Kelly the Dog Posted January 23, 2006 Posted January 23, 2006 not to mention the great Shane Matthews. Who ends up with a better record over 5 years? I would have to say they'd probably be even. Perhaps the Bears may have a better record than the Pack. Just a thought.
loadofmularkey Posted January 23, 2006 Posted January 23, 2006 I'll give this thread the bump it deserves. Everyone else is too pre-occupied starting "Jauron is a moron" threads. One other note: Chicago's RBs during Jauron's years weren't exactly Walter Payton incarnate. How about Curtis Enis, James Allen, and Anthony Thomas?? All out of the league 5-6 years later. (And yes I know Thomas appeared in a handful of games with the Saints last year...a whole four of em).
C.Biscuit97 Posted January 23, 2006 Posted January 23, 2006 Plus, they had that stud tailback Anthony Thomas who was good for 3 yards a carry(and out of the league in 4 years). Not to mention their dangerous wrs like, well I don't even know who they are. So while I wanted Sherman, Jauron had way less talent. That is the Gm's fault, not the coach's. I'm willing to give him a chance.
Fan in San Diego Posted January 23, 2006 Posted January 23, 2006 I agree this thread needs to be bumped to the top. You make too much sense for most here on this board though.
2003Contenders Posted January 23, 2006 Posted January 23, 2006 And in the What-Have-You-Done-for-Me-Lately world of the NFL, Sherman's Packers will have a top 5 draft pick in April.
Bill Swerski Posted January 23, 2006 Posted January 23, 2006 In 1999, the Bears had excellent depth and talent at WR with Bobby Engram, Marty Booker, Marcus Robinson and Curtis Conway. Curtis Enis came close to rushing for 1000 yards but the Bears constantly abandoned the run and could not decide on an offensive strategy. The QB position was unsettled as McNown was a joke and injuries set in. However, this was the year that Crowton was in charge and things actually looked pretty good offensively. In 2000, the Bears entered the season with essentially the same personnel but regressed in every area offensively. The John Shoop offense depressed any talent on the roster. It was a miserable experience to watch this team continually shioot itself in the foot with horrible calls and inabaility to adjust to defensive schemes. James Allen rushed for over 1000 yards and had a pretty excellent season. In 2001, the Bears settled the QB mess and hitched their wagon to Jim Miller, who is the evil twin of Kelly Holcomb. He had a good arm and the talent level on the Bears offense was quite deep. They had a quality running game, led by Anthony Thomas who rushed for 1200 yards and James Allen who contributed 500 as the backup. The WR talent pool was solid with Marty Booker, Dez White, and David Terrell. Marty caught 100 passes that year and went to the Pro Bowl. Unfortunately, the Bears again mismanaged almost every game offensively, refused to make adjustments and fell in love with the 3 yard WR screen and the swing pass to the fullback. 3rd and goal? TE screen for a one yard gain of course! They were bailed out by a potent and opportunistic scoring defense in five games. In 2002, Jauron refused to heed the calls of fans and media to dismiss the inept John Shoop and stuck with the plan. He admitted that he knew little about offensive gameplanning and that John would stay as the OC as "consistency drives results". yeah, bad ones. Jauron was stubborn about mixing in RB's and Thomas was never able to get into the groove of his rookie season. The QB situation was a nightmare but the WR talent was still solid with Booker and White. The calls in the games were more horrible than the season before and the Bears were a weekly embarrassment as they were outcoached by the likes of Marty Morhninweg. The stubborn refusal to change personnel packages and inability to make adjustments kileld the Bears all year long. In 2003, the Bears entered the season with high hopes. Most FA QB's ignored the Bears as they felt playing under SHoop and a soon to be fired Jauron would do nothing for their careers. They were right. The Bears ended up with Kordell Stewart as the starter with a late to camp Rex Grossman buried on the bench behind the decrepit Chris Chandler. The offense was a miserable failure as the Bears continued the tradition of horrible offensive playcalling and refusal to adjust to the talent on hand. They had a healthy A-Train averaging over 4 YPC and refused to stick with the run in any game. The defense was solid but Jauron's refusal to start Grossman until the team was mathematically eliminated from the playoffs killed the season. He refused to give the kid cathcup reps in practice and absolutely buried him. The season was a miserable failure. That sums up the Jauron era in Chicago.