PDA

View Full Version : Chicago Bears Discussion


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15]

toonsterwu
10-07-2007, 10:28 PM
I absolutely agree with Madden ... why is Benson ducking out of bound at times? Lower your head ... you are supposed to be the truck ...

619
10-07-2007, 10:33 PM
I absolutely agree with Madden ... why is Benson ducking out of bound at times? Lower your head ... you are supposed to be the truck ...

sad he didnt play like that in college

Geo
10-07-2007, 10:41 PM
Benson carrying the rock 27 or so times and passing the ball to the tight ends a great deal.

Hallelujah, Ron Turner just may have gotten it.

bearsfan_51
10-07-2007, 10:45 PM
Woot woot mutha fuckas!!!

Geo
10-07-2007, 10:47 PM
Toonster picked the Packers to win, so of course this had to happen.

Twiddler
10-07-2007, 10:48 PM
Congrats Chicago. You really took it to us and took advantage of our sickly played game full of turnovers, penalties, and terrible play calls. Not makinng excuses, just facts, we sucked. In the worst ways too. I still can't believe we let this slip away but you guys deserved it. Real good game by Griese and you guys should be worshipping Tillman for a week or so. He really is a huge reason why you guys won. Wow, just wow.

awfullyquiet
10-07-2007, 10:49 PM
Wow.
Just Wow.
Lining up olsen along the outside was the winner on the offense.
and
Tillman, wow.

I'm out of words...

Bearsfan123
10-07-2007, 10:49 PM
Good job Tillman. Griese must have heard me during halftime and decided to play like a veteran should (besides the turnover). Benson still looks like he needs to be replaced.

EDIT: Almost forgot, HELL YEAH WE WON!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOO!

dabears10
10-07-2007, 11:10 PM
Good job Tillman. Griese must have heard me during halftime and decided to play like a veteran should (besides the turnover). Benson still looks like he needs to be replaced.

EDIT: Almost forgot, HELL YEAH WE WON!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOO!

I actually liked the way Benson was running most of the game. He was running hard between the tackles and taking what he could get. It still seems like our O-line is the biggest problem in the run game not our RB's.

Smokey Joe
10-07-2007, 11:10 PM
Am I the only one that sees that it isn't completely Benson's fault and that their are usually pretty much no holes every time he gets the ball? I mean on some of the plays he could have probably cut back or something for a positive gain of maybe 4 yards, but there was really no holes the whole game.

EDIT: dabears10 is seeing what I see!

Twiddler
10-07-2007, 11:16 PM
Am I the only one that sees that it isn't completely Benson's fault and that their are usually pretty much no holes every time he gets the ball? I mean on some of the plays he could have probably cut back or something for a positive gain of maybe 4 yards, but there was really no holes the whole game.

EDIT: dabears10 is seeing what I see!

Whether or not my opinion matters as a Packers fan I'm not sure but I also agree to some degree. The run blocking was terrible at times for you guys and there were very few times where there was a hole that he could run through. The line of scrimmage was consistently swarmed. But I also don't think Benson played that greatly either, its just he's not alone.

Smokey Joe
10-07-2007, 11:21 PM
To me, and I think Madden said something like this, but Benson just seems flustered and out of his game. He isn't used to of getting no holes and he seems like he is sometimes trying to do too much, or too little.

Smokey Joe
10-07-2007, 11:36 PM
today brought back some playoff hopes. Hopefully the offense will find more and more rhythm with each passing week and the defense will hopefully get healthy.

My only real concern right now is the o-line. Man have they sucked.

dabears10
10-07-2007, 11:37 PM
To me, and I think Madden said something like this, but Benson just seems flustered and out of his game. He isn't used to of getting no holes and he seems like he is sometimes trying to do too much, or too little.

I think the biggest problem is a disconnect with his offensive line. I'm not saying that the O-line is not trying because they don't like the guy, but chemistry is important and there seems to be none with Benson. He should buy them all rolex's as a preemptive present for his 1,000 yard season, and show some humility.

bearsfan_51
10-07-2007, 11:41 PM
At least the pass blocking was much better. St.Clair had a hard time with KGB but he never got a sack, and St.Clair is out backup anyway.

The Packers were supposed to have a tremendous pass rush and they only got a -2 yard sack the whole game. I thought that helped Griese find his tightends and search the field.

Geo
10-07-2007, 11:50 PM
No matter what, Benson has to pound the ball at least 20 times imo. For me, there's no excuse otherwise, especially when the quarterbacks on the roster are Griese, Grossman, and Orton, unless he's injured.

His ypc average will improve as the offensive line gets closer to having its act together and the weather gets colder.

sweetness34
10-08-2007, 12:12 AM
Wow, I'll admit that we were not the better team tonight on paper and benefited from 4 GB turnovers, but I'll take the win. Especially at Lambeau against the cheeseheads.

The team that commits the least amount of mistakes almost always wins, and that was the case tonight. We executed down the stretch, Green Bay didn't. Almost a tale of two halves. We got dominated in Round 1, but we pushed back in Round 2 and pulled it out.

I thought Griese did very well. Had one bad pass that was picked but didn't try to force much and managed the game. Then had two huge plays that got us 14 points. This while he had no running game and was pressured all night long.

Oh and Greg Olsen has arrived. Dude is a beast!

bearsfan_51
10-08-2007, 12:14 AM
A couple of things.

I thought the pressure on Griese was pretty minimal, but part of that was Griese's ability to get rid of the ball and read his checkdown, reason numero uno why he is a better QB than Grossman.

