View Full Version : Grim and Bear It- Chicago in a Nutshell

Rich Gapinski
10-28-2014, 04:05 PM
I fear that the cheapness of the McCaskey family will buy Trestman a third year and the only move may be to get rid of Mel Tucker. I have been rooting for Trestman the whole time. Unfortunately, facts are facts. I grew tired of Lovie and saw the slow decrease in overall team skill, partly due to poor cap deals, but I could rely on him to bring a defense to the table each and every season. This is, by far, the most offensive talent I have seen the Bears have in my lifetime. The line is even good (Probably just average to good with recent injuries). Trestman is supposed to be an offensive guy. From that, I expect the offense to be good. The problems are thus (in no particular order):

1. No team captain. I think this idea he had with rotating captains was a cute one, but one better served for college or high school teams. How often do we hear about locker room leaders in the NFL? Are the young Bears players, of which there are many, supposed to listen to the new captain each week? Trestman was hurt on this front with the speed leaving Lance Briggs and the injury to Tillman because Peanut would have been the perfect captain this year. Yes, his injury occurred in week 2, so they would have lost him and the decision would have been made before that, but I still think that was the way to go. There had to be a better answer than trying to give out 17 participation trophies.

2. No unit of the team is consistently good. This is really bad for the offense because that's what Trestman is supposed to be good at. To see the Bears special teams deteriorate has been a really painful thing to see. Again, at least Lovie could be counted on for defense. If we, as fans, can't count on that, what is there to look for? The current frustration with watching this offense has not quite approached the 47 different screens offense under John Shoop, but it is close.

3. It's how the team has lost that feels even worse. With Trestman being an offensive guy coming off a season where the Bears offense looked good, I expected to see things finely tuned. Instead, I see inexplicable things like an offense willing to dink and dunk while ignoring Matt Forte as a thing that could open up the field a little. I don't see significant changes on offense after the lackluster first halves. Last year, Cutler looked good because he was allowed to trust his arm and throw downfield. Just over 16% of his throws were over 20 yards in 2013. This year, it is down to 10% and is down 4% on all throws 10+ yards. Basically, the offense is allowing defenses to run zone and dictate drives while waiting for Cutler to make a mistake. Cutler will make mistakes if he feels like he has to make a play. Of course, the defense hasn't been good, so we see deficits and a lack of changes throughout the game. It's a real bad combination.

4. The team looked unprepared to play in San Francisco and New England. Even worse, the defense wasn't prepared at home against Miami and Green Bay. Also, they got worse in the second half against Carolina.

5. It seems as Trestman is content to try to fit Cutler into a West Coast system where Cutler may be best in a downfield attack. A guy who loves the downfield attack? Bruce Arians. The guy the Bears passed on for Trestman.

6. Phil Emery actually took time yesterday to remember the good 1.5 games that Shea McClellin has played in his career. When Emery took McClellin in the first round with a ton of great talent still on the board, I called it a "too cute" move that a scout makes that he probably should avoid. The fact that he pointed at such a small point in the career of a player who has seen the field less and less even when healthy, I took that as a sign that Emery may not have a good grip on the situation.

7. Even though part of my life is writing about football, I have this theory where things must be going badly if I am right. It's hard to refute any of the above.

10-28-2014, 04:24 PM
Sounds like the team I saw week 1. They really looked lost after losing half their offensive line at the starting blocks.

10-29-2014, 11:26 AM
Sounds like the team I saw week 1. They really looked lost after losing half their offensive line at the starting blocks.

OL continuity has been an issue. Loosing Slauson won't help.

The defensive leadership side is a big question to me. Peanut isn't playing, Jared Allen is the new guy. Briggs is the defacto leader, and I don't think he is very good at it.

The Vanilla defense play calling bothers me. You don't have the LBs to just line up and play, you need to get cute (see Bowles, ne Arizona)