I have written often about Rex Grossman here for a few weeks now.

I have never once made a value judgement about Rex, as in "He's a good, QB" or "He's a Crappy QB."

What I HAVE said is this:  If you are going to criticize Rex (or anyone else) just be ACCURATE.  And FAIR.

Most of the public perception of Rex has been shaped by his performance in 2006, when phenomenal rookie Devin Hester returned six kicks for TD's, the Bears boasted the #3 Defense in the league and, and, and . . . oh, yeah . . .Rex Grossman started all 16 games . . . and almost screwed the whole thing up!  Damn that Rex Grossman!

For example, I recently engaged in a discussion whereby someone responded (after I told him that Rex had a 'Handful of Bad games' in 2006) by saying that:

Yes he had some very good games, and some down right horrible ones, but at the end of the day he had a bad season…that is a fact.

Umm, I'm sorry.  That's just WRONG!  Most people, however, just can't get past those 'Bad Games.'  Nothing else matters cause he had some Bad Games.  No matter what, he had some Bad Games.  It's as if other QB's NEVER have those kind of (Bad) games. Sheesh! 

Also keep this in mind:  2006 was Rex's First full season as starting QB.  In his three previous seasons he only played eight games, mostly due to injury.  Players do (sometimes) get smarter and better as they progress.

Actually, here's the reality.

First, A bit of history.  It's important to understand something here.  For the most part, the Bears in modern times hadn't won much, and when they did it was usually IN SPITE of the QB, not because of the QB.  For the first eight of Walter Payton's thirteen years with the Bears they had almost no passing attack whatsoever.  It was Walter left, Walter right and Walter up the middle.  The Bears featured QB's like Bob Avellini, Mike Phipps and Vince Evans during that time. They were dreadful.  This all changed with the arrival of Jim McMahon in 1982.    McMahon was a prolific QB who set 71 NCAA passing records.  Jim McMahon could flat-out play.  The only thing holding him back, however, was 'Iron Mike' Ditka and his 'Ground & Pound' offense.

Mike Ditka ran the offense with the Bears.  Even though he was a TE in the NFL, Ditka was a Special Teams/TE's coach in Dallas before becoming the HC of the Bears in 1982.  He didn't call the plays or run the offense for the Cowboys.  The two HC's that preceded Ditka (Jack Pardee & Neill Armstrong) were defensive coaches. The three HC's that followed Ditka, (Dave Wannstedt, Dick Jauron, and Lovie Smith) were also defensive coaches.

Therefore, over the past 37 years, the Bears have employed six HC's.  Five were on the defensive side of the ball. Ditka was a TE and ST coach.  Not a true offensive coach in the bunch.  Not one!

My point?  In the Super Bowl era, Chicago has NEVER been known as a place to showcase QB's or passing offenses.  Jim McMahon was the exception, but Jim McMahon didn't need coaching.  Or a game-plan.  Often he took Ditka's play call in the huddle and said "F+++ that, we're running this instead."  McMahon defied Ditka but got away with it cause it usually worked.  McMahon thrived in Chicago in spite of the coaching and philosophy and game-planning.

How bad has QB'ing been in Chicago?  Grossman's 3,193 yards, 23 touchdowns and 16 games started in 2006 put him in the top three quarterbacks to ever play the position in 87 years of Bears football.

Back to Grossman: 

Game One.  In the 1st Quarter of their opening game against Green Bay, Grossman threw a 49 yard TD pass to Bernard Berrian, and Devin Hester returned a punt 84 yards for a TD in his first game in the NFL as the Bears won 26-0.

Grossman had a gunslinger mentality and watching him open up the game with a TD strike to Berrian was a welcome sight for big play starved Bear fans.  It also served notice to opposing defense that they couldn't just 'stack the box' and only pla and often in 2006.

Games, 2,3,4,5.  The Bears won all four games.  Grossman was a little shaky in their week three visit to Minnesota. Early in the 4th quarter he threw and INT that the Vikings returned for a TD.  But later in that quarter Grossman fired a laser strike Rashied Davis for the game's winning score to redeem himself.

Recap of the 1st 5 Games:  The Bears were 5-0.  Rex Grossman had a 102 QB Rating, 10 TD's and 3 INT's.  He played well enough to be named NFC Offensive Player-of-the-Month for September.

Five games is almost a 1/3 of the season.  Teams that get off to a 5-0 start are almost assured of making the playoffs.  The Bears shot out of the gate at 5-0 IN LARGE PART, because of Rex Grossman.  After five games Hester had his one return TD and the defense had played very well.  But Rex was a big part of the reason they sat at 5-0.  Sorry Rex Haters.  But Reality Rules.

Game Six:  The Disaster in the Desert.  Grossman had 4 INTs and a lost fumble.  He was dreadful  No doubt.  The Bears still won on two Defensive TD's and Hester's second return TD.

Game Seven:  Rex redeemed himself as the Bears scored 41 FIRST HALF points in route to a 41-10 pasting of the 49ers.  Rex had a 137.4 QB rating and threw 3 TD's.

Game Eight:  Rex played much like he did against Arizona.  He had a 36.8 QB Rating and threw 3 INT's as the Bears suffered their first defeat at the hands of the woeful Miami Dolphins.

Mid-Season Recap:  

Good/Excellent Games: Six

Bad/Terrible Games:  Two (Cardinals & Dolphins).

Games 9,10, 11:  The Bears played three straight road games on the East Coast starting in week Nine against the Giants, Jets and Patriots.  That, my friends, is a tough stretch of road games.  Rex played  pretty well in the first two (both victories) throwing 3 TD''s against 1 INT against the Giants and 1 TD against 0 INT"s against the Jets.  He played pretty badly in their loss to New England, throwing 0 TD's and 3 INT's.

Game 12:  At home the Bears beat the Vikings but Rex was terrible.  A 1.3 QB Rating with 3 INT's.

Games 13, 14, 15:  Rex played well as the Bears beat the Rams, Bucs and Lions.  Combined Rex had 5 TD's and 0 INT's.

Game 16.  A meaningless season-ender with Green Bay.  The Bears had NOTHING to play for as they had home field locked up.  Rex and a few other teammates admitted to not working hard during the week and almost treating the game as an exhibition game.  In reality it was.  Grossman, I believe, had a 0 QB Rating in this game, but I refuse to count this as again, it was meaningless and the players treated it as such.  The game was played on New Year's Eve and it looked like they were already celebrating the New Year with champagne before the game even started

Regular Season Wrap-Up:  

Excluding the meaningless Packer game, Rex had Four bad/terrible games (Arizona, Miami, Minnesota, New England).  Grossman threw 20 INT"s in 2006.  Well over Half (Thirteen) came in these four games.

The other Eleven games Rex played good to excellent in all of those eleven victories.

Four 'Bad' . .  Seven 'Good.'

Rex's bad games accounted for about 25% of the season.

As previously mentioned Rex played very well in helping the Bears shoot out to a 5-0 start.  NFC Offensive Player-of-the-Month.  102 QB Rating. 10 TD's to 3 INT's.  Winning breeds confidence and confidence breeds winning in the  NFL.  Getting off to a 5-0 start is HUGE in the NFL.   That cannot be overstated.  

Not only does it give your team a big boost of confidence but it gives your team a cushion to absorb up-coming losses.  The Bears were so confident by that point that in Week Six, when Grossman had his first 'Bad Game' against the Cardinals, they STILL won to go up 6-0.

I'm not defending Rex.  I know him better than most.  He can be good to great at times and extremely frustrating at other times.  Extremely frustrating. I'm not defending his inconsistency in 2006 and at other times.

But regarding 2006 many people make it sound like he was either:

A)  Horrible when the Bears lost.

Or Else

B)  The Defense and ST's carried the day when the Bears won.

Essentially, according to myth, the Bears either lost BECAUSE of Rex Grossman or won IN SPITE of Rex GROSSMAN.

Eleven Good - Excellent games out of Fifteen says that is NONSENSE!  Complete Nonsense.  Sorry!

Hate Rex all you want.  I don't care.  But at least be Accurate & Fair about it.

If you're going to talk about his 4 HORRIBLE games . . . then balance that out with his 11 Good-Excellent games.

That's only fair, right?

And accurate.

I refer to a recent post (again) bashing Rex Grossman with comments like this:

Grossman is already responsible for seven giveaways, putting him among the most in the NFL. Romo and Vick are right there with six each

Really?  Who Cares???

The Eagles are 1-3.  Dallas 2-2.

The Redskins?   3-1.

Get OVER the difference of a few turnovers here and there.

For example, regarding the dreaded Interception:

No Team/QB has ZERO Interceptions this season.

Three teams/QB's have only ONE interception this season, which is the lowest in the league.

Those teams?:

The (surprisingly) 3-1 49ers.

The 0-4 Rams.

the 0-4 Colts.

That's right, TWO 0-4 teams have thrown only ONE interception this season.

Kerry Collins & Curtis Painter have combined for ONE Interception for their WINLESS Colts in 2011.

Sam Bradford and A.J, Feely have combined for ONE Interception for their WINLESS Rams in 2011.

The Vikings are also 0-4.  Their QB, Mr. McNabb has only thrown TWO Interceptions this season.

Meanwhile, Tom Brady has FIVE Interceptions.  That's MORE than the ENTIRE total for the Colts, Rams and Vikings this season.  One more than Kerry Collins, Curtis Painter, Sam Bradford, A.J. Feely and Mr. McNabb COMBINED!

Get It?

HOF'er Tom Brady, of the 3-1 Patriots has thrown MORE Interceptions this season than the 0-12 Colts, Rams & Vikings combined!

Anyone here know that?  Didn't think so.

Pro-Bowler Phillip River has Six Interceptions this season.  One MORE than Rex Grossman who has Five.

Rivers has lost One Fumble this season.  One LESS than Rex.

Rex & Rivers have BOTH turned the ball over SEVEN times this season.  Big deal.

Rivers is considered to be one of the best QB's in the NFL.

Yet, he has the SAME number as Rex right now.

That's also the same number as Pro-Bowler Matt Ryan, who ALSO has Seven turnovers already this year.

Pro Bowler and Two-Time SB Champion Ben Roethlisberger?  He has NINE  turnovers already, two MORE than Rex!

This OBSESSION with the number on INT's/Fumbles lost thrown is laughable.   It really is.  They're part of the game.

Using Rex's number of Seven turnovers to bash him, at this point of the season is pointless.  

My above examples clearly show that.  Unless one thinks that Collins, Painter, Bradford, Feely and McNabb are BETTER than Tom Brady.  Show of hands.  Anyone here think that?  Didn't think so

Rex now has the SAME number of turnovers as Matt Ryan & Phillip Rivers.  LESS than Big Ben.

Those three are commonly considered to be among the best QB's in the NFL.

I know.  I know.  Those guys are Pro Bowlers.  Rex isn't.  One of them has WON a SB.  Rex hasn't.

And I know.  Rex ALWAYS turns the ball over during CRITICAL moments and those guys?  Those guys ONLY turn it over early in the game at NON-CRITICAL times.  Right?  

Good Grief.

It's a team game and right now your team is 3-1.

Stop This Insanity!  It's Ridiculous.  It really is.

Let's compare two QB's.

QB  #1:   In 2006 he helped lead his team to the SB.  He had a 54.6 Completion %, 23 passing TD's, 20 INT's and a 73.9 QB Rating.   A few  years later he was out of a job.

QB #2:    In 2007 he helped lead his team to the SB.  He had a 56.1 Completion %, 23 passing TD's, 20 INT's and a 73.9 QB Rating.  A few years later he signed the (then) highest paid contract in NFL history (106.9 million dollar contract - 97.5 million dollar extension).

Virtually identical stats in four major QB categories (the difference between a 54.6 Completion % and a 56.1 % is, according to my math, about eight more completions for the entire season.  One completion for every two games. Big deal).

QB #1?   Rex Grossman.

QB #2?  Eli Manning.

Fumbles?   Eli had more in 2007 (13) than Rex did in 2006 (8).

Rex's offense in 2006 was ranked 15th in yards gained.  Eli's offense in 2007 was ranked 16th.

And yet, in recent years Rex has been vilified and Eli has been considered to be in a QB group just below the elite QB's in the game.

Makes no sense to me.  Looking at these facts and figures tells me that either Eli is way overrated or else Rex is underrated.

As a Bear fan I watched every snap Rex took in 2006.  He was named NFC offensive player of the month in September that season.  They don't name you offensive player of the month for nothing.  He helped the Bears jump out to a very fast start that season (7-0).  Teams that start out that well are almost assured of making the playoffs.

Further, half of his INT's (10) came in just three games (the infamous MNF Cardinal game, and games against the Patriots and Vikings).

