jason

Good post, good thoughts. I also have to wonder why Williams has never been given a fair shot at LT. Maybe you're right? Maybe it is something personal? Maybe he's just in the doghouse forever. What I know is he has never been given a fair shake at the position. Let's recap (as we have before): 2008 - Started out injured, never started as a result 2009 - Moved to RT to accomodate Pace, when Pace sucked Williams got moved into LT, where he did OK 2010 - Started at LT, then got injured, then Tice inexplicably moved him to LG after injury. This just doesn't happen. And that's despite the fact that Williams did adequately at LT previously and Omifail was the LT option he chose instead. Williams was at the very least average as LG, some would even say he did well. 2011 - Starts at LG while Webb gets gifted the LT spot, which is crazy because Carimi was drafted as a RT because Webb sucked so bad at RT. Yeah, because LT is so much easier. Good thinking Tice. My take on this is that Tice thought he was using his players as best as possible, and the leftside combo of Webb-Williams was better than Williams-XYZ. Still a bad choice. 2012 - Webb, despite sucking something serious at LT in 2011, and facing "competition" from Williams for the LT position, "wins" the LT position battle again. Oh, big surprise, he's still not good this year. And if there ever was a year for a LT, this is the year. Luke Joeckel - Stud Jake Matthews - Pedigree Barrett Jones - Versatile

Very true. If someone had told me in the preseason that the Bears would be 3-1 and asked, "Do you care how it happened?" I would have answered, "No, as long as there are no major injuries."

Wow. That picture is a pretty incredible indication of Jennings' ability to jump. Considering Avery is 5'11", a couple inches off the ground, and not quite erect, that has to be about a 40 inch vertical.

It's still funny that, because of how bad it's been, something Cutler considers a slow start is actually considered a good start by most of this board.

Actually, I disagree on that. The defense is almost always at a disadvantage in terms of what will happen. Ignoring schemes for the moment, the offense always knows the defense will try to tackle the guy with the ball. The offense always knows the DL will try to hit the QB. The defense, on the other hand, doesn't know if it's a run or a pass, if the players will cut left or right, etc. Having said that, since I'm not a fan of the OL, I definitely think they need help, and I was happy it was done. But pointing out that 5 almost beat 7 really accentuates the problems with the Bears OL. They held up well for this game, and I commend them for it, but I will remain pessimistic about them until it becomes a trend.

HA! Yes, obviously. I was going to make a connection to the fact that we have not had stability in the safety position, but with CB he may be our next Peanut, and that the deep balls were really a problem with the safeties, but I got called away to work and cut the post short without the proper copy/paste movements.

The dude keeps playing well, keeps putting in the effort, and I'm ecstatic about his performance this year. Against the Cowgirls he was the defensive player in tight coverage when Ogletree let the ball ricochet high in the air. The ball was gone before Jennings touched him, but I'm sure the coverage affected the play. Briggs' INT doesn't get returned for a TD if not for Jennings. He flew in to help out, giving just enough support for Briggs to waltz into the end zone. And on two of the three missed Cowboy bombs, it was either Conte or Wright who should have had coverage. I don't remember the other. The Bears may have found a long term (edit: cornerback).

I drank the kool-aide last night. It was a blast watching the Bears destroy the Cowgirls on MNF. But I'm not going to get too excited about one game when it's very out of the ordinary and the opponent made just as many mistakes as the Bears made good plays. I'm cautious. EDIT: On Hester's TD, there were 7 guys blocking. SEVEN. And the Cowboys still got late pressure with only five guys rushing.

