jason

Wrong. They did play prevent. You can literally find this everywhere on the internet, at the Trib, Sun Times, Bleacher Report, ESPN, Pro Football Weekly, and several other people and places that cover the Bears. It was even mentioned on TV. The safeties were WAY back and the CBs were giving a 10-yd cushion. If the alignment was similar to cover-2, that's all it was. Stats of the Week No. 1: Against Chicago, Tim Tebow was 3-for-16 for 45 yards in the first three quarters, 18-for-24 for 191 yards after that. The 3% number is borderline ridiculous. It's impossible to quantify the possibility of a comeback no matter how hard they try. There's a reason they don't show the formula, and it has very little to do with proprietary knowledge. There are literally thousands of possible ways in which that statistic is ripped apart (e.g. player attributess, offensive/defensive schemes, cities, weather, fan noise). As for me nit-picking, there is no debating how much time each drive took, and I think you're conveniently ignoring some pretty hard stats that I've presented. Specifically regarding the time per drive and the average time the Bears would have used per drive if they continued as they had the previous 3 quarters. There is no doubt that the plays you mentioned have an impact on the game; I've said as much numerous times. It's actually comical that you'd use that as some of your counter-argument since you're so opposed to the idea that the previous plays affect later plays. Having said that, however, average drive length is not a biased statistic or nit-picking. In fact, it allows for the possible plays you mentioned on both sides of the topic. It's a fair way to assess offensive and defensive approach, or maybe even momentum. If you choose to ignore my posts or disregard them, then I guess there is no point. It's clear you aren't reading them because I've already said that if Barber stayed in bounds the Bears most likely win. It's almost certain. The problem is, as I have said before and you have agreed to in your post (i.e. "Things happen, and some things don't"), the game is not as simple as one play. And the stats show the Bears shut down their own offense in the 4th Qtr and played prevent defense; this ultimately led to situation in which Barber got painted as the scapegoat. But the 48 extra seconds per drive in the fourth quarter say that the Bears and Barber should have never been in that situation. I don't know about you, but to me it makes more sense to avoid the possibility of a mistake than to even get into the situation. Barber is nothing more than the final nails driven into the frame of a house.

They were trying to get the first down as a supplementary goal. Their first goal was obviously running out clock. It is obvious they chose to let their primary goal (clock) supersede the secondary goal (first down).

The fact that you said they had a "3% chance of losing that game" proves to me that you don't have a clue about how math, statistics, or just about anything else in the world works other than ignorant links to 50-Cent. You STILL can't explain the reason the Bears didn't even try to get a first down on three consecutive drives, and played prevent defense on the last two. Those are both valid points. OFFENSE Valid point and fact: The Bears ignorantly shut down the offense in the 4th quarter, in classic Lovie, play not to lose strategy. Avg Drive Length: 2:15 Avg Drive Length 1st: 2:35 Avg Drive Lengh 2nd: 2:32 Avg Drive Length 3rd: 2:39 Avg Drive Length 4th: 1:28 Avg Drive Length last 3 drives: 1:27 The statistics pretty much prove the Bears shut it down in the fourth quarter, and particularly the last three drives (3 second final drive not included in stats). If they had actually tried to run plays as they had before, they would have held the ball on average 48 more second per drive. IF they had done this, then the game is won. DEFENSE Valid point and fact: Until the last two Bronco drives in regulation, the Bears were not playing an exclusive prevent defense. Valid point and fact: Until the last two Bronco drives in regulation, the Bears had not given up any points. Avg Drive Length: 2:10 Avg Drive Length 1st: 2:25 Avg Drive Lengh 2nd: 3:18 Avg Drive Length 3rd: 1:26 Avg Drive Length 4th: 1:47 There was no reason to go into prevent because the Bears already had a shutout going, and were actually performing better in the second half. The move to prevent hurt the team and allowed the Broncos to score. Without the prevent, the Broncos likely don't score the entire game and the game is won. What about all of these facts don't you understand?

I like the first link. It's almost exactly what I've been saying. Barber was a bonehead, but the coaches screwed up much more, multiple times, and never should have even allowed that situation to happen. This is the entire point: Now here’s how the stupidity really factors in. The Bears weren’t even TRYING to get a first down!!!! If they were, they would’ve thrown the ball or done ANYTHING to beat the loaded box, but they didn’t. So, if you AREN’T gonna try and get a first down, why in the world would you take ANY risks at all. Ideally they WANTED the Broncos to have the ball at their own 29 with :20 seconds to go because that is what they were TRYING to do!

The fact that the league was not remotely interested initially in Kurt Warner should tell you all you need to know about the league's hit percentage regarding evaluations.

It still amazes me that anyone, particularly a Bears fan who has seen all the games this season, can say the Bears have 5-6 capable starters on the offensive line. I guess we just have differing opinions on what constitutes "capable." I only see 2 currently playing (Garza & Louis), and that's hesitant on Louis since he shit the bed the last two weeks. Maybe 1 or 2 more if/when Carimi and C.Williams come back from injury. IF. And filling the LT role with a late round pick or a Chris Spencer clone is only putting a bandaid on a head wound, and guaranteeing the exact same situation year after year after year...which is precisely what the Bears have done. Also, the philosophical differences in drafts is one of those things that everyone disagrees on. I say if you hold the OL to the "draft him in the 1st and he has to start immediately"-rule, then you do the same for every other position. Because when it comes down to it, that's about money. I guess we'll butt heads all offseason, because I can't reasonably fathom how anyone who has watched the Bears over the last few years, and presumably understands football, could disagree with the facts that the OL is still very weak, still a major detriment to any sort of consistent offense, still a reason the offense can't implement any sort of successful downfield game (which ties directly to the room WRs receive to get open), and still a major cause for the lack of WR development in Chicago. Do you honestly believe the Bears just have missed on WRs every single time, or do you think MuhMuh was right when he said it's where "WRs go to die"? I happen to think it's the latter, because the Bears haven't put focus on QB & OL. The QB situation is handled. The OL, which ties directly into protecting the #1 asset on the team, making him feel comfortable, and allowing him the time to throw darts all over the field, is not under control.

