Week 15 - Da Bears Again

[Pokerbrat2000]

Ever listen to the song " The Bears Still Suck?" When I am on along drive and get bored I just pop it on from You Tube.

Here is the long version if you want it.

****WARNING EXPLICIT LANGUAGE***********************************

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

They never should have been passing in that situation in the first place. I couldn’t care less how good the protection had been earlier in the game, The Bears were making a push, and the Packers were in field goal range. I don’t know if the play call was determined by the sidelines... or by Rodgers... but a run up the middle burning a little clock and then a field goal attempt was the no brainer call.

I feel like if he was going to pass, he should have done a quick short one if he felt the receiver had leverage on the corner, otherwise just fire it where it was out of harm's way. Just no need to be looking for a longer developing downfield play.

 

[Mondio]

I feel like if he was going to pass, he should have done a quick short one if he felt the receiver had leverage on the corner, otherwise just fire it where it was out of harm's way. Just no need to be looking for a longer developing downfield play.

He wasn't, it was about a 4 yard pattern to Adams who was lined up to his right. He was jammed off the line and then a linebacker or safety that was up on the line "blitzing" backed off right to where Adams was coming open. It would have been batted away at the very least or an INT, he came off him and before he even looked downfield Jones was sitting in his lap

 

[swhitset]

He wasn't, it was about a 4 yard pattern to Adams who was lined up to his right. He was jammed off the line and then a linebacker or safety that was up on the line "blitzing" backed off right to where Adams was coming open. It would have been batted away at the very least or an INT, he came off him and before he even looked downfield Jones was sitting in his lap

Which is why they shouldn’t have been attempting a pass play in that game situation... We aren’t going to agree on this one.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It continues to amaze me in an offensive-based league where the Ryan Fitzpatrick's and Jameis Winston's of the world are torching defenses for 250 yards in a half how our offense manages to make almost everything look incredibly difficult.

Are you amazed by Winston and Fitzpatrick having combined to throw 36 interceptions this season as well???

My contention is that guys like BB don’t make that mistake. He would’ve never put himself in a position to give up a sack when facing a <=45 yard FG to win. He would’ve taken his 1-2 yard (QB sneak?) and set up for a game winning 43-44 yarder.

Belichick makes wrong decisions as well. You might want to watch the fourth quarter of the 2015 AFCCG against the Broncos for prove.

They never should have been passing in that situation in the first place. I couldn’t care less how good the protection had been earlier in the game, The Bears were making a push, and the Packers were in field goal range. I don’t know if the play call was determined by the sidelines... or by Rodgers... but a run up the middle burning a little clock and then a field goal attempt was the no brainer call.

I guess you loved them throwing the ball on 4th-and-4 early in the game from nearly the exact same spot because it worked and resulted in a TD to Adams though, didn't you???

I don't blame either MLF or Rodgers for trying to put the game out of reach at that point, the execution was terrible on the play though. If they blocked the same way on a potential Crosby field goal to increase the lead to 11 there's a decent chance that kick gets blocked.

 

[swhitset]

Are you amazed by Winston and Fitzpatrick having combined to throw 36 interceptions this season as well???
Belichick makes wrong decisions as well. You might want to watch the fourth quarter of the 2015 AFCCG against the Broncos for prove.



I guess you loved them throwing the ball on 4th-and-4 early in the game from nearly the exact same spot because it worked and resulted in a TD to Adams though, didn't you???

I don't blame either MLF or Rodgers for trying to put the game out of reach at that point, the execution was terrible on the play though. If they blocked the same way on a potential Crosby field goal to increase the lead to 11 there's a decent chance that kick gets blocked.

First of all stop making assumptions when you have no idea what you are talking about. However what I did or didn’t feel about that fourth and 4 play early in the game is completely irrelevant. The game situation wasn’t comparable so there is no reason to try and pretend they have anything to do with each other.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

First of all stop making assumptions when you have no idea what you are talking about. However what I did or didn’t feel about that fourth and 4 play early in the game is completely irrelevant. The game situation wasn’t comparable so there is no reason to try and pretend they have anything to do with each other.

It's pretty easy though, you liked the outcome of one of the plays but didn't with the other. Therefore you blast MLF and Rodgers for being aggressive on the second one.

 

[Mondio]

Which is why they shouldn’t have been attempting a pass play in that game situation... We aren’t going to agree on this one.

you don't have to agree, but I know a good portion of people would be just as mad had they ran it and lost yards and missed a FG. The most accurate predictor of the future is past behavior. I'm not saying you in particular, but fans, and lots of them, I know exactly how'd they act.

My point is, when you run a play and you get blown up that badly, it doesn't matter. Jones was absolutely destroyed, picked up and tossed like a rag doll and killed that play before it had a chance almost. There was zero option besides 1 read. Get blown up like that on the line with a run play, could be a fumble, could be a 5+ yard loss etc. whatever the play, you have to execute it so much better to even have a chance. They didn't.