Rex's passing abilities had a lot to do with the success the Bears had that season.  He also, obviously, had a few HORRIBLE games that year too.

I wasn't surprised at all he played as well as he did last Sunday. Rex is not nearly as 'bad' as the general football public believes him to be.

With the passage of time, a few years of sitting on the bench, added maturity, and better offensive coaching,  I believe that Rex is ready this season turn his career around.

And I predict he'll have a better season than will Eli in 2011.

100 + years & still waiting.

Nickname? The Lovable Losers.

Let’s Examine:

Recent comments by Tom Ricketts when asked what the team‘s problem was: “Nothing. We just have a lot of injuries. We’ll be fine”

Front Page comment in this weekends USA Today Sports Section by Jim Hendry : “Everybody has injuries and I’ve never been one to whine about it, but when you lose three out of your five best starters, it takes its toll. Nobody has that kind of pitching depth.”

Mike Quade has also toed the company line with regards to injuries.

The problem? This is not an Explanation for what ails the team. It’s an Excuse. It’s a ‘Losers Lament.’

Others have commented about this recently but I’ll also weigh in very briefly.

This Losers Lament also deflects attention from the real truth here. The Cubs aren’t (primarily) where they are in the standings because of injuries. No, they are there because they play BAD BASEBALL

Shoddy defense, stupid base running, overthrowing cut-off men, failing to advance runners, little concept of situational hitting, leaving a million runners in scoring position, players with wallets bigger than their hearts, lack of mental toughness, questionable baseball intelligence and on and on it goes. In short they are a fundamentally flawed team.

That’s why this team is terrible. Not (primarily) injuries.

But here’s the bigger issue.

Jimmy Johnson was one of the great HC’s and GM’s in the NFL. His monumental trade of Herschel Walker and two SB victories attest to that. He took over a 3-13 Cowboy team that Johnson said has less talent than his team at the University of Miami. In a few years Johnson had built an NFL dynasty.

Johnson was majoring in psychology with hopes of being an industrial psychologist before almost accidentally entering football as a life long career. Yet Johnson never forgot either his fascination with or the importance of psychology. He merely directed it into a new industry. The football industry. Johnson may have been the only ‘psychologist’ who roamed an NCAA/NFL sideline. He considered himself a ‘people person’ first and foremost and thought his greatest strength to be in analyzing, evaluating and motivating people and his players.

Johnson was a big believer in the Pygmalion Effect which is a form of self-fulfilling prophecy.  This was named after George Bernard Shaw's play in which a professor wagers that he can teach a poor flower girl to behave upper-class. The general idea is that students internalize expectations. Poor expectations, poor student. Positive labels are more likely to equal success ... in material measurements, at least. Johnson’s motto was this: Treat a player as he is and he will remain the same. Treat a player as if he were where he could be and should be, and he will become what he could be and should be."

Thus we have Ricketts & Company feeding right into this ‘self-fulfilling prophecy.’ Instead of stating the obvious (We’re playing bad baseball) no, they attempt to deny the obvious and give their players and coaches a built-in excuse for losing (Don’t worry guys. We’ve been hit hard by injuries. What do people expect?)

How stupid do you think we are?

I’m no Cowboy fan but I have great respect for Jimmy Johnson. I’m certainly no Yankee fan but also respected George Steinbrenner. Steinbrenner was deeply flawed but one thing set him apart from almost everyone else. His motto was this:

"Winning is the most important thing in my life, after breathing," Steinbrenner said. "Breathing first, winning next."  Imagine that!

Even people that hated George couldn't argue with that.

He said that a million times . . . And then backed it up to the tune of six Championships and tem pennants.

See the difference there?

GS: We WILL win and will do EVERYTHING possible to make that happen. And they did.

TR: Well, we got a lot of injuries otherwise we (the Lovable Losers) will be fine.

Dear Mr. Ricketts:

Do something that will make you the most popular owner/executive in Cub history. Call a press conference in the near future, look the camera in the eye, and in a slow, strong, steady voice say this:

"We will do EVERYTHING in our power to win. All me and my family care about is winning. This team will no longer be referred to as the ‘Lovable Losers.’ Nobody in the building, from the top floors to the stadium sweepers will be allowed to use the words ‘Lovable Losers.’ The NEXT person that attempts to use injuries as an excuse will be FIRED immediately. From this point forward we will no longer excuse incompetence, whether it be in the front office or on the field."

"Everybody will be held accountable. Those that cannot do the job will be replaced by those that can. "

And then DO IT! 

Get it, Mr. Ricketts? Channel your inner Mike Singletary and yell “I WANT WINNERS!” at the presser.   Cub fans will respect you immediately.

Not nonsense like “Gee we’ve had a lot of injuries, otherwise we'd be fine."

Study Jimmy Johnson. George Steinbrenner. The Pygmalion Effect. And then grow a pair a lead this team out of it’s sorry past into a new future, a future built on WINNING, not in being Lovable Losers!

Or find someone else that will.   After all it's all about accountability.  If you can't do the job . . . then find someone else who can.

Twice as long as Basketball & Hockey, ten times as long as the NFL, the baseball season goes on forever. Which is great if you are winning or at least playing well. Conversely it's torture if you are losing or, even worse, suffering from the affliction known as BAD BASEBALL.

The Cubs play bad baseball. Really bad.

For a blueprint in turning things around perhaps ownership should look out west to the Arizona Diamondbacks. Coincidentally the Diamondbacks were once brought into existence largely by the force of their original Owner/Managing General Partner Jerry Colangelo, who grew up in Chicago Heights as a life long Cubs fan.

It's alright to look at the Diamondbacks. After all I'm pretty sure they're the only team in baseball founded by a Cubs fan. There's something to be said for that. They play in an airport hanger on the scorched desert Earth known as Phoenix, Arizona but at least they have won a WS title in the last 100 years.  Unlike some people we know.

Living here in Phoenix I've listened to the hosts and the fans on sports talk radio complain endlessly in recent years abut the Diamondbacks. Not just the losing but in the mostly awful baseball being played which led to said losing. 'It's one thing to lose' went the local lament, 'but do we have to look this bad in doing so?'

So, to their credit ownership finally did something about their case of Bad Baseball. They fired GM Josh Brynes with five years left on his contract and replaced him with well respected GM Kevin Towers, who had recently ran the Padres to four division titles and one World Series appearance in fourteen seasons, mostly on a limited budget.

Towers specializes in building bullpens and emphasizes Pitching and Defense. Pitching and Defense. Imagine that.

Next they permanately hired interim manager Kirk Gibson who had recently taken over for fired manager AJ Hinch. Hinch had been hand picked by former GM Josh Byrnes to manage the club.   Not only did Hinch have no managing experience but he had never even been a base coach at any level in baseball before managing at the major league level.

See, stupid decisions are even made by GM's not named Jim Hendry, believe it or not.

When it all got to be too much for the owners and the fans last season they fired Brynes & Hinch and they promoted Gibson from bench coach to field manager. Gibson is well respected, old-school and passionate, stressing concepts like Fundamentals and Accountability. Fundamentals & Accountability. Imagine that.

Most importantly is this: Even before the Diamondbacks caught fire the last few weeks and surged into first place the locals were basically saying this on talk radio: "At least we're not playing Bad Baseball anymore." This was BEFORE they started winning. They were at least somewhat enjoyable to watch. Certainly compared to the last few seasons.

For more insight on their turnaround I'd suggest reading this recent column in the Arizona Republic by former Chicagoan Dan Bickley.   http://www.azcentral.com/sports/diamondbacks/articles/2011/05/19/20110519arizona-diamondbacks-passion.html

The Cubs?

Tom Ricketts and company need to clean house soon and start to develop and organizational philosophy. One that hopefully puts an end to the dreaded disease known as Bad Baseball.

Asking people to pay for and watch six months of Bad Baseball constitutes cruel and unusual punishment simply for committing the crime of being a Cubs fan.  Most of us I would assume didn't choose this lifestyle but instead were born into it.

It's one thing to lose. We've had 100 years of that. But looking and playing this badly in doing so simply has to stop. This disease known as Bad Baseball MUST BE ERADICATED!

That's the least we f'ing deserve.

Many heads must roll when a team with one of the highest payrolls in the league plays this badly.  It's really just that simple.

conceded that SF isn't out of this race.  Believe it or not.  Actually, they sounded none too complacent about things in Cardinal land.

Here's why.  The 49ers play Oakland,  Carolina, Denver, St. Louis and Tampa the next five weeks.  Oakland, St. Louis and Tampa are at home.  The Panther game is on the road and the Bronco game in London.

No games are easy in the NFL.  I'm the first to admit that.   That said, they MUST beat Oakland at home.  Carolina is absolutely DREADFUL (the guy who said that the 49ers are the laughingstock of the NFL hasn't seen Carolina play).  Denver in London, and the Rams and Bucs at home are all winnable games.  Oakland at home and Carolina on the road are about as good as it gets to launch a winning streak.

If they can run the table here, they'd now be 5-5 with a ton of momentum heading into their next game, against the Cardinals in Phoenix. 

That's how these two clowns presented the situation.  They went game-by-game and said that the 49ers could be 5-5 by that time and would then have some serious momentum at their backs, on a five-game winning streak.  When one then asked the other if the Cardinals would  beat SF in that next game, he said he wasn't sure (probably based on SF beating AZ. twice last season - and that's with Kurt Warner).

Meanwhile, the Cardinals are 3-2.  Three of their next five games are in tough places to play (at Seattle, at Minnesota, and at K.C).   Arizona could easily be 5-5 heading into the 49er game.

If the 49ers can take it one game at a time and go on a little winning streak here, they could be playing for 1st place against Arizona on Monday, November 29th.

Further, one of the clowns said that if any coach could get his team motivated to go on a winning streak here, it's Singletary.

Here's my take on this:

This is actually a great scenario, considering the circumstances (being 0-5) which, of course, are anything but great.  The 49ers went into the season a little overconfident, based on everybody picking them to win the division.  They started out in a real tough place to play (Seattle) and had some tough games against real good teams (Saints, Falcons, Eagles).

0-5.

Now that everybody has written them off and already fired the HC, it's a perfect time for the team to circle the wagons, and develop an 'Us against the World' mentality.  Mike Singletary is the perfect HC to lead this insurrection.

In short, to get really pissed off and take it out on the opposition.  To start playing the way they're capable of playing

If they can do that and start winning a few games right now, they'll start to gain some much needed momentum to put them right back into the race.

Maybe 5-5.

The 49ers are 0-5.  A few plays here and there in three games (Saints, Falcons and Eagles) and the 49ers could now be 3-2.

The Cardinals are 3-2.   A few plays here and there in three games (Rams, Raiders and Saints) and the Cardinals could now be 0-5.

These two teams are but a few plays away from having opposite records.

If the 49ers could just start a little winning streak here, they could easily be playing for 1st place next month.

If they can just win two, three games in a row, their confidence will start to grow and they'll be in good shape.

Whether they do or not, remains of course to be seen.

Not predicting anything here, just pointing out that things are far from over in the NFC West.

Even two clowns on Phoenix Sports Radio can see that.

kills me.

From Jason Cole’s article about Singletary getting fired after this season:

"Singletary’s animated demeanor gained him instant stardom when he first jumped on the scene as the Niners interim coach in 2008. He went 5-4 that season and was thought to be turning the organization around. But what observers did not think about was that being an interim coach is more about motivation skills than tactical aptitude. An interim coach inherits a system and modus operandi that are already in place; their main job is to help change the mindset in the locker room."

"Singletary could change the emotional culture in San Francisco, but as a fulltime head coach he was required to change the entire culture. That’s when whatever strategic limitations he might have would become an issue. "

See the problem there?

Continue reading this post »

Back in the month of May, Woody Paige of the Denver Post & ESPN wrote a column saying that the Broncos should start Tim Tebow over Kyle Orton.  Paige stated that Tebow  has the potential to be a 'star' and that Orton most certainly did not.

I emailed Paige and told him that Orton played very well as the starting QB with the Bears in 2008 ( that was my opinion based on actually watching the games he played in).  That the reason they missed the playoffs that season was because of the defense, not the offense.  Starting Tebow over Orton made no sense. Woody replied back to me by basically saying that I didn't know what I was talking about.

(I emailed Paige back again just a few days ago.  After four games Kyle Orton led the NFL in passing.  Now after five games he's ranked second overall and has more passing yardage than both Manning's, Brees, Romo and Aaron Rodgers, among others.  His overall passing stats are right up there with Peyton Manning's so far in 2010.  I guess starting Orton over Tebow doesn't look so bad right now.)

The Bears made the playoffs in 2005 and reached the Super Bowl in 2006.  Their defense was ranked #1 and #3 (points allowed) in those two seasons.

