Chicago Herald-American

As if the Bears need any more attention on their demise since reaching the Super Bowl in 2006, the Colts and Saints are playing in Super Bowl XLIV today in Miami. Just three short seasons ago, the Bears beat the Saints 39-14 at Soldier Field in the NFC Championship Game and gave the Colts a pretty good game without two key defensive players (Tommie Harris, Mike Brown) before losing 29-17 in the Super Bowl. 

While the Saints and Colts are back in Super Bowl contention, the Bears have gone backwards since playing in the Big Game. They've gone 7-9, 9-7 and 7-9, becoming only the fourth team in the Super Bowl era to fail to make the playoffs in three consecutive seasons since playing in the Super Bowl.

What happened? I tried to explain in in this feature in the Sunday Sun-Times, but I'll try to boil it down a little more concisely here: 

1. The Quarterback

Rex Grossman, an MVP candidate in 2006 after five games, already was a liability by the time the Bears played in the Super Bowl, with as many alarmingly bad performances as good ones in the last three months of the season. The Bears just can't seem to get the most important position on the field right. Kyle Orton was OK but not a game-changer. Even bringing in a Pro Bowl quarterback in Jay Cutler didn't help their fortunes at quarterback. 

Obviously Peyton Manning makes a huge difference for the Colts. Manning's performance against the Jets in the AFC Championship was crystal-clear proof that while the Colts are a fine all-around team, they would be a minor factor in the playoffs without Manning. 

But give the Colts credit for drafting Manning in the first place. When he came out of Tennessee in 1998, Manning and Washington State's Ryan Leaf were seen as equal prospects. Leaf, of course, went No. 2 to San Diego and was a major bust. But as Colts general manager Bill Polian told me in 2000, he didn't just flip a coin. 

"When you sorted through all the important data, not the hype, it was relatively clear-cut," Polian said. "[Manning] was better prepared to come in and play. He had the extra year in college. He was more mature. He was a dedicated student of the game." 

 2. Injuries. 

The Bears seem to have the worst luck with injuries. Not only do key players get injured, but they never are the same when they return. Harris, the key to their defensive line, suffered a ruptured left hamstring in 2006 and then developed knee problems in 2007 and 2008 that required surgery. He hasn't been the same player since. 

Brian Urlacher was fourth in NFL Defensive Player of the Year voting in 2006, but also has suffered from injuries since the Super Bowl -- an arthritic back in 2008 and a dislocated wrist in 2009. He also has not been the same player he was since the Super Bowl season. 

Mike Brown suffered a Lisfranc injury in Week 6 of the 2006 season -- the same game in which he ignited the big comeback victory over the Cardinals with a fumble return for a touchdown. He also suffered a knee injury in 2007 and missed most of the season. After a mediocre season in 2008, which ended with yet another injury, the Bears did not resign him. 

That's arguably the Bears' three most important defenders, all in the prime of their career, all of whom were injured and never the same. It makes you wonder whether it's just a tough break, so maybe something wrong with the way the Bears train and condition their players. 

The Colts, on the other hand, have also had some key injuries, but have done a better job of 1) replacing their injured players; and 2) having their injured players return to peak form. Safety Bob Sanders missed most of the 2006 season with a knee injury and the Colts had the worst rushing defense in the league without him. He returned for the playoffs and was outstanding as the Colts' rush defense improved dramatically en route to the Super Bowl.  Sanders was the NFL Defensive Player of the Year the next season. 

And another key player, defensive end Dwight Freeney, suffered a Lisfranc injury in 2007 that was feared to be career-threatening. Freeney not only returned, but was as good as new. He had 10 1/2 sacks in 2008 and 13 1/2 sacks this season, making the Pro Bowl each time. For some reason, Mike Brown was an average player after his Lisfranc surgery, but Freeney returned in peak form. Just coincidence?