 

[adambr2]

How many run plays that aren't outside runs go for -11 yards? Even if it's -3 or -4 you can still attempt the FG. Just run a simple dive. Or if you're that worried about it, go shotgun with a quick slant or out route and throw it at his feet or out of bounds over his head if the pass is not there.

It is not that difficult to design a play that has a 0 yard gain as the worst case scenario and you'll never convince me that wasn't a terrible call when it took away a 44 yard FG attempt.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It is not that difficult to design a play that has a 0 yard gain as the worst case scenario and you'll never convince me that wasn't a terrible call when it took away a 44 yard FG attempt.

Aside of maybe a kneel down there's not a single play design that has a worst case scenario of not losing any yards on it. Once again, if the field goal unit would have failed to protect Crosby the way the offensive line did with Rodgers the kick would have most likely been blocked.

 

[Mondio]

How many run plays that aren't outside runs go for -11 yards? Even if it's -3 or -4 you can still attempt the FG. Just run a simple dive. Or if you're that worried about it, go shotgun with a quick slant or out route and throw it at his feet or out of bounds over his head if the pass is not there.

It is not that difficult to design a play that has a 0 yard gain as the worst case scenario and you'll never convince me that wasn't a terrible call when it took away a 44 yard FG attempt.

doesn't have to lose 11, lose 4 or 5 and that kick in that weather becomes a lot more unlikely. and like capt. said, block it up like they blocked that 3rd down play and it doesn't matter.

 

[adambr2]

Aside of maybe a kneel down there's not a single play design that has a worst case scenario of not losing any yards on it. Once again, if the field goal unit would have failed to protect Crosby the way the offensive line did with Rodgers the kick would have most likely been blocked.

And if that would have happened I would have gladly chalked it up to bad execution. He should at least have been put in position to give us the chance to seal it, that's all I'm saying.

There are plenty of plays that have an extremely high percentage of either a short gain or no gain. Yes, nothing is 100% because things can happen but with a 44 yard FG attempt available in an 8 point late game there absolutely should not be a play called where an 11 yard sack is even a possibility.

 

[adambr2]

doesn't have to lose 11, lose 4 or 5 and that kick in that weather becomes a lot more unlikely. and like capt. said, block it up like they blocked that 3rd down play and it doesn't matter.

A sack and a blocked FG are nowhere near the same thing. I don't know why we are operating under the assumption that we would have had our kick blocked anyway just because we took an 11 yard sack on 3rd down. It's not even the same units on the field nor same blocking schemes.

 

[Mondio]

A sack and a blocked FG are nowhere near the same thing. I don't know why we are operating under the assumption that we would have had our kick blocked anyway just because we took an 11 yard sack on 3rd down. It's not even the same units on the field.

the assumption is, you can't execute any play, punt, FG, pass, run, QB sneak, with that level of execution and expect anything positive. Nothing. You can not get absolutely demolished and tossed like a rag doll into your QB's face 1.5 seconds into a play. That is easily a botched exchange, a fumble, a sack, and TFL a blocked punt a blocked FG.

 

[adambr2]

the assumption is, you can't execute any play, punt, FG, pass, run, QB sneak, with that level of execution and expect anything positive. Nothing. You can not get absolutely demolished and tossed like a rag doll into your QB's face 1.5 seconds into a play. That is easily a botched exchange, a fumble, a sack, and TFL a blocked punt a blocked FG.

Yes, absolutely. And if that happens the blame certainly falls on the execution of the play. The 3rd down play call should have put us in a better percentage position to at least have that opportunity, that's all I am saying. I guess we are just not going to agree on this.

 

[Mondio]

I wouldn't have cared if they ran it, but I certainly don't mind the aggressiveness either. It wasn't a terrible call, if Davante isn't there, which it wasn't, there was one coming open for a huge game sealing strike, which I'd like to see our QB have at least a snowball's chance in hell to make here before we hit the post season, but they couldn't give him that chance up front.

as long as they learn from it, plays like this in a win now are better than experiencing them while going for broke in a playoff game.

anyway, after that game Sunday, you can bet when they see Jones on the field in pass pro, they're going to send someone right at him and probably a linebacker. if a safety can do that to him, I cringe when I think of what Barr or Kendricks would do.

 

[adambr2]

I like being aggressive when the situation is appropriate for it. To me at least, that wasn't the right situation for it.

An example of when I would be aggressive, late 3 point lead, 4th and 1 inside the 5, a lot of teams like to take the 3 points there, I'd much rather have my coach try to win the game there with a TD and not give the ball back to the other team on a kickoff with a TD winning the game.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

And if that would have happened I would have gladly chalked it up to bad execution. He should at least have been put in position to give us the chance to seal it, that's all I'm saying.

If the play would have been perfectly executed the Packers converting the third down would have significantly increased the chances of winning the game.

There are plenty of plays that have an extremely high percentage of either a short gain or no gain. Yes, nothing is 100% because things can happen but with a 44 yard FG attempt available in an 8 point late game there absolutely should not be a play called where an 11 yard sack is even a possibility.

