'08 outlook in a word? Well, it may not be close
One thing certain: Bears have plenty of uncertainties
January 2, 2008
BY MIKE MULLIGAN
You know you've had a bad year when the buzzword is ''close.''
Nothing like abutting greatness to nearly bring out the imminent excitement in almost everyone.
Close might be good enough in a messy battle between howler monkeys, but should fans be proud of a proximate pro football team?
Bears general manager Jerry Angelo pointed out the obvious flaw as he headed out of Soldier Field after a season-ending victory over New Orleans that accounted for the Bears' only winning streak of 2007, a two-game home sweep of the Packers and Saints.
''Unfortunately, we weren't playing for the playoffs,'' Angelo said. ''But we did as good as we could, given the conditions. It was a good way to finish up. We played hard. A lot of teams at this juncture of the season, when you have nothing to play for, don't play hard. It says a lot for the players and coaches. We wanted to end on a good note, and hopefully it will help pull us into 2008.''
Back to you, Jerry
This was before coach Lovie Smith unveiled his stay-the-course plan in two final news conferences, one after the Saints victory and another the next day to close out the season.
''We're not going to overreact emotionally to anything,'' Angelo said. ''We'll do it right.''
''It'' is the rebuilding or reloading needed to get the Bears back into contention. Closing the gap from ''close'' to playoff team or championship contender is a fascinating subject as the Bears face their most important offseason since 2002. Smith said he wants to keep his coaching staff intact and would like all the players out of contract to return, too.
That lobs the ball directly into Angelo's court. Is Smith saying the Bears are close only if they retain their free agents? How close are they if they lose Pro Bowl linebacker Lance Briggs, top wide receiver Bernard Berrian, Pro Bowl special teams player Brendon Ayanbadejo and supposed franchise quarterback Rex Grossman? When those players leave -- and all but maybe Grossman are nearly certain to be gone -- should the buzzword be changed to ''distant'' or ''remote''?
Smith's plan might not be viewed as ingenious so much as a year late, but there is something to be said for continuity in a coaching staff, particularly when a team believes it's close enough to strike. The Bears maintained continuity on special teams last year, and despite losing five key players on those units, wound up repeating as the No. 1 special teams in the NFL.
They maintained continuity in the starting lineup, too, save for one position on each side of the ball. They traded running back Thomas Jones to the Jets and waived troubled defensive tackle Tank Johnson before the season. Now, despite the assurances from Cedric Benson that another running back isn't necessary, the Bears still need a running back and a defensive tackle -- perhaps in reverse order.
Whatever went wrong on defense -- the Bears seem to believe it was simply ill-placed injuries -- that unit shouldn't be overlooked during the offseason tweaking. Sure, the Bears have a couple of ''redshirt rookies'' in second-round pick Dan Bazuin and third-rounder Michael Okwo waiting in the wings. But they felt the same way about Dusty Dvoracek coming into this season, and he didn't last one game.
LINK
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/footb...ully02.article
Bears '08 outlook in a word? Well, it may not be close
Bears '08 outlook in a word? Well, it may not be close
Linear Mode
