NFL V - Turkey Day Edition.

[Kalbear]

On an unrelated note, FO has a really nice article on what's wrong with Cutler. The TLDR is that he has great physical skills, not the best decision making, not good mechanics at all and that almost everything in the Chicago offense is so bad that he's got nothing to work with save dump passes - which means really that Orton would have been a way better choice to hold on to until they fixed all that.

I'm going to burn in hell for this, but you know what would be very awesome? Getting Charlie Weis.

[Stego]

On an unrelated note, FO has a really nice article on what's wrong with Cutler. The TLDR is that he has great physical skills, not the best decision making and that almost everything in the Chicago offense is so bad that he's got nothing to work with save dump passes - which means really that Orton would have been a way better choice to hold on to until they fixed all that.

Plus Orton is smarter.

[Kalbear]

That might be, but as we've seen with Favre QB smarts aren't always the most important thing for a good QB or even sometimes a great QB. They do, however, cause you to fuck up a lot more when you're playing with the issues the Bears have.

[awesome possum]

You can't try to talk logically to haters, Kal. Rock has already declared that Cutler "stinks" just by looking at numbers and not the fact that any QB in the league or in league history would be doing terribly in Chicago this year, and Stego has a raging hard-on of bias against Chicago and Cutler for reasons only he can fathom.

Thanks for posting the link, the article states a lot of the things I already believe and will provide valuable in the seemingly endless debates I've been having with co-workers.

[Kalbear]

Don't get me wrong, Possum - I'm probably more in the Rock/Stego camp than I am in yours. I don't think he's the second coming of Grossman, but I also think that it was a big mistake to make the trade now (I really thought the Bears line would be significantly better than they are) and that this is going to hurt the bears for years, with the end result trading Cutler to some team for pennies on the dollar who will then proceed to kick our ass with him.

I don't like a lot of his mechanics. I think he panics too much, and I think he doesn't have high football IQ. He makes dumb mistakes and makes more of them than the average QB (which Orton is), especially when pressured. I had thought those things would be mitigated by his amazing physical talents and his ability to make just exceptional throws; he is both fast and accurate, and that combination is quite powerful in QBs (as Favre has shown). And as Favre has shown, he can utterly suck when put into bad situations.

I didn't realize at the time that the Bears really need to rebuild at almost every position on their offense. If I had, I would have advocated keeping Orton for a while and building a good line. Though to be honest, I'm not sure it matters; the Bears have been awesome at getting good value at defensive positions and utter shit at valuing offensive positions, so even if we had kept good picks would we have gotten anything? Not a clue.

[Rockroi]

Well, one way is by seeing how that coach does without said talent. In Belichick's case, he's done fairly poorly without at least Tom Brady, as you point out. That's not entirely fair, mind you; losing your star starting QB in a league where QB play is one of the primary correlations of winning is a big hit. But it's one datum.

And in here lies the rub. It has been THE question of Belichick and Brady since February 2002. Who is benefited more by the other? For Brady, we have absolutely no data; he has never taken a pro snap without Bill as the head coach. Belichick has the unenviable task of being saddled with several bad Browns teams and one horrendous Pats team prior to 2001. His record is bad in those seasons. However, Belichick is not the same coach as he was in Cleveland (read David Halberstam's "The Education of a Coach." The book compares and contrasts Bill's years as the Giants D coordinator and how he handled LT v. how Bill handeled the talent in Cleveland. Basically, becasue LT was so ungodly good, Bill let him get away with murder knowing that every Sunday, LT came to play. Well, he then did the same thing in Cleveland, with two exceptions: none of the guys was as talented as LT and they did not always come to play on Sunday. He stopped that with the Pats). Moreover, I think his record really does speak for itself. Were the Pats the most talented team in 2001? HARD-LEE. How about 2003? I think overall, a good argument can be made that they were, but 2004? I really think both the Colts and Steelers each had more talent. In other words, he was able to do more with (a little) less. And even if you take all that out, the 2001 Pats victory is as good of a coaching win (and an unmitigated example of CBs mugging WRs... wtf do I care, nobody's reading this) as you are going to find. That and that little guy under center. He's good to.

And I also think that its possible that that both individuals never do as well as the whole. In other words, (again, and this is an intellectual exercise more than anything else) if we assign each of them a points value, the sum is greater than the parts. If we say Belichick is a 91 and Brady is a 96, I would put their total value not at 187 but at like 226; each one makes the other better.

Another, I would argue, is how well you play in the second half vs. the first half. This is a relative value; it depends a lot on the other team's adjustments. But at least this year, Belichick has been consistently outcoached in the second half.