The Packers turned the ball over 5 times, not 4.

We get to play the Vikings next week at home. Here's hoping them getting the bye week doesn't rest them up too much. This is a game we should win.

DHVF
10-08-2007, 12:28 AM
God, I gotta say that I was extremely relieved to see the Bears pull that one out. Hopefully it puts a damper on all the Packers' fans frolicking around proclaiming they have one of the top teams in the league.

SFbear
10-08-2007, 01:10 AM
http://www.fireronturner.org/


Not as well constructed as http://www.firejerryangelo.com but charming nonetheless.

bigbluedefense
10-08-2007, 11:31 AM
Its not all Benson's fault. Combine a poor run blocking unit with a RB with poor vision, and these things happen.

Ive always felt that when you have a RB with poor vision, the best thing you can do for him is give him a FB. I think Benson would benefit from more Iform and less 2 TE sets.

This was a big win for you guys, but I don't know if its enough. The defense needs some work. No disrespect, but part of me feels that the Packers gave that one away.

I think Lovie needs to get some heat as well. I didn't like his defensive gameplan at all. They were killing you guys with the quick slants, and he did nothing to adjust. He's lucky Tillman and Special Teams saved the day.

And its about time Olsen seen the field more. Lining him up wide needs to be done more often.

SFbear
10-08-2007, 11:43 AM
Its not all Benson's fault. Combine a poor run blocking unit with a RB with poor vision, and these things happen.

Ive always felt that when you have a RB with poor vision, the best thing you can do for him is give him a FB. I think Benson would benefit from more Iform and less 2 TE sets.

This was a big win for you guys, but I don't know if its enough. The defense needs some work. No disrespect, but part of me feels that the Packers gave that one away.

I think Lovie needs to get some heat as well. I didn't like his defensive gameplan at all. They were killing you guys with the quick slants, and he did nothing to adjust. He's lucky Tillman and Special Teams saved the day.

And its about time Olsen seen the field more. Lining him up wide needs to be done more often.


We actually adjusted to the quick slants in the second half and succeeded. I think we were afraid to play our corners close to the line because with our recent safety play and D.Manning at corner, we were weak to the deep routes. In fact its exactly what happened when D. Manning got burned for a TD in the second half when we had the corners at the line. We took out the slants but got bit by that big play, and we now know that D.Manning is terrible at corner. Not that great at safety either.

bearsfan_51
10-08-2007, 11:48 AM
Yeah no kidding...did nothing to adjust? The Packers didn't get a 1st down in the 2nd half until the last drive when we went into prevent. I'd say the 2nd half adjustments were pretty solid.

Moses
10-08-2007, 11:51 AM
Yeah no kidding...did nothing to adjust? The Packers didn't get a 1st down in the 2nd half until the last drive when we went into prevent. I'd say the 2nd half adjustments were pretty solid.

They made good adjustments. Switched to a 2 deep set on every play. Packers decided to pound the ball then thinking that they could with no safety help in the box. This failed (mostly due to Briggs, this guy is a beast) and the Packers failed to adjust. Should have ran short and intermediate routes (like they've been doing all year) and ate up chunks of yardage as the Bears sat back in coverage. McCarthy was outcoached the second half.

Race for the Heisman
10-08-2007, 12:03 PM
I think we were lucky. The Packers had everything going their way in the first half, except scoring offense (thanks Peanut!), and then they curled up into a ball and rolled over.

I agree with a lot that has been said about Benson and the o-line, but maybe someone can help me out with figuring out the play-calling. Aside from the one drive (I think the one that Benson scored on and Griese checked down to Peterson for a big gain) the general pattern was:

First Down: Pass

I mean wtf!? This is the Bears.

Second Down: Run/Pass

Third Down: Run

It's like we play backwards, passing on first, whatever on second, and running on third and long (since we don't complete our second down passes and Benson averages something like 2.1 ypc). We won, which takes a little away from my point, but minus Tillman manned up on a rookie, and we would have lost this game, and I would blame it on the play-calling. The defense created five turnovers and we still only won by a touchdown. How does that not come down to, at least in part, the play-calling? The o-line and Benson share some of the blame as well, but a creative play-caller would get more out of the unit.

Geo
10-08-2007, 12:07 PM
I don't think the Bears lucked out, it's not like the Packers bobbled a single snap or something similar.

The Bears were down 20-10 on the road, and they came back to tie it. The game was tied 20-20, and the Bears were the team who executed the winning score with less than two minutes remaining. And they held on to their win.

Division games are tough games because of the familiarity between opponents, but the Bears did a great job to get the win yesterday. A win they badly needed.

Moses
10-08-2007, 12:09 PM
I don't think the Bears lucked out, it's not like the Packers bobbled a single snap or something similar.

The Bears were down 20-10 on the road, and they came back to tie it. The game was tied 20-20, and the Bears were the team who executed the winning score with less than two minutes remaining. And they held on to their win.

Division games are tough games because of the familiarity between opponents, but the Bears did a great job to get the win yesterday. A win they badly needed.

Not taking away anything from the Bears because they did execute when it counted and their defence played very well in the second half, but they would not have been in the game had a rookie WR not fumbled twice in a row when the Packers were rolling over the Bears. You can't expect that to happen week in and week out. Packers amassed over 300 yards of offence in the first half to the Bears 120 or so and only had a 10 point advantage (after receiving the kick too!).

