Bear(ing) the News – A Chicago Bears Blog

Mark Potash at the Chicago Sun-Times writes a good article about the optimism surrounding new coaching staff. The piece is particularly impressive in its scope and perspective.

Amongst the quotes which stuck out was this one from left guard Matt Slauson:

“‘This is probably the most impressive staff that I’ve been a part of,’ Bears guard Matt Slauson said. ‘I haven’t looked at everybody, but I think every position coach has at least won a conference championship. That is unreal to me.’

“In actuality, nine coaches on John Fox’s staff have been to the Super Bowl, including five position coaches. But the point is, players like Matt Slauson — and he definitely is not alone — respect the fact that from Fox on down, the Bears’ newest coaching staff has credibility the Bears haven’t had since George Halas re-hired himself. And it can make a difference.

“‘I don’t know why other coaches do it differently when they get head [coaching] jobs,’ Slauson said, ‘but they feel the need to hire their buddy or their childhood friend who really has no credentials to be an NFL coach. But it happens all the time. Fox came in. [General manager Ryan] Pace came in and said, ‘We’re going to hire the best of the best.’ and they did that. As players, we notice stuff like that. That’s huge. We love it.'”

Slauson hits the nail on the head in this last paragraph. Each of the last two coaching staffs had faults that prevented them from hiring the best possible staff.

Former head coach Marc Trestman was partly limited because he’d been out of the league and probably wasn’t really in tune with who the best young coaches (like offensive coordinator Adam Gase) even were. But even given that, Trestman hired coaches from his former Canadian team, the Montreal Alouettes in Andy Bischoff and Michael Sinclair as tight ends and defensive line coaches. These were hardly the best available.

But former head coach Lovie Smith was much worse in this respect, consistently looking for coaches that he had personal experience with or coaches he had worked for previously over the best available candidates. Some of these, like former defensive coordinator Rod Marinelli, worked out fine. But the memorable standoff between Smith and former general manager Jerry Angelo over who would be the offensive coordinator in 2010 stands out as a good example of Smith’s closed minded attitude. Angelo forced Smith to interview a variety of candidates but Smith was set on Martz, who he’d previously worked with in St. Louis. In the end, Smith got his way and though they didn’t do badly that year, long term the organization suffered for the choice.

Even worse than Smith’s discomfort with coaches he didn’t personally know was the suspected reason for his hesitation to hire the best available candidates. Smith may well have been an adherent to the old philosophy that you should never hire your own replacement. Smith’s insecurity and fear of losing credit and power to a really good coach may have been an issue with Smith.  Recall that Smith more or less fired former defensive coordinator Ron Rivera for more or less not agreeing with Smith’s entire defensive philosophy.  Some would have said that the Bears defense was benefiting from the creative tension but Smith’s pride and the fact that Rivera got no small amount of credit for the excellent performance of the defense was undoubtedly a factor.

Regardless, Fox suffers from no such limitation. Gase and defensive coordinator Vic Fangio are or should be on every team’s radar as potential head coaching candidates. This doesn’t seem to bother Fox in the least.

As Potash points out, there’s alway s a lot of optimistic talk about new coaching staffs the first year. But there may be more reason than usual to believe that this time around, the optimism is warranted. This season, we may finally see a Bears team play to their talent level and beyond.

I’m not one to put much stock in training camp reports. It’s a time of year when everything is sunshine and rainbows and unless you live in southern California, the sun doesn’t shine every day.

Having said that, I very much enjoyed Rich Campbell‘s report for the Chicago Tribune this morning. Of the “five observations” which he made on yesterday’s training camp session, three involved notable adjustments or corrections by individual players who had made previous mistakes. Right tackle Jordan Mills, who reportedly got beat like a drum by outside linebacker Pernell McPhee in one-on-one drills Sunday, stood up a lot better on Monday with what he said was better hand work. Safety Brock Vereen, who got beat previously on a gadget play, showed more awareness and stayed deep on on Monday to help break up a similar play. And finally second year cornerback Kyle Fuller made a play to break up a Martellus Bennett fade route, reportedly by keeping his eyes on the catch point. In addition, Dan Wiederer, also at the Chicago Tribune, notes that Tim Jennings, though still uncomfortable covering in the slot, is operating with noticably sharper vision and that he’s reacting much more quickly. And Dan Cahill at the Chicago Sun-Times notes that quarterback Jay Cutler is turnover free five days into camp.

