Bears show they are average NFL team
By MARK JOHNSON
Sunday's embarrassing loss at Cincinnati has me convinced that the Chicago Bears — my pick to make the Super Bowl — are an average NFL team, at best.
Average is way better than the Bears were against the Bengals, who dominated them in every facet of the game while winning 45-10. One bad game doesn't necessarily doom a team to mediocrity, of course. But the thing is, the Bears have never been overwhelming for extended stretches this season ... not even during their three wins.
The Bears' problems start at the top. Coach Lovie Smith and his staff had their team as ill-prepared to play at Cincinnati as you'll ever see an NFL team. Smith's failures extended into his play-calling, as he wasn't nearly as aggressive in dialing up blitzes as he should have been considering how little pressure his defensive line was putting on Bengals QB Carson Palmer all game long.
The offensive play-calling was no better. Some of the criticism that you hear about Ron Turner on sports talk radio and read about on internet message boards is laughable. Like those callers and posters, I'm no expert, and I'm not going to specifically blast Turner for the way he's called plays. But there's one thing I will point out — the Bears have scored a total of 7 first-quarter points. They start games out by running a series of scripted plays, and Turner has done a very poor job of getting them off on the right foot during that point.
Line coaches Harry Hiestand and Rod Marinelli failed every bit as much as Smith and Turner. Hiestand got high marks for getting solid production out of a patchwork offensive front in 2008, but he's getting an F from me to date in 2009, as the money spent on Orlando Pace and Frank Omiyale looks wasted. Marinelli has been billed as a savior, but his defensive front — which was missing Tommie Harris — was completely ineffective against the Bengals. And Cincinnati made a mockery of coach Jon Hoke's secondary.
Of course, the players are as much at fault as the coaches. On a day when he played better than the vast majority of his teammates, quarterback Jay Cutler again is in the spotlight. He was 26-for-37 for 251 yards and a touchdown, but threw three interceptions.
Granted, Cutler had very little help. His downfield receivers were open so infrequently that he was forced to check down often. His line gave him minimal time to throw. And Matt Forte provided no running game whatsoever. But for what the Bears paid to get Cutler, and what they've committed to pay him in the contract extension he just signed, being just decent isn't good enough. Even Peyton Manning would have had trouble keeping the Bears in Sunday's game, but the point is that Cutler is expected to do more than he is delivering.
Of all that went wrong in the loss, though, I think I'm most disappointed in the Bears defense allowing Cedric Benson to rush 37 times for 189 yards. To be fair, the Bears run defense had been fantastic in its first five games. But it was abysmal Sunday, and the Bears showed very little heart in allowing a guy that produced so little while he played for them to dominate them.
The Bears wasted their first opportunity to gain ground on Minnesota in the NFC North race, as the Vikings lost for the first time all year to Pittsburgh, 27-17. It's probably not too early to give up in the division race, as Green Bay is probably in it for the long haul.
A wild-card playoff entry might still be attainable, though Atlanta, the Packers, San Francisco and the three NFC East teams not coached by Jim Zorn could all end up with 10 victories and not win their divisions. The Bears should bounce back next week when they host Cleveland, and the rest of the schedule is not overwhelming.
Based on what we saw Sunday, are we really supposed to believe that the Bears are good enough — at anything — to threaten a good team even if they do put it together and sneak into the postseason? I'm thinking the answer is no.
Comments