In a light most favorable to your argument, I would only be able to grant you this year alone (but I would add there was definitely a lag in the 2007 Superbowl- a really compelling argument could be made that Belichick's "4th and 2" syndrome had a symptom that night). As we both have shown, the Pats from 2001-2008 lost very very very few games in the second half. And again, it seems to me we are not accounting for talent. Do we think that the 2009 Pats are as talent-matured as the 2004 Pats? I cannot fathom how we could think that on Defense. There is only so much a "mad genius" can do with a slew of underdeveloped CBs, no D-line rush, and some poor LB play.

Another might be how well drafting has panned out. This again seems to be something that's gone down with time; the majority of 'wins' for the Pats recently have been in free agency, not in the draft. Heck, Mayo and Merriweather were both lauded early and seem to be hitting slumps of some kind. Their early drafts were clearly very strong, but it seems to have declined somewhat.

I think Merriweather is actually playing really well. The one real blot was against the Saints, but I really think that 1) it was actually problems with the CBs, not the Safeties, 2) he's still young, he's gonna make mistakes and 3) he does not have to be Champ Bailey to be a successful pick. Mayo, I think, is just in a small slump. He may still be hurt, but most likely he is suffering from a lack of vets on the team he can take pointers from (Thomas is clearly not that). Also, Chung is playing well, he is a work in progress, and other players are sticking okay, so far and may work out in time.

But that all is in the "maybe" category.

This then brings up this uncomfortable point: was it a good idea to have traded Vrabel when its completely clear that we need some vet leadership to help mold younger players (to say nothing of a pass rusher)? He was a throw-in on the Cassel trade, but was that the "lack-of-vet-leadership" straw that broke the playoff camel's back? Hard to say. But remember- we lost Bruschi, Vrabel, and Harrison all in the same season. That is now starting to sound more and more like "a rebuilding year" to me...

... which makes me all the more pissed that 2008 ever happened. We may have lost Brady's best statistical year (save, obviously 2007 which was an abomination) and potentially the last legit year for Brady and the Pats to win a SB with this class of talent. The Pats were 11-5 with Cassel. Was Brady good for 1-2 more wins. If that was the case... well ... ugh...

I don't think Belichick is a bad coach. I do suspect that the caliber of people around him has declined some, and while he was clearly the better part of Weis, Crennel, Mangini, McDaniels, and Pioli they had their own talent too.

Agreed.

In any case, it seems like a death of many cuts. Belichick had relied on having a lot of proven players and good drafts in the defense and dealing with a competent offense that could deliver when it counted. That was the formula in 2001-2004. The formula along the way changed, and it doesn't seem like Belichick does as well with less talent on defense (compared to, say, Dungy and Polian, who were legendary for making nothing out of something). And as odd as it sounds, it really sounds like he's getting outcoached by the better coaches in the league.

I disagree on several fronts. For starters, its not "death" by many cuts, just "wounding" by many cuts. If this is death (7-4 with the AFC East title all but wrapped up and an outside shot at a first round bye) what are teams like Detroit and Cleveland? Drawn and Quartered? I think that right now, the Pats talent lack is POTENTIALLY even greater, but Belichick has actually done the most with what he has. I mean... have you seen the roster? As far as drafting, Mayo, Merriweather and Chung are all on track to be impact players, but others are lagging. As far as "not doing as well" remember that the 2006 Colts were an atrocious Defense. At the same time, their O was stacked - actually better than the Pats currently if you factor in the running game (the 2006 Colts actually had one). And they got Dwight Freeney which HARDLY qualifies as "less." Show me the Pats' Dwight Freeney, please! We need him so I'd love to know where he has been hiding.

And as much as its possible that Darth Hoodie has been "outcoached" I can see some examples of it, but its just as possible that the D really is that bad (or more accurately, that underdeveloped and manned with younger players). If that is the case, than this is nothing more than a rebuilding year (which I have an issue with for reasons stated above- another wasted year of Brady's prime).

We all SAID that the 2009 Pats had a problem on Defense before the season started. And guess what? We have all been proven correct. That does not mean that the 2009 Pats are a poorly coached team. There are significant indicators that the Pats are a very well coached team: Pats are 3rd in +/- for turnovers (with +10... the fucking Packers are +17!); the Pats are #1 in penalties (avg. only 4.8 per game! Colts are #2 at 4.9... and GB is dead last at 7.9! WTF!?!?!); and they are near the bottom in turnovers.