These are all little things but they emphasize something that’s critically important for a young Bears defense in 2015. They may be talent poor but good football teams can make up for a lot by simply being fundamentally sound. You can’t make up for all of it. But you can make up for a lot of it. And you can reasonably expect to be competitive.

Having said that, Bears fans who think this might be a playoff team are fooling themselves. I’m not saying its impossible – anything is possible, especially in the NFL. But I think they are setting themselves up for disappointment. And that would be a shame.

Fans who believe that high expectations are necessary and that seasons without 10 wins are a failure are missing the point. Team victories on the field are nice and, of course, that’s the goal. But, no matter the talent level and no matter the expectations, the true football fan is going to have to find enjoyment in the small items this year. Bears players, like all the rest of us in our daily lives, will need to find their share of satisfaction in the little things, the day-to-day improvements as they gradually climb towards respectability and, eventually, top level competition. These wins are much more frequent than Super Bowls and if you are only going to be happy with the latter, you are going to be a pretty miserable soul.

In his classic work of fiction, The Prophet, author Kahlil Gibran wrote, “And in the sweetness of friendship let there be laughter and the sharing of pleasures. For in the dew of little things the heart finds its morning and is refreshed.” This year, like every year, we will all find much more happiness if we take the time to note the small victories and enjoy them as often as possible.

Groucho Marx once famously said that “Women should be obscene and not heard.” Fortunately, women have never taken his advice. At least not the second part.

The recent news that Jen Welter will join the Arizona Cardinals coaching staff for the summer follows the announcement last July that Sarah Thomas will become the NFL’s first female game official this year. Welter will help coach the team’s inside linebackers during training camp and the preseason only and her role isn’t a long-term job, as she’ll be a coaching intern during the summer.  But it’s still an NFL first and has the potential to lead to further opportunities.

Add this to the news that Beth Mowins will be the Raiders preseason game announcer and that Jacqueline Davidson will be the new director of football administration for the Jets and we have a storm of empowerment for women brewing.  I’d say the NFL is making real progress.

I’ve always said that most NFL owners don’t care who you are, what your race is or what your creed is as long as you can play football.  Gay? Who cares? As long as they can help you win.  That stance should, and generally does, apply to employees off the field as well.

Unfortunately the NFL’s attitude towards women has been slow to develop but gradually the reality of the situation is dawning and slowly taking over their thinking. They aren’t asking women to be linebackers or even kickers and, media agenda aside, that’s not likely to happen any time soon. But coaches? Television announcers? Game officials?  Scouting and front office?  These are positions which women not only can fill but which we should demand that they fill. Loudly.

As an NFL fan, I want to see the best available product on the field. I’ve no doubt that every owner and player in the league feels the same way. But that will never happen when 50% of the population is excluded from jobs to which they are perfectly suited. Here’s hoping that the “2015 NFL Year of the Woman” becomes an annual affair.

John Mullin at csnchicago.com surprises me as he writes about where the Bears will find leadership this year. Near the end of the article, he addresses the change in the coaching staff in uncharacteristically forthright terms:

“If you don’t think coaching stands to have an enormous impact on wins and losses, then you don’t fully understand what coaches do and how players value coaches.

“One of the main reasons the previous staff failed was that players deep down did not believe that many of the [former Bears head coach Marc] Trestman assistants knew the NFL game. And they didn’t. More to the bigger point, because of that, the coaches were not able give players the schemes, applications of technique and other details that players crave, the things that give them the best chances to be successful.”

I’m as tough on the Bears as anybody. But I think Mullin might be just a bit unfair to the former staff here.  It’s the kind of thing that tends to be said only after a group of coaches leaves town.  The truth is that Trestman had been out of the league but he had extensive NFL experience, as did defensive coordinator Mel Tucker and most of the assistants. You can’t tell me that offensive Aaron Kromer didn’t have the respect of the offensive linemen or that those linemen didn’t believe that Kromer could make them better. He’d done it way too often with otherwise mediocre talent in New Orleans for that not to be true. The former staff certainly had their faults (see below) but I think there’s a little bit of “hindsight is 20-20” going on here.

Having said that, Mullin’s point is well taken in that there’s no doubt that the Bears have improved their coaching staff. It’s just not in the way that he’s stated it.

The one thing that the former staff did a poor job of was instilling the kind of mental toughness that’s necessary to succeed as a team in the NFL. For example, I was struck this morning by this quote from quarterback Jay Cutler on the effect that injuries had on the Bears last year. Via Jay Taft at the Rockford Register-Star:

“Even before training camp opened this week, and before the pads were slipped on for Saturday’s practice, quarterback Jay Cutler laid out what he thinks it will take to get the Chicago Bears’ offense back on track.

