Jared Allen is officially a Chicago Bear

[John_Viveiros]

I loved having Jared Allen on the Vikes, and I wish he could have shifted to part-timer and situational pass rusher as his abilities declined. But in today's NFL, that just doesn't happen. Someone is going to overpay by a factor of two or three. The Bears paid Jared for his productivity in the 2010-2011 years. IMHO, he will become a liability as a full time player within a season. I think there's a 50-50 shot that he'll be worth his salary this year, but it declines roughly by half for every continuing year.

I bet he ends up with more sacks than Griffen this upcoming season. But the question is whether the other team will average 5 yards a run against Allen and 3 yards per run against Griffen. And can Griffen (and Floyd too) learn the game a bit better from Zimmer.

[PurpleKoolaid]

Hmmm let's see. Why would Allen want to play for the Bears and not the Raiders Maybe because the Raiders are the worst team in the NFL? Or he said to himself wow I get to play against the Vikings twice a year. The team that paid him over 60 million dollars in his stay there. Do you think he hates the Vikings? Not according to what he has said in his press releases since leaving to go to the Bears.

Like the Bears are any better?

[PacificNorseWest]

I've said it every year since Cutler became a Bear, but Chicago is always dangerous. Strangely enough, last year it was their defense that was the glaring weakness of the team. I'd put that offense against anybody in the league. They're frickin' explosive.

If Allen can get 10+ sacks and force the opposing O-line to pay attention to him, then it'd be a huge boon for that D and should lift everyone in that secondary up one notch.

[720pete]

I'd imagine its the same with anyone choosing a new job. If I lived the last 8 years in MN and loved my coworkers but had to find a new job, I would probably look to move somewhere close by, and if I liked playing in the NFC North I would try and stay there. I can't fault him for that. My guess is Allen is friends with a lot of NFC North guys. You see how he and Rogers joke around all the time with the Vikes play the Pack.

[J. Kapp 11]

Correct... so let's see if they make the playoffs. It's not about if they were a contender, it's about if they are a contender and that remains to be seen, doesn't it? Jared Allen isn't playing for the Bears of the last 3 years. He's playing for the current Bears. He may very well believe they can be a contender.

Somehow I knew you'd weigh in on the Bears.

Sure, Allen may believe they are a contender.

But until a team proves it's a contender through its play, it's not. History, what you've actually accomplished in the recent past, HAS to play a significant role in it. New England is a contender ... they're in the hunt every year. Seattle is a contender. They just won it all. San Francisco is a contender.

But the Bears? There's just no way anybody in their right mind (other than a Bears fan, who is, by definition, not in his right mind) can call them a contender right now. Their recent past suggests they're a very mediocre team that isn't a contender until it proves itself one.

Allen had choices. Play for a god-awful team in Oakland, play part-time for a contender in Seattle, or play full-time for a mediocre team in Chicago. I'm not saying he made a bad choice. I'm just saying it wasn't about winning. Jared Allen must know, in the back of his mind, that he has very little chance of playing in a Super Bowl with Chicago.

[mondry]

Yeah, I'd give the Bears about the same shot I'd give the Vikings of making the playoffs next season. That's not to be negative towards either team. I think the Bears will continue to be their slightly above average selfs and get to that 9-7 mark and the Vikings improve to a similar mark. Whether that's good enough for either to get in the postseason remains to be seen of course.

[Mothman]

Somehow I knew you'd weigh in on the Bears.

LOL! You were one of the first people I thought of when I heard about the signing. I knew it wasn't going to sit well with you.

Sure, Allen may believe they are a contender.

But until a team proves it's a contender through its play, it's not. History, what you've actually accomplished in the recent past, HAS to play a significant role in it. New England is a contender ... they're in the hunt every year. Seattle is a contender. They just won it all. San Francisco is a contender.

But the Bears? There's just no way anybody in their right mind (other than a Bears fan, who is, by definition, not in his right mind) can call them a contender right now. Their recent past suggests they're a very mediocre team that isn't a contender until it proves itself one.