Geo
10-08-2007, 12:12 PM
No, I agree. The Packers had their chances early to bury a wounded Bears team, but the two James Jones' fumbles eliminated that. But credit the Bears for creating the fumbles that kept them in the game early, I don't know if Jones had fumbled the ball yet before the SNF game.

bigbluedefense
10-08-2007, 12:40 PM
I think DeShawn Wynn's injury effected the 2nd half more than anything else. After he went down, they didn't have that between the tackles runner who could take you out of the Cover 2 shell.

Also their playcalling was horrible. They were running with great success but abandoned it way too early. Not to mention Jones losing confidence and Jennings getting hurt definately helped matters for Chicago.

Maybe its just my bias talking. I didn't like the fact that he barely blitzed when the front 4 wasnt getting pressured. Yeah he pressed his corners, but thats not exactly a major adjustment. Those WRs are big and physical enough to get off the press in quick slant routes anyway. Especially with Chicago's undersized CBs.

Regardless, Chicago did last night what it needed to do all season to get some wins. They created turnovers. This team lives and dies with their turnover differential, and last night they won that battle. If Griese can limit mistakes and the defense can get back on track with its INTs and fumble recoveries, theres hope to perhaps make a comeback. Its a LONG season, Chicago isn't out of it yet.

bearsfan_51
10-08-2007, 12:43 PM
Deshawn Wynn came back in the 2nd half and didn't do anything.

You can look at it like the Packers gave us the game, I'm more of the opinion that we actually started to play like we're capable in the 2nd half.

The Packers never should have ran the ball on us like they did in the 1st half. They never should have picked us apart on the slants like they did in the 1st half.

Our defense actually started to play like they were supposed to in the 2nd half and they dominated the game. That's how we should have been playing all year. Good defense, no turnovers.

bearsfan_51
10-08-2007, 12:46 PM
Maybe its just my bias talking. I didn't like the fact that he barely blitzed when the front 4 wasnt getting pressured. Yeah he pressed his corners, but thats not exactly a major adjustment. Those WRs are big and physical enough to get off the press in quick slant routes anyway. Especially with Chicago's undersized CBs.

We got pressure. The pick to Urlacher was a direct result of Favre getting chased down by Tommie. Favre is just exceptional at avoiding sacks.

As for the injuries...gimme a break. The Packers lost Jennings, we lost Berrian. We were also missing out starting left tackle and 4 defensive starters.

I don't even want to hear about injuries. That's a joke.

bigbluedefense
10-08-2007, 12:47 PM
fair enough.

Whats your assessment on Urlacher that game? Was it more Darwin Walker's fault? I saw the RG or Center get upfield and get his hands on Urlacher alot in the first half.

I know Madden was critical, but I don't know how much of it I put on Urlacher opposed to the dline. Whats your take on that?

bearsfan_51
10-08-2007, 12:51 PM
fair enough.

Whats your assessment on Urlacher that game? Was it more Darwin Walker's fault? I saw the RG or Center get upfield and get his hands on Urlacher alot in the first half.

I know Madden was critical, but I don't know how much of it I put on Urlacher opposed to the dline. Whats your take on that?

It was hard to get a read on how Urlacher played honestly. I think it says something in terms of how we were scheming him that Briggs had 16 tackles and Urlacher had 6. It seemed like we drifting Urlacher back a lot more than we usually do, likely due to the fact that we have a makeshift secondary.

That's probably another reason why we rarely blitzed from the linebacker position. Urlacher is best when he's around the ball, the scheme, however, often forces him to cover large gaps over the middle.

As for when they were driving down our throats, it seemed like the defense was more on its heels. I think in part because we weren't expecting them to run (or be able to run) but also because our defense plays like a group of pussies on occasion.

Smokey Joe
10-08-2007, 01:34 PM
I think the main reason for the "conservative" play calling in the 2nd half for the packers was because they were usually backed up inside their 20 most of the time.

Hopefully Vasher will be back next week, that will help a ton. And if Briggs keeps up this play, I really think JA has to consider giving Briggs the money he wants.

regoob2
10-08-2007, 05:57 PM
Oh and Greg Olsen has arrived. Dude is a beast!



I thought he didn't fit the system???? Bandwagon starts behind me.

DaBears9654
10-08-2007, 06:32 PM
I think the main reason for the "conservative" play calling in the 2nd half for the packers was because they were usually backed up inside their 20 most of the time.
IMO, being backed up so far is a reason to be agressive. Say you're on your own 3-yard line. Handing it off would be risking the RB being tackled in the end zone for a safety. A shot downfield, however, would lower that risk. I'm not saying it would eliminate it (how ignorant -- check that -- moronic would that be?) but the risk would go down, esp. for a team whose QB has a nice, quick release.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not saying any of the things in this scenario apply to the Bears.

Smokey Joe
10-08-2007, 06:37 PM
IMO, being backed up so far is a reason to be agressive. Say you're on your own 3-yard line. Handing it off would be risking the RB being tackled in the end zone for a safety. A shot downfield, however, would lower that risk. I'm not saying it would eliminate it (how ignorant -- check that -- moronic would that be?) but the risk would go down, esp. for a team whose QB has a nice, quick release.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not saying any of the things in this scenario apply to the Bears.
well, the Packers did have the lead and trying to force something (which they eventually did) would give the Bears ball within striking distance.

