Mel Tucker coming back for 2014

bearadonisdna · Post #46 » by **bearadonisdna** » Thu Jan 2, 2014 2:04 am

oops my bad CBS7 if u read that last post i deleted it was wrong cuz i misread ur post about lovie . i thought u meant in 2007.

bearadonisdna · Post #47 » by **bearadonisdna** » Thu Jan 2, 2014 2:07 am

cbs7-
Lovie wasnt the coordinator after the sb. We saw the difference right there of how the same talent grossly under performed with a worse coordinator.
Lovie just took credit for the d when they played well, we all know he wasnt calling the plays.

bearadonisdna · Post #48 » by **bearadonisdna** » Thu Jan 2, 2014 2:12 am

i know u explained no one here is fan of tucker. I guess i should just put on my big boy pants and take it. Like u said ur looking at the bright side so i guess theres no reason to bitch and moan even tho is babich times deux except this time its worse.
but its still so early in the offseaon so retaining him may not be written in stone.

BR0D1E86 · Post #49 » by **BR0D1E86** » Thu Jan 2, 2014 2:59 am

bearadonisdna wrote:so he retired one hall of famer (urlacher)and peppers. So i overexagerrated.

He didn't retire anybody. Emery made him an offer that Urlacher felt wasn't enough. It was a good bit more than the nothing that any other nfl team offered him though so he decided to retire.

I can't blame him for Peppers. The guy just looked like a different player this year.

The 6ft Hurdle · Post #50 » by **The 6ft Hurdle** » Thu Jan 2, 2014 5:37 am

BR0D1E86 wrote:I'm not so sure. They were 27th in yards under Lovie in 2007. They were right around 20 three of the next few years after that. I don't believe any of those years had the catastrophic injuries of this season.

I think Tucker was very unimpressive, and I'd be perfectly fine with replacing him. He does have an excuse though.

I guess the reason I would excuse the yards was because ultimately they didn't allow much points. It was excused as a "bend, don't break" defense in the leaner years.

BullHeaded · Post #51 » by **BullHeaded** » Thu Jan 2, 2014 6:46 am

CBS7 wrote:But management has decided to keep him and we are simply looking on the bright side. You are literally trying to blame 100% of the failures of this defense, and in turn this team, on one person.

I think it is unreasonable for anyone to think that if this team had been in better health, the defense would have been as bad. If the contract situation was similar to last year's, where 9 out of 11 defensive starters were coming back for one more year, I would see the logic in giving him one more chance. The only way you can really pull it off though this year with 7 out of 11 defensive starters coming out of contract this year is to only sign key FAs to one year contracts and to draft scheme neutral players so we'd have the flexibility to go with the best possible option when we get a conclusion.

I don't think this is ideal, but it sounds like the reality is Mel is coming back (I am in the acceptance stage). I would re-sign a lot of these guys to one year contracts if they'll take it and try to draft cover corners and good athletic safeties. I'd stay away from drafting a front seven guy unless it was a DE who could fit in any front. For DT... try to get either Ratliff, Melton or both back for one year. If things work out with this defense and the mobile, upfield DTs are the way to go... extend them or draft another. But if this doesn't work out and we decide to sniff around a 3-4 front (or a 4-3 front with the big DTs Jauron faovored), hopefully we'll have a chance to get a big space-eater in the 2015 draft.

As crazy as it sounds, for this offseason, the long term moves may be best reserved for the offense. The OL can still use some improvement, Garza and Slauson are FAs and Mills hasn't been outstanding... and we may also be interested in a developmental QB. At least we know this offense is here to stay and we have a blue print to buy materials for.

BR0D1E86 · Post #52 » by **BR0D1E86** » Thu Jan 2, 2014 12:43 pm

The 6ft Hurdle wrote:
BR0D1E86 wrote:I'm not so sure. They were 27th in yards under Lovie in 2007. They were right around 20 three of the next few years after that. I don't believe any of those years had the catastrophic injuries of this season.

I think Tucker was very unimpressive, and I'd be perfectly fine with replacing him. He does have an excuse though.

I guess the reason I would excuse the yards was because ultimately they didn't allow much points. It was excused as a "bend, don't break" defense in the leaner years.

They still went through a 3 year stretch there where the Bears were about 20th in points allowed. Lovie was a good defensive coach, but he wasn't infallible.

MalcolmXing · Post #53 » by **MalcolmXing** » Thu Jan 2, 2014 1:29 pm

dantonio

blumeany · Post #54 » by **blumeany** » Thu Jan 2, 2014 5:17 pm

Confusing press conference with Trestman defending the hell out of Tucker, but not committing to him.

