[CBFF] Admitting it is the first step

[Jerry Madsen]

>From the Rosenblog, which is fast becoming one of my favorite sites on the net.

Jerry


-------------------------------------------

Originally posted: October 18, 2007

Admitting it is the first step

Say this for some Bears players: They are better at admitting why they
are a bad team bordering on hopeless than they are at actually
changing things. And it's not just because of injuries, silly
coaching, cruddy tackling, lousy quarterbacking, an inept running
game, a rickety offensive line or receivers who can't get open long
enough to receive the ball. Nope, that's apparently just the result of
Super Bowl losers acting as if their tables were ready again this year
without having them actually, I don't know, earn it.

Get a load of this admission from Tommie Harris: "I think the hunger
probably just was satisfied at the Super Bowl."

And get a load of this from another supposed team leader, Adewale
Ogunleye: "What we did was we kind of jumped to Phoenix before we got
there [for the 2008 Super Bowl in Glendale, Ariz.]."

I guess we can understand how Ogunleye looked that far ahead: He never
really played in the last Super Bowl. Not that you noticed him,
anyway.

But it's not just guys who are looked to as leaders who should know
better. For instance, Bernard Berrian seems to be putting more effort
into switching agents before free agency than actually having a season
worthy of big money in free agency. But at least Bernard Buryhim is
consistent: He can drop the ball off the field just as obviously as he
has done it on the field.

A note today said Bears offensive coordinator Ron Turner "finally
admitted that Adrian Peterson plays in the two-minute package because
he handles pass protection better than Cedric Benson."

Hmmm, this sounds different from what Bears interim coach Lovie Smith
said Monday.

When asked about Benson's absence at the end of the first half and for
a long stretch of the second quarter, despite having some carries that
gashed the Vikings, Smith said there was "no reason" that Benson was
out, his absence was "just part of our normal rotation."

I'm sure you remember Smith's words, seeing as how I wrote about them
Tuesday and made it clear that his dismissive answer didn't pass the
smell test, and so I wondered whether he was being arrogant, stubborn,
dumb or lying (and then came commenters intimating that I'm a racist
and who am I to criticize a coach and hellacious vitriol, and it's a
wonder I wasn't burned at the stake immediately, or forced to watch
Bears-Vikings again).

Well, now. The fact that the offensive coordinator does not put the
so-called "special" back into the game at a crucial time because he
can't block well enough or can't figure out who he's supposed to block
seems like more than "no reason" to me. When it's fourth-and-1 -- a
spot that should absolutely play to the strength of a so-called power
back but the coach doesn't put him in -- well, that seems like
something other than "just part of our normal rotation."

So, at the risk of incurring additional charges of racism, not to
mention the expected righteous indignation that follows a freakin'
sportswriter having the temerity to call BS on a coach's comment, I'd
have to say that it doesn't appear that Smith was being stubborn or
arrogant here, which leaves us to decide whether he was telling the
truth or whether he didn't know the truth at all. Talk amongst
yourselves.

By the way, just when you think this Bears season can't get any worse:
Dick Stockton will call Bears-Eagles. And probably for Bears-Lions.
Kill me now.

Eagles cornerback Sheldon Brown is another opponent talking the manly
man talk about kicking to Devin Hester: "Why can't we [be] the first
team to go out and make him ... fumble? We have players to do that."
Yo, Shelly, buddy, everyone knows that Hester is a fumbler. He has put
the ball on the ground more often than a Pro Bowler should. But you
have to catch him first. Meep-meep.

Bears defensive tackle Darwin Walker spent six seasons with the
Eagles, which means everyone thinks he has secrets and inside
information that will put the Bears over the top this week. Yeah, it
would've been altogether different last week if the Bears had signed a
former Viking who could've told them, "Tackle Adrian Peterson."

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell talked about staging a Super Bowl in
London. Just in case you didn't think the Bears were far enough away
from it already.

I don't understand the urgency to trade all the Bulls' good, young
players in order to bring in a brat who won't win anything by himself
and appears to be too insecure and ego-maniacal, not to mention too
expensive, to allow anyone else who's good or more important to be a
part of it.

The Red Sox are down three-games-to-one to the Indians, but they've
seen this movie before. In 2004, they were down three-oh to the
Yankees and came back to win eight straight and their first World
Series since 1918. Recalled Red Sox manager Terry Francona: "What I
remember [in '04] is I walked in there and they were watching 'Animal
House.' " You watch, Fox Sports will play Francona's quote on
tonight's broadcast, following by John Belushi's saying, "Was it over
when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"

Then again, there are some Red Sox players who might not care when or
if it's over. "There's always next year," Manny Ramirez said. "It's
not like it's the end of the world." That's either Manny being Manny,
or he has the Bears writing his stuff.

