jason

NFO - It's more about down and distance than the specific call. That call is not bad on first or second. But on third and short, the primary call in all levels of football is a power run up the middle. Everyone knows this. It's the offense saying, "We're getting one yard, and there is nothing you can do about it." But since it's such an obvious play, there is nearly no deception...which is why the play-action, QB roll out, toss to the TE works so well in that specific situation. So, to run Wolfe up the middle in that situation is simply a bad call. Turner admitted it, but, to be quite honest, I don't know he attempted after how horribly it worked in Minnesota last year. That play, for that situation, for that personnel, for that down and distance, should have been scratched from the playbook.

Ron Turner - I just don't see it. And, frankly, if someone says that, then I have to question their opinion on this matter. Even the casual fan can recognize that Turner isn't in the top five. Unless, of course, I'm forgetting about when he completely baffled opponents with his play calling on a consistent basis, or coached an offensive team that scored well above league average for an extended period of time.

The point I'm making is that some on here act as if Turner is infallible, and can't be questioned. On this play specifically, members of this board, including me, crucified Turner for it. All we were met with was, "You don't know because you're not in the NFL." Well, here is a guy in the NFL who says that he got it wrong. He admits to making a stupid call. As for Wolfe, I do think he's more than a one trick pony. He is not, however, a power back, 3rd and short, run it up the pipe guy. As for Turner overall, I also think he's improved this year, and I've said as much. This is simply more about some on this board who act as if we, the mere football fans, have no clue, and the coaches are unquestionable in their decisions.

I'll I'm saying is... It's time for some posters to EAT CROW! I, and several others, have questioned some of the dumb calls Turner has made. One specifically was diving Wolfe into the middle of the line on consecutive plays. When Turner called it against Minnesota it was incredibly dumb. When he did it this time, it was almost as dumb. Now he admits to the mistake. Given the speed with which he makes game-time adjustments (read: slowly), maybe he just didn't realize his mistakes until the second time.

It's not that he's pissed me off. I just don't think Hanie is all that good. Even in the preseason games in which he's playing against lesser talent, he hasn't impressed. His arm is average, his accuracy is average, and nothing really stands out. Garcia on the other hand is a vet, a guy who may not have a cannon for an arm, but has proven that he can get it done and can put the ball on the money. As for the reason he got cut, we should all know by now that a lot of the veterans who get cut have salary as one of the reasons. I'm sure any team would rather have a proven vet over an unproven rookie (provided the guy is not a highly touted or highly drafted younger player), if the prices are nearly the same.

Completely agreed. I hate the scheme the Bears presently run. It's all predicated on having a destructive DT in the middle, and it caught on because Tampa Bay just happened to have a freak of nature in Warren Sapp. This team and this talent is much better suited for the 2001 approach: bring in two monolithic DTs, rush the edges with the DEs, blitz from time to time, and just let the LBs cause havoc. Unlike nfo, I think that the overhaul is not all that necessary. I believe this team can win with this talent, and some of the younger players just need the opportunity.

Jeff Garcia just got cut. Wouldn't it be a good security blanket to have him in Chicago? The guy has proven himself in the NFL, and I'm not all that impressed with the Bears' backup QBs. What could it hurt? Thoughts?

Actually, that's not entirely correct. In this case, the momentum rule is applied. If a player is moving in a specific direction and catches or intercepts the ball while moving toward their own goal line or end line, the results of crossing the lines are ignored. In this case, the official more than likely ruled that the player was back-peddling already (to catch the ball), and as a result went out of bounds at the endline. In regards to free kicks (i.e. kickoffs) in nearly all levels, this rule is almost universally lenient towards the official's discretion. The same applies to an interception caught within the five yard line while going in towards. If the momentum is what causes the defensive player to cross the goal-line, then forward progress is given to the defensive player where the pass was intercepted. However, if either of the following situations were to take place, it would be a safety: A] Player X catches the kick while in the end zone (EZ) and not moving towards his endline, then through his own volition moves towards and over the endline, the result is a safety. B] Player X catches the kick while in the EZ, runs out of the EZ, runs back in, and is subsequently tackled in the EZ, the result is a safety. (the scenario you mentioned)

