jason

Agreed on all points. I really enjoyed the win. It's just too bad Tillman, the zone-based defense, and the safeties got exposed by Rivers and Jackson. Otherwise it was a great game.

+1

Things I don't know: 1. If the thumb is actually broken 2. When it exactly happened 3. How long Jay played after the injury 4. Whether or not he'll get surgery 5. How long he'll be out, if at all Things I do know: 1. If the rest of the regular season rests in Caleb Hanie's hands, ever defense the Bears play against is going to stack the box, eliminate Forte, and dare Hanie to throw the ball 2. The Bears will not be nearly as effective on offense 3. The Bears will be in trouble of losing a Wild Card spot

Lovie should have challenged that last catch. WTF was he doing? The WR had two feet and a hand on the ground when the ball started moving, AND the Bears had conclusive possession after the fumble. Lucky the FG was missed. That's a bullet dodged.

I'll respond in list format to make it easy. 1. I think Martz actually gameplans well, and has good balance, but there are plays that just don't work because of player deficiencies. Naturally this leads to adjustments and problems. 2. I agree with the thoughts on audibles, but more than one expert of this offense says they have audibles, but they are simply called something else. I can't recall at the current time, but it comes down to having options. 3. I hate the time mismanagement problems. But I don't know exactly who or what is causing the delays. If we ever conclusively find out, I'll be shocked. 4. Agreed about Jay as WR during Wildcat. If using the Wildcat, bring in an extra WR. 5. I don't have a problem with Davis on the HB-pass play. The TE is often open on misdirection plays (i.e. rollouts, HB-pass, etc.)

Plain and simple: This game scares me.

Dude...the reason I used Noots' Notes as a basis for comparison and grading is that it's impartial. I have no input into his rankings, and it's the closest I have to give some equating between the OL and the WRs, and whether one has performed better than the other this season. I contend the OL has done worse, and you contend the WRs have done worse. Noots' Notes lean more towards my side of the debate. This all still comes down to the two biggest needs (OL & WR), and which helps the other more. There is no doubt the two are linked, but I guess we'll all just agree to disagree. As long as the OL isn't consistently good (they aren't - the Detroit game was a serious relapse), it severely restricts the offensive game plan and limits the amount of time the WRs have to get open. More time = More likely to get open. Will they catch it? Who knows? But the more wide open you are, the more likely you are to catch it. Would the stud WRs of the league catch it at a higher frequency? Yes. But if the QB has time to sit in the pocket and the WRs have more time to get open, it's a lot easier for them. Until then, even a stud WR on this offense is going to be restricted to a high diet of short routes - despite the few roll outs and other ways to integrate longer routes - because the OL can't consistently keep Cutler upright. And the recent status of Carimi and Williams will probably amplify this problem.

Fair enough. I think the OL played below average to average (if you were to average out all the games into one score). If they continue to improve, the overall impression will also improve. And I think the WRs have played similarly, but slightly better. Look at Noot's opinion for OL/WR in all the games: GM1: C-/A- GM2: F+/D- GM3: D/D GM4: B+/C GM5: D/D GM6: A-/B+ GM7: B+/B GM8: A+/B GM9: D+/C- If we average it out (standard 4.0 Grade Scale) it would appear they are pretty close from his impartial opinion. OL: 2.1 (C-) WR: 2.2 (C-) Going from Noots' grades above, I think it backs up my thoughts that the OL has played less consistent and slightly worse than the WRs, and that the OL isn't "obviously" better than the WRs, even though neither is going to be bringing home the report card to parents for increased allowance. We can agree that both areas need to be addressed, and we can also agree that offensive philosophy change (i.e. chipping, full house backfields, rollouts, misdirection, etc.) has helped, but then it comes full-circle to whether or not making the OL good would make the WRs better, or vice versa. I happen to think the former would more than the latter. You mentioned taking the top off the defense, and I contend the Bears already have two guys who can do that: Knox & Hester. What they don't have, however, is the time it takes to make those plays and 7-step drops consistently work. If Martz calls one of those plays and it happens to be on the wrong side of the 50/50 OL performance, then the play is wasted. And who knows if the DB bites on the next play like that when the OL does what it's supposed to? Since you would agree that the 7-step drop plays don't work, it comes down to the short routes the offense is forced to run, the quick hitters because of OL deficiencies. Wouldn't you agree? If so, then I agree that the only WR who can be relied on to make a catch consistently is Bennett. But I sure would like to see an offense that lets Knox & Hester take the top off the defense wihle knowing that Cutler will be able to drop back and actually make the throw without being pummelled. Will adding a premiere WR who can take the top off the defense change the fact that Cutler won't have time to consistently drop back far enough for the slow-developing plays and routes to work? Maybe on a few throws over the course of the season it will. Let's just hope that both continue to improve, and then at the end of the season when the Bears are giving the press conference post Super Bowl win, we can talk about whether or not the OL improvement helped the WRs, or the WR improvement helped the OL.