3. The draft/free agency

The Bears haven't done a very good job of replacing their established players when they start to lose their edge. They pieced together a decent offensive line with veterans John Tait, Fred Miller and Ruben Brown in 2006, but when those three fell off, the Bears have yet to replace them: Terrence Metcalfe, John St. Clair, Frank Omiyale, Chris Williams, Orlando Pace all have been unable to maintain even the modest level of play the Bears were getting on the offensive line. 

The Colts actually have improved with the changes they've made. When Sanders was hurt again this year, Melvin Bullitt, an undrafted free agent in 2007, stepped in and has played well. When Tarik Glenn, a Pro Bowl offensive tackle, retired after the 2006 season, rookie Tony Ugoh replaced him without a problem. When Ugoh faltered, Charlie Johnson, a sixth-round draft pick in 2006, replaced him and the Colts still have one of the best offensive lines in football. 

4. Aging poorly

For some reason, most Bears players don't age well. Not only that, but they seem to age prematurely. Center Olin Kreutz was the best center in football in 2005-06. In fact, when the Bears played the Colts in the Super Bowl, Kreutz was the AP's first-team all-NFL center and the Colts' Jeff Saturday -- an undrafted free agent the same year Kreutz was a third-round pick in 1998 -- was the second-team all-NFL center. In 2009, Kreutz was clearly past his prime, a good center but not nothing special. Saturday made teh Pro Bowl and again was second-team All-Pro. For some reason, Kreutz has shown his age in recent years while Saturday seems to get better. Just a coincidence?

He's not the only one. Cornerback Nathan Vasher, a Pro Bowler at 23 in 2005, suffered a groin injury after signing a big contract and hasn't been the same player. Cornerback Charles Tillman was playing near a Pro Bowl level in 2006. He had a decent season in 2009, with a career-high six forced fumbles, but is not the player he was in 2006. 

The biggest problem is that the Bears don't seem  to even recognize these failings, let alone be inclined to do something about them. They keep thinking they're a step away from returning to prominence, when they might be getting another step further away. 

I know from experience that picking the 50 best of anything is a thankless task, because no matter which way you go, you can only be wrong. That said, I thoroughly enjoyed working on "The 50 Best Bears of All-Time" that ran in Friday's Sun-Times. 

We're also going to run "Best of All-Time" stories on the Sox, Cubs, Bulls and Blackhawks, but a Bears "Top 50" list is much more problematic than any of the rest. How do you measure the contribution of an offensive lineman vs. a running back? Or a player from the 1930s vs. a player from the 1980s? Or a player who benefited from playing on a great team vs. one who played on mostly bad teams?

I thought Walter Payton was a clear choice as the Bears' all-time best player, but it turned out not to be so clear-cut. Looking back on the Bears championship teams of the 1940s gave me a new appreciation for the impact of quarterback Sid Luckman. He was the Joe Montana of those teams and then some and would have been a legitimate choice for No. 1 because he played on four championship teams (and could have played on six if not for the absence of players who fought in World War II). 

Dick Butkus didn't play on any Bears playoff teams, let alone championship teams, but he also could have been No. 1. I've always felt his reputation as a mean, dirty player overshadowed the fact that he was an outstanding linebacker with a great instinct for the game and a knack for getting to the ball carrier. Hub Arkush of Pro Football Weekly, who was a great help in putting this story together, told me Butkus was chosen as the best player of all-time by some Hall of Fame group a while ago. Another esteemed group chose Butkus as the player they would start a team with. 

And it only gets tougher after that. Should guys who had a big impact in a short career, like Harlon Hill and Wally Chambers, be on the list ahead of players who were very good over a longer period of time, like Doug Buffone and Jim Osborne? What about Jim McMahon, who was great when he played but was always hurt. 

My goal was to get 40 players who absolutely had to be in the Top 50 somewhere and I feel I got 44 or 45. The last five are always the toughest, because there are 20-25 players who have every right to be there. It just comes down to personal preference, I guess. 