In the following three season after that SB appearance in 2006, they missed the playoffs each season, going 7-9, 9-7, and 7-9.  Under .500 at 23 - 25.

They also slipped in team defense from 1st and 3rd to 16th, 16th and 22nd in 2007 - 2009.

It's hard to make the playoffs when your defense goes from top 5 to the bottom half.  It can be done . . . but it's a lot more difficult (especially without a QB named Peyton, Warner or Brees).

The 49ers are currently ranked 27th in defense, giving up an average of 26 points per game (last season they gave up 18 points per game).  They are giving up a TD more than the league average so far in 2010, which is 20 points per game. 

Thus, if you subtract six points from the opposition in each game they've played so far, they would've beaten the Saints, Falcons and Eagles and would now be 3-2 , if they had an average defense.  That's an oversimplification to be sure but still; they were ranked 4th overall last season and are now currently ranked 27th in points allowed.

It's hard to understand that dropoff.  Same basic players and coaches.  They are average or below average in most defensive statistical catagories so far in 2010.

The other four teams in the top five in defense last season (Jets, Cowboys, Ravens and Patriots) are currently ranked 4th, 10th, 6th and 15th.  No other team in the top five has come close to the dropoff experienced by the 49ers defense in 2010.

This constant obsession with the Quarterback kills me.   Yes, he's extremely important.  But still.  Kyle Orton is currently ranked #2 overall in the the NFL in passing yardage (and this is a guy many considered to be mediocre at best, a journeyman at worst).   And yet the Broncos are only 2-3.  Perhaps that anomaly has something to do with the fact that their defense is currently ranked 26th, only one spot ahead of the 49ers.  The Chargers are #1 in passing with Philip Rivers.  Like Denver they are also 2-3. Their defense is ranked #20.

I always look at the defense.  When they said that Jay Cutler never made the playoffs in Denver, I took a look.  They were 7-9 in 2007 and 8-8 in 2008 with Cutler under center and missed the playoffs both seasons.  They were also ranked 28th and 30th in defense back then (13th and 3rd in passing offense). Almost dead last in team defense.  Last year in Chicago Cutler and the Bears were 7-9.  They were ranked 22nd in defense.

So far this season they are 4-1 and ranked 7th in team defense.

It's truly amazing how much better a team's record usually gets when they play better defense.

It's a team game.  The 49ers passing offense is ranked 11th.  Their rushing offense is ranked 28th.  As mentioned, their defense is ranked 27th.

*   It would really help this team if they could run the ball a little better, to take some pressure off the QB.

*   It would really help this team if the offense could cut down on some of their turnovers (They currently have 15 turnovers.  The league average is less than 9).

*   It would really help this team if the defense could take the ball away more (They currently have 5 takeaways.  Again, the league average is almost 9). 

*   Sack/Pressure the QB more often (They currently have 10 sacks -  exactly the league average).    

*   Stop the opposition's game ending drives more often.

A modest level of improvement in these three catagories would help make a big difference.

For all the endless chatter about Alex Smith, better defense and rushing would go a long way towards far better football in SF.

half empty when it comes to the playoffs.  Some see it already shattered.  I see it half full.  Here's why:

First of course, the 49ers must start playing better.  Playing up to their capabilities.  If they don't then they have no hope.  I think they will but that, of course,  remains to be seen. 

Assuming they start playing more like last years team and not the way they've started out in 2010, they need these three things to happen:

1.  Beat the Eagles. 

The 49ers are angry and desperate, and are playing at home again.  They must beat the Eagles tomorrow night.  There's no way they can go 0-5 and realistically make the playoffs.  John Madden used to say that winning was a great deodorant.  The 49ers desperately need the sweet smell of victory Sunday night.

While I hate to pencil in games as won or lost ahead of time, I'm going to do just that in this post.  They beat Philadelphia, they are now 1-4.

2.  Replicate last years divisional games. 

They went 5-1 in the division last season, losing only in Seattle.  They've already done taken care of losing in Seattle.  Now they just need to win the other five games.  The Rams are better, the Cardinals are worse and the 49ers owe Seattle big time in Candlestick.  It can be done and, quite honestly, if they can't (or come real close) then they don't deserve to win the division.

If they can replicate last season, they will now be at 6-4 ( with five divisional wins plus beating Philadelphia - to go along with their four losses)).  The Cards (now 2-2) will then be 2-4 with two 49er losses.  Same with the Rams.  The Seahawks will be 2-3 if they lose to the 49ers later this season.

3.  They need Atlanta & New Orleans to take care of business in the rest of the division.

The 49ers lost close games to both of those teams already.  Arizona has already been blown out by Atlanta.  They play the Saints tomorrow in the desert.  If they lose to NO,  the Cards would then be 2-5 in this scenario I have created..

Atlanta plays Seattle & St. Louis on the road.  New Orleans plays both those teams in the Superdome.

If Atlanta & New Orleans sweep those games (and that's a big 'if'), that leaves St. Louis at 2-6 and Seattle at 2-5.

Let's recap:

1. The 49ers must win tomorrow night.

2.  They repeat what they did in the division last season.

3..  Atlanta and New Orleans sweep the NFL West (so far they are 3-0 with 5 left to play).

If those things happen, the leaves the race like this:

SF:   6-4

Seattle:  2-5

Arizona:  2-5

St. Louis:  2-6

That leaves SF with six games to play:  Oakland, Carolina, Denver, Tampa Bay, Green Bay and San Diego.

If they split those six games they end up at 9-7 which almost assuredly wins the division.

Seattle & Arizona would have to go 7-2, St. Loius 7-1 the rest of the way to reach 9-7.

YES, there are a lot of 'What Ifs' here.   I already know that.  I don't need people telling me that.  They are realistic, however, to my way of thinking.  Many will no doubt disagree.  That's fine.

In closing:  Nobody is going to make me believe that Arizona, Seattle and St. Louis are better than SF.  Just my opinion.  And it's not how you start the race but how you finish it.

By stumbling out of the gate so badly, I think this team is angry and embarassed.  If they can just start to turn the corner, I think that anger and embarassment will fuel them for the rest of the season.

The Eagle game is the very definiton of 'Must Win.'  If they do, then I can see this scenario possibly playing out.  If they don't, well, then it's going to be real ugly at Niner Headquarters next week and for weeks thereafter..

Yeah, that makes sense.  Not really.  It's kind of laughable to me that it's even been discussed by some.  Here's why:

1.  Great Expectations:  

Have the 49ers underachieved?  Absolutely.  However the season is 16, not 4 games long.  Right?  Also this:  I've emailed clowns like Ann Killion, Lowell Cohn and others in the media asking a simple question.  I'm still waiting for my first reply back from any of them.

Here's the question:  "If you're gonna bash Mike Singletary like you're doing  for failing to live up to expectations in 2010, don't you then have to credit MS for considerably raising those expectations?"   I mean, who is the real Mike Singletary? 

Is he the one that took over a mostly directionless team that never reached .500 under Mike Nolan;  the one who went into his second full season as HC at over .500 (13-12).  Is he the one whose team many now felt had been improved enough by him to finally win the NFC  West again.  That Mike Singletary? 

Or is he the one that has gotten off to a real, real slow start so far after four games in 2010. 

The one after his first 25 games?  Or the one after his last 4?   I'm going with 25 here.

They have so far underachieved in 2010.  However, Singletary's coaching abilities had much to do with greatly raising the expectations of this team going into 2010. 

BTW:  Mike Nolan was .327 in his 55 games in SF.  To put that into context Mike Singletary would have to go 0-16 this season to basically match him percentage wise (he'd then be at .317).

2. Discipline/Stupidity: 

What about the lack of discipline?  The stupid plays? 

The 49ers currently have committed 25 penalities.  Mike McCarthy is the best HC in the NFC North.   On a Monday night against the Bears his Packers committed 18 penalties (plus a million mental mistakes).  In one game his team made 75% of the total number of penalties the 49ers have made in four games.

The 49ers are ranked 16th in the NFL in penalties, exactly halfway down the list.  Players make penalties sometimes.  That's life in the NFL.

What about Nate Clements?   Yeah, he blew that play cause the 49ers coaches don't spend enough time on situations like that.  Right?  Come on man.  He's played in the NFL forever.   The fact of the matter is this:  He shouldn't have gone down right away.  If he did the Falcons could've gotten the ball back with over a minute left on the clock (unless SF made a first down).  He had a wide open field ahead of him.  He was heading towards the sidelines/endzone.  His mistake was in not securing the ball.  He should've held that ball like it was his 80 million dollar check, not like a loaf of bread.  He didn't and the team paid a huge price for it. 

He was trying to make a play to ice the game and got careless with the ball.  Not condoning it.   Just sayin'.  Criticizing the coaches for that is laughable.  Coaches can only do so much on Sundays.

What about Alex Smith throwing the ball away on that intentional grounding play or on that INT to Gore?  A few weeks ago Eli Manning (who was the highest paid QB in NFL history last season) threw a left-handed jump ball at the goalline into three defenders, one of whom intercepted the ball.

We all know Eli's pedigree.  Pretty smart QB, right?  Yet he made an idiotic play.  The fact of the matter is that most QB's NOT named Peyton or Brady sometimes made foolish mistakes in the heat of battle trying to make a play for their team.  Sorry, it sometimes happens.  Not good but it happens all over the league, not just in SF.

Again, I know many find it hard to believe but penalties and stupid plays happen all over the NFL, not just in SF.  Not condoning it.   Just sayin'.

3.  Inexperience/Non-Coordinator/X's & O's: 

Briefly let's look at the 3-0 K.C. Chiefs.  They put on a clinic in outcoaching the 49ers in week three.  As bad as I've ever seen:  Manusky should've been embarassed.  Raye paid for it with his job.  It sometimes happens in the NFL however (though usually not that badly I'll concede).

Still:  The 49ers have played three of last years 'Final Four' teams recently (Colts, Vikings and Saints).  By definition three of the best teams in the NFL last year.  Yes they lost all three games but they weren't outcoached in any of them.  Not at all.  All those games went down to the wire with the 49ers having a chance to win each game.  They gave those (better) teams all they could handle.

It's not like these guys are idiots, no matter how much some believe that to be the case.

Let's now look at Todd Haley.   Like Singletary a first time HC in his second season.  Haley is a former coordinator (unlike Singletary).   Haley is on his third OC so far in K.C. (Chan Gailey, himself and now Charlie Weis).

Not exactly the picture of stability. Three OC's by his second season?  Seems to be working now, though.  Right?  Third times the charm.  Of course he was basically told this after last year by Scott Pioli:  "Do you wanna be the HC or the OC?"  Cause it's hard to do both for the most part.   He was told that as HC you are needed to manage the entire team, not just fiddle with the offense. " Which one is it Todd?"

(And yes, Bill Walsh had a dominating offense as HC/OC.  Buddy Ryan had a dominating defense as HC/DC in Philadelphia.  Currently his son Rex is doing the same in NY.  Sean Payton has a great offense as HC/OC - though one wonders just how great it would be if Drew Brees hadn't fallen into his lap.  It's certainly possible to do both and do them very well.  But that's not the only way to do it).

That's why teams have OC's & DC's.  For the X's & O's.  To create the gameplans.  To spend all their time scheming and coaching their unit to beat the guys on the other side of the ball.

And on the flip side that's why the HC graveyard is filled with terrible HC's who were good coordinators.  Recent coaches like Nolan, Scott Linehan, Cam Cameron and a million other guys were good managing a single unit of the team but not very good managing the ENTIRE team.

The point here is this.   Right now Todd Haley is functioning just like Mike Singletary:  Managing his entire squad and the game and letting his coordinators coordinate.  Does anyone think that Haley is overruling or helping out Charlie Weis on his offense?  I don't.   Part of the reason K.C. stuggled in Haley's first season was because he was spreading himself too thin and trying to do too much as HC/OC.  He's now being the HC and letting his coordinators coordinate.

After the debacle in K.C. Singletary fired his handpicked choice as his OC.    That's not easy to do on a personal level and also to publicly admit that you made something of a mistake with the original hire.  But he did it.  I think Mike Johnson was eventually going to take over as OC sometime in the future anyway.  This just accelerated the process.

Mike Singletary is not a stupid man, believe it or not.  His job (and now his coaching legacy) will depend, in a large part, on his coordinators and assistant coaches (especially the OC).  Sometimes, however, it takes a few seasons for it all to come together. 

In Dick Vermeil's first two seasons with the Rams Jerry Rhome was the OC and they went 9-23.  In his third season first time OC Mike Martz managed the offense.  They won the SB that season.

Singletary is no doubt on the hot seat right now, especially on the offensive side of the ball.  Give him and his new OC some time to make it happen.  That's how it works in the NFL.  It usually doesn't happen overnight, if it happens at all.