That's true but I think you also have to look at their recent past and try to assess where they're going. They changed GMs, hired a new head coach, made a significant effort to improve their offense last year and ended up fielding a top 10 unit. Age and injuries wreaked havoc on their defense but they're clearly devoted to making the kind of improvement on that side of the ball that they made on offense last season. It's fair to argue that they're not a contender based on the last few years but for a player that's signing with them now, the question is: are they building a contender? Seattle had 3 straight losing seasons before their roster really began coming together in 2012, when they went 11-5. One year later, they're Super Bowl champions. Their recent history prior to 2012 didn't suggest they would be contenders but once the pieces came together, they went from losers to big winners pretty fast. I'm not saying the same thing will happen for Chicago but I don't see why it can't. I'd rather see it happen for the Vikings though.

Allen had choices. Play for a god-awful team in Oakland, play part-time for a contender in Seattle, or play full-time for a mediocre team in Chicago. I'm not saying he made a bad choice. I'm just saying it wasn't about winning. Jared Allen must know, in the back of his mind, that he has very little chance of playing in a Super Bowl with Chicago.

I'm not going to try to guess what's going on in his mind or why he made the choice he did. Winning clearly wasn't his only criteria but that doesn't mean it's not important to him.

[VikeMike]

What do you guys hate the Bears so much for?

I hate the Packers, but the Bears and Lions I don't have any hatred for.

For me, it was a growing hatred. They didn't upset me much in the '70s, but they were awful. Then they just kicked the Vikings' butts often in the Ditka-McMahon years. In the '90s and beyond, they seem to have a good year when their schedule is soft. But what really gets me is something completely perceived and contrived by me: they seem to have INCREDIBLE luck when it comes to fumbles, the bounce of the ball and officiating in games, especially against the Vikings. And announcers call it "Bear football." Belch.

Is it a well thought-out thing for me? Nope. But irrational biases never are. I just hate them. And if they could suffer 20 consecutive seasons of cellar-dwelling, it would be fine by me.

[Mothman]

For me, it was a growing hatred. They didn't upset me much in the '70s, but they were awful. Then they just kicked the Vikings' butts often in the Ditka-McMahon years. In the '90s and beyond, they seem to have a good year when their schedule is soft. But what really gets me is something completely perceived and contrived by me: they seem to have INCREDIBLE luck when it comes to fumbles, the bounce of the ball and officiating in games, especially against the Vikings. And announcers call it "Bear football." Belch.

Is it a well thought-out thing for me? Nope. But irrational biases never are. I just hate them. And if they could suffer 20 consecutive seasons of cellar-dwelling, it would be fine by me.

Spoken like a true football fan, Mike.

I know what you mean about that irrational frustration/hatred. I don't feel it for the Bears but I sure felt it for the Cowboys back in the '70s. It seemed like every break would go their way. I hated those Dallas teams!

[mondry]

For me, it was a growing hatred. They didn't upset me much in the '70s, but they were awful. Then they just kicked the Vikings' butts often in the Ditka-McMahon years. In the '90s and beyond, they seem to have a good year when their schedule is soft. But what really gets me is something completely perceived and contrived by me: they seem to have INCREDIBLE luck when it comes to fumbles, the bounce of the ball and officiating in games, especially against the Vikings. And announcers call it "Bear football." Belch.

Is it a well thought-out thing for me? Nope. But irrational biases never are. I just hate them. And if they could suffer 20 consecutive seasons of cellar-dwelling, it would be fine by me.

haha, i do feel like the bears were insanely lucky some games. For me it was the urlacher era when it felt like him, briggs, tillman etc were always super lucky. Of course part of it is they made their own luck forcing so many fumbles and mistakes but man did it sure felt like they were always lucky to be in the right place at the right time for the ball to bounce right up off the turf into their arms.

[chicagopurple]

As a life long Chicagoan AND a life long Viking fan......let me just say

1. Its REALY hard to see JA come to Chicago.....but he is past his "sell by date" , so I can live with it....I watched the same thing with Allen Page.

2. I get to giggle every day when the talk radio hosts in Chicago radio go on and on about how the Bears may make a Super Bowl Run....they have NO secondary, a somewhat psycho/whiny QB who is paid FAR better then he deserves, an over-rated RB, a new and untested coaching staff, and a totally rebuilt front lines. BUT, they are a better team them my beloved Vikes who have NO QB, totally rebuilt lines, a less threatening receiver corps, a new and untested coaching staff, a VERY questionable secondary, OH and did I forget...NO QB.

yet, our division is a "weak sister" so anyone COULD make the playoffs.....just not likely that either team will go much further then a first round loss.