I think that this season is probably the low ebb of Pats talent and I hope they right the ship soon. And if they do it will because of coaching and not in spite of it.

[Trebla]

You can't try to talk logically to haters, Kal.

replace "haters" with homers. I think you'll find a common trait on this board with Cutler hate; New England fans. McDaniels who was begot from Belichick, Hallowed by Thy Name. Anyone who dares cross a "what Would Bill Belichick do" Disciple gets scorn. Anyone else watching Chicago (who I have always hated so I have no vested interest in) can see they has NO talent on offense or defense. It's funny seeing Kyle Orton ,Captain Neckbeard, Mr. Almost Drank himself Out of the League getting all this love. He's a barely mediocre QB who cannot make all the throws.

This is a passing league. This isn't 2000/2001 where QB plays was at an all-time low and a team with a great defense and and an average defense can win a title. I was listening to the radio where they were saying that statistically this as as good a passing league as there has ever been. You have 4 GREAT Qb's: Manning, Favre, Brady, Brees. A bunch of good ones: Roethlisberger, Warner, McNabb, Palmer, E. Manning, Romo, Rodgers.

The other comparable year was 1993 where the best QB rating players were: Young, Favre, Aikman, Elway. and other in the league: Montana, Kelly, Moon, Marino.

So my point is this...you cannot try to win anything with a journeyman QB in this era. That is what Kyle Orton is. Good at short passes, pretty smart but with no mobility and a noodle arm, You need a guy who can make all the throws, who can be coached. Cutler proved he can be coached in Denver. Right now he has no support, with awful players and fairly bad coaching. Yeah he has also played bad because he is forcing everything. He doesn't know where his receivers are going to be most of the time. He's had to run for his life because his tackles are horrible. There has been no running game. He's rattled. And now you have Brian "I'm the Alpha Dog" Urlacher sitting out for the season yet saying they should have stuck with a strong running game and a great defense. Right. Problem is that they haven't had either of those since 2006.

Urlacher. You wanna know why Benson fizzled in Chicago. The alpha dog locker room. The defense runs the place and will not suffer any other players stealing their limelight. They've created a very fractured locker room. Urlacher, Harris, Ogunleye...douchebags.

[Sirius]

Speaking of haters, I've brought this up before, but I found this yesterday... Can you honestly watch that and hate the guy?

[Kalbear]

I liked my 'make nothing out of something' slip. Heh.

I think Wilfork is certainly on par with Freeney in terms of his importance to the defense and his talent. In the tampa-2, you need a stellar pass rusher. In the 3-4, you need a stellar NT. Different schemes, but equally important players in the scheme.

And in 2006 the Colts had Sanders come back; they didn't have a safety with his skill set until this year. Tampa 2 is designed to filter through the safety for running plays, so him coming back was huge.

As to the defense this year for the Pats...I mean, what is wrong with the defense? There' something wrong, but at the same time they had Troy Brown as their nickelback in prior years. You're telling me that what they have now isn't as good as Troy Brown? That's nuts. That's another argument for coaching issues; good young players should be coachable, no? They shouldn't be making these fundamental mistakes, right? Part of that's on them, but part of that's on the coaching too.

As to rebuilding...I think the Pats might be okay, but in an odd way. I think that they have about one more year of good Moss time, and maybe 3 more years of Brady. Welker doesn't work as a threat without Moss as the deep threat, so you're likely looking at next year as the only one where the Pats offense is going to be a significant threat for a bit; even with draft picks, no receiver is going to contribute a lot early on. On defense, though, if you believe that what you have is talented you've got a lot of room to grow. I'm very skeptical personally, but it's possible that I'm wrong. Though their getting a strong pass rusher of some kind who can also double as a coverage player (like Jason Taylor, perhaps) would be a big win.

[Rockroi]

I think Wilfork is certainly on par with Freeney in terms of his importance to the defense and his talent. In the tampa-2, you need a stellar pass rusher. In the 3-4, you need a stellar NT. Different schemes, but equally important players in the scheme.

Yeah. Clearly Wilfork is to the run what Freeney is against the pass. At the same time, who was the D guy the COlts got mid year? McFarlan? He actually worked out for them as well.

Though their getting a strong pass rusher of some kind who can also double as a coverage player (like Jason Taylor, perhaps) would be a big win.

Belichick practically wants to marry Taylor. Here's hoping.

[awesome possum]

The Bears are in a really tough spot, and their inefficiencies in all aspects of the organization are starting to show from the top all the way down. For starters, the team owner has checked out and her husband's family holds basically all the power in the organization. The team president is a guy whose previous job was vice-president for the terrible Michael McCaskey and before that he was basically the team accountant.