4.  The Quarterback:  

(Brief disclaimer.  This section, while absolutley relevant to this discussion about Mike Singletary, his offense and his 49ers, is dedicated to the clowns of Phoenix Sports radio who spend more time bashing Mike Singletary, usually with erroneous information,  than to talking about their own (suddenly stupid) Arizona Cardinals). 

Let's look at the most important position on the team and then let's compare Mike Singletary with the HC who's considered to be the best in the NFC West, Ken Whisenhunt of the Cardinals.  Sometimes the best way to judge someone's abilities is to compare them to someone perceived to be more successful.

Simply put,  Ken Whisenhunt is the most overrated coach in the history of civilization.  Here's why.

We all know the record.  Singletary is 2-1 against Whisenhunt and was a botched goaline play away by Mike Martz from  from being 3-0.   With LESS talent.  How so?

Ken Whisenhunt inherited a lot of (mostly) young talent from Denny Green.  Two #1 WR's in Fitzgerald & Boldin (most teams don't even have one #1).  Excellent defenders like Darnell Dockett, Karlos Dansby and Adrian Wilson.   But mostly this:  Future HOF QB Kurt Warner.  One of the most accurate passers in NFL history.  Singletary inherited Shaun Hill & Alex Smith.  No disrespect to Alex and Shaun but still . . .

Advantage Whisenhunt (in a big, big way).

But here's the best part.  Whisenhunt is a former SB winning OC with the Steelers who's considered to be FAR superior over Mike Singletary in all things offense.  Right? 

Whisenhunt's 'management' at the QB position throughout his tenure in Phoenix, however, has been HORRENDOUS.  That's right, horrendous.  It's the dirty little secret that almost nobody wants to acknowledge.  Especially those in the media, let alone their fan base. People like to criticize MS in this department (quarterback/offense).  Please.  Let's take a GOOD look here at almost complete incompetence: (that would be Ken Whisenhunt).

Briefly:

*  In his first season as HC in 2007 Whisenhunt names Matt Leinart as the starter over Warner.  There was some logic to this as Leinart was the 1st round pick and Warner had struggled recently.  I'll give the Wiz a pass here (pun intended).

*  Leinart , however, was injured and lost for the season in game five.  Warner starts the next eleven games (actually Warner was also injured.  He played most of 2007 with his left arm in a sling).  Leinart had 2 TD's and 4 INT's in 2007.  Warner 27 TD's and 17 INT's.

*  So who does the most overrated HC in history name as the starter for 2008?  That's right.  Matt Leinart.  Seriously.  Warner had to lobby Whisenhunt to be given an opportunity to COMPETE with Leinart for the starting job (believe me, I'm not making this up).  Whisenhunt said yes and then waited until SIX days before the start of the regular season to (finally) name Warner the starter in 2008.  Not during training camp.  Not even during the preseason.  No, AFTER the last preseason game and less than a week before opening day.

Hey Kenny, open your eyes.  What took you so long dude?  I mean, come on.  It took you to the Monday before opening day to finally name the superior Kurt Warner as your starting QB?  And they say Mike Singletary doesn't know how to handle the QB position?

*  Then in the opening game of 2008 against the 49ers Warner again had to lobby Whisenhunt (this time at halftime) - to open up the offense.  The fact is that Whisenhunt always wanted a more balanced offense in Arizona and was never fully comfortable with the air attack offense with Kurt Warner. 

Simply put, the Cards have succeeded in recent years NOT because of the 'great' coaching by the Wiz..  That's hysterical . No they played great at times because of the greatness of Kurt Warner.  Warner made that ENTIRE team better.  Obviously the offense, especially Larry Fitzgerald.  Also the defense (they knew they could give up some points and Kurt would go get'em back).  Special teams.  Front office.  Secretaries.  Janitors.  You name'em.  Warner helped them all be better and happier.

NOT KEN WHISENHUNT.  Whisenhunt the successful HC is almost exclusively the product of Kurt Warner's immense talents in Phoenix.  A HOF'er that he inherited and twice sent to the bench.

Whisenhunt isn't a great HC.  Actually he's pretty crappy to tell the truth.  At least without Kurt Warner he is.

And let's look at his abilities post Warner.  Knowing Kurt would soon retire, the thought by all was that Leinart was being groomed to replace him.  Makes sense, right?  Why else keep him on the roster?  Despite his early missteps like the hot tub situation, by all accounts the past few years Warner had taken Matt under his wing and Leinart was said to be working hard as he waited his turn under center after Warner retired.

So what does the Wiz do in the middle of training camp this season? That's right, he cuts Leinart and replaces him with Derek Anderson.  Said he didn't think Leinart was the right fit for the team.  Umm, you've had Leinart on your team for three seasons.  If you weren't sold on him replacing Warner why wait almost until the season starts to dump him? 

And then, for what?  Derek Anderson?  I mean, if Anderson could play, don't you think Mike Holmgren would've kept him in Cleveland?   Ya think?

If you're such a great offensive coach shouldn't you have been able to do something all these years with Matt Leinart, Ken?  Like 'coach'em up' and 'get'em ready' to replace your departing HOF'er? 

Have you looked at Arizona this year?  They are horrendous.  They are two plays away from also being 0-4 (a great strip by Breaston against the Rams and a missed FG by Janikowski).  They played two real good teams (Atlanta and San Diego) and were shellacked in both (41-7 and 41-10), losing by a combined SIXTY FIVE points!  SF also played two real good teams (NO and ATL) and lost by a combined FIVE points.

That's FIVE.  Not to be confused with SIXTY FIVE.

Where are all your great X's & O's NOW, Ken Whisenhunt?  You know, the kind that Mike Singletary knows nothing about but you know everything about cause, unlike Singletary, you once WERE a coordinator.  Where are they now Kenny?

Without KW (Kurt Warner) KW (Ken Whisenhunt) looks (and is) completely overmatched.  Those plays he's now calling on offense suddenly aren't looking so good without a HOF'er under center.  Hard to believe, right?

Without a HOF QB the spotlight now shifts to his team's lack of physicality, lack of discipline, focus, intelligence and drive.  And most importantly:  LACK of HEART!  His team is Heartless & Gutless.  Pure and simple.

(Rumor has it that he was so upset after losing to SD 41-10 last week that he actually raised his voice and expressed his displeasure to his entire team in the following days.  Imagine that!)

*  Mike Singletary has beaten Whisenhunt twice in three tries despite having a big disadvantage at the QB position.

*  Mike Singletary's 49ers have lost games, have looked bad on occasion and have even been outcoached a few times.  But his team has never lacked physicality, been heartless or gutless.

*  Mike Singletary is a better HC than the guy who was named the 9th best HC in the NFL a few years ago and is considered to be the best HC in the division.  Sorry.

Singletary's biggest problem is that he inherited guys like Alex Smith/Shaun Hill and not a guy like Kurt Warner.  Whatever one thinks of Alex or Shaun, nobody would ever compare them to Kurt, one of the all-time greats in NFL history.  Nobody.  No body.

Fire Mike Singletary?   Umm, I don't think so.

Apply some reason and logic and context and patience to the situation?  Now that would make MUCH more sense.

Ken Whisenhunt became the HC of the Arizona Cardinals in 2007.  He was kind of a hot property after being the OC of the Super Bowl winning Pittsburgh Steelers of 2005.  Landing in the desert he inherited players like Kurt Warner, Larry Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin.  This is not a misprint.  He inherited those guys.  Three of the best at their perspective positions in the NFL.

Whisenhunt went 8-8 in his first season in Arizona.  The Cardinals averaged 25.2 points per game.

Jimmy Raye is in his first full season with the 49ers.  He didn't come close to inheriting guys like Warner, Boldin & Fitzgerald.  Currentlly the 49ers are averaging 20.4 points per game.

The difference (right now) between the hot OC and his three studs, as opposed to the OC nobody wanted and all of his question marks at the QB and WR position is 4.8 points per game.  Less than two FG's.

In today's Arizona Republic there is an excellent article about how much more Whisenhunt can do with his offense in his THIRD season, as opposed to his FIRST.

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/cardinals/articles/2009/11/17/20091117cardsinsider1118.html

Here's one quote from the article:

In his third year with the Cardinals, Whisenhunt and his offensive staff can make those adjustments at the last minute, something he wouldn't have dared to try in his first season

Really.  It's well worth reading.  It's something to keep in mind as people constantly bash Jimmy Raye.

He's had less than a season with his offense.  Perspectve.  It's really a beautiful thing.

Have won the Super Bowl (12 of them have won it multiple times).

Someone here at WCG brought up the other day how long it usually took to win the Lombardi Trophy.

Here is the breakdown:

Lombardi:  8 years (Though that's inaccurate.  He won the NFL Championship in his 3rd season.  The SB wasn't invented until his eighth).

Ewbank:  6       Stram:  10       McCafferty:  1       Landry:  12       Shula:  3       Noll:  6       Madden:  8

If you count Lombardi as winning it all in his third season, you have an average of 6.12 seasons before these guys won it all.

The next group would start with the Bill Walsh era, 30 years ago.

Walsh:  3    Flores:  2    Ditka:  4    Parcells:  4    Gibbs:  2    Seifert:  1    Johnson:  4    Switzer:  2    Holmgren:  5          

Shanahan:  3   Vermeil:  3   Billick:  2   Belichick:  2   Gruden:  1   Cowher:  14    Dungy:  5   Coughlin:  4    Tomlin:  2 

I would toss out these four (Flores, Seifert, Switzer and Tomlin) as they had just taken over teams that had recently won the SB.  I would also toss out Cowher because he is an anomaly.  His 14 seasons was as much a function of the patience of the Rooney's as anything else.

You are left with the other 13 HC's averaging 3.23 seasons to win it all.  If you include the five I just omitted you are left with 18 coaches averaging 3.5 season to win it all.

Lovie Smith is currently in his sixth season as HC of the Chicago Bears.  Since the days of Bill Walsh, no HC has taken that long to win the Super Bowl, with the exception of Bill Cowher.

Lovie better hope that he wins it all real soon or that the McCaskey's have the patience of the Rooney's.    

In 2006, the Chicago Bears rode the right arm of Rex Grossman (NFC offensive player of the month in September, half (10) of his 20 INT"s in just three games, playing as well as Matt Hasselbeck & Drew Brees in the playoffs) the legs of Devin Hester and an opportunistic defense to the Super Bowl.

Since then?  19-19.  Sorry.  That just doesn't cut it.  By definition a team that reaches the SB is a good/very good/excellent team. There are no 'bad teams' in the SB.  Those kinds of teams UNDERACHIEVE when they go 19-19 immediately afterwards.

By comparison the Steelers are 35-20 after their 2005 SB, the Seahawks 25-29 (they have alos underachieved and have a new HC) and the Colts 31-7 after their 2006 SB.

Mike Nolan was 18-37 as the HC of the 49ers. That's a dreadful record.  Mike Singletary took over that sorry team and is now 8-7 with basically the EXACT same players!

That's right, Mike Singletary is one game OVER 500, while Lovie is just AT 500 (since his SB appearance).  That's Singletary taking over a .327 team and Lovie's record with a team good enough to just be in the SB.

To me, that speaks volumes.

Both teams, right now, are 3-3.

Personnel?  You can debate that all day long.  A couple of quick observations.

A).  No intelligent person would say that, man for man, the 49ers have superior personnel than the Bears.  Most would say just the opposite.

B).  In recent years virtually all talk for 49er fans concerning their offense involved these three players:

Frank Gore:  Stud.

Vernon Davis and Alex Smith:  Massive underachievers or complete busts and total objects of scorn for the fan base there.  Basically, those two were/are HATED in the bay area.

C).  If QB is the most important position on a team, the Bears have had one guy (Kyle Orton) that Josh McDaniels WANTED on his team (and who is playing very well) and another (Jay Cutler) who is considered to be one of the best young QB's in the NFL.

By contrast, Mike Singletary has gone 8-7 with a guy (Shaun Hill) who was undrafted and who most know next to nothing about (and who today was benched for 'massive underachiever' Alex Smith).

Included in Mike Singletary's seven losses were two last season to playoffs teams on the road (Arizona & Miami) where the 49ers had the ball at the end with a chance to win the game.  This season they opened up by winning in the dome in Arizona against the defending NFC Champs and losing two road games (Minnesota & Houston) by a combined six points.

Coaches (either through scheme and/or motivational tactics) are supposed to get the very best out of their players.  That's their NUMBER 1 job.  Help make the players better which should, in turn, help make the team better.