“‘You get injuries,’ he said, ‘you lose games.’

In Cutler’s mind, injuries at least kick-started the derailment that led to a 5-11 season and to the firings of head coach Marc Trestman and GM Phil Emery.”

I’ll say this much for Cutler. He got the first part of that statement right. You do, indeed, “get injuries”. Everybody, every single team every single year, gets them. And if you are sitting around hoping that it doesn’t happen and implying that this is a key to your season, you’re in trouble.

Good football teams, the ones that win year after year, never let injuries stop them from winning. You plan on having them and you plan on having to get tough to overcome them. Anything less is simply failure.

Former Bears head coach Lovie Smith knew that and he never, ever, let players use injuries as an excuse for underperforming. He wouldn’t even let them talk about it.  When Smith said “next man up“ after an injury, he really meant it.  Last season’s Bears frequently said the same thing and I’m sure they thought that they meant it, too.  The problem is that when it came time to actually back up their words, they couldn’t dig down deep enough to prove it on the field and the season fell apart.

It’s hard to say for sure but new head coach John Fox already shows signs of having the same sort of tough-minded attitude that Smith had. The way that Fox shrugged off the brief tussle between guard Kyle Long and defensive end Jarvis Jenkins on Friday and the contrast to the way Trestman handled such issues with an excess of handwringing was notable. There won’t be much sitting around the camp fire, holding hands and singing “Kumbaya” at this camp. Fox shows every sign of expecting his players to be mentally and physically tough and the odds are good that, like Smith, he’s not going to allow players to make excuses.

Players always talk about “accountability” when it comes to performance. They talk about stepping up when necessary and overcoming adversity.  They talk about pointing the finger at themselves when that doesn’t happen. The problem is that too often it’s just lip service. What’s even worse, too often the players themselves don’t know when it’s just lip service. Hopefully this year’s coaching staff will be able to teach the current version of the Bears the difference.

John Mullin at csnchicago.com posts the intriguing idea that some of the draft picks from the Phil Emery era that appeared to have been on their way to busting might actually benefit from the scheme change on defense. In particular he makes a good case that Will Sutton, who was universally considered to be a on the way out as a misfit in the 3-4 scheme, might find a place in it. Perhaps even more surprising, he’s being tried at nose tackle, not defensive end:

“Although Sutton was drafted to be a speed-based three-technique, he had played in a two-gap 4-3 at Arizona State. Meaning: While he doesn’t bring classic mass at nose tackle, he is not unfamiliar with the blocker-control elements of the Bears’ new system.”

Mullin further reports that Ego Ferguson, who I considered to be a natural fit at nose tackle, was asked to lose weight to play defensive end.

I will be fascinated to hear what the reasoning is for putting each of these men into their respective positions. Though teams typically talk about making do with lighter men at nose tackle when they don’t have the classic, massive body type available, I’m surprised that they actually putting the lighter Sutton at nose tackle by choice while asking the heavier Ferguson to lose weight to play end.

Obviously there’s more to placing these players into their positions that body type. For instance, perhaps Sutton is more sudden with tight movements whereas Ferguson moves with better speed given more space. In any case, defensive coordinator Vic Fangio and/or defensive line coach Jay Rodgers have seen something to change up what we all thought were slam dunk decisions.

I’ve never been one to post too this site simply for the sake of posting. And I haven’t posted much lately largely because there isn’t much to post about. The offseason is just that and if you need any evidence for the paucity of interesting information about the Bears, look no further than the crap that passes for “news” at the Chicago Sun-Times lately.

Nevertheless, there are issues that fans will want to pay attention to as training camp starts next month. One that hasn’t gotten much attention is the growing disconnect that I see between what the coaching staff plans to do and what the talent on the team will allow them to do. In fairness, most of this is based upon media speculation. Coaches don’t usually just volunteer to lay out all of their plans (on the record), even those that exist before the pads come on.

Issue number one for me is the Bears apparent plan to run the ball more this season. Don’t get me wrong. It’s not a bad plan, at least ordinarily. And its generally recognized that you do need to at least attempt to run the ball a certain percentage of the time to keep defenses honest.  But when the coaches talk about it, you have to wonder if they’ve actually watched the film from last season.