They have a general manager who seems relatively clueless on how to make the right personnel moves. He gets a gunslinger quarterback and proceeds to build an offense suited more for the QB they just traded than the one they just traded for. Here's a guy who thinks that a core of inexperienced WRs will be just fine without the mentoring of an intelligent veteran who can show them the ropes in all facets of the game.

They have a head coach who is insistent that his version of the Tampa 2 is just fine and refuses to make any changes, even though it's a defense that offenses can easily pick a part unless it has the exact right kind of personnel (which the Bears don't) and key adaptations are made (which Smith refuses to do). They have an offensive coordinator who is similar in his line of thinking. He has his playbook and refuses to think outside of his poorly constructed box. The line in the article about Turner was particularly damning:

It was difficult to know what to make of Cutler's mechanics early on -- the guy's obviously talented enough to complete quick outs -- but I was astonished to see Pace get no help with Allen on any of those plays. Offensive coordinator Ron Turner managed to combine the protection leakage of wide sets with the inflexible non-production of a quick-screen-only offense. It was mind-blowing.

This is a guy who doesn't believe in playing to his QBs strengths, he'd rather just try to hide the weaknesses. But when your QBs weakness is mechanics and you've done nothing to help that and everything to hinder it, you're going to have a QB who is slowly growing less confident and more unsure of himself.

The problems with the Bears are all over. They definitely have a case of the illness that has sickened several NFC Super Bowl losers this decade. The Rams, Seahawks, Panthers and now Bears have all gone steadily downhill since their Super Bowl appearances. Only the Eagles and Giants haven't completely collapsed since their Super Bowl loss.

The thing that angers me the most about this season is that I was always an optimistic one, but watching this team has drained the optimism from me. I believe Kal's right when he says Cutler will be traded in a few years, and he'll probably earn an NFL MVP and a Super Bowl trophy or two when he does. The Bears, quite simply, don't know how to have an offense. They're still stuck living in the past, thinking they should rebuild the Monsters of the Midway rather than build a winning team.

The team they have fielded this season ended up being terrible, and I have a horrible gut feeling that next season the team they field will consist of about 95% of the same players, with a 4th or 5th round draft pick and an over the hill veteran thrown in there. Meanwhile, the Chicago fandom - the most bipolar group of fans in professional sports - will begin to despise Cutler and think of him as Grossman II because the team has no idea how to build an offense around him. Management, rather than taking the responsibility for not knowing what the hell they're doing, will gladly offer him up as a scapegoat since Lovie will be gone by then.

[Jaime L]

Kal, with regard to Belichick, what exactly are you arguing?

If you're arguing that he's lost something off his fastball, I agree. His defenses always used to be able to make stops when needed, but the last few seasons, that really doesn't seem to be the case.

But if you're saying he's no longer as good of a coach as some of those that he lost to this year, who exactly is better? Surely not Caldwell. Everyone agrees that the Colts are Peyton Manning, and even if you had a mannequin at coach (which coincidentally is what they went with) Peyton would still net you at least 12 wins a year. Sparano? These Dolphins are more up and down than a see saw. Sean Payton? While his offensive ingenuity is now rightly being recognized, the difference maker for the Saints this year has been Gregg Williams and his rebuilding of the defense. Not to mention, and I think this became abundantly clear Monday Night, the Saints are just more talented than the Patriots. There's just a lot more depth. Josh McDaniels? Beating the Pats while impressive, still smells a lot like Gruden knowing all the Raiders plays and using it against 'em in the Super Bowl.

Let's not even talk about the coaches of some of the other blue chip teams: Brad Childress, Norv Turner...anyone?

I mean before we cast down Belichick in favor of all these other young, talented coaches in the league...let's see them win consistently first. Anyone can catch lightning in a bottle for a season. Anyone can get outcoached for a game or a half. This is the NFL, up until 2007, everyone loses 3-4 times. Let's see what happens when they play again. Let's see who makes the adjustments. 7-4 does not a bad coach make. Wouldn't be surprised at all if the Pats end up 12-4. Think there's so much of a rush to bury Belichick in all quarters because of his arrogance, but it's way too soon. I keep seeing the same examples trotted out: The Broncos game from a few years ago, the Colts game two years ago...the Giants Superbowl....but he was the only one to guide his team to even reach that point. Where were the Giants the other years? Oh right, not in contention. What about the Colts? Losing in the first round of the playoffs. The Broncos? As inconsistent as most of the other 32 teams. We're holding Belichick to a different standard, which is fine, up until we then use that to start questioning his supremacy as a coach. We still got a ways to go for any of these other coaches to prove to me they're as good as Belichick.