Great game overall. Maybe the best game the OL has played in 5 years. Cutler looked great. The play-calling was nearly perfect. But now that the celebration period is over, I don't want to let this game get us too happy. -The Cowboys missed three bombs (two overthrows, one drop) that were wide open. A good QB, like Manning in the SB, doesn't miss those passes. -The Bears were very fortunate with the turnovers. Aside from the Melton pressure and the Moore INT, the others were more a matter of the Cowboys making mistakes than the Bears forcing mistakes. -Romo went 31 for 43, for 301 yards against the Bears defense. The pass defense was soft, and displayed perfectly why many hate the Lovie-2. He was picking and choosing his targets at will. And don't even get me started on that pussified approach they took to end the first half. I'm really happy with how the game turned out, and I enjoyed watching the beatdown, but I feel like this is a setup game. The same game played against the Packers is a loss, because Rodgers completes one or two of those bombs, and they probably convert on the drive that ended with Ogletree straigt-up gifting an INT to the Bears in the Red Zone. I can't find any stats to prove this, but a 16 point lead is not that much against a team that gives you five interceptions. I'd expect a five interception game to result in a bigger disparity. This game should have been much more worse. Tread carefully...

Bingo. Look what happens when the Bears OL plays the best game they've played in maybe five years. Problem is, I don't think we can't expect it with regularity.

Yet he continues to start. We're going to find out years from now that Lovie Smith is his 2nd cousin, great uncle, or god-father.

Completely agreed. Especially regarding Irvin and Sapp.

My perspective is that at least the following goes into whether a QB does well: 1. Sacks 2. Pressures 3. OL inability to act cohesively 4. Perceived Pressure 5. Receiver inability to get open 6. Poor offensive gameplan All six items can make a QB rattled. The more of the six that are bad, the more likely the QB will be rattled. Where the Packers succeed and the Bears fail, at least in the last several years, is not #1 - becaus, as you pointed out, Rodgers has been sacked a lot - but the others. Cutler gets pressured more. The Bears OL is not cohesive; it doesn't screw up the same time. The Packers game against Seattle is a perfect example. The entire OL was screwing up in the first half, and then they all got their acts together in the second half. The Bears OL would have been half-and-half. Number 4 should probably be 3a, and is probably dependant somewhat on the QBs mental makeup, but Cutler is probably less confident because of all the other items that are done so poorly. Number 5 is big, and why so many have argued for WRs for so long. Of course, I told them it wouldn't matter much if the OL sucked ass, and thus far I appear to be correct. Number 6 is probably the biggest difference in regards to your question. The QBs have had a great offensive gameplan for quite some time. They kill the Bears on slants and screens (might be just as much a product of #5 as #6). The Bears, on the other hand, have not had good gameplans for as long as I can remember. Tice, Martz, Shea, Shoop. The last guy who really tried to confuse and attack the defense was Crowton, who most hated. While I'm much more in the Martz/Crowton camp, I can value the appeal of others (disagree though). With that said, none have done a great job. And it has directly affected the Bears' QBs. I'm not saying all of the items are necessary, but the Bears have to fix one or two in order for Cutler not to feel like he's being chased by a town full of people holding pitchforks.

This game worries me. I don't think the Bears come out with a victory. Demarcus Ware is going to give the OL fits, and unless he's doubled the entire game, I expect him to get 2-3 sacks and a couple other pressures. And throw in an anticipation False Start by an OT while we're at it.

First bold - Reread my entire post. I excluded the first two parts of the analysis because the pictures indicate a decent/good pocket/protection. Second bold - It sounds great, and I completely agree with you in theory, but the reality is that Cutler doesn't have time for anything other than his hot read or the #1 read on probably 85% of the passing plays. He doesn't get the privilege of thinking about what the X or the Y does and then going to the hot read. Most of the time it appears that when his primary is covered, he is immediately thereafter pressured. And when he does get time to hit the hot receiver, that guy often has coverage close by because the Bears rarely confuse anyone on offense (especially now). I agree with the gunslinger comments, and the eroding footwork, and the poor decision-making, but I am still under the impression that the majority of his problems, like most QBs, are caused by the pressure. And since the Bears' OL has given up more pressure than any OL in the past three or four years, it's understandable that he has developed some preservation-based faults. Which is why I've been saying for years now that the Bears need to fix the OL before anything else. A bad OL turns a good QB into a scared QB, and at that point it doesn't matter who in the hell you have at WR.

Amen. See enough gun-fire, you start to duck reflexively at loud noises.