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 23, 2006 Author Posted January 23, 2006 In 1999, the Bears had excellent depth and talent at WR with Bobby Engram, Marty Booker, Marcus Robinson and Curtis Conway. Curtis Enis came close to rushing for 1000 yards but the Bears constantly abandoned the run and could not decide on an offensive strategy. The QB position was unsettled as McNown was a joke and injuries set in. However, this was the year that Crowton was in charge and things actually looked pretty good offensively. In 2000, the Bears entered the season with essentially the same personnel but regressed in every area offensively. The John Shoop offense depressed any talent on the roster. It was a miserable experience to watch this team continually shioot itself in the foot with horrible calls and inabaility to adjust to defensive schemes. James Allen rushed for over 1000 yards and had a pretty excellent season. In 2001, the Bears settled the QB mess and hitched their wagon to Jim Miller, who is the evil twin of Kelly Holcomb. He had a good arm and the talent level on the Bears offense was quite deep. They had a quality running game, led by Anthony Thomas who rushed for 1200 yards and James Allen who contributed 500 as the backup. The WR talent pool was solid with Dez White, and David Terrell. Marty caught 100 passes that year and went to the Pro Bowl. Unfortunately, the Bears again mismanaged almost every game offensively, refused to make adjustments and fell in love with the 3 yard WR screen and the swing pass to the fullback. 3rd and goal? TE screen for a one yard gain of course! They were bailed out by a potent and opportunistic scoring defense in five games. In 2002, Jauron refused to heed the calls of fans and media to dismiss the inept John Shoop and stuck with the plan. He admitted that he knew little about offensive gameplanning and that John would stay as the OC as "consistency drives results". yeah, bad ones. Jauron was stubborn about mixing in RB's and Thomas was never able to get into the groove of his rookie season. The QB situation was a nightmare but the WR talent was still solid with Booker and White. The calls in the games were more horrible than the season before and the Bears were a weekly embarrassment as they were outcoached by the likes of Marty Morhninweg. The stubborn refusal to change personnel packages and inability to make adjustments kileld the Bears all year long. In 2003, the Bears entered the season with high hopes. Most FA QB's ignored the Bears as they felt playing under SHoop and a soon to be fired Jauron would do nothing for their careers. They were right. The Bears ended up with Kordell Stewart as the starter with a late to camp Rex Grossman buried on the bench behind the decrepit Chris Chandler. The offense was a miserable failure as the Bears continued the tradition of horrible offensive playcalling and refusal to adjust to the talent on hand. They had a healthy A-Train averaging over 4 YPC and refused to stick with the run in any game. The defense was solid but Jauron's refusal to start Grossman until the team was mathematically eliminated from the playoffs killed the season. He refused to give the kid cathcup reps in practice and absolutely buried him. The season was a miserable failure. That sums up the Jauron era in Chicago. 580722[/snapback] I have no reason to doubt that your recap is close to the truth, although personally I would not put all that much stock in Dez White and David Terrell. But it still sounds to me that if you had Brett Favre on those teams, excluding the 13-3, he makes 4-5 losses a year into wins. He may be one of the top 2-3 quarterbacks ever to play. And the hypothetical was not really meant to say that jauron is a good choice, or didn't ruin the Bears and stifle their offense, it was more to say that jauron may not be so bad if he had the best QB in the game, and Sherman would never be nearly as good without him, or with the Bears rejects.