Smokey Joe
10-08-2007, 11:24 PM
The following games we should win:

Vikings
Lions
@Raiders
@Vikings
Saints

the following games all depend on how we are health wise and how the offense has progressed:

@Eagles
@Seahawks
Broncos
Giants
@Redskins
Packers

Now, if we win the 5 we are suppossed to win, we will likely only have to win 2 of the other 6 games to make the playoffs. I think we can handle both the Broncos and Giants at home. Same with the Packers. So, with any luck, we will finish off the season 9-7/10-6 and make the playoffs.

bearsfan_51
10-09-2007, 11:52 AM
I'm not sure @ Vikings is much of a lock, they're always incredibly tough in the Metrodome, particularly since it'll be on MNF.

I would consider the home game against the Broncos to be more of a 'lock' per se, as their defense has been absolutely terrible.

Anyway...if you pressed me now I'd probably say that if we can get healthy 9-10 wins isn't out of the question, but a lot still needs to happen between now and then, namely the running game needs to kick it up a notch.

bigbluedefense
10-09-2007, 12:04 PM
It'll be a grind out game. The Minny run game is gonna be hard to stop. Im a huge Peterson fan, I think he can be the best RB in the league within 2 years or so.

But their passing attack is anemic. As long as you guys don't turn the ball over and stop the run, you should win a close game. But it won't be a cakewalk.

I like Olsen in this game. He's gonna have to gash that Cover 2 shell. He's the only passing threat I see capable of doing that.

And please, for the sake of my fantasy team, Benson please score some touchdowns.

Geo
10-09-2007, 12:06 PM
I doubt he will this week, against the Vikes run defense.

bigbluedefense
10-09-2007, 12:08 PM
I doubt he will this week, against the Vikes run defense.

I know :(

If anything, Peterson (the Bear's Peterson) would be more effective against Minny bouncing it outside.

bearsfan_51
10-09-2007, 01:09 PM
I think we'll still run the ball 25-30 times. We've shown in the past that we'll continue to run against the Vikings, if for no other reason than to keep the play-action honest.

Plus, I just don't see the Vikings getting a substantial lead that will keep us from doing what we want to do.

I agree it will be close, probably within a touchdown either way, but as long as we can stay within our gameplan I think we can do enough to not lose and go back to .500

sweetness34
10-09-2007, 02:13 PM
Our running game started out slow last year as well, although we got it going in Week 4 against Seattle. The OL needs to step up and so do the RB's.

Geo
10-09-2007, 06:00 PM
I've probably said this before, but for me, there's no excuse for Benson not to carry the ball at least 20 times a game unless he's injured. That is what the Bears drafted him for and are paying him millions for, and that is his game. He's a pounder, and as the offensive line continues to get its act together, and the weather gets colder, his yards per carry average will improve.

bearfan
10-09-2007, 09:06 PM
I've probably said this before, but for me, there's no excuse for Benson not to carry the ball at least 20 times a game unless he's injured. That is what the Bears drafted him for and are paying him millions for, and that is his game. He's a pounder, and as the offensive line continues to get its act together, and the weather gets colder, his yards per carry average will improve.

No kidding. I mean I read that he is averaging 4.4ypc after 15 carries in a game. We drafted him to be a bruiser, and to wear down defenses, but they arent utilizing him like that

Smokey Joe
10-09-2007, 09:52 PM
One free agent we should take a hard long look at in the offseason is Bryant Johnson, IMO. Could really help out the WR situation.

Speaking of the WR situation, Moose will need to be either cut or have his contract restructured. It seems like Moose likes chicago, and he probably knows he can't get anywhere near as much as he is making on the open market, so I wouldn't mind a restructured contract by him. But no way we should keep him as our no. 1 and pay him all that money.

bearfan
10-09-2007, 10:08 PM
One free agent we should take a hard long look at in the offseason is Bryant Johnson, IMO. Could really help out the WR situation.

Speaking of the WR situation, Moose will need to be either cut or have his contract restructured. It seems like Moose likes chicago, and he probably knows he can't get anywhere near as much as he is making on the open market, so I wouldn't mind a restructured contract by him. But no way we should keep him as our no. 1 and pay him all that money.

that would be interesting to pick him up, but we dont need to pay him huge money. Berrian should be resigned, and will get a decent amount of money for being a medicore reciever this year. I dont think that we should pay a reciever to have medioker seasons, because to be frank, the most any reciever on the team will get IMO is around 900yards 5tds at max. Id rather draft a WR, maybe Limas Sweed since he is injured, maybe he will fall. I also really like Marcus Monk, who I think is a similar player

bearsfan_51
10-09-2007, 11:02 PM
I think we'll end up franchising Berrian. Sure it's a large chunk of cash to pay for one year, but we'll have the cap room and it gives the FO another year to evaluate his performance and durability, which has really always been the biggest question with him.

As for Moose, I'm not really how much money we'd be saving by cutting him, since most of his contract has already been paid in bonuses. That said his value is pretty limited it would appear anymore so it's really a non-factor.

VoteLynnSwan
10-10-2007, 03:31 PM
you think this guy is related to Robbie Gould?

http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/scoutingreports/k/chrisgould.html

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/getty/headshot/G/O/U/GOU258729.jpg

looks similar... but Chris is from Georgia, and Robbie is from Pennsylvania.

Race for the Heisman
10-12-2007, 06:18 PM
you think this guy is related to Robbie Gould?

http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/scoutingreports/k/chrisgould.html

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/getty/headshot/G/O/U/GOU258729.jpg

looks similar... but Chris is from Georgia, and Robbie is from Pennsylvania.