1st example: Good point. It's a bad read by Jay. 2nd example: Good point. Bad footwork by Jay in an adequate pocket. The rest? Hard to fault a guy for making the very first decision or read when that's all he gets time to do. It's also hard to fault a guy for eroding footwork when he so rarely gets time to sit down in the pocket and throw, much less throw to a secondary or tertiary read. The "pocket presence" one is ridiculous, because presence requires some semblance of consistency, not to mention at least a decent block. If Jay had stepped to the left in that scenario, Mattews would still have got him. The author makes it seem like Matthews has an inability to change direction, which is utterly ridiculous. And let's not forget, Matthews Raji. If the scenario were Raji, then maybe there is a point. What's funny to me is that aside from the first two scenarios, every screenshot during a developing play shows Cutler under duress or a pocket that is about to collapse.

If anyone wants a PDF of the NFL Rulebook from last year, let me know. It provides the A.R. that I pasted previously in this thread. As for control, possession, and catch, it's kind of fuzzy. Possession is established when a player controls the ball and comes down inbounds, with either both feet or some other body part that is not the hands. That process completes the catch unless they go to the ground, in which case they have to have control of the ball all the way through. But in terms of a definition of control, it's not there. The best that is there is the A.R. I provided, because it clears up the gray area of whether a player can have "control" of the ball while he is in the air. The guideline appears to be control-->possession-->catch. To be honest, with that close of a call, with that many bodies around, with the inability to see what Tate's hands are touching, I'm not so sure the regular NFL guys wouldn't have screwed the pooch on that one as well.

And it was an absolutely ATROCIOUS call. Virtually nobody who understands football agrees with that call. And it's also why the quote you provided says: It was perhaps the only time where offensive pass interference has reversed the outcome of the play I bet that guy was quickly demoted from the ranks of SEC officials...or became a replacement official this year.

Yes, the analyzation is getting crazy. People are shitting themselves over a call that is milliseconds away from being right or wrong. The human eye just doesn't work like that with 100% accuracy. And even with replay it's difficult to ascertain at times. Naked eye: Looked like joint possession to me. Several fellow officials and I were texting back and forth during the game, and during the controversial plays, and you'd be surprised at the disagreement between several VERY good officials, some at quite high levels.

I'm working on it. But, ultimately, I agree with what you said. The problem of course is that eventually this will be a judgement issue, and if the official on the field judged that "control" was established, it almost doesn't matter what comes after that.

Unfortunately, when dealing with the actual rules of football, it's not as simple as you think. When dealing with the NFL's rules, it's even worse. Otherwise, you'd have never heard of the Tuck Rule. This is especially true in regards to the play in question, because, technically, Tate was the first one to catch the ball (by the strict definition of a catch and possession in the NFL). But control of the ball by Jennings was first.

1. You're still wrong on the OPI. Unless you can find an instance, or multiple instances to prove your point, you're wrong. There have been countless hail mary passes thrown, and I can't recall ever seeing an OPI called. Can you? Go searching for it; you may find one play that supports your side of the debate. 2. I've since reversed my opinion on the final play, but not because it's obvious. The wording of the rules in this case make it somewhat difficult (as I pointed out in the other thread I created), and that's where the officials were wrong.

Establishing a few things about the NFL rules I have read this morning: 1) Control precedes Possession 2) Possession precedes a catch 3) A catch requires two feet or some other body part that is not the hands to contact the ground In the NFL and College rule books they have what are called Approved Rulings (AR). They explain what the correct call is in an odd situation where the rule is not perfectly clear. The following is the AR for the final play [A is the offense and B is the defense]: A.R. 8.29: First and 10 on A20. B3 controls a pass in the air at the A40 before A2, who then controls the ball before they land. As they land, A2 and B3 fall down to the ground. RULING: B's ball, first and 10 on A40. Not a simultaneous catch as B3 gains control first and retains control. So, the reason the GB defender should have been awarded the INT is because of the word "control." There is no doubt that Tate was the first to catch the ball (i.e. he had control, had possession, and his two feet touched the ground in bounds before Jennings), but he was not the first to control the ball. If the control of the ball in the air wasn't so clear cut, and the ball wiggled a little or was spun laterally while they were grabbing for it, then the call would have been correct because Tate satisfied the other requirements first. As it stands, however, control-->possession-->catch.