Given that, I regret that I couldn't find room for several players: Mike Brown, Fred Williams (a four-time Pro Bowl tackle from the 1950s), J.C. Caroline, Dave Duerson, Robbie Gould, Ray Bray (a guard from the 30s and 40s), Devin Hester, Dick Gordon, Bennie McRae, Keith Van Horne, Hugh Gallarneau, Beattie Feathers, Bobby Joe Green, Bill Osmanski, Jim Dooley, Dave Whitsell, Allan Ellis, Paddy Driscoll, Doug Plank, Donnell Woolford, and Erik Kramer among them. 

But overall, I think it's a good list, if I say so myself. And I couldn't have done it without great help from some longtime Bears observers who helped put things into perspective: Chicago radio legend Chet Coppock, Hub Arkush, who was on the Bears' radio broadcast team for several years, my longtime friend Jack Rosenberg, the former WGN sports editor who covered the Bears home and away with Jack Brickhouse and Irv Kupcinet, and Don Pierson, who covered the Bears either as the beat writer or NFL columnist going back to the 1960s. 

Thanks for writing?

The reason we do features like "The 50 Best Bears of All-Time" is to provoke debate and response and sure enough this one did. Here's a sample of some of the responses I received from this story: 

 Mark, why try and rate the 50 best Bears players?  You do guys always
make everything into a competition? A list like this is too subjective.
  If you're going to do it, atleast acknowledge some of the current
players and what they have done for the Bears organization. Olin Kreutz
at # 32? Horrible!      - TH

 

Did you just move to Chicago a week ago? Was this list compiled by idiot Packer fans? C'mon, Mike Singletary 11th!!!! I love Hampton and Dent, but no way in the world is Samurai Mike behind them on the all-time list. Should be tied with Butkus at number three. Hopefully, some true Chicago sports buffs are working on the Bulls' Top 25. I don't want to see Pippen ranked behind Horace Grant and John Paxson.

Mark, great job compiling this list, you and your staff did a great job. I was sad to see Brian Piccolo left off the list. Was he even considered? Many players might have had better numbers but I think he had the heart and determination that a true Bears player must possess.

 

Ever hear of BillOsmanski ?  NFL 1940s All-Decade Team. I939-47 Bears ; missed 44 & 45 seasons due to WW2 in USMC(Guam,Guadalcanal,Okinawa) . Magnificent fullback blasted through line for 68 yard TD run for Bears first TD  in 73-0 route of Washington in 1940 NFL Championship game (now known as "Super Bowl") . Played offense as well as defense.

How do Hampton, Dent, & Ditka rank above Singletary?

Do these guys/their PR hacks-- buy you lunch?

Dear Mr. Potash,  I found your ranking in today's paper often disappointing and, in a few cases, quite shocking in the misjudgment exhibited.  Ranking the beloved W. Payton, of recent memory, above B.Nagurski can't be justified.  Mike Royko and others asked  the opihios of old timers who saw both play.  They responded that while Payton was a little quicker with the ball, Nagurski was a lot harder to bring down.   All the guys of that age with whom I spoke agreed.   Consider that Nagurski played  offense masterfully, while not having come off the field after his role as an excellent defensive lineman;and that he often passed, kicked and played on special teams (as it is now called).  Ranking Red Grange as 40th is  bizarrely low.  Putting Kreutz in the top 50 is so strange, especially after not including , for example, Bill Osmanski. Please return to the drawing board.

R U off your rocker? You write bout top 50 Bears and U omit Bobby Douglass??  All the things he was asked to do and with aweful receivers?? BDouglass would be going to the Hall in today's game with guys who could CATCH.  You blew this article! Olin Kreutz will be forgotten in 15 months!! Bobby Douglass was a stud in a time "before his time"! Whatd U play?

The cynic in me wonders if Rod Marinelli is like the black guy who fronts ownership of a white business to allow it to get a minority contract. In other words, Marinelli makes it look like the Bears have a new defensive coordinator, but Lovie Smith still might be the guy calling the shots. I don't think Smith ever wanted to give up that job anyway. 