But when you or others constantly disagree with me, and say that WR is the priority, that's OK. Right? And I don't disagree with everyone, just people who actually believe that WR needs to be addressed before OL. But that makes me a smart ass and arrogant...even though when you disagree with me the other way it doesn't make you a smart ass or arrogant. Got it. That makes sense. Also, is the point of the message board to agree? To disagree? To change others' minds? I'd say it's a little of everything. I've posted numerous times about the OL, and given stats, facts, anecdotes, and reasoned argument as to why it should be addressed before WR. If the sum of that effort doesn't change a detractor's mind, or at least recognize that distinct possibility that getting OL is better for this team than getting a WR, then I'd say that is the actual arrogance in this situation. (Even though I think BPA will probably force the Bears's hand this offseason because of where they will be drafting and who will be left) As for Martz and the offense in the last game, fine, we agree it's a pretty impossible game to grade/judge. But yet you still question play-calling. That is exactly what judging is. You keep asking me about comprehension, but clearly you don't comprehend your contradiction. You say you can't judge, and then you judge. Sure, being up a lot of points is a great time to practice any play, but there are a myriad of reasons why he wouldn't/shouldn't call those plays. Not the least of which is the possibility of running the roll-out and Cutler turning around to face a DE head-on who didn't bite on the run fake. Did you ever think of that? And I guaran-damn-tee if he gets injured on that play the anti-Martz crowd rushes to post anger-filled rants. Do I think Martz called a brilliant game? No. Do I think he called it just about as expected for the type of game? Yes. Do I think that no matter what he called, some of his detractors would say something? Absolutely.

Touche. I acknowledge a gray area with Hester in regards to this topic of discussion because of his uniqueness. Coming into the pros was like a lot of guys coming into college; he was labeled "athlete" and didn't really have a position.

Good question. I wonder if things have changed up defensively during the turn-around? I haven't really noticed, nor have I rewatched any games. We all know about the offensive changes, but have there been major defensive changes?

I had never heard of it before Urlacher. Remember how incredulous everyone was about him being on IR with such a "minimal injury"?

Try again. I don't believe you've clearly said, nor has anyone else for that matter, why the OL is set up for success. Ignore the WR position for the moment. I'm seriously willing to listen to a counter-argument, but aside from "I think a WR will help the offense more," I haven't really heard/read a very good argument for the status of this Bears' OL being something other than the continual worst part of the team. I've stated I am on board with the concept that the Bears' WRs aren't very great, and would benefit greatly from getting someone with hands in Roy Williams wasted spot, but I've yet to see a compelling argument why OL isn't priority #1. Seriously, I'm all ears.

Interesting. I would have thought the opposite because of conventional wisdom. Maybe it has something to do with a team still "feeling it" from the previous week and the other team being a little rusty. You'd think from purely an injury standpoint it would benefit the rested team.

AWESOME! I'll continue to be an adult and read your posts about how, even though Martz ran a vanilla, run-heavy offense, with a massive lead, you still probably think he called a bad game.

The implication of your initial post, HOWEVER, is that the offense couldn't be expected to do much more than they did. A couple points after that, HOWEVER, you still manage to take a shot at Martz. 1. In terms of the offense, there isn't much to say. It's hard to judge because they were pretty much handed a 34-6 lead. 3. Hey Martz, where were the rollouts this week? THAT is inconsistent. You either have a situation where "there isn't much to say," which is synonymous for "It's hard to judge because they were pretty much handed a 34-6 lead," AND you can't really ask Martz about the rollouts (because it would be contradictory), or you have a situation where you criticize Martz. But you can't do both. If anyone needs a lesson in reading and comprehension, it's not me. It's not my fault you contradicted yourself. Also, in regards to being a smart-ass & having a know it all attitude: This is a message board; people disagree. So should I call you a smart ass and say you have a know it all attitude when you disagree with me? Please. Grow up. Adults disagree. Adults who cheer for football teams disagree even more. Adults who care for and cheer for the Bears as much as we all do are going to disagree even more than that. It's what people do when they care deeply about something and believe it can be improved. But I find it humorous that you try to condemn me for saying the word shit, but you actively call me a smart ass. Yet another contradiction. As for the bold, underline, etc., there is no other way to place emphasis on words while typing. Besides, isn't that why they're available to use? By the way, this just in, the Bears OL didn't play well against the Lions. Regardless of how some fans think the Bears OL is progressing or doing right now, if they believe the Bears don't badly need to address OL, then, it absolutely does make them wrong and make me right. Whether you think WR is a position of greater need is up for debate, and I can respect your opinion while continually disagreeing with it. Finally, yes, they do need help in the scouting and drafting departments. But that weak "you should apply for the job" argument is so ignorant that I won't even respond to it.