Once again, a kneel down is the only play guaranteeing not to lose 11 yards. Running the ball could result in ending up out of field goal range as well.

A sack and a blocked FG are nowhere near the same thing. I don't know why we are operating under the assumption that we would have had our kick blocked anyway just because we took an 11 yard sack on 3rd down. It's not even the same units on the field nor same blocking schemes.

The point being that the field goal unit has to execute the play as well for Crosby to make the kick.

Yes, absolutely. And if that happens the blame certainly falls on the execution of the play. The 3rd down play call should have put us in a better percentage position to at least have that opportunity, that's all I am saying. I guess we are just not going to agree on this.

Rodgers has been sacked on only 6.3% of his dropbacks, I understand MLF not expecting him to be tackled for a loss of 11 yards on that play.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

anyway, after that game Sunday, you can bet when they see Jones on the field in pass pro, they're going to send someone right at him and probably a linebacker. if a safety can do that to him, I cringe when I think of what Barr or Kendricks would do.

Maybe someone posted this earlier and correct me if I am wrong, but Jones got blown up twice on Sunday trying to pass block.

All I really have to add to this discussion is the fact that MLF has for whatever reason decided to keep Rodgers and the offense running at a snails pace. Now I understand that early in the season, when the offense was just meshing or when you are trying to milk the clock at the end of the game, but its time to change things up. This slow paced, snap the ball when the play clock hits zero is predictable and inconsistent. Rodgers might be able to look over a defense longer at the LOS, but the same goes for the defense looking over the Packers offense, as well as defensive rushers knowing that odds are high, the ball is getting snapped very close to 0 seconds left on the play clock. Time to pick up the pace, not let defenses substitute, put them on their heels. Seemed to be working well for TurdBisquit and the Bears, as well as worked very well for Rodgers and the Packer offense in the past.

 

[Mondio]

The Bears were sitting at the line 17 and 18 seconds left on the clock. I rarely see the Packers out of a Huddle with 12, often 10. It's not just Rodgers, there is probably hesitation from a 1st year coach, there is confusion with young receivers and personnel packages, etc. It's at least 1-2 seasons for an offense to run smoothly in almost all cases in the NFL. It's been that way forever. while I'd like them to go faster, my guess is there are some pretty good reasons why they are not.

and Jones did get blown up twice, very, very badly. teams are going to attack that big time from here on out. and people will wonder why Jones is taken off the field sometimes. you just saw the answer.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The Bears were sitting at the line 17 and 18 seconds left on the clock. I rarely see the Packers out of a Huddle with 12, often 10. It's not just Rodgers, there is probably hesitation from a 1st year coach, there is confusion with young receivers and personnel packages, etc. It's at least 1-2 seasons for an offense to run smoothly in almost all cases in the NFL. It's been that way forever. while I'd like them to go faster, my guess is there are some pretty good reasons why they are not.

So if we are ever faced with having to run a 2 minute offense, we are screwed?

I understand what you are saying, but I think its just more the way MLF likes to roll. I also wouldn't be surprised if this slowed down strategy irritates Rodgers a bit.

Breaking your huddle with 15 or less seconds on the play clock just makes no sense to me. As you stated, Turd Biscuit often was standing there, still listening to his coaches in his ear (until 15 seconds) and gave himself the option to take the snap quickly or just wait it out as he studied the Packers defense with his coaches.

Without stirring up to much conversation of any kind of power struggle between MLF and Rodgers, I do get the sense that while MLF likes #12's input, this is MLF's offense and he is making sure he has what he feels is the perfect personnel package on the field for every play. Whether that is good or bad in the long run, I guess we will see, but from my perspective, changing it up on occasion could be worth a try.

 

[gopkrs]

Thinking that on 3rd and 4 that we have to worry about losing yardage is pretty ridiculous. We are in really bad shape if that is the way we think.

 

[gopkrs]

We should have been going for a 1st down when we were around our own 35 or 40 late in the game and we ran the ball 3 times in a row and everyone in the stadium figured that was what would happen. I mean, we are going to have to stop them anyway; so go for the 1st down. Pass on 2nd down.

 

[gopkrs]

I don't agree with blaming Jones so heavily on the block. The linebacker had a full head of steam! Jones does not match up with him physically but he gave it his all. And the linebacker only got to Rodgers on a pretty lucky grab. I think they should have had Williams or the fullback in on that play. Either one of them could still run the ball.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I don't agree with blaming Jones so heavily on the block. The linebacker had a full head of steam! Jones does not match up with him physically but he gave it his all. And the linebacker only got to Rodgers on a pretty lucky grab. I think they should have had Williams or the fullback in on that play. Either one of them could still run the ball.

I can overlook that one a bit, but he also got completely leveled by one of the Bears DB's, that shouldn't happen. As Mondio said, it gives the Vikings and other teams we face, lots to think about when Jones appears to be Rodgers pass blocker.