The Bears ranked 21st in yards and 23rd in total points last year but they were 27th in rushing, near the bottom of the league. Matt Forte set a league record for receiving yards by a running back. Most fans and some members of the media attribute that to former head coach Marc Trestman‘s reluctance to run the ball. But few people bother to think about why he was reluctant to run the ball.

Facing frequent two deep safety coverage for most of the year in 2014 with seven or less in the box, the Bears were in a prime position to gain yardage on the ground. Yet time after time, they were stopped in their tracks. The reason is simple: they couldn’t block it.

Even before the last season bloggers such as myself were calling for changes on an offensive line that was exceptionally healthy in 2013. Those changes weren’t made and the Bears paid the price.

Once again, few changes have been made to the offensive line in the offseason for the Bears this year despite the fact that neither left tackle Jermon Bushrod nor right tackle (for now) Jordan Mills have been healthy. Indeed, the line has arguably taken a step back with Will Montgomery stepping in for Roberto Garza at center. Even if rookie center Hroniss Grasu takes the job, he’s undersized and the odds are good that run blocking isn’t going to be his strength.

So it’s a great plan but the question remains, “How are the Bears going to run the ball more?” The only real hope is that a change in blocking scheme will allow an offense filled with personnel that play with more finesse than power to maximize their potential. But its a slim hope, one that most fans and, more to the point, most of the coaches shouldn’t bank on. How healthy the offensive line is and how they perform heading into the season will be one pretty good indication of how the offense as a whole will go. But even then, a plan based to heavily upon success in the running game seems to be one fraught with peril.

John Mullin at csnchicago.com takes a thoughtful and interesting look at the contract situations of both running back Matt Forte and tight end Martellus Bennett. One general statement that he makes stands out to me:

“Understand that the matter of contracts are anything but simple, much more complicated than just declaring, ‘you’ve got a contract, you have to honor it.’ The problem with that, as Brian Urlacher once correctly noted, when teams want (read: ‘demand’) a player to take a pay cut, the public rarely applies that dictum to teams, only when a player is demanding a pay raise. That’s just the nature of the NFL compensation structure.”

Make no mistake. By “public” Urlacher and Mullin both mean “fans”. And there’s a reason for this bias.

The advent of free agency was a great boon for players in all sports leagues where it exists. But it’s created a bit of a problem for them as well. Any player anywhere can, and frequently does, choose to leave. That means that the only thing a fan knows he can depend upon to be there in future years, assuming there’s good support, is the team. And that makes most people fans of the franchise, not the individual players. Add on the fact that the player might be saying, “I want more money” but fans hear, “I want you to pay more for tickets” and you’ve got your explanation for the one-sided nature of public opinion.

English journalist Evan Davis once said, “Nice guys finish last. But we get to sleep in.” You’d like to think that this was true of Bears chairman George McCaskey on the Memorial Day holiday yesterday. But given that now former Bears defensive end Ray McDonald was arrested at 7 AM, I kind of doubt it.

I wasn’t too thrilled with the signing of McDonald from the beginning and wasn’t too surprised that he ended up on the police blotter again. What I was surprised by was the wide range of reactions in the press this morning, especially when it comes to McCaskey’s culpability in the matter.

I rather objected to the implication made by David Haugh at the Chicago Tribune that McCaskey should take all of the responsibility for the misstep:

“The Bears signed the troubled defensive end in March anyway, ignoring the pattern [of run-ins with the law] and taking an unnecessary risk because their gullible chairman, McCaskey, met with McDonald and talked to his parents. They still thought Ray was a swell guy, which was good enough for McCaskey.”

Haugh makes it sound like McCaskey actually pushed for the signing when he, in fact, rather hesitantly agreed to it.

On the other side of the coin I found the attempt of Hub Arkush at chicagofootball.com to excuse the Bears organization over this to be both amusing and insulting to my intelligence:

“But before you rush to judgment of George McCaskey, Ryan Pace and the Bears organization, do yourself a favor and Google the story of Brian Banks.

“He’s the young man from Long Beach who lost his scholarship to Southern Cal to play linebacker, and instead spent five years in prison and the last 10 years as a registered sex offender after being falsely accused of rape by a woman who has since completely recanted the allegation.”

To my knowledge, Banks was accused of running afoul of the law only once. Not three times in seven months.  That’s more than an isolated incident where a guy was wronged.  That’s a pattern.

Arkush’s defense is more understandable when you remember that he came out strongly in favor of the McDonald signing in March. So he’s not really excusing the Bears for their misjudgment. He’s excusing himself.