I don't see that happening in Chicago with Lovie Smith in charge.  At all.  There's an OLD saying:  The buck stops here.  It stops at Lovie's desk.  PERIOD!  Sorry.  If you want to be the man in charge then you have to shoulder the respsonsibility when things go wrong.

Mike Shanahan had to do just that in Denver.  His defense there was 28th & 30th in the past two seasons.  McDaniels brings in a new DC and so far they are #1.  Shanahan could have done the exact same thing.  He didn't (and he's gone).

There's also an old saying that a team takes on the personality of it's HC (insert own joke here regarding Lovie).  Samurai Mike's team takes on his 'personality' too.    BIG DIFFERENCE!  (Anyone who ever saw Singletary play or saw him lead his defensive teammates as their 'QB' knows what I mean here).

At the very least in SF, Mike Singletary, through sheer force of will and 'old school' coaching has taken a .327 team (18-37) to above 500 in his short tenure there.

Yes, the players and front office are also to blame in Chicago for this HUMILIATING, DISGRACEFUL, PATHETIC exhibition of football as seen in Cincinnati today.  There's more than enough blame to go around for everyone.

But nobody can tell me that, since the SB in 2006, that the Bears should be a 500 team.  Nobody.  And that responsibility falls mainly on the HC and his staff.

BTW:  Carson Palmer today was 20-24 for 233 yards and FIVE touchdowns.  Phil Simms set a SB record for completition percentage (88%) when he went 22-25 for 268 yards and THREE touchdowns in SB XXI.  Carson Palmer (83%) was in Phil's exclusive neighborhood today.   Few ever get there.

20-24 for 233 & 5 TD's!  That's almost hard to beleive.  I had to do a double take to make sure I was reading it correctly.  Who's the DC?   Who's the HC?  (Oh, nevermind).

The Bear defense led by Lovie Smith made Cedric Benson look like Jim Brown, Carson Palmer look like Joe Montana and #85 look like Jerry Rice.  Congratulations!  However, you're suppose to make OUR players look better . . . not THEIRS!  Maybe Lovie just misunderstood the goal here.

BTW II:  For those that are going to bash me for referencing (once again) my good friend, Mike Singletary, fine.  I get it.  After you bash me, however,  at least find something intelligent to disagree with me here.

Bill Parcells once famously said that "You are what your record says you are."

I agree.  The Minnesota Vikings, at 6-0, are one of the best teams in the NFL.

But look a little closer.  They have played three home games and three away games.

Their three away games have been against (in order) Cleveland, Detroit and St. Louis.  Christmas came early for the Vikings this year.  Cause I'm pretty sure that, if you had to 'order up' your first three road games in 2009, you'd probably pick such dogs as the Browns, the Lions and the Rams.  Just guessing.

God is truly on your side when you have those three losers as your first road trips in 2009.

Compare that to the Bears (at GB, at Seattle and at Atlanta).   Lambeau is always a difficult place to play.  Even though Seattle is struggling in recent years, it's never easy to go West and play in Seattle, one of the loudest and most difficult stadiums for visitors to play in.  Atlanta, of course, was a playoff team last season and one of the better young teams in the NFL.

It's no contest as to who has had the tougher road schedule so far in 2009.

The Vikings three home games in 2009 have been against the 49ers, the Packers and the Ravens.  Not that it matters but they won those three games by a combined 12 points.

They barely beat SF, needing one of Favre's greatest last second plays to do so.  They barely beat Baltimore, needing a missed FG by Baltimore at the end of the game to secure their victory.  They did beat GB at home, but clearly they had a big emotional advantage what with Favre playing against his former team in the MetroDome.

To recap:  Three road wins against three of the sorriest teams in the NFL (combined 2-16).  Two home games victories (SF/Baltimore) that they could've/probably should've lost.  And one home game victory (GB) where they had a clear emotional advantage.

Beyond that, the Vikings have allowed 400+ yards in their last three games.  Previously, opponents reached the 400 yard mark just THREE times in their last 35 games.

They go to Pittsburgh tomorrow and GB next week.  We'll see how good Minnesota is during this stretch, on the road against a couple of real NFL teams.  Meanwhile the Bears have the Bengals and the Browns.  It's CRITICAL that the Bears make a move now, so that their late season games against Minnesota aren't meaningless games.

.

Don't waste your time writing 'letters.'

Just study your Bear history.

1982:  George Halas hires Mike Ditka as HC, retains Buddy Ryan as the DC and the Bears draft Jim McMahon.

1983:  George Halas dies.  Supposedly on his deathbed, he says "Anyone but Michael (meaning anyone but grandson Michael McCaskey to take over HIS Bears)."

Michael McCaskey DOES take over the Bears as President (so much for deathbed wishes).

1984-1985:  Bears begin to dominate the NFL . . . and Mike McCaskey plays head games with HC Mike Ditka with regards to a contract extension.

1986:  Bears win the Super Bowl XX in New Orleans.

AFTER the Bears won that Super Bowl two things happened:

1.   Mike McCaskey (who NOBODY on the team could stand) walked around like HE was the reason the Bears won it all.  Really.  It's true.

2.  Mike McCaskey started to get rid any and all who were part of bringing the Bears to NFL dominance (like GM Jerry Vanisi and then later Mike Ditka, among many others (players, coaches, front office)).

Once that was accomplished it was on with the "Michael McCaskey Show' in the Windy City.

A man who had NO BUSINESS running an NFL team was given the keys to the Chicago Bears.

This is roughly akin to the parents giving the house keys to son Joel (Tom Cruise) in the movie "Risky Business' (which coincidentally was partially shot in Lake Forest IL, home of the Chicago Bears).

And the rest, they say, is history.  After firing Ditka, the 'young genius" Mike McCaskey replaced him with Dave Wannstedt.  Wannstedt WAS the hot coaching candidate at that time after riding Jimmy Johnson's coattails in Dallas.  Heck, even the NY Giants were interested in Wanny to replaced the ineffective Ray Handley.  So that tells you something.

But see, Wannstedt wanted control over player personnel (even though he had done NOTHING in his NFL career to show he was worthy of that position).

The Giants told him to get lost. QUICKLY!  Our man McCaskey told him to sign on the dotted line.

And the rest, as they say, is history.

Incompetent ownership.  PURE & SIMPLE.

Want proof?   The two teams with the longest championship droughts are the Chicago Cubs (100 + years) and the Chicago/St. Louis/Arizona Cardinals (60+ years).

The Cardinals have LONG been considered to be one of the worst examples of ownership in the NFL.

And they were in the SuperBowl in 2008 (just like the Bears in 2006).

The above example regarding the Cardinals is there to cut off any talk that "Hey, were can't be that bad.  We were in the SB  a years ago."  BIG DEAL.  Even the woeful Arizona Cardinals recently made it there.

THAT'S not ENOUGH!

The simple fact is this:  The Chicago Bears, founded by George Halas, are one of the original and greatest teams in the history of the NFL.  And (unfortunately) through DNA, are saddled with the McCaskey's as owners.  An ownership group who followed up the Ditka/Ryan Super Bowl regime with the likes of these three HC's:  Dave Wannstedt, Dick Jauron and Lovie Smith.  Sorry.

And MOST importantly, have COMPLETELY failed in understanding one simple, yet CRITICAL, fact.

The #1 job of a HC is to get the very best out of his players, either through scheme (think, say Bill Belichick) or through motivation( think, say Bill Parcells).

Anyone who knows ANYTHING about football at the NFL level knows that Mike Ditka was able to get the very best out of his players, through motivation (Dan Hampton called Mike Ditka the best motivator he had ever been around).

You would think (LOL) that the McCaskey's actually figured that fact out . . .considering that Mike Ditka coached THEIR team.  You'd think, wouldn't ya?

Has anyone EVER accused guys like Wannstedt, Jauron and Lovie as being able to get the most out of their players?  I didn't think so.

Meanwhile, one of the greatest Bears of all, a man who has shown the ability to get the most out of his players, currently is the HC for the hated S.F. 49ers.  One Mike Singletary.

That's the SAME Mike Singletary that was turned down for a job back in 2003 by the McCaskeys.

Don't write letters.  Just deal with reality and accept it.  The Bears are NOT terrible (actually they are pretty good).  And (most importantly) they are NOT GREAT!  Nor, will they likely ever be great.

Why?  They have some excellent players and some very good coaches (as do most teams).  They also have incompetent ownership.  Pure and Simple.

Acceptence.  I think it's one of the 12 steps.  And it's a beautiful thing.  Am I happy about the fact that the McCaskeys own the Chicago Bears?  Absolutely not.  Do I understand the fact that they do because George Halas has a daughter named Virginia.  Yes.  It's a 'Family Thing.'

Have I accepted the fact that the Bears will probably NEVER reach their potential because they are owned and operated by those same McCaskey's?

Yes I have.  I made my peace with that one a long time ago.

SO SHOULD YOU!

Coach Lovie Smith has said that he would like his offense to be known as a unit that comes off the bus running the ball but can also pass it effectively. (This from Larry Mayer on the Bears website).

Actually, NO.  Wake up Lovie!  (Sometimes this guy scares me).

Your GM didn't make that huge trade for Jay Cutler for you to keep saying that nonsense.  You 'get off the bus running' when you have good running backs and QB's who SUCK when it comes to throwing the ball (and yes, we all understand that that, for the most part and with few exceptions, that pretty much sums up Bear offensive history).

Few people know more about QB play and the NFL in general than Ron Jaworski.  According to Jaws:

1.  Jay Cutler is one of the best young QB's in the game.  He even repeated this after the debacle in Green Bay.  He said that  Cutler played terribly and that his mechanics were way off in that game.  Still, Jaws then said that he has ALWAYS loved Cutler and that Jay is one of the best in the NFL at the QB position.

2.  In today's NFL, you SCORE in the passing game, not the running game.

If you want to argue either #1 or #2, send your complaints to Ron jaworski, c/o ESPN.  Those are HIS words, not mine (of which I do happen to agree).

Yes, you want to be able to run the ball.  You want to have some balance to keep the defense guessing.  You want to be able to chew up clock (after your team has passed for the lead).

But Lovie and his staff desperately need to understand ONE thing.  The day they traded for Jay Cutler, they also traded in their 'BUS' for a 'JET AIRPLANE.'

Stop with this nonsense about 'getting off the bus running (and passing effectively).  Actually the exact OPPOSITE is now true:  The Bears need to get off their 'Jet Airplane' passing (and running effectively).

BTW:  What team in 2008 was one of the best passing teams (#2) and the ABSOLUTE WORST rushing team (#32)? 

The Arizona Cardinals, who came within 2:37 of winning it all.

The team that beat them (Pittsburgh)?  (17th in passing and 23rd in rushing).

In 2005 when the Steelers also won it all they were 5th in rushing and 24th in passing.

They have evolved over time and with Big Ben under center from a 'power rushing team' to much more of a passing team.

Please Lovie, stop all this talk about your 'old, decrepit BUS.'

It's now the TWENTY FIRST CENTURY. You have one of the best young QB's in the game (who also owns one of the strongest arms in the game).

The Bears will go as far as their PASSING game (and defense) will take them.

NOT THEIR RUNNING GAME!

Some comments by former player (and current Cardinal broadcaster) Ron Wolfley this morning on his radio show in Phoenix.

"The 49ers are for real."

"The 49ers had no 3rd down conversions (0-11) compared to Minnesota's 50% (10-20).  The 49ers, without Frank Gore, were outplayed and yet were a few seconds from victory."

"You don't go on the road, in one of the most hostile environments in the NFL, only to get beat on the last play of the game, if you aren't for real."

"Shaun Hill wins games and he's a lot better QB than most people realize.  It took a great play by Favre to beat him yesterday."

After the 49er victory against Arizona opening day, Wolfley said that the difference in the game was that the 49ers pressured Warner by only rushing four, while Arizona had to blitz to pressure Shaun Hill.

Wolfley was a crazy special teams player who was known for love of physical football.   Even though he's a complete Cardinal homer, one can't help but feel the admiration he has for Mike Singletary's 49ers when he talks about them on the radio.

Sometimes it's good to get the opinions of differing voices, especially those who have played the game like Wolfley.

Cause it makes me sick. About working them ‘too hard’ in camp.

Are you kidding me?

The incomparable Walter Payton made 650 K in 1985. For some of today’s players, that's a ONE week game check (out of sixteen). Some two weeks.  Prices haven't risen that much in 25 years.

Cost of a new home in 1985:  $100,800.  A gallon of gas?  ($1.20)  A gallon of milk?  ($2.26)

(Hell, Jason McKie made more in 2008 than what Walter made back then).   Jason McKie should never make more than the greatest Bear of them all,  no matter what century he plays in).

These guys are making a ton of money to play the game of football. Don’t baby them about ‘working too hard.’

It's disgusting.  

