Cowboys at Bears Week 14 - Playoff Week W-4 Official Game Thread (Thu, Dec 5, 7:20PM CT/FOX/Bears +2.0, O/U 42.5)

[Bears4Ever_34]

Had it not been for that terrible interception, Mitch might have played his best game as a pro tonight. I almost couldn't believe what I was seeing through 3 quarters, offensively. For the first in years I was actually more nervous about the defense giving the game away than I was the offense. 

It just goes back to what I've been saying for months now: Mitchel Trubisky is a different quarterback when he's allowed to run the ball and get outside the pocket to throw. And it's frankly ridiculous that it took this long for Matt Nagy to do what most of us can see with our own eyes when we're watching games. He's an athlete. Use the legs to your advantage. I think you saw tonight how much different this offense can be when Mitch can scramble for first downs and extend drives. Not only does it help you with that, but it also keeps defenses on their heels. Some of those RPO runs Mitch had tonight even confused me. 

Unfortunately, it's probably going to be too little too late, but at least now they know what kind of play calling Mitch needs to be successful. Stop trying to make the guy into Drew Brees.

This defense seems to be losing guys left and right this year. They are just not a good pass rushing team these days. They're not getting the takeaways they got last year, and they're not sacking the quarterback as often either. They did enough to win tonight, but they're going to have to play much better these next 3 weeks if they want to even have a chance to sniff the playoffs.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

I haven’t seen the game in its entirety yet but have seen some highlights; and man they need to get Patterson more involved in the offense.  Dudes a plain out baller.  And how about TEs Holtz and Horstead?  
 

Amazing how well the second and third stringers are playing with them, Tolliver, Kwit, and KPL all playing like first stringers last night. 

[Lucky Luciano]

9 hours ago, adam said:

The one negative outside of the horrendous officiating was the defense taking the 4th quarter off again. 10 late pts given up and needing to stop an onside kick to seal the game. A win is a win but we can't let teams hang around like that. 

my take on this:

DEFENSE - we are going into a prevent defensive scheme when we have a lead of more than one score from the middle of the 4th quarter on. it is clear as day we are giving up a very soft zone very much similar to what lovie ran in his tenure. our db's are giving up more ground than the first down marker making for easy receptions that move the chains down the field quickly to put your opponent in scoring position. this makes for the type of points scored that we saw at the end of this game.

a prevent defense does nothing but prevent wins.

OFFENSE -  in the middle to last 9 minutes of the 4th, nagi started to run an extremely conservative offense. it was supposed to eat up the clock. in my opinion it does the opposite. again, like the defense, this is a recipe for disaster in many games especially if your opponent has a proficient passing attack.

[BearFan2000]

Easily the best overall performance by the Bears this year.  Offense imposed it's will pretty much all night till late when they basically shut it down.  The D played well outside of that first drive and a few garbage time drives.  The scoreboard doesn't indicate how we dominated the Cowboys.  For much of the game we were playing with a 17 pt lead yeah they cut it to 7 at the end which is something we can't get in the habit of allowing garbage points.   But this one was never in doubt once we took the lead.  You could see the frustration on their sidelines and on the field.  It's been a while since we've watched an opponent display such turmoil on their sideline, and it was as fun to watch as the game itself.  

TE's wow,  more TE action that we've had all year.  Really impressed with both Holtz and Horsetead.  They were big part of the offense.  I didn't expect that.  Maybe TE isn't as high on the need list as I thought.  Granted it is one game, but I like that they were heavily involved.  They were more involved last week or so than they had been but not as much as last night.  I hope that keeps up. It's possible with them both being young and having had limited playing time they are now finding their role in the offense. 

I liked that we spread the ball around, it wasn't just force it to Robinson, the TE's, Wimms, Miller, Robinson, etc.,  and we even had a Ridley sighting.  We were able to run the ball much better, which I think the passing game helped loosen up the box for Monty.  I feel like we did more to get Montgummery the ball in space, by running to the outside, using the screen game with him and the TE's.  This was the first game that the offense looked like what I'd envisioned they could be capable of in the offseason.  Now can they continue that week to week?  If we can keep spreading the ball around and get the ground game going, while sprinkling in Mitch making plays with his legs.  This could be a dangerous offense as opposed to the one dimensional shell of an offense we've watched for much of the first half of the season.  