Maybe the file extension somehow put Robbie's picture in?

Geo
10-13-2007, 08:20 PM
My thoughts on this weekend's game:

Minnesota Vikings @ Chicago Bears
It looks like Bears (especially Ron Turner) may have finally gotten the winning formula through their skulls: (1) Run the ball; (2) pass the ball to the tight end; and (3) play good defense. Greg Olsen could be a huge factor for the Bears as a quick and athletic tight end is the perfect weapon against a Tampa 2/Cover 2 defense. Bears 16, Vikings 9.

Hopefully the Bears use Olsen well this game as they did against the Packers, I think he'll have great chances to attack the open zones.

bearsfan_51
10-13-2007, 08:40 PM
I'll never underate the Vikes. They are better than people think they are, and any team that can stop the run and run the ball has a chance to win every game they are in. I don't care what the score is..we need to win desperately and at this point I'll take it however. Hopefully we get some Devin Hester magic again.

DHVF
10-13-2007, 08:54 PM
you think this guy is related to Robbie Gould?

http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/scoutingreports/k/chrisgould.html

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/getty/headshot/G/O/U/GOU258729.jpg

looks similar... but Chris is from Georgia, and Robbie is from Pennsylvania.

They're actually brothers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbie_Gould

sweetness34
10-14-2007, 03:23 PM
Well we got some Hester magic, twice. Nice kick by Longwell, hats off to him.

Hurricane Ditka
10-14-2007, 03:24 PM
Well that's a *****.,

Smokey Joe
10-14-2007, 03:25 PM
I did underestimate the Vikings, but this should have been a game we should have won.

I do not understand why we did not attack Minnesota's secondary. And to top it all off, he saw way too little of Benson who was actually probably having his best game of the season.

Vikes99ej
10-14-2007, 03:26 PM
Good job, you guys. If we didn't have Adrian Peterson, we have have had our asses handed to us.

Smokey Joe
10-14-2007, 03:28 PM
if only we had some safeties...

VoteLynnSwan
10-14-2007, 04:22 PM
They're actually brothers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbie_Gould

it says Chris Gould kicks and Punts for Virginia... we should reunite the Gould brothers and form the most dominant kicking tandem in the history of football.

Hurricane Ditka
10-14-2007, 04:30 PM
if only we had some safeties...The safety position really isn't our biggest problem.

sweetness34
10-14-2007, 04:33 PM
We had no pass rush either today....

bearsfan_51
10-14-2007, 05:06 PM
The safety position really isn't our biggest problem.

I totally disagree. Our safties were totally worthless today. We might as well have been playing 11 on 9.

I would gladly scrap OT and QB if there was an elite safety to be had in this draft. Danieal Manning is the biggest ***** I've ever seen in my life and Brandon McGowan confirmed to me that he's nothing more than another player that Bears fans get excited about for no reason whatsoever.

The Vikings basically broke about 4-5 runs and the long pass to Willamson (thank you Archuleta) and that was the game. As soon as Peterson got past 8 yards he was gone. It was ******* pathetic and it makes me sick to be a Bears fan right now.


As for the playcalling....we scored 31 points. Griese threw for 380 yards. I'm sure there will be people that put this loss on Turner and Griese, which is ********. The only players on defense who looked like they gave a **** were Briggs, Tillman, and Anthony Adams of all people.

Smokey Joe
10-14-2007, 05:35 PM
while I am not going to put the game on Turner, Benson still needs to get the ball more and we should have attacked the Vikings secondary a whole lot more.

bearsfan_51
10-14-2007, 05:45 PM
while I am not going to put the game on Turner, Benson still needs to get the ball more and we should have attacked the Vikings secondary a whole lot more.
I'm not in love with Turner but it seems like he can do nothing right. People hate how much we're feeding the ball to Benson in the first few weeks, now he's not getting it enough.

We ran the ball 24 times for 3.5 yards per gain.
We passed the ball 45 times for 7.2 yards per gain.

Obviously that's a little skewed because of the Hester reception (how do you play Hester with a strong safety anyway) but still...the offense was moving the ball fine.


I mean....lets put things in perspective here. We scored 24 points on offense (taking out the Hester return) we gained 458 yards. The defense got no turnovers for us.

We allowed 311 yards rushing. In one ******* game. When a team runs for 311 yards in a game and doesn't fumble, they will win 99.9% of the time. Period. Yet for some reason we're bitching about the offensive playcalling? (not just here but elsewhere). Come on....

I'm pointing the finger squarly at a few people. First and foremost are Brian Urlacher and Tommie Harris. I expect the safties to suck. I expect Lovie Smith to not make in-game adjustments and continue to be extremely overrated as a head coach. I do not expect the best middle linebacker and arguably the best defensive tackle in the NFL to allow a team to run for over 300 yards on them. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

Hurricane Ditka
10-14-2007, 06:01 PM
Tommie and Brian's woes are part of the reason this isn't entirely on the safeties. Arch should not have been 1-1 with Williamson, and McGowan as well the rest of our defense missed Peterson. Our defense as a whole needs to step up. We need help on the offensive line more than the secondary, we draft utility secondary players by the half dozen every year.

Hurricane Ditka
10-14-2007, 06:04 PM
We need Nathan Vasher back.

