jason

Ummm...because he's rushing the exact same way he does every time!? The same thing that has caused frustration is the same reason why he got burned on the reverse. He crashes outside, and in a looping motion to the QB. It's why he's susceptible to the reverse. It's also why he was in on the 4th down goal-line stand. It's the only rushing angle he uses. It's really not that hard to understand. The thing he does over and over and over can be exploited, and often is to the detriment of our entire defense.

Honestly, I hope he crushes them in the first half, and that cause the Lions to step up...and THAT leads the Bears to a productive passing game in the second half. It'd be nice to see a completely dominating offensive performance for once.

He's definitely delivered more crunching hits than anyone else on the roster.

Dear AZ, Thanks for proving how little you know about football. The Defensive Ends are largely unproductive, and it's almost guaranteed that it's by design. Also, between the two of us, you'd be the student, not the instructor. Sincerely, Someone who knows a lot more about football than you do

1) Chicago's offense is not Philly's 2) Chicago's OLine is not Philly's 3) Jackson is a WR, Forte is a RB, so it's a play with different players, different circumstances, and different odds of success. 4) Orton is not McNabb 5) The game situation was completely different. The Bears wanted to run the clock whereas the Eagles wanted to go for the score. If you can't see those five fundamental differences, then you are too dense to even begin discussing this topic.

The odd thing about this is that you know I prefer a more high-octane approach, despite how AZ thinks, and this is a typical explosive play. Hell, I'm one of the few people who liked Crowton. However, I think you downplay the differences in the selection. The normal run is extremely more reliable, and more safe than an end around. You say he could be stripped, but how many hundreds, possibly thousands, of times has Orton handed off to Forte? How many more thousand times have the two been involved in other running plays? They are infinitely more familiar with the typical hand-off on a running play than they are an end-around. Also, you ignored what I said. I said that the three plays previous to the end-around were three runs for a total of 16 yards. That is a fact: 3-4-CHI 7 (2:43) 22-M.Forte left guard to CHI 17 for 10 yards (27-Q.Mikell). 1-10-CHI 17 (2:33) 22-M.Forte left tackle to CHI 19 for 2 yards (96-O.Gaither). 2-8-CHI 19 (2:00) 22-M.Forte right guard to CHI 23 for 4 yards (58-T.Cole). 3-4-CHI 23 (1:14) 22-M.Forte left end to CHI 20 for -3 yards (20-B.Dawkins). I can see how you would want something different considering the offense's inefficiency and predictability, but there are countless other plays that run the clock, are lower risk, and don't involve a gimmick of some kind.

Or, smart guy, because IT DIDN'T FARKING WORK! Honestly, I can't believe someone can ride the nuts of a team's coaches and front office that have for the most part, produced such mediocre results. Oh, and aside from that, it's the kind of play that pee-wee coaches to high school coaches run nation wide, when they think about it too much, when they try to be too smart or too cute, when they should just be running a normal running play or something more familiar to the offense.

Dear Babich, There is no such thing as a 15-step drop. No team, OC, or QB in the league practices this as a routine. The QB will never be back 15 yards from the LOS. Please have your DEs adjust their angles of attack accordingly. And while you're at it, have them twist or stunt every once in a while just to mix things up. Sincerely, A fan who's sick of watching the DEs run around the opposing QB

DING DING DING! We have a winner!

Reasons why it's idiotic: 1) Running a conventional play to Forte has a better chance of success. The previous three plays, which happened to be runs, which happened to be when the Eagles KNEW the Bears were going to run, tallied 16 yards. 2) Running an end-around has a higher risk of turnover. 3) There was just over a minute left, and the point was to run down the clock first, and get the first down second. I don't mind trying something different, but I think it's idiotic to do it at that time.

Agreed. That's the first thing I thought when I saw this view.

I think Turner did better this game, but there are still a few bonehead plays that just make a rational person scratch their heads. -Anytime McKie gets the ball it's pretty much a bad decision -The size advantage the Bears' TEs have was used well, but not enough -The late end-around was idiotic However, on a positive note, he gave it to Forte on 3rd and short...which is a positive step.

Agreed. Severely underrated.

No. That was a completely boneheaded play. Not only does he have a better shot with a normal running play, but the end-around is a much more fumble-prone play.

LOL! Slow line judge FTW.

My jaw dropped to the floor. Maybe Turner has learned?

Because this is the M.O. for the Bears, and we see what it got the Bears in the last two weeks. We see it coming.

It's easy for a defense to collapse when an offense doesn't do anything with the ball. The blame is shared at the least. Hell, in the first half alone there were two possessions, one in TB territory and one at about the 50, that produced zero points. The Bears have to get more points from that type of field postion. Conversely, in the second half the Bears defense forced two punts and had two interceptions. Only gave up 10 points. Pretty good if you ask me.

Last week the Bears' offense had 8 drives of less than 10 yards. I'd say the blame is at least shared.

Desmond Clark WIDE OPEN. C'mon. Jeez...that was a gimme pass that 95% of this boards' members could have made.

Some mindless person will. They always do. No matter how many times the offense screws the pooch and gives the other team the ball, the inevitable score will be against the Bears defense...and it's all their fault.

No smart guy....like throwing slants to stop the blitz...stopping the play call of running up the middle into a ton of blitzers...like throwing deep again to make the Eagles defense open up some. It's not all on Zombie Lovie, as the players have made mistakes, but he sure doesn't help them by allowing the same problems and deficiencies to happen game after game after game.

I disagree. I actually think this Bears team has a ton of talent, and they're just good coaching away from getting over the hump. While I'd like a few different players, for the most part the team has enough players to do well. As was said pre game, the Bears could easily be 3-0. Hell, they should be 3-0. And they should be winning this game by more than they are right now.

Zombie Lovie makes no adjustments or facial movements.

Love how this offense continues to put pressure on our own offense. How many years has this been happening again?