperately to forget that they're really just a team that's among the best of the worst, rather than actually truly elite.

I'd really prefer to see a dedication to getting better.  Fundamentals, coaching, developing a pipeline of young talent to take over as other players age and breakdown.  You don't have to chuck the whole season for such a philosophy, but you have to play realistically.

I don't see why it is pie in the sky to think that if the Bears get a combination of a strong draft for their needs + good luck that they couldn't be Super Bowl champs next year.  They have consistently had a very good defense, and while some of the stars are getting older, I don't expect that to change.  They have a Top 10 QB and Top 10 WR, plus a versatile RB.  The holes on the Bears roster are not the kind of positions where starters are not available in the draft and free agency.  
There are probably 12-15 teams that go into the offseason that can realistically say "if things go our way in the next 12 months, we could be champs this time a year from now", but the Bears are definitely one of those teams.

Edited by Maithanet, 10 December 2012 - 03:39 PM.

[kalbear]

Quote

I don't see why it is pie in the sky to think that if the Bears get a combination of a strong draft for their needs + good luck that they couldn't be Super Bowl champs next year.  They have consistently had a very good defense, and while some of the stars are getting older, I don't expect that to change.  They have a Top 10 QB and Top 10 WR, plus a versatile RB.  The holes on the Bears roster are not the kind of positions where starters are not available in the draft and free agency.  
There are probably 12-15 teams that go into the offseason that can realistically say "if things go our way in the next 12 months, we could be champs this time a year from now", but the Bears are definitely one of those teams.

Here's some reasons why:

1. Defense doesn't tend to be consistent year to year. Offense does. There's precisely one team that has bucked this trend (the Baltimore Ravens) - and even they are now showing the signs of this sucking this year. It is harder to have a good defense year to year because of big amounts of turnover and injury luck combined with a 'good' defense requiring a lot more moving parts.
2. Drafted players almost never start performing well right away, and they certainly don't at the positions the Bears need. The Bears need WR help, line help, LB help and safety help. Of those, only the OLine tends to start doing okay right away. WRs usually take at least a season. LBs take a couple. Safeties almost never do well as a rookie.
3. age: as noted, Bears players are on the decline. The Bears are fairly old. Cutler, Forte, Marshall are at the age where decline tends to start. Briggs and Urlacher are past it. Peppers is right there.
4. Coaching: coaches rarely improve significantly on a team that had been doing well.

[Jaime L]

Independent George, on 10 December 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

With the BS cap penalties, the Skins are more dependent on the draft to improve in the offseason than most teams. With the new CBA, a 1st-round pick is much more economical than it has been in the past; they might have been better off in the long-term missing the playoffs and having, say, the 16th pick than making a playoff run and ending up with the 24th. Without the 1st round pick, it's largely a moot point.

Even with the first round pick, and even if we could guarantee we'd get a substantially better player in the mid-first as opposed to late-first, I'd still take a playoff appearance over that. You can probably even point to the Texans as a team who has followed this model of coming up just short of the playoffs repeatedly and building a stronger core than they probably would have otherwise had they made the playoffs earlier

But for a team that's made the playoffs as infrequently as the Redskins have, just the act of making the playoffs is immensely meaningful. For the Skins it wouldn't matter that they wouldn't be serious Superbowl contenders, the point is they're among that elite 12. If it's the Pats, they can take it or leave it at this point if for whatever reason they're not likely to go all the way, but for the Skins it makes the season a resounding success.

Anyway, I'd agree with this line of thinking in the NBA where everyone and their mother makes the playoffs and it isn't much of an accomplishment. And furthermore because missing the playoffs puts you in the lottery you get a shot at the next game-changing superstar in the sport. But in football, for my team, give me the playoffs everytime without a hesitation.

Edited by Jaime L, 10 December 2012 - 03:54 PM.

[awesome possum]

Holy cow, the meatball mentality is strong in Chicago this week.  I just read a column by Jim Miller stating that the Bears should not extend Cutler and let him leave when (if not trade or cut him before) his contract is up.  The reasoning?  Russell Wilson, RGIII, and Andrew Luck are playing well which means any rookie the Bears get to replace Cutler will play well too.

It's like any ability to reason has been shredded by the fact that many expected the Bears to be 10-3 at this point and because they're 8-5 instead the season has turned into a disaster and it's time to blow up the team.

Nevermind that this is, once again, the first year for the offense:  new GM, new offensive coaches, new WRs, new linemen.  And that, yes, because of injuries, the offense as it was built in the preseason has been together exactly 3 of the 13 games played so far this year.  Does that excuse the offense's struggles?  No, absolutely not.  As I've argued it's been a players screwing up simple plays that they are paid to execute combined with some coaching issues (Mike Tice has not exactly lit the world on fire his first year as an OC).  Is it a contributing reason?  Absolutely.