SFbear
10-14-2007, 09:32 PM
The safeties were pretty horrible but honestly looking at the replays all I could conclude was that Adrian Peterson was making EVERYBODY on D look like they were moving in slow motion. He is such a dangerous combination of speed and power.

bearsfan_51
10-15-2007, 11:42 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3NDiMorX-o

I wish Jim Mora was our coach.

bigbluedefense
10-15-2007, 12:39 PM
I was disappointed with Urlacher in this game. But more importantly, your safeties are horrible.

But Urlacher has not played with any consistency so far. Perhaps he needs a true NT on the dline? Im not a fan of dlines with no NTs. The Giants have the same setup, and it really puts your MIKE in a difficult position. Unless you have a sledgehammer MIKE, he's going to struggle at times. And Urlacher is clearly having a hard time shedding blocks.

And boy, Devin Hester is something else. I don't know if there ever was a return man that had this much impact on the game, ever. If he had any brain upstairs, he could be a dominant player in this league.

bearsfan_51
10-15-2007, 01:00 PM
I was disappointed with Urlacher in this game. But more importantly, your safeties are horrible.

But Urlacher has not played with any consistency so far. Perhaps he needs a true NT on the dline? Im not a fan of dlines with no NTs. The Giants have the same setup, and it really puts your MIKE in a difficult position. Unless you have a sledgehammer MIKE, he's going to struggle at times. And Urlacher is clearly having a hard time shedding blocks.
I considered the same thing, but the irony is that with Darwin Walker injured we saw a lot more of Anthony Adams in this game, who is much more of a true NT (hell he played NT in a 3-4 the last few years). Adams actually had a good game getting penetration, but I didn't watch much to see how he took on blockers.

I wasn't impressive with anyone on defense by any means, but the safties get a HUGE amount of the blame from me.

Peterson basically had three huge runs. If you take out his three TD's he ran for 49 yards on 17 carries. So while the defense as a whole shares the blame, it is our safties job to be the last line of defense against the big plays, and in that regard (and in every regard really) they were terrible.

bearsfan_51
10-15-2007, 01:03 PM
As for the rest of the season, I've already gotten pretty disgusted by this team's play, but I don't see us slipping into the doldrums of the NFL (ie: I really doubt we have a top 5 pick).

If you look at the rest of the schedule there isn't a game on there we can't win. Of course there will be some games we don't win becuase we are terrible right now, but with San Diego, Dallas, and at Green Bay out of the way, the hardest games left are probably at Washington and at Seattle, and neither of those are that daunting at this point.

I'll play it neutral, assume we finish 5-5 (taking us to 7-9) and picking around 10-14.

Addict
10-15-2007, 01:04 PM
that guy was awesome, his rants alone make him a hall of famer.

bigbluedefense
10-15-2007, 01:11 PM
I considered the same thing, but the irony is that with Darwin Walker injured we saw a lot more of Anthony Adams in this game, who is much more of a true NT (hell he played NT in a 3-4 the last few years). Adams actually had a good game getting penetration, but I didn't watch much to see how he took on blockers.

I wasn't impressive with anyone on defense by any means, but the safties get a HUGE amount of the blame from me.

Peterson basically had three huge runs. If you take out his three TD's he ran for 49 yards on 17 carries. So while the defense as a whole shares the blame, it is our safties job to be the last line of defense against the big plays, and in that regard (and in every regard really) they were terrible.

Yes, I definately agree. Safeties are a huge part of this defense in run support, and its inexcuseable to play like that. I think its time to give up on Manning, he's just not a FS in the Cover 2, maybe not a good player at all, who knows. I expected Arch to play better though. He should at least help with run support, and he's done an average job in that regards as well.

I guess Safety is definately on the agenda in this year's offseason. I know hindsight is 20/20, but not getting one last year hurt a little bit.

Geo
10-15-2007, 01:14 PM
Well, the team did trade away Chris Harris.

bearsfan_51
10-15-2007, 01:16 PM
Yes, I definately agree. Safeties are a huge part of this defense in run support, and its inexcuseable to play like that. I think its time to give up on Manning, he's just not a FS in the Cover 2, maybe not a good player at all, who knows. I expected Arch to play better though. He should at least help with run support, and he's done an average job in that regards as well.

I guess Safety is definately on the agenda in this year's offseason. I know hindsight is 20/20, but not getting one last year hurt a little bit.
Trading Chris Harris probably wasn't the smartest move either, though I was never a huge fan of his. Arch was actually benched in the second half, they speculated it was because of his hand injury but I don't buy that.

The truth is that with Mike Brown and Kevin Payne on IR it will probably be Danieal Manning and Brandon McGowan at the safety positions for the rest of the year, sink or swim. I would still like to give Archuleta a chance, and hope that he's starting next week, because while he's struggled this year he has shown the ability to play SS in the cover 2 at a high level, something that McGowan has no ability to do IMO.

But yeah...we need to pick up at least one safety next year, probably two. I know Mike Doss signed a one year deal with Minnesota. He's not great but I'd take him over the guys we have right now.

Hurricane Ditka
10-15-2007, 01:33 PM
I think we need to let Cedric Benson play. Whenever he gets in any kind of a rhythm or groove he's pulled or we completely change our gameplan. He was on his way to a decent game, and then we flat out stopped giving him the ball.

bigbluedefense
10-15-2007, 01:34 PM
I think we need to let Cedric Benson play. Whenever he gets in any kind of a rhythm or groove he's pulled or we completely change our gameplan. He was on his way to a decent game, and then we flat out stopped giving him the ball.

Normally I would agree with you, but the offense did fine yesterday. While it didn't help Benson much, the TEAM put up points, and thats all you ask for.