hahaha. Gotta love your dedication. But at least we have WRs playing as WRs. Right now for the OL we have: LT: A mediocre late round draft pick LG: a LT, who is now on IR C: a RG who is playing C just because of the deficiency RG: A guy who played one year on the OL in college RT: An injured first rounder being backed up by potentially the worst player in the NFL

I disagree completely. Garza is an OG. He should be playing OG. If Spencer wasn't good enough to win the starting C job, then he's probably not a good C. Therefore, C is a need. "Pleasant surprise" must be code for "has been mediocre at best." Luckily, moving Garza back to his natural position works really well in this regard. And look what WalterFootball projects for the Bears! Peter Konz, C, Wisconsin Also, you're right, the Bears ALSO need an OT...whether they plan on moving Carimi back to the left side or not.

Yep. That's my point. Martz had a huge lead, the D/ST was playing lights out, the gameplan was guaranteed to be bland and relatively unsuccessful, yet people are still complaining that he tossed in one or two unorthodox plays (the run play isn't really, but for Bears fans it's apparently crazy to keep a DE off balance). Two (read: one) unorthodox play in an entire game sounds like a pretty damn good gameplan. I was also impressed by Forte's decision making to throw the ball away...something I'm sure he has been told countless times for when they actually run that play.

This is the exact shit I'm talking about. 1. In terms of the offense, there isn't much to say. It's hard to judge because they were pretty much handed a 34-6 lead. READ: Can't blame the offense for playing vanilla because of the huge D/ST advantage they had. 3. Hey Martz, where were the rollouts this week? READ: Blame Martz for calling a vanilla game with a 34-6 lead. Consistency, please.

It may not be the right game to talk about run/pass ratio? Why the hell not? People are still criticizing Martz like he didn't call a heavy run-oriented game. Easy answers to your questions... On the first play you reference, the Bears ran the previous play right up the middle and it got stuffed. Also, the "gadget toss play" is a perfect counter to a DE in the 9-technique who is diving inside every play. It's just like calling a screen to the RB when the D is sending the house; it changes up their movement and makes them hold their ground just a bit so that future runs may catch the defender on his heels. On the second play, it's already been addressed in another reply. That play gets criticized by Martz-haters in every single possible usage. There is no way that play satisfies you guys in any way, any game, any situation. Every playbook as trick plays; determining when to use them is the key. I happen to think using them when you have a small lead is a great time to use them, because they are meaningful. They impact the game. They break the opponent's spine. Doing it when up or down big doesn't make nearly as much sense. When exactly should a trick play be run? I just think that some of you guys have an irrational hatred of Martz, and you let that hatred cloud actual football knowledge. Dude finally ran the ball an obscene amount, just like many have been crying for. And what happens? He still gets grief because he tossed in two unorthodox plays.

So no trick plays. Ever. Sarcasm aside, in general I agree with you (QB throws, RB runs), but EVERY playbook on the planet has a few razzle-dazzle plays thrown into the mix. The Bears had a 7-0 lead when it was called. I can see that being a positive and a negative. For the former, if it works, it potentially breaks the game wide open. For the latter, if it fails then the game is tied 7-7. I have a feeling that there is absolutely zero opportunity in which he calls that play and the majority of Martz-haters wouldn't throw a fit. It's like this: Bears small lead: Too risky! We could lose momentum! Bears small deficit: You don't need trick plays to overcome a small deficit. You stick to the offense! Bears big lead: C'mon! Run out the clock! Stupid plays like that are just giving the other team a chance! Bears big deficit: Great, now we're going to get embarrassed and the deficit will be huge! What a stupid time to take a risk!

Again: Until it gets fixed, the Bears' #1 priority was, is, and will continue to be OL.

Exactly. If there were 35 runs and 20 passes, it's pretty hard to say, "I would like to have seen a few more runs." At a certain point, you have to at least try to be successful and mix things up.