Grant Posted January 23, 2006 Posted January 23, 2006 Well, I'm glad to hear that! Since we here in Buffalo have the best QB in the game, he's all set! I'm sure Jauron can help us get to maybe even 8-8!
loadofmularkey Posted January 23, 2006 Posted January 23, 2006 Well, I'm glad to hear that! Since we here in Buffalo have the best QB in the game, he's all set! I'm sure Jauron can help us get to maybe even 8-8! 580776[/snapback] Yes, what a moron DJ was for having so much faith in Losman...oh wait. You can blame your dislike of the QB on the previous regime.
Grant Posted January 23, 2006 Posted January 23, 2006 Yes, what a moron DJ was for having so much faith in Losman...oh wait. You can blame your dislike of the QB on the previous regime. 580783[/snapback] Yeah... I was being sarcastic.
The Jokeman Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 In 1999, the Bears had excellent depth and talent at WR with Bobby Engram, Marty Booker, Marcus Robinson and Curtis Conway. Curtis Enis came close to rushing for 1000 yards but the Bears constantly abandoned the run and could not decide on an offensive strategy. The QB position was unsettled as McNown was a joke and injuries set in. However, this was the year that Crowton was in charge and things actually looked pretty good offensively. In 2000, the Bears entered the season with essentially the same personnel but regressed in every area offensively. The John Shoop offense depressed any talent on the roster. It was a miserable experience to watch this team continually shioot itself in the foot with horrible calls and inabaility to adjust to defensive schemes. James Allen rushed for over 1000 yards and had a pretty excellent season. In 2001, the Bears settled the QB mess and hitched their wagon to Jim Miller, who is the evil twin of Kelly Holcomb. He had a good arm and the talent level on the Bears offense was quite deep. They had a quality running game, led by Anthony Thomas who rushed for 1200 yards and James Allen who contributed 500 as the backup. The WR talent pool was solid with Marty Booker, Dez White, and David Terrell. Marty caught 100 passes that year and went to the Pro Bowl. Unfortunately, the Bears again mismanaged almost every game offensively, refused to make adjustments and fell in love with the 3 yard WR screen and the swing pass to the fullback. 3rd and goal? TE screen for a one yard gain of course! They were bailed out by a potent and opportunistic scoring defense in five games. In 2002, Jauron refused to heed the calls of fans and media to dismiss the inept John Shoop and stuck with the plan. He admitted that he knew little about offensive gameplanning and that John would stay as the OC as "consistency drives results". yeah, bad ones. Jauron was stubborn about mixing in RB's and Thomas was never able to get into the groove of his rookie season. The QB situation was a nightmare but the WR talent was still solid with Booker and White. The calls in the games were more horrible than the season before and the Bears were a weekly embarrassment as they were outcoached by the likes of Marty Morhninweg. The stubborn refusal to change personnel packages and inability to make adjustments kileld the Bears all year long. In 2003, the Bears entered the season with high hopes. Most FA QB's ignored the Bears as they felt playing under SHoop and a soon to be fired Jauron would do nothing for their careers. They were right. The Bears ended up with Kordell Stewart as the starter with a late to camp Rex Grossman buried on the bench behind the decrepit Chris Chandler. The offense was a miserable failure as the Bears continued the tradition of horrible offensive playcalling and refusal to adjust to the talent on hand. They had a healthy A-Train averaging over 4 YPC and refused to stick with the run in any game. The defense was solid but Jauron's refusal to start Grossman until the team was mathematically eliminated from the playoffs killed the season. He refused to give the kid cathcup reps in practice and absolutely buried him. The season was a miserable failure. That sums up the Jauron era in Chicago. 580722[/snapback] Toss in Joey Harrington and Jeff Garcia split time in the 5 games he coached Detroit last year. Ie Jauron doesn't seem to trust in QBs too much which means JP may never develop with us.