My brief take on this: I expected more from this season. 1-I thought the Bears should beat GB, come close to Pitt, and hammer Seattle. 2 of the 3 didn't happen. 2-I expected the Bears to have more fire and better motivation. This has sorta happened. 3-I wanted the Bears to be better prepared, with better gameplans suited towards their opponent's weaknesses. This has not happened. 4-I hoped for an OL that would improve from last year when it was below average at best, and I screamed all year for an upgrade. The OL seemingly got patched together, but obviously didn't get upgraded. This has, yet again, been the offenses biggest deficiency. With better OL play, this team would have a near prolific offense. 5-I kept hearing about these double TE sets to maximize the potential of Clark, Olsen, and the new guy. We haven't really seen this that much. The positives to this season are: -Hester is doing well in his progression. -Cutler is the stud we all wanted. -The other WRs are coming along well, with Knox and Bennett proving themselves on the field. -The Defensive scheme seems to be focused on blitzing more and getting to the QB more, something missing from before. -Afalava has been a great addition. I expected more from the offense to be quite honest. The defense is doing fairly well all things considered. The offense, however, specifically the play calling and the OL play, has left a lot to be desired. I think the pessimism stems from the fans' belief that this could be a special year, or at least the beginning to a great run. It's just excited anticipation...and a bit of koolaid.

The way they tackled, they very well could have.

Wow. Knox is FAAAAAST.

No shit. On the Housh fumble play, the Bears' DE on that side got absolutely mugged. Ridiculous.

A] He got hit when he threw it. B] Knox tipped it, floating it up in the air, essentially giving up the easiest INT a defender can hope for

Yet another INT that will go on Cutler, but is on the WRs.

This defense needs to have an entire week of tackling as their focus. Nothing but wrapping up, peewee league, head-to-head tackling. Three weeks in a row with poor tackling fundamentals is just not sufficient.

I think Hunter shows better timing at MLB on the blitzes than Urlacher does. He has a natural instinct for it.

Forte's second run is a perfect example of what has been wrong this year. The OL didn't get a great push. The cutback lane to Forte's left was there. Forte took the first hole, got stuffed for minimal yardage.

Actually, I recall you being oversensitive once before, and inferring race into a fairly non racial situation. IIRC, and it may not be the same situation, it related to the Cedric Benson legal issues, and his subsequent release. As for this issue, I almost never agree with TT, and find most of his posts somewhat counter-productive, but in this case, I don't feel he did anything remotely wrong. Further, your challenge to a fight is common and ignorant at best, and juvenile at worst. Why not just read how EVERYONE has pretty much said that there is nothing wrong with the post, then look in the mirror and realize you're a tad bit oversensitive? In other words: //Look on the bright side, you've just insinuated that you'd like to fight a fellow poster on this board, and your admin privileges have yet to be threatened. I had a legit reasoning to censor a political comment and there was hellfire and brimstone.

Oversensitive much?

Brian Cushing? Now way this guy deserves to be there considering how Chris Johnson ripped the Texans a new one. Bruce Johnson? For what? For a gimme INT from Romo? I would have caught that and returned it for a pick 6. Percy Harvin? 5 receptions and 41 yards? Next. Mark Sanchez? 14/22 163 yards, 1 TD? When a QB has stats that would be considered good for a RB or WR, then it's not a good day for the QB. Johnny Knox? 6 receptions, 70 yards, and clutch, game-tying TD? Should win. If he doesn't, it's robbery. The only competition is from Sanchez, and it's because the Jets somehow beat the Patriots (read: defense).

The biggest disappointment this year is obviously Urlacher. The biggest disappointment for a player on the field is obviously Forte.

The problem is, anyone for or against Angelo can come up with an impressive supporting list. In my opinion, his drafting has been slightly above average, but far from stellar.

I have always hated this concept. If any coach applies this as a rule to their game plan, then it shows their lack of imagination, and, quite frankly, lack of killer instinct. Only a weak willed coach should say something like, "that's the way it always has been, and always will be" when it comes to how the team will run an offense. I guaran-damn-tee that Mike Martz, had he been brought in when available, would not be saying the same thing. Then again, I guess that's why the Bears haven't had an offensive minded coach willing to try new things in Chicago since Crowton...who got ran out of town for essentially not following the status quo of previous Bear offenses.

I realize it's sarcasm, but do you realize that Angelo didn't draft Cutler? It took balls to go out and get him, but this was a once in 10-15 years kind of opportunity that pretty much fell into the Bears' lap after making the big offer. Remember, when the deal was made, there were more people on the side of "the Bears offered too much" than there were on the "the Bears got a franchise QB" side.