I have faith that Phil Emery will continue to fix the problems and that even if the Bears fail to make the playoffs this season or are one and done in the playoffs, the window is not yet closed.  It's closing, but not closed, and can easily be pushed back open with the right personnel moves.

[balefired-ed]

The whole RG3 thing with trading away their first round picks just seems like a double edged sword to me.

On the one hand, you have a QB with obvious talent who is going to win you games that your run of the mill average QB will not.

On the other, you severely limit your options of improving the team in a meaningful way, especially with the new contract deals from the draft. Instead of getting relatively cheap first round talents you are pretty much forced into free agency, which on the whole seems to do alright as a short term fix but can really wreck your salary cap at the expense of someone who is most likely going to decline.

I admire the courage of the Skins' gamble, but only time will tell if it was wise.

[Independent George]

Jaxom 1974, on 10 December 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

I think you don't list enough pro or cons for Lovie.  There are plenty more of both.  But the most glaring Con is the one point out in the last thread: 15-18 in December and continuing a downward trend.  Getting fat off of the easier games in the first half of the season means squat if you can't finish the season in December.

Maithanet, on 10 December 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

The December record is a lot less likely to be flukey than the Giants thing.  Under Lovie the Bears have been willing to rely on older players to be stars, and to lean on free agency to help fill holes.  Both of those strategies often result in less depth (because free agents are expensive) and wearing down late (because free agents are more likely to be old).  This isn't coincidence.  The Redskins have had the exact same problem throughout the Snyder era, with even worse results.

I decided to look it up, and I actually can't figure out where that 15-18 December record came from. Based on calendar quirks, December games can end as early as week 16, leaving a week 17 game in January. I've copied Lovie's record in both December, and weeks 13-17, below:

2011: 0-4 (1-4 including Jan 1)
2010: 3-1 (3-2 including Jan 2
2009: 2-2 (3-2 including Jan 3)
2008: 3-1 (3-2 including Nov 30)
2007: 2-3
2006: 4-1
2005: 3-1 (3-2 including Jan 1)
2004: 1-3 (1-4 including Jan 2)

December Record: 18-16
Weeks 13-17 Record: 20-20

I can't for the life of me figure out where 15-18 came from - it's wrong no matter how you calculate it. Even so, the record is badly inflated by (1) the Caleb Hanie experience in 2011, and (2) resting starters in Week 17 in 2005-6. Again - I think it's a statistical blip.

Edited by Independent George, 10 December 2012 - 04:19 PM.

[Noroldis]

awesome possum, on 10 December 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

Holy cow, the meatball mentality is strong in Chicago this week.  I just read a column by Jim Miller stating that the Bears should not extend Cutler and let him leave when (if not trade or cut him before) his contract is up.  The reasoning?  Russell Wilson, RGIII, and Andrew Luck are playing well which means any rookie the Bears get to replace Cutler will play well too.

Wow. Are a lot of Bears fans retarded? Cutler might well be one of the very best QBs in the league right now if the Bears' O-line had more consistency than Swiss cheese. Even the Best Rookie Ever will struggle if he's running for his life every other play and getting sacked more often than any other QB.

[Jaime L]

Maithanet, on 10 December 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

The December record is a lot less likely to be flukey than the Giants thing.  Under Lovie the Bears have been willing to rely on older players to be stars, and to lean on free agency to help fill holes.  Both of those strategies often result in less depth (because free agents are expensive) and wearing down late (because free agents are more likely to be old).  This isn't coincidence.  The Redskins have had the exact same problem throughout the Snyder era, with even worse results.

Was just thinking about this, and mostly agree, though this team has only made the playoffs in the 2000s on the backs of a 5 game December win streak and a 4 game one.

When this team does collapse it seems to happen without fail in October (for whatever reason) after mostly positive seeming Septembers. It's just most of the time this nose-dive continues threw November and December...though twice they've been able to pull out of it and make the playoffs.

awesome possum, on 10 December 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

Holy cow, the meatball mentality is strong in Chicago this week.  I just read a column by Jim Miller stating that the Bears should not extend Cutler and let him leave when (if not trade or cut him before) his contract is up.  The reasoning?  Russell Wilson, RGIII, and Andrew Luck are playing well which means any rookie the Bears get to replace Cutler will play well too.

I've always found Jim Miller's football commentary especially stupid and reactionary.

[Independent George]

Noroldis, on 10 December 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

Wow. Are a lot of Bears fans retarded?

Yes.

Or, rather, no, but much of the Chicago-area media are.

Edited by Independent George, 10 December 2012 - 04:18 PM.