BTW:  In the Donte Stallworth case, teammate Braylon Edwards spent $3,443 at the club the club where they were at, including $1,500 on Perrier-Jouet Rose champagne and $695 on Grey Goose vodka. 

But the game has changed GeoMak.  Don't you know that?  (Yeah.  I do.  They make too much money now and many (certainly not all by a long shot,) are way too soft.

Ever notice how, when some of these guys cash a lottery size signing bonus paycheck, that their game tails off? 

I have. 

Lendale White, in a contract year, just dropped 30 pounds by not chugging tequila anymore.  I'll give the guy credit for honesty but, are you kidding me?  Was chugging tequila part of your workout routine? 

Pathetic.

Continue reading this post »

The Sporting News surveyed 21 former Bears for answers to these questions.

Here are some of the questions and a few Bear responses.

#1:  Is Jay Cutler the right answer at QB?

Yes:  15

Wait and See:  5

No:  1

"Cutler has the Tools.  Let's see if he has the leadership and the head."  Robin Earl.

Continue reading this post »

I never saw Sid Luckman, the man commonly considered to be the greatest QB in Chicago Bear history, play football (I’m old . . . but not that old).  

And now, as we go out with the old (Rex & Kyle) and in with the new (Jay Christopher Cutler) I feel that this is a perfect to time to stop and pay tribute to the ‘man-in-the-middle.’  One Jim McMahon.

And nothing makes me angrier as when people (ESPECIALLY Bear fans) either ignore the greatness of Jim McMahon or speak of him in less than reverential tones.  I almost expect and can almost deal with that from 49er fans, or Packer fans, or anybody else‘s fans, but Bear fans?  That really elevates my blood pressure.  Makes my blood boil.

With that in mind, it’s long past time for GeoMak to set the record straight for any and all non-believers.  Jim McMahon was a GREAT Quarterback!  Period.  End of story.  This, my friends,  is non negotiable.

Now, if you define a great QB as one who got under center and lasted 10 + years (like say, a Dan Marino or Peyton Manning) then Jim doesn’t fit that bill.   If that’s your criteria, then you have my permission to disagree with me.

However, here’s how I define greatness at the QB position:

Continue reading this post »

Recently, regarding a FanPost about Anquan Boldin, I got into a heated exchange with another blogger about Devin Hester's receiving abilities.

This person was basically saying (among other things) that 'quote': 

"I'm not saying he (Hester) can't catch.  He just doesn't do it well.  That is generally why guys play DB.  Don't you think that Deion Sanders would have been incredible as a full-time WR?  But he didn't cause he couldn't catch.

The above statement was a direct quote from this blogger.

I found this comment laughable.  So, I called a friend of mine, Kenny Wheaton.

Kenny was a star DB at Oregon and is generally considered to have made the biggest play in Duck history,  what is known as 'The Pick' , when Wheaton made a 97 yard TD interception against Washington which put Oregon into the 1994 Rose Bowl.

Kenny then went on to play three seasons with the Dallas Cowboys, from 1997-1999, alongside Cowboy greats like Michael Irvin and Deion Sanders,

I asked Kenny a few questions.  Basically he said this:

A).  DB's aren't  DB's cause they couldn't catch the ball.  Usually it was  because they were the best athletes on the field.  It's MUCH harder to backpeddle and cover a WR who knows where he's going than being the WR himself.

B).  Kenny's favorite player growing up was Denver Bronco great Steve Atwater.   Guys like Kenny played DB not because they couldn't catch a football (LOL) but because they were great athletes and liked contact.

C).  It's harder to catch a punt or kick-off, or an interception, than a ball thrown right at you by a QB.  Common sense tells us that (hopefully) a QB is throwing right at the WR.   Punts and Kick-Offs aren't nearly as 'aimed.'  Interceptions are usually the result of a DB making a great catch on a ball that wasn't thrown directly to them.

D).  Regarding Devin Hester, Kenny laughed about the assertion that, while he was a KR and DB in college, his problem going forward as an NFL receiver would be with catching the football.  He said that anybody who thinks that is kind of ignorant.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion.  That said, the 'opinion' that Hester and other 'DB's' struggle to catch a football is laughable.

Don't take my word for it.  Take Kenny Wheaton's.  He's 'been there & done that.'

During a recent FanPost (Aikman vs. Romo) the subject of Michael Irvin came up. Respectfully, some people (fans and executives) get it. And others don’t.

What do some people get that others miss? The intangibles. Like leadership (for example). Some never see beyond the infinite ‘stat line’ to notice the crucial intangibles.

When comparing the stats between Irvin and TO we come up with this:

Receptions per game: 4.71 (Irvin) 5.03 (TO).

Yards per game: 74.9 (Irvin) 74.7 (TO).

Yards per Reception: 15.9 (Irvin) 14.8 (TO).

TD’s: 65 (Irvin) 139 (TO).

Pretty similar stats between the two. Irvin gained one more yard per reception while TO had twice as many TD’s (which is a great achievement).  This disparity in TD's between the two, however, might somewhat be explained like this: Irvin was more of a possession receiver who played in more ‘balanced offenses’ in Dallas than TO, who played in more passing orientated offenses in SF, Philadelphia and even in Dallas.

That said, nobody is denying TO’s considerable receiving skills, least of all me.

However,  when it comes to the intangibles, it’s not even close. Of course I’m talking here about ‘on-field’ contributions. TO (to his credit)  has never been a problem ‘off-the-field’ while Irvin’s history there in that regard is well documented.

Regarding the ‘on-field’ intangibles, it’s night and day between the two.

It was often said of Michael that nobody wanted to win more than Michael. Nobody worked harder than Michael. And that nobody was more of a team leader than Michael.

TO has always been a hard worker. No doubt.  And yet, I can’t ever remember anyone saying that TO’s number one priority was winning (over individual stats). Or that TO was a team leader. Actually, even a cursory look at TO's career shows that basically, TO is mostly about TO.

In the mid 90’s I became good friends with a family in South Phoenix. In 1997 their son (Kenny Wheaton) was drafted by the Cowboys. One of the first questions I asked him later on was if all of that stuff was true about Irvin. He said “Absolutely.”

One of my favorite Michael Irvin stories is one he has told (on I believe America’s Game) regarding his 'list.'  How, in Irvin’s first year in Dallas under Tom Landry he made a mental list of all the players on the team. The next year Jimmy Johnson arrived in Dallas.  Michael then went up to Jimmy with his list and said: 'This guy wants to win, this guy’s just here for a paycheck. This guy wants to win, these two guys are just here for the money, etc.'

What does this have to do with the current Cowboys (and other NFL teams)?

The 'intangibles' of winning at all costs; of winning over individual 'stats';  of having certain key team leaders on the field and in the locker room.

All the great teams in the NFL have those critical traits and no NFL player had them more than the great Michael Irvin.

 TO has a 'stat line' similar to, probably even better than Michaels. When it comes to the all-important (and oft-overlooked) intangibles, however,  it's not even close.

And those winning intangibles are often the difference between teams that play late into January and teams that go home early.

On a fantasy football team, I'd take players like TO.  When it comes to winning Championships, however,  it's guys like Michael all day long.

I know it's yesterdays news, but I can't help but wonder what was going through JA's mind the other day.  Forget the Bears "team" right now, I'm just thinking about JA:

Angelo:  "Let me see if I get this straight Mr. Bowlen.  Pretty much for two #1 picks, we can have Jay Cutler?"

Bowlen:  "That's right."

Angelo puts down the phone and  starts thinking to himself:  (Let's see.  I can hold on to these two #1 picks and select two players, and almost assuredly end up being ridiculed by Bear fans worldwide cause I usually draft crappy players in the 1st.  OR.  I can "eliminate my 1st round dilemma" and swap those draft picks for a young, stud Pro-Bowl QB who, at least in the short term and maybe until the end of the universe, will make me the Most Popular Man in the City of Chicago).

Angelo rushes back to the phone:  Pat.  Are you kidding me?  Is this still "April Fools Day?"  Don't F++K with me Pat.  Really.   Of course I'll give you those picks for Jay Cutler.

Bowlen:  That's it.  Throw in Orton and a 3rd and we've got a deal.  Heck Jerry, I like you so much I'll even give you back a 5th (and I'm not talking about a fifth of Jack Daniels.  For that you'll have to contact Kyle).

JA:    That's it.  That's all you want Pat?

Bowlen:  That'll do it.

JA:  You sure Pat?  I mean I've got more stuff here.  I really don't want you backtracking and changing your mind now on me. Please Pat, please!

Bowlen:  I promise Jerry.  He's yours.  You can stop pinching yourself now.  This isn't a daydream.  Cutler's now a Bear.  He'll be in Chicago tomorrow.  You are now officially the most popular man in the Windy City!

JA:  Thank you, thank you, thank you Pat.  A million times over "thank you!"

Bowlen:  You can stop drooling now Jerry.  You're welcome!  It feels good to know that I probably just saved your job.  Now, just remember THAT the next time I call you!

Here is Peter King's assessment of the blockbuster trade.  He confirms what I and others have said regarding the #1 picks we gave up (that they're too often wasted, especially by Angelo).

Also, what Angelo said regarding #1 picks in general (too much money, unrealistic expectations, etc)

Here's King, from SI.com

The Bears finally have the quarterback they've longed for. If anyone thinks the Bears paid too much, let me show you the 14 men who have been first-round picks for the Bears in the last 15 drafts: John Thierry, Rashaan Salaam, Walt Harris, Curtis Enis, Cade McNown, Brian Urlacher, David Terrell, Marc Colombo, Michael Haynes, Rex Grossman, Tommie Harris, Cedric Benson, Greg Olsen, Chris Williams. Let's eliminate judging the last two, from 2007 and 2008, because they don't have enough on their resumes yet. Let's look at the other 12.

Stars: 1 (Urlacher).

Very good NFL starters: 1 (Tommie Harris).

NFL starters: 2 (Walt Harris, Marc Colombo).

Had some moments, but ultimately failed: 3 (Grossman, Thierry, Haynes).

Busts: 5 (Salaam, Enis, McNown, Terrell, Benson).

Four of the 12 became consistent NFL starters, or better. An awful, awful track record. That is why Angelo, a career scout who has too often loved draft picks more than A-Rod loves himself, wasn't very emotional talking to me about what he gave up.

"I've kind of changed about draft choices, particularly first-rounders,'' Angelo told me. "I don't have the same conviction on ones that I used to. It's the money, the totally unrealistic expectations, players coming out younger and not as experienced, players with too much time on their hands and too much money and not being grounded enough. I've become a little pragmatic about the first-round picks. They've been looked at like the Holy Grail for so long. Here, we had a chance to get a quarterback who's already shown he can play really well in the league. He's a guy with resilience; you've got to be resilient playing at Vanderbilt and succeeding John Elway. So we felt like it was a good investment for us. Time will tell.''

That's the sign of a smart general manager. I didn't think Angelo had this kind of move in him, dealing a marginal starting quarterback and three high picks, leaving his team without a first-round pick for two straight years. But it's a gamble any smart GM would make.

This post is about scoring points in the "Cutler Era."    Hang with me for a minute.

First, a little background.  Most of you know of my fondness for the 85 Bears and players like Mike Singletary.  When Singletary was named permanent HC of the Niners, he stated his desire to play "smash-mouth" football.  This didn't go over to well in SF.  Everybody said this:  The 1985 Bears offense sucked.  Kind of like the 2000 Ravens.  The Bears won in 85 because of their defense and running game.

Actually, the 85 Bears led the NFC in scoring in 1985.  Offenses that suck usually don't lead the league in scoring.

When I point this out to people, they are usually SHOCKED!  It's kind of funny (and a good way to shut them up).

The 85 Bears scored 456 points.

Special Teams accounted for 12 points on two kick returns.

The defense accounted for 36 points ( 4 INT TD's, 1 Fumble TD, and 3 Safeties)

That means that the offense scored 408 points, which averages out to 25.5 points per game.  If any Bear offense in any era scores 25.5 points a game they should win the game.

How do the 2009 Bears stack up with the 1985 Bears on offense?  I'll address three key positions:

QB.  Pro-Bowler Jim McMahon . . . . Pro-Bowler Jay Cutler.

RB.  The incomparable Walter Payton and rookie sensation Matt Forte.  Here's how they compared (in 1985 & 2008):

Payton: 1,551 yards on 324 attempts for a 4.8 yard average and 9 TD's.

Forte:    1,238 yards on 316 attempts for a 3.9 yard average and 8 TD's.

I'm not saying that Forte is Payton.  I am saying that his numbers were pretty comparable to Walter's.