I really hope the Vike fans still give JA a good Cheer! when we see him. He gave us his all for MANY years, playing balls-out when he had a broken arm, etc. I havent had so much fun watching defense since Joey Browner was back there destroying people.......

[chicagopurple]

why hate the Bears? Because I have had to live my entire life watching a very historic original team run by a blue-nose family of silver spoons who have NO football knowledge (Dear old Mrs McCaskety,etal), an unbelievably long string of DECADES with crappy QBs (Cutler is the best they can do in 40 plus yrs..Sid Luckman was the last REAL QB in Chicago) and ticket prices that are the 2-3rd highest in the league for a sub-standard team and you cant even tail-gate any more because the owners are greedy Pricks!!!! Other then that I can kinda tolerate the Bears LOLOL

[Reignman]

All this "dynasty" talk about the Seahawks is cracking me up. It's ridiculously premature. Let's see if they can even make it to back-to-back conference championships before we start talking about a dynasty-like run of Super Bowls.

Yeah, but not quite as hilarious as those who ridiculously tried to convince the rest of us that Ponder wasn't a bust. Nobody said the Seahawks are a dynasty right now, but the potential is undeniable. They're young and solid at every position, and are led by a good coach. As long as they keep that team together they're going to be contenders for a long time. The Bears haven't done squat in recent memory and they just inked quitter Cutler to a long term deal.

But then again, what do I know about potential dynasty's, I was convinced the Bears won the 1st of what would be 5 consecutive Super Bowls back in '85

Yep, one good year and people act like they are the prototype for success. About the only thing new they have brought to the table is a defense that holds and contacts early on every play because they know the refs wont call it every time.

Right, they went 13-3 and dominated the Broncos in the bowl only because the refs allowed them to get away with defensive holding and pass interference all year. First time I'm hearing this conspiracy. Do tell me more.

I love how if you talk QB's now someone will inevitably bring up Russell Wilson. It's not like he lit up the world. He played well, he's apparently a good leader and good guy. That's great. But it's not like he was undrafted. Or a fringe 6th rounder. Or even a 4th round pick. People seem to think GM's are just so stupid for not being able to find "their Russell Wilson". Duh, just draft a dude in the 2nd, you stupid GM. Seahawks did it omg. Mark Sanchez had multiple good years when he entered the league and now look how much people get pissy at him. Russell could do the same thing if the team around him implodes like the Jets did.

Except Sanchise never had multiple good years. Arguably he never even had 1 good year. He sucked from day 1 and rode the Jets defense to multiple AFC championships.

Comparison of their first 2 years ...

Code: Select all

Mark Sanchez

YEAR GS  W-L  CMP  ATT   PCT   YDS   AVG  TD INT RATING
2009 15  8-7  196  364  53.8  2444  6.71  12  20   63.0
2010 16 11-5  278  507  54.8  3291  6.49  17  13   75.3
-------------------------------------------------------
TOT  31 19-12 474  871  54.4  5735  6.58  29  33   70.2

Russell Wilson

YEAR GS  W-L  CMP  ATT   PCT   YDS   AVG  TD INT RATING
2012 16 11-5  252  393  64.1  3118  7.93  26  10  100.0
2013 16 13-3  257  407  63.1  3357  8.25  26   9  101.2
-------------------------------------------------------
TOT  32 24-8  509  800  63.6  6475  8.09  52  19  100.6

One of those guys looks very Ponderesque and the other has been the model of consistency. Championship caliber consistency.

Do you think he hates the Vikings? Not according to what he has said in his press releases since leaving to go to the Bears.

Yeah because that's what all players do, they can't wait to tell the press how much they hated their former team.

[J. Kapp 11]

That's true but I think you also have to look at their recent past and try to assess where they're going. They changed GMs, hired a new head coach, made a significant effort to improve their offense last year and ended up fielding a top 10 unit. Age and injuries wreaked havoc on their defense but they're clearly devoted to making the kind of improvement on that side of the ball that they made on offense last season. It's fair to argue that they're not a contender based on the last few years but for a player that's signing with them now, the question is: are they building a contender? Seattle had 3 straight losing seasons before their roster really began coming together in 2012, when they went 11-5. One year later, they're Super Bowl champions. Their recent history prior to 2012 didn't suggest they would be contenders but once the pieces came together, they went from losers to big winners pretty fast. I'm not saying the same thing will happen for Chicago but I don't see why it can't. I'd rather see it happen for the Vikings though.