The officiating was again awful (as it has been league wide all year).  Three face mask penalties not called, one of them would have negated a fumble, one of them would have made an offsetting penalty on the obligatory bogus block in the back that we seem to get called for at least 1-2 times a game.  A pair of missed PI calls on red zone pass attempts, I think both times Wims was the target, one of them being the play he got hurt on.  Jaylen never tuned to local the ball on either play.  Other than that though it was a game refreshingly light on penalty calls, or at least it felt like they were letting the teams play more rather than stopping play constantly to call something.  

If the Bears can keep this up, it bodes well for next year.  All they can control is these next three games.  This late surge is likely to little too late to save this season by making the playoffs.  They will likely sorely regret the handful of games they gave away.  A strong finish however, especially given how bad things got for a while, does speak to both the players and the coaches.  I chose to believe that they both have learned some valuable lessons this season.  Adversity often makes you find out just how resilient you can be, it either makes you pack it in, or it makes dig in and fight to get better and figure things out.  I give the Bears a and their coaches a lot of credit for digging out of the hole they put themselves in.  To be 7-6 at this point when just 3-4 weeks ago I doubted we'd get more than 4 wins, shows they still have some pride and haven't stopped fighting.  

For the D to continue to play as well as they have considering all the injuries we've had speaks to the depth, it's great to see guys come in and step up.   Getting Hicks back will be huge.  Last year we had good fortune when it came to injuries, this year hasn't been the case but we've seen the next man up work and guys are getting valuable playing time and making plays.  

[BearFan2000]

1 hour ago, Lucky Luciano said:

my take on this:

DEFENSE - we are going into a prevent defensive scheme when we have a lead of more than one score from the middle of the 4th quarter on. it is clear as day we are giving up a very soft zone very much similar to what lovie ran in his tenure. our db's are giving up more ground than the first down marker making for easy receptions that move the chains down the field quickly to put your opponent in scoring position. this makes for the type of points scored that we saw at the end of this game.

a prevent defense does nothing but prevent wins.

OFFENSE -  in the middle to last 9 minutes of the 4th, nagi started to run an extremely conservative offense. it was supposed to eat up the clock. in my opinion it does the opposite. again, like the defense, this is a recipe for disaster in many games especially if your opponent has a proficient passing attack.

always disliked this approach yet most teams do this.  The Bears are not alone here.  I've always felt you should not change the way you play regardless of the score if you are in the lead.  When you have a team on the ropes take the knockout blow and finish them off.  We allowed Dallas to climb back to within 7 in a game they were being dominated in.  

I do think we made more of an effort to keep the clock moving and actually trying to get first downs than we have in the past where we just hand it off a few times and punt.  We could have been far more aggressive and just kept the pedal down and tried harder to chew up the clock.  Had Miller caught that 3rd down pass, we may have been able to keep them from getting it within a score. 

[BearFan PHX]

13 hours ago, BearFan2000 said:

always disliked this approach yet most teams do this.  The Bears are not alone here.  I've always felt you should not change the way you play regardless of the score if you are in the lead.  When you have a team on the ropes take the knockout blow and finish them off.  We allowed Dallas to climb back to within 7 in a game they were being dominated in.  

I do think we made more of an effort to keep the clock moving and actually trying to get first downs than we have in the past where we just hand it off a few times and punt.  We could have been far more aggressive and just kept the pedal down and tried harder to chew up the clock.  Had Miller caught that 3rd down pass, we may have been able to keep them from getting it within a score. 

It's like buying insurance. You can not buy any, and then you pay nothing, but if your house catches fire, then you get nothing, or you can buy increasingly more expensive policies that cover your risk more and more, but also then you pay something out of pocket no matter whether your house burns or not.

