Chicago Herald-American

The Bears' Flim-Flam Man

For a moment, I regretted giving the Bears' running backs a "C" in my report card in Monday's Sun-Times. Upon further review, my rationale seemed unduly harsh, especially considering the Bears' offense didn't suffer because of a subpar running game:  "Matt Forte's rushing yards (36 on 15 carries) declined for the fourth straight week -- against a team allowing an NFL worst 5.6 yards per rush."

But just as I was about to atone for that sin, I read this story by Brad Biggs in Tuesday's paper that basically said the Bears succeeded through the air because the Lions took away the run and thought, "What a crock of shit." Lovie Smith is selling the idea that when you defend the Bears' offense, you "pick your poison." And we bought it . "You can't win games by only running the football," Smith said. "You have to have balance with the pass and we've had that."

Pardon my cynicism, but it's more likely the Bears' passing attack against the Lions obscured a running game that has been in regression since the first week of the season. The Lions took away the run? They're not good enough to do it. The Lions could put 12 men in the box and not stop a good running game.

Apparently, the Bears were the first opponent the Lions felt they had to "stack the box" against and let the quarterback beat them. They forced Kyle Orton beat them, but not the Falcons' Matt Ryan (a rookie in his first NFL start)? Or the Packers' Aaron Rodgers (in his second NFL start)? Or the great J.T. O'Sullivan of the 49ers (in his third NFL start)? The point is, the Lions geared up to stop the run in those games and still allowed 318 rushing yards against the Falcons, 123 against the Packers and 182 against the 49ers.

Lions rushing defense

Opponent        Att-Yds.   Avg.   Lg    TD

• Falcons        42-318      7.6    66     3
• Packers        30-123     4.1     19     1
• 49ers            39-182     4.7     33     2
• Bears            34-97       2.9    16      1

Forte is just as good as he was in the opener. But the Bears' offensive line has regressed. With less room to run, Forte's yardage and yards per carry have decreased in each game.

Matt Forte rushing yards

 Opponent     Att.-Yds.   Avg.  Lg    TD

• Colts           23-123   5.3     50      1
• Panthers     23-92     4.0     18      0
• Bucs            27-89     3.3     11      0
• Eagles         19-43     2.3     12      0
• Lions           15-36     2.4      10     1

A team that purports to "come off the bus running" as the Bears do should be able to impose its will against opponents as poor as the Lions. But the Bears' can't do that, even though they have the running back to do it.  Why not? Because they don't have the offensive line to do it. And they have poor run-blocking tight ends. Want an insight into the Bears' running game? Watch how many yards the Bears gain when they keep two tight ends in to block and when they release both of them into pass patterns. The disparity is very telling.

The only question is whether the Bears are fooling just us, or themselves, too. Stay tuned.

Damning Brian Urlacher With Faint Praise

The Tribune's David Haugh led the cause for Brian Urlacher when the Bears' petulant linebacker whined about outplaying the contract he signed in 2003 and all but demanded a new deal. Urlacher got his deal that kept him among the highest-paid defensive players in the NFL. So it was interesting to read in this story David backing up his point that the Bears' defense has regained its bite with bouquets to the defensive stars: "Brian Urlacher isn't showing his age," he wrote. Huh? The guy just leveraged a contract extension to keep him among the highest-paid linebackers in football and that's the best you can say about him? How about, "Brian Urlacher is playing at a Pro Bowl level?"

Of course, he can't write that, because it's not true. To David Haugh's credit, "Urlacher isn't showing his age" is about the best thing you can about the "face of the Bears' defense." And that in itself is a story. But I doubt you'll be reading it in the "mainstream media" anytime soon.