Al Davis once said of his Oakland Raiders, “We don’t take what teams give us. We take what we want.”
Easy for Davis to say, with Hall of Fame offensive linemen Jim Otto, Art Shell and Gene Upshaw blocking for quarterback Ken Stabler throwing to Hall of Famer Fred Biletnikoff and Cliff Branch, and Hall of Fame linebacker Ted Hendricks leading a defense to protect the leads the offense put up.
Under 32-year-old offensive coordinator John Shoop, the Bears have adopted a modified form of the smash-mouth Raiders philosophy. They have held to a mind-set of doing a few things well, rather than many not so well. And they stick to those perhaps to a fault.
But in the wake of scoring a total of 33 points over the last three games, a broader issue comes into focus: Are the Bears good enough for Shoop and his we’ll-do-what-we-do approach? Or is Shoop, with only 15 games as an offensive coordinator, good enough for the Bears with their present roster?
Does Shoop have the experience needed in a playoff run to make the necessary adjustments? And if not, are the Bears talented enough to win anyway?
The only meaningful answers to those questions ultimately rest with general manager Jerry Angelo, who will make changes to the roster and presumably the coaching staff after the season.
“Pinch yourselves,” quarterback Jim Miller suggested Monday. “We’re 9-3; we were 3-9 last year. Let’s wake up here.”
Coach Dick Jauron pointed out Shoop’s 11-4 record to players Monday. And he says he is squarely behind the young assistant who took the coordinator post that several more established coaches passed on earlier this year because of questions over Jauron’s long-term job security.
“I have no problem with John,” said Jauron, who has not necessarily liked every specific call his coordinator has made but has steadfastly supported him. “I have input in every play. So what you see is my offense. Any play that’s called, if I don’t want the play, then I can change it. Or I can call the play if I want to.”
But the scoring has gone from 27 points at Tampa to 13, 13 and seven the last three games. The yardage production has fallen from 413 against Cleveland to a high of 274 yards over the last five games, culminating with 189 in the 17-7 loss Sunday at Green Bay.
In both cases of second games against teams this season, the Bears have scored fewer points and gained fewer yards in the rematch. Production against Minnesota dropped from 17 points and 284 yards to 13 and 235. Against Green Bay the decline was from 12 points to seven and from 262 yards to 189. By comparison, the Bears’ defense allowed slightly less in each rematch.
This suggests that the Vikings and Packers knew what to expect from Shoop and got what they expected. Several Green Bay players expressed surprise that there was little variation in the Bears’ game plan from game one to game two.
“The philosophy of our offense isn’t going to change,” Miller said. “There are certain things we do, certain things we do very well, and we’re going to continue to do those things. We do make adjustments, we do have good game plans and we work our fannies off. That’s why we’re 9-3.”
Predictability or any lack of imagination or flair on Shoop’s part places a heavier burden on the pure skill levels of the players. The offensive line may prefer Shoop’s run-oriented philosophy and schemes, but is the blocking good enough to win games consistently by pounding teams into submission? The Bears have failed to rush for 100 yards in four of their last six games.
The decline in offensive production surprisingly has come since the return of Miller from his hip-pointer injury. Miller has ignited the offense when he has gotten his opportunities in 1999 and 2000, and he was the offensive key to the six-game win streak that began when he took over against Minnesota in game two.
But not he, his receivers, runners or blockers have played as well since his injury. Part of the problem has been dropped passes.
Receivers dropped six passes in the 13-10 victory over Detroit on Dec. 2, with rookie wideout David Terrell missing two touchdown passes.
But Miller, by his own admission, did not make enough good throws, missing Terrell on fade patterns in the end zone Sunday. If the pass is completed, perhaps there is no offense issue being debated. Miller’s quarterback rating was 61.0 against Minnesota, 46.7 against Detroit (a game in which he graded out at 90 percent) and 52.5 against Green Bay.
The Bears had no reception longer than 14 yards Sunday as receivers failed to get open on deep routes and Miller failed to hit them when they were. The inexperience of Bears receivers–Marty Booker is in his third season, Dez White his second, Terrell his first–is a limitation that Shoop’s offense has not been able to overcome at times.
“We’re awfully young at critical spots,” Jauron said. “That’ll go on for a while and take some time. I’m very happy with the way they’ve progressed, very happy with the effort they give us on Sunday and how they’ve performed over the course of the year to this point.”
Slipping offense
The Bears’ offensive production has slipped in the last three games, during which they’ve scored three touchdowns, none of them via pass. A look at how the last three games compare to the first nine:
SPAN YPG PPG
First 9 games 308.2 22.1
Last 3 games 219.0 11.0
A game-by-game breakdown of the Bears’ recent efforts:
TEAM RESULT YARDS
At Minnesota W 13-6 235
Detroit W 13-10 232
At Green Bay L 17-7 189
%%
%%