Backtalk (remember when Notre Dame-USC mattered? Heck, remember when
Notre Dame mattered?):

Injuries or lack thereof have a large part to do with NFL success.
When you allow tackling and full contact in practices, you allow a
greater possibility for injuries. One would think that NFL defensive
players know how to tackle, and it didn't seem to hurt the Bears last
year to not practice tackling.
Posted by: Roman F | Oct 17, 2007 10:33:10 AM



I was glad to see your comments about the Bears not practicing
tackling. I think Lovie ran an extremely soft training camp this year,
and it is becoming obvious now with all of the poor tackling in real
games and the abnormally high number of injuries. Also, he barely
played the starters in exhibition games, which probably contributed to
the aforementioned problems and the lack of production on offense.
Posted by: David Strouse | Oct 17, 2007 12:07:52 PM

If they could tackle this season like last season, I never would've
mentioned it. But they can't. At least, not for most of the last three
games. I'll credit Smith with knowing that injuries have derailed nine
of the last 10 Super Bowl losers from even making the playoffs the
next season, so I can see him giving veterans more days off. But the
point about the minimum amount of playing time with the starters is
well-taken, especially along the offensive line, where too many of
those guys look old instead of veteran.

-----

I used to despise your blog. But I find myself agreeing with pretty
much everything you say. What the hell is happening to me?
Posted by: A.J. | Oct 17, 2007 11:46:10 AM

Try the Rosenblog Anonymous support group.

-----

The Bears have plenty of personnel problems but I just can't get past
the coaching problems. How about handing it off to Mckie with a couple
of seconds left in the half? What was the intent there? Why not just
down the ball if you didn't want anything out of the drive? The
result, as we know, was Mckie getting hurt unnecessarily. Even Tom
Thayer questioned that last posession of the half. Nobody knew what
the Bears were trying to do: Run the clock out, or score. That kind of
confusion is inadmissable at the professional level and it can only
stem from one thing: lack of confidence in the offense. The coaches
were scared of turning the ball over. This all comes back to the fact
that Lovie is still using last years' philosophy with a team that just
isn't the same.
Posted by: Andre | Oct 17, 2007 12:26:57 PM

How bad is it when even Tom Thayer, who is the Steve Stone of football
analysts, can't figure out what the coaches are thinking -- and then,
whatever they're thinking, the players screw it up. People are still
taking this Bears team seriously why exactly?

-----

It looked more like the Vikings beating a "bad" team than the Bears
losing to one.
Posted by: T | Oct 16, 2007 11:53:52 AM

Got me. (sfx: sigh of sad realization.) I mean, the Bears lost to one
player and a team quarterbacked by Tarvaris Jackson.

----

OK, so things look pretty bad for this season, but I really can't
understand everyone ripping Griese the way they are. I know he's not
Tom Brady. And I know he had three turnovers. But he racked up 380
yards, AND threw two TD passes in three minutes' time when the Bears
were down 31-17. When was the last time ANY Bears QB ever did that? No
the Bears didn't win this game, but I don't see how you can pin much
of the blame on Griese. With Grossman at QB, the score would have been
31-13 (with the only offensive points coming on field goals.)
Posted by: snoqualmie7 | Oct 14, 2007 8:59:33 PM


Look, Brian Griese had a Rex Grossman-like game, and remember,
Grossman was a teaser, not a pleaser, which is what Greise has become.
So, one last time: The one thing Greise had going for him, the one
reason he was signed, was because he wouldn't make stupid throws. The
Bears already had a guy who mastered stupid throws. They cornered the
market on that. The backup wasn't supposed to do that. And now he is.
And now he can leave.

-----

devin hester RULES!
Posted by: Tony B. | Oct 15, 2007 12:34:47 PM

And so ends the list of Bears who shouldn't be cut.

-----

So, I wonder what QB we will take in the 1st round this April?
Posted by: Justin | Oct 14, 2007 9:15:09 PM

The wrong one.

-----

As a Packer fan, I can't help but wonder how in the world the Pack
managed to drop a game to this Bears team. Seriously, the Vikings???
Posted by: Ben | Oct 14, 2007 7:19:20 PM

Seriously, losing to the Bears? Wear it, pal.