Jump to content

The Bears Defensive Depth Chart


WindyCity

Recommended Posts

RE: Quinn, Muhammad

DT: Jones, Edwards

NT: Blackson, Tonga

LE: Gipson, Robinson, Attouchu

WLB: Roquan, Thomas

MLB: Morrow, Dawkins

SLB: Adams, Johnson

CB: Johnson, Gordon, Graham

NB: Young, Shelley

FS: Jackson, DHC

SS: Brisker, Cruickshank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, dll2000 said:

I bet Tonga starts though it will be a heavy rotation.

Young has trouble staying on field.   Did you cut Vildor?  LOL

When did we sign the cat from Harry Potter?

 

 

Hicks, the safety we drafted in R7, has played slot too. He was a CB until this past year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If by some miracle Young can stay healthy and Jackson returns to form, two pretty big ifs, Bears quickly turned a massive weakness (secondary) into a strength.   On paper anyway.  

Still think it is strange defense has been our offseason primary focus.  Even if it was happenstance in draft.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, MonserinNC said:

I just want to say I was banging the table for defense before this draft and thank god......imagine this depth chart without brisker and Gordon on it.....like legit the least talented in the NFL

Kind of like the offense is now, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, beardown3231 said:

Kind of like the offense is now, right?

Well, from a a coach and GM perspective with a decent or good defense and a bad offense you lose by 10 or 14.  If you run the ball a lot you can always keep score respectable. You could see this was Fox strategy with MT.

When you have really bad defense you get blow outs and blow outs make people crazy and they start trying to fire you early.  You may lose locker room like Trestman did.  Then you are gone. 

To me a loss is a loss by 40 or by 3.  Sometimes you lose by 40 because you went for a win rather than respectable loss and plan didn’t pan out.   But psychology for masses and most people is different.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

Well, from a a coach and GM perspective with a decent or good defense and a bad offense you lose by 10 or 14.  If you run the ball a lot you can always keep score respectable. You could see this was Fox strategy with MT.

When you have really bad defense you get blow outs and blow outs make people crazy and they start trying to fire you early.  You may lose locker room like Trestman did.  Then you are gone. 

To me a loss is a loss by 40 or by 3.  Sometimes you lose by 40 because you went for a win rather than respectable loss and plan didn’t pan out.   But psychology for masses and most people is different.  

I'd rather lose 35-31 than 17-13 (or 35-13), especially after all of these years of the latter. I'm sick of good D/bad O. Give me the opposite. If the team is going to be 5-12 or some s***, I'd rather see them score points and not be bored out of my mind

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, beardown3231 said:

I'd rather lose 35-31 than 17-13 (or 35-13), especially after all of these years of the latter. I'm sick of good D/bad O. Give me the opposite. If the team is going to be 5-12 or some s***, I'd rather see them score points and not be bored out of my mind

I think the idea is to give Fields a manageable, realistic expectation for year 2 progress. Everyone wants a Lamar/Burrow year 2 jump, but that’s atypical. A Josh Allen year 2 jump (from 52.8%, 10 TD, 12 INT to 58.8%, 20 TD, 9 INT) is WAY more realistic. Allen’s top receivers in 2019 were John Brown (72/1060/6) and Cole Beasley (67/778/6). Their WR3 was Isaiah McKenzie (27/254/1). Their TE (Knox) had 28/388/2. That’s a super thin group without question, and their RBs were far less talented than our group too. Didn’t keep Allen from ascending into being THAT GUY, and if Fields is destined to be THAT GUY too then it won’t stop him either.

In the meantime, if the Bears field a defense just in the top half scoring-wise Fields can give them a pretty solid chance to win most weeks in 2022 with about 23 points (23 ppg would have been good for 16th in the league in 2021). Even if we had gone berserk on offensive weapons this offseason that’s putting a whole lot more on his shoulders to have to be awesome right away, and I think that sets him up for success less. This doesn’t have to be pass-fail for Fields in 2022, and from their approach to building the team this offseason and what they’ve said since their arrival it almost certainly won’t be. The goal here is for him to become a top tier QB for the next dozen years or more. Him reaching that status in year 2 should always have been seen as a bonus though and not an expectation regardless of what they’ve put in place around him. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, beardown3231 said:

Kind of like the offense is now, right?

Not at all....our TE group is straight up good, really it's just up to Kmet to step it up another level....our 1-2 punch at RB is the best in the division, and kind of top half of the league...... we drafted a bunch of OL......and finally, I don't know why we act like Mooney is a question mark, 1600 yards is a legit #1 WR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...