The Tribune's David Haugh outlined the incongruity of it all in this column in Saturday's paper: Marinelli's agent indicated last week at the Senior Bowl that Marinelli wasn't keen on becoming the defensive coordinator. It takes a coach away from a position where he has superior qualifications -- defensive line coach -- and puts him in a spot where he has zero experience. Marinelli was right for the job when Smith wanted him in 2004 when the Bears were in a "growth mode," but wrong for it now, when the Bears are in "survival mode." 

Of course, they were doomed to this kind of conclusion from the Bears announced that Smith would give up his coordinator duties but still run his defense. It's not like they were going to get Dom Capers, or anything close to the defensive equivalent of Mike Martz. I agree with David: if Lovie wanted a puppet to run his defense, secondary coach Jon Hoke would have been a better choice. Marinelli needs to spend as much time with his defensive linemen as he can. 

This is just a wild guess, but it appears Lovie Smith, knowing he has nothing to lose, has snookered his boss, general manager Jerry Angelo, on both coordinator hires. He convinced Angelo to agree on Martz by conducting a "search" for an offensive coordinator so unimpressive, Martz couldn't help but look like the Bears' only choice. Now with Marinelli, a first-year play-caller, it appears Smith will have nearly as much say in the defense as he had last year. 

The hiring of Shane Day as quarterbacks coach appears to be even more transparent. With Martz around, Jay Cutler doesn't need a quarterbacks coach. Day worked with Martz in San Francisco. Nothing against Day -- who could parlay this job into a nice NFL career if he plays his cards right and the Bears catch lightning in a bottle in 2010 -- but it's likely Martz hired him because he knows he'll stay out of the way. With headstrong people working in a dysfunctional operation at the most important position in the game, two is company, three is a crowd. 

The Bears did it backwards and still got it right.

Not only did they hire offensive coordinator Mike Martz after  hiring offensive line coach Mike Tice, but they got the best available coach at both positions. In fact, I would argue that Tice is the more important hire. If Martz doesn't have an offensive line to work with, he has no better chance of succeeding than Ron Turner did. 

And I like Tice's chances of upgrading the Bears' offensive line. When he coached the Vikings' offensive line from 1997-2001, Todd Steussie, Jeff Christy, Korey Stringer and Matt Birk became Pro Bowl players for the first time under Tice. When Tice became the Vikings' offensive line coach in 1997, the Vikings improved from 18th in yards per carry the previous year to third. And they were fourth, fifth, first and tied for seventh in the next four seasons. The Bears don't have the offensive talent Tice had with the Vikings, but unless it was just coincidence that they all improved when he took over, the guy makes an impact. 

I don't doubt for a minute he played a role in that. Mike Tice was a bad fit as a head coach in the NFL, but he's an ideal personality for an offensive line coach. For whatever reason, many of the good ones in the NFL have some kind of quirky personality. Tice is a big-and-bold, brash New Yorker who isn't afraid to speak his mind. And by most accounts, he's fun to play for -- yet another trait of his that works a lot better with an offensive line than a 53-man football team. 

If I were the Bears I wouldn't underestimate what he can do for them. It wouldn't surprise me if he rejuvenated former Pro Bowl center Olin Kreutz. In fact, crazy as it sounds, I'd keep Orlando Pace around for training camp just to see what Tice can do with him. Chris Williams showed tangible signs of progress for the first time with the Bears playing left tackle in the final month of the 2009 season. Frank Omiyale has a year of experience at guard -- though most of it wasn't good, at least he got it out of his system. Roberto Garza is one of those guys who blends in -- he won't make a bad line better, but he won't make a good line worse. 

It sounds like a lot of wishful thinking, and maybe it is. But I can't totally discount it. They all play a position where a coach can make a big difference.