BullHeaded · Post #55 » by **BullHeaded** » Thu Jan 2, 2014 5:53 pm

blumeany wrote:Confusing press conference with Trestman defending the hell out of Tucker, but not committing to him.

It's interesting... He didn't commit to Tucker at DC, McClellan at DE, a 4-3... It sounded like as he said "everything is on the table". We'll see if thinking about change equals change. But in years past brass seemed more stubborn about these things. I only ask that they are open minded and make thoughtful decisions.

patryk7754 · Post #56 » by **patryk7754** » Thu Jan 2, 2014 6:06 pm

Hopefully we hire guy who can work with tucker. Like our OC and HC do

blumeany · Post #57 » by **blumeany** » Sat Jan 4, 2014 3:45 am

Well, Leslie Frazier is off the table. He's going to be DC in Tampa. Which is odd, since you know Lovie will be calling the shots. Thought he'd have a better role with the Bears.

bearadonisdna · Post #58 » by **bearadonisdna** » Sat Jan 4, 2014 4:03 am

blumeany wrote:Well, Leslie Frazier is off the table. He's going to be DC in Tampa. Which is odd, since you know Lovie will be calling the shots. Thought he'd have a better role with the Bears.

dude i think im gonna be sick.

The Sheik · Post #59 » by **The Sheik** » Sun Jan 12, 2014 9:29 pm

PER Bears twitter.

DL coach Mike Phair and LB coach Tim Tibesar are out.

https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/422479195843739648

Chaomino · Post #60 » by **Chaomino** » Sun Jan 12, 2014 9:36 pm

Not a surprise after Trestman's press conference on Black Monday

bearadonisdna · Post #61 » by **bearadonisdna** » Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:13 pm

sickening.

blumeany · Post #62 » by **blumeany** » Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:31 pm

Lame that they would pin it on the position coaches. Either it was the injuries or it wasn't. Also, shouldn't the guy coaching the safeties be gone first using their rationale? I just think they should have been all-in, one way or the other.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

BullHeaded · Post #63 » by **BullHeaded** » Mon Jan 13, 2014 1:01 am

Bearadonisdna the clairvoyant: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/fo ... 9076.story

Tucker is staying... DL coach Phair and LB coach Tibesar get the hook.

I guess this means they believed the defensive game plans were solid all year but the DLineman and Linebackers were poorly coached. This also means we're going to see 1 year contracts at key positions and scheme neutral draft picks (athletic safeties, lineman who can either be 3-4 ends or 4-3 tackles, and inside linebackers).

Sorry... I just see this as a two year set back. We aren't going to be committing to a scheme until next off season at the earliest (even if it is Tucker's) and then you have another season for the players we are committing to then to get up to speed. Ironically, I thought the move to resign Cutler was wise because he was a year along on the learning curve... but then we turned around and pushed back the learning curves on defense two years. Not a fan of this.

BullHeaded · Post #64 » by **BullHeaded** » Mon Jan 13, 2014 1:04 am

Sorry... posted this in another thread but it belongs here:

Bearadonisdna the clairvoyant: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/fo ... 9076.story

Tucker is staying... DL coach Phair and LB coach Tibesar get the hook.

I guess this means they believed the defensive game plans were solid all year but the DLineman and Linebackers were poorly coached. This also means we're going to see 1 year contracts at key positions and scheme neutral draft picks (athletic safeties, lineman who can either be 3-4 ends or 4-3 tackles, and inside linebackers).

Sorry... I just see this as a two year set back. We aren't going to be committing to a scheme until next off season at the earliest (even if it is Tucker's) and then you have another season for the players we are committing to then to get up to speed. Ironically, I thought the move to resign Cutler was wise because he was a year along on the learning curve... but then we turned around and pushed back the learning curves on defense two years. Not a fan of this. - See more at: viewtopic.php?f=156&t=1294049&start=45#sthash.q5lbDUwe.dpuf

BullHeaded · Post #65 » by **BullHeaded** » Mon Jan 13, 2014 1:10 am

blumeany wrote:Lame that they would pin it on the position coaches. Either it was the injuries or it wasn't. Also, shouldn't the guy coaching the safeties be gone first using their rationale? I just think they should have been all-in, one way or the other.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

Hoke is a tough one to pin it on as well. When you look at how much better Tillman and Jennings have been since he arrived and the fact that last year the safety position was shored up (this year it unraveled) he was looking like a miracle worker. I don't think Chris Harris was necessarily given enough responsibility to also take on the accountability. Personally, I have less problem with them canning Phair and Tibesar than I do with them keeping Tucker. I see Brad Biggs making his case for the DL and LB injuries... but who did they develop to step in? Its not like we didn't draft talent at these positions to step up... I just didn't see them improve.

As far as the scheme... I just want to point out that we also sucked before the injuries were in full force... so then, there's that.