Rick Morrissey at the Chicago Sun-Times probably had the most balanced view point when addressing the situation. He quotes McCaskey from last March after he was asked if he had talked to the alleged victim in McDonald’s December sexual assault arrest:

“‘An alleged victim, I think — much like anybody else who has a bias in this situation — there’s a certain amount of discounting in what they have to say,’’ he said. ‘But our personnel department had done its work looking into the background and the incidents. And we had the benefit of two coaches who had been with him with the 49ers.’’

“One of those coaches was new Bears defensive coordinator Vic Fangio. What do you expect from a football coach? The chairman of a billion-dollar business should know better.”

The chairman certainly should have. Actually both of them should have.  The question is, “Why didn’t they?”

Mike Imrem at the Daily Herald may have the answer as he tries to put together what was running, first through the head of McDonald, then McCaskey’s response:

“Think about it: Being caught in a lie isn’t a big deal after being caught in more serious transgressions.

“You might as well keep saying you didn’t do it until some sucker believes you.

“McDonald found a true believer in George McCaskey.”

“George McCaskey believed what Ray McDonald was babbling, and others in the organization believed what they wanted to believe.”

And therein lies the problem. Everyone from McCaskey through Pace and head coach John Fox to defensive coordinator Vic Fangio wanted to believe. Athletes everywhere know that’s true of most people by the time they become professionals. People want them to be winners. They want to believe them. So it makes it easy for them to look you in the eye and tell you what you want to hear. They’re generally good at it.

I’m convinced that George McCaskey is genuinely nice guy. I think he’s a nice guy from a nice family that grew up in a nice environment. And like most nice guys, McCaskey probably believes that most other people are nice guys like him. That becomes a problem when it buts up against a crappy world with con men like Ray McDonald in it.

There are a lot of people this morning that are pointing out that the Bears damaged themselves with this. That Fangio’s relationship with the Bears (and the rest of the league) is damaged. That Pace’s relationship with McCaskey is damaged. That the Bears reputation and that of its chairman is damaged. But there’s one good thing that will come out of it. The next time an athlete waltzes into McCaskey’s office, looks him in the eye and “impresses him with his sincerity”, he’ll be a little more cynical when the facts don’t jibe with the words.

The next time no one, from McCaskey through Pace down to the coaches, will be quite so willing to believe. That will make them tougher to fool. And that can only benefit the Bears.

Sam Monson at profootballfocus.com reviews what he thought were the biggest reaches in the draft. I think this one might surprise most Bears fans:

“Eddie Goldman, DT, Florida State
#39 Overall to Chicago.

“Goldman is the classic example of a player who looks like he should be fantastic, but just isn’t. You read scouting reports on him and you wonder if they have been written just by looking at his sheer physical size and whether they bothered to actually turn on any tape whatsoever. Maybe throw on a quick highlight reel just to confirm it…

“The trouble is that Goldman does not play to his physical ability very often at all. He is regularly credited as a player that can ‘take on double teams’, but unless you are happy with him taking them on by being driven off the line and crushed by two blockers, then that’s not exactly a positive of his. Goldman was the 45th-ranked defensive interior player in this draft class when looking only at run defense grade. As a pass-rusher he was almost exactly average – in the entire FBS!

“Even those grades are kind to him because around half of his positive grade came in one game against Louisville, who might well have the worst starting center in the nation.”

I find this opinion to be mildly disturbing.

I did actually “throw on a quick highlight reel”. In fact, I did quite a bit more than that. I won’t claim to have watched every game – almost certainly not as many as Monson – but I thought I’d watched enough to get a good idea of what the Bears had and I liked what I saw.

Indeed, one of the tapes I did watch was the Louisville game. Unlike Monson, I thought Goldman did a worse job there than he did against Florida, a better team. If Goldman was getting knocked back into the linebackers very often, double teamed or not, I didn’t see it.

I’m used to disagreeing with “experts” who are hired to evaluate players and who frequently do a lazy job of it.  I’m pretty sure many of them simply work in an echo chamber where they parrot back what other “experts” say until it becomes “the truth”.   The problem is that Monson isn’t one of those guys. In fact, he has a bad habit of being right.

The fact that I’m agreeing with the “experts”, who almost universally loved the Bears pick of Goldman, and disagreeing with Monson doesn’t make me wrong. But it does make me second guess myself. Because I’ve been wrong before. Frequently. Let’s hope this isn’t one of those times because the Bears are going nowhere without a good run stopper at nose tackle.