A chart is worth 1,000 words

As for the signing of Martz, what's there not to like? He has a chance to be a huge hit, which would be great for the Bears. Or it could turn into a complete disaster, which would put the Bears at 6-10 or worse and usher in the Bill Cowher era. For once, we have nothing to lose.

And kudos to the Tribune for it's excellent graphic on the front page of Tuesday's paper illustrating the impact Martz has had in his career. It shows you exactly what you should expect from Martz with the Bears: Martz makes bad teams better, but he doesn't make them good. Quarterbacks are better with him than without him, but only Kurt Warner became a superstar. 

The Martz era will be a litmus test for Jay Cutler. He flopped under the placid Ron Turner. If he doesn't respond to the headstrong Martz, there might not be any hope the guy. So far, Cutler has done nothing to refute the notion that he's a supremely talented quarterback who doesn't have the intangibles to win. Not quite Jeff George, but close to him than Tom Brady. 

I don't know if the Bears got the right guy. But I'm convinced they don't know who the right guy is, so they might as well get someone with the best track record. Which hire has Lovie Smith made in his six years as the Bears head coach that's convinced you he has a keen sense of what his team needs in terms of a coordinator or position coach? The only former Lovie assistant with a shot at a head coaching job is the one he couldn't get rid of fast enough: Ron Rivera. 

There is an incongruity to the Martz hire that could be a harbinger of a bad fit: Martz runs an offense that does not call for the quarterback to roll out and move the pocket, yet it's pretty clear that that is Cutler's strong suit; and Martz's offenses have little or no need for a tight end in the passing game, yet the Bears' tight ends, particularly Greg Olsen and to a lesser extent Desmond Clark, are receivers first and blockers second. The Tribune called Clark "more of a blocking tight end," but they must have been watching a different game than I've been watching the past few years. 

Martz claimed he has ignored the tight end in the passing game because he always has "these big, physical tight ends who we tried to utilize int he running game and as pass blockers than as wide receivers." Or maybe he just didn't realize that Vernon Davis could do more than block. Davis, who had 31 catches for 358 yards (11.5 yards per catch) and two touchdowns for the 49ers in 2008 in Martz's offense, had 78 receptions for 965 yards (12.4 yards per catch) and 13 touchdowns in 2009. 

My guess is you'll see Olsen spending A LOT of time with Mike Tice in offseason workouts and training camp.

Julius Peppers says he'll play anywhere next season. Jerry Angelo should find out if he really means it. 

If the Bears' general manager isn't at least intrigued by the availability of a proven pass-rushing defensive end such as Peppers, you have to question whether there's something wrong with his radar. Peppers, who just turned 30 last month, is coming off his sixth double-digit sack season in eight years in the NFL.

Like a lot of speed rushers, he has a reputation for being hot-and-cold, taking plays off and playing only when the mood strikes him. On the other hand, a day after the Panthers were mathematically eliminated from the playoffs this season, Peppers destroyed the Vikings' Bryant McKinnie to lead Carolina to a 26-7 victory in December. 

A player like Peppers, who could cost $15 million to $18 million a season or more, could get a guy like Angelo fired. But what does he have to lose? Angelo's already on the hot seat after three consecutive non-playoff seasons. He might as well go out with his guns blazing. 

Peppers told reporters at the Pro Bowl last week that "anywhere is a potential landing spot. Honestly, I don't have a preference. I think anywhere is a good situation. I'm just trying to get on a team right now. I just want to get a contract." 

It doesn't appear it will be with the Panthers, who reportedly have not shown any interest in re-signing their star defensive end and are unlikely to pony up the $20 million Peppers would get if they placed a franchise tag on him. 

Don't expect the Bears to get into the bidding should Peppers become available.There are several factors to consider, though. It would be an interesting testIt's not an automatic for Angelo or any NFL general manager. An uncertain future for the NFL with a potential uncapped year and a work stoppage makes a Peppers signing even more problematic. It's not an automatic for Angelo or any NFL general manager.