...

Now Belichick as a GM, that's a different story. Who was the last impact guy the Pats drafted? Wilfork in '04? It's especially disastrous considering they've had more picks than just about anyone in football. And I still don't get why they traded Seymour right before the season started. Think they're paying for it now.

[Week]

Now Belichick as a GM, that's a different story. Who was the last impact guy the Pats drafted? Wilfork in '04? It's especially disastrous considering they've had more picks than just about anyone in football. And I still don't get why they traded Seymour right before the season started. Think they're paying for it now.

Jerod Mayo? Meriweather? That's just off the top of my head.

eta- Not to mention Welker and Moss, who they got for draft picks. Just not from the draft, obviously.

[Jaime L]

Jerod Mayo? Meriweather? That's just off the top of my head.

Mayo's a good one. Did Merriweather actually play last night? He might as well have been invisible.

eta- Not to mention Welker and Moss, who they got for draft picks. Just not from the draft, obviously.

They traded a draft pick for Welker. Make no mistake, Moss came free.

[Kalbear]

Guess my point is that I'm starting to wonder how much of the Pats success has come not because of Belichick, but because of the people around him. Which, to be fair, is a skill - getting people who rock. But it also makes me wonder how much of that isn't on him.

Now you're probably right that it's not that big a deal, and by any gauge you'd care to mention he's been a profoundly good coach. It's not like Walsh didn't lose games in the playoffs due to heroics of other teams, for instance. Perhaps it's that this year more than any in recent memory the Pats look like a somewhat meh team; they obliterate bad teams (which is a good sign of a strong team) but don't seem to be able to get over that hump of beating good teams. I mean...Cinci has more quality wins than the Pats do up to this point, even so far as going against the same opponents. How fucked up is it that Marvin Lewis has done better than Belichick so far?

But that argument's also stupid; it's not like Lewis has taken on Belichick mano y mano or something, any more than Manning and Brady had a sumo-off. It's a team sport, and there are countless small reasons that a team has that add up to a loss.

One thing's for sure - just because Brady, Moss and Welker are back together doesn't mean the dominance of the 2007 Pats is going to come back right away.

[Jaime L]

One thing's for sure - just because Brady, Moss and Welker are back together doesn't mean the dominance of the 2007 Pats is going to come back right away.

Yes, if at all. Brady doesn't look like the same QB to me.

That was the most striking aspect of the game. The passing of the torch. The sense that Brees looked comfortable and effortless in the way Brady did in 2007.

[Sirius]

Enough about these Pats, is anyone going to beat the Saints this year?

[Kalbear]

This year? maybe not. Their schedule is very winnable and has only one challenge - the Cowboys, and who the hell knows what team they are from week to week. The Falcons might have been something, but with Ryan and Turner both injured that's looking less and less of an issue.

Next year - like in the playoffs? Probably. While they looked like worldbeaters against the Pats, they almost lost to St. Louis and have in general struggled mightily against teams that can run the ball well. Minnesota -who has more sacks with their front 4 than any other team and can run the ball exceedingly well - is a very, very bad matchup for the Saints. If the Saints are forced to be a one-dimensional offense due to not running the ball well, Brees may have problems, and Minnesota can do that sort of thing. On the other side of the ball, the Saints D plays well when they make the opposing team one-dimensional, and I just don't see that happening against the Vikings.

On the flip side, though, the Vikings play poorly against fairly physical teams, and as Bill Simmons pointed out all their wins come against teams with a combined record of 39-74; the only team they've beaten that's really any good is the Packers. I would think that they'd have some issues against some of the teams from the NFC East. Arizona with a healthy Warner might have challenged them too, but that'll have to wait for the playoffs as well.

[Gold Storm]

Enough about these Pats, is anyone going to beat the Saints this year?

If they are on, no; however, they do tend to play down to their competition. They better look out and not get overconfident, because the Vikes are right behind them, and they match up with the Saints and could give them a lot of trouble.

[Jaxom 1974]

Urlacher. You wanna know why Benson fizzled in Chicago. The alpha dog locker room. The defense runs the place and will not suffer any other players stealing their limelight. They've created a very fractured locker room. Urlacher, Harris, Ogunleye...douchebags.

Something tells me Olin Kreutz might have something to say about that. That guy's supposed to be some sort of godfather in that locker room...wasn't he involved with that shooting range issue a couple seasons ago...?