Right now it's Webb-E.Williams-Garza-Spencer-Louis. With the draft proposed above, this seems easy to me for next year. LT - Carimi. I don't care how much the staff likes him, or how good he looks getting off the bus, Webb will never be better than below average. Carimi was drafted to be a LT. Period. Let him develop as one and avoid the same mistakes made with Chris Williams. LG - Garza. He gets to go home to a more familiar position. And he helps Carimi transition. C - Konz. Good enough as a rookie to start. RG - Spencer and Zeitler battle for the starting job. Zeitler probably wins and has consistency with Konz in the middle. RT - Louis battles Chris Williams for the starting job. I'm still not giving up on Williams, who, when healthy, has done fairly well. Carimi/Webb - Garza/E.Williams - Konz/Garza - Zeitler/Spencer - Louis/C.Williams sounds pretty damn good to me.

HELL YES.

Brilliant comeback. Way to convey your point with clear logic, irrefutable statistics, understanding of simple math, and a firm grasp of football.

The difference: You change the results of 1 of those 2 Barber plays, and you change the result of this game. You change the results of 1 of those 20 or so defensive play calls, and you change the result of this game. You change the results of 1 of those 9 gutless runs up the middle on offense, and you change the result of this game. Barber is being paint as a goat, but his he failed on 2 plays. The coaching staff failed on somewhere near 30 plays. Both screwed up, but the coaches screwed up much more often.

It's not hindsight if others said the same thing. Give yourself some credit. I absolutely was in favor of bringing in McNabb when Cutler went down. And I mentioned bringing in Garcia before the season even started. Both scenarios were entirely possible, but they wanted to stick with Hanie and Enderle.

No doubt the Bears win the last two, and I am pretty sure they also would have won the Raider game. Hanie sucks.

Could not agree with you any more. This is not on one player or one play. This is team philosophy.

I highlighted the main reasons for the loss. Also, it's interesting that in the stadium you thought Hester shouldn't have called FC on a few of the kicks. In my experience, it always seems faster live and there seems to be less room for error. However, I agree with you; I thought he called FC a little early a few times.

Simiarly, Barber didn't tell the offense to shut it down the last three drives, nor did he tell the defense to play prevent and allow 10 points to a team that had been shut out the previous 58 minutes. That's football 101. But ignore that and concentrate on math 101. If the Bears have simply 3 more points, or don't allow the 7 from the TD, Barber could have run out of bounds every single run of the last drive and it wouldn't have mattered. The game is not won or lost in one play. That's also football 101.

I'm sorry if I just don't see things in simple terms. Thinking that way is obtuse at best. This is simple. I agree with you. Barber doesn't run OOB, the Bears probably win. But a good coach wouldn't have had Barber in that situation because they wouldn't have called 9 gutless runs on offense and went into prevent on defense. Again, cause and effect.

Dude. Don't you realize the first three quarters have an impact on the fourth? Don't you realize the mistakes made leading up to the fourth quarter have an impact on how the rest of the game goes? Yes, they could have run out the clock if Barber stays in bounds. It was a stupid play. I understand it. But poor coaching led to that even mattering. They shut down the Broncos for the entire game and all of the sudden they drive for ten points in two possessions...that is a coaching change. And that's not even considering the three straight offensive possessions in which nothing but runs were called. Change either of those gutless styles of coaching, and Barber's play doesn't matter. Cause and effect.

I completely understand the thought; it's not difficult to comprehend. But that's very simple-minded and absolves the coaching staff of their much greater mistakes and gutless play-calling that led up to Barber's boneheaded play. This has been Lovie's MO since he's been here. We've talked on this board numerous times about this. The Bears almost never step on the other team's neck. It's just not how they roll. And it's gutless. This situation, this game, this loss, and Barber's play, were entirely avoidable with better coaching.

Agreed. The only positive to all of this is the fact that we now know Hanie is not a suitable backup QB. That's about all that has been learned the last three games.

And you're a complete, singular-thinking idiot. Do you not realize the ONE play by Barber means nothing if the coaches actually try to score on the last three drives? Can you freaking count? Three drives of more than one play is naturally greater than one. Do you not realize that plays during the earlier portions of the game affect the later portions of the game? Are you so obtuse that you don't understand this simple concept? If they even remotely take chances, it's entirely possible they get a FG on offense or a stop on the last two possessions on defense, and Barber's play is meaningless.

Yes. I did. That's one play. Since then he's fumbled. That's two plays. But if the coaches don't coach like bitches the last 8 minutes or so, the game doesn't even go into OT.

Barber blew one play. One. How many did the coaches blow in the last three offensive series and the last two defensive series?

You just know that the gutless offensive play-calling (9 straight runs) the last three series is not Martz. It screams "classical Lovie, hold on to the lead and hope for a win," instead of actually trying to score. Bullet dodged on the onside kick. Bullet dodged on the horrible prevent defense. Bullet NOT dodged on the game tying FG.

Great seal block by Davis on that last Barber long run.

The complexity part I agree with (from what everyone says, it is very complex), but I seriously doubt a well-traveled vet like Garcia couldn't come in and pick it up. It's not like the Bears are using the entire playbook anyway. With the poor OL play they can't possible implement all of it. Therefore, it's a truncated playbook to begin with.