Can't blame the offense on this one. This one falls squarely on the defense.

Hurricane Ditka
10-15-2007, 01:44 PM
Normally I would agree with you, but the offense did fine yesterday. While it didn't help Benson much, the TEAM put up points, and thats all you ask for.

Can't blame the offense on this one. This one falls squarely on the defense.
We put up points at the end of the game. Because of how poorly our defense was playing we could have used a few long sustained drives early in the third and fourth quarter.

bearfan
10-15-2007, 05:35 PM
We need to open up the offense like we did at the end of the game. We played conservative all game long, then when we needed to put up points Turner opened up the offense to passes beyond 10+ yards and we did great IMO

Geo
10-15-2007, 06:45 PM
Well, part of that may have to do with the Vikings pass defense.

Also, I agree with BBD that I can't really put much blame on the offense, even if they did score two touchdowns late to make the final score closer.

But it looks to me like the Bears offense is coming together more and more, which is great for them as the defense is as banged up as it is. The offensive line is improving, and we're starting to see the successful plays that bearfan is noting, we're seeing Cedric Benson doing some very good running against even a stout Vikings run defense, we're seeing signs of like from Muhsin Muhammed and Devin Hester on offense, and we're seeing the impact from rookie Greg Olsen and veteran Desmond Clark as a quarterback's comfort zone. Most importantly, we're seeing the offense score a good deal of points such that they have a great chance to win if they can continue.

If memory serves correct, they scored 27 at Lambeau and 31 at home in consecutive weeks, no? And that's against division rivals who have great familiarity with you, with very good defenses.

bearsfan_51
10-15-2007, 06:46 PM
Well, part of that may have to do with the Vikings pass defense.

Also, I agree with BBD that I can't really put much blame on the offense, even if they did score two touchdowns late to make the final score closer.

But it looks to me like the Bears offense is coming together more and more, which is great for me as the defense is as banged up as it is. The offensive line is improving, and we're starting to see the successful plays that bearfan is noting, we're seeing Cedric Benson doing some very good running against even a stout Vikings run defense, we're seeing signs of like from Muhsin Muhammed and Devin Hester on offense, and we're seeing the impact from rookie Greg Olsen and veteran Desmond Clark as a quarterback's comfort zone. Most importantly, we're seeing the offense score a good deal of points such that they have a great chance to win if they can continue.

If memory serves correct, they scored 27 at Lambeau and 31 at home in consecutive weeks, no? And that's against division rivals who have great familiarity with you, with very good defenses.
They also scored 27 against the Lions I believe.

It's not THAT complicated. We have a real QB now.

Geo
10-15-2007, 06:53 PM
I think, like the Saints, the offensive line is playing much better and the playcalling is better.

Speaking of Greg Olsen, the Bears are trying to get him involved and he could have had an even bigger day if he didn't drop a pass, when he had the middle of the field open to him. I'm interested to see how he does against the Eagles, I think statistically they are among the best in the league in defending the tight end, which surprises me a bit. Especially if Lito Sheppard plays this weekend, him and Sheldon Brown are a pretty good pair of corners, so I'd look for the tight end in many instances.

I'm fairly confident Olsen will do well against the Lions in two weeks, against their work-in-progress Tampa 2 defense, but I'm interested to see how he fares against a very good Eagles defense.

awfullyquiet
10-16-2007, 08:28 AM
They also scored 27 against the Lions I believe.

It's not THAT complicated. We have a real QB now.

I could have scored 27 against the lions.

I'll still homer up for grossman on occasion. And that was it.

I'm just glad to see benson actually pounding the ball and looking like a runner.
Unfortch, when you have AP on the other side... *shakes head*

What did anyone else think of mark anderson? (i wasn't able to actually watch the game yet, i had to drive home while it was on from MI)... did he split time with brown? did he close gaps against peterson?

bearfan
10-16-2007, 06:34 PM
What did anyone else think of mark anderson? (i wasn't able to actually watch the game yet, i had to drive home while it was on from MI)... did he split time with brown? did he close gaps against peterson?

No one closed gaps on Peterson...

bearsfan_51
10-16-2007, 06:37 PM
How can anyone still be a fan of Rex Grossman? How? Brian Griese is a below-average starter and our offense looks eons better than it did with Grossman starting.

awfullyquiet
10-16-2007, 07:13 PM
How can anyone still be a fan of Rex Grossman? How? Brian Griese is a below-average starter and our offense looks eons better than it did with Grossman starting.

Well, it's not hard.

You, 51, i bet the words coming out of your mouth after week five last year were, wow, that grossman guy looks like a real pro. (of course i wasn't here then, so i'm just assuming what everyone who's a chicago bears fan said that day after week five... hell, i'll even say week 8...)

he hasn't lost his tools, his arm, his touch, nor was he credited last year for making bad decisions (remember, he went on some sick 10:1 ratio streak?) until later in the season, i think he has the capability of being a good quarterback, in the same manner that anyone says jamarcus russell a capability of being a good quarterback... i don't think that grossman has necessarly gone bust yet, i just don't think he's developed properly. and that, yes, not with the bears, someone will pick him up and he'll come back to haunt us. carolina? maybe. who knows if john fox sticks around...

bf, no kidding. from all i heard it was all or nothing. either it was snap and then instant penetration, or AP was running for 14 yards. (or 37, or 63, or 55 or whatever)...

