The Bears will have a top ten offense this season

FirstTimer

FirstTimer

v. 2.0: Fully Modded
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
May 4, 2010
Posts:
27,077
Liked Posts:
15,163
Scoot26 said:
They could have added linebacker or pass rusher depth... offensively that draft was awful in the top half of the first round.

Alex Smith
Ronnie Brown
Braylon Edwards
Benson
Cadillac Williams
Troy williamson
Mike williams


If anything the Bears should have traded down and gained additional picks. Oh well, they still made the Super Bowl a year later but this draft helped ruined them down the road.
Click to expand...

FWIW, if the Bears take Alex Smith and he turns into the guy he is now the Bears are likely a playoff team a lot more than they were under Cutler and possibly make the SB in pick any season between 2010-2012.
 
Novak

Novak

Mod in Training/Fire Forum
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '21
Joined:
Sep 7, 2014
Posts:
16,086
Liked Posts:
12,652
Rory Sparrow said:
I'm not excusing the pick, I just don't think it can be classified as Angelo's "Waterloo" when the Bears still made the Super Bowl with Benson on the team. That pick did not put the franchise into a nose-dive. I think the problem was, after seeing first hand that Jones was better than Benson, Angelo still chose to retain Benson and let Jones go. The badness of Benson could have been mitigated by Thomas Jones being on the roster...Jones ran for more yards in his three post-Bears years with the Jets than during his three years on the Bears.
Click to expand...

GM egos... only reasonable explanation as to why Benson was retained vs Jones.

And yes, the Benson pick wasn't the "downfall" of Angelo. Mortgaging the future on the arm of Cutler was definitely what did it.
 
Washington

Washington

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 22, 2016
Posts:
3,740
Liked Posts:
2,697
Rory Sparrow said:
Bears made the Super Bowl with Benson. Benson ended up rushing for more yards than the guy drafted above him (Ronnie Brown) and the guy drafted after him (Cadillac Williams). Yeah, Benson was a bad pick overall, but it wasn't horrendous relative to everything else. If any one move can be said to have sealed Angelo's fate, it was investing two #1s and the team's future in Jay Cutler.
Click to expand...

Monday morning quarterbacking on the Cutler trade, but at the time, I sure gave him an A for effort. There has traditionally been little effort placed in making that position right. In this case, at least Angelo tried. Cutler still had lots of potential at the time with a pretty successful season in Denver having thrown for > 4500 yards (would be a Bears record).

It was the resigning of Cutty by Emery that redefined the term stupidity. At that point, the team knew they only possessed an average QB and chose to pay him as if he were a top 10 QB.
 
FirstTimer

FirstTimer

v. 2.0: Fully Modded
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
May 4, 2010
Posts:
27,077
Liked Posts:
15,163
Rory Sparrow said:
I'm not excusing the pick, I just don't think it can be classified as Angelo's "Waterloo" when the Bears still made the Super Bowl with Benson on the team. That pick did not put the franchise into a nose-dive. I think the problem was, after seeing first hand that Jones was better than Benson, Angelo still chose to retain Benson and let Jones go. The badness of Benson could have been mitigated by Thomas Jones being on the roster...Jones ran for more yards in his three post-Bears years with the Jets than during his three years on the Bears.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%, especially with the overall marginality of the 2005 draft in the first round.
 

didshereallysaythat

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 14, 2011
Posts:
20,326
Liked Posts:
9,922
Novak said:
GM egos... only reasonable explanation as to why Benson was retained vs Jones.

And yes, the Benson pick wasn't the "downfall" of Angelo. Mortgaging the future on the arm of Cutler was definitely what did it.
Click to expand...

That is why GMs are so reluctant to invest so much in a QB unless they REALLY like a player. Often times, what seems like a good move on paper turns out to set the franchise back several years and ultimately lead to the firing of the GM.
 

airtime143

This place is dead and buried.
CCS Hall of Fame '21
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
14,955
Liked Posts:
16,590
MojoRisin said:
Monday morning quarterbacking on the Cutler trade, but at the time, I sure gave him an A for effort. There has traditionally been little effort placed in making that position right. In this case, at least Angelo tried. Cutler still had lots of potential at the time with a pretty successful season in Denver having thrown for > 4500 yards (would be a Bears record).

It was the resigning of Cutty by Emery that redefined the term stupidity. At that point, the team knew they only possessed an average QB and chose to pay him as if he were a top 10 QB.
Click to expand...

As someone who was tired of jay by 2010, I still believe it was a damn solid effort in 2009 to fix something that was broken.