See, I don't get this line of thinking. You sound like a Bears fan.

What on earth prompts you to say the Bears can be compared to 2011 Seattle? The Seahawks were a very young, very talented team in 2011. The Bears are nowhere near that category in either age or talent. Their quarterback's actual play -- an 84 career QBR, with no single season as high as 90 -- has DEFINED mediocrity, yet somehow he's hyped as a "top quarterback" year after year. They do have a very talented young receiver in Alshon Jeffery, but Brandon Marshall is on the wrong side of 30, Matt Forte has six straight years of 300+ touches and is showing signs of slowing down, and their offensive line is in a constant state of flux. Couple this with an absolutely abysmal defense that gave up even more yards and points than the Vikings, and you have a team that is as likely to go south as north.

Again, the Bears have made fewer playoff appearances over the past seven years than any team in the NFC North except for Detroit. They boast a quarterback who, in 8 seasons, has led his team to the playoffs the same number of times as Christian Ponder, and has exactly one playoff win. This is not anything close to what Seattle was three years ago. This isn't even a good team, and Jared Allen does little to improve it, given that he has simply replaced Julius Peppers.

[Mothman]

See, I don't get this line of thinking. You sound like a Bears fan.

Why? I'm not making predictions. I'm just trying to be logical about this.

What on earth prompts you to say the Bears can be compared to 2011 Seattle?

I guess I wasn't clear. I wasn't saying the rosters are comparable. You wrote that the Bears recent past suggests they're a very mediocre team that isn't a contender until it proves itself one. I was simply pointing out that the exact same thing could have been said about Seattle going into 2012. Then they proved they were no longer mediocre and a year later, they won the Super Bowl. My point was simply that the results of recent seasons aren't necessarily indicative of what's to come. I wasn't comparing the two teams beyond that.

The Seahawks were a very young, very talented team in 2011. The Bears are nowhere near that category in either age or talent. Their quarterback's actual play -- an 84 career QBR, with no single season as high as 90 -- has DEFINED mediocrity, yet somehow he's hyped as a "top quarterback" year after year. They do have a very talented young receiver in Alshon Jeffery, but Brandon Marshall is on the wrong side of 30, Matt Forte has six straight years of 300+ touches and is showing signs of slowing down, and their offensive line is in a constant state of flux. Couple this with an absolutely abysmal defense that gave up even more yards and points than the Vikings, and you have a team that is as likely to go south as north.

That doesn't mean they won't go north. The Bears aren't the same team they were 3-4 years ago. They've made major changes on offense and that group of players you disparaged above were part of a team that scored more points than any other team in the conference last year and more than any team in the league other than Denver.

Their defense was abysmal last year but injuries played a huge role in that and they're clearly working hard to improve on that side of the ball. If they can pair an average-or-better defense with a high octane offense, there's no reason they can't be a serious contender in the NFC over the next season or two. That doesn't mean they will be but I see no reason to rule out the possibility so if Allen believes they can do it (and he said at a press conference today that he does and that it was a factor in his decision), I don't think it's fair to say his decision was all about the money and not about winning.

Again, the Bears have made fewer playoff appearances over the past seven years than any team in the NFC North except for Detroit. They boast a quarterback who, in 8 seasons, has led his team to the playoffs the same number of times as Christian Ponder, and has exactly one playoff win. This is not anything close to what Seattle was three years ago. This isn't even a good team, and Jared Allen does little to improve it, given that he has simply replaced Julius Peppers.

Well, I'm obviously not going to convince a professed Bear-hater otherwise but I see no logical reason why the Bears can't be a contender in the near future. I'm not predicting that they will be a contender, I just see no logical reason to rule it out. It doesn't matter how many playoff appearances they've had in the last 7 years. As I said before, it's not about where they've been but where they're going. The same is true for every other team in the league. The Bears were a .500 team last year under a new head coach. I really don't think it's that hard to imagine they could improve on that total by a few wins and become a threat to win in the postseason.