Smokey Joe
10-16-2007, 08:30 PM
Delete.....

bearsfan_51
10-16-2007, 08:49 PM
Well, it's not hard.

You, 51, i bet the words coming out of your mouth after week five last year were, wow, that grossman guy looks like a real pro. (of course i wasn't here then, so i'm just assuming what everyone who's a chicago bears fan said that day after week five... hell, i'll even say week 8.

Actually, and if there's anyone here that remembers they can back me up, I said before the Cardinals game that Grosman's performance was a total mirage, that he needed 10 seconds in the pocket to find a reciever, that he still hopped around like a ******** midget, and that he couldn't complete a pass that wasn't a bomb to Berrian.

So no...I've never been warm on Grossman. I've never been warm on any Quarterback that's not at least 6'2 for the record though. I ******* hated Doug Flutie. Still do actually.

SFbear
10-16-2007, 09:27 PM
Actually, and if there's anyone here that remembers they can back me up, I said before the Cardinals game that Grosman's performance was a total mirage, that he needed 10 seconds in the pocket to find a reciever, that he still hopped around like a ******** midget, and that he couldn't complete a pass that wasn't a bomb to Berrian.

So no...I've never been warm on Grossman. I've never been warm on any Quarterback that's not at least 6'2 for the record though. I ******* hated Doug Flutie. Still do actually.

I remember you posting this before the Cardinals game last year. You basically jinxed Grossman from that point on and I don't think I'll ever forgive you for that =).

http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=846

Grossman can probably salvage his career somewhere else, but I highly doubt it will be in Chicago.

Hurricane Ditka
10-16-2007, 09:30 PM
Actually, and if there's anyone here that remembers they can back me up, I said before the Cardinals game that Grosman's performance was a total mirage, that he needed 10 seconds in the pocket to find a reciever, that he still hopped around like a ******** midget, and that he couldn't complete a pass that wasn't a bomb to Berrian.

So no...I've never been warm on Grossman. I've never been warm on any Quarterback that's not at least 6'2 for the record though. I ******* hated Doug Flutie. Still do actually.
Sweetness on the other hand. His mouth still probably tastes like Grossman's balls.

bigbluedefense
10-17-2007, 11:09 AM
I went back and saw the tape of most of the big runs that Peterson pulled off. I played attention to Urlacher in particular, and I noticed these things.

Either one or the other happened.


1. Urlacher hit the wrong gap and created a huge running hole to run through, or was sucked in by the initial direction of the run, and got juked by the misdirection. In these instances, I fault Urlacher soley, he shouldn't be making those mistakes.

2. The dline did not do a good job occuping linemen and Urlacher had to take on Guards or Tackles and got swallowed as a result. Now this is both the dline's fault and Urlacher's fault. The dline simply has to do a better job preventing linemen from getting to the second level.

But its also Urlacher's fault, because for a guy so big and physical, I expect him to shed blocks alot better. He's 255 lbs. He's not 230. Why is he getting dismantled by the linemen like that? At that size, with his combination of speed, and physical strength, he should be doing a much better job shedding blocks. I know he's great when unblocked, but anyone can make an open field tackle, the best in the business should be able to disengage too. Im disappointed in his inability to shed blocks. For his size, he's simply got to do a better job at it. If Patrick Willis can do it with ease, so should Urlacher.

After analyzing those plays, as much as he's the best in the business, Urlacher definately didn't play like it on Sunday. Perhaps we underestimated Tank Johnson's value to this team?

Just my 2 cents.

SFbear
10-17-2007, 03:53 PM
I went back and saw the tape of most of the big runs that Peterson pulled off. I played attention to Urlacher in particular, and I noticed these things.

Either one or the other happened.


1. Urlacher hit the wrong gap and created a huge running hole to run through, or was sucked in by the initial direction of the run, and got juked by the misdirection. In these instances, I fault Urlacher soley, he shouldn't be making those mistakes.

2. The dline did not do a good job occuping linemen and Urlacher had to take on Guards or Tackles and got swallowed as a result. Now this is both the dline's fault and Urlacher's fault. The dline simply has to do a better job preventing linemen from getting to the second level.

But its also Urlacher's fault, because for a guy so big and physical, I expect him to shed blocks alot better. He's 255 lbs. He's not 230. Why is he getting dismantled by the linemen like that? At that size, with his combination of speed, and physical strength, he should be doing a much better job shedding blocks. I know he's great when unblocked, but anyone can make an open field tackle, the best in the business should be able to disengage too. Im disappointed in his inability to shed blocks. For his size, he's simply got to do a better job at it. If Patrick Willis can do it with ease, so should Urlacher.

After analyzing those plays, as much as he's the best in the business, Urlacher definately didn't play like it on Sunday. Perhaps we underestimated Tank Johnson's value to this team?

Just my 2 cents.


Urlacher has been stiff and a step slower this year. I think he's been sitting out of a lot of practices with back problems. All I know is he definitely does not look the same out there. All in all the defense just seemed to be playing with a lot less intensity ever since the Cowboys loss. Just not swarming the same as we used to.

sweetness34
10-17-2007, 07:48 PM
Sweetness on the other hand. His mouth still probably tastes like Grossman's balls.

Haha I like Rex, but I'd rather have Griese right now and for the rest of the year.

bearsfan_51
10-17-2007, 08:53 PM
Sweetness on the other hand. His mouth still probably tastes like Grossman's balls.

http://www.playwithlinn.com/Images/funny%20pics/oh%20snap.jpg