You can play regular defense, which is like not having insurance. You dont give any easy yards, but the possibility for a big play exists. You can calculate how likely you are to lose such a  game based on how much of a lead you have, and how much time is left.

OR you can play a big zone, and buy insurance. The cost is you give up 8 yards at a time. But you greatly lessen the chance that the other team will get a big play. And that lowers the odds of losing if you have enough of a lead and time is running out. And of course, all those 8 yard passes burn time too.

There are times and score differentials that dictate when it makes sense to start running the ball safely and playing zone to use up time quicker than the opposing team is likely to make up the points. It's not fun to watch. It seems like they are coming back.

But when we were up in the middle of the 4th and started buying insurance, the odds of losing went DOWN. The odds of finishing with a closer score went up, but the odds of losing went down.

If you get 20 in blackjack, you stay. Yes a 21 will beat you, but hitting again is almost surely going to bust you.

[Mongo3451]

On 12/4/2019 at 9:18 PM, DABEARSDABOMB said:

 

I could not remove the stuff above this.  Not sure if anyone posted it, but I think Roquan is done...

[Lucky Luciano]

18 hours ago, BearFan NYC said:

There are times and score differentials that dictate when it makes sense to start running the ball safely and playing zone to use up time quicker than the opposing team is likely to make up the points. It's not fun to watch. It seems like they are coming back.

But when we were up in the middle of the 4th and started buying insurance, the odds of losing went DOWN. The odds of finishing with a closer score went up, but the odds of losing went down.

If you get 20 in blackjack, you stay. Yes a 21 will beat you, but hitting again is almost surely going to bust you.

i have to respectfully disagree.

it is not a question of being hard to watch or fun, it is a matter of winning or losing.

we put ourselves in a position to lose this game by playing soft with enough time left to make it a possibility. 17 points with 9 minutes left in a game is not enough points to start going into a slow down or prevent offense or defense mode. we have not only seen this happen in the nfl but experienced it a number of times in chicago.

all this does is make it easier for an opponent to get into scoring position in the least amount of time and close that point gap. any team with an even average qb then has that chance to not only gain confidence and momentum but put your defense at a disadvantage by keeping them on the field longer. a team with an elite qb/receiver is an even worse scenario. add to this fact, if you make a mistake and turn the ball over or lose an onside kick it compounds the disadvantage.

the only time this soft prevent defense should even be considered is if you have an injury to a key player or you are 3+ scores ahead with less than three minutes left to play.

one more point on this, if your opponent  has bridged that point gap you have made it MUCH harder for your team to return to an attack mode mind set if need be.

finally: i am no fan of playing soft zone defense as a standard practice. it keeps your defense on the field longer throughout a game and even worse, by doing so, keeps your OFFENSE off the field and limits your ability to score points.
 

 

[BearFan PHX]

24 minutes ago, Lucky Luciano said:

i have to respectfully disagree.

it is not a question of being hard to watch or fun, it is a matter of winning or losing.

we put ourselves in a position to lose this game by playing soft with enough time left to make it a possibility. 17 points with 9 minutes left in a game is not enough points to start going into a slow down or prevent offense or defense mode. we have not only seen this happen in the nfl but experienced it a number of times in chicago.

all this does is make it easier for an opponent to get into scoring position in the least amount of time and close that point gap. any team with an even average qb then has that chance to not only gain confidence and momentum but put your defense at a disadvantage by keeping them on the field longer. a team with an elite qb/receiver is an even worse scenario. add to this fact, if you make a mistake and turn the ball over or lose an onside kick it compounds the disadvantage.

the only time this soft prevent defense should even be considered is if you have an injury to a key player or you are 3+ scores ahead with less than three minutes left to play.

one more point on this, if your opponent  has bridged that point gap you have made it MUCH harder for your team to return to an attack mode mind set if need be.

finally: i am no fan of playing soft zone defense as a standard practice. it keeps your defense on the field longer throughout a game and even worse, by doing so, keeps your OFFENSE off the field and limits your ability to score points.
 

 

I understand but the numbers say otherwise.

