Bear(ing) the News – A Chicago Bears Blog

Football Outsiders has taken a look at percentages of broken tackles.  This statistic is defined as:

“Either the ballcarrier escapes from the grasp of the defender, or the defender is in good position for a tackle but the ballcarrier jukes him out of his shoes. If the ballcarrier sped by a slow defender who dived and missed, that didn’t count as a broken tackle.”

The Bears ranked 12th on this list which isn’t good enough for a cover two team that must tackle well and execute.  But the statistic is biased against speed teams because they have more opportunities to make tackles that can be broken.

What really stood out to me was the Lions spot.  ESPN‘s NFC North blogger Kevin Seifert compared their number to the ranking in 2009, pointing out that they improved by only one spot, moving from 32 to 31 on the list.

The Lions are a very popular pick to make the playoffs this year amongst the “experts”.  Players like Ndamukong Suh are already claiming the status of contender, in his case even suggesting the possibility of a 16-0 season.  A lot of that  confidence stems from an influx of talented players like Nick Fairley.

That’s a good thing for them.  But it isn’t everything.  People think the primary problem with the Lions has been lack of talent don’t know football.  Their problem is that they make too many mistakes.  They don’t play they game with good fundamentals.  Yes, the Lions finished the season strong last year and they should be better.  But if they can’t catch the ball (and hang on to it all of the way through the catch), if they can’t run without fumbling, and if they can’t tackle, its all moonshine.  Its because of statistics like this that bad teams lose.

The “experts” can proclaim the Lions the team of the year all they want.  I’ll believe the Lions are winners only when I see them improve not just their talent, but in the way that talent plays the game.

Congratulations to NBC Chicago‘s Peggy Kusinski for asking new Bears Chairman George McCaskey the first interesting question since he took over:

“Does he ever see the McCaskeys no longer being majority shareholders of the Chicago Bears?

“‘No,’ he replied.

“The goal is to hang on to the team and pass it on to the fourth generation.  And that poses its own problem.  There are 11 McCaskey children now owning the Bears, but there are nearly two dozen grandchildren to groom.

“‘The numbers present a challenge just by themselves.  We’ll be up for it.  The goal is to hold onto the team for the second coming,’ he said.”

No surprise there, right?  Not so fast, my friend.

Its hard for media members to top toe around this because no one really wants to suggest such a morbid topic but what happens to the Bears after current majority owner Virginia McCaskey dies is a serious issue for the family.  The franchise is currently valued at at least $800 million and the estate tax is 55% plus a 5% surcharge.  That’s a lot of cash.

So when George McCaskey talks about the numbers presenting a challenge, he’s not just talking about children and grandchildren.  He’s thinking about the financial realities behind just keeping the franchise within the family’s control.

[EDIT – It turns out I posted this too quickly.  This 2006 ESPN article by Darren Rovell explains how the Bears will get around the estate tax issue:

“Unlike most of the rest of us who are plowing through the IRS code and crunching our own tax numbers right now, today’s franchise owners can afford to make themselves privy to the most sophisticated techniques in existence that might lighten the tax burden for the next generation in their families.

Take the Chicago Bears as an example. George Halas bought the team in 1920 for $100; and when he died in 1983, he transferred ownership to Virginia McCaskey, his daughter. McCaskey, who is now in her 80’s, reportedly has a controlling interest with an 80 percent share in the club. But technically, those shares were at some point gifted to her 11 children; so that when she passes away, there will be a minimal transference and therefore few estate taxes related to the club. Bears spokesman Roger Hacker said the percentage owned by each of the children is not public information and would not be released, but it appears that we can expect the McCaskeys to own the Bears for a while longer, at least.”]

The world is full of compromise.  And no one apparently hates it any more than Timothy Miller of Endwell, N.Y.  Tim is apparently convinced that offensive coordinator Mike Martz is ruining the Bears franchise.  How else do you explain the fact that he emailed not one, but two NFL writers asking if Martz has cast a spell over the team that will lead to its ultimate demise.