Finally, both teams had a speedster.  The 85 Bears had Willie Gault and the modern Bears have Devin Hester.  Surprisingly, in 1985, Gault only scored one TD as a WR (he also scored one on a KR).  He gained 704 yards on 33 receptions for a 21.3 yards per reception average.  (He did score 8 TD's in 83, 6 in 84, 5 in 86 and 7 in 87).

Gault, at that time was the fastest player in the NFL (along with Darrell Green).  While not as fast as Gault, Hester is a burner and is faster than WR's like Larry Fitzgerald and most other receivers in the NFL.  Considering the fact that Hester has only played WR for one season (2008) while guys like Fitzgerald have been playing the position since probably High School, I'm pretty encouraged by Hester's development so far. 

Having a QB like Cutler who has a cannon for an arm, and having an explosive, speedster WR like Hester bodes well for the Bears going forward.  It's now up to those guys, and Ron Turner, to make it happen on offense.

I am not making a direct comparison here by any stretch of the imagination.   Please.  Don't attack this post by pointing out the many differences between the two squads.  I could do that by myself (thank you).  I am just  saying that when it comes to QB, RB and WR, the 2009 Bears will have "somewhat" similar pieces in place with the 1985 Bears, who led the NFC in scoring.  Much more than they had in 2007 and even in 2008.

Like most of you, I'm am sick of hearing from the ESPN crew regarding this trade.  Mark Schlereth made one intelligent comment (a QB is no good without an offensive line) but forgot to mention one critical fact (as he was bashing the Bears)  regarding Cutler:  Jay evades the rush and throws on the run as well, if not better than most QB's in the NFL.

Whether it's a designed rollout or just buying time out of the pocket, Cutler does this as well as anyone.  What is the enduring memory of SB 43?  Besides the 100 yard TD by Harrison and the great game-winning catch by Holmes, it's "Big Ben" escaping the pocket to make critical plays late in the game.

That type of ability isn't big.  It's HUGE!

Unlike Grossman (the statue) and Orton, Cutler is a master at this.  Nobody (even Big Ben) throws longer and more accurately on the run than Jay Cutler.

It's a new era in "Bear Football."

On December 30th, Matthew Barrows posted an article entitled:  49ers analysis: Late-season success brings hope.

http://www.sacbee.com/100/story/1505322.html 

In that post he had this sentence:

“Singletary has never been a defensive coordinator, and indeed his lack of an X's and O's background created the perception that his success was built entirely on emotion. “

I objected then to that directly to Barrows and this comment recently made it’s way onto Niner Nation yesterday (whereby I objected to it again).  Here is a somewhat long and rambling response to that comment.

First, one thing:  The phrase “his lack of X’s and O’s background” is somewhat vague.  It’s not black and white.  One person might define background one way, another, another way.  Therefore when some of you “nit pick’ this to death, please understand that that really doesn’t bother me.  Really.  

This is a two-part comment:

Part 1:  Recently, around Black Monday, Skip Bayless on ESPN said something that I have long maintained:  “Just because a guy is a hot coordinator, it doesn’t mean that he’ll be a great HC.”  I’d been saying that for years.  Bayless is the first person I heard say it on air.   As he stated, the skill set is different.  Just because a guy can design a game plan and coach his own unit, it doesn’t necessarily mean that he can lead an entire team (players and coaches) into battle.  To do that successfully takes leadership of the highest order.

Norv Turner & Wade Phillips are the best examples of coordinators not really qualified to be anything more than average as HC‘s.  As your own Jerry Rice is on record as saying, in reference to his brief time under Turner in Oakland “He could not motivate his players.  He had no control.”  Not exactly a ringing endorsement there.  Look at recent excellent OC’s like Scott Linehan and Cam Cameron.  Crappy HC’s.  A great former player and a GREAT DC like Dick LeBeau. Crappy HC.  It’s nothing personal.  Some men are cut out to lead as HC, most aren’t.  I think owners and GMs are finally starting to realize that the number one criteria for being a great HC is Leadership and Motivational Skills.  Not necessarily X’s and O’s.  Essentially, the X’s and O’s come from the coordinators who are working under the HC’s stated philosophy.  

That is perhaps why last year saw four such HC’s who had no experience as an OC or DC at the NFL level (Harbaugh, Sparano, Cable and Singletary).  Virtually no one, at this time, will deny that MS is an above average coach when it comes to leadership and motivation.  And not every HC has that skill set to the degree that MS has it.  Actually few do.

Part 2:  This again is the quote from Barrows:  “Singletary has never been a defensive coordinator, and indeed his lack of an X's and O's background created the perception that his success was built entirely on emotion.” 

The comment that “Singletary has never been a DC” has given rise to this perception regarding his lack of X’s and O’s background. Sfgfan (or someone else) yesterday  admitted as much.  The “assumption” was that since MS was never a DC, he must be lacking in X and O knowledge.  I think the general consensus goes something like this “We agree that MS is a leader and a motivator but because he was never a DC, he must be lacking in the area of X‘s and O‘s”  I think that’s ridiculous.  Andy Reid was never an OC before becoming HC of the Eagles.  I’ve never heard anybody question his X and O knowledge.  He runs his offense and while I don’t necessarily agree with his offensive philosophy (too much passing) I’m pretty sure he knows his X’s and O’s.

Mike Ditka was never an OC in the NFL.  He was a TE and Special Teams coach (not coordinator) in Dallas before becoming HC in Chicago. He ran the offense of the Bears along with Ed Hughes.  Jim McMahon fought with Ditka all the time and often ignored the play sent in by Ditka in favor of his own.  When asked, however, McMahon’s on record as saying that Ditka “knew his X’s and O’s.”

Personally, I really don’t see this as Rocket Science.  Longtime NFL players (like Ditka and MS) who then serve as assistant coaches for a number of years SHOULD know their X’s and O’s by that point.  Really. It’s football, not brain surgery.  X’s and O’s are the language of the game. 

Regarding MS and X’s and O’s I would basically say this.  The two towering geniuses in the NFL in the past quarter century were Bill Walsh on offense and Buddy Ryan on defense. Ryan’s defense was the most complex defense ever seen in the NFL.  Buddy had some 13 Fronts and 28 Coverages.  Mike Singletary, after his first few years under Buddy, started watching almost as much film as the coaches did. NO PLAYER watched more film than MS during that time.  He was essentially an extension of Buddy on the field.   Buddy would signal in the AFC’s (Automatic Fronts and Coverages).  Mike would then counter with audibles as necessary.  He knew his defense and the other teams offense (from an X & O standpoint) like he knew his own name and number. 

He was so astute that he often called out the offensive plays BEFORE the ball was snapped.  I have Steve DeBerg on DVD talking about how MS was a player coach in that defense.  I have Darrin Nelson of the Vikings talking about how discouraging it was to hear MS call out the offensive plays BEFORE the ball was snapped.  A player doesn’t have that type of command and ability without a complete and thorough knowledge of X’s and O’s.

One of Singletary’s greatest hits happened in the 85 NFC Championship game against the Rams.  MS stood up and stopped Eric Dickerson for no gain on  (I believe) a third and one.  Singletary later described the hit as “orgasmic.”  He also said that he “KNEW” the gap that Dickerson would be running through.  He knew!  And this is a guy with a lack of X and O knowledge?  Honestly, that’s laughable.  He didn’t say that he thought he’d run through there.  Or that he hoped he’d run through there.  No, he knew.

MS went up against the real WCO, and guys like Walsh and Montana and Rice, not the watered down version we see today.  Now, football, like everything, evolves over time, but it hasn’t changed that much since the mid 80’s.  It’s not like MS played in the era of leather helmets.  The field is still 53 1/3 X 120.  There are still 11 men per side.  Mike Singletary played at a time when the most complex defense went up against the most complex offense.  I think MS knows his X’s and O’s. Really.  I’m pretty sure that he has a sufficient background in X’s and O’s, despite never being a coordinator.  Just like Andy Reid.  Just like Mike Ditka.  Just like Tony Sparano.

I have used this comparison before.  Imagine if Joe Montana followed a course like MS.  After retirement, Montana takes some time off to be with his family and then  becomes an offensive assistant for 5 years and then becomes HC.  I would never say that Montana lacked an X and O background.  That’s absurd.  His “background” was his years playing QB at the highest possible level.  We’re not talking a guard or a RB here.  The QB has to know where everyone (both on his offense and the opponents defense) is.  Just like MS did as the QB of his defense with the Bears.  Does that mean that Montana would have been a successful OC if he ever had that job?  No.  Not necessarily.  But to question his X an O background because he went from player to assistant coach to HC is a little ignorant to me, whomever makes that claim.

Mike Nolan was and is a DC.  Greg Manusky is a DC.  Nobody is ever going to convince me that those guys know more regarding X’s and O’s than MS.  NOBODY.  Unless MS himself make that proclamation, I’m not buying it.  Or unless a guy like Barrows or anybody else can say “I’m not at liberty to name the player/coach, but this person said to my face (off the record) that MS was weak when it comes to X’s and O’s.”  

As to why MS was never a DC, I have no knowledge there.  If  Matt Barrows or anyone else does I’d be happy to hear it.  Personally it never really bothered me as I always figured Mike as HC material and him bypassing the usual coordinator route doesn’t surprise me.  I hardly think it’s that he’s not intelligent enough to design and coach a defense.  I could be wrong here, but I really doubt it.

In closing I know the usual reply.  MS being a player/coach isn’t the same as being a DC.  I agree.  The fact is, he was hired as a HC, not as a DC.  Beyond that, I have to figure that with Singletary’s NFL experience (both as a player and as an assistant coach), his intelligence and his passion for the game, I’m pretty sure that if he was handed the job as DC somewhere, he could do at least as well as guys like Nolan and Manusky.  We’ll probably never know, but that’s just an educated guess on my part.  I could be wrong, but I really believe he could fill those shoes.

Saying that MS lacks an X and O background cause I guess he wasn’t ever a DC, without someone understanding just how involved in the X’s and O’s he was with the Bears is more than a little shortsighted to me.  And, without any “facts” to support that position it’s a little reckless IMO.

Those of you who feel that Singletary’s  lack of job experience as a DC constitutes a “lack of X’s and O’s background” are MORE than entitled to your opinion.  Also, those that feel his “experience” in basically running Buddy Ryan’s complex scheme as a player in no way gives him the X & O background necessary to be a DC or HC are again MORE than entitled to your opinion.

Personally, and I mean this in the nicest way possible (really, I’m not being sarcastic) . . . I don’t care.  Just as most of you don’t care what my opinion is.  As long as that’s understood here.

At the top of an NFL team we have three entities:  Owner, GM and HC.

Let’s look at ownership.  The NFL has a salary cap, both minimum and maximum.  Even if an owner wanted to hoard all the TV money, they couldn’t.  A large percentage HAS to be paid out in player salaries.

The GM.  It is often said ( and I agree) that the talent level is spread pretty evenly throughout the league (except at the QB position, where only about 1/3 of the teams have excellent QB’s).  All GM’s have their hits and misses.  All of them.  The draft always has been and always will be somewhat of a crapshoot.  Beyond that, with all the national scouting bureaus and information available to teams (and fans) every team is almost guaranteed of getting at least a few quality players year after year.

Would it help a team to have an ownership group that spent as much money as possible and/or a GM who is above average when it comes to drafting talent?  Absolutely. However,  I live in Phoenix.  No owner has a cheaper reputation that Bill Bidwill.  As far as talent goes, they almost ALWAYS pick in the top 10.  Sooner or later you have to acquire talent picking that high.  That helps explain how the woeful Cardinals finally made the SB.  It wasn’t cause of great ownership or even great drafting (their draft mistakes in the last decade are startling.  The only thing that saved them in any manner was how high they always drafted and Dennis Greens three drafts while there).

Now the HC.  This is the position where we have the widest variance regarding quality. Remember, even the worst owner has to spend X amount of money.  Even the worst GM has to pick a certain number of good players.  It would be almost hard not to year after year.  The HC?  He could be terrible or great.  I’m sure each of you can think of recent great HC’s and recent terrible HC’s.

The number one job of the HC is to squeeze the very most out of all of his players.  Some coaches, through leadership and motivational skills, can do this.  Most can’t.  The Bears had two of the very best when they had Mike Ditka and Buddy Ryan.  A GREAT HC can do more with average players than a mediocre HC can do with better players.  That’s just the way it is.  Look no further than Dallas and San Diego. Two of the most talented teams in the league who did almost nothing in 2008, thanks to having glorified coordinators as HC’s.  One missed the playoffs and the other just squeezed in.

This is the greatest area of weakness with the McCaskey’s.  Michael replaced the fired Ditka with the hot assistant Dave Wannstedt.  Not only that, he gave this guy control over personnel.   I guess McCaskey thought he was getting a chip off the old block (Jimmy Johnson) when he hired Wannstedt in those dual roles.  WRONG!  Wanny was a mediocre (at best) HC and a terrible GM.  Case closed.