[adam]

On 12/6/2019 at 12:53 AM, Bears4Ever_34 said:

Had it not been for that terrible interception, Mitch might have played his best game as a pro tonight. I almost couldn't believe what I was seeing through 3 quarters, offensively. For the first in years I was actually more nervous about the defense giving the game away than I was the offense. 

It just goes back to what I've been saying for months now: Mitchel Trubisky is a different quarterback when he's allowed to run the ball and get outside the pocket to throw. And it's frankly ridiculous that it took this long for Matt Nagy to do what most of us can see with our own eyes when we're watching games. He's an athlete. Use the legs to your advantage. I think you saw tonight how much different this offense can be when Mitch can scramble for first downs and extend drives. Not only does it help you with that, but it also keeps defenses on their heels. Some of those RPO runs Mitch had tonight even confused me. 

Unfortunately, it's probably going to be too little too late, but at least now they know what kind of play calling Mitch needs to be successful. Stop trying to make the guy into Drew Brees.

This defense seems to be losing guys left and right this year. They are just not a good pass rushing team these days. They're not getting the takeaways they got last year, and they're not sacking the quarterback as often either. They did enough to win tonight, but they're going to have to play much better these next 3 weeks if they want to even have a chance to sniff the playoffs.

I wouldn't even call it a terrible INT, the defender had to make a great catch, then get a toe tap and drag just inside the line to make the play. Also, early reports are Miller gave up on the route too early and faded into the end zone. When Mitch released the ball, Miller was in position to continue to run to the sideline to make the play, he peeled off and literally stopped running.

[adam]

19 hours ago, Mongo3451 said:

I could not remove the stuff above this.  Not sure if anyone posted it, but I think Roquan is done...

Yeah, not good. 6-9 months out for a pectoral tear. 

[AZ54]

35 minutes ago, BearFan NYC said:

the only time this soft prevent defense should even be considered is if you have an injury to a key player or you are 3+ scores ahead with less than three minutes left to play.

Roquan, Trevathan, Prince, and Hicks all out.  I don't like prevent defenses unless you are inside 4min with a big lead, or maybe last min or so.  IMO we went into prevent too early, around the 7min mark.  We had key players out and I think it affected some things in the prevent that ended up giving up more yards and let them stop the clock. 

Initially I think Pagano wanted to protect the sidelines and was willing to give up some easy plays in order to force Dallas to burn their timeouts or burn the clock.  We didn't always do that well.  Then late in the game it seemed they constantly went toward Tolliver and the coverage on big pass near the end that gave them the FG was totally blown.  The DB went for the INT where if he just tackles the WR at the 20yd line and keeps him in bounds that game was over right there.  I recall seeing about 20sec left when he caught it, and maybe 12-14 when he got out of bounds.  If he's tackled inbounds by the time the offense runs 30 yd downfield and gets set Dallas might have had time for one more play.  Even if they clock it, there would be a few seconds left and they could choose FG try or TD.  Instead we missed  the INT and then we left the sideline open and the WR ran for another 10 yd and stopped the clock.  

  

[Lucky Luciano]

36 minutes ago, AZ54 said:

Roquan, Trevathan, Prince, and Hicks all out.  I don't like prevent defenses unless you are inside 4min with a big lead, or maybe last min or so.  IMO we went into prevent too early, around the 7min mark.  We had key players out and I think it affected some things in the prevent that ended up giving up more yards and let them stop the clock.

in this instance, hicks and trevathan were both out for the game from the start. i believe, if i remember correctly, both smith and prince were out by the 3rd qtr. and the defense was still solid. so in my opinion the need for a soft prevent was not met especially at a point it was implemented in the game.  

i do agree that if not going for the int it changes the game time-wise. this emphasizes the problem with mistakes in this type of defense that is implemented too early or with a small enough score that comebacks are possible.

[BearFan PHX]

Just for clarity's sake, I was arguing FOR the prevent, so that quote above is mis-attributed to me

[adam]

Prince was out all game, so Hicks, Trevathan and Prince were out all game, and Roquan was out after the first scoring drive (when the defense actually played better).