First, let’s see what ESPN‘s NFC North blogger Kevin Seifert has to say:

“Tim of Endwell, New York, writes:  Do you think the Chicago Bears are giving Mike Martz too much power? With his influence on demanding a veteran quarterback last year, (Todd Collins) the miss-handling of playing time with Devin Aromashodu, and drafting quarterbacks in back to back years. With Martz’s track record with previous teams, it seems like he has a lot of influence even though he might not be here for too long.”

“Kevin Seifert:

“I tend to look at it from another perspective. Martz’s skill as an offensive mind and quarterback teacher has never really been questioned. His downfalls in St. Louis, Detroit and San Francisco can be attributed more to personality clashes and philosophical differences. If you hire a coach like Martz and plan for him to be with you for more than a year, it’s best to treat him like an asset and hope he can leave a lasting impact on your franchise in a way many other coordinators could not.

This discussion would be more difficult if the Bears were using first and/or second-round draft picks to appease Martz. [Dan] LeFevour was drafted in the sixth round and [Nathan] Enderle in the fifth. I’m fine with the Bears using a late-round pick on the chance that Martz could accelerate development for a player at the most important position in the game. Even if [Jay] Cutler‘s presence means that Enderle will never start for the Bears, it’s not unheard of for NFL teams to develop and trade backup quarterbacks for draft picks far exceeding the value of where they were selected.”

Dan Pompei at the Chicago Tribune also answers Tim’s question:

“A team has to put a lot of faith in the person who is running the offense. The alternative is saddling that person with players he doesn’t believe in. You want the offensive coordinator to have ownership in the final product. How can the offensive coordinator buy in if management isn’t buying in to him? It’s especially important with a veteran coach who has had considerable success as Martz has. The Bears can’t concern themselves with how long Martz will or won’t be here. The future isn’t promised with any coach.”

Both explanations are true but in general terms I think Pompei gets closer to the heart of it.

The life of general manager Jerry Angelo isn’t an easy one.  The problem with Martz is no different than the problem with head coach Lovie Smith, defensive coordinator Rod Marinelli, and to a lesser extent the rest of the coaches.  Angelo has the unenviable job of trying to please all of them because he knows full well that you can’t ask a coach to work with a guy he doesn’t believe in.  Not if you want to get optimal results.

Most fans would really like to see the personnel people have the strongest say about who is drafted.  Perhaps they do.  But there’s always going to be a question of who wanted which players because Angelo is constantly compromising.  In the end, Angelo’s fate relies not just on the ability of these men to coach but on their ability to evaluate talent and extrapolate what they see to what will happen on a professional football field.

The bottom line is that Martz does have too much power.  So does Smith and so do the rest of the coaches.  But that’s the way of the world if you want it to be peaceful and well-run.

There’s a lot of noise being made about Bears wide receiver Earl Bennett this offseason.  For instance, Brad Biggs at the Chicago Tribune addresses the plans that offensive coordinator Mike Martz has to increase Bennett’s role in the offense this season.

“’We didn’t throw it to him enough,’ Martz said on the [Bears] website. ‘That will be remedied. He will figure in a much larger role than he did last year. He came to us late. He was injured. I wasn’t really sure where he was with all the stuff. But he established himself as a guy who needs to get a lot more balls than he did.'”

“Martz referenced having Bennett play inside and outside and that’s something that has been missing —  a player with the skill set to handle both roles. That’s what many of the true No. 1 receivers in the NFL can do. Whether or not Bennett is cut out for a star role remains to be seen, but certainly he’s capable of bigger and better things than he was allowed to display this past season.”

ESPN‘s NFC North blogger Kevin Seifert comments further.