Next, we have Dick Jauron.  But first we all know about the McGinnis fiasco that preceded the hiring of Dick Jauron.  But you know what the best part of that was.  McGinnis was a CRAPPY HC.  I know.  I live in Phoenix.  Oh, everybody loved Mac here.  He was one of those always optimistic guys who loved life.  The players loved him.  He always had those great sayings like “One for all and all for one” or “This team beats with one heart” and so on.  He was a great cheerleader.  However, he was a pretty crappy HC.  When he was finally (and reluctantly) fired, everybody in the media and on the team and the fans said how much they were going to miss old Dave.  Of course nobody objected to his firing. Losing wears on a team and it’s fans.  They were all sad to see Mac go, but they (deep down) wanted him gone nonetheless).

In comes Jauron.  In his book (Tales from the Chicago Bears Sideline), Steve McMichael gives Jauron the kiss of death.  Says he’s a nice guy like Neill Armstrong, the guy Ditka replaced.  McMichael (on page 23):  Neill was a lot like another Bears coach, Dick Jauron.  He was laid back, he wasn’t a volatile guy, and all the guys liked him because he let them loaf and get away with SHIT.  (Hmm, almost like Mac in Arizona).  See a pattern here?  I sure do.

And then, to add insult to injury we have this.  A true Leader of Men” and one of the all time great Bears in history (Mike Singletary) tried to get a job on Jauron’s staff in 2002 and the McCaskey’s (in their INFINITE stupidity) turned him down (more on this later).

We then move to JA and Lovie.  Lovie and Dungy sell them selves as the “Anti-Lombardi” types, both in skin color and in temperment.  All I know is that when Vince Lombardi went to GB, they were the WORST team in the league.  They were so bad that other teams threatened their players by telling them that “if they didn’t shape up, they were going to be sent to GB). With basically the same players, Vince Lombardi MADE those  players play at a level most never dreamed they could play at.  That’s EXACTLY the kind of guy I want on my sideline.  I don’t want the “Anti-Lombardi.”  I want a guy as close to real Lombardi as I can get.

I would grade these HC’s like this:  Wannstedt - D to F.  16 games under 500 and his STUIPIDITY regarding player personnel (like a 1st for Rick Mirer)

Jauron…..C.  10 games under 500.  One playoff appearance.

Lovie Smith……B minus.  10 games over 500.  SB appearance.  Overall more talent than any other coach since Ditka/Ryan IMO.  Caught lightning in a bottle when Hester had the greatest season ever by a kick returner.  That team rode Hester to the playoffs.  Grossman?  He was offensive player of the month in September.  He personally light a fire under that team and led them to a 4-0 start in that month.  Teams that start 4-0 are almost assured of making the playoffs.  Later on, perhaps Lovie should have done a better job of coaching.  Instead of robotically saying “Rex is our starting QB” over and over again maybe, at some point the should have threatened Rex with his job.  

In one of Mike Singetary’s first public announcements to his team he listed a few “items.”  One was this gem “WE are not a charity.  We cannot afford to GIVE the game away.”  He didn’t exactly say those words . . . He kind of yelled them.”  Maybe, just maybe Lovie should have pulled Rex aside and said that “if you keep giving the ball away, you’re going to have to start watching Kyle under center.”  That might have gotten Rex’s attention, instead of constantly hearing “Rex is our starting QB.”

Regardless, I see Lovie as a slight improvement over Jauron, who was an improvement over Wannstedt.  That said, I wouldn’t grade any of these coaches with an A or even a B.  It sure wouldn’t hurt if the Bears had a grade A HC walking the sideline.  Instead, the Bears have a definite pattern of hiring “nice guy” defensive coaches as HC and none of them are worthy of walking the sideline once walked by guys like Ditka/Ryan.

In closing watch Mike Singletary.  In the next couple of years, this Bear great, who couldn’t get an assistant’s job with the Bears, will be considered one of the great young HC’s in the game.  In that same time, we will probably see Lovie fired  and replaced with (yawn) another in the line of progression that is Wanny, and Dick and Lovie.

The inability to hire a great HC is the biggest failure of the McCaskey regime.

As I have been sitting around recovering I started rereading some of my football books, mostly about the 85 Bears.  

There are two types of fans here:  Those that were part of the 85 Bears . . . and those (primarily because of age) who weren’t.  I’m 52.  Like many of you, I lived and died with every snap of the ball back in the 80’s.  Those who were too young to remember that era have my sympathy.  You really do.  I’m not trying to be condescending here.  I really feel bad for you.

There’s a common misconception about that team in that they only won one SB. That’s  true (obviously).  However, they were much closer to an  NFL dynasty (like the usual suspects . . Green Bay, Dallas, SF, Pittsburgh, New England) than to “one-hit wonders” like the Rams and the Ravens.  

Why do I say that? Personally, I strongly believe that if McMahon hadn’t missed the last half of the 84 season or that if Buddy Ryan hadn’t left in 1986, that the Bears would have won a few more SB’s during that time.

Now, what is the main difference between difference between the 80’s era Bears and all that has followed in the 25 years since?  Simply this:  The heart of that Championship team was built by FOOTBALL MEN!

An owner like George Halas.  GM’s like Jim Finks and Jerry Vanisi.  Coaches like Mike Ditka and Buddy Ryan.  These men were all some of the best at what they did. Hardcore, lifelong NFL’ers.  These are the same men that were responsible for finding, then drafting and then, most importantly, “coaching those players up” into the Monsters of the Midway that they were.

And then came Mike.  Mike McCaskey.  I HATE Mike McCaskey.  

I can’t STAND what he, and his family, have done to the Bears. Really.  When I suggested that the Bears be sold to someone who really wants to win, I was told by one of you that the Bears are a family business.  That's WRONG.  The Bears are a tale of TWO families.  The Halas family and the McCaskey family.

I'm not a scientist but I'm pretty sure that football intelligence is NOT passed on through DNA.  A cursory look at the two families PROVES that to me.

Mike McCaskey had NO business running the Bears when he did.  NONE.  No Qualifications.  He’s one of the worst NFL executives in the history of the league. The rest of his family is only marginally better (as in, it's hard not to look a little better after you replace the disaster that was Mike McCaskey).

They suck and they’ve spent the last quarter century proving it to us.

Talking about the coaches, players, draft choices, GM’s and so on as we do here and elsewhere is fine.  That’s what there is to talk about.  That said, until something happens  at the highest level, we’ll continue to pretty much underachieve as we have for the better part of the last 25 years.

Bottom line?  Hoping, praying, expecting the Bears to be a great team once again, under control of the McCaskeys, is an exercise in futility.

I’ll have more to say about this in another upcoming post.

There’s a joke in there somewhere; I just haven’t figured it out.  Anyway, I really just wanted to use that line to open up this discussion.

While recovering from recent rotator cuff surgery, I wanted to use the effects of my many pain pills and cocktails (to wash down said pain pills) to clearly express my feelings on a subject that is never far from our hearts.  While there are more important things now going on (the draft, FA, trade possibilities) I think that perhaps this subject can be further explored in more detail after the 2009 season is over.  That said, I wanted to get it out and on the record now (while I have the time and energy and the pain pills) as something to ponder this coming season and beyond. 

While most of you know how I feel on this subject matter (and while many of you have posted similar thoughts and feelings), I wanted to take my time and begin to slowly and clearly state my position here.

THE PATRIOT: 

I love Haightminow’s “tag line” . . .  Passion For The Game, Loyal To The Name,Chicago Bears, I Trust In Thee, Standing Strong Since 1983. 

Really.   Very well written.  Haight, I salute you!  It almost makes me want to bang my helmet against a locker and charge the field myself.  And that line conveys, not “bandwagon fandom“, but the real thing.  I totally respect that.  However, sometimes reality gets up and bites us in the ass.  I believe that “fandom” is much like “patriotism” and  Socrates felt that  “patriotism does not require one to agree with everything that his country does and would actually promote analytical questioning in a quest to make the country the best it possibly can be."

I’m not saying that Haight (and others) aren’t critical and questioning when it comes to the Bears.  I know that usually the opposite is true.  I’m just using the definition of "patriotism” as the theme of this post.   A cool, calm and collected critical analysis here (not ranting and raving) in the hopes of possibly making the Bears “the best they can possibly be.”.

THE BEARS: 

Needless to say, I have to make this somewhat brief.  When I recently said (only half jokingly) that the McCaskey’s should sell the Bears to a Mark Cuban type I was pretty much ripped for having that point of view.  On such blast towards me talked about the Bears being family owned and their long tradition.

It’s been some 25 years since the McCaskeys have been in charge.  25 YEARS.  I think that it’s safe to say that their “honeymoon period” has passed by now.  I also think it’s safe to say that the McCaskeys are perfectly capable of providing us loyal fans, year after year, of a perfectly average product on the field.  Not terrible (or embarrassing).  Not great.  Simply average!  I have to believe that the Bears regular season record since the McCaskeys took over is not too far from 500, maybe slightly above. Whatever.  While I could look it up myself, I choose not to.  One SB appearance (and one SB loss) in that same quarter century.  

As well all know well,  the Chicago  Bears are one of the most storied franchises in NFL history.  More Bears reside in Canton than any other team.  We have had some of the greatest players ever in the NFL (Butkus, Sayers  and Walter)  Chicago itself is one of the greatest cities in the US of A, the NFL or anywhere else.  The question for me then is this.  Why?  Why?

Why . . . do the Bears have a reputation for being cheap?  This is not the old NFL of Papa Bear Halas.  That reputation, in his environment, could at least be understood, if not condoned.  No, this is the BILLION DOLLAR NFL, where all teams, thanks to things like TV and marketing are guaranteed of turning a profit before the first seat is sold each year.  Why is one of the NFL’s most storied teams, in the second largest city in America, thought of as cheap?  Why?  

Why . . .can’t the Bears show the guts and imagination that, say the NY Giants did, when they worked a draft day trade for Eli Manning?  Whether you thought then (or still think now) that Eli was or wasn’t worth it, the fact remains that thanks to some PROACTIVE, gutsy moves by management, nobody in NY is wondering when/how/where to get a franchise QB for the Giants.  And I could be wrong here, but seriously . . . Does ANYBODY think that the brain trust (LOL) at Halas Hall is serious when it comes to getting a guy like Jay Cutler.  I don’t.  Jim McMahon was a great QB.  In 1984 the Bears lost the NFC Championship game to the 49ers in SF 23-0.  In 1985, in the regular season (with basically the same players on both teams) the Bears again went to SF and this time they won, by almost the same score (26-10). The difference between the one loss in 1984 and trhe one win in 1985?  Jim McMahon.  He  played in the 1985  victory but didn't play in the 1984 loss. It’s been over 25 years since that draft pick of Jim McMahon.  25 YEARS!

Why . . . is Chicago considered a place where receivers go to die.  Jim McMahon (and Willie Gault and Dennis McKinnon) proved that a team in Chicago can be run first and still strike quickly and often through the air (as their 85 Bears led the NFC in scoring that year).  Why do we have a reputation where it's a receiver's graveyard?

Why . . . aren’t the Bears considered a team that Free Agents WANT to come and play for?  We’re not Cleveland, or Buffalo or Cincinnati etc (not to criticize those cities).  We’re CHICAGO!  Act like it!

I could literally (as many of you ) go on and on and on here.  Write a book in this section. Time and space permit me only to mention some highlights (lowlights) here.

THE RAIDERS:

It’s almost kind of sad to see how far the Raiders have fallen in recent times. This once great franchise has become almost a laughingstock.  Al Davis always had his had his mottos and to me most of them (like Pride & Poise and “Just Win Baby”) were kind of juvenile. One however I have always liked and respected:  “Commitment to Excellence.”  I love that line.  It says it all.  And, back in the day, the Raiders acted like they had a "Commitment to Excellence."

What's our "Motto?"

In that vein, the Bears unsaid motto, to my ears and ears can be summed up like this: “Commitment to Mediocrity.”  Commitment to just “Being Average.”  Commitment to doing “just enough to keep the natives appeased, while they write their checks and whip out their credit cards.”  Pretty soon, the Bears will have to start paying the Cubs royalties for gems like this:  “Wait till Next Year!”

This is an outrage.  We’re all being taken for a ride.  We’re being ripped off by a McCaskey family who is, in many ways, quietly and systematically dishonor the legacy of  George S. Halas  as they slowly go about their business of running the Bears, a job they have proven in the last quarter century that they are not up to the challenge of doing in a manner befitting the great city of Chicago and the millions of diehard, loyal Bear fans scattered across Illinois, the country and the world.