Phil Emery was the guy that should have been looking to replace him immediately, and there is zero excuse whatsoever for not bringing in a challenger in 2012. Giving Jay the fat contract in 2013 was just trolling the organization- there was zero justification for that.
 
FirstTimer

FirstTimer

v. 2.0: Fully Modded
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
May 4, 2010
Posts:
27,077
Liked Posts:
15,163
In terms of a "Waterloo" I'm not really sure Angelo had one moment that in the end sunk his tenure. IMO it was just kind of a slow burn of losing draft picks(and bad 1st rounders) or not getting ROI on mid round picks where he made his money early in his tenure.

In clumsy military metaphors Emery had a Waterloo of Cutler/Trestman in a one to two year span.

Angelo was more ground out like the Confederates by Grant over a longer period of time.
 

BearsFan51

Well-known member
Joined:
Jun 13, 2013
Posts:
9,247
Liked Posts:
4,727
I don't like Dowell Loggains. No one else in the NFL was itching to hire this guy as their offensive coordinator and he does not have a proven track record in the NFL.

Things on offense are going to falter for a number of reasons but Loggains being the OC will be a part of it as well.
 
dabears253313

dabears253313

Well-known member
Joined:
Sep 7, 2012
Posts:
4,058
Liked Posts:
1,158
Top ten in the regular season and then number one in the Super Bowl.
 
gallagher

gallagher

Nothing left to do but smile, smile, smile
Donator
Joined:
Sep 27, 2010
Posts:
6,337
Liked Posts:
5,598
Location:
Semi-Nomadic
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Michigan Wolverines
  2. Ohio Bobcats
Novak said:
I didn't even address the whole "we don't have Hester returning kicks" either... his value to that offense (from a starting field position standpoint) is understated, even by Bears fans.
Click to expand...

I'm not standing counter to your point. Hester was a huge reason why our offense routinely had good starting position. Dude was lightning in a bottle.

But when I look at our defense now, I see a group that has vastly improved over recent years, which should help set up more punting situations.

I'm hoping our return game improves, because doing slightly better than "adequate" will make a huge difference to this team.

The stats I saw had us averaging 7.5 yards per return last year, which put us in the bottom half. That is definitely an area where we can improve, but also an area where I think we can expect the team to take a step forward.
 
Novak

Novak

Mod in Training/Fire Forum
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '21
Joined:
Sep 7, 2014
Posts:
16,086
Liked Posts:
12,652
gallagher said:
I'm not standing counter to your point. Hester was a huge reason why our offense routinely had good starting position. Dude was lightning in a bottle.

But when I look at our defense now, I see a group that has vastly improved over recent years, which should help set up more punting situations.

I'm hoping our return game improves, because doing slightly better than "adequate" will make a huge difference to this team.

The stats I saw had us averaging 7.5 yards per return last year, which put us in the bottom half. That is definitely an area where we can improve, but also an area where I think we can expect the team to take a step forward.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with this post. I just think your comparing of this offense to the 06 offense (in terms of offensive ranking) is a bad comparison, for more reasons than one.
 
gallagher

gallagher

Nothing left to do but smile, smile, smile
Donator
Joined:
Sep 27, 2010
Posts:
6,337
Liked Posts:
5,598
Location:
Semi-Nomadic
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Michigan Wolverines
  2. Ohio Bobcats
Novak said:
I don't disagree with this post. I just think your comparing of this offense to the 06 offense (in terms of offensive ranking) is a bad comparison, for more reasons than one.
Click to expand...

I could have been clearer in my original post. The comparison was only to show that our ability to score points will improve because our defense and return game should afford us better field position this year. Our offense in 2006 had a much easier time, and played above their talent level, because they routinely had great starting field position.

I did not intend on having the comparison go any farther than that. Our offense back then was the #2 scoring offense, while I only suggested that we should crack the top-20 this year.
 

gwharris2254

Well-known member
Joined:
Nov 6, 2012
Posts:
6,551
Liked Posts:
1,964
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
Wow all you guys are talking about comparisons to 2006 and never mention STs

STs that year was the "icing on the cake" that made the BEARs complete, and who they were.

With Taub we always had tremendous field position. Now look at us

Sorry I read thru the last page and posted.... the above comment hits the nail on the head
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

10,878members
93,001threads
4,372,253posts
644online users

Members online NOW

  • Member
  • Admin
  • Mod
  • Donor
  • HOF
Total: 644 (members: 38, guests: 606)

Staff online NOW

Top