“That tells me Bennett is likely to start opposite [Johnny] Knox in Martz’s scheme, with Hester serving perhaps a less prominent role. That would jibe with what coach Lovie Smith said in March at the NFL owners meeting, where he suggested the Bears could be more efficient with [Devin] Hester‘s playing time on offense. Indeed, Smith said he would like to ‘take away some of his reps and get him involved in the ones where he’s out there.'”

I’m all for not trying to use Hester as a number one receiver.  Hester has plenty of talent but I think its become obvious even to the Bears coaching staff that wanted it for him so badly that he doesn’t have the instincts for the role.

But is Bennett really the guy you want to put out there in his place?  True, the two are almost polar opposites, and that’s what makes this situation so funny.  Bennett seems to have very good instincts and fits the role that the Bears have put him in to a ‘T’.  But if you are going to put him on the outside, he’s going to be matched up  with cover corners where he’s going to need speed to succeed.

This sounds to me like its going to be another disappointing development in the continued search to find the wide receiver that the Bears badly need.  Eventually they’re going to have to come to the realization that the solution lies outside the organization.

Dan Pompei at the Chicago Tribune answers your questions:

“I wanted to ask you if you thought it was fair of the media, current and past NFL players bashing Jay Cutler during the NFC Championship Game? How can anyone question this guy’s toughness when he battles with diabetes every single day? How about all those hits and sacks he has endured since coming to Chicago? I find it hard to believe Jay would tap out a game that significant. Michael Shahbaz, San Diego

“I thought some of the criticism of Cutler was uncalled for. It’s really difficult for me to ever question whether a player is hurt, because I’m not in his body. I don’t think it has anything to do with Cutler being a diabetic, but he has proven he is a very tough quarterback who can take a hit. It’s interesting that we’re still discussing this four months after the fact. I wonder how long this will continue to be an issue.”

Unless Cutler wins a Super Bowl, this will be an issue for as long as he plays.

Some believe, as Michael does above, that this is simply an issue of Cutler’s physical toughness.  Its not.   This story has legs in part because its got so many facets.  Why did so many players savage Cutler when they would hesitate to do so with most of their other peers?  Were they really questioning his physical toughness or was it the mental toughness, reflected in Cutler’s awful body language and poor leadership skills, that had them wondering?  And most important of all, let’s not forget that in the first half of possibly the most important game of his life, Cutler fell apart and played terribly.

Some people say that when considering the significance of an issue, you should think about whether it would be mentioned in a person’s obituary. Right now, this one would be the lead in Cutler’s.

More disappointing details on the arrest of Garrett Wolfe are coming to light via Sean Jensen at the Chicago Sun-Times.  Apparently the trouble started over the charge for three bottles of champagne at the club.  The total bill came to almost $1600.

My initial thought on this was that there would be two sides to this story.  That might be true but:

“Wolfe, who officers said smelled of alcohol, had bloodshot eyes and slurred speech, threatened to sue the officers and at one point said: ‘Let’s compare bank accounts,’ according to the report.”

Ouch.  On the scale of douche bag things to say, “Let’s compare bank accounts” comes out just below “Do you know who I am?”  This isn’t going to garner much sympathy for Wolfe.

Once again, from Dan Pompei at the National Football Post.:

“The Bears could be done adding starting caliber players to their offensive line. There still is a chance they could sign a free agent guard, but there also is a chance they will stick with the status quo. Roberto Garza is expected to start on the right side, and the team wants to give Chris Williams another chance as the left guard. They also have several developmental linemen they would like to see play, including Levi Horn, Herman Johnson, Lance Louis and Edwin Williams.”

He’s making some Bear fans very unhappy with this one (not to mention Scouts Inc.‘s Matt Williamson).

I think a lot depends upon what the Bears do at center.  It certainly sounds like they are going to be content to re-sign Olin Kreutz.  But Kreutz’s play is deteriorating with age, perhaps more in his case than most because he relies more on his agility than his power.

If the Bears decide they need more youth in the middle they may sign another guard and move Garza to center.  Otherwise the status quo it is.