The Dean Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 The only thing I'm REALLY concerned with is Jauron's history with QBs. He seems to have the same sense with QBs as Don Nelson does with NBA centers. IMO he HAS to get a good OC and QB coach (is Sam staying?) to work with JP.
jarthur31 Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 I'm not shitting on the new HC but Marv's reputation rides on whoever got the job. If we don't win soon, Marv won't last long. I don't think the board would've been anymore pleasant if Sherman were coach either. This all comes down to playoffs this coming year and next!!! I just hope Levy takes the O-line seriously enough and not try any cute moves by releasing certain players who you think are holding you back and not addressing the real problems.
Tortured Soul Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 not to mention the great Shane Matthews. Who ends up with a better record over 5 years? I would have to say they'd probably be even. Perhaps the Bears may have a better record than the Pack. Just a thought. 580335[/snapback] I'm not sure if you meant this as an argument for Jauron or against Sherman, but I read it as the latter.
realtruelove Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 not to mention the great Shane Matthews. Who ends up with a better record over 5 years? I would have to say they'd probably be even. Perhaps the Bears may have a better record than the Pack. Just a thought. 580335[/snapback] Now that's funny.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 24, 2006 Author Posted January 24, 2006 I'm not sure if you meant this as an argument for Jauron or against Sherman, but I read it as the latter. 581253[/snapback] It is more the latter, but mostly in response to all the posts about how great Sherman was compared to Jauron. It just occured to me that the one player could have been the entire difference in their records. I would have been more happy with Sherman myself, because I think he would have brought Bates and instilled a discipline in the Bills that we need. Jauron doesn't stoke me at all. But I did want to point out the hypothetical, just to get everyone to think about that for a moment.
Buftex Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 It is more the latter, but mostly in response to all the posts about how great Sherman was compared to Jauron. It just occured to me that the one player could have been the entire difference in their records. I would have been more happy with Sherman myself, because I think he would have brought Bates and instilled a discipline in the Bills that we need. Jauron doesn't stoke me at all. But I did want to point out the hypothetical, just to get everyone to think about that for a moment. 581315[/snapback] I don't know where all of the love came for Mike Sherman over the last two weeks. Is it because he has a nice win percentage (and not much else), or does the "80%" of the fans polled think he is a great coach? I am not upset over the Jauron hiring, no more than I would have been with Sherman. I watch a lot of NFL football over the course of a season. I would venture that after the Bills and Cowboys (I live in Texas, they are on every week) I have seen the Packers more than any other team over the last decade or so. There was never once, over the course of Mike Shermans' tenure that I turned off the tv after a game, and thought, "that guy is a good coach". I know that doesn't mean much, but I never saw a Packers game plan (outside of letting Favre throw the ball until his arm is about to fall off) that I thought was innovative, or was the difference between winning or losing for the Packers. Under Sherman, the Packers defense deteriorated to being pretty average at best, and played kind of undisciplined. The offense never really evolved either. Even for a few years there, when Ahman Green was poised to be one of the elite running backs in the leauge, Sherman seemed to show a Mularkian tendancy to under utilize him, and let the game rest on Favre's arm. As a result, I think, the whole team never really reached its' potential. Favre got sloppier by the year, and Sherman seemed content to let it happen.
Tortured Soul Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 There was never once, over the course of Mike Shermans' tenure that I turned off the tv after a game, and thought, "that guy is a good coach". That's what I've been trying to say. Face it, the options this year just weren't very good. (I still don't think that means we should keep Mularkey for another year just for better option later, though). Just look at the assistants hired this year - Childress, Kubiak, Peyton - these were all guys who were talked of as candidates for years but always got passed over for the Lewises and Crennels. Bottom line: TD and MM or ML and DJ? Maybe we should make that into a poll.
Rubes Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 Unfortunately, the Bears again mismanaged almost every game offensively, refused to make adjustments and fell in love with the 3 yard WR screen and the swing pass to the fullback.580722[/snapback] Oh dear sweet Lord, please say it isn't so.
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts